In the early and middle 19th century, American settlers were moving westward in an effort to settle vast expanses of land in America's plains regions. As they moved west over the Appalachian Mountains, settlers stumbled upon amazing earthworks and mounds, as well as hostile native peoples. Although naturalists like William Bartram, Reverend James Madison, and Dr. James McCulloh believed these artifacts to be the work of American Indians, other individuals like Benjamin Barton, Governor De Witt Clinton, Amos Stoddard proposed counter-theories. Some of these fanciful theories credited the earth mounds to the Danes, Vikings, and Welsh. Other, even more preposterous theories were proposed suggesting the artifacts were built by members of a mysterious lost civilization. Josiah Priest's American Antiquities and Discoveries in the West (1833) claimed that the remains were built by a lost race of civilized "Moundbuilders" who were exterminated with the arrival of the Indians. (Trigger 1989: 104-5) These theories were quickly accepted by the Eurocentric public and helped to fuel racist views, which conveniently suited the westward-bound pioneers. The Indians were viewed as bloodthirsty savages who were robbers of land and life. These feelings of racial superiority justified the eradication of the Indians by the pioneers, as well as the reappropriation of their native land.
Even noteworthy researchers like Ephraim G. Squire and Edwin H. Davis initially favored the lost moundbuilder theory. In the newly found Smithsonian Institute's first publication, Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley (1848), Squire and Davis proposed that the ancient Ohio moundbuilders had probably relocated to Mexico after encountering the Native Americans. In 1949, Squier did a study of several mounds in western New York and discovered evidence to indicate the Iroquois were responsible for the mounds in that region. This epiphany caused Squier to reconsider his opinions and abandon the lost moundbuilder theory.
During the mid 19th century other researchers, like Samuel Haven and Henry Schoolcraft also favored a model of cultural continuity for the earthworks. These conclusions were based on strong skeletal and ceramic evidence (Wiley and Sabloff 1998: 42-46). However, it wasn't until the 1890's that the ethnologist Cyrus Thomas finally put an end to the lost moundbuilder theory. After extensive mound excavations sponsored by the Bureau of Ethnology, Cushing published his findings in their twelfth Annual Report. Not only did Cushing find evidence of cultural continuity linking the mounds to the contemporary Native Americans, but he also suggested that the ancestors of different extant indigenous groups had been responsible for different mounds. This hallmark resolution secured a victory for cultural continuity and a triumph over racism (Wiley and Sabloff 18?: 47-49).
While archaeologists argued over the origins of New World structures in the mid 19th century, culture evolutionists like Lewis Henry Morgan and Edward B. Tylor conducted ethnographic surveys of native populations. In an effort to account for cultural similarities among diverse populations, the evolutionists championed the theory of "Psychic Unity," which generally countered theories of diffusion and migration (Bohannan & Glazer 1988). But during the late 19th century increasing faith in diffusion and migration as processes for cultural change, and a growing skepticism in psychic unity theory, led the German ethnologist and geographer, Friedrich Ratzel to write such books as Anthropogeographic and The History of Mankind. Ratzel argued that important inventions, like the bow and arrow, had likely been invented just once. As a consequence of this notion, diffusion created culture areas which could be interpreted from the archaeological record (Trigger 1989: 151).
Ratzel's theories influenced a young Franz Boas who then brought the concepts of diffusion and ethnographic culture to the United States. Culture history in Europe and the United States then followed very different developments. In short, Europeans were more interested in chronological variation, while American archaeologists focused primarily on geographical variation. Franz Boas called for a return to historical particularism, an inductive approach to culture history (Wiley and Sabloff 1998: 91). Although this investigative framework initially condoned diffusion as a model to explain cultural similarity, ironically the methods he employed led to a denial of those same principles. It was an event of methodological nihilism.
