A HISTORY

OF THE

VIVIAN ARCHIVES

and

RECOMMENDATIONS

for ORGANIZATION

Thomas C. Windes

Branch of Cultural Research

P.O. Box 728

Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504

November 1986

LARRY

1

A SHORT HISTORY OF THE "VIVIAN ARCHIVES"

A collection of manuscripts, field notes and catalogs, photographs, student

papers, galley proofs, copies of government memos and letters, etc. designated

the Vivian Archives has long been thought to represent the personal papers of R.

Gordon Vivian, Chief of Stabilization for the National Park Service from about

1940 until his death in about 1960. The collection now numbers approximately

2185 lots of material. Material ceased to be put into the system on the orders

of Tom Windes in about 1981 when it became apparent that systematic organization

and guidelines for the materials were needed. Since then, the Vivian Archives

has lain dormant while papers continue to pile up needing inclusion into some

kind of organized system. This paper intends to address this problem, the

history of the archives, and the range of materials within in the general

archives needing organization.

The Orgins of the Vivian Archives

The earliest that some of these materials can be traced at this time is to

Chaco Culture National Historic Park in 1968. There, Seasonal Ranger Randal

Morrison (personal communicat ion, 11 October 1986) recollects that about "two

drawers" worth of papers and notes, primarily copies of correspondence and other

federal records were boxed and stored, which later he worked on in 1972 for the

N.P.S. in Tucson at the insistance of Tom Mathews. During the interlude, the

new superintendent, Richard Hardin, must have sent the material to the

Southwestern Archeological Center (N.P.S.) in Globe, Arizona, which moved its

quarters to Tucson in about 1970. Apparently this material remained boxed until

Tom Mathews decided it needed inventorying because of the perceived danger that

2

the Chief of SWAC, Douglas Scoville, was going to have it and other old federal

files thrown out (Randal Morrison, p.c., 11 October 1986). Tom Mathews (p.c., 4

November 1986), however, believes that the material at the park might have been

part of the traveling refe rence collection on various sites carried about by the

staff of the Ruins Stabilization Unit (Gordon Vivian and Roland Richert).

Morrison numbered each lot of material for Mathews except for those unrelated to

Chaco.

Tom Mathews, the first curator of the Chaco Center (1972-1979), however,

remembers old Chacoan files at SWAC in the 1960s, which could not have been that

sent from Chaco in about 1970 (Mathews to Dave Brugge, p.c., 29 September

1986). The original inventory of files (Lots 0-1316) he remembers as being the

files of Gordon Vivian at SWAC (Globe) that were kept in the vault by Richert

after Gordon's death in 1966 and later moved to the Albuquerque office in the

Fall of 1972. Many of these Vivian files apparently were obtained by Gordon

from Paul Reiter (~Yhich covered Paul' s ~york with the School of American Research

and the W.P.A.) as well as other sources (Mathews, p.c., 4 November 1986). Both

Mathews and Morrison believed that the materials had little internal

organization and that it remained just as they recovered and numbered it.

Tom Mathews took the job of Curator with the Chaco Center in July 1972 and

in the fall of that year, he, Tommy Fulgham, and Chief of the Chaco Center (then

called the New Mexico Archeological Center), Robert Lister, traveled to Tucson

in a U-Haul truck to collect all the papers and artifacts related to Chaco that

were housed at SWAC (AI Hayes, p.c. Oct 1986; Tom Mathe~ys, p.c. 4 November 1986;

Tom Windes, personal recollection).

When the collection came to the Chaco Center, Natalie Pattison, Archives

Technician, took over its maintenance. Much of the material was unnumbered and

she was forced to go back into the collection and assign numbers, breaking

3

lorrison's numbering sequence (Pattison, p.c., 15 ,October 1986). In addition,

1any lots of material were R.S.U. maps that were stored in separate drawers,

also breaking the numerical sequence in the archive files. Morrison call ed the

files a "disorganized mess", a feeling also expressed by Natalie Pattison. A

total of 1316 lots of material were assigned to this initial hatch of material

from SWAC, (Pattison, p.c., 31 October 1986 ) and these were listed in a folder

labeled the "Inventory of Documents in Vivian Archives" by Morrison.

