Certification Manual

DEPARTMENT of CERTIFICATION

CERTIFICATION MANUAL

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS PAGES 2 & 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGES 4 & 5

Arizona is fortunate to have professional archaeologists willing to share their time and knowledge with amateurs who have an avocational interest in archaeology. The cooperation of these professionals with the Arizona Archaeological Society (AAS) has resulted in a quality educational program for presentation throughout the state.

AAS members Ben Mixon, Grace Schoonover, Charlie Gilbert, and Dorothy Bender met in 1977 and organized the Department of Certification. Several archaeologists were appointed to the Department of Certification in the first year. Professional archaeologists who served during the first year were:

Alfred E. Dittert, Jr. Fred Plog Alexander J. Lindsay, Jr. Sharon F. Urban Chad Phinney Donald E. Weaver, Jr.

Professional Archaeologists currently working with the Department of Certification are:

Teresa (Hoffman) Pinter Glen Rice Stephanie Whittlesey

Professional archaeologists who have worked with the Department of Certification in the past are:

Alexander J. (Lex) Lindsay E. Charles Adams Cory D. Breternitz Alfred E. Dittert, Jr. John Hohmann Mark Hackbarth Robert H. Lister Martin McAllister Chad Phinney Peter J. Pilles, Jr. Fred Plog Gary Stumpf Sharon F. Urban Donald E. Weaver, Jr.

The Department is also grateful for each individual who has helped with the work of certification, whether attending meetings, serving on committees, or helping plan for better service to the public and to the preservation of archaeological resources.

1977-1980 Ben Mixon 1980-1982 Grace S. Schoonover 1982-1983 Robert S. Hardy 1983-1984 Maurice D. Shoger 1984-1985 Bill Steinmann 1986-1992 Joan N. Clark 1992-1996 Charles Steger 1996-2000 Joyce Eyman 2000-2006 T. Ann Gorton 2006-Present Robert Lindsay

The following have served at Secretary for the Department:

1977-1984 Sharon Urban 1985-1986 Pat Lawson 1987-1995 Sharon Urban 1996-1997 Janet Krueger 1998-2000 T. Ann Gorton 2000-2001 Larry White 2001-2005 Susan Relecom 2005-Present Evelyn Partridge

The following have served as Recorder for the Department:

1987-1993 Pat Lawson 1993-1996 Lucy Jane Jackson 1996-2003 Les Chapman 2003-Present Roger Haase

The following have served as Treasurer for the Department:

1992-1993 Pat Lawson 1993-2005 John Sturgis 2005-Present Mike Magnan

The following have served as Chairperson of the Department’s Review Committee: Circa 1979 Don Dove 1981-1983 Wilma Allen 1983-1984 Dorothy Bender 1984-1986 Joan Clark 1986-1990 Karen Atwell 1990.2006 Gary Stumpf 2006-Present Stephanie Whittlesey

The following has served as Certification Manual Manager: 2000-2005 Les Chapman 2005-Present Jerry Mead

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION TAB VERSION COPYRIGHT COVER SHEET OCT 2002

TITLE PAGE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 0 SEP 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS 0 SEP 2007

DEPARTMENT OF CERTIFICATION FUNCTIONS ORGANIZATION & PROCEDURES 1 FEB 2006 CERTIFICATION PROGRAM COURSES 2 SEP 2007

FORMS & INSTRUCTIONS CERTIFICATION PROGRAM APPLICATION FORM 3-A OCT 2002 STUDENT’S CLASS REGISTRATION FORM 3-B OCT 2002 SAMPLE AAS CERTIFICATION PROGRAM CERTIFICATE 3-C JAN 1996 STUDENT COURSE WAIVER REQUEST PACKET, 10 Pages 3-D FEB 2006 CHAPTER ADVISOR APPROVAL REQUEST PACKET, 10 Pages 3-E FEB 2006 INSTRUCTOR APPROVAL REQUEST PACKET, 14 Pages 3-F SEP 2007 AAS RELEASE FORM 3-G AUG 1995 APPLICATION FOR FUNDING FORM 3-H OCT 2002 COURSE EVALUATION FORM 3-I OCT 2002 OUTLINE FOR PROJECT REQUEST/REPORT FORM 3-J APR 2003 VOLUNTEER’S ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXPERIENCE FORM 3-K APR 2003

COURSES ADVANCED SOUTHWEST ARCHAEOLOGY 4 OCT 2002 ADVANCED SW PALEOINDIAN & ARCHAIC PERIODS 5 OCT 2002 ARCHAEOASTRONOMY OF THE SOUTHWEST 32 MAR 2007 ARCHAEOLOGICAL MAPPING TECHNIQUES 6 OCT 2002 ARCHAEOLOGICAL PHOTOGRAPHY 21 OCT 2002 CERAMICS IDENTIFICATION & ANALYSIS 7 OCT 2002 FIELD CREW MEMBER I 8 OCT 2002 FIELD CREW MEMBER II 9 OCT 2002 HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY I 10 OCT 2002 INTRODUCTORY HUMAN OSTEOLOGY 11 OCT 2002 LABORATORY TECHNIQUES 12 OCT 2002 LITHIC IDENTIFICATION & ANALYSIS 22 MAY 2004 POTTERY TECHNOLOGY 13 OCT 2002 PREHISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL ANALYSIS 14 OCT 2002

AAS Copyright 2002 Tab 0, Page 4 Rev 1.0 Acknowledgements & Contents Revised September 2007 SECTION TAB VERSION COURSES (continued) PREHISTORY OF THE SOUTHWEST 15 OCT 2002 RECORDER 16 OCT 2002 ROCK ART RECORDER 17 MAY 2004 SHELL IDENTIFICATION & ANALYSIS 31 FEB 2006 STABILIZATION & RECONSTRUCTION 18 OCT 2002 SURVEY TECHNIQUES 19 OCT 2002 SURVEY TECHNIQUES II, SURVEY CREW CHIEF 23 NOV 2005 WRITING PRELIMINARY REPORTS 20 OCT 2002 ZOOARCHAEOLOGY, FAUNAL ANALYSIS 30 FEB 2006 WORKSHOPS & SEMINARS GUIDELINES FOR WORKSHOPS & SEMINARS 24 OCT 2002 ARCHAEOLOGICAL CERAMICS WORKSHOP 25 OCT 2002 LITHIC ANALYSIS WORKSHOP 26 OCT 2002

EXCAVATION & RESEARCH EXCAVATION CRITERIA 27 FEB 2006 RESEARCH DESIGNS 28 OCT 2002 SMALL SITE RESEARCH DESIGN 29 OCT 2002

ORGANIZATION & PROCEDURES

TITLE PAGE #

MISSION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CERTIFICATION 2

DEPARTMENT OF CERTIFICATION GUIDELINES 2

DEPARTMENT OF CERTIFICATION ORGANIZATION 2

COURSE CERTIFICATION DEFINED 4

REQUIREMENTS FOR ENROLLMENT IN THE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM 4

DEPARTMENT ACTIONS FOLLOWING ENROLLMENT 4

DEPARTMENT AND STUDENT REQUIREMENTS AND 4 RESPONSIBILITIES

FEES ASSESSED BY THE DEPARTMENT 5

OFFICERS, REPRESENTATIVES, AND PROFESSIONALS

TITLE PAGE #

CHAIRPERSON 7

SECRETARY 7

TREASURER 7

RECORDER 8

CHAPTER REPRESENTATIVE & ALTERNATE 10

AAS FIELD SCHOOL REPRESENTATIVE 11

AAS PROJECT MANAGER 12

PROFESSIONAL ARCHAEOLOGIST 12

INSTRUCTOR & FIELD SCHOOL DIRECTOR 13

CERTIFICATION MANUAL MANAGER 14

The mission of the Department of Certification is to provide the basis for high quality education and training in the various aspects of archaeology for Arizona Archaeological Society (AAS) members throughout the State, and to set standards for Instructors who teach those courses and for professionals who become Chapter Advisors. The Department maintains a database of students who have taken AAS courses for certification credit, and of instructors approved to teach courses for certification credit. The Department also issues certificates to persons who successfully complete course requirements.

DEPARTMENT OF CERTIFICATION GUIDELINES

In carrying out its mission, the Department will adhere to the following guidelines:

• The Department will provide policy and guidance for the AAS Certification Program.

• The Department will have an audited fund to provide for its activities.

• The Department shall insure the Certification Program relates to the Society’s policy and practices for archaeological values.

• The Department will be active to educate the general public about the Society.

• The Department shall attempt outreach to other archaeological groups, local and state, to promote preservation of archaeological sites.

• The Department shall actively liaison with the professional archaeological community.

DEPARTMENT OF CERTIFICATION ORGANIZATION

The Department of Certification (the Department) was created by the AAS in 1977. The Department has established a Certification Program that is designed to provide training in various aspects of archaeology, independent from an academic degree program.

The Department staff consists of a Chairperson, Treasurer, Secretary, Recorder, Review Committee Chairperson, five professional archaeologists, and representatives from each AAS Chapter and their alternates.

The Certification Program serves as a source of trained and qualified individuals who are prepared to assist the professional community on archaeological projects. Students enrolled in the Certification Program pursue a course of study designed to increase their knowledge and consequently their value to archaeological projects and to those qualified Project Directors under whose supervision they work. AAS Copyright 2000 Tab 1, Page 2 Organization & Procedures Revised February 2006

Course standards and content are established by the Department prior to a class being presented to the membership. By establishing these standards and by instituting a process of approving both the Courses and the Instructors, the presentation of Certification classes will provide consistent course material to members of Chapters in various locations throughout Arizona. Note that certain classes may offer material specifically tailored to a particular area of the State.

In order to receive Certification credit for a course, a student must complete a course that has been approved by the Department, and taught by an Instructor who has satisfied the qualification requirements established by the Department. The hours of the student’s attendance during the Certification course at lectures, field trips, laboratory, or field crew, must be reported in timely fashion by the Chapter Representative, or Department Representative, or in his or her absence, by the Instructor, the Field School Director or Representative. The information is sent to the Department Recorder for entry to the Certification Database. Refer to pages 7 and 8, “Duties of the Recorder”.

The Review Committee established by and within the Department is made up of a Chair appointed by the Department Chair and four members, three of whom are professional archaeologists. The Committee considers course content, applications for Instructor, Chapter Advisor, and funding, as well as student waivers for courses taken outside the Certification Program. The Committee makes recommendations to the Department as a whole, and the Department makes the final decision. Waiver application forms, called Student Course Waiver Requests, are available from the Chapter Representative. Before waivers can be granted for a certification course, evidence must be presented that the standards for the completed course are equivalent to those taught within the Certification Program.

The Project Committee was established in 2002 as an oversight committee to monitor projects undertaken by the Department of Certification and to make recommendations to the Department as a whole on project implementation. Certification is not the main aim in these projects, although there may be an education component in them. The Project Committee is made up of a Chair appointed by the Department Chair and four committee members (at least two of whom are professional archaeologists). The Committee provides assistance to the Principal Investigator or other professional archaeologist in charge. As part of its mission, the Committee develops guidelines for AAS Projects to include an outline for written project proposals, annual work plans, and report schedules. It offers suggestions annually to the AAS Project Manager regarding all phases of implementation, continuing education efforts at an advanced level, and report submission. The Project Committee will review annually the performance of each AAS Project Manager and will recommend to the Department Chair whether each Project Manager should continue serving for another year.

Certification in a course means that the individual possesses a level of knowledge in the subject area commensurate with the course objectives stated in the course syllabus. When a certificate has been signed by the class Instructor, Field School Director, Field School Representative, or Chapter Representative, it signifies that the individual has satisfactorily completed requirements for a class that presented certified material, and that the class was taught by an approved Instructor. Satisfactory completion of the course, if applicable, must be reported in timely fashion by the Representative, or in his or her absence, by the Instructor or Field School Director, to the Department Recorder for entry into the Certification Database and hard copy files. A student may take an AAS course without being considered for certification credit.

REQUIREMENTS FOR ENROLLMENT IN THE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM A. Membership in the Arizona Archaeological Society.

B. Submission of a completed Certification Program Application form, with the appropriate fee, to the Department Treasurer.

DEPARTMENT ACTIONS FOLLOWING ENROLLMENT

A. The Treasurer deposits the application fee and forwards the application form to the Certification Recorder. The Recorder issues a permanently assigned Certification Number, prepares a numbered Certificate, signed by the Chairperson, and forwards it to the applicant.

B. The Recorder enters the permanent Certification Number and record into the Database for the enrollee. The application form and other pertinent records are placed in a hard copy file folder.

DEPARTMENT AND STUDENT REQUIREMENTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES

A. PREHISTORY OF THE SOUTHWEST (PHSW), formerly “Southwestern Archaeology”, is an introductory course in the study of the American Southwest. The Department strongly recommends that, in order for a student to gain an overall knowledge of the prehistoric cultures of the southwestern United States and establish a basic and logical background for other courses, this prerequisite course be completed prior to enrolling in other Department courses. Giving due consideration to the scheduling of Department courses, however, enrollment in other certification courses is allowed prior to completing PHSW. Other certification courses concluded before completion of PHSW will be posted to the students permanent record; however, a student will not be considered fully certified in any course until the PHSW course has been satisfactorily completed. Certification courses completed prior to completing the PHSW class will be entered and signed on the student's certificate by the class Instructor (or Chapter Representative) and the class records forwarded to the Recorder.

B. It is the responsibility of the student to ensure that his or her certificate is signed by the class Instructor, Field School Director or Representative, or the Chapter Representative, upon completion of the class. It is the responsibility of the Field School Director or Representative, or the Instructor, to provide all class records to the Chapter Representative. It is the responsibility of the Chapter Representative, or the Field School Representative, to forward the class records to the Recorder.

C. When field work or laboratory work is a requirement of the class, a LOG BOOK shall be maintained by the student. The field and laboratory hours worked by the student shall be recorded in the LOG BOOK. This LOG BOOK shall be signed by the person in charge of the field work. The Field School Director, or the class Instructor, shall convey these requirements to the students at the beginning of the class. However, ENSURING THAT THESE REQUIREMENTS ARE SATISFIED IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE STUDENT.

FEES ASSESSED BY THE DEPARTMENT

The Department assessed fees are utilized to partially offset costs of certificates, establishing and maintaining records, mailing, duplication, and toll telephone calls pertinent to the action taken or under review. All fees are to be remitted by check or money order to the Treasurer, payable to the Arizona Archaeological Society, Inc.

Certification Program Enrollment Fee - $10.00 (as of October 2002) The Certification Program enrollment fee is a one-time fee that registers an individual with the Department and includes all future costs of maintaining the individual's Certification records. The Certification fee may be paid prior to or during enrollment in the individual's first Certification course. This fee is paid through the Chapter Representative to the Treasurer and results in issuance of a certificate by the Recorder.

Course Enrollment Fee - Variable The course enrollment fee is assessed by the sponsoring Chapter for participation in a scheduled Certification class taught by an approved Instructor. The amount of the enrollment fee is determined by the sponsoring Chapter and is normally a minimum amount required to offset the cost of the Instructor fee, room charges, and incidental expenses for a minimum or anticipated number of students. Additional costs to the student associated with various courses could include required or optional texts, copying charges for class handouts, required class and/or laboratory materials (such as a set of excavation tools), and ancillary supplies.

Student Course Waiver Request Fee - $6.00 (as of October 2002) This fee is required for each Student Course Waiver Request that is submitted. Each individual may request waiver for one or more courses at the same time, and all courses included in a Student Course Waiver Request are included in this single fee. The fee is paid to the Treasurer.

AAS Copyright 2000 Tab 1, Page 5 Organization & Procedures Revised February 2006 Instructor Approval Request Fee - $6.00 (as of October 2002) The Instructor Approval Request fee is required for each Instructor Approval Request that is submitted. The local chapter, at its discretion, may choose to pay this fee. A prospective Instructor may request approval for one or more courses at the same time within the stated fee. This fee is paid to the Treasurer.

CHAIRPERSON

A. If the Department Chair is vacated, a candidate for Chairperson is selected by Department members at the next regularly scheduled meeting.

B. The Department’s candidate for Chairperson is presented to the AAS State Chairperson for approval.

C. At fiscal year end, an Annual Report of the Department’s activities will be prepared by the Chairperson for presentation to the AAS State Chair.

D. The Chairperson is responsible for calling and conducting all Department meetings, appointing committees, maintaining the records of the Department, and performing other duties as specified in this Certification Manual.

SECRETARY

A. The Secretary is appointed by the Chairperson, with the consent of the members of the Department.

B. The Secretary is responsible for recording the minutes of all meetings of the Department, distributing them to the Department’s mailing list, and providing the minutes to the Chairperson for entry into the records of the Department, following review and approval at the next Department meeting. The Secretary is also responsible for preparing correspondence as requested by the Chairperson and performing other duties as specified in this Certification Manual.

TREASURER

A. The Chairperson appoints the Treasurer, with the consent of the Department members.

B. Duties of the Treasurer, as approved by the Department of Certification.

1. The Treasurer shall be the controller of the accounts of the Department.

2. The Treasurer shall make all collections and disbursements at the direction of the Chairperson.

3. The Treasurer shall prepare and submit periodic financial reports of the Department and such other reports as the Department may direct.

4. The Treasurer shall prepare and submit a complete financial report of the Department to the AAS State Board at its annual meeting, and such other reports as the Board may direct.

AAS Copyright 2000 Tab 1, Page 7 Organization & Procedures Revised February 2006 5. The accounts of the Department shall be audited each year and reported to the Chairperson. The results shall also be reported to the AAS State Chairperson.

6. The Treasurer, under the direction of the Chairperson, shall prepare an annual budget for the upcoming fiscal year, showing anticipated income and expenditures. The budget must be reviewed and approved by the Department. The approved budget is then submitted to the AAS State Board for presentation at the annual meeting of the Society.

C. Finances.

1. The fiscal year of the Department shall coincide with the fiscal year of the Society.

2. The income from Certification enrollment fees, fees from Field Schools and Workshops run by the Department, fees from applications for such other matters as established by the Department, income from the sale of publications and other appropriate materials, gifts and other sources shall be deposited to the Department’s budgeted accounts.

3. Bank accounts under the control of the Department shall be kept in the name of the Department, and withdrawals will require two signatures, one of the Treasurer and one of another officer of the Department. Note that fees charged by the Chapters for their sponsored classes are to be retained by the Chapter.

RECORDER

A. The Recorder is appointed by the Chairperson, with the consent of the members of the Department.

B. Duties of the Recorder:

1. The Recorder shall receive paid Enrollment Application forms from the Department Treasurer and maintain a computer Database and an annual hard copy file for new enrollees.

2. The Recorder shall issue a serially numbered certificate to each new enrollee and maintain a Database list of certificate numbers that identifies to whom each number is assigned.

3. The Recorder shall receive changes to the approved instructor list from the chairperson and maintain a computer Database and hard copy files for each instructor as described below.

4. At the direction of the Department Chairperson, the Recorder shall research any questions regarding records, and respond to inquiries by appropriate parties.

AAS Copyright 2000 Tab 1, Page 8 Organization & Procedures Revised February 2006 5. The Recorder shall maintain the Department's Certification Database system on a computer. A procedures manual for operating the Database files, relationships, conventions, tables, posting, and reporting, must be updated by the Recorder as changes are made. The Recorder must perform a weekly on-site backup of the entire database, and provide a current off-site backup copy of the Department's Database to a designated member of the Department at each Department meeting.

6. The Recorder shall establish a Database record and course hard copy folder at the beginning of each new course. All information received from the Chapter Representative, Field School Director or Representative, or course Instructor, shall be recorded in the Database and retained in the hard copy folder. Examples of the information include, a list of students enrolling in the course, class attendance, names of those students who complete all requirements, and number of hours completed by those students who do not complete the entire course and field work. Records received for individuals who are not enrolled in the Certification Program will be retained in the course hard copy folder but not added to the computer Database.

7. The Recorder shall document the completion of the course in the Database and in the course's hard copy folder. The Recorder shall document the student's course(s) waived in the Database and place a copy of the waiver and related correspondence in an annual hard copy file for waivers.

8. The Recorder shall prepare a Database record and hard copy folder for each approved Instructor. The Recorder shall record, in each Instructor's folder, and in the Database, those courses the Instructor is approved to teach, the date of such approval, and the dates the course(s) are conducted. A copy of all applications and related correspondence shall be placed in the hard copy folder.

9. The Recorder shall forward any funds received from the Chapter Representatives to the Department Treasurer together with remittance advice.

10. The Recorder shall submit a status report of activities at each Departmental meeting.

A. Chapter Representative shall be appointed to the Department by each local chapter. An Alternate shall also be appointed by each local chapter.

B. Chapter Representatives are expected to attend all Department meetings. Representatives living far from where the meeting is held who cannot attend are expected to contact the Department Chairperson with concerns they wish addressed by the Department. Alternates are likewise encouraged to attend all department meeting. If unable to attend a meeting, the Representative should encourage the alternate to attend if possible.

C. The Chapter Representative is responsible for serving on committees as requested by the Department Chairperson.

D. The Chapter Representatives are expected to assist their respective Chapters to obtain qualified Instructors, locate classroom space in which to conduct classes, recruit and enroll students in classes, assist in presenting classes when necessary.

E. Chapter Representatives are expected to relay information from the Department to their Chapters and provide reports to the Department regarding Chapter certification activities.

F. The Chapter Representative is responsible for assisting with registration at all classes. Checks for class registration shall be made payable to the Chapter of the Society. A receipt shall be issued to each class registrant. Course Enrollment Fees shall be retained by the Chapter sponsoring the course. Certification Program Enrollment forms and fees shall be forwarded, by the Chapter, to the Department Treasurer.

G. The Chapter Representative is responsible for ensuring that all paperwork is completed by the Instructor when a class is complete, and for obtaining all records from the class Instructor upon completion of a course. The Chapter Representative is responsible for ensuring that the Student Certificates are signed and dated by the class Instructor, or by themselves, with the Instructor’s approval. The Chapter Representative shall forward the final paperwork to the Department Recorder in timely fashion and shall maintain a duplicate set for the Chapter.

H. When the class is completed, all information pertinent to the class shall be received by the Department Recorder for posting to the permanent Database record and relevant hard copy file folders.

A. An AAS Field School Representative shall be appointed by the Chairperson, in conjunction with the Field School Director, for each Field School sponsored by the Department.

B. The AAS Field School Representatives shall attend all Department meetings. If unable to attend a meeting, the Representative is responsible for providing a status report to the Chairperson in time for presentation at the Department meeting.

C. The AAS Field School Representative is expected to assist the Field School Director and Instructors with the administration of the Field School, as follows;

1. Advertise the Field School. Recruit students, and assist the Field School Director in setting up for the Field School, recruiting Instructors, and preparing class materials.

2. Assist with registration. Checks for Field School registration, housing, and enrollment shall be made payable to the Arizona Archaeological Society, Inc. A receipt shall be issued to each Field School registrant. Enrollment receipts, together with Certification Program Enrollment forms and fees shall be forwarded with full remittance advice to the Treasurer.

3. Provide an initial roster of the AAS Field School enrollees to the Recorder at the opening of the Field School, showing week of attendance, and listing the courses the enrollees plan to take. Reviewing the accuracy of the preliminary Field School Roster placed on the Certification Database and issued by the.

4. Help gather enrollee’s attendance and hours of participation data during the conducting of the Field School for the Field School Director’s or the Instructor’s pass/fail decisions.

5. Ensure that all paperwork is updated by the Field School Director or Instructors as each week of the AAS Field School is complete.

6. Obtain final records from the Field School Director or Instructors upon completion of the final week of the Field School. Ensure that the Student Certificates are signed and dated by Field School Director or the class Instructor, or by themselves with the permission of the Instructor. The AAS Field School Representative shall forward the final paperwork to the Recorder in timely fashion and shall maintain a duplicate set for the Department Recorder.

A. An AAS Project Manager for Department of Certification Projects shall be appointed by the Chairperson, in conjunction with the Principal Investigator (PI) or other professional archaeologist, for each project sponsored by the Department.

B. The AAS Project Manager shall attend all Department meetings. If unable to attend a meeting, the Manager is responsible for providing a status report to the Chairperson in time for presentation at the Department meeting.

C. The AAS Project Manager is expected assist the PI, or other professional archaeologist and instructors with the administration of the Project as follows:

1. In conjunction with the PI or other professional archaeologist, submit a plan for the yearly work of the project according to the outline located at Tab 3-J. Adhere to the schedule for submission of project plans and final annual reports.

2. Advertise the Project. Recruit volunteers with requisite skills and assist the PI or other professional archaeologist in setting up field work or lab work, recruiting instructors for advanced training, and preparing class materials.

3. Assist with registration. Checks for Project registration, housing, and enrollment shall be made payable to the Arizona Archaeological Society, Inc. A receipt shall be issued to each Project registrant. Enrollment receipts shall be forwarded to the Department Treasurer.

4. Help to gather participant’s attendance and hours of participation data if these are to be used as certification course hours.

5. Submit an annual report of work completed and plans for the forthcoming year according to schedule. If relevant, forward certification course hours to the Recorder in timely fashion and maintain a duplicate set for the Department.

PROFESSIONAL ARCHAEOLOGISTS

A. Professional archaeologists are appointed to serve as advisors to the Department by the Chairperson of the Department, with the approval of the Department.

B. Professional archaeologist advisors are expected to attend all Department meetings.

C. The professional archaeologist is responsible for serving on committees as requested by the Department Chairperson.

D. The professional archaeologist provides expertise to the Department with respect to current professional standards, methods, laws and AAS Copyright 2000 Tab 1, Page 12 Organization & Procedures Revised February 2006 regulations, and assists in the development of certification courses.

INSTRUCTOR & FIELD SCHOOL DIRECTOR

A. A Course Instructor, or Field School Director, is considered eligible to present specific courses following the filing, and approval by the Department, of an Instructor Approval Request.

B. The Instructor or Field School Director provides training in archaeological methods and techniques, including archaeological theory as applicable, conservation archaeology, federal and state laws, and safe field practices.

C. It is the responsibility of the Field School Director or Instructor, when presenting a Certification course, to follow the approved course syllabus contained in this Certification Manual.

D Field School Directors and Instructors are to maintain records of class attendance.

E. Field School Directors or the Instructor shall forward class records in timely fashion to the Chapter Representative, or in his or her absence, to the Recorder upon completion of the course.

F. Certificates shall be signed and dated by the Field School Director or Instructor (or alternatively by the Chapter Representative) when a student has completed all requirements of the course.

G. Field School Directors and Instructors are requested to submit an evaluation of the course material to the Chapter Representative. This evaluation will be used by the Department to improve the course. In addition, a student evaluation is desirable.

H. A Field School Director or Instructor of an approved course may prepare, administer, and grade any examination or other measurement tool, such as a research paper, that he or she may devise. If an examination is administered, a copy of the examination shall be included in the class records.

I. A Field School Director or Instructor may use, as an assistant, a person who is not approved by the Department provided that the assistant functions under the immediate direction and supervision of the Field School Director or Instructor.

J. It is the responsibility of the Field School Director or Instructor to ensure that all outside speakers present material that conforms to the approved course outline.

CERTIFICATION MANUAL MANAGER

AAS Copyright 2000 Tab 1, Page 13 Organization & Procedures Revised February 2006 A. The Certification Manual Manager is appointed by the Certification Department Chairperson, with the consent of the members of the Department, and is a voting member of the Department.

B. Duties of the Certification Manual Manager:

1. Maintain a computer data base with the source documents for the Certification Manual.

2. Update the Certification Manual as new courses are approved or when changes are made in the manual as directed by the Chairperson of the Certification Department.

3. Maintain a database of Certification Manual holders.

4. Distribute Certification Manual updates to Certification Manual holders as directed by the Chairperson of the Certification Department.

5. Maintain a list of revisions to the Certification Manual, and at the Direction of the Chairperson of the Certification Department poll the list of instructors for a given course and solicit recommended changes. Forward the responses to the poll to the Certification Department Review Committee for consideration in changes to the course.

6. Attend Departmental meetings and submit a status report of activities at each meeting.

7. Deliver updated Manual information expeditiously to all Manual holders.

8. Recall Manuals from holders who no longer have need for them or who have resigned from an appropriate office in the AAS.

The Certification Program of the Arizona Archaeological Society (AAS) is designed with the help of professional archaeologists to give training in various aspects of archaeology outside an academic degree program. Because most courses provide field experience in addition to classroom training, students can develop those skills that make them a qualified and valuable member of an archaeological project. The student may elect to join the Certification Program where records will be kept of courses taken, and where certificates will be issued upon successful completion of the course requirements. Or, AAS members who are not seeking certification may take these courses without joining the certification program.

To enroll in the Certification Program an individual must be a member of the Arizona Archaeological Society (AAS), complete the Certification Program Application form, and pay a one-time fee of $10.00. When the application is accepted, the Department Recorder will establish a file in the individual's name to maintain a permanent record of qualifications. The applicant will receive a certificate that instructors will sign as each course is completed and the individual becomes certified in that aspect of archaeology.

Individuals who have previously completed courses similar to AAS approved courses from other societies or educational institutions may apply to the Review Committee of the Certification Department for a waiver. In order to qualify for a waiver, a Student Course Waiver Request Form must be completed and proof must be submitted that the standards of the courses completed were at least equal to those of the AAS Certification Department.

Student Course Waiver Request Forms and additional information about certification courses and when they will be offered may be obtained from the Chapter Certification Representative. Following is a listing of the courses presently offered through the AAS Certification Department with a brief description of areas of study and course requirements.

Prehistory of the Southwest - This prerequisite course is listed first because it provides a basic overview of archaeology in the Southwest. It incorporates discussions of cultural sequences, dating systems, subsistence strategies, urbanization, abandonment, and the general characteristics of the major cultural groups in the Southwest.[20 hrs lecture]

Advanced Southwest Archaeology - In this course one of the four main cultural regions (Hohokam, Patayan, Mogollon, or Anasazi) is selected for concentrated study. Among the topics examined are: settlement, social and organizational systems, ceramic types, lithics technology, architecture, and interaction with other cultures. [20 hrs lecture, report]

AAS Copyright 2002 Tab 2, Page 1 Course Listing Revised September 2007 COURSE LISTING (continued) Advanced Southwest Archaeology: Paleoindian and Archaic Periods - This course explores the period in the American Southwest prior to the time of the major Southwestern archaeological cultural traditions (Hohokam, Patayan, Mogollon, and Anasazi) by focusing on the Paleoindian culture (large game hunters) and Archaic culture (small game hunters and gatherers) from the initial entry of peoples into North America to approximately A.D. 500. [25 hrs lecture, report]

Archaeoastronomy of the Southwest This course will review the current literature on archaeoastronomy in the American Southwest, discuss important issues relating to the naked eye observation of celestial objects in the night sky, and cover basic recordation techniques and methods. This class will sample a small portion of a large body of literature on archaeoastronomy. Mesoamerican archaeoastronomy will be included because of the influence of Mesoamerican cultures on the Southwest and because of the advanced state of archaeoastronomy studies in Middle America.

Archaeological Mapping Techniques - More time is spent in the field for this course so that students can gain experience using such equipment as Electronic Distance Measurement (EDM), compass, tape, transit, and theodolite. The object is to produce a map of a site using other maps, aerial photographs, and measurements made in the field. [12 hrs lecture, 56 hrs field]

Archaeological Photography - This course provides instruction in the practical application of photography to the documentation of archaeological subjects in the field and in the studio. Needs of the archaeologist are explained and illustrated as to how best achieve them. [10 hrs lecture & hands on]

Ceramic Identification and Analysis - This course provides a working knowledge and ability to sort prehistoric ceramics found in Arizona (the basic course can be tailored to any area of the state). Emphasis is placed on identifying specific ceramic types, recognizing vessel forms from sherds, the relationship between research questions and the design of ceramic analysis, and the key technological attributes of ceramics that are most useful for recognizing specific types. [20 hrs lecture, 60 hrs lab]

Field Crew Member I - This course prepares the student to become a valuable member of an excavation crew. It covers the basic tools used (backhoe, shovel, trowel, screen, etc.), how to collect samples for lab tests (pollen, flotation, radiocarbon, dendrochronology, etc.), and site record keeping. [30 hrs lecture, 40 hrs field]

Field Crew Member II - This course is a continuation of Field Crew Member I with an emphasis on preparing the student to take on greater supervisory responsibilities. Some of the areas considered are setting up a site for excavation, applying a research design, controlling the excavation, and interpreting a site. [20 hrs lecture, 40 hrs field]

AAS Copyright 2002 Tab 2, Page 2 Course Listing Revised September 2007 COURSE LISTING (continued) Historical Archaeology I - Because the area of investigation is historic, emphasis is placed on how to research documents, records, and literature to supplement findings made in the field. The object of this course is to develop the ability to integrate the various sources of data and interpret the cultural changes that took place. [30 hrs lecture, 10 hrs field & lab] (Continued)

Introductory Human Osteology - This course is an intensive introduction to the entire human skeleton to prepare students to recognize and properly deal with human remains (from ethical, physical, and legal standpoints) when encountered during archaeological fieldwork during both excavation and survey. The course also promotes proper handling and storage of human remains. [30 hrs lecture & lab]

Laboratory Techniques - This class deals with the methods and materials used in processing, preserving, cataloging, and storage of artifacts. It includes classifying artifacts with particular attention paid to ceramics and lithics. [20 hrs lecture, 40 hrs lab]

Lithic Identification and Analysis – This course provides a working knowledge of, and ability to identify and sort lithic materials found in Arizona. Emphasis is on identifying specific rock types, recognizing minerals, crystals, rock forming processes and analyzing human modification techniques. Laboratory Techniques is suggested as a prerequisite, but is not required. [20 hrs lecture, 40 hrs laboratory, lithics research project]

Pottery Technology - Lectures, laboratory, and field trips will cover characteristics of clay and clay bodies, methods of form and decoration used prehistorically, the uses of ceramics by archaeologists, and an introduction to the identification of the wares of one cultural tradition. However, this is basically a very hands-on course. In order to complete this course the participant must gather clay, form and decorate a pot, and successfully fire it using prehistoric methods. [20 hrs lecture, 40 hrs lab, make 1 pot]

Prehistoric Architectural Analysis - This course introduces the student to various forms of architectural analysis used when investigating prehistoric sites in the American Southwest, including interpretation of different architectural components and overall site configurations observed in the prehistoric record. [20 hrs lecture, 30 hrs analysis, 20 hrs field]

Recorder - Recording consists of preparing documentary records of field facts while on a survey crew or excavation team. The various forms used (field logs, journals, and excavation reports) are examined during this course. [20 hrs lecture, 40 hrs field]

AAS Copyright 2002 Tab 2, Page 3 Course Listing Revised September 2007 COURSE LISTING (continued) Rock Art Recorder - This course addresses all types of rock art including pictographs, petroglyphs, and intaglios. Among the topics considered are recognizing types of rock art by style, culture, elements used, and different methods used to record them. [20 hrs lecture, 40 hrs field]

Stabilization and Reconstruction - This course is taught in conjunction with an on-going stabilization/reconstruction project. In addition to field work on the project, there are classroom lectures on evaluating a candidate site, developing a stabilization and reconstruction plan, and examining the different techniques, materials, and equipment used. [20 hrs lecture, 40 hrs field]

Survey Techniques - Surveying is the process of initial discovery, evaluation, determination of the location, and preliminary mapping of an archaeological site. Consequently, this course involves how different types of surveys are organized (including how to recognize a site, use a map and compass, and evaluate a site), and basic mapping. [20 hrs lecture, 40 hrs field]

Writing Preliminary Reports - This course helps the student develop skills for writing reports that conform to standard archaeological writing styles. Also included is the organization of ancillary information and an overview of the mechanics involved to see a report through printing. [20 hrs lecture, 40 hrs field]

Workshops and Seminars - Workshops and seminars are occasionally offered (for example in Ceramics or Lithics Analysis) either in conjunction with a course for certification or to assist the student with intensive training and as a supplement to course content, or presented separately to provide information/ experience to students outside the approved courses. Certification credit is not awarded for workshops and seminars. [hours of lecture, lab, & field will vary]

ARIZONA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY CERTIFICATION PROGRAM APPLICATION

The Certification Program is designed with the help of professional archaeologists to give training in various aspects of archaeology outside of an academic degree program. Because most courses provide field experience in addition to classroom training, students can develop those skills that make them a qualified and valuable member on an archaeological project.

To enroll in the Certification Program you must be a member of the Arizona Archaeological Society (AAS), complete the application at the bottom of this page, and pay a one-time fee of $10.00. When your application is accepted, the Department of Certification Recorder will establish a file in your name to maintain a permanent record of your qualifications. Also, you will receive a certificate that your instructors will sign as you complete each course and become certified in that aspect of archaeology.

If you have already completed courses similar to AAS approved courses from other institutions, you may apply to the Review Committee of the Certification Department for a waiver. In order to qualify for a waiver, you must complete a Student Course Waiver Request Form and submit proof that the standards of the course(s) completed are at least equal to those established by the AAS Certification Department.

If you need a Student Waiver Request Form or would like more information on the Certification Courses and when they will be offered, please contact your Chapter's Certification Representative.

------APPLICATION FOR ENROLLMENT IN THE AAS CERTIFICATION PROGRAM

Name______Date______

Address ______City______State_____

Zip Code ______Phone ______E-mail______

AAS Chapter ______Chapter Representative______

If you have previously completed any AAS certification courses, please list the course titles, instructors, and dates below.

Course Instructor Date

______

Fee Paid ______Assigned Certificate Number ______

Completed Class Hrs Field Hrs Report(s)

Certification CLASS REGISTRATION FORM credit Prehistory of SW Completed Date

Student Name

Mailing Address

City State Zip

Telephone E-mail

1. Class Information

Name of Class

Instructor

Class Fee ------$

Book ------$

Class taken for certification credit. Yes No

2. Membership Information

Membership Dues: Family Single $ (Mark "Paid" if student has a current membership.)

Chapter Affiliation:

3. Certification Enrollment

Enrollment fee ($10.00) - - - - - $ (Mark "Paid" if student previously enrolled or has a certificate. This is a one time fee.)

Check here if this form is for certification enrollment only.

TOTAL FEES PAID $

STUDENT COURSE WAIVER REQUEST 3 D

S T U D E N T

C O U R S E

W A I V E R

R E Q U E S T

P A C K E T NOTE Please do not give these pages out to submit a Request. Use them to make as many copies as needed for requests by Students. ARIZONA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY DEPARTMENT OF CERTIFICATION

SECTION 3-D PROCEDURE FOR PROCESSING STUDENT COURSE WAIVER REQUEST

A. APPLICANT PROCEDURE

1. Obtain the necessary form from the Chapter’s Certification Department Representative.

2. Complete the form using the instruction sheet provided. Attach a check or money order for $6.00 for the Course Waiver Request processing fee. Deliver the Request form, including all supporting documents, to the Chapter Representative for forwarding to the Department, or mail the Request form and supporting documents directly to the Review Committee Chairperson (name and address will be available from the Chapter Representative).

3. The Student will be notified upon receipt of the Request by the Department. If an initial review discloses inadequate or insufficient information in the Request, additional information may be required.

B. REVIEW COMMITTEE PROCEDURES

1. The Review Committee Chair will reproduce the Request and supporting documents and send them to each member of the Review Committee.

2. The Review Committee will meet during or prior to each regularly scheduled meeting of the Department to discuss each pending Request. The Committee will, through consensus, arrive at a recommendation and present it for consideration by the Department.

3. During that portion of the Department meeting specified in the meeting agenda for discussion of Student Course Waiver Requests, the membership will take action on each Request, following a presentation and discussion of the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Review Committee. The Student may attend the Department meeting at which his or her Request will be reviewed.

4. The Review Committee Chair will, within two weeks following the meeting, notify each Student of the decision made on his or her Request. If a Request is denied, the notification shall include the basis for denial. A copy of the notification is sent to the Department Recorder to be filed in the Student’s folder.

5. When a Request is accepted, the file for approved Student Course Waiver Request is sent to the Recorder for records retention and for recording the Course Waiver on the Certification Database.

6. For a denied Request, the Student may file a written appeal and ask for re-evaluation of the Request. The appeal must be submitted to the Chapter Representative within 30 days following receipt of notification of denial. When an appeal is filed, the Student is encouraged to provide additional information or supporting documents to address any deficiency identified in the basis for denial. At the next Departmental meeting, the appeal will be reviewed. Any additional information or supporting documents provided as part of the appeal will be considered in reaching a decision. The Student may attend the Department meeting at which his or her appeal will be reviewed. AAS Copyright 2002 Tab 3-D, 1 Forms & Instructions Revised February 2006 INSTRUCTIONS

STUDENT COURSE WAIVER REQUEST

1. Read the entire application before responding.

2. Assemble the appropriate supporting documents to attach to the completed application.

3. Refer to Tab 3-D, Page 1, Paragraph A.2. for submitting the Course Waiver Request. All courses for which a waiver is sought may be included in a single Student Course Waiver Request.

4. The Request must be received by the Department at least four weeks prior to the scheduled date of the meeting at which the Request is to be considered. If less time is allowed, consideration of the Request may be delayed until the next regularly scheduled meeting, resulting in an approximately two-month delay.

5. Personal Supporting Documents: Please provide only copies of supporting documents with the Request form. PLEASE DO NOT SEND ANY OF YOUR ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS. Retain a copy of the application for record purposes.

6. Include with the form any additional information that supports the Course Waiver Request and will aid the Review Committee in its evaluation.

7. The Request may not be immediately processed, and follow-up contact, or the return of the Request may be required, if:

a. The processing fee is not enclosed with the Request form.

b. The form is not properly completed.

c. There is insufficient supporting documentation.

d. Any items of supporting documentation are judged inadequate.

8. A returned Request will result in at least a two-month delay before it can again be considered by the Review Committee and the Department.

9. A Student may attend the Department’s meeting at which his or her Course Waiver Request is to be reviewed. Information regarding the Department meeting dates and agenda may be obtained from the Chapter Representative or the Department Chair.

A. GENERAL INFORMATION FOR USE BY CERTIFICATION Name ______COMMITTEE ONLY Waiver Request Received Signature______By Date Received Date______Fee Included $ Address______Committee Recommends

City______State_____Zip______Date Telephone Home ( )______Department Decision

Office ( )______

Date E-mail______Signed By

Date Informed

Signature

PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETE INFORMATION FOR ALL QUESTIONS. INDICATE “NA” (NOT APPLICABLE) WHERE APPROPRIATE. ATTACH ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SHEETS AS NEEDED.

B. ACTION SOUGHT - COURSE WAIVER APPROVAL 1. General Information: Check box of courses for which waiver is requested: Prehistory of the Southwest Historical Archaeology I Lithic Identification & Analysis Rock Art Recorder Field Crew Member I Laboratory Techniques Field Crew Member II Lithic Identification & Analysis Stabilization and Reconstruction Rock Art Recorder Writing Preliminary Reports Recorder Archaeological Mapping Techniques Writing Preliminary Reports Survey Techniques Survey Techniques Survey Techniques II, Crew Chief Pottery Technology Prehistoric Architectural Analysis Archaeological Photography Paleoindian and Archaic Archaeology Zooarchaeology, Faunal Analysis Introductory Human Osteology Shell Identification & Analysis

Ceramic Identification and Analysis Identify Regions Advanced Southwest Archaeology Identify Regions AAS Copyright 2002 Tab 3-D, 5 Forms & Instructions Revised February 2006 B. ACTION SOUGHT (continued)

2. Waiver is Requested for the following aspects of the course (check boxes). If waiver is requested for more than one AAS course, provide this information for each course: Class work Fieldwork

3. If a waiver is requested for only class work, or for only field work, explain how the remaining course obligation(s) will be, or have been, satisfied.

C. Letters of Recommendation - Request a letter of recommendation from the instructor of each course, workshop, seminar, field project, or other training that is being proposed as a substitute for an approved AAS course. The letters of recommendation should attest to your understanding of, and competency to carry out, all aspects as detailed in the applicable course syllabus, of the applicable approved AAS course. Please arrange to have the letters of recommendation sent directly to the Chapter Representative or the Review Committee Chairperson. The name and address of the Review Committee Chairperson is available from the Chapter Representative.

DATE OF FIRST NAME OF INSTRUCTOR TITLE ASSOCIATION

ADDRESS

D. Documentation to Support Your Waiver Request

Provide for Review Committee consideration, a course outline or equivalent information, for the specific course taken as an alternate to an AAS Certification Department approved course. The Review Committee will use this course outline to determine, by direct comparison to the course requirements contained in the Department of Certification Manual, if the training and experience provided by the alternate course satisfy the Department of Certification requirements. If waiver is requested for more than one course, provide this information for each course. (please check box as applicable):

Specific Course Outline - or - Equivalent Information

Detail the classroom, training, and field experience previously received that is offered as a substitute for the requirements of this course by the AAS. Detail those experiences relevant to the requirements of the classes for which waiver is being requested.

1. Classroom - Lecture Experience a. Course Title b. Credit Hours Earned Date Course Completed c. Estimate the number of Days or Hours of class room work. d. Course Description

e. Institution/Organization f. Instructor Location

Classroom - Lecture Experience a. Course Title b. Credit Hours Earned Date Course Completed c. Estimate the number of Days or Hours of class room work. d. Course Description

e. Institution/Organization f. Instructor Location

Classroom - Lecture Experience a. Course Title b. Credit Hours Earned Date Course Completed c. Estimate the number of Days or Hours of class room work. d. Course Description

e. Institution/Organization f. Instructor Location

Classroom - Lecture Experience a. Course Title b. Credit Hours Earned Date Course Completed c. Estimate the number of Days or Hours of class room work. d. Course Description

e. Institution/Organization f. Instructor Location

2. Fieldwork Experience a. Project Name Location b. Institution/Sponsor c. Supervisor Asst. Supervisor d. Project Dates Start Finish e. Estimated number of Days or Hours of field experience. f. Your status on the project g. Description of experience and/or training

Fieldwork Experience a. Project Name Location b. Institution/Sponsor c. Supervisor Asst. Supervisor d. Project Dates Start Finish e. Estimated number of Days or Hours of field experience. f. Your status on the project g. Description of experience and/or training

Provide an inventory of Documents Submitted in Support of this Waiver Application:

DO NOT SEND ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS.

List all of the documents submitted in copy form for consideration by the Review Committee in support of this Waiver Request. These may include: transcripts, lecture notes, course notes, course syllabus, letters of recommendation, published and/or unpublished reports, field notes, term papers or other material indicative of your work related to this Waiver Request.

If necessary, continue listing on a separate page.

VII. Use this space and additional pages if needed for additional comments in support of your Waiver Request.

C H A P T E R

A D V I S O R

A P P R O V A L

P A C K E T

NOTE Please do not give these pages out to submit a Request. Use them to make as many copies as needed for Requests by Advisors.

SECTION 3-E PROCEDURE FOR PROCESSING CHAPTER ADVISOR APPROVAL REQUEST

A. APPLICANT PROCEDURE

1. Obtain the Approval Request form from the Chapter’s Certification Department Representative.

2. Complete the form using the instruction sheet provided. Attach a check or money order for $6.00 for the Approval Request processing fee. Frequently, the Chapter chooses to pay the $6.00 fee for the Advisor. Deliver the Approval Request, including all supporting documents, to the Chapter Representative for forwarding to the Department, or mail the Approval Request and supporting documents directly to the Review Committee Chairperson (name and address will be available from the Chapter Representative).

3. The applicant will be notified upon receipt of the Approval Request by the Department. If an initial review discloses inadequate or insufficient information in the Approval Request or supporting documentation, additional information may be requested.

B. REVIEW COMMITTEE PROCEDURES

1. The Approval Request and supporting documents will be reproduced and sent to each member of the Review Committee.

2. The Review Committee will meet during or prior to each regularly scheduled meeting of the Department to discuss each pending Approval

3. During that portion of the Department meeting specified in the meeting agenda for discussion of Approval Requests, the membership will take action on each Approval Request, following a presentation and discussion of the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Review Committee. The applicant may attend the Department meeting at which his or her Approval Request will be reviewed.

4. The Review Committee Chair will, within two weeks following the meeting, notify the applicant of the decision made on his or her Approval Request. If an Approval Request is denied, the notification shall include the basis for denial. A copy of the notification is sent to the Department Recorder to be filed.

5. When an Approval Request is accepted, the applicant is considered an Advisor to the Chapter. Approval Request files for Approved Chapter Advisors are sent to the Recorder for records retention and recording on the Certification Database.

6. For a denied Approval Request, the applicant may file a written appeal for reevaluation of the Request. The Appeal must be submitted to the Chapter Representative within 30 days following receipt of notification of denial. When an appeal is filed, the applicant is encouraged to provide additional information or supporting documents to address any deficiency identified in the basis for denial. At the next Department meeting, the appeal will be reviewed. Any additional information or supporting documents provided as part of the appeal will be considered in reaching a decision. The applicant may attend the Department meeting at which his or her appeal will be reviewed. AAS Copyright 2002 Tab 3-E, Page 1 Forms & Instructions Revised October 2002 REVIEW COMMITTEE PROCEDURES (continued)

7. The Department will, within two weeks following the meeting, notify the applicant of the decision made on the appealed Approval Request. If the Approval Request is accepted following appeal, the applicant is considered an Advisor to the Chapter, and the Approval Request will be sent to the Recorder for retention and entry into the Certification Database. If the Approval Request is denied following appeal, the Department Chair shall notify both the applicant and the AAS State Chair of the decision. This notification shall include a detailed basis for denial.

