Settlements Patterns in Canyons

Ecological and Historical Perspectives on Navajo Land Use and Settlement Patterns in Canyons
De Chelly and Del Muerto

Author(s): Tracy J. Andrews
Source: Journal of Anthropological Research, Vol. 47, No. 1 (Spring, 1991), pp. 39-67
Published by: University of New Mexico
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3630580 .
Accessed: 21/03/2013 14:32
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
University of New Mexico is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of
Anthropological Research.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 168.176.162.35 on Thu, 21 Mar 2013 14:32:26 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ECOLOGICALANDHISTORICAL
PERSPECTIVES
ON
NAVAJOLANDUSEANDSETTLEMENTPATTERNSIN
CANYONSDE CHELLYANDDELMUERTO
TracyJ. Andrews
ofAnthropology,
Department of Washington,
University
Seattle,WA98195
Canyonde Chellyandits majortributary, Canyon delMuerto,havebeenconsidered

a
Navajo "heartland" in theAmerican Southwest sincethe1700s.The are
canyons usually
referredtoas a singlesocialandeconomic community whoseuniquetopographic
features
afforded an unusually dependableindigenous horticultural
base.Thispaperdescribes
important differencesbetweenthecanyons in thehistoryofNavajoland-use
andsettlement
patterns.It is suggestedthatmicroregionaldifferencescanbelinkedwithbroader
cultural
processesand thatboth historical
and ecological factorsmustbe considered
when inter-
pretingsuchvariation at whatever
levelit occurs.
CANYON DECHELLY andits majortributary,Canyondel Muerto,are located

nearthe centerof the contemporary NavajoIndianReservation.Whileinitially
the canyonswere at the western boundaryof the territoryoccupiedby the
Navajoin the AmericanSouthwest,sincethe 1700stheyhavebeen considered
a Navajo"heartland." Theiruniquetopographic featuresaffordednot only an
unusuallydependableindigenous horticulturalbase but also a naturalrefuge
that providedpotentialshelteragainstintrudersuntilthe middleof the nine-
teenthcentury.Afterthe establishment of the reservationin 1868,the canyons
remainedone of the few majorsites of indigenousNavajoagriculture(Van
Valkenburgh 1941:18-25;Aberle1961:101).
Canyon ChellyandCanyondel Muertoare usuallyreferredto as a single
de
socialandeconomiccommunity.In bothanthropological andhistoricalreports,
the canyonsare oftenconsideredas a unitwithinthe "deChellyarea"or are
simply subsumedunderthe designation"Canyonde Chelly"(Hill 1938:51;
Kimballand Province1942; Goldfrank1945:264;Aberle 1961:101;Downs
1972:42;James1976:5;Jett 1979).This perspectiveaccentsthe generalsim-
ilaritiesbetween them as an exampleof an indigenousNavajoagricultural
communitywithina society widelydescribedas pastoral.Initially,I also con-
centratedon the canyonsas a unitsinceno previoussystematicethnographic
researchin the areaprovideda baselinefor this study.However,as my work
progressed(includingseveralperiodsof fieldworkfrom1975 to 1982 andin
1985and1990),importantdifferencesin the land-useandsettlementhistories
of the two canyonsbecameevident(Andrews1976, 1981, 1985).
The focusof thispaperis on behavioraladaptationto changesin the physical
andsocioeconomicenvironmentswhichhas resultedin observabledifferences
amongcanyonlandusers in their response to increasedinvolvementin the
marketeconomyand deteriorationof the traditionally importantagricultural
landbase. Most researcherswho have notedvariationsin aspects of Navajo
39

40 JOURNAL RESEARCH
OFANTHROPOLOGICAL
cultureand social organization compareseparate"communities" across the

reservation,usuallyat somedistancefromone another.Thispaperencourages
differenceson the microlevel, which
sensitivityto the potentialfor significant
mayarticulatein previouslyunrecognized wayswithbroaderpatternsof social
organization andculturalbehavior.'
THE STUDYAREAENVIRONMENT
TheNavajoReservationis partof the Colorado Plateautopographic province.

The DefiancePlateau,a highlylocalizeduplift,lies along the Arizona-New
Mexicoborderin a narrowbandapproximately thirtyto fortymiles wideand
one hundredmileslong (Gregory1916:34-36).As the easternsectionof the
plateaugraduallyuplifted,Canyonde Chelly,Canyondel Muerto,and their
maintributarieswere incisedinto it by the downcuttingof large perennial
streamsflowingwestwardfromthe nearbyChuskaMountains(Figure1). The
streamsmaintained theirnaturalmeandersas they cut throughan upperlayer
of conglomerates(the Shinarump Formation)and underlyingPermiansand-
stones (the De ChellysandstoneandSupaiFormation) to formthe dramatically
twistedandcurvedvermillioncanyonsof the present.
The De Chellysandstoneis the regionalgroundwater reservoir(Cooleyet
al. 1969:A38).However,it is the canyons'oldest, deepest, andleast visible
geologicalfeature,the SupaiFormation,thathas been of greatestsignificance
for humanoccupation.Becauseit is relativelyimpermeableto groundwater,
the SupaiFormationhas helpedcreatea highwatertable,an invaluable asset
to agricultural
pursuits forat leasta thousand
years(McDonald 1976:2).Within
the canyonsystem, the amountof arablelandandavailablewatervariesdue
to naturaltopographic andgeologicfactorsas wellas the impactof humanuse
andalterationof the localenvironment.
TheCanyonSystem
The NavajoReservationis describedas semiarid,andthe canyonsordinarily
receive low levels of meanannualprecipitation(aboutten to eleven inches)
becauseof theirlocationin a desert plateausurroundedby mountainsto the
northeast,east, andsoutheast(SellersandHill1974:132-33,312-13). Most
of the precipitation
occursbetweenJulyandOctober.Characteristically, sum-
mer rainsarrivein the formof short and extremelyviolentthunderstorms,
often so localizedthat they water no more thana few hundredacres. The
averagelengthof the growingseason is 145 days, but freezes intolateJune
are not uncommon(Andrews1985:117).Successfulfarmingwouldseem ex-
tremelyuncertainunderthese precariousclimaticconditions.However,the
canyonshavebeendescribedsincethe 1700sas animportant agriculturalcenter
for the Navajo. As recently as fifty years ago, Hill (1938:25) contrasted them
with other farmingareas on the reservation, noting that he had never heard
of crop failure occurringin the canyons from lack of water.
A number of factors distinctive to the canyons have tended to buffer the

USEANDSETTLEMENT
LAND
NAVAJO PATTERNS 41
Utah Colorado
\ Arizona New Mexico
Mexican
Water
Tec Nos Pos
( Shiprock
Many Lukachtukai
Forms ,
Lake
CANYON
0 5 10 Mi
de CHELLY pavedroad
-
0 intermittentstream
10'km
(Sawmill
Ganad
l MFort Defiance
Figure1. TheContemporary Area

de Chelly
Canyon
effectof lowandunpredictable rainfall.Theimportant plantingandearlygrowth

for
period canyoncrops is between mid-April mid-June,generallya time
and
in this region.However,springsnowmeltin the nearby
of low precipitation
ChuskaMountainsnormallyresultsin streamrunoffthroughoutthe canyons,
so some canyonfields can be irrigatedbefore they are planted(Andrews
1985:119).Also, the water tableremainsfairlyhighduringthe summerdue
to the impermeableunderlyingSupaiFormation,whichresults in discharge
fromthe regionalgroundwater reservoirintothe streamflow(McDonald 1976:2).
The watertablehas droppedin recentyearsin some areasof the canyons,
and verticalerosionhas limitedland-useoptionsand agricultural production

42 OFANTHROPOLOGICAL
JOURNAL RESEARCH
potential.In the southernColoradoPlateau,naturalerosionalcycles have oc-

curredat intervalsover the last thousandyears. The most recentmajorcycle
beganin the late 1880s. Fromthe prehistoricAnasazihabitationthroughthe
Navajooccupationof de Chellyand del Muerto,a complexcombinationof
humanfactorsalsohasinfluenced the localenvironment. Speciesof cottonwood
andwillowhave been recoveredfromarchaeological sites. Dennis(1975:18)
suggests that the initialprehistoricoccupantsfoundthem, andotherriparian
vegetation,in abundancealongthe canyonbottomlands.Withpopulationin-
crease, localplantresourceswere progressivelydepleted,but the extent of
the resultingvegetationreductioncanonlybe inferred(Dennis1975:18).While
the evidenceis limited,photographs takenaroundthe turnof thiscenturyshow
the lower andmiddlereachesof the canyonscoveredonly withlow grasses
anda scatteringof streamsidetrees andshrubs.
In the 1870s and 1880s, membersof geologicalandarchaeological surveys
inthe areafirstreportedthe existenceof the canyons'majorprehistoric Anasazi
ruins.The threateneddestructionof a numberof largesites by naturalmean-
deringof the canyonstreamsandthe growingevidenceof vandalization through
pothuntingbecamea focusof scholarlyconcern(Mindeleff 1897;Powell1886).
To protect the canyons'archaeological resources, they were designateda
nationalmonumentin 1931. Extensiveerosioncontrolprojectswere under-
takenin the canyonsby the NationalParkService,SoilConservation Service,
IndianIrrigationService, andother agencies.Tamarisk,willow,andcarrizo,
or "luka,"reeds (anglicizedspellingof the Navajoword for "reed,"16k'aa';
Phragmitescommunis)have spreaddramatically from the sites where they
were deliberatelyplantedfromthe 1930s throughthe late 1960s (Bruggeand
Wilson1976:62,64, 89).
Lateralstreamerosionwas the primaryconcernin the 1930s. It was antic-
ipatedthat vegetationplantingswouldprotectthe banksof the channelfrom
furtherdegradationand shieldadjacentprehistoricruinsand extant Navajo
farms.The streambankswere effectivelystabilizedin manyareas;however
this type of artificialrestrictionof the floodplaincan contributeto channel
entrenchment(Cookeand Reeves 1976). Grazingandtimbercuttingon the
canyonrimsandin the headwatersareas,as wellas increasingvehiculartraffic
alongthe canyons'streambeds,also mayhaveinfluencederosionalprocesses
in the canyons(CookeandReeves 1976;Rydout1985).
Microenvironmental Comparisons
Canyonde Chellyis approximately twenty-sevenmiles long, and Canyon
del Muertois nearlyeighteenmilesinlength.Mostfarmingoccursin the lower
one-thirdto one-halfof each canyonandtheirmaintributaries.FollowingDe
Harport (1959:81-87), the main de Chelly canyon can be roughly divided into
three topographiczones (Figure 2). In the lower section, between its mouth
and the junction with Canyon del Muerto, the sandy floodplainof the Rio de
Chellyoccupies much of the canyonfloor. Here, cultivablebottomlandis largely
restricted to the mouths of small side canyons and to "alcoves," small areas

