Deni J. Seymour Ancestral Apache Housing
Cycles of Renewal, Transportable Assets:
Aspects of Ancestral Apache Housing
Deni J. Seymour
Ancestral Apachean groups in the mountainous American Southwest used huts or wickiups rather
than tipis and so their habitation sites tend to defy recognition. The housing types used by these
southernmost and westernmost ancestral Apache are much more subtle, variable, and blend into the
mountainous terrain, unlike their later conical tipi counterparts in this area and on the Southern Plains.
Elsewhere some of the correlates for these types of structure have been discussed but here some of the
reasons for this difference are explained from a Southwestern perspective, including factors that relate to
distinctions in household size, the focus of household activities, the purposeful nature of constructed
space, approach to selection of place, and the nature of movement in versus through a region. Other
differences between tipi and wickiup use can be explained by a number of practical factors that relate to
terrain, resource availability, climate, and proximity to and nature of interaction with neighboring
groups. Comparisons are made between the heart of the mountainous Southwest, the fringe, and the
adjacent plains.
Keywords: Apache shelters, tipi, wickiup, extemporaneous housing, “transportable building
package”
Deni J. Seymour, Research Associate, The Southwest Center, University of Arizona, Denijseymour@aol.com
Plains Anthropologist, Vol. 55, No. 214, pp. 133–152, 2010
133
Tipis and tipi rings, part and parcel, are elements
of the public and scholarly imaginary of the
historic Apache in the American Southwest.
Though associated with the Apache in movies,
literature, and in scholarly productions this shelter
type was not used by the ancestral Apache or early
Athapaskan-speakers in the southern portion of the
American Southwest until sometime in the late
1700s or the 1800s (Figure 1). This is apparent
even among the White Mountain Apache (further
north) as the informant Anna Price, commented:
“This kind of conical, straight-sided tipi they are
making at Fort Apache now—we never used to
make at all” (Goodwin Papers 1929–1939:2). As a
result, relatively few Southwestern tipi ring sites
have been identified as compared to the abundance
of stone rings known on the plains, and specifi-
cally the Northern Plains (cf. W. Davis 1983:2). As
the roster of known ancestral Apache ar1chaeological sites lengthens in the Southwest,
material culture and land use differences have
become apparent that distinguish groups that
occupied different geographically based
homelands (Seymour 2002). House type is one
discernable difference between ancestral
Apachean groups occupying the Southern
Plains, the Plains-Southwest margin, and the
interior of the mountainous Southwest
(Seymour 2002, 2008a, 2009a, 2009b).
On-going archaeological investigations by the
author indicate that ancestral Chiricahua and
Mescalero, who made the basin-and-range
province their home, built wickiups or
brush-covered—sometimes hide-covered—huts
while those on the Llano Estacado, or the
Southern High Plains
PLAINS ANTHROPOLOGIST VOL. 55, NO. 214, 2010
Figure 1: The southern Southwest and the western portion of the Llano
This archaeological pattern is
Estacado. (Drawn by author.)
confirmed by the documentary and
ethnographic records. For example,
Moorhead (1968:4) noted that “In
the eastern area the Apaches
pitched leathern tipis on the grassy
plains; in the western area they
fashioned crude wickiups of
scrubby tree branches and placed
them in the craggy mountains.”
Another source indicates that “We
[Mescaleros] didn’t carry lodge
poles about with us but simply
made a rude framework of sticks,
saplings, or brush, and threw over it
whatever we had available”
(Betzinez and Nye 1959:29). Yet,
this geographic pattern is not
absolute because wickiup
“foundations” are present on the
Llano Estacado in places that
exhibit variable terrain, such as on
the rocky
of eastern New Mexico tended to use tipis. Those
in the intervening area built both. This article uses
archaeological, documentary, and ethnographic
data along with a theory of landscape use to
explain why tipis were used on this portion of the
plains while wickiups were so prevalent in the
mountainous Southwest.
Figure 2. Plains-Southwestern margin. Areas of greatest
topographic relief and variability at the interface between the
basin-and-range and plains provinces. (Drawn by author.)
134
slopes of washes and canyons, and at the western edge of the
Llano Estacado, including along the Mescalero Escarpment,
and where the mountains descend toward the Pecos River
(Figure 2). Wickiup rings are also present on the rough mesa
slopes surrounding the eastern frontier Salinas and Galisteo
Basin pueblos, whereas tipi rings are on
the flat mesa tops and low-lying areas adjacent to
these sedentary population centers (Seymour 2006,
2007a, 2008b). It should be no wonder that housing
types are variable around these Eastern Frontier
Pueblos and in intermediate areas between
mountains and plains because these are
topographically diverse zones relative to the low
topographic relief of the Llano Estacado in general,
and were areas of cultural interface and
inter-geographic movement, as were many of the
waterways and trail corridors throughout the plains.
The historic record from the plains also indicates that both
wickiups and tipis were sometimes found in the same
settlement (Moorhead 1968:252); it is not made clear,
however, whether more than one
2
Deni J. Seymour Ancestral Apache Housing
group (Apache or other; or distinct Apachean
difficult to define in the heart of the American
bands) was present when this pattern was
Southwest. Archaeologists looking for tipi-ring
observed. Archaeological examples of more than
outlines have been routinely disappointed, and
one type of structure in a single site have been
consequently comparatively little research has
documented by the author in the mountains of
been dedicated to these stone circles, relative to
southern New Mexico and Texas, for example at
the Plains where more than eight decades of
the Cerro Rojo site and near Hueco Tanks (LA
research has occurred (L. Davis 1983:1). One
37188, 41EP5562; Seymour 2002, 2004), at LA
reason for this is because the housing types used
37089 on Otero Mesa, and on the Llano
by these southernmost ancestral Apache are
Estacado (LA 38326, LA 132808) suggesting,
much more subtle, variable, and blend into the
(1) the presence of more than one group when
craggy backdrop of the mountainous terrain
structure types are spatially separated and
(Seymour 2002, 2004, 2007c, 2008c, 2009a,
different constellations of artifacts are present in
2009c), unlike their conical tipi counterparts on
each area, (2) seasonality when differences are
the southern Plains that are sometimes much
discernable in the substantiality of construction,
more conspicuous, in both the systemic and
(3) discrete visits to the site by groups with
archaeological contexts (Figures 3–6). The
different housing practices (or
descriptive nature of these differences and the
multicomponentcy). Yet, even at the Cañon de
correlates of each of
los Embudos site in Sonora, Mexico, where
Geronimo attempted to surrender early in 1886,
historic photographs by C.S. Fly from the time
of the event show use of four structure types by
people of the same group, at the same time, and
united in the same purpose, five types if the
scout camp is included. These
photo-documented structures sometimes show
distinctly different archaeological signatures as
well when examined on the ground (Seymour
2007b, 2009a). This variability at Cañon de los
Embudos seemingly reflects the eclectic nature
of material culture associated with a raiding and
mobile lifestyle where structure coverings have
been fortuitously obtained or are improvised
using materials readily at hand (Seymour
2009b). Terrell (1974:53) notes with seeming
authority that “the framework [of the wickiup]
could be covered with various materials to make
them comfortable under almost every climatic
condition…rushes and leafy branches in hot
weather, and the hides of large animals in
winter.”
Given these and other factors it is
perhaps no surprise that ancestral
Apache habitation sites have been so
Figure 3: Schematic of tipi ring types. Based on actual plan drawings of features.
(Drawn by author.) (Black rocks have been added; grey rocks are naturally
occurring.)
135
PLAINS ANTHROPOLOGIST VOL. 55, NO. 214, 2010
Figure 4: Rock tipi ring outline from the Llano Estacado. (Photographed by author,
plicitly within our profession that it
2008.)
is often simply assumed that
ethnographic, oral historic, and
historic patterns can be used to
predict or infer archaeological
patterns and features from earlier in
time. Yet this is often not the case.
For example, with respect to housing
types the Southwestern ethnographic
literature suggests that tipis might
have been used by the Southwestern
Apache in the distant past (Ball
1970:17; Opler 1941:385). Instead
tipis seem to have been used in the
recent past (although distant in
memory), but apparently not in the
distant past as judged in
archaeological terms and time.
Recollections seem to document a
time before the present when tipis
were used, and to this is often
attached an assumption
these housing types have been discussed
2006, 2007; Roper 2007; Rubertone 2000). In
elsewhere (Seymour 2002, 2004, 2007c, 2008b,
such a conceptualization, archaeology simply
2008c, 2009a, 2009b; Seymour and Church 2007; serves as the finishing touches to or
Seymour and Robertson 2008). Some of the
affirmation of an already completed treatise.
reasons for this difference are discussed from a
The direct historical approach is used so imSouthwestern perspective in the following pages. 136
METHODOLOGICAL FOUNDATION
Some readers and reviewers may be taken
aback by the archaeology-centric approach used in
this article. One could argue that rather than
suggesting, as I have above, that the
“archaeological pattern is confirmed by the
documentary and ethnographic records,” one is
confirming through archaeology what is already
known from documentary and ethnographic
sources, as has been done in many other instances,
such as, for example, in the Colorado area
(Kingsbury and Gabel 1983). Yet, this objection is
founded in a paradigm driven by the direct
historical approach wherein one assumes we
already know what is true from these other sources
and that this knowledge can be extended back in
time and across geographic and cultural boundaries
(Bleed 2007; Lyman and O’Brien 2001; Mitchell
of even greater historical depth to a relatively recently
adopted practice (e.g., nineteenth century). Tipis may
be considered “traditional” housing types for all
Apache, but the archaeological record suggests this
“traditional” house type in the Southwest has limited
time depth and thus this concept of traditional that has
been made relevant by ethnographers is misleading
with respect to archaeological expectations.
