Comparative Analysis of Ceramics from Three Great Houses and One Small House Site in Southeast Utah

Brigham Young University BYU ScholarsArchive

Theses and Dissertations

2014-12-01

Rachel Marie Harris Brigham Young University - Provo

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd

Part of the Anthropology Commons

BYU ScholarsArchive Citation Harris, Rachel Marie, "Comparative Analysis of Ceramics from Three Great Houses and One Small House Site in Southeast Utah" (2014). Theses and Dissertations. 4335. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/4335

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected].

Comparative Analysis of Ceramics from Three Great Houses and

One Small House Site in Southeast Utah

Rachel M. Harris

A thesis submitted to the faculty of Brigham Young University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts

James R. Allison, Chair John E. Clark Michael T. Searcy

Department of Anthropology

Brigham Young University

December 2014

ABSTRACT

Comparative Analysis of Ceramics from Three Great Houses and One Small House Site in Southeast Utah

Rachel M. Harris Department of Anthropology, BYU Master of Arts

Ceramics from three Utah great houses, Bluff, Cottonwood Falls, and Edge of the Cedars, were analyzed and compared with ceramics from Three Kiva Pueblo, which is not a great house site but was occupied contemporarily. Data on jar and bowl rim diameters were considered to understand great house feasting dynamics. Cooking jars with large rim diameters were more common at Three Kiva than they were at the great houses. This suggests that Three Kiva residents prepared large batches of food more frequently than great house residents. Distributions of Mancos Black-on-white bowl diameters were very similar at great houses and Three Kiva, but Three Kiva had bowls with larger diameters than those found at the great houses. Jar sizes suggest it is possible that feasting at great houses took place with a potluck model; however, bowl sizes suggest that Three Kiva also hosted feasts. Data on ceramic origins were considered to look for direction and strength of relationships with outside regions. All of the great houses had higher proportions of imported ceramics than Three Kiva, suggesting that great house residents interacted with people from other regions more frequently. All sites had large proportions of imported ceramics from the Kayenta region. All great house sites had Chuskan and Cibolan sherds, suggesting interaction with Chaco Canyon. Proportions of imported ceramics and the regions from which they came varied for each site, indicating that site residents maintained independent connections to people living in other regions.

Keywords: Ceramics, Rim Arc, Utah, Chaco Canyon, Great House

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I feel extremely grateful for the help and assistance I have received throughout this thesis process. Many people have sacrificed time and effort to make my thesis a reality. Thank you

Peter for constantly supporting me and my goals and for not allowing me to give up when things were hard. Thank you Natasha for your friendship and support and for countless hours of babysitting. I could not have written this without you. Thanks also to Mom, Sara, and Rebecca for sacrificing your time to babysit so I could work. Thanks to Anna and Dad for sending Mom out here to help me. Thanks to Elyse for babysitting and editing assistance. Thanks to Caitlin for babysitting for me so often even though you were underpaid. Thanks to Lydia for being a good sport about all the babysitters most of the time.

I appreciate Paul Stavast and the Museum of Peoples and Cultures for allowing me use of collections and research space. I’m also grateful to Deborah Westfall and the Edge of the Cedars

State Park Museum for the use of collections and for help accessing archival documents. Thanks to the Charles Redd Center for Western Studies for providing funding for this thesis.

Thanks to Dr. Allison for guidance and assistance throughout this thesis process. Thanks to Dr. Clark and Dr. Searcy for helpful feedback and comments that have (I hope) greatly improved this thesis.

This thesis is dedicated to Aria Lynn Rutkowski, whose life was much too short. I finished this for you.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract………………………………………………………………….…………………………………..ii Acknowledgements…………….…………………………………………………………………………..iii List of Figures…………………..………………………………………………………………………….vi List of Tables…………………………………………………………...………………………………….viii

1 INTRODUCTION...... 1 Research Directions ...... 2 Methods ...... 8 Overview ...... 12 2 CONTEXT ...... 13 Chaco Canyon...... 13 Theories of the Nature of the Chaco System ...... 19 Other Great Houses ...... 23 Discussion ...... 31 3 BLUFF GREAT HOUSE ...... 33 Site History ...... 33 Data ...... 36 Vessel Size ...... 38 Ceramic Origins ...... 47 4 EDGE OF THE CEDARS ...... 50 Site History ...... 50 Ceramic Analysis ...... 52 Data ...... 53 Vessel Size ...... 54 Ceramic Origins ...... 58 5 COTTONWOOD FALLS ...... 60 Site History ...... 60 Ceramic Analysis ...... 61 Data ...... 62

Vessel Size ...... 63 Ceramic Origins ...... 68 6 THREE KIVA PUEBLO ...... 70 Site History ...... 70 Ceramic Analysis ...... 72 Data ...... 72 Vessel Size ...... 74 Ceramic Origins ...... 79 7 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS ...... 80 Gray Ware Jar Diameters ...... 81 White Ware Bowl Diameters ...... 93 Imported Vessels ...... 100 8 CONCLUSION ...... 105 Vessel Sizes and Feasting ...... 105 Interactions with Outside Regions ...... 106 Conclusion ...... 107 APPENDIX A: DATA FROM EDGE OF THE CEDARS ...... 109 APPENDIX B: DATA FROM COTTONWOOD FALLS ...... 118 APPENDIX C: DATA FROM THREE KIVA ...... 126 REFERENCES ...... 148

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Map of the Four Corners region showing relative locations of sites discussed in text...... 24 Figure 3.1 Image of the Bluff great house site...... 34 Figure 3.2 Bar charts showing diameters of Mancos Gray jars by count and by degrees...... 38 Figure 3.3 Bar charts showing diameters of Mancos Corrugated jars by count and by degrees. . 39 Figure 3.4 Bar charts showing diameters of Dolores Corrugated jars by count and by degrees. . 40 Figure 3.5 Bar charts showing diameters of both Mancos Corrugated and Dolores Corrugated vessels by count and by degrees...... 40 Figure 3.6 Bar charts showing diameters of Mesa Verde Corrugated jars by count and by degrees...... 41 Figure 3.7 Bar charts showing diameters of Mancos Black-on-white bowls by count and by degrees...... 42 Figure 3.8 Bar charts showing diameters of McElmo Black-on-white vessels by count and by degrees...... 42 Figure 3.9 Bar charts showing diameters of Mesa Verde Black-on-white vessels by count and by degrees...... 43 Figure 3.10 Bar charts showing diameters of all Pueblo III white ware vessels by count and by degrees...... 44 Figure 3.11 Deadmans Black-on-red diameters by degrees...... 45 Figure 3.12 Tusayan Black-on-red diameters by degrees...... 45 Figure 3.13 Distributions of diameters of Mancos Black-on-white, Deadmans Black-on-red, and Tusayan Black-on-red...... 46 Figure 4.1 Great house at Edge of the Cedars...... 50 Figure 4.2 Graphs showing diameters of Mancos Gray sherds by count and by degrees...... 55 Figure 4.3 Charts showing diameters of Mancos Corrugated sherds by count and by degrees. .. 56 Figure 4.4 Charts showing diameters of Dolores Corrugated sherds by count and by degrees. .. 56 Figure 4.5 Charts of Mancos Corrugated and Dolores Corrugated sherds by count and by degrees...... 57 Figure 4.6 Charts showing diameters of Mancos Black-on-white sherds by count and by degrees...... 58 Figure 5.1 Cottonwood Falls great house site...... 60 Figure 5.2 Bar charts showing diameters of Chapin Gray sherds by count and by degrees...... 64 Figure 5.3 Bar charts showing diameters of Mancos Corrugated sherds by count and by degrees...... 65 Figure 5.4 Bar charts showing diameters of Mancos Corrugated and Dolores Corrugated sherds by count and by degrees...... 66 Figure 5.5 Charts showing diameters of Pueblo II white ware bowl sherds by count and by degrees...... 67

Figure 5.6 Bar charts showing diameters of Pueblo III white ware bowl sherds by count and by degrees...... 67 Figure 6.1 Three Kiva Pueblo during excavations in 1970. Image courtesy of Museum of Peoples and Cultures, 2010MS.002.03.02.044...... 70 Figure 6.2 Mancos Gray diameters by count and by degrees...... 74 Figure 6.3 Mancos Corrugated diameters by count and by degrees...... 75 Figure 6.4 Dolores Corrugated diameters by count and by degrees...... 76 Figure 6.5 Mancos Black-on-white diameters by count and by degrees...... 77 Figure 6.6 McElmo Black-on-white diameters by count and by degrees...... 77 Figure 6.7 Mesa Verde Black-on-white diameters by count and by degrees...... 78 Figure 6.8 All Pueblo III white wares by degrees...... 79 Figure 7.1 Boxplot of Mancos Gray jar diameters for all four sites...... 82 Figure 7.2 Graphs of Mancos Gray jar diameters by degrees...... 83 Figure 7.3 Graphs showing Mancos Gray jar diameters from all great houses combined and from Three Kiva by count...... 84 Figure 7.4 Boxplots of Mancos Corrugated jar diameters...... 85 Figure 7.5 Graphs of Mancos Corrugated jar diameters by degrees...... 86 Figure 7.6 Graphs of Mancos Corrugated Diameters by count at Three Kiva and at all great houses combined...... 87 Figure 7.7 Graphs of Dolores Corrugated jar diameters by count...... 88 Figure 7.8 Graphs of Dolores Corrugated jar diameters by degrees...... 89 Figure 7.9 Graphs of Dolores Corrugated jar diameters by count...... 89 Figure 7.10 Boxplots for Mancos Corrugated and Dolores Corrugated diameters combined...... 90 Figure 7.7.11 Graphs of Mancos Corrugated and Dolores Corrugated jar diameters by degrees. 91 Figure 7.12 Graphs of Mancos Corrugated and Dolores Corrugated jar diameters at Three Kiva and at all great houses combined...... 92 Figure 7.13 Boxplot showing Mancos Black-on-white bowl diameters by count...... 94 Figure 7.14 Bar charts of Mancos Black-on-white diameters by count...... 95 Figure 7.15 Graphs showing Mancos Black-on-white diameters from all great houses combined and from Three Kiva by count...... 96 Figure 7.16 Boxplot of all Pueblo III white ware bowl diameters by count...... 98 Figure 7.17 Pueblo III white ware diameters by degrees...... 99 Figure 7.18 Graphs of Pueblo III white wares for Three Kiva and all great houses combined. ... 99

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 Gray Ware Sherds from 42SA22674 (after Blinman 2009) ...... 36 Table 3.2 White Ware Bowl Sherds from 42SA22674 (after Blinman 2009) ...... 37 Table 3.3 White Ware Jar Sherds from 42SA22674 (after Blinman 2009) ...... 37 Table 3.4 Imported Sherds from 42SA22674 (after Blinman 2009) ...... 49 Table 4.1 Gray Ware Sherds from 42SA700 ...... 53 Table 4.2 White Ware Bowl Sherds from 42SA700...... 54 Table 4.3 White Ware Jars from 42SA700 ...... 54 Table 5.1 Gray Ware Sherds from 42SA5222 ...... 62 Table 5.2 White Ware Bowl Sherds from 42SA5222...... 63 Table 5.3 White Ware Jar Sherds from 42SA5222...... 63 Table 5.4 Imported Sherds at 42SA5222 ...... 69 Table 6.1 Gray Ware Ceramics from 42SA863 ...... 73 Table 6.2 White Ware Bowls from 42SA863 ...... 73 Table 6.3 White Ware Jars from 42SA863 ...... 73

viii

1 Introduction

Chaco Canyon in New Mexico is the center of an archaeological enigma. It is the home

of large structures known as great houses, comprising hundreds of rooms in several stories and

much larger than anything previously built by the Ancestral Pueblo people. In the regions

surrounding Chaco Canyon, hundreds of smaller great houses were constructed contemporaneously in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah. There has been a tremendous amount of research and debate regarding the purpose of great houses, why they were built, and how they were connected to each other. Research on great houses in the northern San Juan has focused on sites in Colorado (Cameron 2009b). However, it should not be assumed that Utah great houses were the same as sites to the east. Glowacki (2006) showed that during the period after the decline of Chaco Canyon people in Utah exchanged ceramics differently than people living in the eastern part of the northern San Juan. Utah sites need to be considered and understood in their own right, rather than being assumed to share characteristics of sites to the east. This thesis examines ceramic data from three Utah great house sites: Bluff, Cottonwood

Falls, and Edge of the Cedars, and one “small house” residential site without a great house:

Three Kiva. Data are compared to determine similarities and differences among great houses and between great houses and Three Kiva. Ceramic assemblages from the great houses are more similar to each other than they are to the assemblage from Three Kiva in both rim diameter

distributions and origins of imported ceramics. This suggests that great houses are distinct from

small house sites in more aspects than architecture alone.

RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

Feasting

First, I examine ceramic vessel diameters to assess evidence for feasting. Many scholars

consider great houses to have been used as elite residences with ceremonial functions because

there is lots of evidence that great houses were ritually important but the evidence of domestic

activities does not indicate a large resident population (Bernardini 1999; Cameron 2009e:297;

Durand 2003; Kintigh 2003; Lekson 1999, 2008; Reed 2008; Wills 2000; Windes 1987a).

Feasting in combination with ritual activities likely took place at great houses (Cameron 2009a;

Toll 1985; Varien 2000; Windes 1987c). Ethnographic studies of various Puebloan groups demonstrate that feasting is nearly always an important component of ritual activity (Bunzel

1932; Goldfrank 1923; Mills 2007; Rodriguez 1991; Stevenson 1904; White 1932). Feasting is also known to have taken place among Ancestral Puebloan groups in many different time periods, including during the Chacoan era (Blinman 1989; Mills 2007; Potter and Ortman 2004;

Potter 2000, 2010; Wills and Crown 2004).

What is a feast, and how would one be identified archaeologically? Definitions of feasting vary, ranging from “any sharing of special food (in quality, preparation, or quantity) by two or more people for a special…event” (Hayden and Villaneuve 2011:434) to “a form of public ritual activity centered around the communal consumption of food and drink” (Dietler and

Hayden 2001:67). While the first definition is more inclusive, the second is more in line with previous archaeological research in the Southwest and is the definition that will be used in this thesis. “Feasting is strongly associated with ritual activity” (Twiss 2012:364), though not all rituals involving food are feasts (Joyce 2010:222). Feasts can be described as either competitive or cooperative (Hayden and Villeneuve 2011; Mills 1999; Potter 2000, 2010; Twiss 2012:364).

Competitive feasts enhance the prestige of hosts, and cooperative feasts promote community solidarity. However, a single feast may have both competitive and cooperative elements— everyone eats together, and everyone remembers who is in charge (Joyce 2010; Twiss 2012).

Discussion of feasting in the Southwest has mainly focused on the cooperative side of the scale

(Potter 2000, 2010; Wills and Crown 2004). However, Potter (2000) noted that the Chaco era seems the most likely time for competitive feasting to have occurred in Puebloan history.

Large bowls and cooking pots, in combination with animals typically hunted communally, are the most commonly cited archaeological indications of feasting in the

Southwest (Hayden and Villeneuve 2011:441; Klarich 2010:3-4; Mills 1999, 2007; Potter 2000,

2010; Varien 2000; Wills and Crown 2004). Other archaeological indications of feasting include large roasting pits (Plog and Watson 2012; Wills 2009; Wills and Crown 2004; Windes 1987c) and large quantities of food processing implements such as grinding stones (Cameron 2009e;

Wills 2009; Wills and Crown 2004). It can be difficult to identify feasts archaeologically in the

Southwest, where there is not a great difference between food served at daily meals and food served at feasts (Mills 2007; Potter 2000, 2010:245; Potter and Ortman 2004:174). More than one line of evidence should be considered to provide real evidence for feasting and to allow interpretation of the significance of feasting.

Competitive feasts and cooperative feasts leave different remains. Plog and Watson

(2012: Table 1) identified six archaeological traits unique to competitive feasts: “high frequency of meat-bearing skeletal elements, unusually large quantities of animal remains, evidence of wastage, spatial association of material remains with public/communal space, special middens or unusually dense bone dumps, and [special] food preparation facilities.” Cooperative feasts may have large quantities of communally hunted animals and special ritual items that are also

common at competitive feasts, but would not be expected to have the other characteristics of

competitive feasts (Plog and Watson 2012:Table 1). Plog and Watson (2012:Table 1) identified

large cooking and serving vessels as a trait specific to competitive feasts, but others (Blinman

1989; Mills 2007; Potter 2000) have included large cooking and serving vessels among traits of

cooperative feasts as well.

A potluck model of feasting has been proposed for the Bluff great house, with food

consumption taking place at the great house and preparation taking place elsewhere (Cameron

2009e). Blinman (1989) identified potluck-style feasting at a Pueblo I village by higher ratios of

serving bowl sherds to cooking jar sherds in areas where feasts took place and higher proportions

of large cooking jar sherds in areas where the food was prepared. These feasts were cooperative,

with all residents in the village presumed to have participated, but also supported a ritual

hierarchy (Blinman 1989; Potter 2000). If a potluck model of feasting was also used at great

houses in southeast Utah, we would expect to see larger cooking jars at small sites surrounding

great houses. We would also expect higher bowl-to-jar ratios at the great houses, and higher

frequencies of large serving bowls at great houses. We might expect some large serving bowls to be found at small sites where food was prepared, but they would be more likely to be broken and discarded during use at the feast site (Blinman 1989). Bones of animals consumed during feasts might be more likely discarded at the great house, but food processing implements such as metates should be more prevalent at smaller sites.

This thesis focuses on vessel rim diameter data to evaluate evidence for feasting, but includes data on faunal remains and ground stone where available. Rim diameter has been shown to correlate strongly with vessel height and vessel volume for Mesa Verde ceramics; increases in rim diameter indicate increases in vessel volume (Mills 1989, 1999). Increases in

4 vessel volume can be assumed to indicate increases in the quantity of food prepared and/or served (Adams 2004; Blitz 1993; Brown 2001; Clarke 2001; Deal 1998; Hayden 2001; Longacre

1985; Pauketat and Emerson 1991:923). Unfortunately, it was not possible to calculate bowl to jar ratios at Three Kiva, the small house site, because vessel forms were not reported in the original analysis. That line of evidence remains as yet untested.

Regional Interaction A second purpose of this research is to examine the connections residents of Utah great houses maintained with people in outlying regions. It is well-documented that although many ceramics were imported into Chaco Canyon, ceramics from Chaco Canyon were not commonly exported to other regions (Durand 2003; Judge and Cordell 2006; Kantner and Kintigh 2006,

Kantner et al. 2000; Mathien 1993; Powers et al. 1983; Toll 1991, 2001, 2006). Exotic items commonly imported to Chaco Canyon, including turquoise, shell, and copper, are also present in small quantities at great house sites outside Chaco Canyon (Durand and Durand 2000; Gilpin

2003; Hurst 2000; Kantner and Kintigh 2006; Lekson 1999). Although it is possible that items not archaeologically preserved such as macaw feathers were exchanged in a “political-prestige economy” (Lekson 1999:50), a market exchange economy does not appear to have been part of the Chacoan system (Durand 2003; Judge and Cordell 2006; Kantner and Kintigh 2006; Kantner et al. 2000; Lekson 1999; Mathien 1993; Powers et al. 1983; Toll 1991, 2001, 2006).

The presence of Cibolan and Chuskan ceramics in Utah artifact assemblages provides evidence of interaction with the Chacoan system. Cibolan ceramics were produced in and around Chaco Canyon, and Chuskan ceramics are the most common imported type found within

Chaco Canyon (Judge and Cordell 2006; Toll 2001, 2006). As previously mentioned, large-scale ceramic exchange is not an expected trait of Chacoan sites outside of Chaco Canyon (Durand

2003; Judge and Cordell 2006; Kantner and Kintigh 2006, Kantner et al. 2000; Mathien 1993;

Powers et al. 1983; Toll 1991, 2001, 2006). However, some ceramic exchange is known to have

occurred. The presence of Cibolan and Chuskan ceramic types is evidence of contact with

people who were part of the Chacoan system (Blinman 2009; Gilpin 2003; Gilpin and Purcell

2000; Kantner et al. 2000; Windes et al. 2000).

Imported ceramics can also indicate that great houses were homes of the elite. Blinman

(1989) demonstrated that people at ritually important roomblocks had more access to imported ceramics than people at roomblocks without ritual features in a Pueblo I village in Colorado.

Finding higher proportions of imported ceramics at the great houses than at Three Kiva could provide another line of evidence in addition to architecture that great houses were homes of the elite. However, Gilpin and Purcell (2000:30) discovered that some of the sites surrounding the

Peach Springs great house in New Mexico had higher proportions of imported ceramics than the

great house, leading them to conclude that “different parts of the community had different

trading partners and…trade was not controlled by the occupants of the great house.” Imported

ceramics may not have been acting as indications of status during Pueblo II times. There is a

great deal of stylistic similarity among white wares produced throughout the Chacoan world, and

though ceramics certainly may have given signals unknown to us today, the unity in decoration

suggests that differentiation was not their purpose (Toll 2001). Even if imported ceramics were

not overt status symbols, their presence indicates access to distant goods and ties to people living

far away. It is important to understand how imported ceramics differ among great houses and

between great houses and small house sites.

Additionally, Kantner et al. (2000) determined that great house residents in the southern

San Juan basin maintained independent trade relationships and in some cases avoided

exchanging with their immediate neighbors in preference of people living farther away. My

research is not able to speak directly to the question of how much interaction people living at

Utah great houses had with each other, but examining sources and proportions of imported

ceramics may show whether people at these Utah sites maintained independent relationships as did great house residents in other parts of the Chacoan world. It can also show if some Utah great houses appear to be more connected to outside regions than others, or if all interaction with outside regions seems to have been rare.

Definitions To maintain consistency throughout the thesis, the following definitions will be used. A great house is a large building, usually with multiple stories, with at least some of the distinctive architectural characteristics found within Chaco Canyon, including core-and-veneer masonry, blocked-in or above grade kivas, earthworks, and roads (Hurst 2000; Kantner and Kintigh 2006;

Van Dyke 2003). All of these characteristics are not necessary for a great house, but great houses have more than one. These architectural similarities bespeak a connection to Chaco

Canyon. Various theories about the nature of this connection are discussed in chapter 2.

I have attempted to follow Hurst (2000:64) in reserving the word “Chacoan” for “items or attributes that can be confidently ascribed to direct importation from the San Juan Basin;” for instance, Chacoan sherds come from Chaco Canyon. This is to avoid the presumption of influence by people from Chaco Canyon where it may not necessarily have been present. The

Chaco era is approximately AD 900 to 1150, though the period of great house occupation in

Utah begins in the late AD 900s or early 1000s. The Chacoan world refers to the geographic location generally extending as far as there are great houses within Arizona, Colorado, New

Mexico, and Utah.

As previously discussed, a feast is defined here as “a form of public ritual activity

centered around the communal consumption of food and drink” (Dietler and Hayden 2001:67).

There were surely smaller and private feasts in the past, but remains of these smaller gatherings

would be extremely difficult to distinguish from the remains of typical everyday meals.

METHODS

I use ceramics to evaluate evidence for feasting practices and connections to Chaco

Canyon during the Pueblo II occupation of each site. This is the time when the great houses

were built and also the time when Chaco Canyon was occupied. All four sites were also

occupied during the Pueblo III period, when Chaco Canyon was abandoned, but Aztec may have

continued to act as a center of the Chacoan system (see chapter 2). Therefore, I focus on ceramic

types that were used during these time periods, with emphasis on Pueblo II types.

Ceramic Typology Gray ware jars were used for cooking and are important to understand food preparation during great house occupation. Mancos Gray was produced from AD 850 through 975 (Wilson and Blinman 1996:42). Jars of this type may pertain to the end of the Pueblo I occupation of each site, or they may have been in use at the beginnings of great house construction. Mancos

Corrugated was produced from approximately AD 930 to 1100, and was the most common ceramic type after AD 1000 (Wilson and Blinman 1995:44). Mancos Corrugated is the most common Pueblo II utility ware at all sites in this study except Bluff. Dolores Corrugated began to be produced around AD 1050 and increased in popularity through the 1100s (Wilson and

Blinman 1995:44). Mesa Verde Corrugated was not produced before AD 1100 and was the most common corrugated type after AD 1200 (Wilson and Blinman 1995:44). Bluff is the only site included in this study with a large number of Mesa Verde Corrugated sherds.

White ware and red ware bowls were used for serving food. I focus on white ware bowls because red ware sherds were much less common than white ware sherds at the sites included in this study and finding a large enough sample for analysis would have been difficult (Hurst 1999;

Severance 2004; Miller 1974). Cortez Black-on-white and White Mesa Black-on-white are types that were produced during the early Pueblo II period (Wilson and Blinman 1995:49-50). Very low quantities of sherds of these types were discovered at each site (Blinman 2009; Hurst 1999;

Severance 2004). Mancos Black-on-white began to replace these two types in the late AD 900s and was the most common white ware type from AD 1000 through 1150 (Wilson and Blinman

1995:50). McElmo Black-on-white began to be produced around 1075, and became the most common type after 1150 (Wilson and Blinman 1995:51). Mesa Verde Black-on-white was first

produced around 1180 and became the most common white ware during the 1200s (Wilson and

Blinman 1995:52).

Data Collection Specific data collection methods for ceramics from each site are detailed in chapters 4, 5,

and 6. However, some data collection methods were standard for each site. Only rim sherds that

were at least 2.5 cm in length are included in the analysis. For each sherd, I recorded ware, style,

form, and type. I also recorded a diameter estimate and then measured the length of the rim of

the sherd from end to end using calipers. For jars with everted rims, the orifice opening was

measured instead of the rim. Mills (1989) demonstrated that although vessel height is a better

approximation of vessel volume for jars, orifice diameter and vessel height are directly correlated

for both bowls and jars. In the absence of data on vessel height, differences in orifice diameter

can be used to indicate differences in vessel size (Mills 1989).

In order to allow comparison among the rim sherds from each site, I calculated the degrees of arc represented by each sherd I measured. This was completed using the equation arcsin(c/d)*2 where c is the measured length between the two ends of the sherd and d is the vessel diameter estimated for the sherd. Once these values were calculated, I rounded each to the nearest 5 degrees. This was done to conform to the measurement protocol used by Blinman

(2009) as well as to avoid false precision in my arc estimates.

Several regions throughout the Chacoan world produced ceramics using distinct tempers that can be identified using a microscope (Blinman 2009; Hurst 1999; Toll 1985). I used existing data on ceramic tempers and origins for Edge of the Cedars and Cottonwood Falls. Because there was no previously existing temper data from Three Kiva, I nipped each sherd to expose a fresh break and identified temper using a microscope.

Data Organization Each site’s ceramic data is considered separately before the sites are compared. First, I report total counts and degrees of arc for all rims of ceramic types identified. Then, I present graphs showing distributions of rim diameters by type for Chaco-era gray wares and white wares.

I also include a discussion of quantities of ceramics imported from various sources identified at each site. These data include body sherds as well as rim sherds, so sizes of imported vessels are not discussed. At Cottonwood Falls and Edge of the Cedars, not all imported sherds were given type designations beyond the original region of origin, so it was not always possible to distinguish sherds from vessels imported during the Chacoan occupation of the site from those imported before or after.

Weaknesses A weakness of this comparative analysis is that Three Kiva is not directly associated with any of the great houses analyzed. Three Kiva was chosen as a site representative of small house

sites, but people living at Three Kiva may not have interacted with great house residents in their

local area in the same way that people at other small houses interacted with residents of the great

houses included in this study. Despite this, the comparison of ceramic data from all four sites

can still be used to illuminate general differences between great houses and small houses, even if

it may not directly show the ways in which great house residents and small house residents

interacted.

There is also a weakness inherent in comparing data from excavated collections with

surface collections. Cottonwood Falls data comes from a surface collection, and the other three

sites were excavated. Surface collections can be accurate representations of types and quantities

of artifacts below the surface (Redman and Watson 1970; Riordan 1982), but they are not always

so (Rick 1976; Shott et al. 2002). Without excavation, it is impossible to know for certain how

accurately the surface collection represents the complete site assemblage. Additionally, ceramics collected from surface collections are often smaller than ceramics below the surface because they are not protected from erosional processes as are the ceramics that are buried (Schiffer 1976).

Although the 2.5 cm minimum sherd length was standard for all sites, many of the rim sherds from Cottonwood Falls were smaller than rim sherds from Edge of the Cedars and Three Kiva.

This means that they represented fewer degrees of arc and were less likely to accurately represent the actual diameter of the vessels from which they came (Ortman 1999).

OVERVIEW

Chapter 2 contains a survey of past and current research in Chaco Canyon and

surrounding areas. I discuss excavations at great houses within the canyon, as well as

excavations at a few great houses outside the canyon. Theories about the functions of great

houses and the connections between great houses within Chaco Canyon and without are

explored.

Chapters 3 through 6 detail previous work at each of the four Utah sites included in this

study, and present the results of my ceramic analysis. They include tabulations of all ceramics I

analyzed, graphs showing vessel size, and a discussion of the origins of ceramics found at the

site. In chapter 3 I discuss the Bluff great house, in chapter 4 I discuss Edge of the Cedars, in chapter 5 I discuss Cottonwood Falls, and in chapter 6 I discuss Three Kiva Pueblo. In Chapter

7, I compare the results from the analyses presented in the previous four chapters. I propose

explanations for the patterns and lack of patterns that become apparent. Chapter 8 contains a

summary of the most important data and conclusions from previous chapters.

2 Context

Many volumes have been written on Chaco Canyon and the areas surrounding it. This chapter summarizes past and current research on Chaco Canyon during the Pueblo II period and its relationship with contemporary sites across the southwest.

CHACO CANYON

Location and Environment Chaco Canyon is located in northwest New Mexico. The canyon is about 30 km in length and from .5 to one km wide (Lekson 2006:9; Vivian et al. 2006:48). A core area within the canyon, known as “Downtown Chaco” because of the large number of sites it contains, is two kilometers in diameter (Lekson 2008:125). The Chaco River runs through the canyon, providing periodic water (Judge 1979:902). Precipitation in the canyon averages around 20 cm annually (Vivian et al. 2006:48). The Chaco River at the west end of the canyon was dammed

“at least twice during the Chacoan occupation,” creating a pool of water that could be used by canyon residents (Vivian et al. 2006:49). Water for domestic use is believed to have been acquired from springs around the canyon (Vivian 1992). Vivian (1992; Vivian et al. 2006) sees

Chaco Canyon as having largely been a well-watered, good place to farm, even “the best place to farm in the interior San Juan Basin” (Vivian et al. 2006:52). Other researchers do not share this view and prefer to note the challenges of farming in the region (Judge 1979 Judge and Cordell

2006; Lekson 2008; Wilcox 2004; Windes 1987a). From 1025 to 1090, canals were built in tributaries of the Chaco River to irrigate agricultural land, and these canals continued to be used until the canyon’s abandonment in 1130 (Vivian 1992; Vivian et al. 2006:59).

Immediately surrounding the canyon are areas containing sagebrush, grasses, cottonwoods, pinyons, and junipers. The Chacra Mesa, to the southeast of Chaco Canyon,

13 contained ponderosa pine and Douglas fir. Various wild animals were available including pronghorn, deer, bighorn, cottontails, jackrabbits, and prairie dogs (Vivian et al. 2006). Turkeys consumed in Chaco Canyon, especially during the later parts of the occupation, are thought to have been captured and traded from people living in the north because the environment in the north is more conducive to their survival (Vivian et al. 2006:64).

Great Houses in the Canyon Twelve great houses are located within Chaco Canyon: Peñasco Blanco, Casa Chiquita,

Kin Kletso, Pueblo Alto, New Alto, Pueblo del Arroyo, Kin Sabe, Pueblo Bonito, Chetro Ketl,

Hungo Pavi, Una Vida, and Wijiji. Casa Chiquita, New Alto, Hungo Pavi, and Wijiji remain unexcavated. The other seven great houses have received some level of excavation. Kin Sabe was partly excavated before being washed away by the Chaco River; the site no longer exists

(Chaco Archive 2010a). All other sites are still visible today in the Chaco Culture National

Historic Park.

A tremendous number of imported items were brought to Chaco Canyon. More than

20% of timbers used in construction were brought to the canyon from the Chuska and Mount

Taylor mountains, located at a distance of 75 to 100 kilometers (English et al. 2001). Ceramics, lithics, and animals were also imported into the canyon (Kantner and Kintigh 2006:166; Toll

2001, 2006). The greatest numbers of ceramics, lithics, and exotics were imported in the late

1000s (Toll 2006:131). During this time period, more than 90% of gray wares and 50% of white wares were imported (Toll 2001:59). Exotic items found in Chaco Canyon include copper, turquoise, shell, and Mexican birds such as macaws and parrots (Toll 2006:136).

One of the important distinctions of Chaco Canyon’s great houses is the amount of coordinated labor required to produce such carefully designed great houses. Lekson et al.

(2006:81) estimated that 320,000 person hours were needed to complete the construction that occurred within the canyon in the year 1050 alone. Population estimates for Chaco Canyon vary, from less than 1,000 (Bernardini 1999) to 5,000 (Hayes 1981). At the high estimate, that much construction would have been possible, at the lower ranges, outside labor would have been needed (Lekson et al. 2006:82). The organization of this labor is a point of contention. Some think that the organization and planning of so many large buildings so close together implies hierarchical leadership of some kind (Lekson et al. 2006; Lipe 2006; Sebastian 1992, 2006;

Vivian 1992). Others (Saitta 1997; Wills 2000) argue that construction projects of this kind could have taken place without a centralized hierarchy.

Pueblo Bonito Pueblo Bonito and Pueblo Alto have received the most attention as their excavations were most extensive and have been most widely published. A full description of each great house in Chaco Canyon is beyond the scope of this thesis; however, Pueblo Alto and Pueblo

Bonito will be discussed in detail to illustrate the research, conclusions, and disagreements involved in Chaco Canyon archaeology. Pueblo Bonito was first excavated from 1896 to1900 by the Hyde Exploring Expedition directed by George Pepper and Richard Wetherill. This first excavation was made primarily for the purpose of acquiring artifacts for the American Museum of Natural History (Stuart 1996). These excavations are reported in Pepper (1920). A second set of excavations at Pueblo Bonito took place from 1920 to 1927 under the direction of Neil Judd for the National Geographic Society. These excavations are reported in Judd (1954). Patricia

Crown and Wirt Wills reexcavated some of Judd’s trenches in 2005 (Chaco Research Archive

2010b).

Pueblo Bonito is the largest of the Chaco Canyon great houses. It has more than 350 ground floor rooms, and parts of the building rose four or five stories. Construction began at the site in AD 850 (Lekson 2006:11). Many sites in Chaco Canyon were founded during this time, and it is likely that people moved into the canyon from regions to the north (Wilshusen and Van

Dyke 2006). The latest tree ring dates from Pueblo Bonito are from AD 1125 to 1129 (Windes and Ford 1996:299).

The quantities and kinds of exotics and imports found at Pueblo Bonito have not been found at other great houses within the canyon. Macaw and parrot burials were found at the site, including 26 macaw burials in a single room (Pepper 1920:194-195). More human remains have also been recovered from Pueblo Bonito than from other great houses within the canyon (Windes

1987a:56). Some of the burials from Pueblo Bonito were accompanied by large quantities of exotic grave goods; two in particular are noted for being buried with thousands of pieces of turquoise, shell, and ceremonial objects (Pepper 1920:163-177; Plog and Heitman 2010). These two burials have been interpreted in a variety of ways, from being the remains of kings (Lekson

2006:30) to warlords (Wilcox 2004) to ritual leaders (Mills 2002:91).

