An Introduction to the Archaic Societies of the Midcontinent

construction of an overarching chronological framework for relating Archaic social and technological developments, as has been attempted, for example, for the Woodland and Mississippian periods (e.g., Emerson and Lewis 1991; Emerson et al. 2000; Farnsworth and Emerson 1986). The nature of the available archaeological data and the configuration of researchers’ study areas, however, are somewhat at odds with this aim. Although the arbitrary political boundaries of midwestern states were of no relevance for the coming and going of Archaic peoples, they are of paramount relevance for shaping the research scope of institutionally affiliated archaeologists. The quantity and quality of Archaic research, therefore, for multiple historical reasons, have varied considerably from state to state. As we assembled these many contributions on the Archaic period in the Midcontinent, it became clear to us that three themes dominate, either implicitly or explicitly, all of the chapters and that they are fundamental to interpreting or, we should perhaps say, reinterpreting Archaic societies. First and foremost among these issues is the establishment of basic relative and absolute chronologies; the second is the essential question of the meaning of material culture, often summarized as the “points equal people” debate; and the third is the relationship of culture, climate, and landscape. These are hardly new issues and we are not the first to discuss them, but we highlight them here because of their central importance for Archaic research, interpretation, and theorizing. In the following sections of this introduction, we explore in some detail the implications of these issues for interpreting the past. Archaic Themes