NAVAJO PATTERNS
LANDUSEANDSETTLEMENT 43
Upperdel Muerto
Middle 66,
.1 TSAILE
LAKE
del Muerto
Lower
del Muerto
Blo Roc
Ante e Na jo
LOW/ Fortrss LLhSey
hel w.House
Chevy/white CA
YONh Ruin sop
rim
e ,canyon
/
Middlede Chelly /per o
/de Chelly0
o 2 4 MILES
0 4 6 KILOMETERS .
, ,
Figure2. Topographic
Unitsof the ResearchArea
of arablelandhollowedout of the canyons'wallsby naturalerosionprocesses

(Andrews1985:108-10).Exceptafterintenserainstorms,whichcanfloodthe
lower canyon,this sectionof de Chellyis usuallydryover the summer.How-
ever, even when there is no flow throughthe streamchannel,water can be
obtainedin numerouslocationsby diggingshallowwells, usuallyno morethan
two to three feet deep.
The streambedis morerestrictedin the middlesectionof Canyonde Chelly.
Arablelandis more abundant,particularly on alluvialterraceson either side
of the stream.Waterflow is similarto the patternin the lower section, but
severe verticalandlateralerosionhas washedawayportionsof manyfields
andseriouslythreatensothers.Inplaces,banksmorethanfifteenfeet inheight
have been eroded.
In the uppersectionof Canyonde Chelly,beyondThe Window,the stream
channelis even more restricted,andthe increasingdevelopmentof talus at
restrictsareasof arableland.Canyon
the base of the canyonwallssignificantly

JOURNAL RESEARCH
residentspointedout only a handfulof gardensites that were ever planted

aboveSpiderRock,wherethe landhasalwaysbeenusedprimarily forseasonal
livestockgrazing.Two largetributaries,MonumentandBat canyons,joinde
Chellyin this areaandwere includedin this study.They are used mostlyfor
grazingandcontainonly limitedareas of cultivablelandwith very few active
farms.
CanyondelMuertocanalsobe roughlydividedintothreetopographic zones.
It is consistentlynarrowerthande Chellyand,especiallywithinthe firstfour
milesaboveits mouth,is moresinuous.Moresmallbranchcanyonsandsizable
alcoves occurin the lower reachesof Canyondel Muertothanin de Chelly,
and largersectionsof continuouscultivableareasexist alongthe sides of the
stream channelin sections furtherup-canyon."Canyondel Muerto,"when
used in comparisonto "Canyonde Chelly,"designatesthe del Muertocanyon
itself and its majortributaries,BlackRock and TwinTrailcanyons.Farms
locatedin these tributarycanyonswere includedin this studybecauseneither
fromthose found
the land-usingfamiliesnor the fieldtypes differsignificantly
in the maindel Muertocanyon.
In the firstfew milesof the lowersectionof delMuerto,streamflowusually
has not cut banksover two to fourfeet deep, andthe streamchannelis clear
of vegetation.Furtherup-canyon,streamchannelization andverticalerosion
have occurred,andvegetationhasmigratedintothe streambed.In the middle
section of the canyon,del Muertowidensand straightens,and the channel
deepensandnarrows.Erosionhas createda terracingeffectin manyplaces.
Fields often are locatedon two differentlevels, one almostadjacentto the
streambedand the other on a ridgeas muchas eight to ten feet above the
wash. In the uppersection of Canyondel Muerto,talus slopes significantly
reducethe amountof arableland.The last fieldareain del Muertois at a farm
aboutfive miles above MummyCave, but most of the landabove Mummy
Cave is used now for seasonallivestockgrazing.
The naturalmeandering of bothcanyonsproduceslocalchangesinthe stream
channel,resultingin irregularprofilesand watertablelevels. Humanuse of
the canyonshas furthercomplicatedthe picture.This microenvironmental
variability has beenintertwinedover timewithchangingsociocultural andeco-
nomiccircumstancesto create the context in whichNavajodecisionsabout
settlementandlanduse have been madefor severalhundredyears.
THE SOCIALCONTEXT:LAND-USINGFAMILIES
I interviewedseventy of the seventy-fivefamilies(93 percent)with land

use-rightsin the canyonsystem. Familieswho currentlyshareuse-rightsto,
andresponsibilitiesfor,landin the canyonsdo not necessarily
live in geograph-
icallydistinct,multihouseholdresidentialunitson the canyonsrims.However,
most oftenthey do haveresidencesabovethe canyonin whichtheirfarmland
is located.The compositionof canyonland-usingfamiliesis somewhatfluid,
depending,forexample,onthe numberof childrenresidinglocallyandproviding

LANDUSEANDSETTLEMENT
NAVAJO PATTERNS 45
laborfor economicactivitiesin the canyons.Thus, these familiescomprise

socialunitsthatcooperateinusingcanyonlandratherthanindividual households
or geographically defined,discrete residentialgroups(camps).Genealogical
information as of 1982indicatesthatthe totalpopulation of the canyonfamilies
is about1,300.
Land-usingfamiliesgenerallyconsistof parentsandone or more children,
oftenmarried,who shareresponsibilities for farmingactivitieson canyonland
but who maynot live together.Severalhouseholdsmay shareuse-rightsto a
single field and may or may not live in the same camp.Siblingsof an older
generationhave also been includedwithina familywhenfieldsownedindivid-
uallyare consideredas a unitwithrespectto the allocationof laborforplanting
and harvesting.Siblingswho have inheritedindividual farmsonce part of a
live
parent'stotalholdingsmaynot only separately butalso maynot cooperate
witheachotherin canyonland-useactivities.In suchcases, these siblingshave
been designatedas distinctfamilyunits.
There are ownershipclaimson all areasof arablelandin Canyonde Chelly
andCanyondelMuerto.Landholdings inthe canyonstendto be compactrather
thandispersed.As a result, particular areas are acknowledged as havingbe-
longedto one clanor anotherover longperiodsof time--oftensince at least
the midnineteenth century.The clansreferredto in these cases are not cor-
poratelandholding units,andfamilieswithinthe areado not alwaysbelongto
the sameclan.The "sale"of land-usepermitsforfarmareasandthe occurrence
of in-marriage havemadesuchhomogeneityinconceivable. Butolderresidents,
in particular,commonlyrefer to specificclanuse-areasin the canyons;these
actuallyreflecta numberof localizedlineages(Andrews1985;Levy, Hender-
son, andAndrews1989:365).
Thirteenclansare currentlyrepresentedin the canyons,anda smallnumber
of Bjh bitoodniiclanmembersused landin Canyondel Muertobefore 1900.
Table1 lists the lineagesfor allthe clansin the canyonsandindicateswhether
they havelandin Canyonde Chellyor in CanyondelMuerto,or both.Lineages
of the sameclanare considereddistinctwhentheirapicalfemalemembersare
not knownto be daughtersof the samemother.No priorityis impliedby listing
a lineageas numberone, two, andso forthwithina particular clan.Associated
with several clansare lineageswhich,due to out-migration or otherfactors,
are no longerrepresented(are now "extinct")in the canyons.For example,
up untilabout1940, a few Hondighdanii clanmembersused landin the lower
section of Canyonde Chelly,but that clan currentlyis representedonly in
Canyondel Muerto.Sincethe middleof the last century,thirty-sevenlineages
(five now extinct)representingfourteenclans (one now extinct)and seven
phratrieshave been identifiedin the canyons.Both lineageemigrationand
immigration have been factorsinfluencing this modestfluctuation.In my anal-
ysis of agriculturallandtransfers made by canyonfamiliessince the mid-1800s,
immigrantlineages accountedfor only 11 percent of the transfers in del Muerto
and 17 percent of the transfers recorded for de Chelly (Andrews 1985:241).
Whether they moved into or marriedinto the canyons, immigrantlineages have

JOURNAL RESEARCH
TABLE1
Clansand Lineages
Lineage Canyonde Canyondel

ClanName Number Chelly Muerto
Kiyaa'9anii 1 X X
2 X
3 (extinct) X
4 (extinct) X
Tdib4hi 1 X X
2 X
3 X
4 X
Thchii'nii 1 X X
2 X
3 X
4 X
T6 dich'ii'nii 1 X
2 X
3 X X
4 X
5 (extinct) X
6 X
7 X
8 (extinct) X
M4'iideeshgiizhnii 1 X
2 X X
3 X
4 X
T6tsohnii 1 X
Naakaiidine'd 1 X
Ta'neeszahnii 1 X X
T6 'iAhni 1 X
Honighdahnii 1 (extinct) X
2 X
3 X
'Ashhi 1 X
T6 'aheedliinii 1 X
2 X
3 X
TThaishchi'i 1 X
bitoodnii 1 (extinct) X
Bjth

NAVAJO PATTERNS 47
comprisedonlya smallsegmentof the land-using population,a situationwhich

reflectsthe limitedavailabilityof openor unclaimedlandin the canyonsfor at
least the past century.
Animportant disclaimermustbe madeat thispoint.Thisinformation is based
on oralhistory.There are severalongoinglanddisputesin bothcanyons,and
disagreementsaboutlandownershiphaveconstantlyoccurredover time. Be-
cause I am not concernedwithdocumenting the "correct"historiesof specific
clan locations,by design my discussionof clan and lineagelandholdings is
imprecisewithreferenceto areaswithinthe canyons.
SomefamiliesusinglandinCanyondelMuertohavenevervisitedor traveled
into de Chelly,and vice versa. Since they did not have any relativesin the
other canyon,they indicatedthey had"nobusinessgoingthere."Some inter-
marriageoccursbetweende Chellyanddel Muertofamilies,but landholdings
remaindistinct.Veryfew familiesown landin bothcanyons;one whichdoes
only has landjust at either side of the junctionarea. The conceptof a social
"community" encompassingboth canyonsmay more accuratelyreflect a re-
sponse to outsidepoliticalfactors,whetherthey be militarydepredations,the
designationof the canyonsystem as a nationalmonument,or tribalpolitical
divisions(Andrews1985:275).Sincethe earliestNavajooccupation,I believe
there havebeen important distinctions betweenthe social,as wellas land-use,
historiesof the two canyons.
SETTLEMENTAND ECONOMICHISTORY
ThePre-Reservation Period
The earliestknownNavajosettlementsin the AmericanSouthwestare lo-
catedalongseveraltributariesof the SanJuanRiverin northernNew Mexico,
an areareferredto by the Navajoas Dinetah(Brugge1972:95;Brugge1983).
Here they practicedfairlyextensive farming,althoughhuntingremainedan
importantsupplementbecauseagriculturewas not totallypredictablein this
uplanddesert region.The Navajogradually migratedto the southandwest of
the Dinetahand eventuallysettled the Carrizoand Chuskamountainranges
andthe de Chellyregion(Brugge1972:91).Inmostareas,stockraising, focused
primarilyon sheep andgoats, becamethe dominantfeatureof the subsistence
base.
Dependingon how historicaldocumentsandoraltraditionare interpreted,
the Navajoappearto have settled near, andprobablyused landin, Canyons
de Chellyand del Muertoby the early 1700s. Brugge (1972:95, personal
communication 1985) notes that refugees from the destructionof the Hopi
town of Awatoviin 1700fledto join"theNavajos,settlingin the upperChinle
"whichwouldincludethe canyons.Further,VanValkenburgh
drainage, (1941:146)
reportsthat residentsof Jemez Pueblowho fled fromthe Rio Grandein the
1690s stoppedat the HopiFirst-Mesavillageof Sichomovi,then "laterjoined
the Navajosin the Canyonde Chellyandbecameaffiliated withothersto form
the ma'i'desgizhnihor CoyotePass Peopleof the Navajo."

