Title: Prehistoric Indians of the Southwest
Author: H. M. Wormington
Contributor: Erik Kellerman Reed
Release date: July 11, 2021 [eBook #65822]
Most recently updated: October 18, 2024
Language: English
Credits: Stephen Hutcheson and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net
by
H. M. WORMINGTON
Curator of Archaeology
SEAL OF COLORADO MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY · 1900
NIL SINE NUMINE
APPENDIX: OUTSTANDING EXHIBIT-SITES, MODERN PUEBLOS, LOCAL MUSEUMS
By Erik K. Reed
Regional Archaeologist, National Park Service
THE DENVER MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY
Denver, Colorado
Popular Series No. 7 Seventh Printing, 1966
First Edition, 1947
During the past 25,000 years the Southwest has been invaded many times. Now each year comes a fresh invasion—an invasion of those who have succumbed to its beauty and strange, inexplicable charm. There is something infectious about the magic of the Southwest. Some are immune to it, but there are others who have no resistance to the subtle virus and who must spend the rest of their lives dreaming of the incredible sweep of the desert, of great golden mesas with purple shadows, and tremendous stars appearing at dusk from a turquoise sky. Once infected there is nothing one can do but strive to return again and again.
For many, a good portion of this charm lies in the intangible presence of the “Ancient Ones”, the people who lived in these enchanted deserts and plateaus through many centuries. One can see the places where they lived and often one finds bits of pottery which show the immemorial striving for beauty of some long dead craftsman. It is natural to want to know more of these prehistoric people and how they lived and it is the aim of this book to try to tell that story; not in technical terms intelligible only to the professional scientist but in a way that will make it of interest to the layman and the undergraduate student. It is also an attempt to give at least a partial answer to the two questions which inevitably arise when one considers the cultures of antiquity—“How do you know these things?” and, “How old are they?”
There is always the hope, too, that publications such as this may serve a further purpose. If more people understand some of the complexities of excavation and realize how much information may be obtained by a trained investigator, perhaps there will be less of the unscientific “pot-hunting” which leads to the looting of ancient sites and which every year is destroying an untold amount of irreplaceable data.
Constant references to source material, which are characteristic of technical publications, are impractical in a book of this nature, for they spoil the continuity of the narrative. It would be unfair, however, not to give credit to the many fine archaeologists whose work has provided this knowledge, and it is desirable for the reader to know which publications to consult if he seeks more detailed information. Numbers in fine print which appear throughout the text refer to publications, listed under corresponding numbers in the bibliography, from which the information under consideration was derived.
Although every effort has been made to avoid the use of unfamiliar terms, this has not always been possible. A glossary of technical terms will be found in the back of the book.
The task of writing this book has been made a pleasant one by the fine cooperation of archaeologists and anthropologists. It is doubtful if the members of any other profession would have given more unstintingly of their time and have been more wholeheartedly willing to help and cooperate in every possible way. I am deeply indebted to Dr. Harold S. Colton, Dr. Edward T. Hall, Jr., Dr. Emil W. Haury, Dale S. King, Dr. Erik K. Reed, Charles Steen, Dr. Walter Taylor, and Dr. Ruth Underhill for checking and criticizing the manuscript or portions of it. Their suggestions have been of the greatest possible value. They are not, however, responsible in any way for any archaeological sins of commission or omission which may follow.
I am most grateful to Earl H. Morris for graciously furnishing hitherto unpublished data on his excavation of Basketmaker houses and to Harold S. Gladwin and Emil W. Haury for permitting me to use information contained in personal letters.
The kindness of F. H. Douglas, who put his excellent library at my disposal, is greatly appreciated. Without his assistance, and that of Marian Sheets who helped to assemble the necessary references, the work could never have been completed.
