« AnteriorContinuar »
in the modern Tusayan pueblos, and that neither copper nor silver is worked at the present day, we may justly suspect that it
At Zuñi, where there is an expert silversmith, the art was doubtless learned from the Mexicans.' Ignorance of working metal is not necessarily an evidence of inferiority in culture, but rather the effect of environment and absence of native copper. Had the knowledge of working copper existed among the ancients to any considerable extent, its absence in a native state would not seriously have prevented its use, for it could readily have been obtained by barter. Deposits of obsidian, a volcanic glass much prized for arrowpoints, are not found in Tusayan near the towns, and yet fragments of it are among the most common substances found in old ruins. Many large pieces of obsidian' occurred in Sikyatki graves, showing how much it was prized, and indicating how far this (to them) precious substance had traveled before it came into their hands. Had a people who used shells from the Pacific or turquoise from Rio Grande valley possessed a knowledge of working copper and practiced it to any extent, there was nothing to have prevented them from obtaining it in the same way they did obsidian, but the indications are that they did not have this art.
As the culture of the cliff-dwellers is more clearly brought to light by archeologists the conclusion becomes more prominent that their characteristic pottery belongs to that group called whiteand-black, or white ware ornamented with geometric black figures. This prehistoric pottery, characteristic of cliff-dwellers, as pointed out by Holmes, is archaic, or older than any other kind of Pueblo ceramics. A few objects of this kind of ware were exhumed from Sikyatki, but there is evidence that they were not manufactured by the potters of that pueblo. This characteristic pottery came from cliff-houses, and was preserved as ancestral heirlooms probably inherited from people who lived in cliff-dwellings. It is interesting to note that as a rule these ancient vessels were of such a form as to suggest their use in ceremonials.
1 I have seen no sufficient evidence that the Zuñi melted and worked copper in
prehistoric times during their residence in Cibola.
2 A very considerable amount of obsidian occurs in the form of flakes on the surface of most of the ancient ruins of Arizona. In more modern ruins, and those which were evidently inhabited only a short time, these are more limited in number.
3 Hopi legends constantly refer to the life of some of the component clans of Tusayan in the Tsegi canyon remarkable for the cliff-home ruins, and these characteristic vessels probably came from that or similar localities.
The picture of the prehistoric culture of Tusayan which I have given throws in relief several phases of ancient culture in the Pueblo region which may be aids in a comparison with the culture of other provinces of this area. As research on the present Pueblo culture advances, the fact comes out in more distinct outline that modern Pueblo life is more highly differentiated than ancient. Objects from old Tusayan ruins resemble one another more closely than modern objects resemble the ancient. There has been an unequal differentiation along slightly different lines, which means diversity in influences. Secondly, prehistoric ceramics from ruins in Zuñi, Tusayan, and the Rio Grande region are as a rule much closer in their decoration than modern pottery from the same regions, which likewise shows diversity of modern development. Thirdly, the farther we go back in age, while the pottery maintains its superiority, the number of likenesses with objects from cliff-dwellings increases. Every addition to our knowledge emphasizes the belief that there is no line of separation between ruined pueblos situated in the plains and cave-dwellers and cliff-villagers of the canyons. The idea that the Pueblos are remnants of the ancient villagers who sometimes inhabited cliff-houses is no new thought, for it was pointed out long ago by Holmes,' Bessels, and others. From a substratum of culture, which in prehistoric times was more uniform over the Pueblo region than it is today, has evolved in different parts of our southwest specially adaptive and modified survivals, affording all the variations which we see in different modern pueblos. Sikyatki affords us a fair picture of the prehistoric culture in a time contemporary no doubt with inhabited cliff-dwellings.
I have purposely omitted to speak of the probable origin of Tusayan culture or its antecedents before the settlement of Sikyatki, regarding this beyond the province of this communication. When this pueblo was in its prime the character of Tusayan culture was no less distinctive than it is today and was as far removed as modern from that of the wild Shoshonean nomads. Near the close of his memoir Dr Nordenskiöld says of the Pueblos: “ They were nomadic Indians, whose culture had been considerably modified and in certain respects elevated by altered conditions of life. The evolution of this culture had
nothing in common with that of the ancient Mexican civilization, but during its decadence it was perhaps influenced in some respects by the latter.” Although this view is held in a more or less modified form by several prominent ethnologists, a study of the ancient culture of Tusayan has not led me to accept it.
