Information to Users I

Home , Ancestral Puebloans, Hohokam, Kiva, Patayan, Pecos Classification, Prehistory of Colorado

Item Type text; Dissertation-Reproduction (electronic)

Authors Walker, William Howard.

Publisher The University of Arizona.

Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.

Download date 04/10/2021 06:42:50

Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/187395 INFORMATION TO USERS I

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer.

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print, bleed through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversel~ affect reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book.

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA 313n61-4700 8001521-0600

RITUAL PREHISTORY: A PUEBLO CASE STUDY

William Howard Walker

A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the

DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

In the Graduate College

THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

1995 OMI Number: 9622971

This microfonn edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

UMI 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103 2

THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA ® GRADUATE COLLEGE

As members of the Final Examination Committee, we certify that we have read the dissertation prepared by------William Howard Walker entitled ____R_l_·t __ u_a_l __ P_r_e_h_l_·~s~t~o~r~y~:~A~P~u~e~b~l~o~C~a~s~e~=S~t~u~d~y~ ______

and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement for the Degree of __D__ o_c_t_o_r __ o __ f __P_h~i~l~o~s~o.p~h~y~ ______

j Michael B. Schiffer Date )1A./~ rI7A-;e:// L. Da'te

William A. Longacre Date

Final approval and acceptance of this dissertation is contingent upon the candidate's submission of the final copy of the dissertation to the Graduate College.

I hereby certify that I have read this dissertation prepared under my direction and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement. ~ j f. a:,L __ Dissertation Director&1a-,~d#f'-?4I-.:.--Jo''l-+t.I-=J~~;'-=crJ . - ,,/'7Date I E. Charles Adams Michael B. Schiffer 3

STATEMENT BY AUTHOR

This dissertation has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced degree at the University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library.

Brief quotations from this dissertation are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or part may be granted by the copyright holder.

Signed,--L.,;,~~~_'_._/J_- (../_/~_~_L_. __ 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Many people contributed time and energy to this dissertation. The figures were skillfully drawn by my wife Ziba. She was also my rock when times were difficult. Cathy Maickel, Stan Cook, Jim Murphy, Melissa Adkins and others volunteered their sweat and money to help excavate Structure 708 at Homol'ovi II. I thank them for their support. The Rhizome Breakout Committee of the Laboratory of Traditional Technology, including Jenny Adams, Vince LaMotta, Patrick Lyons, Mark Neupert, Mike Schiffer, Patrice Teltser, and Nieves Zedeno, patiently listened to many of the ideas presented here. Jim Skibo, a virtual member of the lab in recent years, listened over the internet. Their comments and criticisms helped to shape this dissertation. Patrick Lyons, Vince LaMotta and Amy Tucker have been particularly helpful and always ready with a new article or book to expand my ritual horizons. Axel Nielsen suggested the term ceremonial trash to me several years ago, not long after introducing me to behavioral archaeology. His socratiG questions over the years have helped me to find my way in this dissertation. This is a work of behavioral archaeology founded on the ideas of Michael B. Schiffer. I have drawn heavily on his 25 years of behavioral research. In addition to his insightful comments on my work he has taught me that science is a creative process where limits are discovered but never assumed. Despite its heavy handed theory, this dissertation is also about dirt archaeology. One of its fundamental premises is that trash counts. Chuck Adams has been teaching me this lesson since I first began working with the Homol'ovi Research Project 6 years ago. He has also guided me through the archaeological and ethnographic literature of the U. S. Southwest. Many of the ideas and issues raised in this dissertation were originally broached in the trenches at Homol'ovi II. Terry Majewski and William Longacre have always supported my work and at times my physical welfare. I took their love of history to heart in Chapter 2. 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ...... 7

LIST OF TABLES ...... 8

ABSTRACT...... 10

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 11 THEORETICAL CONTEXT ...... 13 A BEHAVIORAL ARCHAEOLOGy...... 18 ORGANIZATION ...... 25 CHAPTER 2. THE FUTURE OF A BEHAViOR ...... 26 RITUAL BEHAVIOR AND AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY: ANOTHER HISTORY...... 27 The Ethnological Period (1840-1930) ...... 29 The Ethnological Period in the U.S. Southwest ...... 31 Culture History Period (1930-1950) ...... 34 Functional Archaeology (1940-1970) ...... 38 The New Archaeology (1962-1995) ...... 43 Postprocessual Archaeology (1985-1995) ...... 46 The Legacy of New Archaeology and Postprocessual (1985-1995) ...... 47 RITUAL BEHAViOR ...... 50 CHAPTER 3. RITUAL BEHAVIOR AN OUTWARD APPROACH ...... 54 BEHAVIORAL ARCHAEOLOGY AND LIFE-HISTORY RESEARCH ...... 54 Behavioral Archaeology ...... 57 Expanding Life-History Analysis ...... 60 IMPLICATIONS FOR THE ARCHAELOGICAL STUDY OF BEHAVIOR ...... 67 Cross-Culturalism vs. Behavioral Identities ...... 67 The Organismal Unit of Behavior...... 73 People and Obejcts ...... 75 Summary...... 83 CHAPTER 4. RITUAL DEPOSITS: A LIFE-HISTORY INTERPRETATION ...... 86 THE HOMOL'OVI II KIVA DEPOSiTS ...... 88 Central Plaza Kivas, Structures 324, 708, 707, 704 ...... 89 Structure 324 ...... 89 Structure 708 ...... 90 Structure 707 ...... 92 Structure 704 ...... 92 West Plaza Kivas, Structures 705 and 706 ...... 93 Structure 705 ...... 93 Structure 706 ...... 94 East Plaza Kiva Structure 714 and Pond's Kiva ...... 94 Structure 714 ...... 94 Pond's Kiva ...... 95 6

IDENTIFIYING RITUAL PREHiSTORy...... 96 Kratophany ...... 97 Ceremonial Trash ...... 98 Sacrifice ...... 99 Kiva Life Histories ...... 101 PROCESSES OF SINGULAR ABANDONMENT AT HOMOL'OVI 11...... 102 Ceremonial Trash and Sacrifice ...... 1 02 CHAPTER 5. EXPLORING LIFE-HISTORY AGGREGATES ...... 106 THE SOUTHWESTERN RECORD ...... 106 THE AGGREGATE STUDy...... 109 Basketmaker II ...... 120 Basketmaker III ...... 124 Pueblo I...... 130 Pueblo II ...... 137 Pueblo III ...... 143 Pueblo IV...... 149 Pueblo V ...... 155 The Aggregate Between Basketmaker II and Pueblo V ...... 161 CHAPTER 6. KRATOPHANY AND PUEBLOAN WITCHCRAFT ...... 166 PUEBLOAN ViOLENCE ...... 166 Cannibalism in the Southwest ...... 168 Killing and the Fear and Respect of Spirits ...... 174 KRATOPHANOUS ViOLENCE ...... 177 Contexts of the Cannibalized Remains ...... 180 Witchcraft Persecution in the U.S. Southwest ...... 187 Nonpueblo Peoples...... 188 Pueblo Peoples ...... 190 CONCLUSiONS ...... 192 CHAPTER 7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSiONS ...... 196

APPENDIX A HUMAN OBJECTS...... 200 APPENDIX B DOGS ...... 206 APPENDIX C PiPES ...... 210 APPENDIX D POWER OBJECTS ...... 216 APPENDIX E POTS ...... 231 APPENDIX F FOOD ...... 240 APPENDIX G BALLS...... 243 APPENDIX H FOSSiLS ...... 248 APPENDIX I BIRDS ...... 251 APPENDIX J ANIMALS ...... 252

REFERENCES ...... 255 7

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure 3.1, Flow Models for Durable and Consumable Objects ...... 65 Figure 3.2, Behavior as the Interactions of People and Objects ...... 77 Figure 3.3, Behavior as the Movement of an Organism ...... 81 Figure 3.4, The Extended Phenotype Without Behavioral Inferences ...... 84 Figure 4.1, Excavations at the Site of Homol'ovi II, Winslow, Arizona ...... 87 Figure 5.1, The Locations of Some of the Sites Involved in the Aggregate Study ...... 119 8

LIST OF TABLES

Table 5.1, Frequency Of Homol'ovi II Contexts...... 115 Table 5.2, Frequency Of Homol'ovi II Burned Structures ...... 115 Table 5.3, Co-occurrence Of Homol'ovi II Object Types By Context ...... 116 Table 5.4, Co-occurrence Of Homol'ovi II Object Types By Burned Structures ...... 116 Table 5.5, Frequency Of Homol'ovi II Object Types By Context ...... 117 Table 5.6, Frequency Of Homol'ovi II Object Types By Burned Structures ...... 117 Table 5.7, Frequency Of Basketmaker II Contexts ...... 121 Table 5.8, Frequency Of Basketmaker II Burned Structures ...... 121 Table 5.9, Frequency Of Basketmaker II Object Types By Context ...... 122 Table 5.10, Frequency Of Basketmaker II Object Types By Burned Structures ...... 122 Table 5.11, Co-occurrence Of Basketrnaker II Object Types By Context ...... 123 Table 5.12, Co-occurrence Of Basketmaker II Object Types By Burned Structures ...... 123 Table 5.13, Frequency Of Basketmaker III Contexts ...... 125 Table 5.14, Frequency Of Basketmaker III Burned Structures ...... 125 Table 5.15, Frequency Of Basketrnaker III Object Types By Context ...... 126 Table 5.16, Frequency Of Basketrnaker III Object Types By Burned Structures ...... 127 Table 5.17, Co-occurrence Of Basketrnaker III Object Types By Context ...... 128 Table 5.18, Co-occurrence Of Basketmaker III Object Types By Burned Structures ...... 129 Table 5.19, Frequency Of Pueblo I Contexts ...... 132 Table 5.20, Frequency Of Pueblo I Burned Structures...... 132 Table 5.21, Frequency Of Pueblo I Object Types By Context ...... 133 Table 5.22, Frequency Of Pueblo I Object Types By Burned Structures ...... 134 Table 5.23, Co-occurrence Of Pueblo I Object Types By Context ...... 135 Table 5.24, Co-occurrence Of Pueblo I Object Types By Burned Structures ...... 136 Table 5.25, Frequency Of Pueblo II Contexts ...... 138 Table 5.26, Frequency Of Pueblo II Burned Structures...... 138 Table 5.27, Frequency Of Pueblo II Object Types By Context ...... 139 Table 5.28, Frequency Of Pueblo II Object Types By Burned Structures ...... 140 Table 5.29, Co-occurrence Of Pueblo II Object Types By Context ...... 141 Table 5.30, Co-occurrence Of Pueblo II Object Types By Burned Structures ...... 142 Table 5.31, Frequency Of Pueblo III Contexts ...... 144 Table 5.32, Frequency Of Pueblo III Burned Structures...... 144 Table 5.33, Frequency Of Pueblo III Object Types By Context ...... 145 Table 5.34, Frequency Of Pueblo III Object Types By Burned Structures ...... 146 Table 5.35, Co-occurrence Of Pueblo III Object Types By Context ...... 147 Table 5.36, Co-occurrence Of Pueblo III Object Types By Burned Structures ...... 148 Table 5.37, Frequency Of Pueblo IV Contexts ...... 150 Table 5.38, Frequency Of Pueblo IV Burned Structures ...... 150 Table 5.39, Frequency Of Pueblo IV Object Types By Context ...... 151 Table 5.40, Frequency Of Pueblo IV Object Types By Burned Structures ...... 152 Table 5.41, Co-occurrence Of Pueblo IV Object Types By Context ...... 153 Table 5.42, Co-occurrence Of Pueblo IV Object Types By Burned Structures ...... 154 Table 5.43, Frequency Of Pueblo V Contexts ...... 157 Table 5.44, Frequency Of Pueblo V Burned Structures...... 157 Table 5.45, Frequency Of Pueblo V Object Types By Context ...... 158 Table 5.46, Frequency Of Pueblo V Object Types By Burned Structures ...... 159 Table 5.47, Co-occurrence Of Pueblo V Object Types By Context ...... 160 Table 5.48, Co-occurrence Of Pueblo V Object Types By Burned Structures ...... 160 Table 5.49, Frequency Of Basketrnaker II-Pueblo V Contexts ...... 163 9

Table 5.50, Frequency Of Basketrnaker II-Pueblo V Burned Structures ...... 163 Table 5.51, Frequency Of Basketrnaker II-Pueblo V Object Types By Context ...... 164 Table 5.52, Co-occurrence of Basketmaker II-Pueblo V Object Types ...... 165 Table 6.1, Frequency of Anomalous Burial Contexts For Human Remains ...... 171 Table 6.2, Frequency of Burning Associated With Architectural Contexts ...... 171 10

ABSTRACT

What is the behavioral evidence of ritual prehistory? How can the development of new archaeological method and theory enable prehistorians to identify ritual deposits and reconstruct the ritual past? This dissertation addresses these questions in a case study of puebloan sites in the U.S.

Southwest. Rather than attempting to identify prehistoric belief systems, it uses an artifact life-history approach to create expectations about how certain artifacts were made, used and especially disposed of in ritual contexts. Fill and floor deposits from ceremonial structures (kivas) at the ancestral Hopi pueblo of

Homol'ovi II are interpreted using this approach. These deposits are then linked to a greater ritual disposal tradition whose roots extend into Basketmaker times. These findings are also applied to fragmentary skeletal remains that have previously been attributed to cannibalism and warfare. An alternative explanation, witchcraft persecution is offered. 11

CHAPTER 1:

INTRODUCTION

Bourke (1934 [1891]) began his treatise on the Scatological Rites of All Nations with the bold statement that

The Subject of SCATOLOGIC or STERCORACEOUS RITES AND PRACTICES, however repellent it may be under some of its aspects, is none the less deserving of the profoundest consideration [Bourke 1934:xv(1891»).

After exposing the reader to the uses of urine in Zuni dances, Parsee ablutions, as well as ritual acts involving excrement on all continents of the world, he ends his study with the pronouncement that "the proper study of mankind is man; the study of man is the study of man's religion" (Bourke 1934:467[1891]). Sexism aside, I agree with him that religion, particularly its rites and practices, is a profound concem for anthropologists, especially archaeologists.

Human activities channel objects-people, places, buildings, and mobile artifacts, including feces-along distinctive pathways from their creation to their discard to the archaeological record. Afterward other forces-weather, animals, plants-continue to move and impact the objects on these pathways. Not too infrequently, these objects are returned to the currents and eddies of human hands. Previously abandoned buildings are damaged by new constructions. Looters disinter burials and sell artifacts; archaeologists also unearth objects directing them to laboratories and museums. Ultimately, it is those objects whose paths cross those of archaeologists that result in the creation of histories and prehistories.

Every day in every culture of the world, ritual activities move a large subset of these objects through distinctive processes of manufacture, use, reuse, and discard. These objects find their way into ceremonial structures where they pass through the hands of priests, rabbis, and shamans; fearful and fearless soldiers wear them in wars; and babies not conscious of the 12 act are adorned with them in natal ceremonies. They are burned, buried, and broken in piety, as well as in .~ghteous indignation. Hopi plant prayer feathers and other offerings in their fields to make com grow (Stephen 1936:916); Maricopa bum the homes of the dead (Spier 1933:303) and; Zoroastrian families expose their dead relatives to vultures (Modi 1937:66). Eventually, all these objects come to rest, at least for a time, in the archaeological record. This archaeological dissertation seeks method and theory to begin identifying and explaining the regularities in these seemingly disparate ritual object life histories. It will, however, leave the ritual use of coprolites for future consideration.

Because the majority of all human ritual behaviors occurred in prehistory, the archaeological record is one of the most important records of religion. This dissertation explores ritual prehistory within a behavioral framework (see Schiffer 1976,1987, 1992), and focuses on the life histories of !ityal Objects. Ritual objects are defined here neither by their charged symbolic meanings nor by their lack of utilitarian function. I do not contest that from some perspectives many ritual objects have no rational influence on the getting of food, or the securing of protection from enemies. Nor could I deny that sublime and Inscrutable ideas and concepts are often attached to these objects by their users. Nonetheless, these ideological and spiritual qualities do not determine my definition of ritual objects. Instead, I define them as objects with particular life histories that distinguish them from other-non ritual-objects. Within this perspective it is how the objects move that counts rather than their immediate function or power to evoke ideas. What I call ritual behaviors, therefore, is essentially a supervenient property of an aggregate or class of distinctive pathways aSSOCiated with certain artifacts. Some of these objects might be considered utilitarian and some not; what is important is the pathways they follow.

Although this behavioral approach contrasts sharply with traditional belief-based studies of religion, it still draws upon them. Anthropologists and other scholars of religion and ritual provide the most comprehensive information concerning the uses of objects in ceremonial 13 contexts. Where the result does not follow the conventions and theoretical traditions that have motivated those studies, it is only because I seek to expand them in a new direction.

Today, many archaeologists assume that the dichotomy between utilitarian and ritual artifacts is a self-evident, perhaps eternal, fact that exists prior to theory. In the course of this dissertation I will argue just the opposite. Within behavioral archaeology, ever questioning and reconstituting the relationship between people and objects is one of the most important challenges theorists face.

In a behavioral study of prehistoric ritual, artifacts are more than the residue of past systems of beliefs. Ritual artifacts participated in behaviors, defined as the material interaction of people and objects, and so can create an interesting universe of phenomena in themselves.

This study explores one small comer of that realm.

In the chapters that follow I review the place of ritual studies in Americanist archaeology and present a behavioral approach for the analysis of ritual deposits. A ritual assemblage recovered from the prehistoric Hopi village of Homol'ovi II located near Winslow, Arizona (see

Adams 1989; Adams 1991, Adams and Hays 1991) is used to illustrate this corpus of method and theory.

THE THEORETICAL CONTEXT

Since the beginning of anthropology, there has been a "sustained and systematiC" (Lessa and Vogt 1979:1) effort to describe and explain the diversity of human religious experience (e.g.,

Bourke 1934 [1891],1984 [1884],1993 [1892]; Frazer 1911-1915; Marett 1909; Tylor 1920

[1878]). Pioneering scholars of various social and behavioral fields (e.g., sociology, psychology, political economy) recognized ritual and religion as critical subjects of study (Durkheim 1947

[1912]; Freud 1918; James 1958 [1902]; Marx 1974 [1884]; Simme11905, 1906; Weber 1958

[1904-1905]). Indeed, the centrality of religion in all social formations prompted Marx (1974:36

[1884]) to pen the essay entitled, "Criticism of Religion is the Presupposition of All Criticism." 14

He recognized that mobilizing the forces of socioeconomic change required the unmasking of the

material foundations of social organization that were obscured by religious doctrines.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. The demand to abandon the illusions about their conditions is the demand to give up a condition that requires illusions. Hence criticism of religion is in embryo a criticism ofthis vale of tears whose halo is religion [Marx 1974(1884):36].

Many of the classic works of modem anthropology have revolved around religious or

ritual topics, where magic, sorcery, and taboos have been dominant concerns. The early studies

of both Malinowski (1961 [1922]) and Radcliffe-Brown (1933 [1922]) assigned pivotal functional

roles to ceremony and magic. Materialist pieces emphasizing ritual practices, such as Firth's

(1940) The Work of the Gods in Tikopia, Bohannan's (1955) "Some Principles of Exchange and

Investment Among the Tiv," and Rappaport's (1968) Pigs for the Ancestors have become touchstones in the anthropological study of economics, exchange, and human ecology. The

symbolic analysis of culture in modem anthropology has its roots in the theoretical studies of

religion presented by Geertz (1966) and Douglas (1966) in the mid-1960s. These ethnographic works and many others have identified consistent and highly patterned ritual activities that direct

objects through particular life histories. Similarities exist in these pathways that transcend

cultures.

Naven, Bateson's (1958 [1936]) exhaustive study of an latmul ceremonial, is another of

anthropology's remarkable ritual ethnographies. This piece still resonates with contemporary

concerns over what he called the ethnographer's "process of knowing" (Bateson 1958:280).

Bateson realized that his data were as rich as the theoretical perspectives that produced them, and so he analyzed the Naven ceremonial from three central perspectives: the social

relations between ritual participants, their cognitive understandings of their actions, and the

larger comprehensive scale of the latmul cultural ethos (Bateson 1958:30). Employing

ethological theory, he attempted to understand how cultures such as the latmul standardized the 15

"instincts and emotions of the individuals" that comprise them. His exploration of different

approaches stands at the heart of any dynamic science.

It is in that exploratory spirit that the present work approaches the study of ritual

prehistory. For more than 40 years, there has been a continuous and unsatisfied demand for the

development of method and theory in the study of prehistoric religion (Bradley 1990; Bullen

1947; Coe 1981; Flannery 1976; Hodder 1986; Marcus 1978; Taylor 1948; Trigger 1984). The

reluctance of many archaeologists to embrace this topic derives in part from those

methodological conventions of anthropology, comparative religion, folklore, and history that direct attention toward systems of belief and by default away from those of behavior.

Archaeologists, for example, do not generally pursue the emic or subjective perspectives that accompany farming, trading, or pottery-manufacturing activities (but see Hodder 1986,

1987; Leone 1982; Shanks and Tilley 1987a, 1987b), yet believe these to be obligatory topics in the study of ritual. The reconstruction of the ritual past is equated with the interpretation of symbols, the identification of beliefs, or the unmasking of ideologies. These are not unimportant concerns; they are, however, academic conventions that should not be taken for granted. The ritual data contained in the archaeological record need not be confined to these topics; the ritual record is robust.

To see more of that record, one must recognize that the theoretical dichotomy between those artifacts deemed functional and those without uses, "nonutilitarian" objects, is a methodological contradiction that masks the regularities of the life histories of ritual objects

(manufacture, use, reuse, and discard). These terms beg the question, how does one infer the past uses, reuses and discards of unuseful artifacts? Is it surprising to find that the more frequently notions of utility are emphasized the less frequently ritual-object life histories are a topic of interest?

Trigger's (1989:392) bibliographic research provides a measure of the difficulties entailed in the production of ritual analyses. He observed that between 1978 and 1986 only 6% 16 of the articles published in Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory focused on ideology, religion, or scientific knowledge. Continuing his survey (in Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, and Archaeological Method and Theory), I found that between 1987 and 1993 no papers concerned religion directly and only two out of 42 (7%) approached the other subjects.

These serial publications were by no means hostile to any school of thought or topic in archaeology. In fact, it was in this very forum that Hodder coined the term postprocessual archaeology (Hodder 1985), describing those studies embracing-among other topics-the exploration of ideology and religion.

A lack of explicit religious research has often been attributed to the fragmentary preservation of evidence for ritual in the archaeological record (Hawkes 1954). This is ironic considering that evidence of ritual life histories may actually the be best-preserved aspect of the archaeological record in any part of the world. Ritual activities, as one would expect from the ethnographiC literature, lurk everywhere beneath the surface of prehistoric problems and classifications. The Hopewell Interaction Sphere (Caldwell 1964) and later Mississippian settlements represent an indisputable spatial and temporal pattern of mortuary and temple mound ritual. Ford and Willey's (1941) synthesis of eastern North American archaeology is essentially a ritual chronology of this region, e.g., Burial Mound I, Burial Mound II, Temple

Mound I, and Temple Mound II.

Willey and Sabloff (1980:28-29) and others have acknowledged the unprecedented scientifiC clarity and inSight of Thomas Jefferson's (1955[1784]) Virginia burial mound study. But those interested in the history of ritual studies should also acknowledge that Jefferson's

(1955:100 [1784]) report is largely an assessment of three alternative (sensu Chamberlain 1944) ritual object pathways: (1) the hasty burial of war dead, (2) the abandonment of a town sepulcher, (3) or the long-term accretion of discrete interments.

One need only look at the archaeology of any part of the world to see the invisible hand of ritual labor at work. Architecture and burial goods are some of the best sources of data for 17

constructing chronological sequences or diagnostic cultural traits. When considering social

integration and the distribution of social power, theorists will also tum to ritual architectecture

(e.g., Lipe and Hegman 1989; Nielsen 1995) .

Try to imagine Andean archaeology without the documentation and analysis of ritual

object data. The ground-breaking settlement pattern analysis of the Viru' Valley (Willey 1953) would not have happened had its temple pyramids gone unrecognized. Max Uhle's (1903)

important Peruvian chronology was possible only because Pachacamac was a mature pilgrimage center that for hundreds of years had drawn dying patrons to its cemeteries. Chavrn was described for many years as a culture or cultural horizon (Willey 1945,1951; cf. Larco-Hoyle

1941:89,1946:149), centered at the site of Chavin de Huantar. Today, scholars believe it was a coastal religion during the Initial Period that was revitalized during the Early Horizon at the

mountain pilgrimage center (see Burger 1988:111-125). Even the "symbolic explosion" of the

European Upper Paleolithic, once thought to be the origin of the anatomically modem human intellect, has become in recent years just another prehistoric ritual tradition, albeit an old one

(Dickson 1990).

Chronological markers in the puebloan Southwest have also been strongly influenced by ritual behaviOrs, especially those involving architecture. Masonry kivas (subterranean or semi subterranean Anasazi ceremonial structures) are a trait of Pueblo II settlements that distinguishes them from earlier Pueblo I settlements. Although the social organization and complexity of Chacoan communities are still hotly debated, many scholars see a strong ritual component in the multi-kiva big houses, rock art, roads, astronomical alignments, and great kivas (Judd 1954:350; Roney 1992; Sebastian 1992:122-123; Stein and Lekson 1992; Vivian et al. 1978:63). Finally, the Pueblo IV period witnessed the rise of large villages composed of multistory room blocks surrounding open plazas utilized for ritual practices. It is among these villages that the pueblo Katsina cult had its origins (Adams 1991) and the icons of the

Southwestern Cult were displayed (Crown 1994). 18

The U.S. Southwest, especially the pueblo area, is one of the better contexts to begin building a life history approach to ritual. For more than a century, ethnographers and religious historians alike have documented its ceremonials and ritual traditions (e.g., Bandelier 1890-

1892; Bourke 1984 [1884], 1993 [1892]; Cushing 1967 [1882-1883]; Fewkes 1897; Loftin 1994;

Mindeleff 1891; Parsons 1939; Stephen 1936; Whiteley 1988a, 1988b). Fewkes (1900a:578-

579) described himself as an archaeologist and ethnographer expressing his and other scholars' desire to use both historical and prehistoric data to study the history of the cultures of the U.S.

Southwest.

This tradition of research on pueblo ritual accompanied and stimulated innovative archaeological research of worldwide import. Kroeber(1916) at Zuni and Nelson (1914, 1916) at

San Cristobal demonstrated the feasibility of pottery seriation. Building upon this work, Kidder established a high standard of stratigraphic research at Pecos pueblo, which he elaborared in his

Introduction to Southwestem Archaeology, published in 1924. Tree-ring research became a science in the U.S. Southwest and, as a result, the Anasazi region now boasts one of the world's most fine-grained chronologies (see Dean 1969).

Hill (1968), Longacre (1970a, 1970b), and Martin and Plog (1973) employed this rich record to exemplify the goals, methods, and theory of the new archaeology. It was this innovative research into the processes of culture that led directly to a tradition of behavioral archaeology focused on the behaviors such processes presumed.

A BEHAVIORAL ARCHAEOLOGY

"Behavioral archaeology" first appeared in print in a short paper, entitled "Expanding

Archaeology" (Reid et al. 1974). This expansion of archaeologiy to broader behavioral concems highlighted the unique role of the artifact in archaeological theory. That paper recognized that the freedom to redefine the artifact would impact the discipline's subject matter and open new avenues of inquiry. The authors argued that the pursuit of behavioral relationships between 19 people and objects in all times and places would focus archaeological attention on the untapped potential of artifactual data to evaluate inferences of the past and to reveal previously unrecognized behaviors in both the present and past.

Behavioral archaeologists (see also Reid et al. 1975) recognized that the subject of behavior forces differing archaeological methods, theories, and critiques to commit themselves, either implicitly or explicitly, to evidence known through objects. Within this research tradition it becomes apparent that all inferences of the past, ritual or otherwise, begin with reconstructions of the behaviors that create the archaeological record. Defining the interactions between people and objects, in order to document the behavioral life histories (manufacture, exchange, use, and disposal) of ritual objects, requires the same detailed knowledge of ethnography and hlstoriy needed to identify and understand the so-called "utilitarian" interactions of trade, farming, hunting, etc.

Although the search for a consistent corpus of correlates linking people and ritual objects might seem a radical or even impossible task, this goal requires only an elaboration of the successful strategy that transformed the medieval folk classifications of supernatural objects, e.g., snake stones (ammonites), thunder stones (stone celts), and fairy rings (stone henges) into the paleontological and archaeological classifications of fossils, artifacts, and architecture, respectively (Daniel 1981:35; Skeat 1912).

Although the domain of artifacts seems a self-evident fact, there was a time before

"artifacts" existed. The concept of artifact, like others, such as site, feature, ecofact, fossils-is so critical for archaeological and paleotological analysis that we forget that only 500 years ago serious scholars believed lightning created fossils and stone celts; some even argued that pottery grew spontaneously from the ground (Trigger 1989:47). Through observations of New

World peoples, seventeenth- and eighteenth-century European scholars came to realize that the strange stones found in farmers' fields were actually human creations. 20

Because ethnographic and archaeological analyses of ritual activities have generally

subordinated the study of ritual action to the study of belief systems (Asad 1993; Bell 1992; Staal

1989; ct. David 1992), ritual--like other overlooked archaeological topics (e.g., women, children,

and violence)-presents a ripe opportunity for constructing method and theory. By observing the

uses of ritual objects in behaviors we can begin building typologies of their life histories. Different

correlations between the frequency of these objects, their uses, their place of manufacture, and

how they are disposed of can lead to new questions. These questions also create new analytic

units and for a time unfamiliar and cumbersome jargon. Such research, however, is frequently

rewarding because unforeseen insights and previously unrecognized but important data come to

light.

Weiner (1976), for example, acknowledged the well-known importance of men in the

Trobriand Kula Ring, but unlike earlier researchers, went into the field and defined the role of

women in Kula activities. This led her to discover previously neglected but common funerary

rituals in which women exchanged as many as 30,000 bundles of banana leaves at a time.

Moreover, she found that the relative successes of women in these exchanges directly enhanced

or undermined the social power of their husbands and brothers (Weiner 1976:117).

Building upon the principles of behavioral archaeology, this dissertation will explore the

life histories of prehistoric pueblo ritual objects based on correlates gleaned from ethnographic

and historical studies of ritual activity. One important topic will be the ritual site formation

processes that characterized the deposition of objects at Homol'ovi II and the puebloan past

more generally. Worldwide, people, pit houses, ceremonial structures, and ritual objects undergo

ritual discard processes at the ends of their use lives.

The ubiquitous burning of pithouses across the prehistoriC and historic U.S. Southwest

indeed, throughout the New World and Asia-was not a coincidence. Nor is it accidental that the

burning shifted to klvas when the majority of interactions between people and ritual objects shifted from domestic contexts (pit structures) into these ceremonial structures (kivas). These 21

pithouses and ceremonial structures-like people-encountered many ritual interactions during

their life histories that conditioned their eventual ceremonial disposal through burning and burial.

Finally, these places remained the focus of specialized deposition for other channeled objects.

Prehistoric kivas were not merely the expressions of a long-gone ideology or unwritten

symbolic language (sensu Stein and Lekson 1992), they were also complex objects whose

construction, use, and discard form an analytiC class of ritual life histories that I designate as a

ritual technology. A life-history approach facilitates the behavioral consideration of subsistence

implements as well as ritual objects and features (e.g., kivas, prayer sticks, foot drums, masks,

rattles, certain animals) within technological traditions. The rise of a new ritual configuration of

people and objects, such as the late prehistoric puebloan Katsina cult (see Adams 1991),

involved more than an epiphenomenal system of integrative beliefs; it also included a group of

people who reused some tools (kivas, plaza spaces, pots) and introduced others (Katsina masks,

piki stones, shoe pots) to compete for a place in the everyday activities of thlrteenth- and fourteenth-century southwestern pueblos.

Complementing this material conception of ritual are those studies of material culture that focus on exchange systems and relations of social power (e.g., Appadurai 1986; Frisbie

1987; LAach and Leach 1983; McCracken 1990; Taussig 1980; Weiner and Schneider 1989).

This research shares with behavioral archaeology the useful insight that the documentation of artifact life histories provides a unique framework for understanding human activities and ordering them for interpretations of the past. Although these material studies, like most past religious studies, remain securely wed to issues of ideology and cultural subjectivity, they implicitly rely on sequences of behaviors that direct objects Into certain contexts; it is clear that ritual behaviors segregate certain places, people, and objects along similar pathways from creation through disposal (Kopytoff 1986). Understanding this channeling process permits archaeologists to build stronger inferences. These kinds of ethnographic studies, in lieu of more 22 behaviorally based ethnographies, provide useful data and theories for archaeologists interested in opening up new arenas of behavioral analysis.

When ritual is defined as a process of distinctive people-object interactions, the boundary between religious ritual and more customary or secular ritual is dissolved. This is a desirable outcome for archaeologists confronted with behaviors that appear to be ritually based but are not specifically tied to well-organized religions or cult institutions. It is just such data that would be masked by methods focused exclusively on religious beliefs.

The challenge for a behavioral archaeology of ritual, therefore, lies in the construction of explicit behavioral theory to fully delimit object pathways. Within such a materialist approach to ritual, five critical postulates emerge for theory building.

(1) Ritual objects and spaces serve as material resources for ritual technologies.

Kivas and other sacra (the material objects of ritual), for example, are constructed and used by contemporary puebloan ritual groups; these materials form a technology that, like other valuable tools, serves to empower those who use it.

(2) Ritual technologies can be organized for analysis in terms of the performance characteristics of their constituent artifacts and places of occurrence.

Modem kivas and plazas facilitate activities, such as initiations, masked dancing, chanting, and puppetry (Fewkes 1897:269-270; Fewkes and stephen 1892, 1893; Geertz 1982). They are group-oriented structures and provide spaces for performers of ritual dramas and their audiences. Their restricted access and hidden interior spaces also contribute to their use in secret or esoteric activities, including the storage, maintenance, and construction of ritual tools.

The optical and acoustical performance characteristics possessed by kivas and plazas may impact their uses. Combinations of sounds, such as would attend singing, chanting, or drumming, would be quantitatively different from those in other structures, or even outdoor 23

spaces. A kiva's primary sources of light, the hatchway and the hearth(s), could be further

manipulated by the use of crystals and screens to create-in combination with the accoustics,

and presence of the ritual practioners-a ritual drama that would not be possible in a domestic or

outdoor space. The properties of light and sound associated with the use of these structures are

measurable qualities that are amenable to simulation and experimental research.

(3) Distinctive ritual life histories exist. Singular pathways followed by objects through a cultural system frequently lead to discrete or singular deposits in the archaeological record.

The disposal of ritual objects through ritual site fonnation processes, e.g., the burning of kivas, the

creation offoundation deposits, and the mutilation and burning of witches, are events conditioned by

previous ritual interactions in the life histories of these objects. Hopi kivas, for example, undergo

construction rituals that end in a feast where the structure is named. Afterward they are used in

ceremonies, as well as for the maufacture and storage of other ritual objects such as masks, wands,

and cotton textiles. Based on archaeological evidence it seems many kivas were either burned or

purposely buried at their abandonment. In addition, many of the objects that were used in them and

not infrequently were created and stored in them also entered the archaeological record through

ritualized disposal behaviors. A Hopi woman's wedding robe, which would have been woven in a kiva,

is usually interred with her as a funeral shroud.

(4) Ritual resources and technologies vary in their distribution within and between communities, both in use and control, which leads to competition, conflict, and social change.

It has been argued that at the end of the thirteenth century, dramatic religious changes occurred

in the puebloan Southwest (Adams 1991). Populations moved into large pueblos where social

power rested primarily in the hands of ritual leaders and groups (see Adams 1991; Adams and

Walker 1994). Within a life-history perspective such religious integration represents a

.configuration of people-object interactions in which certain individuals or groups have gained 24 enough power to maintain and manipulate the trajectories of other people and objects. Certain individuals or groups who previously competed on a more equal footing now direct, however tenuously, the stream of ritual interactions between other people and objects and impact other streams of ~bjects a~ '(i~11. T~is materialist approach to ritual action also provides another avenue of 1~(Wiry tha\~n be 1I~,~~9 to theore.tical par~igms qoncemed with $Ocial power such as marxism and culturalecoIOQ.Y',Fm€l"y,

(5) the concept of the artifact should be extended to include people, mobile objects, and architecture.

By denying the contemporary folk distinction between people and objects, we can perceive important aspects of the life histories of human beings, mobile artifacts, and architecture that provide important clues to the processes of ritual prehistory. This expansion does not alter the mechanics of archaeological explanation. Admittedly, on a superficial level, a people-artifact equivalence is dehumanizing and reduces people to an ontological status equal to that of objects. A more thoughtful examination, however, should reveal that our academic folk distinctions between animate thinkers and inert objects are not moral universals; many cultures imbue objects with animating power (e.g., Marett 1900; Tylor 1920).

ClaSSificatory schemes that distinguish the subjective and spiritual properties of people from animals and other inanimate objects (trees, rocks, fossils, houses, etc.) are ethnocentric and obscure the animate reality of most peoples in the wortd. Early ethnologists and historians of religion, in fact, were so impressed by the spiritual or subjective qualities attributed to objects that, for a time, theories of animism, totemism, mana, etc., became focal pOints of most religious and cultural studies (Durkheim 1947 [1912]; Frazer 1910; Marett 1900; Tylor 1920; van Gennep

1904). 25

ORGANIZATION

This dissertation explores these postulates, beginning in Chapter 2 with a brief review of

the history of ritual studies in Americanist archaeology focusing on specific research in the

puebloan Southwest. In Chapter 3, a model of the life history approach to ritual objects is

developed in detail. This model is used in Chapter 4 to interpret archaeological depOSits

recovered from the kivas of the pueblo of Homol'ovi II. An aggregate or class of ritual objects

characteristic of prehistoric Anasazi ritual technology from Basketmaker II to Pueblo V consisting

of stone balls, pipes, fossils, concretions, pots, dogs, birds, kivas, and human remains is

presented in Chapter 5. These chapters employ a general typology of specific ritual site

formation processes that specifies how ritual life histories can be identified from the formal

properties of objects, their frequencies, associations with other objects, and their placement within different depositional strata.

In Chapter 6 this perspective is applied to the controversial southwestem topic, "When is

a Cannibal." The topic of ritualized violence, including witchcraft persecution, lynching, and

cannibalism is explored using the behavioral concept of kratophanous violence. I propose an

explanation for the mutilated human remains found at the site of Homol'ovi II and elsewhere in the pueblo Southwest. Finally a summary of the findings presented in this dissertation and

suggestions for future directions comprise Chapter 7. 26

CHAPTER 2:

THE FUTURE OF A BEHAVIOR

These which profess to be dogmas, are not the residue of experience or the final result of reflection: they are illusions [p.51J ... the more the fruits of knowledge become accessible to men, the more widespread is the decline of religious belief, at first only of the obsolete and objectionable expressions of the same, then of its fundamental assumptions also [Freud 1957:69J.

In Freud's (1957) Future of !ill Illusion, religion was a neurosis that had no future in a scientifically informed world. When confined by definition only to the realm of belief, religion is always precariously close to the precipice of illusion; in this position it is easily dismissed as epiphenomenal and unimportant. Even when considered worthy of study, its essential intangibility, as a thing of ideas, creates a methodological barrier for archaeologists. To fully document prehistory, the study of ritual behavior as a material process must be incoporated into future archaeological analyses.

American archaeologists, with some notable exceptions, have avoided the reconstruction of such behavior. Instead, ritual has been a synonym for belief-beyond the reach of most archaeological approaches to the past. Modem archaeological histories and syntheses

(see Cordell 1984; McGregor 1941; Taylor 1956; Willey and Sabloff 1980) have perpetuated the myth that the difficulties encountered in studies of religion are an inevitable result of an incomplete archaeological record (see Hawkes 1954:162). Rather than recognizing and challenging the theoretical foundations that have brought them to this impasse, archaeologists have naturalized these obstacles in mythical histories.

In the various histories championing neo-socioevolutionary, functional, or culture- historical theories, archaeologists have distorted their own past theoretical achievements, especially those of ritual analysis. Nowhere is this more apparent than in Willey and Sabloffs

(1980) recounting of American archaeology. In this narrative, American archaeology has 27 witnessed a progressive march toward the explanatory theories of Lewis Binford (Willey and

Sabloff 1980:189, Figure 120). Such "crypto history" (sensu Schiffer 1991) obscures a century and a half of studies focusing on the ritual prehistory of North America (e.g., Adams 1991;

Bushnell 1920; Fewkes 1916; Fritz 1978; Pepper 1905,1909; Judd 1954; Ritchie 1950; Sears

1961; Smith 1952; Squier and Davis 1848; Webb and Baby 1957). Another history emerges in the story of American archaeology's struggle to identify and analyze ritual behavior.

RITUAL BEHAVIOR AND AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY: ANOTHER HISTORY

When one divides Americanist archaeology into its dominant theoretical positions over the course of the last 150 years, it becomes clear that studies of ritual prehistory have experienced recurrent episodes of popularity that do not represent a progressive march toward explanation. Instead, the significance and success of ritual interpretations turns upon the archaeologists ability to concieve of ritual as a material process and their willingness to use ethnographic data in their inferences.

Ritual interpretations, for example, were an intrinsic component of doing archaeology in the ethnological period, 1840-1930. Ceremonial behavior had an important place in ethnological classifications, especially those that accompanied the social evolutionary research at the end of the period (e.g., Bushnell 1920; Fewkes 1980, 1911a, 1916, 1919a, 1925; Morgan 1965[1881];

Pepper 1906, 1909, 1920; Squier and Davis 1848).

In contrast, inferences of ritual behaviors virtually disappeared in the later works of culture historians (1930-1950). During that period, archaeologists' priorities included the classification of changing cultural traits across time and through space, and eschewed ethnological reconstructions of the use and disposal contexts of objects. Culture historians favored the development of theories that explained the origin and movement of traits from one culture to another. The depositional contexts of religious artifacts, so crucial for inferring ritual behaviors, were largely ignored. 28

When a functionally oriented archaeology (1940-1970) reemerged during the 1940s, ethnographically informed analyses-including ritual studies-began again in earnest (e.g., Ritchie

1947,1950,1955; Smith 1952; Webb and Baby 1956). This trend, however, was cut short by the consolidation of this functionalist revolution into the new archaeology of the 1960s. New archaeologists (ca. 1962-1985) and later behavioral archaeologists recognized the importance of ethnographic modeling but did not embrace ritual studies as a materialist subject of study.

These archaeologists classified as "processual" archaeologists, due to their emphasis on the study of cultural processes rather than traits, fostered a nonmaterial understanding of ritual behavior. Binford (1962), one of the architects of the new archaeology, preserved the earlier functionalist interest in religion insofar as it was expressed in neo-evolutionary social theory.

Within that framework, however, culture was subdivided into a series of technological, social, and ideological subsystems, and ritual objects were explicitly recognized as the remains of ideology-ideotechnic artifacts. As a result processual archaeologists have generally shunned ritual preferring to document "utilitarian" cultural processes that seem to have stronger material consequences (e.g., subsistence and technology).

Postprocessual (1985-present) critics of American archaeology recognized the importance of religious data, and highlighted problems in the neo-evolutionary approach to culture, especially its marginalization of ideological research (Hodder 1985, 1986; Leone 1982;

McGuire 1993; Shanks and Tilley 1987a, 1987b). In so doing they have left unquestioned the treatment of ritual as a phenomenon of beliefs and continued to conflate symbolic studies with analyses of ritual behavior. Nonetheless, the clash of these divergent theoretical schools

(processual and postprocessual) over the last decade has once again opened the window to ritual studies, especially in the U.S. Southwest (see Adams 1991; Crown 1994; Wilshusen 1986).

Behavioral archaeologists have been among those seeking to identify ritual processes that form archaeological deposits (Montgomery 1992, 1993; Szuter 1989). 29

In each period the development of ritual prehistory has been hampered by the

assumption that ritual is only a thing of ideas or beliefs. This idealist perspective leads to a

paradox. Recognizing ritual objects and deposits, like all inferences of the past, depends upon-an -

understanding of behavioral rather than ideational processes, even if one's ultimate concerns

are ideological. Behaviors, in a material world, instrumentally create the archaeological record.

Ethnographic data, ironically, provide a counterbalance to the idealism inherent in

archaeological considerations of ritual. Although ethnographers have defined many of the

idealist positions that conflate beliefs and behaviors, their descriptions and interpretations of

ritual contain the best evidence of the material relationships between people and ritual artifacts.

It is the application of these often unspoken regularities in the use of ritual objects that

ethnographically informed archaeologists have drawn upon to reconstruct the ritual past.

The notion that proper archaeological studies of ritual have depended upon the time and

space systematics of culture historians (Martin 1956:570), or the explanatory theory of new

archaeologists (Binford 1962), or even idealist positions of postprocessual archaeologists

(Hodder 1986), is a false one. It seems to have been just the opposite. Studies of ritual in

Americanist archaeology during the ethnological, functional, and contemporary periods have

succeeded through the use of behaviorally based inferences grounded in the material relations

between people and ritual artifacts described in known ethnographic settings.

The Ethnological Period (1840-1930>

The "explorations" and "speculative research" of the nineteenth century were surprisingly

modem in its approach to prehistoric ritual activities. In the middle of the last century, Squier

and Davis (1848) classified the earthen constructions of the Mississippi Valley into sacred

enclosures, fortifications, and sacrificial mounds. Morgan (1965:247-248 [1881]) assessed the

implications of these inferences, in light of social evolutionary theory, and argued that the term sacrificial mound was misleading as it implied temple structures and idols. The evidence as it 30 was known at that time did not support this hypothesis. and he concluded that these were not sacrificial mounds but the tumuli of cremated chiefs.

Morgan's ethnohistorical studies of houses and house life suggested that the sacred enclosures were really earthen house-mound foundations. Considering what we know today about Hopewell and Mississippian settlements. Morgan's ideas seem simplistic. Yet. his arguments and the study of ritual were theoretically and empirically informed. Morgan's influence in the late nineteenth century was seminal among pioneers of southwestern anthropology (e.g .• Cushing. Fewkes. Mindeleff. and Powell); his ethnological achievements. however. were discredited by culture-historical archaeologists who could not see beyond his stage model explanations.

Cultural particularists. both archaeological and otherwise. found Morgan's perspective racist and labeled it along with earlier work as "speculative" and unscientific. An early advocate of that particularist school was Cyrus Thomas (1894). He has been remembered for demolishing the "Mound Builder" theory (1894) even though this theory held little sway among his academic peers. Morgan (1881:225). Lapham (1855:90). Haven (1855:155-159). and even Jefferson

(1955[1748]) had previously argued the same position. By 1894 the mound-builder debate was over. albeit the myth of the mound builders was still popular among the general public. Indeed versions of mound builder theory are still alive today among Mormons as well as among advocates of certain new age theologies. Its seems, therefore. the true import of Thomas' contribution to American archaeology may actually lie elsewhere.

Thomas' work was clearly a descriptive masterpiece that anticipated the best of the later culture-historical studies. As one of the most comprehensive studies of ritual monuments it. however, "retard[ed] certain developments [ritual prehistory] in the archaeology of the eastern

United States and North American archaeology in general" (see Willey and Sabloff 1980:42).

Willey and Sabloff (1980:43) allude to Thomas' lack of temporal analysis as a precedent followed by later scholars. But it is also clear that Thomas sacrificed ritual behavior and religion in order 31 to promote his version of a scientific archaeology. He (1894:604-605), as Morgan before him,

opposed the sacrificial and votive ritual functions attributed to the burned and buried features in the mounds (see Thurston 1890:37; Lapham 1855; Squier and Davis 1848). Unlike Morgan,

however, he sought to bring a scientific presence to Mound studies by silencing theories,

especially ritual ones. These had no place in an archaeology that recognized cultural traits by

commonsense rather than ethnological comparison. One need only examine Thomas' history of

American archaeolagy (1898) to see that in the absence of ethnologically informed

interpretations of the past, the archaeological record of ritual was enigmatiC and something to be

avoided. Thomas' descriptive approach nonetheless became a model for subsequent culture

historians who, in the name of science, would overlook or neglect religious artifacts and

behaviors.

The Ethnological Period in the U.S. Southwest. Prior to Kidder's (1924) synthesis, southwestern archaeologists fully embraced ethnographic data. They developed chronological

interpretations of past pueblo traditions and made great strides in outlining prehistoric ritual

activities. These southwestern excavators recognized that ritual activities were a critical facet of

many non-Western cultures and all extant southwestern societies. They, therefore, used

ethnological comparisons (e.g., Bourke 1934[1891], 1984[1884], 1993[1892]; Morgan 1965

[1881]) and pueblo ethnography (Bandelier 1890-92; Cushing 1967[1882-1883]; Fewkes 1900,

1920, 1922a, 1922b; Stephen 1936; Stevenson 1904; Voth 1901, 1912) to infer the uses of the

ceremonial artifacts, features, and architecture as well as to define the ritual site formation

processes they encountered (e.g., Fewkes 1893, 1898a:577, 592, 1916, 1922c, 1925;

Nordenskiold 1893; Pepper 1905,1906, 1909, 1920; Prudden 1903, 1914, 1918).

At Pueblo Bonito, Pepper explored ritual imagery (Pepper 1906), described mortuary

behaviors (Pepper 1909), noted sacrificial activities (Pepper 1920:58-59,101,103, 252-253), and

recorded unique disposal practices associated with ceremonial assemblages (Pepper 1905).

Ethnologically informed pioneers like Pepper defined ceremonial objects by their archaeological 32

contexts (e.g., place of deposition, associated artifacts, frequency) and by their formal properties

(e.g., color, shape, material).

The relationship between ritual activities and settlement organization was an important theoretical concern during this early period (Longacre 1970a). Prudden (1903) proposed his unit

pueblo type to explain the configuration in some small sites of a room block, kiva, and refuse

mound aligned along a northwest-southwest axis. This unit pueblo was a strong pattem and

underlay the later Pecos Classification of Pueblo II settlements. Prudden also argued that larger sites in southwest Colorado (now recognized as Pueblo III settlements) represented a settlement shift created by the aggregation of unit pueblos into villages (Prudden 1914, 1918).

Fewkes' ethnographic studies of the Hopi religion (Fewkes 1892, 1898b, 1901 a, 1901 b,

1901 c, 1920, 1922a, 1922b) made possible his identification of prehistoric pueblo kivas and other ceremonial structures, e.g., towers, and temples (Fewkes 1900a, 1908, 1911, 1916, 1919a,

1925). He inferred the function of kiva attributes such as the sipapu (the symbolic hole the ancient Hopi utilized to climb into this world), ventilators, and deflector stones based on structural analogies to extant Hopi kivas (Fewkes 1908:391, Footnote 1). He also classified and interpreted ritual structures in Mesa Verde (Fewkes 1916) and Hovenweep National Monument

(Fewkes 1919a, 1925) that had no extant Pueblo analogs. He based these classifications on behavioral regularities in Puebloan religion that could be extrapolated into functional analogies for the use of these ''towers'' and ''temples.''

Fewkes was also the first to recognize the confusing but important variability in the ceremonial architecture of the pueblos in the Navajo National Monument (Fewkes 1911: 14-

15,17,23-26). This anomalous architecture of the Kayenta Anasazi culture area has been a source of theoretical debate In southwestem research ever since (Kidder 1924:218-219; Judd

1930; Smith 1952; Lekson 1988, 1989). Some sites like Batwoman cave contained round rooms that Fewkes called kivas. Other sites such as Betatakin had only rectangular ceremonial structures he called kihus (see also Judd 1930). The large site of Kietsiel contained both types. 33

Kidder recognized the classificatory problem presented by this region's variable ceremonial architecture and foreshadowed future ritual studies noting that uit is a relief to tum to the pottery, where the types are well-marked, and easily distinguishable from those of any other region in the entire San Juan drainage" (Kidder 1924:218-219).

Fewkes also drew upon the work of Prudden (1914, 1918) and others to develop a historical sequence for the religious organization of the modem pueblos. He argued that life in the aggregated pueblos of later prehistory resulted in the breakdown of clan-based religions and facilitated the rise of "priesthoods" associated with fraternities or sodalities that crosscut clan affiliations. It was from this theoretical position that Fewkes explained the rise of the larger or integrative ceremonial rooms of the modem pueblo period (Fewkes 1919a:76).

This ethnological work has generally been portrayed in a negative fashion by later scholars. McGregor (1965:39-42) called the 1880-1910 period the most important one in the history of Southwestern archaeology because it established the guiding principles for all subsequent work. He then dismissed these principles stating that "not a few of the earlier expeditions were little more than collecting trips" (McGregor 1965:41). The work of Fewkes and others has been repeatedly criticized by archaeological historians for its poor excavation techniques, lack of chronological conSiderations, and overreliance on puebloan analogies

(Cordell 1984:225; Downum 1988; McGregor 1965:39-43; Martin 1956; Martin and Plog 1973;

Taylor 1956). This early work has rarely been recognized for its interpretive achievements emanating from the theoretical application of ethnographic data.

Martin (1956:570), for example, in response to the rising chorus of functionalist criticism during the 1950s, justified the years of culture-historical research stating that "since the

Cushing-Fewkes school lacked a feeling of time perspective the road to further development was blocked." This sentiment was echoed again In Martin and Plog's (1973) syntheSis of Arizona's prehistory as well as Cordell's (1984:225) broader synthesis of southwestern prehistory. These 34 criticisms suggest a progressive view of archaeological history in which culture history and later processual archaeology were mandated by the earlier failings of the ethnological era.

Cordell (1984:225), even seized upon Steward's (1937) introduction of an ecological perspective to the culture-history studies of the Southwest as a theoretical turning pOint toward processual archaeology and contrasts it with the short comings of Fewkes' and others ethnographic analogies and unilineal evolutionary theory (sensu Morgan 1985[1877]). This identification of Steward's (1937,1955) progressive processual understandings of economics, social organization and ecology (Cordell 1984:240) is a form of crypto history that obscures the strong continuities between the early ethnological studies and Stewards' own ambitions. At the time of its publication, Steward's (1937) ecological paper was identified so strongly with unilineal social theory, already discredited among historical particularists, that he was forced to submit it to the German serial Anthrooos. In his more comprehensive treatment of culture change

(Steward 1955), published during the functional era, he in fact recognized the continuity himself, noting the approximate fit between Morgan's evolutionary stage terminology and the subsistence categories common in anthropological theory. Morgan's savage societies were essentially those he labeled hunters and gatherers, while village agriculturists could be recognized among those in the state of barbarism.

At one level the denigration of the these earlier research traditions speaks volumes on the general lack of interest in religion and ritual in processual archaeology, despite its obvious importance in world ethnography. Ironically, processual archaeologists shared this lack of interest with the culture historians they hoped to replace.

Culture History Period (1930-1950)

Kidde"s An Introduction to the Study of Southwestem Archaeology straddled the boundary between culture history and earlier ethnological research, but his emphasis on chronology building set the tone for the archaeology of the subsequent culture-history period 35

(Kidder 1924:34). Kidder believed that the primary goal of archaeology was to transfonn the timeless and culturally homogeneous archaeological record into a deep and culturally diverse history of the Native Americans (Kidder 1924:34).

The culture-historical research that dominated American archaeology during the first half of the twentieth century resulted in the classification of an enonnous number of religious artifacts and features, albeit stripped of their behavioral contexts. Many cultural chronologies constructed during this era depended directly upon the organization of these objects in time and space. At the Hohokam site of Snaketown, for example, the identification of cultural traits was more important than the uses of the many religious features and artifacts they represented. The detailed behavioral data associated with ball courts, burials, palettes, and figurines were homogenized in the designation of these as diagnostic Hohokam culture traits (Gladwin et al.

1937). Haury was not unaware of the ritual significance of the association between figurines and cremations but believed "that aspect of [the] figurines was less important ... than [the] definition of diagnostic types of cultures and periods" (Haury 1937:239). Drawing upon Pima ethnography,

Sayles (1937:82) also inferred that burned pit houses at the site resulted from mortuary abandonment practices. However, the exploration of these kinds of behavioral data was generally subordinated to chronological problems such as defining phases or interpreting tree ring samples, e.g., Haury (1935).

In the Mississippi Valley, Webb and Snow (1945) extracted elaborate trait lists for the

Adena culture from the variation they observed in mortuary depOSits. These traits included "a single body in a log tomb," "2 bodies in a log tomb," "bark lined tombs," "clay lined burials," and

"central graves." Other archaeologists then debated the origin and spread of these Adena traits as well as analogous lists of Hopewellian and Mississippian traits (Griffin 1949; Hughes 1947;

MacNeish 1947; Willey 1949a).

Within the explanatory framework of culture history, culture was defined as a collection of discrete traits whose material remains could be recognized in the distinct types and 36

frequencies of artifacts and features. Such an understanding of culture was at odds with the

study of interacting functional institutions, homeostatic cultural subsystems, or ritual object life

histories. These behaviorally based cultural processes did not lend themselves easily to the

formation of trait chronologies.

In his Southwestern classic McGregor (1941) distinguished between two types of traits,

material and nonmaterial:

[T]he material traits are those things or objects used by man, and in our own culture would include all the articles pictured in a mail-order catalogue. The non-material traits, on the other hand, are mental attitudes, or customs, which have no material existence. Such customs of any group are the beliefs, games, religious ideas, and all similar concepts [McGregor 1941 :43].

This materialist dichotomy was generally productive for culture-historical work as long the

identification of traits could be based solely on the morphology of the artifacts. Unfortunately, the typological properties of ceremonial objects are seldom obvious. This led McGregor to

characterize Pueblo II ceremonialism in the follOwing manner:

Ceremonial objects are not well known. At Pueblo Bonito certain slender wooden staffs are assumed to have been made for such ceremonial purposes, but the relegating of such objects to the ceremonial category is at best somewhat uncertain (McGregor 1941:267).

In contrast, during the earlier ethnological period, Pepper (1906,1909,1920) published radically different interpretations of the same Pueblo Bonito materials.

In a 1906 paper entitled, "Ceremonial Objects and Ornaments from Pueblo Bonito, New

Mexico," Pepper described in detail the depositional context of one ritual assemblage recovered from this pueblo. The assemblage was found in an unusual room containing a bench. In this structure's fill were turquoise-inlaid bone artifacts, beads, zoomorphic figurines and pendants, as well as a decayed leather bag. This bag contained the manufacturing refuse of objects similar to 37

those found in the room. To substantiate these inferences Pepper drew upon his knowledge of

the life histories of puebloan ritual objects, including their processes of manufacture and discard:

In examining the contents [of the leather bag], five small jet beads were found, also three fragments of jet beads of larger size. The grindings preserved in this specimen were undoubtedly from the objects that have been described. The practice of caring for waste material in the manufacture of ceremonial paraphernalia is well known among the modem tribes of the southwest. Such refuse, as a rule, is depOSited in accordance with ritualistic laws, but in this case, owing to the fact that the material was precious, it was no doubt kept for use in connection with other secret 'medicines' in pieces of folded skin or in buckskin bags [Pepper 1905:196].

Clearly culture history had merit but its method and theory were at odds with the

reconstruction of ritual site formation processes. McGregor's own prehistory of the Southwest,

although an impressive application of particularist method and theory, marginalized the need for ethnographic research in southwestern archaeological interpretations. When cultures could be

identified by observable traits, defined as material artifacts, theoretical emphasis shifted to

"laws" (McGregor 1941 :50) that explained the movement and origin of these traits (diffusion,

migration, invention) and away from the laws or correlates (sensu Schiffer 1976) necessary for inferring activities, including discard, from archaeological deposits.

Kidder's (1924) An Introduction to Southwestern Archaeology, the first cultural-historical synthesis in American archaeology (Trigger 1989:188), differed from McGregor's (1941,1965) later cultural-historical synthesis in two fundamental ways. First, Kidder drew upon the works of

Fewkes, Pepper, and others, synthesizing their ritual studies and the chronological relations between regions as they were known at the time. Their work was not so preliminary or ahlstorical as to be unusable. Secondly, he clearly recognized, at least during this pOint in his career, the importance of ethnographic studies for categoriZing archaeological artifact types.

Depositional contexts, for example, were a consideration in pottery classification. Kidder named a pottery type the "kiva jar," based on the consistent association of these vessels with prehistoric 38 kivas. "The name kiva-jar is applied to these vessels because the great majority of them have been found ceremonial rooms" (Kidder 1924:202).

Some ritual interpretations were offered during the culture history era, but these were confined to deposits in caves or other unique contexts, such as the spectacular burial of a ritual leader that McGregor himself, based on an ethnographic analogy, called a magician (McGregor

1943). In these relatively unique contexts, trait-based systematics offered little in the way of explanation; culture historians, therefore, resorted to the ethnographically informed arguments of the earlier era.

Culture Historians produced a large quantity of traits that could be tracked through time and across space. These traits were used successfully to study the movements of peoples and ideas, as they were embodied in the physical attributes of artifacts. This approach to the archaeological record, however, was not as useful as ethnological methods were for identifying interactions between people and artifacts. As a result, the classification of ritual objects and the reconstructing of their use and disposal declined dramatically in the culture history years.

Functional Archaeology (1940-1970)

Coincident with the rise of functional theory in anthropology, a new understanding of culture emerged in archaeology that highlighted new problems for artifact-based analyses.

