PREHISTORIC INDIANS OF THE SOUTHWEST
_by_
H. M. WORMINGTON
_Curator of Archaeology_
[Illustration: SEAL OF COLORADO MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY · 1900
NIL SINE NUMINE]
APPENDIX: OUTSTANDING EXHIBIT-SITES, MODERN PUEBLOS, LOCAL MUSEUMS
By Erik K. Reed
Regional Archaeologist, National Park Service
THE DENVER MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY
Denver, Colorado
Popular Series No. 7 Seventh Printing, 1966
First Edition, 1947
PREFACE
During the past 25,000 years the Southwest has been invaded many times.
Now each year comes a fresh invasion—an invasion of those who have
succumbed to its beauty and strange, inexplicable charm. There is
something infectious about the magic of the Southwest. Some are immune
to it, but there are others who have no resistance to the subtle virus
and who must spend the rest of their lives dreaming of the incredible
sweep of the desert, of great golden mesas with purple shadows, and
tremendous stars appearing at dusk from a turquoise sky. Once infected
there is nothing one can do but strive to return again and again.
For many, a good portion of this charm lies in the intangible presence
of the “Ancient Ones”, the people who lived in these enchanted deserts
and plateaus through many centuries. One can see the places where they
lived and often one finds bits of pottery which show the immemorial
striving for beauty of some long dead craftsman. It is natural to want
to know more of these prehistoric people and how they lived and it is
the aim of this book to try to tell that story; not in technical terms
intelligible only to the professional scientist but in a way that will
make it of interest to the layman and the undergraduate student. It is
also an attempt to give at least a partial answer to the two questions
which inevitably arise when one considers the cultures of antiquity—“How
do you know these things?” and, “How old are they?”
There is always the hope, too, that publications such as this may serve
a further purpose. If more people understand some of the complexities of
excavation and realize how much information may be obtained by a trained
investigator, perhaps there will be less of the unscientific
“pot-hunting” which leads to the looting of ancient sites and which
every year is destroying an untold amount of irreplaceable data.
Constant references to source material, which are characteristic of
technical publications, are impractical in a book of this nature, for
they spoil the continuity of the narrative. It would be unfair, however,
not to give credit to the many fine archaeologists whose work has
provided this knowledge, and it is desirable for the reader to know
which publications to consult if he seeks more detailed information.
Numbers in fine print which appear throughout the text refer to
publications, listed under corresponding numbers in the bibliography,
from which the information under consideration was derived.
Although every effort has been made to avoid the use of unfamiliar
terms, this has not always been possible. A glossary of technical terms
will be found in the back of the book.
The task of writing this book has been made a pleasant one by the fine
cooperation of archaeologists and anthropologists. It is doubtful if the
members of any other profession would have given more unstintingly of
their time and have been more wholeheartedly willing to help and
cooperate in every possible way. I am deeply indebted to Dr. Harold S.
Colton, Dr. Edward T. Hall, Jr., Dr. Emil W. Haury, Dale S. King, Dr.
Erik K. Reed, Charles Steen, Dr. Walter Taylor, and Dr. Ruth Underhill
for checking and criticizing the manuscript or portions of it. Their
suggestions have been of the greatest possible value. They are not,
however, responsible in any way for any archaeological sins of
commission or omission which may follow.
I am most grateful to Earl H. Morris for graciously furnishing hitherto
unpublished data on his excavation of Basketmaker houses and to Harold
S. Gladwin and Emil W. Haury for permitting me to use information
contained in personal letters.
The kindness of F. H. Douglas, who put his excellent library at my
disposal, is greatly appreciated. Without his assistance, and that of
Marian Sheets who helped to assemble the necessary references, the work
could never have been completed.
My thanks are due to the American Museum of Natural History, the Arizona
State Museum, Columbia University Press, Gila Pueblo, the Laboratory of
Anthropology, Mesa Verde National Park, the Museum of Northern Arizona,
the National Park Service, Peabody Museum of Harvard University, and the
Taylor Museum for providing needed photographs. I am also very grateful
to Gila Pueblo, the Laboratory of Anthropology, the Museum of Northern
Arizona, and the Smithsonian Institution for permission to reproduce
plates and figures from their publications.
