I recently wrote two stories for Archaeology magazine about the clash of history, science, and culture in the American Southwest. The main piece in the Nov/Dec issue juxtaposes Navajo claims to famous prehistoric sites, such as Chaco Canyon, with new archaeological data. This latest material evidence reinforces the strong scientific consensus that the Navajo didn’t arrive in the Southwest until sometime in the 1500s.

The accompanying web-only piece illustrates how Navajo oral history deeply shapes the views and beliefs of Taft Blackhorse, a Navajo archaeologist who I spent time with while reporting on these stories. I will say that I grew quite fond of Taft and his colleague, John Stein. They were generous hosts and there’s a part of me rooting for them to continue their maverick ways and quixotic quest. That said, I have no doubt that many archaeologists will be shaking their heads in disbelief at some of the statements they make.

Combined, the two stories reveal an interesting dilemma for archaeologists who strive to reconcile data-driven science with information gleaned from a culture’s oral tradition.

I’ll have more to say on all this shortly, as I suspect others will offer their own commentary, some who I know have already read the print story. I look forward to a spirited exchange.

One final thought: while writing these stories, I was reminded of something I once read in an essay by geographer D.W. Meinig, in this classic book:

Any landscape is composed not only of what lies before our eyes, but what lies in our heads.

Can a novel about Navajo culture speak to 21st century sustainability issues? Perhaps. But almost every Southwestern archaeologist would raise an eyebrow after reading this set-up:

In Girl With Skirt of Stars, Jennifer Kitchell draws a sharp contrast between modern society and a culture that has occupied the southwest of North America for thousands of years.

The Reslience ecologists, who I believe have much to contribute to the sustainability debate, might also do well to question the resilience of American Indian romanticization.  We’ve already been down that road with the Anasazi.

The evidence for civilization-killing droughts keeps piling up. Well…sort of.

All the worldwide headlines on this latest story about Angkor, the ancient Cambodian city, mention drought. And for good reason. As the AP reports, new tree ring evidence by scientists show

that Southeast Asia was hit by a severe and prolonged drought from 1415 until 1439, coinciding with the period during which many archeologists believe Angkor collapsed.

But as this previous research published in 2007 suggests, population pressure, deforestation and soil erosion had already started to stress the sprawling settlement.

Then there is the 1431 invasion of Angkor from Siam (now Thailand) to keep in mind.

Put it all together and you have, as one scientist interviewed in the current AP story explains, a knockout blow delivered by climate change:

We have these droughts occurring on top of preexisting pressures…It’s like pouring petrol on a fire. It makes social and economic pressures that may have been endurable disastrous.

American archaeologists studying the social chaos and eventual depopulation of the Four Corners region in the Southwest during the 13th century are often reluctant to put too much emphasis on environmental factors–despite evidence of similar mega-droughts.

But there seems to be an emerging pattern to the rise and fall of the Anasazi and Angkor, and other famous examples, such as  the ancient Maya, that is worth paying attention to today, given our current ecological and climate challenges.