• No results found

Violence in the Sand Canyon Locality: A reexamination of settlement data, human remains, and war weaponry found at three major sites in the Sand Canyon locality.

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Violence in the Sand Canyon Locality: A reexamination of settlement data, human remains, and war weaponry found at three major sites in the Sand Canyon locality."

Copied!
66
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

Violence in the Sand Canyon Locality

Dylan van Dijk

S1655507

(2)
(3)

Violence in the Sand Canyon Locality

A reexamination of settlement data, human remains, and war

weaponry found at three major sites in the Sand Canyon locality.

(4)

Dylan van Dijk

S1655507

Bachelors Thesis

Dr. A. Geurds

America’s Specialisation

University of Leiden, Faculty of Archaeology

Leiden 15-12-2019

Final Version

Table Of Content

Chapter 1: Introduction

p.6

1.1: An introduction to archaeological approaches to warfare and violence

p.6

1.2: An introduction to previous case studies about warfare

p.7

1.3 Research Question and approach p.8

(5)

2.1 Defensive architecture in the American Southwest p.13 2.2 Characteristics and interpretations of Enclosing Walls p.14

2.3 Characteristics and interpretations of towers p.18

Chapter 3: Injuries in Skeletal Remains

p.21

3.1 Skeletal Remains found at Sand Canyon Pueblo p.21

3.2 Skeletal Remains found at Castle Rock Pueblo p.22

3.3 Skeletal Remains found at Woods Canyon Pueblo p.26

Chapter 4: War Weaponry

p.28

4.1 War weaponry found at Sand Canyon Pueblo p.28

4.2 War Weaponry found at Castle Rock Pueblo p.30

4.3 War Weaponry found at Woods Canyon Pueblo p.32

Chapter 5: Discussion

p.34

5.1 How reliable is Settlement Data as an indicator for Violence p.34 5.2 Injuries in Skeletal Remains as an indicator for Violence p.35 5.3 How reliable is War Weaponry as an indicator for Violence p.37

Chapter 6: Conclusion

p.38

6.1 Restating research aim and research question p.38

6.2 Results p.39

6.3 Future Research p.41

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 An introduction to archaeological approaches to warfare and violence

Investigating warfare or violence in the archaeological record primarily relies on four types of material evidence. Settlement data (Kenzle 1997; Palonka 2011), injuries in skeletal remains (Kuckelman 2007; Kuckelman et al. 2002), iconography (Schaafsma 2000), and war weaponry are considered to be the most reliable (Lambert 2002, 209-210). Before analyzing material evidence the definitions of warfare and violence need to be defined. From a modern perspective warfare often refers to a large scale conflict over a longer period of time, in contrast to references to violence, which can constitute a single event. However, warfare does not necessarily include violence. For example, the Anglo-Swedish war from 1810-1812 is known in history as a bloodless war. Over the course of these two years Sweden was at war with the United Kingdom. However, during this period not a single battle was fought between the two countries, preventing any physical violence from occurring. Threats and intimidation still occurred, thus it is an example of a war with non-physical violence. While on the

(6)

other hand a war with physical violence is a war in which parts of the body or objects are being used to apply force, often leading to injuries, death, and destruction (Hallpike 1973, 451). In addition, violence does not have to be warfare. As the World Health Organization states: "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation."(Krug et al. 2002, 5). This definition states that violence is a broad topic and includes many forms. Therefore, an act of violence should not immediately be considered as violence.

With a basic understanding of warfare and violence from a modern concept, it is possible to review definitions of warfare that have been used in the field of archaeology. Among the wide range of definitions provided for warfare, Meggit in particular defines that warfare constitutes “a state or period of armed hostility existing between politically autonomous communities” (Meggit 1977, 10). Meggit’s definition takes into account that there is no distinction between small-scale forms of engagement that characterizes tribal warfare and large-scale state warfare, as long as the groups involved are politically autonomous (Lambert 2002, 209). Ferguson has a different view from Meggit, he defines warfare as an “organized, purposeful group action, directed against another group that may or may not be organized for similar action, involving the actual or potential application of force” (Ferguson 1984, 5). Ferguson’s definition, on the other hand, stresses that a certain minimal level of organizational complexity or the use of military tactics is not required for warfare. Therefore,

Ferguson’s definition includes raiding and conflict between groups that are not necessarily politically independent, while excluding interpersonal conflict (Cole 2012, 198; Kuckelman 2002, 234).

Two definitions of warfare have been briefly mentioned in the above paragraph, but as one can imagine many other definitions exist. With different definitions of warfare, it is not unlikely that different interpretations have been made when analyzing material evidence. On a global scale, Thorpe (2003) states that major issues within interpretations come forth from the following: 1) The use of evolutionary psychology of the archaeological evidence. 2) The history and biases of

archaeology as discipline. 3) The nature of the material evidence (Thorpe 2003, 145). More specifically, Lambert (2002) suggests that the study of war in the archaeology of the Americas has been influenced by the following factors: 1) The local importance of warfare historically. 2) The interest or disinterest of scholars doing the research. 3) The condition and nature of the archaeological record (Lambert 2002, 211). Therefore, analyzed material evidence needs to be re-examined, because it could contain bias towards interpretations.

1.2 An introduction to previous case studies about warfare

(7)

turned out to live in peace (Keeley 1997,8). A case study of 157 Indian tribes in North America shows that only 13 percent, which is equal to 21 tribes, did not engage in conflict on a yearly basis

(Jorgensen 1980). However, 14 of these tribes had evidence to have either conducted or resisted raids once every few years. This means that just 7 tribes are considered to be more or less peaceful, which is a mere 4,5% of the surveyed tribes. However, these tribes lived in isolation, giving a possible explanation to why they are considered peaceful (Keeley 1997, 22-23). This study therefore indicates that violence and possibly warfare was certainly not unfamiliar in the history of Native

Americans.Another case study from Sarah Cole indicates that the Pueblo III period (1150-1350 AD) was characterized by warfare. Cole developed an index in which you can extract data on skeletal trauma likely to be caused by violence. This would include parry fractures to the ulna and radius, cranial fractures that occurred antemortem or perimortem, and the context in which the skeletal remains were found. In her findings she concluded that a majority of the individuals had perimortem fractures and died due to warfare-related trauma’s (Varien et al 2012, 614). The problem with this particular case study is not the methods that have been used, but the conclusions that were made. The case study makes no distinction between violence and warfare, while that should have been done. By trying to interpret it as warfare it tends to hide possible meaningful patterns in the material record (Borck 2012, 64).

It has also been argued that tribal warfare is insufficient. Both Wright (1942) and Turney-High (1949), independently, named the deficiencies of primitive warfare. They concluded that primitive warfare is far from effective due to the following: 1) a poor mobilization of manpower. 2) Inadequate supply and logistics. 3) Due to deficiencies 1 and 2 campaigns could not have lasted for a long period of time. 4) no organized training for units. 5) Poor command and control. 6) Due to deficiencies 4 and 5 undisciplined units. 7) Ineffective tactics and carelessness towards principles of warfare. 8) None or few specialized weapons for war and neglect of fortifications. 9) No specialization towards military professions (Keeley 1997, 11; Turney-High 1949, 21-137; Wright 1942, 80-85).

.

