Benjamin Irving Rouse (August 29, 1913 – February 24, 2006) was an American archaeologist on the faculty of Yale University best known for his work in the Greater and Lesser Antilles of the Caribbean, especially in Haiti. He also conducted fieldwork in Florida and Venezuela. He made major contributions to the development of archaeological theory, with a special emphasis on taxonomy and classification of archaeological materials and studies of human migration.
Early life Rouse was born on August 29, 1913, in Rochester, New York, the son of Louise Gillespie (Bohachek) and Benjamin Irving Rouse. His maternal grandfather was Czech.http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~battle/celeb/rouse.htm His family had been in the plant nursery industry for nearly a century, and Ben (as he was known to family and friends) was planning on continuing in the family business when he enrolled at Yale University in 1930 as a plant science major.Roosevelt 2007 His father had also attended Yale as an undergraduate.Keegan 2007
Education Rouse began his academic career studying forestry and obtained his bachelor's degree in plant science from Yale University's Sheffield Scientific School in 1934. Rouse identifies his background in botany as a major factor in his lifelong interest in classification and taxonomy.Siegel 1996 As a result of family financial reversals resulting from the Wall Street Crash of 1929 and the Great Depression from 1929 to 1932, Rouse needed employment to continue at Yale. As an undergraduate, he worked at the Yale Peabody Museum of Natural History cataloging archaeological specimens.Keegan 2007 It was through this job that Rouse met Cornelius Osgood, who convinced Rouse to take some graduate-level anthropology courses and eventually enroll in the graduate program at Yale, where Osgood directed his doctoral dissertation.Yale Rouse claimed that his perception of the need for classification in what was at that time the young field of anthropology was a major factor in his decision to pursue a career in anthropology rather than the much more established field (in terms of classification of materials) of botany.Siegel 1996: 671 His dissertation was eventually published in two parts, the first exploring method and analysis entitled Prehistory in Haiti: A Study in Method (1939), the second an application of these methods entitled Culture of the Ft. Liberté Region, Haiti (1941).Keegan 2007
Professional career Upon receiving his Ph.D. in 1938, Rouse accepted a job as assistant curator at Yale's Peabody Museum. He was promoted to associate curator (1947) and research associate (1954). While employed at the museum, Rouse also taught courses in anthropology, beginning as an instructor in anthropology from 1939 to 1943, advancing to Assistant Professor (1943), Associate Professor (1948), Professor (1954), and finally becoming Charles J. MacCurdy Professor of Anthropology (1970), holding this position until his retirement in 1984.Keegan 2007 He held many positions in professional organizations, including serving as editor of American Antiquity, president of the Society for American Archaeology (1952–1953), vice president of the American Ethnological Society (1957–1958), associate editor of American Anthropologist (1960–1962), and president of the American Anthropological Association (1967–1968). He was also a member of the National Academy of Sciences, a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and Guggenheim Fellow.Hartford Courant 2007
Dissertation Rouse was a major contributor to the study of Caribbean archaeology, and his contribution to this field began with his dissertation, which was broken down into two parts and dealt with the culture of the Ft. Liberté region of Haiti. The first segment of his dissertation is a definition of the methods he would use in studying the cultures of this region titled Prehistory in Haiti: A Study in Method (1939).
In the second segment of his dissertation, a work titled Culture of the Ft. Liberté Region, Haiti (1941), Rouse examines three cultures that occupied the region. The first culture he classifies is the Couri culture. Most of the evidence about Couri culture comes in the form of material culture, defined by Rouse as concerning "standards observable in the artefacts [sic] of the sites under study" Rouse 1941 pg. 13 He observes sixteen "types" of artifacts (defined here as "the set of standards to which the artifacts as a whole conform"),Rouse 1941 mostly flint, but some ground stone and shell artifacts as well. The flint artifacts included daggers, knives, and scrapers, which were often large and crude. These flint daggers and knives are the only evidence present that might indicate warfare. The ground stone artifacts included stone axes and various types of hammer-grinders, beads, and other small objects. These objects would have been made through either flaking, battering, or grinding techniques. Some of the smaller stone balls might be evidence of some sort of game or entertainment activity. There is evidence of a workshop for the manufacture of the axes in the area, however it appears that the flint objects were made elsewhere, indicating that there was probably some sort of trade system in place. Both shell objects are made from conch shells, and there is evidence of a well developed art design, as the pendant is decorated with parallel and zig-zagged bands. Not much about the non-material culture of the Couri (defined by Rouse as "concerned with customs which have been inferred by artifacts)Rouse 1941 pg. 13 is known. Rouse was unable to discover any definitive linguistic information about the Couri, nor was he able to find information about their clothing, shelter, or population. He suspected the Couri groups were semi-nomadic and band-like in structure due to the small, shallow nature of the sites excavated. He believes that the concept of private property may have had a role in the Couri culture, giving the stone beads and stone and shell pendants as examples. He was unable to discern anything about the religion practiced by the Couri groups, if that concept existed at all for them.Rouse 1941
