cycles of renewal, transportable assets: aspects of...

133

Deni J. Seymour Ancestral Apache Housing

Plains Anthropologist, Vol. 55, No. 214, pp. 133–152, 2010

Cycles of Renewal, Transportable Assets:Aspects of Ancestral Apache Housing

Deni J. SeymourAncestral Apachean groups in the mountainous American Southwest used huts or wickiups rather

than tipis and so their habitation sites tend to defy recognition. The housing types used by thesesouthernmost and westernmost ancestral Apache are much more subtle, variable, and blend intothe mountainous terrain, unlike their later conical tipi counterparts in this area and on the South-ern Plains. Elsewhere some of the correlates for these types of structure have been discussed buthere some of the reasons for this difference are explained from a Southwestern perspective, includ-ing factors that relate to distinctions in household size, the focus of household activities, the pur-poseful nature of constructed space, approach to selection of place, and the nature of movement inversus through a region. Other differences between tipi and wickiup use can be explained by anumber of practical factors that relate to terrain, resource availability, climate, and proximity toand nature of interaction with neighboring groups. Comparisons are made between the heart of themountainous Southwest, the fringe, and the adjacent plains.

Keywords: Apache shelters, tipi, wickiup, extemporaneous housing, “transportable buildingpackage”

Deni J. Seymour, Research Associate, The Southwest Center, University of Arizona, [email protected]

Tipis and tipi rings, part and parcel, are ele-ments of the public and scholarly imaginary of thehistoric Apache in the American Southwest.Though associated with the Apache in movies, lit-erature, and in scholarly productions this sheltertype was not used by the ancestral Apache or earlyAthapaskan-speakers in the southern portion of theAmerican Southwest until sometime in the late1700s or the 1800s (Figure 1). This is apparenteven among the White Mountain Apache (furthernorth) as the informant Anna Price, commented:“This kind of conical, straight-sided tipi they aremaking at Fort Apache now—we never used tomake at all” (Goodwin Papers 1929–1939:2). Asa result, relatively few Southwestern tipi ring siteshave been identified as compared to the abundanceof stone rings known on the plains, and specifi-

cally the Northern Plains (cf. W. Davis 1983:2).As the roster of known ancestral Apache ar-

chaeological sites lengthens in the Southwest,material culture and land use differences have be-come apparent that distinguish groups that occu-pied different geographically based homelands(Seymour 2002)1. House type is one discernabledifference between ancestral Apachean groupsoccupying the Southern Plains, the Plains-South-west margin, and the interior of the mountainousSouthwest (Seymour 2002, 2008a, 2009a, 2009b).On-going archaeological investigations by the au-thor indicate that ancestral Chiricahua andMescalero, who made the basin-and-range prov-ince their home, built wickiups or brush-cov-ered—sometimes hide-covered—huts while thoseon the Llano Estacado, or the Southern High Plains

134

PLAINS ANTHROPOLOGIST VOL. 55, NO. 214, 2010

of eastern New Mexico tended to use tipis. Thosein the intervening area built both. This article usesarchaeological, documentary, and ethnographicdata along with a theory of landscape use to ex-plain why tipis were used on this portion of theplains while wickiups were so prevalent in themountainous Southwest.

This archaeological pattern isconfirmed by the documentary andethnographic records. For example,Moorhead (1968:4) noted that “In theeastern area the Apaches pitchedleathern tipis on the grassy plains; inthe western area they fashioned crudewickiups of scrubby tree branches andplaced them in the craggy mountains.”Another source indicates that “We[Mescaleros] didn’t carry lodge polesabout with us but simply made a rudeframework of sticks, saplings, orbrush, and threw over it whatever wehad available” (Betzinez and Nye1959:29). Yet, this geographic patternis not absolute because wickiup“foundations” are present on the Ll-ano Estacado in places that exhibitvariable terrain, such as on the rocky

slopes of washes and canyons, and at the westernedge of the Llano Estacado, including along theMescalero Escarpment, and where the mountainsdescend toward the Pecos River (Figure 2)2.Wickiup rings are also present on the rough mesaslopes surrounding the eastern frontier Salinas andGalisteo Basin pueblos, whereas tipi rings are on

the flat mesa tops and low-lying areasadjacent to these sedentary populationcenters (Seymour 2006, 2007a,2008b). It should be no wonder thathousing types are variable aroundthese Eastern Frontier Pueblos and inintermediate areas between mountainsand plains because these are topo-graphically diverse zones relative tothe low topographic relief of the Ll-ano Estacado in general, and were ar-eas of cultural interface and inter-geo-graphic movement, as were many ofthe waterways and trail corridorsthroughout the plains.

The historic record from theplains also indicates that bothwickiups and tipis were sometimesfound in the same settlement(Moorhead 1968:252); it is not madeclear, however, whether more than one

Figure 1: The southern Southwest and the western portion of the Llano Estacado.(Drawn by author.)

Figure 2. Plains-Southwestern margin. Areas of greatest topographic relief andvariability at the interface between the basin-and-range and plains provinces.(Drawn by author.)

135


group (Apache or other; or distinct Apacheanbands) was present when this pattern was observed.Archaeological examples of more than one typeof structure in a single site have been documentedby the author in the mountains of southern NewMexico and Texas, for example at the Cerro Rojosite and near Hueco Tanks (LA 37188, 41EP5562;Seymour 2002, 2004), at LA 37089 on OteroMesa, and on the Llano Estacado (LA 38326, LA132808) suggesting, (1) the presence of more thanone group when structure types are spatially sepa-rated and different constellations of artifacts arepresent in each area, (2) seasonality when differ-ences are discernable in the substantiality of con-struction, (3) discrete visits to the site by groupswith different housing practices (or multi-componentcy). Yet, even at the Cañon de losEmbudos site in Sonora, Mexico,where Geronimo attempted to surren-der early in 1886, historic photo-graphs by C.S. Fly from the time ofthe event show use of four structuretypes by people of the same group, atthe same time, and united in the samepurpose, five types if the scout campis included. These photo-documentedstructures sometimes show distinctlydifferent archaeological signatures aswell when examined on the ground(Seymour 2007b, 2009a). This vari-ability at Cañon de los Embudosseemingly reflects the eclectic natureof material culture associated with araiding and mobile lifestyle wherestructure coverings have been fortu-itously obtained or are improvised us-ing materials readily at hand (Seymour2009b). Terrell (1974:53) notes withseeming authority that “the frame-work [of the wickiup] could be cov-ered with various materials to makethem comfortable under almost everyclimatic condition…rushes and leafybranches in hot weather, and the hidesof large animals in winter.”

Given these and other factors itis perhaps no surprise that ancestralApache habitation sites have been so

difficult to define in the heart of the AmericanSouthwest. Archaeologists looking for tipi-ringoutlines have been routinely disappointed, andconsequently comparatively little research hasbeen dedicated to these stone circles, relative tothe Plains where more than eight decades of re-search has occurred (L. Davis 1983:1). One rea-son for this is because the housing types used bythese southernmost ancestral Apache are muchmore subtle, variable, and blend into the craggybackdrop of the mountainous terrain (Seymour2002, 2004, 2007c, 2008c, 2009a, 2009c), un-like their conical tipi counterparts on the south-ern Plains that are sometimes much more con-spicuous, in both the systemic and archaeologicalcontexts (Figures 3–6). The descriptive nature ofthese differences and the correlates of each of

Figure 3: Schematic of tipi ring types. Based on actual plan drawings of features.(Drawn by author.) (Black rocks have been added; grey rocks are naturally oc-curring.)

136


these housing types have been discussed elsewhere(Seymour 2002, 2004, 2007c, 2008b, 2008c,2009a, 2009b; Seymour and Church 2007;Seymour and Robertson 2008). Some of the rea-sons for this difference are discussed from a South-western perspective in the following pages.

METHODOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONSome readers and reviewers may be taken

aback by the archaeology-centric approach usedin this article. One could argue that rather thansuggesting, as I have above, that the “archaeologi-cal pattern is confirmed by the documentary andethnographic records,” one is confirming througharchaeology what is already known from docu-mentary and ethnographic sources, as has beendone in many other instances, such as, for example,in the Colorado area (Kingsbury and Gabel 1983).Yet, this objection is founded in a paradigm drivenby the direct historical approach wherein one as-sumes we already know what is true from theseother sources and that this knowledge can be ex-tended back in time and across geographic andcultural boundaries (Bleed 2007; Lyman andO’Brien 2001; Mitchell 2006, 2007; Roper 2007;Rubertone 2000). In such a conceptualization, ar-chaeology simply serves as the finishing touchesto or affirmation of an already completed trea-tise. The direct historical approach is used so im-

plicitly within our profession that itis often simply assumed that ethno-graphic, oral historic, and historic pat-terns can be used to predict or inferarchaeological patterns and featuresfrom earlier in time. Yet this is oftennot the case. For example, with respectto housing types the Southwestern eth-nographic literature suggests that tipismight have been used by the South-western Apache in the distant past(Ball 1970:17; Opler 1941:385). In-stead tipis seem to have been used inthe recent past (although distant inmemory), but apparently not in thedistant past as judged in archaeologi-cal terms and time. Recollectionsseem to document a time before thepresent when tipis were used, and tothis is often attached an assumption

of even greater historical depth to a relatively re-cently adopted practice (e.g., nineteenth century).Tipis may be considered “traditional” housingtypes for all Apache, but the archaeological recordsuggests this “traditional” house type in the South-west has limited time depth and thus this conceptof traditional that has been made relevant by eth-nographers is misleading with respect to archaeo-logical expectations.

