Hopi and Zuni Perspectives on Southwestern Prehistory

  • View

  • Download

Embed Size (px)

Text of Hopi and Zuni Perspectives on Southwestern Prehistory

  • 7/28/2019 Hopi and Zuni Perspectives on Southwestern Prehistory


    Society for American Archaeology

    Archaeological Cultures and Cultural Affiliation: Hopi and Zuni Perspectives in the AmericanSouthwestAuthor(s): Kurt E. Dongoske, Michael Yeatts, Roger Anyon, T. J. FergusonSource: American Antiquity, Vol. 62, No. 4 (Oct., 1997), pp. 600-608Published by: Society for American ArchaeologyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/281880

    Accessed: 21/11/2009 12:30

    Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

    you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

    may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

    Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at


    Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

    page of such transmission.

    JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

    content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

    of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]

    Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

    American Antiquity.


  • 7/28/2019 Hopi and Zuni Perspectives on Southwestern Prehistory



    Archaeologistsand Native Americansapplydifferentconcepts to classify ancientgroupsof people who lived in thepast. Thisis a topic of current nterestbecause manyarchaeologists in the United States are now havingto determinethe culturalaffil-iation of the materials theystudyto complywiththe Native AmericanGraves Protectionand RepatriationAct. TheHopi andZuni tribes in the American Southwestare used as case examples to examine how and why archaeological and tribal viewsof culturalaffiliationare divergent.Wesuggest anthropologicalperspectivesof cultureneed to be reintegrated nto archaeo-logical theoryin collaborationwithNativeAmericansin orderto interpret hepast in a manner that is both usefuland inter-esting to the multipleaudiences interestedin our work.Los arqueologosy los indios norteamericanosaplican diferentesconceptospara clasificar los gruposhumanosquevivieronenel pasado. Este es un topicode interesactualdebido a quemuchosarqueologoshoytienenquedeterminar a afiliacionculturalde los materialesqueellos estudianpara asi acatar la ley,NativeAmericanGravesProtectionandRepatriationAct(NAGPRA).Se utilizanlos casos de las tribusHopi y Zunicomo ejemplospara examinarcomo y por que las perspectivasarqueologicasytribalesson divergentes.Se sugiere que lasperspectivasantropologicasde culturanecesitanser reintegradasen la teoriaarque-ologica en colaboracioncon los indios norteamericanospara interpretar l pasado de una manerautil e interesantepara lavariada audiencia interesadaen nuestrotrabajo.

    A rchaeologistshavelong struggledwiththeissue of how to assign meaning to thematerial remains they study. Inferringbehavior,ethnicity,and culturalaffiliation fromartifacts s as difficult today as it has ever been.Since the beginningof systematicarchaeologicalresearchin North America, archaeologistshaveendeavoredto link contemporary ndian groupswith the archaeological record. As a researchfocus, the effort given to this pursuithas waxedand waned in popularity.Today,primarilyas aresult of the Native AmericanGravesProtectionandRepatriationAct, theneedto establishculturalaffiliationbetweenmodem andancientpeoples isbringinga new exigency to researchdetailingcul-turalandtemporal inkages.The past thatarchaeologistsconstructand thepast detailed in Native American oral historiesobviously have some congruence as they wereproduced by the same series of events.Archaeological culture histories and tribal oral

    histories,however,do thisin fundamentally iffer-ent ways, for differentpurposes.As a result,thecorrespondencebetweenthe two types of knowl-edge is not always consistent. In the AmericanSouthwest,for example,these divergentperspec-tives are manifest n theconceptof archaeologicalculturesand how the Hopi and Zunipeople iden-tify theirpast. Hopi and Zuni view theirpast intermsof theirancestors, he realpeople who livedat the sites now studied by archaeologists.Archaeologists, conversely, have traditionallyclassifiedthe past in termsof archaeologicalcul-tures-abstract unitsof analysisdefinedby com-parative ets of material raits.Inthisarticle,usingtheAmericanSouthwestasanexample,we reexamine he utilityandapplica-tion of the archaeologicaldefinitionof "cultures"through he classificationof material raitsandtheramificationsof this approach or discerningthepastwithinthecontemporaryegal and socialcon-text. First, we explore the development of the

    Kurt E. Dongoske andMichael Yeatts * CulturalPreservationOffice, The HopiTribe,P.O.Box 123, Kykotsmovi,AZ 86039Roger Anyon * HeritageResourcesManagementConsultants,3227 NorthWalnutAvenue,Tucson,AZ 85712T. J. Ferguson * HeritageResourcesManagementConsultants,5000 WestPlacitade los Vientos,Tucson,AZ 85745AmericanAntiquity,62(4), 1997, pp. 600-608.Copyright? by the Society for AmericanArchaeology


