000-000_30.2_SW MOSAICS FIN 12/18/06 12:13 PM Page 54

PREHISTORIC MOSAIC JEWELRY OF THE AMERICAN SOUTHWEST

Robert K. Liu

ver two decades ago, archaeologist Grahame Clark The thorny oyster and other marine shells were often used (1986) incisively examined why precious materials with turquoise; another precious material in antiquity, since Owere regarded as expressions of status. Since the at least the third millennium (Clark 1986: Fig. 2). This mineral Upper Paleolithic, ivory and shell have been accorded such was also traded from the Southwest to Mesoamerica, where it status; for instance, the Aegean mussel, Spondylus gaederopus, was also extensively used and valued (Pohl 2001, Weigand and was widely used some five thousand years ago for personal de Weigand 2001), and from where the technique of mosaic adornments in Neolithic Europe, the Balkans and in the Aegean, was believed to have been introduced into the Southwest, especially by those living along the Rhine and the Danube possibly when the Hohokam entered the Southwest from basins, providing evidence of both their value and long distance Mexico between A.D. 750-900. But the origins of the Hohokam, trade of some twenty-five hundred kilometers (Clark 1986, and the source of techniques like mosaic inlay or overlay, Ifantidis 2006). This mirrors to some extent the use of Spondylus remains problematic (Crown 1991: 143). Bayman (2002) feels shells and jewelry made from their shells in the prehistoric that Mesoamerican themes or symbols were often pervasive American Southwest, West Mexico, Mesoamerica, and many in Hohokam artifacts, especially in jewelry. However, Jernigan cultures along the Pacific coast, from Mexico to Peru (Liu (1978: 223) believes that “frog forms utilizing the basic shape 2005). Here, the longest distance traveled by rafting spondylus of the shell, shell and turquoise mosaic frogs and mosaic bird traders was about thirty-eight hundred kilometers, between forms,”among a long list of specific Hohokam jewelry types, Ecuador and West Mexico (Anawalt 1998). Even prehistoric have “no specific analog in any of the western or northern Hohokam of Arizona covered between two to six hundred Mexican cultures.”Even further south in Mexico and Central kilometers in their expeditions to gather marine shells from America, among those cultures which placed more complex the Pacific coast (Bayman 2002: 83, Doyel in Crown and Judge mosaics onto ritual objects and masks (Aztec, Mixtec and 1991: 241). Among these Southwestern peoples, shell and Mayan), there are also no similarities, although motifs such turquoise mosaic pendants were rare and regarded as important as frogs or toads were widespread in many precolumbian insignias of office (Bayman 2002: 84-85), although rarely made societies (Danien 2002: pl. 7, Marriner 2002, Miller and Martin with Spondylus shells . 2004: pl. 84, Wassén 1934, Wilbert 1974).

BIRD FORM MOSAIC PENDANT, P3004a, Arizona, Sinagua, possibly A.D. 1200-1300, one of the two finest crafted of such pendants, with turquoise mosaic overlay,unusual and rare round center and five square argilite tesserae, arranged in four directions around the center one, at the tail and three jet tesserae at the head, found in a cache with P3004b; 9.8 centimeters high. TWO SHELL MOSAIC FROG/T OAD PENDANTS, with argilite or spondylus center tesser ae, showing fine versus less w ell-made turquoise tes serae; P3722, 5.7 centimeter s long, with argilite central tessera and P3726, 4.7 centimeter s long, with perforated spondylus centr al tessera. Some of the tesserae have fallen off P3722, revealing bare shell or the blac k pitch adhesive, although the fore and hind legs are still a pparent, made evident by changing the axes of the tesser ae and leaving g aps for the pitch to fur ther demarcate the limbs. P3726 lacks indications of limbs . Pomona College, Claremont, California; gifts of Dr . E. H. Parker. Photographs in this ar ticle are b y Rober t K.Liu/Or nament; courtesy of the

54 ORNAMENT 30.2.2006 Pomona College Museum of Art, Claremont, California or The Arizona State Museum, Tucson. 000-000_30.2_SW MOSAICS FIN 12/18/06 12:13 PM Page 55

