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 the early excavated areas and otherwise 1980s, resolutions from the Tribe’s leave “the area in as near to origi- governing body no longer passed nal condition as possible” as well with unanimous endorsements as to return all collected mate- for the project. Judy DeHose, a rials “to the Tribe after analysis councilmember from Cibecue, and report preparations unless began opposing the project’s con- otherwise directed.” In 1991, Jeff tinuation on the grounds that the Reid and Joe Ezzo requested and excavations were disrespectful received the Tribe’s permission and could have unforeseen nega- to conduct bioarchaeological re- tive consequences. By about 1984, search, possibly the first such proj-

Table 4. Some indirect White Mountain Apache responses to Grasshopper Welch - The Last Archaeologist to (Almost) Abandon Grasshopper 113 ect authorized post-NAGPRA. In school as an undergraduate (Mills the fall of 1992, Bureau of Indian et al. 2008; Laluk 2015). The Tribe Affairs Fort Apache Agency Su- also hired Arizona Anthropolo- perintendent Ben Nuvamsa initi- gy Ph.D, holders—first me then ated discussions with the Tribal Karl Hoerig, who has dedicated Council that led to a sustained much of his career to service as campaign by Apache, Zuni, and the director of the Tribe’s Cultural Hopi cultural and elected leaders Center (since 2001) and non-profit to restore and rehabilitate Grass- Fort Apache Heritage Foundation hopper and other sites on Apache (since 2005) (Hoerig et al. 2015). lands investigated by Arizona An- The responses mentioned here thropology (Welch and Ferguson suggest to me a suite of Apache 2007). Intertribal consultations values and interests relating to held at Grasshopper identified cultural resources that are lo- specific concerns that were ad- cal (non-extractive), centered on dressed by clean up, backfilling, Apache oral traditions and other re-contouring, and architectural intangible aspects of living tradi- stabilization work completed by tions (not Ancestral Pueblo ma- the Tribe’s historic preservation terial culture), and connected to office (1997–1999). The University a broader and longer-term pro- provided funds; the U.S. National gram of tourism-based economic Park Service provided technical as- development (non-academic and sistance through workshops led by value-added). It is no coincidence staff members that included Mick- that these values and interests ey Estrada, Todd Metzger, and Jim stand in clear contrasts to those Trott (Table 3; Welch 2001, 2009). underlying the Grasshopper proj- The Tribe and its people also ect. Grasshopper, in other words, responded indirectly to Grass- helped the Tribe to define and hopper. Nick Laluk, a citizen of pursue a distinctive heritage pro- the White Mountain Apache Tribe gram. Instead of building upon who received his anthropology Arizona Anthropology invest- doctorate under Barbara Mills’ ments in Grasshopper or Kinish- supervision in 2015, participated ba, the Tribe focused on creating in the restoration and stabiliza- local knowledge and capacity to tion workshops while an intern document, interpret and other- with the historic preservation of- wise manage Apache cultural re- fice. Laluk later enrolled in the Ar- sources for Apache benefit. The izona Anthropology summer field Tribe’s initiatives constitute and 114 ARIZONA ANTHROPOLOGIST CENTENNIAL indicate a constructive critical re- Apaches want in relation to cultur- action to external, term-limited, al resources, the Tribe’s initiatives extractive research. illustrate at least four attributes for collaborative research designs re- Toward Sovereignty-Driven lated to cultural resources: Research 1. Community-orientated— grounded in local values and It may be many years before the interests in places, traditions, White Mountain Apache Tribe or other forms of heritage. re-prioritizes research engage- 2. Value-added—committed to ments with academic proponents. leaving more than taking. The Tribe is otherwise occupied. 3. Minimally-intrusive—com- As is true for much of Native mitted to the preservation of America, Arizona’s Apaches are authentic integrities existing among the least healthy, wealthy, at various social, spatial and and educated people on the con- temporal scales. tinent (Dunbar-Ortiz 2014). The 4. Sovereignty-enhancing—sup- Tribe’s struggles with climate portive of effective and sus- change consequences, population tainable local governance of growth, underemployment, and territory and associated peo- the gradual withdrawal of gov- ple and communities. ernment support and trusteeship This list, while starkly contrasting are nothing less than existential with the research precepts implicit (Wagner 2014). As we await the in Burge’s 1947 request for assis- release of tribally authored calls tance (from the 1947 Atlatl article, for research partnerships and “What Good is an Anthropologist?” proposals, the Tribe’s direct and reprinted on page 122 of this issue), indirect reactions to Grasshopper, is a natural outgrowth of discus- coupled with my own experience sions centering on “Haury’s idea and the success of Hoerig’s four that a people should be allowed to (2010–2013) Ethnography and work out its own destiny.” Geographic