Ancient Perry Mesa people were "organized for war."???

[Randal_Schulhauser]

First time I've come across this notion. Anybody care to comment?

Maybe an excuse for a future visit...

[PaleoRob]

Hmm, I've always heard that the Perry Mesa folks were different, but belonged aligned more towards the Hohokam end of things. I've always wanted to explore that area. Interesting article, thanks for sharing.

[Hoffmaster]

Cool article. Have you guys read Craig Childs' book, House of Rain, Tracking a Vanished Civilization Across the American Southwest? While he doesn't address this particular area in the book, he does talk about the prospect of war(s) in the region. I think you'll find it quite fascinating. It was a real eye-opener for me, regarding the Anasazi culture.

[PaleoRob]

Yeah Matt, I've really enjoyed House of Rain. I second the recommendation. Lots of good information and very well written.

[Sredfield]

If you've been to the Citadel on Ceder Mesa in southern UT, it is abundantly clear that they were fortified for a siege. I don't think european's brought the first war to the area.

[Randal_Schulhauser]

Is this the book that speculates about cannibalism?

[Hoffmaster]

If by "speculates" you mean mentioned once or twice and never discussed in-depth, then yes. I would have liked to have read more about that. Maybe it's just me.

[PaleoRob]

Two must-reads for the cannibalism issue are Man Corn by Christy Turner and Prehistoric Cannibalism at Mancos 5MTUMR-2346 by Time White. Both are semi to very technical. The first is probably the better read, because of its breadth and depth, while the second (published earlier) is a very detailed case study.
In Search of the Old Ones goes into it a little as well, in a more "popular" format, but was published before Man Corn came out so it is missing some details and information.

[desert spirit]

I still want to believe the Anasazi didn't do wars. I base this on a couple of things ... the Hopi oral tradition doesn't mention any kind of armed conflict before the Navajos and Utes came to the Great Basin. Also, as far as I know, large numbers of war weapon artifacts have not been found.

I don't think the placement or construction style of buildings is adequate evidence of warlike behavior. If you drive up into the Catalina foothills now, most of the homes have walls around them, and of course they're built on the "high ground". But it's not for defensive purposes. It's an indicator of status, and besides, people enjoy the view. Why couldn't the Anasazi people be the same way?

What would be the purpose of going to all the trouble of mounting an attack against a remote village miles and miles from yours? Many of your best men might be killed, and with small villages you can ill afford to lose hunters. It's similar reasoning to the way predatory animals rarely kill each other.

I think the best argument though is the Hopi traditions. The Hopi stories are extensive. They would record warlike behavior if it had existed. The word "Hopi" means the "peaceful people". Hopi religion is at the center of their existence, and it is strongly anti-war.

[Vaporman]

Why is a group of Indians being warlike so controversial? There were many tribes that were aggressive back in the day. Maybe most of the AZ ones at that timeframe were peaceful, but there could have been a group from another region that were not. As a whole, Indians weren't exactly a bunch of peaceniks, many of the tribes warred amongst themselves...

[azbackpackr]

I think during the great 50-year droughts of the 1200s and 1300s it's possible that people from neighboring villages raided one another for food. Therefore, the people they may have had to protect themselves from could have been their own relatives.

[PaleoRob]

I still want to believe the Anasazi didn't do wars. I base this on a couple of things ... the Hopi oral tradition doesn't mention any kind of armed conflict before the Navajos and Utes came to the Great Basin. Also, as far as I know, large numbers of war weapon artifacts have not been found.

Hopi oral tradition, it is true, doesn't really record any violence against other tribes until the Spanish entrada, when most Pueblos went on the offensive as allies of the Spaniards. However there are several oral tales relating to pueblo-on-pueblo/Hopi village-on-Hopi Village violence. The most famous example is probably Awatovi, but it is not the only one. See Hopi Tales of Destruction by Ekkehart Malotki for some examples. There are also many archaeological examples of violence - arrowheads embedded in bones, crushed skulls, etc. Man Corn explores not only cannibalism but also general violence. I think it is a fascinating read if you are interested in the subject, and you can examine evidence of violence yourself, so to speak.

