Society for American Archaeology

Andean Culture History by Wendell C. Bennett; Junius B. BirdReview by: John Howland RoweAmerican Antiquity, Vol. 16, No. 2 (Oct., 1950), pp. 170-172Published by: Society for American ArchaeologyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/276900 .

Accessed: 08/04/2014 14:48

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toAmerican Antiquity.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 190.239.130.177 on Tue, 8 Apr 2014 14:48:30 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

A final word about the format of the book may be pertinent. The print is quite readable and the binding adequate but I personally object to Copper Plate Gothic type for running heads. Its boldness is distracting. Printing costs are certainly excessive but the six-dollar price will keep it out of the hands of many students- and faculty.

WILLIAM G. HAAG

University of Mississippi

Oxford, Mississippi

Andean Culture History. WENDELL C. BENNETT and JUNIUS B. BIRD. American Museum of Natural History, Handbook Series, No. 15. New York, 1949. 319 pp., 57 figs. including maps and a table, bibliography and index. $3.25.

Andean Culture History is an excellent synthesis of Peruvian archaeology expertly presented in its total South American context by two of the men who have contributed most to its development through their ex- cavations. It is designed primarily as an introduction to the subject and is the best available work to introduce the student to Andean prehistory. Its systematic arrange- ment, excellent illustrations and well chosen reading list recommend it especially for this purpose. The text is divided into three parts. Part 1, "The Setting," by Ben-

nett, is a summary of the archaeology and ethnology of the whole continent as a background for the other parts. Part 2, "The Central Andes," also by Bennett, is the heart of the book. Peruvian archaeology is presented in the form of a reconstruction of culture history arranged on a framework of seven major time periods with a note added on Colonial and modern developments. Part 3, "Techniques," is by Bird; it contains a discussion of An- dean ceramics, metallurgy and textiles from a technical

point of view. The textile section is the longest, reflect-

ing Bird's special interest and competence in this field, and it is a masterpiece of simple presentation of a very

complex subject. The American Museum is to be con-

gratulated on an outstanding addition to its famous Handbook Series.

The authors of this book are men of such stature, however, that their views on the general interpretation of Andean archaeology and on its more controversial

special problems carry a great deal of professional weight and should be discussed on a professional level.

Having expressed my approval of the book as an intro-

ductory manual, I want to state some dissenting reac-

tions to the sections by Bennett and especially to the

archaeological picture presented in Part 2. The' follow-

ing observations should be read as criticisms of ideas

and their presentation, not of the author; I am well aware that many of the concepts discussed originated with other investigators, especially Kroeber and Willey,

and that some of them are the common property of

present day Andeanists. One of the great contributions of a synthesis such as Bennett offers is that it makes

possible constructive criticism of the whole field covered.

A final word about the format of the book may be pertinent. The print is quite readable and the binding adequate but I personally object to Copper Plate Gothic type for running heads. Its boldness is distracting. Printing costs are certainly excessive but the six-dollar price will keep it out of the hands of many students- and faculty.

WILLIAM G. HAAG

University of Mississippi

Oxford, Mississippi

Andean Culture History. WENDELL C. BENNETT and JUNIUS B. BIRD. American Museum of Natural History, Handbook Series, No. 15. New York, 1949. 319 pp., 57 figs. including maps and a table, bibliography and index. $3.25.

Andean Culture History is an excellent synthesis of Peruvian archaeology expertly presented in its total South American context by two of the men who have contributed most to its development through their ex- cavations. It is designed primarily as an introduction to the subject and is the best available work to introduce the student to Andean prehistory. Its systematic arrange- ment, excellent illustrations and well chosen reading list recommend it especially for this purpose. The text is divided into three parts. Part 1, "The Setting," by Ben-

nett, is a summary of the archaeology and ethnology of the whole continent as a background for the other parts. Part 2, "The Central Andes," also by Bennett, is the heart of the book. Peruvian archaeology is presented in the form of a reconstruction of culture history arranged on a framework of seven major time periods with a note added on Colonial and modern developments. Part 3, "Techniques," is by Bird; it contains a discussion of An- dean ceramics, metallurgy and textiles from a technical

point of view. The textile section is the longest, reflect-

ing Bird's special interest and competence in this field, and it is a masterpiece of simple presentation of a very

complex subject. The American Museum is to be con-

gratulated on an outstanding addition to its famous Handbook Series.

