A survey of methods and problems in archaeologicalexcavation; with special reference to the Southwest

Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic)

Authors Willey, Gordon R. (Gordon Randolph), 1913-2002

Publisher The University of Arizona.

Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this materialis made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona.Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such aspublic display or performance) of protected items is prohibitedexcept with permission of the author.

Download date 26/01/2021 18:49:37

Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/553282

A SURVEY OF METHODS AND PROBLEMS IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXCAVATION,

WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE SOUTHWEST

Gordon Randolph Willey

A Thesis

submitted to the faculty of the

Department of Archaeology

In partial fulfillment of

the requirements for the degree of

Master of Arte

In the Graduate College

University of Arizona

1936

shiA i

TABLE OF CONTESTS

XPt'CWV K ^ V

PREFACE:................. ............................ i.A. The Aim of Archaeology:......... ..............lieB. The Significance of l i e t h o d : . . #111#

ACKHOWLEDGEKSKT %........ .......................... .CHAPTER I - IliTRCBTTCTION:........... ................. 1#

A, Statement of Problem:••••••••••••••••Be Review of Material:•••••••••••••#••••

CHAPTER II - THE HISTORY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXA. Classical Imtimations:..Be Renaissance Humanism:.*...... .C. Development in Classical Archaeology:De Studies in European Llthic Chronology:••••••••10.R. Development in the Hear East:*................1%.F. Beginnings in the Americas:...................15.G. Summarization:•.........................•.17.

CHAPTER III - PRINCIPLES /JJD GENERALITIES:........... 18.A. The Archaeologist: Personal Requirements and

Professional Training:.......................19.B. The Selection of the ^ite :.••••••••••••••••••.22.C. Uncovering the Evidence:......................25.D. Chronology Building:........... •••27.E. Recording and Preservation:••••••••••••••.•••.31.F. Theories and Implications:••••••••............36.G. Summarization:• .................... ........38.

CHAPTER IV - METHODS APPLIED: THE 'JORLD AT LARGE:.... 39.A. Type and Distribution of Cultures:• ......... ••40.B. Field Reconnaissance:.............•••••••••••.41.

1. Determination of Sites:..................41.2. Territorial Survey:...... 44.3. Site Survey:.............. 46.

C. Man Power:...•••••.•••••••.... ......49.1. Labor: . . . . . . . . ........ ...49.2. Staff:....................... ..50.

p. Excavation Proper:.......... 51.1. Surface Clearance:.......... ...51.2. Trenching and Pitting:...... ..52.

m e s s

02 VO

C" CO CO

3. Peeling:.........................56.4S Vertical Slicing:••••••••••••••••••5. Tunnelingi.aa............................59.6. Disposal of D e b r i s : . . #60,

5. Resultant Chronology:................. ........61.1. Documentary Record:......................61.2. Stratigraphy:............................61.3. lypologyi................................65.

; 4. Geological F o r c e s : . . . . . . . . . i . . . . . . 66.F . Preservation:.................................68.G . R e c o r d i n g 70.H. Summarisation:........^............. ......74.

CHAPTER V - METHODS APPLIED? THE AMERICA# SOUTHWEST:..75.A. The Culture: w 76.3. Field ReconnaisBance:.........................79.

1. Determination of Sites:..................79., : 2. Territorial Survey:......................79,

3. Site Surr^r:.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4 .C. Man Power:....................................87,D. Excavation Proper:............................88.

1. Surface Clearance:.......................88.2. Trenching an Pitting:..........i.......*.88.3. Peeling:..........................4......92.4. Vertical S l i c i n g ...............93.5. Room Clearance:.............a.....*......94.6. Disposal of Debris:......•••••••••••••...95.E. Resultant Chronology:.........................96.1. Stratigraphy:........................^...96.2. T y p o l o g y : . . .....100.3. Seriation:...............................101,4. Geological PorceB:.......................104.5. Dendrochronology:. ^ ...105.6. Chronological Theory:••••••••••••... ...107.

F. P r e s e r v a t i o n ..*...........^•..*•.*•..V..109.1. Artifactual:.............................109.2. Architectural?...........................111.G. Recording?....................................115.

H. Summarization:................................117.CHAPTER VI - COHCLUSIO#:...................*...•......118.B i b l i o g r a p h y ...............126.Conferences, Correspondence, and Lectures*... 139.

-i-

n sense is the most valuable requisite in archaeological excavation,"

Dr# Byron Cummings

A, The Aim of Archaeology;B, The Significance of Method:

ACOmnSDOEMEHT!

-ii-

A. The aim of all science is a synchrenlz&tieii,an integration of the body of facts perceivable to man into a phalanx of enlightenment, preceding him into the nnknovsn. The goal of each member unit within the larger corpus is* ■ logicallyf the same* Specifically, it can be said of arch­aeology that the highest value of the science is its ideal of historical reconstruction which is a gallant and pains­taking effort at putting back together the distributedfragments of past time. Hence, archaeology, as science, is • . . . ■ : ' ' ■_ • ;■ . ' ordering itself from within, and, at the same time, orient­ing itself with other fields of learning moving beside it on the frontier* For that reason, if for no other, it is worthwhile.

Dealing with the remains ef civilisations of the past, archaeology can be both a science and an art. Its gift to the present has, can, and will be inconceivable. The logic that most of what we think and do comes cut of the past, is, generally, sound. Tangible proofs to this were lacking un­til archaeological excavation contributed the data of sub­stantiation. The very thrill we feel at the transformation of an ancient Greek myth into reality, the excitement upon entering an Egyptian tomb, sealed for three-thousand years, brings home the pertinence of Spongier1 s quotation, “And is not archeology itself an expression of the sense that his­tory is repetition?* Hie Decline of the West is a monumen­

-iii-

tal understanding of tiie anaJLagotts character of history*The love of archaeology# the love of life gone before, is the love of our life*

It has had difficulty, in adhering to its directive purpose, that of historical vereimilitudc, for this same, reasca of its wide h u m n Interest, These humanistic mo- • tives were the original impetus tc the whole business*There is no use la toe sharply Criticizing their manifesta­tions in the past, ' ^

B* Archaeology is sn adolescent <among thesciences because for too long it was pampered in the hot­house atmosphere of dilettantism. It is there no longer.For fully forty years, in some places, and lees inothere, the profession has been governed under an ever increasing vigilance of the scientific attitude* The glamorous and > clandestine adventure of gold-seeking, that turned to an­tique and curiosity appropriating, can at last meet the hard light of examination properly clothed in methods an rules. , " ■ ' ;•

Petrie, in 1904, writing from two decades of experience in Egypt summarized to sayi ^ science can hardly be said to exis# until it has developed a system of werk»and iSiapossibilities of value for teaching purposes depend ezSLrely on the organization of its method* ** wae Petri<fe(l) Sir Flinders. Petrie Methods and Aims in Archaeology

P. 122.

further belief and idea that a complete definition of allknown varieties of objects9 concerned with a certain area*should be formulated,in a tabulatory manner to facilitatehandling and writing of material. After this, an arrange- •sent of the material in a chronological sequence of its dev­

il)elopaent would be the next important step of syetemization.Such a standardization pretty well covers a major por­

tion of the duties of an archaeologist', at least those da- - ties whose results will find their way to public and seaSr professional interest. . But there are other phases, perhaps not so important in the layman's mind as to the archaeolo­gists cognizance. All exact sciences have ritualistic ob­servance of a great many of their formulas and methods of -operation. The chemiet, the physicist do not set blindly;

' . . ' 1 . ■they proceed, cautiously, after a set of prescribed and tested axioms. Can the archaeologist say as much? To be sure such knowledge is the knowledge of practical experience. But why should not such experience be incorporated in writ- : ing so. as to aid others Interested in the same lines, above all, to pretest the interests of the profession, itself? Fortunately, some of it has. But one cannot help thinking, if he believes in the advance of archaeology as a major science, that more and more, method will become a thing par­amount, especially to field work. In other words,“how does the archaeologist dig? * It is an important item. This ques-(i) retrie Op. cit. p.123. ' —

tion, at this time> is not a tangent of unrelated erudition or quibbling of details but the normal outgrowth of this late and rapid progress of a nzn7 science.

, ACKHOHSDGMEET

To nr. Byron Cumsiings for hi# encouragement and continued counsel* the writer wishes to express his (feepest appreciation and gratitude. Hot only recently» but for the past five years his lectures and suggestions have been an inspiration for a work of this sort.

Others, to -ehm the writer is grateful, , in the depart­ment, are Dr. John H. Provinee and Mrs. Clara lee Tanner.

By conference and correspondence the following have aided me greatly in the gathering of material and bibliog­raphy: Dr. Emil Usury, Gila Pueblo $ Hr. llyndon Hargrave and Mr. John McGregor, Museum of Northern Arizona; Mr. 0.3. Halseth, Phoenix| Dr. P. W. Hodge, Southwest Museum, Los Angeles; Ihr. Ned Spicer, University of Chicago; and Hr.Frank H. Blackburn, formerly of the Oriental Institute.'

To instructors and students of the Departments of Archaeology and Tree Ring Research, I wish to thank, for advice and assistance: Harry T. Getty, Gordon Baldwin, DavidE. Jones, W. A. Duff eh, and P.E. Ezell.

CHAPTER I

niTRCHxrcTioir

Ae Statement of Problem; B e Review of Material:

2-

Ae The problem attempted here is not that of writing a manual of archaeological excavation or a monograph upon method for any geographie and archaeologic area in the world# Obviously, such would be the resultant work of ex­perience which the writer lacks# For that matter any in­tention, by any one man, no matter how widely versed, at a last word on method in the field is precluded by the con­stantly changing and improving nature of the subject. Bat because there has been so little written, with actual ex- ceration method and problems as its major premise, the writ­er feels that a study or survey of some sort (especially in the Southwest) is not too presumptions an ambition, even for a "tenderfootM# Such a paper can have its place as a clearing house for the fragmentary bits of methodicity gleaned here and there from authorities who know# From such a starting point, interest may be aroused; and, with­in the next decade, a manual, or better yet, a compendium of a sort, to which the increasing data of a live science may be periodically added, may be brought out by one of the several seniors of experience, in this, our Southwestern field.

The title, A Survey of Methods and Problems in Arch­aeological Excavation, with Special Reference to theSouthwest, is, in itself, fairly explanatory. The problem

■ • ■ . ■ : ; . . , :

to be met is one of examination and survey. What exists

3-

ln the way of method in archaeological excavation in the world as d whole? More specificallyt what method exists in Southwestern excavation? vThat inferences may be drawn from the comparison of the two?

To determine theses % first purpose to see where, when, and tdiy archaeological excavation took place. %hat is its history? Then, in attacking a survey comprehensively, there must be, at the outset, a determination of the under­lying trends of the work. That is, what constitutes arch­aeological excavation? And how methodical and scientific are these constituents? Archaeology is not a science therein we can standardize our conditions in natureb labor­atory of the field. X7e are constantly dealing with the most vexing rule of all, the rule of exceptions. The greatest problems are environmental, as will be implied in the text. Because of this, , all principles and generali­ties, with which I am dealing, must be as basic and all in­clusive as possible. With these axioms in mind, a survey of methods over, first, the World at Large, and, next, the American Southwest is attempted.

In ray organisation of lines of archaeological and ex­cavation procedure, I have tried, as near as possible, to maintain the logical sequence that would be undertaken by the scientific expedition in the field. This includes a study ef the culture, reconnaissance and survey, satis­factory arrangements a# to labor, the actual excavation

4

and removal of earth, chronological aids and determinants employed hy the excavator in reconstructing the past, pre­servation of artifacts and buildings uncovered, and the necessary recording from which the archaeologist draws his theories and conclusions.

B. W. F. Bade, vho recently published what isprobably the best book on field method in archaeology,:makes the statement in this treatise, that the dearth of archae­ological material on methods and techniques is due to the rapid advancement being made by the science. "Under these circumstance#," he goes on to say, “there is a hesitationto put Into print what may in a few years be overhauled by

(l) ....newer methods."Perhaps this can account for the paucity of liter­

ature directly bearing upon this pmse of the science. At any rate, the material covering the subject can quite readily be classed into two main groupings, that dealing directly with method' and that implying method. The latter Is by far the larger but the least satisfactory.7 It in­cludes all publications, books, and ami-popularised artic­les on archaeological "digs". The former includes Badefs book on the Hear Eastern Methods, employed by himself, andbooks by such authorities as Reiener, Petrie, Von Der Oaten,

' - ■ ' . ' . - 1 ■ ' ' ' ■Fisher, and Schmidt.From the standpoint of the Southwest, my most valuable

(1) V#.F . Bade A Manual of Excavation In -the Hear East p.7.

5

information has come from those men, listed in the Preface, who have spent seasons on the "digs", and who know of what they are talking. This valuable experience has not been published, so it #as necessary to record it from word ofmouth or correspondence, .

■ ... ' • ,

Lastly, the value of personal experience in the study of a topic such as this, is most firmly brought home by what little actual knowledge I have of the field. One learns more there in a day than from a month of reading. The only true test of method is practical application.

6-

CHAPTER IITHE HISTORY OF ARCHEOLOGICAL BXCAVATIOH

A. Classical IntimationstBe Renaissance Humanism:C. Development in Classical A^Aiaeelogys .De Studies in European Lithic

Chronology:E. Development in the Near EastsF. Beginnings in the Americas*Qm Summarisation s

-7

A, It has "been the peculiar penchant of ourwestern civilization, in the study of science and art, to trace the beginnings of all these higher things to our favorite donors of all time, the Greeks and the subsequentClassical civilisation. But it can be plainly said, the

. : 1Greeks were not archaeologists. The Romans were so iri- dined, peihaps, but net the Hellenic cities. Their life was one of comprehension, of form, of encompassed learning, plane dimensional and of the present. We see it in their sculpture and in their Doric temples. They did not believe in history other than mythology. Abstract quality in thought, wonder and imagination, have been the fires of the archaeological mind. The love of life set up against the dark mystery of that life flowing endlessly on, flowing endlessly from where? In a word, it is the Gothic mind* the Western mind. Ko other people, unless it has been the dy­nastic Egyptians, have been so "history conscious".

So in reality, our debt to the Classic, for archae­ology as a science, is small. Paueanlao, who unknowingly prepared a guide book for modern excavators on Grecian soil, and lived in the Second Century B.C., relates small bits of archaeological interest in telling that all weapons of the Homeric days were bronse. Lucretius, 98-55 B.C., who was of Roman citlsenry, blood, and temperament, made the first (l) Oswald Spongier The Decline of the West V. I. Chant.tl.

-8-

srtlfaetual classification in his "De Rerum iTatura" when hesaid that hands, nails, and teeth came first, then eluhs

(1)and stone, then "bronze, and lastly iron. Infamous Kero was a collector of repute. Trajan, Hadrian enriched the oTer-riched tastes of Rome, with treasures from past art.The villas at Pompeii are decorated in the Greek fashion; ideas expressed in the murals are Greek. Other than thes thirsts of acquisition we find little interest, among Classical men, for the historic past.

B. It is with the Renaissance and Humanismthat archaeology came into being. There was no science# no searching for past incident; it was a revival, a fierce love for things beautiful long denied. Merejowski, in his Leonardo da Vinci . portrays the excavator of the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries furtively and secretly exhuming ancient stdhary, supposedly the work of the devil. Petrach, in the Fourteenth Century, has been called by many the first archaeologist. An artist, poet, and collector, this precursor of the Renaissance questioned the mystery of what had gone before by making a study of the many coins so widely distributed over the whole of Europe. Intermittently# from then until the Eighteenth Century, and aided by the - mighty impetus of cultural rebirth, an archaeological inter­est was born.

C. Pompeii's uncovering, begun in 1748 by work-(l)George Grant KacCurdy “If; v t t : p79.

I«he

-9-

men accidentally digging into a frescoed^roozn, was first large asa excavation of the world. Covering mmyr acres, the ancient Roman city has been under examination from that time until the present. Herculaneum and the country of Etruria furnished new fields of interest, and the gold seeking went on, the thrilling pastime of rich : connoisseurs. Johann Wihckleraann, another of the “father®•of archaeology, published in 1765, a book. The History of

(2) ■ ------- — -----Ancient Art, As a result of reading this, Fredenheim,Swedish collector, started first work on the Roman Forum,.

(3)digging in the name of science* Shich meant, for those times, Italian laborers throwing dirt at a;mad rate,, and the excavator under the shade of an umbrella, disregarding all things lacking in aesthetic quality.

But work went on. Slowly, surely, the Society of the Dilettanti from England started investigations. Between1769 and 1797 reports, the first of their kind in scientif­ic annals, appeared, telling of investigation and

(4)tion in Greece and Asia Minor. Carefully measured and published plans of the ruins of Athens were brought out by the pai^t^r, James Stuart, and the architect, NicholasRevett. However, to Lord Elgin, at the turn of the cen­tury, goes the credit for interesting moneyed men and in- stltutlons in Europe and America. By transporting, what * V

Encyclopedia Britannica ^ "Greek Archaeology*3) •:\5tes'hd? Benedict: barter: nV Fowler an6 Wieeler < p. cit.(5) Ibid. p. 15.

p. 13.

10

have since become famous as the “Bigin Marbles”, and uhere then but scarred pieces of Greek statuary, back to England, he turned the eyes of the art world on the Aegean.

A French expedition, in 1829, embarked for Blympla. Newton, of the British museum enriched the cases of that Institution by material from Halicarnassus and Cnidus. In 1870, the greatest of ail the old gold-seekers, for he did open up paths to more exact archaeology, Heinrich Schliemana began work on the mound of Hlsearlik. For the first time the bewildering problem of cities (seven of them) in super­position was laid before the excavator with all its force. Schliemann's successes were the basis for the founding ofthe German Institute at Athens, and the subsequent work of

(1) • •Curtius and Adler in 1875, France, England, and the Unit­ed States followed this procedure within the next two de­cades* Classical Archaeology was digging in with a fer­vor, but as to how they dug was then no item.

23. . As an outgrowth of the industrial revolu­tion, North European interest was constructively aroused in the cause of archaeology early in the Nineteenth Cen- ,tury. The kindred science of geology, employed on a largescale for the first time in connection with mining, natur-(2)ally overlapped onto problems of human prehistory.People had wondered about the stone artifacts, that were

(1) vr % ;(2) Stanley Caseon Progress of Archaeology pp. 8-9.,

11-

found so profusely over all of Europe. Intelligent schol­ars have referred to them as "tawnderstones”, a natural phenomenon that fell from the sky. Actual Stone Age graves were opened* skeletons found* hut the association was slow in occur ing to the mind. Pere Montf ancon1 o Antiquite Expllque relates a discovery made hy a certain M. de Cocher-el, in France, of a hurial sepulchre containing sixteen hod-(l)ies with Stone Age implements. This was in 1685.

Chronological idea in relation to these finds, which is, in reality, the whole hackhone of the scientific approach, was first hinted at hy the scholar Eccardu in 1750. His prdaise, being hut an elaboration on the stone and metal theory of Incretfcae, esanot, however, he called highly in­fluential. Then one day, seventy-five years after Eccardue* intimations, HacEnerny, finding human hones and flint flakesassociated with the remains of cave hear and cave hyena atKent's Hole, England, pointed to the possibilities of chron­ological correlation between cultural artifacts and with other datable material. 1 2 3 That such things did have jux­taposition in the time scale, and that such was significant, became the line of study then and to the present time.Thomsen, a Dane, in 1836 divided the chronology into succes-ive Stone, Bronze, and Iron Ages, with approximate datesfor each. Boucher de Perthes, eminent French scientist, re­ceives, and justly so, most of the credit for subdividing(1) HacCurdy Qp. cit. p. 9.(2) Henry Fairfield Osborn Hen of the Old Stone Age p. 10.(3) Osborn Ibid. p, 10.

12

these major periods, and for substantiating M s hypotheses(l)

with actual excavation. His work was followed by that of Sir John Lubbock, Edouard iartet, and G. de Hortillet. All of these mer helped lay the foundation of modem archaeo­logical excavation in that they were instrumental in form­ing the yardstick by which the accumulation of time, North European time, at any rate. Is measured. Even the word 'yardstick" may savour too much of unchanging and absolute.Today, there is a possibility that the work of the past century will prove incorrect. Investigations by a Dr. l.SeB. Leakey in Africa may have a far-reaching effect up­on this European standard of cultural sequence. Inter-rel- ated chronology of ancient peoples is a great task. It is the most valuable tool in excavation; and, in return, is only achieved by excavation.

S. Across the Classical regions, beyond theMediterranean, one of the greatest and most romantic fields or group of fields, awaits the digger with an almost inex­haustible challenge of its mysteries. Egypt, Mesopotamia, and of late, the Indus Valley. How long man's curiosity has been piqued by these ageless effigies of life to be found in these quarters we cannot say. The Egyptians, them­selves, of the later dynasties, had an archaeological in- terest in their forbears. Many an early traveller has, no doubt, passed by in wonder. Intensive seeking of the keyto the mystery (l) A. L.

partially solved, we # ia

-13-

1799, ty a young officer in ITapoleon’o ill-fated E^ptian expeditionary force, Chmapollion. This man found the Res­et ta Stone upon which were inscribed the parallel wotds of the same message in three different languages, Renee, where superposition, geologic correlation, or comparative techni­que of stone implements was the excavator’s touchstone in Europe, the more exact basis of language was established in the Hear East,

Henry Rawlinson, in 1835, dangling from a rope over the steep face of the Rock of Behistun, made a similar contribution for the Mesopotamian area. With these start­ing points, excavation began and has continued. The workof Botta and Bayard has been termed the first ffcrdern ex-

■ (1) - ■ •' - . 7 ; ' . . .caration;8 The work was conducted at Khorsabad andHineveh, and is considered by present day diggers at those same places to be unbelievably bungling in its method.The Frenchman, Marietta, a pioneer in Egypt, working in the "fifties*, has come in for his share of denouncement of late. In fact, all early excavators in either area, before the time of Petrie, are rated on the negative side of the scien­tific ledger, Their work, it has been charged, has been destructive and detrimental. Perhaps the future will think the same of the present day todems*. Bad as they were, we must have beginnings.

