MS 3 Emil Haury Papers

Emil Walter Haury was born in Newton, Kansas, on May 2, 1904. When he was only twenty-one, Haury was introduced to archaeology by Byron Cummings on a National Geographic Expedition to Cuicuilco, Mexico. On his return, he studied tree-ring dating with A. E. Douglass at the University of Arizona and was employed by the Gila Pueblo Archaeological Foundation. Transferring to Harvard, Haury took courses from physical anthropologist Earnest Albert Hooton (1887-1954), Mayanist Alfred M. Tozzer (1877-1954), sociologist W. Lloyd Warner (1898-1970), and anthropologist Roland Burrage Dixon (1875-1934). Haury received his Ph.D. from Harvard in 1934 with a dissertation based on a reconsideration of the Hemenway expedition’s work at Los Muertos in central Arizona. This was published by the Peabody Museum under the title The Archaeology of the Salt River Valley, Arizona: A Study of the Interrelations of Two Ethnic Groups (1945).

Haury married Hulda Penner in 1928. They had two sons, Loren Richard and Allan Gene. Although Haury was busy in his long career as a professor at the University of Arizona and director of the Arizona State Museum, he remained actively involved in field archaeology throughout his career. He lead excavations at Forestdale Valley, Point of Pines, Ventana Cave, and Snaketown as well as other sites pivotal for the formulation of a cohesive view of regional prehistory. Several of these sites were focused on training students for field work. He published many articles and books of continued influence today including The Hohokam: Desert Farmers and Craftsmen (1976).

After his retirement in 1964 Haury increased his involvement in organizations with national impact such as the National Park Service Advisory Board, the National Academy of Sciences, and the National Council on the Humanities. As a recipient of the Viking Fund Medal, fellowships from the Guggenheim Foundation, and several prestigious archaeology awards, Haury was recognized during and after his life as one of the most influential scholars in his field.

Haury died in Tucson on December 5, 1992. The Emil W. Haury Graduate Fellowship Fund continues his work to support the training of new archaeologists and the expansion of new knowledge about Southwest cultures.

On examination of his papers, it is clear that EWH considered correspondence to be a valued means of communication and ultimately an important tool for documenting history. He began seriously saving letters starting in the 1930s, donated some over the years to various archival repositories, and devised organizational schemes to keep track of the letters he retained. Interestingly, however, he did not establish a central file to segregate correspondence from other types of documents, but instead mixed it with other papers. For this reason, the researcher must consult various parts of the Haury Papers in search of letters from family, friends, and colleagues.

The files that EWH designated “personal papers” contained folders arranged alphabetically by the name of the correspondent or by subject areas of particular interest, for example “canals” and “beans.” Because he created a hybrid system to contain both letters and subject files, he sometimes added a pencil annotation in the upper right corner of the document advising his secretary where he wanted her to file the item. The researcher is cautioned to look for letters from particular correspondents under subjects as well as alphabetically by their surnames or corporate names. Sometimes the alphabetic arrangement is idiosyncratic, but it is EWH’s own system. Individuals who do not have a file under their name can be found in the grouped miscellaneous files.

Of special note are the letters to colleagues. These communications, sometimes spanning as many as fifty years, chart career trajectories, shifting funding sources, professional differences of opinion, the growth of theory and methodology, and especially witness the years of mutual support and encouragement. Shortly after arrival at ASM, Haury’s personal papers were described in an inventory prepared by ASM staff. A copy of this exhaustive list of every correspondent is found in the first box of letters. It differs from the finding aid in including names that were eventually absorbed into the grouped miscellaneous files created to save space.

Quantity: 55 manuscript boxes.

For an organized list of correspondence, please see the collection guide on Arizona Archives Online.