Archaeological, ethnographic, and documentary
data are independently derived and should be treated as
such. Each source is subject to verification and must be
considered within a temporal framework so that change
can be captured and so that it is possible to recognize
when practices and recollections are being interpreted
in the context of modern times. By placing
ethnography and ethnohistory before archaeological
data, as is common among ethnohistorians and
anthropologists, archaeology becomes subordinate to
the former, often providing misleadingly synchronic
and static results.
Instead, current methodological paradigms allow
archaeology to serve as a primary data source, while
drawing upon ethnographic and documentary
sources where and when appropriate. When
archaeology is allowed to take precedence it can
serve a more detached and rigorous role in
Deni J. Seymour Ancestral Apache Housing
discovery and verification and in resolving conflicts between sources. When ethnographic and
documentary records are used as supplementary sources or the basis for methodological direction, it is
not necessary or advisable to assume their accuracy, validity, or clarity. In this view documentary and
ethnographic statements remain to be verified; they do not stand as ‘proven’ or accurate facts. They are
subject to confirmation and reinterpretation (Seymour 2008c). By taking this view it is possible to
understand the ways in which ethnographic or documentary sources might be misleading.
137
Figure 6: Photograph of rock wickiup ring outline from the Whitlock Mountains in
the mountainous Southwest.
content of the documentary and ethnographic records is open to in the Southwest until the nineteen
interpretation, and often the resulting interpretations are
century (see discussion in Seymour
surprising when evaluated in the context of systematically
2009c; also see Seymour 2002, 2008a),
obtained and rigorously derived onthe-ground data. Because of necessitating a discussion of and an
these issues and others, even the seemingly most basic
explanation for this patterning.
observations are met with opposition. At a recent conference in Another possible conceptual snag
El Paso objection was made to my claim that tipis were not used involves assumptions that definFigure 5. Schematic of rock wickiup ring outlines from the mountainous
That being said, there is no consensus
Southwest. Based on actual plan drawings of features. (Drawn by author.)
among practitioners as to the meaning,
(Black rocks have been added; grey rocks are naturally occurring.)
interpretation, or appropriate use of the
documentary and ethnographic records
in archaeology. The content of these
sources is often too restricted
geographically and temporally to
account for all the archaeological
variability observed. Nor do these
sources explain the reasons for
differences observed in the
archaeological record or changes
through time. Direct correlations can
rarely be made between historically
described groups and archaeological
cultures. Moreover, the
PLAINS ANTHROPOLOGIST VOL. 55, NO. 214, 2010
descriptive and historical approach rather than
seeking higher level understandings that might
able housing types relate to ethnicity or social
explain phenomena in a much more
identity. A reviewer for this paper, and also past
comprehensive manner. One reason for this is
critics, insist that the primary objective of
investigations into housing signatures should be to because many people still
infer ethnic affiliation. It could be argued that if
one is going to define a site as “ancestral Apache”
then one would expect a site to contain housing
attributes derived from Apache ethnographic
documentation. In such an endeavor defining the
correlates of tipi rings and wickiups become the
primary objective—an end unto itself. Yet, the
purpose of developing the two types of housing
models (huts versus tipis) discussed in this paper is
not to be able to derive archaeological correlates
(stone features, tipi rings, etc.) and to attach ethnic
affiliation to archaeological sites. That is a distinct
and useful step but it is not informative in this
instance because housing types seem to crosscut
identity, suggesting that they relate to other factors,
including degree and type of or motivation for
mobility (Seymour 2008a, 2009a, 2009b). Rather
than using the direct historical approach to this
archaeological problem the goal is to understand
the operative factors in shelter construction in the
Southwest versus the Southern Plains margin so as
to understand the ways in which housing types
might correlate with ethnicity and identity and
when they might operate independently of these
factors.
Elsewhere this author has discussed the
observation that shelter type relates more readily to
degree and type of mobility than to ethnicity
(Seymour 2008a, 2009a, 2009b), although
sometimes degree and type of mobility correlate to
ethnicity or historically described groups. In this
sense the goal is to explain the archaeological
patterns observed in the Southwest relative to
surrounding areas, rather than outlining the set of
factors that would allow an archaeologist to look at
a site with rock features and to determine who
made them, in a cultural historical sense (as has
been done in other venues, but using a range of
associated data, see Seymour 2002, 2004, 2009a).
Far too many studies of the Apache adopt a
138
believe that these sites are difficult to find and that few
have been identified. Research is showing, however,
that when adopting an appropriate search image and
when focusing on pertinent aspects of landscape use,
site locations can be relatively well predicted,
accounting for the substantial increase in discovery of
ancestral Apache sites over the past few years (see
Seymour and Henderson 2010). By attempting to
explain the patterns observed in the Southwest relative
to surrounding areas greater understanding of the
variables effecting land use and material culture
become clear. One facet of the observed variability can
be explained by the two different approaches to the
construction of dwellings discussed in this paper. The
first approach, relating to the construction of wickiups
or brush huts (or huts made using other readily
available materials), occurs under conditions of high
mobility in varied topographic zones, and is based on
improvisation and opportunism. The other is found
under different circumstances and motivations for
mobility and within different environmental
parameters based on planned design, portability, and
relatively sizable labor and maintenance investments.
This article attempts to isolate some of the causes
that are made even more complex by historical
factors, including the introduction of the horse,
firearms, and devastating diseases. Yet, it is
important to remember that the patterns in house
construction described persist for centuries before
and after material and systemic changes commence.
New Mexico was one of the central routes through
which European culture was introduced (as early as
the 1530s) and where colonization took hold
relatively early (1598). The region also served as a
conduit for native interaction and exchange between
the Southwest and Plains, and all of these facts must
be taken into account in efforts to explain the
different housing patterns that persist on the Llano
Estacado and the mountainous Southwest. It is hoped
that by differentiating and exposing these issues in
the Southwest where my data originate, similar
understandings might be applied to adjacent areas.
My data, while extensive, do not encompass any of
the Southern Plains but the margin, along the Llano
Estacado, so it is inappropriate for me to speak in any
but a
Deni J. Seymour Ancestral Apache Housing
general way about the entire plains. Others will be
more qualified to discuss the plains in general.
rocky-portion of the feature is entirely
dependent upon the characteristics of the
terrain and materials available locally.
Moreover, there is somewhat of a continuum of
stone shelter configurations owing to the
improvised nature
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN WICKIUPS
AND TIPIS
The distinction between the tall conical
skincovered tipi that is characteristic of the Plains
139
Apache and other Plains groups, on the one hand,
and the Southwestern dome or squat conical
surface construction, on the other, is perhaps one
of degree with reference to the superstructure in
the systemic context. Like the conical Plains
Apache tipis, some wickiups were hide- or
skin-covered to withstand severe weather and
incorporated stacked or upright stones around the
perimeter, but most were ‘roofed’ with brush or
other materials. Some conical or tipi-shaped brush
constructions are also known from the mountains
(Donaldson and Welch 1991; Seymour 2007b,
2009a), but these are much smaller in scale and
less consistent in form. The dichotomy between
tipis and wickiups is most effective, however, in
highlighting the difference between the makeshift
constructions in the mountains, and the large
welltanned-hide constructions of the Plains. The
latter, as the core domestic asset, with long,
permanent poles, which were transported from
placeto-place, served as the focal point of the
household, defined household space, and
conditioned where the group could establish
residence.
There are also substantial differences between
the two general types of constructions with respect
to their archaeological signature, though both may
use rocks at their bases. Some have argued that the
criteria for determining when a stone circle is a tipi
are inadequate (Finnigan 1983:17), especially given
the great morphological diversity (L. Davis 1983).
Part of the difficulty rests with the minimal degree
of modification, the limited nature of materials left
behind, and the reality that the stone ring was
partially disassembled when the tipi was struck.
The first two of these factors complicate
recognition of hut foundations as well, but with
huts the primary problem is that the nature of the
of construction (Figures 5 and 6; see below). When
rocks remain the tipi feature is referred
to as the tipi ring, but not all stone circles were used
for habitation and not all were tipis (L. Davis
1983:71–79). Elsewhere tipi rings have been described
as “field stones…placed at intervals to form circles.
These circles are commonly designated tipi rings on
the supposition that they were used around the edges of
the tipis to weigh down the skin covers, functioning
thus in place of, or in addition to, wooden pegs”
(Wedel 1961:262). When rocks are used, tipi rings are
distinguished by relatively circular or semi-circular
arrangements of boulders and cobbles distributed on
the surface (or that are partially buried, depending
upon sedimentation processes). Tipi rings vary in
diameter and in the size, placement, and number of
rocks used largely because one must use the “correct
anchoring strategy for a given environmental setting”
(Finnigan 1982:vi, 1983).
