Você está na página 1de 10

Society for American Archaeology

Archaeological Cultures and Cultural Affiliation: Hopi and Zuni Perspectives in the American Southwest Author(s): Kurt E. Dongoske, Michael Yeatts, Roger Anyon, T. J. Ferguson Source: American Antiquity, Vol. 62, No. 4 (Oct., 1997), pp. 600-608 Published by: Society for American Archaeology Stable 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 http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sam. 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 support@jstor.org.

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


KurtE. Dongoske, Michael Yeatts,Roger Anyon, and T. J. Ferguson

Archaeologists and Native Americansapply differentconcepts to classify ancient groups of people who lived in the past. This is a topic of current interest because many archaeologists in the United States are now having to determine the cultural affiliation of the materials they study to comply with the Native American Graves Protection and RepatriationAct. The Hopi and Zuni tribes in the American Southwestare used as case examples to examine how and why archaeological and tribal views of cultural affiliation are divergent. Wesuggest anthropologicalperspectives of culture need to be reintegratedinto archaeological theory in collaboration with Native Americans in order to interpretthe past in a manner that is both useful and interesting to the multiple audiences interested in our work. Los arqueologosy los indios norteamericanosaplican diferentesconceptospara clasificar los grupos humanosque vivieronen el pasado. Este es un topico de interesactual debido a que muchosarqueologos hoy tienenque determinarla afiliacion cultural Act (NAGPRA). de los materialesque ellos estudianpara asi acatar la ley, NativeAmericanGraves Protectionand Repatriation Se utilizan los casos de las tribus Hopi y Zuni como ejemplospara examinarcomo y por que las perspectivas arqueologicasy tribales son divergentes.Se sugiere que las perspectivasantropologicasde culturanecesitanser reintegradasen la teoria arqueologica en colaboracion con los indios norteamericanospara interpretarel pasado de una manera util e interesantepara la variada audiencia interesadaen nuestrotrabajo.

rchaeologistshave long struggledwith the issue of how to assign meaning to the material remains they study. Inferring behavior, ethnicity, and cultural affiliation from artifactsis as difficult today as it has ever been. Since the beginning of systematic archaeological research in North America, archaeologistshave endeavored to link contemporaryIndian groups with the archaeological record. As a research focus, the effort given to this pursuit has waxed and waned in popularity.Today, primarily as a result of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, the need to establishcultural affiliationbetween modem and ancientpeoples is bringinga new exigency to researchdetailingculturaland temporallinkages. The past that archaeologistsconstructand the past detailed in Native American oral histories obviously have some congruence as they were produced by the same series of events. Archaeological culture histories and tribal oral A

differhistories,however,do this in fundamentally ent ways, for differentpurposes.As a result, the between the two types of knowlcorrespondence edge is not always consistent. In the American Southwest,for example, these divergentperspectives are manifestin the concept of archaeological culturesand how the Hopi and Zuni people identify their past. Hopi and Zuni view their past in termsof their ancestors,the real people who lived at the sites now studied by archaeologists. Archaeologists, conversely, have traditionally classified the past in terms of archaeologicalcultures-abstract units of analysis defined by comparativesets of materialtraits. In this article,using the AmericanSouthwestas an example, we reexaminethe utility and application of the archaeologicaldefinitionof "cultures" throughthe classificationof materialtraitsand the ramificationsof this approachfor discerningthe legal and social conpast withinthe contemporary text. First, we explore the development of the

Kurt E. Dongoske and Michael Yeatts * CulturalPreservationOffice, The Hopi Tribe,P.O. Box 123, Kykotsmovi,AZ 86039 Roger Anyon * Heritage Resources ManagementConsultants,3227 North WalnutAvenue, Tucson, AZ 85712 T. J. Ferguson * Heritage Resources ManagementConsultants,5000 West Placita de los Vientos, Tucson, AZ 85745 American Antiquity, 62(4), 1997, pp. 600-608. Copyright ? by the Society for AmericanArchaeology 600

Dongoske et al.]



