13.07.2015 Views

Culture and Ecology of Chaco Canyon and the San Juan Basin

Culture and Ecology of Chaco Canyon and the San Juan Basin

Culture and Ecology of Chaco Canyon and the San Juan Basin

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Historic Period Studies 301control systems used by Rafael, Dan Cly, <strong>and</strong> TomChischilly-begay; he mapped <strong>the</strong>ir fields in relation toa drainage from which each captured water. Lowearth ridges, check dams, <strong>and</strong> natural features guidedstorm waters from higher areas into <strong>the</strong> garden plots.Additionally, ab<strong>and</strong>oned hogan sites <strong>and</strong> formergarden plots gave testimony that <strong>the</strong>re had previouslybeen more Navajo families living in <strong>the</strong> area (Judd1954:53).Judd (1954:343) reported on o<strong>the</strong>r historic use<strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> canyon by two cattle companies-<strong>the</strong> CarlisleCattle Company, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> LC. Their use areas werebetween Hosta Butte <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>San</strong> <strong>Juan</strong> River in 1879.Before 1895, <strong>the</strong> stone buildings that were part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>LC <strong>Chaco</strong> headquarters near Penasco Blanco werebeing used by Old WeIIo, <strong>and</strong> details about <strong>the</strong>se twocompanies had faded from memory. Judd (1954:58<strong>and</strong> Plate 1) also indicated that <strong>the</strong> reservoir locatedjust sou<strong>the</strong>ast <strong>of</strong> Pueblo Bonito <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> canal dug on<strong>the</strong> north side <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chaco</strong> Wash by We<strong>the</strong>rill in 1902were part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> requirements for <strong>the</strong> We<strong>the</strong>rillhomestead.During <strong>the</strong> SARIUNM/MNM research in <strong>Chaco</strong><strong>Canyon</strong>, Bloom (1921) summarized historicaldocuments on <strong>Chaco</strong> <strong>Canyon</strong>; Br<strong>and</strong> (1937a) added tothis preliminary work. Hewett (1922: 119) noted that"<strong>the</strong>re were numerous cysts, vaults <strong>and</strong> pits for whichwe have little precedent" as one <strong>of</strong> seven "surprises"he encountered during <strong>the</strong> 1921 field season, yet hesaid nothing about Navajo use <strong>of</strong> Chetro Ketl. Inaddition to archaeological investigations, <strong>the</strong> SARIUNM field schools studied language, culture, <strong>and</strong>architecture. In 1929, several students assisted JohnHarrington in a study <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Zuni language; JanetTietjens (1929) collected place names that includedSpanish, Navajo, <strong>and</strong> Zuni derivations for <strong>the</strong> largerpueblos <strong>and</strong> some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> more prominent l<strong>and</strong>marks in<strong>the</strong> area. From 1933 through 1942, several fieldschoolpr<strong>of</strong>essors (Clyde Kluckhohn, Malcolm Bissell,<strong>and</strong> Lel<strong>and</strong> Wyman) lectured on Navajo culture ordirected research by field-school students on specifictopics (Brugge 1980). Archaeological studies <strong>of</strong>Navajo hogans in <strong>the</strong> area were carried out byMalcolm (1939), Corbett (1940), <strong>and</strong> Farmer (1942).Several types <strong>of</strong> construction were recorded (e.g.,forked-stick, cribbed-log, circular-stone-wall), as wellas camps, fortified sites, ramadas, sweat houses, leantos,caches, burials, dance grounds, ovens, trashdumps, <strong>and</strong> petroglyphs. Unfortunately, none <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>seresearchers combined <strong>the</strong> archaeological <strong>and</strong> historicalrecords in a comprehensive review.Prior to 1969, <strong>the</strong> most extensive, but unpublished,study that combines historical accounts <strong>and</strong>archaeological data is that <strong>of</strong> Gwinn Vivian (1960).He conducted archaeological survey <strong>and</strong> excavationsto exp<strong>and</strong> knowledge <strong>of</strong> Navajo sites in <strong>the</strong> area.Vivian obtained tree-ring samples that provided 25dendrochronological dates from five sites (Vivian1960:154). He compared his historical data forNavajo, Pueblo, <strong>and</strong> Spanish with archaeological data.He concluded that although historical documents indicatebrief encounters between Spanish <strong>and</strong> nomadicpeoples in New Mexico, some <strong>of</strong> whom could beNavajo, between 1582 <strong>and</strong> 1609, <strong>the</strong>re was no positivepro<strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir presence in <strong>the</strong> archaeological record.Between 1609 <strong>and</strong> 1680, however, documents indicateNavajo raids on Pueblo settlements <strong>and</strong> reprisalsresulting from <strong>the</strong>se actions. There was some indication<strong>of</strong> agricultural practices. From 1680 to 1704, <strong>the</strong>period <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Pueblo Revolt <strong>and</strong> reconquest, a number<strong>of</strong> people from Jemez <strong>and</strong> Keres pueblos sought refugewith <strong>the</strong> Navajo, while inhabitants <strong>of</strong> Cochiti Puebloactually received com from <strong>the</strong> Navajo during times <strong>of</strong>crisis. Thus, during <strong>the</strong> seventeenth century, it waslikely that <strong>the</strong> Navajo were well settled into <strong>the</strong> <strong>San</strong><strong>Juan</strong> River drainages. Several districts were probablyunited under local leaders, but <strong>the</strong>re was no unificationinto a larger entity. The Gobemador area, whichis known as a "Refugee" area, lacks archaeologicalevidence <strong>of</strong> Pueblo people until about 1700. A fewsites contain Navajo Dinetah utility ware. In <strong>the</strong>Chacra <strong>and</strong> Big Bead Mesa areas, <strong>the</strong>re are nodefensive sites or defensive architecture.From 1705 through 1716, Navajo raids on <strong>the</strong>Rio Gr<strong>and</strong>e increased; Ute <strong>and</strong> Comanche attacked <strong>the</strong>Navajo; <strong>and</strong> Spanish troops began to penetrate Navajocountry, where <strong>the</strong>y decimated crops <strong>and</strong> capturedpeople in retribution. Peaceful coexistence betweenSpanish <strong>and</strong> Navajo existed between 1717 <strong>and</strong> 1750.There is documentation <strong>of</strong> Navajo moving into <strong>the</strong>Cebolleta area, only seven leagues from LagunaPueblo. A number <strong>of</strong> Navajo became Christians as aresult <strong>of</strong> missionary efforts in <strong>the</strong> area between <strong>San</strong>taAna <strong>and</strong> <strong>San</strong>ta Clara pueblos. By 1750, a number <strong>of</strong>missions had been established; those at Cebolletafailed. Spanish homesteaders also entered <strong>the</strong> area <strong>and</strong>

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!