JOURNAL RESEARCH
The earliestarchaeological evidencefor Navajosettlementin the canyons

comes froma tree-ring-dated site locatedat the base of SpiderRock,which
produceda cuttingdateof 1773(Morris1972:6).Otherdatesof 1753and1793
were obtained,respectively,fromhogansonthemesatopbetweenthe canyons
(referredto as the "Peninsula," see Figure2) andon the northrimof Canyon
del Muerto(Magers1976:179;Fall, McDonald,and Magers 1981:35).The
limitedarchaeological evidencesupportsoralhistorydescriptions ofa somewhat
earliersettlementof Canyonde Chelly,withpopulation increaseresultingin
movementto the del MuertoandPeninsulaareas (Magers1976;Jamesand
Lindsay1973;James 1976). LittleMan, a residentof Canyondel Muertoin
the early 1900s, recountedthe story of a Hopiwomanwho hadsettled with
the Navajosin Canyonde Chelly(Hill1938:48-49).Whenshe talkedof her
formerhome,she includeddescriptions of thefruittrees growingthere.Canyon
Navajos who went to visit the Hopivillageseventuallybroughtbackpeach
seeds, which were plantedinitiallynear WhiteHouse in Canyonde Chelly.
Reportedly, families belongingto the Jemez (M4'iideeshgiizhnii)clan were
involvedin plantingthese peachorchards,andmembersof this clan subse-
quentlymovedintodel Muerto,plantingthe firstorchardstherenearAntelope
House. Muchof the landnear WhiteHouse continuesto be used by M4'ii
deeshgiizhnii clanmembers.
Oneof the oldestcanyonresidentsI interviewedin 1981wasa ninety-three-
year-oldwomanwithfamilylandsnearthe Junction.She providedinformation
similarto LittleMan'sdescriptionof Canyonde Chellybeingsettled before
Canyondel Muerto,in partbecausethe latterwas inhabitedby wildanimals.
She alsoemphasizedthattravelindelMuertohadoncebeenimpededby dense
vegetation.In 1979 I noteda numberof oak stumpsin the streambedabove
AntelopeHousethathadnot been exposedduringthe previousfoursummers
I hadworkedin the canyons.Further,I couldnot finda singlecanyonfamily
who rememberedever havingseen them before. However,several people
wouldrecountstories they hadbeen toldby now-deceasedparentsor grand-
parentsabouthow dense the vegetationhadbeen in Canyonde Muertoin the
past-long beforethe erosioncontrolplantingsofthe 1930sbegan.Radiocarbon
samplesfromthese buriedoakstumpsdatedto the late 1700sandearly1800s
(ThorKarlstrom,personalcommunication), perhapsindicating a periodof veg-
etationrecoveryafterthe prehistoricAnasaziabandonment andpriorto ex-
tensive Navajouse of the canyons.The presenceof the oaksalso suggests a
differentstreamchannelconfiguration or perhapsa drierclimateat the time
these trees were growing.Oaksdo not survivein sandyfloodplain environ-
mentsandat presentgrowonlyon talusslopesinthe middleandupperreaches
of the canyon.Interestingly,similarstumpshave not been foundexposedin
the streambedof Canyonde Chelly.This canyon-specific occurrenceof oak
stumpsmayprovidesupportfor the ethnohistorical accountsof microenviron-
mentaldifferencesinfluencing earlyNavajosettlementpatternsinthe canyons.
In the historicalrecord, the de Chellyarea first appears,as Chegui,on
Spanishmaps of the late 1700s (BruggeandWilson1976:1, 278). By 1786,

PATTERNS
NAVAJO 49
Navajosnot only were livingin the canyons,but the areahadalso becomea

distinctwesternsettlementcenter(VanValkenburgh 1974:210;Bartlett1932:32;
Kelley 1982b:19). The open locationand large size of earlyNavajosites on
the del Muertorimsuggest thata defensivepositionwas not crucial,although
this factorsoon becameimportant(Magers1976;Jamesand Lindsey1973;
James 1976). By the late 1700s, animositiesbetween the Navajosand the
Spanishhadrenewedas the latterattemptedto expandtheirsphereof control
and their settlementsto the west of the Rio Grande.Canyonde Chellyand
its tributariescame to be regardedas an "impregnable strongholdof the Na-
vajos," which sheltered its occupants rathereffectivelyuntilthe mid-1800s
(Kelly1970:106;Brugge1965:6).
Goodfarmland waslocatedalongthe ChinleWashto the northandsouthwest
of Canyonde Chelly.It was, however,in areasless easilydefendedthanthe
landwithinthe canyons,whichcame to providean importantfood sourcefor
Navajosresidingwest ofthe ChuskaMountains. At the sametimethathistorical
recordsincludedescriptionsof farmsin the canyonbottomlands, archaeological
evidenceindicatesthattheywerenotusedas settlementsites(Magers1976:189).
Ledges, caves, andrimlocationsundoubtedly affordedbetter protection.
Militaryreportsfromthe mid-1800sprovidemanyof the earliest,though
unsystematic,descriptionsof Navajolanduse in the canyons.ColonelSumner
(Bailey1964:34)reportedthatpeachorchards,wheat, corn, andbeanswere
growingin the canyons.MajorBackus(1854:212,as citedin Magers1976:47)
took note of the unusualenvironmental featuresthat allowedthe canyonsto
supporta surprisingamountof agriculture.In 1859, reportsfromWalker's
reconnaissancethroughde Chellyagainexpressedamazementover the crops
growingandnotedabundantcornas well as "occasional" wheatfields(Walker
and Shepard1964:39, 47). Walkerwas told that fields and habitationsites
existed in del Muerto,althoughhe did not explorethat canyonhimself.He
recordedthat del Muertowas called"Cafiondel Trigo or WheatCanyon"
(Walkerand Shepard1964:41),possiblyindicatingthat a greateramountof
wheatwas grownthere as comparedto Canyonde Chelly.
In 1864, militarypersonnelunderKitCarson'scommandmadeseveraltrips
throughdifferentareasof the canyons.CaptainPfeifferdescribedCanyondel
Muertoas follows:"At some places it spreadsout like a beautifulsavanna,
where the Corn Fields ... are laid out with farmer-liketaste, and supplied
with acequiasfor irrigation"(U.S. WarDepartment1902:77).This reference
is uniqueduringthisperiod,andthereis no wayof knowingexactly
to irrigation
whattypeof ditchesor canalsPfeifferwas describingwhenhe usedthe Spanish
word acequias.Since his observationswere made in winter,the term may
structuresthathadsurvivedthe summerfloods.This
indicatefairlysubstantial
is one of the few availabledescriptions of agriculturein Canyon del Muerto,
and, in fact, Kelly (1970:102) notes that Pfeiffer mistakenlythought he was in
Canyon de Chelly.
Carson's campaignin the region destroyed much of the food crop and con-
fiscated livestock. After most of the Navajoswho surrenderedhad been moved

50 JOURNAL RESEARCH
OFANTHROPOLOGICAL
to Fort Sumner,furthermilitaryexpeditionscontinuedinto the canyons.In

the summerof 1864, CaptainThompsonreportedthat five thousandpeach
trees were destroyed,alongwithelevenacresof cornandbeans(Kelly1970:99;
Correll1976:iv,191, as cited in Magers1976:60).Not all of the canyonin-
habitantssurrendered,andestimatesof the size of the remainingpopulation
wouldbe problematic at best. However,in February1865 at least one group
of sixty men, women, and childrenwas reportedto be livingin Canyonde
Chelly(Kelly1970:166).
ThePost-Reservation Period
The planto resettlethe Navajoat FortSumnerwas a dismalfailure.In 1868
a reservationcoveringa smallportionof the Navajo'sformerterritorywas
established.Familieswho hadleft the canyonsgraduallyreturnedand rees-
tablishedclaimsto landthey hadused beforethe 1860s (NavajoCommunity
College1973;Andrews1985).Whilethe Navajowere encouragedto increase
their livestockholdings,farmingremainedimportantin the canyons.There
were few other areas withinthe new reservationwhere indigenousfarming
couldbe practicedwith as muchdependability. In 1869, only one year after
the returnfrom Fort Sumnerand followinga harshwinterand a summer
drought,peaches were reportedas still producing,albeitminimally,in the
canyons(Jett1977:695).InhisstudyofNavajofruittree raising,Jett(1977:696)
concludesthat orchardsin de Chellyand del Muertowere "completelyre-
establishedby the 1880s."
Archaeological evidencefor the resettlementof the areaoccursfirstin the
heavilyforestedupperplateaualongthe easternportionsof the rimsof both
Canyonde ChellyandCanyondelMuerto(James1976:102;Magers1976:187).
The desire to settle withinreasonabledistanceof the rationcenter at Fort
Defianceand a tradingpost establishedat Tsaile may have influencedthe
locationof these earliestresettlementsites (see Figure1; James 1976:103;
Magers1976:187).
The first archaeological investigationsin the canyonsbegan in the early
1880s.Whilethese studiesfocusedonAnasaziruins,CosmosMindeleffshowed
particular interestin the Navajooccupantsof the canyonsandprovidedsome
information on theirsettlementsandlanduse. Mindeleff(1898:483)described
the canyonsas an agricultural center, where more thanten thousandpeople
fromacrossthe reservationwouldgatherto enjoythe harvestof corn,melons,
andpeaches.The streambedin the lowersectionof de Chellyis describedas
rarelybeingmorethanone footdeep, andin mostplacesit measuredno more
thana few inchesdeep.
Mindeleffdidnote the existenceof a few irrigatedareas, but he concluded
thatirrigationwouldbe impractical and,moreimportant,was not essentialfor
successfulcropproduction(Mindeleff1897:87,88). By the early 1930s, Hill
(1938:24)describedlimitedditchirrigation in the canyons.Perhapsthe incen-
tive for the constructionof ditchirrigationworksdid not exist at the earlier