place names in Hopi oral traditionswith particular archaeologicalsites and then recountingthe hisat those sites. tory of what had transpired The more archaeologists worked in the Southwest, however, the clearer it became that Pueblo oral history did not specifically discuss each archaeological site and that an additional frameworkwas needed to acquireand interpretive evaluateknowledge aboutthe past. By the turnof the century, archaeologists began to define regional variationsin the prehistoricarchitectural and material remains, although it was all still attributedto one culture ancestralto the modem Pueblo tribes. Pepper (1902) provided an early temporalsubdivisionof this southwesternprehistoric culturewhen he postulatedthatBasketmaker materialrepresented an earlierdevelopmentof the Early Approaches to Tribal Histories Pueblo. Others, like Hough (1907:25-26), began and Archaeology to segregate temporally distinct culture areas The earliestarchaeologistsin the Southwestinter- based on artifactualevidence such as ceramic preted the archaeologicalrecord in ethnographic forms and designs. terms.In a real sense, archaeologywas understood Culture History, Science, and Tribal as paleoethnography. The research programs of Oral Histories archaeologistssuch as Cushing (1890), Mindeleff (1891), and Fewkes (1896, 1898a, 1898b, 1900, As the level and intensityof archaeologicalfield1909) sought to link the prehistoricruins of the work increasedin the early part of the twentieth Southwest to modem Pueblo tribes, a bold and century, the variability manifest in prehistoric much needed antidoteto antiquarian notions that materials became increasingly recognized. these ruins were relatedto the Aztec or other cul- Initially,efforts concentrated on establishingtemtures in Mexico ratherthan the Pueblo or other poral orderthroughthe use of stratigraphic excasouthwestern tribes (Lekson 1988:220-222). vations. By the 1920s it was clear that both the Excavationsclearlydemonstrated thatthe material temporaland spatialaspects of the archaeological culturefound in prehistoricpueblo sites was simi- record needed assigned order using widely lar in many respects to that of the nineteenth-cen- acceptedconventions.In the Southwest,this led to tury Pueblos, and the function of many the first Pecos Conferencewith a goal to establish archaeologicalitems could be readily interpreted a temporaland spatial frameworkfor prehistoric using ethnographicanalogy,which helped to map archaeology to facilitate communicationamong the rich oral traditionsof Pueblo migrationonto archaeologists working in the region (Kidder the archaeologicalrecord. and mortuary 1927). Ceramics,architecture, pracCushing (1896), Fewkes (1900), Mindeleff tices assumedcentralroles in providingthe means (1891) and othersexplainedprehistoryin termsof to order archaeologicalmaterials,and, for some the themes found in those oral traditions.Cushing archaeologists, constellations of these traits (1890) applied a protostructuralist approach, became a proxy for cultural affiliation or ethnic extendinginsightsgleaned fromZuni ethnography identification(McGregor1977:44). to the explanation of evolutionary trends in the In the 1930s it becameclear thatthe Pecos clasdevelopment of Puebloan architecturefrom cliff sification required expansion to incorporate dwellings to plaza-orientedpueblos, or the cere- archaeological materials found beyond the monial function of sites such as Casa Grandein Colorado Plateau. The work of the Gladwins southern Arizona. Fewkes (1900) often took a (Gladwin 1957; Gladwin and Gladwin 1934; more direct historicalapproachby identifyingthe Gladwin et al. 1937), Haury (1936), and others archaeologicalcultureconcept and contrastit with the Hopi and Zuni perspectivesof their own history.After these distinct views of history are presented, the theoretical constraints of integrating to the simthe two are explored.Simply returning ple ethnographicanalogies of nineteenth-century archaeologists,or the culturalhistoricalapproach popularin the mid-twentiethcentury,is not considered viable in relation to the tasks facing archaeologiststoday. Moreover, we contend that new theoreticaland methodologicalapproachesto the archaeological record must be developed. These approachesneed to be cognizant of tribal historical knowledge and integrate these traditional perspectives into the way archaeologists the archaeologicalrecord. interpret



[Vol. 62, No. 4, 1997

establishedthe HohokamandMogollon as archaeological cultures distinct from the prehistoric "Anasazi"'or Pueblo sequence.Methodsfor sorting the archaeologicalrecord into these temporal and spatial units became a primary focus of archaeologicaltheory.Thus began the shift from a taxonomybased on mappingmodem tribalgroups into the past to one focusing moreon materialsimon unilinealevolutionary ilarity.Structured theory, a means of orderingprehistoricculturalmaterials was borrowed from natural science. Archaeological cultures were designated as having roots, stems, and branchesto identify spatial with periodsandphases to identify differentiation, temporaldifferentiation. Southwestern archaeologistsinferredthatthese culture areas reflected distinct groups of prehistoric people. These groupsformedthe basis of the cultureareaconcept thatwe work with today.The equationtying these archaeologicallydefined prehistoric cultures to modem Indian groups was largelyrelegatedto the issue of regionalabandonments, i.e., the depopulationof particularareas was explained by saying people went to Hopi, Zuni, or other modem Pueblos (Reed 1950). By and large, however, questions of linkage between archaeological cultures and modem-day tribes, and the developmentof the theoreticalunderpinnings necessary to make these links, became secondary to the other more pressing research questionsof the day. As archaeological research in the Southwest became continued,the culturalhistoricalapproach Once identified,branchesand phases paramount. became units of analysis to comparethe development and growth of different groups of people throughoutthe region. The culture area concept proveduseful for describingbroadtime-spacesystematics and still provides an often-used shorthand for summarizingconstellations of material traits. In general, it was assumed that modem southwestern tribes, such as the Hopi and Zuni, grew culturethatpreceded directlyout of the prehistoric them in their presenthomelands, in this case the "Anasazi"archaeologicalculture. Even so, some research,as much by happenstance archaeological as any otherreason,establishedotherpossibilities. For instance, over a period of two decades, the Field Museum of Natural History undertook a