8. For an appeal denied by the Department, a written appeal may be filed to the AAS State Chair requesting re-evaluation by the AAS State Board. The appeal shall be made within 30 days following receipt of notification of denial of appealed Approval Request from the Department Secretary. The AAS State Board will review the denial of the appealed Approval Request at a future AAS State Board meeting and render a decision on the Approval Request. The applicant may attend the AAS State Board meeting at which his or her denied Approval Request will be reviewed. If an appeal is directed to the AAS State Board, the decision by the Board is final.

Applicants are invited to contact the Chapter Representative regarding the completion of the Approval Request and the processing procedures. A timely response to any inquiries about the Approval Request will allow for expeditious processing.

1. Read the entire Approval Request form before starting to complete it.

2. Assemble the necessary documents requested in the Approval Request, for example, vitae, résumé, and letters of reference, to attach to the completed Approval Request.

3. Refer to the instruction sheet entitled "Procedures for Processing Chapter Advisor Approval Requests" and observe the instructions in TAB 3-E, Page 1, Paragraph A.2. for submitting the Approval Request.

4. The Approval Request must be received by the Department’s Review Committee at least four weeks prior to the scheduled date of the meeting at which the Approval Request is to be considered. If less time is allowed, consideration of the Approval Request may be delayed until the next regularly scheduled meeting which will result in an approximately two month delay.

5. Personal Supporting Documents: Please provide only copies of supporting documents with your Approval Request. PLEASE DO NOT SEND ANY ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS. Retain a copy of the Approval Request for record purposes.

6. Include, with the Approval Request, any information that will aid the Review Committee in its evaluation.

7. Be sure to provide specific qualifications for functioning as an Advisor to the Chapter.

8. The Approval Request may not be immediately processed and follow-up contact (or return of the Approval Request) may be required if:

a. The processing fee is not enclosed with the Approval Request.

b. The form is not properly completed.

c. There is insufficient supportive documentation.

d. Any of the items of supportive data are inadequate.

9. A returned Approval Request will result in at least a two-month delay before the it can again be considered by the Review Committee and the Department of Certification.

10. The applicant may attend the Department meeting at which his or her Approval Request is to be reviewed. Information regarding the Department meeting dates and agenda may be obtained from the Chapter Representative or Department Chair.

Received A. GENERAL INFORMATION

Name By Date Received Signature Fee Included $ Committee Recommends Date Signed

Address Date

City State ZIP Department Decision

Telephone Home Date Office Signed By Date Informed E-mail Signature

PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETE INFORMATION FOR ALL QUESTIONS. INDICATE “NA” (NOT APPLICABLE) WHERE APPROPRIATE. ATTACH ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SHEETS AS NEEDED.

B. ACTION SOUGHT - CHAPTER ADVISOR APPROVAL

1. General Information The AAS Chapter you will be advising 2. Please list three references. Letters from your references are optional but may be submitted to the Chapter Representative or the Review Committee Chairperson. DATE OF FIRST NAME OF REFERENCE TITLE ADDRESS ASSOCIATION

1st

2nd

3rd

1. Explain your reason and purpose for requesting Chapter Advisor Approval.

2. Professional information applicable to your request. a. Are you making this request for yourself Yes No

b. Present Job Title

c. Former Job Title, if present Job held less than two years.

d. Present Affiliation

e. Education

• School Location

• Degree Date

• School Location

• Degree Date

f. Major Specialization For Degree.

g. Minor Specialization For Degree.

h. Employment Record for past five years, if applicable to this request.

• Affiliation Location

• Position Dates to

• Affiliation Location

• Position Dates to

i. Professional Organizational Affiliations

j. Professional Honors, Grants, Awards. Please provide supporting documentation.

3. Previous Experience. Have you served in a similar capacity on a previous occasion? If so, please document this experience.

a. Organization Location

b. Description of Applicable Experience

D. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN SUPPORT OF CHAPTER ADVISOR REQUEST

Provide detail of lectureships or courses taught which are applicable to Chapter Advisor activities and responsibilities. Each entry should state the kind of experience, place and date, the nature of it, whether volunteer or paid, etc.

1. Lecture Experience

1st Course Title Credit Hours

Check all applicable, Instructor, Paid, Student, Volunteer, Other

Estimate days or hours of classroom work.

Course Description

2nd Course Title Credit Hours

Check all applicable, Instructor, Paid, Student, Volunteer, Other

Estimate days or hours of classroom work.

Course Description

3rd Course Title Credit Hours

Check all applicable, Instructor, Paid, Student, Volunteer, Other

Estimate days or hours of classroom work.

Course Description

2. Field Experience:

1st Project Name Location

Institution/Sponsor

Supervisor Assistant

Project Dates, Start Finish

Estimated Days or Hours of field experience.

Your status on the project

Description of experience and/or training

2nd Project Name Location

Institution/Sponsor

Supervisor Assistant

Project Dates, Start Finish

Estimated Days or Hours of field experience.

Your status on the project

Description of experience and/or training

3rd Project Name Location

Institution/Sponsor

Supervisor Assistant

Project Dates, Start Finish

Estimated Days or Hours of field experience.

Your status on the project

Description of experience and/or training

E. MATTERS RELATING TO THE PROPOSED CHAPTER ADVISOR ACTIVITIES:

As may be pertinent, briefly discuss the facilities and opportunities available to the Chapter Advisor, and to the Chapter, for which this approval is requested. Include mention of such matters as field opportunities planned or potentially available to the Chapter (site(s) to be excavated, area(s) for survey, etc.), laboratory space and equipment, catalog facilities, repository for housing collections, and permits issued or requested.

F. DOCUMENTATION - ITEM SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION

DO NOT SEND ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS.

List all of the documents submitted, in copy form, for consideration by the Review Committee in support of this application, such as vita, transcript, lecture syllabus, letters of verification and/or reference, published and/or unpublished reports, reviews, etc.

Continue listing as needed on separate pages.

I N S T R U C T O R

A P P R O V A L

R E Q U E S T

P A C K E T

NOTE Please do not give these pages out to submit a Request. Use them to make as many copies as needed for Requests by Instructors.

SECTION 3-F PROCEDURE FOR PROCESSING INSTRUCTOR APPROVAL REQUEST

A. APPLICANT PROCEDURE

1. Obtain the approval request form from the Chapter’s Certification Department Representative.

2. Complete the form using the instruction sheet provided. Attach a check or money order for $6.00 for the approval request processing fee. Deliver the approval request, including all supporting documents, to the Chapter Representative for forwarding to the Department, or mail the approval request and supporting documents directly to the Review Committee Chair. (Name and address will be available from the Chapter Representative).

3. The applicant will be notified upon receipt of the approval request by the Department. If an initial review discloses inadequate or insufficient information in the approval request or supporting documentation, additional information may be requested.

B. REVIEW COMMITTEE PROCEDURES

1. The Review Committee Chair will reproduce the approval request and supporting documents and sent them to each member of the Review Committee.

2. The Review Committee will meet during or prior to each regularly scheduled meeting of the Department to discuss each pending approval request. The Committee will, through consensus, arrive at a recommendation and present it for consideration by the Department.

3. During that portion of the Department meeting specified in the meeting agenda for discussion of approval requests, the membership will take action on each approval request, following a presentation and discussion of the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Review Committee. The applicant may attend the Department meeting at which his or her approval request will be reviewed.

4. The Review Committee Chair will, within two weeks following the meeting, notify the applicant of the decision made on his or her approval request. If an approval request is denied, the notification shall include the basis for denial. A copy of the notification is sent to the Department Recorder to be filed.

5. When an approval request is accepted, the applicant is considered an Instructor for the specific Courses approved. Approval request files for Approved Instructors are sent to the Recorder for records retention and recording on the Certification Database.

6. For a denied Approval Request, the applicant may file a written and ask for re-evaluation of the Request. The appeal must be submitted to the Chapter Representative within 30 days following receipt of notification of denial. When an appeal is filed, the applicant is encouraged to provide additional information or supporting documents AAS Copyright 2002 2 of 19 Forms & Instructions Revised September 2007 to address any deficiency identified in the basis for denial. At the next Department meeting, the appeal will be reviewed. Any additional information or supporting documents provided as part of the appeal will be considered in reaching a decision. The applicant may attend the Department meeting at which his or her appeal will be reviewed.

7. The Department will, within two weeks following the meeting, notify the applicant of the decision made on the appealed Approval Request. If the Approval Request is accepted following appeal, the applicant is considered an Instructor for the approved Courses, and the approved Request will be sent to the Recorder for retention and entry into the Certification Database. If the Approval Request is denied following appeal, the Department Chair shall notify both the applicant and the AAS State Chair of the decision. This notification shall include a detailed basis for denial.

8. For an appeal denied by the Department, a written appeal may be filed to the AAS State Chairman requesting reevaluation by the AAS State Board. The appeal shall be made within 30 days following receipt of notification of denial of appealed approval request from the Department Secretary. The AAS State Board will review the denial of the appealed approval request at a future AAS State Board meeting and render a decision on the approval request. The applicant may attend the AAS State Board meeting at which his or her denied approval request will be reviewed. If an appeal is directed to the AAS State Board, the decision by the Board is final.

Applicants are invited to contact the Chapter Representative regarding the completion of the approval request and the processing procedures. A timely response to any inquiries about the approval request will allow for expeditious processing.

1. Read the entire approval request before responding.

2. Assemble the appropriate supporting documents to attach to the completed approval request.

3. Refer to Tab 3-F, Page 1, Paragraph A.2. for submitting the approval request. Applicants are encouraged to list as many courses as they wish to teach in their Instructor Approval Request.

4. The approval request must be received by the Department at least four weeks prior to the scheduled date of the meeting at which the approval request is to be considered. If less time is allowed, consideration of the approval request may be delayed until the next regularly scheduled meeting, resulting in an approximately two-month delay.

5. Personal Supporting Documents: Please provide only copies of supporting documents with the approval request. PLEASE DO NOT SEND ANY OF YOUR ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS. Retain a copy of the approval request for record purposes.

6. Include with the approval request any additional information that supports the ability to teach each of the Certification Courses stipulated in the approval request, and which will aid the Review Committee in its evaluation.

7. The approval request may not be immediately processed, and follow- up contact, or the return of the approval request may be required, if:

a. The processing fee is not enclosed with the approval request.

b. The form is not properly completed.

c. There is insufficient supporting documentation.

d. Any items of supporting documentation are judged inadequate.

8. A returned approval request will result in at least a two-month delay before the it can again be considered by the Review Committee and the Department.

9. An applicant may attend the Department’s meeting at which his or her approval request is to be reviewed. Information regarding the Department meeting dates and agenda may be obtained from the Chapter Representative or the Department Chair.

AAS Copyright 2002 Tab 3-F, Page 7 Forms & Instructions Revised September 2007 Department of Certification INSTRUCTOR APPROVAL REQUEST A. GENERAL INFORMATION FOR USE BY CERTIFICATION COMMITTEE ONLY Name ______Waiver Request Received By Signature______Date Received Date______Fee Included $ Committee Recommends Address______

City______State_____Zip______Date Department Decision Telephone Home ( )______

Office ( )______Date E-mail______Signed By

Date Informed

Signature PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETE INFORMATION FOR ALL QUESTIONS. INDICATE “NA” (NOT APPLICABLE) WHERE APPROPRIATE. ATTACH ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SHEETS AS NEEDED. B. ACTION SOUGHT - INSTRUCTOR Proposed location and date of APPROVAL planned class 1.General Information Indicate the ______Chapters you are planning to ______instruct______Check the box of courses requested for approval Archaeastronomy of the Southwest Prehistoric Architectural Analysis Archaeological Mapping Techniques Prehistory of the Southwest Archaeological Photography Recorder Field Crew Member I Rock Art Recorder Field Crew Member II Shell Identification & Analysis Historical Archaeology I Stabilization and Reconstruction Introductory Human Osteology Survey Techniques Laboratory Techniques Survey Techniques II, Crew Chief Lithic Identification & Analysis Writing Preliminary Reports Paleoindian and Archaic Archaeology Zooarchaeology, Faunal Analysis Pottery Technology Ceramic Identification and Analysis Identify Regions Advanced Southwest Archaeology Identify Regions

2. Approval is requested to instruct. Please check boxes as appropriate. If approval is requested for more than one class, provide this information for each class.

Class work - Partial or Full time Fieldwork - Partial or Full time

3. Please list three references. Letters from your references are optional but may be sent to the Chapter Representative or the Review Committee Chairperson if the applicant believes they will contribute additional supportive information.

DATE OF FIRST NAME OF REFERENCE TITLE ADDRESS ASSOCIATION

1st

2nd

3rd

C. QUALIFICATIONS TO SUPPORT YOUR INSTRUCTOR APPROVAL REQUEST

1. Are you aware of, and do you understand, the AAS course and/or field requirements for certification in this course? Yes - No

2. Explain your reason and purpose for requesting instructor approval.

3. Professional Information Applicable to the Request. a. Are you making this request for yourself? Yes No

c. Former Job Title, if present job held less than two years.

d. Present Affiliation

e. Education • School Location

• Degree Date

• School Location

• Degree Date

f. Major Specialization For Degree.

g. Minor Specialization For Degree.

h. Employment Record for past five years, if applicable to this request.

• Affiliation Location

Position Dates to

• Affiliation Location

Position Dates to

i. Professional Organizational Affiliations

j. Professional Honors, Grants, Awards. Please provide supporting documentation.

4. Previous Experience. Have you taught this course or a similar course on a previous occasion? If so, please document;

a. Organization Location

Course Title

Description of Course

# of Students Course included Fieldwork? Yes No

b. If you are applying to teach more than one course, please supply the information requested in 4.a. above for each additional course. Use “Additional Information Sheets” as needed. Only one fee is required.

D. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN SUPPORT OF INSTRUCTOR REQUEST

Provide detail of lectureships or courses taught which are applicable to an Instructor’s activities and responsibilities. Each entry should state the kind of experience, place and date, the nature of it, whether volunteer or paid, etc.

1. Lecture Experience

1st.Course Title Credit Hours

Check all applicable, Instructor, Paid, Student, Volunteer, Other

Estimate days or hours of classroom work.

Course Description

2nd.Course Title Credit Hours

Check all applicable, Instructor, Paid, Student, Volunteer, Other

Estimate days or hours of classroom work.

Course Description

Check all applicable, Instructor, Paid, Student, Volunteer, Other

Estimate days or hours of classroom work.

Course Description

4th.Course Title Credit Hours

Check all applicable, Instructor, Paid, Student, Volunteer, Other

Estimate days or hours of classroom work.

Course Description

2. Field Experience

1st Project Name Location

Institution/Sponsor

Supervisor Assistant

Project Dates, Start Finish

Estimated Days or Hours of field experience.

Your status on the project

Description of experience and/or training

2nd Project Name Location

Institution/Sponsor

Supervisor Assistant

Project Dates, Start Finish

Estimated Days or Hours of field experience.

Your status on the project

3rd Project Name Location

Institution/Sponsor

Supervisor Assistant

Project Dates, Start Finish

Estimated Days or Hours of field experience.

Your status on the project

Description of experience and/or training

4th Project Name Location

Institution/Sponsor

Supervisor Assistant

Project Dates, Start Finish

Estimated Days or Hours of field experience.

Your status on the project

Description of experience and/or training

As may be pertinent, briefly discuss the facilities and opportunities available to the Instructor and to the Chapter for the instruction of the courses. Include mention of such matters as classroom space, number of students expected to be taught, visual aids, guest lecturers, laboratory space and equipment, catalog facilities, repository for housing collections, sites to be excavated, areas for survey, permits required, and persons who will assist with instruction.

AAS Copyright 2002 Tab 3-F, Page 1 Forms & Instructions Revised September 2007 AAS Copyright 2002 Tab 3-F, Page 1 Forms & Instructions Revised September 2007 F. DOCUMENTATION - ITEMS SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST

DO NOT SEND ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS.

List all of the documents submitted, in copy form, for consideration by the Review Committee in support of this Request, such as vita, transcript, lecture syllabus, letters of verification and/or reference, published and/or unpublished reports, reviews, etc.

10.

Continue listing on Additional Information Sheets as needed.

RELEASOR______DATE______

ADDRESS______

TELEPHONE______DATE OF BIRTH______

EMERGENCY CONTACT: NAME______TELEPHONE______

AAS ACTIVITY______ACTIVITY DATES______

IN CONSIDERATION of being permitted to participate in archaeological activities such as field trips, classes, hikes and/or field school excavations (together called Activities herein) as a member or guest or invitee or licensee of the Arizona Archaeological Society (hereafter called AAS), Releasor, for himself/herself and heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees as follows: 1. Release. Releasor hereby releases from any liability, loss or damage, and waives any claim against, and covenants not to sue the Released Parties named herein, on account of injury to the Releasor or his/her property or resulting in the death of Releasor, whether caused by the negligence of a Released Party or otherwise while the Releasor is engaged in Activities, including but not limited to transportation to and from Activities sites, and first aid, medical treatment or services rendered during Releasor’s participation in Activities. 2. Released Parties. Parties released herein are the AAS, its member, its chapters and their directors and officers, the State organization’s directors and officers, the owners and lessees of premises upon and in which Activities are carried out, and each of them, together called Released Parties herein. 3. Indemnity. Releasor agrees to indemnify the Released Parties and each of them from any loss, liability, damage or cost they may incur due to the presence of Releasor upon or in the Activities site (including but not limited to weather, open excavation pits, scorpions, rattlesnakes, transportation to and from the Activities site, etc,) whether caused by the negligence of the Released Party or otherwise. 4. Legal Effect. Releasor expressly agrees that this release, waiver and indemnity agreement is intended to be as broad and inclusive as is permitted by the laws of the State of Arizona, and that if any portion hereof is held invalid, the balance shall continue in full force and effect. 5. Insurance. RELEASOR MUST PROVIDE HIS/HER OWN HEALTH, ACCIDENT AND LIABILITY INSURANCE AND SUCH INSURANCE MUST BE IN FORCE DURING RELEASOR’S PARTICIPATION IN ACTIVITIES. 6. Agreement. This Release contains the entire agreement between the parties and the terms of this release is a binding contract, and shall remain in effect until the AAS receives a written notice revoking its terms. Releasor further states that he/she has carefully read this Release, knows its contents and signs it freely.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Releasor has executed this release on the date stated.

Signature:______

APPLICATION FOR FUNDING OF COURSE OR WORKSHOP

Limited funds are available to support Certification Department Courses and Workshops to offset costs due to a small number of students, or cost of an Instructor’s travel, etc. Up to $250 will be awarded to a Chapter in a year. The submission will be reviewed by the Department Review Committee and the amount of award determined by the Department as a whole. Please print or type and use the back of the form if more space is needed. Please apply several months in advance of when funds are needed.

Chapter Name:______

Date:______

Title of education event: ______Number of students:______

Date(s) of course or workshop: ______Amount requested:$______

Title of Certification Course or Workshop:______

Instructor:______Chapter Certification Rep:______

State how funds will be used:______

______

Why you are applying for Department support?______

______

Contact person:______Telephone: ______

Mailing address:______

______

E-mail address: ______Fax number: ______

Please return the form to the Certification Department Chairperson.

APPLICATION FOR FUNDING OF COURSE OR WORKSHOP

Provide added information as needed:

COURSE EVALUATION

Course name: ______Chapter: ______

Instructor’s name: ______Date: ______

Thank you for taking the time to fill out this form. Your opinions will help us to evaluate and improve our course offerings. On a scale from 1 to 5, with 5 indicating strongest agreement, please answer the following questions by circling the number that best reflects your opinion.

Strongly Strongly Agree Disagree

1. The overall course objectives were clear. 5 4 3 2 1

2. The course objectives were adequately met. 5 4 3 2 1

3. The pace of the course was neither too fast nor too 5 4 3 2 1 slow. Please explain below:

4. Students were encouraged to ask questions. 5 4 3 2 1

5. The class room facilities were adequate. 5 4 3 2 1

6. The text helped you to understand the material. 5 4 3 2 1

7. Handouts and/or supplementary material, if used, 5 4 3 2 1 helped you to understand the material.

8. Lectures helped you to understand the material. 5 4 3 2 1

9. Field or laboratory work, if offered, helped you to 5 4 3 2 1 understand the material

10. Visual aids, if used, helped you to understand the 5 4 3 2 1 material.

11. Assignments, if made, helped you to understand the 5 4 3 2 1 material.

12. Field trips, if offered, helped you to understand 5 4 3 2 1 the material.

13. The course met your expectations. 5 4 3 2 1

14. You would rate your overall experience in this 5 4 3 2 1 course as excellent.

15. You would recommend this course to a friend. 5 4 3 2 1

Please turn the page

16. Please tell us the best thing about the course.

17. What would have made the course more enjoyable?

18. Additional comments:

Please return the form to the Chapter AAS Certification Department Representative or designate at the end of class, or mail within a week of the last class to: ______

______

Thank you for your input. Your comments are important to us.

The Project Request/Report should conform to the section on “Excavation Criteria” and “Small Site Research Design”, Tabs 27 and 28 of the Certification Manual.

A. Introduction • Overall purpose of the project • Goals for the stated time period (usually one year) • Project Background • Research Design

B. Summary of Field Methods and Results to date

C. Evaluation of Work Accomplished in the Time Period Include how work relates to research design (Stabilization, analysis, mapping, excavation, report writing etc.)

D. Recommendations for Further Work Research issues and relevance to research design (brief overview) Work to be accomplished in the next time period (one year)

E. Work Plan for the Next Time Period (one year) • Personnel Indicate the Principal Investigator, Project Manager (the AAS person with day to day responsibility for implementation) as well as Field and Laboratory Directors, Instructors, and ideal number of staff. • Field Tasks related to research design for specific time period. • Laboratory Tasks related to research design for specific time period.

F. Schedules Include a time line with dates and locations of field and lab work with supervisors and instructors specified. Include dates for preparation of field work report and completion, artifact analysis report preparation and completion, curation etc.

G. Budget Include projected income from volunteers as well as anticipated expenditures. The project needs to be self sustaining. Indicate donations.

H. Additional Information • Current agreement with land owner • Burial treatment and disposition statement • References cited (continued next page)

Submission Dates: The Project Committee will review AAS Project reports at least once a year according to the following schedule. The Project Committee must have reports in writing prior to Department of Certification meetings in order to make recommendations to the Department.

Two Weeks Prior to First Fall Meeting of Department (Usually mid- September): Report of work completed in the prior year (September through August)

Two Weeks Prior to Second Fall Meeting of Department (Usually mid- November): Proposal for work in the coming months (up to September of following year)

Two Weeks Prior to First Meeting of Department in New Year (Usually mid-January): Fine tuning of proposal, answers to Committee’s questions

PURPOSE

To present members with an opportunity to acquire an in-depth understanding of the prehistoric inhabitants of the various regions of the Southwest, especially in what is now Arizona and the immediately surrounding areas (please refer to Figure 1 on the next Page).

OBJECTIVES

After studying a region, the student is to have an in-depth understanding of the following:

1. Chronology of the habitation of the region.

2. Subsistence strategies.

3. Types of dwellings and changes in habitation.

4. Ceramic types and changes thereto during various phases.

5. Lithic technology.

6. Other features unique to the particular people.

FORMAT

Twenty hours of class work are required to present the class. Eight classes of two and one-half hours each are recommended.

Prerequisite: Prehistory of the Southwest as presented by the AAS or the equivalent which has been approved by the Department of Certification.

A regional approach is used for this class. The map on the following page defines the physical boundaries of the four regions. The time frame of Advanced Southwest Archaeology is A.D. 500 to the present.

Examination: At the start of the third class, each student shall be assigned a research report. The reports may be presented either orally or in written form. Written reports may be considered for publication in The Petroglyph.

Note: Classification preference for each region is the choice of the instructor. It is hoped that the instructors qualified in regions other than the "home" areas of respective chapters can present this data to the other chapters of the state.

Figure 1. PREHISTORIC SOUTHWESTERN CULTURAL TRADITIONS (Based on Cordell 1984)

COURSE OUTLINE

1st Class Origins: Native Americans living in the Southwest today descend from the prehistoric cultures, or did they? Prove or disprove the above statement through analysis of ceramics, lithics, architecture, linguistics, legends, and traditions. Historic cultural history, as well as prehistoric cultural history, is covered at the beginning of this course. Hypotheses for decline and redistribution of population after cultural apogee was reached; including migrations, re-occupations, relocation of population, among others; will be presented.

2nd Class Subsistence: Methods developed by prehistoric inhabitants to sustain life in each region. Investigate subsistence patterns that enabled not only survival but the steady evolution of an advancing culture.

3rd Class Settlement Systems: What pressures caused a population to be in a state of change? What effect does population expansion and contraction have on settlement patterns?

4th & 5th Social and Organizational Systems: From the evidence, what may Classes archaeologists infer about social organization and social systems in the region?

6th Class Material Culture of the Region: Describe the differences in lithics, in ceramics, and in architecture.

7th Class Interaction/Action: Involvement within and without the regional boundaries. Disbursement of ideas on religion, trade, and building techniques.

8th Class Wind Up: Student reports and presentation of individual ideas developed during the course.

See next page for References

REFERENCES

Note: In addition to the material cited below, refer to the materials listed for Prehistory of the Southwest in Tab 15.

Adams, E. Charles, Richard C. Lange, Bruce Edward Anderson, Louise M. Senior, Linda M. Pierce, Jenny L. Adams, Lisa C. Young, Karen G. Harry, Kelly Ann Hays, and Sally J. Cole. 1989 The Homol'ovi Research Program: Investigations into the Prehistory of the Middle Little Colorado River. The Kiva 54:173-329.

Cosgrove, Harriet S. and Cornelius B. 1974 The Swarts Ruin: A Typical Mimbres Site in Southwestern New Mexico. Krause Reprint, Millwood.

Crown, Patricia L., and W. James Judge (editors) 1991 Chaco and Hohokam: Prehistoric Regional Systems in the American Southwest. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

Di Peso, Charles C. 1956 The Upper Pima of San Cayetano Del Tumacacori. Amerind Foundation, Dragoon, Arizona.

Dittert, Alfred E., Jr. 1976 An Archaeological Survey in the Gila River Basin, New River and Phoenix City Streams, Arizona Project Area. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles.

Dittert, Alfred E., Jr. and Donald Dove (editors) 1985 Proceedings of the 1983 Hohokam Symposium. Parts I and II. Occasional Paper No. 2. Arizona Archaeological Society, Phoenix Chapter, Phoenix. (A)*

Doyel, David (editor) 1987 The Hohokam Village: Site Structure and Organization. Southwestern and Rocky Mountain Division of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Glenwood Springs, Colorado.

Doyel, David and Fred Plog (editors) 1980 Current Issues In Hohokam Prehistory: Proceedings of a Symposium. Arizona State University, Tempe.

Gumerman, George J. (editor) 1991 Exploring the Hohokam: Prehistoric Desert People of the American Southwest. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Haury, Emil W. 1975 The Excavations of Los Muertos and Neighboring Ruins In the Salt River Valley, Southern Arizona. Krause Reprint Co., Millwood. (A)

1976 The Hohokam: Desert Farmers and Craftsmen. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

1985 Mogollon Culture in the Forestdale Valley East-Central Arizona. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Herskovitz, Robert M. 1981 Arizona U:9:46: A Dual Component Hohokam Site in Tempe, Arizona. The Kiva 47:1-90.

Hohmann, John W., and Linda B. Kelley. 1988 Eric F. Schmidt's Investigation of Salado Sites in Central Arizona: The Mrs. W. B. Thompson Archaeological Expedition of the American Museum of Natural History. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin 56, Museum of Northern Arizona Press, Flagstaff, Arizona.

Lekson, Stephen H. 1986 Great Pueblo Architecture of Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Originally published 1984, National Park Service, US Department of the Interior, Albuquerque, New Mexico as Publications in Archaeology 18B, Chaco Canyon series.

Lister, Robert H., and Florence C. Lister 1981 Chaco Canyon: Archaeology and Archaeologists. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

McGuire, Randall H., and Michael B. Schiffer 1982 Hohokam and Patayan: Prehistory of Southwestern Arizona. Academic Press, New York.

Masse, W. Bruce 1976 The Hohokam Expressway Project: A Study of Prehistoric Irrigation In the Salt River Valley, Arizona. Arizona Department of Transportation, Phoenix. (A)

Morris, Elizabeth Ann 1980 Basketmaker Caves In the Prayer Rock District, Northeastern Arizona. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Ortiz, Alfonso (editor) 1979 Southwest. Handbook of North American Indians Volume 9, Smithsonian Institution, Washington.

Reid, J. Jefferson, and David E. Doyel 1986 Emil W. Haurey's Prehistory of the American Southwest. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

REFERENCES (continued

Reid, J. Jefferson, Julie C. Lowell, William A. Longacre, Kenneth L. Kvamme, Masashi Kobayashi, John A. Peterson, Stephen H. Lekson, Eileen L. Camilli, Robert H. Schmidt, Jr., Rex E. Gerald, Paul E. Minnis, Emil W. Haury, Jeffrey S. Dean, John D. Speth, and David R. Wilcox 1988 Twelve articles reporting on the Fourth Mogollon Conference held in Tucson in 1986. The Kiva 53:83-209.

Woodbury, Richard B. 1975 Prehistoric Stone Implements of Northeastern Arizona. Krause Reprint, Millwood.

*(A) In Phoenix Chapter Archives

ADVANCED SOUTHWEST ARCHAEOLOGY THE PALEOINDIAN AND ARCHAIC PERIODS

PURPOSE

To present members with an opportunity to acquire an in-depth understanding of the Paleoindian and Archaic periods as their occupations are viewed broadly across North America with a focus on the Southwest.

OBJECTIVES

After studying the manifestation of the Paleoindian and Archaic periods in the Southwest, the student is to have an in-depth understanding of the current thinking regarding:

A. Arrival of the first Americans and their adaptation to various environments. Paleoenvironmental considerations.

B. Archaeology of the Paleoindian and Archaic periods in the Southwest and important sites for defining and dating the occupations. Synthesis of the Archaic tradition within the Southwest. Manifestation of the Paleoindian and Archaic occupations of the Southwest in the archaeological record, including recognition of Paleoindian and Archaic artifacts and features in situ and recognition of Archaic rock art.

C. Subsistence, economy, and settlement strategies of the Paleoindian and Archaic periods in the Southwest.

D. Transition from Paleoindian to Archaic, and from Archaic to major cultural traditions including Hohokam, Anasazi, Mogollon, Patayan, and Sinagua, or Salado, in the Southwest.

E. Introduction of agriculture in the Southwest considering horticulture and early cultigens.

F. Lithic technologies of the Paleoindian and Archaic periods in the Southwest.

FORMAT

Twenty-five hours of classwork are required to present the class. Ten classes of two and one-half hours each are recommended.

PREREQUISITES

Prehistory of the Southwest as presented by the AAS or the equivalent which has been approved by the Department of Certification. The approach used is (1) a broad overview of the Paleoindian occupation of North America, narrowing to western North America, and focusing on the Southwest; (2) the transition to and occupation of the Southwest during the Archaic period; and the subsequent transition to the major Southwestern archaeological cultural traditions (Anasazi, Hohokam, Mogollon, and Patayan). The time frame of Advanced Southwest

At the start of the third class, each student shall select a research topic for approval by the instructor. The report may be presented either orally or in written form, or both. Written reports may be considered for publication in The Petroglyph.

COURSE OUTLINE

1st Class The First Americans: A brief overview of the development of humankind will precede the examination of the arrival of the first Americans. Issues discussed will include the routes man followed to reach the Americas and the synchronic and diachronic distribution of man across North, Central, and South America. The environments encountered and the adaptive strategies to these environments will be examined. Competing theories related to the issue of arrival, both time and the route, of the first Americans will be examined.

2nd Class Sites and Complexes: Archaeological evidence that established the existence of Paleoindians in the Southwest will be examined and an overview of Paleoindian complexes and site variability will be presented. Sites and complexes discussed will include Folsom and its intellectual consequences for American archaeology; Blackwater Draw near Clovis, New Mexico, which established the Clovis Horizon; Sandia Cave; San Dieguito; Ventana Cave; and the San Pedro River valley sites in southeastern Arizona (Murry Springs, Lehner, Double Adobe, and Naco). Other complexes such as Plainview, Agate Basin, Firstview, Cody, Jay, and other sites, including current research, may be discussed as time permits.

3rd Class Artifacts, Chronology, Environment, Economy, and Settlement: Paleoindian artifacts, lithic, and bone, as well as diagnostic lithic technology will be discussed, and demonstrated if feasible. The Paleoindian Chronology will be discussed, along with the question of whether Clovis people were the first Americans. Current arguments will be explored and current research will be reviewed. Paleoenvironmental reconstructions and their importance to Paleoindian study will be examined. Paleoindian hunting strategies, economy, and settlement will also be discussed.

4th Class End of the Paleoindian Period and Transition to the Archaic: The extinction of the megafauna and the end of the Paleoindian period across the Americas and in the Southwest will be examined. The subsequent transition to the Archaic period and the attendant changes in economy and settlement will be discussed.

AAS Copyright 2002 Tab 5, Page 3 Advanced SW Archaeology Revised October 2002 5th Class Archaic Culture: Sites and Complexes: The archaeological evidence that established the existence of the Archaic culture in the Southwest will be examined and an overview of Archaic complexes will be presented. Complexes discussed will include Pinto Basin (San Dieguito-Pinto tradition, including Amargosa), Cochise (Chiricahua and San Pedro traditions), as well as Hueco and Coahuila. The Oshara tradition concept (Jay, Bajada, San Jose, Armijo, En Medio, and Trujillo phases) and the Picosa concept (Pinto Basin, Cochise, and San Jose) will be addressed. Archaic sites to be discussed include those in the ancient lake basins of Southern California and Southwestern Arizona (San Dieguito-Pinto); Ventana Cave, San Pedro River Valley, Cienega Creek, and Wet Leggett (Cochise); southeastern New Mexico, Coahuila and eastern Chihuahua in Mexico, and west Texas (Hueco and Coahuila); and Colorado Plateau and Rio Grande Valley (Oshara).

6th & 7th Artifacts, Chronology, Environment, Ecology, Economy, and Classes Settlement Strategies: Archaic artifacts as well as diagnostic lithic technology , both chipped and ground stone, will be examined. The Archaic Chronology will be discussed, including Archaic subsistence adaptations in general. The importance of Paleoenvironmental reconstructions to the Archaic period, as well as ecological issues will be discussed. Archaic period economy and settlement strategies will be examined.

8th & 9th Horticulture and the Evidence of Early Cultigens in the Classes Southwest A brief overview of the development of agriculture in Mesoamerica will be presented. A review of the general models proposed for the transition to food production and their relevance to the Southwest will be addressed. The development of horticulture and the introduction of corn and other cultigens in later Archaic time will be examined. The acceptance of agriculture and the transition from the Archaic period to the major cultural traditions (e.g., Hohokam, Anasazi, Mogollon, Patayan, Sinagua, or Salado) in the Southwest will be discussed.

10th Class Conclusion Student reports and presentation of individual ideas developed during the course.

Note: In addition to the material cited below, refer to Chapters 4, "The Paleoindian Period," 5, "The Archaic Period," and 6, "The Adoption of Agricultural Strategies," in Prehistory of the Southwest by Linda S. Cordell (1984, Academic Press, Inc., Orlando, Florida).

Agenbroad, Larry D. 1967 The Distribution of Fluted Points in Arizona. The Kiva 32(4):113-120.

1978 Cultural Implications from the Distributional Analysis of a Lithic Site, San Pedro Valley, Arizona. In Discovering Past Behavior: Experiments, edited by P. Grebinger, pp. 55-71.

Agenbroad, Larry D., and C. Vance Haynes, Jr. 1975 Bison Remains at Murry Springs, Arizona. The Kiva 40(4):309-314.

Agenbroad, Larry D., Jim I. Mead, Emilee D. Mead, and Diana Elder 1989 Archaeology, Alluvium, and Cave Stratigraphy: The Record from Bechan Cave, Utah. Kiva 54:335-351.

Alexander, H. C., and P. Reiter 1935 The Excavation of Jemez Cave, New Mexico. Monograph of the School of American Research 4. Santa Fe.

Alexander, Herbert L., Jr. 1963 The Levi Site: A Paleo-Indian Campsite in Central Texas. American Antiquity 28(4):510-528.

Antevs, Ernst 1953 Artifacts with Mammoth Remains, Naco Arizona II: Age of the Clovis Fluted Points with the Naco Mammoth. American Antiquity 19(1):15-17.

1955 Geologic-Climatic Dating in the West. American Antiquity 20(4):317-335.

1959 Geologic Age of the Lehner Mammoth Site. American Antiquity 25(1):31-34.

1962 Late Quaternary Climates in Arizona. American Antiquity 28(2):193-198.

Ayres, J. E. 1970 Two Fluted Clovis Points from Southern Arizona. The Kiva 35(3):121-124.

Bamforth, D. 1985 The Technological Organization of Paleo-Indian Small-Group Bison Hunting on the Llano Estacado. Plains Anthropologist 30:243-258.

Barnes, Alfred S. AAS Copyright 2002 Tab 5, Page 5 Advanced SW Archaeology Revised October 2002 1939 The Differences between Natural and Human Flaking on Prehistoric Flint Implements. American Anthropologist 41(1):99- 112. Bayham, Frank E., D. H. Morris, and M. S. Shackley 1986 Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers of South Central Arizona: The Picacho Reservoir Archaic Project. Anthropological Field Studies No. 13, Department of Anthropology, Office of Cultural Resource Management, Arizona State University, Tempe.

Beadle, G. W. 1980 The Ancestry of Corn. Scientific American 242(1):112-119.

Bender, Barbara 1978 Gatherer-Hunter to Farmer: A Social Perspective. World Archaeology 10(2):204-222.

Berry, Claudia F., and Michael S. Berry 1986 Chronological and Conceptual Models of the Southwestern Archaic. In Anthropology of the Desert West: Essays in Honor of Jesse D. Jennings, edited by C. J. Conde and D. D. Fowler, pp. 253-327. University of Utah Anthropological Papers, No. 110, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

Binford, Lewis R. 1968 Post-Pleistocene Adaptations. In New Perspectives in Archaeology, edited by Sally Binford and Lewis R. Binford, pp. 313-341. Aldine, Chicago.

Bostwick, Todd W. (editor) 1988 An Investigation of Archaic Subsistence and Settlement in the Harquahala Valley. Northland Research, Inc. Flagstaff.

Bryan, Kirk, and Louis L. Ray 1940 Geologic Antiquity of the Lindenmeier Site in Colorado. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, Volume 99, No. 2. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Campbell, Elizabeth C., and William C. Campbell 1935 The Pinto Basin Site. Southwest Museum Papers 9, Los Angeles.

Collins, Michael B. 1990 Observations on Clovis Lithic Technology. Current Research in the Pleistocene 7:73-74.

Cotter, John 1938 The Occurrence of Flints and Extinct Animals in Pluvial Deposits near Clovis, New Mexico. Proceedings of the Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences 90:113-117.

Crabtree, Don E. 1966 A Stoneworker's Approach to Analyzing and Replicating the Lindenmeier Folsom. Tebiwa 9(1).

Danson, Edward B.

Dick, Herbert 1965 Bat Cave. School of American Research Monograph 27. Santa Fe.

Dillehay, Tom D. 1991 Disease Ecology and Initial Human Migration. In The First Americans: Search and Research, edited by Tom D. Dillehay and David J. Meltzer, pp. 231-264. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.

Dincauze, D. 1984 An Archaeological Evaluation of the Case for Pre-Clovis Occupations. In Advances in World Archaeology, Volume 3, edited by F. Wendorf and A. Close, pp. 275-323. Academic Press, New York.

DiPeso, Charles C. 1953 Clovis Fluted Points from Southeastern Arizona. American Antiquity 19(1):82-85.

Downum, Christian E. 1993 Evidence of a Clovis Presence at Wupatki National Monument. Kiva 58(4):487-494.

Doyel, David E. 1984 From Foraging to Farming: An Overview of the Preclassic in the Tucson Basin. The Kiva 49:147-165.

Eddy, Frank W., and M. E. Cooley 1983 Cultural and Environmental History of Cienega Valley, Southeastern Arizona. University of Arizona Anthropological Papers, No. 43. University of Arizona, Tucson.

Euler, Robert C., editor 1983 The Pinto Basin Complex at Grand Canyon, Arizona. The Kiva 49:67-73.

1984 The Archaeology, Geology, and Paleobiology of Stanton's Cave, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona. Grand Canyon Natural History Association, Grand Canyon, Arizona.

Fagan, Brian M. 1987 The Great Journey: The Peopling of Ancient America. Thames and Hudson, New York.

Ferg, Alan 1977 The Poor Canyon Scatter: A Cochise Site Near Redington, Arizona. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 114, University of Arizona, Tucson.

Fiedel, Stuart J. 1992 The Prehistory of the Americas. Second Edition. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Flannery, Kent V. 1968 Archaeological Systems Theory and Early Mesoamerica. In Anthropological Archaeology in the Americas, edited by Betty Meggers, pp. 67-87. Anthropological Society of Washington, Washington, D.C.

Flenniken, J. Jeffrey 1978 Reevaluation of the Lindenmeier Folsom: A Replication Experiment. American Antiquity 43:473-480.

Ford, Richard I. 1975 Re-excavation of Jemez Cave, New Mexico. Awanyu 3(3):13-27.

Ford, Richard I. (editor) 1985 Prehistoric Food Production in North America. Museum of Anthropology, Anthropological Paper No. 7513-27.

Formby, D. E. 1986 Pinto-Gypsum Complex Projectile Points from Arizona and New Mexico. The Kiva 51:99-127.

Frison, George C. 1968 A Functional Analysis of Certain Chipped Stone Tools. American Antiquity 33(2):149-155.

1978 Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains. Academic Press, New York.

Frison, George C. (editor) 1974 The Casper Site: A Hell Gap Bison Kill on the High Plains. Academic Press, New York.

Frison, George C., and Bruce A. Bradley 1980 Folsom Tools and Technology at the Hanson Site, Wyoming. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Gorman, F. 1972 The Clovis Hunter: An Alternate View of their Environment and Ecology. In Contemporary Archaeology, edited by M. Leone, pp. 206-221. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.

Grayson, Donald K. 1984 Anthropological Association with Extinct Pleistocene Mammals in North America. Journal of Archaeological Science 11:213-221.

Green, F. E. 1963 The Clovis Blades: An Important Addition to the Llano Complex. American Antiquity 29:145-165.

Greenburg, J. H., G. C. Turner II, and S. L. Zegura 1986 The Settlement of the Americas: A Comparison of the Linguistic, Dental, and Genetic Evidence. Current Anthropology 27:477-497.

Gumerman, George J. 1966 A Folsom Point from the Area of Mishongovi, Arizona. Plateau 38(4):79-80.

Guthrie, R. D. 1984 Mosaics, Allelochemics, and Nutrients: An Ecological Theory of Late Pleistocene Megafaunal Extinction. In Quaternary Extinctions: A Prehistoric Revolution edited by Paul S. Martin and R. G. Klein, pp. 259-298. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Harrington, Mark R. 1933 Gypsum Cave, Nevada. Southwest Museum Papers, No. 8. Los Angeles.

1961 Tule Springs, Nevada: With Other Evidence of Man in North America. Southwest Museum Papers, No. 18. Los Angeles.

Haury, Emil W. 1952 The Naco Mammoth. The Kiva 18(3-4):1-19.

1953 Artifacts with Mammoth Remains, Naco, Arizona. American Antiquity 19(1):1-14.

1956 The Lehner Mammoth Site. The Kiva 21(2-3):23-24.

1957 An Alluvial Site on the San Carlos Indian Reservation Arizona. American Antiquity 23(1):2-27.

1960 Association of Fossil Fauna and Artifacts of the Sulphur Springs Stage, Cochise Culture. American Antiquity 25:609-610.

1975 The Stratigraphy and Archaeology of Ventana Cave. Second Edition. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Haury, Emil W., Ernst Antevs, and J. F. Lance 1953 Artifacts with Mammoth Remains, Naco, Arizona. American Antiquity 19(1):1-24.

Haury, Emil W., E. B. Sayles, and W. W. Wasley 1959 The Lehner Mammoth Site, Southeastern Arizona. American Antiquity 25(1):2-30

1966 Elephant Hunting in North America. Scientific American 214(6):104-112.

1967 Carbon-14 Dates and Early Man in the New World. In Pleistocene Extinctions: The Search for a Cause, edited by P.S. Martin and H. E. Wright, pp. 267-286. Yale University.

1968 Preliminary Report on the Late Quaternary Geology of the San Pedro Valley, Arizona. Arizona Geological Society Guidebook 3, Contribution 163.

1970 Geochronology of Man-Mammoth Sites and their Bearing on the Origin of the Llano Complex. In Pleistocene and Recent Environments of the Central Great Plains, edited by Wakefield Dort, Jr., and J. Knox Jones, Jr., pp. 77-92. Department of Geology Special Publication 3, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas.

1981 Geochronology and Paleoenvironments of the Murry Springs Clovis Site, Arizona. National Geographic Society Research Reports, 13:243-251.

1982 Were Clovis Progenitors in Beringia? In Paleoecology of Beringia, edited by D. Hopkins, J. Matthews, C. Schweger, and S. Young, pp. 383-398. Academic Press, New York.

1983 Fluted Points in the East and West. Archaeology of Eastern North America 11:24-27.

1987 Clovis Origin Update. The Kiva 52:83-93.

Haynes, C. Vance, Jr., and G. Agogino 1966 Prehistoric Springs and Geochronology of the Clovis Site, New Mexico. American Antiquity 31(6):812-821.

Haynes, C. Vance, Jr., D. J. Donahue, A. J. T. Jull, T. H. Zabel 1984 Application of Accelerator Dating to Fluted Point Paleoindian Sites. Archaeology of Eastern North America 12:184-191.

Haynes, C. Vance, Jr., and E. T. Hemmings 1968 Mammoth-Bone Shaft Wrench from Murry Springs, Arizona. Science 159:186-187.

Hemmings, E. T. 1968 Preliminary Archaeological Report on the Murry Springs Clovis Site, Arizona. Paper presented at the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, State Museum, Santa Fe. Manuscript on file, University of Arizona, Tucson.

Hemmings, E. T., and C. Vance Haynes, Jr. 1969 The Escapule Mammoth and Associated Projectile Points, San Pedro River Valley, Arizona. Journal of the Arizona Academy of Science 5(3):184-188.

Hester, James J. 1972 Blackwater Locality No. 1: A Stratified, Early Man site in Eastern New Mexico. Publication of the Fort Burgwin Research Center 8. Fort Burgwin Research Center, Ranchos de Taos.

Hester, James J., and James Grady 1977 Paleoindian Social Patterns on the Llano Estacado. In Paleoindian Lifeways, pp. 78-96. The Museum Journal, Volume 17, Lubbock.

Hibben, Frank C. 1941 Evidences of Early Occupation in Sandia Cave, New Mexico, and Other Sites in the Sandia-Manzano Region. Smithsonian Institution Miscellaneous Collections 99(3):1-44.

1946 The First Thirty-eight Sandia Points. American Antiquity 11(2):257-258.

1955 Specimens from Sandia Cave and their Possible Significance. Science 122:688-689.

Hohmann, John W., and John A. Hotopp (editors) 1990 Of Blood and Stone: Investigations into Southeastern Utah Archaic - Phase III Archaeological Investigations Along US 191, San Juan County, Utah. Studies in Western Archaeology Number 2. Culture Resource Group, Louis Berger & Associates, Phoenix.

Holliday, V. T., and E. Johnson 1986 Reevaluation of the First Radiocarbon Age for the Folsom Culture. American Antiquity 51:332-338.

Hopkins, D. M. (editor) 1967 The Bering Land Bridge. Stanford University Press, Stanford.

Howard, Edgar B. 1935 Evidences of Early Man in North America. Museum Journal, Volume 24, No. 2-3, University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

1935 Occurrence of Flints and Extinct Animals in Pluvial Deposits Near Clovis, New Mexico, Part 1, Introduction. Proceedings, Philadelphia Academy of National Sciences, 87:299-303.

AAS Copyright 2002 Tab 5, Page 12 Advanced SW Archaeology Revised October 2002 Huckell, Bruce B. 1972 The Double Adobe Mammoth: 1970 Excavations along Whitewater Draw. Report: Dr. E. H. Lindsay, Geosciences.

1973 The Gold Gulch Site: A Specialized Cochise Site Near Bowie, Arizona. The Kiva 39:105-129.

1973 The Hardt Creek Site. The Kiva 39:171-197.

1979 Of Chipped Stone Tools, Elephants, and the Clovis Hunter: An Experiment. Plains Anthropologist 24:177-189.

1982 The Distribution of Fluted Points in Arizona: A Review and Update. Archaeological Series No. 145. Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson.

1984 The Paleo-Indian and Archaic Occupation of the Tucson Basin: An Overview. The Kiva 49:133-145.

1984 The Archaic Occupation of the Rosemont Area, Northern Santa Rita Mountains, Southeastern Arizona. Archaeological Series No. 147(1). Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson.

