The Zooarchaeology of Great House Sites in the San Juan Basin of the American Southwest

THE ZOOARCHAEOLOGY OF GREAT HOUSE SITES IN THE SAN JUAN BASIN OF THE AMERICAN SOUTHWEST

Shaw Badenhorst

B.A., University of South Africa, 200I B. A. Honours, University of South Africa, 2004

DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

in the Department of Archaeology

Name: Shaw Badenhorst Degree: Ph.D Title ofThesis: The Zooarchaeology of Great House Sites in the San Juan Basin of the American Southwest

Examining Committee:

Chair: Mark Collard Associate Professor, Archaeology

Jonathan Driver Senior Supervisor Professor, Archaeology

Dana Lepofsky Supervisor Associate Professor, Archaeology

John Welch Internal Examiner Associate Professor, Archaeology

Kathy Roler Durand External Examiner Associate Professor, Anthropology & Applied Archaeology, Eastern New Mexico University

Date Defended/Approved:

ii SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

Declaration of Partial Copyright Licence

The author, whose copyright is declared on the title page of this work, has granted to Simon Fraser University the right to lend this thesis, project or extended essay to users of the Simon Fraser University Library, and to make partial or single copies only for such users or in response to a request from the library of any other university, or other educational institution, on its own behalf or for one of its users.

The author has further granted permission to Simon Fraser University to keep or make a digital copy for use in its circulating collection (currently available to the public at the "Institutional Repository" link of the SFU Library website at: ) and, without changing the content, to translate the thesis/project or extended essays, if technically possible, to any medium or format for the purpose of preservation of the digital work.

The author has further agreed that permission for multiple copying of this work for scholarly purposes may be granted by either the author or the Dean of Graduate Studies.

It is understood that copying or publication of this work for financial gain shall not be allowed without the author's written permission.

Permission for public performance, or limited permission for private scholarly use, of any multimedia materials forming part of this work, may have been granted by the author. This information may be found on the separately catalogued multimedia material and in the signed Partial Copyright Licence.

While licensing SFU to permit the above uses, the author retains copyright in the thesis, project or extended essays, including the right to change the work for subsequent purposes, including editing and publishing the work in whole or in part, and licensing other parties, as the author may desire.

The original Partial Copyright Licence attesting to these terms, and signed by this author, may be found in the original bound copy of this work, retained in the Simon Fraser University Archive.

Simon Fraser University Library Burnaby, BC, Canada

Revised: Fall 2007 ABSTRACT

This dissertation considers animal remains from great houses in the San Juan Basin of the American Southwest. The archaeofauna from an outlying great house, Albert Porter Pueblo in the central Mesa Verde region, occupied between Pueblo II and III (AD. 1020-1280), indicates that turkey increased in importance over time compared to cottontails. Artiodactyls are not common in the assemblage, suggesting continuous hunting pressure on large game. Only subtle differences were noted between faunas from the great house when compared to residential units. Most notably, turkeys are more common in the great house during all time periods compared to surrounding residences. Ritual animals were located in all contexts, suggesting that everyone in the settlement had access to ceremonies. The mounds from Pueblo Bonito, a great house in Chaco Canyon dating to Pueblo II (AD. 1050-1] 05) were recently re-excavated by reopening Neil Judd's excavations from the 1920s. The fauna from the mounds is dominated by cottontails. The frequency of deer in the assemblage is similar to other Classic Bonito faunas from Chaco Canyon. The overall composition of the fauna is similar to other great houses and small sites within Chaco Canyon. Most of the artiodactyl remains are from young animals, a pattern that is consistent with intensive hunting. A regional overview of faunas dating from Basketmaker II to Pueblo III (AD. 1-] 300) indicates that cottontails increased over time, whereas artiodactyls decline. Turkey became important in the northern San Juan Basin during Pueblo III. A number of processes resulted in variations in animal usage over time. Highly prized artiodactyls were intensively hunted as human populations grew over time. Some taxa are associated with particular environments. For example, conditions in the northern San Juan Basin favour cottontails and turkeys, whereas in the drier southern portions, jackrabbits are more common. Economic and ritual usage of animals at great houses in the San Juan Basin was similar to that at contemporaneous settlements. No evidence was found to contradict the interpretation that farming communities in the San Juan Basin were organised by a peer-polity form of interaction during Pueblo II and III.

Keywords: Pueblo Indians Zooarchaeology Archaeology San Juan Basin Chaco Great House Basketmaker Subsistence Pueblo Bonito Albert Porter Pueblo

III ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study would not have been possible without the support of various people and institutions. I am particularly grateful to my senior supervisor, Dr. Jonathan C. Driver for the opportunity to study under his guidance. He not only provided financial support, but also a great deal of encouragement. He let me share in his enviable knowledge of zooarchaeology. I am also grateful to my committee members; Drs. Dana Lepofsky, John Welch (Simon Fraser University) and Kathy Roler Durand (Eastern New Mexico University, Portales) for comments and support of this study. I received financial support over the course of three years, without which this study could not have been completed. A grant to Dr. Jonathan Driver from the Canadian Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) funded most of this research between 2005 and 2008. For 2006-2007, the Ada and William Steele Memorial Scholarship from Simon Fraser University, a Graduate Fellowship and a President's PhD Research Stipend, both for 2008, allowed me to complete this research. I am grateful for receiving all this financial support. Staff from Crow Canyon Archaeological Center not only provided archaeological information on Albert Porter Pueblo and answered all my queries, but also made my stay comfortable and enjoyable. They also provided maps for usage in this dissertation. Their interest and encouragements are also gratefully appreciated. In particular, I would like to thank Mark Varien, Susan Ryan, Scott Ortman, Jonathan Till, Jamie Merewether and Robin Lyle. Mary Etzkorn handled the copyright of some figures that I used. Drs. P. Crown and W.H. Wills from the University of New Mexico, who excavated Pueblo Bonito, provided me with archaeological information on the site which I sincerely appreciated. Faculty, staff and fellow students of the Department of Archaeology at Simon Fraser University provided encouragement and support. Many discussions were held with many people over the course of many years, especially on Thursday evenings after the weekly seminar; too many to list. The technical staff, in particular Shannon Wood, Heather Robertson and Peter Lochner came to the rescue on more than one occasion as I experienced computer difficulties. The staff of the library at Simon Fraser University was helpful as ever. During my studies, I visited numerous museums, universities and libraries. Staff from these institutions was always willing to provide assistance. These include the Burke Museum at the University of Washington in Seattle, Crow Canyon Archaeological Center and the archaeological offices of Nancy and Larry Hammack both in Cortez, the Anasazi Heritage Center in Dolores, Salmon Ruins in Bloomfield, the Historic Preservation Division, the Laboratory of Anthropology both in Santa Fe, the Maxwell Museum at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque, the Zuni Cultural Resource Enterprise in Zuni, and the Department of Anthropology, University of Northern Arizona in Flagstaff. In South Africa, family, friends and colleagues provided support

IV throughout my studies there and in Canada. In particular I would like to thank my former supervisor, Dr. Ina Plug, as well as staff of the Transvaal Museum in Pretoria.

v TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPROVAL ii

ABSTRACT .iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .i v

TABLE OF CONTENTS vi

LIST OF TABLES xii

LIST OF FIGURES xvii

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION AND RESEARCH DESIGN I Introduction 1 Ongoing Debates in the San Juan Basin 2 Background 2 Social Relations 2 Great Houses 3 Causes of Variation in Subsistence Patterns .4 Research Questions 7 Albert Porter Pueblo 8 Pueblo Bonito 9 Regional Faunal Review 10 Summary 10

CHAPTER 2: NATURAL AND CULTURAL SETTING OF THE SAN JUAN BASIN II Introduction 11 Natural Setting of the San Juan Basin 11 Environmental Changes and Variation .13 Current Conditions 13 Prehistoric Climatic Changes 14 Vegetation 15 Paleoindian and Archaic Periods 15 Villages and Potters: Basketmaker II-III (AD. 1-700) 16 Pithouse to Pueblo: Pueblo I (AD. 700-900) 16 The Chaco Phenomenon: Pueblo II (AD. 900-1100) 17 Great Houses 19 The Demise of Chaco Canyon 21 Outliers in the San Juan Basin during Pueblo II 21 Population Shifts: Pueblo III (AD. 1100-1300) 23 Summary 25

CHAPTER 3: FAUNAL METHODS 27 Introduction 27 Identification 27 Taphonomy 28 Archaeofaunal Quantification 28 Number of Identified Specimens (NISP) 29 Minimum Number of Individuals (MNI) .30

vi The Limitations of Statistical Testing in Zooarchaeology 31 Indices 32 Skeletal Part Representation 34 Cooking Vessel Weights 34 Summary 34

CHAPTER 4: ALBERT PORTER PUEBLO: ARCHAEOLOGICAL SETTING 36 Introduction 36 Architectural Features 39 Occupational Phases 41 Excavation and Analytical Strategies .42 Summary 44

CHAPTER 5: ALBERT PORTER PUEBLO FAUNAL ASSEMBLAGE AND TAPHONOMy 45 Introduction 45 Assemblage Size and Fragmentation .45 Assemblage Composition .45 Natural and Cultural Bone Accumulations .48 Rootlet Etching and Manganese Dioxide Staining .48 Weathering 49 Carnivore Damage 50 Rodent Gnawing 52 Burnt Specimens 52 Butchering Damage 54 Turkey and Jackrabbit Fragmentation 55 Bone Tools 56 Were Small Rodents Consumed? 57 Long Bone Fragmentation 58 Spiral Fractures 59 Direct Evidence for Rodent Consumption 60 Ethology and Live Weight Considerations 61 Digested Bone , 62 Scorched Mandibles and Burning of Small Mammals 63 Fresh and Sun-Bleached Specimens 63 Representation of Skeletal Parts 65 Summary 68

CHAPTER 6: ANIMAL USAGE AT ALBERT PORTER PUEBLO 69 Introduction 69 Economic Uses of Animals at Albert Porter Pueblo 69 Carnivores 69 Artiodactyla 70 Intensive Hunting of Artiodactyla and Seasonality 72 Rodents and Rabbits 73 Reptiles 74 Fish 75 Birds 75 Turkeys 75 Turkey Flock Sizes 78 Albert Porter Pueblo Population Estimates (Pueblo III) 79

VB Protein Requirements 80 Turkey Meat Estimates 80 Flock Sizes 81 Surplus Maize 82 Ritual Fauna (Excluding Feasting) 84 The Zooarchaeology of Ritual 85 Ritual Animals in the Southwest. 86 Ritual Animals at Albert Porter Pueblo 88 Changes over Time: Faunal Data 88 Changes through Time: Causes 93 Turkeys 93 Lagomorphs 93 Artiodactyla 94 Faunas of Sites in the Northern San Juan Basin 95 Summary 100

CHAPTER 7: THE GREAT HOUSE OF ALBERT PORTER PUEBLO 101 Introduction 101 The Limitations of Faunal Studies 101 Expected Evidence for Social Differentiation 101 The Role of People and Animals 102 A Faunal Critique of Feasting 102 Faunal Expectations at Albert Porter Pueblo 104 Hypothesis I: The Great House was Provisioned with Artiodactyla Meat. 104 Hypothesis 2: Great House was the Focal Point of Rituals 106 Hypothesis 3: Feasting at the Great House Ill Percent NISP 111 Indices 113 Cooking Vessels 114 Hypothesis 4: Leather Working or Basketry at the Great House 115 The Great House of Albert Porter Pueblo 118 Summary 119

CHAPTER 8: THE MOUNDS OF PUEBLO BONITO .120 Introduction 120 Pueblo Bonito in Chaco Canyon 00120 Mounds in Chaco Canyon 122 The Mounds of Pueblo Bonito 122 Archaeological Excavations of the Mounds 125 Summary 128

CHAPTER 9: PUEBLO BONITO FAUNAL ASSEMBLAGE AND TAPHONOMY I29 Introduction 129 Assemblage Size and Taxa Represented 129 Rabbit Identification 132 Teeth and Eggshell. 133 Cortical Thickness 134 Natural and Cultural Bone Accumulations 135 Fresh and Sun-Bleached Specimens 135 Long Bone Fragmentation 00135 Burnt Specimens 136

Vlll Spiral Fractures ]37 Cut and Chop Marks ]38 Digested Bone ]39 Carnivore and Rodent Gnawing ]39 Excavation Damage 140 Bone Tools 141 Skeletal Part Representation 145 Artiodactyla 145 Jackrabbits 147 Cottontails 148 Combined NISP and MNE ]50 Summary .152

CHAPTER 10: FAUNAL USAGE AT PUEBLO BONITO ]53 Introduction .153 Integrity of the Pueblo Bonito Assemblage ]53 Previous Faunal Research at Pueblo Bonito and Chaco Canyon ]54 Animal Usage 156 Carnivores 156 Artiodactyls .157 Artiodactyla Aging and Intensive Hunting 158 Rodents ]63 Rabbits 164 Turkeys 164 Macaws 165 Hawks and Eagles ]66 Other Birds ]67 Turtle ]67 Fish 167 Small and Great House Comparisons in Chaco Canyon 168 Faunal Changes in Chaco Canyon over Time ]76 Indices ]78 Long Distance Faunal Acquisition ]80 Nature of the Mounds at Pueblo Bonito ]8] Summary .18]

CHAPTER] 1: THE REGIONAL STUDY: METHODS AND APPROACHES ]82 Introduction ]82 Limitations of Faunal Overviews 182 Taphonomy and Recovery Methods 182 Identification Procedures 182 Reference Collections ]85 Grey Literature 185 Non-Standardised Reporting 185 Quantification Methods ]86 Sample Size and Diversity 186 Approaches Used in this Study 187 Identification Issues 187 Animal Burials 187 The Distribution of Sites and Retrieval Methods 188 Quantification 189

IX Settlement Occupations 189 Regions within the San Juan Basin 190 Summary 19 I

CHAPTER 12: FAUNAL CHANGES IN THE SAN JUAN BASIN 193 Introduction 193 Sample Composition 193 Assemblage Size Ranges 194 Common Taxa.. " 197 Indices 199 Lagomorph Index 199 Artiodactyla Index 201 Turkey Index 204 'Unusual' Animals at Great Houses 213 Summary 213

CHAPTER 13: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 215 Introduction 215 Albert Porter Pueblo 215 Research Question I: Differences between the Great House and Residential Roomblocks 215 Research Question 2: Faunal Changes over Time 216 Research Question 3: Comparisons with other Settlements in the Region 216 Other Faunal Patterns of Interest. 216 Pueblo Bonito 217 Research Question I: Faunal Differences between the East and West Mound 217 Research Question 2: The Nature of the Mound Fauna 217 Research Question 3: Comparisons with other Settlements in Chaco Canyon 218 Other Faunal Patterns of Interest. 218 Regional Overview 218 Research Question 1: Spatial and Temporal Faunal Changes 218 Research Question 2: Great Houses compared to Contemporaneous Settlements 219 Causes of Faunal Changes in the San Juan Basin 220 Natural Environments 220 Garden Hunting 221 Resource Depression 222 Turkeys 223 Social Organisation in the San Juan Basin 223 Zooarchaeology and Social Organisation 225 Social Relations in a Wider Context. 227 Great Houses in the San Juan Basin 228 Recommendations and Future Research 229 Zooarchaeological Methods 229 Avenues for Future Research 230 Concluding Remarks 230

REFERENCES CITED 232

x APPENDICES 301 Appendix A: Identification Procedures (Adapted from Driver 2005) 301 Appendix B: List of Assemblages used to Calculate Indices .,305 Appendix C: Sites, NISPs and Indices 321

Xl LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Major Climatic Changes in the San Juan Basin during the Last 2000 Years (From Vivian 1990:23-24) 15

Table 2. Excavations at Albert Porter Pueblo (see Figures 5-6) ,41

Table 3. Hearths Screened Through a 3 mm (l/8 inch) Mesh .43

Tab]e 4. Numbers of Squares Excavated in the Middens ,43

Table 5. Albert Porter Pueblo Assemblage Size (NISP) ,45

Table 6. Animal Classes Represented at Albert Porter Pueblo (NISP) 46

Table 7. Taxa Presented at Albert Porter Pueblo (NISP). Order of Taxa Follow Driver (2005) 47

Table 8. Specimens with Rootlet Etching at Albert Porter Pueblo ,49

Table 9. Specimens with Manganese Staining at Albert Porter Pueblo ,49

Table 10. Weathered Specimens at Albert Porter Pueblo 50

Table 11. Weathered Specimens from other Assemblages in the Northern San Juan Basin (from Rawlings 2006: 104) 50

Table 12. Specimens with Carnivore Chew Marks at A]bert Porter Pueblo 51

Table 13. Carnivore Damage and %NISP Damaged at Albert Porter Pueblo 51

Table] 4. Carnivore Modified Taxa from Sites in the Northern San Juan Basin (from Rawlings 2006:91) 5]

Table 15. Specimens with Rodent Gnaw Marks at Albert Porter Pueblo 52

Table] 6. Burnt Specimens at Albert Porter Pueblo by Time Period 53

Table 17. Burnt Specimens per Feature at Albert Porter Pueblo 53

Table 18. Burnt Specimens at Sites in the Northern San Juan Basin (from Rawlings 2006:99) 53

Table 19. Specimens with Cut and Chop Marks at Albert Porter Pueblo 54

Table 20. Taxa with Cut Marks at Albert Porter Pueblo 54

Table 21. Taxa with Cut Marks from other Assemblages in the Northern San Juan Basin (from Rawlings 2006:94) 55

Table 22. Turkey and Jackrabbit Long Bone Fragmentation at Albert Porter Pueblo 55

xii Table 23. Bone Tools from Albert Porter Pueblo 56

Table 24. Bone Tools from Sites in the Northern San Juan Basin (from Rawlings 2006:97) 57

Table 25. Fragmented and Complete Humeri, Femora and Tibiae at Albert Porter Pueblo for Selected Taxa 58

Table 26. Long Bone Fragmentation for Selected Taxa from Assemblages in the Northern San Juan Basin (from Rawlings 2006:96, SP = Shields Pueblo, WCP = Woods Canyon Pueblo, CRP = Castle Rock Pueblo, YJP = Yellow Jacket Pueblo, SCP = Sand Canyon Pueblo) 59

Table 27. Spiral Fractures for Selected Taxa at Albert Porter Pueblo 59

Table 28. Spiral Fractures on Humeri, Femora and Tibiae at Sites in the Northern San Juan Basin (from Rawlings 2006:96) 60

Table 29. Ethology and Live Weight of Small Animals 62

Table 30. Specimens with Digestive Modification at Albert Porter Pueblo 62

Table 31. Fresh Specimens at Albert Porter Pueblo 64

Table 32. Sun-Bleached Specimens at Albert Porter Pueblo 64

Table 33. MNE's for Albert Porter Pueblo (n/a=not applicable) 65

Table 34. MNE and MAU for Selected Taxa at Albert Porter Pueblo 66

Table 35. Artiodactyla MNE, MAU and %MAU at Albert Porter Pueblo Based on Brain (1981), Lyman (1994) 67

Table 36. Artiodactyla Long Bone Aging at Albert Porter Pueblo 73

Table 37. Turkey Toms and Hens Based on Tarsometatarsi at Albert Porter Pueblo 78

Table 38. General Parameters to Calculate Turkey Flock Size at Albert Porter Pueblo 81

Table 39. Maize Requirements for Turkeys at Albert Porter Pueblo 82

Table 40. Maize Yield and Turkey Flock Sizes 83

Table 41. Common Taxa and %NISP of Total Identifiable Bone at Albert Porter Pueblo 89

Table 42. NISP of Common Taxa from Albert Porter Pueblo by Sub-Phases 89

Table 43. Indices by Phase at Albert Porter Pueblo 89

Table 44. Indices by Sub-Phase at Albert Porter Pueblo 89

xiii Table 45. Total NISP and Cooking Vessels Weight at Albert Porter Pueblo 90

Table 46. Artiodactyla NISP and Cooking Vessels Weight at Albert Porter Pueblo 90

Table 47. Jackrabbit NISP and Cooking Vessels Weight at Albert Porter Pueblo 91

Table 48. Cottontail NISP and Cooking Vessels Weight at Albert Porter Pueblo 92

Table 49. Turkey and Large Bird NISP and Cooking Vessels Weight at Albert Porter Pueblo 92

Table 50. Assemblages in the Northern San Juan Basin (NISP) 96

Table 51. Hypotheses and Potential Faunal Signatures for the Use of the Albert Porter Pueblo Great House 104

Table 52. Artiodactyla Indices at Albert Porter Pueblo 105

Table 53. Artiodactyla Body Parts for the Great House (GH) and Outside at Albert Porter Pueblo .1 06

Table 54. Pueblo II 'Unusual' Taxa at Albert Porter Pueblo (All Features) 107

Table 55. Pueblo 11I11I 'Unusual' Taxa at Albert Porter Pueblo (All Features) .107

Table 56. Pueblo III 'Unusual' Taxa at Albert Porter Pueblo (Great House Kivas Only) 108

Table 57. Pueblo III 'Unusual' Taxa at Albert Porter Pueblo (Outside Kivas Only) .109

Table 58. Pueblo III 'Unusual' Taxa at Albert Porter Pueblo (Non-Structures and StructuresOnly) 109

Table 59. Cottontail/Ritual Taxa NISP at Albert Porter Pueblo 111

Table 60. NISP and %NISP for Common Taxa at Albert Porter Pueblo during Pueblo II 112

Table 61. NISP and %NISP for Common Taxa at Albert Porter Pueblo during Pueblo II/III. , 112

Table 62. NISP and %NISP for Common Taxa at Albert Porter Pueblo during Pueblo III. .112

Table 63. The Context of Common Taxa at Albert Porter Pueblo during Pueblo II 113

Table 64. The Context of Common Taxa at Albert Porter Pueblo during Pueblo 11I11I ] 13

Table 65. The Context of Common Taxa at Albert Porter Pueblo during Pueblo III 113

Table 66. Lagomorph Index at Albert Porter Pueblo 1]4

Table 67. Turkey Index at Albert Porter Pueblo ] ]4

XIV Table 68. All Taxa NISP/Cooking Vessels Weight (kg) at Albert Porter Pueblo 114

Table 69. Common Taxa NISP/Cooking Vessels Weight (kg) at Albert Porter Pueblo 114

Table 70. Total Taxa NISPlTotal Number of Bone Tools at Albert Porter Pueblo 116

Table 71. NISP/Bone Tools and NISP/Cooking Vessel Weight at Albert Porter Pueblo 117

Table 72. Pueblo Bonito Assemblage Size 129

Table 73. Vertebrate Classes at Pueblo Bonito 130

Table 74. Taxa Present in the Pueblo Bonito Faunal Assemblage 130

Table 75. Common Mammal and Bird Groups at Pueblo Bonito (Percentages are of Total IdentifiableSample) 131

Table 76. Isolated Teeth and Eggshell Specimens at Pueblo Bonito 134

Table 77. Pueblo Bonito Long Bone Cortical Thickness 135

Table 78. Fresh Bone from Pueblo Bonito 135

Table 79. Long Bone (Humeri, Femora, Tibiae) Fragmentation of Small Mammals at Pueblo Bonito 136

Table 80. Burnt Taxa at Pueblo Bonito in Ranked Order. 136

Table 81. Total Burnt Bone Sample (Identifiable and Unidentifiable Bone Combined) for Pueblo Bonito 137

Table 82. Taxa with Spiral Fractures at Pueblo Bonito 137

Table 83. Taxa with Cut Marks at Pueblo Bonito 138

Table 84. Taxa with Chop Marks at Pueblo Bonito 138

Table 85. Taxa with (Human) Digested Bone at Pueblo Bonito (Identifiable Specimens Only) 139

Table 86. Taxa with Carnivore Gnaw Marks at Pueblo Bonito 139

Table 87. Excavation Damage at Pueblo Bonito (Identified Specimens Only) 140

Table 88. Transverse Breaks at Pueblo Bonito (Identified Bone Only) 140

Table 89. Bone Tools at Pueblo Bonito 141

Table 90. Bone Tool Types at Pueblo Bonito .141

xv Table 91. Identified Taxa: Worked Bone in the Smithsonian Collection from Judd's Excavations 142

Table 92. Dominant Uses of Eagle, Turkey and Large Bird Specimens 143

Table 93. Indeterminate Medium Artiodactyla, Deer and Pronghorn Skeletal Elements and Artefact Types (Excluding Cervidae and Elk) " 144

Table 94. Unmodified Taxa and NISP Curated at the Smithsonian Institute from Pueblo Bonito 144

Table 95. Artiodactyla Skeletal Parts at Pueblo Bonito Based (NISP) 145

Table 96. Artiodactyla Butchering Units at Pueblo Bonito (NISP) 146

Table 97. Artiodactyla MNE, MAU and %MAU for Selected Elements at Pueblo Bonito in Ranked Order 147

Table 98. Jackrabbit Skeletal Parts at Pueblo Bonito (NISP) 147

Table 99. Jackrabbit MNE, MAU and %MAU for Selected Elements at Pueblo Bonito in Ranked Order. 148

Table 100. Cottontail Skeletal Part Represented at Pueblo Bonito (NISP) 149

Table 101. Cottontail MNE, MAU and %MAU for Selected Elements at Pueblo Bonito in Ranked Order. 150

Table 102. Artiodactyla, Jackrabbit and Cottontail Skeletal Parts at Pueblo Bonito (NISP and MNE) 151

Table 103. Fauna from Pueblo Bonito (Judd 1954; Akins 1985; This Study) 154

Table 104. Artiodactyla Teeth from Pueblo Bonito 158

Table 105. Pueblo Bonito Artiodactyla Postcrania Fusion Data 158

Table 106. Combined Artiodactyla Teeth and Postcrania Fusion Data at Pueblo Bonito 159

Table 107. Fauna from Basketmaker III - Pueblo I Sites (A.D. 500-900) in Chaco Canyon (NISP) (from Akins 1985:413-423) 169

Table 108. Fauna from Pueblo II - Pueblo III Sites (A.D. 900-1300) in Chaco Canyon (NISP) (from Akins 1985:413-423; 1987:624) 170

Table 109. Birds from Chaco Canyon in Chronological Order (Data from Tables 107-108) 173

Table 110. The Number of Taxa Identified by Judd (1954) and This Study at Pueblo Bonito 176

XVI Table 111. Artiodactyla NISPs for Chaco Canyon Assemblages (Akins 1985) 176

Table 112. Pueblo Bonito Indices 178

Table 113. Indices for Selected Sites in Chaco Canyon 178

Table 114. Number of Taxa in Various Taxonomic Categories Analysed by Different Research Teams 183

Table 115. Number of Taxa from Sand Canyon Pueblo, Shields Pueblo and Albert Porter Pueblo 184

Table 116. Major Regions in the San Juan Basin (from Vivian 1990 and Gregory 1915) 190

Table 117. Number of Assemblages by Region included in this Study 194

Table 118. Ubiquity of Common Taxa in the San Juan Basin 198

Table 119. NISP of Common Taxa in the San Juan Basin .198

Table 120. Lagomorph Index Values by Time Period 199

Table 121. Lagomorph Index Values by Region 200

Table 122. Lagomorph Index Values for Great and Non-Great Houses 20I

Table 123. Artiodactyla Index Values by Time Period 201

Table 124. Artiodactyla Index Values for Great and Non-Great Houses 204

Table 125. Turkey Index Values by Time Period 205

Table 126. Turkey Index Values by Region 206

Table 127. Turkey Index Values for Region 1 206

Table 128. Turkey Index Values for Region 3, 4 and 6 206

Table 129. Turkey Index Values for Great and Non-Great Houses 208

Table 130. Turkey Index Values for Great and Non-Great Houses in Region I 21 0

Table 131. Turkey Index Values for Great and Non-Great Houses in Regions 3, 4 and 6...... 211

Table 132. 'Unusual' Indices for Great and Non-Great Houses 213

Table 133. Carnivore Indices for Great and Non-Great Houses 213

xvii LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Topographic and Hydrologic Features of the San Juan Basin (from Vivian 1990:17. UsedwithPermission) 12

Figure 2. Major Sites in and around Chaco Canyon (from Vivian 1990:41. Used with Permission) 19

Figure 3. Distribution of Outliers in the San Juan Basin (used with Perrrrission Courtesy ofJ. Kantner [Copyright Holder]) 24

Figure 4. Albert Porter Pueblo in the Central Mesa Verde Region (from Ryan 2004, Figure 1. Courtesy of Crow Canyon Archaeological Center) 37

Figure 5. Excavated Units at Albert Porter Pueblo 2000-2004 (from Ryan 2004, Figure 2. Courtesy of Crow Canyon Archaeological Center) 38

Figure 6. The Great House of Albert Porter Pueblo (from Ryan 2004, Figure 6. Courtesy of Crow Canyon Archaeological Center) .40

Figure 7. Mammal and Bird NISP at Albert Porter Pueblo .46

Figure 8. Total Site NISP/Cooking Vessels Weight (Kg) per Sub-Phases at Albert Porter Pueblo 90

Figure 9. Artiodactyla NISP/Cooking Vessels Weight (Kg) per Sub-Phases at Albert Porter Pueblo 91

Figure 10. Jackrabbit NISP/Cooking Vessels Weight (Kg) per Sub-Phases at Albert Porter Pueblo 91

Figure II. Cottontail NISP/Cooking Vessels Weight (Kg) per Sub-Phases at Albert Porter Pueblo 92

Figure 12. Turkey and Large Bird NISP/Cooking Vessels Weight (Kg) per Sub-Phases at Albert Porter Pueblo 93

Figure 13. Artiodactyla NISP and Total NISP at Albert Porter Pueblo 105

Figure 14. The Relationship between NISP and Number of Taxa for Pueblo III Non-Structures Only at Albert Porter Pueblo 11 0

Figure 15. Number of Ritual Taxa and NISP of Ritual Taxa at Albert Porter Pueblo (Great House and Outside Combined) 11 0

Figure 16. Total NISP and Bone Tools at Albert Porter Pueblo (Great House and Outside, Data from Table 69) 117

Figure 17. NISP/Bone Tools and NISP/Cooking Vessel Weight at Albert Porter Pueblo 118

XVlll Figure] 8. Ground Plan of Pueblo Bonito (From Judd I 964:Figure 2. Used with Permission from Smithsonian Press) 123

Figure] 9. The Mounds of Pueblo Bonito with the East, Middle and West Trench as Excavated by N. Judd (From Judd] 964:Figure 23. Used with Permission from Smithsonian Press) .126

Figure 20. NISP and the Number ofTaxa at Pueblo Bonito for Each Excavation Unit (Excluding Domestic Sheep, Reptiles and Amphibians) 132

Figure 21. Cottontail and Jackrabbit Mandibular Measurements (in mm) at Pueblo Bonito ]33

Figure 22. Bird Taxa and NISP from Chaco Canyon (Based on Table]09) 174

Figure 23. Total NISP of all Taxa and Number ofTaxa for Sites in Chaco Canyon (Based on Table 106) 175

Figure 24. Indices for Chaco Canyon Based on Data in Table] 10 179

Figure 25. Regions of the San Juan Basin (redrawn from Vivian ]990:]7) ]9]

Figure 26. NISP Ranges for all Assemblages ]95

Figure 27. NISP Ranges for Assemblages with less than 3000 Specimens ]95

Figure 28. NISP Ranges for Assemblages with less than 1000 Specimens ]96

Figure 29. NISP and Total Assemblages for Assemblages in the San Juan Basin ]97

Figure 30. Lagomorph Index Values by Time Period .200

Figure 31. Artiodactyla Index Values by Time Period 202

Figure 32. Artiodactyla Index Values for Great and Non-Great Houses (Pueblo II) 203

Figure 33. Artiodactyla Index Values for Great and Non-Great Houses (Pueblo III) 204

Figure 34. Turkey Index Values by Time Period 205

Figure 35. Turkey Index Values for Region I. 207

Figure 36. Turkey Index Values for Region 3,4 and 6 207

Figure 37. Turkey Index Values for Great and Non-Great Houses (Pueblo 11) 208

Figure 38. Turkey Index Values for Great and Non-Great Houses (Pueblo III) 209

Figure 39. Turkey Index Values for Great and Non-Great Houses in Region] (Pueblo II) 2]0

XIX Figure 40. Turkey Index Values for Great and Non-Great Houses in Region 1 (Pueblo III) 211

Table 41. Turkey Index Values for Great and Non-Great Houses in Regions 3, 4 and 6 (Pueblo II) 212

Figure 42. Turkey Index Values for Great and Non-Great Houses in Regions 3, 4 and 6 (Pueblo III) 212

xx CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND RESEARCH DESIGN

Introduction Since their popularisation in the 1800s, the stone ruins in the San Juan Basin of the American Southwest have long fascinated visitors (Bell 1869:247; Simpson] 874; Schuyler ]971). The impressive stone architecture in Chaco Canyon and Mesa Verde attracted particularly wide interest (e.g., Anon] 876:35; Birdsall] 89]; Haynes 1900; Lister 1968:489). The farming communities of the American Southwest that occupied these stone ruins and earlier pithouses have since then received a great deal of attention from scholars. Diverse topics such as architecture, settlement patterns, population estimates, migrations, social organisation, warfare, ceramics, lithics, geomorphology, hydrology, paleoclimate, paleoenvironment, chronologies, ethnoarchaeology, archaeobotany and zooarchaeology have received consideration (see references in Cordell] 997; Kantner 2004a; Kantner and Mahoney 2000; LeBlanc 1999; Lekson ]986; 1999; 2006; Longacre 1973; Mathien 2005; Neitzel 2003a; Plog ]997; Reed 2004; Stuart 2000; Varien 1999; Vivian 1990). Although there have been numerous studies of architecture and artefacts from these farming sites, far less attention has been paid to animal remains (but see Akins] 985; Driver 2002a; Roler Durand 2003). I focus on a well known cultural phenomenon in the San Juan Basin: Chacoan great houses. I examine faunal remains from two sites in the San Juan Basin (southwest Colorado, southeast Utah, eastern Arizona, northwest New Mexico). The first is Albert Porter Pueblo, a great house community in the Mesa Verde region dating to Pueblo II and III (A.D. ]020-1280) (Ryan 2004). The second is Pueblo Bonito in Chaco Canyon. Pueblo Bonito is the largest great house in the entire San Juan Basin (Judd 1954; 1964). The material that I analysed dates to Pueblo II (A.D. 1050-1105). In addition, a regional overview of faunas from farming sites in the San Juan Basin dating from A.D. I to ]300 allows a consideration of faunal changes over time and provides a context for the two detailed great house studies. No overview of faunas from farming sites in the San Juan Basin has ever been undertaken before. This dissertation attempts to provide a faunal perspective on the use(s) of great houses. The relationship of their inhabitants to local environments and neighbouring communities will also be considered. Activities associated with great houses are not yet well understood (Lekson 2006). In addition, very few large faunal assemblages have been studied from great houses in the San Juan Basin (e.g., Kantner and Mahoney 2000). Faunal

1 remains can contribute to an understanding of great houses by considering subsistence and ritual activities at these features compared to residences and sites without great houses.

Ongoing Debates in the San Juan Basin Background Following a long period of hunter-gatherer settlement, the first farmers in the San Juan Basin constructed subterranean pithouses (Basketmaker II and III periods, A.D. 1-700), and later, one-story masonry roomblocks (Pueblo I period, A.D. 700-900). At about A.D. 900 (Pueblo II period, A.D. 900-1 100), communities in Chaco Canyon began to construct large multi-roomed structures called great houses. The emergence of great houses are thought to be linked to greater social complexity, as they are often situated among less formal structures, presumably occupied by people of different status (Kantner 2004a; Lekson 1999). Pueblo Bonito is the largest of these great houses in Chaco Canyon (Judd 1964). By A.D. 1000, numerous great houses, called outliers (Kantner 2004a), had been constructed well beyond Chaco Canyon. Albert Porter Pueblo is one of these outliers (Ryan 2004). The more than 150 outliers are smaller in size than those great houses in Chaco Canyon (Vivian 1990). Many other smaller settlements were contemporaneous to great house communities. An extensive road system connected many of these outlying communities with one another and Chaco Canyon (Lekson 1999). This suggests some form of regional system which integrated settlements across the San Juan Basin (see papers in Kantner and Mahoney 2000). However, not every single community was necessarily part of the Chaco system (Warburton and Graves 1992). By A.D. 1130 (Pueblo III, A.D. 1100-1300), the system in Chaco Canyon ceased to function. Environmental and social factors probably contributed to its demise (Vivian 1990). However, many outliers, such as Albert Porter Pueblo remained occupied during Pueblo III times (Ryan 2004). New community centers such as Sand Canyon Pueblo (Muir and Driver 2002) and Aztec (Kantner 2004a: I35) were also constructed. Some communities such as Salmon, Bluff and Guadalupe Ruin incorporated already existing great house features (Roler 1999; Varien 1999). By A.D. 1300 the San Juan Basin was largely depopulated (Vivian 1990).

Social Relations Two central issues have dominated debates over the nature of farming communities in the San Juan Basin. The first is the nature of social relations which organised farming communities in the region (Plog 1995). Most archaeologists maintain that ancestral Pueblo social organisation

2 varied with local and regional conditions (e.g., Lekson ]999:26). The farming communities of the San Juan Basin ranged from simple, consensus-making groups, to complex managerial hierarchies that controlled access to land, non-local goods and rituals (e.g., Lightfoot 1987; Upham et ai. 1989). Ritual knowledge was possibly the basis for social and political power (Sebastian 2004:95). Others see ancestral Pueblo farmers as acephalous and non-hierarchical with little control by leaders. This group of scholars relies extensively on ethnographic data that portray post contact Southwestern societies as egalitarian (see Lightfoot 1987). Chaco Canyon is regarded as a ceremonial center maintained by a cadre of priests. Periodically, pilgrims congregated in Chaco Canyon. As part of ritual-based events, materials were brought to Chaco Canyon. According to this view, the Chaco system is considered to be a religious phenomenon and not a political one (summaries in Lightfoot 1987; Sebastian 2004:95). Related to the question of social organisation, is the level of integration of farming communities in the San Juan Basin. Although some have argued for a strongly integrated regional system (e.g., Wilcox 2004), consideration of outlying great house communities in the last two decades suggests a peer-polity form of interaction with marginal regional integration (e.g., Roler Durand 2003). Peer polities constitute loosely associated, competing and allying polities. This view is gaining greater support (e.g., Fagan 2005; Mills 2004; Van Dyke 2000). Faunal remains can potentially contribute to this debate on social relations in the San Juan Basin. Social positions in non-state societies can be reflected in access to animals (see Jackson and Scott 1995) such as artiodactyls. Artiodactyls were probably highly valued as sources of meat, fat, hide and raw materials in the San Juan Basin (Driver 1996). Moreover, animals such as birds of prey could have been used in rituals (see Roler Durand 2003). A regional overview of faunas from the San Juan Basin will determine if great house communities used animals differently than residences and sites without great houses.

Great Houses A second issue dominating current debates in the San Juan Basin is the function(s) of great houses (Reed 2004). Despite their architectural similarities (Reed 2004: 169), little evidence has so far been found which suggests that faunas from great houses differ from villages (see papers in Kantner and Mahoney 2000). Some found no conclusive evidence for differential faunal usage between great houses and other sites (Akins 1985). In the northern San Juan Basin for example, great houses fit the general temporal trend of faunal usage (Driver 2002a). Some found evidence for feasting at great houses (e.g., Mueller 2006; Roler ]999), but others (Akins 1985)

3 found no conclusive evidence for feasting. The analysis of feasting at the great houses of Albert Porter Pueblo and Pueblo Bonito in this dissertation will contribute to this debate by investigating feasting activities (also Varien ]999). Rituals are a mode of social communication that creates authority (Sebastian 2004:99), a context for the construction and embodiment of symbolic meanings whose access can be controlled and manipulated (Potter 2000a:297-30]; Judge and Malville 2004). Especially during Pueblo II and III, many animals such as bears and birds of prey probably had ritual importance for people in the San Juan Basin (e.g., Judd 1954), perhaps similar to what has been recorded in more recent times (e.g., Gnabasik ]981, Ladd ]963). Some great houses such as those in Chaco Canyon have a wider variety of ritual birds (Roler Durand 2003; but see Akins] 985). Ritual animals will likely be reflected in faunal remains. For example, if ritual animals are concentrated in great houses and not residences or village sites (see Roler Durand 2003), they will provide evidence for control over ritual knowledge.

Causes of Variation in Subsistence Patterns Animals were brought to settlements for many purposes. In most cases it is reasonable to assume that meat was for general consumption. As already indicated, however, animals likely also served ritual and symbolic purposes (Roler Durand 2003). Previous research on animal remains from farming sites in some parts of the Southwest noted changes in faunas from earlier Basketmaker to Pueblo times (e.g., Akins 1985; Driver 2002a; Muir 1999; Rawlings 2006; Speth and Scott] 989; Szuter ]99]). For example, turkeys became the dominant source of meat during Pueblo II and III in the northern San Juan Basin, whilst at the same time, artiodactyls decline (e.g., Driver 2002a). Albert Porter Pueblo, which was analysed for this dissertation, is located in this region. It will be important to consider if the same patterns are also present at this site. Apart from ritual considerations, changing usage of animals over time may be determined by different processes. These are considered next. Behavioural ecology models provide faunal analysts with a framework for predicting decisions about subsistence. In particular, foraging and predation models which consider prey selection, search time, place, and overall energy output, are particularly useful for zooarchaeological studies (e.g., Bird and O'Connell 2006; Smith 1983; Smith and Winterhalder 2003; Winterhalder and Goland 1997). One of the earliest references in the Southwest to resource depression is Szuter and Bayham (] 989) in their research in southern Arizona. Most subsequent faunal research in the Southwest paid attention to resource depression and its consequences (e.g., Dean 2001; 2007, Driver 2002a; Driver in preparation; Driver and Badenhorst in press; Fothergill

4 2008; James 2004; Mick-O'Hara 1992; Speth and Scott 1989). I also consider resource depression in this dissertation. Optimal foraging theory suggests that hunters will make rational economic decisions to hunt animals that yield the greatest return for the least effort (e.g., Grayson 2001; Smith 1983). Numerous ethnographic studies support this prediction (e.g., Kaplan and Hill 1985). But hunting is not just about net energy returns. Hunting large game can also bring prestige to hunters (Hawkes and Bliege Bird 2002). Using concepts such as resource depression and hunting prestige, Driver (2002a) argued that as human populations increased in the northern San Juan Basin, artiodactyls, most notably deer, declined during Pueblo III (also Driver 1996). A response to the declining availability of large game would be to exploit small abundant and fast reproducing rabbits (Driver in preparation). Despite convincing evidence for declining artiodactyls in Pueblo II and III, this is not always the case. Speth and Scott (1989) reviewed faunal data from the San Juan Basin where aggregated villages continued to hunt artiodactyls. They suggested that once local game was exploited around villages, people would undertake hunting expeditions to regions where game is still abundant (Speth and Scott 1989). Exploiting additional protein sources such as turkeys was an alternative strategy (Munro 1994). Research in the Southwest has therefore found that people adopt different strategies as large game is depleted. Options include: a greater reliance on small game such as rabbits; adding turkey as an additional protein source; exploit regions where large game is still abundant; some combination. An investigation of faunal remains from Albert Porter Pueblo, Pueblo Bonito and a regional overview of faunas from the San Juan Basin will consider how people have responded to resource depression in the San Juan Basin during Pueblo II and III periods. As already indicated, behavioural ecology predicts what decisions individuals make to select their prey. In fact, individuals often drive cultural change (Demarrais 2005: 195; Trigger 2005:289-290). However, processes such as population increase and/or decline, changes in procurement technology, environmental changes, as well as changes in social relations and ideology influence subsistence patterns (Earle and Christenson 1980). Many zooarchaeological studies in the San Juan Basin have incorporated these concepts (e.g., Akins 1985; Driver in preparation; Driver 2002a; Muir 1999; Munro 1994; Rawlings 2006; Speth and Scott 1989; Szuter 1991). Increases in population are, arguably, one of the main factors leading to intensification of resource production (Boserup 1976; Christenson 1980a; I 980b). Resource diversification increases with population growth as a consequence of the need to expand production to meet food

5 requirements (Brookfield 1984). This was noted for example in the Hohokam region where people expanded their prey acquisition strategy along with growing populations from the Archaic to Contact Period (Dean 2007). In the San Juan Basin, human populations increased from the adoption of farming to the eventual depopulation of the region in the late A.D. 1200s (Varien 1999; Vivian 1990). This dissertation will consider the impact of rising human populations in the San Juan Basin on subsistence strategies. Local environmental conditions in the San Juan Basin no doubt influence the natural availability of animals. For example, some animals such as turkeys and cottontails prefer higher elevations such as the Chuska Mountains and the northern San Juan Basin (Akins 1985). I therefore expect that these animals will dominate faunal assemblages from these regions (see Driver in preparation; Driver 2002a). In lower elevations to the south, natural jackrabbit populations are higher. Not surprisingly, this taxon dominates archaeofaunal assemblages (Driver and Woiderski 2008). Variations in environments will therefore have a considerable influence on the range of animals identified from farming sites in the San Juan Basin. I consider environmental factors in this dissertation. Alterations to the environment may cause changes in subsistence patterns (Earle and Christenson 1980). In the San Juan Basin, human alterations such as farming activities attracted animals such as rodents and birds to fields where these were hunted (Driver in preparation; Linares 1976). New forms of social behaviour, beliefs and values often accompany evolving social systems (Earle 1980; Green 1980:211; Hastorf 1980; Trigger 2005:296-297). Food is a prime political tool. It often plays a role in social activities concerned with relations of power and the manipulation of social relations (Crabtree 1990; Dietler 1996:87-88). Driver and Badenhorst (in press) propose that faunal analysts construct models based on behaviours that are likely to reflect social relations and be detectable in the faunal record rather than attempting to find faunal signatures of categories such as 'tribe' or 'chiefdom' (Service 1962). The authors suggest that feasting, sumptuary rules, provisioning and trade should be archaeologically visible. In this dissertation, I will investigate these phenomena at great houses and other sites in the San Juan Basin. Feasts are communal consumption events. They are important mechanisms to mobilise labour and for establishing and maintaining social relations (Dietler 1996:89-91; Hayden 2001; Wills and Crown 2004). Potter (1997) argued that feasting activities were taking place at the Pueblo I McPhee Village in the Dolores region of the northern San Juan Basin. It is possible that feasting was occurring at other sites as well (see Roler 1999; Mueller 2006; but see Akins 1985). Sumptuary rules are not only related to rituals and feasting but also to food taboos. Some

6 individuals or groups may have exclusive or near-exclusive access to certain taxa, body parts, skins or even feathers. Meat provisioning to elites also reinforces social relations (Driver and Badenhorst in press). Trade in bison meat between the Great Plains and the Rio Grande of the Southwest (Driver 1990) can potentially reflect the relative social position of the 'producer' and the 'consumer' (Driver and Badenhorst in press). Another dimension of social relations is gender, and this may be reflected in faunas (Szuter 2000). For example, Rawlings (2006) argued that turkey production in the northern San Juan Basin was controlled by women, based on ethnographic analogies. However, this assertion labours under the constraints of projecting ethnographies back to prehistoric times and a lack of supporting empirical data. Violence is another social aspect. Rawlings (2006) suggested that conflict situations may inhibit long distance hunting trips. However, as both evidence for violent deaths (Turner and Turner 1999) and extensive trading in raw materials (Tucker 2004) is found especially during Pueblo II and III, it remains ambiguous to determine the role of warfare on subsistence changes in the San Juan Basin. As a result, I will not consider gender and warfare in this dissertation. Ideologies are systems of beliefs which are often manipulated by ruling elites to maintain their legitimacy (Johnson 1999: 146; Johnson and Earle 2000:259). Ceremonies play an important part to maintain the local ideology. Elites often link themselves with the supernatural and the universe (Johnson and Earle 2000:252-253). A consideration of ritual taxa such as birds of prey and bears in the San Juan Basin may shed light on the role of these animals in ideological aspects. New or improved technologies to acquire prey may lead to changes in subsistence economies (Earle 1980). However, no visible differences in procurement technology have been noted in the Southwest between Basketmaker II and Pueblo III times (Kantner 2004a). This dissertation, which investigates faunas from Albert Porter Pueblo and Pueblo Bonito, as well as a regional overview of animal usage in the San Juan Basin, was conducted against the backdrop of these processes.

Research Questions This dissertation presents the results and interpretation of three interrelated faunal studies. These are: the fauna from Albert Porter Pueblo; the fauna from the mounds at Pueblo Bonito; and faunal changes in the San Juan Basin between A.D. I and 1300. Each of these studies has its own set of research questions that can be investigated using faunal remains. These studies are unified by a common goal of understanding more about Chacoan society, and more specifically, great houses. My dissertation aims to contribute to an evaluation of the following hypotheses:

7 1. Faunal assemblages in great houses will be different from contemporaneous, non-great house settlements. These differences may reflect differential access and use of taxa for subsistence and ritual and are based on the assumption that the inhabitants or users of great houses had a different social status from other people. The following sub-hypotheses derive from the general hypothesis: (a) great houses will contain larger quantities of more desired food taxa, typically those with highest body weight, (b) for large mammals, great houses will contain higher percentages of the most highly desired parts of the body, and (c) great houses will contain ritually important taxa such as birds of prey and some carnivores such as bears that are not present, or less well represented, at other sites.

2. Faunal assemblages vary through time and space in the San Juan Basin. The following sub hypotheses will be investigated: (a) regional variation in faunal assemblages can be correlated with regional environmental differences, and (b) within environmentally homogenous regions, the exploitation of fauna varies through time in response to climate change or human behaviour, or both.

Albert Porter Pueblo Albert Porter Pueblo is an outlying great house community in the Four Comers. The great house is surrounded by residential roomblocks (Lipe 2004:111; Lipe and Varien 1999:300-301; Kanter 2004: 161). This allows us to compare faunal usage within a great house community. The site's main occupation dates from the Chaco Pueblo II (A.D. 900-1150) to post-Chaco Pueblo III (A.D. 1150-1300) periods (Ryan 2004). Very little is known about outlying great house archaeofaunas, with relatively few zooarchaeological studies completed to date (e.g. see papers in Kantner and Mahoney 2000). The faunal analysis will aim to investigate the following research questions:

(a) Are there differences between archaeofaunas from the great house compared to surrounding residential units from Pueblo II to III? Can such variation be related to social differentiation, different activities, or both?

8 (b) Are there general changes in faunal usage from Pueblo II to III? If so, does this relate to more widespread subsistence changes in the region, or is it due to local factors? Are similarities/differences between the great house and residential units the same? (c) Is the overall pattern offaunal use similar to other villages and great houses in the northern San Juan Basin?

Pueblo Bonito Pueblo Bonito was the largest great house in Chaco Canyon (Judd 1954; 1964). Initial construction commenced in the A.D. 800s, and it was expanded between A.D. 1020 and 1115. Upon completion, it had 33 kivas and over 700 rooms (Metcalf 2003; Neitzel 2003a; 2003b). The two morphologically distinctive burial groups at Pueblo Bonito, as well as the dividing wall added after A.D. 1080 suggest the presence of moiety groups that occupied the site (e.g., Kantner 2004a:112). Mounds (or platforms) are found at some great house sites in Chaco Canyon. The two mounds located directly south of Pueblo Bonito date to between A.D. 1050 and 1105 (Lekson 1999:94). Their function(s) remains uncertain (Stein et al. 2003:50-52). The mounds of Pueblo Bonito were excavated on previous occasions. The Hyde Exploring Expedition of 1896 1899 excavated the mounds in search of burials and grave goods, but found none (Lister and Lister 1981 :23-24). N. M. Judd later excavated the mounds between 1920 and 1927 (Judd 1954; 1964). Judd's trenches in the east and west mound, as well as in the central section between these two mounds, were recently reopened in 2006-2007 as part of a University of New Mexico project to document stratigraphy and collect material remains that were returned to the excavation trenches as backfill. The former excavators of the mounds kept few faunal remains, and the recent excavations at Pueblo Bonito have recovered a large assemblage. A study of the most important archaeological site in the San Juan Basin, and one of the most impressive in scale in the entire North America, will be of considerable interest to archaeologists working in the Southwest. Chaco Canyon may have been the center of a vast regional system, and a consideration of the largest great house in the San Juan Basin may inform us on animal usage for subsistence and rituals. The faunal remains were analysed for this dissertation, and will attempt to answer the following research questions:

(a) Do the faunal remains provide evidence for the use or formation of the mounds? (b) If two moieties occupied Pueblo Bonito, the east and west mounds may yield different taxa if one group had restricted access to certain animals or body parts. Therefore, are there differences in faunal usage between the east and west mound, and might these be related to social relations?

9 (c) Is the faunal usage at Pueblo Bonito similar to other great house and smaller residential sites in Chaco Canyon and the surrounding area?

Regional Faunal Review A large body of research on archaeofaunas from the San Juan Basin dating from Basketmaker II to Pueblo III (A.D. J-J300) has been completed by various analysts over many years. However, the number of comprehensive faunal overviews is surprisingly slim. Driver (2002a) reviewed faunal data in the northern San Juan Basin dating from Pueblo I to III times. Akins (1985) considered faunal usage in Chaco Canyon dating from Basketmaker III to Pueblo III. Both these regions are located within the San Juan Basin. However, no comprehensive faunal overview has been undertaken for the entire San Juan Basin. This dissertation presents the first such overview from Basketmaker II and Pueblo III times (A.D. J- J300). Such an overview will be of considerable interest to archaeologists working in the San Juan Basin to consider changing faunal patterns. The overview presented here will attempt to answer the following research questions:

(a) What temporal and spatial patterns can be seen in the faunas of the San Juan Basin? What are the causes of such variation? (b) Do great houses have distinctive faunal patterns when compared to contemporaneous sites?

Summary Many questions relating to faunal usage over time and space still remain unanswered in the San Juan Basin. These include: the role of animal foods associated with great houses within and outside Chaco Canyon; the ritual usage of animals; faunal changes from Basketmaker II to Pueblo III times, and the function and formation of the Pueblo Bonito mounds. This dissertation will attempt to address these issues using archaeofaunal remains. Population increases, environmental change and shifts in social relations and ideology are factors that contribute to changing faunal usage. Behavioural ecology models, most notably optimal foraging theory suggests that, initially at least, large bodied animals will be favoured over smaller ones. Once depleted, people may have relied more on small game, added turkeys to their diet or undertook long distance hunting trips. While not equally visible in the archaeological record, these factors provide a backdrop for investigating faunal changes in the San Juan Basin associated with farming communities.

10 CHAPTER 2 NA TURAL AND CULTURAL SETTING OF THE SAN JUAN BASIN

Introduction Changing environmental conditions, human population increases, changing social relations and intensified production for domestic consumption are all processes that form the backdrop for variations in animal usage in the San Juan Basin of the American Southwest. These developments and changes in the region allow a context for a consideration of faunal exploitation at Albert Porter Pueblo, Pueblo Bonito and the region as a whole. Following hunter-gatherer occupation of the Southwest since at least the Late Pleistocene, the region was host to a complex system of interaction by sedentary farmers beginning as early as A.D. 1. By A.D. 1300 the entire San Juan Basin was largely depopulated.

Natural Setting of the San Juan Basin The San Juan Basin covers the US states of northwestern New Mexico and adjacent portions of southwest Colorado, southeast Utah and northeast Arizona (Figure 1). The Basin is roughly oval in shape and covers an area of about 12000 km2• The Basin has a 160 km north south axis, and a 145 km east-west axis. It is tilted to the northwest with altitudes ranging from 2500 meters in the north to less than 1500 meters in the west. Geological processes over time produced a landscape of broad plains and valleys dotted with mesas and canyons (Vivian 1990:15-16). The term 'San Juan Basin' refers both to a geological region and a drainage unit. In a geological sense, the San Juan Basin is bordered to the north by the San Juan and La Plata mountains of southwestern Colorado extending into southeastern Utah. The Defiance Uplift and Chuska Mountains form the western boundary on the Arizona/New Mexico border and the basin is bounded in the south by the Zuni Mountains in New Mexico, and in the east by the Nacimiento Uplift (Lipe 2006:312). The San Juan Basin coincides more or less with the Chaco culture region (Vivian 1990). The San Juan Basin has limited surface water which is mostly discharged by ephemeral washes and arroyos that cut through uplands and platforms. The San Juan River drains the majority of the Basin as a tributary of the Colorado Ri ver. Chaco Wash and Canyon Largo are large ephemeral tributaries of the San Juan River (Vivian 1990:16-19).

11 Figure I. Topographic and Hydrologic Features of the San Juan Basin (from Vivian 1990: 17. Used with Permission)

I Farmington o 10 20 30 60 Mi. I I , I 2 Cuba I I i i 3 Gallup a 20 40 60 60 100 km

12 Environmental Changes and Variation In this research, I am interested in understanding the choices people made about uses of fauna through time. To achieve this, I first need to control for changes in climate and variation in vegetation that might have influenced the availability of fauna in the San Juan Basin. To this end, I summarise environmental change of the last 2000 years. This review shows that there was significant environmental variation across space and through time. This variation likely influenced the abundance of animals.

Current Conditions The San Juan Basin has never been prime agricultural land. Soils are generally poor (Hoover 1937). The region is largely devoid of permanent water sources (Harshbarger 1954) with low rainfall (Gregory 1915). For example, the central basin has no permanent watercourses and receives little rainfall. However, the southern and western portions, the Chuska Mountains and central Mesa Verde in the north offer better hydrological conditions, and hence, agricultural potential (Judge and Cordell 2006:190-191). The rain-shadow effect drastically reduces the quantity of moisture in the San Juan Basin. The interior basin receives an average of 20 cm precipitation per year, the mountains in the north 50 cm and those to the south 43 cm (Vivian 1990: 19-21). Most precipitation comes in the form of short localised thunderstorms (Gregory 1915:570). Conditions in the San Juan Basin are characterised by hot summers and cold to very cold winters. Annual temperatures range between -44 and 49°C in the northern parts of the San Juan Basin to between -31 and 41°C in the interior (Vivian 1990:21). The amount of frost-free days also determines agricultural potential in the San Juan Basin. The growing season for the entire San Juan Basin average 150 days, but frost-free periods in valley bottoms, which are prime farmland, are notably shorter. In some cases it may be as many as 30 to 35 days shorter. Recently, Chaco Canyon had 100 frost-free days, but it is never as high as 150 (Vivian 1990:21-22). Modem experimental maize plots prove that farming in Chaco Canyon is risky, with regular failures. Irrigation systems are critical in these harsh conditions (Toll et ai. 1985: 124-126). To illustrate the great environmental variation of the San Juan Basin, two examples are presented next. For the past 30 years temperatures in Chaco Canyon ranged from 39°C to as low as -38°C with an average annual temperature of 10°C (Vivian 1990:21-22). Today, Chaco Canyon receives

13 22 cm of rain per annum and vegetation is minimal. The growing season is variable and barely adequate for successful farming (Plog 1997:96). Droughts are common (Reed 2004:7). Mierau and Schmidt (198] :4-5) summarised the current climatic conditions of Mesa Verde National Park. The climate is semiarid and mild, but varies between the northern and southern part of the Park. The northern section receives more precipitation with severe winters than the lower southern section. In general, winter daily temperatures are high with cold nights often with snow cover. Summer daily temperatures are mild and rarely exceed 38°C. Annual precipitation since] 923 averages 45 centimeters per annum. Ground water supply is mainly from snow melts during spring rather than the brief and highly localised thunderstorms of late summer (Mierau and Schmidt] 981 :4-5). Some 30 mammal, 100 bird and 30 reptile taxa are found in the San Juan Basin (see Harris] 963). The variations in environment have an effect on the distribution of animals. For example, in the north and northeast parts of the Basin elk, mule deer (the latter common in woodland zones) and cottontails are common. Pronghorn is not common in the northern regions, but abounds in the south and southwest where jackrabbits are also common (Driver in preparation; Harris 1963; Vivian]990:25). Bison occurs on the vast grass plains to the north and east of the San Juan Basin (Driver 1990; Hall 1981). Despite the influence of local environmental conditions on the abundance of animals, it is difficult to establish a list of expected animals for different regions of the San Juan Basin. Research on extant mammals such as deer, pronghorn and bighorn sheep (Hall 1981) shows that they occur throughout the San Juan Basin, but with higher concentrations in some regions.

Prehistoric Climatic Changes The San Juan Basin did not experience major climatic fluctuations during the last] 0, 000 years, although short- and long-term fluctuations in precipitation and temperature were common (Mathien 2005:57). These are summarised in Table I. Grassland and shrubs have been the dominant vegetation cover in Chaco Canyon and northwest New Mexico for at least the last 10 000 years (Hall 1988). Although climatic changes affected cultivation productivity (Varien et al. 2007) the distribution of game animals were probably not greatly affected by these changes. The San Juan Basin experienced little if any changes in extant mammalian composition during the latter parts of the Holocene (cf. Harris]990). This probably applies to (wild) birds too. However, local variations in densities of animals probably occurred.

14 Table I. Major Climatic Changes in the San Juan Basin during the Last 2000 Years (from Vivian 1990:23-24) Time Chanees A.D. 500 High moisture A.D. 725-750 Declining moisture A.D. 850-900 Drought A.D. 900-1100 Increase moisture A.D. 1150-1200 Declining moisture

Vegetation The vegetation of the San Juan Basin varies with latitude, elevation, rate of evaporation, temperature, annual precipitation and seasonal distribution of rainfall (Pesman 1946:5). The San Juan Basin is dominated by the pinyon-juniper belt, situated between 1370 and 1980 meters in elevation. This belt consists of scattered stands of pinyon and junipers with sagebrush, rabbit brush and other drought-resistant plants (Elmore 1976:5-13). At elevations above the pinyon juniper belt maize farming is not possible due to low temperatures. Some animals such as bears prefer higher elevations above the pinyon-juniper belt (Akins] 985), but they also occur in lower elevations (Hall] 981). It suffices to note that although vegetation and elevation influence the distribution of some animals, they may also venture into other regions.

Paleoindian and Archaic Periods Farming societies in the San Juan Basin were preceded by hunter-gatherer communities. Human occupation in the Southwest spans back to the late Pleistocene. Populations of hunter gatherers were low (see Waguespack and Surovell 2003). During the Archaic Period, camps were generally larger than that of Clovis people (Huckell 1996; Spielmann 1990). After 2500 B.C. modem climatic conditions prevailed in the Southwest. Animals such as deer, elk, bighorn sheep, pronghorn, bison, rabbits, prairie dogs, rodents, turtles and birds were hunted (Huckell 1996; Stuart 2000:] 9-22). People kept dogs that assisted with hunting (Kantner 2004a:73). Maize, beans and squash were introduced from Mexico during late Archaic times. Although the exact date remains disputed, by 400 B.C. people were already heavily depended on maize (Coltrain et ai. 2007). Maize continued to be the mainstay of the diet for centuries to come (Adams and Bowyer 2002; Matson and Chrisholm 1991; Minnis 1989). Farming did not replace hunting and gathering though. Late Archaic foragers in the San Juan Basin tended small plots, but villages were not established yet. People probably returned seasonally to cultivated stands. The bow-and-arrow arrived in the Four Comers from the Great Plains (Stuart 2000:35-40).

15 Villages and Potters: Basketmaker II-III (A.D. 1·700) During Basketmaker II times (AD. ] to 5(0) farming became more important. Small settlements with two to five subterranean pithouses appeared in the San Juan Basin. Populations were low (Lipe ]999:] 52-] 53). People continued to hunt animals such as deer, bighorn sheep and rabbits (Lipe ]999:] 60). Apart from cultivated plants, species such as yucca, prickly pear, acorns, pinon and nuts supplemented diets (Stuart 2000:42-43). During Basketmaker III times (AD. 500-700) pottery appeared in many regions of the San Juan Basin. Knowledge of pottery production was probably imported from northern Mexico via the Mogollon Mountains (Stuart 2000:42). Turkeys first appear in the first millennium A.D., but their origin remains debated (Kantner 2004a:73). People continued to hunt animals such as artiodactyls, rabbits and rodents (Stuart 2000:42-43). Basketmaker III brought about important changes to social relations. The number of pithouses in settlements increased, although their actual size decreased. This may have been due to the formation of young, nuclear families instead of larger, extended families. Pithouses became more standardised in size, construction techniques and interior layout (Kantner 2004a; Stuart 2000:43). Despite the challenges offarming posed by the arid environment, important changes were occurring in Chaco Canyon. Chaco Canyon was to play an influential role of social and political changes in the San Juan Basin. Shabik'eschee is one of over a hundred settlements in Chaco Canyon occupied between AD. 500 and 700. At this site alone more than 60 pithouses were constructed (Plog ]997:59-61). Large community pithouses, two to three times larger than residential pithouses, began to appear. These may have been an early form of kiva (Stuart 2000:43-44). The appearance of larger pithouses, greater storage capacity and the presence of non-local goods such as turquoise found at sites such as Shabik'eschee Village suggests the presence of authority-based community leaders by A.D. 600 (Kantner 2004a:65).

Pithouse to Pueblo: Pueblo I (A.D. 700·900) The Pueblo I (AD. 700-900) period was one of rapid demographic and organisational change throughout the San Juan Basin. For the first time, the major regions of the Southwest Anasazi, Mogollon and Hohokam- are all differentiated by ceramics, house types, village layout, community structures, ritual objects and trade goods (Cordell] 997:26]). Human populations continued to increase in the San Juan Basin. For example, by AD. 860 an estimated 9500 to ]0 500 people resided in the Four Corners area alone (Wilshusen] 999:234). Increased human populations no doubt influenced social relations.

16 Throughout much of the Southwest there was a change from pithouses to multi-room surface structures with adobe or masonry walls between A.D. 700 and 1000 (Cordell 1997:251). The new type of construction may be linked to the need to store more food as the Southwest had been experiencing less rainfall since the early A.D. 700s. Large, dry surface rooms were ideal as storage facilities (Kantner 2004a:67-69) being less susceptible to moisture and vermin (Gilman 1987). The transition marked a significant shift in social organisation with the possible development of corporate groups which characterise historic and modem pueblos (Feinman et at. 2000). With increased sedentism and aggregation, social organisation may have shifted away from loosely determined kinship structure to one that was more strictly organised as control over land increased. Greater control over land may have included a shift away from a male centered kin structure to one dominated by women (Kantner 2004a:72-74). Leaders were probably those who had established control over decision-making through acts that enhanced their status and prestige which was probably tied to the ceremonial structure of society. Surpluses provided leaders with means to expand their authority by loaning food to other community members. Surpluses could be used to organise trading expeditions to establish new alliances (Kantner 2004a:75). Faunas from Pueblo I do not indicate any social differentiation during this time (cf. Reed 2000). If leaders were present, they had a similar diet to other people. Important changes were also occurring in Chaco Canyon. In the mid A.D. 800s people in at least three settlements: Pueblo Bonito, Una Vida and Penasco Blanco, constructed a new type of building. These were large with thick walls and spacious rooms. They are called great houses (Kantner 2004a:78-80). Apart from great houses, great kivas appear. These were built on the edges of some settlements, often before its main occupation. Domestic activities are not associated with great kivas (Wilshusen 1999:2] 9-221).

The Chaco Phenomenon: Pueblo II (A.D. 900·1100) The nature of the Chaco Phenomenon remains a contested issue in Southwestern archaeology (Lekson 2006). The "Chaco Phenomenon" refers to the great houses built between A.D. 1020 and 1] 30 across the San Juan Basin. It consisted of clusters of farming communities interconnected by trade, sharing and ritual (Stuart 2000:66-67). As already mentioned, the first great houses, small at first, were constructed in Chaco Canyon in the late A.D. 800s (Kidder and Rouse] 962). After A.D. ]020, construction took on a new form in Chaco Canyon. The new great houses of Chetro Ketl, Hungo Pavi and Pueblo Alto were all built close to Pueblo Bonito, creating an architectural center inside Chaco Canyon (Figure 2). The number of people living in Chaco Canyon itself by A.D. 1075 probably ranged between 1500 and 4000 (Mathien 2005:222;

17 Reed 2004:48-49). By the AD. 1050s all the great houses in Chaco Canyon were expanded with new stories and wings. The first "blocked-in kivas" appear. By AD. 1070s a dense concentration of monumental buildings centered around Pueblo Bonito, each with hundreds of rooms (Kantner 2004a:88). Kivas were also elaborated to accommodate Chaco ceremonies (Kantner 2004a:90; Mathien 2005). As animals were often used in ceremonies (cf. Roler Durand 2003), they may be more common in kivas. However, this is an issue that warrants much more research in the San Juan Basin. As great houses such as Pueblo Bonito, Penasco Blanco and Una Vida were occupied and expanded, nearly 200 small pithouse sites were in use within Chaco Canyon. Small houses were typically single story and rooms were added as required. Small houses do not have great kivas. However, a single great kiva may have served several small houses sites in an area (Cordell 1997:310-311; Lekson et at. 2006). Great houses are all located on the north side of Chaco Canyon, whereas small residential houses are found on both the north and south side. This gives great houses a southern exposure and greater solar radiation making winter temperatures milder and their duration slightly shorter. In addition, their placement on the north side of Chaco Canyon allows for greater direct visual communication to the signaling stations that are part of the Chaco system. The north side of Chaco Canyon also has access to the runoff from cliffs (Cordell 1997:319). By AD. 1100, there were nine great houses on the Chaco Canyon floor alone: Penasco Blanco, Casa Chiquita, Kin Kletso, Pueblo del Arroyo, Pueblo Bonito, Chetro Ketl, Hungo Pavi, Una Vida and Wijiji. In addition, three great houses were constructed on the mesa top above Chaco Canyon: Pueblo Alto, New Alto and Tsinkletzin (Fagan 2005; Kantner 2004a; Stuart 2000:78, I 07). The extensive road system is considered a key factor in the origin of the Chaco system (e.g., Kantner and Kintigh 2006: 173-174; Lekson et at. 1988: II ; Lekson 1999:45-48; Renfrew 2001).

18 Figure 2. Major Sites in and around Chaco Canyon (from Vivian 1990:41. Used with Permission)

I A,lofl Cove 2 Be sites 3 Caso Chlqlllla 4 Coso Rlnconoda 5 Chelro Kell 6 Hungo POYl 7 Kin Klet!>o 8 KI/'l Nohosbos 9 Ley;t KI" 10 Penasco 610nco 11 Pueblo Alio 12 Pueblo 800tl0 13 Pueblo del Arroyo 14 ShoblK 'eshchee 15 Three -C Sire 16 Tsin Klelsin 17 Uno Vida JS Wljljl

OFI ===~='-==;==~~ Mi. o ~3km

Great Houses Great houses are large Chacoan dwellings with massive, core-veneer stone architectures, distinct facing patterns in the stone veneer, multistory construction and blocked-in kivas (Reed 2004:169). The function(s) of great houses remain an unresolved issue (e.g., Lekson 2006). This is largely because most were excavated before modern techniques of data recovery became standard practice. The only recent excavations were at Pueblo Alto, an atypical great house located on the Canyon rim (Kantner 2004a:91-92). The excavations of the mounds at Pueblo Bonito in 2006-2007, of which the fauna was analysed for this dissertation, will greatly increase our understanding of great houses in Chaco Canyon. A number of hypotheses have been proposed to explain the function(s) of great houses. One view is that great houses were residences, based on their sheer size, the presence of hearths and the absence of burials in or near great houses. Another view is that great houses served as stores as the rooms are spacious but devoid of features and access to them was restricted. Yet another interpretation is that at least some of the rooms were used as guest quarters perhaps during feasts and ceremonial events attended by people from other regions. Yet another

19 hypothesis is that great houses were palaces for elites (see overviews by Cordell 1997:312-314; Kantner 2004a:93; Lekson et al. 2006:83-93). Great houses were clearly built to be seen, but their interiors were not easily accessible. Hundreds of artefacts were carefully hidden away inside rooms and include carved wooden objects, vessels covered with mosaics of turquoise, copper bells from Mesoamerica, shell trumpets from the coast of California and pottery shaped as humans and animals (e.g., Judd 1954, 1964). Because of finds such as these, many associate great houses with ceremonial activities. It seems as if astronomical observations, particularly those related to solar events, were an integral part of Chacoan rituals (Kantner 2004a:94-95). Roler Durand (2003) used ritual birds such as hawks, eagles and macaws to consider activities at great houses in Chaco Canyon. Great houses in Chaco Canyon have a larger, more diverse assemblage of ritual bird remains than nearby small houses. This suggests that great houses were, inter alia, ritual features (Roler Durand 2003). On the other hand, Akins (1985:403) is more cautious about the differences in animals identified from great and small houses in Chaco Canyon. Tied to the debate about the function(s) of great houses, is the issue of social complexity of communities within and outside Chaco Canyon. Most archaeologists agree that communities within Chaco Canyon were socially, politically and economically complex. Evidence includes: the architectural differences between great and small houses; community investment into the large, planned great houses; labour mobilisation; imported goods such as pottery, macaws and objects manufactured from turquoise, shell, jet and quartz crystal; craft specialists; the association of these artefacts with great houses; a greater variety of ritual birds such as eagles, hawks and macaws in great houses compared to small houses; and the presence of small number of rich burials in the great houses (Earle 2001; Neitzel 1989; Plog 1995; Roler Durand 2003; Sebastian 2004; Tainter and Plog 1994: 171-172; Wilcox 2004). Not all archaeologists agree with this interpretation. They view communities within and outside Chaco Canyon as egalitarian in nature. In this model, Chaco Canyon was a ceremonial center maintained by a cadre of ritual specialists. Chaco Canyon was mostly empty except during periodic influxes of pilgrims (Mills 2004; Renfrew 2001: 14-15; Renfrew 2004). The notion of an egalitarian Puebloan society is largely drawn from ethnographic accounts in the Southwest. However, this raises questions about the use of analogy and the extent of cultural continuity over many centuries. Moreover, both evidence for egalitarian and hierarchical features characterise ethnographies from the Southwest (Plog 1995:190). Plog (1995: 192) calls for more realistic approaches to the past by emphasizing that viewed over centuries, both egalitarian and

20 hierarchical relations probably existed in some areas and at different times (also McGuire and Saitta 1996). The latter view is probably a more realistic view on societies in the San Juan Basin.

The Demise ofChaco Canyon By AD. 1100, the nearly continuous construction of great houses in Chaco Canyon largely ceased. The one exception was the new great house of Wijiji, but it was never occupied. Imported goods to Chaco Canyon declined at the same time. Pueblo Bonito became the focal point of remaining activities in Chaco Canyon (Kantner 2004a: 127-130). Human-induced and natural environment changes due to climatic variations are commonly considered as reasons for the demise of Chaco Canyon. Violent deaths occurred in this time (LeBlanc 1999). Woodlands seem to have disappeared altogether by the AD. IIOOs. Drought conditions prevailed in the AD. 1090s and around AD 1130. The more sustained drought of the AD. 1130s led to the final demise of communities within Chaco Canyon. Not everyone left though, and some small houses were used well into the AD. II 50s (Judge 2004:6; Lekson 1991; Mathien 2005).

Outliers in the San Juan Basin during Pueblo II Developments within Chaco Canyon were felt over a vast region. After the construction of great houses within Chaco Canyon, people elsewhere in the San Juan Basin and beyond began building great houses and great kivas, especially after AD. 1040 (Cordell 1997:305-306). Not all communities built great houses (Lipe and Varien 1999:279). "Outlier" refers to both a great house and the cluster of residences around it. Despite protest that the term implies an unsubstantiated subservient relationship between Chaco Canyon great houses and those found elsewhere in the San Juan Basin (e.g., Kantner 2004b:73), I use it here for descriptive convenience. Outliers are usually identified by: being located outside Chaco Canyon; a central masonry structure that is larger than surrounding (residential) structures; the central structure has large rooms; a large kiva or kivas (which may be blocked-in); the large structure and kiva(s) have a planned appearance; a road and/or signaling system; and Chacoan-type ceramics (see CordeIl 1997:322). As many as 200 outliers display Chacoan architectural influence (Figure 3), although variations in architectural style, size and dates of occupation occurred. Not all outliers have great kivas and only a small number have formal roads nearby (Judge 2004:5). The varying sizes of outliers suggest that Chacoan society was hierarchically organised (Neitzel 2003b:6). Some outliers rivaled those in Chaco Canyon in size. For example, Salmon Ruin has 175 rooms and I(jn Bineola 230. Generally however, outliers are smaller than those in Chaco Canyon. Outlying great

21 houses were often built in preexisting communities, although this was not always the case, such as Casa Estrella (Kantner 2004a: 102-103; Reed 2004:55). Chacoan great houses, both within and outside Chaco Canyon dominate the landscapes in which they were built through their size, elevated position and/or use of topography. Some outliers are small and consisted of single-story buildings with few rooms, such as Guadalupe and Escalon (Van Dyke 2004:8]). The distribution of outliers in the San Juan Basin is relatively well determined. Guadalupe Ruin, situated at the Puerco River, located about] 00 km from Chaco is the eastern limit of outliers. Beyond Guadalupe, the Rio Grande had no Chacoan influence. To the northeast, 140 km from Chaco Canyon is Chimney Rock. From Chimney Rock a line of outliers runs westward across southwestern Colorado along the base of the San Juan and La Plata Mountains as far north as Dove Creek, 200 km from Chaco. From here, the frontier arcs back through southeastern Utah to Bluff great house, also 200 km from Chaco Canyon. In the west outliers occur in Arizona. From Bluff, the frontier goes south through great houses at Hopi through Holbrook ending in a cluster of great kivas on the Mogollon Rim. The southern frontier is more controversial. Most maps place the southern border at the town of Quemado, New Mexico, some 200 km from Chaco. However, 250 km to the south lay Aragon (or Hough's No. ]]]) which may have been part of the Chacoan world (Lekson 1999:37-45). Despite an abundance of outliers in the San Juan Basin, only 30 of these have been systematically excavated (Reed 2004:56). Some well-studied outliers include Bis sa' ani, Chimney Rock, Navajo Springs, Salmon, Aztec (see Cordell ]997:323), Guadalupe (see Cordell, 1997:323; Durand and Roler Durand 2000:] 0] -] 09), the Peach Spring Community (see Gilpin and Purcell 2000:28-38), the Chaco East Community (see Windes et ai. 2000:39-59), the Edge of the Cedars great house (see Hurst 2000:63-78), Bluff great house, the Far View great house community (see Jalbert and Cameron 2000:79-90), great houses of Red Mesa Valley (see Van Dyke 2000:9]-100), Lowry (see Kendrick and Judge 2000:] 13-]29; Martin 1968) and Escalante Ruin (see Hallasi ]979). More recently, Albert Porter Pueblo was added to the list of excavated outliers (Ryan 2004). With few excavated outliers, only a few well studied archaeofaunas are available for comparisons. Some of the most explicit research was done by Roler (1999). Faunas from Guadalupe Ruin show that ritual activities based on ritual avifauna were not strongly centralised at the great house. In contrast, at Chaco Canyon the great houses have an abundance of avifauna, reflecting an apparently exclusive access to certain taxa of birds. This supports the notion that great houses were used for community ritual activities (Roler 1999:203-204). The study of fauna

22 from Albert Porter Pueblo will consider if a similar pattern is present in the northern San Juan Basin. Researchers debate the role of outliers within the greater Chaco world (e.g., Lekson 2004; Mahoney and Kantner 2000:7-11; Roney 2004; Warburton and Graves 1992). Those adhering to an integrated Chacoan system see Chaco Canyon as an imperialistic state sending out armies to subjugate outlying communities. Others proposed that missionaries sent out by Chaco Canyon built great houses and converted local people to Chaco religion. Another scenario regards the regional system as having developed to expedite the movement of surpluses from areas with excess production to villages temporarily in need of food. The construction of great houses by locals may have been a way to emulate Chaco's leaders controlling resources attractive to Chaco Canyon (e.g., Warburton and Graves 1992:65; Wilcox 2004). Instead of an integrated, centrally controlled society, some archaeologists proposed that the Chacoan world is better described as a loose confederation of independent political entities (peer-polity). These outlying pueblo villages were independent and looked at Chaco Canyon as a religious-ceremonial centre. The view of the Chaco system as a peer-polity form of interaction is gaining support (Durand and Roler Durand 2000:109; Fagan 2005; Kendrick and Judge 2000:127; Reed 2004:56-57; Roler 1999; Van Dyke 2000:97-100). Some people, possibly from Mesa Verde, returned to Chaco Canyon after the drought of the mid AD. 11 OOs. Some outliers were not abandoned at first though. Communities with weak Chaco connections, largely outside the San Juan Basin persevered relatively unscathed. Many new villages were formed, such as those to the south of Guadalupe during the AD. 1] 50s. New residential great houses were constructed (Kantner 2004a: 148-151).

Population Shifts: Pueblo III (A.D. 1100-1300) Pueblo III is a time of major population resettlement in the Southwest. In the northern San Juan people returned to the Four Comers after the mid AD. ]]00 drought. They resettled and remodeled great houses to serve as residences. As people left the Chaco and Mimbres regions, aggregated communities emerged in other areas. These include the Cibola region south of the San Juan Basin, in Kayenta to the west and the Chihuahuan Desert (Kantner 2004a: 148-159).