To Mary Chilton Gray, I wish to express my appreciation of her fine
execution of the cover design and the line drawings. The pattern used on
the cover is derived from an encircling band on a Mesa Verde bowl. The
services of Walker Van Riper, who devoted many hours to checking
spelling and punctuation in the manuscript and to proof-reading, were of
immeasurable assistance. I am also greatly indebted to Nedra McHenry, to
Harvey C. Markman and to Margaret Roush for their assistance in
proof-reading. Dr. Alfred M. Bailey and Albert C. Rogers gave valuable
aid in the preparation of photographs.
Most especially I am grateful to my husband, George D. Volk, for his
unfailing interest and understanding and for the preparation of the maps
and the execution of the lettering on illustrations.
My sincere thanks are due to Dr. Alfred M. Bailey, Director of the
Colorado Museum of Natural History, who made it possible for this book
to be written and published, and to Charles H. Hanington, President of
the Board of Trustees, for his constant interest in the project.
H. M. Wormington
Denver, Colorado
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Preface 3
Chapter I—Introduction 11
Chapter II—The Most Ancient Cultures 20
Sandia 20
Folsom 20
San Jon 22
Yuma 22
Gypsum Cave 22
Cochise 22
Tabeguache Cave 26
Chapter III—The Anasazi Culture 27
General Remarks 27
The Basketmaker Period 27
The Modified-Basketmaker Period 49
Summary 56
The Developmental-Pueblo Period 57
Peripheral Areas 72
Summary 75
The Great Pueblo Period 76
The Largo-Gallina Phase 102
Athapaskan People 105
Summary 106
The Regressive and Historic Pueblo Periods 107
Chapter IV—The Hohokam Culture 118
General Remarks 118
The Pioneer Period 120
The Colonial Period 124
The Sedentary Period 132
The Classic Period 137
The Recent Hohokam 144
Summary 146
Chapter V—The Mogollon Culture 148
General Remarks 148
Bluff Ruin 150
The Pine Lawn Phase 151
The Georgetown Phase 152
The San Francisco Phase 153
Bear Ruin 155
The Three Circle Phase 157
The Mimbres Phase 158
Summary 161
Chapter VI—The Sinagua People 163
Chapter VII—The Patayan Culture 167
Conclusion 169
Glossary 170
Bibliography 174
Appendix by Erik K. Reed 181
Outstanding Exhibit-Sites 181
Modern Pueblos 185
Local Museums 186
Index 187
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
PAGE
1. Diagram to illustrate chronology-building with tree-rings 15
2. Map showing sites referred to in Chapter II 21
3. Projectile points of the most ancient cultures 23
4. Folsom diorama 25
5. Map showing sites referred to in Chapter III 28
6. Basketmaker mummy 30
7. Basketmaker diorama 32
8. Basketmaker and Modified-Basketmaker sandals 34
9. Atlatl and grooved club 39
10. Weaving techniques 41
11. Basketmaker coiled baskets 42
12. Basketmaker carrying basket with tump strap 43
13. Basketmaker twined-woven bags 44
14. Mummies of two varieties of Basketmaker dogs 47
15. Modified-Basketmaker diorama 48
16. Modified-Basketmaker house after excavation 50
17. Postulated method of Modified-Basketmaker house construction 51
18. Modified-Basketmaker figurine and nipple-shaped object 54
19. Developmental-Pueblo diorama 58
20. Undeformed and deformed skulls 60
21. Interior view of a kiva 65
22. Corrugated pottery 66
23. Black-on-white pottery, Developmental-Pueblo period 67
24. Neck-banded vessel, Developmental-Pueblo period 68
25. Developmental-Pueblo and Great-Pueblo sandal 69
26. Rosa pit house after excavation 74
27. Great Pueblo Diorama 77
28. Types of Great-Pueblo masonry 83
29. Pueblo Bonito, Chaco Canyon National Monument, New Mexico 85
30. Chaco black-on-white pottery of the Great-Pueblo period 88
31. Cliff Palace, Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado 92
32. Mesa Verde black-on-white pottery of the Great-Pueblo period 95
33. Betatakin, Navajo National Monument, Arizona 98
34. Black-on-white pottery from the Kayenta area, Great-Pueblo
period 100
35. Largo surface house and artifacts 103
36. Cavate dwellings and talus houses at Bandelier National
Monument 109
37. Tyuonyi, Bandelier National Monument 111
38. Glazed ware from the Rio Grande area, Regressive Pueblo period 112
39. Biscuit ware from the Rio Grande area, Regressive Pueblo
period 113
40. Hopi maiden 116
41. Map showing sites referred to in Chapter IV 119
42. Hohokam figurines 123
43. Hohokam house and ball court, Colonial period 126
44. Red-on-buff Hohokam vessel, Colonial period 128
45. Hohokam carved stone vessel, Colonial period 130