1.3 Research Question and approach

All previous research and definitions are inconsistent in terms of “When is something warfare?” or “What is warfare?”. There is not a single definition of the term ‘warfare’ and as mentioned earlier there are varieties within interpretations between researchers. I am not going to answer these questions directly, instead I am going to take a step back. I am not going to make an attempt to determine if the material evidence associated with violence can be addressed as evidence for warfare. For my case study I am going to investigate violence in the Sand Canyon locality in

southwestern Colorado. This particular area is interesting because it is being researched by the same group of archaeologists. The Crow Canyon Archaeological Center conducted excavations over the past thirty years and published most of the data online, making material evidence and sites comparable

(8)

with each other. What is interesting is that most of the sites that have been excavated by Crow Canyon archaeologists is that they were all abandoned at the end of the Pueblo III period. The reason as of why these villages were abandoned is still debatable, although violence seems to have been a factor in this large-scale abandonment with Castle Rock Pueblo as best example. However, one example is not enough to conclude that violence was a major part in the large-scale abandonment of villages at the end of the Pueblo III period. Therefore I intend to compare sites from the Sand Canyon locality in order to get a better understanding of what happened at the end of the Pueblo III period. Hence, the following research question is central to this bachelor thesis:

Which material evidence in the Sand Canyon locality suggests that the end of the Pueblo III period is characterized by increased violence?

In order to investigate and answer my research question, I will focus on the following sub-questions: - What architectural evidence is there for violence in the Sand Canyon locality?

- Which skeletal injuries do indicate the presence of violence in the Sand Canyon locality? - What kind of war weaponry has been found on sites within the Sand Canyon locality? - How reliable is each form of material evidence when it is used as an indicator for violence? The following three major sites will be included in this case study: Sand Canyon Pueblo, Castle Rock Pueblo, and Woods Canyon Pueblo. Sand Canyon Pueblo (Site 5MT765, see figure 1 below) is the largest of the sites in the locality en was excavated between 1984-1989 and 1991-1993 by Crow Canyon archaeologists (Kuckelman 2007, 1:1). The village had built structures with a total of

approximately 420 rooms, 90 kivas, a great kiva, 14 towers, an enclosed plaza, and a D-shaped bi-wall structure. It is estimated that the village was inhabited by approximately 400 to 600 residents at a time and that it was occupied from the late 1240s until the depopulation of the Mesa Verde region (Bradley 1992, 79). This site is well suited for this research, because it was abandoned at the end of the Pueblo III period and a lot of architectural data was subsequently collected. Moreover, there are abundant skeletal remains and artifacts available for analysis.

(9)

Figure 1 An overview of the site Sand Canyon Pueblo (map courtesy of Palonka 2011, 120).

Castle Rock Pueblo (Site 5MT1815, see figure 2 below) was constructed in the late Pueblo III period and is probably the most well-known site in the Sand Canyon locality. The village had an estimated 40 rooms, 16 kivas, 9 towers, a D-shaped enclosure, 2 plazas, and several retaining and village-enclosing walls. Castle Rock Pueblo was built near the base and on top of a sandstone butt. It was home to approximately 75 to 150 residents and was occupied from 1260 till roughly 1280 AD before it had a violent ending (Kuckelman 2000, 1:1). The location of the village suggests that Pueblo Indians choose this location for its defensive position. However, that did not prevent a violent ending. Castle Rock Pueblo is a suitable site because it contains substantial evidence in the form of skeletal remains, and it provides an insight in defensive structures. Documented artifacts might also give an overview of war weaponry used by its inhabitants.

(10)

Figure 2 An overview of the site Castle Rock Pueblo (map courtesy of Palonka 2011, 151).

Woods Canyon Pueblo (Site 5MT11842, see figure 3 below) is a village from the Pueblo III period. The occupation of this site runs from 1140 until the end of the 13th century, and it is thought to have been occupied for about 150 years until the depopulation of the Mesa Verde region. The site had an estimated 120 to 220 rooms, 50 kivas, 16 towers, and a plaza. Based on the amount of rooms, it is estimated that this site was inhabited by 180 to 300 people at a time (Churchill 2002, 2; Churchill 2002, 2-9). This site is interesting, because it was not fully excavated by Crow Canyon archaeologists, hence we do not know everything about it. However, architectural features have been mapped and can be compared with Sand Canyon Pueblo and Castle Rock Pueblo for similarities. Some human remains and artifacts have been found as well and might tell us something about violence at the site.

(11)

Figure 3: An overview of the site Woods Canyon Pueblo (map courtesy of Palonka 2011, 136).

1.4 Research plan

Archaeological research in the American Southwest has been conducted since at least the 1800s, with an enormous increase in the mid- to late- 20th century due to changing national laws on cultural heritage. With Lambert suggesting that research could have been biased in the American Southwest, I intend to re-examine the Sand Canyon locality in Colorado for evidence of violence. In order to answer the research question of this thesis, I am going to investigate each form of material evidence separately. The first material evidence that will be discussed is settlement data in Chapter 2.

Architectural features will be analyzed on their interpretations, with the intention to learn the features that are associated with violence. In chapter 3 the human remains will be evaluated. Data collected from the three major sites will be analyzed for perimortem trauma in order to understand the following question: What happened around the time of death?. Chapter 4 will include an analysis

(12)

of possible war weaponry collected from each site. This includes an overview of projectile points, axes, and mauls. Lastly, in chapter 5, a discussion is formed to answer the last sub question of this thesis: How reliable is material evidence when it is used as an indicator for violence? Chapter 5 is followed by a conclusion in which the research question central to this bachelor thesis will be answered and future research will be proposed.

Chapter 2: Settlement Data

2.1 Defensive architecture in the American Southwest

The first material evidence that will be examined is settlement data. This type of material evidence is particularly valuable if it comes to identifying defensive measurements. The presence or absence of these measurements provide us with information about the commitment people willingly or

forcefully invested into defenses and thus tell us something about neighboring threats. Examples of defensive measurements, as described by Lambert, include a shift in settlement location, larger settlements, and defensive architecture (Lambert 2002, 209-210).A shift in settlement location can be seen as a defensive measurement if the settlement was relocated from an open valley towards a more sloped area. This results in the settlement being less accessible by those looking to raid,

however this would also affect the inhabitants. The appearance of larger settlements can be seen as a sign that people are willing to wager on strength in numbers to discourage potential raiders. The negative effect of this defensive measurement is that the inhabitants are more vulnerable to diseases (Lambert 2002, 210).

(13)

It is very common to think of structures like strongholds, castles, walls, or towers, when talking about defensive architecture (Palonka 2011, 38). The archaeological features in the American Southwest are much more simplified than that. Only a handful of researchers attempted to construct detailed studies of architecture in relation to a defensive function in the Mesa Verde region. Malcolm Farmer (1957) did research on defensive architecture, Suzan Kenzle (1993, 1997) did research on enclosing walls, and Albert Schulman (1950) researched towers in the Mesa Verde and Gallina regions. In a more recent study by Johnson (2003) it is being argued that towers do not necessarily have a defensive function. Although most of the defensive architecture in the Mesa Verde region was constructed in the Pueblo III period (1150-1350 AD), it was not the first evidence of defensive

architecture in the region. Some settlements in the Basketmaker III period (500-750 AD) were surrounded by palisades (Palonka 2011, 43). In Southwestern Colorado there are several sites with evidence to have constructed pallisades. At Knobby Knee, Gilliland, and Payne it is thought the palisades served as a defensive measurement (Wilshusen 1999, 180).

