j d d X |  X S  S~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~e
! |~h
I               ..
_ l.I
I N F0 RMAT I 0 N      F0 R    A U T H0 R S
The Kroeber Anthropological Socie    Papers publish articles
in the general field of anthropology. The Papers welcome articles of
theoretical interest, descriptive studies putting factual information
on record, and bibliographies and historical documents of anthropolo-
gical interest. The Society welcomes papers of high quality from fac-
ulty and graduate or undergraduate students. In general, contributions
should not exceed 30 pages in length.
Manuscripts must be typewritten and double-spaced throughout,
including bibliography and notes, on 8-1/2 by 11 inch paperononly one
side of the page. The Papers do not employ footnotes.     Endnotes and
bibliography should be placed on pages separate from the text and from
each other.   Prospective contributors should consult recent issues of
the Papers or American Anthropologist for further details of manuscript
style. Contributions to the Papers will be copyrighted for the author
by the Society. Permission to reproduce contents must be secured from
both the editor and the author.
Authors will receive without charge thirty-five reprints of
their articles. Additional reprints may be ordered at the rate of 1-1/2
cents per page. An extra charge will be made if illustrations must be
reproduced by photolithography.    When notified of the acceptance of
their manuscripts, authors will be asked how many reprints they desire.
Manuscripts should be addressed to:
Editor
Kroeber Anthropological Society
c/o The Department of Anthropology
University of California
Berkeley, California  94720
U.S.A.
BACK ISSUES, SUBSCRIPTIONS, EXCHANGES
Back issues of the Papers 1-27 can be obtained from: Johnson
Reprint Corporation, 111 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10003, U.S.A.
Subsequent issues can be obtained from the Secretary of the Society.
Current subscription is by membership in the Society: $4.00/year for
individuals, $5.00/year for institutions. The Papers are available for
exchange.
* Kroeber Anthropological Society 1969
0>
U
0
*,
U
U
U)
0
0
0.
-ao
U)
0
O.
I
m
I
m
COVER PHOTOGRAPH
The Insignia of the Order
El Sol del Peru
awarded to
John Howland Rowe
by the Peruvian Government
October 25, 1968
THE KROEBER ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY
PAPERS
Number 40
20th Anniversary Issue
Papers in Honor of John Howland Rowe
Robert V. Kemper, Editor
Janet Tallman, Consulting Editor
Sally S. Dobson, Assistant Editor
Daniel Maltz, Assistant Editor
Sylvia H. Forman, Special Assistant Editor
Published by the
Kroeber Anthropological Society
Richard Canter, President
Wilhelmina Caulfield, Vice President
Sylvia Forman, Secretary
Rosalind Ribnick, Treasurer
Lynda Muckenfuss, Program Chairman
Berkeley, California
Spring, 1969
This issue of the
Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers
is
in honor of
John Howland Rowe
JOHN HOWLAND ROWE
CONTENTS
Dedicatory Introduction.i
Dedicatory Letters to the Editor..1
The Kroeber Anthropological Society, 1949-1969,
by Clement W. Meighan.
Anthropological Activity in the United States,
1865-1879, by Patricia J. Lyon.                          8
Prehistoric Chronology in the Sabana de Bogota,
by Sylvia M. Broadbent .38
A Comparison of South Chilean and Ecuadorian
"Fishtail" Projectile Points, by Junius B. Bird . . 52
The Role of Sports in the Penetration of Urban
Culture to the Rural Areas of Peru,
by Gabriel Escobar M.     . . . . . . . .     .  .  .  .  . 72
Teaching Anthropology at Berkeley,
by Theodore D. McCown .82
Peck's Archaeologist, by E. A. Hammel .93
Some of Rowe's Contributions in the Field of
Andean Culture History, by Dorothy Menzel .100
John Howland Rowe; Bibliography, 1940-1967,
compiled by Robert E. Pfeiffer .112
DEDICATORY INTRODUCTION
During a staff meeting in March, 1968, the officers and ed-
itors of the Kroeber Anthropological Society realized that the Society's
20th anniversary was approaching.  None of us had worked with the Society
for more than a year or two, but it was nonetheless immediately obvious
to us all that this anniversary deserved recognition.   Clearly there was
one particularly fitting way to mark its significance: we would publish
an issue of the PAPERS that would celebrate our anniversary by cele-
brating the efforts and accomplishments of the man who has been so
largely responsible for the existence and success of the Society.    Toward
this goal, we invited special contributions from some of his close
friends, colleagues and students to reflect and discuss his work and
interests.  We have been tremendously pleased with-the responses, which
comprise this volume.