Bison bone, pegs, wood, sod, and debris were
sometimes used on the Northern Plains instead of
rocks to anchor tipis (Finnigan 1982; Wedel 1961)
and in such cases outlines may be difficult to
discern. Recent documentation of the former setting
of historic (1850s) military Sibley tents at Pope’s
Well No. 3 (LA 4978) on the Llano Estacado, as
indicated by a contemporaneous painting (Figure
7a), reveals little in the way of evidence as to their
presence (other than the barest clearings and a few
artifacts) owing to the use of pegs (and a tripod like
framework) rather than stones to anchor the
perimeter (Figure 7b). The remains of native tipis
that are most visible today used rock, which was
usually readily available in the mountainous
environment. In the Southwest and adjacent Llano
Estacado tipi rings are most discernible as rock rings
of various sizes but, as noted, tipi locations can
sometimes also be identified on the basis of circular
clearings although in such cases their identification
is much more tenuous. The resulting tipi rings may
consist of single or multiple rows of rocks that fully
form circles, usually with an opening for a doorway,
or form partial rings (Finnigan 1983; Figures 3 and
4). Although widely variable in size from site to site,
on some sites the measurement of tipi rings show
remarkable regularity in the amount of en-
PLAINS ANTHROPOLOGIST VOL. 55, NO. 214, 2010
Figure 7: (a) Painting by Harry S. Sindall, Pope’s expedition artist, Army Camp-Captain Pope’s
Artesian Well Drilling Site; Courtesy of the State Preservation Board; Austin; Texas.; CHA
1997.20; Photographer: Eric Beggs; 12/4/97; Post Conservation.
on flat surfaces, in
contrast to the steep,
sloped, rocky terrain
often selected for
wickiups, as is
described below.
Wind strength and
direction determined
whether full or partial
rings of rock supports
were needed and the
number, size, and
arrangement of rocks
(or other anchoring
devises; Finnigan
1983). Anchoring
rocks were essential
to the effectiveness of
the tipi, as it would
tip over in high wind
if not anchored or if
rocks were not
properly positioned,
thus rock placement
is a function of the
direc-
closed space and considerable uniformity in the
way household space was defined (see below).
When tipi rings are identifiable in the
Southwest, that is, when rocks were used to serve
as anchors for tents, features were usually
positioned
Figure 7: (b) Photograph of Sibley tent clearing from the 1850s
at Pope’s Well No. 3 (LA 4978) Showing the vagueness of the
evidence after 150 years owing to the use of tent pegs rather than rocks to anchortion
the tent.
140
and intensity of the wind. The windward
side will be in tension and the leeward side will
be in compression; the required weight of the
rock has to be placed on the tension side
(Finnigan 1982:43).
3Rocks were often dispersed as the tent was
dismantled creating less than circular
(sometimes even a slightly rectangular-shaped)
arrangement (as at LA 139020 in Long Canyon
in the Organ Mountains, and LA 16423 along
Black Canyon west of the Pecos River).
Moreover, as rocks were removed the diameter
of the rock ring may be increased by about a half
meter (Finnegan 1982:46). At some sites,
however, (e.g., Seven Rivers Tipi Ring site, LA
27687) the rings seem to have been left intact as
if the occupants intended to return (Figure 4),
perhaps owing to the reliability of the nearby
water source and the annual need to find refuge
from the winter weather. Relatively high
densities of artifacts reinforce this notion of
repeated oc-
Deni J. Seymour Ancestral Apache Housing
Structure Size and the Focus
of Household Activities
cupation of that site4. Wickiup or hut rings, on the
other hand, may
The perception that tipi ring size increases
be a variety of shapes, even within one site, but are through time is probably a correct one,
often circular or elongate (Figures 5 and 6;
although
Seymour 2002:Appendix E). Their diameter tends
to be smaller than tipis, but can also be quite sizable
141
(ranging from 1.25 to more than 4 meters across
suggesting differences in term and nature of use;
Seymour 2002). They are commonly on slopes, in
rocky areas, rather than on flats, although their
interiors are intentionally flattened. Sites in the
Franklin, Dragoon, Peloncillo, Chiricahua, Dos
Cabesas, Santa Rita, Florida, Guadalupe, and
Alamo mountains and at the Salinas and Galisteo
Basin pueblos all share these characteristics. In fact,
most commonly these house rings are formed by
pushing rocks aside in an already-rocky area and so
the size and shape are often determined by the
available space between unmovable boulders. The
rocks are often mounded at the edges, stacked, or
rocks are added to fill in between large boulders to
create borders (Seymour 2002, 2009a, 2009b).
Because the superstructure was not carried to the
next camp, it was either left in place or
disassembled and discarded (Haley 1997:81–82;
Opler 1941:427–428; Seymour 2002:353). The
critical point to remember, however, is that no two
hut rings will be exactly alike (in a typological
sense) because they are improvised based upon
local conditions, but they will be recognizable as
archaeological features because they exhibit
consistent and verifiable forms of terrain
modification, such as surface flattening and the
clearing, stacking, arranging, or removal of rocks
(Seymour 2009a:162, 163). The nature of cultural
modifications sometimes exhibit information
relevant to identity.
As will be discussed in the following sections,
some of these differences between wickiups and
tipis reflect distinctions in household size and the
focus of household activities, the purposeful nature
of constructed space, approach to selection of
place, and the nature of movement in versus
through a region.
in the Southwest increase in household size (defined
by structure characteristics, such as size, number of
structures, and work areas) has yet to be confirmed on a
widespread basis. Kehoe (1958, 1960; Malouf 1961)
has attributed tipi size increase to adoption of the horse,
where documentary sources indicate that the early small
tipis were transported using dogs outfitted with travois
(Flint and Flint 2005:423; Winship 1990:60). As yet we
cannot rule out that the increasing size of tipis on the
Llano Estacado and adjacent areas is related to the entry
of the Comanche and other groups who pushed the
Apache south and west before their advance. Variation
between sites in entryway morphology, interior and
exterior hearths, site layout, artifacts present, and rock
arrangements outlying features may be indicative of
cultural identity, but much work remains to be done as
a number of other factors including duration of
occupation and group size could be in play (L. Davis
1983; Loendorf and Weston 1983; Reher 1983). For
example, a series of tipi ring sites along the bajada
between the mountains and the Pecos River have
produced evidence of vestibule-like entryways (LA
27687, LA 61247, LA 104172) suggesting this attribute
has seasonal or cultural relevance. On many tipi sites
with more than a single
structure the tipis are paired and set spatially apart
from others, patterns that may be considered in
social terms because they are not explainable in
terms of topographic restrictions (also see Reher
1983). On the Llano Estacado and the intervening
area between the Pecos River and the adjacent
mountains, sites are common where one structure in
each of these pairs exhibits slight differences in size,
shape, construction characteristics, and artifacts that
are suggestive of functional differentiation. This is
the case, for example, at two Seven Rivers tipi ring
sites (LA 27687, LA 104172) and at LA 109599.
Replication of this pattern across a site and on many
different sites suggests that these pairings may in
some instances represent the basic household
grouping. If this pairing pattern is always found on
sites exhibiting similar artifact assemblages and
attributes and not on others with different
characteristic it might ultimately provide a way of
distinguishing a temporal or cultural settlement
layout signature.
5
PLAINS ANTHROPOLOGIST VOL. 55, NO. 214, 2010
actual size of household space the common
area between and around paired structures
What seems apparent is that later in time, in
must be included because in favorable climates
some areas, the household is reduced from two
household activities occurred in both inside
structures to one, such as for some
and outside areas (also see Reher
reservationperiod Mescalero tipi ring sites (LA
1983:193–222; Schneider 1983:93–100). For
37182, LA 157758, and LA 37089 along Otero
example, tipi rings on the Llano Estacado and
Mesa and the Sacramento River, outside
reservation boundaries). This may account, in
some circumstances, for an increase in tipi size as 142
more activities and people are concentrated in one
manufactured (sometimes pre-fabricated
canvas-covered) tent. In other instances, one or
both paired tipis is larger than some earlier
examples, but this may be a remnant of
households fragmenting and forming larger
‘housefuls’ (Seymour 2010b, 2011; also see
Laslett 1974, 1983) in the historic period. This
would suggest that larger tipi use was facilitated
by horse transport, rather than the size increase
occurring principally because of the adoption of
the horse. This increase in house size may seem
contrary to expectations but this pattern is also
seen among the eighteenth-and
nineteenth-century Sobaípuri-O’odham of
southern Arizona where houses increase in size as
populations are decimated, while at the same time
residents of adaptively and culturally diverse
origins were becoming more stationary within
these O’odham settlements (Seymour 2010a, b;
2011). Thus, while one might expect the opposite
trend of household and structure sizes decreasing
as families suffered attrition through disease and
warfare, cross-cultural comparative data on
household composition and archaeological data
from contemporaneous Southwestern groups
suggest otherwise. Reformulation of the
household into a ‘houseful’ is one reasonable
explanation.
This issue of house size could be productively
refocused on the issue as to whether the total
amount of household space increases through time.
One implication of the paired pattern is that the
combined space of both features must be
considered when calculating the dimensions of
interior household space. Yet, to establish the
mountain bajadas around Carlsbad, New Mexico show
consistent patterns of artifact placement in, in front of,
and adjacent to one of the paired tipis (LA 27687, LA
109599, LA 104172) (Figure 8b). The occurrence of
work areas immediately adjacent to the tipi is also
found among more sedentary groups, such as the
Sobaípuri-O’odham just mentioned (Seymour 2010b)
and in extreme climatic conditions, such as among the
Nunamiut (Binford 1983, 1987; Seymour 2010a)
where activities tend to cluster near shelters.
