Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T15:41:47.406Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Stratigraphy of Ventana Cave, Arizona1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2017

Emil W. Haury*
Affiliation:
University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona

Extract

The Papago Indian Reservation, touching the Mexican border in south-central Arizona, has been the scene of anthropological work by the Department of Anthropology of the University of Arizona and the Arizona State Museum during the past four years. One branch of this general study has been archaeological, consisting of reconnaissance and of excavation in what were considered to be key sites. Beyond Gila Pueblo's limited survey in Papagueria, next to nothing was known about it. The environment is harsh and arid, and scanty surface water limits agricultural possibilities. Yet more than 5000 Papago Indians somehow manage, as they have for centuries, to make a comfortable if simple living in the area. Certainly the life there today is nothing new and it is a fair conclusion that, although inhospitable, the area should furnish a fairly rich archaeological picture. As our work proceeded it became evident that there were ruins in abundance. With few exceptions, these were small and the occupation thinly spread. Occasionally, a large site with sizable trash mounds gave promise of stratigraphy.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1943

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

This paper appears before the Ventana remains have been completely analyzed. Statements should, therefore, be regarded as preliminary and subject to revision.

References

2 Gladwin and Gladwin, 1929. See Bibliography, pp. 291–295, following.

3 Gladwin, Haury, Sayles, and Gladwin, 1937.

4 Sayles and Antevs, 1941.

5 Campbell and Campbell, 1935; Campbell, Campbell, Antevs, Amsden, Barbieri, and Bode, 1937; Rogers, 1939.

6 This arrangement of projectile points is intended to indicate trend only. They were not so neatly bracketed as shown, especially in the midden.

7 Roberts, 1935; 1936.