However, it remains a long-standing pursuit to derive a functional classification of

architecture in the American Southwest. It is not always explicitly mentioned; however archaeologists use analogy and associations to formulate functional interpretations for architectural features, often assuming that morphologically similar features are functionally comparable (Saile 1978, 60). Despite this being a credible technique, it also comes with certain risks. For example, early southwestern archaeologists enforced ethnographic analogies to identify prehistoric pit structures, describing them as kivas or ceremonial chambers. This inference was unquestionably accepted, until new analyses exposed flaws in the interpretations of these structures. After new research the conclusion was that roughly half of the interpret structures did not function as kiva or ceremonial chamber. Therefore, it is important to bear in mind that information from anthropological studies can either be supported or denounced by performing research in the field (Kenzle 1997, 196).

Palonka (2011) describes four main features that are often seen as defensive structures and uses them in his database to analyze sites in the Mesa Verde region. These four features include enclosing walls, towers, loopholes and tunnels (Palonka 2011, 43-46). Tunnels have not been found as feature in Sand Canyon Pueblo, Castle Rock Pueblo, and Woods Canyon Pueblo. In the following paragraphs enclosing walls, towers, and loopholes will be discussed in detail. Their defensive interpretations will be discussed in detail, but other interpretations will be discussed as well.

2.2 Characteristics and interpretations of Enclosing Walls.

Most information about enclosing walls is derived from field research. Enclosing walls are only located within the architectural portions of the site and enclosed parts or around the entire settlement. Some enclosing walls surrounded structures, while other walls extended between structures (Palonka 2011, 44; Kenzle 1997, 197). The placement of enclosing walls was reliant on the

(14)

amount of structures along with the presence of natural features in the landscape (Kenzle 1997, 197). In figure 4 below there are three examples of possible sites with enclosing walls in the American Southwest. Image A is an example of a unit pueblo, in which the enclosing wall surrounds the structure. Image B is an example of a canyonhead site, in which the enclosing wall extends between the structures to form a wall around the settlement. Image C is an example of a canyon rim site in which the enclosing wall surrounds all the structures (Kenzle 1997, 197-199). Despite the fact that intrasite locations of enclosing walls differ per site, it is still possible to visualize patterns. All enclosing walls have these characteristics in common: 1) The enclosure of space. 2) Restriction of entry. 3) Linkage of independent structures (Kenzle 1997, 197).

Figure 4: Schematics of

possible sites with enclosing

walls. A – Unit Pueblo. B –

Canyonhead site. C – Canyon

rim site. (Kenzle 1997, 199)

Many enclosing

walls are in a poor state of

preservation, making it

difficult to derive

accurate information. Interpretations and conclusions were made based on partially preserved enclosing walls and excavations on Sand Canyon Pueblo. Therefore, it is debated whether or not the Anasazi spent a considerable amount of time in the construction of these walls (Kenzle 1997, 197). Most enclosing walls are single stone in cross section and built of unshaped, dry-laid sandstone blocks, with an absence of clear visible patterns. However, the enclosing walls at Sand Canyon Pueblo are an exception. The enclosing walls at Sand Canyon Pueblo have a double-stone-with core cross section, some sandstone blocks are shaped and mortar has been used to fill the gaps (Kenzle 1997, 197; Palonka 2011, 44). They were usually built from sources that were near or within the site locales

(15)

occasions there is evidence for a gate within the enclosing walls. Gates appear as ground-level openings in the walls which allow direct access to the pueblos. Gates can be used as a method for the restriction of access. Gates enabled residents to see those wishing to enter the pueblo and those who entered the pueblo, while creating an efficient method of interaction (Kenzle 1997, 200). However, research indicates that there is an absence of evidence that these gates could be closed. Some pueblos were completely surrounded by enclosing walls, suggesting that these villages were accessed with the use of ladders (Kenzle 1997, 197-198).

According to Lavin, architectural elements communicate a social meaning in a manner related to speech and nonverbal communications (Lavin 1981, 196). One functional interpretation of

enclosing walls is that they represent sociophysical boundaries. Sociophysical boundaries include physical demarcations of claimed space, architectural- and national boundaries (Lavin 1981, 197). There are two functions of a sociophysical boundary, the first being spatial demarcation (Lavin 1981, 197). A demarcation separates distinct areas and forms a transition between the inside and outside. Thus, enclosing walls separate exterior activity areas or plazas from the interior of a pueblo. For example, it has been argued that the enclosing wall at Sand Canyon Pueblo has functioned in zoning. A pattern of architectural blocks can be observed considering that the pueblo was built first. The enclosing walls seem to have been carefully placed in relation to cliffs and ledges (Bradley 1992, 95-96). This suggests that the people intentionally thought about the spatial organization of the pueblo (Kenzle 1997, 198). Another function of sociophysical boundaries is the facilitation of

interpersonal regulation. Interpersonal regulation can be achieved by: 1) The delineation of territory. 2) Promoting or limiting social contact. 3) Regulating the movement of people through the

environment. 4) Maintaining privacy (Lavin 1981, 197).

According to Adler (1990), enclosing walls should be seen as means of restricting access to resources in the Pueblo III period. Restriction of entry to pueblos or structures in a pueblo allows inhabitants to control access to public facilities like great kivas, water sources or stored foods (Adler 1990, 91). Limitations in access of resources in the Pueblo III period could have caused tension between different communities, because critical information about resources was being hidden. It could have also caused tension between community members, because enclosing walls could have been placed in order to control the population (Kenzle 1997-200).

In many different cultures around the world, enclosing walls are used to improve residential privacy. Some examples are cultures in Japan, North America, and Northern India. In these cultures it is common to block the view with walls or fences to improve the privacy (Rapoport 1969, 66-68). Especially enclosing walls of 1.5 meters or higher could have served this purpose (Kenzle 1997, 200). Besides that, enclosing walls may serve as a boundary to strengthen the cohesion of a group. By closing a place in the environment, the enclosing wall becomes a symbol of the social group and therefore may function as a boost to their identity (Wilson 1988, 60). Many possible explanations

(16)

exist for the demarcating of pueblos; the fact that they made enclosing walls strongly suggests that the space and its contents were of high value to these people (Tringham 1972, 470).

Besides a sociophysical meaning of enclosing walls, they can also be interpret as a defensive mechanism. In order to give meaning to enclosing walls as means of fortifications, it is necessary to first determine the characteristics of fortifications. A fortification should allow a defending force to be able to hold a position to its advantage. This position can be enhanced by either natural or artificial obstacles. Examples of natural obstacles include cliffs and ridges or high relief in general. Enclosing walls and towers can be seen as artificial obstacles for an attacking force. The aim of these obstacles, whether they are natural or artificial, is to force opponents to expose themselves when attempting to cross these obstacles. An additional effect of obstacles is to reduce the effectiveness because it requires more effort to enter a village, exhausting opponents in the process and at the same time the fortifications provide cover and concealment for the residents (Kenzle 1997, 200-201). The

effectiveness of en enclosing wall can be increased by adding numerous features. Arcs, see Image C of figure 4 for an example, can be added to an enclosing wall. These architectural features are a bit similar to bastions; parts of the wall can be built at an angle to the line of the wall. This allows defensive fire in multiple directions and allows projectiles to be fired or thrown in the flank of possible attackers. However, the sites in this research have no arcs present in their enclosing walls or it is unknown if they had arcs incorporated in their enclosing walls. This is a possible function of arcs, more research needs to be done in order to understand the purpose of arcs within enclosing walls (Kenzle 1997, 201). Another method of increasing the effectiveness is by adding loopholes. Loopholes are small openings through an exterior or a free-standing wall and are usually 20 centimeters in length or width. It is thought that loopholes served as a means of sighting or viewing through a wall to see what was on the other side, while safely standing on the inside. However, it is also thought that loopholes were there to shoot arrows through as defensive measurement (Palonka 2011, 45). The only site in this study with evidence of loopholes is Sand Canyon Pueblo (Kenzle 1997, 201). However, these loopholes do not have a clear line of sight nor do they increase the effectiveness of the

enclosing wall.

