95Chapter 5

Hemenway, Hrdlička, and Hawikku: A Historical Perspective on Bioarchaeological Research in the American Southwest

Gordon F. M. Rakita

I. INTRODUCTION

Dr. Matthews went to Los Muertos in the month of August, 1887. He found that no attention had been paid to the collection or preservation of human bones, which were extremely fragile, crumbling to dust upon a touch, and which had been thrown about and trampled under foot by curious visitors, so that but little remained of value from the work which had been previously done. (Billings, cited in Matthews et al., 1893:141)

Dr. John S. Billings, surgeon with the United States Army Medical Museum, thus described how one of the first explorations of prehistoric remains in the American Southwest, Frank Hamilton Cushing’s Hemenway Expedition (Matthews et al., 1893), developed its bioarchaeological component (see Chapter 1). Then, as now, the analysis of prehistoric human burials was frequently an afterthought for many researchers working in the Southwest. Unfortunately, Buikstra’s (1991:174) call for “[m]utually designed research strategies” between archaeologists and biological anthropologists still remains for the most part “an elusive goal” in this region.

There is reason for cautious optimism, however. Throughout the past century, a few intrepid researchers have maintained an interest in uniting archaeological 96and biological data in the examination of indigenous groups of the desert west. Within recent decades, a number of integrated projects have greatly expanded our understanding of the prehistoric peoples and cultures of this important region. These projects have provided not only models for how such integration might be accomplished, but also examples of the rich intellectual rewards that result.

This chapter reviews key events and periods in the history of bioarchaeological work in the North American desert west. The focus is on research conducted within Arizona and New Mexico, occasionally extending to contiguous regions of the United States and Mexico. The chapter begins with the early history of regional research and then moves to a description of more recent developments. It ends with a discussion of possible future directions that are open to southwestern bioarchaeologists.

II. THE HEMENWAY EXPEDITION AND THE U.S. ARMY MEDICAL MUSEUM (1886–1888)

The Hemenway Southwestern Archaeological Expedition directed by Frank Hamilton Cushing represents the first organized research on southwestern prehistory that explicitly included physical anthropologists as part of a preconceived attempt at interdisciplinary research. The impetus for the project came from Cushing’s research at the Pueblo of Zuni. During the course of his ethnographic work among the Zunis, Cushing’s informants claimed that their ancestral roots lay to the Southwest of the region they currently inhabited. Consequentially, Cushing undertook excavations at several ruins in the Salt River valley near Tempe, Arizona, with the view of confirming these claims. In the fall of 1886, with financial support from Mary T. Hemenway, a Boston philanthropist, he assembled his multidisciplinary team (Hinsley and Wilcox, 1996; Haury, 1945). He arranged for the participation of a historian (Adolph F. Bandelier), an artist (Margaret Magill, his sister), a publicist (Sylvester Baxter), an expedition secretary (F. W. Hodge), a topographer (Charles Garlick, of the U.S. Geological Survey), an archaeologist–ethnologist–linguist (Cushing, himself), and a physical anthropologist (Dr. Herman F. C. ten Kate, of Holland).

In the winter of 1886 a small advance party of the Cushings, Magill, Hodge, Garlick, and several Zuni informants departed New England for Fort Wingate, New Mexico, from whence the expedition was launched. For the first months of 1887, the expedition conducted surveys and excavations along the Salt River in southcentral Arizona, having set up camp (Camp Augustus) near Tempe. Eventually a second camp was established in March near the site of Los Muertos where most of the remaining work was conducted. During these early stages, no one trained in anatomy or physical anthropology was present, as Dr. ten Kate was not scheduled to join the expedition until later (Brunson, 1989:20–24).

97However, in August of 1887, Mrs. Hemenway, recently returned to Boston from a visit to the expedition in Arizona, consulted with Baxter on the health of Cushing. She was sufficiently concerned to request that Dr. Washington Matthews (Fig. 1), then a surgeon in charge of the United States Army Medical Museum (USAMM), join the expedition at Camp Hemenway. Matthews,¹ a professional friend of Cushing, arrived at Los Muertos in August of 1887. It was at this point that he made the observation quoted at the beginning of this chapter.