Consistencies in the layout of work areas and
structures have been discussed for Northern Plains
stone circle sites as well, where Reher (1983),
following Yellen (1977:89), has suggested that people
have an ideal camp pattern that is more likely to be
expressed as anticipated duration of stay increases. In
the Southwest increased formality in site layout and
predictability in the distribution of work areas relative
to structures has been suggested to relate to expected
duration of stay for mobile groups, and duration and
intensity of occupation among sedentary peoples
(Seymour 2007c, 2009b, 2010a).
In comparison, some early ancestral Chiricahua sites
show distributions of artifacts between closely
spaced structures or in the structures themselves
(DM-1 and ES-2 in the Dragoon Mountains of
southern Arizona, the Canyon de los Embudos site
in Sonora), as do some Mescalero sites, such as a
wickiup and tipi site near Hueco Tanks in Texas
(e.g., 41EP5562; Figure 8a) and at the Cerro Rojo
site in the Hueco Mountains of New Mexico. These
patterns seem to relate to seasonality and repeated
site use. More often, however, on sites of highly
mobile Apache (and other such groups) work areas
and their residues are situated in spatially distinct
locations, often hundreds of meters away (Seymour
2002, 2009b, 2010a). This pattern is also observable,
for example, in the Guadalupe (LA 158119), Organ
(LA 139028), Sacramento (LA 157758), and
Dragoon (ES-1 and ES-2) mountains. These latter
wickiup and lean-to users selected a residential
location that had multiple attractive characteristics,
in addition to suitable rocky terrain for hut
construction. Work areas were often situated away
from the hut because the space suitable for
construct-
Deni J. Seymour Ancestral Apache Housing
ing the wickiup might not be specifically
appropriate for other tasks (Seymour 2009b,
2010a).
The use of wickiups versus tipis, the size
of sheltered household space, and the layout
of related work areas differs between sites on
the Llano Estacado and the mountainous
Southwest. These differences can be
attributed to at least some extent to
anticipated duration of stay and degree and
focus of mobility. It also seems apparent that
the preconceived versus place-specific
configuration of structure placement
corresponds to the degree and tempo of
movement as well as the stimulus for
mobility.
Purposively Constructed and
Extemporaneous Housing
Figure 8: (a) Slab-ringed rock circle inferred to have held a domed or conical hide superstructure in place, showing distribution of
artifacts in and in front of structure. (b) Tipi ring or rock circle inferred to stabilize free-standing conical hide superstructure, showing
distribution of artifacts in and in front of structure. (Black rocks have been added; grey rocks are naturally occurring.)It is widely
recognized that residentially mobile people tend to practice one of two basic strategies: they may
transport their housing materials or they construct houses from readily available materials in their
immediate environment, sometimes using natural shelters (Binford 1990:124). In this sense the distinction
between tipis and wickiups—different technological consequences of mobility strategies—takes on social
and practical relevance when perceived as a basic contrast between investment and extemporization. The
tipi is often constructed of eight to ten carefully prepared hides, sewn together to form a preconceiv ed and
purposively constructed (labor intensive, e.g., Wallace and Hoebel 1952) covering, that is given form by
long straight wooden poles, that then, dog or horse, encumbered by this bulky contrivance, towed to the
next destination, where it is assembled anew. The repetitive building cycle of nomadic portable
“architecture” as characterized by Prussin (1989:141–142) accentuates the distinction between temporary
and disposable. For the tipi nomad, building components are reused, reassembled, and in Prussin’ s
example of the Gabra, inherited. This “transportable building package” is just as permanent as fixed or
stationary structures but are designed and intended to bemoved from place to place. This characterization
applies as equally to the Plains Apache as it does to the Gabra in Prussin’s example, with the exception that
Apache tipis were not inherited. As Opler (1945:126) noted for the Lipan, and as was common practice
among other Apache bands, “The relatives destroy the tipi in which the dead person lived,” representing a
cycle of renewal. This lack of inheritance does not diminish the relevance of this overall conceptualization
of these sewn leather tents with fitted framing, which focuses on the reusable aspects of this prefabricated
building.In contrast, the highly mobile Southwestern
143
PLAINS ANTHROPOLOGIST VOL. 55, NO. 214, 2010
hunter-gatherers and nomadic hunters (also
pastoralists) in how they conceive of and select
hunter-gatherer-raider did not initially possess a
places to reside. This basic theoretical
“transportable building package.” While they
distinction has been discussed by a number of
partook in a repetitive building cycle, dictated by
researchers (Binford 1990; Cribb 1991; Ingold
the tempo of movement, their constructions were,
in fact, disposable. These extemporaneous houses 1987; Khazanov 1984) and warrants
exhibit a lack of cumulative investment, being
characterized by situational expenditure of effort
144
using locally available, replaceable, and
interchangeable components that required little or
no preparation for use and little time invested in
assembly (Diehl 1992:4). Such constructions were
impromptu, although with a location-specific
outlay that was repeatedly rehearsed. Dependence
on improvised constructions may relate to
favorable weather conditions, widespread
availability of materials, and expectations about
duration of stay. Yet, rather than being put together
clumsily (cobbled together), these extemporized
features may be well conceived, even though
builders use what is at hand for their construction.
Improvisation requires a different kind of skill than
arriving with materials in hand and imposing a
pre-designed feature on the terrain. In fact,
extemporized features must be well-thought-out
and their design features well understood
(technical choices contribute to performance
characteristics) to be effectively composed and to
serve the desired purpose without needing to
transport materials for their construction from
place to place. The apparent simplicity of these
features sometimes relates to the minimum
requirements for their use owing to the restricted
range of functions assigned. These impromptu
brush constructions were perhaps not as
comfortable under many conditions as the hide
tent, but were suited to the expectations of the
thrifty mountain Apache who led a starkly
parsimonious life.
Selection and Perception of Place:
Movement In versus Through a Region
Variation in house types between the Plains
and the Southwest may be accounted for by a
number of additional factors, one of which relates
to basic differences between mobile
further consideration in this context. While the labels
used to describe various types of humanlandscape
interaction may be unsatisfactory, this short-hand
distinction is important to this discussion because
differences in the kind, degree, and purpose of mobility
and mode of landscape use are fundamental to house
type construction. In this conceptualization, nomads are
people on the move (rather than the narrow and
analytically distinct subsistent-based definition as
people who raise or pasture herds; see Barfield 1993:4;
Salzman 2002:245). These residentially mobile people
may either carry their housing with them or use housing
that is temporary and disposable. In the first case,
residentially mobile people bring their “transportable
building package” with them and search for suitable
assembly places (with rock, water, and forage). This
emphasis serves to distinguish these people from
mobile hunter-gatherers who move within a territory
and improvise with what they have, rebuilding with
local materials as they change locations, confident in
the replication of suitable settings and building
materials as they move from place to place as part of a
seasonal round or in response to others who reside
nearby.
People who herd sheep or reindeer (nomadic
pastoralists) have much in common with nomadic
hunters who follow large migratory game. These in
turn differ from mobile hunter-gatherers and
hunter-gatherer-raiders who do not follow migratory
routes but live within a geographically proscribed
territory. Key differences between these lifeways are
apparent in the basis for movement, the patterns of
movement, and in the way sites are formed (Cribb
1991:20; Kelly 2003; Khazanov 1984). One relevant
difference, as Ingold (1987) has pointed out, is that
hunter-gatherers focus on territories or significant
places whereas nomadic “productive relations” are
largely location independent but instead focus on
their “mobile pastoral capital.” Nomadic pastoralists
focus, for example, on access to pasture, and some
hunter nomads follow migratory game, rather than
“establishing vital symbolic links between the
community and a particular locale” (Cribb 1991:21),
as do mobile hunter-gatherers. Mobility must be
understood within the context of landscape use and
Deni J. Seymour Ancestral Apache Housing
mobile hunter-gatherers in the Southwest
became intimately familiar with the entire
range of relevant resources in their territory
including knowing and selecting a series of
alternate residential sites and
conceptualization, as well as with respect to the
motives behind the scale and tempo of mobility.
6As Kelly (2003) notes the distinction between
landscape knowledge and resource knowledge is
fundamental. Like pastoralists and hunters of
migratory game worldwide, many nomadic
145
Southern Plains groups focus on bison and elk herd
migration, and later, the maintenance of their horse
herds; these animals served as the basis for
movement and dictated patterns of travel for at
least a portion of the year (Opler 1974:14, 17). As
Binford (1990:135) noted, there is an
“unmistakable relationship between dependence on
hunting and the portability of primary housing.”
Many Plains Apache groups searched for and
followed herds of bison, elk, and other game,
moving with the flow of their game and seasonal
and geographic availability of plant resources
(Basehart 1960, 1971, 1974; Opler 1974). They
were familiar with the resource locations, courses
of streams, and prominent landmarks that extended
throughout the range of their game. While they
were as familiar with their landscape as the
mountain people, they necessarily emphasized
different scales of land use (often several hundred
square miles in size or a along linear migration
tracts). They were oriented and connected to their
landscape in different ways because their
landmarks were often more understated (or incised
into rather than projecting above the terrain) and
resources were emphasized that had different
scheduling and dispersal characteristics.
