1

Purifying Flame or Fond Farewell?

By J. Dylan Person (formerly J. Dylan Clark)

Presentation for the 19th Biennial Jornada Mogollon Conference, October 2015

Abstract: What are the material traces of ritual burning and how do they relate to conceptions of

the home and its inhabitants? Past and present Puebloan cultures place a powerful emphasis on

the importance of their houses, investing time and effort into establishment rituals as an integral

part of the construction process. Ritualized destruction or 'closing rituals' are also a commonly

encountered aspect of Southwestern cultures and are well represented in the Jornada Mogollon

culture branch's archaeological record. Like many Jornada structures, Cottonwood Spring

Pueblo shows signs of pueblo-wide burning over nearly the entire excavated portion. However,

an intensively excavated room (Room 3) shows clear stratigraphic evidence of a structural

burning prior to the second and presumably final burn. I draw on ethnographic and

archaeological studies of material animacy and associated supernatural agency to examine

house burning behavior and how it relates to the past occupants. I will compare this to

archaeological data from Cottonwood Spring Pueblo as well as other major Jornada settlements

to better determine contexts and motivations for ritual burning, rebuilding, and the connection to

Puebloan conceptions of home.

Introduction

What are the material traces of ritual burning and how do they relate to conceptions of the

home and its inhabitants? Evidence for ritualized burning of structures is commonly encountered

in both archaeological and ethnographic study of southwestern cultures. What are the

motivations for engaging in this sort of behavior? In the Jornada Mogollon, many El Paso phase

pueblo structures show evidence of burning (Miller and Graves 2009), but archaeological

evidence indicates only single instances of burning at these sites. However, excavation at

Cottonwood Spring Pueblo has revealed stratigraphic evidence of two burning events in Room 3,

each associated with a separate floor layer (Corl 2015; Walker et al. 2013). As evidence that

burning need not indicate a final abandonment, how does the archaeological record of Room 3

compare with other instances of structural burning?

2

To better understand the causes of burning behavior, I argue that the most common form

of ritual burning was as a way to terminate animate power inherent in a structure, object, or

person. The use of fire as purification rite to negate witchcraft or enemy magic is a well-

represented theme in the southwest (Opler 1941; Russell 1908; Underhill 1939; Walker 1998;

2008). Fire is also used ritually in the “closing” of structures, especially communal and

ceremonial structures (Creel and Anyon 2003). This creates a highly visible and spiritual break

with the past, ritually killing a structure to free it from its previous use-life.

In the second part of this study, I examine cross cultural incidences of structural burning

as well as experimental approaches. These studies largely focus on formation processes of

burning contexts (Bankoff and Winter 1979; Stevanović 1997) as well as investigating the

various causes for structural burning, both ritual and mundane (Twiss et al. 2008). Correlates

between these cases of burning will be used to refine inferences derived from the Cottonwood

Spring's archaeological record.

I follow this with a case study of Cottonwood Spring Pueblo. Stratigraphic and material

evidence in Room 3 as well as other excavation areas will be examined to generate inferences

about the earlier burning event and subsequent reuse of the room. This will be compared to data

from across the site area to generate a likely scenario to explain the existing archaeological

record. Finally, I will conclude with a summary of the archaeological and ethnographic evidence

as well as proposals for future research following the ideas suggested by this study.

Ethnographic Incidences of Structural Burning in the Southwest

Two of the most frequently recorded examples of house burners in the southwest are the

Pimans and the Papago, now called the Akimel O'odham and Tohono O'odham respectively.

These related O'odham groups burned the home upon death of the occupant (Russell 1908;

Underhill 1939). This was done for a two-fold reason. First, the burning sent the person's home

and possessions with them to the land of the dead in an honorary context. However, there is a

second aspect to this, the removal of any tie to the deceased's mortal life. Absent such reminders,

the ghost of the dead lacks motivation and ability to return preventing sickness and misfortune

(Russell 1908:194). Even when house burning was forcibly halted, the practice was continued by

3

gradually remodeling homes into visually different arrangements replacing burning as a way to

confound ghosts (Brew and Huckell 1987).