series of excavationsto investigatea sequence of sites ranging from early Mogollon pithouse villages to late prehistoric pueblos, uncoveringin the evidence of culturalcontinuity process substantial between the Mogollon and historic Zuni (Martin and Rinaldo 1947, 1960; Martinet al. 1961). As the cultural historical approach became popular,a fundamentalshift occurredin the way archaeologists viewed the links between the archaeological record and tribal oral histories. researchhad used tribaloral Earlierarchaeological histories as a guide to identify relevant research areas, and to link modem and ancient peoples througha direct historical approachthat worked from the presentto the past. With the culturalhistorical approach, tribal oral histories were discounted, and archaeological reconstructionsof prehistoricculturesbecame the focus of research. Tribaloral histories were used anecdotallywhen they fit an archaeologicallyderived picture. The many points where tribal oral histories diverged from archaeological narratives were largely ignored. Interpretations of the archaeological recordtendedto workfrom the past to the present. The "New Archaeology" of the 1960s (Binford and Binford 1968; Hill 1970; Longacre 1970) shiftedarchaeological researchaway from the culturalhistoricalapproach but the spatialand temporal units of archaeologicalcultures remainedthe In the Southwest,research basic frameof reference. continuedto use concepts such as branchesand the static phasesas unitsof analysis.Consequently, of culturehistorystill limitedthe ability constraints of archaeologiststo addressquestions of cultural and social dynamics.In addition,the emphasisof New Archaeology on an objective scientific approachas the principalmeans of understanding the past essentiallydemotedtribaloral historiesto facts of scientific irrelevancy.The particularistic the so to tribalhistorythat are important Hopi and Zuni people became secondaryto the use of ethnoparadigm. graphicdatain a deductive-nomological dataessentiallyservedas examplesto Ethnographic inferencesregarding be employedin cross-cultural moregeneralhumanadaptation. It is ironic that today many southwestern archaeologistscontinue to conceive of archaeoterms, logical culturesin essentially ethnographic consideringthem to be tribalgroupsthat are synonymouswith ethnicallydistinctgroupsof people.

Dongoske et al.]



of the This perspective is clearly articulatedby Haury not really have a realityuntil the "gathering (1985:xvii) in the preface to his 1985 book on the clans" on the Hopi Mesas. Before that, the ancestors of the Hopi were organized not as a single Mogollon, in which he states: tribebut as many distinctclans. Some Hopi clans I am well awarethatpotterycannotalways have directancestralties to the Motisinomor "first of a people,but be used as a certainidentifier one need look only at the potteryproduced people" (which some archaeologistsmight idenIndiansto realizethat todayby Southwestern tify as the Archaicor perhapsPaleoindiancultures betweentype thereis a one-to-onecorrelation of the Southwest).These ancestorswerejoined by I and tribe for most of the vessels produced. other clans that fled from the ancestralvillage of as believe this situationobtainedin antiquity Palatkwapilocated far to the south (Nequatewa well, and that the inference that Anasazi1967; Teague 1993). The combination of these Mogollonceramicdifferencesdenote "tribal" is sound. differences groupsis now collectively referredto by the Hopi Many archaeologistsstill thinkthis way, rarely, as the Hisatsinom, or "people of long ago" if ever, consideringthe underlying epistemological (Jenkins 1994). The Hopi believe these clans issues. Archaeological cultures are generally rangedfar and wide in their migrationsand were of componentsof many differentarchaeologicalculdefined on the basis of the static configuration architecture, pottery,and other forms of material tures,includingthe Anasazi,Mogollon, Hohokam, remains.How these traitgroupsrelateto real, emi- Salado, Cohonina,Fremont,and Mimbres. None cally definedculturesor ethnicgroupsis rarelycon- of these archaeologicalculturesby themselves are sidered,andthe anthropological theorynecessaryto thus adequateto incorporateall of the Hopi and make such links is weak withinarchaeology. their ancestors. As with the Hopi, Zuni oral traditionsportray Hopi and Zuni: Traditional History similar complexities in the development of the and Archaeology Zuni tribe.Unlike Hopi, however,the oral history The Hopi and Zuni are living dynamic cultures. of Zuni is embeddedprimarilyin the accountsof Theirtraditional historiesare long and incorporate kivas, priesthoods,and medicine societies rather histories.Althoughall Zunis many individual groups of people, each with thanin clan migration of tribalhistory,each uniquehistories.Thus, not one, but multipletribal have a generalunderstanding historiesoperateon multiplelevels. The historyin religious group within Zuni society has a unique oral traditionsis embeddedin moral and religious account of its own origins, which are known in precepts,and much of this knowledge is therefore great detail, but only to those initiated into the esoteric (Anyon et al. 1997). group and thus entrusted with that knowledge. In the Hopi culture, each clan and religious Withoutgoing into esoteric details, two basic elegroup has a unique tradition that specifically mentscommon to all the Zuni oral historiescan be accounts for how and why it came to be at Hopi. identified as being relevant to archaeological There is general agreementon the main tenets of research.First,migrationsare a consistentelement Hopi origin and migration, but many accounts of all Zuni oral histories, and differentgroups of show considerable variation in specific details ancestorshad differentmigrationroutes. Second, (Fergusonand Dongoske 1994:24).A key element Zunis have stories of encounteringother people in the Hopi origin account is the covenant made andengagingin conflict as partof theirmigrations. with Ma'saw, Guardianof the World,when Hopi After emerging from the fourth level of the ancestorsemergedinto the FourthWorldfrom the underworld,at the location now known as the Sipapuni (place of emergence). This led to the Grand Canyon, the Zuni began their spiritually migration of more than 100 clans to the destinedjourney in search of the "middleplace," Tuuwanasavi(earth center) on the Hopi Mesas or Itiwana. Zuni accountsrecordthe splittingand (Fergusonand Dongoske 1994:26). joining of variousgroups duringthese migrations Individual clan histories recount in detail the (Bunzel 1932; Ferguson and Hart 1985:20-23; gradual movement of these clans across the Stevenson 1904:73-89). One groupis said to have Southwest. In many respects, the very concept of journeyedto the south, to the "landof everlasting "Hopi"as a distinct culturaland ethnic unit does sunshine,"never to return.Furtheralong the jour-



