12

CHAPTER ONE

archaeologists trained as anthropologists, who in turn laid the foundation

for the incredible expansion of archaeological research during the last half
of the twentieth century. In universities and community colleges, in gov
ernment agencies and private businesses, archaeologists work today to
preserve the past for all Arizonans.
The spectacular growth and expanding importance of archaeology in
the American Southwest parallels the growing interest people have in
knowing about the past, both prehistory and history, throughout the
world. The history of Arizona archaeology is part of this broader story,
and in many ways it is as exciting as that of prehistory itself. We present
here only a brief sketch of its history. In each chapter that follows, we am
plify this outline to discuss its details more specifically, paint portraits of
the major players on the archaeological stage, and present the discovery
process as each major prehistoric culture emerged.
Our historical sketch of Arizona archaeology begins in 1879 with the
founding of the Bureau of American Ethnology and ends with the Co
lumbian Quincentenary of 1992. We divide it into three broad periods,
The first period, from 1879 to 1920, was characterized by wilderness explo
ration, artifact collection, and site protection. The second period, from
1920 to 1960, was marked by the classification of artifacts, especially pot
tery, and the writing of culture histories. The third period, from 1960 to
1992, marked an elaboration of historical and scientific research com
bined with a growing concern for the rightful place of American Indians
in the construction of their prehistory.

Exploring, Collecting, and Protecting Prehistory

1879 to 1920
Arizona began this period as a territory where merchants and highway
men, church ladies and "sporting ladies;' miners and cowboys, immi
grants and Indians were major actors in the drama of frontier society.
Into this land, seemingly uncharted and waiting to be explored, came
men and women dispatched by the great museums of the East to bring
back unusual things from the West. These people were not trained archae
ologists, and many were interested less in prehistory than in contempo
rary Native Americans. These first explorers of the past were intent upon

from Clovis to Coronado

13

artifacts for wealthy sponsors and

need for a
material
Soon, however,_
archaeologists
on the scene, and from their ini
outline of Arizona prehistory began to emerge. To the la5t
these first explorers,
also saw an
need to
prl::histo1ric ruins of the Southwest through the passage of laws.
Antiquities Act was
with the daring
of John Wesley Powell,
med former major in the Union army who helped create and
U.s. Geological
(1881-1893) and the Bureau
Ameri
his eXfJloratlon5,
logy (1879-1902). Shortly after Powell
a
American born in Switzerland, was the
ruins of the Verde Valley, the Phoenix Basin, and the
for the
Institute of America.
footsteps followed pioneer archaeologists who had the
rience of excavating some of the major ruins of Arizona
'e they were vandalized or destroyed by farming and urban expanOne of the
in
was Frank Hamilton Cushing, an eccentric
cter who
been studying Zuni Pueblo for the Bureau of Ameri
who now turned to excavating the ruins of Los Muer
Grande near Phoenix for the Hemenway Southwestern
Expedition. Shortly thereafter, Jesse Walter Fewkes
10 ruins in northern Arizona, excavating at
ruined
and Sityatki on the Hopi Reservation, at Homol'ovi
IRoutside modern \Vinslow, and at the Chavez Pass ruin
he excavated at Casa
ter. Between 1906
archaeologists, worka national monument.
turn to the work of these pioneers to learn de
'ble to rec()nstruct in any other way.
the
of S)'stcem.atic archaeological
this period. For
Nels C. Nel
first
excavations in the
Mexico in 1912.
Arizona's educational institutions were
and archaeology was formalized.
University) was the
open

14

From Clovis to Coronado

CHAPTER ONE

15

in 1909. Walnut Canyon outside Flagstaff joined the list of Arizona na

tional monuments in 1915, and Casa Grande Ruins in 1918.

Tracing the History of Past People and Culture,

1920 to 1960
Over the next forty years, archaeologists outlined Arizona prehistory and
made significant contributions to the developing discipline of archaeol
ogy. Each decade brought major new advancements in knowledge and
technique. Although each decade was distinct from the others, together
th~se years can be combined under the theme of understanding time,
space, and culture history. By the 1950S the culture history approach to
southwestern archaeology had been firmly established. Culture history
focused on classification and description, and its goal was to document
variability in material culture in time and space. Space was divided into
branches, and time into periods and phases.
Byron Cummings, one of the founding fathers of Arizona archaeology, at
Rainbow Bridge in 1935.

ing in 1886 with thirty-three students. The University of Arizona was

founded in 1891, and in 1893 the Arizona Territorial Museum (Arizona
State Museum) was established there. Dr. Byron Cummings became the
head of the Department of Archaeology and the director of the Arizona
State Museum in 1915. He instituted Arizona's first formal archaeological
field schools, offering a "Summer Course among the Cliff Dwellers" in
1919.