In order to salvage the skeletal remains, Matthews requested that Dr. John S. Billings, curator of the USAMM, immediately send out Dr. J. L. Wortman with the appropriate preservatives. At the time, Baxter characterized Wortman as one of the leading comparative anatomists, osteologists, and paleontologists in the United States, having previously been the assistant of the paleontologist Edward Cope (Baxter, 1888, 1889:10). Matthews then persuaded Cushing to take a rest from the expedition’s work and travel to the west coast where he might be able to recover more suitably. Originally scheduled for a 3-week “vacation,” Cushing’s trip lasted 3 months. The Cushings, Magill, and Matthews left in late September and were not to return until December.

During his absence, Hodge was left in charge of the expedition’s work. It was Cushing’s desire, however, that while he was away the skeletal remains be exposed but left in situ until he could examine them upon his return. On November 18th of 1887, Dr. ten Kate arrived at the expedition’s camp near Los Muertos. Hrdlička (1919:117) notes that ten Kate was a native of Holland who studied under Broca. He was a graduate of the University of Leyden with both a Ph.D. and a medical degree. During his original visit to the United States in 1883 sponsored by the Société d’Anthropologie de Paris, he collected data on the Iroquois, as well as tribes in southern California and the Southwest. In agreement with Cushing, ten Kate had arranged to compare the skeletons excavated by the expedition with the physical characteristics of the extant tribes living in southern Arizona (ten Kate, 1892). He had originally planned to begin anthropometric observations among the Pima immediately, but he set aside this project in order to attempt to salvage the Los Muertos skeletal remains. A week later, on November 25th, Dr. Wortman arrived at camp. Apparently, there was an initial controversy between the two surgeons (Brunson, 1989:23), perhaps regarding who had the mandate to carry on the skeletal preservation work. However, the issue was resolved quickly and the two prevailed upon Hodge to allow them to remove the uncovered remains in order to prevent further destruction.

98

Figure 1 Dr. Washington Matthews, 1843–1905 (Schevill, 1948/1949:2).

99Baxter reported that after his return in December, Cushing initiated excavations at the site of Las Acequias in an attempt to locate well-preserved skeletal material. These indeed were discovered, and Baxter described the activities of the two surgeons:

The two doctors [ten Kate and Wortman] are found grubbing in the pits, industriously at work over the skeletons, over whose anatomical characteristics their enthusiasm is aroused to a high pitch. They are intent on securing and saving every bone, and are regardless of personal discomfort, not only their clothes being covered with the dust, but their faces begrimed and their hair and beards thoroughly powdered, making them look like some strange burrowing animals. The result of their painstaking is one of the finest and most complete collections of ancient skeletons ever brought together, and the consequent discovery of certain anatomical characteristics that promise to be of high importance in the determination of racial distinctions. (Baxter, 1889:33)

Subsequently, between March and May of 1888, ten Kate was able to complete his intended work not only with the Pima, but also the Papago, Maricopa, and Yuman groups. Wortman remained with the expedition until June of 1888, as he cared for the skeletal material and oversaw their removal, curation, and eventual transportation to the USAMM (Matthews et al., 1893).

In June, excavations in the Salt River valley stopped and the expedition moved on to the Zuni region, with excavations at Hàlona, Inscription Rock, and Hèshotaùthla. However, Cushing soon returned to the east due to illness, leaving Hodge in charge. Later, in 1889, Jesse W. Fewkes took over supervision of the expedition’s work. No synthetic report of the expedition was ever completed. Cushing claimed that Fewkes misappropriated many of his field notes, limiting his ability to produce a final report (Brunson, 1989). Nor were relations between Cushing and Hodge (as both his secretary and his brother-in-law) always satisfactory. In fact, Hodge criticized Cushing’s conduct in his introduction to Emil Haury’s much more recent report (Haury, 1945). Despite the fact that Cushing never issued a final report, both ten Kate (1892) and Matthews, Billings, and Wortman (1893) were able to publish the results of their work. The report published by ten Kate in the Journal of American Ethnology and Archaeology compared 104 of the crania procured by the expedition (48 from the Salt valley, 56 from the Zuni region) with the observations he made on 445 living Zuni, Pima-Papago, and other southern Arizona groups. To the latter, he added data he had collected on 131 other individuals during his 1883 visit to the Southwest. After presenting data collected among the indigenous tribes, ten Kate provided a summary of the skeletal material, noting the great similarity between the Zuni and the Arizona materials. The overriding objective of his analysis, however, was determining the extant group that most closely resembled the prehistoric Salt River collections, the assumption being that physical similarity denoted genetic relatedness. His conclusion, based on the measurements of cranial breadth and length, as well as the cephalic index, was that the living Zuni 100displayed the greatest morphological similarity to the ancient Salt River sample. Moreover, he was quick to point out that this conclusion generally conformed to Cushing’s determination regarding the ancestry of the Zuni peoples. This publication represents the first study of many in the Southwest that sought to draw conclusions regarding genetic similarity on the basis of cranial morphology.

