The Archaeology of Regional Interaction: Religion, Warfare, and Exchange across the American Southwest and Beyond

14: Prehistoric Movements of Northern Uto-Aztecan Peoples along the Northwestern Edge of the Southwest

295 14 PREHISTORIC MOVEMENTS OF NORTHERN UTO-AZTECAN PEOPLES ALONG THE NORTHWESTERN EDGE OF THE SOUTHWEST IMPACT ON SOUTHWESTERN POPULATIONS Mark Q. Sutton There are at least three well-known archaeological truths regarding the northern San Juan region of the American Southwest between A.D. 750 and the present: (1) At some time and from somewhere the Hopi language must have moved into northern Arizona, since that language is classified within Northern Uto–Aztecan and is related to the languages spoken by hunter-gatherers in California and the Great Basin; (2) just before ca. A.D. 1300 much of the northern San Juan region was abandoned1 by Puebloan groups; and (3) after ca. A.D. 1300 the Southern Paiute and Ute (and Navajo) occupied that region. Whereas the circumstances and implications of the Hopi language origin are usually ignored, several scenarios and models have been proposed to explain the abandonment of the northern San Juan region—typically including the impact of climatic change, internal population pressures, and changing political conditions. The third situation is often explained simply by hunter-gatherers moving into areas abandoned by Puebloan groups. The movement of nonsouthwestern peoples into the northern San Juan region as a causal factor rather than just a consequence of the Puebloan abandonment is rarely considered seriously. We know human populations moved about in the prehistoric Southwest , and although migration is not the only possible (or even a particularly popular) explanation for linguistic change, it must be considered. In the prehistoric Southwest, various population movements have been 296 Archaeology of Regional Interaction documented (e.g., Cameron 1995; Haury 1958; Jett 1964; Kohler 1993; Lekson and Cameron 1995; Stark et al. 1995; Zedeño 1994). Although much argument occurs over the merit of such models (e.g., the origin and demise of the Fremont; see Marwitt 1986; also discussed in this chapter), at least some population movements were clearly real (e.g., Athapaskan peoples) and did impact in situ southwestern groups. The trick is to detect and demonstrate prehistoric population movements (as opposed to just the spread of languages), their origins, and their effects. This is no simple task, and it requires the development of varied data sets, including linguistic, archaeological, biological, anthropological , ethnohistoric, and historical (written and oral) records (Anthony 1990; Dumond 1987; Harding 1974: 8; Rouse 1958, 1986; Snow 1995; Sutton 1991). The larger the suite of data sets that can be brought to bear on a problem, the more convincing the case that can be made. It is also possible, and even probable in some cases, that language spreads can look just like migrations (e.g., Hill 1996; Shaul 1986). Great caution must be exercised so as not to accept migration too quickly as the explanation for cultural or language change. One factor that inhibits an objective evaluation of population movements along the northern edge of the Southwest is the seemingly preconceived notion that hunter-gatherers lack the ability to displace agriculturalists. Many archaeologists have discounted suggestions that band-level societies could have forcibly displaced the large, sedentary Puebloan populations, arguing that the Athapaskans came into the Southwest too late and that the Great Basin Shoshoneans (the Numic) were incapable of such displacement (e.g., Rohn 1989: 169). This latter view is based in part on the argument that “nomadic” groups would be too small and dispersed to challenge sedentary populations militarily (Linton 1944), as well as on the view that Numic groups did not generally use military force (Manners 1974: 192; Steward 1938: 185, 238). I do not believe either of these assumptions is correct. First, mobile hunter-gatherers (read guerrilla) groups can very effectively raid fixed (read agricultural) targets, and they are difficult to raid in return (Gladwin 1957: 217; Jett 1964: 290–295; Upham 1994: 151-152). Second, considerable ethno-historical evidence suggests that Numic groups did practice warfare as a mechanism of territorial expansion (Sutton 1986). In addition, the old view that Puebloan groups were “peaceful farmers” and that violence and warfare were rare is beginning to be dispelled (e.g., Haas and Creamer 1993; LeBlanc, Chapter 3, this volume; Lipe 1995: 156–158; Turner et al. 1993; Wilcox and Haas 1994). 297 Prehistoric Movements of Northern Uto-Aztecan Peoples It is recognized that indigenous southwestern “Archaic” huntergatherers and “Formative” agriculturalists coexisted for a long time (since ca. 1000 B.C.) and that interaction between these groups has a long history . What is not...