  • 7/28/2019 Hopi and Zuni Perspectives on Southwestern Prehistory



    archaeological ultureconceptand contrast t withthe Hopi and Zuni perspectivesof theirown his-tory.After these distinctviews of historyarepre-sented, the theoretical constraintsof integratingthe two areexplored. Simplyreturningo the sim-ple ethnographicanalogies of nineteenth-centuryarchaeologists,or the culturalhistoricalapproachpopular n the mid-twentiethcentury, s not con-sidered viable in relation to the tasks facingarchaeologiststoday.Moreover,we contend thatnew theoreticalandmethodologicalapproachesothe archaeological record must be developed.These approachesneed to be cognizant of tribalhistorical knowledge and integrate these tradi-tional perspectives into the way archaeologistsinterprethe archaeological ecord.Early Approaches to Tribal Historiesand Archaeology

    The earliestarchaeologistsn the Southwest nter-pretedthe archaeologicalrecord in ethnographicterms.Ina realsense,archaeologywasunderstoodas paleoethnography.The research programsofarchaeologistssuch as Cushing(1890), Mindeleff(1891), and Fewkes (1896, 1898a, 1898b, 1900,1909) sought to link the prehistoricruins of theSouthwest to modem Pueblo tribes, a bold andmuch neededantidote to antiquarian otions thatthese ruinswere relatedto theAztec or other cul-tures in Mexico rather than the Pueblo or othersouthwestern tribes (Lekson 1988:220-222).Excavationsclearlydemonstratedhatthematerialculture oundin prehistoricpueblosites was simi-larin manyrespectsto that of the nineteenth-cen-tury Pueblos, and the function of manyarchaeological tems could be readilyinterpretedusing ethnographicanalogy,whichhelpedto mapthe rich oral traditionsof Pueblo migrationontothe archaeologicalrecord.Cushing (1896), Fewkes (1900), Mindeleff(1891) andothersexplainedprehistoryn termsofthe themes foundin those oral traditions.Cushing(1890) applied a protostructuralistapproach,extending nsightsgleanedfromZuniethnographyto the explanationof evolutionarytrends in thedevelopmentof Puebloanarchitecture rom cliffdwellings to plaza-orientedpueblos, or the cere-monial function of sites such as Casa Grande nsouthernArizona. Fewkes (1900) often took amore directhistoricalapproachby identifyingthe

    placenamesin Hopioral traditionswithparticulararchaeologicalsites and then recountingthe his-toryof what hadtranspired t those sites.The more archaeologists worked in theSouthwest, however, the clearer it became thatPueblo oral history did not specifically discusseach archaeological site and that an additionalinterpretiverameworkwas needed to acquireandevaluateknowledgeaboutthe past. By the turnofthe century, archaeologists began to defineregionalvariations n the prehistoricarchitecturaland material remains, although it was all stillattributed o one culture ancestralto the modemPueblo tribes. Pepper (1902) provided an earlytemporalsubdivision of this southwesternprehis-toric culturewhenhe postulated hatBasketmakermaterial epresented n earlierdevelopmentof thePueblo. Others,like Hough (1907:25-26), beganto segregate temporally distinct culture areasbased on artifactualevidence such as ceramicforms anddesigns.Culture History, Science, and TribalOral Histories

    As the level andintensityof archaeological ield-work increased n the earlypartof the twentiethcentury, the variability manifest in prehistoricmaterials became increasingly recognized.Initially,effortsconcentrated n establishing em-poralorderthrough he use of stratigraphicxca-vations. By the 1920s it was clear that both thetemporalandspatialaspectsof the archaeologicalrecord needed assigned order using widelyacceptedconventions.IntheSouthwest, hisled tothe firstPecos Conferencewith a goal to establisha temporaland spatialframework or prehistoricarchaeology to facilitate communicationamongarchaeologists working in the region (Kidder1927). Ceramics,architecture, ndmortuaryprac-tices assumedcentralrolesin providing hemeansto orderarchaeologicalmaterials,and, for somearchaeologists, constellations of these traitsbecame a proxy for culturalaffiliation or ethnicidentification McGregor1977:44).Inthe 1930sit became clearthat hePecos clas-sification required expansion to incorporatearchaeological materials found beyond theColorado Plateau. The work of the Gladwins(Gladwin 1957; Gladwin and Gladwin 1934;Gladwin et al. 1937), Haury (1936), and others