Mesoamerican turquoise or jade mosaic overlays are While shell mosaic overlays are well-known to Southwest almost always constructed on a very dimensional wood base archaeologists and were shown in a number of thirty year or substrate, whereas this material is rarely used in Southwest or older publications, only a few recent ones have portrayals mosaic overlays. (Although, at Montezuma Castle and of either frog or bird form mosaics (Dubin 1999, Fields Montezuma Well, neighboring Sinagua sites, there were several and Zamudo-Taylor 2001, Liu 2005). Given that the North mosaic overlays on wood.) In addition, in the case of turquoise American Southwest is one of the most well-studied areas overlays, Mesoamerican tesserae are usually not regular archaeologically, especially their craft economies (Bayman 1999), shapes like squares, rectangles or keystones, but are mostly this paucity is somewhat paradoxical. [There exists a similar irregularly-shaped pieces, well-fitted into the adhesive lack of notched Spondylus gaederopus ornament imagery from covering the wood base and sometimes employed recycled the European Neolithic, although there are no cultural turquoise, such as perforated tabs or beads, also practiced at inhibitions at work (Ifantidis 2006)]. The situation now is Casas Grandes, Chihuahua (Danien 2002: pl. 56; Easby and probably a measure of the passing of NAGPRA (The Native Scott 1970: nos. 294, 295, 296; de la Garza 1999: 62; Liu 2002: 67; American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act) in 1990, Masson in Grube 2000: figure 552). This difference may whereby certain Native American cultural items such as well reflect how shell, turquoise, and jade were worked during human remains, funerary and/or sacred objects and objects antiquity in areas with an abundance of these materials of cultural patrimony were either returned to their lineal versus where they were scarce. In the latter situation, every scrap descendants or culturally affiliated tribes, or were taken off of any shape was used, rather than the more wasteful geometric exhibition from museums. Because shell mosaic overlays were tesserae; especially so with a material like turquoise, which is often found in mortuary contexts, only those that have no such unevenly distributed in the matrix and thus hard to extract. provenance can be illustrated; others require permission from Mesoamericans used spondylus more generously in both the culturally affiliated tribes to be studied or shown. Under mosaics and overall, but this shell was usually employed such conditions, it is difficult to study these ornaments or sparingly in the Southwest (Fields and Zamudo-Taylor 2001: insignias of power; only some examples in museum collections 188). Where a resource was more abundant, the craftsperson meet these criteria. In this article, I relied on specimens in was probably less frugal, and vice versa. the Dr. E. H. Parker collection of the Pomona College Museum

SHELL MOSAIC FROG/TOAD PENDANTS, TRANSITIONS,VARIANTS AND SHELL FROG PENDANTS, Arizona, Hohokam and other cultures, A.D. 1200-1450, and earlier; this array of shell frog pendants, almost always perforated through the ventral umbo, includes shells totally covered with turquoise mosaic overlays (note turquoise disk beads used as eyes), partially covered (specimen shown is one of two known mosaic overlays on a argilite substrate, the other being Salado [Jacka and Hammack 1975: 18)], realistically carved toad with a circular patch of mosaic overlay,realistically carved toad with turquoise inlay along the spine and pupils, a number of realistically carved plain shell frog or toad pendants, with or without features like dorsal cross-hatching, defined eyes or spines, to several stylized ones, ending with one probably salvaged from a broken shell bracelet; 2.1 to 7.4 centimeters long. 55 ORNAMENT 30.2.2006 000-000_30.2_SW MOSAICS FIN 12/18/06 12:13 PM Page 56