It is possible that enclosing walls in the Sand Canyon locality were built for defensive purposes. In figure 5 below there is an overview on a study of enclosing walls in the Anasazi region from Suzan Kenzle. The sites Sand Canyon Pueblo (5MT765), Castle Rock Pueblo (5MT1825), and Woods Canyon Pueblo (5MT11842) are included in this research. From this figure, it can be concluded that none of the sites in this research were fully enclosed, but they do have enclosing walls. From all three sites only Castle Rock Pueblo appears to have enclosing walls below 1.5 meters, gates are only absent in Woods Canyon Pueblo and arcs were not present in any of the enclosing walls.

(17)

Figure 5: Defensible characteristics and evidence of conflict at sites in Suzan Kenzle’s study. P = present, A = Absent, - = unknown. (Kenzle 1997, 204)

2.3 Characteristics and interpretations of towers

An intriguing architectural feature of the Anasazi is the tower. Towers can be found in all shapes and sizes and are distinguished by the fact that they are always taller than they are wide. They can be either found on habitation sites and as isolated structures atop boulders, providing views around the settlement and of outlying areas (Johnson 2003, 324-325). They can be circular, oval, D-shaped or rectangular in shape. They usually stand two or three stories tall and often contain loopholes (Palonka 2011, 45; Schulman 1950, 290-294). They can be either single- or multi-roomed and may or may not be connected with other structures such as enclosing walls. They can be linked with other structures by using tunnels and these tunnels can lead to kivas or other structures. They are often found on mesa tops and canyon heads or bottoms, but can also be found on various other locations (Palonka 2011, 45). Towers first appeared in the Pueblo II period, but these towers were smaller and less abundant than the towers constructed in the late Pueblo III period (Lipe and Ortman 2000, 94-96).

(18)

In his work, Palonka acknowledges that towers could have multiple functions (Palonka 2011, 45) Mackey and Green (1979) argued that towers were constructed for defensive purposes. Towers as means for signaling has also been suggested by Morley and Kidder (1917). While more recent studies suggest that towers were built for signaling between sites (Haas and Creamer 1993; Ellis 1991). They could also have served a purpose as astronomical observation points (Ellis 1975). Others have suggested that the primary function of towers was as storage facilities (Green 1962; Winter 1981). In Johnson’s (2003) work he suggest a resource-monitoring hypothesis for towers. With his GIS analysis, he concluded that towers were constructed to overlook plots for dry farming. All these studies suggest a different interpretation, however there are some similarities within their conclusions. The fact that towers provide a view of the landscape, whether they are incorporated in the settlement or stand as isolated structures, is something most scholars agree upon.

It is not unusual for towers to be interpret as a defensive architectural feature. However, to address “towers” as only a defensive feature is both fallacious and inaccurate (Schulman 1950, 289). Previous research does not always account for the above statement. In fact, previous research on towers contradicted other possibilities. Conclusions like this were not uncommon: There is no evidence for ceremonial features of towers, thus their primary function was defensive (Mackey and Green 1979, 148-153). Mackey and Green base their conclusion on features like double-wall

construction, thickness of the wall, exceptional masonry, and defensive locations of towers (Mackey and Green 1979, 148). These features on itself are characteristics, but there is no material evidence to support their statement. Mackey and Green only searched for material evidence that could be associated with ceremonial activities. With that absent in the archaeological record, they made a fallacious conclusion. The descriptions made by Mackey and Green strongly suggest that a tower is a defensive structure, since it can be classified as a fortification (Mackey and Green 1979, 148-149). However, without material evidence to support that claim, it is impossible to conclude that the primary function of towers is defensive. Towers seem to have been a secondary, rather than primary, form of defense (Schulman 1950, 290). The placement of the towers within the rim complex part of Woods Canyon Pueblo (see figure 6 below) seem to confirm Schulman his statement. It is clear that the towers in this part of the site, have not been incorporated to any enclosing wall, nor suggests the placement a defensive position. The image shows that two towers are located near the cliff edges, and two others are constructed in the northwest corner behind the enclosing wall. When the village was attacked, the towers would not provide any advantages to the inhabitants of the site.

(19)
(20)

Chapter 3: Injuries in Skeletal Remains

3.1 Skeletal Remains found at Sand Canyon Pueblo

During the excavations at Sand Canyon Pueblo about 2.060 human bones were found, although it was not the primary objective to find these human remains (Kuckelman2007, 7:1). The degree of

articulation in which the skeletal remains were found is varying between nearly complete skeletons, clusters of disarticulated bones, and scattered remains. The Crow Canyon Archaeological Center assigned thirty-two clusters of human remains, including nearly complete skeletons, an HRO (Human Remains Occurrence) number (Kuckelman 2007, 7:2). For the assemblage at Sand Canyon Pueblo, each HRO number stands for the articulated or clustered remains of a single individual. There are a few exceptions however: 1) HRO 4 are the clustered remains of two individuals (HRO 4a and HRO 4b). 2) HRO 26 and 27 are probably the remains of the same individual. 3) HRO 31 was not analyzed, this cluster of remains was immediately covered with sediment (Kuckelman 2007, 7:3). It is thought that besides these thirty-two individuals a minimum of at least twelve additional individuals are

represented by the scattered bones. Thus, estimating the MNI (Minimum Number of Individuals) at forty-four individuals (Kuckelman 2007, 7:2). An overview of these thirty-two can be found in Table 1 in the appendix in which the following information can be obtained: the unit in which the remains were found, the context in which they were found, the type of disposition, the position the body was placed in, and associated grave goods if these were present.

The type of disposition is an interesting feature for the analysis of violence. At Sand Canyon Pueblo there are generally two types of dispositions; Formal burials and skeletal remains in

abandonment context. Formal burials can be distinguished from skeletal remains in abandonment context by analyzing the position the body was placed in and the association of grave goods. Skeletal remains in abandonment context are interesting, because these remains usually reflect the end of the occupation of a village. It is thought that nine of the thirty-two HRO numbers have had a formal burial, which means that twenty-three HRO numbers were found in abandonment context (Kuckelman 2007, 7:4). Thus, most of the skeletal remains in the assemblage were found in abandonment context.

Further analysis on the human remains was conducted and an overview can be observed in Table 2 in the appendix. The information that can be derived from this table is the following; 1) antemortem and perimortem fractures. 2) The location of the fracture. 3) Perimortem abrasion and cut marks. Fractures, abrasions and cut marks are an excellent source of information when

investigating how someone has died. Antemortem fractures show signs of healing, thus antemortem fractures occurred prior to the death of an individual. While perimortem fractures do not show signs

(21)

and 20) have a combined total of nine antemortem skull fractures.. It is possible that all of these cranial fractures were accidental, however, it is more likely that these fractures were inflicted

intentionally. Seven additional individuals (HRO 2, 4a, 11, 19, 20, 22, and PD 132, FS 36 (an additional individual represented by a single isolated bone)) suffered from intentionally inflicted cranial fractures that occurred around the time of death. Another individual, HRO 24, clearly suffered perimortem fractures of his leg bones. All of the individuals mentioned above were found in abandonment context, concluding that these people lost their lives at or near the end of the occupation of Sand Canyon Pueblo (Kuckelman 2007, 7:69). This evidence strongly suggests that Sand Canyon Pueblo was abandoned due to violence.