Archaeological, ethnographic, and documen-tary data are independently derived and should betreated as such. Each source is subject to verifi-cation and must be considered within a temporalframework so that change can be captured and sothat it is possible to recognize when practices andrecollections are being interpreted in the contextof modern times. By placing ethnography andethnohistory before archaeological data, as iscommon among ethnohistorians and anthropolo-gists, archaeology becomes subordinate to theformer, often providing misleadingly synchronicand static results.

Instead, current methodological paradigmsallow archaeology to serve as a primary datasource, while drawing upon ethnographic and docu-mentary sources where and when appropriate.When archaeology is allowed to take precedenceit can serve a more detached and rigorous role in

Figure 4: Rock tipi ring outline from the Llano Estacado. (Photographed by au-thor, 2008.)

137


discovery and verification and in resolv-ing conflicts between sources. When eth-nographic and documentary records areused as supplementary sources or the ba-sis for methodological direction, it is notnecessary or advisable to assume theiraccuracy, validity, or clarity. In this viewdocumentary and ethnographic statementsremain to be verified; they do not stand as‘proven’ or accurate facts. They are sub-ject to confirmation and reinterpretation(Seymour 2008c). By taking this view itis possible to understand the ways inwhich ethnographic or documentarysources might be misleading.

That being said, there is no consen-sus among practitioners as to the mean-ing, interpretation, or appropriate use ofthe documentary and ethnographicrecords in archaeology. The content ofthese sources is often too restricted geo-graphically and temporally to account forall the archaeological variability observed.Nor do these sources explain the reasonsfor differences observed in the archaeo-logical record or changes through time.Direct correlations can rarely be made be-tween historically described groups andarchaeological cultures. Moreover, the

content of the documentary and eth-nographic records is open to interpre-tation, and often the resulting inter-pretations are surprising when evalu-ated in the context of systematicallyobtained and rigorously derived on-the-ground data. Because of these is-sues and others, even the seeminglymost basic observations are met withopposition. At a recent conference inEl Paso objection was made to myclaim that tipis were not used in theSouthwest until the nineteen century(see discussion in Seymour 2009c;also see Seymour 2002, 2008a), ne-cessitating a discussion of and an ex-planation for this patterning.

Another possible conceptualsnag involves assumptions that defin-

Figure 5. Schematic of rock wickiup ring outlines from the mountainous South-west. Based on actual plan drawings of features. (Drawn by author.) (Blackrocks have been added; grey rocks are naturally occurring.)

Figure 6: Photograph of rock wickiup ring outline from the Whitlock Mountains inthe mountainous Southwest.

138


able housing types relate to ethnicity or socialidentity. A reviewer for this paper, and also pastcritics, insist that the primary objective of inves-tigations into housing signatures should be to in-fer ethnic affiliation. It could be argued that if oneis going to define a site as “ancestral Apache” thenone would expect a site to contain housing at-tributes derived from Apache ethnographic docu-mentation. In such an endeavor defining the cor-relates of tipi rings and wickiups become the pri-mary objective—an end unto itself. Yet, the pur-pose of developing the two types of housing mod-els (huts versus tipis) discussed in this paper isnot to be able to derive archaeological correlates(stone features, tipi rings, etc.) and to attach eth-nic affiliation to archaeological sites. That is adistinct and useful step but it is not informative inthis instance because housing types seem to cross-cut identity, suggesting that they relate to otherfactors, including degree and type of or motiva-tion for mobility (Seymour 2008a, 2009a, 2009b).Rather than using the direct historical approachto this archaeological problem the goal is to un-derstand the operative factors in shelter construc-tion in the Southwest versus the Southern Plainsmargin so as to understand the ways in which hous-ing types might correlate with ethnicity and iden-tity and when they might operate independentlyof these factors.

Elsewhere this author has discussed the ob-servation that shelter type relates more readily todegree and type of mobility than to ethnicity(Seymour 2008a, 2009a, 2009b), although some-times degree and type of mobility correlate toethnicity or historically described groups. In thissense the goal is to explain the archaeologicalpatterns observed in the Southwest relative to sur-rounding areas, rather than outlining the set of fac-tors that would allow an archaeologist to look at asite with rock features and to determine who madethem, in a cultural historical sense (as has beendone in other venues, but using a range of associ-ated data, see Seymour 2002, 2004, 2009a). Fartoo many studies of the Apache adopt a descrip-tive and historical approach rather than seekinghigher level understandings that might explain phe-nomena in a much more comprehensive manner.One reason for this is because many people still

believe that these sites are difficult to find andthat few have been identified. Research is show-ing, however, that when adopting an appropriatesearch image and when focusing on pertinent as-pects of landscape use, site locations can be rela-tively well predicted, accounting for the substan-tial increase in discovery of ancestral Apache sitesover the past few years (see Seymour andHenderson 2010). By attempting to explain thepatterns observed in the Southwest relative to sur-rounding areas greater understanding of the vari-ables effecting land use and material culture be-come clear. One facet of the observed variabilitycan be explained by the two different approachesto the construction of dwellings discussed in thispaper. The first approach, relating to the construc-tion of wickiups or brush huts (or huts made usingother readily available materials), occurs underconditions of high mobility in varied topographiczones, and is based on improvisation and oppor-tunism. The other is found under different circum-stances and motivations for mobility and withindifferent environmental parameters based onplanned design, portability, and relatively sizablelabor and maintenance investments.

This article attempts to isolate some of thecauses that are made even more complex by his-torical factors, including the introduction of thehorse, firearms, and devastating diseases. Yet, itis important to remember that the patterns inhouse construction described persist for centu-ries before and after material and systemic changescommence. New Mexico was one of the centralroutes through which European culture was intro-duced (as early as the 1530s) and where coloniza-tion took hold relatively early (1598). The regionalso served as a conduit for native interaction andexchange between the Southwest and Plains, andall of these facts must be taken into account inefforts to explain the different housing patternsthat persist on the Llano Estacado and the moun-tainous Southwest. It is hoped that by differenti-ating and exposing these issues in the Southwestwhere my data originate, similar understandingsmight be applied to adjacent areas. My data, whileextensive, do not encompass any of the SouthernPlains but the margin, along the Llano Estacado,so it is inappropriate for me to speak in any but a

139


general way about the entire plains. Others will bemore qualified to discuss the plains in general.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN WICKIUPSAND TIPIS

The distinction between the tall conical skin-covered tipi that is characteristic of the PlainsApache and other Plains groups, on the one hand,and the Southwestern dome or squat conical sur-face construction, on the other, is perhaps one ofdegree with reference to the superstructure in thesystemic context. Like the conical Plains Apachetipis, some wickiups were hide- or skin-coveredto withstand severe weather and incorporatedstacked or upright stones around the perimeter,but most were ‘roofed’ with brush or other mate-rials. Some conical or tipi-shaped brush construc-tions are also known from the mountains(Donaldson and Welch 1991; Seymour 2007b,2009a), but these are much smaller in scale andless consistent in form. The dichotomy betweentipis and wickiups is most effective, however, inhighlighting the difference between the makeshiftconstructions in the mountains, and the large well-tanned-hide constructions of the Plains. The lat-ter, as the core domestic asset, with long, perma-nent poles, which were transported from place-to-place, served as the focal point of the house-hold, defined household space, and conditionedwhere the group could establish residence.

There are also substantial differences betweenthe two general types of constructions with re-spect to their archaeological signature, thoughboth may use rocks at their bases. Some have ar-gued that the criteria for determining when a stonecircle is a tipi are inadequate (Finnigan 1983:17),especially given the great morphological diver-sity (L. Davis 1983). Part of the difficulty restswith the minimal degree of modification, the lim-ited nature of materials left behind, and the real-ity that the stone ring was partially disassembledwhen the tipi was struck. The first two of thesefactors complicate recognition of hut foundationsas well, but with huts the primary problem is thatthe nature of the rocky-portion of the feature isentirely dependent upon the characteristics of theterrain and materials available locally. Moreover,there is somewhat of a continuum of stone shel-ter configurations owing to the improvised nature

of construction (Figures 5 and 6; see below).When rocks remain the tipi feature is referred

to as the tipi ring, but not all stone circles wereused for habitation and not all were tipis (L. Davis1983:71–79). Elsewhere tipi rings have been de-scribed as “field stones…placed at intervals toform circles. These circles are commonly desig-nated tipi rings on the supposition that they wereused around the edges of the tipis to weigh downthe skin covers, functioning thus in place of, or inaddition to, wooden pegs” (Wedel 1961:262).When rocks are used, tipi rings are distinguishedby relatively circular or semi-circular arrange-ments of boulders and cobbles distributed on thesurface (or that are partially buried, dependingupon sedimentation processes). Tipi rings vary indiameter and in the size, placement, and numberof rocks used largely because one must use the“correct anchoring strategy for a given environ-mental setting” (Finnigan 1982:vi, 1983).