23 Figure 3. Distribution of Outliers in the San Juan Basin (used with Permission Courtesy of J. Kantner [Copyright Holder])

II:ET- .. l.' H-...It~h_I: .... _i"ID~:~tU~ • 1, ~'ko

Aggregation also occurred in the Mesa Verde region of the northern San Juan Basin. Wilshusen (2002:]] 9-]20) estimated a maximum Pueblo III population for the Mesa Verde region of]2 705 people (also Mahoney et al. 2000; Varien 2002). For example, Cliff Palace in Mesa Verde had 220 rooms and 33 kivas. Villages such as Sand Canyon Pueblo grew to unprecedented sizes (Kantner 2004a:] 63). Some outliers such as Lowry and Wallace continued to be used. The Bass site complex which included a great house feature, and adjacent to Albert

24 Porter Pueblo, was constructed in early Pueblo III times (Lipe and Varien 1999:345-346). During the AD. 1200s architectural duality, as suggested by dividing walls at some sites such as Mug House and other cliff dwellings, became widespread in the Mesa Verde region. This suggests the presence of moieties like those proposed for Pueblo Bonito (see Kantner 2004a: I 73). The end of the 13 th and early 141h century saw the depopulation of the San Juan Basin (Kantner 2004a: 195). It was not a single event but rather a process over many years (Davis 1965:354; Duff and Wilshusen 20(0). In the eastern San Juan Basin communities persevered for a couple of decades, but here too depopulation began at about AD. 1275. The same happened in the south of the San Juan Basin. The Gallina Highlands in the northeast was depopulated by AD. 1300. By the AD. 1290s, the northern San Juan Basin was largely depopulated. By the AD. 1300s, so too were the Kayenta region and most of the San Juan Basin (Kantner 2004a: 199). West of the San Juan Basin the Virgin Anasazi region was abandoned before AD. 1200 whereas the Kayenta and Mesa Verde region, San Juan Basin and large areas of the Mogollon Mountains were abandoned by A.D. 1300. The Upper Little Colorado and White Mountains, the Tucson Basin and other Hohokam regions were abandoned by AD. 1450 (Cordell 1997:368). A combination of cultural and environmental factors probably resulted in the depopulation ofthe San Juan Basin. Researchers have considered factors such as residential mobility (Davis 1965:354), conflict (Kuckelman et al. 2000; Kuckelman 2002), depletion of local resource such as wood (Kohler and Matthews 1988) and game animals (Driver 2002a; Muir and Driver 2002), drought (Kantner 2004a:200-201) and soil exhaustion (Ahlstrom et al. 1995).

Summary This chapter presented a general overview of the natural and cultural conditions of the San Juan Basin. Since the adoption of farming, complex societies developed in the region from Basketmaker II to Pueblo III times. Chaco Canyon was to become the center of massive construction projects. Great houses such as Pueblo Bonito yielded enormous quantities of high quality materials such as wooden artefacts. Outlying great houses were constructed over the San Juan Basin. A form of peer-polity interaction loosely tied great house and village communities together over the San Juan Basin. Great houses, especially those in Chaco Canyon have more diverse assemblages of ritual birds such as hawks, eagles and macaws when compared with contemporaneous small houses. An investigation of faunas for this dissertation from two great houses will be of interest. The mounds of the largest great house in the San Juan Basin, Pueblo Bonito in Chaco Canyon, can shed light on ritual and economic aspects of life. Similarly, the study of fauna from Albert Porter Pueblo, an outlier in the northern San Juan Basin, will consider

25 ritual and economic aspects. A regional overview will allow me to investigate long-term changes and spatial variation of animal usage in relation to different environments.

26 CHAPTER 3 FAUNAL METHODS

Introduction This chapter summarises the analytical methods employed in the analyses of the Albert Porter Pueblo and Pueblo Bonito faunal assemblages. It highlights the identification procedures, index calculations, taphonomic processes recorded and quantification methods used. Reitz and Wing (] 999:] ]4-] 22) summarise a number of factors that influence faunal assemblages before and after deposition. First order changes include biotic disturbances (e.g., plant and animal bioturbation), abiotic disturbances (natural and environmental processes such as rain, sunlight etc), conditions present that promote bone preservation (such as still water, dry conditions and certain cave-conditions), soil Ph, and intrinsic factors (bone densities). The faunal analyst has no or little control over these first order changes that bones undergo. Furthermore, not all of these processes can be deduced from faunal investigations. Second order changes, which are controllable by the archaeologists include excavation location (pits, structures and middens might yield different richness and diversity of taxa), screening strategy (use of various mesh sizes relates to differential retrieval rates [e.g., Cannon]999; Steward and Wigen 2003]), skimming (selective recovery during excavation), and sample size (in general, the larger the assemblage, the more reliable the interpretations [e.g., Cannon, 200]]). Different excavation areas may well different yield assemblage composition (e.g., compare middens vs. structures) and archaeologists very often don't excavate entire sites (Krantz ]968:268). Computer simulations conclusively indicated that very large faunal samples are required to achieve high levels of reliability, no matter which quantification method is used (Hesse and Wapnish ]985:] 10).

Identification All the faunal material was analysed using the modern comparative skeletal collection housed at Simon Fraser University. Due to a lack of some comparative taxa in this collection, most notably birds and rodents of the American Southwest, the collection at the Burke Museum of Natural History and Culture, University of Washington, Seattle, was also used. The general analytical approach used in this study is that suggested by Driver (1991; 2005) and summarised in Appendix A. During analysis, specimens were assigned to a species, genus, family, order or class and skeletal element. Description of each specimen, using a code system after Driver (2005), included side of body if applicable, age of the individual which the bone came from if applicable, breakage (spiral, transverse, irregular) and any taphonomic modification (see discussion below).

27 The analytical procedures used in this study are designed to standardise the description of animal remains from archaeological sites (Driver 1991). Other faunal investigations in the northern San Juan Basin have used the same approach to study bone samples (e.g., Muir] 999; Rawlings 2006). Essentially, the method proposed by Driver (2005) holds that any bone fragment that can be assigned to a skeletal element is identifiable and hence attributable to a species, genus, family, order or class. This is not necessarily a universal faunal analytical approach. Many analysts in various parts of the world do not consider bones such as vertebrae and ribs 'identifiable' and hence not assigned to even class categories such as 'medium mammal' (e.g., Brain 1974; O'Connor 2000; Reitz 1986). Furthermore, although teeth are recorded and considered to be identifiable, even to general categories such as 'medium mammal', these are excluded from any subsequent quantification (Driver 2005). Teeth, particularly of small animals such as cottontails may not be recovered during excavation, or fall through screens, or break into numerous small pieces and would inflate bone counts. In addition, teeth often fall out of mandibles and maxillae after excavation and end up in the bottom of the bag. Apart from these analytical differences, the methods of Driver (2005) are similar to what faunal analysts use worldwide (see Reitz and Wing 1999) and will not be discussed here any further. Identifications are done by comparing archaeological bone specimens to modem skeletal collections. Osteological guides are also employed. Most notably, Lawrence (1951) presents morphological traits to distinguish between deer, pronghorn and bighorn sheep.

Taphonomy During analysis, a variety of taphonomic processes were noted on specimens. These include butchering damage, carnivore and rodent gnaw marks, digested bone, burnt bone, rootlet etching and manganese staining. These occurred between the death of the animal and the time the bones are analysed in the laboratory. The recognition of these tahonomic processes has been discussed extensively in the literature (e.g., Brain 198]; 2004; Davis 1987; Fisher 1995; Klein and Cruz-Uribe 1984; Lyman 1994; O'Connor 2000; Reitz and Wing 1999; Shipman 1981), and will not be reviewed here in detail.

Archaeofaunal Quantification Typical research questions in zooarchaeology attempt to determine the abundance of each identified taxon within an assemblage (Grayson 1984: 17) and to compare animal use through time and space (Reitz and Wing 1999: 143). Faunal frequencies by whatever means of calculation,

28 do not necessarily provide a direct reflection of the initial prey selection or the range from which the agent of bone accumulation made its choice (Turner 1983:313). No 'perfect' quantification method exists, and each has it own unique advantages and shortcomings (e.g., Gilbert et at. 1981 :92; Hesse and Wapnish 1985:109). Much has been written on the topic of zooarchaeological quantification, and the problems associated with each of these will only be summarised briefly here (see summaries by Chaplin 1971; Grayson 1984; Klein and Cruz-Uribe 1984; Reitz and Wing 1999).

Number ofIdentified Specimens (NISP) The most basic method of archaeofaunal quantification is NISP, and served for many years, and continues to serve as the standard measure of taxon abundance in archaeological deposits (Grayson 1984: 17). It is simply the number ofbones or bone fragments assigned to a taxon, such as species, genus, family or order (Klein and Cruz-Uribe 1984:24). The basis for all quantification methods is NISP (Plug 1984:361). NISP is relatively easy to calculate, and can be done at the same time as the basic bone identifications are done without any numerical manipulation. In addition, when a new faunal sample becomes available from an already analysed site, the NISP of the two samples can simply be added (Klein and Cruz-Uribe 1984:25). Grayson (1984:20-24) summarises some of the main criticism against NISP. First, NISP does not demonstrate which skeletal parts came from different individual animals in an assemblage ('species interdependence') (Grayson 1984:23-24). For example, a NISP of 20 for Taxon A could either mean that those remains came from a single individual, or anything between one and 20 individuals (Plug 1988:75). Second, NISP is affected by butchery patterns, and values may reflect that some animals were retrieved whole from a kill site, and others not (Grayson 1984:20; Klein and Cruz-Uribe 1984:25). NISP may also be affected by butchering techniques. For instance, bones of larger animals may be smashed into numerous smaller specimens that can still be identified, whereas bones of smaller animals may remain complete as these may be cooked whole (see Grayson 1984:21; Klein and Cruz-Uribe 1984:25; Plug 1988:74). This may inflate NISP's for larger animals compared to smaller ones. Third, the number of identifiable specimens varies between taxa (see Grayson 1984:21; Klein and Cruz Uribe 1984:25). Therefore, taxa with more bones in their skeletons have a greater change of survival and retrieval (Perkins 1973:368). Dividing the NISP of a species by a coefficient for skeletal complexity may circumvent this problem (De Ruiter 2004; Gilbert et at. 1981 :83; Plug 1988) although this does not solve problems such as differential fragmentation and preservation between taxa. Fourth, the number of identified bones in any sample is related to different

29 preservation of specimens (e.g., Brain 1967; 1969; 1981) which bears an unknown relationship to the numbers originally deposited (Grayson 1984:21-22). Fifth, NISP is affected by 'sample inflation' whereby the number of specimens increases over time due to various first order processes impacting on skeletal remains in archaeological deposits (Grayson 1984:22). Sixth, NISP may be counted differently. For example, some analysts calculate a complete (half) artiodactyla mandible with ten intact teeth as one (Driver 2005) whereas others might could the same specimen as II (ten teeth + one mandible) (e.g., Plug 1988). This can have a significant impact on the overall NISP. Much of the criticism lodged against NISP was used to justify the use of Minimum Numbers of Individuals (MNI), instead of developing new methods of faunal quantification. However, these criticisms briefly considered here are not sufficient to dismiss the use of NISP counts altogether (Grayson 1984:24). Grayson (1984:92) amongst others concludes that NISP provides the most reliable faunal quantification method to measure relative abundance of taxa from archaeological and palaeontological sites. Moreover, as NISP is the preferred faunal quantification of faunal samples from the American Southwest, this study also relies primarily on NISP counts following Driver's (2005) methods.

Minimum Number ofIndividuals (MNI) Another common method to quantify archaeofaunas is MNI. It is simply the minimum number of individual animals necessary to account for all the identified bone remains (Casteel 1976-1977; Klein and Cruz-Uribe 1984:26). MNI solves many of the problems posed by NISP counts, but at the same time, introduces others. MNI values are not influenced by whether the bone accumulator brought the whole carcass back to camp or only parts of it. MNI is also rather insensitive to levels of fragmentation (Klein and Cruz-Uribe 1984:26). MNI should also help overcome differences in number of skeletal elements between species and in differing degrees of 'identifiability' between taxa. Some of the main criticisms against MNI are discussed briefly below. First, and most seriously, MNI is not an actual number (Perkins 1973:369), like NISP. It is merely providing an 'at least' amount of animals responsible for a sample (Plug and Plug 1990). It isn't actually a measure of human activity or total consumption (Lie 1980:24). Potentially, each bone comes from a different individual, unless it can be proven otherwise (Perkins 1973:367). Second, there is no consensus on how to calculate MNI which makes comparisons between assemblages difficult (Klein and Cruz-Uribe 1984:26-28). The best method to calculate MNI is to take different sides of the body, age, sex, disease and size into account

30 (Hesse and Wapnish 1985:114; Reitz and Wing ]999). However, this may not be practical for very large assemblages. Third, the scale at which MNI is calculated will result in vastly different MNI's. For example when an entire faunal assemblage with a relatively short occupation span is treated as a single aggregate, this will result in the smallest possible MNI than when the MNI are calculated for individual layers or features (Casteel 1977: 126; Grayson 1984:29; Plug and Plug 1990:53). Fourth, rare species in a faunal sample tends to be overrepresented by MNI's (Plug and Plug]990:53), and there is under-representation of taxa with higher bone counts (Casteel 1977: 126). Various other methods have been developed in an effort to overcome the shortcomings posed by both NISP and MNl. These will not be discussed further, as they provide many different limitations. These include, for example, meat weight estimates (see Reitz and Wing] 999:200), the Peterson Index (Krantz 1968; Turner 1983), relative frequencies (Hesse and Wapnish 1985: 115), bone volume (see Hesse and Wapnish ]985: 111-112), bone counts by maximum likelihood (Rogers 2(00) and semi-quantitative forms of quantifications (whether vernacular-few, some, many, or locally defined such as a simple point scale) (O'Connor 2000:65-66). These methods are not widely used by faunal analysts as they introduce numerous assumptions. Due to the serious limitations of these and MNI calculations, I use NISP counts in this study.

The Limitations ofStatistical Testing in Zooarchaeology Zooarchaeologists often, but not always use some form of statistical testing in their research. Some recent faunal studies in the northern San Juan Basin used chi-square analysis, or variations of this method such as contingency table, phi-square and Cramer's V analyses (e.g., Muir 1999; Rawlings 2006; Tarcan 2005). The application of these chi-square and other similar tests to archaeofaunal assemblages are, however, highly problematic and could even lead to ambiguous interpretations. Faunal remains differ in many respects from other material culture remains recovered from archaeological sites. Animal bones are subjected to a suite of first and second order changes which may not be equally severe on other artefacts such as pottery, stone and metal tools, structures or human graves (cf. MacDonald] 991). Faunal assemblages from archaeological sites typically consist of fragments and not complete elements, with notable exceptions. These fragments typically do not represent complete individuals, but rather a conglomerate of individuals. Fragmented bone assemblages almost always result in sample inflation (e.g., Grayson 1984:22-23). Only in rare instances are complete elements recovered, such as in the case of animals burials.

31 Chi-square analyses and its derivatives are measures ofthe extent to which a sample of attributes deviates from the table that would be expected given independence of observations (Shennan 1997). To use chi-square to measure statistical inferences (i.e. sampling distribution), the assemblage under consideration must be a random one of the population. This requirement means that the presence of one item in the sample should neither increase nor decrease the chance that another item will be present. Any statistical test of animal bones using raw counts (i.e. NISP) labours under the constrains of sample interdependence (Grayson 1984). All standard statistical tests assume that the observations are independent of one another. This requirement can only be met in extremely rare circumstances in zooarchaeology. Sample interdependence means that there is no way for the analysts to prove that each bone in an assemblage comes from a separate individual (e.g., Reitz and Wing 1999). In fact, it is unlikely that this is the case for most faunal assemblages. Since zooarchaeological remains are not random samples, they violate the basic premise of most statistical tests (Meadow 1978:] 6). Although chi-square analyses consider sample size variations, the latter is a direct result of sample fragmentation, sample inflation and the original independent data points. As a result, chi-square and its derivatives using bone counts in zooarchaeology is a measure of the level of sample fragmentation, sample inflation and the original deposited material. Although phi-square and Cramer's V tests measure association independent of sample size, none can overcome the problem of sample fragmentation in zooarchaeology. Chi-square related test based on 'minimum' derivatives such as MNI, MAD and MNE only exacerbates the problem, as it introduces a variety of other assumptions (see MNI section above). Other statistical tests such as the Kolmogorv Smimov (KS) test are also inappropriate for zooarchaeological analyses since it cannot overcome issues of sample fragmentation and inflation. In general, zooarchaeological data does not lend itself to statistical testing in the same way or with the same confidence as other artefacts such as stone tools, human graves or pottery. As a result, this study only made conservative use of statistics. Other forms of measuring abundance are employed in this dissertation, which include NISP, %NISP, MNE, MAD, %MAD, indices and cooking vessels weights.

Indices Taxa occur in an assemblage at a ratio with one another. To measure the ratio of three taxa in particular, artiodactyla, lagomorphs and turkey, formulas were developed that measure how the bone numbers of these taxa change over time (Roler Durand and Durand 2006: 1083; Szuter and Bayham 1989). The usage of ratios is picked up later in this dissertation.

32 The 'artiodactyla index' is calculated using a formula; (total artiodactyla NISP)/(total artiodactyla NISP) + (totallagomorph NISP [cottontails + jackrabbits + indeterminate lagomorph]) (Szuter and Bayham 1989) and has been widely used throughout the American Southwest (e.g., Driver 2002a; Roler Durand and Durand 2006). As the formula indicates, it compares the number of artiodactyla bone in a sample with the number of lagomorphs. The resulting value is a measure of artiodactyla bone relative to lagomorphs. Both lagomorphs and artiodactyla are commonly found at sites in the Southwest, often with the former dominating assemblages. An artiodactyla index of 1.00 shows an assemblage without any lagomorphs, whereas an index of 0.00 represents an assemblage without any artiodactyla. A similar index, called the 'Iagomorph index', calculates the relative amount of two lagomorph genera in samples (Szuter and Bayham 1989). Like the artiodactyla index, it allows comparisons between assemblages of different sizes. The lagomorph index measures the ratio between cottontails (Sylvilagus sp.) and jackrabbits (Lepus sp.). Both these taxa occur throughout the Southwest. The lagomorph index is calculated as (total cottontails NISP)/(total cottontails NISP) + (total jackrabbit NISP). At 1.00 all lagomorphs are cottontail, whereas a value of 0.00 indicates all the lagomorphs are jackrabbit (Driver 2008; Driver and Woiderski 2008). This index is widely used in the American Southwest (e.g., Driver 2002a; Roler Durand and Durand 2006). Turkey was an important source of protein, particularly in the northern San Juan Basin during Pueblo III times (e.g., Munro 1994). A turkey index, following Spielmann and Angstadt Leto (1996) and adapted by Driver (2002a), is; (total turkey NISP) + (total indeterminate large bird NISP)/(total turkey NISP) + (total indeterminate large bird NISP) + (total lagomorphs NISP [cottontail, jackrabbit, indeterminate lagomorphs]). A value of 0.00 indicates an assemblage without any turkey or indeterminate large birds. A carnivore index was also calculated as; (all carnivore NISP [excluding canids but including fox))/(all artiodactyla NISP) + (alilagomorph NISP [cottontail,jackrabbit, indeterminate lagomorph)) + (all turkey NISP) + (all indeterminate large bird NISP) + (all carnivore NISP [excluding canids but including fox]) after Driver (2002a). A number of taxa are found regularly in assemblages, but were probably not consumed. I refer to these as 'unusual' taxa. These are falconiformes, owls and ravens for birds, as well as all wild carnivores but excluding the indeterminate genus Canis, all dog specimens, and other indeterminate carnivores. The 'unusual' index is calculated as all the 'unusual' taxa divided by 'unusual' taxa plus all lagomorphs. I use this index to investigate differences between great house and non-great house faunas in the San Juan Basin.

33 Skeletal Part Representation Lam and Pearson (2005:99) commented that skeletal part frequencies may offer insights into the procurement, butchery, transport and sharing of animal carcasses. In this study, I use Minimum Number of Elements (MNE) and Minimum Animal Units (MAU) to calculate skeletal part representation. Both MNE and MAU are based on NISP counts (also Grayson and Frey 2004). Minimum Number of Elements (MNE) is the minimum number of elements necessary to account for all observed specimens. However, different analysts calculate MNE differently (Pickering et at. 2003). In this study, I calculated MNE from articular long bone ends, but did not include shaft fragments. Minimum Animal Units is a method developed by Binford (1978). MAU's are obtained by dividing the minimum number of each element (i.e. MNE) by the number of times the particular element is represented in the skeleton. No consideration is given to body side with this procedure. Percentage MAU (%MAU) are obtained by taking the most common MAU as 100%, and then calculating every other element in relation to the most common element (Binford 1978).

Cooking Vessels Weights For this dissertation, cooking vessel accumulation rates are compared to bone deposition of artiodactyla, cottontail, jackrabbit and turkey remains at Albert Porter Pueblo. These taxa were selected as they form the mainstay of the economy, and in the case of artiodactyla, may shed light on hunting pressure during prehistoric times. The archaeological applications of cooking vessel weights in the northern San Juan Basin have been discussed elsewhere (Lightfoot 1994; Varien 1999:6; Varien and Ortman 2005:149; Varien and Potter 1997:194-196). Since the development of this technique, it has been applied to faunas at Shields Pueblo (Rawlings 2006).

Summary The methods I used in this study are similar to what others have used in the northern San Juan Basin. Using standardised methods ensures better and more reliable comparisons between sites. Numerous first and second order changes affected the originally deposited bone sample, providing the researcher with a small window into the past. A consideration of taphonomic processes will assist in determining the formation history of the assemblage, and the potential factors that contributed to its current fragmentary state. The basic quantification method employed in this study is number of identifiable specimens (NISP). Despite its shortcomings, it remains the most common and basic form of archaeofaunal quantification method not only in the American Southwest but also in most parts of the world today. Artiodactyla, lagomorph, turkey

34 and carnivore indices were calculated where applicable. This provides a ratio of common taxa in assemblages and allows comparisons of different sample sizes. Minimum number of elements (MNE) and minimum animal units (MAU) were calculated to investigate trends in skeletal part representation.

35 CHAPTER 4 ALBERT PORTER PUEBLO: ARCHAEOLOGICAL SETTING

Introduction Albert Porter Pueblo (site 5MT123) is situated in the central Mesa Verde region in southwestern Colorado. The site is close to the modem town ofCortez in the Four Comers region of the American Southwest (Figure 4). The pueblo is located on upland between Sandstone and Woods Canyons. It was originally named Hedrick Ruin, but was later renamed after the owner of the land. Albert Porter Pueblo was first recorded in ]965 during a survey conducted by the University of Colorado. A small amount of artefacts were removed from the modem surface during the survey. The artefacts from the surface collection are curated at the Anasazi Heritage Center in Dolores, Colorado. Materials from the most recent excavations will also be housed there (Ryan 2004; Crow Canyon Archaeological Center 2000). The first systematic excavations were conducted by Crow Canyon Archaeological Center during four consecutive field seasons between 200 I and 2004. Less than I % of the total settlement was excavated (Figure 5). Detailed descriptions of all excavation units can be found in Ryan (2002; 2003; 2004). Testing at Albert Porter Pueblo fits into a larger research project of Crow Canyon Archaeological Center 'Communities Through Time: Migration, Cooperation, and Conflict'. The project examines regional settlement patterns and movements of people on the landscape, as well as the eventual depopulation of the region during the late A.D. ]200s (Ryan 2004; Crow Canyon Archaeological Center 2000). Albert Porter Pueblo was occupied on and off for centuries from the Basketmaker III period to the Pueblo III period (AD. 500-1300). Excavations revealed a discontinuous occupation between the Basketmaker III and Pueblo II periods (AD. 500-1050) and continuous occupation between Pueblo II and III times (AD. 1050-1300). It was temporarily abandoned in the AD. 900s at the same time most settlements in the central Mesa Verde region ceased to be occupied (Ryan 2004). Little fauna was retrieved from early, discontinuous occupations.

36 Figure 4. Albert Porter Pueblo in the Central Mesa Verde Region (from Ryan 2004, Figure]. Courtesy of Crow Canyon Archaeological Center)

37 Figure 5. Excavated Units at Albert Porter Pueblo 2000-2004 (from Ryan 2004, Figure 2. Courtesy of Crow Canyon Archaeological Center)

38 Architectural Features Albert Porter Pueblo has a centrally-located great house feature surrounded by smaller habitation units (Figure 5). Habitation units are sometimes called Prudden Units, first described by T. M. Prudden (1903; 1914). Prudden Units consist of three distinctive features. First, they have contiguous (often five to 10 rooms) surface rooms constructed ofjacal or masonry which functioned as living or storage spaces. From the A.D. 700s through the A.D. 1200s most people in the San Juan Basin lived in habitation units occupied by nuclear (five to seven people) or small extended families. Second, situated south or southeast from the room block is a single domestic pit structure or kiva. Initially, pit structures functioned as residential structures. By the Pueblo II period pit structures evolved into kivas which housed both domestic and ritual activities. Third, a midden was located south or southeast of the kiva. In multi-unit room blocks, middens extend the entire length of the room block. This suggests that households deposited trash directly in front of their habitation units (Lipe 2006:263-264; Prudden 1903; 1914). Lipe (2006:263-271) recognises a 'San Juan Cultural Pattern' which is a complex of architectural and settlement layout characteristics which developed in the Basin in the A.D. 600-700s and lasted until the late A.D. 1200s. The basic pattern includes: Prudden Units, a north-south orientation of many architectural features, settlement layout and the presence of small and great kivas (Lipe 2006:263-271). The great house (Figure 6) was initially constructed approximately A.D. 1100; additions were made to the great house until the late Pueblo III period (Ryan 2004). The great house at Albert Porter Pueblo is rectangular with one or two kivas enclosed in the structure and lacks a great kiva and an enclosed plaza. It classified as a McElmo-styJe great house. McElrno-style great houses were first constructed in Chaco Canyon at settlements such as Kin Kletso and New Alto. In the late A.D. 1000s and early 11 OOs McElmo-style great houses were constructed throughout the San Juan Basin, often within already existing communities (Lipe and Varien 1999; Lekson 1991; Vivian and Hilpert 2002: 111-113). Prehistoric community centers in the Mesa Verde region are recognised by the presence of distinctive residential and public architecture (Vanen 1999). Albert Porter Pueblo is considered to be a community center based on the presence of a Chaco-era great house (public architecture) and 11 smaller architectural (Prudden) units (residential architecture) surrounding it (Ryan 2004).

39 Figure 6. The Great House of Albert Porter Pueblo (from Ryan 2004, Figure 6. Courtesy of Crow Canyon Archaeological Center)

~fn ~~j o~

40 Occupational Phases Occupational phases at Albert Porter Pueblo were dated using dendrochronology, ceramics and stratigraphy. The following time periods are recognised: Pueblo lIIII (mixed); Pueblo II; Pueblo II-III; and Pueblo III. Fine resolution dating was possible for most contexts (Table 2). Excavations without fauna are excluded. The dates were supplied by Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, and will be published in due course online at www.crowcanyon.org.

Table 2. Excavations at Albert Porter Pueblo (see Figures 5-6) PUEBLO II Late Pueblo II (A.D. 1060-1140) Block Feature Description 100 100 Non-Structure 100 100 Structure 100 118 Kiva 200 201 Non-Structure 900 900 Structure 900 901 Non-Structure 900 900 Kiva 1000 1039 Non-Structure 1037 1037 Structure 1040 1040 Non-Structure 1041 1041 Non-Structure 1042 1042 Non-Structure 1043 1043 Non-Structure 1100 1101 Non-Structure PUEBLO II-III Middle Pueblo II - Late Pueblo III (A.D. 1020.1280) 100 101 Non-Structure 100 102 Non-Structure 100 103 Non-Structure 1 100 104 Non-Structure 100 105 Non-Structure 100 106 Non-Structure Terminal Pueblo II - Initial Pueblo III (A.D. 1100-1180) 100 150 Kiva Late Pueblo II - Early Pueblo III (A.D. 1060-1225) 800 801 Non-Structure 900 901 Non-Structure 900 903 Kiva 900 904 Kiva 1100 1104 Kiva Unassiened Pueblo II - Pueblo III (A.D. 900-1300) 100 100 Non-Structure 100 100 Structure 500 501 Non-Structure

41 600 601 Non-Structure 1100 1101 Non-Structure PUEBLO III Early Pueblo III (A.D. 1140-1225) 100 107 Kiva 100 108 Kiva 100 lO9 Kiva 100 110 Kiva lOO 111 Kiva 100 112 Kiva 100 113 Kiva 100 115 Kiva 100 116 Kiva lOO 117 Kiva 100 119 Kiva 300 301 Non-Structure 300 302 Kiva 300 303 Kiva 300 305 Structure 500 501 Non-Structure 500 502 Kiva 600 601 Non-Structure 600 602 Kiva 800 803 Kiva Late Pueblo III (A.D. 1225-1260) 100 114 Kiva lOO 136 Kiva 400 402 Kiva 400 403 Kiva Unassh!ned Pueblo III (A.D. 1100-1300) 100 lOO Non-Structure 100 100 Structure 200 201 Non-Structure 400 401 Non-Structure 800 801 Non-Structure 900 901 Non-Structure MIXED PUEBLO IIIII lOO 100 Non-Structure 800 801 Non-Structure 900 901 Non-Structure

Excavation and Analytical Strategies All archaeological excavations conducted by Crow Canyon Archaeological Center incorporate standardised field methods (Crow Canyon Archaeological Center 2001) that recognise three types of features. First, 'structures' are cultural units with at least three walls, often with a floor and evidence of a roof. Structures include rooms, pit structures (kivas) and

42 towers. Second, 'non-structures' are neither walled nor roofed. They include plazas, courtyards, middens or water-control devices such as check-dams, canals, impoundments and reservoirs. Third, 'arbitrary units' include excavations and surface collection areas whose boundaries are arbitrarily defined, such as sampling strata (Crow Canyon Archaeological Center 2001). For the purpose of this dissertation all excavations were divided into one of three categories. First, 'structures' here means only roomblocks of Prudden Units and the great house structure. Second, kivas, although a structure, are considered here as a separate category. Third, all remaining non-structures were considered independently and consist mostly of excavations in middens. Individual excavation squares within an architectural feature, such as Architectural Block 100 (great house), was combined if they date from the same period. This was done to increase faunal samples. The various features at Albert Porter Pueblo were excavated using different methods. Kivas were excavated in 2x2 m units. Walls of other structures (roomblocks and the great house north wall) were exposed in 2x 1 m units. Middens were excavated using 1xl m units (Ryan 2004). A 6 mm (1/4 inch) meshed screen was used throughout the excavation to screen sediments. However, ash from hearths from some kivas was screened through a 3 mm (1/8 inch) mesh (Table 3). A total of 26 kivas were excavated. Excavations focused mostly on middens (Table 4).

Table 3. Hearths Screened Through a 3 mm (1/8 inch) Mesh Feature Description 107 Subterranean kiva 112 Aboveground kiva 114 Subterranean kiva 117 Subterranean kiva 602 Subterranean kiva 803 Subterranean kiva 904 Subterranean kiva

Table 4. Numbers of Squares Excavated in the Middens Non-structure Number of excavated squares (all txl meter squares) 101 21 102 10 103 5 104 14 105 5 106 15 201 15

43 301 IS 401 IS SOl 5 601 IS 801 IS 901 IS 1040 5 1041 5 1042 5 1043 1~ 1101 I

Summary The faunal remains from Albert Porter Pueblo date mainly from Pueblo II, Pueblo WIll and Pueblo III periods. The main occupation of Albert Porter Pueblo dates between A.D. 900 and 1275, with the most intense activities occurring between the late Pueblo II and early Pueblo III periods. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center applies standardised excavation methods and sampling strategy to all of their excavation projects. This greatly aids faunal comparisons in the northern San Juan Basin. Moreover, as all of the feature-types at Albert Porter Pueblo were sampled, a comprehensive interpretation can be formulated.

44 CHAPTERS ALBERT PORTER PUEBLO FAUNAL ASSEMBLAGE AND TAPHONOMY

Introduction The main goal of this chapter is to distinguish which animal remains recovered from the Albert Porter Pueblo assemblage were deposited by human actions and which were not. To do this, I examine a suite of taphonomic indicators, including rootlet etching, manganese staining, weathering, carnivore and rodent damage, burning, butchering damage, bone tools and skeletal part representation. Taphonomic processes affect bone specimens between the time of death of the animals and the time of the analysis (Lyman 1994; 2004). Many of the processes that I consider below contributed to the fragmentation of the assemblage.

Assemblage Size and Fragmentation The total faunal sample from Albert Porter Pueblo consists of 19, 439 specimens, excluding teeth and eggshell. Of these, 9978 (51 %) were identified. The faunal assemblage from the unassigned, mixed Pueblo IIIII component contained only seven specimens and will not be considered further (Table 5). The percentage of identified specimens is broadly similar to what other analysts in the northern San Juan Basin found for large assemblages. For example, a study of 13 Pueblo III sites in the Sand Canyon Locality found that between 40 and 60% specimens were identifiable (Driver et al. 1999; Muir and Driver 2002). Rawlings (2006:82) identified 46% of the total assemblage from Shields Pueblo with occupations spanning from Pueblo I to III (A.D. 725-1280). At the Pueblo III village of Sand Canyon, Muir (1999:43) identified 61 % of the total assemblage. These data suggest that fragmentation rates are similar for assemblages in the region.

Table 5. Albert Porter Pueblo Assemblage Size (NISP) Totals Pueblo IJIII Pueblo II Pueblo IIIPIII Pueblo III Total Identified 2 1531 2534 5911 9978 Unidentified 5 1584 2704 5168 9461 Total 7 3115 5238 11 079 19439 % Identified 29 49 48 53 51

Assemblage Composition I identified mammals, birds, fish, reptile and amphibian remains from the Albert Porter Pueblo assemblage. Mammals are the most common Class represented in Pueblo II and Pueblo

45 II/I11 times. It is only during Pueblo III that birds and mammals occur in roughly equal numbers (Table 6, Figure 7). Various taxa were identified from the Albert Porter Pueblo assemblage (Table 7). These include a variety of rodents, carnivores, artiodactyla and birds. Cottontails, jackrabbits, turkey and indeterminate large bird are particularly common. Most of the indeterminate large bird specimens are probably turkey.

Table 6. Animal Classes Represented at Albert Porter Pueblo (NISP) Class Pueblo 11I11 Pueblo II Pueblo IIIPIII Pueblo III Total Mammal 2 (100%) 1198(78%) 1905 (75%) 2931 (50%) 6036 (60%) Bird 333 (22%) 625 (25%) 2778 (47%) 3735 (37%) Fish 8(<1%) 8 (<1 %) Reptile 4(<1%) 192 (3%) 196 (2%) Amphibian 2«1%) 2 (<1 %) Total 2 (100%) 1531 (100%) 2534 (100%) 5911 (100%) 9978 (100%)

Figure 7. Mammal and Bird NISP at Albert Porter Pueblo

• Mammal filBird ] 3500 -

3000

2500

2000

ll. !!! z 1500

1000

500

o Pueblo II Pueblo II/III Pueblo III

46 Table 7. Taxa Presented at Albert Porter Pueblo (NISP). Order of Taxa Follow Driver (2005) PII PIli Taxa Common Name PIlI PII PIlI PIlI Total Lagomorpha Rabbit, Hare 32 180 160 372 Sylvila{?us sp. Cottontail I 736 792 1505 3034 Lepus sp. Jackrabbit 108 342 308 758 Sciuridae Squirrel 44 36 120 200 Eutamias sp. Chipmunk I 3 4 Spermophilus variegatus Rock Squirrel I 1 Spermophilus sp. Ground Squirrel 3 3 8 14 Gunnison's Prairie Cynomys ~unnisoni Dog II 2 Cynomys sp. Prairie Dog 12 17 32 61 Tamiasciurus hudsonicus Red Squirrel I 1 Geomyidae Pocket Gopher 33 47 100 180 Perognathus sp. Pocket Mouse I 1 Peromvscus sp. Mouse 5 8 33 46 Microtus sp. Vole I 14 15 Muridae Deer Mice, Vole 2 2 Neotoma sp. Wood Rat 34 20 61 115 Castor canadensis Beaver II 8 10 Erethizon dorsatum Porcupine I 1 7 9 Small Rodent Small Rodent 32 42 203 277 Large Rodent Large Rodent I 1 Carnivora Carnivore 1 1 Canis sp. Dog, Wolf, Coyote I I 5 7 Canis lupus Wolf I 1 2 Canis familiaris Dog 5 8 II 24 Vulpes vulpes Red Fox 4 5 2 11 Vulpes sp. Red or Kit Fox I 1 Ursidae Bear I I 2 Bassaricus astutus Ringtail I 1 Mustela sp. Weasel 2 2 Mustela erminea Ermine 2 2 Long-Tailed Mustela frenata Weasel I 1 Taxidea taxus Badger 1 1 2 Lynx sp. Lynx or Bobcat I 1 Small Carnivore Small Carnivore 2 2 4 Medium Carnivore Medium Carnivore 2 6 8 16 Cervidae Deer Family I 1 Odocoileus sp. Deer I 10 27 23 61 Antilocapra americana Pronghorn I 1 I 3 Ovis canadensis Bighorn Sheep 3 2 5 Bison bison Bison I I 2 Medium Medium Artiodactyla Artiodactyla 34 43 79 156 Large Artiodactyla Wapiti, Bison- 2 1 I 4

47 Sized Artiodactyla Small Mammal Small Mammal 66 242 163 471 Medium Mammal Medium Mammal 14 64 49 127 Large Mammal Large Mammal 5 8 7 20 Vulture, Hawk, Falconiformes Eagle 2 1 3 Buteo sp. Hawk 1 5 7 13 Buteo swainsoni Swainson's Hawk 2 2 Small Falcon Small Falcon 1 1 Medium Falconiformes Medium Falcon I 1 2 Grouse, Quail, Galliformes Turkey 1 4 4 9 Tetraonidae Grouse 7 1 8 Centrocercus urophasianus Sage Grouse 1 1 Meleagris gallopavo Turkey 156 270 1567 1993 Grus canadensis Sandhill Crane 1 1 Scolopacidae Sandpiper 1 1 Zenaida macroura Mourning Dove 3 3 Strigiformes Owl 1 1 Colaptes auratus Common Flicker 2 2 Passeriformes Perching Bird 4 2 6 Corvidae Jay, Crow 1 1 Pica pica Magpie 1 1 Turdidae Thrushes, Robin 1 1 Small Bird Small Bird 2 6 31 39 Medium Bird Medium Bird 19 6 8 33 Large Bird Large Bird 148 328 1143 1619 Amphibia Amphibian 2 2 Snake Snake 4 192 196 Reptilia Reptiles 1 1 Pisces Fish 8 8 Total NISP 2 1531 2534 5910 9978

Natural and Cultural Bone Accumulations Rootlet Etching and Manganese Dioxide Staining Rootlet etching visible to the naked eye is evenly distributed at Albert Porter Pueblo between middens, structures and kivas (Table 8).The etching may be the result of pre-burial fungi or lichen growing on specimens, or humic acid secreted from plant roots after burial (Lyman 1994:375-377). Plants roots can grow through bone and contribute to post-depositional fracturing (Behrensmeyer 1978). Many bone ends at Albert Porter Pueblo with heavy rootlet etching have irregular breaks, suggesting that rootlet etching contributed to the fragmentary status of the Albert Porter Pueblo assemblage. Recorded specimens with rootlet etching only reflect those visible to the naked-eye. Under a low-resolution magnification up to 30x, additional rootlet etching was detected. It is therefore likely that a large number of bones display rootlet etching, but it remains

48 unpractical to subject every single bone specimen of such a large assemblage to microscopic analysis.

Table 8. Specimens with Rootlet Etching at Albert Porter Pueblo Pueblo % Rootlet Pueblo % Rootlet Pueblo % Rootlet Feature II etchin2 II/III etchin2 III etchin2 Non-Structure 432 ]9.44% ]587 33.76% ]4]7 20.50% Structure ]57 25.28% 2 ]4.29% 75 7.87% Kiva 95 20.65% 104 ]7.60% 690 20.76% Total 684 20.71 % 1693 31.91 % 2182 19.50%

Manganese dioxide staining was noted on specimens from Albert Porter Pueblo in all contexts (Table 9). Manganese dioxide staining on bone is often associated with moist conditions such as those in caves (Hill 1982). Manganese typically leaches from rocks and is re-deposited on bone after burial. Alternatively, lichens extract minerals from the surrounding environment such as bedrock, and when growing on bone, deposit manganese stains on bone prior to burial (e.g., Thackeray et at. 2005). The causal factor of the manganese staining on specimens from Albert Porter Pueblo cannot be determined. Lichen growth may have promoted rootlet etching, and hence fragmentation of specimens. No comparative data on rootlet etching and manganese staining are available from other assemblages in the northern San Juan region.

Table 9. Specimens with Manganese Staining at Albert Porter Pueblo % % % % Site Total PII Man2anese PII/I1I Man2anese PIlI Man2anese Total Man2. NST 49 2.2]% 112 2.38% 352 5.09% 513 3.71% STR 5] 8.2]% 2 14.29% 29 3.04% 82 5.17% Kiva 4 0.87% 42 7.1] % ]50 4.51% 196 4.48% Total 104 3.15% 156 2.94% 531 4.75% 791 4% (NST =Non-Structure, STR =Structure)

Weathering Weathered specimens are those whose surface is cracked and flaked, usually parallel to the fiber structure (Behrensmeyer ]978). Some specimens from the Albert Porter Pueblo assemblage are weathered. In particular, many of the specimens are from large animals indicating that large bones are often relatively more weathered (Table] 0) which is also the case for other assemblages in the northern San Juan Basin (Table] I). This suggests that large specimens may take longer to get buried. Although there are various stages of weathering (Behrensmeyer ]978),

49 these were not employed in the Albert Porter Pueblo analysis. These categories are arbitrary and numerous unknown localised factors may have an influence on weathered bone. Weathering contributed to the fragmentary nature of the Albert Porter Pueblo assemblage.

Table 10. Weathered Specimens at Albert Porter Pueblo Taxa Total % ofNISP Lepus 2 0.3 Sciuridae 1 0.5 Geomyidae 1 0.6 Canis familiaris 2 8.3 Vulpes vulpes 2 18.2 Odocoileus 16 26.2 Ovis canadensis 3 60 Bison bison 1 50 Medium artiodactyla 24 15.4 Small mammal 1 0.2 Medium mammal 10 7.9 Large mammal 3 15 Melea~ris ~allopavo 33 1.7 Large Bird 9 0.6 Unidentified 98 1 Total 206

Table II. Weathered Specimens from other Assemblages in the Northern San Juan Basin (from Rawlings 2006: 104) Taxa Albert Woods Castle Yellow Sand Shields Porter Canyon Rock Jacket Canyon Pueblo N Pueblo N Pueblo N Pueblo N Pueblo N Pueblo N (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Artiodactyla 44 (19.6) I (50.0) 7 (12.7) 18 (7.8) 164 (24.6) 45 (5.3) Lagomorph I (6.25) 5 (10.0) 1 (1.4) I (1.4) Lepus sp. 2 (0.3) I (9.09) 3 (2.83) 10 (3.9) I (0.7) 7 (0.4) Sylvilagus sp. I (0.49) 33 (3.9) 40 (3.5) 17 (0.7) 23 (0.3) M. gallopavo 33 (1.7) 27 (5.4) 23 (3.3) 50 (4.5) 107 (3.1) 13 (0.2) Sciuridae I (0.5) 1 (1.05) 1 (0.98) 3 (0.3)

Carnivore Damage The carnivore gnaw marks from Albert Porter Pueblo are probably the result of domestic dogs feeding, scavenging and gnawing on bone (Table 12-13). It is unlikely that wild carnivores would have entered the settlement on a regular basis to gnaw on discarded bones. Dogs accompanied the earliest settlers of the Americas through the Bering Strait. By the time of European penetration into the American Southwest, Pueblo people had long kept coyote-sized

50 dogs (Colton 1970; Olsen 1976). Carnivore gnawing contributed to the fragmentation of the Albert Porter Pueblo assemblage. Other assemblages in the northern San Juan Basin also displayed carnivore gnaw marks (Table 14).

Table 12. Specimens with Carnivore Chew Marks at Albert Porter Pueblo Taxa Pueblo II Pueblo IIIIII Pueblo III Total SylvilaRus sp. 2 1 3 Lepus sp. 3 4 4 11 Castor canadensis 1 1 Canis familiaris 1 1 Medium carnivore I 1 Odoccoileus sp. 1 3 4 Medium artiodactyla 1 1 2 Large artiodactyla 1 1 Small mammal 1 1 Medium Mammal 1 1 2 Meleagris gallopavo 1 7 26 34 Galliformes 1 1 Large Bird 2 3 5 10 Unidentified 5 3 9 17 Total 17 24 48 89

Table 13. Carnivore Damage and %NISP Damaged at Albert Porter Pueblo Taxa Total NISP Carnivore dama~e % NISP Dama~ed Sylvilagus sp. 3034 3 0.09% Lepus sp. 758 11 1.45% Artiodactyla 232 7 3% Meleagris gallopavo + large bird 1993 34 1.71%

Table 14. Carnivore Modified Taxa from Sites in the Northern San Juan Basin (from Rawlings 2006:91) Yellow Shields Woods Canyon Castle Rock Jacket Sand Canyon Pueblo Taxa N % N % N % N % N % Artiodactyla 3 5 21 10 37 5 15 1 Lagomorph 1 6 1 2 Lepus sp. 1 9 3 2 8 3 1 0.7 40 2 SylvilaRus sp. 2 1 12 1 7 0.6 5 0.5 62 0.8 Squirridae 1 1 3 2 5 0.5 7 0.5 M. Rallopavo 9 3 21 7 29 5 22 1 141 2

51 Rodent Gnawing A small number of specimens from Albert Porter Pueblo displayed rodent gnaw marks (Table 15). The gnaw marks are all the result of small rodent taxa. The rodents may have gnawed on the bone after the site was abandoned. However, it is also likely that some of the rodent damage occurred when the site was inhabited as rodents were probably attracted to stored maize and other foodstuffs. Burrowing rodents likely disturbed some of the deposits at the site.

Table 15. Specimens with Rodent Gnaw Marks at Albert Porter Pueblo

Period n %Total Assembla~e Pueblo II 18 0.50% Pueblo WIll 31 0.50% Pueblo III 168 1.50% Total 217 1.20%

Burnt Specimens A number of specimens from all contexts from Albert Porter Pueblo were burnt (Tables 16-17). Samples from all contexts are small, making interpretations difficult. Localised, black and calcined categories were recorded during analysis (Driver 2005). The various colours of burnt bone relate to the timing and extent of exposure to the heat source, the temperature of the heat source, as well as the presence or absence of flesh (Buikstra and Swegle 1989). Calcined specimens are often an indicator of fires with a higher temperature than surface grassfires (e.g., Brain and Sillen 1988). Therefore, the large number of calcined bones in the Albert Porter Pueblo assemblage suggests that they were burned before burial. However, buried specimens may also be burnt when fires were made on overlying surfaces (e.g., De Graaff 1961). Heat fractures bones due to chemical changes (e.g., Johnson 1989). The burnt specimens from Albert Porter Pueblo indicates that some bones were exposed to heat, most probably during roasting of meat, bone disposal in a hearth, or deliberate burning of refuse. However, it is also possible, as Lyman (1994:384) indicated, that un-burnt bones were cooked (e.g., boiled, baked). Burning contributed to the fragmentation of the Albert Porter Pueblo assemblage. Data from other assemblages summarised by Rawlings (2006:99) in the northern San Juan illustrate that various taxa have evidence of burning (Table 18).

52 Table J6. Burnt Specimens at Albert Porter Pueblo by Time Period %Total Totals Black Localised Calcined Total Sample Pueblo II ]74 64 ]75 413 13% Pueblo IIIIII 482 ]99 307 988 19% Pueblo III 485 ]75 473 1133 10% Totals 1142 439 956 2537 13% %Total Sample 6% 2% 5%

Table] 7. Burnt Specimens per Feature at Albert Porter Pueblo %Total Pueblo II Black Localised Calcined Total Sample Non-Structure ]26 42 ]28 296 13% Structure ]4 6 ]4 34 5% Kiva 34 ]6 33 83 18% Subtotal 174 64 175 413 13% %Total Pueblo 111I11 Black Localised Calcined Total Sample Non-Structure 459 ]90 282 931 20% Structure ] ] 2 14% Kiva 22 9 24 55 9% Subtotal 482 199 307 988 19% %Total Pueblo III Black Localiced Calcined Total Sample Non-Structure 288 120 293 701 10% Structure 5 ] 3 9 1% Kiva 192 54 177 423 13% Subtotal 485 175 473 1133 10%

Table] 8. Burnt Specimens at Sites in the Northern San Juan Basin (from Rawlings 2006:99) Taxa Albert Shields Woods Castle Yellow Sand Porter Pueblo N Canyon Rock Jacket Canyon Pueblo N (%) Pueblo N Pueblo N Pueblo N Pueblo (%) (%) (%) (%) N (%) Artiodactyla 45 (19.4) 84 (9.8) 1 (25.0) 7 (12.7) 15 (6.4) 49 (7.3) Lepus sp. 132 (17.4) 1] 6 (6.9) 2 (18.2) 8 (7.5) 15 (5.8) 2 (1.5) Sylvilagus sp. 214 (7.0) 344 (4.3) 3 (1.5) 69 (6.0) 69 (3.0) Lagomorph 22 (5.9) E. dorsatum 2 (9.1) C. canadensis 5 (12.5) Peromyscus sp. 1 (2.]) Small Rodentia 3 (1.0) Rodentia 2 (1.3) 2 (100.0) Sciuridae 16 (8.0) 1 (0.9) 2 (2.1) 3 (2.9) 5 (0.5) Spermophilus 1 (7.1) sp.

53 Neotoma sp. 3 (1.5) 7 (5.0) I (0.8) 4 (0.9) Geomyidae 3 (1.6) 4 (0.8) Cynomys sp. 3 (4.9) 29 (4.0) Carnivore 5 (27.8) Canis sp. 3 (9.0) 7 (3.4) I (4.7) I (50.0) 2 (18.2) 9 (4.3) Lynx sp. 2 (22.2) 5 (11.9) Ursidae I (50.0) Vulpes vulpes 1 (9.0) Small Mammal 35 (7.4) Medium 25 (19.6) Mammal Large mammal 5 (25.0) Medium I (50.0) Falconiformes M. f!,allopavo 144 (7.2) 290 (6.9) 2 (0.8) 29 (10.2) 21 (4.2) 89 (6.2) Medium Bird 3 (9.0) 7 (7.7) 1 (1.6) Large Bird 119 (7.3) 27 (6.9) 2 (0.8) 29 (10.2) 21 (4.2) 89 (6.2)

Butchering Damage Butchering damage also contributes to the fragmentation of an assemblage. At Albert Porter Pueblo, a few specimens, like other assemblages in the northern San Juan Basin, display cut and chop marks (Table 19-21). Specimens of larger animals such as artiodactyls were probably smashed open to extract marrow (e.g., Binford 1978). This may not have been the case for smaller animals however. Ends of bones of smaller animals may have been bitten or chopped off, and the marrow sucked out (e.g., Jones 1993: 108). The low number of specimens with cut and chop marks in the Albert Porter Pueblo assemblage is not particularly unusual. Actualistic (e.g., Parsons and Badenhorst 2004; Jones 1993: 108) and archaeological (e.g., Trolle-Lassen 1990) studies concluded that even though animals were skinned and butchered, relatively little damage is left on the skeleton itself.

Table 19. Specimens with Cut and Chop Marks at Albert Porter Pueblo Period Cut Chop Pueblo II 9 1 Pueblo WIll 20 4 Pueblo III 62 4 Total 89 9

Table 20. Taxa with Cut Marks at Albert Porter Pueblo Taxa N %NISP Lagomorph 2 0.5 Sylvilagus sp. 2 0.1 Lepus sp. 3 0.4

54 Canis familiaris 2 8.3 Medium Artiodactyla 2 1.3 Medium Mammal 1 0.8 Large Mammal 2 10.0 Meleagris gallopavo 36 1.8 Large Bird 10 0.6

Table 21. Taxa with Cut Marks from other Assemblages in the Northern San Juan Basin (from Rawlings 2006:94) Taxa Shields Woods Castle Rock Yellow Sand Pueblo N Canyon N Pueblo N (%) Jacket N Canyon (%) (%) (%) N %) Artiodactyla 13 (1.5) 1 (1.8) 4 (1.7) 25 (3.7) Lepus sp. 3 (0.2) 2 (0.8) I (0.7) Sylvilagus sp. 5 (0.1) 1 (0.1) 2 (0.1) Castor 1 (2.5) canadensis Geomyidae 2 (0.4) Canis sp. 5 (2.4) Lynx sp. 1 (2.4) Falconiformes 1 (4.5) Meleagris 54 (1.3) 6 (2.5) 1 (0.3) 15 (3.0) 132(9.1) gallopavo Medium Bird 1 (1.6) Large Bird 3 (1.2) 1 (0.2)

Turkey and Jackrabbit Fragmentation To investigate whether turkeys were more intensely butchered than other animals at Albert Porter Pueblo, I compared the fragmentation of long bones of turkeys and jackrabbits. Turkeys and jackrabbits are similar in size. In particular, I examined humeri, radii, ulnae, femora, tibiae and metatarsi of these two taxa and found that more complete long bones of turkey are present in the assemblage (Table 22). This may suggests that jackrabbit was more intensely butchered than turkeys, or there were differential discard patterns for these two taxa.

Table 22. Turkey and Jackrabbit Long Bone Fragmentation at Albert Porter Pueblo Lepus sp. Melea~ris ~allopavollarf!.e bird Element Complete Total NISP % Complete Complete Total NISP % Complete Humerus 2 68 2.9 16 165 9.7 Radius 1 57 1.8 10 148 6.8 Ulna 0 50 0 6 161 3.7 Femur 0 56 0 2 80 2.5 Tibia 0 98 0 2 277 0.7 Metatarsal 9 50 18.0 19 212 9.0

55 Bone tools During analysis, it was noted that many specimens were abraded (Table 23). Most of the abraded specimens are fragmented. Out of 439 polished specimens from Albert Porter Pueblo, 108 (25%) are sharpened points which are probably awls. Awls may have been used for tasks such as leather piercing or basketry. In addition, another 68 specimens are beads, either complete or broken. Three small oval gaming pieces were also present. Apart from awls and beads, the rest of the sample (263 or 60%) consists of bone fragments with some evidence for use as tools. Other sites in the northern San Juan Basin also yielded bone tools (Table 24). Many of the bone awls are seemingly in a perfect state, raising the question as to why these were discarded and not re-used again. Possible factors may include that awls were used by certain individuals for a specific task only, and that tools were discarded after each task. In addition, craftsmen may have sought fresh bone as tools.

Table 23. Bone Tools from Albert Porter Pueblo Taxa Total (Burnt) %NISP Sylvilagus sp. 1 0.03 Lepus sp. 19 (1) 2.5 Castor canadensis 1 10.0 Canis sp. 1 14.3 Vulpes vulpes 1 9.1 Taxidea taxus 1 50.0 Cervidae 1 100.0 Odocoileus sp. 3 (1) 4.9

I Medium artiodactyla 18 (4) 3.9 Small mammal 2 0.4 Medium mammal 6 4.7 Large mammal 2 10.0 Melea~ris ~allopavo 70(2) 3.5 Large bird 62 (3) 3.8 Unidentified 251 (46) 2.7 Total (Burnt) 439 (57)

56 Table 24. Bone Tools from Sites in the Northern San Juan Basin (from Rawlings 2006:97) Taxa Shield Woods Castle Rock Ye))ow Sand Pueblo N canyon Pueblo N Jacket Canyon (%) Pueblo N (%) Pueblo N Pueblo N (%) (%) (%) Artiodactyla 58 (6.8) I (25.0) 3 (504) 9 (3.8) 59 (8.8) Lepus sp. 27 (1.6) 3 (28.3) 2 (0.8) 5 (3.7) Sylvilagus sp. 17 (0.2) 2 (0.2) 4 (0.2) Canis sp. 3 (104) 16 (7.6) Lynx sp. I (25.0) 8 (19.0) Meleagris 96 (2.3) 13 (5.3) 34 (11.9) 21 (4.2) 132(9.1) gallopavo Large Bird 3 (0.3) 9 (3.5) 4 (0.9)

Were Sma)) Rodents Consumed? An ongoing dilemma in Southwest archaeology is whether fossorial small animals such as squirrels, wood rats and pocket gophers were part of the diet (e.g., Speth 2000; Szuter 1994), or natural intrusions (e.g., Muir 1999; Rawlings 2006). However, there is general agreement among archaeologists that cottontails, also small in size, were consumed. This is based on evidence such as their ubiquity in all types of contexts, similar body part representation between cottontails and jackrabbits, (limited) butchering marks, and a lack of cottontail caches (Szuter 1991 :172-173). Other lines of evidence include ethnographic descriptions of cottontail consumption (W.W. Hill 1981 :52; Shaffer 1992a), a lack of fresh bone and raptor damage, and the presence of scorched mandibles (see below). Determining the role of rodents is of great importance since they often make up a large portion of assemblages in the Southwest. For example, at Sand Canyon Pueblo, small rodent (excluding porcupine) specimens contributed 21.8% of the total NISP (2366 specimens of 10852 NISP) (Muir 1999). In another example, at Shields Pueblo, small rodent (excluding porcupine and beaver) specimens contributed 9.6% of the total NISP (1804 specimens of 18 764 NISP) (Rawlings 2006). Muir (1999:58) concluded that small rodents such as squirrels, wood rats and pocket gophers were not part of the diet at Sand Canyon Pueblo, but natural intrusions. His interpretation is based on a lack of butchering evidence on rodents and the dominance of complete long bones. Rawlings (2006:93) reached the same conclusion in her study of fauna from Shields Pueblo. However, neither Muir (1999) nor Rawlings (2006) reported articulated rodent skeletons which we would expect if rodents died in burrows. As already mentioned, a lack of butchering evidence on small taxa should not be taken as absence of consumption. As will be argued below, other

57 methods such as long bone fragmentation are not particularly strong indications of whether animals are of natural or cultural origin.

Long Bone Fragmentation Long bone fragmentation of small animals can potentially indicate whether or not animals were self-introduced, or whether such animals were consumed. Long bone fragmentation (humeri, femora and tibiae) ofjackrabbits, cottontails, squirrels, wood rats, pocket gophers and indeterminate small rodents were investigated at Albert Porter Pueblo (Table 25). The results suggest that jackrabbits, cottontails, squirrels and indeterminate small rodents were consumed since long bones tend to be fragmented. In contrast, the data suggest that some of the pocket gophers are self-introduced. However, as will be argued below, there are other reasons to believe that pocket gophers were consumed. Studies of long bone fragmentation from other assemblages in the northern San Juan Basin (Table 26) assume that self-introduced taxa will display higher frequencies of complete bones (Muir 1999; Rawlings 2006). There are good reasons that argue against this assumption. Ethnographic data (Szuter 1991; 1994; Speth 2000; Shaffer I 992a) indicate that since rodents are small, their bones are either consumed or informally discarded. It is unlikely that very small bones were smashed open to extract marrow. In addition, small bones may not have been recovered during excavation leading to their under-representation in assemblages. It is also not known how bones of larger taxa behave under the weight of the deposits in situ compared to more compact bones of smaller animals. This may lead to higher fragmentation of larger bones than that of microfauna. It is therefore suggested that measuring fragmented versus complete long bones are not a reliable indication of the origin of animals at archaeological sites.

Table 25. Fragmented and Complete Humeri, Femora and Tibiae at Albert Porter Pueblo for Selected Taxa Taxa Complete % Fra2mented % Total Sylvilagus sp. 28 3 851 97 879 Lepus sp. 2 1 219 99 221 Sciuridae 7 10 62 90 69 Geomyidae 10 67 5 33 15 Neotoma sp. 2 100 2 Small rodent 18 16 96 84 114

58 Table 26. Long Bone Fragmentation for Selected Taxa from Assemblages in the Northern San Juan Basin (from Rawlings 2006:96, SP =Shields Pueblo, WCP =Woods Canyon Pueblo, CRP = Castle Rock Pueblo, YJP = Yellow Jacket Pueblo, SCP = Sand Canyon Pueblo) % Complete % Fragmented Taxa SP WCP CRP YJP CRP SP WCP CRP YJP SCP ArtiodactyIa 22 ]5 77 ]00 100 84 Lagomorph 52 ]2 20 2] 47 87 80 78 Lepus sp. 29 29 29 10 70 100 70 70 90 Sylvilagus 25 24 24 20 25 75 75 75 79 75 sp. Meleagris 39 27 34 30 60 72 65 69 Rallopavo Sciuridae 39 33 46 37 67 60 66 53 62 32

Spiral Fractures Spiral fractures could be the result of breakage of fresh bone by humans during butchering (e.g., Reitz and Wing] 999) or other taphonomic processes such as carnivore gnawing and trampling (e.g., Haynes] 983). Spiral fractures are not necessarily diagnostic of human behaviour (Myers et al. ]980). Spiral fractures on long bones (humeri, femora and tibiae) were calculated for selected animals at Albert Porter Pueblo based on their small size. The data indicate that spiral fractures occur on all the selected taxa (Table 27), an aspect noted for other assemblages in the northern San Juan Basin (Table 28). The regional comparison of spiral fractures indicate that even taxa that definitely relate to the diet, such as cottontails and turkey, have very low numbers of spiral fractures on long bones.

Table 27. Spiral Fractures for Selected Taxa at Albert Porter Pueblo Taxa Pueblo II Pueblo IIJPIII Pueblo III Total Sylvilagus sp. 222 (30%) 233 (29%) 468 (31 %) 923 Lepus sp. 27 (25%) 7] (2] %) 70 (23%) 168 Squirrels ]] (]9%) ]7 (29%) 28 (]7%) S6 Artiodactyla ]5 (33%) ]2 (]6%) ]6 (]5%) 43

59 Table 28. Spiral Fractures on Humeri, Femora and Tibiae at Sites in the Northern San Juan Basin (from Rawlings 2006:96) Taxa Shield Woods Castle Rock Yellow Sand Pueblo N Canyon N Pueblo N Jacket Canyon (%) (%) (%) Pueblo N Pueblo N (%) (%) Artiodactyla 13 (1.5) ] (1.8) 4 (1.7) 25 (3.7) Lepus sp. 35 (2.]) 4 (36.3) 6 (5.6) 37 (14.3) 13 (9.6) Sylvilagus sp. 227 (2.8) ]5 (7.4) 57 (6.7) ]]7(10.1) ]25 (5.3) C. canadensis 4 (10.0) Rodentia 1 (0.6) ] (4.]) Sciuridae 3 (3.]) 2 (2.0) 9 (0.9) Neotoma sp. 3 (2.]) 3 (2.5) 5 (1.]) Geomyidae 7 (1.5) Cynomys sp. 8 (I.]) Carnivore ] (5.6) Canis sp. ] (4.8) 2 (100.0) 3 (1.4) Lynx sp. 1 (1Ll) ] (25.0) ] (2.4) Falconiformes ] (4.5) M. Rallopavo 70 (1.7) ]5 (6.]) ]6 (5.6) 50 (10.0) 49 (3.4) Medium Bird 5 (5.5) Large Bird 3 (0.3) 52 (20.4) 1 (0.2)

Direct Evidence for Rodent Consumption As the previous methods are inconclusive to determine if rodents are of cultural or natural origin, alternative lines of evidence are pursued here. As already indicated, many analysts regard small rodents as natural intrusions. Other burrowing animals typically found in archaeofaunas from the Southwest, such as badgers, skunks, beavers, mink, rabbits and muskrats are considered to be the result of human actions (Shaffer] 992a:683). Szuter (199]; ]994) and Speth (2000) used ethnographic, archaeological and ethological data to demonstrate that most rodents such as squirrels were likely consumed. Rodents are attracted to people's gardens (e.g., Pelikan and Nesvadbova ]979) where these animals are easily hunted (Linares ]976; Szuter 199]; ]994). By employing garden hunting, rodents were secure sources of protein. Szuter (1994:60) cites numerous ethnographic examples from the Southwest which show that people ate small rodents (also Speth 2000:]02; Shaffer] 992a:685-686; Steggerda and Eckardt 194] :224). From these ethnographic accounts it is clear that once caught, rodents required little preparation and were easily spitted and roasted with or without skinning. Many of the bones were either consumed or discarded at random (Szuter ]991; 1994:55-60). Szuter (199], 1994:6]) shows that various lines of archaeological evidence can be used to determine if rodents in the Southwest were part of the diet. Human coprolites, context of finds,

60 burning and behaviour studies of animals, coupled with ethnographic data are just some of the ways analysts can determine if small animals such as squirrels were part of the diet (Szuter 1991; 1994:61). Speth (2000:96-97) used, inter alia, dental age structures of prairie dog remains at the Henderson Site in New Mexico to illustrate that these animals were part of the diet of the people who occupied the site. Hoffmeister (1967) reported a sealed cache of shrews from Mug House in Mesa Verde Park which clearly demonstrates small mammal consumption. From these examples it is clear that there is convincing evidence that small rodents were consumed in the Southwest during prehistoric times. I now consider additional lines ofevidence in support of rodent consumption.

Ethological and Live Weight Considerations Ethology and live weights of the common small mammals in the Southwest: cottontails, squirrels, wood rats and pocket gophers show interesting similarities (Table 29). The burrows of these animals are located at varying depths below ground surface. However, if animals were burrowing into deposits, different taxa either would have done so in co-existence with other fossorial taxa, or somehow would have dominated habitation of settlements after they were abandoned. If we consider the first scenario, that different rodent taxa co-existed with one another, we would expect to find different clusters of these animals on the site, or that certain layers of deposits are dominated by a particular taxon. However, many of the small rodents live in colonies, although these vary considerably in size within single taxa. If rodents died naturally in their burrows, we would expect to find clusters of these animals with intact skeletons. This is not the case at Albert Porter Pueblo. Neither Muir (1999) nor Rawlings (2006) reported clusters of rodent bones. Moreover, if these rodents were dragged into burrows by carnivores such as skunks, we would expect to find great numbers of carnivore chew marks on small animals. This is also not the case at Albert Porter Pueblo or sites such as Sand Canyon Pueblo, Woods Canyon, Castle Rock Pueblo, Yellow Jacket Pueblo or Shields Pueblo (summary in Rawlings 2006:90-91). Considering the overlap of live sizes of small rodents with cottontails, there is no reason to believe that these animals were not consumed (Table 29).

61 Table 29. Ethology and Live Weight of Small Animals Taxon Live Weight Group Size or Burrowing Reference Density Habits Desert cottontail 755 - 1250 1.6 - 6.6 per Use pre-existing Chapman and grams hectare burrows of other Willner 1978 animals Gunnison's 650 - 1200 Colonies of 50 - 840- 2030 mm Pizzimenti prairie dog grams 100 individuals and Hoffmann 1973 Rock squirrel 450 - 875 grams 2-13 0.3 - 1 meter, no Oaks et at. individuals per longer than 1.5 1987 hectare meter in length Gopher 27 - 274 grams 6.8 - 50 per acre 30cm Miller 1952; 1964 Wood rat 183 - 250 grams 1 - 12.6 per Use a variety of Macedo and hectare shelters Mares 1988

Digested Bone Some specimens from Albert Porter Pueblo displayed digestive modification (Table 30). These bones were either consumed by humans or camivores. Evidence from other sites in the Southwest suggests that the digested specimens from Albert Porter Pueblo were the result of human consumption. For example, at Dust Devil Cave, located between Navajo Mountain and the San Juan River in Utah dating to between 6800 and 4800 B.C, human coprolites indicate that cottontails were the main source of protein. In addition, an array of small animals such as wood rats, squirrels, pocket gopher and mice were also an important component of the diet, based on both coprolite and discarded faunal remains (Reinhard et at. 2007). Human coprolites at settlements such as Pueblo Alto also contain small rodents (Clary 1987). These examples indicate that human consumption of small animals such as squirrels and rodents dates back to at least Archaic times.

Table 30. Specimens with Digestive Modification at Albert Porter Pueblo Pueblo II Pueblo 111I11 Pueblo III Pueblo III Taxa Kiva Non-Structure Non-Structure Kiva Total Sylvila~us sp. 1 1 2 Lepus sp. 2 I 3 Medium Artiodactyla 1 1 Meleagris gallopavo 2 1 3 Unidentified 3 I 4 Total 1 9 2 1 13

62 Scorched Mandibles and Burning ofSmall Mammals Some small mammal mandibles and maxillas from Albert Porter Pueblo display light brown scorching. The scorching is typically situated on the lateral diastema and tooth rows of mandibles and pre-maxillas. In total, six cottontail mandible display light scorching, one jackrabbit mandible, two lagomorph mandibles and another two lagomorph premaxillas, one ground squirrel mandible, one indeterminate squirrel mandible and two pocket gopher mandibles. The burning of mandibles and maxillas are similar to what Shaffer (1992a) found on gopher mandibles at the NAN Ruin in New Mexico. Other actualistic (e.g., Henshilwood 1997) and archaeological (e.g., Vigne and Marinval-Vigne 1983) studies show that small animals such as rodents were often roasted whole on fires or coals, resulting in this type of burning. This cooking method is supported by ethnographic accounts for the Southwest (e.g., Szuter 1991; 1994). As the thin meat of the lips and cheek are relatively quickly incinerated during roasting, light scorching is left on the mandibles and maxillas. Neither Muir (1999) nor Rawlings (2006) reported scorched mandibles of rodent taxa. However, this form of burning can easily be missed during analysis. Some squirrel post-crania are also burnt at Albert Porter Pueblo. At other sites in the northern San Juan there is evidence that rodent bones are burnt (Rawlings 2006). If rodents were roasted whole over a fire or on coals we might expect the extremities such as phalanges of these taxa to show burning. However, actualistic studies showed that animals smaller than 140 grams are almost entirely lost when a % inch screen are used during excavations. Moreover, using the same screen size, animals weighing 71 to 340 grams are poorly represented after screening, but those weighing between 340 and 3100 grams are represented by almost all skeletal elements except the small foot bones such as phalanges and metacarpals (Shaffer 1992b). Remains from smaller animals such as wood rats are therefore likely under-represented in assemblages, masking the true extent to which small animal bones are burnt. Nonetheless, the presence of scorched rodent mandibles and maxillas are clear indicators that small fossorial taxa were consumed at Albert Porter Pueblo.

Fresh and Sun-Bleached Specimens Only a few specimens from Albert Porter Pueblo are fresh and sun-bleached, suggesting later intrusion (Table 31-32). The results show that the few fresher specimens are from small mammals. This suggests that much of the deposits are intact with relatively little disturbance by burrowing animals, or that intrusive bone quickly became stained the same colour as older specimens. In addition to fresh specimens, only a few from Albert Porter Pueblo are sun-

63 bleached, suggesting that these have been exposed to the natural elements for prolonged periods of time. They may represent later intrusions as they could have been exposed for longer periods of time than the rest of the assemblage. Although the presence of fresh bone in faunal assemblages has not received much attention in the zooarchaeologicalliterature (e.g., Reitz and Wing 1999; but see Badenhorst 2003), it suggests the presence of self-introduced animals (Shaffer and Neely 1992:348). Fresh specimens have not been cooked and hence do not display any evidence of burning or butchering. Moreover, as such specimens from these animals typically die underground their remains are have not been exposed to natural elements and hence appear 'fresh'. Alternatively, other taxa such as carnivores may drag prey animals into burrows to consume these. Neither Muir (1999) nor Rawlings (2006) reported fresh or sun-bleached specimens. Although there are some burrowing activities at Albert Porter Pueblo during my visits in 2006 and 2007, this was not found to be extensive (personal observation).

Table 31. Fresh Specimens at Albert Porter Pueblo Pueblo 111I11 Pueblo III Pueblo III Taxa Non-Structure Non-Structure Kiva SvlvilaRus sp. 1 Geomyidae 4 1 Microtus sp. 1 4 Neotoma sp. 1 1 Peromyscus sp. 5 to 3 Small Rodent 1 6 1 Total 6 22 11

Table 32. Sun-Bleached Specimens at Albert Porter Pueblo Pueblo II Pueblo 111I11 Pueblo Pueblo III Non- Non- 111I11 Non- Pueblo III Taxa Structure Structure kiva Structure kiva Total Lagomorph 1 I Lepus sp. 1 1 2 Odocoileus sp. 1 I Microtus sp. 1 I Medium Artiodactyla 1 I Unidentified 1 I Total I 2 I I 2 7

64 Representation of Skeletal Parts Representation of skeletal parts was calculated for all artiodactyla, cottontails, jackrabbits and turkeys/large birds. For long bones only, these figures were converted to Minimum Number of Elements (MNE) and Minimum Animal Units (MAU) to determine relative contributions. As all elements are represented for all the common taxa, no unusual pattern is discernable (Table 33 35). MNE was also calculated per time period and feature, but as small samples preclude any meaningful patterns, these are not presented here. Artiodactyla limb bone MNE, MAU and %MAU from Albert Porter Pueblo were compared to density values from Brain (1981) and Lyman (1994) (Table 35). Unfortunately, the artiodactyla sample from Albert Porter Pueblo is small, and no unusual pattern is present.

Table 33. MNE's for Albert Porter Pueblo (n/a=not applicable) Artiodactyls Lepus sp. Svlvila '!us sp. MeleaJ!rislLarJ!.e Bird Part NISP MNE NISP MNE NISP MNE NISP MNE Mandible 4 2 37 21 299 159 40 5 Quadrate n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 27 27 Sternum 2 I 4 2 74 2 Furculum n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 45 3 Rib I II 1 I I 227 100 Sternal Rib n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 100 37 Atlas I I 2 2 19 14 I I Axis I 1 3 2 2 2 Cervical I 1 133 104 Thoracic 13 2 5 5 10 3 Lumbar II 2 36 21 89 48 6 2 Sacrum 2 I 6 5 n/a n/a Synsacrum n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 16 3 Pygostyle n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 10 7 Caudal I 1 21 17 Scapula 3 I 57 48 292 215 114 60 Humerus 13 I 68 51 289 144 165 37 Radius 16 3 57 28 166 103 148 34 Ulna 6 2 50 30 164 102 161 20 Carpal 10 9 5 5 II 62 62 Metacarpal 31 31 52 51 99 51 I Coracoid n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 129 58 Wing Phalanx n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 102 98 Innominate 7 3 57 37 420 58 67 34 Femur 10 I 56 25 254 80 80 II Patella 2 2 Tibia 21 5 98 44 347 139 277 90 Fibula 2 2 II 83 31 Astragalus 5 4 19 17 13 12 n/a n/a

65 Calcaneum 2 I 47 36 134 96 n/a n/a Metatarsal 7 4 50 49 170 166 212 74 Tarsal 5 5 10 10 9 9 n/a n/a 1st Phalanx 8 6 11 10 40 40 n/a n/a 2nd Phalanx 19 17 2 2 9 9 n/a n/a 3rd Phalanx 7 4 6 6 n/a n/a Phalanx n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 765 611

Table 34. MNE and MAU for Selected Taxa at Albert Porter Pueblo Artiodactyla MNE MAU %MAU Scapula 1 0.5 20% Humerus I 0.5 20% Radius 3 1.5 60% Ulna 2 I 40% Metacarpal 0 0 0% Innominate 3 1.5 60% Femur I 0.5 20% Tibia 5 2.5 100% Metatarsal 4 2 80% Lepus sP. MNE MAU %MAU Scapula 48 24 94% Humerus 51 25.5 100% Radius 28 14 55% Ulna 30 15 59% Metacarpal 31 3.1 12% Innominate 37 18.5 73% Femur 25 12.5 49% Tibia 44 22 86% Metatarsal 49 4.9 19% Sylvila1!us sp. MNE MAU %MAU Scapula 215 107.5 100% Humerus 144 72 67% Radius 103 51.5 48% Ulna 102 51 47% Metacarpal 51 5.1 5% Innominate 58 29 27% Femur 80 40 37% Tibia 139 69.5 65% Metatarsal 166 16.6 15% MeleaJ!ris/laree bird MNE MAU %MAU Scapula 60 30 67% Humerus 37 18.5 41% Radius 34 17 37% Ulna 20 10 22% Metacarpal 51 25.5 57% Innominate 34 17 37% Femur 11 5.5 12%

66 I-~_i_::-':t-ar-s-a-I------=-~---=-~-+1------~.:..:~-1-----1-~-2-~-1

Table 35. Artiodactyla MNE, MAU and %MAU at Albert Porter Pueblo Based on Brain (1981), Lyman (1994) Element Part MNE MAU %MAU Brain (1981) Lyman (1994) Scapula Glenoid I 0.5 33% High 0.36 Humerus Distal I 0.5 33% High 0.39 Radius Proximal 3 1.5 100% High 0.5 Radius Distal 2 I 66% Intermediate 0.43 Femur Proximal I 0.5 33% Intermediate 0.36 Femur Distal I 0.5 33% Intermediate 0.28 Tibia Proximal 2 I 66% Low 0.3 Tibia Distal ] 0.5 33% High 0.5 Metapodial Proximal 3 1.5 ]00% High 0.5 Metapodial Distal 3 1.5 ]00% High 0.5

Often skeletal part frequencies are generally related to density and, hence preservation, of bone (Dart 1957 pace Brain 1967; 1969; ]981; 2004; Lyman 1994). Faunal analysts have considered bone densities of faunas (e.g., Rawlings 2006: II 0) to distinguish between human behaviour (e.g., differential disposal or transport of animal parts [Perkins and Daly 1968]) and natural attrition rates (densest bones preserve best [Brain 198]]). More recently, the methodological underpinnings and application of bone densities have been questioned. Symmons (2002) argued convincingly that the density of an element or part of an element is highly variable and cannot be predicted with confidence. Therefore, using specific bone density values (e.g., Lyman 1994) do not produce valid comparisons (Symmons 2002:92). In a similar vein, Ioannidou (2003) showed that animal taxa, sex, age, breed, diet and diseases that the animal suffered from all impact on density values, making comparisons ambiguous. Lam et al. (2003) showed that research techniques to determine bone density are inconsistent but also have serious limitations. Others (e.g., Pavao and Stahl 1999) argued that biases are introduced when density values of a particular taxon are simply transferred and compared to other taxa. It is also worth noting that skeletal element counts in any assemblage do not take into account unidentified bone, and is therefore a reflection of identified specimens but not the true skeletal representation in an assemblage (e.g., Badenhorst in preparation). The skeletal parts of artiodactyla, cottontails, jackrabbits and turkeysllarge birds at Albert Porter Pueblo indicate that most elements are represented. In the case of artiodactyls, this suggests that entire skeletons were brought back to the site. This is not particularly unusual as the average deer, the most common artiodactyla in the assemblage, is not heavy and can easily be

67 carried back whole to the settlement. Bison on the other hand, were likely brought back to the settlement in pieces owing to their large size. Driver (1990) argued that all or most of the bison remains found at Puebloan sites west of the Pecos River were brought in from the east or north, probably through trade links or hunting expeditions. This probably applies to the Albert Porter Pueblo bison remains too. Otherwise, no unusual pattern is discernable from the artiodactyla, lagomorph and turkey/large bird skeletal part frequencies.

Summary From the discussion above it is clear that numerous processes contributed to the fragmentation and destruction of the Albert Porter Pueblo assemblage. These include butchering and carnivore damage, burning, rootlet etching and weathering. Previous analyses sought to compare complete versus fragmented bone, spiral fractures, burning and butchering evidence to infer that most rodents were not part of the diet, but are later intrusions. I argued that inferences based on these signatures are problematic and inconclusive. The use of inconclusive taphonomic signatures at other settlements in the northern San Juan resulted in incorrect conclusions. Based on ethological and ethnographic data, scorched mandibles, digested bone, fresh and sun-bleached data, I suggested that most rodents at Albert Porter Pueblo were part of the diet. The analyses from Albert Porter Pueblo supports the conclusions of Shaffer (1992a), Szuter (1991; 1994) and Speth (2000) who postulated that most small animals such as cottontails, squirrels, wood rats and pocket gopher were consumed. No unusual pattern was found for artiodactyla, lagomorph and turkey skeletal part representation.

68 CHAPTER 6 ANIMAL USAGE AT ALBERT PORTER PUEBLO

Introduction Faunal remains from archaeological sites provide information on economic and ritual usage of animals. Hunted and raised animals provided people with meat, fat, prestige, utilitarian and decorative raw materials such as hides as well as products for rituals, ceremonies and feasts (Driver 2000a: lIS). Even though animals played an important role in both economic and ritual aspects in the San Juan Basin, it remains difficult to clearly distinguish between these two activities (cf. Muir and Driver 2004). Furthermore, economic and ritual activities may not have been mutually exclusive during the past (cf. Spradley and McCurdy 1990). In this chapter, I discuss economic and ritual aspects of the taxa identified from the Albert Porter Pueblo assemblage. Although feasting might be considered as a ritual activity, it will be considered in the following chapter which attempts to understand activities associated with the great house.