Upon his return to Washington, Matthews examined and measured the materials sent to the USAMM from the excavations in both the Salt River valley and at the Zuni sites. The physical anthropological report was to have been published as part of the larger archaeological publication. However, as no report seemed forthcoming, Matthews, Wortman, and Billings’ (1839:142) report was published independently. Other work was published by these medical doctors regarding southwestern collections or data considered tuberculosis among southwestern native groups (Matthews, 1887, 1888), Inca bone frequencies (Matthews, 1889), and observations of the hyoid bone (ten Kate and Wortman, 1888). Unfortunately, this was one of the few times researchers trained in human anatomy or skeletal biology would participate directly with an archaeological excavation in the region for the next 50 years.

III. THE U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM, THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, AND THE MUSEUM OF THE AMERICAN INDIAN

The Hemenway Expedition contributed significantly to the collections of the United States Army Medical Museum. The USAMM was founded in 1863, with Dr. George A. Otis as curator from 1864 to 1881 (see the National Museum of Health & Medicine’s “A Brief History of the Collecting of Anatomical Specimens by the Army Medical Museum”). Otis was quick to begin a symbiotic relationship with the 17-year-old United States National Museum–Smithsonian Institution (USNM-SI), under the direction of secretary Joseph Henry. In exchange for all human skeletal material at the USNM-SI, Otis and Henry agreed that the Army Museum would relinquish all ethnological and archaeological collections. Further, Hrdlička (1919:66) notes that Otis requested that Army and Navy medical personnel forward on to the USAMM skeletal materials of general interest. This resulted in the museum amassing a significant collection of osteological materials, which was later retransferred to the USNM-SI, beginning in 1898. This series included roughly 1500 crania and skeletons. While the USAMM retained pathological specimens, the contribution of over 3500 skeletal specimens by the USAMM no doubt provided the USNM-SI physical anthropology division with a firm foundation for subsequent research and publications in physical anthropology.

101As discussed in Chapter 4, during 1903, Aleš Hrdlička became the first director of the newly formed Division of Physical Anthropology at the USNM-SI. Hrdlička was responsible for the collection of anthropometric data and osteological specimens from the North American desert west (Hrdlička, 1908a, 1909a, 1935a). During his earlier tenure at the American Museum of Natural History, he had collected somatological, medical, physiological, photographic, and skeletal data from indigenous tribes of the Sierra Madre in northern Mexico (including the states of Chihuahua, Sonora, Hidalgo, and Durango). Hrdlička also compiled data relating to tribal demography, stature, folk conceptions of illness, native diet, infanticide, and various pathological conditions, including influenza and smallpox. This trip augmented data collected by the Lumholtz Expedition (Hrdlička, 1919:98; Lumholtz, 1902). Hrdlička’s work was so successful that he was subsequently able to arrange with F. W. Putnam of the AMNH and the Hyde Expedition to sponsor a similar trip to the American Southwest (Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona) and additional regions in Mexico (Michoacan and Morelos). Hrdlička (1931:2) indicates that he was in charge of physical anthropology for the Hyde Expedition between 1898 and 1903, when he also examined Basketmaker remains from Utah. Subsequently, in the summer of 1909, Hrdlička collected and synthesized data on tuberculosis from a variety of indigenous groups in the western United States, including several from the Southwest (Apache, Hopi, Pima, and Navajo). While stressing that unsanitary living conditions among these groups was the most likely contributing factor to the high rates of respiratory disease, he did note that “… the Pueblos … are among the tribes most free from tuberculosis.”