The initial collection seems certain to have been part of the file records

of Gordon Vivian and others, collected as N.P.S. employees during their work in

Chaco and elsewhere in the Southwest, and left at Chaco and SWAC when Vivian

died. The remainder were collected evidently from a myriad of sources. In all

respects, these are like the files kept by all the archaeological staff, both

past and present, of any organization, including the Chaco Project.

The Growth of the Vivian Archives

Since the initial shipment, archaeologists at the Center continued to

collect documents and records wherever they could be found, as noted above, so

there was a steady accumulation of materials to the archives. However,

accord ing to Pattison (p.c., 31 October 1986) records continued to arrive from

SWAC and other sources every time one of the staff visited the Globe, and later

the Tucson, offices.

Pattison had a small grant to actively pursue documents throughout the

country. All of the senior staff were old Chaco field hands, so that contact

with former colleagues also brought in quan tities of mat erials (e.g., Dorothy

Luhrs' notes). Mathews (p. c ., 4 November 1986) remembers that much of the old

doc umentatio n was obtained from the UNM Department of Anthropology, which

cleaned out their files of Chacoan notes in the early 1970s for Tom Lyons, the

4

first head of the Chaco Cent e r, and Robert Lister. Many of the UNM faculty were

f ormer membe rs of the Chaco research crews (e.g., Florence Hawley Ellis and

Frank Hibben, both professor emeritus, and W.W. Hill and Stanley Newman?). It

must be r ememb e r ed t hat both Nathews and Hayes came from the SWAC of fic e and

probably also had files of their own related to Chacoan work. These all were

added and numbered as they arrived, without regard to content, by Pattison under

the direction of Mathews. The junior staff also added many copies and reprints

ga thered during research forays to institutions holding Chacoan materials.

Gordon Vivian's son, Gwinn, also contributed a number of documents after about

1977 that related to work done by both family members. The expressed intent for

all the material was to gather it for on-going research of Chaco Canyon--the

Center's primary goal and the reason for which it was established.

In addition to Chaco-related material, the archives also attracted numerous

records totally unrelated to Chaco. Additions are quite simple to understand,

for I have been guilty of these additions myself. Generally, every staff

a rchaeologist, including Vivian, had prior commitments to projects worked on in

other parks. For instance, among other things, Hayes brought his Gran Quivira,

Wethe rill Mesa, and Pecos materials along because he was still actively involved

with their project completion. Nathews brought along his faunal records and

ma terials sent him for species identification from allover the Southwest. He

a lso had taken charge of Lyndon Hargrave's bird records. Materials from all

these projects traveled with the responsible archaeologist until he completed

their write-up or until retirement--often the latter. The documentation on

these was simply left here as the best solution for safekeeping, rather than

ship them off to the parks that generally had inadequate facilities for archival

care. I housed materials (printouts, photos, and artifacts) from the Coal

5

Gasification Project here because I worked in the Chaco Center while writing the

r eport for O.C.A. and because the Office of Contract Archaeology (U.N.M.), under

Frank Broilo, expressed a desire not to house the materials. Other oddities

also joined the archives, depending on the whilm of the individual staff.

MCKenna's manuscript on site 1360 found its way into the files, for instance, as

did a rare published monograph by Mera on Rio Grande pottery because of danger

of theft from the library shelf. In short, the archive contains much material,

bo th numbered and unnumbered, that had little to do with the intent and mission

of the Chaco Center. Thus, a steady accumulation of old Chaco and non-Chaco

files, identical in character to the first files, were added sequentially to the

"Vivian Archives" as the material arrived.

The Name

The Vivian Archives have been thought by many (including myself) as the

personal records of a leading historical figure of Chacoan archaeology, Gordon

Vivian. This misunderstanding derived primarily from the name attached to the

records in the archives; a name given to the repository before the initial

"Vivian Archives" material was collected from Tucson. Mathews (p.c., 4 November

1986) believes that Robert Lister named the repository because the name was

already on the archive room when Mathews arrived in 1972. Mathews said that the

Vivian material was known as the "Vivian files" in Arizona but did not have an

official name until it was placed in the Vivian Archives at the Chaco Center.