Aside from ghosts, wounds made by an enemy carry great power and a person killed in

such as way must be cremated to destroy the enemy magic (Underhill 1939:190). This is not

extended to internal violence, it must be an enemy act to trigger the ritual behavior. Nearby

Yuman groups also burn both body and home, being so completely dedicated to avoidance of

ghosts that “even footprints were eradicated” (Alvarez de Williams 1983:110) to thwart

recognition.

Other Mortuary Practices in the Southwest

The Apache and Navajo groups share some similar beliefs with other southwestern

peoples, but with differing mortuary practices. Both the Navajo and the Apache believe that the

dead have contaminating properties and thus are shunned to avoid evil happenings in the material

world. The Apache buried their dead in rocky areas far from their main settlement (Opler

1941:473-475) subsequently destroying the deceased's possession and reorganizing the

encampment to foil a ghost's recognition of it as their former home. The Navajo share these

behaviors, but with a specific focus on how a person's ghost is inherently evil regardless of the

character of the deceased (Wyman 1983:536-537).

These traditions stand in a stark contrast to the Pueblo view of the dead. Though the

archaeological record has shown evidence of ritual burning in Pueblo structures, it is seen as a

part of abandonment rites at the end of a structure's life (Cameron 1990; Creel and Anyon 2003;

Wilshusen 1986). Far from being afraid of ghosts, the Pueblo dead are their most essential

supernatural allies, returning in the form of katsinas and clouds to bring prosperity to their

people. An exception to this is the burning of witches, using fire to neutralize their deadly magic

(Walker 1998; 2008). Pueblo burials tend to be simple, sometimes with a few grave goods but

mostly modest affairs. Archaeological evidence has shown instances of burial in the home itself,

a behavior also seen in study of Jornada Mogollon burials (Lowry 2005; Miller and Graves

2009). These behaviors indicate a difference from other southwestern groups and as such provide

a comparative example for interpretation of Cottonwood Spring.

4

Burning as a Counter to Supernatural Power

Taken together, a pattern emerges for the rationale of burning activity in southern

Arizona and eastern California. The O'odham view enemy warriors akin to shamans giving the

battlefield immaterial dangers as well as the expected physical ones (Underhill 1939:128). They

counter this by a purification rite that makes a person an “Enemy Slayer” (Underhill 1939:136).

These ritually cleansed warriors are resistant to the death energy contained in enemies and their

gear, which also allows them to handle the practical elements when a cremation is necessary.

The mortuary practices of the Apache have similarities with the customs of the O'odham

groups. The Apache burned the house upon death, destroyed possessions and other items

associated with the dead, and went so far as to move camp to a new place (Opler 1941:475). The

specific use of fire has to do with protecting against ghosts and harmful supernatural forces, for

the same reasons as in the O'odham's burning practice. In a counterpoint to O'odham reasons for

cremating the victims of conflict, the Apache only burn the body in cases of witchcraft (Opler

1941:253-254). The rationale, however, is the same. The O'odham burn to cancel dangerous

magical contamination and the Apache wish to cancel the innate power carried in the bodies of

witches.

The Yuman groups practice a different method of mortuary burning, cremating a body

before burning the home rather than only cremating in a specific context (Forde 1931:207-208).

As with the O'odham, the Yumans attribute some forms of sickness to sadness caused by

dwelling on a death. Though they do not explicitly state that they are attempting to prevent the

return of a dead relative, their similar mortuary customs and emphasis on forgetting sorrow at

death seem to indicate such a relationship.

Genesis of Mortuary Customs

When did the O'odham begin to fear ghosts, destroying needed resources to avoid

supernatural danger? If they can be assumed to be the descendents of the Hohokam, this

represents a change in their burial practices from ancient times. The Hohokam practiced a

combination of cremation and inhumation for their dead (Gladwin 1937; Haury 1976). While on

the surface, this seems to follow the general observed practice, burial contexts suggest a different

5

belief system for the Hohokam. McGuire (1992:49) has noted that while total destruction of the

body seems to be a common goal of the cremation, the Hohokam practiced secondary burial

post-cremation rather than cremation being the final act.