Thus it is with great pleasure, gratitude and respect that we
offer these papers in honor of John Howland Rowe.
Sylvia H. Forman,
on the behalf of the
officers, editors and members of the
Kroeber Anthropological Society
i
DEDICATORY LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
To the editor:
John Rowe and I were reminiscing about Peru recently, during
which conversation I learned for the first time that it had been John's
intention upon his graduation from Brown University to come to the Uni-
versity of California at Berkeley to take his Ph.D. in Anthropology and
specifically to work under Alfred Kroeber in Peruvian Archaeology. In
the event, his father's death caused him to alter his plans and to remain
in the East where he took his degree at Harvard. Thus it was as Alfred
Kidder, Jr.'s, young student that Kroeber first knew of John Rowe and was
in correspondence with him on matters Peruvian, long before the two ac-
tually met. They looked forward to this first meeting which occurred in
the Maury Hotel in Lima and in company with Theodore McCown and Bernard
Mishkin, the three of them being engaged in work in Peru under the aus-
pices of the Andean Institute. This was the spring of 1942; it was
John's first trip to Peru in a professional capacity. (He had been there
briefly in the summer of 1939, a trip which he financed with prize money
received for scholastic excellence in his major undergraduate depart-
ment, Classics; a trip which indicates something of how early and total
was John's commitment to work in Peru.) It was Kroeber's last trip to
Peru: the torch, in very truth, was passed that spring by the old runner
to the young runner. (The torch metaphor for his work in Peru was
Kroeber's own.)
The friendship begun in those early days of the Second World
War continued through correspondence and occasional meetings and in 1948
John accepted a Professorship at the University of California, upon which
the families Rowe and Kroeber became near neighbors and personal friends.
Kroeber's letter to John bearing on this appointment said, "Dear Rowe, I
suppose I ought to congratulate you but I feel more like congratulating
them. Yours, Kroeber."
Kroeber had been retired from the University of California for
three years and was teaching at Columbia University--it was the fall of
1949--when he received the letter from the officers of the then-forming
Anthropological Society at Berkeley which asked his permission to name
the Society for him. One remembers gestures made and words spoken under
emotion even when both are understated and in no way out of the ordinary,
and so I remember Kroeber's pacing up and down his study--an habitual
gesture of his expressing strong feeling or absorbed thinking--as a first
reaction to the letter. He was immensely touched. No honour which came
to him, before or after, suited and fitted him so wholly as did this one.
What he said was, "It is nice of the kids to want to do this... it makes
ii
me feel that they have a certain faith in the Old Man.. .Well--I have
faith in them, whatever way they take. The fate of the humane world may
well be in their hands..." And he knew then, and later, how crucial was
John's role in the early days of the Society, and in its continuing days;
how truly had some of John the person, the scholar, rubbed off, imprinted
itself upon the Society.
One could wish that by some intuitive prevision Kroeber might
have foreseen this twentieth anniversary issue of the Kroeber Society
Papers; might have known that it would be dedicated to John Rowe.
My congratulations to the Kroeber Society. And to John, my
personal thanks.