Sir Flinders Petrie, the brilliant veteran of the E-(i)R.V.D. Magoffin

14

gyptian field, io archaeology’s most valuable contributorto that early spirit of science as opposed to tomb-robbing.But as early as I860* a Scotchman, Rhind, saw the importanceof the ecientifisr attitude of the recording of finds while

(1)doing private work in Egypt, = To this end Petrie, twentyyears; later, astonished the Antiquities Department by de-

(2)manding a search of rubbish piles. From then until the last few years, Petrie has been the guiding influence in the promotion of method. He was instrumental in organizingthe Egyptian Exploration Fund in 1883* This date marks the beginning of careful work, recording, and preservation of materials*^ \ . ;

English, French, Germans, and Americans have since entered the fields, operating with relative degrees of method and care. In 1908 both Harvard University at Sam­aria and the Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft at Jericho madea definite attempt to formulate and adhere to a definite plan of method* The former under the direction of Dr. Rels- ner and Dr. C. S. Platter, both actively employed at present, did not publish their results until fourteen years later. A M Bade considers the results hardly specific enough to aid other investigators. The German expedition recorded with care; although, to *uote Bade again, “made the mistake of using the scientifivally worthless trench system."(5)

WI b l d TIbid, (4) Bade Op. cit.

"Archaeology"pp. 5-6* (5) Ibid.

-15-

Reeently, Bade, Fisher, and Von Ber Oaten and Schmidthave worked out systems and methods far surpassing anythingto date in these regions or anywhere else. It is withthese that this paper is partially to deal.

F. Archaeology in America^began with expeditions to(l)the colorful ruins of Yucatan. Stephens, liaudslay, foll­owed by other literary travellers, made surveys and draw­ings and opened up new fields of interest but did very lit­tle digging. Here, in the United Stdss the first excavations

.. ■ „ (21 ' - - . . were in the east among the mounds, and the work was doneby curio seekers and professional antique hunters.

In 1879 and 80, Lewis H. Morgan, journeying for the Archaeological Institute of America, made a survey of the house types of "our I n d i a n s T h i s was mainly eastern, but it also included sections of the Mississippi Valley, of the Southwest, showing Hungo Pavie and Pueblo Benito, and of the Mayan country. Little was actually known, and his bib­liography Is made up of early trappers, soldiers, and miss-, , (3) ., ionarlee.

At the same time. Bandolier began his survey of the(4)institution.Southwest under the the auspice# of the

For in this great desert region discoveries were being made rivaling those of Central America and across the ocean.VI, H. Holmes and w. H. Jackson, four years earlier, had[ij(2) Magdffin Qp. eft. p. 82.

ria H. Morgan "Houses of at Ann. Rent, of the Arch.______(4) Emily C. Davis Ancient Americans3) Lewis H. Morgan "Houses of the American Aborigines* 1st Ann. Rent, of the Arch. Inst, of Am. 1879-80 p.29.

P. 174. /

16

(1)made the remarkable discovery at Mesa Verde, . Then*in- . t1887, the Hemenway expedition from Los Angeles conductedthe first important excavation of the Sonthwest at Los

(2)Muertoe, in the Salt River Valley of Southern Arison*,' . - .From then, up through the Twentieth Century, Lunsais,

.. ■ • • : • 'Fewkea, Hodge, 27, C, Kelson, Cushing, Hough, Cummings, and Hewett have pushed the work in this area to a greater levelof scientific excellence, Upon these men fell the double

. ■- : . . ■ ' . ' : .task of exploring and excavating, and to them is:,due all lthe credit of the pioneer afforded Schliemann and Petrie in the Old World, .

. . . ■ ■ . . '.v . •

In 1907, science moved closer to the canvas, locating' ■ - • * ' ' 'the School of American Ai^iaeelogy in Santa Fe, Hew Mexico*Hodge from the Southwest Museum in Los Angeles, Gumming# from the Universities of Utah and Arizona, and Hewett from Santa Fe and the University of Kew Mexico have followed their earlier work with continued excavation, teaching, and writing.• Along with these, a host of new men have entered the field, including such well-known archaeological names as Kidder, Guernsey, Roberts, Colton, Gladwin, Haury , and Hargrave,

In accord with the purpose of this thesis, I have per­haps emphasised, in this section on the history of the 1(1) Davis Op. cit, p. 174.(2) ibid. ; ' .(3) Magoffin Of,cit. p. 82.

17-

Aaericas In Archaeology, the Southwest. Progress, like­wise, moved in other places. In the Mounds, Putnam, Shetrone, Cole, and Kelley are well-known for their ad­vancement of the methods of study.

To. the south, we have a dm table Mexican authorities in Casso, Gamio, and Mena, Besides these men, American institutions,, the Carnegie, Smithsonian, and National Geographic, have sent Vaillant, Morris, Iforley, Cuaminge, Ruppert, and Ricketson into Mexican and Central American regions within the last twenty years.

There Is much to be done in America, and the archae­ologist need not leave these shores for historic glamour, mystery, or difficult and exacting work.

G. In closing, it is safe to say that no ex­cavation leader or financeer, has had at the outset, until the last twenty years, a clear conception of Just what his methods were going to be. Likewise, they have not deemed it necessary, in the Hear Bast, Classical, American, or any other area, to give an accurate and detailed accountof their own field technique. General methods# only, can

(1)be inferred from reports. Such has been the history of excavation. Only for a short time, and by a few men, have exactitude in method been considered, (l)

(l) Bade Op. cit. P.5.

18

CHAPTER IIIPRDK2IPLSS AND GENERALITIES

A. The Archaeologists Personal. Requirements and Profession al Trainings

B. The Selection of the Site:Ce Uncovering the EvidencesD. . Chronology BuildingsE. Recording and Preservations SV theories and Implications:

isations

19

A, This chapter is an attempt to briefly setdown in theory, before dealing with any concrete instances of application, all those elements of archaeological ex­cavation that are independent of classification under any specific geographical area. They are general. They are underlying, necessary principles upon whose authority the profession acts.

To begin with, we must take the man himself. His training is important, difficult, and, of necessity, both specific and general. As a scholar and a scientist the ideal archaeologist should have a good working knowledge of the archaeology and prehistory of the country in which he is excavating; his understanding of adjacent and possib­ly related areas should be wide. In geology, ethnology,

(1)linguistics, and engineering his abilities ought to be trained and proficient. Subsidiary to these subjects of more direct significance, any skill or learning in chem­istry, carpentry, medicine, drawing(mechanical or freehand)surgery, literary ability, or public speaking will not be(2)amiss. Actually, conditions in the field are so diversi­fied that to be equal to them all would require the super­man. However, it should be the aim of every expedition to(1) W.R. Berry "The Archaeologist in the Field1* Art and

Archaeology V. 23. April 1927 p. 170.(2) Sir Flinders Petrie Methods and Aims in Archaeology

PP. 1-6.

20

take care of all these departments with a varied and ver­satile staff.

Aside from his techical training, the archaeologist must have certain inborn or well-developed characteristics of personality, A great deal depends upon these rather in­definable traits. Those most vague and personal ares the ability to handle men, usually foreign to our ways andcustoms; the ability to avert a crisis with human under-‘ .. ■■ ■ 'standing; the quality of inspiring others; and lastly, the levs of the profession. All of these are rather platitud­inous sayings, and will, of course, apply to any line of work to a lesser, but I sincerely doubt if any greater de­gree, He is alone in that he is one of those on the far­thest!! outposts of science. Nothing is facile, nothing is

upon.Of a more definite nature, but still as R.V.D, Magoffin

says, ’’a matter of personal endowment,M is the qualityof observation. Alel# it can and must be developed to the"nth" degree in field archaeology. Without saying, memory

■ • " ' -. ' : - is the backbone of this observation. The observer, on re-connaisoanoe, will detect artificial undulations in the lie(2)of the land. Not only does the trained eye see, but thereceptive mind recalls other similar conditions, makes com--W Megoffln-- p- R»T ______ _(2) Ibid. p. 89.

-21-

p&rlsons enabling a correct decision to be rendered#Another attribute of the good "digger" is discrimina­

tion, based upon memory# The discriminating field man re­members the physical appearance of sites before excavation#He recognizes a temple, a market place, before it has been

(1)touched with a spade# He has the same discriminatory eye and mind for artifacts, for their association with each other and with stratigraphy. Tularosa ware is Tularosa. Analyzation will show it has some small differences in decoration and shape that set it apart. But he has not an­alyzed. His quick conviction of its type has told him correctly of the vessel's origin.

The third way in which memory serves is through imag­ination. This is both the most dangerous and the greatest servant of the archaeologist. Without it, he would be a mere grubber in the dirt. Carried away by its supreme fab- tasles, there is risk of overstepping the bounds.of science. His visual memory must serve to constantly hold up before him, as filed cards and even photographs eannet do, the significant conditions of a ruin. The importance of this element, the size of that feature, in comparison to a sim­ilar site a hundred or a thousand miles away, if properly brought to mind, may change the course of a "dig", may bring some item of apparent worthlessness into playing a leading part in the unraveling of a mystery. This memory (lj Petrie Op. clt% p. 3.

22-

guldlng imagination# or vice versa# Is the great directive force of science, in"decK archaeology or on the "dig*. The man possessed of its control perceives and forsees.

Be- It has always heen a source of vender amongthe Isyityas to just how the archaeologist "knows where to dig." This is, of course,one of the simplest problems. Solving the element of mystery as to just whether anything is to he found at this particular spot or that one, depends a good deal upon the country one is investigating, and for what one is looking., iShcn this is well formulated in the mind, a general reconnaissance can he conducted to note the surface features of the region. Ruins are seldom hard to spot; and, as the ancients were a good deal like our­selves, . their places of habitation are usually found in ad­vantageous envTlronaent as to food, water, and defense.

By far more difficult and important than this "spot-u:ting"of ruins, which becomes an "archaeological instinct",

is the question of selecting, in a given culture area, themost logical and promising site from the aspect of historic-• ' ■ ' ■ -alreconstructin or trend. Dr. A. V. Kidder, outstandingAmerican archaeologist, sounds this keynote:

"The soundest method for attacking any archeological problem is to conduct a preliminary survey of the area concerned in erden to determine the general distribution of its remains, to sense the broader aspects of historical trends, to identify the lines of evidence which will best repay close study, and finally to select for intensive excavation the key sites which 1

(1) Commander Koel F. wheeler "toeavation" Antiquity V.4. June 195© pp. 175-2. --------

23-

yield the fullest information upon the customs and career of the people who are being studied* “ (1)

This is a problem geographic, stratigraphic, and cultural.

purely on its allocation as to others of a group, being the most central. Size, too* will enter into the picture. Stratigraphic tests at different mounds may give some clueas to tdiich one would be moot suited for intensive excava-tioa. An Interesting r thod h M leen BM ,lied Hr' ” • S> Gladwin of Gila Pueblo* Globe, Arizona, in an attempt to 'trace the radiating centers and peripheries of the earlyPueblo Cultures of the Southwest* This is a potsherd sur­vey (to be described in detail later), easily accomplished(2)as it entails no excavation. From sherd tabulations the nucleus of distribution can then be approximated. These are but some of the more widely used ways of “identifying lines • of evidence." To do the job of selection well is to make the most valuable beginning in following secure scientific method.

Aside from the choice being dominated by the above mo­tives, there are other, and more practical exigencies to be dealt with. In all but a few instances, archaeological work is carried on in out of the way and, quite often, for­eign regions. Conditions are 1 2 # and a good deal of(1) A. V. Kidder "The Archaeological Problem of the Mayas", . Art and Archaeology V. 31. June 1951 p. 295.(2) H .s.and V. Gladwin "Use of Potsherds in an Archaeological

Survey of the Southwest" Medallion Mo. II 1928.

-24

care m a t *be exerted to see that all commonplace obeerraa- cea are carefully worked out for the general welfare.'Water and food supply must be fairly accessible $ living conditions cannot be unbearablef especially where a large staff Is concerned; all cautions must be taken against disease, fevers, etc.; and the weather and time of year are always dominant factors to be considered before digr ging starts.

Foreign laws concerning archaeology must be studied and observed, not only in letter but in spirit, if the expedition is going to prosper. The manner and bearing of a diplomat must go hand in hand with science Then dealing with the native officials.

labor is also dependent upon the nation in which you are engaged. Expense is prohibitive of bringing the massof workmen with the personnel of the expedition. Besides,

. ■ ' ■there are few localities where, if decent treatment is shown, the director will have any difficulty in securing employees from among the poorer classes. By doing this, he will promote a friendly and sympathetic attitude toward his work, without which full success is not possible. In em­ployment, Sir Flinders Petrie advises, "study men when hir­ing them— -weed out later undesirables— be able to get

(3)along with those you have retained." 3CT) Wheeler Op.- C i t . - 'P.' 1 7 4 . \m I b i d . p. 1 7 4 .(3 ) P e t r i e Op. c i t . p . 2 1 .

>2 5

C. The uncovering of archaeological remainsmust, of necessity, vary someuhat as often as there are dif­ferent geographical and climatic areas in rhich to dig. The soil of Britain, for instance, the Horth-European archae­ologist finds to "be vet and clayey. %hile the Egyptologist is confronted with sand, limestone rubbish, and shale, not to mention a climatic difference as marked as day and night.

' ' ' VMesopotamia presents compact earth, and in Chinese Turk- (1)estan the dryness makes soil as easily removable as dust.In spite of all this variance, work has been done in the past, and certain methods of procedure were put into prac­tice. Principles of excavation were evolved that are well near inclusive of all lands. As always, with progressing things, thoy are under hot dispute today.

Universal opinion of men who! know cribs down, as the goal, obligatory objectives of science which cannot well be denied. Bade summarises from his first preliminary report on Tell-en-Hasbeh, Palestine:

“The primary purpose should be the application of a technique that will enable us to unriddle, by aid of all scientific means and at whatsoever pains* the meaning of human materials embedded in strata.Often the humblest of these materials— -ashes, bones, potsherds, carbonized seeds, etc.— are the most revealing. Even a museum specimen* is valuable only in proportion to our knowledge of its human back­ground. Every fact turned up by the spade feeds that knowledge, and any fact overlooked by an ex­cavator, or misread through haste and incomplete study, may be an irreparable loss." (2) 1

1] Encyclopedia Britannlca “Archaeology* 2} Bade Op. cit. p. 9.

26

To deny' the truth of such noble statements would be sul* clde for any fellow archaeologist. These are. Indeed, the high and proper alms. It is in achieving these that the difference lies.

In starting the ,'digM it should go without saying that some sort of a system of orientation will be arranged. This is to enable a check to be kept on all artifacts re­moved, to help plot architectural Remains, and to keep a general tab on the work as it is carried forward. This is best done by a professional surveyor with surveyor's instru­ments , especially when the site is extensive and not compact.

With this complete, the director may feel free to start moving dirt. Here, there are a variety of opinions.In the following chapter these several well-known methods of actual digging will be dealt with in detail and concrete relationship. To mention briefly, they are* the clearance of the surface; trenching; pitting; peeling; slicing; and tunneling, not to mention the systems used in disposing of the debris excavated.

At all times care is essential. Whether the tool isa winch and tackle or a camel's hair brush, destroy no ev-

(i)idence. The greatest principle is, once again, the re­construction of past history, not the objective of finding "things". Work can be speeded up when the general: idea of the situation is finally brought to light. Besides this, 1(1) Wheeler Op. clt. p. 175.

-27-

th# workers get to know whet degree of detail and aceuraeyis needed for each specific hit of evidence to he removed

(1)from the ground*D. The province of historical reconstruction

can he divided into two fields* each dependent and hear-■ ‘ . the reconstruction of the life,ing upon the other, first*

of a past people, second* the arrangement of this life in historic development. Here* technical problems are. not the same; the interest is not exactly the same. The first undertaking is of interest to any person of non-teehnical training} the other is purely and highly professional arch-

■ (2) ' ■ .aeology. The latter phase has several means of operation. These are ways of chronology building, and stratigraphy and typology are the two most widely used.

"Stratigraphy is a branch of science which may he defin­ed as the study of the relative position and order of suc­cession of deposits containing or separating archaeological

(3)material." This definition is specifically in regardto archaeology. Stratified deposits may be classed:

"1. Archaeological- Is usually a town or settlement•of prehistoric or historic age showing evidences of continuous habitation,

2, Archaeological and Geological- Is best exemplifiedby cave deposits showing early human occupation strata interbedded with geological silt-flood or stal- * 2 3

ilj TVheeler Op. cit. p, 176. 1(2) G. C. Vaillant "Excavations at Zacatenco" A. P. of A.M.

H.H. V. 32. Part I — --- — —(3) Encyclopedia Britannica "Stratigraphy"(abbreviated)

Se­

mitic floor.3. Geological- (Purely geologic position)” (1)

Behind these classifications principles may beobserved; .

•1. Different portions of the soil have been deposited at different times.

2. The age of the deposits relative to one another can be estimated. '

3. That in many cases the approximate age of a deposit or of a given layer in a deposit may be calculated by aseertaining the amount of work done(erosion, deposition, etc.) and taking into account the probable strength of the ageneies that accomplish it.”

: ' _ . v • ■ . ■4. In an undisturbed deposit all objects must have

been put there at the time of,the deposit.” (2)The following factors, working at cross-purposes

to these principles must be taken into considerationi”1. Artifacts or burials designedly buried by man.

(can often be detected by observing disturbance in strata)

2. Worked in by moles, etc. (hard to detect espec- , ially in soft ear tot)

3. Inadvertently loosened from a higher level during excavation and found with material in bottom of trench, (this type of displacement is liable to occur when excavating a deposit that lies in definite horizontal layers by usual method of ma­king a vertical cutting through them) (the checks against this are: mould or matrix present, chem­ical coloring of object and soil can be matched.”

"To summarize, stratigraphy is based upon super-position, or position that in some way indicates a given stratum to have a chronological relationship to another given stratum. ”

(3)

(4)(abbr.J

BP. 33-5.

-29-

Pure stratigraphy can give hut relative and notactual dating of cultural remains. Linked with typology,both are po; Bible. This last can be described by sayingthat it is the science of types, of nomenclature. Types,as in pottery, are based upon color, shape, paste, design,and still other and finer shades of differentiation havebeen brought forward. There are types of stonework, of

• 'metal-oraft, of jewelry, of architecture. It is an almost endless accumulation of all that is being turned over by the spade being placed into tabulated divisions. Renee, the hypothesis is, that a type of pottery in one place is con­temporary in time with the same type of pottery at another location miles away. Or that a atone axe, associated with a type of pottery in one place, if found in another, can be assigned to the same period as the pottery of site "one*# Such is the value. Actual chronology may be realised, even actual dating to periods with An approximate reasoning. But there are difficulties even more dangerous than those confronting the stratigrapher. Pure typology cannot take into account "cultural lag* or "cultural fancy” which, in one spot, may hold back in time, a certain pottery trait. Then, too, the theory of indigenous origin of culture in many places would negative typology, alone, as a criterion of chronology. Thus we wee typology being aided by strati­graphy. Stratigraphy is actualised by typology, and typol­ogy is given relative value by the irrefutable evidence of stratigraphy.

-30

In the came v/ay that typology is reinforced by strati­graphy, there ate other methods, whereby hypothetical chron­ology is set up, also dependent upon its conclusive stren­gth, Of these, I can mention the distributtional, the geo­logical, and the eerlational. Distribution has its concepts in the theory "that of two cultures occupying the same area,that having the wider dletrlbutuion is the older." The

• •

vagaries of human nature, the fates that bolster one peq&eand crush another, point to the weak link in this argument.Distibution is indicative; but as method it could have

(1)no better substantiation than a stratigraphies! one.Geological relationships to human artifacts and bones

is little more than stratigraphy with an additional guide to less relative and more actual dating*

Seriation, as it was carried on, by Kroeber at Zuni,New Mexico, whose example has been considered the class!# one, is more complicated and highly interesting, lie used a random collection of potsherds from the surface of ruins in the Zuni area* Each sample was the terminal date of that site as it was on top, stratigraphically speaking*Then from a historically known ruin, from a ruin of reput­edly late date, and one from undoubted prehistoric times, Kroeber isolated a series of wares* Pottery from historic ruins overlapped with the late period site, and the late 1(1) Leslie Spier "K.C.Nelson's Stratigraphic Technique

in the Reconstruction of Prehistoric Sequence in Southwestern America" Methods in Social Science (Rice)

- 31-

period coincided with some of the sherds from the earlier(1)locations. All of which seems to point to a time sequence.

Yet the uaing of ruins of fairly well-known dating ah owethe dependency of deriation upon either stratigraphy or(2)annual deposition. I* Kroeher*s method there is also a d debt to the typology upon which he based his iaolatior, * it the sherds*

Two other methods of chronology building are document­ary source# and annual deposition. The former is concerned . with any written record, inscription, or word of mouth legend that may throw light upon the past*

Annual deposition's greatest forte is the Douglass Tree-Ring Cross-Dating, brought out by A.E. Douglass in 1923. Here, by comparing the relatively dry and wet years, as shown by rings of growth, cross-dating is possible.This insures the dating of the ruin from which the wood wastaken, providing it can be cross-dated with a known master

(2)sequence of ring growth* Such a method approaches infall­ibility nearer than anything of its kind* It is handicapped only by the regional use of wood as a building material, and the fact that a chronology will vary as the climate of two areas varies. It stands alone, valid, without atratigraph- ical support? yet the combination of the two should work to an even better advantage.

E. In all his actual field work, iftiatever it is,(1) A.L. Kroeber "Zuni sherds^ A.P^or A.M.K-H. V. 18."(2) A. E. Douglass and Gordon Baldwin Class Lectures

stratigraphy, typology, uncovering tons of dirt if need be, the excavator is automatically involved nith the consider­ations ofeare and carefulness. "The reliability of the historical conclusions offered by him, as the result of his work, io in the final analysis dependent upon the thorough­ness of his field technique and the completeness and prac-

(1)tioality of his system of recording and what he finds."Bade goes on to say that the future student is dependent upon the veracity of the digger's statements; hence, his is an important obligation or obligations. For he has two to think of.

He must remove and provide safety for everything hefinds. And he must shore up and strengthen all that is

(2)left in situ. To do this properly, he must "find" every­thing. Ho culture, no artifact is too unimportant to over­look. The director of an expedition who sets out to dis­cover or to prove one thing, and one alone, is a detriment, (s)to the profession and a destroyer of valuable evidence.