From the first, the Vivian Archives denoted all the file material gathered by

the Chaco Center staff, although much of it is kept in separate files because of

the nature of the information (e. g ., maps, Pattison's r e cords on the whole pots

in museums allover the country, etc.). The files contain the materials of

.-" '. ' ' 'I' -

6

several notable Chaco hands, including such historic figures as John Corbett

(who set up the Chaco Center), Florence Hawl e y Ellis, Paul Reiter, Gordon

Vivian, and more r ece nt figures, but no less important, such as Al Hayes, Dave

Brugge , and many of the other great and lesser names in archaeology that got

their start in Chaco Canyon (many with UNM). Thus, the collections represent a

myriad of papers on the archaeology of Chaco (and other things) by an incredible

number of people. None of it can be said to reflect the personal life or career

of an individual, other than that gleamed from memos, etc. produced in the

course of their jobs. Mathews (p.c. 4 November 1986) said that much of the

original correspondence of Gordon Vivian and others in his association went to

the Federal records Center in Denver in the 1960s. In the case of Corbett and

Hawley, their donations included many books that ended up on the library

shelves, but their material was usually stamped with their names. As an

addition'al footnote, for example, Mathews (p.c., 4 November 1986) said that the

AMNH negatives housed in the archives were given to Gordon Vivian by Frank

McNit t.

In the final analysis, according to the Museum Handbook, Part II (Sept

1984), the "Vivian Archives" is part of a repository's name rather than the name

of "a group of documentary materials having a single theme, person, event or

type of document, or having a common source".

What kind of collection is the Vivian Archives?

The care and cataloging of an archive collection depends on the type of

collec tion that it is. The N.P.S. recognizes two types of collections, neithe r

which precisely fits the Vivian Archives (see the Museum Handbook, Part II, D-3

I I and D-4, and N.P.S. 28, Chapter 8, Page 4). ! I 1

7

Organic Collections are those "which the individual items have a

systematic, developmental relationship to one another. Documents in an organic

collection are amassed in a natural fashion over time as a result of the

day-to-day activities of an individual, a group of individuals, or an

ins t it ut ion" •

An organic collection may be of two types (N.P.S. 28:8:4): 1) "An archival

collection contains the noncurrent records of an organization or institution

which are preserved for their historical value," and 2) "A personal papers

collection contain the private documents naturally accumulated (as opposed to

actively collected) by an individual or a family." N.P.S. 28 is explicit in

stating that "few true archival collections exist", and gives the Edison

Laboratory records as an example of one of the rare true collections.

Inorganic Collections are "made up of individual documents or groups of

documents that are gathered together from various sources by a collector. The

documents are unrelated to one another except that they may fit into the same

general subject area'or they may be the same type of document."

The Vivian Archives are both. The memos, letters, etc. that illuminate the

arena in which Gordon Vivian worked certainly reflect the "day-to-day activities

of a group of individuals or an institution" (e.g., the N.P.S.). Vivian's

papers, however, were not "private" documents, but they could be considered

partly institutional. This has implications for those files kept by the present

staff members of the former Chaco Project, to which I will return to later. On

the other hand, the great bulk of the material are "unrelated documents or

groups of documents gathered together by a collector," or in this case a number

of collectors, that fit the same theme (Chaco archaeology) or are similar types

of documents (field records). The Museum Handbook (1985:D-5) is very specific

on how "large non-organic collections of unrelated manuscripts" should be

handled. "There will be a temptation to use lot c"ataloging," but this

"procedure may be used only if adequa te description and accountability

information is available for each individual manuscript within the

collection"--info rma tion that is not possible to obtain for the Vivian

Archives.

8

Thus, in the final analysis, the Vivian Archives fits the definition of an

Inorganic Collection far better than an Organic Collection, although there are

bits and pieces that could be gathered to make a personal papers collection.

In reality, the Vivian Archives is a collection of "Scientific Research Records"

as defined by N.P.S. 28 (1985:8:5), although the manual does not state whether

these are one or the other type of collection defined above, or whether it is

yet another type of collection.

Alternatives to handling the Vivian Archives

The archives are enormously complex in the type of materials and subject

matters covered. The mater ial cross-cuts all other organization subsets of the

overall archives. That is, it contains, for instance, photos and negatives that

could be housed with the photo archives, books that could be put with other

library matte r, manuscripts that could be put with other Chacoan manuscripts,

and site records that could be filed with the other site records. Some of the

alternatives to handling this ma terial have been discussed with other members of

the staff (both UNM's and NPS's):

1) Leave it all in its original sequence.