Economic Uses of Animals at Albert Porter Pueblo Carnivores People of Albert Porter Pueblo would have been in close proximity to wild carnivores. The abundance of rodents in the region probably attracted carnivores such as badgers that feed on squirrels and pocket gophers (Bailey 1971 :345). The small variety of carnivore remains in the Albert Porter Pueblo assemblage indicates that the occupants hunted, trapped or collected bones from carcasses from time to time. It is unlikely that many of these carnivores were eaten, although such a possibility cannot be entirely excluded (Judd 1954). Many of the wild carnivores such as wolf, fox, lynx, badger and weasels may have been sought after for their skins or body parts, which may have had some ritual value. Both black and grizzly bears occurred throughout the Southwest (Hall 1981) but no morphological distinction was possible for specimens at Albert Porter Pueblo. Bears are large and dangerous animals, and the low frequencies in the assemblage suggest that these were not hunted on a regular basis. Ethnographic information shows that bear claws were important ritual paraphernalia (W. W. Hill 1982). Ringtails are not common in the modem-day Southwest. These nocturnal animals are rarely seen today. In more recent times miners tamed them to catch small rodents. However, they also attack poultry whenever they encounter them (Bailey 1971 :346-347). No evidence exists to

69 suggest that the people at Albert Porter Pueblo kept ringtails to control rodent numbers. It may not have been a sensible option, as ringtails would have posed a threat to turkeys at the site. Domestic dogs were kept at Albert Porter Pueblo. Dogs may have assisted in hunts. Most of the carnivore gnaw marks found on specimens from Albert Porter Pueblo were probably caused by domestic dogs, as it is unlikely that a wild carnivore would enter a village on a regular basis to scavenge bones. Lang and Harris (1984:87-88) noted at Arroyo Hondo Pueblo in the Rio Grande that dog remains are relatively uncommon whereas that of turkey common. They suggested that dogs posed a threat to young fowl (Lang and Harris 1984:87-88). This is a plausible explanation for the low incidences of dog remains and the high frequency of turkeys at Albert Porter Pueblo.

Artiodactyla With the possible exception of bison, most of the artiodactyla in the assemblage were likely hunted locally by the inhabitants. Historically, bison does not occur in the Four Comers region. The nearest distribution of bison is on grass plains to the north of the Four Comers region (Hall 1981: 1109; Meagher 1986). The presence of bison suggests some form of interaction between these regions (also see Spielmann 1991). Driver (1990) found that during Pueblo IV times, and probably earlier too, bison were absent west of the Pecos River in New Mexico. Based on this, I suggest that the bison meat at Albert Porter Pueblo may have been traded or obtained from grass plain locations to the north and perhaps those to the east (Driver 1990). As the bison remains at Albert Porter Pueblo consist of only two phalanges, trade or supply in bison meat does not seem to have been a common activity. Pronghorn and bighorn sheep occur in low frequencies in the Albert Porter Pueblo assemblage. Both taxa occur currently in the Four Comers region (Hall 1981). Pronghorn prefers open country and depends on alertness, speed and clear fields for escape. Common hunting methods of pronghorn in the Southwest were by bow and arrow, driving the animals back and forth to exhaustion, or forcing them into narrow spaces from where they could be shot at close range (Bailey 1971). Pronghorn was relatively abundant in New Mexico when early travelers arrived, although no actual herd estimates are available. Since the introduction of firearms, their numbers have dwindled. By 1927, there was an estimated 2950 pronghorn in the state of New Mexico (Bailey 1971 :22-27; Beaglehole 1970). The relatively dense human occupation around Albert Porter Pueblo (Woods Canyon, Bass Site, Goodman Point, Sand Canyon Pueblo, etc) may have precluded grazing of large numbers of these wary antelope in the region.

70 Both bighorn sheep and deer at Albert Porter Pueblo were probably hunted in similar fashion to pronghorn. A thoracic vertebrae specimen of an indeterminate medium artiodactyla from Midden 900 dating to Pueblo Will has a stone tip lodged in the spinous process. It entered the spinous process from the dorsal-lateral side. This specimen provides tangible evidence for projectile hunting of medium-sized artiodactyls. Bighorn sheep have never been common in most of the Southwest as they keep to rocky terrain (Bailey 1971). Their relatively low numbers and agile movements on rocky mountain and canyon slopes probably made hunting of bighorn sheep difficult. Historically, bighorn sheep were often hunted by farmers in the Colorado-San Juan region. However, in places where intensive farming was practiced, such as by the Hopi and Hohokam little effort was made to hunt these animals (Grant 1980:39). Until recently little was known about the abundance of bighorn sheep. They never seem to have been particularly common, and early explorers such as James O. Pattie, Col. W. H. Emory and Lt. J. W. Abert seldom mention bighorn sheep. A reduction in numbers could have been due to factors such as climatic and vegetation changes, or possibly intense hunting during pre-Columbian times (Monson 1980:41). Since the introduction of rifles bighorn sheep populations suffered (Graham 1980). In 1978 there was an estimated 9 800 to II 490 bighorn sheep in the states of Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas and Utah. In the northern sections of Mexico there was an estimated 5560 to 8800 individuals. This provides a total estimate of 15 360 to 20 290 bighorn sheep for the entire northern Mexico and the larger American Southwest in 1978 (Monson 1980:51, also Allen 1980). If bighorn sheep was not common on the landscape, it could be the reason why this animal is not very common in the assemblage from Albert Porter Pueblo. Deer is the most common artiodactyla over much of the San Juan Basin, and it is therefore not surprising that it dominates the small artiodactyla sample at Albert Porter Pueblo. The white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginiana) does not occur in the Four Comers region (Anderson and Wallmo 1984; Hall 1981: 1094; Smith 1991). The deer specimens at Albert Porter Pueblo are probably all mule deer (Odocoileus hemoinus). Although widely distributed, mule deer does not occur in great numbers anywhere in the Southwest. Bertram and Draper (1982: I 028) summarise various sources to show that even in modem protected areas, their numbers remain low. For example, at one ranch of 400 000 acres in Colfax County, New Mexico, protected from predators, the herd never exceeded 4000 animals, representing one mule deer per 100 acres. Government esti mates for New Mexico in 1967 placed mule-deer populations at 300 000, representing one individual per 300 acres (see Bertram and

71 Draper 1982: 1028). Mule deer densities vary considerably depending on vegetation. A study of mule deer in Mesa Verde National Park revealed that in 1967 the population density was high with approximately 30 mule deer per square kilometer in the mountain brush vegetation, 20 per square kilometer in the sagebrush-grass zone and five per square kilometer in the pinyon-juniper stand. At the time, the total mule deer population was about 4500 animals in Mesa Verde National Park. In 1968 the population dropped to 3500, and by 1969, only 2500 remained. By 1976, mule deer numbers declined to only one-fourth compared to 1967 (Mierau and Schmidt 1981 :xv). The significant decline of mule deer numbers in Mesa Verde National Park was the result of previous increased mule deer populations to unprecedented levels over many years. At the same time, the predator populations (such as bobcat and mountain lion) also increased accordingly. These predators did not exert an appreciable impact on mule deer populations, until, relatively suddenly, the mule deer population declined as a result of range over-utilisation. In this time, called the 'predator-lag period', predator populations existed in a state of relative overabundance and further depressed the already declining mule deer population by taking a greater than usual proportion of fawns (Mierau and Schmidt 1981 :48). This cycle may have occurred in prehistoric times as well, but faunal studies cannot necessarily detect this. The low number of deer and other artiodactyls in the Albert Porter Pueblo assemblage likely reflects the general natural low numbers of these taxa in the Southwest. However, the overall decline of deer from earlier to later time periods at Albert Porter Pueblo, when compared to cooking vessel weights, is probably the result of resource depression, an issue discussed later.

Intensive Hunting ofArtiodactyla and Seasonality Artiodactyla mortality profiles can provide evidence for hunting pressure. In general, adult individuals yield more fat and greater meat returns compared to immature animals. When hunted individually, prime-aged individuals should be highly ranked and preferentially selected during most seasons. Under low hunting pressure conditions, adult artiodactyls tend to dominate herds. The proportion of immature animals increases as hunting pressure increases. This is because hunting pressure affects prey demographic profiles, by increasing mortality rates of a given prey population. When prey mortality rises to exceed annual recruitment, the prey population destabilizes, falls below carrying capacity and enters a prolonged period of population growth until numbers return to those of natural carrying capacity. Growing prey populations contain high proportions of immature animals due to increased rates of population turnover (see summaries in Elder 1965; Munro 2004:8; Stiner 1994).

72 Based on long bone fusion, the majority of artiodactyls at Albert Porter Pueblo are adults (Table 36). However, when elements that fuse late in life (the proximal humerus; distal radius; proximal and distal femur; and proximal tibia [Rawlings 2006:114]) are considered, only three specimens out of 18 (17%) are from adults. Immature animals are therefore more common than adult ones. Rawlings (2006: 114) found a similar pattern at Shields Pueblo where immature artiodactyls predominate. The evidence for intense hunting of artiodactyls at both Albert Porter Pueblo and Shields Pueblo during Pueblo II and III, based on the high proportions of immature artiodactyls, provide support for Driver's (2002a) argument for resource depression in the northern San Juan Basin. Only limited evidence was found at Albert Porter Pueblo for seasonal hunting. The neonate artiodactyla specimens suggest that these were hunted in spring months (e.g., O'Gara ]978; Hass ]997). Game could have been hunted during other times of the year too.

Table 36. Artiodactyla Long Bone Aging at Albert Porter Pueblo Artiodactyls Skeletal Part Neonate Unfused Just Fused Fused Humerus Proximal 3 Humerus Distal 3 ] Radius Proximal 2 7 Radius Distal 3 ] ] ] Ulna Proximal I 2 Ulna Distal I I Femur Proximal 2 I Femur Distal 2 I Tibia Proximal I I I Tibia Distal I 2 6 Metatarsal Proximal I 5 Metatarsal Distal I Metapodial Proximal 4 Metapodial Distal 2 5 10 I st Phalanx Proximal 4 I st Phalanx Distal 4 2nd Phalanx Proximal 18 2nd Phalanx Distal 18 Total 23 10 2 88 % 19% 8% 2% 71%

Rodents and Rabbits In the previous chapter it was argued that most of the squirrels, wood rats, pocket gophers and even smaller rodents such as mice and voles present in the Albert Porter Pueblo assemblage

73 were part of the diet, and not natural intrusions. Only those specimens with sun-bleaching or that are fresher than the rest of the sample are considered natural intrusions. Bradfield (1971 :75-77) mentioned that rodent taxa occur in the immediate vicinity of modem Hopi fields and villages. These rodents are more or less symbiotic with the Hopi and their crops. Many of the rodent taxa cause great damage to crops, and it is likely that people's crops at Albert Porter Pueblo faced a similar threat from rodents. Large rodent taxa are also present in the Albert Porter Pueblo assemblage. Beavers were obtained from rivers in the vicinity of Albert Porter Pueblo. Porcupine may have been sought after not only for its meat, but also the quills that make useful embroidery tools (W. W. Hill ]982:106). Cottontails dominate many Puebloan faunal samples in the San Juan Basin. Jackrabbits are also often well represented (e.g., Driver 2002a; Lang and Harris] 984; Muir 1999; Rawlings 2006; Szuter ]99]). Rabbits were probably not only taken when encountered by solitary hunters, but also during communal drives. During drives, they are flushed from their burrows and killed with clubs and throwing sticks (e.g., Beaglehole ]970:11-12). The low number ofjackrabbit specimens compared to cottontails may be the result of local environmental conditions at the site. Cottontails thrive in a wide variety of environments including rock ledges, grasslands and canyon environments. Cottontails are easily taken by single hunters or groups. They hide in thickets, or run into burrows to hide (Bertram and Draper 1982: I 025-] 026). Jackrabbits in contrast, prefer open country typical of grass habitats on mesa tops and in wide valleys. They don't seek thicket-cover when stalked, but lie still only to burst into a high-speed flight. They also reproduce more slowly than cottontails and therefore might take longer to recover from intensive hunting (Bertram and Draper 1982:] 026-1027). Much of the areas around Albert Porter Pueblo today are agricultural land, although sagebrush grows on the site where limited modem disturbances occurred. It is probable that much of the surrounding area was covered in sagebrush during the occupation of Albert Porter Pueblo, which would favour cottontails.

Reptiles The snake found at Albert Porter Pueblo is from a small taxon. Snakes have ritual significance for many of the people from the Southwest (e.g., Beidleman ]956a:] I; Bourke 1984; Tyler] 975:20]). The snake remains from Albert Porter may well have been used primarily for ritual purposes.

74 Fish A single fish opercle resembles the Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius) skeleton in the Simon Fraser University collection, although a positive identification was not possible. Fish are not intensely used by recent people of the San Juan Basin, despite being abundant in rivers. This may be a reflection of the semi-arid environment (Beidleman 1956a: 10-1]). In the modem Rio Grande however, fishing is of much greater importance such as at Santa Clara Pueblo (W. W. Hill 1982:59-6]). The limited number of fish remains from Albert Porter Pueblo suggests that limited fishing was practised from time to time.

Birds A large variety of bird taxa are present in the Albert Porter Pueblo assemblage. These include sage grouse, turkey, indeterminate grouse, common flicker, owl, mourning dove, sandhill crane, sandpiper, Swainson's hawk, indeterminate hawk, indeterminate falcons, perching bird, jay/crow, magpie and thrushes/robin. Turkeys will be considered separately. The variety of large birds is represented by a limited number of bones only. This suggests that these wild birds were not hunted regularly. Many taxa such as the small birds may have been eaten (Clary] 987) and provided ritual paraphernalia such as feathers (e.g., Schroeder 1968). Many bird taxa such as grouse and birds of prey would have been attracted to fields in search of plants, insects and small animals where they could have been hunted with ease.

Turkeys Ethnographies from the American Southwest indicate that turkeys were important sources of meat, eggs and feathers. Beidleman (1956b:22-23) cites ethnographic information from the Southwest that indicates some groups such as the Tewa used turkeys as a food source, although they were also used extensively for ceremonial purposes. The Hopi on the other hand, mainly keep turkeys for their feathers and eggs. The turkeys from Albert Porter Pueblo may have been kept for their meat, eggs and/or feathers. However, it is noteworthy that no turkey burials were found at Albert Porter Pueblo, whereas Rawlings (2006: 125) reported five (possible) turkey burials from Shields Pueblo dating from the early part of Pueblo II from a single structure. This may suggest that the role of turkeys varied between settlements and even over time. Beacham and Durand (2007) illustrated, through a study of egg shells, deliberate turkey raising at Salmon Ruin only after A.D. 1100, despite being present during earlier times at the site. The status of wild and domestic turkeys in the Southwest is an issue that is still not well understood (cf., Munro] 994). Questions relate to the number of turkey breeds or subspecies

75 present during prehistoric times, the taxonomic status of these breeds and/or subspecies, morphological distinctions between these breeds/subspecies, the domestication process of turkeys and the rearing practices of Ancestral Puebloans. A consideration of the various issues is presented here. Some of the most influential research was done by McKusick ( 1980), who built on previous research on turkey breeds/subspecies (e.g., Reed 1951; Schorger 1970). McKusick (1980) recognised three breeds/subspecies of turkeys in the Southwest, none of which were native to the region, but all of whose origins (supposedly) lie in Mesoamerica and the eastern United States. First, the small Indian domestic turkey (Meleagris gallopavo tularosa) that first appeared in the Mogollon Culture area of west central New Mexico between about 300 and 150 B.C. It is now extinct, and derived from tropical stock further south. Second, the large Indian domestic turkey (Meleagris gallopavo merriami) of the Anasazi Culture area of northeastern Arizona appeared around A.D. 400 and is associated with farming communities. McKusick believes that it arrived from the eastern United States. It is also extinct now. Third, Merriam's wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo merriami) existed as a feral form of the large Indian turkey from as early as A.D. 500 (McKusick 1980:225). Not everyone agrees with a Mesoamerican source of origin for turkeys in the Southwest, especially in light of no archaeological evidence to support this claim. Some researchers such as E. Breitburg (cited in Munro 1994:38-39) contend that the turkeys from Southwestern archaeological contexts were locally domesticated from wild turkey populations. As yet, this issue has not been resolved. However, it is noteworthy that no turkey remains have been found from Archaic sites in the Southwest. Turkey remains appear during Basketmaker II times shortly after maize was introduced from Mexico (e.g., Kantner 2004). This suggests that McKusick's (1980) proposition that turkeys were obtained from elsewhere (although the exact origin is an unresolved matter) seems plausible. McKusick (1980; 1986) used osteological features on turkey bones from archaeological sites to recognise the three breeds/subspecies. However, McKusick's (1986) basic premise of a domesticated turkey that differs morphologically from wild turkeys in the Southwest is questionable. The domestication of animals can lead to various changes that distinguish them from their wild progenitors. Changes in mammals include variation in hair cover and the appearance of lop ears. Bone analysts typically consider morphological changes such as a reduction or increase in size, crowding of teeth and changes in harvesting profiles. Although size changes have been cited as evidence for domestication, these may also be related to sex, environmental factors, climate and age for example (Zeder 2006: I09).

76 Taming often led to domestication. However, there are no morphological differences between tamed and wild animals as taming essentially is the control over the movement of captured wild animal by humans (Reitz and Wing 1999:289). In domestic animals, breeds are most often not distinguishable from skeletal elements except some domestic ungulate skulls such as cattle (Badenhorst and Plug 2003). Henderson and Harrington (1914:35) also questioned whether turkeys in the Southwest are truly domesticated, despite being kept in settlements. Subsequent research confirmed the lack of any osteological differences on prehistoric turkeys in the Southwest. Munro (1994) studied bone remains from Sand Canyon Pueblo and found no osteological indications to suggest whether turkeys were wild or domesticated. Senior and Pierce (1989), Munro (1994) and Breitburg (1988 cited in Munro 1994) challenged the existence of the two varieties, arguing that environmental factors such as a lack of water, isolation, sex and natural morphological fluctuations within turkey populations resulted in the variations. Another aspect that has not been considered previously is deliberate selection for particular features such as breeding capabilities, feather quality and meat weight, that may have resulted in size changes. If feral populations were established in regions of the San Juan Basin from domesticated flocks brought from elsewhere, it would have been relatively easy to replenish diminishing flocks in villages from time to time if necessary, or to tame these birds. Caton (1877) reared wild turkeys by obtaining unhatched eggs of wild turkeys and raising these under a common hen. He (1877:321) noted that the young turkeys raised in this manner in close proximity to humans became very tame. Bachman (1839:207-208) also noted the ease of taming wild turkeys. Caton (1877:322-323) also noted the effects of taming wild turkeys, which was at the time of his reporting in its II th generation. Although the legs became somewhat shorter and the body more robust, the greatest change was in feather-colours that altered as the bird aged. These changes were evident within two or three generations. Behavioural changes include less inclination to flee to higher elevations, and its declining suspicious timidity. Turkey tarsometatarsi from Albert Porter Pueblo show that from Pueblo II to III times both toms and hens are represented in almost equal numbers (Table 37), suggesting little or no flock management or selection. Munro (1994:147) found a similar pattern in that toms and hens were present at Sand Canyon in about equal numbers. A project of sexing turkey bone ends is underway (Badenhorst and Driver unpublished data) and should shed light on potential changing flock structures, and potentially, domestication.

77 Table 37. Turkey Toms and Hens Based on Tarsometatarsi at Albert Porter Pueblo Period Toms Hens Pueblo II 3 5 Pueblo IIIIII 5 3 Pueblo III 24 29 Total 32 37

During Puebloan times, turkeys at Albert Porter Pueblo may have been tamed or domesticated varieties. Kept turkeys probably became feral at times, and in tum, were attracted to settlements and fields for food where they were caught or their eggs harvested and raised at times. No evidence was found at Albert Porter Pueblo to suggest that turkeys were kept in enclosures, although the presence of egg shells suggests that in both Pueblo II and III times, turkeys were raised at the site.

Turkey Flock Sizes Stable isotope analyses of turkey specimens at Shields Pueblo indicate that turkeys subsisted almost entirely on maize, and not local C3 plants suggesting that turkeys were raised on surplus maize (Rawlings 2006: 166-167). This poses an interesting question: were large turkey flocks attainable in an arid environment, considering ever increasing populations and the labour input in dryland farming? The question of turkey flock sizes during Puebloan times poses interesting challenges. Faunal studies in the northern San Juan Basin found that turkeys are often present in great numbers based on specimen counts (e.g., Driver 2002a). For example, at Albert Porter Pueblo a total of 2710 turkey and indeterminate large specimens were found in the Pueblo III deposits alone, spanning almost 200 years. At Sand Canyon Pueblo, Muir (1999:48) found 3408 turkey and indeterminate large bird specimens and at Shields Pueblo 5219 turkey and indeterminate large bird specimens were present (Rawlings 2006:87). Lyle (2004) attempted to answer the question of turkey flock sizes at Sand Canyon Pueblo. She postulated various scenarios using different numbers of turkeys butchered per kiva household per year, taking number of eggs laid per year, actual hatchlings, flock management, turkey population growth and replacement, feeding and mortality rate into account. Her calculations are based on the assumption that the village took a deliberate decision to raise enough turkeys to sustain the village (which may not necessarily be justified considering a nearly exclusive plant diet for humans [e.g., Driver 2000a]). Lyle (2004) concluded that, based on energy input into maize production, raising, rearing and feeding a flock of about 100 turkeys

78 would have been sustainable. However, she points out that the amount of maize necessary to feed such a flock amounts to a surplus of over 4000 kilograms per year (Lyle 2004). One possible way to consider domestic turkey flocks sizes, is to look at wild and domestic flock sizes based on eye-witness accounts, although such information is difficult to obtain in the San Juan Basin. Eye-witness accounts from the late] 500s indicate that turkeys were raised in some numbers at the southernmost pueblos along the Rio Grande. Most accounts gave no firm numbers but only descriptions ranging from 'large numbers', 'many' to 'few' (Brugge ]995:23-24). One source mentions that every 'Indian' had a corral with] 00 turkeys. This probably referred to a household head and not every single person (Brugge ]995:23; Hammond and Rey ]966:83). Such a figure should not be seen as an absolute value, but represent only a crude estimate made by explorers. However, we don't know if these turkeys in the Rio Grande were raised mostly on maize, as was the case at Shields Pueb]o (Rawlings 2006). Wild/feral turkeys often live in small flocks, but these may vary with seasons and breeding status. Henderson and Harrington (19] 4:35) saw a flock of about 30 turkeys at Valle Grande in northern New Mexico. Murie (1946:329-330) saw four flocks totaling 80 birds in the San Carlos Reservation in southeastern Arizona, of which the largest flock numbered about 35 Merriam's turkeys. In another case five flocks together contained more than] 00 turkeys (Murie ]946:329-330). To infer prehistoric turkey flock size from bone remains is not an easy task. Minimum Number of Individual calculations do not provide an actual number, and are plagued with numerous limitations and ambiguous, unjustified assumptions (see Faunal Methodology chapter). Therefore, other approaches must be sought. One way to approach the problem is to use human protein requirements, population size of Albert Porter Pueblo, and turkey meat weight to determine an admittedly crude estimation of turkey flock sizes. The following estimations are by no means meant to be taken as accurate reflections of turkey flock sizes during Pueblo III at Albert Porter Pueblo, but merely as a general attempt to understand maize surplus production. The various assumption and parameters used for the estimation are discussed below. Only Pueblo III samples from Albert Porter Pueblo will be considered here, because prior to this time the sample of turkey remains is small. By Pueblo III, turkeys dominate the faunal assemblage.

Albert Porter Pueblo Population Estimates (Pueblo Ill) No human population estimation has been completed as yet for Albert Porter Pueblo. This is in part due to the question of whether or not the great house actually housed inhabitants. A total of 20 kivas date from Pueblo III, including those associated with the great house feature. The

79 total number of kivas found in Prudden Units, excluding those associated with the great house feature, is only seven. Both sets of data are used to calculate population estimates for Albert Porter Pueblo. According to Lightfoot (1994: 148) households consisted of between five and eight people. If it is assumed here that each household is associated with a kiva, a minimum of 35 and a maximum of 160 people can be postulated (Table 38).

Protein Requirements The daily requirement of humans is not easy to estimate, as it is influenced and determined by factors such as sex and age (Dennell 1979; Wing and Brown 1979). Protein is not only extracted from animal meat. Plants such as maize and beans are also a major source of protein (e.g., Santley and Rose 1979). A broad lower and upper limit of daily protein requirements are presented in Table 38 assuming that all the daily protein requirements came from turkey meat. That prehistoric people consciously sought to uphold a daily protein intake to maintain a nutritious dietary equilibrium is not justified. In fact, Kantner (2004a:203) summarises human skeletal data that show people in the Mesa Verde region suffered from poor health, the result of poor diets and diseases. Nonetheless, it is assumed here that people had a daily protein intake from meat.

Turkey Meat Estimates Calculating turkey meat estimates is highly problematic. There are various factors such as sex, age, season, health and diet that determinate the meat weight of animal taxa (e.g., Badenhorst and Parsons in press; Stewart and Stahl 1977). Usage and application of meat weights has long been controversial in faunal studies (see Lyman 1979). White's (1953:398) estimate of available meat for wild turkey, 3.9 kilograms, is used here (Table 38). The number of turkeys required per annum was calculated assuming that all the meat available for the inhabitants of Albert Porter Pueblo came from turkeys.

80 Table 38. General Parameters to Calculate Turkey Flock Size at Albert Porter Pueblo Parameter Low (Minimum) High Notes and References (Maximum) a) Number of Kivas 7 (excl. great 20 (all) Albert Porter Pueblo house) Excavations Chapter b) Household Size 5 8 Lightfoot 1994 (Individuals) c) Population Estimate 35 160 Estimate =(a) x (b) (Individuals) d) Estimated Human Daily 40 grams 90 grams Dennell 1979: 125 Protein Requirements per Capita e) Daily Protein Requirements 1400 grams 14400 grams Estimate =(c) x (d) for People at Albert Porter Pueblo t) Annual Protein 511 000 grams 5 256 000 grams Estimate =(e) x 365 Requirements (511 kilograms) (5256 kilograms) g) Usable Turkey Meat 3.9 kilograms 3.9 kilograms White 1953:398 h) Number of Turkeys 131 1348 Estimate =(t) / (g) Required per Annum to Supply Daily Protein Requirements i) % of NISP Turkey and 45.9% 45.9% Table 7 Large Bird for Pueblo III j) Annual Number of Turkeys 61 619 Estimate = Required per Annum to [(t) / (g)] x Account for 45.9% NISP [(i) / (100)]

Flock Sizes From the two admittedly general scenarios proposed in Table 38, between 61 and 619 turkeys are required per annum at Albert Porter Pueblo during Pueblo III times. This is based on assumptions ofdaily protein requirements per person, estimated population size and usable meat per turkey individual. A turkey hen lays between 20 and 30 eggs each year in April-May ('improved' domestic turkeys lay eggs throughout the year). Not all eggs will hatch however, and, on average, between eight and 16 poults are produced per hen per annum (Munro 1994:32 33). To simplify calculations, and account for factors such as different mortality rates due to different environmental conditions, protection from predators and exposure to natural elements (e.g., Keegan and Crawford 1999; Newman 1945), an average of 10 hatchlings are used here following Lyle (2004). It is assumed here that 10 hatchlings per hen will reach adulthood. Therefore, if a single hen produces 10 hatchlings per annum, a minimum of seven hens would be required to produce the lowest projected number of turkeys, 61, in the Pueblo III sample of Albert Porter Pueblo in a single year. Similarly, a minimum of 62 hens would be required to produce the 619 turkeys in the maximum scenario presented in Table 38.

81 Surplus Maize Rawlings (2006: 166-167) found that turkeys from Shields Pueblo subsisted almost entirely on maize. It is assumed here that the turkeys from Albert Porter Pueblo were almost exclusively raised on maize. This raises the question as to how much surplus maize was required to raise flocks. Estimating daily maize intake by turkeys is not without limitations. Food intake of turkeys is determined by factors such as animal age, sex, season, climate and moisture content of food (e.g., Lyle 2004; Gabrey et al. 1993; Rumble and Anderson 1996). Schorger (1966 cited in Munro 1994:32) states that an average adult turkey eats 250 grams of food per day. Lyle (2004) placed it at 226.8 grams (8 oz.) of food per day. Table 39 considers some possible scenarios.

Table 39. Maize Requirements for Turkeys at Albert Porter Pueblo Parameter Low High Notes and References (Minimum) (Maximum) a) Annual Number of Turkeys 61 619 Table 38 Required per Annum b) Daily Food Intake for an 226.8 grams 250 grams Lyle 2004; Schorger 1966 Individual Turkey cited in Munro 1994:32 c) Annual Food Intake per 82782 grams 91250 grams Estimate =(b) x 365 Individual Turkey (82.782 (91.25 kilograms) kilograms) d) Annual Amount of Maize 5049.70 56483.75 Estimate =(a) x (c) Required to Feed Turkeys kilograms kilograms

From Table 39 it is clear that, in order to raise a single turkey on maize exclusively, it would require between 82 and 91 kilograms of maize per turkey head per year. A single turkey, therefore, fed only on maize 'costs' 82 to 91 kilograms of maize per year. Using the general projections of minimum flock sizes from Albert Porter Pueblo, between 5049 and 56 483 kilograms of surplus maize was required per annum to feed turkeys. Based on research from the Eastern Woodlands, Schroeder (1999) estimated that about 627 kilograms of maize was produced during prehistoric times from a single hectare, although yields can be as high as 1185 kilograms of maize per hectare. The average size of gardens from ethnographic accounts for families without plow technology was only 0.24 hectares (or 2400 square meters, or about 50 meters by 50 meters) (Schroeder 1999). Forde (1931 :390) noted that the average size of a maize field among the Hopi, was one acre (or 0.4 hectares). Moreover, each family attempted to keep at least a year's supply of maize in reserve in case of droughts, wind or pests that can destroy an entire crop (Forde 1931 :393). Notwithstanding differences in factors such as location, environments, rainfall maize varieties, cropping techniques and local productivity between the Eastern Woodlands and

82 the northern San Juan Basin, the data presented by Schroeder (1999) can serve as some basic and crude parameters (Table 40).

Table 40. Maize Yield and Turkey Flock Sizes Parameter Low High Notes and References (Minimum) (Maximum) a) Maize Yield Per Hectare 627 1185 Schroeder 1999 kilograms kilograms b) Annual Food Intake per 82.782 91.25 Table 39 Individual Turkey kilograms kilograms c) Amount of Turkeys that can 8 13 Estimate =(a) / (b) be Fed from a Single Hectare of Maize Per Annum

Table 40 highlights a serious concern regarding our current understanding of turkey flock sizes in the northern San Juan Basin. From Table 40 it is clear that a full yield of maize from a single hectare of cultivated land can sustain between eight and 13 turkeys for a year, assuming the turkeys were fed exclusively on maize and that the turkeys consumed all the maize from the hectare of land. However, there is a great discrepancy between the large number of turkey specimens from Albert Porter Pueblo, the crude protein requirement calculations and the estimated amount of maize required on the one hand, and the annual yields of maize per hectare on the other. J. C. Driver (personal communication) proposed that turkey may have been feeding on human fecal matter containing undigested maize. This proposal is supported by human coprolite studies that show maize is the most common plant remains in Basketmaker III to Pueblo III sites in the Four Comers area (Minnis 1989). This hypothesis implies that less surplus maize had to be produced to feed turkeys. Alternatively, much of the surplus maize could have included spoiled maize (Bertram and Draper 1982: 1030). Communal fields with pooled labour for communally owned turkeys could have augmented surplus maize during prehistoric times. Another possibility is that they were fed old, stored maize. They could also have been fed 'leftovers.' Caton (1877:327) raised wild turkeys and remarks that especially in spring, the tamed wild turkeys were less interested in maize, but preferred the fresh wild vegetation shoots and appearing insects. They roamed freely at other times and returned by themselves to be fed on maize (Caton 1877:327). To feed turkeys almost exclusively on maize, they have had to be prevented from eating other food stuffs (e.g., wild plants, invertebrates and small vertebrates). An important point to consider is that the isotope studies such as Rawlings' (2006: 166 167) for turkeys are not without pitfalls. Gannes et al. (1997: 1272) summarises some of the most

83 severe limitations of isotope studies to infer animal diets. Isotope studies rest on the assumption that the isotopic composition of animal remains equals the weight average of the isotopic composition of the constituents of its diet. Gannes et al. (1997: 1272) is of the opinion that this assumption is rarely valid, based on three important considerations. These are: animals assimilate dietary components with varying efficiency; animal tissue alters isotopic ratios in their diets; and animals allocate nutrients from their diets differently to specific tissues (see review and discussion by Gannes et al. 1997). Isotope, coprolite, midden analyses and settlement layout of sites suggests that at least for the last 2000 years people in southern Utah were dependent almost entirely on maize (e.g., Matson and Chrisholm 1991). If maize and beans provided the bulk of protein requirements, then animal protein intake may have been low. In such a case, relatively small turkey flocks could have been fed on maize, in addition to scavenging human fecal matter for undigested maize. In addition, pooled labour on communal fields could have been an alternative strategy to feed turkeys. To conclude, crude estimates of turkey flock sizes during Pueblo III times at Albert Porter Pueblo indicate that between 61 and 619 turkeys were consumed. Rawlings (2006) suggested that the turkeys from Shields Pueblo were raised almost exclusively on maize. Considering the amount of surplus maize required to feed them and human reliance on maize, suggests that turkey flocks may not have been particularly large. On the other hand, the possibility of turkeys scavenging undigested human fecal matter for maize and communally kept turkey flocks at sites which could be fed from communally worked fields, turkey flocks may have been relatively large.

Ritual Fauna (Excluding Feasting) Ritual and religion are broad anthropological concepts, but essentially encompass institutionalised expressions of the belief in, worship of, and obedience to (a) supernatural power(s) (e.g., Barfield 1999). Most belief-systems worldwide involve people with special knowledge who control supernatural power, or facilitate others' attempts to influence power. This includes shamans and priests who are religious specialists. Shamans control esoteric knowledge and may have personal relations with spirits. Shamans are often associated with curing practices. Priests on the other hand act as mediators between the supernatural and the people. They have no control over divine power, but lead religious activities (Spradley and McCurdy 1990:361). Knowledge of rituals gives power to individuals or groups. As a result, such people were desired additions to communities. As this knowledge was lodged in individuals or groups, it was often

84 necessary to draw these individuals to communities which required their guidance where rituals could be performed (Stuart 2000: 183). Ceremonial knowledge may provide an important basis for leadership in many small scale societies. Ritual knowledge can playa central role in determining positions of social status and power. Although archaeologists have highlighted economical variables to explain the origins of social differentiation (Hayden 1990), under certain conditions the control over esoteric ritual knowledge may be as or more important in the creation of social hierarchies (Potter 2000a:296). Religion often provides the means through a set of transcendent values to override inter-group differences and to unify the group (Spradley and McCurdy 1990:360). The intrinsic nature of rituals makes it an effective source of social power. Rituals are a mode of social communication that creates authority, a context for the construction and embodiment of symbolic meanings, and a valued resource whose access can be controlled and manipulated (Potter 2000a:297-30l).

The Zooarchaeology ofRitual Archaeologists often encounter material remains which served a ritual purpose. Muir and Driver (2004) distinguish between 'common refuse', 'ritual interment' and 'ritual refuse'. Common refuse includes deposits of animal remains discarded as part of daily subsistence activities. These deposits are often intermixed with other discarded domestic refuse such as fragments of broken ceramics and exhausted stone tools. The second, ritual interment includes animal deposits that are the direct result of intentional ritualised human activities such as deliberate disposal of animals. Discrete burials, often with grave goods, or animals placed in specific location fall under this category (Muir and Driver 2004). The turkey burials found at Shields Pueblo (Rawlings 2006) serve as a good example of ritual interment. Ritual refuse consists of deposits that include abandoned, lost, or informally discarded animal remains that were procured in ritual contexts or used for ritual purposes (Muir and Driver 2004). The distinction between ritual and common refuse may not be easy to observe archaeologically. To attempt to distinguish between common and ritual refuse may be easier in some cases (e.g., squirrels as common refuse), but in others cases animals may have served both an economic and ritual function, blurring clear cut distinctions between common and ritual refuse (e.g., turkeys). Moreover, we do not know whether prehistoric people distinguished as clearly between economic and ritual animals. Zooarchaeologists use a number of ways to recognise ritual behaviour from often fragmented specimens. These include: the presence or absence of certain taxa including 'unusual' taxa and non-local ones; unusual quantities of fauna or overabundance of skeletal parts within a

85 site or region; taphonomic information such as butchering marks and burning; and the location of deposits such as burials (Muir 1999; Muir and Driver 2004; Roler 1999:21-22). Other lines of archaeological evidence, such as rock art, artefacts, architecture, ceramics and mortuary remains are also useful (Hill 2000:362; Potter 1997). Careful application ofethnographic information can also shed light on ritual uses of animals (Muir and Driver 2004). Despite these seemingly unambiguous signatures of ritual taxa and bone remains, many limitations complicate zooarchaeological inferences of ritual, apart from first and second order changes (Reitz and Wing 1999). In many societies, there is no clear distinction between the supernatural and the natural world (Spradley and McCurdy 1990:359) thus blending these two worlds into one. The ritual importance of objects or animals may vary across time and space. Problems and limitations of ethnographic analogues aside (Stiles 1977) there is ample evidence for the consumption of 'unusual' animal taxa such as carnivores in many parts of the world (e.g., Brain 1981; Judd 1954). Most often archaeologists assume that 'unusual' taxa such as carnivores and birds of prey were ritually used and not part of the diet. Moreover, recognising ritually significant animals are often problematic in cases where there is little or no overt economic differentiation (Potter 2000a:3l 0) compared to highly stratified societies (Crabtree 1990; Driver 1997). Similarly, an apparent absence of clear archaeological ritual behaviour cannot necessarily be taken as evidence for its absence. As Muir and Driver (2004) correctly remarked, ritually utilised animals may not have been distinctly deposited from daily trash since ritual and domestic activities may not have been mutually exclusive. A common problem in zooarchaeology remains that of equifinality where different processes may produce similar assemblages (Driver 1997:82). For example, in recent times, horse carcasses are often buried for sanitary reasons which mimic burial practices such the turkey burials found at Shields Pueblo. In another example, Rawlings (2006) could not establish beyond any doubt that the five turkey skeletons at Shields Pueblo were actually burials. However, the context, a structure in this case, suggests that these do in fact represent ritual burials (Rawlings 2006).

Ritual Animals in the Southwest Ritual animals in the Southwest are defined on ethnographic evidence (e.g., Gnabasik 1981) and special contexts such as animal burials (e.g., Judd 1964). It is also likely that once animals served a ritual purpose, they were discarded informally at settlements (Muir and Driver 2004). The following review is not exhaustive, but nonetheless highlights some general trends. It is possible that the ritual significance of animals from ethnographic accounts date to prehistoric times. Carnivore taxa are relatively common in faunal assemblages from the Southwest, although

86 they are never present in great numbers (Driver 2002a). Common taxa include bears, domestic dogs, wolf, fox, bobcat, mountain lion, badgers, weasels and others. Although carnivores may have been eaten, they were probably harvested for their pelts and for ritual activities, as suggested by ethnographic accounts (Akins 1985:343-356; Hill 2000:379-388). Dogs, including puppies, were often interred in groups which are interpreted as dedicated offerings or that all died simultaneously. Often these burials are discretely located in various places at sites such as pit structures and kivas (Hill 2000:389). Muir (1999) found concentrations of bobcat and raptors associated with architectural blocks that have towers. He interprets these as war or hunting society houses or offices. Clearly, carnivores were of some ritual significance in the recent and prehistoric past of the San Juan Basin. The presence of large game animals in assemblages from the San Juan Basin have long been interpreted as food refuse. More recently however, faunal analysts emphasized the ritual and symbolic aspects of artiodactyla bones based on their depositional contexts (e.g., Driver 1996; Muir 1999). In lowland Hohokam sites large mammal remains are generally scarce, and ritual deposition may account for a large portion of the total artiodactyls in the assemblage. Mandibles, antler, racks and clusters of pelvises have been found on floor structures of Hohokam sites and Mogollon roomblocks (Szuter and Gillespie 1994:72-73). At Sand Canyon, Muir (1999) found artiodactyla remains associated with tower features that may represent hunting societies. Ethnographic accounts confirm the ritual significance of artiodactyls in the Southwest (e.g., Tyler 1964; 1975). Lagomorphs dominate many faunal samples from the Southwest such as on the Colorado Plateau, the Sonoran Desert, Tonto Basin and the Mimbres Valley (e.g., Driver 2002a; Dean 2007; Szuter and Gillespie 1994:68). Lagomorphs were a more important source of protein than deer in the prehistoric Southwest (Szuter and Gillespie 1994:68). The abundance ofjackrabbits in some assemblages from the San Juan Basin have been interpreted as evidence of communal hunts for community feasts based on ethnographic data (Potter 1997). Birds such as hawks, eagles, falcons, owls, turkeys, parrots and macaws represent sacrifices as these were often ritually dispatched. Discrete burials containing such taxa are often considered as good indicators of ritual behaviour. The feathers of these taxa were probably utilised for ritual paraphernalia such as dance costumes (Akins 1985:384; Cordell 1997:49; Creel and McKusick 1994; Hill 2000; Schroeder 1968). Turkeys increased in use from Basketmaker III to Pueblo III times in the San Juan Basin (Akins 1985:403, Driver 2002a). The increase of turkeys, particularly during Pueblo III times (A.D. 1225-1300) may be related to an increased

87 value for their feathers for ritual activities (Kohler 2000: 196) apart from supplying meat (e.g., Cordell 1997:49).

Ritual Animals at Albert Porter Pueblo From the brief overview above it is clear that many taxa had ritual significance in recent times as reflected in ethnographic accounts. It is probable that many of these ritual connotations stem back into prehistoric times. In prehistoric times, many of these ritually-imported taxa were not necessarily discarded in discrete locations as is evident from their wide distribution over sites. For example, at Albert Porter Pueblo no animal burials were found and taxa such as carnivores, artiodactyla and turkeys were relatively evenly distributed over the site and present in refuse middens and kivas alike. Based on ethnographies from the Southwest, most of the animals present in the Albert Porter Pueblo assemblage have had ritual uses. The ritual usage range from animal products such as feathers and hides to body parts such as skulls to myths and legends to objects in ceremonies to rituals performed before animals were obtained. For example, this was noted for carnivores such as wolf, dog, foxes, bear, weasels, badger, lynx (e.g., Tyler 1964; 1975), artiodactyls such as deer, pronghorn, bison, bighorn sheep (e.g., Beaglehole 1970; Henderson and Harrington 1914; W. W. Hill 1982; Tyler 1964; 1975), small mammals such as cottontail, jackrabbit (e.g., Beaglehole 1970; Potter 1997; Tyler 1975; White 1935:144), birds such as turkey, grouse, common flicker, owl, dove, crane, sandpiper, hawks, falcons, perching bird, jay, crow, magpie, thrushes, robin (e.g., Beaglehole 1970; Beidleman I 956b; Brugge 1995; Henderson and Harrington 1914; W. W. Hill 1982; Ladd 1963; Schroeder 1968) and reptiles such as snakes (e.g., Beidleman 1956a; Bourke 1984; W. W. Hill 1982). Conversely, based on ethnographic sources, a number of taxa from the Albert Porter Pueblo assemblage were not associated with rituals. These include rodents such as squirrels, pocket gopher, wood rat and mice. However, these taxa are ubiquitous in assemblages from the San Juan Basin. In the previous chapter, it was argued that rodents were consumed at Albert Porter Pueblo, and likely at other settlements as well.

Changes over Time: Faunal Data To investigate animal changes over time at Albert Porter Pueblo, various approaches were used. These include NISP and %NISP counts for cottontails, jackrabbits and turkeys (Tables 41-42), as well as faunal indices (Tables 43-44). Only sub-phases with firm dates and context are

88 used in Table 42. Turkey/large bird first dominate the assemblage based on NISP and %NISP during Early Pueblo III (early A.D. 1100s).

Table 41 . Common Taxa and %NISP of Total Identifiable Bone at Albert Porter Pueblo Taxa PII %ID PII/PIII %ID PIlI %ID Total %ID Sylvila~us sp. 736 43% 792 30% 1505 25% 3034 29% Lepus sp. 108 6% 342 13% 308 5% 758 7% Meleagris/large bird 304 18% 598 23% 2710 45% 3612 35%

Table 42. NISP of Common Taxa from Albert Porter Pueblo by Sub-Phases A.D. A.D. A.D. A.D. A.D. Taxa 1060-1140 1060-1225 1100-1180 1140-1225 1225-1280 Sylvilagus sp. 757 659 17 1328 143 Lepus sp. 111 273 9 302 9 Melea~ris ~allopavo 161 132 21 1289 209 Large Bird 148 195 28 908 199

Table 43. Indices by Phase at Albert Porter Pueblo Index Pueblo II Pueblo 111I11 Pueblo III Site total Lagomorph 0.87 0.69 0.83 0.8 Artiodactyla 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 Turkey 0.18 0.31 0.81 0.52 Carnivore <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Table 44. Indices by Sub-Phase at Albert Porter Pueblo A.D. A.D. A.D. A.D. A.D. Index 1060-1140 1060-1225 1100-1180 1140-1225 1225-1280 Artiodactyla 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.03 Lagomorph 0.87 0.71 0.65 0.81 0.94 Turkey 0.26 0.23 0.65 0.55 0.7 Carnivore 0.009 0.006 0.012 0.003 0.001

To determine the deposition rate of animal bone at Albert Porter Pueblo, the total amount of identifiable animal bone (NISP) for all taxa present at Albert Porter Pueblo was divided by the cooking vessel weight in kilograms (Table 45, Figure 8). This measures the number of bones deposited for each discarded kilogram of cooking vessels. The smallest ratio from Terminal Pueblo II - Initial Pueblo III (A.D. 1100-1180) sub-phases are the result of small faunal and cooking vessels samples. Generally, there is an increase in NISP/cooking vessel weight (Figures 9-10).

89 Table 45. Total NISP and Cooking Vessels Weight at Albert Porter Pueblo A.D. A.D. A.D. A.D. A.D. Index 1060-1140 1060-1225 1100-1180 1140-1225 1225-1280 Total NISP 1737 1927 88 5045 867 Vessels weight (Kg) 99.8496 94.7755 11.5183 240.1386 34.4979 NISPNesse) Kg 17.4 20.33 7.64 21.0 25.13

Figure 8. Total Site NISP/Cooking Vessels Weight (Kg) per Sub-Phases at Albert Porter Pueblo

30 ~------

25 +------

en 20 +------=:::;;;o;ii--~------___::;;.,._._------ ~ a. 15 +------~- -en Z 10 +------3Ilo.-~------

5+------

0+------,-----,----- 1060-1140 1060-1225 1100-1180 1140-1225 1225-1280 AD AD AD AD AD Sub-Phase

The increase of faunal deposition at Albert Porter Pueblo is largely due to a marked increase in turkey deposition (Table 49, Figure 12) and not an increase in artiodactyla (Table 46, Figure 9), jackrabbit (Table 57, Figure 10) or cottontail (Table 48, Figure 11) deposition.

Table 46. Artiodactyla NISP and Cooking Vessels Weight at Albert Porter Pueblo A.D. A.D. A.D. A.D. A.D. Index 1060-1140 1060-1225 1100-1180 1140-1225 1225-1280 Artiodactyla NISP 49 57 2 106 5 Vessels weight (Kg) 99.8496 94.7755 11.5183 240.1386 34.4979 NISPNesse) Kg 0.49 0.6 0.17 0.44 0.14

90 Figure 9. Artiodactyla NISP/Cooking Vessels Weight (Kg) per Sub-Phases at Albert Porter Pueblo

0.7

0.6

0.5

~ 0.4 n. -en Z 0.3 0.2

0.1

0 1060-1140 1060-1225 11 00-1180 1140-1225 1225-1280 Sub-Phase

Table 47. Jackrabbit NISP and Cooking Vessels Weight at Albert Porter Pueblo A.D. A.D. A.D. A.D. A.D. Index 1060-1140 1060-1225 1100-1180 1140-1225 1225-1280 Lepus NISP II I 273 9 302 9 Vessels weight (Kg) 99.8496 94.7755 11.5183 240.1386 34.4979 NISPlVessel Ke: 1.11 2.88 0.78 1.26 0.26

Figure to. Jackrabbit NISP/Cooking Vessels Weight (Kg) per Sub-Phases at Albert Porter Pueblo

3.5 3 2.5 ~ a: 2 ~ 1.5 1

0.5 -+------'''''''-c----

o -+------,------,------,------,------, 1060-1140 1060-1225 11 00-1180 1140-1225 1225-1280 Sub-Phase

91 Table 48. Cottontail NISP and Cooking Vessels Weight at Albert Porter Pueblo A.D. A.D. A.D. A.D. A.D. Index 1060-1140 1060-1225 1100·1180 1140·1225 1225-1280 Sylvilagus NISP 757 659 17 1328 143 Vessels weight (Kg) 99.8496 94.7755 11.5183 240.1386 34.4979 NISPNessel Kf 7.58 6.95 1.48 5.53 4.15

Figure 11. Cottontail NISP/Cooking Vessels Weight (Kg) per Sub-Phases at Albert Porter Pueblo

8 -,------7 +------=-...------

6 +------'~------

C) 5 +------'~------______;F_-~~--- ~ D:4+------'~ tJ) Z 3 +------'~---_+_------

2 +------'1.--1------

1 +------

o +------.------,------,------,------, 1060-1140 1060-1225 1100-1180 1140-1225 1225-1280 Sub-Phase

Table 49. Turkey and Large Bird NISP and Cooking Vessels Weight at Albert Porter Pueblo A.D. A.D. A.D. A.D. A.D. Index 1060-1140 1060-1225 1100-1180 1140-1225 1225-1280 Melea!?risllarge bird NISP 309 327 49 2197 408 Vessels weight (Kg) 99.8496 94.7755 11.5183 240.1386 34.4979 NISPNessel K~ 3.09 3.45 4.25 9.15 11.83

92 Figure 12. Turkey and Large Bird NISP/Cooking Vessels Weight (Kg) per Sub-Phases at Albert Porter Pueblo

14 12 - ~ 10

0) ~ 8 T 0. -fIJ 1-- / Z 6 ./ 4 - - 2 -

0 I I I I I 1060·1140 1060-1225 1100-1180 1140-1225 1225-1280 Sub-Phase

Changes through Time: Causes Turkeys Turkeys increased over time at Albert Porter Pueblo. In particular, turkeys dominate the assemblage during Pueblo III. This is similar to what others found for other settlements in the northern San Juan Basin (Driver 2002a, Rawlings 2006). The increase of turkey specimens at Albert Porter Pueblo may be the result of numerous processes. First, the increase in turkey specimens could suggest different preservation between Pueblo II and III. However, preservation at Albert Porter Pueblo is almost identical for the different time periods, and is therefore not a viable explanation. Second, increased human populations at the settlement could have resulted in higher demands for turkeys. The excavations revealed that Albert Porter Pueblo reached its densest occupation during Pueblo III times (Ryan 2(04). It is therefore possible that the increased numbers of turkey specimens at Albert Porter Pueblo is the result of an increasing demand for meat, and the inability of the local environment to supply enough game.

Lagomorphs The lagomorph index at Albert Porter Pueblo remains near constant from Pueblo II to III times. However, the dietary contribution of lagomorphs decreased over time as turkey became the dominant animal during Pueblo III times. When compared to cooking vessel weights, both

93 cottontails and jackrabbits decline over time. This is due to either less rabbit hunting or more pottery breakage at Albert Porter Pueblo. Turkeys could have replaced rabbits as the dominant source of meat. It is possible that rabbits were over-hunted around the settlement, or that less hunting was taking place as people shifted their attention to raising turkeys.

ArtiodactyLa The artiodactyla index remains near-constant from Pueblo II to Pueblo III times, although compared to the cooking vessel weights, less artiodactyla specimens were deposited from Pueblo II to III. In addition, artiodactyla remains are generally uncommon in the assemblage. Other assemblages in the northern San Juan Basin have also recorded low numbers of artiodactyls (e.g., Muir 1999; Driver 2002a; Rawlings 2006). The low number of artiodactyls in the Albert Porter Pueblo assemblage is probably the result of at least two main factors. First, it may be due to their naturally low numbers on the landscape. Many have alluded to the fact that even under optimal protection from predators, mule deer, bighorn sheep and pronghorn naturally occur in relatively low numbers in the San Juan Basin (e.g., Bailey 1971; Bertram and Draper 1982). Low natural numbers of artiodactyls on the landscape could have decreased the possibility for hunters to encounter them. In other parts of the world, where animal census data stretch over many decades in conservation areas, faunal analysts have shown that animals in archaeological assemblages often occur in relative proportions to their natural abundance. For example, Plug (1989) was able to show that there is a strong relationship between the numbers of artiodactyla specimens retrieved from hunter-gatherer and farming sites in the Kruger National Park of South Africa and modem, naturally abundant animal taxa. Therefore, people generally tend to harvest the most common taxa on a landscape in greater quantities than rarer species (also Plug 1994), an issue well understood in optimal foraging theory (e.g. Smith 1983). Second, since plants formed the mainstay of the human diet (e.g., Driver 20OOa), it is reasonable to assume that meat was highly prized (Driver 1996:367; 2000a: 115). Ancestral Puebloans may have opted to hunt large animals such as artiodactyls whilst these were still available. There is sufficient anthropological and archaeological information from different parts of the world to support an assertion that people initially favour large-bodied animals such as artiodactyls (e.g., Hames and Vickers 1983; Grayson 2001). If artiodactyls were not common on the Southwestern landscape due to their small numbers in general, this may have increased their (perceived) value.

94 Driver (1996:371) suggested that aggregation of people into larger settlements at Sand Canyon locality resulted in altered subsistence practices. Aggregation resulted in the emergence of powerful individuals or groups such as lineages or corporate groups that controlled access to certain territories or claimed the right to exploit particular animal taxa, notably deer. Control over rituals may have resulted in new ceremonies centered in public architecture. Such new ceremonies may have required greater quantities of hunted animals such as deer. Alternatively, an emerging elite may have used their ever increasing social control to organise more frequent communal hunts (Driver 1996:371). As populations increased significantly by Pueblo III in the northern San Juan Basin (Varien ]999), hunters had to go farther afield to secure deer, as animals were over-hunted (or harder to find) around settlements. Higher artiodactyla frequencies in some locations such as on and around Mesa Verde may be due to the proximity of relatively undisturbed canyons and mesas with little human occupation (Dri ver 2002a:158).

Faunas of Sites in the Northern San Juan Basin A consideration of assemblages from contemporary settlements in the northern San Juan Basin is necessary to place Albert Porter Pueblo into a regional context. Albert Porter Pueblo is situated in an area referred to as the 'central Mesa Verde region' (Varien ]999). This area was the most-densely settled region in the northern San Juan Basin. Major sites within the central Mesa Verde region include Castle Rock Pueblo, Sand Canyon Pueblo, Goodman Point, Wallace Ruin, Escalante, Yellow Jacket Pueblo, Woods Canyon, Lowry Ruin, Hedley and those in the Mesa Verde National Park. Most of these sites date to Pueblo II and III times (Crow Canyon Archaeological Center 2000: 1-2; Varien 1999). The results from Albert Porter Pueblo are in line with other regional faunal studies (Driver 2002a) that used the same (Driver 2005) methods of analyses (Table 50). First, sites from earlier time periods (Basketmaker III and Pueblo I) have evidence for turkey, but indices are low. In later time periods, Pueblo II and III, a greater range of indices occur and more faunal assemblages have higher turkey indices which reflect higher turkey bone numbers in samples (Driver 2002a: 157). The faunal data from Albert Porter Pueblo supports this assertion.

95 Table 50. Assemblages in the Northern San Juan Basin (NISP) Taxa APP YJP SP SCP WCP CRP SS Insectivora II Soricidae II Lagomorpha 372 71 74 464 16 50 3 SylvilaRus sp. 3034 1155 8054 2337 201 849 857 Lepus sp. 758 259 1685 135 II 105 107 Sciuridae 200 102 II3 788 12 85 138 Eutamias sp. 4 I 2 I 9 74 Spermophilus varieRatus I 9 65 2 14 19 Spermophilus spilosoma I Spermophilus sp. 14 38 I 64 8 20 6 Cynomys Runnisoni 2 Cynomys sp. 61 20 730 37 15 23 Sciurus aberti I Tamiasciurus hudsonicus I Geomyidae 180 I II 480 106 14 25 68 Dipodomys ordii 10 4 42 Perognathus sp. I Peromyscus sp. 46 23 43 41 I 12 41 Microtus sp. 15 15 3 34 I II Muridae 2 101 6 570 7 18 Cricetidae 17 Neotoma cinerea 2 Neotoma sp. 115 lI8 202 458 50 139 197 Castor canadensis 10 40 31 Erethizon dorsatum 9 10 22 4 I Small Rodent 277 40 67 128 22 Large Rodent I 6 I Rodentia 17 157 67 2 24 104 Carnivora I I 18 2 Canidae 16 72 49 21 5 I Canis sp. 7 II 207 205 2 2 6 Canis lupus 2 2 Canis latrans 5 2 Canis familiaris 24 I 129 4 4 Vulpes vulpes II 2 I I UrocyonIVulpes 8 2 4 Vulpes sp. I 4 Ursidae 2 Bassaricus astutus I 4 Procyonidae I Mustela sp. 2 3 I Mustela erminea 2 Mustela frenata II II Martes americana I Spilogale putorius 3 I Gulo luscus I

96 Taxidea taxus 2 2 8 3 1 Felidae 6 I 1 Felis concolor I Felis rufus 17 4 4 Lynx sp. 1 5 38 I 5 Small Carnivore 4 2 19 I I 3 Medium Carnivore 16 22 7 34 7 3 6 Large Carnivore 1 Artiodactyla 5 191 4 2 6 5 Cervus elaphus 3 4 Cervidae 1 57 Odocoileus sp. 61 28 581 214 II 7 Antilocapra americana 3 9 2 12 Ovis canadensis 5 3 6 24 I Bison bison 2 Bos taurus I Medium Artiodactyla 156 182 3 414 2 38 23 Large Artiodactyla 4 5 7 2 Equus cabaLlus I 2 Small Mammal 471 125 7 316 24 174 279 Medium Mammal 127 132 203 277 17 19 20 Large Mammal 20 7 10 9 Aythyini I Anas sp. I Branta canadensis I Phalaenoptilus nuttal I Falconiformes 3 13 4 7 I Cathartes aura 1 9 Haliaeetus leucocephalus 2 Accipiter gentilis I Falco sp. 4 4 1 Falco sparverius 18 I 7 Buteo sp. 13 4 11 29 3 Buteo swainsoni 2 Buteo jamaicensis 5 Small Falcon 1 Medium Falconiformes 2 Galliformes 9 8 2 18 3 I Tetraonidae 8 32 9 2 I 2 Centrocercus urophasianus I 10 DendraRapus obscurus I CaLlipepla squamata 3 MeleaRris RaLlopavo 1993 500 4195 1447 245 283 549 Phasianidae 2 I 2 I Crus canadensis I 4 Fulica americana I Scolopacidae 1 Columbiformes 2 4 1 I

97 Zenaida macroura 3 12 Strigiformes 1 3 3 2 I 5 Asio sp. I Asio otus 6 Bubo virRinianus 5 2 Colaptes auratus 2 Colaptes cafer I Piciformes 11 Picoides pubescens I Passeriformes 6 2 2 20 4 7 Corvidae I 32 I I Corvus sp. I 14 Corvus corax 4 I 2 Pica pica 1 1 Turdidae 1 Hirundinidae 1 Small Bird 39 1 27 27 1 4 3 Medium Bird 33 38 91 68 6 62 16 Large Bird 1619 602 1024 1961 399 412 702 Bird 3 8 Amphibia 2 8 122 5 Frog/Toad 24 Snake 196 2 3 16 75 Lizard 3 8 I Reptilia I 96 128 II 1 Osteichthyes 4 Pisces 8 Total NISP 9978 3939 18764 10851 1066 2504 3484 APP =Albert Porter Pueblo, YJP =Yellow Jacket Pueblo, SP =Shields Pueblo, SCP =Sand Canyon Pueblo, WCP =Woods Canyon Pueblo, CRP =Castle Rock Pueblo, SS =13 Assemblages from the Sand Canyon Locality Combined

Second, jackrabbit declines in relation to cottontail over most of the region during Pueblo III. This pattern may be interpreted as an increase in brush and woodland environments, but it's unlikely as human impact on the environment was most severe during Pueblo III (Driver 2002a: 158). The faunal remains from Albert Porter support this interpretation, as jackrabbit numbers decrease slightly from the preceding Pueblo WIll to Pueblo III components at the site. Third, artiodactyla indices decline in Pueblo III over much of the northern San Juan (Driver 2002a: 158). The Albert Porter Pueblo artiodactyla index remains near-constant over time. It may reflect the naturally low numbers of artiodactyls on the landscape, or that by the time the site was occupied, artiodactyls had already suffered from intense hunting from previous times.

98 Driver (2002: 158) ascribes the above-mentioned patterns to increased human populations in the northern San Juan Basin, particularly during Pueblo III times. In response to growing populations, more turkeys were raised, and hence the increase in turkey index values over time. By Pueblo III times, human populations reached such high numbers that deer was over-hunted around settlements. Deforestation may also have affected deer numbers. This would mean that hunters had to undertake ever longer hunting trips to secure deer meat (Driver 2002a: 158). Artiodactyls may have been the preferred game in the northern San Juan region because of its nutritional value, meat weight, fat content, source of raw materials and value in religion and for prestige. Moreover, the decline in available artiodactyls by Pueblo III seems more pronounced in regions such as the area north of McElmo Creek where human settlement were densest, with neighbouring settlements forming a barrier zone between hunters and deer habitat. It is therefore conceivable that deer rose in value at the time and that individuals or groups controlled access to deer (Driver 2002a: 160). No clear differences exist, both in relative proportion and spatial distribution between the animal taxa from Albert Porter Pueblo and other sites in the central Mesa Verde region. At Sand Canyon Pueblo, a well-studied village site, Muir (1999) found a dominance of cottontails and turkey, although jackrabbits are also well represented. An array of carnivores, artiodactyls, squirrels and other rodents and wild birds are all represented in the assemblage. Muir (1999) found carnivore and artiodactyla remains associated with towers at Sand Canyon Pueblo. Moreover, wild birds are associated with the D-shaped structure and D-shaped towers. Apart from these ritual deposits, the faunal composition is similar to that of Albert Porter Pueblo. Except for the turkey burials the faunal remains from Shields Pueblo are similar to that of Albert Porter (Rawlings 2006). Other sites in the northern San Juan Basin yielded similar results to Albert Porter Pueblo and the village sites of Shields Pueblo and Sand Canyon Pueblo. This is evident from the dominance of cottontails and turkeys, with jackrabbits occurring in lower numbers but yet an important part of the diet. A small array of carnivores, artiodactyls, rodents and wild birds are also present. Differences in taxa composition most probably relate to differences in assemblage size and local environmental conditions (different taxa associated with different types of environments). These patterns were noted at Woods Canyon (Pueblo III) (Driver 2002b), Castle Rock Pueblo (Pueblo III) (Driver 2000b) and Yellow Jacket (Pueblo III) (Muir and Driver 2003). Although a regional overview of faunal usage from Basketmaker II to Pueblo III will be discussed in more detail in another chapter, it suffices to mention that sites in the central Mesa Verde region show similar faunal results with regards to general faunal usage, regardless whether

99 they are great house communities or village sites. This is hardly surprising considering the relative uniformity of extant animal taxa in the northern San Juan Basin (e.g., Hall ]981). This implies that, based on faunal usage, outliers and village sites used and ascribed similar meaning to animals. Great house sites outside Chaco Canyon, at least in the northern San Juan, cannot be differentiated from village sites based on animal representation.

Summary The faunal remains from Albert Porter Pueblo indicate that the people used a variety of animals, including carnivores, artiodactyls, rodents, rabbits, domestic and wild birds and some fish. Based on ethnographic sources, most of the animals in the assemblage, except for the rodents and fish at least, hold ritual meaning. Their ritual importance may have extended back into prehistoric times. Turkeys may have been a tamed or domesticated variety. Turkey flocks would not have had to be particularly large to account for the large turkey bone sample. The faunal results indicate that turkey came to dominate the assemblage in Pueblo III times, whilst other sources of protein such as rabbits and artiodactyls decreased at the same time. The low numbers of artiodactyls in the assemblage are the result of their low natural numbers on the landscape, as well as possible intense hunting as indicated by the dominance of immature artiodactyls.

100 CHAPTER 7 THE GREAT HOUSE OF ALBERT PORTER PUEBLO

Introduction Relative to other settlements in the region, archaeofauna from great houses in the San Juan Basin are understudied. Some of the most important work was done by Akins (1984; ]985; 1987) who studied faunas from great and small houses in Chaco Canyon. Outside Chaco Canyon, not many great houses have been studied, considering their ubiquity (but see Fothergill 2008; Mueller 2006; Roler 1999). Varien (2000:] 55) postulated that at outliers, great houses should yield faunas suggesting feasting and domestic activities, but surrounding residences should only yield faunas associated with domestic activities. Some found evidence for feasting at great houses (Mueller 2006; Roler ]999), although this is not always very conclusive (Akins 1985). The lack of support for Varien's (1999) hypothesis may be the difficulty ofrecognising feasting foods in the archaeological record (cf. Adams 200]) rather than the absence of feasting associated with great houses. For example, Akins (1985; ]987) found no conclusive evidence to suggest different activities at great versus small houses in Chaco Canyon. Roler Durand (2003) on the other hand argued that great houses within Chaco Canyon were ritual features based on the presence of a larger variety of ritual birds. I first present some limitations of faunal investigations which relate to the question of the functions of great houses.

The Limitations of Faunal Studies Expected Evidence for Social Differentiation Detecting social differences using faunal remains is difficult (Badenhorst et al. 2002, Crabtree]990), especially among less stratified societies (Driver 1997). Some of the more exemplary faunal research on social differentiation was done by Jackson and Scott (1995; 2003) who proposed that in chiefdoms (e.g., Earle 1987) the diets ofelites would potentially differ from that of non-elites. Differences stem from meat provisioning and proscription. Provisioning can be reflected in body-parts (with meatier parts associated with elites), the presence of rare and prestigious taxa in elite residential-areas, higher taxa diversity, the presence of commensal taxa such as rats and mice that were attracted to large storage facilities near elite quarters (Jackson and Scott ]995:107-108) and animals associated with human burials (Bogan 1983:306).

101 The Role ofPeople and Animals Actualistic studies in various parts of the world have highlighted the problem of interpreting faunal remains. For example, MacDonald (1991 :64) spent five months in villages of Fulani pastoralists and Rimaibe agriculturists in northwestern Mali, Africa. He noted that carcasses were distributed in villages, yet he could not find any patterning of animal bones. Bones were kicked around by people, thrown into rubbish pits, carried around by dogs, washed into depressions during the rainy season and played with by children (MacDonald 1991 :64). Other actualistic studies identified similar agents of bone dispersal in villages. Weber (2005: 138-140) describes human, carnivore and fluvial processes that dispersed discarded bone at villages in Ethiopia. Villagers collected and burnt bone deemed hazardous to pedestrians at the request of leaders. These examples remind us that trash at settlements is not static, but gets dispersed by people, dogs and other processes such as fluvial activities. Many outlying great houses were reoccupied during post-Chaco times (Kantner 2004a) complicating the interpretation of faunal remains in these features. At Guadalupe Ruin for example, very little trash from the Chaco-era was recovered, with most of the material dating from post-Chaco times (Roler Durand 2003: 153). At Bluff great house trash was re-used for construction (Fothergill 2(08).

A Faunal Critique ofFeasting Hayden (1995; 2001 :40-41) lists some archaeological signatures of feasts. These include: food remains; preparation and serving vessels; food-preparation facilities; special food-disposal dumps; feasting facilities and other special locations; associated prestige items; ritualised items of etiquette; paraphernalia for public rituals; existence of aggrandisers; recordkeeping devices; pictorial and written records offeasting; food-storage facilities; and resource characteristics. Of these, faunal signatures include: the presence of rare or labour-intensive animal taxa which could include domestic animals and difficult to obtain hunted animals; the quantity of food as reflected in bone waste; evidence for waste of food such as the deposition of articulated joints and unprocessed bone; bone dumps in special food-disposal features; prestige items such as shells; high number of storage facilities at sites; and abundance and intense exploitation of certain taxa (Hayden 2001 :40-41). Feasting models have been applied to Southwestern archaeology by faunal analysts (e.g., Dean 2001; Hockett 1998; Potter 1997; 2000b). Feasting interpretations are based on ethnographic and first-hand accounts from the Southwest (e.g., Bertram and Draper 1982: 1027; Szuter 1991 :23) which indicate that communal hunting of rabbits for feasts select for more

102 jackrabbits than cottontails (also Potter] 997). The presence ofjackrabbits in assemblages at McPhee Vi11age (Potter]997) and Cox Ranch Pueblo (Mueller 2006) has been interpreted as evidence for feasting. Interpreting the presence ofjackrabbits as evidence for feasting is highly problematic since it is impossible to distinguish between assemblages composed of individuaIly hunted animals and those captured in communal hunts for feasts. An alternative hypothesis is that rabbits were taken when they were encountered. In addition, the ratio ofjackrabbits to cottontails is partly dependent on natural habitat (Driver and Woiderski 2008). We can also expect that since the introduction of rifles, deer was intensely hunted. As deer numbers declined, people could have shifted their attention to jackrabbits to use in feasts. Without ethnographic analogy, jackrabbits would not have been considered as feast food. Jackrabbits occur in most assemblages in the San Juan Basin, but often in lower quantities than cottontails. When jackrabbits dominate assemblages, such as those in the south of the San Juan Basin, it probably relates to their natural ubiquity in the region (Driver in preparation). It is also probable that during communal drives, other animals such as cottontails were taken when encountered. Feasts likely consisted of different dishes, and not only a single taxon such as jackrabbit. Judging from the cottontail's slower speed and less wary behaviour compared to jackrabbits (Ingles] 94] :234), cottontail was probably easier to hunt and could equally have been hunted for feasts. The distinction between 'domestic' and 'non-domestic' activities (e.g., Varien ]999) is problematic. For example, leather working using bone tools in the San Juan Basin may have been for ritual costumes as well as daily clothing requirements. Domestic (daily refuse) and non domestic (rituals, ceremonies and feasting) activities were probably not exclusive behaviours. Turkeys could have served not only ritual functions, but also as a source of meat. Hayden's (200]) criteria can be ambiguous. For example, turkeys in the northern San Juan Basin may be seen as a labour-intensive animal considering the amount of surplus maize required to feed them (Rawlings 2006). Alternatively, if turkeys fed on undigested maize from human feces (J. C. Driver personal communication), then they cannot be regarded as labour intensive resources. The abundance of particular taxa or body parts may be taken as evidence for feasting (Hayden 200]). However, establishing which taxa and/or body parts are over-abundant is not unproblematic (Reitz and Wing] 999). Element counts cannot be taken at face value to represent human behaviour, even at short-lived butchering stations (e.g., Badenhorst in preparation).

103 Hayden's (200 I) criteria may be viewed as 'ideal' archaeological signatures for feasting. Faunal analysts on the other hand have pointed to the complex interaction of human, taphonomic and retrieval factors on faunal assemblages (e.g., MacDonald 1991; Maltby 2002:88-89; Milner and Fuller 1999). This is not to say that feasting did not occur in the San Juan Basin, but rather that our archaeological, and particularly zooarchaeological criteria have limitations (also Kansa and Campbell 2002). Multiple lines of evidence can strengthen feasting interpretations. No interpretations of activities at Albert Porter Pueblo are as yet available from other material culture analyses that could provide supporting evidence for feasting.

Faunal Expectations at Albert Porter Pueblo Four hypotheses were formulated that could inform us on the type(s) of activities associated with the great house at Albert Porter Pueblo (Table 51). The hypotheses can be used to evaluate whether or not the great house was provisioned with artiodactyla meat, if it served as the focal point for rituals, or if feasting activities were associated with it. All contexts in Architectural Block] 00 (great house structure, middens, kivas) were combined and presented under 'great house'. All Prudden Units, which include roomblocks, middens and kivas, were combined and designated 'outside' in the following sections.

Table 5]. Hypotheses and Potential Faunal Signatures for the Use of the Albert Porter Pueblo Great House Hypotheses Potential Faunal Signatures References 1) Great house was High artiodactyla index, cf. Dean 2001; Driver and provisioned with artiodactyla artiodactyla body parts, traded Badenhorst in press; Jackson meat meat, sumptuary rules and Scott 1995; 2003 2) Great house was a focal Higher concentration of cf. Roler Durand 2003; Muir point of rituals 'unusual' fauna 1999

3) There was feasting at the High artiodactyla, lagomorph cf. Dean 2001; Driver and I great house and/or turkey indices, %NISP, Badenhorst in press; Potter NISP/cooking vessels 1997; 2000; Varien 1999 4) The great house was the High concentration of bone Driver 1985 focal point of leather working tools or basketry

Hypothesis J: Great House was Provisioned with Artiodactyla Meat The number of artiodactyla specimens is low for all time periods both within the great house and outside (Table 52). Although the artiodactyla indices show a variation between the great house and surrounding residential units in all time periods, this may not necessarily constitute a significant pattern. A chi-square analysis of artiodactyla specimen counts (NISP)

104 indicate that there is a probable significant statistical variation (Pearson's chi-square = 61.78, df = 2, P <0.001, Cramer's V =0.516). However, the small number of artiodactyla bones (NISP =4) at the great house during Pueblo II no doubt influenced the chi-square analysis. Values of less than 5 seriously limit any conclusions drawn from chi-square analysis (Shennan 1997: 114). Therefore, the artiodactyla index does not provide conclusive evidence for provisioning of artiodactyla meat to the great house of Albert Porter Pueblo. The amount of artiodactyla specimens (Table 52) most probably reflects sample sizes (Figure 13).

Table 52. Artiodactyla Indices at Albert Porter Pueblo Time Period Great House Index Value Outside Index Value (Artiodactyla NISP) (Artiodactyla NISP) Pueblo II 0.01 (4) 0.07 (44) Pueblo IIIIII 0.11 (32) 0.04 (45) Pueblo III 0.05 (80) 0.08 (27)

Figure 13. Artiodactyla NISP and Total NISP at Albert Porter Pueblo

90 ------

80 - -- -...--

70--- -

D. en Z.. 50 ------~ ..u •• :c"o 40 ~----- et

30 +------• • 20 --

10 ~

i i ~---~--____,_---~--~--~----~-~ o +-1------,--•__,-----__ o 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 Tolal NISP

105 To test whether or not the great house was supplied with meatier parts of artiodactyla skeletons, the contribution of different meat sections were compared (Table 53). 'Meatier' sections include the skull, vertebrae, ribs, scapulae, pelvis and upper limbs. No evidence supports the hypothesis that the great house was provisioned with meat. A major limitation is the very low number of artiodactyla specimens in the Albert Porter Pueblo assemblage.

Table 53. Artiodactyla Body Parts for the Great House (GH) and Outside at Albert Porter Pueblo Location Date Number of Number of Total % 'Meaty' 'meaty' lower limbs ('Meaty' specimens SpecimenslTotal) Great House Pueblo II 3 I 4 75% Great House Pueblo II/III 14 18 32 44% Great House Pueblo III 39 41 80 49% Outside Pueblo II 12 32 44 27% Outside Pueblo II/III 22 23 45 49% Outside Pueblo III 7 20 27 26%

Animal remains of common taxa including artiodactyls are found in all contexts of Albert Porter Pueblo (see Tables 60-62), providing no evidence for sumptuary behaviour. Evidence for meat trade at Albert Porter Pueblo is very limited at best. Only two specimens of bison suggest some contact with areas to the north or east of the Four Comers. One specimen was retrieved from a midden directly adjacent to the great house (Pueblo IIlIII), whilst the other is from the midden at architectural block 900 (Pueblo II). Therefore, no evidence suggests social status based on traded meat. No conclusive evidence is present in the small artiodactyla sample from Albert Porter Pueblo to accept Hypothesis I.

Hypothesis 2: Great House was the Focal Point ofRituals If great houses were focal points of rituals, we would expect to find more 'unusual' taxa associated with this feature. 'Unusual' taxa are those that were probably brought in humans, possibly for ritual purposes. 'Unusual' taxa are those not widely recognised as foods, such as birds of prey and carnivores. 'Unusual' taxa were found to be more or less evenly distributed across Albert Porter Pueblo in middens, structures and kivas (Tables 54-58). The midden around the great house has a high number of 'unusual' taxa during Pueblo III, but this just reflects sample size (Figure 14). Based on the number of different 'unusual' taxa compared to the total NISP, the number of 'unusual' taxa in the great house and surrounding residential units is most probably a result of sample size (Figure 15).

106 Table 54. Pueblo II 'Unusual' Taxa at Albert Porter Pueblo (All Features) Pueblo II Great House Outside NS ST Kiv NS NS ST T R a TT R NST NST NST NST NST NST Taxa 100 100 118 200 900 900 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1100 Ring- tail 1 Lynx I Bad- ger I 1 Bear I Red Fox 2 2 Bison 1 Prong- horn 1 Deer 1 1 3 I I 2 I Med- Artiad 2 6 2 I 6 2 4 2 4 51 Beaver 1 Porcu- pine 1 Hawk 1 Med- Falcon I Per- ching Bird 1 2 I (NST = Non-Structure, STR = Structure)

Table 55. Pueblo WIll 'Unusual' Taxa at Albert Porter Pueblo (All Features) Pue- blo IIIIII Great House Outside NST NST NST NST NST NST Kiva NST NST NST Kiva Kiva Taxa 100 101 102 103 104 106 150 600 800 900 903 904 Wolf 1 Wea- sel I Red Fox II 1 2 Prong- horn 1 Bison 1 Deer 5 2 1 2 4 6 4 2 1 Big- horn 1 2

107 Med- Artiad } 8 1 } 3 2 } } } 14 1 Large- Artiod } Beaver } Porcu- pine } Hawk } 4 Falcon 1 1 Med- Falcon } Robin/ Thrus- hes } (NST =Non-Structure, STR =Structure)

Table 56. Pueblo III 'Unusual' Taxa at Albert Porter Pueblo (Great House Kivas Only) Pue- blo III Great House Kjv Kjv Kjv Kjv Kjv Kjv Kjv Kjv Kjv Kjv Kjv Kjv a a a a a a a a a a a a Taxa 107 108 109 110 111 113 114 115 116 117 119 136 Wolf } Wea- se} 1 Ermi- ne 2 Fox } Red Fox 1 Deer } } 4 } Cervi- dae } Med- Artiod 5 } } 2 1 } 8 3 Large Artiod 1 Porcu- pine } Swain. Hawk } } Hawk } 1 Falcon 1 Dove 1 Flicker }

108 Table 57. Pueblo III 'Unusual' Taxa at Albert Porter Pueblo (Outside Kivas Only) Pueblo III Outside Taxa Kiva 302 Kiva 303 Kiva 502 Kiva 602 Kiva 803 Deer 1 1 Bighorn Sheep 1 Med Artiodactyla 3 ] 8 I I Porcupine 2 2

Table 58. Pueblo III 'Unusual' Taxa at Albert Porter Pueblo (Non-Structures and Structures Only) Pueblo III Great House Outside NST STR NST NST NST NST NST NST NST Taxa 100 100 200 300 400 500 600 800 900 Badger I Bear ] Red Fox ] Weasel ] Pronghorn 1 Deer 10 I I 2 Bighorn Sheep I Med Artiod 35 I 1 2 1 2 I Beaver 8 Porcupine 2 Small Falcon I Hawk 5 Flicker 1 Jay/Crow I Sandhill Crane 1 Perching Bird 2 Magpie 1 Sandpiper I Owl I Dove 2 (NST = Non-Structure, STR = Structure)

109 Figure ]4. The Relationship between NISP and Number of Taxa for Pueblo III Non-Structures Only at Albert Porter Pueblo (NST = Non-Structure)

Pueblo 11/ NST

35 r------,4ooo

3500 30

3000 25

2500 ~ 20 'l5 2000 !!!z i 15 z " 1500

10 1000

5 500 oL....._-_...--..--....--===*===~=------.....Jo NST 500 NST 200 NST 600 NST 300 NST 900 NST 400 NST 800 NST 100 Feature

Figure] 5. Number of Ritual Taxa and NISP of Ritual Taxa at Albert Porter Pueblo (Great House and Outside Combined)

140 1 I

120, •

100

60 • • 40 .-.-

20 -'------,------• o L------~------,~--- o 5 10 15 20 25 Number or Taxa

110 Based on the comparison of the combined NISP of all 'unusual' taxa to specimen counts of cottontails (Table 59), it appears that more specimens of 'unusual' taxa are present outside the great house at Albert Porter Pueblo. The exception to this pattern is during Pueblo WIll. However, these results may be biased by the fact that single 'unusual' taxa were disarticulated and distributed to various parts of the settlement as suggested by the presence of isolated specimens of 'unusual' taxa in various contexts. Thus, the current data set from Albert Porter Pueblo can not be used to address the question of the importance of 'unusual' taxa.

