Abandon Grasshopper 107
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Welch - The Last Archaeologist to (Almost) Abandon Grasshopper 107 The Last Archaeologist to (Almost) Abandon Grasshopper John R. Welch, Ph.D., University of Arizona, Professor Jointly Appointed in the Department of Archaeology and the School of Resource and Environmental Management, Simon Fraser University The history of Arizona Anthro- and canyons of White Mountain pology engagements with Apach- Apache lands and found myself es and their territory perpetuates lingering well into August. In ad- my occupation of and with Grass- dition to the region’s rugged ro- hopper and other sites excavated mantic allure and understudied by my forebears and benefactors. Apache archaeology, my Grass- Arizona Anthropology’s centen- hopper Region infatuation led not nial offers occasions to both cele- only to four more seasons with the brate and reflect upon the sources field school, but also to employ- and consequences of individual ment as a Bureau of Indian Affairs and institutional successes. My contractor (1987–1992), then staff intention here is to direct atten- archaeologist (1992–2005), then tion to contributions made to Ar- as the Tribe’s historic preserva- izona Anthropology by the White tion officer (THPO, 1996–2005) Mountain Apache Tribe and vice (Welch in Nicholas et al. 2008). versa. The history of the relation- Not even a mid-career vault from ship and the directions taken by the government jobs in Arizona to Si- Tribe in response to the relationship mon Fraser University loosened provide the basis for my opinion the ties that bind me to the Tribe that Arizona Anthropology should and its lands: I serve as an advisor abandon neither Grasshopper nor to the Tribe’s Heritage Program the Tribe more generally. and as a board member of the To paraphrase Twain: reports of non-profit Fort Apache Heritage the end of anthropology at Grass- Foundation (Welch 2001; Welch hopper are much exaggerated. and Brauchli 2010). I know this first hand. After my The long, cordial, and dynam- second season on the Universi- ic relationship between Arizona ty of Arizona’s archaeology field Anthropology and the Tribe has school staff (1984–1985), I suc- had pronounced effects on each cumbed to the seductive buttes organization. The Grasshopper Arizona Anthropologist Centennial Edition: 107-119. © 2015 Arizona Anthropologist 108 ARIZONA ANTHROPOLOGIST CENTENNIAL Archaeological Research Project for ongoing use by non-archaeol- (1963–1992) was the longest-lived ogists, especially descendant and of the four major University of steward community members (see Arizona Anthropology and Ari- Agnew and Bridgland 2006). As zona State Museum projects on discussed below, my conclusion is White Mountain Apache lands that, because the Tribe has made (Reid and Whittlesey 1999, 2005). clear in broad terms that it wants The other three projects—Kinish- to reassert control over its territory ba, Forestdale and Silver Creek— and citizenry, sovereignty-driven operated on the reservation for research offers an apt framework about 20 additional seasons (Table for reoccupying the relationship 2). The research partnerships be- between Arizona Anthropology gun by Dean Byron Cummings and White Mountain Apaches. at Kinishba in 1930 deserve con- tinued investments. This is partic- Academic and Local Benefits ularly true at Grasshopper, where from Grasshopper work remains to be done on two final and often overlooked stag- Reid and Whittlesey (1999, 2005) es of archaeological research: (1) ably enumerate the impacts of the site restoration to pre-excavation Grasshopper project on anthropo- condition; (2) site rehabilitation logical archaeology—especially Table 2. Arizona Anthropology projects on White Mountain Apache land Welch - The Last Archaeologist to (Almost) Abandon Grasshopper 109 processual and behavioral archae- eficial impacts of the Grasshopper ologies, ethnoarchaeology, and ce- project on careers, on Arizona ramic analysis. Arizona State Mu- Anthropology, and on the disci- seum shelves sag and collections pline, but fail to fully index the areas bulge with the materials and real contributions of Apaches and documentation gathered from their lands. In this regard, notes in White Mountain Apache lands. Grasshopper publications provide Nearly 1,000 aspiring archaeolo- at least some insights. Reid and gists and physical anthropologists Whittlesey (1999:xiv) give voice obtained technical and analytical to many colleagues’ sentiments: skills while building personal and “acknowledgements cannot ex- professional networks on White press fully our heartfelt thanks to Mountain Apache lands (Haury the White Mountain Apache, who 1985; Reid and Whittlesey 1999, encouraged, assisted, and worked 2005; Welch 2007a). The resultant