1988 Late Archaic Archaeology of the Tucson Basin: A Status Report. In Recent Research on Tucson Basin Prehistory: Proceedings of the Second Tucson Basin Conference, Edited by William H. Doelle and Paul R. Fish, pp. 57-80. Anthropological Paper No. 10. Institute for American Research, Tucson.

1990 Late Preceramic Farmers-Foragers in Southern Arizona: A Cultural and Ecological Consideration of the Spread of Agriculture in the Arid Southwestern United States. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson.

Hunt, A. P., and D. Tanner 1960 Early Man Sites Near Moab, Utah. American Antiquity 26(1):110- 117.

Irwin-Williams, Cynthia 1967 Picosa: the Elementary Southwestern Culture. American Antiquity 32(4):441-457.

1967 Associations of Early Man with Horse, Camel, and Mastodon at Hueyatlaco, Valsequillo (Puebla, Mexico). In Pleistocene Extinctions: The Search for a Cause, edited by Paul S. Martin and Herbert E. Wright, Jr., pp. 337-350. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.

1968 Configurations of Preceramic Development in the Southwestern United States. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology 1(1):1-9. Portales, New Mexico.

Irwin-Williams, Cynthia 1968 The Reconstruction of Archaic Culture in the Southwestern United States. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology 1(3):19-23. Portales, New Mexico.

1968 Archaic Culture History in the Southwestern United States. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology 1(4):48-54. Portales, New Mexico.

1973 The Oshara Tradition: Origins of Anasazi Culture. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology 5(1). Portales, New Mexico.

1979 Post-Pleistocene Archaeology, 7000-2000 B.C. In Southwest, edited by Alfonso Ortiz, pp. 31-42. Handbook of North American Indians (Volume 9). Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Irwin-Williams, Cynthia (editor) 1968 Early Man in Western North America. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology 1(4):48-53, Portales, New Mexico.

Irwin-Williams, Cynthia, and C. Vance Hayes, Jr. 1970 Climatic Change and Early Population Dynamics in Southwestern United States. Quaternary Research 1(1):59-71.

James, Steven R. 1990 Monitoring Archaeofaunal Changes During the Transition to Agriculture in the American Southwest. Kiva 56:25-43.

Jennings, Jesse D. 1957 Danger Cave. Society for American Archaeology Memoir 14.

1964 The Desert West. In Prehistoric Man in the New World, edited by J. D. Jennings and E. Norbeck, pp. 149-174. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

1974 Prehistory of North America. 2nd edition. McGraw-Hill, New York.

1980 Cowboy Cave. University of Utah Anthropological Paper No. 104. Salt Lake City.

Jennings, Jesse D., Alan R. Schroedl, and Richard N. Holmer 1980 Sudden Shelter. University of Utah Anthropological Paper No. 103. Salt Lake City.

Jones, Bruce A. 1990 Paleoindians and Proboscideans: Ecological Determinants of Selectivity in the Southwestern United States. In Hunters of the Recent Past, edited by Leslie B. Davis and Brian O. K. Reeves, pp. 68-85. Umwin Hyman, London.

AAS Copyright 2002 Tab 5, Page 14 Advanced SW Archaeology Revised October 2002 Judge, W. James 1973 PaleoIndian Occupation of the Central Rio Grande Valley in New Mexico. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

1982 The Paleo-Indian and Basketmaker Periods: An Overview and Some Research Problems. In The San Juan Tomorrow, edited by Fred Plog and W. Wait, pp. 5-57. National Park Service, Southwest Region, Santa Fe.

Judge, W. James, and Jerry Dawsom 1972 PaleoIndian Settlement Technology in New Mexico. Science 176:1210-1216.

Kelly, Robert L. 1983 Hunter-Gatherer Mobility Strategies. Journal of Anthropological Research 39(3):277-306.

Kelly, Robert L., and Lawrence C. Todd 1988 Coming into the Country: Early Paleoindian Hunting and Mobility. American Antiquity 53(2):231-244.

Kelly, Roger E 1966 Split-twig Figurines from Sycamore Canyon, Central Arizona. Plateau 38(3):65-67.

Lambert, M. G., and J. R. Ambler 1961 A Survey and Excavation of Caves in Hidalgo County, New Mexico. School of American Research, Monograph No. 25, Santa Fe.

Lynch, Thomas F. 1990 Glacial-age Man in South America? A Critical Review. American Antiquity 55(1):12-36.

McClung DeTapia, Emily 1992 The Origins of Agriculture in Mesoamerica and Central America. In The Origins of Agriculture, edited by C. Wesley Consan and Patty Jo Watson, pp. 143-172. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C.

McGuire, Randall H. 1982 Problems in Culture History. In Hohokam and Patayan: Prehistory of Southwestern Arizona, edited by Randall H. McGuire and Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 153-222. Academic Press, New York.

McGuire, Randall H., and Michael B. Schiffer 1982 The Study of Cultural Adaptations. In Hohokam and Patayan: Prehistory of Southwestern Arizona, edited by Randall H. McGuire and Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 223-274. Academic Press, New York.

MacNeish, Richard S. 1964 The Origins of New World Civilization. Scientific American 211(5):29-37.

1971 Speculation About How and Why Food Production and Village Life Developed in the Tehaucan Valley, Mexico Archaeology 24(4):307- 315.

1978 Late Pleistocene Adaptions: A New Look at Early Peopling of the New World as of 1976. Journal of Anthropological Research 34(4):475-496.

MacNeish, Richard S., and Patrick H. Beckett 1987 The Archaic Chihuahua Tradition. Monograph Series, No. 7, COAS Publishing Co. Las Cruces.

Mangelsdorf, Paul C. 1974 Corn: Its Origin, Evolution, and Improvements. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

Martin, Paul Schultz 1963 The Last 10,000 Years: A Fossil Pollen Record of the American Southwest. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

1967 Prehistoric Overkill. In Pleistocene Extinction: The Search for a Cause, edited by Paul S. Martin and H. E. Wright, Jr., pp 75- 120. Proceedings of the VII Congress of the International Association for Quaternary Research, Vol. 6. Yale University Press, New Haven.

Matson, Richard G. 1991 The Origins of Southwestern Agriculture. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Mehringer, P. J., Jr., and C. Vance Haynes, Jr. 1965 The Pollen Evidence for the Environment of Early Man and Extinct Mammals at the Lehner Mammoth Site, Southeastern Arizona. American Antiquity 31(1):17-23.

Mehringer, P. J., Jr., P. S. Martin, and C. Vance Haynes, Jr. 1967 Murry Springs, a Mid-Postglacial Pollen Record from Southern Arizona. American Journal of Science 265:786-797.

Meltzer, David J. 1989 Why Don't We Know When the First People came to north America? American Antiquity 54(3):471-490.

1991 On "Paradigms" and "Paradigm Bias" in Controversies Over Human Antiquity in America. In The First Americans: Search and Research, edited by Tom D. Dillehay and David J. Meltzer, pp. 13-52. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.

AAS Copyright 2002 Tab 5, Page 16 Advanced SW Archaeology Revised October 2002 Minnis, Paul L. 1992 Earliest Plant Cultivation in the Desert Borderlands of North America. In The Origins of Agriculture, edited by C. Wesley Cowan and Patty Jo Watson, pp. 121-142. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Morris, Elizabeth 1983 The Status of Archaic Period Sites in the Anasazi Area. In Proceedings of Anasazi Symposium, 1981, edited by Jack Smith, pp. 69-71.

Musil, Robert R. 1988 Functional Efficiency and Technological Change: A Hafting Tradition Model for Prehistoric North America. In Early Occupation in Far Western North America: The Clovis-Archaic Interface, edited by Judith A. Willig, C. Melvin Aikens, and John L. Fagan, pp. 373-387. Nevada State Museum, Carson City.

Myers, Richard D. 1967 The Folsom Point from the Rising Site, Southeast Arizona. The Kiva 32(3):102-105.

Myers, Thomas P. 1976 Fluted Points from the Sulphur Springs Valley, Cochise County, Arizona. The Kiva 42(2):209-213.

Olson, Alan 1966 Split-twig Figurines from NA 5607, Northern Arizona. Plateau 38(3):55-64.

Olsen, Stanley J. 1990 Was Early Man in North America a Big Game Hunter? In Hunters of the Recent Past, edited by Leslie B. Davis and Brian O. K. Reeves, pp. 103-110. Unwin Hyman, London.

Roberts, Frank H. H., Jr. 1935 A Folsom Complex. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 94(4).

1936 Additional Information on the Folsom Complex. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 95(10).

1938 The Folsom Problem in American Archaeology. Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution, pp. 531-546. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Rogers, Malcom J. 1939 Early Lithic Industries of the Lower Basin of the Colorado River and Adjacent Desert Areas. San Diego Museum Papers, No. 3. San Diego.

1966 Ancient Hunters of the Far West. The Union-Tribune Publishing Company, San Diego.

Roosa, William B. 1956 The Lucy Site in Central New Mexico. American Antiquity 21(3):310-323.

Roper, Donna C. 1989 Grinding Stones in Plains Paleoindian Sites: The Case for Pigment Processing. Current Research in the Pleistocene 6:36- 37.

Roth, Barbara J. 1988 Recent Research on the Late Archaic Occupation of the Northern Tucson Basin. In Recent Research on Tucson Basin Prehistory: Proceedings of the Second Tucson Basin Conference, Edited by William H. Doelle and Paul R. Fish, pp. 81-107. Anthropological Paper No. 10. Institute for American Research, Tucson.

1992 Sedentary Agriculturalists or Mobile Hunter-Gatherers? Evidence on the Late Archaic Occupation of the Northern Tucson Basin. Kiva 57:291-314.

1993 A Clovis Point from East-central Arizona. Kiva 58(4):495-498.

1993 Changing Perceptions of the Late Archaic: An Example from the Southern Southwest. North American Archaeologist 14(2):123-137.

Roth, Barbara J., and Bruce B. Huckell 1992 Cortaro Points and the Archaic of Southern Arizona. Kiva 57:353-370.

Sayles, E. B. 1983 The Cochise Cultural Sequence in Southeastern Arizona. Anthropological Papers No. 42. University of Arizona, Tucson.

Sayles, E. B., and Ernst Antevs 1941 The Cochise Culture. Medallion Papers XXIX. Gila Pueblo, Globe.

Schaafsma, Polly 1980 Hunters and Gatherers. In Indian Rock Art of the Southwest, by Polly Schaafsma, pp. 33-80. School of American Research, Santa Fe.

Schroedl, Alan R. 1977 The Grand Canyon Figurine Complex. American Antiquity 42:254- 265.

1977 The Paleo-Indian Period on the Colorado Plateau. Southwestern Lore 43(3):1-9.

Shoshani, Jeheskel 1990 Distribution of Mammut americanum in the New World. Current Research in the Pleistocene 7:124-126.

Smith, Bruce D. 1992 Prehistoric Plant Husbandry in Eastern North America. In The Origins of Agriculture, edited by C. Wesley Cowan and Patty Jo Watson, pp. 101-120. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Speth, John D. 1990 The Study of Hunter-Gatherers in the American Southwest: New Insights from Ethnology. In Perspectives on Southwestern Prehistory, edited by Paul E. Minnis and Charles L. Redman, pp. 15-25. Westview Press, Boulder.

Stanford, Dennis J., and James S. Day (editors) 1992 Ice Age Hunters of the Rockies. Denver Museum of Natural History, Denver, and University Press of Colorado, Niwot, Colorado.

Taylor, R. E. 1991 Frameworks for Dating the Late Pleistocene Peopling of the Americas. In The First Americans: Search and Research, edited by Tom D. Dillehay and David J. Meltzer, pp. 77-111. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.

Taylor, R. E., L. A. Payen, C. A. Prior, P. J. Slota, Jr., R. Gillespie, J. A. J. Gowlett, R. E. M. Hedges, A. J. T. Jull, T. H. Zabel, D. J. Donahue, and R. Berger 1985 Major Revisions in the Pleistocene Age Assignments for North American Human Skeletons by C-14 Accelerator Mass Spectrometry: None Older than 11,000 C-14 Years B.P. American Antiquity 50(1):136-140.

Toth, Nicholas 1991 The Material Record. In The First Americans: Search and Research, edited by Tom D. Dillehay and David J. Meltzer, pp. 53-76. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.

Turner, Christy G., II 1985 The Dental Search For Native American Origins. In Out of Asia, Peopling the Americas and the Pacific, edited by Robert Kirk and Emoke Szathmary, pp.31-78. Journal of Pacific History, Canberra, Australia.

1986 The First Americans: The Dental Evidence. National Geographic Research 2(1):37-46.

1992 New World Origins: New Research from the Americas and the Soviet Union. In Ice Age Hunters of the Rockies, edited by Dennis J. Stanford and James S. Day, pp. 7-50. Denver Museum of Natural History, Denver, and University Press of Colorado, Niwot, Colorado.

Vierra, Bradley J. 1990 Archaic Hunter-Gatherer Archaeology in Northwestern New Mexico. In Perspectives on Southwestern Prehistory, edited by Paul E. Minnis and Charles L. Redman, pp. 57-67. Westview Press, Boulder.

Wallace, Henry D., and James P. Holmlund 1986 Petroglyphs of the Picacho Mountains, South Central Arizona. Institute for American Research Anthropological Papers No. 6. Tucson.

Warren, Claude N. 1967 The San Dieguito Complex: A Review and Hypothesis. American Antiquity 32(2):168-185

Warren, Claude N., and D. L. True 1961 The San Dieguito Complex and its Place in California Prehistory. In University of California Archaeological Survey Annual Report, 1960-1961, pp. 246-338. Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Waters, Michael R. 1990 Late Quaternary Alluvial Stratigraphy and Early Holocene Archaeology of Whitewater Draw, Arizona. In Archaeological Geology of North America, edited by Norman P. Lasca and Jack Donahue, pp. 315-322. Geological Society of America, Boulder.

Wendorf, Fred, and Tully Thomas 1951 Early Man Sites Near Concho, Arizona. American Antiquity 17(2):107-114.

Whalen, Norman M. 1973 Agriculture and the Cochise. The Kiva 39:89-96.

1975 Cochise Site Distribution in the San Pedro Valley. The Kiva 40:203-211.

Wheat, Joe Ben 1967 A Paleo-Indian Bison Kill. Scientific American 216(1):44-52.

White, James M., Rolf W. Mathewes, and William H. Mathews 1985 Late Pleistocene Chronology and Environment of the "Ice-Free Corridor" of Northwestern Alberta. Quaternary Research 24(2):173-186.

Whitley, David S., and Ronald I. Dorn 1993 New Perspectives on the Clovis Vs. Pre-Clovis Controversy. American Antiquity 58(4):626-647.

Wills, Wirt Henry, III 1988 Early Prehistoric Agriculture in the American Southwest. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

AAS Copyright 2002 Tab 5, Page 20 Advanced SW Archaeology Revised October 2002 1990 Cultivating Ideas: The Changing Intellectual History of the Introduction of Agriculture in the American Southwest. In Perspectives on Southwestern Prehistory, edited by Paul E. Minnis and Charles L. Redman, pp. 319-331. Westview Press, Boulder.

Wilmsen, Edwin N., and Frank H. H. Roberts, Jr. 1984 Lindenmeier, 1934-1974: Concluding Report on Investigations. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology 24. Reprinted. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington. Originally published 1978, Government Printing Office, Washington.

Windmiller, Ric 1971 Early Hunters and Gatherers in Southeastern Arizona. The Cochise Quarterly 1(2):3-15.

1973 The Late Cochise Culture in the Sulphur Springs Valley, Southeastern Arizona: Archaeology of the Fairchild Site. The Kiva 39:131-169.

Windmiller, Ric, and Bruce B. Huckell 1973 Desert Culture Sites Near Morman Lake, Northern Arizona. The Kiva 39:199-211.

Wilmsen, Edwin N. 1970 Lithic Analysis and Cultural Inference: A Paleo-Indian Case. Anthropological Papers No. 42. University of Arizona, Tucson.

Woodbury, Richard B., and Ezra B. W. Zubrow 1979 Agricultural Beginnings, 2000 B.C.-A.D. 500. In Southwest, edited by Alfonso Ortiz, pp. 43-60. Handbook of North American Indians (Volume 9). Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Wormington, H. Marie 1957 Ancient Man in North America. Fourth revised edition. Denver Museum of Natural History Popular Series, No. 4, Denver.

1961 Prehistoric Indians of the Southwest. Denver Museum of Natural History Popular Series, No. 7, Denver.

Zubrow, Ezra B. W. 1972 Carrying Capacity and Dynamic Equilibrium in the Prehistoric Southwest. In Contemporary Archaeology, edited by M. Leone, pp. 268-279. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.

PURPOSE

This class will review the current literature on archaeoastronomy in the American Southwest, discuss important issues relating to the naked eye observation of celestial objects in the night sky, and cover basic recordation techniques and methods. This class will sample a small portion of a large body of literature on archaeoastronomy. Mesoamerican archaeoastronomy will be included because of the influence of Mesoamerican cultures on the Southwest and because of the advanced state of archaeoastronomy studies in Middle America.

Archaeoastronomy is most productive when undertaken as an anthropological study that uses archaeological and astronomical methods and theories. It should include the study of both the landscape and the night sky surrounding an archaeoastronomy site or location, as well as the cultural context in which the ancient/historic astronomy took place. Thus, ethnographic information, when available, should be used to develop research designs and for assisting interpretation; archaeological methods should be applied to the recordation and measurements of alignments; and knowledge of naked eye astronomy is essential.

Three types of archaeoastronomy phenomena in the Southwest will be studied in class and in the field: (1) Alignments of petroglyphs, buildings, cairns, or trails with celestial phenomena (sunrise, sunset, moonrise, moonset, planets, constellations or star clusters, etc.); (2) light and shadow interaction with rock art panels during certain times of the year; and (3) recorded oral traditions, songs, poems, and other ethnographic data that provide cultural context for understanding prehistoric astronomy.

Students in this class will create a notebook that summarizes the main points covered in the readings and in class, and will prepare a field journal describing field observations made by the student during the class. In addition, students will prepare a short (5-7 page) research paper that covers reading materials not assigned in class (see bibliography for additional references).

COURSE OBJECTIVES

At the conclusion of the course, students are expected to:

AAS Copyright 2006 1 of 27 Archaeoastronomy of the Southwest Released September 2007 1. Understand the issues involved in observation of celestial objects with the naked eye 2. Understand the ethnographic basis of astronomical observation 3. Be able to use basic recordation techniques and methods 4. Appreciate the importance of research designs in archaeoastronomy studies 5. Be able to understand and describe alignments of various man-made structures with astronomical objects and events. 6. Observe and describe solar interactions with rock art panels 7. Understand how and why astronomical observation was used in various significant cultures related to the American Southwest: Mesoamerican, Hohokam, Pueblo, Navajo, Apache, and others PREREQUISITES

The only requirement is the completion of Prehistory of the Southwest I or permission of the instructor.

COURSE FORMAT

The course is designed to be presented in approximately 34 hours, with 20 hours of lecture (as indicated under the Classroom Instruction Section) and 14 hours of laboratory/field experience. Classroom instruction occurs from 6:30 to 9:00 pm once a week for eight sessions. Field observations take place during the week and on weekends.

FIELD WORK

Visits by individual students or groups of students to local sites for observation will be determined during the course. Some field observations will be required for individual students on their own and some will be done together as a class under the supervision of the instructor.

LABORATORY/FIELD MATERIALS

All students will be required to create a journal that records their field observations.

REQUIRED READING

A package of articles and book chapters. Optional book: Skywatchers. Revised Edition, Anthony F. Aveni (2001).

I. Introduction to Archaeoastronomy Issues

Topics covered in this class session include the classification of celestial phenomena based on the strength of impression on a naked eye observer, the celestial sphere, charting the sun’s movement, and moon and eclipse cycles.

Reading for this session:

• Sinclair, Rolf (2006) “The Nature of Archaeoastronomy,” In Viewing the Sky Through Past and Present Cultures. • Ruggles, Clive (1999) “Wider Issues.” In Astronomy in Prehistoric Britain and Ireland. • Williamson, Ray and Claire Farrer (1992) “The Animating Breath,” In Earth and Sky.

Field Exercise No. 1 (Night Sky): Students will examine the night sky and plot the most obvious star clusters (constellations) as they see them using graph paper. Position the polar star in the middle of the page. Record time, date, and location. In addition, find a location to place a stick about 1 foot (30 cm) in height that will cast a shadow and then record that shadow over the course of the class, both at the same time and at different times of the day, if possible.

II. Ethnographic Studies in Southwest Astronomy

This class session reviews ethnographic information on astronomy for the Pueblos, Eastern Pueblos, Zuni, Hopi, Navajo, Mescalero Apache, Jicarilla Apache, Seri, Tohono O’odham, Pima, Maricopa, Cocopa, Havasupai, Walapai, and Yavapai.

Reading for this session: • Zeilik, Michael (1988) “Astronomy and Ritual: The Rhythm of the Sacred Calendar of the U.S. Southwest.” • Miller, Dorcas S. (1997) “Chief of the Night: Stars of the Southwest,” In Stars of the First People. • Chamberlain, Von del (2006) “On the Trail of Dinetah Skywatchers: Sun and Moon,” In Viewing the Sky in Past and Present Cultures.

Field Exercise No. 2 (Sunrise and Sunset): Select an archaeological site or prominent natural feature which has a view of the horizon; observe the sunrise over part of the site or AAS Copyright 2006 3 of 27 Archaeoastronomy of the Southwest Released September 2007 natural feature. Find a comfortable and/or obvious location (e.g., open or cleared area, rock seat, etc.) to make this observation. Sketch the sun’s location on the horizon, record its azimuth, and note the direction/angle in which the sun moves up into the sky. Fill out the field form. Repeat this exercise for the sunset from the same observation location.

III. Recordation Techniques and Issues 1

This class session examines naked eye astronomy and recording techniques and forms, including determinig azimuths.

Reading for this session: • Aveni, Anthony (2001) “Astronomy with the Naked Eye,” In Skywatchers. • Johnson, Clay (1992) “A Uniform Technology for Description of Solar Interactions with Rock Art Panels.” • Archaeoastronomy Site Forms

Field Exercise No. 3 (Night Sky): Observe the helical rise and set of several major constellations to help determine the ecliptic and celestial equators. Chart their movement across the sky in your journal, record dates and times. Note the movement of the star clusters you observed in field exercise no. 1.

IV. Recordation Techniques and Issues 2

Recordation is discussed further in this class, including methodological issues, the development of archaeoastronomy research designs, criteria for determining if a site is an observatory, and web-based reporting. There also will be a demonstration of the Redshift Star Chart Computer Program.

Reading for this session: • Bates, Bryan (2005) “A Cultural Interpretation of an Astronomical Calendar (Site #WS 833) at Wupatki National Monument,” In Current Studies in Archaeoastronomy. • Owen, Ann E. (2006) “Archaeoastronomy Test Plan 06-04,” Gila National Forest • Hardman and Hardman (1992) “Linear Solar Observatory: The Development of Concepts of Time and Calendar.” • www.sinaguasunwatchers.com AAS Copyright 2006 4 of 27 Archaeoastronomy of the Southwest Released September 2007 Class Demonstration: Redshift Star Chart Computer Program

Field Exercise No. 4 (Shadow Interactions): Record a mid-day shadow on a rock art panel in your journal. Sketch the shadow’s shape and its relationship to the petroglyph(s). Observe changes in the movement and shape of the shadow over a period of at least an hour. Fill out field form.

V. Mesoamerican Archaeoastronomy

This class session discusses the Mayan 584-day Venus calendar (Dresden Codex), the 260-day calendar, the 365-day calendar, Venus star wars, and astronomy temples. In addition, the class examines the conceptualization of geographic latitude by Mesoamerican groups through solar zenith observations and a complex calendar system, as well as the expansion of the Teotihuacan state during the first millennium A.D. based on archaeological data such as pecked circle crosses, building and site orientations, and culturally modified underground caves illuminated with beams of light during certain times of the year.

Reading for this session: • Broda, Johanna (2006) “Zenith Observations and the Conceptualizaton of Geographic Latitudes in Ancient Mesoamerica,” In Viewing the Sky Through Past and Present Cultures.

• Aveni, Anthony F. (1997) “Power From the Sky: Ancient Maya Astronomy and the Cult of Venus,” In Stairways to the Stars.

Field Exercise No. 5 (Venus): Locate Venus in the night sky; in your journal plot its general location in the sky (cardinal direction and low or high in the sky). Record location (UTMS), date, and time.

VI. Archaeoastronomy of the Pueblos

This class session discusses evidence of archaeoastronomy at Chimney Rock in southwestern Colorado and Chaco Canyon in northwestern New Mexico, as well as the apparent responses among the ancient Pueblos to known solar eclipses during prehistoric times.

AAS Copyright 2006 5 of 27 Archaeoastronomy of the Southwest Released September 2007 Reading for this session: • Malville, J. McKim (1999) “The Calendars of Chimney Rock and the Origins of Chacoan Astronomy.” • Sutcliffe, Ron (2006) “Evaluating the Chimney Rock Pueblo with Respect to Observing the Major Lunar Standstill Moonrises,” In Viewing the Sky Through Past and Present Cultures. • Masse, W. Bruce, and Robert Soklow (2005) “Black Sun and Dark Times: Cultural Responses to Solar Eclipses in the Ancient Pueblo Southwest,” In Current Studies in Archaeosatronomy • Soafer, Anna (1997) “The Primary Architecture of the Chacoan Culture: A Cosmological Expression,” In Anasazi Architecture. • Wolf, Virginia, and Edward Wheeler (2004) “Two Archaeoastronomical Solstice Techniques Utilized in Manco Canyon, Colorado.”

Movie: “The Mystery of Chaco Canyon” by Anna Soafer, narrated by Robert Redford (1999).

Field Exercise No. 6 (Lunar Observation): Examine lunar charts to determine the location and shape of the moon one evening. Observe the night sky from an archaeological site or prominent observation location and observe the rising of the moon. Sketch the moon and its movement in the sky. Record location (UTMS), date, and time.

VII. Hohokam Archaeoastronomy

Examples of Hohokam archaeoastronomy are discussed in this class session, including Casa Grande, the Shaw Butte Hilltop site, and the Hole-in-the Rock at Papago Park in Phoenix.

Reading for this session: • Bostwick, Todd W., and Stan Plum (2005) “The Shaw Butte Hilltop Site: A Prehistoric Hohokam Observatory,” In Current Studies in Archaeoastronomy. • Mixon, Benjamin, and Raymond E. White (1991) “Skywatchers of the Salt River Valley Hohokam” • Malloy, J.P. (1969) The Casa Grande Archaeological Zone.

AAS Copyright 2006 6 of 27 Archaeoastronomy of the Southwest Released September 2007 Field Exercise No. 6 (Sunrise and Sunset, again) Return to the archaeological site or prominent natural feature which has a view of the horizon that you previously recorded; observe the sunrise again over the same part of the site or natural feature. Sketch the sun’s location on the horizon (record azimuth) and note the direction/angle in which the sun moves up into the sky. Fill out field form. Repeat this exercise for the sunset from the same observation location. Note changes in the location of the sun from your previous observations.

VIII. Conclusions

Students will turn in their research paper and journal, and provide a 5-minute oral presentation on their paper to the class.

Ambruster, Carol W., and Tony Hull 2005 “Evidence for Early Navajo Horizon Astronomy in Chaco Canyon,” In Current Studies in Archaeoastronomy: Conversations Across Space and Time, edited by John W. Fountain and Rolf M. Sinclair, pp. 205-220. Durham: Carolina Academic Press.

Aveni, Anthony F., ed. 1982 Archaeoastronomy in the New World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

1997 “Power From the Sky: Ancient Maya Astronomy and the Cult of Venus,” In Stairways to the Stars: Skywatching in Three Great Ancient Cultures, pp 83-133. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

2001 “Astronomy with the Naked Eye,” In Skywatchers, pp. 49-74. Revised Edition. University of Texas Press, Austin.

2003 “Archaeoastronomy in the Ancient Americas,” Journal of Archaeological Research, 11 (2): 149-191.

Bates, Bryan 2005 “A Cultural Interpretation of an Astronomical Calendar (Site #WS 833) at Wupatki National Monument,” In Current Studies in Archaeoastronomy: Conversations Across Space and Time, edited by John W. Fountain and Rolf M. Sinclair, pp. 133-150. Carolina Academic Press, Durham.

Bates, Bryan, and Leah Coffman 2000 “Potential Astronomical Calendars and A Cultural Interpretation Thereof Along the Palat’kwapi Trail of North Central Arizona,” In Astronomy and Cultural Diversity: Proceedings of the Oxford VI International Conference on Archaeoastronomy, edited by Cesar Esteban and Juan Antonio Belmonte, pp. 125-131. Tenerife: Museum de la Ciencia y el Cosmos.

Bohrer, Vorsila L. 1994 “Maize in Middle American and Southwestern United States Agricultural Traditions.” In Corn and Culture in the Prehistoric New World, edited by Sissel Johannessen and Christine A. Hastorf, pp. 459-512. Boulder: Westview Press.

Bostwick, Todd W. 2002 “Saluting the Sun: A Hohokam Calendar,” In Landscape of the Spirits: Hohokam Rock Art at South Mountain Park, pp.173-203 . Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

AAS Copyright 2006 8 of 27 Archaeoastronomy of the Southwest Released September 2007 Bostwick, Todd W., and Bryan Bates 2000 “Issues in Archaeoastronomy Methodology,” in Astronomy and Cultural Diversity: Proceedings of the Oxford VI International Conference, edited by Cesar Esteban and Juan Antonio Belmonte, pp. 147-156. Tenerife: Museo de la Ciencia y el Cosmos.

Bostwick, Todd W., and Stan Plum. 2005 “The Shaw Butte Hilltop Site: A Prehistoric Hohokam Observatory,” In Current Studies in Archaeoastronomy: Conversations Across Space and Time, edited by John W. Fountain and Rolf M. Sinclair, pp. 151-160. Durham: Carolina Academic Press.

Brandt, John C., Stepehn P. Maran, Ray A. Williamson, Rpnert S. Harrington, Clarion Cochran, Murial Kennedy, William J. Kennedy, and Von Del Chamberlain 1975 “Possible Rock Art Records of the Crab Nebula Supernova in the Western United States,” In Archaeastronomy In Pre-Columbian America, edited by Anthony F. Aveni, pp. 49-58. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Britt, Claude, Jr. 1975 Early Navajo Astronomical Pictographs in Canyon de Chelly, Northeastern Arizona, U.S.A.,” In Archaeoastronomy in Pre- Columbian America, edited by Anthony F. Aveni, pp. 89-108. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Broda, Johanna 2006 “Zenith Observations and the Conceptualizaton of Geographic Latitudes in Ancient Mesoamerica: A Historical Interdisciplinary Approach,” In Viewing the Sky Through Past and Present Cultures: Selected Papers from the Oxford VII International Conference on Archaeoastronomy, edited by Todd W. Bostwick and Bryan Bates, Pueblo Grande Museum Anthropology Papers No. 15, Phoenix.

Carlson, John B. 1987 Romancing the Stone, or Moonshine on the Sun Dagger,” In Astronomy and Ceremony in the Prehistoric Southwest, edited by John B. Carlson and W. James Judge, pp. 71-88. Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, Anthropological Papers No. 2, Albuquerque.

Carlson, John B., and W. James Judge, eds. 1987 Astronomy and Ceremony in the Prehistoric Southwest. Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, Anthropological Papers No. 2, Albuquerque.

Carrasco, David. 1997 “Star Gatherers and Wobbling Suns: Astral Symbolism in the Aztec Tradition,” History of Religions 26: 279-294.

AAS Copyright 2006 9 of 27 Archaeoastronomy of the Southwest Released September 2007 Chamberlain, Von Dell, William R. Latady, and Todd Prince 2006 “A Sunrise Calendar at a Kayenta Anasazi Village,” In Current Studies in Archaeoastronomy: Conversations Across Space and Time, edited by John W. Fountain and Rolf M. Sinclair, pp. 161- 168. Durham: Carolina Academic Press.

Chamberlain, Von Dell, and Hugh Rogers 2005 “Tracking Stars in Dinetah: Astronomical Symbolism in Gobernador Phase Rock Art,” In Current Studies in Archaeoastronomy: Conversations Across Space and Time, edited by John W. Fountain and Rolf M. Sinclair, pp. 221-242. Durham: Carolina Academic Press.

2006 “On the Trail of Dinetah Skywatchers: Sun and Moon,” In Viewing the Sky Through Past and Present Cultures: Selected Papers from the Oxford VII International Conference on Archaeoastronomy, edited by Todd W. Bostwick and Bryan Bates, pp. 155-168. Pueblo Grande Museum Anthropology Papers No. 15, Phoenix.

Childrey, Don 2004 Star Trails Navajo: A Different Way to Look at the Night Sky. Victoria, Canada: Tarfford.

Digby, Adrian 1974 “Crossed Trapezes: A Pre-Columbian Astronomical Instrument,” In Mesoamerican Archaeology: New Approaches, edited by Norman Hammond, pp. 271-283. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Ellis, Florence Hawley 1975 “A Thousand Years of the Pueblo Sun-Moon-Star Calendar,” In Archaeoastronomy in Pre-Columbian America, edited by A. F. Aveni, pp. 59-87. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Ellis, Florence Hawley, and Laurens Hammack 1968 “The Inner Sanctum of Feather Cave, A Mogollon Sun and Earth Shrine Linking Mexico and the Southwest,” American Antiquity 33 (1): 25-44.

Fairchild, Gary, J. McKim Malville, and Nancy J. Malville 2006 “Chimney Rock as a Ceremonial Center and Port-of-Trade Within the Chaco System,” In Viewing the Sky Through Past and Present Cultures: Selected Papers from the Oxford VII International Conference on Archaeoastronomy, edited by Todd W. Bostwick and Bryan Bates, pp. 259-274. Pueblo Grande Museum Anthropology Papers No. 15, Phoenix.

AAS Copyright 2006 10 of 27 Archaeoastronomy of the Southwest Released September 2007 Fewkes, Jesse Walter 1898 “The Winter Solstice Ceremony at Walpi,” American Anthropologist 9 (3 and 4): 65-87, 101-115.

Fountain, John W. 2005 “A Database of Rock Art Solar Markers,” In Current Studies in Archaeoastronomy: Conversations Across Space and Time, edited by John W. Fountain and Rolf M. Sinclair, pp. 101-108. Durham: Carolina Academic Press.

Griffin-Pierce, Trudy 1992 Earth is My Mother, Sky is My Father: Space, Time and Astronomy in Navajo Sandpainting. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Haile, Berard 1947 Starlore Among the Navajo. Museum of Navajo Ceremonial Art, Santa Fe.

Hardman, Clark, Jr. and Marjorie Hardman. 1992 “Linear Solar Observatory: The Development of Concepts of Time and Calendar,” North American Archaeologist 13: 22, 149-172.

Heim, Dan 1997 Easy Field Guide to The Southwestern Night Sky. Phoenix: American Traveler Press.

Hoskinson, Tom 2005 “Calendric Investigations of a Complex Petroglyph Panel at a Gila River Archaeological Site in Arizona,” In Current Studies in Archaeoastronomy: Conversations Across Space and Time, edited by John W. Fountain and Rolf M. Sinclair, pp. 169-179. Durham: Carolina Academic Press.

Jett, Stephen C. 1984 “Making the Stars of Navajo Planetaria,” The Kiva 50 (1): 25- 40.

Johnson, Clay 1991 “Accuracy and Declination: Using Panel Activity to Answer Rock Art Questions,” In Utah Rock Art 9: 8.1-8.46.

1992a “Establishing A Uniform Technology for Description of Solar Interactions with Rock Art Panels,” Utah Rock Art 10: 33-45.

1992b “Methodology for Identifying, Observing, Recording, and Reporting Solar Interactive Rock Art Panels,” Utah Rock Art 10: 46- 57.

AAS Copyright 2006 11 of 27 Archaeoastronomy of the Southwest Released September 2007 Kriss, Victor 1989 “Mimbres-Mogollon Archaeoastronomy: Another Connection Between Mesoamerica and the Southwest,” Rock Art Papers 6, edited by Ken Hedges, pp. 25-28. San Diego: San Diego Museum of Man.

Krupp, E.C. 1983 Echoes of the Ancient Sky. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc.

1987 Skywatchers,, Shamans, and Kings: Astronomy and the Archaeology of Power. New York: Wiley Popular Science.

2000 “Rock Art and Astronomy in Baja California,” In Astronomy and Cultural Diversity: Proceedings of the Oxford VI International Conference on Archaeoastronomy, edited by Cesar Esteban and Juan Antonio Belmonte, pp. 133-139. Tenerife: Museum de la Ciencia y el Cosmos.

Lekson, Stephen H. 1999 The Chaco Meridian: Centers of Political Power in the Ancient Southwest. Walnut Creek, CA.: AltaMira Press.

Malloy, J.P. 1969 The Casa Grande Archaeological Zone. Ms. on file, Pueblo Grande Museum, Phoenix.

Malville, J. McKim 1999 “The Calendars of Chimney Rock and the Origins of Chacoan Astronomy,” Southwestern Lore 65 (1): 4-18.

2004 “Ancient Time and Space in the Canyons,” In Canyon Spirits: Beauty and Power in the Ancestral Puebloan World, Stephen H. Lekson and J. McKim Malville, pp. 65-86. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Malville, J. McKim, and Claudia Putnam 1989 Prehistoric Astronomy in the Southwest. Boulder: Johnson Books.

Maryboy, Nancy, and David Begay 2006 “Finding the Thunderbird in Navajo Astronomy,” In Viewing the Sky Through Past and Present Cultures: Selected Papers from the Oxford VII International Conference on Archaeoastronomy, edited by Todd W. Bostwick and Bryan Bates, pp. 149-154. Pueblo Grande Museum Anthropology Papers No. 15, Phoenix.

AAS Copyright 2006 12 of 27 Archaeoastronomy of the Southwest Released September 2007 Masse, W. Bruce, and Robert Soklow 2005 “Black Sun and Dark Times: Cultural Responses to Solar Eclipses in the Ancient Pueblo Southwest,” In Current Studies in Archaeoastronomy: Conversations Across Space and Time, edited by John W. Fountain and Rolf M. Sinclair, pp. 47-68. Carolina Academic Press, Durham.

Mayer, Dorothy 1977 “An Examination of Miller’s Hypothesis,” In Native American Astronomy, edited by Anthony F. Aveni, pp. 179-201. Austin: University of Texas Press.

McCluskey, Stephen C. 1977 “The Astronomy of the Hopi Indians,” Journal for the History of Astronomy 8:174-195.

1982 “Historical Astronomy: The Hopi Example,” In Archaeastronomy of the New World, edited by Anthony F. Aveni. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

1988 “The Probability of Noontime Shadows at Three Petroglyph Sites on Fajada Butte,” Archaeoastromomy 19: S70-72.

1990 “Calendars and Symbolism: Functions of Observation in Hopi Astronomy,” Archaeoastronomy 15: S1-S16.

Miller, Dorcas S. 1997 “Chief of the Night: Stars of the Southwest,” In Stars of the First People: Native American Star Myths and Constellations, pp. 173-214. Pruett Publishing Company, Boulder.

Miller, William C. 1955 “Two Possible Astronomical Pictographs Found in Northern Arizona,” Plateau 27(4): 6-13.

Mixon, Benjamin L. 1998 A Mogollon Star Map at Roudy Crossing AZ:P:12:22. Ms on file, Pueblo Grande Museum, Phoenix.

Mixon, Benjamin, and Raymond E. White 1991 “Skywatchers of the Salt River Valley Hohokam,” The Astronomy Quarterly 8: 245-259.

Preston, Robert, and Ann Preston 1987 “Evidence for Calendric Function at 19 Prehistoric Petroglyph Sites in Arizona,” In Astronomy and Ceremony in the Prehistoric Southwest, edited by John Carlson and W. James Judge, 191-203. Maxwell Museum Anthropological Papers No. 2.

AAS Copyright 2006 13 of 27 Archaeoastronomy of the Southwest Released September 2007 2005 “Consistent Forms of Solstice Sunlight Interactions with Petroglyphs throughout the Prehistoric American Southwest,” In Current Studies in Archaeoastronomy: Conversations Across Space and Time, edited by John W. Fountain and Rolf M. Sinclair, pp. 109- 119. Durham: Carolina Academic Press, 2005.

Reddy, Francis, and Greg Walz-Chojnacki Celestial Delights: The Best Astronomical Events Through 2010. Berkeley: Celestial Arts.

Reyman, Jonathan E. 1988 “Site 29SJ427, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico: Review and Reevaluation,” In Reflections: Papers on Southwestern Culture History in Honor of Charles H. Lange, edited by Anne Van Ardsall Poore, pp. 211-226, Papers of the Archaeological Society of New Mexico, No. 14.

Ruggles, Clive 1999 Astronomy in Prehistoric Britain and Ireland. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Schaafsma, Polly 2005 “Feathered Stars and Scalps in Pueblo IV,” In Current Studies in Archaeoastronomy: Conversations Across Space and Time, edited by John W. Fountain and Rolf M. Sinclair, pp. 191-204. Durham: Carolina Academic Press.

Soafer, Anna 1997 “The Primary Architecture of the Chacoan Culture: A Cosmological Expression, In Anasazi Architecture and American Design, Baker H. Morrow and V.B. Price, eds., pp. 88-132. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Soafer, Anna, and Rolf Sinclair 1986 “An Appraisal of Michael Zeilik’s ‘A Reassessment of the Fajada Butte Solar Marker’,” Archaeoastronomy 10: S59-69.

“Astronomical Markings at Three Sites on Fajada Butte,” In Astronomy and Ceremony in the Prehistoric Southwest, edited by John B. Carlson and W. James Judge, pp. 43-70. Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, Anthropological Papers No. 2, Albuquerque.

Soafer, Anna, Voler Zinser, and Rolf Sinclair 1979 “A Unique Solar Marking Construct,” Science, Vol. 206, No. 4416.

AAS Copyright 2006 14 of 27 Archaeoastronomy of the Southwest Released September 2007 Soafer, Anna, Rolf M. Sinclair, and L.E. Doggett 1982 “Lunar Markings on Fajada Butte, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico,” In Archaeoastronomy in the New World, edited by Anthony F. Aveni, pp. 169-180.

Sinclair, Rolf 2006 “The Nature of Archaeoastronomy,” In Viewing the Sky Through Past and Present Cultures: Selected Papers from the Oxford VII International Conference on Archaeoastronomy, edited by Todd W. Bostwick and Bryan Bates, Pueblo Grande Museum Anthropology Papers No. 15, Phoenix.

Sutcliffe, Ron 2006 “Evaluating the Chimney Rock Pueblo With Respect to Observing the Major Lunar Standstill Moonrises: Potential Architectural Encoding of Astronomic Knowledge,” In Viewing the Sky Through Past and Present Cultures: Selected Papers from the Oxford VII International Conference on Archaeoastronomy, edited by Todd W. Bostwick and Bryan Bates, pp. 275-286. Pueblo Grande Museum Anthropology Papers No. 15, Phoenix.

Talayesva, Don, and Robert V. Hine (Leo W. Simmons, ed) 1963 Sun Chief: The Autobiography of a Hopi Indian. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Wetherill, Chris 1991 “Astronomical Imagery in Navajo Weaving,” The Astronomy Quarterly 8: 37-46.

Williamson, Ray A. 1984 Living the Sky: The Cosmos of the American Indian. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

1981 Archaeoastronomy in the Americas. College Park, MD.: Center for Archaeoastronomy.

Williamson, Ray A., and Claire R. Farrer 1992 Earth and Sky: Visions of the Cosmos in Native American Folklore. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, 1992.

Williamson, Ray A., and M. Jane Young 1979 “An Equinox Sun Petroglyph Panel at Hovenweep National Monument,” American Indian Rock Art 5: 71-75.

Wolf, Virginia S. “McElmo Rockshelter: An Anasazi Time-Depicting Site.” In Rock Art Papers 15, edited by Ken Hedges, pp. 83-90. San Diego Museum of Man.

AAS Copyright 2006 15 of 27 Archaeoastronomy of the Southwest Released September 2007 Wolf, Virginia S., and Edward A. Wheeler 2004. “Two Archaeoastronomical Solstice Techniques Utilized in Mancos Canyon, Colorado,” Southwestern Lore 70 (2): 33-48.

Young, M. Jane 1986 “The Interrelationship of Rock Art and Astronomical Practice in the American Southwest,” Archaeoastronomy 10: S43-S58.

1992 “Morning Star, Evening Star: Zuni Traditional Stories,” In Earth and Sky: Visions of the Cosmos in Native American Folklore, edited by Ray A. Williamson and Claire R. Farrer, pp. 76-100, Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Zeilik, Michael 1985a “The Ethnoastronomy of the Historic Pueblos I: Calendrical Sun Watching,” Archaeoastronomy 8.

1985b “A Reassessment of the Fajada Butte Solar Marker,” Archaeoastronomy 9:S69-85.

1885c “Sun Shrines and Sun Symbols in the U.S. Southwest,” Archaeoastronomy 9: S86-S96.

1988 “Astronomy and Ritual: The Rhythm of the Sacred Calendar in the U.S. Southwest,” New Directions in American Archaeoastronomy, BAR International Series 454: 183-199.

1989 “Keeping the Sacred and Planting Calendar: Archaeoastronomy in the Pueblo Southwest,” In World Archaeoastronomy, edited by Anthony F. Aveni, pp. 143-166. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

1991 “Historic Lunar Calendar in the Pueblo Southwest: Examples from Zuni and Hopi,” The Astronomy Quarterly 8: 89-.

Zoll, Kenneth J. 2006 Sinagua Sunwatchers: An Archaeoastronomy Suvery of the V-V Heritage Site. Privately published.

Archaeoastronomy Forms

Site No./Name______Other ______

Recorder: ______Date: ______

Comments: ______

Site No./Name______Recorder(s)______Panel No.______Element No. ______Other ______UTMS______Date(s) of Observations [enter date] Summer Solstice (SS):______August Crossquarter(Acq):______Autumn Equinox (AE):______November Crossquarter(Ncq):______Winter Solstice (WS):______February Crossquarter(Fcq):______Vernal Equinox (VE):______May Crossquarter(Mcq):______Other Days______Light and Shadow Movements AM PM 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Hour SS Acq AE Ncq WS Fcq VE Mcq Other Other [X] Dark (Shadow) [O] Lit [--]Both Shadow and Light on Element(s) [No] No observation Sketch Map North?

Light and Shadow Shapes on Petroglyph(s): [see form terminology] (enter date/time) ______( )______( )______( ) ______( )______( )______( ) ______( )______( )______( )

Sunlight Shadow

TWB Archaeoastronomy Form 7/7/2006

Site No./Name______Recorder(s)______

Dates Recorded______UTMS______

Panels/Elements______Time(s) of Event______

Azimuth (Compass Bearing) from Place of Observation to Horizon Event ______

Comments: ______

Sketch Map Eastern Horizon

Summer Solstice Equinox Winter Solstice Sunrise Sunrise Sunrise

Horizon______

Describe Horizon:______AAS Copyright 2006 21 of 27 Archaeoastronomy of the Southwest RDeleasesedcr Septibeem Pberlac 2007e of Observation: ______TWB Horizon Map East 7/7/2006 ARCHAEOASTRONOMY WESTERN HORIZON SUNSET RECORD

Site No./Name______Recorder(s)______

Dates Recorded______UTMS______

Panels/Elements______Time(s) of Events: ______

Azimuth (Compass Bearing) from Place of Observation to Horizon Event ______

Comments: ______

Sketch Map Western Horizon

Summer Solstice Equinox Winter Solstice Sunset Sunset Sunset

Horizon______

Describe Horizon: ______AAS Copyright 2006 22 of 27 Archaeoas Desctrronomibey Pofl acthee Sout ofhw Oesbt servation: Rel______eased September 2007 ______TWB Horizon Map West 7/7/2006 ARCHAEOASTRONOMY ROCK ART/ARCHITECTURE NIGHT SKY RECORD

Site No./Name______Recorder(s)______

Dates Recorded______UTMS______

Panels/Architecture______Time(s) of Event______

Azimuth (Compass Bearing) from Place of Observation to Star Cluster ______

Describe Star Cluster(s) [Constellation] and Alignment(s) with Archaeological Feature(s): ______

Sketch Map of Night Sky

Horizon______

AAS Copyright 2006 24 of 27 Archaeoastronomy of the Southwest Released September 2007 AAS Copyright 2006 25 of 27 Archaeoastronomy of the Southwest Released September 2007 AAS Copyright 2006 26 of 27 Archaeoastronomy of the Southwest Released September 2007 AAS Copyright 2006 27 of 27 Archaeoastronomy of the Southwest Released September 2007 ARCHAEOLOGICAL MAPPING TECHNIQUES

PURPOSE

The purpose of this course is to provide the basic academic and field skill to permit the avocational archaeologist the ability to undertake most mapping programs used in survey and excavation projects of the AAS and to provide assistance to the professional community as may be requested.

OBJECTIVES

At the completion of this course, the student should be able to:

1. Determine the purpose of mapping and the various types of maps which exist.

2. Understand the difference between mapping terms.

3. Name and define the various kinds of archaeological mapping techniques, including GPS.

4. List the various types and functions of instruments and tools used by the archaeologist during mapping projects.

5. Display the ability to use and plot-on USGS Topographic maps; also know of other various map types.

6. Explain how a site is mapped.

7. Indicate the use of photography and its importance in data collection; the same for aerial photography and its importance in site discovery and location plotting.