Table 59. Cottontail/Ritual Taxa NISP at Albert Porter Pueblo Time Period Great House Outside Pueblo II 238/10 =24 5]4/52 =10 Pueblo WIll ]76/38 =5 645/56 =12 Pueblo III ]2241115 =11 ] 84/40 =5

The wide distribution of 'unusual' taxa at Albert Porter Pueblo during all time periods suggests that either the entire settlement was regarded as a ritually significant place, and/or ritual/ceremonial activities occurred in a nearly all contexts, and/or that once feathers and other potent body parts were removed, the remaining skeleton were simply discarded. However, the possibility cannot be excluded that people and dogs relocated specimens. Hypothesis 2, that 'unusual' taxa are present in greater frequencies at the great house of Albert Porter Pueblo is therefore not accepted. Ritual animals occur in all parts of the site during all time periods. Both Roler (1999) for Guadalupe Ruin and Mueller (2006) for Cox Ranch Pueblo found a similar wide distribution of ritual animals.

Hypothesis 3: Feasting at the Great House Varien (1999) proposed that feasting activities may be associated with great houses at outlying communities. I used three methods to investigate the possibility of feasting at the great house of Albert Porter Pueblo based on Hayden's (2001) criteria for feasting. First, the %NISP of common taxa at the great house and surrounding residences were compared. Second, the lagomorph and turkey indices for the great house were compared to surrounding residences. Third, cooking vessel weights were compared to specimen counts.

Percent NISP Very few faunal remains were retrieved from structures (i.e., roomblocks excluding kivas) at Albert Porter Pueblo because excavations focused on the great house and middens. I

111 compared the abundance ofthe most common taxa in the assemblage, cottontail, jackrabbit and turkey/large bird between the great house and outside for each time period (Tables 60-62). During Pueblo II times, all the common taxa are found in similar proportions within and outside the great house. This demonstrates that faunal utilisation was similar among the users of the great house and those occupying surrounding Prudden Units during Pueblo II times at Albert Porter Pueblo. During Pueblo IIIIII, more cottontails and jackrabbits were utilised outside than at the great house. The opposite is true for turkey/large bird, where a higher percentage of remains were found inside the great house feature than outside it. During Pueblo III, cottontail is represented by higher frequencies within the great house than preceding Pueblo IIIIII times. Jackrabbits are, like the preceding Pueblo IIIIII, found in greater frequencies outside the great house than inside. Turkeyllarge bird are found in almost equal frequencies inside and outside the great house.

Table 60. NISP and %NISP for Common Taxa at Albert Porter Pueblo during Pueblo II Pueblo II Great House Outside Total Sylvila!?us sp. 238 (60%) 514 (66%) 752 (64%) Lepus sp. 41 (10%) 70 (10%) 111 (10%) Melea!?ris/large bird 115 (30%) 189 (24%) 304 (26%)

Table 61. NISP and %NISP for Common Taxa at Albert Porter Pueblo during Pueblo IIIIII Pueblo IIIIII Great House Outside Total Sylvilagus sp. 176 (33%) 645 (53%) 821 (47%) Lepus sp. 74(13%) 269 (22%) 343 (19%) MeleagrislJarge bird 290 (54%) 308 (25%) 598 (34%)

Table 62. NISP and %NISP for Common Taxa at Albert Porter Pueblo during Pueblo III Pueblo III Great House Outside Total SylvilaRus sp. 1224 (34%) 184 (22%) 1408 (32%) Lepus sp. ]99 (6%) ]]] (13%) 310 (7%) Meleagrisllarge bird 2174 (60%) 535 (65%) 2709 (61 %)

The increased deposition of turkey remains around the great house during Pueblo IIIIII may suggest that they were slaughtered around the great house to supply meat and feathers for activities and/or inhabitants of the great house. One hypothesis is that the great house and kivas associated with it may have served as ritual places where turkeys played a significant role. However, the interpretation is weakened by the relatively small amount of turkey bones recovered from the great house during Pueblo 11I111. It cannot be determined if the increase usage of turkey

112 at the great house during Pueblo WIll was the result of feasting activities. Cottontails, jackrabbits and turkeys are not common in structures and kivas, as most fauna came from middens (Tables 63-65). Therefore, we can not determine with certainty what role these animals played with regards to the great house structure.

Table 63. The Context of Common Taxa at Albert Porter Pueblo during Pueblo II Context Sylvilagus sp. Lepus sp. Meleagrisllarge Total bird Non-Structure 497 (65%) 75 (10%) 190 (25%) 762 Structure 183(68%) 16 (6%) 71 (26%) 270 Kiva 72 (53%) 20 (15%) 43 (32%) 135

Table 64. The Context of Common Taxa at Albert Porter Pueblo during Pueblo WIll Context Sylvilagus sp. Lepus sp. Meleagrisllarge Total bird Non-Structure 699 (46%) 317 (21%) 492 (33%) 1508 Structure 4 (80%) 1 (20%) - 5 Kiva 118(47%) 25 (10%) 106 (43%) 249

Table 65. The Context of Common Taxa at Albert Porter Pueblo during Pueblo III Context Sylvilagus sp. Lepus sp. Meleagrisllarge Total bird Non-Structure 858 (30%) 157 (6%) 1817 (64%) 2832 Structure 151 (37%) 16 (4%) 246 (60%) 413 Kiva 399 (34%) 137 (12%) 647 (55%) 1183

Indices The lagomorph (Table 66) and turkey (Table 67) indices from the great house were compared to residential units. The lagomorph index is nearly equal for all time periods at the great house and surrounding residences. The turkey index is nearly equal for all time periods, except during Pueblo WIll when its about twice as high in the great house when compared to outside. The high turkey index during Pueblo WIll at the great house reflects %NISP which also found that turkey is highest at the great house (Table 61). This could be due to mixed deposits. The indices do not provide any conclusive evidence that animal usage was different at the great house compared to surrounding residences.

113 Table 66. Lagomorph Index at Albert Porter Pueblo Time Great House Outside Pueblo II 0.85 0.88 Pueblo IIIIII 0.7 0.7 Pueblo III 0.86 0.62

Table 67. Turkey Index at Albert Porter Pueblo Time Great House Outside Pueblo II 0.28 0.24 Pueblo IIIIII 0.52 0.22 Pueblo III 0.58 0.62

Cooking Vessels To investigate if feasting activities were associated with the great house at Albert Porter Pueblo, total specimen counts were compared to weights of cooking vessel. The rationale for this approach is to investigate whether the amount of specimens discarded at the great house is higher compared to that of surrounding residential units (Table 68). To test whether any specific animal caused the pattern in Table 68, the specimen counts of cottontails, jackrabbits, turkeys and artiodactyla were compared to cooking vessels weights (Table 69).

Table 68. All Taxa NISP/Cooking Vessels Weight (kg) at Albert Porter Pueblo Time Period Great House Outside Pueblo II (644/71.6) = 8.99 (1079/229.7) = 4.69 Pueblo IIIIII (774/308.3) = 2.51 (1873/283.2) = 6.61 Pueblo III (4714/590.2) = 7.98 (1274/313.0) = 4.07

Table 69. Common Taxa NISP/Cooking Vessels Weight (kg) at Albert Porter Pueblo Cottontail NISP Great House Outside Pueblo II (238/71.6) = 3.32 (514/229.7) = 2.23 Pueblo IIIIII (176/308.3) = 0.57 (645/283.2) = 2.27 Pueblo III (1224/590.2) = 2.07 (184/313.0) = 0.58 Jackrabbit NISP Great House Outside Pueblo II (41/71.6) =0.57 (70/229.7) = 0.30 Pueblo IIIIII (74/308.3) = 0.24 (269/283.2) =0.94 Pueblo III (199/590.2) = 0.33 (1111313.0) =0.35 TurkeyiLaree Bird NISP Great House Outside Pueblo II (115/71.6) =1.60 (189/229.7) =0.82 Pueblo IIIIII (290/308.3) =0.94 (308/283.2) =1.08 Pueblo III (2174/590.2) =3.68 (535/313.0) =1.70 Artiodactyla NISP Great House Outside Pueblo II (4/71.6) = 0.05 (44/229.7) =0.19 Pueblo IIIIII (32/308.3) =0.10 (45/283.2) =0.15

114 I Pueblo III (80/590.2) = 0.13 1 ----'(_27_/3_1_3.-'-0)_=_0_.0_8I

Cottontails are common both in the great house and the surrounding residential units during Pueblo II when compared to discarded cooking vessel weights. There is a sharp decline in the great house of cottontails during Pueblo II1I11, whilst remaining nearly constant in residential units. By Pueblo III cottontails increased in the great house feature but declined at surrounding residential units. Jackrabbits remain low throughout all time periods in both the great house and surrounding residential units. Similarly, artiodactyls are poorly represented. When compared to cooking vessel weights, turkey was twice as likely to be discarded at the great house than at surrounding roomblocks during Pueblo II. During Pueblo 11I11I the amounts are almost equal (contrary to %NISP and index data). However, during Pueblo III times discarded turkeys increased at the great house feature compared to surrounding Prudden Units. It is possible that feathers and meat of turkeys were important for rituals or social activities at the great house. The great house may have been the central focal point of rituals associated with turkeys, including feasting. However, since ritually important taxa such as birds of prey, artiodactyls and carnivores are distributed all over the settlements, most if not all people at Albert Porter Pueblo had access to ritual knowledge or activities. On the other hand, specimens of ritual taxa do not represent ritual activities well. Hypothesis 2, which states that feasting was associated with the great house at Albert Porter Pueblo, is weakly supported. Based on cooking vessel weights, more turkeys were discarded at the great house during Pueblo II and III. %NISP and the turkey index suggest that turkeys were more important than other common taxa during Pueblo II/III at the great house. In other words, turkeys were more important at the great house of Albert Porter Pueblo during all time periods. However, it cannot be established beyond any doubt whether the association of turkeys with the great house represents feasting. Mundane processes other than feasting and rituals could have produced the high concentrations of turkeys at the great house. People and dogs are known to remove, relocate and redeposit bone in villages (MacDonald 1991, Weber 2(05), and food prepared at residences being consumed with the larger group around the great house for non feasting and non-ritual purposes.

Hypothesis 4: Leather Working or Basketry at the Great House The fauna from Albert Porter Pueblo was investigated for any other possible activity associated with the great house. Bone tools may inform us on leather and basketry work at the

115 settlement. Following Driver (1985:57), I measured the rate of bone deposition against the number of all bone tools. I use all bone tools in my calculations because of the difficulty of distinguishing artiodactyla from other large mammal bone tools, and since a single element from a large mammal could have been fashioned into more than one bone tool. To establish the type(s) of activities that occurred at the great house feature of Albert Porter Pueblo, I compared the total NISP for all taxa and the total number of bone tools per feature and time period (Table 70). Values present a measure of the total number of specimens (NISP) per bone tool recovered, but seem to be related to sample size (Figure 16). However, kivas in the great house during Pueblo III have a slightly higher than expected number of bone tools. This suggests that more activities requiring bone tools were performed in kivas in the great house during Pueblo III.

Table 70. Total Taxa NISprrotal Number of Bone Tools at Albert Porter Pueblo Pueblo II Great House Outside Non-Structure (273/5) =54.6 (931/44) =21.15 Structure (206/5) =41.2 (139/7) =19.85 Kiva (165/6) =27.5 (7/1) =7 Total (644/16) =40.25 (1077/52) =20.71 Pueblo 111I11 Great House Outside Non-Structure (680/44) =15.45 (1590/60) =26.5 Structure - - Kiva (88/2) =44 (282/1 0) =28.20 Total (768/46) =16.69 (1872170) =26.74 Pueblo III Great House Outside Non-Structure (3375/121) =27.89 (685/26) =26.34 Structure - - Kiva (1162/88) =13.20 (584/20) =29.20 Total (4537/209) =21.70 (1269/46) =27.58

To test whether or not the NISP/bone tool and NISP/cooking vessel weight data have similar patterns, these two frequencies were compared for the great house and outside (Table 71, Figure 17). Figure 17 shows a relatively close relationship between NISP, cooking vessel weights and the number of bone tools for Pueblo II and 11/11I. However, this is not the case during Pueblo III when there was more bone tools and less cooking vessels compared to NISP at the great house than outside. If cooking vessels is a measure of domestic activities, the pattern could suggest that such activities were associated with residential roomblocks during Pueblo III. Future research must determine if this pattern is present at other great houses compared to villages. Hypothesis 4, which sought to establish if other activities such as basketry and leather working was occurred at the great house of Albert Porter Pueblo, is supported in part with more bone tools present in kivas of the great house during Pueblo III.

116 Figure 16. Total NISP and Bone Tools at Albert Porter Pueblo (Great House and Outside, Data from Table 70)

4000 - --- .- ---

3500 ------• , 3000 .:-

2500

l1. !Q I :: 2000 i o'" I-

1500 • • 1000 • • • 500 1 ---- •

o-I------,------~-----__r_----~---~------~---___,". o 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Bone Tool NISP

Table 71. NISP/Bone Tools and NISP/Cooking Vessel Weight at Albert Porter Pueblo Pueblo II Pueblo 111I11 Pueblo III GH Outside GH Outside GH Outside NISPlBone Tools 40.25 20.71 16.69 26.74 21.7 27.58 NISP/Cooking Vessel 8.99 4.69 2.51 6.61 7.98 4.07

117 Figure 17. NISP/Bone Tools and NISP/Cooking Vessel Weight at Albert Porter Pueblo

I~ ~sP/BoneTools------~--:-NISP/COOking Vessel I 45 - 10

407 9 ! 8 35 -;-

7 30 ~ I CIJ 6 ::'" '"o > o 25 ~ ." I- , C CIJ i :;: c I 5 0 o o CD U Ii: 20 -i ." !!? . :>0:: z 4 Ii: en z 15 - 3

10 t 2

5 ~ I I

o ~:--L----'---t----'-----'----+----'--~_+--L----'-_____j-----'-----L____t--'----'-----t 0

GH Outside GH Outside GH I Outside Pueblo II Pueblo III1lI Pueblo III

The Great House of Albert Porter Pueblo The foregoing analyses attempted to determine the use(s) of the great house at Albert Porter Pueblo. No evidence was forthcoming to suggest that the great house was provisioned with artiodactyla meat. The analysis of the Albert Porter Pueblo found possible evidence for turkey feasting at the great house. That the association of turkeys with the great house at Albert Porter Pueblo is necessarily the result of feasting, cannot be established beyond any doubt. Animals potentially used in rituals were found in all contexts at Albert Porter Pueblo, and were not just associated with the great house. Both Mueller (2006) for Cox Ranch Pueblo and Roler (1999) for Guadalupe Ruin found ritual animals distributed all over the settlements and not just associated with the great house. Finally, the distribution of bone tools at Albert Porter Pueblo suggests that activities such as basketry and leather working are not associated exclusively with the great house. However, more bone tools occur in kivas of the great house during Pueblo III.

118 Summary The fauna from Albert Porter Pueblo indicate that the great house was not provisioned with artiodactyla meat. Higher turkey frequencies are associated with the great house during all time periods. Turkeys may have been used in feasts and ceremonies. The occurrence of ritual animals such as carnivores and birds of prey in various contexts and locations at Albert Porter Pueblo during its entire occupation suggests that everyone had access to rituals and knowledge of rituals. The wide distribution of ritual animals at Albert Porter Pueblo supports recent contentions that outlying great houses in the San Juan Basin were ritual features on the landscape (e.g., Roler Durand 2(03). More bone tools occur in kivas of the great house during Pueblo III.

119 CHAPTER 8 THE MOUNDS OF PUEBLO BONITO

Introduction Pueblo Bonito is considered by many as the center of the Chaco world (e.g., Neitzel 2003a). The nature of farming communities that occupied Chaco Canyon in New Mexico is well studied (see references in Fagan 2005; Kantner 2004a; Lekson 2006; Mathien 2005; Noble 2004; Reed 2004; Vivian 1990). Pueblo Bonito, as the largest settlement in North America predating the 1880s, has attracted wide scientific interest (e.g., Judd 1923; 1925; 1954; 1964; Lekson 1986; Marshall 2003; Metcalf 2003; Neitzel 2003a; 2003b; 2007; Pepper 1905; Stein et al. 2003; Windes 2003). Notwithstanding the long research interest, fauna has received less attention. Akins (1984; 1985; 1987) compared great and small house faunas in Chaco Canyon but found no significant differences in animal usage between these assemblages (but see Roler Durand 2003). Little remains known about the faunal composition and formation of the mounds ofPueblo Bonito. Judd (1954) reported faunal remains from the mounds at Pueblo Bonito following his excavations in the I 920s. However, his study did not report bone counts or small animals, nor did he consider taphonomic processes that impacted in the fauna from the mounds. For this dissertation, I analysed fauna from the mounds at Pueblo Bonito following re-excavations in 2006 of Judd's (1954; 1964) trenches. This will allow me to reconsider potential differences between great and small houses in Chaco Canyon. The two morphologically distinctive burial groups at Pueblo Bonito, as well as the dividing wall added after A.D. 1080, suggest two moiety groups occupied Pueblo Bonito (e.g., Kantner 2004a: 112). The pair of mounds may also be related to this division of the site into two halves. If two groups were in fact occupying Pueblo Bonito, it is possible that they had access to different animals for food and/or rituals. In light of these issues, a thorough consideration of the fauna from the mounds at Pueblo Bonito is therefore of considerable interest. In this chapter I place Pueblo Bonito in an archaeological context.

Pueblo Bonito in Chaco Canyon Chaco Canyon is located in northwestern New Mexico and runs from east to west for about 29 kilometers sloping downhill to the northwest. The Canyon is about 2.5 km wide at its widest point. Chaco River, a seasonal wash, empties into the San Juan River west of Farmington near the modern village of Waterflow in northwestern New Mexico. Chaco Canyon cuts deep into

120 the sandstone of Chacra Mesa in the east and its detached western extensions, South and West Mesa (Stuart 2000:75-77). Between A.D. 900 and 1115 a total of nine great houses were constructed within Chaco Canyon. These are: Penasco Blanco, Pueblo Alto, Kin Kletso, Hungo Pavi, Pueblo del Arroyo, Pueblo Bonito, Chetro Ket1, Una Vida and Wijiji. The construction of these massive features required considerable labour. Numerous contemporaneous smaller villages, called small houses were also built in Chaco Canyon. An array of roads leads to and from Chaco Canyon, and connected far off villages and outliers in the San Juan Basin. Exotic artefacts are common at sites within Chaco Canyon. These include turquoise from the Santa Fe region some 160 km to the east, ornamental shells from the Pacific Coast, copper bells and macaws from Mexico, as well as chipped-stone and clay for ceramics from the Chuska Mountains (e.g., Lekson et al. 1988). Pueblo Bonito (site 29SJ387, 'Beautiful Village' in Spanish) was the center of the Chacoan world, and located within Chaco Canyon. It is a D-shaped structure situated on the north side of the Canyon facing south. It was founded in the A.D. 800s and expanded in the following centuries. The expansions during A.D. 1020-I 040 added two stories of rooms at the rear. Part of the original structure was already three stories tall. By A.D. 1050-1060 wings were added to the east and west sides, and the front courtyard partially re-walled. Between A.D. 1060 and l065 new stories were added. By A.D. 1075 foundations were laid for a major addition which was never completed. The last alterations were made between A.D. 1090 and 1I 15 when the courtyard was divided by a north-south wall. When completed, it had 33 kivas, an outer wall stretching 400 meters, and 700 rooms. The entire floor area covered some two hectares (Figure 18). No other apartment blocks were ever built to the same scale in the whole of North America until the l880s (Metcalf 2003; Neitzel 2oo3a; 2oo3b; Stuart 2000:79-80). Pueblo Bonito was constructed below Threatening Rock (Judd 1925) which collapsed in 1941. Marshall (2003) proposed that Threatening Rock was a sacred site and Chacoans specifically selected this area beneath it for their largest piece of architecture (Marshall 2003: 13). This interpretation is supported by the enormous quantities of well-crafted and exotic artefacts uncovered at Pueblo Bonito (e.g., Judd 1923; 1925; 1954; 1964; Mathien 200I; Pepper 1905) and by roads that run away from (and to) the site (e.g., Lekson et at. 1988). Despite its enormous size, the resident population of Pueblo Bonito was probably low, perhaps never exceeding 100 people. After A.D. I 120-I 130 the residential population declined as widespread use of the site ceased. Occupation of the site after A.D. 1150 was limited to very few people until final Puebloan activities ended in the A.D. 1200s (Windes 2003:31-32).

121 Mounds in Chaco Canyon Mounds (earthen architecture or platforms) are common features at archaeological sites throughout many parts of North America and Mesoamerica. To the south of the San Juan Basin in the Hohokam Culture area, mounds are particularly common (e.g., Lekson et al. 2006: 106). Mounds are found only at some great house sites in Chaco Canyon. There is one at Penasco Blanco, one at Pueblo Alto, two at Pueblo Bonito and one at Chetro KetI. All mounds are roughly rectangular or oval in shape, but their contents vary. The mounds of Pueblo Alto and Penasco Blanco were constructed of masonry debris overlain by layers of sand and trash. At Pueblo Bonito and Chetro Ketl the mounds were largely constructed of razed building debris (Lekson 1986:74; Wills 2001). Not all great houses in Chaco Canyon have mounds; both Hungo Pavi and Wijiji lack mounds (Lekson et al. 2006:] 05-106). Some of the trash mounds in Chaco Canyon are particularly rich in artefacts. For example, over a 60 year period of occupation, more than] 50, 000 pottery vessels were discarded in the mound at Pueblo Alto. At this site, the mound appears to be layered suggesting it were deposited intermittently rather than on a daily basis (Lekson et ai. ]988:8; Toll and McKenna ]987:]40). Windes (unpublished ]980, cited in Lekson 1986:]43) noted that ceramic densities in both the east and west mounds of Pueblo Bonito were relatively low compared to other trash deposits in Chaco Canyon (Lekson ]986:] 43).

The Mounds of Pueblo Bonito The two mounds located directly south of Pueblo Bonito (Figure] 9) date to between A.D. 1050 and 1105 (Lekson 1999:94). During the creation of the mounds, various other constructions occurred at Pueblo Bonito. This included: razing the southern portion of some of the earlier east buildings, laying the northeastern foundation complex, completion of the crescent with the east and west additions, formalising the axes with construction of single story room rows, razing the great kiva in the West Court's southern portion and constructing a great kiva (see Stein et ai. 2003:50-53). Some of the debris from these constructions may (Judd] 964) or may not (Windes] 987:634) have been redeposited in the mounds of Pueblo Bonito.

122 FIgure. 18. Ground PIan of Pueblo Bomto. (From Judd 1964:Figure 2. Used WIOth PermlsslOo ° n from Smithsonian Press)

1'i'" III 1 oj

123 The two mounds of Pueblo Bonito are situated 15 meters south of the east-west outer wall. The east mound is roughly rectangular in shape, measuring 25 meters north-south at its west end, 17 meters north-south at its east side, and about 60 meters east west. The west mound is also rectangular in shape measuring 30 meters north-south by 60 meters east-west. The mounds stand over two meters high and are filled with trash, rubble and sand (Judd 1964; Lekson 1986:143). Lekson (1986:74) points out that little is known ofthe construction of mounds in Chaco Canyon. It is not known what structures, if any, were placed on top ofthe mounds (Lekson 1986:74). The mounds of neither Chetro Ketl nor Pueblo Alto are walled, nor show evidence of a leveled surface (Lekson 1986: 144). The two mounds of Pueblo Bonito are defiled north-south, aligning with the great kiva, Casa Rinconada which is situated on the south side of Chaco Canyon (Fagan 2005:137). The function of Pueblo Bonito's two mounds is not clear (Stein et al. 2003:50-52). Judd (1964) regarded the two mounds as refuse middens. He considered the material in the west mound as displaced deposits from the great kiva construction in the West Court. This great kiva was constructed between A.D. 1050 and 1070 (Judd 1964; Stein et al. 2003:52). Judd (1964) however noted that two mounds at a single site were uncommon in the Southwest (Lekson 1986: 143). Windes (1987:624-634) questioned the origin of the mound material. Judd (1964) found that the ceramics from the west mound were mixed, which led him to believe that the material originated from elsewhere on the site (the west court's great kiva). Windes (1987:624-634) believes the ceramics from the west (and east) mound are not mixed, and hence, are not redeposited material from the west court's great kiva construction. The mounds found in Chaco Canyon have traditionally been viewed as expanded versions ofthe tiny middens of unit pueblos (e.g., Judd 1954; 1964). However, if these mounds are simply 'tidy' Chacoan middens, they should be present at other contemporaneous settlements (Lekson 1986:74). Many (e.g., Lekson et al. 1988; Stein et al. 2003:52) do not consider the mounds of Pueblo Bonito as trash middens, but as architectural features since the mounds were paved platforms. However, deposition, varying between 0.6 and 1.2 meters in depth continued above the paved platforms on the mounds. Stein et al. (2003:52) present three possible explanations for continued deposition overlying the paved sections of the two mounds at Pueblo Bonito. First, the overlying deposits may be domestic trash which suggests a late reuse of the site for either ritual or domestic purposes, or both. Second, the paved platforms could have been deliberately buried as part of a termination ritual. Third, the overlying deposits could suggest the presence of secondary elevated platforms (Stein et al. 2003:52).

124 As already mentioned, not all great houses in Chaco Canyon have mounds. This implies that mounds were not essential to or indicative of everyday living. Moreover, great houses in Chaco Canyon, such as Pueblo Bonito show a similar discrepancy between the high density of material deposited in mounds and low residential populations. This could be indicative of human activities unrelated to daily occupation. If mounds were created by seasonal gatherings of large numbers of people who congregated in Chaco Canyon for ceremonial purposes, the mounds could have been important features serving as visible reminders of past ceremonial events (Lekson et al. 1988:8). However, it can also be possible that trash were deposited in washes elsewhere. Toll (2001) associated ritual destruction of ceramics with the mound at Pueblo Alto. Sebastian (2006:399) suggested that the trash found in middens may have been from 'consumptive events'. WiJIs (2001) questions whether the mounds in Chaco Canyon were intentionally constructed as ritual architecture. There is a lack of evidence that mounds, such as that of Pueblo Alto, served as places for periodical ceremonies or intentional design (Wills 2001).

Archaeological Excavations of the Mounds The mounds of Pueblo Bonito were excavated on several occasions. The Hyde Exploring Expedition commenced work at the site in 1896 until 1899 under the field supervision of George H. Pepper and his foreman, Richard WetheriJI. Searching for burials and grave goods, they excavated the mounds, but found none (Lister and Lister 1981 :23-24). Three years prior to the extensive Hyde excavations of the mounds, Earl Morris' father excavated small parts of the mounds, also in search of burials. At the conclusion of the Hyde Excavations in 1900, Richard Dodge of Columbia University placed three or four test trenches in the mounds of Pueblo Bonito to correlate geomorphological data. N.C. Nelson under auspices of the American Museum of Natural History, reopened Dodge's trenches in 1916 and also excavated additional trenches in the mounds. Nelson had a particular interest in stratigraphy, but he was disappointed by the homogeneity of the ceramics (Windes 1987:618).

125 Figure 19. The Mounds of Pueblo Bonito with the East, Middle and West Trench as Excavated by N. Judd (From Judd 1964:Figure 23. Used with Permission from Smithsonian Press)

/ ,..._------_._--~------/,t I ::~~ II~

, \ I , 1 : ~ ! j -:~------,: ----=- ·----!------.:J';,;;;pue--_ 1:: ----- ~ ~--~!.~:.::= - : - b i; I ! ; , ,.,. , """.':'

126 The National Geographic Society investigation of Pueblo Bonito by N. M. Judd later excavated the mounds again between 1920 and 1927. Although the testing techniques were not on par with modem excavation methods, it was the first systematic archaeological excavation of Pueblo Bonito (see Judd 1923; 1925; 1954; 1964). The fauna from the mounds, and other parts of Pueblo Bonito, are discussed in Judd (1954:64-67) and will be considered in the following chapters. Most of the material remains, including animal bone were kept and are housed at the Smithsonian Institution and the American Museum of Natural History. Judd's trenches in the east and west mound, as well as in the central section between these two mounds, were recently reopened in 2006 as part of a University of New Mexico project to document any possible stratigraphy and collect material remains. To date, no data have been published on the recent exactions, and artefact analyses are still in progress. The bone remains retrieved from these recent excavations form part of this dissertation. A single trench transects the east and west mounds running north-west and extends the entire width of both mounds. A single trench was excavated between the two mounds, deemed the middle trench (P. Crown personal communication 2007). The excavations of the mounds at Pueblo Bonito should help determine if the mounds grew as a result of incremental trash deposition, or from one or more deliberate construction episodes. Deliberate construction of the mounds may suggest that the primary concern of the construction of the mounds was for creating mass for an impressive exterior appearance (Neitzel 2007:145). Judd's (1954; 1964) excavations of the two mounds revealed retaining walls and steps that gave access to the mounds. The width of the trenches Judd (1964) opened varied between 60 cm to almost three meters, and in depth from less than 2 to almost 7 meters. Judd made horizontal trenches wider when they were deeper, and he excavated to sterile ground. The trenches are shallowest on the southern end and increased in depth closer to the main structure (Judd 1964; P. Crown personal communication 2007). The recent re-excavations of the Judd trenches were done in 20 cm arbitrary levels using shovels. All material was screened with about 90% using a ~ inch (6 mm) mesh, whereas the remaining 10% of the material was screened using a VB inch (3 mm) mesh. Preliminary indications are that about 200, 000 sherds were recovered, about twice as much as was recovered from Pueblo Alto (P. Crown, personal communication, 2007). During the initial sorting of the Pueblo Bonito remains at Simon Fraser University, all the bone remains were screened through a 3 mm mesh due to the heavy fragmentation of the assemblage. Specimens that passed through the mesh were not analysed further.

127 Even if the mound material was not redeposited as maintained by Windes (1987:634), it has been excavated previously by Judd (1954; 1964) with some remains removed. As a result, the faunal remains may offer only a partial window into the economic and ritual activities at Pueblo Bonito.

Summary The analysis of fauna from the mounds and middle trench at Pueblo Bonito will provide clues to economic, and potentially, ritual activities at the site. The origin of the mound remains are not yet established, and have been subjected to previous excavations which removed some bone material. The relatively quick formation of the mounds implies that long term changes cannot be deduced from the faunal investigation at Pueblo Bonito, although comparisons with sites within Chaco Canyon would be of interest.

128 CHAPTER 9 PUEBLO BONITO FAUNAL ASSEMBLAGE AND TAPHONOMY

Introduction In this chapter, I consider the size of the faunal assemblage from Pueblo Bonito, the taxa represented in the assemblage, and the taphonomic processes that affected the assemblage. Many of the taphonomic processes contributed to the fragmentary state of the assemblage. As was the case with the assemblage from Albert Porter Pueblo, I examine whether rodents were consumed or not by the users of Pueblo Bonito.

Assemblage Size and Taxa Represented During the 2006 field season, the excavators retrieved fauna from the east and west mound at Pueblo Bonito, as well as from a trench between the two mounds (P. Crown personal communication 2007). The total faunal assemblage analysed consists of 34, 223 specimens. Of these, 7788 (23%) of the total assemblage were identified with most of the fauna being from the east mound. Fragmentation was nearly uniform between the excavations (Table 72). Fragmentation rates cannot be compared to other assemblages within Chaco Canyon due to variations in methods of faunal identifications and quantification (see Akins 1985). All the major vertebrate classes, mammals, birds, fish, reptiles and amphibians, are represented in the Pueblo Bonito assemblage with mammals dominating (Table 73). A wide variety of taxa were identified, including carnivores, artiodactyls, rabbits, rodents, birds, amphibian, reptiles and fish (Table 74). Specimen counts of the common mammal and bird orders and groups indicate that rabbits and artiodactyls dominate the assemblage (Table 75). The different number of taxa identified from the west, east and middle units probably relate to samples size and is therefore not unusual (Figure 20).

Table 72. Pueblo Bonito Assemblage Size Sample East Middle West Total Identified 4860 545 2383 7788 Unidentified 18237 1441 6757 26435 Total 23097 1986 9140 34223 % Identified 21% 27% 26% 23%

129 Table 73. Vertebrate Classes at Pueblo Bonito Class East Middle West Total %f Mammal 4622 529 2227 7378 95% Bird 221 IS 140 376 5% Fish 7 I I 9 <1% Reptile 1 I 2 <1% Amphibian 9 14 23 <1% Total 4860 545 2383 7788 100%

Table 74. Taxa Present in the Pueblo Bonito Faunal Assemblage Taxa Common Name East Middle West Total Lagomorpha Rabbit, Hare 68 10 33 111 Sylvilagus sp. Cottontail 1224 188 697 2109 Lepus sp. Jackrabbit 667 88 469 1224 Sciuridae Squirrel 542 37 248 827 Spermophilus sp. Ground Squirrel 2 2 Cynomys sp. Prairie Dog 24 I 9 34 Geomyidae Pocket Gopher 44 3 17 64 Perognathus sp. Pocket Mouse I 1 Dipodomys ordii Ord's Kangaroo Rat 8 2 10 Peromyscus sp. Mouse 4 I 5 Neotoma sp. Wood Rat 2 I I 4 Small Rodent Small Rodent 236 21 48 305 Large Rodent Large Rodent 12 I 13 Canidae Dogs, Wolf 2 2 Canis sp. Dog, Wolf, Coyote IS 3 18 36 Urocyon cinereoarJ?,enteus Gray Fox I 1 Mustela sp. Weasel 2 2 Lynx rufus Bobcat I 1 Small Carnivore Small Carnivore I I 2 Medium Carnivore Medium Carnivore 6 4 10 Cervidae Deer Family 31 I 9 41 Odocoileus sp. Deer 131 17 57 205 Antilocapra americana Pronghorn 31 3 14 48 Ovis canadensis Bighorn Sheep 20 4 24 Ovis aries Domestic Sheep 2 2 Medium Artiodactyla Medium Artiodactyla 970 102 362 1434 Small Mammal Small Mammal 174 20 74 268 Medium Mammal Medium Mammal 403 33 157 593 Falconiformes Vulture, Hawk, Eagle 3 3 Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle I 1 Buteo sp. Hawk 7 I I 9 Buteo reJ?,alis Ferruginous Hawk I I 2 Aquila chrysaetos Golden Eagle I I 2 Buteoninae Eagle 34 I 19 54 Falco sp. Falcon I 1 Falco sparverius Sparrow Hawk I I 2

130 Medium Falconiformes Medium Falcon/Hawk 32 10 42 Large Falconiformes Large Falcon/Hawk 3 2 5 Galliformes Grouse, Quail, Turkey 1 1 2 Meleagris Rallopavo Turkey 5 1 7 13 Ara sp. Macaw 1 1 Zenaida macroura Mourning Dove 2 2 Colaptes auratus Common Flicker 3 3 Passeriformes Perching Bird 8 7 15 Corvidae Jay, Crow 4 1 5 Corvus corax Raven 1 1 Pica pica Magpie 3 1 4 NucifraRa columbiana Clark's Nutcracker I 1 2 Small Bird Small Bird 13 4 5 22 Medium Bird Medium Bird 48 3 36 87 Large Bird Large Bird 53 3 42 98 Amphibia Amphibian 9 14 23 Reptilia Reptiles 1 1 2 Pisces Fish 7 I 1 9 Total 4860 545 2383 7788

Table 75. Common Mammal and Bird Groups at Pueblo Bonito (Percentages are of Total Identifiable Sample) Taxa Group East Middle West Subtotals Rabbits 1959 286 1199 3444 (44%) Rodents 874 64 327 1265 (16%) Carnivores 27 3 24 54 (1 %) Artiodactyla 1185 123 446 1754 (23%) Birds (Excluding Birds of Prey) 24 2 20 46 (1 %) Birds of Prey 82 3 37 122 (2%)

131 Figure 20. NISP and the Number of Taxa at Pueblo Bonito for Each Excavation Unit (Excluding Domestic Sheep, Reptiles and Amphibians)

Number of Taxa and NISP

_NISP 6000 30

5000 + 25

4000 20

D. .. !!? 3000 15 : I- z ""

2000 ~ 10

1000 5

~--,----+------+0 o Middle West East Mound

Rabbit Identification Size differences are the main criteria used to distinguish between cottontail and jackrabbit specimens with adult cottontails being smaller than jackrabbits. Yang et ai. (2005) found that size discrimination used for identifications may sometimes be imprecise. Taxon distinction of long bones is less problematic, but mandibles were far more ambiguous with a great deal of overlap between these two taxa. Following Yang et at. (2005), the length of cottontail and jackrabbit aveola was compared to mandibulae depth. All specimens were included. The data show two discrete lagomorph populations in the assemblage. Larger specimens are jackrabbits, and smaller ones are cottontails (Figure 2]).

132 Figure 21. Cottontail and Jackrabbit Mandibular Measurements (in mm) at Pueblo Bonito

19,..------_

18 ---- •

17 ~ - -~-~-~-~----

16 • • • -

E 15 ~------~-~=... ------!. • z:; c. I ~ 14 • .!!! • :!:! • ":; 13 :::E • •• 12 ------..----1...... ,. - 11 .... -- •• •

•------10 . • ------1

9-1------.------.------.------,------,------1 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 Alveolar Lenght (mm)

Teeth and Eggshell Driver's (2005) identification procedure allows for the recording of teeth and eggsheIl specimens, although these are excluded from any subsequent calculations. Due to the importance of Pueblo Bonito within the San Juan Basin, all identifications based on teeth as weIl as eggshell counts are presented here (Table 76). It is important to note that the data presented in Table 76 only include isolated teeth. It does not include teeth that were stiIl intact in mandibles, maxillae and premaxillae. In cases where teeth were intact in jaw bones, the latter was recorded and used in all subsequent calculations. Moreover, if for example a complete cottontail mandible without any teeth was present in a bag of bones together with three isolated lagomorph teeth, it was assumed that the three teeth fit with the cottontail mandible. In such cases, only the cottontail mandible was recorded, and used in subsequent calculations. The frequency of deer, pronghorn, bighorn sheep and indeterminate artiodactyla teeth closely match bone counts. This adds to the confidence in identifications of post-cranial remains

133 of artiodactyls. Moreover, just one postcranial gray fox specimen was recorded from the east mound (Table 74), but the data from Table 76 indicate that another tooth specimen of this taxon is present in the west mound. Apart from this case, all other taxa identified from teeth remains mimic postcranial data. A few eggshells were recovered, which may be from turkey. The data from Table 76 will not be considered further in this chapter, as it was excluded from any subsequent calculations (Driver 2005), except for the relative age of artiodactyla based on teeth.

Table 76. Isolated Teeth and Eggshell Specimens at Pueblo Bonito Taxa East Middle West Total Lagomorph 5 5 Sylvilagus sp. 2 4 6 Lepus sp. 2 2 Sciuridae 3 3 Canis sp. 4 7 11 Urocyon cinereoargenteus I 1 Medium Carnivore 2 2 2 6 Odocoileus sp. 70 20 55 145 Antilocapra americana 9 5 6 20 Ovis canadensis 8 1 2 11 Medium Artiodactyla 164 18 91 273 Small Mammal 1 I 2 Medium Mammal 22 3 16 41 Medium Bird (Eggshell Only) 7 3 5 15 Total 286 57 198 541

Cortical Thickness The cortical thickness of all identifiable and unidentifiable long bones was measured (see Driver 2005). The cortical thickness data provide a check on the relative frequency of identified large and small animals. For example, if artiodactyls were heavily fragmented, they might appear underrepresented in the identifiable assemblage, but high frequencies of thick cortical bone would appear in the unidentified assemblage. Cortical thickness measurements smaller than 2 mm indicate the presence of small animals such as lagomorphs, squirrels, rodents and perhaps birds, whereas those larger than 2 mm indicate medium-sized ones such as artiodactyls and larger carnivores. Based on specimens counts (Table 74), small mammals are far more common than medium ones. However, data based on cortical thickness (Table 77) suggests a higher percentage of large animals in the unidentified material. A possible explanation for this pattern is that unidentified fragments of small mammals fell through screens, whereas unidentified larger animals were retained in the screens. Moreover, long bones from large animals may be smashed into numerous pieces for marrow, resulting in a higher amount of large specimens.

134 Table 77. Pueblo Bonito Long Bone Cortical Thickness Thickness East Middle West Total % <2mm (Small Animals) 2211 335 1571 4117 58% >2mm (Medium Animals) 1820 102 1034 2956 42%

Natural and Cultural Bone Accumulations It was previously argued that most of the squirrels and other small rodents in the Albert Porter Pueblo faunal assemblage were food for the inhabitants. It is therefore also necessary to consider whether or not the squirrels and other rodents from Pueblo Bonito were eaten. Previously, I discussed the analytical methods, and will therefore not repeat them here. Evidence for sun-bleached, fresh and burnt bone, small mammal bone fragmentation as well as digested bone are presented here as evidence for rodent consumption at Pueblo Bonito.

Fresh and Sun-Bleached Specimens A few specimens from Pueblo Bonito appeared fresh. Only identifiable specimens were considered (Table 78). Taxa that appeared fresh include Ord's kangaroo rat, pocket mouse, mouse, indeterminate small rodent and reptile as well as amphibian. These specimens do not relate to the diet. In addition, only one specimen, an indeterminate small rodent from the east mound is sun-bleached. This may suggest a possible later intrusion.

Table 78. Fresh Bone from Pueblo Bonito Taxa East Middle West Total %NISP Dipodomys ordii 3 3 30% Pero~nathus sp. I 1 100% Peromvscus sp. I 1 20% Small Rodent 14 5 19 6% Reptile I I 2 100% Amphibian 6 14 20 87% Total 25 1 20 46

Long Bone Fragmentation I compared long bone fragmentation for small mammals (Table 79). Only humeri, femora and tibiae are considered. Since cottontails and jackrabbits relate to the diet of people at Pueblo Bonito, they therefore provide a measure to compare long bone fragmentation of small rodents. Pocket mouse, mouse and Ord's kangaroo rat were not included, as these are represented by mandibles and maxillas with very little or no postcrania which would lead to doubtful

135 interpretations. The high level of long bone fragmentation suggests that most taxa were part of the diet.

Table 79. Long Bone (Humeri, Femora, Tibiae) Fragmentation of Small Mammals at Pueblo Bonito Taxa Complete %NISP Fra2mented %NISP Total Sylvila~us sp. 14 2% 616 98% 630 Lepus sp. 4 1% 332 99% 336 Sciuridae 16 7% 230 93% 246 Geomyidae I 10% 9 90% 10 Small Rodent 6 14% 37 86% 43

Burnt Specimens Specimens with evidence for burning indicate that some small rodents were cooked or roasted (Table 80), which occurs in near equal numbers in the different contexts (Table 81). Deer, which was definitely eaten, also display a low value. The presence of burning on small mammals such as squirrels, pocket gopher and indeterminate small mammals suggest that they were part of the diet at Pueblo Bonito. However, three birds of prey specimens were also burnt, and it is not certain if they were necessarily consumed or burnt accidentally. The burnt squirrels and small rodents suggest that these specimens are contemporaneous with human usage of Pueblo Bonito. The absence of scorched mandibles from the Pueblo Bonito assemblage may suggest removal of rabbit and rodent crania before roasting. Burning probably contributed to the fragmentation of the assemblage.

Table 80. Burnt Taxa at Pueblo Bonito in Ranked Order Taxa Taxa NISP Burnt %Burnt Sylvilagus sp. 2109 252 12% Medium Carnivore 10 1 10% Cervidae 41 4 10% Lepus sp. 1224 125 10% Antilocapra americana 48 4 8% Ovis canadensis 24 2 8% Medium Artiodactyla 1434 109 8% Lagomorpha II I 8 7% Canis sp. 36 2 6% Medium Mammal 593 33 6% Sciuridae 827 44 5% Geomyidae 64 3 5% Medium Falconiformes 42 2 5% Small Bird 22 I 5%

136 Odocoileus sp. 205 8 4% Small Mammal 268 ]] 4% Cynomvs sp. 34 I 3% Small Rodent 305 8 3% Medium Bird 87 3 3% Large Bird 98 3 3% Buteoninae 54 I 2% Total NISP 7636 625 Ave: 6%

Table 81. Total Burnt Bone Sample (Identifiable and Unidentifiable Bone Combined) for Pueblo Bonito Number ofBurnt Bone Location (Total Assembla2;e) %Total of Total Assembla2;e East 1788 7.70% Middle 117 5.90% West 719 7.87% Total 2624 7.67%

Spiral Fractures Specimens with spiral fractures suggest that they were fresh when broken (Table 82). Although few small mammals such as squirrels, and pocket gopher generally have spiral fractures, this is also the case for animals such as pronghorn and bighorn sheep. The latter two taxa were definitely part of the diet. It is also likely that long bones of small rodents were not smashed open to extract marrow, resulting in low values of spiral fractures.

Table 82. Taxa with Spiral Fractures at Pueblo Bonito Taxa Taxa NISP Spiral Proximal Spiral Distal Total %NISP Medium Carnivore 10 5 5 10 50% Galliformes 2 1 I 2 50% Medium Bird 87 35 39 74 43% Buteo sp. 9 1 5 6 33% Odocoileus sp. 205 59 77 136 33% Medium Falconiformes 42 12 14 26 31% Medium Artiodactyla 1434 411 442 853 30% Lagomorpha III 19 44 63 29% Canidae 2 I 1 25% Mustela sp. 2 I 1 25% Buteo ref(alis 2 1 1 25% Nucifraf(a columbiana 2 1 1 25% Small Rodent 305 46 103 149 25% Sylvilaf(us sp. 2109 459 541 1000 24% Passeriformes 15 6 I 7 24% Lepus sp. 1224 247 302 549 23%

137 Small Bird 22 2 8 10 23% Medium Mammal 593 116 130 246 20% Large Falconiformes 5 1 1 2 20% Corvidae 5 1 1 2 20% Canis sp. 36 6 8 14 20% Small Mammal 268 47 58 105 20% Large Bird 98 17 21 38 20% Sciuridae 827 141 169 310 19% Antilocapra americana 48 4 12 16 17% Buteoninae 54 8 9 17 16% Ovis canadensis 24 I 6 7 15% Cynomys sp. 34 4 6 10 15% Pica pica 4 I 1 13% Geomyidae 64 2 9 11 9% Large Rodent 13 I 1 2 8% Meleagris gallopavo 13 2 2 8% Cervidae 41 2 2 4 4% Amphibia 23 1 1 2%

Cut and Chop Marks As was previously argued, the lack of cut and chop marks, which indicate carcass butchering and dismembering, are not necessarily a lack of evidence for butchering. Cut and chop marks were only recorded for identifiable specimens at Pueblo Bonito (Tables 83-84). The lack of cut and chop marks on small mammals such as squirrels, pocket gophers, wood rat and other small rodents does not mean that these were not consumed. Butchering probably contributed to the fragmentation of the assemblage.

Table 83. Taxa with Cut Marks at Pueblo Bonito Taxa East Middle West Total Antilocapra americana I 1 Ovis canadensis 1 1 Ovis aries 2 2 Medium Artiodactyla 1 1 Medium Mammal I 1 Falco sparverius I 1 Total 4 2 1 7

Table 84. Taxa with Chop Marks at Pueblo Bonito Taxa East Middle West Total Lepus sp. I 1 Odocoileus sp. 2 1 3 Medium Artiodactyla 13 1 14 Total 15 1 2 18

138 Digested Bone A few specimens from Pueblo Bonito were digested (Table 85). Only identified specimens were considered, and all are less than 4 cm in length. As is the case at Albert Porter Pueblo, they may have been digested by humans. Based on the high frequencies of small animal bone in human coprolites from Pueblo Alto (Clary 1987:786-787), it is probable that many skeletal parts were consumed by humans at Pueblo Bonito during meals. This conclusion is consistent with the widespread occurrence of digested bone in human coprolites throughout the San Juan Basin (Reinhard et at. 2007).

Table 85. Taxa with (Human) Digested Bone at Pueblo Bonito (Identifiable Specimens Only) Taxa East Middle West Total %NISP Lagomorph 2 2 2% Sylvila!?us sp. 55 6 14 75 4% Lepus sp. 85 5 41 131 II % Sciuridae 14 I 15 2% Small Rodent 5 I 6 2% Canis sp. I 1 3% Odocoileus sp. I 1 <1% Medium Artiodactyla 8 4 12 1% Small Mammal 10 5 15 6% Medium Mammal 3 I 4 1% Buteoninae 2 2 4% Small Bird I 1 5% Medium Bird I 1 1% Large Bird I 3 4 4%

II Total 187 12 71 270

Carnivore and Rodent Gnawing Carnivore and rodent gnaw marks were recorded for identifiable specimens only (Tables 86). It is likely that the gnawing damage is the result of dogs chewing on bone. Carnivore damage probably contributed to the fragmentation of the assemblage. Very little evidence was found for rodent gnawing. Only two specimens from the east mound and another three from the west mound display rodent gnawing. This suggests that rodent activity was minimal in the mounds.

Table 86. Taxa with Carnivore Gnaw Marks at Pueblo Bonito Taxa East Middle West Total %NISP Sylvila!?us sp. 3 I 4 <1% Lepus sp. 4 1 5 <1% Canis sp. I 1 3% Medium Carnivore 2 2 20%

139 Odocoileus sp. 2 2 4 2% Medium Artiodactyla 26 1 11 38 3% Medium Mammal 1 1 2 <1% Buteo reRalis I 1 50% Large Falconiformes 1 1 20% Medium Bird 1 1 1% Large Bird 2 1 3 3% Total 44 2 16 62

Excavation Damage As already indicated, both natural and cultural taphonomic processes such as butchering, cooking and carnivore gnawing contributed to the fragmentation of the Pueblo Bonito assemblage. The weight of the deposit and possible use of the mound surface during occupation could also have contributed to fragmentation. During excavations, some additional fracturing of the assemblage occurred. Specimens in the mounds were probably brittle and prone to breakage during recovery. During analysis it was noted that a high percentage of specimens display fresh breaks which occurred during recovery. In total, 20% of bone ends of the identifiable bones have fresh breaks (Table 87). It seems likely that much of the damage was done during the excavations of the 1920s. Transverse breaks are typical of specimens broken when 'dry' (e.g., Lyman 1994). This damage typically occurs on specimens after deposition. The relative high percentage of transverse breaks in the Pueblo Bonito assemblage suggests post-depositional breakage (Table 88).

Table 87. Excavation Damage at Pueblo Bonito (Identified Specimens Only) Location Proximal Break Distal Break Total %NISP East SOl 518 1019 21% Middle 39 45 84 15% West 241 245 486 20% Total 781 808 1589 20%

Table 88. Transverse Breaks at Pueblo Bonito (Identified Bone Only) Location Proximal Break Distal Break Total %NISP East 404 416 820 17% Middle 38 34 72 13% West 121 123 244 10% Total 563 573 1136 15%

140 Bone Tools Specimens from a variety of taxa were fashioned into tools at Pueblo Bonito (Table 89). Few tools are burnt. The variation in tool counts between the excavation units probably relate to different sample sizes. Most tools are fragmented specimens of which the use cannot be

determined. They may be mostly awls (Table 90). All the scrapers are from artiodactyla 1sl phalanges. Despite the abundance of small mammals such as cottontails and jackrabbit, these were generally not favoured for tools. The dominance of awls suggests leather or basketry work being performed at the site. Scrapers could also have been used to soften leather. The beads, which may have been manufactured at the site, were probably for decoration.

Table 89. Bone Tools at Pueblo Bonito East Middle West Total Taxa (Burnt) (Burnt) (Burnt) (Burnt) %NISP Lepus sp. 1 4 5 <1% Medium Carnivore 1 1 10% Odocoileus sp. 2 1 3 1% Cervidae 2 (1) 1(1) 3 (2) 7% Antilocapra americana 1 2 3 6% Medium Artiodactyla 4 2 6 <1% Medium Mammal 1 1 <1% Meleagris gallopavo 1 1 8% Unidentified 35 (10) 3 22 (2) 60 (12) <1% Total 45 (11) 5 33 (3) 83 (14) <1%

Table 90. Bone Tool Types at Pueblo Bonito Bone Tool Type East Middle West Total Frequency Awls 9 3 8 20 24% Beadsrrubes 6 1 6 13 16% Scrapers 4 2 6 7% Gaming Pieces 3 3 4% Undetermined Tools 23 1 17 41 49% Total 45 5 33 83 100%

N. Judd removed some bone tools during his excavations at Pueblo Bonito in the 1920s. Judd (1954: 139-152) also recovered bone awls from his excavations, as well as punches for sharpening flint knives, chisel-like implements of unknown use, and scrapers for fleshing hides. Many of these were made from deer bone, but elk, bighorn sheep, jackrabbit, cottontail, dog or coyote, bobcat, badger, turkey, golden eagle and ferruginous hawk bones were also used. Awls were the most common bone tool type. Some of the scrapers were inlaid with turquoise. These bone tools came from various contexts at Pueblo Bonito (Judd 1954: 139-152; also Pepper 1905).

141 Although no turkey bone artefacts or specimens inlaid with turquoise or shell were found in the recent assemblage, the small bone tool sample show similarities to what Judd (1954: 139-152) found. In 2007 J.e. Driver inspected a large collection of bone and antler specimens from Neil Judd's excavations at Pueblo Bonito, stored at the Smithsonian Institution (catalogue numbers A335001 through A33604I, plus A1335185 and AT06239). Based on descriptions in Judd's publication (1954) it is clear that Driver inspected most, but not all of the collected materials, including some unmodified faunal specimens that were presumably collected because they were unusual. For example, the collection included a cache of carnivore phalanges (mainly grizzly bear, but also mountain lion) that Judd (1954:65) describes as coming from a pilaster offering in Kiva Q. In addition there were isolated carnivore skulls from room 334, and pathological macaw and eagle specimens illustrated by Judd (1954: plate 76 a-c). However, some specimens were not available for inspection, including the articulated skeletons of macaw, parrot, hawk and dog (Judd 1954:65, 263-265), and the deer humerus scrapers inlaid with turquoise and other materials (Judd I954:Plate 36; Pepper 1905). The bone tools stored at the Smithsonian are listed in Table 90. It is also possible that some bone tools are kept in the American Museum of Natural History, but most of the bone tools illustrated by Judd (1954) were inspected at the Smithsonian (J.e. Driver personal communication).

Table 91. Identified Taxa: Worked Bone in the Smithsonian Collection from Judd's Excavations Taxa NISP of Modified Specimens Eagle 14 Turkey 15 Large Bird 35 Medium Bird 3 Cottontail 9 Jackrabbit 27 Canid 2 Badger I Bobcat 3 Medium Carnivore 8 Cervid (Antler) 2 Elk 4 Deer 13 Pronghorn I Medium Artiodactyla 151 Large Mammal I Medium Mammal 4 Unidentified 274 Total 567

142 I Total Excluding Unidentified Worked Bone 293 I

Large birds (eagles, turkeys and unidentified large birds) were used for two kinds of artefacts. Bone tubes (mainly only identifiable as large bird) were made more often from eagle than turkey, based on the frequency of the long bone ends that are discarded when the tube is made. On the other hand, awls, the other major category of artefact made from bird bone, were made more often from turkey than eagle (Table 92). The relatively low frequency of artefacts made of turkey bone is a reflection of the general paucity of turkey in the collection from the re excavated mound trenches (see Table 74). Surprisingly, Judd reports that turkey were "conspicuous in the trash mounds at Pueblo Bonito" and "(w)ith the possible exception of deer bones, turkey bones were most frequently utilised in the manufacture of that indispensable household implement, the awl" (1954:66). Data reported here suggest that specimens of deer and other medium artiodactyls were used more commonly than turkey for awls, although it was probably the second most important species for awl manufacture.

Table 92. Dominant Uses of Eagle, Turkey and Large Bird Specimens Taxa Awl Tube Tube OffCut Other Artefact Eagle 2 12 Turkey ]] 1 3 Large Bird 4 26 2 3 Total 17 27 17 3

By far the most common taxa in the worked bone collection are the artiodactyls, represented by elk, cervids, pronghorn, deer and a large number of specimens identifiable only as indeterminate medium artiodactyla. Elk was represented by three pieces of antler and a tibia illustrated by Judd (1954:Plate 32d). It is notable that all the specimens of elk recovered from Pueblo Bonito were used for artefacts, suggesting possible long distance transport of raw materials (cf. Dean 2(05). It is likely that more time invested in identification would yield more precise identifications of the indeterminate medium artiodactyla category, although many specimens were so heavily worked that diagnostic features were obliterated. The strong representation of deer reflects the dominance of this genus in the unmodified specimens recovered from Judd's mound trenches (Table 74). There is a strong correlation between skeletal element and artefact type (Table 93).

143 Table 93. Indeterminate Medium Artiodactyla, Deer and Pronghorn Skeletal Elements and Artefact Types (Excluding Cervidae and Elk) Element Awl Scraper Other Antler 3 Mandible 2 I Rib 4 2 Humerus I 15 Radius 6 I Ulna 9 Metapodial 96 8 Tibia 5 1 3 First Phalanx 12 Total 123 29 17

Given the strong selectivity for certain elements, one might expect to see that some elements (especially metapodials and humeri) would be underrepresented in the unmodified bone assemblage. However, this does not seem to be the case. This might suggest that, as with so many other categories of material culture, there was specialised import of either unworked bone or finished bone tools into Chaco Canyon. As noted previously, the unmodified specimens curated at the Smithsonian Institute can hardly be considered a representative sample of fauna. Nevertheless, they are reported here (Table 94). There is a definite preponderance of cranial specimens, but it is impossible to tell whether this reflects preferences of the archaeologists or Ancestral Puebloans.

Table 94. Unmodified Taxa and NISP Curated at the Smithsonian Institute from Pueblo Bonito Taxa NISP Notes Turkey 2 Jackrabbit 22 Cottontail 3 Beaver 1 Incisor Porcupine 1 Mandible Canid 28 All phalanges Gray Fox 3 Cranial Red Fox 2 Cranial; innominate Bear 156 All foot bones; mainly grizzly bear Bobcat 13 Mountain Lion 1 Badger 1 Cranial Deer 15 Mainly antler and cranial Bighorn Sheep 6 Mainly cranial Medium Artiodactyla 7 Total 258

144 Skeletal Part Representation Skeletal parts represented in the mound assemblages were calculated for artiodactyla, cottontails and jackrabbits using NISP, MNE, MAU and %MAU. These are the most common taxa in the Pueblo Bonito assemblage. Although many of the indeterminate medium mammal remains are probably from artiodactyls, these were not included as some carnivores may also be represented in this category.

Artiodactyla Skeletal part representation for artiodactyls at Pueblo Bonito (Table 95) indicates that all skeletal elements are represented. The differences between the east and west mound as well as the middle section probably relate to differences in sample size and variations in bone density rather than cultural behaviour. The total artiodactyla sample was grouped into large butchering units (Table 96). Crania are not well represented, which probably relates to the fragility of skull bones, and their low numerical presence in the mammal skeleton. The dominance of lower compared to upper limb bones is not unusual because there are more elements in the lower limbs. Therefore, no unusual pattern is evident from skeletal part representation of artiodactyls based on NISP. Artiodactyla MNE, MAU and %MAU are compared to Lyman's (1994:246-247) bone density values and Brain's (198] :] 39) ordinal density categories (Table 97). Scapula glenoids dominate the artiodactyla %MAUs. Other analysts have found a similar dominance of scapulae (e.g., Rawlings 2006; Tarcan 2005). It is tempting to correlated element selection with ritual activities (e.g., Tarcan 2005). However, the dominance of scapulae could be a function of the faunal recording system (Driver 2005) rather than human behaviour. Artiodactyla epiphyses are not described in detail (e.g., lateral, medial, anterior, posterior, etc. see Dobney and Rielly] 988; De Ruiter 2004) during analysis (Driver 2005). In the case of fragmented archaeofaunas, this may result in a situation where other elements outnumber scapulas based on NISPs, but when these are converted to MNEs, scapulae glenoids dominate assemblages.

Table 95. Artiodactyla Skeletal Parts at Pueblo Bonito Based (NISP) Skeletal Part East Middle West Total Antler 32 ] 10 43 Cranial 10 ] 7 18 Facial 1 1 Nasal 1 1 Occipital Condyle 4 ] ] 6 Occipital 2 2 Petrosa 15 2 6 23

145 Temporal 3 3 Zygomatic 3 3 Premaxilla 6 2 2 10 Maxilla 12 5 3 20 Mandible 41 ]5 33 89 Hyoid 6 2 5 13 Vertebra 29 2 ]] 42 Atlas 5 2 7 Axis 2 2 Cervical 52 3 ]7 72 Thoracic 45 3 13 61 Lumbar 37 4 ]9 60 Sacral 2 2 Caudal 3 ] 4 Rib 136 ]5 25 176 Ossified Cartilage 3 2 5 Sternum ] 1 Scapula 42 3 7 52 Humerus 53 13 66 Radius 39 ] ]5 55 Ulna 22 6 ]2 40 Carpal 42 8 26 76 Metacarpus 6 1 ] 8 Innominate 29 3 14 46 Femur 79 3 30 112 Patella ]3 ] 3 17 Tibia 68 6 29 103 Astragalus 30 5 ]I 46 Calcaneus 23 8 7 38 Tarsal 26 4 6 36 Metatarsus 6 I 6 13 Lateral Metatarsus 2 2 Metapodial 29 3 8 40 I st Phalanx 63 5 26 94 2nd Phalanx 74 4 27 105 3rd Phalanx 34 2 ]8 54 Sesamoid 54 3 27 84 Total 1183 123 445 1751

Table 96. Artiodactyla Butchering Units at Pueblo Bonito (NISP) ButcheriDl~ Unit Total f Crania 232 13% Rib Cage (Scapula, Vertebrae, Ribs, Innominate, Caudal) 530 30% Upper Limb (Humeri, Femora, Radius, Ulna, Tibiae, Patella) 393 22% Lower Limb (Metapodia, Phalanges, Carpals, Tarsals) 596 34% Total 1751 100%

146 Table 97. Artiodactyla MNE, MAU and %MAU for Selected Elements at Pueblo Bonito in Ranked Order Skeletal Part Part MNE MAU %MAU Brain (1981) Lyman (1994) Scapula Glenoid 23 11.5 100% High 0.36 Ulna Proximal 9 4.5 39% Intermediate 0.45 Radius Distal 8 4 35% Low 0.43 Radius Proximal 7 3.5 30% High 0.5 Humerus Proximal 4 2 17% Low 0.24 Humerus Distal 4 2 17% High 0.39 Tibia Distal 4 2 17% High 0.5 Metapodial Proximal 5 1.25 11% High 0.5 Metapodial Distal 4 ] 9% High 0.5 Ulna Distal 2 ] 9% Intermediate 0.44 Femur Proximal 2 1 9% Intermediate 0.36 Femur Distal 2 1 9% Intermediate 0.28 Tibia Proximal 2 1 9% Low 0.3

Jackrabbits Jackrabbit skeletal part representation based on NISP (Table 98) is not particularly unusual. All elements are represented, except very small elements such as 3'd phalanges. These were probably lost during recovery. Differences between the east and west mound probably relate to sample size. Jackrabbit MNE, MAU and %MAU are dominated by distal humeri (Table 99) which is a dense part of the mammalian skeleton (Lyman 1994). Therefore, no significant pattern can be delineated from the jackrabbit MNE, MAU or %MAU.

Table 98. Jackrabbit Skeletal Parts at Pueblo Bonito (NISP) Skeletal Part East Middle West Total Frontal 4 1 5 Occipital 1 1 Petrosa 1 1 Temporal 6 6 Zygomatic 5 5 Premaxilla 10 1 7 18 Maxilla 14 1 12 27 Mandible 38 6 24 68 Vertebra 4 1 5 Atlas 6 7 13 Axis 2 2 Cervical 4 1 5 Thoracic 8 ] 7 16 Lumbar 40 4 25 69 Sacral 5 1 2 8 Rib 60 6 39 105

147 Sternum I 1 Scapula 50 8 34 92 Humerus 64 9 50 123 Radius 37 5 33 75 Ulna 23 2 28 53 Carpal I 1 Metacarpus 30 6 13 49 Innominate 42 9 33 84 Femur 59 10 47 116 Patella 2 2 Tibia 51 9 37 97 Fibula 2 I 3 Astragalus 22 2 8 32 Calcaneus 24 I 13 38 Tarsal 14 6 20 Metatarsus 23 5 23 51 Metapodial 7 I 6 14 I st Phalanx 9 I 8 18 2nd Phalanx I 1 Total 667 88 469 1224

Table 99. Jackrabbit MNE, MAU and %MAU for Selected Elements at Pueblo Bonito in Ranked Order Skeletal Part Part MNE MAU %MAU Humerus Distal 76 38 100% Scapula Glenoid 66 33 87% Ulna Proximal 25 12.5 33% Radius Distal 24 12 32% Radius Proximal 24 12 32% Tibia Distal 21 10.5 28% Femur Distal 19 9.5 25% Tibia Proximal 14 7 18% Metapodial Proximal 97 4.85 13% Humerus Proximal 9 4.5 12% Femur Proximal 9 4.5 12% Metapodial Distal 71 1.7 4%

Cottontails Skeletal part representation for cottontails based on NISP do not suggest any unusual patterns. All elements are represented, with smaller elements such as patellas and 3rd phalanges present in lower frequencies than larger elements (Table 100). Many of these smaller elements were probably lost during recovery. Cottontail MNE, MAU and %MAUs, like in the case of jackrabbits, is dominated by scapula glenoid and distal humeri (Table 101). These two elements are dense and it is therefore not unusual that they would have a high frequency.

148 Table 100. Cottontail Skeletal Part Represented at Pueblo Bonito (NISP) Skeletal Part East Middle West Total Cranial 3 3 Frontal 18 5 8 31 Occipital Condyle 3 1 4 Occipital 4 I 5 Petrosa 1 1 Temporal 15 1 10 26 Zygomatic 12 5 17 Nasal 1 I 1 3 Premaxilla 25 1 8 34 Maxilla 32 5 26 63 Mandible 99 16 69 184 Atlas 16 3 3 22 Axis 9 1 5 15 Cervical 1 1 Thoracic 5 2 7 Lumbar 68 7 26 101 Sacral 8 6 14 Rib 26 2 7 35 Scapula 111 17 60 188 Humerus 112 22 50 184 Radius 47 11 40 98 Ulna 61 9 42 112 Carpal 9 9 Metacarpus 8 1 7 16 Innominate 165 26 95 286 Femur 141 17 86 244 Patella 2 2 Tibia 110 18 74 202 Fibula 1 1 2 Astragalus 3 I 2 6 Calcaneus 40 24 64 Tarsal 1 I 1 3 Metatarsus 47 6 27 80 Metapodial 11 1 7 19 1st Phalanx 11 4 4 19 2nd Phalanx 5 5 3rd Phalanx 3 I 4 Total 1224 188 697 2109

149 Table 101. Cottontail MNE, MAU and %MAU for Selected Elements at Pueblo Bonito in Ranked Order Skeletal Part Part MNE MAU %MAU Scapula Glenoid 140 70 100% Humerus Distal 122 61 87% Ulna Proximal 78 39 56% Tibia Distal 79 39.5 56% Radius Proximal 62 31 44% Femur Distal 43 21.5 31% Tibia Proximal 38 19 27% Femur Proximal 37 18.5 26% Radius Distal 24 12 17% Humerus Proximal 20 10 14% Metapodial Proximal 94 4.7 7% Metapodial Distal 77 3.8 5% Ulna Distal 6 3 4%

Combined NISP and MNE Artiodactyla, jackrabbit and cottontail skeletal parts as expressed in NISP and MNE for Pueblo Bonito indicate some interesting patterns (Table 102). The discrepancy between NISP and MNE, especially for artiodactyla is a reflection of the heavy fragmentation of the faunal assemblage. For artiodactyls, long bone shafts are common, which depress MNE counts. On the other hand, phalanges, carpals and sesamoids of artiodactyls, which were often found complete, are well represented. The large discrepancy between artiodactyla NISP and MNEs, compared to that of cottontails and jackrabbits, is the result of two factors. First, as already mentioned, it indicates that the artiodactyla sample is heavily fragmented. A large number of artiodactyla bones are represented by shaft fragments only and not epiphyses. By contrast, jackrabbit and cottontail NISP and MNEs are more closely matched, which indicate that these taxa are not heavily fragmented. Artiodactyla bones were probably smashed open to extract marrow, resulting in higher fragmentation. Second, as was mentioned previously, the low artiodactyla MNEs is a function of the recoding system used in this study. During analysis, numerous epiphyses were found, most often in a heavily fragmented state. However, during analysis, archaeofaunal specimens are only recorded with a code, which does not describe the exact locations of fragments (Driver 2005). During MNE calculations, this introduces the problem of interdependence (e.g., Grayson 1984) which resulted in low MNEs for artiodactyls.

150 Table 102. Artiodactyla, Jackrabbit and Cottontail Skeletal Parts at Pueblo Bonito (NISP and MNE) Artiodactyla Lepus sp. Svlvila/!. us sp. Skeletal Part NISP MNE NISP MNE NISP MNE Antler 43 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a Cranial 18 1 3 1 Facial 1 1 Frontal 5 2 31 13 Nasal 1 1 3 2 Occipital Condyle 6 3 4 4 Occipital 2 1 1 1 5 1 Petrosa 23 4 1 1 1 1 Temporal 3 1 6 1 26 1 Zygomatic 3 1 5 1 17 1 Premaxilla 10 4 18 8 34 7 Maxilla 20 2 27 2 63 I Mandible 89 4 68 36 184 78 Hyoid 13 6 Vertebra 42 2 5 1 Atlas 7 3 13 10 22 17 Axis 2 1 2 1 15 9 Cervical 72 6 5 5 1 1 Thoracic 61 3 16 10 7 7 Lumbar 60 3 69 24 101 56 Sacral 2 1 8 1 14 6 Caudal 4 4 Sternum 1 1 1 1 Rib 176 65 105 83 35 33 Ossified Cartilage 5 1 Scapula 52 23 92 66 188 140 Humerus 66 4 123 75 184 121 Radius 55 7 75 24 98 62 Ulna 40 9 53 25 112 78 Carpal 76 74 1 I 9 9 Metacarpus 8 3 49 49 16 16 Innominate 46 9 84 22 286 45 Femur 112 3 116 17 244 42 Patella 17 15 2 2 2 2 Fibula n/a n/a 3 3 2 2 Tibia 103 5 97 14 202 78 Astragalus 46 21 32 31 6 6 Calcaneus 38 17 38 28 64 64 Tarsal 36 23 20 20 3 3 Metatarsus 13 2 51 48 80 78 Lateral Metatarsus 2 2 n/a n/a n/a n/a Metapodial 40 4 14 10 19 19 1st Phalanx 94 53 18 18 19 17 2nd Phalanx 105 49 1 1 5 5

151 3rd Phalanx 54 45 4 4 Sesamoid 84 84 Total 1751 n1a 1224 n1a 2109 n1a n/a= not applicable

Summary All the major vertebrates- mammals, birds, fish, reptiles and amphibians- are present in the Pueblo Bonito assemblage. The most common taxa are cottontail, followed by artiodactyla (combined) and jackrabbits. A few specimens, most notably the amphibians, reptiles and a few small rodents, probably don't relate to the occupation of the site but are later intrusions. Despite these few self-introduced taxa, I argued that the vast majority of small rodent taxa such as squirrels, wood rat, pocket gopher and the numerous indeterminate small rodent remains were in fact contemporaneous to the usage of Pueblo Bonito. The most conspicuous evidence for small rodent consumption include evidence for (possible) human digestion of the taxa, burning and high fragmentation levels of small taxa. In contrast, very few specimens appeared fresh and sun bleached. There are no significant differences between the east and west mound. Various processes such as previous excavations, butchering, and burning contributed to the heavy fragmentation of the assemblage.

152 CHAPTER 10 FAUNAL USAGE AT PUEBLO BONITO

Introduction An interpretation of the archaeofauna from Pueblo Bonito labours under serious limitations. First, previous faunal analyses of faunas from Chaco Canyon (Judd 1954) were not on par with modern zooarchaeological methods with regards to quantification, retrieval methods and reporting (e.g., see Akins 1985; Driver 1991; 2005; O'Connor 2000; Reitz and Wing 1999). Older faunal reports from Chaco Canyon often did not list specimen counts with only some casual observations (e.g., Judd 1954). For example, in discussing the material remains from Bc50-51, a Pueblo I site in Chaco Canyon, Kluckhohn (1939: 147) states: 'The percentages of the 3,824 identifiable bone remains were so extraordinarily similar (save for appreciably greater representation of the Golden Eagle) that publication of the tabulation does not seem worth while.' Second, several factors contribute to the mixing of the deposits and fragmentation of bones. The mounds of Pueblo Bonito were excavated and backfilled on previous occasions during the last century. Moreover, the initial construction of the mounds may have incorporated cultural material from elsewhere on the site (Judd 1964, but see Windes 1987). Third, during previous investigations of the Pueblo Bonito mounds, unusual animal specimens such as inlaid bone and crania were removed (Judd 1954; 1964; Pepper 1905). As an example, previous analysis of fauna from Pueblo Bonito noted large mammals such as elk and bear (Judd 1954). However, I found no large mammal remains in the recent assemblage. A complete re-analysis in future of archaeofaunas from Pueblo Bonito housed in museum collections would be useful.

Integrity of the Pueblo Bonito Assemblage Based on archaeologist's understanding of Pueblo Bonito (e.g., Judd 1954; 1964; Lekson 2006; Windes 1987), I propose that the fauna from the mounds may have resulted from one or more of the following depositional events: • incorporated with the mounds as construction material, following primary deposition elsewhere (cf. Judd 1954; 1964); • deposited as primary refuse during the construction or use of the mounds (cf. Windes 1987); • excavated in the I920s, mixed, and replaced as backfill (Judd 1954; 1964); and/or • some deposition of non-Puebloan, fresh bone during the 1920s.

153 Excavations in 2006 by the University of New Mexico recovered fauna that had been previously excavated, mixed and backfilled by Neil Judd (1954; 1964). However, some bone specimens provide evidence for a different depositional history. Two phalanges of domestic sheep in the assemblage have to be of recent origin, and were likely incorporated into the east mound during the early excavations. The Navajo herded domestic sheep around Chaco Canyon at the time Pueblo Bonito was excavated in the late 1800s and early 1900s (Brugge 1986). Some bone specimens are likely primary deposits. An articulated eagle wing may indicate that the most recent excavations involved some undisturbed contexts, although it is also possible that sinew may have held the pieces together. However, this seems unlikely given the presence of a right scapula with the left wing bones.

Previous Faunal Research at Pueblo Bonito and Chaco Canyon The fauna recovered in Judd's (1954) excavations of Pueblo Bonito (summarised in Akins 1984; 1985:314-332) provides a useful comparison to my analysis of the fauna from the mounds at Pueblo Bonito (Table 103). Judd excavated various locations of Pueblo Bonito, including kivas, rooms and the mounds. Although there are similarities between the previous and the current faunal analyses, my study extends the list of animal taxa exploited at Pueblo Bonito. In the following sections, the combined list of taxa is discussed. Akins (1984; 1985; 1987) considered both economic and ritual usage of animals in Chaco Canyon between Basketmaker III and Pueblo III times (A.D. 500-1300). The following discussions on economic and ritual usage of animals are only briefly considered, highlighting only patterns not previously discussed in this dissertation.

Table 103. Fauna from Pueblo Bonito (Judd 1954; Akins 1985; This Study) Judd 1954; Taxa Common Name Akins 1985 This Study (NISP) Lagomorpha Rabbit, Hare III Sylvila~us sp. Cottontail X 2109 Lepus sp. Jackrabbit X 1224 Sciuridae Squirrel 827 Spermophilus sp. Ground Squirrel 2 Cynomys sp. Prairie Dog 34 Geomyidae Pocket Gopher 64 Pero~nathus sp. Pocket Mouse I Dipodomys ordii Ord's Kangaroo Rat 10 Peromyscus sp. Mouse 5 Neotoma sp. Wood Rat 4 Erethizon dorsatum Porcupine X

154 Castor canadensis Beaver X Small Rodent Small Rodent 305 Large Rodent Large Rodent 13 Canidae Dogs, Wolf 2 Canis sp. Dog, Wolf, Coyote 36 Canis familiarus Dog X Canis latrans Coyote X Vulpes vulpes Red Fox X Urocyon cinereoarRenteus Gray Fox 1 Ursus americanus Black Bear X Vrsus arctos Grizzly Bear X Mustela sp. Weasel 2 Taxidea taxus Badger X Felis concolor Mountain Lion X Lynx rufus Bobcat X 1 Small Carnivore Small Carnivore 2 Medium Carnivore Medium Carnivore 10 Cervidae Deer Family 41 Cervus elaphus Elk X Odocoileus sp. Deer X 205 Antilocapra americana Pronghorn X 48 Ovis canadensis Bighorn Sheep X 24 Ovis aries Domestic Sheep 2 Medium Artiodactyla Medium Artiodactyla 1434 Small Mammal Small Mammal 268 Medium Mammal Medium Mammal 593 Aythya americana Redhead X Rhynchopsitta pachyrhyncha Thick-Billed Parrot X Ara macao Scarlet Macaw X Ara sp. Macaw X 1 Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle 1 Buteoninae Eagle 54 Aquila chrysaetos Golden Eagle X 2 Buteo sp. Hawk 9 Buteo reRalis Ferruginous Hawk X 2 Buteo jamaicensis Red-Tailed Hawk X Buteo swainsoni Swainson's Hawk X Falco sp. Falcon I Falco mexicanus Prairie Falcon X Falco sparverius Sparrow Hawk 2 Medium Falconiformes Medium Falcon 42 Large Falconiformes Large Falcon 5 Falconiformes Vulture, Hawk, Eagle 3 Galliformes Grouse, Quail, Turkey 2 MeleaRris Rallopavo Turkey X 13 Grus canadensis Sandhill Crane X Zenaida macroura Mourning Dove 2

155 Otus asio Screech Owl X Bubo virginianus Great Homed Owl X Colaptes auratus Common Flicker 3 Passeriformes Perching Bird 15 Gymnorhinus cyanoccephalus Pinyon Jay X Corvidae Jay, Crow 5 Corvus corax Raven X I Pica pica Magpie X 4 Nucifraga columbiana Clark's Nutcracker 2 Small Bird Small Bird 22 Medium Bird Medium Bird 87 Large Bird Large Bird 98 Amphibia Amphibian 23 Testudinidae Turtle X Reptilia Reptiles 2 Osteichthyes Bony Fish X Pisces Fish 9 Total NISP 7788 x =Present

Animal Usage Carnivores The gray fox, dog, coyote, mountain lion, red fox, weasel, bobcat, black and grizzly bear and badger from Pueblo Bonito likely served as ritual paraphernalia (see Judd 1954:64-65). There is sufficient evidence that carnivore hides and body parts such as claws were used in rituals during recent and prehistoric times (Akins 1985:343; W.W. Hill 1982). Judd's excavation team found complete and fragmentary dog skeletons at various locations at Pueblo Bonito (Allen 1954:386). These results are consistent with faunal remains from other Pueblo II sites in Chaco Canyon (Akins 1985:319). It is generally believed that dogs were not eaten (Judd 1954:65). Dogs could have assisted in game hunts and served as pets and protection (Henderson and Harrington 1914:26). A way to keep dogs from killing farm animals such as turkeys (i.e. fresh meat) is to raise dogs on dried, cooked or putrid meat. Once they are accustomed to non-fresh meat, they would abstain from killing animals (e.g., Stefansson 1920). With the exception of weasel, all the carnivore taxa identified from Pueblo Bonito have been identified in other assemblages within Chaco Canyon (Akins 1985:314). Weasels are often found close to colonies of prairie dogs and other small rodents such as pocket gopher, on which they feed (Bailey 1971). Weasels probably occurred in and around Chaco Canyon and their presence are therefore not unusual.

156 Black bear remains are not common in assemblages from Chaco Canyon. Only one other settlement, apart from Pueblo Bonito, yielded remains of black bear. The black bear specimens were found at 29SJ628, a Basketmaker III pithouse (Akins 1985:306,314). Many of the carnivore taxa identified from Pueblo Bonito by Judd (1954) and myself still or until recently occurred within and around Chaco Canyon. These include coyotes, gray fox, badger, mountain lion and bobcats. It is likely that these were hunted or trapped locally. However, some carnivore taxa were probably imported from other regions. These include red fox and the black and grizzly bears. These three taxa prefer mountainous regions such as those surrounding the San Juan Basin (Akins 1985:319-320; Hall 1981).

Artiodactyls As I previously indicated (Albert Porter Pueblo Faunal Usage chapter), artiodactyla meat was probably highly prized in many parts of the San Juan Basin (Driver 1996). Although artiodactyla bones are outnumbered by small mammals at sites in Chaco Canyon, their meat contribution was relatively high (Akins 1984:231). Deer, pronghorn and bighorn sheep were likely consumed at Pueblo Bonito. Deer, pronghorn and bighorn sheep probably occurred throughout much of the San Juan Basin during prehistoric times. Elk, however, was likely restricted to mountainous regions such as those surrounding the San Juan Basin. Elk could have been obtained during either long distance hunting trips, or via long distance trade of dried meat (Akins 1985:320-321,357). As already mentioned, the domestic sheep bones are definitely recent in origin. The relative abundance of elk, deer, pronghorn and bighorn sheep at Pueblo Bonito is consistent with the patterning found at other sites in Chaco Canyon (Akins 1984; 1985; 1987). Throughout Chaco Canyon, the numbers of these taxa are usually relatively low, with rising human populations possibly exerting pressure on artiodactyla numbers. People may have shifted their energies to acquire more small fast reproducing mammals such as rabbits (Akins 1985:356). Similar to Akins' (1985:368) findings, I found no unusual pattern for artiodactyla skeletal part representation at Pueblo Bonito. However, at Pueblo Alto, Akins (1987) found changes in vertebrae and limb bone proportions of artiodactyls over time. The possibility cannot be excluded that the variation is due to the impact of bone fragmentation. Akins recognised an indeterminate vertebrae category, which could include many of the 'missing' vertebrate fragments. If animals were hunted a long way from Chaco Canyon, it is possible that only selected body parts were carried back (cf. Perkins and Daly 1968). However, a complete carcass of medium sized artiodactyla could have been carried to Chaco Canyon by no more than two

157 individuals with relative ease. Adult deer, being larger than pronghorn and bighorn sheep, weighs barely over 100 kg for males (Anderson and WaJlmo 1984).