[Vol. 62, No. 4, 1997

ney the remainingZuni split into threegroups,one going up the Little ColoradoRiver to Zuni itself, anothertravelingto the north,and a thirdtraveling to the south. The Zuni clans were created relatively late in this historical sequence, when the Zunis were travelingthroughthe Little Colorado River valley immediatelyprior to arrivingat the Middle Place. Itiwana, the Middle Place, was occupied by another people before the Zunis arrived,andan epic battlewas waged thatthe Zuni won with the spiritualassistanceof the war gods. As the Zunis settled in the Middle Place, some of into the the earlier inhabitantswere incorporated Zuni tribe. After long and eventful migrations, each of the other ancestral groups eventually joined the rest of the Zuni at the Middle Place. After consideringthese accounts, it should be clear why statements from the Hopi Cultural PreservationOffice often refer to the Hopi and their ancestorsand why statementsfrom the Zuni Heritage and Historic PreservationOffice often referto the Zuni and theirancestors.The Hopi and Zuni view of the past is far moredynamicthanthat using the archaeologiby archaeologists portrayed cal culture area concepts so popular in the At any pointin time untiltheirarrivalat Southwest. the ancestorsof the Hopi theirultimatedestination, and Zuni may have belonged to any numberof cultures.For instance,it is probable archaeological thatdifferentgroupsof ancestorsof both the Hopi and Zuni were simultaneouslyaffiliated with the archaeological cultures known as the Anasazi, Mogollon, and Hohokam.Similaraffiliationsexist with other archaeologicalculturesat other times. The Hopi andZuniperceivetheirconnectionto the archaeologicalrecord in terms of the ancestors who lived at and used various sites, and these ancestorstraveledfar andwide on theirmigrations. It is possible to characterizePuebloan migrations in terms of ethnic coresidence. We note, however, that for the Hopi and Zuni, ethnicity is expressed far more in religious beliefs and language than materialculture,and this makes identifying ethniccoresidencea challengingconceptto operationalize in archaeological research. The case of the Hopi-Tewaof First Mesa is illuminating in this regardsince it is one of the best-known examples of ethnic coresidence.The ethnographic Hopi-Tewa village of Hano, also called Okeowangi(the village or people of the village),