8. Understand the importance of site spatial relationships and map work/interpretation.

FORMAT

The student will receive a minimum of 12 hours of classroom instruction, coupled with 56 hours of actual field experience. Within the field work requirement, there should be no single specific activity necessary for fulfilling this requirement, though the following conditions must be met;

A. The student mapper should work in at least two different mapping settings, for example, excavation, and survey.

B. The student mapper should experience in the field at least three different mapping methods.

Normally the field work requirements will be fulfilled by work on at least seven different days. The last four hours of field work will be spent in finalizing field notes, site recordation forms, site maps, field maps, and any additional administrative tasks.

A brief final report of the field work undertaken, along with the successful completion of all written and administrative work assigned, coupled with the instructor's evaluation of both the student's classroom and field work, will determine the students successful completion of this course.

COURSE OUTLINE

A. Some general concerns 1. Principles of mapping 2. Organizational aspects of mapping 3. Reasons for mapping a. Locational b. Excavation c. Survey d. How reasons for mapping affect how mapping is undertaken 4. Demands of mapping a. Good physical condition b. Proper clothes and safety precautions c. Field logistics 5. General mapping techniques a. Permits and clearance to do the project and survey particular land areas (i.e., land ownership) b. Background research before entering the field • Historical maps, photographs, reports • Recent field work, maps, report c. Determining site numeric designation system • MNA system • ASM system (including the AZSITE) • ASU system • Forest Service system • BLM system (part of the ASM system) • Smithsonian Institution system • Gladwin System • New Mexico System 6. Kinds of surveying and mapping

B. Aerial mapping 1. Problem formation 2. Aerial photography a. Film types and their applications • B/W • Color AAS Copyright 2002 Tab 6, Page 2 Mapping Techniques Revised October 2002 • Infrared b. Flying altitudes c. Use in survey • Stereo • Viewing, reading aerial photos • Topography review/survey for course plotting • Site discovery • Locational plotting; transferring photo information to topographical maps 3. Determining survey boundaries 4. Boundary effects a. Linear transects, interception theory b. Quadrant block units, boundary bias

C. Mapping basics 1. Basic definitions a. Horizontal plane b. Angle c. Elevation d. Gradient e. Line f. Distance g. Contour h. Leveling 2. Units of measurement defined a. Acre b. Chain c. Degree d. Minutes e. Seconds 3. Environmental variables and mapping techniques: impacts of variation in: a. Soils b. Topography c. Slope d. Vegetation e. Climate f. Sunlight, shadow, reflection g. Surveyor's physical and mental state: tiredness factor 4. Mapping field notes a. Requirements • What constitutes good notes • Kinds of notes • Suggestions on recording notes • Types of field books b. Teamwork and coordination between staff and crew • There is no such thing as a "dumb" question or observation • Talk with each other about what you are seeing and doing

c. Assign specific crew member responsibilities • Record keeping, site survey forms • Topographic map location • Site mapping • Site photography and aerial work • Site boundary determination, site marking (if warranted), site datum placement.

D. Intensive examination of site surface 1. USGS Topographic Maps a. Types • 15 minute • 7.5 minute b. Reading a map • Township, Range, Section • Miles, acres, feet, kilometers, meter • Elevations • UTM's • Longitude and Latitude • Magnetic vs true north c. Using a map • Triangulation • Map wheels • Dot • Grid matrix • General locational plotting procedures d. Using a compass with a topographic map • Types of compasses • Range Finder (Silva) compass • Brunton compass • Setting the declinations for both compasses • Walking a transect line with a compass 2. Other types of area/locational maps

E. Basic site mapping (for both survey and excavation) 1. Site mapping a. Mapping techniques • Compass and pace • Compass and tape • Brunton tripod and tape • Alidade mapping • Theodolite mapping • Global Positioning System instruments b. Establishing a permanent site datum (site tag placement) c. Establishing N/S and E/W base lines

d. Learning typical mapping symbols for features, rocks, trees, artifact scatters, mounds, etc. e. Precise methods vary from site to site and project to project 2. Field photography a. Types of cameras b. Types of film c. Lighting conditions d. Exposure settings e. Scale, directional indicators, and photo f. Keeping photographic records g. Photographic distortion • Large scale objects • Small scale objects h. Photographing site features and artifacts i. Aerial photography of the site

F. Measurements of horizontal distances 1. General methods a. Pacing b. Taping c. Odometer readings d. Electronic Distance Measurement (EDM) e. Tacheometry • Transit/theodolite and stadia rod • Alidade and stadia rod f. Subtence bar g. Global Positioning System 2. Taping a. Care of taping equipment b. Taping on level ground c. Horizontal measurements on uneven ground d. Slope measurements e. Sources of error in taping f. Laying out a right angle with a tape g. Measuring an angle with a tape by the chord method h. Measuring an angle with a tape by the tangent method i. Laying off angles 3. Electronic Distance Measurement (EDM) a. Classification of EDM instruments b. Principles of EDM instrument operation c. Computing horizontal distances from slope distances

G. Leveling 1. Methods for determining differences in elevation 2. Instruments for differential leveling a. Engineer's level b. Transit/theodolite c. EDM d. Hand level e. Alidade and stadia rod AAS Copyright 2002 Tab 6, Page 5 Mapping Techniques Revised October 2002

G. Leveling (continued)

3. Field procedures and computations for differential leveling a. Carrying and setting up the level b. Using a stadia rod c. Differential leveling d. Profile leveling e. Sources of error in leveling

H. Measurements of angles 1. Units of angle measurement 2. Kinds of horizontal angles 3. Direction of a line 4. Bearing versus azimuths 5. Calculation of bearings 6. Measuring angles using a transit/theodolite 7. Measuring angles and computing angles 8. Establishing a datum point 9. Laying off a base line and turning angles from the base line

I. Determining direction 1. Compasses a. Types of compasses b. Their different uses 2. The mysteries of north a. True north versus magnetic north b. Determining and setting magnetic declination 3. Taking a map bearing with a compass 4. Typical problems and sources of error in compass a. Compass out of level b. Pivot needle or sight vanes bent c. Fence lines, power lines, cans, pocket knives, or other metal nearby d. Reading wrong end of compass needle e. Setting declination off wrong side of north

A. SUGGESTED:

Spier, Robert F. G. 1970 Surveying and Mapping: A Manual of Simplified Techniques. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.

B. ADDITIONAL REFERENCES:

Hester, Thomas R., Robert F. Heizer, and John Graham 1975 Field Methods in Archaeology. Mayfield, Palo Alto.

Joukowsky, Martha 1980 A Complete Manual of Field Archaeology: Tools and Techniques of Field Work for Archaeologists. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.

Dancey, William S. 1981 Archaeological Field Methods, An Introduction. Burgess Publishing, Minneapolis.

PURPOSE

Archaeological Photography provides hands-on instruction in practical applications of photography for archaeology in the field and in the studio. The goals are to increase knowledge of participants regarding the needs of the archaeologist, to illustrate how to best achieve the results desired both in the field and studio, and to assist participants in the creation of publication-quality images.

OBJECTIVES

At the completion of this course, the student should be able to:

1. Identify and utilize available lighting conditions to best photograph architectural features, artifacts in situ, and stratigraphy.

2. Optimize existing conditions of light using a minimum of equipment in the field (shade and fill-flash).

3. Utilize available light and flood lights in the studio.

4. Identify and use different methods of magnification of small objects.

5. Define and use technical language of digital photography.

6. Decide on the best equipment for each situation in the field and in the studio.

7. Create photographs which document archaeological features and artifacts for publication.

METHOD OF INSTRUCTION

Five 2 hour lectures with examples of problems and solutions followed by hands-on experiences which provide opportunities for participants to utilize all information gathered in lecture.

EQUIPMENT

35mm camera (SLR preferred), B&W film (TMAX 100 recommended) and color slide film (Kodachrome 64 recommended). Useful if available: line level or small level flash, tripod, 35mm lens, 55 micro lens, or macro dioptors, yellow filter, 85A filter, 80B filter, polarizing filter, cable release.

A. Principles of light 1. Small source a. Sun, flood light, direct flash, household lamp. b. Directional c. Dark hard-edged shadows d. Complicated pictures e. Small and bright lights f. Distinct area between lit area and shadow 2. Medium Source a. Window with no direct sun hitting object, diffused flood lights b. Source approximately as large as it is far from the subject c. Soft-edged shadow area d. Equal emphasis to the highlight, lit area and shadow 3. Large Source a. Overcast sky, bounced flash, full shade b. Source close to subject, surrounds the object with light c. Light from many directions d. Simplifies subject e. Highlights spread out, soft-edged shadows 4. Direction of light a. Top b. Side c. Three quarter d. Front e. Back

B. Depth of field 1. Aperture and depth of field (optimum settings) 2. Schliemflug principle (focus one-third in on subject) 3. Close-up photography and aperture 4. Landscape and depth of field

C. The roles and responsibilities of the archaeological photographer 1. To effectively document the excavation and the objects recovered from the excavation in order to assist the archaeological team with their research 2. To produce publication quality images in both field and lab 3. To keep accurate records of all photographs

D. Field Photography 1. Purposes of photography in the field a. Record progression of excavation from beginning to end b. Provide evidence of information that will be lost through the excavation process c. Document features and artifacts with publishable quality photographs d. Illustrate methods of excavation utilized e. Illustrate artifacts in situ f. Provide a memory of the excavation for team members AAS Copyright 2002 Archaeological Photography Tab 21, Page 2 Revised October 2002 2. Excavation a. Before • panoramic views • aerial views b. During • excavation in progress • people working (avoid backs of heads) • aerial views c. After • panoramic views • close-ups of features • aerial views 3. Equipment and film a. Camera and lenses • 35mm single lens reflex cameras • 55mm, 35mm, 105mm or 85mm, or zoom lenses b. Color film (Kodachrome 64) c. B&W film (TMAX 100) d. Tarps and reflectors e. Ladder f. Scales, north arrow, letter board g. Photo log h. Tripod i. Shutter release j. Flash and light meter 4. Features, stratigraphy, and artifacts in-situ a. Perspective (levelness of camera with respect to feature) b. Lighting • time of day to photo • fill flash for smaller areas • adding shade • using a reflector to bounce light into an area c. Context d. Metering • spot meters vs. averaging meters • basic daylight exposure (in case meter stops working) • gray card e. Depth of field f. Recording data • date • roll number • frame number • subject of photograph • direction facing • comments about time of day, who is in photograph, etc. 5. NAGPRA limitations on photography of burials, cremations, human remains, and associated objects.

E. Studio Photography 1. Lighting a. Types of lights (floods, strobes, daylight) b. Positioning lights (bounced, reflectors, diffusers) 2. Documentation (record keeping and labeling) 3. Perspectives and depth of field 4. Film and color balancing filters (80A) 5. Color bars and scales a. Purpose of scale and color bar b. Sizes to use c. Placement in frame in relation to object 6. Backgrounds 7. Shadowless photographs a. Raised glass method b. Dark background (black velvet) c. Light box method 8. Magnification a. Macro lenses (optimum aperture) b. Diopters c. Teleconverters d. Bellows 9. Props (what to use, what to avoid using)

F. Digital Photography 1. Terms a. Jpeg b. Tif c. Bitmap d. Pixels e. Pixelate f. Resolution g. DPI h. RGB 2. Equipment and software 3. Pros 4. Cons

G. Assessments/critique of photographs 1. Lighting 2. Composition 3. Details (scales, north arrow, cleanliness, etc.)

Dorrell, P. 1989 Photography in Archaeology and Conservation. Cambridge University Press

Harp, E. 1975 Photography in Archaeological Research. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press

Howell, C. L. and Blanc, W. 1992A Practical Guide to Archaeological Photography. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Institute of Archaeology

Lefkowitz, L. 1979 The Manual of Close-up Photography. American, Garden City NY, Photographic Book Publishing Co. Inc.

Levine, Aaron M. 1986 Excavation Photography - A Day on a Dig. Archaeology. 39 (1): 34-39

Simmons, H. C. 1969 Archaeological Photography. New York University Press.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this class is to give members of the AAS a working knowledge and ability to sort prehistoric ceramics found in Arizona. The course is intended to focus on a specific site, or series of related sites, or region of the state. Members may take this class several times to become proficient with the ceramics of various prehistoric culture areas. Prior to the class being taught the instructor shall prepare, for review and approval by the Certification Department, a detailed syllabus that focuses on the ceramic assemblage specific to the sites or region of the state of interest. The detailed syllabus shall include particulars, as they relate to the sites or region, relative to the specific types and wares to be considered and to the appropriate sections of the course outline.

Emphasis is placed on identifying specific ceramic types, recognizing vessel forms from sherds, the relationship between research questions and the design of ceramic analysis, and the key technological attributes of ceramics that are most useful for recognizing specific types.

Another purpose of the course is to build upon the technical information learned by those members who have completed the Pottery Technology course.

PREREQUISITES

The only required Prerequisite is to have successfully completed Prehistory of the Southwest.

Completion of Crew Member I, Laboratory Techniques I, and Pottery Technology is strongly recommended. Participation in the Crew Member I and Laboratory Techniques courses at the sites or in the region upon which the class will focus would be most meaningful for class participants.

FORMAT

The course is designed to be presented in 80 hours, with 20 hours of lecture and 60 hours of laboratory experience. Optional field trips would be included within the laboratory hours.

At the conclusion of the course, students will:

A. Have working knowledge to recognize many of the ceramic types that characterize the site(s) or region of prehistoric Arizona upon which the class is focused.

B. Be able to sort, with various degrees of familiarity, a number of prehistoric ceramic types and wares specific to the site(s) or region upon which the class is focused.

C. Understand the relationship between research topics and analysis forms.

D. Be able to identify the basic characteristics of ceramic technology.

E. Understand the various approaches archaeologists have used to describe ceramic taxonomy.

F. Understand various theories regarding cultural influences on the development of different ceramic traditions.

G. Know the kinds of research topics that can and have been addressed by sherd ceramic sorting. This would include understanding how sherd analysis fits into the overall research design for the sites upon which the class is focused.

COURSE OUTLINE

A. Introduction to the basic ceramic characteristics useful for distinguishing between various wares and types. 1. Clay 2. Identifying slip from a wash or carbon streak 3. Smudging 4. Distinguishing bowl sherds from jar sherds 5. Distinguishing organic from mineral paint 6. Temper 7. Identifying specific tempering materials 8. Distinguishing paddle-and-anvil from coiled manufacturing

B. Classification Systems 1. Details of the classification system in use for the ceramics specific to the site(s) or region of interest. a. History of development of the system b. Ware c. Series d. Type e. Variety f. Principle of Analogous Pottery Types g. Rules of Ceramic Nomenclature h. Broken Rules of Ceramic Nomenclature i. Proper reference style for ceramic nomenclature AAS Copyright 2002 Tab 7, Page 2 Ceramic ID & Analysis Revised October 2002 2. Brief review of other relevant classification systems.

AAS Copyright 2002 Tab 7, Page 3 Ceramic ID & Analysis Revised October 2002 C. Examples of research topics that have been investigated by sherd analysis. 1. Cultural boundaries 2. Trade a. Regional systems b. Localized production and exchange 3. Ware characterizations 4. Dating a. Assemblage dating b. Seriation c. Relative dating 5. Vessel size 6. Culture Change 7. Technology 8. Migration 9. Relationship of sherds to whole vessels 10.Social Status

D. Specific research goals of the course project

This section will be different each time the course is taught. If the course is being taught as a generic course, it will only describe the research topics listed in Section III. If the course is oriented to a specific project, such as Elden Pueblo, Q Ranch, or Quass Pueblo, etc., this section will address the specific research topics for that project.

E. The sherd analysis form. (NOTE: This will vary each time the course is taught.) This topic will generally include the following information: 1. Relationship of the form to research topics Identifying specific ceramic types. 2. Examples of analysis forms and coding instructions 3. The specific form in use for the course and its organization 4. How to code the form 5. Potential data manipulation of analysis categories 6. Applying ceramic counts to the research topics

F. The specific types that will be taught will depend upon what project, site(s), or region, the course is focused upon.

G. Identifying basic characteristics of other (trade) wares. The specific wares that will be taught will depend upon what project, site(s), or region, the course is focused upon.

H. Replicability of results. 1. Typing is a relative concept 2. Replicability Studies

COURSE STRUCTURE

The topics listed above will be taught through a combination of formal lectures to the entire class and then through break-out into smaller groups for hands-on practice with type sherd collections. This will give students the practical knowledge of recognizing the various ceramic types they will encounter.

Once an acceptable lever of competence in the sorting of types is demonstrated, actual sorting of ceramics from the site(s) or region of interest will be undertaken by teams as directed by the instructor. Sorting will be verified by the instructor, and the students will enter the analysis results onto the analysis sheet.

At the close of the course, the teams will be combined into a smaller number of teams representing various locations at the site(s) or within the region. They will combine their sherd counts and prepare preliminary interpretations of their analysis as they relate to the research topics of the analysis. Each team will then present their conclusions to the class. Through group discussion, guided by the instructor, the class will evaluate the results; identify distribution patterns, similarities, and differences; and address potential reasons for these. These discussions will form the basis for suggested additions, corrections, or revisions to the research topics and analysis form.

FIELD TRIPS

Field trips may be conducted to local museums, sites, or universities where complete vessels of the type being studied during the course may be viewed.

TOOLS

Each student should supply their own:

A. 10 power magnifying glass. B. A pliers for nipping the edges of sherds (flat-ended lineman's or stained glass type are recommended). C. A 0.5 mm lead thickness mechanical pencil for completing forms. D. A "Tensor" lamp or other similar desk-top lamp to illuminate individual working areas. E. An extra-fine point black "Sanford" brand "Sharpie" felt tip permanent marker. F. White correction fluid as background for labeling dark colored sherds. G. A 0.1 Micron "Pigma" felt tip marker (manufactured by Sakura Color Product Corporation). This provides a very fine point for writing on small sherds.

Optional supplies which may be useful would include a battery-powered, hand-held microscope; a magnet; and a pocket knife.

Abbott, David R. 1994 Ceramics and the Production and Exchange of Pottery in the Central Phoenix Basin. 2 vols. The Pueblo Grande Project, Soil Systems Publications in Archaeology No. 20, Volume 3, Cory Dale Breternitz, series editor. Soil Systems, Inc., Phoenix.

Baldwin, Anne R., and J. Michael Bremer 1985 Ceramics. In Archaeological Excavations at AZ I:10:30 (ASM) A Sinagua Settlement: Townsend-Divide Unit I, U.S. Highway 89, Coconino County, Arizona, by Martyn D. Tagg and Robert W. Layhe, pp. 25-41. Archaeological Series No. 169. Cultural Resources Management Division, Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson.

Boales, Ralph L., George W. Brainerd, and Watson Smith 1945 Archaeological Studies in Northeastern Arizona. University of California Publications in Archaeology and Ethnology 44(1). Berkeley.

Bennett, M. Anne 1974 Basic Ceramic Analysis. San Juan Valley Archaeological Project Technical Series No. 1. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology Vol.6, No.1. Portales.

Blineman, Eric 1986 Additive Technologies Group Midlevel Research Design, in Dolores Archaeological Program: Research Design and Initial Survey Results, compiled by Allen E. Kane, William D. Lipe, Timothy A. Kohler, and Christine K. Robinson, pp. 56-75. USDI Bureau of Reclamation, Denver.

Bronitsky, Gordon, and Robert Hamer 1986 Experiments in Ceramic Technology: The Effects of Various Tempering Materials on Impact and Thermal-Shock Resistance. American Antiquity 51:89-101.

Carlson, Roy L. 1961 White Mountain Red Ware: A Stylistic Tradition in the Prehistoric Pottery of East Central Arizona. Anthropology Paper No. 19. University of Arizona, Tucson.

Colton, Harold S. 1941 Winona and Ridge Ruin, Part II: Notes on the Technology and Taxonomy of the Pottery. Bulletin No. 19. Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff.

1953 Potsherds: An Introduction to the Study of Prehistoric Southwestern Ceramics and Their Use in Historic Reconstruction. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin No. 25. Flagstaff.

1955 Pottery Types of the Southwest: Tusayan Gray and White Wares; Little Colorado Gray and White Wares. Wares 8A, 8B, 9A, 9B. Bulletin No. 3A. Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff. AAS Copyright 2002 Tab 7, Page 6 Ceramic ID & Analysis Revised October 2002 Colton, Harold S. (continued)

1956 Pottery Types of the Southwest: Wares 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B, 7A, 7B, 7C. San Juan Red Ware, Tsegi Orange Ware, Homolovi Orange Ware, Winslow Orange Ware, Awatovi Yellow Ware, Jeddito Yellow Ware, Sichomovi Red Ware. Ceramic Series No. 3C. Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff.

1958 Pottery Types of the Southwest: Wares 14, 15, 16, 17, 18: Revised Descriptions of Alameda Brown Ware, Prescott Gray Ware, and San Francisco Mountain Gray Ware. Ceramic Series No. 3D. Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff.

1965 Check List of Southwestern Pottery Types. Bulletin No. 2. Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff.

Colton, Harold S., and Lyndon Lane Hargrave 1937 Handbook of Northern Arizona Pottery Wares. Bulletin No. 11. Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff.

Crown, Patricia L., and Ronald L. Bishop 1994 Ceramics and Ideology: Salado Polychrome Pottery. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

David, N. 1972 On the Life Span of Pottery, Type Frequencies, and Archaeological Inference. American Antiquity 37:141-142.

David, N., J. Sterner, and K. Gavua 1988 Why Pots are Decorated. Current Anthropology 29:365-389.

Deetz, J. 1965 The Dynamics of Stylistic Change in Arikara Ceramics. University of Illinois Press, Chicago.

Deutchman, Haree L. 1980 Chemical Evidence of Ceramic Exchange on Black Mesa. In Models and Methods in Regional Exchange, edited by Robert E. Fry. Society for American Archaeology Papers No. 1.

Douglass, Amy A. 1987 Prehistoric Exchange and Sociopolitical Development: The Little Colorado Whiteware Production-Distribution System. PhD Dissertation, Arizona State University, Department of Anthropology. Tempe.

Douglass, Amy A., and Owen Lindauer 1988 Hierarchical and Non-hierarchical Approaches to Ceramic Design Analysis. American Antiquity 53:620-626.

Dunnell, R. C. 1978 Style and Function: A Fundamental Dichotomy. American Antiquity 43:192-202.

AAS Copyright 2002 Tab 7, Page 7 Ceramic ID & Analysis Revised October 2002 Dunnell, R. C., and T. L. Hunt 1990 Elemental Composition and Inference of Ceramic Vessel Function. Current Anthropology 31:330-336.

Ford, James A. 1954 On the Concept of types. American Anthropologist 56:42-54.

Franken, H. J. 1971 Analysis of Methods of Potmaking in Archaeology. Harvard Theological Review 64:227-255.

Gifford, James C. 1960 The Type-Variety Method of Ceramic Classification as an Indicator of Cultural Phenomena. American Anthropologist 25:341-347.

Greer, John W. 1977 Geometric Methods for Computing Vessel Diameters. Southwestern Lore 43:25-28.

Grim, R. E. 1968 Clay Mineralogy. 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill, New York.

Guthe, C. R. 1925 Pueblo Pottery Making. Papers of the Smithsonian Expedition, No. 2. Yale University Press, New Haven.

Hally, D. J. 1986 The Identification of Vessel Function: A Case Study from Northwest Georgia. American Antiquity 51:267-295.

Hawley, Florence 1936 Field Manual of Prehistoric Southwestern Pottery Types. Bulletin, Anthropology Series, Vol.1, No. 4. University Of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

Hegmon, Michelle M. 1990 Style as a Social Strategy: Dimensions of Ceramic Stylistic Variation in the Ninth Century Northern Southwest. PhD Dissertation, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor..

Hendrikson, E., and M. McDonald 1983 Ceramic Form and Function: An Ethnographic Search and Archaeological Application. American Anthropologist 85:630-643.

Hodder, Ian 1981 Comments on Evolution of Specialized Pottery Production: A Trial Model, by Prudence M. Rice. Current Anthropology 22:219-240.

Howard, H., and E. L. Morris (editors) 1981 Production and Distribution: A Ceramic Viewpoint. BAR International Series, 120, Oxford.

Jurnigan, E. W. 1986 A Non-Hierarchical Approach to Ceramic Decoration Analysis: A Southwestern Example. American Antiquity 51:3-20.

Koob, C. C., and L. M. Lackey (editors) 1988 A Pot for All Reasons: Ceramic Ecology Revisited. Laboratory of Anthropology, Temple University, Philadelphia.

LeBlanc, S. A. 1975 Microseriation: A Method for Fine Chronological Differentiation. American Antiquity 40:22-38.

Marquardt, William H. 1978 Advances in Archaeological Seriation. In Advances in Archaeological Methods and Theory I, edited by Michael B. Schiffer. Academic Press, New York.

Matson, F. R. 1965 Ceramics and Man. Publications in Anthropology, No. 41. Viking Fund, New York.

Mills, Barbara J. 1989 Integrating Functional Analysis of Vessels and Sherds Through Models of Ceramic Assemblage Formation. World Archaeology 21:133-147.

Nelson, B. A. (editor) 1985 Decoding Prehistoric Ceramics. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.

Nelson, Fred W., Jr. 1975A Simple Method for Distinguishing Between Organic and Inorganic Paints on Black-on-white Pottery. American Antiquity 40:348-349.

Oppelt, Norman T. 1988 Southwestern Pottery: An Annotated REFERENCES and List of Types and Wares. 2nd ed. The Scarecrow Press, Metuchen, New Jersey.

Plog, Stephen 1976 The Inference of Prehistoric Social Organization from Ceramic Design Variability. Michigan Discussions in Anthropology 1:1-47.

1978 Stylistic Variation in Prehistoric Ceramics: Design Analysis in the American Southwest. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Rice, Prudence M. 1987 Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

AAS Copyright 2002 Tab 7, Page 9 Ceramic ID & Analysis Revised October 2002 Rouse, Irving 1967 Seriation in Archaeology. In American Historical Anthropology: Essays in Honor of Leslie Spier, edited by C. L. Riley and W. W. Taylor, pp. 153-195. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.

Shepard, Anna O. 1961 Ceramics for the Archaeologist. Publication 609. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, D.C.

Sinopoli, Carla M. 1991 Approaches to Archaeological Ceramics. Plenum, New York.

Stanislawski, M. B. 1969 What Good is a Broken Pot? An Experiment in Hopi-Tiwa Ethnoarchaeology. Southwestern Lore 35:11-18. van der Leeuw, S. E., and A. C. Pritchard (editors) 1984 The Many Dimensions of Pottery: Ceramics in Archaeology and Anthropology. University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.

Watson, P. J. 1977 Design Analysis of Painted Pottery. American Antiquity 42:381-393.

Wheat, J., J. Gifford, and W. Wasley 1958 Ceramic Variety, Type Cluster, and Ceramic System in Southwestern Pottery Analysis. American Antiquity 24:34-47.

PURPOSE

The purpose of is course is to provide the basic academic and practical skills needed to give the avocational archaeologist the ability to participate in excavation projects of the Arizona Archaeological Society (AAS), and to give needed assistance to the professional community as a volunteer, or upon request, under the direction of a qualified archaeologist. It is understood that completion of this course in no way indicates the students are authorized to initiate or develop archaeological field work projects on their own. The student receives a minimum of 30 hours of classroom instruction and 40 hours of field work. Further, a written report of all field work, including copies of field forms, must be completed and provided the instructor for evaluation.

OBJECTIVES

At the completion of this course, the student is able to:

1. Define the basic vocabulary of field excavation.

2. Determine the purpose of excavation and the necessity of the process, recognizing that each site is unique and excavation is a destructive process. Excavations should never be undertaken without specific purposes. (See Tab 27: Excavation Criteria)

3. Name and define the various kinds of archaeological sites known to exist.

4. List major types of features and explain various ways of excavating them to maximize data collection.

5. Determine the kinds of tools used by the archaeologist and the appropriate conditions to use them.

6. Explain how a site is mapped from an established grid and all work is recorded.

7. Determine the necessity of keeping horizontal and vertical data control.

8. Indicate the use of photography and its importance in data collection.

9. Describe the use of special techniques and methodologies used by archaeologists such as pollen analysis, flotation, and radiocarbon, archaeomagnetic, and dendrochronology dating methods.

10. Interpret the meaning of artifacts and features in context, including disturbance, multiple components, previous excavations, etc. AAS Copyright 2002 Tab 8, Page 1 Field Crew I Revised October 2002

11. Interpret the implication of spatial relationships.

OBJECTIVES (continued)

12. Understand the basic federal and state requirements for conducting cultural resources investigations, including consulting with Native Americans and others

COURSE OUTLINE

A. List of basic vocabulary items (minimum - more may be added) absolute dating mortar alidade mound analogy natural level arbitrary level palynologist artifact pestle assemblage petroglyph awl pictograph Brunton compass pithouse cist profile connectivity provenience context projectile point contract archaeology rebar culture relative dating dig sampling flotation screen focus sherd grid strata horizon superposition kiva survey lithic test pit locus theodolite mano transit metate trench midden

B. Methods of and/or alternatives to excavation 1. Reasons for excavation 2. Principles of excavation 3. Demands of excavation a. Good physical condition b. Proper clothing and safety precautions, including protection from the sun. 4. Organizational aspects of excavation

C. Types of sites 1. Kinds of sites a. Habitation h. Surface scatter b. Midden i. Rock art c. Quarry j. Multi-component d. Kill. k. Single component e. Trading center l. Stratified f. Ceremonial m. Non-stratified g. Burial n. Plowzone 2. Composition of sites

3. Judgment of site content a. Surface finds b. Size and configuration of the site c. Judicious use of sites d. Various other techniques 4. Variable preservation of data

D. Major features and alternative methods of excavation 1. Bounded 7. Trash mound 2. Non-bounded 8. Trash pit 3. House floor 9. Cremation 4. Plaza 10. Inhumation 5. Kiva 11. Pit Structures 6. Hearth

E. Excavation tools 1. Power tools a. Back hoe, front end loader d. Mechanical screens b. Bulldozer e. Magnetometer c. Auger f. Sonar 2. Non-power tools a. Shovels (various kinds) j. Small brushes b. Pick k. Brooms (various kinds) c. Screens l. Pick-mattock d. Trowels m. Meter stick e. Eye protection n. String and cord f. Protective mask o. Bags (various kinds) g. Buckets p. Stakes and pins h. Dust pans q. 3 meter tape i. Containers (various kinds and sizes)

F. Mapping and gridding 1. Mapping techniques, including use of electronic methods, GPS and difference between NAD 27 and 83) 2. Establishment of N-S, E-W lines 3. Establishment of a permanent datum point 4. Establishment of secondary datum points 5. Development of an expanding grid system 6. Use of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 above by the field worker to control data

G. Site record keeping 1. General note taking 2. Review of mapping and gridding 3. Location of archaeological area to be excavated 4. Precise methods vary from site to site 5. Necessity for accurate records a. Vertical data b. Horizontal data c. Specimen number control 6. Keep each work area neat and clean (messy digs lead to messy recording) 7. Teamwork and coordination between staff and crew a. No such thing as a "dumb" question or observation AAS Copyright 2002 Tab 8, Page 4 Field Crew I Revised October 2002

b. Talk with each other about what you see and are doing

G. Site record keeping (continued)

8. Assign specific responsibility for record keeping 9. Method of bag (specimen) control.

H. Field photography 1. Types of cameras 2. Types of films 3. Lighting conditions 4. Exposure settings 5. Scale and direction indicators 6. Record and non-record photography 7. Photographic distortion a. Large scale objects b. Small scale objects 8. Aerial photography

I. Special excavation techniques 1. Burials a. General rules b. Determining treatment and disposition under NAGPRA & State burial laws. c. Documentation d. Treatment of bone e. Removal from soil f. Field packing 2. Flotation samples a. Collecting of specimen in the field b. Work in field lab • Frothing • Separation of seeds • Soil sifting • Water separation 3. Paleomagnetic dating a. Remove all iron from the vicinity b. Cut sample into units c. Photograph sample in situ d. Encase sample in plaster in situ e. Sample must be leveled as well as true north and magnetic north determined f. Records of the sample 4. Palynology a. Collection of the sample b. Type of sample c. Preservation of the sample d. Storage of the sample 5. Radiocarbon a. Use a clean trowel and other tools b. Indicate if dry or wet (mold growth contamination) c. Place sample in polyethylene bag or fresh aluminum foil if solid enough d. Label the sample with needed data e. Fill out necessary records

f. Storage and transportation of sample

I. Special Excavation Techniques ( continued)

6. Soil sampling a. Use of Munsell Soil Color Charts b. Chemical aspects of the soil c. Composition • Natural soils • Human alteration d. Soil descriptions e. Purpose of soil study 7. Dendrochronology a. Well-defined growth rings b. Collection procedures similar to radiocarbon c. Check to see if preservation is needed - if it is, clear the system with your field supervisor

J. Interpretation of artifacts and features 1. Analysis techniques for field use 2. Behavioral inference 3. Classification systems (types) a. Convenient b. Cultural c. Functional 4. Description techniques 5. Determination of use a. Context b. Ethnographic analogy c. Replicative experiments 6. Cultural associations

K. Interpretation of spatial arrangement 1. Effect of environment 2. Arrangement of space a. Occupied b. Non-occupied 3. Spatial context 4. Reconstruction of spatial arrangement 5. Development of settlement patterns a. Internal b. External

See Page 6 for REFERENCES.

REFERENCES

Hester, Thomas R., Robert F. Heizer and John A. Graham 1975 Field Methods in Archaeology. Mayfield, Palo Alto. (A)*

Hole, Frank and Robert F. Heizer 1973 An Introduction to Prehistoric Archaeology. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York. (A)

Joukowsky, Martha 1980 A Complete Manual of Field Archaeology: Tools and Techniques of Field Work for Archaeologists. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.

McIntosh, Jane 1999 The Practical Archaeologist: How We Know What We Know About the Past. Facts on File, Inc. 2nd edition.

Spier, Robert F. G. 1970 Surveying and Mapping: A Manual of Simplified Techniques. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.

*(A) In Phoenix Chapter Archives.

FIELD CREW MEMBER II

PURPOSE

This course is designed to complete the training of the archaeological crew member that was initiated in the Field Crew Member I course, which is a prerequisite. This course is designed to complement classroom learning with field experience.

Upon completion of this course the student should have the skills to not only participate in Arizona Archaeological Society (AAS) sponsored excavations, but also to assume some supervisory responsibilities. The course should also enable the student to work with professional archaeologists in either crew member or crew chief roles.

OBJECTIVES

At the completion of this course, the student will be able to:

1. Set up a site for excavation. (See Tab 27) Excavation Criteria)

2. Apply a research design to site excavation.

3. Determine an appropriate excavation strategy given problems of logistics, time and money, research problems, threats of erosion or pot hunting, etc.

4. Read and interpret surface remains for clues to where to begin excavation.

5. Read and interpret stratigraphy.

6. Develop and maintain records of site excavation.

7. Map the site.

8. Accomplish photographic documentation of the site and excavations.

9. Understand the use of specialist studies and how to take samples for them.

10. Direct and coordinate excavations for a section of the site.

11. Interpret spatial and temporal patterns in the site both in terms of artifacts and in terms of architecture or other features.

12. Working with the media and visitors.

FORMAT

The student will receive a minimum of 20 hours of classroom instruction intermixed with at least 40 hours of field experience applying the classroom lessons. Successful completion of the course will entail a brief report of field work, including submission of the field notes, and completion of written or oral exams given by the instructor.

COURSE OUTLINE

A. Preliminaries 1. Type of project a. Testing b. Data recovery 2. Permit requirements 3. Bluestake 4. Site security 5. Logistics a. Access b. Backdirt management 6. Equipment a. Excavation tools b. Recording c. Special sample requirements 7. Research design 8. Curation agreement

B. Setting up the site for excavation 1. Site datum 2. Grid system 3. Discovery techniques a. Machine excavation • Trenching • Stripping b. Hand excavation 4. Provenience controls a. Excavation units b. Levels (arbitrary) c. Strata (natural)

C. Site recording 1. Forms a. General note taking b. Excavation unit specific recording forms c. Feature specific recording forms d. Profile/trench recording forms e. Special sample recording forms • Pollen • Flotation • Archaeomagnetic • C-14 • Other f. Methods of storing forms; blank and completed

2. Photography

3. Mapping a. Overall site map (topographic) b. Feature/unit specific maps • Plan views • Profiles c. Use of GPS and difference between NAD 27 and 83) 4. Computerized field and laboratory records

D. Sampling 1. When to use 2. Types of sampling a. Random b. Systematic c. Judgmental d. Other 3. Purposes

E. Excavation techniques 1. Types of features to be expected 2. Control of excavation in non-feature areas 3. Hand versus machine excavation a. When justified b. When not justified 4. Recovery techniques a. Screen size b. When to screen c. When not to screen 5. Artifact control a. Specimen list b. Artifact lots c. Special sample lots 6. Burials and cremations (refer to Tab 8, Field Crew Member I, Section I.1.b., regarding determination of treatment and disposition under NAGPRA and State burial laws)

F. Site interpretation 1. Stratigraphy 2. Superposition 3. Spatial relationships a. Features b. Excavation units 4. Intrusives 5. Disturbance-transformation processes a. Natural b. Cultural 6. Intra-site relationships 7. Environmental relationships

G. Closure 1. Importance of obtaining closure 2. Procedures

COURSE OUTLINE (continued)

H. Post field requirements 1. Preparation for laboratory work a. Artifact processing b. Storage c. Computerization d. Curation 2. Site record update 3. Preparation of site report-organization a. Notes b. Maps c. Photographs 4. Outline for site report

REFERENCES

Note: The following are also suggested references for Field Crew Member I.

Hester, Thomas R., Robert F. Heizer and John A. Graham 1975 Field Methods in Archaeology. Mayfield, Palo Alto. (A)*

Hole, Frank and Robert F. Heizer 1974 An Introduction to Prehistoric Archaeology. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York. (A)

Joukowsky, Martha 1980 A Complete Manual of Field Archaeology: Tools and Techniques of Field Work for Archaeologists. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.

McIntosh, Jane 1999 The Practical Archaeologist: How We Know What We Know About the Past. Facts on File, Inc. 2nd edition.

Spier, Robert F. G. 1970 Surveying and Mapping: A Manual of Simplified Techniques. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.

*(A) In Phoenix Chapter Archives.

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY I

PURPOSE

The purpose of this course is to introduce the student to the basic concepts, field techniques, laboratory methods, and research skills used in historical archaeology. This course emphasizes studies from the American Southwest, with limited case studies from outside the region. The goal of the course is to define what historical archaeology entails, prepare the student to recognize various historic sites and artifacts, and to understand how to conduct initial documentation of historic resources.

COURSE REQUIREMENTS

The course consists of 30 classroom hours that include lecture, discussion, and analyses of documents and historic artifact types. At least 10 hours of field/laboratory work include a WWW online exercise, archival retrieval, and an archival project described below.

TEXT

Historical Archaeology (1995), by Charles E. Orser, Jr. and Brian M. Fagan, plus supplemental readings as assigned.

OBJECTIVES

At the completion of the course, the student should be able to;

1. Understand the relationships between historical archaeology, prehistoric archaeology, history, and anthropology, and between historical data and archaeological data.

2. Explain the development of historical archaeology in North America.

3. List some of the methodological and theoretical differences between historical and prehistoric archaeology, especially in the use of historic documentation and records.

4. Display the ability to conduct initial historical archaeological research, with emphasis on documenting sites from extant literature and original records.

5. Understand the use of photography, mapping, and architectural profiling in historical archaeology, and their importance in data collection and documentation.

6. Understand approaches to the major historic artifact groups, and where to find source information about each artifact type.

OBJECTIVES (continued)

7. Display the ability to integrate various sources of historical data (including architecture, artifacts, historic photographs, papers, and records) to interpret a historic site.

8. Demonstrate the ability to undertake basic background and documentary research , including records research, title search, background literature search, and government documents.

ARCHIVAL PROJECT Requires research in a local or state archive, using documents and/or photographs to gather information about a collection of at least five different historical artifacts (they may be the same artifact type). The paper should demonstrate how the documentary information is relevant to describing and interpreting the artifacts. The results must be reported in a written paper between 10 and 20 pages in length and include endnotes referencing the source materials. Other projects combining historical records, properties and/or artifacts will be considered.

COURSE OUTLINE

A. Introduction 1. What is Historical Archaeology? a. Definition, why do it? b. What is history? c. History and Prehistory d. Careers in Historical Archaeology 2. A Brief History of Historical Archaeology a. In North America b. In the Southwest c. A world perspective Readings: Orser and Fagan(1995), Chapters 1, 2, pp. 1-44; Society for Historical Archaeology Brochure; Ayres(1991).

B. Theory and Research 1. Theory in Historical Archaeology a. Historical supplementation, reconstruction of past lifeways, processual studies, archaeological science, cognitive studies. b. Historical challenge, historical ethnography, testing ground for prehistoric principals, questions of method, archaeology of capitalism, cross-cultural research, production/consumption/industrialism, ideology and power. 2. General Research Issues in Historical Archaeology a. Need for a regional approach with the example of historical archaeology in the Intermountain West. b. Interconnectedness of gender, race, class, ethnicity: “those of little note” Readings: Deagan(1982), Little(1994), Hardesty(1991), Scott(1994)

C. Archaeological Sites and the National Register 1. Historic properties a. Region, district, neighborhood, block, lot, structure, objects b. Site types: habitation, industrial, commercial, military, agricultural, religious, transportation, underwater, special purpose, multipurpose, burial. c. Mining landscapes and feature systems: extraction, beneficiation, refining. 2. National Register of Historic Places a. Evaluate property to determine category, historic context, and significance. b. Four criteria with examples: events, persons, architecture, information c. SHPO Historic context studies for Arizona Readings: Orser and Fagan(1994), Chapter 3, pp. 45-70, Hardesty(1987), Hardesty and Little(2000), Keane and Rogge(1992).

D. Research Techniques: Background Research and Historical Documents 1. Published documents: Books and articles, memoirs, genealogies, travel accounts, biographies, edited letters, speeches, theses and dissertations, newspapers, government documents, ephemera, commercial histories, directories, maps. 2. Unpublished documents: Archives and manuscript collections, census records, Federal records, local records, interviews. 3. Primary and secondary sources 4. Architectural Field Works a. Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) b. Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) 5. Evaluation of source: When was it created, is it a primary source, was the person neutral, what was the intended use, was it to inform or persuade, is it a replica of an earlier document? Readings: Orser and Fagan(1995), Chapter 7, pp. 141-156; Kyvig and Marty(2000), Chapters 4 and 5.

E. Research Techniques: Survey, Mapping, Architectural Inventories 1. Finding historic sites a. Maps: Land Patent Maps, Sanborn Insurance Maps, others b. Archaeological survey and sampling 2. Subsurface surveying and remote sensing: Use of aerial photography, metal detectors, proton magnetometers, soil resistivity surveys, ground penetrating radar, sonar, soil phosphate analysis, dowsing. Readings: Orser and Fagan(1995), Chapter 6, pp. 121-139; Strangstad, Lynette, A. A Graveyard Primer. Walnut Creek: Altamira Press, 1988: 36-41.

E. Research Techniques: Survey, Mapping, Architectural Inventories (continued)

WWW online exercise: View a website with historical records or one about an historical archaeology project, present a 5 minute summary of your online experience in class.

F. Research Techniques: Excavation and Laboratory Processing 1. Process: Research design, implementation, fieldwork, analysis, interpretation, publication 2. Excavation a. Record data in the context of time and space b. Methods c. Tools d. Field recording e. Excavating privies: construction, use, maintenance, abandonment processes, and methods for separating individual deposits 3. Conservation 4. Laboratory processing a. Organize data into manageable units b. Describe types c. Create a hierarchy that orders the relationships between artifacts d. Study artifact variability Readings: Orser & Fagan(1995), Chapter 8, pp. 157-179; Wheeler(2000).

G. Artifact Analysis: Bottles, glass and ceramics 1. Artifacts as: a. Historical documents b. Commodities c. Ideas 2. Sources of information: Trade catalogues, patent records, company histories, others 3. Bottles, Glass a. Nomenclature b. Technological attributes c. Dating 4. Ceramics a. Earthen ware and porcelain types b. Decoration Readings: Orser and Fagan(1995), chapter 4, pp. 71-93; White(1978); AAC Handouts on bottles, glass and ceramics.

H. Artifact Analyses Continued 1. Buttons a. Types b. Sizes 2. Cans a. Terminology b. Chronology c. History of beer cans 3. Nails a. Types b. Dating 4. Faunal materials a. Butchering techniques b. Meat consumption habits 5. Artifacts from an historical archaeology project: the Phoenix Chinatown Excavation. Readings: Rock(1984); Maxwell(1993); Szuter(1991); AAC Handouts on glass, ceramics, cans, buttons, milk cans, nails, cartridge case and shotshell base headstamps.

I. Interpreting Historic Sites 1. Archaeology of groups: class, race, gender, ethnicity revisited 2. Example of a study attempting to associate artifacts with class (consumer behavior) 3. Local historical archaeology: The excavation for the Phoenix Federal Courthouse a. Excavation methods b. Sanitation in Turn-of-the-Century Phoenix c. Health Care in Territorial Phoenix Readings: Orser and Fagan(1995), Chapter 10, pp. 199-219; Henry(1987); Thiel (1998), Chapters 1, 8, 9.

J. Project Presentations and Discussion: Each student presents a 10 minute oral summary of their project in class. Hand in 10-20 page paper focused on five historic objects which have been analyzed and interpreted through historic documents and/or archival materials.

REFERENCES (Compiled in 2001 by Todd W. Bostwick)

Adams, William H. 1976 Trade Networks and Interaction Spheres - A View from Silcott. Historical Archaeology 10:99-112.

Adams, William H., and Linda P. Gaw 1977 A Model for Determining Time Lag of Ceramic Artifacts. Northwest Anthropological Research Notes 11(2): 218-231.

Albert, Alphaeus 1976 Record of American Uniform and Historical Buttons: Bicentennial Edition. Boyertown Publishing Co., Boyertown, PA

Anderson, Adrienne 1968 The Archaeology of Mass-Produced Footwear. Historical Archaeology 2: 56-65.

Arden, Anders 1997 Between Artifacts and Texts: Historical Archaeology in Global Perspective. Translated by Alan Crozier. Plenum Press, N.Y.

Armstrong, Jane R., and Peter D. Schulz 1980 Pontil Scars and Snap Cases on Dating Tools for Nineteenth- Century Glass: New Light from Old Sacramento. In Papers on Old Sacramento Archaeology, edited by Peter D. Schulz and Betty J. Rivers, pp. 45-48. California Archaeology Reports No. 19, Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.

Ayres, James 1984a The Anglo Period in Archaeological and Historical Perspective. The Kiva 49: 225-232.

1984b Rosemont: The History and Archaeology of Post-1880 Sites in the Rosemont Area, Santa Rita Mountains, Arizona. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series No. 147(3).

1991 Historical Archaeology in Arizona and New Mexico. Historical Archaeology 25(3): 18-25.

Ayres, James E., Carol Griffith and Teresita Majewski 2001 Historical Archaeology in Arizona: A Research Guide. State Historic Preservation Office, Phoenix.

Ayres, James E., A. E. Rogge, Melissa Keane, and D. L. Douglas 1992 Humbug! The Historical Archaeology of Placer Mining on Humbug Creek in Central Arizona. Dames & Moore, Phoenix.

Ayres, James E., A. E. Rogge, Melissa Keane, and others 1993 The Historical Archaeology of Dam Construction Camps in Central Arizona, Vol. 2A: Sites in the Roosevelt Dam Area. Intermountain Resource Services Research Paper No. 11, Phoenix.

Ayres, James E., and Gregory Seymour Life on a 1930s Homestead: Historical Archaeological Investigations of the Brown’s Homestead on the Middle Agua Fria River, Yavapai County, Arizona. SWCA Anthropological Research Papers No. 2, Flagstaff.

Babits, Lawrence E. 1988 Military Records and Historical Archaeology. In Documentary Archaeology in the New World, edited by Mary C. Beaudry, pp. 119-125. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Babits, Lawrence E., and Han Van Tilburg, eds. 1997 Maritime Archaeology: A Reader of Substantive and Theoretical Contributions. Plenum Press, N.Y.

Baker, Steven G. 1976 Historical Archaeology for Colorado and the Victorian Mining Frontier: Review, Discussion, and Suggestion. Southwestern Lore 44(3).

Barker, David 1990 William Greatbatch: A Staffordshire Potter. John Horne, London.

Barlow, Ronald S. 1992 The Vanishing American Outhouse. Windmill Publishing, El Cajon, CA.

Barnes, Frank C. 1989 Cartridges of the World. 6th Editon. DBI Books, Northfield, Illinois.

Barnes, Mark R. 1980 Mexican Lead-glazed Earthenwares. In Spanish Colonial Frontier Research, edited by Henry Dobyns, pp. 92-110. Spanish Borderlands Research No. 1, Center for Anthropological Studies, Albuquerque.