Innovators began to refine their definition of the artifact to account for processes masked by studies of culture traits. Initially they struggled with trait-based terminology, bending it toward more functional problems, but later developed new jargon to express processual concerns that traits could not encompass (Trigger 1989:274-275).

Gordon Willey, for example, included a behavioral process, "settlement pattern," as a descriptive trait in his culture history of the Florida Gulf Coast (Willey 1949b). Martin and Rinaldo

(1950:556-569) reconstructed prehistoric social organization from behavioral traits in the 39

Mogollon culture area. Others expanded archaeological traits to include religions and their

associated material culture. Waring and Holder (1945) described the Southeastern Ceremonial

Cult using ritual objects and motifs from the late Mississippian sites of the southeastern United

States. Bullen (1947) explored the similarities that characterized the deposition of toys and

magical charms in the archaeological record of the U.S. Southwest. Ritchie (1947, 1950)

pursued bear sacrifice and burial cults (Ritchie 1955) in New York's prehistory.

The inferences in these ritual studies, like those of the last century, drew upon

ethnographic data to enliven archaeological depoSits. As the ritual record was relatively

unknown, there were many unique assemblages representing behaviors not previously

recognized. Ritchie (1947), for example, found a series of reconstructible pots in association

with burned bear bones deposited in a flowing prehistOric stream. Assigning these remains to

the Owasco culture, he further inferred they represented the ceremonial disposal of successive

sacrificial bear feasts. Identifying them as Owasco-age objects, however, was not a critical

element in his inferences of ritual site formation processes. It was instead Iroquoian ethnohistory

and Hallowell's (1926) ethnological studies of North American and Asian bear cults that provided

the components of this novel interpretation.

In the second Adena volume (Webb and Baby 1957:61-71), a new emphasis on the

reconstruction of religious institutions resulted in a faSCinating identification of a shaman's burial.

The authors then reexamined previous mound work, finding a similar burial whose significance

had gone unrealized in their earlier trait-based research.

As part of this expanding use of functional theory and ethnological data, archaeologists were reassessing evolutionary perspectives and debating the growing gap between trait-based

archaeological research and functionalist approaches to the study of cultural processes (Brew

1946; Linton 1944a; Martin and Rinaldo 1950; Steward 1937; Steward and Setzler 1938; Taylor

1948). These explorations forced theorists to confront the articulation between their 40 chronological methods and theories of cultural processes in an explicit and sometimes radical manner.

One result of this reassessment was Taylor's (1948) revolutionary A Study of

Archaeology. Like no previous archaeological work, this book powerfully exposed the conceptual distance between a functional theory of culture and the trait-based methods predominant at that time. Taylor called for explicit theory building to reunite ethnographic and archaeological data.

He proposed the conjunctive approach as an altemative to the rigid time-space systematics of culture historians. This new approach redefined both the artifact and the trait as they were recognized by most culture historians.

Taylor (1948:101-102) unequivocally defined "culture" as a collection of ideas that manifest themselves in artifacts. For Taylor, neither artifacts nor any other type of material remains constituted a culture trait, but instead were only expressions of cultural ideas. It was these ideas and not the material objects that were the true culture traits. This emphasis on ideas prompted him to criticize, with some accuracy, southwestem culture historians as "typically oriented toward geographic areas, descriptive taxonomy, and material objects-not ideas" (Taylor

1956:567).

Embedded in the conjunctive approach is what Foucault (1982) would call an intrinsic contradiction. Taylor's methodology, driven by a mental object (culture), was at odds with an archaeological record instrumentally created by the material relations of behavior. Such radical disjunctions between method and theory can lead to major theoretical realignments that propel a discourse, in this case archaeological research, to new contradictions and realignments. Taylor's approach called for an artifact-based reconstruction of an integrated system of cultural meanings but neglected to describe the implicit behavioral generalizations such a reconstruction would entail.

As a result, his critiques of culture history practice were influential as was his explicit use of an altemative theory of culture (functionalist). Both helped fuel the displacement of culture 41 history theory during the 1950s and 1960s. The conjunctive approach, however, owing to its inherent idealism, was not widely applied and remained a curiosity for 40 years. Hodder, however, has recently attempted to rehabilitate a similar approach in the form of "contextual archaeology" (e.g., Hodder 1986, 1987), but the latter--and aspects of postprocessual archaeology more generally-suffers from the same contradictions that frustrated Taylor.

The settlement-pattern studies of the 1950s and 1960s were a logical outgrowth of the functional concerns of earlier archaeologists (Willey 1953:XVIII), and ceremonial data were included (Sears 1961; Trigger 1968; Vogt 1968). In the late 1950s and early 1960s, the future of ritual behavior looked as bright as had in the late nineteenth century. Ford (1956:331), in a review of Ritchie's Recent Discoveries Suggesting an Early Woodland Burial Cult in the

Northeast, commented cheerfully, ''twenty or even 15 years ago Ritchie's colleagues would have laughed at him" but then acknowledged that the situation had changed for the better.

In this context of theoretical growth it is not surprising that the ceremonial architecture of the Navajo National Monument that had previously baffled Kidder was reexamined. Smith

(1952), in step with other functionalist theorists (e.g., Brew 1946; Bullen 1947; Martin and

Rinaldo 1950; Steward 1937), asked, when is a kiva?-addressing once again the problem of defining ritual features in the archaeological record. Faced with similarly anomalous ceremonial architecture in the Sinagua region, Smith reexamined Judd's (1930) classification ofthe rectangular ceremonial rooms at Betatakin in an effort to understand how archaeologists infer ritual architecture. He found that formal lists of kiva attributes could not be used to consistently identify the ceremonial rooms at Betatakin or at other Anasazi sites.

These kivas and others previously identified in the Southwest, Smith argued, were not architectural types that could be identified in the same fashion as pottery. He concluded instead that identifying the behavioral contexts of kiva use was more promising:

A critical examination of the original reports that have been summarized above will reveal that nearly always the room called a kiva was regarded as such because it differed in some way from the other rooms of its unit, or stood apart from them 42

positionally; and not primarily because it possessed or lacked any particular internal feature or complex of features. For example, in many of the ruins considered, one room was perhaps circular while others were rectangular; it was subterranean while others were built on the surface; it was relatively larger than most of the others; it stood apart from the others, perhaps to the south or southeast ... thus it was set apart [Smith 1952:162).

Smith realized that, as an altemative to defining hundreds of kiva types, he had to focus on the

behavioral processes that functioned to set kivas apart as distinctive ritual spaces. Like other

functional archaeologists constrained by a trait-based approach, he had glimpsed an

archaeology beyond culture history but lacked the theoretical jargon to extend this new vision.

Kivas have life histories that distinguish them from other structures. The processes of setting

apart would today be described as behavioral variability amenable to nomothetic explanations or

behavioral laws, whose value could be empirically demonstrated. It is just such processes that

are explored below in Chapters 3, 4, 5 and 6.

Two syntheses of southwestem archaeology published during this era (Amsden 1949;

Cummings 1953) were unencumbered by the theoretical concems of culture historians. Perhaps

as a result, ritual played a more prominent role within them. Much more in the style of Kidder,

the works of Amsden (1949) and Cummings (1953) were historical but sought to interpret the

archaeological record of the Southwest as an indirect measure of specific activities. These

archaeologists were educated and trained in the ethnological period, and it is historically telling

that their interpretations complimented those of the up-and-coming functional school.

Amsden reconstructed not only the ritual activities of the Basketmakers, but also

employed ethnographic analogies to classify other artifacts and activities by gender. Cummings

boldly interpreted kiva attributes in terms of puebloan cosmology. He iconoclastically argued that the utilitarian aspects of kivas-e.g., smoke-hole entrances, ventilation tunnels, and air

deflectors-were not truly functional but instead served as mnemonic devices to reinforce

puebloan creation myths (Cummings 1953:64-67). 43

Perhaps these aggressive reconstructions of the ritual past, at times bordering on the

postprocessual in their willingness to interpret gender and cosmology, motivated later syntheses

by Martin and Plog (1973), Cordell (1984), and new archaeologists more generally to dismiss the

ritual accomplishments of the research preceding culture history. Instead of seizing upon the

budding processualism inherent in the ethnological work of Fewkes and others, they focused

upon its lack of chronological control, shoddy excavation techniques, and more problematic

ethnographic interpretations.

Control of time is an indispensable tool in the resolution of archaeological problems. In fact many sciences depend upon methods that organize events in a linear continuum. Such

organization, however, should be distinguished from sequences of cause and effect. Although

culture history preceded functionalism it not clear that its temporal and spatial trait lists caused in

a progressive fashion the rise of functional archaeology. Given the continuity between the

ethnological period and the functional studies that followed culture history, it would seem that functional and later processual studies, ritual and otherwise, were at odds with culture historical theory.

Culture historical, functional, and later processual archaeologies collected different types of data depending upon the theory informing their investigations. It actually denigrates the

importance of the research problems addressed by culture historians to reduce their

accomplishments to simply organizing time. While culture historians may not have been effective ritual analysts, they had other virtues that were lost with the introduction of functionalism. Prehistoric migrations, a common theme in the culture history period as well as the earlier ethnological period, virtually disappeared in processual archaeology.

The New Archaeology (1962-1995)

In the 1960s new archaeologists consolidated the expansive field of functional studies in a neo-socioevolutionary enterprise modeled on the works of Leslie White (1971 [1949]). The 44

expectations of the functional archaeologists-explorations of religions, kinship, and subsistence

-were rearranged within a comprehensive research program. Culture was defined as a

combination of systemic behaviors, technological, social, and ideological. Each of these

subsystems functioned in concert with the others to adapt a given culture to its environment.

Binford (1962) proposed that artifact functions could be linked to these subsystems for analysis.

He divided them into technomic, sociotechnic, and ideotechnic classes. Within these categories

ritual objects were placed as either symbols of social relations (sociotechnic artifacts) or

representations of ideas (ideotechnic artifacts).

Ritual objects cast in these symbolic and ideological roles created social harmony

(sensu Durkheim 1947:431-439) that served the adaptive needs of the culture. As such, ritual

was marginalized as causally unimportant, and increasing attention was paid to environmental

adaptations. When they did not ignore ritual altogether, researchers treated it as an ideological

residue or harmonizing institution to be accommodated into socioevolutionary scenarios (e.g.,

Brown 1981; Drennan 1976; Fritz 1978; Isbell 19n; Vivian 1970:78-82). Religious artifacts

were, therefore, treated much more like Taylor's (1948:101) traits and Freud's illusions than were

the artifacts ostensibly associated with utilitarian practices. Vivian (1970:78-82), for example,

argued that ritual and other integrative mechanisms served to facilitate water management in

Chaco Canyon.

The advocacy of Leslie White's model of culture reinforced a methodological barrier to the study of prehistoric ritual that, ironically, earlier functional studies had been steadily

undermining. Perhaps that is why Sear's (1961) plea for the Independence and reconstructability

of religious activities went unheeded as processualists launched into a neo-evolutionary program focused narrowly on the relationship between social order, prehistoric ecology and technology.

Hill's (1970) attempt to employ an explicitly problem oriented approach to identify

prehistoriC social organization Including ceremonial systems provides an informative exception.

Although, an advocate of Binford's adaptationist approach, Hill sought in this early paper to 45 simply infer social organization and did not pursue its accommodation to environmental variables. Hel (1970:23) proposed in a series of "test implications" to identify prehistoric kivas

by looking for floor assemblages containing objects commonly used in in kivas in the ethnographically known pueblos. Behavioralists, trained by new archaeologists and largely supportive of the goals oftheir mentors, (e.g., Schiffer 1972, 1976) found Hill and others' (e.g.,

Longacre 1970b) reasoning simplistic. Schiffer (1972) in particular argued that it was

methodologically crucial for archaeologists to recognize that the places an artifact was used in an ongoing cultural system were seldom the same places it occurred in the archaeological record.

Behavioral archaeology, therefore, even though a branch of processual archaeology, was spawned, in part, as a reaction to the inadequate articulation between evidence and the reconstructions of cultural phenomena presented by new archaeologists. Ironically, I argue in

Chapters 4, 5, and 6 that ritual objects are consistently found in ritual contexts, including kivas, albeit not necessarily as de facto refues. Instead, many of these artifacts occur in the fill of these structures and highlight the importance of looking for evidence of ritual discard behaviors rather than for artifacts abandoned in their places of use.

Behavioralists have, at times, pursued socioevolutionary explanations (see Rathje and

Schiffer 1982:319-324) but have more consistently focused on the improvement of archaeological inferences (Reid et aJ. 1974; Schiffer 1976; 1987, 1991), seeking to reorient archaeological inquiry toward understanding the relationship between human behavior and artifacts. Although theoretically equipped to explore the uses of objects in ritual behaviors, until relatively recently (Montgomery 1992,1993; Nielsen 1995; Seymour and Schiffer 1987; Schiffer

1987:79-80,92;; Walker 1995), behavioralists like other processualists have neglected ritual behavior. 46

Postprocessual Archaeology (1985-1995)

Postprocessual archaeologists (Hodder 1986; Leone 1982; Shanks 1992; Shanks and

Tilley 1987a, 1987b; Tilley 1989) criticized processual archaeologists for their reification of society as a series of adaptive systems. This position, they argued, was possible only if conflict theories were avoided. In such theories, individuals loose and gain power, therefore, the consequences of change are assessed in terms of individuals and groups rather than at the abstract level of a culture. Their strongest criticisms demonstrated, successfully, that abstract cultural systems as well as outmoded ecological notions of homeostasis do not result in dynamic models of culture change.

It should be noted, however, that Kushner (1970) and other anthropologists (Jarvie 1965;

Piddocke 1965; Sahlins 1976) articulated these concerns well before postprocessualists introduced relativist and poststructural historians (e.g., Collingwood 1956; Foucault 1970) and semioticians (e.g., Barthes 1964; Oerrida 1978) to American archaeologists. It is not clear that moving the source of critique away from ethnographic data to postmodem philosophy has resulted in better informed inferences of the past, ritual or otherwise.

In their radical critique of adaptive cultural systems, postprocessual archaeologists

(Hodder 1986; Leone 1982) shunned cross-culturally derived generalizations and instead have sought the particular subjective or emic systems of meanings (see Harris 1980:32; Pike 1967) unique to past cultures. Within this framework, artifacts have become bits of discrete cultural texts (Hodder 1986) or the reified experiences of particular excavators (Shanks 1993).

Postprocessual critique provided a liberating break with neo-socioevolutionary theory, but basic issues of ritual site formation processes, e.g., how ceremonial artifacts are thrown away, or ritual buildings are abandoned-previously ignored by new archaeologists-still remain neglected.

Postprocessualists have moved, like Taylor (1948), directly to the particulars of prehistoric belief systems. 47

The Legacy of New Archaeology and Postprocessualism (1985-1995)

In the theoretical explosion following the processual-postprocessual debate, ritual has

once again surfaced as a viable subject of study. Building upon the functional studies of the

1950s and 1960s, new archaeologists highlighted the analytical power of combining ethnological

frameworks and explicit social theory for examining archaeological depOSits. Criticism of this

research by postprocessual archaeologists has not undermined it but, instead like Taylor's

critiques, served to broaden archaeological horizons to social theories in which the study of

ideology, beliefs, and ritual behavior are prominent. The future of ritual prehistory, however, is

still as tenuous as its past.

In the Southwest an exciting period of ritual and religious studies has emerged. Within this conflicted theoretical soup southwestern archaeologists, like those of the early 1950s, have

begun to frame new questions expressing various understandings of human activities and their

implications for defining artifacts. Many of these questions have refocused attention on the

earliest work in the southwest concerning the identification of ritual structures (Lekson

1988,1989; Stein and Lekson 1992; Wilshusen 1986) imagery and architecture (Adams 1991,

1994), ritual site formation processes (Montgomery 1992,1993; Seymour and Schiffer 1987;

Walker 1995; Wilshusen 1986) and their implications for social change (Adams 1991; Adams

and Walker 1994; Crown 1994; Lipe and Hegmon 1989).

The nineties have witnessed the publication of two monographs on prehistoric southwestern religions (Adams 1991; Crown 1994). Adams (1991) has explored the origins of the modem pueblo Katsina cult, synthesizing the distribution of masked figure imagery, changes

in village sizes, and architectural design in the Pueblo IV era. The importance of chronological

control, a legacy of southwestern culture history, is unmistakable in Adams' study. Nonetheless,

one can also see strong pamllels with Fewkes' (191gb) and Pepper's (1906) concern with

puebloan imagery as well as Fewkes (1919a) and Prudden's (1914, 1918) interpretations of the effects of aggregation on puebloan history. Adams' work combines sociofunctional theory with 48

symbolic imagery and ritual architecture. It is not, however, a study of culture history, nor is ritual

marginalized by a focus on social order, subsistence needs or syrnbolic exegesis. Instead, the

growth and spread of a cult is the subject of study.

Another uniquely southwestern product is Crown's Ceramics and Ideology. This work

provides an interesting cornparison with Adams (1991). The focus is on ideology, placing it

much closer in spirit to postprocessualism (but see below). Crown argues that underlying much

of the ritual activities of the protohistoric late 13th-15th centuries was a pan-southwestern

religious ideology. She called this the "Southwestern Cult." Only one artifact class, Salado

Polychrorne vessels (and its various motifs) are analyzed. Many of the objects are poorly

provenieced, and, therefore, like earlier culture historians she depends largely on the formal

properties of the artifacts-in this case decorative designs-to render interpretations of ritual

prehistory.

Both monographs use different data and different definitions of religion, one an

institutional rnodel (Adams 1991) the other an ideological model (Crown 1994), but both employ

a scientific method in which several alternative rnodels are presented and then compared in light

of the archaeological evidence. Ironically these studies rupture, the supposed boundary between the practice of science and the study of religion.

Tho distinction between ritual behavior and ideology prominent in this dissertation is not

recognized in much of the social theory currently in vogue among American archaeologists. As

a result, the necessity of using ethnographic comparisons and analogies to identify ritual

behavior in the archaeological record is still a pOint of contention. The debate over what is a

kiva exemplifies the uncertain future of defining types of ritual architecture in Anasazi prehistory.

Ritual architecture has been an important topic in recent southwestern archaeology (see Stein

and Lekson 1992), and not surprisingly the question of what is a kiva has been revived once again. Wilshusen (1986) has defined "protokivas" by seeking kiva attributes among burned pit structures of the Pueblo I era in southwestern Colorado. Lekson (1989) has countered that the 49

application of the kiva concept to these structures and, indeed, later Pueblo" and III structures is

misplaced. He argues that the use of this ritual deSCriptor, now taken for granted by many

southwestemists, was motivated by the desires of early archaeologists to legitimate Pueblo

Indian legal claims rather than by an informed analysis of the architectural data. In contrast to

Wilshusen, Lekson believes that the Pueblo " and III kivas would be more fruitfully described as

masonry pit houses rather than ceremonial structures.

Wilshusen's (1986) label of "protokivas" for pitstructures containing human remains in

the Dolores region of Southwestern Colorado turns almost exclusively on contextual clues

derived from ethnographic analogies. Search for the roots of the first kivas has been easily

criticized by Lekson (1989) as an attempt to find a beginning in a continuous process of

southwestern architectural development. Nonetheless, Wilshusen's work is remarkably

innovative, in the direction of Smith (1952), because he defines ceremonial architecture by what

happens to it, in this case its unique abandonment rituals. Even if one sinks Wilshusen's

protokiva concept as a problematic study of Origins, a series of ritually discarded structures

remain for future behavioral analysiS.

In general, the history of archaeological thought concerning religion (culture historical,

processual, and postprocessual) implies that a ritual prehistory devoid of beliefs would be an

incomprehensible melange of idiosyncratic actions and objects moving through time. How

idiosyncratic, however, is not clear, as there are few studies that have ever attempted to define,

in a comprehensive fashion, the behavioral regularities that exist in the manufacture, use, and disposal of ritual Objects. This assumption of idiosyncrasy is unwarranted given that it rests on

an unhelpful reduction of ritual action to beliefs and not on any demonstrated chaotic qualities of

ritual behavior. The relative invisibility of ritual in the culture-history and new-archaeology

periods suggests that inferences of ritual events-like those of any activity-requires the

application of behavioral correlates that link people with artifacts. Such links allow archaeologists to use the contexts they observe when excavating to infer past events, including ritual ones. 50

RITUAL BEHAVIOR

A clear distinction between ritual behaviors and ritual beliefs eludes archaeologists because they continue to accept those social theoretical conventions of anthropology, comparative religion, folklore and history that favor belief systems over ritual actions (e.g.,

Douglas 1966; Durkheim 1947; Eliade 1958; Geertz 1966; Marett 1900; Rappaport 1968; Tylor

1920; van Gennep 1904; Wallace 1966). The conflation of religious ideas and behaviorst deeply pervades almost all modem social theories (Le., historical particularism, socioevolutionism, cultural ecology, marxism, structuralism), with the result that ritual is treated as a semantic code rather than as a disciplined and skillful behavioral practice (see Asad 1993:62).

Even within the materialist works of Marx, the place of beliefs and the causal importance of ideas are ambiguous. In more focused discussions of materialism and idealism, he clearly distinguished the material as having a stronger instrumental causality in human affairs, but in a critical tract perpetuated the belief that religion is a phenomenon of ideas or addictive illusions that helped to maintain inequalities among the classes (Marx 1974:36). As a committed revolutionary, he found it necessary to imbue critical theory with some causal importance:

The weapon of criticism, to be sure, cannot replace the criticism of weapons; material force must be overthrown by material force, but theory itself becomes a material force as soon as the masses grip it [Marx 1974:36].

In a more general comment, however, he maintained that

The mode of production in material life determines the general character of the SOCial, political and spiritual processes of life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but, on the contrary, their social existence determines their consciousness [Marx 1918:11-12].

Modem Marxists have approached this ambiguity in favor of a tempered idealism, constructing complicated models that link ideology to the material conditions of society (e.g.,

Althusser 1971; Bloch 1975; Bourdieu 1977). Moving inward, however, toward more 51 metaphorical action, they have de-emphasized the harder-line methodological materialism that characterizes the spirit of Marx's critiques of philosophical idealism (Marx 1981 :47). They continue to emphasize conflict and inequality, but in terms of ideological domination and symbolic action.

They have coined such terms as "symbolic capital," arguing that phenomena like prestige and honor represent nonmaterial or ritual strategies of accumulation that can be converted into economic capital (Bourdieu 1977:177). Clearly, Bourdieu and other neo-marxist scholars (e.g., Bloch 1975) have sought to overcome the ethnocentric bias of economic rationality embedded in the materialist literature; but they lack a data language to describe such a material perspective. As a result, Bourdieu was forced to name certain behaviors, symbolic, that he knows are material and that have material consequences. ''Thus the interest at stake in the conduct of honor is one for which economism has no name, and which has to be called symbolic, although it is such as to inspire actions which are very directly material" (Bourdieu

1977:181).

Ritual behavior continues to be demoted to the symbolic, unlike other realms of behavior that analysts, still steeped in the distinction between the useful and the useless, deem more

"materiaL" An outward or material approach that utlizes ritual relations of production, or ritual forces of production, remains to be tried in marxist social theory. Why not, in the spirit of materialist philosophy, focus on the very behaviors of ritual themselves (distinct from their emic representations)?

The symbolic analysis of ritual systems in studies of religion has not gone without significant criticism from some ritual theorists. Ritual as a phenomenon dependent upon belief can no longer be taken for granted. The long-standing assumption held by archaeologists that the ritual manipulation of symbols expresses a communally shared belief system indicative of social solidarity (sensu Durkheim 1947) has outlived its functionalist origins. Some ethnographers and ritual theorists find the communicative symbol theoretically constraining and 52 inconsistently supported (Cohen 1979; Grimes 1992; Stromberg 1981; Thompson 1986). Some have even argued that such symbolic experiences once perceived as a universal component of all cultures were never more than an analytic product of Western European intellectualism (Asad

1993; Lewis 1980; Sperber 1974). Staal (1989), for example, has actually proposed a new science of ritual, distinct from the study of symbolism, arguing that the lack of correlation between beliefs and actions indicates that ritual behaviors alone form a critical object of study.

These studies of ritual theory, while varying widely in terms of theoretical focus and direction, embody an important-albeit unexpected-consensus. The use of objects (artifacts and arChitecture) and the practice of rituals and taboos rather than consistent and deep-seated symbolic meanings are what people within a given ritual tradition actually share.

Behavioral archaeology, originally defined as the study of the relationships between human behavior and artifacts in all times and places (Reid et al. 1975), provides a foundation for expanding behaviorally based inferences into the realm of people and ritual Objects. This explicitly material-culture-oriented program, as noted above, has focused on the use characteristics of artifacts, employing experimental, ethnoarchaeological, and archaeological data (e.g., Schiffer 1992; Schiffer and Skibo 1987). This behavioral approach-unlike other archaeological programs-faCilitates the consideration of subsistence implements as well as ritual objects and features (e.g., prayer sticks, drums, masks, rattles, certain animals) as components within technologies.

However, describing the goal of their research as the study of the relationship between behavior and artifacts obscured the fact that "behaviors" involve the use and manipulation of materials rather than exist independently of them (Schiffer, personal communication 1995).

Human behaviors for the most part do not occur without artifacts. Behavior cannot be related to artifacts for it includes artifacts and cannot be defined or recognized without reference to them.

By separating behavior from the objects that occur in every behavior, early behavioralists tended to reinforce the bias against certain kinds of activities, including ritual ones. In more recent 53 studies, behavioralists have redefined behavior as the actions of people using material culture

(Walker et. aI1995). This revised behavioral perspective is described in the next chapter.

This reconceptualization of behavior, has led to the redefintion of existing categories for religious objects. Binford (1962) originally called them "ideotechnic," and later Sacket (1990) suggested the more recognized term "nonutilitarian." Rathje and Schiffer (1982:65-67) used the term "ideofunction" emphaSizing the root word "function" in an attempt to reconcile the behavioral approach with a concern for the use of symbolically charged artifacts. None of these terms, however, embraced the archaeological reality axiomatic to behavioralists that all inferences-including those of religion-proceed from behavioral rather than ideological reconstructions.

I suggest, therefore, that we dispense with the prefix "ideo" altogether and use the general category of ritual objects to describe the people, portable artifacts, architecture, and features whose life histories involve ritual behaviors. Any artifact can have symbolic meanings, but that does not mandate that we classify them in terms of meaning nor that the most significant meanings will confine themselves to the ritual sphere. Ritual behaviors are as real and definable as any other kind of behavior and can be inferred as any other through correlates identified through ethnographic observations of behavior. We need only an outward approach, focused on recording ritual correlates, in order to infer the prehistory of ritual. 54

CHAPTER 3:

RITUAL BEHAVIOR: AN OUTWARD APPROACH

Ritual is therefore directed at the apt perfonnance of what is prescribed, something that depends on intellectual and practical disciplines but does not require decoding. In other words, apt perfonnance involves not symbols to be interpreted but abilities to be acquired according to rules that are sanctioned by those in authority: it presupposes no obscure meaning, but rather the fonnation of physical and linguistic skills [Asad 1993:62].

In his Genealogy of Religion, Asad (1993) recognized that ritual behavior was more than symbols in action; such a perspective too narrowly constrained the study of religion. Modem westem analyses of religion, particularly in anthropology, undervalue the material experience of ritual found in both Westem and non-Westem traditions. To expand the prehistory of ritual behavior beyond the symbolic boundaries that now confine it, behavioral archaeology provides a framework for making apparent the rich behavioral variability of ritual acts. This requires the reassessment of concepts such as culture, organism, and environment, whose intimate theoretical association with symbolism and ideology shape archaeological approaches to the past, including ritual prehistory. By redefining behavior as the interaction of people and objects rather than the movements of organisms, the use of artifacts-especially ritual artifacts--is reconceptualized in the strongest material tenns possible. As such, ritual behaviors become simply another type of interaction of people with artifacts; they are not recognized nor studied in tenns of their symbolic properties, but through analyses of the life histories that organize them.

BEHAVIORAL ARCHAEOLOGY AND LIFE HISTORY RESEARCH

An artifact's life history is defined as the aggregate of all activities comprising its participation in a behavioral system, from its initial creation or acquisition through its uses and eventual disposal (e.g., manufacture, distribution, use, reuse, and disposal). Individual behavioral events in an artifact's life can be highly infonnative, particularly those that move them 55 into the archaeological record. Moreover, by organizing behaviors into sets of object life histories and groups of object life histories, the archaeologist can bring to light behavioral relationships previously masked. When an object's life history is considered as a unit, certain well-understood aspects of its use are less likely to over shadow other less-well-understood uses.

A clay cooking pot, for example, may have a quite varied life-well beyond its iniital use in cooking. Cooking pots have numerous reuses (Deal and Hagstrum 1995)-not the least of which involve ritual behaviors (see below).

Employing all or parts of an object's life history as a unit of analysis, can move the discussion of prehistoric ritual away from the often narrow categories of "utilitarian" and

"non utilitarian" objects (artifacts, architecture, people) and toward the ritual uses of objects in prehistoric activities. Utilitarian objects such as cooking pots, pit houses, and com, as well as nonutilitarian objects (e.g., crystals, kivas, and stone phalluses) occur in ritual deposits. Life history theory suggests that ritual function should be assigned not simply on the basis of the presumed usefulness of the objects but instead on the sequences of behavioral events during the course of their lives that conditioned their eventual disposal contexts. For example, virtually all non-puebloan peoples of the U.S. Southwest-Yumans, Athapascans, Utes, and Paiutes burned or destroyed someone's home and property when he or she died. Often the hamlet or camp was abandoned and new houses were constructed elsewhere. Pueblo peoples in contrast neither destroy the house nor even move to another. Jorgensen (1980) has proposed a correlate that partially explains these differences. Pueblo houses involve higher replacement costs; they are more substantial and, therefore, less likely to be burned or destroyed when abandoned. This pragmatic explanation fits well for the specific activities of house destruction and abandonment. A life-history approach, however, exposes a series ofbehavioral relationships that gives a broader context to these practical relationships.

Ritual behaviors among nonpuebloan peoples focus more intensely, albeit not exclusively, on life-crisis activities (birth, puberty, menstruation, marriage, sickness and 56 witchcraft, and death). The home and brush structures figure prominently in these ritualized events. The Navajo hogan, in fact, is the chief metaphor of creation and a prominent part of almost all ceremonials (Gill 1983:S03). In one sense, the ritual life-histories of domestic structures among nonpuebloan peoples closely parallel those of their inhabitants. These objects

(the house and everday tools) are intimately tied to ceremony during their lives-including their eventual ceremonial disposal.

Among the ethnohistoric pueblos, in contrast, a regular calendar of ceremonies focuses on community needs for rain and fertility. Individual ritual concems are not forgotten; indeed, they are often quite elaborate in the pueblos. Nonetheless, the religious societies and sodalities of the pueblos have precedence in the planning of future activities, and play key roles in otherwise domestic life-crisis rituals. Puebloan peoples have developed a host of ritual activities, religious societies, and priesthoods that guide the course of human and artifact life-histories in different directions from those of nonpuebloan peoples. Although the puebloan home has its share of ritual behaviors, it has far fewer than a kiva has. The frequency of ritual behaviors witnessed by a kiva vs. a home, because both require human particpants, suggest that the ritual lives of puebloan peoples more closely parallel the lives of kivas.

Just as the nonpuebloan house and the nonpuebloan person share analogous ritual life histories, puebloan peoples have ritual life histories analogous to their kivas and clan houses.

Kiva structures are constructed by members of a religious society and receive more intensive rituals of consecration than homes; a new kiva is even named and a feast is held at its completion. Kiva uses include the practice and performance of ceremonials as well as the manufacture and storage of objects used In those ceremonials. I will argue in the next chapter that their disposal, like that of people, was also ritualized.

Life-history theory focuses attention on these material aspects of ritual objects rather than on the beliefs that mayor may not accompany them in any particular ritual act. Ritual acts have material consequences regardless of whether an analyst finds them lacking in utilitarian 57

effects. As such, the study of ritual prehistory requires a framework that can identify life histories

in a comprehensive fashion. Behavioral archaeology offers such a framework.

Behavioral Archaeology

Reid (1995) speaks for a whole generation of processual archaeologists when he argues

that the inherent limitations of archaeological research, e.g., unclear units of analysis, effects of

natural processes, the identification of ritual and symbolism, ultimately originate in the practices

of archaeologists themselves. This faith in the creativeness of research strategies induced the

original three behavioral archaeologists to formally organize the existing archaeological practices

of the 1970s within a systematic, but open-ended, exploratory enterprise they called "behavioral

archaeology. "

This archaeology had three central tenets: an explicit model of archaeological inference,

a behavioral approach to sociocultural phenomena, and a redefinition of archaeology's subject

matter. The first tenet identified archaeological research with the discovery and testing of laws

and theories (Schiffer 1976:4) through a "synthetic model of inference" grounded in

"transformation theory" (Schiffer 1972,1975, 1976, 1987). According to the synthetic model of

inference, knowledge of the past is inferential and derives from the examination of the

archaeological record. Such inferences, either implicitly or explicitly, are based on a corpus of theoretical propOSitions that describe, in varying degrees of generality, relationships between

human behavior and materials. These propositions are known as behavioral correlates. They operate in all times and places, past and present. In addition to correlates, the relationships

between people and objects that instrumentally create archaeological deposits are called cultural site formation processes or He-transforms" (Schiffer 1987:22). Although I would argue that e transforms are essentially a subset or special class of correlates, Schiffer originally gave them a distinct name in order to emphasize the extreme importance of separating the uses of artifacts from the places and manner in which they are disposed. He did, however, define transformation 58 theory more generally to include those behaviors that move or transform objects in an ongOing

behavioral system (correlates) as well as those behaviors that transform objects out of an ongoing behavioral system into the archaeological record (c-tranforms). As we approach the second millenium, when the study of site formation processes are de rigeur in many circles, these theoretical distinctions and jargon seem excessive. It would seem easier to simply recognize that some correlates describe relationships involving the manufacture, distribution, and uses of objects and others their disposal. Yet in the 1970s the importance of highlighting discard behaviors was essential.

Some of the earliest work conducted by behavioral archaeologists, in fact, demonstrated through c-transforms the methodological importance of identifying disposal events in the life histories of ceramic artifacts. In the late 1960s, "new archaeologists" wanted to infer social processes, such as marital residence pattems, from archaeological depOSits. Although skeptics asserted that such analyses were beyond the reach of artifact-based data, new archaeologists

William A. Longacre (1970b), James Hili (1968), James Deetz (1965), and others attempted to identify marital residence pattems through the analysis of ceramic artifacts.

Behavioralists, while agreeing that archaeologists should attempt to reconstruct social processes using objects, argued that these initial analyses did not fully take into account the complex life histories of the ceramics, particularly their transitions from systemic to archaeological contexts (Schiffer 1976). Frequently the places where artifacts were used differed from their find spots. One complete pueblo pot in use over a cooking fire could become many pieces by the time it was depOSited-perhaps in several places-in the archaeological record. Often the four dimensions of artifact variability changed dramatically between the two contexts; thus, any social interpretations of excavated artifacts, to be successful, have to take such changes into account.

The second tenet of behavioral archaeology is the axiom that the human use of objects can be studied in terms of behavioral events alone. This theoretical choice assumes that neither 59

subjective phenomena (culture, meaning, and the like) nor environmental adaptations

instrumentally create the archaeological record; behavior does. Therefore, subjective

phenomena, even if linked to a causal chain of behavioral events, enter archaeological analysis

only as they actually articulate with inferred activities. This means that in the absence of

altemative windows into the past (i.e., oral histories, written records, and self-reflective

informants), archaeological reconstructions of meaning, symbols, subsistence priorities, or

artifact design choices necessarily depend upon previously inferred behaviors.

The third tenet is a redefinition of archaeology as the study of the relationships between

human behavior and material culture in all times and all places (Reid et al. 1974). This was to be

attained through the pursuit of four strategies that addressed both particular historical processes

and nomothetic explanations of those processes (see Reid 1995). As such, behavioral

archaeologists explore particular problems such as the chronology of Hohokam of the U.S.

Southwest (Schiffer 1982), but can also begin with particular cases and seek the more general

processes they all share. Such nomothetic questions range widely, including studies of the

relationship between subsistence strategies and architectural design (Schiffer and Mcguire 1983) the performance characteristics of clay cooking pots (Schiffer and Skibo 1987; Skibo 1992), and the formation of ceremonial trash depoSits (Walker 1995).

This research has been misunderstood by some (Binford 1981a; Cordell et al. 1987;

Earle and PreuceI1987:511), and critiqued by others (Dunnell 1978, 1980; Hodder 1986; Shanks and Tilley 1987a, 1987b); still others caricatured it as unanthropological because it does not utilize culture as an explanatory principle (Flannery 1982). Despite the use of the terms

Umaterial culture,· "cultural system," and "cultural formation processes," culture plays little or no explanatory role in behavioral archaeology. Instead they use what I call behavioral contexts.

The culture concept means many things to many people (Kroeber and Kluckhohn 1952); it often connotes a specific group of people and their attendant beliefs and practices. To the degree that the group maintains a residence in a given geographic area, the culture concept implicitly ties 60 those people, beliefs, and practices to a specific place. To the degree that those people are recognized as believing and practicing in a consistent fashion, a culture can have a temporal existence.

Incontrast, a behavioral context is never defined by specific peoples, specific ideas, or practices, Instead behavioral contexts are defined by correlates linking people and objects that are needed to address specific questions. In such contexts, because it is the correlates that are important one can draw on upon any number of behaviors from many places, or times. One can, for example study hunting behavior by examining the correlates derived from the interactions of hunters with their weapons concievably mixing Apache bow hunters and Pueblo stick throwers with Eskimo harpoon hunting. Although they use different tools, hunt different animals, and may have concieved of their practices through entirely different idioms, these differences would not neccessarily be relevant for understanding that both sets of hunters undergo ritual preparations for their hunts, both have ritual prescriptions about the kinds of animals they hunt and the ways they hunt them, and finally, that both follow proscriptions for the ritualized disposal of certain animal parts.

Expanding Life-History Analysis

Life-history studies highlight patterned variability in a sequence of interactions in which a person or other object partiCipates over a specified period of time. This fusion of synchronic and diachronic perspectives has found fruitful application in a broad range of natural, social, and behavioral sciences. In each of these disCiplines, nomothetic principles, derived from what I term life history theory, specify the conditions and consequences of interactions among "objects" in motion. The manner in which these disCiplines study interactions of objects at scales of greater or lesser inclusiveness is particular1y helpful for envisioning new ways to study the ritual interactions of people and artifacts. In the spirit of Galileo's telescope (Schiffer 1995:23) or

Newton's calculus, life-histories can be used to illuminate previously-unrecognized patterns of 61 human behavior. One can study a single object's life history or the life histories of a series of objects. Such series or aggregates of objects can be concieved of as a population of artifacts, animals, stars, or any other objects whose study as a group provides insights that might not be as apparent when considered individually.

Life-history approaches in biology have been used to explore the evolution of animal object aggregates through time studies of natural selection seek to explain the differential persistence of objects at different scales, including populations of organisms, demes, species, and so on. In paleontology (Shipman 1981), taphonomic histories are used to study the various processes that form fossil assemblages. Behavioral archaeologists employ a similar set of techniques within transformation theory for discerning the lives of objects as well as the impact of analogous depositional and postdepositional processes on artifact assemblages (Schiffer

1976,1987). In biology and archaeology, any inference of relationships among elements in past behavioral systems is informed by an understanding of variability introduced by processes like deposition, scavenging, deflation, disturbance, and decomposition. Taphonomy and archaeological site formation process studies are similar because objects in a depositional context are primary units of observation. Such data contain clues that archaeologists and paleontologists use for reconstructing earlier segments of an object's or organism's life history.

Life-history studies form one branch of longitudinal analysis that has provided psychologists with an alternative to approaches that homogenize complexity in personal histories. Robins (1972), for example, discusses the different sequences of behavior that an individual may follow after being convicted for a crime. While one sequence may lead to rehabilitation and re-integration into SOCiety, other sequences-where felons encounter unemployment-tend to perpetuate additional "deviant" behaviors.

Tracking people's life histories has been a mainstay of ethnographic research in cultural anthropology since at least the early twentieth century (Aberle 1967; Kluckhohn 1945; Langness,

1965; Langness and Frank 1981; Peacock 1984; Peacock and Holland 1993; Radin 1983[1926], 62

1913). As in psychology, life-history analysis in ethnography serves to highlight variability in the biographies of informants. As an illustration of this point, Kluckhohn (1945:95) once compared

Simmons' Sun Chief (1942:294,327), the autobiography of an Orayvi Hopi, with institutional studies of Old Orayvi, noting that "the life history recorded by Simmons brings out the ... importance of witchcraft as a focus of anxiety [much] more dramatically than do any of the

[other] ethnographic accounts." Kluckhohn (1945:145) further adds that the "free associations of the narrator," unbound by externally imposed categories of economics or religion, afford many clues to actual interconnections and patterns of behavior that are obscured in traditional normative analyses.

Initially, behavioralists, along with other processual archaeologists, linked the attributes of artifacts to their functions within cultural subsystems to advance sociological studies. Artifact functions were categorized as technofunctional, sociofunctional, and ideofunctional. These functions depend upon particular interactions in an object's life history, and behavioralists recognized that every artifact has variable interactions that can encompass all three different functional types (Schiffer 1992:9-12).

The technofunctions of ceramics, chipped stone, and ground stone have been a source of long-term experimentation at the University of Arizona's Laboratory of Traditional Technology, directed by Michael B. Schiffer. Pottery experiments, for example, have focused on the complex relationships among the formal propertie~ of the ceramic pots, the technical choices made by the potter, and the performance of these artifacts in particular activities (e.g., Schiffer et a!. 1994)

Like other processual archaeologists, behavioralists found that technological functions were more easily inferred than social or ideological functions. A Star-of-David amulet, for example, is an artifact shape that has religious meaning in Judaism, but it also symbolizes a group of people that share ritual activities, and-since 1948-a country (Israel). Recognizing this difficulty, behavioralistslumped the social and ideological functions of artifacts within the 63

general category of style to distinguish such functions from technological or "utilitarian" functions

(Rathje and Schiffer 1982:67).

Ritual, although often equated with beliefs and symbols, § a behavior. As noted in the

last chapter, archaeologists already ask what ritual objects mean, but they have rarely attempted

to infer how they were made, used, and discarded. Because the social use of objects is a

behavioral phenomenon that is not well understood, archaeologists often have relegated the

"sociofunctions· of object,;,; to stylistic analyses, where variables of style, defined as functionally

inconsequential, cannot begin to describe the behaviors involved in the concept of social

function. These stylistic attributes, although defined as unnecessary for use (nonutilitarian), must

somehow capture the performance characteristics of an object's use in a material fashion that

archaeologists can use to infer past social activities (for a further critique, see [Nielsen 1995]).

Any interaction with an object is a behavior and part of a causal chain of events

amenable to life history-analysis. Within this perspective, non utilitarian artifacts are not symbolic

artifacts. They are instead objects possessing behavioral regularities in their life histories that

remain to be discovered. Archaeologists that embrace this behavioral framework must be willing

to look for behavioral regularities of objects as phenomena that exist independently of

claSSifications of their apparent utility. This new materialism is an outward approach that has

reinvigorated behavioral research and allowed behavloralists to expand their life-history

framework to prehistoric studies of social power (Nielsen 1995), landscapes and territories

(Zedeno and Lorentzen1995), ritual behavior (Walker 1995), and gender (Schiffer and Skibo

1995). Contemporary subjects including modem religion, pornography, and the taboos

associated with American medical waste-all once considered distinct and even unrelated subjects have been linked through shared qualities of their life histories (Walker and LaMotta

1995).

Identifying behavioral Identities using a life-history approach requires behavioralists to

embrace ethnography, history, sociology, religious studies, and any other field In which the lives of artifacts are described. Using these known life histories, archaeologists can begin to define

life-history events pertinent for reconstructing ritual object life histories and groups of ritual object

life histories.

As behavioral archaeologists expand their studies into new realms such as ritual they

have found that life-history theory is an essential methodological tool. This theory seeks to

explain the interactions of people and artifacts as they move through time, and builds upon a

new artifact concept defining anything impacted by human activities as an artifactual object of

study, including people, architecture, and animals. Accompanying the development of this

approach are new terms-a data language, if you will-that describes in detail the behavioral

interactions of all the objects involved.

Behavioralists classify the measurements one can make of objects into four

"dimensions" of artifact variability (see Rathje and Schiffer 1982:81; Schiffer 1976). All objects, whether sitting on a table at a Tucson flea market or decaying in an ancient tomb, can be

measured in terms of (1) their physical properties (color, material, size, etc.), (2) frequency of

occurrence, (3) relation or association with other artifacts, and (4) the place they occupy in space.

In a behavioral perspective, every object ultimately follows a unique chain of behavioral

events that begins with its acquisition as raw materials and continues through manufacture and

initial uses. These events are often followed by various reuses, some of which require the

artifact to be return to the processes of manufacture. This sequence ends when someone disposes of or loses the object, and it enters the archaeological record. Schiffer (1976:46-48)

has modeled this chain of events in flow models for both durable and consumable goods, as

illustrated in Figure 3.1. Although no two empirical sequences are identical, these sequences

can be corralled within analytical units that call attention to particular properties they share.

Schiffer's flow models represent two possible ways of partitioning the events in an artifact's life.

Objects in both models may go through similar manufacture, use, and disposal processes, but 65

SYSTEMIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT CONTEXT

recycling

I lalerol I r cycling I I ~ I_ manufaclure.. _ use .. _ refuse procuremenl .. discard ..

I f mainlenance

SYSTEMIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT CONTEXT

recycling

lolerol .-cycling I --...,... procuremenl.. J... preparation'" ... consumpllon ... discard.. _ ,.fuse

Figure 3.1 Flow Models for Durable and Consumable Objects (From Schiffer 1976:46-47). 66 differ in their lengths of use and manner of disposal. These models represent what new behavioral archaeologists refer to as "general" life-history models.

Life histories are theoretical abstractions that organize the empirical interactions of objects (people and artifacts) as they move through time. As such, they are a rich field of interactions whose multifaceted variability has only begun to reveal its secrets; there are many other life-history classes for both individual and group artifacts to be defined and explored. Not the least of these involves the objects of ritual behavior. Ritual objects as a group follow paths different from those of nonritual objects. The life histories of individual ritual objects are, however, variable and can be examined at a finer scale to describe various kinds of ritual practitioners (e.g., communal ritual objects vs. personal fetishes, shamanic tools vs. priestly objects).

To conceptualize the multiple ways of looking at the behaviors that occur during the course of an object's movement through time, new behavioral archaeologists employ aggregate models. Unlike the earlier behavioral chains models that employ specific activities as units of analysis, an entire life history of all the activities an object partiCipates in can be aggregated into a unit of analysis. Even a series of life-history units can be aggregated. For example, in modem

American society, criminal tools, pornography, and medical waste all have life histories that share certain behavioral properties (Walker and La Motta 1995). None are discarded carelessly.

It is dangerous for the criminal to discard a murder weapon that could be used in a court of law to convict him. It would be unthinkable to drop a hard-core pornographic magazine in the dust bin at one's office, and hospitals go to great lengths to sanitize medical waste for fear of contagion. Interacting with these objects during the course of their lives is equally fraught with dangers. Medical examinations as well as shopping for sexual toys require privacy. The premeditated use of murder weapons almost always entails an attempt to hide the act.

Any series of events that compose an object life history can be compared with those of other object life histories to construct life history aggregates. Although archaeologists often 67

specialize in classes of artifacts (e.g., lithics, ceramics, ground stone) and focus on a limited

series of behaviors associated with a particular class (e.g., pottery manufacture, lithic use-wear

analysis), life-history aggregate research redirects attention toward behaviors that crosscut

artifact classes. One can imagine as many life histories of objects as there are innovative and

exciting problems one can glean from their life histories. In theory, because the focus is on

peoples interactions with objects and not the objects themselves, there exist an infinite number

of ways that the properties of behaviors (people interacting with other objects) can be defined

and analyzed in life-history aggregates. The criminal tools, medical waste, and pornography

represent powerfully dangerous objects. One could also look at the -human qualities" certain

object life histories share. In some societies pets are given names and taken to the doctor; they

are given beds and homes of their own and even buried in cemeteries. In other societies such

lives are led by stone fetishes.

Other objects, like utilitarian cooking pots, com cobs, pit houses, etc., have life-histories

characterized by ritual associations with people; and, as a result, their life histories as a group

can be distinguished from less ritualized object's lives. It does not matter that a cooking vessel

is utilitarian when it is ritually destroyed during a funerary buming of a person's home and

possessions. What matters is that it was intimately associated with a home where children were

named, sicknesses were cured, and funerary rites performed.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY OF BEHAVIOR

Cross-Culturalism vs. Behavioral Identities

Because culture is considered a natural human product, cognitively inculcated over time and space, archaeologists believe that it is unanthropological to question its explanatory utility

(see Flannery 1982). A study of behavior such as a life-history analysis that crosscuts these

"natura In divisions of time and place is, therefore, suspect and would seem to require elaborate justification. 68

Behavioralists do not deny that cultures provide a unit of analysis appropriate for some questions. Instead they argue that there is a certain material realm of human behavior that can be more productively investigated without culture theory. A comparative method based in behavior, rather than culture, allows them to address such topics as social power, gender, ritual, material culture, economics, and technology in new and exciting ways (see Skibo et al. 1995).

Particular ideas, values, or even material traits are units of analysis that articulate well with the culture concept. Because they are constrained to specific contexts of space and time they are useful markers of cultures. However, cross-cultural comparisons of these units disrupt these spatiotemporal contexts, and are always, at some level, inherently contradictory. As a result, life-history arguments formed by behavioral archaeologists that pick and choose behaviors from different cultures or culture areas are viewed with suspicion. This is especially true for research that utilizes contemporary ethnographic data.

Trigger (1982:8), for example, has argued that even the best cases of ethnological and ethnohistoric societies from the "ethnographic present" have been changed in one way or another by intrusions from modem or western cultural practices and, therefore, do not provide suitable analogues for studying the cultures of the past. From a cultural perspective he is correct. Metal tools have replaced stone implements, and systems of kinship, land tenure, religion, and numerous other traits of traditional societies have been dramatically altered during the last 500 years. In the absence of available pristine cultures, he suggested that the funding of ethnoarchaeology should be severely restricted, by limiting research to (1) questions of immediate relevance for interpretations of the archaeological record, and (2) those places previously studied by ethnographers (Trigger 1982:8). Explicit in this perspective is the assumption that the differences between prehistoriC cultures and contemporary ones are so great that the data most relevant for archaeology can only be found through the direct historical approach, masked as ethnoarchaeology, or the archaeological record itself. 69

A behavioralist, in contrast, would not necessarily focus on the losses and gains of

cultural traits but instead would recognize in this recent history many of the same behavioral

processes that have in different combinations characterized the interactions of people and objects of all times and places. Behavioralists embrace the very changes in technology and

relations of power between peoples, e.g., Native American and European, which cultural

historians attempt to discount. NAGPRA legislation and the behavioral context surrounding it is

perhaps the best-documented struggle for control of ritual sacra available to ritual theorists. It is one good case behavloralists can use to study the general processes involved in the struggle to control and redirect the life histories of an aggregate of ritual objects. More generally, traditional ethnohistory is replete with such behavioral data that can be incorporated into archaeological analysis. The relatively peaceful and integrative results of the NAGPRA implementation can be contrasted with other disputes over the control of object life histories.

When U.S. troops went to the Hopi pueblo of Orayvi in 1891 to arrest "hostile" natives and impose the U.S. government's vision of a proper direction for Hopi objects (people and artifacts), they were met by a pantheon of spiritual personages: Maasaw, Kookyang50wuuti,

"Spider grandmother," and the "War Twins." According to Whitely (1988a:35), this presentation of the gods was a ritual process marking a formal declaration of war in Hopi culture. This confrontation was clearly a unique Hopi historical event, but it had precendents in the earlier

ritual violence that accompanied Hopi struggles for control over the life histories of their objects that Spanish Catholicism had challenged. In 1700, they had burned the Spanish Mission at the pueblo of Awatovi and slaughtered its Hopi converts as witches (Fewkes1893, 1896:567-570); they subsequently recycled the mission beams into their kivas and the homes of their ceremonial leaders. They not only sucessfully resisted the diversion of their objects' life histories along a

new path, but they actually captured some Spanish ones and redirected them.

This case, like that of the NAGPRA objects, clearly involves objects whose life histories were contested. These life histories could be aggregated, with those of other contested objects, 70 for the study of human conflict in past or present cultures-Hopi, Spanish, or American. The recent history of the world, both western and otherwise during the last 500 years, has witnessed many changes; and in any case one considers, there are a plethora of behaviors (people interacting with objects) that could serve as meaningful data for archaeologists to use in the analyses of human activities.

Given the kinds of archaeological questions asked today and the relatively minor role of material culture in most ethnographies, one wonders why archaeologists would want to perpetuate a culturalist perspective. In the context of the eugenics movement and racist models of social evolution (see Gould 1984), cultural theories, as opposed to biological theories, provided a strong tool for an enlightened American anthropology. It was also a framework that allowed both cultural and archaeological anthropologists to organize a vast amount of information about peoples of the world that is still useful. At this point in time, however, privileging the culture concept does not necessarily conserve financial resources for creating what Trigger calls informed "scientific histories" of long-term changes in human behavior

(Trigger 1982:8, see also 1989:409). Instead, it only limits the reach of archaeological inferences by depriving them of the patterned relations between people and objects that underlie the interpretive methods archaeologists use to reconstruct the past. Behavioralists, therefore, advocate without hesitation the expansion of historical and ethnoarchaeological research in order to identify and explore behavioral regularities in artifact life histories past and present.

Ethnographic research is especially critical for the study of ritual prehistory. Behavioral regularities that recur in the manufacture, use, and disposal of ritual objects are one of the least understood realms of people/object interactions. An understanding of these regularities is required for inferring ritual behaviors from the archaeological record of collapsed ceremonial structures, buried fetishes, broken or "killed pottery, and ubiquitous funerary remains that fill sites and museums. 71

Previous arguments for cross-cultural research have not directly challenged the culture

concept but have instead attempted to avoid its constraints by shifting, in a confusing fashion,

between mental and behavioral realms (e.g., Ford 1939; Whiting 1954). As a result, recognizing

behavioral regularities or' even the possibilities of their analytiC existence has been a difficult

theoretical position for anthropologists to defend. Hobhouse et al. (1930), for example, justified the notion that material culture was the best source of cross-cultural data, arguing that it most

clearly represented the intellectual achievement of any given society. In a similar manner,

Murdock (1940) listed seven assumptions that make cross-cultural comparison pOSSible,

including a strong argument for the universal nature of cognition.

To the extent that culture is ideational, we may conclude, all cultures should reveal certain similarities, flowing from the universal laws goveming the symbolic mental processes, e.g., the worldwide parallels in the principles of magic [Murdock 1940:366].

To move beyond these contradictory uses of the culture concept, important arguments were made for intensive but localized comparative work. Such studies in effect replaced the concept of one unified culture with a more-encompassing unit by stretching culture's spatia- temporal boundaries. Eggan (1954) called for "controlled comparison" among cultures within

regions, such as the U.S. Southwest. In a similar way, Nadel (1952) conducted studies of witchcraft among neighbOring African societies. In a telling commentary on Sapir, Eggan acknowledged that such limited cross-cultural research might eventually, if followed to its logical conclusion, lead to a science based in behavioral observations, but only after a long period of controlled comparisons.

In time we may be able to simplify and further order our conceptual schemes in terms of direct observations on human behavior. Sapir, in perhaps a moment of inSight, once defined culture "as a systematic series of illUSions enjoyed by people." But culture, like the 'ether' of the nineteenth-century physicists, plays an essential role today and will do so for a considerable time to come [Eggan 1954:760]. 72

The limitations of that cultural ether are prominent in debates over the use of ethnographic analogies in archaeological studies. The controversy over analogy (e.g., Binford

1967; Gould 1980; Hodder 1986; Wylie 1985; Yellen 1977) stems in large part from the reification of the culture concept. The tension created by applying data obtained from specific ethnohistoric or ethnographic cultures (e.g., Solway and Lee 1990; Stahl 1993; Wilmsen and

Denbow 1990) to other cultures (e.g., prehistoric ones) confronts the historical contexts that give meaning to worldviews, conceptual categories, or particular cultural traits.

Behavioral archaeologists recognize a broader continuity in nature that all interpretative constructs, including culture, violate. Rather than attempting to expand culture to include a region or a group of cultures with similar perceptions of witchcraft in order to maintain the spEltio temporal integrity of traits or worldviews, behavioralists begin with the behaviors and let the time and space fall where they will (see Chapter 6). When they choose behavioral units of analysis, they fully realize that these units are analytical and not natural. They are temporary and problem specific classifications that highlight useful phenomena.

If these units of people interacting with objects correspond to traditional cultural areas or groups (i.e., ritual objects in the puebloan culture area of the U.S. Southwest) behavioralists are neither surprised nor confounded. These parallels represent only special cases where the behavioral contexts possess more spatio-temporal continuity than others. Such contexts will undoubtedly be more useful for certain questions. Clearly these continuities have been a mainstay of anthropology and are the stuff of interesting social facts (sensu Durkhiem 1947) worthy of explanation. Ultimately, however, blocks of time and place are derivative in behavioral theory and, unlike cultural contexts, do not predetermine, in a orthodox fashion, appropriate boundary conditions for the comparison of human activities. The use of puebloan ethnography in interpretations of Anasazi sites is not simply an application the direct historical approach; the behavioralist brings his or her theoretical baggage of correlates, transforms, objects, and behavior to any ethnographic situation and remakes it anew. As such, it is not ultimately the 73 same culture or ethnographic data seen by other anthropologists employing different analytic tools.

Behavioral archaeologists concede that their perspective is only one of many useful ways of examining the human experience, and they do not a priori privilege the causality identified in behavioral research over other realms. That is an empirical question for future study. Nor do they presume to define the boundaries of the discipline of archaeology as a whole.

What is at stake for the behavioralist is the freedom to define behavior in terms of a relationship they have found helpful in resolving questions concerning, for example, intrasite chronology (Reid 1978), technology (Ross 1985; Schiffer 1991,1992,1994; Schiffer and Skibo

1987; Skibo 1992), architectural design (Schiffer and McGuire 1982), textile production and use

(Magers 1975), alcohol consumption (staski 1984), site formation processes (Montgomery 1992,

1993; Nielsen 1991; Schiffer 1987), contemporary American culture (Rathje and Murphy 1992), and the development of new behavioral arenas such as ritual prehistory. In the spirit of theoretical freedom, behavioralists have found it necessary to redefine the relationship between people and objects in ways other archaeologists have not.

The Organismal Unit of Behavior

When one confronts the "natural" boundary of culture one must also face the analytic classes of human experience that reinforce it. Among social scientists, for example, "human behavior" is taken for granted as a property exhibited by human organisms independently of artifacts. The human body in motion is the behavior; the artifacts are part of the immediate environment that this motion effects. The underlying theoretical concept in this use of "behavior" is that organisms, in this case humans, possess behavior and move because they are living things. Inanimate objects such as artifacts or architecture in contrast are not alive and, therefore, do not behave. Instead they exhibit physical properties, all tropes notwithstanding

(e.g., ''the atoms were excited," or "drugs are evil;. Hence, when objects unnaturally exhibit 74 animate attributes (e.g., sheep that speak, or paintings of the Virgin that weep) they are described by social scientists as manifestations of the supernatural.

Cleany, the analytic concept of t~e organism has been productive in both the life and social sciences, but along the way it has become rigid; today, it is synonymous with Kreality" and has lost the conceptual flexibility of a theoretical proposition. As such, notions of "organismal behavior" and "human behavior" perpetuate gaps in anthropological knowledge of the interactions of people with each other and other objects (artifacts and architecture). The organismal distinctions between life and not life, and organisms and their environments, go unquestioned. It is these unquestioned assumptions about human reality that underpin higher level social and behavioral theories, making possible analyses that are driven by cultural and environmental causality. Such analyses de-emphasize or gloss over the interactions of people with objects as causally insignificant epiphenomena.

The study of style and function in archaeology provides an important example of this process (Conkey and Hastorf 1992). Despite much critical commentary on the subject, Renfrew and Bahn's (1991 :369) introductory description of the debate is apt. Style refers to how people do something while function refers to why they do it. In this perspective style is relegated to the realm of symbolic variability unrelated to the function or use of the object.

For archaeologists concerned with symbolism and meaning, such stylistic data provide important clues to the deep cultural patterns that direct behavior from afar. Styles also serve as indirect measures of time, group affiliation-ethnic or religious, and information exchange; styles are many things but they are seldom considered the results of ordered behaviors. They are assumed to be too idiosyncratic. The net result is that the people and activities that accompany the life histories of different style artifacts are divorced from the functional analysis of these artifacts.

One exception has been Dunnell's (1978) evolutionary distinction between aspects of an artifact that contribute to the fitness of the human phenotype-function, and those that do not- 75 style. In his treatment of the problem, behaviors are not gutted from style, yet a large number of

behaviors, particularly ritual ones, are relegated to the realm of "waste behaviors" (Dunnell

1989). Such waste behaviors are used to demonstrate the channeling of reproductive resources

into the wasteful labor of circulating ceremonial goods and the construction of ritual architecture.

