Some of the earliest archaeology in North America was intended to answer the 'mound builder' question of who was responsible for the earthworks that so impressed early European observers.  Popular opinion held that Native Americans could not have possibly descended from a people capable of creating such spectacular monuments.  In a way, archaeologists have faced an uphill battle ever since, tying to demonstrate to a wider audience that prehistoric North America contained numerous and diverse societies that were culturally, politically, and even technologically sophisticated.  Studies of historical metrology and related ideas are sometimes cited as evidence for the sophistication of prehistoric populations.  Concerning prehistoric use of mathematical principals in general, for example, Marshall writes, "As to why one should do this research, an important reason is the very different impression of American history and the prehistoric and historic American Indian that emerges from these facts" (1987:40).  Making a similar case seems to be an undercurrent in Sherrod and Rolingson's study.  They conclude, "One fact is quite clear regarding the prehistoric engineers of Cahokia and of the other community centers throughout the Mississippi River valley – they were innovative, skillful, and resourceful and slight glimpses of their intricate thought can be discerned in the evolving patterns of the mounds they left behind" (1987:141).  Clark aims to alter the perceptions not only of the general public but of archaeologists as well, writing, "What I propose here about ancient practices, knowledge, and concerns violates cherished academic notions of the imagined primitive tribes we have slotted into our narratives for the Middle and Late Archaic period" (2004:208). 

            But how exactly does the employment of a standardized unit of measurement demonstrate cultural or technological sophistication?  Enlightenment philosophy certainly held metrics in high regard.  Measuring and quantifying with accuracy and precision were the cornerstones of the New Science.  One of the most prolific writers of the Enlightenment, Montaigne, wrote of the New World, "As recently as fifty years ago the written word, weights and measures, clothes, corn or wine were unknown there" (from Kula 1986:11).  (Montaigne's 'corn' of course refers to Old World grains, not maize.)  So even if Montaigne was an early advocate of cultural relativism, he considered it worth pointing out that societies in the New World were unclothed, illiterate, and (worst of all?) had no weights or measures. 

            The importance of standardization and precision to the advancement of society was further crystallized in the Industrial Revolution, epitomized by Henry Ford's assembly line: an executed plan for conformity of automobile parts intended to reduce the cost of production and increase automobile ownership.  A Ford in every garage.  This industrial ideal is tightly intertwined with notions of standardization, precision, and above all, progress. 

            A World War II-era promotional pamphlet from the Sangamo Electric Company embodies this idea in its very title: On Measurement is Founded the Whole Progress of Man (Sangamo 1944).  A similar pamphlet from the General Motors Company (GM) proclaims in its title: Precision: A Measure of Progress (General Motors 1952).  This publication outlines the history of measures from Egypt's cubits to GM's interferometry.  Recall the 'Rise of Man' motif showing stages in our evolutionary history flanked by a pre-human ancestor crouching on the left and a Caucasian man standing with good posture on the right: the quintessential tableau of progress from the 20th century.  GM's pamphlet contains a metrological version of this concept (Figure 12).  Certainly highly accurate and precise measurements are necessary in modern factory production, but how does this idea apply to prehistoric sites in the Southeast?  Should we really consider the societies who built the mounds less sophisticated if they did so without a standardized unit of measurement?  Clark implies that skepticism toward his claims of prehistoric quanta are grounded in such bias, writing, "The larger issue is why, when confronted with detailed evidence and illustrations, many colleagues find a disbelieve-the-messenger response more comfortable than believing Archaic peoples had the superior cultural IQ advocated.  If my arguments are correct, all that is at stake academically is a prejudice against 'primitive' tribes." (2004:206).  In other words, standardized units of measurement equal sophistication, and positing that a society did not employ them is tantamount to calling that society primitive. 

Figure 12.  The ascent of accuracy.  (General Motors 1952: inside cover).

            I reject the notion that societies could not conceive, construct, and utilize mound centers in highly sophisticated ways without standardized units of measurement.  Perhaps measures were used, and perhaps they were not.  I see no reason for either case to be used as a marker of technological sophistication.  In fact, might the assumption that prehistoric units of measurement would yield to cryptometrological analysis imply that the societies were not at all sophisticated in their employment of the measures?  Why would prehistoric societies have been bound by the procrustean ideal that mounds must be arranged with their edges or centers set at even integers of a single unit of measurement?  Recall the 2 x 4 and the spacing of houses within a modern development.  Is it likely that prehistoric Southeasterners could imagine no complex fractionations and combinations of measurements as we do?  And if they employed measures in sophisticated ways, would the measures really be expressed in the final form?

<-- back to Target Practice or continue to Summary -->