2 ) Leave the "initial" ma terial (Lot s 0-131fi) as organized, but reorganize

the remainder (a f t e r Lo t #1316).

3) Reorganize the entire lot of material.

9

The problem actually transcends just the numbered material in the Vivian

Archives. It relates to a governing policy for the entire collections that are

now at the former Center, as well as those future collections still held by

membe r s and former memb e rs of the Chaco Project. Does the first priority go to

the individuals that generated the material or does it go with the direction and

the intent of the institution that was responsible for its collection in the

first place? We generally seem to have no problem with housing artifacts that

relate to a particular archaeological project without separating them under the

names of the archaeologists who recovered them, but with the papers that relate

to the artifacts it can be different. There has been an endless parade of

archaeologists involved with creating the Chaco material. It seems to me that

there is little reas·on at this stage to treat the materials of the older

generations different from those still around. The premire reason for all the

Chaco work was for research--as true today as it was in the 1890s. This

research is ongoing, although it sputters through periods of inactivity. Unlike

other disciplines, the material ' does not become dated so that it is no longer

useful. Archaeology is an active, ongoing endeavor and it is the materials and

related notes that keep that discipline alive, not the individuals who created

it (although they are important). The material at the former center were

collected for one expressed purpose, to further research about Chaco. That this

material has never been properly organized does not mean that it should be left

that way to further complicate Chacoan research. The Museum Handbook is quite

clear behind preserving the intent of collections and their ultimate

usefullness. In the Chaco case, it has always been the intent to obtain

materials for active , ungoing research.

Alternative Steps 2 and 3, above, imply that some or all of the "Vivian

Archives" be reorganized in some fashion congruent with earlier and present

10

directions. This means that generally we will continue to house the

non-artifact materials in distinct groups of archival materials: photo, map,

manuscript, correspondence, field notes, etc. To illustrate the problem of the

Vivian Archives, I have selected parts of the files and one site (Bc 50) to

list (Tables 1-2). Note the range of materials as well as the groups of related

documents (mostly field notes) in Table 1 and the scattering of the Bc 50 field

notes in Table 2. This arrangement increases the use of the archives as one is

forced to search through the lots of material to find the one that may have the

desired information. Field notes, photos, and maps are the most important

documentation in archaeology and they should be organized by the site they

document. The organization of site files has been described in the Field Manual

by Windes and McKenna 1985 and much of the record keeping of the Chaco Center

field notes has been kept in this order. There are important exceptions to this

organization, where the importance of a project may override individual sites.

This may be particularly true of survey projects. The Gwinn Vivian road,

irrigation, and tree studies also co~e to mind, which cross-cut individual sites

during the study on the road system. Windes' records of the Chaco resurvey of

small house middens, greathouse middens, and the roads also fall under these

exceptions .

The Vivian Archives should not be dismantled. It has many lots of material

in it that are well-organized by material and theme. I strongly recommend that

all letters and correspondence be kept together, but copied for inclusion into

the site files if desired. But such materials should not be left scattered

through the initial and later lots of material, interspersed with material that

is totally unrelated. The same is true of other kinds of material in the

"Vivian Archives". See the proposed work outline in Table 3.

The Reiter Notebooks reflect the same kind of disorganization as the

general archives. They need copying, with the copies placed with the

11

appropriate files. However, there are many duplicates in the Reiter notebooks

as well as duplicates of mater ials in the general archives.

Photos. All negatives should be kept with the main negative archive

collection. There are many lots of photos, however, that require alternative

methods of organization. Some illustrate student papers and the like. These

should be left with the doucumentation, perhaps to be rephotographed to obtain a

negative and a print for cross-referencing with the main photo collection. Some

fol ders are stuffed with prints without documentation. Many are over-size

(e.g., 8xl0") and belong with the other extra copies of over-size prints.

Someday maybe all these large prints can be organized by site and subject

matter. Some are prints used in publications and should be kept with the

publication material for each book. Those unrelated to any matter in the

associated file lots should be treated like any other lots of photos that have

contributed to the photo archives. The treatment of slides in the Vivian

Archives should also be put in the slide archives, with one exception, at least.