These are interesting applications of evolutionary theory but they do not explain how particular ceremonial objects were used nor how those uses changed over time. Given that a large part of the archaeological record consists of just such "waste" behaviors, this narrow evolutionary

claasification can not adequately describe their behavioral variability. They are, after all, the

primary archaeological evidence of ritual prehistory.

People and Objects

Behavioral archaeology is now moving beyond the limiting theoretical positions that stem from organismal understandings of behavior. In a recent paper, Schiffer and Skibo (1994) have called for the abandonment of the style and function dichotomy, arguing that stylistic behaviors

involved in ceramic manufacture are critical facets of understanding ceramic technology.

Lechtman (1977), and others (Dobres and Hoffman 1994) who advocate the notion of technological style have come to a similiar conclusion. However, they have attained this

perspective by focusing on the symbolic sentiments that shape technological styles rather than the behavioral notion that behaviors described as stylistic, although seemingly idiosyncratic, are empirically meaningful in themselves-independent of any symbolic interpretations that can be derived from them.

The animators of the behaving organism-culture, environment, and mind-that characterize the social theory of other archaeological perspectives take a back seat in behavioral archaeology to people making, using, and depositing things. Despite the well-known incompatibilities of method and theory that divide archaeologists into processual, postprocessual, and selectionist schools of thought, they all share conceptions of behavior that stem from the 76 organismal research (e.g., Bain 1855; Darwin 1871, 1872; Huxley 1874; Romanes 1882;

Spencer 1870) that supported much of the nineteenth-century expansion of method and theory in physiology, psychology, and evolutionary biology (see Boakes 1984, O'Connell 1985). In archaeological theory, despite much critical thought since that time, theorists who define behavior as a properties of organisms still prohibit many of the questions posed by behavioral archaeologists (see Binford 1981; Cordell et a11987; Dunnell 1980:43-49; Flannery 1982;

O'Brien and Holland 1995; Wylie 1995).

Behavior as a unit of analysis has been defined and measured in a radically different way in behavioral archaeology. Building upon the long tradition of defining behaviors and bodily functions in terms of object motions (Descartes 1971 [1664], Harvey 1957 [1628]; Huxley 1874) behavioralists argue that "behaviors" necessarily include the moving unit containing both people and artifacts (see Figure 3.2). The boundary of a behavior, however, does not conform to the animate/inanimate dichotomy that flows from the study of organisms. Behavior is not a moving organism but instead extends beyond it. It is the combined motion a moving organism and its

Objects.

A fundamental axiom of behavioral archaeology is that no behaviors occur without artifacts. As such, part of what was formerly the environment of an organism has been redefined as behavior in behavioral archaeology. In this new unit the notion of the organism is subordinated to the more inclusive interaction of people and Objects. The organism is only part of the phenomenon. When the use of pots becomes part of the behavior, the once-important causal distinction between the animate organism and the inanimate environment consisting of things becomes unnecessary and confUSing. Instead, this approach focuses attention on the regularities that exist among interacting objects--people making, using, and disposing of artifacts

(behaviors).

A life-history analysis organizes these behaviors in sequences of causal events. Stylistic behaviors, non utilitarian behaviors, waste behaviors, and any other material processes once 77

Figure 3.2 Behavior as the Interactions of People and Objects (From Walker et 81. 1995:5). 78 relegated to the realm of epiphenomena become the movements of people and objects whose regularities beg explanation; they are placed on an equal analytic footing with "functional" and

"utilitarian" concerns. Ultimately, within this behavioral perspective all behaviors are mechanistic and could be said to function within interactions. To act with objects is to function.

Because this unit of behavior does not follow the conventions of culture-based theories, it has important implications for the boundaries of higher-level archaeological inquiry. Contrary to

Flannery (1982:269), behavioralists argue that this analytic unit allows for the examination of what people actually do. Such anthropological data can only enhance the success of neoevolutionary explanations describing adapting cultural systems. A behavioral perspective provides the tools for reconstructing the behaviors and groups of behaviors that would make up any dynamic system. The use of such behaviorally based data would allow neoevolutionary scholars to avoid criticisms by cultural theorists who find, perhaps ironically, that the extrasomatic model of culture is idealistic, and lacking in rigorous material demonstration (see

Sahlins 1976:88; also Orans 1975:325-326).

The moving person-object unit of behavior also avoids the relativist paths of idealist post-processual criticism (e.g., Hodder 1986:14-15; Shanks 1992; Shanks and Tilley 1987a:108;

1987b:71-72). In accord with Skinner (1976:15), behavioralists find that "mentalistic explanations ... bring [behavioral] inquiry to a stop." When explanations revolve around textual, hermeneutic, or ideological entelechies, the study of behaviors is an afterthought.

This is not a criticism of postprocessualism as a field of study; texts and systems of thought and classification are intriguing, especially for students of religion. Rather it is an explicit recognition that the theoretical tools of postprocessual research do not advance the underlying materialism that motivates research in behavioral archaeology, or behaviorist psychology.

Having noted this materialist concordance between behavioral archaeology and behaviorist psychology, I hasten to point out that they have very little else in common. The organismal approach so prominent in archaeological theories today owes a great debt to the 79

labors of behaviorist psychology. It was Watson (1913), a pioneer in behaviorism, who called for

a new unit of "behavior" based on the organism to protest the gaps created by muscle, brain,

nerve, and chemical theorists. Indeed, Watson's recognition of a greater organismal unit for the

study of human and animal behavior propelled American psychology to international stature.

Watson argued cogently that it was the supervenient properties of all these subsystems working

in concert that allowed the organism to move or behave; therefore, the proper focus of

behavioral study was the organism.

In the radical behaviorist psychology identified with Skinner, specific activities were

considered epiphenomena and potentially infinite in variety. Investigators, therefore, focused on

the evolutionary patterns that natural selection created from the interplay between the

stimulating environment and the organism. In his classic The Behavior of Organisms, Skinner

(1938) argued against the study of the behavioral regularities of organismal reflexes such as

those that would involve the differential use of material culture:

The number of stimuli to which a typical organism may respond originally is very great. The number of stimuli to which it may come to respond through a process to be described below is indefinitely large, and to each of them it may be made to respond in many ways. It follows that the number of possible reflexes is for all practical purposes infinite and that what one might call the botanizing of reflexes will be a thankless task .... It is obviously unpractical [Skinner 1938:10].

He instead developed a knowledge of the regularities of organismal responses, such as the

learning curve, that were considered independent of the type of stimulation. Perhaps the best

example of his theory put into practice is his learning machines. Skinner designed a textbook that involved its reader in a series of stimulus response loops as a means to teach them the field

of behaviorist psychology (Holland and Skinner 1961). Why he used a book that one reads from front to back rather than back to front, as is common in the Middle East, or why he even used a

book at all were issues he did not address. The differential use of specific objects was outside of the realm of behavioral causality. 80

Building on an organismal model of behavior Leslie White's (1971 :18, 403) Science of

Culture described behavior as a product of the interaction between "Culture", a symbolic

phenomenon, and the organism. "The formula for human behavior is: Human Organism x

Cultural Stimuli =Human Behavior" (White 1971 :18).

Behaviorist psychologists and others who have defined behavior as the movements of

an organismal body removed from artifacts, places, or other people (Hull 1943:29; Skinner

1938:6; Watson 1928:35) perpetuate dualist mind-body debates in psychology (see Hamlyn

1962:69; Kitchener 1977; Tolman 1932), anthropology (Harris 1964), and in archaeology (Hodder

1986; Shanks and Tilley 1987a, 1987b). Archaeologists have at times framed this debate in a

science/antiscience format in which the supposed champions of materialism-processualists or

selectionists-justify their evolutionism as science. In striking symmetry postprocessualists

concerned with issues of mind seek to legitimize their theoretical arguments through antiscience

rhetoric.

In all programs, however, regardless of their allegience to science, conceiving of

artifacts as external to units of behavior (see Figure 3.3) diverts attention away from the use of

objects to more highly prized subjects; in processual schemes it is the environment because

artifacts are appendages of culture systems manipulated by adaptive imperatives (e.g., Binford

1962; Flannery 1976). For postprocessuallsts, the focus of interest is on the ideas that "mediate"

between artifacts, behavior and the environment (Hodder 1986; Johnsen and Olsen 1992; cf.

Nielsen 1995).

Like the culture theorists who attempted to overcome the spatio-temporal constraints of the culture concept by expanding to areas or regions, archaeologists have coped with the

limitations of organismal behavior by weaving models that expand the complexities of

organismal interaction in an attempt to account for the complexity of human object interactions.

These synthetic approaches alternate between internal states that demand introspective

analyses and empirical assessments of environmental forces. In David's (1992) "realist" model, 81

ARTIFACT

. ~.. _- .~ C·&·fr.· :-~""if==---~... .. -- ~~. - .

Figure 3.3 Behavior as the Movement of an Organism (From Walker et aJ. 1995:7). 82 for example, some behaviors (e.g., ritual) are attributed to ideational causes and drives, while others (e.g., subsistence) are ascribed to environmental causes. As a result, the material aspects of religion, and other topics deemed ideational, are artificially restricted to theories focused on introspection and the elucidation of ideas, values, and beliefs. In contrast, "utilitarian" behaviors are focused on environmental interactions, e.g., people's control of floodplains, or seasonal mobility, but equally materialist concerns over their interactions with other people are lost because these material objects are invisible in a world divided by the animate and inanimate.

Questioning the relationship between the theorist and his or her position of social power

Originally fueled the critical antiscience stance of postprocessual archaeology. But Hodder, once

\ the strongest advocate of a hermeneutic archaeology and the exegesis of inner states, has modified his earlier idealist positions. Dependence on such theories of meaning undervalues lived experience in a material world to the point that powerful people can manipulate idealist philosophies to perpetuate their own very material goals (Hodder 1991 :9, see also Wylie

1992:21). Thus to address the excesses of relativist interpretations, Hodder has recently argued that

past material culture also confronts our interpretations and assumptions in so far as it is not only meaningfully but also pragmatically organized (Hodder 1989 ... ). In other words, we are not just interpreting interpretations, but dealing with objects that had practical effects in a noncultural world-an ecological world organized by exchanges of matter and energy. These universal, necessary relations confront the tendency of our interpretations to "run free- (Hodder 1991 :12).

In this passage Hodder clearly recognizes that emphasizing only ideas masks the real world interactions of people and other Objects. Just as culture-based theories restricted behavioral inquiry in time and space, organismal approaches to behavior constrain the study of human activities by shifting emphasis away from the use of objects.

In theory some selectionist archaeologists have avoided this segregation of behavior by moving the empirical subject of study away from the nineteenth-century notion of organism to 83 the modem evolutionary concept of the extended phenotype (Dunnell 1980; O'Brien and Holland

1995). This phenotype includes both the organism and the artifacts it uses. In practice, however, this theoretical unity has not led directly to the use of richer behavioral inferences in evolutionary studies of the past. Instead, some selectionists have maligned data derived from such inferences, arguing that the variability in the archaeological record and not behavior is their subject of study (O'brien and Holland 1995). The result is that only the observable parts of that phenotype, the human bones and artifacts of the archaeological record, are available for consideration (see Figure 3.4).

Approaches that emphasize aspects of the phenotype that cannot be directly observed from artifacts, such as people using, making, and especially disposing of objects, are labeled

"reconstructionist" and out of bounds (Dunnell 1978:194-197; O'Brien and Holland 1995).

Needless to say, ethnoarchaeology, an indispensable part of behavioral inference, has no place for these archaeologists. The theoretical common ground gained by an extended phenotype composed of people and objects is lost in the practice of a selectionist archaeology without behavioral inference. Other Darwinian archaeologists are considering new ways of satisfying the research goals of evolutionary archaeology that ani less hostile to inferences of past behaviors

(see Teltser 1995).

Summary

Life-history theory provides a framework for organizing peoples interactions with other objects that can be used to link behavioral and archaeological contexts. It does not necessarily require an organismal understanding of behavior and, therefore, allows for the expansion of a materialist approach to activities once considered the realm of symbolic analysis. Ritual behaviors within this perspective are as material as any other realm of human experience.

Because they participate in interactions, ritual objects have functional relationships that are as material as any other. 84

EXTENDED PHENOTYPE

Figure 3.4 The Extended Phenotype Without Behavioral Inferences (From Walker et aJ. 1995:8). 85

Extended examples of the application of this corpus of behavioral method and theory to prehistoric contexts are provided in Chapters 4-6. In Chapter 4, depOSits from the ancestral Hopi

Pueblo of Homol'ovi II are described and interpreted as endpoints in the life histories of prehistoric ritual objects. To illustrate the life-history approach in more detail and to give a broader temporal context to the ritual behaviors at Homol'ovi II, I argue in Chapter 5 that these depOSits were part of a larger aggregate of ritual object life histories that spanned the

Basketmaker II-Pueblo V periods in the prehistOric U.S. Southwest. In Chapter 6, I build upon both of these applications to evaluate the arguments concerning prehistoric Anasazi cannibalism. 86

CHAPTER 4:

RITUAL DEPOSITS: A LIFE-HISTORY INTERPRETATION

Homol'ovi II is a 1,OOO-plus room ancestral Hopi pueblo surrounding three large plazas

(see Adams 1991 :163-184; Adams and Hayes 1991). This pueblo is one of four prehistoric Hopi villages on the banks of the Little Colorado River, near Winslow, Arizona, and has been dated, by ceramic cross dating, to between A.D. 1320 and 1400. All four pueblos, particularly

Homol'ovi I and II, are examples of a widespread change in the late 13th- and 14th-century pueblo world toward large aggregated villages. Exploring this aggregation of pueblo peoples has been the focus of the Homol'ovi Research Program of the Arizona State Museum since 1985.

The Homol'ovi area is a particularly interesting case because it was accompanied by the large scale immigrations of peoples from other areas. Prior to the mid -thirteenth century the area was sparsely populated. Adams (1991, 1995) has argued that the production of cotton and the

Katsina cult, two important facets of historic Hopi society, played an important role in the immigration and organization of these the Homol'ovi peoples and others in the prehistoric

Southwest.

The Little Colorado River's broad floodplain (two miles wide) in the vicinity of the ruins would have provided arable land suitable to cotton farming. Relatively large numbers of cotton seeds have been recovered from macro botanical samples taken from several of these sites. At

Homol'ovi II cotton textile fragments have also been recovered. The kivas in several of the villages contain evidence of weaving manufacture including loom anchors and weights. Larger populations in these 14th-century villages may have facilitated communal labor capable of irrigating the floodplain for relatively largescale cotton farming. The use of cotton textiles and string is an intrinsic component of modem Katsina religion (Stephen 1936:137,216,412). That religion is also a powerful force in the organization and control of the lives of people and other Homol'ovi II , ,,:: 320/71~321/701 J ,I: -'.L..:·'-r'-::. - .'-, .... 3~1I ~322/710I AZ J.14.15• • ,'" •...... ". : • •.... ',": 1..:. .;..-:,..~," .i. .L_' ...... __ _ '/ -;' ; . : 1. 'f' '~/-! , ; ~ '.:::-,.,,: ~' . ::' ;, IJ···· '-i-·,·.i. ,-, ~ -0-) .J. ~ ! ~ ; i-'-. 634 11311 '. !~;/:;: 323/716 l·3Z ..·,·l·!.!: .. :;., .. ;! r jt.. !rEfr~-~ -: :-Tl-t.-l:- ' 1'1, _., --...,...... Jf·.1 1-_:-; '.. , J. '- .. , . L !. "j'" - , 1 ,.. - u· ~ -...... ,.;. . ., : ; , : .'. ' . "1-;[(' . ~.! t; H ftV:J-; .If: n!.;.; 7 7" Central Plaza 1':;.: f -t'7.. 714 ' . , .. . ", ., • ..... 'i I ,~ 0... 708 " ': ., : . 705 .. ..i iL !~; - i r!l 1 i"; " : ~~tA West Plaza .IN.1 j 8-704 !-U~:!rH East Plaza ;,: ~ ", ; 7011- m .; ; f!' ; ~I . '! ;.; • • I~ . j' i i...;1 ' ~I'i 'r I! I I :,: , I : i L ", t . ;-. .., _I II +' , . '., "I' :', r- , I ; : j 14( , .,,"") Ji!f' ' , i i t; ,.f'.;::.: f'" :~:i :.~,-'.,~ 1;"n~-i'hlFi~ -LL!;i~·1.J)Flhi '"'--r~ , ; ; i- ,- - -; -- c r.+;r --; , ii l t! E;P 'u ,-I 'e,','1 -: :-:-~-4=U. i 1 i r ' ; : j 9::::,r-; '.: l . L·.:· 'f/ ~:. ~\L5515/715 r-: r ! '" : t:1:t l '. . 584/703--' 557/702 1 tiki 1184 558:._.:.,.;. • •• caYCIllon. o Ramada area

Known Architecture , Suspected Architecture North • Excavated 1994 ~~ ~ Excavated 1991 -1993 20 meters

Figure 4.1 Excavations at the Site of Homol'ovlll, Winslow, Arizona (Map by Doug Gann, Homol'ovl Research Program, Arizona State Museum).

.....QO 88

objects in contemporary southwestern pueblos. Membership in the katsina society crosscuts

clan lines and serves as a common social bond within villages.

At Homolovi II these two prominent components of ancient pueblo life, cotton production

and katsina ritual, appear to have guided the life histories of objects in a dramatic fashion.

Excavations between 1991 and 1995 have identified a rich record of kivas and associated

ceremonial depOSits (see Figure 4.1). To date, eight kivas have been partially or totally excavated. In the mid-1960s a painted kiva was excavated by an amateur archaeologist (Pond

1966); seven more kivas have been tested by the Homol'ovi Research Program (Figure 4.1).

THE HOMOL'OVIII KIVA DEPOSITS

All Homol'ovi II kivas excavated to date have been ritually abandoned. In two cases

killed and mutilated individuals were associated with these disposal activities. Objects such as

kivas, people, and certain mobile artifacts all appear to have participated in sequences of ritual activities from their initial manufacture through subsequent uses to eventual discard. Under1ying a life-history analysis is the axiom that these objects underwent similar events in their lives that conditioned their common endpOints in the archaeological record.

Linking the archaeological contexts of ritual artifacts to ear1ier stages in their life

histories is critical for reconstructing the ritual past. To begin exploring that past, three classes of depOSits have been developed to characterize the ritual contexts associated with the Homol'ovi kivas-ceremonial trash, sacrificial deposits, and kratophanous depOSits. These classes, respectively, resulted from the disposal of womout ritual objects, the sacrificing of objects, and the violent destruction of ritual objects, particulaily people.

Six out of these seven kivas were burned during abandonment. One kiva (see

Structure 706 below) was abandoned while undergoing repair, but subfloor excavations revealed an ear1ier floor that had been covered by a burned roof. This kiva and one other (Structure 704) contained human remains indicating that ritual violence was an instrumental part of their 89 abandonment. Two other kivas had what appeared to be forms of nontraditional human burials.

Only one surface structure out of 28 tested--a remodeled ground-floor milling room-was burned at its abandonment. This structure fronts the central plaza and may ultimately prove to have been associated with ritual activities. Kivas have been identified and excavated in all three of the site's plazas. These structures are quite variable in size; the largest have been associated with the central plaza.

Central Plaza Kivas. Structures 324. 708. 707. and 704

Structure 324. This kivas is located in the northwest comer of the central plaza abutting the north room block. It measures 3 x 2.7 x 2.3 m deep. This subterranean structure had a flagstone floor, a hearth, and ventilator system tucked into its southeast comer. There were neither loom holes nor sipapu features in this floor; and there was no bench. The structure had been excavated into a fossilized sand dune that caps the mesa beneath the ruin. The lower three-fourths of its walls were comprised of plaster that had been applied to that dune surface.

The top one-fourth were masonry. There were blotches of white paint on the plaster of the west wall suggestive of two images that had long since faded into unrecognizable smears. When this structure was abandoned, its ventilation tunnel contained the partial and fragmentary remains of a young adult female, which had been sealed by rocks above the skeleton. Subsequently the structure was burned. One burned primary beam was found against the north wall. Mixed in with the burned roofing material were large fragments of a cotton textile as well as a few isolated human bones not belonging to the individual in the ventilator.

After it burned, the structure was used as a dumping ground for trash. Unlike many middens where layers are often irregular and difficult to follow, this trash was stratified by an alternating series of well-defined ash and sand lenses that sloped from north to south at a steep angle from the north wall. These layers of fill contained what appeared to be the usual components of puebloan trash, pot sherds, lithic flakes and debris, fragments of ground stone, 90 etc. It also contained a canid skull, two animal claws, the fragmentary remains of a red-painted cotton bag, three marble-sized stone balls, burned com, and a fossil of indeterminate species.

On the east side of the room a large pot hole had disturbed these deposits and subsequently several of the bone fragments had spilled out of the ventilator into the fill and floor of the structure.

The cranium and several ribs remained in an undisturbed section of the ventilator.

There were also approximately 230 Nosarius moestus shell beads mixed in with the disturbed human bone fragments. Three of these shell beads were recovered from the undisturbed ventilator fill in association with the cranium and other bones. All these human bones were fragmentary, and the breaks were not fresh. The face of the skull was missing, and the pelvis bones and several other larger bones were incomplete. It appeared that the skeletal fragments had been deposited in the ventilator while in this disarticulated and fragmentary state.

Structure 708. This is the largest structure in the site, measuring 10x 5.8 x 2 m. It is located in the northwest comer of the central plaza, approximately 10m south of Structure 324.

It had a bench around all four sides and was pinched inward on its southern end where its east and west walls were staggered to meet its broad south bench. The walls were masonry and not plastered; the floor was earthen and demonstrated no evidence of having had a flagstone paving.

This structure was fully excavated and the deposits indicate that it was ritually closed before burning. The fragmentary remains of a canid cranium, three stone balls (6-7 cm in diameter), and stacked sherds comprsing half a bowl were placed in the ventilator. The stone balls were composed of both natural river cobbles and volcanic tuff. The ventilator's internal entrance, through the south bench face, was then sealed with stone and mud. A crystal was also placed in a pit, a possible sipapu, located just north of the hearth.

The roof was burned and fell onto the benches and floor; however, no primary beams were recovered. On the floor were several partially reconstructible vessels and one whole 91 vessel. There were the remains of one-third of an Awatovi Corrugated jar, one-third of a Jeddito

Black-on-yellow jar, one-half of a Tusayan Corrugated jar with a hole drilled in its side, one-half

Jeddito Black-on-yellow bowl depicting a snake, and one whole Sikyatki Polychrome bowl depicting a masked figure comparable to a modem Hopi katsina (katsinamana). The snake motif resembled the reptile design described in Fewkes' (1919:226, Figure 23) discussion of the ceramics from Sikyatki pueblo. Another stone ball was recovered in the charcoal of the roofing debris along with a stone cloud blower (stone pipe). Interfingered within these burned deposits was a thin layer of sandy trash fill.

Just above the roof fall was a layer of windblown sand. In this layer the articulated head,

1 ribs, and several vertebra of a red-tailed hawk were encountered ; the wings and legs had been removed. The articulation of this creature's skeleton and its excellent preservation suggest that neither differential decay nor postdepositional scavenging can account for its incomplete state.

Rather, it appears to have been intentionally buried in this form. No pit, however, was visible.

That the bird lacked wings and legs but was otherwise articulated indicates that it was not dismembered for food. In this same layer was another stone ball exceeding 15 cm in diameter, a circular stone lid 48 cm in diameter, and two large oblong river boulders measuring 33 cm and

35 cm on their longest sides.

Artifacts in the trash fill were differentially burned. Refitting of the ceramics from the structure demonstrated that most of the joined pieces came from the same strata, mostly floor or roof fill. However, sherds from one reconstructible vessel, three-fourths of a Jeddito Yellow Ware bowl, were distributed across all three strata--the fill above the roof, the roofing, and the floor.

An inventory of the chipped stone artifacts from this structure also demonstrated that there were no statistically meaningful differences between populations of artifacts recovered from the fill and floor contexts of this structure (Lyons and Pitblado 1995).

1 Jennifer Strand identified this species using the faunal collections of the Arizona State Museum. 92

In summary, analysis of deposits in Structure 708 indicates a sequence of ritual disposal

events. The ventilator was filled and sealed; a bowl depicting a Katsina figure was then placed

on the floor. The structure was burned and trash was introduced to put out the fire and cover the deposit. Partially reconstructible vessels were introduced with this trash or were possibly placed

on the floor like the whole bowl. After the fire was extinguished, the primary beams were

removed, probably for use elsewhere.

Structure 707. This kiva was similar in shape to Structure 708 but smaller, measuring

5.2 x 4.3 x 1.8 m. Benches encircled the entire structure and the southern end was constricted where the east and west walls met the southern bench. Three-quarters of the structure was excavated; the northeast quarter had been previously disturbed and was left un excavated.

This kiva had also been burned but only after a deposit of windblown sand had accumulated unevenly on the floor, reaching a height of .60 m on the southern end. Presumably a breach in the roof occurred in this area while the kiva stood abandoned. The floor had a flagstone paving into which loom anchor holes had been drilled. Three complete artifacts were associated with this floor: two loom anchor weights were found holding a complete Tusayan

Corrugated jar upright over the structure's hearth. The ventilator in this kiva had also been sealed, but was not completely excavated owing to time constraints.

Structure 704. This structure was smaller than the other two central plaza kivas, measuring only 4.2 x 3.1 x 1.5 m. The structure was sampled by two perpendicular trenches, one running down the center, the other exposing the southern bench. This was the only bench in the structure; it was paved with flagstones and measured 1.0 m wide and .50 m high. The kiva's floor also had a flagstone paving into which loom anchor holes had been drilled. Large portions of the fill had been qisturbed but the southern end was intact.

A skeleton with no associated grave goods was lying on the south bench. The roof of the kiva had been burned down over an adult male between 30 and 40 years of age. Several 93 projectile points lay near the skeleton; one rested in what would have been the soft tissue of the lower back.

This was not a traditional burial, for it appears that this individual had been killed at the time the kiva was destroyed. Burned roofing debris was in contact with his bones; his hands and . feet were burned where the skin was thin. Unlike the burned bodies recovered from Kiva KT-1 at

Kintiel ruin (Haury and Hargrave 1931 :84-86), there were no carbonized blow flies to indicate that the body had begun to putrefy before the burning. The position of the body suggested that the individual was attempting to get fresh air from the ventilator while the fire burned. He lay with his head extended into the vent tunnel, which if unobstructed, would have been induced by the force of the fire to blow in fresh air.

Lying high in the burned roof fall were two complete bowls. One bowl, of Tuwuica

Orange Ware, was inverted over an Awatovi Black-on-yellow bowl that contained remains of com and cotton. The inverted position of these bowls and their contexts indicate that were purposely placed in the burned fill. As such they appear to be mortuary goods placed there after the individual was killed. The violence indicated by the projectile pOints, the position of the skeleton, the burning of the kiva, as well as the superposition of these vessels placed in the roof fill, indicate at least two classes of ritual activity. The first was the violent killing of an individual in the kiva and the second the placement of the whole pots in the burned fill. This second discard behavior may represent an offering made on behalf of the victim or on behalf of the destroyed kiva, but in either case the deposits do not suggest that the pottery and the human remains were part of one mortuary ritual focused on creamating a corpse in the kiva.

A painted deer scapula was found in the disturbed deposits of this structure as were the fragmentary skeletal remains of three other individuals. These disturbed skeletal remains were situated deep within the kiva and probably represent original deposits subsequently churned by pothunting activities. It was not clear whether they were (1) also victims of the fire, (2) emplaced 94 by later burial activities, or (3) the result of some other event(s) postdating the kiva's abandonment.

• West Plaza Kivas, Structures 705 and 706.

Structure 705. This kiva measuring 3.5 x 5 x 1.6 m, was sampled by placing a trench down the center to determine the integrity of its deposits for future investigations. It has a bench along its south side, measuring 1.6 m wide ana .6 m high. Much of the fill had been disturbed by looters and also contained fragments of human bone. The roof of this structure had been burned.

Structure 706. This kiva measured 3.5 x 2.7 x 1.27 m. It was completely excavated. At the time of its abandonment it was being remodeled. Its flagstone floor had been partially removed, and several of the slabs were leaning against the west wall. Several of these slabs, like those in other kiva structures, had loom anchor holes drilled into them.

The remodeling was interrupted by the placement of three individuals on the floor and bench of the kiva. A woman in her 20s, an adolescent male 15-16 years old, and a child of indeterminate sex of approximately 7-8 years of age were found in this structure. The right leg of the female was severed above the knee, but the distal portion was not recovered. There were no grave goods in association with the bodies. The skeletons were covered by large rocks, and the entire deposit of bones and rocks was sealed by a 20-cm-thick cap of adobe. Subfloor testing beneath the flagstones still in place revealed remnants of a previously burned roof lying on an earthen floor.

East Plaza Kiva Structure 714 and Pond's Kiva

Structure 714. This structure was a small structure, measuring 1.8 x 2.8 x 1.6 m; it was totally excavated and had a flagstone paved floor, with no visible loom anchor holes. There was a ventilator cut into the southeast comer. A white mural of the San Francisco peaks was 95 painted across the west wall. Paint on the north, south, and east walls indicates that formerly decoration occurred on all four walls; perhaps the mural's landscape perspective once encompassed all four directions as it wrapped around the entire room.

A small, crudely constructed bench extended four-fifths of the way along the west wall and covered some of this paint; the bench also covered part of the hearth. This superposition indicates that the kiva was remodeled prehistorically, perhaps changing the activities once associated with the paintings.

On the floor of the structure was more than a bushel of unshelled com cobs that had been used to bum the roof of the structure. Two burned baskets and fragments of two burned cotton textiles were found mixed with the com cobs. The skeletal remains of a burned infant were found along the south wall. In the fill above the floor was a whole Awatovi Black-on-yellow bowl containing burned com meal; this bowl's interior surface depicts a raptor in flight. The bowl was resting on a small Jeddito Black-on-yellow jar that had been fractured by ground pressure but was otherwise complete. A reconstructable McDonald Corrugated bowl was also recovered.

The fragmentary burned remains of at least two more children and the burned and unburned remains of an adult were recovered from the fill in the structure. A fossil tooth of indeterminate species was also found in the fill.

Pond's Kiva. The kiva excavated by Pond (1966) measured 3.5 x 2.1 x 2.0 m and was supposed to be in the west plaza. The project, however, has not verified this location. Pond did not report whether the structure had burned. He did, however, illustrate (Pond 1966:555, Figure

1) the location of 24 whole vessels he removed from it; many were on the floor but several had been placed in the fill above bench and floor. They were stacked like those described for

Structure 714. In his deSCription, Pond (1966:557) notes that they had been carefully protected by large stone slabs. On the wall of this structure was the partial remains of a mural depicting two dancers wearing kilts. Another unrecognizable motif was also described (see Pond 1966:555, fig 2). Pond did not note any human remains associated with the kiva. 96

In general, the kivas, perhaps excluding Structure 714, resemble those described by

Haury and Hargrave (1931) in their excavations at Kintiel, Kokopnyama, and Pinedale ruins as well as kivas at Awatovi, Kawaika'a (Smith 1972), and Fourmile Ruin (Fewkes1898:

Plate V, 607). They occur in plaza spaces, are rectangular in crosssection, and possess flagstone floors and benches often pierced by loom anchor holes. The larger kivas, Structures

708 and 707, possess multiple benches and pinched walls that intersect a large platform bench.

These architectural features and the objects they contain represent important material evidence of prehistoric ritual. As noted in the perceeding chapters an outward approach to ritual phenomena provides a framework for using such data in the reconstruction of ritual prehistory.

INDENTIFYING RITUAL PREHISTORY

Within an outward approach ritual behaviors are considered separately from beliefs and it becomes possible to recognize them as distinct material facts amenable to empirical analysis.

These behaviors, like all human activities, occur in conjunction with the acquisition, use, control, and discard of artifacts. This perspective articulates well with methods and concepts used in contemporary material culture studies that seek to expose social relations in terms of people's ritual interactions with objects.

Kopytoffs (1986) material culture research pOSits that ritual behaviors result in objects whose life histories or "cultural biographies" distinguish them from those of nonritual objects.

Artifacts and places whose life histories are controlled by taboos and restricted from everyday use generally correspond with what are often called ritual artifacts. Some such objects may remain under the strict control of esoteric fraternities and religious sects, but in other cases they might circulate in specialized exchange spheres (e.g., Bohannan 1955; Larick 1987; Malinowski

1922). In either case their life histories are different from those of nonritual objects. Kopytoff refers to this process of channeling certain objects along more restricted pathways as

Usingularization." 97

The Kula Ring (Malinowski 1961 [1922]) and the Northwest Coast Potlatch (Codere

1950) are perhaps the best-known examples of exchange spheres that circulate singularized objects. However, both more and less spectacular examples of such exchange spheres have been documented cross-culturally, e.g., the gift/theft circulation of medieval Christian relics

(Geary 1986) and the use and disposal of Navajo Medicine Bundles (Frisbie 1987). Even in contemporary religious groups in Tucson, the movement of ritual objects through singular contexts to distinctive contexts in the archaeological record is an ongoing process (Walker

1995).

A perspective that highlights the distinctive ritual discard behaviors of singularized objects can become a powerful tool for allowing archaeologists to explain how seemingly everyday objects (e.g., a ladle, burned pit house, or a corrugated pot) can become the primary evidence for understanding past ritual activities. Once recognized as such, this evidence can be utilized to begin reconstructing ritual prehistory.

Kratophany

The Homol'ovi II kiva deposits appear to be the endpOints of such singular pathways, and can be grouped into three broad classes: kratophanous, sacrificial, and ceremonial trash.

Kratophanous behaviors direct still viable objects out their life-history paths into the archaeological record or into another agregate of object life histories (not infrequently a competing ritual aggregate). Kratophany2 represents a material struggle to control competing ritual technologies and can be a violent process in contexts of religious conquest, rebellion or repression. During the conquest of the New World, for example, the Spanish missionaries not only killed competing ritual specialists, they also bumed, buried, and mutilated numerous

2 This use of the concept of "kratophany" was inspired by Eliade's use of the term to describe the fearful power of the sacred (Eliade 1958: 14) • 98 ceremonial objects, including religious structures (de la Vega 1987:459; Frisbie 1987:207-218;

Montgomery et al. 1949:134, 265-272).

The pueblo of Awatovi is a particularly interesting case because archaeologists have available written and oral histories, as well as archaeological records of both historic and prehistoric deposits, that can be used to reconstruct the history of the Spanish and Hopi interaction. One especially frequent spatial signature of kratophanous processes is the placement of new or triumphant ritual architecture on top of the remains of a discredited place of worship. Montgomery et al. (1949:265-272) describe this behavioral correlate as religious superposition. The Spanish constructed the altar of Church 2 over two important Hopi kivas at

Awatovi, using the physical superposition of the new structure as a means of repressing the Hopi traditional ceremonial system.

Native Americans themselves when possible resisted both Christianity as well as subsequent revitalization movements (Aberle 1982:115; Whitely 1988a:18). Hopi oral tradition holds that the Hopi destroyed the Awatovi ''witches'' (Christian converts) in their kivas (Fewkes

1898c:603-605; Voth 1905:245-255) and then took the beams from the mission as trophies and reused them in kivas on the other mesas (Ahlstrom et al. 1991:640; Mindeleff 1891:119; Stephen

1936:721). In their resistance to the Peyote Cult, traditional Navajo killed peyotists and violently burned and broke their altar sacra (Aberle 1982:115). The human remains in Structures 704 and

705 appear to be the results of kratophanous violence. In Chapter 6, they are explored as instances of witchcraft persecution.

Kratophanous deposits can be distinguished from those of ceremonial trash and sacrifice. Singularized objects such as people, medicine bundles, torahs, chalices, pithouses, or kivas that have finished their use lives, and cannot be returned to the processes of manufacture, frequently enter the archaeological record as singularized ceremonial trash (Walker 1995).

Although the rituals differ cross-culturally, disposing of human remains as ceremonial trash is one of the most common ritual site formation processes worldwide. 99

Ceremonial Trash

In addition to the processing of human remains, there are numerous other activities that result in the deposition of ceremonial trash. In Papago purification ceremonies held for participants after hunting, war, or salt pilgrimages, ceramic vessels were constructed, used and ritually discarded. During such purification rituals, "it was the duty of the guardian'S wife to make water jars both for the slayer and the slayer's wife. These were never used again, but were discarded in the desert, sometimes with a hole through the bottom for ceremonial'killing'K

(Underhill 1946:198). Among the Omaha, strict taboos were kept in the ceremonial lodges of medicine bundle holders. Ashes from a hearth were not allowed to spill freely but were instead closely guarded and removed periodically to a ceremonial dump on the south side of the lodge

(Fortune 1969:165).

In Classical antiquity, worn out and broken votive statuary were discarded in pits or

"favissas"located within temple precincts (Avigad 1960; Chehab 1951-1954; Dunand 1944-45;

Negbi 1966). Bowls, food, and other refuse created by ceremonial feasting was discarded within canoe shrine enclosures in the Solomon Islands (Davenport 1986). Similarfy, repatriated ZulU war gods have been placed in protected but roofless compounds to decay naturally (Ferguson and Eriacho 1990). In India ethnoarchaeologists have observed the deposition of used up votive ceramics in sacred lakes (Jayaswal and Krishna 1986). Womout Jewish ritual sacra (e.g., torahs, phylacteries, tSitsit) are deposited in special rooms or pits, called Genizas, rather than secular trash to protect them from desecration after their abandonment (Kahle 1959; Marais and

Poinssot 1948; Walker 1995).

Sacrifice

Sacrificial deposits strongly contrast with both kratophanous and ceremonial trash deposits. Sacrificial deposits represent diversions of still viable objects out of their use contexts directly into the archaeological record in order to harness their remnant use lives within an ongoing ritual tradition. Sacrificial deposits can vary from the inclusion of turquoise in a house 100

foundation (Saile 1977) to the potlatch burning of a kwakiutl canoe or house (Codere 1950:78.

Footnote 40). Kwakiutl potlatch competitors broke coppers and threw them in the ocean and

sometimes burned canoes. and even their homes--in order gain social powe'r through sacrifice

(Codere 1950:78. footnote 40). The sacrifice of objects for foundation depOSits is a nearly worldwide phenomenon. In certain contexts human lives are sacrificed for ritual purposes (e.g .•

Boone 1984; Gadd 1960) such as the foundation depOSits in the Old Temple of Quetzalcoatl at

Teotihuacan (Sugiyama 1989).

Ceremonial trash discard is perhaps the most fundamental class of these three ritual site formation processes. The disposal of used up ceremonial objects frequently leads to the formation of distinctive ceremonial trash depOSits (Walker 1995). The burial of human beings. the burning of abandoned ritual structures. and the deposition of worn out sacred artifacts are all forms of ceremonial trash deposition.

The singularity of the Homol'ovi kivas, a form of setting apart (sensu Smith 1952), is a tangible reality that can be inferred from their frequencies, physical properties. associations with

other artifacts, and spatial locations, all of which distinguish them from other types of structures

-ritual and otherwise (e.g., clan rooms. grinding rooms, houses. and storage rooms). Based on excavation and surface studies, it is estimated that there are approximately 40 kivas and 1,200 surface structures at Homol'ovi II. The known kivas are all underground structures placed in

plaza areas. They are on average larger than other rooms at the site and their floors, with the one exception of Structure 708, are paved with flagstones. Such flagstone paving has not been

identified in surface structures. Textile weaving evidence, loom anchors, and weights are restricted to these structures, suggesting they were the locus of ritually-controlled cotton production. Whole artifacts occur both on their floors and in their fills. In three cases, Structures

704, 714, and Pond's kiva, the whole vessels in the fill did not fall into the structure when the roof collapsed. but appeared to have been placed there. 101

These kivas, with the exception of Pond's, all contain evidence of burning at the end of their life histories. In contrast, only one other structure at the site, a grinding room, was burned.

There was no pueblo-wide conflagration at Homol'ovi II. In fact, no primary beams were recovered in any of the kivas except for Structure 324; large beams generally appear to have been removed and presumably reused elsewhere. Although the accidental burning of even one kiva seems unlikely, seven accidental burnings would have been impossible.

Given the closure of the ventilation systems in three structures (324, 708, 707), the inclusion of whole ceramic vessels in the fill of three structures (704,714, and Pond's Kiva), and the reconstructible vessels found in structure 708, the most parsimonious explanation is that these kivas were disposed of as ceremonial trash, and the deposits they contain represent discard rituals involved in their disposal. These ritual discard behaviors represent a final behavioral event in the already segregated life histories of these kivas.

The pattern of burning associated with plaza structures is so strong that one cannot help but wonder if the burned grinding room, which faces the central plaza, may also have been ritually abandoned.

Kiva Life Histories

According to Mindeleff (1891:100-104, 118-130), the building of kivas and houses in

Hopi were similar with the exception of the composition of the laboring group and the degree of ritual involved. In both cases, a group of temporary workers was fed in exchange for their labor.

The house construction group was usually composed of the clan mates of the woman who owned the house. Kivas in contrast were built by members of the ceremonial group associated with the kiva's use. In both cases a series of ritual procedures accompanied the laying of the foundations, plastering of the walls, and placing of the roof beams. There were, however, more feathers and sacred cornmeal used in the kiva consecrations. Finally, the kiva constructions ended with a feast at which the kiva was given a name (e.g., the "goat kiva"). 102

The uses of these structures more clearly distinguishes their pathways. The main function of kivas involved ritual activities; the other structures occasionally stored ritual objects, but were not a primary locus of ritual behavior.

Hypothetically, the ritual site formation processes encountered at Homol'ovi represent the consequences of such ritualized life histories. The lives of these kivas would have been quite different from a habitation or storage room. Their interactions would have included the initial construction rituals described above, as well as public and private ceremonies, games, and the attendant ceremonial tool manufacturing (cotton costumes, prayer feathers, masks, etc.) and storage that would have facilitated those activities.

Certain life-crisis rituals such as natal ceremonies are exclusively performed in the home

(Owens 1892). Parts of marriage and funerary rituals also take place in domestic contexts

(Nequatewa and Colton 1933; Senter and Hawley 1937). However, if one compares the life histories of a kiva, a domestic room, and a nonreligious storage room in a pueblo village, they would fall along a continuum of ritual intensity. Along that continuum, kiva life histories are the most ritualized and storage rooms the least; habitations rooms fall somewhere in between. Even objects, such as cotton textiles used in rituals outside of the kivas, almost certainly were manufactured in the kivas.

PROCESSES OF SINGULAR ABANDONMENT AT HOMOL'OVIII

Ceremonial Trash and Sacrifice

The complete Sikyatki Polychrome bowl painted with a katsina face, the stone balls, the canid skull, three-fourths of a Jeddito Black-on-yellow bowl, other partial ceramic vessels, and the quartz crystal found in Structure 708 entered the archaeological record as part of the disposal ritual of this kiva. The corrugated jar and loom anchors in Structure 707 and the 24 whole pots present in Pond's kiva also appear to have been the result of the intentional burial of this structure. These ritual sacrifices resemble those that might accompany human burials. 103

Deposits of stone balls, like those in Structure 708, were recovered from kivas at the

Hopi viilage of Awatovi where they were found in the fill, ventilation shafts, or bench vaults of these structures (Woodbury 1954:170-172). It is possible that some of these objects were used in these specific kivas and were rendered obsolete when the structure was abandoned. If that was the case, their deposition in the kiva would not be sacrificial but instead a form of ceremonial trash deposition analogous to the personal objects placed with deceased individuals in their graves.

Although puebloan ethnographic data follow these events by several hundred years, they still describe the use and disposal of artifacts similar to those found in the Homol'ovi kivas. Hopi kiva groups compete in ceremonial kickball races using stone balls approximately equal in size to the Awatovi and Homol'ovi balls (Hough 1915:107; Stephen 1936:258-286; Titiev 1938; Voth

1901 :80). Adams' ethnographic field notes from the Hopi mesas also indicate that similar-sized stone balls were rolled across kiva floors in order to simulate the sound of thunder in rainmaking ceremonies (E. Charles Adams, personal communication 1995).

The Zuni, who have perhaps the closest social and historical ties with the Hopi pueblos, also practiced similar kickball games (Stevenson 1884:526). The use of stone balls as "thunder stones" has also been described at the pueblos of Zuni and Acoma, where they were rolled in kiva ceremonies to simulate thunder and thereby combat enemy power (Parsons 1939:378, 981).

Ir these ethnohistoric contexts the life histories of the stone balls were tied closely to those of kivas. These objects were stored in the kivas and there received specialized rites of prayer, purification, and reverence. One could expect, therefore, that at the end of their life histories they might have received specialized deposition within a kiva, or some other ceremonial space. Unfortunately, ethnohistory is silent concerning the disposal of these objects, perhaps due to pueblo secrecy and in part because they are durable and possess long use lives.

The frequent use of less-durable materials in Hopi rituals, such as feathers, however, necessitates the frequent ceremonial disposal of bird remains. The Hopi gather eagles and 104 hawks every spring (Fewkes 1900b; Tyler 1979:47-54), and these animals provide the raw materials (feathers, bones, wings, talons, etc.) for the construction of important ritual artifacts, such as prayer sticks, whips, purification wands, masks, and standards. The birds are killed in

July after Niman ceremonies and interred with grave goods, such as piki bread and small dolls.

The place of deposition is a Singular burial ground known as the eagle cemetery (Voth 1912:107-

109). The disposal of the Homol'ovi "red-eagle" (Tyler 1979:47) in Structure 708, given its lack of wings and special place of deposition, may be an analogous form of ceremonial disposal that exploited the previously singularized space of the kiva as a grave yard.

The presence of whole pots, basketry, textiles, burned com meal, a fossil tooth, and burned human remains in Structure 714 presents a relatively unique pueblo deposit. These objects appear to be sacrificial offerings associated with a funerary ritual. Com and textiles are two common objects used in Hopi ritual activities. Ethnohistorically, cotton textiles were woven in kivas and are often represented on kiva murals; they were and continue to be critical components of ceremonial costumes (Kent 1983:74; Roediger 1961). Major life crisis rituals

(birth, marriage, death) were also accompanied by textile gifts (Parsons 1939:172-173; Stephen

1936:824-829; Titiev 1944:196,387); a Hopi woman's wedding blanket was her burial shroud.

Prior to burial men were traditionally wrapped in a buckskin but, if one was not available, a woman's cotton wedding dress was an acceptable substitute (Senter and Hawley 1937).

The Hopi also strongly identify with their com. Both the harvested com plant and the human corpse are called gatungwu (Loftin 1994:31). Such metaphors (Stephen 1936:706) make sense in a material world completely infused and animated with spirit powers. In such a worldview, the underlying essence of people and com are similar in structure, albeit in the spiritual realm. As a result, Hopi and other pueblo peoples interact with com in ways that may defy our commonsense understandings of behavior.

Harnessing the underlying spiritual power of various forms of this plant (pollen, green, ground, on the cob, piki, mush) is critical in almost all rituals. That a nonnative might not 105

recognize the material efficacy of spiritual power should not predispose them to judge the use of

com in ritual as a purely symbolic phenomenon. Approaching the material causality of prehistoric

ritual through modem concepts of the supernatural actually obscures the behaviors of people

using artifacts in ritual (see Durkheim 1947). For the Hopi and other native Americans, com was

often a powerful tool. From an object life-history perspective, therefore, it is not surprising to find

burned com meal and whole cobs in association with the ritual disposal of kivas or human

burials. Com like people and kivas can have a ritualized life history that ends in singular deposits

such as the one in Structure 714.

Finally, the skeleton in the ventilator in Structure 324 appears to have been a secondary

burial or actually a reburial. Its fragmentary nature is indicative of an exhumed body

incompletely recovered and placed in the ventilator of the kiva. The large number of Nosarius

moestus beads may have been added at the time of the second interment given that so many of

the very small beads were recovered. It is unlikely that so many would have been removed from

a primary burial context and reinterred with the bones. The subsequent burning of the structure with some human bone on its roof indicates along with the burned skeletal material in the small

Structure 714, that nontraditional burial practices were associated with the singular spaces at

Homol'ovi II. 106

CHAPTER 5:

EXPLORING LIFE-HISTORY AGGREGATES

The individual life histories of the objects found in the Homol'ovi II deposits represent one small temporal slice through the long history of ritual disposal practices in the Pueblo

Southwest. Knowing that these objects occur together at Homol'ovi II, an aggregate of their individual life histories, which might include, human beings, ritual architecture, and portable objects, com, pots, fossils, birds, dogs, pipes, etc., might also be identified in singular contexts at earlier sites. Hypothetically, the life histories of these Homol'ovi objects were part of an aggregate of similar objects that had its beginnings sometime in the remote prehistoric past of the U.S. Southwest. The burning evident within the Homol'ovi II kivas as well as the placement of objects in the fill suggests that earlier and later kivas and other structures and features should be reexamined-as they, too, may have been the foci of singular discard rituals.

Ethnographically singularized object life-histories extend across the entire span of an object's life including its final disposal. Like human remains, these objects have not infrequently participated in rituals from their initial creation, and these prior events appear to have conditioned their eventual discard.

THE SOUTHWESTERN RECORD

The burning of prehistoric architecture, especially pit houses, has often been interpreted as accidental or the result of raiding (e.g., Brew 1946:111-112; Bullard 1962:39,46; Cassells

1988:132-133; Dittert et al. 1966:17; Linton 1944b; Mackey and Green 1979; E. H. Morris

1919:191; E. A. Morris 1980:148-149; Roberts 1930:69,1931:36,1939;137; Woodbury

1959:130). The whole artifacts, burned com, and human remains associated with the floors and fills of these structures were taken as evidence of in situ assemblages accidentally preserved. 107

Such assemblages composed of still usable utilitarian objects, if truly abandoned in places of

use, generally are referred to by behavioralists as de facto refuse.

These burnings, however, may actually have resulted from ritual abandonment activities

(see Eddy 1974; Lightfoot 1993; Montgomery 1993; Steward 1933:62; Walker 1995; Wilshusen

1986) and therefore beg the question. Do they simply represent de facto refuse or are they

organized in terms of ritual discard practices that are not clearly understood? Wilshusen (1986)

has identified a pattern of burning among ritual structures within earlier Anasazi communities

living in southwestern Colorado. Montgomery's (1992) dissertation examined the floor and fill

contexts of Chodistaas pueblo and demonstrated convincingly that it was ritually burned and

buried. Burned kivas and pit houses in other regions of the pueblo Southwest also suggest that

this was a relatively widespread Anasazi practice. Cameron (1990:32) has suggested that

approximately 50 percent of the pit structures in the Four Comers region may have been burned

as a result of ritual site abandonments.

In the ethnohistoric record of the U.S. Desert West, virtually all peoples who lived in mud

and brush structures ritually burned them at the death of an occupant. The Desert, Pass, and

Mountain Cahuilla burned their houses (Strong 1929:84,121,180-181) as did the Cocopa (Kelly

1977:87), Halchidhoma, Maricopa (Spier 1933:303,309), Havasupai (Iliff 1954 [1901]; Spier

1928:234,292), Mohave (Allen 1891 :615-616; Drucker 1941:146-147), Navajo (Kent 1984:139-

141), Pima (Drucker 1941; Grossman 1873:415), Papago (Drucker 1941; Beals 1934:7),

Quechen (Bee 1983:89), Shoshone (Steward 1933:62), Southern Yavapai (Gifford 1932:185),

and the Western Apache (Gifford 1940:68; Goodwin 1942). Not only were homes destroyed, but tools, personal objects, and even full granaries were burned.

Such rituals indicate a behavioral context composed of mortuary rituais that served to separate the dead from the living and prevent sickness and other dangers that might result from a spirit lingering in the village. This disposal technology provided a prophylactic against dangerous interactions with the dead. Such interactions with the dead were a serious 108

preoccupation among these peoples that has persisted into recent times. De Williams (1983)

noted that as late as 1981 the Cocopa still burned the houses of the dead. Relatively recent

burnings have also been documented among the Mohave (Key 1970).

Property destruction also acted as a leveling mechanism in these communities and

mitigated against the consolidation of wealth and the rise of propertied social classes. The

bumed pit houses filled with com and pottery, found in earlier Anasazi sites, may be the result of

a comparable ritual technology with important implications for archaeologists interested in social

power. In these earlier prehistOric southwestern communities the control and disposal of ritual

objects appears to have rested with family groups rather than with the ritual societies recognized

in later prehistoric and historic pueblo groups.

Among Basketmaker villages it was very common to bum pit houses (Adams 1951;

Bullard 1962; Bullard and Cassidy 1956; Daifuku 1961; Hayes and Lancaster 1975:6-12;

Lancaster et al. 1954; Morris 1925; Smiley 1949; Swarthout et al. 1986; Wheat 1955).

Basketmaker III settlements with great kivas, like Shabik'eshchee village (Roberts 1929),

however, provide an exception in which burning was restricted to the great kiva (for other

examples, see Gladwin 1945:11-18; Hibben and Dick 1944; Reed 1944,). Elsewhere there are

indications that larger integrative pit structures were also differentially processed at

abandonment in comparison to other pitstructures (Wilshusen 1986; see also Brew 1946:152-

189). Evidence from Pueblo I and Pueblo II villages in general suggest that both pitstructures as well as other surface structures received differential disposal through burning (Adams 1951 ;

Allen and McNutt 1955; Bullard 1962; Brew 1946; Colton 1946; Daniels and Lee 1940; Hayes and Lancaster 1975; Judd 1924, 1926; Gladwin 1945; Gladwin 1957:55; Hall 1944; Martin 1930;

Martin and Rinaldo 1939; Roberts 1930:19; Roberts 1939). The degrees and amounts of this structural burning vary by region, but those structures containing large numbers of whole objects, with some exceptions, were almost always burned. 109

The restriction of such burning to largely ceremonial structures in the later periods is

especially telling. In more formalized settlements, e.g., aggregated Pili and PIV sites, burning-

though less extensive than at earlier sites-focuses largely on kivas and a few select surface

structures (e.g., Bradley 1992; Creamer 1993; Cattanach 1980; Fewkes 1925; Hayes et al. 1981;

Haury and Hargrave 1931:83,93; Martin 1929; Mount 1993; Rohn 1971:77-79; Smith 1972:57).

These structures, like the ceremonial structures at Homol'ovi II, appear to have been

differentially disposed of as ceremonial trash and kratophanous deposits. They were

accompanied by sacrificial offerings, and were, not infrequently, reused as repositories for the

differential disposal of other ceremonial objects (see tables below).

THE AGGREGATE STUDY

To explore this hypothesis, the depositional contexts of a series of objects types, derived

from those encountered at Homol'ovi II, were tracked across the Colorado Plateau from sites spanning the Basketmaker II-Pueblo V periods (see Appendices A-J). These object types

included stone balls, pipes, whole pots, dogs, fossils, food (almost always com), human remains,

birds, and animals (including turtles, and large- and-medium sized mammals).

These data are limited by a number of methodological problems. They represent a compilation of contexts for the objects rather than a definitive comparison of contexts with and without the objects. As a result, the frequencies of contexts cannot be standardized to reflect variability in site size and in the relative numbers of structure types found at those sites (surface structures, kivas, pitstructures, etc.). Although an attempt was made to examine every context in a site for objects, in many cases object proveniences or even the objects themselves were not always reported. I decided to include any seemingly good contextual data hoping that hints of robust patterns would be revealed that could be followed up at a later time with more rigorous methods. Thus, in a few cases, previous object compilations were used to supply minimal information. Emslie's (1978) descriptions of dog remains in the Mesa Verde area, for example, 110 come from unpublished site reports. This compilation clearly skewed the sample to the contexts of these remains which happen to be kivas. Nonetheless, because he appears to have reported all dog remains recovered from these sites, I decided to use the information.

Early on in the process of compiling these data I realized that many contexts were unclearly described and objects were not consistently reported, from site to site or within sites.

Artifacts found on floor contexts were not always distinguished from those in fill contexts.

Although most surface structures and pit structures are usually reported consistently, the term kiva was much more variable and was sometimes applied to what most archaeologists today recognize as pit structures. Therefore, I only employed the excavators' "kiva" designation for sites dating to Pueblo II times and later. Extramural features and middens were even more problematic. Middens, essentially fill contexts, are perhaps the least-understood deposits in the entire archaeological record. In the ethnographic record of the U.S. Southwest, pueblo peoples use middens to dispose of domestic refuse, human remains, other forms of ceremonial trash, and sacrificial offerings. Yet in the archaeological record middens are often simply categorized as domestic trash deposits. Extramural features are even more vaguely reported in the archaeological literature. Nonetheless, I used these categories to highlight their relationship to the aggregate of objects. Although these were not prominent disposal contexts for the aggregate, these areas were conSistently represented and merit future site formation process studies. Whole pots, dog and human skeletons, and other objects in the aggregate cannot be explained as simple trash and beg the question what behaviors, singular or otherwise, led these objects to midden and extramural features.

Given these limitations I cannot statistically test the hypotheSiS that this aggregate of objects was the focus of a ritual discard technology identifiable from Singular contexts, but I can use these data as a pilot study to demonstrate how a such an aggregate of ritual objects could be defined and analyzed within a life-history framework. My goal is to show that there are striking patterns in the discard of these artifacts that suggest that the fill of structures as well as their III

floors should be given close scrutiny in future ritual research. "Fill," the context providing the

majority of archaeological evidence in the U.S. Southwest and many parts of the world, may

ultimately tum out to be as important in reconstructing specific activities as features and

architecture.

Accordingly, the recording of contexts was relatively general. Artifacts found on the

floors as well as in the fills of structures, e.g., pit structures, surface structures, were grouped together. Floor and fill were purposely not distinguished. This clearly cuts against the grain of the archaeological convention of keeping artifacts associated with activity areas separate from those from trash contexts. Behavioral archaeology has, since the 1970s (Schiffer 1972),

highlighted the analytic importance of keeping the places artifacts were used in a living cultural

context (systemic context) distinct from those where these same artifacts were discarded

(archaeological context). As a result, objects found in the fill of structures have generally not

been seen as behaviorally related to the structures in whose fill they occur. Artifacts found on the floors of structures have often been considered special cases of deposition in which artifacts

enter the archaeological record in the same places they were used. As argued in Chapter 2 and

3, the notion of artifact utility has served to identify ritual objects; this notion at times has also

informed the identification of de facto refuse assemblages.

Mackey and Green (1979), for example, do not take into account the mortuary practices

prevalent in the ethnographic record of the peoples of the Southwest in their interpretations of

burned structures, food, and other useable objects (pottery, and other artifacts):

It is not at all likely that the structures were purposely burned after abandonment by the inhabitants, because burned sites invariably contain what would seem to be all the occupants' possessions. It is unlikely that occupants burning a structure they were abandoning would destroy all their agricultural produce and material possessions. The presence of large amounts of com and artifacts in an excavated site is, therefore, a strong indication that the occupants of the site were forced out and the structure burned in the process .... There is, then, a significantly larger amount of pottery in burned than in unburned structures, indicating that the structures were not burned purposely at the time of abandonment [Mackey and Green 1979:145-146]. 112

Schiffer (1987:92) noted that ritual abandonment cannot be ignored because at the heart of the distinction between systemic and archaeological contexts is the important recognition that the relevance of excavated artifacts depends upon the processes that deposited them in the archaeological record. Focusing on the utility of the objects, rather than ethnographically informed correlates of disposal behaviors, can actually mask site formation processes.

The use of bowls to serve food, the kicking of balls in ceremonial races, or simply the eating of food or many of the other behaviors that made up the life histories of this aggregate of objects did not occur in the fills of the structures and features described in the tables below. Yet from a life-history perspective these interactions represent only a portion of the activities associated with the lives of these objects and do not address their participation in discard behaviors.

In the data described below ritual discard behaviors appear to have been in operation in the prehistoric Southwest. In the early periods burned pit structures represent a disproportionate majority of discard contexts. These singular discard contexts are a prominent component of the

Anasazi archaeological record, and provide a primary source of information for reconstructing ritual prehistory. At Homol'ovi II the whole pots, dog skull, hawk, and other objects found on the floors and in the fills of the kivas suggest that these areas, although no longer serving their primary uses, also functioned as singularized depositional spaces for an aggregate of ritual objects. In addition to the strong pattern associated with the kivas, the fills of a small number of surface structures at Homol'ovi II also contained some of the objects in the aggregate. These data suggest that in addition to the singular reuses of kivas, other spaces in the pueblo served as areas for singular disposal.

To emphasize the utility of the life-history approach, whole pots and human remains in inhumation contexts, already recognized singular contexts, were purposely excluded. Macaw, and Turkey burials were excluded for the same reason. Whole pots, anomalous and fragmentary human remains, and more common birds (hawks, herons, blue jays, etc.) occur in a 113

number of contexts that are currently ignored or often not recognized as singular. It is in these

less obvious contexts where a life-history approach could shed the most light. Although the

depositional causes of any amount of human bone merit investigation, this data set included only

whole skeletons, disarticulated skeletons and fragments of skeletons composed of several

bones. Because skulls are particularly singularized cross-culturally, crania and mandibles

occurring in isolation were included in the fragmentary skeleton category. Dog remains were treated in an identical fashion to human remains. Another object type, "power objects," actually

represents a collection of items including crystals, concretions, stone effigies, idols, lightning stones, water-worn stones, and painted rocks whose use is widespread in ritual activities in both

pueblo and non pueblo cultures of the Southwest. These objects are relatively rare and considered alone might not have had a measurable signature in the sample of sites investigated.