more difficult to maintain regularity as the shell becomes smaller, and the shell curvature more acute, especially when one cannot compensate for this by using ever smaller tesserae. Contemporary mosaic jewelers adjust for this to some extent by undercutting and beveling the edges of the tesserae (Liu 1994, 2005), as did some ancient puebloans, as evidenced by the beveling of some Chaco argilite and turquoise tesserae in a closeup image (Moggón 2004: 31). In an experiment using sheet styrene to determine what was the smallest-sized tesserae that could be finger-held and worked by sanding against 60 grit TUZIGOOT, a ridge-top Sinagua village above the Verde Valley; by the sandpaper (to simulate rough sandstone), I stopped at 2.3 x late 1300s, it had over two hundred inhabitants (Liu 2006). Six shell 3.2 mm, although even 2.8 x 3.8 mm was difficult to sand. This frog mosaic pendants and one pecten pendant have been excavated from these ruins, an unusually large number for the population size. compares with tesserae length ranges of 1.7 to 8.8 mm that I observed for actual turquoise tesserae glued to the shell frog of Art, those at The Arizona State Museum and the Western pendants studied. In comparing two pendants, well-aligned Archeological and Conservation Center (WACC), as well and small tesserae versus poorer alignment and larger tiles, the as those illustrated in the literature (Barnett 1973, Caywood length ranges were 2.5-5.6 mm compared to 2.7-8.8 mm. The and Spicer 1935, Clemensen 1992, Dubin 1999, Fields and smallest tesserae were measured on a frog pendant, but tiles on Zamudo-Taylor 2001, Gilbert 1995, Jacka and Hammack 1975, a Sinagua bird form mosaic from the Verde Valley were not Jernigan 1978, Lowry and Lowry 2002, Pike 1974, Pogue 1975, much larger, at 1.9 mm long, as seen on the first page. Very Tanner 1976 ). At WACC, which holds shell mosaic pendants likely no type of dopp or tesserae holder was ever used in the from Casa Grande Ruins, Tuzigoot and Montezuma Well, prehistoric Southwest. No one has determined if the tesserae I was able to study and photograph the six Sinagua-made shell were abraded after adhesion, although doing so would level off mosaic specimens from Tuzigoot, but not publish their images. or smooth the mosaic surface. These had been figured previously by Jacka and Hammack Besides Glycymeris, I have only seen two bird-form mosaic (1975: 15, an unnumbered page). overlays on Spondylus shells (this article and Lowry and Lowry The vast majority of the forty-one shell and turquoise 2002: 14) and one frog mosaic overlay on a Dosinia shell, mosaic frog pendants (in two instances, turquoise on argilite although one supposedly Salado mosaic overlay, covering only substrate) found in my survey are Hohokam (probably mostly the portion of a Spondylus shell towards the umbo, has been Classic Period, circa A.D. 1200-1450), but of the neighboring published (Gilbert 1995: 47). This is anomalous, as it is a style and contemporaneous cultures, the Sinagua and Salado were and shell genus seen only on historic pendants, but not with next most prolific, with possibly only one definitely Mogollon. prehistoric specimens (Vokes pers comm. 12/2006; image on next Jernigan (1978: 84) believes most such mosaics found in page). As evident from the images shown here, almost all mosaic Mogollon contexts were made by the Hohokam. Of the sixteen overlay pendants have a central square, rectangular or very bird-form mosaics surveyed, considered by some to represent rarely, round red argilite tessera. Spondylus central tessera are raptors (Wilcox in Noble 1991), only six may be of Hohokam less frequently used; there may be one example with a jet origin, the balance Sinagua. [The 492-493 shell overlays central tile (P3724) and a few bird-form pendants used jet enumerated in Table 9.1 of Crown (1991: 398) in Gumerman tesserae in prominent areas of their mosaics. Jacka and (1991) are not shell overlay pendants but large turquoise Hammack (1975: 16, unnumbered page) show one Sinagua tesserae, not intended for jewelry (Vokes pers comm. 12/2006.] frog pendant without a red central tessera and a number of Frogs or toads utilizing the basic shape of the shell (usually bird-form pendants with a center shell inlay (often of spondylus) Glycymeris), whether realistic or stylized, are found within all also do have this central inlay. Intriguingly, there may be Southwest cultures, including the Anasazi or Ancestral Puebloans, a Chihuahaun frog species with a red spot on its back (Vokes but it may not be possible to differentiate their makers. (They pers comm. 12/2006). were also made in other materials, such as stone (Jacka and While the areas where the Hohokam and other peoples Hammack 1975: 38) and jet.) It is equally hard to determine who made frog carvings lived are thought of as arid, there are the identity of turquoise mosaic overlay frogs, although Sinagua a surprising number of toads and frogs in the Southwest ones generally show the best crafting, Salado the least. But (present day Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado and Utah: two this may be more a consequence of physical factors dependent genera of spadefoot toads, six species of true toads or Bufo, on the size of the shell, since most frog mosaics use Glycymeris including the Sonoran Desert toad, B. alvarius (whose parotid shells, except one overlaid on a Dosinia shell, which has gland secretions have hallucinogenic properties), four a flatter profile than the former genus. When one adheres flat species of chorus or tree frogs and four species of true frogs or geometric tesserae onto a curved shell, most likely with the Rana). According to the range maps in Stebbins (2003),

