Since 1939 the writers have attempted, from time to time, to locate village sites of the Osage Indians, in the hope of determining the type of culture that was associated with that important tribe. The Oneota aspect of the Upper phase of the Mississippi pattern has been assigned to the Chiwere branch of the Sioux with considerable assurance, but identification of the culture of the Dhegiha branch has remained largely in the sphere of debate and speculation. It is not, however, entirely a matter of speculation, for some evidence has begun to come in. The problem is by no means settled, but in view of the times, it seemed wise to present such data as we have been able to gather.

The Osage have been known to the whites since the time of Marquette, but the first visit of which we have record was that of Du Tisné in 1719.

With the recent completion of a number of excavation programs by the University of Chicago, Carbondale State Normal University, and the St. Louis Academy of Sciences, it is now possible to make a preliminary analysis of the aboriginal occupations of southern Illinois and adjoining areas. Much of the data may not be published for several years, so an introductory statement may be useful.

In this paper we will propose a chronological and cultural sequence based upon these excavated materials. Since the final analysis has not been accomplished, the conclusions expressed here are to be taken wholly as a progress report and subject to eventual revision and refinement.

The material will be discussed by period, following the divisions on the charts appended to this paper (Figs. 2 and 3). The horizons will be discussed in order, beginning with the earliest.

The hypothesis presented in this paper is based upon the correlation of a set of archaeological data with a sequence of historic events. The ideas incorporated here developed from a series of discussions concerning the relationship of the Middle Mississippi cultural manifestation in central Illinois with the Upper Mississippi Oneota culture and with influences which seem to derive from the Missouri-Arkansas region. In the course of this exchange of data, the writers became aware of the fact that a number of recent developments in Southeastern and Middle Western archaeology point to the conclusion that the Middle Mississippi culture in the present state of Illinois represents the material culture of the tribes of the Illinawek Confederacy. Evidence leading to this identification comes from a number of sources, both archaeological and ethno-historical. It must be stressed that the historical reconstruction proposed here is entirely hypothetical and tentative, and is based on inference from a number of lines of reasoning.

No one who has seen the fortified villages and inaccessible cliff dwellings of the Pueblo III period of Anasazi culture can fail to have been impressed by the amount of labor expended in their construction or by the inconvenience entailed in living in them. It is clear that they reflect an urgent need for defense; it is less clear against whom their builders had to defend themselves. Southwestern archaeologists have been prone to dismiss this problem with somewhat vague statements about nomad invasions which compelled the agricultural Anasazi to draw together into large groups and build strongholds. This theory was a dyanced very early in the history of Southwestern research, when most of our present information on this region was lacking, and it may be profitable to re-examine it at this time.

Valshni Village is a surface ruin fourteen miles southwest of Sells, Arizona, in the Sells District of the Papago Indian Reservation. The site is located on the adobe flats of the Baboquivari Valley near the confluence of the Valshni and Fresnal Washes. It is approximately ten miles north of the International Boundary and one-half mile east of the Papago village of Burro Pond. Its distinguishing features are five trash mounds above the desert level and many sherd concentrations.

Prior to 1938 no archaeological investigations had been carried on within the Papago Reservation other than surveys conducted by Gila Pueblo2 and the Arizona State Museum. During the winter of 1938-39, the first excavation in the area was completed at the Jackrabbit ruin under the supervision of Frederick H. Scantling. This work served to define what was called the Sells phase, which has been placed at 1250- 1400 A.D. and thus occupies a relatively late position in the local chronology.

In April, May, and June of 1942, salvage excavations were performed under permit from the Secretary of the Interior at five ruins damaged by road construction in lower Mancos Canyon, on the Ute Indian Reservation in southwesternmost Colorado, just south of the Mesa Verde, in Montezuma County. Twenty-four other open sites in the same section of the canyon were surveyed. Cliff dwellings and other sites in side canyons or on mesas were not included, The excavations were carried out for the Indian Service under an interbureau agreement between the National Park Service and the Office of Indian Affairs for cooperation on protection and salvage of archaeological remains along Indian Service road locations. Park Service and Indian Service officials concerned were most cooperative; the four Utes who worked throughout the job, as well as most of the additional Utes and Navahos who were on the job less steadily, proved excellent workmen.

Despite the familiar abundance of archaeological material in the Southwestern region of the United States, there is a notable paucity of anthropomorphic images of stone. The most significant of such figures which have come to the attention of the archaeologist are those unearthed by Alfred V. Kidder, at the Pecos ruins in New Mexico. Inasmuch as no previous reports of stone images in southern Colorado have come to our attention, the purpose of the present article is to direct attention to the presence of effigies in this state.