To explore patterns of ritual disposal practices in earlier, contemporary, and later sites, a series of descriptive measures can be used to assess the singularity of archaeological contexts.

If one assumes that the life histories of all objects were identical, their appearance in the archaeological record would reflect that identity. No object would be set apart more than any other. Indeed, they would all be identical objects, with identical performance characteristics, and partiCipate in identical behaviors including disposal. As such, there would be no reason for them to have divergent life histOries or distinct discard Signatures. When one recognizes the physical differences between objects, their distinctive performance characteristics, and uses, then their life histories should diverge from each other because these variables like gravity push and pull the life histories of the Objects. Singularity is an analytiC description of the multiple behaviors that in general segregate the life histories of ritual objects. To identify the forces described by

"singularity,· one can employ measures that highlight the clustering of such objects with each other or with particular spaces or both in discard contexts.

The following tables applied to the Homol'ovi II data represent the six measures used in this analysis. These included (1) the frequency of discard contexts for the aggregates objects ll4

(Table 5.1), (2) the relative frequency of burning associated with an architectural subsarnple of those contexts (Table 5.2), and (3) the frequency of co-occurrence of object types within any particular context (Table 5.4). Because they could not be quantified discretely middens were not represented in this measure. These first three measures treat all objects as equally singularized.

To parse the data more finely, (4) the frequency of each object type for each context within a site was used to highlight variability in the frequency and range of specific object types in specific kinds of contexts Table 5.3). The relationship between burned structures and their contents can also be combined with measures of object type co-occurrences (Table 5.6), and the frequency of object types in burned and unburned structures (Table 5.5).

At Homol'ovi II, the continuum of singularized deposition emerges in several of these measures. The majority of contexts are kivas and surface structures (Table 5.1). Given that there are approximately 1,200 surface structures (28 excavated) and only 40 kivas (8 excavated), the kivas are disproportionately represented. In addition, those few surface structures containing members of the aggregate suggest they were also the focus of singular disposal activities. The burning of structures as noted above is restricted largely to kivas (Table

5.2) and may indicate an important source of variability in the ritual disposal activities associated with the aggregate. The singularity of the Homol'ovi II kivas is most pronounced when the co occurrence of object types by context is examined (Table 5.3). It is especially clear that the highest co-occurrences are in burned kivas (Table 5.4). Six types from the object aggregate were found in the burned kiva structure 708 (Pipe, Dog, Power, Pot, Ball, Bird). Nonetheless, as with earlier pueblo periods, the range of object types in kiva and surface structure contexts is similar (Table 5.4). As will be seen below the site of Homol'ovi II departs in some ways from other Pueblo IV sites, largely because there are no burial data available. Per the request of the

Hopi tribe, burials are not excavated by the Homol'ovi Research Project. Some burials, however, were excavated at the tum of the century (Fewkes 1904), but their specific artifact assoclCltions were never published. 115

Table 5.1 Frequency Of Homol'ovi II Contexts

Contexts Frequency N % Extramural feature 2 (10) Midden 2 (10) Surface structure 8 (40) Kiva 8 (40) Total N 20

Table 5.2 Frequency Of Homol'ovi II Burned Structures

Structures

Surf. structure Kiva 7 (88) 1 (13) Total n 8 8 Table 5.3 Co-occurrence Of Hornol'ovi II Object Types By Context

Context

Extra. feature Surf. structure 2 (33) 4 (100) 2 (50) Kiva 2 (33) 2 (50) 2 (100) 1 (100) 1 (100) Total n 6 4 4 2 1 1

Table 5.4 Co-occurnece Of Hornol'ovi II Object Types By Burned Structures

Context

Surf. structure Burned 1 (25) Unburned 2 (100) 3 (75) 2 (100) Total n 2 4 2 Kiva Burned 1 (50) 2 (100) 2 (100) 1 (100) 1 (100) Unburned 1 (50) Total n 2 2 2 1 1

-0\ Table 5.5 Frequency Of Hornol'ovi II Object Types By Context

Contexts . I Human Pioe Doa Power Food Pot Ball FossJ7 Bird Other Animal I ( ( ( n (%) n(%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) Extra. feat. Midden 1 (20) 1 (20) 1 (11) 1 (33) Surf. structure 1 (SO) 2(40) 2 (22) 5 (SO) 2 (SO) 1 (SO) 3 (SO) Kiva 4(80) 1 (SO) 2 (100) 2(40) 4(44) 5 (SO) 2 (67) 2 (SO) 1 (SO) 3 (SO) Total n 5 2 2 5 9 10 3 4 2 6

Table 5.6 Frequency Hornol'ovi II Object Types By Burned Structures

Contexts

Surf. struct Burned 1 (20) 1 (50) Unburned 1 (100) 2 (100) 2 (100) 4 (80) 1 (50) 1 (100) 3 (100) Total n 1 2 2 5 2 1 3 Kiva Burned 4 (100) 1 (100) 2 (100) 2 (100) 4 (100) 4 (80) 2 (100) 2 (100) 1 (100) 3 (100) Unburned 1 (20) Total n 4 1 2 2 4 5 2 2 1 3

--..J lIS

The data set below represents these six measures applied to objects from select

Basketmaker II through Pueblo V sites. The locations of several of these sites are illustrated in

Figure 5.1. As a partial control the selection process incorporated Anasazi sites from Bullard's

(1962) study of southwestern pit structures dating before A.D. 900. At the time of Bullard's study these sites were a representative sample of excavated early Anasazi sites. Many of these excavations were carried out during the culture history period and, therefore, should not be biased by my behavioralist perspective. To avoid bias in the selection process I also drew heavily from data reported from two large projects--The Black Mesa and Dolores Archaeological projects. These projects provided excellent coverage of Anasazi sites from the Pueblo I and II periods. The Black Mesa Project contributed a large number of Pueblo II sites and the Dolores

Project compiled considerable information for Pueblo I sites.

Sites from the Pueblo III, IV, and V periods were assembled from published reports. I focused largely on Mesa Verde sites in the Pueblo III period. The Pueblo IV period includes

Homol'ovi sites as well as earlier components at Awatovi, Pecos, Acoma, Pueblo Arroyo, Gran

Quivira, and a few others. The Pueblo V data is the least comprehensive and is largely restricted to Pecos, Awatovi, and Gran Quivira. 119

COLORADO

ARIZONA NEW MEXICO

AREA ...... ~ . ~~...... I r----- 91.---=rrIIeS::!f::f::--..... lpo...... ______L __J·

Figure 5.1 The Locations of Some of the Sites Involved in the Aggregate Study (Adapted From Bullard 1962:52, Figure 25). 120

Basketmaker 11

During the Basketmaker " period, 57% of the object types were found in pit structure contexts and 25% occurred in burials; a large percentage, 18% ,occurred in unknown contexts

(see Table 5.7). Of the 16 pitstructures, 9 were burned, 2 were unburned, and 5 were indeterminate (Table 5.8). The frequency of object types was clearly highest in the pit structures, and many objects were found only in the burned structures(Table 5.9, Table 5.10). Although the human burials were not recorded in the human category, in two cases human parts were deposited in other contexts. One scalp was deposited as a grave good and another scalp occurred in the fill of a burned pit structure (Table 5.10). The majority of object types did not occur together in the same Pit structure or burial (Table 5.11). Only in 3 cases were two object types found together; these were in 3 burned pitstructures (Table 5.12). 121

Table 5.7 Frequency Of Basketmaker" Contexts

Context Frequency N % Burial 7 (25)

Pit structure 16 (57)

Unknown 5 (18)

Total N 28 (100)

Table 5.8 Frequency Of Basketmaker" Burned Structures

Pit structure Frequency n % Burned 9 (56)

Unburned 2 (13)

? 5 (31)

Total n 16 (100) Table 5.9 Frequency Of Basketrnaker II Object Types By Context

Context Human Power Food Pot Ball

Burial

Pit structure I 1 (50) 3 (50) 4 (100) - 3 (100) 6 (100) 1 (100) 1 (33)

Total n 2 6 1 4 3 6 1 3

Table 5.10 Frequency Of Basketrnaker II Object Types By Burned Structures

Contexts I Human Pipe Power Food Pot Ball Fossil Bird Other Aniamls n %) Pit structures

Burned 1 (100) 3 (100) 1 (25) 2 (67) 4 (67) 1 (100)

Unburned 1 (25) 1 (17)

? 2 (50) 1 (33) 1 (17) 1 (100) Total n I~ 3 4 4 6 1 1

N -N Table 5.11 Co-occurrence Of Basketmaker II Object Types By Context

Context

Burial

Pit structure I 13 (65) 3 (100)

Total n 120 3

Table 5.12 Co-occurrence Of Basketmaker II Object Types By Burned Structures

Context

Pit structure

Burned 6 (46) 3 (100)

~&rn~ 2~~

? 5~~

Total n 13 3

N -t..J 124

Basketmaker ill

In the Basketmaker III period, the number of contexts increased dramatically (see table

5.13). Nonetheless, 77% of object types were still found in the pit structures. Complimenting

this distribution is the equally revealing figure that 39 of these structures (81 %) are burned

(Table 5.14). In fact, the only burned structure types were pit structures. Clearly the frequent

burning of these pit structures defies the commonsense suggestion that these structures entered the archaeological record as the result of accidental fires. Buming was the norm and as such

can not qualify in any real sense as an unexpected occurrence. In addition to the ritual

interpretations offered above for these burnings, experimental studies have also demonstrated that burning of pit structures would have been quite difficult. Roofing mud often extinguished

flames even when accelerants were added (Glennie and Lipe 1984). Burning in the past, therefore, would have required the removal of much of the earthen roofing prior to igniting the

wooden infrastructure.

The distribution of object types by contexts once again shows that pit structures (Table

5.15), particularly burned pit structure (Table 5.16), had the widest range of object types in

contrast to other contexts. Theses Basketmaker III pit structures are equally distinctive contexts

in terms of the co-occurrence of object types(Table 5.17, Table 5.18). While the majority of

objects continue to occur alone, there are more instances of two or more object types occurring together. Perhaps, predictably, all but one instance of multiple occurrences were found in

burned pit structures (Table 5.18). 125

Table 5.13 Frequency Of Basketmaker III Contexts

Context Frequency N% Human Burial 1 (2)

Dog Burial 1 (2)

Extramural Feature 2 (3)

Midden 1 (2)

Surface Structure 1 (2)

Pit structure 48 (77)

Unknown 8 (13)

Total N 62

Table 5.14 Frequency Of Basketmaker '" Burned Structures

Context

Surf. structure

Pit structure 39 (100) 6 (100) 3 (75)

Total n 39 6 4 Table 5.15 Frequency Of Basketmaker '" Object Types By Context

Context Human PiDe Doa Power Food Pot Ball Fossil Bird Other Animal n Human burial

Dog burial 1 (17) 1 (33)

Extra. feat 2 (6)

Surf. structure I - 1 (3)

Pit structure I 5 (100) 11 (100) 5 (83) 5 (83) 8 (100) 31 (89) 3 (100) 1 (100) 2 (66)

Midden I - 1 (3)

Total n I 5 11 6 6 8 35 3 1 3

N -0\ Table 5.16 Frequency Of Basketrnaker III Object Types By Burned Structures

Context Human Power Food Pot Ball Fossil Bird Other Animal

Surf. structure

? 1 (100)

Total n 1

Pit structure

Burned 3 (60) 8 (75) 5 (100) 5 (100) 7 (88) 29 (94) 1 (33) 1 (100) 2 (100)

Unburned 1 (20) 2 (18) 1 (13) 1 (3) 2 (67)

? 1 (9) 1 (3) I: (20) Total n 11 5 5 8 31 3 1 2

N- -...J Table 5.17 Co-occurence Of Basketmaker III Object Types By Context

Contexts

Human burial

Dog burial 1(7)

Extra. feature 2 (6)

Surf. structure 1 (3)

Pit structure I 31 (89) 14 (93) 1 (100) 1 (100) 1 (100)

Total n 135 15 1 1 1

N -00 Table 5.18 Co-occurrence Of Basketrnaker III Object Types By Burned Structures

Contexts

Surf. structure

? 1 (100)

n=100% 1

Pit structure

Burned 23 (74) 13 (93) 1 (100) 1 (100) 1 (100)

Unburned 5 (16) 1 (7)

? 3 (10)

Total n 31 14 1 1 1

N -\0 130

Pueblo!

During the Pueblo I period, the largest subsample in this study, the strong patterns of singularity found in the earlier Basketmaker times begin to look more like a continuum. Pit structures clearly are the favored places of deposition, yet aboveground surface structures also appear to have been compelling contexts (Table 5.19).

Nonetheless, the majority of both surface structures and pit structures are burned (see

Table 5.20). It should also be remembered that in any given site, surface structures almost always outnumber pit structures (see discussion below). The reader should also note that not all structures at a site were included in the tables. Only those structures that yielded one or more of the objects were included. Burned pit structure and surface structure contexts dominate the distribution of object types during the Pueblo I period; almost all object types occur in these two contexts (Table 5.21, Table 5.22).

When the distribution of object types is broken down in terms of burned and unburned structures, it is clear that the burned contexts account for the majority of object types as well as the majority of contexts (Table 5.22). As one might expect the co-occurrence of object types was also markedly skewed to pit structures and surface structures (Table 5.23). The clustering of co-occurring objects types in both pit structures and surface structures have similar distributions, albeit there are more object types in pit structures.

These co-occurrences, however, were not evenly distributed in the burned and unburned surface and pit structures (Table 5.24). There are a large number of two type co-occurrences in burned pit structures. All of the surface structures containing three or more of the object types were also burned. In contrast four of the six pit structures containing three or more object co occurrences were unburned. The structure with the highest co-occurrence of object types, however, was the burned Great Kiva B at Mesa Verde Site 1676, House 1 (Hayes and Lancaster

1975). In the fill of this structure were found five stone balls, several power objects (three concretions, two conical stones, and two dish-shaped geodes), two pots, and the remains of 131 several dogs (two jaw fragments, and three fragmentary skeletons). Only one object, a ceramic pipe, was actually found on the floor.

As is already apparent, during these first three periods both pipes as well as human skeletal remains occur predominantly in pit structure contexts. With the introduction of kivas in the Pueblo II period, these and other object types in the aggregate are shifted into kiva contexts. 132

Table 5.19 Frequency Of Pueblo I Contexts

Context Frequency N% Human burial 14 (6)

Dog burial 3 (1)

Extramural feature 9 (4)

Midden 15 (6)

Surface structure 69 (30)

Pit structure 115 (50)

Great kiva 4 (2)

Unknown 2 (1)

Total N 231

Table 5.20 Frequency Of Pueblo I Burned Structures

Context

Surf. structure

Pit structure 79 (64) 21 (70) 15 (44)

Great kiva 2 (2) 2 (6)

Total n 124 30 34 Table 5.21 Frequency Of Pueblo I Object Types By Context

Context Human PiDe Doa Power Food Pot Ball Fossil Bird Other Animal n Human burial

Dog burial 3 (13)

Extra. feature 1 (6) 1 (4) 3 (9) 1 (3) 2 (2) 1 (5)

Surf. structure I 4 (22) 7 (17) 6 (26) 15 (47) 12 (39) 41 (38) 10 (50) 2 (50) 1 (8)

Great kiva I - 2 (5) 2 (9) 2 (6) 1 (1) 1 (5) 1 (20)

Pit structure I 13 (72) 22 (54) 8 (35) 9 (28) 17 (55) 57 (53) 7 (35) 3 (60) 11 (85)

Midden I - 3 (7) 2 (6) 8 (7) 1 (5) 1 (20) 1(8)

Total n I 18 41 23 32 31 108 20 4 5 13

w -w Table 5.22 Frequency Of Pueblo I Object Types By Burned Structures

Context I Human Pipe FOSSl7 Other Animal n J n (%) n (%) n ) Surf. structure

Bumed 5 (71) 4(67) 9 (60) 11 (92) 29 (71) 5 (SO)

Unbumed 2(29) 2(33) 1 (7) 1 (8) 4 (10) 1 (10) 1 (SO) 1 (100)

? 2 (SO) 5 (33) 8(20) 4(40) 1 (SO)

Total n 4 7 6 15 12 41 10 2

Pit structure

Bumed 8 (62) 15 (68) 2(25) 5 (56) 16 (94) 41 (72) 6(86) 1 (33) 9 (82)

Unbumed 5 (38) 7 (32) 5(63) 3(33) 5 (9) 1 (14) 1 (33) 1 (9)

? 1 (13) 1 (11) 1 (6) 11 (19) 1 (33) 1 (9)

Total n 13 22 8 9 17 57 7 3 11

Great kiva

Bumed 1 (SO'I6) 2 (100%) 1 (SO) 1 (100) 1 (100) 1 (100) - ? 1 (100%) 1 (SO'I6) 1 (SO)

Total n 2 2 2

w -oJ- Table 5.23 Co-occurrence Of Pueblo I Object Types By Context

Context

Human burial

Dog burial 3 (2)

Extra. feature 9 (6)

Surf. structure 45 (28) 19 (43) 4 (57) 1 (50)

Pit structure 88 (55) 23 (52) 3 (43) 1 (50)

Great kiva 2 (1) 1 (2) 1 (100)

Total n 160 44 7 2 1

..... v,w Table 5.24 Co-occurrence Of Pueblo I Object Types By Burned Structures

Context

Surf. structure

Burned 26 (58) 12 (63) 4 (100) 1 (100)

Unburned 5 (11) 4 (21)

? 14 (31) 3 (16)

Total n 45 19 4 1

Pit structure

Burned 58 (66) 19 (83) 1 (33) 1 (33)

Unburned 16 (18) 3 (13) 2 (67) 2 (67)

? 14 (16) 1 (4)

Total n 88 23 3 3

Great kiva

Burned 1 (100) 1 (100)

? 2 (100)

Total n 2 1 1

w -0\ 137

Pueblo 11

The distributions of contexts in the Pueblo I and II periods are quite similar if one

equates Pueblo I pit-structure contents with the combined contents of pit structures and kivas in

Pueblo II period. In the Pueblo I period, approximately 50% of the object types were found in

pitstructures. In the Pueblo II period, pit structures (19%), kivas (27%), and great kivas (1%),

account for 47% of the contexts (Table 5.25). This period clearly demonstrates a change in the

depositional contexts of the aggregate from pitstructures to kivas. Ironically, this shift. supports

Lekson's (1989) contention that Pueblo II and III kivas should be considered analogous to pit

houses, but undermines his suggestion that these kivas were not ritual places. Instead it

suggests that both pit houses and kivas shared behaviorally similar life-histories; arguably both

were foci of ritual activities that persisted through their deposition and subsequent reuse as

places of singular disposal activities.

Burned structures still outnumber unburned structures, but the abandonment process

was not known for the majority of structures (Table 5.26). The frequency distributions of object types clearly shows that kivas, pit structures, and surface structures were favored locations.

Kivas and pitstructures, however, dominate the distributions (Table 5.27). Of the objects types

found in pit structures the majority continue to be associated with burning. In kivas, the majority

are not, with the exception of pots and food (Table 5.28). Only kivas and pit structures have

instances of three types of objects in the same structure (Table 5.29). These co-occurrences are

evenly divided between burned and unburned structures (Table 5.30). 138

Table 5.25 Frequency Of Pueblo II Contexts

Context Frequency n % Human burial 2 (1)

Extramural feature 5 (3)

Midden 15 (10)

Dog burial 14 (10)

Surface structure 35 (24)

Pit structure 28 (19)

Kiva 40 (27)

Great kiva 1 (1)

Unknown 7 (5)

Total n 147

Table 5.26 Frequency Of Pueblo II Structures Burned Structures

Context Burned Unburned ? n % n % n % Surf. structure 9 (26) 5 (19) 21(48)

Pit structure 12 (35) 8 (31) 8 (18)

Kiva 12 (35) 13 (50) 15 (34)

Great kiva 1 (3)

Total n 34 26 44 Table 5.27 Frenquency Of Pueblo" Object Types By Context

Context I Human PiDe Doa Power Food Pot Ball Fossil Bird Other Animal

Humarib"urial

Dog burial 14 (42)

Extra. feature 5 (9)

Surf. structure I 7 (27) 3 (27) 2 (6) 3 (17) 2 (33) 20 (35) 1 (17) 1 (11)

Pit structure I 10 (39) 1 (9) 3 (9) 1 (6) 3 (50) 13 (23) 1 (100) 2 (18)

1 (17) 13 (23) 1 (25) 1 (17) 5 (56) Kiva 1_9 (35) 4 (36) 9 (27) 8 (44) Great kiva 1 (17)

Midden I - 2 (18) 5 (15) 5 (28) 6 (11) 3 (75) 3 (50) 1 (11)

Total n 126 11 33 18 6 57 4 6 1 9

W -\0 Table 5.28 Frequency Of Pueblo II Object Types By Burned Structures

Context Human Food BaH n n (%) Surf. structure Burned 3 (43) 6(30) 1 (100) 1 (100)

Unburned 1 (14) 4(20)

? 3 (43) 3 (100) 2 (100) 3 (100) 2 (100) 10 (50)

Total n 7 3 2 3 2 20

Pit structure Burned 8 (80) 1 (100) 1 (33) 1 (33) 4 (31)

Unburned 2(20) 1 (100) 1 (33) 5(38) 1 (100) 1 (50)

? 2 (67) 1 (33) 4 (31) 1 (50)

Total n 10 3 3 13 2

Kiva Burned 1 (11) 1 (25) 3 (38) 1 (100) 7 (54) 1 (20)

Unburned 6 (67) 2(50) 1 (11) 4(50) 5 (38) 1 (100) 1 (100) 1 (20)

? 2 (22) 1 (25) 8(89) 1 (13) 1 (8) 3 (60)

Totaln 9 4 9 8 13 5

Great kiva Burned 1- 1 (100) Total n

-o~ Table 5.29 Co-occurrence Of Pueblo II Object Types By Context

Context

Human burial

Dog burial 14 (13)

Extra. feature 5 (5)

Surf. structure 31 (29) 4 (27)

Pit structure 24 (22) 2(13) 2(67)

Kiva 30 (28) 9 (60) 1 (33)

Great kiva 1 (1)

Total n 107 15 3

-~ 142

Table 5.30 co-occurrence Of Pueblo" Object Types By Burned Structures

Context

Surf. structure

Burned 7 (23) 2 (50)

Unburned 5 (16)

? 19 (61) 2 (50)

Total n 31 4

Pit structure

Burned 10 (42) 1 (50) 1 (50)

Unburned 6 (25) 1 (50) 1 (50)

? 8 (33)

Total n 24 2 2

Kiva

Burned 8 (27) 4 (44)

Unburned 8 (27) 5 (56)

? 14 (47) 1 (100)

Total n 30 9 1

Great kiva

Burned 1 (100)

Total n 1 143

Pueblo /II

In the Pueblo /II period most subterranean structures would be classified as kivas.

During this time surface structures, primarily habitation and storage areas make up the overwhelming majority of structures in most sites, outnumbering kivas by ratios between three and six to one (Lipe 1989). Even in unusual sites, like Sand Canyon pueblo, which may have been a more specialized ceremonial site, surface structures still outnumber kivas by a factor of

4:1. Nonetheless, 38% of all the Pueblo 11/ object contexts are kivas, with another 6% in pit structures and great kivas (Table 5.31).

Overall burning declines in this period, but it is still highly prevalent in kivas. Only one surface structure and fewer than half of the kivas (of those with information) were burned (Table

5.32). It is noteworthy that kivas continue to be burned at higher rates relative to other structure types. Kivas also continue to have the broadest range of object types (Table 5.33, Table 5.34).

Object type co-occurrences were also highest in unburned kivas followed by surface structures

(Table 5.35, Table 5.36). 144

Table 5.31 Frequency Of Pueblo III Contexts

Context Frequency N% Human burial 7 (1)

Dog burial 1 (1)

Extramural feature 5 (5)

Midden 11 (10)

Tower 2 (2)

Surface structure 30 (28)

Pit structure 3 (3)

Kiva 40 (38)

Great kiva 3 (3)

Unknown 4 (4)

Total N 106

Table 5.32 Frequency Of Pueblo'" Burned Structures

Context Burned Unburned ?

n(%) n(%) n(%)

Tower 2 (5)

Surf. structure 1 (6) 22 (51) 7 (4)

Pit structure 1 (6) 1 (25) 1 (6)

Kiva 13 (16) 18 (42) 9 (50)

Great kiva 2 (12) 1 (6)

Total n 17 43 18 Table 5.33 Frequency Of Pueblo III Object Types By Context

Context Human Power Food Pot Ball Fossil Bird Other Animal

Human burial

Dog burial 1 (14)

Extra. feature 3 (43) 1 (2) 2 (10)

Midden 11 (20) 4 (19)

Tower I - 2 (4) 1 (4)

Surf. structure 6 (27) 1 (14) 13 (24) 10 (43) 7 (33)

Pit structure I 2 (9) 1 (14) 1 (4)

Kiva 113 (59) 2 (100) 1 (14) 19 (35) 1 (100) 11 (48) 1 (100) 7 (33)

Great kiva 1 (5) 2 (4)

Total n 122 2 7 54 1 23 1 21 1

~ -VI Table 5.34 Frequency Of Pueblo III Object Types By Burned Structures

Context

Surf. structure Burned Unburned 3 (50) 13 (100) 7 (70) 6 (86) ? 2 (33) 1 (100) 3 (30) 1 (14) Total n 6 1 13 10 7 Pit structure Burned 1 (100) 1 (100) Unburned 1 (50) ? 1 (50) Total n 2 1 1 Kiva Burned 4 (46) 1 (50) 1 (100) 5 (26) 1 (100) 5 (45) 1 (100) 2 (71) Unburned 3 (23) 1 (50) 10 (53) 6 (55) 5 (29) ? 6 (31) 4 (21) Total n 13 2 1 19 1 11 1 7 Great Kiva Burned 1 (100%) 1(50%) ? 1(50%) Total n 1 2 All tower contexts were unburned and data in previous table were not repeated.

-..C1\ 147

Table 5.35 Co-occrruence Of Pueblo III Object Types By Context

Context

Human burial

Dog burial 1 (1)

Extra. feature 4 (6) 1 (7)

Tower 1 (1) 1 (7)

Surf. structure 24 (33) 5 (33) 1 (20)

Pit structure 2 (3) 1 (7)

Kiva 30 (42) 6 (40) 4 (80)

Great kiva 3 (4)

Total n 71 15 5 148

Table 5.36 Co-occurrence Of Pueblo III Objects By Burned Structures

Context

Surf. structure Burned 1 (4) Unburned 16 (67) 5 (100) 1 (100) ? 7 (27) Total n 24 5 1 Pit structure Burned 1 (50) Unburned 1 (100) ? 1 (50) Total n 2 1 Kiva Burned 9 (31) 1 (14) Unburned 12 (41) 5 (71) 1 (25) ? 8 (28) 1 (14) 3 (75) Total n 29 7 4 Great Kiva Burned 2 (67) ? 1 (33) Total n 3

All tower contexts were unburned and data in previous table were not repeated. 149

Pueblo IV

In the Pueblo IV period, kivas and surface structures are contexts that are relatively equal in frequency clearly indicating that in these large sites, where surface structures were the predominate form of architecture, a certain minority of surface structures were significant areas of singular discard (Table 5.37). Although the majority of all structures (n=31) are unburned, nearly 67% of the burned structures were kivas (Table 5.38). Of the 30 kivas analyzed nearly

50% were burned.

Although kivas, surface structures, and burial contexts, possessed similar ranges of object types (Table 5.39), burning was associated most often with objects in kivas (Table 5.40,

Table 5.42). The number of co-occurrences in these kiva deposits are quite dramatic(Table

5.41, Table 5.42) and suggest that the ritual reorganization of Pueblo IV architecture, described in Adam's (1991) study of the pueblo Katsina cult, was also accompanied by more formalized ritual disposal practices focused on kivas. 150

Table 5.37 Frequency Of Pueblo IV Contexts

Contexts Frequency N % Human burial 29 (27)

Extramural Feature 2 (2)

Midden 5 (5)

Plaza 4 (4)

Surface structure 34 (32)

Pit structure 1 (1)

Kiva 30 (28)

Great kiva 1 (1)

Total N 106

Table 5.38 Ffrequency Of Pueblo IV Burned Structures

Structure

Surf. structure

Pit structure 1 (3)

Kiva 12 (67) 13 (42) 5 (30)

Great kiva 1 (6)

Total n 18 31 17 Table 5.39 Frenquency Of Pueblo IV Object Types By Context

Context Human Power Food Pot Ball Fossil Other Animal

Human burial

Extra. feature 1 (3) 1 (3) 1 (11)

Midden 1 (8) 4 (10) 3 (10) 2 (6) 1 (11)

Plaza 2 (7) 2 (6) 1 (11) 1 (6)

Surf. Structure 2 (17) 4 (25) - 12 (31) 9 (31) 11 (34) - 6 (35) 1 (13) 6 (38)

Pit structure 1 (20) 1 (3) 1 (6) 1 (13) 1 (6)

Kiva 9 (75) 6 (38) 3 (60) 12 (31) 7 (29) 17 (50) 5 (56) 5 (29) 3 (38) 7 (44)

Great kiva 1 (3)

Total n 12 16 5 39 29 32 9 17 8 16

-VI Thble 5.40 Frequency Of Pueblo IV Object Types By Burned Structures

Context Power Food Pot Ball Fossil Bird Other Animal

Surf. structure

Burned 2 (17) 3 (33) 2 (18) 2 (33) - 1 (17) Unburned 2 (100) 1 (25) - 3 (25) 6 (67) 9 (82) 2 (33) 1 (100) 5 (83) ? 3 (75) - 7 (58) 2 (33) -

Total n 2 4 12 9 11 6 1 6

Kiva

Burned 7 (78) 2 2 (67) 4 (33) 4 (57) 8 (47) 2 (40) 3 (60) 2 (67) 4 (57)

Unburned 2 (22) 3 1 (33) 5 (42) 3 (43) 8 (47) 2 (40) 2 (40) 1 (33) 2 (29)

? 1 2 (25) 1 (6) 1 (20) - 1 (14)

Total n 9 6 3 12 7 17 5 5 3 7

All pit structures were unburned, therefore, data from the previous table were not repeated.

All great kivas were burned, therefore, data from the previous table were not repeated.

!JI -N Table 5.41 Co-occurence Of Pueblo IV Object Types By Context

Context

Human burial

Extra. feature 11 ~2)' 1(7)

Surf. structure I 22 (33) 8 (57) 3 (33) 1 (25)

Pit structure 1 (50)

Kiva 14 (22) 4 (29) 5 (56) 3 (75) 1 (50) 1 (100) 2 (100)

Great kiva 1 (2)

Total n N=65 N=14 N=9 N=4 N=1 N=1 N=2

VI -W Table 5.42 Co-occurrence of Pueblo IV Object Types By Burned Structure

Context

Surf. structure

Burned 2 (9) 2 (25) 1 (100)

Unburned 8 (36) 6 (75) 3 (100)

? 12 (54) -

Total n 22 8 3 1

Kiva

Burned 4 (28) 1 (25) 2 (40) 2 (67) 1 (100) 1 (100) 1 (100)

Unburned 6 (43) 3 (75) 2 (40) 1 (33)

? 4 (29) 1 (20)

Total n 14 4 5 3 1 1 1

All pit structures were unburned, therefore, data from previous table were not repeated.

All great kivas were burned, therefore, data from the previous table were not repeated.

Va -+a 155

Pueblo V

The data from this period comes largely from Pecos pueblo, once the heartland of

Spanish colonial power in what is now the U.S. Southwest, and Awatovi, a Hopi pueblo on the far

edge of that colonial world. The very different histories of these villages were reflected in the life

histories of the object aggregate. At Awatovi, where Spanish missions were established on two

occasions before being violently abandoned at the turn of the eighteenth century, there is an

intermingling of European and Hopi objects in the aggregate. Sacrificial and ceremonial trash

composed of European animal objects (horses, sheep etc.) as well as traditional objects

(concretions, fossils, etc.) occur in the fills of the kivas and mission structures. Both Hopi and

European objects were also found in contexts indicative of kratophanous behaviors practiced by

both the Spanish and the Hopi.

In contrast, at Pecos where Spanish domination was much stronger and persisted

despite the pueblo revolt, disposal practices were much more one sided. There was literally a

flood of ceremonial objects representing the end of the object aggregate at this site. Kidder

found over 600 pipes in the midden areas as well as hundreds of ceramic figurines. He

suggested that these were associated with some sort of annual ritual or perhaps were simply

children's toys. These frequencies, however, exceed other sites by a factor of 10, and suggest they may have been the result of a radical ritual reorganization as would have attended the

christianization of the pueblo. These pipes, although reported here, were not tallied in the tables.

Nonetheless, the remaining distribution of contexts indicates that kivas were still highly

important places as were surface structures--both those constructed before the Spanish intrusion as well as those associated with the Awatovi mission (Table 5.43).

Although the oral history of Awatovi recounts that its kivas were destroyed by fire, and

both Cushing 1965 [1882] and Fewkes (1896:572) described seeing burned rOOfing and corn on the surface and in the fill of the mission area, later excavations by the Peabody Museum

(Montgomery et al. 1949; Smith 1972) reported only a few burned kivas. Because the 156 descriptions of the mission's surface structures did not address the issue of burning, these structures were classified here as unknown (Table 5.44). Nonetheless, the earlier descriptions of burning as well as Mindeleffs observation of the reuse of burned Spanish mission beams in various kivas on the Hopi mesas (Mindeleff 1891 :119-120) strongly support the oral traditions that Awatovi was burned in a violent confrontation. Burning associated with room and site abandonments, however, was already in decline in the greater puebloan southwest, and that decline may have been accelerated by the introduction of Catholicism. At Pecos, for example, many of the kivas were described by Kidder as purposely dismantled and even filled as a result of Catholic pressure to abandon them.

Despite the changes in religious practices, the disposal pattern remained consistent with earlier periods. Kivas were the primary place for deposition; they showed both the large range of object types (Table 5.45) and had the highest co-occurrence of object types (Table 5.47).

Although burned kivas were rare, the broadest range of object types was associated with them

(Table 5.46). The highest number of object type co-occurrences, four types, was also found hi a burned kiva (Table 5.48). 157

Table 5.43 Frequency Of Pueblo V Contexts

Context Frequency N% Human burial 3 (5)

Extramural feature 13 (22)

Midden 4 (7)

Surface Structure 11 (18)

Mission Structure 10 (17)

Kiva 17 (28)

Great Kiva 1 (2)

? 1 (2)

Total N 60

Table 5.44 Frequency Of Pueblo V Burned Structures

Structure

Mission structure

Surf. structure 11 (50)

Kiva 4 (100) 12 (92) 1 (5)

Great kiva 1 (8)

Total n 4 13 22 Table 5.45 Frequency Of Pueblo V Object Types By Context

Context 1 Human Pipe Dog Power Food Pot Ball Fossil Bird Other Animal n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%) n n(%)

, %, Human Burial 2 (12) 1 (14)

Extra. feature 2 (18) - 11 (35) -

Midden 1 - 2 (12) 2 (6) Surf. structure 3 (27) - 4 (24) 4 (13) 2 (29) Mission structure - 5 (29) 3 (10) 3 (43)

Kiva 2 (100) 5 (45) 2 (100) 3 (18) 11 (35) 2 (100) 1 (14) 3 (100)

Great kiva 1 (9) 1 (6)

Total n 12 11 2 17 31 2 7 3

VI -00 Table 5.46 Frequency Of Pueblo V Object Types By Burned Structures

Context I Human Pipe Dog Power Food Pot Ball Fossil Bird Other n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%) Animal I n(% Kiva Burned 2 (100) 1 (20) 1 (100) 3 (27) 1 (50) 1 (100) - Unburned 3 (60) 3 (100) 7 (64) 1 (50) 3 (100) ? 1 (20) 1 (9) Total n 2 5 1 3 11 2 1 3 Surface and mission structures were classified as unknown (?) and, therefore, data from the preceeding table were not repeated.

The great kiva was unburned and, therefore, data from the preceeding table were not repeated.

-VI \0 160

Table 5.47 Co-occurrence Of Pueblo V Object Types By Context

Context

Human burial

Extra. feature 13 (30)

Surf. structure 9 (21) 2 (22)

Mission structure 9 (21) 1 (11)

Kiva 9 (21) 5 (55) 2 (100) 1 (100)

Great kiva 1 (11)

Total n 43 9 2 1

Table 5.48 Co-occurence Of Pueblo V Objects By Burned Structures

Context 1 Types 2 Types n 96 n(96 Kiva

Burned 1 (11) 1 (20) 1 (50) 1 (100)

Unburned 8 (89) 3 (60) 1 (50)

1 1 (20)

Total n 9 5 2 1

Surface and mission structures were classified as unknown (1) and, therefore data from the preceeding table were not repeated. The great kiva was unburned and therefore, data from the preceeding table were not repeated. 161

The Aggregate Between Basketmaker 11 and Pueblo y..

In aggregate, pit structure contexts were the most common contexts (28%) followed by surface structures (24%) and kivas (17%). Kivas and pit structures combined account for 45% of

all contexts (Table 5.49). The combined burned pit structures and kivas account for 74% of all the burned structures (Table 5.50).There were more burned structures (n=245) than either

unburned or unknown and these burned structures accounted for 45% of all structures.

The full range of object types occurs in middens, surface structures, kivas, and middens

(Table 5.51). Kivas were the most frequent context for human remains (38%), closely followed by pit structures (36%), and surface structures (22%). This is particularly interesting given that kivas were the least frequent of the three contexts. Seven of the ten object types occur most frequently in pitstructures (pipes, dogs, food, pots, balls, birds, and other animals), power objects, and fossils were exceptions. Tweny-seven percent of power object types occured in surface structures followed by kivas (25%), and middens (14%). Thirty-two percent of fossil type objects occurred in surface structures followed by 25% in kivas, and 12% in middens. Again it is noteworthy that kivas were well represented in the exceptions (humans, power objects, fossils).

Table 5.52 describes the frequency of object type co-occurences ranking them from least to most. Once again kivas, had the most co-occurences, followed by pit structures, great kivas, surface structures and human burials. Kivas also dominate the combined contexts with three or more object types. Out of the 35 combined cases of three and four object types, kivas account for 46% (n=16) followed by surface structures 29% (n=10) and pit structures 23% (n=8).

Kivas account for 50% of the cases where six or seven object types were represented. Although in that range there were only six cases, this pattern is still intriguing.

Despite the limitations of this data set, several robust patterns stand out and warrant more rigorous examination. In the early periods, when the life histories of the objects comprising the aggregate would have been more comparable to the lives of objects among non pueblo dwelling peoples of the Southwest, disposal practices were quite similar. Villages had small 162 middens and numerous burned structures containing both "utilitarian" and "nonutilitarian" objects, probably deposited as the result of mortuary activities or ritualized site abandonments.

In the later periods when more permanent structures and villages were common, the life histories of the objects in the aggregate changed; their discard contexts were shifted into predominantly kivas and a relatively small number of surface structures. These data suggest a general pattern of singular disposal, for these ten object types. The two object classes that seemed to have most consistently entered obvious singular contexts were pipes and human remains. Both had strong associations with burials, pit structures, and kivas.

Even if this aggregate study had been compiled with more finely tuned data, it focused on identifying singularized disposal patterns at a very general scale and did not address the specific details of disposal. Clearly, these singular contexts beg further division to permit specific analyses of funerary ritual, the discard rituals associated with regional cults and practices, the results of ritual syncretism and conflict, and other more specific activities important for reconstructing ritual prehistory. In the next chapter I begin that process by exploring the singular discard of human objects in contexts indicative of ritual violence. 163

Table 5.49 Frequency of Basketmaker II-Pueblo V Contexts

Context Frequency N % Human burial 65 (9)

Dog burials 19 (3)

Extramural features 36 (5)

Midden 51 (7)

Plaza 4 «1)

Surface structure 180 (24)

Tower 2 «1)

Mission structure 10 (1)

Pit structure 211 (28)

Kiva 127 (17)

Great kivas 10 (1)

Unknown 27 (4)

Total N 742

TABLE 5.50 Frequency of Basketmaker II-Pueblo V Burned Structures

Context

Tower

Mission structure 10 (7)

Surf. structure 58 (24) 53 (35) 69 (48)

Pit structure 140 (57) 39 (46) 32 (22)

Kiva 41 (17) 56 (37) 30 (21)

Great kiva 6 (2) 1 (1) 3 (2)

Total n 245 151 144 Table 5.51 Frequency of Basketmaker II-Pueblo V Object Types By Context

Context Human Power Food Pot Ball Fossil Bird Other Animal

Human burial

Dog burial 7 (7) 19 (24) 1 (2)

Extra. feature 1 (1) 2 (2) 4 (5) 5 (3) 2 (3) 20 (7) 2 (4) 2 (4)

Midden 1 (1) 5 (5) 5 (6) 24 (14) 3 (4) 19 (7) 5 (11) 7 (12) 1 (7) 2 (4)

Plaza 2 (3) 2 (1) 1 (2) 1(2)

Tower 2 (1) 1 «1)

Surf. structure 19 (22) 17 (17) 9 (12) 47 (27) 23 (31) 87 (30) 10 (22) 18 (32) 1 (7) 8 (17)

Mission structure 5 (3) 3 (1) 3 (5)

Pit structure 31 (36) 37 (38) 19 (24) 20 (12) 28 (38) 105 (36) 16 (36) 3 (5) 5 (33) 17 (36)

Kiva 33 (38) 18 (18) 15 (19) 43 (25) 9 (12) 52 (16) 9 (20) 14 (25) 3 (20) 15 (32)

Great kiva 1 (1) 2 (2) 2 (3) 4 (2) 1 «1) 1 (2) 1 (2) 1 (7)

Total n 87 98 78 171 74 290 45 57 15 47

..-0\ Table 5.52 Co-occurrence Of Basketmaker II-Pueblo V Object Types

Context

Tower

Mission structure 9 (2) 1 (1)

Dog burial 18 (4) 1 (1)

Extra. feat 34 (7) 2 (2)

Human burial 59 (12) 3 (3) 1 (4)

Surf. structure 132 (26) 38 (33) 8 (30) 2 (25)

Great kiva 7 (1) 2 (2) 1 (25)

Pit structure 158 (32) 43 (37) 6 (22) 2 (25) 2 (50)

Kivas 83 (17) 24 (21) 12 (44) 4 (50) 1 (25) 1 (100) 2 (100)

Total n 501 115 27 8 4 1 2

Table organized by relative number of co-occurences.

0\ UI 166

CHAPTER 6:

KRATOPHANY AND PUEBLOAN WITCHCRAFT

A stranger who dies or is killed is buried unceremoniously or cast into the sea. Among the Northern tribes the body of such a one used in former days to be disposed of by cutting it into pieces and burning it on a fire. The natives say that if this be done the 'blood' and the 'fat' of the dead man go up to the sky and this removes all danger to the living from the dead man ... .!f a man were killed in a fight between two communities and his body remained with the enemy, they would dispose of it in this way .... lt may be worthy of remarK that this custom of burning the bodies of slain enemies is perhaps the real origin of the belief that the Andamanese are orwere cannibals [Radicliffe-Brown 1933:109-110].

You shalt not suffer a sorceress to live [Exod. 22:18 RSV].

PUEBLOAN VIOLENCE

More than 30 years ago Woodbury (1959) suggested that many of the bumed buildings and mutilated human remains found in the U.S. Southwest, now cited as possible instances of cannibalism (e.g., Turner and Tumer 1992a; White 1992), were the result of some form of prehistoric puebloan warfare. A life-history analysis, however, suggests that many of these deposits may actually represent the results of witchcraft persecution and other forms of kratophanous behavior. Ethnohistoric and ethnographic accounts document that southwestem peoples (puebloan and nonpuebloan alike) viciously persecuted and killed witches between the

16th and early twentieth centuries. Indeed, the torture and killing of accused witches and sorcerers has been an all too common end to many people's lives all over the world.

Among the pueblos no crime was considered more heinous than witchcraft (Simmons

1974:70). Witches were not only considered one of the prime causes of sickness and death, but were also held responsible for droughts, crop blights, and other sources of famine (Titiev 1942).

Hawley (1970) and Titiev (1942) recognized that this means of repression was the responsibility of the ritual leaders of pueblo society. 167

Skeletal remains in kivas from the protohistoric pueblo of Homol'ovi II, near Winslow,

Arizona, provide a prehistoric case of violence resulting from intravillage ritual conflict. The timing of these deposits is especially significant given that they occur in conjunction with the unprecedented occupation of a 1,200 room pueblo and the emergence of a ritual cult (Adams

1991). These kivas and the site were constructed and abandoned in less than 100 years, between A.D. 1330 and 1400. This pueblo's rapid growth and spatial layout of formal plazas exemplify both the local genesis of the pueblo Katsina cult (Adams 1991 :163-184) and the regional reorganization of Anasazi peoples into large aggregated villages during the fourteenth century (see Di Peso 1958; Dittert 1959; Haury 1958).

In this context of population aggregation and cult formation archaeologists have traditionally sought to define ritual's role as an integrative one (e.g., Lipe and Hegmon 1989).

The behavioral ramifications of such integration, such as ritual repression accomplished through witchcraft accusation, have not been emphasized. In light of the ubiquity of such violence cross culturally and the striking correspondence between kivas, pit structures, and nontraditional burials in the pueblo past, it seems that the social costs of ritual integration must be reconsidered.

The ritual signature of violently dispatched human remains discarded in places of ceremonial activity such as kivas and pit structures (see Human in Appendix A) identified in the last chapter has been overshadowed by the debate over Anasazi cannibalism (see Turner and

Turner 1992b; Bullock 1991, 1992). In part this stems from the lack of archaeological method and theory linking ritual violence, including cannibalism, to ritual site formation processes. To begin building such theory I suggest that we look at the most common forms of ritualized violence in the ethnographic and historical records, including witch trials, cannibalism, lynching, and other forms of kratophanous behavior. Kratophanous behavior results in depOSits composed of people, objects, or architecture whose life histories have been ritually terminated as a result of conflict between competing groups-frequently ritual groups. 168

Cannibalism in the Southwest

On the basis of experimentation, taphonomic analyses of nonhuman predator behavior, and detailed studies of human skeletal remains, Turner and Turner (1992), White (1992), and others have described six types of bone alteration that create a signature of prehistoric cannibalism (see Flinn et al. 1976; Luebben and Nickens 1982; Nass and Bellatoni 1982;

Nickens 1975; Olson 1966; Turner 1961, 1983, 1988, 1989; Turner and Morris 1970; Turner and

Turner 1990, 1992a; White 1988,1992). Initial research (Turner and Morris 1970) highlighted three traits: intentional cutting, breaking, and burning. Subsequently, pounding through anvil abrasion was added to the trait list (Turner 1983). As more cannibalized deposits were recognized, Turner and Turner (1992a:663) realized that vertebrae were often absent or crushed.

White's (1992) detailed study of a human bone deposit in Mancos Canyon contributed a sixth trait, pot polishing on the ends of long bones. Through bOiling experiments White determined that long-bone ends developed a sheen from rubbing against the bottom and sides of a ceramic cooking container. This trait has now been identified on other bone classes found at two other sites Canyon Butte Ruin 3 (Turner and Turner 1992a:679) and at Small House Ruin, Chaco

Canyon (Turner 1993:427).

This classificatory approach, while empirically rigorous and an important source for the genesis of inferences, has drawn criticism from archaeologists (see Turner and Turner

1992a:678). Bullock (1991), for example, has argued that this approach fails to consider other behaviors, such as warfare or secondary burial, that may have contributed to the formation of these deposits. To begin exploring and defining violent ritual behavior archaeologists need to assume responsibility for the narrowness and emotional shape of the debate surrounding the possibility of cannibalism. As Turner and Turner (1992a:678) have emphasized, the archaeological community's response has been a reactionary one. To the Turners' and others' credit, persistent research has exposed more than 40 sites with deposits indicative of some form 169 of ritual deposition. Without this research these deposits would probably have been ignored or

classified uncritically as secondary burials.

At present the criteria of proof in arguments for and against Anasazi cannibalism derive, almost exclusively, from bone damage and largely underrate the potential of the depositional contexts of the skeletal assemblages to furnish relevant evidence. Bullock has sketched some compelling altematives to account for these deposits, but like Tumer and others is still developing the methods and theoretical framework necessarry to reconstruct the object life

histories that formed them.

While several of these bone collections, including Fence Lake (Grant 1989), Canyon

Butte Ruin 3 (Hough 1902, 1903), Teec Nos Pos (Mueller 1969), Monument Valley Pueblo (Nass and Bellatoni 1982), and Polacca Wash (Olson 1966; Turner and Morris 1970), derive from poorly provenienced or isolated deposits, several others come from relatively good proveniences such as Sambrito Village (Dittert et al. 1966), Burnt Mesa (Flinn et al. 1976), Ash Creek

(Hohmann 1985), Coombs Site (Lister et al. 1960), Yellow Jacket (Malville 1989), Largo-Gallina

(Mackey and Green 1979), Salmon Ruin (Shipman 1980), Marshview Hamlet (Wilshusen 1988), and Mancos Canyon (White 1992).

Interpretations of the causes of these "cannibal" deposits have been wide ranging. Flinn et ru.. (1976) recognized that Anasazi cannibalism could be typed as gustatory, revenge, or sacrificial. Turner (1983) has argued that some of these deposits could be associated with

"pathological institutions," while others may have resulted from situations of starvation (Turner and Turner 1992a:676). More recently, Turner has reviewed the sites of possible cannibalism and argued that they resulted from institutionalized repression carried out by the rulers of the

Chacoan political system (Turner 1993:433-436).

Turner and Turner (1992a:678, see also Turner 1993:433-434) call for more

bioarchaeological studies to refine and possibly expand the taphonomic signature of prehistoric cannibalism. The documentation of these deposits, however, will also benefit from more 170 detailed explorations of their behavioral contexts, including witchcraft punishment, that Turner has been unwilling to address. Taphonomy, and bioarchaeology as previously applied, have focused this research far too narrowly on traces on bone (see also Bullock 1992).

The cannibalism literature in cultural anthropology, though diverse and frequently exploratory, has served larger scientific goals by pursuing multiple and explicitly theoretical positions. These have opened many avenues of inquiry. Harris (1977), for example, argued that

Aztec cannibalism made sense within a framework of cultural materialism that links subsistence needs, beliefs, and environmental adaptation. In contrast, Helmuth (1973) explored acts of cannibalism by analyzing the "modes of thought" that generate it in different cross-cultural settings. Even Arens' (1977:9) campaigning critique of the cannibalism literature demonstrated the methodological power of critical theory to challenge "conventional wisdom" and ironically reinvigorated the study of the cannibal "other" (see Brown and Tuzin 1983).

The documentation of pueblo cannibalism continues to rely upon intuitive methodological choices that define cannibal behavior abstractly in terms of food consumption.

This method articulates well with commonsense notions of prehistOric food processing, but, like the utility classifications of burned food and whole artifacts on the floors of pit structures, it has not addressed ethnographically known sources of variability in the life histories of either people or food that would lead these objects to various depositional contexts in the archaeological record. When ritual processes are considered, a pattern emerges in the pueblo Southwest of human remains depOSited in places of ritual activity. The contexts of the human objects in the aggregate, described in the last chapter, are particularly striking (see Table 6.1 ,Table 6.2).

Thirty-one cases (36%) occcured in pit structures and 20 of these structures were burned (65% of pitstructures). Thirty-two cases (38%) occurred in kivas, and 14 of these were burned (44% of kivas). The two structure types combined account for 74% of the contexts for anomalous human burials. 171

Table 6.1 Frequency of Anomalous Burial Contexts For Human Remains

Human Object Contexts N % Grave goods 1 (1) Extra feat 1 (1 ) Midden 1 (1 ) Surf structure 19 (22) Pit structure 31 (36) Kiva 32 (38) Great kiva 1 (1 ) Total 87 (100)

Table 6.2 Frequency of Burning Associated with Architectural Contexts

Structure N % Surface Structures N=19 Burned 6 (32) Unburned 6 (32) ? 7 (37) Pitstructures N=31 Burned 20 (65) Unburned 9 (29) ? 2 (6) Kivas N=32 Burned 14 (44) Unburned 10 (31) ? 8 (25) Great Kiva N=1 Burned 1 (100)

Explaining the behavior of disposing human remains within ceremonial spaces moves this research beyond the confines of a trait list, based on bone damage, to more nomothetic issues of human behavior. Such places of disposal beg for explanation given that the discard of ritually and non-ritually consumed foods, womout objects, and abandoned architecture frequently follow distinct discard patterns (Walker 1995). 172

Much of the research on cannibalism has been undertaken by physical anthropologists trained in taphonomy and bone morphology rather than human behavior and archaeological theory. Thus, archaeologists uncomfortable with the results of past analyses should realize that their discomfort reveals an opportunity to push the boundaries of archaeological research.

Assessing the differential deposition of materials in the paleontological record is an important method for characterizing past events in the formation of fossil deposits. This prinCiple underlay

White's (1992) refitting of the bone fragments from Mancos Canyon. However, this deposit and several others mentioned above also contained material culture assemblages in addition to the bones. Archaeologists, as noted earlier in Chapter 3, share with paleontologists a general understanding that the life histories of the objects in their deposits can be reconstructed by examining contextual clues.

Archaeologists consider the frequencies, aSSOCiations, spatial locations as well as formal properties of the artifacts they recover in order to reconstruct deposition events and earlier moments in their life histories. For example, they refit ceramics to assess the contemporaneity of deposits, to document reused artifacts, or to determine if reconstructable vessels were present at the time of deposition. Such analyses usually require that deposits be screened to recover smaller or isolated objects that might be missed by the excavator. It is just such objects in the fill of a structure that were the topic of the last chapter. It is not clear that the deposits at Mancos

5mtumr-2346 (White 1992) were screened or their spatial associations recorded by a grid system. White described the excavators' recovery methods in the following manner:

Excavations followed standard procedure in Southwest archaeology at the time, involving excavation by trowel and broom. As Plog (1979:110) noted for Southwest archaeology, 'The use of screens, of a square grid system, and of natural levels has not been characteristic. '[White 1992:41-42]

To the extent that the deposits under consideration in this debate were not screened directly impacts the archaeologist's abilities to reconstruct the endpOints of the life histories of the artifacts in them. As a result, empirical assessments of claims for prehistOric cannibalism or 173

other forms of ritual activity are problematic. While the mancos cannibalism study has been the

most thorough to date, the site 5MTUMR-2346 possesses some of the least understood site

formation processes. It is a multiconponent site where a later pueblo was superimposed over the

remains of an earlier pueblo. Although it is clear that most of the skeletal deposits were

associated with floor and fill contexts of the earlier pueblo, White admits that the "sequence of

events that led to the deposition of the human bone assemblage at 5MTUMR-2346 will remain

obscure for this site" (White 1992:82).

Nonetheless, even with more comprehensible strata and finely tuned recovery techniques, it is important to take advantage of ethnographic information pertinent to the study of

ritual, cannibalism, and indeed all behaviors of interest to archaeologists. A century of

anthropological ethnography has demonstrated that human bodies and any number of other

objects are used and discarded in ways that would defy the commonsense expectations of many

practicing archaeologists.

In ethnographic contexts, cannibalism is almost always described as a ritual

phenomenon. Various forms of ritual cannibalism actually co-occur with other ritual activities such as executions (Schieffelin 1976:156), raiding (Bowden 1984; Matraux 1949a, 1949b), and funerary rites (Clastres 1974; Dole 1962; Eliade 1958b). All these behaviors would contribute to the variability of archaeological depOSits and should be considered. To do so, however, requires an approach that explores the ritual contexts of deposits beyond SimplistiC analogies between food processing and human bone damage.

The Bimin-Kuskusmin of New Guinea, for example, ground the flesh of witches in

mortars made for the pandamus rite (Poole 1983:23). Sixteenth and 17th century European executioners gathered the blood, thumbs, and other objects associated with the victim's death and gave them to the poor and sick for use as medicines and charms (van Dulmen 1990:120-

121). Even the Andean plane crash, cited as a case of starvation cannibalism (Turner and

Turner 1992a:676), should be reconsidered. People starve to death all over the world rather 174 than commit cannibalism. Understanding how it was possible in this case may hold important clues for other examples. Alone on a mountain side, the survivors were disconnected from the social relations of power that would have mitigated against such a transgression of the life histories of human bodies. Their ability to divert human remains from a more typical disposal process shares a ritual component with other instances of known cannibalism. The survivors repeatedly employed the metaphor of Christian Communion to describe their actions. Others had sacrificed their bodies and blood so that they might live (Read 1974:83,91,101,239).

The archaeological record of what they left behind does not necessarily conform to a scenario in which "starving community members would not have bothered to cover the remains of their victims" (Turner and Turner 1992a:676). The bodies were covered by snow, for most of the 71 days of the ordeal, and the crash victims were injured and weak, making it virtually impossible to have carried out disposal activities of any but the most limited sort. It is telling that at the moment of rescue the two boys who had walked down from the mountains took the first opportunity to hide their remaining shreds of human meat under a rock. In this singular act they were attempting to conceal the evidence of their tabooed manipulation of the life histories of human remains.

Killing and the Fear and Respect of Spirits

None of these cannibalistic activities form a strong behavioral identity with processed and discarded domestic food remains, beyond the fact that they were damaged and discarded like most artifacts. Further, the aggregate described in Chapter 5 suggests that the pi t structures and Idvas which dominate the contexts of the anomalous human remains from the prehistoric pueblo Southwest resulted from a long lived (Basketmaker through Pueblo V) ritual disposal practice. Nonetheless, Turner and Turner (1992a) and others continue to focus on food discard behaviors-even suggesting that the processing of large mammals provides an analogy with the cannibal behaviors. 175

The Canyon butte individuals had been treated in a destructive fashion, as well as having been dismembered, partly burned, and processed like Wupatki antelope refuse. This similarity in human and game butchering is noteworthy in light of Parson's (1939:134) observation that 'Among all Pueblos there is a close conceptual relationship between killing men and killing prey animals, between hunting and warring organizations'(Tumer and Turner 1992a:675)

This passage postulates a possible similarity between prehistoric antelope processing and the killing and butchering of humans on the basis of an analogy with ethnohistoric conceptions of war and hunting. Ironically, ethnohistoric data from pueblo societies suggest that the most important aspect of these shared conceptions was the ritual relationships that existed in the interactions of pueblo hunters, warriors, and prey. Puebloan hunting of large game was a highly ritualized activity.

Within puebloan worldviews, as among almost all Native American cultures, animals possess spirits whose power must be treated with care. Among the Hopi, rabbits, eagles, deer, mountain sheep and antelopes are hunted for ceremonial and subsistence needs. The hunting of deer, antelope, and sheep traditionally included elaborate ritual preparations before leaving the village, purification ceremonies in the hunting camp, formalized distributions of the meat obtained (Beaglehole 1936), and finally, ritualized disposal of the bone remains. The Hopi, like

Binford (1981 b), were aware of dog gnawing and took steps to prevent it.

The bones, and skull of the animal were carefully placed aside, neither broken up for the marrow, nor given to the dogs. Each bone was marked along its length with a streak of red ochre, and the skull was similarly marked on the eye sockets, jaws, and nose. Before sunrise on the following morning, the bones sprinkled with meal were placed on a shrine D"i D·I~ska close to the village with prayers for the increase of animals [Beagle hole 1936:7-8].

Gifford (1940:16) has also documented ethnohistorically that puebloan peoples as a rule do not grind up or boil vertebrae for oil. In a cross-cultural comparison of southwestern culture groups, he found that this practice was common among Apache peoples and absent among puebloan peoples. The Papago of southern Arizona practiced a similar taboo for the deer remains left over from the deer dance ceremony. 176

After the meat was eaten, no bones might be thrown on the ground lest a dog should carry them to a house of a menstruating woman. If this should happen, no more deer could be caught. All bones must be placed on top of the ceremonial house, where they remained for a year. Even those who took meat home to other members of the family must first remove the bones [Underhill 1946:1 OS].

Szuter's (1989:325) analysis of faunal remains from Hohokam sites found that artiodactl remains, particularly cranial elemnts, were most frequently recovered from singularized deposits on burned pit house floors. Her behavioral analysis idependently identified ritual dsiposal practices comparable to those described previously in Chapter 5. UNot only are [concentrated] artiodactyl remians recovered from special contexts on pit house floors, but the scattered artiodactyl occurences are more often than not found in structures (Szuter 1989:284).

Parsons' observation concerning the close relation between animals and men does not appear to mark the possible compatibility of men and animals, as food sources but instead stresses the spiritual powers that both exhibit. Various pueblo clans have animal totems.

Animal deities-badger, bear, eagle, coyote, etc.--also play prominent and anthropocentric roles in puebloan pantheons (Parsons 1933:72).

The Hopi attitude toward animals, like that of all pueblo peoples, is one of respect and esteem ... They must be protected, entreated humbly not to become angry if killed .... The dead body is respectfully treated and food is sacrificed, that the soul of the animal may be appeased and find no occasion to warn away living companions from the Hopi Hunter and his needs [Beaglehole 1936:23-24].

In the Zuni war dance, scalp takers and wild animal killers are called by the same name

(Parsons 1933:57) because both as takers of life have encountered and controlled a potentially hostile spirit. As noted above (Chapter 4), the Hopi also strongly identify with their main food staple, com. Both the harvested com plant and the human corpse are called qatungwu (Loftin

1994:31). According to Stephen (1936:706), such metaphors make sense in a material world completely infused and animated with spirits. The life histories of people, objects, and architecture in such a world create a knowable, albeit challenging, archaeological record.