This theory is strengthened by perimortem abrasion and cut marks found on at least four individuals, possibly five (HRO 19, 20, 22, PD 132 FS 36, and PD 155 FS 5). The isolated bone samples PD 132 FS 36 and PD 155 FS 5 do have abrasions and cut marks, but could represent the same

individual. Due to the fact that these abrasions and cut marks occurred perimortem, it can be seen as evidence for wounds inflicted during conflict, or intentional damage to the skeletal remains shortly after death (Kuckelman 2007,7:69).

3.2 Skeletal Remains found at Castle Rock Pueblo

The population of Castle Rock Pueblo was estimated between 75 to 150 individuals, which equals to around fifteen households (Kuckelman 2000, 14:1 ; Kuckelman et al. 2002, 488). The human remains assemblage consists of a combined total of 1.300 identifiable bones and bone fragments. This includes 500 bones of three mostly complete articulated skeletons. An additional 800 disarticulated bones finalize the human remains assemblage. The disarticulated bone assemblage represents at least thirty-eight individuals, excluding the three near complete skeletons. With the three near complete skeletons included, the MNI is estimated at forty-one individuals (Kuckelman 2000, 14:1; Kuckelman et al. 2002, 491-492). None of the remains that were found at Castle Rock Pueblo appear to have had a formal burial, thus all human remains were found in abandonment context on kiva floors and in kiva-fill deposits (Kuckelman et al. 2002, 491-494).

There are plenty of fractures present in the human bone assemblage. Within the

disarticulated bone assemblage alone, see figure 7,there were fifty-three fractures, which is a mere 6.6 % of the total amount of bones (Kuckelman et al. 2002, 492). No distinction between

antemortem, perimortem, and postmortem have been made when calculating that percentage. The three near complete skeletons, HRO 9, 10, and 12, have also been excluded. In figure 8 below the fractures that are related to skull traumas, either antemortem or perimortem, have been recorded (including the near complete skeletons). From this figure the following can be concluded: 1) There are a total of twenty-eight skull fractures observed in the entire human bone assemblage. 2) There are fourteen perimortem fractures, twelve antemortem fractures and two fractures that could be either.

(22)

The antemortem and perimortem fractures mentioned above are not the only recorded antemortem and perimortem fractures in the human bone assemblage. From the 1.300 identifiable bones thirteen antemortem and seventy-four perimortem fractures were observed, with two fractures being either antemortem or perimortem (Kuckelman et al 2002, 495).

Figure 7: The Disarticulated Human Bone Assemblage from Castle Rock Pueblo (Kuckelman et al. 2002, 492)

Figure 8: Skull Trauma to Human Remains at Castle Rock Pueblo and Sand Canyon Pueblo (Kuckelman et al. 2002, 493) Besides fractures, the human bone assemblage was examined for further crushing damage,

(23)

“displacement of bone cortex into the spongy bone space within” (White 1992, 138), when analyzing the human remains this definition was used as a guidance. Crushing differs from puncture marks caused by carnivores because it involves a larger area of bone. From the eighteen bones with crushing damage, seven were found to have had scratches and punctures inflicted by carnivores. Thus, it cannot be fully concluded that these marks were the result of human actions. However, It four bones identified with crushing damage were also heat-altered (Kuckelman et al 2002, 496-497).

There are six bones with cutmarks described in the disarticulated bone assemblage. They were documented on the proximal end of a femur and fibula in HRO 3, an additional femur in HRO 6 was found with the head sheared off. In HRO 4 an humerus was found with cutmarks on the distal end. Additionally a femur and tibia in HRO 4 have cutmarks midshaft. The three bones in HRO 4 were also found to be heat-altered. None of the near complete skeletons (HRO 9,10, and 12) appeared to have any cutmarks (Kuckelman et al 2002, 496-497). Cutmarks at the end of long bones are thought to represent dismemberment of human limbs, while cutmarks midshaft represent the removal of flesh from the bone (Jamieson 1983, 170). Half of the bones with cutmarks have been heat-altered, thus it is more likely that the dismembered limbs were used for consumption (Jamieson 1983, 170; Kuckelman et al 2002, 497). However, not all dismembered limbs have cutmarks on them. As White concluded from the human bone assemblage at Mancos Canyon (White 1992, 277). This might also be the case for Castle Rock Pueblo. The articulated forearm and hand of a child thought to be around 8 years old was found amongst completely disarticulated remains with clear absence of cutmarks. This arm was not taken by carnivores, because all phalanges were still attached. Thus, these bones were probably dismembered and relocated by human activity. Hence why cutmarks should not be taken as an indicator for the amount of intentional dismemberment of body parts (Kuckelman et al 2002, 497; White 1992, 276-278).

Chopmarks are made by striking stone against bone, in contrast with cutmarks which are caused by a sawing motion (White 1992, 146). Within the disarticulated assemblage of human bones all four chopmarks were situated in HRO 3. The chopmarks were located on the distal or proximal end of long bones, suggesting that effort was made to remove these parts of the body (Kuckelman et al 2002, 497).

There are a total of thirty-nine identifiable heat-altered bones in the disarticulated human bone assemblage. They vary in color from tan to black, which suggest different burning temperatures. From the assemblage it can already be concluded that no bones were intentionally cremated at Castle Rock Pueblo (Kuckelman et al 2002, 498). The human bones were exposed to low temperature burning, thus it is very possible that some of the burning may be due to a natural process called weathering. Bone-weathering and low temperature burning look identical and microscopic or chemical analysis is often required to distinguish the two (White 1992, 158-160; White and Folkens 2005, 54). Sixteen of the thirty-nine heat-altered bones could be found in Structure 206 (HRO 2) and

(24)

represent a minimum of three people. Structure 206 was partially burned and remains of the

collapsed roof were associated with the human remains. Thus, it is not unlikely that these bones were altered by heat when the roof collapsed. However, these sixteen bones have the same modifications present just like the rest of the heat-altered bones. These modifications include localized heat alteration midshaft and missing bone ends. The latter is usually the result of spiral fracturing or crushing of the bones. Thus, it is possible that some or all of the sixteen bones in Structure 206 were heat-altered due to the collapsing roof. However, human modifications to the bones suggest that these bones were intentionally heated before the roof collapsed (Kuckelman et al 2002, 498).

The other twenty-three heat altered bones were not found in context with burned building material. At least eight individuals are represented by these bones and were in context with non-heat-altered bones. This suggests that specific body parts were heat altered before the final deposition. In Figure 9 below, there is an overview of which bones were burned and from the results it can be concluded that the femur and tibia are two of the most frequently burned bones. These bones are the largest in the human body and contain the most flesh for consumption (Kuckelman et

al 2002, 496-498). With most of the long bones found in the Castle Rock assemblage were burned

midshaft, it has been suggested that, the bones were covered or partially covered with flesh before they were exposed to heat (Kuckelman et al 2002, 498; Nickens 1975, 289). Three of the eight tibiae were burned on the crest area, which indicates that there was still flesh on the bone. If there is still flesh on the bone it is logical that only the shin area of the tibiae was altered by heat, because it was the only part of the bone that was exposed. Thus inferring the roasting of the tibiae for consumption. (Kuckelman et al 2002, 498; White 1992, 158).