My thanks are due to the American Museum of Natural History, the Arizona State Museum, Columbia University Press, Gila Pueblo, the Laboratory of Anthropology, Mesa Verde National Park, the Museum of Northern Arizona, the National Park Service, Peabody Museum of Harvard University, and the Taylor Museum for providing needed photographs. I am also very grateful to Gila Pueblo, the Laboratory of Anthropology, the Museum of Northern Arizona, and the Smithsonian Institution for permission to reproduce plates and figures from their publications.
To Mary Chilton Gray, I wish to express my appreciation of her fine execution of the cover design and the line drawings. The pattern used on the cover is derived from an encircling band on a Mesa Verde bowl. The services of Walker Van Riper, who devoted many hours to checking spelling and punctuation in the manuscript and to proof-reading, were of immeasurable assistance. I am also greatly indebted to Nedra McHenry, to Harvey C. Markman and to Margaret Roush for their assistance in proof-reading. Dr. Alfred M. Bailey and Albert C. Rogers gave valuable aid in the preparation of photographs.
Most especially I am grateful to my husband, George D. Volk, for his unfailing interest and understanding and for the preparation of the maps and the execution of the lettering on illustrations.
My sincere thanks are due to Dr. Alfred M. Bailey, Director of the Colorado Museum of Natural History, who made it possible for this book to be written and published, and to Charles H. Hanington, President of the Board of Trustees, for his constant interest in the project.
H. M. Wormington
Denver, Colorado
Before beginning any discussion of the Southwest it is best to decide exactly what we mean by the word, for it means many things to many people. For the geographer it has one meaning, for the economist another, and for those who study its ancient inhabitants still another. It is in the latter sense that we shall interpret it. To the archaeologist, that is, to the scientist who studies and seeks to interpret the life and times of prehistoric man, the Southwest usually means New Mexico, Arizona, southern Utah, and the southwestern corner of Colorado. Interpreting the term in its broadest sense, he may include the remainder of Utah, southeastern Nevada, southwestern Texas, and northern Mexico. State lines and international boundaries are, of course, recent man-made devices and we must consider this region, not in terms of present political units, but on a cultural and geographic basis.
In the centuries since the Spaniards first arrived the presence of the many imposing ruins which dot the Southwest has naturally led to much speculation about their inhabitants, and the collecting of antiquities has been inevitable. The collecting instinct is such that some relationship between man and the pack rat might well be postulated if it were not that man takes without leaving anything in place of what he has removed.
From the time when the ruins of the prehistoric dwellings of the Southwest were first observed, until about 1880, there was a period of exploration and the more obvious places of archaeological interest were described and superficially investigated. From then, until approximately 1910, much sound work was done but there was an unfortunate tendency toward digging up specimens for their own sake rather than for the information which they could reveal. In the last thirty-five years or so, however, the emphasis has come to be more on the acquiring of information and less on the collection of examples of material culture. This has led to the excavation of less physically spectacular ruins, increasing cooperation with workers in related fields of science, and more careful planning of attacks on specific problems.
In a sense the development of archaeology in the Southwest may be compared with the putting together of a great jig-saw puzzle. First came the period of general examination of the pieces, then a concentration on the larger and more highly colored pieces, and finally a carefully planned approach to the puzzle as a whole with serious attempts to fill in specific blank areas. After all, archaeology as a science can justify its existence only as it serves to increase and deepen our knowledge of that strange, and to us most fascinating mammal—man.
Archaeologists in the Southwest have been particularly fortunate for a number of reasons. Perhaps most important is that climatic conditions have made possible the preservation of much material which in most climates would have disappeared in a relatively short time. Under sufficiently arid conditions the bacteria of decay cannot survive and the lack of humidity in the Southwest has insured the survival of much material which would normally be lost. Another thing for which archaeologists may be grateful is that pottery-making came to be so well developed in this area, for pottery fragments are almost indestructible. Furthermore, pottery is a most sensitive medium for reflecting change. Since it is fragile there is constant breakage which leads to the frequent manufacture of new pieces and this accelerates the rate of technical change. Archaeologists have learned to recognize certain styles which are characteristic of specific areas and periods and it is remarkable how much information ancient vessels will reveal about the people who made them.