56 ORNAMENT 30.2.2006 pitch of piñon pines (Lanner 1981), it becomes increasingly about thirteen of these species could inhabit the land where 000-000_30.2_SW MOSAICS FIN 12/18/06 12:13 PM Page 57

RECONSTRUCTED TURQUOISE MOSAIC FROG on Dosinia shell, central spondylus shell tessera, Kinishba, Mogollon culture, 9.1 centimeters wide, Arizona State Museum. ZUNI HISTORIC/CONTEMPORARY MOSAIC SHELL OVERLAY PENDANT, turquoise and jet on polished spondylus shell, Far View Visitor Center, Mesa Verde National P ark, Colorado. THREE MOSAIC FROG PEND ANTS,[P3723, 3724 (5.17 centimeter s long), no accession number], showing variety of substrates (2 Glycymeris shell, one argilite), recognizable frog features and possibly jet central tessera (P3724, lower right-hand).

MOSAIC SHELL O VERLAY PENDANTS, finely-made and a pplied tesserae, versus cr uder example on sm all shell, P3724, 5.17 centimeter s long versus P3725, 3.31 centimeters long. COMPARISON OF OBVERSE AND REVERSE OF MOSAIC FROG PEND ANTS, P3727, 4.99 centimeter s high v ersus P3723, 5.02 centimeters high, on which the t urquoise tesserae have been applied over shell fr ogs with fully-delineated f eatures, although P3727 has deter iorated limbs—these clear ly demonstrate that plain shell fr og pendants w ere used as a substr ates for mosaic o verlay, not just uncarved shells. VENTRAL SIDE OF MOSAIC FROG PENDANT applied to hollowed argilite substrate; note notches, most likely deliberate.

VENTRAL SIDE OF FROG PENDANTS, two with head, legs and perforated, one too small for such details, P3680, 7.36 - P3720, 0.76 centimeters high. PERFORATED UMBO of shell pendant, showing thickness of turquoise tesserae in relation to shell. JET INLAID FROG, 8.0 centimeters long, from Pueblo Bonito, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico; note missing inlays, possibly not perforated.

DETAIL OF SHELL MOSAIC FROG PENDANT, ASM 97-194-15-xx, showing regular tessera, the difference in preservation of the turquoise color and black piñon pitch w here tesserae have fallen off, giving the impr ession of e yes on the fr ont. DETAIL OF BIRD FORM PEND ANT, P3004a, showing round, central argilite tessera, placement of tur quoise tesserae around it and transition from circular to more linear or ientation of the wings . BIRD FORM MOSAIC PEND ANT, P3004b, on a spondylus substrate, this is another beautiful Sinagua piece fr om the Verde Valley, Arizona, with

spondylus central tessera, four jet tesserae around it, possibly others, 8.3 centimeters high. 57 ORNAMENT 30.2.2006 000-000_30.2_SW MOSAICS FIN 12/18/06 12:13 PM Page 58