Artiodactyla Aging and Intensive Hunting Both teeth and postcrania of artiodactyla were used to determine the relative proportions of young and adult animals in the Pueblo Bonito assemblage. During analysis, teeth were recorded as either deciduous or permanent in nature. Postcranial bones were recorded as being either from a neonate, juvenile or adult animal (see Driver 2005). Indeterminate medium mammal remains were not considered. Most artiodactyla teeth recovered from Pueblo Bonito were from adults (Table 104).

Table 104. Artiodactyla Teeth from Pueblo Bonito Taxa Relative A2e East Middle West Total Odocoileus sp. Young (Deciduous) 6 2 4 12 Adult (Permanent) 49 17 37 103 Antilocapra americana Young (Deciduous) I 1 Adult (Permanent) 9 5 5 19 Ovis canadensis Young (Deciduous) . Adult (Permanent) 5 I 2 8 Indeterminate Young (Deciduous) 2 2 4 Medium Artiodactyla Adult (Permanent) 27 5 21 53 Total 98 30 72 200

Table 105. Pueblo Bonito Artiodactyla Postcrania Fusion Data Antilocapra ovis Medium Skeletal Odocoileus sp. americana canadensis Artiodact la Part N U J F N U J F N U J F N U J F HUprox 2 I 5 2 HU dist I I 2 3 3 RA prox I 6 II 13 RA dist 3 I 4 I I I 6 4 ULprox 3 3 I I 4 I UL dist 4 2 Me prox 2 I 4 FE prox 14 I 6 FE dist I I 8 5 TI prox I 16 6 TI dist 2 2 I I 6 16 MTprox 2 2 MPprox 7 MP dist 6 2 10

158 IP prox 2 3] 1 ]6 5 2 ]4 ]P dist 35 ]4 4 ]8 2P prox 6 3] ]] 9 1 3 13 2P dist 36 10 9 26 Total 15 5 156 3 2 54 28 7 77 4 151 % 9% 91% 5% 95% 100% 35% 65% (N=Neonate, U=Unfused, J=Just Fused, F=Fused, Prox=Proximal, Dist=Distal) (HU=Humerus, RA=Radius, UL=Ulna, MC=Metacarpus, FE=Femur, TI=Tibia, MT=Metatarsus, MP=Metapodial, 1P=] st Phalanx, 2P=2nd Phalanx)

To investigate whether artiodactyla postcrania reflect a similar pattern to teeth, I compared fusion data of artiodactyla long bones and phalanges (Table 105). The postcranial fusion data indicate that for deer, pronghorn and bighorn sheep, adult remains dominate, which is not the case for indeterminate medium artiodactyla. This probably reflects the difficulty of assigning juvenile postcranial specimens with certainty to species-level identifications. The combined teeth and postcranial fusion data display similar results (Table] 06). Overall, deciduous teeth and juvenile postcrania represent about 20% of the artiodactyla samples at Pueblo Bonito, whereas adult specimens represent 80%. However, when elements that fuse relatively late in artiodactyls (Rawlings 2006), proximal humeri, distal radii, proximal and distal femora, and proximal tibiae are considered, it shows that only 30 (or 33%) from 89 specimens are adults.

Table 106. Combined Artiodactyla Teeth and Postcrania Fusion Data at Pueblo Bonito Relative A2e Postcrania %Postcrania Teeth %Teeth Young (Neonate, Unfused, Deciduous) 102 20% ]7 21% Adult (Just Fused, Fused, Permanent Teeth) 400 80% 65 79% Total 502 100% 82 100%

The few neonate artiodactyla specimens from the recent excavations at Pueblo Bonito suggests that at least some of these animals were hunted during spring months, the time when artiodactyls typically give birth (e.g., O'Gara 1978; Hass 1997). Hunting of artiodactyls was probably not just restricted to spring months, and game could have been hunted throughout the year however. Unfortunately, there are very few maxillae or mandibles with complete tooth rows, so it is difficult to undertake an assessment of the population structure based on tooth eruption and wear patterns (e.g., Klein and Cruz-Uribe ]984; Thackeray and Van Leuvan Smith 2001). The

159 nd problem is compounded by the difficulty of deciding whether some isolated teeth are I st or 2 molars, because these are difficult to distinguish. Based on the foregoing, I make some general observations about the population structure of deer, relying on two sets of data: mandibles and maxillae that contain partial or complete tooth rows; and distinctive mandibular teeth that can be identified confidently when recovered as isolated specimens. These observations will then be compared against a similarly limited set of observations that can be made about the maxillae and maxillary teeth. A caveat to this analysis is that tooth eruption may be controlled by nutritional status, and that tooth wear is likely to be more rapid in drier environments (e.g., Badenhorst and Plug 2003). Using a summary of various publications by Gilbert (1980), and assuming that tooth eruption dates in Chaco deer were similar to modem wild deer, the following reconstruction can be made. Because I do not have "matches" between left and right jaws or individual teeth, each unique tooth orjaw was treated as a separate individual. For example, all the nine deciduous fourth premolars have unique wear patterns, so these are treated as nine individual animals. On the other hand, if a tooth could come from the same specimen as another tooth, it was not used in the analysis. For example, heavily worn first molars could be from the same individuals as moderately worn third molars, so I did not count two isolated teeth as two individual animals. Looking first at mandibles, the youngest deer represented in the sample are those that still retain the distinctive fourth deciduous premolar. This tooth is present at birth, wears down throughout the animal's first year, and is lost during the late second year or early third year, when it is replaced by the fourth permanent premolar (Robinette et al. 1957: 140). As it is very unlikely that a deer would shed its deciduous premolars on an archaeological site, we can assume that all these teeth are from animals that were hunted. Of the nine mandible specimens from the Pueblo Bonito sample, two fourth deciduous teeth have little wear, and must represent animals killed within the first year. In addition, there are four specimens with moderate wear, and one of these is from a mandible in which only the first permanent molar is in wear, and thus likely about one year old. There are three specimens exhibiting heavy wear, suggesting an animal well into its second year (Robinette et al. 1957). The last tooth to erupt is the third permanent molar that comes into wear towards the end of the animal's third year. Because these teeth are unlikely to erupt before the fourth deciduous premolar is lost, they must belong to older animals than specimens represented by deciduous premolars (Robinette et al. 1957). One specimen has no wear but must have been close to eruption, so represents a two to three year old animal. Seven third molars exhibit some tooth wear. Of these, four have wear on all cusps, but the wear has not made a significant impact on the

160 overall height of the tooth. These specimens must be from animals that are around three years old. Three specimens have heavier wear on all cusps, and must be greater than three years old (Robinette et ai. ]957) Thus, using deciduous fourth premolars and third permanent molars from the mandible, we can identify the following individuals: (a) two killed within the first year, likely less than six months old, (b) four animals about one year old, (c) three animals within their second year, (d) one animal between two and three years, (e) four around three years old, and (f) three greater than three years. Teeth from the maxilla present a somewhat different pattern than those from the mandibles, although the overall emphasis on younger animals is maintained. The youngest specimen of maxilla with teeth has all the deciduous premolars, a first molar in wear and a second molar with minimal wear. This represents an animal within the second year. Two other fourth deciduous premolars have less wear than the equivalent tooth in the complete maxilla and are likely from animals killed within the first year. Most of the remaining maxillae and maxillary teeth appear to be from animals killed between two and four years of age. The youngest of these is a specimen in which permanent premolars and the third permanent molar all exhibit slight wear, suggesting an age of between two and three years. An isolated third premolar has the same wear as this specimen. There are an additional two isolated teeth and seven maxilla fragments with teeth that exhibit slightly more wear than the two to three year old. Depending on the rate of tooth wear, these could all be within the 2 to 3 year age range, but, taking a conservative approach, they are placed in the 2 to 4 year group. Finally, there are two premolars with very heavy wear, suggesting an age in excess of four years (Robinette et ai. 1957). Fourteen of seventeen mandibles (82%) seem to belong to deer aged three years or less. If we assume that the 2 to 4 year old specimens of maxillae are also in the 2 to 3 year age range, then] 4 out of ]6 specimens (88%) are three years or less, and there is reasonable agreement between to two data sets. The relatively high proportion of immature artiodactyla in the Pueblo Bonito faunal assemblage is of particular interest. The fusion data suggests a somewhat higher percentage of adult animals. This could be the result of poor preservation of immature remains (for example, more of the immature femurs lost than mature femurs). However, considering long bones that fuse late in life, most are from immature individuals.

161 The dominance of immature artiodactyls at Pueblo Bonito suggests that larger bodied animals were subjected to hunting pressure (see Albert Porter Pueblo Faunal Usage chapter). This may have resulted in a number of possible alternative strategies to obtain protein. First, people could have increased their reliance on small animals such as cottontails, jackrabbits and small rodents which are less prone to exploitation pressures due to their fast reproduction rates. However, as small mammals have always been an important part of diets in the San Juan Basin even prior to the usage of Pueblo Bonito and Chaco Canyon (e.g., Akins 1985), this seems unlikely. Second, people could have been forced to move further afield to obtain artiodactyla meat. Interestingly, a number of taxa identified from Pueblo Bonito were clearly imported from mountainous regions such as the Chuska and perhaps even the San Juan Mountains. Mountainous regions such as the Chuska Mountains were also a source of clay, timber and stone (Lekson et at. 1988). In their search for artiodactyls in mountainous regions such as the Chuska Mountains, people from Pueblo Bonito or other settlements in Chaco Canyon could have opportunistically killed taxa such as bears and other carnivores which served as paraphernalia in ceremonies. A third potential strategy would be to either establish or reinforce trade links with far-off communities in the Southwest where artiodactyls were more common. Trace element sourcing may determine the origin of artiodactyls bones found in Chaco Canyon, but such studies have not been undertaken as yet. A current project is underway (J. C. Driver personal communication). Aging data from other sites within Chaco Canyon should shed light on this latter possibility. The only artiodactyla aging data from sites within Chaco Canyon are presented by Akins (1985:406 407). The presence of rabbits and other small mammals, animals common in mountainous regions and the importation of trade goods, which included meat, suggest that these were all viable alternatives to obtain animals protein. Akins (1985:309) recorded five age categories in her analyses of faunas from Chaco Canyon: fetal or very immature, immature, young adult, adult and older adult. Fetal remains are elements that have not reached 1/3 of mature size, immature are those elements comprising 1/3 to 2/3 of adult size, young adults are elements are those that almost or reached adult size but which did not yet have their epiphyses fused. Older adults were mostly identified based on teeth wear (Akins 1985:309). Presumably, unfused epiphyses and diaphyses were considered as immature animals, and newly fused ones as young adults. Akins (1985:407) only included elements that were coded as very immature and immature in her comparisons of aging data. In this study, I recorded specimens as fetal, unfused, just fused, fused or unknown (after Driver 2005). The high percentage of immature animals at Pueblo Bonito is based on the inclusion of fetal, unfused and

162 just fused. It is likely that using such an approach, which is different from that used by Akins (1985:407) resulted in the high percentage of immature artiodactyls in the Pueblo Bonito assemblage. It is also likely that the percentage of immature artiodactyls in other assemblages from Chaco Canyon is underrepresented, and that larger portions of artiodactyls are in fact from young individuals. At 29SJ628, a Basketmaker III pithouse site, 11.8% of the total artiodactyla sample is from immature animals. At 29SJ627, a Pueblo I-III (A.D. late 700-early 1] 00) small site, only 2.5% of the artiodactyla remains are from immature animals. At Pueblo Alto, a Pueblo II and III great house, 22.5% of the artiodactyla sample is from immature animals. At Pueblo Bonito, a Pueblo II great house, 35% of the artiodactyla remains are from immature animals. However, when the elements which fuse late in life (proximal humerus, distal radius, proximal and distal femur and proximal tibia) are considered, 67% of the artiodactyla remains are from immature animals. At 29SJ633, a Pueblo III small site, 50% of the artiodactyla remains are from immature animals (Akins] 985:406-407). The data suggest an increase proportion of immature animals over time, although Pueblo Bonito stands out with a relatively high proportion of immature artiodactyls. A possible explanation for the anomaly may be the presentation of the data. On face value, the Pueblo Bonito data show that adults dominate the assemblage, but when the elements which fuse late in life are compared to those of adults, immature animals dominate. Therefore, it is possible that the increased exploitation of immature artiodactyls is attested from Chaco Canyon faunas.

Rodents Porcupine, beaver, prairie dog, ground squirrel, squirrel, pocket gopher and wood rat were likely eaten at Pueblo Bonito. Some Ord's kangaroo rat, pocket mouse and mouse are possible later intrusions since these appear fresh. Previous analysis of faunal material from Pueblo Bonito (Akins 1985; Judd] 954) only listed two rodent taxa; porcupine and beaver, likely due to Judd's lack of screening. Squirrels, pocket gopher, wood rat, Ord's kangaroo rat and pocket mouse were common in Chaco Canyon in recent times (Cully] 985). These taxa are attracted to stored food and fields. Porcupine occurs in the region of Chaco Canyon. Beavers were once found along all the permanent ri vers in New Mexico (Akins 1985:3] 5-3] 9). Beavers have been found at only two Chaco Canyon sites; Pueblo Bonito and Pueblo del Arroyo. These specimens were probably obtained from the San Juan River or its tributaries, possibly for their pelts (Akins] 985:317). Porcupine remains are not common in assemblages from Chaco Canyon, but have been reported

163 from sites such as Pueblo Bonito, Kin Kletso and Pueblo Alto (Akins 1985:319). The lack of small squirrels and rodent bones from some assemblages in Chaco Canyon most probably relate to retrieval methods. However, as some assemblages were screened in part or in toto, some assemblages yielded squirrel and other small rodent remains (Akins 1985:314,343). Prairie dogs could have been taken during spring and summer months when they do most damage to crops (Akins 1985:339).

Rabbits Cottontails and jackrabbit remains are common in the Pueblo Bonito mound assemblage. According to Akins (1985:312-315), the desert cottontail, Nuttall's cottontail, black-tailed jackrabbit and snowshoe hare are all represented in faunal assemblages from Chaco Canyon. While this may in fact be the case, it remains difficult to separate these closely related taxa based on skeletal morphology alone (J. C. Driver, personal communication, Yang et af. 2005). The desert cottontail and black-tailed jackrabbit occur in and around Chaco Canyon (Cully 1985), and could have been acquired locally. However, both Nuttall's cottontail and the snowshoe hare occur in uplands, which mean these two taxa were brought to Chaco Canyon from elsewhere (Akins 1985:312-315; Akins 1987:455-458). Rabbits were probably hunted throughout the year, either communally or by solitary hunters. They were probably brought back whole to sites (Akins 1985:339). At many Chaco Canyon sites, cottontails dominate faunal assemblages, at least at those with specimen counts dating from Basketmaker III and Pueblo I. Thereafter, they decreased in relation to jackrabbits in Pueblo II and finally increased again in Pueblo III. The variation may have been the result of a lower natural numbers of cottontail, a shift in dietary choice (Akins 1985:336) or differential access to rabbit habitats around Chaco Canyon.

Turkeys According to Akins (1985), turkey dominates bird remains from Chaco Canyon, especially during later times. They may have been kept for food and for feathers used in ceremonial dress and prayer sticks (e.g., Beacham and Durand 2007; Schroeder 1968). It is probable that turkeys found in Chaco Canyon were fully domesticated (Akins 1985). Wild turkeys in New Mexico occur along wooded streams in mountainous areas between 2300 and 2900 meters in elevation. With little natural forage within Chaco Canyon, they would require considerable caretaking, including regular water. For this reason, they may have been kept for other purposes other than purely economic. Turkey pens are not common at sites in Chaco

164 Canyon (Akins 1985:326,368,381). Turkeys may also have been traded along with maize from the northern San Juan Basin (Vivian et at. 2006:64). The earliest occurrence of turkey is at Late Basketmaker III - Early Pueblo I deposits of Shabik'eshchee Village and 29SJ628. Turkeys seem to be more numerous during the early parts of Pueblo II, but decline towards the end of this period. Percentages of turkeys are lower at great houses (Una Vida and Pueblo Alto) during Pueblo II than at contemporaneous villages. There was a drastic increase in turkey after A.D. 1200 at both Pueblo Alto and a village site, 29SJ633 (Akins 1985:369; 1987). Some sites yielded turkey 'burials'. These include sites dated from Basketmaker III pithouse (e.g., 29SJ299, 29SJ628) to great house sites (e.g., Pueblo Alto, Pueblo del Arroyo, Una Vida) (Akins 1985:377). Judd (1954:66) contends that unmodified turkey bones were conspicuous in the mounds of Pueblo Bonito. This is in strong contrast to the low number of turkeys in the recent assemblage that I analysed and those housed at the Smithsonian Institute (J.e. Driver personal communication). It is possible that Judd could have mistaken jackrabbit postcrania for turkey during excavations, as both taxa are similar in size and may appear similar in gross morphology. The presence of eggshell, encountered by Judd (1954:66) and during the recent analysis, suggests breeding of turkeys at Pueblo Bonito. A turkey carpometacarpus fragment has slight extra bone growth on the proximal end. It would not have impaired the mobility of the bird. A turkey tarsometatarsus fragment from the west mound which is small, but larger than other extant galliformes, is of a male which have a spur.

Macaws The Subfamily Psittacinae is represented by the thick-billed parrot and the scarlet macaw at Pueblo Bonito. Both taxa have been identified from other sites in Chaco Canyon. The thick billed parrot only occurs at Pueblo Bonito and Una Vida (Akins 1985:327). At Pueblo Bonito, complete articulated skeletons of thick-billed parrots were found (Judd 1954:264). This taxon occurs in the mountains of central and northern Mexico (Akins 1985:327), although it ventures into mountainous regions of southeastern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico from time to time (Judd 1954:264). It feeds on pine seeds but not cultivated crops (Cottam and Knappen 1939:] 59). Seeds had to be collected in mountainous regions outside Chaco Canyon. Parrots may have been valued for ceremonial purposes (Roler Durand and Durand 2006). Judd (1954:264-265) reported both scarlet and military macaws from Pueblo Bonito. Hargrave's (1970) analysis of the bones however shows that only scarlet macaws were present in

165 Chaco Canyon, although his criteria were later found to be inconsistent (Harris 2006: 1068). A total of 31 scarlet macaws were recovered from Pueblo Bonito, three from Pueblo del Arroyo and one from Kin Kletso. Scarlet macaw feathers were found at Chetro Ketl. Only one small site in Chaco Canyon, 29S11360 dating to Pueblo II yielded macaw bones (Akins 1985:328). All the macaws found at Pueblo Bonito came from eastern rooms (Creel and McKusick 1994) with the single macaw bone from the recent study also being found in the eastern mound. This may suggests that those people using the eastern portion of Pueblo Bonito practised ceremonies involving macaws or their feathers. Scarlet macaws, with bright red, blue and yellow feathers occur in tropical regions on the east coast of Mexico through Central America to Brazil (Van Rossem 1945). This suggests that the macaws at Pueblo Bonito and other settlements in Chaco Canyon were imported from regions to the south. Sites to the south of the San Juan Basin show evidence of extensive macaw breeding during Pueblo II, based on the presence of macaw skeletons, macaw feces, nesting cages and macaw eggshell. One of these sites was Casas Grandes in northwestern Chihuahua in Mexico that had extensive control over macaw trade with the Southwest, including Chaco Canyon (e.g., Minnis et al. 1993). Macaws were probably traded alive (Colton 1941; Hargrave 1970) and are found in many parts of the Southwest, especially after A.D. 1000 (Creel and McKusick 1994; Harris 2006: 1068) including sites in the Chaco CAnasazi'), Sinagua, Mogollon, Mimbres, Hohokam and Rio Grande Culture areas (Hargrave 1970). Macaws have not been found north of Salmon Ruins (Roler Durand and Durand 2006: 1094). The ritual importance of parrots and macaws in recent times has been described in the Southwest (e.g., Beidleman 1956b:23-24).

Hawks and Eagles A variety of hawks and eagles have been identified from Pueblo Bonito. These include ferruginous, red-tailed, Swainson's and sparrow hawk, prairie falcon, as well as bald and golden eagle. All these have been identified from sites in Chaco Canyon. Golden eagle has only been found at one other site though, 29SJ724, a Pueblo I pithouse site (Akins 1985:323). All the hawk and eagle taxa identified at Pueblo Bonito still occur in and around Chaco Canyon. It is likely that they served ceremonial purposes (Akins 1985:324-326), perhaps similar to those in ethnographic accounts (Beidleman 1956b; Newcomb 1940). A complete femur of an eagle from the recent excavations has a healed fracture. The element was obviously broken while the eagle was alive, and healed subsequently. However, it did not heal properly and the proximal and distal ends are not aligned but situated at a

166 disproportionate angle. The element may have been broken when the eagle tried to seize prey. The lesion would not have impaired flight in any way. A near-complete immature eagle wing was recovered from the east mound with a large pottery fragment during the recent excavations. It represents a single individual, with its scapula (right side), coracoid, humerus, radius, ulna, carpometacarpus and wing phalanx (all left side) present. The Hopi take young eagles from their nests and raise them (Beidlemam 1956b:20).

Other Birds A variety of bird taxa not previously described in this chapter, were found at Pueblo Bonito. These are: mourning dove, redhead, screech owl, great homed owl, common flicker, perching bird, pinyon jay, magpie, sandhill crane, raven and Clark's nutcracker. Clark's nutcracker has not been identified from any sites in Chaco Canyon (Akins 1985:323), but it occurs in New Mexico (Vander Wall et al. 1981). Pueblo Bonito is the only site in Chaco Canyon which yielded redhead. All the bird taxa identified from Pueblo Bonito are found in and around Chaco Canyon (Akins 1985:322-330, Cully 1985). Their feathers were probably used for ceremonial purposes, perhaps similar to that described in ethnographic accounts (Beidleman 1956b).

Turtle Pueblo Bonito is the only site in Chaco Canyon that has turtle remains, which was found by George Pepper (1996). It is not clear if Pepper was referring to a terrestrial, freshwater or marine species. Terrestrial desert tortoises are restricted to southern Nevada, southwestern Utah, southeastern Arizona to the Mojave Desert and California. The western box turtle occurs in northern Mexico, eastern Texas, southern New Mexico to southeastern Arizona and the Sonora Desert (Stebbins 1966:86-87). A few freshwater turtle species occur in New Mexico, the closest locality being the San Juan River north of Chaco Canyon (Degenhardt and Christiansen 1974). Regardless of its species, it had to be obtained from regions outside Chaco Canyon. They were likely used in rituals (Akins 1985:333-334). Ethnographic accounts show that turtle shells were used in ceremonies as rattles (Beidleman 1956a: 11-12) or worn by dancers (Henderson and Harrington 1914:52).

Fish Fish remains have been identified from sites in Chaco Canyon, although they are never common (Akins 1985:334). These were probably obtained in a dried state owing to the ease with

167 which fresh fish spoil. Fish at Pueblo Bonito and other sites in Chaco Canyon were brought from permanent rivers such as the San Juan River and Rio Grande. A fossilised shark tooth was found in the recent excavations in the west mound at Pueblo Bonito. Fauna from the Pueblo II small house site Leyit Kin contained a non-fossilised mackerel shark tooth. This shark occurs in temperate and tropical marine waters (Akins 1985:334). Shark teeth have been found at other sites in Chaco Canyon, although these are not listed by Akins (1985) save for the specimen from Leyit Kin. Brand (1977:63) states that'...fossil shark teeth have been found in several sites [in Chaco Canyon]' but it is not known to which sites Brand was referring. The shark tooth from Pueblo Bonito provides another record for shark teeth in Chaco Canyon. These may have been traded as items with some significance, perhaps for rituals or curiosities.

Small and Great House Comparisons in Chaco Canyon People at the great houses of Chaco Canyon were eating and using the same range of taxa as those at non-great houses. These include rabbits, carnivores, artiodactyls, rodents and birds (Akins 1985:400; 1987:636). The small variation in the number of taxa represented at each site is most probably the result of different sample sizes and retrieval methods. Interestingly, there is also no clear difference in faunal utilisation between great houses and surrounding residential units at outliers such as Albert Porter Pueb]o (save for turkeys). There is clear archaeologica] evidence for elites in Chaco Canyon. The evidence includes great houses as elite residences, high status burials such as those at Pueblo Bonito, the presence of rich and exotic material such as macaws, copper bells, marine shell and turquoise as well as the fact that Chaco Canyon monumental constructions are placed within a regional great house systems (Lekson et a/. 2006). The faunal remains from great and small houses within Chaco Canyon provided no conclusive evidence for social differentiation which may potentially be reflected as sumptuary behaviour, meat provisioning or control over ritual knowledge (but see Roler Durand 2003 and discussion later on in this chapter). This does not imply that no social differentiation existed, but that faunal remains do not always provide evidence for elites and commoners. The fauna from Pueblo Bonito was compared to other sites within Chaco Canyon with NISP data (see Akins] 985:4] 3-423; ]987). Table] 07 presents sites dating from Basketmaker III to Pueblo I (A.D. 500-900), and Table] 08 describes sites dating to Pueblo II and III (A.D. 900-] 300). Site 29SJ629 dating from Pueblo II-III is excluded since only 26 specimens were identified from this site. Eight specimens of cottontail and four jackrabbits are the largest categories (Akins] 985:421). The sample is too small to provide meaningful information. The

168 assemblages presented in Tables 107 and] 08 typically yield a variety of rabbits, carnivores, artiodactyls, rodents, birds and, in some cases, fish, reptiles and amphibians.

Table 107. Fauna from Basketmaker III - Pueblo I Sites (A.D. 500-900) in Chaco Canyon (NISP) (from Akins] 985:413-423) Date Bill Bill Bill - PI Bill - PH PI - PH PI 29Sj423 29Sj628 Shabik' 29Sj299 29Sj627 29Sj724 Taxa eshchee Antrozous ] pallidus SylvilaRus sp. 589 2042 ]03 76 992 133 Lepus sp. 97 17] 7 36 74 1345 178 Sciuridae 2 2 Spermophilus 2 variegatus Cynomys 6 ]75 4 ]7 355 ]8 Runnisoni Geomyidae 33 ]6 1 24 4 Perognathus 2 ] flavescens Perognathus sp. ] 4 4 5 I Dipodomys ordii 5 ]0 ] ]4 32 2 I Dipodomys 6 ] 8 spectabilis Peromyscus sp. 6 ] 2 27 5 Neotoma sp. 7 ]6 7 2 30 3 Rodent 6 ]5 2 49 5 Canis sp. 9 60 4 ] 33 ] Canis familiarus 2 ]5 2 4 89 Canis latrans 10 35 ] 53 4 Canis lupus 3 Urocyon 2 5 I ] cinereoarRenteus Vulpes vulpes 2 Ursus americanus I Ursus arctos ] ] Taxidea taxus 3] 2 3 Lynx rufus 3 7 4 ]2 ] Cervus elaphus 2 ] 5 Odocoileus sp. 3 ]6 5 224 Antilocapra ]] 63 29 4 65 2 americana Ovis canadensis 4 30 4 ] 73 Ovis/Capra ] Artiodacty]a 30 233 58 7 Small to Medium 909 ]72 37 59 1013 64 Mammal

169 Medium Mammal 22 54 2 65 Medium to Large 211 74 20 II 6 Mammal Medium to Large 1561 Mammal and Artiodactyla Anas sP. I Haliaeetus I leucocevhalus Circus cyaneus 4 Aquila chrysaetos 6 2 Buteo sp. 2 3 6 5 Buteo regalis 51 2 18 Buteo jamaicensis 39 3 Falco sp. I Falconiformes I Meleagris 24 I 10 190 I !!,allovavo Phasianidae I Crus canadensis 2 Bubo virf(inianus 2 Eremophilia I I alvestris Corvus corax 3 I I I Turdidae I Bird 2 48 I 5 125 4 Amphibia 6 32 Lizard I I Total NISP 1944 4993 338 308 6437 466

Table 108. Fauna from Pueblo II - Pueblo III Sites (A.D. 900-1300) in Chaco Canyon (NISP) (from Akins 1985:413-423; 1987:624) Small Houses Great Houses Date PII PII-PIII Pill PII PII PII PIlI 29SJl360 29SJ629 29SJ633 Pueblo Una Pueblo Pueblo Taxa Bonito Vida Alto Alto Myotis 4 californicus Lagomorpha II I Sylvila!!,us sp. 39 381 1101 2109 629 4241 1435 Lepus sP. 145 395 351 1224 543 3115 1471 Sciuridae 827 10 2 2 Sciurus aberti 3 6 2 Spermophilus I I varie!!,atus Spermophilus I svilosoma Spermophilus sp. 2

170 Ammospermophilus 15 5 4 leucurus Cynomys 25 225 160 266 1170 1379 /?unnisoni Cvnomvs sp. 34 Geomyidae I 55 9 64 33 31 83 Pero/?nathus sp. 54 7 I 7 5 9 Dipodomys ordii 4 37 19 10 47 75 55 Dipodomys 3 6 15 2 spectabilis Reithrodontomys I 3 megalotis Peromyscus sp. 30 73 5 500 647 88 Onychomys 10 2 leucogaster Onychomys sp. 2 3 Neotoma sp. 16 36 4 9 34 32 Erethizon 4 dorsatum Small Rodent 305 Large Rodent 13 Rodent 96 36 62 Canidae 2 Canis sp. 12 32 4 36 6 17 19 Canis familiarus 60 67 1 I Canis latrans 13 28 13 13 I Canis lupus 2 2 Urocyon I I cinereoar/?enteus Mustela sp. 2 Taxidea taxus I I 2 I 7 Felis concolor I Lynx rufus I 2 I 9 III SmalI Carnivore 2 Medium Carnivore 10 Cervidae 41 Cervus elaphus I I Odocoileus sp. 14 22 I 205 22 391 142 Antilocapra 52 8 4 48 34 95 63 americana Ovis canadensis 6 7 I 24 61 74 Ovis aries 2 Ovis/Capra 5 Medium 1434 Artiodactyla Artiodactyla 171 94 2 161 SmalI Mammal 542 1139 268 SmalI to Medium 32 593 596 Mammal

171 Medium Mammal 9 55 II 4 Medium to Large 56 223 34 287 Mammal Anas 2 1 platyrhynchos Anatidae 1 Am macao 5 Am sp. 1 Accipitridae 10 Haliaeetus 1 leucocephalus Buteoninae 54 1 Aquila chrysaetos 11 1 2 1 80 2 Buteo sp. 3 12 5 9 117 2 Buteo regalis 2 3 Buteo ;amaicensis 2 124 2 Buteo swainsoni 6 Buteo laRopus 1 Falco sp. 1 Falco mexicanus 1 Falco sparverius 2 6 7 Medium 42 Falconiformes Large 5 Falconiformes Falconiformes 3 1 Galliformes 2 Meleagris 18 54 766 13 17 71 878 gallopavo Phasianidae 4 Callipepla 2 1 squamata Callipepla sp. 12 Grus canadensis I 1 Zenaida macroura 2 2 2 Otus asio 2 1 Bubo 2 virginianus Colaptes auratus 3 2 1 Trochilides 1 Passeriformes 15 6 5 12 Eremophilia 1 2 12 4 alpestris Gymnorhinus 6 1 cyanoccephalus Pipilo sp. 2 Corvidae 5 1 Corvus comx 1 1 1 1 11 Pica pica 4 6 3

172 Nucifraga 2 columbiana Turdidae 1 2 Icteridae 2 7 Laniidae 1 2 Fringillidae 3 10 Hirundinidae 1 Small Bird 22 Medium Bird 87 Large Bird 98 Bird 29 39 3 54 Amphibia 10 23 19 1 Reptilia 2 19uanidae I Snake 5 3 Lizard 2 24 5 Pisces 9 I Total NISP 697 2538 3801 7788 3351 10449 5826

While Akins (1985) was cautious to interpret any differences between the great houses and other small sites in Chaco Canyon as resulting from prehistoric human behaviour, Roler Durand (2003) argued that great houses contain a wider variety of ritual bird remains. She used a presence/absence analysis due to the fact that specimen counts from many Chaco Canyon assemblages are not available. The number of taxa from sites in Chaco Canyon with available NISPs is listed in Table 109.

Table 109. Birds from Chaco Canyon in Chronological Order (Data from Tables 107-108) Site Occupation House Type Number of Bird Bird NISP Taxa 29SJ423 Basketmaker III 4 7 29SJ628 Basketmaker III 6 174 Shabik'eshchee Basketmaker III 3 4 - Pueblo I 29S1299 Basketmaker III 2 16 - Pueblo II 29SJ627 Pueblo 1- 6 333 Pueblo II 29SJ724 Pueblo I 6 36 29SJI360 Pueblo II 5 57 29SJ629 Pueblo II- Pueblo 5 120 III 29SJ633 Pueblo III 9 794 Pueblo Bonito Pueblo II Great House II 376 Una Vida Pueblo II Great House 5 86 Pueblo Alto Pueblo II Great House 20 483

173 I--=Pu~eb:...::.lo.::.....::....:A:...::.lto-=------_...l....-__Pu--,---=---eb:...::.lo-,---=-II1_I_----=G:...::.r-C.-ea_t_H_ou--=s-'----e 1 1_8...L1 93_4_1

From Table 109 it is clear that great houses yielded the largest assemblages. We know that larger assemblages are more diverse (e.g., Lyman 2008), so we cannot be sure if great houses are more diverse than non-great houses. The data from Table 109 are presented in Figure 22 which illustrates that there is some relationship between the number of bird taxa from Chaco Canyon and sample size, with larger assemblages such as that from Pueblo Bonito and Pueblo Alto yielding more diverse fauna. In addition, it is well known that a lack off or selective screening of deposits result in the loss of numerous small bones which in tum affects animal representation, abundance and diversity (e.g., Gordon 1993; Pokines 2000; Shaffer 1992b). Therefore, it is difficult to evaluate if more ritual birds are present at great houses in Chaco Canyon in light of variation in recovery methods (see Akins 1985). It is also not known if taphonomy affected the assemblages in Chaco Canyon differently.

Figure 22. Bird Taxa and NISP from Chaco Canyon (Based on Table 109)

20 ~ ------. I •

., 15 J, .,)( I- o ~ Ql ..c E I :::> I • Z 10 1--- • 5, •...-...----• • ~ •I. oL-----,---,------,------,-----.------;~- o 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 BOO 900 1000 Bird NISP

174 Figure 22 suggests that there is some relationship between the total number of bird specimens and the number of bird taxa. For Figure 23, the total number of specimens of all taxa is compared to the total number of taxa from sites in Chaco Canyon. Figure 23 show a strong correlation between sample size and the total number of taxa represented in assemblages. Therefore, higher diversities of ritual bird taxa from sites in Chaco Canyon, as suggested by Roler Durand (2003) should be viewed with caution.

Figure 23. Total NISP of all Taxa and Number of Taxa for Sites in Chaco Canyon (Based on Table 106)

50~-

45 +---- 1

I 1 I 40 -~---

35 1------I

30 J 1 ------'1---- >c '" 1 1 I-'" ~ 25 CIl ..c E ---. ::I 1 z 201- • 1 1 1 15

5 t------

I o+-!-----,------.------~ o 2000 4000 6000 BOOO 10000 12000 Total NISP

To further highlight the limitations of comparing faunas which were and were not screened, the number of taxa from Judd's (1954) excavations are compared to what I identified (see Table 103). Although the total number of taxa is similar (Table 110), there is significant

175 variation in the number of rodents, carnivores and birds from my analysis and that done by Judd (1954).

Table 110. The Number of Taxa Identified by Judd (1954) and This Study at Pueblo Bonito Animal Groups Judd (1954) This Study Ranges of Animal Groups Rabbits 2 2 - Rodents 2 7 2-7 Carnivores 8 3 3-8 Artiodactyla 4 3 3-4 Birds 15 II 11-15 Amphibians - I 0-1 Reptiles I 1 - , Fish 1 2 1-2 Total 33 30 30-33

Faunal Changes in Chaco Canyon over Time Notwithstanding concerns over recovery biases, which likely affected bones of small mammals and birds in particular, many argued for faunal changes over time in Chaco Canyon (Akins 1984; 1985; 1987; Vivian et al. 2006). However, these analyses have serious limitations as they are based on MNls (Akins 1985:310-311). I have previously discussed the limitations of MNls (Faunal Methods chapter). Previous analyses suggested changes in artiodactyla utilisation over time in Chaco Canyon (Akins 1984; 1985). According to Vivian et al. (2006), pronghorn is the most common artiodactyla in assemblages predating Pueblo II. However, since the Classic Bonito phase (A.D. 1025-1090, Pueblo II) deer became the most important artiodactyla (Table 111). The dominance of deer may have been due to a replacement of small groups or individual hunting by communal hunting groups (Vivian et al. 2006).

Table 111. Artiodactyla NISPs for Chaco Canyon Assemblages (Akins 1985) Period Deer Pron2horn Bi2horn Sheep Basketmaker III 19 (15%) 74 (58%) 34 (27%) (29SJ423,29SJ628) Pueblo I (29SJ724) 2 (100%) Pueblo II (29S1I360, 632 (66%) 229 (24%) 91 (10%) Pueblo Bonito, Una Vida, Pueblo Alto) Pueblo III (29SJ633, 143 (50%) 67 (24%) 75 (26%) Pueblo Alto)

176 Rabbits are common in assemblages from Chaco Canyon. From Basketmaker III to Pueblo I assemblages are dominated by cottontail. The focus on small mammals such as cottontails may reflect a strategy of garden hunting. The slightly higher representation of jackrabbits compared to cottontails by Pueblo I may represents more communal rather than individual hunting, possibly as a result of changes in habitat and larger human populations. During Pueblo II, little faunal change occurred from previous time periods (Vivian et ai. 2006). Vivian et al. (2006) maintain that during the Late Bonito phase of Pueblo II (A.D. 1090 1150) there was a dramatic increase of turkeys which may have been imported from the northern San Juan Basin (possibly with maize) as a replacement for declining local small mammal numbers (Vivian et al. 2006:64). Considering NISP data for turkey in Chaco Canyon (Tables 107-108), the values vary over time. Values range between Basketmaker III and Pueblo II times, and by Pueblo III, turkeys are more common than other birds at Pueblo Alto. Notwithstanding the variation in turkey bone numbers, they are the most common bird taxon represented in Chaco Canyon. The faunal patterns of artiodactyla usage at Pueblo Bonito and other sites in Chaco Canyon could potentially inform us on the origin of the faunal material. Judd (1964) suggested that the material from the west mound were razed debris from the great kiva in the west court. The great kiva in the west court was built relatively late in the usage of Pueblo Bonito, and constructed in an area that had been previously used as a midden. The kiva was built between A.D. 1050 and 1060, the same time when the mounds were constructed (Lekson 1986: lIS; Van Dyke 2007:99). A large quantity of earth and debris was required to fill the mounds. It is therefore possible that the earth and debris in the mounds of Pueblo Bonito could have been older, razed material from other parts of the site as suggested by Judd (1964). However, Windes (1987) does not believe this to be the case based on the integrity of ceramics from the west mound. When considering the fauna from Pueblo Bonito, the dominance of deer over other artiodactyls in the faunal assemblage from the mounds at Pueblo Bonito is similar to other Classic Bonito phase faunas from Chaco Canyon (Akins 1985; Vivian et al. 2006). The fauna from the mounds at Pueblo Bonito, in particular the dominance of deer and the buried eagle wing, suggests primary deposition of animal remains. As was argued previously, recognising feasting using faunal remains is very difficult as such behaviour cannot be distinguished from non-feasting activities. I found no unambiguous evidence for feasting at Pueblo Bonito (but see Toll 1984; Wills and Crown 2004).

177 Indices I calculated the artiodactyla, lagomorph, turkey and carnivore indices for each of the excavation units at Pueblo Bonito (Table] ]2). The variation between the east mound, middle unit and west mound is not great. Both the turkey and carnivore indices are low, as these taxa are not common in the assemblage (Table] ]2). Compared to Albert Porter Pueblo, the artiodactyla index at Pueblo Bonito is relatively high. This is probably the result of three factors. First, it could suggest that the low human population in Chaco Canyon had little impact on artiodactyla numbers. However, the evidence of intense hunting of artiodactyls at Pueblo Bonito counters this possibility. Second, it may suggest that the environment around Chaco Canyon supported higher natural densities of artiodactyla. However, the plains around Chaco Canyon are more suitable for pronghorns (cf. Harris] 963:48), whereas deer was more common from Pueblo II onwards. This suggests some other factors may have resulted in the higher artiodactyla index at Pueblo Bonito. For example, it is possible that as human populations increased in regions such as Mesa Verde, deer populations were forced south to the plains around Chaco Canyon. Third, it is possible that dried artiodactyla meat was imported to Chaco Canyon. Although likely, as will be shown below, it is difficult to determine this using conventional zooarchaeological methods.

Table] ]2. Pueblo Bonito Indices Index East Middle West Combined Lagomorph 0.65 0.68 0.6 0.63 Artiodactyla 0.38 0.3 0.27 0.34 Turkey 0.03 0.0] 0.04 0.03 Carnivore <0.0] 0 <0.0] <0.01

Table] ]3. Indices for Selected Sites in Chaco Canyon Indices Artiodactyla Turkev Lae:omorph Basketmaker III 0.08 <0.01 0.59 (29SJ423,29SJ628) Basketmaker III- 0.4] <0.0] 0.74 Pueblo I (Shabik' eshchee) Pueblo I (- II) 0.12 0.07 0.42 (29SJ627,29SJ724) Pueblo II-III Small 0.28 0.07 0.44 Houses (29SJ629, 29SJ1360) Pueblo II Great 0.17 0.02 0.59 Houses (Una Vida, Pueblo Bonito, Pueblo Alto)

178 Pueblo III Small <0.01 House (29SJ633) ~_0.761 Pueblo III (Pueblo 0.09 o~ 0.49 Alto)

As has already been indicated, the faunal assemblage from the mounds at Pueblo Bonito is severely affected by fragmentation and, to a lesser extent, bone removal by previous excavators. This may have influenced the artiodactyla, lagomorph, turkey and carnivore indices. I calculated indices for selected sites within Chaco Canyon (Table 113 and Figure 24). The sites included are those that do not overlap over time periods, except for small houses which range from Pueblo II to Pueblo III. After initial peaks during Basketmaker III-Pueblo I, both the artiodactyla and lagomorph indices decline over time. In contrast, the turkey index increases towards Pueblo III at Pueblo Alto.

Figure 24. Indices for Chaco Canyon Based on Data in Table 110

--+- Artiodactyla ____ Turkey ...... Lagomorph

0.8 ~------

0.7 L _

0.6 ~----./-

I 05 t------

I I

0.3 c------

0.2

0.1

o -I------I::::::::==::::;-===--=------,------,------~---'~-~~C-_____r---_____, Bill Bill/PI PI PI-IISH PIIGH PIlISH PIlIGH Time

179 Long Distance Faunal Acquisition A number of taxa from Pueblo Bonito were not locally available, but had to be obtained from regions elsewhere. These taxa could have been traded, or otherwise obtained by people who were traveling to other regions outside Chaco Canyon. Many non-local taxa at Pueblo Bonito occur in mountainous regions, such as the red fox, elk, black and grizzly bear, Nuttall's cottontail, snowshoe hare and thick-billed parrots (Akins 1985). It is also possible that other taxa, such as deer, originally came from mountainous regions, although this cannot be established from the archaeofaunal remains. Perhaps the variety of taxa from mountainous regions is not surprising, given that an enormous quantity of timber from higher elevations was used for construction in Chaco Canyon (Judge and Cordell 2006: 199). Other materials such as clay and stone were also imported from the Chuska Mountains (Lekson et al. 1988) whereas maize was imported from either the base of the Chuska Mountains or the San Juan/Animas floodplains (Benson et al. 2003). Mountainous regions were clearly exploited for meat and ritual paraphernalia in addition to other commodities. Other taxa such as beaver, turtle and fish were probably collected from the San Juan River, Rio Grande and their tributaries. Macaws were imported from regions to the south of the San Juan Basin and were widely traded in the Southwest. The shark tooth originated from temperate and tropical marine waters, which along with numerous marine molluscs found over large portions of the Southwest (e.g., Bradley 1992), indicate contact with coastal regions. Dried meat could have been imported to Chaco Canyon. Akins (1984) suggested that the available artiodactyls around Chaco Canyon could not have supported the growing human population. Although Chaco Canyon is situated in a generally resource poor region (see Mathien 2005) compared to Mesa Verde (Johnson 2006; Tucker 2004), it is important to note that since the introduction of livestock in historical times most artiodactyls and carnivores have disappeared from the local area (Mathien 2005:43) which may give the impression of a resource poor region. It is difficult to determine if the plains around Chaco Canyon were able to support large numbers of artiodactyls during the occupation of Pueblo Bonito. Meat in a dry state has many advantages. Dried meat not only preserves for long times (Lewis et al. 1957:6; Wentworth 1956), but also makes transport easier since it weighs less than fresh meat (Stahl 1999: 1539). Artiodactyla skeletal parts may provide a signature for dried meat (Driver 1990, Friesen 2001, Stahl 1999). However, if entire portions such as limb bones or de boned strips of meat were transported, these may not show any distinct faunal signature (Crabtree 1990).

180 Nature of the Mounds at Pueblo Bonito The chapter reviewing the archaeology of Pueblo Bonito listed the various interpretations of the mounds at Pueblo Bonito and other great houses in Chaco Canyon. Interpretations range from refuse dumps, or tidy trash heaps (Judd 1964) to architectural features (Lekson et al. 1988; Stein et al. 2003:52), perhaps for rituals (Toll 2001). The faunal study of the mounds of Pueblo Bonito resulted in establishing the following traits: • specimens of ritually important taxa such as eagle and macaw are found in the mounds, • specimens of taxa that had little or no ritual connotations are found in the mounds which indicate 'domestic' activities. Animals such as squirrels and other small rodents are indicative of non-ritual activities, • the presence of an articulated eagle wing suggests intentional burial of ritually important taxa, • the dominance of deer, which is similar to other Classic Bonito phase assemblages, • both local and imported animal remains, and • (probable) human digested bone show that bones from coprolites are found in the mounds.

Summary The faunal investigation of the mounds at Pueblo Bonito found similar taxa to that of previous investigations. The taxa found at the site reflect both economic and ritual activities at Pueblo Bonito. No doubt that the removal of specimens during previous excavations inhibits reliable interpretations. Nonetheless, some general patterns of faunal usage were possible. The mound contains domestic and ritual refuse. The presence of a buried eagle wing suggests that the mounds had at least some ritual function. The fauna do not provide clear, unambiguous evidence for feasting. Artiodactyla remains from Pueblo Bonito are dominated by immature animals, which suggest that artiodactyls were subjected to intensive hunting. This provides evidence for resource depression in Chaco Canyon during Pueblo II. The dominance of deer is similar to other Classic Bonito phase faunas from Chaco Canyon.

181 CHAPETRll THE REGIONAL STUDY: METHODS AND APPROACHES

Introduction In this chapter, I consider the various inconsistencies inherent in most regional faunal studies. I describe how data presented by different analysts can be integrated, as wen as the use of standard indices to overcome many of the limitations of any regional overview. To place Albert Porter Pueblo and Pueblo Bonito in a broader regional setting, I compiled previously collected faunal data from 559 samples in the San Juan Basin dating to between Basketmaker II and Pueblo III. Analyses based on data from both regional faunal overviews and individual assemblages have several limitations. Many of these limitations have already been described in the Faunal Methods chapter (also Amorosi et at. 1996; Grayson 1973; Lawrence 1973; O'Connor 1996): I reiterate here those that have bearing on the regional database.

Limitations of Faunal Overviews Taphonomy and Recovery Methods Most faunal assemblages are influenced by taphonomic processes. Variations in a wide variety of factors such as climate, soil type and depositional history create variation in taphonomic processes (see Amorosi et at. 1996; Milner and Fuller 1999; Reitz and Wing 1999). In the San Juan Basin, it is conceivable that different assemblages were affected differently by taphonomic processes. Variations in recovery methods are a serious concern making comparisons difficult. For example, most of the assemblages from Chaco Canyon were not screened at all (Akins 1985), which no doubt resulted in the loss of many small animal remains (e.g., Gordon 1993). In addition, large mesh sizes lead to the loss of specimens from smaller animals (e.g., Shaffer 1992b).

Identification Procedures Bone specimens from archaeological assemblages are usually fragmented making accurate identifications difficult. In many cases, even complete elements cannot be distinguished between closely related taxa (Baker and Shaffer 1999; Driver 1991). For example, morphological criteria (Lawrence 1951) to distinguish the three common artiodactyla in the San Juan Basin deer, bighorn sheep and pronghorn- were found to be inconsistent during analyses. In addition, applying these criteria proved difficult when applied to immature and fragmented specimens.

182 Postcrania of small rodents can be difficult to identify to genus or species level. In most fragmented assemblages such as those in the San Juan Basin, a large number of specimens can only be identified to general categories ranging from Family (e.g., Sciuridae) to Class level (e.g., medium mammal) (Driver 2005). This is the direct result of a lack of clear morphological features. Different analysts have variable skills and confidence in faunal identification (Amorosi et al. 1996; Plug 1984). Different faunal analysts studying the same assemblage independently may show considerable variation in results (Gobalet 2001). To illustrate variation in faunal analyses in the San Juan Basin, I compare two assemblages from the Chuska Valley that were analysed by two different research teams (Table 114). Between nine and 21 different taxa were identified in the two assemblages by the two research teams with variations in the number of rodents, artiodactyl and bird taxa. For example, at AZ-I-24-21 only three rodent taxa were identified, whereas at PMMC-178 a total of 10 rodent taxa were found. Considering the diversity of extant rodents in the San Juan Basin (Hall 1981), the large variety of rodents found in assemblages (Muir 1999, Rawlings 2006), variations in skills of analysts (Gobalet 2001) and the influence of recovery methods (Shaffer 1992b), it is almost impossible to determine if the variation is the result of prehistoric human behaviour or not. Only a re-ana1yses of the assemblages can determine if the variations in the number of taxa between the two assemblages in Table J14 is the result of prehistoric human behaviour or not. However, it is not feasible to re-analyse every faunal assemblage in the San Juan Basin. This example nonetheless highlights the ambiguity of diversity and regional overview studies in zooarchaeology.

Table 114. Number of Taxa in Various Taxonomic Categories Analysed by Different Research Teams Animal Groups PMMC-178 (Brown AZ-I-24-21 (Zunie Ranges of Animal and Brown and Hildebrant Groups 2002:12.1-12.3) 1989) Pueblo II-III Pueblo III Insectivores - - - Bats - - - Rabbits 2 2 2 Rodents 10 3 3-10 Carnivores 3 I 1-3 Artiodactyls 2 I 1-2 Birds 3 2 2-3 Amphibians - - - Reptiles I - 0-1 Fish - - -

183 Total 21 9 9-21 %ID Bone 100%* Unknown Unknown Total Assemblage 4983 ID =7873 * It would seem that every smgle specImen was assIgned to an 'IdentIfiable' category (e.g., indeterminate medium mammal)

The number of taxa from Sand Canyon Pueblo (Muir 1999), Shields Pueblo (Rawlings 2006) and Albert Porter Pueblo also show some discrepancies (Table 115). However, the variation in taxa numbers is not particularly great. This may in part be due to standardised analytic methods (Driver 2005), standardised excavation methods (Crow Canyon Archaeological Center 2001) and large sample sizes. Nonetheless, some variations in taxa composition exist between the three assemblages. For example, only Albert Porter Pueblo yielded bison remains, whereas Shields Pueblo had no bison, but elk, indeterminate large artiodactyla and indeterminate large mammal. The latter two categories may include bison, elk or bear (Rawlings 2006:85). At Sand Canyon Pueblo, neither elk, bison, indeterminate large artiodactyla nor indeterminate large mammal were identified, but only an indeterminate artiodactyla category, which may include bison, elk, deer, bighorn sheep and pronghorn (Muir 1999:46). These examples indicate the difficulty in comparing faunal data from different assemblages analysed by various analysts.

Table 115. Number of Taxa from Sand Canyon Pueblo, Shields Pueblo and Albert Porter Pueblo Animal Groups Sand Canyon Shields Pueblo Albert Porter Ranges of Pueblo (Muir (Rawlings Pueblo Animal Groups 1999:46-50) 2006:83-87) (Badenhorst Pueblo III Pueblo I-III this study) Pueblo II-III Insectivores 1 1 - 0-1 Bats - - - - Rabbits 2 2 2 2 Rodents IO 8 1I 8-11 Carnivores 8 9 9 8-9 Artiodactyls 3 4 4 3-4 Birds 14 ]] 13 11-14 Amphibians 1 1 1 1 Reptiles 2 1 1 1-2 Fish - - 1 0-1 Total 41 37 42 37-42 %ID Bone 62% 46% 51% 46-62% Total 17,628 40,952 19,439 Assemblage

184 Reference Collections Faunal analysts use reference collections to do identifications by comparing archaeological specimens to skeletons of known animals (Reitz and Wing 1999). However, skeletal collections are not all without flaws. Incorrectly identified and catalogued specimens and incomplete collections remain a major drawback for accurate identifications (Gobalet 2001). Zooarchaeologists need not only contend with misidentified and incomplete reference collections, but also with variation in individuals of the same taxon. Variation in skeletal morphology within a single taxon may be caused by sexual dimorphism, individual variation and regional differences. Animal skeletons obtained from zoos in comparative collections may differ in skeletal morphology from their wild counterparts (Bokonyi ]995; O'Regan and Kitchener 2005). As already mentioned, I found that the morphological criteria for deer, pronghorn and bighorn sheep proposed by Lawrence (195]) to be inconsistent. This means that I was not able to identify many artiodactyla specimens to genus or species level in both the Albert Porter Pueblo and Pueblo Bonito assemblages.

Grey Literature Gobalet (200]) recommended that faunal analysts only use research which has been published in peer-reviewed journals. All too often, faunal reports in grey literature sources fall short in providing the minimum requirements for faunal reports (see Butler and Lyman] 996; Clason]972; Driver] 982; Grigson 1978; Reitz and Wing]999:373-376). However, few zooarchaeological studies published in journals include detailed discussions of identification procedures (Driver in preparation). Although Gobalet's (200]) rejection of grey literature is understandable, this is not al ways practical. For example, most of the faunal data used in this study is from grey literature sources as very few zooarchaeological reports have been published in peer-reviewed journals. An overview of faunal usage in the San Juan Basin cannot be achieved without including faunal data from grey literature. It also may not be feasible to reject all faunal data from grey literature, as good quality research is contained in such sources.

Non-Standardised Reporting Faunal analysts worldwide do not employ standardised methods (e.g., compare Akins ]985; Brain]974; Driver 199 I; 2005; O'Connor 2000). It is unlikely that 'universal' methods for zooarchaeologists will ever exist. Reasons may include: differences between faunas (e.g., composition, fragmentation, preservation); variation in anatomical proficiency; a lack of available faunal specialists in various parts of the world; differences between time and financial resources

185 to do faunal investigations; and enormous variability in excavation and retrieval strategies and research questions employed by archaeologists and faunal analysts. Faunal analysts also do not agree which closely-related taxa (e.g., mule and white-tailed deer) can be separated from one another based on postcranial remains. Gobalet (200I) suggested that assemblages should be analysed by specialists of certain taxa (e.g., fish, birds). This is hardly feasible in the San Juan Basin, as in many other parts of the world, considering time and financial constrains in addition to a lack of trained analysts.

Quantification Methods Variations in faunal quantification remain a serious concern for zooarchaeologists (O'Connor 2000). Some faunal studies in the San Juan Basin (e.g., Muir 1999; Rawlings 2006; this study) do not include teeth in taxa determinations or NISP counts. This is not necessarily a universal faunal method of analyses in the San Juan Basin (1. C. Driver personal communication). In addition, not all faunal reports present NISP or MNE counts. In cases where no NISPs were reported, taxa representation cannot be compared with those presenting specimen counts.

Sample Size and Diversity Zooarchaeologists have long noted that taxa diversity is related to sample size (e.g., Grayson 1984). This is also the case in the San Juan Basin (cf. Akins 1985; Fothergill 2008). The relationship between sample size and taxa diversity can be illustrated by a recent study of Dean (2007) in the Hohokam region of the Southwest. Although Dean (2007) suggested that more diverse methods of prey acquisition developed from Archaic to pre-contact times, the pattern may be related to sample size rather than different human behaviour. As an example, just considering the small terrestrial category that she defined (a variety of quails, pheasants, bobwhites, roadrunners and squirrels), a total NISP of 490 was recorded for all time periods between the Early Agricultural and Classic Period (1200 B.C. - A.D. 1450). However, nearly half of the small terrestrial game specimens (N =234, 48%) are from only three large assemblages from the Classic Period: Las Casitas, Las Colinas and Marana (Dean 2007). The remaining 256 specimens are from 50 assemblages from sites occupied during the course of 2650 years. Other categories in Dean's (2007) dataset show similar results with only a few large assemblages from the last phase, the Classic Period. Once these large assemblages are excluded, it becomes difficult to determine if the data actually support greater diversity over time in the Hohokam region. As a result of sample size issues and other limitations presented above, I did not calculate taxa diversity for the San Juan Basin.

186 Approaches Used in this Study Identification Issues Driver (1991; 2005) holds that every specimen that can be assigned to a skeletal part is identifiable. Specimens that cannot be securely assigned to a genus or species are placed in more general Family or Class categories (e.g., medium artiodactyla) (cf. Driver] 991). It is common for zooarchaeologists to assign specimens of which the identification is less secure to a taxon as 'cf.', meaning 'possibly' (Reitz and Wing] 999). For example, a specimen which belongs to a medium size artiodactyla with some morphological features that suggests that it may be from deer, can then be assigned to 'cf. Odocoileus', meaning that it is 'possibly deer'. For the purpose of this study, all specimens reported by other analysts with 'cf.' prefixes were included under their respective taxa. Many analysts assign bone fragments to species or even subspecies level when identifying faunal remains (e.g., Sylvilagus audubonii). This is often, though not always, based on modem distributions of extant taxa within a particular region of the San Juan Basin (e.g., Hall 198], but see Akins] 985). However, subspecies identification should be viewed with great caution as it is questionable if this level of identification precision can be attained from morphology (J.c. Driver personal communication). In addition, some closely related taxa such as white-tailed and mule deer can interbreed (e.g., Stubblefield et at. ]986). Therefore, for the purpose of this study, which attempts to establish broad patterns of faunal usage, some taxa and all sub-species were lumped together. In addition to subspecies, I combined species of woodrats into one category and pocket gophers into another category, since they can not reliably be distinguished morphologically (J.c. Driver personal communication). Class identifications were excluded since they yield little information. For example, the broad 'medium-mammal' identification often presented in faunal reports is ambiguous, and may include taxa as diverse as deer and large carnivores such as dogs and wolves.

Animal Burials Some sites in the San Juan Basin yielded animal burials such as the macaw burials at Pueblo Bonito (Judd 1954). These are discrete inhumations of complete or nearly complete animal skeletons (Muir and Driver 2004). The use of specimen counts from animal burials in the San Juan Basin is problematic. Some animal burials may not have been recognised during archaeological excavations and were therefore not recorded as a burial. Moreover, discrete animal burials may become fully incorporated with other bone material by taphonomic processes such as

187 rodent burrowing prior to excavation. Burials can therefore become indistinguishable from other faunal material recovered at a site. At Shields Pueblo for example, the five turkey skeletons from a structure dating to Pueblo II may possibly, but not certainly, be burials (Rawlings 2006: 125). During data collection in libraries of the Southwest, I did not read every faunal report. It is possible that I did not record some animal burials in cases where they were not included in the species list and specimen counts. In two cases, animal burials were presented separately from the rest of the fauna. As a result, I adapted specimen counts from these two assemblages. I assumed here that the animal burials represent complete individuals. For mammals, total bone counts of taxa were adjusted by adding 200 bones for mammals and 121 for turkeys. For turkeys, ossified tendons and sclerotic rings were excluded, but quadrates were included as separate elements. Site Tseh So (Bc50) close to Pueblo Bonito has a Pueblo II component. At the site, a total of 55 dog bones were identified, as well as a single dog burial. The NISP for dog was adjusted to 255 specimens for the entire site (55 + 200 =255). The site also yielded a single bobcat bone as well as one burial of this taxon. The NISP was adjusted to 201 for bobcat. At the same site, a total of 82 turkey bones were identified, as well as five turkey burials. The NISP for turkey was adjusted to 687 (5 x ]2] + 82 =687). The only other site where NISPs had to be adjusted apart from Tseh So (Bc50) is MV 1553 in Mesa Verde National Park with a Basketmaker III component. At the site, a total of 54 turkey bones were identified, as well as two turkey burials. The turkey NISP was adjusted to 296.

The Distribution ofSites and Retrieval Methods The sites used in this study are not equally distributed over the San Juan Basin and better reflect locations of development-driven archaeological excavations than the true distribution of sites. For example, numerous faunas have been reported from the southern part of the San Juan Basin around modem towns like Zuni, Gallup and Window Rock. This largely reflects developments in this region, as most of these sites are located along major road sections. In contrast, few faunas have been reported from the vast, undisturbed plains around Chaco Canyon, where little development has occurred in recent years. The northern San Juan Basin has been well studied with large faunal assemblages (Driver 2002a; Muir 1999; Rawlings 2006), largely due to well designed research projects of Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, the construction of irrigation systems such as those at Dolores and the presence of national parks and monuments such as Mesa Verde and Hovenweep National Monument. Some assemblages, such as those in Chaco Canyon (Akins 1985) were not screened, but these are nonetheless included.

188 Quantification Faunal analysts worldwide use different quantification methods, of which NISP and MNI are probably the most common (Klein and Cruz-Uribe 1984). The numerous limitations of these two methods have been discussed previously, as well as the reasons why NISP is the favoured quantification method used in this study (see Faunal Methods chapter). For the regional overview, I include only fauna studies with NISP data. As I mentioned previously, NISP can be calculated in different ways. As faunal analysts often don't describe how they calculated NISP (cf. Driver 1982), I used specimen counts as others reported them. I use four ratios in the regional overview to establish broad faunal patterns in the San Juan Basin. These are the artiodactyla, lagomorph, turkey and 'unusual' indices.

Settlement Occupations Assemblages from the same time periods (e.g., Pueblo II) were lumped together for the purpose of this study using the Pecos classification system (Kantner 2004: 14). This is done to determine broad faunal patterns in particular regions of the San Juan Basin. By lumping faunal data from different assemblages but the same time period within a particular region, variation in sample sizes would be, to some extent, circumvented. However, it is recognised that combining smaJler and larger samples in regions may influence the faunal patterns, as it is very possible that larger and/or longer occupied settlements (which often result in larger faunal assemblages) may have a greater impact on local game resources. On the other hand, archaeological excavations tend to be concentrated in regions where much modem developments have taken place, providing an imprecise picture of faunal usage within particular regions of the San Juan Basin. Nonetheless, it is believed that by combining faunal data from regions dating to the same time periods, a broad general picture of animal usage in the San Juan Basin can be reconstructed. The data were separated into different time periods if the analyst reported them separately. However, in some cases the assemblages from two periods were combined by the analyst. In cases where settlements were occupied for more than one consecutive time period, the faunal data were combined under the most recent time period. For example, settlements dating to Pueblo II and III were combined under Pueblo III. It is assumed that the latest occupation was the densest. However, assemblages from great houses were treated separately for their respective occupations. For example, the samples from Pueblo II and III from Albert Porter Pueblo were treated separately. Assemblages from discontinuous occupations at the same site, for example Basketmaker III and Pueblo II, were excluded if the analyst combined the faunal data.

189 Regions within the San Juan Basin The San Juan Basin was divided into seven convenient regions (Table 116, Figure 25) based on broad topographic, hydrological and ecological features (see Vivian 1990: 17). Although it is possible that the proposed borders of regions crosscut communities, the purpose of the regional study is to determine broad changes in the San Juan Basin. In order to achieve this goal, I have to establish semi-arbitrary regions. Most of mammals and birds that have been identified from assemblages by other analysts occur, with some exceptions such as macaws, throughout the San Juan Basin (Hall 1981; Harris 1963). It is therefore not possible to establish a preset list of expected animals for each region. This is because animals and birds may migrate seasonally between habitats, venture into previously under-utilised territories and were subjected to human population pressures. Moreover, prehistoric animal distribution may not be exactly the same modem distributions (Harris 1963). Meat and other animal products may have been traded. Animal numbers also fluctuate without any human interference as a result offactors such as higher ratios of predators to prey and vice versa, as well as natural climatic and local environmental variations (e.g., Allen 1980:172-185; Mierau and Schmidt 1981).

Table 116. Major Regions in the San Juan Basin (from Vivian 1990 and Gregory 1915) Re2ion Elevation Annual Precipitation Ve2etation 1 2600 - 1550 18 - 41 cm Northwestern San Juan Basin: m Woodlands interspersed with grasslands. Deep canyons in Mesa Verde 2 2600- 2100 High of 43 cm in north, Northeastern San Juan Basin: San Juan m average 35 cm in south Mountains with woodlands and deep canyons in the north, grasslands to the south 3 2500 m in High of 43 cm in the Central San Juan Basin: Canyons and east, 1500 northeast, high of 35 cm in valleys with woodlands and canyons in mIn east, 23-25 in south, less northeast, treeless grasslands in center southwest, than 25 in west,18 -25 cm and southeast 2400 m in in center south, 1600 m in west 4 1900m Average 22 cm, but can Chaco Canyon: Grasslands surrounding range between 8 - 45 cm Chaco Canyon 5 2500- 2000 28 - 41 cm Southern San Juan Basin: Woodlands in m higher elevations, grasslands in lower elevations 6 1800 - 1500 Average 19 cm Chuska Valley: Grasslands m 7 2100 - 1200 Flagstaff average 60 cm Western San Juan Basin: Canyons and

190 ___I_m ~ mesas, grasslands

Figure 25. Regions of the San Juan Basin (redrawn from Vivian 1990: 17)

o fOrni. I: : : 1 I I II I A II III 1bo'km.

Summary This chapter described the analytical approaches used in the regional study as well as a description of the seven regions of the San Juan Basin into which faunal data were divided. Only

191 faunal data dating to between Basketmaker II and Pueblo III (A.D. 1-1300) were used in this study. This largely coincides with the occupation of the farming communities in the San Juan Basin. The regional overview faces many limitations, which include: each assemblage has a unique taphonomic history; variations in recovery methods, identification procedures, skills of analysts, reference collections and quantification methods and a lack of standardised reporting.

192 CHAPTER 12 FAUNAL CHANGES IN THE SAN JUAN BASIN

Introduction An overview of archaeofaunas from the San Juan Basin between Basketmaker II and Pueblo III (A.D. 1-1300) will allow me to establish broad patterns of animal usage over time. Variations in the artiodactyla, turkey and lagomorph indices will highlight temporal and spatial changes in faunal usage. The database I used can in future address many additional questions. However, in this dissertation I only address two issues. First, I attempt to establish broad faunal changes over time and space in the San Juan Basin using the artiodactyla, lagomorph and turkey indices. Second, I use the artiodactyla, lagomorph, turkey and an exotic index to determine if great houses differ from contemporaneous non-great house settlements in the San Juan Basin. In this chapter I present a descriptive summary of the results and consider the reasons for the variation in animal usage over time and space in the following chapter.

Sample Composition A total of 559 assemblages with NISP data were recorded for the seven regions in the San Juan Basin. Once samples with mixed or unknown dates are excluded, a total of 519 samples were used in my index calculations (Table I 17, Appendix B, Appendix C). It is not surprising to find that most assemblages are from the northeastern San Juan Basin. The archaeology of this region has been intensely studied (e.g., Lipe 2004; Varien 1999). Faunas from this region yielded a wealth of information (e.g., Driver 2002a; Fothergill 2008; Muir 1999; Rawlings 2006). Other regions within the San Juan Basin are less well studied. In my sample of analysed assemblages, there is an increase in the number of site faunas through time from Basketmaker II to Pueblo III. This is probably the result of two factors. First, this reflects the general increase of human populations in the San Juan Basin over time (e.g., Kantner 2004a; Plog 1997). Second, there may be a sampling bias towards later sites (Pueblo II and III settlements) because they are larger and thus more visible to archaeologists. For example, outlying great houses are recognised as 'big bumps' on the landscape (Lekson 1991). In contrast, Basketmaker settlements have minimal surface expressions and are often only found during development projects.

193 Table 117. Number of Assemblages by Region included in this Study Basket· Basket- Mixed! maker maker Pueblo Pueblo Pueblo Un- Accept- Re2ion II III I II III known Total ed 1 36 32 76 90 21 255 234 2 6 16 23 3 7 3 58 55 3 1 4 12 26 20 63 63 4 2 4 12 4 2 24 22 5 5 7 3 36 28 4 83 79 6 2 6 12 20 12 10 62 52 7 2 5 7 14 14 Total 14 71 88 178 168 40 559 519

Assemblage Size Ranges Zooarchaeologists favour large assemblages consisting of several thousand identified specimens to make comparisons across time and space. The assemblages used in this study range from a NISP of 1 to 20,000 specimens. The majority of the assemblages (n = 521, 93%) are small and consist of less than 3000 specimens based on NISP (Figure 26). Among the assemblages with less than 3000 NISP, most have less than 1000 identified specimens (Figure 27). Those assemblages with less than 1000 NISPs consist mostly of assemblages of less than 100 identified specimens (Figure 28). Assemblages with less than 100 identified specimens can be considered as small (cf. Amorosi et al. 1996). Small assemblages are not particularly useful for diversity studies (cf. Reitz and Wing 1999: 146). However, ratios overcome to some extent the problem of small assemblage sizes, enabling comparisons across a region (Appendix C).

194 Figure 26. NISP Ranges for all Assemblages

100 I n = 521

n=8 n=3 n=O 0=2 n = 1 0 <3k 3-6k 6-9k 9-12k 12-15k IS-18k 18-21k NISP

Figure 27. NISP Ranges for Assemblages with less than 3000 Specimens

90!

n =451 80 ~

60 ~

50 ~ ! ae

20 -

10 n =46 n =38 n =24

0 3k NISP

195 Figure 28. NISP Ranges for Assemblages with less than 1000 Specimens

60 -

n = 235

, I i!'- 301

20 -

10 ~ n = 29

~ ~----"n_=_l__l~~_n =_7__~~n_=_1~1_~--"n_=_ll-----. 0-'- HOO 101·200 201-300 301-400 401-500 501-600 601-700 701-800 801-900 901-1000 NISP

The identified specimens (NISP) for all assemblages were plotted against the total number of identified and unidentified specimens (NISP + Unidentified) (Figure 29). A large number of assemblages have the same values. This is the result of three factors. First, many faunal analysts do not report unidentified specimens in reports and publications. Second, analysts may report unidentified specimens, but it was not recorded during data collecting for this dissertation. Third, many analysts consider every single specimen as identifiable and place specimens into categories such as 'medium mammal'. This is not a universal approach. For example, analysts that use Driver's (2005) method of analysis only consider specimens that can be assigned to an element as identifiable (e.g., Muir 1999; Rawlings 2006; This Study).

196 Figure 29. NISP and Total Assemblages for Assemblages in the San Juan Basin

"'C 14000 C1) - 12000 c: -C1) •• "'C 10000 • c: ~ 8000 C) •• c: 6000 "'C •• ~ ~ • -Co) 4000 >< C1) • c.. 2000 • en- • Z 0 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 Total NISP

Common Taxa Assemblages in the San Juan Basin are dominated by a few animal taxa. I used ubiquity analysis (Table] I 8) and percentage NISP (Table 119) to determine which taxa occur most commonly in assemblages for all time periods and regions. In both instances, only the top 10 common taxa are considered. Cottontails are the most ubiquitous animal. Jackrabbits are also common. Many of the indeterminate small mammal remains probably include both cottontails and jackrabbits. The dominance of rabbits, and particularly cottontails, confirms previous faunal research about the importance of small game in the San Juan Basin and the broader Southwest (e.g., Driver 2002a; Szuter 1991). Other common taxa from faunal assemblages in the San Juan Basin are turkeys, deer, prairie dogs, indeterminate squirrels, gophers and Canidae. Many of the Canidae probably include dogs. Many of the indeterminate medium and large mammals as well as indeterminate medium artiodactyla are probably deer. In addition, most of the indeterminate large birds are probably turkeys.

197 Table 118. Ubiquity of Common Taxa in the San Juan Basin Ranked Order Taxon %Ubiquity Number of Assemblages (All Time Periods) I Cottontail 81% 454 2 Jackrabbit 76% 424 3 Unidentified Specimens 60% 334 4 Indeterminate Small 58% 324 Mammal 5 Turkey 57% 3J6 6 Deer 54% 303 7 Prairie Dog 52% 290 8 Indeterminate Large 50% 280 Mammal 9 Indeterminate Medium 47% 265 Mammal 10 Gopher 47% 263

Table J19. NISP of Common Taxa in the San Juan Basin Rank Most Total NISP of Common Taxa Total NISP of Order Common Common Taxa (All Identified above Taxa Identified Taxa Time Periods) Order-Level above Order- Level I Unidentified 105,468 Cottontail 79,476 2 Cottontail 79,476 Jackrabbit 36,607 3 Small Mammal 56,869 Turkey 29,981 4 Jackrabbit 36,607 Prairie Dog 9418 5 Turkey 29,981 Deer 8664 6 Large Mammal 21,422 Canis sp. 7134 7 Medium 14,959 Artiodactyla 6715 Mammal 8 Large Bird 12,555 Medium Artiodactyla 6062 9 Prairie Dog 9418 Lagomorph 5854

198 lL-l_0 D_e_e_r...J...I 86_6_4J'-- Sc_i_u_ri_d_ae_I 4_35_5_1

Indices In order to calculate the different indices, I only used samples where the sum of the different denominators consists of at least 50 specimens. For example, the artiodactyla index was calculated for samples where artiodactyls and lagomorphs have 50 or more specimens. Although I combined some data to increase sample size, the individual index values are presented in Appendix C. The results are presented next.

Lagomorph Index The lagomorph index (cottontails/cottontails + jackrabbits) is presented by time periods, regions and great houses compared to non-great houses. Considering first the different time periods, cottontails increase in relation to jackrabbits in Pueblo II and III (Table 120, Figure 30). The general increase of cottontails compared to jackrabbits over time is similar to what Driver (2002a) found for the northern San Juan Basin in a previous study.

Table 120. Lagomorph Index Values by Time Period

Index Values 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 Total Basketmaker II - Pueblo I 2 (4%) 5 (10%) 21 (40%) 13 (25%) 11 (21 %) 52 Pueblo II 14 (19%) 20 (28%) 17 (24%) 21 (29%) 72 Pueblo III 4 (5%) 15 (19%) 20 (25%) 41 (51%) 80 (Index Value 1-2 denotes 0.0 - 0.2, etc)

199 Figure 30. Lagomorph Index Values by Time Period

o BII-PI SPII • Pili 60% '

50% ~

40% -:

30% -,

20% -

10% -

1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 LI Groups

(Index Value 1-2 denotes 0.0 - 0.2, etc)

When the different regions are considered (Table 121), the highest values are found in Regions I, 2 and 3. This probably relate to local environmental conditions. Cottontails are common on sagebrush plains (Bailey 1971). Region I, as already mentioned, is a well studied area with large assemblages with a dominance of cottontails (e.g., Driver 2002a; Muir 1999; Rawlings 2006). Regions 4, 5 and 6 have slightly low values.

Table 121. Lagomorph Index Values by Region

Index Values 1·2 3·4 5-6 7-8 9-10 Total Region 1 1 (1 %) 7 (7%) 18(19%) 23 (24%) 46 (48%) 95 Region 2 1 (11 %) 2 (22%) 2 (22%) 4 (44%) 9 , Region 3 1 (3%) 2 (6%) 8 (24%) 6 (18%) 16 (48%) 33 Region 4 3(15%) 9 (45%) 6 (30%) 2 (10%) 20 Region 5 7 (28%) 8 (32%) 8 (32%) 2 (8%) 25 Region 6 3 (19%) 6 (38%) 4 (25%) 3 (19%) 16 Region 7 4 (80%) 1 (20%) 5 (Index Value 1-2 denotes 0.0 - 0.2, etc)

200 When the lagomorph indices of great houses are compared to non-great houses in the San Juan Basin (Table 122), the small number of samples from great houses makes it difficult to establish if any meaningful patterns are present.

Table 122. Lagomorph Index Values for Great and Non-Great Houses

Index Values 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 Total Pueblo II 14 (23%) 18 (30%) 15 (25%) 14 (23%) 61 Pueblo II Great Houses 2 (18%) 2 (18%) 7 (64%) 11 Pueblo III 4 (6%) 13 (20%) 16 (24%) 33 (50%) 66 Pueblo III Great Houses 2(14%) 4 (29%) 8 (57%) 14 (Index Value 1-2 denotes 0.0 - 0.2, etc)

Artiodactyla Index The artiodactyla index (artiodactyla/artiodactyla + cottontails + jackrabbits + indeterminate lagomorphs) was calculated for the different time periods and great houses compared to non-great houses. During Pueblo III, index values are generally low in the San Juan Basin (Table 123, Figure 31). This is similar to what Driver (2002a) found for the northern San Juan Basin.

Table 123. Artiodactyla Index Values by Time Period

Index Values 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 Total Basketmaker II ·Pueblo I 36 (55%) 11 (17%) 9 (14%) 5 (8%) 5 (8%) 66 Pueblo II 45 (53%) 17 (20%) 15(18%) 4 (5%) 4 (5%) 85 Pueblo III 71 (78%) 7 (8%) 7 (8%) 5 (5%) 1 (1%) 91 (Index Value 1-2 denotes 0.0 - 0.2, etc)

201 Figure 31. Artiodactyla Index Values by Time Period

o BII-PI BPII • Pili 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% ~ 0% +----"....;c....:...I:= ~ 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 AI Groups

(Index Value 1-2 denotes 0.0 - 0.2, etc)

When the artiodactyla index for great houses are compared to non-great houses, there is a tendency for great houses to have higher artiodactyla index values during Pueblo II (Table 124, Figure 32-33). Unfortunately, only a few samples from great houses are available. The higher values of artiodactyla index values at great houses are the result of two factors. First, it relates to identification issues. Some assemblages, such as Guadalupe Ruin (Pippin 1987) have a large indeterminate artiodactyla category, no indeterminate medium mammal category as well as a very low number of unidentified specimens. It would seem as if all large specimens were grouped under the indeterminate medium mammal category, resulting in high artiodactyla index values. Second, some great houses such as Salmon Ruin (Roler Durand and Durand 2006) could have had access to regions such as the San Juan Mountains where the human impact on artiodactyla populations was not great (cf. Speth and Scott] 989). However, by Pueblo III times there is no significant differences between great houses and non-great houses (Table] 24, Figure 33).

202 Table] 24. Artiodactyla Index Values for Great and Non-Great Houses Index Values 1·2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 Total Pueblo II 40 (54%) 14 (19%) 12 (16%) 4 (5%) 4 (5%) 74 Pueblo II Great Houses 5 (45%) 3 (27%) 3 (27%) 11 Pueblo III 60 (78%) 6 (8%) 5 (6%) 5 (6%) 1 (1 %) 77 Pueblo III Great Houses 11 (79%) 1 (7%) 2 (14%) 14 (Index Value] -2 denotes 0.0 - 0.2, etc)

Figure 32. Artiodactyla Index Values for Great and Non-Great Houses (Pueblo II)

I§PII • PIIGH

60% 1 _

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 ~ Groups

(Index Value 1-2 denotes 0.0 - 0.2, etc)

203 Figure 33. Artiodactyla Index Values for Great and Non-Great Houses (Pueblo III)

EI Pili • PIlIGH 90% - 80% J 70% ~ 60% j , 50% J 40% l

30% -!

20% 1 10% i 0% 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 AI Groups

(Index Value 1-2 denotes 0.0 - 0.2, etc)

Turkey Index When Spielmann and Angstadt-Leto (l996:90) proposed the turkey index, they did not include indeterminate large bird specimens. Driver (2002a: 151-152) modified the turkey index by including indeterminate large bird specimens (turkey + indeterminate large bird/turkey + indeterminate large bird + cottontails + jackrabbits + indeterminate lagomorphs). This was done, first, due to the fact that turkeys are by far the most common large bird in assemblages from the San Juan Basin. Second, some analysts assume that all large bird specimens are turkey. While it is possible that a few eagle or crane bones are included in the indeterminate large bird category, the effects are likely minimal (Driver 2002a:151-152). I used Driver's (2002a) modified turkey index for assemblages in the San Juan Basin. The turkey index was calculated by time period, region and for great and non-great houses. When the different time periods are considered (Table 125, Figure 34), turkey indices increase over time. Some Basketmaker II and III as well as Pueblo I samples have relatively high turkey indices, but this is probably the result of turkey burials, which are common during these times (Munro 1994).