Pueblo Alto Pueblo Alto was excavated by the Chaco Project from 1975 to 1979. These excavations are reported in Windes (1987a, 1987b, 1987c). Pueblo Alto is located atop the north mesa of

Chaco Canyon overlooking Pueblo Bonito. The first construction of the great house had 77 ground floor rooms and between three and five kivas. By the time the site was abandoned, the site contained 133 ground floor rooms; there are no additional stories at Pueblo Alto (Windes

1987a:12). Pueblo Alto is unique in the number of roads that lead out from the site; seven different road segments pass by or terminate at the site (Windes 1987a:99). Windes (1987a:356)

16 discussed the presence of “big-room suites” that were “the very first units built” at Pueblo Alto,

Pueblo Bonito, and Kin Bineola, in addition to being present at other great houses in the canyon.

These rooms did not have features indicative of habitation use and were interpreted as having been used for storage or ceremonies (Windes 1987a:380). Within the habitation rooms excavated, Windes (1987a:391) found that “heating pits” were used instead of “permanent firepits,” and suggested that this indicated “an intermittent occupation not committed to permanency.” A reason for this interpretation is that permanent firepits were found in small house sites nearby (Windes 1987b:359). Vivian (2008:371) interpreted these heating pits not as signifying intermittency but lack of wood to burn. Windes suggested that Pueblo Alto was home to 20 to 50 residents during its initial occupation, ending in the late 1000s (Windes 1987a:392).

Plog and Watson (2012:462) have questioned Windes’ population estimate since he assumed no occupation of the eastern portion of the site, even though none of the eastern rooms were excavated. They believe the site’s population may have been much larger.

Several fire pits were excavated within the plazas at Pueblo Alto. The location of three very large fire pits in a separate building within a plaza suggested a communal use, although it was not clear if the ovens were for food preparation or firing ceramics (Windes 1987c:424).

These and other fire pits date near the end of Pueblo Alto’s occupation in the early 1100s

(Windes 1987c:424).

Windes (1987c:607) noted that the stratification of the Pueblo Alto midden was “unique in Southwestern middens outside the Chacoan sphere.” Trash was deposited in distinct layers

(Windes 1987c:610). Faunal remains were predominantly from animals killed in the fall or winter (Windes 1987c:613). Additionally, midden layers high in faunal remains were immediately followed by layers high in ceramics, suggesting feasting events (Windes

1987c:613). Chipped stone deposition in the Pueblo Alto midden occurred at much higher rates than that of contemporary small sites in the canyon, suggesting ritual deposition not associated with chipped stone use (Cameron 2001:93). Windes (1987c:607) concluded that “the bulk of the material [in the midden] must have come from a population that was only intermittently present.”

Pueblo Alto did not have the same type of exotics that were found at Pueblo Bonito; however, it should be noted that a smaller portion of Pueblo Alto was excavated. Only two copper bells were discovered during excavations, and no remains of exotic birds were found

(Windes 1987a:409). Cylinder vessels were not found at Pueblo Alto, with the exception of a single sherd (Windes 1987a:409). Artifacts made with imported Mexican shell were abundant, but turquoise was not (Windes 1987a:409).

Ceramic analysis at Pueblo Alto determined that over 50 percent of gray wares and 20 percent of white wares were imported from the Chuska region (Toll and McKenna 1987:Table

1.6). This is much higher than the percentages of Chuskan ceramics found in Chacoan small site ceramic assemblages (Toll and McKenna 1987:41). Within the Pueblo Alto trash mound, layers alternated between having higher proportions of local ceramics and higher proportions of imported ceramics from the Chuska region and from other regions outside Chaco Canyon (Toll

2001:Table 1). These ceramic studies indicate that Pueblo Alto residents had a great deal of contact with people living outside Chaco Canyon, but the amount of contact appears to have fluctuated over time rather than having been at a consistent level (Toll 2001; Toll and McKenna

1987).

THEORIES OF THE NATURE OF THE CHACO SYSTEM

Redistributive Center Judge (1979, 1989) suggested that early residents of Chaco Canyon may have specialized

in the production of turquoise ornaments because the canyon was lacking in other kinds of

resources. Turquoise is imported to the region, but it is clear that it was being processed

throughout Chaco Canyon. Judge (1979:903) proposed a redistributive function for Chaco

Canyon, with turquoise as a sort of currency being used for the exchange of food and other

necessities. He suggested that the larger-than-average rooms within Chaco Canyon were used for storage of these trade goods, which might have been redistributed at one of the central great houses such as Pueblo Bonito. Judge (1979:903) also proposed that a relatively small population including administrators and craft specialists maintained the great houses and that the large number of rooms was not indicative of a large permanent population.

Judge’s critics have focused on lack of evidence for redistribution, rather than on lack of

evidence for specialists. They note that most ceramics and lithics in outlying areas are locally

produced and thus infer that redistribution or exchange were not primary reasons for coming to

Chaco Canyon (Durand 2003; Kantner and Kintigh 2006; Mathien 1993; Toll 1991,2006; Vivian

1992). Malville (2001) noted that most great houses outside of Chaco Canyon are not too far

away for large amounts of food to have been carried by foot, suggesting that redistribution may

have been possible. In a chemical sourcing study of maize, Benson et al. (2003) determined that

maize found at Pueblo Bonito was grown 80 km to the west near the Chuska Mountains and

along the Animas River 90 km to the north. Maize was imported into the canyon, along with

other materials, although what (if anything) was given in exchange for it is unknown.

Pilgrimage Center The economic distribution center theory has largely been replaced by the religious

pilgrimage center theory. This promotes the idea that Chacoan society was primarily

cooperative and religious in nature (Crown and Judge 1991; Judge and Cordell 2006; Mills 2002;

Wills 2000). Judge and Cordell (2006:201) noted that most imported goods were recovered from

contexts suggesting ritual use. They suggested “periodic pilgrimages to Chaco to carry out ceremonies…and perform service in the form of building and public works construction” as the source behind the extra labor required for the periodic intensive levels of construction in the canyon (Judge and Cordell 2006:202). Plog and Watson (2012) noted that this pilgrimage center theory is currently the most popular explanation for the organization of Chacoan society.

The excavations at Pueblo Alto have been used as one of the key supports for the

pilgrimage model of the Chacoan society. Windes’s (1987c:607) conclusions about the low

population of Pueblo Alto and the feasting events indicated by the midden are frequently cited.

Toll’s (1985) estimate that 150,000 vessels had been discarded in the Pueblo Alto midden is

another piece of evidence commonly cited to support ritual ceremonies at Pueblo Alto. The

interpretation of Pueblo Alto as a pilgrimage site has been challenged by Plog and Watson

(2012) and Wills (2001). Plog and Watson (2012:455) argued that the Pueblo Alto midden “is

more similar to the discard patterns we might expect from a normal range of activities…the

stratigraphic data from the Alto mound are not consistent with a hypothesis of periodic

occurrences of ceremonies, fairs, or festivals at Pueblo Alto.” They further suggested, upon

comparing quantities of ceramics discarded at Pueblo Alto with small sites within Chaco Canyon

and farther away, that the proportions and absolute quantities of ceramics in the Pueblo Alto

midden are well within a normal range (Plog and Watson 2012:456-458).

Sofaer (2009) supported the idea that Chaco Canyon was primarily used for ritual purposes. She said Chaco Canyon had “a cosmological purpose motivating and directing the construction and the orientation, internal geometry, and interrelationships of the primary

Chacoan architecture” (Sofaer 2009:225). She noted that twelve buildings in Chaco Canyon have exterior orientations to solar and lunar events. Eleven buildings in Chaco Canyon have interior orientation to solar and lunar events. She noted similarities in both modern Puebloan religion and Mesoamerican religion contemporary with Chaco Canyon’s occupation to suggest that the Chacoan system was created for religious purposes. “Commemoration of these recurring

[solar and lunar] cycles appears to have been a primary purpose of the Chaco phenomenon”

(Sofaer 2009:246).

Coercive Theories Stein et al. (2009:201) report a Navajo tradition about the origins of Chaco Canyon:

Chaco Canyon [is] Jish Chaago (The Place of the Sacred Bundle) and [is]…a place of dark power and spiritual danger…Navajo tradition describes the reign of Nihwiilbiih (The Gambler), a sorcerer who came from far to the south. Nihwiilbiih seized the power of the portal at…“the Amphitheater”, enslaved the peoples living in the region, and focused the Chaco complex on the portal.

This story of the Gambler appears in the oral histories of other modern tribes residing in the Four

Corners region, leading Stein et al. (2009:217) to believe that essential elements of the tradition are true and “The Gambler was a real individual or, more probably, individuals.” Judd

(1954:354) reported that as early as 1878 there were accounts of Chaco Canyon belonging to the

Gambler, and was himself told different versions of the Gambler story by Navajo informants.

According to these stories, most of the inhabitants of Chaco Canyon and surrounding areas were not willing participants in events that took place within the canyon.

Wilcox (2004:170) argued that Chaco Canyon was a “tribute-demanding polity” using violence and coercion. Collecting tribute would account for the large quantities of imported goods in Chaco Canyon and the lack of exports. He suggested that the religion at the time included human sacrifice, and that the disarticulated remains discovered at Pueblo Bonito are better explained as having been disarticulated before burial than as being secondary burials. In his view, roads were used to allow military access to and from Chaco Canyon. He viewed great kivas associated with great houses “as places where the state cult was performed, legitimized the claims to obedience by the Chacoan polity and…the likely focal points for tribute collection”

(Wilcox 2004:175). Wilcox’s view represents a differing opinion on existing data from the

Chacoan world, without having any additional data to support it.

Chaco Meridian The Chaco Meridian Theory is the work of Stephen Lekson (1999, 2008). According to the Chaco Meridian Theory, 108 degrees longitude is a line of significance along which political centers of the Pueblo world moved, north and south. The first proposed political center is at

Shabik’eschee, a Basketmaker III site in Chaco Canyon. The next is Sacred Ridge, the largest site in a group of Pueblo I sites in Colorado directly north of Shabik’eschee along the 108th longitudinal line. Chaco Canyon great houses are the proposed Pueblo II political center. Aztec took primacy during Pueblo III, and Paquimé in Mexico is the proposed termination of the Chaco

Meridian (Lekson 1999). Lekson (1999, 2006, 2008) speaks of Chacoan leaders as kings, and of great houses as palaces. He does not deny that ritual was an important part of Chacoan life, but emphasizes the hierarchical political and economic aspects of Chacoan leadership that other researchers do not see, or minimize. Lekson sees the ritually-oriented modern pueblos as a

“reaction against Chaco,” rather than as a natural development out of Chaco that should be used for interpretation of sites in the canyon (Lekson 2006:29). 22

Not a system Some do not think that the Chaco system was really a system at all (Durand and Durand

2000; Hurst 2000:76; Toll et al. 1992). Durand and Durand (2000:107) interpreted the earliest so-called Chacoan masonry at Guadalupe Pueblo as a “Southern San Juan phenomenon” rather than as something originating and spreading from Chaco Canyon. Toll et al. (1992) compared the Pueblo II ceramic traditions within Chaco Canyon and other regions, and noted that broad ceramic stylistic traditions existed across the Pueblo world before and after this period. They suggested that the Pueblo II ceramic traditions, like those before and after, came about because of “doing things according to established rules and procedures, and actively maintained, very broadly based communication” (Toll et al. 1992:155). They concluded that Chaco Canyon needn’t have been the impetus behind everything cultural that happened during the Pueblo II period, particularly not behind changes in ceramic styles.

OTHER GREAT HOUSES

In this section, I will describe research at four great houses outside of Chaco Canyon.

Aztec is north of Chaco Canyon and is often thought to have taken regional primacy after the decline of Chaco Canyon (Brown et al. 2008; Brown et al. 2013; Judge 1989; Lekson 1999,

2008; Sebastian 2006; Toll 2006). Salmon Pueblo is located 20 km south of Aztec. The other three great houses, Chimney Rock, Guadalupe, and Navajo Springs, are all located on different parts of the periphery of the Chaco region (see figure 2.1). Great houses and associated architecture found outside of Chaco Canyon are often called “Chacoan outliers” or referred to as part of a Chacoan regional system; some two hundred of these great houses have been identified

(Lekson 2008:130). However, researchers disagree very strongly about the nature and degree of their connection to Chaco Canyon and to each other (Cameron 2009a; Kantner and Kintigh 2006;

Lekson 2006; Mills 2002). It seems likely that different sites had different kinds of connections to Chaco Canyon.

Figure 2.1 Map of the Four Corners region showing relative locations of sites discussed in text.

Aztec The Aztec complex is often viewed as taking Chaco Canyon’s central role during the

1100s and 1200s, when Chaco Canyon was no longer occupied (Brown et al. 2008; Brown et al.

2013; Judge 1989; Lekson 1999, 2008; Lipe 2006; Toll 2006). Researchers remain divided as to

whether the role was political or ceremonial in nature, but seem to agree that whatever happened

at Chaco was continued from Aztec until the time of its abandonment.

Aztec was built along a bend in the Animas River. Aztec’s three large great houses form

a triangle. Earl Morris conducted excavations at Aztec West from 1916 to 1927 (Morris 1928).

Aztec East was excavated in 1957 by Roland Richert (Richert 1964). These excavations were

done as part of a stabilization project and were much less intensive than Morris’ excavations at

Aztec West. No sites nor artifacts within the Aztec National Monument area have been found to

date earlier than 1050, suggesting that the Aztec complex was built in a previously unoccupied location (Brown et al. 2008:246).

Aztec North was the first great house built, around 1060-1080. It is the smallest great house in the site complex and has about 100 rooms (Brown et al. 2013:426). Aztec North is built of adobe rather than of core-and-veneer masonry as is typical in Chaco Canyon, and is thought to have been built in emulation of great houses in Chaco Canyon (Brown and Paddock 2011;

Brown et al. 2013).

Aztec West, similar in size to the largest great houses in Chaco Canyon, was founded

around AD 1100 (Lekson 2008:154). It is constructed of core-and-veneer masonry. Aztec West

had hundreds of room in at least three stories (Brown et al. 2013:427). Much of the site was

built within a ten year period, and the entire site was finished within thirty years (Brown et al.

2008; Brown et al. 2013:427; Lekson 2008:154). At the time Aztec West was abandoned, it had

approximately 500 rooms in three stories (Brown et al. 2008:239; Brown et al. 2013:427). Aztec

West has been interpreted as an “administrative-ritual center” rather than being used primarily as

a residence (Reed 2008:24).

There were significant modifications to Aztec West and architectural stylistic changes

during the mid-1100s. The original conclusion by Morris (1928) was that these changes

occurred after a period of abandonment when people from the Mesa Verde region moved to the

site, causing these changes to occur. Recent research has shown that Aztec was not ever

completely abandoned (Brown et al. 2008). Additionally, some of the architectural changes

thought to be intrusive from the Mesa Verde region have been demonstrated to occur earlier at

Aztec than they do in the north (Brown and Paddock 2011).

Aztec East was the latest of the great houses to be built, with construction beginning

around 1120. Aztec East was built over a much longer period of time than Aztec West. More

than 75% of the tree ring dates from the site are from the 1200s, with the largest cluster of dates

at 1215 (Brown et al. 2008:234-235). Between the initial construction of the site and the large

late clusters are a small continuous series of cutting dates. This has been interpreted to mean that

construction never stopped, but was restricted because of the extreme drought in the region in the

late 1100s (Brown et al. 2008:245). The initial construction of the site created about 150 rooms;

by the time it was abandoned, it had approximately 350. (Brown et al. 2008; Brown et al. 2013).

Salmon Salmon Pueblo is located north of Chaco Canyon on the San Juan River, about 20 km

south of Aztec. Construction began around AD 1088 (Reed 2008:17). Salmon Pueblo had as

many as 300 rooms constructed in three stories in an E-shape, similar to Chetro Ketl and Hungo

Pavi in Chaco Canyon (Brown et al. 2013:424). Architectural evidence suggests that the site was built by people who left Chaco Canyon, with the assistance of people already living in the region

(Brown et al. 2013:424; Reed 2008:22). This original Chacoan occupation continued until the

1120s, when local San Juan populations began using the site, remodeling rooms and adding kivas

(Reed 2008:3). Reed (2006) suggested that Chacoan residents of Salmon Pueblo may have left

the site to move to Aztec with other Chacoans. This San Juan occupation continued until the

1280s or 1290s, when much of the site was destroyed by fire (Reed 2008:19).

Salmon has clear evidence of being used as a residence throughout its entire use life

(Reed 2008:23). “Formally designed room suites” at Salmon Pueblo that indicate family residences within the site are not found at Aztec or at other contemporary great house sites (Reed

2008:24). Reed (2008:24) proposed that Salmon was built by “marginal” Chacoans looking for a better situation in a lesser-populated area, in contrast to other great houses that may have been built for administrative or ritual purposes. Lekson (1999) suggested that it may have been a failed first attempt to move the center of Chacoan power north out of Chaco Canyon, which later

led to the construction of Aztec.

Chimney Rock The Chimney Rock great house (5AA83) is the farthest northeast of the recognized great

houses (Mahoney and Kantner 2000:2). It was occupied from 1075 to 1125 (Chuipka and

Fetterman 2013:453). The great house is built atop a mesa near the Piedra River, with smaller

structures on the lower portions of the mesa (Jalbert and Cameron 2000:85). These structures are

known as “crater-mound houses” and are unlike structures found anywhere else (Chuipka and

Fetterman 2013:453, Jalbert and Cameron 2000:85). Interpretations of the connection of the

Chimney Rock great house to Chaco Canyon vary. Some view the site as a Chacoan colony,

some as an emulation of Chacoan great houses, and others as an outpost built to obtain and

transfer wood and other resources to Chaco Canyon (Chuipka and Fetterman 2013:471, Jalbert

and Cameron 2000:90). Wilcox (2004:163) claimed the site to be “a military garrison and

fortress.” Another theory is that the Chimney Rock great house was built mainly for ritual

reasons. Malville (1991:24) noted that there were “major lunar standstills” visible between the

two peaks of Chimney Rock during 1076 and 1093, years for which there are many tree cutting

dates showing construction at the site. This suggests that lunar rituals may have been a reason

for choosing this location for a great house. 27

Chuipka and Fetterman (2013) demonstrated the likelihood that the “crater-mound houses” were contemporary with the great house and show efforts by local populations to resist the new ideas brought to the area by the builders of the great house. They noted that this type of entrenchment in “orthodoxy,” in this case, retaining houses that resemble earlier pit houses instead of switching to pueblo-style architecture similar to the great house, is very common in unequal situations (Chuipka and Fetterman 2013:471). Both architectural styles are present in the surrounding region and are thought to indicate two social groups: one participating in the

Chacoan system, and another rejecting it. Whatever the connection of the Chimney Rock great house residents to Chaco Canyon may have been, it was not completely supported by the other residents of the surrounding area (Chuipka and Fetterman 2013:472).

Parker (2004) conducted a petrographic analysis of sherds from Chimney Rock Pueblo.

From his sample of 60 sherds from Chimney Rock, 20 had trachyte temper, including locally made ceramics with crushed Chuskan grayware as temper (Parker 2004). Additionally, 9.5% of

Chimney Rock ceramics have been identified as Chacoan (Parker 2004:87). These proportions of trachyte-tempered and Chacoan sherds are higher at the great house than proportions found at surrounding sites (Parker 2004). This suggests that the Chimney Rock great house residents had relationships to people in Chaco Canyon that were not equally shared by people living in surrounding sites.

Guadalupe The Guadalupe great house is a single story great house with about fifty rooms located southeast of Chaco Canyon (Mahoney 2000:22). It was built along the Rio Puerco of the East.

The original great house was built around AD 918 (Pippin 1987:101). This initial construction at

Guadalupe is thought to be the only site outside of Chaco Canyon sharing Chaco Canyon’s

earliest masonry style (Durand and Durand 2000:103). The Chacoan occupation at the site lasted

until the 1130s. Additions were made to the site throughout this occupation in other types of

Chaco-style masonry (Pippin 1987:105). During the late 1100s and 1200s, Guadalupe was modified “by people with a radically different concept of architectural space” who divided and tore down Chacoan rooms and added San Juan style kivas to the site (Pippin 1987:114). Despite

this significant architectural change, the site does not appear to have been abandoned between

the Chacoan and post-Chacoan phases (Durand and Durand 2000:105; Pippin 1987:114). The

Guadalupe great house was built in an area with a preexisting population, and the population of

the community grew during the time the great house was occupied. There is an isolated kiva

building too small to be considered a true great kiva that may possibly have been used similarly

to great kivas in other communities (Durand and Durand 2000:106).

Because the great house was constructed within an existing community, Durand and

Durand (2000) interpreted the great house as a local development. They noted the early

“Chacoan” masonry co-occurring at Guadalupe and in Chaco Canyon, and suggested that the

masonry style might be better understood as a “southern San Juan phenomenon” rather than as

something emerging and spreading solely from Chaco Canyon (Durand and Durand 2000:107).

Judge (1989:235) interpreted the early date and location of the great house as indication that

Chaco Canyon residents were seeking better access to turquoise from Cerrillos. Cerrillos is

located 115 miles southeast of Chaco Canyon (Judge 1979:902). Durand and Durand (2000:107)

agreed that Guadalupe was an important part of the turquoise trade, but did not agree that the

great house was founded to provide Chaco Canyon with turquoise.

Roler (1999) evaluated faunal evidence for feasting at Guadalupe. She concluded that

feasting may have taken place at the Guadalupe great house and at another nearby site during the

Chacoan period (Roler 1999). During the post-Chacoan period, faunal evidence for feasting was

restricted to the great house (Roler 1999). Ritually-important bird remains were much more common at the great house than at surrounding roomblocks during both the Chacoan and the post-Chacoan period, although the quantities increased dramatically during the post-Chacoan period (Roler 1999). Roler (1999) suggested that the restricted feasting location and the increase in ritual bird species may be explained by individuals or groups moving from Chaco Canyon to surrounding great house sites such as Guadalupe and bringing ritual knowledge and beliefs previously unavailable.

Navajo Springs Navajo Springs is located 300 km southwest of Chaco Canyon along the Rio Puerco of the West in Arizona (Warburton and Graves 1992:52). It is within sight of another great house located about 5 kilometers away (Warburton and Graves 1992:54). The Navajo Springs site includes a great house of approximately 40 rooms, a great kiva, a berm, and two prehistoric roads. One road segment leads to a complex of room blocks 150 meters to the north, and another road segment extends to the east to an unknown destination (Warburton and Graves 1992:56).

Ceramic analysis places the occupation of the great house from about 1050 to 1125 (Warburton and Graves 1992:63). Core-and-veneer masonry at the great house is similar to types identified in Chaco Canyon (Warburton and Graves 1992:65). Survey of 160 acres immediately around the great house identified 20 additional sites. The kivas at the great house were the only kivas noted in all the sites within the survey area. This lack of kivas suggested that the great kiva at Navajo

Springs was a primary location for ritual and possibly economic activities in the community

(Warburton and Graves 1992:58). Although areas within a few kilometers of the great house have extended occupation histories, the great house was built on land that appears to have been previously unused. This combined with the relatively short use life of the site led Warburton and 30

Graves (1992:65) to suggest that the site was founded by people from Chaco Canyon, and supported by people coming in from the surrounding areas.

DISCUSSION

The constant in research of Chaco Canyon and surrounding great houses is discord.

People do not agree on their interpretations when looking at the same data. However, all of the great houses located outside of Chaco Canyon included in this chapter are believed by at least one researcher to have been constructed by people moving out from Chaco Canyon, people who had lived there and understood construction techniques used within Chaco Canyon and presumably shared some sort of Chacoan world view (Brown et al. 2008; Brown et al. 2013;

Chuipka and Fetterman 2013; Judge 1989; Lekson 1999, 2008; Lipe 2006; Parker 2004; Reed

2008; Toll 2006; Warburton and Graves 19992). Despite their connections to Chaco Canyon, these sites were built and used by different groups of people and may have been used in different ways.

The great houses in southeast Utah where my research is focused were a part of this larger Chacoan world. The presence of great houses suggests that people in Utah were at a minimum aware of Chaco Canyon. The nature of the connection of people at great houses outside of Chaco Canyon to people within the canyon is difficult to ascertain, as the variety of explanations demonstrates. Understanding how Utah great houses functioned within their communities is part of understanding the greater Chacoan system as a whole. Understanding the connections of people in southeast Utah to people in other places is also important in order to understand the system. The best analogs for explaining what happened at Utah great houses likely come from other great houses; however, it is also possible that Utah great houses were

unique. Understanding past and current research in other parts of the Chacoan world is necessary for correct interpretation of data from Utah great house sites.

The next chapters discuss ceramic evidence from four contemporaneous Utah sites and show that even great house sites in close proximity to each other were not identical. However the Chacoan system was organized, it appears to have allowed for a great deal of individual adaptation in its application. Despite this individuality, the underlying similarities between these hundreds of great house sites suggest that something larger was linking them together.

3 Bluff Great House

SITE HISTORY

The Bluff Great House (42SA22674) is located within the city of Bluff, Utah, on the

same hill as the city’s cemetery (see figure 3.1). The Bluff great house was excavated by the

University of Colorado Archaeological Field School from 1996 to 1998 and 2002 to 2004. The

Bluff Great House site consists of a great house, great kiva, berm, terrace, and prehistoric roads

(Cameron 2009a:6). The great house was comprised of 50 to 60 rooms (Cameron 2009c:104).

The Bluff Great House was built between AD 1075 and 1150, most likely by newcomers to the

region, on land that had been previously occupied during the Basketmaker III and Pueblo I

periods (Cameron 2009e:298). The eastern half of the site was constructed of compound and

core-and-veneer masonry, and the western half of the site was constructed of simple masonry

(Cameron 2009c:118). Despite the different construction styles, the entire site was “built on the same artificially leveled surface” indicating that both parts were built near the same time

(Cameron 2009e:298). The core-and-veneer walls had foundation trenches, a construction technique common in Chaco Canyon and also present at Edge of the Cedars (Cameron

2009c:121; Hurst 2000:69). Large portions of the Bluff Great House are two stories tall, and it may have been as high as four stories in some places (Cameron 2009c:122).

Figure 3.1 Image of the Bluff great house site. Although the site is not thought to have been primarily used as a residence, there is

evidence of it having been used for feasting and for “craft production,” excluding the production

of ceramics (Cameron 2009e:297). Analysis of ground stone from Bluff indicates that “tools

[were] used for polishing, abrading, and percussion shaping” (Adams 2009:2). These tools

suggest the production of ornaments (Adams 2009:2). Fifty-seven ornaments or ornament fragments were recovered during excavations (Mathien 2009). Basketry and weaving at Bluff are implied by the 36 awls recovered (Dixon 2009).

Feasting at Bluff is suggested by the larger than usual proportions of artiodactyls than are found in contemporaneous small sites (Cameron 2009e; Driver et al. 2009; Fothergill 2008).

This difference is more pronounced during the Pueblo II period than the Pueblo III period

(Driver et al. 2009:8). The Pueblo II faunal assemblage at Bluff is similar to the faunal assemblage at Nancy Patterson, another site in the region with a great house, which may indicate that feasting occurred in both places (Fothergill 2008:107). The presence of faunal species not identified at contemporary sites without great houses but which have been identified at other great houses outside of Chaco Canyon is further evidence for special ritual use of the site

(Fothergill 2008:153).

Ceramic evidence for feasting is found in the presence of serving bowls larger than those

identified at other Pueblo II sites (Cameron 2009e:303). Because of the change in the

distribution of gray ware rim sizes (discussed below), Blinman (2009:84) suggested that feasting

at the Bluff great house was potluck style, with most food preparation taking place away from

the great house. This suggestion is supported by the scarcity of food preparation tools such as

ground stone (Adams 2009; Cameron 2009e:303). Other indications of communal food

preparation such as roasting pits were not discovered.

Interaction with people living outside the Northern San Juan region is indicated by

imported lithics (Cameron 2009e; Ward 2004). Narbona Pass chert, Yellow-Brown spotted chert, and Jemez obsidian were identified at Bluff, and were also commonly imported into Chaco

Canyon (Cameron 2009e; Ward 2004). Additionally, nearly half of the projectile points from the

Bluff great house were made of nonlocal stone (Ward 2004). These provide evidence in addition to ceramics (discussed below) that Bluff residents had connections to people in other parts of the

Chacoan world.

It is unclear whether the Bluff great house was abandoned at the end of the Chaco period and then reoccupied, or if the occupation was continuous. Three excavation units uncovered

areas where there was a gap between deposits of Chacoan and post-Chacoan artifacts, suggesting

but not proving a break in occupation (Cameron 2009e:300). After the decline of Chaco

Canyon, the site seems to have been used in the same way that it was when Chaco was at its

peak, with evidence of feasting and craft production remaining (Cameron 2009e:297). The last

residents left the site around AD 1250 (Cameron 2009e:297). The great kiva was built during

the Chaco era as was the great house; it does not predate it (Cameron 2009d:219). The great

kiva is thought to have been used until the site was abandoned because there was almost no trash

in its fill (Cameron 2009e:301).

DATA

The data presented include all reported rim sherds for which an orifice arc estimate was available for gray ware jars, white ware bowls, and white ware jars. All rim arc data below are from Blinman (2009). In his report, orifice radii were reported to the nearest .5 cm, and degrees of arc were rounded to the nearest 5 degrees. To allow for comparison with my data from other sites, I converted radii to diameters and rounded the diameters to the nearest whole even number.

Blinman (2009) recorded a wider variety of vessel forms than I did. I combined Blinman’s

(2009) records for ollas and wide mouthed jars because I did not distinguish between these forms in the other sites I examined. Mills (1999:107) noted that all jars recovered from storage contexts in her study were also used for cooking at some point before becoming storage vessels, and suggested that “all unpainted necked jars” should be considered cooking vessels.

Counts and degrees of arc for gray ware jars are found in table 3.1. Imported gray ware ceramic types were combined to their region of origin.

Table 3.1 Gray Ware Sherds from 42SA22674 (after Blinman 2009) Type Count Degrees of Arc Chapin Gray 21 645 Moccasin Gray 10 150 Mancos Gray 54 925 Mancos Corrugated 58 1130 Dolores Corrugated 61 1880 Mesa Verde Corrugated 53 2050 General Corrugated 1 40 San Juan Incised 1 55 Chuskan Gray Wares 4 115 Tusayan Gray Wares 44 1295 Total 307 8285

Counts and degrees of arc for white ware bowls are presented in table 3.2. Counts and

degrees of arc for white ware jars are presented in table 3.3. All Mancos Black-on-white styles were combined for these tables. All Cibola types, Chuska types, and Tusayan types were also combined into a single entry for these tables.

Table 3.2 White Ware Bowl Sherds from 42SA22674 (after Blinman 2009) Type Count Degrees of Arc White Mesa Black-on-white 4 55 Mancos Black-on-white 90 2170 McElmo Black-on-white 112 2590 Mesa Verde Black-on-white 61 1205 Early Black-on-white 3 70 Late Black-on-white 32 510 Pueblo III 65 1110 Cibola White Ware 3 50 Chuska White Ware 5 75 Tusayan White ware 44 860 Unidentified 9 115 Total 428 8810

Table 3.3 White Ware Jar Sherds from 42SA22674 (after Blinman 2009)

Type Count Degrees of Arc White Mesa Black-on-white 1 20 Mancos Black-on-white 15 860 Mesa Verde Black-on-white 1 20 Late Black-on-white 9 465 Pueblo III 4 210 Tusayan White Ware 6 255 Unidentified 14 540 Total 50 2370

VESSEL SIZE

Gray Wares Gray ware types numerous enough for analysis of vessel size include Mancos Gray,

Mancos Corrugated, Dolores Corrugated, and Mesa Verde Corrugated. Mesa Verde Corrugated was the most numerous category by degrees of arc, and Dolores Corrugated was the most numerous category by count.

Fifty-four Mancos Gray sherds were measured encompassing 925 degrees of arc, or 2.6 vessel equivalents. The median jar diameter is 20 cm. The smallest Mancos Gray diameter recorded is 8 cm. The largest is 28 cm. The peak vessel diameter by count is 22 cm, but the peak vessel diameter by degrees is 20 cm. Interestingly, there are large numbers of sherds with diameters of 14 cm, 16 cm, 20 cm, and 22 cm, but only one sherd measured with a diameter of

18 cm. This may indicate a distinction between small jars and large ones. Mancos Gray jar diameters by count and by degrees can be seen in figure 3.2.

Mancos Gray by Count Mancos Gray by Degrees 12 200

10 150 8 s t e n e u r

o 6 g 100 C e D

4 50 2

0 0 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 Diameter Diameter

Figure 3.2 Bar charts showing diameters of Mancos Gray jars by count and by degrees.

Fifty-eight Mancos Corrugated sherds were measured, encompassing 1130 degrees of arc or 3.1 vessel equivalents. The smallest Mancos Corrugated diameter recorded is 8 cm. The largest diameter recorded is 30 cm. The peak vessel diameter by count and by degrees is 24 cm.

Both charts show a secondary peak at 28 cm diameter, demonstrating the possibility of a larger jar class. Mancos Corrugated jar diameters can be seen in figure 3.3.

Mancos Corrugated by Count Mancos Corrugated by Degrees 200 10

8 150 s e t 6 e n r u

g 100 o e C D 4

50 2

0 0 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 Diameter Diameter

Figure 3.3 Bar charts showing diameters of Mancos Corrugated jars by count and by degrees.

Dolores Corrugated was the most numerous gray ware vessel category by count at the

Bluff great house. Sixty-one Dolores Corrugated sherds were measured, encompassing 1880 degrees of arc or 5.2 vessel equivalents. The smallest jar measured has a diameter of 8 cm, and the largest has a diameter of 30 cm. Unlike the Mancos Corrugated jars, where the jars were more broadly distributed among the different diameters, most of the Dolores Corrugated sherds have diameters between 16 and 22 cm. The median jar diameter is 20 cm. The peak jar diameter is also 20 cm, and there is a secondary peak at 26 cm diameter. It appears that Dolores

Corrugated jars, like Mancos Corrugated jars, may have had a small jar class and a large jar class. Figure 3.4 shows graphs of Dolores Corrugated diameters.

Dolores Corrugated by Count Dolores Corrugated by Degrees

14 500

12 400 10

s 300 t 8 e n e r u g o e C

6 D 200

4 100 2

0 0 8 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 30 8 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 30 Diameter Diameter

Figure 3.4 Bar charts showing diameters of Dolores Corrugated jars by count and by degrees.

When the Mancos Corrugated and Dolores Corrugated sherds are combined, no

secondary peak is visible. The peak rim size is 20 cm, the same as the peak rim size for Dolores

Corrugated. The median jar diameter is also 20 cm. Graphs of Mancos Corrugated and Dolores

Corrugated sherds combined are visible in figure 3.5.