Information Systems Of paramount interest for the field schools (Hoerig et al. 2015; White Mountain Apache Tribe UA School of Anthropology 2013), and its elected and cultural lead- provide interim guidance on ways ers is expanding and enhancing to align academic and Apache re- sovereignty as an antidote to colo- search interests and initiatives. nialist policy and practice, includ- As authentic expressions of what ing extractive research. A shift Welch - The Last Archaeologist to (Almost) Abandon Grasshopper 115 from academic or discipline-driv- with tribes and other indigenous en research to sovereignty-driven and place-based communities. research begins with the under- The needs to create and mobilize standing sovereignty as dependent knowledge relating to sovereign- upon five “pillars” or constituents: ty and its constituents transcend 1. Self-sufficiency—creation and short-term political motives. In maintenance of sustainable this sense, sovereignty-driven supplies of the food, water, research is a logical response to shelter and human relation- the manifold challenges of glob- ships essential for people to al change and to the retreat from survive and thrive; large scale experiments with social 2. Self-determination—poli- and biophysical engineering. Sov- cies and practices that foster ereignty-driven research includes and enable futures concor- limitless opportunities for serving dant with longstanding and and integrating the needs and in- emergent community values terests of indigenous and non-in- and interests; digenous citizens, communities, 3. Self-governance—internal ca- institutions, and researchers with pacities to pursue and sustain social and “softer” biophysical self-determination; science expertise ranging from, 4. Self-representation—first-per- anthropology, economics, geog- son portrayals of cultures, his- raphy, law and political science tories and aspirations; to agriculture forestry, hydrolo- 5. Peer-Recognition—establish- gy, and watershed management, ment of government-to-gov- etc. Designing and implementing ernment and other peer rela- research using the four attributes tionships based on legitimate derived from Apache reactions to authority over territory, citi- Grasshopper and intended to bol- zens and resources. ster one or more of the five pillars Arizona Anthropology has, at of tribal and local government sov- least for the time being, aban- ereignty offers a path to not mere- doned Grasshopper and other ly avoiding harms but achieving Apache-controlled loci of excava- research relevance, benefits, and tion, collection, and training. Sov- meaning on individual, disci- ereignty’s five pillars offer guid- plinary, and communal levels. ance toward re-occupying and I close with the suggestion that refreshing the partnership and anthropologists assess research for strategic research planning designs, project legacies, and even 116 ARIZONA ANTHROPOLOGIST CENTENNIAL careers not only in terms of knowl- support to Apache youth and in- edge gathered and applied—that terpretive and outreach program- is, what has been taken from re- ming for Apaches and visitors to search contexts—but also in terms the Nohwike’ Bágowa (House of of knowledge and capacity left be- Our Footprints) Museum. Visit hind to catalyze and sustain fur- www.fortapachearizona.com for ther inquiry, understanding, and more information or to donate. local development. I appeal to all who have benefitted from Grass- References Cited hopper and other Arizona An- thropology on Apache lands—a Agnew, Neville, and Janet Bridgland, list that surely includes every editors holder of an advanced anthropol- 2006 Of the Past, for the Future: Integrating Archaeology ogy degree from the University and Conservation, Proceedings of Arizona—to learn more and of the Conservation Theme at consider doing more to assist the the 5th World Archaeological White Mountain Apache Tribe in Congress, Washington, D.C., their efforts to survive and pros- 22-26 June 2003. Getty Conser- per in the wake of intensive and vation Institute Symposium prolonged engagements with Eu- Proceedings Series. Los ro-Americans and Western insti- Angeles: Getty Conservation tutions, including anthropologists Institute. http://hdl.handle. and anthropologies. net/10020/gci_pubs/of_past_ for_future. Afterword: One Way to Help Basso, Keith H. 1996 Wisdom Sits in Places: Landscape The Fort Apache Heritage Foun- and Language Among the Western dation is the non-profit arm of the Apache. University of New Mex- White Mountain Apache Tribe ico Press, Albuquerque. dedicated to the preservation of the Tribe’s tangible cultural her- Cummings, Byron S. itage (especially the Fort Apache 1940 Kinishba: A Prehistoric Pueblo and Kinishba Ruins National of the Great Pueblo Period. Historic Landmarks) and the per- Tucson: Hohokam Museums petuation of Apache culture and Association and the University language. The Foundation pro- of Arizona. vides scholarship and leadership Welch - The Last Archaeologist to (Almost) Abandon Grasshopper 117