In the course of the following discussion the reader will no doubt grow weary of the word ‘pottery’. However, before he decides that the ancient Southwesterners did nothing but sit around and make pottery or that the writer is the victim of a pottery mania, it might be profitable for him to cast an observant eye about the room in which he is sitting. After the passage of five hundred or a thousand years how much would survive, if one discounted material not available in the most ancient times such as metal, glass, and plastics? High at the top of the list will be dishes, ashtrays, and vases of china or porcelain—the modern counterparts of prehistoric pottery. Also, it may readily be seen that there are differences in style between older and more recent objects. A vase purchased this year is likely to differ in many respects from one acquired even as little as twenty-five or fifty years ago.
An amazing amount of information can also be derived from the microscopic study of pottery. Trained investigators can examine thin sections under a microscope and identify the materials used in manufacture and often locate their sources. With this information it is then possible to determine whether pottery was locally made or imported. This tells us a great deal about the cultural relationships of ancient people, for trade implies contact between people which will affect other phases of their culture. In prehistoric times, when people lacked rapid means of transportation and communication, human groups were naturally isolated as they can never be again, but even then cultural units were affected by the activities of the inhabitants of other regions. Accordingly, we cannot see the ancient life of the Southwest in true perspective if we do not know something of the inter-relations of the various cultures.
One of the great boons to southwestern archaeology has been dendrochronology—a system which has made it possible to establish an absolute count of years through the pattern combinations of annual growth rings of trees. The inevitable question which arises in connection with anything prehistoric is “How old is it?”, and prior to the introduction of tree-ring dating it was difficult to answer except in relative terms, for in the Southwest we are dealing with a people who left no written records. It is remarkable, however, how much had been accomplished in establishing relative chronology through the use of stratigraphic studies and the cross-checking of sites.
It is on the principle of stratification that most archaeological work must rest. The word means the characteristic of being in layers or strata. The usefulness of stratigraphic studies lies in the fact that in any undisturbed deposit the lowest layer or stratum will be the oldest since it was laid down first. This may be shown graphically by piling books on a table, one by one. The book at the bottom of the pile must inevitably have been put in place before the ones on top. The same principle is applied to ancient cultures. If the remains of one people are found underlying those of another, those on the bottom are older.
Rarely are the remains of many cultures found lying directly over each other in a complete series but through correlation between sites the sequence may be established. For example, if in one place we find remains of Culture A underlying those of Culture B and in another place find material from Culture B underlying that of Culture C we may postulate that C is more recent than A even though the two are not found together. In still another place C may be found to underlie D and eventually a long sequence will be established, although it may not be present in its entirety in any one place.
Objects acquired through trade are also useful in dating sites. For example, if we know the relative or absolute date at which a certain type of pottery was being made at one site, then find pieces of this ware at a site which we are trying to date we may assume at least some degree of contemporaneity.
Stratigraphic studies, of course, do not provide us with absolute dates and for those we must turn to dendrochronology or tree-ring dating.[23][121] The story of the development of this method is a strange one. It is a tale of an astronomer and archaeologists, of buried treasure that was only wood, of sun spots, and of purple chiffon velvet. Most important of all was the astronomer, for it was in his keen mind that the idea was born that was to lead to one of the most exciting scientific discoveries of our time.
The astronomer was Dr. A. E. Douglass, who was engaged in the study of the effect of sun spots on climatic conditions. The available meteorological records, of course, went back only a relatively few years and it soon became apparent that a much longer record must be obtained to be of any real value. In searching for information about climatic conditions for past centuries, Dr. Douglass thought of pines, for they may reach a great age and the presence or absence of adequate rainfall, particularly in a climate like Arizona’s, will greatly affect the development of a tree. Every year a new layer of wood is added to the entire living surface of a pine. The size of these layers, which show up as rings when the tree is cut and viewed in cross-section, varies with the amount of food and moisture which the tree has obtained in the course of the year. A dry year will produce a thin ring and a wet year will produce a wide one. By cutting down old trees it was thus possible to learn what the climatic conditions had been during the years of their life. None of the pines which were still living, however, had existed for more than a few hundred years, and the giant sequoias of California which would have covered a longer span did not reflect climatic change in the same way.
