History and Anthropology,

Vol. 22, No. 1, March 2011, pp. 121–129

Questioning Whether Thomas

Jefferson Was the “Father” of
American Archaeology
Ronald Hatzenbuehler
10RonaldHatzenbuehler
hatzrona@isu.edu
000001
History March
10.1080/02757206.2011.546852
GHAN_A_546852.sgm
0275-7206
Original
Taylor
2011
22 and
&and
Article
Francis 2011
(print)/1477-2612
Francis
Anthropology (online)

In Notes on the State of Virginia (1787 [1954]), Thomas Jefferson described a systematic
investigation he conducted of a Native American burial mound near his home at
Monticello. Based upon this early excavation and Jefferson’s report of the contents of
various layers he observed in the mound, authors of introductory archaeological textbooks
frequently refer to Jefferson as the “father” of archaeology in the United States. While
Jefferson’s methods anticipated modern archaeological techniques, this essay questions the
extent to which he was a disinterested observer of what his dig uncovered. Because his
conclusions were rooted less in understanding Native American cultures than they were in
extinguishing them, perhaps archaeologists should look for another person to be accorded
the title of “father” of their discipline.

Keywords: Thomas Jefferson; Native American; Burial Mound; Archaeology; Textbooks

Many introductory archaeology texts bestow on Thomas Jefferson the title of “the
father of American archaeology” based upon his investigation in the 1780s of a burial
mound created by aboriginal people near his home in the Piedmont region of Virginia
(the area between the tidewater and the mountains). Willey and Sabloff believe that
Jefferson’s dig deserves special attention because of its early date, because he made a
perpendicular cut into the mound so that he could observe the contents of various
strata, and because he excavated the mound not to recover objects but to resolve the
problem of why the mound had been created (Willey and Sabloff 1993: 32). Thomas
also credits Jefferson with undertaking the first field archaeology in America and
emphasizes the scientific nature of his investigation: “He collected his data in as
systematic a manner as possible and then drew carefully reasoned inferences from his

Correspondence to: Ronald Hatzenbuehler, Department of History, Idaho State University, Mail Stop 8079,
Pocatello, ID 83209-8079, USA. Email: hatzrona@isu.edu

ISSN 0275–7206 print/ISSN 1477–2612 online/11/010121–9 © 2011 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/02757206.2011.546852
122 R. Hatzenbuehler
fieldwork” (Thomas 1998: 10). In a subsequent article, Thomas concludes that
Jefferson’s
keen sense of purpose, his discerning evaluation of the evidence, and his articulate descrip-
tion of his findings … established the gold standard for all subsequent field workers. By
excavating to answer a question rather than simply to recover antiquities, Jefferson defined
the dictum that guides modern archaeology: It’s not what you find[;] it’s what you find
out. (Thomas 2005: 125)

This essay questions the extent to which it may be said that Jefferson was a disinter-
ested observer in what his excavation uncovered. Delving more deeply into when and
how archaeologists became aware of Jefferson’s writings and the context in which
Jefferson reported his dig calls to doubt whether archaeologists in the USA should
continue to refer to him as the “father” of their discipline.

The Origins of Archaeology’s Scientific Methods

According to most textbooks, the discipline of archaeology grew out of individuals
looking for treasures (typically, works of art) in sites in the Near and Middle East,
Greece and Italy; the unintentional unearthing of Paleolithic artefacts in Great Britain
during that nation’s industrialization; and Charles Darwin’s important preliminary
writings about the theory of evolution as early archaeologists began to apply Darwin’s
theory to “primitive” cultures as forerunners of “Western European civilization”
(Taylor 1968: 19). Integral to the evolution of the discipline were books outlining
proper methods with which to uncover prehistoric sites. One early English archaeolo-
gist (Droop 1915) advised uncovering the various strata that overlaid the remains of
ancient societies and carefully recording the artefacts uncovered based upon their
vertical positions, and twentieth-century practitioners in the USA rallied behind
stratification as the proper way to excavate a site.
Although anthropologists as early as 1907 (Chamberlain 1907) were touting
Jefferson as a “forerunner of the American school of anthropologists”, based upon his
writings in Notes on Indians and blacks, it appears that Lehmann-Hartleben was the
first archaeologist in the USA to tout Jefferson’s “careful observation of cultural strata”
(Lehmann-Hartleben 1943: 161). Describing Jefferson’s excavation in the 1780s as
“breath-taking”, “most remarkable” and “amazing”, Lehmann-Hartleben concluded,
“Archaeologists as well as statesmen, architects, and scientists have special reason to
remember the great man in this memorial year [1943 marked the two hundredth anni-
versary of his birth]” (162–163). Wheeler later proclaimed Jefferson to be “precocious”
in his use of stratification and decreed him to be “the first scientific digger” in the USA
because he recorded “the stratigraphical stages in the construction of the mound”, and
he reported “certain significant features of the skeletal remains. And he relates his
evidence objectively to current theories. No mean achievement for a busy statesman!”
(Wheeler 1954: 42). Similarly, Taylor proclaimed Jefferson’s dig to be the first “dirt
archeology accomplished in the Western Hemisphere”, and lamented—in language
that subsequent textbook authors found compelling—that his excavation was “an
 History and Anthropology 123
isolated instance, and a considerable number of years elapsed before any extensive,
purposeful digging was done” (Taylor 1968: 20).
Because of this consensus among practising archaeologists regarding the importance
of systematic digging perpendicular to a site, it is hardly surprising that Jefferson would
emerge as the first American to practise these techniques. In Thomas’s words,
Jefferson’s “strata-trench” methodology “pioneered an excavation strategy that was a
full century before its time” (Thomas 2005: 91).