Bison bone, pegs, wood, sod, and debris weresometimes used on the Northern Plains insteadof rocks to anchor tipis (Finnigan 1982; Wedel1961) and in such cases outlines may be difficultto discern. Recent documentation of the formersetting of historic (1850s) military Sibley tentsat Pope’s Well No. 3 (LA 4978) on the LlanoEstacado, as indicated by a contemporaneouspainting (Figure 7a), reveals little in the way ofevidence as to their presence (other than the bar-est clearings and a few artifacts) owing to the useof pegs (and a tripod like framework) rather thanstones to anchor the perimeter (Figure 7b). Theremains of native tipis that are most visible todayused rock, which was usually readily available inthe mountainous environment. In the Southwestand adjacent Llano Estacado tipi rings are mostdiscernible as rock rings of various sizes but, asnoted, tipi locations can sometimes also be iden-tified on the basis of circular clearings althoughin such cases their identification is much moretenuous. The resulting tipi rings may consist ofsingle or multiple rows of rocks that fully formcircles, usually with an opening for a doorway, orform partial rings (Finnigan 1983; Figures 3 and4). Although widely variable in size from site tosite, on some sites the measurement of tipi ringsshow remarkable regularity in the amount of en-

140


closed space and considerable uniformity in theway household space was defined (see below).

When tipi rings are identifiable in the South-west, that is, when rocks were used to serve asanchors for tents, features were usually positioned

on flat surfaces, in con-trast to the steep,sloped, rocky terrain of-ten selected forwickiups, as is de-scribed below. Windstrength and directiondetermined whether fullor partial rings of rocksupports were neededand the number, size, andarrangement of rocks(or other anchoring de-vises; Finnigan 1983).Anchoring rocks wereessential to the effec-tiveness of the tipi, as itwould tip over in highwind if not anchored orif rocks were not prop-erly positioned, thusrock placement is afunction of the direc-

tion and intensity of the wind. The windward sidewill be in tension and the leeward side will be incompression; the required weight of the rock hasto be placed on the tension side (Finnigan1982:43).

Rocks were often dispersed as thetent was dismantled creating less thancircular (sometimes even a slightlyrectangular-shaped) arrangement (asat LA 139020 in Long Canyon in theOrgan Mountains, and LA 16423 alongBlack Canyon west of the PecosRiver). Moreover, as rocks were re-moved the diameter of the rock ringmay be increased by about a half meter(Finnegan 1982:46)3. At some sites,however, (e.g., Seven Rivers Tipi Ringsite, LA 27687) the rings seem to havebeen left intact as if the occupants in-tended to return (Figure 4), perhapsowing to the reliability of the nearbywater source and the annual need tofind refuge from the winter weather.Relatively high densities of artifactsreinforce this notion of repeated oc-

Figure 7: (a) Painting by Harry S. Sindall, Pope’s expedition artist, Army Camp-Captain Pope’sArtesian Well Drilling Site; Courtesy of the State Preservation Board; Austin; Texas.; CHA 1997.20;Photographer: Eric Beggs; 12/4/97; Post Conservation.

Figure 7: (b) Photograph of Sibley tent clearing from the 1850s at Pope’s Well No.3 (LA 4978) Showing the vagueness of the evidence after 150 years owing to theuse of tent pegs rather than rocks to anchor the tent.

141


cupation of that site4.Wickiup or hut rings, on the other hand, may

be a variety of shapes, even within one site, butare often circular or elongate (Figures 5 and 6;Seymour 2002:Appendix E). Their diameter tendsto be smaller than tipis, but can also be quite siz-able (ranging from 1.25 to more than 4 metersacross suggesting differences in term and natureof use; Seymour 2002). They are commonly onslopes, in rocky areas, rather than on flats, althoughtheir interiors are intentionally flattened. Sites inthe Franklin, Dragoon, Peloncillo, Chiricahua, DosCabesas, Santa Rita, Florida, Guadalupe, and Alamomountains and at the Salinas and Galisteo Basinpueblos all share these characteristics. In fact,most commonly these house rings are formed bypushing rocks aside in an already-rocky area andso the size and shape are often determined by theavailable space between unmovable boulders. Therocks are often mounded at the edges, stacked, orrocks are added to fill in between large bouldersto create borders (Seymour 2002, 2009a, 2009b).Because the superstructure was not carried to thenext camp, it was either left in place or disas-sembled and discarded (Haley 1997:81–82; Opler1941:427–428; Seymour 2002:353). The criti-cal point to remember, however, is that no two hutrings will be exactly alike (in a typological sense)because they are improvised based upon local con-ditions, but they will be recognizable as archaeo-logical features because they exhibit consistentand verifiable forms of terrain modification, suchas surface flattening and the clearing, stacking, ar-ranging, or removal of rocks (Seymour2009a:162, 163). The nature of cultural modifi-cations sometimes exhibit information relevantto identity.

As will be discussed in the following sec-tions, some of these differences between wickiupsand tipis reflect distinctions in household size andthe focus of household activities, the purposefulnature of constructed space, approach to selec-tion of place, and the nature of movement in ver-sus through a region.

Structure Size and the Focus ofHousehold Activities

The perception that tipi ring size increasesthrough time is probably a correct one, although

in the Southwest increase in household size (de-fined by structure characteristics, such as size,number of structures, and work areas) has yet tobe confirmed on a widespread basis. Kehoe (1958,1960; Malouf 1961) has attributed tipi size in-crease to adoption of the horse, where documen-tary sources indicate that the early small tipis weretransported using dogs outfitted with travois (Flintand Flint 2005:423; Winship 1990:60). As yet wecannot rule out that the increasing size of tipis onthe Llano Estacado and adjacent areas is relatedto the entry of the Comanche and other groupswho pushed the Apache south and west before theiradvance. Variation between sites in entryway mor-phology, interior and exterior hearths, site layout,artifacts present, and rock arrangements outlyingfeatures may be indicative of cultural identity, butmuch work remains to be done as a number of otherfactors including duration of occupation and groupsize could be in play (L. Davis 1983; Loendorfand Weston 1983; Reher 1983). For example, aseries of tipi ring sites along the bajada betweenthe mountains and the Pecos River have producedevidence of vestibule-like entryways (LA 27687,LA 61247, LA 104172) suggesting this attributehas seasonal or cultural relevance5.

On many tipi sites with more than a singlestructure the tipis are paired and set spatially apartfrom others, patterns that may be considered insocial terms because they are not explainable interms of topographic restrictions (also see Reher1983). On the Llano Estacado and the interveningarea between the Pecos River and the adjacentmountains, sites are common where one structurein each of these pairs exhibits slight differencesin size, shape, construction characteristics, andartifacts that are suggestive of functional differ-entiation. This is the case, for example, at twoSeven Rivers tipi ring sites (LA 27687, LA104172) and at LA 109599. Replication of thispattern across a site and on many different sitessuggests that these pairings may in some instancesrepresent the basic household grouping. If thispairing pattern is always found on sites exhibitingsimilar artifact assemblages and attributes and noton others with different characteristic it mightultimately provide a way of distinguishing a tem-poral or cultural settlement layout signature.

142


What seems apparent is that later in time, insome areas, the household is reduced from twostructures to one, such as for some reservation-period Mescalero tipi ring sites (LA 37182, LA157758, and LA 37089 along Otero Mesa and theSacramento River, outside reservation bound-aries). This may account, in some circumstances,for an increase in tipi size as more activities andpeople are concentrated in one manufactured(sometimes pre-fabricated canvas-covered) tent.In other instances, one or both paired tipis is largerthan some earlier examples, but this may be a rem-nant of households fragmenting and forming larger‘housefuls’ (Seymour 2010b, 2011; also seeLaslett 1974, 1983) in the historic period. Thiswould suggest that larger tipi use was facilitatedby horse transport, rather than the size increaseoccurring principally because of the adoption ofthe horse. This increase in house size may seemcontrary to expectations but this pattern is alsoseen among the eighteenth-and nineteenth-centurySobaípuri-O’odham of southern Arizona wherehouses increase in size as populations are deci-mated, while at the same time residents ofadaptively and culturally diverse origins were be-coming more stationary within these O’odhamsettlements (Seymour 2010a, b; 2011). Thus,while one might expect the opposite trend ofhousehold and structure sizes decreasing as fami-lies suffered attrition through disease and warfare,cross-cultural comparative data on householdcomposition and archaeological data from con-temporaneous Southwestern groups suggest oth-erwise. Reformulation of the household into a‘houseful’ is one reasonable explanation.