NAVAJO PATTERNS 51
time period, when Hill believederosion was just beginningto requirethe
abandonment of fieldsthathadbeen naturallyinundatedby seasonalfloodwa-
ters. Also, most of Mindeleffsworkwas in Canyonde Chelly;yet references
to irrigationandwheatproduction in militaryreportsfromthe mid-1800srefer
mainlyto Canyondel Muerto,wheremuchof the landirrigatedsinceat least
the 1930s has been located.
Sporadicnaturalstreamoverflowontofields,combinedwiththe highwater
table, has longprovidedcornandothervegetablecropsin bothcanyonswith
adequatemoisture.Moredependable andcontrolledirrigation techniqueswere
certainlyrequiredwhenalfalfabeganto be grownin the early1900s.Alfalfais
a perennialwitha taprootthatcanextendas faras ten to twelvefeet intothe
ground.However,even the highwatertablein the canyonsis of littleuse if
the plantsdo not receivesurfaceirrigation,for transpiration woulddryoutthe
subsurfacewater supply(RobertDennis, Universityof ArizonaCooperative
ExtensionAgent, personalcommunication 1975). Thus, the abilityto irrigate
is crucialfor consistentalfalfaproductionat a level sufficientto make the
requiredlaborinvestmentworthwhile.
Canyonfarmersreportedthat localtraderswere particularly interestedin
having them grow this for
crop payment of debtsincurred at the tradingposts
and, in fact, suppliedthe seed. Othercanyonresidentsindicatethey were
givenalfalfaseed in partialpaymentfor workon federallysponsoredprojects,
for example,the buildingof wells anddamson the Peninsulain the 1920sand
1930s. Federalgovernmenteffortsto developirrigationin the Chinlevalley
andWheatfieldsareasbeganas earlyas 1886 (BruggeandWilson1976:284;
VanValkenburgh 1941:170;Young1961:121-22,as citedin Kelley1982a:21),
but there is no evidence such programswere extendedinto the canyons.
FarmingdevelopmentsalongTsaileandLukachukai creeksattractedincreasing
numbersof familiesto that area, andby 1928 alfalfawas reportedto be the
majorcrop (Hoover1931:431-38).A good localmarketfor alfalfadeveloped
becausemanyof the largest,privatelyownedcattleoperationson the reser-
vationwere locatedin the Tsaile-Wheatfields area.
James (1976:103)notes a populationmovementonto the rim above the
middlesection of Canyondel Muertoaround1917, and Kelley (1982a:53)
suggests that the "reasonfor this spreadmay be that people had become
concentratedaroundthe irrigatedareas in TsaileandWheatfieldsduringthe
previousgenerationandhadtakenup allthe availablelandin those localities."
Severalfamiliesusinglandin Canyondel Muertomaintain farmsin the Wheat-
fieldsareaat present,so as James(1976:103)pointsout, thismovementalso
reflectedestablishedkinshipties and,I suspect, traditional land-usepatterns.
In the past, the only access to the town of Chinlefromthe northrim of
Canyondel Muertowas by a dirt road that crossed ChinleWashand was
subject to constant washouts. In 1954 a small day school was built at Del
Muerto Community(see Figure 1) so that school-aged childrenwould not have
to be boarded in Chinle (James 1976:20). Shortly thereafter, a Presbyterian

52 RESEARCH
OFANTHROPOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
missionwas establishednearby.A ratherdensely populatedsettlementde-

velopedin the area,consisting,inpart,of familieswhohadpreviouslywintered
on the Peninsulaor at higherelevationsalongthe canyon'srim.
The seasonalmovementof livestockon the NavajoReservationis currently
regulatedthroughlocaltribalgrazingdistricts.Theirrangeconservation efforts
limitlivestockgrazingto areas for which an individual holds a permit.The
developmentof fencedrangemanagement unitsfor cattle-ranching
operations
on the Peninsulaandthe rimof del Muertoeast of MummyCavehavefurther
limitedareasavailablefor generalgrazingandseasonalmovement.Residents
cited this circumstanceas anotherinducementfor some familiesto establish
permanentresidencesnearrelativesaroundthe Del MuertoCommunity. With
the exceptionof the areanearthe canyon'smouth,the traditional patternof
dispersed,extended-family units,orcamps,separatedbylargeareas
residential
of grazinglandremainsintactalongde Chelly'ssouthrim.
After 1950, wage laborandwelfareassistancebeganto providea greater
proportion of percapitaincomeforcanyonfamiliesthandidtraditional economic
activities.Involvementwithoff-reservation wagejobs andadherenceto work
schedulesset by localwageemploymentlimitedthe agricultural laboravailable
for some familiesand/oraffectedschedulingof farmingactivities.Aboutthis
same time, the use of trucksalso changedagricultural scheduling.For those
who couldafforda vehicle, farming,by necessity, often becamea weekend
activity.Further,environmental affectedthe potentialfor
changesdifferentially
agricultural production Canyon Chelly Canyondel Muerto.
in de and
CONTEMPORARY PATTERNS
LAND-USE
The annualcycle of land-useactivitiesin the canyonsconcentrateson farm-

ing, pomology,andlivestockgrazing,with the first of greaterimportanceto
most families.However,there are cases in whicha family'sagriculturalfields
are not farmedintensively,and great concernis shownfor usingthe viable
grazingterritorywithina family'sacknowledged canyon"land-usearea"and/
or harvestingthe firuit-tree
crop.
LivestockProduction
Historically,the canyonswere considereda "breadbasket" for the Navajo,
althoughthey were impoverished in comparison to areaswherelargelivestock
holdingsunderlaya family'swealth.Peaches, in particular, were coveted by
Navajosfromother areas, who are reportedto have come in largenumbers
to acquirethisfruit.Theyregularlysuppliedthe canyonNavajoswithlivestock
or muttonin return.Thispatterncontinuesto a certainextenttodayfor some
canyonfamilies.Sincethe firstmilitaryreportsprovidedglimpsesintolanduse
in the canyons,livestockgrazinghas been recorded(cf. JenkinsandMinge
1974:15).Yet, withinthis confinedcanyonsetting, pasturageis limited,and
farminghas takenprecedence.Ofconcernis howthese two types of activities
have interactedto influencelanduse in the de Chellyarea.

NAVAJO PATTERNS 53
At present, there are few, if any, year-roundresidencesin the canyons.
The commonsettlementpatternhistorically has involvedsome annualmove-
ment out of the canyons,especiallyduringthe harshwintermonths.In the
canyons,travelis especiallydifficultduringthe winter,firewoodis scarce,and
pasturageis insufficient to allowyear-longresidenceby familiesalsodependent
on livestock.James (1976:108)suggests that the availability of both good
agricultural landin the canyonsandadequatepasturageon the plateauallowed
the Navajosin the de Chellyareato limittheirmovementsto a fairlyrestricted
area.Theyhavebeen describedas movingto nearbyvalleysduringthe winter,
whileHill(1938:18)notes simplya shift"fromthe bottomsof the canyonsto
the rims."However,contemporary canyonlandusers describedseveraldif-
ferent types of grazingand seasonalmigrationpatternsrelatedto environ-
mental,historical,andsocioeconomic factors(Andrews1985:159-63;cf. Hoover
1931; Jett 1978; Henderson 1983).
Asidefromthe actualfieldscultivatedby eachfamily,a surrounding section
is generallyacknowledged as its "land-usearea."In some cases, disputeshave
led to fences beingbuiltto definethe boundariesof these largersections.The
mainde Chellyanddel Muertocanyonsare normallytoo wide to makesuch
constructionfeasible,as fences are susceptibleto washoutat the first major
flood.Consequently, exceptinthe smallertributary canyons,movementacross
these boundariesis usuallyunrestricted,andnaturalfeaturesprovideknown
markers.
In cases wherea family'scanyonholdingswere originally smallandadequate
grazinglandin the canyonswas neverestablished,its livestockare not taken
intothe canyonsat all. In othercases, the fencedfieldareaitselfmaybe used
for livestockpasturageafterthe cropsare harvestedand, occasionally,even
in lieu of planting.At the oppositeextreme, some familieswho are members
of large,wealthy,and/orlong-established lineagesmayhaveaccess to two, or
even three, recognizedland-useareaswithinde Chellyor del Muerto(butnot
both), at locationsover ten milesapart.
The followingis a very commongrazingpattern--one typicalsince the
resettlementof the de Chellyareaafter 1868 andthe establishmentof tribal
grazingdistricts.Winter:Livestockare grazedon landnearbythe family'srim
or Peninsulacamp. Occasionaltrips are madeinto the canyonsto check on
campsitesandfieldareas. Cattlemaynot be movedout of the canyonsduring
the wintermonthsif a familyhas use-rightsto landin the upperreaches of
the canyonsor in a side canyonthathas beenfencedoffso the stockcanroam
freely. Spring:Sheep are broughtinto the canyonsfor the lambingseason
becausethe more-shelteredcanyoncampsitesprovidegreaterprotectionfor
the newborn.Also, grassesin the canyonbottomlands ripenearlierthanthose
on the rims or the Peninsula.Summer:As springrunoffthroughthe canyons
subsides,waterbecomesmoredifficultto comeby in the lowerreachesof the
canyons. Livestock are moved either to other locations within the canyons or
back up onto the rims or the Peninsula. In the past, a few familieshad summer
sheep camps located as far east as the ChuskaMountains.Autumn: With the

JOURNAL RESEARCH
cooler weatherduringthe harvestseason, springsand seeps in the canyons

begin to flow, and water is more available.Livestockare movedbackonto
canyonpasturage,nowreplenishedby a summer'srespitefromgrazing.Often,
livestockare allowedto foragefor severaldaysin the fieldsafterthe harvest
is completed(Andrews1985:160).
A specializedgrazingpatternhasdevelopedwiththe establishment of fenced
rangemanagementunitsandthe goalof developingcommercially viablecattle
ranching.Livestockareusuallykeptallyearon these fencedandseededunits,
grazingarea. Severalfactors
establishedmore or less in a family'straditional
of a givenfamilydevelopinga cattle-ranching
influencethe feasibility enterprise.
In some cases, the familieshad memberswho becamesteadilyinvolvedin
wage worknear theirhome areas. These peoplenot only providedcash for
investmentin the cattle operationbut also were able to regularlycontribute
essentiallabor.In othercases, a familymayhavehadtraditional grazingrights
to landdesignatedby the TribalBureauof LandOperationsas appropriate for
fencingandseedingas a rangemanagement unit.In this case, the initialcash
investmentrequiredfromthe familyis low. Cattlecan be acquiredthrough
subsidizedloansthat are repaidas the ranchesbecomeprofitable.The labor
involvedin livestockactivitiesis decreasedto transferring the animalsamong
varioussectionswithinthe fencedrangeunit.This situationreducesboththe
energyrequirementsandthe riskof more-traditional grazingpatterns.Cattle
are infrequently butcheredfor homeconsumption. They generallyare viewed
as a capitalinvestment,with the largerranchingoperationsorientedto the
regionalmarketeconomy.
AgriculturalEcology
A complexset of ecologicalvariablesinfluencesthe annualcycleof contem-
poraryagricultural productionin the canyonsandis describedin detailelse-
where(Andrews1985:165-93).Twomajorfactorsaffecting production
agricultural
are the time crops are plantedand the placewhere they are planted.Envi-
ronmentalvariablesthatinfluenceplantingtimeincludethe threatof frostand,
Wintersnowfallin the Chuskasoftenresultsin heavy
indirectly,precipitation.
springrunoffthroughthe canyons.Manyfamiliesdependon trucksfor trans-
portationup-canyonandtractorsto plowtheirfields.They cannotplantuntil
vehiclesare able to negotiatethe hazardoustripup the floorof the canyons,
whichoftenrequirestravelingdirectlyin the streamflow.
At present,canyonfarmersare not at libertyto annuallychoose theirfield
landbase withinthe canyonsis restricted
locationsbecause(1) the agricultural
andin some placesdecliningand (2) recognizedownershipclaimshave been
establishedfor allarableland.Fieldplacementnowrepresentssettlementand
farm location choices made in the past. For several long-established canyon
lineages, such decisions were made at least 150 years ago.
A series of NationalPark Service maps of the canyons from the mid-1930s
include informationon soil types, stream erosion, field locations, and crops.
These maps provide a historicaldata base for comparisonwith the information