In the same section, McGuire also notes how the Hohokam had specific crematory and

burial areas, which were adopted relatively recently by Yuman groups. Though he focuses on the

Yumans, the taboo against remembering the dead is shared with the O'odham, who also interact

with corpses as little as possible during burial. The presence of graveyards and secondary burials

suggest that a fear of ghosts was not always prevalent and that the Hohokam may have had a

more comfortable relationship with their dead than their descendant groups. In contrast, the

modern Pueblo groups have kept the thread of ancestor worship alive in their ritual life

throughout a significant time-depth, suggesting that a different set of circumstances came into

play with the southern Arizonan groups.

House Burning Outside the American Southwest

A majority of information about structural burning comes from eastern European

examples. These largely involve wattle and daub structures, a building technique using wooden

framework reinforced by the application of clay and mud creating an effect similar to adobe.

Bankoff and Winter (1979) burned such a structure as part of an oft-cited experiment in house

burning. They found that a wattle and daub building was fairly fire-resistant, with the roof being

consumed in the blaze but surprising little else being damaged. Even the materials placed on the

floor to simulate a household deposit were relatively unburnt, suggesting that considerable

planning and effort were involved in the total destruction of a fairly simple structure.

The information generated by this experiment would be used and greatly expanded on by

Stevanović (1997) in a study on the Serbian neolithic site of Opovo. She examines different

aspects of wattle and daub house burning such as temperature levels, fire areas, and the effects of

burning on house materials. The Opovo houses were very difficult to burn and the wall material

hardened significantly after the fire went out. This led to a conclusion that the burning was an act

of ritual closure at the end of the house's use-life, creating a continuity with the past home as

well as the remains providing a foundation for the newly built successor house (Stevanović

1997:387).

6

Buildings 51 and 52 at the site of Çatalhöyük, a 9,000 year old settlement in what is now

Turkey also presents a case of a structural burning event (Twiss et al. 2008). Building 52 is an

older structure that burned and was then partially reincorporated into a smaller habitation space,

Building 51. The fire appeared to have been concentrated near the hearth, though several

deposits indicated a possible ritualized placement. In particular, the study refers to caches of horn

that may indicate ritual context as well as two obsidian projectile points recovered from storage

bins. The points are strong evidence for ritual placement, as the authors state that the “recovery

of a point in a bin is without precedent at Çatalhöyük” (Twiss et al. 2008:52).

Architectural features of structures also show cross-cultural representation. The

buildings at Çatalhöyük share attributes with pueblo structures, notably the use of similar earthen

materials in their construction (Twiss et al 2008:44). Houses at Çatalhöyük are thought to have

been accessed through the roof with doorways and crawlspaces leading to contiguous areas. This

would create a similar pattern of material traces in the event of a burn, barring significant

disturbance by formation processes (sensu Schiffer 1987).

7

Case Study: Cottonwood Spring Pueblo

Figure 1 – Cottonwood Spring Pueblo site plan (image by Todd Scarbrough).

8

Cottonwood Spring Pueblo is an El Paso phase pueblo located on the western side of the

San Andres mountains, north of the San Augustin Pass. The site itself encompasses several areas,

with the main pueblo as the center of excavation by the La Frontera Archaeological Project. The

focus of these excavations has been the determination of site extent, locating rooms, and

investigating correlates to determine chronology and ritual activity at the site.

During the first field season in 2012, an area designated Locus 2 was opened to determine

architectural patterning (Walker et al. 2012). Colloquially defined as “chasing walls”, this led to

the discovery of four contiguous rooms as well as additional later construction events. At the

current time, few correlates exist to determine the purpose of these unusual features. However,

the earlier construction represented by Room 3 is rich with artifact and spatial information which

can be used to investigate ritual aspects of the burning events.

Figure 2 – Locus 2, Room 3.

9

Locus 2, Room 3

Figure 3 – Sketch plan of Room 3 stratigraphy (adapted from Corl 2015).

The initial excavation of Room 3 was to determine the depth of its floor. It was chosen

due to its location outside the major areas of site deformation by heavy machinery in addition to

its well defined walls (Walker et al. 2012). During this phase of the excavation, the south half of

the room was dug revealing a floor with significant evidence of burning. Also, features that

indicated the presence of a deeper floor were present prompting further research goals for later

seasons.

During second field season in 2013 Room 3 was excavated to the first floor level.

