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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

308 <strong>Chaco</strong> Project Syn<strong>the</strong>sisFigure 10.7.Inscriptions from rock-art files for site 29S1206. (<strong>Chaco</strong> <strong>Culture</strong> NHP Museum Archive,no. 33000. William B. Gillespie, photographer.)roads <strong>and</strong> trails <strong>and</strong> piled stones into cairns. At 266rock-art sites, Navajo rock art was pictorial. Spanish<strong>and</strong> Anglo-Americans inscribed <strong>the</strong>ir names (Figure10.7), dates, <strong>and</strong> sometimes associations with townsor military regiments. Dates associated with Spanishnames suggested use <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> area as winter grazingranges.The most abundant artifact type was pottery, <strong>and</strong><strong>the</strong> dominant types were Navajo. Pueblo trade wareson Navajo sites indicate exchange with Keres <strong>and</strong>Tewa groups, <strong>San</strong>ta Ana, Acoma-Laguna, Cochiti­Zia, Zuni, <strong>and</strong> Hopi. O<strong>the</strong>r artifact types on Navajosites included lithics, two cradleboards, weaving tools,a beater, one digging stick, gaming pieces, three religiousobjects, two baskets, an arrow, <strong>and</strong> reworkedtrade items. No items attributable to Spanish orMexican culture were recovered. Anglo-Americangoods included items <strong>of</strong> trade: those used for dress <strong>and</strong>grooming, household items, storage, tools, <strong>and</strong>transportation (Brugge 1981b:95).Due to limitations in dating techniques, Bruggewas concerned about our inability to identify Navajosites in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chaco</strong> area prior to <strong>the</strong> early eighteenthcentury. In spite <strong>of</strong> difficulties dating sites, Brugge(1981b:99-100) found differences between Navajosites assigned to <strong>the</strong> period from 1750 to 1820 <strong>and</strong>those assigned to <strong>the</strong> period between 1880 <strong>and</strong> 1945.Not only were <strong>the</strong> earlier sites more clustered <strong>and</strong>generally located on <strong>the</strong> south side <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> canyon, but<strong>the</strong>y were also more common on <strong>the</strong> eastern end <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>park. Later sites were more common toward <strong>the</strong> westernend, more scattered in location, <strong>and</strong> seemingly lessconcerned with concealment. Exposure to <strong>the</strong> sun,relationship to vegetation, <strong>and</strong> access to farm l<strong>and</strong>swere noted.Brugge's (1981b:l00-l01) summary reiterates<strong>and</strong> comments on points made by Gwinn Vivian(1960). The earliest Navajo sites date to <strong>the</strong> mideighteenthcentury. Prior to 1774, <strong>the</strong>ir only enemieswere o<strong>the</strong>r Indian tribes. After that, occasional warswith <strong>the</strong> Spanish induced some defensive retreats, butmany sites were close to agricultural l<strong>and</strong>s. Farming,livestock-raising, h<strong>and</strong>icrafts, <strong>and</strong> some trade withnearby Pueblo people existed; <strong>the</strong> last depended on <strong>the</strong>availability <strong>of</strong> Euro-American goods <strong>and</strong> freedomfrom Spanish regulation. After 1818, warfare wasmore intense. Increased trade over <strong>the</strong> <strong>San</strong>ta Fe Trailbrought more firearms, especially after Mexicanindependence. Sites are almost invisible; if Navajo

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!