Mancos Corrugated and Dolores Corrugated by Count Mancos Corrugated and Dolores Corrugated by Degrees 700 20 600

500 15 s e t 400 e n r u g o e C 10 D 300

200 5 100

0 0 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 Diameter Diameter

Figure 3.5 Bar charts showing diameters of both Mancos Corrugated and Dolores Corrugated vessels by count and by degrees.

Mesa Verde Corrugated is the most numerous gray ware type by degrees. Fifty-three

Mesa Verde Corrugated sherds were measured, encompassing 2050 degrees of arc or 5.7 vessel

equivalents. The median diameter is 18 cm, smaller than the medians for both Mancos

Corrugated and Dolores Corrugated. The smallest jar measured has a diameter of 12 cm, which

is larger than the smallest vessel of both Mancos Corrugated and Dolores Corrugated. The

largest diameter recorded is 30 cm, the same as the other corrugated types. The chart by count

shows equal numbers of sherds with diameters of 18 cm and 20 cm, but the chart by degrees of

arc shows the peak vessel diameter to be 20 cm. Mesa Verde Corrugated sherds have a single

mode. Figure 3.6 contains bar charts of Mesa Verde Corrugated diameters by count and by

degrees.

Mesa Verde Corrugated by Count Mesa Verde Corrugated by Degrees 14 600

12 500

10 400 s e t 8 e n r u

g 300 o e C 6 D 200 4

100 2

0 0 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 30 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 30 Diameter Diameter

Figure 3.6 Bar charts showing diameters of Mesa Verde Corrugated jars by count and by degrees.

White Wares Sizes for white ware bowls will be discussed for Mancos Black-on-white, McElmo

Black-on-white, and Mesa Verde Black-on-white. McElmo Black-on-white is the most numerous bowl category by type and by degrees.

Ninety Mancos Black-on-white sherds were measured, encompassing 2170 degrees of arc or about 6 vessel equivalents. The median bowl diameter is 22 cm. The smallest Mancos Black- on-white diameter recorded is 12 cm, and the largest is 38 cm. The chart by count shows an equal number of bowls with diameters of 20 and 22 cm, but the chart by degrees shows a peak vessel size of 22 cm. A secondary peak at 14 cm is visible in the chart by degrees, but not

41 present in the chart by count. This is likely to be the effect of measuring large sherds from small bowls. Figure 3.7 shows Mancos Black-on-white diameters by count and by degrees.

Mancos Black-on-white by Count Mancos Black-on-white by Degrees 16 400 14

12 300 10 s t e n e r u g

o 8 e C 200 D 6

4 100

0 0 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 36 38 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 36 38 Diameter Diameter

Figure 3.7 Bar charts showing diameters of Mancos Black-on-white bowls by count and by degrees.

McElmo Black-on-white is the most numerous white ware bowl category at the Bluff great house. There were 112 McElmo Black-on-white sherds measured, encompassing 2590 degrees of arc or 7.2 vessel equivalents. The median bowl diameter is 26 cm. The smallest diameter recorded is 14 cm. The largest bowl diameter recorded is 38 cm, just as it was for the

Mancos Black-on-white bowls. The peak bowl size was 26 cm, larger than the 22 cm peak for

Mancos Black-on-white bowls. There is a slight secondary peak at 18 cm by count or 16 cm by degrees. Graphs of McElmo Black-on-white diameters are shown in figure 3.8.

McElmo Black-on-white by Count McElmo Black-on-white by Degrees 20 600

500 15 400 s t e n e u r o 10 g 300 e C D

200 5 100

0 0 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 38 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 38 Diameter Diameter

Figure 3.8 Bar charts showing diameters of McElmo Black-on-white vessels by count and by degrees.

There were 61 Mesa Verde Black-on-white sherds measured encompassing 1205 degrees of arc or 3.4 vessel equivalents. This is the smallest group of bowl sherds. The median bowl diameter is 28 cm, the largest of all white ware types. The Mesa Verde Black-on-white bowls have a slightly more restricted range than the previous two white ware types. The smallest bowl size recorded is 16 cm, and the largest is 36 cm. The peak bowl size is 30 cm. A secondary peak is visible at 24 cm by count or 22 cm by degrees. Figure 3.9 shows Mesa Verde Black-on-white diameters.

Mesa Verde Black-on-white by Count Mesa Verde Black-on-white by Degrees

9 200 8

7 150 6 s t e n e

5 r u g o e C 100

4 D

2 50

0 0 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 Diameter Diameter

Figure 3.9 Bar charts showing diameters of Mesa Verde Black-on-white vessels by count and by degrees.

When all Pueblo III white ware bowls are combined, the bimodality disappears. The

smallest bowl diameter is 12 cm, and the largest is 40 cm. The median diameter is 24 cm. The

peak bowl size by count is 24 cm, but the peak bowl size by degrees is 26 cm. Bar charts of all

Pueblo III white wares are found in figure 3.10.

All Pueblo III White Wares by Count All Pueblo III White Wares by Degrees 800 30 700 25 600

20 500 s t e n e r u g o 15 400 e C D 300 10 200 5 100

0 0 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 Diameter Diameter

Figure 3.10 Bar charts showing diameters of all Pueblo III white ware vessels by count and by degrees.

Red Wares I did not conduct analysis of red ware bowls from Edge of the Cedars, Cottonwood Falls, or Three Kiva. However, published data was available on red ware bowls from Bluff (Blinman

2009). I examine red ware bowl sizes and compare them to white ware bowl sizes at Bluff to

determine whether red ware bowls may have been more likely to have been used in feasting than

white ware bowls.

Two red ware types at Bluff may have been used during the great house occupation.

Deadmans black-on-red was produced in the Northern San Juan region from AD 880 to 1100

(Wilson and Blinman 1995:56). Tusayan Black-on-red was produced in the Kayenta region from

AD 1000 to 1150 (Wilson 2013). Both types are present at Bluff. Deadmans Black-on-red rims at Bluff encompassed 1300 degrees of arc, or 3.6 vessel equivalents, and Tusayan Black-on-red rims encompassed 850 degrees of arc, or 2.4 vessel equivalents (Blinman 2009). Deadmans

black on red bowls have a minimum diameter of 12 cm and a maximum diameter of 34 cm. The

peak vessel diameter is 24 cm. Tusayan Black-on-red bowls have a smaller range, with a

minimum diameter of 14 cm and a maximum diameter of 32 cm. The peak diameter form

Tusayan Black-on-red bowls is 22 cm. Figure 3.11 shows distributions of Deadmans Black-on-

44 red bowl diameters, and figure 3.12 shows distributions of Tusayan Black-on-red bowl diameters.

Deadmans Black-on-red 350

300

250 s

e 200 e r g e

D 150

100

0 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 Diameter

Figure 3.11 Deadmans Black-on-red diameters by degrees.

Tusayan Black-on-red

200

150 s e e r g

e 100 D

0 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 Diameter

Figure 3.12 Tusayan Black-on-red diameters by degrees.

When charts of all three types are compared, the distributions are fairly similar.

Deadmans Black-on-red has the highest peak, at 24 cm, but the peaks of Mancos Black-on-white and Tusayan Black-on-red are very close at 22 cm. Bowls of all three types may have been used to serve food at feasts taking place at Bluff, as all three types have a small number of very large bowls. The largest bowls at Bluff were Mancos Black-on-white, with a diameter of 38 cm.

The similar size distributions suggest that red ware and white ware bowls were used in similar ways at Bluff. However, white ware bowl diameters are the largest and may have been more important for serving food at feasts. Figure 3.13 shows comparisons of size distributions for

Mancos Black-on-white, Deadmans Black-on-red, and Tusayan Black-on-red.

400 w / B

s o

c 200 n a M

0 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38

300 r / B

s n a

m 150 d a e D

0 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38

200 r / B

n a

y 100 a s u T

0 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 Diameter

Figure 3.13 Distributions of diameters of Mancos Black-on-white, Deadmans Black-on-red, and Tusayan Black-on- red.

CERAMIC ORIGINS

The Bluff great house had a much higher proportion of imported ceramics than the other sites included in this study. “Almost 30 percent of white wares and 20 percent of the utility wares were from the Kayenta (Tusayan) region” during the late Pueblo II period (Cameron

2009e:305). However, this prevalence of imported ceramics did not continue throughout the entire use of the great house. After the decline of Chaco, there was virtually no importation of white ware ceramics from any region, though “the exchange of utility vessels with the Kayenta region seems to have continued at approximately the same level” (Cameron 2009e:305). The residents of the Bluff great house must have had significant ties to the Kayenta region.

A total of 2867 sherds from imported vessels were identified at the site, 2736 of which came from the Kayenta region. Seven sherds were from vessels imported from the Mogollon region, 39 sherds were from vessels imported from the Cibola region, and 85 sherds were from vessels imported from the Chuska region (Blinman 2009). Table 3.4 shows types and quantities of all imported sherds identified at Bluff.

Vessels imported from the Cibola and Chuska regions indicate that Bluff residents had interaction with Chaco Canyon. At Bluff, Chuskan and Cibolan sherds represent 4.32% of total imports and .7% of total ceramics. These percentages do not suggest a very frequent interaction.

However, as discussed in chapter 2, large quantities of imported sherds are not commonly found at great houses outside Chaco Canyon (Durand 2003; Judge and Cordell 2006; Kantner and

Kintigh 2006, Kantner et al. 2000; Mathien 1993; Powers et al. 1983; Toll 1991, 2001, 2006).

The level of interaction between Bluff and Chaco may not be accurately reflected by the proportions of ceramics. These imported sherds provide clear evidence that there was some

47 interaction between Bluff and Chaco, but it is not certain how frequently or in what manner this interaction took place.

Table 3.4 Imported Sherds from 42SA22674 (after Blinman 2009)

Tradition Type Count Tradition Type Count Cibola Corrugated Gray 4 Kayenta Indeterminate Gray 4 Red Mesa Black-on-white 2 Lino Gray 11 Escavada Black-on-white 2 Kana'a Gray 7 Puerco Black-on-white 1 Coconino Gray 6 Gallup Black-on-white 2 Erect Rim Corrugated 4 Chaco Black-on-white 7 Oblique Rim Corrugated 29 Late Black-on-white 1 Everted Rim Corrugated 16 Indeterminate Black-on-white 1 Plain Body 384 Tallahogan Red (Cibola) 1 Corrugated Body 1021 Puerco Black-on-red 4 Honani Tooled 1 Wingate Black-on-red 2 Kana'a Black-on-white 29 Wingate Polychrome 3 Black Mesa Black-on-white 52 Unpainted White Mountain Redware 1 Sosi Black-on-white 100 Indeterminate White Mountain Black-on-red 3 Dogoszhi Black-on-white 53 Chuska Indeterminate Gray 1 Flagstaff Black-on-white 9 Sheep Springs Gray 1 Early Black-on-white 4 Tocito Gray 2 Late Black-on-white 140 Gray Hills Banded 7 Indeterminate Black-on-white 105 Captain Tom Corrugated 6 Indeterminate White 155 Blue Shale Corrugated 1 Indeterminate Tsegi Orange Ware 5 Hunter Corrugated 2 Tallahogan Red (Kayenta) 1 Plain Gray Body 23 Medicine Black-on-red 23 Corrugated Body 17 Tusayan Black-on-red 185 Naschitti Black-on-white (m) 1 Cameron Polychrome 25 Newcomb Black-on-white (o) 3 Citadel Polychrome 19 Toadlena Black-on-white (o) 6 Tusayan Polychrome 29 Chuska Black-on-white (o) 1 Kiet Siel Polychrome 1 Brimhall Black-on-white (m) 1 Indeterminate Red 218 Nava Black-on-white (o) 1 Indeterminate Black-on-red 88 Late Black-on-white (o) 5 Indeterminate Polychrome 11 Painted, polished (o) 3 Mogollon Plain brown 1 Unpainted, polished white 4 Plain smudged 4 Corrugated smudged 2

4 Edge of the Cedars

SITE HISTORY

Edge of the Cedars (42SA700) is located in the city of Blanding (see figure 4.1). It was first occupied in the late AD 800s. The first occupation is known from a few excavations of the later great house complex that went deep enough to discover the first architecture at the site. This village has only been dated using ceramics, and the ceramic assemblage is not quite like other potentially contemporary sites that have been excavated. Most of the early ceramics were recovered from deposits where early and late materials were mixed (Hurst 1999:6). Although the earlier occupation has not received as much focus as the later occupation and is not well understood, it is important to note that the later site was constructed on land that had been previously used (Hurst 1999, 2000).

Figure 4.1 Great house at Edge of the Cedars. After a lapse of more than 100 years, the site was reoccupied. The later occupation at

Edge of the Cedars created “six rubble mounds and eleven associated depressions,” one of which is a great house abutting a great kiva (Hurst 2000:66). The great house and great kiva are relatively central within the site and are the only parts of this later village to have been

excavated. The site has tree ring dates of AD 1109, 1117, and 1215 (Hurst 2000:66). However,

because of an almost complete lack of Pueblo III ceramics such as McElmo Black-on-white and

Mesa Verde Black-on-white, the site is presumed to have been largely abandoned by the mid-

12th century (Hurst 1999:10). The latest cutting date is attributed to an unsuccessful attempt to

reuse the site.

The great house at Edge of the Cedars has many architectural characteristics common to other Chacoan great houses. It was originally two stories tall. It has two blocked-in kivas, one

of which is known to have “a subfloor ventilation shaft and no deflector as well as a subfloor

vault west of the firepit, the two standard features of a Chaco-style kiva” (Hurst 2000:68). Many

of the walls of the great house were built using the core-and-veneer technique common to Chaco

Canyon. The great kiva at the site has an antechamber room on the north, as do most Chacoan great kivas. Other Chacoan architectural characteristics of the great house include intramural beams and a small amount of tabular sandstone. Great kivas like the one abutting the Edge of the Cedars great house are also commonly found in Chacoan sites, though they are not exclusive to the Pueblo II time period (Hurst 2000).

The great house was excavated from 1969 to 1973 by Weber State College archaeological field schools. All field records of the site from the 1972 field school were lost,

which include “the only excavations conducted…in the large kiva” (Hurst 2000:66). The state

park that now exists at the site was founded in 1974 after Weber State had concluded its

excavation. The museum has conducted small excavations over the years, mostly as part of the

site maintenance process (Hurst 1999).

CERAMIC ANALYSIS

In the 1990s, Winston Hurst analyzed over 26,000 sherds recovered from the site. The data he recorded was the foundation for my analysis. His analysis was limited to “basic affiliation, ware, type, style and form information” for most ceramics (Hurst 1999:2). A few ceramics received microscopic temper analysis, but most did not. The original intent of the study was to record temper and many other additional details but had to be altered once the great number of sherds needing analysis became apparent (Hurst 1999:2).

Hurst identified various proveniences as early, mixed, or late. Early proveniences were

Pueblo I features below the great house and were not pertinent to my study. I printed a list of all

accession numbers associated with proveniences identified as late and containing rim sherds. I went through these bags and pulled rim sherds measuring 2.5 cm or greater from end to end. I pulled sherds for analysis from every year from 1969 to 1972. I ended up with a sample of 298

rim sherds in total, 135 from gray ware jars, 156 from white ware bowls, and 5 from white ware

jars.

For each sherd, I recorded ware, style, form, and type, using the data from Hurst’s

analysis. Rim diameter and arc estimates were taken according to procedures outlined in

Chapter 1, Methods. I did not conduct systematic temper analysis for sherds from Edge of the

Cedars because Hurst (1999) reported origins of imported sherds; however, when sherds were

already nipped or broken to expose the interior I recorded the temper that was present. I

recorded temper for 93 sherds from Edge of the Cedars.

Hurst was inconsistent in identifying sherds as either Mancos Black-on-white or as

general “Intermediate white ware” once he ended his temper analysis (Hurst 1999:3). He

recommended that these groups be combined together in future analyses using his data (Hurst

1999:3). I have opted to use Mesa Verdean type names for sherds in this thesis even when

temper was not identified. It is possible that subsequent analysis of the ceramics may change

some of the type designations for sherds in this study. I also combined Hurst’s “Wetherill Black-

on-white” sherds with Mancos Black-on-white because paint type (mineral vs. carbon vs.

organic) was not distinguished for the other sites included in this study. A complete chart of data

recovered from my analysis of ceramics from Edge of the Cedars can be found in Appendix A.

DATA

Gray ware sherd types, counts, and total degrees of arc can be seen in Table 4.1.

Although I only selected sherds from proveniences Hurst had identified as late, there are still quite a few early gray ware sherds mixed in. In his report, Hurst noted that “roughly 7 of every

10 early component sherds were recovered from mixed or late proveniences” (Hurst 1999:6). It is not surprising then that about 20% of the measurable gray ware sherds from late proveniences

I selected were from the first occupation of the site.

Table 4.1 Gray Ware Sherds from 42SA700 Type Count Degrees of Arc Chapin Gray 5 150 Moccasin Gray 4 75 Mancos Gray 19 395 Late Mancos Gray 2 45 General Corrugated 3 100 Mancos Corrugated 36 835 Dolores Corrugated 39 1215 Mesa Verde Corrugated 9 270 Unidentified Gray 18 450 Total 135 3535

White ware sherd types, counts, and total degrees of arc can be seen in Tables 4.2 and

4.3. The mixture of early and late ceramics is not as visible in the white wares as it is in the gray

wares, with only two early white ware sherds (one bowl and one jar) present in the assemblage.

This is likely because red ware bowls were more common at Edge of the Cedars in earlier times.

Table 4.2 White Ware Bowl Sherds from 42SA700 Type Count Degrees of Arc White Mesa Black-on-white 1 15 Mancos Black-on-white 116 2915 Intermediate Unpainted 3 105 Sosi Black-on-white 7 180 McElmo Black-on-white 3 55 Kayenta Import 1 35 Possible Cibolan Import 1 20 Total 132 4370

Table 4.3 White Ware Jars from 42SA700 Type Count Degrees of Arc White Mesa Black-on-white 1 25 Mancos Black-on-white 4 215 Total 5 240

VESSEL SIZE

Gray wares The gray ware types numerous enough to warrant discussion of vessel sizes were Mancos

Gray, Mancos Corrugated, and Dolores Corrugated. Mancos Gray vessels were created during the Pueblo I occupation of the site, and Mancos Corrugated and Dolores Corrugated both date to

the great house occupation of the site.

Twenty-one Mancos Gray jars were measured (including the two late Mancos Gray

sherds), encompassing 440 degrees of arc or 1.2 vessel equivalents. The median jar diameter is

20 cm. An equal number of sherds came from jars measuring 18 cm in diameter and 22 cm in diameter, though the sherds from jars with diameters of 22 cm encompassed slightly more degrees of arc. This is the largest peak rim size of all three gray ware types measured. However, as the sample size is small it is not certain that this pattern would continue if more sherds had been measured. The smallest Mancos Gray diameter estimate is 12 cm, and the largest is 26 cm.

This is a much smaller range than the two later gray ware types. Figure 4.2 shows graphs of

Mancos Gray diameters by count and by degrees.

Mancos Gray by Count Mancos Gray by Degrees 120 5

100 4

80 s t 3 e n e r u g

o 60 e C D 2 40

1 20

0 0 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 Diameter Diameter

Figure 4.2 Graphs showing diameters of Mancos Gray sherds by count and by degrees.

Thirty-six Mancos Corrugated sherds were measured, encompassing 835 degrees of arc or 2.4 vessel equivalents. The median jar diameter is 22 cm. The peak jar diameter is 20 cm.

The chart by count shows a secondary peak at 28 cm. The chart by degrees also shows a secondary peak, though not as pronounced. The smallest jar measured has a diameter of 14 cm, and the largest has a diameter of 36 cm. Figure 4.3 shows charts of Mancos Corrugated diameters by count and by degrees.

Mancos Corrugated by Count Mancos Corrugated by Degrees

10 250

8 200 s t 6 e 150 n e r u g o e C D 4 100

2 50

0 0 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 36 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 36 Diameter Diameter

Figure 4.3 Charts showing diameters of Mancos Corrugated sherds by count and by degrees.

Thirty-nine Dolores Corrugated sherds were measured, encompassing 1200 degrees of arc or 3.3 vessel equivalents. The median jar diameter is 20 cm. The peak jar diameter is 18 cm, slightly smaller than the peak of the Mancos Corrugated jars. Unlike the Mancos Corrugated jars, no secondary peak can be observed. The smallest jar measured is 8 cm in diameter, and the largest is 34 cm in diameter. Figure 4.4 shows charts of Dolores Corrugated diameters by count and by degrees.

Dolores Corrugated by Count Dolores Corrugated by Degrees 350 9

8 300

7 250 6 s e t 200 e n

5 r u g o e C

4 D 150

3 100 2 50 1

0 0 8 12 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 Diameter Diameter

Figure 4.4 Charts showing diameters of Dolores Corrugated sherds by count and by degrees.

Interestingly, the largest diameter recorded was from a Mancos Corrugated jar, most likely in use at the beginning of the great house occupation. The size distributions of Mancos

Corrugated and Dolores Corrugated are similar, but jars were slightly smaller in the later part of the great house occupation. There is also only a single peak in the Dolores Corrugated jars, unlike the Mancos Corrugated jars.

Mancos Corrugated and Dolores Corrugated jars were combined to show size distributions throughout the great house occupation. The median jar diameter is 20 cm. The graph shows a primary peak at 18 cm by degrees and 20 cm by count. Both graphs show a secondary peak at 26 cm. The tail of the graph extends to the right, with more jars larger than the median and the mode. Figure 4.5 shows graphs of Mancos Corrugated and Dolores

Corrugated by count and by degrees.

Mancos Corrugated and Dolores Corrugated by Count Mancos Corrugated and Dolores Corrugated by Degrees 18 600

16 500 14

12 400 s e t e n 10 r u

g 300 o e C

8 D

6 200

4 100 2

0 0 8 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 8 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 Diameter Diameter

Figure 4.5 Charts of Mancos Corrugated and Dolores Corrugated sherds by count and by degrees.

White Wares The only white ware type numerous enough to warrant discussion of vessel sizes is

Mancos Black-on-white bowls. I measured 116 sherds encompassing 2950 degrees of arc, or approximately 8 vessel equivalents. The median diameter is 23 cm. The peak bowl size by count

57 and by degrees is 22 cm in diameter. The distributions look very different by count and by degrees. A small bowl mode is present in both charts, with a peak by count at 16 cm and by degrees at 14 cm. By degrees, the small bowl mode is much more pronounced; though almost half as many sherds from bowls of 14 cm diameter were measured, they represent nearly the same degrees of arc as sherds from bowls of 22 cm diameter. The smallest bowl measured has a diameter of 12 cm, and the largest has a diameter of 34 cm. Figure 4.6 shows graphs of Mancos

Black-on-white diameters by count and by degrees.

Mancos Black-on-white by Count Mancos Black-on-white by Degrees 20 500

400 15

s 300 t e n e r u g

o 10 e C D 200

5 100

0 0 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 Diameter Diameter

Figure 4.6 Charts showing diameters of Mancos Black-on-white sherds by count and by degrees.

CERAMIC ORIGINS

My analysis recorded eight imported sherds out of the 298 analyzed, all of them Kayenta.

Hurst identified “456 definite or probable imports out of a total of 10,787 sherds (4.2%)” dating to the great house occupation of the site (Hurst 1999:28). Interestingly, there were almost no imported ceramics from the early occupation of the site, with “only 8 definite or likely imports…out of nearly 15,000 sherds” (Hurst 1999:28). More than 80% of the imported

ceramics from the great house occupation came from the Kayenta region. Chacoan ceramics

were the next most commonly identified, representing 2% of the identified imports. Chuskan

imports represented 1.4%, and Cibolan sherds represented .4%. The remaining 14% of imported

ceramics were clearly not local, but their origin was not determinable (Hurst 1999:29). While

most ceramics at the site were locally produced, these imports show that people living at Edge of

the Cedars had ties to the surrounding regions. The ties to the Kayenta region appear to have

been strongest, judging by the relative quantities of imported ceramics.

The imported sherds also indicate connections to Chaco Canyon. The proportions of

ceramics do not suggest that interaction with Chaco Canyon was frequent; however, it is known

that Chacoan ceramics were not frequently imported to great houses outside Chaco Canyon

(Durand 2003; Judge and Cordell 2006; Kantner and Kintigh 2006, Kantner et al. 2000; Mathien

1993; Powers et al. 1983; Toll 1991, 2001, 2006). It is possible that interaction with Chaco

Canyon took place more frequently than the ceramics suggest (Lekson 1999).

5 Cottonwood Falls

SITE HISTORY

The Cottonwood Falls site (42SA5222) is located about 30 km north of the Bluff great house along the Cottonwood Wash (see figure 5.1). It includes a great house of over 50 rooms, a great kiva, two prehistoric roads, and two Pueblo I unit pueblos (Mahoney 2000; Severance

2004). At present, Cottonwood Falls is known only from surface collections and mapping. No excavations have been conducted at the site. Therefore, the extent of occupation during any particular time is difficult to address. The Cottonwood Falls site was first occupied during the

Pueblo I period. It is unclear if the site was occupied during the early Pueblo II period; if so, it was not likely a very extensive occupation. The great house is believed to have been built and used during the late Pueblo II period (Mahoney 1998a; Severance 2004).

Figure 5.1 Cottonwood Falls great house site.

Surface collections were made at the site in 1989 by Severance (2004, 2005). Arizona

State University surveyed Cottonwood Falls and surrounding areas in 1996 and 1997 (Mahoney

1998a, 1998b, 2002). The Cottonwood Falls great house is surrounded by small, “dispersed”

habitation sites (Mahoney 1998a). During the Late Pueblo II and Pueblo III periods, people

moved off the surrounding mesa tops and closer to the Cottonwood Wash and to the great house,

possibly because a lack of rainfall made the mesa tops less desirable (Mahoney 1998b:15).

Based on the results of her survey, Mahoney (1998a:21) estimated the momentary

population of the community surrounding the great house to range from 11 to 84 people, with an

average of 46. She therefore proposed that “a much larger group of people residing several

kilometers away from the great house participated in the construction…and the activities

occurring there” (Mahoney 1998a:21). The Cottonwood Falls great house is located 8 kilometers

north of the Black Mesa Ruin great house site and about 10 kilometers south of the Red Knobs

great house site (Allison 2004; Chaco Research Archive 2014). These sites have also not been

excavated, and the interaction between these other great house communities and the Cottonwood

Falls great house community is unclear.

CERAMIC ANALYSIS

Severance (2004) gathered 25,669 sherds from 471 ten by ten meter grid units. He analyzed 11,719 of these, recording ware, type, form, temper, and paste color. I took my sample from 249 of the collection units made by Severance. I began by removing rim sherds of over 2.5 cm in length from the collection units atop the great house, assuming that these sherds would be most relevant to my research questions about the great house occupation. I also pulled rim sherds from the collection units made atop the great kiva and from other areas around the site

until I had a total of 290 sherds for analysis. Rim diameter and arc estimates were taken

according to procedures outlined in Chapter 1, Methods.

Because Severance (2004) recorded so much temper data for ceramics from the site, I did not conduct a systematic temper analysis. Unfortunately, many of the collection units atop the great house were unanalyzed by Severance. I recorded temper data for sherds that Severance had

nipped or that had a break where temper was visible. I recorded temper for 151 sherds from

Cottonwood Falls. A complete chart of data recovered from my analysis of ceramics from

Cottonwood Falls can be found in Appendix B.

DATA

Gray ware sherd types, counts, and total degrees of arc can be seen in Table 5.1.

Although the majority of sherds were pulled from collection units atop the great house, there were more early Chapin Gray rim sherds than any other gray ware type. Thirty-two of the 42

Chapin Gray sherds I analyzed came from collection units either atop or immediately downhill from the great house. Why so many early gray ware sherds would be found there is unclear.

Table 5.1 Gray Ware Sherds from 42SA5222 Type Count Degrees of Arc Chapin Gray 42 1065 Moccasin Gray 19 545 Mancos Gray 13 240 Late Mancos Gray 5 80 Mancos Corrugated 23 420 Dolores Corrugated 11 250 Mesa Verde Corrugated 5 125 Unidentified Gray 44 820 Total 162 3545

White ware sherd types, counts, and total degrees of arc can be seen in Tables 5.2 and

5.3. As expected, the most common white ware type for both jars and bowls is Mancos Black-

on-white.

Table 5.2 White Ware Bowl Sherds from 42SA5222 Type Count Degrees of Arc White Mesa Black-on-white 3 45 Cortez Black-on-white 1 15 Mancos Black-on-white 48 835 PII Unpainted 4 65 McElmo Black-on-white 18 295 Mesa Verde Black-on-white 9 150 General PIII 6 80 Unidentified 13 215 Chuskan Import 1 25 Total 103 1725

Table 5.3 White Ware Jar Sherds from 42SA5222 Type Count Degrees of Arc Mancos Black-on-white 6 195 PII Unpainted 1 35 Unidentified 1 40 Chuskan Import 1 45 Total 9 315

VESSEL SIZE

Gray wares I will discuss jar diameters for Chapin Gray, Mancos Corrugated, and a combination of

Mancos Corrugated and Dolores Corrugated. There were not enough Dolores Corrugated sherds measured to allow for independent discussion of that type category, but a combination of the two

will give some idea of jar diameters during the entire great house occupation.

Chapin Gray was produced from AD 575 to 950 (Wilson and Blinman 1995:39). It is

unlikely that the Chapin Gray sherds were associated with the great house occupation of the site,

63 thought to begin in AD 1050, and more likely that they relate to the Pueblo I occupation of the site (Mahoney 2000). Because more Chapin Gray rim sherds were measured than any other type at Cottonwood Falls, they are reported here despite their probable lack of connection to the great house occupation. Forty-two Chapin Gray sherds were measured encompassing 1065 degrees of arc, or approximately 3 vessel equivalents. The median diameter is 16 cm. The Chapin Gray charts look very different by count and by degrees. The peak jar diameter by count is 14 cm, but the peak jar diameter by degrees is 10 cm. Both charts show secondary peaks at 20 cm. Equal numbers of sherds from bowls of 12 cm, 16 cm, and 20 cm in diameter were measured, but the total degrees measured decreased as the diameter of the jars increased. Both charts show that the smaller jars were more prevalent than the larger ones, but the difference is much more pronounced in the chart by degrees. The smallest jar diameter recorded was 6 cm, and the largest was 38 cm. Figure 5.2 shows diameters for Chapin Gray jars by count and by degrees.

Chapin Gray by Count Chapin Gray by Degrees 200 6

5 150

4 s t e n e u r o 3 g 100 C e D

2 50 1

0 0 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 36 38 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 36 38 Diameter Diameter

Figure 5.2 Bar charts showing diameters of Chapin Gray sherds by count and by degrees.

Twenty-three Mancos Corrugated sherds were measured encompassing 420 degrees of arc, or 1.2 vessel equivalents. The distributions for this size category may not be meaningful because so few sherds were measured. The median jar diameter is 24 cm. Both Mancos

Corrugated charts both show a peak jar diameter at 26 cm. However, the chart by degrees shows

an extremely high secondary peak at 12 cm diameter. This is because sherds of the same size

encompass more degrees of arc for smaller jars than they do for large ones. The smallest jar

diameter recorded was 12 cm, and the largest was 36 cm. Figure 5.3 shows diameters for

Mancos Corrugated jars by count and by degrees.

Mancos Corrugated by Count Mancos Corrugated by Degrees 100 6

5 80

s 60 t e n e r u g o 3 e C D 40 2

20 1

0 0 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 Diameter Diameter

Figure 5.3 Bar charts showing diameters of Mancos Corrugated sherds by count and by degrees.

Mancos Corrugated and Dolores Corrugated sherds were combined to give an idea of size

distributions throughout great house occupation and to attempt to get a big enough sample size

for meaningful results. Both types combined had 34 sherds encompassing 670 degrees of arc, or

1.9 vessel equivalents. This is still a very small sample size and may not accurately reflect rim sizes at the site. The median diameter is 22 cm. The peak vessel diameter is 26 cm, and there is a secondary peak at 22 cm diameter. The smallest jar diameter is 10 cm, slightly smaller than the smallest Mancos Corrugated jar. The largest diameter remains 36 cm. Figure 5.4 shows diameters for both Mancos Corrugated and Dolores Corrugated jars by count and by degrees.

Mancos Corrugated and Dolores Corrugated by Count Mancos Corrugated and Dolores Corrugated by Degrees 9 140

8 120 7 100 6 s t e 80 n 5 e u r o g C 4 e D 60 3 40 2 20 1

0 0 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 Diameter Diameter

Figure 5.4 Bar charts showing diameters of Mancos Corrugated and Dolores Corrugated sherds by count and by degrees.

White wares White ware bowl sample sizes from Cottonwood Falls were also small. I combined

Mancos Black-on-white with the four unpainted Pueblo II white ware sherds, and also combined

McElmo Black-on-white, Mesa Verde Black-on-white, and the General Pueblo III sherds. This

allows comparison of Pueblo II and Pueblo III white ware bowls at the site.

There were 52 Pueblo II white ware sherds measured encompassing 900 degrees of arc,

or 2.5 vessel equivalents. The median diameter is 22 cm. An equal number of bowls with

diameters of 20 cm, 22 cm, and 24 cm were measured. Both graphs peak from 20 cm to 24 cm,

with a secondary peak at 30 cm. The smallest bowl diameter recorded was 8 cm, and the largest

was 38 cm. Figure 5.5 shows Pueblo II white ware bowl diameters by count and by degrees.

Pueblo II White Ware Bowls by Count Pueblo II White Ware Bowls by Degrees

6 100

5 80

4 s t e 60 n e r u g o 3 e C D 40 2

20 1

0 0 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 Diameter Diameter

Figure 5.5 Charts showing diameters of Pueblo II white ware bowl sherds by count and by degrees.

Thirty-three Pueblo III white ware bowl sherds were measured, encompassing 525 degrees of arc or 1.5 vessel equivalents. The median diameter is 24 cm. The peak bowl diameter for Pueblo III white ware bowls is 30 cm. There is a secondary peak from 20-24 cm.

The smallest diameter recorded is 14 cm; the largest is 42 cm. It appears that bowls with large diameters were more prevalent during the Pueblo III period than during the Pueblo II period.

However, the small sample size of Pueblo III bowls may not accurately reflect the distribution of bowl diameters during this period. Figure 5.6 shows diameters of Pueblo III bowls by count and by degrees.

Pueblo III White Ware Bowls by Count Pueblo III White Ware Bowls by Degrees 120 7

6 100

5 80 s t e n 4 e r u g

o 60 e C 3 D 40 2

20 1

0 0 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 42 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 42 Diameter Diameter

Figure 5.6 Bar charts showing diameters of Pueblo III white ware bowl sherds by count and by degrees.

CERAMIC ORIGINS

Severance (2004) identified 31 Kayenta sherds and four Chuskan sherds in his analysis.

He did not identify any imports from other regions. Early and late types are represented in the

Kayenta sherds, indicating that interactions with this region occurred throughout the occupation of the site and not just during the time of the great house. Three of the four Chuskan sherds were found in collection units next to the Great House. Excavation of the site and further analysis will help provide stronger indications of the relationships people at Cottonwood Falls had with other regions; however, this data hints that relationships with the Chuska region were associated with the great house.

Mahoney (1998a) identified an additional 10 Tsegi orange ware sherds and 28 White

Mountain Red Ware sherds at Cottonwood Falls. Temper analysis of her collections was not conducted, so there may be additional unidentified imports among her collections. She did not specify where at the site the sherds were found, nor did she provide specific types, so it is not possible to glean further insights into time or place for the connections to these regions. Table

5.4 shows imported sherds identified by Severance (2004) and Mahoney (1998a).