In view of the fact that images have been found in New Mexico, it seems plausible that similar objects should exist in southern Colorado. In the course of a survey of the region we have found many indications of an influx of Southwestern culture. Pottery, basketry, and stone artifacts which bear a strong resemblance to those of more southerly tribes have been noted.

The discovery of cremations at the ruin of Pueblo Pardo in central New Mexico has added yet another to the multitude of problems concerning the Chupadera Mesa country to be answered by archaeology. Heretofore, most of the data available for this region have been based upon surface survey, and suffer from the inexactitude of that approach; some of the data, also, are based upon the incompletely published excavations at Abó, Quaraí and Gran Quivira National Monument. In the sites of Abó and Quaraí, which consist of important Mission ruins beside ruins of the Indian pueblos, attention has been concentrated upon the former structures almost to the exclusion of the latter. However, some work has been carried on in the pueblo ruins at both Quaraí and Gran Quivira, although, unfortunately, there appears to be little hope for the publication of any reports upon these excavations. The historian's analysis of the area has been ably handled by Scholes.

In an effort to expand the known range of early Navaho history, an area in north-central New Mexico was chosen for survey and excavation in the summer of 1940. This territory lies just south of the Colorado line, between 107° and 108° longitude, and between 36° and 37° latitude, in the northwestern part of Rio Arriba County, in the upper San Juan drainage. Reconnaissance extended over the country within a radius of from ten to fifteen miles from Gobernador. The area is about thirty-five miles east of the town of Aztec and includes the canyons of Compaftero, San Rafael, Mufioz, Gobernador, Frances, La Jara and Pueblito.

Sites from this region had been noted as early as 1912 by Kidder and Morris, who point out their seemingly Pueblo-Navaho nature. Father Berard and Van Valkenburgh report hogan remains on the slopes of Gobernador Knob, sacred in Navaho mythology, and Mera obtained pinyon specimens for dating from several small pueblo-like structures in this region.

The region under consideration comprises the coastal portion of New York State east of the Hudson River, including Manhattan Island, Long Island, and southern Westchester County (Map, Fig. 4). The archaeological sites consist of shell middens along the tidal waferways. Although construction work coincident with the expansion of New York City has destroyed many of them and the rest are at least partially disturbed, sufficient material has been obtained for the purpose of this analysis. An attempt is made to establish a chronology of ceramic traits based upon sherds excavated by the writer and his associates as members of the Committee on American Anthropology of the Flushing (New York) Historical Society. Additional data were obtained from a study of collections made by Harrington for the American Museum of Natural History. Consideration of the non-ceramic material is beyond the scope of this paper and must await further study.

Dr. McKern's recent remarks on “Taxonomy and the Direct Historical Approach” serve, though no doubt unintentionally, as a red herring to my plea for the importance of the direct historical approach. Since much attention has been devoted recently to the matter of research tools in anthropology and the social sciences, I should like to comment briefly on what seems to me increasing confusion of tools, methods, approaches, and theories in archaeology. For I do not conceive the direct historical approach to be a tool. And I am not wholly clear how the taxonomic method is a tool adapted to further a historical objective.

There are two general levels or types of procedure in archaeology: collecting and interpreting data. Much is said about the permanent solidity of sacred fact and the ephemeral nature of theory. But facts are totally without significance and may even be said not to exist without reference to theory.

The following note regarding pottery-making may be of interest to archaeologists who are not already acquainted with it. It is an entry made by John Bradbury when he was at an Arikara village on the Missouri in May, 1810.

“I noticed over their fires much larger vessels of earthen-ware than any I had before seen, and was permitted to examine them. They were sufficiently hardened by the fire to cause them to emit a sonorous tone on being struck, and in all I observed impressions on the outside, seemingly made by wicker work. This led me to enquire of them by signs how they were made? when a squaw brought a basket, and took some clay, which she began to spread very evenly within it, shewing me at the same time that they were made in that way. From the shape of these vessels, they must be under the necessity of burning the basket to disengage them, as they are wider at the bottom than at the top.

On many sites in the Pease and Red river section of Wilbarger County, Texas, are found numerous “drum” bones of fish. They occur on the surface of camp sites, which are on sandy terrain along river banks or on the slopes of nearby sand dunes, along with the average run of artifacts, including flint projectile points, scrapers, manos, and potsherds. Other fish remains do not appear. The question which has interested the writer is whether these strange bones owe their presence on the sites to their inherent durability or to the attention and care accorded them by the Indians.

This area is noted for its Gaspergou or Drum fish. Within a cavity in the skull of this fish are located a pair of bones which the river folk term “drummers.” A three pound fish will produce a pair the size of a ten-cent piece. One side is convex, the other side is an irregular plane.