The authors of this book are men of such stature, however, that their views on the general interpretation of Andean archaeology and on its more controversial

special problems carry a great deal of professional weight and should be discussed on a professional level.

Having expressed my approval of the book as an intro-

ductory manual, I want to state some dissenting reac-

tions to the sections by Bennett and especially to the

archaeological picture presented in Part 2. The' follow-

ing observations should be read as criticisms of ideas

and their presentation, not of the author; I am well aware that many of the concepts discussed originated with other investigators, especially Kroeber and Willey,

and that some of them are the common property of

present day Andeanists. One of the great contributions of a synthesis such as Bennett offers is that it makes

possible constructive criticism of the whole field covered.

The general frame of reference of Part 2 is a spatial division of the Central Andes into six archaeological regions and a chronological division into seven named major time periods. This framework is made explicit in the table on p. 112. For the spatial division, Bennett has evidently abandoned the areas which he proposed in 1948 (SAA-M No. 4, p. 5) in favor of those proposed by Gordon Willey (ibid., p. 9). Willey's areas repre- sent the archaeological divisions of the Peruvian coast between Chicama and Nazca pretty well, in the sense that within each area culture was rather uniform in any given period. The extreme north and south parts of the coast are less well known archaeologically and are ig- nored in Willey's and Bennett's tables. The highland regions, however, have no demonstrable archaeological unity. To place Huari ("Wari") and "Chanka" in the same region with Cuzco is rather like putting Paracas in a single area unit with Moche. Huari is characterized by an obviously Tiahuanacoid style, and, as Bennett

points out (p. 200), the Cuzco region apparently re- mained totally independent of Tiahuanaco influence. The "Central Highland" area should be divided into at least two regions: Mantaro-Andahuaylas and Apurimac- Cuzco; when more is known of the archaeology of this area further division of the Mantaro-Andahuaylas re-

gion may be necessary. The "South Highland" area is also sharply divided in some archaeological periods, especially when the Pucara and Tiahuanaco cultures oc-

cupied opposite ends of the Titicaca basin; this area would be better treated as two, Puno and Tiahuanaco.

My colleague, T. D. McCown, has similar reservations

regarding the unity of Bennett's North Highland area. The chronological framework for the presentation of

all of Central Andean archaeology is a sequence of named major periods which were conceived and defined in terms of the ceramic sequence of the Viru and Chi- cama valleys as worked out by the Viru Valley Project

(1946-47). The idea of such a set of period names, each

aiming at describing a "developmental stage" of North

Coast culture, is said by Strong to have been originated

by Rafael Larco (SAA-M No. 4, p. 100). It was taken

up by several participants in the Vir6 project and alter-

native sets of names suggested by Bennett, Strong, Wil-

ley, and Steward (SAA-M No. 4, pp. 9, 114, etc.). Each set differs slightly from the others in the points of

division between periods and in the names chosen but

all are based directly on the Virui sequence and on no

other. Willey and Bennett, however, have gone on to

apply their period names to all of the Central Andean

region, apparently without noting that they are spec-

tacularly unsuited to any area in southern Peru. We can

grant them the Central Coast, where a well established

sequence parallels the North Coast one very closely, and they may be justified in the inferred chronology of

the North Highlands, which is built up by comparing local highland styles to North Coast ones, but on the

South Coast and in the Central and South Highlands the local picture is entirely different.

The general frame of reference of Part 2 is a spatial division of the Central Andes into six archaeological regions and a chronological division into seven named major time periods. This framework is made explicit in the table on p. 112. For the spatial division, Bennett has evidently abandoned the areas which he proposed in 1948 (SAA-M No. 4, p. 5) in favor of those proposed by Gordon Willey (ibid., p. 9). Willey's areas repre- sent the archaeological divisions of the Peruvian coast between Chicama and Nazca pretty well, in the sense that within each area culture was rather uniform in any given period. The extreme north and south parts of the coast are less well known archaeologically and are ig- nored in Willey's and Bennett's tables. The highland regions, however, have no demonstrable archaeological unity. To place Huari ("Wari") and "Chanka" in the same region with Cuzco is rather like putting Paracas in a single area unit with Moche. Huari is characterized by an obviously Tiahuanacoid style, and, as Bennett

points out (p. 200), the Cuzco region apparently re- mained totally independent of Tiahuanaco influence. The "Central Highland" area should be divided into at least two regions: Mantaro-Andahuaylas and Apurimac- Cuzco; when more is known of the archaeology of this area further division of the Mantaro-Andahuaylas re-

gion may be necessary. The "South Highland" area is also sharply divided in some archaeological periods, especially when the Pucara and Tiahuanaco cultures oc-

cupied opposite ends of the Titicaca basin; this area would be better treated as two, Puno and Tiahuanaco.