I don't think the placement or construction style of buildings is adequate evidence of warlike behavior. If you drive up into the Catalina foothills now, most of the homes have walls around them, and of course they're built on the "high ground". But it's not for defensive purposes. It's an indicator of status, and besides, people enjoy the view. Why couldn't the Anasazi people be the same way?

I generally agree with this. No doubt there were several reasons for the way they built their dwellings. I'm sure defense might have played a part, but sacred geography, tradition, closeness to resources, etc. also played their roles. Some places, sure, like Happy Valley might have been primarily defensive, but most probably were built that way for a variety of reasons.

What would be the purpose of going to all the trouble of mounting an attack against a remote village miles and miles from yours? Many of your best men might be killed, and with small villages you can ill afford to lose hunters. It's similar reasoning to the way predatory animals rarely kill each other.

Many of these villages weren't too far apart. Besides, these were people who probably could walk 50 miles a day without even thinking about it. And people might not end up dying if, as David Robert points out, you are raiding peoples' food supplies instead of out-and-out warfare.

I think the best argument though is the Hopi traditions. The Hopi stories are extensive. They would record warlike behavior if it had existed. The word "Hopi" means the "peaceful people". Hopi religion is at the center of their existence, and it is strongly anti-war.

That is not really accurate. Again I refer to Malotki's Hopi Tales of Destruction, where he claims that the translation of Hopistinom as "Peaceful People" or "People of Peace" by Frank Waters et al. is incorrect, and was perpetuated by the Hopi and even Fred Harvey to sell the "Indian Experience" as safe; "You don't have to worry about these Indians, they're safe and friendly." A more complete and accurate translation would be "civilized people", setting them apart from the other nomadic tribes in the area.
Also during the Spanish Entrada and the Reconquest there are plenty of examples of Pueblo-on-Pueblo violence from along the Rio Grande. The Pueblo Revolt by David Roberts goes over some of these in detail, and provides references at the back of the book for more detailed reading if one desires. As he puts it in one of his books, "We're not bringing out the dark side of the Anasazi, we're bringing out the human side." Every culture in the world has committed violence against neighbors and friends at some point, why would the Anasazi be any different?
As to religion, I'm not going to claim to be an expert, but two of the most pervasive and important Pueblo deities from ancient times until today are the Warrior Twins, and every Hopi village still has a ceremonial "War Chief", so there was obviously knowledge of warfare, enough so that it was sanctified into parts of daily life and religion.

[Hoffmaster]

What would be the purpose of going to all the trouble of mounting an attack against a remote village miles and miles from yours?

I think that there were probably many more people in this area than you realize. Populations grew to the point that the land could not sustain everyone and tribes began competing for resources. And by competing, I mean killing each other. There is ample archeological evidence to support it, not to mention cannibalism and ritualistic human sacrifice. A lot of the people living in the southwest between the 11th and 15th centuries (the most active time) were not very peaceful.

[Randal_Schulhauser]

Rob - "Man Corn" sounds like an interesting read. Believe I read some Turner snippets when I was up at Chaco. Enough endorsement to add this to the Christmas wishlist... ;)

[desert spirit]

However there are several oral tales relating to pueblo-on-pueblo/Hopi village-on-Hopi Village violence.

Correct. But if these incidents were recorded, wouldn't you think that instances of warring behavior would also be recorded? The Awatovi incident you mention is a source of great shame to the Hopi. If they were inclined to whitewash their history, I doubt that we would have ever heard of this.

I think during the great 50-year droughts of the 1200s and 1300s it's possible that people from neighboring villages raided one another for food.

If Clan A has something that Clan B wants, why should we automatically assume that the only way to get it is to make war on them? What if Clan B is an allied clan? Or even a branch of the same clan? Making war on them would be unthinkable. It makes more sense that they would share, or at least trade for the things they need.

If you're hungry and your nephews or nieces or cousins have food, and they're willing to share, you would have no reason to make war on them.