In the mountainous Southwest, smaller groups
tended to fend for themselves for much of the year,
exploited a broader spectrum of the richer and more
varied environment provided by substantial
altitudinal changes, went to specific gathering and
hunting areas, and depended largely on
non-migratory animals (or exploited such animals
as they entered Apache territory) (Basehart 1960;
Opler 1974:6; Seymour and Henderson 2010).
Larger groups coalesced for hunts, ceremonials,
and for raids and war and then dispersed into
smaller local groupings. In the process of living,
resource patches that each met household and band
needs. Grounded in their landscape they focused on
different portions of the terrain and used some key
resources in a different way than nomads.
7Raiding added another dimension to this formula
because the residential sites of the huntergatherer-raider
were dictated in part by the need to seek sanctuaries
guarded from retaliatory pursuit. Places of refuge were
often far from resource extraction zones, such as the
travel corridors for raiding targets, and European and
Native population nodes and centers that supplied
concentrated resources for the taking. In order to
preserve secrecy and safety for their residential sites
they hunkered down in secluded foothills or the craggy
mountain heights. They switched, seemingly
effortlessly, between a series of suitable alternative
residential sites, band-coalescing sites, and resource
zones in distant ranges to avoid discovery and capture
or to take advantage of a raiding target. The intimate
familiarity they possessed of their range—total
geographic area used—allowed maximal flexibility and
facilitated spontaneous maneuvers to their advantage.
These basic differences in visualization and
use of the landscape influenced how shelters were built
and what portions of the terrain were selected for
habitation. Mobile hunter-gatherers sought places that
exhibited preexisting attributes that were necessary for
the performance of household and task-specific
activities (Seymour 2009b, 2010a). For this reason, in
the mountainous Southwest they sought rocky areas
where structures could be easily assembled by simply
pushing rocks aside or rearranging them with little
effort. The locations were often on ridge slopes and
saddles which provide the added advantage of
unrestrained views and enhanced escape routes.
In the Southwest, tipi users tended to look for lower
lying areas where the wind was constrained, visibility
of their encampment was limited, and where the
ground surface was flat and clear to aid in the
assembly and stability of the tent. When possible,
places for tipi construction were selected that were
sheltered from the wind, such as around the protected
side of a bend, on a low-lying bench, or at a
sufficient distance from a ridge edge to avoid
updrafts. These same terrain attributes were
PLAINS ANTHROPOLOGIST VOL. 55, NO. 214, 2010
region cannot be understood or studied, or its
importance grasped, unless the factors
selected on the Llano Estacado. Locations in
canyon bottoms and on benches and terraces at the operative in landscape use are explored.
base of cliffs, slopes, and ridges provided sufficient Relevant considerations include the ways in
space to erect the tent without obstruction, but with which various facets of mobility effect housing
types, connection to the land, way of moving
ready supplies of anchoring materials on nearby
around a landscape, group size,
slopes, in washes, and at playa margins. A flat
surface facilitated balance and tension of the tipi
superstructure which allowed it to stand firm
146
against the sometimes-fierce winds.
Given the investment in portable housing
suited to the Plains it is reasonable to wonder how
far into the mountainous interior the
Plains-oriented Mescalero ventured. Currently,
archaeological evidence seem to suggest that for
Plains groups movements seem to have focused
between the Plains-Southwestern margin and the
Llano Estacado, while the western
mountain-oriented Mescalero seem to have been
adapted largely to the basin-and-range, moving
between there and the Plains-Southwestern
margin. This eastern versus western difference
seems consistent with an archaeological record
that shows a gradation of sorts where those on the
west shared an adaptation remarkably similar to
the Chiricahua, grading gradually towards the east
into a more Plainslike adaptation. In general
geographic terms, wickiups are the representative
structure type in the area west of the Rio Grande 98.
Wickiups are also the dominant structure type in
the area east of the Rio Grande to approximately
the Guadalupe Mountains. Wickiups are not
overshadowed in frequency by tipis until reaching
the Pecos River valley, where tipis clearly
outnumber wickiups in currently known
occurrences. This gradation toward increased tipi
use is also
10evident through time. By the late nineteenth
century many Plains attributes had been overlain on
the Southwest, including tipi use. This should be of
little surprise given the range of historical events
that led to the late westward movement of some
Plains groups, Lipans and Plains Mescalero, into
the mountains. This homogenization of Apache
groups from the Plains and Southwest in this
and so on. FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS
These differences between tipi and hut use can
also be explained by a number of practical factors that
relate to terrain, resource availability, climate, and
proximity to and nature of interaction with neighboring
groups. One of the most decisive factors relates to
costs and practicality of transport. Dog-pulled, or even
horse-pulled, travois were an easy form of conveyance
in grass and on flat and rolling terrain, but in the steep
rockiness of the mountains such transport systems
were impractical. Horse-mounted Spanish, and later
Mexican and American troops, had difficulty
navigating these mountainous environments (e.g.,
Betzinez and Nye 1959:57), providing a clue as to the
impediments provided by this terrain.
In this craggy and highly varied terrain less effort
would have been expended in finding a natural
concavity, as frequently did the famous Cochise (e.g.,
Seymour and Robertson 2008; Sweeney 1997), or in
routinely building a new shelter rather than transporting
a prefabricated one along from place-to-place. The ease
with which shelters could be constructed relates
specifically to the rockiness of the terrain and the
abundance of brushy vegetation. A rocky outcrop could
be sought, the rocks pushed aside, with the resulting
low “wall” providing protection from the wind, or a few
nearby flexible branches could be cut or collected to
form a wind break or shelter covering. On
topographically monotonous portions of the windswept
grassy Plains building materials were more difficult to
come by and so it made more sense to build a more
durable shelter and take the framing and covering
along, especially given the availability of pack dogs
(also see Binford 1990:128).
These terrain considerations were fundamental with
respect to placement of each housing type within the
landscape. Rock-strewn slopes, rocky saddles, and
craggy ridge points were amenable to hut
construction, while flat benches, ridges, and saddles
or the lower portions of a minimally sloped incline
were preferable for tipis. Numerous cases have been
recorded by the author where mobile groups
specifically selected the rocky outcrops on otherwise
barren inclines to construct their domiciles. For
example, all of the Salinas
Deni J. Seymour Ancestral Apache Housing
ring types noted in the archaeological record in
these southern zones is likely accounted for by
the ease with which structures of different
attributes could be constructed to adapt to the
prevailing climatic conditions. Some evidence
suggests use of more
Pueblo and Galisteo Basin mobile group hut sites
are situated on rocky terrain, as are structures in
the Dragoon, Santa Rita, Tumacacori, Santa
Catalina, Galiero, Chiricahua, Dos Cabesas,
Whitlock, Peloncillo, Cedar, Potrillo, Florida,
Guadalupe, Franklin, Sacramento, Jarilla, Hueco,
Caballo, and Alamo mountains and virtually every 147
mountain range, topographic incline or
escarpment where the Southwestern Apache
resided and constructed wickiups. This is because
such areas were specifically sought out. Examples
abound where the rocky slopes and saddles were
selected for hut placement instead of on the flat
mesa tops or bases below. Differences in housing
types between the Plains and the Southwest relate
specifically to terrain selection and landscape use.
This inference is reinforced by housing choices
made in intermediate areas that exhibit
characteristics of both the plains and mountains,
such as along the Pecos River and its tributaries
where plains and rocky inclines converge and tipis
and wickiup rings are both evident. In other areas,
such as at the Eastern Frontier Pueblos where
mesas and plains meet, small rock rings for huts
were constructed on rocky slopes while tipis were
struck on the flats (for example, surrounding
Pecos Pueblo).
Climate was clearly another factor that
effected shelter construction (also see Binford
1990:128). In the more northern latitudes of
Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado construction
techniques involved more substantial housing that
could withstand winter storms and that would
protect inhabitants from freezing temperatures.
Yet, a skin tent would not have been sensible for
most of the year in the hot temperatures of the
southern Southwest, just as the brushy structures of
the south would have been inappropriate year
round in the northern latitudes with hard winter
freezes. During the hottest summer months
documentary records note the use of simple grass
matting without a superstructure (Naylor and
Polzer 1986), which would have made the most of
the cooler night air. Some of the variation in rock
substantial coverings (perhaps including use of hides
or skins) while others hint of only a flimsy
superstructure.
Elevation and aspect were commonly used to
assist with seasonal temperature variations in the
Southwest. Most winter encampments were in lower
elevations, utilized the south- and east-facing slopes to
greet the morning sun, and were commonly positioned
to avoid the prevailing wind. Sometimes sites were
situated in dark patenated (weathered) boulder fields
that were presumably selected because of their
heat-holding properties that would have been attractive
in the winter, as heat radiating from these dark
boulders makes such locations far too hot to occupy
comfortably in the summer where temperatures
routinely exceed 100 degrees Fahrenheit. Yet these
flimsy improvised constructions would not likely hold
up to the severe wind of the plains, as historical
accounts note cobble anchored dome-shaped structures
of other groups taking flight in the wind (e.g.,
Treutlein 1965). With careful terrain selection the rock,
peg, or sod-secured skin tipi would withstand strong
winds and shield the occupants from the elements.
One of the most Apache–specific reasons that tipis
were not used in the basin-and-range province is
because of the proximity of opposing groups, as was
alluded to above. Residential sites were often situated
in elevated areas to maintain a long-distance view,
take advantage of summer breezes, provide
advantage in escape, and because these terrain
sectors had not been penetrated by most adversaries.