Dunbar-Ortiz, Roxanne in SE Arizona: An Exercise in Col- 2014 An Indigenous Peoples' History laboration. Doctoral dissertation, of the United States. Beacon University of Arizona, Tucson. Press, Boston. Mills, Barbara J. Haury, Emil W. 2005 Curricular Matters: The Impact 1934 The Canyon Creek Ruin and the of Archaeological Field Schools Cliff Dwellings of the Sierra on Southwest Archaeology. Ancha. Medallion Papers No.14. In Southwest Archaeology in the Gila Pueblo Globe. Twentieth Century, edited by 1940 Excavations in the Forestdale Linda S. Cordell and Don D. Valley, East-Central Arizona. Fowler, pp. 60-80. University of Social Sciences Bulletin 12. Uni- Utah Press, Salt Lake City. versity of Arizona Bulletin 11(4). Tucson. Mills, Barbara J., Mark Altaha, John 1985 Mogollon Culture in the Forestdale R. Welch, and T. J. Ferguson Valley, East-Central Arizona. 2008 Field Schools without Trowels: Tucson: University of Arizona Teaching Archaeological Ethics Press. and Heritage Preservation in a 1989 Point of Pines, Arizona: A Collaborative ontext. In Collabo- History of the University of rating at the Trowel's Edge: Teach- Arizona Archaeological Field ing and Learning in Indigenous School. University of Arizona Archaeology, edited by Stephen Anthropological Papers No. 50. W. Silliman, pp. 25-49. Tucson: Tucson: University of Arizona University of Arizona Press. Press. Mills, Barbara J., Sarah A. Herr, and Hoerig, Karl A., John R. Welch, T. J. Scott Van Keuren (editors) Ferguson, and Gabriella Soto 1999 Living on the Edge of the Rim: 2015 Expanding Toolkits for Heritage Excavations and Analysis of the Perpetuation: The Western Silver Creek Archaeological Re- Apache Ethnography and search Project 1993-1998. Arizona Geographic Information Science State Museum Archaeological Research Experience Series No. 192. Arizona State for Undergraduates. Internation- Museum. Tucson: University of al Journal of Applied Geospatial Arizona Press. Research 6:60-77. George P. Nicholas, John R. Welch, Laluk, Nicholas and Eldon C. Yellowhorn 2015 Historical-Period Apache Occupa- 2008 Collaborative Encounters. In tion of the Chiricahua Mountains Archaeological Practice: Engaging 118 ARIZONA ANTHROPOLOGIST CENTENNIAL

Descendant Communities, edited Triadan, Daniela by Chip Colwell-Chanthaphonh 1997 Ceramic Commodities and and T. J. Ferguson (Walnut Common Containers: Produc- Creek, Ca: AltaMira Press, tion and Distribution of White 2008), 288-90. Mountain Red Ware in the Grasshopper Region, Arizona. Olsen, John W. Anthropological Papers 61. 1990 Vertebrate Faunal Remains Tucson: University of Arizona from Grasshopper Pueblo, Press. Arizona. Anthropological Papers 83. Museum of Anthropology, University of Arizona School of University of Michigan, Ann Anthropology Arbor. 2013 “Summer Research Experience for Undergraduates in Ethnog- Reid, J. Jefferson, and Stephanie M. raphy and GIS.” http://anthro- Whittlesey pology.arizona.edu/content/ 1997 The Archaeology of Ancient Arizona. western_apache_ethnogra- Tucson: University of Arizona phy_and_gis_research_experi- Press. ence_undergraduates, consult- 1999 Grasshopper Pueblo: A Story of ed April 11, 2015. Archaeology and Ancient Life. Tucson: University of Arizona Van Keuren, Scott Press. 1999 Ceramic Design Structure and 2005 Thirty Years into Yesterday: A the Organization of Cibola History of Archaeology at Grass- White Ware Production in the hopper Pueblo. Tucson: Universi- Grasshopper Region, Arizona. ty of Arizona Press. Archaeological Series 191. Arizona 2010 Prehistory, Personality, and Place: State Museum, Tucson. Emil W. Haury and the Mogollon Controversy. Tucson: University Wagner, Dennis of Arizona Press. 2014 Apaches Approach Crossroads. The Arizona Republic. Feb- Shimada, Izumi ruary 2, 2014. http://www. 2013 Lessons from Working with azcentral.com/news/arti- the Cibecue Apache Youth cles/20140106white-moun- (1973-4). Paper presented at tain-apaches-crossroads.html the Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Welch, John R. Honolulu. 1997 White Eyes' Lies and the Battle for Dzil Nchaa Si An. American Indian Quarterly 27(1):75-109 Welch - The Last Archaeologist to (Almost) Abandon Grasshopper 119

2000 The White Mountain Apache Welch, John R., and Robert C. Brauchli Tribe Heritage Program: Ori- 2010 “Subject to the Right of the Sec- gins, Operations, and Challeng- retary of the Interior”: The es. In Working Together: Native White Mountain Apache Recla- Americans and Archaeologists, mation of the Fort Apache and edited by Kurt E. Dongoske, Theodore Roosevelt School His- Mark Aldenderfer, and Karen toric District. Wicazo Sa Review Doehner, pp. 67-83. Washing- 25(1):47-73. ton, DC: Society for American Archaeology. Welch, J.R., and T. J. Ferguson 2007a 'A Monument to Native Civili- 2007 Putting Patria into Repatriation: zation’: Byron Cummings’ Cultural Affiliations of White Still-Unfolding Vision for Kin- Mountain Apache Tribe Lands. ishba Ruins. Journal of the South- Journal of Social Archaeology west 49(1):1-94 7:171-198. 2007b Kinishba Bibliography. Journal of the Southwest 49(1):117-127. Zedeño, María Nieves 2009 Reconstructing the Ndee (West- 1994 Sourcing Prehistoric Ceramics at ern Apache) Homeland. In The Chodistaas Pueblo, Arizona: The Archaeology of Meaningful Places, Circulation of People and Pots in edited by Brenda Bowser and the Grasshopper Region. Anthro- M. Nieves Zedeño, pp. 149-162. pological Papers 58. Tucson: Salt Lake City: University of University of Arizona Press. Utah Press.