Again I refer to Malotki's Hopi Tales of Destruction, where he claims that the translation of Hopistinom as "Peaceful People" or "People of Peace" by Frank Waters et al. is incorrect

What makes us think he is more authoritative? It wasn't just Frank Waters who said this, although it's possible later writers simply took his word for it. I have spoken with elderly Hopi on First and Second Mesa who also translated it as the "Peaceful People." Obviously, I personally can't vouch one way or the other ... but I tend to go with the first-hand translation. If the Hopi are purposely trying to deceive us, I don't know that there's much we can do about it.

[PaleoRob]

However there are several oral tales relating to pueblo-on-pueblo/Hopi village-on-Hopi Village violence.

Correct. But if these incidents were recorded, wouldn't you think that instances of warring behavior would also be recorded? The Awatovi incident you mention is a source of great shame to the Hopi. If they were inclined to whitewash their history, I doubt that we would have ever heard of this.

There are other instances in the oral histories, but we Anglos don't know most of them. A few have been passed down out of Hopi, such as Awatovi, Qa'otaqtipu, Pivanhonkyapi, Kawestima, Sikyatki, Huk'ovi, and Hovi'itstuyqa. How many more are still within the Hopi oral tradition only told to a select few and never passed on to the outside world? We'll probably never know.

I think during the great 50-year droughts of the 1200s and 1300s it's possible that people from neighboring villages raided one another for food.

If Clan A has something that Clan B wants, why should we automatically assume that the only way to get it is to make war on them? What if Clan B is an allied clan? Or even a branch of the same clan? Making war on them would be unthinkable. It makes more sense that they would share, or at least trade for the things they need.

If you're hungry and your nephews or nieces or cousins have food, and they're willing to share, you would have no reason to make war on them.

But if they are starving and your own children are starving and there isn't enough to go around, do you let them keep their supply and watch your own children die? Even if you don't raid them, they still have don't have enough - what if they raid you? Do you just give over your last bit of food without a fight?

Again I refer to Malotki's Hopi Tales of Destruction, where he claims that the translation of Hopistinom as "Peaceful People" or "People of Peace" by Frank Waters et al. is incorrect

What makes us think he is more authoritative? It wasn't just Frank Waters who said this, although it's possible later writers simply took his word for it. I have spoken with elderly Hopi on First and Second Mesa who also translated it as the "Peaceful People." Obviously, I personally can't vouch one way or the other ... but I tend to go with the first-hand translation. If the Hopi are purposely trying to deceive us, I don't know that there's much we can do about it.

Why do I trust Malotki? Because he has a much better first-hand knowledge of the language that I, and is a disinterested observer. He can break down difficult semantics and word plays better than I know how to. Here is his actual breakdown of the translation, just for reference:

The argument Walters submits critically hinges of course on the meaning he assigns to the word hopi. In interpreting the tribal name as "People of Peace," he unjustifiably characterizes the Hopis as elitist pacifists. Such pacifists the Hopis have never been.
As I have shown elsewhere, hopi does not signify "peaceful" (Malotki 1991:45). Rather, it denotes "good" in the sense of "well-behaved." Considering that the Hopi compared themselves favorably to their predominantly nomadic neighbors, the term is perhaps best defined as "civilized." The Hopi achievements in agriculture, architecture, and ceremonialism must have induced a feeling of ethnic superiority in them, which is reflected in the onomastic label they gave themselves.
The fantasy that hopi means "peaceful" is both erroneous and misleading. It has not only created "the unreal Hopi" but also contributed to the widely held view that the Hopi constitute an Edenic society living in tranquility and harmony on the high plateau (Shorris 1971:148). This falsehood about the Hopi has led people from around the world to expect something of them that is impossible.
As it turns out, there is not a single word in the entire Hopi language that captures our idea of peace. On the other hand, the Hopi language contains an extensive vocabulary that relates to the business of war. Thus, in addition to the term naaqoyiw (the killing of one another), which approximates our concept of war, the language provides two verbs for the notion "to kill." While niina refers to the killing of one or two persons (or animals), qoya implies the killing of three or more.