Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T23:55:17.187Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Athapaskan Migration via the Intermontane Region

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2017

H. Betty  and
Harold A. Huscher
H. Betty
Affiliation:
Colorado Museum of Natural HistoryDenver, Colorado
Harold A. Huscher
Affiliation:
Colorado Museum of Natural HistoryDenver, Colorado
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Circular or sub-rectangular stone structures, often with dry-laid masonry walls and characteristically built in prominent locations, have been reported from sites ranging from the Plains across New Mexico and Arizona as far as California. West of the Rocky Mountains they have been reported from the Paradox Valley east of the La Sal Mountains, and several writers have noted comparable structures in northeastern Utah, sometimes standing alone and sometimes in supposed association with Puebloid remains.

Recent survey by the Colorado Museum of Natural History has shown the occurrence of hogan-like structures falling in this same classification, in the Rockies from the San Luis Valley on the south, where one site already had been reported but classed with tipi rings, across the Gunnison and Colorado drainages as far north as the headwaters of the White River.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , July 1942 , pp. 80 - 88
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1942

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Harrington (1940) suggests Athapaskawan as more nearly correct. Bibliography, see pp. 99–104 of this Journal.

2 Renaud, 1931, pp. 95–98; 1932, pp. 9, 11–18; 1935, pp. 13–15; Thomas, 1935, p. 266, fn. 38; Moorehead, 1921, pp. 1–11; 1931, especially pp. 116–117, Figs. 53–56; Pearsall, 1939, p. 8; Tanner, 1936; Colton, 1920, pp. 298–300; Kidder, 1924; Nelson, 1924. Cf. Steward, 1933, p. 334; 1941, pp. 334–335.

3 Woodbury and Woodbury, 1932, pp. 11, 14, 17; Morss, 1931, p. 28; Reagan, 1933, pp. 5–6; Gillin, 1937, p. 218; Wormington, 1939, and 1940.

4 Renaud, 1935, p. 7.

5 Huscher and Huscher, 1939, and 1940.

6 1936, p. 62; 1937a, p. 87.

7 1940, p. 523.

8 Malcolm, 1939, p. 11, Type 1.

9 Harrington, 1940.

10 The name “Navaho” identifies only a single Apache group, “Los Apaches de Nabah6,” after their certain differentiation from ancestral Athapaskan. Without positively identifiable cultural indices the name cannot be extended to ruins falling outside known Navaho areal-temporal limits. Hodge (1895) outlined the opposing view that the single nuclear Navaho clan was composed of Athapaskan-speaking Cliff Dwellers distinct from the Apache.

11 Harris, 1909, p. 141; Chapin, 1892, p. 51. Cf. Morss, 1931, p. 28.

12 Steward, 1939, Pis. 9, 21.

13 After 1700, horses, tipis and travois figured prominently in the annual Ute parades across the mountains to raid, to hunt, or to trade, but this Plains veneer was comfortably shed when at home on the juniper mesas of Western Colorado. Huscher and Huscher, 1939 and 1940.

14 Steward, 1936, p. 62; 1941, p. 454; Smith, E. R., 1940, p. 344.

15 Gifford, 1940. In early historical times, the material culture of the Plains Apache bands and the Navaho was almost identical, both corresponding closely with that of the neighboring Pueblo (estimate based on documentary evidence edited by Thomas, 1932, and 1935; Hill, 1940). Archaeologically important differences would be the lack of the kiva complex and, among the Plains Apache, emphasis on the palisade house and the apparent lack of weaving and painted pottery.

16 At the opening of the historical period the Apache-Navaho were still hill people, poorly oriented to life in the valleys. Characteristically, the Apache-Navaho boundaries, and Comanche-Ute as well, were delimited by rivers. Plains Apache guides were moved almost to tears at the prospect of being lost on the open prairies away from the protecting hills. Thomas, 1935, pp. 66, 11. See also Thomas, 1932; Hill, 1940. However, cf. Harrington, 1940, pp. 523–524.

17 Huscher and Huscher, 1939 and 1940. The 1940 expedition was aided by a grant from the Permanent Science Fund of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. The 1941 expedition is continuing with aid from the Penrose Fund of the American Philosophical Society.

18 Woodbury and Woodbury, 1932, p. 11; Hurst, 1939, p. 59, but attributed to the Ute; Pearsall, 1939; Huscher, 1939, p. 30; Huscher and Huscher, unpublished field notes. CI. Smith, H. I., 1910, pp. 518–519; Morss, 1931, pp. 28–29; Thomas, 1932 and 1935; Malcolm, 1939; Hill, 1938.

19 Cf. Colton, 1920; Morss, 1931, pp. 14–15, 16–17; Reagan, 1933; Tanner, 1936.

20 Estimate based on Thomas, 1932, and 1935; Hill, 1936, p. 6; 1940, p. 398. A “tower” is mentioned for the Jicarilla Apache, but with the specific statement that the building was used as a house (Thomas, 1935, p. 115). After nightfall, a besieged house was abandoned and the occupants fled to the hills (Palomas Apaches of the South Platte, Thomas, 1935, p. 132). The Sierra Blanca Apache, now part of the Jicarilla, left their houses at night and retired to the hills to insure their lives (Thomas, 1935, p. 142). The Navaho, 1712–1715, lived in the valleys except when hard-pressed by the Ute, then they lived on the mesas (Hill, 1940, p. 411).