Fortunately, through the study of living trees, Dr. Douglass had learned that the tree-rings over a period of years formed a distinct pattern which could be recognized when found on most conifers. Next he began to search for trees which had been cut perhaps many years before, but which contained a pattern which fitted some early portion of that tree whose cutting date was known. This led him to beams made from whole logs which have been a characteristic feature of Southwestern architecture for many centuries. By finding old beams whose outer rings formed the same pattern as the inner rings of living trees the known chronology was increased. Through correlating the patterns of progressively older trees with younger ones the pattern was finally established for the period between 1280 and 1929.
Fig. 1—Diagram to illustrate chronology-building with tree rings. Because of space limitation the number of rings in the overlapping specimens has been arbitrarily reduced. (After Stallings.[121] Courtesy Laboratory of Anthropology.)
Next Dr. Douglass began to examine beams from prehistoric sites. From these a continuous sequence of tree-ring patterns was established for a period of 580 years. Unfortunately though, it could not be correlated with the sequence starting in 1280. Relative dates could be obtained and it could be determined how many years had intervened between the occupation of different sites but there was as yet no way of correlating these dates with the Christian calendar. The next step was to seek to bridge the gap between the floating chronology of relative dates and that which carried up to the present day and gave absolute dates.
The search for the missing sequence was begun in the Hopi villages in Arizona where one, Oraibi, has been continuously occupied since before the coming of the first white men in 1540. The fact that many of the logs had been cut with stone axes indicated a considerable age. The Hopis, as might be expected, were not overly enthusiastic about the arrival of American scientists who wanted to saw cross-sections from the beams of their buildings and bore holes in other timbers where cutting was not practical. Dr. Douglass did much to solve this problem by presenting the chief with yards and yards of beautiful purple chiffon velvet which delighted him. Dr. Douglass and his associates also did a great deal to mollify the Indians by treating their ancient customs with respect. In many cases, for example, they placed bits of turquoise in holes made in extracting cores in order to “appease the spirit of decay”. One remarkable piece of timber was found which gave an extraordinarily clear series of rings from 1260 to 1344. What made it of particular interest was not only that it lengthened the known chronology but that it had been in continuous use from the time it was cut until 1906 when the section of the village in which it was found was abandoned.
Many beams were studied, but no others were found whose inner rings predated 1300. The search was next begun in ruins of villages traditionally occupied by the Hopis prior to moving to their present location. Of particular interest was the Showlow ruin, for pottery finds suggested that it had been the home of Hopis in pre-Spanish times and its proximity to a great pine forest suggested that wood must have been readily available for building purposes. It was here that one of the most famous pieces of wood in the world was found.
The decaying, partially burned, piece of wood to which the field number HH39 was given was not impressive in appearance but it was a treasure, more valuable to those who found it than any buried pirate gold for which adventurers might dig. As it was examined the climatic conditions of year after year were revealed, new ring combinations were established and the chronology was carried back to 1237 A.D., the year in which this tree had begun its life. A comparison with the ring patterns of the floating chronology showed that its 551st ring checked with that for 1251 in Beam HH39. June 22, 1929, the date on which this beam was found, is a red letter day in the history of American archaeology, for from that day it became possible to date many ruins in the Southwest, not only in a comparative sense, but in terms of the Christian calendar. Actually, of course, the floating and the absolute chronology had already overlapped but the evidence had been based on such small fragments as to be unconvincing. Duplication of ring patterns may occur if only a few rings are used. It is only if a pattern covering fifty or more rings is available that one may be assured of correct dating. It was not until the discovery of Beam HH39 that final proof was available.