The desert west skeletal collections housed in the USNM-SI were soon supplemented by the excavations conducted at various prehistoric Zuni ruins. Frederick Webb Hodge, former secretary to the Hemenway Expedition, initiated excavations supported by the Heye Foundation and the Museum of the American Indian in New York. Between 1917 and 1923, Hodge explored the protohistoric and historic sites of Hawikku and Kechiba:wa, approximately 11 miles Southwest of Zuni Pueblo. In the course of this work, roughly 950 burials were uncovered from Hawikku (Howell, 1994, 1995) and 266 from Kechiba:wa (Lahr and Bowman, 1992). Unfortunately, Hodge did not follow Cushing’s example and engage anatomists or physical anthropologists in his research. Smith and colleagues (1966:192) report that in-field identifications of age and sex at Hawikku were made by individuals not trained in physical anthropology and are therefore suspect. They indicate that “[a]pparently no careful study of such details as tooth eruption, epiphysial union, or closure of cranial sutures was made.” Skeletons sent to the USNM-SI and examined by Hrdlička were apparently only those that were among the best preserved (predominantly adults). Only 1 cremation out of a total of at least 317 excavated (Smith et al., 1966:193, 203) was sent to the Museum of the American Indian and seems never to have been examined 102by a trained osteologist. Moreover, no systematic plan for the disposition or study of skeletons and associated artifacts was ever formulated. This resulted in miscellaneous remains being sent to both the USNM-SI and the Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology at Cambridge, England, leading to loss of contextual data for some of the burials (Smith et al., 1966; Howell and Kintigh, 1998; Lahr and Bowman, 1992). A description of the mortuary practices at Hawikku was left unpublished until 1966 (Smith et al., 1966), while an in-depth study was not completed until 1994 (Howell, 1994). Recent restudies of the skeletal materials from Hawikku have been plagued by concerns over the accuracy of the sex determinations (Corruccini, 1998; Howell and Kintigh, 1998). The human remains from Kechiba:wa sent to Cambridge, England, were studied in the early 1990s (Lahr and Bowman, 1992); however, the mortuary practices at this site have yet to be examined or even published systematically.

IV. 1930s AND 1940s: SELTZER, STEWART, AND SPUHLER

The 1930s saw a shift in southwestern bioarchaeological research, as in the rest of the country. The most obvious example of this shift is the publication of Hooton’s Indians of Pecos Pueblo in 1930 (see Chapter 4). Previously, most osteological data had been collected by anatomists or surgeons. For example, R. W. Leigh, a dentist by training, published a comparison of dental pathologies in skeletal series from four North American indigenous groups, including the prehistoric Zuni crania available at the Smithsonian Institution (Leigh, 1925). Hrdlička had suggested this study (Leigh, 1925:179). Similarly, the neuroanatomist G. von Bonin studied skeletons from the Lowry ruin in southwestern Colorado (1936, 1937; see also Stewart, 1937a). Increasingly, however, collection, observation, and analysis of skeletal material were conducted by individuals trained in physical anthropology as a result of focused training programs in institutions of higher learning (Spencer, 1982a).

Some of the crania from Hawikku (referred to as the “Old Zuñi”), along with others from the Southwest, constituted the primary data sets for a series of craniometric studies published in the 1930s and 1940s (Brues, 1946d; Hrdlička, 1931; Seltzer, 1936, 1944; Stewart, 1940c) [see also Hooton (1930) and Chapter 4]. Several of these investigations returned to Cushing’s fundamental question regarding the ancestry of the modern Zunis. Additionally, most attempted the general reconstruction of biological affinities throughout the prehistoric occupations of the greater Southwest.

Hrdlička (1931) reported the first southwestern biodistance study since ten Kate’s initial observations on the Hemenway Expedition materials. He gathered cranial measurements from over 10 different locations throughout the Southwest, 103including southern Utah Basketmaker sites, Puyé in the Jemez mountains of New Mexico, Hodge’s “Old Zuñi,” Chaco Canyon materials, and the Salt River collection, as well as Hopi mesa, Chaves [sic] Pass, and Petrified Forest specimens. Using comparisons of various metric attributes of the crania, especially the cephalic index, Hrdlička reached several conclusions. Importantly, he claimed that the southwestern collections displayed two distinct morphological groups: one brachycephlic (“round-headed”) and the other dolichocephalic (“long-headed”). Among the former were the Utah Basketmakers and the Hawikku and Salt River samples. The latter included the Puyé and Hopi. Additionally, some specimens (e.g., the non-Puyé Tewa) appeared to be intermediate between these two clusters. Hrdlička also noted that the geographic distribution of these two groups was unsystematic, which probably represented “considerable interpenetration.”