Obviously, many depOSits of faunal remains conform more closely to our profane conceptions of 177

food processing: nonetheless, a small but persistent number do not-in either prehistory or

ethnohistory. It is just such a record of human remains that has been at isssue in the cannibalism

debate. What distinguishes these human remains and other singular deposits is the ritual

processing and subsequent discard in contexts of arguably ritual context.

KRA TOPHANOUS VIOLENCE

While cannibalism has been documented ethnographically, there are far more common

behaviors that parsimony suggests should be given at least equal weight in the search for

explanations. The ritualized destruction of both people and objects in contexts of group conflict

and ritual persecution exist cross-culturally and have been documented in various fields of study.

Kratophanous violence often occurs in contexts of religious conquest, rebellion, or repression.

Ritualized repression is also universal in scope. Europeans ritually persecuted witches (Boguet

1929 [1590]; Kors and Peters 1972; Kramer and Sprenger 1971 [1486]; van Oulmen 1990;

Weyer 1991 [1583]), Gypsies (Clebert 1963:53,71), and dualist heretics, e.g., Cathars, Sogomils, and the Albegesians (Cohn 1961; Runciman 1961). They tortured them into confessions and then imprisoned or executed them in various public spectacles, where victims were beheaded,

burned alive, buried alive, ortom to shreds. Eventually, they entered the archaeological record in unique contexts quite distinct from those of traditional burial practice.

In Africa and Asia such violence has taken a similar form of witchcraft accusation and destruction. Sorcerers and witches must endure gruesome ordeals of proof and subsequent violent murders in many of these societies (Seidelman 1963:72; Evans-Pritchard 1937:84-

87,104,109; Goody 1970:213; Kapur 1983; Linton 1933: 156-157; Lowie 1925:36; Nadel 1952:19;

Rieveire 1970:252). In part, witchcraft punishments are brutal and unforgiving because witches are considered innately evil and capable of passing their power along to their children (Middleton and Winter 1963:23). As a result fear of families and even one's own family members is not uncommon. The fear that witching runs in families or that a close relative can be a witch has also 178 been recognized in studies of puebloan witchcraft (Simmons 1974:86). As was noted in Sun

Chief (Simmons 1942) even very close family members can fall under suspicion.

During the conquest of the New World the Spanish missionaries killed competing ritual specialists; and also burnt, buried, and mutilated numerous ceremonial tools and religious structures (de la Vega 1987:459; Frisbie 1987:207-218; Montgomery et at. 1949:134,265-272).

One especially frequent spatial signature of this process is the placement of new or triumphal ritual architecture on top of the remains of a discredited place of worship. At the Hopi pueblo of

Awatovi Montgomery et at. (1949:265-272) described this process as religious superposition. The

Spanish purposely filled and constructed the altar of church 2 over two important Hopi kivas, using the physical superposition of the new structure as a means of repressing the Hopi traditional ceremonial system.

When possible traditional Native Americans resisted both Christianity as well as subsequent revitalization movements (Aberle 1982:115; Whitely 1988a:18). Hopi oral tradition holds that the Hopi destroyed the Awatovi "witches" (Christian converts) in their kivas (Fewkes

1893, 1896:568; Voth 1905:245-255) and then took the beams from their Mission as trophies and reused them in kivas on the other mesas (Ahlstrom et at. 1991 :640; Mindeleff 1891 :119; Stephen

1969:721). In their resistance to the Peyote Cult traditional Navajo killed peyotists and violently burned and broke their altar sacra (Aberle 1982: 115).

Howells (1948:127) recognized that witchcraft persecution and fear varied cross culturally but noted that a strong component underlying this variability was also the repression of marginal or disenfranchised individuals. He extended this generalization to the repression of minorities in nation states. This insight was a deep one, considering the ritualized behaviors associated with the lynching of black Americans in the United States. Such violence has been exceptionally brutal in times of social stress and culture change.

The lynching of blacks accused of rape and murder, rather than witchcraft, has a shameful history in the post Civil War South. More than 5,000 individuals were lynched in the 179

United States in less than a one-hundred year period, A.D. 1865-1965 (Shay 1938). The ritualized violence in these murders parallels quite closely the witch manias of the Old and New worlds. Victims were tortured into confessions and then executed in gruesome and destructive ways. Burning at the stake after torture and mutilation was not unusual (see Downey and Hyser

1991; Ginzburg 1988; NAACP 1969 [1919]; Shay 1938; White 1929; Wright 1990).

The most common form of lynching included hanging followed by the mutilation of the corpse through volleys of gunfire. At well-attended lynchings, participants sometimes took and sold bone fragments or pieces of the lynching material as trophies (Ginzburg 1988). Clearly, great social and economic factors (civil war, the reconstruction, the great depression) contributed a general context of social stress for these events. In theory, hundreds of thousands people who had formerly been pieces of property were suddenly given the promise of a whole range of life histories previously denied to them.

One immediate effect was the creation of thousands of competitors in the agricultural sector ofthe economy. Hepworth and West (1988) and Beck and Tolnay (1990) have demonstrated specific correlations between lynching and downturns in the Southern cotton market, an exchange technology shared competitively by both the aggressors and victims (see also Hovland and Sears 1940). The control and distribution of these human objects was directly threatened by the emancipation. Fear and disgust was also aroused by the free movement of these new competitors to other markets, as well as other previously taboo interactions with white

Americans in neighborhoods, and schools. In theory, black males would be free to intermarry and have sexual relations with white women. I would argue that fear of all of these tabooed life history possibilities contributed to the ritualized violence associated with lynching in America.

In addition to the actual lynchings, mobs also attacked the material culture of those who opposed them. They burned homes, and mobs, on one occasion, attacked the printing press of a newspaper that criticized judge Lynch. They dumped the printing machinery into the river; on 180 another they killed several defenders of the machinery and then used sledge hammers to render it permanently useless (Shay 1938:57-58).

In times of war the U.S. military, like many armies before them, has also committed kratophanous acts against its enemies. At Sand Creek, Chivington's troops killed, scalped, and mutilated a village of Cheyenne and Arapaho, two-thirds of whom were women and children

(Hoig 1961). John Smith, an Indian interpreter who was at the scene, later described the aftermath of the massacre in testimony before a congressional committee in 1865.

Question: Were there any acts of barbarity perpetrated there that came under your observation? Answer: Yes, Sir; I saw the bodies of those lying there cut all to pieces, worse mutilated than any I ever saw before; the women cut all to pieces. By Mr. Buckalew: Question: How cut? Answer: With knives; scalped; their brains knocked out; children two or three months old; all ages lying there, from suckling infants up to warriors [Lewis 1973 [1865-1867]].

The scalps taken in the masscre were subsequently paraded into Denver and displayed at the opera house to the cheers of its patrons.

Bass (1983) and Taylor and others (1984) have also documented the taking of trophy heads by U.S. soldiers in both the Second World War and Vietnam. Clearly the study of ritualized violence committed against human objects is not bound to any place or time. It is a characteristic of relations of power in historic and prehistOriC, Westem and non-Western societies. Although lamentable, it is too important and too common to be ignored by archaeologists.

Contexts of the Cannibalized Remains

The singularity of prehistoric skeletal remains in the Pueblo Southwest suggests that their disposal, while at odds with traditional burial practices, was not random or causal. The

Chaco interpretation suggested by Turner (1993) is a significant departure from earlier studies in which contextual research was limited largely to the physical properties of the human bone. It 181 implies for the first time that a context for ritual violence might be inferred from the archaeological distributions of these deposits. However, the degree of institutionalized power that this interpretation relies upon is controversial, as little consensus exists among scholars concerning the social organization of Chacoan peoples (Judge 1991 :29-30; Sebastian 1992:82-

97; Vivian 1990). The occurrence of remains in kivas and pitstructures, however, is relatively uncontested contextual evidence. Such evidence need not conflict with the cannibal hypothesis and in fact could corroborate it, albeit in the context of a better documented behavioral consideration of the deposits and the life histories of the objects they contain. The pits (Baker

1988; Malville 1989:5-10; Morris 1939:75;0Isen 1966), surface structures (Hohman et al.

1985;Tumer and Turner 1990; White 1992), pit structures (Bahti 1949; Flinn et al. 1976; Olgilvie and Hilton 1993), cemetery (Turner and Turner 1992a), and kivas (Fewkes 1893:373; Luebben and Nickens 1982; Malville 1989:10-16; Ogilvie and Hilton 1993; Reed 1953:104-118; Shipman

1980) described in the cannibalism literature are clearly complex archaeological deposits. As such, their variability cannot be ignored in the pursuit of only bone data. A review of some of the sites described by Turner and Turner (1992a:664, table 1) as some of the best cases for cannibalism exposes the limitations of reconstructing prehistoric behavior through primarily bone damage analyses.

The 1st bioarchaeological indentifaction of a mass internment of "cannibalized" human remains, a large pit near Polacca Wash (Turner and Morris 1970) hardly resembles secular food waste (see Olson 1966). The bones were not associated with a permenant site but instead were transported from elsewhere to be buried near the bed of the wash. During the interment process the skulls were arranged in a ring and then the remaining bones piled in the center of the ring.

Although Turner and Morris (1970) would like to associate this pit with a cannibal feast occasioned by the destruction of the Hopi at Awatovi, the sherds found at the bottom of the bone bed were Tusayan Corrugated, a ceramic type that dates at least 300 years too early. Olson

<1966) suggested that these sherds might have been accidentally scooped up during the 182

excavation and burial of the human remains begging the issue of secondary burial as well as and

further undermining the food refuse interpretation.

Malville (1989), following Turner, emphasized the similarities between game processing

and the damage and partial charring of human bone fragments from a kiva at 5Mt-3, Yellow

Jacket Colorado. Her descriptions of the deposits suggest that they represent one episode

associated with the abandonment of the kiva. She further argues that "although the the kiva

remains were apparently dismembered elsewhere before being brought into the kiva, much of the processing appears to have occurred in the kiva, judging from the widespread dispersal of small bone splinters and chips over the floor surface and in the fill of the ash pit and firepit"

(Malville 1989:19). Although the bone breakage may resemble animal processing, does the context? The food processing scenario begs the question why partially dismember several

individuals, partially consume them, and then take their bones into a kiva reduce them further for

marrow and then either finish the meal there or take the marrow elsewhere? Game remains were not disposed at this site or any of the others in question in a comparable fashion.

At the Grinnel site Luebben and Nickens (1982) also found fractured and partially burned human remains in a cist in the floor of a kiva. The excavators' contextual description, suggests to me that these were not simply food remains. This is a burned kiva with human remains in association with two whole vessels one of which was an effigy vessel.

Cist 2, situated near the southeast recess comer, contained most of the human bones, two ceramic vessels, two hammerstones, and several nondescript stones .... At 15.0 cm below the cist edge, the rim of a corrugated jar and the bottom of a nearly inverted large bird-form vessel were encountered .... The globular, short necked, large mouthed Mancos Corrugated jar... was situated in the east quadrant of the cist and rested on human bones. Inside the vessel, an inverted human mandible ... lay atop a right temporal and some long bone fragments. An underlying stratum of human bones consisted of jumbled and randomly oriented mandibles, maxillae, cranial, long bone, and other fragments from several individuals. Beneath the corrugated jar, an assortment of cranial fragments, an ulna, a phalange, other small bones, and fragments covered the irregular shale floor to a depth of 3 cm ... .ln the north quadrant of the cist, an unusually large Mancos Black-on White bird-form vessel and a second hammerstone rested on a long bone and other fragments .... Parenthetically, the presence of both the empty, nearly inverted bird-form vessel, and hammerstones atop the bone fill suggests that these artifacts probably toppled into the cist from the adjacent southern recess surface when the kiva roof collapsed [Leubben and Nickens 1982:76-71]. 183

One can ignore a ritual interpretation of this deposit if one assumes that the kiva's

burning, was unrelated to the human remains; and one also assumes that the association of

human remains, and the whole partially filled corrugated Mancos Jar represent typical trash disposal; and finally if one assumes that the whole effigy vessel fell, inverted but unscathed, into association with the corrugated jar, hammerstones, and human remains. Are these assumptions parsimonious? Do people throwaway their meal waste with their still useable dishes? If the kiva was ritually burned after placing the bones, pots, and hammerstones into the cist, then these deposits appear far less miraculous.

In keeping with the agregate study of the last chapter, pit structures like kivas have been a common place of deposition for anomalous human remains. At Burnt Mesa (Flinn et al. 1976) and Sambrito Village (Eddy 1966) large deposits of human bone were found in association with pit houses. The Sambrito Village (Eddy 1966) pit house was burned and contained fragmentary skeletal remains in the fill as well as on the floor. The Burnt Mesa assemblage was interpreted as de facto refuse left on the floor of an unburned pit house after a cannibal event.

Whole and framentary bones were found against and beneath metates lying on the floor, as well as in the the fire pit. Most of the bone, some of it burned, was found in a rnound shaped deposit of ash and trash near the fire pit. Brew regards such deposits as residential refuse and not material dumped into the structure after abandonemnt. The structure itself showed no burning, a fact of possible importance since most of the sites in this study area were burned [Flinn et al. 1976:309-310].

Its not clear from this description what residential refuse means. If the refuse was not dumped into the structure this interpretation implies that the inhabitants of the structure either lived in their garbage or abandoned the structure after depositing the human remains on the floor and partially covering them with metates and other "trash. n That other trash would have had to have been generated either in the final processing or brought in to bury the remains. Or perhaps the deposits are secondary refuse once again begging the question how did they get into this structure? 184

Turner and Turner's (1990) description of the remains from Tragedy house in Wupatki

National monument are equally contradictory. Four different burials were associated with the site. Buiral 1 consisted of a pair of badly broken legs buried in the fill of a surface room in association with a stone knife. Burial 4 represents the disarticulated and fragmentary remains of an individual deposited in a circular stone lined feature (1 meter in diameter and .5 meters deep). Burial 2 was represented by the scattered bones of one individual on the floor of the site's kiva. "Smith's (Smith 1952:61) sketch map shows most ofthe disarticulated bones lying on the floor of the kiva's western quarter, an area of about 1.5 square meters. Four articulated lumbar vertebrae belonging to the young adult were found in the kiva's east wall ventilator tunnel.. .. The scattering may have been done by humans because there are no carnivore, rodent, or other scavenger tooth marks or signs of gnawing on any of the bones" (Tuner and Turner

1990:204). Burial 3, a twenty-five year old female, was also associated with this kiva.

She was found lying on her back on the floor near the middle of the kiva that had the scattered remains of Burial 2. Both legs were extended straight, with the left leg separated from the pelvis about 20 centimeters. There are no cut marks or scavenger damage to the pelvis, or for that matter no damage anywhere on the skeleton, that would help explain the disarticulated left leg .... The extended position of Burial 3 is unexpected. The absence of grave goods further suggests that the young woman was not actually buried, but instead left on the floor. Her flexed right arm, which lay across the central fire pit, adds to this plcture .... The stratigraphic association between Burials 2 and 3 appears very strong. If so, it can be hypothesized that the same person(s) who broke and scattered the bones of Burial 2 was also responsible for the death and disarticulated left leg of Burial 3 [Turner and Turner 1990:205].

This description selectively omitts the fact that several whole artifacts were found in association with Burials 2 and 3 (see Smith 1952:61, figure 27). "In addition to the skeletons numerous other objects lay on the floor, as if left there by the last occupants ... Sufffice it here to note merely that the list included 4 pottery jars, one bowl, 4 manos, 2 metates, 4 hammer stones,

1 bone awl, 1 lignite button, and an unfired clay jar stopper" (Smith 1952:67). They were arranged along the kiva's walls, in a strikingly similar fashion to the positions of the artifacts and skeletal remains found in pit structure 4 at the Pueblo I site of Duckfoot in Southwest Colorado

(see Lightfoot et al. 1993:86, Figure 2.45). In this burned pit structure an adult female lay 185

extended across the middle of the room partially covering the hearth. The fragmentary and

disarticulated skeltal remains of two children were scattered across the floor around the whole

skeleton (Lightfoot et al. 1993:89). Each of Duckfoot's three other pit structures contained

human skeletons on their floors. Two of these pit structures were burned and a third appeared to

have been intentionally dismantled. The destruction of these pit structures in asociation with the

skeletons prompted Hoffman (1993:296) to interpret them and their contents as mortuary

deposits.

The Turners interpreted the variable contexts of Burials 1-4 at Tragedy house as the

products of cannibalism. "At Tragedy House we found perimortem butchering cut marks,

smashed long bones with anvil or hammer abrasions, burning, and missing vertebrae. This

human-caused combination of features is thought to be the taphonomic signature of cannibalism

because they could not have been generated solely by 'natural causes-they far exceed the types

of damage that resulted from warfare or secondary burial, and they duplicate bone damage

found in game animal food refuse at Wupatki and elsewhere- (Turner and Turner 1990:207).

They go on to argue that this cannibalism would have been a social pathology perhaps

associated with pueblo warriors raiding the village to obtain slaves (Turner and Turner

1992a:207-208). This use of ethnographic analogy is curious given that raiding violence,

although associated with cannibalism in some cultures, could provide an alternative explanation to Southwestern cannibalism. They practically admit as much when noting that "We have not found any references to Puebloan warriors mutilating captives and eating their flesh: But they then "remind the reader that the repugnace to the eating of human flesh, particularly that of enemies, would not neccessarily be expected to occur with a naturalistic worldview of overlapping categories .... Such a worldview could perhaps embrace cannibalism as relatively

normal in some unusal context such as warfare. a

One might also add there are numerous other equally violent behaviors such as witchcraft persecution as well as destructive mortuary rituals that have been far more common in 186 the "naturalistic" worldviews of the cultures of the world than the Turners admit (see below).

Once the door to such ritual behaviors is opened it is clear that a bone trait list is not a successful means for distinguishing between them. Burial 1 is a leg burial associated with a knife. Is that a typical method of disposing of food or slaves? Both Burials 2 and 3 are in a kiva, an obvious ritual provenience, or was it simply a convient place for disposing of a cannibal repast? Why is Burial 4 in a stone lined feature? Why clean up the food waste of a village one has just raided? Burial 3 was niether eaten nor buried but was associated with Burial 2. Both the leg burial and the the kiva skeletons appear to be burials rather than cannibal middens, albeit indicative of violence. Rather than resorting to the abstraction of a social pathology that incorporates, raiding, slaving, and cannibalism with little ethnographic support, the more parsimonius explanation would be witchcraft persecution. This behavior has been repeatedly demonstrated in ethnographic studies of pueblo and non pueblo peoples. Such persecutions provide a motive for violence and would also explain the burial qualities of the assemblage that are at odds with the food refuse paradigm.

Turner's recent analysis of the Canyon Butte assemblage highlights these same contraditions between burial, and food waste. Hough described the context and content of this deposit in the following fashion:

A tragedy of long ago came to light during excavations around this village. In the cemetery among other orderly burials bUrials, was uncovered a heap of broken human bones belonging to three individuals. It was evident that the shatterred bones had been clean when they were placed in the ground, and some fragments showed scorching by fire. The marks of the implements used in cracking the bones were still traceable. Without doubt this ossuary is the record of a cannibal feast .... Hard by were taken out over fifty objects belonging to the paraphernalia of a medicine-man; bone tubes; white, black, and green paint; a paint grinder; quartz, amethyst, carnelian, and topaz crystals; cones, cylinders and tablets, highly polished, worked from chalcedony; pebbles and concretions of strange form and color; a fossil; beads of stone and shell; a chipped flint drill; a flint knife; and two fine finely worked bone awls [Hough 1903:901].

This deposit is a singular context; it is buried in a cemetery, and associated with a burial containing a large number of artifacts, many of which (crystals, cones, cylinders, concretions, 187 and fossil) would have been included in the aggregate described in the last Chapter (5). The

Turners rendered this context in the following manner:

the fact that the four individuals were buried in the cemetery area suggests some postepisodic [after the cannibal episode] ritual may have taken place, and that whoever buried the victims was seemingly familar with the organizational layout of the small settlement...Hough related that the mass burial was discovered 'hard by' the burial of a 'medicine man,' whose 50 accompanying objects made of stone and bone suggested similarities to paraphernalia used by Zuni priests. While this proximity suggests that the multiple burial could have been some form of ritual sacrifice honoring an important person, Hough did not make such a suggestion, as we would expect him to, had the association been strong. Seemingly the two burials were independent events [Turner and Turner 1992a:676].

Regardless of the fact that the Tumers believe that Houghs earliest archaeological investigations in the U.S. Southwest should provide definitive interpretations of context, it is clear that they also like other bioarchaeologists have not taken ethnographic data seriously in their own reconstructions of prehistOric behavior. Regardless of whether the burials are independent, which is not at all certain, the provience begs the question of how were these human remains deposited in this context. The assumption that they were cannibalized and then subsequently buried by some one familiar with the layout of the site is convient but not defintive. Such interpretations could also be made of the medicine man's burial or any of the other burials at the site. There is nothing in the bone trait list that explains who damaged the bones or why they disposed of them in this spot. Further, as argued below, anthropophagy is not the only explanation for bone damage.

Witchcraft Persecution in the U.S. Southwest

Historic southwestern puebloan and nonpuebloan peoples alike persecuted and killed witches. Puebloan ethnographies have recorded several instances of individuals persecuted as witches (e.g., Cushing 1967:45; Hawley 1950; Hoebe11952; Parsons 1927; Simmons 1974;

Stevenson 1904:392-406; Titiev 1972:165, 215). Apaches (Basso 1970; Goodwin 1942:418-422),

. ~. . . Cocopa Kelly 1977:77; Lamphere 1983), Desert and Mountain Cahuilla (Strong 1929:58, 16&1 188

Havasupai (Cushing 1965 [1882]:62), Maricopa (Spier 1933:285), Mohave (Kroeber 1925:718;

Spier 1933:285), Navajos (Bourke 1984:74-77; Blue 1988), Pi mas (Russell 1908:42-43),

Quechan (Lamphere 1983), and Walapai (Kroeber 1935:185-194) were also plagued by witches and dealt with them in a similar fashion.

Nonpueblo Peoples. It was not unusual among non-puebloan peoples for ritual leaders, medicine men or shamans, to be accused of witchcraft. Their ability to control unseen powers allowed them to heal as well as to cause sickness either by employing them maliciously or withholding them selfishly. In times of plague, drought, or famine the increase in deaths only exacerbated witch-hunting manias. In Russell's (1908:34-66) transcription of the Pima history between 1833 and 1902 , as recorded on one of their calendar sticks, the killings of 18

"sorcerers" are briefly described. Fourteen of these executions were precipitated by infectious plagues. For example, he described a bout of cholera in the 1844-45 that resulted in the deaths of four medicine men:

A plague swept through all the tribes during this year. Those stricken with it usually died within twenty-four hours, but ifthey recovered they were well again in three days .... The [cholera or] tcoko vihasik, "black vomit," as it was called, brought all the medicine men not in the best repute under suspicion. Four were killed, and the surviving medicine men were kept busy guarding the camps against the plague [Russell 1908:42-43].

Although deSCriptions of discard behaviors are rare in ethnographies, ethnographic data still provide compelling life-history data to suggest that singular contexts comparable to those described above would not have been unusual. For example, in Strong's (1929) recounting of the execution of a Desert Cahuilla shaman, a planned struggle to control the iIIegitmate use of ritual power results in a violent execution and subsequent act of ritual disposal. It is telling that the executioner was himself a ritual leader.

When the informant was a boy of about nine years, the man who lived nearest the artificial well was a very powerful shaman called tci"vato (goat), belonging to the wantcauem clan ... he was very dangerous, for instead of curing people he always killed them ... the clan leaders from the Salton sea to kavinic ... talked over the situation ... and all agreed tc·ivato should be killed. They also discussed who should do the deed, anq decided on pulmicwammama:j (poor fluttering will) who was net [ceremonial clan leader] of the awilem clan. He was very strong and brave .... About eleven o'clock when all the family were asleep, pulmicwammama:i arose, took a long stone pestle, and 189

crushed Tc"ivato's skull. This he did very completely for he feared tc"ivato might not die. In the morning people from all around came to see the body; the informant and his mother were among them. Later in the morning they put the body on a pile of brush and burned it, burining his house at the same time .... AII the nets [ceremonial leaders of the clans] of the Desert Cahuilla, including the waka"ikitum net, had consented to the excution and had agreed to annilate the entire wantcauem clan should any of them seek vengeance .... No more trouble resulted form the incident [Strong 1929:57-59].

The victim, a ritualist, was dispateched by a ceremonial clan leader with the sanction of other leaders. The death was a violent one accompanied by burning of the body and home.

Preparations were even made for further violence if this ritually sanctioned punishment was challenged. In this particular case the violence did not escalate, but if it had what sort of depOSits might have resulted from the extermination of the wantcauem clan? Would a burned pit house full of mutilated bodies or a series of burned and mutilated bodies and pit houses have been the outcome?

During the Navajo witch purge of 1878 medicine men accussed of witchcraft were lynched along with their relatives. These kilings did set into motion retaliations by members of the victim's families that reseulted in many deaths (Blue 1988:6,11,17,26). Webber's (Bourke

1984:74-76) report of the first shaman killed, Hastiin Biwosl, also makes apparent that such witch killing could mimic the fragmentation of human remains associated with the cannibalized remains.

'There I was with 300 Navajoes all crazy with excitement, and I just dussent say my soul was my own. ' 'Then they fired an arrow into his body; he plucked it out; they fired another, which struck him In the spine. Then they began to stone and club him, and after knocking him down, dropped on his head a big chunk of rock which must have weighed four pounds or more, and which stove in the whole side of his face ... 'A young man went up close to him, when the old fellow raised himself up suddenly, and with all his dying strength and hate, threw a club ... 'The Indians returned this complement with a couple of bullets which killed him, but they weren't satisfied until they had pounded the body into a gory and shapeless mass with rocks and clubs' [Bourke 1984:76]

Kelly (1977:77, table 7) recorded 14 instances of witch killings between 1880 and 1945; 50% (7) of those dispatched were shamans. These seven shaman killings predate 1920 and appear to 190 have been the usual victims during earlier times; witchcraft accusation and killing, however, continued well into the modem period. A case from 1942, described in evasive language due to its legal implications, suggests that the fear of witches has been a strong component of Cocopa behavior for a long time.

One time [about 1942] a large group of Cocopa were living on an ejido on the Baja California side of the delta. One man had a camp nearby. He got drunk and bragged that he was a witch. When he went to bed some men wired the door of his house shut. He had a lamp with him and maybe the lamp fell over on the floor and maybe the men set fire to the house and burned him to death [Kelly 1977:77].

In common with the Navajo and other tribes, Cocopa familes might seek vengeance after a killing, and, it was a recognized duty of captains [ceremonial and secular leaders] to maintain order in both the executions of witches as well as in the aftermath of particularly contentionous killings.

Pueblo Peoples. Among the pueblos no crime was considered more heinous than witchcraft (Simmons 1974:70). Witches were not only considered one of the prime causes of death but were also held responsible for droughts, crop blights, and other sources of famine

(Titiev 1942). The first European to visit Zuni pueblo, Estevan the Moor, was executed as a witch. Afterwards, he was cut into many pieces and distributed among the "chiefs" to demonstrate his mortality (Bandelier 1890-1892:14). Although Turner believes such cutting could describe a cannibal act, in the pueblos cannibalism is one the traits of a witch. The cutting behavior, if it did occur, would have served to neutralize the witch's power, humiliate him publicly and serve as a warning to other, as yet undetected, witches. A fate similar to Estevan's befell the emigrant Bernardo Gruber after he demonstrated kabalist charms to some natives of

Las Salinas (Simmons 1974:25). Bandelier described the witch mania at Nambe as so extensive that it accelerated the depopulation of this pueblo already suffering from colonial oppression

(Lange and Riley 1970:173).

Both Cushing (1967:44-45) and Stevenson (1904:398-406) during their stays in Zuni intervened on behalf of individuals in danger of losing their lives because of witchcraft 191 accusations. Like examples described previously, these killings shared an analogous ritual process of accusation, torture, confession, and kratophanous destruction. When a group of Zuni leaders led by Cushing went to Washington D.C., they also visited Salem, Massachusetts, and gave a speech in praise of the Puritans who, like themselves, recognized the dangers of witches that few whites then believed existed (Green 1979).

Ellis (1970) and Titiev (1942) recognized that the means of repression was the responsibility of ritual leaders in pueblo society. Cushing himself was called before the priesthood of the Bow to answer charges of witchcraft (Cushing 1979). Tonoan legends also describe intervillage conflict in terms of a cycle of witchcraft accusation. Village medicine groups would attack in secrecy, burning their enemies to death within their kivas (Ellis 1951:189). The pueblo Katsina cult itself in oral and written history has been linked to warrior leadership (Ellis

1951) and ritualized expressions of violent power (see also HoebeI1952:586-589). Mutilation through the taking of scalps was an important ceremonial aspect of this violence (Bunzel 1932;

Beaglehole and Beaglehole 1935:17-24; White 1935:305; 1942:304-306; Stevenson 1904:581).

Skeletal remains in kivas from the protohistoric pueblo of Homol'ovi II provide a prehistoric case for violence resulting from intra village ritual conflict. This violence co-occurs with the rise of the pueblo Katsina Cult and the social pressures of aggregation (see Adams

1991). That the human remains were associated with kivas is curious, especially if these kivas were still in use. The destruction of these structures would further suggest that their victims might have had some relationship to them. Clearly, those with some ritual power would have been vulnerable in times of stress to accusations of malicious intent-particularly in times of rapid ritual change. In the later ethnographistoric contexts, where the ritual systems were more internally stable, the persecutions of witches appear to focus on those who have for one reason or another transgressed community standards, rather than specifically ritual leaders. The persecuted run the gamut from families and children to old men and women. 192

CONCLUSIONS

The "cannibal" contexts desribed by Turner and others defy objective identification through simple bone damage trait lists, and like Smith's (1952) question when is a kiva?, provoke the question-when is a cannibal deposit? As with the kiva attributes deflector, bench, ventilator, sipapu, the bone damage list selectively samples the broader atrributes of the archaeoligcal contexts associated with these human remains and does not effectively link them to behavioral processes. The lesson learned from Smith's kiva study was that simply listing a few archtiectural traits could not establish inferences of ceremonial function. Instead he advocated attempting to understand the broader behavioral processes that set these structures apart as ceremonial places. By logical extension simply restricting the contextual clues to bone damage associated with food processing cannnot establish a functional link between cannibal practices and anamolous deposits of human remains.

For example, the indivudals killed in kiva sturctures 704 and 706 at Homol'ovi " are similar to Smith's description of burial 3 in the kiva at Tragedy House. They lie prone in the kivas, do not correspond to traditional burials, and have some bone damage indicative of peri mortem violence. The individual in kiva 704 was partially burned and had projectile pOints associated with his abdomen. One leg of the female in kiva 706 had been chopped and her face smashed. The Tragedy house kiva assemblage was associated with whole artifacts on the floor; two whole pots were found in the burned roof fall of kiva 704. Essentially only one trace of behavior the disarticulated skeletal remains, of Burial 2, distinguish the Tragedy House assemblage from the remains in the Homol'ovi kivas.

If one focused on the places that nontraditional burials occur, then the cannibal cases would be subsumed within a larger set of of mostly pit structures and kivas. Alternatively one could distinguish between burned structures and non burned structures. The reconstructions at

Homol'ovi " suggest that there are several pathways that might lead human remains to 193

anomalous archaeological contexts, including ritual violence (katophanous), secondary burial,

and burned primary burial.

The provenience of large concentrations of human remains either as whole skeletons or

fragmentary clusters of skeletal parts in mostly kivas and pit structures suggests a pattern of

singularized human remains in nontraditional burial contexts. Cannibal deposits outside of these

contexts may simply be the most extreme pOints along this larger continuum of singularized

kratophanous deposits. There may also be a continuum of violence associated with the

processing of these remains where the "cannibal" remains represent once again only the most

extreme cases of mutilation. After all, not every case of possible cannibalism listed by Turner

and Turner (1992a:664, Table 1) contained all six traits. In this table 30 instances were

classified as C3 (all traits present), C2 (most traits present), and C1 ( some criteria present). One

instance was labelled "C?" but its exact meaning was not defined in the table's key. Presumably

it means some traits may be present. In this continuum 60% (18) were classified as C3, the

remaining 40% were distrubuted as follows: C2 (20%), C1 (17%), and C? (3%). Given this distribution it is concieveable that these depOSits could be part of a larger set of individuals,

violently dispatched and singularly discarded, in which the bone damage was not always as evident.

A life-history approach unlike the bone damage trait list provides a framework for exploring complex archaeological depOSits. That all these anaomalous deposits, those attributed to cannibalism or otherwise, are set apart actually reveals that these individuals did not follow life-histories comparable to other people or simple food refuse. They are not found in

undifferentiated trash depOSits. If they simply represented causally discarded food remains one might expect them to occur predominantly in surface structures- the most common fill contexts

in Southwestern pueblos, rather than on the floors and in the fills of kivas, pitstructures, pits, some surface structures, and cemeteries. By asking when is a cannibal?, attention is directed to explaining how earlier interactions in the lifehistories of these victims channelled them to 194 specific archaeological contexts. Ritual behaviors, as described in earlier chapters, create such segregated life-histories. Because ritual is a technology that has material consequences, it is often a source of conflict that results in kratophanous deposits.

The effort to document such ritual site formation processes has become a critical aspect of ethnographically informed theory building in studies of room and site abandonment behaviors

(see Wilshusen 1986; Montgomery 1992; Seymour and Schiffer 1987) and provides a direction for future studies of prehistoric ritual violence. In the introduction to his work on the Mancos bone assemblage, White (1992) noted the kinship between Mark Twain's [1871] nineteenth century critique of cannibal interpretations and Binford's calls for the use of ethnoarchaeological research to develop stronger inferences. Although not fully embracing Binford's program, White recognized the need for rigorous and explicit methods in the study of prehistoriC cannibalism.

After reviewing the archaeological evidence of cannibalism worldwide, he further noted that

Evidence of cannibalism in the archaeological record is far more restricted than ethnohistorical accounts of the practice would predict. Ironically, some of the most secure evidence for cannibalism comes from prehistoric contexts. Compounding the irony is the fact that the best evidence is from Europe and the American Southwest geographic areas in which the ethnohistorical record on cannibalism is limited [White 1992:31].

Worldwide the ethnohistoric record of witchcraft persecution is far richer (e.g., Basso and

Walker 1970; Mair 1976; Middleton and Winter 1963) than instances of cannibalism, and is particularly rich in the Desert Southwest (Simmons 1974). Such persecution can be quite brutal and could explain some or all of the cannibal deposits, even those involving dismemberment and the removing of certain pieces of bone (Le. vertebrae). Such violence has at times escalated into uncontrolled manias where large numbers of people have been killed as witches.

In some cases the killings have been contested by relatives and this has led to further violence.

It is ironic, therefore, that bioarchaeologists have ignored these well documented behaviors in favor of less parsimonious cannibal scenarios. The very causes that from time to time have been offered as possible motivations for cannibalism and many other prehistoric events in 195 southwestern prehistory--famine, drought, crop failure, flooding--along with the propagation of disease, are all repeatedly implicated in Southwestern ethnographies as causes of gruesome ritual violence.

This ethnohistoric record of witchcraft persecution also has a political dimension involving ritual leaders (shamans, ceremonial clan leaders, and sodality priesthoods) that could complement or provide an alternative to Turners' suggestion that cannibalism was a form of political repression. Inferences of Chacoan armies, ravenous slave traders, and emergency starvation cannibalism, are not well supported in the ethnography of the Desert Southwest.

Although only touched upon here in the descriptions of the Homol'ovi II and Duckfoot assemblages, the case for secondary interments, while largely restricted to non-puebloan peoples in the ethnohistorical record, cannot be ignored in pueblo contexts. Certainly this remains a viable hypothesis for further consideration in any assemblage. Future archaeological studies focused on detailed site formation processes, including ritual burning and other segregating discard behaviors will contribute much needed data for distinguishing mortuary remains from those asociated with violence or other forms of ritual behavior.

Finally the ubiquity of kratophanous violence cross-culturally and the striking correspondence between kivas, pit. structures, and ritual violence in Anasazi sites, demands that the social costs of integration be reconsidered in explanations that incorporate religions in their models of social change. The behavioral ramifications of ritual integration including ritual repression accomplished through witchcraft accusation should be considered in any analysis of a prehistoriC ritual systems. 196

CHAPTER 7:

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Given the ubiquity of ceremonial trash, sacrificial discard, and kratophanous violence cross-culturally, where are their archaeological equivalents? How many objects and object aggregates analogous to those found at Homol'ovi II, and the prehistoric Southwest more generally, have become part of the world's archaeological record over the last 100,000 years?

Are these not in some sense a primary record of ritual prehistory that is amenable to ethnographically informed object life-history studies?

Ritual activities universally create and guide numerous objects through societies to the archaeological record. The legacy of more than one hundred years of ethnographic studies clearly shows that archaeologists wanting to understand the human experience, past or present, cannot ignore ritual. Yet ritual and religious studies remain one of the least understood aspects of the prehistoric past. In the history of southwestern archaeology the most successful interpretations of ri~ual prehistory have been those that draw upon ethnographic data. At the heart of this contradiction is the analytiC conflation of ritual behaviors with symbols of belief.

The material culture associated with ceremony is clearly a rich source for symbolic analysis but it is not an exclusive one. Any aspect of human experience can serve as a entryway into symbolic research. Belief systems characterize kinship systems, exchange systems, warfare, farming, hunting etc. Archaeologists have the option in these postprocessual times to fully embrace the study of prehistOriC ideologies using any class of material objects, utilitarian or otherwise. Alternatively, they are just as free to distinguish behavior from belief and explore ethnographic data within a behavioral perspective.

To organize that behavioral data archaeologists can construct models of object life histories. In this manner they can define ritual and other activities in terms of the people and object interactions that occur during the course of an artifact's life. Implied in this perspective 197

is a very different understanding of the relationship between people and artifacts. Behaviors

are defined not simply as a property of human organisms but instead as the interactions of

people and artifacts. In this analytic perspective, both are objects that move together in a

functional relationship that serves as a more comprehensive unit of analysis. That unit does

not require distinctions between a believing human organism and its environment of artifacts.

This methodological anthropomorphizing of artifacts and objectification of people (see Chapter

3) is confusing and jargonic because it scrambles archaeological conventions about the

boundaries of the environment and behavior. It calls into question commonly held

understandings of what is behavior and what is action.

However, it serves a higher purpose by forcing archaeologists to confront their analytic

conventions that limit inferences of ritual behavior. Definitions of behavior, artifacts,

environment, culture, etc., are all tied to higher-level theories (cultural evolutionism,

selectionism, historical particularism, etc.) and are not natural facts about people and artifacts.

Once this is recognized, it is possible to re-conceptualize relationships between people and

objects and reexamine already existing relationships for the purpose of expanding the

inferential grasp of archaeology in new directions. Ritual artifacts need not be simply objects that have no utility. This theory laden classification does not address the behaviors that occur when the object was made, used, or thrown away. A life-history framework does address those problems because it does not judge the usefulness of objects but instead seeks to

understand how their lives were similar or different from those of other objects. It then applies those findings in the exploration of archaeological deposits.

The archaeological and ethnographic records are full of "uselessn objects whose life

histories remain to be discovered. The ritual disposal of worn ritual tools such as the birds, stone balls, kiva structures, etc., described in Chapter 4, make sense once you recognize that such behaviors are a common puebloan practice and are analogous to the disposal of other 198

ritual tools worldwide. As a result an enormous segment of the archaeological record is

opened up that would otherwise remain untapped.

The majority of Basketmaker homes were burned and often filled with singular trash.

As such they constitute a wonderful record of earlier ritual prehistory on the Colorado Plateau.

By not distinguishing between "utilitarian" and "nonutilitarian" behaviors, a life-history analysis

allows archaeologists to see the many dramatic ritual behaviors that "utilitarian" objects

participate in during the course of their lives. When human skeletons, cooking pots, grinding tools, clothes, and stored food have been found in burned or buried pit houses many

southwestem archaeologists have assumed that their intemment was an accident or the result

of warfare. The obvious utility of the artifacts lured them away from ritual explanations and toward interpretations with little ethnographic support. Subsequently these accidentally

preserved assemblages are assumed to be de facto household inventories and, therefore, the

best data for answering any number of social, economic, and political questions.

In contrast a life-history approach (Chapter 5) demonstrates that such deposits are

commonly formed by mortuary rituals in which the homes and possessions of the deceased are disposed of as ceremonial trash. The life-history approach also begs the question do these assemblages of the deceased's property correlate with household inventories? How personal

belongings and other objects enter the record in such mortuary behaviors is determined by any

number of factors, including the age of the deceased, their gender, ritual responsibilities, and other as-yet-unknown factors in the life histories of the deceased and the members of their community.

Finally a life history approach undermines the simplistic notion that religion and ritual exist to adapt a society to its environment. Because ritual behaviors have material consequences and are not simply ideas, they instrumentally create conflict and violence. As described in Chapter 6, ritual groups use violence to protect themselves and destroy their enemies. Universally, witches and others are killed, dismembered, and profaned as 199

punishment for causing storms, sickness, and famine. Can archaeologists reconstruct the past

and not consider such universal struggles for social power?

Because it is the life histories of ritual objects that distinguish them in the archaeological record, and not necessarily their utility, the future of ritual studies in archaeology will benefit from detailed ethnographic studies of known objects' lives to determine how their life histories are organized at various scales. As I attempted to show in Chapters 3 and 4, the life-history perspective can address several scales of analysis from the interactions of one object to whole groups or aggregates of object life histories. Textiles are woven in kivas, given away and presented during life-crisis ceremonies, and finally interred with the dead. In the

Pueblo world cotton is a heavily ritualized technology. Archaeologists can identify the remains of such life histories in singular deposits such as the kivas and pitstructures described at

Homolovi " and other sites in the puebloan southwest. Not only do individual objects wind up in such ritual contexts but they occur in clusters or aggregates (Chapter 5).

Clearly, archaeologists interested in ritual will necessarily have to embrace ethnographic literature to a degree not seen in archaeology since the period of ethnological research. While a daunting task, the richness of that ethnographic record is an ever present reminder that the documentation of ritual prehistory holds many untold rewards. APPENDIX A HUMAN OBJECTS

BODY TYPE SITE STRUCT FEAT C-TRANS TIME CITATION SCALP KlNBOKO CAVE I BURIAL CIST 16 GGOOD BMII KIDDER AND GUERNSEY 1919:81-82 SKULL NORTH SHELTER PITSTR TERRACE II SHRINE BOX BU BMII MORRIS AND BURGH 1954:35,FIG71 SKEL SHABIK'ESHCHEE VILL PITSTR B GRINDING BIN UNBU BMII ROBERTS 1929:17 SKEL SHABIK'ESHCHEE VILL PITSTR F-1 ? BURIAL BMII ROBERTS 1929:32 SCALP BROKEN FLUTE CAVE PITSTR 10 FILL UNBU BMIII MORRIS 1980:35 SCALP BROKEN FLUTE CAVE PITSTR 9 FILL BU BMIII MORRIS 1980:35 SKEL CERRO COLORADO PITSTR405 FLOOR BU BMIII BULLARD 1962:40 SKEL CERRO COLORADO PITSTR405 FLOOR BU BMIII BULLARD 1962:40 SKEL CERRO COLORADO PITSTR405 FLOOR BU BMIII BULLARD 1962:40 SKEL CERRO COLORADO PITSTR405 FLOOR BU BMIII BULLARD 1962:40 SKEL CERRO COLORADO PITSTR405 FLOOR BU BMIII BULLARD 1962:40 SKEL CERRO COLORADO PITSTR405 FLOOR BU BMIII BULLARD 1962:40 SKEL DEAD HORSE SITE PITSTR FLOOR BU BMIII ADAMS 1973:40 SKULL IGN7:22 PITSTR FILL ? BMIII CARLSON 1963:3 SKELDIS ARIZONA D:7:262 PITSTR33 ROOFALL BU PI SINK ET AL. 1982:99-100 SKELDIS ARIZONA D:7:262 PITSTR33 ROOFALL BU PI SINK ET AL. 1982:99-100 SKEL AZ D:11 :2023 PITSTR 1 FLOOR BU PI OLSZEWKI1984:186 SKEL DIS AZ D:11 :2062B PITSTR4 FLOOR BU PI SINK ET AL. 1984:270-271 SKELDIS AZ D:11 :2062B PITSTR4 FLOOR BU PI SINK ET AL. 1984:270-271 SKELDIS AZ D:11:2062B PITSTR 4 FLOOR BU PI SINK ET AL. 1984:270-271 SKELDIS AZ D:11 :2062B STR8 FILL ? PI SINK ET AL. 1984:270-272 SKEL C- VILLAGE UNIT 3 PITSTRA FLOOR BU PI ROBERTS 1930:59 SKEL DUCKFOOT PITSTR 1 FLOOR BU PI LIGHTFOOT ET AL. 1993:37 SKEL DUCKFOOT PITSTR 1 FLOOR BU PI LIGHTFOOT ET AL. 1993:37 SKEL DUCKFOOT PITSTR 2 FLOOR BURIED PI LIGHTFOOT ET AL. 1993:72 SKEL DUCKFOOT PITSTR 3 FLOOR BU PI LIGHTFOOT ET AL. 1993:113 SKEL DUCKFOOT PITSTR4 FLOOR BU PI LIGHTFOOT ET AL. 1993:89 SKELDIS DUCKFOOT PITSTR4 FLOOR BU PI LIGHTFOOT ET AL. 1993:89 SKEL DIS DUCKFOOT PITSTR4 FLOOR BU PI LIGHTFOOT ET AL. 1993:89 SKEL GR 1 KlATUTHLANNA PITSTRA VENT UNBU PI ROBERTS 1931:23-24 SKEL GR 1 KlATUTHLANNA PITSTRA VENT UNBU PI ROBERTS 1931 :23-24 SKULL GR 1 KlATUTHLANNA PITSTRA VENT UNBU PI ROBERTS 1931:23-24 SKEL GR 1 KlATUTHLANNA PITSTRC FLOOR BU PI ROBERT 1931: 36 SKEL GR 1 KlATUTHLANNA PITSTR C FLOOR BU PI ROBERTS 1931:36

SKEL GR 3 KlATUTHLANNA PITSTR D VENT UNBU PI ROBERTS 1931 :70-71 N 0 SKELFRAG GRASS MESA PITSTR 153 FLOOR ROCKS UNBU PI MORRIS ET AL. 1988:520 0 APPENDIX A HUMAN OBJECTS

SKELFRAG GRASS MESA STR 13 ROOFALL BU PI LIGHTFOOT ET AL. 1988:721 SKELFRAG GRASS MESA STR 13 ROOFALL BU PI LIGHTFOOT ET AL. 1988:721 SKEL SITE 1676 HOUSE 1 STR 13 FLOOR BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:S7 SKELFRAG WHITE WATER DEV UNr EXTRA ? BURIED PI ROBERTS 1939:184-186 SKEL WHITE WATER DEV UNr PITSTR A BENCH UNBU PI ROBERTS 1939:184-186 SKELFRAG ZNP-21 STR 1 FLOOR ? PI SCHROEDER 1955:85 SKELFRAG ZNP-21 STR 1 FLOOR ? PI SCHROEDER 1955:85 SKEL SMT-3 KIVA FLOOR UNBU PI! MALVILLE 1989:11 SKELDIS SMT-3 KIVA FLOOR UNBU PII MALVILLE 1989:11 SKEL DIS SMT-3 KIVA FLOOR UNBU PI! MALVILLE 1989:11 SKELDIS SMT-3 KIVA FLOOR UNBU PI! MALVILLE 1989:11 SKELDIS SMT-3 KIVA FLOOR UNBU PI! MALVILLE 1989:11 SKELDIS SMT-3 KIVA FLOOR UNBU PI! MALVILLE 1989:11 SKEL DIS SMT-3 KIVA FLOOR UNBU PI! MALVILLE 1989:11 SKELDIS SMT-3 KIVA FLOOR UNBU PI! MALVILLE 1989:11 SKELDIS SMT-3 KIVA FLOOR UNBU PII MALVILLE 1989:11 SI(ELDIS SMT-3 KIVA FLOOR UNBU PI! MALVILLE 1989:11 SIALKALI RIDGE 13 UNIT 2 KIVA FILL ? PII BREW 1946:202 SKELDIS AZ 0:11:2108 STR 1 FILL BU PI! SINK ET AL. 1984:295 SKELDIS AZ 0:11:2108 STR2 FILL ? PII SINK ET AL. 1984:295 SKELDIS AZ 0:11:2108 STR4 FILL BU PI! SINK ET AL. 1984:295 SKEL AZ D:11:S21 KIVA FLOOR BU PII SPURR 1993:79, 149-1S1 SKEL AZ D:11:6n PITSTR FLOOR BU PI! SPURR 1993:94, 154-156 SKEL AZD:7:109 KIVA 3 FLOOR UNBU PII DEMARCAY ET AL. 1982:59 SKEL AZD:7:109 KIVA 3 FLOOR UNBU PI! DEMARCAY ET AL. 1982:59 SKELFRAG AZD:7:3034 PITSTR 1 ROOFALL BU PI! SMILEY ET AL. 1982:167 SKELDIS BANCOS VILLAGE PITSTR FLOOR BU PII EDDY 1974:81 SKELDIS BAN COS VILLAGE PITSTR FLOOR BU PI! EDDY 1974:81 SKELDIS BAN COS VILLAGE PITSTR FLOOR BU PII EDDY 1974:81 SKEL DIS BANCOS VILLAGE PITSTR FLOOR BU PI! EDDY 1974:81 SKULL FRAG BCS1 KIVA 1 VENT UNBU PII KLUCKHOHN 1939:34 SKEL BC51 KIVA 3 FILL BURIED PII KLUCKHOHN 1939:37 SKULL BCS1 KIVA 6 FLOOR UNBU PI! KLUCKHOHN 1939:38-39 SKEL BG88B PITSTR FLOOR BU PII MACKEY AND GREEN 1979:146

SKEL BG88B PITSTR FLOOR BU PI! MACKEY AND GREEN 1979:146 N SKEL BG88B PITSTR FLOOR BU PI! MACKEY AND GREEN 1979:146 0 APPENDIX A HUMAN OBJECTS

SKEL BG88B PITSTR FLOOR BU PII MACKEY AND GREEN 1979:146 SKEL BG88B PITSTR FLOOR BU PII MACKEY AND GREEN 1979:146 SKEL BG88B PITSTR FLOOR BU PII MACKEY AND GREEN 1979:146 SKEL BG88B PITSTR FLOOR BU PII MACKEY AND GREEN 1979:146 SKEL BG88B PITSTR FLOOR BU PII MACKEY AND GREEN 1979:146 SKEL BG88B PITSTR FLOOR BU PII MACKEY AND GREEN 1979:146 SKEL BG88B PITSTR FLOOR BU PII MACKEY AND GREEN 1979:146 SKEL BG88B PITSTR FLOOR BU PII MACKEY AND GREEN 1979:146 SKELDIS BURNT MESA PITSTR FLOOR UNBU PII FLINN ET AL. 1976:310 SKELDIS BURNT MESA PITSTR FLOOR UNBU PII FLINN ET AL. 1976:310 SKELDIS BURNT MESA PITSTR FLOOR UNBU PII FLINN ET AL. 1976:310 SKELDIS BURNT MESA PITSTR FLOOR UNBU PII FLINN ET AL. 1976:310 SKELDIS BURNT MESA PITSTR FLOOR UNBU PII FLINN ET AL. 1976:310 SKELDIS BURNT MESA PITSTR FLOOR UNBU PII FLINN ET AL. 1976:310 SKELDIS BURNT MESA PITSTR FLOOR UNBU PII FLINN ET AL. 1976:310 SKELDIS BURNT MESA PITSTR FLOOR UNBU PII FLINN ET AL. 1976:310 SKELDIS BURNT MESA PITSTR FLOOR UNBU PII FLINN ET AL. 1976:310 SKELDIS BURNT MESA PITSTR FLOOR UNBU PII FLINN ET AL. 1976:310 SKELDIS BURNT MESA PITSTR FLOOR UNBU PII FLINN ET AL. 1976:310 SKULLFRAG LA 2675 KIVA 2 FILL UNBU PII OLSON AND WASLEY 1956:340 SKELFRAG NA618 PITSTRX FLOOR BU PII SMITH 1952:25 SKEL NA682 KIVA FLOOR UNBU PII SMITH 1952:67 SKELFRAG NA682 KIVA FLOOR UNBU PII SMITH 1952:67 SKELFRAG NA682 STR 1 FILL UNBU PII SMITH 1952:53 SKELFRAG SAM BRITO VILLAGE PITSTR 25 FLOOR BU PII EDDY 1966:247-248 SKELFRAG SAM BRITO VILLAGE PITSTR 25 FLOOR BU PII EDDY 1966:247-248 SKELFRAG SAM BRITO VILLAGE PITSTR 25 FLOOR BU PII EDDY 1966:247-248 SKELFRAG SAMBRITO VILLAGE PITSTR 25 FLOOR BU PII EDDY 1966:247-248 SKELFRAG SAM BRITO VILLAGE PITSTR25 FLOOR BU PII EDDY 1966:247-248 SKELFRAG SAM BRITO VILLAGE PITSTR 25 FLOOR BU PII EDDY 1966:247-248 SKELFRAG SAM BRITO VILLAGE PITSTR25 FLOOR BU PII EDDY 1966:247-248 SKELFRAG SAMBRITO VILLAGE PITSTR25 FLOOR BU PII EDDY 1966:247-248 SKELFRAG SAMBRITO VILLAGE PITSTR 25 FLOOR BU PII EDDY 1966:247-248 SKELFRAG SAM BRITO VILLAGE PITSTR 25 FLOOR BU PII EDDY 1966:247-248 SKELFRAG SAM BRITO VILLAGE PITSTR 25 FLOOR BU PII EDDY 1966:247-248 SKELFRAG SAM BRITO VILLAGE PITSTR 25 FLOOR BU PII EDDY 1966:247-248 IV SKELFRAG SAM BRITO VILLAGE PITSTR 6 FILL BU PII EDDY 1966:247-248 0 IV APPENDIX A HUMAN OBJECTS

SKELFRAG SAMBRITO VILLAGE PITSTR6 FILL BU PII EDDY 1966:247-248 SKELFRAG SAM BRITO VILLAGE PITSTR 6 FILL BU PII EDDY 1966:247-248 SKULL SITE 875 MESA VERDE STR III ROOFALL BU PII LISTER 1965:20 SKELFRAG SITE 875 MESA VERDE STR IX FILL ? PII LISTER 1965:23 SKELFRAG SITE 875 MESA VERDE STRI FILL ? PII LISTER 1965:13-19 SKEL WINGATE 11:60 KIVA FLOOR ? PII GALDWIN 1945:PLATE XXVIII SKEL OVERTON SITE 0 PITSTR 1 FLOOR BU PII-PIII HARRINGTON 1953:138-139 SKEL BRADSHAW MOUNDS PITSTR FLOOR ? Pili JUDD 1926:33 SKEL CARTER RANCH STR 10 FLOOR BU Pili RINALDO 1964:62 SKULLFRAG CARTER RANCH STR 10 SUBFLOOR BU Pili RINALDO 1964:62 SKELDIS LONG HOUSE KlVAK FILL ? Pili CATIANACH 1980:144 SKELDIS LONG HOUSE KlVAM FLOOR/FILL BU Pili CATIANACH 1980:145-146 SKEL LONG HOUSE KIVA 0 FLOOR BU Pili CATIANACH 1980:146 SKULL LONG HOUSE KIVA 0 FLOOR BU Pili CATIANACH 1980:146 SKULL LONG HOUSE KIVA 0 FLOOR BU Pili CATIANACH 1980:146 SKELFRAG SALMON RUIN GR KIVA 130 FLOOR BU Pili SHIPMAN 1980:51 SKELFRAG SALMON RUIN GR KIVA 130 FLOOR BU Pili SHIPMAN 1980:51 SKELFRAG SALMON RUIN GR KIVA 130 FLOOR BU Pili SHIPMAN 1980:51 SKELFRAG SALMON RUIN GR KIVA 130 FLOOR BU Pili SHIPMAN 1980:51 SKELFRAG SALMON RUIN GR KIVA 130 FLOOR BU Pili SHIPMAN 1980:51 SKELFRAG SALMON RUIN GR KIVA 130 FLOOR BU Pili SHIPMAN 1980:51 SKELFRAG SALMON RUIN GR KIVA 130 FLOOR BU Pili SHIPMAN 1980:51 SKELFRAG SALMON RUIN GR KIVA 130 FLOOR BU Pili SHIPMAN 1980:51 SKELFRAG SALMON RUIN GR KIVA 130 FLOOR BU Pili SHIPMAN 1980:51 SKELFRAG SALMON RUIN GR KIVA 130 FLOOR BU Pili SHIPMAN 1980:51 SKELFRAG SALMON RUIN GR KIVA 130 FLOOR BU Pili SHIPMAN 1980:51 SKELFRAG SALMON RUIN GR KIVA 130 FLOOR BU Pili SHIPMAN 1980:51 SKELFRAG SALMON RUIN GR KIVA 130 FLOOR BU Pili SHIPMAN 1980:51 SKELFRAG SALMON RUIN GR KIVA 130 FLOOR BU Pili SHIPMAN 1980:51 SKELFRAG SALMON RUIN GR KIVA 130 FLOOR BU Pili SHIPMAN 1980:51 SKELFRAG SALMON RUIN GR KIVA 130 FLOOR BU Pili SHIPMAN 1980:51 SKELFRAG SALMON RUIN GR KIVA 130 FLOOR BU Pili SHIPMAN 1980:51 SKELFRAG SALMON RUIN GR KIVA 130 FLOOR BU Pili SHIPMAN 1980:51 SKELFRAG SALMON RUIN GR KIVA 130 FLOOR BU Pili SHIPMAN 1980:51 SKELFRAG SALMON RUIN GR KIVA 130 FLOOR BU Pili SHIPMAN 1980:51 SKELFRAG SALMON RUIN GR KIVA 130 FLOOR BU Pili SHIPMAN 1980:51 N SKELFRAG SALMON RUIN GR KIVA 130 FLOOR BU Pili SHIPMAN 1980:51 0w APPENDIX A HUMAN OBJECTS

SKELFRAG SALMON RUIN GR KIVA 130 FLOOR BU Pili SHIPMAN 1980:51 SKELFRAG SALMON RUIN GR KIVA 130 FLOOR BU Pili SHIPMAN 1980:51 SKELFRAG SALMON RUIN GR KIVA 130 FLOOR BU Pili SHIPMAN 1980:51 SKELFRAG SALMON RUIN GR KIVA 130 FLOOR BU Pili SHIPMAN 1980:51 SKELFRAG SALMON RUIN GR KIVA 130 FLOOR BU Pili SHIPMAN 1980:51 SKELFRAG SALMON RUIN GR KIVA 130 FLOOR BU Pili SHIPMAN 1980:51 SKELFRAG SALMON RUIN GR KIVA 130 FLOOR BU Pili SHIPMAN 1980:51 SKELFRAG SALMON RUIN GR KIVA 130 FLOOR BU Pili SHIPMAN 1980:51 SKELFRAG SALMON RUIN GR KIVA 130 FLOOR BU Pili SHIPMAN 1980:51 SKELFRAG SALMON RUIN GR KIVA 130 FLOOR BU Pili SHIPMAN 1980:51 SKELFRAG SALMON RUIN GR KIVA 130 FLOOR BU Pili SHIPMAN 1980:51 SKELFRAG SALMON RUIN GR KIVA 130 FLOOR BU Pili SHIPMAN 1980:51 SKELFRAG SALMON RUIN GR KIVA 130 FLOOR BU Pili SHIPMAN 1980:51 SKEL SAND CANYON KIVA 1004 FLOOR BU Pili BRADELY 1992:89 SKEL SAND CANYON KIVA 1004 FLOOR BU Pili BRADELY 1992:89 SKEL SAND CANYON KIVA 1004 FLOOR BU Pili BRADEL Y 1992:89 SKEL SAND CANYON KIVA 1004 FLOOR BU Pili BRADELY 1992:89 SKEL SAND CANYON KIVA 1004 FLOOR BU Pili BRADELY 1992:89 SKEL SAND CANYON KIVA 1004 FLOOR BU Pili BRADELY 1992:89 SKEL SAND CANYON KIVA 1004 FLOOR BU Pili BRADELY 1992:89 SKEL SAND CANYON KIVA 1004 FLOOR BU Pili BRADELY 1992:89 SKEL SAND CANYON KIVA 1004 FLOOR BU Pili BRADELY 1992:89 SKEL SAND CANYON KIVA 501 ROOFALL BU Pili BRADLEY 1992:86 SKEL SAND CANYON KIVA 107 FLOOR UNBU Pili BRADLEY 1992:84 SKEL SAND CANYON KIVA 108 FLOOR UNBU Pili BRADLEY 1992:84 SKEL SAND CANYON STR 1001 FILL UNBU Pili BRADLEY 1992:89 SKELFRAG SAND CANYON STR 1001 FILL UNBU Pili BRADLEY 1992:89 SKEL SAND CANYON STR 1002 FLOOR UNBU Pili BRADLEY 1992:89 SKEL SAND CANYON STR 1005 WALLFALL UNBU Pili BRADLEY 1992:89 SKEL SAND CANYON STR 1005 WALLFALL UNBU Pili BRADLEY 1992:89 SKEL SAND CANYON STR 1005 WALLFALL UNBU Pili BRADLEY 1992:89 SKEL SITE 499 MESA VERDE KlVAB FLOOR UNBU Pili LISTER 1964:37 SKELFRAG SITE 875 MESA VERDE STR I FILL ? Pili LISTER 1965:19 SKELFRAG SITE 875 MESA VERDE STR I FilL ? Pili LISTER 1965:19 SKELFRAG SITE 875 MESA VERDE STR I FILL ? Pili LISTER 1965:19 SKELFRAG SITE 875 MESA VERDE STR I FILL ? Pili LISTER 1965:19 N SKELFRAG SITE 875 MESA VERDE STR I FilL ? Pili LISTER 1965:19 0 .j;. APPENDIX A HUMAN OBJECTS