  • 7/28/2019 Hopi and Zuni Perspectives on Southwestern Prehistory



    established heHohokamandMogollonas archae-ological cultures distinct from the prehistoric"Anasazi"'or Pueblosequence.Methodsfor sort-ing the archaeologicalrecordinto these temporaland spatial units became a primary focus ofarchaeological heory.Thusbeganthe shift fromataxonomybased on mappingmodem tribalgroupsintothepastto one focusingmore on material im-ilarity.Structuredn unilinealevolutionary heory,a means of orderingprehistoric ulturalmaterialswas borrowed from natural science.Archaeologicalcultures were designatedas hav-ing roots, stems, and branchesto identify spatialdifferentiation,withperiodsandphasesto identifytemporaldifferentiation.Southwestern rchaeologistsnferred hattheseculture areas reflected distinct groups of prehis-toricpeople.Thesegroups ormedthe basis of thecultureareaconceptthat we work withtoday.Theequation yingthesearchaeologicallydefinedpre-historic cultures to modem Indian groups waslargely relegated o the issue of regionalabandon-ments, i.e., the depopulationof particularareaswas explained by saying people went to Hopi,Zuni, or other modem Pueblos (Reed 1950). Byandlarge,however,questionsof linkagebetweenarchaeological cultures and modem-day tribes,and the developmentof the theoreticalunderpin-nings necessaryto make these links, became sec-ondary to the other more pressing researchquestionsof the day.As archaeologicalresearch in the Southwestcontinued, he culturalhistoricalapproachbecameparamount.Once identified,branchesand phasesbecame unitsof analysisto comparethe develop-ment and growth of differentgroups of peoplethroughout he region. The culture area conceptproveduseful fordescribingbroad ime-spacesys-tematics and still provides an often-used short-hand for summarizingconstellationsof materialtraits.In general,it was assumed thatmodem south-westerntribes,such as the Hopi and Zuni, grewdirectlyout of theprehistoric ulture hatprecededthem in theirpresenthomelands,in this case the"Anasazi"archaeologicalculture.Even so, somearchaeological esearch,as muchby happenstanceas anyotherreason,establishedotherpossibilities.For instance,over a period of two decades, theField Museum of NaturalHistory undertooka

    series of excavationsto investigatea sequenceofsites rangingfrom early Mogollon pithouse vil-lages to lateprehistoricpueblos,uncovering n theprocesssubstantial videnceof culturalcontinuitybetween the Mogollon and historicZuni (MartinandRinaldo1947, 1960;Martinet al. 1961).As the cultural historical approach becamepopular,a fundamental hift occurred n the wayarchaeologists viewed the links between thearchaeological record and tribal oral histories.Earlierarchaeological esearchhadused tribaloralhistories as a guide to identify relevant researchareas, and to link modem and ancient peoplesthrougha direct historicalapproach hat workedfrom the present o the past.With the culturalhis-torical approach,tribal oral histories were dis-counted, and archaeological reconstructions ofprehistoric ulturesbecamethe focus of research.Tribaloral histories were used anecdotallywhenthey fit an archaeologicallyderivedpicture.Themany points where tribal oral histories divergedfrom archaeological narratives were largelyignored. Interpretationsof the archaeologicalrecord endedto workfromthepastto thepresent.The "NewArchaeology" f the 1960s (Binfordand Binford 1968; Hill 1970; Longacre 1970)shiftedarchaeological esearchawayfrom the cul-turalhistoricalapproach utthe spatialandtempo-ral units of archaeologicalculturesremainedthebasic frameof reference. ntheSouthwest, esearchcontinued to use concepts such as branchesandphasesas unitsof analysis.Consequently,he staticconstraints f culturehistorystill limitedtheabilityof archaeologists o addressquestionsof culturaland social dynamics.In addition, he emphasisofNew Archaeology on an objective scientificapproachas the principalmeansof understandingthe pastessentiallydemoted ribaloral histories oscientific irrelevancy.The particularisticacts oftribalhistory hat areso importanto the HopiandZunipeoplebecamesecondaryo the use of ethno-graphicdata n a deductive-nomologicalaradigm.Ethnographicataessentially ervedasexamples obe employed n cross-culturalnferencesregardingmoregeneralhumanadaptation.It is ironic that today many southwesternarchaeologistscontinue to conceive of archaeo-logical cultures n essentiallyethnographicerms,considering hem to be tribalgroupsthat aresyn-onymouswithethnicallydistinctgroupsof people.

    602 [Vol. 62, No. 4, 1997

  • 7/28/2019 Hopi and Zuni Perspectives on Southwestern Prehistory



    This perspective is clearly articulatedby Haury(1985:xvii) in theprefaceto his 1985 book on theMogollon, in which he states:I am well aware hatpottery annotalwaysbe used as a certaindentifier f a people,butone need look only at the potteryproducedtoday by Southwesternndians o realizethatthere s a one-to-one orrelation etween ypeand tribe for most of the vessels produced.believe this situationobtainedn antiquity swell, and that the inference that Anasazi-Mogollonceramicdifferencesdenote"tribal"differencess sound.