Evidence of burning was present, matching the pattern seen across each area of the site (Corl

2015). A collared hearth was found on the floor, as well as a projectile point, several drilled

sherds, and several indeterminate features. Continuing under the first floor, an artifact rich matrix

was discovered consisting of projectile points, shell, groundstone artifacts, and large faunal

remains (Walker et al. 2013). Once the floor itself was reached, a small ground stone bowl was

found resting on the floor, along with other assorted artifacts.

The 2014 field season work in Room 3 centered on excavation and study of the floor

features. Over 20 individual features were defined, many being post holes that were intentionally

filled prior to burning of the room. Excavations under the second floor level showed evidence of

10

floor preparation until finally reaching a layer of sterile soil. It was ascertained that several post

holes had been filled in prior to burning, suggesting the burning of the room was planned and

that the posts were intended to be reused.

Locus 1 North, Room 100

Figure 4 – Locus 1 North, Room 100.

Room 100 was a focus of the 2012 season due to several definable features and a definite

floor layer. The north edge of the floor ended in a ragged cut caused by heavy machinery.

Escaping destruction were two wall stubs extending north-northwest, which were used in 2014 as

a guide to place excavation units in the looter trench itself. The trench itself extended 12m east-

west and 4m north-south. Despite the interpretative difficulties such areas present, wall footers

were able to be defined as well as fragments of a surface layer in the central part of the trench.

11

Locus 1 South, Room 150

Figure 5 – Locus 1 South, Room 150.

Also during 2014, a second area was defined in Locus 1 in the southern extent of the

excavation area. In Room 150 of this area a floor was uncovered that contained the remnant of an

inset support post. Though the top was charred, the post itself was intact and eventually removed.

The post hole terminated in soft sand that the post was set on. The lack of evidence of cultural

materials under this floor and the fact that the post was not removed prior to burning indicate that

this surface, like that of Room 100, was built in a later construction phase that preceded the final

burn.

Synthesis

Taken together, the roomblocks discussed are spread from the northern extent of the

excavation area represented by Room 3 to the southern extent represented by Room 150, with

Room 100 roughly in the center. Conservatively following the excavated portions, it is 26m from

Room 3 to Room 100 and 16m from there to Room 150, for a total distance of 42m. The

correlate linking these rooms is the height of the floor level. Rooms 3, 100, and 150 all have

surfaces that have equivalent elevations, indicating that even if they were not built at the exact

12

same time they were part of the same construction layout. The older burned floor in Room 3

extends to an average of a meter lower than the other floors while retaining an association with

adjacent walls. Taken with the dedicatory offerings placed before the establishment the later

floor of Room 3 (Corl 2015) as well as the clear stratigraphic evidence of multiple floors and

their associated burning events, it is likely that Room 3 represents a construction that predates

the main aggregated building phase at Cottonwood Spring Pueblo.

Conclusions: Cottonwood Spring in Context

Based on the evidence, I envision Cottonwood Spring Pueblo as originating from a single

unit pueblo or cluster of unit pueblos that eventually grew into a large aggregated structure.

Many Jornada Mogollon pueblos fit this pattern, though perhaps in areas not very amenable to

large populations and intensive agriculture. The environment of Cottonwood Spring was

advantageous enough to allow larger scale settlement, as shown by the existence of the main

pueblo itself. Ethnographic observation has shown that people from established pueblos built

new homes to be closer to their fields and water sources (Mindeleff 1891:65). Working in

reverse, it can be inferred that as the area beside the Cottonwood Wash filled up with individual

farmhouses it eventually became necessary to build a planned, large scale pueblo to

accommodate the growing community. The smaller surface structure represented by Room 3

would have followed the normal use-life of such a building, ending in ritualized burning seen

across the Jornada Mogollon. This could have been an abandonment followed by eventual reuse,

or the symbolic death of the older, smaller home before incorporation into the expanding

aggregated pueblo.

This fits the pattern Stevanović describes for Opovo villages, with the ritual destruction

of a home and subsequent rebuilding on the foundations as a way to maintain cultural continuity.