SKElFRAG SITE 875 MESA VERDE STR I Fill ? Pili LISTER 1965:19 SKUll SPRUCE TREE HOUSE KIVA 1 VENT ? Pili FEWKES 1909:24 FOOTNOTE B SKUll SPRUCE TREE HOUSE KIVA 2 VENT ? Pili FEWKES 1909:24 FOOTNOTE B SKUll SPRUCE TREE HOUSE KIVA 3 VENT ? Pili FEWKES 1909:24 FOOTNOTE B SKUll SPRUCE TREE HOUSE KIVA 4 VENT ? Pili FEWKES 1909:24 FOOTNOTE B SKEl SPRUCE TREE HOUSE STR9 ? BURIAL Pili FEWKES 1909:24 SKEl SPRUCE TREE HOUSE STR9 ? BURIAL Pili FEWKES 1909:24 SKEl SPRUCE TREE HOUSE STR9 ? BURIAL Pili FEWKES 1909:24 SKEl SPRUCE TREE HOUSE STR9 ? BURIAL Pili FEWKES 1909:24 SKElFRAG SQUARE TOWER HOUSE KlVAS Fill ? Pili FEWKES 1922:57 SKEl THE DOBEll SITE PITSTR FLOOR UNBU Pili HARRll1973:42-43 SKEl THE DOBEll SITE PITSTR FLOOR UNBU Pili HARRll1973:42-43 SKEl ARROYO HONDO KIVA 12-G-5 FLOOR COll PIV PAlKOVICH 1980:18-22 SKEl ARROYO HONDO KIVA 12-G-5 FLOOR COll PIV PAlKOVlCH 1980:18-22 SKEl ARROYO HONDO KIVA 12-G-5 FLOOR COll PIV PAlKOVICH 1980:18-22 SKEl ARROYO HONDO KIVA 12-G-5 FLOOR COll PIV PAlKOVICH 1980:18-22 SKELFRAG ARROYO HONDO KIVA 12-G-5 FLOOR COll PIV PAlKOVICH 1980:18-22 SKEl ARROYO HONDO STR 12-16-1 FilL COll PIV PAlKOVICH 1980:78 SKEl ARROYO HONDO STR 12-16-1 FLOOR COlL PIV PAlKOVICH 1980:78 SKElFRAG ARROYO HONDO STR 12-16-1 FLOOR COll PIV PAlKOVICH 1980:78 SKElFRAG ARROYO HONDO STR 12-16-1 FILL COll PIV PAlKOVICH 1980:78 SKEl ARROYO HONDO STR 12-19-2 FLOOR COll PIV PAlKOVICH 1980:18 SKElFRAG ARROYO HONDO STR 12-19-2 FLOOR COll PIV PAlKOVICH 1980:78 SKUll AWATOVI TEST 19 KIVA 3 BENCH UNBU PIV SMITH 1972:41 SKEl GRAN QUIVIRA KlVAN FLOOR BU PIV HAYES 1981:53 SKEl GRAN QUIVIRA KlVAN FLOOR BU PIV HAYES 1981:53 FRAGSKEl HOMOlOVl KIVA 324 VENT BU PIV SKEl HOMOLOVI KIVA 704 BENCH BU PIV SKElFRAGS HOMOlOVl KIVA 704 Fill BU PIV SKElFRAGS HOMOlOVI KIVA 704 Fill BU PIV SKELFRAGS HOMOLOVI KIVA 704 Fill BU PIV FRAGSKEl HOMOlOVI KIVA 705 Fill BU PIV SKEL HOMOlOVI I KIVA 706 FLOOR BU PIV SKEl HOMOlOVl1I KIVA 706 FLOOR BU PIV SKEl HOMOLOVIII KIVA 706 FLOOR BU PIV FRAGSKEl HOMOlOVl1I KIVA 714 FLOOR BU PIV N FRAGSKEl HOMOlOVl1I 0 KIVA 714 FLOOR BU PIV v. APPENDIX A HUMAN OBJECTS

FRAGSKEL HOMOLOVIII KIVA 714 FLOOR BU PIV SKEL HOMOLOVIII NORTH MIDDEN PITS PIV SKEL HOMOLOVIII NORTH MIDDEN PITS PIV DIS SKEL HOMOLOVIII NORTH MIDDEN PITS PIV FRAGSKEL HOMOLOVlII NORTH MIDDEN PITS PIV SKEL KIN TIEL RUIN KlVAKT-1 FLOOR/FILL BU PIV HAURY AND HARGRAVE 1931:85 SKEL KIN TIEL RUIN KlVAKT-1 FLOOR/FILL BU PIV HAURY AND HARGRAVE 1931:85 SKEL KIN TIEL RUIN KlVAKT-1 FLOOR/FILL BU PIV HAURY AND HARGRAVE 1931:85 SKEL KIN TIEL RUIN KlVAKT-1 FLOORIFILL BU PIV HAURY AND HARGRAVE 1931:85 SKEL KIN TIEL RUIN KlVAKT-1 FLOOR/FILL BU PIV HAURY AND HARGRAVE 1931:85 SKELFRAG AWATOVI TEST 22 KIVA 10 ROOFALL BU PV SMITH 19n:69 SKEL DIS AWATOVI TEST 31 KIVA 1 FILL BU PV SMITH 19n:73

No 01 APPENDIX B DOGS

DOG SITE STRUCT FEAT C-TRANS TIME CITATION DOGSKEL WHITE DOG CAVE BURIAL 24 CIST GGOOD BMII GUERNSEY AND KIDDER 1921:15 DOGSKEL WHITE DOG CAVE BURIAL 24 CIST GGOOD BMII GUERNSEY AND KIDDER 1921:17 DOG SKULL CAVE 1 PITSTR3 FILL BU BMIII MORRIS 1980:42 DOGSKEL CERRO COLORADO PITSTR405 FLOOR BU BMIII BULLARD 1962:40 DOGSKEL CERRO COLORADO PITSTR405 FLOOR BU BMIII BULLARD 1962:40 DOGSKEL CERRO COLORADO PITSTR405 FLOOR BU BMIII BULLARD 1962:40 DOGSKEL CERRO COLORADO PITSTR405 FLOOR BU BMIII BULLARD 1962:40 DOGSKEL SHABIK 'ESHCHEE VILL DOG BURIAL CIST CTRASH BMIII ROBERTS 1929:93 DOGSKEL SHABIK 'ESHCHEE VILL DOG BURIAL CIST CTRASH BMIII ROBERTS 1929:93 DOGSKEL SHABIK 'ESHCHEE VILL PITSTR FLOOR BU BMIII ROBERTS 1929:66 DOG PART SKULL SITE 1644 PITSTRA FLOOR au BMIII HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:8 DOG RT DENTARY SITE 1676 PITSTRG FILL BU BMIII HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:16 DOGSKEL 5MTUMR2347 DOG BURIAL FEAT 34 BURIAL PI EMSLIE 1978:169 DOGSKEL AZ. 0:7:2103 DOG BURIAL PITSTR 5 CTRASH PI OLSZEWSKI ET AL. 1984:143 DOGSKEL AZ. 0:7:2103 PITSTR5 FLOOR GGOOD PI OLSZEWSKI ET AL. 1984:143 DOG SKULL GOVERNADOR 1 BURIAL 1 MIDDEN GGOOD PI HALL 1944:28 DOG SKULL GOVERNADOR 1 BURIAL 1 MIDDEN GGOOD PI HALL 1944:28 DOG SKULL GOVERNADOR 1 BURIAL 1 MIDDEN GGOOD PI HALL 1944:28 DOG SKULL GOVERNADOR 1 BURIAL X MIDDEN GGOOD PI HALL 1944:28 DOG SKULL GOVERNADOR 1 BURIAL X MIDDEN GGOOD PI HALL 1944:28 DOG SKULL GOVERNADOR1 BURIAL X MIDDEN GGOOD PI HALL 1944:28 DOG SKULL GOVERNADOR 1 aURIALX MIDDEN GGOOD PI HALL 1944:28 DOG REMAINS GRASS MESA GR KIVA 7 FLOOR BU PI LIGHTFOOT ET AL. 1988:598 DOG SKULL GRASS MESA PITSTR 16 FEAT 271 BU PI LIGHTFOOT ET AL. 1988:635 DOG SKULL GRASS MESA PITSTR 16 FEAT 271 BU PI LIGHTFOOT ET AL. 1988:635 DOG SKULL GRASS MESA PITSTR 16 FEAT 271 BU PI LIGHTFOOT ET AL. 1988:635 DOG PART SKEL GRASS MESA PITSTR 19 FILL BU PI DOHM 1988:864 DOG MANDIBLE GRASS MESA PITSTR 53 FLOOR ? PI MORRIS 1988B:887 DOG MAXILLA GRASS MESA PITSTR64 FLOOR UNBU PI VARIEN 1988:218 DOG PART SKEL IGN7:23 BURIAL 17 ? GGOOD PI CARLSON 1963:11 DOGDENTARY SITE 1676 HOUSE 1 GR KlVAB FILL BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:62 DOGDENTARY SITE 1676 HOUSE 1 GR KlVAB FILL BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:62 DOG SKEL FRAGS SITE 1676 HOUSE 1 GR KlVAB FILL BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:62 DOG SKEL FRAGS SITE 1676 HOUSE 1 GR KIVA a FILL BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:62 DOG SKEL FRAGS SITE 1676 HOUSE 1 GR KlVAB FILL BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:62 N DOGDENTARY SITE 1676 HOUSE 1 STR7 FLOOR au PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:54 ...... 0 APPENDIX B DOGS

DOG SKULL FRAGS SITE 1676 HOUSE 1 STR9 FILL BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:55 DOGDENTARY SITE 1676 HOUSE 4 PITSTR E FILL UNBU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:45 DOGSKEL SITE 1676 HOUSE 4 STR4 FLOOR BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:37 DOGSKEL SITE 1676 HOUSE 4 STR4 FLOOR BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:37 DOGSKEL SITE 1676 HOUSE 4 STR4 FLOOR BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:37 DOGSKEL SITE 1676 HOUSE 4 STR4 FLOOR BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:37 DOG SKULL SITE 1676 HOUSE 5 PITSTR E FILL UNBU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:46 DOG DENTARY FRAG SITE 1676 HOUSE 6 STR 1 FILL BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:27 DOGDENTARY SITE 1676 HOUSE 6 STR3 FILL UNBU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:29 DOGSKEL SITE 1676 HOUSE 6 STR8 FILL UNBU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:29 DOGDENTARY SITE 1676 HOUSE 7 PITSTR 1 FILL UNBU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:29 DOG MANDIBLE WHITE WATER DEV UNIT 1 EXTRA FIRE PIT UNBU PI ROBERTS 1939:176 DOGSKEL WHITE WATER DEV UNIT 1 DOG BURIAL MIDDEN CTRASH PI ROBERTS 1939:FIG44 DOG LEGLESS WHITE WATER DEV UNIT 1 KIVA A BENCH UNBU PI ROBERTS 1939:186 DOGSKEL WHITE WATER DEV UNIT 2 DOG BURIAL MIDDEN CTRASH PI ROBERTS 1939:FIG44 WOLF SKULL 5MTUMR2347 KIVA 17 FLOOR ? PII EMSLIE 1978:175 DOG SKULL 5MTUMR2347 KIVA 2 VENT ? PII EMSLIE 1978:174 DOG PART SKEL 5MTUMR2347 KIVA 3 VENT ? PII EMSLIE 1978:174 DOGSKEL 5MTUMR2347 KIVA 3 VENT ? PII EMSLIE 1978:174 DOGSKEL 5MTUMR2347 KIVA 3 FILL ? PII EMSLIE 1978:174 DOGSKEL 5MTUMR2347 KIVA 5 FILL ? PII EMSLIE 1978:174 DOG PART SKEL 5MTUMR2347 KIVA 7 VENT ? PII EMSLIE 1978:174 DOGSKEL 5MTUMR2347 KIVA 8 FLOOR ? PII EMSLIE 1978:169 DOGSKEL 5MTUMR2347 KIVA 8 FLOOR ? PII EMSLIE 1978:169 DOGSKEL 5MTUMR2347 KIVA 8 FLOOR ? PII EMSLIE 1978:169 DOGSKEL 5MTUMR2347 KIVA 8 FLOOR ? PII EMSLIE 1978:169 DOGSKEL 5MTUMR2347 KIVA 8 FLOOR ? PII EMSLIE 1978:169 DOG PART SKEL 5MTUMR2347 STR5 FILL ? PII EMSLIE 1978:174 DOG PART SKULL 5MTUMR2347 STR6 FLOOR ? PI! EMSLIE 1978:174 DOGSKEL 5MTUMR2559 KIVA 11 VENT ? PII EMSLIE 1978:175 DOGSKEL 5MTUMR2559 KIVA 11 FLOOR COVERED PII EMSLIE 1978:175 DOG SKULL 5MTUMR2559 KIVA 18 VENT ? PI! EMSLIE 1978:175 DOGSKEL 5MTUMR2559 PITSTR 13 FILL ? PII EMSLIE 1978:175 DOG PART SKEL 5MTUMR2559 PITSTR22 FILL ? PII EMSLIE 1978:175 DOGSKEL 5MTUMR2559 TESTG ? ? PII EMSLIE 1978:175 DOGSKEL AZ D:11:1161 PITSTR 1 FLOOR BU PI! ANDERSON 1978C:119 N DOG SKULL BC51 KIVA 6 FLOOR UNBU PII KLUCKHOHN 1939:39 0 00 APPENDIX B DOGS

DOGSKEL SAMBRITO VILLAGE DOG BURIAL ? C-TRASH PII EDDY 1966:248-249 DOGSKEL SAM BRITO VILLAGE DOG BURIAL ? C-TRASH PII EDDY 1966:248-250 DOGSKEL SAMBRITO VILLAGE DOG BURIAL ? C-TRASH PII EDDY 1966:248-251 DOGSKEL SAM BRITO VILLAGE DOG BURIAL ? C-TRASH PII EDDY 1966:248-252 DOGSKEL SAMBRITO VILLAGE DOG BURIAL ? C-TRASH PII EDDY 1966:248-253 DOGSKEL SAM BRITO VILLAGE DOG BURIAL ? C-TRASH PII EDDY 1966:248-254 DOGSKEL SAM BRITO VILLAGE DOG BURIAL ? C-TRASH PII EDDY 1966:248-255 DOG SKULL SAM BRITO VILLAGE DOG BURIAL ? C-TRASH PII EDDY 1966:248-256 DOG SKULL SAMBRITO VILLAGE DOG BURIAL ? C-TRASH PII EDDY 1966:248-257 DOG SKULL SAM BRITO VILLAGE DOG BURIAL ? C-TRASH PII EDDY 1966:248-258 DOG SKULL SAMBRITO VILLAGE DOG BURIAL ? C-TRASH PII EDDY 1966:248-259 DOG SKULL SAMBRITO VILLAGE DOG BURIAl ? C-TRASH PII EDDY 1966:248-260 DOG SKULL SAMBRITO VILLAGE DOG BURIAL ? C-TRASH PII EDDY 1966:248-261 DOG SKULL SAM BRITO VILLAGE DOG BURIAL ? C-TRASH PII EDDY 1966:248-262 DOGDENTARY BADGER HOUSE 1453 MIDDEN A ? ? PII-III HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:73 DOG CRANIUM BADGER HOUSE 1453 MIDDEN 0 ? ? PII-III HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:70 DOG PART SKEL BADGER HOUSE 1453 MIDDEN 0 ? ? PII-III HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:70 DOG CRANIUM BADGER HOUSE 1453 MIDDEN 0+ ? ? PII-JII HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:70 DOG SKEL NO HEAD BADGER HOUSE 1453 MIDDEN 0+ ? ? PII-III HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:70 DOG DENTARY BADGER HOUSE 1453 MIDDEN E ? ? PII-III HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:69 DOG SKULL 5MTUMR2785 STR 11 FLOOR ? Pili EMSLIE 1978:175 DOGSKEL AZ 0:10:16 DOG HOUSE PITSTR 16 FLOOR BU Pili AMBLER 1994:463 DOGSKEL AZ 0:10:16 DOG HOUSE PITSTR 16 FLOOR BU Pili AMBLER 1994:464 DOGSKEL SITE 499 MESA VERDE DOG BURIAL ? CTRASH Pili LISTER 1964:9 DOGSKEL SITE 866 MESA VERDE KIVA A FLOOR BU Pili LISTER 1965:25 DOG SKULL CHAVEZ PASS BURIAL ? GGOOD PIV LUCAS 1897:544 DOG SKULL HOMOLOVIII KIVA 708 VENT BU PIV DOG SKULL HOMOLOVIII KIVA 324 FILL BU PIV DOG SKULL HOMOLOVIIli KIVA 37 FILL UNBU PIV DOG SKULL HOMOLOVlIII PITSTR31 FILL UNBU PIV DOGSKEL AWATOVI TEST 22 KIVA 10 FLOOR BU PV SMITH 1972:70 DOGSKEL GRAN QUIVIRA KlVAM FLOOR UNBU PV HAYES ET AL1981:8

~. \0 APPENDIX C PIPES

PIPE SITE STRUCT FEAT C-TRANS TIME CITATION PIPE CERAMIC CHAPIN MESA PITSTR 1 FLOOR BU BMII MORRIS AND BURGH 1954:FIG 96(4) PIPESTONE KINBOKO CAVE I BURIAL CISTE G GOOD BMII KIDDER AND GUERNSEY 1919:82 PIPE CERAMIC MESAVERDE PITSTRC FLOOR BU BMII LANCASTER AND WATSON 1943:197 PIPESTONE NORTH SHLETER BURIAL 26 CREVICE G GOOD BMII MORRIS AND BURGH 1954:41 PIPESTONE SAYODNEECHEE BURIAL CISTB G GOOD BMII KIDDER AND GUERNSEY 1919:30 PIPESTONE SIVUOVI SURFACE ? ? BMII BURTON AND MCCONNELL 1919:83 PIPE BLANK TALUS VILLAGE PITSTR5 FLOOR BU BMII MORRIS AND BURGH 1954:FIG 96(4) PIPESTONE BROKEN FLUTE CAVE ? ? ? BMIII MORRIS 1980:77-78 PIPESTONE BROKEN FLUTE CAVE ? ? ? BMIII MORRIS 1980:77-78 PIPESTONE BROKEN FLUTE CAVE ? ? ? BMIII MORRIS 1980:77-78 PIPESTONE BROKEN FLUTE CAVE PITSTR9 ? BU BMIII MORRIS 1980:77-78 PIPE BLANK BROKEN FLUTE CAVE PITSTR9 ? BU BMIII MORRIS 1980:77-78 PIPE BLANK CAVE 3 ? ? ? BMIII MORRIS 1980:77-78 PIPESTONE CAVE 6 ? ? ? BMIII MORRIS 1980:77-78 PIPESTONE CAVE 8 ? ? ? BMIII MORRIS 1980:77-78 PIPESTONE IGN 7:23 PITSTR ? BU BMIII CARLSON 1963:9 PIPE CERAMIC IGN 7:31 PITSTR ? BU BMIII CARLSON 1963:20 PIPE CERAMIC IGN 7:31 PITSTR ? BU BMIII CARLSON 1963:20 PIPE CERAMIC LONG HOUSE PITSTR 1 FILL BU BMIII CATTANACH 1980:238 PIPESTONE OBELISK CAVE ? ? ? BMIII MORRIS 1980:77-78 PIPESTONE OBELISK CAVE ? ? ? BMIII MORRIS 1980:77-78 PIPESTONE POCKET CAVE ? ? ? BMIII MORRIS 1980:77-78 PIPE BLANK PRAYER ROCK DISTRIC ? ? ? BMIII MORRIS 1980:77-78 PIPE SHABIK' ESHCHEE PITSTRD ? UNBU BMIII ROBERTS 1929:124-126 PIPE SHABIK' ESHCHEE PITSTR F-1 ? BU BMIII ROBERTS 1929:124-126 PIPE SHABIK' ESHCHEE PITSTR F-1 ? BU BMIII ROBERTS 1929:124-126 PIPE SHABIK' ESHCHEE PITSTRK ? UNBU BMIII ROBERTS 1929:124-126 PIPE CERAMIC SITE 1644 PITSTRA FLOOR BU BMIII HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:7 PIPE CERAMIC SITE 1644 PITSTRB FLOOR BU BMIII HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:11 PIPE CERAMIC SITE 1644 PITSTR B FLOOR BU BMIII HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:11 N -0 APPENDIX C PIPES

PIPE CERAMIC SITE 1644 PITSTRB FLOOR BU BMIII HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:11 PIPE CERAMIC JEDDITI0264 PITSTRA ? ? BMIII-PI DAIFUKU 1961:25 PIPE CERAMIC JEDDITI0264 PITSTRA ? ? BMIII-PI DAIFUKU 1961:26 PIPESTONE JEDDITI0264 PITSTRB ? BU BMIII-PI DAIFUKU 1961 :52-53 PIPE CERAMIC A VILLAGE GROUP 1 BURIAL BURIAL GGOOD PI ROBERTS 1930:PLATE 37 PIPE CERAMIC A VILLAGE GROUP 3 PITSTRB BURIAL GGOOD PI ROBERTS 1930:PLATE 37 PIPE CERAMIC ALKALI RIDGE 11 KIVA FILL BU PI BREW 1946:144 PIPE CERAMIC AZ D:11 :2027 PITSTR2 VENT BU PI OLSZEWSKI ET AL. 1984:213 PIPE CERAMIC AZ D:7:2001 MIDDEN ? ? PI PLANTE ET AL. 1982:264 PIPE AZ D:7:2103 PITSTR 3 FILL UNBU PI OLSZEWSKI ET AL.1984:142 PIPE CERAMIC AZD:7:262 PITSTR 16 ? UNBU PI SINK ET AL 1982:254 PIPE CERAMIC AZD:7:262 PITSTR28 ? UNBU PI SINK ET AL 1982:259 PIPE CERAMIC AZD:7:262 PITSTR29 ? BU PI SINK ET AL. 1982:261 PIPE CERAMIC AZD:7:262 PITSTR29 ? BU PI SINK ET AL. 1982:261 PIPESTONE AZ D:7:262 PITSTR29 ? BU PI SINK ET AL. 1982:261 PIPE FOSSIL COR AZ D:7:263 PITSTR 1 FILL UNBU PI DEMARCAY ET AL.1982:109 PIPE CERAMIC BVILLAGE ? ? ? PI ROBERTS 1930:PLATE 37 PIPE CERAMIC BVILLAGE MIDDEN ? ? PI ROBERTS 1930:PLATE 37 PIPE CERAMIC B VILLAGE GROUP 14 BURIAL 2 BURIAL 2 G GOOD PI ROBERTS 1930:PLATE 37 PIPE CERAMIC C VILLAGE GROUP 6 BURIAL BURIAL GGOOD PI ROBERTS 1930:PLATE 37 PIPE CERAMIC C VILLAGE GROUP 6 BURIAL BURIAL GGOOD PI ROBERTS 1930:PLATE 37 PIPE CERAMIC C VILLAGE GROUP 8 BURIAL BURIAL GGOOD PI ROBERTS 1930:PLATE 37 PIPE CERAMIC CAHONE 1 GRKIVA 1 ? ? PI MARTIN AND RINALDO 1939:430 PIPE CERAMIC CAHONE 1 PITSTRA ? BU PI MARTIN AND RINALDO 1939:430 PIPE CERAMIC CAHONE 1 PITSTRB ? BU PI MARTIN AND RINALDO 1939:430 PIPE CERAMIC CAHONE 1 STR ? BU PI MARTIN AND RINALDO 1939:430 PIPE CERAMIC DUCKFOOT PITSTR 1 FLOOR BU PI ETZKORN ET AL. 1993:151 PIPE CERAMIC DUCKFOOT PITSTR3 FILL BU PI ETZKORN ET AL. 1993:151 PIPE CERAMIC DUCKFOOT PITSTR3 FLOOR BU PI ETZKORN ET AL. 1993:151 PIPE CERAMIC DUCKFOOT STR2 FILL UNBU PI ETZKORN ET AL. 1993:151 PIPE CERAMIC GOVERNADOR 1 STR2 ? BU PI HALL 1944:52 -IV APPENDIX C PIPES

PIPE CERAMIC GOVERNADOR 11 PITSTRA FLOOR BU PI HALL 1944:18 PIPE CERAMIC GOVERNADOR 11 PITSTRA FLOOR BU PI HALL 1944:18 PIPE CERAMIC GR 3 KIATTUTHLANNA PITSTR E PIT UNBU PI ROBERTS 1931:74 PIPESTONE GR 3 KIATTUTHLANNA PITSTR E RECESS UNBU PI ROBERTS 1931:75 PIPE CERAMIC GRASS MESA PITSTR 10 FLOOR BU PI LIGHTFOOT ET AL. 1988:564 PIPE CERAMIC GRASS MESA PITSTR 10 FLOOR BU PI LIGHTFOOT ET AL. 1988:564 PIPE CERAMIC GRASS MESA PITSTR 10 FLOOR BU PI LIGHTFOOT ET AL. 1988:564 PIPE CERAMIC GRASS MESA PITSTR 89 FLOOR BU PI LIGHTFOOT ET AL. 1988:666 PIPE CERAMIC IGNACIO 12:1 PITSTR FLOOR BU PI LEE 1938:23 PIPEFRAG LA PLATA 18 PITSTR2 FLOOR BU PI MORRIS 1939:62 PIPE CERAMIC o VILLAGE BURIAL 1 BURIAL 1 G GOOD PI ROBERTS 1930:PLATE 37 PIPE CERAMIC RB 1006 PITSTR 1 FLOOR BU PI BEALS ET AL. 1945:29 PIPE CERAMIC RB 1006 PITSTR 1 FLOOR BU PI BEALS ET AL. 1945 PIPE CERAMIC SITE 1676 HOUSE 1 GR KIVA B FLOOR BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:61 PIPE CERAMIC SITE 1676 HOUSE 1 STR7 FLOOR BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:54 PIPE CERAMIC SITE 1676 HOUSE 5 STR 1 FLOOR BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:48 PIPE CERAMIC SITE 1676 HOUSE 5 STR2 FILL ? PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:47 PIPEFRAG SITE 1676 HOUSE 5 STR3 FILL UNBU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:47 PIPE CERAMIC SITE 1676 HOUSE 5 STR6 FILL BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:51 PIPE CERAMIC SITE 1676 HOUSE 5 STR6 FILL BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:51 PIPE CERAMIC WHITEWATER MIDDEN32A ? ? PI ROBERTS 1940:145-152 PIPE CERAMIC WHITEWATER GROUP 1 PITSTR 7 ? UNBU PI ROBERTS 1940:145-152 PIPE CERAMIC WHITEWATER GROUP ~ PITSTR 12 ? BU PI ROBERTS 1940:145-152 PIPE CERAMIC WHITEWATER GROUP ~ PITSTR 15 BENCH BU PI ROBERTS 1940:145-152 PIPE CERAMIC WHITEWATER GROUP ~ PITSTR 18 ? UNBU PI ROBERTS 1940:145-152 PIPE CERAMIC AZ. 0:7:216 STR2 ? ? PII ANDREWS ET AL. 1980:373 PIPE CERAMIC AZ. 0:7:262 BURIAL 12 MIDDEN ? PII SINK ET AL.1982:252 PIPE CERAMIC AZ. 0:7:262 CISTSTR 15 ? ? PII SINK ET AL 1982:254 PIPE CERAMIC AZ. 0:7:262 CISTSTR 19 ? ? PII SINK ET AL 1982:258 PIPE CERAMIC AZ. 0:7:262 KIVA 18 ? UNBU PII SINK ET AL.1982:257-258 PIPE CERAMIC AZ. 0:7:262 KIVA 18 ? UNBU PII SINK ET AL.1982:257-258 IV -IV APPENDIX C PIPES

PIPE CERAMIC AZD:7:3034 PITSTR 1 ? BU PII SMILEY 1982:280 PIPE CERAMIC AZD:7:3034 PITSTR 1 ? BU PII SMILEY 1982:280 PIPE CERAMIC LA 2505 KIVAB ? BU PII BULLARD AND CASSIDY 1956:49 PIPE CERAMIC LA 2508 KIVA FLOOR ? PII CASSIDY 1956:70 PIPE CERAMIC PECOS PUEBLO KIVA 16 FILL UNBU PII KIDDER 1958:206 PIPE CERAMIC SITE 875 MESA VERDE TRENCH A ? ? PII LISTER 1965:104 PIPE BADGER HOUSE 1453 MIDDEN A ? ? PII-PIII HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:72 PIPESTEM BADGER HOUSE 1453 MIDDEN A ? ? PII-PIII HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:72 PIPESTEM BADGER HOUSE 1453 MIDDEN A ? ? PII-PIII HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:72 PIPE MOLD HOOPER RANCH KIVA I VENT ? PII-PIV MARTIN ET AL. 1961:46 PIPE CERAMIC A SMALL RUIN SURFACE ? ? Pili KIDDER AND GUERNSEY 1919:144 PIPE BONE NA537 KIVA 3 FLOOR UNBU Pili SMITH 1952:75 PIPE CERAMIC PIPE SHRINE HOUSE KIVA FLOOR BU Pili FEWKES 1923:95 PIPE CERAMIC PIPE SHRINE HOUSE KIVA FLOOR BU Pili FEWKES 1923:95 PIPE CERAMIC PIPE SHRINE HOUSE KIVA FLOOR BU Pili FEWKES 1923:95 PIPE CERAMIC PIPE SHRINE HOUSE KIVA FLOOR BU Pili FEWKES 1923:95 PIPE CERAMIC PIPE SHRINE HOUSE KIVA FLOOR BU Pili FEWKES 1923:95 PIPE CERAMIC PIPE SHRINE HOUSE KIVA FLOOR BU Pili FEWKES 1923:95 PIPE CERAMIC PIPE SHRINE HOUSE KIVA FLOOR BU Pili FEWKES 1923:95 PIPE CERAMIC PIPE SHRINE HOUSE KIVA FLOOR BU Pili FEWKES 1923:95 PIPE CERAMIC PIPE SHRINE HOUSE KIVA FLOOR BU Pili FEWKES 1923:95 PIPESTONE PECOS PUEBLO MIDDEN ? ? PIII-PV KIDDER 1932:85 PIPESTONE PECOS PUEBLO MIDDEN ? ? PIII-PV KIDDER 1932:85 PIPESTONE PECOS PUEBLO MIDDEN ? ? PIII-PV KIDDER 1932:85 PIPESTONE PECOS PUEBLO MIDDEN ? ? PIII-PV KIDDER 1932:85 PIPESTONE PECOS PUEBLO MIDDEN ? ? PIII-PV KIDDER 1932:85 PIPESTONE PECOS PUEBLO MIDDEN ? ? PIII-PV KIDDER 1932:85 PIPESTONE PECOS PUEBLO MIDDEN ? ? PIII-PV KIDDER 1932:85 PIPESTONE PECOS PUEBLO MIDDEN ? ? PIII-PV KIDDER 1932:85 PIPESTONE PECOS PUEBLO MIDDEN ? ? PIII-PV KIDDER 1932:85 PIPESTONE PECOS PUEBLO MIDDEN ? ? PIII-PV KIDDER 1932:85 N -\#J APPENDIX C PIPES

PIPESTONE PECOS PUEBLO MIDDEN ? ? PIII-PV KIDDER 1932:85 PIPESTONE PECOS PUEBLO MIDDEN ? ? PIII-PV KIDDER 1932:85 PIPESTONE PECOS PUEBLO MIDDEN ? ? PIII-PV KIDDER 1932:85 PIPESTONE PECOS PUEBLO MIDDEN ? ? PIII-PV KIDDER 1932:85 PIPESTONE PECOS PUEBLO MIDDEN ? ? PIII-PV KIDDER 1932:85 PIPESTONE PECOS PUEBLO MIDDEN ? ? PIII-PV KIDDER 1932:85 PIPESTONE PECOS PUEBLO MIDDEN ? ? PIII-PV KIDDER 1932:85 PIPESTONE PECOS PUEBLO MIDDEN ? ? PIII-PV KIDDER 1932:85 PIPESTONE PECOS PUEBLO MIDDEN ? ? PIII-PV KIDDER 1932:85 PIPESTONE PECOS PUEBLO MIDDEN ? ? PIII-PV KIDDER 1932:85 PIPESTONE PECOS PUEBLO MIDDEN ? ? PIII-PV KIDDER 1932:85 PIPESTONE PECOS PUEBLO MIDDEN ? ? PIII-PV KIDDER 1932:85 PIPESTONE PECOS PUEBLO MIDDEN ? ? PIII-PV KIDDER 1932:85 PIPESTONE PECOS PUEBLO MIDDEN ? ? PIII-PV KIDDER 1932:85 PIPESTONE PECOS PUEBLO MIDDEN ? ? PIII-PV KIDDER 1932:85 PIPE CERAMIC ARROYO HONDO BURIAL 12-G-2-3-22 GGOOD PIV PALKOVICH 1980:163 PIPE CERAMIC AWATOVI KIVA 529 VAULT BU PIV SMITH 1972:56 PIPESTONE AWATOVI TEST 14 KIVA 4 FILL ? PIV WOODBURY 1954:FIG 36 PIPE CERAMIC AWATOVI TEST 57 KIVA 1 FILL UNBU PIV SMITH 1972:76 PIPE CERAMIC AWATOVI TEST 57 KIVA 1 FILL UNBU PIV SMITH 1972:76 PIPE CERAMIC GRAN QUIVIRA KIVAL FLOOR UNBU PIV HAYES ET. AL 1981:51 PIPESTONE GRAN QUIVIRA KIVAM FLOOR BU PIV HAYES ET. AL 1981:52 PIPESTONE HOMOLOVI" KIVA 708 FILL BU PIV PIPE HOMOLOVI" STR 711 FILL UNBU PIV PIPESTONE PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL 1707 MIDDEN G GOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:85 PIPESTONE PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL 894 MIDDEN G GOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:85 PIPE CERAMIC PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL 1419 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:170 PIPE CERAMIC PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL 327 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:175 PIPE CERAMIC PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL 327 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:176 PIPE CERAMIC PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL 426 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:176 PIPE CERAMIC PECOS PUEBLO KIVA 6 FILL UNBU PIV KIDDER 1932:170 N -""- APPENDIX C PIPES

PIPE CERAMIC PECOS PUEBLO KIVA 6 FILL UNBU PIV KIDDER 1932:170 638 PIPE CERAMI PECOS PUEBLO MIDDEN ? ? PIV-PV KIDDER 1932:157 PIPE CERAMIC PECOS PUEBLO STR 19 CACHE ? PIV-PV KIDDER 1932:178 PIPE CERAMIC PECOS PUEBLO STR 19 CACHE ? PIV-PV KIDDER 1932:178 PIPE CERAMIC PECOS PUEBLO STR 19 CACHE ? PIV-PV KIDDER 1932:178 PIPE CERAMIC PECOS PUEBLO STR 19 CACHE ? PIV-PV KIDDER 1932:178 PIPE CERAMIC PECOS PUEBLO STR30 ? ? PIV-PV KIDDER 1932:178 PIPE CERAMIC PECOS PUEBLO STR30 ? ? PIV-PV KIDDER 1932:178 PIPE CERAMIC PECOS PUEBLO STR40 ? ? PIV-PV KIDDER 1932:178 PIPE CERAMIC AWATOVI KIVA A BENCH UNBU PV SMITH 1972:46 PIPE CERAMIC AWATOVI KIVA A BENCH UNBU PV SMITH 1972:46 PIPESTONE AWATOVI STR 810 FILL ? PV WOODBURY 1954:FIG 36 PIPE CERAMIC PECOS PUEBLO EXTRA CACHE ? PV KIDDER 1932:182 PIPE CERAMIC PECOS PUEBLO GRKIVA 12 FILL UNBU PV KIDDER 1932:175 PIPE CERAMIC PECOS PUEBLO KIVA 7 ASH PIT ? PV KIDDER 1958:230 PIPE CERAMIC PECOS PUEBLO KIVAH NICHE UNBU PV KIDDER 1958:221 PIPE CERAMIC PECOS PUEBLO KIVAH NICHE UNBU PV KIDDER 1958:221 PIPE CERAMIC PECOS PUEBLO KIVAH NICHE UNBU PV KIDDER 1958:221 PIPE CERAMIC PECOS PUEBLO KIVAH NICHE UNBU PV KIDDER 1958:221 PIPE CERAMIC PECOS PUEBLO KIVAH NICHE UNBU PV KIDDER 1958:221 PIPE CERAMIC PECOS PUEBLO KIVAH NICHE UNBU PV KIDDER 1958:221 PIPE CERAMIC PECOS PUEBLO KIVA I FILL UNBU PV KIDDER 1958:221 PIPE CERAMIC PECOS PUEBLO KIVA I FILL UNBU PV KIDDER 1958:221 PIPE CERAMIC PECOS PUEBLO KIVA I FILL UNBU PV KIDDER 1958:221 PIPE CERAMIC PECOS PUEBLO KIVA I FILL UNBU PV KIDDER 1958:221 PIPE CERAMIC PECOS PUEBLO PLAZA ASH PIT ? PV KIDDER 1958:230-231 PIPE CERAMIC PECOS PUEBLO STR221 FILL ? PV KIDDER 1932:171 PIPE ELBOW STO PECOS PUEBLO STR36 ? ? PV KIDDER 1932:85 PIPE ELBOW STO PECOS PUEBLO SURFACE ? ? PV KIDDER 1932:85

N -I.Il APPENDIX D POWER OBJECTS

POWER OBJECT SITE STRUCT FEAT C-TRANS TIME CITATION PECKING STONE CACHE LA PLATA 26 SHRINE CLIFF SHRINE ? MORRIS 1939:65 FETISH STONE WHITEWATER EXTRA EAST OF GEAo ? ? ROBERTS 1940:145-152 SPIRAL STONE WHITEWATER EXTRA EAST OF GRE. ? ? ROBERTS 1940:145-152 CONCRETION I\l 0:7:239 ? ? ? BMII MAULDIN 1982B:248-249 CONCRETION /J\Z. 0:7:239 ? ? ? BMII MAULDIN 1982B:248-249 CONCRETION /J\Z. 0:7:239 ? ? ? BMII MAULDIN 1982B:248-249 ARGILITE EFFIGY /J\Z. 0:7:239 PITSTR6 ? ? BMII MAULDIN 1982B:250 IRON CONCRETION NORTH SHELTER PITSTR II FILL ? BMII MORRIS AND BURGH 1954:FIG 88(4) IRON CONCRETION SOUTH SHELTER PITSTR FLOOR 11 UNBU BMII MORRIS AND BURGH 1954:FIG 88(4) QUARTZ CHUNK TALUS VILLAGE PITSTRA FLOOR BU BMII MORRIS AND BURGH 1954:FIG 88(4) IRON CONCRETION BROKEN FLUTE CAVE PITSTR8 ? BU BMIII MORRIS 1980:80 CLAY NIPPLE CONE MESAVERDE PITSTRC FLOOR BU BMIII LANCASTER AN WATSON 1943:197 I\lURITE CRYSTAL SHABIK' ESHCHEE BURIAL BOWL GGOOD BMIII ROBERTS 1929:141 I\lURITE CRYSTAL SHABIK' ESHCHEE BURIAL BOWL GGOOD BMIII ROBERTS 1929:141 I\lURITE CRYSTAL SHABIK' ESHCHEE BURIAL BOWL GGOOD BMIII ROBERTS 1929:141 QUARTZ CRYSTAL SHABIK' ESHCHEE PITSTR F-1 ? BU BMIII ROBERTS 1929:140 CUPPED CONICAL STONE SHABIK' ESHCHEE PITSTR F-1 ? BU BMIII ROBERTS 1929:141 CONCRETION SITE 1644 PITSTRA FILL BU BMIII HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:8 CONCRETION SITE 1644 PITSTRA FILL BU BMIII HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:8 CRYSTAL SITE 1644 PITSTRA FLOOR BU BMIII HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:8 CRYSTAL SITE 1644 PITSTR B FILL BU BMIII HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:11 CONCRETION SITE 1644 PITSTR B FILL BU BMIII HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:12 CONCRETION SITE 1644 PITSTR B FILL BU BMIII HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:13 CONCRETION SITE 1644 PITSTR B FILL BU BMIII HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:14 CONCRETION SITE 1644 PITSTR B FILL BU BMIII HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:15 CONCRETION SITE 1644 PITSTR B FILL BU BMIII HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:16 IRON PYRITE BALLS ZNP-21 STR 1 BENCH ? BMIII SCHROEDER 1955:85 CERAMIC EFFIGY I\l 0:7:2013 PISTR 1 ? BU P-PII SINK ET AL. 1982:271 CRYSTALS A, B, C, STOLLSTEIMER MIDDEN BURIAL GGOOD PI ROBERTS 1930:154-155 WORKED GEODE BADGER HOUSE 1453 MIDDEN E ? ? PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:69 LIGHTENING STONES CAHONE 1 STR ? BU PI MARTIN AND RINALDO 1939: 404 LIGHTENING STONES CAHONE 1 STR ? BU PI MARTIN AND RINALDO 1939: 404 LIGHTENING STONES CAHONE 1 STR ? BU PI MARTIN AND RINALDO 1939: 404 LIGHTENING STONES CAHONE 1 STR ? BU PI MARTIN AND RINALDO 1939: 404 LIGHTENING STONES CAHONE 2 PITSTR F ? ? PI MARTIN AND RINALDO 1939: 404 N LIGHTENING STONES CAHONE 2 PITSTR F ? ? PI MARTIN AND RINALDO 1939: 404 -0\ APPENDIX D POWER OBJECTS

STONE CUBE CAHONE CANYON GREAT KIVA I? ? PI MARTIN AND RINALDO 1939:430 CERAMIC ANIMALS DUCKFOOT MIDDEN TRASH PIT BU PI LIGHTFOOT ET AL. 1993:128, 151 CERAMIC ANIMALS DUCKFOOT MIDDEN TRASH PIT BU PI LIGHTFOOT ET AL. 1993:128, 151 GRAPHITE CUBE GOVERNADOR 1 PITSTRA FLOOR BU PI HALL 1944:82 CERAMIC ANIMAL GOVERNADOR 1 PITSTR B ? BU PI HALL 1944:11,34 SULPHUR CRSYTALS GOVERNADOR 1 PITSTR B CACHE BU PI HALL 1944:82 STONE CYLINDER GR 2 K1ATUTHLANNA PITSTRC SIPAPU BU PI ROBERTS 1931:52 JET EFFIGY GRASS MESA MIDDEN UNIT 88 BU PI MORRIS ET AL. 1988:533 JET EFFIGY GRASS MESA PITSTR 15 FLOOR UNBU PI LIGHTFOOT 1988:656 JET EFFIGY GRASS MESA PITSTR38 FILL UNBU PI MORRIS 1988A:825 AZURITE NODULE GRASS MESA STR 18 FLOOR ? PI LIGHTFOOT ET AL. 1988:707 TOURQUOIS WITH HEMAT GRASS MESA STR 18 FLOOR ? PI LIGHTFOOT ET AL. 1988:707 HEMATITE PILE GRASS MESA STR 19 FLOOR ? PI LIGHTFOOT ET AL. 1988:707 CLAY ANIMAL FIGURINE LA PLATA 18 PITSTR7 FLOOR BU PI MORRIS 1939:62 CONCRETION SITE 1676 HOUSE 1 GR KlVAB FILL BU, PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:62 CONCRETION SITE 1676 HOUSE 1 GR KIVAB FILL BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:62 CONCRETION SITE 1676 HOUSE 1 GR KIVAB FILL BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:62 CONICAL FETSIH SITE 1676 HOUSE 1 GR KlVAB FILL BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:62 CONICAL FETSIH SITE 1676 HOUSE 1 GR KlVAB FILL BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:62 GEODE DISH SITE 1676 HOUSE 1 GR K1VAB FILL BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:62 GEODE DISH SITE 1676 HOUSE 1 GR KIVAB FILL BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:62 CONCRETION SITE 1676 HOUSE 1 STR 14 FILL BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:57 CONCRETION SITE 1676 HOUSE 1 STR7 FLOOR BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:54 EGG COBBLE SITE 1676 HOUSE 1 STR7 FLOOR BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:54 CONCRETION SITE 1676 HOUSE 3 PITSTR 13 FILL BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:24 CONCRETION SITE 1676 HOUSE 3 STR 1 FLOOR BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:19 CONCRETION SITE 1676 HOUSE 3 STR 1,2,3 FILL ? PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:19 CONICAL FETISH SITE 1676 HOUSE 3 STR6,8,9 FILL ? PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:21 CONICAL FETISH SITE 1676 HOUSE 3 STR6,8,9 FILL ? PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:21 CONCRETION SITE 1676 HOUSE 4 PITSTR E FILL UNBU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:44 CONCRETION SITE 1676 HOUSE 4 PITSTR E FLOOR UNBU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:44 CONICAL FETISH SITE 1676 HOUSE 4 PITSTR E FILL UNBU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:44 CONICAL FETISH SITE 1676 HOUSE 4 PITSTR E FILL UNBU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:44 GEODE CUP SITE 1676 HOUSE 4 STR9 FILL BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:40 CONICAL FETISH SITE 1676 HOUSE 4 STR9 FLOOR BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:40 SITE 1676 HOUSE 4 STR9 BIN FEAT BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:40 JET EFFIGY N CONICAL CONCRETION SITE 1676 HOUSE 5 STR 1 FILL BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:48 --..I APPENDIX D POWER OBJECTS

CONCRETION SITE 1676 HOUSE 6 STR6 FILL BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:28 CONCRETION SITE 1676 HOUSE 7 STR 1 FILL UNBU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:29 CONCRETION FETISH SITE 1676 HOUSE 7 STR6 FILL ? PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:32 GROOVED STONE WHITEWATER EXTRA PIT ? PI ROBERTS 1940:145-152 GROOVED STONE WHITEWATER EXTRA REFUSEC ? PI ROBERTS 1940:145-152 SPIRAL STONE WHITEWATER STR3 ? BU PI ROBERTS 1940:145-152 STONE TIPONI ALKALI RIDGE 13 UNIT 1 KIVA BENCH ? PII BREW 1946:199 CONCRETION AZD:7:109 ? ? ? PII DEMARCAY ET AL. 1982:244 QUARTZ CYLINDER AZD:7:2013 ? ? ? PII SINK ET AL. 1982:268 CONCRETION AZ 0:7:216 KIVA 1 ? BU PII ANDREWS 1980:380 CERAMIC EFFIGY AZ 0:7:216 MIDDEN ? ? PII ANDREWS 1980:379 CERAMIC EFFIGY AZD:7:220 KIVA 1 ? BU PII BLOMBERG AND SINK 1980:393 CERAMIC EFFIGY AZD:7:262 KIVA 18 ? UNBU PII SINK ET AL. 1982:256 STONE EFFIGY AZD:7:262 STR24 ? ? PII SINK ET AL. 1982:259 POSS STONE FETISH BADGER HOUSE 1453 KlVAC FLOOR UNBU PII HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:78 SELINITE CRYSTAL BC51 BURIAL 60 BURIAL 60 GGOOD PII KLUCKHOHN 1939:48 CONICAL STONE BC51 STR 15 BENCH ? PII WOODBURY 1939:62 CONCRETION DEAD HORSE SITE PITSTR4 FILL UNBU PII ADAMS 1973:154 WOOD ANIMAL EFFIGY LA 2505 KlVAB FILL BU PII BULLARD AND CASSIDY 1956:47 CHARM STONE LA 2675 ? ? ? PII OLSON AND WASLEY 1956:341 QUARTSITE BAR LA 2675 KIVA 2 ALTAR UNBU PII OLSON AND WASLEY 1956:345 PLUMED SERPENT STONE NA 680 KIVA FILL UNBU PII SMITH 1952:134 CONCRETION NA680 KIVA FILL UNBU PII SMITH 1952:135 CONCRETION NA680 KIVA FILL UNBU PII SMITH 1952:135 VESICULAR CONE NA682 STR2 FILL ? PII SMITH 1952:134 STONE FETISH BADGER HOUSE 1453 MIDDEN A ? ? PII-PIII HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:72 CONICAL FETISH BADGER HOUSE 1453 MIDDEN B ? ? PII-PIII HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:71 CONICAL FETISH BADGER HOUSE 1453 MIDDEN 0 ? ? PII-PIII HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:70 CONICAL FETISH BADGER HOUSE 1453 MIDDEN 0 ? ? PII-PIII HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:70 CONICAL FETISH BADGER HOUSE 1453 MIDDEN 0+ ? ? PII-PIII HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:69 CONICAL FETISH BADGER HOUSE 1453 MIDDEN 0+ ? ? PII-PIII HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:69 CONCRETION GEODE BADGER HOUSE 1453 KIVA A FIRE PIT BU Pili HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:92 CONCRETION GEODE BADGER HOUSE 1453 KIVA A FIRE PIT BU Pili HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:92 CONCRETION GEODE BADGER HOUSE 1453 KIVA A FLOOR BU Pili HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:92 CONCRETION GEODE BADGER HOUSE 1453 KIVA A FLOOR BU Pili HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:92 CONCRETION GEODE BADGER HOUSE 1453 KIVA A FLOOR BU Pili HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:92 IV CONCRETION GEODE BADGER HOUSE 1453 KIVA A FLOOR BU Pili HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:92 -00 APPENDIX D POWER OBJECTS

CONCRETION GEODE BADGER HOUSE 1453 KIVA A FLOOR BU Pili HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:92 CONCRETION GEODE BADGER HOUSE 1453 KIVA A FLOOR BU Pili HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:92 CONCRETION GEODE BADGER HOUSE 1453 KIVA A SUB VENT BU Pili HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:92 CONCRETION BADGER HOUSE 1453 KIVA A SUB VENT BU Pili HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:92 CONICAL FETISH BADGER HOUSE 1453 KIVA A SUB VENT BU Pili HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:92 CONICAL FETISH BADGER HOUSE 1453 KIVA A SUB VENT BU Pili HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:92 ODD EFFIGY STONE BADGER HOUSE 1453 KIVA A FIRE PIT BU Pili HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:92 ODD EFFIGY STONE BADGER HOUSE 1453 KIVA A FLOOR BU Pili HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:92 MEDICINE CYLINDER CARTER RANCH BURIAL BURIAL GGOOD Pili RINALDO 1964:81 CERAMIC FOOT CARTER RANCH GREAT KIVA FILL BU Pili RINALDO 1964:46 CERAMIC FOOT CARTER RANCH GREAT KIVA FILL BU Pili RINALDO 1964:46 MAJORITY EFFIGIES CARTER RANCH MIDDEN EXTRAFEAT ? Pili RINALDO 1964:102 FRAG BIRD EFFIGY CARTER RANCH MIDDEN EXTRA FEAT ? Pili RINALDO 1964:96 CONICAL FETISH CLIFF PALACE KlVAH FLOOR ? Pili FEWKES 1911:??? LIGHTNING STONES FORKED LIGHTNING ? ? ? Pili KIDDER 1958:93 FROG EFFIGY FORKED LIGHTNING BURIAL BB11 ? GGOOD Pili KIDDER 1932:91 LIMESTONE CYLINDER FORKED LIGHTNING BURIAL BB12'? GGOOD Pili KIDDER 1932;110 CONCRETION FORKED LIGHTNING BURIAL BB44 ? GGOOD Pili KIDDER 1958:26 ODD STONE FORKED LIGHTNING BURIAL BB44 ? GGOOD Pili KIDDER 1958:26 ODD STONE FORKED LIGHTNING BURIAL BB44 ? GGOOD Pili KIDDER 1958:26 ODD STONE FORKED LIGHTNING BURIAL BB44 ? GGOOD Pili KIDDER 1958:26 ODD STONE FORKED LIGHTNING BURIAL BB44 ? GGOOD Pili KIDDER 1958:26 ODD STONE FORKED LIGHTNING BURIAL BB44 ? GGOOD Pili KIDDER 1958:26 ODD STONE FORKED LIGHTNING BURIAL BB44 ? GGOOD Pili KIDDER 1958:26 ODD STONE FORKED LIGHTNING BURIAL BB44 ? GGOOD Pili KIDDER 1958:26 ODD STONE FORKED LIGHTNING BURIAL BB44 ? GGOOD Pili KIDDER 1958:26 ODD STONE FORKED LIGHTNING BURIAL BB44 ? GGOOD Pili KIDDER 1958:26 ODD STONE FORKED LIGHTNING BURIAL BB44 ? GGOOD Pili KIDDER 1958:26 ODD STONE FORKED LIGHTNING BURIAL BB44 ? GGOOD Pili KIDDER 1958:26 ODD STONE FORKED LIGHTNING BURIAL BB44 ? GGOOD Pili KIDDER 1958:26 ODD STONE FORKED LIGHTNING BURIAL BB44 ? GGOOD Pili KIDDER 1958:26 CONCRETION FORKED LIGHTNING BURIAL BB95 ? GGOOD Pili KIDDER 1932:110 QUARTZ CRYSTAL FORKED LIGHTNING BURIAL BB95 ? GGOOD Pili KIDDER 1932:110 LIMESTONE CYLINDER FORKED LIGHTNING BURIAL BB95 ? GGOOD Pili KIDDER 1932:110 PEBBLE FORKED LIGHTNING BURIAL BB95 ? GGOOD Pili KIDDER 1932:110 PEBBLE FORKED LIGHTNING BURIAL BB95 ? GGOOD PIli KIDDER 1932:110 IV PEBBLE FORKED LIGHTNING BURIAL BB95 ? GGOOD Pili KIDDER 1932:110 -\0 APPENDIX D POWER OBJECTS

PEBBLE FORKED LIGHTNING BURIAL BB95 ? GGOOD Pili KIDDER 1932:110 PEBBLE FORKED LIGHTNING BURIAL BB95 ? GGOOD Pili KIDDER 1932:110 PEBBLE FORKED LIGHTNING BURIAL BB95 ? GGOOD Pili KIDDER 1932:110 BEAR EFFIGY JOINT SITE KIVA 34 ? BU Pili HANSON AND SCHIFFER 1975:n CONCRETION LONG HOUSE ? ? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:298 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE ? ? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:298 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE ? ? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:298 STONE CONE LONG HOUSE BURIAL 10 BURIAL 10 GGOOD Pili CATTANACH 1980:143 CRYSTAL LONG HOUSE BURIAL 10 BURIAL 10 GGOOD Pili CATTANACH 1980:143 CRYSTAL LONG HOUSE BURIAL 10 BURIAL 10 GGOOD Pili CATTANACH 1980:143 CYLINDRICAL HEMATITE LONG HOUSE BURIAL 10 BURIAL 10 GGOOD Pili CATTANACH 1980:143 CYLINDRICAL HEMATITE LONG HOUSE BURIAL 10 BURIAL 10 GGOOD Pili CATTANACH 1980:143 CYLINDRICAL HEMATITE LONG HOUSE BURIAL 10 BURIAL 10 GGOOD Pili CATTANACH 1980:143 CYLINDRICAL HEMATITE LONG HOUSE BURIAL 10 BURIAL 10 GGOOD Pili CATTANACH 1980:143 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE GRKIVA FILL ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:295 WATERWORN PEBBLE LONG HOUSE GR KIVA SUBFLOOR ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:299 WATERWORN PEBBLE LONG HOUSE GR KIVA FILL ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:299 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE KlVAB SUB VENT UNBU Pili CATTANACH 1980:295 CERAMIC BIRD EFFIGY LONG HOUSE KIVA 0 SUBFLOOR UNBU Pili CATTANACH 1980:238 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE KlVAF FILL UNBU Pili CATTANACH 1980:296 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE KIVA I FILL UNBU Pili CATTANACH 1980:295 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE KlVAK FILL ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:296 WATERWORN PEBBLE LONG HOUSE KlVAK HEARTH ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:299 STONE CONE LONG HOUSE KlVAL SUBFLOOR UNBU Pili CATTANACH 1980:293 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE KIVAM FILL BU Pili CATTANACH 1980:297 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE KlVAM FILL BU Pili CATTANACH 1980:298 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE KlVAN SUBFLOOR UNBU Pili CATTANACH 1980:296 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE KlVAN SUBFLOOR UNBU Pili CATTANACH 1980:298 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE KlVAQ FILL UNBU Pili CATTANACH 1980:295 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE KlVAQ FLOOR UNBU Pili CATTANACH 1980:297 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE KIVAQ FLOOR UNBU Pili CATTANACH 1980:298 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE KlVAQ NICHE UNBU Pili CATTANACH 1980:298 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE KlVAQ NICHE UNBU Pili CATTANACH 1980:298 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE KlVAQ NICHE UNBU Pili CATTANACH 1980:298 WATERWORN COBBLE LONG HOUSE KlVAQ FILL UNBU Pili CATTANACH 1980:298 WATERWORN COBBLE LONG HOUSE KlVAQ NICHE UNBU Pili CATTANACH 1980:298 N WATERWORN PEBBLE LONG HOUSE K1VAQ NICHE UNBU Pili CATTANACH 1980:299 N 0 APPENDIX D POWER OBJECTS

WATERWORN PEBBLE LONG HOUSE KlVAQ NICHE UNBU Pili CATTANACH 1980:299 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE KlVAR FILL UNBU Pili CATTANACH 1980:296 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE KlVAR FILL UNBU Pili CATTANACH 1980:296 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE KlVAR FILL UNBU Pili CATTANACH 1980:296 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE KlVAR FILL UNBU Pili CATTANACH 1980:296 WATERWORN COBBLE LONG HOUSE KlVAR FILL UNBU Pili CATTANACH 1980:298 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE KlVAS FILL BU Pili CATTANACH 1980:295 CYLINDRICAL HEATITIE LONG HOUSE KlVAT FILL UNBU Pili CATTANACH 1980:281 WATERWORN PEBBLE LONG HOUSE KlVAT FILL UNBU Pili CATTANACH 1980:299 CERAMIC BIRD EFFIGY LONG HOUSE MIDDEN ? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:238 CYLINDRICAL HEATITIE LONG HOUSE MIDDEN ? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:281 . CYLINDRICAL HEATITIE LONG HOUSE MIDDEN ? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:281 CYLINDRICAL HEATITIE LONG HOUSE MIDDEN ? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:281 STONE CYLINDER LONG HOUSE MIDDEN ? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:293 STONE CYLINDER LONG HOUSE MIDDEN ? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:293 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE MIDDEN EASl ? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:295 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE MIDDEN EASl ? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:295 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE MIDDEN EASl ? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:295 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE MIDDEN EAS1? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:295 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE MIDDEN EASl ? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:295 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE MIDDEN EAS1? ? PIli CATTANACH 1980:296 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE MIDDEN EASl ? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:296 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE MIDDEN EASl ? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:296 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE MIDDEN EASl ? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:296 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE MIDDEN EAS1? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:296 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE MIDDEN EAS1? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:296 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE MIDDEN EAS1? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:296 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE MIDDEN EAS1? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:296 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE MIDDEN EASl ? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:296 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE MIDDEN EASl ? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:296 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE MIDDEN EASl ? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:296 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE MIDDEN EAS1? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:298 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE MIDDEN EASl ? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:298 WATERWORN COBBLE LONG HOUSE MIDDEN EAS1? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:298 WATERWORN PEBBLE LONG HOUSE MIDDEN EAS1? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:299 WATERWORN PEBBLE LONG HOUSE MIDDEN EAS1? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:299 N WATERWORN PEBBLE LONG HOUSE MIDDEN EASl ? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:299 N APPENDIX D POWER OBJECTS