1984 Hispanic Period Archaeology in the Tucson Basin: An Overview. The Kiva 49(3): 213-224.

Barnes, Mark R., and Ronald V. May 1979 Mexican Majolica in Northern New Spain. Acoma Books, Ramona, CA.

REFERENCES (continued)

Baugher-Perlin, Sherene 1982 Analyzing Glass Bottles for Chronology, Function, and Trade Networks. In Archaeology of Urban America: The Search for Pattern and Process, edited by R. S. Dickens, pp. 259-290. Academic Press, N.Y.

Bearse, Ray 1966 Centerfire American Rifle Cartridges, 1892-1963. A.S. Barnes, South Brunswick, NJ.

Berge, Dale L. The Gila Bend Stage Station. The Kiva 33: 169-243. 1980 Simpson Springs Station: Historical Archaeology in Western Utah, 1974-1975. Cultural Resource Series No. 6, Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake City.

Bradley, Charles S. 2000 Smoking Pipes for the Archaeologist. In Studies in Material Culture Research, edited by Karlis Karlins, pp. 104-133. Society for Historical Archaeology.

Brinckerhoff, Sidney B. 1972 Metal Uniform Insignia of the U.S. Army in the Southwest, 1846-1902. Revised and enlarged edition. Museum Monograph No. 3, Arizona Historical Society, Tucson.

1976 Boots and Shoes of the Frontier Soldier, 1865-1893. Museum Monograph No. 7, Arizona Historical Society, Tucson.

Bruder, J. Simon 1977 Changing Patterns in Papago Subsistence Strategies: Archaeology and Ethnohistory Compared. The Kiva 42: 233-256.

Burton, Jeffrey F. 1992 San Miguel de Guevavi: The Archaeology of an Eighteenth Century Jesuit Mission on the Rim of Christendom. Publications in Anthropology No. 57, Western Archaeological and Conservation Center, National Park Service, Tucson.

Busch, Jane 1981 An Introduction to the Tin Can. Historical Archaeology 15(1): 95-104.

1987 Second Time Around: A Look at Bottle Reuse. Historical Archaeology 21 (1): 67-80.

REFERENCES (continued)

Cable, John S., Susan L. Henry, and David E. Doyel, eds. 1982 City of Phoenix: Archaeology of the Original Phoenix Townsite: Blocks 1 and 2. Soil Systems Publications in Archaeology No. 1, Phoenix.

1983 City of Phoenix: Archaeology of the Original Phoenix Townsite: Block 28-North. Soil Systems Publications in Archaeology No. 2, Phoenix.

1984 City of Phoenix: Archaeology of the Original Phoenix Townsite: The Murphy’s Addition. Soil Systems Publications in Archaeology No. 3, Phoenix.

Cable, John S., Kathleen S. Hoffman, David E. Doyel, and Frank Ritz 1985 City of Phoenix: Archaeology of the Original Phoenix Townsite: Block 24-East. Soil Systems Publications in Archaeology No. 8, Phoenix.

Ciolek-Torrello, Richard,and Mark T. Swanson, eds. 1997 Pithouse, Presidio, and Privy: 1,400 Years of Archaeology and History on Block 180, Tucson, Arizona. Statistical Research Technical Series No. 63, Tucson

Clark, Anthony 1996 Seeing Beneath the Soil: Prospecting Methods in Archaeology, 2nd Edition. B. T. Batsford, London.

Clifton, Robert T. 1973 Barbs, Prongs, Points, Prickers, and Stickers: A Complete and Illustrated Catalogue of Antique Barbed Wire. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Cohen-Willaims, Anita G. 1992 Common Moiolica Types of Northern New Spain. Historical Archaeology 26: 121-129.

Collins, William S. 1996 Cattle Ranching in Arizona. Arizona Historic Preservation Office, Phoenix.

Collins, William S., Melanie Sturgeon, and Robert M. Carriker 1993 The United States Military in Arizona, 1846-1945. Arizona Historic Preservation Office, Phoenix.

Conyers, Lawrence B., and Dean Goodman 1997 Ground-Penetrating Radar: An Introduction for Archaeologists. AltaMira Press.

REFERENCES (continued)

Costello, Julia G., and Mary L. Maniery 1988 Rice Bowls in the Delta: Artifacts Recovered from the 1915 Asian Community of Walnut Grove, California. Occasional Paper No. 16, Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Cotter, John L., Daniel G. Roberts, and Michael Parrington 1993 The Buried Past: An Archaeological History of Philadelphia. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

Covill, William E., Jr. 1971 Ink Bottles and Inkwells. William S. Sullwold Publishing, Taunton, MA

Cox, Warren V. 1944 The Book of Pottery and Porcelain. Crown Publishers, N.Y.

Curriden, Nancy T. 1981 The Lewis-Weber Site: A Tucson Homestead. Publications in Anthropology No. 14, Western Archaeological and Conservation Center, Tucson.

Deagan, Kathleen 1982 “Avenues of Inquiry in Historical Archaeology.” In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 5, edited by Michael Schiffer, pp. 151-177.

1982 Spanish St. Augustine: The Archaeology of a Colonial Creole Community. Academic Press, N.Y.

DeBolt, Gerald 1994 Debolt’s Dictionary of American Pottery Marks: Whiteware and Porcelain. Collector Books, Paducah, Kentucky.

De Cunzo, Ann, and Bernard L. Herman, eds. 1996 Historical Archaeology and the Study of American Culture. Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum, University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

Deetz, James 1977 Small Things Forgotten: The Archaeology of Early American Life. Anchor Doubleday, Garden City.

Delle, James A., Stephen A. Mrozowski, and Robert Paynter, eds. 2000 Lines that Divide: Historical Archaeologies of Race, Class, and Gender. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

Denver, Kay 1968 Patent Medicine Picture. Tombstone Epitaph, Tombstone, AZ.

Demmy, George G. 1967 Glass Dating: An Archaeologist’s Evaluation of the Concept. Historical Archaeology 1: 49-131.

DiBartholomeo, Robert E. 1974 American Glass, Vol. 2: Pressed and Cut. Weathervane, Los Angeles.

Dickens, Roy S., ed. 1982 Archaeology of Urban America: The Search for Pattern and Process. Academic Press, N.Y.

Diehl, Michael W., Timothy W. Jones, and J. Homer Thiel 1996 Archaeological Investigations at El Dump—A Mid-Twentieth Century Dump, and the Embankment Site, Tucson, Arizona. Technical Report No. 96-19. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson.

Diehl, Michael W., and Allison Cohen Diehl 1996 Archaeological Investigations of the Tucson Press Brick Company. Technical Report No. 96-13, Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson.

Diehl, Michael W., Jennifer A. Waters, and J. Homer Thiel 1998 Acculturation and the Composition of the Diet of Tucson’s Overseas Chinese Gardeners at the Turn of the Century. Historical Archaeology 32 (4): 19-33.

DiPeso, Charles C. 1956 The Upper Pima of San Cayetano del Tumacacori: An Archaeological Reconstruction of the Ootam of the Pimeria Alta. Amerind Foundation Series No. 7, Dragoon, AZ.

Dollar, Clyde 1968 Some Thoughts on Theory and Method in Historical Archaeology. The Conference on Historic Site Archaeology Papers, 1967 (Part 2): 3-34.

Downard, William L. 1980 Dictionary of the History of the American Brewing and Distilling Industries. Greenwood Press, Westport, CN

Dunning, Phil 2000 Composite Table Cutlery from 1700 to 1930. In Studies in Material Culture Research, edited by Karlis Karklins, pp. 32- 45. Society for Historical Archaeology.

Ewen, Charles R. 1990 The Archaeology of Spanish Colonialism in the Southeastern United States and the Caribbean. Society for Historical Archaeology, Ann Arbor.

REFERENCES (continued)

Falk, Lisa, ed. 1991 Historical Archaeology in Global Perspective. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Ferg, Alan 1988 Historical Archaeology at Joseph City, Arizona. Arizona Archaeologist No. 22, Arizona Archaeological Society, Phoenix.

Ferguson, Leland G., ed. 1977 Historical Archaeology and the Importance of Material Things. Special Publication Series No. 2, Society for Historical Archaeology, Winnipeg.

Fike, Richard 1987 The Bottle Book: A Comprehensive Guide to Historic, Embossed Medicine Bottles. Perigrine Smith Books, Salt Lake City.

Fontana, Bernard 1968 Bottles and History: the Case of Magdalena de Kino, Sonora, Mexico. Historical Archaeology 2: 45-55.

Fontana, Bernard, and J. Cameron Greenleaf 1962 Johnny Ward’s Ranch: A Study in Historic Archaeology. The Kiva 28(1-2).

Fontana, Bernard, William J. Robinson, Charles W. McCormack, and Earnest E. Leavitt 1962 Papago Indian Pottery. University of Washington Press, Seattle.

Fox, Richard Allan, Jr. 1993 Archaeology, History, and Custer’s Last Battle: the Little Bighorn Reexamined. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Freidrich, Manfred, and Donald Bull 1976 The Register of United States Breweries, 1876-1976, Vol. 1. Holly Press, Stamford, CT.

Gartley, Richard, and Jeff Carskadden 1998 Colonial Period and Early 19th Century Children’s Toy Marbles: History and Identifications for the Archaeologist and Collector. Muskingum Valley Archaeological Survey, Zaneville, OH. Gates, William C., and Dana E. Ormerod 1982 The East Liverpool Pottery District: Identification of Manufacturers and Marks. Historical Archaeology 16 (1-2).

Geier, Clarence, Jr., and Susan E. Winter, eds. 1994 Look to the Earth: Historical Archaeology and the American Civil War. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

Giarde, Jeffrey L. 1980 Glass Milk Bottles: Their Makers and Marks. Time Travelers Press, Bryn Mawr, CA.

Gilpin, Dennis 1993 Historical Archaeology on the Navajo Indian Reservation Project. In DAA’AK’EH ITSAA: An Overview of the Cultural Resources of the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project, Northwestern New Mexico, by Lawrence E. Vogler, Kristina Langenfield, and Dennis Gildpin, pp. 191-281. Navajo Nation Papers in Anthropology No. 29, Window Rock, AZ.

Godden, Geoffrey 1964 Encyclopedia of British Pottery and Porcelain Marks. Barrie and Jenkins, London.

1993 Godden’s Guide to European Porcelain. Cross River Press, New York.

1999 Godden’s Guide to Ironstone, Stone, and Granite Wares. Antique Collector’s Club, Woodbridge, U.K.

Godoy, Ricardo 1985 Mining: Anthropological Perspectives. Annual Review of Anthropology 14:199-217.

Gould, R. A., ed. 1983 Shipwreck Anthropology. School of American Research, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Green, Jeremy 1990 Maritime Archaeology: A Technical Handbook. Academic Press, San Diego.

Greenwald, David H. 1988 Investigations of the Baccharis and Extension Arizona Canal: Historical and Prehistoric Land Use Patterns in the Northern Salt River Valley. Museum of Northern Arizona Research Paper No. 40, Flagstaff.

Greenwald, David H., and Richard Ciolek-Torrello, eds. 1988 Archaeological Investigations at the Dutch Canal Ruin, Phoenix, Arizona: Archaeology and History along the Papago Freeway Corridor. Museum of Northern Arizona Research Paper No. 38, Flagstaff.

REFERENCES (continued)

Greer, Georgeanna H. 1981 American Stonewares, the Art and Craft of Utilitarian Potters. Schiffer Publishing, Exton, PA.

Greismar, Joan H. 1993 Where is Night Soil? Thoughts on an Urban Privy. Historical Archaeology 27(2): 57-70.

Gurcke, Karl 1987 Bricks and Brickmaking: A Handbook for Historical Archaeology. The University of Idaho Press, Moscow.

Hackbarth, Mark R. 1992 Prehistoric and Historic Occupation of the Lower Verde River Valley: The State Route 87 Verde Bridge Project. Northland Research, Tempe.

1995 The Historic Archaeology of Heritage Square. Pueblo Grande Museum Anthropological Papers No. 2, Phoenix.

1997 Archaeological Excavations of a Salt River Valley Canal Bridge Crossing at the Central Station, 330 North Central Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona. Pueblo Grande Museum Anthropological Papers No. 5, Phoenix.

Hagan, Tere 1990 Silverplated Flatware: An Identification and Value Guide. Revised 4th Edition. Collector Books, Paducah, KN.

Hamer, Frank, and Janet Hamer 1986 The Potter’s Dictionary of Materials and Techniques. Revised edition. Watson-Guptill Publications, New York.

Hannah, Frances 1986 Ceramics: Twentieth Century Design. E. P. Dutton, New York.

Hantman, Jeffrey L., and Jeanette A. McKenna 1985 O’Roukes’ Camp: Social Archaeology of an Early Twentieth Century Construction Town. Arizona State University Anthropological Field Studies No. 7, Tempe.

Hard, Robert J., and William Doelle 1978 The San Agustin Mission Site, Tucson, Arizona. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series No. 118, Tucson.

Hardesty, Donald L. 1986 Industrial Archaeology on the American Mining Frontier: Suggestions for a Research Agenda. Journal of New World Archaeology 6(4): 47-56.

Hardesty, Donald L. 1986 The Archaeology of Mining and Miners: A View from the Silver State. Special Publication Series No. 6, Society for American Archaeology, Ann Arbor.

Harris, Edward C. 1989 Principles of Archaeological Stratigraphy, 2nd Edition. Academic Press, N.Y.

Heighton, Robert F. and Kathleen A. Deagan 1972 A New Formula for Dating Kaolin Clay Pipestems. Conference on Historic Site Archaeology Papers 6, pp. 220-229.

Heimmer, Don H. 1992 Near-Surface, High Resolution: Geophysical Methods for Cultural Resource Management and Archaeological Investigations. National Park Service, Denver.

Heite, Edward F. 1990 Archaeological Data Recovery on the Collins, Geddes Cannery Site. Delaware Department of Transportation Archaeological Series No. 83.

Henry, Susan L. 1987a Factors Influencing Consumer Behavior in Turn-of-the-Century Phoenix, Arizona. In Socio-Economic Status and Consumer Choice in Historical Archaeology, edited by Suzanne Spencer- Wood, pp. 359-381. Plenum Press, N.Y.

1987b A Chicken in Every Pot: The Urban Subsistence Pattern in Turn-of-the-Century Phoenix, Arizona. In Living in Cities: Current Research in Urban Archaeology, edited by Edward Staski, pp. 19-28. Society for Historical Archaeology.

Herkovitz, Robert M. 1978 Fort Bowie Material Culture. Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona No. 31, Tucson.

Hughes, Elizabeth, and Marion Lester 1991 The Big Book of Buttons. New Leaf Publishers, Sedgwick, Maine.

Hull-Walski, Deborah, and James E. Ayres 1989 The Historical Archaeology of Dam Construction Camps in Central Arizona, Vol. 3: Laboratory Methods and Database Computerization. Dames & Moore, Phoenix.

Hume, Ivor Noel 1969 A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. Alfred Knopf, N.Y.

REFERENCES (continued)

Hume, Ivor Noel 1972 Historical Archaeology. Alfred Knopf, N.Y.

1991 Matrin’s Hundred. University of Virginia Press.

1994 The Virginia Adventure. Alfred Knopf, N.Y

Hunt, Charles B. 1959 Dating Mining Camps with Tin Cans and Bottles. Geotimes 3(8): 10, 34.

Hunter, Robert R., Jr., and George L. Miller 1994 Shell-edged Earthenware. Antiques CXLV: 432-443.

Jackman, Karolynn, Shereen Lerner, and others 1999 From the Outhouse to the Outfield: The Archaeology of the Bank One Ballpark. Archaeological Consulting Services Cultural Resource Report No. 108, Tempe, AZ.

Jackson, John A., and Byron M. Shinn 1979 Fundamentals of Food Canning Technology. AVI, Westport, CN.

Janus Associates, Inc. 1989 Transcontinental Railroading in Arizona, 1878-1940. Arizona State Historic Preservation Office, Phoenix.

Jones, Olive R. 1971 Glass Bottle Push-ups and Pontils. Historical Archaeology 5: 62-73.

1981 The Essence of Peppermint: A History of the Medicine and its Bottle. Historical Archaeology 15(2): 1-57.

2000 A Guide to Dating Glass Tableware: 1900 to 1940. In Studies in Material Culture Research, edited by Karlis Karklins, pp. 141-232. Society for Historical Archaeology.

Jones, Olive R., and Catherine Sullivan 1989 The Parks Canada Glass Glossary for the Description of Containers, Tableware, Flat Glass, and Closures. Revised edition. Canadian Parks Service, Ottawa.

Karklins, Karlis, and Roberick Spraque 1972 Glass Trade Beads in North America: An Annotated REFERENCES. Historical Archaeology 6: 87-101.

Keane, Melissa, and A. E. Rogge 1992 Gold and Silver Mining n Arizona, 1848-1945. Arizona State Historic Preservation Office, Phoenix.

Keane, Melissa, A. E. Rogge, and Sharon K. Bauer 1998 Cornerstones of Faith: The First Eight Congregations in Phoenix and the Archaeology of the First Presbyterian Church Site. Pueblo Grande Museum Occasional Papers No. 2, Phoenix.

Kelley, Klata B. 1985 Ethnoarchaeology of Navajo Trading Posts. The Kiva 51(1): 19- 37.

Kelly, Roger E., and Marsha C. Kelly 1983 Arrastas: Unique Western Historic Milling Sites. Historical Archaeology 17(1): 85-95.

Kenmotsu, Nancy 1988 Gunflints: A Study. Historical Archaeology 24: 92-125.

Kent, Barry C. 1983 More on Gunflints. Historical Archaeology 17(2): 27-40.

Ketchum, William 1975 A Treasury of American Bottles. Routledge Books, N.Y.

Kovel, Ralph M., and Terry H. Kovel 1986 Kovel’s New Dictionary of Marks. Crown Publishers, N.Y.

Kowalsky, Arnold A., and Dorothy E. Kowalsky 1999 Encyclopedia of Marks on American, English, and European Earthenware, Ironstone, and Stoneware 1780-1980. Schiffer Publishing, Arglen, PN.

Kyvig, David E., and Myron A. Marty 2000 Nearby History: Exploring the Past Around You, 2nd Edition. AltaMira Press, Walnut Grove, CA.

Layhe, Robert W. , ed. 1986 Archaeological Investigations at AZ U:14:75 (ASM), A Turn-of- the-Century Pima Homestead. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series No. 172.

Lehner, Lois 1979 Complete Book of American Kitchen and Dinner Wares. Wallace- Homestead, Des Moines, IO.

1988 Lehner’s Encyclopedia of U.S. Marks on Pottery, Porcelain, and Clay. Collector Books, Paducah, KT.

Leif, Alfred 1965 A Close-up of Closures: History and Progress. Glass Container Manufacturers Institute, N.Y.

REFERENCES (continued)

Leone, Mark P. 1984 Interpreting Ideology in Historical Archaeology: The William Paca Garden in Annapolis, Maryland. In Ideology, Power, and Prehistory, edited by Daniel Miller and Christopher Tilley, pp. 25-35. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Leone, Mark P., and Constance A. Crosby 1987 Middle Range Theory in Historical Archaeology. In Consumer Choice in Historical Archaeology, edited by Suzanne Spencer- Wood, pp. 397-410. Plenum Press, N.Y.

Leone, Mark P., and Parker B. Potter, Jr., eds. 1988 The Recovery of Meaning: Historical Archaeology in the Eastern United States. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

1999 Historical Archaeologies of Capitalism. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, N.Y.

LeVine, Terry Y. 1975 Analysis of the Buttons from La Casa Del Rancho Los Cerritos. Pacific Coast Archaelogical Society Quarterly 11(3): 59-74.

Light, John D. 2000 A Field Guide to the Identification of Metal. In Studies in Material Culture Research , edited by Karlis Karklins, pp. 3- 19. Society for Historical Archaeology.

Lightfoot, Kent G., Thomas A. Wake, and Ann M. Schiff 1991 The Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross, California. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility No. 49, University of California, Berkeley.

Lindauer, Owen 1996 Historical Archaeology of the United States Industrial Indian School at Phoenix: Investigations of a Turn of the Century Trash Dump. Arizona State University Anthropological Field Studies No. 42, Tempe.

1997 Not For School, But for Life: Lessons from the Historical Archaeology of the Phoenix Indian School. Arizona State University Office of Cultural Resource Management Report No. 95, Tempe.

Linebaugh, Donald L., and Gary G. Robinson, eds. 1994 Spatial Patterning in Historical Archaeology: Selected Studies of Settlement. William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research, Occasional Papers in Archaeology 2.

Lister, Florence C., and Robert H. Lister 1974 Maiolical in Colonial Spanish America. Historical Archaeology 8:17-52.

1976 Distribution of Mexican Maiolica along the Northern Borderlands. In Collected Papers in Honor of M. F. Lambert, edited by Albert H. Schroeder, pp. 113-140. Papers of the Archaeological Society of New Mexico No. 3.

1989 The Chinese of Early Tucson: Historic Archaeology from the Tucson Urban Renewal Project. Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona No. 52, Tucson.

Little, Barbara J. 1994 People with History: An Update on Historical Archaeology in the United States. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 1(1): 5-40.

Little, Barbara J., ed. 1992 Text-Aided Archaeology. CRC Press, Boca Raton.

Lorrain, Dessamae 1968 An Archaeologist’s Guide to Nineteenth Century Bottle Glass. Historical Archaeology 5: 35-44.

Luscomb, Sally C. 1979 The Collector’s Encyclopedia of Buttons. Crown, N.Y.

Mabry, Jonathan, James E. Ayres, and Regina L. Chapin-Pyritz 1994 Tucson at the Turn of the Century: The Archaeology of a City Block. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson.

Majewski, Teresita, and Michael J. O’Brien 1987 The Use and Misuse of Nineteenth Century English and American Ceramics. Historical Archaeology 14: 1-40. REFERENCES (continued)

Martells, Jack 1976 The Beer Can Collectors Bible. Ballantine Books, N.Y.

Martin, Patrick Edward 1985 The Mill Creek Site and Pattern Recognition in Historical Archaeology. MacKinac Island State Park Commission, MacKinac Island, Michigan. Maxwell, D.B.S. 1993 Beer Cans: A Guide for the Archaeologist. Historical Archaeology 27(1): 95-113.

McCallum, Henry D., and Frances T. McCallum 1965 The Wire that Fenced the West. University of Oklahoma, Norman.

REFERENCES (continued)

MacDonald-Taylor, Margaret 1962 A Dictionary of Marks. Hawthorn Books, N.Y.

McEwan, Bonnie G. 1991 The Archaeology of Women in the Spanish New World. Historical Archaeology 26(4): 33-41.

McEwan, Bonnie G., ed. 2000 Indians of the Greater Southeast: Historical Archaeology and Ethnohistory. University of Florida Press, Gainesville.

McGuire, Randall H. 1979 Rancho Punta de Agua: Excavations at a Historic Ranch near Tucson, Arizona. Contribution to Highway Salvage Archaeology in Arizona No. 57, Arizona State Museum, Tucson.

1983 Ethinic Group Status and Material Culture at the Rancho Punta de Agua. In Forgotten Places and Things: Archaeological Perspectives on American History, edited by Albert E. Ward, pp. 193-203. Contributions to Anthropological Studies No. 3, Center for Anthropological Studies, New Mexico.

Miller, George L. 1980 Classification and Scaling of 19th Century Ceramics. Historical Archaeology 14: 1-40.

1991 A Revised Set of CC Index Values for Classification and Economic Scaling of English Ceramics from 1780 to 1880. Historical Archaeology 25(1): 1-25.

Miller, George L., and Anthony Pacey 1985 The Impact of Mechanization on the Glass Container Industry. Historical Archaeology 19(1): 38-50.

Miller, George L., and Catherine Sullivan 1983 Machine-Made Glass Containers and the End of Production for Mouth-Blown Bottles. Historical Archaeology 18(2): 83-96.

Montgomery, Ross G., Watson Smith, and John O. Brew 1949 Franciscan Awatowi: The Excavation and Conjectural Reconstruction of a 17th Century Spanish Mission Established at a Hopi Town in Northeastern Arizona. Papers of the Peabody Museum No. 36. Harvard University, Cambridge.

Mrozowski, Stephen A. 1988 Historical Archaeology as Anthropology. Historical Archaeology 22(1): 18-24.

Mullins, Paul R. 1999 Race and Affluence: An Archaeology of African-American and Consumer Choice. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, N.Y.

Nelson, Lee H. 1968 Nail Chronology as an Aid to Dating Old Buildings. American Association for State and Local History, Technical Leaflet 48, History News 24(11).

Nelson, Lavinia, and Martha Hurley 1967 Old Inks. Cole Printing Company, Nashua, NH.

Neuman, Robert W., ed. 1983 Historical Archaeology of the Eastern United States: Papers from the R. J. Russell Symposium. School of Geoscience, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.

Newcomb, Rexford, Jr. 1947 Creamic Whiteware: History, Technology, and Applications. Pitman, New York.

Noble, Vergil E. 1996 Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow: A Plea for Change in the Practice of Historical Archaeology. Historical Archaeology 30(2): 74-84.

Olsen, John W. 1978 A Study of Chinese Ceramics Excavated in Tucson. The Kiva 44(1): 1-50.

1983 An Analysis of East Asian Coins Excavated in Tucson. Historical Archaeology 17(2): 41-55.

Olsen, Stanley J. 1963 Dating Early Plain Buttons by Their Form. American Antiquity 28: 551-554.

Olsen, Stanley J., and J. Duncon Campbell 1962 Uniform Buttons as Aids in the Interpretation of Military Sites. Curator 5: 346-352.

Olson, Alan P. 1985 Archaeology of the Presidio of Tucson. The Kiva 50: 251-270.

Orr, David G., and Daniel G. Crozier, eds. 1983 The Scope of Historical Archaeology: Essays in Honor of John L. Cotter. Laboratory of Anthropology, Temple University, Philadelphia.

REFERENCES (continued)

Orser, Charles E., Jr., ed. 1996 Images of the Recent Past: Readings in Historical Archaeology. AltaMira Press, Walnut Grove, CA.

Orser, Charles E., Jr., and Brian M. Fagan 1995 Historical Archaeology. HarperCollins College Publishers, N.Y.

Palmer, Marilyn, and Peter Neaverson 1998 Industrial Archaeology: Principles and Practice. Routledge, N. Y.

Paul, John R., and Paul W. Parmaker 1973 Soft Drink Bottling: A History with Special Reference to Illinois. Illinois State Museum Society, Springfield.

Paynter, Robert 1982 Models of Spatial Inequality: Settlement Patterns in Historical Archaeology. Academic Press, N.Y.

Pearson, Dennis 1998 Classic Lanterns. Schiffer, Atglen, PN.

Petterson, Arthur G. 1968 400 Trademarks on Glass. Washington College Press, Takoma Park, Maryland.

Potter, Parker B., Jr. 1994 Public Archaeology in Annapolis: A Critical Approach in Maryland’s Ancient City. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Praetzellis, Mary, Betty Rivers, and Jeannette K. Schulz 1983 Ceramic Marks from Old Sacramento. California Archaeology Reports No. 22, California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.

Praetzellis, Mary, and Adrian Praetzellis 1990 The Mary Collins Assemblage: Mass Marketing and the Archaeology of a Sacramento Family. Sonoma State University Anthropological Studies Center, Rohnert Park, CA.

Priess, Peter J. 2000 Historic Door Hardware. In Studies in Material Culture Research, edited by Karlis Karklins, pp. 46-95. Society for Historical Archaeology.

Pritchett, Jack, and Allen Pastron 1983 Ceramic Dolls as Chronological Indicators: Implications from A San Francisco Dump Site. In Forgotten Places and Things: Archaeological Perspectives on American History, edited by Albert E. Ward, pp. 321-334. Contributions to Anthropological Studies No. 3, Center for Anthropological Studies, Albuquerque.

Purcell, David E. 1996 The Hualapai Occupation at Hackberry, Mohave County, Arizona: Archival, Ethnohistorical, and Archaeological Investigations. SWCA Archaeological Report No. 99-260, Flagstaff.

Ramsey, John 1939 American Potters and Pottery. Hale, Cushman and Flint, N.Y.

Randall, Mark E. 1972 Early Marbles. Historical Archaeology 5: 102-105.

Randal, Mark E., and Dennis Webb 1988 Greenberg’s Guide to Marbles. Greenberg Publishing, Sykesville, Maryland.

Rathje, William, and C. Murphy 1992 Rubbish! The Archaeology of Garbage. Harper Perennial, N.Y.

Ravesloot, John C., Annick Lascaux, and J. Homer Thiel 1992 Archaeologial Studies of an Early Twentieth Century Pima Site. Arizona State University Anthropological Field Studies No. 27, Tempe.

Reinhart, Theodore, and Dennis J. Pogue, eds. 1993 The Archaeology of 17th Century Virginia. The Archaeological Society of Virginia, Special Publication 30.

Reynolds, William E., Sandra Sobelman, Michael McCarthy, Gay Kinkade 1974 Archaeological Investigations at Jackrabbit Mine. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series No. 39, Tucson.

Riley, John J. 1958 A History of the American Soft Drink Industry, 1807-1957. American Bottlers of Carbonated Beverages, Washington, D.C.

Ripley, John J. 1958 A History of the American Soft Drink Industry: 1807-1957. American Bottlers of Carbonated Beverages, Washington, D.C.

Roberts, Daniel G., and David Barrett 1984 Nightsoil Practices of the 19th Century and the Origins of Artifacts in Plowzone Proveniences. Historical Archaeology 18(1): 108-115.

REFERENCES (continued)

Robinson, William J. 1963 Excavations at San Xavier del Bac. The Kiva 29:35-57.

1976 Mission Guevavi: Excavations in the Convento. The Kiva 42(2): 1-175.

Rock, James 1983 Cans in the Countryside. Historical Archaeology 18(2): 97- 111.

Rogge, A. E., Melissa Keane, Bradford Luckingham, James E. Ayres, Pamela Patterson, and Todd W. Bostwick 1992 First Street and Madison: Historical Archaeology of the Second Phoenix Chinatown. Dames & Moore Intermountain Cultural Research Services, Research Paper No. 9, Phoenix.

Rogge, A. E., Lorne McWatters, Melissa Keane, and Richard P. Emanuel 1995 Raising Arizona’a Dams. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Rohe, Randall 1982 After the Gold Rush: Chinese Mining in the Far West, 1850- 1890. Montana 32(4): 2-19.

Ross, Alice 1993 Health and Diet in 19th Century America: A Food Historian’s Point of View. Historical Archaeology 27(2): 42-56.

Rothschild, Nan A., and Darlene Balkwill 1993 The Meaning of Change in Urban Faunal Deposits. Historical Archaeology 27(2): 71-89.

Russell, Scott C., and Jeffrey S. Dean 1985 The Sheep and Goat Corral: A Key Structure in Najavo Site Analysis. The Kiva 51(2): 3-18.

Samford, Patricia M. 1997 Response to a Market: Dating English Underglaze Transfer- Printed Wares. Historical Archaeology 31(2): 1-30.

Sande, Theodore 1978 Industrial Archaeology. Penguin Books, N.Y.

Schlereth, Thomas J. 1996 Artifacts and the American Past. AltaMira Press, Walnut Grove, CA.

Schmidt, Dave N., and Charles D. Zeir 1993 Not by Bones Alone: Exploring Composition and Socioeconomic Status in an Isolated Historic Mining Community. Historical Archaeology 27(4): 20-38.

Scott, Elizabeth M., ed. 1993 Those of Little Note: Gender, Race, and Class in Historical Archaeology. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Schuyller, Robert L., ed. 1978 Historical Archaeology: A Guide to Theoretical and Substantive Contributions. Baywood, Famingdale, N.Y.

Sease, Catherine 1987 A Conservation Manual for the Field Archaeologist. University of California, Archaeological Research Tools, Vol. 4, Los Angeles.

Seifert, Donna J., ed. 1991 Gender in Historical Archaeology. Historical Archaeology 25(4).

Shackel, Paul A. , and Susan E. Winter, eds. 1994 An Archaeology of Harpers Ferry’s Commercial and Residential District. Historical Archaeology 28(4).

Shenk, Lynette, and George A. Teague 1975 Excavations at the Tubac Presidio. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series No. 94, Tucson.

Silliman, Stephen W., Paul Farnsworth, and Kent G. Lightfoot, 2000 Magnetometer Prospecting in Historical Archaeology: Evaluating Survey Options at a 19th Century Rancho Site in California. Historical Archaeology 34(2): 89-109.

Singer, David A. 1987 Threshold of Affordability: Assessing Fish Remains for Socioeconomics. In Consumer Choice and SocioEconomic Status in Historical Archaeology, edited by Suzanne Spencer-Wood, pp. 85-100. Plenum Press, N.Y.

Singleton, Theresa A., ed. 1985 The Archaeology of Slavery and Plantation Life. Academic Press, N.Y.

Skackel, Paul A. 1993 Personal Discipline and Material Culture: An Archaeology of Annapolis, Maryland, 1695-1870. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

REFERENCES (continued)

Skackel, Paul A. 2000 Archaeology and Created Memory: Public History in a National Park. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, N.Y.

Slawson, Laurie V. 1992 Copper Mining, Railroading, and the Hellhole in Arizona: Archaeological Investigations in the Silver Bell Mining District. Cultural and Environmental Systems, Tucson.

Smith, Jane F. 1975 Settlement on the Public Domain as Reflected in Federal Records: Suggested Research Approaches. In Pattern and Process: Research in Historical Geography, edited Ralph E. Ehrenberg, pp. 290-304. Howard University Press, Washington, D.C.

South, Stanley 1972 Evolution and Horizon as Revealed in Ceramic Analysis in Historical Archaeology. Conference on Historic Site Archaeology Papers 6: 71-116.

1975 Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.

South, Stanley, ed. 1977 Research Strategies in Historical Archaeology. Academic Press, N.Y.

1994 Pioneers in Historical Archaeology: Breaking New Ground. Plenum Press, N.Y.

South Dakota State Historic Preservation Office 1985 Standards for the Survey of Historic Mining and Milling Sites. Vermilion, South Dakota.

Spencer-Wood, Suzanne 1987 Miller’s Indices and Consumer Choice Profiles: Status-Related Behaviors and White Ceramics. In Consumer Choice and SocioEconomic Status in Historical Archaeology, edited by Suzanne Spencer-Wood, pp. 321-358. Plenum Press, N.Y.

Sprague, Roderick 1984 Glass Trade Beads: A Progress Report. Historical Archaeology 19: 87-105.

Staski, Edward 1984 Just What Can a 19th Century Bottle Tell Us? Historical Archaeology 18: 38-50.

Staski, Edward, ed. 1987 Living in Cities: Current Research in Urban Archaeology. Society for Historical Archaeology, Pleasant Hill, CA.

Stadt, Ronald W. 1984 Winchester Shotguns and Shotshells. Armory Publication, Tacoma.

Stein, Pat H. 1981 Wintersburg: An Archaeological, Archival, and Folk Account of Homesteading in Arizona. In The Palo Verde Archaeological Investigations, by Pat Stein, pp. 1-101. Museum of Northern Arizona Research Papers No. 21, Flagstaff.

1988 Homesteading in the Depression: A Study of Two Short-Lived Homesteads in the Harquahala Valley, Arizona. Northland Research, Flagstaff.

1991 The Basques in Arizona from Spanish Colonial Times to the Present. Arizona State Historic Preservation Office, Phoenix.

1994 Historic Trails in Arizona from Coronado to 1940. Arizona State Historic Preservation Office, Phoenix.

Stein, Pat, Elizabeth J. Skinner, Stewart Deak, and John David Goodman 1997 Mining the Big Bug: Archaeological Investigations at Twelve Historic Sites along State Route 69 between Mayer and Dewey, Yavapai County, Arizona. SWCA Anthropological Research Papers No. 5, Flagstaff.

Sterner., Matthew A. 1995 Schroeder’s Well and the Davidson Flume: A Glimpse into Tucson’s Mormon Culture. Statistical Research Technical Report No. 96-5, Tucson.

Steward, Frank 1969 Shotgun Shells: Identification, Manufacturers, and Checklist for Collectors. B and P Associates, St. Louis.

Stine, Linda F., ed. 1997 Carolina’s Historical Landscapes: Archaeological Perspectives. University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

Stine, Roy S. 2000 Finding the Forge: Geographic Visualization in Archaeology. Historical Archaeology 34(4): 61-73.

Stitt, Irene 1974 Japanese Ceramics of the Last 100 Years. Crown Publishers, N.Y.

REFERENCES (continued)

Stone, Lyle M. 1983 Yuma Crossing and Associated National Landmark: An Archaeological Perspective. Archaeological Research Services, Tempe.

Surdam, Charles B. 1978 U.S. Cartridges and Their Handguns, 1797-1975. Beinfield Publishing, North Hollywood, CA.

Suydam, C. R. 1979 U.S. Cartridges and Their Handguns, 1795-1975. Beinfield Publishing Co., North Hollywood, CA.

Szuter, Christine R. 1991 “A Faunal Analysis of Home Butchering and Meat Consumption at the Hubbell Trading Post, Ganado, Arizona.” In MASCA Research Papers in Science and Archaeology, Supplement to Vol. 8, Animal Use and Culture Change, Pam J. Crabtree and Kathleen Ryan, eds., pp. 78-89.

Teague, George 1978 Excavations at Harmony Borax Works: Historical Archaeology at Death Valley National Monument. Publications in Anthropology No. 6, Western Archaeological and Conservation Center, National Park Service, Tucson.

1978 Reward Mine and Associated Sites. Publications in Anthropology No. 11, Western Archaeological Center, National Park Service, Tucson.

Thiel, J. Homer. 1998 Phoenix’s Hidden History: Archaeological Investigations at Blocks 72 and 73. Center for Desert Archaeology Anthropological Papers No. 26 and Pueblo Grande Museum Anthropological Papers No. 7, Phoenix.

Thiel, J. Homer, Micheal K. Faught, and James M. Bayman 1995 Beneath the Streets: Prehistoric, Spanish, and American Period archaeology in Downtown Tucson. Center for Desert Archaeology Technical Report No. 94-11, Tucson.

Tice, Warren K. 1998 Uniform Buttons of the United States, 1776-1865. Thomas Publications, Gettysburg, PA.

Todd, A. D. 1970 Probing Arizona’s Industrial Past: The New Archaeology. Arizona Review 19(3): 1-6.

Torbenson, Michael, Robert H. Kelly, and others 2000 Lash’s: A Bitter Medicine: Biochemical Analysis of an Historical Proprietary Medicine. Historical Archaeology 34(2): 56-64.

Toulouse, Julian Harrison 1968 Fruit Jars, A Collector’s Manual with Prices. Thomas Nelson, Nashville.

1971 Bottle Makers and Their Marks. Thomas Nelson, N.Y.

Turnbaugh, Sarah Peabody, ed. 1985 Domestic Pottery of the Northeastern United States, 1624- 1850. Academic Press, N.Y.

Utberg, Neil S. 1963 Coins of Mexico: 1536-1963. Privately Printed, Edinburg, TX.

Vanderpot, Rein, and Terrisita Majewski 1998 The Forgotten Soldiers: Historical and Archaeological Investigations of the Apache Scouts at Fort Huachuca, Arizona. Statistical Research Technical Series No. 71, Tucson.

Ward, Albert E., Emily K. Abbink, and John R. Stein 1977 Ethnohistorical and Chronological Basis of Navajo Material Culture. In Settlement and Subsistence Along the Lower Chaco River: The GCP Survey, edited by Charles A. Reher, pp. 217- 278. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Wegars, Priscilla, ed. 1993 Hidden Heritage: Historical Archaeology of the Overseas Chinese. Baywood, Amityville, N.Y.

Wheeler, Kathleen 2000 Theoretical and Methodological Considerations for Excavating Privies. Historical Archaeology 34(1): 3-19.

White, John R. 1978 Bottle Nomenclature: A Glossary of Landmark Terminology for the Archaeologist. Historical Archaeologist 12: 58-67.

Williams, Jack S. 1992 The Archaeology of Underdevelopment and the Military Frontier of Northern New Spain. Historical Archaeology 26: 7-21.

Wilson, John P. 1988 A Homestead and Its Records. The Kiva 53 (4): 363-372.

REFERENCES (continued)

Wilson, Rex 1981 Bottles on the Western Frontier. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Wilson, William L., and Betty Wilson 1971 19th Century Medicine in Glass. 19th Century Hobby and Publishing, Eau Gallie, FL.

Witthoft, John 1965 A History of Gunflints. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 36: 12-49.

Wright, Thomas E. 1993 Keeping the Boys Busy: Archaeological and Documentary Investigations of AR-03-12-06-1391, A Civilian Conservation Corps Erosion Control Site in Tonto Basin, Gila County, Arizona. Archaeological Research Services, Tempe.

Wurst, Louann 1999 Internalizing Class in Historical Archaeology. Historical Archaeology 33(1): 7-21.

Wyckoff, Martin A. 1984 United States Military Buttons of the Land Services, 1782- 1902: A Guide and Classificatory System. McLean County Historical Society, Bloomington, IL.

Yentsch, Anne Elizabeth, and Mary C. Beaudry, eds. 1990 The Art and Mystery of Historical Archaeology: Essays in Honor of James Deetz. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Zumwalt, Betty 1980 Ketchup, Pickles, Sauces - 19th Century Food in Glass. Hobby and Publishing, Eau Gallie, Fl.

PURPOSE

To prepare members to recognize human remains when encountered during excavation or in other context, to provide an understanding of proper ethical and legal treatment of human remains, and to promote proper handling and storage of human remains to ensure that they are properly protected and secured.

OBJECTIVES

At the conclusion of the course students are expected to:

1. Be able to specifically identify each human bone, or group of bones, by name, including isolated and fragmentary elements. Be able to side bones and bone fragments (as originating from the left or right side of the body), identify segment of bones presented in fragments (proximal/distal, medial/lateral, superior/inferior, anterior/posterior), identify articulations, and recognize effects of bone growth (including epiphyseal closure). Be able to distinguish the anatomy (landmarks and features) of various bones. Be able to recognize and discuss various aspects of dentition including dental terminology, deciduous and adult dental formula, dental development, dental anatomy, tooth identification, dental variation, and dental wear. Be familiar with terms constituting general bone features such as articulation, boss, crest, condyle, diaphysis, eminence, epicondyle, epiphysis, facet, hamulus, head, line, malleolus, neck, process, ridge, spine, torus, trochanter, tubercle, tuberosity, alveolus, canal, fontanelle, foramen, fossa, fovea, groove, meatus, sinus, sulcus, and suture.

2. Have an understanding of how human osteology articulates with the general framework of anthropology, including its relationship with archaeology, paleontology, physical anthropology, and forensics.

3. Understand and be able to discuss ethical and legal issues related to human remains encountered on private, state, and federal lands. Be aware of state and federal laws and to Arizona Archaeological Society rules and guidelines related to human remains.

4. Understand proper procedures for handling and storage of human remains as they relate to both care and treatment of bones (and associated osteometric equipment) and to issues of protection and security. This includes proper use of sliding, hinge, and coordinate calipers; osteometric boards; and bean bags or donut rings.

AAS Copyright 2002 Tab 11, Page 1 Intro. Human Osteology Revised October 2002 5. Be familiar with the standard anatomical position of the human body. Be able to properly and appropriately use directional terms such as; • orthograde/pronograde, • cranial/postcranial/axial/appendicular, • superior/inferior • dorsal/ventral, • proximal/distal, • anterior/posterior, • medial/lateral, • palmar/plantar/dorsal, • labial/buccal/mesial/distal/occlusal/lingual, • cephalic/cranial/caudal, • endocranial/ectocranial

when describing bones and teeth. Be familiar with sagittal, coronal, and transverse reference planes in the human body. Be familiar with terms related to basic motion of the body including abduction, adduction, eversion, extension, flexion, inversion, opposition, pronation, rotation, and supination.

6. Have a broad understanding of bone and tooth formation, growth, and function. Be aware of idiosyncratic, gender, geographic, and ontogenetic variation and their effects upon bone identification. Be aware of the nature, including bone structure and chemistry, calcification, bone growth and repair, and joints and joint lubrication, function such as axial skeleton, upper limbs, lower limbs, and skull, and movement of bones during breathing, manipulation, walking, and chewing.

7. Have a cursory understanding of procedures for recovery, preparation, and curation of human remains; skeletal analysis; age, sex, stature, and ancestry assessment using various bones; nonmetric variation and pathology (trauma and disease); taphonomy; and applications of human skeletal analysis to reconstruction of human populations. Case studies may be used.

FORMAT

Thirty hours of classwork and laboratory work are required to present the class. (Twelve classes of two and one-half hours each are recommended.) The suggested class format is approximately one-half hour of lecture and approximately two hours of laboratory work. The laboratory section should be structured to include an instructor presentation of the specific descriptive material (description of adult and subadult bones, side identification, articulations, and other pertinent material) related to the bones of interest, and a quiz.

PREREQUISITES

Prehistory of the Southwest as presented by the AAS or the equivalent AAS Copyright 2002 Tab 11, Page 2 Intro. Human Osteology Revised October 2002 which has been approved by the Department of Certification.

The suggested text for the class is Human Osteology: A Laboratory and Field Manual, Fourth Edition, by William M. Bass (1995). Refer to the REFERENCES for further information.

RESOURCE MATERIAL

For students to derive a reasonable knowledge of human skeletal remains it is recommended that they have access to at least an articulated or disarticulated adult skeleton and an array of fragmentary human bones. Access to a nonadult skeleton would add to the learning experience. A sample of nonhuman bones should also be available for comparative study. All of this material should be properly labeled and sturdy enough to withstand student handling.

EXAMINATION

Cumulative Practice quizzes should be included to add to the student learning experience and to indicate areas of class weakness to guide instructor presentations. These should include occasional non-human bones and may be self-graded or otherwise at the instructor's preference. No formal examinations are required.

COURSE OUTLINE:

1st Class Lecture General Overview, including relationship of human osteology to anthropology and subfields, state and federal laws, rules, and guidelines. Arizona Archaeological Society ethics, protection and security of human remains, and care and treatment of bones during handling and storage.

Lab Use and care of osteometric equipment and bean bags/donut rings. Handling the skull. Cranial vault consisting of frontal, parietals, occipital, and temporals, including discussion of sutures and general cranial abnormalities and pathologies. Total six bones.

2nd Class Lecture Introduction to the composition of bone and the layout of the human skeleton, standard anatomical position and directional terms, reference planes, and terms related to motion (see Objective 5). Introduction of general bone features. (see Objective A)

Lab Skull orientation, sinuses, osteometric points, remaining bones of the skull consisting of maxilla, palatines, vomer, inferior nasal concha, ethmoid, lacrimals, nasals, zygomatics, sphenoid, auditory AAS Copyright 2002 Tab 11, Page 4 Intro. Human Osteology Revised October 2002 ossicles, malleus, incus, and stapes, mandible, and hyoid. Total 23 bones.

3rd Class Lecture Bone formation. Bone chemistry, structure, growth, and calcification.

Lab Dentition. Total 20 deciduous and 32 adult teeth.

4th Class Lecture Dentition including dental terminology, tooth formation, deciduous and adult dental formula, dental development, dental anatomy, dental wear, dental variation, tooth identification, and tooth and chewing function.

Lab Vertebral column including cervical, thoracic, and lumbar vertebra, including general vertebral abnormalities and pathologies. Total 24 vertebra.

5th Class Lecture Bone growth and repair. Bone as a material. Idiosyncratic, gender, geographic, and ontogenetic variation and their effects upon identification of bone.

Lab Ribs and sternum. Total 25 bones.

6th Class Lecture Joints and lubrication.

Lab Shoulder girdle, cervicle and scapula. Total four bones.

7th Class Lecture Function of the axial skeleton and breathing.

Lab Arms, humerus, radius, and ulna. Total six bones.

8th Class Lecture Function of the upper limbs and manipulation.

Lab Hands, carpals, metacarpals, and phalanges. Total 54 bones.

9th Class Lecture Function of the lower limbs and walking.

Lab Pelvic girdle, sacrum, coccyx, and os coccyx. Total four bones.

10th Class Lecture Recovery, preparation, and curation of human skeletal remains. Cremations. Taphonomy effects on skeletal remains.

Lab Feet, tarsals, metatarsals, and phalanges. Total 52 bones.

12th Class Lecture Nonmetric variation, pathology (trauma & disease), and application of human skeletal analysis to reconstruction of past human populations.

Lab Introduction of skeletal analysis to determine age, sex, stature, and ancestry.

REFERENCES

Anderson, James E. 1962 The Human Skeleton: A Manual for Archaeologists. National Museum of Canada, Ottawa.

Bass, William M. 1995 Human Osteology: A Laboratory and Field Manual. 4th ed. Missouri Archaeological Society, Columbia, Missouri.

Bennett, Kenneth A. 1993 A Field Identification Guide for Human Identification. 2nd ed. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, Illinois.

Brothwell, Don R. 1981 Digging Up Bones: The Excavation, Treatment, and Study of Human Skeletal Remains.3rd ed. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York. no. 44.

Buikstra, Jane A., and Douglas H. Ubelaker (editors) 1994 Standards for Data Collection from Human Skeletal Remains: Proceedings of a Seminar at the Field Museum of Natural History. Arkansas Archaeological Survey Research Series No. 44. Arkansas Archaeological Survey, Fayetteville, Arkansas.