This issue of house size could be productivelyrefocused on the issue as to whether the totalamount of household space increases throughtime. One implication of the paired pattern is thatthe combined space of both features must be con-sidered when calculating the dimensions of inte-rior household space. Yet, to establish the actualsize of household space the common area betweenand around paired structures must be included be-cause in favorable climates household activitiesoccurred in both inside and outside areas (also seeReher 1983:193–222; Schneider 1983:93–100).For example, tipi rings on the Llano Estacado and

mountain bajadas around Carlsbad, New Mexicoshow consistent patterns of artifact placement in,in front of, and adjacent to one of the paired tipis(LA 27687, LA 109599, LA 104172) (Figure 8b).The occurrence of work areas immediately adja-cent to the tipi is also found among more seden-tary groups, such as the Sobaípuri-O’odham justmentioned (Seymour 2010b) and in extreme cli-matic conditions, such as among the Nunamiut(Binford 1983, 1987; Seymour 2010a) where ac-tivities tend to cluster near shelters. Consisten-cies in the layout of work areas and structures havebeen discussed for Northern Plains stone circlesites as well, where Reher (1983), followingYellen (1977:89), has suggested that people havean ideal camp pattern that is more likely to be ex-pressed as anticipated duration of stay increases.In the Southwest increased formality in site lay-out and predictability in the distribution of workareas relative to structures has been suggested torelate to expected duration of stay for mobilegroups, and duration and intensity of occupationamong sedentary peoples (Seymour 2007c,2009b, 2010a).

In comparison, some early ancestralChiricahua sites show distributions of artifactsbetween closely spaced structures or in the struc-tures themselves (DM-1 and ES-2 in the DragoonMountains of southern Arizona, the Canyon de losEmbudos site in Sonora), as do some Mescalerosites, such as a wickiup and tipi site near HuecoTanks in Texas (e.g., 41EP5562; Figure 8a) and atthe Cerro Rojo site in the Hueco Mountains ofNew Mexico. These patterns seem to relate toseasonality and repeated site use. More often,however, on sites of highly mobile Apache (andother such groups) work areas and their residuesare situated in spatially distinct locations, oftenhundreds of meters away (Seymour 2002, 2009b,2010a). This pattern is also observable, for ex-ample, in the Guadalupe (LA 158119), Organ (LA139028), Sacramento (LA 157758), and Dragoon(ES-1 and ES-2) mountains. These latter wickiupand lean-to users selected a residential locationthat had multiple attractive characteristics, in ad-dition to suitable rocky terrain for hut construc-tion. Work areas were often situated away fromthe hut because the space suitable for construct-

143


ing the wickiup might not be specificallyappropriate for other tasks (Seymour2009b, 2010a).

The use of wickiups versus tipis, thesize of sheltered household space, andthe layout of related work areas differsbetween sites on the Llano Estacado andthe mountainous Southwest. These dif-ferences can be attributed to at least someextent to anticipated duration of stay anddegree and focus of mobility. It alsoseems apparent that the preconceived ver-sus place-specific configuration of struc-ture placement corresponds to the degreeand tempo of movement as well as thestimulus for mobility.

Purposively Constructed andExtemporaneous HousingIt is widely recognized that residen-

tially mobile people tend to practice oneof two basic strategies: they may trans-port their housing materials or they con-struct houses from readily available ma-terials in their immediate environment,sometimes using natural shelters(Binford 1990:124). In this sense the dis-tinction between tipis and wickiups—dif-ferent technological consequences ofmobility strategies—takes on social andpractical relevance when perceived as abasic contrast between investment andextemporization. The tipi is often con-structed of eight to ten carefully preparedhides, sewn together to form a preconceived andpurposively constructed (labor intensive, e.g.,Wallace and Hoebel 1952) covering, that is givenform by long straight wooden poles, that then, dogor horse, encumbered by this bulky contrivance,towed to the next destination, where it is as-sembled anew. The repetitive building cycle ofnomadic portable “architecture” as characterizedby Prussin (1989:141–142) accentuates the dis-tinction between temporary and disposable. Forthe tipi nomad, building components are reused,reassembled, and in Prussin’s example of theGabra, inherited. This “transportable buildingpackage” is just as permanent as fixed or station-ary structures but are designed and intended to be

moved from place to place. This characterizationapplies as equally to the Plains Apache as it doesto the Gabra in Prussin’s example, with the ex-ception that Apache tipis were not inherited. AsOpler (1945:126) noted for the Lipan, and as wascommon practice among other Apache bands, “Therelatives destroy the tipi in which the dead personlived,” representing a cycle of renewal. This lackof inheritance does not diminish the relevance ofthis overall conceptualization of these sewnleather tents with fitted framing, which focuseson the reusable aspects of this prefabricated build-ing.

In contrast, the highly mobile Southwestern

Figure 8: (a) Slab-ringed rock circle inferred to have held a domed or conicalhide superstructure in place, showing distribution of artifacts in and in frontof structure. (b) Tipi ring or rock circle inferred to stabilize free-standingconical hide superstructure, showing distribution of artifacts in and in frontof structure. (Black rocks have been added; grey rocks are naturally occur-ring.)

144


hunter-gatherer-raider did not initially possess a“transportable building package.” While they par-took in a repetitive building cycle, dictated by thetempo of movement, their constructions were, infact, disposable. These extemporaneous housesexhibit a lack of cumulative investment, beingcharacterized by situational expenditure of effortusing locally available, replaceable, and inter-changeable components that required little or nopreparation for use and little time invested in as-sembly (Diehl 1992:4). Such constructions wereimpromptu, although with a location-specific out-lay that was repeatedly rehearsed. Dependence onimprovised constructions may relate to favorableweather conditions, widespread availability ofmaterials, and expectations about duration of stay.Yet, rather than being put together clumsily(cobbled together), these extemporized featuresmay be well conceived, even though builders usewhat is at hand for their construction. Improvisa-tion requires a different kind of skill than arrivingwith materials in hand and imposing a pre-de-signed feature on the terrain. In fact, extemporizedfeatures must be well-thought-out and their de-sign features well understood (technical choicescontribute to performance characteristics) to beeffectively composed and to serve the desiredpurpose without needing to transport materials fortheir construction from place to place. The appar-ent simplicity of these features sometimes relatesto the minimum requirements for their use owingto the restricted range of functions assigned.These impromptu brush constructions were per-haps not as comfortable under many conditionsas the hide tent, but were suited to the expecta-tions of the thrifty mountain Apache who led astarkly parsimonious life.

Selection and Perception of Place:Movement In versus Through a Region

Variation in house types between the Plainsand the Southwest may be accounted for by a num-ber of additional factors, one of which relates tobasic differences between mobile hunter-gather-ers and nomadic hunters (also pastoralists) in howthey conceive of and select places to reside. Thisbasic theoretical distinction has been discussedby a number of researchers (Binford 1990; Cribb1991; Ingold 1987; Khazanov 1984) and warrants

further consideration in this context. While thelabels used to describe various types of human-landscape interaction may be unsatisfactory, thisshort-hand distinction is important to this discus-sion because differences in the kind, degree, andpurpose of mobility and mode of landscape useare fundamental to house type construction. In thisconceptualization, nomads are people on the move(rather than the narrow and analytically distinctsubsistent-based definition as people who raiseor pasture herds; see Barfield 1993:4; Salzman2002:245). These residentially mobile peoplemay either carry their housing with them or usehousing that is temporary and disposable. In thefirst case, residentially mobile people bring their“transportable building package” with them andsearch for suitable assembly places (with rock,water, and forage). This emphasis serves to dis-tinguish these people from mobile hunter-gather-ers who move within a territory and improvise withwhat they have, rebuilding with local materials asthey change locations, confident in the replica-tion of suitable settings and building materials asthey move from place to place as part of a sea-sonal round or in response to others who residenearby.

People who herd sheep or reindeer (nomadicpastoralists) have much in common with nomadichunters who follow large migratory game. Thesein turn differ from mobile hunter-gatherers andhunter-gatherer-raiders who do not follow migra-tory routes but live within a geographically pro-scribed territory. Key differences between theselifeways are apparent in the basis for movement,the patterns of movement, and in the way sites areformed (Cribb 1991:20; Kelly 2003; Khazanov1984). One relevant difference, as Ingold (1987)has pointed out, is that hunter-gatherers focus onterritories or significant places whereas nomadic“productive relations” are largely location inde-pendent but instead focus on their “mobile pasto-ral capital.” Nomadic pastoralists focus, for ex-ample, on access to pasture, and some hunter no-mads follow migratory game, rather than “estab-lishing vital symbolic links between the commu-nity and a particular locale” (Cribb 1991:21), asdo mobile hunter-gatherers. Mobility must be un-derstood within the context of landscape use and

145


conceptualization, as well as with respect to themotives behind the scale and tempo of mobility.

As Kelly (2003) notes the distinction be-tween landscape knowledge and resource knowl-edge is fundamental. Like pastoralists and hunt-ers of migratory game worldwide, many nomadicSouthern Plains groups focus on bison and elk herdmigration, and later, the maintenance of their horseherds; these animals served as the basis for move-ment and dictated patterns of travel for at least aportion of the year (Opler 1974:14, 17)6. AsBinford (1990:135) noted, there is an “unmistak-able relationship between dependence on huntingand the portability of primary housing.” ManyPlains Apache groups searched for and followedherds of bison, elk, and other game, moving withthe flow of their game and seasonal and geographicavailability of plant resources (Basehart 1960,1971, 1974; Opler 1974). They were familiar withthe resource locations, courses of streams, andprominent landmarks that extended throughout therange of their game. While they were as familiarwith their landscape as the mountain people, theynecessarily emphasized different scales of landuse (often several hundred square miles in size ora along linear migration tracts). They were ori-ented and connected to their landscape in differ-ent ways because their landmarks were often moreunderstated (or incised into rather than project-ing above the terrain) and resources were empha-sized that had different scheduling and dispersalcharacteristics.