the Hohokam, Sinagua, Salado, and Mogollon used to live, providing a wide range of prototypes for these observant peoples to emulate in their carvings. It is clear, especially from studying the Parker collection, that shell mosaic frog pendants show a gradient from abstractions, of an overlaid shell with a central red tesserae (argilite or spondylus), to those where limbs or eyes are also demarcated (sometimes almost comically, when rear legs are denoted by two turquoise tesserae placed at right angles to each other, giving the representation of a cartoon character (Jacka and Hammack 1975: 4, map; Pike 1974: 73), to those with a patch of mosaic on the back of a completely formed COMPARISON OF SIZES, showing the largest, P3680, 7.36 centimeters high, and smallest shell pendants, P3720, 0.76 centimeters high, shell frog carving (Two are in the Parker collection, possibly the only one of nineteen, of which the largest and middle example most ones known.) One specimen has only turquoise inlay along the spine likely portray toads. Southwest examples do not demonstrate the and in the pupils. The unadorned frog shell pendants seen in this extreme stylization of South American frog pendants, like those of the Tairona (Liu 1995: 152). survey show a range of realism and abstraction(see also Jacka and Hammack 1975: 38-39; Vokes 2001b: Fig. 4.7), some of which do not differ markedly from those with mosaic applied. If shell mosaic frog pendants are both rare and regarded as insignias of power, perhaps it is because the craftspeople overlay one or more elite or luxury materials (argilite or spondylus and turquoise) onto another such valued material, marine shells. But with this continuum of features in frog effigies or insignia, what are the minimum properties required for such pendants to qualify as symbols of power? Is it a marine shell with blue-green turquoise and its central red tessera, which should be visually and symbologically understandable to all, or do all frog images or effigies have a power connotation? Since frog and raptor imagery are associated with INTACT FROG BRA CELET, P5450, 9.1 centimeters wide and FROG PENDANT, P3712, 5.6 centimeters wide, show stylized frogs. people of authority in the Southwest (Wilcox in Noble 1991, Vokes pers comm. 7/2006), does any manifestation of frogness signify importance, or sometimes only clanship? The smallest may have been strung as adornment (Vokes 2001: 377), but some lack perforations. Association of frogs or toads with water, fertility and transformation are inescapable in an arid environment, especially if one observes toads emerging after rainfall from hibernation or estivation and the rapid transition of eggs to tadpoles and then to toads or frogs again, well-described by Wilbert (1974: 95). Vokes BROKEN SHELL BRACELETS, P3942, 3943, 3949, showing obverse and (2001b: 414) notes a possible relationship of childbirth or fertility reverse of car ved frogs; note two different orientations, 1.31-2.27 to such animals, on the finding of frog/toad pendants with burials centimeters high at umbo. of women and newborns. One could infer that the thin, stylized and the squat, realistic forms of frog effigies/pendants show how an emaciated toad looks upon emergence, the plump version after it rehydrates and feeds. In addition to these symbolic aspects of amphibians, certain toads have hallucinogenic secretions from their parotid glands (the forementioned Sonoran Desert toad and Bufo marinus from Mesoamerica). Grube (in Grube 2000: 295) describes Mayan use of this and plant-derived psychoactive ingredients and even states that Johannes Wilbert suggests spondylus, used by Mayans in many contexts, was also hallucinogenic. However, Wilbert denies this effect has been confirmed for the thorny oyster (email 1/27/2005). MINIATURE SHELL FROGS , P3720, showing nine of nineteen in There may be only seven turquoise mosaic overlay batch, made from several shell species and several styles; note pendants excavated from the Classic period of the Hohokam (Bayman resemblance to some car ved on umbo of br acelets, and possibly salv aged fr om br oken br acelets, 0.71-1.81 2002: 85) but the Sinagua site of Tuzigoot alone yielded six such

58 ORNAMENT 30.2.2006 centimeters high. pendants, from a population of only some two hundred residents 000-000_30.2_SW MOSAICS FIN 12/18/06 12:13 PM Page 59