Theodora Kroeber
To the editor:
Through all our years of graduate work at Berkeley, John Rowe
was the teacher who cared. He gave us the encouragement needed to
weather the series of ordeals that mark the life cycle of the graduate
student.
We first met Dr. Rowe on our return from Mexico in 1948 when
he struck the spark of instant friendship by sharing our enthusiasm for
all things Mexican. In the same way, he built bonds of fellowship with
our little band of graduate students. When our group founded the Kroeber
Anthropological Society, John Rowe was our guiding light. KAS meetings
became the center of our social life and the focus of a student-faculty
dialogue that gave us a rare feeling of community. In those days, many
of our meetings took place at the McCorkle mansion where you were sure to
find a circle of disciples sitting at the feet of our maestro.
When I was ready for field work, John Rowe backed me for the
Wenner-Gren fellowship that financed my study of Nahuatl Indian culture.
My work profited from his wise suggestions as well as his brisque com-
muniques that stung me into action when my reports were late. After my
doctoral dissertation had been completed and approved by the anthropology
department, it ran into a snag just a few days before the deadline. The
awful possibility arose that I would not receive my Ph.D. degree in June.
The man who came to my rescue and saved the day was John Rowe.
Claudia planned to write her master's thesis under Dr. Rowe's
direction at Berkeley but the arrival of our children kept interfering
with her scholarly intentions. When she finally got around to the thesis
almost 10 years later, her anthropology was a bit rusty. John Rowe wrote
iii
her a five-page letter pinpointing the theoretical questions suggested
by her field notes on Mexican folk medicine. With his help, she worked
out a new interpretation of her data. Her revised thesis was approved
and eventually published. Both of us owe an eternal debt of gratitude
to John Rowe, our maestro, advocate, counselor, and friend.
Sincerely,
Claudia Madsen
William Madsen
To the editor:
I was a second year graduate student when John Rowe joined the
Berkeley faculty. Being ignorant about Western South America I attended
his seminars with some trepidation, only to discover that his interests
ranged beyond Peru, Colombia, and Bolivia.
In fact, I was stunned that one scholar could be competent in
so many fields in anthropology--archaeology, ethnology, and linguistics--
along with history, palaeology, and bibliography. I was appalled at our
work load and impressed with his standards. At the same time, his sense
of humor and wealth of anecdotes about anthropologists kept the seminars
lively. Much of what we learned, however, was not through formal in-
struction. He always found time to discuss anthropological and other
matters with students, and devoted many hours to tracking down obscure
references for us.
While Rowe's favorite field area was Peru, other regions also
intrigued him, and one such land was Brazil. Indeed, it was due in part
to his enthusiasm and support, that I undertook fieldwork in Northeast
Brazil. Subsequently, because of similar encouragement, Seth Leacock
worked along the Lower Amazon.
Professor Rowe took pains to brief me on the esoterica of field-
work in Latin America, and once there I maintained with him a regular and
highly valued correspondence, which touched on various problems encoun-
tered. His advice differed somewhat from that proffered me by Professor
Kroeber preceding ethnography in Baja California, who contented himself
by remarking, "Be sure to take your own frying-pan; the Indians don't
like to lend theirs!"
iv
John Rowe's interest in Brazil led him, aside from other re-
lated accomplishments (including investigations into "Tapuya" languages
and the Dutch occupancy), to translate and publish with annotations and
commentary a somewhat inaccessible article on the Tapajo Indians by the
late Curt Nimuendaju; to track down in Sao Paulo a Peruvian collection
made by the famous Max Uhle; and to correspond with and to meet in per-
son a number of Brazilian scholars. Regarding one of these gentlemen,
Rowe had a curious experience. An eminent botanist-geographer, Professor
Breger, who was an expert on maize, once visited Berkeley, where Rowe en-
countered him. At that time there flourished a controversy over the
American or the Southeast Asiatic origin of Zea mays.   Rowe was skeptical
about the latter hypothesis, and accordingly asked the Brazilian, "What
can you tell me about the origins of maize?" Professor Breger replied in
mild astonishment, and some disappointment, "But I came here, amongst
other things, to ask you the same question!"