46. Hohokam ornaments of carved shell 131
47. Red-on-buff Hohokam jars, Sedentary period 133
48. Hohokam stone palette, Sedentary period 134
49. Hohokam etched shell, Sedentary period 136
50. Salado polychrome ware 138
51. Big house built by the Salado people, Casa Grande National
Monument 141
52. Child’s cotton poncho from Ventana Cave, Desert Hohokam 143
53. Pima House in 1897 145
54. Map showing sites referred to in Chapter V 149
55. Postulated reconstructions of the dwelling units of three
Mogollon phases 154
56. Mimbres black-on-white pottery 160
57. Map showing distribution of cultures referred to in Chapters
VI and VII 164
58. Montezuma Castle National Monument 165
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Before beginning any discussion of the Southwest it is best to decide
exactly what we mean by the word, for it means many things to many
people. For the geographer it has one meaning, for the economist
another, and for those who study its ancient inhabitants still another.
It is in the latter sense that we shall interpret it. To the
archaeologist, that is, to the scientist who studies and seeks to
interpret the life and times of prehistoric man, the Southwest usually
means New Mexico, Arizona, southern Utah, and the southwestern corner of
Colorado. Interpreting the term in its broadest sense, he may include
the remainder of Utah, southeastern Nevada, southwestern Texas, and
northern Mexico. State lines and international boundaries are, of
course, recent man-made devices and we must consider this region, not in
terms of present political units, but on a cultural and geographic
basis.
In the centuries since the Spaniards first arrived the presence of the
many imposing ruins which dot the Southwest has naturally led to much
speculation about their inhabitants, and the collecting of antiquities
has been inevitable. The collecting instinct is such that some
relationship between man and the pack rat might well be postulated if it
were not that man takes without leaving anything in place of what he has
removed.
From the time when the ruins of the prehistoric dwellings of the
Southwest were first observed, until about 1880, there was a period of
exploration and the more obvious places of archaeological interest were
described and superficially investigated. From then, until approximately
1910, much sound work was done but there was an unfortunate tendency
toward digging up specimens for their own sake rather than for the
information which they could reveal. In the last thirty-five years or
so, however, the emphasis has come to be more on the acquiring of
information and less on the collection of examples of material culture.
This has led to the excavation of less physically spectacular ruins,
increasing cooperation with workers in related fields of science, and
more careful planning of attacks on specific problems.
In a sense the development of archaeology in the Southwest may be
compared with the putting together of a great jig-saw puzzle. First came
the period of general examination of the pieces, then a concentration on
the larger and more highly colored pieces, and finally a carefully
planned approach to the puzzle as a whole with serious attempts to fill
in specific blank areas. After all, archaeology as a science can justify
its existence only as it serves to increase and deepen our knowledge of
that strange, and to us most fascinating mammal—man.
Archaeologists in the Southwest have been particularly fortunate for a
number of reasons. Perhaps most important is that climatic conditions
have made possible the preservation of much material which in most
climates would have disappeared in a relatively short time. Under
sufficiently arid conditions the bacteria of decay cannot survive and
the lack of humidity in the Southwest has insured the survival of much
material which would normally be lost. Another thing for which
archaeologists may be grateful is that pottery-making came to be so well
developed in this area, for pottery fragments are almost indestructible.
Furthermore, pottery is a most sensitive medium for reflecting change.
Since it is fragile there is constant breakage which leads to the
frequent manufacture of new pieces and this accelerates the rate of
technical change. Archaeologists have learned to recognize certain
styles which are characteristic of specific areas and periods and it is
remarkable how much information ancient vessels will reveal about the
people who made them.