Jefferson’s Report of his Excavation

Jefferson’s report of his archaeological excavation first appeared in his Notes on the
State of Virginia (Jefferson 1954 [1787])—the only full-length book he ever wrote.
Begun in 1780 in response to a request from François, marquis de Barbé-Marbois—a
member of the French legation to the USA—for information about the states,
Jefferson’s book addressed numerous topics concerning Virginia’s natural features.
Details concerning his dig appear in Query XI (“Aborigines”).
Jefferson noted a general understanding among Virginians that these sites—which
he denoted as “barrows”, perhaps because of his interest in England’s Anglo-Saxon
heritage—were burial places, but “on what particular occasion constructed, was matter
of doubt” (97). Some people believed that they contained the remains of people killed
in battle; others, that the bones were collected from other places and later redeposited
to the barrow; or that they were the burial grounds for extinct towns adjacent to the
barrows. By cutting a perpendicular trench through the barrow, Jefferson observed
several strata that contained bones of adults and children overlaid with stones,
numbering between three and four layers, depending on the proximity to the highest
point. Based upon these observations, he estimated that the barrow contained perhaps
a thousand skeletons, none of which contained any holes which might have been made
“with bullets, arrows, or other weapons”, which led Jefferson to conclude that the
people had not been killed in battle (99). Further, due to differing “states of decay” in
the bodies found in each strata, he surmised that the people had been interred over
many years, “the first collection [of bodies having] been deposited on the common
surface of the earth, a few stones put over it, and then a covering of earth … and so on”
(100). He further noted that similar mounds had been discovered west of Monticello,
and that removal of trees growing on the mounds and plowing of the area had revealed
that they also contained human bones. “There are also many others in other parts of
the country” (100).
Having investigated the contents of his mound, Jefferson turned to the question of
the origins of the “aboriginal inhabitants of America” (100). Noting various theories of
migration from one continent to another—including the existence of “a narrow
streight” separating Asia from North America—Jefferson hypothesized that the known
languages of America were twenty times greater than the known languages of Asia. He
therefore concluded that the “greater number of those radical changes of language
having taken place among the red men of America, proves them of greater antiquity
than those of Asia” (102).
124 R. Hatzenbuehler
Jefferson’s interest in Native American languages is notable, but more striking is the
fact that he refused to apply the same logic (length of time a culture spent in an area)
to try to explain the origins and locations of the mounds. With regard to the specific
mound that he excavated, Jefferson noted that it “was situated on the low grounds of
the Rivanna [River], about two miles above its principal fork, and opposite to some
hills, on which had been an Indian town” and that Indians passing through the area had
been known to visit the mound where they “staid about it some time, with expressions
which were construed to be those of sorrow” (98). Nevertheless, Jefferson was unwill-
ing to conclude that the barrow indicated persistent habitation for perhaps centuries
by a tribe or tribes.
Also in Query XI are tables containing the names of known Native American tribes
in Virginia and estimates of their populations in the 1780s based upon a census which
the House of Burgesses undertook in 1669. From these calculations, Jefferson
concluded that less than one third of the inhabitants enumerated in 1669 remained. He
attributed this decline in numbers to “[s]piritous liquors, the small-pox, war, and an
abridgment of territory” (96) but refused to link this decline to the construction of—
and later abandonment of—the barrows. In addition, he noted that some tribes had
disappeared altogether, leaving no remains of their existence at all. It is in this context
that he wrote that he knew
of no such thing existing as an Indian monument: for I would not honour with that name
arrow points, stone hatchets, stone pipes, and half-shapen images … [or] the Barrows, of
which many are to be found all over this country. These are of different sizes, some of them
constructed of earth, and some of loose stones. (97)
Put differently, “barrows” were a pretty poor excuse for any sort of aboriginal
“monument”.
Just after completing Notes, Jefferson heard from Yale President Ezra Stiles that
officers of the Ohio Company had discovered extensive earthworks on the Muskingum
River near Marietta. According to the account of General Samuel Parsons, some of the
earthworks were made of bricks. Jefferson, however, was sceptical of these observations
and replied to Stiles in September 1786 “that no monument has ever been found …
which indicated the use of iron”, and that creating bricks required, in Jefferson’s mind,
even more advanced skills than making iron.
Entrenchments of earth they might indeed make: but brick is more difficult. The art of
making it may have preceded the use of iron, but it would suppose a greater degree of
industry than men in the hunter stage usually possess. (quoted in Wallace 1999: 136)
What we have in these instances regarding his archaeological findings and his disbe-
lief in Indian monuments is a man who was reluctant to accept interpretations of data
scientifically collected and yet who leaped to conclusions based upon incomplete data
and false premises. There is a pattern here.