was establishedon FirstMesa at the requestof the Walpi village chiefs following the Pueblo Revolt of A.D. 1680 (Stanislawski 1979:600). While from the othervillages Walpiis spatiallyseparated on FirstMesa, Hano and the adjacentHopi village of Sichomovi are architecturally contiguous and from one another.Not virtuallyindistinguishable related to the other only is Hano architecturally Hopi villages, the potteryproducedby potters in Hanois identicalto thatproducedin the otherFirst Mesa Hopi villages. In fact, the point thatmuch of the "Hopi"potteryis producedby Hopi-Tewapotters should serve as a cautionarynote to archaeologists who, without critically examining the underlyingepistemological issues, are frequently willing to infer a cultural or ethnic affiliation ceramictypes; pots do based solely on prehistoric not necessarilyequal people. Despite the similarityin their materialculture, the Hopi and Hopi-Tewamaintainseparateethnic identities.Accordingto Don James, a Hopi-Tewa from Polacca, the primaryattributesthat identify his people as a distinct ethnic group are coded in the language,religiousceremonies,and associated none of which is well repreritualparaphernalia, sented in the archaeologicalrecordor easily studied. It is the sharedhistoryandbeliefs of the group that unite them. If archaeologistscannot differentiate between ethnic groupsusing standard analytical classes within a contemporarysetting where we know ethnic differentiation exists, we are not sanguine about the meaningful identificationof record,especially if ethnicityin the archaeological thatethnicityis defined in termsof archaeological cultures. How can we betterexaminecultureand ethnicity in the past?A startwould be to createclassification schemes specifically designed for that purpose. Toward this end, criteria identified by tribal consultantsas significant in defining their respective cultures should be used to reevaluate cultureareas.In this regard,we were impressedby Hopi culturaladvisorswho visited the sites being investigated by Arizona State University during the Roosevelt Dam ModificationProjectin central Arizona(Dongoske et al. 1993). WaterClan symbols were observedby culturaladvisorsin rock art andceramicsand then verifiedby identificationof assemWaterClan ritualobjects in the artifactual blage. Whatwe thinkis needed,however,is a sus-

Dongoske et al.]



tained, in-depth analysis of this sort of cross- both Hopi and Zuni traditionalhistory, however, media symbolism and how it is used in interpreta- these statementsshould come as no surprise. The issue of scale is centralto the determination of Puebloanculturalaffiliation,notjust casual observationsmade duringa one-day visit. tion of cultural affiliation. Take, for example, a common point in the process, a modem-daytribe. The Situation Today The archaeologist,workingfrom past archaeologArchaeologists now find themselves with new ical culturesto the present,sees a modem tribeas challenges. The Native American Graves a single-unitend point in the process of reasoning Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) when determining culturalaffiliation.Tribalmemrequiresthat culturalaffiliationbe determinedfor bers, working from the present to the past, see culturalitems found on federal and Indian lands. themselvesas a complex system of families, clans, NAGPRA is, of course, human rights legislation medicine groups, religious societies, and priestto redress what was an unbalancedpolitical and hoods. As we have noted above, Hopi relationmoral situation (Tsosie 1997). As such, it is ships to ancestral archaeological sites are designed to give tribes an equitablestake in deter- primarilybased in clan histories,whereZuni relamining the repatriationof culturally affiliated tionships are more often reckonedthroughmediitems, includinghumanremains,funeraryobjects, cine groups, religious societies, and priesthoods. sacred objects, and objects of culturalpatrimony. Consequently,archaeologistsand tribes have difArchaeological information only provides one ferentconcepts aboutthe past at a point where we means for establishing cultural affiliation within should expect congruityof scale for determining this legal arena. Oral history, ethnographicdata, culturalaffiliation. It is equally important to reiteratethatcultural, linguistics, folklore, biology, and other types of evidence also providelegally mandatedmeans for ethnic, and tribalaffiliationis not necessarilysynestablishingculturalaffiliation,and many archae- onymous with archaeologicalcultures.For examologists rightfully turn to these in developing ple, in the Southwest,a numberof Puebloantribes assessmentsof culturalaffiliation. can have equally valid cultural affiliation to an To some degree, in determining culturalaffilia- entirearchaeologicalculturearea,certainportions tion, archaeologistsare returningto the literature of that area at different times, specific sites, or of the past. The works of Cushing and Fewkes even just certain culturalitems. The land and its once again have directrelevance to contemporary resourceshave played many criticalroles to many legal and bureaucraticissues. In the course of Puebloangroups over many centuries.Land uses using these texts, some archaeologistsalso seem have overlapped.Different groups have occupied to be taking a nineteenth-centuryview of the the same area at differenttimes, just as the same world. Without fully evaluating the historical group has occupied different areas at different processes that have produced the current cate- times. Culturalentities have fissioned many times gories of archaeologicalculture,and withoutcriti- and reconstitutedthemselves in various ways to cally examining these constructedcultures in the producethe modem tribes. There is, thus, shared light of what we know aboutcultureand ethnicity, culturalhistory and thereforeaffiliation between too manyarchaeologistsstill hope to find a one-to- the modem Puebloantribesand many archaeologone correlation between archaeological cultures ical areas. and modem tribes. These archaeologists conseRecognizing temporalscale in land use is also quentlyhave a very narrowview of the affiliation critical.NAGPRAplaces some importanceon the between archaeological cultures and particular conceptof aboriginaltribalareasas determined by modem tribes. Having been taught that modem the United States for Indian land claims. While Pueblos are descended from the "Anasazi,"such this concept has utility in NAGPRA, it is archaeologistsexpress dismay when the Hopi and extremely limited in the determination of cultural Zuni tribes claim cultural affiliation with the affiliation. Many archaeologists fail to consider Mogollon, Hohokam,Salado, Fremont,and other how recent these land claims areas are within the archaeological cultures. Given the dynamic and AmericanSouthwest.Using landuse areasin A.D. complex nature of history as expressed through 1848 as a way to determinethe extent of cultural