    Many archaeologists till think this way, rarely,if ever,considering he underlying pistemologicalissues. Archaeological cultures are generallydefined on the basis of the staticconfiguration farchitecture, ottery,and other forms of materialremains.How these traitgroupsrelate o real,emi-callydefinedculturesor ethnicgroups s rarely on-sidered,andtheanthropologicalheorynecessary omake such links is weakwithinarchaeology.Hopi and Zuni: Traditional Historyand Archaeology

    The Hopi and Zuni are living dynamic cultures.Theirtraditional istoriesarelong andincorporatemany individual groups of people, each withuniquehistories.Thus,not one, butmultipletribalhistoriesoperateon multiple evels. Thehistory noral traditions s embedded n moral andreligiousprecepts,and much of this knowledgeis thereforeesoteric(Anyonet al. 1997).In the Hopi culture, each clan and religiousgroup has a unique tradition that specificallyaccounts for how and why it came to be at Hopi.There is general agreementon the main tenets ofHopi origin and migration, but many accountsshow considerable variation in specific details(FergusonandDongoske 1994:24).A key elementin the Hopi origin account is the covenant madewith Ma'saw,Guardianof the World,when Hopiancestorsemerged nto the FourthWorld rom theSipapuni (place of emergence). This led to themigration of more than 100 clans to theTuuwanasavi(earthcenter) on the Hopi Mesas(FergusonandDongoske 1994:26).Individual clan histories recountin detail thegradual movement of these clans across theSouthwest.In manyrespects,the very conceptof"Hopi"as a distinct culturaland ethnic unit does

    notreallyhave a realityuntil the "gathering f theclans"on the Hopi Mesas. Before that,the ances-tors of the Hopi were organizednot as a singletribebut as manydistinctclans. Some Hopi clanshave directancestral ies to the Motisinomor "firstpeople" (which some archaeologistsmight iden-tify as theArchaicorperhapsPaleoindian ulturesof the Southwest).These ancestorswerejoined byotherclans that fled from the ancestralvillage ofPalatkwapi ocated far to the south (Nequatewa1967; Teague 1993). The combinationof thesegroups s now collectivelyreferred o by theHopias the Hisatsinom, or "people of long ago"(Jenkins 1994). The Hopi believe these clansrangedfar and wide in theirmigrationsand werecomponentsof manydifferentarchaeological ul-tures, ncluding heAnasazi,Mogollon,Hohokam,Salado, Cohonina, Fremont,and Mimbres. Noneof thesearchaeological ulturesby themselves arethus adequateto incorporateall of the Hopi andtheirancestors.As with the Hopi, Zuni oral traditionsportraysimilar complexities in the developmentof theZunitribe.UnlikeHopi, however,the oralhistoryof Zuni is embeddedprimarily n the accountsofkivas, priesthoods,and medicine societies ratherthan nclanmigrationhistories.Althoughall Zunishave a generalunderstandingf tribalhistory, achreligious groupwithin Zuni society has a uniqueaccount of its own origins, which are known ingreat detail, but only to those initiated into thegroup and thus entrusted with that knowledge.Withoutgoing into esotericdetails,two basic ele-ments common to all theZunioralhistoriescan beidentified as being relevant to archaeologicalresearch.First,migrationsare a consistentelementof all Zuni oral histories,and differentgroupsofancestorshad differentmigrationroutes.Second,Zunis have stories of encounteringother peopleandengaging n conflict aspartof theirmigrations.After emerging from the fourth level of theunderworld,at the location now known as theGrandCanyon, the Zuni began their spirituallydestined ourneyin search of the "middleplace,"or Itiwana. Zuniaccounts recordthe splittingandjoining of variousgroups duringthese migrations(Bunzel 1932; Ferguson and Hart 1985:20-23;Stevenson1904:73-89). Onegroup s said to havejourneyedto the south,to the "landof everlastingsunshine,"never to return.Further long thejour-


  • 7/28/2019 Hopi and Zuni Perspectives on Southwestern Prehistory


  • 7/28/2019 Hopi and Zuni Perspectives on Southwestern Prehistory



    tained, in-depth analysis of this sort of cross-mediasymbolismand how it is usedin interpreta-tion of Puebloanculturalaffiliation,notjustcasualobservationsmadeduringa one-dayvisit.The Situation Today