My colleague, T. D. McCown, has similar reservations

regarding the unity of Bennett's North Highland area. The chronological framework for the presentation of

all of Central Andean archaeology is a sequence of named major periods which were conceived and defined in terms of the ceramic sequence of the Viru and Chi- cama valleys as worked out by the Viru Valley Project

(1946-47). The idea of such a set of period names, each

aiming at describing a "developmental stage" of North

Coast culture, is said by Strong to have been originated

by Rafael Larco (SAA-M No. 4, p. 100). It was taken

up by several participants in the Vir6 project and alter-

native sets of names suggested by Bennett, Strong, Wil-

ley, and Steward (SAA-M No. 4, pp. 9, 114, etc.). Each set differs slightly from the others in the points of

division between periods and in the names chosen but

all are based directly on the Virui sequence and on no

other. Willey and Bennett, however, have gone on to

apply their period names to all of the Central Andean

region, apparently without noting that they are spec-

tacularly unsuited to any area in southern Peru. We can

grant them the Central Coast, where a well established

sequence parallels the North Coast one very closely, and they may be justified in the inferred chronology of

the North Highlands, which is built up by comparing local highland styles to North Coast ones, but on the

South Coast and in the Central and South Highlands the local picture is entirely different.

170 170 [2, 1950 [2, 1950

This content downloaded from 190.239.130.177 on Tue, 8 Apr 2014 14:48:30 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BOOK REVIEWS

The South Coast is a good example. The Paracas Cavernas style shows the feline designs which Willey and Bennett use as the mark of the Chavin Horizon (SAA-M No. 4, p. 10; work under review, p. 108) but it also uses negative painting which is the mark of another horizon style which Bennett places three to four hundred years after Chavin on the North Coast. Apparently the Chavin and Negative Horizons are in- distinguishable chronologically on the South Coast and there is no White on Red or local style between them. Bennett's solution in his table is to shade the top of the Cavernas block to indicate Negative Horizon influ- ences and the bottom to indicate Chavin influences; this procedure amounts to clutching at straws to preserve his framework. In the present state of our knowledge there is no reason to believe that the negative Cavernas ware is anything but contemporary with the incised and painted pieces, nor any reason for separating the ones which have feline designs from the ones that do not.

Cavernas is presumably followed on the South Coast by Nazca (including Necropolis). In his text (pp. 179- 180) Bennett lists Nazca-Necropolis under his Master- craftsman Period, but in his table, in order to avoid a gap, he puts Necropolis and Nazca A in the Experi- menter Period, leaving only Nazca B for the Master- craftsman division. The inconsistency involves a mat- ter of some 200 years on Bennett's scale.

Coast Tiahuanaco ("Pacheco" in the table) which follows Nazca fits in with the North Coast picture bet- ter than any other southern period, but even so there are some grounds for thinking that it began somewhat earlier in the south than in the north.

I am somewhat mystified as to why Middle Ica is shaded with the hatching of the Black-White-Red Hori- zon, though I agree that it is probably contemporary, at least in part. Late Ica, however, is out of place in the table. Both the Late Ica styles described by Strong and Kroeber from the Uhle collections had either Inca or Spanish artifacts associated with them in the graves. One suspects that Middle Ica gave way to Late Ica very shortly before the Inca conquest, again an awkward division in terms of the North Coast scale.

There is no need to discuss the relationships of the Central and South Highland periods in detail since a glance at the two right hand columns of Bennett's table will make the discrepancies in terms of the major time divisions sufficiently clear. These discrepancies be- come even greater if the two areas are redivided as suggested above. It may be noted, parenthetically, how- ever, that there is no evidence for Classic Tiahuanaco succeeding Pucara in the Puno area. The relationships between Pucara and Tiahuanaco have been worked out by Bennett himself (SAA-M No. 4, p. 91).