The tall light-colored material of the tipi would stand
out in the mountainous terrain, easily guiding
trackers to encampments (as would the travois tracks;
regarding the need to cover tracks see Betzinez and
Nye 1959:55). In comparison the wickiup was well
camouflaged with residential areas positioned to take
advantage of the military summit, use of brush the
color of the surroundings, and construction of arched
superstructure forms that blended with the terrain.
Spanish and native settlements, that were targets of
Apache raids, were much closer to these mountain
Apache than they were to many of the Plains
encampments. In fact, the plains around Carlsbad in
southeastern New Mexico were not occupied in
earnest by non-natives until the middle to late
PLAINS ANTHROPOLOGIST VOL. 55, NO. 214, 2010
in the American Southwest
generally
differ historically, ethnographically,
1800s (Katz and Katz 1985), and, except for a few
and
archaeologically
from ancestral Apache
initial exploratory trips, only specialized trading
housing
groups (Comancheros) ventured onto the Llano
Estacado further north, leaving these areas largely
without interference, except from other indigenous 148
groups.
During the nineteenth century the
Southwestern archaeological and documentary
records indicate that a number of changes occurred
in the placement and nature of Apache sites that
related to pressure from neighbors (and the
availability of new technologies). Among these was
the movement of some settlements into lower
elevations. Though seemingly counterintuitive, this
adjustment accommodated the use of the tipi and
allowed cooking and fire making that would
otherwise be visible for miles at higher elevations.
This desire for invisibility explains the late Apache
practice of building “small fires in secluded nooks
which cannot be seen by persons unless close by...”
(Cremony 1981:215; see Seymour 1995, 2002). In
fact, many of the sixteenth and seventeenth century
accounts mention the Spanish seeing smoke in the
distant mountains (Hammond and Rey 1966:171,
260; Schroeder 1973:7). Later placement of thermal
features in canyons among the trees and
construction of housing on lower slopes and flats
allowed the smoke and noise to dissipate and
facilitated quick escape in the forested and
boulder-strewn hills. These factors seem to explain
the pattern in the East Stronghold of the Dragoon
Mountains where huts were placed in relatively low
elevation settings (and thermal features were on the
valley floor). Huts were also separated from one
another, presumably to spread out risk in case of
surprise attack (Ball 1970:9). As a Chiricahua
Apache informant noted: the “main camp [was]
down in [a] big canyon where they could hide their
fire. Of course in old time, [they] had fires in high
elevations” (Robert Geronimo, Henderson field
notes 1957:404). The trees and boulder-studded
slopes afforded cover while lookouts on nearby
high points provided early warning of intruders.
FINAL REMARKS Hut signatures
on the Southern High Plains. This division parallels the
distinctions made in some of the earliest historical
descriptions between the Apaches that lived off bison
and those that inhabited the mountains (Gunnerson
2006:151). This is because they were faced with
dissimilar terrain types that influenced their conceptions
of house and household space within very different
cultural, social, and natural landscapes. Notions of
private property—seemingly developed from the
technological and transport systems on the Plains (that
were transferred from place-to-place and reused)—are
initially absent in the southern Southwest where
ancestral Apacheans lacked an attachment to and
investment in material goods, which also likely
accounts for the sparseness and thrifty nature of their
assemblage. More relaxed notions of ownership might
be expected for the southern Southwestern Apache who
replaced their household possessions in a continual
cycle of renewal through raiding, loss during retaliatory
attacks, and replacement as needed. At death, all that a
person had was destroyed (Opler 1941:474); in life that
which could not be carried during a surprise attack was
relinquished. These different ways of perceiving assets
carry over to notions of lodging, home, and household
space in the Southwest where housing and place
selection were improvised in a highly varied setting,
while still accommodating basic household needs.
Acknowledgement of these basic differences
between the Plains and the Southwest is fundamental
for recognizing ancestral Apachean residential sites
in the mountainous Southwest and for understanding
land-use practices and changes in household space
use. Preconceived notions about the search signature
and patterns of placement on the terrain have kept
many archaeologists from recognizing Apachean
houses and habitation sites in the Southwest, with the
result that until recently battle sites and mescal pits
have received most study. Through future
observations it will be possible to eventually address
the timing of and subtle distinctions between housing
types throughout the southern latitudes, including
between the Plains and the Southwest. Although the
current treatment is necessarily a simplification, it
points out the diverse range of factors that seemingly
contributed to differences between the heart of the
moun-
Deni J. Seymour Ancestral Apache Housing
tainous Southwest, the fringe or transitional zone,
and the adjacent Plains.
REFERENCES CITED
Ball, Eve 1970 In the Days of Victorio: Recollections of a Warm
Springs
Apache. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Barfield, Thomas J.
1993 The Nomadic Alternative. Prentice Hall, Edgewood
Cliffs, NJ.
Basehart, Harry W. 1960 Mescalero Apache Subsistence
Patterns and SocioPolitical Organization. The Mescalero-Chiricahua Land
Claims Project. University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
1971 Mescalero Apache Band Organization and Leadership,
In Apachean Culture History and Ethnology, edited by
Keith H. Basso and Morris E. Opler, pp. 35–51.
Anthropological Papers, No. 21, University of Arizona
Press, Tucson.
1974 Mescalero Apache Subsistence Patterns and
SocioPolitical Organization, in Apache Indians, Volume 12,
edited by David Agee Horr, pp. 9–178, Garland Publishing
Co., New York.
Betzinez, Jason and Wilbur Sturtevant Nye 1959 I Fought With
Geronimo. University of Nebraska Press,
Lincoln.
Binford, Lewis R.
1983 In Pursuit of the Past: Decoding the Archaeological
Record. Thames and Hudson, New York.
1987 Researching Ambiguity: Frames of References and Site
Structure. In Method and Theory for. Activity Area
Research: An Ethnoarchaeological Approach, edited by
Susan Kent, pp. 449–512. Columbia University Press, New
York.
1990 Mobility, Housing, and Environment: A Comparative
Study. Journal of Anthropological Research 46:119–152.
Bleed, Peter 2007 Do Regions Make Theory? Comments on
Mitchell’s
Discussion of the Legacy of the Missouri Basin Project.
American Antiquity 72(4):793–784.
Burrus, Ernest J. 1971 Kino and Manje: Explorers of Sonora and
Arizona. In
Sources and Studies for the History of the Americas, Vol.
10. Jesuit Historical Institute, Rome and St. Louis.
Cremony, John C. 1981 [1868 Life Among the Apaches.
Reprinted by A. Roman
and Company Publishers, San Francisco.
Cribb, Roger
1991 Nomads in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Davis, Leslie B. 1983 Microcosm to Macrocosm: Advances in
Tipi Ring
Investigation and Interpretation. Memoir 19. Plains
Anthropologist 28(102), part 2.
Davis, William E. 1983 A Morphological Analysis of Stone
Circles from the
Copper Mountain Project, Shoshoni, Wyoming.
Plains Anthropologist 28:71–79.
Diehl, Michael W. 1992 Architecture as a Material
Correlate of Mobility
149
Strategies: Some Implications for Archeological
Interpretation. Cross-Cultural Research. 26:1–35.
Donaldson, Bruce R. and John R. Welch 1991 Western Apache
Dwellings and Their Archaeological
Correlates. Mogollon V, edited by Patrick H. Beckett, pp.
93–105. Coast Publishing and Research, Las Cruces.
Finnigan, James T. 1982 Tipi Rings and Plains Prehistory: A
Reassessment of
their Archaeological Significance. Paper No. 108.
Archaeological Survey of Canada. Diamond Jenness
Memorial Volume. National Museum of Canada, Ottawa.
1983 Tipi to Tipi Ring: A Transformational Model. Plains
Anthropologist 28:17–28.
Flint, Richard and Shirley Cushing Flint 1997 The Coronado
Expedition to Tierra Nueva: The 1540–
1542 Route Across the Southwest. University of Colorado Press,
Niwot, Colorado.
Goodwin, Grenville 1929–1939 Dwellings of the White Mountain
Apache.
Goodwin Papers, 1929–1939, Manuscript 17 on file,. Arizona
State Museum Archives, University of Arizona, Tucson.
Gunnerson, Dolores A. 2006 Apache History and Jicarilla Origins:
1525–1801. J&L
Lee Co. Lincoln, Nebraska. Haley,
James L.
1997 Apaches: A History and Culture Portrait. University of
Oklahoma Press, Norman.
thHammond, George Peter, and Agapito Rey 1928 Obregon’s History
of 16 Century Explorations in Western America: Chronicle,
Commentary, or Relation of the Ancient and Modern Discoveries in
New Spain and New Mexico, 1584. Book II. Wetzel Publishing
Company, Los Angles, California.
1966 The Rediscovery of New Mexico, 1580–1594, The
Explorations of Chamuscado, Espejo, Castano de Sosa,
Morlete, and Leyva de Bonilla and Humana. The University of
New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Henderson, Richard N. 1957 Field notes and maps of
Mescalero-Chiricahua Land
Claims interviews with various Chiricahua tribal members.
Papers on file in office of author, 2725 E Arroyo Chico,
Tucson, AZ.