    Archaeologists now find themselves with newchallenges. The Native American GravesProtection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA)requires hatculturalaffiliationbe determined orcultural tems found on federal and Indianlands.NAGPRA is, of course, humanrights legislationto redress what was an unbalancedpolitical andmoral situation (Tsosie 1997). As such, it isdesignedto give tribes anequitablestake in deter-mining the repatriationof culturally affiliateditems,includinghumanremains, uneraryobjects,sacredobjects,and objectsof culturalpatrimony.Archaeological information only provides onemeans for establishingcultural affiliation withinthis legal arena.Oral history, ethnographicdata,linguistics, folklore, biology, and other types ofevidence also provide egally mandatedmeans forestablishingculturalaffiliation,andmanyarchae-ologists rightfully turn to these in developingassessmentsof culturalaffiliation.Tosome degree,in determining ulturalaffilia-tion, archaeologistsare returning o the literatureof the past. The works of Cushing and Fewkesonce againhave directrelevance to contemporarylegal and bureaucratic ssues. In the course ofusing these texts, some archaeologistsalso seemto be taking a nineteenth-centuryview of theworld. Without fully evaluating the historicalprocesses that have producedthe current cate-goriesof archaeological ulture,andwithoutcriti-cally examiningthese constructedculturesin thelightof what we know aboutcultureandethnicity,too manyarchaeologists tillhopeto finda one-to-one correlationbetween archaeologicalculturesand modem tribes. These archaeologistsconse-quentlyhave a very narrowview of the affiliationbetween archaeological cultures and particularmodem tribes. Having been taught that modemPueblos are descendedfrom the "Anasazi,"sucharchaeologists xpress dismaywhen the Hopi andZuni tribes claim cultural affiliation with theMogollon, Hohokam,Salado,Fremont,andotherarchaeologicalcultures. Given the dynamic andcomplex nature of history as expressed through

    both Hopi and Zuni traditionalhistory,however,these statements hould come as no surprise.The issue of scale is central to the determina-tion of culturalaffiliation.Take, for example, acommonpoint in theprocess,a modem-daytribe.The archaeologist,working rompastarchaeolog-ical culturesto the present,sees a modem tribe asa single-unitendpoint in theprocessof reasoningwhendetermining ulturalaffiliation.Tribalmem-bers, working from the present to the past, seethemselvesas a complex systemof families,clans,medicine groups, religious societies, and priest-hoods. As we have noted above, Hopi relation-ships to ancestral archaeological sites areprimarilybased in clanhistories,whereZunirela-tionshipsare more often reckonedthroughmedi-cine groups, religious societies, and priesthoods.Consequently,archaeologistsand tribes have dif-ferentconceptsabout thepastat a pointwhereweshouldexpect congruityof scale for determiningculturalaffiliation.It is equallyimportanto reiterate hatcultural,ethnic,andtribalaffiliation s not necessarilysyn-onymouswith archaeologicalcultures.Forexam-ple, in theSouthwest,a numberof Puebloan ribescan have equally valid culturalaffiliation to anentirearchaeological ulturearea,certainportionsof that area at differenttimes, specific sites, oreven just certaincultural tems. The land and itsresourceshave playedmanycriticalrolesto manyPuebloangroupsover many centuries.Landuseshave overlapped.Differentgroupshave occupiedthe same area at differenttimes,just as the samegroup has occupied different areas at differenttimes. Cultural ntitieshave fissionedmanytimesand reconstituted hemselves in various ways toproducethe modem tribes.Thereis, thus, sharedculturalhistoryand thereforeaffiliationbetweenthe modemPuebloan ribesandmanyarchaeolog-ical areas.

    Recognizingtemporalscale in land use is alsocritical.NAGPRAplaces some importanceon theconceptof aboriginal ribalareasas determinedbythe United States for Indianland claims. Whilethis concept has utility in NAGPRA, it isextremelylimited in the determination f culturalaffiliation. Many archaeologistsfail to considerhow recent these landclaims areas arewithintheAmericanSouthwest.Using land use areas nA.D.1848 as a way to determine he extent of cultural


  • 7/28/2019 Hopi and Zuni Perspectives on Southwestern Prehistory



    affiliationhas no relevanceto the use of landbymigratingZuni andHopi ancestors n the ancientpast when, at various times, these migratinggroupstraversed, ived in, and buriedtheir deadthroughout lmostall of present-dayNew Mexico,Arizona, and portions of Colorado, Utah, andNevada.Where Do We Go from Here?