In the period to come, known as the Classificatory-Historical period (1914-1940), Boas and his contemporaries, including Max Uhle, Manuel Gamio, N.C. Nelson and others, adopted new analysis techniques which had been developing in Europe. Stratigraphic, seriational, and classificatory methods were revealing sequences, chronologies, and illustrating culture change in new and profound ways. It was the revelation of internal culture change, combined with the increasing antiquity of native North American cultures, that influenced Boas to reject diffusion (Trigger 1989: 187). He felt one could explain culture change as the result of unique and natural responses to environmental conditions. According to Boas, such changes were not occurring within a unilinear or evolutionary system (Wiley and Sabloff 1998: 96-100). In 1925 Boas declared that "diffusion is finished," and so it was (Eggan 1976: 4). Boas' opinions were widely acknowledged and accepted by the scientific community. He has been labeled the "Father of North American Anthropology" and with his decree a new paradigmatic precedent was established.
The wide-spread acceptance of culture continuity by archaeologists, along with Boas' influential rejection of diffusion, has had a caustic impact on theories of culture contact, diffusion, and migration within the North American archaeological paradigm. Nowadays, theories in support of such models for culture change are often dismissed due to a lack of collaborative evidence and/or a perceived threat to indigenous innovation and development. Many Native American groups and researchers alike interpret theories of diffusion as a degradation to indigenous populations and their inherent capabilities, although nothing about theories of diffusion or migration suggest such notions. For instance, the acceptance of widespread diffusion in ancient Europe has never been tied to theories of racial superiority or dominance. Rather, it is the context of the historical development of these theories in North America, as well as a reaction to past and present political problems in the United States, that continue to suppress serious consideration of diffusion and migration. This wholesale denial and political lumping has been detrimental despite a vast abundance of evidence to the contrary.
Another important factor in the denial of diffusion and migration theories is the scientific community's general lack of confidence in prehistoric human capabilities and technologies. For the past 40 years, archaeologists have supported a model for the peopling of the Americas that is restricted in breadth due to a preconceived image of the immigrants themselves. In other words, because of scientists' assumptions about Late Pleistocene technologies, alternative speculation has been grossly dismissed. The prevailing model for the peopling of the New World states that roughly 13,500 ybp, big game hunters from Asia crossed the Bering Land Bridge, traversed the the Ice Free Corridor (through what is now Canada) pursuing game, and rapidly made their way to South America (within 2,000 years). This model envisions the Asian immigrants as fur-clad, caveman-like automons with little technological know-how beyond simple lithic tool making. Consequently, this popular image has been uniformly applied to humans of the Late Pleistocene worldwide, but without comprehensive evidential support. This outright assumption, however, is contrary to substantial evidence in other parts of the world. For example, the possibility that the New World's first inhabitants had ocean-going sea vessels has been widely refuted. However, there is indisputable evidence that ocean travel was taking pace in far more remote times. It is generally acknowledged that prehistoric humans reached Australia at least 40,000 ybp. In such light, it does not seem like a stretch of the imagination to suggest that 30,000 years later humans in Asia had such maritime technologies. Until recent years such a notion has been completely ridiculed.
Archaeologists are empirically limited to tangable data, which is limited to non-perishable materials. In the opinion of this author, one reason why archaeologists continue to underestimate the capabilities and technologies of early humans is because most interpretation is reliant on lithic remains. This fact has influenced many archaeologists to conclude that chipped stone tools were the primary, if not only, type of tool utilized by Late Pleistocene populations. However, simply because lithics are easily recovered from the field, it does not necessarily mean that chipped stone tools were the only cultural technologies possessed by Late Pleistocene immigrants to the New World. For example, it is believed that the lack of prehistoric artifactual remains in Asia may be a result of widespread use of bamboo in ancient times. Bamboo and other organic materials are quickly lost from the archaeological record. Relative to this discussion, rafts or sea going vessels constructed of reeds, bamboo, or other perishable materials will be difficult to recover from the field. This does not suggest that these technologies were not in use by some precolumbian New World inhabitants. In fact, some of the most compelling evidence in support of precolumbian diffusion from Asia to the Americas suggests transoceanic or coastal seafaring.