ASM Occasional Electronic Papers No. 1: Homol'ovi IV

Chapter One:
Introduction, cont.

Previous Page | Next Page

This begs the question of why wasn't Homol'ovi IV built where the river flows year-round initially, rather than 2-3 km below where the river begins to flow underground due to the absence of bedrock in the streambed. First, it should be noted that One Drop Spring is located about 0.5 km west of Homol'ovi IV. Together with several other nearby springs, these could have provided an adequate drinking supply. Homol'ovi IV was founded at its location because of the morphology of the butte. For whatever reason, villages during the mid-1200s in northeastern Arizona were built on the tops and sides of buttes or small mesas. Homol'ovi IV was built following local custom. However, there are other buttes nearby. Why was this one selected? When one stands on top of Homol'ovi IV it is possible to see the San Francisco Peaks, which today are sacred to the Hopi, and were probably also sacred in the late 1200s. This claim is bolstered by the depiction of the San Francisco Peaks as a mural on a kiva at Homol'ovi II dating to the 1350-1375 period and excavated by HRP in 1994. Their location strongly suggests a ritual purpose and this was supported by Hopi religious leaders who viewed the mural (Adams 2002). Thus, in the 1250s when Homol'ovi IV was founded, the butte on which it was located was the best possible location. The ability to view the San Francisco Peaks might also inform us as to the probable reason for so many villages being located on the tops and sides of buttes. I suggest that this reason is ritual or sacred rather than defensive, as argued by others (Haas and Creamer 1993; Haas and Wilcox 1994; LeBlanc 1999). Certainly, in the Kayenta area of northeastern Arizona, line-of-sight between settlements was important (Haas and Creamer 1993) in the latter half of the 13th century. This certainly cannot be the case for Homol'ovi IV because there was no one with whom to be in line-of-sight.

In addition, most of the population lived along the sides and even on the flat slopes at the base of the butte. Finally, the north and west slopes were left unguarded. The village could have been easily approached at night and the boulders on the west side could have hidden potential assailants. None of this suggests a classic defensive posture or that defense provides an adequate, let alone a complete explanation of Homol'ovi IV's location on a small butte. Recent research in cerros de trincheras in the Borderlands area of northern Sonora and southeastern Arizona suggests a plausible model that some cerros de trincheras were constructed for their "monumentality" (O'Donovan 2002). A southern or eastern perspective of Homol'ovi IV (Figure 1.3) would have presented a village appearing seven to nine stories, perhaps 18 m, tall. Even the access via trails and stairs through and around the rooms encircling the south and east sides is similar to trails on cerros de trincheras (Downum, Fish, and Fish 1994). At the contemporary village of Hoyapi, or Little Giant's Chair, 8 km south of Second Mesa is located the nearest similarly situated village. As with Homol'ovi IV, Hoyapi consists of at least 200 rooms and occupies a saddle to the volcanic outcrop of Little Giant's Chair as well as the south, southeast, and southwest sides and base of the butte. Villages contemporary with Hoyapi on the Hopi Mesas (Adams, LaMotta, and Dongoske 2004) in contrast are not situated on the tops or sides of buttes. This suggests a special role for Hoyapi and probably a special role for Homol'ovi IV. Hoyapi represents the southern edge of the Hopi settlement cluster from about 1250 to 1350, based on surface ceramics. Homol'ovi IV may have been an extension of that boundary to Hopi far to the south. Adams (2002) has recently suggested that the establishment of the Homol'ovi cluster with Homol'ovi IV in the 1250s and its expansion to five villages in the 1280s was an expression of boundary maintenance and control of critical riparian resources by Hopi living on the mesas. Looked at from this perspective, Homol'ovi IV may indeed have needed to be defensive.

Figure 1.3 South view of Homol'ovi IV

 

So where does this leave us? It would seem that Homol'ovi IV played many roles and was located on its butte for many complementary reasons. Among these are boundary definition and defense, environment, ritual, and monumentality. These possible purposes for Homol'ovi IV provide a context for the analyses to follow. The concluding comments will revisit these possibilities in light of the excavated material culture.

Chapter: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Previous Page Next Page