Societies like the Arizona Pioneers' Historical Society and the Arizona
Archaeological and Historical Society were organized to foster public and
professional interest in archaeology. Several of Arizona's numerous na
tional monuments featuring archaeological sites were designated during
this period. These include Montezuma Castle (a Sinagua cliff dwelling in
the middle Verde Valley) in 1906 and Tonto Ruins (a Salado cliff dwelling
near Globe) in 1907. The spectacular Navajo National Monument, includ
ing the Anasazi cliff dwellings of Betatakin and Kiet Siel, was designated

The 1920S. These must have been exciting years for Arizona archaeolo
gists, for during the 1920S they gained control of time. The framework of
the Anasazi cultural sequence was outlined during the first Pecos Confer
ence. Organized by the leading archaeologist of the time, A. V. Kidder, the
historic achievement of this conference-held in 1927 at Pecos Pueblo,
New Mexico--was to agree upon the diagnostic features for the Anasazi
Basketmaker-Pueblo cultural sequence, which is still widely used by ar
chaeologists. They divided the sequence into periods called Basketmaker
II, Basketmaker III, Pueblo I, Pueblo II, Pueblo III, and Pueblo IV.
The coexistence of people and extinct animals also was established
firmly. The most famous site, acknowledged as the first conclusive evi
dence for people in North America at the time of extinct animals, was
near Folsom, New Mexico. At this site, which was discovered by the Black
cowboy George McJunkin, spear points were found in the ribs of an ex
tinct bison. In Arizona, Byron Cummings excavated artifacts associated
with elephant bones at Double Adobe near Douglas.
By the end of the decade, Dr. Andrew E. Douglass's method for tree
ring dating of prehistoric ruins had been perfected. It would alter forever
archaeologists' conceptions of time in prehistory.

16

CHAPTER ONE

Alfred Vincent Kidder (left), the premier southwestern archaeologist of his

time, and Emil Haury, his successor, at the Point of Pines Pueblo in 1948 .

Also during this decade, Wupatki National Monument north of Flag

staff was added to Arizona's growing list, and in 1927 the first Arizona
Antiquities Act was passed to regulate archaeology on State lands.
The 1930S. While the United States was suffering from the Great Depres
sion of the 1930S, Arizona was experiencing a burst of archaeological ac
complishment sponsored by two private institutions established late in
the previous decade: the Museum of Northern Arizona in Flagstaff and
the Gila Pueblo Archaeological Foundation in Globe. Gila Pueblo defined
the Hohokam, Mogollon, Salado, and Cochise Cultures; and the Museum
of Northern Arizona identified Sinagua and Patayan Cultures and dated
the eruption of Sunset Crater Volcano. Also during this decade a third
private institution, the Amerind Foundation, was founded in Dragoon. In
addition to designating cultures and their variations, archaeologists be
gan to formalize artifact classification systems.

