A Study of South Rim
‘Defensive Sites’
Benjamin Verbil
Abstract
Pinnacle ‘defensive sites’ located on the South Rim of the Grand Canyon
are culturally affiliated with the Kayenta Anasazi, a group that inhabited the
area approximately 900 years ago. This area, however, is a cultural frontier
between the Cohonina and Kayenta Anasazi and the sites are examined in this
context. Seasonal movements and site proximity to features of the surrounding
area are relevant to understanding these sites. Combining existing data from
these sites and previously researched sites within the area, with new
technologies such as Geographic Information Systems (G.I.S.) these ‘defensive
sites’ can be better understood.
Introduction
The interest that
these areas spark due to their locations, as well as the lack of historical
evidence that has been assembled to frame their existence was the impetus to conduct
this research. The first part to be examined will be what defines a ‘defensive
site’. This will be followed by a description of the defensive sites involved
in the study. This paper will also explore the cultural background that these
sites existed in. A breakdown of the data obtained by a Geographic Information
Systems (G.I.S.) survey will also be presented. Considering all of this
information, certain ideas will be presented followed by questions that remain
regarding these sites and suggestions for future research.
‘Defensive Sites’
The defensive sites being examined are located
in the
AZ I:01:010 is further
west on the South Rim, this site consists of two features. Feature one is
similar to AZ I:01:006 in the sense that it is inaccessible. It also shares the
masonry wall constructed to face the mainland. This walls of this feature are
more intact than AZ I:01:006 and are 2.5 to 3 feet high (approximately). No
natural sheltering is present on feature one. Feature two is closer the
mainland, and higher in elevation. It is accessible and has two walls of
unshaped rock, one facing the mainland and the other facing feature one. There
are also three granaries that exist on the site, one of which lies hidden in
the minimal sheltering provided at the base of feature two. Archaeologists also
think that this ‘defensive site’ was constructed between 1050 and 1150.
I also examined three
other sites involved in this research, two of which share many of the same
characteristics as those already mentioned (AZ C:13:115 & AZ C:13:0049).
The other site (AZ C:13:115) is located south of the canyon rim on the boundary
of
Ceramics were found at
four of the sites (AZ I:01:010, AZ I:01:007, AZ C:13:0049, & AZ C:13:115).
Two of the sites had the ceramics documented, and they consisted of Tusayan
White Ware, Flagstaff Black on White, Moenkopi Corrugated, Tusayan Corrugated,
Tusayan Black on Red, Dogoszhi Black on White, Tusayan Gray Ware, Lino
Tradition, Deadmans Black on Red and Deadmans Gray. These ceramics represent a
Kayenta Anasazi presence in the area with the exception of Deadmans B/R and
Deadmans Gray. The Deadmans B/R pottery type is thought to come from
There are a few things
worth noting about the two sites that were visited (AZ I:01:006 & AZ
I:01:010). These sites must have required an extreme amount of effort to access
routinely and build upon. If the rocks on the site did not all originate from
that exact area they would have been transported from the nearest area
available. In the case of these sites, those areas are not far away but a
considerable challenge to travel back and forth to with a load such as
limestone. The effort that must have been expended in the access and
construction of these sites is worthy of consideration. All of these defensive
sites are thought to have been constructed and used late in the ancestral
Puebloan occupation of the canyon region.
Ancestral
Puebloans
The Kayenta branch of
the ancestral Puebloans have been culturaly associated with these ‘defensive
sites’. They are referred to as the Kayenta Anasazi. The Kayenta Anasazi had two
neighbors; the Virgin Anasazi to the west, and the Cohonina to the south. Healthy
trading relationships going on throughout the canyon area between these peoples
are exemplified through ceramic distribution.