In this work of recording and preservation, it is problematic as to what should be dealt with and what should be omitted. Pains too delicate and too tedious are time- wasting and expensive, yet little caution is needed in this direction, however. Petrie, pioneer in the field of scien­tific recording, is of ths opinion that there are limits to * 2 3(ll Bade : Op. clt. pp. 8-9,(2) Magoffin Op. clt. p. 96.(3) Caseon Op. clt. p. 7.

- 33-

thc details with nhieh one should handle the material*It is always necessary, he ventures, to know just how much is known "before recording. This saves "backtracking that he believes useless. The question is controversial, and many in his own field will oppose this. That we cannot be sure that certain developments, discovered in a ruin, are the same as those already explored at another site is the re­buttle. To skip over any phases, on the basis that we know everything that, there is to know, has its serious dis­advantages. ; .

All in all Petrie is a good Recorder. His maxims on the subject are "exaction” and "immediacy”. •Work over the details of an important discovery for half-hour or so,recording them, before finally destroying the evidence of

(2) ’ their juxtaposition.” His ideas on "systematic" archaeol­ogy have gone a long way in establishing a corpus of facts and nomenclature facilitating record keeping. Using Egypt­ian pottery for an example, he formulates a hypothesis some­thing like this. Hare eaeh class of pottery denoted by in­itial letters, "P" for polished or "B" for black-topped. Each form, then, within this class is numbered from 1 to 99, and each sub-variety is letterd, ie. uP51a". The practical utility is found when excavating and recording. "Formerly it was necessary." he writes, "to keep dozens of broken(1) Petrie Op. cit. p. 49.(2) Ibid. pp. 49-50.

34

■pecime'ne whitii were of no value other than as chnmelglesldata. Now the exe&vmtor, under this system, may write down

(l)B73d, and the initiate will know.11 Such as system is, generally, the heat thing, to employ in the field, the only being that instead of being a means, the system becomes an end in itself. It should be said that this method is not for the appreciation of the laymen. From the neat "P24f* the archaeologist znust write his report in actual descrip­tive terms comprehendable by anyone.

Some generalities concerning the mechanics of record*-'' •—

ing have been enumerated by IToel F. Wheeler, contemporaryof Petrie. In the recording, of all that is taken fromthe tUg*, and of all that is uncovered and left in situ,such as walls etc., he advises a system b&th simple andinfallible that may be consulted on short notice, and theinformation gleaned without hours of fruitless hunting*The physical properties, filing cabinets, ledgers, must becompact, durable and always safe in transit or storage.Everything should be recorded, photographed, drawn to scale

(2)described,indexed in your specific systemization. The following should be kept from day to day* "a diary ef the work with descriptions and rough plahs of the area clearedon the date of the entry; a card index with the data of description and nature of object, date found, place, items(1) Petrie Op. cit. p. 126. —(2) Iheeler p. 174. op. cit.

“35—

©t interest, and registration number; a register of photos taken with time, place, direction, and a H photos should be scaled on the actdal picture,? To minimize danger of fire or theft, a duplicate index is the best safeguard; and the photographic plates and prints should be stored separately.

As is intimated in the foregoing, scientific work, such as this would hare to be, needs certain aids. Photo­graphy, chemical preservatives for exhumed woods and fab­rics* surveying and surveyor’s instruments, drawing, free­hand and mechanical, all these are a part of an expedition properly equipped to meet the problems of the field, A complete photographic outfit* for taking pictures and dev­eloping them, field-glasses, compasses, angle-protractors, measuring tapes, folding and sliding rules, square-traced drawing paper, squeeze paper, brushes, pencils, inks, ad­hesives, labels, tags, cards* specimen bags, transits,. andalidades are but a few of the innumerable necessities re-

(*)qxiired in the technical work of keeping track of the data.Smaller artifacts, removed from the earth’s strata,

are summarily taken care of in the best, and most expedient manner that can be devised on the field, as will be relatedin the following chapters. Walls, buildings, city and hous ing features must be cleared and restored at the same time in many instances. CTx *; v y,;-;: r " • t y-ron i c There, have been manyc arguments* 5 pro and con, on- the

benefits of restoration; but, since it is impossible to 1 2(1) Wheeler Op. cit. p. 172.(2) Magoffin Op. cit. p. 89.

- 86-

leave ancient edifices exposed and. open to the elements,• tsome constructive work must go on* Besides protection aff­orded the "buildings, "beauty, strength, and veracity should be the goals of the restorer. An unsightly job is worse than leaving the shattered walls untouched; yet an obvious­ly different colored material should »e used so the student

* (1)may differentiate between the original and the new.Strength is a part of beauty in that flimsiness or poorengineering will produce the wrong effect for the observer.

'

As to veracity, conservatism at its strictest is needed here. Nothing except the most rudimentary details, should -be added to the material found standing or in the dbris heaps. Proof must back every contention of the architect in his work. Imagination must be guided in the closest channels of pure reason. .

?. Conservatism must act in the theorising over the data of excavation as well as in the reconstruction of the walls discovered. The duty of the director is not fulfilled, in regards to the educated public, until he has put into print the results of his efforts. He must interpret, force­fully but not dogmatically, what he has found and what he believes the significance of his finds in regard to a past culture. To do this his own arguments for his beliefs should come third. The reader must first be given the com­plete-data, and secondly, an ease of reference must be

' ■■ ' . ■ .__________(1) l£agoffin Op. cit. p. 96. : "" *

-37

supplied. By conservatism, the writer should not utter . any statement without proof, in the material form, or qual­ifications. m e n he is implying ideas, he should always so state. And he is under obligation, by the very fact that he is speaking as an authority, to read and consider all other pertinent material on the subject.

Interpretation and theorizing cannot be limited to tiie desk after the season’s field task has been closed any more than recording is an armchair matter. Yet, the arch­aeologist, is at all times, more than a machine for record­ing? hie brain must understand aesthetic and utilitarian changes in artifacts| his past knowledge has to tell him the connective importance of stratigraphical progression and these artifacts. Changes in theories and hypotheses are going on every day. These changes result in the need for data becoming vastly different as time goes on. Here is a benefit of good recording. For although different as­pects of the case are constantly being brought to mind, he is provided on all sides and in all events with proper notes. Conversely, a new discovery may overturn! a theoret­ical background in a given field. Thus, although amassed data is seldom complete at any one time during the excava­tion, theorising must keep ahead of the diggers. Only this can test the validity of work already done and the wisdomof progressing along the same lines. ___________________(l)wheeler Op. cit. ' p. 178.

-38-

G. , These are the main principles and general­ities, as I see them in archaeological excavatione They are large enough to stand hy themselves in a fairly abstract light: the man, himself; the preliminary study and survey of the region; the actual excavation; the fulfillment of historical and chronological purpose; and the presentation of the evidences of hi# work before others through records and ideas. We turn now to the concrete exemplifications of these things in Chapter IV* —

-39-

CHAPTER IVMETHODS APPLIED* THE WORLD AT LARGE

A. Type and Distribution of Cultures;

3. Field Reconnaissnce:1. Determination of Sites:

C. Man Power:. 1, Labor:

2. Staffs . 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Surface Clearance:2. Trenching and Pitting:3. Peelings4. Vertical Slicing:5. Tunneling;6. Disposal of Debris:

E. Resultant Chronology:1. Documentary Record:2. Stratigraphy:3. Typology:4* Geological Forced:

F. Preservation:G. Recording:H. Summarization:

-40

A. In examining archaeological method, everygeographical area in vhich excavation is being carried on has certain physical and cultural features with which to he reckoned. In meeting such differences of conditions the scientist has evolved particular manners of procedure. A*I have pointed out in my chapter on "Principles and Gener­alities", there are certain of these elements of operation that may he classed as standard. There are others that are peculiar to,say, two or three regions. Some are possible only in a very limited range. Still others have been dev­eloped and used exclusively in one field when, from all descriptive appearances* they could be spread to foreign locations with success. Ye promote such a diffusion is an apparent necessity among field-workers today.

l y original plan of composition structure was one of several sub-heads which have since been grouped under the above more inclusive topic. They are still to be used in a subordinate fora. I chose them as sub-leads calculated to give the rdader the best Immediate mentfl. picture of geographically tabulated areas. They can be described by saying that they are the greatest common denominators of common Judgement through which geographical proximity, cultural affinity, and a likeness in the matter of arch­aeological excavation can be interpreted. The Classical Culture Area of Greece and Rome, the Hofcth European Area,

-41

the Hear Eastern Area, the Mound Builder Areas of Forth America, and the Mexican and Central American Area are provinces vhere the amount of investigation carried on in the past warrants study.

My former idea oS a detailed survey of each of these important sectors would have involved needless repetition. All have some method in common. Each has distinctive fea­tures. This chapter is aimed at developing their concur­rence and originality along the lines of procedure as out­lined in "Principles and GeneralitiesSuch a "body of fact will serve,as a comparative to the one important region not included, hut solely emphasised in the following chapter, the American Southwest. i

B. 1. ]In determining sites of ancient culture ther 'archaeologist in every vicinity tries to find out what he

can concerning legend or tradition of a prehistoric dwel­ling place. Shere it is possible, actual records are con­sulted as in Egypt or Greece. Pausanias, Second CenturyB. C. writer, has been the guide book of the Classical

(1)digger in this way. The decipherment of hieroglyphics and cuneiform inthe Hear East has sent the spade of dis­covery into many an otherwise “barren11 and "futile" spot.

Too seldom the digger can find no leads such as these, and he must depend upoa other evidences. Surface remains,where these exist as in Rome, Greece, and Egypt, are self- . • - .. • . ■ ■ ' «U ) T . Leslie Shear“How An Archaeologist Works“ Sclentif^

LqJ&erican V. 149. Dec. 1933 p. 261.

-42

evident* The fawns Colisemai pyranides* temple columns, and all that could "be seen above ground vrere further un­covered without hesitation, TOien there are no davious re­mains any mound of unnatural size attracts the trained ob-* server. Exploring likely vicinities, such as valleys and river bottoms, any such accumulation is highly indicative.This is particularly true of the even topography of a

(1)country such as Mesopotamia, In places like the United States the problem of determination is more difficult. The mounds is the eastern part of the country are the small ar­tificial type, and can often be confused with glacial druza-11ns, In such cases gravel hills and embankments in close(2)geological connection may give a lead as to the true origin.

Closer inspection of any accumulation of earth of an archaeological character should show more conclusive evi­dence. Potsherds, token and shaped stone, crumbling brinks, any evidences of the hand of man are revelant. The ab^ sence or presence of vegetation as it differs from the sur­rounding terrain, something general in shape and appear-

(3)ance, all these can be noted, Petrie tells of an inter­esting method or by-method used in determining ancient ev­idences where modern civilization has completely covered all the old surfaces. At Bokgna, snow and frost melting * 5(1) Dorothg Mackay "Di|ging Up Dead Cities" Asia V, 30,(2) II.^ Wilder PHan^Prehistoric Past p. 98.(5) Petrie Op. cit. p. 13.

-43

in the .square of S* Domenico show where lar^e ably ashess are beneath the cobblestones. In seeing dif­ferences as these, the observer ia at an advantage if sit­uated on a favorable lookout. The favorable of all is the air. Aerial photography was introduced into archae­ological reconnaissance from the examination of some old , World War pictures taken over Iraq. In England, 0; G. S. Crawford, who pioneered the, field, and has written a®fg*auhv Alr-Btotogranhy for Archaeology, gives some hints on how to detect evidences of ancient occupation on thedowns of southern England*

"l. 'Shadow sites •• grass covered earthworks thatare set in relief by the ob­lique sunlight.

2. Bare soils- chalk banks destroyed by ploughingare detected by color.

3. Crop sites- crops and vegetation over certainearthworks are a different color from the air." (2)

Hear Eastern field workers have found a similar value in the "shadow site" detection from the air. The oblique light of the fore and afternoon can be strikingly utilisedby the photographer in the plane. Likewise, the revealing(3)hours after a rain stand out in clearer relief to one above.

Petrie ia hiePetrie Op. elt. H. Cecil Curwen p. 123.

Maekay ■ "the Air

pp. 12-13.Book' Review

V* 31. April 1931 pp. 485-9

Antiquity V. 4. Mar. 1930.Scout” Asia

-44-

mentionst (“but goes no further than this) that such aslight thing as the tone of the ground as one walks over it

(1)can he indicative. "Sounding" as a bona fide method, wefind out, has been used on the chalk downs of England forseveral years. According to Dr. Cecil Curwen, HeSLithicand Bronse Age csapsites were surrounded by trenches andramparts that have since been filled in for agriculturaland industrial purposes. To ascertain which is later "fill"and idiich is undisturbed chalk an instrument known as the•boser" is used. "The tool is a narrow cylindrical tinfilled with eight pounds cf lead, and a short piece ofiron piping imbedded into the lead to serve as a socket

(2)for an ash handle." With a flick of the wrist it is drop­ped on the surface to be tested. A resultant "thud" indic­ates undisturbed beds; a "thoozap" is the sound given off idien the "boser" strikes disturbed areas. By this means trenches can be outlined with stakes for mapping or fu­ture excavation. Invaluable to workers in a chalk country,the "boser" may prove an aid elsewhere; although on soft

(3).earth it would be quite useless#2. Before specific napping and survey of sites-

or site is undertaken, a general knowledge of the spread and extent of the entire culture to be dealt with, as well as kindred cultures, should be garnered. Relationships * 2 3(lj Petrie Op. cit. p. -1$. • : :(2) Curwen "neolithic Camps" Antiouitv V# 4# Mar. 1930 . P. 50.(3) Ibid. pp. 30-1.

45

as to distance, direction, topography, and climate of dif­ferent sites proves important in the following of prehis­toric evidences• In no region has such a complete reconn­aissance been made before the first excavation. However, as science catches up with romance in archaeology, surveys of this type are being increased in area and vigilance.In the United States, the Committee on State Archaeological Surveys is endeavoring to report all mounds in the Eastern Mound Builder Culture. Maps and plat books are used, and a system of symbols for drawing in existent mounds, mounds whose former existence is definitely known, and mounds whose former approximate location is doubtful. Beyond this, the same movement is making an attempt to examine, describe,and learn the history of many private collections belonging

(1)to the layity of those communities. Such an integration cannot but help form a standard of inquiry in the region.

Jhren where nothing as exact and conscientious has been done, necessity and archaeological usage have prompted areal divisions within a larger culture. The Mayan area is an example of this. Individual sites were first visited, admired, and dug for their own attractions. Comparisons followed. Generalisations were the natural development of reflective comparison. More thorough searches were in­stigated to verify and add new material to theories. As a result we have the .classifications of "Old" and ulTewa

Archaeologists".•Guide Leaflet for Amateur-

noe 93* p p * 5-8*

46“

Empires 'based on territorial survey.3e Site survey and plotting, preliminary to

digging, has "been carried on with more accuracy and pains in the'Hear.East and American Mound Areas than in any of the other regions herein diseussed* Working as they do, with an--intrieately integrated system of mapping, and the clearing of debris to the-specified inch and no more, their recording systems depend directly, as will readily "be seen, upon their survey plans* In the Hear East credit for the well-executed planning of a "dig" goes, most expressly, to Messers Bade, Fisher, Petrie, Von Dor Osten, and Schmidt. \

Contour work is the first objective of the surveyors on the large Mesopotamian: or Hittite mounds. 'Wen this is done and the first grid square has been plotted and stak­ed, actual digging can commence. The better procedure isto let the surveyors' finish griding;the entire job, but

. (i)time often precludes this. The grid work will vary accord­ing to the else of the mound. Bade, at Tell-en-llaabtii*Palestine, first plotted 50 meter squares and later divid-

(2)ed these into 10 meters. Fisher at Hegiddo, the BlbllealArmageddon, used 25 meter units for orientation. All ofthis basic work should be tied in, if posslMs, with the .

(3lnearest offici&l triangulation mark..1) F. H. Blackburn 21 Bade Op. cil. [3J G.S* Fisher

nference"" February tddti.PP"the Excssition

Institute Cotnaunication 4.of Armageddon" OrientalP*. 28e,- • - / • ■■ ■

The iiaportance and necessity of the grid system are the facility with which the director can keep track of every article removed, having a record of its exact find- spot in relation to the stakes of a grid square. Besides, work can he carried on over the whole tell, and, yet, min­ute care can be given every unit area. Each unit can then he added to the files, or drawn on the map, making a ccm- posite hut complete picture. Thus on the grid, each squareis usually designated by the letter-numeral symbol on its

■ : ■ ■ ■ ( 1 ) . ' • , ^ ■■ ■ .northeast peg. The fourth square north of the zero line.If the system is that of the simple numerical-alphabetic cross, would be 4; and if this was the third, say, from the East-West base line its symbol would be square 4G(see fig.l) Anything discovered In this unit would, in some way, have the 4C tagged to it.

In ITorth American Mound excavation the grid system is employed by several prominent men in the field. Among them Dr. Cole of the University of Chicago has worked out a well-organised grid system. It is much smaller in scope as the Hound work is miniature in comparison to the vast Eastern "digs", lie sets two base zero lines. One cut­ting the mound in the approximate center, the other run­ning well outside the mound proper. Five foot squares are then located with reference to these lines, such as SR1#

meaning five feet above the horizontal zero line and the * 2H) B a d e O p , cit. p. 16,(2) Provinse Conference October 1S35

- 47-

- 48-

first square to the right of the vertical zero, (see fig.2}■ ■ ' (ilThe designation of the square is also the northeast peg.Another system of designation of grid squares is advocated

(2) 'hy the National Research Council. (see fig. 3.) Cole's system has its advantages in that the “left" and "right"terms, as they are expressed in the symbol, have an imaed-

■ . ■ ■ ' . ■ .late defining quality in direction* I do not believe, how,ever, that the tab 5R1 has the connotative clearness and rudimentary simplicity of the numerical-alphabetic A1 etc.

In mapping as the work progresses. Bade, in his sys­tem, arranged, nine of his smaller 10 meter squares on a . tstandard plane table sheet. These formed the groundwork

, . ■ , -unite for hie entire topographic map on which finds and(3).

architectural remains were plotted* Petrie stakes a de­tailed plan of each square on a single page of notebook paper. At the back of the notebook, in a pocket, a largemap of the tell or mound is kept, on which may be added, ;

(4)from time to time, the final data. This is in keeping with one of Petrie fs maxims of the field whereby his map­ping is kept promptly current from day to day* Only by this is the director able to speculate as to the next1 day's digging, and judge the value of yesterday's work in

(5) *relation to the whole.Provinee Conference National Research Council Op. cit Bade Op. cit. p. 16.Petrie Op. cit. p. 55*Ibid* "The People of Palestine11

P«

Art and Arch.Y. 34. p.74,

-49-

Ce 1. I^ibor# an exigent necessity, on an excavation is seldom mentioned in literature other than that eonewro- ing the Hear East, Here, it is an enormus factor. The man power on an Egyptian "dig* will exceed that of any other region unless it is Mesopotamia. As many as setren and eight hundred men have been used at one time in the clearing of . a tell or tomb area,'

There is some difference of opinion in the management of the workmen, Petrie advocates a system of equality • where no one native is raised above his fellows as a boss#p foreman. Such treatment not only spoils the individual,

. ■ (i)he says, but creates jealousy among the others. Bade andFisher disagree, placing reises, trained Egyptian foremen,over large gangs; and these gangs, in turn, are subdivided

(2)into smaller units with a Chief workman in charge. This" - • ' )latter method is the most prevalent at the present tine,

and, apparently, the best, Egyptian reises, trained for years in archaeological work, are suporlot, in most res- pects, to the scholarly but fresh white man. Even Petrie admits this. They eliminate frictionbetween the staff and the men, and they are better situated to understand native ways, both among their own countrymen and the Arabs, than the American or European. Wherever the intelligence and integrity of the native population, that is employed by the(1) Petrie Op. clt. pp. 24-5. ' ' : ~~(2) Fisher Op. cit. p. 19.

-50-

erehaeologist, is higji enough their judgement and depend- ■ ability can he utilized favorably. .

Another debatable issue of the labor problem is that

it is more conducive to .dishonesthandling of finds. ; Boto Bade and Fisher endorse a well-organized gang-system..Each gang is composed of a pickoan or two, basket-fillers, and carriers.' The piokmen loosen the earth and break up

search of i'antikas" or sherds, and then fill the baskets| and the carriers take the baskets to rail-cars or the dump.: Each of these gangs is headed by a sub-foreman who is res­ponsible for the progress of his men. Usually he is a hoe- handler (filler) * and the fact that his name is recorded on every find-tag of his unit, so that he may be questioned further concerning articles fouhd, vouches for a degree of intelligence. At the end of the day the field recorder measures up the amount of work done, by gangs and indivld- u ualsj an& at the end of the week or month they ard paid ac- cordinely.^’

2, In the past not much attention has beengiven to the organization of the staff. Here, again, Badeand Fisher have made the best developments* Bade in his(l)Bade Op. cit. ftnts, pp. 7-8.(2} Ibidi pp. 19-20.

of “day” or “piece” pay. Only Petrie favors the former* Bade dismisses hiring labor for piece work

the surface! the fillers pulverise all chunks of earth in

-51

Manual of Excavation, devotee a chapter on the personnel and .duties of a modern staff, in the Hear East, It is elaborate*hut certain principles may be applied anywhere in the world.Hie words* "the smooth progress of interlocking functionsrequires a staff trained in advance and instructed in thecooperative and practical aspects of activities", ilium# :tratWhle idea. The main cogs in the machine at Tell-en-- Hash eh were as follows; the Director; the Directress, whomanaged staff headquarters and also did archaeologicalwork! the Chief Recorder, who had under his directiondraughtsmen* sherd washers, scribes, and minor assistants;the Field Recorder, who numbered structures, tagged basketsef "antikas* and sherds, and was on the mound at all times;and several subsidiary members including photographers* eur-

(1) ' ' -veyors, and consulting engineers and architects,D, 1, The actual excavation Includes several tech­

niques idiich I will describe in this section. Some of them are closely related to the chronological study of the cul­ture under consideration. Stratigraphy, in particular, overlaps into almost every system of uncovering archaeolog­ical evidence. Because of its singular importance, it will be discussed under a separate head in so far as it must be mentioned in connection with other items,

A preliminary and yet a partial excavation is the first duty, that of clearing the site. In some places, such as (ij Bade dp. cit. pp. 19-20.

