This page has been validated.
274
THE AMERICAN INDIAN

mentally similar. Preceding this period, upon the coast at least, was a primitive population.

In 1910 a stratification of cultures was observed near the City of Mexico, which subsequent investigation shows to consist of ceramic remains in three horizons,[1] as follows:—

3. Aztec (1100?–1521). Contemporaneous with the rise of the Aztec group.
2. Toltec (300?–1100?). Contemporaneous with Maya dominance and marked by Maya influence.
1. Archaic Tarascan (?–300?). Characterized by a highly conventionalized type of figurines.

Already many of the known sites in Mexico can be placed in this scheme, so that all we now need is careful field-work.

In 1914 Nelson[2] announced an example of stratification in the Rio Grande Valley of New Mexico, which with his extensive explorations in the adjacent Pueblo area gives us for once a chronology in this much studied region. Again the determining character is pottery, giving at least four successive periods:—

4. Modern pottery.
3. Mixed glaze and painted ware. The period immediately preceding the Spanish conquest.
2. Glazed ware. Distribution coincident with that of Pueblo culture.
1. Black- white ware. Widely distributed ceramic trait.

Outside of these areas there are a few sporadic cases of stratification, as Parker's demonstration of an older Algonkin culture underlying that of the Iroquois in New York State,[3] and Sterns' recent excavations in eastern Nebraska where he finds at least two cultures.[4] Finally, the work of Abbott, Putnam, Volk,[5] and Spier[6] in New Jersey has demonstrated at least two culture strata, to be discussed under another head. Some of the earlier investigators of shell-heaps claimed definite stratification, but later work has failed to verify the finding. Hence, considering the small number of exceptions just cited, we can truthfully say that so far, archæological work outside of the regions of higher culture has given negative stratification.

Perhaps it should be noted that so far the tendency of this negative archæological investigation has been to show some

  1. Spinden, 1915. I.
  2. Nelson, N. C., 1916. I.
  3. Parker, 1916. II.
  4. Sterns, 1915. I.
  5. Volk, 1911. I.
  6. Spier, 1916. I.