In the years which have elapsed since 1929 much further work has been done by Dr. Douglass and his associates, who include many brilliant students whom he has trained. The tree ring chronology now stretches back to 11 A.D.
Great as was the importance of being able to establish absolute dates for a people who had left no written records, this was not the only contribution made by what have been aptly called “the talkative tree-rings”.[23] The life of man, and particularly primitive man, is greatly influenced by climatic conditions and in an arid climate such as that of the Southwest the difference between drought and adequate rainfall may, quite literally, be the difference between life and death.
It is naturally an inestimable boon to the archaeologist to know the conditions under which the people he is studying lived and it enables him to understand many things, such as periods marked by expansion or by the abandonment of certain areas, which would otherwise be unintelligible.
Important as dendrochronology is, it is far from being the only outside science upon which archaeologists must depend. The records left by Spanish historians, who found the Pueblo Indians in the 16th century still untouched by European civilization and living essentially the same sort of life as their ancestors, have provided invaluable information. Also of great importance has been the work of ethnologists, scientists who analyze the culture of living primitive people. In the Southwest archaeologists are particularly fortunate, for in many cases descendents of the prehistoric people whom they study are still living in the same general area and under very similar circumstances. In spite of the outside influences to which they have been subjected there is still much to be learned from them. The knowledge of these people garnered by the historian and the ethnologist, added to that obtained by the archaeologist, gives us a far better picture of the life of prehistoric times.
Although a study of material culture tells a great deal about a people, there is much of their social, political and religious life which it cannot reveal unless supplementary information is available. There are grave dangers inherent in too great a concentration on material culture. It has been said of the archaeologist that “sometimes he cannot see the people for the walls”[125] and it is the people themselves, after all, who are important.
Two examples will show how ethnology and archaeology may complement each other. In certain prehistoric sites are found circular underground rooms with highly specialized characteristics. The objects found in these are usually non-utilitarian so that, even if no further information were available, archaeologists would consider them chambers having some religious significance. However, thanks to the fact that similar rooms or kivas, as they are called, are still in use in the modern Pueblo villages, the archaeologist may not only be sure of their ceremonial nature, but he is in a position to understand more of their significance through studying their function in modern Pueblo society. One point demonstrates very clearly how, through correlating ethnological and archaeological evidence, it is possible to understand something of the religious beliefs of people who died hundreds of years ago leaving no written records.
In prehistoric kivas are found small tubelike pits in the floors. If no other information were available the archaeologist would be forced to fall back on simply calling these holes “ceremonial”. The quip that when archaeologists do not know what a thing is they designate it as ceremonial is sufficiently close to the truth to be uncomfortable. In many modern kivas, however, the same type of hole is found. It is symbolic of the mythical place of emergence or route from the underworld from which it is believed that the first people and animals came into the world. Archaeologists refer to it by the Hopi name Sipapu. Taking into account the conservatism and dependence on tradition of religions in all parts of the world in all times, it is not too rash to assume that the builders of the prehistoric kivas held some beliefs similar to those of their present day descendents.
Similarly, by equating what we know of the social organization of the Pueblo Indians of today with the evidence from prehistoric times we may postulate that an essentially democratic form of government existed in this section of America long before the signing of the Magna Carta and many centuries before the signers of the American Declaration of Independence were born. It may be asked, what possible information can be gained from ruins which would indicate a democratic way of life. In all the ruins which have been examined all the living quarters were essentially equal. Most anthropologists feel that had there been a marked differentiation between classes, or if all power had been lodged in the hands of a limited number of individuals this would have been reflected in the dwellings. Certain leaders and priests undoubtedly had authority, as they do among the Pueblo Indians of today, but there is no evidence of an autocracy or a ruling class.
This is, obviously, a greatly simplified explanation of some of the many techniques employed by archaeologists in seeking to reconstruct the life of ancient times. No one approach will suffice, but by utilizing many methods numerous scattered bits of information are obtained. These are studied and correlated and at length it is possible to produce an account which is at least a reasonable approximation of the truth.