A few years later, Carl Seltzer (1936, see 1944 for details) reanalyzed the collections examined by Hrdlička. In doing so he iteratively compared the mean and standard deviation of over 20 metric traits and 11 indices of the skull for each pairing of the Hawikku collection against each other sample. He agreed with Hrdlička’s conclusion that Zuni crania were morphologically similar to the Salt River and Utah Basketmaker samples (cf. Corruccini, 1972). He further argued that the Zuni collection resembled those from Chaco Canyon, the Petrified Forest, and Chaves [sic] Pass. However, he did conclude that:

The supposedly sudden appearance of large numbers of undeformed crania in the pre-Pueblo and the very earliest of Pueblo phases has caused the majority of archaeologists to believe that these deformed specimens marked the arrival of what they termed “a new race.” “a round-headed invasion.” The writer cannot be of the same opinion … the writer is prone to believe that the deformed crania are more the expression of a change in fashion or ideals of beauty rather than in physical type. (Seltzer, 1944:25)

Stewart’s (1940c) analysis of skeletons excavated by Frank H. H. Roberts (1939, 1940) in the Zuni region lent support to this conclusion, which challenged the traditional viewpoint of many archaeologists, including A. V. Kidder (1924), who had suggested that the Basketmaker–Pueblo transition was marked by the arrival of a genetically dissimilar people into the Southwest.

It is important to note that while both Hrdlička and Seltzer (as well as Hooton and most contemporary physical anthropologists) referred to portions of their collections as belonging to specific morphological “types,” this was not an exercise in mindless, essentialist classification. Nor should it be seen as a glimpse into the racist attitudes of early 20th-century biological anthropologists. No doubt such attitudes existed (Brace, 1982). However, Seltzer was quick to point out that terms such as “dolichoid” or “round-headed” were descriptions of overall sample sets and often did not necessarily characterize significant variation within groups. “The impression conveyed by these statements is that all Basket Maker crania are dolichocephalic, that is, have indices below 75, and that all the Pueblo crania are brachycephalic with indices over 80. This is not true” (Seltzer, 1944:26, 104emphasis added). Physical anthropologists were, on the whole, cognizant of the variation exhibited in their collections. It was simply that their research interests did not lead them to explanations of that variability, a fact of their historical context. There were, of course, differences in the way in which the various typologies classified or grouped morphological variation (see Chapter 2).

While a few individuals continued to pursue craniometric studies into the 1950s (Spuhler, 1954), many of the techniques and assumptions of these research agendas were decried by both physical anthropologists (Stewart, 1954d) and archaeologists (Kraus, 1954) alike. Perhaps this was an outgrowth of increasing subfield specialization possible within large anthropology departments. Decreasing knowledge about developments in other subfields may have led to difficulties in integrated research.

V. DISINTEGRATION: 1940s THROUGH 1960s

Between the late 1940s and 1960s, few integrated bioarchaeological studies were conducted in the Southwest. In the 1940s, this was no doubt due to the wartime reduction in archaeological activity. Moreover, the period following the war was characterized by a shift from large site excavations to more modest salvage archaeology projects. These less intensive excavations, by their very nature, were unable to uncover the large skeletal samples that characterized previous research. While bioanthropologists continued to conduct research on excavated skeletal materials, often these analyses resulted in brief appendices in larger archaeological site reports (e.g., Brues, 1946d; Gabel, 1950; Kelly, 1943; Reed, 1953; Stewart, 1940c) or publications in strictly physical anthropological venues (e.g., Hanna, 1962; Hanna et al., 1953; Miles, 1966; Zaino, 1968). Equally distressing is the amount of work from this period that is part of the gray (or difficult to acquire) literature (e.g., Reed, 1966, 1967; Snyder, 1959). Additionally, during the late 1950s and 1960s, archaeological research goals and methodologies underwent dramatic changes in response to an emerging processual paradigm. As demonstrated by the seminal work by Hill (1970) and Longacre (1970), interest focused on ceramic, not skeletal or mortuary, correlates of prehistoric social organization. Thus, a general hiatus in bioarchaeological studies occurred in the desert Southwest until the late 1970s and 1980s.

VI. A RESURGENCE: THE 1960s TO 1980s

Throughout the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s, interest in the relative biological or phenotypic distance between southwestern skeletal collections was maintained. 105This continuity with the early goals of southwestern bioarchaeology is exemplified by the work of Spuhler (1954) and Giles and Bleibtreu (1961). In the late 1960s and 1970s, a renaissance of genetic distance studies occurred across the Southwest. The phenotypic similarity of a skeletal collection from one site was often examined with those from multiple other locations. This fluorescence of studies included those by Benfer (1968) and Butler (1971) with the Casas Grandes (Paquimé) material of northwestern Chihuahua, Bennett’s (1973a) study of the Point of Pines burials, El-Najjar’s (1974) work with the remains from Canyon de Chelly, McWilliams’ (1974) examination of the Gran Quivira sample, Heglar’s (1974) Cochiti study, the dissertations by Birkby (1973) and Lumpkin (1976), and Corruccini’s (1972) report. Some studies in the mid- to late-1970s, however, foreshadowed a growing interest in prehistoric health and disease (Brooks and Brooks, 1978; El-Najjar, 1976; El-Najjar et al., 1976).