(25)

Figure 9: Number of Elements and Fragments with Specific Characteristics in the Castle Rock Disarticulated Bone Assemblage (Kuckelman et al. 2002, 496)

3.3 Skeletal Remains found at Woods Canyon Pueblo

The assemblage at Woods Canyon Pueblo is not as profound as the assemblage found at Sand Canyon Pueblo or Castle Rock Pueblo. At this site no deliberate attempt was made to find skeletal remains, but during trial excavations a total of twenty-four isolated bones and eleven individuals were discovered. The remains of the eleven individuals were given an HRO number. The skeletal remains that were found were analyzed in situ, this was done to minimalize potential disturbance. Not a single unit was expanded or added in order to uncover more skeletal material. This resulted in six of the eleven individuals being almost completely exposed, while five others were only partially exposed (Bradley 2002, 9:1). HRO 1-10 were all found in a single kiva, this kiva will be referred to as Structure 5-S. HRO 11 was found in a test unit southwest of Structure 5-S, however this skeleton was in a very poor state of preservation due to alkaline soil conditions and root growth (Bradley 2002, 9:2).

The ten individuals found in Structure 5-S are quite interesting, because a kiva is an unusual burial place (Bradley 2002, 9:23). All ten individuals appeared to be in a good state of preservation, except for some cranial fractures that occurred postmortem. They were all found in articulation and in close proximity of each other (Bradley 2002, 9:2). Because these individuals appear to be buried at or around the same time, it gives archaeologists a unique opportunity to answer a question like “How did these people die?” or “ Did all of these individuals had the same cause of death?”.

On some bones of several individuals burn marks have been found. Burned bone is often caused by intentional human actions, however natural causes should not be excluded (Bradley 2002, 9:61). The individuals HRO 2, which represent a child, and HRO 3, which represents an adult female, have localized burning. The child has burn marks on her left wrist and the adult female on her shoulder areas (Bradley 2002, 9:62). It has been argued that these burn marks occurred naturally, because the damage to the bones was not severe enough to be caused by high-intensity burning. Therefore it has been suggested that the bodies were placed over a thermal feature that was used recently (Bradley 2002, 9:34). HRO 10 has a perimortem fracture in addition with a small burn mark on the right ulna. However, research indicated that it Is impossible to determine if the burned area was caused by low-intensity burning or postmortem staining. With nearby skeletons showing discoloration from postmortem staining, it is more likely that the discoloration was caused by the same process. It is also possible that a burned or burning beam could have fallen on the ulna, causing the fracture as well as localized burning (Bradley 2002, 9:63).

The entire assemblage of human bones at Woods Canyon Pueblo was investigated for antemortem and perimortem fractures. However, such fractures were seldom present in the

(26)

left fifth metatarsal, which is a common injury in all populations (Bradley 2002, 9:68). From the hundreds of bones in Structure 5-S less than one percent have perimortem fractures. Only four or five postcranial bones from HRO 3 and 10 have perimortem fractures. However, field research by Crow Canyon archaeologists concluded that these fractures occurred naturally, instead of intentionally (Bradley 2002, 9:69).

Thus, it can be concluded that the frequency and degree of fractures is insignificant for the Woods Canyon Pueblo assemblage. There is no indication that the perimortem fractures and the single antemortem fracture were the result of intentional human actions. This is supported by the absence of any cut marks or abrasions on the bones. Therefore, the people buried in Structure 5-S and the individual HRO 11 perished due to natural circumstances (Bradley 2002, 9:65-74).

Chapter 4: War Weaponry

4.1 War Weaponry found as Sand Canyon Pueblo

Projectile points are important, because it tells something about the degree in which hunting played a part in the subsistence economy of a Pueblo. Second, projectile points can provide information on possible violent events (Kuckelman et al. 2002, 502). A total of 109 projectile points were found during excavations at Sand Canyon Pueblo (Till and Ortman 2007, 8:156). An analysis of the material used to create these projectile points and the technique used to make these point should provide a distinction between hunting and violence.

In figure 10 in the appendix there is an overview of all the chipped-stone tools that were found at Sand Canyon Pueblo. This table includes bifaces, drills, projectile points, cores, modified cores, peckingstones, unidentified chipped stone tools, and modified flakes. Although only projectile points are interesting for the study of violence in the area, all chipped-stone tools are of importance in the analysis. Information about the origin of the used material is important to distinguish local materials from nonlocal materials. Crow Canyon archaeologists made a distinction between local materials, semilocal materials, and nonlocal materials. From the 109 projectile points found at Sand Canyon Pueblo, 69 were made from local materials, while 40 were made from either semilocal, nonlocal or unidentifiable materials (Till and Ortman 2007, 8:165). Five distinguishable nonlocal projectile points are being described in figure 11 below. This image states that four of the five projectile points were found in association with violence and find their origin either from Numic-speaking people (southern Great Basin), Fremont people or Virgin Anasazi (Southeastern

(27)

Canyon inhabitants. Almost 40 percent of all the projectile points date between the Archaic till the Pueblo II periods, suggesting that they collected and hoarded projectile points (Till and Ortman 2007, 8:162). However, the evidence of violence on structures and skeletal remains in association with foreign projectile points make that unlikely.

Figure 11: An overview of the five nonlocal projectile points found at Sand Canyon Pueblo (Till and Ortman 2007)

The occurrence and distribution of axes and mauls are important because, like projectile points, these artifacts could have been used as weapons (Till and Ortman 2007, 8:192). The entire catalogue of any excavation from Crow Canyon Archaeologists is based on the definition of

Woodbury. Woodbury (1954) reviewed ethnographic data on traditional uses of axes and mauls and found that those used as weapons were relatively small, well balanced, and lightweight. However, axes and mauls were primarily used for wood chopping, field clearing, and stone quarrying and shaping (Till and Ortman 2007, 8:193; Woodbury 1954, 5-8).

Mills (1987) created replication experiments for axes in order to compare use-wear analysis with axes found at Sand Canyon Pueblo. Mills stated that the majority of the axes that were found at the site were used for land-clearing purposes. Mills’s observations in combination with reanalysis of weight, size, balance, and bit-edge attributes, it was possible to derive a couple basic functions for Sand Canyon Pueblo axes: wood cutting, land clearing, and weaponry. In some cases, a given axe has multiple functions. Mauls, on the other hand, were generally used for either stone working or vegetal processing. According to Woodbury’s definition of a weapon, the weight and balance may suggest that some mauls were used as weapons (Till and Ortman 2007, 8:194).

(28)

A total amount of 127 axes and mauls were recovered and 92 appear to be in a complete or almost complete condition (Till and Ortman 2007, 8:195-197). Information for axes and mauls that are almost complete or complete can be obtained from figure 12+13 and table 3in the appendix. From figure 12+13 the material type, weight, size, and balance can be derived, and in table 3 the use-wear analysis and interpretation of each axe and maul is being described. Out of the 92 axes, 35 match the description given by Woodbury. However, use-wear analysis indicates that at least 27 of the 35 possible weapons had another primary function. Thus, only the definition from Woodbury is insufficient to label an axe or maul as a weapon. Therefore, it is important to consider the context in which the axes and mauls were found. For example, in Kiva 208 alone 16 single-bitted axes were recovered as well as a single double-bitted axe. These axes were found on the structure’s floor, bench, and in collapsed roof deposits. A cluster of 13 axes was found on the floor and 3 of these axes (PD 269, FS 25, PL 107 ; PD 269, FS 26, PL 105 ; and PD 289, FS 1, PL 2) can be described as possible weapons. However, use-wear analysis indicates that these axes were used primarily for woodcutting (Till and Ortman 2007, 8:195-198)

Other examples of possible weapons include an axe (PD 288, FS 238, PL 165) that was found in kiva 501. This axe was found in the same layer and in close proximity of HRO 14 (Human Remain Occurrence). HRO 14 contains the remains of an individual with evidence of heal alteration. The use-wear analysis concludes that this axe might have been used for stone-working, but it still fits the criteria of a weapon. Besides, other axes matching the required criteria were found in the same layer (Till and Ortman 2007, 8:199). In kiva 102 ten axes were found without any form of clustering and seven of them match the criteria suggested by Woodbury. In addition the disarticulated remains of at least one individual were found on the same kiva floor (Till and Ortman 2007, 8:200). A maul was recovered from Room 1001 with the weight and balance required to be a potential weapon. Just below and adjacent to this artifact the skeletal remains of HRO 20 and 21 were found in

abandonment context (Till and Ortman 2007, 8:201). Thus, additional information is of importance when interpretation are made for these artifacts, because the axes and mauls in association with skeletal remains found in abandonment context are more likely to have been used as weapons.