From Clovis to Coronado

17

This decade also witnessed the designation of new national monu

ments, the development of important organizations and journals for dis
seminating the results of archaeological research, and additional legis
lation for historic preservation. Canyon de Chelly, outside Chinle, and
Tuzigoot, on the middle Verde River, were designated as national monu
ments. In 1934 the national organization for archaeology, the Society for
American Archaeology, was founded. In 1935 American Antiquity, the
journal of the Society for American Archaeology, and The Kiva, the jour
nal of the Arizona Archaeological and Historical Society, were first pub
lished. In the same year, the federal Historic Sites Act called for the preser
vation of significant national, historical, and archaeological properties,
the designation and acquisition of national historic landmarks, and a sur
vey of valuable historic and prehistoric sites.
The 1930S also saw the emergence of the University of Arizona as a pre
mier research institution. In 1937 the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research
was established there. Dr. Emil W. Haury left Gila Pueblo to replace Byron
Cummings as head of the Department of Archaeology at the University
of Arizona, and in the following year he was appointed to the position of
director of the Arizona State Museum. Haury held both positions until
1964. One of his most significant acts was to launch the Archaeological
Field School in the Forestdale Valley south of Show Low. We will learn
much more about Doc Haury in the pages to come.
The 1940S. American entry into World War II in 1941 disrupted archaeo
logical research as faculty and students rallied behind the war effort. The
University of Arizona Anthropology Club newsletter, Atlatl, was started to
keep servicemen, alumni, and friends current on the activities of the An
thropology Department. The postwar 1940S saw the beginning of new
field projects to fill in the gaps in the outline of prehistory sketched dur
ing the 1930S. Blank spots on the map and gaps in the chronologies were
explored through survey and excavation.
The 1940S witnessed the definition of the Cochise Culture by E. B.
Sayles and Ernst Antevs, working for Gila Pueblo; the publication of the
first textbook on southwestern prehistory, Southwestern Archaeology, by
John C. McGregor; and the establishment of the University of Arizona Ar
chaeological Field School at Point of Pines on the San Carlos Apache

18

From Clovis to Coronado

CHAPTER ONE

19

ra~iocarbon

dating technique revolutionized the archaeology of those

places and times beyond the reach of tree-ring dating. The Southwestern
Archaeological Expedition of the Chicago Field Museum of Natural His
tory moved to Vernon, Arizona, where it would become a major research
center for the development of new concepts of archaeological science.
Charles Di Peso, Director of the Amerind Foundation, began excava
tion at the monumental site of Casas Grandes in Chihuahua, Mexico, and
the Museum of Anthropology was established at Arizona State University.
An era in southwestern archaeology ended in 1951 when the Gila Pueblo
Archaeological Foundation was dissolved and its collections donated to
the Arizona State Museum.

The Transformation of American Archaeology,

1960 to 1992

Gila Pueblo Archaeological Foundation staff in 1930. Seated, left to right, are Harold S.
Gladwin, Winifred Jones MacCurdy (Gladwin), Nora MacCurdy, Hulda Haury, Emil
Haury, and Russell Hastings. Standing, left to right, are Edith Sangster, Evelyn Dennis,
and George Dennis.
Reservation. Young archaeologists would be trained at Point of Pines un
til 1960.
The 1950S. Called the "American Decade" by journalist David Halberstam,
the 1950S were highly productive years for archaeology in Arizona. New
regions were explored, prehistory was extended further back in time, and
old disputes were resolved. By the middle of the decade, the culture his
tory approach had become firmly established.
There were landmark events in archaeological method and theory
as well. Radiocarbon Dating, by Willard F. Libby, was published, and the

Since 1960, archaeology throughout the United States has been trans
formed by radical changes in the orientation and economics of research.
The simple culture-history method made way for the challenge of proces
sual archaeology, which in turn was amplified by behavioral archaeology
and challenged by post-processual archaeology. The low-budget, long
term research habits of university archaeologists were transformed by
federal funds and construction deadlines into efforts simply to recover
prehistoric remains before they would be destroyed by urban expansion
and highway and dam construction. Cultural resource management was
born. It was a time of university growth, the movement of archaeologists
into government agencies, and the establishment of private businesses for
doing archaeology.
The 19605. The sixties saw the rise of processual archaeology. This revolu
tion in archaeological science sought to go beyond the simple description
of material remains to reconstruct and explain nonmaterial behavior, em
phasizing ecological and sociological processes-how ancient people re
lated to their environment and to other people. Researchers who followed
this view saw archaeology as anthropology and also believed it to be more
science than art. They e~phasized the deductive nature of archaeology
and were concerned with testing hypotheses and theories about the past.