In the mountainous Southwest, smaller groupstended to fend for themselves for much of the year,exploited a broader spectrum of the richer andmore varied environment provided by substantialaltitudinal changes, went to specific gathering andhunting areas, and depended largely on non-mi-gratory animals (or exploited such animals as theyentered Apache territory) (Basehart 1960; Opler1974:6; Seymour and Henderson 2010). Largergroups coalesced for hunts, ceremonials, and forraids and war and then dispersed into smaller lo-cal groupings. In the process of living, mobilehunter-gatherers in the Southwest became inti-mately familiar with the entire range of relevantresources in their territory including knowing andselecting a series of alternate residential sites and

resource patches that each met household and bandneeds. Grounded in their landscape they focusedon different portions of the terrain and used somekey resources in a different way than nomads.

Raiding added another dimension to this for-mula because the residential sites of the hunter-gatherer-raider were dictated in part by the needto seek sanctuaries guarded from retaliatory pur-suit. Places of refuge were often far from re-source extraction zones, such as the travel corri-dors for raiding targets, and European and Nativepopulation nodes and centers that supplied con-centrated resources for the taking. In order to pre-serve secrecy and safety for their residential sitesthey hunkered down in secluded foothills or thecraggy mountain heights. They switched, seem-ingly effortlessly, between a series of suitable al-ternative residential sites, band-coalescing sites,and resource zones in distant ranges to avoid dis-covery and capture or to take advantage of a raid-ing target. The intimate familiarity they possessedof their range—total geographic area used—al-lowed maximal flexibility and facilitated sponta-neous maneuvers to their advantage7.

These basic differences in visualization anduse of the landscape influenced how shelters werebuilt and what portions of the terrain were selectedfor habitation. Mobile hunter-gatherers soughtplaces that exhibited preexisting attributes thatwere necessary for the performance of householdand task-specific activities (Seymour 2009b,2010a). For this reason, in the mountainous South-west they sought rocky areas where structurescould be easily assembled by simply pushing rocksaside or rearranging them with little effort. Thelocations were often on ridge slopes and saddleswhich provide the added advantage of unrestrainedviews and enhanced escape routes.

In the Southwest, tipi users tended to look forlower lying areas where the wind was constrained,visibility of their encampment was limited, andwhere the ground surface was flat and clear to aidin the assembly and stability of the tent. Whenpossible, places for tipi construction were selectedthat were sheltered from the wind, such as aroundthe protected side of a bend, on a low-lying bench,or at a sufficient distance from a ridge edge toavoid updrafts. These same terrain attributes were

146


selected on the Llano Estacado. Locations in can-yon bottoms and on benches and terraces at thebase of cliffs, slopes, and ridges provided suffi-cient space to erect the tent without obstruction,but with ready supplies of anchoring materials onnearby slopes, in washes, and at playa margins. Aflat surface facilitated balance and tension of thetipi superstructure which allowed it to stand firmagainst the sometimes-fierce winds.

Given the investment in portable housingsuited to the Plains it is reasonable to wonder howfar into the mountainous interior the Plains-ori-ented Mescalero ventured. Currently, archaeologi-cal evidence seem to suggest that for Plains groupsmovements seem to have focused between thePlains-Southwestern margin and the LlanoEstacado, while the western mountain-orientedMescalero seem to have been adapted largely tothe basin-and-range, moving between there and thePlains-Southwestern margin. This eastern versuswestern difference seems consistent with an ar-chaeological record that shows a gradation ofsorts where those on the west shared an adapta-tion remarkably similar to the Chiricahua, grad-ing gradually towards the east into a more Plains-like adaptation. In general geographic terms,wickiups are the representative structure type inthe area west of the Rio Grande8. Wickiups arealso the dominant structure type in the area eastof the Rio Grande to approximately the GuadalupeMountains. Wickiups are not overshadowed in fre-quency by tipis until reaching the Pecos River val-ley, where tipis clearly outnumber wickiups incurrently known occurrences9.

This gradation toward increased tipi use is alsoevident through time. By the late nineteenth cen-tury many Plains attributes had been overlain onthe Southwest, including tipi use10. This should beof little surprise given the range of historicalevents that led to the late westward movement ofsome Plains groups, Lipans and Plains Mescalero,into the mountains. This homogenization ofApache groups from the Plains and Southwest inthis region cannot be understood or studied, or itsimportance grasped, unless the factors operativein landscape use are explored. Relevant consider-ations include the ways in which various facets ofmobility effect housing types, connection to theland, way of moving around a landscape, group size,

and so on.

FURTHER CONSIDERATIONSThese differences between tipi and hut use

can also be explained by a number of practical fac-tors that relate to terrain, resource availability,climate, and proximity to and nature of interac-tion with neighboring groups. One of the mostdecisive factors relates to costs and practicalityof transport. Dog-pulled, or even horse-pulled,travois were an easy form of conveyance in grassand on flat and rolling terrain, but in the steeprockiness of the mountains such transport systemswere impractical. Horse-mounted Spanish, andlater Mexican and American troops, had difficultynavigating these mountainous environments (e.g.,Betzinez and Nye 1959:57), providing a clue asto the impediments provided by this terrain.

In this craggy and highly varied terrain lesseffort would have been expended in finding a natu-ral concavity, as frequently did the famous Cochise(e.g., Seymour and Robertson 2008; Sweeney1997), or in routinely building a new shelter ratherthan transporting a prefabricated one along fromplace-to-place. The ease with which shelters couldbe constructed relates specifically to the rocki-ness of the terrain and the abundance of brushyvegetation. A rocky outcrop could be sought, therocks pushed aside, with the resulting low “wall”providing protection from the wind, or a fewnearby flexible branches could be cut or collectedto form a wind break or shelter covering. On to-pographically monotonous portions of the wind-swept grassy Plains building materials were moredifficult to come by and so it made more sense tobuild a more durable shelter and take the framingand covering along, especially given the availabil-ity of pack dogs (also see Binford 1990:128).

These terrain considerations were fundamen-tal with respect to placement of each housing typewithin the landscape. Rock-strewn slopes, rockysaddles, and craggy ridge points were amenableto hut construction, while flat benches, ridges, andsaddles or the lower portions of a minimallysloped incline were preferable for tipis. Numer-ous cases have been recorded by the author wheremobile groups specifically selected the rockyoutcrops on otherwise barren inclines to constructtheir domiciles. For example, all of the Salinas

147


Pueblo and Galisteo Basin mobile group hut sitesare situated on rocky terrain, as are structures inthe Dragoon, Santa Rita, Tumacacori, SantaCatalina, Galiero, Chiricahua, Dos Cabesas,Whitlock, Peloncillo, Cedar, Potrillo, Florida,Guadalupe, Franklin, Sacramento, Jarilla, Hueco,Caballo, and Alamo mountains and virtually everymountain range, topographic incline or escarpmentwhere the Southwestern Apache resided and con-structed wickiups. This is because such areas werespecifically sought out. Examples abound wherethe rocky slopes and saddles were selected forhut placement instead of on the flat mesa tops orbases below. Differences in housing types be-tween the Plains and the Southwest relate specifi-cally to terrain selection and landscape use. Thisinference is reinforced by housing choices madein intermediate areas that exhibit characteristicsof both the plains and mountains, such as alongthe Pecos River and its tributaries where plainsand rocky inclines converge and tipis and wickiuprings are both evident. In other areas, such as atthe Eastern Frontier Pueblos where mesas andplains meet, small rock rings for huts were con-structed on rocky slopes while tipis were struckon the flats (for example, surrounding PecosPueblo).

Climate was clearly another factor that ef-fected shelter construction (also see Binford1990:128). In the more northern latitudes of Ari-zona, New Mexico, and Colorado constructiontechniques involved more substantial housing thatcould withstand winter storms and that would pro-tect inhabitants from freezing temperatures. Yet,a skin tent would not have been sensible for mostof the year in the hot temperatures of the south-ern Southwest, just as the brushy structures of thesouth would have been inappropriate year roundin the northern latitudes with hard winter freezes.During the hottest summer months documentaryrecords note the use of simple grass matting with-out a superstructure (Naylor and Polzer 1986),which would have made the most of the coolernight air. Some of the variation in rock ring typesnoted in the archaeological record in these south-ern zones is likely accounted for by the ease withwhich structures of different attributes could beconstructed to adapt to the prevailing climaticconditions. Some evidence suggests use of more

substantial coverings (perhaps including use ofhides or skins) while others hint of only a flimsysuperstructure.

Elevation and aspect were commonly used toassist with seasonal temperature variations in theSouthwest. Most winter encampments were inlower elevations, utilized the south- and east-fac-ing slopes to greet the morning sun, and were com-monly positioned to avoid the prevailing wind.Sometimes sites were situated in dark patenated(weathered) boulder fields that were presumablyselected because of their heat-holding propertiesthat would have been attractive in the winter, asheat radiating from these dark boulders makes suchlocations far too hot to occupy comfortably in thesummer where temperatures routinely exceed 100degrees Fahrenheit. Yet these flimsy improvisedconstructions would not likely hold up to the se-vere wind of the plains, as historical accounts notecobble anchored dome-shaped structures of othergroups taking flight in the wind (e.g., Treutlein1965). With careful terrain selection the rock,peg, or sod-secured skin tipi would withstandstrong winds and shield the occupants from theelements.