I consider it a privilege to know Professor John Rowe as col-
league and friend. I offer my congratulations on this occasion which
reflects the respect, admiration, and affection accorded to him by so
many.
Sincerely yours,
W. D. Hohenthal
To the editor:
My first meeting with Professor Rowe took place in January of
1949 upon my return to Berkeley after a year of field work in Mexico; he
had joined the staff during my absence. Near me in age and warm and
friendly in manner, he seemed, after I came to know him, more like an
older brother than like one of my professors. But the educational gulf
that separated us was immediately apparent to me. Although young in
years this man was a real pro, a scholar's scholar. His dedication to
his work was not only complete, it was unreservedly enthusiastic.    If I
went to Dr. Rowe with a question or an idea, I was never brushed off or
treated in patronizing fashion. We would discuss the problem from every
angle and I would leave his office with a long list of further things to
read. But I would also leave with part of his infectious energy and ex-
citement and with an impatient determination to exhaust the list and re-
new the discussion as soon as possible.
Whenever I submitted a paper to Rowe I would get back one from
him almost as long as my own. In it he would challenge everything
v
including my logic, grammar, references and writing style. Sometimes
this critique would come back the very next day and it was apparent he
had stayed up half the night to do it. Here was a prof who obviously
cared, a fact that was all important at a crucial period in my graduate
student career. A teacher like Rowe comes only once in the life of most
students. In my case he almost came too late.
If the word "hippie" had been in use during the late 1940's, I
suppose many of the returning war veterans would have fit the definition
pretty well. Graduate school seemed more fun than the rat-race "outside"
and some fell into it without any real sense of professional commitment.
My first year of field work, spent in nearby Sonora, was paid for by the
G.I. Bill at a time when a "student" could claim his $90 a month for al-
most anything as long as it had faculty approval. But my attitude toward
field work was closer to that of a beachcomber than a dedicated profes-
sional.  At the beginning of my first semester under Rowe's tutelage I
was still filling out civil service forms and investigating job opportu-
nities in government and business. By the end of that semester, however,
I had set my professional course and was under full sail.
When, a year later, a Ph.D. from Berkeley suddenly seemed out
of the question, Rowe's backing for a Smithsonian position made it pos-
sible for me to continue in the profession. And in 1953 in Chile, when
I was forced to make a lasting decision between academia and government
service, it was a letter from John Rowe that brought me back to Berkeley.
It would certainly have made no difference to the future of
anthropology whether Professor Rowe had saved me for it or not. But his
influence on my life has made an enormous difference to me. I have always
assumed Dr. Rowe's awareness of this fact and of my appreciation, but if
I have been mistaken in that assumption this will put the record-straight.
vi
To the editor:
I am happy to write a letter honoring Professor John Howland
Rowe. He has been a colleague and friend for nearly two decades.
John is the complete academic ideal; he combines the highest
qualities of an analytic and synthesizing mind, expert teaching ability
which evokes enthusiastic response from students, great breadth and depth
of knowledge, a democratic attitude, and utmost generosity with his
knowledge and time.
This combination of abilities made possible his extensive con-
tributions to Andean archaeology. Led by his own driving interests in
the field, he has trained and furthered the professional work of graduate
students in mapping, excavating, and publishing old and new sites in Peru.
Many of these students are now professors themselves who are carrying on
the "Rowe tradition" of meticulous research and scholarly production.
As a textile analyst I have particularly enjoyed John's appre-
ciation of Peruvian textiles as style and time indicators. And am ever
grateful for his frequent help in giving chronological allocations to
specimens on which I worked.
A fellow archaeologist once said, "There is only one John
Rowe", which really left nothing for the rest of us to add.
Sincerely yours,
Anna H. Gayton
vii