In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Preface In order to qualify as historical, an event must be susceptible to at least two narratives of its occurrence. Unless at least two versions of the same set of events can be imagined, there is no reason for the historian to take upon him [her] self the authority of giving a true account of what really happened.-Hayden White (1987:20) This book is a historical account of a major archaeological project and the intellectual debates it engendered. The University of Arizona Archaeological Field School at Grasshopper-a five-hundred-room Mogollon Pueblo on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation, Arizona, that was occupied during the A.D. 1300s-was more than just a research and training institution that spanned thirty years, although its achievements as such were important enough. The Field School provides an extraordinary window into a changing American archaeology and three different archaeological research programs as they confronted the same sprawling , masonry ruin. Like the enigmatic Mogollon culture it sought to explore , Grasshopper research has spawned decades of controversy and debate among archaeologists of the American Southwest. An intellectual history of Grasshopper research provides a framework for addressing larger issues in the growth and development of southwestern archaeology . We have several objectives in writing this history. One is to synthesize and complete the progress reports of Thompson and Longacre (1966) and Longacre and Reid (1974) that chronicle each season's work from 1963 through 1973. We summarize their presentations and add our synopsis of the final nineteen years. sketches provide a sense of pace xiii and personnel that begins to situate the research within the shifting realities of academic archaeology. We avoid the hackneyed histories of archaeology as the thrill of discovery, the challenge of the unknown, and the romance of the exotic. Instead, we seek to paint a realistic picture of academic archaeology's intellectual debates and personal animosities (Snead 2001). In this regard, as well as in format and narrative style, we follow Richard Woodbury's excellent lead in Sixty Years ofSouthwestern Archaeology: A History ofthe Pecos Conference (1993). Despite the importance of archaeologists to our story, we record little of their personal histories. Although the research history of Grasshopper is also a social history-the men and women who joined together every summer were crucial research components, and their personalities and foibles defined in many ways our purpose and methods-their stories must be told in another narrative. A second objective is to chronicle the research questions, methods, theories, and concepts that characterized fieldwork at Grasshopper from 1963 through 1992. We do this to make sense of the intellectual shifts from culture history, to processual archaeology, and then to behavioral archaeology, as each body of questions, concepts, and procedures sought to understand the same archaeological record. We offer our evaluation of these three conceptual schemes' performance in understanding ancient life at Grasshopper. A third objective is to continue telling the stories of the singular place that is Grasshopper. Grasshopper is a layered landscape that records the lives of prehistoric Mogollon and Anasazi people, the historical Western Apache who came to live in this mountain homeland after the puebloans abandoned it, and the twentieth-century archaeologists who came to reconstruct and explain the past. Grasshopper is defined by those who lived there and by the material residue of their presence, yet its significance will only be realized when the stories of the Mogollon, the Western Apache, and the archaeologists are told. We have tried to present something of the lives of the ancient Mogollon in the book Grasshopper Pueblo: A Story of Archaeology and Ancient Life (Reid and Whittlesey 1999). This book offers a synthesis of everything we know about the people who actually lived at Grasshopper Pueblo and their relations with other communities in the before the mountains were abandoned forever by Pueblo people around A.D. 1400. It might reasonably be labeled a paleoethnography of a mountain pueblo accentuated at regular intervals by anecdotes about archaeology, archaeologists, and the Cibecue Apache. We wrote it as a summary of thirty years of fieldwork that would be understandable and interesting to xiv Preface the widest possible audience. We especially wanted the Cibecue Apache to know what we had learned about ancient life, and we assigned all royalties from the book to them. Keith Basso has discussed the lives, landscape, and history of the Western Apache people in numerous publications. Although we do not pretend to add to this scholarly library of the Western Apache, we...


Additional Information

Related ISBN
MARC Record
Launched on MUSE
Open Access
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.