The Kayenta Anasazi
entered the Grand Canyon region around 900-1000 C.E., although they were
periodically within the canyon even as early as 700 C.E. (Euler 1969, 1974;
Effland et al. 1981) A scenario introduced by Fairley (2003) in which she says
it cannot be ruled out that the Cohonina and Anasazi may have “used the eastern
canyon as a neutral meeting ground for the exchange of goods” fits in with this
latter date. In Douglas Schwartz’s excavation of the Unkar Delta, he noted that
during the Zoroaster phase (1075 C.E. or later) that 74 percent of the ceramic
assemblage were those associated with the Kayenta Anasazi. In analysis of the
temper types, he learned that only ten percent contained temper materials that
came from Unkar Delta. He followed by saying that, “It seems likely that a great
deal of pottery was either carried in by newly arrived settlers or was imported
from other areas” (Schwartz 1980). It should also be noted that excavations
have found that ceramics were indeed produced in the
This evidence suggests that the Kayenta
Anasazi not only inhabited the eastern area of the south rim and the upper
basin, but the inner canyon at Unkar Delta as well, if not further even towards
the North Rim. If this is the case, which method did they rely on to obtain
food? Sullivan (1986, 1987, 1996) suggests that agriculture was relatively
unimportant in comparison to Pinyon nuts and other wild foods. Sullivan (1996,
1997) believes that there were communities in the
The Anasazi occupation
of the area peaked around the late 1000s and early 1100s C.E. This can be
associated with tree-ring records that indicate favorable climatic conditions
during this time. After 1150 C.E. the Anasazi population in the canyon area
dropped drastically. This can be associated with tree-ring records as well, as
the tree-ring record shows there was a significant drought that began somewhere
around 1130 (Schwartz, 1980)-1150 C.E. (Fairley, 1994) followed by years of
climatic variability. The entire Puebloan occupation of the canyon came to an
end by 1200 or 1220 C.E. (Jones 1986:324).
One last thing to note
about the Kayenta Anasazi is Tusayan Ruin. It not only lacks any type of defensive
traits despite the fact that it lies within close proximity to the ‘defensive
sites’, but also because it coincides with a “relatively moist period”
(Schwartz 1980) following the drought. The occupation of Tusayan Ruin is
believed to have occurred between 1185 - 1220 C.E. “When the Tusayan Pueblo was
abandoned, all Anasazi occupation of the Grand Canyon Region came to an end.
(Schwartz 1988)” However, there have been other early Pueblo III habitation
sites found by the National Park Service as well as Kaibab National Forest
archaeologists. Therefore, the idea that Tusayan was an isolated Kayenta
Anasazi outpost can be called into question. There seems to still have been much
going on in the area during the occupation of Tusayan Pueblo. Please note that
this is by no means a comprehensive picture of the Kayenta branch occupation in
the canyon region. It is provided as a basis for understanding the setting in
which the ‘defensive sites’ construction and use took place. There have literally
been volumes written on the Puebloan occupation of the canyon alone (Schwartz,
Euler, Fairley etc.), and this paper would not be the place to look if you
wanted a well rounded understanding of what was going on in the general area.
The Cohonina
The Cohonina have
several affiliations with the modern Native American tribes in
The Cohonina
occupation of the inner canyon predates the Kayenta Anasazi presence of the
area (Schwartz 1980). Excavations at Unkar Delta led Schwartz to believe that
the Cohonina had appeared within the canyon around 600 C.E., possibly showing
up seasonally to farm the area thereafter. Schwartz also says, “The periodic
reuse of sites was a consistent pattern on the Coconino Plateau“ (Schwartz,
1981), which would support the idea that the evidence found at Unkar Delta
could be a result of a population constantly moving into, across, and out of
the canyon. There is an idea of the Cohonina having developed from an
“indigenous Archaic base” (McGregor 1951), making it possible that the Cohonina
and the Puebloans may have shared a common, “preceramic agriculturalist”
ancestor (Fairley 2003).
This brings up the
question, if the Cohonina inhabited the inner canyon prior to the Kayenta
Anasazi, where did they go and what evidence is there to support their
migration? As I will mention below, prehistoric trails connect the Unkar Delta
with the
G.I.S. Research -
Line of sight
Looking at these
‘defensive sites’ within their cultural setting is beneficial, although it only
minimally decreases the amount of confusion associated with their
understanding. However, another tool at our disposal has been Geographic
Information Systems technology. It enables us to look at these sites in
relation to others in the area that may have some significance. The process by
which G.I.S. was used in this research entailed using topographic maps and
digital elevation models with Cohonina hilltop ‘forts’ and the south rim
’defensive sites’ plotted. What I hope to accomplish is establishing whether or
not a line of sight exists between the hilltop sites and the south rim sites,
as well as between each of the south rim sites and each of the hilltop sites.
If these sites could see each other, it would provide evidence that a communication
system existed.