[Vol. 62, No. 4, 1997

affiliationhas no relevance to the use of land by migratingZuni and Hopi ancestorsin the ancient past when, at various times, these migrating groups traversed,lived in, and buried their dead New Mexico, almostall of present-day throughout Arizona, and portions of Colorado, Utah, and Nevada. Where Do We Go from Here? There are no simple scientific or bureaucratic answers to the complex social, historical, and archaeologicalissues dealing with culturalaffiliation. We suggest that archaeologiststake a closer look at archaeological culture concepts and develop new interpretive frameworks equating archaeologicalmaterialswith present-daytribes. To a large extent, this will requirethe reincorporation of anthropologicalperspectives of culture into archaeologicaltheory.To do this effectively, archaeologists need to collaborate with Native American tribes to integratetheir perspective of the past into contemporary archaeological research.Collaborationis essential because much of what defines culturalor ethnic identity is contained within the history of the members of that culture, and members of the tribes are in a good position to identify the traitsthatare used for selfidentification. At Hopi and Zuni, it is religious leaders who maintain this type of information, and as part of their authoritythey have the proprietary right to decide what and how esoteric informationshould be used in scholarlyresearch. We need to move beyond the anecdotaluse of oral traditionsto bolsterarchaeologicalnarratives. In this regard, we think Vansina's (1985) Oral
Tradition as History provides the rigorous

methodology needed to constructhistory through the analysis of individualoral traditions.Vansina providesa way to identify the historicalcommonalties that underlievariationin the form, content, and social use of differentaccounts. He does this by treatingoral traditionsas testimony, and then stringentlyanalyzing a corpus of testimonies to cross-checkand internallyvalidatehistoricalcontent. We think the application of Vansina's methodology to Hopi and Zuni oral traditions would producesystematicinformationabout culturalaffiliationto archaeologicalsites, as well as a numberof testablepropositionsthatcould then be investigatedusing archaeologicaldata.

of traditional The incorporation historyinto the suite of evidence used by archaeologistsfor interpretingthe past will potentiallyrequirethe reconciliation of contradictory views. Historically, when the Native American view of the past and the archaeologicalreconstruction differed, it was the Native Americanview that was generallydiscounted as "mythology" or "religion." Just because archaeologists study tangible remains of artifacts does not mean that theirinterpretation will always be correct.It is theorythat providesa framework for interpreting the archaeological record,and this is an areawhere the incorporation of Native Americanknowledge of the past can be of greatbenefit. In summary,to make archaeologymore useful to Native Americantribes and to infuse the discipline with a new vitality, archaeologists need to focus on the variation in the archaeological record ratherthan the reductionof that variation to define units of archaeological cultures. New technology continually provides us with more ways to analyze variationthan were available to earlier generationsof archaeologists. We clearly need to bridge contemporarywork to past units of analysis, but we also need to move beyond identifying archaeological units as if that were the ultimate researchgoal. As archaeologists we question whether categories like Anasazi, Mogollon, and Hohokam have much analytical utility in terms of meeting either the legal mandate to determineculturalaffiliation or the scientific goals of contemporary archaeology. As archaeologists who work with Indian tribes, we know these categories are not very meaningfulin relation to the ways Pueblo people think of their ancestors.

Acknowledgments. We are grateful to Leigh J. Kuwanwisiwma of the Hopi Cultural Preservation Office, Andrew L. Othole and Joseph Dishta of the Pueblo of Zuni, as well as the Hopi and Zuni cultural advisory team members, for many insights into cultural affiliation from a tribal perspective. In addition, we thank three anonymous reviewers and Keith Kintigh for insightful comments and suggestions for improvements.Maria Nieves Zedefio translatedthe abstract into Spanish. This paper was first presented at an April 1995 ArizonaArchaeological Council symposium entitled "The Culture Concept in ContemporarySouthwestern Archaeology,"in Tucson, Arizona.

Dongoske et al.]