Table 5.4 Imported Sherds at 42SA5222 Type Count Medicine Black-on-red 3 Citadel Polychrome 4 Tusayan Polychrome 2 Unidentified Kayenta Red ware 12 Tusayan Corrugated 2 Unidentified Kayenta Corrugated Gray ware 1 Kana'a Black-on-white 3 Sosi Black-on-white 1 Flagstaff Black-on-white 2 Unidentified Kayenta White 1 Sanostee Black-on-orange 1 Unidentified Chuskan Corrugated Gray ware 2 Unidentified Chuskan White ware 1 Tsegi Orange 10 White Mountain Red Ware 28 Total 73 Sources: Severance 2004 and Mahoney 1998a.

6 Three Kiva Pueblo

SITE HISTORY

Three Kiva Pueblo (42SA863) is located in Montezuma Canyon approximately 25 miles

east of Blanding, Utah. The site was excavated by the Brigham Young University archaeological

field school from 1969 to 1972 (Miller 1974:3). The site consists of a structure of 14 rooms, a

“ramada,” a long room not attached to the main roomblock thought to be a turkey run, and a

trash mound (Miller 1974:126). The main structure was first constructed in the Pueblo I period,

and at that time consisted of four rooms and one or two kivas. These earliest rooms were

constructed of “tabular” masonry (Miller 1974:28). It is unclear whether earliest two the kivas

were in use concurrently (Miller 1974:65). The ramada and the midden are also assumed to have

been created during this first occupation (Miller 1974:13).

Figure 6.1 Three Kiva Pueblo during excavations in 1970. Image courtesy of Museum of Peoples and Cultures, 2010MS.002.03.02.044.

The remaining ten rooms were added onto the original structure during the Pueblo II or

Pueblo III period. The structure was thought to have been two stories high prior to excavation, but after excavation was determined to have been just one (Miller 1974:10). Although three kivas were discovered during excavation of the site, giving it its name, only one blocked-in kiva was in use during the Pueblo II and Pueblo III occupations of the site. The two earlier kivas were covered by the construction of later rooms. The latest kiva is a six-pilaster Mesa Verde style kiva (Miller 1974:52). The latest occupation of the site included the addition of T-shaped doorways.

Food preparation at Three Kiva is indicated by the presence of 23 manos or mano fragments, four metates, and five milling bins (Miller 1974). Faunal analysis from the great house was minimal, comprising “only representative samples” and without any reports on quantities (Miller 1974:124). “Numerous turkey bones” and some turkey egg shells were discovered, but the actual quantities and proportions of these bones to other faunal remains were not reported (Miller 1974:124). Most large mammal bones were identified as deer, but again, quantities and proportions were not reported (Miller 1974:125). The only exotics found at the

Three Kiva were two abalone pendants (Miller 1974:116).

Three Kiva Pueblo is not a great house. Its only characteristic similar to those of Chacoan great houses is a blocked-in kiva. This kiva is built in the local Mesa Verde style rather than in the Chacoan style. Unlike most great houses, Three Kiva is a single story edifice. Three Kiva lacks earthworks and roads that are important for identifying great houses far from Chaco

Canyon. Van Dyke (2003:135) suggested that “the absence of core-and-veneer masonry [sets] spatial boundaries on the Chaco world.” Three Kiva has no core-and-veneer masonry. Three

Kiva Pueblo is a useful comparative site because it has a very similar occupation history to the

other sites included in this study, without the presumed connection to Chaco Canyon of great

house sites. Potential great houses near Three Kiva Pueblo include Monument Village, Coalbed

Village, 10-acre Ruin, and Montezuma Village (Hurst and Till 2009:Figure 4.3).

CERAMIC ANALYSIS

Miller (1974) analyzed sherds recovered from Three Kiva Pueblo. These sherds were analyzed according to a typology proposed by Forsyth (1972) that was never widely adopted.

No temper analysis was conducted. This data is not very useful for comparative analysis today, except on a most basic level of ware and possibly time period.

I identified ware, style, form, and type for 603 sherds from Three Kiva, using type definitions from Wilson and Blinman (1995). I also recorded a diameter estimate and then measured the length of the rim of the sherd from end to end using calipers. For jars with everted rims, the orifice opening was measured instead of the rim. Because no temper data had previously been recorded for these ceramics, I nipped each sherd to expose a fresh break and identified temper using a microscope. Rim diameter and arc estimates were taken according to procedures outlined in Chapter 1, Methods. A complete chart of data recovered from my analysis of ceramics from Edge of the Cedars can be found in Appendix C.

DATA

Gray ware sherd types, counts, and total degrees of arc can be seen in Table 6.1. The majority of gray ware ceramics recovered from the site date to the Pueblo II to early Pueblo III period.

Table 6.1 Gray Ware Ceramics from 42SA863 Type Count Degrees of Arc Chapin Gray 2 45 Moccasin Gray 2 55 Mancos Gray 12 260 Late Mancos Gray 15 365 Mancos Corrugated 57 1035 Dolores Corrugated 54 1740 Mesa Verde Corrugated 10 360 Unidentified 46 950 Total 198 4810

White ware sherd types, counts, and total degrees of arc can be seen in Tables 6.2 and

6.3. A much larger majority of white ware sherds than gray ware sherds date to the Pueblo II period. This is likely because red ware bowls were commonly used during the Pueblo I period.

Table 6.2 White Ware Bowls from 42SA863 Type Count Degrees of Arc Piedra Black-on-white 5 85 White Mesa Black-on-white 2 45 Cortez Black-on-white 4 105 Mancos Black-on-white 253 5550 Pueblo II Unpainted 21 405 McElmo Black-on-white 36 905 Mesa Verde Black-on-white 37 710 General Pueblo III 7 125 Unidentified 17 355 Total 382 8285

Table 6.3 White Ware Jars from 42SA863 Type Count Degrees of Arc Mancos Black-on-white 14 605 Cortez Black-on-white 2 80 Pueblo II Unpainted 4 130 Unidentified 3 110 Total 23 925

VESSEL SIZE

Gray wares The gray ware cooking jar types numerous enough to allow discussion of rim sizes are

Mancos Gray, Mancos Corrugated, and Dolores Corrugated. Mancos Gray jars were most likely created during the Pueblo I occupation of the site, and Mancos Corrugated and Dolores

Corrugated both date to the Pueblo II occupation of the site.

Twenty-seven Mancos Gray and Late Mancos Gray sherds were measured, encompassing

625 degrees of arc, or 1.7 vessel equivalents. The median jar diameter is 23 cm. The graph by count shows equal peaks at 20 and 22 cm diameter, whereas the graph by degrees shows the peak at 20 cm. The smallest jar has a diameter estimate of 8 cm, and the largest jar has a diameter estimate of 44 cm. Mancos Gray diameters are shown in figure 6.2 by count and by degrees.

Mancos Gray by Count Mancos Gray by Degrees 100 4

80 3

s 60 e t e n r u g o 2 e C D 40

1 20

0 0 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 34 36 40 44 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 34 36 40 44 Diameter Diameter

Figure 6.2 Mancos Gray diameters by count and by degrees.

Fifty-seven Mancos Corrugated sherds were measured, encompassing 1035 degrees of arc, or 2.9 vessel equivalents. This is the largest gray ware category by count, and the second largest by degrees. The median jar diameter is 26 cm. The graphs show a bimodal distribution with peaks centered at 22-24 cm and at 30 cm. The smallest jar has a diameter of 8 cm, and the

74 largest has a diameter of 42 cm. Mancos Corrugated diameters are shown in figure 6.3 by count and by degrees.

Mancos Corrugated by Count Mancos Corrugated by Degrees 160 7 140 6 120 5 100 s t e n 4 e r u g o 80 e C 3 D 60

2 40

1 20

0 0 8 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 40 42 8 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 40 42 Diameter Diameter

Figure 6.3 Mancos Corrugated diameters by count and by degrees.

Fifty-five Dolores Corrugated sherds were measured encompassing 1740 degrees of arc, or 4.8 vessel equivalents. This is the most numerous category by degrees, and the second most numerous by count. The median jar diameter is 22 cm. The largest jar measured has a diameter of 38 cm, and the smallest jar measured has a diameter of 8 cm. Both graphs show a bimodal distribution with a primary peak at 18 cm and secondary peak from 26-28 cm by count or 30 cm by degrees. A partial jar with a diameter of 22 cm is not included in these graphs. Dolores

Corrugated diameters are shown in figure 6.4 by count and by degrees.

Dolores Corrugated by Count Dolores Corrugated by Degrees 350 9

8 300

7 250 6 s t e 200 n e

5 r u g o e C

4 D 150

3 100 2 50 1

0 0 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 38 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 38 Diameter Diameter

Figure 6.4 Dolores Corrugated diameters by count and by degrees.

Mancos Corrugated jars appear to have been larger than Dolores Corrugated jars at Thee

Kiva. Dolores Corrugated jars have a smaller peak size as well as a smaller range of diameters.

If the large jars indicate cooking for feasts, than this appears to have been more important during the earlier part of the Pueblo II occupation than it was later.

White wares White ware bowls are the only vessel form with enough data for size comparison. The white ware types to be discussed are Mancos Black-on-white, McElmo Black-on-white, and

Mesa Verde Black-on-white.

Two-hundred-fifty-three Mancos Black-on-white bowl sherds were measured encompassing 5550 degrees of arc, or 15.4 vessel equivalents. This is the largest vessel category at Three Kiva. The median jar diameter is 23 cm. Four partial bowls with diameters of 18 cm,

24 cm, 26 cm, and 30 cm alter the shape of the graph by degrees. The peak bowl diameter is 22 cm, with a small secondary peak at 12 cm. The smallest bowl measured has a diameter of 8 cm, and the largest has a diameter of 48 cm. A misshaped partial bowl with diameter estimates ranging from 22-36 cm was not included in the graphs. This partial bowl may have important indications for interpreting bowl diameter estimates for this site. A range in 14 cm for diameter

76 estimates from the same bowl suggests the possibility that the very large diameter estimates at

Three Kiva may also be from misshapen bowls.

Mancos Black-on-white by Count Mancos Black-on-white by Degrees 35 800

30 700

600 25 500 s t 20 e n e r u g

o 400 e C

15 D 300 10 200

5 100

0 0 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Diameter Diameter

Figure 6.5 Mancos Black-on-white diameters by count and by degrees.

Thirty-six McElmo Black-on-white sherds were measured encompassing 905 degrees of arc, or 2.5 vessel equivalents. The median diameter is 26 cm. The smallest bowl has a diameter estimate of 12 cm, and the largest has a diameter estimate of 40 cm. The peak bowl size is 28 cm. Figure 6.6 shows McElmo Black-on-white diameters by count and by degrees.

McElmo Black-on-white by Count McElmo Black-on-white by Degrees 9 250

7 200

s 150 t e n

5 e r u g o e C

4 D 100 3

2 50 1

0 0 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 38 40 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 38 40 Diameter Diameter

Figure 6.6 McElmo Black-on-white diameters by count and by degrees.

Thirty-seven Mesa Verde Black-on-white sherds were measured encompassing 710 degrees of arc, or about two vessel equivalents. The median diameter is 28 cm. The smallest bowl measured has a diameter of 18 cm and the largest bowl measured has a diameter of 48 cm.

The peak diameter is at 24 cm, with a secondary peak at 30 cm. Figure 6.7 shows Mesa Verde

Black-on-white diameters by count and by degrees.

Mesa Verde Black-on-white by Count Mesa Verde Black-on-white by Degrees 180 7 160 6 140

5 120 s t e n 4 e 100 r u g o e C

D 80 3 60 2 40 1 20

0 0 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 48 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 48 Diameter Diameter

Figure 6.7 Mesa Verde Black-on-white diameters by count and by degrees.

Bowl diameters from all Pueblo III white ware sherds, painted and unpainted, were

combined to allow for comparison with a study by Ortman (1999) of ceramics from Sand

Canyon and Castle Rock pueblos. Ortman did not distinguish between McElmo and Mesa Verde

types in his rim arc study. He found a bimodal size distribution, with a small bowl mode

centered at 16 cm and a large bowl mode centered at 28 cm. These two size categories are not

apparent at Three Kiva Pueblo. Three Kiva is also different from the other Pueblo III sites

surrounding Sand Canyon and Castle Rock to which Ortman compared his data. Bowl diameters

from these sites peaked at 12 cm, 20 cm, and 28 cm. Small bowls appear to have been less

important at Three Kiva Pueblo than they were at contemporaneous sites to the east. Figure 6.8

shows Pueblo III white ware bowl diameters by degrees.

All PIII by Degrees 300

250

200 s e e r

g 150 e D

100

0 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 48 Diameter

Figure 6.8 All Pueblo III white wares by degrees.

CERAMIC ORIGINS

Miller (1974:83) identified 15 nonlocal sherds: seven Tusayan Polychrome and eight

“Houck Polychrome,” known today as Wingate Polychrome. During my analysis, I encountered another two imported sherds and one partial bowl from the Kayenta region. Further temper analysis of the ceramics would most likely lead to the discovery of more imports. However, at present it appears that there was more interaction with the Kayenta region than with other outlying regions.

7 Comparative Analysis

Previous chapters have considered ceramic data from Bluff, Edge of the Cedars,

Cottonwood Falls, and Three Kiva Pueblo. In this chapter, these data will be compared in order to search for patterns. Data on gray ware rim diameters will be considered first, then white ware bowl diameters, and finally data on imported ceramics.

Vessel size data are considered to look for evidence for feasting and to see how great house ceramics differ from Three Kiva’s ceramics. Vessel size data are used to evaluate the likelihood that feasting took place using a potluck model. If potluck feasting took place at great houses, it is expected that there will be more large cooking jars at Three Kiva and more large bowls at the great houses. It is also possible that feasting was not exclusive to great houses.

Roler (1999) determined that feasting took place at multiple locations within the Guadalupe great house community during the Chacoan period. If feasting took place at Three Kiva, we would expect to see similarly large serving bowls at Three Kiva and the great houses. The presence of large serving bowls and large cooking vessels at Three Kiva could indicate that Three Kiva residents prepared food for feasts they hosted. The absence of large cooking jars at all great houses would lend support to the potluck model of feasting, but because of the lack of jar size data from small house sites surrounding the great houses it will not be possible to definitively prove.

Data on ceramic origins are considered to look for the direction and strength of interactions outside the region at each site. Ceramics from the Chuska and Cibola regions are of particular note because they may indicate connections to Chaco Canyon. Higher proportions of imported ceramics at great houses than at Three Kiva would indicate that great house residents

had more access to goods from distant locations and support the idea that great houses were

homes of the elite.

GRAY WARE JAR DIAMETERS

Cooking jar rim sizes will be compared for all four sites for Mancos Gray, Mancos

Corrugated, Dolores Corrugated, and a combination of Mancos Corrugated and Dolores

Corrugated. I completed Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests to see if the differences in distributions of the different types at each site were statistically significant. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test is

useful for evaluating whether differences in sample distributions are large enough that the

samples are likely to have come from populations with different distributions (Shennan 1990).

However, the Komolgorov-Smirnov test is not very effective at evaluating differences in the tails

of distributions. I conducted Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests for all types from Bluff and Edge of the

Cedars to see if these sites could sensibly be combined into a single great house category. I

chose to test these two sites because they had larger sample sizes than Cottonwood Falls. The

differences in the distributions of jars from Bluff and Edge of the Cedars were not statistically

significant for any of the types. This means that the recorded distributions of rim sizes at each

site could have come from identical populations, or that the rim size distributions at these two

great houses were most likely not very different from each other. Results of the Kolmogorov-

Smirnov test for rims from all great houses compared with rims from Three Kiva are reported

below. Results are considered statistically significant if the test produced a p-value of .05 or

less.

Mancos Gray Although Mancos Gray jars were most commonly produced outside the great house

occupation period that is the focus of this study, ceramics from this early period were examined

81 to see whether they indicate any similarities between the ceramic usage in the first occupations of locations that were later reoccupied. All three great house sites have a smaller range of jar diameters than those found at Three Kiva. Bluff and Edge of the Cedars have the same median value at 20 cm. Cottonwood Falls and Three Kiva have the same median value at 23 cm. Figure

7.1 shows boxplots of Mancos Gray jars for all sites.

Mancos Gray 45

r 30 e t e

m 25 a i D 20

Bluff Cottonwood Falls Edge of the Cedars Three Kiva

Figure 7.1 Boxplot of Mancos Gray jar diameters for all four sites.

Peak jar diameter for Bluff, Edge of the Cedars, and Three Kiva is 22 cm. The peak jar diameter at Cottonwood Falls is 24 cm, just slightly larger. Figure 7.2 shows Mancos Gray jar diameters by degrees for each site. Figure 7.3 shows Mancos Gray diameters by count for all great house sites combined and for Three Kiva. The great houses show a possibility of two different size classes of Mancos Gray jars, centered at 16 cm diameter and 22 cm diameter.

Three Kiva does not have these peaks. A Komolgorov-Smirnov test of great house jars 82 compared with Three Kiva jars shows a combined p-value of .415, indicating that the distribution differences are not statistically significant.

Three Kiva has the largest rim sizes recorded for Mancos Gray. This is a pattern that extends to every other gray ware type measured. If feasting took place during this early time, then Three Kiva was very likely a place where food was prepared. As previously mentioned, the

Komolgorov-Smirnov test is not a strong test for evaluating differences in distribution tails.

Although the overall differences in the distributions of the jar diameters are not statistically significant, it is still important to note the large jars present at Three Kiva.

100 a v i K

e 50 e r h T

0 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44

200 f f u l 100 B

0 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44

80 s l l a F

d o o

w 40 n o t t o C

0 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 s r

a 100 d e C

e h t

f 50 o

e g d E 0 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 Mancos Gray Diameter Figure 7.2 Graphs of Mancos Gray jar diameters by degrees.

3 a v i K

e 2 r h T

0 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44

16 s e s

u 12 o H

t a

e 8 r G

l l

A 4

0 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 Mancos Gray Diameter

Figure 7.3 Graphs showing Mancos Gray jar diameters from all great houses combined and from Three Kiva by count.

Mancos Corrugated Mancos Corrugated rim size distributions were very different at all four sites. Mancos

Corrugated is the utility ware type that was most likely in use during the period of great house

construction. Bluff’s median jar diameter is 20 cm, Cottonwood Falls’ is 24 cm, Edge of the

Cedars’ is 22 cm, and Three Kiva’s is 26 cm. As with Mancos Gray, Three Kiva has the largest

range of jar diameters. Boxplots of Mancos Corrugated jar diameters are shown in figure 7.4.

Mancos Corrugated 45

r 30 e t e

m 25 a i D 20

Bluff Cottonwood Falls Edge of the Cedars Three Kiva

Figure 7.4 Boxplots of Mancos Corrugated jar diameters.

At all sites, different size categories can be distinguished, but the peaks do not correspond

from site to site. At Three Kiva, the modes are at 22 cm and 30 cm. At Bluff, they are at 18 cm

and 24 cm. Modes at Cottonwood Falls are at 12 cm and 26 cm. Edge of the Cedars has a

primary mode at 20 cm, and a very slight secondary mode at 28 cm. In addition to having

different modes, the graphs show different shapes of distribution. Bluff and Cottonwood Falls

both have more jars measured that are smaller than their primary peaks. Edge of the Cedars has more jars that are larger than the peak, and Three Kiva’s peak falls close to the middle with slightly more jars that are larger. A Kolmogorov-Smirnov test of Mancos Corrugated jars from

Bluff and Edge of the Cedars produced a p-value of .222, indicating that the differences in the

distributions at these two sites are not statistically significant. Figure 7.5 shows graphs of

Mancos Corrugated jar diameters by degrees.

160 a v i K

e 80 e r h T

0 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42

200 f f u l 100 B

0 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42

100 s l l a F

d o o 50 w n o t t o C

0 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 s r a d

e 200 C

e h t

o 100

e g d E 0 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 Mancos Corrugated Diameter

Figure 7.5 Graphs of Mancos Corrugated jar diameters by degrees.

Figure 7.6 shows Three Kiva Mancos Corrugated jar diameters compared with the

Mancos Corrugated jar diameters of all three great houses combined. When all the great houses are combined, the bimodality of diameter distributions disappears. It also becomes apparent that the larger rim sizes are much more frequent at Three Kiva than they are at the great houses. A

Kolmogorov-Smirnov test produced a p-value of .01. This difference in distribution of rim sizes is statistically significant. The larger jars at Three Kiva indicate the preparation of large batches of food, possibly for feasting.

6 a v i K

e 4 e r h T 2

0 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42

20 s e s

u 15 o H

t a

e 10 r G

l l

A 5

0 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 Mancos Corrugated Diameters

Figure 7.6 Graphs of Mancos Corrugated Diameters by count at Three Kiva and at all great houses combined.

Dolores Corrugated Dolores Corrugated jars likely represent the later part of the great house occupation period. The median jar diameter for Bluff and Edge of the Cedars is 20 cm. The median jar diameter for Cottonwood Falls is 18 cm, and it is 22 cm for Three Kiva. Cottonwood Falls and

Edge of the Cedars both have large and small outliers. Figure 7.7 shows boxplots for Dolores

Corrugated jars for all four sites. Dolores Corrugated distributions by degrees are shown in figure 7.8. The odd shape of the Cottonwood Falls graph is likely due to a very small sample size; only 11 Dolores Corrugated sherds were measured. Three Kiva is the only site that demonstrates a possible difference in size categories, with peaks at 18 cm, 22 cm, and 26-30 cm.

The peak at 22 cm is quite high because of a partial jar. Bluff and Edge of the Cedars each show only a single mode. The Bluff peak rim size is about in the middle of all the jars. Edge of the

Cedars has more jars larger than the peak, as it did with Mancos Corrugated. Combining all the

great houses makes their distributions more similar to Three Kiva, with a primary peak at 18 cm

and a secondary peak at 26 cm. A Kolmogorov-Smirnov test produced a p-value of .115; the distribution differences are not statistically significant. However, Three Kiva still has a greater proportion of large jars, and the largest diameter measured of all Dolores Corrugated jars. This again may indicate that Three Kiva residents were preparing large amounts of food for consumption during a feast. Figure 7.9 shows Dolores Corrugated diameters for all great houses

combined compared with Three Kiva.

Dolores Corrugated 40

30 r e

t 25 e m a i

D 20

Bluff Cottonwood Falls Edge of the Cedars Three Kiva

Figure 7.7 Graphs of Dolores Corrugated jar diameters by count.

400 a v i K

e e r 200 h T

0 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38

400 f f u l B 200

0 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 s l l a F 50 d o o w n

o 25 t t o C

0 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 s r a

d 300 e C

e h t

f 150 o

e g d E 0 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 Dolores Corrugated Diameter

Figure 7.8 Graphs of Dolores Corrugated jar diameters by degrees.

8 a

v 6 i K

e e

r 4 h T

0 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38

20 s e s

u 15 o H

t a

e 10 r G

l l

A 5

0 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 Dolores Corrugated Diameter

Figure 7.9 Graphs of Dolores Corrugated jar diameters by count.

Mancos Corrugated and Dolores Corrugated Combined Mancos Corrugated and Dolores Corrugated jars were combined to look at cooking jar rim size throughout the duration of great house occupation. Three Kiva still has the widest range of all sites. Bluff has two outliers at 8 cm diameter, but the ranges of Edge of the Cedars and

Three Kiva both extend to 8 cm, making these jars not unusual when compared to the distributions of the other sites. The median diameter for Bluff and Edge of the Cedars is 20 cm.

The median at Cottonwood Falls is 22 cm, and the median at Three Kiva is 24 cm. Figure 7.10 shows boxplots of combined Mancos Corrugated and Dolores Corrugated diameters for all sites.

Mancos Corrugated and Dolores Corrugated Combined 45

r 30 e t e

m 25 a i D 20

Bluff Cottonwood Falls Edge of the Cedars Three Kiva

Figure 7.10 Boxplots for Mancos Corrugated and Dolores Corrugated diameters combined.

Bluff and Edge of the Cedars both show a single mode. Cottonwood Falls has three

peaks as well as the largest primary peak rim size at 26 cm. It is unclear if this is a meaningful

distinction because Cottonwood Falls had so many fewer ceramics measured than the other sites.

The chart of jar diameters from Three Kiva peaks at 22 cm by degrees due to a partial jar. By count there is no clear peak; the same number of rims were measured with diameters of 18 cm and 22 cm. Three Kiva appears to have a secondary mode at 30 cm. Graphs of Mancos

Corrugated and Dolores Corrugated jars by degrees are found in Figure 7.11.

500 a v i K

e e r

h 250 T

0 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42

500 f f u l B 250

0 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 s l l

a 100 F

d o o w

n 50 o t t o C

0 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 s r a

d 400 e C

e h t

f 200 o

e g d E 0 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 Mancos Corrugated and Dolores Corrugated

Figure 7.7.11 Graphs of Mancos Corrugated and Dolores Corrugated jar diameters by degrees.

When Mancos Corrugated and Dolores Corrugated rims from all great houses are combined, a secondary mode at 26 cm appears. It is still apparent that large jars were more common at Three Kiva than they were at the great houses. A Kolmogorov-Smirnov test produced a p-value of .001. The differences in these distributions are statistically significant.

Graphs comparing diameters of Mancos Corrugated and Dolores Corrugated jars for all great houses with jars from Three Kiva are found in figure 7.12.

a 9 v i K

e e

r 6 h T

0 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42

40 s e s 30 u o H

a 20 e r G

l l

A 10

0 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 Mancos Corrugated and Dolores Corrugated

Figure 7.12 Graphs of Mancos Corrugated and Dolores Corrugated jar diameters at Three Kiva and at all great houses combined.

Discussion Cameron (2009c:303) proposed that Bluff great house residents did not prepare the food

that was consumed at the feasts located there, but that it was prepared elsewhere and brought

potluck-style to the great house for consumption. The recurring secondary modes of jars with

large diameters at Three Kiva as well as the recurring presence of large outlier jars seems to

support this idea. Three Kiva residents were likely preparing food in larger quantities than great

house residents were, possibly to serve at feasts. However, as we will see in the next section,

Three Kiva also had larger bowls than the great houses did. If Three Kiva residents were

preparing food for feasts, they seem to have been preparing it for feasts they were hosting. More

research at other small sites surrounding great houses will be required to determine if potluck

style feasting really took place.

The gray ware jars also provide clear evidence that great houses were residences, just as small houses were. People lived in them, and had to complete ordinary domestic activities such as cooking meals. Although Three Kiva residents had more large cooking jars than the great house residents did, people living at all sites needed cooking jars to provide for their everyday food needs.

WHITE WARE BOWL DIAMETERS

Mancos Black-on-white While the gray ware jars previously discussed were used for cooking food, white ware bowls were used for serving food. Mancos Black-on-white bowl size distributions appear to have more similarities than the gray ware jars had. Bluff, Cottonwood Falls, and Three Kiva all have median bowl diameters of 22 cm. The median diameter at Edge of the Cedars is 23 cm.

Bluff has the most restricted range of all sites, even if its outliers are included. Boxplots of bowl diameters are shown in Figure 7.13.

Mancos Black-on-white 50

r 30 e t e m a i

D 20

0 Bluff Cottonwood Falls Edge of the Cedars Three Kiva

Figure 7.13 Boxplot showing Mancos Black-on-white bowl diameters by count.

All four sites have primary peaks at 22 cm. Edge of the Cedars has a secondary peak at

14 cm, and Three Kiva has a secondary peak at 10 cm. By degrees, Bluff has a secondary peak at 14 cm like Edge of the Cedars. All of the sites also have a small number of sherds with diameters over 36 cm. Three Kiva has a wider range of bowl sizes than any of the other sites, and more bowls with smaller and larger diameters than the other sites. Figure 7.14 shows diameters of Mancos Black-on-white bowls by count. Count was chosen instead of degrees because the Three Kiva degrees chart was skewed by the presence of several partial bowls.

30 a v i K

e e

r 15 h T

0 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48

16 f f u l 8 B

0 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 s l l

a 5.0 F

d o o w

n 2.5 o t t o C

0.0 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48

s 20 r a d e C

e h

t 10

f o

e g d E 0 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Mancos Black-on-white Diameter

Figure 7.14 Bar charts of Mancos Black-on-white diameters by count.

All Mancos Black-on-white bowl sherds from great houses were combined for

comparison with Three Kiva sherds in figure 7.15. The core of both the great house distributions

and the Three Kiva distribution look very similar, with peaks at 22 cm. The great houses do not

show the secondary small bowl mode that is visible at Three Kiva. A Kolmogorov-Smirnov test

produced a p-value of .516. The distribution differences are not statistically significant.

However, once again Three Kiva has sherds with larger diameters than all great house sites combined. The large serving bowls at all sites may indicate feasting. It appears possible that more feasting took place at Three Kiva than at the great houses.

30 a v i

K 20

e e r h T 10

0 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48

40 s e

s 30 u o H

a 20 e r G

l l

A 10

0 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Mancos Black-on-white Diameter

Figure 7.15 Graphs showing Mancos Black-on-white diameters from all great houses combined and from Three Kiva by count.

Discussion None of these sites shows a distribution of bowl diameters similar to the Mancos Black-

on-white bowls measured by Mills (1999). In her study of 57 whole Mancos Black-on-white

bowls from various museum collections, she found two size modes, a primary “small bowl”

mode centered at 19.40 cm, and a secondary “large bowl” mode centered at 28.42 cm (Mills

1999:109). She did not measure any Mancos Black-on-white bowls with diameters over 36 cm.

If her study contains an accurate representation of Mancos Black-on-white bowls across the region, then people at all four of these Utah sites were making and using bowls differently than were people living at other sites around the region.

The very large bowls found at all four sites may be indicative of large feasts. If food was served potluck-style at great houses as proposed by Blinman (2009) and Cameron (2009c:303), 96 then some large bowls used for serving food at these events would be reasonably found at the smaller habitation sites where the food for the feasts was prepared. However, it seems unlikely that the bowl distributions would be so similar, with the largest bowls being found at Three Kiva, if Three Kiva was not also a site where feasting took place.

Another possible consideration is the manufacture of ceramic bowls. Ceramic production was likely infrequent at the Bluff great house (Blinman 2009:68; Cameron 2009e:297). Miller

(1974:86) identified seven ceramic scrapers out of the over 30,000 sherds recovered from Three

Kiva. This is more than the two that were recovered from the Bluff great house (Blinman

2009:68), but still not on par with ratios of scrapers to sherds at other sites where ceramics were produced (Blinman 1988). If ceramics were manufactured at Three Kiva for use at other sites, it could explain the larger variety of bowl sizes found there. However, the currently existing evidence does not indicate Three Kiva as a site of intensive ceramic manufacture. It is possible that with reanalysis of the collections, more instruments used in ceramic production would be identified, but presently available evidence does not support the idea that Three Kiva residents produced large quantities of pottery.

Pueblo III White Wares Pueblo III white ware types were combined to allow for better comparisons among the sites. Bluff had a large number of both McElmo and Mesa Verde Black-on-white sherds, but the other three sites did not have enough to provide meaningful conclusions when the types were considered separately. Edge of the Cedars had only three Pueblo III white ware sherds and is excluded from this discussion. Bluff and Cottonwood Falls have median bowl diameters of 24 cm. Three Kiva’s median diameter is slightly larger at 26 cm. Three Kiva also has an outlier

with a diameter of 48 cm, but excluding the outlier it has the same range of diameters as Bluff.

Boxplots of all Pueblo III white ware bowl diameters can be seen by count in Figure 7.16.

Pueblo III White Wares 50

40 r e t e 30 m a i D

10 Bluff Cottonwood Falls Three Kiva

Figure 7.16 Boxplot of all Pueblo III white ware bowl diameters by count.

Bluff’s peak bowl diameter by count was 22 cm and by degrees was 26 cm. Three Kiva’s

peak bowl diameter was 24 cm, and Cottonwood Falls’ was 30 cm. Figure 7.17 contains graphs

showing the shape of bowl diameter distributions by degrees. Diameter estimates for all great

house sites were combined and compared with Three Kiva’s diameter estimates by count in

figure 7.18. With the exception of the large outlier, these graphs are very similar in shape.

There is a secondary peak at 28 cm at Three Kiva, and a secondary peak for the great houses at

30 cm. A Kolmogorov-Smirnov test produced a p-value of .169. The differences in these distributions are not statistically significant.

300 a v i K

e 150 e r h T

0 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48

800 f f u l 400 B

0 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48

s 100 l l a F

d o o

w 50 n o t t o C

0 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 s r a d

e 20 C

e h t

o 10

e g d E 0 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 All Pueblo III White Ware Diameters

Figure 7.17 Pueblo III white ware diameters by degrees.

9 a v i K

e 6 r h T

0 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48

40 s

e 30 s u o H

a 20 e r G

l l 10 A

0 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 A ll Pueblo III White Wares

Figure 7.18 Graphs of Pueblo III white wares for Three Kiva and all great houses combined.

Ortman (1999) did a study of Pueblo III white ware bowls at Sand Canyon Pueblo and

Castle Rock Pueblo in Colorado. He found a bimodal bowl size distribution at both of these sites. A small bowl mode was found at 16 cm diameter and a large bowl mode at 28 cm diameter. Ortman (1999) proposed that the bowl size categories may have developed as people in the pueblos participated in communal rituals around a plaza: “if food was eaten by spectators

[around a plaza] watching a ceremony, it would have been difficult for them to eat around a communal serving bowl and watch the event at the same time.” This would explain the importance of the smaller bowls. Mills (1999:109) also found two size modes in the Pueblo III white ware bowls from museum collections that she measured. Her small bowls had an average diameter of 18 cm, and her large bowls had an average diameter of 28 cm. The Pueblo III white ware bowls from Utah sites do not match the data from either of these previous studies.

Secondary modes for the great houses were not apparent when the sites were considered individually, and no site had a prevalence of small bowls similar to those identified by Mills

(1999) or Ortman (1999). If community ritual was the reason for the different modes at Pueblo

III sites in Colorado, then those rituals took a different form at Pueblo III sites in Utah.

IMPORTED VESSELS

Data is available on imported vessels for a greater number of Utah sites than is the data on vessel diameters. Table 7.1 shows available data on imported ceramics found at Utah sites.

In addition to the four sites previously discussed, published data is available on imported ceramics from Red Knobs (42SA259) and the Hedley Site Complex (42SA22760) (Allison 2004;

Crow Canyon Archaeological Center 2014; Ortman et al. 2000). Percentages reported in Table

7.1 next to quantities of each type represent the percentage that type makes up of total imports.

100

The percent imports column reports the percentage comprised by all imports out of the total

ceramic collection.

The Hedley Site Complex is located near the Utah-Colorado border. At the Hedley Site

Complex, excavations were limited to salvage work focused on areas that had been damaged by pothunters (Ortman et al. 2000:135). An imported Citadel Polychrome sherd from the Kayenta region and a White Mountain Red Ware sherd were identified, in addition to 26 unidentified imports (Crow Canyon Archaeological Center 2014). It is uncertain what would have been identified had the site been undamaged and excavated under different circumstances. Red Knobs is located on the Cottonwood Wash about 10 kilometers north of the Cottonwood Falls great house. Surface collections at Red Knobs included 14 sherds imported from the Kayenta region: two white ware sherds and 12 Tsegi orange ware (Allison 2004:349). At both of these sites, temper analysis that may have led to the identification of additional imports was not conducted.