The second culture Rouse identifies is called the Meillac group. In his excavations Rouse was able to recover 9,642 artifacts, over 9,200 of which were pottery sherds. These sherds were classified into 30 types. Most if the Meillac cultural material consisted of cooking pottery and "clay griddle". One particular type of cooking pottery that was popular in the region both in the Meillac and Carrier groups (discussed below) was the "pepper pot", a vessel in which most of their prepared food was made. Stone tools were rare, but some were recovered throughout the course of excavation. The flint tools that were recovered were similar to those represented in the Couri group, but the ground-stone artifacts were more developed than their Couri predecessors. Coral was utilized for the first time in the region by the Meillac groups, who used unworked coral as "rasps" and picks. Rouse identifies the Meillac groups as sedentary agriculturist, who relied not only on shellfish, seafood, and birds for subsistence, but they also probably cultivated corn and manioc and collected wild vegetables. Social organization would have been well developed and similar to that of historical times. He believed that they would have likely spoken the Arawak language, as they were likely the predecessors of the Carrier people, who spoke Arawak. The population of Meillac groups must have been many times larger than the population of Couri groups. People would have lived in small villages, presumably in some sort of small structure, although the only evidence we have regarding shelter comes from small middens. Trade would have been prevalent based on the presence exotic pottery types. Rouse believed that the attire of the groups would have been very light, as there is no evidence of clothing production. Evidence of 9 burials were recovered (8 of which were inhumations), which indicates some concept of life after death. There also appears to be evidence of a very early stage of the worship of zemis, Haitian historical deities, although this concept would have been in the early stages of development. There was some evidence of cutting on human remains found at Meillac sites, leading Rouse to believe that cannibalism may have been occurring. He hypothesizes that this is not out of need for food, but rather as some sort of ritual with supernatural significance. He notes, however, that there is no historical evidence for cannibalism.Rouse 1941
The final group examines by Rouse in his dissertation is called the Carrier group. During excavation of Carrier sites, Rouse recovered 2,791 artifacts, over 2,500 of which were potsherds classified into 23 types. Artifacts came in the form of the aforementioned pottery sherds, flint tools, ground-stone artifacts, and shell artifacts. Bone artifact were rare. The flint artifacts were similar in form to both the Couri and Meillac flint artifacts, while the ground-stone tools were similar to the Meillac ground-stone artifacts. The most elaborate types of artifact were the cooking pots, which included pepper pots similar to those found at Meillac sites. The only art known from these groups comes from decoration on cooking pots, which included linear geometric drawings and modeled heads. Rouse believes that Carrier people spoke the Arawak language, and were sedentary agriculturalist who hunted small animals and shellfish and, like Meillac groups, cultivated manioc and corn, along with other wild vegetables. Social organization would have been similar to Meillac group social structure, with people living houses grouped into villages. Like with the Meillac groups, Rouse believes there may be evidence for cannibalism.
Contribution to circum-Caribbean archaeology Rouse began doing fieldwork in the Caribbean in 1934, when he worked in Haiti on the material that would lead to his dissertation. From 1935–1938 conducted fieldwork in Puerto Rico as part of the Scientific Survey of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands project. It was through the information obtained from this project that Rouse developed a theory that different assemblages were not the result of different migrations (a theory held by a mentor of his, Froelich Rainey), but were instead the result of a single line of development. This event sparked a lifelong interest in identifying migrations of people and understanding the reason for migrations of human populations.Keegan 2007 In 1941, Rouse and Osgood conducted research in Cuba which resulted in each publishing half of an edition of a Yale University Publications in Anthropology volume in 1942. Osgood's segment was titled The Ciboney Culture of Cayo Redondo, Cuba which focused on the classification of a collection of stone, shell, coral, and bone objects from the Cayo Redondo excavation in western Cuba.Osgood 1942 Rouse's segment was titled Archaeology of the Maniabon Hills, Cuba where he examined artifacts from a number of sites in Cuba and classifies them as either having been inhabited by Ciboney Indians or Sub-TainosRouse 1942 pg. 131
Rouse spent time in 1946 in Trinidad, working with John Albert Bullbrook on his 1953 manuscript Excavations at Wari, Ayacucho, Peru and on the Excavations of a Shell Mound at Palo Seco, Trinidad, B. W. I.. He returned to the island in 1953 to do some additional work with John Goggin.Keegan 2007