References Cited
Ahlstrom,R. V. N., D. E. Purcell, M. Zyniecki, D. A. Gilpin, V. L. Newton 1993 An Archaeological Overview of Grand Canyon National Park. SWCA, Inc., Flagstaff,Arizona. Anyon, R., T. J. Ferguson,L. Jackson,L. Lane, and P. Vicenti 1997 Native American Oral Tradition and Archaeology: Issues of Structure,Relevance, and Respect. In Native Americans and Archaeologists, Stepping Stones to CommonGround,edited by N. Swidler, K. E. Dongoske, R. Anyon, and A. S. Downer, pp. 77-87. AltamiraPress, WalnutCreek, California. Binford, S. R., and L. R. Binford 1968 New Perspectives in Archaeology.Aldine, Chicago. Bunzel, R. 1932 Zuni Origin Myths. In 47th Annual Report of the Bureauof AmericanEthnologyfor the Years1929-1930, pp. 545-609. GovernmentPrinting Office, Washington, D.C. Cushing, F. H. 1890 Preliminary Notes on the Origin, Working Hypotheses, and PrimaryResearches of the Hemenway Southwestern Expedition. Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Americanists, pp. 151-193. International Congress of Americanists,Berlin. 1896 Outlinesof ZuniCreation Myths.In 13thAnnualReport of the Bureau of American Ethnology, 1891-1892, pp. 321-447. Government D.C. PrintingOffice, Washington, Dongoske, K., T. J. Ferguson,and L. Jenkins 1993 Understandingthe Past through Hopi Oral History. Native Peoples Magazine 6(2):24-31. Ferguson,T. J., and K. Dongoske 1994 Navajo TransmissionProjectEIS: Hopi Ethnographic Overview. Produced by the Hopi CulturalPreservation Office in association with the Institute of the NorthAmerican West, Tucson,Arizona. Reporton file at the Hopi Cultural Preservation Office, Kykotsmovi, Arizona. Ferguson,T. J., and E. R. Hart 1985 A ZuniAtlas. Universityof OklahomaPress, Norman. Fewkes, J. W. 1896 The Prehistoric Culture of Tusayan. American Anthropologist9:151-174. 1898a Preliminary Account of an Expeditionto the Pueblo Ruins Near Winslow, Arizona, in 1896. Annual Report 1896, pp. 517-540. SmithsonianInstitution,Washington, D.C. 1898b Archeological Expedition to Arizona in 1895. Annual Report of the Bureau of AmericanEthnologyfor the Years 1895-1896 17:519-742. Part 2. Government PrintingOffice, Washington,D.C. 1900 Tusayan Migration Traditions.In Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology for the Years 1897-1898 19:573-634. Part 2. Government Printing Office, Washington,D.C. 1909 Antiquitiesof the Mesa VerdeNational Park, Spruce Tree House. Bulletin No. 41. Bureau of American Ethnology,Washington,D.C. Gladwin, H. S. 1957 A History of the Ancient Southwest.Bond Wheelright Company,Portland,Maine. Gladwin, H. S., E. W. Haury,E. B. Sayles, and N. Gladwin 1937 Excavations at Snaketown, I: Material Culture. Medallion PapersNo. 25. Gila Pueblo, Globe, Arizona. Gladwin, W., and H. S. Gladwin 1934 A Methodfor the Designation of Culturesand Their

MedallionPapersNo. 15, Gila Pueblo, Globe, Variations, Arizona. Haury,E. W. 1936 The Mogollon Cultureof SouthwesternNew Mexico. Gila Pueblo, Medallion Papers No. 20. Gila Pueblo, Globe, Arizona. 1958 Evidence at Point of Pines for a PrehistoricMigration from Northern Arizona. In Migrations in New World Culture History, edited by R. H. Thompson, pp. 1-6. Bulletin No. 29(2), Social Science Bulletin No. 27. University of Arizona, Tucson. 1985 Mogollon Culturein the Forestdale Valley,East-central Arizona. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Hill, J. N. 1970 BrokenK Pueblo: PrehistoricSocial Organizationin the AmericanSouthwest.AnthropologicalPapersNo. 18. University of Arizona.Tucson. Hough, W. 1907 Antiquitiesof the UpperGila and Salt River Valleysin Arizona and New Mexico. Bulletin No. 35. Bureau of AmericanEthnology,Washington,D.C. Jenkins,L. 1994 Hopi Navotiat ... Hopi Knowledge of History:Hopi Presence on Black Mesa. Manuscripton file with the Hopi CulturalPreservationOffice, Kykotsmovi,Arizona. Kidder,A. V. 1927 Southwestern Archaeological Conference. Science 66:486-491. 1936 Speculations on New World Prehistory.In Essays in AnthropologyPresented to Alfred L. Kroeber,edited by R. H. Lowie, pp. 143-152. University of California Press, Berkeley. Lekson S. H. 1988 The Idea of the Kiva in Anasazi Archaeology. Kiva 53:213-234. Longacre,W. A. 1970 Archaeology as Anthropology: A Case Study. AnthropologicalPapers No. 17. University of Arizona, Tucson. McGregor,J. C. 1977 SouthwesternArchaeology 2nd ed. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Martin,P. S., and J. B. Rinaldo 1947 The SU Site: Excavations at a Mogollon Village, New Mexico. AnthropologicalSeries No. 32(3). Western Field Museum of NaturalHistory,Chicago. 1960 TableRockPueblo, Arizona.Fieldiana:Anthropology Vol. 51(2). Field Museum of NaturalHistory,Chicago. Martin,P. S., J. B. Rinaldo, and W. Longacre 1961 Mineral Creek Site and Hoopet Ranch Pueblo. Fieldiana: Anthropology Vol. 52. Field Museum of NaturalHistory,Chicago. Mindeleff, V. 1891 A Studyof PuebloArchitecture in TusayanandCibola. In Annual Report of the Bureau of AmericanEthnology 8:3-228. Government D.C. PrintingOffice, Washington, Nequatewa,E. 1967 Truth of a Hopi. Reprint. Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff. Pepper,G. H. 1902 The Ancient Basket Makers of SoutheasternUtah. Journal of the American Museum of Natural History 2(4). Supplement. Plog, F. 1979 Prehistory:WesternAnasazi. In Southwest,edited by A. Ortiz, pp. 108-130. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 9, William C. Sturtevant,general editor.