It is important to note that the available data do not reflect the entirety of interregional ceramic exchange at these sites.

The Bluff great house site has by far the greatest number of identified imports. Bluff is also the southernmost of the Utah great house sites, and is therefore closest to the regions from which ceramics were imported. It is also located near the confluence of the Cottonwood Wash with the San Juan River, which may have made it more accessible to people living in other regions. Three Kiva, which is not a great house, has the lowest percentage of imports of all the sites included. This seems to indicate that great houses were places where interaction with people from other regions took place.

101

This conclusion is problematic because of the history of research that has taken place.

Miller (1974) identified 15 nonlocal sherds out of more than 33,000 classified sherds from Three

Kiva. However, he was not an expert and it is probable that he missed some imports that would have been apparent to an archaeologist with more ceramic analysis experience. My temper analysis of Three Kiva sherds identified 3 imports out of 634, or .47% of the total. This is much lower than the percentage of imported sherds at Bluff or Edge of the Cedars, but more than the percentage of imports Severance (2004) identified in his temper analysis at Cottonwood Falls.

Severance (2004) only found .30% imported ceramics at Cottonwood Falls. Mahoney’s (1998a) survey, which did not include temper analysis, found 3.78% imports, and nearly doubled the total import percentage for the site. The varied amount of research and skill of researchers at each of these sites makes drawing definite conclusions difficult.

All of the sites with the exception of Hedley have most of their imported ceramics from the Kayenta region. This indicates that there were important relationships between people living at these Utah sites and people living in the Kayenta region. Interestingly, Cibola sherds make up a much higher percentage of imports at Cottonwood Falls than at any other great house site. This suggests that great house residents were maintaining independent relationships with people in outside regions. People living at Cottonwood Falls may have been more connected to people in the Cibola region than residents at other great house sites were, or were perhaps just less connected to the Kayenta region. Edge of the Cedars also has a higher percentage of Cibola sherds than the Bluff great house, despite being located much farther away. This further supports the idea that great house residents had different kinds of connections to people living in other regions.

102

All of the great house sites with collections that have received temper analysis have sherds from the Chuska and Cibola regions. This indicates that all of these great houses had real connections to Chaco Canyon. Judging from absolute quantities of sherds, Bluff seems to have had the strongest Chacoan connection. It is also the closest Utah great house to Chaco Canyon.

However, as discussed in previous chapters, ceramics may not be the best indicator of the strength of connection to Chaco Canyon (Lekson 1999).

103

Table 7.1 Imported Sherds Identified at Utah Sites Total Percent Region Chuska Cibola Kayenta Mogollon Unidentified Total Sherds Site Imports Analyzed Imports Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Bluff 85 2.96 39 1.36 2736 95.43 7 0.24 0 - 2867 17665 16.23 Cottonwood Falls 4 5.48 28 38.36 41 56.16 0 - 0 - 73 12724 0.57 Edge of the Cedars 6 1.32 11 2.41 374 82.02 0 - 65 14.25 456 10787 4.23 Hedley Site Complex 0 - 0 - 1 3.57 1 3.57 26 92.86 28 13263 0.21 Red Knobs 0 - 0 - 14 100.00 0 - 0 - 14 4423 0.32 Three Kiva 0 - 8 44.44 10 55.56 0 - 0 - 18 33137 0.05 Sources: Allison 2004; Blinman 2009; Crow Canyon Archaeological Center 2014; Hurst 1999; Mahoney 1998a; Severance 2004

104

8 Conclusion

This thesis began with the goal of assessing ceramic evidence from four Utah sites dating

to the Pueblo II period to understand feasting and interactions with people living in outside

regions. Bluff, Cottonwood Falls, and Edge of the Cedars are great house sites and part of the

Chacoan sphere of influence. Three Kiva is not a great house site and provides contrasting data to try to understand how great houses may have functioned in southeast Utah.

VESSEL SIZES AND FEASTING

Excavations at the Bluff great house have led to the conclusion that feasting occurred at the site, but that feast food was not prepared on site by great house residents (Cameron

2009e:302). The Mancos Corrugated cooking jars, presumably in use at the beginnings of great house occupation, show the greatest variance in size distributions of all types included in the study. However, the contemporaneous Mancos Black-on-white bowl size distributions are similar at all four sites. It is difficult to assess evidence for feasting at Cottonwood Falls, Edge of the Cedars, and Three Kiva because non-ceramic sources of evidence for feasting, including faunal remains, have been minimally analyzed or not studied at all (Miller 1974:124-125).

However, the great differences in Mancos Corrugated rim sizes suggest that food preparation at

Three Kiva was different than food preparation at the great houses. The similarity in serving bowl sizes may indicate similarity in food consumption.

The jar size data from Three Kiva seem to support the idea that great house feasting may have been potluck-style with food preparation taking place in residential sites surrounding great houses (Blinman 2009; Cameron 2009e:303). Three Kiva residents certainly prepared larger batches of food than great house residents did. However, serving bowl size distributions were

105

nearly identical, and Three Kiva had more large serving bowls than the great houses did. This

may have been because residents of Three Kiva were preparing large quantities of food for feasts that they were hosting. More research is needed at small house sites to truly understand the dynamics of food preparation. It is possible that residents of small house sites immediately surrounding the great houses in this study were not hosting feasts as Three Kiva residents seems to have been.

Pueblo III white ware size distributions were not very different for the three sites for which they were available: Bluff, Cottonwood Falls, and Three Kiva. This may indicate that the differences in ceramic usage were more pronounced during the Pueblo II period when all four sites were constructed. This would be a stronger conclusion if Pueblo III gray ware vessels showed a similar pattern. Unfortunately, there were not enough Mesa Verde corrugated jars measured to allow for this comparison.

INTERACTIONS WITH OUTSIDE REGIONS

The two excavated great houses have the highest percentages of imported ceramics. The

Bluff great house has 16 percent imported ceramics, and Edge of the Cedars has four percent.

Bluff is the southernmost of the great houses included in the study and closest to outside regions, so it is not surprising that Bluff would have the greatest percentage of imports coming from the greatest number of regions. The presence of Chuskan and Cibolan sherds at Bluff, Edge of the

Cedars, and Cottonwood Falls provides another line of evidence in addition to architecture that people at Utah great houses had a real connection to Chaco Canyon. The disparity in the percentage of imports also indicates that great house residents maintained independent connections to outside regions.

106

The Cottonwood Falls great house has nearly as many Cibola sherds as Bluff, despite being located further north along the same wash. These Cibola sherds make up a much higher proportion of the total imports at Cottonwood Falls than they do at Bluff. At Cottonwood Falls,

Kayenta sherds make up 56% of imports and Cibola sherds 38%. At Bluff, Kayenta sherds represent 95% of imports and Cibola sherds only 1%. Even though these great houses shared a waterway and were located only 30 km apart, they seem to have maintained different kinds of relationships with people in outside regions.

Three Kiva, which is not a great house site, has the lowest proportion of imported ceramics of all sites examined. This suggests that great houses in Utah were locations where interactions with people living outside the immediate region took place more frequently.

Proportions of imported ceramics suggest that although these interactions were more frequent at great houses, they were still not commonplace anywhere except Bluff. It is possible that more in-depth analysis of other Utah great houses may show that some of them had more contact with other regions than is presently known.

Ceramics indicate that Bluff residents interacted frequently with people from the Kayenta region before, during, and after the Chaco era, though more Kayenta ceramics date to the Chaco era than to other time periods. It is not known whether residents of other small sites in the immediate vicinity of Bluff shared this level of contact or if it was unique to the great house.

More research of ceramics from small sites near the great house is needed.

CONCLUSION

This research suggests that great houses in southeast Utah were places where people came together. Ceramic sizes indicate that great houses may have been places where people

107

brought food they prepared individually to eat together. Ceramic origins indicate that great

houses also brought people from outside regions together, if infrequently. These patterns

suggested by my research need more data to strengthen them. More ceramic assemblages from

small house sites near great houses should be analyzed and compared to great house collections.

Additional research is needed to determine if the preliminary conclusions of this thesis are

correct.

What do these conclusions mean for the Chacoan system? Great houses are distinct from

small sites in more than just their architecture. Ceramic vessel size distributions are different at great houses and small houses. Great house residents seem to have interacted more frequently than their neighbors with people living far away. The full meaning of the Chacoan system for people in Utah cannot be understood with the data presented in this thesis. However, this thesis reaffirms that there was something different and special about great houses. More research and careful study are needed in order to come to a better understanding of them.

108

Appendix A: Data from Edge of the Cedars

Key to Ceramic Analysis Codes: ID: Individual identification number for each sherd analyzed FS: Field Specimen number Ware: GR: Gray WH: White Form: JA: Jar

BO: Bowl

Temper: IG: Igneous (andesite/diorite) Temper

SH: Sherd Temper

SHIG: Sherd and Igneous Temper, Sherd Primary

IGSH: Igneous and Sherd Temper, Igneous Primary

QS: Quartz Sand Temper

SHSA: Sherd and Sand Temper

Style:

Gray Ware Styles

Style Code Mesa Verde Type

Plain PL Chapin Gray

Early Neck-Banded (wide, flat) EB Moccasin Gray

Clapboarded CB Mancos Gray

Late Neck-banded (narrow coils) LB Late Mancos Gray

Corrugated (straight rim) EC Mancos Corrugated

Corrugated (moderate eversion) IC Dolores Corrugated

Corrugated (sharp eversion) LC Mesa Verde Corrugated

109

Indeterminate

(e.g., rims that might or

might not be from corrugated jars) ID

White Ware Styles

Style Code Mesa Verde Type

Lino/Chapin Style LI Chapin B/w

Piedra Style PI Piedra B/w

White Mesa Style WM White Mesa B/w

Black Mesa Style BM Mancos B/w

Red Mesa Style RM Cortez B/w

Sosi Style SO Mancos B/w

Dogoszhi Style DO Mancos B/w

Squiggle Dogoszhi SD Cortez or Mancos B/w

Cross-Hatch Dogoszhi DX Mancos B/w

Mancos Style A- lines MA Mancos B/w

Mancos Style B- dots MB Mancos B/w

Puerco Style PU Mancos B/w

Undifferentiated Pueblo II Designs P2

Simple Banded Style SB McElmo or Mesa VerdeB/w

Classic (Mesa Verde Style) Banded Style MB Mesa VerdeB/w

Pueblo III Allover Style MA Mesa VerdeB/w

Undifferentiated Pueblo III Designs P3

Painted PN

Unpainted UN

110

ID FS Ware Style Form Temper Type Diameter Degrees 62 71.112 GR PL JA Chapin Gray 26 15 2 69.202 GR PL JA Chapin Gray 22 20 42 72.222 GR PL JA Chapin Gray 12 35 61 71.112 GR PL JA Chapin Gray 12 35 1 69.202 GR PL JA Chapin Gray 9 45 288 69.321 GR EB JA IG Moccasin Gray 22 15 290 69.321 GR EB JA IG Moccasin Gray 26 20 289 69.321 GR EB JA Moccasin Gray 18 25 7 69.201 GR EB JA Moccasin Gray 20 15 116 71.73 GR CB JA Mancos Gray 26 10 9 69.201 GR CB JA Mancos Gray 24 15 11 69.201 GR CB JA Mancos Gray 24 15 264 69.389 GR CB JA Mancos Gray 20 15 15 69.278 GR CB JA Mancos Gray 22 15 262 69.389 GR CB JA IG Mancos Gray 22 15 8 69.201 GR CB JA Mancos Gray 24 15 5 69.201 GR CB JA Mancos Gray 20 20 40 72.225 GR CB JA Mancos Gray 18 20 6 69.201 GR CB JA Mancos Gray 18 20 265 69.389 GR CB JA Mancos Gray 18 20 115 71.73 GR CB JA Mancos Gray 18 20 39 72.225 GR CB JA IG Mancos Gray 22 25 108 71.99 GR CB JA Mancos Gray 16 25 263 69.389 GR CB JA Mancos Gray 22 25 109 71.99 GR CB JA Mancos Gray 12 30 266 69.389 GR CB JA Mancos Gray 20 30 136 70.158 GR CB JA Mancos Gray 22 30 10 69.201 GR CB JA Mancos Gray 16 30 4 69.201 GR LB JA Late Mancos Gray 18 20 41 72.225 GR LB JA IG Late Mancos Gray 14 25 220 71.276 GR EC JA Mancos Corrugated 30 10 240 69.403 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 36 10 158 70.143 GR EC JA Mancos Corrugated 32 15 139 70.152 GR EC JA Mancos Corrugated 26 15 242 69.403 GR EC JA Mancos Corrugated 28 15 247 69.403 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 28 15 45 72.98 GR EC JA Mancos Corrugated 24 15 153 70.143 GR EC JA Mancos Corrugated 28 15 241 69.403 GR EC JA Mancos Corrugated 28 15 221 71.276 GR EC JA Mancos Corrugated 26 20 243 69.403 GR EC JA Mancos Corrugated 26 20 138 70.152 GR EC JA Mancos Corrugated 20 20 44 72.98 GR EC JA Mancos Corrugated 18 20 245 69.403 GR EC JA Mancos Corrugated 20 20 159 70.143 GR EC JA Mancos Corrugated 30 20 246 69.403 GR EC JA Mancos Corrugated 20 20 157 70.143 GR EC JA Mancos Corrugated 28 20 239 69.403 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 20 20 209 71.263 GR EC JA Mancos Corrugated 20 25

111

ID FS Ware Style Form Temper Type Diameter Degrees 244 69.403 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 18 25 43 72.98 GR EC JA Mancos Corrugated 14 25 110 71.65 GR EC JA Mancos Corrugated 16 25 211 71.263 GR EC JA Mancos Corrugated 20 25 208 71.263 GR EC JA Mancos Corrugated 22 25 20 72.243 GR EC JA Mancos Corrugated 20 25 160 70.143 GR EC JA Mancos Corrugated 32 25 210 71.263 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 20 25 156 70.143 GR EC JA Mancos Corrugated 20 25 154 70.143 GR EC JA Mancos Corrugated 26 25 67 71.110 GR EC JA Mancos Corrugated 24 25 219 71.276 GR EC JA Mancos Corrugated 22 30 152 70.143 GR EC JA Mancos Corrugated 22 35 68 71.110 GR EC JA Mancos Corrugated 18 35 151 70.143 GR EC JA Mancos Corrugated 22 40 150 70.143 GR EC JA Mancos Corrugated 20 45 155 70.143 GR EC JA Mancos Corrugated 18 45 222 71.276 GR IC JA Dolores Corrugated 32 15 232 69.403 GR IC JA IG Dolores Corrugated 34 15 212 71.263 GR IC JA Dolores Corrugated 22 20 161 70.143 GR IC JA Dolores Corrugated 20 20 234 69.403 GR IC JA Dolores Corrugated 28 20 125 70.114 GR IC JA Dolores Corrugated 16 20 231 69.403 GR IC JA Dolores Corrugated 24 20 171 70.143 GR IC JA Dolores Corrugated 20 20 293 69.322 GR IC JA IG Dolores Corrugated 22 20 236 69.403 GR IC JA Dolores Corrugated 30 20 213 71.263 GR IC JA IG Dolores Corrugated 26 20 173 70.143 GR IC JA Dolores Corrugated 26 25 238 69.403 GR IC JA Dolores Corrugated 20 25 237 69.403 GR IC JA Dolores Corrugated 16 25 216 71.263 GR IC JA Dolores Corrugated 34 25 126 70.114 GR IC JA Dolores Corrugated 24 25 235 69.403 GR IC JA Dolores Corrugated 26 25 223 71.276 GR IC JA Dolores Corrugated 18 30 114 71.103 GR UC JA Dolores Corrugated 12 30 226 69.316 GR IC JA IG Dolores Corrugated 18 30 172 70.143 GR IC JA Dolores Corrugated 20 30 124 70.114 GR IC JA Dolores Corrugated 16 30 224 71.276 GR IC JA Dolores Corrugated 18 30 215 71.263 GR IC JA Dolores Corrugated 22 30 230 69.403 GR IC JA Dolores Corrugated 24 30 65 71.110 GR IC JA Dolores Corrugated 18 35 292 69.322 GR IC JA IG Dolores Corrugated 16 35 167 70.143 GR IC JA Dolores Corrugated 22 35 170 70.143 GR IC JA Dolores Corrugated 18 35 168 70.143 GR IC JA Dolores Corrugated 18 40 233 69.403 GR IC JA Dolores Corrugated 30 40 163 70.143 GR IC JA Dolores Corrugated 18 45

112

ID FS Ware Style Form Temper Type Diameter Degrees 162 70.143 GR IC JA Dolores Corrugated 16 45 165 70.143 GR IC JA Dolores Corrugated 18 45 66 71.110 GR IC JA Dolores Corrugated 12 45 169 70.143 GR IC JA Dolores Corrugated 20 50 166 70.143 GR IC JA Dolores Corrugated 18 50 214 71.263 GR IC JA Dolores Corrugated 8 50 164 70.143 GR IC JA Dolores Corrugated 20 50 14 69.278 GR LC JA Mesa Verde Corrugated 20 20 217 71.263 GR LC JA IG Mesa Verde Corrugated 26 20 228 69.403 GR LC JA IG Mesa Verde Corrugated 14 25 112 71.65 GR LC JA Mesa Verde Corrugated 22 25 13 69.278 GR LC JA Mesa Verde Corrugated 28 30 113 71.65 GR LC JA Mesa Verde Corrugated 18 30 218 71.263 GR LC JA Mesa Verde Corrugated 28 40 12 69.278 GR LC JA Mesa Verde Corrugated 28 40 229 69.403 GR LC JA Mesa Verde Corrugated 22 40 64 71.110 GR ID JA Corrugated 22 30 63 71.110 GR ID JA Corrugated 18 35 18 69.278 GR ID JA Corrugated 18 35 137 70.152 GR ID JA Unidentified Gray 28 25 57 72.83 GR ID JA Unidentified Gray 26 15 251 69.403 GR ID JA Unidentified Gray 26 15 60 71.112 GR ID JA Unidentified Gray 20 20 248 69.403 GR ID JA Unidentified Gray 20 20 227 69.316 GR ID JA Unidentified Gray 18 20 59 71.112 GR ID JA Unidentified Gray 20 20 291 69.321 GR ID JA Unidentified Gray 24 20 253 69.403 GR ID JA Unidentified Gray 22 20 58 71.112 GR ID JA Unidentified Gray 24 25 111 71.65 GR ID JA Unidentified Gray 26 25 255 69.403 GR ID JA Unidentified Gray 20 25 249 69.403 GR ID JA Unidentified Gray 22 25 17 69.278 GR ID JA Unidentified Gray 18 30 254 69.403 GR ID JA Unidentified Gray 18 30 250 69.403 GR ID JA IG Unidentified Gray 18 35 252 69.403 GR ID JA Unidentified Gray 20 35 16 69.278 GR PL JA Unidentified Gray 12 45 225 69.313 WH WM BO White Mesa Black-on-white 24 15 46 72.93 WH WM JA IG White Mesa Black-on-white 18 25 98 71.109 WH DO BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 12 140 85 71.109 WH SO BO Mancos Black-on-white 14 50 276 71.273 WH P2 BO Mancos Black-on-white 14 25 105 71.107 WH DO BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 14 25 298 72.64 WH SO BO Mancos Black-on-white 14 30 53 72.87 WH DO BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 14 35 117 70.153 WH PN BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 14 35 201 70.144 WH P2 BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 14 40 280 71.273 WH P2 BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 14 45 104 71.107 WH DO BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 14 55

113

ID FS Ware Style Form Temper Type Diameter Degrees 296 69.395 WH DO BO Mancos Black-on-white 14 75 200 70.144 WH P2 BO Mancos Black-on-white 16 25 130 69.414 WH P2 BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 16 65 258 70.108 WH PN BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 16 20 122 70.153 WH PN BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 16 25 34 72.227 WH P2 BO Mancos Black-on-white 16 25 295 69.395 WH DO BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 16 25 204 70.144 WH P2 BO Mancos Black-on-white 16 25 73 71.241 WH SO BO Mancos Black-on-white 16 30 277 71.273 WH P2 BO Mancos Black-on-white 16 35 97 71.109 WH P2 BO Mancos Black-on-white 16 45 192 70.144 WH SO BO Mancos Black-on-white 16 50 118 70.153 WH P2 BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 18 20 71 71.241 WH SO BO Mancos Black-on-white 18 20 202 70.144 WH P2 BO Mancos Black-on-white 18 20 203 70.144 WH P2 BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 18 20 287 71.273 WH SO BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 18 30 19 72.237 WH PU BO Mancos Black-on-white 18 30 176 70.144 WH P2 BO IGSH Mancos Black-on-white 18 35 198 70.144 WH SO BO Mancos Black-on-white 18 40 74 71.241 WH SO BO Mancos Black-on-white 18 70 142 71.262 WH SO BO Mancos Black-on-white 18 25 284 71.273 WH P2 BO Mancos Black-on-white 20 20 99 71.109 WH DO BO Mancos Black-on-white 20 15 182 70.144 WH P2 BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 20 15 31 72.227 WH P2 BO Mancos Black-on-white 20 20 90 71.109 WH SO BO Mancos Black-on-white 20 25 78 71.109 WH P2 BO Mancos Black-on-white 20 35 32 72.227 WH P2 BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 20 35 95 71.109 WH P2 BO Mancos Black-on-white 22 15 285 71.273 WH SO BO Mancos Black-on-white 22 15 147 71.262 WH P2 BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 22 15 275 71.273 WH P2 BO Mancos Black-on-white 22 20 257 70.108 WH PN BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 22 20 102 71.109 WH P2 BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 22 20 274 71.273 WH P2 BO Mancos Black-on-white 22 20 199 70.144 WH SO BO Mancos Black-on-white 22 25 96 71.109 WH P2 BO Mancos Black-on-white 22 25 33 72.227 WH P2 BO Mancos Black-on-white 22 25 283 71.273 WH P2 BO IGSH Mancos Black-on-white 22 25 89 71.109 WH SO BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 22 30 82 71.109 WH SO BO Mancos Black-on-white 22 35 93 71.109 WH P2 BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 22 40 76 71.241 WH P2 BO Mancos Black-on-white 22 45 279 71.273 WH P2 BO Mancos Black-on-white 22 20 70 71.241 WH P2 BO Mancos Black-on-white 22 25 133 69.414 WH SO BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 22 25 92 71.109 WH P2 BO Mancos Black-on-white 22 15 36 72.227 WH P2 BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 24 15

114

ID FS Ware Style Form Temper Type Diameter Degrees 121 70.153 WH PN BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 24 15 143 71.262 WH DO BO Mancos Black-on-white 24 15 94 71.109 WH P2 BO Mancos Black-on-white 24 15 190 70.144 WH SO BO Mancos Black-on-white 24 15 54 72.87 WH P2 BO Mancos Black-on-white 24 15 183 70.144 WH P2 BO IGSH Mancos Black-on-white 24 20 197 70.144 WH SO BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 24 20 297 69.395 WH SO BO Mancos Black-on-white 24 20 91 71.109 WH SO BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 24 25 282 71.273 WH P2 BO Mancos Black-on-white 24 25 87 71.109 WH SO BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 24 30 261 70.108 WH SO BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 24 20 72 71.241 WH P2 BO Mancos Black-on-white 24 15 100 71.109 WH DO BO Mancos Black-on-white 24 25 278 71.273 WH P2 BO Mancos Black-on-white 26 15 69 71.241 WH SO BO IGSH Mancos Black-on-white 26 20 131 69.414 WH P2 BO Mancos Black-on-white 26 20 140 71.262 WH PN BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 26 10 207 70.144 WH P2 BO Mancos Black-on-white 26 15 101 71.109 WH P2 BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 26 15 256 70.108 WH DO BO Mancos Black-on-white 26 20 120 70.153 WH PN BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 26 20 128 69.414 WH P2 BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 26 25 83 71.109 WH DX BO Mancos Black-on-white 26 35 132 69.414 WH P2 BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 26 10 267 71.273 WH P2 BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 26 15 179 70.144 WH BM BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 26 35 119 70.153 WH SO BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 28 15 38 72.227 WH MA BO Mancos Black-on-white 28 10 56 72.87 WH SO BO Mancos Black-on-white 28 10 86 71.109 WH SO BO Mancos Black-on-white 28 15 189 70.144 WH SO BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 28 15 88 71.109 WH SO BO Mancos Black-on-white 28 15 81 71.109 WH MA BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 28 20 35 72.227 WH SO BO IGSH Mancos Black-on-white 28 20 37 72.227 WH P2 BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 28 20 181 70.144 WH BM BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 28 20 294 69.395 WH DX BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 28 20 84 71.109 WH SO BO Mancos Black-on-white 28 30 180 70.144 WH BM BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 30 15 55 72.87 WH SO BO Mancos Black-on-white 30 10 185 70.144 WH SO BO Mancos Black-on-white 30 15 175 70.144 WH P2 BO Mancos Black-on-white 30 15 286 71.273 WH SO BO Mancos Black-on-white 30 15 187 70.144 WH SO BO Mancos Black-on-white 30 15 191 70.144 WH SO BO Mancos Black-on-white 30 20 271 71.273 WH P2 BO Mancos Black-on-white 30 20 135 71.76 WH BM BO Mancos Black-on-white 30 20 273 71.273 WH P2 BO Mancos Black-on-white 30 25

115

ID FS Ware Style Form Temper Type Diameter Degrees 77 71.109 WH P2 BO IGSH Mancos Black-on-white 32 10 186 70.144 WH SO BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 32 15 178 70.144 WH BM BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 32 15 174 70.144 WH MB BO Mancos Black-on-white 32 15 129 69.414 WH P2 BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 32 20 205 70.144 WH SO BO Mancos Black-on-white 32 20 184 70.144 WH SO BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 34 15 21 72.233 WH PN BO Mancos Black-on-white 42 20 281 71.273 WH P2 JA Mancos Black-on-white 10 40 206 70.144 WH SO JA Mancos Black-on-white 10 45 177 70.144 WH P2 JA Mancos Black-on-white 8 85 107 71.107 WH PN JA Mancos Black-on-white 10 45 47 72.87 WH P2 BO IGSH Wetherill Black-on-white 34 25 268 71.273 WH P2 BO Wetherill Black-on-white 36 20 269 71.273 WH DO BO Wetherill Black-on-white 36 20 48 72.87 WH P2 BO IGSH Wetherill Black-on-white 36 20 51 72.87 WH P2 BO IGSH Wetherill Black-on-white 38 15 49 72.87 WH P2 BO IGSH Wetherill Black-on-white 38 10 30 72.227 WH P2 BO Wetherill Black-on-white 40 20 50 72.87 WH P2 BO IGSH Wetherill Black-on-white 42 15 270 71.273 WH PN BO IG McElmo Black-on-white 16 25 141 71.262 WH SB BO SH McElmo Black-on-white 26 15 127 69.414 WH SO BO IG McElmo Black-on-white 24 15 52 72.87 WH P2 BO QS Possible Cibolan Import 24 35 25 72.227 WH SO BO QS Sosi Black-on-white 22 15 22 72.227 WH SO BO QS Sosi Black-on-white 24 30 272 71.273 WH SO BO Sosi Black-on-white 26 30 27 72.227 WH SO BO QS Sosi Black-on-white 26 30 24 72.227 WH SO BO QS Sosi Black-on-white 26 55 26 72.227 WH SO BO QS Sosi Black-on-white 26 10 23 72.227 WH SO BO QS Sosi Black-on-white 40 10 134 71.76 WH PN BO Intermediate Ware 8 60 80 71.109 WH PN BO Intermediate Ware 10 40 148 71.262 WH PN BO Intermediate Ware 10 35 259 70.108 WH PN BO IG Intermediate Ware 10 40 28 72.227 WH PN BO Intermediate Ware 10 45 193 70.144 WH PN BO Intermediate Ware 10 50 29 72.227 WH PN BO Intermediate Ware 10 55 196 70.144 WH PN BO Intermediate Ware 12 60 260 70.108 WH PN BO IG Intermediate Ware 12 30 149 71.262 WH PN BO IG Intermediate Ware 12 35 194 70.144 WH PN BO Intermediate Ware 12 40 195 70.144 WH PN BO IG Intermediate Ware 12 60 79 71.109 WH PN BO IG Intermediate Ware 12 65 146 71.262 WH PN BO Intermediate Ware 12 90 144 71.262 WH PN BO Intermediate Ware 12 90 145 71.262 WH PN BO Intermediate Ware 12 105 123 71.64 WH UN BO IG Intermediate Unpainted 10 85 3 69.202 WH UN BO Intermediate Unpainted 34 10

116

103 71.109 WH UN BO Intermediate Unpainted 38 10

117

Appendix B: Data from Cottonwood Falls

See the key to Appendix A to interpret codes used in this appendix.

ID FS Ware Style Form Temper Type Diameter Degrees 184 92004-931 GR PL JA Chapin Gray 38 10 127 92004-637 GR PL JA IG Chapin Gray 36 15 247 92004-930 GR PL JA IG Chapin Gray 24 15 93 92004-902 GR PL JA IG Chapin Gray 24 15 84 92004-873 GR PL JA Chapin Gray 22 15 260 92004-970 GR PL JA IG Chapin Gray 28 15 174 92004-814 GR PL JA IG Chapin Gray 20 15 186 92004-931 GR PL JA Chapin Gray 22 15 120 92004-687 GR PL JA IG Chapin Gray 22 15 278 92004-843 GR PL JA Chapin Gray 20 15 154 92004-937 GR PL JA IG Chapin Gray 26 15 87 92004-880 GR PL JA Chapin Gray 18 15 196 92004-879 GR PL JA Chapin Gray 20 20 283 92004-904 GR PL JA Chapin Gray 22 20 123 92004-881 GR PL JA IG Chapin Gray 24 20 195 92004-879 GR PL JA IG Chapin Gray 16 20 219 92004-636 GR PL JA IG Chapin Gray 18 20 191 92004-871 GR PL JA Chapin Gray 16 20 118 92004-870 GR PL JA IG Chapin Gray 20 20 276 92004-981 GR PL JA IG Chapin Gray 16 20 242 92004-929 GR PL JA Chapin Gray 18 20 121 92004-881 GR PL JA IG Chapin Gray 12 25 249 92004-930 GR PL JA IG Chapin Gray 14 25 119 92004-870 GR PL JA Chapin Gray 12 25 173 92004-814 GR PL JA IG Chapin Gray 14 25 126 92004-881 GR PL JA IG Chapin Gray 14 25 208 92004-654 GR PL JA IG Chapin Gray 20 25 263 92004-867 GR PL JA IG Chapin Gray 16 25 96 92004-874 GR PL JA Chapin Gray 12 30 131 92004-896 GR PL JA IG Chapin Gray 14 30 144 92004-896 GR PL JA IG Chapin Gray 14 30 180 92004-868 GR PL JA Chapin Gray 16 30 246 92004-930 GR PL JA IG Chapin Gray 10 35

118

ID FS Ware Style Form Temper Type Diameter Degrees 218 92004-682 GR PL JA IG Chapin Gray 12 35 284 92004-904 GR PL JA Chapin Gray 8 35 128 92004-637 GR PL JA IG Chapin Gray 24 40 212 92004-616 GR PL JA IG Chapin Gray 10 40 81 92004-873 GR PL JA IG Chapin Gray 12 40 23 92004-864 GR PL JA IG Chapin Gray 10 50 82 92004-873 GR PL JA IG Chapin Gray 10 50 243 92004-929 GR PL JA Chapin Gray 6 60 172 92004-814 GR PL JA IG Chapin Gray 14 30 292 92004-932 GR EB JA IG Moccasin Gray 20 15 270 92004-897 GR EB JA Moccasin Gray 22 15 79 92004-884 GR EB JA IG Moccasin Gray 22 15 4 92004-842 GR EB JA IG Moccasin Gray 20 15 35 92004-903 GR EB JA Moccasin Gray 24 20 59 92004-883 GR EB JA Moccasin Gray 16 20 281 92004-904 GR ID JA Moccasin Gray 20 20 55 92004-883 GR EB JA Moccasin Gray 16 25 43 92004-877 GR EB JA Moccasin Gray 14 25 94 92004-874 GR EB JA Moccasin Gray 14 25 279 92004-904 GR EB JA Moccasin Gray 14 30 288 92004-905 GR EB JA IG Moccasin Gray 12 30 261 92004-867 GR EB JA IG Moccasin Gray 10 35 88 92004-880 GR EB JA Moccasin Gray 10 35 58 92004-883 GR EB JA Moccasin Gray 8 40 161 92004-955 GR EB JA IG Moccasin Gray 12 40 56 92004-883 GR EB JA Moccasin Gray 10 40 280 92004-904 GR EB JA Moccasin Gray 12 50 10 92004-845 GR EB JA IG Moccasin Gray 8 50 248 92004-930 GR CB JA IG Mancos Gray 28 10 266 92004-897 GR CB JA Mancos Gray 30 10 111 92004-875 GR CB JA Mancos Gray 24 15 22 92004-845 GR CB JA IG Mancos Gray 28 15 65 92004-866 GR CB JA Mancos Gray 20 15 6 92004-842 GR LB JA IG Mancos Gray 20 20 187 92004-931 GR CB JA Mancos Gray 24 20 239 92004-956 GR CB JA IG Mancos Gray 16 20 86 92004-873 GR CB JA Mancos Gray 24 20 171 92004-814 GR CB JA IG Mancos Gray 16 20 50 92004-899 GR CB JA Mancos Gray 20 20 188 92004-931 GR CB JA Mancos Gray 18 25 24 92004-864 GR CB JA Mancos Gray 14 30 109 92004-875 GR LB JA Late Mancos Gray 32 10

119

ID FS Ware Style Form Temper Type Diameter Degrees 152 92004-876 GR LB JA Late Mancos Gray 22 15 42 92004-877 GR LB JA Late Mancos Gray 30 15 228 92004-908 GR LB JA IG Late Mancos Gray 18 15 34 92004-903 GR LB JA Late Mancos Gray 24 25 108 92004-875 GR EC JA Mancos Corrugated 36 10 217 92004-679 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 30 10 170 92004-814 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 26 10 15 92004-845 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 30 10 238 92004-956 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 26 15 16 92004-845 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 26 15 190 92004-871 GR EC JA Mancos Corrugated 28 15 71 92004-863 GR CB JA Mancos Corrugated 26 15 201 92004-933 GR EC JA Mancos Corrugated 24 15 137 92004-702 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 22 15 213 92004-632 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 24 15 237 92004-956 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 24 15 149 92004-876 GR EC JA Mancos Corrugated 20 15 133 92004-865 GR EC JA Mancos Corrugated 22 20 272 92004-966 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 26 20 139 92004-658 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 26 20 13 92004-845 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 20 20 200 92004-933 GR EC JA Mancos Corrugated 20 20 268 92004-897 GR EC JA Mancos Corrugated 22 20 162 92004-955 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 12 25 113 92004-875 GR EC JA Mancos Corrugated 12 25 61 92004-655 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 12 35 101 92004-875 GR EC JA Mancos Corrugated 14 40 255 92004-869 GR ID JA Dolores Corrugated 26 15 264 92004-867 GR ID JA Dolores Corrugated 10 35 232 92004-686 GR ID JA IG Dolores Corrugated 26 15 182 92004-868 GR ID JA Dolores Corrugated 16 20 257 92004-970 GR IC JA IG Dolores Corrugated 20 15 244 92004-929 GR IC JA Dolores Corrugated 18 20 155 92004-979 GR IC JA IG Dolores Corrugated 22 20 210 92004-653 GR IC JA IG Dolores Corrugated 22 20 130 92004-896 GR IC JA IG Dolores Corrugated 14 25 267 92004-897 GR IC JA Dolores Corrugated 16 30 143 92004-896 GR IC JA IG Dolores Corrugated 10 35 132 92004-865 GR LC JA Mesa Verde Corrugated 28 10 229 92004-908 GR LC JA IG Mesa Verde Corrugated 26 15 194 92004-879 GR LC JA IG Mesa Verde Corrugated 20 20 40 92004-903 GR LC JA Mesa Verde Corrugated 16 35