20

CHAPTER ONE

The paper entitled "Archaeology as Anthropology;' by Lewis R. Binford,

presented the principal concepts of processual archaeology. The Chicago
Field Museum's archaeological field school at Vernon, Arizona, played a
key role in developing new ways to reconstruct prehistoric ecology and
sociology.
On the national level, the passage of three laws strengthened preserva
tion efforts. These were the Reservoir Salvage Act, which extended histor
ical and archaeological preservation specifically to remains that would be
disturbed or destroyed through dam construction; the National Historic
Preservation Act, which strengthened site protection through the National
Register of Historic Places; and the National Environmental Policy Act,
which called for the preparation of environmental impact assessments for
all federal projects that would significantly affect the environment includ
ing archaeological resources.
Important events of this decade include the conclusion of fifteen years
of research and teaching at Point of Pines and the moving of the Univer
sity of Arizona Archaeological Field School to Grasshopper Pueblo on the
White Mountain Apache Reservation, where it would continue for thirty
years. The Department of Anthropology was established at Arizona State
University, and it conducted its first archaeological field school.
The 1970S. This decade witnessed the expansion of archaeology beyond
its traditional university base to include a growing cadre of government
and private-sector professionals. Processual archaeology was enhanced by
the development of behavioral archaeology, which expanded the domain
of archaeology to include modern material culture. Behavioral archaeol
ogy was defined in 1975 by Jefferson Reid, Michael Schiffer, and William
Rathje as the study of material objects in the past and the present in order
to describe and explain human behavior. As part of this movement, Rathje
began the Garbage Project at the University of Arizona to explore modern
culture through, literally, its garbage.
The most dramatic development of this decade was the establishment
of cultural resource management programs by federal and state agencies,
by universities, and by private consulting companies. This was in response
to the passage in 1974 of the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act,
which required all federal agencies to conduct archaeological investiga-

From Clovis to Coronado

21

tions prior to initiating any project that would disturb or destroy signifi
cant cultural remains. In 1979 the Archaeological Resources Protection Act
(ARPA) strengthened the protection of archaeological resources on fed
erallands by clarifying and expanding the Federal Antiquities Act of 1906.
The 1980s. The 1980s were characterized by increased cultural resource
management activity and public involvement in many facets of archaeol
ogy. Processual archaeology's ecology, sociology, and empirical science
were challenged by post-processual archaeology. This newest develop
ment sought to go beyond the ecological and sociological to deal with the
ideological, exploring the extent to which ideological aspects of human
behavior could be reconstructed. It emphasized concepts such as gender
issues, Marxist perspectives, politically and socially biased presentations,
and the reconstruction of meaning. Women began to enter the field of ar
chaeology in ever-increasing numbers, contributing unique perspectives
on the past.
In Arizona this decade was marked by major, often long-term, archae
ological projects sponsored by federal agencies, such as the archaeology of
the Central Arizona Project. Great strides were made in understanding
Hohokam prehistory as a result of this work. At the same time, desert ar
chaeology, which for reasons we will discuss in chapter 4 is not amenable
to tree-ring or radiocarbon dating, was revolutionized by the new concept
of archaeomagnetic dating.
The 1990S. The remarkable development of the nineties was the growing
voice of Native Americans concerning issues of archaeology, prehistory,
and the proper treatment of human remains and sacred objects. In 1990
President George Bush signed into law the Native American Graves Pro
tection and Repatriation Act, which specified procedures for determining
cultural affinity for the purposes of reburying Native American human
remains and returning burial artifacts and sacred objects to the tribes.
The 500th anniversary of the European discovery of the New World pro
vided numerous public occasions on which to commemorate the legacy
of Arizona's twenty-one recognized Indian tribes. The 1990S saw a grow
ing partnership between Natiye Americans and archaeologists, which
surely was a healthy sign for the future.

2.2.

CHAPTER ONE

The Importance of Arizona's Past

It is difficult to know which has changed more over the past century-ar
chaeology or Ariwna. Archaeology began in the late 1800s as a means of
acquiring curios for display in museums and exhibitions, moved quickly
through the classification and description stages of a beginning science to
the development of alternative theoretical approaches, and expanded far
beyond the universities into government agencies and private businesses.
The American public kept pace with all of this expansion through their
increased support for archaeology and their involvement in protecting
the past. What is so intrinsically important to the future of Ariwna ar
chaeology is the growing leadership role of Arizona's Indian tribes in di
recting and preserving an appreciation for their individual and very dif
ferent histories, written as well as unwritten. The future of the past is
more exciting today than ever before.
Wherever we go, we discover that people are interested in archaeology,
the past, American Indians, and especially Arizona prehistory. But there is
more to the past than its value as an entertaining story. There is the im
portant commitment by people of different cultures to understanding
more about one another. Arizona Indians are an integral part of today's
economic, political, and social fabric. They have raised their voices in re
cent decades to assert themselves as people concerned with preserving
their special identity, their native culture, and their unique environment.
We hope our book contributes to their purpose as well.