The 1980s saw a broadening of the research interests of southwestern bioarchaeologists. This expansion is exemplified by the symposium organized by Charles Merbs and Robert Miller entitled “Health and Disease in the Prehistoric Southwest” — Salud y Enfermidad en el Noroeste Prehistorico — held at Arizona State University in 1982 (Merbs and Miller, 1985). Conspicuously absent from the volume are any studies involving biodistance assessment. Instead, chapters focus on paleodemographic issues (see chapters by Berry, Palkovich), nonspecific indicators of nutritional stress (e.g., Martin et al., Weaver, Walker), specific pathological conditions, including tuberculosis (e.g., Reinhard, Sumner, Miller), as well as methodological concerns (Alcauskas) and historic accounts of infectious disease (Russell). Moreover, the symposium was designed to be inclusive, incorporating research from Mexico and involving medical doctors as well as physical anthropologists.

The papers in the Merbs and Miller volume were largely an outgrowth of a resurgence in integrated archaeological projects. By the early 1970s, large burial samples were once again being recovered across the Southwest. Increasingly, archaeologists saw the advantages of once again consulting with biological anthropologists. Analysis of human skeletal material was appreciated as an important line of evidence for testing alternative hypotheses. For example, the 1972 and 1973 excavations at the late 13th-century site of Pueblo de los Muertos in westcentral New Mexico by Watson, LeBlanc, and Redman (1980) produced 26 burials. These remains were examined by R. Linda Wheeler (1985) in an attempt to test Watson, LeBlanc, and Redman’s hypothesis regarding the abandonment of the area. Specifically, they suggested that abandonment was the result of two factors: local resource depletion and subsequent warfare with competing neighboring groups. Wheeler’s paleopathological analysis described evidence for both nutritional stress and trauma. However, she did not feel that the pathologies exhibited by the Los Muertos sample deviated significantly from the usual southwestern pattern and thus concluded that skeletal data did not support the 106archaeologists’ hypothesis. Subsequent work (Kintigh, 1996) has suggested that the 14th-century abandonment of such sites was the result of a lack of intracommunity social integration rather than intercommunity conflict, thus supporting Wheeler’s conclusions.

This period also witnessed the development of a number of large-scale, multi-site, interdisciplinary projects. Among others, these included the National Park Service’s work in Chaco Canyon (Akins, 1986), the Black Mesa Archaeological Project (Martin et al., 1991), the University of New Mexico field school at Tijeras Canyon (Cordell, 1980), the excavations of Pueblo Grande in Phoenix (Mitchell, 1992, 1994), the Dolores Archaeological Program in southwestern Colorado (Stodder, 1987), and the School of American Research’s excavations at Arroyo Hondo (Palkovich, 1980). For the first time since the Hemenway Expedition at the turn of the century, biological anthropologists were an integral component of research design and implementation.

VII. NEW INTERESTS AND CURRENT APPROACHES (1990S–PRESENT)

Since this resurgence in southwestern bioarchaeology, numerous studies of previously excavated skeletal collections have been completed. In her 1990 dissertation, Ann Stodder compared 188 of the burials from Hawikku to a sample from the Galisteo Basin pueblo of San Cristobal. Stodder tested the proposition that the location of the San Cristobal population in the center of Spanish colonial activity resulted in greater overall nutritional and health stress compared to the more isolated Hawikku population. Her analysis suggested, however, that differences in health between the two populations were not straightforward. For example, the San Cristobal sample exhibited a higher mean life expectancy and a lower rate of juvenile mortality than the Hawikku series. Stodder suggested that different local economic and subsistence strategies may account for some of the variability observed. Her paleoepidemiological approach thus provided an excellent illustration of population-based bioarchaeological studies to southwestern prehistorians.

In 1992, Lahr and Bowman studied 54 remains excavated by Hodge when at Kechiba:wa. They documented widespread iron-deficiency anemia and arthritis in this collection. Lahr and Bowman proposed that people of Kechiba:wa suffered chronic ill heath. They also reported various other low-frequency pathological conditions, including button osteomas, osteomyelitis, and a possible case of venereal syphilis. Of special note is their diagnosis of three cases of possible tuberculosis in their sample. They thus disagreed with Morse’s [1961, see Buikstra (1999) for an extended discussion of Morse] contention that New World 107population densities were too low to support infectious conditions such as tuberculosis. In particular, they suggested that aggregated communities such as Kechiba:wa may have exhibited population levels high enough to sustain such diseases.