[Vol. 62, No. 4, 1997

SmithsonianInstitution,Washington,D.C. Reed, E. K. Arizona Archaeology in Relation to 1950 Eastern-Central the Western Pueblos. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology6(2): 120-138. Stanislawski,M. B. 1979 Hopi-Tewa. In Southwest, edited by A. Ortiz, pp. 587-602. Handbookof North American Indians, vol. 9, William B. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution,Washington,D.C. Stevenson, M. C. 1904 The Zuni Indians, Their Mythology, Esoteric Fraternities,and Ceremonies. In Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology 23:1-634. Government Printing Office, Washington,D.C. Teague, L. S. 1993 Prehistory and the Traditionsof the O'Odham and Hopi. Kiva 58:435-454. Tsosie, R. 1997 Indigenous Rights and Archaeology. In Native

Americans and Archaeologists, Stepping Stones to CommonGround,edited by 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 Wisconsin Press, Madison.

1. "Anasazi"is an archaeologicalterm introducedby Kidder (1936:152). It is a corruptionof a Navajo word that is sometimes translatedas meaning "enemy ancestor" (Ahlstrom et al. 1993:61; Plog 1979:108). The Hopi and Zuni tribes consequently think this term should not be used to label their ancestors. Received December 9, 1996; accepted March 14, 1997; revised May 5, 1997.


American Material Culture

FIELD THE SHAPE OFTHE Editedby Ann SmartMartin and). RitchieGarrison A Winterthur Book, distributed for the Winterthur Museum by UT Press. Objects in museums, the buildings that surround us, the clothing we wear-all are forms of material culture that we use to create and mediate social relations. This volume brings together important new research in American material culture. From Tupperware to stuffed owls, from modem dolls to colonial portraits, the subjects under study here demonstrate how things provoke and sustain human dramas. 360 pages,illus. ISBN $39.95 0-912724-35-8,

IN PERSPECTIVES VERNACULAR VII ARCHITECTURE, Adams Editedby Annmarie and SallyMcMurry These seventeen essays confirm the transformations now taking place in the study of vernacular architecture. Moving away from an emphasis on old, rural structures using traditional forms and materials, scholars are now exploring a wider range of buildings and landscapes-from company towns to grand expositions. 344 est. pages,illus. December, ISBN $30.00pa 0-87049-983-1,

Exploring Everyday Carolina'sHistorical Annapolis Pasts HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY Landscapes Landscapes INANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND
ARCHAEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES Editedby LindaF.Stine, MarthaZierden, and LesleyM. Drucker, Christopher Judge Synthesizing research in archaeology, geography, and history, these essays focus on the rich landscapes of the Carolinas. Their interdisciplinary approach will deepen the reader'sunderstanding of how people have changed the land and how they, in turn, have been changed by their interaction with it. 304 pages,illus. ISBN $45.00 0-87049-976-9, Editedby PaulA. Shackel, PaulR. Mullins,and MarkS. Warner Bringing together research from the Archaeology in Annapolis project, the contributors to Annapolis Pasts use archaeological data to interpret the emergence of capitalism as both a dynamic market force and an equally dynamic body of social rules. Their studies range from eighteenth-century formal gardens to nineteenth- and twentiethcentury African American neighborhoods. 328 pages,illus. January, ISBN 0-87049-996-3, $50.00 Shippingand handling: $3.50forfirstbook;$.75 for book. eachadditional

The University of Tennessee Press

37996-0325 KNOXVILLE