204 Table 125. Turkey Index Values by Time Period

Index Values 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 Total Basketmaker 11- Pueblo I 48 (81%) 1 (2%) 3 (5%) 2 (3%) 5 (8%) 59 Pueblo II 51 (57%) 13 (15%) 8 (9%) 9 (10%) 8 (9%) 89 Pueblo III 34 (35%) 18 (19%) 21 (22%) 17 (18%) 7 (7%) 97 (Index Value 1-2 denotes 0.0 - 0.2, etc)

Figure 34. Turkey Index Values by Time Period

I [] ~II-PI __§_P_II • PIli 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% +--'"'-'-'--'--'=== 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 MTI Groups

(Index Value 1-2 denotes 0.0 - 0.2, etc)

Turkey indices were calculated for the different regions (Table 126). Region 7 has the highest percentage of samples with high turkey indices. Region I also has high turkey indices with a large number of samples. Many of these assemblages are particularly large (e.g., Muir 1999; Rawlings 2006), and a previous study (Driver 2002a) noted the dominance of turkey specimens during Pueblo II and III.

205 Table 126. Turkey Index Values by Region Index Values 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 Total Region 1 45 (38%) 17 (14%) 25 (21%) 23 (19%) 9 (8%) 119 Region 2 9 (90%) 1 (10%) 10 Region 3 28 (74%) 3 (8%) 2 (5%) 2 (5%) 3 (8%) 38 Region 4 15 (75%) 4 (20%) 1 (5%) 80 Region 5 17 (57%) 6 (20%) 2 (7%) 5 (17%) 30 Region 6 16 (84%) 1 (5%) 1 (5%) 1 (5%) 19 Region 7 3 (33%) 1 (11 %) 1 (11 %) 2 (22%) 2 (22%) 9 (Index Value 1-2 denotes 0.0 - 0.2, etc)

When the turkey index for the northern San Juan Basin (Region I) is considered (Table 127, Figure 35), the high values during Pueblo II and III supports the conclusions of an earlier study by Driver (2002a). The general dominance of turkey during Pueblo II and III in the northwestern San Juan Basin is not a widespread pattern. When central regions are considered, most assemblages have few turkey remains regardless of time period (Table 128, Figure 36). The low number of turkey remains in other regions outside Region 1 is due to three possible factors. First, it is likely that the low regions of the central Basin are not suitable for turkeys that prefer higher elevations (Akins 1985). Second, human populations were not as dense throughout the Basin with less impact on game animals and therefore less need to raise turkeys. Third, communities in Region I had large surpluses of maize that could be fed to turkeys (Driver 2002a; Rawlings 2006).

Table 127. Turkey Index Values for Region I Index Values 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 Total Basketmaker III- Pueblo I 18 (78%) 2 (9%) 3 (13%) 23 Pueblo II 17 (43%) 7 (18%) 6 (15%) 9 (23%) 1 (3%) 40 Pueblo III 10(18%) 10(18%) 17 (30%) 14 (25%) 5 (9%) 56 (Index Value 1-2 denotes 0.0 - 0.2, etc)

Table 128. Turkey Index Values for Region 3, 4 and 6

Index Values 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 Total Basketmaker 11- Pueblo I 17 (85%) 2 (10%) 1 (5%) 20 Pueblo II 25 (81%) 2 (6%) 2 (6%) 2 (6%) 31 Pueblo III 17 (65%) 5 (19%) 2 (8%) 1 (4%) 1 (4%) 26 (Index Value 1-2 denotes 0.0 - 0.2, etc)

206 Figure 35. Turkey Index Values for Region 1

o Bill-PI E3 PII • Pili 90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10% 0% +-..L..:...-:...... _ 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 MTI Groups

(Index Value 1-2 denotes 0.0 - 0.2, etc)

Figure 36. Turkey Index Values for Region 3,4 and 6

o BII-PI BPII _Pili 90% -

i 80% ~

70% l 60% J

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% +--~~= 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 MTI Groups

(Index Value] -2 denotes 0.0 - 0.2, etc)

207 Turkey indices were calculated for settlements with great houses and those without great houses for Pueblo II and III (Table 129, Figure 37-38). During Pueblo II, no great houses have high turkey indices. During Pueblo III, turkey indices are similar for great houses and non-great houses in the San Juan Basin.

Table 129. Turkey Index Values for Great and Non-Great Houses

Index Values 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 Total Pueblo II 42 (54%) 11 (14%) 8 (10%) 9 (12%) 8 (10%) 78 Pueblo II Great House 9 (82%) 2 (18%) 11 Pueblo III 30 (36%) 13(16%) 18 (22%) 16 (19%) 6 (7%) 83 Pueblo III Great House 4 (29%) 5 (36%) 3 (21%) 2 (14%) 14 (Index Value 1-2 denotes 0.0 - 0.2, etc)

Figure 37. Turkey Index Values for Great and Non-Great Houses (Pueblo II)

13 PII .PIIGH 90% l 80% 70%

60%

50% 40% 30%

20%

10%

0% 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 MTI Groups

(Index Value 1-2 denotes 0.0 - 0.2, etc)

208 Figure 38. Turkey Index Values for Great and Non-Great Houses (Pueblo III)

SPill 40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

0% 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 MTI Groups

(Index Value 1-2 denotes 0.0 - 0.2, etc)

The absence of high turkey index values during Pueblo II at great houses suggests that the people who used great houses delayed the adoption and usage of turkeys. This was not only happening in the northern San Juan Basin where conditions would have been favourable to keep turkeys (Table 130, Figures 39-40), but also in other regions (Table 131, Figures 41-42). This could be due to two reasons. First, some great houses are not located in regions where turkeys were able to flourish. However, this is not the case, since in Pueblo III many of these great houses have high turkey index values compared to previous times. Second, social or ideological conditions may have made it difficult to incorporate new of different meat sources. For example, if rabbits, rodents and artiodactyls were regarded as 'traditional' meat sources, elites could have been supplied with such meat from these animals to maintain the status quo. In Pueblo II, turkey meat could have been regarded as unsuitable meat sources for those people associated with great houses. This issue is considered in the following chapter again. However, it is important to note that few samples dating from Pueblo II are available from great houses.

209 Table 130. Turkey Index Values for Great and Non-Great Houses in Region I

Index Values 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 Total Pueblo II 13 (38%) 5 (15%) 6 (18%) 9 (26%) 1 (3%) 34 Pueblo II Great House 4 (67%) 2 (33%) 6 Pueblo III 9 (19%) 6 (13%) 15 (32%) 13 (28%) 4 (9%) 47 Pueblo III Great House 1 (11 %) 4 (44%) 2 (22%) 1 (11 %) 1 (11 %) 9 (Index Value 1-2 denotes 0.0 - 0.2, etc)

Figure 39. Turkey Index Values for Great and Non-Great Houses in Region I (Pueblo II)

E3PII ~I 70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 MTI Groups

(Index Value 1-2 denotes 0.0 - 0.2, etc)

210 Figure 40. Turkey Index Values for Great and Non-Great Houses in Region 1 (Pueblo III)

l;;IPIII .PIIIGH 50% - 45% -j I 40% ...: 35% 30% - 25% l I 20% - 15% ~ 10% ~ 5% ~ 0% 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 MTI Groups

(Index Value 1-2 denotes 0.0 - 0.2, etc)

Table 131. Turkey Index Values for Great and Non-Great Houses in Regions 3, 4 and 6 Index values 1·2 3·4 5·6 7·8 9·10 Total Pueblo II 20 (77%) 2 (8%) 2 (8%) 2 (8%) 26 Pueblo II Great House 5 (100%) 5 Pueblo III 14 (67%) 4 (19%) 1 (5%) 1 (5%) 1 (5%) 21 Pueblo III Great House 3 (60%) 1 (20%) 1 (20%) 5 (Index Value 1-2 denotes 0.0 - 0.2, etc)

211 Figure 41. Turkey Index Values for Great and Non-Great Houses in Regions 3,4 and 6 (Pueblo

II)

"PII 120% I

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0% -----,r~§--"""-----______r----~--§-"'------____,_------"§-""'------1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-1 0 MTI Groups

(Index Value 1-2 denotes 0.0 - 0.2, etc)

Figure 42. Turkey Index Values for Great and Non-Great Houses in Regions 3,4 and 6 (Pueblo III)

l;;IPIII 70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 MTI Groups

(Index Value 1-2 denotes 0.0 - 0.2, etc)

212 'Unusual' Animals at Great Houses Szuter (1990) pointed out that rare animal resources in the San Juan Basin: fish, turtle, tortoise, hawk, Gambel's quail, raven, woodpecker, thrasher and other passerines, unidentified bird, fox, bobcat and other carnivores as well as artiodactyls, can be regarded as 'signature taxa'. I selected a few taxa, which are 'unusual', and investigate whether or not they occur in greater numbers at great houses compared to non-great houses. These unusual taxa include falconiformes, owls and ravens for birds, as well as all carnivores but excluding the genus Canis, all Canis species, and all indeterminate Canidae and carnivores. Many of these specimens are likely domestic dog. An 'unusual' index is calculated here as all the 'unusual' taxa divided by 'unusual' taxa plus alllagomorphs. No evidence was found to suggest that more 'unusual' taxa were present at great houses compared to non-great houses in Pueblo II and III (Table 132). Similarly, the carnivore index is not higher at great houses compared to non-great houses (Table 133).

Table 132. 'Unusual' Indices for Great and Non-Great Houses

Index Values 1-2 3·4 5-6 7-8 9-10 Total Pueblo II 61 4 65 Pueblo II Great Houses 11 11 Pueblo III 64 1 1 1 67 Pueblo III Great Houses 14 14 (Index Value 1-2 denotes 0.0 - 0.2, etc)

Table 133. Carnivore Indices for Great and Non-Great Houses

Index Values 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 Total Pueblo II 62 4 66 Pueblo II Great Houses 11 11 Pueblo III 66 66 Pueblo III Great Houses 14 14 (Index Value 1-2 denotes 0.0 - 0.2, etc)

Summary The overview of faunas from farming communities in the San Juan Basin has established a number of patterns. First, there was a general increase in the usage of cottontails compared to jackrabbits from Basketmaker II to Pueblo III times. Second, there was an overall decline in the number of artiodactyls compared to rabbits at the same time. Third, in the northern San Juan

213 Basin turkey increased during Pueblo III. The potential reasons for these three patterns are discussed in the next chapter. Apart from slightly higher values of artiodactyls at great houses during Pueblo II and III, faunas from great houses and non-great houses are similar with regard to the use of wild birds and wild carnivores. Great houses from Pueblo II times do not have high turkey index values.

214 CHAPTER 13 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Introduction In this dissertation I investigated faunas from Albert Porter Pueblo and Pueblo Bonito and undertook a regional overview of animal usage in the San Juan Basin of the American Southwest. All these studies are unified by the need to understand great houses in the San Juan Basin. I considered taphonomic processes that influenced the assemblages. Processes include disturbance and relocation of animal bone by dogs, rodents and humans. Preservation offaunas filters the remains further with the densest and largest bone being more resistant to destructive processes. Locations of excavations at sites, mesh size and retrieval methods as well as experience and confidence of faunal analysts further influence patterns that we observe from archaeofaunas. Notwithstanding these taphonomic processes, faunal analysts can and do make positive statements about prehistoric human behaviour. The remaining chapter highlights the major findings of this dissertation, attempts to answer the research questions, and makes suggestions for future research topics and methods.

Albert Porter Pueblo Few outlying great house faunas from the San Juan Basin have hitherto been studied (e.g., Kantner and Mahoney 2000; Roler Durand 2003). The analysis of the Albert Porter Pueblo assemblage in the northern San Juan Basin attempted to contribute to an understanding of animal usage at outlying great houses. The main occupation of the settlements dates to Pueblo II-III (A.D. 1020-1280) times. The faunal analysis sought to answer three research questions. Each is considered separately.

Research Question J: Differences between the Great House and Residential Roomblocks The faunal analysis of Albert Porter Pueblo provided an opportunity to investigate faunal differences between the great house and contemporary residences surrounding the great house. The analysis revealed that turkeys were more common in the great house during all time periods compared to surrounding residences. However, the pattern is not robust and can only suggest a possible trend. No conclusive evidence was found for feasting at Albert Porter Pueblo. Apart from the possible higher consumption of turkeys at the great house, no other evidence was found to suggest differential faunal usage at the great house. If elites were using or occupying the great

215 house at Albert Porter Pueblo, they ate a similar range of animals to people in the surrounding structures, and the use of ritual fauna was similar across the site.

Research Question 2: Faunal Changes over Time Since Albert Porter Pueblo was occupied during Pueblo II and III, the faunal analysis provided the opportunity to consider changes in animal usage over time. From Pueblo II to III, turkeys increased in importance, whilst at the same time, relatively fewer rabbits were consumed. This conclusion is based on the turkey index and a comparison of bone counts to cooking vessel weights. Artiodactyls were present in all time periods, but in very low numbers only. The low numbers of artiodactyls could be the result of intensive hunting, possibly due to increased human populations. Turkey increasingly became the food of choice to replace declining game numbers, especially during Pueblo III. These patterns are similar to what others have found for contemporary settlements in the northern San Juan Basin (Driver 2002a), but this is one of the few examples where trends can be observed at a single site.

Research Question 3: Comparisons with other Settlements in the Region Assemblages from outlying great houses and villages in the northern San Juan Basin have a similar range of animals. These include a variety of carnivores, artiodactyls, rodents, rabbits, domestic and wild birds and small numbers of reptiles, amphibians and fish. Most often, cottontails and turkeys dominate assemblages, especially in Pueblo III when turkeys became the largest contributor to the meat diet. The variations that do exist in faunal assemblages from the northern San Juan Basin are probably the result of different assemblage sizes and local environments. For example, smaller assemblages tend to have a lower diversity of animals. The animals represented in the Albert Porter Pueblo assemblage are not different in any significant way from contemporary, non-great houses in the northern San Juan Basin.

Other Faunal Patterns ofInterest Two other findings not included in the three research questions from the fauna study of Albert Porter Pueblo are of interest. First, it was argued that most of the squirrels and small rodents were in fact consumed by the inhabitants. Many analysts working in the San Juan Basin have hitherto considered (most of) these small taxa as natural intrusions (e.g., Muir 1999; Rawlings 2006). Second, in spite of large numbers of turkey specimens at settlements in the northern San Juan Basin, very few turkeys could in fact be kept if they were raised exclusi vely on maize. In fact, the cost of a single turkey raised exclusively on maize is so high that turkeys

216 probably obtained maize through other means. For example, turkeys could have scavenged undigested maize from human feces, and/or could have been fed spoiled and leftover maize, or food scraps.

Pueblo Bonito Pueblo Bonito, one of the most impressive settlements in prehistoric North America, is central to our understanding of the Chaco Phenomenon. The fauna that I studied for this dissertation are from the mounds directly south of the structure, and date to Pueblo II. The mounds were excavated on previous occasions, most notably by Neil Judd in the 1920s (Judd 1954; 1964). The backfill of his excavations form the basis of my faunal study. Very little is known about the function(s) of mounds in Chaco Canyon (Lekson 1986). The research questions were designed to inform us of the nature of the faunal material in the mounds.

Research Question I: Faunal Differences between the East and West Mound Architectural, material and human burial data suggests that two moieties occupied Pueblo Bonito at the time when the mounds were constructed (e.g., Kantner 2004a). Two moieties may potentially have used different animals which may in turn be reflected in the mounds. However, no meaningful differences in faunal utilisation were found between the two mounds at Pueblo Bonito. The slight variation that does exist between faunas from the east and west mounds probably relate to different assemblage sizes and fragmentation, and generally reflect a collectors curve.

Research Question 2: The Nature ofthe Mound Fauna Our understanding of the mounds in Chaco Canyon is still limited. My analysis was able to provide insights into the nature of the faunal material. Remains of animals used for food and rituals were used to construct the mounds. The near-complete eagle wing in the east mound suggests ritual interment of animals. This suggests some ritual function of at least the east mound. Previous excavations of the mounds in the 1920s no doubt obscure the extent of this practice. The dominance of deer is similar to other sites in Chaco Canyon dating to the Classic Bonito phase. The open plaza at Pueblo Bonito and large quantities of faunal material in the mounds may suggest large scale, communal consumption. However, no conclusive evidence was found which could be regarded as feasting activities.

217 Research Question 3: Comparisons with other Settlements in Chaco Canyon The fauna is similar in species composition to other small and great houses within Chaco Canyon. All settlements yielded a variety of carnivores, artiodactyla, rodents, rabbits, domestic and wild birds, as well as small numbers ofreptiles, amphibians and fish. Variations that do exist are probably the result of differences in assemblage size and retrieval methods. Although some (Roler Durand 2003) argued that great houses in Chaco Canyon have a larger variety of ritual birds, I concluded that a lack of or selective screening of many assemblages in Chaco Canyon makes it difficult to evaluate such a hypothesis.

Other Faunal Patterns ofInterest Some other major findings not included under the previous research questions from Pueblo Bonito are reiterated here. The faunal study provided evidence for intensive hunting of artiodactyls. Other material remains such as ceramics, wood, lithics and maize were imported from regions outside Chaco Canyon. It is possible that some animals such as deer and elk were also obtained from other regions. Most of the rodents in the assemblage were consumed, and do not represent later intrusions.

Regional Overview Although faunal overviews of particular regions within the San Juan Basin have been completed (e.g., Driver 2002a), no comprehensive overview of animal usage in the whole Basin has been done. In this dissertation, I presented results of a regional overview of animal usage from Basketmaker II to Pueblo III times in the Basin. Although the database used in this study can answer a wide variety of research questions, I focused only on two of these in an effort to understand broad faunal changes over time and the role of great houses in the region.

Research Question 1: Spatial and Temporal Faunal Changes The overview of Basketmaker II to Pueblo III faunas from the San Juan Basin sought to understand changes in animal usage over time by using the artiodactyla, turkey and lagomorph indices. The overview of faunas revealed a general increase in cottontails in relation to jackrabbits, and at the same time, a decline in artiodactyls. In the northern San Juan Basin, turkeys dominated assemblages, especially from Pueblo II and III times at the expense of cottontails and jackrabbits. The reasons for these changes over time are considered below.

218 Research Question 2: Great Houses Compared to Contemporaneous Settlements The artiodactyla, lagomorph, turkey and carni yore indices as well as a consideration of 'unusual' species were used to compare great house assemblages with those from contemporaneous settlements. Artiodactyls occur in slightly higher values at great houses, mainly during Pueblo II. This is probably the result of two factors. First, it relates to different methods of analyses employed by zooarchaeologists in the region, in which specimens of medium and large animals are placed within an indeterminate artiodactyla category. Other researchers would consider many of these specimens as either unidentifiable, or place them into more general categories such as indeterminate medium mammal, since they can potentially include large rodents and medium carnivores. Second, some great houses such as Salmon Ruin (Roler Durand and Durand 2006; 2008) could have had access to regions such as the San Juan Mountains where the human impact on artiodactyla populations was not as great (cf. Speth and Scott 1989). Great houses yielded a similar variety of carnivores, artiodactyls, rabbits, rodents and birds as other contemporaneous non-great house settlements. Furthermore, with the possible exception of macaws (cf. Judd 1954; Roler Durand and Durand 2006), access to taxa used in rituals was the same at great houses and other contemporaneous settlements. People in great houses took longer to adopt turkeys as food, as is reflected in low turkey index values for many great houses during Pueblo II. Turkeys could have been regarded as unsuitable meat sources for those people associated with the great house during Pueblo II. By Pueblo III, when great houses served as residences, turkeys were considered as food animals. The role of turkeys changed over time. Before Chacoan times (Pueblo I), turkeys were kept in small numbers. Their feathers were probably important. The large number of turkey burials (Munro 1994) and low index values suggests that they rarely eaten. By Pueblo II, some people begin to eat turkey. However, they are not eaten in large numbers at great houses, because (a) ceremonies in great houses required 'wild' animals, and turkeys have become 'domestic', and/or (b) people using great houses disapproved of eating what was once a 'sacred' animal. Susan Kent (I 989a: I 5-16) points out that people in many parts of the world regard wild animals as human-like in behaviour and even intellect. Once animals become domesticated, they tend to be viewed more like plants than like humans; that is, having no intellect. Ifturkeys were still viewed as 'non-intellectual" during Pueblo II, they may not have been suitable animals for those people at great houses. By Pueblo III, turkeys were widely accepted as a food source. It may be possible that meat from game animals was now so scarce that everyone eats turkey, or that great houses were no longer special places. This is an issue that needs more attention in future, perhaps by looking closely at the archaeological context from which turkey is recovered.

219 Causes of Faunal Change in the San Juan Basin The foregoing analyses suggest three main patterns of changing animal usage in the San Juan Basin between Basketmaker II and Pueblo III: I) Artiodactyls became less important in assemblages through time. This can be seen most clearly in the declining values of the artiodactyla index that measures the ratio of artiodactyls to lagomorphs. Not only was this trend noted across the San Juan Basin, but it is also observable within smaller sub-regions, and even at individual settlements such as Albert Porter Pueblo. 2) Cottontails became more important through time in relation to jackrabbits. 3) In the northern San Juan Basin, turkey becomes much more common in Pueblo II and III times. Although this has been measured by comparing turkeys with lagomorphs, turkey increases in relation to all other taxa including rodents and artiodactyls. This can be seen at a site level at Albert Porter Pueblo, as well as in communities and the larger Basin.

Models of behavioural ecology such as optimal foraging theory that includes prey choice, resource depression and diet breadth, provide archaeologists with a set of models to understand predation strategies of individuals (e.g., Bird and O'Connell 2006; Broughton 1999; Smith and Winterhalder 1992; Winterhalder and Smith 1981). Many of these concepts have been applied to faunas from the American Southwest (e.g., Dean 2007; Driver 2002a; Driver 2008; in preparation; Driver and Badenhorst in press; Driver and Woiderski 2008; James 2004; Mick O'Hara 1992; Speth and Scott 1989; Szuter and Bayham 1989). Since many of the concepts have been and will be thoroughly considered in these publications, some main tenets are considered here. Driver (in preparation) identifies three factors that determined the availability of game animals around settlement in the larger Southwest. These are: the natural environment; human modifications to the landscape; and direct exploitations of plants and animals that changes the population dynamics of wild animals. These factors, considered next, determined the availability and variation of animals in the region, and resulted in the aforementioned patterns.

Natural Environments It is well known that the kinds of animals found in faunal assemblages are strongly influenced by the local, natural environment (Broughton and O'Connell 1999). This is because humans tend to harvest common taxa on the landscape to a greater extent than uncommon ones (cf. Plug 1989). For example, in the northern San Juan Basin with its relatively high rainfall and more mesic vegetation supports higher cottontail populations than the arid southern regions where

220 jackrabbits tend to be more common. As a result, cottontails tend to outnumber jackrabbits in faunal assemblages from the northern San Juan Basin (Driver and Woiderski 2008). Contributions of artiodactyls such as elk, bison, deer, pronghorn and bighorn sheep in assemblages in the San Juan Basin also relate to their distribution which is determined by the natural environment. Although taxa such as deer and bighorn sheep occur throughout much of the region (Hall 1981), they tend to be dominant in only particular environments and regions. For example, bighorn sheep is common in southeastern Utah assemblages where they also occur in greater natural numbers, but in the neighbouring Mesa Verde region, deer is more common both in natural numbers and faunal assemblages. Although the proportions of most hunted animals were probably related to the availability on the landscape in the San Juan Basin, this does not apply to all species. Birds of prey often dominate bird samples (e.g., Akins 1985; Roler Durand 2003). If birds were hunted at random, the number of predatory bird remains in assemblages should be generally low. However, since this is often not the case, it suggests that birds of prey were specifically targeted. Non-game birds such as flickers and jays are intensely hunted by the Zuni for rituals. In other words, the hunting of non-game birds is not determined by natural abundance, but by cultural demands (Taylor and Albert 1999).

Garden Hunting The idea of deliberate conservation of resources by people in pre-state communities may be rarer than once thought (Smith and Wishnie 2000). Research on modern and prehistoric people has shown that even small human populations have an impact on their local environment (e.g., James 2004:29-30; Naughton-Treves 2002). Human impact on the local environment is not only restricted to the availability of game animals. For example, wood was widely used for construction and fuel in the San Juan Basin (Kohler and Matthews 1988). Deforestation can lead to changes in the species composition of animals (Driver and Badenhorst in press) and this may have occurred in the San Juan Basin as well. The concept of garden hunting (Linares 1976) has been widely applied to faunas from the San Juan Basin and the larger Southwest in general (summaries by Driver 2008; also Driver in preparation; Driver and Badenhorst in press; Emslie] 981 a; Neusius ]996). Notwithstanding issues of recognising garden hunting from archaeofaunas (Leonard 1989), there can be little doubt that taxa such as rodents, rabbits, artiodactyls, turkeys and birds of prey were attracted to gardens in search of food. Garden hunting is not necessarily a deliberate predation strategy, but rather an

221 outcome of farming activities that resulted in an environment heavily influenced by anthropogenic factors (Driver in preparation). Farmers hunt animals in their gardens for many reasons, including: large game have been depleted, so adding small pests from gardens is an optimal strategy; tending gardens make it more difficult to schedule long hunting trips; gardens attract small pest and even larger game animals; small animals such as rabbits and rodents have a high reproductive rate so there can be a high predation rate; and killing small animals reduces the chance that crops can be damaged by them (Driver and Badenhorst in press). Although it cannot be established whether the taxa from assemblages in the San Juan Basin including Albert Porter Pueblo and Pueblo Bonito were necessarily hunted primarily in gardens, it is conceivable that many would have been killed in the course of tending to fields on a regular basis.

Resource Depression A topic well considered in the San Juan Basin and larger Southwest is resource depression (e.g., Mick-O'Hara 1992). Artiodactyls are commonly considered in such studies, as they were highly desirable for their high return of meat and fat, the prestige they bring to hunters, and their supply of raw materials (Driver 1996). Farmers, who tend to be more sedentary than hunter-gatherers, have a greater effect on game populations with continued predation and relatively high human populations. Game animals should therefore remain at low densities in regions occupied by farmers who lack domestic herds and flocks (Driver and Badenhorst in press). As a result of their general desirability, artiodactyls were likely intensely hunted, resulting in population declines in many regions (Driver in preparation). Evidence for intense hunting was found at Albert Porter Pueblo and Pueblo Bonito, and the regional overview, suggesting resource depression of artiodactyls. As large game animals declined, many communities may have shifted their energies to turkeys and/or small, fast producing mammals such as rabbits. Aggregated villages with dense human habitation occupied for prolonged periods of time probably had a greater affect on local large game populations (Driver in preparation). In such cases, long ranging hunting expeditions to regions where game populations have not been depressed could have been a viable strategy to obtain animal protein (Speth and Scott 1989). An alternative strategy following resource depression is to diversify meat diets (e.g., James 1990; Minnis 1985). Diversity studies for farmers have not been done in the San Juan Basin. Dean (2007), working in the Hohokam region of southern Arizona proposed that a

222 diversification of hunting methods would be a better measure of resource depression. Diversification occurred in regions with high human population aggregation (Dean 2007). Resource depression could have contributed along with other factors such as warfare and environmental degradation to the depopulation of the San Juan Basin (Muir and Driver 2002).

Turkeys Turkeys became important in some parts of the Southwest such as the northern San Juan Basin and the Rio Grande in Pueblo II to IV. The adoption of turkeys as a food source may be in part due to the need to reduce the risk of resource stress (cf. James 1990:27). In lower elevations such as in Chaco Canyon, turkeys may not have been able to flourish, as they prefer higher elevations (Akins 1985). At Shields Pueblo in the Mesa Verde region turkeys were raised almost exclusively on maize (Rawlings 2006). Given the potential labour input of raising turkeys, this commitment suggests a lack of other game resources such as deer. Optimal foraging theory suggests that turkey intensification should occur as the availability of highly valued resources such as deer declines. This may have been one of the most important reasons why turkeys became abundant in some regions such as the Mesa Verde region where Albert Porter Pueblo is located, where human settlement was also very dense during Pueblo III. Settlements with high artiodactyl indices did not exploit turkeys very intensely. In the Zuni region turkey raising declined when other larger bodied domesticates, notably sheep and goats, were introduced after colonial contact (Driver in preparation; Tarcan 2005). Turkeys could also have been important in controlling grasshoppers and other insects in gardens (Stiger 1979: 140). Their feathers were also likely of importance as ritual paraphernalia (e.g., Cordell] 997). Although turkey keeping relates to aspects such as environment and intensification, social aspects may also have been important. As already indicated, during Pueblo II turkey indices are low for great houses compared to non-great houses in the San Juan Basin. If elites were living in great houses during Pueblo II, larger numbers of deer may still have been present in the region, and turkeys may not have been regarded worthy of consumption.

Social Organisation in the San Juan Basin About two thousand years ago, the American Southwest was populated by semi-mobile bands with domestic plants. About four hundred years ago, the Spaniards encountered large sedentary communities with some forms of state-like features, as well as unoccupied regions with monumental public works (Gumerman and Gell-Mann 1994:29). The social changes that occurred in the San Juan Basin from Basketmaker II to Pueblo III have led to considerable debate

223 among archaeologists (e.g., Earle 2001; Fagan 2005; Feinman et ai. 2000; Kantner 2oo4a; Lekson 2006; Neitzel 1989; Plog 1995; Renfrew 2004; Sebastain 1991; 2006). The debate on the social organisation of societies in the San Juan Basin has largely revolved around the issue of whether the farming communities in the San Juan Basin were hierarchically structured like a 'chiefdom' (e.g., Earle 2001) and/or a state (e.g., Wilcox 2004), or conformed to an egalitarian way of life (e.g., Vivian 1989). Many have pointed out that viewing the farming communities in the San Juan Basin as either hierarchical or egalitarian may not be justified (e.g., McGuire and Saitta 1996). First, hierarchical systems such as 'chiefdoms' can have elements of egalitarianism (e.g., Earle 2001), and, conversely, egalitarian societies can display social differences (Flanagan 1989). For example, social power can be lodged in corporate groups such as clans, lineages, fraternities or councils and not just elites (Sebastian 2006:411). Second, the archaeological material culture from the San Juan Basin contain evidence for (e.g., Sebastian 1991) and against (e.g., Renfrew 2001) social differentiation depending on what line of evidence is used. It is conceivable that trade, language, religious and kin alliances ran along various axes in the Southwest (see Crown and Judge 1991; Sebastian 1991: 11 0). In addition, studies of craft specialisation, burial practices, subsistence and resource intensification, political centralisation, long-distance trade, public architecture and storage do not conform to clear evolutionary types such as states and 'chiefdoms' (Lightfoot and Upham 1989:588). With these conflicting ideas in mind, increasing numbers of archaeologists in the Southwest view the communities in the San Juan Basin as organised by a peer-polity (Renfrew and Cherry 1986) form of interaction (e.g., Fagan 2005: 192; RoleI' Durand 2003:160; Van Dyke 2000:91; Windes et ai. 2000:58). Peer-polity interaction holds that societies without elaborate social hierarchies dealt with one another as peers (i.e. equals). Shared religious beliefs, ceremonial gift exchange and public rituals enforced a peer-polity interaction system. Interaction was sometimes competitive, symbolic and conducive to the spread of ideas and facilitated communication over great distances without any re-distribution or a need for rigid political dominance or tribute (Fagan 2005: 192, Renfrew and Cherry 1986, RoleI' Durand 2003). If peer-polity interaction was the norm in the San Juan Basin after A.D. 900, then Chaco Canyon was not a 'center' and those outside the Canyon, not 'outliers', at least not to Chaco Canyon. Roads and communication shrines could then have served as links between local communities and assisted in the regional mobility of people in the San Juan Basin (Windes et ai. 2000:58). Van Dyke (2000:96) considered the process of peer-polity interaction at outlying communities. Constructing Bonito-style architecture would have benefited local leaders at

224 outlying communities who seek to increase their personal prestige through competition on a regional scale. Observations and communications between communities would have led to the spread of Chaco architecture. Since great houses are impressive features, once they were built in one community, leaders from neighbouring communities may have had little trouble convincing their members that competitive emulation was necessary. This way, people from such communities would have contributed their labour and other resources. However, more economically well-off members of a community would have been able to contribute more than others. This would have enhanced the status of those who contributed more resources such as labour, while at the same time enhanced a system of a shared, egalitarian community-wide endeavor. Those who made the largest contribution, be it labour or material, would have played a pivotal role in the activities that occurred in the finished structure thereby furthering their own exclusive access to ritual knowledge (Van Dyke 2000:96). The construction of great houses outside Chaco Canyon as a ritual feature may have assisted in the creation and legitimation of social inequalities within local communities (Van Dyke 2000: I 00).

Zooarchaeology and Social Organisation Fauna cannot always provide answers to questions relating to social organisation (Maltby 2002). A suite of factors, including sampling and retrieval, preservation and fragmentation, taphonomy and quantification mask patterns that may have been the result of human actions (e.g., Reitz and Wing 1999). In fact, a collection of papers on peer polity interaction by Renfrew and Cherry (1986) from Europe, Mesoamerica and Asia hardly considered fauna at all, except for a few passing comments on feasting and food consumption. The general lack of discussion of fauna to address issues of peer polity interaction in both Renfrew and Cherry (1986) and other literature is probably a result of two factors. First, faunal analysts have been slow to adopt and incorporate anthropological theoretical concepts in their research. Second, the complexity of faunal data, as already discussed, makes it ambiguous to address many theoretical issues. Nonetheless, zooarchaeologists can consider social relations by focusing on evidence that will potentially be reflected in faunal remains. These include feasting, sumptuary rules, provisioning and trade (Driver and Badenhorst in press). Feasting (Hayden 1995; 2001), notwithstanding ethnographic evidence from the Southwest (Potter 1997), remains difficult to detect using faunal remains. Wills and Crown (2004: 165) point out that large pueblos are amongst the worse places to consider feasting, not because feasts did not occur, but because pueblos experienced continual cleaning, remodeling, scavenging by dogs, diverse use of space (Wills and Crown 2004: 165) and relocation of bone by

225 inhabitants (MacDonald 1991). In this dissertation, I found no conclusive evidence for feasting at Albert Porter Pueblo and Pueblo Bonito, likely the result of many of the factors affecting bone presented by Wills and Crown (2004) and MacDonald (1991). Sumptuary rules using animal remains may inform zooarchaeologists on social differences if elites or leaders had restricted access to certain animals or body parts. However, many body parts may not have been discarded on middens due to their high value, which will result in low archaeological visibility. In addition, hides of ritually important animals such as carnivores may have been more important than their bones. It therefore remains difficult to recognise sumptuary behaviour from animals remains. At Albert Porter Pueblo, I found no evidence for sumptuary behaviour that may distinguish the great house from surrounding residences. The overview of faunas revealed that people at great houses did not make great use of turkeys, compared to people living in non-great houses. Meat provisioning is difficult to recognise from faunal remains, especially for smaller species. For both Albert Porter Pueblo and Pueblo Bonito I highlighted issues pertaining to skeletal part representation, which include preservation, fragmentation and transport. In addition, small sample sizes remain a serious problem in analyses of meat provisioning. I found no conclusive evidence for artiodactyla meat provisioning at Albert Porter Pueblo, although it may have occurred at other outliers such as Guadalupe (Roler 1999). At Pueblo Bonito, some animals such as elk were probably obtained from mountainous regions outside Chaco Canyon. However, this does not necessarily represent meat provisioning as local inhabitants of Pueblo Bonito could have collected these themselves. In addition, the elk bones were likely used primarily for bone tools. Trade in animal products such as meat, body parts or hides can potentially inform us on social differences (Driver and Badenhorst in press). At Albert Porter Pueblo, two bison specimens are the only probable evidence for trade. As already mentioned, at Pueblo Bonito, it is not clear if meat or body parts were traded. In conclusion, there is no conclusive faunal evidence for social differentiation at Albert Porter Pueblo and Pueblo Bonito. The evidence for feasting, sumptuary behaviour, meat provisioning and trade (Driver and Badenhorst in press) are absent, or slim at best. My faunal investigation does not provide evidence for either a hierarchical or an egalitarian form of social organisation in the San Juan Basin. This is because a lack of unambiguous evidence for social differences cannot be taken as evidence for an egalitarian form of social relations (Sebastian 2006).

226 Social Relations in a Wider Context The lack of clear faunal evidence for social differentiation is not necessarily unusual. In many cases, zooarchaeological data do not support other lines of evidence which may suggest social differentiation. Numerous examples exists from various parts of the world, including hunter-gatherers, farmers and states societies, and I present only a small selection. In state level societies, archaeofaunas often provide evidence for social differences (Crabtree 1990). For example, Ijzereef (1989) had little trouble identifying Jewish and non Jewish households in 17_18 th century Amsterdam using faunas. Jewish households had a small percentage of pig bones compared to non-Jewish households. In addition, Jewish households had no hind limb bones of cattle and sheep, considered to be non-kosher food, compared to non Jewish households. In another example, Galik and Kunst (2004) were able to show that fauna from a Ii h century monastery in Austria only contained aquatic animals, which confirmed written records that monks abstained from eating warm-blooded animals. However, even in state level societies, faunal evidence suggesting social differences may be lacking. For example, at Steinaecker's Horse, a British military outpost in the Kluger National Park during the Second Anglo-Boer War (1899-1902) faunas from middens of European and African quarters yielded no evidence for social differences despite other lines of material and archival evidence to the contrary (Badenhorst et al. 2002). In another example, at the Middle Kingdom (1850-1700 B.C.) site of South Abydos in Egypt, written records and images suggest a strong correlation between diet and status. However, finding archaeofaunal evidence for this correlation proved to be difficult, and may relate to locations of excavations (Rossel 2004). Despite good evidence of social differences in state level societies (Crabtree 1990), in non-state societies this is far more ambiguous (Driver 1997), although some cases have been reported. For example, in late prehistoric Mississippian chiefdoms, elites had restricted access to particular species and meat cuts (Bogan 1983; Jackson and Scott 1995; 2003). Potter (2004) found that during the Late Prehispanic period postdating A.D. 1275, leaders in villages of the Zuni region controlled the distribution of artiodactyl meat. On the other hand, the prehistoric and historic complex hunter-gatherer cultures on the Northwest Coast of North America had permanent winter villages occupied by people with clearly defined social differences (see Hayden 1990:39-43). However, these social differences have not been demonstrated for these complex hunter-gatherers using faunal remains (Driver 1993). The variation in visible social differences in non-state societies relate to a number of factors. These include: retrieval methods; analytical method; data combination and quantification method; preservation; taphonomy; fragmentation; the influence of agents of bone relocation such

227 as rodents, carnivores and humans; intensity of social differentiation; and social organisation. With such a diversity of human and non-human factors influencing faunal assemblages, it remains hard to predict in which cases social differences will be explicitly seen. Each case needs to be evaluated individually.

Great Houses in the San Juan Basin As was previously mentioned, the function(s) of great houses in the San Juan Basin is as yet uncertain. Interpretations range from residences, storage facilities or ceremonial centers. A further issue of contention is the likelihood that the function(s) of great houses changed over time, and that great houses could have had a variety offunctions simultaneously (see Judge and Cordell 2006:193-194; Windes 2003). The regional overview can inform us on the function(s) of great houses. The artiodactyla, turkey, lagomorph and 'unusual' index are broadly similar for great houses and contemporaneous non-great house villages. Settlements in the San Juan Basin, including great and non-great houses cannot be differentiated from each other based on ('domestic') faunal remains. However, people at great houses did not exploit turkeys to a large extent during Pueblo II. Turkeys could have been regarded at the time as inappropriate sources of meat for those people associated with great houses. By Pueblo III, when great houses served as residences, turkeys were used to a greater extent than preceding times. This suggests that significant social changes occurred from Pueblo II to III that accompanied the change in the role of great houses in the San Juan Basin. This pattern needs further consideration. It is evident from the variety of ritually important animals such as birds of prey and wild carnivores, that rituals were performed at great houses. However, if great houses were the sites of rituals, these were similar to those performed elsewhere. This was noted for great houses in Chaco Canyon (Akins 1985) and outside such as at Guadalupe Ruin (Roler 1999), Albert Porter Pueblo, Salmon Ruin (Roler Durand and Durand 2006) and Cox Ranch Pueblo (Mueller 2006). The notion that higher numbers of ritual birds occurred at great houses in Chaco Canyon (Roler Durand 2003) may be weakened by small faunal samples from small houses, a lack of or selective screening (Akins 1985) and taphonomic issues. Contemporaneous non-great houses in the San Juan Basin also yielded a large variety of ritual taxa (e.g., Muir 1999; Rawlings 2006). Variations that do exist are probably the result of factors such as sample size and retrieval methods. I argued that turkeys were costly to keep, and that flocks may have been small. Even though turkeys dominate faunal assemblages especially during Pueblo Ill, this suggests that people did not consume meat on a regular basis, which is supported by isotope analyses of human

228 skeletal remains (Matson and Chrisholm 1991). Given the cost of raising turkeys, all meat consumption episodes were probably very special events (feasts). If all meat consumption episodes were special events, it may be one reason why no great differences can be found in

faunal usage between great houses and surrounding residences, or village sites (I would like to thank Brain Hayden, from Simon Fraser University, for suggesting this hypothesis).

Recommendations and Future Research The analytical techniques used in this study are the result of a combination of current methods and theory in use by zooarchaeologists. A faunal study of magnitude, such as the one I presented in this dissertation, inevitably identifies areas where future research can contribute. These relate to methods and possible avenues for future zooarchaeological research. I briefly highlight these next.

Zooarchaeological Methods I encountered numerous problems and limitations concerning zooarchaeological methods in my study. Numerous authors have long advocated the need to standardise analytical methods used by zooarchaeologists to improve our ability to compare faunas. Driver's (2005) recording system is arguably the most comprehensive in the San Juan Basin currently in use and allows comparisons between assemblages analysed by different specialists. Driver's recording system is clear as to which specimens can and should be identified. While the issue of differential confidence in faunal identifications will perhaps never be overcome, a standardised recording system is a step in the right direction to allow comparisons. Extracting faunal data from unpublished literature was often problematic. There is a need for uniformity in the minimum level of data presentation. Numerous authors have commented on this topic, but too few reports comply with minimum requirements of reporting. Issues such as mesh size, retrieval methods, criteria for identification and taphonomy need to be discussed in faunal reports. Our faunal data are only as good as our retrieval methods, and archaeologists must take cognizance of this. Notwithstanding problems with methods, recent and future advances in isotope chemistry and ancient DNA analyses will no doubt in future allow zooarchaeologists to ask and answer more complex questions from faunal data in the Southwest. Our osteological criteria to distinguishing deer, pronghorn and bighorn sheep remain imprecise, and here too, modem and future isotope and ancient DNA analyses will greatly increase our understanding of these taxa.

229 A venues for Future Research Our understanding of great house faunas is still very limited. Small assemblages remain a serious concern, but this is often beyond the control of the faunal analysts. Large, well-retrieved assemblages are best to make inferences about the past. The database that I used in this dissertation for the regional overview can be used in future to answer more research questions on animal usage in the San Juan Basin. Each region defined in this study can be investigated individually in greater detail than I have done in order to refine our understanding of animal usage over time. Each regional study can be augmented with modem, unpublished data on animal census housed at national parks in the San Juan Basin. Census data can be correlated with zooarchaeological information. For example, the changing role of animals such as birds of prey will be important to understand the role they played in farming societies of the San Juan Basin. Rodents are often not well considered in the San Juan Basin. As I have argued, most of the rodents in assemblages were likely consumed. Greater attention need to be paid to rodents, as many of these could have been hunted in gardens. The low turkey index values at great houses during Pueblo II, but not Pueblo III, may provide an impetus for future deliberations on social aspects during the Chaco period. It may be worthwhile to re-analyse the faunal assemblages that were excavated during the early part of the last century such as that of Tseh So in Chaco Canyon (Brand 1937). These faunas need to be analysed and properly quantified to ensure comparisons with other assemblages. As my study of the fauna from Pueblo Bonito has shown, re-excavated faunas can contain a wealth of new information.

Concluding Remarks In my study of great house faunas this dissertation, I started out with two hypotheses concerning animal usage in the San Juan Basin between Basketmaker II and Pueblo III. First, I hypothesized that we can expect faunas from great houses to differ in animal composition and/or body parts of artiodactyls compared to contemporaneous non-great house settlements. This is based on the assumption that since great houses are architecturally distinct from non-great houses throughout the region, with evidence in Chaco Canyon that social differences existed with regard to burials, grave goods and other imported goods, this may be reflected in faunas. However, I found no clear evidence that animals used for either food or rituals at great houses differ from contemporaneous settlements during Pueblo II and III in the San Juan Basin. This suggests that great houses in the San Juan Basin likely served a variety of purposes. People were consuming animals at great houses and performed rituals involving animals. It is also possible that meat was

230 stored and dried in great houses, although this cannot be directly determined using faunal remains. However, non-great house villages and residences surrounding great house features had similar functions as they yield a similar range of animal remains. However, people at great houses were slow to adopt turkeys during Pueblo II. Second, I hypothesized that we can expect changes in animal usage over time in much of the San Juan Basin. This is based on a previous study in the northern San Juan Basin, using indices, which found that artiodactyls declined over time, whereas cottontails and turkeys increased at the same time. I expanded this study to include the entire San Juan Basin for this dissertation. Using artiodactyla, lagomorph and turkey indices, I established that the same pattern is evident for the entire Basin for artiodactyls and cottontails. However, turkeys are only important in the northern San Juan Basin, where the local environment suited them best. The remaining San Juan Basin, excluding mountains, was probably too dry for them to flourish.

231 REFERENCES CITED

Adams, R. I. 2001 Ethnoarchaeology of Torajan feasts. MA thesis. Simon Fraser University, Burnaby.

Adams, K. R. and V. E. Bowyer 2002 Sustainable landscape. Thirteenth-century food and fuel use in the Sand Canyon locality. In Seeking the central place. Archaeology and ancient communities in the Mesa Verde region, edited by M. D. Varien and R. H. Wilshusen, pp. 123-142. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Ahlstrom, R. V. N., C. R. Van West and J. S. Dean 1995 Environmental and chronological factors in the Mesa Verde-Northern Rio Grande migration. Journal ofAnthropological Archaeology 14: 125-142.

Akins, N. J. 1984 Temporal variation in faunal assemblages from Chaco Canyon. In Recent research on Chaco prehistory, edited by W. J. Judge and J. D. Schelberg, pp. 225 240. Reports of the Chaco Center 8. National Park Service, Albuquerque.

Akins, N. J. 1985 Prehistoric faunal utilization in Chaco Canyon Basketmaker III through Pueblo III. In Environment and subsistence ofChaco Canyon New Mexico, edited by F. J. Mathien, pp. 305-445. National Park Service, Albuquerque.

Akins, N. J. 1986 5MT8371 Faunal remains. In Excavations at 5MT8371, an isolated pit structure in Montezuma County, Colorado, D. D. Dykeman, pp. 127-131. Studies in Archaeology No.2 San Juan County Archaeological Research Center and Library, Portales.

Akins, N. J. 1987 Faunal remains from Pueblo Alto. In Investigations at the Pueblo Alto complex, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, 1975-1979. Volume lll, Part 2, Artifactual and biological analyses, edited by F. J. Mathien and T. C. Windes, pp. 445-649. National Park Service, Santa Fe.

Akins, N. J. 1988a Faunal assemblages from the South Canal sites. In Four Corners Archaeological Project Report II, Archaeological Investigations on South Canal, K. A. Kuckelman and J. N. Morris, pp. 529-548. Cultural Resource Program: Bureau of Reclamation Upper Colorado region, Salt Lake City.

232 Akins, N. J. 1988b The Bodo Canyon faunal remains. In Archaeological investigations in the Bodo Canyon area, La Plata County, Colorado, S. L. Fuller, pp. 421-433. UMTRA Archaeological Report 25, Cortez.

Akins, N. J. 1990 The Tuntsa Project: excavations atfive sites near Sheep Springs, New Mexico. Laboratory of Anthropology Note No. 173, Santa Fe.

Akins, N. J. 1992 An analysis of the faunal remains from 29SJ627. In Excavations at 29S1627, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, Vol. Volume II, F. J. Mathien, pp. 319-370. Reports of Chaco Center No. 11, Branch of Cultural Research, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Santa Fe.

Allen, G. M. 1954 Appendix B: Canid remains from Pueblo Bonito and Pueblo Del Arroyo. In The material culture ofPueblo Bonito, N. M. Judd, pp. 385-389. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 124, Washington D.C.

Allen, R. W. 1980 Natural mortality and debility. In The desert bighorn. Its life history, ecology, and management, edited by G. Monson and L. Sumner, pp. 172-185. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Amorosi, T., J. Woollett, S. Perdikaris and T. McGovern 1996 Regional zooarchaeology and global change: problems and potentials. World Archaeology 28( I):126-157.

Anderson, E. 1966 Faunal remains. In Contributions to Mesa Verde Archaeology: III. Site 866 and the cultural sequence atfour villages in the Far View group, Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado, R. H. Lister, pp. 113-114. University of Colorado Studies Series in Anthropology No. 12, Boulder.

Anderson, E. 1980 Fauna. In The Durango South Project: archaeological salvage oftwo Late Basketmaker III sites in the Durango district, edited by J. D. Gooding, pp. 123-149. University of Arizona, Tucson.

Anderson, A. E. and O. C. Wallmo 1984 Odocoileus hemionus. Mammalian Species 219: 1-9.

233 Andrews, M. J. 1980 St. Michaels Pueblo: Pueblo 11/ subsistence and adaptation in Black Creek Valley, Arizona. Arizona Archaeologist No. 13, Flagstaff.

Anonymous 1876 Ancient ruins of southwestern Colorado. The American Naturalist 10(1 ):31-37.

Applegarth, J. S. 1982 Bone analysis. In The Little Water Project: archaeological investigation on seven sites in the Chuska Valley ofnorthwestern New Mexico, G. S. Condon, pp. 219-224. Laboratory of Anthropology Note No. 295, Santa Fe.

Applegarth, J. and L. H. Feldman 1981 Appendix E: Analysis of faunal materials. In A final contract report on the salvage excavations ofarchaeological sites impacted by the Colorado Division ofHighways Project No. RS0184, Mancos North, S. M. Riches and R. W. Biggs, pp. 1-6. Unpublished Report.

Ayers, D. A, L. S. Reed, A C. Reed and G. L. Moore 1993 Data recovery excavations at sites LA 72831 and LA 72834, Rio Arriba County, New Mexico. San Juan County Archaeological Research Center and Library Technical Report No. 2694, Salmon Ruin Museum, Bloomfield.

Badenhorst, S. 2003 The archaeofauna from iNkolimahashi Shelter, a Later Stone Age shelter in the Thukela Basin, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Southern African Humanities 15:45 57.

Badenhorst, S. In preparation. Artiodactyla skeletal parts at Middle Period and early Plateau Pithouse Tradition sites on the Interior Plateau, British Columbia: a view from EdRh-31 .

Badenhorst, S., I. Plug, A J. Peiser and A C. van Vollenhoven 2002 Faunal analysis from Steinaecker's Horse, the northernmost British military outpost in the Kruger National Park during the South African War. Annals ofthe Transvaal Museum 39:57-63.

Badenhorst, S. and I. Plug 2003 The archaeozoo10gy of goats, Capra hircus (Linnaeus, 1758): their size variation during the last two millennia in southern Africa (Mammalia: Artiodactyla: Caprini). Annals ofthe Transvaal Museum 40:91-121.

234 Badenhorst, S. and Parsons, 1. In press Cause and effect: animal variables impacting on the nature of experimentally produced hunting bone lesions. In Bones for tools, tools for bones: the interrelationship oflithic and bone raw materials, edited by K. Seetah and B. Gravina. McDonald Institute of Archaeology Monographs, Cambridge.

Bachman, J. 1839 Observation on the changes of colour in birds and quadrupeds. Transactions ofthe American Philosophical Society, New Series 6: 197-239.

Bailey, F. L. 1940 Navaho foods and cooking methods. American Anthropologist 42(2):270-290.

Bailey, V. 1971 Mammals ofthe Southwestern United States with special reference to New Mexico. Dover Publications, New York.

Baker, B. W. and B. S. Shaffer 1999 Assumptions about species: a case study of tortoise bones from SE Texas. Journal ofField Archaeology 26(1):69-74.

Barfield, T. 1999 The dictionary ofanthropology. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.

Beacham, E. B. and S. R. Durand 2007 Eggshell and the archaeological record: new insights into turkey husbandry in the American Southwest. Journal ofArchaeological Science 34:1610-1621.

Beaglehole, E. 1970 Hopi hunting and hunting ritual. Yale University Publications in Anthropology 4: 1 26.

Beal, l. 1986 Faunal remains. In Archaeological investigations at three archaeological sites, near Farmington, San Juan County, New Mexico, J. Beal, pp. 97-100. Zuni Archaeology Program Report No. 225, Zuni.

Beezley, l.A. 1998 Faunal remains. In Archaeological data recovery atfour Anasazi sites on White

235 Mesa along US Highway 191 San Juan County, Utah, J. Firor, R. A. Greubel and A. D. Reed, pp. D-l - D-l 7. Utah Department of Transportation, Salt Lake City.

Behrensmeyer, A. 1978 Taphonomk and ecologic information from bone weathering. Paleobiology 4(2): 150-162.

Beidleman, R. G. 1956a Ethnozoology of the Pueblo Indians in historic times. Part I: Introduction. Southwestern Lore 22( 1):5-13.

Beidleman, R. G. 1956b Ethnozoology of the Pueblo Indians in historic times. Part II: Birds. Southwestern Lore 22(2): 17-28.

Beisaw, A. M. 2004 Faunal analysis of 42SA3775. In Archaeological data recovery at Casa Coyote (42SA3775) a Basketmaker III pit house hamlet on White Mesa, San Juan County, Utah, W. Hurst, pp. 347-362. United States Department of the Interior, Washington.

Bell, A. W. 1869 On the native races of New Mexico. The Journal ofthe Ethnological Society ofLondon 1(3):222-274.

Benson, L., L. Cordell, K. Vincent, H. Taylor, J. Stein, G. Lang Farmer and K. Futa 2003 Ancient maize from Chacoan great houses: where was it grown? Proceedings ofthe National Academy ofSciences ofthe United States ofAmerica 100(22): 13111-13115.

Bertram, J. B. 1984 An analysis of archaeofaunal remains from test excavations near Ramah, NM. In Test excavations at seven prehistoric sites on the Clo-chin-Toh Land Exchange near Ramah, McKinley County. New Mexico. Preliminary Draft, R. Anyon, pp. Chapter 7:1 18. Office of Contract Archaeology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

Bertram, 1. B. 1991 Appendix F: An analysis of archaeofaunal assemblages, nonhuman burials, and worked bone items: Hovenweep Lateral Project. In Four Corners Archaeological Report 16. Excavations on the Hovenweep Lateral, J. N. Morris, pp. 991-1104. Report on File: Cultural Resource Program, Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region, Salt Lake City.

236 Bertram, J. B. 1992 Archaeofaunal analysis: Towaoc Canal Reach I Project. In Archaeological Excavations on Reach 1 ofthe Towaoc Canal, N. S. Hammack, pp. 6-1-6-33f. Four Corners Archaeological Project Report 19. Cultural Resource Program, Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake City.

Bertram, J. B. 1996 Archaeofaunal materials from five sites of the Fruitland Excavation Project, San Juan County, New Mexico. In Small site archaeology in the Upper San Juan Basin: investigations at Archaic, Anasazi, and Navajo sites in northwestern New Mexico, 1. T. Wharton, D. D. Dykeman and P. L. Reed, Appendix B. Navajo Nation Papers in Anthropology 32, Window Rock.

Bertram, J. 1999 Archaeofaunal analysis: Dove Creek Canal Reach III Project. In Archaeological excavations on Reach III ofthe Dove Creek Canal, W. D. McNamee and N. S. Hammack, pp. 395-453. Four Corners Archaeological Project Report No. 18. Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake City.

Bertram, J. B. 2000a Archaeofaunal materials from LA 71781. In Archaeological investigations at LA 7/781: a study in cultural and ecological diversity along the Upper San Juan River, northwestern New Mexico, D. D. Dykeman and J. T. Wharton, pp. 109-119. Navajo Nation Papers in Anthropology 38, Window Rock.

Bertram, J. B. 2000b Archaeofaunal and paleontological analysis. In Archaeological excavations at the Peccary Pit Locus, Site LA 4169/5AA1345 Navajo Reservoir, Archuleta County, Colorado, J. M. Mabry, pp. 115-134. Four Corners Archaeological Project Report No. 24, Cortez.

Bertram, 1. B. and N. Draper 1982 The bones from the Bis Sa'ani community: a sociotechnic archaeofaunal analysis. In Bis Sa 'ani: a Late Bonito Phase community on Escavada Wash, northwest New Mexico, edited by C. D. Breternitz, D. E. Doyel and M. P. Marshall, pp. 1015-1065. Navajo Nation Papers in Anthropology 14.

Bertram, J. and L. Mick-O'Hara 1986 Analysis of faunal remains from the North Lease Area of McKinley Mine. In The archaeology ofMcKinley Mine, Vol. Volume 1: prehistory, B. Kauffman, pp. 273-377. Cultural Resource Management Division, New Mexico State University Report No. 621, Las Cruces.

237 Bice, R. A. and W. M. Sundt 1972 Priesta Vista. A small Pueblo III ruin in north-central New Mexico. Albuquerque Archaeological Society, Albuquerque.

Binford, L. R. 1978 Nunamiut ethnoarchaeology. Academic Press, New York.

Bird, D. W. and J. F. O'Connell 2006 Behavioral ecology and archaeology. Journal ofArchaeological Research 14(2): 143-188.

Birdsall, W. R. 1891 The cliff dwellings of the canyons of the Mesa Verde. Journal ofthe American Geographical Society ofNew York 23:584-620.

Birkedal, T. G. 1976 Basketmaker III residence units: a study of prehistoric social organization in the Mesa Verde archaeological district. PhD dissertation. University of Colorado, Boulder.

Bogan, A. E. 1983 Evidence for faunal resource partitioning in an Eastern North American chiefdom. In Animals and archaeology. Vol I, Hunters and their prey, edited by C. Grigson and J. Clutton-Brock, pp. 305-324. British Archaeological Reports 163, Oxford.

Bokonyi, S. 1995 Problems with using osteological materials of wild animals for comparisons in archaeozoology. Anthropologiai Kozlemenyek 37:3-11.

Boserup, E. 1976 Environment, population and technology in primitive societies. Population and Development Review 2:21-36.

Bourke, J. G. 1984 Snake-dance ofthe Moquis. Being a narrative ofa journeyfrom Santa Fe, New Mexico, to the villages ofthe Moqui Indians ofArizona. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Bradfield, M. 1971 Rodents of the Hopi region, in relation to Hopi farming. Plateau 44(2):75- 77.

238 Bradley, Z. A. 1971 Site Bc236, Chaco Canyon National Monument, New Mexico. Division of Archaeology, Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior, Washington.

Bradley, R. J. 1992 Marine shell exchange in northwest Mexico and the Southwest. In The American Southwest and Mesoamerica: systems ofprehistoric exchange, edited by J. E. Ericson and T. G. Baugh, pp. 121-150. Plenum Press, New York.

Brain, C. K. 1967 Hottentot food remains and their bearing on the interpretation of fossil bone assemblages. Scientific Papers ofthe Namib Desert Research Station 32: 1-7.

Brain, C. K. 1969 The contribution of Namib Desert Hottentots to an understanding of australopithecine bone accumulations. Scientific Papers ofthe Namib Desert Research Station 39: 13-22.

Brain, C. K. 1974 Some suggested procedures in the analysis of bone accumulations from southern African Quaternary sites. Annals ofthe Transvaal Museum 29: 1-8.

Brain, C. K. 1981 The hunters or the hunted? An introduction to African cave taphonomy. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Brain, C. K. (editor) 2004 Swartkrans. A cave's chronicle ofearly man. Transvaal Museum Monograph 8. Transvaal Museum, Pretoria.

Brain, C. K. and A. Sillen 1988 Evidence from the Swartkrans Cave for the earliest use of fire. Nature 336:464-466.

Brand, D. D. 1937 The natural landscape. In Tseh So, a small house ruin, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, pp. 39-66. The University of New Mexico Bulletin, Albuquerque.

Bray,A. I 982a Analysis of prehistoric faunal remains. In Prehistoric adaptive strategies in the Chaco Canyon region, northwestern New Mexico, Vol. Volume I: Introduction,

239 environmental studies, and analytical approaches, A. H. Simmons, pp. 309-330. Navajo Nation Papers in Anthropology No.9, Window Rock.

Bray,A. 1982 Faunal remains from AZ-P-24-1. In Prehistoric and historic occupation of the Black Creek Valley, Navajo Nation, Vol. Volume 1, R. T. Fehr, K. B. Kelley, L. Popelish and L. E. Warner, pp. 233-236. Navajo Nation Papers in Anthropology No.7, Window Rock.

Brisbin, J.M. and C. Brisbin 1983 North McElmo #8. Work Areas (A) through (D) Rooms #11 through #13 Montezuma County-Cortez, Colorado. Anasazi Heritage Center Library, Dolores.

Brookfield, H. 1984 Intensification revisited. Pacific Viewpoint 25: 15-44.

Broughton, J. M. 1999 Resource depression and intensification during the Late Holocene, San Francisco Bay. Evidence from the Emeryville shellmound vertebrate fauna. Anthropological Records Volume 32. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Broughton, J. M. and J. F. O'Connell 1999 On evolutionary ecology, selectionist archaeology, and behavioral archaeology. American Antiquity 64(1): 153-165.

Brown, W. T. 2003 MAPL faunal summaries. In The mid-American Pipeline CompanylWilliams Rocky Mountain Expansion Loop Pipeline Archaeological Data Recovery Project northwestern New Mexico. western Colorado, and eastern Utah, Vol. The Rocky Mountain Expansion Loop Pipeline Data Recovery Project, Appendices A-M, J. C. Hom, J. Fetterman and L. Honeycutt. Bureau of Land Management, Utah State Office, Salt Lake City.

Brown, K. L. and M. E. Brown I 994a Faunal analysis. In Across the Colorado Plateau: anthropological studies for the Transwestern Pipeline Expansion Project. Volume 10. Excavations at Anasazi sites in the Upper Puerco River Valley, R. B. Sullivan, pp. 70-75. Office of Contract Archaeology and Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

Brown, K. L. and M. E. Brown I994b Faunal analysis. In Across the Colorado Plateau: anthropological studies for the Transwestern Pipeline Expansion Project. Volume 10. Excavations at Anasazi sites in the

240 Upper Puerco River Valley, R. B. Sullivan, pp. 96-99. Office of Contract Archaeology and Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

Brown, K. L. and M. E. Brown 1994c Faunal analysis. In Across the Colorado Plateau: anthropological studies for the Transwestern Pipeline Expansion Project. Volume 10. Excavations at Anasazi sites in the Upper Puerco River Valley, R. B. Sullivan, pp. 154-157. Office of Contract Archaeology and Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

Brown, K. L. and M. E. Brown 1994d Faunal analysis. In Across the Colorado Plateau: anthropological studies for the Transwestern Pipeline Expansion Project. Volume 10. Excavations at Anasazi sites in the Upper Puerco River Valley, R. B. Sullivan, pp. 212-221. Office of Contract Archaeology and Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

Brown, K. L. and M. E. Brown 1994e Faunal analysis. In Across the Colorado Plateau: anthropological studies for the Transwestern Pipeline Expansion Project. Volume 10. Excavations at Anasazi sites in the Upper Puerco River Valley, R. B. Sullivan, pp. 241-243. Office of Contract Archaeology and Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

Brown, K. L. and M. E. Brown 1994f Faunal analysis. In Across the Colorado Plateau: anthropological studies for the Transwestern Pipeline Expansion Project. Volume 10. Excavations at Anasazi sites in the Upper Puerco River Valley, R. B. Sullivan, pp. 289-295. Office of Contract Archaeology and Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

Brown, K. L. and M. E. Brown 1994g Faunal analysis. In Across the Colorado Plateau: anthropological studies for the Transwestern Pipeline Expansion Project. Volume 10. Excavations at Anasazi sites in the Upper Puerco River Valley, R. B. Sullivan, pp. 378-382. Office of Contract Archaeology and Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

Brown, K. L. and M. E. Brown 1994h Faunal analysis. In Across the Colorado Plateau: anthropological studies for the Transwestern Pipeline Expansion Project. Volume 10. Excavations at Anasazi sites in the Upper Puerco River Valley, R. B. Sullivan, pp. 444-449. Office of Contract Archaeology and Maxwell Museum in Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

Brown, M. E. and K. L. Brown 2002 Archaeofaunal analysis. In Cultural dynamics and landscape use: Pueblo II and IIJ occupation ofthe McKinley Mine South Lease. Part Ill: Subsistence analysis, C. L. Scheick, pp. 12.1-12.98. Southwest Archaeology Consultants Inc., Research Series 347, Santa Fe.

241 Brugge, D. M. 1986 Tsegai: an archaeological ethnohistory ofthe Chaco region. National Park Service, Washington DC.

Brugge, D. M. 1995 Of turkeys and sheep. In Ofpots and rocks: papers in honor ofA. Helene Warren, edited by M. S. Duran and D. T. Kirkpatrick, pp. 21-29. Archaeological Society of New Mexico 21.

Buikstra, J. E. and M. Swegle 1989 Bone modification die to burning: experimental evidence. In Bone modification, edited by R. Bonnichsen, R. and M. H. Sorg, M. H, pp. 247-258. Center for the Study of the Past Americans, Institute for Quaternary Studies. University of Maine, Orono.

Butler, V. L. and R. L. Lyman 1996 Taxonomic identifications and faunal summaries: what should we be including in our faunal reports? Society for American Archaeology Bulletin 14(1):22.

Cannon, M. D. 1999 A mathematical model of the effects of screen size on zooarchaeologica1 relative abundance measures. Journal ofArchaeological Science 26:205-214.

Cannon, M. D. 2001 Archaeofaunal relative abundance, sample size, and statistical methods. Journal of Archaeological Science 28: 185-195.

Cartron, J-L. E., P. J. Po1ech1a and R. R. Cook 2004 Prey of nesting furruginous hawks in New Mexico. The Southwestern Naturalist 49(2):270-276.

Casteel, R. W. 1976-1977 A consideration of the behaviour of the minimum number of individuals index: a problem in faunal characterization. Ossa 3/4: 141-151.

Casteel, R. W. 1977 Characterization of faunal assemblages and the Minimum Number of Individuals determined from paired elements: continuing problems in archaeology. Journal ofArchaeological Science 4: 125-134.

242 Cater, J. D. 1984 Chronological understanding of site 5MT2, Yellow Jacket, Colorado, and a study of abandonment modes. MA thesis. University of Colorado, Boulder.

Caton, J. D. 1877 The wild turkey and its domestication. The American Naturalist II(6):321-330.

Chaplin, R. E. 1971 The study ofanimal bones from archaeological sites. Seminar Press, London

Chapman, J. A. and G. R. Willner 1978 Sylvilagus audubonii. Mammalian Species 106: 1-4.

Christenson, A. L. 1980a Subsistence change: bibliographic overview. In Modeling change in prehistoric subsistence economies, edited by. T. K. Earle and A. L. Christenson, pp. 234-255. Academic Press, London.

Christenson, A. L. 1980b Change in the human niche in response to population growth. In Modeling change in prehistoric subsistence economies, edited by T. K. Earle and A. L. Christenson, pp. 31-72. Academic Press, London.

Clary, K. H. 1987 Coprolites from Pueblo Alto. In Investigations at the Pueblo Alto complex, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, 1975-1979. Volume III, Part 2, Artifactual and biological analyses, edited by F. J. Mathien and T. C. Windes, pp. 785-788. National Park Service, Santa Fe.

Clason, A. T. 1972 Some remarks on the use and presentation of archaeozoological data. Helinium 12: 139-153.

Colton, H. S. 1941 Prehistoric trade in the Southwest. The Scientific Monthly 52(4):308-319.

Colton, H. S. 1970 The aboriginal Southwestern Indian dog. American Antiquity 35(2): 153-159.

243 Coltrain, J. B., J. C. Janetski and S. W. Carlyle 2007 The stable- and radio-isotope chemistry of western Basketmaker burials: implications for early Puebloan diets and origins. American Antiquity 72(2):301-321.

Condie, C. J. 1987 Cebolleta Park (LA 46424) and Noke (LA 46425), two sites on BLM land near Milan, Cibola County, New Mexico. Quivira Research Center Publications 124, Milan.

Cordell, L. 1989 History and theory in reconstructing Southwestern sociopolitical organization. In The sociopolitical structure ofprehistoric Southwestern societies, edited by S. Upham, K. G. Lightfoot and R. A. Jewett, pp. 33-54. Westview Press, Boulder.

Cordell, L. 1997 Archaeology ofthe Southwest. Academic Press, London.

Cottam, C. and P. Knappen 1939 Food of some uncommon North American birds. The Auk 56(2):138-169.

Crabtree, P. J. 1990 Zooarchaeology and complex societies: some uses of faunal analysis for the study of trade, social status, and ethnicity. In Archaeological method and theory, Volume 2, edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 155-204. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Creel, D. and C. McKusick 1994 Prehistoric macaws and parrots in the Mimbres area, New Mexico. American Antiquity 59(3):510-524.

Crow Canyon Archaeological Center 2000 A proposal to conduct archaeological testing at the Albert Porter Preserve. Unpublished application submitted to The Archaeological Conservancy, Albuquerque.

Crow Canyon Archaeological Center 2001 The Crow Canyon Archaeological Center Field Manual [HTML Title]. Available: http://www.crowcanyon.orglfieldmanual. Date of use: 23 June 2007.

Crown, P. L. and W. J. Judge 1991 Synthesis and conclusions. In Chaco & Hohokam. Prehistoric regional systems in the American Southwest, edited by P. L. Crown and W. J. Judge, pp. 293-308. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

244 Cully, J. F. 1985 Baseline biology of birds and mammals at Chaco Canyon National Monument New Mexico. In Environment and subsistence ofChaco Canyon New Mexico, edited by F. J. Mathien, pp. 279-304. National Park Service, Albuquerque.

Czaplewski, N. J. 1988 Faunal analysis. In The archaeology ofthe Recapture Dam Pipeline Project, phase I, San Juan County, Utah, K. R. Montgomery and J. A. Montgomery. Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake City.

Daniel, C. 200] Identification of faunal remains, LA 3552. In Investigations at LA 3549 and LA 3552, two early Pueblo sites along 1-40 near Laguna, New Mexico, P. A. Gerow, pp. 7]-73. Office of Contract Archaeology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

Dart, R. A. ]957 The osteodontokeratic culture ofAustralopithecus prometheus. Memoir of the Transvaal Museum No. ]O. Transvaal Museum, Pretoria.

Dart, A. 1982 Faunal remains from the Tsaya sites. In The Tsaya Project: archaeological excavations near Lake Valley, San Juan County, New Mexico, R. N. Wiseman, pp. 92-94. Laboratory of Anthropology Note 308, Museum of New Mexico, Santa Fe.

Davis, E. L. 1965 Small pressures and cultural drift as explanations for abandonment of the San Juan area, New Mexico and Arizona. American Antiquity 30(3):353-355.

Davis, S. J. M. ]987 The archaeology ofanimals. Yale University Press, New Haven.

Dean, R. M. 200] Social change and hunting during the Pueblo III to Pueblo IV transition, east-central Arizona. Journal ofField Archaeology 28(3/4):27] -285.

Dean, R. M. 2005 Old bones: the effects of curation and exchange on the interpretation of artiodactyl remains in Hohokam sites. Kiva 70(3):255-272.

Dean, R. M. 2007 Hunting intensification and the Hohokam "collapse." Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26:] 09-] 32.

245 Degenhardt, W. G. and J. L. Christiansen 1974 Distribution and habitats of turtles in New Mexico. The Southwestern Naturalist 19(1):21-46.

De Graaff, G. 1961 Gross effects of a primitive hearth on bones. South African Archaeological Bulletin 16(61):25-26.

DeMar, D. E., N. Fritz and T. Mietty 1994 Data recovery at three Early Anasazi sites located along Meridian Oil Inc.'s San Juan 32-9 MF Gathering System in the Fruitland Coal Gas Development Area San Juan County, New Mexico. San Juan County Archaeological Research Center and Library, Division of Conservation Archaeology Report No. 94-DCA-023, Farmington.

Demarrais, E. 2005 Organisation of societies, including chiefdoms. In Archaeology. The key concepts, edited by C. Renfrew and P. Bahn, pp. 191-196. Routledge, London.

Dennell, R. W. 1979 Prehistoric diet and nutrition: some food for thought. World Archaeology 11(2):121-135.

De Ruiter, D. 2004 Relative abundance, skeletal part representation and accumulating agents of macromammals at Swartkrans. In Swartkrans. A cave's chronicle ofearly man, edited by C. K. Brain, pp. 265-278. Transvaal Museum Monograph 8. Transvaal Museum, Pretoria.

Dietler, M. 1996 Feasts and commensal politics in the political economy. Food, power and status in prehistoric Europe. In Food and the status quest. An interdisciplinary perspective, edited by P. Wiessner and W. Schiefenhovel, pp. 86-125. Berghahn Books, Oxford.

Dobney, K. and K. Rielly 1988 A method for recording archaeological animal bones: the use of diagnostic zones. Circaea 5(2):79-96.

Dosh, D. S. and M. Gilbert 1996 Faunal analysis. In Small site occupation above the Puerco River Valley, D. S. Dosh, pp. 353-356. Kinlani Archaeology Technical Series No. 32, Flagstaff.

246 Douthit, M. L. 1984 Excavations at Site 5MT3777 and Site 5MT3778, Casa De Sueiios. Anasazi Heritage Center, Dolores.

Driver, J. C. 1982 Minimum standards for reporting of animal bones in salvage archaeology: southern Alberta as a case study. In Directions in archaeology. A question ofgoals, edited by P. D. Francis and E. C. Poplin, pp. 199-209. Department of Archaeology, University of Calgary, Calgary.

Driver, J. C. 1985 Zooarchaeology ofsix prehistoric sites in the Sierra Blanca region, New Mexico. Research Reports of Archaeology Contribution 12. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Driver, J. C. 1990 Bison assemblages from the Sierra Blanca region, southeastern New Mexico. The Kiva 55(3):245-263.

Driver, J. C. 1991 Identification, classification and zooarchaeology. Circaea 9(1):35-47.

Driver, J. C. 1993 Zooarchaeology in British Columbia. BC Studies 99:77-105.

Driver, J. C. 1996 Social complexity and hunting systems in southwestern Colorado. In Debating complexity. Proceedings ofthe 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.

Driver, J. C. 1997 Zooarchaeology and social organization in non-state societies. Anthropozoologia 25-26:79-84.

Driver, J. C. 2000a Hunting strategies and horticultural communities in southeastern New Mexico. In Animal bones, human societies, edited by P. Rowley-Conwy, pp. 115-123. Oxbow, Oxford.

247 Driver, J. C. 2000b Faunal remains. In The archaeology of Castle Rock Pueblo: a thirteenth-century village in southwestern Colorado [HTML Title], edited by K. A. Kuckelman. Available: http://www.crowcanyon.org/castlerock. Accessed 4 September 2007.

Driver, J. C. 2000c Faunal remains. In Households andfarms in early Zuni prehistory: settlement, subsistence, and the archaeology of Y Unit Draw, archaeological investigations at eighteen sites along New Mexico State Highway 602, J. Damp, pp. 665 675. Zuni Cultural Resource Enterprise No. 593, Zuni.

Driver, J. C. 2002a Faunal variation and change in the northern San Juan region. In Seeking the center place: archaeology and ancient communities in the Mesa Verde region, edited by M. D. Varien and R. H. Wilshusen, pp. 143-]60. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Driver, J. C. 2002b Faunal remains. In The archaeology of Woods Canyon Pueblo: a canyon- rim village in southwestern Colorado [HTML Title], edited by M. J. Churchill. Available: http://www.crowcanyon.org/woodscanyon. Accessed: 4 September 2007.

Driver, J. C. 2005 Manual for description of vertebrate remains. 7th Edition. Unpublished report. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez.

Driver, J. C. 2008 Models for zooarchaeologists from modern bushmeat studies. In People and animals: archaeozoological studies in honour ofIna Plug, edited by S. Badenhorst, P. Mitchell and J. C. Driver, pp. 2] -33. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Driver, J. c., M. J. Brand, L. Lester and N. D. Munro 1999 Faunal studies. In The Sand Canyon Archaeological Project Site Testing, edited by M. D. Varien. Available: http://www.crowcanyon.org/ResearchReports/SiteTesting/Text/Report.asp. Accessed: 8 August 2007.

Driver, J. C. and S. Badenhorst 2006 Preliminary report on Comb Wash fauna. Unpublished report. Simon Fraser University, Burnaby.

248 Driver, J. C. and J. Woiderski 2008 Interpretation of the 'lagomorph index' in the American Southwest. Quaternary International 3-] ].

Driver, J. C. and S. Badenhorst In press Hunting by farmers: ecological and social implications. In A walk on the wild side: the role ofwild animals infarming societies, edited by J. Mulville and A Powell. Oxbow, Oxford.

Driver, J. C. In preparation Human impacts on animal populations in the American Southwest. Paper submitted to conference proceedings of the Southwestern Archaeology Conference of 2008.

Duff, A I. and R. H. Wilshusen 2000 Prehistoric population dynamics in the northern San Juan region, AD. 950- 1300. Kiva 66(1):] 67-] 90.

Durand, S. R. and K. Roler Durand 2000 Notes from the edge. Settlement pattern changes at the Guadalupe community. In Great house communities across the Chacoan landscape, edited by J. Kantner and N. M. Mahoney, pp. ]0] -]09. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Earle, T. K. ] 980 A model of subsistence change. In Modeling change in prehistoric subsistence economies, edited by T. K. Earle and A. L. Christenson, pp. ] -29. Academic Press, London.

Earle, T. K. ]987 Chiefdoms in archaeological and ethnohistorical perspective. Annual Review ofAnthropology] 6:279-308.

Earle, T. K. 200] Economic support of Chaco Canyon society. American Antiquity 66(]):26-35.

Earle, T. K. and A L. Christenson (editors) ]980 Modeling change in prehistoric subsistence economics. Academic Press, New York.

Eck, D. and J. Zunie ]996 Faunal remains. In Report ofinvestigations for Phase III data recovery: nature and

249 extent testing along Navajo Route 48 (I &2), Borrego Pass Loop Road, D.C. Eck, pp. 117-118. Zuni Cultural Resource Enterprise Report No. 481, Gallup.

Edwards, J. S. 2007 Faunal analysis. In Archaeological investigations near Canyon De Chelly: excavations offour sites along Navajo Route 27, Chinle-Nazlini, Apache County, Arizona Volume I/, D. Gilpin, J. S. Edwards and D. Drake, pp. 371-393. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Flagstaff.

Elder, W. H. ]965 Primeval deer hunting pressures revealed by remains from American Indian middens. The Journal ofWildlife Management 29(2):366-370.

Elmore, F. H. ]976 Shrubs and trees ofthe Southwest uplands. Southwest Parks and Monuments Association, Globe.

Emslie, S. D. ]978 Vertebrate fauna from site 5MTUMR2837, Mancos Canyon, Colorado. In Excavations at site 5MTUMR283, Mancos Canyon, Ute Mountain, Ute Homelands, Colorado, R. T. Euler, Appendix A. Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Emslie, S. D. 1981 b Birds and prehistoric agriculture: the New Mexico pueblos. Human Ecology 9(3):305-329.

Emslie, S. D. 198] b Bird remains from Big Westwater Ruin. [n Big Westwater Ruin, L. W. Lindsay, pp. 162-171. Bureau of Land Management CuItural Resources Series 9, Salt Lake City.

Emslie, S. D. ]982 Faunal remains. In Basketmaker settlement and subsistence along the San Juan River, Utah, R. B. Neily, pp. 422-443. Utah Department of Transport, Salt Lake City.

Emslie, S. D. ]985 Faunal remains from the 1981 excavations on White Mesa, San Juan County, Utah. In Anasazi subsistence and settlement on White Mesa, San Juan County, Utah, W. E. Davis, pp. 535-546. University Press of America, Lanham.

250 Emslie, S. D. 1986a Faunal remains from the Tres Bobos hamlet. In Dolores Archaeological Program: Anasazi communities at Dolores: early Anasazi sites in the Sagehen Flats area, A. E. Kane and G. T. Gross, pp. 187-189. US Department of the Interior, Denver.

Emslie, S. D. 1986b Faunal remains from Apricot hamlet. In Dolores Archaeological Program: Anasazi communities at Dolores: early Anasazi sites in the Sagehen Flats area, A. E. Kane and G. T. Gross, pp. 267-272. US Department of the Interior, Denver.

Emslie, S. D. 1986c Faunal report for Prairie Dog hamlet. In Dolores Archaeological Program: Anasazi communities at Dolores: early Anasazi sites in the Sagehen Flats area, A. E. Kane and G. T. Gross, pp. 481-493. US Department of the Interior, Denver.