The Vivian tree study has documentation along with the slides (it is all in a

notebook), so perhaps a copy of these slides need inclusion into the slide

archives?

Maps. Few maps are found in the Vivian Archives files. Actually there

were a large number of maps that came up with the "Vivian Archives" (that is

they comprise the orig inal lot material, along with the artifacts, brought up

from SWAC), but beca use of their size they were stored in map drawers. Many of

these, however, were numbered as part of the Vivian Archive series, reflecting

the use of the Vivian Archives as a repository for all archival material. The

small site maps and drawings should be left in the archive files along with the

related material rather than be moved to the map drawers . Otherwise, large maps

12

or maps unassociated with reference material in the archives should be placed in

the map drawers by site.

Field Notes. Site records should be consolidated to reflect the

archaeology of the sites that were excavated in the same manner as the present

project. Ancillary materials relating to the "scientific notes and records",

such as might be found in the correspondence, should be copied and included in

the site files.

Non-Chaco Records. The amount of material in the archives unrelated to

Chacoan archaeology is large. In its present state, it is not available for

research because nobody would think to look for it in Albuquerque. Much of it

was derived by the archaeologists who worked in Chaco, but otherwise it has no

connections to the project nor to the collections. For instance, materials from

Pecos, Jemez, Salinas, Canyon del Chelly, El Morro, Wupatki, etc., are found in

it. Some of Toulouse's phot negatives of Abo, Gran Quivira, Quarai, and Guisewa

are in it (VA 111796). He could copy this material and send it to the park or

reg ion having guardianship, or just tra~sfer the material now in the archives.

I favor the latter. This is in keeping with other repositories such as the

Western Archeological Center, which sends us all the Chacoan stuff whenever it

is found in their possession. Furthermore, the agreement leaving the repository

a nd artifacts at UNM is specific to Chaco materials.

Duplicating the Archives. The problem of the archives could be solved by

duplicating the entire mass of material by photostatic means or microfiche.

Neither resolves the discontinuity of the material in the archives--the latter

method would, in fact, replicate that problem, although it is an excellent

me thod of copy preservation. Both methods would also cause considerable

handling of the material and possibly removal of the material from the office,

increasing the probabilility of loss or disruption of the ordering. At present

13

there is no mechanism that allows for quick, easy copying--particularly with no

copying machine present.

Part of the reason for duplicating the entire archives is based on the

p~eceived amount of handling it receives, making a copy necessary. Actually,

the archives has been handled by very few people, primarily those of the Chaco

p~oject. It should be copied, but it is not a priority given the other problems

of organization. The archives is still part of the research materials needed

and used by the ongoing NPS research project, but the overall handling of it is

low and cannot be considerable other than minimally detrimental to its

preservation with certain exceptions.

The Problem of Referenced files. Finally, much of the material has been

referenced in publications, whi.ch might justify leaving the archives in its

present state of organization. Cross-referencing, however, will make it

possible to quickly refind those referenced materials should the need arise if

the material was reorganized. For the most part, reorganization will result in

the material being placed by "themes" that should duplicate that in the

published reports (e.g., Lekson's Chetro Ketl or McKenna's and Truell's small

house reports). In other words, it would be easier to find referenced materials

because they would be organized much along the lines of the published Chaco

material.

SUMMARY

In summary, an overall policy of what happe ns to the records of NPS

a~chaeologists needs to be critically examined. Are archaeological projects to

illuminate the individuals that carried them out or a~e they most impo~tant for

the research of archaeological sites? Once this issue is resolved, then the

direction that the "Vivian Archives" takes should be clear. The NPS Museum

Handbook emphasizes preservation of the intent and theme of archival materials.

14

Clearly the Chaco Project's direction was one of scientific research--still an

ongoing theme. The Vivian Archives can be reassembled without major disruption

of the lots of materials it contains. Although producing a duplicate archives

would be worthwhile from a preservation standpoint, it is not a critical problem

that needs immediate attention. Use of the paper documents (as opposed to the

pho tos and slides, for instance) is minimal and is limited primarily to the

project staff. Other lots of material in the archives have far greater

scientif ic value that demand replication (e.g., the photo negatives and maps

come to mind first). Whatever is decided, it should apply to the entire

archives (and the "Vivian Archives" was always intended as a repository rather

than a specific group of materials). There is no need to further fragment the

archives materials, which hinders the research of it.