In the course of the following discussion the reader will no doubt grow
weary of the word ‘pottery’. However, before he decides that the ancient
Southwesterners did nothing but sit around and make pottery or that the
writer is the victim of a pottery mania, it might be profitable for him
to cast an observant eye about the room in which he is sitting. After
the passage of five hundred or a thousand years how much would survive,
if one discounted material not available in the most ancient times such
as metal, glass, and plastics? High at the top of the list will be
dishes, ashtrays, and vases of china or porcelain—the modern
counterparts of prehistoric pottery. Also, it may readily be seen that
there are differences in style between older and more recent objects. A
vase purchased this year is likely to differ in many respects from one
acquired even as little as twenty-five or fifty years ago.
An amazing amount of information can also be derived from the
microscopic study of pottery. Trained investigators can examine thin
sections under a microscope and identify the materials used in
manufacture and often locate their sources. With this information it is
then possible to determine whether pottery was locally made or imported.
This tells us a great deal about the cultural relationships of ancient
people, for trade implies contact between people which will affect other
phases of their culture. In prehistoric times, when people lacked rapid
means of transportation and communication, human groups were naturally
isolated as they can never be again, but even then cultural units were
affected by the activities of the inhabitants of other regions.
Accordingly, we cannot see the ancient life of the Southwest in true
perspective if we do not know something of the inter-relations of the
various cultures.
One of the great boons to southwestern archaeology has been
dendrochronology—a system which has made it possible to establish an
absolute count of years through the pattern combinations of annual
growth rings of trees. The inevitable question which arises in
connection with anything prehistoric is “How old is it?”, and prior to
the introduction of tree-ring dating it was difficult to answer except
in relative terms, for in the Southwest we are dealing with a people who
left no written records. It is remarkable, however, how much had been
accomplished in establishing relative chronology through the use of
stratigraphic studies and the cross-checking of sites.
It is on the principle of _stratification_ that most archaeological work
must rest. The word means the characteristic of being in layers or
strata. The usefulness of stratigraphic studies lies in the fact that in
any undisturbed deposit the lowest layer or stratum will be the oldest
since it was laid down first. This may be shown graphically by piling
books on a table, one by one. The book at the bottom of the pile must
inevitably have been put in place before the ones on top. The same
principle is applied to ancient cultures. If the remains of one people
are found underlying those of another, those on the bottom are older.
Rarely are the remains of many cultures found lying directly over each
other in a complete series but through correlation between sites the
sequence may be established. For example, if in one place we find
remains of Culture A underlying those of Culture B and in another place
find material from Culture B underlying that of Culture C we may
postulate that C is more recent than A even though the two are not found
together. In still another place C may be found to underlie D and
eventually a long sequence will be established, although it may not be
present in its entirety in any one place.
Objects acquired through trade are also useful in dating sites. For
example, if we know the relative or absolute date at which a certain
type of pottery was being made at one site, then find pieces of this
ware at a site which we are trying to date we may assume at least some
degree of contemporaneity.
Stratigraphic studies, of course, do not provide us with absolute dates
and for those we must turn to dendrochronology or tree-ring dating.[23]
[121] The story of the development of this method is a strange one. It
is a tale of an astronomer and archaeologists, of buried treasure that
was only wood, of sun spots, and of purple chiffon velvet. Most
important of all was the astronomer, for it was in his keen mind that
the idea was born that was to lead to one of the most exciting
scientific discoveries of our time.
The astronomer was Dr. A. E. Douglass, who was engaged in the study of
the effect of sun spots on climatic conditions. The available
meteorological records, of course, went back only a relatively few years
and it soon became apparent that a much longer record must be obtained
to be of any real value. In searching for information about climatic
conditions for past centuries, Dr. Douglass thought of pines, for they
may reach a great age and the presence or absence of adequate rainfall,
particularly in a climate like Arizona’s, will greatly affect the
development of a tree. Every year a new layer of wood is added to the
entire living surface of a pine. The size of these layers, which show up
as rings when the tree is cut and viewed in cross-section, varies with
the amount of food and moisture which the tree has obtained in the
course of the year. A dry year will produce a thin ring and a wet year
will produce a wide one. By cutting down old trees it was thus possible
to learn what the climatic conditions had been during the years of their
life. None of the pines which were still living, however, had existed
for more than a few hundred years, and the giant sequoias of California
which would have covered a longer span did not reflect climatic change
in the same way.