Ingold, T. 1987 The Appropriation of Nature: Essays in Human
Ecology
and Social Relations. Manchester University Press,
Manchester.
Karns, Harry J. 1954 Luz de Tierra Incognita. Tucson, AZ:
Arizona
Silhouettes. Katz, Suzanna,
and Paul Katz
1985 The History of the Carlsbad Basin, Southeastern New Mexico.
Prepared for Bureau of Reclamation, Southwest Regional Office,
Amarillo, Texas.
Kehoe, Thomas F. 1958 Tipi Rings: The “Direct Ethnological”
Approach Applied
to an Archaeological Problem. American Anthropologist, Vol.
60, No. 5, pp. 861–73.
1960 Stone Tipi Rings in North-Central Montana and the
Adjacent Portion of Alberta, Canada: Their Historical,
Ethnological, and Archeological Aspects. Bureau of American
Ethnology Bulletin 173. Smithsonian Institution.
PLAINS ANTHROPOLOGIST VOL. 55, NO. 214, 2010
Washington, D.C.
Kelly, Robert L.
2003 Colonization of New Land by Hunter-Gatherers:
Expectations and Implications Based on Ethnographic Data.
In Colonization of Unfamiliar Landscapes: The Archaeology
of Adaptation, edited by Marcy Rockman and James Steele,
pp. 44–58. Routledge, New York.
Khazanov, Anatoly M. 1984 Nomads and the Outside World.
Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge. Kingsbury, Lawrence
A. and Lorna H. Gabel
1983 Eastern Apache Campsites in Southeastern Colorado:
An Hypothesis. In From Microcosm to Macrocosm:
Advances in Tipi Rings Investigation and Interpretation,
edited by Leslie B. Davis, pp. 319–326. Memoir 19, Plains
Anthropologist 28(102), part 2.
Laslett, Peter 1974 Comparing Household Structure over Time
and Between
Cultures. Comparative Studies in Society and History
16:1:73–109.
1983 Family and Household as Work Group and Kin Group:
Areas of Traditional Europe Compared. In Family Forms in
Historic Europe, edited by Richard Wall, Jean Robin and
Peter Laslett, pp. 513–563. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Loendorf, Lawrence L., and Lori O. Weston 1983 An
Examination of Tipi Rings in the Bighorn CanyonPryor Mountain Area. In From Microcosm to Macrocosm:
Advances in Tipi Rings Investigation and Interpretation,
edited by Leslie B. Davis, pp. 319–326. Memoir 19, Plains
Anthropologist 28(102), part 2.
Lyman, Lee, and Michael J. O’Brien 2001 The Direct Historical
Approach, Analogical Reasoning,
and Theory in Americanist Archaeology. Journal of
Archaeological Method and Theory 8(4):303–342.
Malouf, Carling 1961 The Tipi Rings of the High Plains.
American Antiquity
26(3):381–389.
Mitchell, Mark D.
2006 Research Traditions, Public Policy, and the
Underdevelopment of Theory in Plains Archaeology:
Tracing the Legacy of the Missouri Basin Project.
American Antiquity 71(2):381–396.
2007 Communities Make Theory: A Response to Bleed and
Roper. American Antiquity 72(4):789–792.
Moorhead, Max L. 1968 The Apache Frontier: Jacobo Ugarte
and SpanishIndian Relations in Northern New Spain, 1769–1791.
University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Naylor, Thomas H., and Charles W. Polzer 1986 The Presidio
and Militia on the Northern Frontier of New
Spain, 1570–1700. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Opler, Morris Edward
1941 An Apache Life-Way: The Economic, Social, &
Religious Institutions of the Chiricahua Indians.
University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska.
1945 The Lipan Apache Death Complex and Its
Extensions. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology
1(1):122–141.
1974 Lipan and Mescalero Apache in Texas. In Apache
Indians, Vol. 10, edited by David Agee Horr, pp. 199–369.
Garland Publishing Co., New York.
150
1983 The Apachean Culture Pattern and Its Origin. Handbook of
American Indians, ed. A. Ortiz, Vol. 10, 368–392. Washington,
D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.
Prussin, Labelle 1989 The Architecture of Nomadism: Gabra
Place-making and
Culture. Chapter 8 in Housing, Culture, and Design: A
Comparative Perspective, edited by Betha M. Low and Erve
Chambers, pp. 141–163. University of Pennsylvania Press,
Philadelphia.
Reher, Charles A. 1983 Analysis of Spatial Structure in Stone Circle
Sites. In
Microcosm to Macrocosm: Advances in Tipi Ring
Investigation and Interpretation, edited by Leslie B. Davis,
pp. 193–222. Memoir 19. Plains Anthropologist 28(102).
Rocha y Figueroa, Geronimo de la 1780 Mapa de la Frontera de
Sonora para el establecimiento
de la linea de presidios. Woodbridge, CT: 2003. Microfilm, Reel
55 of 105. Manuscript No. Add. 17661 A. Original in British
Library, London.
Roper, Donna C. 2007 The Effect of the Direct Historical Approach
on the
Development of Theory in Plains Archaeology: A Comment on
Mitchell’s Analysis of the MBP Legacy. American Antiquity
72(4):785–788.
Rubertone, Patricia E. 2000 The Historical Archaeology of Native
Americans. Annual
Review of Anthropology 29: 425–446.
Salzman, Philip C.
2002 Pastoral Nomads: Some General Observations Based on
Research in Iran. Journal of Anthropological Research
58(2):245–264.
Schneider, Fred E. 1983 Artifact Distribution at Tipi Ring Sites: A
Cautionary
Tale. In Microcosm to Macrocosm: Advances in Tipi Ring
Investigation and Interpretation, edited by Leslie B. Davis, pp.
93–100. Memoir 19. Plains Anthropologist 28(102).
Schroeder, Albert H. 1973 The Mescalero Apaches. In Technical
Manual: 1973
Survey of the Tularosa Basin, edited by Human Systems
Research, pp 124–144. Human Systems Research, Inc.,
Tularosa, New Mexico.
1974a A Study of the Apache Indians, Part IV: The Mogollon,
Copper Mine, Mimbres, Warms Springs, and Chiricahua Apaches.
In Apache Indians, Vol. 4, edited by David Agee Horr, pp. 9–326.
Garland Publishing Co., New York.
1974b A Study of the Apache Indians, Part III: The Mescalero
Apaches. In David Agee Horr, Ed., Apache Indians I, pp. 471–583.
Garland Publishing Co., New York.
1983 Pueblos Abandoned in Historic Times. Chapter in Handbook
of American Indians, ed. Alfonso Ortiz, Vol. 10, 236–254.
Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.
Seymour, Deni J. 1995 Behavioral Approach to the Recognition
of
th Inconspicuous Apachean Sites. Paper presented at the 68
Annual Pecos Conference, Gila Wilderness, New Mexico.
2002 Conquest and Concealment: After the El Paso Phase on
Fort Bliss. Conservation Division, Directorate of Environment,
Fort Bliss. Lone Mountain Report 525/528.
Deni J. Seymour Ancestral Apache Housing
Copies available from belinda.mollard@us.army.mil.
2004 A Ranchería in the Gran Apachería: Evidence of
Intercultural Interaction at the Cerro Rojo Site. Plains
Anthropologist 49(190):153–192.
2006 Athabascan and non-Athabascan Mobile Traders at the
Salinas Pueblos, in the Galisteo Basin Pueblos, at Pecos
Pueblo, and Near Paa-ko. Paper presented at the 2006 Pecos
Conference, Navajo Dam.
2007a With a Grain of Salt: Mobile Visitation and Residence
at the Salinas and Galisteo Area Pueblos. Paper presented at
the 2007 Pecos Conference, Pecos Pueblo.
th2007b Misconceptions about Protohistoric Mobile Group Hut
Signatures. Paper presented at the 15 Biennial Jornada
Mogollon Conference, El Paso, Texas.
2007c A Syndetic Approach to Identification of the
Historic Mission Site of San Cayetano del Tumacácori.
International Journal of Historical Archaeology,
11(3):269–296.
2008a Pliant Communities: Seasonal Mobile Group
Visitation at the Eastern Frontier Pueblos. Paper presented
at the Society for Historical Archaeology Conference,
Albuquerque.
2008b Despoblado or Athapaskan Heartland: A
Methodological Perspective on Ancestral Apache
Landscape Use in the Safford Area. In Crossroads of the
Southwest: Culture, Ethnicity, and Migration in Arizona’s
Safford Basin, edited by David E. Purcell, pp. 121–162.
Cambridge Scholars Press, New York.
2008c Surfing Behind The Wave: A Counterpoint Discussion
Relating To “A Ranchería in the Gran Apachería.” Plains
Anthropologist 53(206):241–262.
2009a Nineteenth-Century Apache Wickiups: Historically
Documented Models for Archaeological Signatures of the
Dwellings of Mobile People. Antiquity 83(319):157–164.
2009b Distinctive Places, Suitable Spaces: Conceptualizing
Mobile Group Occupational Duration. International
Journal of Historical Archaeology 13(3):255–281.
th2009c Manso Tipis and Other Non Sequiturs Relating to the
Protohistoric Southwest. In Quince: Papers from the 15
Biennial Jornada Mogollon Conference, edited by Marc
Thompson, pp. 107–119. El Paso Museum of Archaeology,
El Paso.