Table 1.

VA If

none

none

none

000

001

002-014

015-019

020

021 -139

140-146

147-157

158

159

160

161

162-193

1724

1725

1726

1727

1728

1729

1730

1731

1732

1733

1734

1735

Selected sequences of the Vivian Archives: Lots 0-193 and 1724-1747.

Description of file

Correspondence of various subjects: 1948-1969.

Bc 51 (1939 excavations) field catalog cards (incomplete). About 25.

Guidelines of the photograph filing system (copy) from the 1940s-1950s.

Chaco tree-ring collection - 1 sheet.

Manuscript: An Anthropometric Study of Chaco Canyon Skeletal Material by Carroll~iley (student paper, I-I-pages).

Bc 50 field notes (12 student papers of 1937).

Bc 50 (1939) field notes by J. Charles Kelley.

Bc 50 (1939) field notes by Donovan Senter, inc. catalog cards & photos.

Bc 50 miscellaneous materials, inc. loose photos, & excavation notes.

Be 50 ceramic counts.

Be 50 and Bc 51 ceramic counts.

Be 50-51 (1939) photos glued on paper (no negatives).

Sheet listing site ground plans for Bannister.

Bannister's coding for catalog tree specimens from Chaco sites.

Carbon copy of #160.

folder contents missing.

Bc 51, Kiva 1 field notes.

Bc 51, Kiva 2 field notes.

Bc 51, Kiva 3 field notes.

Be 51, Kiva 4 field notes.

Bc 51, Kiva 5 field notes.

Bc 51, Kiva 6 ftt~ld notes.

Bc 51, test trench field notes.

Bc 51, ground stone student paper.

Be 51, pottery design paintings (student paper).

Bc 51, Kiva 6 field notes.

Memo of agreement between UNM & NPS (1948, copy).

Be 51 burial forms (about 50).

1736 The Rover Boys in Chaco Canyon. A student paper (C+ grade) by Alden Hayes about Simpson's journey through Chaco.

1736 Simpson's Journal (photostat copy). First 32 pages missing.

1737 missing.

1738 Bc 50-51 midden notes & burial forms by UNM students, + contact prints.

1739 Be 50 misc. notes and photos, + Shabikeschee and Chetro Ketl. Student

Table 3. Organi za tion outline for ar-chival documents.

I. Written documents (Chaco related)

A. Field documents (organized by site with exceptions: roads, irriga tion ) 1. FS sheets or equivalent 2. Daily log 3. Narrative notes (org a nized by room, pitstructure, plaza, & midden, etc) 4. Minor maps site (unless part or narrative notes) 5. Analyses 6. Summar-y/conclus ion r e port/manuscript

B. Correspondence (in chronological o r-der) 1. Personal letters

a. NPS - UNM b. NPS - US Govt c. NPS - others d. others

2. Memos a. Monthly and yearly reports. b. NPS - UNM c. NPS - others d. others

C. Manuscripts/books (replace on manu8cr-ipt shelf; make copy for S.F.). Rare copies should be copied and the original left in the archive files.

II. Maps [organized by site or subject (e.g., roads)] A. Large maps (e.g., larger than 8.5x11" or so) - to map drawers B. Small maps

1. Associated with text - remains with text. 2. Unassociated with text - to map dr-awers.

III. Photo material A. Negatives - place in negative archives. B. PLints

1. With negatives a. Associated with text or manuscript - leave as is. b. Unassociated with text

i. small prints - mount on NPS 10-30 for inclusion into photo archives

it. large prints - place with oversize photos. Make small print for mounting on NPS 10-30.

2. Without negatives a. Same as above except that prints should be rephotographed if they

have particularly high research value.

IV. Miscellaneous A. Non-Chacoan material-transfer- or- copy for transfer t o appropriat e agency. B. Publication galleys , etc. - place with others (i. e ., galley archives) C. Reiter notebooks--dismantle, copy , and reassemble. D. Others - to be listed after inventor-y of files.

Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Page 10Page 11Page 12Page 13Page 14Page 15Page 16Page 17