Jefferson’s Empiricism
Empiricism—basing general laws on observations—was a hallmark of the Enlighten-
ment. In many respects, Jefferson was a keen observer of natural phenomena, keeping
 History and Anthropology 125
extensive records, as he did, of the progress of the vegetables in his garden—noting
when they were planted, appeared, and came to table—as well as when he heard the
first frogs croaking or birds singing in the spring, saw flowers blooming, or noticed the
availability of produce at markets. For Enlightenment thinkers, knowledge was based
on experience rather than on opinion or belief. The senses received information
regarding the world, and reason processed the perceptions into knowledge. As
Jefferson put it in a letter to John Adams in May 1820, “I feel: therefore I exist … On
the basis of sensation, of matter and motion, we may erect the fabric of all the certain-
ties we can have or need” (Cappon 1959, 2: 567).
The interpretation that Jefferson was an “ardent empiricist” also finds its way into
most archaeological textbooks, but Jefferson’s writings also provoke doubts concern-
ing the extent to which he was “always the empiricist” (Thomas 2005: 88, 101). The
epitome of his record-keeping centered on his observations of the weather. After leav-
ing the presidency, he made 3,905 recordings of the temperature at Monticello from
1810 to 1817, just before sunrise and between three and four o’clock in the afternoon.
From this documentation, he hoped to be able to reach a definitive conclusion regard-
ing how human beings might be changing the natural environment. It was the opinion
of many individuals, he stated in Notes, that the climate of Virginia had moderated
since settlement. Sensibly, it felt warmer—snows did not accumulate as deep or last as
long, winds seemed more powerful without trees to block them, the danger of late
frosts moderated, rivers which froze over in winter no longer did so, and the abrupt
melting of snow in the spring which swelled the rivers to overflowing no longer
occurred (see Hatzenbuehler 2006: 14–17).
What is not obvious from the above evidence is the fact that Jefferson very much
wanted to believe that the climate of North America was becoming both drier and
hotter and that he skillfully led readers to that conclusion without specifically saying so.
Earlier in Notes in Query VI—“Productions mineral, vegetable, and animal”—which is
by far the longest (one-fourth of the book) and the most structurally complex of the
queries—Jefferson challenged the theories of the French naturalist Georges-Louis
Leclerc, Comte de Buffon (1707–1788), that the climate of North America was too wet
and too cold to produce animals or humans equal in stature or development with those
of Europe. Using charts that compared the size of known animals in Europe with those
in North America and an extended investigation of the Mammoth—which Jefferson
proclaimed to be the largest mammal on earth—Jefferson destroyed Buffon’s claims
with respect to animals. Then, Jefferson used Native Americans to counter Buffon’s
theories concerning human beings.
Buffon acknowledged that Indians were about the same height as Europeans, but

“this does not suffice for [them] to constitute an exception to the general fact that all living
nature has become smaller on that continent. The savage is feeble, and has small organs of
generation; he has neither hair nor beard, and no ardor whatever for his female.”

