In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Deuel, Thorne. 1939. The McKern and Related Systems of Classi¤cation. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Section H. Alpine, T exas. (Illinois State Museum Archives) In 1932 W. C. McKern of the Milwaukee Public Museum proposed that aboriginal archaeological remains in the Midwestern United States be classi¤ed on the basis of signi¤cant cultural traits, or “determinants” (McKern 1932[7]). After sending out copies of a generalized plan [(Guthe 1932[8])] to many of the professional and amateur archaeologists in the United States, a conference was held in December of the same year at Chicago, participated in by the University of Chicago, Milwaukee Public Museum, University of Illinois and University of Michigan. Subsequent to this meeting a second circular [(McKern et al. 1933[10])] was issued embodying the modi¤cations suggested by mail or in the conference . In May 1934 McKern in the presidential address before the Central Section of the American Anthropological Association, presented a further exposition of the classi¤cation and the procedure to be used [(McKern 1934[11])]. In December, 1935, a second conference of archaeologists was called at Indianapolis to discuss common problems of classi¤cation. At this conference representatives were present from twelve leading institutions from the central and eastern United States. The discussions and¤ndings of the conference were published early in 1937 [(National Research Council 1937)]. I now propose to show ¤rst what the originator and the advocates of this classi¤catory system advance as their aims, methods and interpretations, 14 The McKern and Related Systems of Classi¤cation Thorne Deuel and secondly to discuss its strong and weak points in as unbiased a manner as is permitted one who is favorably impressed with its apparent value. The basic principle underlying the McKern System as previously stated is the classi¤cation on the basis of determinants or cultural traits alone. [Guthe (1932[8]:2) states that] geographical distribution is made “the second major consideration (criterion) . . . which, however is always secondary to the similarity of determinants.” [McKern et al. (1933[10]:1)] and all subsequent announcements insist that “this classi¤cation of cultures is based entirely upon the culture traits and complexes themselves,” and that other criteria are not employed. The [classi¤cation] system “deals with cultures as a whole and not with speci¤c complexes” [(McKern et al. 1933[10]:2)]. Its protagonists decry the tendency “to think of culture in terms of a single trait” [(McKern et al. 1933[10]:2)], such as pottery for example. The procedure is to “analyze the (components of the) cultures (into their) cultural elements by means of which it will be possible to discover which of them are determinants and which have no classi¤catory signi¤cance” [(McKern et al. 1933[10]:2)]. This brings us to the de¤nition of determinants, by which “we refer to those particular traits among the known evidences of a material culture which, because of their individuality serve to differentiate it from other cultures” [(McKern et al. 1933[10]:1)]. The determinants include pottery shapes and decoration, architecture, bone implements (in southern California ), and (in the Mississippi Valley) “variations in pottery, in burial customs, and in the use of copper” [(McKern et al. 1933[10]:1)]. At the Indianapolis Conference [(National Research Council 1937)], this is further emphasized and delimited. Determinants are indicated as of two orders , determinant trait and determinant complex or series. It should be added that (excepting in Guthe 1932[8]) where geographical distribution is proposed as a secondary “consideration”), space, time, physical type, language, [and] politico-historical relationships are disregarded in classifying and do not constitute criteria. It is recognized that such factors are valuable in understanding cultures but they or any of them do not constitute criteria for classifying [(McKern et al. 1933[10]:1)]. The ¤ve categories or groups proposed for the System beginning with the highest include base, pattern, phase, aspect, and focus. The other terms used are community and component. The base was originally de¤ned as a “primary culture foundation,” determined by a few fundamentals of wide-spread importance and in®uence, such as the agriculture-pottery complex [(Guthe 1932[8]:2)]. This category was omitted [by McKern et al. (1933[10])] but reinserted at the Indianapolis Conference [(National Research Council 1937)]. 242 / T horne Deuel (1939) In 1935 two bases were indicated—the agricultural (pottery-agricultural -sedentary) and the nomadic (hunting-¤shing) (National Research Council 1937:47, 59). It seems...

Share