G.I.S. Results
While this research proved valuable to
Late Breaking G.I.S. Research
Upon further
examination of the data obtained from doing a view shed analysis of the south
rim ‘defensive sites’ in conjunction with the Kaibab Coconino Rim sites, a
common line of sight location has been found. It appears at this point in the
research that Forest Service (FS) site 1398 can ‘see’ every south rim
‘defensive site’. Furthermore, upon examination of the site record for FS-1398,
I found that it is culturally affiliated with the PII/PIII Anasazi. The ceramic
content of the site was recorded as: Deadmans Gray, Tsegi Orange Ware, Tusayan
Gray Ware, Moenkopi Corrugated, Dogozhi B/W, Sosi B/W, Flagstaff B/W, Walnut
B/W, and Colorado Gray Ware (Colorado Gray Ware was followed ‘lots’ in the
notes). The site records also suggest PI agricultural sites at the base of this
hilltop pueblo.
Landscape: Logic
and Values
The location of these sites would dictate that
their purpose is to provide an excellent vantage point. For what purpose
remains a mystery, however the idea of a ’lookout’ remains very important to
understanding these sites. It could have been that in the absence of conflict,
they did serve both the purposes of hunting, the walls could have been used as
hunting blinds (John Hanson; Personal Communication) as well as lookout points
for game. From the site photos of C:10:0049, Wotan’s Throne is visible in the
background. A site on Wotan’s Throne was found by Schwartz (1981) to have
evidence of human presence in the form of granaries, projectile points, and a
possible terrace. Wotan’s Throne also fits into the cross-canyon model
introduced by Sullivan where
Another idea, relating to the fact that they
are hard to access, would coincide with Schwartz questions about ‘
Landscape values also
may have played a role in the construction of these sites. Dismissing the idea
that indigenous peoples created significant structures in recognition of a
meaningful landscape would be a mistake. It seems within the vast realm of
possibility with these sites that this could have been the case. They could
have had ceremonial value to those who constructed them. After all they do
overlook the interior of the canyon, a view not matched by many places. The
purpose of the masonry walls facing the rim could be as simple as creating a
barrier between a location of supreme importance and an area of consistent
habitation. It could also be possible that rituals were practiced behind these
walls, rituals whos significance relied upon the effort it took to access these
spots as well as their separation from the mainland.
While cultural mixing,
conflict, or communication may aid us in further understanding these ‘defensive
structures’, the idea of geomorphic processes and spatial anomalies is also
worth mentioning with relation to these sites. As Weintraub (2005) mentions, “It
seems possible that the multitude of earth shattering events disrupted people’s
belief systems.” In the period of 1054 to 1066 C.E., three events occurred that
could have shaken cultural belief systems to the core. In 1054 C.E. there was
the supernova which resulted in the Crab Nebula. It is possible that a
petroglyph in
Other facts worth
mentioning
The idea that instances of violence occur on
the “margins of ceramically-defined territories” has been proposed by
Christopher Downum and Glenn Stone (Schroeder 2001). In the
Questions
There are questions that remain to be answered
that may aid in the understanding of these sites. Some of the answers lie in
future research, and some lie in existing data that has yet to be analyzed in
the context of these locations.
1. Is there any other
data that suggests that these sites are defensive besides the masonry walls
that are present on them?
2. Is there evidence
in the immediate area of these sites that suggests that they were indeed
constructed as a result of growing conflict in the area?
3. Is there any data
found within the canyon region that suggests indigenous peoples have responded
to astronomical or geological phenomena in terms of ceremonial or spiritual
significance?
4. If FS-1398 can
indeed ‘see’ all of the south rim ‘defensive sites’ (as the G.I.S. data
suggests), what significance does this have in terms of a communication network
in the late PII and early PIII?
Future Research
The G.I.S. research in
this paper has proved valuable to providing a better picture of these sites,
however, it was rather limited. I propose that a larger scale G.I.S. project be
done because with this technology available, analysis that was previously
considered too time consuming can be done not on site, but at a desktop. These
sites should be examined within the larger context of the region, including the
I think that the
understanding of these sites would also benefit by a G.I.S. analysis of
C:10:0049 with regards to Wotan’s Throne. If a line of sight does exist, it
would be worth considering that even over that large distance smoke signals may
have been used to communicate. As I mentioned before, Schwartz has discovered
evidence of human presence on ‘
I would also suggest
that future research be done within the realm of uncovering evidence of
conflict. It would seem that an understanding of these sites hinges on whether
or not conflict existed in this area, and if it did, between whom. Of course,
the evidence of large scale conflict should have been evident within
excavations conducted in the canyon region. However, skirmish type conflict
could be very hard to distinguish from a relatively stable PII/PIII community.