Buffon made other disparaging statements about the Natives, but the “‘lack of ardor for
their females’” damned them in the Frenchman’s eyes as human beings. “‘[N]ot
knowing this strongest and most tender of all affections, their other feelings are also
126 R. Hatzenbuehler
cold and languid … [, and] between family and family there is no tie at all; hence they
have no communion, no commonwealth, no state of society.’” Jefferson considered
each of these conclusions seriatim and concluded that he could not “honor with the
appellation of knowledge” Buffon’s theories. “These I believe to be just as true as the
fables of Aesop” (Jefferson 1954 [1787]: 58–59).
In other words, there were important political reasons for Jefferson to be interested
in the origins of American aborigines and to defend them against Buffon’s theories. In
elevating Native Americans, Jefferson struck a blow for North America and for the
Euro-Americans who now inhabited the land.
To highlight this point, it needs only to be noted that Jefferson did not dispute all of
Buffon’s theories. Jefferson agreed with Buffon’s assertion that Native American males
submitted their women “to unjust drudgery” with the assertion that such was “the case
with every barbarous people … It is civilization alone which replaces women in the
enjoyment of their natural equality … Were we in equal barbarism, our females would
be equal drudges” (60). He also let stand Buffon’s assertion that aboriginal males were
less strong than Europeans but avowed that “their women [are] stronger than ours; and
both for the same obvious reason; because our man and their woman is habituated to
labour, and formed by it. With both races the sex which is indulged with ease is less
athletic” (60). Jefferson then concluded that
to form a just estimate of [aborigines’] genius and mental powers, more facts are wanting,
and great allowance [is] to be made for those circumstances of their situation which call
for a display of particular talents only. This done, we shall probably find that they
are formed in mind as well as in body, on the same module with the ‘Homo sapiens
Europaeus’. (62)

Indeed, for Jefferson all that was required for Native Americans to reach the level of
development Europeans enjoyed was to be assimilated into American society.
Jefferson outlined his ideas for accomplishing assimilation in his 18 January 1803
secret message to Congress regarding his proposed expedition to the Pacific coast by
touting how such an expedition would pave the way for locating “trading houses”
among the tribes that the explorers encountered. These establishments were necessary,
Jefferson argued, because the natives had begun to resist selling their lands to American
settlers. In order peaceably “to counteract this policy of theirs and to provide an
extension of territory which the rapid increase of our numbers will call for” (quoted in
Barth 1998: 15), native Americans would need to adopt agriculture since hunting
required both more land and more labor. Trading houses would also
place within their reach those things which will contribute more to their domestic comfort
than the possession of extensive but uncultivated wilds … In leading them thus to agricul-
ture … and in preparing them ultimately to participate in the benefits of our Government,
I trust and believe we are acting for their greatest good. (16)

In other words, in order for Native Americans to be assimilated into American life, they
would have to stop acting differently from Euro-Americans.
It has been argued that Jefferson couched his pitch to the members of Congress for
what became the Corps of Discovery in economic terms because he thought that that
 History and Anthropology 127
argument was most likely to elicit a positive response from them, and the scientific
nature of the expedition would provide cover for its imperialistic aims (Thomas 2005:
100). This interpretation is not without merit, but several scholars note in recent years
that the primary goal of introducing trading houses into frontier regions was to make
Indian peoples dependent on the USA. Horsman (1999) comments that the trading
system with its policies of promoting agriculture as a way of taking Indian lands was
firmly in place by 1796, and the policy—developed under President George Washing-
ton—was “equally attractive to President Thomas Jefferson” (1999: 48; Richter 2001:
226). In addition, Dowd (1992) observes that American settlers typically entered lands
that Native Americans controlled ahead of the traders, which inverted the process by
which tribes were to be dispossessed of their lands. In other words, land cessions
occurred before “civilization”, and the policy then had to be justified through the “phil-
anthropic guise” of getting Indian males to farm. In Dowd’s words, “[T]aking became
giving” (1992: 117). These historians also point out that Jefferson expanded the govern-
ment’s policies during his tenure as president to include tempting tribal leaders into
debt through trade so that they would then be more likely to sell the lands that their
tribe inhabited (1992: 117; Horsman 1999: 51; Wallace 1999: 19; Thomas 2005: 117).
Jefferson further spelled out his intent to change Indian cultures in his letter of
instructions of 20 June 1803, to Meriwether Lewis as he prepared for his westward trek.
Jefferson instructed Lewis when he contacted Indian tribes to chronicle “their
language, traditions, monuments […] morality, religion, & information … as it may
better enable those who endeavor to civilize & instruct them, to adapt their measures
to the existing notions & practises of those on whom they are to operate” (quoted in
Barth 1998: 20–21). Although couched in the prospect of helping Native peoples,
Jefferson was in fact saying that there was no way that they would be able to continue
living the way they currently were. In Sheehan’s (1973) words, Jefferson’s ideas may
have been rooted in paternalism, but he became a “slightly exasperated patriarch” who
“tried desperately to shield [Indians] from the destruction he was certain would be
inevitable if they were left to their own devices” (Sheehan 1973: 152). In short, Jefferson
commiserated with their plight, but he was realistic about their future: they “faced the
stark choice of civilization or destruction” (1973: 152). When Indians comprehended
their situation and refused to sell their lands, Jefferson’s paternalism faded, and he
turned to force. In Horsman’s words, “Faced by resistance, Jefferson was prepared to
ride roughshod over Indian desires” (Horsman 1999: 50).