Fortunately, through the study of living trees, Dr. Douglass had learned
that the tree-rings over a period of years formed a distinct pattern
which could be recognized when found on most conifers. Next he began to
search for trees which had been cut perhaps many years before, but which
contained a pattern which fitted some early portion of that tree whose
cutting date was known. This led him to beams made from whole logs which
have been a characteristic feature of Southwestern architecture for many
centuries. By finding old beams whose outer rings formed the same
pattern as the inner rings of living trees the known chronology was
increased. Through correlating the patterns of progressively older trees
with younger ones the pattern was finally established for the period
between 1280 and 1929.
[Illustration: Fig. 1—Diagram to illustrate chronology-building with
tree rings. Because of space limitation the number of rings in the
overlapping specimens has been arbitrarily reduced. (After
Stallings.[121] Courtesy Laboratory of Anthropology.)]
THE RING PATTERNS MATCH AND OVERLAP BACK INTO TIME
A THIS WAS A LIVING TREE WHEN CUT BY US
DATE OF LAST RING IS THAT OF YEAR WHEN WE CUT TREE
B THIS BEAM CAME FROM A HOUSE
THIS DATE OBTAINED BY COUNTING BACK FROM BARK OF A
C THIS BEAM CAME FROM AN OLD HOUSE
THIS DATE OBTAINED BY COUNTING BACK FROM BARK OF A THROUGH B
SPECIMENS TAKEN FROM RUINS WHEN MATCHED AND OVERLAPPED AS INDICATED
PROGRESSIVELY EXTEND THE DATING BACK INTO PREHISTORIC TIMES
Next Dr. Douglass began to examine beams from prehistoric sites. From
these a continuous sequence of tree-ring patterns was established for a
period of 580 years. Unfortunately though, it could not be correlated
with the sequence starting in 1280. Relative dates could be obtained and
it could be determined how many years had intervened between the
occupation of different sites but there was as yet no way of correlating
these dates with the Christian calendar. The next step was to seek to
bridge the gap between the floating chronology of relative dates and
that which carried up to the present day and gave absolute dates.
The search for the missing sequence was begun in the Hopi villages in
Arizona where one, Oraibi, has been continuously occupied since before
the coming of the first white men in 1540. The fact that many of the
logs had been cut with stone axes indicated a considerable age. The
Hopis, as might be expected, were not overly enthusiastic about the
arrival of American scientists who wanted to saw cross-sections from the
beams of their buildings and bore holes in other timbers where cutting
was not practical. Dr. Douglass did much to solve this problem by
presenting the chief with yards and yards of beautiful purple chiffon
velvet which delighted him. Dr. Douglass and his associates also did a
great deal to mollify the Indians by treating their ancient customs with
respect. In many cases, for example, they placed bits of turquoise in
holes made in extracting cores in order to “appease the spirit of
decay”. One remarkable piece of timber was found which gave an
extraordinarily clear series of rings from 1260 to 1344. What made it of
particular interest was not only that it lengthened the known chronology
but that it had been in continuous use from the time it was cut until
1906 when the section of the village in which it was found was
abandoned.
Many beams were studied, but no others were found whose inner rings
predated 1300. The search was next begun in ruins of villages
traditionally occupied by the Hopis prior to moving to their present
location. Of particular interest was the Showlow ruin, for pottery finds
suggested that it had been the home of Hopis in pre-Spanish times and
its proximity to a great pine forest suggested that wood must have been
readily available for building purposes. It was here that one of the
most famous pieces of wood in the world was found.
The decaying, partially burned, piece of wood to which the field number
HH39 was given was not impressive in appearance but it was a treasure,
more valuable to those who found it than any buried pirate gold for
which adventurers might dig. As it was examined the climatic conditions
of year after year were revealed, new ring combinations were established
and the chronology was carried back to 1237 A.D., the year in which this
tree had begun its life. A comparison with the ring patterns of the
floating chronology showed that its 551st ring checked with that for
1251 in Beam HH39. June 22, 1929, the date on which this beam was found,
is a red letter day in the history of American archaeology, for from
that day it became possible to date many ruins in the Southwest, not
only in a comparative sense, but in terms of the Christian calendar.
Actually, of course, the floating and the absolute chronology had
already overlapped but the evidence had been based on such small
fragments as to be unconvincing. Duplication of ring patterns may occur
if only a few rings are used. It is only if a pattern covering fifty or
more rings is available that one may be assured of correct dating. It
was not until the discovery of Beam HH39 that final proof was available.