One of the most Apache–specific reasons thattipis were not used in the basin-and-range prov-ince is because of the proximity of opposinggroups, as was alluded to above. Residential siteswere often situated in elevated areas to maintain along-distance view, take advantage of summerbreezes, provide advantage in escape, and becausethese terrain sectors had not been penetrated bymost adversaries. The tall light-colored materialof the tipi would stand out in the mountainous ter-rain, easily guiding trackers to encampments (aswould the travois tracks; regarding the need tocover tracks see Betzinez and Nye 1959:55). Incomparison the wickiup was well camouflagedwith residential areas positioned to take advantageof the military summit, use of brush the color ofthe surroundings, and construction of arched su-perstructure forms that blended with the terrain.Spanish and native settlements, that were targetsof Apache raids, were much closer to these moun-tain Apache than they were to many of the Plainsencampments. In fact, the plains around Carlsbadin southeastern New Mexico were not occupiedin earnest by non-natives until the middle to late

148


1800s (Katz and Katz 1985), and, except for a fewinitial exploratory trips, only specialized tradinggroups (Comancheros) ventured onto the LlanoEstacado further north, leaving these areas largelywithout interference, except from other indig-enous groups.

During the nineteenth century the Southwest-ern archaeological and documentary records in-dicate that a number of changes occurred in theplacement and nature of Apache sites that relatedto pressure from neighbors (and the availabilityof new technologies). Among these was the move-ment of some settlements into lower elevations.Though seemingly counterintuitive, this adjust-ment accommodated the use of the tipi and al-lowed cooking and fire making that would other-wise be visible for miles at higher elevations. Thisdesire for invisibility explains the late Apachepractice of building “small fires in secluded nookswhich cannot be seen by persons unless close by...”(Cremony 1981:215; see Seymour 1995, 2002).In fact, many of the sixteenth and seventeenth cen-tury accounts mention the Spanish seeing smokein the distant mountains (Hammond and Rey1966:171, 260; Schroeder 1973:7). Later place-ment of thermal features in canyons among thetrees and construction of housing on lower slopesand flats allowed the smoke and noise to dissipateand facilitated quick escape in the forested andboulder-strewn hills. These factors seem to ex-plain the pattern in the East Stronghold of the Dra-goon Mountains where huts were placed in rela-tively low elevation settings (and thermal featureswere on the valley floor). Huts were also sepa-rated from one another, presumably to spread outrisk in case of surprise attack (Ball 1970:9). As aChiricahua Apache informant noted: the “maincamp [was] down in [a] big canyon where they couldhide their fire. Of course in old time, [they] hadfires in high elevations” (Robert Geronimo,Henderson field notes 1957:404). The trees andboulder-studded slopes afforded cover while look-outs on nearby high points provided early warningof intruders.

FINAL REMARKSHut signatures in the American Southwest

generally differ historically, ethnographically, andarchaeologically from ancestral Apache housing

on the Southern High Plains. This division paral-lels the distinctions made in some of the earliesthistorical descriptions between the Apaches thatlived off bison and those that inhabited the moun-tains (Gunnerson 2006:151). This is because theywere faced with dissimilar terrain types that in-fluenced their conceptions of house and house-hold space within very different cultural, social,and natural landscapes. Notions of private prop-erty—seemingly developed from the technologi-cal and transport systems on the Plains (that weretransferred from place-to-place and reused)—areinitially absent in the southern Southwest whereancestral Apacheans lacked an attachment to andinvestment in material goods, which also likelyaccounts for the sparseness and thrifty nature oftheir assemblage. More relaxed notions of own-ership might be expected for the southern South-western Apache who replaced their householdpossessions in a continual cycle of renewalthrough raiding, loss during retaliatory attacks, andreplacement as needed. At death, all that a personhad was destroyed (Opler 1941:474); in life thatwhich could not be carried during a surprise at-tack was relinquished. These different ways ofperceiving assets carry over to notions of lodg-ing, home, and household space in the Southwestwhere housing and place selection were impro-vised in a highly varied setting, while still accom-modating basic household needs.

Acknowledgement of these basic differencesbetween the Plains and the Southwest is funda-mental for recognizing ancestral Apachean resi-dential sites in the mountainous Southwest and forunderstanding land-use practices and changes inhousehold space use. Preconceived notions aboutthe search signature and patterns of placement onthe terrain have kept many archaeologists fromrecognizing Apachean houses and habitation sitesin the Southwest, with the result that until recentlybattle sites and mescal pits have received moststudy. Through future observations it will be pos-sible to eventually address the timing of and subtledistinctions between housing types throughout thesouthern latitudes, including between the Plainsand the Southwest. Although the current treatmentis necessarily a simplification, it points out thediverse range of factors that seemingly contrib-uted to differences between the heart of the moun-

149


tainous Southwest, the fringe or transitional zone,and the adjacent Plains.

REFERENCES CITEDBall, Eve

1970 In the Days of Victorio: Recollections of a Warm SpringsApache. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Barfield, Thomas J.1993 The Nomadic Alternative. Prentice Hall, Edgewood

Cliffs, NJ.Basehart, Harry W.

1960 Mescalero Apache Subsistence Patterns and Socio-Political Organization. The Mescalero-Chiricahua LandClaims Project. University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

1971 Mescalero Apache Band Organization and Leadership,In Apachean Culture History and Ethnology, edited byKeith H. Basso and Morris E. Opler, pp. 35–51.Anthropological Papers, No. 21, University of ArizonaPress, Tucson.

1974 Mescalero Apache Subsistence Patterns and Socio-Political Organization, in Apache Indians, Volume 12,edited by David Agee Horr, pp. 9–178, Garland PublishingCo., New York.

Betzinez, Jason and Wilbur Sturtevant Nye1959 I Fought With Geronimo. University of Nebraska Press,

Lincoln.Binford, Lewis R.

1983 In Pursuit of the Past: Decoding the ArchaeologicalRecord. Thames and Hudson, New York.

1987 Researching Ambiguity: Frames of References and SiteStructure. In Method and Theory for. Activity AreaResearch: An Ethnoarchaeological Approach, edited bySusan Kent, pp. 449–512. Columbia University Press, NewYork.

1990 Mobility, Housing, and Environment: A ComparativeStudy. Journal of Anthropological Research 46:119–152.

Bleed, Peter2007 Do Regions Make Theory? Comments on Mitchell’s

Discussion of the Legacy of the Missouri Basin Project.American Antiquity 72(4):793–784.

Burrus, Ernest J.1971 Kino and Manje: Explorers of Sonora and Arizona. In

Sources and Studies for the History of the Americas, Vol.10. Jesuit Historical Institute, Rome and St. Louis.

Cremony, John C.1981 [1868 Life Among the Apaches. Reprinted by A. Roman

and Company Publishers, San Francisco.Cribb, Roger

1991 Nomads in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.

Davis, Leslie B.1983 Microcosm to Macrocosm: Advances in Tipi Ring

Investigation and Interpretation. Memoir 19. PlainsAnthropologist 28(102), part 2.

Davis, William E.1983 A Morphological Analysis of Stone Circles from the

Copper Mountain Project, Shoshoni, Wyoming. PlainsAnthropologist 28:71–79.

Diehl, Michael W.1992 Architecture as a Material Correlate of Mobility

Strategies: Some Implications for ArcheologicalInterpretation. Cross-Cultural Research. 26:1–35.

Donaldson, Bruce R. and John R. Welch1991 Western Apache Dwellings and Their Archaeological

Correlates. Mogollon V, edited by Patrick H. Beckett, pp.93–105. Coast Publishing and Research, Las Cruces.

Finnigan, James T.1982 Tipi Rings and Plains Prehistory: A Reassessment of

their Archaeological Significance. Paper No. 108.Archaeological Survey of Canada. Diamond JennessMemorial Volume. National Museum of Canada, Ottawa.

1983 Tipi to Tipi Ring: A Transformational Model. PlainsAnthropologist 28:17–28.

Flint, Richard and Shirley Cushing Flint1997 The Coronado Expedition to Tierra Nueva: The 1540–

1542 Route Across the Southwest. University of ColoradoPress, Niwot, Colorado.

Goodwin, Grenville1929–1939 Dwellings of the White Mountain Apache.

Goodwin Papers, 1929–1939, Manuscript 17 on file,. ArizonaState Museum Archives, University of Arizona, Tucson.

Gunnerson, Dolores A.2006 Apache History and Jicarilla Origins: 1525–1801. J&L

Lee Co. Lincoln, Nebraska.Haley, James L.

1997 Apaches: A History and Culture Portrait. University ofOklahoma Press, Norman.

Hammond, George Peter, and Agapito Rey1928 Obregon’s History of 16th Century Explorations in

Western America: Chronicle, Commentary, or Relationof the Ancient and Modern Discoveries in New Spainand New Mexico, 1584. Book II. Wetzel PublishingCompany, Los Angles, California.

1966 The Rediscovery of New Mexico, 1580–1594, TheExplorations of Chamuscado, Espejo, Castano de Sosa,Morlete, and Leyva de Bonilla and Humana. TheUniversity of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Henderson, Richard N.1957 Field notes and maps of Mescalero-Chiricahua Land

Claims interviews with various Chiricahua tribal members.Papers on file in office of author, 2725 E Arroyo Chico,Tucson, AZ.