alongside….this book is dedicated object and documentation col- to the Cibecue Apache.” They also lections are sufficient for various write, “As friends and cowork- future generations of industrious ers, the Apache help us achieve a research. In the meantime, the more intimate knowledge of the impressive roster of staff and stu- land…and teach us the impor- dents educated on Apache lands tance of spiritual beliefs to every- indicates breadths of research and day existence” (Reid and Whittle- training that are readily confirmed sey 2005:xv). In a reflection on his bibliographically. For Grasshop- professional development, Shi- per alone, as of 2015, Arizona An- mada (2014:1-2) writes: “working thropology students, faculty, and with the Apache crew… [fostered] affiliates have produced some 25 profound appreciation that ar- doctoral dissertations, 11 master’s chaeological practice, regardless theses, 125 journal articles and of where one… [works] is funda- book chapters, and various books mentally an affair involving live and monographs (see Reid and people and complex interpersonal Whittlesey 2005:218). Curriculum management. The Apache crew vitae of dozens of anthropolo- instilled a strong appreciation that gists are packed with publications … the archaeologist must commit grounded in places under Apache to and communicate effectively jurisdiction, and research contin- with team members and be mind- ues (Welch 2013). ful of the broader social context of Bibliography speaks to the ben- fieldwork.” If advances in other 110 ARIZONA ANTHROPOLOGIST CENTENNIAL anthropologies—social, linguistic, with permission for surveying and physical (for example, Basso anyplace west of Highway 60/77, 1996)—were to be included, or if for excavations, and for use of five contributions from the neighbor- acres for the Grasshopper camp. ing San Carlos Apache Tribe and In exchange, Arizona Anthropol- its citizens, especially to the Point ogy paid $200 per year, agreed to of Pines field school (see Haury hire tribal citizens “for such labor 1989) were also to be tallied, the as is required in connection with Arizona Apache benefits to Ari- the construction and maintenance zona Anthropology would be that of the buildings,” and commit- much more impressive. ted to giving the camp buildings Given the varied benefits and and improvements to the White subsidies that have flowed from Mountain Apache Tribe following White Mountain Apache to Arizo- the conclusion of the project. na Anthropology, it seems reason- able to ask whether the reverse is Apache Responses to also true. The question is especial- Grasshopper ly fair in light of uniquely favor- able geographical, social, and ar- Grasshopper’s benefits for the chaeological attributes of Apache Tribe and its citizens are sub- lands. Where else, within a day’s stantial, but I find no clear basis drive from Tucson, lies a suite of or point in attempting to assess largely undisturbed village ruins which party got the better deal. under the jurisdiction of generous Instead, I think questions about and tolerant stewards? No better Grasshopper’s still-reverberat- context for multiple decades of ing consequences for the White archaeological research and field Mountain Apache Tribe are more training during Arizona’s scorch- meaningfully assessed through ing summer months was available a consideration of the Tribe’s re- in 1963 and none is in 2015. sponses, direct as well as indirect, Table 3 spotlights benefits to opportunities and challenges flowing from the Grasshopper arising from Grasshopper. Table 4 project to Apaches. The initial lists some of these responses, ad- agreement, negotiated by Emil mittedly biased because of limits Haury and Raymond Thompson to my knowledge, of projects and and unanimously endorsed by programs implemented in accord Tribal Council Resolution 63-48, with Apache values and in pur- provided Arizona Anthropology suit of the Tribe’s interests. Welch - The Last Archaeologist to (Almost) Abandon Grasshopper 111 Table 3. Benefits to the White Mountain Apache Tribe from the Grasshopper Project Direct responses include ques- site. In late 1973, the Tribe lim- tions raised by some of the Tribe’s ited the archaeology permit to leaders about the merits of the territory well to the west of their Grasshopper project, as well as reservation’s most westerly town, the Tribe’s initiatives to restore Cibecue. In 1979, the year Reid and rehabilitate the Grasshopper took over as the field school direc- 112 ARIZONA ANTHROPOLOGIST CENTENNIAL tor, his consultations with Tribal the terms of the permit further re- Council Chairman Ronnie Lupe duced the size of the Grasshopper led to a halt in intentional burial study area and included Univer- excavations (Reid and Whittlesey sity responsibilities to restore all 1999:x, 2005:143-144). By