    There are no simple scientific or bureaucraticanswers to the complex social, historical, andarchaeological ssues dealingwithculturalaffilia-tion. We suggest thatarchaeologists ake a closerlook at archaeological culture concepts anddevelop new interpretiveframeworks equatingarchaeologicalmaterialswith present-day ribes.To a largeextent, this will require he reincorpo-rationof anthropologicalperspectivesof cultureinto archaeological heory.To do this effectively,archaeologists need to collaborate with NativeAmerican tribes to integratetheirperspectiveofthe past into contemporary archaeologicalresearch.Collaborations essential becausemuchof whatdefines culturalor ethnic identityis con-tained within the historyof the membersof thatculture,and membersof the tribesare in a goodpositionto identifythe traits hatare usedfor self-identification.At Hopi and Zuni, it is religiousleaders who maintain this type of information,and as partof their authority hey have the pro-prietaryright to decide what and how esotericinformation houldbe used in scholarlyresearch.We need to move beyondthe anecdotaluse oforal traditions o bolsterarchaeologicalnarratives.In this regard,we think Vansina's(1985) OralTradition as History provides the rigorousmethodologyneededto constructhistorythroughthe analysisof individualoral traditions.Vansinaprovidesa way to identifythehistoricalcommon-alties that underlievariation n the form,content,and social use of differentaccounts. He does thisby treatingoral traditionsas testimony,and thenstringentlyanalyzing a corpus of testimonies tocross-checkandinternallyvalidatehistoricalcon-tent. We think the application of Vansina'smethodology to Hopi and Zuni oral traditionswould producesystematic nformationaboutcul-turalaffiliation o archaeological ites,as well as anumberof testablepropositions hatcouldthenbeinvestigatedusingarchaeologicaldata.

    Theincorporation f traditional istory ntothesuite of evidenceusedby archaeologists or inter-pretingthepast will potentiallyrequire he recon-ciliation of contradictory views. Historically,when the Native Americanview of the past andthe archaeologicalreconstructiondiffered,it wasthe Native Americanview thatwas generallydis-counted as "mythology" or "religion." Justbecause archaeologists study tangible remainsdoes not meanthattheir nterpretationf artifactswill alwaysbe correct.It is theorythatprovidesaframework for interpretingthe archaeologicalrecord,andthis is anareawherethe incorporationof NativeAmericanknowledgeof the pastcan beof greatbenefit.In summary, o makearchaeologymoreusefulto NativeAmericantribesand to infuse the disci-pline with a new vitality, archaeologistsneed tofocus on the variation in the archaeologicalrecord rather han the reductionof thatvariationto define units of archaeologicalcultures. Newtechnology continually provides us with moreways to analyze variationthan were available toearliergenerationsof archaeologists.We clearlyneed to bridge contemporarywork to past unitsof analysis, but we also need to move beyondidentifying archaeological units as if that werethe ultimateresearchgoal. As archaeologistswequestion whether categories like Anasazi,Mogollon, and Hohokam have much analyticalutility in terms of meeting either the legal man-dateto determineculturalaffiliationor the scien-tific goals of contemporary archaeology. Asarchaeologistswho work with Indiantribes, weknow these categoriesarenot very meaningful nrelationto the ways Pueblo people thinkof theirancestors.

    Acknowledgments. We are grateful to Leigh J.Kuwanwisiwma of the Hopi CulturalPreservationOffice,Andrew L. Othole andJosephDishta of the Pueblo of Zuni,as well as the Hopi and Zuni culturaladvisory team mem-bers, for many insights into culturalaffiliation from a tribalperspective.In addition,we thank three anonymousreview-ers and Keith Kintigh for insightful comments and sugges-tions for improvements.Maria Nieves Zedefiotranslated heabstractinto Spanish. This paper was first presented at anApril 1995ArizonaArchaeologicalCouncilsymposiumenti-tled "The Culture Concept in ContemporarySouthwesternArchaeology," n Tucson,Arizona.

    606 [Vol. 62, No. 4, 1997

  • 7/28/2019 Hopi and Zuni Perspectives on Southwestern Prehistory



    References CitedAhlstrom,R. V. N., D. E. Purcell,M. Zyniecki,D. A. Gilpin,V. L. Newton1993 An Archaeological Overview of Grand Canyon

    National Park.SWCA, Inc., Flagstaff,Arizona.Anyon, R., T. J. Ferguson,L. Jackson,L. Lane,and P.Vicenti1997 Native American Oral Tradition and Archaeology:Issues of Structure,Relevance, and Respect. In NativeAmericans and Archaeologists, Stepping Stones toCommonGround,editedby N. Swidler,K. E. Dongoske,R. Anyon, andA. S. Downer,pp. 77-87. AltamiraPress,WalnutCreek,California.Binford,S. R., andL. R. Binford1968 New PerspectivesinArchaeology.Aldine, Chicago.Bunzel, R.1932 Zuni Origin Myths. In 47th Annual Report of theBureauofAmericanEthnology or the Years1929-1930,pp. 545-609. GovernmentPrintingOffice, Washington,D.C.Cushing,F.H.1890 Preliminary Notes on the Origin, WorkingHypotheses,and PrimaryResearchesof the HemenwaySouthwesternExpedition. Proceedings of the SeventhInternationalCongress of Americanists, pp. 151-193.InternationalCongressof Americanists,Berlin.1896 Outlinesof ZuniCreationMyths.In 13thAnnualReportof the Bureau of AmericanEthnology,1891-1892, pp.321-447. GovernmentPrintingOffice,Washington,D.C.Dongoske, K., T. J. Ferguson,and L. Jenkins1993 Understanding he Past throughHopi Oral History.NativePeoples Magazine 6(2):24-31.Ferguson,T.J., andK. Dongoske1994 NavajoTransmissionProjectEIS:Hopi Ethnographic