What has apparently happened is that, in a desire to simplify the complexities of Andean archaeology, the over-all unity of the Central Andean area has been greatly exaggerated, especially by Kroeber (e.g., VF-PA No. 4), Willey and Bennett. There is no question that the whole area was unified under the Incas but for

earlier periods the evidence is not so clear. The earlier horizon styles are a case in point: defining the Chavin Horizon as Willey and Bennett do in terms of a feline design, it is found nowhere in southern Peru except at Paracas. If it is redefined on a basis of the associa- tion of incised designs with certain other technological characteristics of the pottery, a horizon style which may be called Incised Horizon could be set up to include the Chavin materials, Cavernas, Chanapata, Chiripa and Pucara, but in that case it might also have to include styles outside of the Central Andes region such as Bar- reales in Argentina. Also, in that case, it would include materials 1000 to 1500 years apart in age. The Tiahua- naco horizon apparently does not appear in the Cuzco area or on the far North Coast; it is extremely weak in Puno. On the other hand, it apparently occurs in north- ern Chile, a region not usually included in the Central Andes (p. 91). Bennett's other horizon styles have clearly local distributions.

The best solution to the problem of synthesizing the data of Andean archaeology for elementary presentation would probably be to describe the North Coast sequence, indicating differences in the essentially parallel North Highlands and Central Coast areas, and then describe the South Coast and Tiahuanaco sequences separately with notes on the incomplete information available for other Southern Peruvian areas tied to these two. The rather aberrant Cuzco sequence could be treated as a prelude to the description of the Incas.

In addition to these general problems of space and time, there are a few points of a more specific nature that deserve comment.

Bennett apparently intends the break between Early Farmers and Cultists to coincide with the appearance of pottery in Virui and Chicama; the Guafiape period which he includes as Cultist in the table is, if I under- stand the preliminary reports on the Viru Project cor- rectly, the first pottery period in Virui. But in the text (p. 121) he describes the earliest pottery and the ap- pearance of adobe construction in the section on Early Farmers, and the only pottery described under Cultists is Cupisnique. Of course, the particular pottery described on p. 121 is not the Guafiape of Viru but the earliest pottery found by Bird in Chicama, just north of Huaca Prieta (SAA-M No. 4, pp. 25-27). Still, one gathers from Bird's account that he considers this ware to be roughly contemporary with Guafiape. If it is not, we need some clarification of the point and some mention of Guafiape pottery should be included in the Cultist section.

The statement on p. 181 that "The Mastercraftsman Period in general marks the culmination of technological advancement . . . and attention was shifted to the con- trol of man units rather than the development of addi- tional techniques" is open to some question. This is a matter of emphasis, but what about such later develop- ments as fine tapestry, silver plating, two new alloys and the cutting of huge stone blocks in the Expansionist Period (pp. 186, 198); bronze, and with it the wide

171

This content downloaded from 190.239.130.177 on Tue, 8 Apr 2014 14:48:30 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

use of metal for tools, in the City Builder Period (pp. 212-13); and lacquer inlay and new metallurgical tech- niques in the Imperialist Period (p. 229)? And are not all quipus from graves of the later periods?

The statement on p. 175 that "The Mochica seem to have had an ideographic type of writing" represents a serious critical lapse. It is based on a claim of Rafael Larco's which the evidence quite fails to support. The scenes on the pots which Larco interpreted as evidence for writing can be adequately explained as representa- tions of divination and gambling. Marked beans would not even make good mnemonic devices unless they were fixed in a particular order, as on a string or stick, and the Mochica beans are always represented loose. There are some other cases in which Bennett is equally incautious in his discussion of Early Man evidence in Part 1. The Lagoa Santa, Confins, and Punin finds are even less respectable archaeologically than Tepexpan Man. Incidentally, I find no reference to the Cave of Candonga, which, after Bird's finds on the Straits of Magellan, is the most likely association of human re- mains with Pleistocene fauna yet reported from South America (AA, Vol. 11, pp. 58-60).