Ingold, T.1987 The Appropriation of Nature: Essays in Human Ecology

and Social Relations. Manchester University Press,Manchester.

Karns, Harry J.1954 Luz de Tierra Incognita. Tucson, AZ: Arizona

Silhouettes.Katz, Suzanna, and Paul Katz

1985 The History of the Carlsbad Basin, Southeastern NewMexico. Prepared for Bureau of Reclamation, SouthwestRegional Office, Amarillo, Texas.

Kehoe, Thomas F.1958 Tipi Rings: The “Direct Ethnological” Approach Applied

to an Archaeological Problem. American Anthropologist,Vol. 60, No. 5, pp. 861–73.

1960 Stone Tipi Rings in North-Central Montana and theAdjacent Portion of Alberta, Canada: Their Historical,Ethnological, and Archeological Aspects. Bureau ofAmerican Ethnology Bulletin 173. Smithsonian Institution.

150


Washington, D.C.Kelly, Robert L.

2003 Colonization of New Land by Hunter-Gatherers:Expectations and Implications Based on EthnographicData. In Colonization of Unfamiliar Landscapes: TheArchaeology of Adaptation, edited by Marcy Rockmanand James Steele, pp. 44–58. Routledge, New York.

Khazanov, Anatoly M.1984 Nomads and the Outside World. Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge.Kingsbury, Lawrence A. and Lorna H. Gabel

1983 Eastern Apache Campsites in Southeastern Colorado:An Hypothesis. In From Microcosm to Macrocosm:Advances in Tipi Rings Investigation and Interpretation,edited by Leslie B. Davis, pp. 319–326. Memoir 19, PlainsAnthropologist 28(102), part 2.

Laslett, Peter1974 Comparing Household Structure over Time and Between

Cultures. Comparative Studies in Society and History16:1:73–109.

1983 Family and Household as Work Group and Kin Group:Areas of Traditional Europe Compared. In Family Formsin Historic Europe, edited by Richard Wall, Jean Robinand Peter Laslett, pp. 513–563. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge.

Loendorf, Lawrence L., and Lori O. Weston1983 An Examination of Tipi Rings in the Bighorn Canyon-

Pryor Mountain Area. In From Microcosm to Macrocosm:Advances in Tipi Rings Investigation and Interpretation,edited by Leslie B. Davis, pp. 319–326. Memoir 19, PlainsAnthropologist 28(102), part 2.

Lyman, Lee, and Michael J. O’Brien2001 The Direct Historical Approach, Analogical Reasoning,

and Theory in Americanist Archaeology. Journal ofArchaeological Method and Theory 8(4):303–342.

Malouf, Carling1961 The Tipi Rings of the High Plains. American Antiquity

26(3):381–389.Mitchell, Mark D.

2006 Research Traditions, Public Policy, and theUnderdevelopment of Theory in Plains Archaeology:Tracing the Legacy of the Missouri Basin Project.American Antiquity 71(2):381–396.

2007 Communities Make Theory: A Response to Bleed andRoper. American Antiquity 72(4):789–792.

Moorhead, Max L.1968 The Apache Frontier: Jacobo Ugarte and Spanish-

Indian Relations in Northern New Spain, 1769–1791.University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Naylor, Thomas H., and Charles W. Polzer1986 The Presidio and Militia on the Northern Frontier of New

Spain, 1570–1700. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Opler, Morris Edward

1941 An Apache Life-Way: The Economic, Social, &Religious Institutions of the Chiricahua Indians.University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska.

1945 The Lipan Apache Death Complex and Its Extensions.Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 1(1):122–141.

1974 Lipan and Mescalero Apache in Texas. In Apache Indians,Vol. 10, edited by David Agee Horr, pp. 199–369. GarlandPublishing Co., New York.

1983 The Apachean Culture Pattern and Its Origin. Handbookof American Indians, ed. A. Ortiz, Vol. 10, 368–392.Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.

Prussin, Labelle1989 The Architecture of Nomadism: Gabra Place-making and

Culture. Chapter 8 in Housing, Culture, and Design: AComparative Perspective, edited by Betha M. Low andErve Chambers, pp. 141–163. University of PennsylvaniaPress, Philadelphia.

Reher, Charles A.1983 Analysis of Spatial Structure in Stone Circle Sites. In

Microcosm to Macrocosm: Advances in Tipi RingInvestigation and Interpretation, edited by Leslie B.Davis, pp. 193–222. Memoir 19. Plains Anthropologist28(102).

Rocha y Figueroa, Geronimo de la1780 Mapa de la Frontera de Sonora para el establecimiento

de la linea de presidios. Woodbridge, CT: 2003. Microfilm,Reel 55 of 105. Manuscript No. Add. 17661 A. Original inBritish Library, London.

Roper, Donna C.2007 The Effect of the Direct Historical Approach on the

Development of Theory in Plains Archaeology: A Commenton Mitchell’s Analysis of the MBP Legacy. AmericanAntiquity 72(4):785–788.

Rubertone, Patricia E.2000 The Historical Archaeology of Native Americans. Annual

Review of Anthropology 29: 425–446.Salzman, Philip C.

2002 Pastoral Nomads: Some General Observations Basedon Research in Iran. Journal of Anthropological Research58(2):245–264.

Schneider, Fred E.1983 Artifact Distribution at Tipi Ring Sites: A Cautionary

Tale. In Microcosm to Macrocosm: Advances in Tipi RingInvestigation and Interpretation, edited by Leslie B.Davis, pp. 93–100. Memoir 19. Plains Anthropologist28(102).

Schroeder, Albert H.1973 The Mescalero Apaches. In Technical Manual: 1973

Survey of the Tularosa Basin, edited by Human SystemsResearch, pp 124–144. Human Systems Research, Inc.,Tularosa, New Mexico.

1974a A Study of the Apache Indians, Part IV: The Mogollon,Copper Mine, Mimbres, Warms Springs, and ChiricahuaApaches. In Apache Indians, Vol. 4, edited by David AgeeHorr, pp. 9–326. Garland Publishing Co., New York.

1974b A Study of the Apache Indians, Part III: The MescaleroApaches. In David Agee Horr, Ed., Apache Indians I, pp.471–583. Garland Publishing Co., New York.

1983 Pueblos Abandoned in Historic Times. Chapter inHandbook of American Indians, ed. Alfonso Ortiz, Vol.10, 236–254. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.

Seymour, Deni J.1995 Behavioral Approach to the Recognition of

Inconspicuous Apachean Sites. Paper presented at the68th Annual Pecos Conference, Gila Wilderness, NewMexico.

2002 Conquest and Concealment: After the El Paso Phaseon Fort Bliss. Conservation Division, Directorate ofEnvironment, Fort Bliss. Lone Mountain Report 525/528.

151


Copies available from [email protected] A Ranchería in the Gran Apachería: Evidence of

Intercultural Interaction at the Cerro Rojo Site. PlainsAnthropologist 49(190):153–192.

2006 Athabascan and non-Athabascan Mobile Traders atthe Salinas Pueblos, in the Galisteo Basin Pueblos, atPecos Pueblo, and Near Paa-ko. Paper presented at the2006 Pecos Conference, Navajo Dam.

2007a With a Grain of Salt: Mobile Visitation and Residenceat the Salinas and Galisteo Area Pueblos. Paper presentedat the 2007 Pecos Conference, Pecos Pueblo.

2007b Misconceptions about Protohistoric Mobile Group HutSignatures. Paper presented at the 15th Biennial JornadaMogollon Conference, El Paso, Texas.

2007c A Syndetic Approach to Identification of the HistoricMission Site of San Cayetano del Tumacácori.International Journal of Historical Archaeology,11(3):269–296.

2008a Pliant Communities: Seasonal Mobile Group Visitationat the Eastern Frontier Pueblos. Paper presented at theSociety for Historical Archaeology Conference,Albuquerque.

2008b Despoblado or Athapaskan Heartland: AMethodological Perspective on Ancestral ApacheLandscape Use in the Safford Area. In Crossroads of theSouthwest: Culture, Ethnicity, and Migration in Arizona’sSafford Basin, edited by David E. Purcell, pp. 121–162.Cambridge Scholars Press, New York.

2008c Surfing Behind The Wave: A Counterpoint DiscussionRelating To “A Ranchería in the Gran Apachería.” PlainsAnthropologist 53(206):241–262.

2009a Nineteenth-Century Apache Wickiups: HistoricallyDocumented Models for Archaeological Signatures of theDwellings of Mobile People. Antiquity 83(319):157–164.

2009b Distinctive Places, Suitable Spaces: ConceptualizingMobile Group Occupational Duration. InternationalJournal of Historical Archaeology 13(3):255–281.

2009c Manso Tipis and Other Non Sequiturs Relating to theProtohistoric Southwest. In Quince: Papers from the 15th

Biennial Jornada Mogollon Conference, edited by MarcThompson, pp. 107–119. El Paso Museum of Archaeology,El Paso.

2010a Rethinking Mobility: Differentiating Parameters ofSpatial Patterning in Circumstances of High ResidentialMobility. Paper under review.