21 Huscher and Huscher, 1939 and 1940.

22 1927, p. 26 and Fig. III, No. 1.

23 1931, p. 19.

24 1933, p. 5.

25 1938, p. 134.

26 1941, p. 334, Trait 636.

27 Some of Renaud's (1931) slabs standing on end might be traced to a similar houseroof construction or they may represent remnants of the slab-faced earth walls described by Moorehead (1921, and 1931). Cf. Morss, 1931, p. 17, for leaning slabs. Ulibarri (1706) found the pagan Cuartelejo Apache greatly impressed with the efficacy of the cross as a protective talisman and noted that they had set up large crosses near their villages (Thomas, 1935, p. 68 et seq.); the centrally located monoliths mentioned by Renaud for the Apishapa sites may be remains of such crosses. Certainly there is no need to postulate a sun-worship cult.

28 Another cultural index distinguishing the sites from late Ute camps. Identified Ute projectile points from our area are pressure-flaked from straight-sided isosceles triangle blanks, notched from both sides or both sides and the base.-This agrees with Steward's findings for the Great Salt Lake area (Steward, 1936, Figs. 11,2) and strengthens the view that the Shoshoneans have arrived recently from the west.

29 A single corner-tanged knife, made of a local material, was found in the midden of a hogan-type ruin in Mesa County. Should the distinctive corner-tanged knife prove to be a trait of the northern complex, a convincing continuity can be shown. A typological relationship with the Eskimo skinning knife is obvious; comparable back-hafted knives, coarse black pottery, and circular pit-houses are known from prehistoric horizons in Japan (Patterson, 1936; Mantz, 1939). Incidentally, there is some evidence that certain Eskimo groups are recent migrants to the Arctic coast from the Canadian interior, present home of the Northern Athapaskans (Shapiro, 1931), and Jenness (1938) has estimated that the ancestral Athapaskans probably were crossing from the Asiatic mainland as recently as 1000 B.C.

30 Gifford's trait list (1940) emphasizes percussion-flaking for Southern Athapascans.

31 Huscher and Huscher, field notes.

32 1937a.

33 Site, located in 1940 in Mesa County, Colorado, had no masonry or surviving wood. Traits associated at this site: coarse paste, burning dark drab to red-buff; coarse sand temper (up to 9 mm.) showing both faces; organic inclusions, whether from carelessness or intention; sherd thicknesses around 6 mm., rims somewhat greater; thickened (14 mm. plus) pointed bottom; approximate diameters, 20-30 cm.; vertical curve less than horizontal in one case, indicating a tall shape. Circuit building is certain, rounds added by pressing onto the last round from the inside, each round adding approximately 30 mm. to the height. One rim strengthened by addition on the inside of a final coil smoothed at the top but not pressed into the pot at the lower edge. Fingernail incising present on surface of one pot, while another has a peculiar dimpled surface (Cf. pitted Fremont ware, Morss, 1931, p. 45). The dimpling did not depress the sand temper or puddle the clay, however.

34 Steward, 1936, p. 62; Smith, E. R., 1940, p. 344.

35 An intriguing technological similarity, hardly coincidence, is the use of salt-lick clay, salt water for mixing, or some sort of doctoring of the mixing water (antlers, weeds, vegetal juices) noted in the manufacture of Navaho pipes (Tschopik, 1941, p. 57), Ute utility ware (Barber, 1876), Lower Colorado utility ware (Rogers, 1936), and Paiute cooking pots (Steward, 1933, pp. 266–267).

36 McKern, 1937.

37 Such occurrences as the Largo and Gallina Woodland utility wares (Hibben, 1938; Mera, 1938) could as well be regarded as an eastern extension of the supposed western type as the reverse.

38 1923, p. 251. Cf. Curtis, 1928, p. 101.

39 1929, p. 247.

40 1930, p. 123.

41 1933, p. 267 and 1941, p. 340, Fig. 11.

42 1936, p. 338.

43 1932, pp. 127–134.

44 1909, p. 117.

45 1923, p. 253.

46 See also Sapir, 1936, though implying a continuity via the Plains rather than the Intermontane region.

47 Sapir, 1923, p. 249.

48 Huscher and Huscher, field notes. Cf. E. T. Hall, quoted in Renaud (1937, p. 15): surface sherds from the High Plans with “ … Large irregular temper which dissolved away, leaving holes.” The Utes used ground “marl” in making their pottery (Barber, 1876, p. 452).

49 Gilmore, 1925, p. 286.

50 Morss, 1931.

51 Huscher and Huscher, field notes from San Miguel County: pucker string tie, dew claws back of heel rather than under.

52 Reagan, 1933, p. 7; Steward, 1937a, p. 69, Fig. 23*.

53 Wheeler, 1938.

54 Morss, 1931, Pis. 13–16; Reagan, 1935, p. 81. Cf. Kidder and Guernsey, 1919, Fig. 102.

55 Steward, 19376.

56 Possible exceptions: Yampa Canyon (Morris, Glazier and Thallon, 1937) and Dolores River drainage (Huscher and Huscher, field notes).

57 Judd (1941, p. 429) points out that distributions of culture complexes in Utah tend to extend north and south, rather than east and west.