- 52-

the Mound Areas of America, this requires little more than removing words, grasses, and an occasional tree from the mound. Clearing, as a careful operation,is best exemplified In the Mayan country. T e m p l e and Palace sites, covered with rank growth of the Jungle, often require a greater expenditure for clearing than for the labor of excavating and cleaning off. Trees must be felled, and the work has So he don® cautiously so as not to smash part of the ruins. In uprooting the many vine# there is always danger of pull­ing apart the crumbling masonry. Hot only is the first clearing necessary, hut the task is semi-yearly owing to rapid regrowth, -As yet no chemical has "been used that will permanently stunt the life of the verdant undergrowth. Burning, when it will not endanger the buildings themselves*is the most common practice of destroying the flora after

(1) ,it has been cut or uprooted and allowed to dry,2, Trenching and pitting are the two oldest

methods of procedure in excavation. They are the easiest and most inexpensive ways of exploring the secrets of a a mound. Of late, they have fallen somewhat into disre­pute; hut they cannot he overlooked as significant,

Schllemann, #io was the first large scale excavator in the Classical Area, if not the world, and who has since been frowned upon for some of hie precipitate measures in digging, employed these means at Troy, Tiryna, and Mycenae, (l)(l) Cummings Class Lecture 1956

-53-

The famoua *Moa Gate" at liycenae xras discovered by an orientation trench making a reality out of a semi-mythical description. ' ' - '

Hr. 5*.H, Blackburng formerly of the Oriental Institute in Anatolia» stated that treneliihg and pitti^; w r e prac­tically null and void as far as scientific archaeology was concerned in the Hear East. Yet he partially refuted this statmaemt by pointing out that ^its were sunk for orienta- purposes in several Instances. fhe determination of strue- ture is easily and quickly jgaced by trenches and pits, and these methods are used with success todayi Boring with aa prospector’s drill at intervals, in checkerboard fashion,

(3)earn be used to locate walls and floor levels. This is no more than pitting for orientation.

Dr; Byron Cummings successfully used a test pit at Cuicuilco when limited labor and time prohibited more ex­tensive work. Digging downmrd on the side of a slopii^E knoll, surrounSed by l&va flows, the wall of a conical pyramid was struck at fifteen feet below surface. Fromsuch a base further work was carried out on a more elab-

(4)©rate clearance plan. : - :likewise for exploratory measures, pits and trenches

servfi the purpose* Support*e examination of the embutldoor fill of tho platforms of the Caracol wds mrried out tor[11 Helmrleh Schl iemanm ’2) F. IT. Ealekburn Co: 3) Ga D

MycenaeSZlZlf, an.P. 9,

nee°Mi^|r!= 8Si“ tali8t"

54-

trenchee. Complete removal of all heavy rock debris in this instance would have told no more of importance. Trenching, in this ease, was exceedingly difficult owing to the danger of loose rock falling into the narrow trench after a depth of two or more meters had been reached. This was avoided by making a tougg wickerwork frame of natural vines to be placed along the sides of the trench.

Locating burials and tombs, usually outside of the ancient city compounds, in both Hediterranemand Hear East­ern Regions, le negotiated by exploratory trenches running in all directions from the citadel or city*. Carl Blegen, at Troy, successfully explored the territory surrounding the Hound of Hlssarllk by trenching down to bedrock and ex­tending his investigations as spokes from the hub of the tell/

: In France, Stone Age houses and hearths are often ex­plored by a series of parallel trenches before being com­pletely uncovered.from tep down. These cross-sections (see fig. 4.) should be sheared down with a large knife or mason *m trowel. The picture reconstructed from a par­tial excavation such as this may not be absolutely valid,but it should serve as an excellent exploratory guide for

: ■ .future work. In exactly the same manner, cross-trenches were used in determining the makeup of a Porte.Hiearn "ball(1) Karl Ruppert "The Caracol" Carnegie Institution Pub.

454. 1935 pp. 36-7, ---( 2) v . t 1938" a ™ -

Fi u e. 5. R.DC.K. SkeVxelu out L&..asseLx fKk*4c.&_-A fle k li*c1c.Ufeoik ^fxVtxUKlca-

________________f i _ .

tXc4.U4.tioM OF MooSejiXft. Bl ^ClLies »F TX.CKc.ke< _MTe.IL. H. ti. VliUcK

-55

(l)(2)court" before its true identity was known.Although as a sole method, pitting and trenching are

on the wane in the Mississippi Valley as elsewhere, they are used in an auxilliary fashion to explore the doubtfuldepths beneath the old floor level of a burial mound where,

i ' 'quite often, fire pits or burials will be turned up. Their existence, a matter of chance, does not warrant a continu­ation of minute peeling or slicing.

It is in stratigraphy that trenches and pits are mosthasradously used. To take out material from a single pitor trench, and base a stratigraphical report upon this, is scientifically weak and misleading. A correlation of manypits or trenches is a fairly safe estimate, especially ifthey fit with no hesitation. Xhis was done at the famous

(4) (5)Peruvian site of Tiahuanaco, at Attica by G.E. ISylonas,and a hundred other places. There are.still risks even withthese checks. For instance in a cave, such as this# ofNorth Europe,.the irregularity of the floor may render it improbable that super-imposed strata will be horizontal or evenly distributed. The fact that a later culture may entail a greater population that completely surrounds an earlier debris mound is always to be taken into considera-(1) Wilder Op. cit. pp. 58 and 60.(2) H.K. Haeberlin "Some Archaeological Work inPorto Rice"

American Anthropologist Y.19. April-June pp. 215-17.(3) Provinee Confemnce(4) W.C. Rennet "Excavations at Tiahuanaco" Anthroo. Pacersof A.M.N.H.V.34. p. 369. -----! ) "Ezi ! K tlr 2!S.Ha*hio Ko”mos“ ^ ■Jour’ °f

56

tlom. Winds, rodents, floods, often add to the confusion of the strata. Under such conditions(see fig. 5.) a trench run in from the mouth of the cave would be utterly‘ (ideceptive in the attempt to understand horizontal planes.A test pit, sunk at any part of the heap, woyld be worse.Only a complete transverse trench, from-front to back,and a slicing down of a vertical face, or peeling from thetop, will give an accurate picture here.

3. Peeling down, layer by layer, from the top of a mound is the newest, and in most cases, the bestmeans of excavation* Bear Eastern archaeologists applied it first in partial areas of their "digs". Pure tniom peel", as it is called, was first employed by Fisher at Megiido* Here, the old German trench exploration of pre­war days was definitely discontinued? and the new plan called for a series of quadrangle clearances which would strip off the entire top stratum over considerable area.Ideally, to remove the entire top layer over the t e n would have been the thing; but time and money prac- . . ' • • ( 2) ticalities barred this.

From this method, walls, exact stratigraphy, decayed objects, leaving only a cavity such as a post, are bestseen and obtained, the trench and pit, although, as I havepointed cut, highly fallible in showing true etratigraphieal sequence, may act as a guide in peeling, Erich Schmidt andi| Encyclopedia

cit. "Stratignphy*xrxi.

-57

H.H. Von Her Oaten worked out a combination method of this type at the Anatolian site, Alisher* in 1S27. Excava­tion was carried out hy plots of varying dimensions, accord­ing to the topography of the mound. They were exowated cohesently, forming what became a great trench cross-cut through the hill. Such is hardly' simple trenching, and yet, it is not pure "peel" because a vertical knowledge is gained at the same time. This method, of great cross-cuts worked carefully down from the top, seems to; me to present the best developed today in large scale excavation.

This is supported by the evidence of Garstang, who,at the, ancient Phill!stine city of Askalon, devised a

(2)combination peeling, great trench system. Bade, whosework is most recent, proceeded at Hasheh by taking out a

(3)strip of 10 meter blocks at a time,which is, virtually, utilizing some values of the trench. Bade is outspoken against trenching, but I am inclined to think his antipathy is directed toward the old hit-and-miss destructive type of digging. Theoretically', he states that Nasbeh was taken down to the last level by a true "onion-peel" plan. And so it was for the most part if viewed on a large scale. Yet the 10 meter strips, when peeled down to .undisturbed ground, presented a vertical face to help guide the digger on the(1) H.H. Von Der Oaten and Erich Schmidt ^Vhe Alishar nuyuJc" "

Part I Oriental Institute Pub. 6. pp. 64-5.(2) J.Garstang "Excavations at Askalon" Ann. Pent, of Smithsn-

% Inst. 1922 p. 514.(3) Bade Op. ©it. p. 50.

—58—

next strip. ' .4. In several articles on Near Eastern archae-

’ ■ ■ ■ • 1 ■ wology, I have noticed the terms "peeling" and slicing*used interchangeably to mean vdiat I have "been discussing atiove as "onion peel". Bound archaeologists of the Eastern United States consider the; term "slice” to mean a vertic­al approach to the tumulus, cutting it off as a loaf of bread, hat is the implication of the term as used here.

Slicing, although used "by Pdtrie on “simple sites", those of a single cultural era or layer, is not widely • vouched for in the Near Bast, principally on account of the complexity of the cultural layers. in the American Mississippi Valley, conditions are particularly favorableito this method. The mounds are small, the earth is soft, and there is seldom more than one culture represented.After gridding the mound, the excavation begin* out in un­disturbed ground, or what is apparently undisturbed. This is to make sure the extent of the culture has been limited. A low vertical face is dug about a foot deep. The trench should be about five feet wide to afford sufficient dig­ging room. Each man, also, covers about a five foot width in front of him. This preliminary cut is extended clear across the end of the mound, going beyond on each side. Then, progressing forward, the one foot face is vertically sliced off, deepening as the rise oS the mound is reached.(1) Petrie dp. cit. p. 43. : — —(2) Provinse Conference

-59

The means of removing the dirt is a shaving off with a mat-'took rather than roughly breaking the soil with a spade or

'' (1)pick. ...v. ;-.,. ' :• v - . ■- ■ ,5. Tunneling, as a method of excavation in it­

self , would be both destructive and out of the question; but there are specific instances when it has proven useful. In the Valley of Kexico tunnels have been put to consider- able use in dealing with the archaic cultures found beneath the lavas of the Pedregal, Cutting. or blasting through this hard rock would have been almost impossible if1 not damaging to the deposits below, Bence, the soft debrisunderneath has been tapped, as at San Angel, with trenches

(2)from 1 to 4 meters in height.The Temple of the Warriors at Chichen Itza was dis­

covered to contain a fossil" or eefller temple within theouter one. Tunneling through this rubble core quitea feat, but Earl Morris accomplished it with wood, steel,

(3)and concrete bracings,

Bie same condition was presented at Cuicuilco, near Mexico City, Here, two pyramids are within the outer cone. Tunneling was abandoned because of dangerdus falling rock.but sc be continued provided equipment and moneyare arranged for such a difficult engineering project.

Horizons In the Valley ot............... V.17.

61 j e > . “ »Ibid;

60

6, Highly important is the removal oi aeons from an excavation. This is also highly debatable. Fisherin his monumental work at Megiddo set out to completely clear the debris from a, ruin. To do this basket carriersemptied their load into railcars which were then trunoxea to the edge of the hill. The dirt was emptied into a wooden chute which in turn diverted it into another railcar waiting at the bottom of the chute. This car transported the' earth to the final place of deposition. Such a pro­gram is both intricate and admirable in many respects. Rail- cars are not always needed, and anything up to 100 yards# if the gradient is not too steep# is negotiated by theriers. The director must u^jhls ingenuity in figuring out his line of transportation.

Removal is slow and expensive. And at ITasbeh, wherethe outlay was not so great as Megidde, Bade proceeded byhaving the diggers throw the debris of one 10 meter stripback inie the previously excavated one behind them. Full

(3)recording and photographing had first been made. Petrie'sfavorite method was what he called "turning over", a system

. .' (4)similar to the American Hound excavation in that when thework was finished the entire tell had simply been movedabout five feet to five meters. That is the pickmen cutstraight across, keeping a vertical face before them, a trench wide enough to continue operations beheath them, andIII11 mji® i-p*:_5p Province Conference

61-

' ' - - • • |*Jthrew the debris behind them* As was mentioned, such & principle would he destructive and misleading in a site of complex and overlapping cultural layers*

Obviously# complete clearance is the most favorable from the standpoint of looks* of accessibility for fu­ture students* and for general thoroughness. Yet it comes in fer condemnation. Herdman F. Cleland, in an article# "The Crime of Archaeology"# questions the wisdom of clear­ing ancient ruins and leaving them exposed to the elements. After a study of the erosive forces at work on Classical monuments that have been laid bare by archaeology, he suggests that unless science can guarantee a reconstruction or preservation of these for 1000 years they would be better if recovered. Otherwise future students will have only what notes we take today when time has erased all■ ■ (a) . .evidences of walls and pillars.

1. 1. Excavation and preparation for excavation#if ending in the goal intended# bring forth chronologicaldata. The 2tear Eastern* Classical# and Mexican archaeolo­gists base their best conclusions on the written records produced. In all these places# especially the first two areas# come knowledge of the ancient writing is known.Other areas without such historical substantiation mist de­pend upon other means.

2. Stratigraphy, as described in Chapter III# * 2jl [Petrie Qp. cii“ p. 43. ~ —(2) Herdman F. Cleland. “The Crime of Archaeology“

Scientific Monthly V. 35 1932 p. 169.

-62-

1b the m a t Important chronological determinant over the world at large. Back in the “seventies V Schliemann firstnibbled at the edges of archaeological stratigraphy, making

- V. , .. ' ■ ...■ ‘ " ... ■ .attempts to compare primitive Tirynthian pottery with that

: . :: ■: .. (l)from the early levels of Troy. In 1932, Carl W. Blegen, also excavating on the site of Troy, made a meticulous ex­amination of an isolated stratigraphic column, sifting ev-

- ' / . '....- - ■■ - ' -...' , 'ery particle of earth. -The peeling off of an isolatedcolumn of debris, if typically located, is the best method,. - ' - ' ... (2) ; :of stratigraphy, without doubt.

If strata is clearly arranged in horizontal bandsthere is little trouble in ihtepretation. Trenching orpitting can verify it* Content is the best check on strata.7.01 en no natural lines of demarcation are determinable, sift-for content is the only check. ^When strata can be seen, asit very often can in the Mississippi Hound districts, it

.. ; • ' ' -• ' . Vla often recorded by drawing the shaved vertical face of

(3) .the emmvatlon. (see fig. 6.) Generally, it is much more complicated than a layer cake.

To begin with, there are two types of human stratigraphy. The first is the slow accumulation of debris ground underfoot for years and centuries. The second is the catastrophic

:. . • ■. ■ *debris resulting from earthquakes and wars. Catastrophic deposits usually show, more precipitate methods in dealing 1 2 3(1) Schliemazm Op. cit. p.18.(2) Blegen Op. oit. pp. 432-3.(3) J.G. McAllister nArchaeology of Porter County*Indiana Historical Bul. V. 10. no. 1. pp. 18-21.

F L S c M t 5 of M e K T lC ll F^ces FRoM v^R& m N\BUMb'.

vmiran

itWtvj cVfcA _NH<lK t c-Nlute.Kaitb* BuKMe.ti CLekS

UNDisV*fle* VWUme. ------- 0\ST\Rc.t Liuts <v *i n (k. «xi»l

1_Ulfr.

*63—

with structures, and the occupational layer of that periodwill he from two to four feet thicker than a gradual ac-

(1) ’cusmlation layer. Buildings have been razed, wholly and partially, with new ones erected on top of them and besidethem. ' '' ' ' ■ : . •

; ' . ’ •In unraveling the chronology, the perplexing dilemmas

of the stratigrapher are caused mainly by such overlapping. For instance, one part of a mound will be occupied by peo­ple of periods A, B, and C in consecutive overlying order# Period D people also build on the accumulated layers, but they spread to another part of the site and build homes in horizontal relationship to period A. Period E tribes erect house sites only on the new location, superimposed over 2) and horizontally equivalentt to B. Hence test pits at eith­er end of the mound would not give true stcvbigraphy of the min.

Another baffler that Bade points out has to deal withuneven erosion. Beneath an cient wall, Arabian and Byzan-layers remained, eighteen inches above the adjacent areasthat had been denuded of these levels by tillage ahd weath-

(2) \ering. Such a phenomenon, although single when under­stood, could easily be misinterpreted or altogether mis­sed.

- / ‘ \In proper determination of strata, the principles ofstratigraphy must be carried out with care during the en- * 2(irBade". Sp.- cit..; • ppi 60-1*(2) Ibid. p. 63.

64-

tire excavation. Every spadeful of earth that is turned should have some stratigraphioal check. But to correct or verify results gained from the whole, a specific test is a valushle necessity. Such a test is the isolated column I have previously mentioned* Von Der Osten conducted one under ideal conditions at AllChar. A core, 6 x 6 meters, : was marked off on a spot presumably representative of all strata, (nils is adjudged as nearly as possible by the regular ecavation. As has been said, a %ingle pit, or core, for that matter, is too risky.); A trench one meter wide encircled the core to prevent objects from falling on lowerdeposits. The core was then cut into arbitrary layers of .17 meters thick, which was, incidentally, the length ofthe trowel blade with which such careful work is executed.* ' ' - - - .

Eight men slowly cut this down. As a matter of added cau­tion, the contehts of an entire stratum were not thrown together, but the core was subdivided into halves and quar­ters in order to obtain several parallel series of objects. This is a double safety measure as an entire stratum willthis way not be loot if obstacles, such as architectural

(1)remnants, should appear in the selected core. Articles, by this method, are carefully sifted from each subdivision of stratum, labeled, and put in separate containers.

Even meticulous peeling, backed by scientifically con­ducted test columns, (1J Von Der Osten and

such as the one just described, willir rr\dv Op. cit. p ! 2 1 5 .

-65

not prove the touchstone in the: matter of stratigraphy* Theoretically valid, many systems are empirically unsound. m excellent case in point is one furnished "by G. C. Vaii- lant, most xridely experienced archaeological stratigrapher in Mexico. and Central America. Working at Zacatenco, Mex­ico, in a huge rubbish mound, cut by a modern roadway, con- lex difficulties were confronted. The rain washing from the top down over the embankment had produced a case of partial­ly inverted stratigraphy at the foot of the bank. Besides

■ ' " ' - ' - ' «

this, the main body of the debris was cut by miniature arroyos? and these had filled with fresher deposits.Such.conditions necessitated moving"into deposits on a ser­ies of floors to keep some control of the relative podition of the'artifacts, Working against a cliff face, absolute depth meant nothing. Variability of strata made peeling , impossible over the whole surface. The material occured in lenses rather than stratified deposits. In trenching in, the front and two sides of the trench were kept exposed inan eSfort to determine what strata possible. After the excavation was nearly completed certain conclusions con­cerning the relations between objects found on a particular

. • . . - . .■. -: ■ '(2) ■.,floor level and the lease in which they were found. In circumstances such as these no rule of thumb would do. * 1 2

S, Every archaeological area has its typological(1) G.C. Vaillant •Excavations at Zacatenco" An throw.(2) Ibid^8 V‘ 32. l>agtI 1930 pp. 20-1.

66-

data and was developing sueh long before stratigraphyit of* Its greatest use in the present day is to as an auxilliary cheek or in substitution for. some • more dependable method* Cultural lag and changes

in style, as they have been proven, weakens any typological hypothesis. Pottery, as used in Egypt and Greece, figurines in liiexicb, architecture in the Mayan regions, all these things h a w a distinctive chronological connotation when seen by an archaeologist who is schooled in their history,

4* Aside from stratigraphy and typology, geol­ogy dating is about the only other kind extensively employ-ed in the the many areas under discussion in this Chapter,

- / . ■ ■■ ■ : ■ ■ : ; : ■ . ■ ■■■■ • •■ .. -V - ...For the most part, geological history is little concernedwith that last page of its book, the story of man. But , ■ . ' - . the following ard four ways in vdiich human chronology may

■ ■' ' . ... . .be aided by earth froaing elements:•1, Age of culture as 'indicated by driver drifts” and :, ■ "river terraces*,2, Through age of open “loess1’ stations which are

found both on “older terraces* and on plateaus between river valleys,

3, Through age of shelters and caverns in which skel­etal material and cultural remains occur.

4, Through age of “loam* deposits which have drifted down on the “terraces” from surrounding meadow® and hills.* (l)

There is always a problem in this last instance of the disr tinction of age in formations, the loam w h i & washes downover the original sand and gravel of the “terraces* being(1J Osborn Op. cit. pp. 23-4. ' ' ' ' ' -

67-

of a much later date. Especially In the valleys of France' • (1) : : ■ ■ -1# this, true.

There is always controversy among geologists, as well as archaeologists, as to the dating of strata. Sone form­ations cannot be standardised according to fossil existence. The Pedregal lava flow surrounding Cuicuilco in Mexico hasnever been dated to universal geological satisfaction.Bates vary as much as six thousand years over an eight

(a)thousand year maximum.

Many interesting methods have been developed in geolog­ical-archaeological dating. One of special note was the counting of stalagaitic rings in Jacob*s Cavern, Missouri. There is every reason to believe that these are annual; and in as much as they were contaminated with ash, bones# char­coal, and flint chips a contemporaneity between their de­position and early man was established. Geologists belie*#

’ : ' : ' : : . ' ■ " . ' ■ Mthat they were built up around 16,000 years ago.Leslie Spier, working at Trento*, Hew Jersey, correl­

ated artifacts with pebbles in that they were all oriented on the same axis in a deposit. This would indicate that they were not laid down in beds by man, but had been redepos­ited by natural water forces. Nothing definite was provenat Trenton in regard to chronology, but such as system has

(4)possibilities. . . ■ , ______(1)(!)

Osborn Op. cit. V^Alflson— ie Antiquity of Deposits in Jacob's Cavern* Anthrop. Papers of A.H.1T.H. Part VI 1926 V. 19. p. 308. LeiJie^jJer ^Trj^on-Argillite Culture" Am. Anthrop. V.