However, the skeletal material analyzed by Danforth, Cook, and Knick (1994) from the relatively small community at the Carter Ranch site illustrates a “… relatively well-adapted population.” Their sample of 34 displayed less evidence of malnutrition than those from more densely populated sites. Juveniles showed nutritional stress, as evidenced by linear enamel hypoplasias, Harris lines, cribra orbitalia, and porotic hyperostosis. However, adult stature estimates for the Carter Ranch individuals approximated those reported by Hrdlička (1935a) for living Puebloan groups and thus suggested that many individuals may have recovered from childhood malnutrition. Moreover, while dental lesions were common, they do not represent a significant deviation from expected frequencies for maize-dependent horticulturists. This study thus provided information on the health of a small-scale community that can be profitably compared to larger samples. Such comparisons can provide critical tests of alternative hypotheses regarding population aggregation and abandonment in the region.

In 1994, Howell reconstructed the mortuary treatment of 954 burials excavated by Hodge at Hawikku. In doing so, he compiled one of the largest databases of archaeologically recovered graves from a single community in the American Southwest. In collaboration with Keith Kintigh (Howell and Kintigh, 1996), Howell has been testing hypotheses about this protohistoric and historic Zuni community. Utilizing a statistical clustering technique and diversity measures, he has identified individuals who may have held community leadership roles. Moreover, he has been able to document a reduction in the number of females holding such positions in the immediate post-contact period (Howell, 1995). Howell proposes that this change was the result of colonial Spanish ideological and economic influences. He and Kintigh (Howell and Kintigh, 1996) have supplemented mortuary data with non-metric dental traits to compare biological affinity between and within spatially discrete clusters of burials. Their results suggest that leadership may have been hereditary in nature. While there has been criticism of their approach in an issue of American Antiquity (Corruccini, 1998; Howell and Kintigh, 1998), their study, as well as others (Schillaci and Stojanowski, 2000, 2002), illustrates both the value of integrating biological and archaeological data in the Southwest and that traditional concerns in southwestern bioarchaeology, such as genetic relationships, can be approached in novel ways that integrate both archaeological and biological data.

Bone chemistry —both trace elements and stable isotopes —has been used to infer diet in southwestern skeletal collections (e.g., Ezzo, 1993; Matson and Chisholm, 1991; Spielmann et al., 1990). Price and colleagues (1994) have also used stable strontium ratios from east-central Arizona bones and teeth to 108evaluate hypotheses regarding prehistoric population mobility and residence rules. Such analyses provide greater geographic specificity for inferences of population movements.

Finally, and perhaps most dramatically, a number of scholars have been exploring evidence for both interpersonal violence and cannibalism in the prehistoric American Southwest [for brief reviews, see Hillson (2000) and Plog (2003)]. Indeed, reports of cannibalism have reached the popular press (Preston, 1998). While the earliest and most intensive investigations of possible cannibalism in the region include the works of the Turners (Turner and Turner, 1992, 1999) and White (1992), recent investigations have integrated cultural data while others have explored the utility of analyses of human myoglobin in ancient human feces in identifying instances of cannibalism (Billman et al., 2000; Hurlbut, 2000; Ogilvie and Hilton, 2000). Case studies of osteological evidence for violence include those of Darling (1998), Kuckelman, Lightfoot, and Martin (2000, 2002), Martin and Akins (2001), and Walker (1998). Since the early 1990s, the perspective that prehistoric Southwesterners did indeed engage in warfare and other forms of interpersonal violence has been amply supported (Haas and Creamer, 1993; LeBlanc, 1999; Lekson, 2002; Wilcox and Haas, 1994), contrary to historically presented ideals of Puebloan society as harmonious and remarkably conflict free (e.g., Benedict, 1934). Of particular interest are so-called “extreme processing” events, which are characterized by human bone assemblages with indications of perimortem trauma, intentional disarticulation, burning, exposure, and cut or other processing marks (Kuckelman et al., 2000; Lekson, 2002).

