Indian mounds in P. Allen Smith Gardens

P. Allen Smith Gardens, a syndicated home and garden show, recently featured Indians. Here's what this TV show is about:

P. Allen Smith GardensP. Allen Smith Gardens is a nationally syndicated half hour show that highlights garden related travel, interviews with garden experts, recipes, and how to projects. Join me for a half hour of ideas and tips that is sure to inspire you to get out and garden!The episode in question was titled Historic and Home. I believe it originally aired a year ago on Jan. 17, 2009. The summary said this episode would "explore the glories of winter, visit some historic homes, and discuss kitchen design ideas."

"The glories of winter" apparently includes a bit about "winter solstice for American Indians of long ago." I wasn't sure how an Indian winter solstice would tie in with the home and garden theme. But I was curious to see how P. Allen Smith, who apparently is the Martha Stewart of the gardening set, would handle Indians.

A couple of promos made it sound as if the Indian segment would be substantial. It wasn't. It was only two minutes long, or shorter than a typical TV news report. And it was about as superficial as you'd expect from a home and garden show.

Here's what the segment covered:Dr. Martha Rolingson, Archeologist/Author, Toltec Mounds State Park, Scott, AR–Dr. Rolingson explains that the word solstice means “suns stands still.” The winter solstice signifies the shift toward spring and the growing season. She goes on to describe what is known about the farming practices of the inhabitants of this pre-historic site.That sounds reasonable. And you wouldn't think a segment could go too far wrong in only two minutes. But this one did. It conveyed an unmistakable feeling that Indians are nothing but primitive people of the past.

Dinosaurs and Indians

Smith starts the segment with a shot of a boy playing with toy dinosaurs. His narration goes:If you're like me, when you think "prehistoric," you're probably like this little guy and immediately think of dinosaurs. But really, prehistory is just before written history. And there are signs of this time all around us if we just take a look. Rising up out of the delta is one of the tallest remaining prehistoric American Indian mounds.Hmm. I guess people refer to pre-Columbian Indian cultures as "prehistoric." But this is misleading if not wrong.

For starters, the definition of prehistoric is:of or pertaining to the time or a period prior to recorded history: The dinosaur is a prehistoric beast.Repeat: recorded history, not written history.

What's the difference? You can record history in various ways besides writing: by carving petroglyphs, creating designs in baskets and pottery, or building monuments to gods or kings. The mounds themselves are arguably a form of recorded history.

When we use the word "prehistoric," we usually refer to an era of history. To a "time" or a "period," as the definition says. Being more specific is potentially confusing--e.g., Roman coins were found at a prehistoric British site. If dated items coexisted with the site, how can it be prehistoric?

In other words, "prehistoric" best describes humanity in general. Before people starting recording history with clay marks, the entire world was prehistoric. After that, the entire world entered the historic era.

Calling the oldest Indian cultures "prehistoric" is one thing, but I don't think I've heard anyone say "historic" Europeans met "prehistoric" Indians. Both peoples existed in historic times. European and Mesoamerican cultures both recorded these times in writing, and other Native cultures recorded them with drawings and symbols.

During Europe's Middle Ages, monks were often the only people who could read and write. Would anyone say monasteries were "historic" while illiterate towns and villages were "prehistoric"? No, probably not. Again, "prehistoric" usually applies to a broad period of time when no one was recording history, not to communities, regions, or countries without writing.

More faux pas

So the setup informs us that Indians were "prehistoric." The rest of the segment doesn't do any better.

Rolingson uses most of the two minutes to explain what a winter solstice is. She doesn't say anything about how or why Indians observed the solstice. We don't learn that Indian cultures were generally adept at tracking the movements of the sun and stars.

In the segment's closing seconds, Rolingson says the Indians' farming techniques were "very different." Based on what we've learned from "historic" Indians, she says the mound builders used digging sticks and planted their fields among trees. She doesn't elaborate, leaving the impression that the Indians farmed crudely and haphazardly.

Without explanation, their methods do sound strange. But a digging stick is just a hoe-like implement, and mixing crops in a field helps replenish the soil. Rolingson doesn't note that Indian farmers were generally as skilled as their European counterparts.

Other than the farming tidbits and a couple of seconds of pottery in a display case, the segment gives no indication that the Indians had any culture. Here's what the segment could've said about them but didn't:

Toltec Mounds Archeological State ParkThe people who built the mounds at the Toltec site had a distinct culture from other contemporary Native American groups in the Mississippi Valley. The culture is named Plum Bayou after a local waterway. The people lived in permanent villages and hamlets throughout the countryside. They built sturdy houses, farmed, gathered wild plants, fished, and hunted.

Mound groups, such as this one, were religious and social centers for people living in the surrounding countryside. The Toltec Mounds site had a small population, made up primarily of political and religious leaders of the community and their families. This center was occupied from about 600 to 1050 A.D.

The segment doesn't even give the Indians a name such as "Moundbuilders." They're faceless, featureless "Native Americans" (the politically correct term it uses) from ancient (pre)history.

Finally, the segment doesn't link the mounds to any existing Indians. You'd never know that Indians still live and that some consider the mound builders their ancestors.

So P. Allen Smith Gardens ends up portraying Indians as primitive people of the past--i.e., uncivilized savages. I shouldn't be surprised, but I thought this upscale show might do better. Anyone who has money to blow on home and garden decorations can afford a primer on Indian culture and history.

For more on the subject, see TV Shows Featuring Indians.

Below:  A "very different" kind of home and garden?