WATERWORN PEBBLE LONG HOUSE MIDDEN EASl ? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:299 WATERWORN PEBBLE LONG HOUSE MIDDEN EASl ? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:299 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE MIDDEN IV ? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:295 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE MIDDEN IV ? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:297 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE MIDDEN IV ? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:298 WATERWORN PEBBLE LONG HOUSE MIDDEN IV ? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:299 WATERWORN COBBLE LONG HOUSE MIDDEN V ? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:298 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE MIDDEN VII ? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:298 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE MIDDEN VII ? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:298 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE MIDDENWES? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:296 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE MIDDENWES? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:296 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE MIDDENWES? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:296 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE MIDDENWES? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:296 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE MIDDENWES? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:298 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE MIDDENWES? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:298 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE MIDDEN X ? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:295 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE MIDDEN X ? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:296 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE MIDDEN X ? ( Pili CATTANACH 1980:298 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE MIDDEN XII ? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:296 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE MIDDEN XII ? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:296 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE MIDDEN XII ? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:296 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE MIDDEN XII ? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:296 WATERWORN PEBBLE LONG HOUSE MIDDEN XII ? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:299 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE STR 12 FILL ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:296 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE STR 12 FILL UNBU Pili CATTANACH 1980:298 CYLINDRICAL HEATITIE LONG HOUSE STR 16 FILL UNBU Pili CATTANACH 1980:281 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE STR36 FILL UNBU Pili CATTANACH 1980:296 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE STR37 FILL ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:295 WATERWORN PEBBLE LONG HOUSE STR37 FILL UNBU Pili CATTANACH 1980:299 WATERWORN PEBBLE LONG HOUSE STR4 FILL UNBU Pili CATTANACH 1980:299 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE STR48 FILL UNBU Pili CATTANACH 1980:296 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE STR52 FILL UNBU Pili CATTANACH 1980:296 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE STR54 FILL UNBU Pili CATTANACH 1980:295 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE STR54 FILL UNBU Pili CATTANACH 1980:298 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE STR60 FILL UNBU Pili CATTANACH 1980:296 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE STR75 FILL UNBU Pili CATTANACH 1980:298 N WATERWORN PEBBLE LONG HOUSE STR 81 FILL UNBU Pili CATTANACH 1980:299 N N APPENDIX D POWER OBJECTS

CONCRETION LONG HOUSE STR83 FILL UNBU Pili CATIANACH 1980:298 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE STR87 FILL UNBU Pili CATIANACH 1980:297 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE TESTB ? ? Pili CATIANACH 1980:298 CYLINDRICAL HEATITIE LONG HOUSE TOWER 60 FILL UNBU Pili CATIANACH 1980:281 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE TOWER 60 FILL UNBU Pili CATIANACH 1980:295 CONCRETION LONG HOUSE TRENCH L FILL ? Pili CATIANACH 1980:295 CONICAL FETISH ONE CLAN HOUSE KIVA FLOOR ? Pili FEWKES 1923:FIG 102 ANHTROPO IDOL STONE PECOS PUEBLO KIVA 6 WLNICHE UNBU Pili KIDDER 1932:88-89 STREAM ROLLED STONE PECOS PUEBLO KIVA 6 WLNICHE UNBU Pili KIDDER 1932:88-89 STREAM ROLLED STONE PECOS PUEBLO KIVA 6 WLNICHE UNBU Pili KIDDER 1932:88-89 STREAM ROLLED STONE PECOS PUEBLO KIVA 6 WLNICHE UNBU Pili KIDDER 1932:88-89 SMALL STALAGMITE PECOS PUEBLO KIVA 6 WLNICHE UNBU Pili KIDDER 1932:88-89 LUMP WHITE QUARTZ PECOS PUEBLO KIVA 6 WLNICHE UNBU Pili KIDDER 1932:88-89 FETISH PIPE SHRINE HOUSE KIVA FLOOR BU Pili FEWKES 1923:95 FETISH PIPE SHRINE HOUSE KIVA FLOOR BU Pili FEWKES 1923:95 SEPTARIAN NODULE PIPE SHRINE HOUSE KIVA FLOOR BU Pili FEWKES 1923:96 MOUNTAIN SHEEP IDOL PIPE SHRINE HOUSE MIDDEN ? ? Pili FEWKES 1923:101 SERPENT IDOL PIPE SHRINE HOUSE MIDDEN ? ? Pili FEWKES 1923:101 BIRD IDOL PIPE SHRINE HOUSE MIDDEN ? ? Pili FEWKES 1923:101 CONCRETION PIPE SHRINE HOUSE SHRINE 1 ? SHRINE Pili FEWKES 1923:99 CONCRETION PIPE SHRINE HOUSE SHRINE 1 ? SHRINE Pili FEWKES 1923:99 CONCRETION PIPE SHRINE HOUSE SHRINE 1 ? SHRINE Pili FEWKES 1923:99 CONCRETION PIPE SHRINE HOUSE SHRINE 1 ? SHRINE Pili FEWKES 1923:99 CONCRETION PIPE SHRINE HOUSE SHRINE 1 ? SHRINE Pili FEWKES 1923:99 CONCRETION PIPE SHRINE HOUSE SHRINE 1 ? SHRINE Pili FEWKES 1923:99 CONCRETION PIPE SHRINE HOUSE SHRINE 1 ? SHRINE Pili FEWKES 1923:99 IRON METEORITE PIPE SHRINE HOUSE SHRINE 1 ? SHRINE Pili FEWKES 1923:99 WATER WORN STONE PIPE SHRINE HOUSE SHRINE 1 ? SHRINE Pili FEWKES 1923:99 WATER WORN STONE PIPE SHRINE HOUSE SHRINE 1 ? SHRINE Pili FEWKES 1923:99 WATER WORN STONE PIPE SHRINE HOUSE SHRINE 1 ? SHRINE Pili FEWKES 1923:99 MOUNTAIN LION IDOL PIPE SHRINE HOUSE SHRINE 2 ? SHRINE Pili FEWKES 1923:99 WATER WORN STONES PIPE SHRINE HOUSE SHRINE 2 ? SHRINE Pili FEWKES 1923:99 WATER WORN STONES PIPE SHRINE HOUSE SHRINE 2 ? SHRINE Pili FEWKES 1923:99 WATER WORN STONES PIPE SHRINE HOUSE SHRINE 2 ? SHRINE Pili FEWKES 1923:99 WATER WORN STONES PIPE SHRINE HOUSE SHRINE 2 ? SHRINE Pili FEWKES 1923:99 WATER WORN STONES PIPE SHRINE HOUSE SHRINE 2 ? SHRINE Pili FEWKES 1923:99 N WATER WORN STONES N PIPE SHRINE HOUSE SHRINE 2 ? SHRINE Pili FEWKES 1923:99 w APPENDIX D POWER OBJECTS

WATER WORN STONES PIPE SHRINE HOUSE SHRINE 2 ? SHRINE Pili FEWKES 1923:99 WATER WORN STONES PIPE SHRINE HOUSE SHRINE 2 ? SHRINE Pili FEWKES 1923:99 WATER WORN STONES PIPE SHRINE HOUSE SHRINE 2 ? SHRINE Pili FEWKES 1923:99 WATER WORN STONES PIPE SHRINE HOUSE SHRINE 2 ? SHRINE Pili FEWKES 1923:99 WATER WORN STONES PIPE SHRINE HOUSE SHRINE 2 ? SHRINE Pili FEWKES 1923:99 WATER WORN STONES PIPE SHRINE HOUSE SHRINE 3 ? SHRINE Pili FEWKES 1923:100 WATER WORN STONES PIPE SHRINE HOUSE SHRINE 3 ? SHRINE Pili FEWKES 1923:100 WATER WORN STONES PIPE SHRINE HOUSE SHRINE 3 ? SHRINE Pili FEWKES 1923:100 WATER WORN STONES PIPE SHRINE HOUSE SHRINE 3 ? SHRINE Pili FEWKES 1923:100 WATER WORN STONES PIPE SHRINE HOUSE SHRINE 3 ? SHRINE Pili FEWKES 1923:100 WATER WORN STONES PIPE SHRINE HOUSE SHRINE 3 ? SHRINE Pili FEWKES 1923:100 WATER WORN STONES PIPE SHRINE HOUSE SHRINE 3 ? SHRINE Pili FEWKES 1923:100 WATER WORN STONES PIPE SHRINE HOUSE SHRINE 3 ? SHRINE Pili FEWKES 1923:100 WATER WORN STONES PIPE SHRINE HOUSE SHRINE 3 ? SHRINE Pili FEWKES 1923:100 WATER WORN STONES PIPE SHRINE HOUSE SHRINE 3 ? SHRINE Pili FEWKES 1923:100 STONE ZOOMORPHIC HE.A SAND CANYON TOWER 101 FILL UNBU Pili BRADLEY 1992:84 FETISH SPRUCE TREE HOUSE KlVAG FLOOR FILL ? Pili FEWKES 1909:49 STEP STONE ACOMA-I-28-A STR2 ? ? PIV DITIERT 1959:319-320 JET FETISH ARROYO HONDO BURIAL 12-C-! BURIAL GGOOD PIV PALKOVICH 1980:164 HEMATITE CYLINDER ARROYO HONDO BURIAL 12-G- BURIAL GGOOD PIV PALKOVICH 1980:161 STONE EFFIGY AWATOVI KIVA 529 FILL BU PIV WOODBURY 1954:160 STONE EFFIGY AWATOVI STR 270 FILL UNKNOWN PIV WOODBURY 1954:160 CONCRETION AWATOVI STR272 FILL UNKNOWN PIV WOODBURY 1954:FIG 40 CONCRETION AWATOVI STR5 FILL UNKNOWN PIV WOODBURY 1954:FIG 40 CONCRETION AWATOVI STRn2 BURIAL 104 GGOOD PIV WOODBURY 1954:188 CONCRETION AWATOVI SURFACE ? UNKNOWN PIV WOODBURY 1954:FIG 40 STONE CYLINDER AWATOVI TEST 14 KIVA 3 FILL UNBU PIV SMITH 1972:21 BOULDER AWATOVI TEST 14 KIVA 5 FLCACHE BURIED PIV WOODBURY 1954:186 CONCRETION AWATOVI TEST 14 KIVA 5 FILL BURIED PIV SMITH 1972:31 CONCRETION AWATOVI TEST 14 KIVA 5 FLCACHE BURIED PIV SMITH 1972:31 CONCRETION AWATOVI TEST 14 KIVA 5 FLCACHE BURIED PIV SMITH 1972:31 CONCRETION AWATOVI TEST 14 KIVA 5 FLCACHE BURIED PIV SMITH 1972:31 CONCRETION AWATOVI TEST 14 KIVA 5 FLCACHE BURIED PIV SMITH 1972:31 CONCRETION AWATOVI TEST 14 KIVA 5 FLCACHE BURIED PIV SMITH 1972:31 CONCRETION AWATOVI TEST 14 KIVA 5 FLCACHE BURIED PIV SMITH 1972:31 CONCRETION AWATOVI TEST 14 KIVA 5 FLCACHE BURIED PIV SMITH 1972:31 N CONCRETION AWATOVI TEST 14 N KIVA 5 FLCACHE BURIED PIV SMITH 1972:31 +- APPENDIX D POWER OBJECTS

CONCRETION AWATOVI TEST 14 KIVA 5 FLCACHE BURIED PIV SMITH 1972:31 CONCRETION AWATOVI TEST 14 KIVA 5 FLCACHE BURIED PIV SMITH 1972:31 CONCRETION AWATOVI TEST 14 KIVA 5 FLCACHE BURIED PIV SMITH 1972:31 CONCRETION AWATOVI TEST 14 KIVA 5 FLCACHE BURIED PIV SMITH 1972:31 CONCRETION AWATOVI TEST 14 KIVA 5 FLCACHE BURIED PIV SMITH 1972:31 CONCRETION AWATOVI TEST 14 KIVA 5 FLCACHE BURIED PIV SMITH 1972:31 STONE LION AWATOVI TEST 14 KIVA 5 FLCACHE BURIED PIV SMITH 1972:31 CONCRETION AWATOVI TEST 14 KIVA 6 FILL UNBU PIV SMITH 1972:36 CLAY FETISH HOMOLOVI KIVA 706 FILL BU PIV CONCRETION HOMOLOVI KIVA 706 FILL BU PIV CRYSTAL HOMOLOVI KIVA 706 FILL BU PIV CRYSTAL HOMOLOVI KIVA 708 FLFEAT BU PIV LARGE RIVER COBBLE HOMOLOVI KIVA 708 FILL BU PIV LARGE RIVER COBBLE HOMOLOVI KIVA 708 FILL BU PIV STONE FETISH HOMOLOVI NORTH MIDDEN PIV CONCRETION HOMOLOVI SOUTH MIDDEN PIV CONCRETION HOMOLOVI STR555 FLOOR UNBU PIV ODD STONE HOMOLOVI STR557 ROOFALL UNBU PIV ANIMAL EFFIGY HOMOLOVIIil KIVA 32 FILL BU PIV CONCRETION HOMOLOVIIil KIVA 37 FILL UNBU PIV HEMATITE CYLINDER HOMOLOVIIil PITSTR31 FILL UNBU PIV CONCRETION HOMOLOVIIil STR29 FILL BU PIV CONCRETION HOMOLOVIIil STR30 FILL UNBU PIV CONCRETIONS KIN TIEL RUIN EXTRA CIST SHRINE PIV FEWKES 1897:603 STONE FETISH KIN TIEL RUIN EXTRA CIST SHRINE PIV FEWKES 1897:603 STONE FETISH KIN TIEL RUIN EXTRA CIST SHRINE PIV FEWKES 1897:603 STONE FETISH KIN TIEL RUIN EXTRA CIST SHRINE PIV FEWKES 1897:603 STEP STONE LP 2:13:A STRJ ? PIV PIV DITTERT 1959:319-320 LIGHTNING STONE LP 2:24:0 CER RM4 BENCH ? PIV DITTERT 1959:158 PAINT STONES LP2:24:D KlVAB FLOOR ? PIV DITTERT 1959:157 PAINT STONES LP 2:24:0 KlVAB FLOOR ? PIV DITTERT 1959:157 PAINT STONES LP2:24:D KlVAB FLOOR ? PIV DITTERT 1959:157 PAINT STONES LP2:24:D KlVAB FLOOR ? PIV DITTERT 1959:157 PAINT STONES LP2:24:D KlVAB FLOOR ? PIV DITTERT 1959:157 PAINT STONES LP2:24:D KlVAB FLOOR ? PIV DITTERT 1959:157 PAINT STONES LP 2:24:0 KlVAB FLOOR ? PIV DITTERT 1959:157 N PAINT STONES LP 2:24:0 KlVAB FLOOR ? PIV DITTERT 1959:157 N Va APPENDIX D POWER OBJECTS

PAINT STONES LP2:24:D K1VAB FLOOR ? PIV DITIERT 1959:157 PAINT STONES LP2:24:D K1VAB FLOOR ? PIV DITIERT 1959:157 PAINT STONES LP2:24:D K1VAB FLOOR ? PIV DITIERT 1959:157 PAINT STONES LP2:24:D K1VAB FLOOR ? PIV DITIERT 1959:157 PAINT STONES LP2:24:D K1VAB FLOOR ? PIV DITIERT 1959:157 PAINT STONES LP2:24:D K1VAB FLOOR ? PIV DITIERT 1959:157 PAINT STONES LP 2:24:0 K1VAB FLOOR ? PIV DITIERT 1959:157 PAINT STONES LP2:24:D K1VAB FLOOR ? PIV DITIERT 1959:157 PAINT STONES LP2:24:D K1VAB FLOOR ? PIV DITIERT 1959:157 PAINT STONES LP2:24:D K1VAB FLOOR ? PIV DITIERT 1959:157 PAINT STONES LP2:24:D K1VAB FLOOR ? PIV DITIERT 1959:157 PAINT STONES LP2:24:D K1VAB FLOOR ? PIV DITIERT 1959:157 PAINT STONES LP2:24:D K1VAB FLOOR ? PIV D1TIERT 1959:157 PAINT STONES LP2:24:D KlVAB FLOOR ? PIV DITIERT 1959:157 PAINT STONES LP2:24:D K1VAB FLOOR ? PIV DITIERT 1959:157 PAINT STONES LP2:24:D K1VAB FLOOR ? PIV DITIERT 1959:157 PAINT STONES LP2:24:D K1VAB FLOOR ? PIV DITIERT 1959:157 PAINT STONES LP2:24:D K1VAB FLOOR ? PIV DITIERT 1959:157 PAINT STONES LP2:24:D K1VAB FLOOR ? PIV DITIERT 1959:157 PAINT STONES LP2:24:D K1VAB FLOOR ? PIV DITIERT 1959:157 PAINT STONES LP2:24:D K1VAB FLOOR ? PIV DITIERT 1959:157 PAINT STONES LP2:24:D K1VAB FLOOR ? PIV DITIERT 1959:157 PAINT STONES LP 2:24:0 K1VAB FLOOR ? PIV DITIERT 1959:157 PAINT STONES LP2:24:D K1VAB FLOOR ? PIV DITIERT 1959:157 PAINT STONES LP2:24:D K1VAB FLOOR ? PIV DITIERT 1959:157 PAINT STONES LP2:24:D K1VAB FLOOR ? PIV DITIERT 1959:157 PAINT STONES LP2:24:D K1VAB FLOOR ? PIV DITIERT 1959:157 PAINT STONES LP2:24:D K1VAB FLOOR ? PIV DITIERT 1959:157 PAINT STONES LP 2:24:0 KIVAB FLOOR ? PIV DITIERT 1959:157 PAINT STONES LP 2:24:0 K1VAB FLOOR ? PIV DITIERT 1959:157 PAINT STONES LP2:24:D K1VAB FLOOR ? PIV DITIERT 1959:157 CORN GODDESS STONE LP 2:24:0 K1VAB BENCH ? PIV DITIERT 1959:157 STONE CYLINDER LP2:24:D STR5 ? BU PIV DITIERT 1959:156,318 STONE CYLINDER LP2:24:D TRENCH B PIV DITIERT 1959:318 PAINT STONE LV 4:14-A KIVA A FLOOR ? PIV DITIERT 1959:284 PAINT STONE LV 4:14-A KIVA A FLOOR ? PIV DITIERT 1959:284 N PAINT STONE LV4:14-A FLOOR PIV DITIERT 1959:284 N KIVA A ? 0\ APPENDIX D POWER OBJECTS

PAINT STONE LV 4:14-A KIVA A FLOOR ? PIV DITIERT 1959:284 PAINT STONE LV 4:14-A KIVA A FLOOR ? PIV DITIERT 1959:284 PAINT STONE LV4:14-A KIVA A FLOOR ? PIV DITIERT 1959:284 PAINT STONE LV 4:14-A KIVA A FLOOR ? PIV DlTIERT 1959:284 PAINT STONE LV 4:14-A KIVA A FLOOR ? PIV DlTIERT 1959:284 CONCRETION PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL1131 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:106 ROUND PEBBLE PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL1131 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:106 ROUND PEBBLE PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL1131 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:106 ROUND PEBBLE PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL1131 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:106 ROUND PEBBLE PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL1131 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:106 ROUND PEBBLE PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL1131 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:106 ROUND PEBBLE PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL1131 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:106 ROUND PEBBLE PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL1131 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:106 ROUND PEBBLE PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL1131 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:106 ROUND PEBBLE PECOS PUEBLO BURlAL1131 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:106 ROUND PEBBLE PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL1131 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:106 ROUND PEBBLE PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL 1131 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:106 ROUND PEBBLE PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL1131 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:106 ROUND PEBBLE PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL1131 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:106 ROUND PEBBLE PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL1131 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:106 ROUND PEBBLE PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL1131 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:106 ROUND PEBBLE PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL1131 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:106 ROUND PEBBLE PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL1131 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:106 ROUND PEBBLE PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL1131 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:106 CONCRETION PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL 1568 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:108 CONCRETION PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL1568 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:108 QUARTZ CRYSTAL PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL1568 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:108 QUARTZ CRYSTAL PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL1568 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:108 LIMESTONE EGG PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL1568 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:108 PEBBLE PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL1568 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:108 PEBBLE PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL1568 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:108 HEMATITE PEBBLE PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL1721 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:108 HEMATITE PEBBLE PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL1721 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:108 HEMATITE PEBBLE PECOS PUEBLO BURlAL1721 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:108 HEMATITE PEBBLE PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL1721 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:108 HEMATITE PEBBLE PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL1721 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:108 IV HEMATITE PEBBLE PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL1721 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:108 IV -...J APPENDIX D POWER OBJECTS

HEMATITE PEBBLE PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL 1721 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:108 HEMATITE PEBBLE PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL 1721 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:108 HEMATITE PEBBLE PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL 1721 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:108 HEMATITE PEBBLE PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL 1721 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:108 HEMATITE PEBBLE PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL 1721 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:108 HEMATITE PEBBLE PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL 1721 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:108 HEMATITE PEBBLE PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL 1721 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:108 HEMATITE PEBBLE PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL 1721 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:108 HEMATITE PEBBLE PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL 1721 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:108 HEMATITE PEBBLE PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL 1721 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:108 HEMATITE PEBBLE PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL 1n1 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:108 BROWN PEEBLE PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL 1721 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:108 WATERWORN PEBBLE PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL 1721 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:108 BROWN PEEBLE PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL 1721 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:109 CONCRETION PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL 1n5 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:108 QUARTZ CRYSTAL PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL 1n5 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:108 HEMATITE CYLINDER PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL 1n5 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:108 GREEN CYLINDER PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL 1n5 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:108 SPHERICAL PEBBLE PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL 1n5 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:108 SPHERICAL PEBBLE PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL 1n5 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:108 SPHERICAL PEBBLE PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL 1n5 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:108 GYPSUM CRYSTAL PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL 655 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:106 GYPSUM CRYSTAL PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL 655 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:106 CRYTALINE QUARTZ PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL 655 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:106 CRYTALINE QUARTZ PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL 655 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:106 CRYTALINE QUARTZ PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL 655 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:106 CONCRETION PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL 698 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:106 CONCRETION PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL 698 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:106 HEMATITE STICK PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL 698 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:106 PEBBLE OF WHITE QUART PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL 991 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:106 QUADREPED FETISH PECOS PUEBLO MIDDEN ? UNKNOWN PIV KIDDER 1932:91 GREEN QUARTZ CRYSTAL PECOS PUEBLO RM E-II ? CACHE PIV KIDDER 1932:108 WHITE PEEBLE PECOS PUEBLO RM E-II ? CACHE PIV KIDDER 1932:108 CUP STONE WIDE REED RUIN STR9 FILL FILL PIV MOUNT 1993:94 STONE EFFIGY AWATOVI CHURCH BURIAL 51 GGOOD PV WOODBURY 1954:158 STONE EFFIGY AWATOVI STR 430 FILL UNKNOWN PV WOODBURY 1954:158 N CONCRETION AWATOVI CHURCH 2 BURIAL 75 GGOOD PV WOODBURY 1954:188 N 00 APPENDIX D POWER OBJECTS

CONCRETION AWATOVI STR 438 Fill UNKNOWN PV WOODBURY 1954:FIG 40 CONCRETION AWATOVI STR456 Fill UNKNOWN PV WOODBURY 1954:FIG 40 CONCRETION AWATOVI STR632 Fill UNKNOWN PV WOODBURY 1954:FIG 40 CONCRETION AWATOVI STR726 ? UNKNOWN PV WOODBURY 1954:FIG 40 CONCRETION AWATOVI STR768 ? UNKNOWN PV WOODBURY 1954:FIG 40 CONCRETION AWATOVI UNIT500G Fill UNKNOWN PV WOODBURY 1954:FIG 40 CONCRETION AWATOVI TEST 28 STR 1 Fill UNKNOWN PV WOODBURY 1954:FIG 40 STONE EFFIGY AWATOVI TEST 40 STR2 Fill UNKNOWN PV WOODBURY 1954:159 WATER WORN STONE PECOS PUEBLO GREAT KIVA' PIT IN Fill UNBU PV KIDDER 1932:105 ANTHROPO IDOL STONE PECOS PUEBLO GREAT KIVA' CIST Fill UNBU PV KIDDER 1932:86 ANTHROPO IDOL STONE PECOS PUEBLO GREAT KIVA' CIST Fill UNBU PV KIDDER 1932:86 WATER WORN STONE PECOS PUEBLO GREAT KIVA' CIST Fill UNBU PV KIDDER 1932:86 WATER WORN STONE PECOS PUEBLO GREAT KIVA 'CIST Fill UNBU PV KIDDER 1932:86 WATER WORN STONE PECOS PUEBLO GREAT KIVA 'CIST Fill UNBU PV KIDDER 1932:86 WATER WORN STONE PECOS PUEBLO GREAT KIVA' CIST Fill UNBU PV KIDDER 1932:86 WATER WORN STONE PECOS PUEBLO GREAT KIVA' CIST Fill UNBU PV KIDDER 1932:86 WATER WORN STONE PECOS PUEBLO GREAT KIVA' CIST Fill UNBU PV KIDDER 1932:86 WATER WORN STONE PECOS PUEBLO GREAT KIVA' CIST Fill UNBU PV KIDDER 1932:86 BAlDELIKE STONE PECOS PUEBLO GREAT KIVA' CIST Fill UNBU PV KIDDER 1932:86 ZOOMORPH STONE PECOS PUEBLO GUARDHOUS? UNBU PV KIDDER 1932:91 BLACK WATER WORN STC PECOS PUEBLO KIVA 16 SIPAPU UNBU PV KIDDER 1958:203 WHITE PEEBlE PECOS PUEBLO KIVA 16 SIPAPU UNBU PV KIDDER 1958:203 WHITE PEEBlE PECOS PUEBLO KIVA 16 SIPAPU UNBU PV KIDDER 1958:203 WHITE PEEBlE PECOS PUEBLO KIVA 16 SIPAPU UNBU PV KIDDER 1958:203 RED HAMMERSTONE PECOS PUEBLO KIVA V ? BURIED PV KIDDER 1932:61 568 ceramic effigies PECOS PUEBLO MIDDEN MIDDEN PV KIDDER 1932:114,133 HEMATITE NODULE PECOS PUEBLO STR N PLAz.e BIN COll PV KIDDER 1932:88 ANTHROPO IDOL STONE PECOS PUEBLO STR N PLAz.e BIN COll PV KIDDER 1932:88 WATER WORN STONE PECOS PUEBLO STR N PLAz.e BIN COll PV KIDDER 1932:88 WATER WORN STONE PECOS PUEBLO STR N PLAz.e BIN COll PV KIDDER 1932:88 WATER WORN STONE PECOS PUEBLO STR N PLAz.e BIN COll PV KIDDER 1932:88 WATER WORN STONE PECOS PUEBLO STR N PLAz.e BIN COll PV KIDDER 1932:88 WATER WORN STONE PECOS PUEBLO STR N PLAz.e BIN COll PV KIDDER 1932:88 WATER WORN STONE PECOS PUEBLO STR NPLAz.e BIN COll PV KIDDER 1932:88 WATER WORN STONE PECOS PUEBLO STR N PLAz.e BIN COll PV KIDDER 1932:88 WATER WORN STONE PECOS PUEBLO STR N PLAz.e BIN COll PV KIDDER 1932:88 N WATER WORN STONE PECOS PUEBLO STR N PLAz.e BIN COll PV KIDDER 1932:88 N \0 APPENDIX D POWER OBJECTS

WATER WORN STONE PECOS PUEBLO STR N Pl..AZJ! BIN COll PV KIDDER 1932:88 WATER WORN STONE PECOS PUEBLO STR N Pl..AZJ! BIN COll PV KIDDER 1932:88 WATER WORN STONE PECOS PUEBLO STR N Pl..AZJ! BIN COll PV KIDDER 1932:88 WATER WORN STONE PECOS PUEBLO STR N Pl..AZJ! BIN COll PV KIDDER 1932:88 WATER WORN STONE PECOS PUEBLO STR N Pl..AZJ! BIN COll PV KIDDER 1932:88 WATER WORN STONE PECOS PUEBLO STR N Pl..AZJ! BIN COll PV KIDDER 1932:88 WATER WORN STONE PECOS PUEBLO STR N Pl..AZJ! BIN COll PV KIDDER 1932:88 WATER WORN STONE PECOS PUEBLO STR N Pl..AZJ! BIN COll PV KIDDER 1932:88 WATER WORN STONE PECOS PUEBLO STR N Pl..AZJ! BIN COll PV KIDDER 1932:88 WATER WORN STONE PECOS PUEBLO STR N Pl..AZJ! BIN COll PV KIDDER 1932:88 WATER WORN STONE PECOS PUEBLO STR N Pl..AZJ! BIN COll PV KIDDER 1932:88 WATER WORN STONE PECOS PUEBLO STR N Pl..AZJ! BIN COll PV KIDDER 1932:88 WATER WORN STONE PECOS PUEBLO STR N Pl..AZJ! BIN COll PV KIDDER 1932:88 WATER WORN STONE PECOS PUEBLO STR N Pl..AZJ! BIN COll PV KIDDER 1932:88

N Wo APPENDIX E POTS

VESS# SITE STRUCT FEAT C-TRANS TIME CITATION 1 It\Z. 0:7:236 PITSTR7 ? ? BMII WHITECOTTON AND LEBO 1980:403 1 AZ:D:7:3003 PITSTR2 ? BU BMII SMILEY ET AL. 1982:276 4 SIVUOVI PITSTR 1 CACHE BU BMII BUTON AND MCCONNELL 1991:41 2 BROKEN FLUTE CAVE PITSTR 15 FLOOR BU BMIII MORRIS 1980:40 17 BROKEN FLUTE CAVE PITSTR6 FILL BU BMIII MORRIS 1980:27 5 BROKEN FLUTE CAVE PITSTR7 FLOOR BU BMIII MORRIS 1980:30 6 BROKEN FLUTE CAVE PITSTR8 FLOOR BU BMIII MORRIS 1980:32 30 BROKEN FLUTE CAVE PITSTR9 FLOOR BU BMIII MORRIS 1980;35 1 CAVE 1 PITSTR2 FILL BU BMIII MORRIS 1980:42 18 CAVE 2 PITSTR 1 FILL BU BMIII MORRIS 1980:42 11 CAVE 2 PITSTR2 FLOOR BU BMIII MORRIS 1980:43 3 CAVE 2 PITSTR4 FILL BU BMIII MORRIS 1980:45 3 CAVEll CACHE ? BURIED BMIII KIDDER AND GUERNSEY 1919:24 1 CERRO CLORADO PITSTR3 BIN BU BMIII BULLARD1962:14 1 CERRO COLORADO PITSTR 205 ANTE BU BMIII BULLARD 1962:31 15 CERRO COLORADO PITSTR 211 HEATING FBU BMIII BULLARD 1962:35 16 CERRO COLORADO PITSTR402 FLOOR BU BMIII BULLARD 1962:39 3 CHAPIN MESA PITSTR 1 FLOOR BU BMIII SMILEY 1949:169 1 DEAD HORSE SITE PITSTR 1 FLOOR BU BMIII ADAMS 1973:40 5 FLATTOP SITE PITSTR 0 FLOOR BU BMIII WENDORF 1953 5 FLATTOP SITE PITSTR H FLOOR BU BMIII WENDORF 1953 20 FLAT TOP SITE PITSTR P FLOOR BU BMIII WENDORF 1953 4 IGN7:23 ? ? ? BMIII CARLSON 1963:8-9 7 IGN7:23 MIDDEN ? ? BMIII CARLSON 1963:8-9 30 IGN7:23 PITSTR FL/FILL BU BMIII CARLSON 1963:9 6 IGN7:23 STR ? ? BMIII CARLSON 1963:8-9 9 IGN7:31 PITSTR ? BU BMIII CARLSON 1963:20 4 IGN7:31 PITSTR FLOOR ? BMIII CARLSON 1963:24 8 MESAVERDE PITSTR B FLOOR BU BMIII LANCASTER AND WATSON 1943:196 6 MESAVERDE PITSTRC FLOOR BU BMIII LANCASTER AND WATSON 1943:196 5 MT-1 PITSTR 1 FLOOR BU BMIII WHEAT 1955:19 1 MT-1 STR2 FILL BU BMIII WHEAT 1955:22 9 NA3996 PITSTR 3996A FLOOR BU BMIII COLTON 1946:244 2 POCKET CAVE PITSTR4 FILL UNBU BMIII MORRIS 1980:48 2 SITE 1644 PITSTRA FILL BU BMIII HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:7 8 SITE 1644 PITSTRA FLOOR BU BMIII HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:7 3 SITE 1644 PITSTR B FLOOR BU BMIII HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:11 N 15 SITE 1676 PITSTR G FLOOR BU BMIII HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:15 -w APPENDIX E POTS

4 STEP HOUSE PITSTRA BENCH BU BMIII NUSBAUM 1981:18 1 STEP HOUSE SHRINE FLOOR UNBU BMIII NUSBAUM 1981:22 1 A VILLAGE GROUP 1 PITSTR B ? ? PI ROBERTS 1930:172-174 2 A VILLAGE GROUP 2 PITSTRG ? ? PI ROBERTS 1930:172-174 4 A VILLAGE GROUP 2 PITSTR I ? ? PI ROBERTS 1930:172-174 7 A VILLAGE GROUP 2 PITSTRJ ? ? PI ROBERTS 1930:172-174 3 A VILLAGE GROUP 4 PITSTRA ? ? PI ROBERTS 1930:172-174 1 A VILLAGE GROUP 4 PITSTR B ? ? PI ROBERTS 1930:172-174 9 A VILLAGE GROUP 5 PITSTR E ? ? PI ROBERTS 1930:172-174 9 ALKALI RIDGE 1 UNIT 1 KIVA FLOOR BU PI BREW 1946:112 2 ALKALI RIDGE 13 PITSTRA FILL BU PI BREW 1946:FIGS 99,100 4 ALKALI RIDGE 13 PITSTR B FLOOR BU PI BREW 1946:162 1 ALKALI RIDGE 13 PITSTR G ? BU PI BREW 1946:174 3 AZ 0:11:2027 FEAT 10 FLOOR ? PI OLSZEWSKI ET AL. 1984:678 3 AZ 0:11:2027 FEAT 15 FLOOR ? PI OLSZEWSKI ET AL.1984:678 3 AZ 0:11:2027 FEAT 17 FLOOR ? PI OLSZEWSKI ET AL. 1984:678 9 AZ 0:11 :2027 PITSTR2 FLOOR BU PI OLSZEWSKI ET AL. 1984:213 1 AZ 0:11 :2027 STR6 FLOOR BU PI OLSZEWSKI ET AL. 1984:211 2 AZ 0:11:2062A PITSTR 1 FILL ? PI SINK ET AL. 1984:258 1 AZ 0:11 :2062B MIDDEN ? ? PI SINK ET AL. 1984:681 1 AZ 0:11 :2062B PITSTR4 FLOOR BU PI SINK ET AL. 1984:271 1 AZ 0:7:2001 MIDDEN ? ? PI PLANTE ET AL. 1982:264 1 AZ 0:7:2001 PITSTR3 FILL BU PI PLANTE ET AL. 1982:264 1 AZ 0:7:2013 JACALSTR7 ? BU PI SINK ET AL. 1982:273 1 AZ 0:7:2013 MIDDEN ? ? PI SINK ET AL. 1982:269 1 AZ 0:7:2013 PITSTR 1 ? BU PI SINK ET AL. 1982:271 2 AZO:7:2023 MIDDEN ? ? PI OLSZEWSKI 1984:678 1 AZO:7:2023 PITSTR 1 ? BU PI OLSZEWSKI 1984:678 1 AZ 0:7:2103 EXTRA FEAT 10 ? PI OLSZEWSKI ET AL.1984:147 2 AZO:7:262 PITSTR28 ? UNBU PI SINK ET AL. 1982:260 2 B VILLAGE GROUP 1 PITSTRA ? ? PI ROBERTS 1930:172-174 1 B VILLAGE GROUP 1 PITSTR B ? ? PI ROBERTS 1930:172-174 1 B VILLAGE GROUP 1 PITSTR E ? ? PI ROBERTS 1930:172-174 1 OUCKFOOT PITSTR2 FLOOR BURIED PI LIGHTFOOT ET AL. 1993:72 GOVERNAOOR 1 PITSTRA FLOOR BU PI HALL 1944:8 1 GOVERNAOOR 1 STR2 FLOOR BU PI HALL 1944:16 11 GRASS MESA PITSTR 10 FLOOR BU PI LIGHTFOOT ET AL. 1988:564 4 GRASS MESA PITSTR 108 FLOOR BU PI LIGHTFOOT ET AL. 1988:703 N w 1 GRASS MESA PITSTR 11 FLOOR BU PI LIGHTFOOT ET AL. 1988:584 N APPENDIX E POTS

2 GRASS MESA PITSTR 161 FLOOR BU PI MORRIS 1988B:918 2 GRASS MESA PITSTR32 FLOOR BU PI VARIEN 1988:243 1 GRASS MESA PITSTR43 FLOOR BU PI MORRIS 1988A:838 12 GRASS MESA PITSTR44 ROOFALL BU PI MORRIS 1988B:909 1 GRASS MESA PITSTR5 FLOOR BU PI BRETERNITZAND MORRIS 1988:399 2 GRASS MESA PITSTR51 FEAT 1067 BU PI VARIEN 1988:156 1 GRASS MESA PITSTR59 FLOOR BU PI VARIEN 1988:203 1 GRASS MESA PITSTR62 FLOOR BU PI LIGHTFOOT ET AL. 1988:670 9 GRASS MESA PITSTR70 PITS BU PI VARIEN 1988:250-267 1 GRASS MESA PITSTR74 FLOOR BU PI BRETERNITZ AND MORRIS 1988:412 1 GRASS MESA PITSTR75 FLOOR BU PI BRETERNITZAND MORRIS 1988:422 5 GRASS MESA PITSTR8 FLOOR BU PI BRETERNITZ AND MORRIS 1988:430 1 GRASS MESA PITSTR87 FLOOR BU PI LIGHTFOOT ET AL. 1988:675 2 GRASS MESA PITSTR89 FLOOR BU PI LIGHTFOOT ET AL. 1988:666 1 GRASS MESA PITSTR94 FLOOR BU PI LIGHTFOOT ET AL. 1988:685 1 GRASS MESA PITSTR98 FLOOR BU PI LIGHTFOOT ET AL. 1988:690 4 GRASS MESA PITSTR99 FLOOR BU PI LIGHTFOOT ET AL. 1988:691 1 GRASS MESA STR 1 FILL ? PI BRETERNITZAND MORRIS 1988:322-325 1 GRASS MESA STR 115 FLOOR BU PI VARIEN 1988:141 2 GRASS MESA STR 115 ROOFILL BU PI VARIEN 1988:141 1 GRASS MESA STR 13 ROOFALL BU PI LIGHTFOOT ET AL. 1988:721 1 GRASS MESA STR 147 FLOOR ? PI LIGHTFOOT ET AL. 1988:735 1 GRASS MESA STR 157 FLOOR ? PI LIGHTFOOT ET AL.1988:736 1 GRASS MESA STR19 FLOOR BU PI LIGHTFOOT ET AL. 1988:727 1 GRASS MESA STR19 FILL BU PI LIGHTFOOT ET AL. 1988:727 4 GRASS MESA STR52 FLOOR BU PI LIGHTFOOT ET AL. 1988:623 1 GRASS MESA STR63 FLOOR BU PI MORRIS 1988A:n2 2 GRASS MESA STR63 ROOFALL BU PI MORRIS 1988A:n2 3 GRASS MESA STR79 FLOOR BU PI MORRIS 1988B:900-901 1 GRASS MESA STR83 ROOFALL BU PI MORRIS 1988A:784 1 GRASS MESA STR95 FEAT 1726 UNBU PI VARIEN 1988:133 3 IGN7:30 STR3 FLOOR UNBU PI CARLSON 1963:16 2 IGNACIO 12:1 PITSTR VENT BU PI LEE 1938:23 3 LA PLATA 18 PITSTR 1 FLOOR BU PI MORRIS 1939:60 6 LA PLATA 18 PITSTR2 FLOOR BU PI MORRIS 1939:62 2 LA PLATA 18 STR4 FLOOR BU PI MORRIS 1939:59 1 LA PLATA 18 STR5 FLOOR BU PI MORRIS 1939:59 1 LA PLATA 18 BUILDING II STR 11 FLOOR BU PI MORRIS 1939:59 IV w 1 LA PLATA 19 PITSTR FLOOR BU PI MORRIS 1939:64 w APPENDIX E POTS

1 LA PLATA 23 PITSTR4 FLOOR UNBU PI MORRIS 1939:69 22 LA PLATA 23 PITSTR6 FLOOR BU PI MORRIS 1939:71 2 LA PLATA 23 PITSTR7 FLOOR BU PI MORRIS 1939:74 2 LA PLATA 23 PITSTR7 FILL BU PI MORRIS 1939:74 6 LA PLATA 23 STR14 FLOOR BU PI MORRIS 1939:68 14 NA 1959 PITSTR FLOOR BU PI COLTON 1946:166 1 RB 1006 PITSTR 1 HEARTH BU PI BEALS ET AL. 1945:29 1 SITE 1644 STRJACAL ROOFALL BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:12 13 SITE 1644 STRJACAL FLOOR BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:12 2 SITE 1676 HOUSE 1 GR K1VAB FILL BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:62 1 SITE 1676 HOUSE 1 PITSTR D FLOOR BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:59 4 SITE 1676 HOUSE 1 STR 10 FILL ? PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:56 5 SITE 1676 HOUSE 1 STR10 FLOOR ? PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:56 1 SITE 1676 HOUSE 1 STR 12 FLOOR ? PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:56 2 SITE 1676 HOUSE 1 STR 13 ? BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:57 1 SITE 1676 HOUSE 1 STR7 FLOOR BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:54 1 SITE 1676 HOUSE 1 STR9 FILL BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:54 2 SITE 1676 HOUSE 1 STR9 BIN FEAT BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:54 1 SITE 1676 HOUSE 2 STR3 FLOOR BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:25 3 SITE 1676 HOUSE 3 STR 1 FLOOR BU PI HAYES AND lANCASTER 1975:19 1 SITE 1676 HOUSE 3 STR2 FLOOR UNBU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:18 5 SITE 1676 HOUSE 3 STR3 FLOOR BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:18 1 SITE 1676 HOUSE 4 STR 10 FLOOR BU PI HAYES ET AL. 1975:41 1 SITE 1676 HOUSE 4 STR 10 SUBFL BU PI HAYES ET AL. 1975:41 2 SITE 1676 HOUSE 4 STR 10 ROOFFALLBU PI HAYES ET AL. 1975:41 1 SITE 1676 HOUSE 4 STR4 ROOFALL BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:37 3 SITE 1676 HOUSE 4 STR4 FLOOR BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:37 14 SITE 1676 HOUSE 4 STR9 FLOOR BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER1975:38-39 1 SITE 1676 HOUSE 5 STR 1 ROOFALL BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:48 13 SITE 1676 HOUSE 5 STR1 FLOOR BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:48 1 SITE 1676 HOUSE 5 STR3 FILL UNBU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:47 1 SITE 1676 HOUSE 5 STR4 FLOOR BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:50 3 SITE 1676 HOUSE 5 STR4 FLOOR BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:50 2 SITE 1676 HOUSE 5 STR5 FLOOR BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:46 2 SITE 1676 HOUSE 5 STR5 FLOOR BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:47 1 SITE 1676 HOUSE 5 STR6 FLOOR BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:51 1 SITE 1676 HOUSE 6 STR7 FLOOR BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:28 1 SITE 1676 HOUSE 7 STR7 FLOOR BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:32 N 10 SITE 1676 HOUSE 7 STR7 FILL BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:32 ...w APPENDIX E POTS

1 WHITE MOUND VILLAGE PITSTR3 FLOOR BU PI GLADWIN 1945:15 1 WHITE WATER GROUP 2 EXTRA HEARTH ? PI ROBERTS 1949:145-152 1 WHITE WATER GROUP 2 MIDDEN 8 ? ? PI ROBERTS 1949:145-152 2 WHITE WATER GROUP 2 PITSTR 15 FILL BU PI ROBERTS 1939:137 1 WHITE WATER GROUP 2 PITSTR 15 FLOOR BU PI ROBERTS 1949:145-152 3 WHITE WATER GROUP 2 REFUSE A ? ? PI ROBERTS 1949:145-152 2 WHITE WATER GROUP 2 REFUSE B-33 ? ? PI ROBERTS 1949:145-152 1 WHITE WATER GROUP 2 REFUSEG ? ? PI ROBERTS 1949:145-152 3 WHITEWATER GROUP 1 PITSTR 10 VENT UNBU PI ROBERTS 1940:145-152 1 WHITEWATER GROUP 1 PITSTR8 ? UNBU PI ROBERTS 1940:145-152 4 ALKALI RIDGE 11 KIVA FLOOR BU PII BREW 1946:144 2 ALKALI RIDGE 12 KIVA 1 FLOOR ? PII BREW 1946:150 1 AZ D:11:2OO1 FEAT 31 ? ? PII DEMARCAY ET AL. 1982:282 5 AZ D:11 :2001 KIVA 2 ? BU PII DEMARCAY ET AL. 1982:283 1 AZ D:11 :2051 EXTRA FEAT 1 ? PII STONE ET AL.1984:245 1 AZ D:11 :2051 EXTRA FEAT 2 ? PII STONE ET AL. 1984:245 1 AZ D:11 :2051 MIDDEN FEAT 10 ? PII STONE ET AL.1984:246 1 AZ D:11 :2051 MIDDEN FEAT 14 ? PII STONE ET AL. 1984:246 6 AZ D:11 :2051 MIDDEN ? ? PII STONE ET AL. 1984:246 1 AZ D:11 :2051 PITSTR 1 FEAT 24 BU PII STONE ET AL. 1984: 1 AZ D:11 :2051 PITSTR2 ? ? PII STONE ET AL. 1984:680 1 AZ D:11 :2051 PITSTR3 FILL UNBU PII STONE ET AL. 1984:244 2 AZ D:11 :2051 PITSTR7 FILL BU PII STONE ET AL. 1984:245 1 AZ D:11 :2051 PITSTR9 ? ? PII STONE ET AL. 1984:680 40 AZ D:11:2108 KIVA 1 FLOOR BU PII SINK ET AL. 1984:289 7 AZ D:11:2108 MIDDEN ? ? PII SINK ET AL. 1984:682 1 AZ D:11 :2108 PITSTR2 ? ? PII SINK ET AL. 1984:682 2 AZD:11:2108 PITSTR3 ? BU PII SINK ET AL. 1984:682 1 AZD:11:2108 STR7 ? UNBU PII SINK ET AL. 1984:682 2 AZD:11:275 PITSTR6 FLOOR ? PII LAYHE 1978:90 1 AZD:11:426 KIVA 1 ? BU PII RAVESLOOT AND FRENCH 1980:424 1 AZD:7:109 STR4 ? ? PII DEMARCAY ET AL.1982:57 3 AZD:7:109 STRJACAL8 FLOOR BU PII DEMARCAY ET AL.1982:57 1 AZD:7:2103 MIDDEN ? ? PII OLSZEWSKI ET AL. 1984:6n 1 AZD:7:2103 PITSTR8 SUBFL BU PII OLSZEWSKI ET AL. 1984:146 1 AZD:7:2103 PITSTR8 VENT BU PII OLSZEWSKI ET AL.1984:147 1 AZD:7:214 STRJACAL3 FLOOR UNBU PII FERNSTROM AND RILEY 1980:66 2 AZD:7:216 KlVASTR 1 ? BU PII ANDREWS 1980:380 Nw 3 AZD:7:216 MIDDEN ? ? PII ANDREWS 1980:373-379 1.11 APPENDIX E POTS

1 AZD:7:216 MIDDEN ? ? PI! ANDREWS 1980:378 3 AZD:7:220 KIVA 1 FLOOR BU PI! BLOMBERG AND SINK 1980:393-394 2 AZD:7:220 STR2 FLOOR BU PI! BLOMBERG AND SINK 1980:394 1 AZD:7:220 STR3 FLOOR BU PI! BLOMBERG AND SINK 1980:109 3 AZD:7:220 STR3 FLOOR BU PI! BLOMBERG AND SINK 1980:394-395 1 AZD:7:220 STR4 FEAT 20 ? PI! BLOMBERG AND SINK 1980:395 1 AZD:7:220 STRJACAL7 ? UNBU PI! BLOMBERG ANDSINK 1980:395 3 AZD:7:220 STRJACAL8 ? BU PI! BLOMBERG AND SINK 1980:395-396 2 AZD:7:222 STRJACAL2 FEAT 2 ? PI! RAVESLOOT AND PLANTE 1980:125 1 AZD:7:262 CIST 2 ? ? PI! SINK ET AL.1982:252 1 AZD:7:262 CIST 19 ? ? PI! SINK ET AL. 1982:258 1 AZD:7:262 KIVA 1 FLOOR UNBU PI! SINK ET AL.1982:252 6 AZD:7:262 KIVA 18 ? UNBU PI! SINKET AL 1982:APPENDIX4 1 AZD:7:262 MIDDEN ? ? PI! SINK ET AL. 1982: 1 AZD:7:262 STRJACAL23 ? BU PI! SINK ET AL. 1982:259 1 AZD:7:3021 PITSTR3 FLOOR UNBU PI! SMILEY ET AL. 1982:162 1 AZD:7:719 KIVA 1 ? BU PI! FERNSTROM 1980:409 2 AZD:7:719 PITSTR2 ? BU PI! FERNSTROM 1980:411 1 AZD:7:719 STR5 FEAT 17 BU PI! FERNSTROM 1980:411 1 AZD:7:719 STR6 ? ? PI! FERNSTROM 1980:412 3 AZD:7:719 STR8 FLOOR ? PI! FERNSTROM 1980:197 2 DEAD HORSE SITE PITSTR2 FLOOR UNBU PI! ADAMS 1973:66 5 DEAD HORSE SITE PITSTR4 PIT1 UNBU PI! ADAMS 1973:70 1 LA 2675 KIVA 2 FILL UNBU PI! OLSON AND WASLEY 1956:356 3 LA 2675 KIVA 2 VENT UNBU PI! OLSON AND WASLEY 1956:356 5 NA618 PITSTRW FLOOR UNBU PI! SMITH 1952:18 21 NA618 PITSTRX FLOOR BU PI! SMITH 1952:24 1 NA681 KIVA SUBFL UNBU PI! SMITH 1952:47-49 1 NA681 STR2 FLOOR UNBU PI! SMITH 1952:44-45 3 NA682 KIVA FLOOR UNBU PI! SMITH 1952:61 2 RB551 STR4 FLOOR ? PI! BEALS ET AL. 1945:47-48 1 SITE 875 MESA VERDE STR3 FLOOR ? PI! LISTER 1965:35 18 SITE 875 MESA VERDE STRI FILL ? PI! LISTER 1965:16-19 1 BADGER HOUSE 1453 MIDDEN 0 ? ? PI!-PIII HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:71 2 BADGER HOUSE 1453 MIDDEN 0+ ? ? PI!-PIII HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:69 3 AZ 0:10:16 DOG HOUSE PITSTR 16 FLOOR BU Pili AMBLER 1994:464-465 1 CARTER RANCH KIVA I FLOOR BU Pili RINALDO 1964:104 2 LONG HOUSE KlVAH FLOOR BU Pili CATTANACH 1980:232-234 t-.J w 1 LONG HOUSE KIVA I BENCH UNBU Pili CATTANACH 1980:232-234 C\ APPENDIX E POTS

LONG HOUSE KIVA I VENT UNBU Pili CATTANACH 1980:81 LONG HOUSE KlVAJ FILL UNBU Pili CATTANACH 1980:232-234 1 LONG HOUSE KlVAJ SUBFL UNBU Pili CATTANACH 1980:85 1 LONG HOUSE KIVA 0 FILL BU Pili CATTANACH 1980:232-234 1 LONG HOUSE KlVAP RECESS UNBU Pili CATTANACH 1980:232-234 3 LONG HOUSE KlVAQ FILL UNBU Pili CATTANACH 1980:232-234 1 LONG HOUSE KlVAT FILL UNBU Pili CATTANACH 1980:232-234 2 LONG HOUSE KlVAU FILL BU Pili CATTANACH 1980:232-234 2 LONG HOUSE STR 12 FILL UNBU Pili CATTANACH 1980:232-234 1 LONG HOUSE STR221 SUBFL UNBU Pili CATTANACH 1980:232-234 1 LONG HOUSE STR47 FILL UNBU Pili CATTANACH 1980:232-234 1 LONG HOUSE STR54 FEAT 8 UNBU Pili CATTANACH 1980:232-234 1 LONG HOUSE STR55 FILL UNBU Pili CATTANACH 1980:232-234 1 LONG HOUSE STR7 FILL UNBU Pili CATTANACH 1980:232-234 1 LONG HOUSE STR75 SUBFL UNBU Pili CATTANACH 1980:232-234 1 LONG HOUSE TOWER 60 FILL UNBU Pili CATTANACH 1980:232-234 1 PIPE SHRINE HOUSE KIVA FLOOR BU Pili FEWKES 1923:95 4 PIPE SHRINE HOUSE STR FLOOR ? Pili FEWKES 1923:98 2 SITE 499 MESA VERDE KIVA B FLOOR UNBU Pili LISTER 1964:52 1 SITE 499 MESA VERDE STR 1 FLOOR ? Pili LISTER 1964:10 1 SITE 499 MESA VERDE STR10 SUBFL ? Pili LISTER 1964:22 1 AWATOVI KIVA 529 VAULT BU PIV SMITH 1972:55-56 1 AWATOVI TEST 14 KIVA 2 CIST UNBU PIV SMITH 1972:17 3 AWATOVI TEST 14 KIVA 3 VAULTS ? PIV SMITH 1972:24-27 1 AWATOVI TEST 14 KIVA 6 VENT UNBU PIV SMITH 1972:34-35 2 AWATOVI TEST 14 KIVA 6 VAULTS UNBU PIV SMITH 1972:34-35 1 GRAN QUIVIRA KlVAN FLOOR BU PIV HAYES ET Al. 1981:52 1 HOMOLOVIII KIVA 324 FILL BU PIV 2 HOMOLOVIII KIVA 704 ROOFALL BU PIV 2 HOMOLOVIII KIVA 704 ROOFALL BU PIV 1 HOMOLOVIII KIVA 707 FLOOR BU PIV 1 HOMOLOVI II KIVA 707 FLOOR BU PIV 1 HOMOLOVIII KIVA 708 FLOOR BU PIV 1 HOMOLOVIII KIVA 708 FILL BU PIV 2 HOMOLOVIII KIVA 714 FILL BU PIV 4 HOMOLOVIII KIVA 714 FILL BU PIV 24 HOMOLOVI II PONDS KIVA FILL UNBU PIV HOMOLOVIII SOUTH MIDDEN MIDDEN PIV N 1 w 1 HOMOLOVIII STR554 FILL UNBU PIV -...J APPENDIX E POTS

1 HOMOLOVIII STR 555 FLOOR UNBU PIV 1 HOMOLOVIII STR701 FILL UNBU PIV 1 HOMOLOVIII STR 703 FLOOR UNBU PIV 1 HOMOLOVIII STR 711 FLOOR UNBU PIV 1 HOMOLOVIIil KIVA 32 FILL BU PIV 1 HOMOLOVIIII KIVA 34 ? UNBU PIV 4 HOMOLOVIIil KIVA 37 FILL UNBU PIV 2 HOMOLOVIIII MIDDEN PIV 1 HOMOLOVIIII PLAZA PIV 1 HOMOLOVIIII STR14 FLOOR UNBU PIV 1 HOMOLOVlIII STR 15 FLOOR UNBU PIV 1 HOMOLOVIIII STR 16 FILL BU PIV 1 HOMOLOVIIil STR17 FLOOR UNBU PIV 1 HOMOLOVlIII STR30 FLOOR UNBU PIV 1 HOMOLOVIIil STR18 FLOOR UNBU PIV 2 KAWAIKA-A TEST 4 KIVA 2 VENT UNBU PIV SMITH 1972:81 1 KAWAIKA-A TEST 4 KIVA 5 BENCHVT ? PIV SMITH 1972:84-88 1 KAWAIKA-A TEST 4 KIVA 7 BENCH VT UNBU PIV SMITH 1972:92 1 KIN TIEL KIVA KT-II FLOOR BU PIV HAURY AND HARGRAVE 1931:93 2 KOKOPNYAMA KIVA R-24 SUBFL UNBU PIV HAURY AND HARGRAVE 19331:112 1 PECOS PEUBLO MIDDEN EAST ? ? PIV-PV KIDDER AND SHEPARD 1936:283 1 PECOS PEUBLO MIDDEN WEST ? ? PIV-PV KIDDER AND SHEPARD 1936:284 6 PECOS PEUBLO STR30 ? ? PIV-PV KIDDER 1924:24 1 PECOS PEUBLO STR47 ? ? PIV-PV KIDDER AND SHEPARD 1936:284 1 PECOS PEUBLO STR E-V ? ? PIV-PV KIDDER AND SHEPARD 1936:284 1 AWATOVI CHAPELCH2 FLOOR ? PV MONTGOMERY ET AL. 1949:FIG 30 1 AWATOVI STR445CH3 SINK ? PV MONTGOMERY ET AL. 1949:89 1 AWATOVI STR465 CH2 FLOOR ? PV MONTGOMERY ET AL. 1949:58 2 AWATOVI STR465CH2 SINK ? PV MONTGOMERY ET AL. 1949:58 1 AWATOVI STR 810 ? ? PV MONTGOMERY ET AL. 1949:FIG 30 1 AWATOVI KIVA A VAULT UNBU PV SMITH 1972:44 6 AWATOVI TEST 22 KIVA 10 ROOFALL BU PV SMITH 1972:69 9 AWATOVI TEST 31 KIVA 1 FLOOR BU PV SMITH 1972:73 1 GRAN QUIVIRA KlVAC HEARTH UNBU PV HAYES ET AL.1981:55 14 GRAN QUIVIRA KlVAC FILL UNBU PV HAYES ET AL.1981:55 1 GRAN QUIVIRA KlVAE HEARTH BU PV HAYES ET AL.1981:59 1 GRAN QUIVIRA KIVAK-2 SUBFL UNBU PV HAYES ET AL.1981:54 1 PECOS PEUBLO KIVA 1 ASH PIT UNBU PV KIDDER 1958:184 N I.H 1 PECOS PEUBLO KIVA 1 FLOOR UNBU PV KIDDER 1958:184 00 APPENDIX E POTS

1 PECOS PEUBLO KIVA 16 FLOOR VT UNBU PV KIDDER 1958:203 1 PECOS PEUBLO KIVA 16 FLOOR UNBU PV KIDDER 1958:203 2 PECOS PEUBLO KIVA 4 ASH PIT UNBU PV KIDDER 1958:184 1 PECOS PEUBLO KIVA 6 ? UNBU PV KIDDER AND SHEPARD 1936:232 8 PECOS PEUBLO KIVA 7 NICHE ? PV KIDDER 1958:191 1 PECOS PEUBLO PLAZA NORTH CACHE 2 BURIED PV KIDDER AND SHEPARD 1936:232 1 PECOS PEUBLO PLAZA NORTH CACHE 7 BURIED PV KIDDER AND SHEPARD 1936:232 1 PECOS PEUBLO PLAZA NORTH CACHE 8 BURIED PV KIDDER AND SHEPARD 1936:232 1 PECOS PEUBLO PLAZA NORTH CACHE 9 BURIED PV KIDDER AND SHEPARD 1936:232 1 PECOS PEUBLO PLAZA NORTH CACHE 10 BURIED PV KIDDER AND SHEPARD 1936:232 1 PECOS PEUBLO PLAZA NORTH CACHE 11 BURIED PV KIDDER AND SHEPARD 1936:232 2 PECOS PEUBLO PLAZA NORTH CACHE 6 BURIED PV KIDDER AND SHEPARD 1936:232 3 PECOS PEUBLO PLAZA NORTH CACHE 3 BURIED PV KIDDER AND SHEPARD 1936:232 5 PECOS PEUBLO PLAZA NORTH CACHE 4 BURIED PV KIDDER AND SHEPARD 1936:232 5 PECOS PEUBLO PLAZA NORTH CACHE 5 BURIED PV KIDDER AND SHEPARD 1936:232 6 PECOS PEUBLO PLAZA NORTH CACHE 1 BURIED PV KIDDER AND SHEPARD 1936:232