120

ID FS Ware Style Form Temper Type Diameter Degrees 241 92004-929 GR LC JA IG Mesa Verde Corrugated 12 45 150 92004-876 GR ID JA Unidentified Gray 42 10 32 92004-844 GR ID JA IG Unidentified Gray 32 10 274 92004-935 GR ID JA IG Unidentified Gray 34 10 259 92004-970 GR ID JA IG Unidentified Gray 28 10 48 92004-877 GR ID JA Unidentified Gray 28 10 90 92004-880 GR ID JA Unidentified Gray 34 10 47 92004-877 GR ID JA Unidentified Gray 26 10 285 92004-907 GR ID JA Unidentified Gray 30 10 227 92004-908 GR ID JA Unidentified Gray 26 10 14 92004-845 GR ID JA IG Unidentified Gray 28 10 104 92004-875 GR ID JA Unidentified Gray 34 15 21 92004-845 GR ID JA IG Unidentified Gray 28 15 224 92004-673 GR ID JA IG Unidentified Gray 26 15 112 92004-875 GR PL JA Unidentified Gray 26 15 46 92004-877 GR ID JA Unidentified Gray 28 15 57 92004-883 GR ID JA Unidentified Gray 26 15 75 92004-863 GR ID JA Unidentified Gray 28 15 116 92004-870 GR ID JA Unidentified Gray 20 15 164 92004-955 GR ID JA IG Unidentified Gray 22 15 175 92004-814 GR ID JA IG Unidentified Gray 26 15 294 92004-971 GR ID JA IG Unidentified Gray 20 15 148 92004-876 GR ID JA IG Unidentified Gray 20 15 124 92004-881 GR ID JA IG Unidentified Gray 26 15 76 92004-617 GR ID JA IG Unidentified Gray 20 20 230 92004-908 GR ID JA Unidentified Gray 18 20 169 92004-814 GR ID JA Unidentified Gray 16 20 293 92004-932 GR ID JA IG Unidentified Gray 20 20 74 92004-863 GR ID JA Unidentified Gray 16 20 202 92004-933 GR ID JA Unidentified Gray 18 20 1 92004-851 GR ID JA Unidentified Gray 20 20 163 92004-955 GR ID JA IG Unidentified Gray 16 20 183 92004-868 GR ID JA Unidentified Gray 24 20 151 92004-876 GR ID JA Unidentified Gray 14 20 92 92004-880 GR ID JA Unidentified Gray 14 25 107 92004-875 GR ID JA Unidentified Gray 14 25 110 92004-875 GR ID JA IG Unidentified Gray 16 25 29 92004-864 GR ID JA Unidentified Gray 12 25 160 92004-958 GR ID JA IG Unidentified Gray 18 25 105 92004-875 GR ID JA Unidentified Gray 16 30 85 92004-873 GR ID JA Unidentified Gray 12 30 39 92004-903 GR ID JA Unidentified Gray 14 35

121

ID FS Ware Style Form Temper Type Diameter Degrees 3 92004-859 GR ID JA IG Unidentified Gray 22 35 62 92004-655 GR ID JA IG Unidentified Gray 14 35 254 92004-869 GR ID JA IG Unidentified Gray 12 35 54 92004-883 WH WM BO White Mesa Black-on-white 24 15 64 92004-866 WH WM BO White Mesa Black-on-white 18 15 177 92004-868 WH WM BO White Mesa Black-on-white 18 15 125 92004-881 WH RM BO IG Cortez Black-on-white 26 15 77 92004-901 WH P2 BO Mancos Black-on-white 30 10 223 92004-673 WH P2 BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 30 10 222 92004-673 WH P2 BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 28 10 8 92004-842 WH P2 BO IGSH Mancos Black-on-white 28 10 100 92004-898 WH DO BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 28 10 256 92004-633 WH P2 BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 26 10 193 92004-879 WH SO BO Mancos Black-on-white 32 10 168 92004-652 WH DO BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 30 10 231 92004-686 WH DO BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 38 10 136 92004-865 WH SO BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 30 10 20 92004-845 WH P2 BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 28 10 66 92004-866 WH P2 BO Mancos Black-on-white 26 15 206 92004-652 WH DO BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 26 15 140 92004-882 WH SO BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 22 15 99 92004-872 WH P2 BO Mancos Black-on-white 24 15 198 92004-933 WH P2 BO Mancos Black-on-white 24 15 67 92004-863 WH DO BO Mancos Black-on-white 32 15 135 92004-865 WH SO BO Mancos Black-on-white 22 15 214 92004-632 WH PN BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 26 15 49 92004-899 WH P2 BO Mancos Black-on-white 20 15 18 92004-845 WH P2 BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 22 15 275 92004-935 WH PN BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 22 15 44 92004-877 WH DO BO Mancos Black-on-white 22 15 45 92004-877 WH DO BO Mancos Black-on-white 18 15 159 92004-659 WH P2 BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 24 15 146 92004-876 WH P2 BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 20 15 73 92004-863 WH DO BO Mancos Black-on-white 20 20 233 92004-686 WH DX BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 20 20 11 92004-845 WH P2 BO IGSH Mancos Black-on-white 22 20 147 92004-876 WH DO BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 18 20 41 92004-877 WH DO BO Mancos Black-on-white 34 20 138 92004-611 WH SO BO IGSH Mancos Black-on-white 16 20 156 92004-979 WH P2 BO IGSH Mancos Black-on-white 16 20 17 92004-845 WH P2 BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 24 20 70 92004-863 WH P2 BO Mancos Black-on-white 14 20

122

ID FS Ware Style Form Temper Type Diameter Degrees 251 92004-670 WH MB BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 14 25 165 92004-945 WH P2 BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 18 25 209 92004-653 WH SO BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 16 25 102 92004-875 WH P2 BO Mancos Black-on-white 8 40 236 92004-967 WH SO BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 14 40 290 92004-957 WH p2 BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 30 10 19 92004-845 WH P2 BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 16 15 2 92004-852 WH PN BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 20 15 211 92004-653 WH PN BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 18 20 269 92004-897 WH PN BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 12 25 282 92004-904 WH P2 BO Mancos Black-on-white 10 30 220 92004-636 WH DO BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 24 15 145 92004-972 WH P2 BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 12 35 52 92004-899 WH P2 JA Mancos Black-on-white 16 25 167 92004-652 WH P2 JA SH Mancos Black-on-white 24 25 134 92004-865 WH PN JA SH Mancos Black-on-white 12 25 204 92004-652 WH P2 JA SH Mancos Black-on-white 18 35 83 92004-873 WH BM JA Mancos Black-on-white 10 45 258 92004-970 WH P2 JA IG Mancos Black-on-white 8 40 166 92004-652 WH P3 BO SHIG McElmo Black-on-white 28 10 273 92004-966 WH DX BO SH McElmo Black-on-white 26 10 291 92004-957 WH SB BO SH McElmo Black-on-white 26 10 38 92004-903 WH P2 BO McElmo Black-on-white 22 15 205 92004-652 WH SB BO SH McElmo Black-on-white 24 15 26 92004-864 WH SO BO McElmo Black-on-white 30 15 289 92004-905 WH SB BO McElmo Black-on-white 20 15 262 92004-867 WH SO BO McElmo Black-on-white 24 15 226 92004-906 WH SB BO SH McElmo Black-on-white 24 15 7 92004-842 WH SO BO IG McElmo Black-on-white 22 15 91 92004-880 WH SO BO McElmo Black-on-white 18 15 158 92004-988 WH SB BO IGSH McElmo Black-on-white 20 15 153 92004-959 WH SB BO SHIG McElmo Black-on-white 30 20 53 92004-883 WH DO BO McElmo Black-on-white 16 20 30 92004-864 WH SO BO McElmo Black-on-white 18 20 221 92004-667 WH SB BO SH McElmo Black-on-white 16 20 28 92004-864 WH DO BO McElmo Black-on-white 20 25 240 92004-929 WH SB BO McElmo Black-on-white 14 25 98 92004-900 WH P3 BO Mesa Verde Black-on-white 28 10 215 92004-632 WH SB BO IGSH Mesa Verde Black-on-white 42 10 192 92004-871 WH P3 BO Mesa Verde Black-on-white 24 10 252 92004-670 WH P3 BO IG Mesa Verde Black-on-white 30 15 63 92004-866 WH MB BO IGSH Mesa Verde Black-on-white 30 20

123

ID FS Ware Style Form Temper Type Diameter Degrees 115 92004-895 WH MB BO IG Mesa Verde Black-on-white 28 20 250 92004-920 WH SB BO SH Mesa Verde Black-on-white 22 20 37 92004-903 WH SB BO Mesa Verde Black-on-white 20 20 36 92004-903 WH SB BO Mesa Verde Black-on-white 22 25 235 92004-910 WH UN BO SH Pueblo II 36 15 216 92004-632 WH UN BO SH Pueblo II 20 15 199 92004-933 WH UN BO SHIG Pueblo II 26 15 129 92004-982 WH UN BO SH Pueblo II 24 20 114 92004-895 WH UN JA SH Pueblo II 10 35 25 92004-864 WH PN BO Pueblo III 30 10 68 92004-863 WH SB BO Pueblo III 30 10 185 92004-931 WH UN BO Pueblo III 26 10 89 92004-880 WH P3 BO Pueblo III 26 15 179 92004-868 WH P3 BO Pueblo III 30 15 178 92004-868 WH UN BO Pueblo III 24 20 157 92004-641 WH UN BO SB Chuskan White Ware 14 25 9 92004-845 WH UN JA SB Chuskan White Ware 10 45 253 92004-869 WH UN BO Early Unidentified 26 10 234 92004-686 WH UN BO IG Early Unidentified 24 10 197 92004-933 WH UN BO Early Unidentified 26 15 103 92004-875 WH UN BO Early Unidentified 30 15 106 92004-875 WH UN BO Early Unidentified 38 15 72 92004-863 WH UN BO Early Unidentified 28 15 203 92004-933 WH UN BO Early Unidentified 28 15 122 92004-881 WH UN BO IG Early Unidentified 14 30 27 92004-864 WH UN BO Early Unidentified 30 15 117 92004-870 WH UN BO Early Unidentified 26 15 141 92004-882 WH UN BO IG Early Unidentified 18 20 95 92004-874 WH UN BO Early Unidentified 20 20 287 92004-911 WH UN BO IG Early Unidentified 32 20 225 92004-906 WH PN JA Early Unidentified 18 20 176 92004-814 WH PN JA Early Unidentified 8 50 78 92004-901 WH JA Early Unidentified 10 45 5 92004-842 WH UN BO IG Early Unidentified 28 10 277 92004-843 WH PN BO Early Unidentified 30 10 265 92004-867 WH PN BO Early Unidentified 26 10 181 92004-868 WH PN BO Early Unidentified 24 10 207 92004-622 WH PN BO IG Early Unidentified 22 15 69 92004-863 WH PN BO Early Unidentified 22 15 286 92004-907 WH PN BO Early Unidentified 22 15 31 92004-864 WH PN BO Early Unidentified 16 20 245 92004-929 WH PN BO Early Unidentified 12 25

124

ID FS Ware Style Form Temper Type Diameter Degrees 60 92004-878 WH ID BO Early Unidentified 8 55 51 92004-899 WH UN BO Early Unidentified 24 10 189 92004-871 WH UN BO Early Unidentified 24 20 12 92004-845 WH UN BO IG Early Unidentified 16 20

125

Appendix C: Data from Three Kiva Pueblo

The code key for Appendix C is the same as the code for the previous two appendices with the following exceptions:

Accession: Accession number assigned by the Museum of Peoples and Cultures

Number or Bag: Many accessions were divided into multiple bags. This specifies which large bag and which small bag contains each sherd.

Provenience: Excavation provenience or provenience code as reported on object tag. As of this writing, this provenience information is not available in the Museum of Peoples and Cultures catalog.

126

ID Accession Number or Bag Ware Style Form Temper Type Diameter Degrees Provenience 488 1973.403.002 Bag 2/3 Bag 3 GR PL JA IG Chapin Gray 16 20 KIVA 1 FILL 150 W 170 S NWI TRASH 186 1973.404.060 Bag 1/2 Bag 1 GR PL JA IG Chapin Gray 20 25 MOUND 69 1973.404.01 Bag 4/4 GR EB JA IG Moccasin Gray 20 25 230 W 110 S L-1 310 1973.406.022 Bag 1 GR EB JA IG Moccasin Gray 20 30 863-68 438 1973.404.12 Bag 3/5 Bag 2 GR CB JA IG Mancos Gray 40 25 160 W 170 S L1 418 1973.404.12 Bag 5/5 Bag 2 GR CB JA IG Mancos Gray 44 10 160 W 170 S L1 SW CORNER 329 1973.406.010 Bag 6/6 GR CB JA IG Mancos Gray 26 15 863-5 ROOM 8 L2 441 1973.404.12 Bag 3/5 Bag 2 GR CB JA IG Mancos Gray 22 15 160 W 170 S L1 328 1973.406.010 Bag 6/6 Bag 3 GR CB JA IG Mancos Gray 28 15 863-5 ROOM 8 L2 316 1973.406.017 GR CB JA IG Mancos Gray 22 15 863-83B 495 1973.403.002 Bag 2/3 Bag 5 GR CB JA IGSH Mancos Gray 20 20 KIVA 1 FILL 494 1973.403.002 Bag 2/3 Bag 5 GR CB JA IG Mancos Gray 18 25 KIVA 1 FILL 463 1973.403.001 Bag 2/3 Bag 1 GR CB JA IG Mancos Gray 20 25 KIVA 1 250 W 70 S LEVEL 1 478 1973.403.002 Bag 1/3 Bag 3 GR CB JA IG Mancos Gray 16 35 KIVA 1 FILL 442 1973.404.12 Bag 3/5 Bag 2 GR CB JA IG Mancos Gray 8 40 160 W 170 S L1 95 1973.406.341 GR CB JA IG Mancos Gray 18 20 150 W 130 S TRASH SWI 257 1973.406.007 77 Bag 2 GR LB JA IG Late Mancos Gray 24 10 258 1973.406.007 77 Bag 2 GR LB JA IG Late Mancos Gray 18 15 67 1973.404.01 Bag 4/4 GR LB JA IG Late Mancos Gray 10 55 230 W 110 S L-1 623 1973.404.199 Bag 8/8 GR LB JA IG Late Mancos Gray 34 15 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 405 1973.404.291 GR LB JA IG Late Mancos Gray 20 15 150 W 160 S TRASH 467 1973.403.001 Bag 2/3 Bag 3 GR LB JA IG Late Mancos Gray 26 20 KIVA 1 250 W 70 S LEVEL 1 542 1973.404.199 Bag 3/8 GR LB JA IG Late Mancos Gray 14 40 150 W 130 S TRASH 305 1973.406.024 Bag 2/2 Bag 3 GR LB JA IG Late Mancos Gray 36 15 863-67 320 W 60 S 330 1973.406.010 Bag 6/6 GR LB JA IG Late Mancos Gray 28 20 863-5 ROOM 8 L2 306 1973.406.024 Bag 2/2 Bag 3 GR LB JA IG Late Mancos Gray 24 25 863-67 320 W 60 S 192 1973.404.069 GR LB JA IG Late Mancos Gray 22 25 150 W 140 S NW L1 275 1973.406.008 Bag 2 GR LB JA IG Late Mancos Gray 12 30 863-65 15 1973.404.2 Bag 3/5, Bag 2 GR LB JA IG Late Mancos Gray 20 35 240 W 110 S L-1

127

ID Accession Number or Bag Ware Style Form Temper Type Diameter Degrees Provenience 3 1973.404.2 Bag 3/5, Bag 2 GR LB JA IG Late Mancos Gray 30 15 240 W 110 S L-1 1 1973.404.2 Bag 3/5, Bag 1 GR LB JA IG Late Mancos Gray 22 30 240 W 110 S L-1 439 1973.404.12 Bag 3/5 Bag 2 GR JA EC IG Mancos Corrugated 30 15 160 W 170 S L1 399 1973.409.280 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 40 10 150 W 120 S TRASH 560 1973.404.199 Bag 5/8 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 40 10 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 443 1973.404.12 Bag 3/5 Bag 2 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 34 10 160 W 170 S L1 377 1973.406.010 Bag 3/6 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 34 10 863-5 ROOM 8 L2 474 1973.403.001 Bag 2/3 Bag 8 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 28 10 KIVA 1 250 W 70 S LEVEL 1 282 1973.406.024 Bag 1/2 Bag 1 GR EC JA SHIG Mancos Corrugated 28 10 863-67 320 W 60 S 562 1973.404.199 Bag 5/8 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 34 10 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 68 1973.404.01 Bag 4/4 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 28 10 230 W 110 S L-1 408 1973.404.273 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 32 10 150 W 160 S TRASH 10 1973.404.2 Bag 3/5, Bag 2 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 32 10 240 W 110 S L-1 401 1973.409.280 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 30 10 150 W 120 S TRASH 376 1973.406.010 Bag 3/6 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 36 10 863-5 ROOM 8 L2 13 1973.404.2 Bag 3/5, Bag 2 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 42 15 240 W 110 S L-1 479 1973.403.002 Bag 1/3 Bag 3 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 22 15 KIVA 1 FILL 11 1973.404.2 Bag 3/5, Bag 2 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 30 15 240 W 110 S L-1 379 1973.406.010 Bag 3/6 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 40 15 863-5 ROOM 8 L2 281 1973.406.008 Bag 6 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 32 15 863-65 482 1973.403.002 Bag 1/3 Bag 4 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 24 15 KIVA 1 FILL 522 1973.404.199 Bag 2/8 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 24 15 150 W 130 S TRASH 483 1973.403.002 Bag 1/3 Bag 4 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 24 15 KIVA 1 FILL 404 1973.404.298 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 22 15 150 W 120 S TRASH 285 1973.406.024 Bag 1/2 Bag 2 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 26 15 863-67 320 W 60 S 9 1973.404.2 Bag 3/5, Bag 2 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 26 15 240 W 110 S L-1 16 1973.404.2 Bag 3/5, Bag 2 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 24 15 240 W 110 S L-1 265 1973.406.038 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 26 15 7 1973.404.2 Bag 3/5, Bag 2 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 18 15 240 W 110 S L-1 198 1973.404.062 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 32 15 140 W 180 S LEVEL 1 NW

128

ID Accession Number or Bag Ware Style Form Temper Type Diameter Degrees Provenience 400 1973.409.280 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 20 15 150 W 120 S TRASH 576 1973.404.199 Bag 6/8 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 30 15 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 572 1973.404.199 Bag 6/8 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 26 15 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 389 1973.406.010 Bag 5/6 GR EC JA SHIG Mancos Corrugated 20 15 863-5 ROOM 8 L2 390 1973.406.010 Bag 5/6 GR EC JA SHIG Mancos Corrugated 20 15 863-5 ROOM 8 L2 266 1973.406.038 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 24 20 622 1973.404.199 Bag 8/8 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 30 20 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 8 1973.404.2 Bag 3/5, Bag 2 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 18 20 240 W 110 S L-1 516 1973.404.199 Bag 2/8 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 24 20 150 W 130 S TRASH 317 1973.406.017 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 20 20 863-83B 599 1973.404.199 Bag 7/8 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 18 20 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 283 1973.406.024 Bag 1/2 Bag 1 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 22 20 863-67 320 W 60 S 521 1973.404.199 Bag 2/8 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 16 20 150 W 130 S TRASH 386 1973.406.010 Bag 5/6 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 20 20 863-5 ROOM 8 L2 519 1973.404.199 Bag 2/8 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 28 25 150 W 130 S TRASH 388 1973.406.010 Bag 5/6 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 22 25 863-5 ROOM 8 L2 2 1973.404.2 Bag 3/5, Bag 2 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 28 25 240 W 110 S L-1 540 1973.404.199 Bag 3/8 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 24 25 150 W 130 S TRASH 469 1973.403.001 Bag 2/3 Bag 5 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 14 25 KIVA 1 250 W 70 S LEVEL 1 251 1973.404.063 Bag 5/5 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 28 25 TEST TRENCH IB 387 1973.406.010 Bag 5/6 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 22 25 863-5 ROOM 8 L2 12 1973.404.2 Bag 3/5, Bag 2 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 22 25 240 W 110 S L-1 477 1973.403.002 Bag 1/3 Bag 2 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 18 25 KIVA 1 FILL 520 1973.404.199 Bag 2/8 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 30 30 150 W 130 S TRASH 485 1973.403.002 Bag 2/3 Bag 2 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 22 30 KIVA 1 FILL FEATURE 3 229 1973.404.063 Bag 1/5 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 30 30 TEST TRENCH IB 66 1973.404.01 Bag 4/4 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 14 35 230 W 110 S L-1 392 1973.404.314 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 8 40 150 W 120 S 256 1973.406.007 77 Bag 1 GR EC JA IG Mancos Corrugated 20 30 545 1973.404.199 Bag 3/8 GR ID JA IG Dolores Corrugated 28 10 130 W 150 S TRASH L1

129

ID Accession Number or Bag Ware Style Form Temper Type Diameter Degrees Provenience 150 W 170 S NWI TRASH 183 1973.404.060 Bag 1/2 Bag 1 GR ID JA IG Dolores Corrugated 22 15 MOUND 150 W 170 S NWI TRASH 184 1973.404.060 Bag 1/2 Bag 1 GR ID JA IG Dolores Corrugated 26 15 MOUND 600 1973.404.199 Bag 7/8 GR ID JA IG Dolores Corrugated 18 20 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 511 1973.403.003 Bag 2/2 Bag 1 GR ID JA IG Dolores Corrugated 18 70 KIVA 1 FLOOR 558 1973.404.199 Bag 5/8 GR ID JA IG Dolores Corrugated 22 15 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 590 1973.404.199 Bag 7/8 GR ID JA IG Dolores Corrugated 24 30 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 628 1973.405.040 GR IC JA IG Dolores Corrugated 22 ROOM 12 L1 350 1973.406.010 Bag 1/6 Bag 2 GR IC JA IG Dolores Corrugated 26 10 863-5 ROOM 8 L2 480 1973.403.002 Bag 1/3 Bag 3 GR IC JA IG Dolores Corrugated 26 10 KIVA 1 FILL 561 1973.404.199 Bag 5/8 GR IC JA IG Dolores Corrugated 28 15 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 407 1973.404.273 GR IC JA IG Dolores Corrugated 30 15 150 W 160 S TRASH 100 1984.418.195 GR IC JA IG Dolores Corrugated 34 15 398 1973.404.325 GR IC JA IG Dolores Corrugated 32 20 150 W 160 S TRASH 589 1973.404.199 Bag 7/8 GR IC JA IG Dolores Corrugated 22 20 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 444 1973.404.12 Bag 3/5 Bag 2 GR IC JA IG Dolores Corrugated 28 20 160 W 170 S L1 315 1973.406.017 GR IC JA SHIG Dolores Corrugated 28 20 863-83B 518 1973.404.199 Bag 2/8 GR IC JA IG Dolores Corrugated 20 20 150 W 130 S TRASH 406 1973.404.329 GR IC JA IG Dolores Corrugated 26 20 160 W 170 S 481 1973.403.002 Bag 1/3 Bag 3 GR IC JA IG Dolores Corrugated 18 20 KIVA 1 FILL 6 1973.404.2 Bag 3/5, Bag 2 GR IC JA IG Dolores Corrugated 22 20 240 W 110 S L-1 232 1973.404.063 Bag 2/5 GR IC JA IG Dolores Corrugated 38 20 TEST TRENCH IB 150 W 170 S NWI TRASH 185 1973.404.060 Bag 1/2 Bag 1 GR IC JA IG Dolores Corrugated 18 25 MOUND 252 1973.404.063 Bag 5/5 GR IC JA IG Dolores Corrugated 30 25 TEST TRENCH IB 200 1973.404.062 GR IC JA IG Dolores Corrugated 16 25 140 W 180 S LEVEL 1 NW 14 1973.404.2 Bag 3/5, Bag 2 GR IC JA IG Dolores Corrugated 18 25 240 W 110 S L-1 253 1973.404.063 Bag 5/5 GR IC JA IG Dolores Corrugated 24 30 TEST TRENCH IB 230 1973.404.063 Bag 1/5 GR IC JA IG Dolores Corrugated 28 30 TEST TRENCH IB 94 1973.406.341 GR IC JA IG Dolores Corrugated 18 30 150 W 130 S TRASH SWI

130

ID Accession Number or Bag Ware Style Form Temper Type Diameter Degrees Provenience 107 1984.418.124 GR IC JA IG Dolores Corrugated 18 30 R1-L8 108 1984.418.124 GR IC JA IG Dolores Corrugated 20 30 R1-L8 412 1973.404.276 GR IC JA IG Dolores Corrugated 26 30 150 W 120 S TRASH 234 1973.404.063 Bag 2/5 GR IC JA IG Dolores Corrugated 30 30 TEST TRENCH IB 235 1973.404.063 Bag 2/5 GR IC JA IG Dolores Corrugated 30 35 TEST TRENCH IB 510 1973.403.003 Bag 2/2 Bag 1 GR IC JA IG Dolores Corrugated 20 35 KIVA 1 FLOOR 243 1973.404.063 Bag 3/5 GR IC JA IG Dolores Corrugated 28 35 TEST TRENCH IB 233 1973.404.063 Bag 2/5 GR IC JA IG Dolores Corrugated 24 40 TEST TRENCH IB 396 1973.404.325 GR IC JA IG Dolores Corrugated 16 40 150 W 160 S TRASH 556 1973.404.199 Bag 5/8 GR IC JA IG Dolores Corrugated 14 40 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 106 1984.418.124 GR IC JA IG Dolores Corrugated 22 40 R1-L8 568 1973.404.199 Bag 6/8 GR IC JA IG Dolores Corrugated 16 45 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 5 1973.404.2 Bag 3/5, Bag 2 GR IC JA IG Dolores Corrugated 8 45 240 W 110 S L-1 250 1973.404.063 Bag 5/5 GR IC JA IG Dolores Corrugated 30 45 TEST TRENCH IB 231 1973.404.063 Bag 2/5 GR IC JA IG Dolores Corrugated 26 45 TEST TRENCH IB 259 1973.406.030 GR IC JA IG Dolores Corrugated 16 45 109 1984.418.124 GR IC JA IG Dolores Corrugated 16 50 R1 -L8 368 1973.406.010 Bag 2/6 Bag 3 GR IC JA IG Dolores Corrugated 12 50 863-5 ROOM 8 L2 104 1984.418.124 GR IC JA IG Dolores Corrugated 16 55 R1-L8 105 1984.418.124 GR IC JA IG Dolores Corrugated 18 60 R1-L8 196 1973.404.060 Bag 2/2 GR IC JA IG Dolores Corrugated 14 65 150 W 170 S NWI 103 1984.418.124 71.44.38 GR IC JA IG Dolores Corrugated 20 85 R1-L8 375 1973.406.010 Bag 3/6 GR IC JA IG Dolores Corrugated 12 35 863-5 ROOM 8 L2 437 1973.404.12 Bag 3/5 Bag 1 GR IC JA IG Dolores Corrugated 16 20 160 W 170 S L1 293 1973.406.024 Bag 1/2 Bag 5 GR IC JA IG Dolores Corrugated 10 40 863-67 320 W 60 S 284 1973.406.024 Bag 1/2 Bag 1 GR IC JA IG Dolores Corrugated 18 60 863-67 320 W 60 S 228 1973.404.063 Bag 1/5 GR LC JA IG Mesa Verde Corrugated 26 25 TEST TRENCH IB 307 1973.406.024 Bag 2/2 Bag 4 GR LC JA IG Mesa Verde Corrugated 14 30 863-67 320 W 60 S 397 1973.404.325 GR LC JA IG Mesa Verde Corrugated 20 30 150 W 160 S TRASH 273 1973.406.035 Bag 2 GR LC JA IG Mesa Verde Corrugated 22 30 83A

131

ID Accession Number or Bag Ware Style Form Temper Type Diameter Degrees Provenience 236 1973.404.063 Bag 2/5 GR LC JA IG Mesa Verde Corrugated 26 35 TEST TRENCH IB 374 1973.406.010 Bag 3/6 GR LC JA IG Mesa Verde Corrugated 10 35 863-5 ROOM 8 L2 327 1973.406.010 Bag 6/6 Bag 2 GR LC JA IG Mesa Verde Corrugated 10 40 ROOM 7 197 1973.404.062 GR LC JA IG Mesa Verde Corrugated 12 80 140 W 180 S LEVEL 1 NW 411 1973.404.276 GR ID JA IG Mesa Verde Corrugated 26 30 150 W 120 S TRASH 383 1973.406.010 Bag 4/6 GR ID JA IG Mesa Verde Corrugated 12 25 863-5 ROOM 8 L2 461 1973.403.001 Bag 1/3 Bag 1 GR ID JA IG Unidentified 38 10 863-5 ROOM 8 L2 486 1973.403.002 Bag 2/3 Bag 3 GR ID JA IG Unidentified 36 10 150 W 130 S E 1/2 LEVEL 2 476 1973.403.002 Bag 1/3 Bag 1 GR ID JA IG Unidentified 32 10 KIVA 1 250 W 70 S LEVEL 1-2 48 1973.404.01 Bag 1/4, Bag 1 GR IN JA IG Unidentified 28 10 150 W 160 S TRASH 199 1973.404.062 GR ID JA IG Unidentified 26 15 160 W 170 S L1 204 1973.404.062 GR ID JA IG Unidentified 28 15 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 244 1973.404.063 Bag 4/5 GR ID JA IG Unidentified 30 15 863-5 ROOM 8 L2 191 1973.404.069 GR ID JA IG Unidentified 34 15 863-79 440 1973.404.12 Bag 3/5 Bag 2 GR ID JA IG Unidentified 26 15 863-5 ROOM 8 L2 445 1973.404.12 Bag 3/5 Bag 2 GR ID JA IG Unidentified 26 15 230 W 110 S L-1 447 1973.404.12 Bag 3/5 Bag 2 GR ID JA IG Unidentified 24 15 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 446 1973.404.12 Bag 3/5 Bag 2 GR ID JA IG Unidentified 24 15 863-5 ROOM 8 L2 546 1973.404.199 Bag 3/8 GR ID JA IG Unidentified 26 15 863-5 ROOM 8 L2 582 1973.404.199 Bag 6/8 GR ID JA IG Unidentified 20 15 863-5 ROOM 8 L2 557 1973.404.199 Bag 5/8 GR ID JA IG Unidentified 26 15 863-67 320 W 60 S 583 1973.404.199 Bag 6/8 GR ID JA IG Unidentified 26 15 140 W 180 S LEVEL 1 NW 573 1973.404.199 Bag 6/8 GR ID JA IG Unidentified 30 15 863-5 ROOM 8 L2 523 1973.404.199 Bag 2/8 GR ID JA IG Unidentified 26 15 140 W 180 S LEVEL 1 NW 609 1973.404.199 Bag 7/8 GR ID JA IG Unidentified 22 15 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 541 1973.404.199 Bag 3/8 GR ID JA IG Unidentified 26 20 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 611 1973.404.199 Bag 7/8 GR ID JA IG Unidentified 24 20 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 614 1973.404.199 Bag 8/8 GR ID JA IG Unidentified 22 20 160 W 170 S L1 575 1973.404.199 Bag 6/8 GR ID JA IG Unidentified 30 20 150 W 130 S TRASH 559 1973.404.199 Bag 5/8 GR ID JA IG Unidentified 20 20 160 W 170 S L1

132

ID Accession Number or Bag Ware Style Form Temper Type Diameter Degrees Provenience 570 1973.404.199 Bag 6/8 GR ID JA IG Unidentified 20 20 83-D 604 1973.404.199 Bag 7/8 GR ID JA IG Unidentified 16 20 863-68 610 1973.404.199 Bag 7/8 GR ID JA IG Unidentified 20 20 160 W 170 S L1 517 1973.404.199 Bag 2/8 GR ID JA IG Unidentified 16 20 150 W 120 S TRASH 539 1973.404.199 Bag 3/8 GR ID JA IG Unidentified 16 20 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 4 1973.404.2 Bag 3/5, Bag 2 GR ID JA IG Unidentified 18 20 150 W 130 S TRASH 409 1973.404.273 GR ID JA IG Unidentified 16 20 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 410 1973.404.276 GR ID JA IG Unidentified 26 20 240 W 110 S L-1 402 1973.404.293 GR ID JA IG Unidentified 18 20 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 403 1973.404.293 GR ID JA IG Unidentified 16 20 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 353 1973.406.010 Bag 1/6 Bag 2 GR ID JA IG Unidentified 28 25 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 378 1973.406.010 Bag 3/6 GR ID JA IG Unidentified 20 25 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 351 1973.406.010 Bag 1/6 Bag 2 GR ID JA IG Unidentified 24 25 863-67 320 W 60 S 384 1973.406.010 Bag 4/6 GR ID JA IG Unidentified 16 25 KIVA 1 FILL 352 1973.406.010 Bag 1/6 Bag 2 GR ID JA IG Unidentified 20 25 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 354 1973.406.010 Bag 1/6 Bag 2 GR ID JA IG Unidentified 20 25 150 W 130 S E 1/2 LEVEL 2 326 1973.406.010 Bag 6/6 Bag 1 GR ID JA IG Unidentified 26 25 150 W 140 S NW L1 385 1973.406.010 Bag 4/6 GR ID JA IG Unidentified 10 30 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 271 1973.406.011 GR ID JA IG Unidentified 20 30 150 W 130 S TRASH 332 1973.406.016 Bag 2 GR ID JA IG Unidentified 22 40 TEST TRENCH IB 313 1973.406.022 Bag 4 GR ID JA IG Unidentified 8 55 150 W 130 S TRASH 294 1973.406.024 Bag 1/2 Bag 5 GR ID JA IG Unidentified 12 55 863-5 ROOM 8 L2 608 1973.404.199 Bag 7/8 WH PI BO IG Piedra Black-on-white 30 10 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 462 1973.403.001 Bag 1/3 Bag 2 WH PI BO IG Piedra Black-on-white 22 15 KIVA 1 250 W 70 S LEVEL 1-2 612 1973.404.199 Bag 8/8 WH PI BO IG Piedra Black-on-white 22 15 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 578 1973.404.199 Bag 6/8 WH PI BO IG Piedra Black-on-white 24 15 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 603 1973.404.199 Bag 7/8 WH PI BO IG Piedra Black-on-white 20 30 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 72 1973.404.01 Bag 4/4 WH WM BO IG White Mesa B/w 20 20 230 W 110 S L-1 299 1973.406.024 Bag 2/2 Bag 1 WH WM BO IG White Mesa B/w 16 25 863-67 320 W 60 S 214 1973.404.062 WH RM BO IG Cortez Black-on-white 22 15 140 W 180 S LEVEL 1 NW

