Message #367:
From: AzTeC SW Archaeology SIG
To: "'Matthias Giessler'"
Subject: Formerly Known As
Date: Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 17:47:18 -0700 (MST)
[ AzTeC / SWA SASIG ]:
RE: http://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/swa/discussion/365.html
http://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/swa/discussion/364.html
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 18:49:05 -0700 (MST)
From: CORDELL LINDA S
Tom, You might use Ancient Pueblo Peoples. I suspect, however that no matter what you
do, archaeologists will do whatever they have been doing. Remember also that there is no
single word for ancestors that is the same in all Pueblo languages, and the the Mogollon
are also Ancestral Pueblo. Cheers, Linda Cordell, Director CU Museum
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 21:26:00 -0700
From: lipe@wsu.edu (bill lipe)
I remember looking for the earliest archaeological usage of "Anasazi" some years ago,
and like Tom Vaughan, I came to the conclusion that the earliest published reference was
by Kidder in the mid-1930s. However, I can't remember the specific reference, and I
didn't see the messages that responded to Tom's earlier inquiry about when this term
gained currency in the archaeological literature. Tom, could you give us the citation
to the Kidder publication where he used "Anasazi" in the mid-1930s? Was it in one of the
volumes on The Pottery of Pecos?
A few additional notes and thoughts on this topic: In the introduction to his classic
monograph on Alkali Ridge, J.O. Brew (1946) rails against the use of the term "Anasazi"
on the grounds that a Navajo term is inappropriate for an obviously Puebloan culture,
and that "Basketmaker-Pueblo" or "Puebloan" has precedence in the literature and would
do just as well for continued reference to this cultural tradition. ("Puebloan" of
course, is a Spanish term, but that did not seem to concern Brew.)
In his biography of Richard Wetherill, McNitt (1956) implies that in the 1890s, Richard
Wetherill was using the Navajo term "Anasazi" to refer to the early people of the Four
Corners area. (However, McNitt does not to my knowledge cite any specific letters or
notes of Wetherill's in which this usage is documented.) I have always assumed that
Kidder picked the term up from Richard's brother, John Wetherill, when Kidder was
working in the Four Corners area, because of John Wetherill's role as host and guide to
archaeologists in the early 20th century. I can't remember whether I was able to
verify this in anything that Kidder published, or whether this was just my inference.
In his book of reminiscences "Men Met Along the Trail," Neil Judd (1968) mentions using
the Navajo term "anasazi" in SE Utah in 1907 to ask Indians the whereabouts of ruins (in
this case, the Indian asked was a Ute, who led Judd on a long, hot ride that ended with
the Ute pointing to the Mormon cemetery in Bluff, Utah). Judd met Kidder that summer
of 1907, and could also have been the one who introduced the term to him, since he had
numerous chances to interact with Kidder in the decades that followed. (It appears that
Judd had not yet met John Wetherill in the summer of 1907, although he did meet him in
1908).
My guess is that this Navajo word was pretty generally known by archaeologists working
in the Four Corners area in the early 20th century, but that it was not introduced into
the literature until there was a need for a word that did not imply a particular
cultural history (as does "Pueblo"), and also a need for something equivalent in level
to the other major late prehistoric cultural traditions that were being recognized and
defined about then (e.g., Fremont, Hohokam, Mogollon, Patayan, Sinagua).
I think that the main reason that "Anasazi" caught on in the middle 1930s is that it did
not imply any particular cultural relationships--even in translation, it just means
something like "the ancient ones." In the heyday of archaeological taxonomies, one of
the recognized principles was not to use the name of a historically known cultural group
to refer to an archaeological tradition or complex, unless one was talking about the
archaeological manifestation for which there was contemporary historical or ethnographic
documentation. Since writing cultural histories was thought to be the primary goal of
archaeology, it was bad practice to pre-judge the historical conclusions by identifying
a prehistoric archaeological complex with some historically or ethnographically known
culture. That should be based on systematic analysis of the evidence, and conclusions
could change as new evidence came in. So the names should be culture-neutral, but the
named units could then be linked up historically, either in narrative terms, by use of
general concepts such as "tradition," or by use of hierachical phylogenetic-like
systems such as those promulgated by the Gladwins and by Colton. Now that writing
cultural histories is becoming important again, I think would be well to keep this
"culture-neutral names"principle in mind.
As a replacement for Anasazi, the term "Ancestral Puebloan" is sort of on the edge here.