Similarities can also be seen in Buildings 51 and 52 at Çatalhöyük, with the older structure's

remains being incorporated into a new building after the burning event took place. Though fire is

visually impressive, Bankoff and Winter's experiment in structural burning indicates that it the

initial fire would have been controllable and posed little threat to the surrounding community,

especially given the added fire-resistance that adobe provides. Finally, the stone bowl found on

13

the original floor of Room 3 fits well with instances of intentional placements of similar artifacts

in ritually retired structures (Creel and Anyon 2003).

Purifying Flame or Fond Farewell?

I conclude by returning to my original question; what are the material traces of ritual

burning and how do they relate to conceptions of the home and its inhabitants? The

archaeological evidence provided by Jornada sites do not match well with the Yuman or

O'odham practices, as specific instances of mortuary burning or cremation do not seem to be

present. In smaller pueblos, the dead were buried under the floors (Lowry 2005), which is a

strong argument against a fear of ghosts. As for larger Jornada pueblos, no burials have been

found in the rooms of Cottonwood Spring, indicating that if ritual retirement coincided with the

death of the homeowner, it is unlikely that they practiced mortuary burning in this way.

What does fit with Cottonwood Spring is the Pueblo practice of ritually retiring

structures. Ritual retirement also fits well with the archaeological record of Cottonwood Spring,

perhaps as a spiritual cleansing or resetting of an area to fulfill a new purpose. The house is a

sacred place in Pueblo culture, exhibiting animacy (Saile 1977; 1985) and ritual significance

(Parsons 1939; Voth 1905). Even a single room can hold much of this power; when building a

new home the first completed room is considered the entire house, with other rooms part of the

physical structure of the house but lacking the same ritual emphasis (Mindeleff 1891:101).

Cottonwood Spring Pueblo has provided a wealth of information about the large pueblos

of the El Paso phase. However, knowledge that only a small portion of the pueblo has been

excavated creates a tantalizing opportunity for future study of the site. Was Room 3 a domestic

building, or perhaps a ceremonial pit structure that is simply shallower than usual due to its

location in a warm southern basin? To this end, further investigation of the rooms adjacent to

Room 3 will reveal the extent of the older floor as well as provide valuable information about its

use.

Whatever happened in the distant past, I see the initial burning of Room 3 as a fond

farewell, rather than a fiery purification. As circumstances at Cottonwood Spring changed,

ritually significant objects were laid down and the room was carefully prepared for burning.

These preparations, combined with the dedicatory offerings deposited before creation of the new

14

floor show that the people using this room were not destroying an object of fear and contagion.

Rather, they were breaking with the previous life of the room and looking forward to a new and

prosperous future.

References

Bankoff, H. Arthur and Frederick A. Winter

1979 “A House Burning in Serbia: What do burned remains tell an archaeologist?”.

Archaeology 32(5). 8-14.

Brew, Susan A. and Bruce B. Huckell

1987 “A protohistoric Piman burial and a consideration of Piman burial practices”. The Kiva.

163-191.

Cameron, Catherine M.

1990 “Pit Structure Abandonment in the Four Corners Region of the American Southwest:

Late Basketmaker III and Pueblo I Periods”. Journal of Field Archaeology 17(1). 27-

37.

Corl, Kristin

2015 “A Case Study of Burning in the Jornada Mogollon at Cottonwood Spring.” In Collected

Papers from the 18th Biennial Mogollon Archaeology Conference October 2014, Lonnie

C. Ludeman ed. Friends of Mogollon Archaeology. Las Cruces, New Mexico. 181-190.

Creel, Darrell and Roger Anyon

2003 “New Intepretations of Mimbres Public Architecture and Space: Implications for Cultural

Change”. American Antiquity 68(1). 67-92

Forde, Cyril Daryll

1931 Ethnography of the Yuma Indians. University of California Press. Berkeley.

Gladwin, Harold S.

1937 Excavations at Snaketown. Gila Puebo. Globe, AZ.

Haury, Emil W.

1976 The Hohokam, Desert Farmers & Craftsmen: Excavations at Snaketown, 1964-1965.

University of Arizona Press. Tuscon.