Bennett feels that the Bolivian plateau on which the site of Tiahuanaco stands was probably not the center of distribution for the Tiahuanaco Horizon (pp. 184- 185). His reasoning is very peculiar, however, and ig- nores some of the evidence. He says: "The bleak alti- plano near Lake Titicaca has an altitude of almost four- teen thousand feet, which is too high for the cultivation of many plants, although quinoa, potatoes, and oca can be grown, and there is pasturage for llamas and alpacas. Today, the region supports a scattered, although rea-

sonably large Indian population; presumably the situa- tion was not very different in the past." The evidence

presented plainly suggests the opposite conclusion to Bennett's. The Titicaca basin is excellent country for the cultivation of quinoa, potatoes and ocas, not to men- tion ullucu, anu (Bennett's mashua) and caiiahua; these

plants are Andean staples even at much lower alti- tudes. Even maize will grow in sheltered spots. Not

only is there pasturage for llamas and alpacas, the two

largest Andean domestic animals, but the region is pe- culiarly favorable for both animals so that they are more numerous around Lake Titicaca than anywhere else in

the Andes. The lake and its tributary rivers are much better stocked with fish than most other Andean waters, and the suche or river catfish is a prominent motive in Pucara and Chucuito design. The Indian population is indeed reasonably large: it is unusually dense for the Andes and apparently was exceptionally dense at the time of the conquest also; even in the 17th century censuses the lake provinces stand out in numbers of Indian tributaries. Archaeological sites are as abundant around the lake as in many coast valleys. If the lake basin was not the center of distribution of the Tiahuan- aco Horizon it was not because the area was unfavorable for human occupation.

use of metal for tools, in the City Builder Period (pp. 212-13); and lacquer inlay and new metallurgical tech- niques in the Imperialist Period (p. 229)? And are not all quipus from graves of the later periods?

The statement on p. 175 that "The Mochica seem to have had an ideographic type of writing" represents a serious critical lapse. It is based on a claim of Rafael Larco's which the evidence quite fails to support. The scenes on the pots which Larco interpreted as evidence for writing can be adequately explained as representa- tions of divination and gambling. Marked beans would not even make good mnemonic devices unless they were fixed in a particular order, as on a string or stick, and the Mochica beans are always represented loose. There are some other cases in which Bennett is equally incautious in his discussion of Early Man evidence in Part 1. The Lagoa Santa, Confins, and Punin finds are even less respectable archaeologically than Tepexpan Man. Incidentally, I find no reference to the Cave of Candonga, which, after Bird's finds on the Straits of Magellan, is the most likely association of human re- mains with Pleistocene fauna yet reported from South America (AA, Vol. 11, pp. 58-60).

Bennett feels that the Bolivian plateau on which the site of Tiahuanaco stands was probably not the center of distribution for the Tiahuanaco Horizon (pp. 184- 185). His reasoning is very peculiar, however, and ig- nores some of the evidence. He says: "The bleak alti- plano near Lake Titicaca has an altitude of almost four- teen thousand feet, which is too high for the cultivation of many plants, although quinoa, potatoes, and oca can be grown, and there is pasturage for llamas and alpacas. Today, the region supports a scattered, although rea-

sonably large Indian population; presumably the situa- tion was not very different in the past." The evidence

presented plainly suggests the opposite conclusion to Bennett's. The Titicaca basin is excellent country for the cultivation of quinoa, potatoes and ocas, not to men- tion ullucu, anu (Bennett's mashua) and caiiahua; these

plants are Andean staples even at much lower alti- tudes. Even maize will grow in sheltered spots. Not

only is there pasturage for llamas and alpacas, the two

largest Andean domestic animals, but the region is pe- culiarly favorable for both animals so that they are more numerous around Lake Titicaca than anywhere else in

the Andes. The lake and its tributary rivers are much better stocked with fish than most other Andean waters, and the suche or river catfish is a prominent motive in Pucara and Chucuito design. The Indian population is indeed reasonably large: it is unusually dense for the Andes and apparently was exceptionally dense at the time of the conquest also; even in the 17th century censuses the lake provinces stand out in numbers of Indian tributaries. Archaeological sites are as abundant around the lake as in many coast valleys. If the lake basin was not the center of distribution of the Tiahuan- aco Horizon it was not because the area was unfavorable for human occupation.

The reader will note that I have found Andean Cul- ture History an extremely stimulating book, and I ven- ture to predict that out of the discussions it provokes will come some notable advances in the interpretation of Andean prehistory.

JOHN HOWLAND ROWE

University of California Berkeley, California

Excavations at Snaketown IV - Reviews and Conclusions. HAROLD STERLING GLADWIN. Medallion Papers No.

XXXVIII, Gila Pueblo, Globe, Arizona, June, 1948. 267 pp., 15 plates, 59 figures, appendix and bibli- ography.