Emslie, S. D. 1986d Faunal remains from Casa Bodega hamlet. In Dolores Archaeological Program: Anasazi communities at Dolores: early Anasazi sites in the Sagehen Flats area, A. E. Kane and G. T. Gross, pp. 537-538. US Department of the Interior, Denver.

Emslie, S. D. 1986e Faunal remains from Dos Casas hamlet. In Dolores Archaeological Program: Anasazi communities at Dolores: early Anasazi sites in the Sagehen Flats area, A. E. Kane and G. T. Gross, pp. 631-635. US Department of the Interior, Denver.

Errickson, M. 1995 Archaeological excavations at Reach /I ofthe Towaoc Canal. Four Comers Archaeological Project Report 20. Cultural Resource Program, Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake City.

Fagan, B. 2005 Chaco Canyon. Archaeologists explore the lives ofan ancient society. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Feinman, G. M., K. G. Lightfoot and S. Upham 2000 Political hierarchies and organizational strategies in the Puebloan Southwest. American Antiquity 65(3):449-470.

Fetterman, J. E. and L. Honeycutt 1982 Testing and excavation report MAPCO's Rocky Mountain Liquid Hydrocarbons Pipeline, southwest Colorado. Publisher Unknown.

251 Fetterman, J. and L. Honeycutt 1995 Excavations at Northwest Pipeline Corporation's Pleasant View compressor station, southwestern Colorado. Woods Canyon Archaeological Consultants, Yellow Jacket.

Fetterman, J., L. Honeycutt and K. Kuckelman 1988 Salvage excavations of42SA 12209 a Pueblo I habitation site in Cottonwood Canyon, Manti-LaSal National Forest, southeastern Utah. Unknown Publisher.

Fetterman, J., J. Gish, L. Honeycutt, L. Huckell, L. Reed, M. Rohman, D. Silverman, P. Stirniman and J. Torres 2001 Data recovery at three sites along El Paso Field Services' Trunk N Loop Pipeline, San Juan County, New Mexico. Woods Canyon Archaeological Consultants, Yellow Jacket.

Fisher, J. W. 1995 Bone surface modifications in zooarchaeology. Journal ofArchaeological Method and Theory 2:7-68.

Flanagan, J. G. 1989 Hierarchy in 'simple' egalitarian societies .. Annual Review ofAnthropology 18:245 266.

Forde, C. D. 1931 Hopi agriculture and land ownership. The Journal ofthe Royal Anthropological Institute ofGreat Britain and Ireland 6] :357-405.

Fothergill, B. B. 2008 Analysis and interpretation of the Bluff great house. MA thesis. Simon Fraser University, Burnaby.

Friesen, T. M. 2001 A zooarchaeological signature for meat storage: re-thinking the drying utility index. American Antiquity 66(2):315-331.

Gabrey, S. W., P. A. Vohs and D. H. Jackson 1993 Perceived and real crop damage by wild turkeys in northeastern Iowa. Wildlife Society Bulletin 21(1):39-45.

Galik, A. and G. K. Kunst 2004 Dietary habits of a monastery community as indicated by animal bone remains from Early Modem Age in Austria. In Behaviour behind bones. The zooarchaeology ofritual,

252 religion, status and identity, edited by S. J. O'Day, W. Van Neer and A. Ervynck, pp. 224-232. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Gannes, L. Z., D. M. O'Brien and C. Martines del Rio 1997 Stable isotopes in animal ecology: assumptions, caveats, and a call for more laboratory experiments. Ecology 78(4): 1271-1276.

Gilbert, A. S., B. H. Singer and D. Perkins 1981 Quantification experiments on computer-simulated faunal collections. Ossa 8:79 94.

Gilman, P. A. 1987 Architecture as artifact: pit structures and pueblos in the American Southwest. American Antiquity 52(3):538-564.

Gilmore, R.W. 1958 Faunal remains. In Excavations in Mancos Canyon, Colorado, E. K. Reed, pp. 204-208. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. 35, Salt Lake City.

Gilpin, D. and D. E. Purcell 2000 Peach Springs revisited: surface recordings and excavations on the South Chaco Slope, New Mexico. In Great house communities across the Chacoan landscape, edited by J. Kantner and N. M. Mahoney, pp. 28-38. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Glass, M. 1997 Faunal remains. In Phase Four archaeological investigations: final data recovery at Sites LA 87408 and LA 87409 along Navajo Route 48(1&2), Borrego Pass Loop Road, McKinley County, New Mexico, D. C. Eck, pp. 193-203. Zuni Cultural Resource Enterprise Report No. 524, Zuni.

Glass, M. 1998 Faunal remains from archaeological data recovery along Navajo Route 9] 0], Jeddito Road. In Ethnohistorical interpretation and archaeological data recovery along Navajo Route 9101, Jeddito Road, Navajo County, Arizona, D. C. Eck, pp. 445-474. Zuni Cultural Resource Enterprise Report No. 562, Zuni.

Gobalet, K. W. 2001 A critique of faunal analysis; inconsistency among experts in blind tests. Journal of Archaeological Science 28:377-386.

Goodman II, J. D. 1995 Vertebrate faunal remains. In Late Pueblo II settlement and subsistence on Puerco

253 Ridge: archaeological data recovery along Navajo Route 2007 extension, Chambers Sanders Trust Lands, Apache County, Arizona, D. Gilpin and D. H. Greenwald, pp. 405 434. SWCA Archaeological Report No. 95-63, Flagstaff.

Gordon, E. A. 1993 Screen size and differential faunal recovery: a Hawaiian example. Journal of Field Archaeology 20(4):453-460.

Gould, R. R. 1982 The Mustoe site: the application of neutron activation analysis in the interpretation of a multi-component archaeological site. PhD dissertation. University of Texas, Austin.

Gnabasik, V. R. 1981 Faunal utilization by the Pueblo Indians. MA thesis. Eastern New Mexico University, Portales.

Graham, H. 1980 Impact of modem man. In The desert bighorn. Its life history, ecology, and management, edited by G. Monson and L. Sumner, pp. 288-309. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Grant, C. 1980 The desert bighorn and aboriginal man. In The desert bighorn. Its life history, ecology, and management, edited by G. Monson and L. Sumner, pp. 7-39. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Grayson, D. K. 1973 On the methodology of faunal analysis. American Antiquity 38(4):432-439.

Grayson, D. K. 1984 Quantitative zooarchaeology. Topics in the analysis ofarchaeologicalfaunas. Academic Press, London.

Grayson, D. K. 2001 The archaeological record of human impacts on animal populations. Journal ofWorld Prehistory 15:1-68.

Grayson, D. K. and C. J. Frey 2004 Measuring skeletal part representation in archaeological faunas. Journal of Taphonomy 2(1):27-42.

254 Green, S. W. 1980 Broadening least-cost models for expanding agricultural systems. In Modeling change in prehistoric subsistence economies, edited by T. K. Earle and A. L. Christenson, pp. 209-241. Academic Press, London.

Gregory, H. E. 1915 The Navajo country. Part 1. Physical features. Bulletin 0/ the American Geographical Society 47(8):561-577.

Gregory, A. 2006 Faunal remains. In An archaeological investigation 0/ the Devil's Toenail Site, Pueblo o/Zuni Tribal Land, New Mexico, J. B. Murrell, pp. 199-219. Zuni Cultural Resource Enterprise Report No. 949, Zuni.

Grigson, C. 1978 Towards a blueprint for animal bone reports in archaeology. In Research problems in zooarchaeology, edited by D. R. Brothwell, K. D. Thomas and J. Clutton-Brock, pp. 121-128. Occasional Paper No.3, Institute of Archaeology. University of London, London.

Gumerman, G. J. and M. Gell-Mann 1994 Cultural evolution in the prehistoric Southwest. In Themes in Southwest prehistory, edited by G. J. Gumerman, pp. 11-31. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

Hall, E. R. 1981 The mammals o/North America. Volume [and II. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Hall, S. 1988 Prehistoric vegetation and environment at Chaco Canyon. American Antiquity 53(3):582-592.

Hallasi, J. A. 1979 Archaeological excavations at the Escalante site, Dolores, Colorado, 1975 and 1976. Colorado State Office Bureau 0/ Land Management 7: 197-425.

Hames, R. B. and W. T. Vickers 1983 Optimal diet breadth theory as a model to explain variability in human hunting. American Ethnologist 9:358-378.

255 Hammond, G. P. and A. Rey 1966 The rediscovery ofNew Mexico, 1580-1594: the explorations ofChamuscado. Espejo, Castano de Sosa, Morlete, and Leyva de Bonilla and Humana. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Hargrave, L. L. 1970 Mexican macaws. Comparative osteology and survey ofremains from the Southwest. Anthropological Papers 20. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Harris, A. H. 1963 Ecological distribution ofsome vertebrates in the San Juan Basin, New Mexico. Papers in Anthropology 8. Museum of New Mexico, Santa Fe.

Harris, A. H. 1977 Appendix A: Faunal remains from Chimney Rock Mesa. In Archaeological investigations at Chimney Rock Mesa 1970-1972, F. W. Eddy, pp. 73-76. Memoirs of the Colorado Archaeological Society No. I, Boulder.

Harris, A. H. 1990 Fossil evidence bearing on Southwestern mammalian biogeography. Journal ofMammalogy 71 (2):219-229.

Harris, A. H. 2006 Preliminary analysis of faunal material from Salmon Ruins. In Thirty-five years of archaeological research at Salmon Ruins, New Mexico. Volume three: archaeobotanical research and other analytical studies, edited by P. F. Reed, pp. 1065-1078. Center for Desert Archaeology and Salmon Ruins Museum, Tucson and Bloomfield.

Harshbarger, J. W. 1954 Ground water in the Navajo Country. Science (New Series) 119(3091):421.

Hastorf, C. A. 1980 Changing resource use in subsistence agricultural groups of the prehistoric Mimbres River Valley, New Mexico. In Modeling change in prehistoric subsistence economies, edited by T. K. Earle and A. L. Christenson, pp. 79-120. Academic Press, London.

Hass, C. C. 1997 Seasonality of births in bighorn sheep. Journal ofMammalogy 78(4):1251-1260.

256 Hawkes, K. and R. Bliege Bird 2002 Showing off, handicap signaling, and the evolution of men's work. Evolutionary Anthropology 11:58-67.

Hayden, B. 1990 Nimrods, piscators, pluckers, and planters: the emergence offood production. Journal ofAnthropological Archaeology 9:31-69.

Hayden, B. 1995 Pathways to power: principles for creating socioeconomic inequalities. In Foundations ofsocial inequalities, edited by T. D. Price and G. M. Feinman, pp. 15-86. Plenum Press, New York.

Hayden, B. 2001 Fabulous feasts. A prolegomenon to the importance of feasting. In Feasts. Archaeological and ethnographic perspectives on food, politics, and power, edited by M. Dietler and B. Hayden, pp. 23-64. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.

Hayes, A. C. No date Two Raven House: Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado. On file, Mesa Verde Library, Cortez.

Hayes, A. C. and J. A. Lancaster 1975 Badger House community, Mesa Verde National Park. US National Park Service Publications in Archaeology, Washington DC.

Haynes, H. W. 1900 Progress of American archaeology during the past ten years. American Journal of Archaeology 4(1):17-39.

Haynes, G. 1983 Frequencies of spiral and green-bone fractures on ungulate limb bones in modem surface assemblages. American Antiquity 48( 1): 102-114.

Henderson, R. 1983 Site H-26-56. In Cultural resource investigations on Gallegos Mesa: excavations in Block VI/I and IX, and testing operations in Blocks X and XI, Navajo Indian Irrigation Project. San Juan County, New Mexico, Vol. Volume I, L. E. Vogler, D. Gilpin and J. L. Anderson, pp. 338-408. Navajo Nation Papers in Anthropology No. 24, Farmington.

257 Henderson, J. and J. P. Harrington 19]4 Ethnozoology ofthe Tewa Indians. Government Printing Office, Washington.

Henshilwood, C. S. 1997 Identifying the collector: evidence for human processing of the Cape dune mole-rat, Bathyergus suillus, from Blombos Cave, southern Cape, South Africa. Journal of Archaeological Science 24:659-662.

Hesse, B. and P. Wapnish 1985 Animal bone archaeology. From objectives to analysis. Taraxacum, Washington.

Hibben, F. C. 1937 Mammal and bird remains. In Tseh So, a small house ruin, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. Preliminary Report, D. D. Brand, F. M. Hawley and F. C. Hibben, pp. 101-106. University of New Mexico Bulletin No. 308, Anthropological Series 2(2). University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

Hill, C. A. 1982 Origin of black deposits in caves. The National Speleological Society 44:] 5-] 9.

Hill, W. W. 1982 An ethnography ofSanta Clara Pueblo, New Mexico. University ofNew Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Hill, J. B. 1998 Ecological variability and agricultural specialization among the protohistoric Pueblos of central New Mexico. Journal ofField Archaeology 25(3):275-294).

Hill, E. 2000 The contextual analysis of animal interments and ritual practice in the Southwestern North America. Kiva 65(4):361-398.

Hockett, B. S. ] 998 Sociopolitical meaning of faunal remains from Baker Village. American Antiquity 63(2):289-302.

Hoffmeister, D. F. 1967 An unusual concentration of shrews. Journal ofMammalogy 48(3):462-465.

258 Honeycutt, L. and J. Fetterman 1994 Excavations along the Arkansas Loop Pipeline Corridor, northwestern New Mexico. Bureau of Land Management, Farmington.

Hoover, J. W. 1937 Navajo land problems. Economic Geography 13(3):281-300.

Hovezak, T. and L. Schniebs 2002 Vertebrate faunal remains. In Archaeological investigations in the Fruitland Project Area: Late Archaic, Basketmaker, Pueblo I, and Navajo sites in northwestern New Mexico, Vol. Volume 5: Material culture, bioarchaeological and special studies, T. D. Hovezak, L. M. Sesler and S. L. Fuller, pp. 415-451. La Plata Archaeological Consultants Research Papers No.4, Dolores.

Howell, T. L. 1991 Archaeological testing ofRim Cell Center, Navajo Nation Chambers-Sanders Trust Lands, Apache County, Arizona. Zuni Archaeology Program Report No. 369, Zuni.

Huckell, B. B. 1996 The Archaic prehistory of the North American Southwest. Journal of World Prehistory 10(3):305-373.

Hurst, W. B. 2000 Chaco outliers or backwoods pretender? A provincial great house at the Edge of the Cedar Ruin, Utah. In Great house communities across the Chacoan landscape, edited by J. Kantner and N. M. Mahoney, pp. 63-78. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Hurth, L. A. 1977 Faunal analysis of house one, 5MT-3, Yellow Jacket, Colorado. MA thesis. University of Colorado, Boulder.

Ijzereef, G. F. 1989 Social differentiation from animal bone studies. In Diet and crafts in towns. The evidence ofanimal remains from the Roman to the post-Medieval periods, edited by D. Serjeantson and T. Waldron, pp. 42-53. British Archaeological Reports 1999, Oxford.

Ioannidou, E. 2003 Taphonomy of animal bones: species, sex, age and breed variability of sheep, cattle and pig bone density. Journal ofArchaeological Science 30:355-365.

259 Ingles, L. G. 1941 Natural history observations of the Audubon cottontail. Journal of Mammalogy 22(3):227-250.

Jackson, H. E. and S. L. Scott 1995 The faunal record of the Southeastern elite: the implications of economy, social relations, and ideology. Southeastern Archaeology 14(2):103-119.

Jackson, H. E. and S. L. Scott 2003 Patterns of elite faunal utilization at Moundville, Alabama. American Antiquity 68(3):552-572.

Jalbert, J. P. and C. Cameron 2000 Chacoan and local influences in three great house communities in the northern San Juan region. In Great house communities across the Chacoan landscape, edited by 1. Kantner and N. M. Mahoney, pp. 79-90. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

James, S. R. 1990 Monitoring archaeofaunal changes during the transition to agriculture in the American Southwest. Kiva 56(1 ):25-43.

James, S. R. 2004 Hunting, fishing, and resource depression in prehistoric Southwest North America. In The archaeology ofglobal change. The impact ofhumans on their environment, edited by C. L. Redman, S. R. James, P. R. Fish and J. D. Rogers, pp. 28 62. Smithsonian Books, Washington.

Johnson, P. C. 1978 An analysis of animal remains from two Anasazi sites, AZ K: 12:3 and AZ K: 12:8, in northeastern Arizona. In The Painted Cliffs Rest Area: excavations along the Rio Puerco, northeastern Arizona, A. Ferg, pp. 155-162. Arizona State Museum Contribution to Highway Salvage Archaeology in Arizona No. 50, Tucson.

Johnson, E. 1989 Human modified bones from earlier southern Plains sites. In: Bone modification, edited by R. Bonnichsen and M. H. Sorg, pp. 431-471. Center for the Study of the Past Americans, Institute for Quaternary Studies. University of Maine, Orono.

Johnson, M. 1999 Archaeological theory. An introduction. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.

260 Johnson,C. D. 2006 Critical natural resources in the Mesa Verde region, A.D. 600-1300: distribution, use, and influence of Puebloan settlement. PhD dissertation. Washington State University, Pullman.

Johnson, A. W. and T. K. Earle 2000 The evolution ofhuman societies: from foraging group to agrarian state. Stanford University Press, Stanford.

Jones, K. T. 1993 The archaeological structure of a short-term camp. In From bones to behavior: ethnoarchaeological and experimental contributions to the interpretation of faunal remains, edited J. Hudson, pp. 101-114. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper No. 21. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

Judd, N. M. 1923 Pueblo Bonito, the Ancient. The National Geographic Society's Third Expedition to the Southwest seeks to read in the rings of trees the secret of the age of ruins. The National Geographic Magazine 44(1):98-108.

Judd, N. M. 1925 Everday life in Pueblo Bonito as disclosed by the National Geographic Society's Archaeological Explorations in the Chaco Canyon National Monument, New Mexico. The National Geographic Magazine 48(3):227-262.

Judd, N. M. 1954 The material culture ofPueblo Bonito. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 124, Washington D.C.

Judd, N. M. 1964 The architecture ofPueblo Bonito. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 147(1), Washington D.C.

Judge, W. J. 2004 Chaco's golden century. In In search ofChaco. New approaches to an archaeological enigma, edited by D. G. Noble, pp. 1-6. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

Judge, W. J. and J. M. Malville 2004 Calendrical knowledge and ritual power. In Chimney Rock. The ultimate outlier, edited by J. M. Malville, pp. 151-162. Lexington Books, Oxford.

261 Judge, W. J. and L. Cordell 2006 Society and polity. In The archaeology ofChaco Canyon. An eleventh-century Pueblo regional center, edited by S. H. Lekson, pp. 189-210. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

Kansa, S. W. and S. Campbell 2002 Feasting with the dead?- a ritual bone deposit at Domuztepe, south eastern Turkey (c. 5550BC). In Behaviour behind bones. The woarchaeology ofritual, religion, status and identity, edited by S. J. O'Day, W. Van Neer and A. Ervynck, pp. 2-13. Oxbow, Oxford.

Kantner, J. 2004a Ancient Puebloan Southwest. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Kantner, J. 2004b Great-house communities and the Chaco world. In In search ofChaco. New approaches to an archaeological enigma, edited by D. G. Noble, pp. 71-77. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

Kantner, J. and N. M. Mahoney (editors) 2000 Great house communities across the Chacoan landscape. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Kantner, J. W. and K. W. Kintigh 2006 The Chaco world. In The archaeology ofChaco Canyon. An eleventh-century Pueblo regional center, edited by S. H. Lekson, pp. 153-188. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

Kaplan, H. and K. Hill 1985 Hunting ability and reproducti ve success among male Ache foragers: preliminary results. Current Anthropology 26(1): 131-133.

Keegan, T. W. and J. A. Crawford 1999 Reproduction and survival of Rio Grande turkeys in Oregon. The Journal of Wildlife Management 63(1):204-2 IO.

Kelly, J. E., V. Dirst, J. A. Beezley and J. Bowen 1974 Faunal analysis Salmon Ruin San Juan Valley, New Mexico LA8846. Report on file, Salmon Ruin Library, Bloomfield.

Kendrick, J. W. 1999 Archaeological nature and extent testing at seventeen sites along Navajo Route

262 II(A)I, Mariano Lake to Navajo Route 9. Zuni Cultural Resource Enterprise Report No. 569, Zuni.

Kendrick, J. W. and W. J. Judge 2000 Household economic autonomy and great house development in the Lowry area. In Great house communities across the Chacoan landscape, edited by J. Kantner and N. M. Mahoney, pp. 113-129. The University of Arizona Press. Tucson.

Kent, S. 1989a Cross-cultural perceptions of farmers as hunters and the value of meat. In Farmers as hunters. The implications ofsedentism, edited by S. Kent, pp. 1-17. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Kent, S. 1989b Site 5MTJ786 afinal report ofexcavations and analyses. Anasazi Heritage Center, Dolores.

Klein, R. G. and K. Cruz-Uribe 1984 The analysis ofanimal bones from archaeological sites. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Kidder, A. V. and I. Rouse 1962 An introduction to the study ofSouthwestern archaeology with a preliminary account ofthe excavations at Pecos. Yale University Press, London.

Kluckhohn, C. 1939 Subsistence remains. In Preliminary report on the 1937 excavations, Nc50- 5 I, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, edited by C. Kluckhohn and P. Reiter, pp. 147-150. The University of New Mexico Bulletin 345. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Kohler, T. A. 2000 The final 400 years of prehispanic agricultural society in the Mesa Verde region. Kiva 66(1): 191-204.

Kohler, T. A. and M. H. Matthews 1988 Long-term Anasazi land use and forest reduction: a case study from southwest Colorado. American Antiquity 53(3):537-564.

Krantz, G. S. 1968 A new method of counting mammal bones. American Journal ofArchaeology 72(3):286-288.

263 Kriegh, S. A. 1977 Faunal analysis of five sites excavated along the Zuni Route 4 Right-of-way, Zuni Route 4 Project, Zuni Indian Reservation, McKinley County, New Mexico. In Archaeological excavations along Route Z4 near Zuni, New Mexico, K. E. Gratz, pp. 99 106. Museum of North Arizona Research Paper 7, Flagstaff.

Kuckelman, K. A. 2002 Thirteenth-century warfare in the central Mesa Verde region. In Seeking the central place. Archaeology and ancient communities in the Mesa Verde region, edited by M. D. Varien and R. H. Wilshusen, pp. 233-253. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Kuckelman, K. A., R. R. Lightfoot and D. L. Martin 2000 Changing patterns of violence in the northern San Juan region. Kiva 66(1): 147-165.

Ladd, E. J. 1963 Zuni ethno-ornithology. MA thesis. University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

Lam, Y. M., O. M. Pearson, C. W. Marean and X. Chen 2003 Bone density studies in zooarchaeology. Journal ofArchaeological Science 30: 1701-1708.

Lam, Y. M. and O. M. Pearson 2005 Bone density studies and the interpretation of the faunal record. Evolutionary Anthropology 14:99-108.

Lang, R. 1988 Faunal remains from Anasazi and Navajo sites on Chinde Wash and Cottonwood Arroyo, Middle Chaco Drainage, New Mexico. In Archaic, Puebloan and Navajo land use and occupation along the Middle Chaco River, C. L. Scheick, pp. 293-301. Southwest Archaeological Consultants, Southwest Report No. 181. Navajo Mine, Fruitland.

Lang, R. W. 1990 Faunal remains from PM 303, Loci I and 2: a Late Wingate Phase Complex in the Upper Gallup Basin, McKinley County, New Mexico. In Excavation ofPM 303: an early Pueblo III site on the South Lease ofMcKinley Mine, C. L. Scheick, pp. 316-339. Southwest Report No. SW 227b, Santa Fe.

Lang, R. W. 1991 Faunal remains from PM 303, Loci I and 2: a late Wingate Phase complex in the Upper Gallup Basin, McKinley County, New Mexico. In Excavation ofPM 303: an early

264 Pueblo 11/ site on the South Lease on McKinley Mine, C. L. Scheick, pp. 215-232. Southwest Report No. SW 227b, Santa Fe.

Lang, R. W. and A. H. Harris 1984 Thefaunal remains from Arroyo Hondo Pueblo, New Mexico. A study in short-term subsistence change. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

Lawrence, B. 1951 Part I. mammals found at the Awatovi site. Part II. Postcranial skeletal characters of deer, pronghorn, and sheep-goat with notes on Bos and Bison. Papers ofthe Peabody Museum ofAmerican Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University 35(3):1 43.

Lawrence, B. 1973 Problems in the inter-site comparison of faunal remains. In Domestikationsforschung und geschichte der haustiere. Internationales Symposion in Budapest 1971, edited by J. Matolcsi, pp. 397-402. Akademiai Kiod6, Budapest.

LeBlanc, S. A. 1999 Prehistoric warfare in the American Southwest. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Lekson, S. H. 1986 Great Pueblo architecture ofChaco Canyon, New Mexico. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Lekson, S. H. 1991 Settlement pattern and the Chaco region. In Chaco and Hohokam: prehistoric regional systems in the American Southwest, edited by P. L. Crown and W. J. Judge, pp. 31-55. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

Lekson, S. H. 1999 The Chaco Meridian. Centers ofpolitical power in the ancient Southwest. AltaMira Press, London.

Lekson, S. H. 2004 Foreword. In Chimney Rock. The ultimate outlier, edited by J. M. Malville, pp. vii ix. Lexington Books, Oxford.

Lekson, S. H. (editor) 2006 The archaeology ofChaco Canyon. An eleventh-century Pueblo regional center. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

265 Lekson, S. H. 2007 Great house form. In The architecture ofChaco Canyon, New Mexico, edited by S. H. Lekson, pp. 7-44. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Lekson, S, H, T. C. Windes, J. R. Stein and W. J. Judge 1988 The Chaco Canyon community. Scientific American 259(1 ):2-11.

Lekson, S. H., T. C. Windes and P. J. McKenna 2006 Architecture. In The archaeology ofChaco Canyon. An eleventh-century Pueblo regional center, edited by S. H. Lekson, pp. 67-116. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

Leonard, R. D. 1989 Anasazifaunal exploitation: prehistoric subsistence on northern Black Mesa, Arizona. Southern Illinois University Center for Archaeological Investigations Occasional Paper 13, Carbondale.

Lewis, H. E., J. P. Masterton and P. G. Ward 1957 The food value of biltong (South African dried meat) and its use of expeditions. British Journal ofNutrition II(I ):5-13.

Lie, R. W. 1980 Minimum number of individuals from osteological samples. Norwegian Archaeological Review 13(1 ):24-30.

Lightfoot, K. G. 1987 A consideration of complex prehistoric societies in the U.S. Southwest. In Chiefdoms in the Americas, edited by R. D. Drennan and C. A. Uribe, pp. 43-57. University Press of America, Lanham.

Lightfoot, R. R. 1994 The Duckfoot Site. Volume J and 2. Archaeology ofthe house and household. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center Occasional Paper No.4, Cortez.

Linares, O. F. 1976 "Garden hunting" in the American tropics. Human Ecology 4(4):331-349.

266 Lipe, W. D. 1999 Basketmaker II (1000 B.C. - A. D. 500). In Colorado prehistory: a context for the Southern Colorado Basin, edited by W. D. Lipe., M. D. Varien and R. H. Wilshusen, pp. 132-165. Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists, Denver.

Lipe, W. D. 2004 The Mesa Verde region. Chaco's Northern neighbor. In In search ofChaco. New approaches to an archaeological enigma, edited by D. G. Noble, pp. 107-115. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

Lipe, W. D. 2006 Notes from the north. In The archaeology ofChaco Canyon. An eleventh-century Pueblo regional center, edited by S. H. Lekson, pp. 261-313. School of American Research Advanced Seminar Series, Santa Fe.

Lipe, W. D. and M. D. Varien 1999 Pueblo II (A.D. 900 - 1150). In Colorado prehistory: a contextfor the Southern Colorado Basin, edited by W. D. Lipe, M. D. Varien and R. H. Wilshusen, pp. 242-289. Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists, Denver.

Lippmeier, H. S. 1993 Faunal remains. In Results ofPhase I data recovery on the proposed route N-2007 extension Apache County, Arizona, S. K. Kuhr, pp. 211-218. Zuni Archaeology Program Report No. 411, Zuni.

Lippmeier, H. S. 1994 Faunal and shell remains. In Archaeological data recovery excavations at the Sanders Great House and six other sites along US Highway 191 south ofSanders, Apache County, Arizona, Vol. Volume 2, T. F. Fletcher, pp. 465-490. Zuni Archaeology Program Report No. 471, Zuni.

Lippmeier Fletcher, H. 1994 Faunal and shell remains. In Data recovery ofa Basketmaker III component at site AZ-P-60-31 along N-2015, Apache County, Arizona, L. Leach-Palm, pp. 389-399. Zuni Cultural Resource Enterprise Report No. 422, Zuni.

Lippmeier Fletcher, H. 1995 Unmodified and modified faunal remains. In Data recovery at two sites near the Iyanbito Chapter House, McKinley County, New Mexico, A. Duff, pp. 137-145. Zuni Cultural Resource Enterprise Report No. 467, Zuni.

Lippmeier Fletcher, H. 1996 Unmodified and modified faunal and shell remains. In Phase I and l/ data

267 recovery atfour sites near the Sanders Rural Community High School, Sanders, Arizona, B. Billman and P. Ruppe, pp. 475-494. Zuni Cultural Resource Enterprise Report No. 442, Zuni.

Lister, R. H. 1968 Archaeology for layman and scientist at Mesa Verde. Science (New Series) 160(3827):489-496.

Lister, R. H. and F. C. Lister 1981 Archaeology and archaeologists. Chaco Canyon. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Longacre, W. A. 1973 Current directions in Southwestern archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology 2:201-219.

Lyle, R. 2004 Turkey reliance strategy at Sand Canyon Pueblo "one possible scenario". Unpublished manuscript. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez.

Lyman, R. L. 1979 Available meat from faunal remains: a consideration of techniques. American Antiquity 44(3):536-546.

Lyman, R. L. 1980 Archaeofauna. In Prehistory and history ofthe Ojo Amarillo. Archaeological investigations ofBlock II, Navajo Indian Irrigation Project, San Juan County, New Mexico, Vol. Volume 4, D. T. Kirkpatrick, pp. 1317-1388. Bureau of Indian Affairs, New Mexico University, Report No. 276, Las Cruces.

Lyman, R. L. 1982 Archaeofaunal remains from Blocks VI and VII. In Archaeological excavations in Blocks VI and VII, N.I.I.P. San Juan County, New Mexico, T. A. Del Bene and D. Ford, pp. 927-1026. Navajo Nation Papers in Anthropology No. 13, Window Rock.

Lyman, R. L. 1994 Vertebrate taphonomy. Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Lyman, R. L. 2004 The concept of equifinality in taphonomy. Journal ofTaphonomy 2: 15-26.

268 Lyman, R. L. 2008 Quantitative paleozoology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

MacDonald, K. C. 1991 Archaeozoology as anthropology? Archaeological Reviewfrom Cambridge 10(1 ):60-69.

McGuire, R. H. and D. J. Saitta 1996 Although they have petty captains, they obey them badly: the dialectics of Prehispanic Western Pueblo social organization. American Antiquity 61 (2): 197- 216.

McKusick, C. R. 1980 Three groups of turkeys from Southwestern archaeological sites. In Papers in Avian paleontology honoring Hildegarde Howard, edited by K. E. Campbell, pp. 225 235. Contributions in Science of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County 330, Los Angeles.

McKusick, C. R. 1986 Southwest Indian turkeys, prehistory and comparative osteology. Southwest Bird Laboratory, Globe.

Macedo, R. H. and M. A. Mares 1988 Neotoma albigula. Mammalian Species 310: 1-7.

Mahoney, N. M. and J. Kantner 2000 Chacoan archaeology and great house communities. In Great house communities across the Chacoan landscape, edited by J. Kantner and N. M. Mahoney, pp. 1-15. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Mahoney, N. M., M. A. Adler and J. W. Kendrick 2000 The changing scale and configuration of Mesa Verde communities. Kiva 66( I ):68-90.

Maltby, M. 2002 Animal bones in archaeology: how archaeozoologists can make a greater contribution to British Iron Age and Romano-Blitish archaeology. In Bones and the man: studies in honour ofDon Brothwell, edited by K. Dobney and T. O'Connor, pp. 88 94. Oxbow, Oxford.

269 Marion, E. 1985 Faunal analysis of three Johnson Canyon Archaeological sites, Colorado (5MT2826, 5MT2830, 5MT2831). In Archaeological investigations ofthe Johnson Canyon Road Project, Ute Mountain Ute Tribal Lands, Colorado, A. D. Reed, W. K. Howell, P. R. Nickens and J. C. Horn, pp. 392-405. Bureau ofIndian Affairs, Albuquerque.

Marshall, A. L. 2003 The siting of Pueblo Bonito. In Pueblo Bonito. Center ofthe Chacoan world, edited by J. E. Neitzel, pp. 10-13. Smithsonian Books, London.

Martin, P. S. 1968 Lowry Ruin in southwest Colorado. Kraus Reprint, New York.

Mathien, F. J. 2001 The organization of turquoise production by the prehistoric Chacoans. American Antiquity 66( I): 103-118.

Mathien, F. J. 2005 Culture and ecology ofChaco Canyon and the San Juan Basin. National Park Service, Santa Fe.

Matson, R. G. and B. Chrisholm 1991 Basketmaker II subsistence: carbon isotopes and other dietary indicators from Cedar Mesa, Utah. American Antiquity 56:444-459.

Maxwell, D. 2003 Vertebrate faunal remains. In Preliminary report ofinvestigations: archaeological data recovery in the New Mexico Transportation Corridor and First Five- Year Permit Area, Fence Lake Coal Mine Project, E. K. Huber and C. R. Van Went, pp. 23.1-23.78. Technical Report 02-74, Statistical Research Inc., Tucson.

Meadow, R. H. 1978 Effects of context on the interpretation of faunal remains: a case study. In Approaches to faunal animals in the Middle East, edited by R. II. Meadow and M. A. Zeder, pp. 15-21. Peadoby Museum Bulletin 2, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. Harvard University, Cambridge (MA).

Meagher, M. 1986 Bison bison. Mammalian Species 266: 1-8.

270 Metcalf, M. P. 2003 Construction labor at Pueblo Bonito. In Pueblo Bonito. Center ofthe Chacoan world, edited by J. E. Neitzel, pp. 72-79. Smithsonian Books, London.

Mick, L. 1985 Faunal remains from LA 9093. In The Pinedale Project: subsistence and technology in a successful Anasazi community, J. Beal, pp. 62-66. Zuni Archaeological Program Report No. 222, Zuni.

Mick-O'Hara, L. 1991 Identification and analysis of faunal remains. In Archaeology ofthe San Juan Breaks, P. Hogan and L. Sebastian, pp. 129-146. Office of Contract Archaeology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

Mick-O'Hara, L. 1992 Game depletion and selection in the late prehistoric Southwest. In Current research on the late prehistory and early history ofNew Mexico, edited by B. J. Vierra and C. Gualtieri, pp. 37-49. New Mexico Archaeological Council Special Publication I, Albuquerque.

Mick-O'Hara, L. 1993a An overview and distributional analysis of the faunal remains. In The excavation ofa multicomponent Anasazi site (LA 50337) in the La Plata River Valley, northwestern New Mexico, B. J. Vierra, pp. 201·-246. Museum of New Mexico, Office of Archaeological Studies, Archaeology Notes 49, Santa Fe.

Mick-O'Hara, L. 1993b Identified faunal remains from LA 59497. In Archaeological excavations at LA 59497. along state road 264, McKinley County, New Mexico, S. S. Post, pp. 101-102. Museum of New Mexico, Office of Archaeological Studies, Archaeology Notes 85, Santa Fe.

Mick-O'Hara, L. 1994 Nutritional stability and changing faunal resource use in La Plata Valley prehistory. PhD dissertation. University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

Mick-O'Hara, L. S. 2002 The analysis of faunal remains from the 1-40 Project. In Archaeological investigations oftwo multicomponent sites along interstate 40 near the State Road 6 Exit, Cibola County, New Mexico, S. S. Post, pp. 263-269. Museum of New Mexico, Office of Archaeological Studies, Archaeology Notes 253, Santa Fe.

271 Mierau, G. W. and J. L. Schmidt (eds.) ]98] The mule deer ofMesa Verde National Park. Mesa Verde Research Series Paper No.2. Mesa Verde Nation Park, Cortez.

Miller, M. A. ]952 Size characteristics of the Sacramento Valley pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae navus Mirriam). Journal ofMammalogy 33(4):442-456.

Miller, R. S. ]964 Ecology and distribution of pocket gopher (Geomyidae) in Colorado. Ecology 45(2):256-272.

Milner, N. and D. Fuller ]999 Editorial: Contending with animal bones. Archaeological Review from Cambridge] 6(1):] -] 2.

Mills, B. J. 2004 Key debates in Chacoan archaeology. In In search ofChaco. New approaches to an archaeological enigma, edited by D. G. Noble, pp. ]23-130. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

Mills, B. J. 2007 Performing the feast: visual display and suprahousehold commensalism in the Puebloan Southwest. American Antiquity 72(2):2] 0-239.

Minnis, P. E. ]985 Social adaptations to food stress. A prehistoric Southwestern example. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Minnis, P. E. ]989 Prehistoric diet in the northern Southwest: macroplant remains from Four Comer feces. American Antiquity 54:543-563.

Minnis, P. E., M. E. Whalen, J. H. Kelley and J. D. Stewart ]993 Prehistoric macaw breeding in the North American Southwest. American Antiquity 58(2):270-276.

Mohr, A. and L.L. Sample No date Excavations on Montezuma and Lower McElmo Creeks, San Juan County, Utah. Publisher unknown.

272 Monson, G. 1980 Distribution and abundance. In The desert bighorn. Its life history. ecology, and management, edited by G. Monson and L. Sumner, pp. 40-51. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Morris, J. N. 1986 Four Corners Archaeological Project Report No 6. Monitoring and excavations at Aulston Pueblo (Site 5MT2433), a Pueblo II habitation site. Cultural Resource Program, Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region, Salt Lake City.

Mueller, J. L. 2006 Ritual, feasting and trajectories to social power in a southern Chacoan great house community. MA thesis. Washington State University, Pullman.

Muir, R. J. 1999 Zooarchaeology of Sand Canyon Pueblo, Colorado. PhD dissertation. Simon Fraser University, Burnaby.

Muir, R. J. and J. C. Driver 2002 Scale of analysis and zooarchaeological interpretation: Pueblo III faunal variation in the northern San Juan region. Journal ofAnthropological Archaeology 21:165-199.

Muir, R. J. and J. C. Driver 2003 Faunal remains. In The archaeology of Yellow Jacket Pueblo (Site 5MT5): excavations at a large community center in southwestern Colorado [HTML Title], edited by K. A. Kuckelman. Available: http://www.crowcanyon.org/yellowjacket. Accessed: 4 September 2007.

Muir, R. J. and J. C. Driver 2004 Identifying ritual use of animals in the northern American Southwest. In Behaviour behind bones. The zooarchaeology ofritual, religion, status and identity, edited by S. J. O'Day, W. Van Neer and A. Ervynck, pp. 128-143. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Munro, N. D. 1994 An investigation of Anasazi turkey production in Southwestern Colorado. MA thesis. Simon Fraser University, Burnaby.

Munro,N. D. 2004 Zooarchaeological measures of hunting pressure and occupation intensity in the Natufian. Implications for agricultural origins. Current Anthropology 45:5-33.

273 Murie, A. 1946 The Merriam turkey on the San Carlos Indian Reservation. The Journal ofWildlife Management 10(4):329-333.

Myers, T. P., M. R. Voorhies and R. G. Corner ]980 Spiral fractures and bone pseudotools at paleontological sites. American Antiquity 45(3):483-490.

Naughton-Treves, L. 2002 Wild animals in the garden: conserving wildlife in Amazonian agroecosystems. Annals ofthe Association ofAmerican Geographers 92(3):488- 506.

Neitzel, J. E. 1989 The Chacoan regional system: interpreting the evidence for sociopolitical complexity. In The sociopolitical structure ofprehistoric Southwestern societies, edited by S. Upham, pp. 509-556. Westview Press, Boulder.

Neitzel, J. E. 2003a The organization, function and population of Pueblo Bonito. In Pueblo Bonito. Center ofthe Chacoan world, edited by J. E. Neitzel, pp. 143-149. Smithsonian Books, London.

Neitzel, J. E. 2003b Three questions about Pueblo Bonito. In Pueblo Bonito. Center ofthe Chacoan world, edited by J. E. Neitzel, pp. 1-9. Smithsonian Books, London.

Neitzel, J. E. 2007 Architectural studies of Pueblo Bonito. The past, present, and the future. In The architecture ofChaco Canyon, New Mexico, edited by S. H. Lekson, pp. 127-] 54. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Neusius, S. W. 1986a Faunal remains from Aldea Sierritas. In Dolores Archaeological Program: Anasazi communities at Dolores: early Anasazi sites in the Sagehen Flats area, A. E. Kane and G. T. Gross, pp. 381-398. US Department of the Interior, Denver.

Neusius, S. W. 1986b Faunal remains from Windy Wheat hamlet. In Dolores Archaeological Program: Anasazi communities at Dolores: early Anasazi sites in the Sagehen Flats area, A. E. Kane and G. T. Gross, pp. 855-862. US Department of the Interior, Denver.

274 Neusius, S. W. 1986c Faunal report for Casa Roca. In Dolores Archaeological Program: Anasazi communities at Dolores: early Anasazi sites in the Sagehen Flats area, A. E. Kane and G. T. Gross, pp. 977-978. US Department of the Interior, Denver.

Neusius, S. W. 1986d Faunal remains from Periman hamlet area 1. In Dolores Archaeological Program: Anasazi communities at Dolores: Middle Canyon area, A. E. Kane and G. T. Gross, pp. 187-197. US Department of the Interior, Denver.

Neusius, S. W. 1986e Faunal remains from LeMol Shelter. In Dolores Archaeological Program: Anasazi communities at Dolores: early Anasazi sites in the Sagehen Flats area, T. A. Kohler, W. D. Lipe and A. E. Kane, pp. 279-296. US Department of the Interior, Denver.

Neusius, S. W. 1986f Faunal remains from Prince hamlet. In Dolores Archaeological Program: Anasazi communities at Dolores: early Anasazi sites in the Sagehen Flats area, T. A. Kohler, W. D. Lipe and A. E. Kane, pp. 483-496. US Department of the Interior, Denver.

Neusius, S. W. 1988 Faunal exploitation during the McPhee Phase: evidence from the McPhee community cluster. In Dolores Archaeological Program: Anasazi communities at Dolores: McPhee Village, A. E. Kane and C. K. Robinson, pp. 1209-129 I. US Department of the Interior, Denver.

Neusius, S. W 1996 Game procurement among temperate horticulturalists. The case for garden hunting by the Dolores Anasazi. In Case studies in environmental archaeology, edited by E. J. Reitz, L. A. Newsome and S. J. Scudder, pp. 275-288. Plenum Press, New York.

Neusius, S. W. and M. Gould 1988 Faunal remains: implications for Dolores Anasazi adaptation. In Dolores Archaeological Program: Anasazi communities at Dolores: Grass Mesa Village, W. D. Lipe, J. N. Morris and T. Kohler, pp. 1049-1135. US Department of the Interior, Denver.

Newcomb, F. J. 1940 Origin legend of the Navajo eagle chant. The Journal ofAmerican Folklore 53(207):50-77.

275 Newman, C. C. 1945 Turkey restocking efforts in east Texas. The Journal of Wildlife Management 9(4):279-289.

Nickens, P. R. 1981 Pueblo III communities in transition: environment and adaptation in Johnson Canyon. Memoirs of the Colorado Society No.2, Boulder.

Nielson, A. S., J. C. Janetski and J. D. Wilde 1985 Final repacture Wash Archaeological Project 1981-1983 San Juan County, Utah. Brigham Young University Museum of Peoples and Cultures Technical Series No. 85-7, Provo.

Noble, D. G. (editor) 2004 In search ofChaco. New approaches to an archaeological enigma. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

Nordby, L. V. 1973 Salvage excavations in Mancos Canyon, Ute Mountain Ute Homelands, Colorado, during the Fall of 1972. MA thesis. University of Colorado, Boulder.

Oaks, E. c., P. J. Young, G. L. Kirkland and D. F. Schmidt 1987 Spermophilus variegates. Mammalian Species 272: 1-8.

O'Connor, T. 1996 A critical overview of archaeological animal bone studies. World Archaeology 28(1):5-19.

O'Connor, T. 2000 The archaeology ofanimal bones. Sutton Publishing, Phoenix Mill.

O'Gara, B. W. 1978 Antilocpra americana. Mammalian Species 90: 1-7.

O'Regan, H. J. and A. Kitchener 2005 The effects of captivity on the morphology on captive, domesticated and feral mammals. Mammal Review 34:215-230.

Olsen, S. J. 1976 The dogs of Awatovi. American Antiquity 41 (1): I02-1 06.

276 Olsen, S. 1983 Zooarchaeological study of archaeological sites in the Farmington area. In Human adaptation and cultural change: the archaeology ofBlock /II, N.I.I.O., L. E. Vogler, pp. 1797-1844. Navajo Nation Papers in Anthropology No. 15, Window Rock.

Olsen, S. J. and J. W. Olsen 1993 The vertebrate faunal analysis of Wide Reed Ruin. In Wide Reed Ruin, J. E. Mount, S. J. Olsen, J. W. Olsen, G. A. Teague and B. D. Treadwell, pp. 69-76. Southwest Cultural Resources Center, Professional Papers No. 51, Santa Fe.

Parsons, I and S. Badenhorst 2004 Analysis of lesions generated by replicated Middle Stone Age lithic points on selected skeletal elements. South African Journal ofScience 100:384-387.

Pavao, B. and P. W. Stahl 1999 Structural density assays of leporid skeletal elements with implications for taphonomic, actualistic and archaeological research. Journal ofArchaeological Science 26:53-66.

Peckham, S. 1963 The Red Willow Site: a biwalled kiva near Tohatchi, New Mexico. In Highway salvage archaeology, S. Peckham, pp. 56-72. New Mexico State Highway. Department and Museums of New Mexico Volume 4, Santa Fe.

Pelikan, J. and J. Nesvadbova 1979 Small mammal communities in farms and surrounding fields. Folia Zoologica 28(3):209-217.

Pepper, G. H. 1905 Ceremonial objects and ornaments from Pueblo Bonito, New Mexico. American Anthropologist 7(2): 183-197.

Pepper, G. H. 1996 Pueblo Bonito. University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

Perkins, D. 1973 Remains from archaeological sites. In Domestikationsforschung und geschichte der haustiere. Internationales Symposion in Budapest 1971, edited by J. Matolcsi, pp. 367-369. Akademiai Kiod6, Budapest.

277 Perkins, D. and P. Daly 1968 A hunter's village in Neolithic Turkey. Scientific American 219(5):97-106.

Pesman, M. W. 1946 Meet the natives. An easy way to recognize Rocky Mountain wildflowers, trees, and scrubs. Published by author, Denver.

Pickering, T. R., C. W. Marean and M. Dominguez-Rodrigo 2003 Importance of limb bone shaft fragments in zooarchaeology: a response to "On in situ attrition and vertebrate body part profiles" (2002), by M. C. Stiner. Journal of Archaeological Science 30:] 469-]482.

Pippin, L. C. ]987 Prehistory and paleoecology ofGuadalupe Ruin, New Mexico. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No.1] 2, Salt Lake City.

Pizzimenti, J. J. and R. S. Hoffmann 1973 Cynomys gunnisoni. Mammalian Species 25:1-4.

Plog, S. ]995 Equality and hierarchy. Holistic approaches to understanding social dynamics in the Pueblo Southwest. In Foundations ofsocial inequality, edited by T. D. Price and G. M. Feinman, pp. 189-206. Plenum Press, New York.

Plog, S. 1997 Ancient peoples ofthe American Southwest. Thames and Hudson, London.

Plug, 1. ]984 MNI counts, pits and features. In Frontiers: southern African archaeology today, edited by M. Hall, G. Avery, D. M. Avery, M. L. Wilson and A. J. B. Humphreys, pp. 357-362. British Archaeological Reports International Series 207, Oxford.

Plug, 1. ]988 Hunters and herders: an archaeozoological study of some prehistoric communities in the Kruger National Park. DPhil dissertation. University of Pretoria, Pretoria.

Plug, 1. 1989 Notes on distribution and relative abundance of some animal species in the Kruger National Park during prehistoric times. Koedoe 32: I01-119.

278 Plug, I. 1994 Springbok, Antidorcas marsupialis (Zimmerman, 1780) from the past. Zeitschrift fur Siiugetierkunde 59:246-251.

Plug, C. and I. Plug 1990 MNI counts as estimates of species abundance. South African Archaeological Bulletin 45:53-57.

Pokines, J. T. 2000 Microfaunal research design in the Cantabrian Spanish Paleolithic. Journal of Anthropological Research 56(1 ):95-1 ]2.

Potter, J. M. ]997 Communal ritual and faunal remains: an example from the Dolores Anasazi. Journal ofField Archaeology 24(3):353-364.

Potter, J. M. ]999 Vertebrate faunal remains. In Archaeological testing on Navajo Route 9, Segment 2- J, McKinley County, New Mexico, D. Gilpin, pp. 309-318. SWCA Report No. 98-153, Flagstaff.

Potter, J. M. 2000a Ritual, power, and social differentiation in small-scale societies. In Hierarchies in action: Cui Bono?, edited by M. W. Diehl, pp. 295-316. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper No. 27. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

Potter, J. M. 2000b Pots, parties, and politics: communal feasting in the American Southwest. American Antiquity 65(3):471-492.

Potter, J. M. 2004 Hunting and social differentiation in the Late Prehispanic American Southwest. In Behaviour behind bones. The zooarchaeology ofritual, religion, status and identity, edited by S. J. O'Day, W. Van Neer and A. Ervynck, pp. 285-292. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Potter, J. M. 2007 Faunal remains. In Archaeological investigations in the southwestern San Juan Basin: data recovery along Navajo Route 9, Segment 2-J, Tohatchi Flats to Coyote Canyon, McKinley County, New Mexico, D. Gilpin, R. R. Fox and N. L. Kilburn, pp. 587 612. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Flagstaff.

279 Potter, J. M., D. C. Jones, S. Sherman and L. M. Gregonis 2004 Faunal remains. In From dancing man to hummingbird: long-term prehistoric change in southwest Colorado, Vol. Volume 3, Part J: Pueblo 1- Pueblo /II sites, M. L. Chenault, pp. 2-125 - 2-143. SWCA Cultural Resource Report 2003-16, Broomfield.

Prudden, T. M. 1903 The prehistoric ruins of the San Juan watershed in Utah, Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico. American Anthropologist New Series 5(2):224-288.

Prudden, T. M. 1914 The circular kivas of small ruins in the San Juan watershed. American Anthropologist New Series 16( 1):33-58.

Rawlings, T. A. 2006 Faunal analysis and meat procurement: reconstructing the sexual division of labor at Shields Pueblo, Colorado. PhD dissertation. Simon Fraser University, Burnaby.

Ray,M. 1981 Faunal material from Big Westwater Ruin. In Big Westwater Ruin, L. W. Lindsay, pp. 157-161. Bureau of Land Management Cultural Resources Series 9, Salt Lake City.

Redmond, K.M. 1993 Archaeological investigations at site LA 79422 a Pueblo I Period, Rosa Phase habitation located at the base ofSims Mesa, Rio Arriba County, New Mexico. Salmon Ruins Museum, Division of Conservation Archaeology, Technical Report No. 2626, San Juan County Museum Association, Farmington.

Reed, E. K. 1951 Turkeys in Southwestern archaeology. El Palacio 58(7): 195-205.

Reed, E. K. 1958 Excavations in Mancos Canyon, Colorado. Anthropology Papers No. 35 University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

Reed, P. F. (editor) 2000 Foundations ofAnasazi culture. The Basketmaker-Pueblo transition. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

280 Reed, P. F. 2004 Puebloan society ofChaco Canyon. Greenwood Press, London.

Reed, A. D., J. A. Hallasi, A. S. White and D. A. Breternitz 1979 The archaeology and stabilization ofthe Dominguez and Escalante Ruins. Bureau of Land Management, Denver.

Reinhard, K. J., J. R. Ambler and C. R. Szuter 2007 Hunter-gatherer use of small animal food resources: coprolite evidence. International Journal ofOsteoarchaeology 17:416-428.

Reitz, E. J. 1986 Vertebrate fauna from Locus 39, Puerto Real, Haiti. Journal ofField Archaeology 13(3):317-328.

Reitz, E. J. and E. S. Wing 1999 Zooarchaeology. Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Renfrew, C. 2001 Production and consumption in a sacred economy: the material correlates of high devotional expression at Chaco Canyon. American Antiquity 66( I): 14-25.

Renfrew, C. 2004 Chaco Canyon. A view from the outside. In In search ofChaco. New approaches to an archaeological enigma, edited by D. G. Noble, pp. 101-106. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

Renfrew, C. and J. Cherry (editors) 1986 Peer-polity interaction and socio-political change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Robinette, W. L., D. A. Jones, G. Rogers and J. S. Gashwiler 1957 Notes on tooth development and wear for Rocky Mountain mule deer. The Journal ofWildlife Management 21 (2): 134-153.

Rodeck, H. G. 1954 Animal and bird bones from the Durango sites. In Basketmaker II sites near Durango, Colorado, E. H. Morris and R. F. Burgh, pp. 117-121. Publication 604 Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington DC.

281 Rogers, A. R. 2000 Analysis of bone counts by maximum likelihood. Journal ofArchaeological Science 27: 11] -] 25.

Rohman, M. 2003 5DL3] O. In The mid-American Pipeline Company/Williams Rocky Mountain Expansion Loop Pipeline Archaeological Data Recovery Project northwestern New Mexico, western Colorado, and eastern Utah, J. C. Hom, J. Fetterman and L. Honeycutt. Bureau of Land Management, Utah State Office, Salt Lake City.

Rohman, P. 2003 5MT5498. In The mid-American Pipeline Company/Williams Rocky Mountain Expansion Loop Pipeline Archaeological Data Recovery Project northwestern New Mexico, western Colorado, and eastern Utah, J. C. Horn, J. Fetterman and L. Honeycutt. Bureau of Land Management, Utah State Office, Salt Lake City.

Rohman, M., G. Duncan and L. Honeycutt 2003 5MT550]. In The mid-American Pipeline Company/Williams Rocky Mountain Expansion Loop Pipeline Archaeological Data Recovery Project northwestern New Mexico, western Colorado, and eastern Utah, J. C. Hom, J. Fetterman and L. Honeycutt. Bureau of Land Management, Utah State Office, Salt Lake City.

Rohn, A. H. ]97] Mug House, Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado. US National Park Service Publications in Archaeology, Washington DC.

Roler, K. L. ]999 The Chaco Phenomenon: a faunal perspective from the peripheries. PhD dissertation. Arizona State University, Tempe.

Roler Durand, K. 2003 Function of Chaco-era great houses. Kiva 69(2):] 4] -] 69.

Roler Durand, K. and S. R. Durand 2006 Variations in economic and ritual fauna at Salmon Ruins. In Thirty-five years of archaeological research at Salmon Ruins, New Mexico. Volume three: archaeobotanical research and other analytical studies, edited by P. F. Reed, pp. ]079-] ]00. Center for Desert Archaeology and Salmon Ruins Museum, Tucson and Bloomfield.

282 Roler Durand, K. and S. R. Durand 2008 Animal bone from Salmon Ruins and other great houses. Faunal exploitation in the Chaco world. In Chaco's northern prodigies. Salmon, Aztec, and the ascendancy ofthe Middle San Juan region after AD 1100, edited by P. F. Reed, pp. 96-112. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Roney, J. R. 2004 Bonito-style greathouses. In Chimney Rock. The ultimate outlier, edited by J. M. Malville, pp. 123-130. Lexington Books, Oxford.

Rood, R. J. 1989 Faunal remains from LA 22089 and LA 22090. In Archaeological excavations at five Anasazi sites located at the San Juan Mine San Juan County, New Mexico, A. D. Reed, pp. 147-154. Bureau of Land Management, Farmington Resource Area, Albuquerque.

Rood, R. J. 1990 Faunal remains from 42SA3275 and 42SA10986. In In the Fremont-Anasazi transition zone: excavations in Verdwe Canyon, J. Fetterman and L. Honeycutt. On file: Utah Bureau of Land Management, San Juan Research area, Moab District, Salt Lake City.

Rood, R. J. 1993 Appendix A. Identification offaunal remains and modified bone from 5MT3876. In Preliminary report on 1990-1991 excavations ofHanson Pueblo site 5MT3876, J. N. Morris, L. Honeycutt and J. Fetterman, pp. 54-58. Indian Camp Ranch Archaeological Report No.2, Cortez.

Rood, R. J. and V. O. Rood 1984 Faunal analysis of remains from the 096 Project, northwestern New Mexico. In Anasazi pioneers: Puebloan occupational dynamics in the San Juan Coal Lease, J. D. Beal, pp. 227-247. Archaeology Division, School of American Research, Report No. 096, Santa Fe.

Rossel, S. 2004 Food for the dead, the priest, and the mayor: looking for status and identity in the Middle Kingdom settlement at South Abydos, Egypt. In Behaviour behind bones. The zooarchaeology ofritual, religion, status and identity, edited by S. J. O'Day, W. Van Neer and A. Ervynck, pp. 198-202. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Rumble, M. A. and S. H. Anderson 1996 Feeding ecology of Merriam's turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo merriami) in the Black Hills, South Dakota. American Midland Naturalist 136(1):157-171.

283 Ryan, S. C. 2002 Albert Porter Pueblo (5MTI23), Montezuma County, Colorado: Annual Report, 2002 Field Season [HTML Title]. Available: http://www.crowcanyon.org/albertporter2002. Date of use: 23 June 2007.

Ryan, S. C. 2003 Albert Porter Pueblo (5MTI23), Montezuma County, Colorado: Annual Report, 2003 Field Season [HTML Title]. Available: http://www.crowcanyon.org/albertporter2003. Date of use: 23 June 2007.

Ryan, S. C. 2004 Albert Porter Pueblo (5MTI23), Montezuma County, Colorado: Annual Report, 2004 Field Season [HTML Title]. Available: http://www.crowcanyon.org/albertporter2004. Date of use: 23 June 2007.

Santley, R. S. and E. K. Rose 1979 Diet, nutrition and population dynamics in the Basin of Mexico. World Archaeology 11(2): 185-207.

Schniebs, L. 1991 Appendix B: Faunal remains from excavations at 5AA87. In Chimney Rock Barrier Free Trail mitigation, M. C. Charles, pp. 67-74. USDA San Juan National Forest, Durango.

Schniebs, L. 1999 Faunal analysis. In Anasazi community development in Cove-Redrock Valley: archaeological excavation along the N33 Road in Apache County, Arizona, Volume II, P. F. Reed and K. N. Hensler, pp. 765-808. Navajo Nation Papers in Anthropology 33, Window Rock.

Schniebs, L. 2000 Faunal analysis. In Frances Mesa Alternative Treatment Project, Vol. Volume 1, R. H. Wilshusen, T. D. Hovezak and L. M. Sesler, pp. 435-446. La Plata Archaeological Consultants Research Papers No.3, Dolores.

Schniebs, L. 2002 Faunal analysis. In Two millennia at Tocito: archaeological and ethnographic investigations along N5000(2) road, San Juan County, New Mexico, P. F. Reed and K. N. Hensler, pp. 272-284. Navajo Nation Papers in Anthropology No. 37, Window Rock.

Schniebs, L. 2004 Faunal analysis. In El Paso Lateral A-9 Loop Pipeline Data Recovery

284 Project: Pueblo I and early Navajo sites in Rio Arriba County, New Mexico, J. D. Till and L. M. Sesler, pp. 255-266. La Plata Archaeological Consultants Research Papers No.7, Dolores.

Schniebs, L. and D. C. Irwin 1997 Faunal remains. In The Rio Puerco Bridge and Road N2007 Realignment Project. Phase I and Phase II excavations at sites AZ-P-61-74 and AZ-P-61-212, Apache County, Arizona, D. C. Irwin, pp. 303-318. La Plata Archaeological Consultants Research Papers No.2, Dolores.

Schorger, A. W. 1970 A new subspecies of Meleagris gallopavo. Auk 87: 168-170.

Schroeder, A. H. 1968 Birds and feathers in documents relating to Indians of the Southwest. In Collected papers in honor ofLyndon Lane Hargrave, edited by A. H. Schroeder, pp. 95 114. Papers of the Archaeological Society of New Mexico I, Albuquerque.

Schroeder, S. 1999 Maize productivity in the Eastern Woodlands and Great Plains of North America. American Antiquity 64(3):499-516.

Schuyler, R. L. 1971 The history of American archaeology: an examination of procedure. American Antiquity 36(4):383-409.

Scheick, C. L. 1988 Prehistoric site discussions. In Archaic, Puebloan and Navajo land use and occupation along the Middle Chaco River, C. L. Scheick, pp. 69-131. Southwest Archaeological Consultants, Southwest Report No. 181. Navajo Mine, Fruitland.

Sebastian, L. 1991 Sociopolitical complexity and the Chaco system. In Chaco & Hohokam. Prehistoric regional systems in the American Southwest, edited by P. L. Crown and W. J. Judge, pp. 109-134. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

Sebastian, L. 2004 Understanding Chacoan society. In In search ofChaco. New approaches to an archaeological enigma, edited by D. G. Noble, pp. 93-99. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

285 Sebastian, L. 2006 The Chaco synthesis. In The archaeology ofChaco Canyon. An eleventh-century Pueblo regional center, edited by S. H. Lekson, pp. 393-422. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

Senior, L. M. and L. J. Pierce 1989 Turkeys and domestication in the Southwest: impl ications from Homol'ovi. Kiva 54:231-259.

Service, E. 1962 Primitive social organization. Random House, New York.

Shaffer, B. S. 1992a Interpretation of gopher remains from Southwestern archaeological assemblages. American Antiquity 57(4):683-691.

Shaffer, B. S. 1992b Quarter-inch screening: understanding biases in recovery of vertebrate faunal remains. American Antiquity 57( I): 129-136.

Shaffer, B. S. and J. A. Neely 1992 Intrusive Anuran remains in pit house features: a test of methods. Kiva 57(4):343-351.

Shelley, S. D. 1993 Analysis of the faunal remains from the Wallace Ruin: a Chacoan outlier near Cortez, Colorado. PhD dissertation. Washington State University, Pullman.

Shennan, S. 1997 Quantifying archaeology. University of Iowa Press, Iowa City.

Shipman, P. 1981 Life history ofa fossil. An introduction to taphonomy and paleoecology. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

Simpson, J. H. 1874 The ruins to be found in New Mexico, and the explorations of Francisco Vasquez De Coronado in search of the Seven Cities of Cibola. Journal ofthe American Geographical Society ofNew York 5: 194-216.

286 Smith, H. L. 1974 Faunal analysis of U-95 material. In Highway U-95 archaeology: Comb Wash to Grand Flat. Vol. Volume 11, C. J. Wilson, pp. 204-206. University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

Smith, E. A. 1983 Anthropological implications of optimal foraging theory: a critical review. Current Anthropology 25:625-651.

Smith, W. P. 1991 Odocoileus virginianus. Mammalian Species 388:1-13.

Smith, E. A. and B. Winterhalder (editors) 1992 Evolutionary ecology and human behavior. Aldine de Gruyter, New York.

Smith, E. A. and M. Wishnie 2000 Conservation and subsistence in small-scale societies. Annual Review of Anthropology 29:493-524.

Smith, S. J., M. H. Matthews, K. N. Hensler and L. Schniebs 1999 Analyses of subsistence: pollen, macrobotanical, and faunal results. In A Pueblo I household on the Chuska Slope. Data recovery at NM-H-47-102, along Navajo Route 5010( I) near Toadlena, New Mexico, K. N. Hensler, P. F. Reed, S. Wilcox, J. Goff and J. A. Torres, pp. 39-49. Navajo Nation Papers in Anthropology No. 35, Window Rock.

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. A. Rowley-Conwy, pp. 89-105. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Speth, J. D. and S. L. Scott 1989 Horticulture and large-mammal hunting: the role of resource depletion and the constrains of time and labor. In Farmers as hunters. The implications of sedentism, edited by S. Kent, pp. 71-79. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Spielmann, K. A. 1990 Introduction: Hunters and gatherers. In Perspectives on Southwestern Prehistory, edited by P. E. Minnis and C. L. Redman, pp. 9-14. Westview Press, Boulder.

287 Spielmann, K. A. 1991 Farmers, hunters, and colonist: interaction between the Southwest and the southern plains. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Spielmann, K. A. and E. A. Angstadt-Leto 1996 Hunting, gathering, and health in the prehistoric Southwest. In Evolving complexity and environmental risk in the prehistoric Southwest, edited by J. A. Tainter and B. B. Tainter, pp. 79-106. Addison-Wesley., Reading.

Spradley, J. P. and D. W. McCurdy 1990 Conformity & conflict. Readings in cultural anthropology. Scott, ForesmanlLittle, Brown Higher Education, London.

Stahl, P. W. 1999 Structural density of domesticated South American camelid skeletal elements and the archaeological investigation of prehistoric Andean ch'arki. Journal of Archaeological Science 26:1347-1368.

Stebbins, R. C. 1966 A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.

Steggerda, M. and R. B. Eckardt ] 94] Navajo foods and their preparation. Journal ofAmerican Dietetic Association ]7(3):2] 7-225.

Stiger, M. A. ]979 Mesa Verde subsistence patterns from Basketmaker to Pueblo III. Kiva 44(2 3): 133-] 44.

Stratton, S. K. ]993a Faunal analysis: Towaoc Canal Reach III. In Archaeological investigations on prehistoric sites Reach III ofthe Towaoc Canal Ute Mountain Ute Reservation Montezuma County, Colorado, Vol. Volume II, M. Errickson, pp. 619-649. Four Corners Archaeological Project Report No. 21. Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake City.

Stratton, S. K. 1993b Faunal remains from N2030. In Data recovery atfour sites along N2030, Segment 2, Chambers-Sanders Trust Lands, Apache County, Arizona, M. Zyniecki, pp. 22]-226. SWCA Archaeological Report No. 92-16, Bloomfield.

288 Stratton, S. K. 1996 Faunal remains from six prehistoric sites, Lee Ranch. In Phase III excavations on the Lee Ranch Mine: living on thefringe, J. V. Biella and C. L. Scheick, pp. 447-469. SW 304. Lee Ranch Coal, San Mateo.

Stratton, S. K. 1999 Faunal remains. In Chuska chronologies, houses, and hogans: archaeological and ethnographic inquiry along N30-N3/ between Mexico Springs and Navajo, McKinley County, New Mexico, Vol. Volume III Part I Analysis, J. E. Damp, pp. 377-439. Zuni Cultural Resource Enterprise Research Report No. 466, Zuni.

Stratton, S. K. 2004a Faunal remains. In From dancing man to hummingbird: long-term prehistoric change in southwest Colorado, Vol. Volume 2, Part I: Basketmaker III sites, M. L. Chenault, pp. 2-103 - 2-116. SWCA Cultural Resource Report 2003-16, Broomfield.

Stratton, S. K. 2004b Faunal remains. In From dancing man to hummingbird: long-term prehistoric change in southwest Colorado, Vol. Volume 2, Part I: Basketmaker III sites, M. L. Chenault, pp. 4-66 - 4-70. SWCA Cultural Resource Report 2003- 16, Broomfield.

Stratton, S. K. 2004c Faunal remains. In From dancing man to hummingbird: long-term prehistoric change in southwest Colorado, Vol. Volume 2, Part 2, and Appendix A: Basketmaker III sites, M. L. Chenault, pp. 5-116 - 5-185. SWCA Cultural Resource Report 2003-16, Broomfield.

Stratton, S. K. 2004d Faunal remains. In From dancing man to hummingbird: long-term prehistoric change in southwest Colorado, Vol. Volume 3, Part 2, and Appendix A: Pueblo I - Pueblo III sites, M. L. Chenault, pp. 4-82 - 4-90. SWCA Cultural Resource Report 2003-16, Broomfield.

Stratton, S. K. 2004e Faunal remains. In From dancing man to hummingbird: long-term prehistoric change in southwest Colorado, Vol. Volume 3, Part 2, and Appendix A: Pueblo I - Pueblo III sites, M. L. Chenault, pp. 5-57 - 5-68. SWCA Cultural Resource Report 2003-16, Broomfield.

Stratton, S. and J. Zunie 1994 Faunal remains. In Excavations at Early Puebloan sites in the Puerco River Valley, Arizona: the N-2007 Project, M. B. Sant and M. Marek, pp. 441-472. Zuni Archaeology Program Report No. 271, Zuni.

289 Stratton, S. K., J. Zunie and R. D. Leonard 2000 Faunal remains from Oak Wash. In The archaeology and ethnohistory ofOak Wash, Zuni Indian Reservation, New Mexico, Part I, T. L. Howell, pp. 649-670. Zuni Cultural Resource Enterprise Research Report No. 664, Zuni.

Stefansson, V. 1920 Food tastes and food prejudices of men and dogs. The Scientific Monthly 11 (6):540-543.

Stein, J. R., D. Ford and R. Friedman 2003 Reconstructing Pueblo Bonito. In Pueblo Bonito. Center ofthe Chacoan world, edited by J. E. Neitzel, pp. 33-60. Smithsonian Books, London.

Stewart, F. L. and P. W. Stahl 1977 Cautionary note on edible meat poundage figures. American Antiquity 42(2):267-270.

Steward, K. M. and R. J. Wigen 2003 Screen size and the need for reinterpretation: a case study from the Northwest Coast. Bulletin ofthe Florida Museum ofNatural History 44(1 ):27-34.

Stiles, D. 1977 Ethnoarchaeology: a discussion of methods and applications. Man 12(1 ):87-1 03.

Stiner, M. C. 1986 Analysis of faunal remains from six sites near Low Mountain, Arizona. In Economic responsiveness: the changing role ofsmall sites in subsistence strategies, C. L. Scheick, pp. 329-349. Zuni Archaeology Program & Southwest Archaeological Consultants. Southwest Report No. 153, Zuni.

Stiner, M. C. 1994 Honor among thieves: a zooarchaeological study ofNeandertal ecology. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Stuart, D. E. 2000 Anasazi America. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Stubblefield, S. S., R. J. Warren and B. R. Murphy 1986 Hybridization of free-ranging white-tailed and mule deer in Texas. The Journal of Wildlife Management 50(4):688-690.

290 Symmons, R. 2002 Bone density variation between similar animals and bone density variation in early life: implications for future taphonomic analysis. In Biosphere to lithosphere. New studies in vertebrate taphonomy, edited by T. O'Connor, pp. 86-93. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Szuter, C. R. 1990 Community organization, households, and animal procurement in the American Southwest. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Conference for Archaeozoology, Washington DC.

Szuter, C. R. 1991 Hunting by prehistoric horticulturalists in the American Southwest. Garland Publishing, New York.

Szuter, C. R. 1994 Nutrition, small mammals, and agriculture. In Paleonutrition: the diet and health ofprehistoric Americans, edited by K. D. Sobolik, pp. 55-65. Center for Archaeological Investigations Occasional Paper No. 22. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

Szuter, C. R. 2000 Gender and animals: hunting technology, ritual, and subsistence in the greater Southwest. In Women and men in the prehispanic Southwest: labor, power, and prestige, edited by P. Crown, pp. 169-196. School of American Research, Santa Fe.

Szuter, C. R. and F. E. Bayham 1989 Sedentism and prehistoric animal procurement among desert horticulturalists of the North American Southwest. In Farmers as hunters. The implications ofsedentism, edited by S. Kent, pp. 80-95. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

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 methodsfor the study ofprehistoric social organization, edited by W. H. Wills and R. D. Leonard, pp. 67-76. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Talbot, R., A. Bingham and A. S. Nielsen 1982 Final Report Archaeological Investigations at 42SA9937 (Aromatic Village) in San Juan County, Utah. Brigham Young Uni versity Museum of Peoples and Cultures Technical Series No. 82-55, Provo.

291 Tainter, J. A. and F. Plog 1994 Strong and weak patterning in Southwestern prehistory. The formation of Puebloan archaeology. In Themes in Southwest prehistory, edited by G. J. Gumerman, pp. 165-] 82. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

Tarcan, C. G. 2005 Counting sheep: fauna, contact, and colonialism at Zuni Pueblo, New Mexico, A.D. ]300-] 900. PhD dissertation. Simon Fraser University, Burnaby.

Taylor, R. V. and S. K. Albert 1999 Human hunting of nongame birds at Zuni, New Mexico, U.S.A. Conservation Biology 13(6):1398-]403.

Thackeray, J. F. and T. Van Leuvan Smith 200] Implications of crown height measurements of alcelaphine molars from Kromdraai A, South Africa. Annals ofthe Transvaal Museum 38:9-] 2.

Thackeray, J. F., F. Senegas and G. Laden 2005 Manganese dioxide staining on hominid crania from Sterkfontein and Swartkrans: possible associations with lichen. South African Journal ofScience 10]:I.

Thompson, C. ]990 Anasazi social boundaries and resource access: the faunal evidence from Nancy Patterson Village, Utah. MA thesis. Brigham Young University, Provo.

Toll, H. W. 1984 Trends in ceramic import and distribution in Chaco Canyon. In Recent research on Chaco prehistory, edited by W. J. Judge and J. D. Schelberg, pp. ] ]5 ] 35. Reports on the Chaco Center No.8. National Park Service, Albuquerque.

Toll, H. W. ]985 An overview of Chaco Canyon macrobotanical materials and analysis to date. In Environment and subsistence ofChaco Canyon New Mexico, edited by F. J. Mathien, pp. 247-277. National Park Service, Albuquerque.

Toll, H. W. 200] Making and breaking pots in the Chaco world. American Antiquity 66(l ):56 78.

Toll, H. W., M. S. Toll, M. L. Newren and W. B. Gillespie ]985 Experimental corn plots in Chaco Canyon. The life and hard times ofZea mays L. In Environment and subsistence ofChaco Canyon, New Mexico, edited by F. J. Mathien,

292 pp. 79-133. Publications in Archaeology 18E, Chaco Canyon Studies. National Park Service, Albuquerque.

Toll, H. W. and P. J. McKenna 1987 The ceramography of Pueblo Alto. In Investigations at the Pueblo Alto complex, Chaco canyon, New Mexico 1975-]979. Volume III Part ]. Artifactual and biological analyses, edited by F. J. Mathien and T. C. Windes, pp. 19-230. Publications in Archaeology 18F, Chaco Canyon Studies. National Park Service, Santa Fe.

Trigger, B. G. 2005 A history ofarchaeological thought. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Trolle-Lassen, T. 1990 Butchering of red deer (Cervus elaphus L.)- a case study from the Late Mesolithic settlement of Tybrind Vig, Denmark. Journal ofDanish Archaeology 9:7-37.

Trumble, K. M. 1983 Faunal remains. In Archaeological investigations between Manuelito Canyon and Whitewater Arroyo, northwest New Mexico. Volume II, R. Anyon and S. M. Collins, pp. 613-648. Zuni Archaeology Program Report No. 185, Zuni.

Tucker, G. C. 2004 Chimney Rock as a Chacoan port-of-trade. In Chimney Rock: the ultimate outlier, edited by J. M. Malville, pp. 89-98. Lexington Books, Lanham.

Turner, A. 1983 The quantification of relative abundances in fossil and subfossil bone assemblages. Annals ofthe Transvaal Museum 33(20):311-321.

Turner, C. G. and J. A. Turner 1999 Man corn: cannibalism and violence in the prehistoric American Southwest. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Tyler, H. A. 1964 Pueblo gods and myths. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Tyler, H. A. 1975 Pueblo animals and myths. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

293 Upham, S., K. G. Lightfoot and R. A. Jewett (editors) 1989 The sociopolitical structure ofprehistoric Southwestern societies. Westview Press, London.

Vander Wall, S. B., S. W. Hoffman and W. K. Potts 1981 Emigration behavior of Clarke's nutcracker. The Condor 83(2): 162-170.

Van Dyke, R. M. 2000 Chacoan ritual landscapes. The view from the Red Mesa Valley. In Great house communities across the Chacoan landscape, edited by J. Kantner and N. M. Mahoney, pp. 91-100. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Van Dyke, R. M. 2004 Chaco's sacred geography. In In search ofChaco. New approaches to an archaeological enigma, edited by D. G. Noble, pp. 79-85. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

Van Dyke, R. M. 2007 Great kivas in time, space, and society. In The architecture ofChaco Canyon, New Mexico, edited by S. H. Lekson, pp. 93-126. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Van Rossem, A. J. 1945 A distributional survey ofthe birds ofSonora, Mexico. Louisiana State University, Museum of Zoology Occasional Paper 21. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge.

Varien, M. D. 1999 Sedentism and mobility in a social landscape: Mesa Verde and beyond. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Varien, M. D. 2000 Communities and the Chacoan regional system. In Great house communities across the Chacoan landscape, edited by J. Kantner and N. M. Mahoney, pp. 149- 156. Anthropological papers of the University of Arizona No. 64. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Varien, M. D. 2002 Persistent communities and mobile households. Population movement in the central Mesa Verde region A.D. 950 to 1290. In Seeking the central place. Archaeology and ancient communities in the Mesa Verde region, edited by M. D. Varien and R. H. Wilshusen, pp. 163-184. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

294 Varien, M. and J. M. Potter ]997 Unpacking the discard equation: simulating the accumulation of artifacts in the archaeological record. American Antiquity 62(2):] 94-2] 3.

Varien, M. and S. G. Ortman 2005 Accumulations research in the Southwest United States: middle-range theory for big-picture problems. World Archaeology 37(1):] 32-] 55.

Varien, M. D., S. G. 0, T. A. Kohler, D. M. Glowacki and C. D. Johnson 2007 Historical ecology in the Mesa Verde region: results from the Village Ecodynamics Project. American Antiquity 72(2):273-299.

Vigne, J-D. and M-C. Marinval-Vigne ]983 Methode pour la mise en evidence de la consummation du petit gibier. In Animals and archaeology: 1. Hunters and theirprey, edited by J. Clutton-Brock and C. Grigson, pp. 239-242. British Archaeological Reports International Series, Oxford.

Vivian, R. G. ]989 Kluckhohn reappraised: the Chacoan system as an egalitarian enterprise. Journal of Anthropological Research 45(]): I01-] 13.

Vivian, R. G. 1990 The Chacoan prehistory ofthe San Juan Basin. Academic Press, Toronto.

Vivian, R. G. and B. Hilpert 2002 The Chaco handbook. An encyclopedic guide. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Vivian, R. G., C. R. Van West, J. S. Dean, N. Akins, M. Toll and T. Windes 2006 Chacoan ecology and economy. In The archaeology ofChaco Canyon. An eleventh-century Pueblo regional center, edited by S. H. Lekson, pp. 45-65. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

Waguespack, N. M. and T. A. Surovell 2003 Clovis hunting strategies, or How to make out on plentiful resources. American Antiquity 68(2):333-352.

Walker, D. N. ]993 Faunal remains. In The Duckfoot site. Volume 1. Descriptive archaeology, edited by R. R. Lightfoot and M. C. Etzkorn, pp. 239-252. Occasional Paper No.3. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez.

295 Walth, C. K. 2004 Faunal remains. In From dancing man to hummingbird: long-term prehistoric change in Southwest Colorado, Vol. Volume 2, Part 1: Basketmaker III sites, M. L. Chennault, pp. 3-49 - 3-63. SWCA Cultural Resource Report 2003-16, Broomfield.

Warburton, M. and D. K. Graves 1992 Navajo Springs, Arizona: frontier outlier or autonomous great house? Journal of Field Archaeology 19:51-69.

Watson, R. P. and D. Dykeman 1987a Chapter 9: LA 35689. In Archaeological investigations at Newcomb, New Mexico, R. P. Watson, pp. 65-80. San Juan College Research Papers in Anthropology No.2, Farmington.

Watson, R. P. and D. Dykeman 1987b Chapter II: LA 35690. In Archaeological investigations at Newcomb, New Mexico, R. P. Watson, pp. 81--107. San Juan College Research Papers in Anthropology No.2, Farmington.

Watson, R. P. and D. Dykeman 1987c Chapter 12: LA 35693. In Archaeological investigations at Newcomb, New Mexico, R. P. Watson, pp. 122-146. San Juan College Research Papers in Anthropology No.2, Farmington.

Watson, R. P., S. E. Bearden, K. M. Langenfeld and A. S. Rorex 1989 Outside looking in: small site archaeology on Crouch Mesa, San Juan County, New Mexico. San Juan College Research Papers in Anthropology No.4, Farmington.

Weber, N. 2005 The distribution and use of cattle products in northern highland Ethiopia. MA thesis. Simon Fraser University, Burnaby.

Wentworth, E. N. 1956 Dried meat: early man's travel ration. Agricultural History 30( I ):2-1 O.

Wheeler Smith, R. L. 1997 Faunal remains. In The Mitchell Springs Ruin Group. Archaeological investigations, 1990-1994. A descriptive summary ofafive-year testing program, D. E. Dove, R. L. Wheeler Smith and D. M. Dove, pp. 51-82. Archaeological Report No. I. Glendale Community College, Glendale.