4.2 War Weaponry found at Castle Rock Pueblo

The material evidence at Castle Rock Pueblo is less abundant than the assemblage from Sand Canyon Pueblo. A total of 73 projectile points were recovered from the site. There is an overview of all the projectile points in figure 14 below in which the following information can be derived: The amount of each type of projectile point along with the material used to create this point. The type of material used is further classified to local, semilocal, nonlocal, and unknown material. From this table you can conclude that there are a total of 5 nonlocal projectile points with only one identifiable to a specific

(29)

southeastern Utah. This projectile point on itself does not necessarily indicate violence, it is merely an indication of interaction with communities from southeastern Utah (Ortman 2000, 8:101). However, the fact that this point was found in abandonment context suggests that it was brought to Castle Rock somewhere at the end of its occupation. Whether that was by attackers or through peaceful means remains to be seen (Ortman 2000, 8:184)

Figure 14: An overview of projectile points from Castle Rock Pueblo (Ortman 2000)

An unusually high concentration of projectile points were found in Structure 302 and 304. These structures are located at the base on the north side of the butte which was the only access point to reach the top. When under attack the butte would have been a strong defensive location and presumably the last line of defense. Giving a possible explanation on why there is a high

concentration of projectile points present in these structures. The theory that this stash was there in case of an emergency is strengthened by the presence of human skeletal remains in abandonment context in these structures (Ortman 2000, 8:168).

Relatively few axes and mauls were found at Castle Rock Pueblo. A total of 16 axes were found at the site and are being described in table 4 in the appendix. The information that can be derived from this table is the material used to make the axe or maul, the size, the weight, use-wear analysis, and interpretations. Only a small amount of these axes and mauls appear to be in a relative complete condition. After analyzing them based on Woodbury’s definition only a single axe (544 PD,

(30)

FS 13) appears to match the required criteria for a weapon (Ortman 2000, 8:118-121). Because only a handful of complete axes were found, the following question was raised: “Why are there so few axes and mauls present at Castle Rock?” A possible explanation for this phenomena is that that all usable axes and mauls have been taken by the inhabitants when abandoning the village, they were collected by attackers as spoils, or scavenged by people that stumbled upon an abandoned village (Ortman 2000, 8:120).

4.3 War Weaponry found at Woods Canyon Pueblo

The entire assemblage from Woods Canyon Pueblo has a total of 33 projectile points ( see figure 15 below). In this table the type of materials used for the projectile points as well as the types of projectile points are being mentioned. Three small side-notched points were made from nonlocal materials, including obsidian and red jasper. However, none of the exotic projectile points are distinctive, thus their origin remains unknown. Therefore, it is difficult to determine how these artifacts ended up at the site (Ortman 2002, 6:112-114).

Figure 15: An overview of projectile points from Woods Canyon Pueblo (Ortman 2002)

A total of 8 axes and mauls found at the site could possibly shed some light on activities from Woods Canyon Pueblo. There is an overview of these axes and mauls in figure 16+17 in which the following information can be derived: material used to make the axe/maul, the size, the weight, use-wear analysis, and interpretations. Most of the axes appear to be in a complete state, thus analysis should be possible. However, half of the axes have not been interpret by Crow Canyon archaeologists. Only one maul (PD 198, FS 18) has been interpret as a weapon. This maul fits

Woodbury’s description as a spherical, grooved maul that was fastened to leather thongs and used as a weapon (Ortman 2002, 6:121; Woodbury 1954, 45). Another axe (PD 128, FS 20) also fits the

(31)

description of Woodbury, however Crow Canyon archaeologists consider this artifact to be too small to be classified as a weapon (Ortman 2002, 6:122).

The assemblage is far from complete in comparison with Sand Canyon Pueblo and Castle Rock Pueblo. Therefore, any conclusions based on the current assemblage from the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center should be seen as inconclusive. The reason for the axes and mauls to have not been interpret is unknown. Possibly due to the fact that they are all made from local materials.

Chapter 5: Discussion

5.1 How reliable is Settlement Data as an indicator for Violence

Table 5: An overview of settlement data for Sand Canyon Pueblo, Castle Rock Pueblo, and Woods Canyon Pueblo. P stands for present, A for absent.

Settlement Data Sand Canyon Pueblo Castle Rock Pueblo Woods Canyon Pueblo

Defensive location P P P

Enclosing Walls P P P

Towers P P P

(32)

Tunnels A A A

Burned Structures P A A

Setlement data relies on the presence or absence of defensive architecture. Namely enclosing walls, towers, loopholes and tunnels are seen as defensive measurements by Palonka In the table above there is a quick overview of the discussed settlement data stating if these are present or absent for Sand Canyon Pueblo, Castle Rock Pueblo, and Woods Canyon Pueblo. Based on settlement data Woods Canyon Pueblo and Castle Rock Pueblo are practically the same in terms of having the same features. Castle Rock Pueblo was home to approximately 75 to 150 residents while Woods Canyon Pueblo has an estimate population of 180 to 300 residents. Therefore, Woods Canyon Pueblo was a larger settlement and this is visible in the amount of structures present at the site. There are significant more towers present at Woods Canyon (N=16) in comparison with Castle Rock (N=9), suggesting that there is a correlation between the amount of towers and population density (Churchill 2002, 2; Kuckelman 2000, 1:1). However, the correlation between towers and population density is contradicted by Sand Canyon Pueblo. In Sand Canyon there were a total of 14 towers constructed (Kuckelman 2007, 1;1). Therefore, Woods Canyon Pueblo has the most towers from the three sites, while Sand Canyon has the largest population (400 to 600 residents). Thus, there appears to be no correlation between population density and towers. If Johnson’s (2003) hypotheses would be correct and towers were constructed for resource monitoring, then there should be more towers present in a village with a larger population, because these villages would require more resources. It is possible that Woods Canyon Pueblo has more towers, because the village was built partially on the canyon bottom and partially on the slope. Therefore, it could have required more towers in order to maximize visibility, however placement of the towers suggest otherwise.

All three sites have enclosing walls, but none of the sites is fully enclosed (Palonka 2011, 43-46). Only at Sand Canyon Pueblo the locations of the enclosing walls appear to have been specifically chosen in relation to natural features (Kenzle 1997, 200-201). Whereas Castle Rock and Woods Canyon have enclosing walls, but there is no evidence to suggest spatial organization. Therefore, it can be argued that the enclosing walls at Sand Canyon Pueblo were built for defensive purposes, whereas the walls at Woods Canyon and Castle Rock served primarily as sociophysical boundaries.