or a ratio of one per thirty-three persons. This strongly suggests there are most likely more extant examples. Jernigan (1978: xii) did not study the considerable numbers of prehistoric Southwest jewelry in private collections. In 1994 I photographed a Hohokam frog mosaic pendant in a Phoenix gallery and Vokes has also seen at least one privately owned (pers comm. 12/2006). If the forty some frog mosaic pendants from this survey are divided by the probably low population guesstimate of twenty- four thousand for the middle Classic period in the Phoenix basin (Wilcox in Crown and Judge 1991: 263), this would imply 1:600, which would support Bayman’s contention of rarity and the high cost of materials like turquoise (email 10/25/2006). Voke’s observation (2001b: 414) that one of the SHELL MOSAIC FROG PENDANT, on Glycyrmis, Hohokam, from near Gila Bend, Arizona, with loose tesserae and pitch chips in plastic bag; wealthiest burials along Tonto Creek was of a woman specialist another well-made mosaic overlay, with rear limbs marked by spacing in the making of stone jewelry, while among the poorest and turning axis of tesserae ninety degrees. It is 7.3 centimeters long, was that of a male shell jewelry craftsperson, may offer further Norton Allen collection, Arizona State Museum 97-194-15-xx. evidence that stones like turquoise were costly. Systems in the American Southwest. Santa Fe, School of American In this all too short survey of prehistoric Southwest shell Research Press: 369 p. mosaic pendants, I have had to ignore many interesting and Danien, E. 2002 Guide to the Mesoamerican Gallery at the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archeology and Anthropology. Philadelphia, University germane aspects, such as the trade and processing of shells and of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology: 94 p. Dubin, L. S. 1999 North American Indian Jewelry and Adornment. New York, turquoise throughout this region, as well as with Mesoamerica, Harry N. Abrams Inc., Publishers: 608 p. Easby, E. K. and J. F. Scott 1970 Before Cortés. Sculpture of Middle America. (discussed briefly in a previous survey on spondylus, Liu 2005). New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art: 322 p. Given the continuum of features on mosaic overlay frog Fields, V. M. and V.Zamudo-Taylor (eds.) 2001 The Road to Aztlan. Art from a Mythic Homeland. Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Museum of Art: 424 p. pendants and those without turquoise decoration, we may have Grube, N. (ed) 2000 Maya. Divine kings of the rain forest. Cologne, Könemann: 480 p. Gumerman, G.J. (ed) 1991 Exploring the Hohokam. Prehistoric Desert Peoples of to reconsider the meaning of the frog as status and symbology the American Southwest. Dragoon, An Amerind Foundation Publication and Albuquerque, University of New Mexico Press: 500 p. in the Southwest. This study showed they are more numerous Ifantidis, F. 2006 ‘Enigmatic’ notched Spondylus ornaments from the Neolithic: than previously thought, and a more thorough survey will most new evidence from the Aegean. The Archeo+Malacogy Group Newsletter (9), March 2006: 3-5. likely find even more. From the standpoint of jewelry, such Jacka, J. D. and N.S. Hammack 1975 Indian jewelry of the prehistoric Southwest. Tucson, University of Arizona Press: unpaginated. mosaic pendants are quintessentially Southwest and rank Jernigan, E. W. 1978 Jewelry of the Prehistoric Southwest. Santa Fe, School of American Research and University of New Mexico Press: 260 p. among the most beautiful of prehistoric personal adornments, Lanner, R.M. 1981 The Piñon pine-a natural and cultural history. Reno, and are a continuing source of inspiration to Native Americans University of Nevada Press: 208 p. Liu, R .K. 1994 From the Heart. Valerie and Benny Aldrich. Ornament 18(2): 46-49. and to those who appreciate fine crafting anywhere. —1995 Collectible Beads. A Universal Aesthetic. Vista, Ornament Inc.: 256 p. —2002 Aztlan at LACMA. Ornament 25(3): 66-67. —2005 Spondylus in precolumbian, historic and contemporary jewelry. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Ornament 28 (3): 60-66. For permission to study, photograph and publish objects from their collections, —2006 Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot. Ornament 30(1): 70, 73. I thank Steve Comba, Pomona College Museum of Art, and Arthur Vokes, The Arizona Lowry, J. D. and J. P.Lowry 2002 Turquoise unearthed. Tucson, Rio Nuevo State Museum, both of whom were generous in help and time. For permission to Publishers: 74 p. study and photograph, but not publish, their Tuzigoot shell mosaic pendants, Marriner, H.A. 2002 Colombian rock art motifs: some ideas for interpretation. I thank Gloria Fenner, Kim Beckwith and Ann Iversen of the Western Archeological En Ruprestre/web, http://rupestreweb.tripod.com/motif.html. Website only, and Conservation Center Museums Collections Repository; Diane Pardue, The Heard viewed 10/15/06. Museum, for referring me to Arthur Vokes and his expertise in Southwest shell Miller, M. and S. Martin 2004 Courtly Art of the Ancient Maya. Fine Arts Museums jewelry. For very helpful discussions and literature, I thank especially Arthur Vokes of San Francisco and Thames and Hudson: 304 p. and James Bayman. For help with accessing relevant literature or interpreting Mogollón, A. (ed) 2004 Clay, copper & turquoise. The museum collection of Chaco cartographic issues, I thank Jonathan A. Liu, Vickie and Dick Haas and Alexander Culture National Historical Park. Tucson, Western National Parks Association: 48 p. White III. Steve Grafe, National Cowboy & Western Heritage Museum, made me aware Noble, D. G. (ed) 1991 The Hohokam. Ancient People of the Desert. Santa Fe, of a possible Salado shell mosaic pendant. Due to a lack of space, most accession School of American Research: 77 p. numbers are omitted, but see Cover description; numbers preceded by P are from Pogue, J. E. 1975 Turquoise. Memoirs of the National Academy of Sciences XII, Pt. II. Pomona College, ASM from The Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson. Glorieta, The Rio Grande Press, Inc.: 207 p. Pohl, J. M. D. 2001 Chichimecatlalli: Strategies for cultural and commercial exchange between Mexico and the American Southwest, 1100-1521. In: Fields and Zamudo- REFERENCES/BIBLIOGRAPHY Taylor (eds) The Road to Aztlan. Los Angeles County Museum of Art: 86-101. Anawalt, P.R 1998 They came to trade exquisite things. Ancient West Mexican- Stebbins, R. C. 2003 A field guide to Western reptiles and amphibians. Third edition, Ecuadorian contacts: 232-249. In: Ancient West Mexico. Art and Archeology The Peterson Field Guide Series. New York, Houghton Mifflin Company: 533 p. of the Unknown Past. R. F. Townsend (gen. ed.). Chicago, The Art institute Tanner, C. L. 1976 Prehistoric Southwestern Craft Arts. Tucson, University of Chicago: 308 p. of Arizona Press: 226 p. Bayman, J. M. 1996 Shell ornament consumption in a classic Hohokam platform Vokes, A. W. 2001a Shell artifacts. Chapter 6. In: Gregory, D.A. (ed). Excavations in mound community center. Journal of Field Archeology 23: 403-420. the Santa Cruz River Floodplain: The early agricultural period component at —1999 Craft economies in the North American Southwest. Journal of Archaeological Los Pozos. Anthropological Papers (21), Center for Desert Archeology: 135-152. Research 7(3): 249-299. — 2001b The shell ornament assemblage. Chapter 4. In: Clark, J. J. and P.D. Minturn —2002 Hohokam craft economies and the materialization of power. (eds). Tonto Creek Archeological Project. Life and death along Tonto Creek. Journal of Archeological Method and Theory 9 (1): 69-95. Anthropological Papers (24), Center for Desert Archeology: 353-457. Caywood, L.R. and E.H. Spicer 1935 Tuzigoot. Western Archeological and Wassén, H. 1934 The frog-motive among the South American Indians. Conservation Center Library: 119 p. Ornamental Studies. Anthropos 29: 319-370. Clark, G. 1986 Symbols of excellence. Precious materials as expressions of status. Weigand, P. C. and A. G. de Weigand 2001 A macroeconomic study of the relationships Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 126 p. between the ancient cultures of the American Southwest and Mesoamerica. Clark, J. J. and J. M. Vint 2004 200 years of settlement in the Tonto Basin: In: Fields and Zamudo-Taylor (eds) The Road to Atzlan. Los Angeles County Overview and synthesis of the Tonto Creek Archeological project. Museum of Art: 184195. Anthropological Papers (25), Center for Desert Archeology: 342 p. Wilbert, J. 1974 The thread of life. Symbolism of miniature art from Ecuador.

Crown, P.L. and W.J. Judge (eds) 1991 Chaco & Hohokam. Prehistoric Regional Studies in Pre-Columbian Art & Archeology (12): 112 p. 59 ORNAMENT 30.2.2006