133

ID Accession Number or Bag Ware Style Form Temper Type Diameter Degrees Provenience 466 1973.403.001 Bag 2/3 Bag 2 WH RM BO IG Cortez Black-on-white 20 15 KIVA 1 250 W 70 S LEVEL 1 287 1973.406.024 Bag 1/2 Bag 4 WH P2 BO IG Cortez Black-on-white 10 55 863-67 320 W 60 S 24 1973.404.2 Bag 4/5 WH P2 BO IG Cortez Black-on-white 26 20 240 W 110 S L-1 161 1984.418.200 WH P2 JA IG Cortez Black-on-white 10 40 150 W 160 S 160 1984.418.200 WH P2 JA IG Cortez Black-on-white 8 40 150 W 120 S 627 1973.403.136 WH MA BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 18 Partial Vessel ROOM SB SQ2 L4 629 1973.406.104 WH P2 BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 24 Partial Vessel 863-2 631 1973.406.014 WH SO BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 26 Partial Vessel 863-2 633 1973.406.079 WH P2 BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 36-22 Partial Vessel 863-2 632 1973.406.214 WH DX BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 30 Partial Vessel ROOM 5 L4 416 1973.404.272 WH P2 BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 38 10 160 W 180 S L2 601 1973.404.199 Bag 7/8 WH P2 BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 30 15 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 355 1973.406.010 Bag 1/6 Bag 3 WH P2 BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 12 30 863-5 ROOM 8 L2 370 1973.406.010 Bag 2/6 Bag 4 WH DO BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 44 5 863-5 ROOM 8 L2 331 1973.406.016 Bag 1 WH P2 BO IGSH Mancos Black-on-white 28 15 83-D 369 1973.406.010 Bag 2/6 Bag 4 WH P2 BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 22 15 863-5 ROOM 8 L2 80 1984.418.196 WH DO BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 30 150 W 120 S 414 1973.404.270 WH DO BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 46 10 150 W 160 S TRASH 425 1973.404.12 Bag 4/5 Bag 2 WH PU BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 36 10 160 W 170 S L1 SW CORNER 415 1973.404.270 WH P2 BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 42 10 150 W 160 S TRASH 97 1973.404.342 WH SO BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 38 10 150 W 120 S TRASH 81 1984.418.196 WH DX BO IGSH Mancos Black-on-white 42 10 40 S 150 W 515 1973.404.199 Bag 1/8 WH P2 BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 34 10 150 W 130 S TRASH 35 1973.404.2 Bag 5/5, Bag 2 WH DO BO IGSH Mancos Black-on-white 38 10 240 W 110 S L-1 127 1984.418.200 WH DO BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 36 10 111 1984.418.200 WH SO BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 34 10 40 S 50 W 417 1973.404.12 Bag 5/5 Bag 1 WH DO BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 48 10 160 W 170 S 319 1973.406.017 WH SO BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 30 10 863-83B 419 1973.404.12 Bag 4/5 Bag 1 WH DO BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 42 10 160 W 170 S SURFACE 537 1973.404.199 Bag 2/8 WH P2 BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 28 10 150 W 130 S TRASH

134

ID Accession Number or Bag Ware Style Form Temper Type Diameter Degrees Provenience 138 1984.418.200 WH P2 BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 28 10 150 W 30 S 140 W 180 S SURFACE 70-50/99- 220 1973.404.059 WH P2 BO IGSH Mancos Black-on-white 30 10 34 47 1973.404.2 Bag 2/5 WH DX BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 30 10 240 W 110 S L-1 452 1973.404.12 Bag 1/5 Bag 1 WH P2 BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 38 10 160 W 170 S SEI 361 1973.406.010 Bag 1/6 Bag 3 WH P2 BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 28 10 863-5 ROOM 8 L2 79 1984.418.196 WH DO BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 30 10 551 1973.404.199 Bag 3/8 WH P2 BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 28 10 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 543 1973.404.199 Bag 3/8 WH P2 BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 28 10 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 171 1984.418.200 WH P2 BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 30 10 188 1973.404.060 Bag 1/2 Bag 2 WH P2 BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 38 10 150 W 170 S NWI 123 1984.418.200 WH DO BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 32 10 150 W 60 S 210 1973.404.062 WH DO BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 26 10 140 W 180 S LEVEL 1 NW 130 1984.418.200 WH DX BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 30 10 170 W 50 S 71 1973.404.01 Bag 4/4 WH DO BO IGSH Mancos Black-on-white 30 10 230 W 110 S L-1 302 1973.406.024 Bag 2/2 Bag 2 WH P2 BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 28 10 863-67 320 W 60 S 391 1973.404.312 WH P2 BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 34 10 150 W 160 S 215 1973.404.062 WH P2 BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 24 10 140 W 180 S LEVEL 1 NW 164 1984.418.200 WH P2 BO IGSH Mancos Black-on-white 40 10 140 W 150 S 268 1973.406.036 WH DX BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 28 10 NS TRENCH LEVEL 1 SQ 15 289 1973.406.024 Bag 1/2 Bag 4 WH DO BO IGSH Mancos Black-on-white 26 10 863-67 320 W 60 S 458 1973.404.12 Bag 1/5 Bag 3 WH DO BO IGSH Mancos Black-on-white 30 10 160 W 170 S 17 1973.404.2 Bag 4/5 WH BM BO IGSH Mancos Black-on-white 24 10 240 W 110 S L-1 529 1973.404.199 Bag 2/8 WH PN BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 32 10 150 W 130 S TRASH 431 1973.404.12 Bag 4/5 Bag 2 WH P2 BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 28 15 160 W 170 S L1 SW CORNER 83 1984.418.196 WH SO BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 46 15 150 W 60 S 362 1973.406.010 Bag 1/6 Bag 3 WH P2 BO IGSH Mancos Black-on-white 24 15 863-5 ROOM 8 L2 82 1984.418.196 86 WH SO BO IGSH Mancos Black-on-white 28 15 585 1973.404.199 Bag 6/8 WH P2 BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 26 15 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 154 1984.418.200 WH SO BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 40 15 250 W 110 S L1

135

ID Accession Number or Bag Ware Style Form Temper Type Diameter Degrees Provenience 597 1973.404.199 Bag 7/8 WH P2 BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 26 15 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 547 1973.404.199 Bag 3/8 WH DO BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 30 15 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 475 1973.403.001 Bag 3/3 Bag 1 WH DO BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 22 15 KIVA 1 250 W 70 S LEVEL 2 432 1973.404.12 Bag 4/5 Bag 2 WH P2 BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 22 15 160 W 170 S L1 SW CORNER 128 1984.418.200 WH DO BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 42 15 150 W 30 S 430 1973.404.12 Bag 4/5 Bag 2 WH SO BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 28 15 160 W 170 S L1 SW CORNER 78 1984.418.196 WH DO BO IGSH Mancos Black-on-white 26 15 150 W 160 S 587 1973.404.199 Bag 7/8 WH MB BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 28 15 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 141 1984.418.200 WH P2 BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 34 15 150 W 30 S 146 1984.418.200 WH P2 BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 24 15 140 W 50 S 433 1973.404.12 Bag 4/5 Bag 2 WH P2 BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 24 15 160 W 170 S L1 SW CORNER 110 1984.418.200 WH SO BO IGSH Mancos Black-on-white 32 15 130 S 50 W 118 1984.418.200 WH DO BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 48 15 K3 L2 454 1973.404.12 Bag 1/5 Bag 3 WH DO BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 22 15 160 W 170 S 588 1973.404.199 Bag 7/8 WH P2 BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 22 15 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 304 1973.406.024 Bag 2/2 Bag 2 WH P2 BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 30 15 863-67 320 W 60 S 605 1973.404.199 Bag 7/8 WH P2 BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 22 15 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 119 1984.418.200 WH DO BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 22 15 150 W 30 S 89 1984.418.196 WH P2 BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 38 15 150 W 60 S 155 1984.418.200 WH P2 BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 40 15 150 W 120 S 420 1973.404.12 Bag 4/5 Bag 2 WH DO BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 22 15 160 W 170 S L1 SW CORNER 359 1973.406.010 Bag 1/6 Bag 3 WH DO BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 30 15 863-5 ROOM 8 L2 528 1973.404.199 Bag 2/8 WH DO BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 26 15 150 W 130 S TRASH 77 1984.418.196 WH DO BO IGSH Mancos Black-on-white 24 15 150 W 160 S 209 1973.404.062 WH DO BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 22 15 140 W 180 S LEVEL 1 NW 584 1973.404.199 Bag 6/8 WH P2 BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 24 15 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 619 1973.404.199 Bag 8/8 WH SO BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 22 15 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 527 1973.404.199 Bag 2/8 WH DO BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 26 15 150 W 130 S TRASH 621 1973.404.199 Bag 8/8 WH SO BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 24 15 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 55 1973.404.01 Bag 2/4, Bag 1 WH DO BO IGSH Mancos Black-on-white 22 15 230 W 110 S L-1

136

ID Accession Number or Bag Ware Style Form Temper Type Diameter Degrees Provenience 533 1973.404.199 Bag 2/8 WH P2 BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 24 15 150 W 130 S TRASH 54 1973.404.01 Bag 2/4, Bag 1 WH DO BO IGSH Mancos Black-on-white 22 15 230 W 110 S L-1 449 1973.404.12 Bag 1/5 Bag 1 WH P2 BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 22 15 160 W 170 S SEI 73 1973.404.01 Bag 4/4 WH SD BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 22 15 230 W 110 S L-1 102 1984.418.197 72.5.2.12 WH DO BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 20 15 150 W 160 S N 1/2 L1 594 1973.404.199 Bag 7/8 WH DO BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 20 15 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 360 1973.406.010 Bag 1/6 Bag 3 WH P2 BO IGSH Mancos Black-on-white 24 15 863-5 ROOM 8 L2 277 1973.406.008 Bag 3 WH P2 BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 18 15 863-65 394 1973.404.317 WH PU BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 18 15 150 W 120 S TRASH 288 1973.406.024 Bag 1/2 Bag 4 WH P2 BO IGSH Mancos Black-on-white 20 15 863-67 320 W 60 S 514 1973.404.199 Bag 1/8 WH DO BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 28 15 150 W 130 S TRASH 460 1973.404.12 Bag 1/5 Bag 3 WH PU BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 32 15 160 W 170 S 88 1984.418.196 WH P2 BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 30 15 240 W 110 S L2 60 1973.404.01 Bag 2/4, Bag 1 WH DO BO IGSH Mancos Black-on-white 24 15 230 W 110 S L-1 117 1984.418.200 WH DO BO IGSH Mancos Black-on-white 24 15 240 W 110 S L3 566 1973.404.199 Bag 6/8 WH P2 BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 20 15 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 195 1973.404.069 WH SO BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 20 15 150 W 140 S NW L1 301 1973.406.024 Bag 2/2 Bag 2 WH DO BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 22 15 863-67 320 W 60 S 150 W 170 S NWI TRASH 176 1973.404.060 Bag 1/2 Bag 1 WH P2 BO IGSH Mancos Black-on-white 28 15 MOUND 571 1973.404.199 Bag 6/8 WH DX BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 22 20 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 499 1973.403.002 Bag 3/3 Bag 1 WH DX BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 18 20 KIVA 1 FILL 25 1973.404.2 Bag 4/5 WH P2 BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 24 20 240 W 110 S L-1 187 1973.404.060 Bag 1/2 Bag 2 WH SO BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 42 20 150 W 170 S NWI 58 1973.404.01 Bag 2/4, Bag 1 WH DO BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 32 20 230 W 110 S L-1 298 1973.406.024 Bag 2/2 Bag 1 WH DO BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 32 20 863-67 320 W 60 S 213 1973.404.062 WH P2 BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 20 20 140 W 180 S LEVEL 1 NW 37 1973.404.2 Bag 5/5, Bag 2 WH DO BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 16 20 240 W 110 S L-1 162 1984.418.200 WH P2 BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 30 20 270 1973.406.021 WH P2 BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 22 20 863 -64 50S 300W L1

137

ID Accession Number or Bag Ware Style Form Temper Type Diameter Degrees Provenience 237 1973.404.063 Bag 2/5 WH SO BO IGSH Mancos Black-on-white 26 20 TEST TRENCH IB 51 1973.404.01 Bag 1/4, Bag 2 WH DO BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 18 20 230 W 110 S L-1 150 W 170 S NWI TRASH 179 1973.404.060 Bag 1/2 Bag 1 WH P2 BO IG SH Mancos Black-on-white 28 20 MOUND 554 1973.404.199 Bag 5/8 WH DO BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 24 20 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 565 1973.404.199 Bag 6/8 WH P2 BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 26 20 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 152 1984.418.200 WH SO BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 22 20 40 S 50 W 206 1973.404.062 WH DX BO IGSH Mancos Black-on-white 42 20 140 W 180 S LEVEL 1 NW 278 1973.406.008 Bag 3 WH P2 BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 20 20 863-65 455 1973.404.12 Bag 1/5 Bag 3 WH DO BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 28 20 160 W 170 S 434 1973.404.12 Bag 4/5 Bag 2 WH P2 BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 20 20 160 W 170 S L1 SW CORNER 297 1973.406.024 Bag 2/2 Bag 1 WH DO BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 16 20 863-67 320 W 60 S 140 W 180 S SURFACE 70-50/99- 221 1973.404.059 WH P2 BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 16 20 34 596 1973.404.199 Bag 7/8 WH DO BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 24 20 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 150 W 170 S NWI TRASH 174 1973.404.060 Bag 1/2 Bag 1 WH P2 BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 26 20 MOUND 436 1973.404.12 Bag 4/5 Bag 2 WH P2 BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 20 20 160 W 170 S L1 SW CORNER 166 1984.418.200 WH P2 BO IGSH Mancos Black-on-white 22 20 150 W 30 S 424 1973.404.12 Bag 4/5 Bag 2 WH P2 BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 20 20 160 W 170 S L1 SW CORNER 613 1973.404.199 Bag 8/8 WH P2 BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 20 20 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 139 1984.418.200 WH P2 BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 24 20 150 W 60 S 577 1973.404.199 Bag 6/8 WH P2 BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 16 20 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 148 1984.418.200 WH P2 BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 18 20 160 W 70 S L1 59 1973.404.01 Bag 2/4, Bag 1 WH DO BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 20 20 230 W 110 S L-1 52 1973.404.01 Bag 1/4, Bag 2 WH P2 BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 18 20 230 W 110 S L-1 116 1984.418.200 WH SO BO IGSH Mancos Black-on-white 10 20 250 W L1 172 1984.418.200 WH DX BO IGSH Mancos Black-on-white 28 20 160 W 170 S 508 1973.403.003 Bag 1/2 Bag 2 WH SO BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 20 20 KIVA 1 WBC WALL/FLOOR? 472 1973.403.001 Bag 2/3 Bag 7 WH P2 BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 18 20 KIVA 1 250 W 70 S LEVEL 1 617 1973.404.199 Bag 8/8 WH P2 BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 16 20 130 W 150 S TRASH L1

138

ID Accession Number or Bag Ware Style Form Temper Type Diameter Degrees Provenience 550 1973.404.199 Bag 3/8 WH P2 BO IGSH Mancos Black-on-white 16 20 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 536 1973.404.199 Bag 2/8 WH SO BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 16 20 150 W 130 S TRASH 579 1973.404.199 Bag 6/8 WH P2 BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 26 25 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 114 1984.418.200 WH SO BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 20 25 T1 160 W 70 S L1 150 W 170 S NWI TRASH 173 1973.404.060 Bag 1/2 Bag 1 WH P2 BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 24 25 MOUND 563 1973.404.199 Bag 6/8 WH P2 BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 34 25 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 121 1984.418.200 WH DO BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 16 25 150 W 20 S 150 W 170 S NWI TRASH 180 1973.404.060 Bag 1/2 Bag 1 WH P2 BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 14 25 MOUND 137 1984.418.200 WH P2 BO IGSH Mancos Black-on-white 26 25 170 W 50 S 126 1984.418.200 WH DO BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 36 25 150 W 30 S L1 435 1973.404.12 Bag 4/5 Bag 2 WH P2 BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 18 25 160 W 170 S L1 SW CORNER 85 1984.418.196 WH P2 BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 24 25 110 W 60 S 122 1984.418.200 WH DO BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 22 25 K3 L2 428 1973.404.12 Bag 4/5 Bag 2 WH P2 BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 22 25 160 W 170 S L1 SW CORNER 290 1973.406.024 Bag 1/2 Bag 4 WH P2 BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 22 25 863-67 320 W 60 S 530 1973.404.199 Bag 2/8 WH P2 BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 24 25 150 W 130 S TRASH 427 1973.404.12 Bag 4/5 Bag 2 WH P2 BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 18 25 160 W 170 S L1 SW CORNER 207 1973.404.062 WH DO BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 16 25 140 W 180 S LEVEL 1 NW 125 1984.418.200 WH DO BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 32 25 150 W 20 S 544 1973.404.199 Bag 3/8 WH P2 BO IGSH Mancos Black-on-white 12 25 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 150 W 170 S NWI TRASH 175 1973.404.060 Bag 1/2 Bag 1 WH P2 BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 22 25 MOUND 496 1973.403.002 Bag 2/3 Bag 6 WH DX BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 14 25 KIVA 1 FILL 507 1973.403.003 Bag 1/2 Bag 1 WH DX BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 24 25 KIVA 1 FLOOR 393 1973.404.317 WH PU BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 24 25 150 W 120 S TRASH 421 1973.404.12 Bag 4/5 Bag 2 WH DX BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 12 25 160 W 170 S L1 SW CORNER 595 1973.404.199 Bag 7/8 WH DO BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 18 25 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 451 1973.404.12 Bag 1/5 Bag 1 WH P2 BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 14 25 160 W 170 S SEI 19 1973.404.2 Bag 4/5 WH SO BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 16 25 240 W 110 S L-1

139

ID Accession Number or Bag Ware Style Form Temper Type Diameter Degrees Provenience 150 W 170 S NWI TRASH 178 1973.404.060 Bag 1/2 Bag 1 WH SO BO IGSH Mancos Black-on-white 20 25 MOUND 65 1973.404.01 Bag 3/4 WH P2 BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 20 25 230 W 110 S L-1 616 1973.404.199 Bag 8/8 WH MA BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 16 25 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 470 1973.403.001 Bag 2/3 Bag 6 WH MA BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 24 25 KIVA 1 250 W 70 S LEVEL 1 212 1973.404.062 WH P2 BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 26 25 140 W 180 S LEVEL 1 NW 453 1973.404.12 Bag 1/5 Bag 2 WH P2 BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 24 30 160 W 170 S L1 165 1984.418.200 WH SO BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 22 30 250 W 110 S L1 150 W 170 S NWI TRASH 177 1973.404.060 Bag 1/2 Bag 1 WH P2 BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 12 30 MOUND 216 1973.404.062 WH P2 BO IGSH Mancos Black-on-white 20 30 140 W 180 S LEVEL 1 NW 320 1973.406.017 WH DO BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 14 30 863-83B 358 1973.406.010 Bag 1/6 Bag 3 WH P2 BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 12 30 863-5 ROOM 8 L2 429 1973.404.12 Bag 4/5 Bag 2 WH P2 BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 22 30 160 W 170 S L1 SW CORNER 593 1973.404.199 Bag 7/8 WH MA BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 18 30 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 291 1973.406.024 Bag 1/2 Bag 4 WH P2 BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 20 30 863-67 320 W 60 S 591 1973.404.199 Bag 7/8 WH P2 BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 30 30 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 606 1973.404.199 Bag 7/8 WH DO BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 12 30 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 63 1973.404.01 Bag 3/4 WH SO BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 24 30 230 W 110 S L-F 567 1973.404.199 Bag 6/8 WH P2 BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 14 30 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 76 1984.418.196 WH P2 BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 16 30 150 W 130 S 57 1973.404.01 Bag 2/4, Bag 1 WH DX BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 14 30 230 W 110 S L-F 134 1984.418.200 WH MA BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 14 30 250 W 110 S L1 101 1984.418.197 72.5.2.12 WH P2 BO IGSH Mancos Black-on-white 16 30 150 W 160 S N 1/2 L1 133 1984.418.200 WH MA BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 10 30 240 W 110 S L3 50 1973.404.01 Bag 1/4, Bag 2 WH DO BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 18 30 230 W 110 S L-1 459 1973.404.12 Bag 1/5 Bag 3 WH P2 BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 20 30 160 W 170 S 426 1973.404.12 Bag 4/5 Bag 2 WH P2 BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 20 30 160 W 170 S L1 SW CORNER 113 1984.418.200 WH SO BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 14 30 40 S 50 W 130 W 50 S 147 1984.418.200 WH P2 BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 20 30

140

ID Accession Number or Bag Ware Style Form Temper Type Diameter Degrees Provenience 189 1973.404.060 Bag 1/2 Bag 3 WH P2 BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 22 35 150 W 170 S 423 1973.404.12 Bag 4/5 Bag 2 WH MA BO IGSH Mancos Black-on-white 10 35 160 W 170 S L1 SW CORNER 34 1973.404.2 Bag 5/5, Bag 2 WH DO BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 12 35 240 W 110 S L-1 457 1973.404.12 Bag 1/5 Bag 3 WH MB BO IGSH Mancos Black-on-white 26 35 160 W 170 S 49 1973.404.01 Bag 1/4, Bag 2 WH MA BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 12 35 230 W 110 S L-1 502 1973.403.002 Bag 3/3 Bag 2 WH DO BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 32 35 KIVA 1 FILL 75 1973.404.01 Bag 4/4 WH DO BO IGSH Mancos Black-on-white 16 35 230 W 110 S L-1 153 1984.418.200 WH SO BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 22 35 150 W 30 S 151 1984.418.200 WH P2 BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 12 35 150 W 30 S L1 135 1984.418.200 WH MA BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 12 35 160 W 70 S L1 205 1973.404.062 WH MA BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 22 35 140 W 180 S LEVEL 1 NW 140 1984.418.200 WH P2 BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 10 35 150 W 60 S 87 1984.418.196 WH P2 BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 18 35 150 W 30 S 143 1984.418.200 WH P2 BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 14 35 160 W 70 S L1 26 1973.404.2 Bag 4/5 WH P2 BO IGSH Mancos Black-on-white 12 35 240 W 110 S L-1 112 1984.418.200 WH SO BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 10 40 250 W 10 S L1 318 1973.406.017 WH P2 BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 10 40 863-83B 124 1984.418.200 WH DO BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 12 40 130 W 50 S 131 1984.418.200 WH DX BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 20 40 K3 L2 36 1973.404.2 Bag 5/5, Bag 2 WH DO BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 18 40 240 W 110 S L-1 208 1973.404.062 WH DO BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 12 40 140 W 180 S LEVEL 1 NW 115 1984.418.200 WH SO BO IGSH Mancos Black-on-white 10 40 250 W L1 357 1973.406.010 Bag 1/6 Bag 3 WH P2 BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 8 40 863-5 ROOM 8 L2 132 1984.418.200 WH MA BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 8 40 K3 L3 92 1973.404.336 WH P2 BO IGSH Mancos Black-on-white 18 40 150 W 130 S E 1/2 456 1973.404.12 Bag 1/5 Bag 3 WH MA BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 18 45 160 W 170 S 501 1973.403.002 Bag 3/3 Bag 1 WH P2 BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 34 45 KIVA 1 FILL 142 1984.418.200 WH P2 BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 10 50 RM 3 110 S L2 564 1973.404.199 Bag 6/8 WH P2 BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 18 50 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 84 1984.418.196 WH DO BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 22 50 150 W 130 S/1

141

ID Accession Number or Bag Ware Style Form Temper Type Diameter Degrees Provenience 31 1973.404.2 Bag 5/5, Bag 2 WH MA BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 8 50 240 W 110 S L-2 497 1973.403.002 Bag 2/3 Bag 6 WH P2 BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 8 55 K1 260 W 90 S SE1 484 1973.403.002 Bag 2/3 Bag 1 WH MB BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 18 60 KIVA 1 FILL 38 1973.404.2 Bag 5/5, Bag 2 WH P2 BO IGSH Mancos Black-on-white 26 10 240 W 110 S L-1 41 1973.404.2 Bag 5/5, Bag 2 WH P2 BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 18 35 240 W 110 S L-1 194 1973.404.069 WH PN BO IGSH Mancos Black-on-white 26 15 150 W 140 S NW L1 300 1973.406.024 Bag 2/2 Bag 2 WH PN BO IGSH Mancos Black-on-white 34 15 863-67 320 W 60 S 33 1973.404.2 Bag 5/5, Bag 2 WH PN BO IGSH Mancos Black-on-white 26 15 240 W 110 S L-1 99 1973.404.342 WH PN BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 26 15 150 W 120 S TRASH 23 1973.404.2 Bag 4/5 WH PN BO IGSH Mancos Black-on-white 48 15 240 W 110 S L-1 21 1973.404.2 Bag 4/5 WH PN BO IGSH Mancos Black-on-white 24 15 240 W 110 S L-1 356 1973.406.010 Bag 1/6 Bag 3 WH P2 BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 38 10 863-5 ROOM 8 L2 90 1984.418.196 WH P2 BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 30 15 130 W 50 S 422 1973.404.12 Bag 4/5 Bag 2 WH P2 BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 20 15 160 W 170 S L1 SW CORNER 367 1973.406.010 Bag 2/6 Bag 2 WH PN BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 16 25 863-5 ROOM 8 L2 27 1973.404.2 Bag 4/5 WH P2 BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 12 30 240 W 110 S L-1 363 1973.406.010 Bag 1/6 Bag 3 WH P2 BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 10 35 863-5 ROOM 8 L2 20 1973.404.2 Bag 4/5 WH PN BO IGSH Mancos Black-on-white 22 25 240 W 110 S L-1 61 1973.404.01 Bag 2/4, Bag 1 WH PN BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 14 25 230 W 110 S L-1 169 1984.418.200 WH DO BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 28 20 157 1984.418.200 WH P2 BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 26 30 K3 L2 158 1984.418.200 WH P2 BO IGSH Mancos Black-on-white 28 40 40 S 50 W 321 1973.406.017 WH PN BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 14 25 863-83B 263 1973.406.038 WH PN BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 12 30 96 1973.404.342 WH P2 BO IGSH Mancos Black-on-white 10 40 150 W 120 S TRASH 626 1973.404.199 Bag 8/8 WH PN BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 620 1973.404.199 Bag 8/8 WH PN BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 36 10 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 549 1973.404.199 Bag 3/8 WH PN BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 22 15 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 62 1973.404.01 Bag 2/4, Bag 1 WH P2 BO SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 22 35 230 W 110 S L-1 39 1973.404.2 Bag 5/5, Bag 2 WH P2 BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 10 80 240 W 110 S L-1

142

ID Accession Number or Bag Ware Style Form Temper Type Diameter Degrees Provenience 32 1973.404.2 Bag 5/5, Bag 2 WH DX BO IG Mancos Black-on-white 30 10 240 W 110 S L-1 524 1973.404.199 Bag 2/8 WH PN BO SH Mancos Black-on-white 20 15 150 W 130 S TRASH 227 1973.404.063 Bag 1/5 WH SO JA SHIG Mancos Black-on-white 10 30 TEST TRENCH IB 296 1973.406.024 Bag 2/2 Bag 1 WH P2 JA SH Mancos Black-on-white 8 40 863-67 320 W 60 S 120 1984.418.200 WH DO JA IGSH Mancos Black-on-white 10 40 150 W 60 S 498 1973.403.002 Bag 2/3 Bag 6 WH PN JA SH Mancos Black-on-white 14 25 KIVA 1 FILL 170 1984.418.200 WH PN JA IGSH Mancos Black-on-white 8 50 240 W 110 S L2 168 1984.418.200 WH PN JA SH Mancos Black-on-white 8 65 40 S 150 W 500 1973.403.002 Bag 3/3 Bag 1 WH PN JA SH Mancos Black-on-white 10 70 KIVA 1 FILL 159 1984.418.200 WH PN JA SH Mancos Black-on-white 8 40 170 W 160 S 202 1973.404.062 WH P2 JA IGSH Mancos Black-on-white 26 10 140 W 180 S LEVEL 1 NW 149 1984.418.200 WH P2 JA SH Mancos Black-on-white 10 30 130 S 50 W 150 1984.418.200 WH P2 JA SH Mancos Black-on-white 5 60 150 W 30 S 129 1984.418.200 WH DX JA SH Mancos Black-on-white 7 65 150 W 60 S 366 1973.406.010 Bag 2/6 Bag 1 WH PN JA IGSH Mancos Black-on-white 14 30 863-5 ROOM 8 L2 218 1973.404.062 WH P2 JA SH Mancos Black-on-white 10 50 160W 180S NE 448 1973.404.12 Bag 1/5 Bag 1 WH DO BO IGSH McElmo Black-on-white 32 10 160 W 170 S SEI 144 1984.418.200 WH SB BO SHIG McElmo Black-on-white 40 10 40 S 50 W 238 1973.404.063 Bag 3/5 WH SB BO SHIG McElmo Black-on-white 26 10 TEST TRENCH IB 538 1973.404.199 Bag 2/8 WH DO BO SHIG McElmo Black-on-white 24 10 150 W 130 S TRASH 503 1973.403.002 Bag 3/3 Bag 2 WH DO BO SH McElmo Black-on-white 24 15 KIVA 1 FILL 365 1973.406.010 Bag 1/6 Bag 3 WH P3 BO SH McElmo Black-on-white 22 15 863-5 ROOM 8 L2 145 1984.418.200 WH SB BO SH McElmo Black-on-white 34 15 150 W 20 S TM 98 1973.404.342 WH P3 BO IGSH McElmo Black-on-white 28 15 150 W 120 S TRASH 555 1973.404.199 Bag 5/8 WH SB BO SH McElmo Black-on-white 28 15 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 504 1973.403.002 Bag 3/3 Bag 2 WH SB BO SH McElmo Black-on-white 20 15 KIVA 1 FILL 465 1973.403.001 Bag 2/3 Bag 2 WH SB BO IG McElmo Black-on-white 32 15 KIVA 1 250 W 70 S LEVEL 1 598 1973.404.199 Bag 7/8 WH SB BO SH McElmo Black-on-white 38 20 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 264 1973.406.038 WH P3 BO SH McElmo Black-on-white 22 20 30 1973.404.2 Bag 5/5, Bag 1 WH P3 BO IGSH McElmo Black-on-white 24 20 240 W 110 S L-1

143

ID Accession Number or Bag Ware Style Form Temper Type Diameter Degrees Provenience 74 1973.404.01 Bag 4/4 WH DO BO IG McElmo Black-on-white 28 20 230 W 110 S L-1 242 1973.404.063 Bag 3/5 WH SO BO SHIG McElmo Black-on-white 22 20 TEST TRENCH IB 413 1973.404.270 WH SB BO SHIG McElmo Black-on-white 14 25 150 W 160 S TRASH 248 1973.404.063 Bag 5/5 WH SO BO IGSH McElmo Black-on-white 34 25 TEST TRENCH IB 29 1973.404.2 Bag 5/5, Bag 1 WH P3 BO IG McElmo Black-on-white 20 25 240 W 110 S L-1 28 1973.404.2 Bag 5/5, Bag 1 WH P3 BO IG McElmo Black-on-white 14 25 240 W 110 S L-1 272 1973.406.035 Bag 1 WH SB BO SH McElmo Black-on-white 16 25 83A STEVE'S CREW 22 1973.404.2 Bag 4/5 WH SO BO IGSH McElmo Black-on-white 30 25 240 W 110 S L-1 64 1973.404.01 Bag 3/4 WH SB BO SHIG McElmo Black-on-white 18 30 230 W 110 S L-1 450 1973.404.12 Bag 1/5 Bag 1 WH SB BO IG McElmo Black-on-white 26 30 160 W 170 S SEI 247 1973.404.063 Bag 5/5 WH SO BO SHIG McElmo Black-on-white 28 30 TEST TRENCH IB 249 1973.404.063 Bag 5/5 WH SO BO IGSH McElmo Black-on-white 28 30 TEST TRENCH IB 246 1973.404.063 Bag 5/5 WH SB BO IGSH McElmo Black-on-white 28 30 TEST TRENCH IB 464 1973.403.001 Bag 2/3 Bag 2 WH SO BO IGSH McElmo Black-on-white 22 40 KIVA 1 250 W 70 S LEVEL 1 552 1973.404.199 Bag 5/8 WH SO BO SH McElmo Black-on-white 12 45 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 254 1973.406.013 863-9 WH SB BO IGSH McElmo Black-on-white 24 60 239 1973.404.063 Bag 3/5 WH SB BO SHIG McElmo Black-on-white 26 60 TEST TRENCH IB 255 1973.406.013 863-9 WH SB BO IGSH McElmo Black-on-white 28 70 40 1973.404.2 Bag 5/5, Bag 2 WH P3 BO IG McElmo Black-on-white 20 15 240 W 110 S L-1 260 1973.406.030 WH P3 BO SH McElmo Black-on-white 28 20 342 1973.406.010 Bag 1/6 Bag 1 WH SB BO SH McElmo Black-on-white 32 20 863 -5 ROOM 8 L2 222 1973.404.063 Bag 1/5 WH P3 BO IGSH McElmo Black-on-white 16 30 TEST TRENCH IB 262 1973.406.030 WH P3 BO IG Mesa Verde B/w 32 10 348 1973.406.010 Bag 1/6 Bag 1 WH MB BO SH Mesa Verde B/w 34 10 863 -5 ROOM 8 L2 345 1973.406.010 Bag 1/6 Bag 1 WH SB BO SH Mesa Verde B/w 34 10 863-5 ROOM 8 L2 333 1973.406.010 Bag 1/6 Bag 1 WH MB BO IGSH Mesa Verde B/w 48 10 863-5 ROOM 8 L2 325 1973.406.017 WH MB BO IG Mesa Verde B/w 30 10 863-83B 274 1973.406.008 Bag 1 WH P3 BO SH Mesa Verde B/w 26 10 863-65 MILLER & VERHAAREN 364 1973.406.010 Bag 1/6 Bag 3 WH MB BO IG Mesa Verde B/w 30 10 863-5 ROOM 8 L2 286 1973.406.024 Bag 1/2 Bag 3 WH P3 BO SHIG Mesa Verde B/w 28 15 863-67 320 W 60 S