In the years which have elapsed since 1929 much further work has been
done by Dr. Douglass and his associates, who include many brilliant
students whom he has trained. The tree ring chronology now stretches
back to 11 A.D.
Great as was the importance of being able to establish absolute dates
for a people who had left no written records, this was not the only
contribution made by what have been aptly called “the talkative
tree-rings”.[23] The life of man, and particularly primitive man, is
greatly influenced by climatic conditions and in an arid climate such as
that of the Southwest the difference between drought and adequate
rainfall may, quite literally, be the difference between life and death.
It is naturally an inestimable boon to the archaeologist to know the
conditions under which the people he is studying lived and it enables
him to understand many things, such as periods marked by expansion or by
the abandonment of certain areas, which would otherwise be
unintelligible.
Important as dendrochronology is, it is far from being the only outside
science upon which archaeologists must depend. The records left by
Spanish historians, who found the Pueblo Indians in the 16th century
still untouched by European civilization and living essentially the same
sort of life as their ancestors, have provided invaluable information.
Also of great importance has been the work of ethnologists, scientists
who analyze the culture of living primitive people. In the Southwest
archaeologists are particularly fortunate, for in many cases descendents
of the prehistoric people whom they study are still living in the same
general area and under very similar circumstances. In spite of the
outside influences to which they have been subjected there is still much
to be learned from them. The knowledge of these people garnered by the
historian and the ethnologist, added to that obtained by the
archaeologist, gives us a far better picture of the life of prehistoric
times.
Although a study of material culture tells a great deal about a people,
there is much of their social, political and religious life which it
cannot reveal unless supplementary information is available. There are
grave dangers inherent in too great a concentration on material culture.
It has been said of the archaeologist that “sometimes he cannot see the
people for the walls”[125] and it is the people themselves, after all,
who are important.
Two examples will show how ethnology and archaeology may complement each
other. In certain prehistoric sites are found circular underground rooms
with highly specialized characteristics. The objects found in these are
usually non-utilitarian so that, even if no further information were
available, archaeologists would consider them chambers having some
religious significance. However, thanks to the fact that similar rooms
or kivas, as they are called, are still in use in the modern Pueblo
villages, the archaeologist may not only be sure of their ceremonial
nature, but he is in a position to understand more of their significance
through studying their function in modern Pueblo society. One point
demonstrates very clearly how, through correlating ethnological and
archaeological evidence, it is possible to understand something of the
religious beliefs of people who died hundreds of years ago leaving no
written records.
In prehistoric kivas are found small tubelike pits in the floors. If no
other information were available the archaeologist would be forced to
fall back on simply calling these holes “ceremonial”. The quip that when
archaeologists do not know what a thing is they designate it as
ceremonial is sufficiently close to the truth to be uncomfortable. In
many modern kivas, however, the same type of hole is found. It is
symbolic of the mythical place of emergence or route from the underworld
from which it is believed that the first people and animals came into
the world. Archaeologists refer to it by the Hopi name _Sipapu_. Taking
into account the conservatism and dependence on tradition of religions
in all parts of the world in all times, it is not too rash to assume
that the builders of the prehistoric kivas held some beliefs similar to
those of their present day descendents.
Similarly, by equating what we know of the social organization of the
Pueblo Indians of today with the evidence from prehistoric times we may
postulate that an essentially democratic form of government existed in
this section of America long before the signing of the Magna Carta and
many centuries before the signers of the American Declaration of
Independence were born. It may be asked, what possible information can
be gained from ruins which would indicate a democratic way of life. In
all the ruins which have been examined all the living quarters were
essentially equal. Most anthropologists feel that had there been a
marked differentiation between classes, or if all power had been lodged
in the hands of a limited number of individuals this would have been
reflected in the dwellings. Certain leaders and priests undoubtedly had
authority, as they do among the Pueblo Indians of today, but there is no
evidence of an autocracy or a ruling class.
This is, obviously, a greatly simplified explanation of some of the many
techniques employed by archaeologists in seeking to reconstruct the life
of ancient times. No one approach will suffice, but by utilizing many
methods numerous scattered bits of information are obtained. These are
studied and correlated and at length it is possible to produce an
account which is at least a reasonable approximation of the truth.