2010b Beyond Married, Buried, And Baptized: ExposingHistorical Discontinuities in an Engendered Sobaípuri-O’odham Household. In Engendering Households in thePrehistoric Southwest, edited by Barbara Roth, pp. 229–259. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

2011 Where the Earth and Sky are Sewn Together. Universityof Utah press, Salt Lake City, in press.

Seymour, Deni J., and Tim Church2007 Apache, Spanish, and Protohistoric Archaeology on

Fort Bliss. Lone Mountain Report 560-005. ConservationDivision, Directorate of Environment, Fort Bliss. LoneMountain Report 560-005.

Seymour, Deni J., and Richard N. Henderson2010 To Go Together: Focal Residential Strategies of the

Southernmost Ancestral Apache. In The Apache Presencein the Borderlands of the American Southwest, edited by

David Carmichael, University of Arizona Press, in press.Seymour, Deni J., and George Robertson

2008 A Pledge of Peace: Evidence of the Cochise-HowardTreaty Campsite. Historical Archaeology 42(4): 154–179.

Smith, Fay Jackson, John L. Kessell, and Francis J. Fox1966 Father Kino in Arizona. Arizona Historical Foundation,

Phoenix.Sweeney, Edwin R. (editor)

1997 Making Peace with Cochise: the 1872 Journal ofCaptain Joseph Alton Sladen. University of OklahomaPress, Norman, Oklahoma.

Terrell, John Upton1974 Apache Chronicle. Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New

York.Thomas, Alfred B.

1959 The Chiricahua Apache 1695–1876. University of NewMexico, Mescalero-Chiricahua Land Claims Project,Contract Research #290-154.

Treutlein, Theodore E. (Translator)1965 Missionary in Sonora, The Travel reports of Joseph

Och, S.J. California Historical Society, San Francisco.Wallace, Ernest, and Edward Adamson Hoebel

1952 The Comanches: Lords of the South Plains. Universityof Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK.

Wedel, Waldo R.1961 Prehistoric Man on the Great Plains. University of

Oklahoma Press, Norman.Winship, George Parker (editor)

1990 The Journey of Coronado. Dover Publications, Inc.,New York.

Yellen, John E.1977 Archaeological Approaches to the Present: Models

for Reconstructing the Past. Academic Press, Inc., NewYork.

NOTES1. Hundreds of Apache and proto-Apache sites are now

known in the Southwest including numerous small and largehabitation sites. While many researchers continue to suggestthat Apache sites are rare this impression relates more to a lackof familiarity with the current literature than it does toarchaeological fact.

2. A possible contradiction to the inference that Apache inthe Southwest did not tend to have tipis pulled by dogs isfound in a supplemental account written by Captain Juan MateoManje 20 or more years after his 1697s trip down the lower SanPedro River in southern Arizona. This account indicates withregard to Apaches in the Sierra de Santa Rosa de la Florida (thatThomas [1959:iv] identifies as the Santa Teresa Mountains,which are east of the San Pedro River): “All their houses andencampments are large tepees which, when they move fromplace to place, they pack with all their other belonging on theirdroves of large dogs that are used in place of mules” (Karns1954:285; also see Burrus 1971:220, 370). Yet it is important toremember that Manje never actually saw the tipis and dogs,because, as the original account of this trip clearly indicates(Karns 1954:83–84; Burrus 1971:370) the expedition kept to thewest of the river and could see the Sierra de Santa Rosa de laFlorida in the distance to the east from a mountain west of theSan Pedro. Burrus 1971:220 incorrectly identifies the mountainthey were on as the Sierra de Santa Rosa de la Florida, but the

152


Spanish version clarifies that an earlier battle had been foughtagainst them in the Santa Teresa Mountains (e.g., Burrus1971:206, 341, 370; also see Smith, Kessell, and Fox 1966:40–41for another description of the route. So this purportedobservation is seemingly hearsay from an earlier event. Thisinference seems supported by his statement that these Indianshad red hair and used military formations like the Romans. Thereis no independent confirmatory evidence that the Apache inthese mountainous areas had tipis and dogs to pull them thisearly; archaeological research has repeatedly failed to identifytipis in the southern Southwest until very late. In fact, anexpectation and search for tipi rings rather than wickiup ringshas been a primary reason Apachean sites have been so rarelyidentified in the Southwest. Manje likely equated dogs and tipiswith the Plains Apache and therefore transferred these attributesto those Apache who resided in the mountains, based on ageneralized cultural conceptualization of “Apache” of the time.One reason to believe that the Spanish had this mentalconceptualization of the generalized Apache house as a tipi orconical straight-sided tent is that Geronimo de la Rocha’s mapfrom 1780 (Rocha y Figueroa 1780) uses a tipi representationsymbol to indicate abandoned native settlements orencampments (including non-Apache ones) throughout a largegeographic area, much of which was far beyond the Apacheterritory.

Modern accounts and ethnographies also suggest that theChiricahua might have used tipis in the distant past (Ball 1970:17;Opler 1941:385), but when read carefully these notions seem tobe conjecture based upon the readings of histories (Ball 1970:108)or are revitalized ideas of what Apache housing should be,recollections of what was used in (and did not precede) the latehistoric period, or that tipis were used in limited contexts, suchas the girl’s puberty rite (Opler 1941:385). Archival maps collectedduring Richard Henderson’s thesis work (Henderson field notes1957) under Basehart’s direction indicate that Chiricahuacollective memory was confined to a much more restrictedgeographic area centering on the Mescalero Reservation and amore limited range of subsistence pursuits by the mid twentiethcentury (author’s observations). This suggests that traditionallife had already changed in a way that no longer reflected deepor ancient tradition. Western Apache accounts are contradictoryon the matter of house types, some informants saying they didnot use tipis until late, others suggesting they did (Goodwin1929–1939). The archaeology to this point is rather clear; decadesof searching for tipi rings has resulted in only late ones beingdiscovered, whereas in adjacent plains areas tipi rings are readilyidentified. The point is, as one of Opler’s (1941:385) informantsnoted: “The dome-shaped dwelling or wickiup [is] the usualhouse type for all the Chiricahua bands.”

3. Observations by the author indicate that Forest rangerswho have dismantled modern fire rings tend to disperse cobblesoutward in a circular fashion, forming rings that appear verymuch like tipi rings.

4. When initially recorded this site was said to have fewartifacts (Loring Haskell, LA 27687 site form, ARMS). Closerinspection has revealed many artifacts inside and around

structures.5. This attribute may have both seasonal and cultural

relevance as certain groups may not have occupied these zonesexcept for during winter months, as some documentary sourcessuggest. For example, with reference to the Plains Vaqueros,Obregon (Hammond and Rey 1928:305; also see Schroeder 1983)observed that: “when it was cold or snowed, they sought shelterin the extensions and slopes of the sierras.”

6. It is understood that these hunters of migratory animalsalso hunted smaller game and gathering formed an importantpart of their subsistence. In reality, there was a continuum ofstrategies used in the Southern Plains, ranging from generalizedforagers to specialized hunting (see Reher 1983:217). In general,however, the way a group moved around the landscape,conceived of their range, and utilized its resources wasfundamentally affected by the degree of mobility and the reasonsfor mobility. By the late historic period hunting and territorialranges were greatly constricted and had shifted, migratory gamehad been all but killed off, and social relations were altered.Given these changes in the nature and degree of mobility, factorsaffecting landscape use, and homeland focus it is reasonable toquestion what impact these factors had on the material andspatial aspects of life. For example, Reher (1983:217, 220) notesthat as the degree of specialization in big-game huntingincreases, group size should increase and groups reliant onmigratory animals also tend to carefully arrange their sites owingto longer duration stays and large group sizes that arecompositionally varied.

7. Apachean groups who were not raiders, raided less, orabandoned this aspect of subsistence and those who cultivatedcrops tended to occupy the more northern reaches of theSouthwest. Later in time, these groups (Western Apache, Navajo,Jicarilla) were apt to be less mobile than Apachean groups tothe south. Their often more substantial housing reflects thislonger-term occupancy and illustrates how slight changes indegree of mobility can have a substantial effect on materialculture, such as housing.

8. It is generally recognized that the Mescalero occupied thearea to the east of the Rio Grande while Chiricahua groupsoccupied areas to the west. This distinction has relevance mostlyfor the later portion of history when these two groups wereclearly distinguished. Earlier the Spanish referred to many moregroups, indicating that the historical groups changed andsolidified through time (Schroeder 1974a:1, 1974b) and that areasof use were altered, that is, if Spanish names can be consideredin any way relevant to identity and to the subsistence andadaptation factors that influence the archaeological record.

9. Of course Opler (1983:380) noted the ethnographic patternthat the easternmost Chiricahua were more likely to build tipisthan the other two more western bands. Similarly the easternmoiety of the Jicarilla used the tipi as a dwelling moreconsistently than those to the west.

10. It is important to point out that most scholars currentlystudying early Athapaskans and Athapaskan migration fromthe Subarctic suggest that there were both mountain and plainsroutes south. Dates from the 1300s and perhaps earlier havebeen identified in the mountains which support this scenario,as do differences in material culture, including house form.

cycles of renewal, transportable assets: aspects of...

Documents