68-

1b England, Dr, Cecil Curwen, an aathorlty on Neo­lithic and Bronze Age cas^poltee, conducted a series of ex­aminations concerning the weathering and silting of tren­ches* These early campsites were usually enclosed in trenches mid embankments dug into the chalk formations.In an attempt to see just hew fast and in what way erosion took place. Dr. Curwen observed some modern trenches dug during wartime for the training of soldiers. During the fourteen years of their desertion, Curwen noted that the greatest greatest disintegration of walls takes place Im­mediately. The chalk falls away in large chunks due to early leathering of frost action; next the fall is more gradual and, consequently, finer, resulting in fine chalk rubble | thus the slope becomes less and less steep untilthe angle is such that grass can grow, and weathering

(1)ceases. Obviously, the dating of anything prehistoriccould not be accomplished from such an ero-

; sion study, butthese facts are significant, and the more we learn about the rapidity of weathering the better equipped we are for dealing with problems of erosion.

F. „ Preservation in archaeology may well be div­ided into two classes, artifactual and architectural. Of the first order, I have little to say here. Indeed, so much has been written on it in detail that it would require a work of separate cover to go into the museum repair andID E.Cecil Curwen "Silting of Ditches in Chalk" ““

Antiquity V. 4. March 1930 pp. 98-9.

69

curatorahip of antiques* Petrie * s Hethodo and Aims In Archaeoloprv in a large part, is given over to the discus­sion of the preparation of archaeological specimen* such as hones, jewelry, pottery, etc* for shipment. Heedless to say, care and discretion are always the watchwords*

But with architectural preservation, the field archae­ologist is directly concerned. In Egypt, Palestine, Persia, Meeopdamla, Greece, Home, and Yucatan, all places where the buildings of the past were of such proportion and magnifi­cence that they deserve immortality, some rather remarkable work of restoration has gone on. Of all these, I believe that the Mayan work of the Carnegie Institute, carried on recently at the Temple of the Warriors and the Caracol, both in Chicken Itaa, is the best example of preservation and reconstruction carried on under tremendous difficulties.

Both edifices were in a crumbling state of decay and almost inextricably intertwined with jungle growth. Excav­ation was mostly clearing. As fast as stones were taken down or discovered among the debris, they were numbered in accerdanc with a plan to facilitate their replacement in the rebuilding. Always the exact stone was returned to its original position when possible. VJhen not possible, nothing ef an unknown or extraneous nature was incorporated with the building unless in the case of a plain wall or floor. The work was exceedingly heavy, and hand-made blocks and tackles and scaffolds were erected cm the spot. In much of the re­

-70-

pair p modern concrete arid steel were brought into play; and it ie. with wonder that one contemplates the primitive engin- erring skill of the Kayans, In supporting the overhanging, five-member molding eh the Caracol, Ruppert, fearing to trust the immense weight of the oveziiang* had steel rails placed in grooves carved on the under side of the bottom aeeiber as an added precaution* His work * as well as that of Morris * bn the Temple of the Warriors e is a sustained example of ingenuity and reBourcefulnees supplemented by engineering knowledge. The following are five interesting principles vhich Ruppert gives as the basis for all recon­struction work of this type:

"1. Preservation involving replacement of fallen sculptural element#-— component stones of walls t# support superstructures or sculptural motifs were numbered before taking down for rebuilding^

2* Weeessary to check further deterioration™cement forced into interstices between loosened stones. Parapets of platforms capped. Standing walls pointed.

3. The structure must be zoade imderstanable— Tell its own story of plan, construction, and build­ing sequence.

4. Hie structure must be left as a work of art-—Any restoration destroying proportion or Byiometry is not archaeology.

5. The final result must not destroy the atmosphere of antiquity,“(2)

G. Good recording is the ultimate objective ofall excavation. Here, the archaeologist must be the pure scientist. It is a careful tabulation and observation; itis constant alertness. It.is not office work at a season’s(1) Ruppert Op. cit. p. 16. " ‘ " ~(2) Ibid. p. 10.

-71-

close "but an integrated system keeping abreast of an excav­ation. m ® question ©f M s t how much is going to be saved and what is going to be recorded is the first decision. 1might say that in the Hear East and in the American Hound

• •• .Area these problems have been worked out to finest satisfac­tion. In the East, Bade noted that up to the beginning of him work on Tell-en-Hasbeh, no one had made an.attempt tosalvage every artifact, every potsherd, except one small

\ (i) ■ ■ - . ■ -DaniAi venture. Theoretically, such would be the only true' . . . • . / 1 - / /

scientific method; and this is the method that was employed by Bade .at Haabeh* . Roughly, it was achieved almost :o ex­action by a double check of all material removed from the quadrebgle. Eirst, it was gleaned by .the basket fillers; and then^ it was sifted by women who worked over the dim#

"piles. : - - ;:V • " . V ' ' " ' . ‘ ; ; : ' ' " 'From this point of departure# to go on with Bade*8

excellent system, the field recorder now exercises his au­thority in numbering all artifacts, all baskets of sherds.and all monuments or rooms brought to light. On this lattercount he ©©operates with the mapping crew as the numbers ofall the structures have to appear on the topographic nap.At the end of the day all material recorded is brought downto staff headquarters and given over to the jurisdiction ofUJ Hade op. cit. p. 47. ' — _ _(a) Ibid* pp. 22-3.(S) Ibid. p. 25.

-72

the chief reorder. Bach basket, "bag, or artifact is sup­plied .with a tougbpaper tag, attached on the "dig". On this the columns of "drawn", Recorded", and "photographed" are cheeked off as the w r k i® done, (see fig. 7.) Ihile on the mound the field recorder mast take command of the men and allow nothing of importance to be removed until duly recorded and photographed in situ.

The chief recorder, on taking charge, first has the' - , v .washer® and sorters cleanse and arrange all sherds and other . : ' : ■ ' .. . .. • . . .

finds, Hdthing is omitted at this stage. In placing thesherds on tables in the sherd yard, the relationship oftheir juxtaposition in the ground was maintained, each table

:.: - " . - ... . • (i) : ■representing a 10 meter quadrangle. Von Der Osten andSchmidt,, at Ali^iar, went as far as to arrange the ^erd#not only herisontally but in proper vertical relationship

' V - ' ■ • ; ( 2 ) ....by means of shelves. Pot-menders carefully work over the sherds and restore thm as best tiiey cmi. : All fragmentaryvessels are drawn and photographed,as well as any single .sherds of particular interest. After this, representativeselections, in regard to normal proportional mounts, as totypology arid unusual characteristics, were made, with ev-

(3)ery specimen numbered, for museum purposes. The remain­der is destroyed to make room for incoming material.

Thus, the final record of any object uncovered will at

3)

Bade Op. clt. p. 21.Von Der Osten and Schmidt Op. clt. Bad® Op. cit. p, 32. p. 66.

Strip Area fa %GangLeveldSgb^=Cl«^y>wToirib D R P"BowlsJuee (s'

Zirs'AealeMetalsTlintsJewelrvShekefGlass

Fi^VlkL 1 . Fac.siKNvle_ of FifcU Ke.c_oKt?

_ kneiL B k e.

73

least tell of '■here it was found and "briefly describe it. This data being supplied the records from the paper tags affixed by the field recorder. Any object or vessel that can* at least, be restored to partial recognition will be recorded in this fashion, and, in addition, will be photo­graphed and drawn to scale. For brevity and facility a provenience symbol was formulated by Bade to briefly : incor­porate the information from the tag. For instances

•Provenience symbofi Em. 276. S 23v II w. ......... . . . X32

can be interpreted: “room 276 of 10 meter square 323, sec­ond level; that it was found in Jumbled debris and that 31other objects already have been taken out for tabulation

(1)as the excavation proceeded downward." A symbol such as this is attached to everything except sherds which are so checked by the basketful.

The University of Chicago’s method on mound excavation recording, though not reaching such heights of elaboration, is worthy of mention. They triangulated every find from the grid stakes of the quadrangles. (Sherds were located only in reference to the quadrangles.) It was measured from the top of the ground, from the original ground level of the prehletorics, and from the datum plane in use. The pro­venience symbol included the number of the mound, square, and type of artifact. Photographs and drawings were made. And of special interest are the cross-section drawings and (l)(l) Bade Op. cit. pp. 17-18.

-74-

(1)prints of stratigraj^iy taken at every five foot line*

H* 'Kith this ’background of all the various pha­ses of excavation method as applied in the several regions I have mentioned, we approach the American Southwest, there are similarities to note, differences, and partially kfadred conditions, both in the methods and in the environment and cultures to be explored* In most respects, it is the new­est of the archaeological fields* Limitless work remains to be done, volumes to be written* Common usage and goodsense have standardized something in the way of method.

■ • . " ' ■ ' . "■ . ' - : -With every day, the archaeologists of this part of theworld are gaining in knowledge, both of their subject and of their approach. 1

(1) Province Conference

75.

CHAPTER VMETHODS APPLIED! THE AMERICAN SOUTHWEST

A. The Culture:B. Eleld ReconnaleBance;

1. Determination of Sites:2. Territorial Survey:3. Site Survey:

C. Man Power:De Excavation Proper *

1. Surface Clearance:2. Trenching and Pitting:3. Peeling:4. Vertical Slicing:5* Room Clearance*6, Disposal of Debris:

E. Resultant Chronology:1. Stratigraphy:2. Typology:3. Seriation*4. Geological Force#*5* Dendrochronology$6. Chronological Theory:

3?. Preservation:1. Artifactual:2. Architectural:

G. RecordingsH. Summarisation: .

76, .

A, Highly diversified in cultural remnants, col-orful, and held in a tight grasp of prehistorical mystery is the American Southwest, Covering the States of Arizona, Hew Mexico, northern Sonora and Chihuahua, Southern Utah, Southwestern Colorado, Western Texas, and a strip of East­ern California, the archaeological Southwest embraces a vast territory of deserts, mountains, plateaus, and canyons having a general similarity of climate the year around with some few differences. It is not a fertile area, on the whole There are some evidences that it was once, in prehistoric times, more suited to agriculture than it is now. Even this is not definitely enough proven to he positive, and the very fact that we find evidences of ahcient canals indicates the forerunner of the Indian had to battle the adversities of nature with irrigation.

Judging from this environment, the early peiple were ones who were forced to build their homes in the most fav­orable places to which they had access. Valleys, spring sites, cliffs, and caves, the latter for defense from an­imals and enimies. It is in such places that the archae­ologist finds traces of the past in this region.

The excavator is confronted with cave dwellings, us­ually overlain with centuries of fine dust, sometimes river deposits, sometimes bat and goat dung. Some of these are cavernous limestone recesses in which the aboriginals util­

77.

ized the natural roof, walls, and crannies for his home*Others are long, shallow sandstone caves, often above a

(1)river bank. Here, rooms, partitions, artificial floors of clay, rock, and wattel have been constructed to supple­ment natural erosion.

Cliff dwellings are similar but more elaborate. Usual­ly they depict a higher stage of culture. They are situ­ated in some high, broad arch or natural depression in the rock wall of a cliff. These ruins are protected most of any, and have been quite visible to explorers after six or seven hundred years of desertion, being filled only with windblown material, lor the most part, they are construct­ed of clay, rock, and wattel, and some exhibit an ancient skill in the craft of masonry not equaled by the red man since.

Pueblos, very similar in material and structure to the Cliff Pueblos, are found in the valleys and on the mesas. They, of course, vary in size and material. In the north, rock is the common building medium; while in the southern part of the Southwest, clay and dobe are used. Shi# is an environmental adaptation as rock is scarcer in southern lands.' ': . - . ■

Aside from these, we have villages of single unitstructures, some built on the surface, some underground, and some intermediately situated. Rock and mud are used here, {1} Cummings Class Lecture ~ — --- -

78.

and tixobers act as supports and beams as they do in the Pueblos, The common name for such are Pithouseo villages.

Such are, with variation always present in a thing so variable as archaeology, the general types of structure inand around which, work,of excavation is carried on. The

' _ ■ 'methods the archaeologists of the Southwest have broughtforward to meet these challenges of time h a w been develop­ed upon the spot and to meet emergencies. Likenesses be­tween the Southwest and. other areas mentioned in Chapter IV will probably be accidental rather than cases of imitation. Very little in the way of method has been transfused through­out the archaeological world ae yet. , -

It might be wise to say, mid reiterate, here, that themany features of excavation, if we are to isolate them for any, sort of study, will overlap and show a definite in­tegration with other features and with a project as a whole. Such is as it should be from an archaeological standpoint. But for examination we must proceed by units. This must be borne in mind when, for instance, I apeak of Reconnaio- sance, for It is closely bound to Recording by the very reasons that mapping and surveying are not only to guide actual excavation but to later orient the objects found.Similarly, in Reconnaissance and Serlat&em* fer Terri ter- •: ... _ . ial Survey is a part of mapping as it is a part of thetl3 Cummings Class'":

79,

tracing of culture by surface observation. Actual excav­ation and stratigraphy are obviously tied together, as I will show. It Is not the writer's purpose to divorcethese naturally related. procedxtres,one from the other# but

intoonly to lookVeach more carefully and in a purer light, that« \ •

divisions are made,B. l. Site determination and location in the South­

west is not difficult once the observer comes across an ancient village, cave# or house site* Actual surface obser­vations note such telltale items as buried rock walls, pot­sherds, and the unnatural rise of the ground. In cliff and e&ve sites # smudging on the rock shows evidence of past fires; and a little digging will turn up sherds if none are to be seen on the surface* Fithouse> sites are the most difficult to locate, but even here, sherds and circular depressions in the ground are good indications. There is no clue in the way of exact document, but it is of highestsignificance that American Archaeology is allied with a con-(2)tiguous ethnological culture* The white man has been guided to many a secreted canyon ruin by the present day Indian*

2. There is little trouble in noticing sites; it is the recording of them under a system that is impor-(1) Cummings Class lecture ~ ^(2) W.H. Holmes "Contributions of American Archaeology to

Human History" Aim. Kent* of Smithson. Inst. 1904.

60*

tautt here as elseitoers. The Southwestern archaeologist has done more, and, I believe* better v/ork along this line than anyone. Because it is important that a knowledge ofadjacent ruins and cultures, with their variations and eim-/ - ■ ■ ■ .

ilarities, be known before work is begun on any given site* territorial shames have been worked out, one by Er. H. S, Gladwin of Gila Pueblo, Globe, one by Dr, H,S. Colton of Flagstaff, one by Dr. R.G. Fisher and colleaguee at the University of New Mexico * and one by Dr. H.P. Hera of the Laboratory of Anthropology at Santa Fe. All embody the same basis principles of categoric location of sites in arbitrary sections • They attempt ‘ in the words of Dr. Col- ton, '

■An archaeological survey is an attempt to record from surface observations, without excavations, the work of people who have left no written record, and to place the position of these sites on a map— Such a survey brings out the relationship of prehistoric! to their water supply, hunting grounds, and cultivated fields," (2)Starting in 1880, Bandolier, Mlndeleff, Fewkes, and

. . . . . *

others have made general surveys; but in 1916, the Kuseum of Northern Arizona, under Colton* began work covering the northern part of the State of Arizona. This system divides the Northern Arizona region into many small drainages, so that the final culture picture will be a "mosaic“ of these many units. With each site discovered, data cards are fil-(1) H.S. Coltm "The Archaeological Survey of thu mmmnq

of Northern Arizona" Museum Notes V.4. no.l. July:, m i p, i.(2) Ibid.

81.

led out amd the location £» included on the nap. Sherd collection# are also made*

The napping is done on regular township maps,of the U.S. Geological Survey# and in areas unsurveyed a plane table survey is conducted. The usual scale runs around 2 inches to the mile. Sites are located in relation to quarter corners, fences, highways# and outstanding land­marks. Sometimes the distance is exactly measured, some­times measured by the speedometer of a car# and some times. ' ■ " ' U) ■ -estimated.

The sherd collection is gathered at random# and the s else of the collection varies with the size of sites. Any intrusive pieces are noted and gathered in an approximate proportion. The sherds are marked with the serial number of the site, and placed into special sherd boxes also marked with serial number# drainage# and type of sherds.The serial mndaer is also placed in some conepionus place

; , ' - -- - . - ' - ' 'on or about the site. The cfeta cards# which will be des­cribed more fully trader the heading# "Recording*1 Include this information plus more detail description.

Dr, Colton describes the search for small and incon­spicuous ruins as having covered 100 square miles in 1918, only two years after the Museum of Northern Arizona’s en­trance into the field. Since then their scope has been 1 2(1) Colion Op. cit, p. 3. ~ " '(2) IBld. p. 3.

02.

greatly increased. V3ien conditions permitted, intensive examination of the country was carried on in • some parte of the country by walking or riding with eyes fixed uponthe ground. • Upon spotting sherds, stop and determine the

... • • ■ ' ' (1)size and extent of the ruin. 3?or the most part, the vast wilderness ®£ the Southwest cannot be gleaned so methodic­ally. : ' ‘ ■ : •

The University of Hew Kexico, working on a somewhat larger, scale, endeavors to make data sheets, diagrams of ruins, plats giving detail locations of sites, general index of all sites, and a general map for the whole region under the cover of one publication* Their survey includes the entire Southwest, or is so intended; and gives the fol­lowing data: site number, name, quadrangle, state, county,

■ xlongitiude^ latitude, township, range-section, nearest town, maps, drainage, altitude, general surroundings and situa­tion, resources, type of structure, condition, ethnology and history of ruin, excavations, museum collections, own­ership, bibliography, surface Indications, remarks, and a

(2)diagram.Gila Pueblo’s survey is, in some ways, the best; and

it coincides to a great degree with Hew Mexico’s. Such 63 tensive survey work may not bear fruit as immediately(1) Celten»H.S. and H.R.P. "Sie little Known Small House

Ruins in the Coconino Forest" An. Anthree. Asaae. Memoirs ¥. 5. 1918 p. 102. --- —

(2) R.G. Fisher "Santa Fe Sub-Quadrangle A U.H.M. Bui. V.l.1931 . ■ -

83.

more localised study, but I believe that the ground work done, in establishing a basic layout of goegraphical div­isions, will be an aid to uniformity in future archaeology which Is the purpose. Using the topographic sheets of the Geographical Survey, with the scale of 1/500.000 as the standard ratio, parallels of latitude and meridians of long­itude are ruled in red Ink, forming quadrangles (see fig. 8.) many of which have already been named by the Department of Agriculture. If so, these names are retained. In Base no name has yet been applied, the Pueblo has named them alpha­betically, and we have "Sonora A, Sonora B, etc. These quadrangles are in turn divided into 16 rectangles by lines at the 15, 30, and 45 minute marks. Thus ruins found in these Quadrangles and Rectangles are designated thus: “Win­gate 8:5", meaning Wingate Quadrangle, 8th lectangle, and the 5th ruin designated. Occasionally, in rectangles, such as the Phoenix, where excavation and research has been car­ried on to a greater degree, further subdivision may be made by cutting the rectangle into 9 squares, (see fig. 8.)

Here, we have a great grid map of the entire Southwest, a system of orientation. Perhaps it will be a far day, but with the carrying forward of work, subdivisions of such a plan may be reduced until the grid squares of the archaeolo-(1J H .3. Gladwin "A Method for the Designation of Ruins '

in the Southwest" Medallion 1928.

I TxKiJirts

loXtJ.5A.i4 KoSmIJ

ieUkAeokfcpi

Fr.DtFiiu^iWiisiuic. M l . M i L

AmtiK b IWt^im m f

51N0[ F jCKilxuKkvk kjGukuiiwK&|dnkrALi —| ICKIS A jleXiii B

84.glBtk excavation will be but tiny rectangles forming a larger square, all part of the great map.

Scientifically helpful as the territorial surrey obviously is, there is one important drawback that must be mentioned in the. way of warning. Here in, the South­west, unfortunately, "pothunters", along with the general - public, have had access to, these published surveys. The. result has been hundreds of rifled sites. All such survey information, should be distributed to those men, only, of a professional standing and reliably connected with an in­stitution. Otherwise, the archaeologists are advertisingto the "pe theaterV

3. . Site survey, in some cases, greatly resem­bles Mound and Near Eastern method. The principle to re- - member In,this detail of excavation is that some sort of order, of arrangement, mist be made. The grid squares are a very practical arbitrary orientation. In cave work theyare helpful, especially when no natural or cultural units

(1)can be determined in clearing. Hr. Paul Reiter and H.G. Alexander, in their recent publication on Jemez Save, I?ew Mexico, used a grid system of 3 foot squares with a numer­ical alphabetic nomenclature, and secondary 12 foot squares,

(2)designated by Roman minerals, (see fig. 9.) Harrington at"A ' '

Gypsum Cave, Hevada, did not use grid squares, but ran a * 21J P.%, Hodge Conference December 193S.2) H.G. Alexander and Paul Reiter "Report on the Excavn-

||gn of J|i|ez Cave,H.H." U. of H.M, and School of Am.

/I ll ll /D1 *i 1 fe 5 U ^ X 1 0 J’J m 3:

FlljVtoL T LlciVlXlDM PL/LM

CxVe,t t o Nkxico _ (skiujivit 17.^ fot>A S t n e . N \ 2 \ - - - - - - A U e l & i u t

....... CicIlValX IM

— At .d Ke: ite?v i vn LfiiCAUDcK

85,

a line of stakes, 40 feet apart throughout the length of the save. These established permanent points of refer­ence for mapping and placing finds v/hen designated in rela­tion to some natural landmark on the cave wall.