The cause and nature of violence or cannibalism in the Southwest are, however, sources of ongoing debate (Billman et al., 2000; Dongoske et al., 2000; Kantner, 1996; Lekson, 2002; Plog, 2003). Two alternative explanations for extreme processing events, cannibalism and witch persecution (or kratophany), dominate this debate. Alternative explanations include social or political intimidation, raiding, interpersonal strife, and small-scale warfare. The positive effect of this debate has been increased concern with the detailed examination of the spatial, cultural, and historical contexts of human remains, as well as the modern political milieu in which these scholarly reports are appearing (e.g., Dongoske et al., 2000; Plog, 2003). Researchers have therefore been encouraged to engage their osteological study with contextualized archaeological observations to answer anthropological questions about human nature. Bioarchaeological research in the Southwest is thus carried to a higher level.

VIII. FUTURE DIRECTIONS

While it is true that bioarchaeologists throughout the United States now work in an era of NAGPRA regulations, this should be viewed as both a challenge 109and an opportunity. It is our responsibility to educate both the public and our colleagues about the possible contributions that integrated bioarchaeological research programs can make to both understanding the past and to issues of significance to Indian communities.

Furthermore, we must follow not only methodological but also theoretical advances in both archaeology and bioanthropology. In this respect, southwestern bioarchaeologists seem to be falling behind (Goldstein, 2001). For example, while archaeologists in other areas have been moving quickly beyond the Saxe–Binford (Saxe, 1970; Binford, 1971) approach to mortuary ritual (e.g., Beck, 1995), southwestern investigators continue to uncritically apply the assumption inherent in this program (e.g., Mitchell and Brunson-Hadley, 2001; Howell, 1995; Mitchell, 1994; Ravesloot, 1988). Similarly, southwestern skeletal biologists have been slow to consider how the osteological paradox (Wood et al., 1992) might complicate their conclusion regarding prehistoric health and demography (e.g., Martin, 1994; Nelson et al., 1994). We must not allow the rich empirical record of the Southwest to lull us into a false sense of confidence with our current methodologies and theoretical perspectives.

In fact, the uniquely rich archaeological record of the Southwest holds potential for resolving general issues that have long been a matter of concern to bioanthropologists and archaeologists. For example, the etiology of cribra orbitalia and porotic hyperostosis has been debated by bioanthropologists for close to 15 years (Holland and O’Brien, 1997). Are these conditions the result of maize dependency or intestinal parasites; are they symptoms of physiological imbalance or adaptive response? The prehistoric Southwest, where skeletal evidence of anemia is ubiquitous, represents a perfect laboratory to test alternative hypotheses.

Likewise, the Chavez Pass–Grasshopper Pueblo debate [see Wills (1994) and McGuire and Saitta (1996) for discussions] has highlighted southwestern archaeologists’ interest in the nature of prehistoric social complexity. Were Puebloan communities egalitarian or were they controlled by an elite hierarchy? If the latter, how did elites obtain and maintain their status distinctions? Studies such as those conducted by Howell and Kintigh (1996) illustrate one novel approach to this issue. Unfortunately, such reanalysis and reevaluation of perennial anthropological questions require continuing and ongoing access to skeletal collections, particularly large skeletal series. Due to the long tradition of large-scale excavations, the American Southwest has been an excellent source of such collections. Buikstra and Gordon (1981) showed that large collections are often the focus of repeated reanalysis, often with novel methods and techniques. These restudies often lead to alterations in previously accepted research results. Reevaluations are the hallmark of scientific inquiry. While NAGPRA may act to limit such studies (see e.g., Turner, 2002), there are examples where bioarchaeological inquiries have been enriched through input from indigenous communities. In complementary fashion, issues of ancestral community, health, and heritage have been of special interest to living descendants. The Southwest, with its many traditional communities, holds great promise in this regard.

110

Figure 2 Erik Reed at Awatovi in 1939 (Courtesy of Museum of Northern Arizona Photo Archives, negative no. 72.578, photo by Marc Gaede).

111The trend in southwestern anthropology over the 20th century has been toward less and less integration of archaeology and biological research. Nevertheless, there has been a significant upturn in synthetic research in recent decades. Work such as Howell and Kintigh (1996), Spielman, Schoeninger, and Moore (1990), Schillaci and Stojanowski (2002), and the various research on violence and cannibalism in the Southwest represent innovative examples of scholarship that incorporate archaeological and physical anthropological data and methods. They also do justice to the exceptional example that Cushing’s multidisciplinary Hemenway Expedition set over 100 years ago. The future is bright for bioarchaeology in the American Southwest, and we are on the threshold of realizing Buikstra’s decade-old call for mutually designed research strategies.112