    Overview. Producedby the Hopi CulturalPreservationOffice in association with the Institute of theNorthAmericanWest, Tucson,Arizona.Reporton file atthe Hopi Cultural Preservation Office, Kykotsmovi,Arizona.Ferguson,T.J., andE. R. Hart1985 A ZuniAtlas. Universityof OklahomaPress,Norman.Fewkes,J. W.1896 The Prehistoric Culture of Tusayan. AmericanAnthropologist9:151-174.1898a PreliminaryAccountof an Expeditionto the PuebloRuins Near Winslow,Arizona, in 1896. Annual Report1896,pp. 517-540. Smithsonian nstitution,Washington,D.C.1898b Archeological Expedition to Arizona in 1895.AnnualReportof the Bureauof AmericanEthnology orthe Years 1895-1896 17:519-742. Part 2. GovernmentPrintingOffice, Washington,D.C.1900 TusayanMigrationTraditions. In Annual Report ofthe Bureau of American Ethnology for the Years1897-1898 19:573-634. Part 2. Government PrintingOffice, Washington,D.C.1909 Antiquitiesof the Mesa VerdeNationalPark,SpruceTree House. Bulletin No. 41. Bureau of AmericanEthnology,Washington,D.C.Gladwin,H. S.1957 A Historyof theAncientSouthwest.Bond WheelrightCompany,Portland,Maine.Gladwin,H. S., E. W.Haury,E. B. Sayles, andN. Gladwin1937 Excavations at Snaketown, I: Material Culture.MedallionPapersNo. 25. Gila Pueblo, Globe,Arizona.Gladwin,W.,andH. S. Gladwin1934 A Method or the Designation of Culturesand Their

    Variations,MedallionPapersNo. 15,GilaPueblo,Globe,Arizona.Haury,E. W.1936 TheMogollon Cultureof SouthwesternNew Mexico.Gila Pueblo, Medallion Papers No. 20. Gila Pueblo,Globe,Arizona.1958 Evidence atPoint of Pines for a PrehistoricMigrationfrom NorthernArizona. In Migrations in New WorldCultureHistory, edited by R. H. Thompson,pp. 1-6.Bulletin No. 29(2), Social Science Bulletin No. 27.Universityof Arizona,Tucson.1985 Mogollon Culture n the Forestdale Valley,East-cen-tralArizona.Universityof ArizonaPress,Tucson.Hill, J. N.1970 BrokenK Pueblo: PrehistoricSocial OrganizationntheAmericanSouthwest.AnthropologicalPapersNo. 18.Universityof Arizona.Tucson.Hough,W.1907 Antiquitiesof the UpperGilaand Salt RiverValleys nArizona and New Mexico. Bulletin No. 35. Bureau ofAmericanEthnology,Washington,D.C.Jenkins,L.1994 Hopi Navotiat ... Hopi Knowledgeof History:HopiPresence on Black Mesa. Manuscripton file with theHopi CulturalPreservationOffice,Kykotsmovi,Arizona.Kidder,A. V.1927 SouthwesternArchaeological Conference. Science66:486-491.1936 Speculationson New WorldPrehistory. n Essays inAnthropologyPresented to AlfredL. Kroeber,edited byR. H. Lowie, pp. 143-152. University of CaliforniaPress,Berkeley.LeksonS. H.1988 The Idea of the Kiva in AnasaziArchaeology.Kiva53:213-234.Longacre,W. A.1970 Archaeology as Anthropology: A Case Study.AnthropologicalPapersNo. 17. University of Arizona,Tucson.McGregor,J. C.1977 SouthwesternArchaeology 2nd ed. John Wiley andSons, New York.Martin,P. S., andJ. B. Rinaldo1947 The SU Site: Excavations at a Mogollon Village,WesternNew Mexico.AnthropologicalSeries No. 32(3).Field Museumof NaturalHistory,Chicago.1960 TableRockPueblo, Arizona.Fieldiana:AnthropologyVol.51(2). Field Museumof NaturalHistory,Chicago.Martin,P.S., J. B. Rinaldo,and W.Longacre1961 Mineral Creek Site and Hoopet Ranch Pueblo.Fieldiana: Anthropology Vol. 52. Field Museum ofNaturalHistory,Chicago.Mindeleff,V.1891 A Studyof PuebloArchitecturenTusayanandCibola.In AnnualReport of the Bureauof AmericanEthnology8:3-228. GovernmentPrintingOffice,Washington,D.C.Nequatewa,E.1967 Truth of a Hopi. Reprint. Museum of NorthernArizona,Flagstaff.Pepper,G. H.1902 The Ancient Basket Makers of Southeastern Utah.Journal of the American Museum of Natural History2(4). Supplement.