Gilbert, B. Miles 1973 Mammalian Osteo-Archaeology: North America. Missouri Archaeological Society, Columbia, Missouri.

Iscan, M. Yasar , and Kenneth A. R. Kennedy (editors) 1989 Reconstruction of Life form the Skeleton. Alan R. Liss, New York.

Krogman, Wilton M., and M. Yasar Iscan 1986 The Human Skeleton in Forensic Medicine. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, Illinois.

McKusick, Charmion R. 1986 Southwest Indian Turkeys: Prehistory and Comparative Osteology. Southwest Bird Laboratory, Globe, Arizona.

Olsen, Stanley J. 1968 Fish, Amphibian, and Reptile Remains form Archaeological Sites: Southeastern and Southwestern United States. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Volume 56, Number 2. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

1964 Mammal Remains form Archaeological Sites: Southeastern and Southwestern United States. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Volume 56, Number 1. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Shipman, Pat, Alan Walker, and David Bichell 1985 The Human Skeleton. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Steele, D. Gentry, and Claud A. Bramblett 1988 The Anatomy and Biology of the Human Skeleton. Texas A & M University Press, College Station Texas.

Swedlund, Alan C., and William D. Wade 1972 Laboratory Methods in Physical Anthropology. Prescott College Press, Prescott, Arizona.

Ubelaker, Douglas H. 1989 Human Skeletal Remains: Excavation, Analysis, Interpretation. 2nd ed. Taraxacum, Washington D.C.

White, Tim D., and Pieter Arend Folkens 1991 Human Osteology. Academic Press, San Diego.

Williams, Peter L. (editor) 1989 Gray's Anatomy. 37th ed. C. Livingstone, New York.

PURPOSE

To acquaint the student with the methods and materials used in the processing, cataloging, preservation, and storage of artifacts and to provide hands-on experience with artifacts recovered from archaeological sites.

OBJECTIVES

After completing this course, the student is able to perform the following or similar tasks with minimal supervision.

1. Clean artifacts using correct cleaning agents, tools, and procedures.

2. Analyze and classify ceramic artifacts.

3. Analyze and classify lithic artifacts.

4. Use various tools such as hand lenses, scales, Munsell Soil Color Chart, and calipers.

5. Complete analysis forms.

6. Correctly place identification information on artifacts.

7. Be aware of proper materials and procedures used in reconstruction and storage of artifacts and know where to procure such materials.

8. Follow correct procedures for reconstruction of artifacts.

In addition, the student is to have knowledge of procedures and materials used in cleaning, analyzing, and preserving shell, bone, glass, fabric, leather, wood, paper, and basketry. The actual cleaning, analysis, and/or preservation of these materials would be reserved for a Laboratory Techniques II class.

COURSE OUTLINE

A. There are at least three (3) major areas for discussion in this course: 1. Artifact processing 2. Cataloging and restoration 3. Artifact preservation and storage

B. The discussion or curriculum for each study area should start with the theory behind each area, or more simply, how it is done and why it is important

1. Artifact processing a. Theory/rationale b. Treatment of artifacts • Classification of artifacts that come into the lab • Cleaning/care of each artifact class • Restoration of artifacts where appropriate • Other discussions that may be pertinent 2. Cataloging and restoration a. Theory/rationale b. Specific systems may vary with institution c. Basic requirements, placement of artifact within proper context • Project or source (donation, private collection, etc.) • Archaeological provenience • Temporal if determinable • Artifact category 3. Preservation and storage a. Theory/rationale b. Application • Classes of artifacts needing preservation • Techniques of preservation apropos to each class • Permanent storage of artifacts • Need for recovery systems for data, as well as for actual artifacts • Other

REQUIREMENTS

A. 20 hours of CLASS WORK 1. Lab Techniques Seminar required (6 hours) 2. Typology (2 hours) 3. Remaining hours should cover the following categories: (12 hours) a. Archaeological ceramics b. Archaeological lithics c. Osteology: human and animal d. Environmental reconstruction (Paleo-ecology) e. Dating methods f. Special analytical techniques (not covered in above areas)

B. 40 hours of WORK EXPERIENCE. This should include at least 10 hours in each of three (3) Lab Techniques seminar discussion areas:

Cornwall, T. W. 1956 Bones for the Archaeologist. Phoenix House, London.

Ellis, Florence Hawley 1929 Tables for Determining Common Minerals and Rocks. Bulletin of the University of New Mexico, Geological Series, Vol. IV, No. 1

Gladwin, et al. 1965 Excavations at Snaketown: Material Culture. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Joukowsky, Martha 1980 A Complete Manual of Field Archaeology: Tools and Techniques of Field Work for Archaeologists. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.

Kidder, A. V. 1932 The Artifacts of Pecos. Papers of the Phillips Academy Southwestern Expedition, No. 6, New Haven.

Shepard, Anna O. 1959 Ceramics for the Archaeologist. Publication 609, Carnegie Institute of Washington. Reprint 1976.

Urban, Sharon F. 1978 The Peppersauce Wash Project: Excavations at three multicomponent sites in the lower San Pedro River Valley, Arizona by W. Bruce Masse. Appendix on shell. Arizona State Museum Contributions to Highway Salvage Archaeology in Arizona, No. 52., Tucson.

1978 The Miami Wash Project: Hohokam and Salado in the Globe-Miami area, central Arizona by David E. Doyel. Appendix on shell. Arizona State Museum Contributions to Highway Salvage Archaeology, No. 53., Tucson.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this class is to give members of the Arizona Archaeological Society a working knowledge of, and the ability to, identify and sort lithic materials found in Arizona. The course is intended to focus on a specific site, a series of related sites, or a region of the state. Members may take this class several times to become proficient with the lithics of various prehistoric culture areas.

Emphasis is placed on identifying specific rock types, recognizing minerals, crystals, rock forming processes and analyzing human modification techniques.

PREREQUISITES

The only requirement is the completion of Prehistory of the Southwest. However, it is strongly recommended that the participant have completed Laboratory Techniques.

FORMAT

The course is designed to be presented in 60 hours, with 20 hours of lecture and 40 hours of laboratory processing, identification and analysis experience. Optional field trips would be included within the laboratory hours.

COURSE STRUCTURE

The content will be presented through lecture, demonstration, hands-on experience, and practical quizzes. Students will work as a class, in groups, and as individuals depending on the skill to be mastered. They will wash, sort, and analyze lithic materials provided by the host chapter. Each student will choose and complete a lithic research project by the end of the course.

RECOMMENDATION

It is highly recommended that serious students in lithic analysis who intend to continue as a member of a project team should create a rock collection gathered from the site project area.

FIELD TRIPS

Field trips will be arranged depending on the needs of the students and the availability of permission from landowners to enter site area.

Adams, Jenny L. 2002 Ground Stone Analysis: A Technological Approach. The University of Utah Press. Salt Lake City.

Sliva, R. Jane 1997 Introduction to the Study and Analysis of Flaked Stone Artifacts and Lithic Technology. Center for Desert Archaeology. Tucson, Arizona.

RECOMMENDED ELECTIVE TEXTS

Adrefsky, William Jr. 2003 Lithic Debitage: Context, Form, Meaning. The University of Utah Press Salt Lake City.

Kardulias, P. Nick, and Richard W. Yerkes 2003 Written in Stone: The Multiple Dimensions of Lithic Analysis. Lexington Books. Altamira Press. California.

Mottana, Annibale, Rodolfo Crespi and Giuseppe Liborio (latest version) 1978 Simon and Schuster’s Guide to Rocks and Minerals. Simon and Schuster. New York

MATERIALS NEEDED

A. Each student should provide: 1. 10x hand lens 2. Contact goniometer 3. Calipers 15cm+ 4. Calculator 5. Analysis forms

B. Laboratory should be equipped with: 1. Ohause triple beam balance 2, 6,10g 2. Munsell ROCK color chart (2) 3. Marking materials – (BIC Brand Quick Dry White Out; PIGMA Brand Micron 02 #1 Archival Black Ink .30mm; CLEAR fingernail polish) 4. Various versions of rock and mineral identification guides 5. Basic rock and mineral collection for reference (optional)

At the conclusion of the course, students will be able to

1. Recognize basic lithic types that characterize the area of study 2. Understand the significance of flaked and groundstone artifacts to archaeologists 3. Understand the laboratory tools necessary for lithic analysis 4. Recognize informal and formal lithic tools in the field as well as in the laboratory 5. Sort lithic materials based on rock type, fracture and possible use 6. Separate and categorize flaked stone tools 7. Identify the basic fractures associated with specific tool types 8. Explain the role of debitage in the analysis of lithic assemblages 9. Describe the variations seen in pecked and ground stone use 10. Relate the project research design to the format of the analysis sheet 11. Identify the minimal lithic attributes to be recorded for any chosen level of analysis 12. Become familiar with the appropriate Arizona Bureau of Mines Geologic Map for the county where the project site is located 13. Establish a reference collection of local rock types that may be of use in the manufacture of lithic materials

COURSE OUTLINE

A. Introduction to Basic Rocks and Minerals

1. Igneous Rock – Consolidation of a magma a. Mode of formation: extrusive (volcanic), hypobyssal, intrusive (plutonic) b. Major examples: alkaline feldspar granite, granite, diorite, ophiolitic gabbro, alkaline feldspar, rhyolite, dacite, andesite, basalt, obsidian, diabase

2. Sedimentary Rock - Transformed preexisting rocks a. Mode of formation: alteration, transportation, erosion, deposition b. Major examples: conglomerate, arkose, argillite, jasper, compact limestone, dolomite, flints, sandstone

3. Metamorphic Rock a. Mode of formation: re-crystallization due to temperature and/or pressure b. Major examples: quartzite, phyllite, mica schist, chlorite schist, gneiss, serpentine, slate

4. Minerals a. Solid crystalline substances b. Crystal morphology and its importance c. Major examples: copper, galena, hematite, malachite, turquoise, epidote, muscovite, biotite, quartz, chalcedony

5. Distribution of rock types a. Identify rock sources for local tools using the Arizona Bureau of Mines Geologic Map for their county b. Locate closest sources, outcrops, and roadbeds near project site

B Rock Tool Types and Tasks

1. Flaked stone a. Description • Raw material • Processing b. Usage • Cutting • Scraping • Projecting 1. Ground and pecked stone a. Description b. Usage • Food processing • Storage • Agriculture • War(?)

C. Mechanics of Tool Manufacture

1. Breaking of cobbles and nodules 2. Biface shaping and thinning 3. Direct percussion a. Hard hammer b. Soft hammer c. Use of anvil – bipolar 4. Indirect percussion 5. Pressure flaking 6. Retouching

1. Flake technology a. Terms associated with flakes • Soft hammer - dorsal, ventral, platform, lip, eralure, diffuse bulb of force, preparation flake scars, fissures or hackles, contact area, previous blade scar, dorsal ridge areas • Hard hammer - pronounced bulb of force, slightly crushed contact area, absence of lip b. Basic types of flakes • amputated, backed, lade, prismatic c. Stages of manufacture • primary, secondary, tertiary

2. Flaked tools a. Definitions: knife, scraper, graver, chopper b. Types of Edges • Unifacial - less formal • Bifacial - more formal, less common, ex. projectile points

3. Cores - Raw material a. Amorphous b. Unidirectional c. Bidirectional d. Discoid e. Exhausted f. Multidirectional g. Polyhedral h. Residual i. Tabular

4. Hammerstones – Core reduction a. Angular b. Cobble • Round • Elongated c. Core d. Discoid e. Spheroid f. File g. Flaked

5. Debitage – Waste flakes a. Recognition of waste flakes b. Use of debitage • determine techniques of manufacture • study technological traits c. Intentional and unintentional breaking of artifacts.

1. Design and Manufacture a. As relates to specific project and research design

2. Determining Function a. Form does not always reflect function b. Use of historic photographs c. Use of ethnology d. Use of experimental archaeology

3. Debitage

4. Types of tools a. Abrading, smoothing and polishing b. Grinding and pulverizing • mano, metate (basin, slab, trough), mortar, pestle, palette c. Percussion • pottery anvil, pecking stones, choppers, chisels, crushers(?) d. Hafted percussion • axe, adze, hoe e. Perforating, cutting and scraping • reamers, awls, saws and files, planes f. Spinning • spindle whorl g. Paraphernalia • balls, stone rings, plummet, pigments, ornaments h. Containers • bowls, censers

F. Laboratory Processing of Lithic Materials

1. Definitions 2. Stone modification a. Natural b. Human 3. Cleaning 4. Preservation 5. Markings 6. Measurements needed 7. Low or high level magnification

G. Role of the Research Design

1. Site research design 2. Lithic research questions

3. Development of analysis forms for date recording a. Arizona State University b. Glendale Community College • Coldwater Ruin • Quass Pueblo c. Phoenix Chapter – Arizona Archaeological Society Casa de Piedras d. Center for Desert Archaeology e. University of Denver

4. Specific (special) data forms

H. Summary

1. Emphasis on the importance of: a. physical geology b. flake technology c. the ability to recognize and separate rock types d. the ability to recognize and separate cultural artifacts e. non-cultural lithic material f. being able to interpret lithic materials in site and non- site contexts

REFERENCES FOLLOW ON PAGES 8 AND 9

Adams, Jenny L. 1997 Manual for a Technological Approach to Ground Stone Analysis. Center for Desert Archaeology. Tucson, Arizona. OP and republished as: 2002 Ground Stone Analysis: A Technological Approach. The University of Utah Press. Salt Lake City.

Adrefsky, William Jr. 2003 Lithic Debitage: Context, Form, Meaning. The University of Utah Press Salt Lake City.

Antieau, John M. 1981 The Palo Verde Archaeological Investigation Hohokam Settlement at the Confluence Excavations Along the Palo Verde Pipeline. Museum of Northern Arizona Research Papers 20. Flagstaff.*

Arizona Bureau of Mines 1957 Geologic Map of Maricopa County. United States Geologic Survey. University of Arizona. Tucson*

Bruder, J. Simon and Robert E. Gasser 1983 Lithics. In Archaeological Investigations at the Adobe Dam Alternative Site. No. 4, Phoenix, Arizona. pp. 93-134. Museum of Northern Arizona Research Paper No. 27. Flagstaff*

Crabtree, Don C. 1972 An Introduction to Flintworking: Occasional Paper 28. Idaho State University Museum. Pocatello

Craig, Douglas B. (editor) 2001 The Grewe Archaeological Research Project Volume 2: Material Culture Part II: Stone, Shell, and Bone Artifacts and Biological Remains. Northland Research, Inc. Anthropological Papers No 99-1. Flagstaff and Tempe.*

Doyel, David E. and mark D. Elson (editors) 1985 Hohokam Settlement and Economic Systems in Central New River Drainage, Arizona. Soil Systems Publications in Archaeology, No. 4. Phoenix*

Gladwin, Harold S., Emil W. Haury, Edwin B. Sayles and Nora Gladwin 1965 Excavations at Snaketown: Material Culture. Medallion Paper, No. 25. Gila Pueblo: Globe. reprinted by the University of Arizona Press. Tucson*

AAS Copyright 2004 Tab 22, Page 8 Lithic Ident. & Analysis Griffith, Richard 1980 A Detailed Analysis of the Projectile Points Recovered from Phases 1 Through 4 of the Vandalism Studies Conducted at Casa de Piedras, AZ T:7:5 (ASU). Gifted Seminar, Alhambra High School. MS on file at Agua Fria Chapter, Arizona Archaeological Society: Phoenix and Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson.*

Haury, Emil W. 1945 The Excavation of Los Muertos and Neighboring Ruins in the Salt River Valley. Southern Arizona Papers of the Peobody Museum American Archaeology and Ethnology. Vol. 24, No. 1. Cambridge.* 1976 The Hohokam Desert Farmers and Craftsmen: Excavations at Snaketown, 1964-1965. The University of Arizona Press. Tucson*

Jernigan, E. Wesley 1978 Jewelry of the Prehistoric Southwest. University of New Mexico Press. Albuquerque.

Kardulias, P. Nick, and Richard W. Yerkes 2003 Written in Stone: The Multiple Dimensions of Lithic Analysis. Lexington Books. Altamira Press. California.

Mottana, Annibale, Rodolfo Crespi and Giuseppe Liborio 1978 Simon and Schuster’s Guide to Rocks and Minerals. Simon and Schuster. New York.

Neusius, Phillip D. 1984 Functional Analysis of Selected Flaked Lithic Assemblages from the Dolores River Valley: A Low Power Microware Approach. Dolores Archaeological Program Technical Reports, No. 2ap – 165.*

Parry, William J. and Robert L. Kelly 1987 Expedient Core Technology and Sedentism. In The Organization of Core Technology. Edited by K. J. Johnson and C. A. Morrow. pp. 285-304. Westview Press. Boulder

Rodgers, James 1987 Studies along the Lower Agua Fria River. The Eastwing Site and the Marinette Canal. Museum of Northern Arizona Research Paper 37. Flagstaff*

Shoger, Maurice Dean 2003 "Down in the Dumps" The Archaeological Investigations of Quass Pueblo – A Small Farm Site on the Agua Fria River, Southern Arizona. General Papers #1. Quass Pueblo Research Association. Phoenix.*

Sliva, R. Jane 1997 Introduction to the Study and Analysis of Flaked Stone Artifacts and Lithic Technology. Center for Desert Archaeology. Tucson, Arizona.

PURPOSE

Pottery, or Pottery Technology, is an introductory course in archaeological pottery technology with emphasis upon the American Southwest. The only prerequisites are current membership in the Arizona Archaeological Society and the AAS course, Prehistory of the Southwest or an approved equivalent. Prehistory of the Southwest may be taken concurrently.

Lectures, laboratory, and field trips will cover characteristics of clays and clay bodies, methods of form and decoration used prehistorically, the uses of pottery by the archaeologist, and an introduction to the identification of the ware of one cultural tradition.

There are twenty (20) hours of lecture and approximately forty (40) hours devoted to other activities of a hands-on nature.

OBJECTIVES

At the end of the course the student can perform the following:

1. Name the principal characteristics of clays as they apply to hand built pottery.

2. Discuss the characteristics and functions of the various tempers used prehistorically.

3. Describe the two major methods of forming pottery and the geographic and cultural extent of these methods in the prehistoric Southwest.

4. Describe the principal organic and mineral paints used prehistorically.

5. Discuss the principal uses of pottery by the archaeologist in dating and in cultural analysis.

6. Discuss briefly the concepts of ware and type as used in the Southwest.

7. Describe the system used in naming and classifying pottery.

8. Identify and give the characteristics of four types of vessels from the cultural area studied.

9. Collect, form, and fire a vessel of native clay.

10. Demonstrate the ability to form, decorate, and successfully fire a vessel of acceptable thinness and symmetry, at least six inches in diameter, in an identifiable style (as, for example, Sacaton Red on Buff). AAS Copyright 2002 Tab 13, Page 1 Pottery technology Revised October 2002

A. Introduction to archaeological pottery 1. The importance of pottery to the archaeologist 2. Emphasis upon Southwest pottery 3. The beginnings of pottery in the Southwest a. Mogollon b. Hohokam c. Anasazi 4. Standard naming system: Locality followed by the color added to the vessel and the color of the vessel surface, as, for example, Mesa Verde B/W or Gila Polychrome, for more than two colors including the background color. 5. The concept of type and ware a. Pottery attributes b. How an archaeologist describes vessels or assemblages of vessels

B. Clay and temper 1. Characteristics of clays a. Chemical structures - Hydrated Aluminum Silicates - (Kaolins, Bentonites) b. Physical properties of clays • Texture (fat and lean) • Plasticity • Color of clays and of pottery including use of Munsell Soil Color Charts • Drying properties c. Origin from granitic minerals, basalts, volcanic ash, and others d. Occurrence: Primary or residual and sedimentary, marine, aquatic, glacial, shale clay e. Impurities of clay and their effects • Quartz, sand and silt • Calcium carbonate • Iron oxide, hematite, limonite, magnetite • Organic matter f. Effects of heat on clay and pottery 500 - 1000 degrees Centigrade g. Identification of clay source h. Slips and pastes

AAS Copyright 2002 Tab 13, Page 3 Pottery technology Revised October 2002 2. Temper a. Function of non plastics in the clay • Effects upon shrinkage • Effects upon strength of pottery b. Types of temper • Organic • Plant fibers • Shell • Diatomaceous earth • Inorganic • Ground rock • Ground sherd • Sands • Volcanic ash c. Microscopic examination of temper • Crushed sherds • Thin cut sherds • Thin section of sherds, positive identification of minerals may require petrographic microscope d. Importance of temper analysis in archaeology

C. Methods of forming vessels - the conservatism of the basic methods through time 1. Paddle and Anvil tradition: started on outside of form. Hohokam, Sinagua, Papago, Maricopa, Lower Colorado River tribes. Wooden paddles; anvils of stone or ceramic 2. Coil and Scrape tradition: started in a form (Puka). Casas Grandes, Mogollon, Anasazi, New Mexico Pueblos, Hopi Mesas (centered on First Mesa at this time). Scrapers of wood, gourd, sherd

D. Materials and methods of decoration 1. Plainware - painted - polychrome 2. Corrugation - incised - punched - stamped - modeled - applique - slips - stucco 3. Slips and burnish 4. Organic paint: Bee Weed and Mesquite 5. Mineral paint, how to distinguish from organic paint. Hematite - ochers - Limonite - Magnetite - Manganese 6. Glaze paints - lead based - only as decoration 7. Yucca brushes 8. The popularity of organic paint beginning about the 12th century in Anasazi areas 9. Fugitive paint conditions

E. Firing methods 1. "Open" temporary kilns - kilns of Snaketown - at Hopi 2. Control of the fire - oxidizing, reducing effects 3. The fuel: wood, coal, manure later 4. Temperature achieved in range of 500 to 900 degrees Centigrade

F. The Ethnology of Southwest pottery 1. The uses of ethnology in archaeology 2. The prominent pottery families at Hano, San Ildefonso, Zuni, and Santa Clara. Jesse Fewkes, 1895 - Lesou and Nampeyo. The Nampeyo "Dynasty" - Maria and Julian Martinez 3. Raising standards and innovation

G. Pottery and dating 1. Chronologies and typologies - time and space considerations 2. Dating a. Indirect: Dendrochronology, archaeomagnetic, Carbon 14, accelerator mass spectroscopy b. Direct: Seriology, Alpha trace dating of mica in sherds, Thermoluminescence c. Tests on sherds: Hardness, strength and porosity, refiring tests

H. Laboratory - workshop activities 1. Prospecting for clay field trips - two required 2. Pottery typology for local ware(s) - 6 hours 3. Preparing clay and forming vessels - 6 hours 4. Open firing, both oxidizing and reducing - two days 5. Examination of the temper in sherds with the 20X microscope or lens - 2 hours

HANDS-ON POTTERY MAKING

Each student is to complete several pottery projects. One gradual sequence of items of increasing difficulty for beginners is Hohokam anvil, a ladle or scoop, a small vessel, a larger vessel using paddle and anvil, and another by coil and scrape.

It is useful to have at least two pounds of good proven clay on hand for each student. A selection of proven clays would be desirable. Students will use their own collected clays, of course, but "proven" clays reduce the variables which often produce disasters. A small electric or gas kiln is very useful so that students may see results each week of the course.

CLAY PROSPECTING FIELD TRIP

One Saturday field trip for gathering native clays is required. Two would be better. The instructor should have checked out the clay deposits along the route. Each student should be equipped with plastic buckets and/or plastic bags to carry his or her clay home. At each stop several simple tests should be made. A dropper bottle of dilute HCl is used to test for lime or Caliche. A canteen of water is carried to the clay and everyone works up a bit of clay, making a long 'pencil.' If this can be bent into a one-inch circle without cracking, the clay is a good candidate for further tests. At this time judgements are made about texture, plasticity, iron, and organic. Both residual and sedimentary AAS Copyright 2002 Tab 13, Page 6 Pottery technology Revised October 2002 clay sources should be visited, if possible. An agreed upon name for the deposits, along with notes about the clay, should be included in the bucket or sack.

AAS Copyright 2002 Tab 13, Page 7 Pottery technology Revised October 2002 Instructions for cleaning, suggestions for tempering, and directions for making test tiles are given at this time. A tile 10 cm long by 2 cm wide and about 4 mm thick is a convenient size. Shrinkage, after drying and firing, is noted and converted to percentages easily. For example, after firing the tile is 8 mm shorter, therefore the shrinkage is 8%. A hole in the tile is convenient for tying to the clay bucket.

The distance to known sites from the clay bed is noted and the likelihood of its use prehistorically is commented on. The party may find likely sources of temper (we found a highly micacious silt).

See the next page for the course REFERENCES

Bunzel, Ruth L. 1929 The Pueblo Potter: A Study of Creative Imagination in Primitive Art. Columbia University Press, New York.

Colton, Harold S. (editor) 1952 Pottery Types of the Southwest. Ceramic series beginning in 1952 (and others in the Museum of Northern Arizona Ceramic Series with other editors).

Dittert, Alfred E. and Fred Plog 1980 Generations in Clay. Northland Press, Flagstaff. (A)*

Fewkes, Jesse Walter 1973 Designs in Prehistoric Hopi Pottery. Dover.

Haury, Emil W. 1975 The Hohokam. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Martin, Paul and Fred Plog 1973 The Archaeology of Arizona. Doubleday/Natural History Press, Garden City, New York.

Maxwell Museum of Anthropology 1974 Seven Families in Pueblo Pottery. University of New Mexico, Santa Fe.

1976 Pueblo Pottery of New Mexico. El Palacio. Fall (entire issue).

Schroeder, Albert H. (editor) 1982 Southwestern Ceramics: A Comparative Review. Arizona Archaeological Society, Phoenix. (A)

Shepard, Anna 0. 1959 Ceramics for the Archaeologist. Carnegie Institute of Washington. Reprint 1976. (A)

See also REFERENCES following Ceramics Workshop Course Outline.

* (A) In Phoenix Chapter Archives

PURPOSE

The goal of this course is to introduce the student to various forms of architectural analysis used when investigating prehistoric sites in the American Southwest. This course will encompass the goals, methods, and techniques that archaeologists undertake to derive various interpretations of the different architectural components and overall site configurations observed in the prehistoric record. This course will expose the student to both classroom and field situations; thus, both lecture and fieldwork are requisites for completion.

OBJECTIVES

At the completion of this course, the student will be able to:

1. Define what architecture is.

2. Identify known architectural variability between the three principal culture groups of the American Southwest, the Hohokam, Mogollon, and Anasazi, and variability expressed through time for each culture area.

3. Identify common inferences and analogies employed between the prehistoric archaeological record and historic and modern architectural studies.

4. Understand various scales of analysis when applied to archaeological architectural analysis.

5. Demonstrate the ability to create architectural profiles.

6. Demonstrate the ability to plot plan view maps of various room features and architectural room configurations.

7. Demonstrate the ability to undertake feature and room recordation on appropriate forms.

8. Begin to interpret site growth patterns and interpret spatial analysis for features, rooms, courtyards, plazas, and other site components in terms of architectural configuration.

FORMAT

The course is designed to be presented in 70 hours, with 20 hours of lecture, 30 hours of field analysis/experience, and 20 hours of archaeological field trips to at least three different archaeological sites where architectural variability will be studied. To complete the field analysis portion of the class, it will be necessary for the student to work on two different archaeological sites containing different forms AAS Copyright 2002 Tab 14, Page 1 Prehistoric Architectural Anal. Revised October 2002 of architectural expression.

PREREQUISITE

To enroll in the Prehistoric Architectural Analysis class, the student should have completed Prehistory of the Southwest and Crew Member I.

COURSE OUTLINE

A. Introduction 1. What is architecture? a. Use of space in world context. • How and why people partition space. • Why do archaeologists study prehistoric architecture. • Various forms of prehistoric Southwest architecture.

B. Various Materials Used in Architectural Construction 1. Material variability (a world perspective). a. How people find, create, and use building materials around the world. b. How people reuse available material. 2. The use of material and space in new world prehistoric architecture.

C. Architecture and Ethnography 1. Inferences and analogies of historic and modern architectural units to prehistoric architecture. a. Pueblo architectural analogies. b. Navajo/Apache ethnographic analogies. c. Pima/Papago ethnographic analogies. d. Historic Anglo analogies.

D. Architectural Variability 1. Architectural attributes. 2. Functions of architectural components. 3. Use of space and architecture in the American Southwest and the development of major Southwestern architectural traditions. a. The early periods. • Archaic period architecture. • Archaic to ceramic period transition architecture. b. Anasazi architectural variability. c. Mogollon architectural variability. d. Hohokam architectural variability.

E. Scale of analysis 1. Differences of scale between features, rooms, components, sites, and site complexes. 2. Determining what scale or level of analysis is appropriate for particular archaeological problem sets.

F. Recording Prehistoric Architecture 1. Architectural documentation. a. Forms. b. General note-taking. c. Specific architectural documentation. • Standard approaches. • Computerization. d. Feature recordation. 2. Mapping architectural variability. a. Plan view mapping. b. Architectural profiles. c. Computerized mapping. 3. Photographing architectural variability. a. Feature photography. b. Room photography. c. Site photography. d. Aerial photography.

G. Architectural Interpretation 1. Interpreting site/room function. a. Identifying habitation units. b. Identifying storage units. c. Identifying ceremonial units. d. Identifying multi-functional units. e. Identifying intra-mural versus extra-mural areas. 2. Identifying spatial relationships (between features, rooms, courtyards, plazas, site components). a. Identifying intrusions. b. Identifying superpositioning. c. Identifying disturbance/transformation processes (natural and cultural). 3. Identifying site growth. a. Identification of bonding and abutment patterns. b. Identification of exterior versus interior wall surfaces. c. Identification of superpositioning of architectural components. d. Identification of multiple floor surfaces and the relationships between multiple floor surfaces. 4. Identification of intra-site relationships. 5. Identification of inter-site relationships. 6. Identification of environmental relationships and architectural configurations.

See next page for REFERENCES.

REFERENCES

Ciolek-Torrello, Richard, and J. Jefferson Reid 1974 Change in Household Size at Grasshopper. The Kiva 40:39-47.

Cordell, Linda P. 1984 Prehistory of the Southwest. Academic Press, Orlando.

Hohmann, John W. 1990 Ruin Stabilization and Park Development for Besh-Ba-Gowah Pueblo. Studies in Western Archaeology, No. 1. Cultural Resource Group, Louis Berger and Associates.

1990 A Master Stabilization and Development Plan for the Casa Malpais National Historic Landmark Site. Studies in Western Archaeology, No. 3. Cultural Resource Group, Louis Berger & Associates.

Lekson, Stephen H. 1986 Great Pueblo Architecture of Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. Reprinted. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Originally published 1984, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Albuquerque.

Longacre, William A., and J. Jefferson Reid 1974 The University of Arizona Archaeological Field School at Grasshopper: Eleven Years of Multidisciplinary Research and Teaching. The Kiva 40:3-38.

Rock, James T. 1974 The Use of Social Models in Archaeological Interpretations. The Kiva 40:81-91.

Scarborough, Robert, and Izumi Shimada 1974 Geological Analysis of Wall Composition at Grasshopper with Behavioral Implications. The Kiva 40:49-66.

Thorne, Robert M. 1991 Site Stabilization Information Sources. Technical Brief No. 12. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service.

PREHISTORY OF THE SOUTHWEST

PURPOSE

This is the introductory course in the study of the American Southwest. The course will provide an up-to-date synthesis of Southwestern prehistory for members of the Arizona Archaeological Society (AAS) who are interested in enrolling in or are enrolled in the Certification Program and is a prerequisite for all the other courses offered within the program.

The class is designed to be presented during twenty hours of classroom instruction. At the option of the Chapter and the instructor, the course may be presented during eight sessions, each lasting 2½ hours, or ten sessions, each lasting two hours.

The suggested text for this class is Archaeology of the Southwest, Second Edition by Linda S. Cordell. Additionally, two other recent books, The Archaeology of Ancient Arizona by J. Jefferson Reid and Stephanie M. Whittlesey and Ancient Peoples of the American Southwest by Stephen Plog, are suggested as supplemental texts. These books may be obtained through local booksellers. Allow six weeks for delivery if the book, or books, must be ordered. Refer to the REFERENCES for complete citations for these books.

OBJECTIVES

At the end of this course, the student can perform the following:

1. Identify and describe the major geographic areas of the Southwest with their associated culture groups.

2. Indicate at least one theory as to how the Native American peoples arrived in the Southwest and support it with appropriate data.

3. Explain the difference between groups associated with big game hunting versus those who specialized in gathering wild foods.

4. Describe how cultures are developed.

5. Describe the most useful dating systems used in the Southwest.

6. Indicate the importance of domesticated agriculture in the development of life styles.

7. Explain the concepts of regional integration, aggregation, and dispersed systems and discuss the effects of these on various Southwestern culture groups.

8. Describe data that indicates trade existed and attempt to explain the associated implications.

9. Name and describe the known cultural variations in the prehistoric Southwest comprised of Anasazi (or Ancestral Pueblo) including Mesa Verde, Chaco canyon, Kayenta, Rio Grande, and Virgin; Hohokam; Mogollon; Patayan including Cohonina, Cerbat, Prescott, and Lowland Patayan (or Laquish); Sinagua, Salado, Fremont, and Casas Grandes.

10. Indicate the effect of European contact on the native population.

11. Explain the United States and Arizona laws protecting cultural resources. Evaluate the influence of these laws on the general public.

COURSE OUTLINE

A. Introduction 1. Contemporary peoples 2. Prehistoric cultures 3. History of Southwest archaeology

B. The natural environment 1. Physiographic provinces 2. Climate 3. Vegetation 4. Fauna 5. Paleoenvironmental chronology

C. Frameworks for Southwestern prehistory 1. Major Southwestern traditions 2. Methods of dating 3. Current chronologies

D. Paleoindian 1. Discovery of Folsom and Clovis 2. Research 3. Paleoindian complexes 4. Paleoindian chronology

Tab 15, Page 2 AAS Copyright 2002 Prehistory of the Southwest Revised October 2002 E. The Archaic period 1. Paleoenvironmental considerations 2. Subsistence and settlement 3. Early cultigens in the Southwest

F. Agricultural strategies 1. Spread of agriculture in the Southwest 2. Diversity of prehistoric agricultural and subsistence strategies

G. Early Southwestern communities to A.D. 900

H. Regional integration, A.D. 900 - 1150 1. The Chaco Phenomenon 2. Casas Grandes 3. Hohokam 4. Areas in between: Mesa Verde, Mimbres, Kayenta 5. Dispersed systems

I. Late prehistoric aggregated villages A.D. 1150 - 1300 1. Distributions and patterns of settlements 2. Ceramic production and distribution 3. Late prehistoric organization

J. Abandonment 1. Traditional explanations for abandonments 2. Reevaluation of the concept 3. The Southwest at the beginning of history a. Historical documents b. History, legend, and archaeology of Awatovi c. Apache and Navajo

REFERENCES on the next page.

Ambler, J. Richard 1997 The Anasazi. Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff. (A)*

Anyon, Roger, and Steven A. LeBlanc 1977 The Galaz Ruin: A Prehistoric Mimbres Village in Southwestern New Mexico. Maxwell Museum of Anthropology and University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

Cordell, Linda S. 1984 Prehistory of the Southwest. Academic Press, Orlando.

1997 Archaeology of the Southwest 2ND ED. Academic Press, San Diego

Haury, Emil W. 1976 The Hohokam: Desert Farmers and Craftsmen. University of Arizona Press, Tucson

Lister, Robert H. and Florence C. Lister 1983 Those Who Came Before. Southwest Parks and Monument Association, Globe Arizona (paper). The University of Arizona Press, Tucson (cloth)

Noble, David Grant (ed) 1991 The Hohokam: Ancient People of the Desert. Exploration.

Ortiz, Alfonso (ed) 1979 Southwest. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 9. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.

1983 Southwest. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 10. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.

Pilles, Peter J. 1987 The Sinagua: Ancient People of the Flagstaff Region. Exploration 2-11.

Plog, Stephen 1997 Ancient People of the American Southwest. Thames and Hudson, New York.

Reid, J. and Stephanie M. Whittlesey 1997 The Archaeology of Ancient Arizona. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson

*(A) In Phoenix Chapter Archives.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this course is to certify an applicant for the position of Recorder on a survey crew or excavation team.

OBJECTIVE

The student is to acquire the ability to prepare a documentary record of the field facts and record interpretations of field data, and to collect artifacts and eco-factual materials in the field for transfer to the laboratory.

PROFICIENCY LEVEL ATTAINED Beginning to Intermediate

LABORATORY TRAINING 20 hours - 10 two-hour workshops are suggested.

A. Archaeological excavation techniques and the goals of 2 hours excavation

B. Archaeological field surveys and goals 2 hours (From Tab 19 - Survey Techniques)

C. Fundamentals of recording prehistoric and historic 2 hours cultural remains 1. Techniques for observation 2. Techniques for measuring 3. The phenomena of stratigation and developing stratigraphy

D. The engineering survey 2 hours

E. Aerial and topographic map reading 1 hour

F. Archaeological photography 1 hour

G. Artifact recognition 4 hours 1. Ceramics 4. Horn 2. Shell 5. Lithics 3. Bone 6. Wood

H. Architectural form recognition and description 2 hours

I. Map making 2 hours 1. The plan view 2. The profile and profiling 3. Elevations 4. Sketching

J. Application 1 hour 1. Development of records 2. Making forms 3. Writing the record 4. Correlating the various records

K. Museum registration methods 1 hour (From Tab 12 - Laboratory Techniques)

FIELD TRAINING 40 hours of supervised on-site field work

A. The trainee is involved in actual field work situations. Maximum effort is applied to dealing with ground truth. The trainee is to show proficiency in developing the following: 1. Field log and/or journal of daily events 2. An example of a survey journal and/or an excavation taken in a field situation 3. Making a field map of a site or portion of a site, both as a a. Sketch map b. An engineering-type survey map using a peep sight alidade and tape, optical alidade, a Brunton compass and tape, string level and tape, or a transit 4. Plot several sites on topographical maps 5. Read an aerial photograph 6. Recognize and draw graphically, and describe in prose several different kinds of architectural features 7. Recognize and describe artifactual content of the site under study

B. The trainee is to show his or her proficiency to properly collect and prepare an adequate record for the following: 1. A specimen for radiocarbon dating 2. A specimen for pollen or soil analysis 3. A specimen for flotation analysis 4. A specimen for tree-ring study 5. Optional: A specimen for archaeomagnetic dating

C. The trainee is to submit his or her notes, records and documents to the site director/instructor for review. The records are to demonstrate: 1. Clarity of record keeping 2. An appreciation for clear expression, consistent reporting, and a demonstration of ability to assess remains observed in quantitative terms. 3. An ability to take clear and sharp photos from a good position. The purpose of this final review is to test the completeness and accuracy of the recording process; the interrelationship among all the various record sets and collections made. 4. This evaluation will rate the work according to: a. Usefulness in preparing a description of field work done b. Usefulness in cataloging the artifacts c. Usefulness of the data for analyzing the field data and AAS Copyright 2002 Tab 16, Page 2 Recorder Revised October 2002 artifacts

Note: The following are also the suggested references for Field Crew Member I (Tab 8) and II (Tab 9) courses.

Hester, Thomas R, Robert F. Heizer, and John A. Graham 1975 Field Methods in Archaeology. Mayfield, Palo Alto. (A)*

Hole, Frank, and Robert F. Heizer 1973 An Introduction to Prehistoric Archaeology. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York. (A)*

Joukowsky, Martha 1980 A Complete Manual of Field Archaeology: Tools and Techniques of Field Work for Archaeologists. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.

Spier, Robert F. G. 1970 Surveying and Mapping: A Manual of Simplified Techniques. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.

*(A) In Phoenix Chapter Archives.

PURPOSE The purpose of this course is to provide the basic academic and field skills necessary to qualify the avocational archaeologist to be able to participate in rock art recording projects and to provide assistance to the professional community as may be requested.

OBJECTIVES At the completion of the course the student will: 1. Be familiar with the terminology and literature of the field of rock art. 2. Be aware of the obligations and law, relating to the protection and preservation of this cultural resource. 3. Be familiar with the various styles and types of rock art in the local area, and in other areas as presented. 4. Understand the limitations and current methods of rock art dating and interpretation. 5. Learn the basics of rock art recording, tools and techniques. 6. Gain confidence in the recording of rock art sites both as an archaeological manifestation, and as a rock art site. 7. Be able to record a site on his/her own, with supervision. 8. Be able to communicate with and assist others with these skills in Rock Art programs.

FORMAT The student will receive a minimum of 20 hours of classroom instruction, coupled with 40 hours of actual field experience. Within the field work requirements, students (in teams of two or three) will record at least one small rock art site, and then proceed to larger sites again working in a team with at least one certified recorder to supervise.

All completed recordings will be turned over to the appropriate agency (permitting) and closest associated archiving institution in a format most useful to that institute. Additional copies of this information may be housed at other institutions depending upon agreements made at the beginning of the project.

GENERAL COMMENTS 1. Items need not be covered in the order presented, but it is mandatory that all items be covered by the end of the course. 2. Present recording techniques early in the course so that field work can begin as soon as possible. 3. Take a few field trips as orientation for those who have not seen much rock art. Choose a variety of sites stressing variation in elements, methods, style, time periods. Both petroglyph and pictograph sites should be examined, if possible.

4. Attempt to use all day sessions with morning lecture and afternoon recording or evening lectures and all day recording sessions. 5. Stress the importance of completing field work as soon as possible before the end of the course work. 6. Broaden the horizons with slides of glyphs from different areas: Mesoamerica, Australia, South Africa, Sahara, Europe, for a good general view. Have students bring examples from places they have visited. (Distribution, section D, page 4) 7. Stress the fact that rock art CAN be dealt with from a scientific and anthropological perspective. Assign outside reading, might even put in a test question. 8. Point out that rock art recording may require a variety of methods and techniques based on problem orientation. Recording a rock art site as an archaeological entity is one thing, but studying it is quite another. Offer different examples. 9. Conduct experimental manufacturing of glyphs using a variety of tools and different techniques. This should be done on pieces of commercial sandstone.

COURSE OUTLINE - 60 Hours This course requires a minimum of 20 Class Hours plus 40 Hours of Field Work. This does not include field trips to view rock art sites.

A. Introduction: terminology and references 1. What is rock art? 2. What is art? 3. What is prehistoric art on rocks? 4. Where does it come from? 5. Terminology Examples: a. Pictograph i. Techniques b. Petroglyph j. Ideographs c. Geoglyph (Ground Figures) k. Meaning d. Dent/dint l. Icon e. Pecking m. Type vs. Style is often Direct confused in literature and Indirect should not be. f. Style n. Symbol(What is it?)Important g. Element for understanding rock art’s significance. h. Design o. Panel

6. References - via instructor presentation

Note: Whatever terminology is used in a project should be defined. A good glossary of terminology is the one by Robert G. Bednarik now in print.

AAS Copyright 2004 Tab 17, page 2 Rock Art Recorder Revised October 2003 B. Public awareness and preservation 1. Public programs: a. Lectures b. The Media c. Amateur societies - certification d. Professional societies (Please list others if you know of any.) • American Rock Art Research Association • International Federation of Rock Art Organization (IFRAO) • International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) • International Committee on Rock Art • Eastern Rock Art Research Association (ERARA) e. College courses examples: • Northern Arizona University • Arizona State University • Cochise College • University of California at Los Angeles • University of Nevada at Las Vegas • Earthwatch • Crow Canyon f. Parks, forests and interpretive areas 2. Preservation Examples: a. Natural destructive forces • Airborne abrasion • Animal (cattle, burros, birds) • Water percolation • Lichen • Flooding • Molecular breakdown (freezing, solar radiation) • Patina • Rock decay • Rock fall • Fire b. Human destruction • Intentional ( shooting, hatcheting, spray paint, graffiti, chalking, touching) • Unintentional c. Pollution d. Revitalization of glyph localities e. Only a professional rock art Conservator should be used for any conservation effort.

3. Laws: a. International b. Federal c. State d. Tribal e. Rock art records used to monitor or as a basis for the enforcement of the law. 4. Obtain Permission: a. Obtain permission to work at sites from land owners, managers, and tribal groups which claim heritage of the site.

C. Classes 1. Historic, proto-historic and prehistoric 2. Pictographs 3. Petroglyphs 4. Geoglyphs (Earth Forms) a. Intaglios b. Rock Alignments 5. Spanish markings 6. Inscriptions 7. Graffiti

D. Distribution 1. Regional styles 2. Cultural styles • Are these styles different? How? 3. Individual glyph localities 4. Topological settings 5. Landscape

E. Construction 1. Surface used a. Soft/hard b. Porous vs. non-porous c. Patinated vs. non-patinated d. Facing what direction e. Exposure to what elements f. Types of rocks 2. Pecked a. Dent size b. Spacing c. Depth d. Angle of the blow 3. Incised (scratched, carved, abraded) a. Groove shape b. Groove depth c. Quadrupeds, birds, reptiles, insects, aquatic

AAS Copyright 2004 Tab 17, page 4 Rock Art Recorder Revised October 2003 4. Botanical - domestic, wild, riverine, desert, mountain, plateau 5. Astronomical - sun, moon, stars, constellations, comets, meteors, eclipse, solstice, and equinox 6. Cupules 7. Subject - maps, trails - can be very interpretive 8. Others - hands, feet

G. Meaning 1. Relating as systems a. Ideographic b. Style groupings between areas 2. Special relationships a. Superimposition b. Depictions 3. How does it relate to prehistoric cultural systems and the religions and ideologies of those cultures? 4. What does it tell us that other cultural remains do not? a. Define cultural regions b. Inter-group contacts c. Intra-group variations d. Temporal variations e. Communication networks f. Social institutions (belief systems) Religious practices g. World view h. Meaning: How does art function in preliterate context? • How does rock art function in landscape? • Marking sacred spots and maintaining tradition. • The symbolic component of art and place • Consider the importance of location for understanding function. i. Inside meaning of style: How it functions for the people who made it, means of identity, maintaining cultural identity.

H. Style 1. Cultural areas 2. Regional 3. Horizons - time and space considerations

I. Dating 1. Patination and desert varnish 2. Paint and binders 3. Lichen 4. Site association and cultural association 5. Style a. early man b. Archaic c. Hohokam d. Pueblo

e. Historic • Native American, Indigenous Peoples • Spanish • Anglo 6. Superimposition 7. Redone pecking, painting

J. Recording Skills

1. Forms - Show the many examples. Explain one set and then use it to record a site. 2. Photography a. Color- slides, color prints or digital and black/white b. General environment of site c. Data board (information board) in photos d. Boulders, panels, clusters and individual elements e. Scale and direction f. Weathering g. Vandalism 3. Sketches of the overall view of site 4. Scale drawings of panels using graph paper and string grids or just doing sketches 5. Drawings (If done from slides, not to be used without follow- up visit and correction in the field.) 6. Munsell Soil Color Chart - Use to stress color of pictographs or petroglyph elements where there are visible patination differences. 7. Geoglyphs (Ground Figures) 8. Computer use in recording 9. Unacceptable methods a. rubbings b. casts c. chalking d. aluminum powder paint e. touching f. painting g. using a stick or object to point and touch image

K. Mapping a Site 1. Simple to complex methods 2. Compass use 3. Map reading 4. Locating the UTM of a site on a map 5. Locating sites and panels from existing maps 6. Use Global Positioning System (GPS) Geographic Information System (GIS) with the map. Use the GPS for datums and UTM s. 7. Use Laser Target Range Finder (Line of site, contour, etc.)

20 hours - Group recording with the class on several small sites or on one large site.

5 hours - Individual recording of a small site of less than 20 elements.

15 hours - Individual or group recording of a larger site of 75 or more elements.

Utilize the variety of techniques in section J and K of the outline.

COURSE BIBLIOGRAPHY

See page 9. Also, use bibliography from course texts, instructor created, or suggested by the internet

SUGGESTIONS FOR ROCK ART RECORDING CLASSES AND CERTIFICATION by Jane Kolber

1. Decide what the purpose of certification is. What do you want people to be able to do when they have completed it - how to accomplish that?

2. Recorders should competently be able to do ALL aspects of recording themselves: • Mapping - drawing both plain and measured maps. • Locating sites - should understand and be able to plot UTMs, not just be able to use a GPS. • Be a competent photographer with a film camera - not a point and shoot. Digital cameras should only be used as auxiliary and with at least a 3. MG resolution. • If a digital camera is used for main recording purposes, use only 5.MG cameras or better and make printouts, which should only be put onto archival paper and also produce a copy on CD. Do not project slides for any reason. • Be able to understand and use a compass fully. • Do a usable, comprehensible, accurate string grid drawing - not a piece of artwork. • Fill out all questions on a form unless they don’t apply at that site. • Be able to fill out a useful, informative daily log.

3. Instructors should: • Be able to do with excellence all the work required of the students. • Compose site specific forms. Make a CD of forms so you can add to them. • Accompany the students into the field for all learning sessions. Students cannot learn to record on their own without someone being with them and checking their work in the field. They should practice first. Work should be satisfactory before attempting an actual recording that will be archived. • Stress the importance of conservation. Never demonstrate or recommend the use of any kind of intrusive method, unless it is the only alternative to preservation. • Never attempt any form of conservation method without assistance of a rock art conservator.

4. Recording methods should be as non-interpretive as possible.

5. Very small sites should be worked on in classes as larger sites may not get completed, may be too difficult and not give students a sense of accomplishment.