Conclusion
In conclusion, it may be appropriate to call Thomas Jefferson the “father of American
archaeology” if we are discussing the “[three foot] perpendicular cut through the body
of the barrow” that he made “wide enough for a man to walk through and examine its
sides” (Jefferson 1954 [1787]: 99) but not based upon his theories concerning how
human societies developed in North America. Put succinctly, Jefferson undertook his
excavation not for the purpose of understanding aboriginal cultures but rather, as a
means of eventually extinguishing them.
128 R. Hatzenbuehler
Fortunately, Native Americans refused to take Jefferson’s views to be the final word
on this topic or to acknowledge either him or other American presidents as their “Great
Father”. At various times and in numerous places, Indian peoples realized that keeping
their lands was the first step in keeping their cultures. Resistance took several forms,
including nativist movements to return to the old ways before the European arrival,
building alliances among tribes to block American expansion, and attempts at assimi-
lation not based on European dominance (Wallace 1970; Edmunds 1984; Dowd 1992;
Hinderaker 1997; Richter 2001). That these efforts were not always successful misses
the point. In Richter’s words, Native peoples “adapted and changed in accordance with
their own histories and traditions rather than in accordance with Euro-American
scripts” (Richter 2001: 252). In doing so, they helped create a more deeply nuanced
future for the USA than Jefferson imagined.
This being the case, it would seem to be time for archaeologists in the USA to adopt
a similar conclusion and to search for a different ancestor as the “father” of their disci-
pline.

References
Barth, G. (1998), The Lewis and Clark Expedition: Selections from the Journals Arranged by Topic,
Bedford/St Martins, Boston, MA.
Cappon, L. J. (ed.) (1959), The Adams–Jefferson Letters: The Complete Correspondence between
Thomas Jefferson and Abigail and John Adams, 2 vols, University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, NC.
Chamberlain, A. F. (1907), “Thomas Jefferson’s ethnological opinions and activities”, American
Anthropologist, vol. 9, pp. 499–509.
Dowd, G. E. (1992), A Spirited Resistance: The North American Indian Struggle for Unity, 1745–1815,
Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.
Droop, J. P. (1915), Archaeological Excavation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Edmunds, R. D. (1984), Tecumseh and the Quest for Indian Leadership, Little, Brown & Company,
Boston, MA.
Hatzenbuehler, R. L. (2006), “I Tremble for My Country”: Thomas Jefferson and the Virginia Gentry,
The University Press of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Hinderaker, E. (1997), Elusive Empires: Constructing Colonialism in the Ohio Valley, 1673–1800,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Horsman, R. (1999), “The Indian Policy of an ‘Empire of Liberty’”, in Native Americans and the
Early Republic, F. E. Hoxie, R. Hoffman and P. J. Albert (eds), The University Press of
Virginia, Charlottesville, VA.
Jefferson, T. (1954 [1787]), Notes on the State of Virginia, W. Peden (ed.), University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
Lehmann-Hartelben, K. (1943) “Thomas Jefferson, archaeologist”, American Journal of Archaeology,
vol. 47, pp. 161–163.
Richter, D. K. (2001), Facing East from Indian Country: A Native History of Early America, Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Sheehan, B. W. (1973), Seeds of Extinction: Jeffersonian Philanthropy and the American Indian, The
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
Taylor, W. W. (1968), A Study of Archeology, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, IL.
Thomas, D. H. (1998), Archaeology, 3rd edn, Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, Inc., Ft. Worth, TX.
 History and Anthropology 129
Thomas, D. H. (2005), “Thomas Jefferson’s Conflicted Legacy” in Across the Continent: Jefferson,
Lewis and Clark, and the Making of America, Douglas Seefeldt et al., (eds), University of
Virginia Press, Charlottesville, VA, pp. 84–131.
Wallace, A. F. C. (1970), The Death and Rebirth of the Seneca, Knopf, New York.
Wallace, A. F. C. (1999), Jefferson and the Indians: The Tragic Fate of the First Americans, Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Wheeler, M. (1954), Archaeology from the Earth, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Willey, G. R. and J. A. Sabloff (1993), A History of American Archaeology, 3rd edn, W. H. Freeman &
Company, New York.
Copyright of History & Anthropology is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed
to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However,
users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.