Besides caves# the grid system of survey is good wherever the excavator is working without any cultural landmarks such as the tops of walls. The Cosgroves# work­ing in the Mimbres Valley, where the Swarts Ruin was only a low mound of earth covering most of the rock walls#staked off the plot in 20 foot squares before beginning v

(2)preliminary trenching. Emil Haury# directing the Labora­tory of Anthropology work of 1934# near Silver City, NewMexico, employed 15 meter squares over a Pithouse area

(3)where surface indications were negligible. Haury# alsodirecting the %ig* at Snaketown# for Gila Pueblo, laid outthe entire half-mile square or more in 60 meter blocks whichwere in turn subdivided into 16 smaller rectangles. This .was necessary as the Snaketown area is composed of severalrubbish mounds and numerous buried house sites. Any studyof relationship between houses and rubbish# or betweengroups of houses would, naturally, call for artificial or-

(4)ientation.11} %.k. gypsum Cave, Nevada^ Southwest MubT Papers No. 8. 1933 pp. 12-14.(2) H.S. and C.B. Cosgrove “Swarts Ruin", % M&fte v. 15. no. 1. 1932 p. 29.(3) Gordon Baldwin Conference February 1936(4) Boil W. Haury Conference December 1935

86,

In a compound pueblo* the grid systaa of survey is hardly necessary and seldom* If ever* used. Pueblo Bonitb was more easily cleared working from room to room. Elnlshba, In Eastern Arizona* under excavation directed by Dr. Cvmr'- mings, was uncovered room by room. Grid squares on such a ruin would only be confusing. The four walls of the room- are the lines of orientation; the digger follows them; the finds are so described in their relation to the walls.

Mapping can then be carried on after a portion of the mound has been uncovered. The method used at Kinishba* and undertaken by students* David E. Jones, Gertrude Hill, and the writer, was done with plahe table and alidade, (see accompanying map of Kinishba) The instrument was set up on an unesoeavated prominence from which the ruin could be viewed. Then*, each inside corner of every excavated room was "shot" in and measured from the instrument. At such short range* the instrument and rod were not accurate enough to judge distance* a stfeel tape being used for this. We believed it necessary*i at: ihat time to 'shoot" in every corner of every room inasmuch as the walls differ in thick­ness, and the rooms were never truly oriented with one and other.

A simpler system, and much swifter, is to take only • one "shot" from each room, driving an arbitrary stake into the floor at an approximately central point. The four corn-

87.

crs are then measured from this point on the map. In this tray, one instrument reading takes the place of four. Such is the,plan David E. Jones and the writer are attempting at ■University Ruin", nine miles from Tucson, Arizona. In..:, this connection, it might be well to add- that a topographic survey, to be tied into the nearest official bench mark, isalso part of the plan at the above mentioned site. Topog-

- . - ■ (l)raphy work, even in cave survey, as at Jemejt, is helpfuland can well be included in all preliminary preparations to .excavation ... - ■ - .

C. In the Southwest, there is little more tobe said concerning the man power of. a "dig" other than that

. ■■ ■ .the native Indians have been used in both the Apache and Havajo territories. This policy has, so far, beeti success­ful. At Kiniahba, during the summer of 1935, some twenty Apaches were employed in both excavating and reconstruction work. As a rule, only the younger men can speak English.In spite of this, the native foreman or ■reis" system, as employed in the' Hear East, is still a little beyond the training or adaptibility of the American Indian. Dr. Cum­mings found many of them able and willing, and even a few professed a liking for the work; but their understanding of the aims of excavation are, as yet, purely mechanical. For that reason, staff supervision is necessary.(l) Alexander and Reiter Op, cit. [topographic map)

D* 1. Surface growth and overlying debris, unless it Is river wash, is neither luxurious or thick in most parts of the Southwest* Many sites* however* have a scat­tered growth of creosote and greasewood hushes that need^re­moval in order to obtain a clear outline of the mound* Clearance of the ground is often helpful in working over rock-hullt houses and pueblo®* At Mesa House, in Southern Nevada, which , is a broad, low-lying mound, boulders are profusely scattered over the surfacee The prospective ex­cavators, in removing these, found that those left imbeddedin the soil' were the topi of walls and showed the trend of

' (2) , ‘ 'room construction. Normally, clearing is the type of ex­cavation that is used to prepare the surface for furtherdiggings else it is that work of taking away obvious de­bris that lies at the base of walls and buildings, as at: • . 1 _ ' ■ 'Casa Grande, where there can be no doubt as to the nature of the job at hand*

2e Trenches and pits are probably the most widely used methods of excavation in the Southwest, Be­cause of comparative surface obscurity of our ruins in this part of the world, as compared to the Near East where a eity mound is larger and more ascertainable in regard to architectural features, because many sites are "simple0(1) Arthur Woodward . "The Crewe site*

Occasional Papers No. 1, Dec, 1931 p,(2) Irwin Hayden “Mesa House" Southwest1930 p. 31. " No, 4

89.

oltes, these representing only one layer of culture, and because of expense, these two means have "been used with some success. In many cases they are adequate and best, and In others, I believe it is apparent that they are not. There are several specific types of ruins and conditions to be met. ' • ; '■ • '

The first, and most common use of trenches is an exploratory one combined with a stratigraphical outlook. Almost every pueblo, mesa, cliff, or valley, has surround­ing it, before excavation, an accumulated slope of rubbish .earth, the piling up of years of its occupation as well as

. ■ ■ . : • . ' ' . ■ ... " '■ ' ■ ■

water and wind carried material brought in since abandonment.In this ground, important stratigraphy and burials are tobe uncovered. Aside from this, it is necessary to penetrate

. . . . . .... # " . ■ . ’ "

this covering to determine the extent of the pueblo walls in the mesa and valley sites. Hem®, the first work on at­tacking such a site is to begin trenches out in undisturbed soil and extend them In toward the mound. Such was the plan of Messers Spicer and Caywood at their recent excavation of Tuslgoot, near Clarkd&le, Arizona. Trenches, going to bed­rock, were carried up the slope of the mesa until walls of the ruin were reached* A three foot interval was maintained between trenches to make it certain to detect all burials. After the trenching, the slope, its apparent possibilities exhausted, was ready to be converted into a dumping place-

for the earth to be taken from the pueblo above. Thecame was done at Kataclava, another ruin in the vicinity*As the village was on a mesa whose sides were composed ofnatural rock terracess the trenches were "fanned" at eatihsuccessive step to obtain a better vertical face for strat-

(2)igraphi® study. Kidder, in his well-known work at Pecos, dug a great trench, at some places 25 feet in width, begin­ning in undisturbed and going as deep as 21 feet before thewall of the mesa was reached. Stratigraphy,’ burials, and ‘

' ' ■ ; v,: ' : . • . . . (3) .orientation were his objectives. T. Mitchell Prudden,working in the Small-House ruins of the San Juan T/atershed, says, that owing to the general uniformity of orientation# • walls are determined by starting at ' the edge of the scat­tered stenes, on the north, and trenching in until the

■ (4)buildings are located.

Another decidely worthwhile advantage of the1 trench and pit in Southwestern archaeology is their use in Pithouseexcavation. Inasmuch as there is very little surface in­dication of these sites, trenches must cross-cut the entire area in which there is any suspicion of buried culture. Assoon as rook or adobe walls of Pithouses are struck they are

(4)

if. iapicer Conference --" - 'OctoberH.T. Getty Conference October 1935A.V. Kidder An Intnduction to the Study of Southwest­ern Archaeology 1S24 pp. 17-20.

T.Mitchell Prudden "Further Study of Prehistoric Small- 1 I m s e _ W n B in the San JuanJ^atcrshed" American Anthr. Assoc * Memoirs V. 5. 1918 p T 6. (ftntsll

followed ty subsidiary trenches and cleared out. It ispossible to carry out stratigraphic work in connection as. was done by troweling out about 20 inches of fill at a

(l)time in a site at Texas Canyon, Arizona,

Even iflien the culture is not of the Pithouse type it is often, as at the Orewe site in Southern Arizona, imper­ceptible by any above ground evidences. Houses can be lo-

(2)cated by driving test holes or by using the soil augur atcheckerboard intervals of 2 or 3 feet to strike floors and

(3)walls, _ .

It is with trenching as a method of exploring the actu­al architecture of a pueblo that there is the greatest ques­tion, Cave work, Pithouse exploration, and debris slopes are well-excavated, I think, by trenching. But to cross­cut a ruin proper seems destructive, Jeaneon tells of cut­ting a trench through the highest portion of a mound todetermine the number of floor levels, and thereby stories,

(4)of a pueblo.

Refuse mounds are the outdoor library of the South­western archaeologist. Trenches and pits are used extensive­ly, But they should always be used together and in number.A single pit or a few short,unrelated trenches will cause 1 2 * 4(1) V.S. Pulton "Archaeological Botes on Texas Caiqron,

Arizona*' Eus. of the As*, Indian Heye Foundation V.12. no. 1. 1934 pp. 12-14. " ----

(2) -Weodwrd' .... Qp. cit. p. 9.3 Hayden, Op. cit. p. 32. .(4) J;A. >yeancon “Excavations in the Chama Valley" B.A.E. Bulletin 81. 1923 pp. 5-6.

92,

the emne confuslon here as in the cave debris of France orin Hear Eastern stratigraphy, Hewett advises "both diameters

. . (1)of the monad b e l % trenched with "broad cross-cuts. Dr, Florence Hawley used this system to cut the unusually large debris mound at Chettro Ketl in the Chaco Canyon, Time pre­cluded the completion of some of these trendhes* so they were finished in alternate 4 foot blocks, the interveningunexcavated portions were approximately charted from the

. ... , . ' ( 8 ) ' ■known consistency of the excavated. Such trenching, whencapably done, is scientifically advisable,

5, There is no record of any excavation in theSouthwest having been entirely carried out on the "onionpeel* plan. Dr, F.¥. Hodge, one of the earliest men inthe field, advises peeling down in cave excavation oncethe stratigraphy has been determined by a trench. Thisis necessary as a guide, Jeznez Cave was peeled off inarbitrary levels of 1 foot by excavators Alexander andReiter, Owing to the declination of the floor in thisinstance, these layers were maintained parallel to thesurface in all parts of the cave, whenever actual cultur-

(4)al levels could be seen notation was made of it. Roomsand houses, as will be mentioned in section D 5 of this chapter, are taken down from the top in arbitrary or cul-(1) Edgar lee Hewett AnclenVLife in the American Southwest(2) Florence %. Hawley "The Significance of the Dated Pre-(3) » •” > (4) Alexander and Reiter Op, cit, p, 14,

“ rJ i * - •

93.

tural layers as a rule. Aside from this, “onion peel" has not "been widely employed;

4. Vertical slicing, as it is carried on in the Mound Cultures, is possible, although on a larger scale, in the Southwest. Pueblo Grande, outside of Phoenix, under the direction of Hr. O.S. Halseth, is a large, compact, mound probably representing an old compound in the midst of the prehistoric canal dietriet. The west face, some 15 feet above the terrain, is being sliced down in the vertic­al fashion. ' Presumably, there are seven culture strata

■ ■ (1) •'represented, and to slice down in this fashion will, of course, destroy the evidence unless special care is taken that all waUs be left intact idaich will be exttemely dif­ficult in a complex case of this sort. As some oblitera­tion of remains is almost necessary on this system, full recording must be strictly maintained as the excavation gees on. A partial preservation is, however. Hr. Halseth1s plan. / : .. ' ' . '

Dr,. Haury at Snake town, while working on the largest rubbish mound, cut a large cross-trench through the pile.Each face was then cut down in blocks of 2 meters long, 1

, * (2)meter wide, and & meter deep. The vertical method isbetter adapted to rubbish mounds, such as this, or the East-

94.

al remnants.... 5, To a major extent the excavator’© task in

the Southwest is the clearing of rooms, single or parts of.,a compound. Many cases, especially those of Cliff Pueb­los, entail only the removal of windblown sand and dustfrom half-filled rooms. Such work is comparatively: easy

. . . : 'as there is not apt to he any stratigraphy to note, and the tops of walls are visible, the digger merely follow© the outline.

m e uncovering should be done systematically, and-inmost cases, as at Kinishba, is taken down in foot or 18 inchlevels. Very seldom is it possible to determine natural :

(1)stratigraphy working from the top down. Haury and the Cosgroves suggest digging,a test hole or trench in the room to note stratigraphy, if any; then fill can be taken out in natural layers if such can be determined.

The floor level should be discovered and then leftcovered with six inches to a foot of dirt while a study

(3)of the room is made. This is to protect the floor fromany damage during the excavation. Floors are extremely hard ■ . ..... . . -to detect in some places, as in the llimbres. At Swart©Ruin, where there is no hard packed level as in a Cliff orHess Pueblo, digging itinue until the soft earth ,

Op^ cit. p. 29.

96.

' (1)Bhmvs no more evidence of human disturbance. mere theearth ie clay or a hard pack of some sort the last few in-inches may be removed» and the floor determined by troweling.A generous wetting down of the last few inches will, also^clear it off in neat fashion and expose the harder floor.In regions where it is common to bury the dead beneath thefloors, a number of small test pits should be carried downto a sensible depth before abandoning dr refilling.

Hock walls are plainly visible, but in the south wheredobe predominates it is often hard to distinguish the hardfill from the %mll. This is best done by digging towardthe supposed wall, undercutting the fill. This will cause

(3)the fill to drop away from the wall if such is the case.

If plan of the structure is all that is desired, fullclearance is not necessarjr. (fig. 10.) dhows the work ofGila Pueblo at the Southern Arisons site of Sacaton 9:6.The mils have been followed with small trenches to ascer-

- \ (4) V-tain the nature of the compound.6. High Kesa and Cliff Pueblos are well situated

as to the dropping of dirt. Once the talus slope of ancientrubbish at the foot of the natural incline has been examined, the material from, the rooms above can be poured over theembankment or cliff face. "When.the ruins are built in tiers,(1) H.S> and C.B. Cosgrove Op. cit. p. 30.(2) Prudden Op. cit. p. 6. (ftnts.)(3) Cummings Conference(A) Gladwin_^Red-on-Buff Culture of the Gila Basin" Medall-. Ion ' ” 1929. - pe 31#

Fx&uul 10. S ite. (soLtiLteH T.l» C.’kCA.v/dkte.ti f4 .itialU B1 Tdenck iW&_ ( to f Skoals 6JLCd.V4te.-6 PoR-XloriS IN BLAdKJ\ CiottetJV Skb\us fiiBiBU H aN as lUDiC-iteti B1 TicilckeiJ\

— .Aa Tut Lb

ene above the other, it is best to excavate those rooms at• ■

the top first and throw the material down on those below andso work down. For deep excavation, as at Chettro Ketl, the;dirt was thrown up some fifty feet in relays, tossing it inshovel*-fulls from specially constructed wooden platforms,each 14 feet above the other* At Pueblo Grande, deep ex-

; (2) carat ion is cleared out by hoisting it up in buckets. Onboth locations* especially the former, ; railcars were usedto move the debris a convenient distance from the work.

Refill is common, Spicer and Caywood, at Tuzigoot,simply threw the dirt into the trench behind' them as theyexplored the mesa slope debris. The rubbish from the rooms

' ' (4)was, however, dumped over the sides. The Svarts Ruin, ina fertile? valley, was excavated and refilled simultaneously,one room being cleared and the dirt thrown into the onebehind it. This was necessitated by the present use of

(5) -surrounding fields for agriculture,

E, 1* There is no documentary record to guide the archaeologist in thin area aside from early Spanish accounts and from Indian legend as I have mentioned* In 1931, at an archaeological conference held at Gila Pueblo, it was decided that in the establishment of Southwestern chronology.

August 1935.234(5)

1) lUde ___Halseth ^ConferenceSpicer ConferenceJohn KcGregor An Outlineof Ari P. 15*

97,

Dendrochronology, Stratigraphy* Crese-dating, and Inten­sive Analyais* should he used in that order* Of these* In­tensive Analysis of Typology is the oldest and most wide­spread $ stratigraphy is second from this standpoint, 2T.C. ITelson* working at Southwestern stratigraphy from 1912 te 1919, conducted some of the first careful scientific teste along this line, A cut having heen made across an entire trash heap. Nelson chose a visibly stratified portion, freefrom disturbance or intrusion* A block, 3 x 6 feet, was

• ' . ' '■ \ : ( 1 ) . ,laid out on this and taken out in arbitrary layers* In1915, at "Tecos, Kidder selected various cAluans at repre

pleees places, had them marked into horizontaltioris* peeled off,.and shipped to a museum for careful- . ■ (2;; . ,ysis, Erich Schmidt, on the Thompson Expedition to PuebloGrande in 1925, isolated a column 5 meters square by trench- - - ... .. • • . ' ■ .ing around it, peeled it down in 15 centimeter layers, and

(3)recorded.the contents of each stratum, particularly potsherds.Dr. Florence Hawley at Chettro Ketl, and 3(r.' Wesley Bradfieldat Cameron Creek Village, took out stratigraphic blocks 4

■ • . (4)feet square from a trench, using alternating sections*.These are rec stratigraphic tests* isolated

(1) Leslie Spier M2f.C. Helson's Stratigraphic Technique in the Reconstruction of Prehistoric Southwestern America”jlj % % % & * % # ■Cr^ lvil!;K° 77,1929 p -28-

[4) Erich Schmidt "Time Relations of Prehistoric PotteryTypes in Southern Arizona” Anthron. Papers of A.1S.IT.K. V* 30. Part' V* 1928 ---l£s±s-----

98. ,

columns act as the standard “by, rhich the res-t of the “dig”Is to he measured, stratigraphically speaking. Stratigraph- y, however, is noticed, or should he, at all times during the excavation. Overlying housetypes, court-yards contain­ing successive strata, all these arc ever present. Without evidences of structure there are three techniques of inves­tigation into the strata as set forth by Hawley in her work on ChettroKetl. there are, perhaps, others, hut these are of greatest Interest to modern archaeologists in this region. Stratification and its dating inay he made ,hy stat­istical treatment of potsherds, soil composition, and char--

(1)coal dating. Of the first, most work has been done. Kid­der, Kelson, Schmidt, all were interested in analysing the percentages and types of potsherds In each stratum removed and sifted. At Chettro Ketl this was done by peeling the4 foot hloeks off is 6 inch levels, serening it, and sack-

12)ing it with the results tabulated.By soil color and composition, Hawley refers to the

variations In the color and texture of the ash and oweep-(3)ing debris as it was thrown from the baskets of women.

Both of the first two, unless the pottery, types foundhave been given a date from some other ruin, are relativedatings. They have been ‘’chronologized1*, to use her ex-

■ . " (4).pression, by datable charcoal found in the rubbish. A M(l) Hawley Op. cit. p. 31. " ™ '(2 and 3) Ibid. p. 32.(4) IM*e pp. 33-5.

these charcoal dates in the refuse, the rate of theaccumulation of the debris was fixed at 8 inches per 2 years

' ' ' ■ '■ - . . ' (1) " V ‘ .©a the average sl®pe ©f the mund.

As in the. Hear Bast, Southwestern stratigraphy is no. layer cake* There are numerous problems to confuse the , excavator* Hr*.Kalseth points out, that at Pueblo Grande#the stratigraphy will not represent every culture at every

" ' ‘ ■ . (2) - 'point on the mound* Over% is common* Rodents and morerecent burials are a constant difficulty, especially in the caves. The stratigrapher must be on the watch for any evidences of disturbances* There is, too# always a chance that material has been mixed pp by later peoples shoveling it back to make added room. Reversed stratigraphy is oc­casionally the case, Kiras will often show such an inverse quality in comparison to the stratigraphy elsewhere in the ruin* this is obviously due to the fact that the above. material has fallen into the subterranean chamber, the lat­est and top material falling first, as would naturally be the ease, Vaillant speaks of this in connection with Pecos, and Dr* Cummings noted what is probably a similar condition at Kinishba* Such things can be checked, either with acomparison to the standard stratigraphic co: on the*'dig,% or by noting typological ■pottery. ': Y ' : , '

established mB in the

Hawley 0p4 cit. pp. 57-8,at Zacatenco" Op. cit. p. 21.

2, Yhe typology of pottery# artifacts, textiles, and house typos in the Southwest is amazing in volume. It is the question of great controversy in the field tods#.The discovery end naming of new types is constantly going on# and each year the groundwork for the student of arch­aeology grows more and more complex. To present a list of pottery types, alone, would he heyond the scope of this thesis# aside from discussing the relative values of a complicated nomenclature versus a simpler system. Speaking from the viewpoint of the professional archaeologist, com­plexity of terms, if they are necessary to define the art­icle, will prohahly become as standardized as the terminol- ogy of the more exact sciences in the near future; And from this outlook, it will he worthwhile^ Speaking from the viewpoint of the layity, whose interest archaeology should arouse, such an intricacy of names will he displeas- and impossible to follow. It is quite possible that a dual nomenclature, one for the archaeologist, and one for the public, will spring up.

Today* the typology of pottery is the most useful in chronology building because it best fits in with the prin­ciples of stratigraphy, distribution, and dendrochronology. Because potsherds are common# because they are variable# and beoanse they are widespread they have chronological possib­ilities. Gila Pueblo , the * Laboratory of Anthropology, the Museum of Northern Arizona# and the University of Arizona

m u

have all developed systems of pottery classification » dif­fering In degrees of complexity* In some divisions and sub­divisions* and in partial nomenclature. All have a great basic principles in common. Color is usually the main designant such as, Blaek-on-white or Red-on-buff; while geographical area or typical site, location is the differen­tia, Thus we have Roosevelt Black-on-whlte. It is one of the winy Black-on-iihlte wares in the Southwest, The term Roosevelt is not descriptive but connotative. To the train­ed it brings to the mind certain characteristics of design and vessel shape. Actually, it is the region wherein this particular sub-divisional ware is typically found or even first found, as is often the case. From stratigraphic study,' relative dates were assigned to pottery types. Onthis basis, a sitej in which there is no stratigraphical evidence» can be dated if a certain ware found at this site has been assigned a chronological period by other means, ie.stetigraphy, dendrochronology.

3, To go into this further, we must take upwhat has been designated as ’’seriation” and studied by anumber of men. Spier and Kroeber in particular. There is*in the definition of seriation, which is given in Spier'sarticle in Methods In Social Science , a haziness ofmeaning. “It is a horizontal sort of stratigraphy*, pottery

■ - • ■ . : • .. - (i)occuring in varying proportions over a series of ruins."Jl) Spier dp* cit. Pp.