6. Both petroglyph and pictograph sites should be worked on in each class unless they don’t exist in the class region.

7. Excellence is stressed rather than quantity.

8. Students who are not competent should not be certified. A certificate of completion of the course could be issued to those not qualified to do good recording on their own. Many students have to repeat the course to be competent.

9. Recording methods should be as inexpensive as possible. A good used SLR camera and a good compass are the most expensive tools required.

Barnes, F. A. 1982 Canyon County Prehistoric Rock Art (An illustrated guide to viewing, understanding, and appreciating the rock art of the prehistoric Indian cultures of Utah, the Great Basin and the general Four Corners Region.) Wasatch Publisher, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT.

Cole, Sally J. 1990 Legacy On Stone (Rock Art of the Colorado Plateau and Four Corners Region.) Johnson Books, Boulder, CO.

Grant, Campbell 1983 The Rock Art Of The North American Indians Cambridge University Press, New York, NY

Hirschmann, Fred and Scott Thybony 1994 Rock Art Of The American Southwest Graphic Arts Center Publishing Company, Portland, OR.

McCreery, Patricia and Ekkehart Malotki 1994 Tapamveni (The Rock Art Galleries Of Petrified Forest And Beyond.) Petrified Forest Museum Association, Petrified Forest, AZ.

Mallery, Barrick 1972 Picture-Writing Of The American Indians Volumes I and II. Dover Publications, Inc., New York, NY

Schaafsma, Polly 1980 Indian Rock Art Of The Southwest School of American Research, Santa Fe, and University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, NM

Whitley, David S. and Lawrence L. Loendorf (eds.) 1994 New Light on Old Art. Recent Advances in Hunter-Gatherer Rock Art Research. Institute of Archaeology University of California Monograph 36. Los Angeles, CA (Introduction of specific general interest.)

PURPOSE

The purpose of this class is to give members of the Arizona Archaeological Society a working knowledge and ability to recognize and analyze archaeological shell assemblages. The course is intended to focus on a specific site, a series of related sites, or a region of the state. Depending on the project objectives, analysis forms will be developed from the research design. Members may take this class several times to become proficient with shell materials found in Arizona.

Emphasis is placed on identification of specific shell genus and species, their sources and their anatomy. Additionally, a strong focus will be on recognition of worked and un-worked shell and analysis of human modification techniques. Laboratory methods of labeling and storing of shell artifacts will also be presented.

Because some archaeologists believe that most of the shell objects found in other parts of the state were manufactured by the Hohokam, and because the Hohokam seem to have used the greatest variety of species in a greater variety of forms than most other pre-historic Arizona societies, the theme of this syllabus is centered around shell artifacts from Hohokam sites.

PREREQUISITES

The only requirement is the completion of Prehistory of the Southwest I. However, it is strongly recommended that the participant have completed Laboratory Techniques.

COURSE FORMAT

The course is designed to be presented in 60 hours, with 20 hours of lecture (as indicated under the Classroom Instruction Section) and 40 hours of laboratory experience (as indicated under the Laboratory Instruction Section). Laboratory experience could include a research paper, and possible field trips to sites that demonstrate shell processing/and or manufacturing.

LABORATORY STRUCTURE

Depending on available resources, participants may wash, sort and analyze bags of shell materials provided by the host chapter; or, identify, analyze, measure and illustrate shell material and artifacts previously processed in the other laboratory collections.

FIELD TRIPS

AAS Copyright 2006 Tab 31 page 1 Shell Identification & Analysis Issued February 2006 Visits to local sites may be arranged at the discretion of the instructor according to the needs and interests of the students and as permitted by landowners and managers.

LABORATORY MATERIALS

A. 10x hand lens B. Digital or hand drawn caliper 15cm+ C. Scale with accuracy of +/- 1 gram or +/- 0.1 grams D. Microscope 33.5x stereo zoom E. Protractor F. Standard compass G. 35 mm camera with appropriate lenses, or digital camera H. Calculator I. Analysis forms J. Labeling materials K. Drawing materials

COURSE OBJECTIVES

At the conclusion of the course, students will

A. Be able to recognize basic shell genera/species that characterize the Hohokam assemblage B. Be able to separate modified and unmodified shell material C. Be able to sort shell material based on specific use D. Be able to identify steps of manufacturing and processing of shell material E. Be able to carry out necessary laboratory functions: cleaning, labeling, analysis, measurement, drawing, documentation and proper storage techniques

RECOMMENDED TEXTS

A. Hohokam Marine Shell Exchange and Artifacts by Nelson, Richard S. (1991)

B. It is highly recommended that a selection of articles from the bibliography be chosen by the course instructor. This will provide a good representative background of the broad concepts of shell identification and analysis, the Hohokam trade systems, and the significance of Hohokam shell artifact production. A suggested required reading list is marked with asterisks (*) in the bibliography.

C. Shell identification guides chosen from the following list (Vokes 2002):

Abbott, Robert Tucker 1974 American Seashells: The Marine Mollusca of the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts of North America. 2nd ed. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.

Keen, A. Myra 1971 Sea Shells of Tropical West America: Marine Mollusks from Baja California to Peru. 2nd. ed. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto.

Morris, Percy A. 1966 A Field Guide to Pacific Coast Shells, 2nd Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.

Rehder, Harald A. 1981 The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Seashells. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.

Freshwater and Terrestrial Mollusca Guides

Abbott, Robert Tucker 1989 Compendium of Landshells: A Color Guide to More than 2,000 of the World’s Terrestrial Shells. American Malacologists, Inc., Melbourne, Florida.

Burch, J. B. 1972 Freshwater Spaeriacean Clams (Mollusca:Pelecypoda) of North America. Biota of Freshwater Ecosystems Identification Manual No. 3. Environmental Protection Agency Publication, Washington, D. C.

1973 Freshwater Unioacean Clams (Mollusca:Pelecypoda) of North America. Biota of Freshwater Ecosystems, Identification Manual No. 11. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

Burch, John B., and John L. Tottenham 1980 North American Freshwater Snails: Part IV. Species List, Ranges and Illustration. Walkeranna 1(3):81-214.

Clarke, Arthur H. 1981 The Freshwater Mollusks of Canada. National Museums of Canada. Ottawa, Canada.

COURSE OUTLINE – CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION

A. General Theory Overview 1. The Hohokam as shell artifact manufacturers

AAS Copyright 2006 Tab 31 page 3 Shell Identification & Analysis Issued February 2006 2. The "sphere of influence" (Nelson 1991) 3. Hohokam trade systems a. Northern Sonora (Brand 1937,1938) b. Papagueria and southern edge of the Gila River Valley (Hayden 1972) c. Middle and Upper Santa Cruz (Craig 1982) B. The importance of recognizing unmodified and modified shell found in a site assemblage C. Examples of source materials from the Gulf of California, Pacific coast, and local freshwater/terrestrial sources D. Purpose of Decorative Items 1. Decoration 2. Wealth 3. Religious/ceremonial 4. Status indicators 5. Family affiliation

E. Terms Involved in Shell Analysis 1. Axially ribbed 2. Anterior canal 3. Horny operculum 4. Spine 5. Aperture 6. Concentric ribbing 7. Heat-shaped lunale 8. Lenticular shape 9. Hinge 10. Radial structure 11. Arched hinge plate 12. Chevron shaped teeth 13. Height 14. Crenulated ribbing 15. Fossa 16. Operculum 17. Nacreous

F. Shell Anatomy (Vokes 2002) 1. Component parts of a univalve (Gastropod/snails) a. Spire • Apex • Penultimate whorl • Columella b. Body whorl • Outer lip aperture • Callus/parietal wall • Siphonal canal

2. Component parts of a bivalve (Pelecypod/clams) a. Outer shell • Umbo

AAS Copyright 2006 Tab 31 page 4 Shell Identification & Analysis Issued February 2006 • Beak • Dorsal/ventral • Sides • Cardial rib • Concentric structure (ribbing) b. Inner shell • Cardinal teeth • Lateral teeth • Taxadontic teeth • Muscle scars • Pallial line

3. Hohokam Shell Genera and Species (mainly Agua Fria River Valley)

a. Marine • Glycymeris gigantea • Glycymeris maculata • Pecten vogdesi • Spondylus sp. • Dosinia ponderosa • Turritella leucostoma • Cerithium adustum • Cerithium maculosum • Cerithidea albonodosa • Cerithidea mazatlanica • Columbella sp. • Oliva melampus • Oliva spicata • Olivella alba • Olivella dama • Olivella gracilis • Conus sp. • Conus brunneus • Nassarius pogodus • Nassarius versicolor • Neritina sp. (Theodorus) • Theodoxus luleotasciatus • Haliotis sp. • Oyster sp. • Vermicularia sp. • Strombus sp. b. Freshwater • Anodonta califoriensis • Freshwater snails

G. Evidence for Local Manufacturing 1. Raw materials 2. Broken in processing 3. Wastage – debitage a. Large unused pieces 4. Finished products – local style 5. Limited use of local resources a. Gulf of California – Rocky Point b. Pacific Ocean 6. Specific stone technology 7. Bracelet production techniques

H. Shell Working Technology 1. Cutting and breaking a. Indicated better in shell debitage • Seen easier in thin shell • Cut lines and overlaps • Breaks along cut lines (ragged edges) • Narrow pointed tool (.5 – 1 mm) 2. Chipping/Grinding/Abrasion a. Direct blow by small hammer b. Hitting object against an anvil c. Highly abrasive fine grain stone • Negative – positive grinding • Repairing tools for bracelets • Umbo treatment a) Plain b) Round c) Square d) Perforated e) Heart-shaped 3. Engraving/Incising a. Same as cutting – decorative treatment b. Edge nicking 4. Drilling a. Use to delimit cut boundaries b. Production of suspension/string holes • Biconical and conical 5. Acid retard etching a. Rare b. Use of weak acid c. Modern experiments d. Known examples 6. Painting

AAS Copyright 2006 Tab 31 page 6 Shell Identification & Analysis Issued February 2006 COURSE OUTLINE – LABORATORY INSTRUCTION A. Laboratory Analysis 1. Separation in the field 2. Assignment of specimen number 3. Proper field storage techniques a. Container b. Packing material 4. Specimen cleaning process a. Dry brushing with soft bristle brush b. Immersion (if needed) in distilled water c. Soft brushing to remove dirt d. Allow to air dry e. Chemical cleaning • only if necessary (rare) 5. Analysis form a. Relationship to research proposal b. General data • Specimen number • Species • Artifact cross section • Umbo modification • Length • Width • Thickness • Inside diameter • Artifact identification • Comments • Drawings • Additional data as needed

B. Shell Species Identification 1. Type collection location a. Care in handling • Modern field specimens (Baja California) a) Similarity to those excavated b) Effects of sun on coloring b. Size considerations 2. Illustrations in site reports a. Care in regards to species named • Changes • Incorrect identification 3. Malocological reports 4. Experts in the field when possible 5. Most common marine species (Keen 1958, 1971) a. Cerithidea albonodosa (Gould and Carpenter 1857) b. Columbella sp. c. Conus sp. d. Dosina ponderosa (Gray 1838)

AAS Copyright 2006 Tab 31 page 7 Shell Identification & Analysis Issued February 2006 e. Glycymeris gigantean (Reeve, 1843) f. Glycymeris maculate (Broderlip 1832) g. Laevicardium elatum (Sowerby 1833) h. Nassarius pogodus (Reeve 1844) i. Nassarius versicolor (Adams 1852) j. Neritina luteofasciata (Miller 1879) k. Olivella alba (Marrat in Sowerby 1871) l. Olivella dama (Wood 1828) m. Pecten vogdesi (Arnold 1906) n. Spondylus sp. 6. Most common fresh water species 1. Anodonta califoriensis (Lea) 2. Succinea avarca

C. Artifact Description 1. Measurements needed 2. Utilitarian shell a. Ground working edges 3. Decorative shell a. Beads • Location of stringing holes • Perforation of the umbo • Spine/aperture removal • Disc beads a) Perforation size b) Bead diameter c) Profile b. Cylindrical beads – time sensitive a) Barrel Beads (Olivella sp.) b) True cut cylindrical beads 4. Pendants a. Whole shell b. Cut and carved c. Ground 5. Rings a. Finger/toe • Whole shell • Ground b. Earrings 6. Tinklers 7. Mosaic pieces 8. Bracelets, armlets, anklets, pendants a. Cut and ground • Plain a) Haury classification system b) Umbonal treatment • Decorated a) Carved b) Incised

AAS Copyright 2006 Tab 31 page 8 Shell Identification & Analysis Issued February 2006 9. Acid-retard etching 10. Prestige items a. Carved-incised bracelets b. Pecten vogdesi beads and pendants c. Strombus sp. Trumpets d. Acid-retard etched shells

SHELL LITERATURE REFERENCES (* highly recommended)

Andrews, E. Wyllis, IV 1969 The Archaeological Use and Distribution of Mollusca in the Maya Lowlands. Middle American Research Institute Publications 34. New Orleans, Tulane University.

Bequaert, Joseph C., and Walter B. Miller 1974 The Mollusks of the Arid Southwest. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Bennyhoff, James A., and Richard E. Hughes 1987 Shell bead and ornament exchange networks between California and the western Great Basin. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History, 64(2). The American Museum of Natural History, New York.

Bettison, Cynthia Ann, Roland Shook, Randy Jennings, and Dennis Miller 1999 New Identifications of Naturalistic Motifs on Mimbres Pottery. In Sixty Years ofMogollon Archaeology, Papers from the Ninth Mogollon Conference, Silver City, New Mexico, 1996. edited by Stephanie M. Whittlesey, pp:l 19-25. Statistical Research, Inc., Tucson, Arizona.

Bradley, Ronna J. 1986 Shell Species and Exchange: A Brief Review of Shell at Casas Grandes and Its Role in Exchange on the Northwest Frontier of Mesoamerica. Paper presented at the 51st Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology. New Orleans.

1993 Marine Shell Exchange in Northwest Mexico and the Southwest, in The American Southwest and Mesoamerica: Systems of Prehistoric Exchange, edited by Jonathon E. Ericson, and Timothy G. Baugh, pp:121-51. Plenum Press, New York,

1996 The Role of Casas Grandes in Prehistoric Shell Exchange Networks within the Southwest. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe.

Brand, Donald D.

1938 Aboriginal Trade Routes for Sea Shells in the Southwest. Yearbook of the Association of Pacific Coast Geographers Vol. 4 pp. 3-10. Cheney.

Carpenter, Alice H. 1977 A Prehistoric Shell and Bone Necklace from a Burial Exposed in a Bank of the San Pedro River, Arizona. The Kiva 43(1)19-25. Tucson, Arizona.

Cheatum, Elmer P., and Richard W. Fullington 1975 The Aquatic and Land Mollusca of Texas. Bulletin 1. Dallas Museum of Natural History.

Colton, Harold Sellers 1941 Prehistoric Trade in the Southwest. Scientific Monthly 52(4): 308-319.

Craig, Douglas B. 1982 Shell Exchange along the Middle Santa Cruz Valley during the Hohokam Pre-Classic. Paper presented at the Tucson Basin Conference, Tucson.

Di Peso, Charles C., John B. Rinaldo, and Gloria J. Fenner 1974 Casas Grandes, A Fallen Trading Center of the Gran Chichimeca, Volume 6: Ceramics and Shell. The Amerind Foundation , Number 9(6). Northland Press, Flagstaff, Arizona, The Amerind Foundation, Dragoon, Arizona.

Ericson, Jonathon E., and Timothy G. Baugh, editors 1993 The American Southwest and Mesoamerica: Systems of Prehistoric Exchange. Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology, ed, Michael Jochim. Plenum Press, New York.

Ezell, Paul* 1937 Shell Work of the Prehistoric Southwest. The Kiva 3 (3) pp. 9-12. Tucson, Arizona.

Ferg, Allen 1977 Analysis of Shell from the Baca Float Sites. In "Excavations in the Middle Santa Cruz Valley, Southeastern Arizona," by David E. Doyel, pp. 156-174. Arizona State Museum Contributions to Highway Salvage Archaeology in Arizona 44, Tucson: The University of Arizona.

1980 Shell from Gu Achi. In Excavations at Gu Achi: A Reappraisal of Hohokam Settlement and Subsistence in the

AAS Copyright 2006 Tab 31 page 10 Shell Identification & Analysis Issued February 2006 Arizona Papagueria, by W. Bruce Masse. Western Archaeological Center Publications in Anthropology 12: 371- 394. Tucson: National Park Service.

1984 Shell. In Hohokam Habitation Sites in the Northern Santa Rita Mountains, by Allen Ferg, Kenneth C. Rozen, William L. Deaver, Martyn D. Tagg, David A. Phillips Jr., and David A Gregory. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series Vol. 147 part 2, Tucson: University of Arizona.

Fewkes, Jesse W. 1896 Pacific Coast Shell from Prehistoric Tusayan Pueblos. American Anthropologist (Old Series) 9:359-367.

Foster, John W. 1976 Shell Middens, Paleoecology and Prehistory: The Case from Estero Morua, Sonora Mexico. The Kiva 41(2)185-194. Tucson, Arizona

Fullington, Richard W. 1978 The Recent and Fossil Freshwater Gastropod Fauna of Texas. Ph.D. dissertation, North Texas State University, Denton. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Gifford, Edward W. 1947 Californian Shell Artifacts. University of California Anthropological Records 9(1):1-132. University of California, Berkeley.

Haury, Emil W.* 1965 Shell in Excavations at Snaketown Material Culture. Medallion Papers No. XXV, 1938. Gila Pueblo: Globe. Reprinted by the University of Arizona Press: Tucson 1976 The Hohokam Desert Farmers and Craftsmen: Excavations at Snaketown 1964-1965. The University of Arizona Press: Tucson.

Hayden, Julian D. 1972 Hohokam Petroglyphs of the Sierra Pinacate, Sonora, and the Hohokam Shell Expeditions. The Kiva 37(2):74-83.

Howard, Ann Valdo* 1985a A Reconstruction of Hohokam Interregional Shell Production and Exchange within Southwestern Arizona. In Proceedings of the 1983 Hohokam Symposium, Part 2, edited by A. E. Dittert, Jr. and D. Dove, pp. 473-482. Occasional paper No. 2 Arizona Archaeological Society, Phoenix.

1985b The Block 24-East Prehistoric Shell Assemblages. In City of Phoenix Archaeology of the Original Townsite: Block 24- East, edited by J. S. Cable, K. S. Hoffman, D. E. Doyel and

1987 The La Ciudad Shell Assemblage. In La Ciudad: Specialized Studies in the Economy, Environment, and Culture of La Ciudad, edited by J. E. Kisselburg, G. E. Rice, and B. L. Shears, pp. 75-174. Anthropological Field Studies 20. Office of Cultural resource Management, Arizona State University, Tempe.

1990 The Pine Creek Shell Assemblage. In Hohokam Utilization of the Intermontane Mazatzal Region: The State Route 87 Pine Creek Project. Mesa Ranger District. Tonto National Forest, Arizona, edited by Margerie Green, pp. 407-424. Cultural Resources Report No. 66. Archaeological Consulting Services, Ltd., Tempe.

1993 Marine Shell Artifacts and Production Processes at Shelltown and the Hind Site. In Shelltown and the Hind Site: A Study of Two Hohokam Craftsman Communities in Southwestern Arizona, edited by William S. Marmaduke and Richard J. Martynec. Northland Research, Inc., Flagstaff.

2000 Marine Shell Sample. In Trade Corridors and Ethnic Boundaries, An Archaeological Survey of 12,089 Acres along the Growler and San Cristobal Washes on the Barry M. Goldwater Range in Southwestern Arizona, edited by Mark C. Slaughter, David B. Tucker, and Annick Lascaux, pp: 481-86. SWCA Cultura Resource Report, No. 98-181, SWCA, Inc., Tucson, Arizona.

Huckell, Bruce B., and Lisa W. Huckell 1978 Marine Shell from the AZ Y:8:3, Lago Seco Site. In The Coronet Real Project: Archaeological Investigations on the Luke Range, Southwestern Arizona, by Burce B. Huckell. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 129: 151-166.

Huckell, Lisa W. 1993 The Shell Assemblage from Coffee Camp. In Archaic Occupation on the Santa Cruz Flats: The Tator Hills Archaeological Project, edited by C. D. Halbirt and T. K. Henderson, pp. 305-316. Northland Research, Inc. Flagstaff, Arizona.

Jernigan, E. Wesley* 1978 Jewelry of the Prehistoric Southwest. University of New Mexico Press: Albuquerque. 1979 Jewelry of the Prehistoric Southwest. School of American Research, Santa Fe, and University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

1986 The Exotic Origins of Fishes Depicted on Prehistoric Mimbres Pottery from New Mexico. American Antiquity Vol. 51, No. 4: 688-720.

Keen, A. Myra* 1958 Sea Shells of the Tropical West America: Marine Mollusks from Lower California to Columbia. Stanford University Press: Palo Alto. 1971 Sea Shells of Tropical West America: The Marine Mollusks from Lower California to Columbia. Stanford University Press: Palo Alto

Kisselburg, Jo Ann E. 1985 Spacial Distribution of Stone and Shell Jewelry at La Ciudad, AZ T:12:37(ASU). In Proceedings of the 1983 Hohokam Symposium, Part 2, edited by A. E. Dittert, Jr. and D. Dove, pp. 473-482. Occasional paper No. 2 Arizona Archaeological Society, Phoenix.

Landye, J. Jerry 1980 Current Status of Endangered, Threatened, and/or Rare Mollusks of New Mexico and Arizona. Report submitted to the U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of rare and Endangered Species, Albuquerque.

Marmaduke, William S. and Ann V. Howard 1993 Shell Artifacts from Sites Along the Santa Rosa Canal. In Small Sites on the Santa Cruz Flats: The Results of the Investigations Along the Santa Rosa Canal in the Distribution Division of the Central Arizona Project, by William S. Marmaduke, pp 102-112. Northland research, Inc., Flagstaff.

Mathien, Frances Joan 1997 Ornaments of the Chaco Anasazi. In Ceramics, Lithics, and Ornaments of Chaco Canyon, Analyses of Artifacts from the Chaco Project 1971-1978. editor Frances Joan Mathien, pp: 1119-220. Publications in Archaeology 18G, Chaco Canyon Studies. National Parks Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

McGregor, John C. 1943 Burial of an Early American Magician. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society Vol. 86, No. 2: 270-298.

McGuire, Randall H.* 1985 Role of Shell Exchange in the Explanation of Hohokam Prehistory. In Proceedings of the 1983 Hohokam Symposium,

AAS Copyright 2006 Tab 31 page 13 Shell Identification & Analysis Issued February 2006 Part 2, edited by A. E. Dittert, Jr. and D. Dove, pp. 473- 482. Occasional paper No. 2 Arizona Archaeological Society, Phoenix.

McGuire, Randall H. and Ann Valdo Howard* 1985 The Structure and Organization of Hohokam Shell Exchange. The Kiva 52 (2):113-146.

Minnis, Paul E. 1988 Specialized Production at Casas Grandes, Northwestern Chihuahua. The Kiva 53(2):###. Tucson, Arizona

Nelson, Richard S. 1990 Hohokam Marine Shell Exchange and Artifacts. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 179. University of Arizona, Tucson.

Officer, James E. 1978 Shell. In The Hodges Ruin: A Hohokam Community in the Tucson Basin, by I. Kelly, pp. 110-120. Anthropological Papers 30. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Orzech, Sarah 1984 Archaeology on the Half Shell: A Pilot Study on the Effects of Roasting Sea Shells. Ms. on file, Laboratory of Traditional Technology, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson.

Pomeroy, J. Anthony* 1959 Hohokam Etched Shell. The Kiva 24 (4) pp.12-21. Tucson, Arizona

Riley, Carroll L. 1977 The Road to Hawikuh: Trade and Trade Routes in Cibola-Zuni during Late Prehistoric and Early Historic Times. The Kiva 41(2)137-159. Tucson, Arizona.

Seymour, Deni Joanne 1988 An Alternative View of Sedentary Period Hohokam Shell Ornament Production. American Antiquity 53(4)pp. 812-829.

Shoger, Maurice Dean* 1980 Shell Materials Recovered during Phase I, II, III, and IV of The Vandalism Study Conducted at Casa de los Piedras (AZ:T:7:5 ASU), MS on file at the Arizona Archaeological Society, Phoenix Chapter and Agua Fria Chapter, and the Arizona State Museum, Tucson

AAS Copyright 2006 Tab 31 page 14 Shell Identification & Analysis Issued February 2006 Silsbee, Joan M. 1958 Determining the Source of California Olivella Shells. In Papers in California Archaeology. Reports of the University of California Survey. pp: 10-11. No. 41. University of California, Berkeley.

Stanislawski, Michael B. 1961 Two Prehistoric Shell Caches from Southern Arizona. The Kiva 27(2) 22-27. Tucson, Arizona

Stone, Tammy, and Michael S. Foster 1994 Miscellaneous Artifacts. In The Pueblo Grande Project, Volume 4: Material Culture, edited by Michael S Foster, pp:203-62. Soil Systems Publications in Archaeology, No. 20(4), Soil Systems, Inc., Phoenix, Arizona.

Tower, D. B. 1945 The Use of Marine Mollusca and Their Value in Reconstructing Prehistoric Trade Routes in the American Southwest. Papers of the Excavator’s Club 2 (3). Cambridge.

Urban, Sharon F. 1981a The Las Colinas Shell Assemblage. In The 1968 Excavations at Mound 8, Las Colinas Ruins Group, Phoenix, Arizona, edited and assembled by L. C. Hammack and A. P. Sullivan. pp. 303-335. Archaeological Series No. 154, Arizona State Museum, Tucson.

1981b Material Culture – Shell. In The Palo Verde Archaeological Investigations, Hohokam Settlements at the Confluence: Excavations Along the Palo Verde Pipeline. Museum of Northern Arizona Research papers 20: 216:226 and 314-319. Flagstaff: Museum of Northern Arizona.

Vokes, Arthur W. 1984 The Shell Assemblage of the Salt-Gila Aqueduct Project Sites. In Hohokam Archaeology Along the Salt-Gila Aqueduct, Central Arizona Project: Vol. VIII. Material Culture, edited by L. S. Teague and P. L. Crown, pp. 465- 574. Archaeological Series 150(8). Arizona State Museum, Tucson.

1985 Shell Artifacts from the Powers Ranch Ruin. Ms. on file, Arizona State Museum Archives, University of Arizona, Tucson.

1986a Shell, In Archaeological Excavations at the West Branch Site, AZ A:16:3 (ASM), by F. Huntington, pp. 229-250.

1986b The Tanque Verde Wash Shell Assemblage. In Archaeological Investigations a the Tanque Verde Wash Site: A Middle Rincon Settlement in the Eastern Tucson Basin, by M. D. Elson, pp. 313-324. Anthropological Papers No. 7. Institute for American research, Tucson.

1987 Shell Artifacts. In The Archaeology of the San Xavier Bridge Site (AZ BB:13:14) Tucson Basin, Southern Arizona, edited by John C. Ravesloot, pp:251-69. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series, 171, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona.

1988 Shell Artifacts. In 1982-1984 Excavations at Las Colinas: Material Culture, by D. A. Abbott, K. E. Beckwith, P. L. Crown, R. T. Euler, D. A. Gregory, J. R. London, M. Saul, L. Schwalbe, M. Bernard-Shaw, C. Szuter, and A. W. Vokes, pp. 319-384. Archaeological Series 162(4). Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson.

1989 Late Pioneer and Colonial Period Shell. In Hohokam Archaeology Along Phase B of the Tucson Aqueduct, Central Arizona Project; Volume I. Syntheses and Interpretations, edited by Jon S. Czaplicki and John C. Ravesloot, pp. ##. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 178(1), University of Arizona, Tucson.

1990 Shell Assemblage. In Archaeological Investigations at the Lonetree Site, AZ AA:12:120(ASM), in the Northern Tucson Basin, by Mary Bernard-Shaw, pp. 187-192. Technical Report No. 90-1, Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson.

1991 Shell. In The Riverine Hohokam of the Salt and Verde River Confluence Region: The Water Users Project, Mesa Ranger District, Tonto National Forest, Maricopa County, Arizona: Vol. II. Descriptive Report, compiled by R. B. Niely and J. E. Kesselburg, pp. 12.1-12.18. Cultural Resources Report No. 47. Archaeological Consulting Services, Ltd., Tempe, Arizona.

1992 The Rye Creek Shell Assemblage. In The Rye Creek Project: Archaeology in the Upper Tonto Basin: Vol. 2. Artifact and Specific Analysis, by M. D. Elson and D. B. Craig, pp. 305- 321. Anthropological Papers No. 11. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson.

1993a Shell. In the Shadow of South Mountain: the Pre-Classic Hohokam of La Ciudad de Los Hornos: 1991-1992 Excavations, edited by Mark L. Chenault, Richard, V. N. Ahlstrom, and

1993b Shell. In Excavations at AZ AA:2:62(ASM), A Colonial and Sedentary Period Hohokam Settlement near Toltec, Pinal County, Arizona, by D. A. Gregory, pp. 55-73. Cultural Resources Report No. 80, Archaeological Consulting Services, Ltd. Tempe.

1994a Shell Artifacts. In West Branch Report: Irvington Road Extension Project. Ms on file a Statistical research, Inc., Tucson, Arizona.

1994b Shell Material. In Excavations along the Pima Freeway from the Salt River in Via Linda, by K. Adams, A. T. Black, and M. Green, pp. 215-235. Cultural Resources Report No. 78. Archaeological Consulting Services, Ltd., Tempe, Arizona.

1995 The Shell Assemblage. In The Roosevelt Community Development Study: Vol. 1. Stone and Shell Artifacts, edited by M. D. Elson and J. J. Clark, pp. 151-212. Anthropological Papers No. 14. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson.

1997 Shell Material from The FLEX Tonto Basin Project. In Prehistoric and Historic Archaeological Resources in the Tonto Basin: Report on the FLEX Tonto Basin Project, edited by J. L. Cameron, pp. 295-316. Report No. 93. Office of Cultural Resource Management, Arizona State University, Tempe.

1998 Shell Artifacts. In Archaeological Investigations of Early Village Sites in the Middle Santa Cruz valley: Analyses and Synthesis, edited by J. B. Mabry, pp. 437-470. Anthropological Papers No. 19. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson.

1999a The Grew Archaeological Project Shell Assemblage. Ms. on file, Northland Research, Inc., Tempe, Arizona.

1999b The Los Venados Shell Assemblage. Ms. on file, SWCA, Inc. Tucson.

1999c The Ancient Use of Seashells in Arizona and Beyond. Old Pueblo Archaeology, Issue Number 18, September 1999. Tucson

2001a Shell. In The Grewe Archaeological Research Project. Volume 2: Material Culture. Part II: Stone Shell, and Bone Artifacts and Biological Remains, edited by Douglas B. Craig. Anthropological Papers No. 99-1. Northland Research, Inc., Tempe.

2001b The Shell Ornament Assemblage. In Tonto Creek Archaeological Project. Life and Death along Tonto Creek, edited by Jeffery J. Clark and Penny Dufoe Mintern. Anthropological Papers No. 24. Center for Desert Archaeology. Tucson, Arizona

2002 Hohokam Shell Lecture given for the Arizona State Museum’s Summer Camp: Marana Platform Mound Site Research Project. July 2002. Tucson

2003 Early Agricultural Period Shell Use. In Material Culture of Early Farming Communities in Southern Arizona: Tools, Symbols, and Ornaments of a New Lifeway. edited by R. Jane Sliva, and Jonathan B. Mabry, Anthropological Papers, No. 35, Center for Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson, Arizona.

2004 Shell Artifacts. In Pots, Potters, and Models - Archaeological Investigations at the SRI Locus of the West Branch Sit, Tucson, Arizona: Volume 1. Feature Descriptions, Material Culture, and Specialized Analyses (CD_ROM), edited by Karen G. Harry and Stephanie M. Whittlesey, pp:285-301. Technical Series, No. 80, Statistical Research, Inc., Tucson, Arizona.

Vokes, Arthur, J. Homer Thiel, and Susan Hall 1998 Personal Ornamentation: The Evidence from Mortuary Context. Paper presented at the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Seattle, Washington.

Woodward, Arthur 1936 A Shell Bracelet Manufacturing Site. American Antiquity 2 (2) 117-125.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this course is to provide the basic academic and field skill to permit the avocational archaeologist the ability to participate in stabilization and reconstruction projects of the AAS and to provide assistance to the professional community as may requested. This course will also briefly cover the methods and concepts of site excavation with the endpoints of stabilization and reconstruction in mind.

OBJECTIVES

At the completion of this course, the student will be able to:

1. Determine the purpose of stabilization and the various types and methods which exist.

2. Understand the difference between the terms "stabilization" and "reconstruction".

3. Name archaeological sites known to have been stabilized in the American Southwest, plus define the various kinds of stabilization and reconstruction techniques known to have been used.

4. List the various types and functions of tools used by the archaeologist during stabilization projects.

5. Understand the principles in site stabilization and reconstruction.

6. Explain how and why walls are mapped, photographed, and documented before and after stabilization.

7. Learn variations of excavation strategies and methods when stabilization and reconstruction are the anticipated goals.

8. Develop interpretive themes and trails.

9. Indicate the use of photography and its importance in stabilization.

10. Understand both the positive and negative aspects of stabilization and its relationship to archaeological science.

COURSE FORMAT

The student is to receive a minimum of twenty hours of classroom instruction, coupled with forty hours of actual field experience. Within the field work requirement, there should be no single specific activity necessary for fulfilling this requirement, though the following AAS Copyright 2002 Tab 18, Page 1 Stabilization & Recon. Revised October 2002 conditions must be met.

1. The student is to work in at least two different types of stabilization work (i.e., walls and floors or stone construction versus adobe construction), plus some form of reconstruction activity.

2. During the five field days, the technician is to be involved in: mapping, profiling, photographing, excavating or clearing, soil/clay analysis, wall stabilization, floor stabilization, wall reconstruction, feature reconstruction, and stabilization/ reconstruction documentation and record keeping.

Normally, the field work requirements will be fulfilled by work on at least five different days. The last eight hours of field work will be spent in finalizing and completing drawings/profiles, stabilization forms, reconstruction documentation, and any additional administrative tasks.

GENERAL COURSE SET-UP

This course is to be taught in conjunction with an on-going stabilization/reconstruction program/project. Through such a program; classroom and laboratory space should be provided without significant cost, as should most major tools, chemicals, building materials, dyes, plus copying of materials to be used as text. No one good text is presently available to use in this course. Therefore, it is suggested that several manuals such as the National Park Service Stabilization Manual, and the Besh-Ba-Gowah Management Plan be used as supportive texts when warranted.

The class is enhanced by the use of guest speakers who have had a wide range of stabilization and reconstruction experience in the American Southwest (both historic and prehistoric sites). A list of possible speakers is presented, below. This is not an all inclusive list but simply one which notes those individuals who have most recently, as of January 1992, undertaken a major stabilization effort.

1. Dr. Alfred E. Dittert, Jr. (New Mexico & historic Yuma, Arizona) Department of Anthropology Arizona State University Tempe, Arizona 85287

2. E. Charles Adams (Homolovi program, director) Arizona State Museum University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona 85721

AAS Copyright 2002 Tab 18, Page 3 Stabilization & Recon. Revised October 2002 3. Peter J. Pilles (Elden Pueblo, Sedona cliff dwelling) Forest Archaeologist, Coconino National Forest 2323 Greenlaw Lane Flagstaff, Arizona 86001

4. John W. Hohmann (Besh-Ba-Gowah Archaeological Park, Q Ranch, Casa Malpais) Louis Berger & Associates, Inc. 1100 East Missouri Avenue, Suite 200 Phoenix, Arizona 85014

5. Adrien S. White (Homolovi II, III, Escalante Ruin, Lowry) Soil Systems, Inc. 1121 North Second Street Phoenix, Arizona 85004

6. Cory Breternitz (Interpretive Trail Development Homolovi II) Soil Systems, Inc. 1121 North Second Street Phoenix, Arizona 85004

7. John H. Madsen, Archaeologist (Homolovi II Project) Arizona State Museum University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona 85721

8. Richard C. Lange (Homolovi program, assistant director) Arizona State Museum University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona 85721

9. Dr. Charles L. Redman (Shoofly Village, Payson, Arizona) Department of Anthropology Arizona State University Tempe, Arizona 85287

10. Dr. R. Gwinn Vivian, Associate Director (Chaco Canyon) Arizona State Museum University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona 85721

11. Steve Dosh, Archaeologist (Homolovi I, II, III) Department of Anthropology Museum of Northern Arizona Flagstaff, Arizona 86001

Another aspect which also enhances this class besides the use of guest lecturers, is at least one, if not two, field trips to other archaeological sites where stabilization and reconstruction efforts have already been undertaken such as Homolovi II, Elden Pueblo, Tonto National Monument, Chaco Canyon, and Besh-Ba-Gowah.

Persons enrolling in this class must have first completed the required Prehistory of the Southwest class, and are strongly recommended to have already completed Field Crew Member I class ( introduction to excavation techniques) before enrolling in this course. Like that class, the student must provide their own basic dig kit for this class.

COURSE OUTLINE

A. Some general concerns 1. Principles of stabilization 2. Organizational aspects of stabilization 3. Reasons for stabilization a. Interpretive themes b. Site/feature protection c. How reasons for stabilization affect how such work is undertaken 4. Demands of stabilization a. Good physical condition b. Proper clothes and safety precautions c. Judging site contents and their implications for stabilization and reconstruction • Site size and configuration • Architectural features • Floor features/surfaces

B. Stabilization and its goals 1. Circumstances leading to site stabilization 2. When such processes are merited or warranted 3. Stabilization techniques a. Basic techniques b. Kinds of sites and features which can be stabilized and/or reconstructed including special techniques required for specific features c. Teamwork and coordination between staff and crew • There is no such thing as a "dumb" question • Talk with each other about what you are seeing and doing d. Assign specific crew-member responsibilities • Record keeping, site stabilization forms • Integrity control and work planning • Site/feature mapping, wall profiling • Site, wall, and feature photography • Soil analysis and mortar development and coloration

C. Reconstruction and its goals 1. Circumstances leading to site reconstruction 2. When such actions are merited or warranted 3. Remembering site integrity

D. Excavation or re-excavation with stabilization in view 1. A review of standard excavation techniques and methods 2. Variations in strategies due to constraints or requirements AAS Copyright 2002 Tab 18, Page 5 Stabilization & Recon. Revised October 2002 of stabilization and reconstruction

AAS Copyright 2002 Tab 18, Page 6 Stabilization & Recon. Revised October 2002 E. Specialized techniques in stabilization 1. Chemical treatments 2. Stone types and uses 3. Working with adobe, wood, glass, and other materials 4. Soil and clay types a. Using a Munsell Soil Color Chart b. Determining a soils bonding texture and qualities c. Matching soils to prehistoric mortars d. Development of soil cement mixtures for stabilization 5. Drainage problems a. Soils b. Topography c. Slope d. Vegetation e. Climate f. Additional environmental considerations 6. Keeping the stabilized site clear of unwanted vegetation 7. Special problems when roofing a site

F. Stabilization records 1. Selecting the proper stabilization and reconstruction forms for the particular site and/or feature 2. Developing a stabilization and reconstruction plan 3. Developing interpretive themes 4. Additional necessary documentation 5. Room and feature maps and profiles a. Mapping techniques • Compass and pace • Compass and tape • Brunton tripod and tape • Alidade mapping • Theodolite mapping and profiling b. Establishing a permanent site datum c. Profiling walls and features d. Mapping floors and features f. Precise methods vary from site to site and project to project 6. Photography with stabilization and reconstruction in mind a. Types of cameras b. Types of film c. Lighting conditions d. Exposure settings e. Scale, directional indicators, and photo identification f. Keeping photographic records g. Photographic distortion • Large scale objects • Small scale objects

G. Finalization of a project 1. The development and use of interpretive trails 2. Regional themes 3. Museums and visitor centers

PURPOSE

The purpose of this course is to provide the basic academic and field skill to permit the avocational archaeologist the ability to participate in survey projects of the Arizona Archaeological Society (AAS), and to provide assistance to the professional community, as may be requested.

OBJECTIVES

At the completion of this course, the student is able to:

1. Determine the purpose of survey and the various types of survey forms which exist.

2. Understand the difference between the terms "site" and "non-site."

3. Name and define the various kinds of archaeological sites known to exist in the American Southwest.

4. List the various types and functions of tools used by the archaeologist during survey projects.

5. Display the ability to use and plot site location on USGS topographic maps; also know of other various map types.

6. Learn the three principal site designation formats currently in use within Arizona.

7. Understand the principles in site discovery and recognition.

8. Explain how a site is mapped and surface collected and/or sampled.

9. Indicate the use of photography and its importance in data collection; the same for aerial photography and its importance in site discovery and location plotting.

10. Interpret the meaning of artifacts as they relate to time and cultural recognition, plus interpretations of possible site function.

11. Understand the importance of site spatial relationships and survey work/interpretation.

12. Understand both the positive and negative aspects of predictive modeling and its relationship to archaeological survey.

COURSE FORMAT

The student is to receive a minimum of twenty hours of classroom instruction, coupled with forty hours of actual field experience. Within the field work requirements, the following conditions must be met.

1. The student surveyor is to be aware of at least two different environmental settings such as desert, mountain, or plateau.

2. The student surveyor is to experience in the field at least two different survey methods such as sample transect, and systematic large-area block).

Normally, the fieldwork requirements are fulfilled by work on at least five different days. The last four hours of field work are spent in finalizing field notes, site recording forms, site maps, field maps, and any additional administrative tasks.

A brief final report of field work undertaken, along with the successful completion of all written and administrative work assigned, coupled with the instructor's evaluation of both the student’s classroom and field work, determines the student’s successful completion of this course.

COURSE OUTLINE

A. Some general concerns 1. Principles of survey 2. Organizational aspects of survey 3. Reasons for survey a. Academic b. Cultural resource management c. How reasons for survey affect how a survey is undertaken 4. Demands of survey a. Good physical condition b. Proper clothing and safety precautions c. Field logistics 5. General survey techniques a. Permits and clearance to do the project and survey particular land areas (i.e., land ownership) b. Background research before entering the field • Historical maps, photographs, reports • Recent field work, maps reports c. Determining site numeric designation system • The MNA system • The ASM system • The ASU system • The Forest Service system • The BLM system (part of the ASM system) • The Smithsonian Institution system

B. Discovery factors 1. Problem formation 2. Sampling design a. What is sampling? b. Sample types • Complete • Random • Stratified • Systematic • Stratified random • Others c. Sampling in relation to survey - survey types • Sample surveys • Block-area surveys 3. Aerial photography, its use in survey a. Stereo-viewing b. Topography review/survey for course plotting c. Site discovery d. Locational plotting 4. Determining survey boundaries 5. Boundary effects a. Linear transects, interception theory b. Quadrant block units, boundary bias

C. Site survey 1. Site types a. Composition of sites • Clustered artifacts: the archaeological site • Non-clustered artifacts • A discussion about "non-sites" b. Judging site contents • Site size and configuration • Surface artifact densities • Architectural features c. Southwest site variability • Recognition of pithouse depressions • Pueblo trash and masonry deposits • Artifact scatters (surficial) • Artifact scatters as indicators of subsurface features • Recognition of agricultural features d. Southwest site types • Habitation • Surface scatter • Midden • Rock Art • Quarry • Multi-Component • Kill • Stratified • Trading center • Non-stratified • Ceremonial • Disturbed deposits (Plowzone) • Burial

e. Site formation process

C. Site Survey (continued)

2. Transformation Processes: as they affect site visibility and recovery/recognition survey work a. Natural transformations b. Cultural transformations 3. Environmental variables and survey techniques: the impacts of variation in: a. Soils b. Topography c. Slope d. Vegetation e. Climate f. Sunlight, shadow, reflection g. Surveyor's physical and mental state: tiredness factor 4. Survey techniques a. Transects: Intensity (issues of surveyor spacing) b. Walking the transect • Zig-zag patterns • Straight-line approach c. Teamwork and co-ordination between staff and crew • There is no such thing as a dumb question or observation • Talk with each other about what you are seeing and doing d. Assign specific crew-member responsibilities • Record keeping, site survey forms • Topographic map location • Site mapping • Site photography and aerial work • Site boundary determination, site marking (if warranted), site tag placement, artifact collections

D. Intensive examination of site surfaces 1. USGS Topographic maps a. Types • 15 minute • 7.5 minute b. Reading a map • Township, Range, Section • Miles, feet, acres, kilometers, meters, hectares • Elevations • UTMs • Longitude and latitude • Magnetic vs true north c. Using a map • Triangulation • Map wheels • Dot-grid matrix • General locational plotting procedure

d. Using a compass with a topographic map • Types of compasses o Range Finder (Silva) compasses o Brunton compass • Setting the declinations for both compasses • Walking a transect line with a compass 2. Other types or area/locational maps 3. Site recording a. Survey journal format b. Site survey forms • Non-computerized forms o Various types o Their uses o Benefits and drawbacks • Computerized forms o Various types o Their uses o Benefits and drawbacks c. A combination of survey form and journal formats d. Determining a rationale for site survey form construction 4. Site mapping a. Mapping techniques • Compass and pace • Compass and tape • Brunton tripod and tape • Alidade mapping • Wilde theodolite mapping b. Establishing a permanent site datum (site tag placement) c. Establishing N/S and E/W base lines d. Use of typical mapping symbols for features, rocks, trees, artifact scatters, mounds, etc. e. Precise methods vary from site to site and project to project 5. Field photography a. Types of cameras b. Types of film c. Lighting conditions d. Exposure settings e. Scale, directional indicators, and photo identification f. Keeping photographic records g. Photographic distortion • Large scale objects • Small scale objects h. Aerial photography of the site

E. Recovery operations 1. Surface collections a. Judgmental collections b. Probabilistic sampling collections • Collection transects • Grid system collections • Time/cost factors

1. Surface Collections(continued)

c. Methods of bagging collections • Specimen recording • Transportation problems with survey 2. Other (often subsurface) data collection methods frequently used on survey a. Shovel scraping b. Excavation of test soundings c. Auger d. Magnetometer e. Sonar 3. Non-collection strategies a. What are these? b. Their benefits and drawbacks

F. Interpreting survey data 1. Interpreting artifacts a. Analysis techniques for field use b. Behavioral inferences c. Classification systems • Cultural • Functional • Attributable d. Description techniques e. Determination of function • Context • Analogy f. Determination of cultural associations 2. Spatial analysis of survey data a. Settlement patterns b. Locational analysis c. Predictive modeling • Its use in survey • Its potential • Its handicaps and problems

REFERENCES

A. Suggested

Dacey, William S. 1981 Archaeological Field Methods: An Introduction. Burgess, Minneapolis. Price is around $10.00

B. Additional references:

Hester, Thomas R., Robert F. Heizer and John Graham 1975 Field Methods in Archaeology. Mayfield, Palo Alto. (A)*

Joukowsky, Martha 1980A Complete Manual of Field Archaeology: Tools and Techniques of Field Work for Archaeologists. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.

Spier, Robert F. G. 1970 Surveying and Mapping: A Manual of Simplified Techniques. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York.

*(A) In Phoenix Chapter Archives

This page intentionally blank.

Survey Techniques II Survey Crew Chief

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this course is to provide advanced preparation in field skills to provide the avocational archaeologist the skills to supervise small survey teams in service projects for the Arizona Archaeological Society (AAS), and to provide assistance to the professional community, as may be requested.

PREREQUISITES

A. Prerequisite classes are Survey Techniques I, plus either Ceramic B. Identification or Lithics Analysis, or similar experience as approved by the instructor.

OBJECTIVES

A. At the completion of this course, the student shall be able to:

B. Determine area to be surveyed

C. Conduct “Desk top survey” (Pre-survey research)

D. Determine appropriate survey strategies

E. Be knowledgeable about Pre-Survey Techniques-Remote Sensing Technique

F. Layout survey areas.

G. Take detailed, accurate and concise notes on every aspect of the archaeological survey.

H. Plot Universal Transverse Mercator locations of recorded archaeological sites on the U.S.G.S. field and project maps

I. Be knowledgeable of the Geographic Information System (GIS) and its use in predictive modeling.

J. Be familiar with the iPAQ , TDS Recon, Penmap system, and other systems of gathering survey data.

K. Input appropriate data in computer.

L. Integrate photography, mapping, and note taking into a system that will enable the crew chief to interpret the meaning of site location, subsistence strategies and artifact interpretation.

N. Apply appropriate requirements of the Antiquities Act of 1906 and the additions to this act throughout the years, i.e. NAPA, ARPA, NAGPRA, NHPA.

COURSE FORMAT

A. The student is to receive a minimum of 20 hours of classroom instruction, coupled with 40 hours of actual fieldwork. Within the fieldwork requirements, the following conditions must be met.

B. Student crew chief is to be aware of the personalities and knowledge level of his or her crew.

C. The student crew chief is to be able to determine the best sampling strategies for an archaeological survey in plateau, mountain and desert settings.