NAVAJO PATTERNS
LANDUSEANDSETTLEMENT 55
about contemporaryagricultural activitieswhichI obtainedthroughon-site

observationof farmsanddetailedinterviewswithcanyonfamilies.I conducted
a systematicsurveyof allcanyonland-useareasbetweenMay1980andSep-
tember1981, andinformation fora numberof areashasbeen updatedthrough
1990. Comparisonof land-usehistorieswith the 1930s maps indicatesthat
there has been littlechangein the locationof plantedacreage,exceptin fields
damagedby streamerosionor by runofffromthe canyonwalls.
The fieldsinCanyonde ChellyandCanyondelMuertoarelocatedinalcoves,
on embankments on the sides of the streambed,or on naturalterracesat the
junctionof tributarieswiththe maincanyons.Onlya few are situateddirectly
adjacentto the currentstreambedwhereriverflowcouldeasilyinundatethem.
Thus, canyonagricultural sites typicallyare not the ak-chinfieldscommonin
the Hopiarea (Bradfield1971:2).Accordingto Hill, floodwaterirrigationof
Navajofarmswas commonbeforethe commencementof the erosionalcycle
in the late 1800s.Forthe canyonsinparticular, he notesthat"during the winter
the floodwaterfrozeover the fieldsandwiththe springthawsthe fieldswere
thoroughlysoaked"(Hill1938:25).In 1923, Kluckhohn (1927:163)observed
that for some canyonfields"agricultural conditionsare particularlyfavorable
for the overflowingof the streamsfurnishesan imperfectsort of irrigation."
This situationis applicable now to onlya few fieldsin eithercanyon.
In most placeswhereirrigation is possible,smallbrushdiversiondamsare
builtannuallyin the washto channelstreamflowvia a ditchintothe fieldarea.
However,in Canyondel Muerto,severalmilesof fieldalongthe northside of
the streambedare irrigatedby a canalthatextendsfroma largecribandrock
diversiondam locatedabove TwinTrailCanyon.The essentialfactorsthat
influencewhereirrigation is feasibleare controlof streamflowandlocationof
fields.Here, fortuitoustopographic differenceswithinandbetweenCanyonde
and
Chelly Canyon del Muerto are of importance.
Lateralandverticalerosionhas reducedthe amountof irrigableland.Some
areashavebeenleft so farabovethe streambedthatit is impossibleto inundate
the fieldswithoutmechanized equipment,sometimesincluding pumps.Whether
such activitiesare consideredworththe effortand/orwhetherthe required
capitalis even availableto purchasefarmmachineryvary amongthe canyon
families.The problemis exacerbatedin Canyonde Chellydue to the wider,
straighternatureof the canyonin the areaswheremost farmsare located.An
irrigationdiversiondamcomparableto the one in Canyondel Muertoabove
TwinTrailwouldprobably be impossibleto buildinde Chellybecausenosuitable
locationexists. Further,in Canyonde Chellystreamflow has trimmedback
embankmentsor loweredthe streambedto the extent thatditchirrigationis
possibleonly at a few fieldsnear the canyonmouthandits junctionwith del
Muerto.Withinthese areas, one successfullyirrigatedfarm(usinga tractor-
plowed ditch) was observed in 1980-1981. On the other hand, many fields in
Canyon del Muerto remain at a level where access to stream flow is not a
severe problem. This is particularlytrue in the narrower,more twisted sections
of its lower reaches. The meanderingnature of the streambed may serve to

JOURNAL RESEARCH
somewhatreducerunoffvelocity,andit providessuitablelocationsforthe small

brushandlog diversiondamsandfeederditchesneededto controlwaterfor
irrigation.
I do not wantto exaggeratethe physiographic differencesbetweenCanyon
de Chellyand Canyondel Muerto,as erosionis definitelya problemin both
canyons.Floodingthroughoutthe canyonsmakeslong-term,permanentirri-
gationprojectsuntenable ineitherde ChellyordelMuerto.Flashfloodsannually
destroythe smalldiversiondamsbuiltin the washes,andthe largerdamabove
TwinTrailmustbe continually restabilized or it willbe breachedas it was twice
duringthe summerof 1980. However,up to the present,the controlof runoff
has remainedmore feasiblein Canyondel Muerto,anddifferential access to
wateris reflectedin the types of cropsgrownin each canyon.
As notedabove,I didnot interviewfive familieswhoaltogetherowna total
of eight fieldareas in the canyons.Severalof these familieswere livingoff-
reservationtemporarily, butinformation forfiveof the eightfieldswasprovided
by close relatives who owned other land in the canyonsor who had shared
use of the fieldsat some timein the past. Therefore,historicalownershipand
land-useinformation is lackingfor onlythree fields, or 2 percentof the total
numberof farmsites.
Since the late 1800s, 186 fieldareashave been used. Some of these fields
no longerexist, andothersare not in production every year.Table2 presents
fieldnumbers,crop type, acreageof irrigatedversus dry-farmed fields, and
other land-useinformation for the canyonsystem as a whole at three time
periods.Cropshave been dividedinto two generalclasses, with "food"indi-
catingcorn, squash,melons,andotherplantscultivatedfor humanconsump-
tion,while"feed"refersto alfalfaanda smallamountof oats usedforlivestock.
Land-useinformation was not sufficiently detailedto allowa similarlydetailed
enumeration to
for the years prior 1935.
An increasingconcernfor definingpropertyboundariesis evident in the
declineof unfencedfieldareasbetweenthe firsttwo timeperiods.Generally,
agricultural landuse remainedfairlyconsistentduringthis same period;how-
ever, by the early 1980s, some importantchangeswere evident.First, the
amountof landactuallyin crop productionhad decreasedby slightlyover a
hundredacres.Whileinanygivenyeara certainpercentageoffarms(Iestimate
about10-15 percentmaximum) is not plantedcomparedto the previousyear,
this dropof over 30 percentis substantially greaterthana normalfluctuation.
Second, whilethe total amountof irrigatedagricultural landhas declinedby
about30 percent, the proportionof the total cultivatedacreagein irrigated
feed crops (mainlyalfalfa)has increased.The proportionin dry-farmedfood
crops has also increased,and acreagein irrigatedfood crops has declined.
Finally,fencedacreageused for grazinghas increasedconsiderably since the
1930s. Whenthe historyof landuse in Canyonde Chellyand Canyondel
Muerto is compared, in conjunctionwith an analysis of changing social and
economic processes, these patterns begin to lend themselves to more inform-
ative interpretation.

TABLE2
Changing Land-Use Patterns: The Canyon System
Acreage
Numberof
Fields in Food Crops Feed Crops
Year Production Irrigated Dry-fanned Irrigated Dry-farmed
1935 120 71.0 239.0 31.0 3.0
(21%) (69%) (9%) (1%)
1955 134 76.0 241.0 37.0 4.8

(21%) (67%) (10%) (1%)
1980-1981 128 38.5 181.0 32.0 2.0

(15%) (71%) (13%) (1%)
Note:Numbers indicate
inparentheses of totalcultivated
percentage acreage.

JOURNAL RESEARCH
INTRACANYON
VARIABILITY
Canyonde Chelly
There are currentlythirty-fiveland-usingfamilies,representingnineteen
lineagesand nine clans, in Canyonde Chellyand its tributaries,Monument
and Bat canyons(see Table1). Over time, three of the clans (30 percent)
representedin de Chellywere foundonly in that canyon,as were fifteenof
the lineages(71 percent)comprisingthose clans. Whilesome intermarriage
does occur between familiesfrom del Muertoand de Chelly,it is almost
uniformlythe male who leaves to settle with his wife'sfamilyon theirland-
use area. Canyonfamiliesindicatedthata manis not considereda landowner
in the canyonwhere his wife'sfamilyholdingsare locatedsimplybecausehe
workson theirland.Thiscontributesto a sense of socialseparatenessbetween
the canyons.Further,manyde Chellyfamilieshaveclose kinties to the south
andto the Sawmill-Fort Defianceareato the east, whiledel Muertofamilies
maintainclose ties to the Tsaile-Wheatfields area.
The seasonalresidencelocationsofland-using familiesfromCanyonde Chelly
and the generalpatternof theirrim settlementsare also distinct.Six of the
thirty-fivede Chellyfamiliestraditionally hadwinterresidenceson the Pen-
insula,whileall the others were locatedalongde Chelly'ssouthrimor near
its mouth;none residedon the rim above del Muerto.The patternof geo-
graphicallylocalized,multihousehold residential
units(camps),widelydispersed
with grazinglandin between,is moreintactalongthe southrimof de Chelly
thanis the case alongdel Muerto'snorthrim.Aberle's(1981)conceptof the
"coresidential kin group,"representinga segmentof a matrilineage, fits well
with this settlementpatternalongthe rimof de Chelly.Here, separatema-
trilineages,oftenincluding allthe membersof theirclanusinglandin de Chelly,
controlcontiguousareasof rimgrazingland.
The differentialinfluenceof environmental andeconomicchangeis reflected
in the land-usehistoriesof eachcanyon(Table3). In Canyonde Chelly,there
were sixty-oneseparatefencedareasin 1980-1981,and25 percentwere used
only for grazing.Due to a combination of environmental and socioeconomic
10
factors, percent had not been used for manyyears and were essentially
abandoned for farmingpurposes.Twootherfieldareasthatare normallyused
did not happento be planted.Over time, there has been a considerablere-
duction(52percent)inthe acreageplantedinCanyonde Chelly,andthe average
fieldsize has decreasedby half.
Approximately 20 percentof the agricultural
landin de Chellywas irrigated
in 1935, whilein 1981,noneof the fieldsin de Chellywere irrigated.A decline
in irrigatedlandwas evidentin 1955andinpartreflectsproblemswitherosion.
Anotherpatternevidentin de Chellyis the emphasison foodover feed crop
production. The single acre of dry-farmedalfalfa sowed in 1980-1981 was
minimallyproductive, and no cuttings were obtained.
The interactionbetween livestock and agriculturalland-use patterns in Can-
yon de Chelly is complex, involving environmental, economic, political, and

TABLE 3
Changing Land-Use Patterns: Canyon de Chelly and Canyon
Acreage
Numberof
Yearand Fieldsin FoodCrops Feed Crops
Location Production Irrigated Dry-farmed Irrigated Dry-farmed
1935
Canyonde 46 19.0 109.0 6.5 2.0
Chelly (14%) (80%) (5%) (1%)
Totalcropacreage: 136.5;Averagefieldsize: 3.0 acres
Canyondel 74 52.0 130.5 24.5 1.0

Muerto (25%) (63%) (12%) (1%)
Totalcropacreage: 208.0; Averagefieldsize: 2.8 acres
1955
Canyonde 49 11.5 118.0 2.0 4.0
Chelly (9%) (87%) (1%) (3%)
Canyondel 85 64.5 123.0 35.0 1.0

Muerto (29%) (55%) (16%)
Totalcropacreage: 223.5; Averagefieldsize: 2.6 acres
1980-1981
Canyonde 38 0 65.0 0 1.0
Chelly - (98%) - (2%)
Totalcropacreage:66.0; Averagefieldsize: 1.7 acres
Canyondel 90 38.5 116.0 32.0 1.0

Muerto (21%) (62%) (17%)
inparentheses
Note:Numbers indicate of totalcultivated
percentage acreage.