Obviously, this overlaps into “distribution" idiich can easi­ly be defined as, “of two cultures occupying the same area

(1)that having the wider distribution Id older". It also overlaps into the realm of stratigraphy. Florence Hawley gives this concrete Illustration*

"By noting that Blaek-on-white and Black-on-red wares are found together in one pueblo, that Black-on-red, Black-on-white, and one type of polychrome are found together at another neighboring ruin, and that another type of the same polychrome is found at still another neighboring ruin where there is no Slack-on-whlte, and almost no Black-on-red, but a number of Jeddito Yellow trade pieces which have been entirely lacking at the other pueblos. One finds, here, a pottery series of which one end is evidently contemporary with the Jeddito Yellow period." (2)

All this is true. But to analyze, what have we here except distribution if even that? We are studying a spatial ar­rangement of pottery types. Theoretically, we know nothing of even the relative dates of the ruins. There is a pro­gression of types, but how can we determine which way this progress ion is running unless we find that one of the wares mentioned has the widest geographical distribution? And, in this ease, there seems to be no such evidence unless it isthe Black-on-red which bridges both gaps.

Mr. John McGregor, of the Museum of northern Arizona, offers this suggestions "Seriation is the combination of two dr more of the other six chronological establishing elements in archaeology." (This refers to Documents, Typ-

ology» Distributloa, Geology* Annual Deposition* and’ (l)Stratigraphy as listed hy Spier) This seems to he about it. Dr. Hawley went on to say that the Jeddito Yellow dates were known from Tree Ring dating. The addition of this second element, to what was no more than a spatial or dis­tributional study, immediately gives direction to the whole process. One end of the chain has been definitely dated. Using stratigraphy as the other element, was thebasis of Kroeberfs classic seriational procedure at Zumi.

■ • : ' " - " ’ ' - • - -ir.' -With random collections of sherds from the surface of ruinsand heaps in the Zuni area, samples which would, therefore, give terminal data, he Isolated a series of wares, first in the historic ruins^ then in ruins of a reputed late date, then in clearly prehistoric ruins. The wares in the histor­ic ruins overlapped with those of the second class, the lat­ter with the third. By the term, "of a reputed late date”, he implies assistance from either stratigraphy or from trad­ition which is "documentary”.

The most practical large scale example of eeriation as a chronological guide has been the work of Gila Pueblo in their potsherd survey. Realizing that through stratigraphy Southwestern chronological sequences have been made, but that there are few ruins containing dependable stratified(1) Spier Op. elt. pp. 282-3.(2) Kroeber "Zuni Potsherds"

V. 18. 191? (general cont

103.

104.

deposits, they put forth this scheme. It is an attempt to place the countless single-type ruins into their proper time niche. It has as its "background, in their own words, "sequences which have already been established by ttte more exact results of stratigraphy." It should be said that this system can only be successful when dealing with single- type ruins (one cultural period)and is, also, engaged with a homogeneous culture such as the southern series of Colon­ial, Sedentary, Classic, and Decadent,

At each ruin a collection of sherds is made at random, care being taken that all pottery types represented are selected in an approximate preportional amount.' This *surface reliability is confirmed by digging. Percentagesof types on the surface agree, roughly, with those foundin trenches or pits. This is not true of complex sites(those of more than one cultural layer) but of single sites.10 or more sites are covered in a given rectangle. Then

(1)percentages are taken for each rectangle. As the dates ofeach cultural subdivision. Colonial, etc. are known bystiatigraphic standards, dates can be assigned according tothe predominant pottery type, (see fig. 11.)

4. Geological aid to chronology is important tothe Southwest as it is elsewhere. Volcanic material nearFlagstaff, the ages of arroyos and the downcutting ofstreams as at Pueblo Bonito or Kinlshba, the age of the(l)Gladwin "The Use of Poteherds in an Archaeological

Survey of the Southwest" Medallion Mo. II. 1928.

F lfcVR.e_ II. bV 5 vies _S it KkV T&L^. CLva.oR.a.N&Le_

J ites InKe. d ot4TLmb Ka

BtsFFHtk

P#Llc.kK%lAtIcilLuf V v/a.

j a o

r x 50 ./ 5 o

7:1 /to 'n / O b

t i / O&.y /e»Tln AW

JOO i s o "1 ot> S o

L e t . no.

ISt - CaVbitleLX*0 &eleuXuA3t.U z CVuiU.4tK * DffLtieeRS l K r Hilt *K\L.

C O M Bl NSLB, P«K.ceNr«Lie.(_

3 l \ .11.1. .15. .LI.

— KfleR. Gil. fveiL.

Folse® deposits, the age of the gravels at Cienega Wash, all these mist he answered hy geology. As a rule, geolog­ical dating will he a greater aid In the chronology of fossil men, if the existence of such in the Southwest can some day he proven to everyone's satisfaction. In the Pueblo culture, where SO, 25, and even 10 years may makea difference, geological approximations of age are too

, . ■■■ ■ " . . ' *

indefinite to he more than a very general help.5. For exact dating. Dendrochronology has prov­

en the solution. Developed hy Dr. A.E. Douglass at the University of Arizona for climatic cycle study, this exam- ’ inatlon of the relative"'growth in tree rings as an indicator of weather was seen to have chronologic possibilities. Very briefly, small rings, the representation of dry years, will celnoide over an area in which rainfall is uniform, such as the northern" portion of the Southwest. Hence, if two ring records can he made to coincide as to large and small ring sequence, to a correlation of 80$(, these coincident rings are contemporaneous as to chronological date. With this development, cross-dating was established.

Starting with modern trees. Dr. Douglass had built up a chronology of sensitive ring record hack to late pre- Spanish times. Separate from this was a long chronology, known as a "floating chronology"» built up from prehistoric wood taken from pueblo ruins. After several years of effort the gap between actual and relative chronology was closed by

106 »

a piece of wood from Showlow ruin. This was in 1929* Still more recently. Dr. Douglass and his associates have pushed the frontier hack to around S50 A.D. This means that from 1936 to 350 A.D. there is a record hy which any sensitive piece of wood, falling "between these two dates, may he dated to the actual year.

In dating a ruin, every timber, every scrap of wood,, ■ ■ ■ ' ■ ■ ' .eontaining over 16 rings, should he saved. Chareeal, tee.

Is datable. If the specimens are in fragile condition, as they usually are, they should he dried in the shade and them soaked in a solution of paraffin and gasoline. Preser­ved in this way, they should he submitted to a person train­ed in dendrochronology for intensive study. Coinciding hark dates, or cutting dates, for a majority of pieces, will date the ruin under observation as to Its building or extensive rebuilding date. Beams haying an outside ring uncommon to

. . • U)a w others- were probably used for later repairs.This is only the shortest summary of what is probably

the most revolutionary step in Southwestern Archaeology.So far, it has only been applied to the more northerly regions as the use of wood as a building material in the south was negligible due to its scarcity. Other regions, besides the Southwest, as in northern California, have shown sensitivity in ring record to rainfall, b&t it has not been correlated, year for year, with the original South- (l) Dr. AS. Douglass and Gordon Baldwin Lectures 1935

lev.

western records* Other areas favor trees such as cotton­wood and juniper that are too erratic or complacent for cross-dating* This last Is one difficulty in the southern Gila regions of the Southwest. Cress-dating, it appears, is as limited in its scope as regional weather* But thereis still much to he done in the Southwest*' ' . . .

6., Out of all these contributing elements to: . . ' • / , ‘ . % - ' • -chronology, archaeologists have built up theories of dating,•workable in,excavation■ and study* There are two of prin­ciple not and interest in the Southwest* One is the work of Dr* Byron Cummings of tike University of Arizona, and may be named after him. The other is known as the *Peees Classification”, and its chief exponent is Dr. A.V. Kidder of Carnegie Institution* Both are the resultant effort of much study and work in* the Southwestern region, and are based, for the most part, upon typology, stratigraphy, and geographical distribution* The classifications and related dates are as followss

The Cummings Classification:Archaic — (Earliest times to 500 A*B.)

(Brush shelters, cave dwellings)Early Pueblo — 500 - 900 A*D. (People of the Pithouses)

Circular PitheasesTransitional Pithouses(rounded corners)Rectangular Pithouses

Late Pueblo — - 900 - 1540 A*D.(Surface Structures), ^sall House GroupsUnit Type Groups 900-1100 A.D.Rambling Pueblo 1100-1450

108.

CorapactPueblo 1450-1546. . Coapouhd Pueblo

Historical Period — 1540- present ' Spanish 1540-1853

Modern 1853-present(1): ■■ ; . ■ • ' ■ • ' ,

Pecos Classification:Basket Maker I — ? - 200 A.D. ?(From Beginning tointroduction of corn)

:

Basket Maker II — 200? - 450 (Com to pottery)Basket Maker III-— 450 - 750 (Pottery» Pithomses) 'Pueblo l — — 750-850 (Transitional period of cultures

and people, pit structures partially above ground)

Pueblo II — 850-950 (True perfection of abovegrounds structure, pueblo and unit type. Pithouses continue

. in South)Pueblo III — 950-1250 (Classic era, great community

houses, greatest period of development)

1200-1350 (abandonment of great houses of north due to drougth)

Pueblo IV 1350-1700 (Late Prehistoric,decadence• in pottery, fluctuation and

migration)Pueblo V — - 1700 to modern (Modern pueblo Indians) (2)Neither of the authors claim absolute dates but real­

ise that such mist be approximate. Like all things human.these classifications will be changed, in part, in the future? and are now, not infallible nor are they claimedto be. As their formulation preceded much important tree ring data, dendrochronology will undoubtedly be used to(l)and(2) Cummings

109.

supplement and change them In many Instances. Especially Is this true of the Pecos Chronology, vhich is the more rigid of the two. As they stand, now, they represent the fin­al conclusion of archaeological excavation* the goal for which the scientist digs and is guided in further digging. Thus, their value has been widespread in the promotion of eontlimed work in the Southwest*

P. 1. Southwestern, mrohaeelogical material, pottery, stone implements, hone implements, heads, and "burials, not counting a multitude ef lesser finds, must he removed and preserved with care immediately upon excavation. Dry heat, winds, and the extreme heat and cold of the desert lands are highly destructible to materials, excepting stone, that have long been in the earth.

Pottery should he trowled out with care, especially, if the vessel is intact or in composite position. If intact, dry the ware in the shade to prevent ©racking. Otherwise, collect all sherds, place them in a paper hag or hex with a description of the article and location of find. All loose sherds should he saved, sorted, temporarily repaired, and studied before discarding. By doing repair work in the field, the restorer can., notice if any important fragments are missing from a howl or olla. Further search about the find spot may turn up the additional pieces.

Bene implements should be dried in the same fashion if not in a state of decay. If so, a shellac spray will so

no.

congeal the crumbling fragments that they may he removed with safety. Wood, easoepting tree ring specimens, which are dipped in paraffin solution, may he treated in the &@m® way.

Jewelry mast he very tediously sorted out of the dirt and picked up one hy one if in the form of heads or tiny pieces of mosaic inlay as is often made in turquoise and shell. If a necklace or mosaic pendant is in place, it can he so covered with gauze and a coat of shellac, the.t it may he lifted out, packed, and taken to a museum for per­manent restoration.

Forrest B. Clements, in a recent article, describes a process that may be successfully employed in the removal of small clustered articles or extremely fragile artifacts.The article is first taken out on the block of earth in which it is imbedded. To do this it first should be un­covered and brushed off so the nature of the thing is vis­ible. Cut away the earth until it is left upon an ample pedestal of earth. The exposed specimen is covered with a dusting of dry bran and then several layers of porous paper. The whole block should then be sprinkled with water. Strips of burlap, 4 inches wide and long enough to cover over half the block, are dipped in water and then in a sol­ution of Plaster of Paris (12 lbs. to a gallon). The strips arc then applied to the block. They should overlap and be

111.

long enough to come down over pari of the undercut of thepedestal. Two layers of strips are sufficient. "When thisdries, the pedestal or block is completely undercut andcovered with similar stripe of burlap until the final effectis a cocoon-like ball ready for shipment. Clements also

(1)suggests such a method for the removal of burials.A burial should be carefully uncovered with respect

to anatomical position, nothing should be disturbed, and all associated artifacts should be photographed in actual relationship before being moved. The bones should be ex- . posed in situ, with knife, trowel, brush, and whisk broom. This not only allows them to dry properly, but exposes them for photography before they are taken up. Before taking out, if they are in a poor state of preservation,

(2)shellac, glue, or water-glass may be sprayed or painted on. If the soil is moist and not rocky, preferably sandy, a box may be built around the skeleton, boards driven beneath it, a top nailed on, and the whole block of earth may be 00

• „ . (a) U)shipped to a museum.2. There are, in architectural reconstruction,

two principal phases or reasons with which the archaeologist must deal. He is working to preserve the remnants of a swiftly disintegrating past, and he is attempting to revive(1) Forrest E. Clements "Botes on Archaeological Eethod"

American Antiquity V. 1. Jan. 1936 pp. 193-4.(2) Wilder Qp. eii. pp. 89. and 93.(3;Ibid. p. 94. (4) Cummings (Field work of 1935)

112.

that past> as it was, for am educational showplace. Both should be accomplished through the sane means of wise reconstruction. The rules in this country are much the same as those enumerated "by Karl Ruppert for the Mayan Area. Historical veracity, preservation, strength, and "beauty are the principles to he embodied. In some ways these work at cross-purposes, and the archaeologist is often torn "be­tween the desire to reproduce exactly as was and the longing to do a good, solid construction joh that will withstand theelements. Veracity should always come first, however, as

. (1)historical accuracy is the archaeological purpose.In eases of preservation, ^iere reconstruction is not

to he attempted, some protection must he given exposed walls and "buildings. Casa Grande national Monument, in Southern Arizona, is an example of preservation without reconstruction. The main "building building has been shelter­ed by a wood and metal roof built ever the old compound building. Some of the smaller compounds in the area, of which only low walls were left standing, were covered with a coat of concrete after excavation. Though protected from reducing rains, the shape of the original walls have been greatly obscured. The restorer, here, is forced to make such a decision as is obvious. Complete restoration would have been the only thorough solution to the problem,_____In restoration, as at Betatakin or Tuzigoot, cement(l) Cummings Conference

113.

mixed with the natural earth e&n he used as the reetorative(1) (2)mortar. : The greatest objection to this is not tie color* which has heen pleasingly imitated* hut the surface appear­ance of the modem cement. Pure mud mortar* as far as we know an exact replica of the original "building material* is sufficiently strong providing the we&therie not toewet. Even in this case* as was done at Betatakin* the

(3)tops of the wll® can he pointed and guttered with cement #ilch will allow for a run off.

The original roofs of the aborigines were made of timbers* smaller branches* poles* tules* or willows* and mud. Cummings closely reproduced the original roofs of this type at Kinishba. Spicerand Caywood, at Taaigoot* reinforced their work with wire screen and dobe-ceaent

U) .mixture. The actual dirt roofs take longer to construct as they must be repaired after each rain for a year or longer. Once they have been allowed to settle* there is every reason to believe that they will be as substantial as the modernised versions of concrete. This Illustrates one of the most importemt items of tlie reconstruction work. It must be tended to from time to time. The archaeologist cannot expect to re-erect an ancient edifice and leave itto the elements* considering his job done. Just as the * 2 3(ijspicer Coaference,. ~ ~(2) Eeil if. Judd "Excavation and Kepaii of Betatakin”Proceedings of the U.S. rat. Hua- 2828 1930 p. 8.(3) Ibid. .(4; Spicer Conference

114.

primitive dweller continuously labored to preserve hishome, the reconstractionist imist maintain caretakers and

(1)periodical inspection after he has completed his first job.. A brilliant and spectacular reconstruction was car­ried on at Chettro Ketl in the Chaco. The workers were confronted with the problem of the old world digger. Mas­sive architectural discoveries were found to overly one another. Walls, rooms, a great kiva, and other features belonged to the top stratum. Test holes showed that beneath there was another city, two, and three other cities, ofetpml impressiveness. To have t o m down the upper buildings

; . . . .would have been destroying some of the finest standing e&i- flees of a past race. To have failed to examine the earl­ier structures would have been a crime against archaeology. Excavation of these lower chambers became a sort of tunnel­ing proposition. Concrete pier® were poured under the in­tersecting walls of upper buildings as fast as there was space hollowed underneath. Iron rails were strung from onepier to another along the walls. With this support, the

(2)underground rooms were cleaned and exposed.Another elaborate plan of this type has been proposed

by Mr. Halseth at Pueblo Grande. The aim is to restore one-third, excavate one-third, and leave one-third as is. Ihenthe west face of the mound has been exposed, and the strata * 2

Cummings:- ■ Lecture ... ' ' V '(2) R.G. Pisher Lecture August 1935.

115.

has been more definitely determined, a shaft will he sunkat the south end and a tunnel will he started upward andnorthward. The two lower levels contain very little filland will only he indicated, hut the other five levelscan be so reconstructed that the visitor, when passingthrong the®, will be moving in atratigraphleal progressionfrom one room to a room of a later period above. Then suchhas been accomplished, it will be an engineering as well as

(1)an archaeological feat.0. To begin recording at the same place as ex­

cavation, wo will start with reconnaissance and survey. Ter­ritorial survey recording has been worked up to a high de­gree as intimated in the discussion of the survey itself.The Museum of Northern Arizona prepares a description card and sherd collection, as was mentioned, on each site. These are brought to the laboratory and the data on each card is reorded in a special accession book arranged by number. The site is recorded on a map, and the field card is filed away according to drainage. In another file, arranged as to site number, are folders with photographs and additional records.Sherds are numbered and retained in specially marked cartons(2)until taken out for study.

Gila Pueblo recording is similar. Figure 12. is a specimen of their "Field Detail Sheetw upon which is rs- (1) Halseth Conference(2; Colton “Archaeological Survey of M.H.A." Op. cit. p. 2.

Site:Location:

Type of Ruin:

Number of rooms: Number of stories:

Walls: Material:

Thickness: Height: Doors:

Condition:

Fortifications:

Irrigation: -

Agriculture:

Nearest water:

General surroundings:

Depth of Culture: Area of Culture: Ruin:

Character of fill: Sherds:

Specimens:

Remarks:

Sherd bags marked: Photographed:

Date:

116.

corded the quadrangle* site* and information in accord with, their system. Pinal results are compiled and go into the preparation and continuous changing of a "culture map0 of the entire Southwest*maintained at the laboratory.

On the site, recording of features, artifactual and architectural, is done* in most cases, by room walls* as at Kinlshba, by stakes of a grid, as in caves, or by trench orientation. At Jeznez Cave, important objects were measur­ed from the nearest 12 foot grid stakes thick were left in(2)place, being moved downward as the excavation progressed.In some cave work the walls can be used for orientation and

■ (3) ... . • ' ■recording. Haury, at Snaketwon* recorded all material andhouses in relation to his 60 meter grid. And the depth waschecked from contour and datum plane, although the latter is

(4)not particularly good on low mounds. In the Pithouse site at Texas Canyon, Arizona* trenches were used, and these were lettered alphabetically. Artifacts were recorded as to trench designation and the distance from north* south* east*

* . ^ V (5)or west end of trench.In photographing and mapping a room or excavation, all

sherds and artifacts should be left in place on the floor if found at that level! otherwise they are removed. Any fal-

Op. c^t. p. 14[l) Haury Conference,2} Alexander and Reiter a*».. .

U V Haurv "conference*(5) Fulton Op. cit. p. 14.

la&texi&lTik»lz.Lvi4<LOoLvf#.t ifldoL leiJL a.ce.

FL»*tfBfiSEfciT CWaMMtL OF 5cut Kvlsi.

Fibullfi. IH. 3kbu/ lUi KcLflittoMjKv? ftf A.Nt> 5lie. T mbu K^iCeVcivC. C.ti.ttV>1-£Cc\lOtl ( ftoetcveLx t-l)

-AfTcL HaVK-l

Le&eub - A.- Vect iBi/Lc.B _ FiKeVlTC_ Ho Let Fdk MvoIoil

_______________________ _____ J

— \A

L

r go ^

Root PojTs0 . Halos fek LesseR.

o ®ox

\ZJ -O

R»»F for & >o O-c.

E-- 5utT ce. LeveLV/keiA House Wes

0 o ■

o pxBvlV.1

f- £.1iiT uit Sue F*ce V _ O 0 *o

12). Exu^PLeL of (jt tfiuHD PLi KL <- Ct6jS_5»<.ri6M bf rime. Srte. es it 15

R ccfllD tb B1 DflftMJlMft -

_ AKcL rinvd

117.

len timbers or stone should be left in place» however£2.) (2)After the floor is cleared* the room is best photographed with the aid of a sixteen foot tripod* which shows the com­plete outline of the room* construction of three walls, most of the floor* and all objects in situ. Inside dimensions of the room are always taken. Inner corners are located for mapping by measuring them from survey stakes or some other mark of orientation. Thus, a determination of else andJuxtaposition is ascertained so any drawings may be made

(3)with accuracy. Top view mid cross-section drawings are an aid to photography a# the latter are usually inaccessible to camera. Every item must be shown in true relationship and size. Figure 13.,(after Haury), is a good example of a Earound. plan-and cross-section of a house site at Roose- 'velt 9:6. Figure 14.,(after Haury)» shews the related cultural and geological features of the entire site (Roose­velt 9:6.) in cross-section.

H. To close tills chapter, these are the methodsas they arc practically applied in the Southwest by present day archaeologists. In this survey of excavation, what fea­tures of similarity might be noted between this region and the rest of the world? %hat differences are there? And, most important, what will be borrowed from other areas in the way of method? What improvements will and can be made?Thee items are a natural conclusion. 1 2(1) Spicer Conference(2) and (3) H.S. and C.B. Cosgrove Op. cit. pp. 29-30.

118.

CHAPTER VTcoromsioH

119.