    Plog, F.1979 Prehistory:WesternAnasazi. In Southwest,editedbyA. Ortiz, pp. 108-130. Handbook of North AmericanIndians, vol. 9, William C. Sturtevant,general editor.


  • 7/28/2019 Hopi and Zuni Perspectives on Southwestern Prehistory



    Smithsonian nstitution,Washington,D.C.Reed,E. K.1950 Eastern-CentralArizonaArchaeologyin Relation tothe Western Pueblos. Southwestern Journal ofAnthropology6(2):120-138.Stanislawski,M. B.1979 Hopi-Tewa. In Southwest,edited by A. Ortiz, pp.587-602. Handbookof North AmericanIndians,vol. 9,William B. Sturtevant, general editor. SmithsonianInstitution,Washington,D.C.Stevenson,M. C.1904 The Zuni Indians, Their Mythology, EsotericFraternities,and Ceremonies.In Annual Report of theBureau of Ethnology 23:1-634. Government PrintingOffice,Washington,D.C.Teague,L. S.1993 Prehistoryand the Traditionsof the O'Odham andHopi. Kiva58:435-454.Tsosie, R.1997 Indigenous Rights and Archaeology. In Native

    Americans and Archaeologists, Stepping Stones toCommonGround,editedby N. Swidler,K. E. Dongoske,R. Anyon, and A. S. Downer,pp. 64-76. AltamiraPress,WalnutCreek,California.Vansina,J.1985 Oral Traditionas History. University of WisconsinPress,Madison.

    Note1. "Anasazi" s an archaeologicaltermintroducedby Kidder(1936:152). It is a corruptionof a Navajo word that is some-times translatedas meaning "enemy ancestor"(Ahlstrometal. 1993:61;Plog 1979:108).The Hopi and Zuni tribes con-sequently think this term should not be used to label theirancestors.Received December 9, 1996; accepted March 14, 1997;revisedMay 5, 1997.


    American MaterialCultureTHE HAPE FTHEFIELDEditedbyAnnSmartMartinand . RitchieGarrisonA Winterthur Book,distributed for theWinterthur Museum byUT Press. Objects in mu-seums, the buildings thatsurround us, the clothingwe wear-all are forms ofmaterial culture that weuse to create and mediatesocial relations. This vol-ume brings together im-portant new research inAmerican material cul-ture. From Tupperware tostuffed owls, from mod-em dolls to colonial por-traits, the subjects understudy here demonstratehow things provoke andsustain human dramas.360pages, llus.ISBN -912724-35-8,39.95

    ExploringEverydayLandscapesPERSPECTIVESNVERNACULARARCHITECTURE,IIEditedbyAnnmarieAdamsand SallyMcMurryThese seventeen essaysconfirm the transforma-tions now taking place inthe study of vernacular ar-chitecture. Moving awayfrom an emphasis on old,ruralstructures using tra-ditional forms and mate-rials, scholars are nowexploring a wider rangeof buildings and land-scapes-from companytowns to grand exposi-tions.December,44 est.pages,llus.ISBN-87049-983-1,30.00pa

    Carolina'sHistoricalLandscapesARCHAEOLOGICALPERSPECTIVESEditedby LindaF.Stine,MarthaZierden,LesleyM. Drucker, ndChristopherudgeSynthesizing research inarchaeology, geography,and history, these essaysfocus on the rich land-scapes of the Carolinas.Their interdisciplinary ap-proach will deepen thereader'sunderstanding ofhow people have changedthe land and how they,in turn, have beenchanged by their inter-action with it.304pages, llus.ISBN-87049-976-9,45.00

    Annapolis PastsHISTORICALRCHAEOLOGYINANNAPOLIS,ARYLANDEditedby PaulA.Shackel,Paul R.Mullins,andMarkS. WarnerBringing together researchfrom the Archaeology inAnnapolis project, thecontributors to AnnapolisPasts use archaeologicaldata to interpret theemergence of capitalismas both a dynamic marketforce and an equally dy-namic body of socialrules. Their studies rangefrom eighteenth-centuryformal gardens to nine-teenth- and twentieth-century African Americanneighborhoods.January,28pages, llus.ISBN -87049-996-3, 50.00Shippingandhandling:$3.50 or irstbook;$.75foreachadditional ook.The University of Tennessee PressKNOXVILLE7996-0325

    608 [Vol. 62, No. 4, 1997