60 JOURNAL RESEARCH
OFANTHROPOLOGICAL
demographic factors.As notedearlier,productivealfalfafieldsrequireirrigation,

a
obviously limiting factorin de Chelly.However, even if irrigablelandwere
present, that alone would not be sufficientincentivefor a familyto invest in
feed cropproduction. Livestockownership informationwas obtainedfromthirty-
one (89 percent)of the land-using familiesin Canyonde Chelly.Onlynine(29
percent) of these de Chellyfamiliesowncattle,averagingeighteenheadapiece.
In 1981, the largestsinglecattle-holdingfamilyfromde Chellyownedfifty-five
head. Its livestockwere grazedsolely on a fencedtribalrangemanagement
uniton the Peninsulaandconstituted34 percentof the totalnumberof cattle
ownedby all de Chellyfamilies.
No triballysupportedcattlemanagement unitshavebeen establishedalong
the southrimof de Chelly,andwithoutfencedandseededareas,commercially
viablecattleranchingis extremelydifficult.Mostde Chellyfamiliessimplylack
the necessarycapitalto startsuchanenterpriseon theirown.Further,without
considerablelaborand capitalinvestment,their canyonfarmlandcannotbe
irrigatedto supportthe feed cropusefulfor suchan operation.
Canyondel Muerto
In 1981therewere fortyland-using familiesrepresentingten clansinCanyon
del Muertoandits majortributaries,BlackRockandTwinTrailcanyons.Over
time, fourof the Canyondel Muertoclanswere foundonlyin thatcanyonand
its tributaries,whilesixteen(73percent)of the twenty-twodelMuertolineages
were uniqueto thatcanyon(see Table1). These figuresare similarto those
for Canyonde Chellyandindicatethat whilethe canyonsare partof an inte-
gratedphysiographic unit, they have haddistinctivesocialhistories.Eightof
the fortydel Muertofamilieshave winterresidenceson the Peninsula,while
allotherdel Muertofamilyresidencesare locatedadjacentto the northrimof
Canyondel Muerto.In someareas,livestockmanagement enterprisesandthe
development of the Del Muerto Community have disruptedthe residential
campconfiguration that characterizes the settlement patternalongthe rimof
de
Canyon Chelly.
In 1980-1981,therewere 115separatefencedareasin Canyondel Muerto,
with 14 percentused onlyfor grazing.About5 percenthadnot been used for
manyyears andwere essentiallyabandoned for farming.Fourothersthatare
normally used were not planted at this time. Changesthat have occurredin
landuse in del Muertoare comparedwith those fromCanyonde Chellyin
Table3. The largestproportionof irrigatedlandin del Muerto(45 percent)
occurredduringthe middletime period.The proportionof totalfarmlandir-
rigatedat present is nearlyidenticalto that of the earliestperiod,and the
actualirrigatedacreagehas declinedonlyslightly(8 percent).
The one steady change in type of crop productionhas been the increase in
the proportionof the total farmed acreage which has been plantedin irrigated
feed crops, althoughthe actual number of acres has declined somewhat since
1955. The 16 percent decrease in the total acreage farmedin 1980-1981 from

PATTERNS
NAVAJO 61
the high figurein 1955 is just beyondthe upperend of the normalannual

fluctuationin farmedacreage.Infact,therewere new fieldareasbeingbrought
into productionin 1981 that had previouslyonly been used as grazingland.
The averagefieldsize has diminishedby 0.7 acre since 1935. This reduction
in fieldsize reflectsthe tendencyto subdividelargefarmsites amongseveral
recipients.
Not onlyis morelandfarmedin Canyondel Muerto,butin the most recent
time period, 38 percent of this land was irrigated.The highest figurefor
irrigatedlandin de Chellywas 19 percent,andthatwas in 1935. Further,17
percentof the acreagein del Muertois used for feed cropproduction,while
onlya minimally productive2 percentis plantedin alfalfain Canyonde Chelly.
Not all irrigatedlandin del Muertois used for alfalfa,andfamilieswho grow
alfalfado not all do so for the same purpose.
At present, most familiesuse alfalfamainlyfor their own livestockand
specificallyfor their cattle. Market-orientedcattle ranchingby canyonland-
using familiesonlybeganduring past thirtyto thirty-fiveyears (cf. Begay
the
1977:59-60). The impetusto maintainalfalfaproductionandinvest the nec-
essary capitalin farmequipmentis in part influencedby the directbenefits
obtainablefor theirlivestockoperations.Between 1935 and 1981, whilethe
ratioof alfalfaacreageto cornacreageincreasedsomewhat,the totalacreage
in alfalfadeclinedslightly.This declinemayreflectthe factthatgrowingalfalfa
withouttractorsandbalingmachineryis now considereduneconomicandthat
the cropis no longeranacceptable tradeitemat nearbytradingposts.Streambed
erosionhas also madeirrigation moredifficultin the middlesectionof Canyon
del Muerto,whichhas historically been a majorareafor alfalfaproduction.In
general,fewerpeoplemaybe ableto afford,or areinterestedin, makingalfalfa
productiona profitableenterprise.
Livestockownershipinformation was obtainedfor 90 percent of the del
Muertofamilies,andall majorcattle ownerswere contacted.In comparison
to de Chelly,familiesfromdel Muertoown fewer sheep andgoats but twice
as manycattle.The percentageof cattle-owning familiesfromdel Muerto(54
percent)is considerablyhigherthanfromde Chelly(29 percent),but cattle
ownershipis less widelydistributedamongdel Muertofamilies.In de Chelly,
30 percent of the cattle-owningfamilieshold 56 percentof the cattle. By
comparison,16 percentof del Muertofamiliesown 56 percentof the cattle,
andonly8 percentof the familiesown 42 percentof the cattle. Ownershipof
establishedrangemanagementunitsor largegrazingareas on the northrim
above Canyondel Muertoandon the Peninsulaare importantfactorsfor the
largestcattle-owningfamilies.
TheFuture
Ecologicalfactorswillcontinueto influenceNavajoland-useandsettlement
decisionsin the canyons,anddiachronic dataprovidecriticallyimportantclues
to the developmentof presentandpast patterns.However,no deterministic

JOURNAL RESEARCH
relationshipsfor predictingthe futureare implied.At anygivenpointin time,

land-usedecisionscanreflectshort-termclimaticfluctuations and/orbehavior
motivatedby personalsentimentsunconnectedto economicconcerns.
Between 1986and1990, the de Chellyareaexperiencedlow levels of pre-
cipitationduringboththe winterandsummerseasons. Thismeantless winter
snowfallto providerunoffthroughthe canyonsduringspringplantingseason,
andless of the moisturenecessaryfor seed germination permeateddry-farm
fieldareas. Becauseof these conditions,a familywhohadbeen growingalfalfa
formanyyearson theirfieldin del Muertofinallygaveup, at leasttemporarily,
theirattemptto keep the cropgoing.They couldn'tirrigateregularlywithout
a considerableincreasein theircapitalandlaborinvestment,including the use
of mechanical waterpumps.Withoutthis alfalfacrop,the cost of keepingtheir
cattlefed overthe wintermonthsbecamealmostunmanageable, andtheyhave
reducedthe size of theirlivestockholdings.Severalfamilymembershadeagerly
anticipated developingtheircattle-ranching
operationintoa full-timeenterprise,
thusallowingthemto quittheirwage-workpositions.Theyhadalsoanticipated
leasingcanyonlandfromotherfamiliesandexpandingtheiralfalfaproduction.
For the time being,the canyonsno longerofferthis familya uniqueenviron-
mentalsettingfor the feed cropproductionthat was a key factorsupporting
theirgoalof operatinga profitable,small-scaleranchingbusiness.
Duringthis same periodof below-normal youngadultsfrom
precipitation,
anotherfamilywithlong-untended farmlandin de Chellybeganto tryto reclaim
the productionpotentialof theirformervegetablecrop areas and orchards.
Their parentshad specificallytold me they wantedto release these same
childrenfromthe burdenof farmingandlivestockresponsibilities so theycould
go to school and acquiregood educations. To the parents,this was the road
to a "betterway of life."Now, after years awayfromthe land, one of the
daughters(in her early thirties)is spearheading effortsto activelycultivate
theirland-usearea.Thislandis in one of the areasof de Chellywhereerosion
is not yet severe, so adequatemoisturemaybe availablefordryfarmingcorn.
In years when runoffis sufficient,and with annualrebuildingof diversion
ditches,irrigationfromthe streambedmaybe a possible,butnot dependable,
option.Thisfamilyalsofacestravelingabouteightymilesround-trip by vehicle
to reachtheir canyonlandfromtheircurrentpermanentrimresidencesite.
However, as the daughterdescribed,the need and desire to "walkin the
footstepsof my grandmother" provideanimpetusto farmherfamily'slandthat
overshadowsconsiderations of economiccosts or environmental constraints.
The continualbuildingof new fences, combinedwith the numberof land
disputes, points to the very strong sentimentsNavajoshave aboutcanyon
property.Ongoingdisputesare not necessarilyfocusedon primeagricultural
or grazing sites. Numerous sites of significancein Navajo origin legends and
religious beliefs are located withinthe canyons, and the valuingof canyon land
as a culturalor social "resource"is undeniable.Any number of changingcir-
cumstances influence how long a family can continue to pay for, rather than
profit from, or at least break even on, their land-use choices.