My all inclualve Intent loEfla&s W e n to a Ingle out archaeological excavation, study its development* try to determine along What lines it has* of necessity, grown, show how these trends have heen practically applied and adapted to the environmental situations over the world at large, and finally, to specifically and in detail, examine archaeological excavation method in the American Southwest*

We have seen that archaeological interest had it roots in late Classical days; flourished with intellectual and artistic rebirth of the Renaissance; was a favorite of dil­ettantism of the rich in the Seventeenth, Eighteenth, and Nineteenth Centuries; and grew to a science, and is still growing, in the last eeventy-five years. That it did arrive at scientific prestige was due to the fact that its leaders engaged in and encouraged method, both in study and excava­tion. • - s -

As conditions of method improved, definite items, "prin­ciples and generalities”, as I have called them, became a part of the excavation procedure. Flret, the culture with which the archaeologist is working must be studied, as to literature, tradition, and material evidences. Second, the field under consideration is studied, with an eye to the lo­cation of sites, the significance derived from the data of their location, and the final surveying of the particular site selected for excavation. Third, before digging, the

120.

archaeologist in charge must concern himself with the supply of labor, if labor is an Important factor. Fourth, the -excavation proper may be carried on by any, or several, of over a half-dozen different systems. The director must decide on which is the best suited to the conditions and the culture involved* Fifth, chronology, its reconstruction, is a goal. It is acbteved in any of seven different ways. "Which ones may he use to advantage? Sixth, there is restor­ation and preservation of the ancient remnants discovered. This falls into two classes, artifactual and architectural. Seventh, accurate recording in the form of notes, drawings, maps, and photographs is required. And eighth, growing out of all this/ theories and implications are evolved by the archaeologist concerning the past into which he is probing.

With these seven or eight divisions of method, we turn to see their practical application over several areas which I have prosalcly termed "the World at Large*. This included the important archaeological areas of Classical Greece, Rome, and the Mediterranean, northern Europe, the Hear East, the Mound Builders of Horth America, and the Mexican, Central, and South American cultures.

Concerning the American Southwest, almost the identical threads of investigation were extended* Up to now, the ways and means have been enumerated and explained. They have been

121.

shown to pertain* generally, to the world, and, specifical­ly, to the Southwest , as have been aims. Ytfiat cwaelnw.l sions can wedraw concerning their practice? Taking the, two main fields of stu<^, how does our Southwest resemble the rest of the archaeological world in method? How does it differ? And what are the possibilities for the future fur­therance of method in this region?

Let us summarize the conclusive facts in accord with the eight augments of methodical excavation as I have described them:

1. Culture:The closest cultural and environmental anal­

ogy to the American Southwest is in the Hear East* Similar­ities can be noted in climate, soil, terrain, and, even, in cultural remnants, pottery being the chief typological in­dicator. -

2, Study of the Field(Reconnaissance)The determination of sites in the Southwest

and in the Near Bast, especially Mesopotamia, is about the same$ unusual mounds, potsherds, and surface remains of building materials so indicate.

Territorial survey has been highly developed in the Southwest from the standpoint of recording and mapping of sites. Classical, Near Eastern, European, and Central Am­erican areas have a better organization from the standpoint

of typological and distributional study of the culture.Site survey ie carried out in grid system hy Kouad and

Hear Eastern archaeologists. Lately, this method has been. : ; y. . \ ■ :

more extensively employed in the Southwest. Previously, it was believed unnecessary on pueblo sites as the room walls were used for orientation purposes. This can be done very well, but on sites showing little surface indications of structure, or oh sites of several superimposed cultures, the grid system would be an added advantage.

■ 3. Labor: ■ , .Labor is a big problem in the Hear East

where It has been met by training natives to assume posi­tions as foremen. Ethnological contacts in the Southwest should lead the way to such a system of deputized labor among the American Indians. This would not only offer them skilled employment, but it would educate the Indian to an interest in the preservation and excavation of the pre­historic monuments,

4. Excavation Proper:There is a good deal more trenching and pit­

ting in Southwestern excavation than inthe Hear East. This has Justification in that our sites are not, usually, so confusingly complex. In both places, as in Greece, Italy, and England, trenching is the most common means of explor­ing the questionable soil surrounding the mound proper. Bur­ials are sought for by trenches. The soil augur, as a means

122.

123.

of pitting, is used in 'botii. Egypt and the, Semthwest. How­ever, trenches accomplish more stratigraphy in the South­west than the Oriental regions.

The greatest difference is in the "onion peel" system. This has not been put to pure use in the Southwest. Funda­mentally, I see no reason why it cannot and will not, inthe future, funds permitting.

- •• ' • - ' ■ . - .Slicing, as used in bread-loaf fashion on the North. \American Hounds, has not been successful in the Near East because it is too destructive to successive cultural layers, especially architectural features. On this score, the Southwest again resembles the Near East. Only rubbish mounds are favorably attacked in this method.

Room clearance and removal of debris are most similar­ly executed In these two aforementioned areas. Clearanceis best achieved by working down from the top of each room,’ ’ . . " -

in a rough "peel" system.5. Chronology:i '

St^atigraphy, which is one of tiie M s t wide­spread chronological guides, is conducted much- the same in the Near East and Southwest. Trenching for a cross-section face is more widely used in the latter country, but column and block tests are carried on .in exactly the same manner. Men, studying now in Palestine and Iraq, have dug in the Southwest. Conditions of overlap, though more complicated over there, have to be met here as well.

Typology is ter organized in the Hear ^ast, Europer and, in some phases. Central America. The Southwest, now in a, period of somewhat confused nomenclature, promises to arrive at a standardization in the near future.

Seriation has flourished largely in the Southwest. One reason for this is that moat of the Hear Eastern sites, un­der extensive excavation, have been large, complex mounds with every opportunity for stratigraphies! work. Study of •birasple" sites there, as here, can find seriation useful. It is of significance that Bade studied such chronologic^, meth­ods used by Kidder at Pecos. -

In dendrochronology, the Southwest has definitely stolen a march on old world archaeology. The spread of this science to the Hear East and Mound areas is, at present, being considered.

7. Preservation, art if actually, is much the same everywhere. Architecturally, the Southwest has equaled the Mayan and Old World activities at Chaco Canyon and Betatakin To continue this type of work is a duty not to be disregard­ed.

8. Recording, by grid orientation, has been carried out in the Hear East, Mound, and Southwest. This is the soundest method unless dealing with well-defined rooms. A system such as Fisher's at Megiddo, though intricate, would * 1....v . .'. . » • ' ■ ■ : ~ ~(1) Bade Op. cit. p. 13.

well serve Southwestern needs. The Snaketown excavations probably test exemplify this to us.

Today, Southwestern archaeological theory is more disputable, I should say, than the European lithic chronologies, than Egyptian dynastic time figuring, or, per­haps, even the Mayan historical reconstruction from glyphie records. It is for the perfection of this theory of the future, for the furtherance of the extension of our enli^it- enment back into past centuries and decades* that the very best and most careful work, in the departments mentioned, be our goal.

BIBLIOGRAPHYAlexander» H #G# and Reiter, Paul

Report on the Excavation of Jeaes Cave, ITew Mexico • University of Hew Mexico and School of American

Research •1636 U. of Helle Press, Albuquerque,

Aitken, Robert, T,A Porto Rican Burial Cave

American Anthropologist V, 20,1618 July-Sept.

Allison, V,C,The Antiquity of Deposits in Jacob's Cavern

Aslhrop. Papers of A.M.U.H, V, 19, Part VI 1626 ITew York

Armstrong, A, LeslieDigging Up the Primitive

The Living Age V. 326.1925 Am* 8,

Bade. W.P,; A Manual of Excavation in the Hear East , -

University of California Press 1954 Berkeley

Bonnet, W.C,Excavations at Tiahuanaco

Anthrop. Papers of A.Ii.lT.H, V, 34, Part III 1934 Hew York

Berry, William RanstedThe Archaeologist in the Field

Art and Archaeology V. 23.162? April

Blegen, Carl W,Excavations at the Argive Heraeum

American Journal of Archaeology V. 29.1625

127.

EXcaYatipns at Troy in 1932American Journal of Archaeology V* 36.

. • 1932 ■ : ; - - . - -Bradfieldf Wesley - '

Caneron Creek Village ' ’School of American Research 1929 Santa 2©

British MuseumHow to Observe in Archaeology

1929 London.Carter, Jesse Benedict •

The Roman JorumLoescher and.Co. , .$D9 Rome

Carter, Howard and Mace, A.C.She Tomb of Tut-Atidi*Aaen

George H. Doran and Ce,1923 Hew York

Casson, StanleyThe Progress of Archaeology

Whittlesey House, McGraw-Hill Book CO. Inc. 1934 lew York and London

Cleland, HerdeanThe Crime of Arehaeology---A Study of Weathering

Scientific Monthly V. 35.1952 August

■ ■ . " • : ' ■Clements, Forrest E.lots# on Archaeological Method

American Antiquity V. 1.1936 • January • '

Colton, H.s; (and M.R.F.)The Little-Known Small House Ruins in the Coconino ForestAmerican Anthropological Assooiation Memoirs V. 5. 1918

128.

The, Aitiiaeological Survey of the Huseum of. northern ArizonaMuseum Notes V. 4. mo* 1*» Huseum of IT* Ariz* 1931 J W . flagstaff

Cosgrove, II.S.and C*S«The Swarts Ruin

Papers of the Peabody Huseum V* 15. no* 1. 1932 Harvard U. Cambridge

Cummings, ByronCuieuileo and the Archaic Culture of Mexico

Social Science Bulletin no.4*' 1933 University of Arizona Tucson

Curwenf E. CecilNeolithic Camps

Antiquity V* 4.1930 March Gloucester, England

Silt 1%% of Ditches in Chalk (Ibid.)

Davis, Emily C.Ancient Americans

Henry Holt and Co.1931 Hew York

Encyclopedia Britannica Archaeology Greek Ar#meology Stratigraphy

Fairelough, Henry RushtonThe World Digs Up its Past

Scientific Monthly V. 41.1935 November

fewkes, Jesse WalterCasa Grande, Arizona

3.A.E.Annual Report 28.1906*7. Washington

129.

Antiquities of Mesa Verde national Parks Cliff Palace B.A*E. Bulletin 61e. .1911 Washington' ' '

Field, Henry • . '■ . . : ' . • V ! ^The Field Euoeun-Qxford University Joint Expedition at Kiehs II

Art and Archaeology V, 31. .1931 June

Fisher, C.S. .The Excavation of Anwgeddon

Oriental Institute Ccsramieation Mo. 4.1929 University of Chicago Press Chicago

Fisher, Reginald G. '®ie Santa Fe Suh-^aadrangle A

University of Mew Mexico Bulletin V. 1.1931 University of 27.11. Press Albuquerque

Imke9 GerardAntiquities of Central and Southeftitini Missouri

B.A.E. Bulletin 37.1910 Washington

Fowler, H.27. and Wheeler, J.R. /Greek Archaeology

' American Book Ca* . . ' ' . -■ -1909 Mow York

Frankfort, Henri and Preusser, Conrad >, Tell Asmar and Khafaje

(Oriental Institute Consnmication Ho. 13.1932 University of Chicago Press Chicago

Fulton, William Shirley *Archaeological Motes on Texas Canyon, Arlsoma

Museum of the American Indian Heye Foundation V. 12. noi 1.1934 Mew York

Garstang, J.Excavations at Askalen

Anmua Report of the Smithsonian Institute 1922

130,

Glffor4§ Edsrard WinslowComposition of the California Shellnoundo

Xinlvereity ©f California Publications in : American ArchaeSogy and Ethnology V, 12.

1916 U, of Ce Press BerkeleyGordons Cyrua H.

Buried Cultures of the Sear East-1 Asia V. 36.

• 1936 January .Gordon# Irwin L.

Digging Through the Ages Atlantic V. 133.

\ 1925 Pehruiry 'Guy, P.L.O. ' . ' " • . ' .

Sew Bight from ArmageddonOriental Institute Communication So. 9. 1931 U. of Chicago Press Qiieago

Gladwin# H .8.(and Winifred)

A Method for the Designation of Ruins in the Southwest Medallion1928 Pasadena

The Use of Potsherds in an Archaeological Surrey of the Southwest Medallion Ho. 2.1928 PasadenaThe Red-on-Buff Culture of the Gila Basin

Medallion So. 3.1929 Pasadena

Haeberlin# Henan K.Some Archaeological Work in Porto Rico

American Anthropologist V. 19.. 191? ■ ' April-June ■ - ' . : '' -

Hale# George ElleryWork of an American Orientalist

131

, Scribners Y, 74,1923 OmUbmr , .

Harrington9 Mark Raymond - .: ' '• ■ ■ • ' ■■■ .(^petai Cave, Nevada

Southwest lluseum Papers Ho, 8,1933 Southwest MseuS Los Angeles

Haury, EmilRoosevelts 9:6 A Hohokam Site of the Colonial Period

Medallion Ho, 11,, 1932 Globe, Arizona

Hawley, Ploreaee M, = . ' /v ' -Prehistorie Pottery and Culture Relations in the Middle Gila

American Anthropologist V, 32,1930 July-Sept,

The Significance of the Dated Prehistory of Chettro Ketl ' ■ : 'University of H.H. Bulletin 246

/ 1934 U, of Press AlbuqwirqueHarden, Irwin

Mesa House .; : .Southwest Museum Papers Ho, 4,1930 Southimst Museum Los Angeles

Kewett, Edgar LeeAncient Life in the African Southwest

Bobbs-Kerrill Co,1930 Indianapolis

The Chaco Canyon £n 1932Art and Archaeology V, 33,1932 May-June

Holmes, W,H.Contributions of American Archaeology to Human History

Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institute 1904 Washington

Hooten, E.A,

132.

Prehistory and Physical Anthropology: A Bock Review©f the Stone Age Rncee pt Kenya hy l.SJB. Leakey

American Anthropologist V.37e 1936

Hrdlicka, AleoSkeletal Remains in ITorth America

B.A.E. Bulletin 33 .< 190f Washington

Jayne, Horace H.P.Behind the Scenes In Modern Archaeology

Scientific American Ve 1411929 December

Jeancon, J.A.Excavations in the Chama Valley

B.A.E, Bulletin 81.1923 'ftishington'

Judd, Hell M.The Excavation and Repair of Betatakin

Proceedings of the U.S. Rational Museum, Smithson­ian Institute Ho. 28281930 Washington

Kidder, A.V. ,An Intoduetion to the Study of Southwestern Archaeology

Phillips Academy, Andover1924 Yale U. Press Hew Haven

The Pottery of the Pecos Yale U. Press1931 Hew Haven

The Archaeological Problem of the Mayas Art and Archaeology V. 31.1931 hine

Kourounlotes, K. *The Excavations at Eleysls

Art and Archaeology V.32.1931 July-August

Kroei>er» A.L.■ - . • f : . • ;r . . . . - ■ ■ 'AitiiaeologyEncyclopedia of the Social SciencesArchaic Culture Horizons in the Valley of Mexico

f University @£ California Puhlicatione in American Archaeology and Ethnology V. 17.1925 , U. of C. Prooo Berkeley. ' : V . : - : .

Langdon.StephenExcavating Kish: The Cradle of Civilization Art and Archaeology v. 26.' 1928 . Hoveaber - ' : ",• ' • 1 : v ; ‘ v ' ‘

itibbeek#'Sir-"JohnPrehistoric Times

D. Appleton and Co.; .1878 Hew York

Lucas, E.V.Herculaneum, Yesterday and Today

Harpers V. 170. -1955 ' May " ' ; ; " • - ;

Magoffin, ReV;B.lure and Lore of Archaeology ,

• The Williams and Wilkins Co.1930 Baltimore

Morgan, Lewis H.Houses of the American Aborigines

First Annual Report of the Archaeological Insti- ■ tute of, wwlca '■« • :1879^#

Morley, Sylvanua Griswold. .... - " ■■ ' ' ' ■

Unearthing America’s Ancient History Rational Geographic V. 60.1931 Italy

Mylonas, G.B. -' ■Excavations at Haghio Kosmos

American Jourhal of Archaeology V. 38.1934

KcAlliotexvJ.G* ,The Archaeology of Porter County '

Indiana History Bulletin V.10. no.l*1932 Historical Bmcap Indianapolis

HaeCurdy, G^r@e GrantHuman Origins V. I. '•

1), Apple ton and Co.1924 Hew York

Kackay, Dorot&yDigging Up Dead Cities ',v Asia V. 30. .

1930 MarchHhk Airman as an Archaeological Scout

Asia V. 31.1931 April

McGregor» JohnAn Outline of Arizona Archaeology

Arizona State Teachers College 1932 flagstaff

ITational Research CouncilGuido leaflet for Amateur Archaeologists

Reprint and Circular Series Ho. 93.1930 Hat. Res. Council Washington

Melaon, H.C.The Archaeology of the Southwest: A Preliminary Report

Proceedings of the national Academy of ScienceV . 5 .1919 Washington

Oriental InstituteReport on the Hear East

American Journal of Semitic Languages and Lit.V. 5 2 .1935 Oct. Chi. U. Press

Osborn, Henry FairfieldChicago

135.

- V ' ■ 'Men' of the Old Stone Age Chae. Scribnersf Sons■ . ■ ' 1923 : ' ; . Hew York ‘ ' ■ . . . . .

Peabody, CharlesBxeavation of a Prehistoric Site at Tarrin, Dept, of the Haxites Alpes, France

American Anthropologist V.15.1913 April-June

Pearce, J.E. and Jackson,A.T.A Prehistoric Reek j%elter In Valrerde County, Texas ,, Univeraity of Texas Bulletin-Anthrop. Papers

V. 1. no. 3.• ■ . ; 1933 ' 1

Pendray, H.&.Hen m o Dig

, Hew Outlook V. 163.. 1933 March

Petrie, Sir FlindersMethods and Aims in Archaeology

■ - Mnnkllls# Ce. " '1904 London

The Peoples of PalestineArt and Archaeology . V. 34*1933 Marcli-April

Prudden, T. MitchellA Further Study of the Prehistoric Small House Ruins in the Sen Juan Watershed

American Anthrop. Assoc. Menoirs V.5.1918

Higgs, Arthur StanleySpecial Correspondence to Art and Archaeology

Art and, Archaeology V. 32.1931 ■ ; . ' , , • ' ■

Robineon, David H.A Preliminary Report on the Excarations at Olynthee

American Journal of Archaeology V. 33.

136

. - ■ ..V' 'i»2» \ ..Rappert, Karl ■ : ; ^ , . .

Temple of the %all labelsCoatrl'butlonB to American Archaeology 3To. 3. Puhlication 403 of Carnegie Institute!1931 Washington ,

Qie Cwtime@2. ' '.Carnegie Institution Publication 454.1935 Washington

■ ■■ ' - - - - . ’ ' "Schaeffer,.; P.A. ; •

A Hew Alphabet of tiie Ancients is Unearthed national Geographic 7. 58*1930 October

SehliemanB, H* .I Myc enae

John Murray ’ - " . •, 1878 London

Schmidt, ErichTime Relations of Prehistoric Pottery Types in Southern Arizona 4

Anthrop. Papers of A.H.If.K. V. 30. Part V. 1928 A.M.1T.K. Hew York

Anatolia Through the AgesOriental Institute Coznmn. Ho. 11.

- 1931 U. of Chi. Press ■ Chicago- . • ■ ■ ■

Shear, T. LeslieSMavations at Corinth in 1925 .

American Jour, of Arch. T. 29.. . 1925How an Archaeologist Works

Scientific American V. 149.1933 December

Scientific American• • : v , • ' - • r- - '' ?

A Year of ArchaeologlcallDiscoveries i V. 138. March - ^1928 . ; - ’ • . . . •

137.

Spier* LeslieH.C* irolson’s Stratigraphic Technique in the Recon­struction of Prehistoric Sequences in Southwestern America .

Methods in Social Science— -Rice(editor) ,: 1931 U. of Chi. Press Chicago

Trentea^Argillite’CultureAmerican Anthropologist V. 18.: ; isis . ■■' ; ' ;; .

/Tosser*' Alfred M.. ' ' ■v ■ .

Excavation of a Site at Santiago Ahuitsotla# D.Z. Msxiee. ' . ■ •

, B.A.E. Bulletin 74..1#21 Washington

Vaillant*. George C.Excavations at Zacatenco

. Aathrop. Papers of A.M.H.K. V. 32. Part I 1930 Hew York

Excavations at El ArholilloAnthrop. Papers of A.2I.2T.H. V. 35. Part II

- ... , .-.1935, • Hew YorkVon Der Osten* R.H. and Schjaidt, Erich .

'; 'The Allshar Huyuk: Season of 1927 Part I

Oriental Institute Publication V. 6.1928 U. of Chi, Press Chicago

Washington, H. S.Excavations at Phlius in 1892

American Jour, of Arch. V. 27.; • . 1923 . . ' • > .

Weigall, ArthurThe Romance of Excavation

World's Work V. 59.•. . •. 1930 PehrearyWieeler* Hoel F.

RxcavatltmAntiquity V. 4.

1930 June Gloucester, EnglandWilder^ Harris Hawt&eme

Kan's Prehistoric Past The Macllillan Go* •1923 , Hew York

Wissler, ClarkAn Intreduction to Social Anthropology

Henry Holt and Co*1929 Hew York

Woodward, Arthurthe'Grew# Site -

lee Angeles Museum Occasional Papers Mo. 1 1931 Dee# Log Angeles

Yarrow, H.C.B.A.B. First Annual Hsport 1879-80 Washington

Yeung# James C*Writing Grecian History with a Spade

World's Work Y. 54.1927 July

I3CTURBSCOlIFimEHCES, CORHSSPOHDEiICE, AHD

Baldwin, GordonHuEeua and Tree Ring Aesistant

University of ArizonaBlacKbum,' F.H.

Formerly of the Oriental Institute Staff st Alishar, Anatolia

Cummings, ByronHead, of the Department of Archaeology and Director of the State Huseum

, University of ArizonaDuffen, .W.A.

Graduate Student of Archaeology , Uaiwrsity of Arizona

Ezell, P.E.' " -Under graduate Student of Archaeology

University of ArizonaGetty, Harry T.

Museum and Tree Ring AssistantUniversity of Arizona .

Raisetk, O.S,City Archaeologist of Phoenix, Arizona

Puehlo Grande, ArizonaHaury, Bail W, - .

Assistant Director at Gila Pueblo Archaeological Lab­oratories

Globe, ArizonaHodge, ?.W.

Director of the Southwest Museum'.Is® Angela. : ' - ,

Field Director of the Museum of northern Arizona i Flagstaff9 Arizona •

Member of Staff of Museum of 2Torthern Arizona Flagstaff, Arizona

Provinee* John H. '

» University of ArizonaSpicer, .He'd ; ' , < . ; ' , . v. _ .

Graduate Student of Archaeology and Ethnology U* of Arizona and U. of Chicago

Tanner, Clara leeInotuctor in the Department of Archaeology

University of Arizona