296 White, L. A. 1935 The pueblo of Santo Domingo, New Mexico. Memoirs ofthe American Anthropological Association 43: 1-210.

White, T. E. 1953 A method of calculating the dietary percentage of various food animals utilized by Aboriginal peoples. American Antiquity 18(4):396-398.

White, T. D. 1977 An analysis of the 1976 faunal remains. In Hovenweep 1976, J. C. Winter, pp. 237-242. Archaeological Report No.3, San Jose State University, San Jose.

Whitten, P. ]982 Excavation at the Crawford Site, a Basketmaker lll- Pueblo I site near Crownpoint, New Mexico. Division of Conservation Archaeology, San Juan County, Archaeological Research Center and Library, Contributions to Anthropology No. 307, Bloomfield.

Wilcox, S. 1995 Limited data recovery at LA 66705 located along Meridian Oil, Inc. 's Lateral MA-7 Loop pipeline in the Fruitland Coal Gas Development Area, Rio Arriba County, New Mexico. San Juan County Research Center and Library, Bloomfield.

Wilcox, D. R. 2004 The evolution of the Chacoan polity. In Chimney Rock. The ultimate outlier, edited by J. M. MalviJle, pp. ]63-200. Lexington Books, Oxford.

Wills, W. H. 200] Ritual and mound formation during the Bonito Phase in Chaco Canyon. American Antiquity 66(3):433-451.

Wills, W. H. and P. L. Crown. 2004 Commensal politics in the prehispanic Southwest. An introductory review. In Identity, feasting, and the archaeology ofthe greater Southwest, edited by B. J. Mills, pp. 153-172. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.

Wilshusen, R. H. 1999 Pueblo I (A.D. 750-900). In Colorado prehistory: a contextfor the southern Colorado River Basin, edited by W. D. Lipe, M. D. Varien and R. H. Wilshusen, pp. /96-241. Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists, Cortez.

297 Wilshusen, R. H. 2002 Estimating population in the central Mesa Verde region. In Seeking the central place. Archaeology and ancient communities in the Mesa Verde region, edited by M. D. Varien and R. H. Wilshusen, pp. 101-120. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Windes, T. C. 1987 Investigations at the Pueblo Alto complex, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, 1975-1979. Volume II, Part 2. Architecture and stratigraphy. Publications in Archaeology 18F, Chaco Canyon Studies. National Park Service, Santa Fe.

Windes, T. C. 2003 This old house. Construction and abandonment at Pueblo Bonito. In Pueblo Bonito. Center ofthe Chacoan world, edited by J. E. Neitzel, pp. 14-32. Smithsonian Books, London.

Windes, T. c., R. M. Anderson, B. K. Johnson and C. A. Ford 2000 Sunrise, sunset: sedentism and mobility in the Chaco East Community. In Great house communities across the Chacoan landscape, edited by J. Kantner and N. M. Mahoney, pp. 39-59. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Winterhalder, B. and E. A. Smith (editors) 1981 Hunter-gathererforaging strategies. Ethnographic and archaeological analyses. University of Chicago Press, Chicago"

Winterhalder, B. and C. Goland. 1997 An evolutionary ecology perspective on diet choice, risk, and plant domestication. In People, plants, and landscapes: studies in paleoethnobotany, edited by K. J. Gremillion, pp. 123-160. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Wing, E. S. and A. Brown 1979 Paleonutrition: method and theory in prehistoricfoodways. Academic Press, New York.

Yang, D. Y., J. R. Woiderski and J. C. Driver 2005 DNA analysis of archaeological rabbit remains from the American Southwest. Journal ofArchaeological Science 32:567-578.

Zeder, M. A. 2006 Central questions in the domestication of plants and animals. Evolutionary Anthropology 15: 105-117.

298 Zunie, J. 1990 Faunal materials from selected sites. In Archaeological testing along New Mexico State Highway 53,from Nutria Road to the Pinehill Road, McKinley and Cibola Counties, New Mexico, R. Vercruysse and H. Drollinger, pp. 175-184. Zuni Archaeology Program Report No. 264, Zuni.

Zunie, J. 199 I Faunal remains. In Duration, tempo, and the archaeological record: excavations at Site AZ-P-60-31, L. C. Todd and R. Alam-Parry, pp. 159-167. Zuni Archaeology Program Report No.3 I6, Zuni.

Zunie, J. 1992 Faunal remains. In Testing and excavation along New Mexico State Highway 53, between the Pueblo ofZuni and the Arizona state line, Zuni 1ndian Reservation, McKinley County, New Mexico, T. J. Chadderdon, pp. 391-396. Zuni Archaeology Report No. 289, Zuni.

Zunie, J. 1996 Faunal material from five Jeddito sites. In Archaeological extent testing along Navajo Route 9101, Jeddito Road, Navajo County, Arizona, D. C. Eck, pp. 41 I-418. Zuni Cultural Resource Enterprise Report No. 491, Zuni.

Zunie, J. 1997 Faunal remains. In Archaeological nature and extent testing, haer documentation of one bridge site, and identification and assessment ofa Chacoan linearfeature, along Navajo Route N5001(1), Toadlena to Newcomb, San Juan County, New Mexico, G. L. Prouty, pp. 461-465. Navajo Nation Historical Preservation Department, Roads Planning Section, Zuni Cultural Resource Enterprise Report No. 512, Shiprock.

Zunie, J. 2004a Analysis of faunal remains. In To command and carry the water: an archaeological inventory and analysis ofthe excavations at K'yawa:Na'a Deyatchinanne (NM:12:K3:392) Zuni, New Mexico, J. Damp and J. Waseta, pp. 213 220. Zuni Cultural Resource Enterprise Report No. 670, Zuni.

Zunie, J. 2004b Faunal analysis. In The Blackrock Project revisited: data recovery excavations at two sites (LA 12840 and LA 12841) along Zuni Route 301 North, Zuni 1ndian Reservation, McKinley County, New Mexico, J. Murrell, J. Damp and D. Quam, pp. 145-150. Zuni Cultural Resource Enterprise Report No. 852, Zuni.

Zunie, J. 2005 Faunal material. In Phase 11 data recovery at sites NM-Q-25-51 and NM-Q-25-52 along County Road 19 Borrego Pass, McKinley County, New Mexico, K. E. Dongoske

299 and D. K. Quam, pp. 174-177. Zuni Cultural Resource Enterprise Report No. 834, Flagstaff.

Zunie, J. and R. D. Leonard 1987 Faunal materials from NM: 12:K3:4. In Survey, testing, and excavation along New Mexico State Highway 53, between the Black Rock CutoffRoad and the Nutria Road, Zuni Indian Reservation, McKinley County, New Mexico, M. Varien, pp. 192-202. Zuni Archaeology Program Report No. 232, Zuni.

Zunie, J. and B. S. Hildebrant 1989 Faunal remains from Redrock Valley. In The archaeology and ethnohistory of Redrock Valley: a study ofprehistoric and historic land use in northeastern Arizona, Volume 1, B. S. Hildebrant, pp. 418-437. Zuni Archaeology Program Report No. 262, Zuni.

Zunie, J. and R. D. Leonard 1990 Faunal data base. In Excavations at three prehistoric sites along Pia Mesa Road, Zuni Indian Reservation, McKinley County, New Mexico, M. Varien, pp. 251-262. Zuni Archaeological Program Report No. 233, Zuni.

Zunie, J. and W. R. Lataday 1992 Faunal remains. In Archaeological discoveries at the Little Chambers Rural Housing Cluster: excavations at Site AZ-P-53-7, W. R. Latady, pp. 185-190. Zuni Archaeological Report No. 331, Zuni.

300 APPENDIX A: IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES (ADAPTED FROM DRIVER 2005)

Manual for Description of Vertebrate Remains Introduction This manual is designed to standardize the description of vertebrate faunal remains (excluding human skeletons) from sites excavated by CCAC. The use of a standardized descriptive system has advantages and disadvantages. The advantages are fairly obvious - comparability between different sites and, more importantly, different analysts. The disadvantage of a standardized system is that individual researchers are constrained by various biases of the author of the system. On the other hand, you may find that some description is imprecise, or even that attributes you consider highly significant have been ignored. All standardized systems of description are a compromise. However, you should bear in mind the following points: a. you are welcome to record more detailed descriptions for your own research, provided that you keep your data separate from the standardized database; b. there is a "comments" field on the database, which allows you to store extra information; c. there are provisions for adding new codes to the descriptive fields established by this system.

Emphasis has been placed on descriptions which are likely to be of use for zooarchaeological research. Thus, in element descriptions you will find that some areas of the skeleton have been treated in less detail than others. For example, individual carpal bones are not named because there is no analytical value in separating individual carpals.

Identification and Description Every bone fragment will be described individually on a single line of a standard form or database, using codes supplied in this manual. Only bones with the same FS number can be recorded on the same coding form. Information is recorded in the following fields:

Site Use the site designation supplied by CCAC. Bones from different sites must not be recorded on the same sheet.

301 PD# This information should be on or in the bag containing the bones. This information is recorded once at the top of the form. Bones with different PD designations must not be recorded on the same sheet.

FS# This information should be on or in the bag containing the bones. This information is recorded once at the top of the form. Bones with different FS designations must not be recorded on the same sheet.

Taxon The identification of bone fragments is a complex process, and different zooarchaeologists approach this task in different ways. It is important to observe the following rules:

a. The only bones which are to be considered "identifiable" are those for which the element can be specified. NO identification to any taxonomic level (even of the "large mammal" or "small bird" variety) will be allowed unless the element is identified. Terms such as "long bone" or "axial" do not qualify as element descriptions. b. It is very important to define a "universe" of species from which the animal remains are assumed to derive. (Most zooarchaeologists do this unconsciously, and rarely make their decisions explicit). This is because virtually all zooarchaeological identification presupposes that certain animals are likely to be represented at a certain time and location. To take an example, when we are working on 13th century Anasazi sites, we will assume that the bears we find may be black bears or grizzlies; we will not bother to check our archaeological specimens against polar bears or Old World bear species, even though it might be difficult to distinguish those species from North American species on the basis of osteology. For analyses of faunal assemblages of the last few thousand years, it will be assumed that the extant and historically known faunas of southern Colorado and Utah and northern New Mexico and Arizona provide the universe from which our specimens are drawn. Definition of this universe does not preclude the possibility of more exotic species being identified. However, these will normally only be identified when it can be positively demonstrated that an Anasazi area species cannot be represented by a particular bone.

302 c. Identification may be made to standard zoological classifications, such as species, genus, family etc. Zooarchaeologists often use less formal categories such as "large bird", "medium artiodactyl", and terms such as these can also be used. d. In order to be confident of identifications, you must be able to justify your choice of taxon. This is best done by comparing your specimen with all taxa from the local faunal "universe". In practice this is achieved rapidly, because your general knowledge of anatomy will allow you to eliminate most taxa from consideration. However, you should only identify to a particular "level of identifiability" if you are sure that the identification will bear scrutiny. In other words, you can only identify to the species level, if you can definitely exclude all other species of the same genus in the study area. You can only identify to genus if you can exclude all other genera from the same family in the study area. You can only identify to family if you can exclude all other families from the same order in the study area etc. e. Each bone or bone fragment must be identified on its own merits. For example, if a burial of a dog was excavated, some bones would be referred to species while others (e.g. the ribs and vertebrae) would be referable only to the genus or family level. You can use the "comments" section to note the presence of articulating specimens. £. Remember that there is no disgrace in not being able to identify bone fragments to the species level. Most species are defined by a host of characters, most of which will not preserve in the skeleton. It is much better to be conservative than over-confident. Once the analysis is finished and interpretation begins, you may wish to make some assumptions about the bones identified. For example, if all the artiodactyls identified to species are from deer, you may wish to assume (perhaps for the purposes of studying body parts represented) that all "medium artiodactyls" are also deer. This can be stated in the faunal report, and would be quite a reasonable assumption; it would be unreasonable to make such an assumption while bone fragments were being identified.

Element Element refers to the whole bone of which you may either find a complete specimen or a fragment. There are fairly well standardized names for most of the individual bones in vertebrate skeletons, although fish bones are not particularly well standardized and there is still controversy about which system should be used. Although we should ideally be able to specify elements fairly exactly, this is not always possible. For example, we may be able to identify the proximal phalanx of a deer, yet not determine whether it is from digit III or digit IV.

303 Part These codes refer to the portion of the element that is represented.

Side These can be coded as left, right, irrelevant (e.g. for the vertebral column), or unknown.

Fusion Each fragment must receive a two letter code for fusion.

Breakage Each fragment receives a two letter code.

Modification This refers to either natural or cultural alteration to the bone.

Length Each fragment is measured using a centimeter scale.

Cortical thickness This is measured (in mm) only for long bones. It is designed mainly to allow the analyst to assign a size range for otherwise unidentifiable long bone fragments.

304 APPENDIXB LIST OF ASSEMBLAGES USED TO CALCULATE INDICES

more than Site Time [ Type 50 NISP? Reference REGION 1 5MT2525 BIII yes Bertram 1991 5MT8837 BIII yes Akins 1988a 1644 BIII no Hayes and Lancaster 1975 1676 BIII yes Hayes and Lancaster 1975 42SA6403 BIII no Emslie 1985 42SA6757 BIII yes Emslie 1985 42SA8875 BIII no Nielson et al. 1985 42SA8880 BIII no Nielson et al. 1985 42SA8889 BIII yes Nielson et al. 1985 42SA8542 BIII no Emslie 1982 42SA8543 BIII yes Emslie 1982 42SA8545 BIII yes Emslie 1982 42SA8540 BIII yes Emslie 1982 5DL309 BIII no Fetterman and Honeycutt 1982 Tres Bobos BIII yes Emsl ie 1986a Engineers Ltd. BIII no Mohr and Sample no date 42SA3775 BIll yes Beisaw 2004 5MT9387 BIll yes Stratton 2004b 5MT9343 BIll yes Walth 2004 5MT9168 BIll yes Stratton 2004a 5MTI1861 BIll yes Stratton 2004c MV1554 BIll no Birkedal 1976 MVI940 BIll yes BirkedaJ 1976 MV1553 BIll yes Birkedal 1976 5DLlI05 BIll no Bertram 1999 5DLl091 BIll no Bertram 1999 5DLl21B BIll yes Bertram 1999 5DLll2 BIII yes Bertram 1999 5DLl120 BIll yes Bertram 1999 5MT9540 BIII no Stratton 1993a 42SA20977 BIII no Beezley 1998 5MT5458 BIII yes Brown 2003 5DL31O BIII yes M. Rohman 2003 5MTl1431 BIII yes Fetterman and Honeycutt 1995

305 5MT8937 BIll yes Errickson 1995 5MT8899 BIll yes Bertram 1992 5MT3 BIll no Hurth 1977 5MT4003 BIIIJPI no Applegarth and Feldman 1981 5MT4006 BIIIJPI yes Applegarth and Feldman 1981 42SA8014 BIIIJPI no Emslie 1985 Apricot Hamlet BIIIJPI yes Emslie 1986b Aldea Sierritas BIII/PI yes Neusius 1986a Prairie Dog Hamlet BIIIJPI yes Emslie 1986c Dos Casas Hamlet BIII/PI yes Emslie 1986e LA6075I BIIIJPI no Mick-O'Hara 1994 LA37594 BIll/PI no Mick-O'Hara 1994 LA37595 BIIIJPI yes Mick-O'Hara 1994 LA37605 BIIIJPI yes Mick-O'Hara 1994 LA2386 BIIIJPIII no Gilmore 1958 42SA8876 BIll+PII no Nielson et al. 1985 42SA6396 BIll+PII yes Emslie 1985 Site 3 BIll+PIll no Reed 1958 HOV24 BIll-PIlI no White 1977 HOV49 BIll-PIlI no White 1977 HOV520 BIll-PIlI no White 1977 HOV47 BIll-PIlI no White 1977 Site 11 BIll-PIlI no Reed 1958 5MT2826 PI yes Marion 1985 5MT8838 PI yes Akins 1988a 5MT4002 PI no Applegarth and Feldman 1981 5MT4007 PI yes Applegarth and Feldman 1981 5MTUMR2153 PI no Nordby 1973 42SAI2209 PI no Fetterman et at. 1988 Duckfoot PI yes Walker 1993 Casa Bodega Hamlet PI no Emslie 1986d Windy Wheat Hamlet PI yes Neusius I986b Periman Hamlet PI yes Neusius 1986d Le Moe Shelter (2) PI yes Neusius 1986e Le Moe Shelter (I) PI yes Neusius 1986e Pri nee Hamlet (I ) PI yes Neusius I986f Prince Hamlet (2) PI yes Neusius 1986f

306 Grass Mesa PI yes Neusius and Gould 1988 LA50337 PI yes Mick-O'Hara 1993a Pueblo C PI no Wheeler Smith 1997 5MT90n PI yes Errickson 1995 5MT8934 PI no Bertram 1992 Shields Pueblo (5MT3807) PI yes Rawlings 2006 096-04 PI/II/I1I no Rood and Rood 1984 5MT2527 PIIPH yes Bertram 1991 42SA9937 PI/PH yes Talbot et al. 1982 NPVl PIIPH yes Thompson 1990 Casa Roca PIIPH no Neusius I986c Le Moc Shelter (3) PIIPH yes Neusius 1986e McPhee PIIPH yes Neusius 1988 LA2388 PIIPH no Gilmore 1958 5MT7522 PIIPH yes Potter et al. 2004 5MT2831 PIIPIII yes Marion 1985 LA2389 PIIPIII no Gilmore 1958 5MT2519 PH no Bertram 1991 5MT2544 PH yes Bertram 1991 5MT837I PH yes Akins 1986 5MT8834 PH yes Akins 1988a 5MT8836 PH yes Akins 1988a 5MT8829 PH yes Akins 1988a 5MT8827 PH yes Akins 1988a 5MT8839 PH yes Akins 1988a 866 PH yes Anderson 1966 Mug House A PH no Rohn 1971 Mug House B PH yes Rohn 1971 Site 7 PH no Reed 1958 Site I PH yes Reed 1958 5MTUMR1200 PH yes Nordby 1973 5MT2433 PH no Morris 1986 5MTUMR2837 PH yes Emslie 1978 5MT1786 PH yes Kent 1989b Two Raven House PH yes Hayes no date 42SA8908 PH yes Nielson et al. 1985 42SA8887 PH yes Nielson et al. 1985 42SA17346 PH yes Czaplewski 1988

307 Le Moc Shelter (5) PH yes Neusius I986e Le Moc Shelter (4) PH yes Neusius 1986e LA-22089 PH yes Rood 1989 LA50337 PH yes Mick-O'Hara 1993a LA2390 PH yes Gilmore 1958 Skizziar PH no Mohr and Sample no date Harvey PH no Mohr and Sample no date Willey Springs PH no Mohr and Sample no date Engineers Ltd. PH yes Mohr and Sample no date 096-398 PH no Rood and Rood 1984 096-56 PH no Rood and Rood 1984 42SA7659 PH yes Beezley 1998 5MT5501 PH no Rohman eL al. 2003 5MT5498 PH yes P. Rohman 2003 Ida Jean Kiva A PH Great House yes Brisbin and Brisbin 1983 5MTI0820 PH yes Fetterman and Honeycutt 1995 5MT2 PH yes Cater 1984 5MT8937 PH yes Errickson 1995 5MT8899 PH yes Bertram 1992 Albert Porter (5MTI23) PH Great House yes Badenhorst this study Comb Wash (42SA246 II) PH no Driver and Badenhorst 2006 Comb Wash (42SA24625) PH no Driver and Badenhorst 2006 5MT3 PH yes Hurth 1977 BluffGreat House PH Great House yes Fothergill 2008 Escalante Occ. I PH (Chaco) Great House yes Reed et al. 1979 Wallace Ruin PH (Early (5MT6970) Chaco) Great House yes Shelley 1993 LA37603 PH (Early) yes Mick-O'Hara 1994 Wallace Ruin PH (Late (5MT6970) Chaco) Great House yes Shelley 1993 LA37599 PH (Late) yes Mick-O'Hara 1994 LA65030 PH (Late) yes Mick-O'Hara 1994 LA37593 PH (Late) yes Mick-O'Hara 1994 LA37601 PH (Late) yes Mick-O'Hara 1994 LA37600 PH (Late) yes Mick-O'Hara 1994 LA65029 PH (Late) yes Mick-O'Hara 1994 LA37605 PH (Late) yes Mick-O'Hara 1994 Shields Pueblo (5MT3807) PH (Late) yes Rawlings 2006

308 LA37589 PH (Mid) no Mick-O'Hara 1994 LA37593 PH (Mid) no Mick-O'Hara 1994 Morris 31 Build. 1 (LA1897) PH (Mid) Great House no Mick-O'Hara 1994 LA37592 PII (Mid) yes Mick-O'Hara 1994 LA37607 PH (Mid) yes Mick-O'Hara J994 LA37598 PII (Mid) yes Mick-O'Hara 1994 LA37594 PII (Mid) yes Mick-O'Hara 1994 LA65030 PH (Mid) yes Mick-O'Hara 1994 LA37601 PH (Mid) yes Mick-O'Hara 1994 LA37600 PII (Mid) yes Mick-O'Hara 1994 LA37595 PII (Mid) yes Mick-O'Hara J994 LA37599 PH (Mid) yes Mick-O'Hara 1994 5MT2519 PII/PIII no Bertram 1991 Mustoe PIIJPIII yes Gould 1982 875 PH/PIII yes Anderson 1966 1453 PIIJPIII yes Hayes and Lancaster 1975 Escalante Occ 1+2 PIIJPIII Great House yes Reed et al. 1979 Hanson Pueblo (5MT3876) PIIJPIII yes Rood 1993 HOV648 PII/PIII no White 1977 Big Westwater PH/PIII yes Ray 1981,Emslie 1981b LA2387 PH/PIII no Gilmore 1958 5MT11884 PIIJPIII yes Stratton 2004d 096-02 PIIJPIII yes Rood and Rood 1984 096-134 PH/PIII yes Rood and Rood 1984 096-142 PIIJPIII yes Rood and Rood 1984 5MT7704 PIIJPIII yes Stratton 1993a 5MT8943 PH/PIII yes Stratton 1993a 5MT7723 PII/PIII yes Stratton 1993a Tall Pine Site PIIJPIII no Smith 1974 Ida Jean Kiva Rooms 7-8 PIIJPIII Great House yes Brisbin and Brisbin 1983 Yellow Jacket (5MT5) PIIJPIII Great House yes Muir and Driver 2003 Pueblo A,B PH/PIII yes Wheeler Smith 1997 5MT2 PH/PIII no Cater 1984 5MT8934 PIIJPIII yes Bertram 1992 Shields Pueblo (5MT3807) PIIJPIII yes Rawlings 2006 Albert Porter (5MTI23) PH/PIII Great House yes Badenhorst this study Bluff Great House PII/PIII Great House no Fothergill 2008

309 Wallace Ruin (5MT6970) PIIIPIlI (Mix) Great House yes Shelley 1993 5MT2525 PIlI yes Bertram 1991 5MT2544 PIlI yes Bertram 1991 499 PIlI yes Anderson 1966 Mug House C PIlI yes Rohn 1971 Escalante Occ. 3 PIlI Great House no Reed et al. 1979 Escalante Occ. 2 PIlI Great House no Reed et al. 1979 HOV3 PIlI no White 1977 HOV64 PIlI no White 1977 HOV714 PIlI no White 1977 HOV643 PIlI no White 1977 HOVI2 PIlI no White 1977 HOV94 PIlI yes White 1977 HOV53 PIlI yes White 1977 5MTUMR2156 PIlI yes Nickens 1981 5MTUMR2150 PIlI yes Nickens 1981 Site 4 PIlI no Reed 1958 5MTUMRI253 PIlI no Nordby 1973 5MTUMRI250 PIlI yes Nordby 1973 Mad Dog (5MTI81) PIlI no Driver et al. 1999 5MTI1338 PIlI yes Driver et al. 1999 5MT3930 PIlI yes Driver et al. 1999 5MT395I PIlI yes Driver et al. 1999 5MT3918 PIlI yes Driver et al. 1999 5MTl0459 PIlI yes Driver et al. 1999 5MTlO246 PIlI yes Driver et al. 1999 5MT3936 PIlI yes Driver et al. 1999 5MT262 PIlI yes Driver et al. 1999 5MT3967 PIlI yes Driver et al. 1999 5MT5152 PIlI yes Driver et al. 1999 5MTI0508 PIlI yes Driver et al. 1999 Castle Rock (5MTI825) PIlI yes Driver et al. 1999 Green Lizard (5MT3901) PIlI yes Driver et al. 1999 NPV2 PIlI yes Thompson 1990 Sand Canyon (5MT705) PIlI yes Muir 1999, Driver et al. 1999 5MT765 PIlI yes Muir 1999, Driver et al. 1999 LA50337 PIlI yes Mick-O'Hara 1993a

310 5MTI1950 PIlI yes Stratton 2004e 096-30 PIlI no Rood and Rood 1984 096-143 PIlI yes Rood and Rood 1984 096-147 PIlI yes Rood and Rood 1984 5MTlO206 PIlI yes Stratton 1993a 5MTlO207 PIlI yes Stratton 1993a 5MT3778 PIlI no Douthit 1984 42SA7660 PIlI yes Beezley 1998 5MTI1842 PIlI yes Driver 2002b 5MT1825 PIlI yes Driver 2000b Albert Porter (5MTI23) PIlI Great House yes Badenhorst this study Comb Wash (42SA25064) PIlI no Driver and Badenhorst 2006 Comb Wash (42SA24626) PIlI yes Driver and Badenhorst 2006 Comb Wash (42SA24756) PIlI Great House yes Driver and Badenhorst 2006 5MT3 PIlI yes Hurth 1977 Bluff Great House PIlI Great House yes Fothergill 2008 LA37598 PIlI (Early) no Mick-O'Hara 1994 LA60749 PIlI (Early) no Mick-O'Hara 1994 LA37591 PIlI (Early) yes Mick-O'Hara 1994 LA37593 PIlI (Early) yes Mick-O'Hara 1994 LA37601 PIlI (Early) yes Mick-O'Hara 1994 LA37592 PIlI (Early) yes Mick-O'Hara 1994 Shields Pueblo (5MT3807) PIlI (Early) yes Rawlings 2006 LA37593 PIlI (Late) no Mick-O'Hara 1994 LA37603 PIlI (Late) yes Mick-O'Hara 1994 LA65029 PIlI (Late) yes Mick-O'Hara 1994 LA37591 PIlI (Late) yes Mick-O'Hara 1994 LA65030 PIlI (Late) yes Mick-O'Hara 1994 Shields Pueblo (5MT3807) PIlI (Late) yes Rawlings 2006 Wallace Ruin PIlI (Mesa (5MT6970) Verde) Great House yes Shelley 1993 HOV15 PI-PIlI no White 1977 HOV623 PI-PIlI no White 1977 HOV571 PI-PIlI no White 1977 HOV685 PI-PIlI no White 1977 42SA3725 PI-PIlI yes Rood 1990 42SA10986 PI-PIlI yes Rood 1990

311 HOV709 unknown no White 1977 HOV597 unknown no White 1977 HOV707 unknown no White 1977 REGION 2 Site 38 BII yes Rodeck 1954 Site 40 BII yes Rodeck 1954 LA80316 BII no Honeycutt and Fetterman 1994 LA79097 BII no Honeycutt and Fetterman 1994 LA811n BII yes Honeycutt and Fetterman 1994 LA46147 BII yes Brown 2003 LAn742 BIIIBIII no Hovezak and Schniebs 2002 LA79500 BIIIBIII no Hovezak and Schniebs 2002 LAn747 BII/BIII no Hovezak and Schniebs 2002 LA79045 BIIIBIII no Hovezak and Schniebs 2002 LAn798 BIIIBIII no Hovezak and Schniebs 2002 LAn739 BII/BIII no Hovezak and Schniebs 2002

LA83051 BIIIBIII Yl..'S Hovezak and Schniebs 2002 LA71610 BIIIBIII yes Hovezak and Schniebs 2002 LAn717 BIIIBIII yes Hovezak and Schniebs 2002 5LPIII BIll yes Anderson 1980 5LPIIO BIll yes Anderson 1980 LA80474 BIll no DeMar et al. 1994 LA80479 BIll yL'S DeMar et al. 1994

LA79386 BIII y(~s DeMar et al. 1994

LA71781 BIll V(~s Bertram 2000a LA4169/5AA1345 BIII yes Bertram 2000b 5LP48 I BIIIIPI no Akins 1988b 5LPII00 BIII/PI no Akins 1988b 5LP483 BIIIIPI no Akins 1988b 5LP478B BIIIIPI yes Akins 1988b 5LP378 BIIIIPI no Fetterman and Honeycutt 1982 LA27092 BIII/PI no Honeycutt and Fetterman 1994 LA79076 BIIIIPI no Honeycutt and Fetterman 1994 LA80321 BIIIIPI no Honeycutt and Fetterman 1994 5LPl104 BII-PI no Akins 1988b 5LPI096 BII-PI no Akins 1988b 5LP478A BII-PI no Akins 1988b 5LP379 PI yes Fetterman and Honeycutt 1982 LA78838 PI no Bertram 1996

312 LA79096, 27092 PI no Fetterman et al. 2001 LA78533 PI yes Hovezak and Schniebs 2002 LA82977 PI yes Hovezak and Schniebs 2002 LA81657 PI yes Hovezak and Schniebs 2002 LA79500 PI y(~s Hovezak and Schniebs 2002 LA79489 PI y(~s Hovezak and Schniebs 2002 5LP203 PI y(~s Brown 2003 5LP515 PI y(~s Brown 2003 5LP379 PI y(~s Brown 2003 LA80321 PI no Brown 2003 LAI0nO PI yes Brown 2003 LA79076 PI yes Brown 2003 LA27092 PI yes Brown 2003 5AA87 PH yes Schniebs 1991 LA46147 PH yes Brown 2003 Chimney Rock (5AA83) PH (Chaco) Great House yes Harris 1977 LA80321 PHIPIII no Honeycutt and Fetterman 1994 LA80316 PHIPIII yes Honeycutt and Fetterman 1994 LAn771 PHIPIII yes Hovezak and Schniebs 2002 LA44168 PIlI no Watson el al. 1989 LA44169 PIlI no Watson et al. 1989 LA80319 PIlI no Honeycutt and Fetterman 1994 LA80316 PIlI yes Brown 2003 REGION 3 H-26-56 BII yes Henderson 1983 NM-Q-23-62 BIUBIII no Kendrick 1999 NM-Q-23-64 BII/BIII yes Kendrick 1999 423-138 BIll yes Brown and Brown 1994a LA66705 BIll no Wilcox 1995 423-131 BHIIPI yes Brown and Brown 1994d LA26749 BIIIIPI yes Whitten 1982 423-124-1 PI no Brown and Brown 1994e LA2831 PI no Ayers et al. 1993 LA79422 PI no Redmond 1993 LA68328 PI yes Schniebs 2000 LA66705 PI no Schniebs 2004 LA66704 PI no Schniebs 2004 LA9093 PI yes Mick 1985 NM-Q-22-52 PI no Kendrick 1999

313 LA 115753 PI yes Potter 2007 LAI15757 PI yes Potter 2007 LA 115753 PIIII no Potter 2007 423-129 PIIPII yes Brown and Brown 1994f LA87408 (I) PIIPII no Eck and Zunie 1996 NM-Q-14-42 PI/PII no Potter 1999 Salmon (LA8846) Primary PII Great House yes Kelly et al. 1974 423-115 PII yes Brown and Brown 1994b 423-130 PII yes Brown and Brown I994h 442-1 PII yes Brown and Brown I994c 423-124 PII yes Brown and Brown 1994g LA87408 (2) PH yes Glass 1997 NM-Q-14-38 PH yes Potter 1999 LAI6660 PII yes Mick-O'Hara 1991 Guadalupe Ruin (ENM838) PII Great House yes Pippin 1987 ENM844 PII yes Roler 1999 I ENM845 PII yes Roler 1999 ENM846 PII yes Roler 1999 ENM848 PII yes Roler 1999 ENM850 PII yes Roler 1999 ENM852 PII yes Roler 1999 ENM875 PH no Roler 1999 ENM877 PII no Roler 1999 ENM880 PII no Roler 1999 ENM88 I PH yes Roler 1999 ENM882 PII yes Roler 1999 Eleanor Ruin (ENM883) PII yes Roler 1999 2-72-C6-02 PII no Lyman 1980 2-67-01 PII no Lyman 1980 H-27-41 PII no Lyman 1982 NM-Q-22-53 PII no Kendrick 1999 NM-Q-22-56 PII no Kendrick 1999 NM-Q-22-52 PII no Kendrick 1999 NM-Q-22-54 PII no Kendrick 1999 LA36300 PII no Potter 2007 LA II 5757 PII no Potter 2007 LA 115753 PII yes Potter 2007 LA32982 PH yes Potter 2007

314 Salmon (LA8846) Roler PH Great House yes Roler Durand and Durand 2006 H-21-1 PIIIPIII yes Olsen 1983 NM-Q-18-145 PIIIPIII no Potter 1999 NM-Q-18-144 (LA6447) PIIIPIII yes Potter 1999 2-C6-25 PIIIPIII no Lyman 1980 LA19506 PHIPIII no Scheick 1988 LA8559 PHIPIII yes Lang 1988 NM-Q-25-52 PIIIPIII yes Zunie 2005 H-27-38 PHIPIII no Lyman 1982 LA36300 PHIPIII yes Potter 2007 LA6447 PHIPIII yes Potter 2007 Salmon (LA8846) Secondary PIlI Great House yes Kelly et al. 1974 030-92 PIlI yes Stratton 1996 LA4470 PIlI yes Peckham 1963 LAI6660 PIlI yes Mick-O'Hara 1991 Guadalupe Ruin (ENM838) PIlI Great House yes Pippin 1987 Eleanor Ruin (ENM883) PIlI yes Roler 1999 ENM886 PIlI yes Roler 1999 H-39-118 PIlI yes Henderson 1983 Prieta Vista PIlI yes Bice and Sundt 1972 LA12955 PIlI yes Beal 1986 LA36300 PIlI yes Potter 2007 Salmon (LA8846) Roler PIlI Great House yes Roler Durand and Durand 2006 REGION 4 29SJ423 BIll yes Akins 1985 29SJ628 BIll yes Akins 1985 BIll (also 29SJ299 PIIPH) yes Akins 1985 LA15845 BIIIIPI no Dart 1982 Shabik'eshchee Village BIIIIPI yes Akins 1985 29SJ627 PI yes Akins 1992 29SJ724 PI yes Akisn 1985 29SJ721 PI+PIII no Akins 1985 Tseh So (Bc50) PH yes Hibben 1937 29SJ633 Subfloor PH yes Akins 1992 LA18080 PH yes Bray 1982a LA17360 PH yes Bray 1982a

315 BC236 PH yes Bradley 1971 Pueblo Bonito (29S1387) PH Great House yes Badenhorst this study Pueblo Alto PH Greal House yes Akins 1987 29SJI360 PH y(~s Akins 1985 29SJ627 Trash PH (Early) yes Akins 1992 29SJ627 Trash PH (Late) y(~s Akins 1992 29SJ627 Kivas PH (Late) y(~s Akins 1992 29SJ629 PHIPIlI yes Akins 1985 Una Vida PH? Great House yes Akins 1985 I 29SJ633 Roomfill PIlI yes Akins 1992 Pueblo Alto PIlI Greal House yes Akins 1987 29SJ633 PIlI yes Akins 1985 REGION 5 LA46425 BH yes Condie 1987 LA48695 BH no Driver 2000c LA26306 BH no Driver 2000c LAI15327 BH no Driver 2000c LAI15330 BH yes Driver 2000c AZ-P-54-159 BIIIBIll no Dosh and Gilbert 1996 LA49839 BIll yes Gregory 2006 AZ-K-12-8 BIll no Johnson 1978 AZ-K-12-3 BIll yes Johnson 1978 AZ-P-60-31 BIll yes Zunie 1991 AZ-P-60-31 BIll yes Lippmeier Fletcher 1994 LA70163 BHI/PI yes Mick-O'Hara 2002 LA3558 BIII/PI yes Mick-O'Hara 2002 AZ-K-14-25 BIII/PH no Stratton and Zunie 1994 NM-12-K3-202 BIII/PH no Zunie and Leonard 1990 LAll5329 BIII/PIlI no Driver 2000c LA49838 BH-PIll no Driver 2000c LA49839 PI no Gregory 2006 NAl4,097 PIIPH no Kriegh 1977 AZ-P-61- 126 PI/PH no Lippmeier 1993 LA87059 PH no Maxwell 2003 LAI05990 PH no Maxwell 2003 LA3552 PH no Daniel200l NM-12-U2-63 PH no Trumble 1983 NM-12-V2- 108B PH no Trumble 1983 NM- 12-U2-62 PH yes Trumble 1983

316 NM-12-V2-98 PH yes Trumble 1983 AZ-P-6] -125 PH yes Goodman] 995 AZ-P-61-123 PH yes Goodman] 995 AZ-P-60-116 PH yes Stratton] 993b Sanden School Sites PH yes Lippmeier Fletcher 1996 LA]29241 PH yes Zunie 2004a LA1284] PH yes Zunie 2004b LA]2840 PH yes Zunie 2004b NM-12-K3-101 PH yes Stratton et al. 2000 NM-12-K3-] 02 PH yes Stratton et al. 2000 NM-12-K3-213 PH yes Stratton et al. 2000 AZ-P-60-94 PH no Howell 1991 AZ-K-14-27 PH no Stratton and Zunie 1994 AZ-K-14-24 PH yes Stratton and Zunie 1994 AZ-K-14-26 PH yes Stratton and Zunie 1994 NM-12-K3-252 PH yes Zunie and Leonard 1990 NM-]2-L3-2 PH no Zunie ]992 NM-12-L3-70 PH no Zunie 1992 AZ-P-53-7 PH no Zunie and Latady 1992 AZ-P-61-]22 PH no Lippmeier 1993 AZ-P-61-123 PH yes Lippmeier 1993 AZ-K-15-27 PH no Lippmeier ]994 AZ-K-]5-28 PH yes Lippmeier 1994 AZ-K-15-17 PH yes Lippmeier ]994 LAI3681 PH yes Mueller 2006 AZ-K-15-16 PH (Early) Great House yes Lippmeier 1994 AZ-K-15-]6 PH (Late) Great House yes Lippmeier 1994 NM-12-K3-4 PH/PIII yes Zunie and Leonard 1987 NM -] 2-U2-65 PH/PIII yes Trumble 1983 NM-12-U2-7 PII/PIII yes Trumble 1983 NM-12-U2-6 PII/PIII yes Trumble 1983 NM-] 2-V2-1 08A PII/PIII yes Trumble 1983 AZ-P-54-23 PII/PIII no Dosh and Gilbert 1996 AZ-P-54-196 PII/PIII no Dosh and Gilbert 1996 AZ-P-54-179 PH/PIII no Dosh and Gilbert] 996 AZ-P-54-24 PII/PIII yes Dosh and Gilbert] 996 NM-12-I3-162 PII/PIII no Zunie 1990 NA14,084 PII/PIII no Kriegh 1977 NA14,083 PH/PIII no Kriegh 1977

317 NA14,086 PII/PIII yes Kriegh 1977 AZ-P-61-212 PIIIPIII yes Schniebs and Irwin 1997 AZ-6-E3-2 PII/PIII no Zunie 1992 NM-12-L3-8 PIIIPIII no Zunie 1992 AZ-P-61-182 PIIIPIII no Lippmeier 1993 LAI15325 PII/PIII no Driver 2000c NM-12-U2-66 PIII y(~s Trumble 1983 NM-12-I3-I17 PIII no Zunie 1990 NM-12-J3-424 PIII no Zunie 1990 AZ-P-60-123 PIII yes Stratton 1993b AZ-P-61-74 PIII yes Schniebs and Irwin 1997 511 PIII no Bertram 1984 521 PIII no Bertram 1984 520 PIII no Bertram 1984 788 PIII yes Bertram 1984 REGION 6 AZ-I-26-30 BII no Schniebs 1999 AZ-I-26-24 BII no Schniebs 1999 AZ-I-26-41 BII/PII no Schniebs 1999 AZ-I-26-3 BIII no Schniebs 1999 LA61958 BIII yes Stratton 1999 LA61957 BIII yes Stratton 1999 LA61956 BIII yes Stratton 1999

I AZ-I-24-7 BIII yes Zunie and Hildebrant 1989 AZ-I-24-8 BIII yes Zunie and Hildebrant 1989 AZ-I-26-34 BIIIIPI no Schniebs 1999 AZ-I-25-47 BIIIIPI no Schniebs 1999 AZ-I-26-5 BIII/PI no Schniebs 1999 AZ-I-26-3 BIIIIPI yes Schniebs 1999 AZ-I-26-37 BIIIIPI yes Schniebs 1999 LAI6029 BIIIIPI yes AppleJ!:arth 1982 LA61954 BIIIIPI yes Stratton 1999 LA61959 BIIIIPI yes Stratton 1999 LA61955 BIII/PI yes Stratton 1999 AZ-I-26-17 BIIIIPII no Schniebs 1999 LA69328 BIIIIPII yes Stratton 1999 NM-H-50- 112/LA107466 BIIIIPII no Zunie 1997 NL143 BIIIIPIII yes Bertram and Mick-O'Hara 1986 NL228 PI no Bertram and Mick-O'Hara 1986

318 NM-H-47-102 PI no Smith et al. 1999 AZ-I-24-ll PI yes Zunie and Hildebrant 1989 AZ-I-26-29 PIIPH no Schniebs 1999 AZ-I-26-3 PIIPH no Schniebs 1999 AZ-P-24-1 PIIPH no Bray 1982b LA61965 PI/PH no Stratton 1999 NM-H-49- 98ILA107461 PIIPH no Zunie 1997 NLl42 PIIPIII yes Bertram and Mick-O'Hara 1986 NM-H-46- 35ILA7551 PIIPIII no Zunie 1997 NM-H-34-47 PH yes Schniebs 2002 LA59497 PH no Mick-O'Hara 1993b PMMC-1004 PH yes Brown and Brown 2002 AZ-I-26-40 PH no Schniebs 1999 AZ-I-26-23 PH no Schniebs 1999 AZ-I-26-28 PH no Schniebs 1999 AZ-I-26-3 PH yes Schniebs 1999 NL257 PH no Bertram and Mick-O'Hara 1986 NL93 PH no Bertram and Mick-O'Hara 1986 NL86 PH yes Bertram and Mick-O'Hara 1986 NM-Q-28-55 PH no Lippmeier Fletcher 1995 NM-Q-28-54 PH yes Lippmeier Fletcher 1995 LA20975 PH yes Apple~arth 1982 LA61962 PH no Stratton 1999 AZ-I-24-20 PH no Zunie and Hildebrant 1989 LA-I2732 PHIPIII yes Akins 1990 PMMC-265 PHIPIII yes Brown and Brown 2002 AZ-I-26-26 PHIPIII no Schniebs 1999 NL250 PHIPIII no Bertram and Mick-O'Hara 1986 AZ-I-24-19 PIIIPIII yes Zunie and Hildebrant 1989 AZ-I-24-21 PHIPIII yes Zunie and Hildebrant 1989 PM303 PIlI yes Lan~ 1991 PMMC-180 PIlI yes Brown and Brown 2002 PMMC-178 PIlI yes Brown and Brown 2002 PM303 PIlI yes Lan~ 1990 NLl41 PIlI no Bertram and Mick-O'Hara 1986 AZ-K-8-1 PIlI yes Andrews 1980 LA35689 PI-PIlI no Watson and Dykeman 1987a LA35693 PI-PIlI no Watson and Dykeman 1987c

319 LA35690 PI-PIlI yes Watson and Dykeman 1987b REGION 7 AZ-I-61-38 PI yes Edwards 2007 AZ-I-61-27 PI yes Edwards 2007 CEI3 PI/PII no Stiner 1986 CE17 PH no Stiner 1986 CE7 PH no Stiner 1986 CE2 PH yes Stiner 1986 AZ-I-61-22 PH yes Edwards 2007 AZ-0-1O-32 PH/PIlI yes Glass 1998 AZ-0-10-3 PH/PIlI yes Glass 1998 CE44 PH/PIlI yes Stiner 1986 AZ-0-10-32 PH/PIlI no Zunie 1996 AZ-0-IO-33 PH/PIlI yes Zunie 1996 Wide Reed Ruin PIlI yes Olsen and Olsen 1993 CE35 PIlI yes Stiner 1986

320 APPENDIX C SITES, NISPS AND INDICES

LAG =Indeterminate Rabbit LEP =Jackrabbit SYL =Cottontail Artio =Artiodactyla MEG + LBI =Turkey + Indeterminate Large Bird LI =Lagomorph Index AI =Artiodactyla Index MTI =Modified Turkey Index (after Driver 2002a) CI =Carnivore Index UI =Unusual Animal Index

321 Number of Identified Specimens (NISP) Indices Site Time LAG LEP SYL Artio MEG+LBI Carnivore Unusual LI AI MTI CI UI Re~ion 1 Engineers Ltd. BIll 2 42SA6403 BIll 1 2 42SA8542 BIll 42SA8875 BIll 5 5DL309 BIll I 2 4 MV1554 BIll 42SA20977 BIll 5 I I I 5MT9540 BIll 1 I 3 3 5DLl105 BIll 4 4 42SA8880 BIll 5 8 1644 BIll I 20 3 3 5DLl091 BIll 7 13 6 42SA8543 BIll I 4 4 5DL121B BIll 27 3 5 5DL31O BIII 23 20 10 I I 0.189 42SA8889 BIII 15 25 14 I 2 2 0.259 5MT9387 BIII 5 22 15 3 1 MVI940 BIII 1 79 1.000 5DL112 BIII 7 9 3 5MT8837 BIII 36 5 19 4 0.317 5MT9343 BIII 3 6 13 6 2 42SA3775 BIII 14 2 55 0.775 Tres Bobos BIII 3 24 18 17 1 1 0.274

322 5MTI1431 BIll I 5 3 3 6 5MT2525 BIll 30 14 37 10 10 10 0.457 0.185 0.185 0.185 MVI553 BIll 296 1.000 42SA6757 BIll 15 98 24 3 3 0.867 0.175 0.000 0.026 0.026 5MT9168 BIll 2 2 117 0.967 1676 BIll 48 30 84 77 17 17 0.385 0.519 0.497 0.179 0.179 5MT8899 BIll 4 I 3 5MT5458 BIll 14 15 185 I 56 56 0.659 0.659 42SA8545 BIll 27 59 5 1 31 0.686 0.055 0.000 0.011 0.265 5DLlI20 BIll I 4 28 77 6 2 0.700 5MT8937 BIll 2 4 10 84 267 I 0.840 0.943 5MTII861 BIll 7 56 57 211 30 0.504 0.637 0.200 0.000 0.000 42SA8540 BIll 156 93 16 I 10 II 0.373 0.060 0.004 0.039 0.042 42SA8014 BIIIIPI I 3 LA6075I BIIIIPI I 5 5MT4003 BIIIIPI 2 I I 4 LA37594 BIIIIPI 4 I 5MT4006 BIIIIPI 6 8 12 21 6 3 5 LA37595 BIIIIPI 5 12 3 Apricot HamIel BIIIIPI 4 25 4 4 Dos Casas HamIel BIIIIPI 2 40 106 32 2 II 0.726 0.178 0.013 0.007 0.007 Aldea Sierritas BIIIIPI 12 159 454 15 27 6 8 0.741 0.023 0.041 0.010 0.013 LA37605 BIIIIPI 207 124 4 433 0.375 0.012 0.567 0.000 0.000 Prairie Dog Hamlet BIIIIPI 7 171 398 86 28 35 0.699 0.130 0.000 0.046 0.057 5MT4002 PI I 2 I Pueblo C PI I I 3

323 5MTUMR2153 PI 4 2 9 6 5MT8934 PI I 5 4 1 42SA12209 PI 2 42 42SAI2209 PI 2 42 Casa Bodega Hamlet PI 1 7 6 ] 5MT2826 PI 12 22 8 1 Le Moc Shelter (2) PI I 6 17 43 7 7 0.642 LA50337 PI 6 22 4 Prince Hamlet (I) PI 17 23 33 4 4 0.452 5MT90n PI 68 34 4 1 1 0.000 0.333 0.056 0.014 0.014 5MT8838 PI 36 68 8 6 0.654 0.071 0.055 0.000 0.000 Prince Hamlet (2) PI 39 29 131 3 3 0.426 0.658 0.042 0.000 0.042 Shields Pueblo (5MT3807) PI 14 133 10 35 0.905 0.064 0.]92 0.000 0.000 5MT4007 PI 99 49 39 34 4 14 16 0.443 0.154 0.02] 0.070 0.079 Le Moc Shelter (1) PI 42 50 39 1 4 5 0.543 0.298 0.011 0.042 0.052 Windy Wheat Hamlet PI II I 110 78 2 5 0.498 0.261 0.009 0.000 0.022 Periman Hamlet PI 4 71 198 83 9 6 10 0.736 0.233 0.032 0.022 0.035 Grass Mesa PI 98 596 827 1267 35 38 57 0.581 0.454 0.022 0.024 0.036 Duckfoot PI 425 334 1043 326 12 4 6 0.757 0.153 0.007 0.002 0.003 LA2388 PIIPII 2 10 21 Casa Roca PIIPII 2 10 1 ] I 42SA9937 PIIPII 2 21 22 4 Le Moc Shelter (3) PIIPII 33 16 62 17 18 0.559 0.258 0.269 5MT2527 PIIPII 5 6 12 4 NPVI PIIPII 15 37 90 169 51 4 7 0.709 0.543 0.264 0.027 0.047 5MT7522 PIIPII 2 152 379 182 179 3 4 0.714 0.255 0.251 0.006 0.007

324 McPhee PI/PH 36 1395 1613 1901 231 105 158 0.536 0.384 0.071 0.033 0.049 Skizziar PH 1 096-398 PH 3 2 1 Harvey PH 2 4 2 Mug House A PH 1 2 4 6 5MT5501 PH I 2 2 1 1 Comb Wash (42SA2461 I) PH 2 2 6 2 2 1 5MT2433 PH 20 3 5MT2519 PH 5 2 Site 7 PH 2 9 21 096-56 PH 1 2 Willey Springs PH 2 1 Comb Wash (42SA24625) PH 5 1 5 11 12 5MT8937 PH 1 1 2 866 PH 1 6 13 39 42SA8908 PH 4 18 I3 5 5MT8834 PH 19 5 1 1 Engineers Ltd. PH 14 21 26 0.426 5MT8836 PH 1 4 2 1 5MT8829 PH 2 2 5MTUMRI200 PH 1 17 14 32 0.640 42SA17346 PH 25 28 13 1 0.528 0.197 0.019 0.000 0.000 5MT8371 PH 1 4 52 19 2 2 0.912 5MT8827 PH 3 10 10 42 2 2 0.764 5MT2 PH 5 119 3 0.960 0.000 0.024 0.000 0.000 Mug House B PH 7 42 7 59 2 3 0.125 0.546 0.039 0.058

325 LA-22089 PH 12 22 4 6 Site I PH 9 16 30 107 I 0.545 0.811 5MTI786 PH 14 9 55 16 0.859 0.000 0.170 0.000 0.000 Le Mac Shelter (5) PH 8 38 70 I 19 23 0.603 0.292 0.333 LA2390 PH II 16 30 108 I 0.526 0.800 5MT8839 PH 7 75 3 I 0.915 0.035 0.012 0.000 0.000 5MTUMR2837 PH 12 52 78 10 7 0.813 0.549 0.135 0.000 0.099 Two Raven House PH 4 13 106 53 3 3 0.862 0.757 Le Mac Shelter (4) PH 4 55 82 2 35 39 0.932 0.582 0.033 0.372 0.398 5MT8899 PH I 15 26 5 7 I 5MTl0820 PH I 2 I LA50337 PH I 31 84 33 6 I I 0.730 0.221 0.049 0.009 0.009 42SA7659 PH I 25 76 104 392 2 9 0.752 0.505 0.794 0.019 0.081 42SA8887 PH 6 63 332 138 13 8 0.841 0.256 0.031 0.000 0.020 5MT5498 PH 5 26 76 136 258 4 5 0,745 0560 0.707 0.036 0.045 5MT2544 PH 7 44 186 26 107 I 2 0.809 0.099 0.311 0.004 0.008 Bluff Great House PH I 183 337 420 61 15 17 0.648 0.446 0.105 0.028 0.032 Albert Porter (5MTl23) PH 32 108 736 45 304 10 12 0.872 0.049 0.258 0.011 0.014 Ida Jean Kiva A PH 51 251 2 29 0.831 0.007 0.088 0.000 0.000 Escalante Occ. I PH (Chaco) 68 1003 636 134 0.937 0.373 0.111 0.000 0.000 PH (Early Wallace Ruin (5MT6970) Chaco) 67 549 267 277 2 3 0.891 0.302 0.310 0.003 0.005 LA37603 PH (Early) 180 166 174 49 0.480 0.335 0.124 0.000 0.000 PH (Late Wallace Ruin (5MT6970) Chaco) 132 1235 57 180 5 7 0.903 0.040 0.116 0.004 0.005 LA37599 PH (Late) 5 4 22 6 LA65030 PH (Late) 4 9 14 9

326 LA37593 PH (Late) 6 3 38 12 LA37601 PH (Late) 40 50 9 123 0.556 0.091 0.577 0.000 0.000 LA37600 PH (Late) 46 26 15 64 II 0.361 0.172 0.471 0.014 0.014 LA65029 PH (Late) 13 5 35 II 0.660 Shields Pueblo (5MT3807) PH (Late) 102 246 121 284 I 3 0.707 0.258 0.449 0.003 0.009 LA37605 PH (Late) I 62 77 201 220 I 10 0.554 0.589 0.611 0.007 0.067 LA37589 PH (Mid) LA37593 PH (Mid) 3 1 2 3 LA37592 PH (Mid) 1 3 42 12 LA37607 PH (Mid) 17 46 17 I 0.730 0.213 0.016 0.000 0.000 LA37598 PH (Mid) 28 25 33 83 0.472 0.384 0.610 0.000 0.000 LA37594 PH (Mid) 10 24 20 23 3 3 0.370 0.404 LA65030 PH (Mid) 91 91 48 94 I 4 0.500 0.209 0.341 0.005 0.022 LA37601 PH (Mid) 10 82 44 158 14 0.349 0.537 0.093 0.000 0.000 LA37600 PH (Mid) 42 45 ()() 42 0.517 0.532 0.326 0.000 0.000 LA37595 PH (Mid) 31 18 128 116 8 8 0.723 0.703 0.140 0.140 LA37599 PH (Mid) 13 123 109 95 49 2 2 0.470 0.279 0.167 0.008 0.008 Morris 31 Build. I (LAI897) PH (Mid) I 3 3 HOV648 PIIIPIII 4 5MT2519 PIIIPIII I 10 I I 5MT2 PH/PIII 4 4 2 2 LA2387 PHIPIII 8 2 15 Tall Pine Site PH/PIII 5 27 5MT7704 PII/PIII I 9 2 I 6 096-02 PII/PIII 30 9 4 10

327 5MT8934 PIIIPIII 7 30 5 2 2 5MT11884 PIIJPIII 3 24 10 3 6 096-134 PIIJPIII 11 18 4 37 0.561 Mustoe PIIJPIII 4 25 71 63 3 3 0.710 0.685 5MT8943 PIIJPIII 23 21 2 84 0.043 0.656 875 PIIJPIII 9 31 62 71 0.608 0.640 096-142 PIIIPIII 17 10 14 135 2 2 0.833 Big Westwater PIIIPIII 41 229 26 42 11 13 0.848 0.088 0.135 0.039 0.046 Hanson Pueblo (5MT3876) PIIJPIII 70 373 47 85 0.842 0.096 0.161 0.000 0.000 1453 PIIJPIII 44 245 841 164 67 74 0.848 0.744 0.362 0.188 0.204 5MT7723 PIIJPIII 45 207 158 2 21 0.433 0.005 0.049 0.000 0.000 Pueblo A,B PIIIPIII 230 131 386 46 607 3 5 0.747 0.058 0.448 0.004 0.007 Shields Pueblo (5MT3807) PIIIPIII 55 669 2909 402 716 20 30 0.813 0.100 0.165 0.005 0.008 Bluff Great House PIIJPIII 6 12 3 14 II Ida Jean Kiva Rooms 7-8 PIIIPIII 58 118 13 49 I 7 0.670 0.069 0.218 0.006 0.038 Escalante Occ 1+2 PIIJPIII 23 207 282 59 6 0.900 0.551 0.204 0.000 0.025 Albert Porter (5MTI23) PIIJPIII 180 342 792 74 598 7 15 0.698 0.053 0.313 0.005 0.011 Yellow Jacket (5MT5) PIIJPIII 71 259 1155 221 1102 14 27 0.817 0.130 0.426 0.009 0.018 Wallace Ruin (5MT6970) PIIIPIII (Mix) 85 466 57 166 I 0.846 0.094 0.232 0.000 0.002 096-30 PIlI I HOV3 PIlI Comb Wash (42SA25064) PIlI Mad Dog (5MTI81) PIlI 3 HOV64 PIlI 4 HOV714 PIlI 4

328 Escalante Occ. 3 PIlI I I 2 5MT3778 PIlI 2 Escalante Occ. 2 PIlI 4 8 HOV643 PIlI I 2 18 II Site 4 PIlI 8 2 15 HOVI2 PIlI 2 17 9 5MTUMRI253 PIlI 2 5 7 19 Comb Wash (42SA24626) PIlI II I 20 4 17 5MTlI338 PIlI 2 14 5 15 5MTUMRI250 PIlI 5 II II 41 0.719 5MT3930 PIlI I 19 19 2 3 HOV94 PIlI 12 68 4 I 0.850 0.048 0.012 0.000 0.000 5MT3951 PIlI 15 19 2 2 5MT3918 PIlI 9 39 4 24 I 0.813 0.077 0.333 HOV53 PIlI 3 76 9 2 0.962 0.102 0.025 0.000 0.000 5MTl0206 PIlI 13 10 51 6 I 0.836 0.075 0.013 0.000 0.000 096-143 PIlI 9 53 2 9 I 0.855 0.031 0.127 0.000 0.016 5MTI0459 PIlI 43 I 84 4 4 0.661 5MTI0246 PIlI 7 18 62 0.713 096-147 PIlI 47 19 8 54 0.288 0.108 0.450 0.000 0.000 42SA7660 PIlI 4 87 2 35 0.956 0.022 0.278 0.000 0.000 5MTlI950 PIlI 5 6 5 3 I LA50337 PIlI I 8 10 10 24 II 5MT3936 PIlI 7 70 3 62 2 2 0.909 0.038 0.446 0.025 0.025 499 PIlI 5 31 42 80 4 4 0.538 0.690 5MT262 PIlI 2 19 94 5 95 0.832 0.042 0.452 0.000 0.000

329 5MT3967 PIlI II 84 189 2 4 0.884 0.000 0.665 0.021 0.040 5MTl0207 PIlI 15 31 216 9 14 0.874 0.033 0.051 0.000 0.000 5MTUMR2156 PIlI 12 172 316 178 3 7 0.935 0.632 0.492 0.016 0.037 5MT5152 PIlI 1 42 252 14 152 3 10 0.857 0.045 0.340 0.010 0.033 5MTUMR2150 PIlI 32 135 302 301 8 16 0.808 0.644 0.643 0.046 0.087 5MTl0508 PIlI 10 213 4 530 2 0.955 0.018 0.704 0.000 0.009 Castle Rock (5MTI825) PIlI I 53 340 20 334 1 13 0.865 0.048 0.459 0.003 0.032 5MTl1842 PIlI 16 II 201 4 644 4 6 0.948 0.017 0.739 0.017 0.026 5MT2525 PIlI 10 112 10 365 I I 0.918 0.076 0.749 0.008 0.008 5MT2544 PIlI 2 19 53 4 336 0.736 0.051 0.820 0.000 0.000 Mug House C PIlI 7 472 99 517 33 60 0.985 0.171 0.519 0.064 0.111 NPV2 PIlI 12 9 82 18 1672 1 I 0.901 0.149 0.942 0.010 0.010 Green Lizard (5MT3901) PIlI 46 77 473 40 761 3 6 0.860 0.063 0.561 0.005 0.010 5MTI825 PIlI 50 105 849 56 695 4 48 0.890 0.053 0.409 0.004 0.046 5MT765 PIlI 464 135 2337 657 3408 65 129 0.945 0.183 0.537 0.022 0.042 Comb Wash (42SA24756) PIlI 55 I 67 10 606 0.985 0.075 0.831 0.000 0.000 Bluff Great House PIlI 30 222 503 265 1559 7 21 0.694 0.260 0.674 0.009 0.027 Albert Porter (5MTI23) PIlI 160 308 1505 105 2710 12 24 0.830 0.051 0.579 0.006 0.012 LA37598 PIlI (Early) I 5 LA60749 PIlI (Early) 4 12 2 LA3759I PIlI (Early) 18 23 5 24 I 2 0.369 LA37593 PIlI (Early) 124 1.000 LA37601 PIlI (Early) 29 19 21 168 I 0.304 0.778 LA37592 PIlI (Early) 87 80 82 948 3 7 0.479 0.329 0.850 0.018 0.040 Shields Pueblo (5MT3807) PIlI (Early) 7 341 2018 71 1722 29 38 0.855 0.029 0.421 0.012 0.016 LA37593 PIlI (Late) I

330 LA37603 PIlI (Late) 41 23 15 52 0.359 0.190 0.448 0.000 0.000 LA65029 PIlI (Late) 16 II 5 21 Shields Pueblo (5MT3807) PIlI (Late) 58 462 19 263 I 2 0.888 0.035 0.336 0.002 0.004 LA37591 PIlI (Late) 193 182 15 279 3 3 0.485 0.038 0.427 0.008 0.008 LA65030 PIlI (Late) 276 853 142 1096 2 6 0.756 0.112 0.493 0.002 0.005 PIlI (Mesa Wallace Ruin (5MT6970) Verde) 520 3243 314 621 23 32 0.862 0.077 0.142 0.006 0.008 Re~ion 2 LA80316 BII I 10 LA79097 BII I 28 LA81 172 BII I 4 II Site 38 BII 4 88 3 0.957 Site 40 BII I 5 193 2 4 5 0.970 LA46147 BII 5 8 19 I LA72742 BIUHIII LA79500 BIIIBIII LA72747 BIIIBIII LA79045 BIUHIII 2 LA72798 BIUHIII 10 LA72739 BIIIBIII I 2 12 I LA83051 BIUHIII 5 4 LA71610 BIUHIII 1 3 LA727 17 BIIIBIII 29 14 LA80474 BIll 2 I II LA80479 BIll I 2 13 LA7I 78 I BIll 2 4 8 12

331 LA4169/5AA1345 BIll I 188 38 2 2 2 0.995 0.167 0.010 0.010 0.010 5LPIII BIll 3 27 10 6 5 5 5LPIIO BIll 8 12 67 24 7 110 110 0.848 0.216 0.074 0.558 0.558 LA79386 BIll I 7 319 0.976 LA27092 BIIIIPI I LA79076 BIIIIPI 5 I --f------f---- 5LP48 I BIIIIPI I 10 III 5LP378 BlIIIPI 5 10 5LPIIOO BlIIIPI 2 26 5LP483 BIIIIPI 2 I 18 5 3 3 LA80321 BIIIIPI 3 12 3 5LP478B BIIIIPI 7 2 14 37 II LA78838 PI I I LA79096, 27092 PI 7 10 1 LA80321 PI I I 13 LA10720 PI 2 3 1 0.000 LA78533 PI 1 I 3 2 I 5LP379 PI 5 68 2 I 3 3 0.932 0.027 0.014 0.039 0.039 5LP203 PI 18 22 7 22 II 0.355 LA82977 PI 7 18 5 25 1 LA81657 PI 23 I 24 5LP515 PI 13 85 89 11 6 0.511 0.056 0.031 0.000 0.000 5LP379 PI 18 25 51 73 2 0.671 0.437 0.021 0.000 0.000 LA79076 PI 5 16 37 49 II 0.698 0.458 0.159 0.000 0.000 LA79500 PI 7 I 103 26 0.990 0.190 0.000 0.000 0.000 LA27092 PI 156 486 203 33 4 0.295 0.038 0.005 0.000 0.000 J

332 LA79489 PI 23 81 94 7 16 0.537 0.034 0.075 0.000 0.000 5AA87 PH I 1 49 0.961 LA46147 PH 3 13 129 0.890 Chimney Rock (5AA83) PH (Chaco) 1 8 28 5 5 LA80321 PHIPIII 3 LA80316 PHIPIII 5 27 44 2 2 0.579 LAn771 PHIPIII 13 135 0.912 LA44 I68 PIII 2 LA44169 PIlI 4 I 4 LA80319 PIII 5 1 LA80316 PIlI 1 2 26 32 0.525 ReJion 3 H-26-56 BH 530 758 4 7 17 0.589 0.003 0.000 0.005 0.013 NM-Q-23-62 BHIBIII I I 2 2 NM-Q-23-64 BIIIBIII 4 9 LA66705 BIll 423-138 BIll 47 382 51 10 49 49 0.118 0.020 0.000 0.093 0.093 LA26749 BIIIIPI 9 7 47 4 0.870 0.060 0.000 0.000 0.000 423-131 BIIIIPI 93 630 19 41 13 14 0.871 0.026 0.054 0.018 0.019 NM-Q-22-52 PI LA66705 PI LA283 I PI 1 6 1 423-124-1 PI 5 9 4 LA66704 PI 6 4 2 LA79422 PI II 2 6 LA68328 PI 7 2 86 0.925

333 LA 115753 PI 15 8 6 4 4 LAI15757 PI 60 47 26 I -- 33 33 0.439 0.195 0.009 0.236 0.236 LA9093 PI 2 35 28 25 217 2 2 0.444 0.278 0.770 0.030 0.030 LA 115753 PIIII 3 I II NM-Q-14-42 PIIPH 4 LA87408 PIIPH 8 423- I29 PIIPH I 70 334 10 9 3 4 0.827 0.024 0.022 0.007 0.010 2-72-C6-02 PH NM-Q-22-53 PH I NM-Q-22-56 PH NM-Q-22-52 PH 2-67-01 PH II H-27-41 PH 3 2 LA36300 PH 2 LA87408 (I) PH 8 NM-Q-22-54 PH 7 I LAI15757 PH 3 5 NM-Q-14-38 PH 4 35 4 ---- LA 115753 PH 70 1.000 LA32982 PH 4 36 7 I LA87408 (2) PH 6 94 26 I 0.217 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.000 423- 115 PH 3 40 209 2 6 I I 0.839 0.008 0.023 0.004 0.004 423-130 PH 5 209 165 4 13 0.441 0.010 0.033 0.000 0.000 442-1 PH 2 32 190 3 0.856 0.013 0.000 0.000 0.000 --I--- LAI6660 PH 8 138 88 354 19 0.389 0.602 0.075 0.000 0.000 423-124 PH 6 379 514 4 92 I 2 0.576 0.004 0.093 0.001 O.002J

334 Salmon (LA8846) Primary PH I 40 48 16 13 0.545 0.152 0.127 0.000 0.000 Guadalupe PH 21 102 174 0.829 0.586 0.000 0.000 0.000 Salmon (LA8846) Roler PH 54 265 257 50 7 7 0.831 0.446 0.136 0.021 0.021 Guadalupe 845 PH 13 70 33 5 0.843 0.144 0.057 0.000 0.000 Guadalupe 846 PH 10 66 37 5 0.868 0.148 0.062 0.000 0.000 Guadalupe 850 PH 5 52 8 4 0.912 0.186 0.066 0.000 0.000 Guadalupe 852 PH 12 80 II 16 2 0.870 0.052 0.148 0.000 0.021 Guadalupe 881 PH 28 98 31 32 0.778 0.024 0.203 0.000 0.000 Guadalupe Eleanor PH 9 31 7 II LAI9506 PH/PIlI I H-27-38 PII/PIlI I NM-Q-18-145 PII/PIlI 2 I 2-C6-25 PH/PIlI 15 LA8559 PII/PIlI I 8 10 I II LA36300 PTT/PTII 3 23 7 I NM-Q-18-144 (LA6447) PII/PIlI 10 42 12 3 0.188 0.055 0.000 0.000 LA6447 PII/PIlI 18 58 14 3 0.763 0.156 0.038 0.000 0.000 H-21-1 PII/PIlI 25 25 10 7 3 3 0.500 0.167 0.123 0.057 0.057 NM-Q-25-52 PII/PIlI I 14 16 3 139 12 12 0.818 LAI2955 PIlI 18 I 56 0.757 LA4470 PIlI 7 87 32 2 91 0.926 0.254 0.000 0.021 0.492 Prieta Vista PIlI 42 115 5 16 5 5 0.732 0.031 0.092 0.031 0.031 LAI6660 PIlI 57 96 8 42 I 2 0.627 0.050 0.215 0.006 0.013 LA36300 PIlI 31 32 27 29 0.508 0.300 0.315 0.000 0.000 030-92 PIlI 95 19 348 172 2 I I 0.948 0.271 0.004 0.002 0.002 H-39-118 PIlI 161 2636 40 I 25 26 0.942 0.014 0.000 0.009 0.009

335 Salmon (LA8846) Roler PIlI 118 245 29 308 0.675 0.074 0.459 0.000 0.000 I Salmon (LA8846) Secondary PIlI 42 279 1857 252 162 37 59 0.869 0.104 0.069 0.017 0.026 J Guadalupe PIlI 168 1292 1148 28 28 0.885 0.440 0.000 0.019 0.019 Guadalupe Eleanor PIlI 127 525 54 728 I 3 0.805 0.076 0.528 0.002 0.005 Rellion 4 29SJ423 BIll 97 589 39 16 19 0.859 0.054 0.000 0.023 0.027 29SJ628 BIll 1717 2042 280 24 79 179 0.543 0.069 0.006 0.021 0.045 BIll (also 29SJ299 PIIPII) 74 76 8 10 3 4 0.507 0.051 0.063 0.020 0.026 LAI5845 BIII/PI I 4 3 ------1------Shabik'eshchee ViIIage BI!IIPI 36 103 67 I 5 6 0.741 0.325 0.007 0.035 0.041 29SJ724 PI 178 133 I 6 36 0.428 0.000 0.003 0.019 0.104 29SJ627 PI 513 509 40 4 26 29 0.498 0.038 0.004 0.025 0.028 29SJ633 Subfloor PI! 20 62 I 4 I 3 0.756 0.012 0.047 0.012 0.035 LAI8080 PI! I 34 63 4 0.649 0.039 0.000 0.000 0.000 BC236 PI! 96 114 18 56 2 5 0.543 0.079 0.211 0.009 0.023 LA17360 PI! I 18 166 9 5 0.902 0.046 0.026 0.000 0.000 29SJI360 PI! 145 39 191 18 14 19 0.212 0.509 0.089 0.071 0.094 Tseh So (Bc50) PI! 265 295 88 687 204 205 0.527 0.136 0.551 0.267 0.268 Pueblo Bonito (29SJ387) PI! III 1224 2109 1704 III 6 128 0.633 0.331 0.031 0.002 0.036 Pueblo Alto PI! 3115 4240 453 71 28 389 0.576 0.058 0.010 0.004 0.050 29SJ627 Trash PII (Early) 55 20 5 2 12 14 0.267 0.063 0.026 0.138 0.157 29SJ627 Trash PII (Late) 25 9 16 5 4 6 0.320 f---- 29SJ627 Kivas PII (Late) 536 255 164 137 8 12 0.322 0.172 0.148 0.010 0.015 29SJ629 PII/PIII 395 381 124 54 33 59 0.491 0.138 0.065 0.041 0.071 Una Vida PH? 543 629 217 17 22 24 0.537 0.156 0.014 0.018 0.020

336 29SJ633 Roomfill PIlI 392 990 3 748 3 10 0.716 0.002 0.351 0.002 0.007 29SJ633 PIlI 351 1101 4 766 4 13 0.758 0.003 0.345 0.003 0.009 Pueblo Alto PIlI 1471 1435 216 878 9 23 0.494 0.069 0.232 0.003 0.008 Re~ion 5 LA48695 BII LA26306 BII 2 4 3 I LAI15327 BII 2 LA46425 BII 9 8 2 LA115330 BII 17 66 3 2 0.795 0.035 0.024 0.000 0.000 AZ-P-54-159 BIIIBIII I AZ-K-12-8 BIll 5 3 I 2 1 1 5MB BIll 10 12 6 9 I 1 AZ-K-12-3 BIll II 28 34 I 2 2 0.466 AZ-P-60-31 BIll 8 59 45 12 1 0.433 0.097 0.009 0.000 0.000 LA49839 BIII I 37 228 9 6 0.860 0.033 0.022 0.000 0.000 AZ-P-60-31 BIll 2 14 44 10 14 I 0.759 0.143 0.189 0.000 0.016 LA70163 BIIIIPI 8 18 1 LA3558 BIIIIPI 16 1 LA49839 PI 3 1 AZ-P-61-126 PIIPII NA14,097 PIIPII 2 2 33 NM-12-L3-2 PII NM-12-U2-63 PII 4 AZ-K-15-27 PII I 1 I AZ-K-14-27 PII I LA 105990 PH I 4

337 AZ-P-60-94 PH I 4 II I AZ-P-53-7 PH 2 AZ-P-61-122 PH 15 2 NM-12-L3-70 PH 2 LA87059 PH I 21 I NM-12-V2-108B PH 14 4 3 LA3552 PH 2 9 4 LAI2841 PH 56 1.000 LAI29241 PH 5 7 II 2 3 AZ-K-15-28 PH 5 5 I AZ-K-14-24 PI! 4 6 I 12 AZ-P-6 I-123 PH 22 14 38 I 0.731 0.013 0.000 0.000 0.000 AZ-P-61-125 PH 43 14 2 0.246 0.000 0.034 0.000 0.000 AZ-K-15-17 PH 4 2 2 I AZ-P-60-116 PH 55 27 I 0.329 0.000 0.012 0.000 0.000 NM-12-U2-62 PH 51 85 28 3 0.625 0.171 0.022 0.000 0.000 LAI2840 PH I 25 8 3 13 NM-12-K3-252 PH 6 17 4 17 NM-12-K3-101 PH 2 15 27 I 202 2 0.821 0.000 NM-12-V2-98 PH 15 8 2 409 0.947 Sanden School Sites PH 4 14 6 120 I 0.870 5MT3 PH 279 618 93 247 7 8 0.689 0.094 0.216 0.008 0.009 NM-12-K3-102 PH 13 217 119 10 157 7 7 0.354 0.028 0.310 0.020 0.020 NM-12-K3-213 PH 57 709 582 I 0.451 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 AZ-P-61-123 PH 975 499 32 II 0.339 0.000 0.021 0.001 0.001 AZ-K-14-26 PH 419 535 463 282 123 2 3 0.464 0.166 0.080 0.001 0.002

338 LAI3681 PII 1097 2555 2325 163 206 12 45 0.476 0.027 0.033 0.002 0.007 AZ-K-15-16 PII (Early) 41 54 3 34 6 0.568 0.031 0.264 0.000 0.059 AZ-K-15-16 PII (Late) 96 53 8 41 3 5 0.356 0.051 0.216 0.020 0.032 LAI15325 PIUPIII NM-12-I3-162 PIIIPIII AZ-6-E3-2 PIIIPIII AZ-P-54-23 PIUPIII I I NM-12-L3-8 PIIIPIII I AZ-P-61-182 PIUPIII 8 AZ-P-54-196 PIIIPIII 4 II AZ-P-54-179 PIUPIII 9 8 I I I NA14,084 PIUPIII 15 I 9 I NA14,083 PIUPIII 3 3 1 3 NA14,086 PIIIPIII 23 19 42 0.500 AZ-P-54-24 PIUPIII 15 22 I I NM-12-U2-65 PIIIPIII 9 35 5 216 0.831 NM-12-U2-7 PIIIPIII 127 279 5 64 0.687 0.012 0.136 0.000 0.000 NM-12-K3-4 PIIIPIII 175 99 227 I 6 4 4 0.696 0.002 0.012 0.008 0.008 AZ-P-61-212 PIUPIII 5 66 77 86 0.538 0.000 0.368 0.000 0.000 NM-12-U2-6 PIUPIII 91 80 6 125 4 0.468 0.034 0.422 0.000 0.023 NM-12-V2-1 08A PIIIPIII 109 869 586 7 213 I 3 0.403 0.004 0.120 0.001 0.002 NM-12-I3-117 PIII 511 PIII I NM-12-J3-424 PIII 521 PIlI I I 520 PIII 2

339 AZ-P-60-123 PIlI 6 116 65 I 0.359 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.000 788 PIlI I 30 NM-12-U2-66 PIlI 103 1050 I I 0.911 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.001 AZ-P-61-74 PIlI 38 235 193 69 262 8 9 0.451 0.129 0.360 0.017 0.019 5MT3 PIlI 163 611 60 833 7 18 0.789 0.072 0.518 0.009 0.023 Re~ion 6 AZ-I-26-30 BII I I AZ-I-26-24 BII AZ-I-26-3 BIll I 4 LA61958 BIll 3 4 6 I AZ-I-24-7 BIll 2 16 I I LA61957 BIll I 23 32 61 I I 0.582 0.521 0.018 0.000 0.018 AZ-I-24-8 BIll 3 II LA61956 BIll 20 86 84 24 2 I I 0.494 0.112 0.010 0.005 0.005 AZ-I-26-34 BIIIIPI AZ-I-25-47 BIIIIPI AZ-I-26-5 BIllIPI I I LAI6029 BIIIIPI 8 38 25 4 3 0.397 0.053 0.041 0.000 0.000 AZ-I-26-3 BIIIIPI 4 15 16 1 AZ-I-26-37 BIIIIPI 4 3 87 I 2 2 0.967 0.011 0.000 0.021 0.021 LA61954 BIIIIPI 46 56 82 155 2 I I 0.594 0.457 0.011 0.005 0.005 LA61959 BIllIPI 9 37 105 20 565 2 2 0.739 0.117 0.789 0.013 0.013 LA61955 BIIIIPI 43 243 265 250 96 8 8 0.522 0.312 0.148 0.014 0.014 NL228 PI 8 NM-H-47-102 PI 1 I AZ-I-24-11 PI 69 5 37 0.000 0.000 0.000

340 AZ-I-26-29 PIIPII NM-H-49-98/LAI07461 PI/PII I LA61965 PIIPII I 3 AZ-I-26-3 PI/PII 2 2 3 AZ-P-24-1 PI/PII I 3 2 AZ-I-26-40 PII NL257 PH AZ-I-24-20 PH LA59497 PH II 3 NL93 PH I AZ-I-26-23 PH AZ-I-26-28 PH I NM-Q-28-55 PH I LA61962 PH 1 I 13

'1 NM-H-34-47 PH 1 2 2 .J 29 LA20975 PH 3 85 29 0.254 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 PMMC-I004 PH 7 36 2 57 0.570 NL86 PH 179 98 7 15 9 13 0.354 0.025 0.051 0.031 0.045 NM-Q-28-54 PH 6 59 0.908 AZ-I-26-3 PH 71 178 714 210 38 23 24 0.800 0.179 0.038 0.023 0.024 AZ-I-26-26 PH/PIII I NL250 PIIIPIII I 3 AZ-I-24-19 PIIIPIII 2 1 PMMC-265 PIIIPIII 2 66 129 I 4 II 0.662 0.005 0.020 0.005 0.005 LA-12732 PIIIPIII 4 149 135 8 3 0.475 0.027 0.010 0.000 0.000 AZ-I-24-21 PIIIPIII 484 15 1687 8 12 I 4 0.991 0.004 0.005 0.000 0.002

341 NL141 PIlI II 12 PM303 PIlI 3 29 5 2 PM303 PIlI 2 14 5 2 PMMC-180 PIlI 54 53 2 0.495 0.018 0.000 0.000 0.000 AZ-K-8-1 PIlI 67 169 97 19 5 5 0.716 0.291 0.075 0.021 0.021 PMMC-178 PIlI 2 326 1954 204 42 79 105 0.857 0.082 0.018 0.033 0.044 ReJiion 7 AZ-I-61-38 PI 16 23 53 0.576 AZ-I-61-27 PI 54 76 20 1444 0.585 0.133 0.917 0.000 0.000 CEI3 PUPIl I 16 7 I 5 CEI7 PII I CE7 PII 2 3 2 1 2 CE2 PII 9 40 35 I 0.467 0.000 0.012 0.000 0.000 AZ-I-61-22 PII 17 19 5 180 0.833 AZ-0-1O-32 PIVPIII ! 3 2 CE44 PIVPIII 17 22 9 I 3 0.059 AZ-0-1O-33 PIVPIII 7 6 13 1 21 II AZ-0-1O-32 PIVPIII 18 17 42 65 0.545 0.650 AZ-0-1O-3 PIVPIII 12 75 94 480 0.556 0.000 0.726 0.000 0.000 CE35 PIlI 2 36 35 20 I I 0.493 0.000 0.215 0.014 0.014 Wide Reed Ruin PIlI 211 866 74 71 2 2 0.804 0.064 0.062 0.002 0.002

342