15

Lowry, C. (editor)

2005 Archaeological Investigations of the Hot Well and Sgt. Doyle Sites, Fort Bliss, Texas:

Late Formative Period Adaptations in the Hueco Bolson. Fort Bliss Cultural Resource

Report No. 94-18, Directorate of Environment, Conservation Division, United States

Army Air Defense Artillery Center and Fort Bliss, Fort Bliss, Texas.

McGuire, Randall H.

1992 Death, society, and ideology in a Hohokam community. Westview Press. Boulder.

Miller, Myles R. and Tim B. Graves

2009 Madera Quemada Pueblo: Archaeological Investigations at a Fourteenth Century

Jornada Mogollon Pueblo. Fort Bliss Cultural Resources Report No. 03- 12. Fort Bliss

Directorate of Public Works – Environmental Division Fort Bliss Garrison Command.

Geo-Marine, Inc. El Paso.

Mindeleff, Victor

1891 A Study of Architecture in Tusayan and Cibola. 8th Annual Report of the Bureau of

Ethnology for the years 1886-1887. Washington, DC.

Opler, Morris

1941 An Apache life-way: The economic, social, and religious institutions of the Chiricahua

Indians. University of Nebraska Press. Lincoln, NE.

Parsons, Elsie Worthington Clews

1939 Pueblo Indian Religion. University of Nebraska Press.

Russell, Frank

1908 The Pima Indians. Extract from the Twenty-Sixth Annual Report of the Bureau of

American Ethnology. Government Printing Office. Washington.

Saile, David G.

1977 “Making a House in the Puebo World: Building Rituals and Spatial Concepts”.

Architectural Association Quarterly 9(2-3). 72-81.

1985 “The Ritual Establishment of Home”. In Home Environments: Human Behavior and

Environment Vol 8, I. Altman and C. M. Werner, eds. Springer Science and Business

Media. 87-111.

16

Schiffer, Michael B.

1987 Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. University of Utah Press. Salt Lake

City.

Stevanović, Mirjana

1997 “The Age of Clay: The Social Dynamics of House Destruction”. Journal of

Anthropological Archaeology 16. 334-395.

Twiss, Katheryn C., Amy Bogaard, Doru Bogdan, Tristan Cater, Michael P. Charles, Shahina

Farid, Nerissa Russell, Mirjana Stevanović, E. Nurcan Yalman and Lisa Yeomans

2008 “Arson or Accident? The Burning of a Neolithic House at Çatalhöyük, Turkey”. Journal

of Field Archaeology 33(1). 41-57.

Underhill, Ruth M.

1939 "Social organization of the Papago Indians.” Columbia University Contributions to

Anthropology, no. 30."

Voth, H.R.

1905 The Traditions of the Hopi. Field Columbian Museum Publication 96,

Anthropological Series Vol. 8.

Walker, William H.

1998 “Where are the Witches of Prehistory?”. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory

5(3). 245-308.

2008 “Practice and Nonhuman Social Actors: The Afterlife Histories of Witches and Dogs in

the American Southwest”. In Memory Work: Archaeologies of Material Practices,

Barbara J. Mills and William H. Walker eds. School for Advanced Research Press.

Santa Fe. 137-157.

Walker, William H., Kristin Corl, and Angel Peña

2013 NMSU Summer 2013 Archaeological Field School Report: Cottonwood Spring Pueblo

(LA 175) Locus A. JER Project 416. New Mexico State University Department of

Anthropology. Las Cruces, NM.

Walker, William H., Robert DeBry, and Judy Berryman

2012 Cottonwood Springs Pueblo Area A Field Excavation Report NMSU Summer

Archaeological Field School 2012. JER Study 416. New Mexico State University

Department of Anthropology. Las Cruces, NM.

17

Williams, Anita Alvarez de

1983 “Cocopa”. Handbook of North American Indians Vol 10, William C. Sturtevant ed.

Smithsonian Institution. Washington. 99-112.

Wilshusen, Richard H.

1986 “The Relationship between Abandonment Mode and Ritual Use in Pueblo I Anasazi

Protokivas”. Journal of Field Archaeology 13(2). 245-254.

Wyman, Leland C.

1983 “Navajo Ceremonial System”. Handbook of North American Indians Vol 10, William C.

Sturtevant ed. Smithsonian Institution. Washington. 536-557.