Possibly, with he increasing use of technology in the field such as the Global
Positioning System (G.P.S.) in combination with G.I.S., we may be better able
to assemble a map that could point us to where evidence of conflict can be
uncovered.
Works Cited
Downum, Christian
2001: Ruins
Preservation at Wupatki and Grand Canyon. Paper presented at the Northern
Arizona Archaeological Society Monthly Meeting, February, Flagstaff.
Euler, Robert C.
1969: The Canyon
Dwellers: Four Thousand Years of Human History in the Grand Canyon. In The
Grand Colorado: The Story of the River and Its Canyons, edited by T.H.
Watkins, pp. 8-20. Professional Paper 670. U.S.G.S.,
1974: Future
Archaeological Research in the Grand Canyon. Plateau 46:139-148
Effland, Richard W., A.T. Jones, and Robert C. Euler
1981: The
Archaeology of Powell Plateau: Regional Interaction at Grand Canyon.
Monograph No.3.
High Altitude Observatory, The
Education:
Archaeoslides found at http://www.hao.ucar.edu/Public/education/archeoslides/slide_20.html
Fairley, Helen C.
2003: Changing
River: Time, Culture, and the Transformation of Landscape in the Grand Canyon.
Statistical Research Technical Series No.79, Technical Research Inc., Tucson,
Arizona
Fairley, Helen C., P.W. Bungart, C.M. Coder, J. Huffman, T.L. Samples,
and Janet R Balsom.
1994: The Grand
Canyon River Corridor Survey Project: Archaeological Survey along the Colorado
River between Glen Canyon Dam and Separation Canyon. Prepared in
cooperation with the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies Program,
Jones, Anne Trinkle
1986: A
Cross-Section of Grand Canyon Archeology: Excavations at Five Sites along the
Colorado River. Publications in Anthropology No.28. Western Archeological
and
McGregor, John C.
1951: The Cohonina
Culture of Northwestern Arizona. University of Kentucky Press, Urbana.
Sullivan, Alan P. III
1986: Prehistory of
the Upper Basin, Coconino County, Arizona. Archaeological Series No. 167.
Cultural Resource Management Division,
1987: Seeds of
Discontent: Implications of a “Pompei” Archeobotanical Assemblage for Grand
Canyon Anasazi Subsistence Models. Journal of Ethnobiology 7:137-153
1996: Risk,
Anthropogenic Environments, and Western Anasazi Subsistence. In Evolving
Complexity and Environmental Risk in the Prehistoric Southwest, edited by
Joseph A. Tainter and Bonnie Bagley Tainter, pp. 145-167. Sante Fe Institute
Studies in the Sciences of Complexity Vol. 24. Addison-Wesley, Reading,
Pennsylvania
1997: Theoretical
Implications of Regional Variation in Prehistoric Puebloan Subsistence and
Settlement Patterns in the Grand Canyon Area. Paper presented at the 62nd
Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Nashville
Schwartz, Douglas R., R.C. Chapman, and Jane Kepp
1980: Archaeology
of the
1981: Archaeology
of
Schroeder, Melissa R., and Christian Downum
2001: Ethnic
Interactions in the
Weintraub, Neil S.
An Early Pueblo III
(AD 1160-1220) Community in the Upper Basin on file with the Kaibab National Forest Williams Ranger District,
Williams, Arizona
Weintraub, Neil S., A.P. Sullivan, P.M. Uphus, D. Sorrell, and John A.
Hanson
2003: Home Alone -
The Unexpected Archaeology of the Southwest’s Western Hinterlands. Paper
presented in the symposium Hinterland and Heartland in Southwest Prehistory
at the 68th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology,
Weintraub, Neil S., D. Sorrell, and John Hanson
2005: A GIS Model
For Late
Wilcox, David, G. Robertson Jr.,
and J. Scott Wood
2000a: Antecedents to
Perry Mesa: Early
2000b: Organized for
War: The Perry Mesa Settlement System and Its