PATTERNS
NAVAJO 63
LINKING
CONCLUSION: MICRO-LEVEL WITH
ANALYSES
PROCESSES
BROADERCULTURAL
Althoughthe entirecanyonsystem is usuallyreferredto as a singlesocial

andeconomiccommunity,this studydocumentsmarkeddifferencesin Navajo
settlementand landuse between Canyonde Chellyand its majortributary,
Canyondel Muerto.The effectsof an erosionalcycle thatbeganin the South-
west towardthe endof the lastcenturywere somewhatbufferedinthe canyons
by their uniquehydrologicand topographicfeatures.However,both natural
and humanalterationsof the environmenthave exacerbatedthe differences
betweenthe canyonsinagricultural production potential.Familysocioeconomic
histories,fortuitous settlement choices, effectsof erosion,andthe
differential
variableabilityto marshalthe capitalandlaborneededto makefarmingpro-
ductivehave all combinedto create importantdifferencesin familycircum-
stances andland-usepatterns.
I approached thisstudywitha theoreticalperspectivethatassumesa dynamic
interactionbetweenecologicalandeconomicvariables,on the one hand,and
social organization,on the other. Levy, Henderson,and I have compared
historicaldata on Navajoresidenceand camporganization, supracamporga-
nization,marriagepatterns,andinheritancein three areas across the reser-
vation(Levy, Henderson,andAndrews1989). We believe that a matrilineal
systemof socialorganization waspervasivepriorto the adoptionofpastoralism.
There were sufficientdifferencesin the resources,topography,andhistories
of demographic andeconomicchangeamongthe areaswe comparedto highlight
the influencethese factorsmayhave on Navajosocialorganization.
Land-tenurepracticesrepresentone way a society organizesitself for the
distributionof resources.Inheritance patternsreflectnot onlya society'ssys-
tem of kinshipanddescent but also its land-usepatterns(Netting1982;An-
drews1985).Aberle(1961:100)suggestslineagesor even smallclanscontrolled
agriculturallandduringthe earliestperiodof Navajosettlementin the South-
west, when agricultureandhuntingwere the primarysubsistenceactivities.
However,pastoralism sooncameto dominateeconomicactivitiesinmostareas
occupiedby the Navajo.Since the canyonsare one of the few remaining
indigenousagricultural areas, I anticipatedfindingevidenceof the controland
transmissionof farmland by matrilineages.Matrilineal inheritanceof fieldswas
expected to decrease over time as the of
impact wage laborand environmental
changealteredthe importanceof agriculturein the subsistencebase anddi-
minishedthe agricultural productivitypotentialof some canyonland.
I analyzedover four hundredtransfersof agricultural landmade in both
canyons since the 1880s. When the inheritance datafrom the studyareas as
a unit are combined,matrilineal transfers represent percentof the total,
49
and there was a slight, but not significant,decline over time in the occurrence
of matrilinealtransfers as compared with nonmatrilinealtransfers. However,
as with settlement and land-use patterns, when inheritance data from each
canyon were separated out andcompared,importantdifferenceswere revealed

JOURNAL RESEARCH
(Andrews1985:217-55;Levy,Henderson,andAndrews1989).Ananalysisof
land-tenure practicesis wellbeyondthe scopeof thispaper,but,to summarize,
when all time periodsare collapsed,matrilineal transferswere significantly
more frequent(59 percent)in Canyonde Chellythanin Canyondel Muerto
(43 percent).Also, the patternof matrilineal transfersvariedover time. Only
in de Chellywere matrilineal transferscharacterized by the anticipated steady
decline.In Canyondel Muerto,matrilineal inheritancedeclinedbetween1935
and1955but occurredat aboutthe samelevel in the earliestandmost recent
periods.Neitherdemographic constraints(specifically,a lack of optionsre-
gardingland-transfer recipients)nordistinctiveland-tenure practicesof founder
as comparedto immigrant lineagessignificantly influenced thesepatterns.When
particulartypes of landuse in Canyondel Muertowere considered,it was
foundthatirrigatedlandandfieldsused for feed cropproductionwere trans-
ferredalongmatrilineal lines less oftenthanwere dry fieldsor those planted
in food crops.
In Canyondel Muerto,the laborand capitalinvestmentrequirementsof
irrigationandfeed cropproduction encouragedgivinga greaterpriorityto cash
and laboravailability considerations thanto the desire to keep landwithina
matrilinealkin group. Cattleranchingand irrigationare predominantly male
a
activities, tendency which may be reflectedin the significantly lower occur-
rence of matrilineallandtransfersin Canyondel Muerto.The fact that, from
the earliesttime period,matrilineal inheritanceof landwas significantly lower
in del Muertothanin de Chellyunderscoresthe evidencefor differingsocial
andeconomichistoriesin the two canyonssince as earlyas the 1880s.
The recentdeclinein farmproduction in Canyonde Chellycoincideswitha
deteriorationof the arablelandbase, a greaterrelianceon wage work and
othersourcesof income,anda decreasein the matrilineal inheritance of fields.
The significantly of
higherfrequency matrilineal transfers of farmland in this
canyonbefore 1955 lends supportto the idea that matrilineal inheritanceof
farmland,in an areawheresuchlandwas highlyproductivebutgeographically
restrictedandwhereclaimsto most agricultural andgrazinglandwere estab-
lishedearly,was characteristic of land-tenure practicesduringthe earlyperiod
of Navajooccupationof the Southwest.
Most researcherswho have noted variationsin aspects of Navajosocial
organization have comparedseparate"communities" across the reservation,
communitiesusuallyat some distancefrom one another.Information from
Canyonsde Chellyanddel Muertoindicatesthatintraregional differencescan
be as significantas majorarealdifferencesand that micro-levelanalysesof
variabilitycan contributeto an understanding of broadersocialand cultural
processes.Attentionto micro-leveldifferencesin ecologicalandeconomicfac-
tors, combinedwith a historicalperspective based on diachronicdata, provides
the opportunity to see patterns emerge that may not be apparent, or are
obscured, in cross-sectional synchroniccommunitysurveys, or even in-depth
histories of a few "key"families.

NAVAJO PATTERNS 65
NOTE
1. The NavajoTribegrantedpermissionfor this researchproject,andthe National
Park Service cooperatedin allowingme unrestrictedaccess into Canyonde Chelly
NationalMonument.FundingwasprovidedbygrantsthroughtheUniversityofArizona's
Anthropology Department,Bureauof EthnicResearch,Schoolof RenewableNatural
Resources,andthe GraduateStudentDevelopmentFund.The analysisandwrite-up
of this researchwas accomplished in partwhile I was supportedby a Weatherhead
ResidentScholarFellowshipat the Schoolof AmericanResearch,SantaFe, New Mex-
ico. I wouldlike to thankJerroldLevy, RobertNetting,andJeffreyDeanfor reading
andcommentingon an earlierversionof this paper.PhilipBockandDavidM. Brugge
criticallyreviewedthe manuscript,and theirencouragement and suggestionsfor re-
visionswere veryhelpful.I aloneamresponsibleforanyerrorsof factor interpretation.
REFERENCESCITED
Aberle,D.F., 1961,Navajo.Pp.96-201inMatrilineal Kinship(ed. byD.M.Schneider
andK. Gough).Berkeley:Universityof California Press.
Aberle,D.F., 1981, NavajoCoresidential KinGroupsandLineages.Journalof An-
thropologicalResearch 37:1-7.
Andrews,T.J., 1976, Changing Patternsof NavajoAgriculture in Canyonsde Chelly
anddel Muerto,Arizona.Unpub.ms. on file, WesternArchaeological Center,National
ParkService,Tucson.
Andrews,T.J., 1981, Ecologyand Ethnology:Elementsof SocialChangein Two
NavajoAgricultural Communities. Paperpresentedat theAnnualMeetingof the Amer-
icanAnthropological Association,Los Angeles,December1981.
Andrews,T.J., 1985, Descent, LandUse and Inheritance:NavajoLandTenure
PatternsinCanyonde ChellyandCanyondelMuerto.Ph.D.diss., UniversityofArizona,
Tucson.
Backus,MajorE., 1854,AnAccountof the Navajosof New Mexico.Pp. 209-15 in
Archivesof Aboriginal Knowledge:Information Respectingthe History,Conditions and
Prospectsof the IndianTribesof the UnitedStates (ed. by H.R. Schoolcraft).Phila-
delphia:J.P. LippincottandCompany.
Bailey,L.R., 1964, The LongWalk:A Historyof the NavajoWars,1846-1868.Los
Angeles:WesternlorePress.
Bartlett,K., 1932, Whythe NavajosCameto Arizona.MuseumNotes 5:29-32.
Universityof NorthernArizona,Flagstaff.
Begay,M., 1977,Autobiographical Sketch.Pp. 56-72 in Storiesof Traditional
Navajo
LifeandCulture.Tsaile,Ariz.:NavajoCommunity College.
Bradfield,R.M., 1971, The ChangingPatternof HopiAgriculture.RoyalAnthro-
pologicalInstituteof GreatBritainandIreland,OccasionalPaper30. London.
Brugge,D.M., 1965, LongAgo in NavajoLand.Navajoland Publications6. Window
Rock,Ariz.:NavajoTribalMuseum.
Brugge,D.M., 1972,NavajoandWesternPuebloHistory.The SmokeSignal25:90-
112.
Brugge,D.M., 1983,NavajoPrehistoryandHistoryto 1850. Pp. 489-501 in Hand-
book of NorthAmericanIndians,vol. 10: Southwest(ed. by A. Ortiz).Washington,
D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.