Eighteen years have elapsed since Grewe Site was laid bare by the Van Bergen -Los Angeles County Museum party in the spring of 1930, and fourteen years have passed since the Gila Pueblo conducted its extensive ex- cavations at Snaketown. No major Hohokam sites have since been excavated. Gladwin points out that prior to the intensive work done at Snaketown on the Pima Reservation, Grewe Site was the first major operation to present the early Hohokam complex to students of southwestern archaeology. Here I must confess that when we worked Grewe Site we were working in the dark and I have always been convinced that at best we only worked part of a site. The fields to the south, east and west, which had been ploughed under all bore traces of large trash mounds similar to those found on Grewe Site, hence we always surmised that we did not ex- cavate the entire village area. However, prior to our examination of Grewe Site, aside from the work done on the Casa Grande National Monument and some de- sultory digging in the ruins along the Gila River near Florence, earlier expeditions by Frank Cushing, etc., all the knowledge of the Hohokam territory had been gained by a series of surface surveys with a few test pit examinations, conducted by the Gila Pueblo over a rather wide area in the central and southwestern por- tions of Arizona, with particular emphasis upon the Gila and its tributaries. As a matter of fact, unless my mem- ory plays me false, I had heard Mr. Gladwin express himself to the effect that further excavations of Hoho- kam sites were unnecessary since most of the valid information relative to the'Hohokam had been obtained through these surface surveys.

After Grewe Site had been found, these conclusions went out the window and Gila Pueblo opened field work at Snaketown and the results were published in 1937.

Now, Mr. Gladwin, in 1948, has issued what seems to me to be a most important item, in that it is an almost complete revision of ideas voiced in the first papers on Snaketown. I, for one, am glad to see this new attitude although it seems most regrettable that it should appear when practically all work of the Gila Pueblo has been suspended.

For a number of years I have felt that the cultural elements of pottery, carved bone, stone and shell, as well as the mirror bases, copper bells, ball-courts, etc.,

The reader will note that I have found Andean Cul- ture History an extremely stimulating book, and I ven- ture to predict that out of the discussions it provokes will come some notable advances in the interpretation of Andean prehistory.

JOHN HOWLAND ROWE

University of California Berkeley, California

Excavations at Snaketown IV - Reviews and Conclusions. HAROLD STERLING GLADWIN. Medallion Papers No.

XXXVIII, Gila Pueblo, Globe, Arizona, June, 1948. 267 pp., 15 plates, 59 figures, appendix and bibli- ography.

Eighteen years have elapsed since Grewe Site was laid bare by the Van Bergen -Los Angeles County Museum party in the spring of 1930, and fourteen years have passed since the Gila Pueblo conducted its extensive ex- cavations at Snaketown. No major Hohokam sites have since been excavated. Gladwin points out that prior to the intensive work done at Snaketown on the Pima Reservation, Grewe Site was the first major operation to present the early Hohokam complex to students of southwestern archaeology. Here I must confess that when we worked Grewe Site we were working in the dark and I have always been convinced that at best we only worked part of a site. The fields to the south, east and west, which had been ploughed under all bore traces of large trash mounds similar to those found on Grewe Site, hence we always surmised that we did not ex- cavate the entire village area. However, prior to our examination of Grewe Site, aside from the work done on the Casa Grande National Monument and some de- sultory digging in the ruins along the Gila River near Florence, earlier expeditions by Frank Cushing, etc., all the knowledge of the Hohokam territory had been gained by a series of surface surveys with a few test pit examinations, conducted by the Gila Pueblo over a rather wide area in the central and southwestern por- tions of Arizona, with particular emphasis upon the Gila and its tributaries. As a matter of fact, unless my mem- ory plays me false, I had heard Mr. Gladwin express himself to the effect that further excavations of Hoho- kam sites were unnecessary since most of the valid information relative to the'Hohokam had been obtained through these surface surveys.

After Grewe Site had been found, these conclusions went out the window and Gila Pueblo opened field work at Snaketown and the results were published in 1937.

Now, Mr. Gladwin, in 1948, has issued what seems to me to be a most important item, in that it is an almost complete revision of ideas voiced in the first papers on Snaketown. I, for one, am glad to see this new attitude although it seems most regrettable that it should appear when practically all work of the Gila Pueblo has been suspended.

For a number of years I have felt that the cultural elements of pottery, carved bone, stone and shell, as well as the mirror bases, copper bells, ball-courts, etc.,

172 172 [2, 1950 [2, 1950

This content downloaded from 190.239.130.177 on Tue, 8 Apr 2014 14:48:30 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions