WISSLER— ARCHEOLOGICAL AND CULTURE AREAS 



merely a classification of data from observation. Just how it could 

 be broken up into chronological units when all the observations belong 

 to the same relatively short period of time, we do not see. It is in 

 fact a chronological classification and postdates the archeological 

 classification, for Holmes' map can scarcely be taken as belonging to 

 anything else than the time period antedating the discovery of Amer- 

 ica. We have then two cultural strata, the distinction between which 

 can be clearly drawn. 



It is further contended that the culture area obscures the chrono- 

 logical relations of traits in a center, but these critics are interested 

 in the analysis of each culture into its constituent trait elements and 

 the assigning of time relations to the same. Yet in all such cases we 

 must have a point of departure in the historic period, from which to 

 work backward. Further, such a relative chronology of traits is 

 largely a matter of inference from the data and for that reason could 

 not of itself serve as the basis for a satisfactory classification, since 

 the bed-rock to which we must always return will be the observed 

 cultures of the historic tribes and their geographical distributions. 



The archeological distribution area as defined by Holmes is an 

 objective affair arrived at by the tabulation of artifacts and their 

 localities. This is the first rational step toward the chronological 

 problems involved and has about the same relation to the time con- 

 nections between the several classes of artifacts as pertains to the 

 traits of a historic culture. Hence we fail to see the justification for 

 the objections to the use of distribution areas. If the chronology of 

 the future is able to show that certain traits in the North Pacific area, 

 for instance, were developed very late in its history and that certain 

 others were brought in at the start, these facts of history do not 

 effect the observed existence of all simultaneously in the historic 

 period, which is expressed in the culture area concept. Also, in 

 archeology unless new types of artifacts are discovered in a given 

 area, the determination of chronology by stratigraphic strategy will 

 not destroy or render useless the original grouping, for it still expresses 

 the geographical relation, the most readily verifiable series of facts 

 in the subject. Further, a strictly geographical classification is about 

 as free from theoretical biases as anything we have, certainly much 

 more so than inferential chronology. 



In conclusion, we have in the culture areas of the historic tribes 

 and the accepted archeological areas, two chronological groups of 

 culture data. The former is absolutely essential as the point of de- 

 parture since for it we give a date. The designation of archeological 

 areas is also a necessary step, for it is the unbiased preliminary layout 



[487] 