D. The student crew chief will develop a survey database for recording all the pertinent records during the survey.

E. The fieldwork requirements will be fulfilled by directing a crew of at least two for a minimum of 30 hours. The remaining field hours will be fulfilled through a variety of tasks: input all daily records into the computer data base; maintain daily logs; plot sites recorded on permanent field maps; maintain and keep up to date all photographic records; be responsible for and maintain all equipment used by crews; be responsible for a portion of the draft report.

F. The draft report or parts thereof, along with the completion of all written and administrative work assigned, coupled with the instructors evaluation of both student’s classroom and field work, determine the student’s successful completion of this course.

RECOMMENDED ELECTIVE TEXTS

A. Hester, Thomas R. Field Methods in Archaeology, Mayfield Publishing Co., Mountain View California.

B. Collins, James M. and Brian Leigh Molyneaux. Archaeological Survey. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, California.

MATERIALS NEEDED:

A. Recommended equipment 1. GPS 2. Vernier calipers, mm designations 3. Compass with adjustable declination

B. For Your own use Camera— digital or standard

COURSE OUTLINE

A. Determine area to be surveyed

B. Desk top survey” 1. Studying published information 2. Previous find spots 3. Building surveys 4. Old maps and documents (BLM Reading Room) 5. Existing site files a. BLM Reading room b. Local archives c. University of Arizona site Files d. Arizona State University site Files e. Local National Forest Service f. Museum of Northern Arizona site files

6. Existing aerial photographs

C. Determine appropriate survey strategies 1. What are you trying to learn? a. Culture Resource Management b. Academic pursuits. i.e. problem oriented 2. Survey phases a. Reconnaissance survey b. Intensive survey c. Class I, Class II and Class III 3. Probabilistic sampling strategy a. Simple random sample b. Judgmental sampling

AAS Copyright 2002 TAB 23, Page 3 Survey Techniques II Revised February 2006 c. Pros and Cons of each strategy. Results of practical application d. Determine the percentage of the area that will give you a good sample 4. Layout of survey areas/Establishing the grid

D. Remote Sensing Techniques/Understanding their function 1. Geophysics 2. Magnetometry 3. Resistivity 4. Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) 5. Aerial photography / LIDAR laser mounted on aircraft

E. Pedestrian Survey Techniques 1. Determining method – zig zag or straight 2. Crew size 3. Spacing considerations a. Dense underbrush b. Visibility c. Which way do we go? 4. Computer aided data entry a. Geographic Information System (GIS) (1) Its use in predictive modeling 5. I-Paq and other total station surveying systems (1) Pros (2) Cons

F. Site recording -- Crew Chief’s responsibilities 1. Development and use of analysis sheets a. Ceramics b. Flaked stone c. Ground stone d. Photography e. Other 2. Importance of notetaking a. Field book / journals/ Daily Logs b. Software: ArcPad for field notes 3. Crew chief responsibilities a. Instruct in use of forms and logs b. Review crew logs c. Computer data entry -- daily logs, site and analysis sheets

G. Site mapping-- Crew chief responsibilities 1. Deciding on method to use a. compass and pace, compass and tape, Brunton tripod and tape b. Instructing crew 2. Plotting Universal Transverse Mercator locations a. on the U.S.G.S. field maps b. on project maps 3. Updating project maps 4. Software: ArcView

I. Interpreting survey data 1. Integration of photography, mapping, and notes 2. Site location 3. Subsistence strategies 4. Artifact interpretation

J. Report writing 1. Format a. SHPO standards b. Forest Service standards

PURPOSE

To provide the student with the necessary knowledge and skills to prepare a usable preliminary report which would include basic descriptions and site location, excavation methods and techniques, artifact comparison and interpretation.

OBJECTIVES

After completing this course the student is to be able to perform the following tasks:

1. Define a preliminary report.

2. Develop an acceptable outline.

3. Indicate an awareness of standard archaeological writing styles Refer to current issues of American Antiquity.

4. Organize ancillary information.

5. Describe the basic methods of research organization (paper).

6. Demonstrate a knowledge of appropriate printing techniques and graphics usage.

7. Practice the correct usage of photography for the preparation of illustrative materials.

8. Explain the importance of the various sections of a standard report.

COURSE OUTLINE

A. What is a preliminary report? 2.5 hours 1. Scope of a preliminary report 2. Necessity for research of the literature 3. Organization of literature research

B. Outline of paper 1. Organization of information 2. Rank order of information

C. Style 1. Consistency 2. Style manuals 3. Expression, tenses 4. Guiding the reader

D. Organization of ancillary information 2.5 hours 1. Appendices 2. REFERENCES a. Style b. Cards 3. Examination - reports - critique

E. Mechanics 1 7.5 hours 1. The manuscript a. Setting up a manuscript b. Instructions to the typist c. Editing or proofing - editor's marks d. Instructions to printer e. What does your printer want? 2. Printing techniques a. Letter press b. Offset c. Gestefax d. Automatic systems 3. Graphics a. Explanation of proportions, line cuts, half-tones, multiple screening b. Charts and graphs c. Maps d. Line drawings e. Lettering f. Shading g. Hand work h. Films i. Press-on letters j. Emphases k. Artifact and figure orientations

F. Mechanics 2 2.5 hours 1. Class problems a. Use of various materials - pens, inks, press-on letters, shading, film, scratch board, charcoal, overlays, etc.

G. Mechanics 3 2.5 hours 1. Photography

H. Completing the manuscript 2.5 hours 1. Conclusions 2. Abstract 3. Overall critique of a report

LABORATORY Write a brief report 40 hours minimum

Dittert, Alfred E., Jr. and Fred Wendorf 1977 Procedural Manual for Archaeological Field Research Projects of the Museum of New Mexico. The Archaeologist, No. 10, Arizona Archaeological Society, Phoenix. (A)*

Zweifel, Frances W. 1961 A Handbook for Biological Illustration. Phoenix Science Series PSS 510, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

* (A) In Phoenix Chapter Archives

PURPOSE

This course is an intensive introduction to the methods used to analyze animal bones from archaeological sites, and the procedures and theory used to interpret zooarchaeological data. The focus is on reaching a synthesis of taphonomy and zooarchaeology.

OBJECTIVES

The primary material to be taught will be basic identification of skeletal elements, the recognition of bone breakage patterns and bone modification such as cut marks and tooth marks, and the manipulation of this data for purposes of interpreting the formation processes of bone assemblages and reconstructing human behavior.

At the conclusion of the course, students are expected to:

A. Be able to specifically identify mammalian bones, or groups of bones, by name – including isolated and fragmentary elements. Be able to identify segments of bones presented in fragments as proximal/distal, medial/lateral, superior/inferior, anterior/posterior. Be able to identify areas of bone growth and how these areas relate to age determination (i.e. epiphyseal closure).

B. Understand of how zooarchaeology and faunal analysis fits into a general framework of anthropology, including its relationship with archaeology, paleontology, physical anthropology, and philosophy of science.

C. Understand how research questions in zooarchaeology are developed and the inter-play between research design, methodology, and interpretation.

D. Identify different types of surface modification at a microscopic level: namely, cutmarks, hammerstone percussion marks, carnivore tooth marks, and rodent gnawing. Be able to interpret these patterns in terms of site formation processes and agent of accumulation.

E. Identify different patterns of weathering and bone breakage: namely, transverse/right; spiral/green; and intermediate. Be able to interpret these patterns in terms of site formation processes.

F. Differentiate skeletal element counts such as NISP and MNE.

G. Identify implications of human behavior based on mortality profiles.

FORMAT

Twenty hours of class work and twenty hour of laboratory work are required for this class. The suggested class format is approximately two hours of lecture and four hours of laboratory work per week. Lecture will also include time for discussion of assigned readings and an opportunity for students to present a case study from the Southwest and their opinions as to the effectiveness of the study in question. The laboratory section should be structured as an open work time where students work individually with the comparative faunal collections to familiarize themselves with mammalian skeletal remains from the Southwest. In addition to the lecture and laboratory times, students will hand in a one page summary of an article once a week.

PREREQUISITES

None – No prior training necessary, although it is recommended to have taken human osteology.

TEXTBOOK

Zooarchaeology Readings course handout(s) Archaeology of Animals by Simon Davis

Useful books: Vertebrate Taphonomy by R. Lee Lyman Zooarchaeology by E.S. Reitz & E.S. Wing

RESOURCE MATERIAL

For students to derive a reasonable knowledge of mammalian skeletal anatomy and identify surface modification, it is recommended that they have access to a comparative collection of remains from the Southwest as well as a comparative taphonomic collection.

LABORATORY MATERIALS

A. 10x hand lens B. Digital or hand drawn caliper 15cm C. Scale with accuracy of +/- 1 gram or +/- 0.1 grams (provided at laboratory) D. Microscope: stereo zoom minimum 20x capability (provided at laboratory) E. Analysis forms F. Labeling materials G. Drawing materials H. Comparative Faunal Collections (provided at laboratory as required)

COURSE OUTLINE

Lecture 1: Introduction: Taphonomy & Zooarchaeology Differentiate the two fields and understand their respective roles in interpreting faunal assemblages; tie in to history and philosophy of science and development of zooarchaeology as a discipline.

Lecture 2: Subsistence Ecology & Human Behavior Identify push-pull factors for human mobility and subsistence ecology. Discuss how the development of pastoralism can be addressed through faunal analysis.

Lecture 3: Identifying Basic Skeletal Anatomy & Dentition Review from Lab 1 and emphasize dentition. Go through deciduous and adult dentition, dental formulas, and the growth and development of mammalian teeth. Emphasize tooth morphology and correlation with ecological niche.

Lecture 4: Quantitative Measures in Zooarchaeology Discuss the differences between NISP, MNI, and MNE. Discuss pros and cons to each system of measure and what type of research situation best suits each measure.

Lecture 5: Identifying Surface Modification Identify basic forms of surface modification: rodent, carnivore, and human. Describe each type and show examples of surface modification from comparative taphonomic collection.

Lecture 6: Interpreting Surface Modification Review types of surface modification. Describe how different types of surface modification and the relative frequencies of surface modification type allow researchers to infer agent(s) of accumulation and site formation processes for zooarchaeological assemblages.

Lecture 7: Bone Breakage and Weathering Describe different types of bone breakage and fracture angle – discuss implications for site formation processes.

Lecture 8: Mortality Profiles Discuss implications of mortality profiles for zooarchaeologists to infer: 1) resource exploitation strategy and 2) process of domestication. Examples of aging based on comparative collection.

Lecture 9: Basic Graphs, Databases, Simple Statistics & Curation of Faunal Material Students learn how recording sheets and databases are constructed for recording zooarchaeological observations on an assemblage and work to design their own database and data entry forms. Discuss effective and ineffective ways to summarize data. Discuss AAS Copyright 2006 Tab 30, Page 3 Zooarchaeology & Faunal Analysis Issued January 2006

curation of faunal material.

Lecture 10: Zooarchaeological Case Studies Students present case studies for zooarchaeological and faunal analyses from a geographic or temporal region of interest. (Examples of possibilities are found in the attached references section.) Students should summarize the articles, dissect the author’s argument, and explain how effectively they think the author communicates his/her argument.

Lab 1: Identifying Basic Skeletal Anatomy Basic bones of the mammalian skeleton: cranial (frontal, parietal, occipital, temporal, maxilla), mandible, dentition, vertebral column (atlas, axis, cervical, thoracic, lumbar), rib, humerus, radius, ulna, innominate, femur, tibia, metapodials. Also introduce anatomical terminology. Students begin sketches of comparative material labeling the bones and anatomical orientations of their sketches.

Lab 2: Site Material & Comparative Collection Students begin to examine the archaeological material and sort by skeletal element. Sorting by skeletal element helps to become more proficient at identifying bones. Students use comparative collection as a guide for sorting by skeletal element.

Lab 3: Site Material & Comparative Collection; Identifying Surface Modification

Lab 4: Site Material & Comparative Collection; Identifying Surface Modification Students continue to work through the archaeological material, using the comparative collection as a guide. Students continue to identify surface modification from the comparative collection and on the archaeological assemblage.

Lab 5: Databases, Basic Graphs, & Simple Statistics; Site Material & Comparative Collection Students continue to work through the archaeological material, using the comparative collection as a guide. Also, students design and begin to implement their database design for analyzing archaeological collection.

LISTS OF TERMS USED IN ZOOARCHAEOLOGY

Physical Landmark Terms Anterior vs. posterior Appendicular skeleton: pelvic and pectoral girdles and extremities Axial skeleton: cranium, vertebrae, ribs, sternum Canal: tunnel, as in the sacral canal Cranial vs. caudal Condyle: rounded eminence, as on the proximal tibia Crest: a sharp border, as in the sacral or iliac crests Dorsal vs. ventral Diaphysis: shaft of long bones Digitigrade: phalanges only touch ground during locomotion Epiphysis: articular end Flat bones: for protection and muscle support, such as scapula, skull (not weight bearing) Foramen: hole, as in the obturator foramen, or nutrient foramina Fossa: depression, as in the acetabular fossa, iliac fossa, olecranon fossa, and radial fossa Head: a smooth rounded eminence for articulation as on the humerus and femur Incisure: a notch, as in the greater sciatic notch of pelvis, or the acetabular notch Irregular bones: vertebrae, maxilla, etc. Lateral vs. medial Lip: margin of a groove, crest, or line Long bones: sustain weight, provide muscle attachments, such as the radius, or femur Metaphysis: line of fusion Pectoral girdle Pelvic girdle Proximal vs. distal Process: projection, as in the coronoid process of the ulna, styloid process of the cranium, coracoid process of the scapula, and transverse processes of vertebrae Plantigrade: podials, metapodials, and phalanges touch the ground Ridge: long spine Sinus: cavity lined with mucus membrane Short bones: compact bones with limited motion such as phalanges, metacarpals and metatarsals Spine: a sharp prominence, such as the neural spine, or acromion spine Sulcus: a groove, as in the medial epicondyle and trochlea of humerus Suture: junction between bones, particularly of the skull Symphysis: where bones come together, as in the pubic or mandibular symphyses

Trochanter: a large prominence for muscle attachments, as in the greater and lesser trochanters of the femur Trochlea: pulley-like articulation, such as on the distal humerus Unguligrade: only the last phalanx touches the ground

Skeletal Elements

Skull: Dentary/mandible, Maxilla, Premaxilla, Nasal, Frontal, Parietal, Squamosal/Temporal, Occipital, Zygomatic Arch (Jugal), Incisor, Canine, Premolar, Molar, Endocranium, Vomer, Hyornandibular, Operculum, Preoperculum, Articular, Cleithrum, Otolith, Quadrate

Axial Centrum, Cervical, Thoracic, Lumbar, Caudal, Sacrum, Atlas, Axis, Urostyle, Pygostyle

Axial Skeleton Humerus, Radius, Ulna, Femur, Tibia, Metapodials, Patella, Podials, Calcaneus, Astragalus, Carpometacarpus, Tarsometatarsus, Tibiotarsus, Phalanx

Pectoral Girdle Coracoid, Scapula, Furculum, Sternum, Clavicle

Pelvic Girdle Synsacrum, Ilium, Ischium, Pubis, Acetabulum

Other Epiplastron, Entoplastron, Hyoplastron, Hypoplasrron, Xiphiplastron, Peripheral, Costal, Nuchal, Neural, Pygal

Reading References

Behrensmeyer, A.K. 1978. Taphonomic and ecologic information from bone weathering. Paleobiology 4: 150-162.

Binford, L.R. 1978. Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. Academic Press, New York.

Driver, J. 2000. Hunting Strategies and Horticultural Communities in Southeastern New Mexico. In Animal Bones, Human Societies, edited by P. Rowley-Conwy, pp. 115-123. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Driver, J. C. 1996. Social Complexity and Hunting Systems in Southwestern Colorado. In Debating Complexity: Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual Chacmool Conference, edited by D. A. Meyer, P. C. Dawson and D. T. Hanna, pp. 364-374. The Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, Calgary.

Kay, C. E. 1994. Aboriginal Overkill: The Role of Native Americans in Structuring Western Ecosystems. Human Nature 5(4):359-398.

Lyman, R. L. 1994a. Quantitative Units and terminology in Zooarchaeology. Am.Ant. 59:36-71, 1994.

Lyman, R.L. 1994b. Vertebrate Taphonomy. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Marean, C.W. and L. Spencer. 1991. Impact of carnivore ravaging on zooarchaeological measures of element abundance. American Antiquity 56: 645-658.

Potter, J. M. 1995. The Effects of Sedentism on the Processing of Hunted Carcasses in the Southwest: A Comparison of Two Pueblo IV Sites in Central New Mexico. Kiva 60(3):411-428.

Potter, J. M. 1997. Communal Ritual and Faunal Remains: An Example from the Dolores Anasazi. Journal of Field Archaeology 24:353-364.

Reitz, E.J. and E.S. Wing. 1999. Zooarchaeology. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Speth, J. D. 2000. Boiling vs. Baking and Roasting: A Taphonomic Approach to the Recognition of Cooking Techniques in Small Mammals. In Animal Bones, Human Societies, edited by P. Rowley- Conwy, pp. 89-105. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Speth, J. D. and K. A. Spielmann. 1983. Energy Source, Protein Metabolism, and Hunter-gatherer Subsistence Strategies. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 2:1-31.

Speth, J. D. and S. L. Scott. 1989. Horticulture and Large Mammal Hunting: The Role of Resource Depletion and the Constraints of Time and Labor. In Farmers as Hunters: The Implications of Sedentism, edited by S. Kent, pp. 71-79. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Szuter, C. R. 1991. Hunting by Hohokam Desert Farmers. Kiva 56(3):277-291.

Szuter, C. R. and W. B. Gillespie. 1994. Interpreting Use of Animal Resources at Prehistoric American Southwest Communities. In The Ancient Southwestern Community: Models and Methods for the Study of Prehistoric Social Organization, edited by W. H. Wills and R. D. Leonard, pp. 67-76. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Villa, P. and E. Mahieu. 1991. Breakage patterns of human long bones. Journal of Human Evolution 21: 27-48.

GUIDELINES FOR WORKSHOPS AND SEMINARS

Workshops and seminars on archaeological methods and techniques may be held in connection with a course for certification to assist the student with intensive training and as a supplement to course content or may be presented separately to provide information/experience to students outside of approved courses. The instructor of the workshop shall strive to follow the general guidelines listed below.

A. The workshop and/or seminar is germane to the goals of the AAS certification program and, as appropriate, to the particular course which it supports.

B. The workshop and/or seminar advises the students on the significance of the subject under study.

C. As applicable, the ethical and legal responsibilities are discussed pertinent to the subject of the workshop and/or seminar. For example: use of permits for survey and excavation, appropriate management and care of human remains, contacts with land owners, etc.

D. As applicable, a portion of the workshop and/or seminar shall include instruction on:

1. The methods for identifying the materials under study.

2. The techniques for recording and describing materials under study.

3. The range of uses and functions for the particular objects and collections under study.

4. Practical means and the techniques to report the materials and resources under study.

E. The purpose and rationale for the care and maintenance of documents, objects, and the collections used in or generated by the course of instruction.

PURPOSE

It is the goal of this course to introduce the avocational archaeologist to the types of analyses, approaches, and interpretations that archaeologists perform on ceramic remains. Though previous courses on southwest archaeology or general archaeology would be useful, there are no prerequisites for this course.

The course is designed to be presented in twenty hours of classroom instruction. The outline presented below is based upon 8 sessions of 2- 1/2 hours each.

The present suggested text for the workshop is Ceramics for the Archaeologist by Anna O. Shepard, Publication 609, Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1954, Reprint 1985.

COURSE OUTLINE

1st meeting Introduction: What is a ceramic? Clays, temper manufacturing methods.

2nd meeting Ceramic attributes and function of ceramics: A. How an archaeologist describes a vessel or assemblage. B. Functional analyses of ceramics.

3rd meeting Ceramic conservation, cleaning, and storage: A. Cleaning methods and supplies. A. Storage and conservation.

4th meeting Ethnography of pottery: A. Discussions of living populations of potters and what they teach us. B. How archaeologists better understand prehistoric ceramics.

5th meeting The wonderful world of design: A. Ceramic decoration and elaboration, types, techniques, and methods. B. Recording and understanding design. C. Meaning encoded in design.

6TH meeting Sherds and the archaeologist: A. What kinds of information can sherds tell us? B. How to design your own ceramic analysis.

7TH meeting Ceramics and dating: A. Chronologies and Typologies, what they are and how they are used. B. Discussion of ideas of "time" and "change."

8TH meeting The Typology - Hohokam, Mogollon, Anasazi, other: AAS Copyright 2002 Tab 25, Page 1 Ceramics Workshop Revised October 2002 A. Discussion of the chronology for dating. B. Introduction to the ceramic styles via sherds in type collections and from whole vessel photographs.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Gifford, James C. and Watson Smith 1978 Gray Corrugated Pottery From Awatovi and other Jeddito Sites In Northeastern Arizona. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Cambridge.

Lister, Robert H. and Florence C. Lister 1978 Anasazi Pottery. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Smith, Watson 1971 Painted Ceramics of the Western Mound at Awatovi. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Cambridge.

1972 Prehistoric Kivas of Antelope Mesa: Northeastern Arizona. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Cambridge.

1973 The Williams Site: A Frontier Mogollon Village In West - Central New Mexico.

PURPOSE

This is an introductory workshop in the study of lithic artifacts. It will provide an up-to-date synthesis of the analysis of lithic tools and debitage for members of the Arizona Archaeological Society who are enrolled in the Certification Program. The class has five broad objectives:

1. to familiarize students with the basic principles of lithic technology,

2. to provide "hands-on" experience in flintknapping and the replication of lithic assemblages,

3. to examine technological and functional models of tool manufacturing, use, and maintenance,

4. to examine analytical and classification techniques for the study and interpretation of lithic assemblages, and,

5. to familiarize students with some of the more well-known lithic assemblages found in Arizona and other parts of North America.

FORMAT

The workshop is designed to be presented in twenty hours of classroom and laboratory instruction. This will be presented in 8 sessions of 2½ hour classes. Each class session will contain two sections: the first section will be a discussion of particular issues in lithic technology, and the second section will be a lab involving experimental studies or the analysis of lithic assemblages.

WORKSHOP REQUIREMENTS

Each student will need protective eyewear such as safety glasses or goggles and gloves, preferably leather. Tools for workshop use and lithic raw materials will be provided.

OBJECTIVES

At the end of this course, the student will be able to:

1. Describe the basic principles involved with the production of lithic tools.

2. Identify general classes of lithic raw materials common to lithic assemblages in the Southwest.

3. Distinguish lithic artifacts from nonartifactual lithic materials.

4. Identify several different kinds of lithic debitage frequently observed at archaeological sites.

5. Explain the differences between at least two different contemporary approaches to debitage analysis and classification.

6. Identify the principle kinds of lithic tools recovered from archaeological sites in the Southwest.

7. Determine the presence and location of used edges on lithic tools and the possible functions they served.

8. Describe several models for the manufacturing, use, and maintenance of lithic tools presented in the archaeological literature.

9. Describe the contributions of at least three researchers who have provided fundamental insights into the nature and use of lithic artifacts.

WORKSHOP OUTLINE

1. Basic principles of lithic technology Lithic raw material identification

Lab: Introduction to flintknapping

2. Lithic raw material procurement and quarrying Models of lithic core and flake tool production

Lab: Flintknapping - Making simple core and flake tools

3. Site formation processes and lithic assemblages Models of bifacial tool production

Lab: Flintknapping - Making bifacial tools

4. Models of tool maintenance and use-life

Lab: Flintknapping - Resharpening lithic tools

5. Lithic use-wear analysis: High power and low power approaches

Lab: Analytical techniques for lithic use-wear analysis

6. Debitage classifications and analysis: Traditional stage Typologies and the Sullivan and Rozen approach

Lab: Techniques for debitage classification and analysis

7. Issues: Lithic tool classifications and analysis

Lab: Techniques for tool classification and analysis

8. Issues: Ground and pecked stone tools and implements

Lab: Making Hohokam ground stone tools.

Adams, Jenny L. 1988 Use-wear analysis of handstones used to grind corn and process hides. Journal of Field Archaeology 15(3):307-315.

Callahan, Errett 1979 The basics of biface knapping in the eastern fluted point tradition: a manual for flintknappers and lithic analysts. Archaeology of Eastern North America 7(l):1-180. Washington, D.C.

Crabtree, Don E. 1972 An introduction to flintworking. Occasional papers of the Idaho State University Museum, No. 28. Pocatello.

1972 The cone fracture principle and the manufacture of lithic materials. In Tebiwa. Pp. 29-42.

1973 Experiments in Replicating Hohokam Points. In Tebiwa. Pp. 10-45.

Dodd, Walter A., Jr. 1979 The wear and use of battered tools at Armijo Rockshelter. In Lithic Use-Wear Analysis, edited by Brian Hayden. Academic Press, New York.

Ericson, Jonathon E. 1984 Toward the analysis of lithic production systems. In Prehistoric Quarries and Lithic Production, Edited by J. E. Ericson and B. A. Purdy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Frison, George C. 1968 A functional analysis of certain chipped stone tools. American Antiquity 33(2):149-155.

Hayden, Brian 1979 Lithic Use-wear Analysis, Edited by Brian Hayden. Academic Press, New York.

Hayden, Brian and Margaret Nelson 1981 The use of chipped lithic material in the contemporary Maya Highlands. American Antiquity 46(4):885-898.

Holmes, William H. 1919 Handbook of Aboriginal American Antiquities, Part 1: Introductory - The Lithic Industries. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin Number 60, pp. 278-329.

Keeley, Lawrence H. 1980 Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Uses: A Microwear Analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Nelson, Nels C. 1916 Flintworking by Ishi. Holmes Anniversary Volume: Anthropological Essays Presented to William Henry Holmes, pp. 397-402.

Woodbury, Richard B. 1954 Prehistoric Stone Implements of Northeastern Arizona. Reports of the Awatovi Expedition, Report No. 6. Kraus Reprints, New York.

EXCAVATION CRITERIA PURPOSE

The Excavation Criteria contained herein establish Department policy on the excavation of archaeological sites. These criteria answer two commonly asked questions:

A. What is a Chapter's justification for excavating an archaeological site; i.e., under what conditions shall excavation be deemed appropriate and for what purposes shall it be done?

B. Under what guidelines does a Chapter control the excavation; i.e., how shall an excavation be conducted?

GENERAL POLICY

General policy covering excavation activities are listed below as found in the Articles of Incorporation (1965, as amended) and Constitutional Bylaws (1986) of the Arizona Archaeological Society (AAS).

A. The AAS shall "...operate exclusively for charitable, scientific or educational purposes in such manner as the Board of Directors may deem best, particularly for the purpose of studying and preserving the archaeology of the Southwestern United States." (Articles of Incorporation, Article IIIa)

B. "No member shall participate in any excavation of any historic or prehistoric ruin, burial ground, or other archaeological or historic site, except where such excavation is performed for the accomplishment of one or more of the objectives of the Society as set forth in the Articles of Incorporation, and is in accordance with the laws of the State of Arizona, and the laws of the United States of America relating to such excavations. Any archaeological field project of the Arizona Archaeological Society, or a Chapter of the Society, shall be under the supervision of a Project Director approved by the State Board of Directors and/or, if applicable, the Department of Certification, or the Chapter initiating the project." (Constitutional Bylaws, Article II, Section 7)

C. "Each Chapter shall furnish to the State Board of Directors at the annual meeting, a list of the Chapter's past year archaeological field projects. This list may be included as part of the written report given by the Chapter President at the annual meeting or mailed to the Secretary of the Board prior to that meeting." (Constitutional Bylaws, Article II, Section 11)

E. "Each Chapter shall furnish to the Chairman of the State Board of Directors a written notice, containing all available information, of any new field projects to be undertaken. Any emergency field projects that are undertaken immediately shall be reported to the Chairman of the Board within two (2) weeks after starting the project." (Constitutional Bylaws, Article II, Section 11-A)

GENERAL POLICY (continued

F. "The income from sale of publications, gifts and other sources, together with dues of Associate members and a portion of other annual dues to be fixed by the Board of Directors, shall constitute the working capital of the Board of Directors. This income is for operations, publications and other current expenses consistent with the purposes of the Society." (Constitutional Bylaws, Article III, Section 4)

G. "The results of all excavations or other research which is carried out by any Chapter of the Society shall be reported and filed with the Secretary of the Board of Directors, with a copy to the editor." (Constitutional Bylaws, Article IV, Section 3)

H. "The Archivist [of each Chapter] .. shall act as custodian of all records relating to excavations, site locations, maps, collections of artifacts, and similar and related records of the Society Chapter." (Constitutional Bylaws, Article VI, Section 13)

DEPARTMENT POLICY/EXCAVATION CRITERIA

A. Department policy on archaeological excavations conducted by a chapter as part of a Certification Class shall be consistent with general policy as set by the AAS in its Articles of Incorporation and Constitutional Bylaws, as described above.

B. Excavations conducted by a chapter as part of a Certification Class are deemed appropriate and allowable only when done for research, educational, or preservation purposes.

C. Excavations conducted by a chapter as part of a Certification Class are not deemed appropriate nor are they allowed when:

1. They would produce monetary profit or material gain so as to violate the charitable status of any chapter or the AAS.

2. There is good reason to believe the legal owner of an archaeological site will receive significant monetary profit or material gain from the excavation itself or from the materials excavated.

3. Any individual other than the legal owner of an archaeological site will benefit either monetarily or materially as a direct consequence of the site being excavated by the AAS. Excluded from this are payments made to individuals or organizations for support and contracted services (e.g., backhoe operator fees, payments for artifact analyses, consultation fees, etc.).

4. There is no research design and no professional archaeological advisor.

DEPARTMENT POLICY/EXCAVATION CRITERIA (continued)

D. Excavations undertaken for research purposes are justified only when the rationale for the excavation is explained in a research design, there is a professional archaeological advisor overseeing the work, and it is reasonable to assume they would produce:

1. Information relevant to current regional research questions concerning the history or prehistory of the Southwest.

2. Information relevant to current scientific questions concerning human behavior and cultural systems in general.

3. They may provide AAS members with training commensurate with the Certification Program guided by a professionally adequate, clearly explained research design under the direction of a Department of Certification approved professional archaeologist.

E. Excavations conducted for preservation purposes are justified only when guided by a research design and when undertaken:

1. For purposes clearly explained in a professionally adequate research design.

2. To protect important scientific information from natural and human-caused forms of deterioration and damage (i.e., protection is afforded through data retrieval).

3. To assess the need for physical protection at a site as determined through controlled archaeological testing.

F. Archaeological sites can be excavated for preservation purposes only after all other alternative protection measures have been exhausted or deemed inappropriate. Examples of alternative measures include (but are not limited to) stabilization, establishing a preservation easement, patrolling, signing, fencing, burying a site, etc.

G. A written agreement shall be made between the excavating Chapter and the owner or managing agency of the archaeological site that is to be excavated. Any permits (either Federal or State) necessary for the excavation shall be obtained beforehand. The written agreement shall state (as a minimum):

1. That all parties find the Research Design/Work Plan acceptable.

2. That the Chapter has made a good faith attempt to gain permission from the land owner to ultimately have all materials excavated from the site curated in an appropriate repository.

3. That the land owner will abide with the Department's policy and applicable Federal or State laws and/or regulations regarding the handling and treatment of human remains.

DEPARTMENT POLICY/EXCAVATION CRITERIA (continued)

H. Native American human remains and/or funerary objects may be discovered prior to, or during, excavation. (If the likelihood of encountering human remains and/or funerary objects during the course of excavation on State or private lands is high, the Chapter is encouraged to contact the Arizona State Museum prior to undertaking excavation and obtain copies of current, relevant guidance provided by the Museum.) In accordance with State laws ARS 41-844 and ARS 41-865, and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, such remains and objects shall be treated as follows:

1. On Federal Land If materials are encountered on federal land, which appear to be human remains and/or funerary objects, all the activities that might disturb the remains and/or objects must stop. Individuals in charge of the excavation must take steps to protect the remains and/or objects, and immediately notify the responsible federal lands manager. The federal land manager will consult with the appropriate Indian tribes and will provide guidance on what to do.

2. On State Land If materials are encountered on State Land, which appear to be human remains, objects buried with them, objects used in Native American ceremonies, or other objects of special significance to Native Americans, all activities that might disturb the remains or objects must stop. Individuals in charge of the project must notify the Arizona State Museum of the circumstances of the find within three working days. The Museum will consult with appropriate groups and will provide guidance on what to do.

3. On Private Land If human remains or objects buried with them are encountered on private land, the landowner or landowner's agent is required to notify the Arizona State Museum before further disturbing the remains or objects. The Museum then has ten days, or more if permitted by the landowner, to consult with any groups that may be culturally related to the remains, and to carry out the decision about what to do with the materials.

4. The Arizona State Museum may be contacted in writing by addressing correspondence to: Director, Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721. The Museum may be contacted by telephone at (602) 621-4794, 621-4795, or 621- 6281.

5. Every effort shall be made to maintain the safety and security of the human remains and/or objects while decisions about what to do are being made. If a determination is made by the Arizona State Museum in consultation with the landowner that human remains, objects buried with them, and/or objects of special significance to Native Americans are to be excavated as part of a certification class, the following procedures shall be implemented and closely monitored:

DEPARTMENT POLICY/EXCAVATION CRITERIA (continued)

a. Any legal requirements shall be satisfied prior to continuing any work that may directly affect the remains or materials.

b. Excavation and recording of human remains shall be conducted by AAS members under the direct supervision of either the excavation Project Director, or a qualified professional archaeologist or physical anthropologist.

c. Human remains shall not be displayed to the general public and shall be treated with respect and deference at all times.

d. No human remains will be left exposed overnight or over a weekend. Every effort will be made to provide for 24 hour on-site security when burials are undergoing excavation.

e. As may be permitted by the appropriate federal agency or the State Museum, human remains shall be documented within the guidelines of each particular excavation regardless of their ultimate disposition. This may require contracted analysis with specialists outside of the Chapter conducting the excavation. All contracted specialists who analyze or handle human remains shall comply with the Department's policy statement.

f. Failure to comply with the Department's policy regarding treatment of human remains may be grounds for termination of membership, subject to an investigation of conduct as specified in Article II, Section 6D, of the Society's Constitutional Bylaws, and may subject individuals to civil and/or criminal penalties in accordance with the provisions of State laws ARS 41-844 or ARS 41-865.

I. Methods and techniques used in field excavation, laboratory analysis, and report preparation will be consistent with current scientific standards.

J. The extent of archaeological investigations (e.g., excavation, limited testing, surface collecting, etc.) at any one site shall be commensurate with its level of threat or data potential. As a general rule, no more than 50 percent of any site shall be excavated. An exception to this is when the site is being AAS Copyright 2002 Tab 27, Page 5 Evacuation Criteria Revised February 2006 666

excavated for preservation purposes, and more than 50 percent of it is in imminent danger of being completely destroyed from either natural or human causes.

K. The use of backhoes is restricted to the removal of sterile overburden; testing the subsurface components on large sites; or excavating sites that are in imminent danger of being destroyed through natural forces.

L. Excavations cannot be undertaken under severe time constraints, except when done for preservation (salvage) purposes where the site is in imminent danger of being destroyed through natural forces or human forces.

DEPARTMENT POLICY/EXCAVATION CRITERIA (continued)

M. Required logistical support will be identified in a Research Design/Work Plan approved by the AAS State Board of Directors, and/or, if applicable, the Department of Certification or the Chapter initiating the project prior to undertaking an excavation. This support will be provided upon commencement of excavation activities. Logistical support includes, but is not limited, to:

1. Temporary artifact storage area.

2. Laboratory facilities.

3. Necessary personnel for all phases of the research project.

4. All monies as needed for procurement, contract, curation, and other support costs.

N. A Research Design/Work Plan shall be developed prior to undertaking any excavation. An exception to this is in the case where there is insufficient time to complete such a document due to the site being in imminent danger of being destroyed by natural forces or human forces. In all other instances, components of the Research Design/Work Plan shall include:

1. Precise statement of purpose and goals.

2. List of relevant scientific research questions to be addressed.

3. Discussion of the methods and techniques of field excavation and laboratory analysis.

4. Designation of individual responsibility concerning all fieldwork, laboratory analysis, report writing, and dissemination of findings to the scientific community and the general public.

5. Description of how the excavated materials will be curated or otherwise disposed of, as appropriate (this will also be specified in any Federal or State permits).

6. Identification of Project Director who has demonstrated the ability to undertake and complete a research project of similar scope as that being proposed, and who is responsible for the completion of the project.

7. Estimation of time involved for all phases of project with approximate completion dates and manpower estimates.

O. All Research Designs/Work Plans are subject to peer review and approval through a simple majority vote of the Chapter's membership as recommended by its Board of Directors.

DEPARTMENT POLICY/EXCAVATION CRITERIA (continued)

P. Archaeological testing of sites (limited subsurface investigations for planning or evaluation purposes) and surface collecting are to be procedurally treated the same as formal excavations in regard to Department policy. Because of the limited nature of these archaeological undertakings, the treatment given to them (e.g., the development of a Research Design) is expected to be fairly simple. As a general rule, the treatment given to them should be commensurate with the nature and extent of proposed testing or surface collection.

Q. Upon completion of all excavations and other archaeological investigations, the results shall be documented in a professional quality report, and submitted to the Department, the land owner, and the institution that issued the site number, and it shall contain the following information as a minimum:

1. Title Page - Include a title page with a notation indicating that the work was an undertaking of the appropriate Chapter of the AAS.

2. Table of Contents - Include a table of contents with a list of numbered tables, figures, and plates, as appropriate.

3. Abstract - Provide a 250-word or less abstract of the project. The abstract must outline the report contents and refer to specific highlights of the findings.

4. Background - Provide a brief summary of the project and surrounding environment as a context for the data recovery work. Discuss and reference previous archaeological work in the area.

5. Summary - Describe the involved archaeological site including materials present, physical attributes, environmental setting, cultural/temporal affiliation, and function. Identify the significant values of the site (e.g., scientific or educational). AAS Copyright 2002 Tab 27, Page 7 Evacuation Criteria Revised February 2006 888

6. Research Orientation - Discuss the research orientation for the data recovery work performed, including the regional research questions and specific study topics investigated.

7. Description of Work Performed - Completely and accurately describe the fieldwork and analysis methods used, the dates of fieldwork, number of crew members, and the number of person- hours involved.

8. Results and Evaluation - Present the results of fieldwork and analysis and discuss these in the context of the original Research Design. Evaluate the success of the data recovery work performed in terms of its contribution to regional research questions and the objectives of the Research Design.

DEPARTMENT POLICY/EXCAVATION CRITERIA (continued)

Q. Upon completion of all excavations (continued)

9. Recommendations - Suggest future data recovery methods and recommend research questions for future archaeological investigations in the area, and if appropriate, on the site.

10. Appendices - Include appendices describing any special studies performed and a report of work hours expended by task.

11. Bibliography - Include a bibliography of all references cited in the report following the Editorial Policy and Style Guide for American Antiquities.

12. Maps - Include map(s) showing at a minimum the site area boundaries, land ownership, and units excavated or collected.

13. Illustrations - Include sufficient drawings, profiles, and figures to illustrate the data.

14. Tables - At a minimum, include a tabulation of materials and samples recovered and items curated.

15. Photographs - Include photographs as needed to illustrate the data.

Rev'd 9-16-2005

The research design serves as a guide for the field work, laboratory work, disposition of materials, and report writing, that are essential components of archaeological investigations. It is work plans that not only helps focus the efforts of the Project Director and his/her staff, but also provides the means by which the owner of the site can evaluate the quality and appropriateness of the archaeological investigation proposed. The research design should ensure that the investigation addresses important research questions, produces useful results, and is conducted efficiently.

The research design should also serve as a clear statement of the wishes of the landowner with respect to the work to be done. In this way, misunderstandings between the landowner and the archaeologist can be avoided. In some cases, the landowner and the archaeologist may wish to enter into a formal contract which incorporates the research design.

A research design should be prepared for each excavation or collection project and should include the following ELEMENTS:

A. SPECIFIC GOALS OF THE PROJECT

B. RELEVANT RESEARCH GOALS THAT WILL BE ADDRESSED The research questions should relate to previous studies in the area and existing knowledge. The research design that proposes work only because “little is known about the prehistory of the area,” without identifying more explicit research questions, should be treated with caution. Such vague plans provide little basis for conducting research, may result only in useless, trivial, or redundant information, and sometimes only mask the ignorance of the persons preparing the plan.

C. PRIORITIES FOR STUDY Devoting the same level of effort to all research questions is not necessary. All research questions should be considered, but priorities for their investigation should be established and justified.

D. DEFINITION OF DATA NEEDS The information needed to address each research question should be identified.

E. METHODS TO BE USED IN FIELD WORK AND ANALYSIS Methods should be justified in terms of their effectiveness in collecting the information that is sought. The plan should also recognize that important information may emerge unexpectedly during fieldwork or analysis and need to be addressed.

1. The methods used should ensure full, clear, and accurate descriptions of all field work and observations. Stratigraphic and associational relationships, environmental relationships, excavation techniques, recording methods, and analytical procedures should be described in such a way as to allow future researchers to reconstruct what was done, what was observed, and why. 2. The methods should take into account the possibility that future researchers will need to use the information collected from the site to address questions not recognized at the time the site was excavated. 3. The research design should consider whether portions of a site can be preserved in place. Destructive methods should not be applied to such portions of sites if nondestructive methods are practical.

F. REPORTING OF RESULTS The research design should describe how results of the investigation will be reported. For collected information to be useful, it must be made available in usable forms. The following products are normally expected from an excavation program.

1. A report that describes the investigation and its results, with reference to the research questions addressed. 2. Information in the form of tables, charts, and graphs. 3. Raw data in the form of field notes, journals, photographs, and data recording forms. 4. Scholarly and other articles or monographs using the results of the work for analytic purposes or to interpret the site to the public.

G. PROPOSED TREATMENT AND DISPOSITION OF EXCAVATED MATERIAL The research design for any archaeological excavation should provide for the proper treatment and disposition of collected materials. Care should be taken during conservation, curation, and handling of specimens and records to ensure that materials are not lost, inappropriately altered, or damaged.

It is very important that field notes, artifacts, and photographs from an archaeological project be preserved and made available to future researchers. Such materials can be used to address research questions not anticipated during the original investigation. They can be reanalyzed with new techniques that were not available at the time they were collected. Future researchers may also be able to reinterpret such material from different perspectives or in light of new findings from other sites.

1. Permanently curating the materials at a public or private repository, including colleges, university, local museum, which will fully protect them from the elements and from vermin, that will ensure their preservation, and that will guarantee their security and accessibility for future study. 2. Returning the materials to the private land owner after the materials have been described, studied, and analyzed in accordance with the research design, or 3. Loaning the materials to public or private parties, after description and study, provided that access for study and proper care of the materials can be expected.

If collected materials are to be curated, arrangements for this should be made with a repository before the field work begins. The research design should specify the repository that will be used and the terms under which the materials will be curated.

Human remains and funerary objects buried with them must be treated in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act or State laws A.R.S. 41-844 and 41-865, depending on where they were found. If such material are encountered on private land, the landowner or the landowner’s agent must notify Arizona State Museum. The Museum then has up to ten days, or more if permitted by the landowner, to consult with Indian tribes or other groups that might be culturally related to the remains, and to carry out the decision about the remains.

It is best to consult the appropriate Indian tribes before excavating if human remains or funerary objects are likely to be encountered. Reaching an understanding with the appropriate tribes on how such remains and objects should be treated can reduce or eliminate delays that might otherwise be necessary. The research design should recognize the need to consult with Native Americans if excavation of human remains is likely.

Any human remains and funerary objects donated to repositories which receive Federal funds may be returned, or repatriated, to a culturally related Indian tribe or lineal descendant if claimed by that tribe or descendant. This is true for human remains and funerary objects collected in the past, as well as any such remains and objects that may be excavated in the future, regardless of land ownership.

NOTE: This outline, prepared by Dr. E. Charles Adams of the Arizona State Museum, may be utilized as guidance by individual Chapters when developing a plan for studying small sites.

PURPOSE

Small sites comprise over 90 percent of the archaeological sites in Arizona. These sites are frequently the most impacted by development and are destroyed at a high frequency. Understanding the location and use of small sites is integral to understanding any culture's adaptation to its environment. Yet, small sites receive little research attention and are often not studied in a systematic manner to allow researchers to understand their individual role or integrated role in cultural patterns. This outline is designed to aid the researcher in developing a plan for studying small sites. Additionally, most cultural resource management- generated reports discuss research at small sites, usually involving both survey and excavation.

PREREQUISITES

Requirements include Prehistory of the Southwest and completion of Field Crew Member I and II, and development of supervisory skills prior to implementing research on small sites.

OUTLINE

A. Definition of terms 1. What is a small site (Wilcox and Pilles 1978)? 2. What are the characteristics that differentiate a small site from other sites? a. Frequently have no structures. b. Occasionally have no features. c. Usually use is short-lived. d. Usually use is seasonal. 3. Small sites are usually part of a larger landscape use.

B. Research constraints 1. Construction/contract-oriented research. May be able to gather information on only one site with no other direct research context. 2. Part of a regional survey. Can look at settlement patterns 3. Part of a large, varied research program involving survey and excavation a. Gather subsurface material b. Record information on features and architecture c. Gather environmental information

C. The design for research 1. Because these sites are small, one should attempt complete recovery of information - architecture, artifacts, ecofacts 2. Background to research should be done at two levels. a. General area research and data on archaeology, specifically on settlement and small sites. b. Small site research specifically. c. It is absolutely critical that the small site(s) is(are) placed in the context of regional and local archaeology to attempt to understand its role in the settlement system (culture's use of the landscape). 3. Causes of variability should be recognized. a. Time • How do the nature and frequency of different small sites change over time? • How do their linkages to other sites and especially to large sites vary with time? b. Use: What criteria are used/should be used to differentiate small sites - structures, features, artifact classes? • Structures o Determine associated features, both intramural and extramural o Evaluate the artifact assemblage • Features o Are there features associated with one another and with structures? o Are there artifact assemblages associated with features, such as fire-cracked rock? • Substantial collections should be made of artifacts to allow statistical analysis. o Use flotation to recover micro-artifacts o Compare assemblages in "hot spots" to other areas. • Take environmental samples - pollen, flotation, faunal, soil o Within structures on the occupation surface o Within and adjacent to features o In extramural areas o On generalized used surfaces o Soil tests - pH, fraction to evaluate agricultural potential • Preservation - site condition affects the remains preserved at a site and in situ at the site. o General conditions in the area should be noted o Site-specific observations - erosion, burial, etc. - must be noted. o Artifacts can also be affected by weathering. Especially surface artifacts can be affected and can influence data recording.

4. Patterns of similarity should be noted, as well as patterns of variability. a. What are the similarities - architectural, landscape, artifactual? b. What are the underlying causes - stable adaptation, supra- organizational structure (social, political, etc.)?

D. Methodology should flow smoothly out of research constraints and design. 1. Survey - goal is to understand settlement pattern, landscape use, and community structure. a. Is the survey coverage 100 percent or a sample? • Collection can be based on gridded landscape approach, eschewing traditional site typologies. • Can also be stratified by environmental or cultural variables, e.g. soil zones, plant zones, drainages, etc. • Only areas with high artifact density are assigned site numbers. b. Site collection - choose among several options. Whatever the choice, carefulmapping of the site is essential. The site should be gridded to facilitate surface collection and feature mapping. • Total collection - sites with low artifact densities should have all artifacts and features plotted on a map. • Hot spot sampling - only areas of high density are sampled. • Structures - intramural and extramural • Random or stratified, random sampling. • No collection survey - detailed site maps must be prepared. Detailed artifact, etc. inventories must be made and tied to maps. 2. Excavation - goal is to understand specific elements of the general pattern observed on survey. a. Must determine sampling units • Full excavation • Feature or structure oriented - intramural and extramural • Artifact concentration (hot spot) oriented • Random stratified, random, etc. b. Collection of environmental samples • Based on research design • To determine site use and association with other sites c. Dating • Because collection of chronometric samples is difficult, every opportunity should be taken advantage of. • Seriation, usually based on ceramics or projectile points. • Stratigraphy

E. Analysis and report preparation 1. The purpose of analysis is to search for patterns in the data and to map the changing interface of the culture with its environment and with other groups through the entire range of its use of an area based on small site research. This should be determinable through the culture’s settlement pattern. This pattern is best determined through: a. Complete surface mapping and documentation - survey. b. Testing a cross-section of this variability. c. Tying it to a regional pattern based in a well-thought-out research design. 2. The report should describe what the role of the small site was in the observed cultural pattern. a. What processes caused these patterns - both those effecting change and those permitting continuity? b. Do the small sites allow inferences about cultural boundaries? c. The small sites should allow inferences about landscape exploitation, how it varies through time, and why. d. Specific site use may be determined. e. Interface of small sites to larger ones and to other small sites should be possible.

REFERENCES AND RECOMMENDED READINGS

Fish, Suzanne K., and Paul R. Fish (editors) 1984 Prehistoric Agricultural Strategies in the Southwest. Arizona State University Anthropological Research Papers 33. Tempe.

Gumerman, George J. (editor) 1971 The Distribution of Prehistoric Population Aggregates. Prescott College Anthropological Report 1. Prescott, Arizona.

Ward, Albert E. (editor) 1978 Limited Activity and Occupation Sites: A Collection of Conference Papers. Center for Anthropological Studies, Contributions to Anthropological Studies 1. Albuquerque.