Nineteenth-century Apache wickiups: historically documented models for archaeological signatures of the dwellings of mobile people

Abstract

Highly mobile people must have sheltered in structures of some kind; but these are notoriously difficult to find. The author uses nineteenth-century photographs of an occupied Apache settlement to show how such shelters may have been made, comparing them with their archaeological remains in the present day. This suggests a 'signature' for the temporary shelters used by mobile groups in any period.

Distinctive Places, Suitable Spaces: Conceptualizing Mobile Group Occupational Duration and Landscape Use

“…These likely represent one or more of the nonAthapaskan groups referenced for the area by the Spaniards (most likely the Jano or Jocome) in southern Arizona (Seymour 2002a(Seymour , 2004a(Seymour , b, 2007a(Seymour , 2008c. These non-Athapaskan mobile groups had a durable biface-and formal-tool oriented flaked-stone technology, small expedient groundstone, and small rock-ringed structures or clearings in a rocky surface, as have been recorded on sites from southern Arizona, southern New Mexico, and southwest Texas (Seymour 2002a(Seymour , 2009a. Low-fired plainware pottery is sometimes found on their sites as are types that were clearly obtained from neighboring groups, such as the O'odham.…”

“…One reason for this seems to be that these especially small structures were not used for dwelling, per se, in the same sense as being used for general purpose structures where the full range of household tasks (storage, manufacture, sleeping, and cooking) were conducted in a confined space. Rather, they functioned for a more narrowly proscribed set of purposes, which have yet to be defined (sleeping, child restraint) (Seymour 2009a). Instead, features of a particular type were positioned relative to other features in the same class.…”

“…This small residential site is nestled in the oak and piñon forest on a south-facing slope in the foothills (Seymour 1995;Seymour and Harlan 1996). The core of the site consists of two structures (a lean-to and a rock-ring structure), two small roasting pits, a probable gaming feature, a grinding slick, and a surface scatter of artifacts (see Seymour 2002aSeymour , 2004aSeymour , 2009a; for definitions of structure types). The presence of only two structures suggests that this site is a small camp, perhaps occupied by two families or an extended family.…”

“…This deficiency results from a couple of different factors, one of which is that evidence of the dwellings is so unobtrusive that most archaeologists are apt not to recognize them when using the accepted devices of recognition (or perhaps in some cases surface evidence is not preserved). Clearly, these conceptual tools are in need of revision, but discussions of this are beyond the scope of this current essay (but see Seymour, 2002aSeymour, , 2008aSeymour, , 2009a.…”

“…There is not yet widespread acceptance of these admittedly vague rock rings as features (despite hundreds being carefully documented in the Southwest [see Seymour 2002aSeymour , 2008aSeymour , 2009a and thousands in adjacent regions [Fowler and Fowler 1971;Rogers 1939Rogers , 1966) because the presence of artifacts is considered a litmus test for affirmation of the cultural origin of otherwise ambiguous curvilinear alignments or clearings in rocky surfaces.…”