The first five features that are being listed in the table above, do not necessarily suggest that violence occurred. These features can be seen as a precaution, meaning that the inhabitants of these villages experienced violence in the past. Therefore, settlement data is merely an indicator for the level of threat present in the Pueblo III period and do not reflect a violent event. The last feature, structural building, is the only indication based on settlement data that violence occurred at a site.

(33)

However, the exact reason of structural burning is unknown as it could have been burned down intentionally by humans or due to natural events such as lightning.

With the above in consideration, settlement data as an indicator is reliable when a site is fully excavated. Settlement data, without other indicators for violence, is a fragile concept in which conclusions should be seen as inconclusive.

5.2 Injuries in Skeletal Remains as an indicator for violence?

Table 6: An overview of skeletal remains for Sand Canyon Pueblo, Castle Rock Pueblo, and Woods Canyon Pueblo. P stands for present, A for absent.

Skeletal Remains Sand Canyon Pueblo Castle Rock Pueblo Woods Canyon Pueblo Perimortem Fractures P P A Abrasion and/or cut marks P P A Intentional Burning P P A Abandonment Context P P A

When preserved, skeletal remains can tell archaeologists a considerable amount of information about what happened at the time of death. In order for skeletal remains to preserve the environmental conditions must be perfect (White and Folkens 2005, 52). Differences in soil conditions can result in differential destruction of the skeletal remains, even within a single burial. In general, skeletal

remains do preserve best in well-drained areas with low water tables, in soils with a neutral or slightly alkaline pH, and in temperate areas (Henderson 1987, 51-52). Even though the American Southwest has low-water tables and a temperate climate, it is still possible for skeletal remains to decay or to be scavenged by wild animals. Therefore, skeletal remains are not always present within the

archaeological record.

There is an overview of discussed features from chapter 3 in the table above. Perimortem fractures, abrasion and/or cutmarks, intentional burning, and skeletal remains found in abandonment context have been included. Based on the evidence, at Sand Canyon Pueblo and Castle Rock Pueblo all features appear to be present, while there is a clear absence of injuries in skeletal remains at Woods Canyon Pueblo.

The disposition in which the skeletal remains are found is often the first indication if an individual died due to unnatural circumstances. A distinction is made between a formal burial and skeletal remains in abandonment context. The presence of formal burials suggests that Native Americans cared for their deceased community/family members, thus the skeletal remains found in abandonment context are interesting for the study of violence. These individuals were either left behind intentionally or forcefully.

(34)

After the first observation, further analysis of burned bone, abrasion/cut marks and fractures is necessary in order to understand how these individuals perished. Perimortem fractures occurred at or around the time of death. Skull fractures and ulna/radius fractures are of importance when analyzing violence, since these are the bones on which trauma would most frequently occur (Cole 2012, 198). The head is the best target to take someone out, while the defender is most likely to defend himself, causing the attacker to hit the forearm. These fractures do occur numerous times in both Sand Canyon Pueblo and Castle Rock Pueblo and were found on individuals in abandonment context, suggesting that these individuals were the victim of violence. Fractures are not always present in the assemblage, therefore abrasion and cut marks can provide information about violence as well. These marks are easily distinguishable from predator marks and therefore a good indication for violence. In association with burned bone, it can be suggested that these bones were cooked for consumption (White 1992, 158) Burning of the bone can occur naturally or intentionally and making a distinction is often difficult. The burned bones from both sites are often associated with

dismemberment limbs, positively linking the burned bone to violence, more specifically to

cannibalism. In conclusion, skeletal remains as material evidence is probably the most reliable source of information in the Sand Canyon locality, since it directly suggest that violence occurred.

5.3 How reliable is war weaponry as an indicator for violence?

Table 7: An overview of nonlocal weaponry for Sand Canyon Pueblo, Castle Rock Pueblo, and Woods Canyon Pueblo. P stands for present, A for absent.

War Weaponry Sand Canyon Pueblo Castle Rock Pueblo Woods Canyon Pueblo Nonlocal projectile

points

P P P

Nonlocal

axes/mauls P P A

In chapter 4 war weaponry has been discussed. The most prominent evidence for weapons is in the form of artifacts made from nonlocal materials. Local materials should be excluded, due to the fact that artifacts such as projectile points, axes, and mauls most likely had a different primary function. These local artifacts could have been as weapons, but the information derived from these artifacts is less convincing than that of nonlocal artifacts. Therefore, nonlocal materials found at a site are far more interesting and there is a simple overview in the table above, in which information about nonlocal projectile points or axes/mauls for each site can be derived.

(35)

The conclusions made from Crow Canyon archaeologists are inconclusive and flaws in their research have been made. In the reports for Sand Canyon Pueblo and Castle Rock Pueblo, there are nonlocal axes and mauls found that are being described as “igneous” material. The only igneous material that is being mentioned is obsidian. Thus, I assume that these axes and mauls are made from obsidian, which is one of the sharpest materials. Moreover, the two axes from igneous origin found at Sand Canyon Pueblo match Woodbury’s description of a weapon. Thus, the question is: Did these artifacts end up at the site due to trade, were they gathered by inhabitants, or were they brought there by attackers?

All of the three major sites have nonlocal projectile points. This is likely due to the fact that they hoarded and collected projectile points from their travels, as it is difficult to conclude from which period the nonlocal projectile points date. Luckily, the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center did enough research and all three sites do have nonlocal projectile points that were created in the Pueblo III period. Raising the same questions as with the nonlocal axes and mauls. Thus, war weaponry is an interesting concept as an indicator for violence, however the material evidence raises more questions than it provides archaeologists with answers. Especially since it is impossible to determine which artifacts have been used as weapons

Chapter 6: Conclusion

6.1 Restating research aim and research question

I started of my thesis pursuing conflict in the American Southwest, trying to gain more knowledge as to when is it warfare or when is it violence. Hence, when I stumbled on inaccuracies between

interpretations of the terms warfare and violence with potential biased conclusions. I came upon the Sand Canyon locality, because research has been done by the same institute; Crow Canyon

Archaeological Center. This limited potential bias, because the same researchers were involved, therefore if bias was present, the same miscalculations would presumably be made . With the risks minimalized I formulated the following research question:

Which material evidence in the Sand Canyon locality suggests that the Pueblo III period is characterized by a period of increased violence?

My research aim was to re-examine previous research in the American Southwest and re-analyze material evidence associated with violence. In my approach I used the most reliable sources of material evidence as stated by Lambert for violence, namely settlement data, injuries in skeletal

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

To complement the boring program, three stratigraphie sections have been studied. These include the main Middle and Late Weichselian sequence preserved in a section on the

Confronted with the variety in data types (both variables and instruments) used in research in mental health organ- izations, the question arises if this lack of uniformity results

In 1972 the social anthropologist Anthony Forge suggested from ethnographic studies that villages tend to fission at a size of circa 150 people to sustain a face-to-face form of

Nutrition in agricultural development: Land seulement in Coast Province, Kenya. The Gede

The law of increasing marginal costs affects players with more than one link and therefore the costs in a network with lines with higher length will become larger

Model hypothesis 1: Self-efficacy will mediate the effect of transformational leadership on task pride of employees.. As hubris in CEOs arise, because they overestimate their

Temperature distribution in the gas phase (left side of the figure), liquid phenol mass fraction in the particles and phenol vapor mass fraction in the gas phase (right side of

mal fauna from Unit IV. The occurrence of these species and the complete absence of species which prefer cold climatic conditions stress the interglacial character of the