144

ID Accession Number or Bag Ware Style Form Temper Type Diameter Degrees Provenience 340 1973.406.010 Bag 1/6 Bag 1 WH MB BO IG Mesa Verde B/w 24 15 863-5 ROOM 8 L2 372 1973.406.010 Bag 2/6 Bag 4 WH SB BO IGSH Mesa Verde B/w 30 15 863-5 ROOM 8 L2 373 1973.406.010 Bag 2/6 Bag 4 WH MB BO IGSH Mesa Verde B/w 36 15 863-5 ROOM 8 L2 371 1973.406.010 Bag 2/6 Bag 4 WH SB BO SHIG Mesa Verde B/w 30 15 863-5 ROOM 8 L2 336 1973.406.010 Bag 1/6 Bag 1 WH MB BO IG Mesa Verde B/w 20 15 863-5 ROOM 8 L2 335 1973.406.010 Bag 1/6 Bag 1 WH SB BO IGSH Mesa Verde B/w 28 15 863-5 ROOM 8 L2 303 1973.406.024 Bag 2/2 Bag 2 WH P3 BO SH Mesa Verde B/w 24 15 863-67 320 W 60 S 53 1973.404.01 Bag 1/4, Bag 3 WH MB BO IGSH Mesa Verde B/w 24 15 230 W 110 S L-1 344 1973.406.010 Bag 1/6 Bag 1 WH SB BO SHIG Mesa Verde B/w 28 15 863-5 ROOM 8 L2 492 1973.403.002 Bag 2/3 Bag 4 WH P3 BO SH Mesa Verde B/w 22 20 KIVA 1 FILL 473 1973.403.001 Bag 2/3 Bag 7 WH P3 BO SH Mesa Verde B/w 36 20 KIVA 1 250 W 70 S LEVEL 1 279 1973.406.008 Bag 4 WH P3 BO SH Mesa Verde B/w 20 20 863-65 346 1973.406.010 Bag 1/6 Bag 1 WH SB BO SH Mesa Verde B/w 20 20 863-5 ROOM 8 L2 261 1973.406.030 WH DO BO IG Mesa Verde B/w 30 20 250 W 110 S L1 323 1973.406.017 WH MB BO SH Mesa Verde B/w 22 20 863-83B 324 1973.406.017 WH P3 BO IGSH Mesa Verde B/w 30 20 863-83B 46 1973.404.2 Bag 2/5 WH SB BO IGSH Mesa Verde B/w 36 20 240 W 110 S L-1 491 1973.403.002 Bag 2/3 Bag 4 WH MB BO SH Mesa Verde B/w 34 20 KIVA 1 FILL 334 1973.406.010 Bag 1/6 Bag 1 WH MB BO SH Mesa Verde B/w 34 25 863-5 ROOM 8 L2 337 1973.406.010 Bag 1/6 Bag 1 WH SB BO IGSH Mesa Verde B/w 32 25 863-5 ROOM 8 L2 338 1973.406.010 Bag 1/6 Bag 1 WH MB BO SHIG Mesa Verde B/w 32 25 863-5 ROOM 8 L2 341 1973.406.010 Bag 1/6 Bag 1 WH MB BO SHIG Mesa Verde B/w 24 25 863-5 ROOM 8 L2 339 1973.406.010 Bag 1/6 Bag 1 WH SB BO AH Mesa Verde B/w 24 25 863-5 ROOM 8 L2 505 1973.403.002 Bag 3/3 Bag 2 WH SB BO SH Mesa Verde B/w 18 30 KIVA 1 FILL 241 1973.404.063 Bag 2/5 WH SB BO SHIG Mesa Verde B/w 24 30 TEST TRENCH IB 240 1973.404.063 Bag 2/5 WH SB BO IGSH Mesa Verde B/w 26 35 TEST TRENCH IB 343 1973.406.010 Bag 1/6 Bag 1 WH MA BO SHIG Mesa Verde B/w 24 35 863-5 ROOM 8 L2 506 1973.403.002 Bag 3/3 Bag 2 WH SB BO SH Mesa Verde B/w 18 40 KIVA 1 FILL 224 1973.404.063 Bag 1/5 WH P3 BO SHIG Mesa Verde B/w 36 15 TEST TRENCH IB 269 1973.406.036 WH UN BO SHIG Pueblo II 22 15

145

ID Accession Number or Bag Ware Style Form Temper Type Diameter Degrees Provenience 531 1973.404.199 Bag 2/8 WH UN BO SHIG Pueblo II 36 10 150 W 130 S TRASH 548 1973.404.199 Bag 3/8 WH UN BO IGSH Pueblo II 38 15 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 532 1973.404.199 Bag 2/8 WH UN BO SH Pueblo II 24 15 150 W 130 S TRASH 607 1973.404.199 Bag 7/8 WH UN BO SH Pueblo II 20 15 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 512 1973.404.199 Bag 1/8 WH UN BO SH Pueblo II 26 15 150 W 130 S TRASH 580 1973.404.199 Bag 6/8 WH UN BO SHIG Pueblo II 28 15 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 615 1973.404.199 Bag 8/8 WH UN BO SHIG Pueblo II 28 15 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 534 1973.404.199 Bag 2/8 WH UN BO SH Pueblo II 24 20 150 W 130 S TRASH 586 1973.404.199 Bag 6/8 WH UN BO SH Pueblo II 28 25 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 569 1973.404.199 Bag 6/8 WH UN BO SH Pueblo II 24 30 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 382 1973.406.010 Bag 4/6 WH UN BO SHIG Pueblo II 38 10 863-5 ROOM 8 L2 553 1973.404.199 Bag 5/8 WH PN BO IGSH Pueblo II - 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 44 1973.404.2 Bag 5/5, Bag 3 WH UN BO SH Pueblo II 32 10 240 W 110 S L-1 292 1973.406.024 Bag 1/2 Bag 5 WH UN BO SH Pueblo II 34 10 863-67 320 W 60 S 150 W 170 S NWI TRASH 181 1973.404.060 Bag 1/2 Bag 1 WH UN BO IGSH Pueblo II 30 10 MOUND 489 1973.403.002 Bag 2/3 Bag 3 WH UN BO SH Pueblo II 22 15 KIVA 1 FILL 490 1973.403.002 Bag 2/3 Bag 3 WH UN BO SH Pueblo II 22 20 KIVA 1 FILL 203 1973.404.062 WH UN BO IGSH Pueblo II 18 20 140 W 180 S LEVEL 1 NW 43 1973.404.2 Bag 5/5, Bag 3 WH UN BO IGSH Pueblo II 16 20 240 W 110 S L-1 45 1973.404.2 Bag 5/5, Bag 3 WH UN BO IGSH Pueblo II 12 30 240 W 110 S L-1 280 1973.406.008 Bag 5 WH UN BO SH Pueblo II 8 35 863-65 468 1973.403.001 Bag 2/3 Bag 4 WH UN BO IGSH Pueblo II 16 50 KIVA 1 250 W 70 S LEVEL 1 592 1973.404.199 Bag 7/8 WH UN JA SH Pueblo II 12 30 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 314 1973.406.017 WH UN JA SHIG Pueblo II 10 40 863-83B 349 1973.406.010 Bag 1/6 Bag 2 WH UN JA SH Pueblo II 10 45 863-5 ROOM 8 L2 201 1973.404.062 WH UN JA IGSH Pueblo II 30 15 140 W 180 S LEVEL 1 NW 347 1973.406.010 Bag 1/6 Bag 1 WH SB BO SHIG Pueblo III 38 10 863-5 ROOM 8 L2 225 1973.404.063 Bag 1/5 WH P3 BO SH Pueblo III 34 15 TEST TRENCH IB 493 1973.403.002 Bag 2/3 Bag 4 WH P3 BO SH Pueblo III 24 20 KIVA 1 FILL

146

ID Accession Number or Bag Ware Style Form Temper Type Diameter Degrees Provenience 223 1973.404.063 Bag 1/5 WH P3 BO IG Pueblo III 26 20 TEST TRENCH IB 226 1973.404.063 Bag 1/5 WH P3 BO SHIG Pueblo III 18 20 TEST TRENCH IB 267 1973.406.036 WH PN BO SH Pueblo III 16 25 NS TRENCH LEVEL 1 SQ 15 322 1973.406.017 WH UN BO SH Pueblo III 22 15 863-83B 190 1973.404.069 WH UN BO IG Early Unidentified 10 55 150 W 140 S NW L1 193 1973.404.069 WH UN BO IG Early Unidentified 10 60 150 W 140 S NW L1 535 1973.404.199 Bag 2/8 WH UN BO IG Early Unidentified 26 20 150 W 130 S TRASH 380 1973.406.010 Bag 4/6 WH UN BO IG Early Unidentified 42 5 863-5 ROOM 8 L2 42 1973.404.2 Bag 5/5, Bag 3 WH UN BO IG Early Unidentified 36 10 240 W 110 S L-1 574 1973.404.199 Bag 6/8 WH UN BO IG Early Unidentified 38 10 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 217 1973.404.062 WH UN BO IG Early Unidentified 26 10 140 W 180 S LEVEL 1 NW 618 1973.404.199 Bag 8/8 WH PN BO IG Early Unidentified 36 10 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 581 1973.404.199 Bag 6/8 WH UN BO IG Early Unidentified 32 10 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 312 1973.406.022 Bag 3 WH UN BO IG Early Unidentified 20 15 863-68 211 1973.404.062 WH PN BO IG Early Unidentified 20 15 140 W 180 S LEVEL 1 NW 625 1973.404.199 Bag 8/8 WH PN BO IG Early Unidentified 26 15 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 471 1973.403.001 Bag 2/3 Bag 6 WH PN BO IG Early Unidentified 20 15 KIVA 1 250 W 70 S LEVEL 1 624 1973.404.199 Bag 8/8 WH PN BO IG Early Unidentified 28 15 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 18 1973.404.2 Bag 4/5 WH PN BO IG Early Unidentified 16 20 240 W 110 S L-1 91 1984.418.196 WH PN BO IG Early Unidentified 16 25 250 W 110 S L1 602 1973.404.199 Bag 7/8 WH PN BO IG Early Unidentified 14 45 130 W 150 S TRASH L1 93 1973.404.336 WH PN BO IG Early Unidentified 150 W 130 S E 1/2 381 1973.406.010 Bag 4/6 WH UN JA IG Early Unidentified 26 15 863-5 ROOM 8 L2 219 1973.404.062 WH PN JA IG Early Unidentified 14 45 140 W 180 S LEVEL 1 NW 163 1984.418.200 WH PN JA IG Early Unidentified 8 50 170 W 150 S

147

REFERENCES

Adams, Jenny L.

2009 Thoughts About the Ground Stone Assemblage from Bluff. In Chaco and After in the Northern San Juan, edited by Catherine M. Cameron, Appendix 3. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Adams, Ron L.

2004 An Ethnoarchaeological Study of Feasting in Sulawesi, Indonesia. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23(1):56-78.

Allison, James R.

2004 Surface Archaeology of the Red Knobs Site, a Southeastern Utah Great House. Kiva 69(4):339-360.

Benson, Larry, Linda Cordell, Kirk Vincent, Howard Taylor, John Stein, G. Lang Farmer, and Kiyoto Futa

2003 Ancient Maize from Chacoan Great Houses: Where Was It Grown? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) 100(22):13111-13115.

Bernardini, Wesley

1999 Reassessing the Scale of Social Action at Pueblo Bonito, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. Kiva 64)4:447-470.

Blinman, Eric

1988 The Interpretation of Ceramic Variability: A Case Study from the Dolores Anasazi. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman.

1989 Potluck in the Protokiva: Ceramics and Ceremonialism in Pueblo I Villages. In The Architecture of Social Integration in Prehistoric Pueblos, edited by William D. Lipe and Michelle Hegmon, pp. 113-124. Occasional Papers of the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, 1. Cortez, Colorado

2009 Analysis of the Bluff Great House Ceramics. In Chaco and After in the Northern San Juan, edited by Catherine M. Cameron, Appendix 1. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

148

Blitz, John H.

1993 Big Pots for Big Shots: Feasting and Storage in a Mississippian Community. American Antiquity 58(1):80-96.

Brown, Gary and Cheryl Paddock

2011 Chacoan and Vernacular Architecture at Aztec Ruins: Putting Chaco in its Place. Kiva 77(2):203-204.

Brown, Gary, Paul Reed and Donna Glowacki

2013 Chacoan and Post-Chaco Occupations in the Middle San Juan Region: Changes in Settlement and Population. Kiva 78(4):417-448.

Brown, Gary, Thomas Windes and Peter McKenna

2008 Animas Anamnesis: Aztec Ruins or Anasazi Capital? In Chaco’s Norhtern Prodigies: Salmon, Aztec, and the Ascendancy of the Middle San Juan Region after AD 1100, edited by Paul F. Reed, pp. 231-250. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Brown, Linda A.

2001 Feasting on the Periphery: The Production of Ritual Feasting and Village Festivals at the Cerén Site, El Salvador. . In Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power, edited by Michael Dietler and Brian Hayden, pp. 368-390. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Bunzel, Ruth

1932 Introduction to Zuni Ceremonialism. Forth-seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, 1929-1930. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Cameron, Catherine M.

2001 Pink Chert, Projectile Points, and the Chacoan Regional System. American Antiquity 66(1):79-101.

2009a The Chaco Phenomenon and the Bluff Great House Project. In Chaco and After in the Northern San Juan, edited by Catherine M. Cameron, pp. 1-12. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

2009b Chaco and Post-Chaco in the Northern San Juan Region. In Chaco and After in the Northern San Juan, edited by Catherine M. Cameron, pp. 18-43. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

149

2009c Great Houses in the Northern San Juan Region: The Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Bluff Great House. In Chaco and After in the Northern San Juan, edited by Catherine M. Cameron, pp. 81-195. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

2009d Great Kivas in the Northern San Juan Region: The Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Bluff Great Kiva. In Chaco and After in the Northern San Juan, edited by Catherine M. Cameron, pp. 196-263. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

2009e Understanding the Bluff Great House Site. In Chaco and After in the Northern San Juan, edited by Catherine M. Cameron, pp. 297-315. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Chaco Research Archive

2010a Kin Sabe. Electronic document, http://www.chacoarchive.org/cra/chaco-sites/kin- sabe/, accessed October 8, 2014.

2010b Pueblo Bonito. Electronic document, http://www.chacoarchive.org/cra/chaco- sites/kin-sabe/, accessed October 8, 2014.

2014 Outliers Query. Electronic document, http://www.chacoarchive.org, accessed September, 25 2014.

Chuipka, Jason and Jerry Fetterman

2013 Examining Orthodoxy in the Upper San Juan Region of the Northern Southwest. Kiva 78(4):449-476.

Clarke, Michael J.

2001 Akha Feasting: An Ethnoarchaeological Perspective. In Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power, edited by Michael Dietler and Brian Hayden, pp. 144-167. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Crow Canyon Archaeological Center

2014 The Crow Canyon Archaeological Center Research Database. Electronic document, http:/www.crowcanyon.org/researchdatabase, accessed March 28, 2014.

Crown, Patricia and W. James Judge

1991 Chaco and Hohokam: Prehistoric Regional Systems in the American Southwest. School of American Research Advanced Seminar Series. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

150

Deal, Michael

1998 Pottery Ethnoarchaeology in the Central Maya Highlands. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Dietler, Michael and Brian Hayden (editors)

2001 Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.

Dixon, Christine C.

2009 Bone Tools from Bluff Great House. In Chaco and After in the Northern San Juan, edited by Catherine M. Cameron, Appendix 10. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Driver, Jonathan C., Carmen Tarcan, and Brooklynne Fothergill

2009 Analysis of the Faunal Remains from Bluff Great House. In Chaco and After in the Northern San Juan, edited by Catherine M. Cameron, Appendix 5. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Durand, Kathy R.

2003 Function of Chaco-Era Great Houses. Kiva 69(2):141-169.

Durand, Stephen R. and Kathy Roler Durand

2000 Notes from the Edge: Settlement Pattern Changes at the Guadalupe Community. In Great House Communities Across the Chacoan Landscape, edited by John Kantner and Nancy M. Mahoney, pp. 101-109. Anthropological Papers no. 64. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

English, Nathan, Julio Betancourt, Jeffrey Dean, and Jay Quade

2001 Strontium Isotopes Reveal Distant Sources of Architectural Timber in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) 98(2):11891-11896.

Forsyth, Donald W.

1972 A Preliminary Classification of Anasazi Ceramics from Montezuma Canyon, San Juan County, Southeastern Utah. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Brigham Young University, Provo.

151

Fothergill, Brooklynne

2008 Analysis and Interpretation of the Fauna from the Bluff Great House. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby.

Gilpin, Dennis

2003 Chacoan-Era Site Clustering and the Concept of Communities. Kiva 69(2):171- 205.

Gilpin, Dennis and David Purcell

2000 Peach Springs Revisited: Surface Recording and Excavation on the South Chaco Slope, New Mexico. In Great House Communities Across the Chacoan Landscape, edited by John Kantner and Nancy M. Mahoney, pp. 28-38. Anthropological Papers no. 64. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Glowacki, Donna

2006 The Social Landscape of Depopulation: The Northern San Juan, AD 1150-1300. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe. Electronic document, http://search.proquest.com/docview/305356087?accountid=4488, accessed November 3, 2014.

Goldfrank, Esther S.

1923 Notes on Two Pueblo Feasts. American Anthropologist 25(2):188-196.

Hayden, Brian

2001 Fabulous Feasts: A Prolegomenon to the Importance of Feasting. In Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power, edited by Michael Dietler and Brian Hayden, pp. 23-64. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Hayden, Brian and Suzanne Villeneuve

2011 A Century of Feasting Studies. Annual Review of Anthropology 40:433-449.

152

Hayes, Alden C.

1981 A Survey of Chaco Canyon Archeology. In Archeological Surveys of Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, compiled by Alden C. Hayes, David M. Brugge, and W. James Judge, pp. 1-68. Publications in Archeology 18A, Chaco Canyon Studies. National Park Service, US Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.

Hurst, Winston

1999 Ceramics from Edge of the Cedars Ruin Complex 4: Preliminary Notes and Observations. Manuscript on File, Edge of the Cedars State Park.

2000 Chaco Outlier or Backwoods Pretender? A Provincial Great House at Edge of the Cedars Ruin, Utah. In Great House Communities Across the Chacoan Landscape, edited by John Kantner and Nancy M. Mahoney, pp. 63-78. Anthropological Papers no. 64. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Hurst, Winston and Jonathan Till

2009 A Brief Survey of Great Houses and Related Features in Southeastern Utah. In Chaco and After in the Northern San Juan, edited by Catherine M. Cameron, pp. 44-80. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Jalbert, Joseph Peter and Catherine Cameron

2000 Chacoan and Local Influences in Three Great House Communities in the Northern San Juan Region. In Great House Communities Across the Chacoan Landscape, edited by John Kantner and Nancy M. Mahoney, pp. 79-90. Anthropological Papers no. 64. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Joyce, Arthur

2010 Expanding the Feast: Food Preparation, Feasting, and the Social Negotiation of Gender and Power. In Inside Ancient Kitchens: New Directions in the Study of Daily Meals and Feasts, edited by Elizabeth Klarich, pp. 221-240. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.

Judd, Neil M.

1954 The Material Culture of Pueblo Bonito. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, vol. 124. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.

153

Judge, W. James

1979 The Development of a Complex Cultural Ecosystem in the Chaco Basin, New Mexico. In Proceedings of the First Conference on Scientific Research in the National Parks, Volume II, edited by Robert M. Linn, pp. 901-905. Transactions and Proceedings Series 5. Washington, DC: National Park Service, US Department of the Interior.

1989 Chaco Canyon-San Juan Basin. In Dynamics of Southwest Prehistory, edited by Linda S. Cordell and George J. Gumerman, pp. 209-261. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.

Judge, W. James and Linda Cordell

2006 Society and Polity. In The Archaeology of Chaco Canyon: An Eleventh-Century Pueblo Regional Center, edited by Stephen H. Lekson, pp. 189-210. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

Kantner, John, Nathan Bower, Jeffrey Ladwig, Jacob Perlitz, Steve Hata, and Darren Greve

2000 Interaction Among Great House Communities: An Elemental Analysis of Cibolan Ceramics. In Great House Communities Across the Chacoan Landscape, edited by John Kantner and Nancy M. Mahoney, pp. 130-146. Anthropological Papers no. 64. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Kantner, John and Keith Kintigh

2006 The Chaco World. In The Archaeology of Chaco Canyon: An Eleventh-Century Pueblo Regional Center, edited by Stephen H. Lekson, pp. 153-188. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

Kintigh, Keith

2003 Coming to Terms with the Chaco World. Kiva 69(2):93-116.

Klarich, Elizabeth

2010 Behind the Scenes and Into the Kitchen: New Directions for the Study of Prehistoric Meals. In Inside Ancient Kitchens: New Directions in the Study of Daily Meals and Feasts, edited by Elizabeth Klarich, pp 1-15. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.

Lekson, Stephen H.

1999 The Chaco Meridian: Centers of Political Power in the Ancient Southwest. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek.

154

2006 Chaco Matters. In The Archaeology of Chaco Canyon: An Eleventh-Century Pueblo Regional Center, edited by Stephen H. Lekson, pp. 3-44. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

2008 A History of the Ancient Southwest. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

Lekson, Stephen H., Thomas C. Windes, and Peter J. McKenna

2006 Architecture. In The Archaeology of Chaco Canyon: An Eleventh-Century Pueblo Regional Center, edited by Stephen H. Lekson, pp. 67-116. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

Lipe, William D.

2006 Notes from the North. In The Archaeology of Chaco Canyon: An Eleventh- Century Pueblo Regional Center, edited by Stephen H. Lekson, pp. 315-337. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

Longacre, William A.

1985 Pottery Use-Life Among the Kalinga, Northern Luzon, Philippines. In Decoding Prehistoric Ceramics, edited by Ben A. Nelson, pp. 334-346. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.

Mahoney, Nancy M.

1998a 1996 Cottonwood Wash Survey Project Report, San Juan County, Utah. Manuscript on File, Edge of the Cedars State Park.

1998b 1997 Cottonwood Wash Survey Project Report, San Juan County, Utah. Manuscript on File, Edge of the Cedars State Park.

2000 Redefining the Scale of Chacoan Communities. In Great House Communities Across the Chacoan Landscape, edited by John Kantner and Nancy M. Mahoney, pp. 19-27. Anthropological Papers no. 64. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Mahoney, Nancy M. and John Kantner

2000 Chacoan Archaeology and Great House Communities. In Great House Communities Across the Chacoan Landscape, edited by John Kantner and Nancy M. Mahoney, pp. 1-15. Anthropological Papers no. 64. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

155

Malville, J. McKim

1991 Prehistoric Astronomy in the American Southwest. The Astronomy Quarterly 8:1- 36.

Malville, Nancy J.

2001 Long-Distance Transport of Bulk Goods in the Pre-Hispanic American Southwest. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 20:230-243.

Mathien, Frances Joan

1993 Exchange Systems and Social Stratification among the Chaco Anasazi. In The American Southwest and Mesoamerica, Systems of Prehistoric Exchange, edited by J.E. Ericson and T.G. Baugh, pp. 27-63. Plenum Press, New York.

2009 Analysis of Ornaments and other Unusual Objects from the Bluff Great House and Sites in the Comb Wash Community. In Chaco and After in the Northern San Juan, edited by Catherine M. Cameron, Appendix 7. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Miller, Donald E.

1974 A Synthesis of Excavations at Site 42SA863, Three Kiva Pueblo, Montezuma Canyon, San Juan County, Utah. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Brigham Young University, Provo.

Mills, Barbara J.

1989 Ceramics and Settlement in the Cedar Mesa Area, Southeastern Utah: A Methodological Approach. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Electronic document, http://search.proquest.com/docview/303710935?accountid=4488, accessed December 3, 2014.

1999 Ceramics and the Social Contexts of Food Consumption in the Northern Southwest. In Pottery and People: A Dynamic Interaction, edited by James M. Skibo and Gary M. Feinman, pp. 99-114. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

2002 Recent Research on Chaco: Changing Views of Economy, Ritual, and Society. Journal of Archaeological Research 10:65-117.

2007 Performing the Feast: Visual Display and Suprahousehold Commensalism in the Puebloan Southwest. American Antiquity 72(2):210-239.

156

Morris, Earl H.

1928 Notes on Excavations in the Aztec Ruin. Anthropological Papers No. 26(1):259- 420. American Museum of Natural History, New York.

Ortman, Scott

1999 Castle Rock Pueblo Artifacts. Manuscript on file at Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado, http://www.crowcanyon.org, accessed 7/16/2014.

Ortman, Scott, Donna Glowacki, Melissa Churchill, and Kristin Kuckelman

2000 Pattern and Variation in Northern San Juan Village Histories. Kiva 66(1):123- 146.

Parker, Douglas R.

2004 Petrographic Analysis of Chimney Rock Ceramics. In Chimney Rock: The Ultimate Outlier, edited by J. McKim Malville, pp. 73-88. Lexington Books, Lanham.

Pauketat, Timothy and Thomas Emerson

The Ideology of Authority and the Power of the Pot. American Anthropologist 93(4):919- 941.

Pepper, George H.

1920 Pueblo Bonito. Anthropological Papers No. 27. American Museum of Natural History, New York. Reprint, Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1996.

Pippin, Lonnie C.

1987 Prehistory and Paleoecology of Guadalupe Ruin, New Mexico. University of Utah Anthropological Papers 107. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Plog, Stephen and Carrie Heitman

2010 Hierarchy and Social Inequality in the American Southwest, A.D. 800-1200. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) 107(46):19619-19626.

Plog, Stephen and Adam S. Watson

2012 The Chaco Pilgrimage Model: Evaluating the Evidence from Pueblo Alto. American Antiquity 77(3):449-477.

157

Potter, James M.

2000 Pots, Parties, and Politics: Communal Feasting in the American Southwest. American Antiquity 65(3):471-492.

2010 Making Meals (Matter). In Inside Ancient Kitchens: New Directions in the Study of Daily Meals and Feasts, edited by Elizabeth Klarich, pp 241-251. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.

Potter, James and Scott Ortman

2004 Community and Cuisine in the Prehispanic American Southwest. In Identity, Feasting, and the Archaeology of the Greater Southwest, edited by Barbara Mills, pp. 173-191. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.

Powers, Robert, William Gillespie, and Stephen Lekson

1983 The Outlier Survey: A Regional View of Settlement in the San Juan Basin. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Division of Cultural Research, Reports of the Chaco Center, No. 3., Albuquerque.

Redman, Charles L. and Patty Jo Watson

1970 Systematic, Intensive Surface Collection. American Antiquity 35(3):279-291.

Reed, Paul F.

2006 Salmon Pueblo: Chacoan Outlier and Thirteenth-Century Middle San Juan Community Center. In Thirty-Five Years of Archaeological Research at Salmon Ruins Vol. 1: Introduction, Architecture, Chronology, and Conclusions, edited by Paul F. Reed, pp. 367-376. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson and Salmon Ruins Museum, Bloomfield.

2008 Chaco’s Northern Prodigies: Salmon, Aztec, and the Ascendancy of the Middle San Juan Region after AD 1100. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Richert, Roland

1964 Excavation of a Portion of the East Ruin, Aztec Ruins National Monument, New Mexico. Southwestern Monuments Association, Globe.

Rick, John W.

1976 Downslope Movement and Archaeological Intrasite Spatial Analysis. American Antiquity 41(2):133-144.

158

Riordan, Robert V.

1982 The Controlled Surface Collection of a Multicomponent Site in Southwestern Ohio: A Replication Experiment. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 7(1):45-59.

Rodriguez, Sylvia

1991 The Taos Pueblo Matachines: Ritual Symbolism and Interethnic Relations. American Ethnologist 18(2):234-256.

Roler, Kathy L.

1999 The Chaco Phenomenon: A Faunal Perspective from the Peripheries. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Arizona State University, Phoenix. Electronic document, http://search.proquest.com/docview/304523807?accountid=4488, accessed December 4, 2014.

Saitta, Dean J.

1997 Power, Labor, and the Dynamics of Change in Chacoan Political Economy. American Antiquity 62(1):7-26.

Schiffer, Michael B.

1976 Behavioral Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.

Sebastian, Lynne

1992 The Chaco Anasazi: Sociopolitical Evolution in the Prehistoric Southwest. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

2006 The Chaco Synthesis. In The Archaeology of Chaco Canyon: An Eleventh- Century Pueblo Regional Center, edited by Stephen H. Lekson, pp. 393-422. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

Severance, Owen

2004 Cottonwood Falls (42SA5222) and its place in southeastern Utah’s prehistoric landscape. In Ever Westward: Papers in Honor of Elizabeth Kelley edited by Regge N. Wiseman, Thomas C. O’Laughlin, and Cordelia T. Snow, pp. 139–157. Archaeological Society of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

2005 A Controlled Surface Collection and Analysis of Ceramics at 42SA5222 (Cottonwood Falls), Southeastern Utah. Manuscript on File, Edge of the Cedars State Park.

159

Shennan, Stephen

1990 Quantifying Archaeology. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.

Shott, Michael J., Joseph A. Tiffany, Johhn F. Doershuk, and Jason Titcomb

2002 The Reliability of Surface Assemblages: Recent Results from the Gillett Grove Site, Clay County, Iowa. Plains Anthropologist 41(181):165-182.

Sofaer, Anna

2009 The Primary Architecture of the Chacoan Culture: A Cosmological Expression. In The Architecture of Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, edited by Stephen Lekson, pp. 225-254. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Stein, John, Richard Friedman, Taft Blackhorse, and Richard Loose

2009 Revisiting Downtown Chaco. In The Architecture of Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, edited by Stephen Lekson, pp. 199-223. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Stevenson, Matilda Coxe

1904 The Zuni Indians: Their Mythology, Esoteric Societies, and Fraternities. Twenty- third Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, 1901-1902, Washington, D.C.

Stuart, David E.

1996 Preface. In Pueblo Bonito by George Pepper, pp. v-ix. Anthropological Papers No. 27. American Museum of Natural History, New York. Reprint, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Toll, H. Wolcott

1985 Pottery, Production, Public Architecture, and the Chaco Anasazi System. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado.

1991 Material Distributions and Exchange in the Chaco System. In Chaco and Hohokam, Prehistoric Regional Systems in the American Southwest, edited by Patricia Crown and W. James Judge, pp. 77-107. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

2001 Making and Breaking Pots in the Chaco World. American Antiquity 66(1):56-78.

160

2006 Organization of Production. In The Archaeology of Chaco Canyon: An Eleventh- Century Pueblo Regional Center, edited by Stephen H. Lekson, pp. 117-151. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

Toll, H. Wolcott, Eric Blinman, and C. Dean Wilson

1992 Chaco in the Context of Ceramic Regional Systems. In Anasazi Regional Organization and the Chaco System, edited by David E. Doyel, pp. 147-158. Maxwell Museum of Anthropology Anthropological Papers No. 5. University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Reprint, 2001.

Toll, H. Wolcott and Peter J. McKenna

1987 The Ceramography of Pueblo Alto. In Investigations at the Pueblo Alto Complex, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, 1975-1979, vol. 3:Artifactual and Biological Analyses, edited by Frances J. Mathien and Thomas C. Windes, pp. 19-230. Publications in Archeology 18F, Chaco Canyon Studies. National Park Service, Santa Fe.

Twiss, Katheryn

2012 The Archaeology of Food and Social Diversity. Journal of Archaeological Research 20:357-395.

Van Dyke, Ruth M.

2003 Bounding Chaco: Great House Architectural Variability Across Time and Space. Kiva 69(2):117-139.

Varien, Mark D.

2000 Communities and the Chacoan Regional System. . In Great House Communities Across the Chacoan Landscape, edited by John Kantner and Nancy M. Mahoney, pp. 149-156. Anthropological Papers no. 64. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Vivian, R. Gwinn

1992 Chacoan Water Use and Managerial Decision Making. In Anasazi Regional Organization and the Chaco System, edited by David E. Doyel, pp. 45-58. Maxwell Museum of Anthropology Anthropological Papers No. 5. University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Reprint, 2001.

2008 The Middle San Juan and Chaco Canyon. In Chaco’s Northern Prodigies, edited by Paul F. Reed, pp. 366-375. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

161

Vivian, R. Gwinn, Carla Van West, Jeffrey Dean, Nancy Akins, Mollie Toll, and Thomas Windes

2006 Ecology and Economy. In The Archaeology of Chaco Canyon: An Eleventh- Century Pueblo Regional Center, edited by Stephen Lekson, pp. 45-65. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

Warburton, Miranda and Donna Graves

1992 Navajo Springs, Arizona: Frontier Outlier or Autonomous Great House? Journal of Field Archaeology 19(1):51-69.

Ward, Christina G.

2004 Exploring Meanings of Chacoan Community, Great Houses through Chipped Stone. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Colorado, Boulder. Electronic document, http://search.proquest.com/docview/305203046?accountid=4488, accessed December 4, 2014.

White, Leslie

1932 The Acoma Indians. Forty-seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Wilcox, David R.

2004 The Evolution of the Chacoan Polity. In Chimney Rock: The Ultimate Outlier, edited by J. McKim Malville, pp. 163-200. Lexington Books, Lanham.

Wills, W.H.

2000 Political Leadership and the Construction of Chacoan Great Houses in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, AD 1020-1140. In Alternative Leadership Strategies in the Prehispanic Southwest, edited by Barbara Mills, pp. 19-44. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

2001 Ritual and Mound Formation During the Bonito Phase in Chaco Canyon. American Antiquity 66:433-451.

2009 Cultural Identity and the Archaeological Construction of Historical Narratives: An Example from Chaco Canyon. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 16(4):283-319.

162

Wills ,W.H. and Patricia Crown

2004 Commensal Politics in the Prehispanic Southwest: An Introductory Review. In Identity, Feasting, and the Archaeology of the Greater Southwest, edited by Barbara Mills, pp. 153-172.

Wilshusen, Richard and Ruth Van Dyke

2006 Chaco's Beginnings. In The Archaeology of Chaco Canyon: An Eleventh-Century Pueblo Regional Center, edited by Stephen Lekson, pp. 211-259. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

Wilson, C. Dean

2013 Tusayan Black-on-red. Office of Archaeological Studies Pottery Typology Project. Electronic document, http://ceramics.nmarchaeology.org/typology/type?p=23, accessed December 6, 2014.

Wilson, C. Dean and Eric Blinman

1995 Ceramic Types of the Mesa Verde Region. In Archaeological Pottery of Colorado: Ceramic Clues to the Prehistoric and Protohistoric Lives of the State’s Native Peoples, edited by R.H. Brunswig, Jr., B. Bradley, and S. Chandler, pp. 33-64. Occasional Papers, no. 2, Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists, Denver.

Windes, Thomas C.

1987a Investigations at the Pueblo Alto Complex, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, 1975- 1979.Vol I. Publications in Archeology 18F, Chaco Canyon Studies. National Park Service, Santa Fe.

1987b Investigations at the Pueblo Alto Complex, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, 1975- 1979.Vol II, Part 1. Publications in Archeology 18F, Chaco Canyon Studies. National Park Service, Santa Fe.

1987c Investigations at the Pueblo Alto Complex, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, 1975- 1979.Vol II, Part 2. Publications in Archeology 18F, Chaco Canyon Studies. National Park Service, Santa Fe.

Windes, Thomas C. and Dabney Ford

1996 The Chaco Wood Project: The Chronometric Reappraisal of Pueblo Bonito. American Antiquity 66(1):119-140.

163

Windes, Thomas C., Rachel M. Anderson, Brian K. Johnson, and Cheryl A. Ford

2000 Sunrise, Sunset: Sedentism and Mobility in the Chaco East Community. In Great House Communities Across the Chacoan Landscape, edited by John Kantner and Nancy M. Mahoney, pp. 39-59. Anthropological Papers no. 64. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

164