On the one hand, there is precedent for it, as Brew points out, and after a hundred and
twenty years of research, surely we ought to be willing to give the archaeological
phenomena a name that expresses the larger cultural relationships of these folks. It
seems clear that the masonry house-building, b/w pottery-using cultures of the Four
Corners area contributed in various ways to the formation of the Eastern and Western
Pueblo cultures of the historic period. It also seems clear, however, that historic
Pueblo cultures also show evidence of various influences from areas south of the regions
usually assigned to "Anasazi" (i.e., from cultures or culture areas called Mogollon,
Salado, Upper Little Colorado, the "Western Pueblo" complex (Reed), or whatever). It is
also clear that there was a lot of cultural change throughout the SW in the turbulent
period A.D. 1250-1400. And of course, there is the distinct possibility that some
communities or sub-traditions of "Ancestral Puebloan" did not make much or any cultural
contribution to any of the historic period Pueblo cultures, either because their
populations perished in place, or were absorbed by Numic groups, or for other reasons.
My main concern here is that we not use a terminology that implies that there is a
simple, seamless, unchanging, one-to-one historical connection between the "Ancestral
Pueblo" (nee Anasazi) and all (and only) the Pueblo cultures of the historic period and
of today. On the other hand, as Tom points out, archaeologists do need to share with
the public the archaeological evidence for the historical connections between past and
present cultures. But do we need to do it all with a single term? I guess what we
need to think about is how to express the idea that yes, there are significant cultural
continuities between the pre-A.D. 1300 cultures of the Four Corners area and the Pueblo
cultures of the historic period and of today, but no, they are not all identical and the
historical relationships are complex.
Now that cultural history is of theoretical and practical interest again, I think we
need to resurrect or develop some appropriate method and theory for doing it sensibly,
and some appropriate terminology to go with this effort. Perhaps we will find that the
terminology used for archaeological analysis will have to differ from that used for
public interpretation. I suspect that we will reinvent a lot of the work done by the
Boasians and the taxonomic archaeologists of the 1920s-50s, but perhaps we can do
better. We have computers now, and that will help. Good starting points might be to
recognize that "cultures" are radically polythetic units; that most cultural traits are
not confined by community or society boundaries; that cultural units based on
empirically-determined trait associations will be pretty generalized and will not
necessarily match with communities or societies as defined by social institutions; and
that with the passage of time, relating particular traits or sets of culture traits to
particular social groups (communities, societies, nations) or to particular biological
groups (populations) is quite problematic, but an interesting challenge. Best, Bill Lipe
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 11:28:57 -0800
From: Lynne Sebastian
Tom and Linda, We had settled on prehistoric puebloan as a generic term to get away from
"Anasazi," but the Navajo Nation's THPO objects strongly to that construction because
it "implies that the Navajo are NOT decended from the Anasazi." This particular effort
to find a politically correct term is probably doomed. Lynne Sebastian
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 15:24:54 -0700 (MST)
From: CORDELL LINDA S
Lynne & Tom, Re: Prehistoric Pueblo whatever..."prehistoric" is currently anathema
among the Puebos since it implies a disrespect for tradtional, oral history. I no longer
use the term. Of course, I agree that the whole thing is hopeless. Cheers, Linda Cordell
Date: Mon Oct 27 15:51:26 1997
From: hp@scs.unr.edu (don fowler)
Another cent and 1/2 worth: I think Tom is right about the first archaeological usage by
Kidder in 1935 or 1936. While it's being discussed, what about "Hohokam"? Is "all used
up" (one "definition" of the term) OK with the Pima and O'Ohdam? Hohokam seems to have
been used first by Frank Russell in 1908 and is used by Ellsworth Huntington in 1912;
like Anasazi it is an archaeological application. "The Southwest" is offensive to some
Mexican archaeologists, and the p.c. usage is "North American Southwest," as opposed to
the "Greater Northwest," or "Gran Chichimeca," as seen from Mexico City. Mogollon, at
least, seems OK, until we hear from descendants of the late Spanish governor. A final
note: Kidder used "Anasazi" to combine two earlier terms: Basketmaker and Cliff Dweller,
the former defined by R. Wetherill and T,M. Prudden, the latter by W.H. Jackson and W.H.
Holmes in 1875/76. Maybe an acronym of the two terms? Finally, I agree with Tom that
archaeologists have changed their terminology in the past and can again if it is deemed
necessary by all parties. But, getting the terms out of the popular culture, including
another Southwest favorite, "kiva," will be difficult. Don Fowler
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 17:47:18 -0700 (MST)
From: david a jr phillips
The solution should be obvious to any rock fan. We need to devise an unpronounceable
logo, which will stand for "the culture formerly known as Anasazi." Dave Phillips