2010a Rethinking Mobility: Differentiating Parameters of
Spatial Patterning in Circumstances of High Residential
Mobility. Paper under review.
2010b Beyond Married, Buried, And Baptized: Exposing
Historical Discontinuities in an Engendered
SobaípuriO’odham Household. In Engendering Households
in the Prehistoric Southwest, edited by Barbara Roth, pp.
229– 259. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
2011 Where the Earth and Sky are Sewn Together. University
of Utah press, Salt Lake City, in press.
Seymour, Deni J., and Tim Church 2007 Apache, Spanish, and
Protohistoric Archaeology on
Fort Bliss. Lone Mountain Report 560-005. Conservation
Division, Directorate of Environment, Fort Bliss. Lone
Mountain Report 560-005.
Seymour, Deni J., and Richard N. Henderson 2010 To Go
Together: Focal Residential Strategies of the
Southernmost Ancestral Apache. In The Apache
Presence in the Borderlands of the American
Southwest, edited by
151
David Carmichael, University of Arizona Press, in press. Seymour,
Deni J., and George Robertson
2008 A Pledge of Peace: Evidence of the Cochise-Howard Treaty
Campsite. Historical Archaeology 42(4): 154–179.
Smith, Fay Jackson, John L. Kessell, and Francis J. Fox 1966 Father
Kino in Arizona. Arizona Historical Foundation,
Phoenix. Sweeney, Edwin R.
(editor)
1997 Making Peace with Cochise: the 1872 Journal of Captain
Joseph Alton Sladen. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman,
Oklahoma.
Terrell, John Upton 1974 Apache Chronicle. Thomas Y. Crowell
Company, New
York. Thomas, Alfred
B.
1959 The Chiricahua Apache 1695–1876. University of New
Mexico, Mescalero-Chiricahua Land Claims Project, Contract
Research #290-154.
Treutlein, Theodore E. (Translator) 1965 Missionary in Sonora, The
Travel reports of Joseph
Och, S.J. California Historical Society, San Francisco.
Wallace, Ernest, and Edward Adamson Hoebel
1952 The Comanches: Lords of the South Plains. University of
Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK.
Wedel, Waldo R. 1961 Prehistoric Man on the Great Plains.
University of
Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Winship, George Parker (editor)
1990 The Journey of Coronado. Dover Publications, Inc., New York.
Yellen, John E. 1977 Archaeological Approaches to the Present:
Models
for Reconstructing the Past. Academic Press, Inc., New York.
NOTES
1. Hundreds of Apache and proto-Apache sites are now known in
the Southwest including numerous small and large habitation sites.
While many researchers continue to suggest that Apache sites are
rare this impression relates more to a lack of familiarity with the
current literature than it does to archaeological fact.
2. A possible contradiction to the inference that Apache in the
Southwest did not tend to have tipis pulled by dogs is found in a
supplemental account written by Captain Juan Mateo Manje 20 or
more years after his 1697s trip down the lower San Pedro River in
southern Arizona. This account indicates with regard to Apaches
in the Sierra de Santa Rosa de la Florida (that Thomas [1959:iv]
identifies as the Santa Teresa Mountains, which are east of the San
Pedro River): “All their houses and encampments are large tepees
which, when they move from place to place, they pack with all
their other belonging on their droves of large dogs that are used in
place of mules” (Karns 1954:285; also see Burrus 1971:220, 370).
Yet it is important to remember that Manje never actually saw the
tipis and dogs, because, as the original account of this trip clearly
indicates (Karns 1954:83–84; Burrus 1971:370) the expedition
kept to the west of the river and could see the Sierra de Santa Rosa
de la Florida in the distance to the east from a mountain west of
the San Pedro. Burrus 1971:220 incorrectly identifies the mountain
they were on as the Sierra de Santa Rosa de la Florida, but the
PLAINS ANTHROPOLOGIST VOL. 55, NO. 214, 2010
Spanish version clarifies that an earlier battle had been fought
against them in the Santa Teresa Mountains (e.g., Burrus
1971:206, 341, 370; also see Smith, Kessell, and Fox
1966:40–41 for another description of the route. So this
purported observation is seemingly hearsay from an earlier
event. This inference seems supported by his statement that
these Indians had red hair and used military formations like the
Romans. There is no independent confirmatory evidence that
the Apache in these mountainous areas had tipis and dogs to
pull them this early; archaeological research has repeatedly
failed to identify tipis in the southern Southwest until very late.
In fact, an expectation and search for tipi rings rather than
wickiup rings has been a primary reason Apachean sites have
been so rarely identified in the Southwest. Manje likely equated
dogs and tipis with the Plains Apache and therefore transferred
these attributes to those Apache who resided in the mountains,
based on a generalized cultural conceptualization of “Apache”
of the time. One reason to believe that the Spanish had this
mental conceptualization of the generalized Apache house as a
tipi or conical straight-sided tent is that Geronimo de la
Rocha’s map from 1780 (Rocha y Figueroa 1780) uses a tipi
representation symbol to indicate abandoned native settlements
or encampments (including non-Apache ones) throughout a
large geographic area, much of which was far beyond the
Apache territory.
Modern accounts and ethnographies also suggest that the
Chiricahua might have used tipis in the distant past (Ball
1970:17; Opler 1941:385), but when read carefully these notions
seem to be conjecture based upon the readings of histories (Ball
1970:108) or are revitalized ideas of what Apache housing should
be, recollections of what was used in (and did not precede) the
late historic period, or that tipis were used in limited contexts,
such as the girl’s puberty rite (Opler 1941:385). Archival maps
collected during Richard Henderson’s thesis work (Henderson
field notes 1957) under Basehart’s direction indicate that
Chiricahua collective memory was confined to a much more
restricted geographic area centering on the Mescalero
Reservation and a more limited range of subsistence pursuits by
the mid twentieth century (author’s observations). This suggests
that traditional life had already changed in a way that no longer
reflected deep or ancient tradition. Western Apache accounts are
contradictory on the matter of house types, some informants
saying they did not use tipis until late, others suggesting they did
(Goodwin 1929–1939). The archaeology to this point is rather
clear; decades of searching for tipi rings has resulted in only late
ones being discovered, whereas in adjacent plains areas tipi rings
are readily identified. The point is, as one of Opler’s (1941:385)
informants noted: “The dome-shaped dwelling or wickiup [is] the
usual house type for all the Chiricahua bands.”
3. Observations by the author indicate that Forest rangers
who have dismantled modern fire rings tend to disperse cobbles
outward in a circular fashion, forming rings that appear very
much like tipi rings.
4. When initially recorded this site was said to have few
artifacts (Loring Haskell, LA 27687 site form, ARMS). Closer
inspection has revealed many artifacts inside and around
152
structures. 5. This attribute may have both seasonal and cultural
relevance as certain groups may not have occupied these zones except
for during winter months, as some documentary sources suggest. For
example, with reference to the Plains Vaqueros, Obregon (Hammond
and Rey 1928:305; also see Schroeder 1983) observed that: “when it
was cold or snowed, they sought shelter in the extensions and slopes
of the sierras.”
6. It is understood that these hunters of migratory animals also
hunted smaller game and gathering formed an important part of their
subsistence. In reality, there was a continuum of strategies used in
the Southern Plains, ranging from generalized foragers to specialized
hunting (see Reher 1983:217). In general, however, the way a group
moved around the landscape, conceived of their range, and utilized
its resources was fundamentally affected by the degree of mobility
and the reasons for mobility. By the late historic period hunting and
territorial ranges were greatly constricted and had shifted, migratory
game had been all but killed off, and social relations were altered.
Given these changes in the nature and degree of mobility, factors
affecting landscape use, and homeland focus it is reasonable to
question what impact these factors had on the material and spatial
aspects of life. For example, Reher (1983:217, 220) notes that as the
degree of specialization in big-game hunting increases, group size
should increase and groups reliant on migratory animals also tend to
carefully arrange their sites owing to longer duration stays and large
group sizes that are compositionally varied.
7. Apachean groups who were not raiders, raided less, or
abandoned this aspect of subsistence and those who cultivated crops
tended to occupy the more northern reaches of the Southwest. Later in
time, these groups (Western Apache, Navajo, Jicarilla) were apt to be
less mobile than Apachean groups to the south. Their often more
substantial housing reflects this longer-term occupancy and illustrates
how slight changes in degree of mobility can have a substantial effect
on material culture, such as housing.
8. It is generally recognized that the Mescalero occupied the area
to the east of the Rio Grande while Chiricahua groups occupied areas
to the west. This distinction has relevance mostly for the later portion
of history when these two groups were clearly distinguished. Earlier
the Spanish referred to many more groups, indicating that the
historical groups changed and solidified through time (Schroeder
1974a:1, 1974b) and that areas of use were altered, that is, if Spanish
names can be considered in any way relevant to identity and to the
subsistence and adaptation factors that influence the archaeological
record.
9. Of course Opler (1983:380) noted the ethnographic pattern that
the easternmost Chiricahua were more likely to build tipis than the
other two more western bands. Similarly the eastern moiety of the
Jicarilla used the tipi as a dwelling more consistently than those to
the west.
10. It is important to point out that most scholars currently
studying early Athapaskans and Athapaskan migration from the
Subarctic suggest that there were both mountain and plains routes
south. Dates from the 1300s and perhaps earlier have been
identified in the mountains which support this scenario, as do
differences in material culture, including house form.