I presume every one would agree that the Tusayan Indians were formerly nomadic in the sense that most sedentary people were preceded by a nomadic stage of culture, and that passing from that condition they were in certain respects elevated by altered conditions would seem likewise true, but that the evolution of the Pueblo culture had nothing in common with that of ancient Mexico has not been proven by any facts brought to the attention of ethnologists by Nordenskiöld or any one of the school to which his work belongs. While I can heartily subscribe to the statement that the ancient pottery of the cliff-dwellers is superior to that of modern Moki, as Nordenskiöld has shown, it is pertinent in following his argument to ask how it compares with ancient Tusayan ceramics. Certainly it is not superior, and if so the decadence must have occurred since Sikyatki fell. It is very improbable that ancient Mexican civilization has had any influence on that period. On the contrary, the likeness of Sikyatki pottery to that of the northern states of Mexico and southern Arizona is greater than the modern, the products of Tusayan pueblos in their decadence. While we may be justified in these theoretical conclusions or others of kindred vagueness, archeology is piteously weak in information in regard to the prehistoric character of the Pueblos of the southwest. You can almost count on your fingers the number of specimens of ancient pottery from the ruins near Zuñi in our museums, and few of these have any indication from what Zuñi ruin they came or in what association. The same is true of pottery from the great ruins of the Chaco, the Rio Grande valley, and the cliff-houses of Tsegi. We are crippled when we attempt theorizing by want of data regarding that about which we speculate, and I believe there is no field of American archeology which will reward the serious student with more interesting discoveries than scientific exploration of the ruins of our south west.
1 From the large collections of modern Pueblo pottery in the National Museum one can readily learn to tell at a glance the locality from which modern pottery came. When collections of ancient ware from the different sections of the Pueblo area become as large, we will have an important aid in tracking prehistoric migrations by determin. ing the geographic limitations of certain kinds of pottery.
A PARTIAL LIST OF MOKI ANIMAL NAMES.-During a short stay at Keams Cañon, Arizona, in the summer of 1894, the writer was fortunate enough to secure the Moki names of a number of the mammals and birds which he collected in that interesting locality. Although the list is very incomplete, it is thought best to publish it, as it may stimulate others to continue the work.
The following table gives the scientific, popular, and Moki names of the mammals and birds :
. Bar'-hŭ Perognathus apache.. Pocket mouse..
Ho-mi'-chi Peromyscus (several species). White-footed mice
Byr'-shỏ Spermophilus leucurus cinnamomeus .....
Cinnamon ground squirrel... Iung-yai-ya Spermophilus grammurus.... Rock squirrel ...
Lar-co'-na Tamias gracilis .Chipmunk
.Ko-win'-na Thomomys..... Pocket gopher..
. Mö'-yi Vespertilio and other genera. Bat..
Geococcyx californianus..... Roadrunner....
Hosh'-bo-8 Harporhynchus bendirei. Bendire's thrasher
Köt-tö'-zy Phalænoptilus nuttalli... .Poorwill......
.H0-witz-k0 Trochilus and other genera. . . Hummingbird
FRONTIER FORTS OF PENNSYLVANIA.—The“ Report of the commission to locate the site of the frontier forts of Pennsylvania,” comprising two large, fully illustrated octavo volumes, has recently been published at Harrisburg through the wise foresight of the State's officials. The section devoted to the frontier forts within the Wyoming valley region was prepared by the late Sheldon Reynolds, of Wilkes-Barré, who up to the time of his demise was president of the Wyoming Historical and Geological Society and a corresponding member of the Anthropological Society of Washington. The latter Society is indebted to Mrs Reynolds for a copy of this praiseworthy work.
LEFT-HANDEDNESS IN NORTH AMERICAN
DANIEL G. BRINTON, M. D.
Among educated Americans and Europeans of the present generation from 2 to 4 per cent are positively left-handed. They write, draw, eat, sew, etc, easier and better with the left than with the right hand. The remaining 96 per cent are either markedly right-handed or else more or less ambidextrous. Several interesting questions are suggested by this fact:
Has this proportion always been the same in the human species, and does it obtain today among savage tribes ?
What are the physical and psychical correlations of lefthandedness?
What is the explanation of the general superiority of the right hand and the occasional superiority of the left ?
I shall devote myself at present to the first of these inquiries and at the close offer some observations on the others.
Archeologists have not neglected to study the relics of primitive man with the aim of ascertaining his dextral or sinistral preferences, but their conclusions have not been uniform. Dr John Evans, as quoted by Sir Daniel Wilson, claims that there was a manifest predominance of right-handedness among the paleolithic flint-workers of southern England', basing his conclusion mainly on the “levogyric” planes of the stone blades they chipped-a point which I shall explain later. On the other hand, M. G. De Mortillet, in 1890, examined 354 stone-scrapers (grattoirs) from various stations in France and Switzerland-all of the double-edge form, which must have been held in the hand (not hafted)—and obtained the following curious results :?
1 Sir Daniel Wilson : Left-Handedness, p. 57, London, 1891. It is proper to remark at the outset that Sir Daniel rejected the opinion advanced in the present article, to the effect that savage races and primitive men present greater evidences of left and bothhandedness than modern, civilized people. See his work, pp. 165, 166.
2 Bulletins de la Société d'Anthropologie de Paris. Séance du 3 Juillet, 1890. His conclusion is expressed in these words: “Ce qu'il y a de certain, c'est que, pendant le préhistorique, les gauchers etaient beaucoup plus abondants que de nos jours dans nos regions."