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

Shallow ideas can be assimilated; ideas that require people to reorganize their picture of the world provoke hostility. ( J. Gleick 1987:38) Prior to the December 6–8, 1935, Indianapolis conference, two individuals —Thorne Deuel and James B. Grif¤n—applied a version of the midwestern taxonomic method, although it is probably more correct to say that they misapplied it in various ways. Others would also apply the method in one form or another, but we reserve discussion of those applications for chapter 5. Here we focus on the Grif¤n and Deuel applications for several reasons. First, their efforts reveal ideas about the method that differ, to lesser and greater degrees respectively, from McKern’s. Second, their efforts document why McKern was compelled to publish the ¤nal version of the method, which appeared in 1939. Deuel was a coarchitect of the MTM, but, as we will see, he never followed the blueprint. If one of the founders couldn’t follow it, was it any wonder no one else could? JAMES B. GRIFFIN AND THE FORT ANCIENT ASPECT: 1935 Grif¤n earned his doctorate from the University of Michigan in 1936 and continued his association with Carl Guthe’s Ceramic Repository for the Eastern United States, which was housed in Michigan’s anthropology museum . Grif¤n was present at the informal dinner meeting of December 10, 1932, in Chicago when early versions of the MTM (McKern 1932[7]; Guthe 1932[8]) were discussed. Further, he was aware of the circular letter of April 4, 1933 (McKern et al. 1933[10]), and of McKern’s (1934[11]) presentation of a revised version of the method at the Central Section of 4 Subsequent Developments, 1935–1940 the American Anthropological Association meeting in Indianapolis in May 1934. In March 1935 Grif¤n published a preliminary analysis of materials representing what was called the “Fort Ancient culture” of southern Ohio, northern Kentucky, and southeastern Indiana. In that piece he chose¤ve sites “as the basis for a comparative study” (Grif¤n 1935:1). One of the goals of his study was to “determine whether these ¤ve sites might be considered an archaeological unit, and if so, where that unit could be placed in relation to more general, and more speci¤c, cultures. Another aim is to ascertain whether there are smaller units within the Fort Ancient culture; in other words, do these ¤ve sites represent an essentially homogeneous group which cannot be divided, or do two or three sites have enough differences to warrant more than one cultural unit within the Fort Ancient group.” Based on published reports for the ¤ve sites, plus personal examination of the collections from three of them, Grif¤n compiled trait lists for each, grouping the traits under six categories: stone artifacts, bone implements , bone ornaments, shell artifacts, burial traits, and miscellaneous traits. Pottery was deemed “a suf¤ciently complex subject to warrant separate consideration.” Grif¤n (1935) listed 123 nonpottery traits in chart form as to their presence or absence in each of the ¤ve collections. The data in that chart were converted to percentages of traits common to all ¤ve sites, common to any four sites, to any three sites, to any two sites, and to any one site. Grif¤n noted that “approximately forty percent [of the 123 traits] appear at all of the sites” and that “a substantial majority of the traits is present in at least four of the ¤ve sites.” He then presented a series of charts, each of which summarized the proportion of traits in each of the six categories that were shared by each site and the total number of traits shared by each pair of sites. Grif¤n concluded that the distribution of traits across the sites suggested there were two smaller divisions into which the ¤ve sites could be sorted. Pottery was characterized as comprising considerable variation in its empirical expression. Grif¤n listed various characters—temper, texture, hardness, surface ¤nish, design, kind of handle, and shape of rim, lip, and body—and the various character states of each, such as shell or grit temper and body shapes of salt pan, bowl, or jar. Each character state was categorized as “abundant, medium, rare, or absent” for each site. On the basis of that chart Grif¤n (1935:3–4) concluded that “the division into at least two smaller units is accentuated.” One site “seems to be intermediate between these two groups and to constitute, at least temporarily, a division...

Share