JOURNAL RESEARCH
Brugge, D.M., and R. Wilson,1976, Administrative Historyof Canyonde Chelly
NationalMonument.Washington, D.C.: NationalParkService.
Cooke, R.V., andR.W. Reeves, 1976, Arroyosand Environmental Changein the
AmericanSouth-West.London:OxfordUniversityPress.
Cooley,M.E., J.W.Harshbarger, J.P. Akers, andW.F.Hardt,1969, RegionalHy-
drogeography of the Navajo HopiReservations,Arizona,New MexicoandUtah.
and
GeologicalSurveyProfessionalPaper521 (A andB). Washington, D.C.: Government
PrintingOffice.
Correll,J.L., 1976, ThroughWhiteMen'sEyes: A Contribution to NavajoHistory.
NavajoHeritageCenter,Publication 1. WindowRock,Ariz.
De Harport,D., 1959, Archaeological Surveyof Canyonde Chelly,Northeastern
Arizona:A PuebloanCommunity throughTime. Ph.D. diss., HarvardUniversity.
Dennis,A.E., 1975,TheNaturalVegetationof Canyonde ChellyNationalMonument.
Kiva41:15-22.
Downs,J.F., 1972, The Navajo.New York:Holt,RinehartandWinston.
Fall,P.L., J.A. McDonald,andP.C. Magers,1981,The Canyondel MuertoSurvey
Project.WesternArchaeological Center,Publications inAnthropology 15. Washington,
D.C.: NationalParkService.
Goldfrank,E.S., 1945, IrrigationAgricultureand NavajoCommunityLeadership.
AmericanAnthropologist 47:267-77.
Gregory,H.E., 1916,The NavajoCountry:A Geographic andHydrographic Recon-
naissanceof Partsof Arizona,New MexicoandUtah.U.S. GeologicalSurvey,Water-
SupplyPaper380. Washington, D.C.: GovernmentPrintingOffice.
Henderson,E.B., 1983, SocialOrganization and SeasonalMigrationsamongthe
Navajo.Kiva40:279-306.
Hill,W.W.,1938, TheAgricultural andHuntingMethodsof the NavajoIndians.Yale
UniversityPublications in Anthropology 18. New Haven,Conn.
Hoover,J.W., 1931, NavajoNomadism.Geographical Review21:429-45.
James, C.D. III, 1976, Historic
Navajo Studiesin NortheasternArizona.Museumof
NorthernArizonaResearchPaper1. Flagstaff,Ariz.
James,C.D. III,andA.J.Lindsay, Researchat Canyon
Jr., 1973,Ethnoarchaeological
del Muerto,Arizona:A NavajoExample.Ethnohistory 20:361-74.
Jenkins,M.E., and W.A. Minge, 1974, Recordof NavajoActivitiesAffectingthe
Acoma-Laguna Area, 1746-1910.NavajoIndiansII (ed. by D.A. Horr).New York:
GarlandPress.
Jett, S.C., 1977,Historyof FruitTreeRaisingamongtheNavajo.Agricultural History
51:681-701.
Jett, S.C., 1978, NavajoSeasonalMigrationPatterns.Kiva44:65-75.
Jett, S.C., 1979, PeachCultivation andUse amongthe Canyonde ChellyNavajo.
EconomicBotany33:298-310.
Kelley,K.B., 1982a, Ethnohistory of the Canyonde Chelly-Lukachukai Mountain
Region.Pp. 40-66 in An Archaeological ClearanceSurveyin the BlackRockButte
Vicinity(by P.E. Stewart).CulturalResourceManagementProgram,NavajoTribe,
WindowRock,Ariz.
Kelley,K.B., 1982b,AnasaziandNavajoLandUse in the McKinleyMineAreanear
Gallup,New Mexico, vol. 2: NavajoEthnohistory.Officeof ContractArchaeology,
Universityof New Mexico,Albuquerque.
Kelly,L.C., 1970, NavajoRoundup: SelectedCorrespondence of Kit Carson'sEx-
peditionagainstthe Navajo.Boulder,Colo.:PruettPublishing Company.

NAVAJO PATTERNS 67
Kimball,S.T., andJ.H. Province,1942, NavajoSocialOrganization and LandUse
Planning.HumanOrganization 1(4):18-25.
Kluckhohn, C., 1927,Tothe Footof the Rainbow.NewYork:TheCenturyCompany.
Levy, J.E., E.B. Henderson,and T.J. Andrews,1989, The Effects of Regional
VariationandTemporalChangeon Matrilineal Elementsof NavajoSocialOrganization.
Journalof Anthropological Research45(2):351-77.
McDonald,J., 1976, An Archaeological Assessmentof Canyonde ChellyNational
Monument.WesternArchaeological CenterPublications in Anthropology 5. Tucson:
NationalParkService.
Magers,P.C., 1976, NavajoSettlementin Canyondel Muerto.Ph.D. diss., Uni-
versityof Arizona,Tucson.
Mindeleff,C., 1897, The CliffRuinsof Canyonde Chelly,Arizona.Pp. 73-198 in
SixteenthAnnualReportof the Bureauof AmericanEthnologyfor the Years1894-
1895. Washington, D.C.
Mindeleff,C., 1898, NavahoHouses. Pp. 469-517 in Pt. 2 of SeventeenthAnnual
Reportof the Bureauof AmericanEthnologyfor the Years1895-1896.Washington,
D.C.
Morris,D.P., 1972, EarlyNavajoSites in Canyonde Chelly.Unpub.ms. on file,
WesternArchaeological Center,NationalParkService,Tucson.
NavajoCommunityCollege,1973, NavajoStoriesof the LongWalk.Tsaile,Ariz.:
NavajoCommunity CollegePress.
.Netting,R.M., 1982, Territory,PropertyandTenure.In Behavioral andSocialSci-
ence Research:A NationalResource.NationalResearchCouncilPublication no. 3297,
part2. Washington, D.C.: NationalAcademyPress.
Powell,J.W., 1886, Explorations in the Southwest:Workof Mr.JamesStevenson.
Pp. xxxiv-xxxviin FourthAnnualReportof the Bureauof AmericanEthnologyforthe
Years1882-1883.Washington, D.C.
Rydout,G., 1985,A Summary of RecentEnvironmental ChangesinCanyonde Chelly
NationalMonumentand Observationson TheirCauses. Unpub.ms. on file, Western
Archaeological Center,NationalParkService,Tucson.
Sellers,W.H., andR.H. Hill,1974,ArizonaClimate,1931-1972.Tucson:University
of ArizonaPress.
U.S. WarDepartment,1902,The Warof the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official
Recordsof the UnionandConfederate Armies,series 1, vol. 34, pt. 1, chap.46 (prep.
by Lt. Col. R.N. Scott). Washington, D.C.: GovernmentPrintingOffice.
VanValkenburgh, R., 1941, Dine Bikeyah.WindowRock,Ariz.:U.S. Department
of the Interior,Officeof IndianAffairs,NavajoService.
VanValkenburgh, R., 1974, A ShortHistoryof the NavajoPeople. Pp. 201-67 in
NavajoIndiansIII (ed. by D.A. Horr).New York:GarlandPress.
Walker,J.G., andO.L. Shepard,1964, The NavajoReconnaissance: A MilitaryEx-
plorationof the NavajoCountryin 1859 (foreword,annotations,and indexby L.R.
Bailey).Los Angeles:WesternlorePress.
Young,R.W., 1961,The NavajoYearbook,1951-1961:A Decadeof Progress,Rep.
8. WindowRock,Ariz.:NavajoAgency.


Settlements Patterns in Canyons

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Settlements Patterns in Canyons

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ecological and Historical Perspectives on Navajo Land Use and Settlement Patterns in Canyons

De Chelly and Del Muerto

This content downloaded from 168.176.162.35 on Thu, 21 Mar 2013 14:32:26 PM

Canyonde Chellyandits majortributary, Canyon delMuerto,havebeenconsidered

CANYON DECHELLY andits majortributary,Canyondel Muerto,are located

This content downloaded from 168.176.162.35 on Thu, 21 Mar 2013 14:32:26 PM

cultureand social organization compareseparate"communities" across the

TheNavajoReservationis partof the Colorado Plateautopographic province.

This content downloaded from 168.176.162.35 on Thu, 21 Mar 2013 14:32:26 PM

Figure1. TheContemporary Area

effectof lowandunpredictable rainfall.Theimportant plantingandearlygrowth

This content downloaded from 168.176.162.35 on Thu, 21 Mar 2013 14:32:26 PM

potential.In the southernColoradoPlateau,naturalerosionalcycles have oc-

This content downloaded from 168.176.162.35 on Thu, 21 Mar 2013 14:32:26 PM

of arablelandhollowedout of the canyons'wallsby naturalerosionprocesses

This content downloaded from 168.176.162.35 on Thu, 21 Mar 2013 14:32:26 PM

residentspointedout only a handfulof gardensites that were ever planted

I interviewedseventy of the seventy-fivefamilies(93 percent)with land

This content downloaded from 168.176.162.35 on Thu, 21 Mar 2013 14:32:26 PM

laborfor economicactivitiesin the canyons.Thus, these familiescomprise

This content downloaded from 168.176.162.35 on Thu, 21 Mar 2013 14:32:26 PM

Lineage Canyonde Canyondel

This content downloaded from 168.176.162.35 on Thu, 21 Mar 2013 14:32:26 PM

comprisedonlya smallsegmentof the land-using population,a situationwhich

This content downloaded from 168.176.162.35 on Thu, 21 Mar 2013 14:32:26 PM

The earliestarchaeological evidencefor Navajosettlementin the canyons

This content downloaded from 168.176.162.35 on Thu, 21 Mar 2013 14:32:26 PM

Navajosnot only were livingin the canyons,but the areahadalso becomea

This content downloaded from 168.176.162.35 on Thu, 21 Mar 2013 14:32:26 PM

to Fort Sumner,furthermilitaryexpeditionscontinuedinto the canyons.In

This content downloaded from 168.176.162.35 on Thu, 21 Mar 2013 14:32:26 PM

This content downloaded from 168.176.162.35 on Thu, 21 Mar 2013 14:32:26 PM

missionwas establishednearby.A ratherdensely populatedsettlementde-

The annualcycle of land-useactivitiesin the canyonsconcentrateson farm-

This content downloaded from 168.176.162.35 on Thu, 21 Mar 2013 14:32:26 PM

This content downloaded from 168.176.162.35 on Thu, 21 Mar 2013 14:32:26 PM

cooler weatherduringthe harvestseason, springsand seeps in the canyons

This content downloaded from 168.176.162.35 on Thu, 21 Mar 2013 14:32:26 PM

about contemporaryagricultural activitieswhichI obtainedthroughon-site

This content downloaded from 168.176.162.35 on Thu, 21 Mar 2013 14:32:26 PM

somewhatreducerunoffvelocity,andit providessuitablelocationsforthe small

This content downloaded from 168.176.162.35 on Thu, 21 Mar 2013 14:32:26 PM

1955 134 76.0 241.0 37.0 4.8

1980-1981 128 38.5 181.0 32.0 2.0

This content downloaded from 168.176.162.35 on Thu, 21 Mar 2013 14:32:26 PM

This content downloaded from 168.176.162.35 on Thu, 21 Mar 2013 14:32:26 PM

Canyondel 74 52.0 130.5 24.5 1.0

Canyondel 85 64.5 123.0 35.0 1.0

Canyondel 90 38.5 116.0 32.0 1.0

This content downloaded from 168.176.162.35 on Thu, 21 Mar 2013 14:32:26 PM

demographic factors.As notedearlier,productivealfalfafieldsrequireirrigation,

This content downloaded from 168.176.162.35 on Thu, 21 Mar 2013 14:32:26 PM

the high figurein 1955 is just beyondthe upperend of the normalannual

This content downloaded from 168.176.162.35 on Thu, 21 Mar 2013 14:32:26 PM

relationshipsfor predictingthe futureare implied.At anygivenpointin time,

This content downloaded from 168.176.162.35 on Thu, 21 Mar 2013 14:32:26 PM

Althoughthe entirecanyonsystem is usuallyreferredto as a singlesocial

This content downloaded from 168.176.162.35 on Thu, 21 Mar 2013 14:32:26 PM

This content downloaded from 168.176.162.35 on Thu, 21 Mar 2013 14:32:26 PM

This content downloaded from 168.176.162.35 on Thu, 21 Mar 2013 14:32:26 PM

This content downloaded from 168.176.162.35 on Thu, 21 Mar 2013 14:32:26 PM

This content downloaded from 168.176.162.35 on Thu, 21 Mar 2013 14:32:26 PM

You might also like