N W \0 APPENDIX F FOOD

ARTIFACT SITE STRUCT C-TRANS TIME CITATION CORN CACHE COnONWOOD CAVE CACHE PIT BURIED BM HURST AND ANDERSON 1949:163 BAG OF BLACK SEEDS NORTH SHELTER CREVICE GGOOD BMII MORRIS AND BURGH 1954:41 CHARRED CORN TALUS VILLAGE PITSTR 2 BU BMII MORRIS AND BURGH 1954:108 CORNCOB WHITE DOG CAVE BURIAL CIST 22 G GOOD BMII GUERNSEY AND KIDDER 1921:15 PINON NUTS WHITE DOG CAVE BURIAL CIST 24 GGOOD BMII GUERNSEY AND KIDDER 1921:16 PINON NUTS WHITE DOG CAVE BURIAL CIST 6 GGOOD BMII GUERNSEY AND KIDDER 1921:13 BASKET OF SEEDS BROKEN FLUTE CAVE PITSTR 1 BU BMIII MORRIS 1980:24 3 EARS CORN BROKEN FLUTE CAVE PITSTR 10 UNBU BMIII MORRIS 1980:35 CHARRED CORN COPIOUS BROKEN FLUTE CAVE PITSTR 12 BU BMIII MORRIS 1980:38 6 PERFECT EARS CORN BROKEN FLUTE CAVE PITSTR6 BU BMIII MORRIS 1980:26 2 JOINTS OF MEAT BROKEN FLUTE CAVE PITSTR 9 BU BMIII MORRIS 1980:35 BASKETS OF CORN CAVE 8 PITSTR2 BU BMIII MORRIS 1980:49 ? BASKETS OF CORN CERRO COLORADO STR205 BU BMIII BULLARD 1962:31 CORN MEAL IN BOWL STEP HOUSE PITSTRA BU BMIII NUSBAUM 1981:19 CHARRED FOOD STEP HOUSE PITSTRA BU BMIII NUSBAUM 1981:19 SEALED JAR OF CORN ZNP-21 CACHE PIT BURIED BMIII? SCHROEDER 1955:87 FOOD A VILLAGE BURIAL 10 GGOOD PI ROBERTS 1930:161 CHARRED CORN A-VILLAGE GROUP 1 PITSTR E BU PI ROBERTS 1930:31 CHARRED CORN A-VILLAGE GROUP 2 PITSTR E BU PI ROBERTS 1930:31 CHARRED CORN A-VILLAGE GROUP 2 PITSTR F BU PI ROBERTS 1930:31 CHARRED CORN A-VILLAGE GROUP 5 PITSTRA BU PI ROBERTS 1930:31 CHARRED CORN A-VILLAGE GROUP 5 PITSTR B BU PI ROBERTS 1930:31 CHARRED CORN A-VILLAGE GROUP 6 PITSTR B BU PI ROBERTS 1930:31 CHARRED CORN AZ D:11:338 PITSTR 1 BU PI ANDERSON 1978B:95 50 BURNED COBS AZ D:7:2013 PITSTR 1 BU PI SINK ET AL. 1982:123 CHARRED CORN KERNELS B-VILLAGE PITSTRA ? PI ROBERTS 1930:49 CHARRED BEANS CAHONE 1 PITSTR B BU PI MARTIN AND RINALDO 1939:342 CHARRED CORN CAHONE 1 PITSTR B BU PI MARTIN AND RINALDO 1939:342 CHARRED CORN CAHONE 1 PITSTR C BU PI MARTIN AND RINALDO 1939:342 CHARRED BEANS CAHONE 1 PITSTR C BU PI MARTIN AND RINALDO 1939:342 PINYON NUTS GOVERNADOR 1 PITSTRC BU PI HALL 1944:79-80 SEEDS CORN AND CHENO GOVERNADOR 1 STR2 BU PI HALL 1944:79 CHARRED CORN KERNELS GOVERNADOR 12 STR 1 BU PI HALL 1944:27 N "- 30 HUSKED CORN EARS GRASS MESA PITSTR 10 BU PI LIGHTFOOT 1988:564 0 APPENDIX F FOOD

CORN GRASS MESA PITSTR 70 BU PI VARIEN 1988:257 CHARRED CORN DEPOSIT GRASS MESA STR 80 BU PI MORRIS 1988B:903-904 CHARRED CORN BEANS IGN 7:23 PITSTR BU PI CARLSON 1963:8 CHARRED BEANS IGN 7:30 STR3 UNBU PI CARLSON 1963:16 2 BUSHELLS CHARRED COR LA PLATA 18 STR4 BU PI MORRIS 1939:59 BURNED CORN LA PLATA 18 BLDG III STR 13 BU PI MORRIS 1939:59 BEANS,TUBERS,LEAVES LA PLATA 23 PITSTR 7 BU PI MORRIS 1939:74 CHARRED CORN LA PLATA 23 STR 1 BU PI MORRIS 1939:67 FINE SEEDS LA PLATA 23 STR 14 BU PI MORRIS 1939:68 SHELLED CORN LA PLATA 23 STR 14 BU PI MORRIS 1939:68 CHARRED SHELLED CORN LA PLATA 23 STR4 BU PI MORRIS 1939:68 BUSHELLS OF CORN SITE 1676 HOUSE 7 STR 13 BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:34 CHARRED EARS OF CORN WHITEWATER GROUP 2 STR 15 BU PI ROBERTS 1939:137 ROOM FULL OF CORN WHITEWATER GROUP 2 STR C BU PI ROBERTS 1939:147 CORN EARS NA 1814 E KIVA BU PII SMITH 1952:79 CORN EARS NA618 PITSTRW UNBU PII SMITH 1952: 18 CORN EARS NA618 PITSTRX BU PII SMITH 1952:24 100 BURNED KERNELS NA618 PITSTRZ ? PII SMITH 1952:25 3 CHARRED CORN COBS NA618 STR4 ? PII SMITH 1952:14 CHARRED CORN COBS SITE 875 MESA VERDE STR II ? PII LISTER 1965:19 JAR WITH SQUASH CORN CAVEll CACHE PIT BURIED Pili KIDDER GUERNSEY 1919:24 PINON MEAT RUIN8 KIVA BU Pili KIDDER GUERNSEY 1919:61 CORNCOB ARROYO HONDO BURIAL 12-18-6-3S-2 G-GOOD PIV PALKOVICH 1980:161 CORNCOB ARROYO HONDO BURIAL 12-18-6-3S-8 G-GOOD PIV PALKOVICH 1980:161 CORNCOB ARROYO HONDO BURIAL 12-C-A-2-1 G-GOOD PIV PALKOVICH 1980:163 CORNCOB ARROYO HONDO BURIAL 12-G-B110-2 G-GOOD PIV PALKOVICH 1980:161 CORNCOB ARROYO HONDO BURIAL 12-G-D8-4-1 G-GOOD PIV PALKOVICH 1980:161 CORN COB ARROYO HONDO BURIAL12-11-8-2-1-3 G-GOOD PIV PALKOVICH 1980:163 CORN COBS AWATOVI TEST 14 KIVA 5 UNBU PIV SMITH 1972:35 SEEDS HOMOLOVI EXTRAMURAL FEAT PIV BURNED CORN HOMOLOVI KIVA 324 BU PIV 2 BOWL BURNED MEAL HOMOLOVI KIVA 704 BU PIV CORN COBS HOMOLOVI KIVA 706 BU PIV SEEDS HOMOLOVI KIVA 707 BU PIV N +- BUSHEL BURNED CORN HOMOLOVI KIVA 714 BU PIV - APPENDIX F FOOD

BOWL BURNED MEAL HOMOLOVI KIVA 714 BU PIV 1 BUSHEL CORN HOMOLOVI KIVA 714 BU PIV BURNED CORNS(LOTS) HOMOLOVI NORTH MIDDEN PIV CORN HOMOLOVI PLAZA FEAT 20 PIV SEEDS HOMOLOVI SOUTH MIDDEN PIV BURNT CORN HOMOLOVI STR 557 UNBU PIV CORN COBS HOMOLOVI STR 557 UNBU PIV WALNUT SEED HOMOLOVI STR 557 UNBU PIV SQUASH SEED HOMOLOVI STR 557 UNBU PIV SEEDS HOMOLOVI STR 558 UNBU PIV BURNED CORN HOMOLOVI I GR KIVA 38 BU PIV BURNED CORN HOMOLOVIIII KIVA 34 UNBU PIV BURNED CORN HOMOLOVIIII KIVA 37 UNBU PIV BURNED CORN HOMOLOVIIII MIDDEN PIV BURNED CORN HOMOLOVIIII PLAZA PIV BURNED CORN HOMOLOVI III STR 14 UNBU PIV CORN HOMOLOVI III STR 15 UNBU PIV CORN COBS HOMOLOVI III STR 16 BU PIV BURNED CORN HOMOLOVI III STR29 BU PIV BURNED CORN HOMOLOVI III STR33 UNBU PIV BURNED CORN HOMOLOVI III STR33 UNBU PIV BURNED CORN HOMOLOVIIII STR39 UNBU PIV BURNED BEANS HOMOLOVIIII STR39 UNBU PIV 100 BUSHELS BURNED COR LP 2:25-V GRANARY BU PIV DITTERT 1959: 138

~ N APPENDIX G BALLS

ARTIFACT SITE STRUCT FEAT C-TRANS TIME CITATION STONE BALL AZ 0:7:262 ? ? ? ? SINK ET AL. 1982:263 WOOD BALL BROKEN FLUTE CA? ? ? ? MORRIS 1980:133 STONE BALL FLAT TOP SITE ? SURFACE ? ? WENDORF 1953 HEMATITE BAL RUIN 9 MARSH PA~ KIVA ? BU ? KIDDER AND GUERNSEY 1919:127 STONE BALL AZ 0:7:151 ? ? ? BMII MAULDIN 1982A:247 STONE BALL AZ 0:7:151 ? ? ? BMII MAULDIN 1982A:247 STONE BALL AZ 0:7:151 PITSTR 1 ? UNBU BMII MAULDIN 1982A:247 STONE BALL AZ 0:7:236 PITSTR3 ? ? BMII WHITECOnON AND LEBO 1980:402 STONE BALL AZ 0:7:239 ? ? ? BMII MAULDIN 1982B:248-249 STONE BALL AZ 0:7:239 ? ? ? BMII MAULDIN 1982B:248-249 STONE BALL AZ 0:7:239 ? ? ? BMII MAULDIN 1982B:248-249 STONE BALL AZ 0:7:239 ? ? ? BMII MAULDIN 1982B:248-249 STONE BALL AZ 0:7:239 PITSTR 1 ? BU BMII MAULDIN 1982B:249-250 STONE BALL AZ 0:7:239 PITSTR 1 ? BU BMII MAULDIN 1982B:249-250 STONE BALL AZ 0:7:239 PITSTR 1 ? BU BMII MAULDIN 1982B:249-250 STONE BALL AZ 0:7:239 PITSTR 1 ? BU BMII MAULDIN 1982B:249-250 STONE BALL AZ 0:7:3003 PITSTR2 ? BU BMII SMILEY ET AL. 1982:276 STONE BALL AZ 0:7:3003 PITSTR2 ? BU BMII SMILEY ET AL. 1982:276 STONE BALL AZ 0:7:3017 ? ? ? BMII MAULDIN AND HUnO 1982:278 STONE BALL KINBOKO CAVE I ? ? ? BMII KIDDER AND GUERNSEY 1919:192 STONE BALL SIVUOVI ? SURFACE ? BMII BURTON AND MCCONNELL 1991:79 STONE BALL SIVUOVI PITSTR 1 FLOOR BU BMII BURTON AND MCCONNELL 1991:39 STONE BALL SIVUOVI PITSTR 1 FILL BU BMII BURTON AND MCCONNELL 1991:83 STONE BALL SIVUOVI PITSTR 2 FILL BU BMII BURTON AND MCCONNELL 1991:43 STONE BALL FLAT TOP SITE PITSTRJ FLOOR UNBU BMIII WENDORF 1953 STONE BALL FLAT TOP SITE PITSTR M FILL UNBU BMIII WENDORF 1953 STONE BALL JEDDITO 264 ? ? ? BMIII DAIFUKU 1961:55 STONE BALL JEDDITO 264 ? ? ? BMIII DAIFUKU 1961:55 STONE BALL JEDDITO 264 ? ? ? BMIII DAIFUKU 1961:55 STONE BALL JEDDITO 264 ? ? ? BMIII DAIFUKU 1961:55 STONE BALL JEDDITO 264 ? ? ? BMIII DAIFUKU 1961:55 STONE BALL JEDDITO 264 ? ? ? BMIII DAIFUKU 1961:55 STONE BALL JEDDITO 264 ? ? ? BMIII DAIFUKU 1961:55 STONE BALL SITE 1676 PITSTRA FILL BU BMIII HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:16 STONE BALL ALKALI RIDGE 13 PITSTRA ? BU PI BREW 1946:235 tv ~ STONE BALL AZ 0:11:2025 PITSTR 1 ? BU PI STONE 1984:792 w APPENDIX G BALLS

STONE BALL AZ 0:11:2025 PITSTR 1 ? BU PI STONE 1984:792 STONE BALL AZ 0:11:2027 EXTRA FEAT 16 ? PI OLSZEWSKI ET AL.1984:793 STONE BALL AZ 0:7:263 ? ? ? PI DEMARCAY ET AL. 1982:263 STONE BALL CAHONE 1 PITSTR B ? BU PI MARTIN AND RINALDO 1939:388 STONE BALL CAHONE 1 STR ? BU PI MARTIN AND RINALDO 1939:388 STONE BALL GOVERNADOR 12 PITSTR A ? BU PI HALL 1944:51 STONE BALL RB 1006 PITSTR 2 HEARTH BU PI BEALS ET AL. 1945:42 STONE BALL SITE 1676 HOUSE 1 GR KIVA B FILL BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:62 STONE BALL SITE 1676 HOUSE 1 GR KIVA B FILL BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:62 STONE BALL SITE 1676 HOUSE 1 GR KIVA B FILL BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:62 STONE BALL SITE 1676 HOUSE 1 GR KIVA B FILL BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:62 STONE BALL SITE 1676 HOUSE 1 GR KIVA B FILL BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:62 STONE BALL SITE 1676 HOUSE 1 PITSTR 0 FLOOR BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:60 STONE BALL SITE 1676 HOUSE 1 PITSTR 0 FLOOR BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:60 STONE BALL SITE 1676 HOUSE 1 STR 14 FILL BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:57 STONE BALL SITE 1676 HOUSE 3STR 4,5,7 FILL ? PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:20 STONE BALL SITE 1676 HOUSE 3STR 6,8,9 FILL ? PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:21 STONE BALL SITE 1676 HOUSE 4 PITSTR E FLOOR UNBU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:44 STONE BALL SITE 1676 HOUSE 4 PITSTR E FLOOR UNBU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:44 STONE BALL SITE 1676 HOUSE 4 PITSTR E FILL UNBU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:44 STONE BALL SITE 1676 HOUSE 4 PITSTR E FILL UNBU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:44 STONE BALL SITE 1676 HOUSE 4 PITSTR E FILL UNBU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:44 STONE BALL SITE 1676 HOUSE 4 PITSTR E FILL UNBU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:44 STONE BALL SITE 1676 HOUSE 4 PITSTR E FILL UNBU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:44 STONE BALL SITE 1676 HOUSE 4 PITSTR E FILL UNBU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:44 STONE BALL SITE 1676 HOUSE 4 STR 9 FILL BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:40 STONE BALL SITE 1676 HOUSE 6 STR 1 FILL BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:27 STONE BALL SITE 1676 HOUSE 6 STR 1 FILL BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:27 STONE BALL SITE 1676 HOUSE 6 STR 1 FILL BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:27 STONE BALL SITE 1676 HOUSE 6 STR 5 FLOOR ? PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:28 STONE BALL SITE 1676 HOUSE 7 STR 1 FILL UNBU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:29 STONE BALL SITE 1676 HOUSE 7 STR 6 FILL ? PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:32 STONE BALL SITE 1676 HOUSE 7 STR 7 FILL BU PI HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:32 STONE BALL WHITEWATER MIDDEN ? ? PI ROBERTS 1940:145-152 STONE BALL AZ 0:7:2103 MIDDEN ? ? PI-II PENNY ET AL. 1984:792 STONE BALL AZ 0:11:2062 MIDDEN ? ? PII PENNY ET AL. 1984:794 IV STONE BALL AZ 0:11:2108 MIDDEN ? ? PII PENNY ET AL. 1984:795 ...+- APPENDIX G BAllS

STONE BALL AZ. 0:11:2108 MIDDEN ? ? PII PENNY ET AL. 1984:795 STONE BALL AZ. 0:11:2108 MIDDEN ? ? PII PENNY ET AL. 1984:795 STONE BALL AZ. 0:11:2108 MIDDEN ? ? PII PENNY ET AL. 1984:795 STONE BALL AZ. 0:7:216 ? ? ? PII ANDREWS ET AL. 1980:371 STONE BALL AZ. 0:7:216 ? ? ? PII ANDREWS ET AL. 1980:377 STONE BALL AZ. 0:7:222 ? ? ? PII RAVESLOOT AND PLANTE 1980:400 STONE BALL AZ. 0:7:3034 ? ? ? PII SMILEY 1982:280 STONE BALL NA 681 KIVA FILL UNBU PII SMITH 1952:135 STONE BALL NA 681 KIVA FILL UNBU PII SMITH 1952:135 STONE BALL BADGER HOUSE 14 KIVA A SUBVENT BU Pili HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:92 STONE BALL BADGER HOUSE 14 KIVA A SUB VENT BU Pili HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:92 STONE BALL BADGER HOUSE 14 KIVA A SUB VENT BU Pili HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:92 STONE BALL PECOS PUEBLO ? ? ? PIII-PV K1DDDER 1932:66 STONE BALL PECOS PUEBLO ? ? ? PIII-PV KlDDDER 1932:66 STONE BALL PECOS PUEBLO ? ? ? PIII-PV KlDDDER 1932:66 STONE BALL PECOS PUEBLO ? ? ? PIII-PV KlDDDER 1932:66 STONE BALL PECOS PUEBLO ? ? ? PIII-PV KlDDDER 1932:66 STONE BALL PECOS PUEBLO ? ? ? PIII-PV KlDDDER 1932:66 STONE BALL PECOS PUEBLO ? ? ? PIII-PV KlDDDER 1932:66 STONE BALL PECOS PUEBLO ? ? ? PIII-PV K1DDDER 1932:66 STONE BALL PECOS PUEBLO ? ? ? PIII-PV K1DDDER 1932:66 STONE BALL PECOS PUEBLO ? ? ? PIII-PV KlDDDER 1932:66 STONE BALL PECOS PUEBLO ? ? ? PIII-PV KID DOER 1932:66 STONE BALL PECOS PUEBLO ? ? ? PIII-PV KlDDDER 1932:66 STONE BALL PECOS PUEBLO ? ? ? PIII-PV KlDDDER 1932:66 STONE BALL PECOS PUEBLO ? ? ? PIII-PV K1DDDER 1932:66 STONE BALL PECOS PUEBLO ? ? ? PIII-PV KlDDDER 1932:66 STONE BALL PECOS PUEBLO ? ? ? PIII-PV KID DOER 1932:66 STONE BALL PECOS PUEBLO ? ? ? PIII-PV KlDDDER 1932:66 STONE BALL PECOS PUEBLO ? ? ? PIII-PV KlDDDER 1932:66 STONE BALL PECOS PUEBLO ? ? ? PIII-PV K1DDDER 1932:66 STONE BALL PECOS PUEBLO ? ? ? PIII-PV KlDDDER 1932:66 STONE BALL PECOS PUEBLO ? ? ? PIII-PV KlDDDER 1932:66 STONE BALL PECOS PUEBLO ? ? ? PIII-PV KlDDDER 1932:66 STONE BALL PECOS PUEBLO ? ? ? PIII-PV KlDDDER 1932:66 STONE BALL PECOS PUEBLO ? ? ? PIII-PV KlDDDER 1932:66 N STONE BALL PECOS PUEBLO PIII-PV KIDDDER 1932:66 .j;. ? ? ? VI APPENDIX G BALLS

STONE BALL PECOS PUEBLO ? ? ? PIII-PV KlDDDER 1932:66 STONE BALL PECOS PUEBLO ? ? ? PIII-PV KlDDDER 1932:66 STONE BALL PECOS PUEBLO ? ? ? PIII-PV KlDDDER 1932:66 STONE BALL PECOS PUEBLO ? ? ? PIII-PV KlDDDER 1932:66 STONE BALL PECOS PUEBLO ? ? ? PIII-PV KlDDDER 1932:66 STONE BALL PECOS PUEBLO ? ? ? PIII-PV KlDDDER 1932:66 STONE BALL PECOS PUEBLO ? ? ? PIII-PV KlDDDER 1932:66 STONE BALL PECOS PUEBLO ? ? ? PIII-PV KlDDDER 1932:66 STONE BALL PECOS PUEBLO ? ? ? PIII-PV KlDDDER 1932:66 STONE BALL PECOS PUEBLO ? ? ? PIII-PV KIDDDER 1932:66 STONE BALL PECOS PUEBLO ? ? ? PIII-PV KlDDDER 1932:66 STONE BALL ARROYO HONDO BURIAL 12-19-1-V-1 FLOOR GGOOD PIV PALKOVICH 1980:162 STONE BALL ARROYO HONDO BURIAL 12-19-1-V-1 FLOOR GGOOD PIV PALKOVICH 1980:162 STONE BALL ARROYO HONDO BURIAL 12-19-1-V-1 FLOOR GGOOD PIV PALKOVICH 1980:162 STONE BALL ARROYO HONDO BURIAL 12-19-1-V-1 FLOOR GGOOD PIV PALKOVICH 1980:162 STONE BALL ARROYO HONDO BURIAL 12-19-1-V-1 FLOOR GGOOD PIV PALKOVICH 1980:162 STONE BALL ARROYO HONDO BURIAL 12-19-1-V-1 FLOOR GGOOD PIV PALKOVICH 1980:162 STONE BALL ARROYO HONDO BURIAL 12-19-1-V-1 FLOOR GGOOD PIV PALKOVICH 1980:162 STONE BALL AWATOVI TEST 14 KIVA 5 ? UNBU PIV SMITH 1954:171 STONE BALL AWATOVI TEST 14 KIVA 5 ? UNBU PIV SMITH 1954:171 STONE BALL AWATOVI TEST 14 KIVA 5 ? UNBU PIV SMITH 1954:171 STONE BALL AWATOVI TEST 14 KIVA 5 ? UNBU PIV SMITH 1954:171 STONE BALL AWATOVI TEST 14 KIVA 5 ? UNBU PIV SMITH 1954:171 STONE BALL AWATOVI TEST 14 KIVA 5 ? UNBU PIV SMITH 1954:171 STONE BALL AWATOVI TEST 14 KlVA5 ? UNBU PIV SMITH 1954:171 STONE BALL AWATOVI TEST 14 KIVA 5 ? UNBU PIV SMITH 1954:171 STONE BALL AWATOVI TEST 14 KIVA 5 FL CACHE UNBU PIV SMITH 1972:31 STONE BALL AWATOVI TEST 14 KlVA5 FL CACHE UNBU PIV SMITH 1972:31 STONE BALL AWATOVI TEST 14 KIVA 5 FL CACHE UNBU PIV SMITH 1972:31 STONE BALL AWATOVI TEST 14 KIVA 5 FL CACHE UNBU PIV SMITH 1972:31 STONE BALL AWATOVI TEST 14 KIVA 5 FL CACHE UNBU PIV SMITH 1972:31 STONE BALL AWATOVI TEST 14 KlVA5 FL CACHE UNBU PIV SMITH 1972:31 STONE BALL AWATOVI TEST 14 KIVA 5 FL CACHE UNBU PIV SMITH 1972:31 STONE BALL AWATOVI TEST 14 KIVA 5 FL CACHE UNBU PIV SMITH 1972:31 STONE BALL AWATOVI TEST 14 KIVA 5 FL CACHE UNBU PIV SMITH 1972:31

STONE BALL HOMOLOVIII KIVA 324 FILL BU PIV N KIVA 324 FILL BU PIV STONE BALL HOMOLOVIII "'"0\ 1

APPENDIX G BALLS

STONE BALL HOMOLOVI KIVA 324 FILL BU PIV STONE BALL HOMOLOVI KIVA 708 VENT BU PIV STONE BALL HOMOLOVI KIVA 708 VENT BU PIV STONE BALL HOMOLOVI KIVA 708 VENT BU PIV STONE BALL HOMOLOVI KIVA 708 VENT BU PIV STONE BALL HOMOLOVI KIVA 708 ROOF FILL BU PIV STONE BALL HOMOLOVI KIVA 708 ROOF FILL BU PIV STONE BALL HOMOLOVI NORTH MIDDEN PIV STONE BALL KIN TIEL SHRINE FLOOR SGOOD PIV FEWKES 1897:603 STONE BALL L P 2:25-V PLAZA ? PIV DITIERT 1959:311 STONE BALL LP2:24:D CER RM4 BENCH ? PIV DITIERT 1959:158 STONE BALL AWATOVI KIVA 788 VENT BURIED PV SMITH 1972:59 STONE BALL AWATOVI KIVA 788 ? BURIED PV SMITH 1972:59 STONE BALL AWATOVI KIVA 788 ? BURIED PV SMITH 1972:59 STONE BALL AWATOVI KIVA 788 ? BURIED PV SMITH 1972:59 STONE BALL AWATOVI KIVA 788 ? BURIED PV SMITH 1972:59 STONE BALL AWATOVI KIVA 788 ? BURIED PV SMITH 1972:59 STONE BALL AWATOVI KIVA 788 ? BURIED PV SMITH 1972:59 STONE BALL AWATOVI KIVA 788 ? BURIED PV SMITH 1972:59 STONE BALL AWATOVI TEST 31 KIVA 1 ? BU PV SMITH 1972:73 STONE BALL AWATOVI TEST 31 KIVA 1 ? BU PV SMITH 1972:73

N ~ -..J APPENDIX H FOSSILS

FOSSIL SITE STRUCT FEAT C-TRANS TIME CITATION SEEDS AND STEMS AZD:7:239 ? ? ? BMII MAULDIN 1982B:248 SEEDS AND STEMS AZD:7:239 ? ? ? BMII MAULDIN 1982B:248 SEEDS AND STEMS AZD:7:239 ? ? ? BMII MAULDIN 1982B:248 MISC LIMESTONE NORTH SHELTER PITSTR II FILL ? BMII MORRIS AND BURGH 1954:FIG 88(4) BRACHIOPOD NORTH SHELTER PITSTR IV FILL ? BMII MORRIS AND BURGH 1954:FIG 88(4) FOSSIL PLANT NORTH SHELTER PITSTR IV FILL ? BMII MORRIS AND BURGH 1954:FIG 88(4) SHELL CAVE 2 PITSTR 1 FILL BU BMIII MORRIS 1980:43 SMALL FOSSILS A VILLAGE BURIAL 1 MIDDEN GGOOD PI ROBERTS 1930:154. 158 1 PETRIFIED WOOD AZ D:11:2062B STR6 FILL UNBU PI SINK ET AL. 1984:266 OYSTER SHELL GOVERNADOR 55 BUIRALX ? GGOOD PI HALL 1944:52 MOLLOUSC GRASS MESA STR53 FLOOR ? PI VARIEN 1988:106 SEED RING AZD:7:262 MIDDEN ? ? PII SINK ET AL 1982:256 SEEDS AND STEMS AZD:7:262 MIDDEN ? ? PII SINK ET AL. 1982:251 SEEDS AND STEMS AZD:7:262 MIDDEN ? ? PII SINK ET AL. 1982:251 SEEDS AND STEMS AZD:7:262 MIDDEN ? ? PII SINK ET AL. 1982:251 SEEDS AND STEMS AZD:7:262 MIDDEN ? ? PII SINK ET AL. 1982:251 SEEDS AND STEMS AZD:7:262 STRJACAL23 ? BU PII SINK ET AL. 1982:259 FOSSIL BC51 ? ? ? PII WOODBURY 1939:61 CEPHALOPOD JEDDITO 108 KIVA 2 FILL UNBU PII WOODBURY 1954:FIG 37 LUNGFISH TOOTH McCREERY PUEBLO COURTYARD ? ? PII BURTON 1993:72 BIVALVE SHELL McCREERY PUEBLO MIDDEN ? ? PII BURTON 1993:72 PETRIFIED WOOD MINERAL CREEK GR KIVA FLVAULT BU PII-PIII MARTIN ET AL. 1961:26 BRACHIOPOD AWATOVI SECTION 3 FILL ? PII-PV WOODBURY 1954:FIG 37 MANY FOSSILS PECOS PUEBLO MIDDEN ? PII-PV KIDDER 1932;110 GASTROPOD AWATOVI STR294 FILL ? Pili WOODBURY 1954:FIG 37 1 RODLIKE FOSSIL BADGER HOUSE 1453 KIVA A FLOOR BU Pili HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:92 PETRIFIED WOOD CARTER RANCH BURIAL 21 GGOOD Pili RINALDO 1964:96 PETRIFIED WOOD LONG HOUSE KlVAC FILL UNBU Pili CATTANACH 1980:299 PETRIFIED WOOD LONG HOUSE KIVAF FILL UNBU Pili CATTANACH 1980:299 PETRIFIED WOOD LONG HOUSE KlVAF FILL UNBU Pili CATTANACH 1980:299 PETRIFIED WOOD LONG HOUSE KIVAM SUBFLOOR BU Pili CATTANACH 1980:293 PETRIFIED WOOD LONG HOUSE KlVAP FLOOR UNBU Pili CATTANACH 1980:293 PETRIFIED WOOD LONG HOUSE KlVAP FILL UNBU Pili CATTANACH 1980:293 PETRIFIED WOOD LONG HOUSE KlVAP FLOOR UNBU Pili CATTANACH 1980:293 PETRIFIED WOOD LONG HOUSE KlVAQ SHRINE UNBU Pili CATTANACH 1980:299 PETRIFIED WOOD LONG HOUSE KlVAQ FILL UNBU Pili CATTANACH 1980:299 PETRIFIED WOOD LONG HOUSE MIDDEN ? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:293 N +- PETRIFIED WOOD LONG HOUSE MIDDEN ? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:293 00 APPENDIX H FOSSILS

PETRIFIED WOOD LONG HOUSE MIDDEN ? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:293 PETRIFIED WOOD LONG HOUSE MIDDEN ? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:293 PETRIFIED WOOD LONG HOUSE MIDDEN ? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:293 PETRIFIED WOOD LONG HOUSE MIDDEN EAST ? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:299 PETRIFIED WOOD LONG HOUSE MIDDEN EAST ? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:299 PETRIFIED WOOD LONG HOUSE MIDDEN EAST ? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:299 PETRIFIED WOOD LONG HOUSE MIDDEN EAST ? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:299 PETRIFIED WOOD LONG HOUSE MIDDEN EAST ? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:299 PETRIFIED WOOD LONG HOUSE MIDDEN EAST ? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:299 PETRIFIED WOOD LONG HOUSE MIDDEN EAST ? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:299 PETRIFIED WOOD LONG HOUSE MIDDEN EAST ? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:299 PETRIFIED WOOD LONG HOUSE MIDDEN EAST ? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:299 PETRIFIED WOOD LONG HOUSE MIDDEN VII ? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:299 PETRIFIED WOOD LONG HOUSE MIDDEN WEST ? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:299 PETRIFIED WOOD LONG HOUSE MIDDEN WEST ? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:299 PETRIFIED WOOD LONG HOUSE MIDDEN WEST ? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:299 PETRIFIED WOOD LONG HOUSE MIDDEN X ? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:299 PETRIFIED WOOD LONG HOUSE MIDDEN X ? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:299 PETRIFIED WOOD LONG HOUSE MIDDEN X ? ? Pili CATTANACH 1980:299 PETRIFIED WOOD LONG HOUSE STR12 FILL UNBU Pili CATTANACH 1980:299 PETRIFIED WOOD LONG HOUSE STR17 FILL UNBU Pili CATTANACH 1980:299 PETRIFIED WOOD LONG HOUSE STR4 FILL UNBU Pili CATTANACH 1980:293 PETRIFIED WOOD LONG HOUSE STR58 FILL UNBU Pili CATTANACH 1980:293 PETRIFIED WOOD LONG HOUSE STR7 FILL UNBU Pili CATTANACH 1980:299 PETRIFIED WOOD LONG HOUSE STR87 FILL UNBU Pili CATTANACH 1980:299 NAUTILOID PIPE SHRINE HOUSE SHRINE 1 ? SHRINE Pili FEWKES 1923:99 PETRIFIED WOOD SITE 499 MESA VERDE KIVA A NICHE 4 UNBU Pili LISTER 1964:27 PALM TREE FOSSIL SUN TEMPLE SWANNEX WALL SHRINE Pili FEWKES 1916:20-21 AGATIZED WOOD AWATOVI STR316 FILL ? PIV WOODBURY 1954:FIG 37 CEPHALOPOD AWATOVI TEST 14 KIVA 2 FILL UNBU PIV WOODBURY 1954:FIG 37 AGATIZED WOOD AWATOVI TEST 52 STR7 FILL ? PIV WOODBURY 1954:FIG 37 SHARK TOOTH AWATOVI TEST 52 STR7 FILL ? PIV WOODBURY 1954:FIG 37 STALACITE AWATOVI TEST 57 KIVA 1 FILL UNBU PIV WOODBURY 1954:FIG 37 4 FOSSILS FORKED LIGHTNING RUIN BURIAL BB124 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:110 1 WORKED CRINOID FORKED LIGHTNING RUIN BURIAL BB129 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:110 1 CRINOID STEM FORKED LIGHTNING RUIN BURIAL BB95 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:110 FOSSIL INDETERM HOMOLOVlII KIVA 324 FILL BU PIV FISH TOOTH HOMOLOVIII KIVA 714 FILL BU PIV N FOSSIL INDETERM HOMOLOVIII STR554 ROOFALL UNBU JPIV ..\0 APPENDIX H FOSSILS

FOSSIL INDETERM HOMOLOVlII STR557 ROOFALL UNBU PIV FOSSIL CRINOID HOMOLOVIIII KIVA 32 FILL BU PIV FOSSIL CRINOID HOMOLOVIIII KIVA 32 FILL BU PIV FOSSIL CRINOID HOMOLOVIIII KIVA 37 FILL UNBU PIV PETRIFIED WOOD HOMOLOVIIII PITSTR 31 FILL UNBU PIV PETRIFIED WOOD HOMOLOVIIII STR17 FILL UNBU PIV PETRIFIED WOOD HOMOLOVlIII STR29 FILL BU PIV 1 BIVALVE PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL 1131 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:106 1 CRINOID STEM PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL 1131 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:106 1 CRINOID STEM PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL 1nS ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:108 1 WORKED FOSSIL PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL 1nS ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:108 PETRIFIED WOOD AWATOVI BURIAL 85 GGOOD PV WOODBURY 1954:FIG 37 PETRIFIED WOOD AWATOVI STR448 FILL ? PV WOODBURY 1954:FIG 37 PETRIFIED WOOD AWATOVI STR630 FILL ? PV WOODBURY 1954:FIG 37 PETRIFIED WOOD AWATOVI STR768 ? ? PV WOODBURY 1954:FIG 37 PETRIFIED WOOD AWATOVI STRn2 PARLOR ? PV WOODBURY 1954:FIG 37 PETRIFIED WOOD AWATOVI TEST 31 KIVA 1 FILL BU PV WOODBURY 1954:FIG 37 PETRIFIED WOOD AWATOVI TEST 42 ? FILL ? PV WOODBURY 1954:FIG 37 3 PETRIFIED WOODS PECOS PUEBLO STRN PLAZA BIN COLL PV KIDDER 1932:88

N oVI APPENDIX I BIRDS

BIRD SITE STRUCT FEAT C-TRANS TIME CITATION EAGLE PHALANGES DUCKFOOT PITSTR2 FILL BURIED PI WALKER 1993:246 EAGLE PHALANGES DUCKFOOT STR2 FILL UNBU PI WALKER 1993:246 BUTEO PHALANX GRASS MESA GR KIVA 7 FLOOR BU PI LIGHTFOOT ET AL. 1988:586 1 ACCIPITRIDAE PHALANX GRASS MESA MIDDEN UNIT 11 ? PI LIGHTFOOT ET AL. 1988:733 PARTIAL AVES SKELETON GRASS MESA PITSTR 3 FLOOR BU PI BRETERNITZ AND MORRIS 1988:384 BLUE JAY FEATHERS ZNP-21 PITSTR BENCH ? PI SCHROEDER 1955:85 RED TAILED HAWK AlD:7:262 PITSTR28 ? UNBU PII SINK ET AL. 1982:97 FEATHER BUNDLE RTH KINBOKO RUIN I ? ? ? Pili KIDDER AND GUERNSEY 1919:177 8 FEATHERS SWAINSH KINBOKO RUIN I ? ? ? Pili KIDDER AND GUERNSEY 1919:177 EAGLE TALON LONG HOUSE BUIRAL 10 ? GGOOD PIli CATTANACH 1980:144 EAGLE TALON LONG HOUSE BUIRAL 10 ? GGOOD Pili CATTANACH 1980: 144 MACAWSKEL PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL ? GGOOD PIII-PV HARGRAVE 1970:50 MACAWSKEL PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL ? GGOOD PIII-PV HARGRAVE 1970:50 EAGLE CLAW ARROYO HONDO BURIAL 12-19-1-V-1 GGOOD PIV PALKOVICH 1980:162 RAVEN SKIN ARROYO HONDO BURIAL 12-19-1-V-1 GGOOD PIV PALKOVICH 1980:162 WINGS W NECK RAVEN ARROYO HONDO BURIAL 12-19-1-V-1 GGOOD PIV PALKOVICH 1980:162 PART SKEL R TAILED HAWK HOMOLOVIII KIVA 708 FILL BU PIV BIRD LEG AND CLAW HOMOLOVIII STR 558 FILL UNBU PIV BIRD LEG AND CLAW HOMOLOVIII STR 558 FILL UNBU PIV RED TAILED HAWK SKEL HOMOLOVIIII KIVA 32 FILL BU PIV HAWK HOMOLOVIIII KIVA 34 FILL UNBU PIV HERON SKULL HOMOLOVIIII PITSTR 31 FILL UNBU PIV 12 EAGLE CLAWS PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL 512 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:271 1 EAGLE CLAW PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL 537 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:271 1 HAWK CLAW PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL 537 ? GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:271

N -VI APPENDIX J ANIMALS

ANIMAL SITE STRUCT FEATURE C TRANS TIME CITATION TURTLE CARAPACE SIVUOVI PITSTR2 FILL BU BMII BURTON AND MCCONNELL 1991:95 DEER SCAPULA TALUS VILLAGE PITSTR 1 BURIAL 16 G GOOD BMII MORRIS AND BURGH 1954:12 ANTELOPE HOOFS WHITE DOG CAVE BURIAL CIST 22 GGOOD BMII GUERNSEY AND KIDDER 1921:15 DEER HOOFS WHITE DOG CAVE BURIAL CIST 22 GGOOD BMII GUERNSEY AND KIDDER 1921:15 MOUNTAIN SHEEP HORN BROKEN FLUTE CAVE PITSTR 7 FLOOR BU BMIII MORRIS 1980:32 DEER PHALANGE SHABIK' ESHCHEE VILL DOG BURIJI BIN 6 CIST C TRASH BMIII ROBERTS 1929:93 DEER PHALANGE SHABIK' ESHCHEE VILL DOG BURIJI BIN 6 CIST C TRASH BMIII ROBERTS 1929:93 BIGHORN SKULL SITE 1644 PITSTRA ROOFALL BU BMIII HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:8 ARTIO META PODIALS SITE 1644 PITSTRA ROOFALL BU BMIII HAYES AND LANCASTER 1975:8 POCKET GOPHER SKULL GRASS MESA MIDDEN ? ? PI MORRIS 1988B:923 LYNXRUFUS INNOMINATE GRASS MESA PITSTR 1 FLOOR BU PI BRETERNITZ AND MORRIS 1988: 393 O. HENIONUS METATARS GRASS MESA PITSTR 10 FLOOR BU PI LIGHTFOOT ET AL. 1988:571 O. HEMIONUS TARSAL GRASS MESA PITSTR 10 FLOOR BU PI LIGHTFOOT ET AL. 1988:572 O. HEMIONUS RADIUS GRASS MESA PITSTR 15 FLOOR UNBU PI LIGHTFOOT ET AL. 1988:656 O. HEMIONUS METATARS GRASS MESA PITSTR 31 FLOOR BU PI MORRIS 1988A:823 O. HEMIONUS TIBIA GRASS MESA PITSTR 31 FLOOR BU PI MORRIS 1988A:823 ARTIO METAPODIAL GRASS MESA PITSTR 32 FLOOR BU PI VARIEN 1988:246 1 CATOSTOMUS FISH GRASS MESA PITSTR4 FLOOR BU PI LIGHTFOOT ET AL. 1988:755 O. HEMIONUS MANDIBLE GRASS MESA PITSTR 44 FEAT 838 BU PI MORRIS 1988B:915 DEER METACARPAL GRASS MESA PITSTR 8 FLOOR BU PI BRETERNITZ AND MORRIS 1988:430 O. HEMIONUS META CAR GRASS MESA STR 13 FLOOR BU PI LIGHTFOOT ET AL. 1988:725 ANTELOPE SCAPULA NA 1728 PITSTR FILL ? PI TAYLOR 1954:109-116 BOBCAT HIND LIMB AZ D:11:275 KIVA 1 FLOOR ? PII LAYHE 1978:87 RABBIT SKELETONS AZ D:11:275 KIVA 1 FILL ? PII LAYHE 1978:87 RABBITSKEL AZ D:11:425 KIVA 1 FLOOR BU PII HANTMAN 1980:251 RABBITSKEL AZ D:11:425 KIVA 1 FLOOR BU PII HANTMAN 1980:251 RABBITSKEL AZ D:11:425 KIVA 1 FLOOR BU PII HANTMAN 1980:251 RABBIT SKEL AZ D:11:425 KIVA 1 FLOOR BU PII HANTMAN 1980:251 RABBIT SKEL AZ D:11:425 KIVA 1 FLOOR BU PII HANTMAN 1980:251 RABBIT SKEL AZ D:11:425 KIVA 1 FLOOR BU PII HANTMAN 1980:251 RABBITSKEL AZ D:11:425 KIVA 1 FLOOR BU PII HANTMAN 1980:251 RABBITSKEL AZ D:11:425 KIVA 1 FLOOR BU PII HANTMAN 1980:251 RABBITSKEL AZ D:11:425 KIVA 1 FLOOR BU PII HANTMAN 1980:251 N VI RABBITSKEL AZ D:11:425 KIVA 1 FLOOR BU PII HANTMAN 1980:251 N APPENDIX J ANIMALS

RABBITSKEL AZ 0:11:425 KIVA 1 FLOOR BU PII HANTMAN 1980:251 RABBITSKEL AZ 0:11:425 KIVA 1 FLOOR BU PII HANTMAN 1980:251 RABBIT SKEL AZ 0:11:425 KIVA 1 FLOOR BU PII HANTMAN 1980:251 RABBIT SKEL AZ 0:11:425 KIVA 1 FLOOR BU PII HANTMAN 1980:251 RABBITSKEL AZ 0:11:425 KIVA 1 FLOOR BU PII HANTMAN 1980:251 RABBITSKEL AZ 0:11:425 KIVA 1 FLOOR BU PII HANTMAN 1980:251 RABBIT SKEL AZ 0:11:425 KIVA 1 FLOOR BU PII HANTMAN 1980:251 RABBITSKEL AZ 0:11:425 KIVA 1 FLOOR BU PII HANTMAN 1980:251 RABBITSKEL AZ 0:11:425 KIVA 1 FLOOR BU PII HANTMAN 1980:251 RABBIT SKEL AZ 0:11:425 KIVA 1 FLOOR BU PII HANTMAN 1980:251 RABBIT SKEL AZ 0:11:425 KIVA 1 FLOOR BU PII HANTMAN 1980:251 RABBITSKEL AZ 0:11:425 KIVA 1 FLOOR BU PII HANTMAN 1980:251 RABBITSKEL AZ 0:11:425 KIVA 1 FLOOR BU PII HANTMAN 1980:251 RABBITSKEL AZ 0:11:425 KIVA 1 FLOOR BU PII HANTMAN 1980:251 RABBITSKEL AZ 0:11:425 KIVA 1 FLOOR BU PII HANTMAN 1980:251 RABBITSKEL AZ 0:11:425 KIVA 1 FLOOR BU PII HANTMAN 1980:251 RABBITSKEL AZ 0:11:425 KIVA 1 FLOOR BU PII HANTMAN 1980:251 RABBIT SKEL AZ 0:11:425 KIVA 1 FLOOR BU PII HANTMAN 1980:251 RABBIT SKEL AZ 0:11:425 KIVA 1 FLOOR BU PII HANTMAN 1980:251 RABBITSKEL AZ 0:11:425 KIVA 1 FLOOR BU PII HANTMAN 1980:251 RABBIT SKELS AZ 0:11:425 PITSTR 3 FLOOR ? PII HANTMAN 1980:251 OIS RABBIT SKEL AZ 0:11:426 KIVA 1 FILL BU PII RAVES LOOT ANO FRENCH 1980:261 RABBIT SKELS AZO:7:220 STR2 FEAT 28 BU PII SEME 1980:466 BEAR CRANIUM BAOGER HOUSE MIOOENA ? ? PII HAYES ANO LANCASTER 1975:73 ANTELOPE SKULL BC51 KIVA 1 VENT UNBU PII KLUCKHOHN 1939:36 ANTELOPE METATARSAL NA682 PITSTR K FILL UNBU PII SMITH 1952:142 RABBIT SKELETON RB 551 KIVA CIST BU PII BEALS ET AL. 1945:52 CLAW HOMOLOVI KIVA 324 FILL BU PIV CLAW HOMOLOVI KIVA 324 FILL BU PIV MAMMAL SKULL HOMOLOVI KIVA 324 FILL BU PIV PAINTEO OEER SCAPULA HOMOLOVI KIVA 704 FILL BU PIV ANIMAL SKULL HOMOLOVI KIVA 707 ROOFALL BU PIV RATILESNAKE RATILE HOMOLOVI STR 558 FILL UNBU PIV

RABBIT SKEL HOMOLOVI STR 701 FILL UNBU PIV N VI RABBIT SKEL HOMOLOVI STR 701 FILL UNBU PIV IN APPENDIX J ANIMALS

RABBITSKEL HOMOLOVIII STR 701 FILL UNBU PIV CLAWFRAG HOMOLOVIII STR 717 ROOFALL UNBU PIV TURTLE SHELL HOMOLOVIIIII KIVA 32 FILL BU PIV TURTLE CARAPACE HOMOLOVIIIII KIVA 32 FILL BU PIV TURTLE SHELL HOMOLOVIIIII KIVA 32 FILL BU PIV TURTLE SHELL HOMOLOVIIIII KIVA 34 FILL UNBU PIV ARTICULTED BONES HOMOLOVIIIII KIVA 37 ROOFALL UNBU PIV TURTLE CARAPACE HOMOLOVII III KIVA 37 FILL UNBU PIV TURTLE CARAPACE HOMOLOVII III PITSTR 31 FILL UNBU PIV BADGER PAW HOMOLOVIl III PITSTR 31 FILL UNBU PIV TURTLE SKULL HOMOLOVIIIII STR 15 FILL UNBU PIV CLAW HOMOLOVIIIII STR29 FILL BU PIV BEAR BONES LP 2:24:0 CERE RM 4 BENCH ? PIV DITTERT 1959:158 2 WILD CAT CLAWS PECOS PUEBLO BURIAL 1775 GGOOD PIV KIDDER 1932:108 2 HORNED SKULLS AWATOVI KIVA 788 FILL BURIED PV SMITH 1972:66 HORSE SKULL AWATOVI KIVA 908 FILL BURIED PV MONTGOMERY ET AL. 1949:77 SHEEPSKEL AWATOVI KIVA A FLOOR UNBU PV SMITH 1972:45-46

N Va +- 255

REFERENCES

Aberfe, D. F. 1967 The Psychological Analysis of a Hopi Ufe History. In Personalities and Cultures, edited by R. Hunt, pp. 79-138. The Natural History Press, Garclen City, New Jersey.

1982 The Peyote Religion Among the Navaho, 2nd edition. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Adams, E. C. 1973 Dead Horse Site. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Colorado, Boulder.

1989 Homol'ovi III: A Pueblo Hamlet In the Middle Little Colorado River Valley. Kiva 54:217-230.

1991 The Origin and Development of the Pueblo Katslna Cult. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

1995 Salado: The View From the Colorado Plateau. In Prehistoric Salado Culture of the American Southwest, edited by J. Dean. Amerind Foundation, Dragoon, Arizona. In press.

Adams, E. C., and K. A. Hays (editors) 1991 Homol'ovi II: Archaeology of an Ancestral Hopi Village. Arizona. Anthropological Papers No. 55. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Adams, E. C., and W. H. Walker 1994 Social Power and Ritual in the Prehistoric Pueblo Southwest. Paper presented at the 59th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Anaheim California. Adams, R. N. 1951 Half House: A Pithouse in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. Papers of the Michigan Academy of Sciences. Arts. and Letters 35:273-295.

Ahlstrom, R. V., J. S. Dean, and W. J. Robinson 1991 Evaluating Tree-Ring Interpretations at Walpi Pueblo, Arizona. American Antiquity 56:628-644.

Allen, C.A. 1891 Manners and Customs ofthe Mohaves. In Smithsonian Annual Report for 1890, pp. 615-616. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Allen,G. 1954 Appendix B: Canid Remains From Pueblo Bonito and Pueblo Del Arroyo. In The Material Culture of Pueblo Bonito, by N. M. Judd, pp. 385-389. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections Vol. 124. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Allen, J. W., and C. H. McNutt 1955 A Pithouse Near Santa Ana Pueblo, New Mexico. American Antiquity 20:241-255. 256

Allony, N. 1976 Genizah Practices Among the Jews. Sinai LXXIX:193-201.

Althusser, L. 1971 Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses. In Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays, edited by L. Althusser, pp. 127-186. New Left Books, London.

Ambler, R. 1994 The Shonto Junction Doghouse: A Weaver's Field House in the Klethla Valley. Kiva 59:455-473.

Amsden, C. 1949 Prehistoric Southwesterners from Basketmakerto Pueblo. Southwest Museum, Los Angeles.

Anderson, J. K. 1978a Arizona 0:7:23. In Excavation on Black Mesa. 19n:A Preliminary Report, edited by A L. Klesert, pp. 65-71. Research Report No.1. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

1978b Arizona 0:11:338. In Excavation on Black Mesa. 19n:A Preliminary Report, edited by A L. Klesert, pp. 93-97. Research Report NO.1. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

1978c Arizona 0:11:1161. In Excavation on Black Mesa, 19n:A Preliminary Report, edited by A L. Klesert, pp. 117-121. Research Report NO.1. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

Andrews, P. A, J. French, and J. Murphy 1980 Arizona 0:7:216. In Excavation on Black Mesa, 1979: A Descriptive Report, edited by S. Powell, R. Layhe, and A. L. Klesert, pp. 73-90. Research Paper No. 18, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

Appadurai, A 1986 Introduction: Commodities and the Politics of Value. In The Social Ufe of things, edited by A Appadurai, pp. 3-63. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Arens, W. 1979 The Man-Eating Myth: Anthropology and Anthropophagy. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Asad, T. 1993 Genealogies of Religion: Discipline and Reasons of Power in Christianity and Islam. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

Avigad, N. 1960 Excavations at Makmish, 1958 Preliminary Report. Israel Exploration Journal 10:90- 96.

Bain,A. 1855 The Senses and the Intellect. Parker, London. 257

Baker, S. 1988 Rattle Snake Ruin and Anasazi Cannibalism. On Human Interest 4(1):3-4. The Newsletter of B.Y.U. Anthropology and Archaeology. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.

Bally, C., and A. Sechehaye (editors) 1966 Course in General Linguistics, by Ferdinand de Saussure. Translated by W. Baskin. McGraw-Hili, New York.

Bandelier, A. F. 1890- 1890 Final Report of Investigations Among the Indians of the Southwestern United States, Carried on Mainlv in the Years from 1880-1885. 2 vols. Papers ofthe Archaeological Institute of America Nos. 3 and 4. Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Barthes, R. 1964 Elements de semiologie. Seuil, Paris.

Bass, W. M. 1983 The Occurrence of Japanese Trophy Skulls in the United States. Journal of Forensic Science 28:800-803.

Basso, K. H. 1970 Western Apache Witchcraft. Anthropological Papers No. 15. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Basso, K. H., and D. E. Walker (editors) 1970 Systems of North American Witchcraft and Sorcery. University of Idaho Press, Moscow.

Bateson, G. 1958 Naven. 2nd ed. Stanford University PresCj, Stanford, California. Originally published 1936.

Beaglehole, E. 1936 Hopi Hunting and Hunting Ritual. Publications in Anthropology NO.4. Yale University, New Haven.

Beaglehole, E., and P. Beaglehole 1935 Hopi of Second Mesa. Memoirs of the American Anthropological Association, No. 44. Menasha, Wisconsin.

Beals, R. L. 1934 Material Culture of the Pima, Papago. and Western Apache. U.S. Department of the Interior. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Beals, R. L., G. W. Brainerd, and W. Smith 1945 Archaeological Studies in Northeast Arizona: A Report on the Archaeological Work of the Rainbow Bridge-Monument Valley Expedition. Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 44, NO.1. University of Califomia, Berkeley.

Beck, E. M., and S. E. Tolnay 258

1990 The Killing Fields ofthe Deep South: The Market For Cotton and the Lynching of Blacks, 1882-1930. American Sociological Review 55:526-539. Bee, R. L. 1983 Quechan. In Southwest, edited by A. Ortiz, pp. 86-98. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 10, W. C. sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Beidelman, T. O. 1963 Witchcraft in Ukaguru. In Witchcraft and SorcerY in East Africa, edited by J. Middleton and E. H. Winter, pp. 57-98. Routledge Keagan Paul, London.

Bell,C.M. 1992 Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Belk, R. W., M. Wallendorf, ancrJ. F. Sheny Jr. 1989 The Sacred and the Profane in Consumer Behavior. Theodicy on the Odyssey. Journal of Consumer Research 16:1-38.

Binford, L. R. 1962 ArchaeologyasAnthropology. American Antiquity 28:217-225.

1967 Smudge Pits and Hide Smoking: The Use of Analogy in Archaeological Reasoning. American Antiquity 32:1-12.

1981a Behavioral Archaeology and the "Pompeii Premise." Journal of Anthropological Research 37:195-208.

1981 b Bones: Ancient Man and Modem Mvt!.ll!. Academic Press, New York.

Boakes, R. A. 1984 From Darwin to Behaviorism. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Boguet, H. 1929 [1590] An Examen of Wrtches. Richard Clay and Sons, Bungay, Great Britain.

Bohannan, P. 1955 Some Principles of Exchange and Investment Among the Tiv. American Anthropologist 57:60-70.

Boone, E. H. (editor) 1984 Ritual Human Sacrifice in Mesoamerica. Dumbarton Oaks Research Ubrary and Collections, Washington, D.C.

Bourke, J. G, 1934 [1891] Scatological Rites of All Nations. W. H. Lowerdennllk, Washington D.C.

1984 [1884] Snake-Dance of the Moguis. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Originally Published by Scribners, New York.

1993 [1892] Apache Medicine Men. Dover, New York. Originally published as The Medicine-Men ofthe Apache, Report No.9, Bureau of American Ethnology, pp. 443- 603. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 259

Bloch, M. (editor) 1975 Marxist Analyses and Social Anthropology. Malaby Press, London. Blomberg, B. and C. Sink 1980 Arizona 0:7:220. In Excavations on Black Mesa. 1979: 8 Descriptive Report, edited by S. Powell, R. Layhe, and A. L. K1esert, pp. 91-118. Research Report No. 18. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

Blue,M. 1988 The Witch Pume of 1878: Oral History and Documentary History In the Earfy Reservation Years. Navajo Community College Press, Tsaile, Arizona.

Bourdieu, P. 19n Outline of ~ Theory of Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Bowden, R. 1984 Moari Cannibalism: An Interpretation. Oceania 55:81-99

Bradley, B. A. 1992 Excavations at Sand Canyon Pueblo. In The Sand Canyon Archaeological Project: 8 Progress Report, edited by W. D. Upe, pp. 79-97. Occasional Paper NO.2. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado.

Bradley, R. 1990 The Passage of Anns. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Bretemitz, C. D., and J. Morris 1988 Excavation in Area 3. In Dolores Archaeological Program: Anasazi Communities at Dolores: Grass Mesa Village Book 1 of~, pp. 317-439. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Engineering and Research Center, Boulder.

Brew,J. O. 1946 The Archaeology of Alkali Ridge. Southeastern Utah. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Harvard University Vol. XXI. Peabody Museum, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Brown, G. M. 1990 Specialized Lithic Exchange and Production On Anderson Mesa. In Technological Change in the Chavez Pass Region, North-Central Arizona, edited by G. M. Brown, pp. 173-205. Anthropological Research Paper No. 41. Arizona State University, Tempe.

Brown, J .A. 1971 Approaches to the Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices. Memoir No. 25. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D.C.

Brown, P., and D. F. Tuzin (editors) 1983 The Ethnography of Cannibalism. Society for Psychological Anthropology, Washington, D.C.

Bullard, W. R. 1962 The Cerro Colorado Site and Pithouse Architecture in the Southwestem United States Prior to A.D. 900. Papers ofthe Peabody Museum of Archaeology and 260

Ethnology Vol. XLIV, NO.2. Peabody Museum, HalVard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Bullard, W. R., and F. E. Cassidy 1956 LA 2505. In Pipeline Archaeology, edited by F. Wendorf, N. Fox, and O. L. Lewis, pp. 43-51. Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff.

1956 LA 2507. In Pipeline Archaeology, edited by F. Wendorf, N. Fox, and O. L. Lewis, pp. 56-70. Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff.

Bullen,A. K. 1947 Archaeological Theory and Anthropological Fact. American Antiquity 13:128-134.

Bullock, P. 1991 A Reappraisal of Anasazi Cannibalism. Kiva 57:5-16.

1992 A Return to the Question of Cannibalism. Kiva 58:203-25.

Bunzel, R. 1932 Introduction to Zulli Ceremonialism. In The Forty-Seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology For the Years 1929-1930, pp. 467-474. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Burger, R. L. 1988 Unity and Heterogeneity Within the Chavin Horizon. In Peruvian Prehistory. edited by R. Keatinge, pp.99-144. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Burton, J. 1993 Excavations at McCreerv Pueblo. Petrified Forest National Park. Arizona. Publications in Anthropology No. 63. Westem Archeological and Conservation Center, National Park Service, Tucson.

Burton, J. F., and K. M. McConnell 1991 Structures, Features, and Stratigraphy. In The Archaeology of Sivu'ovi: The Archaic to Basketmaker Transition at Petrified Forest National Park, edited by J. Burton, pp. 39-48. Publications in Anthropology No. 55. Western Archeological and Conservation Center, National Park SelVice, Tucson.

Bushnell, D. 1920 Native Cemeteries and Fonns of Burial East of the Mississippi. Bulletin No. 71. Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Caldwell, J. R. 1964 Interaction Spheres in Prehistory. In Hopewellian Studies, edited by J. R. Caldwell and R. L. Hall, pp. 133-143. Scientific Papers No. 12. "linois State Museum, Springfield.

Cameron, C. M. 1990 Pitstructure Abandonment in the Four Comers Region of the American Southwest: Late Basketmaker'" and Pueblo I Periods. Journal of Field Archaeology 17:27-37. 261

1993 Abandonment and Archaeological Interpretation. In Abandonment of Settlements and Regions, edited by C. Cameron and S. Tomka, pp. 3-7. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Cartson, R. L.. 1963 Basket Maker .!11 Sites Near Durango. Colorado. University of Colorado Studies Series in Anthropology, NO.8. University of Colorado, Boulder.

Cassells, S. E. 1988 The Archaeology of Colorado. 3rd ed. Johnson Publishing, Boulder, Colorado.

Cassidy, F. E. 1956 LA 2508. In Pipeline Archaeologv, edited by F. Wendorf, N. Fox, and O. L. Lewis, pp. 67-79. Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff.

Cattanach, G. S. 1980 Long House. Publications in Archaeology No. 7H, Wetherill Mesa Studies. National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

Cater, J. D., and M. L. Chenault 1988 Kiva Use Reinterpreted. Southwestern Lore 54(3):19-32.

Chambertin, T. C. 1944 The Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses. Scientific Monthly 59:357-362.

Chehab, M. 1951- 1952 Les terres cuites de Kharayeb. Bulletin du Musee de Beyrouth 10:1-184.

Clastres, P. 1974 Guayaki Cannibalism. In Native South Americans, edited by P. J. Lyon, pp. 309- 321. Little, Brown, and Co., Boston. Clebert, J. 1963 The Gypsies. Vista Books, London.

Coe,M. D. 1981 Religion and the Rise of Mesoamerican States. In The Transition to Statehood in the New Wortd, edited by G. D. Jones and R. R. Kautz, pp. 157-171. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Codere, H. 1950 Fighting with Property. Monograph No. XVIII. American Ethnological SOciety, New York.

Cohen, A. 1979 Political Symbolism. Annual Review of Anthropology 8:87-113.

Cohn, N. 1961 The Pursuit of the Millennium. Harper Torchbooks, New York.

COllingwood, R. G. 1956 The Idea of Historv. Oxford University Press, New York. 262

Colton, H. S. 1946 The Sinagua: A Summary of the Archaeology of the Region of Flagstaff. Arizona. Bulletin No. 22. Museum of Northem Arizona, Flagstaff.

Conkey, M. W., and C. A. Hastorf (editors) 1990 The Uses of ~ in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Cordell, L. S. 1984 Prehistory of the Southwest. Academic Press, New York.

Cordell, L. S., S. Upham, and S. L. Brock 1987 Obscuring Cultural Pattems in the Archaeological Record: A Discussion from Southwestem Archaeology. American Antiquity 52:565-577.

Costa, P. 1974 La moschea grande di San'a. Annali {Napoli):XXXIV

Creamer, W. 1993 The Architecture of Arroyo Hondo Pueblo. New Mexico. Arroyo Hondo Archaeology Series Vol. 7. School of American Research, Santa Fe.

Crown, P. 1994 Ceramics and Ideology: Salado Polychrome Pottery. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Cummings, B. 1953 First Inhabitants of Arizona and the Southwest. Cummings Publication Council, Tucson.

Cushing, F. H. 1965 [1882] The Nation ofthe Willows. Northland Press, Flagstaff. Originally published in Atlantic Monthly.

1967 [1882-1883] MY Adventures in Zuni. Filter Press, Palmer Lake, Colorado.

1979 Tried for Sorcery. In Zuni: Selected Writings of Frank Hamilton Cushing, edited by J. Green, pp. 157-160. University of Nebraska Press, Uncoln.

Daifuku, H. 1961 Jeddito 264: AReport on the Excavation of !! Basket Maker III-Pueblo! Site in Northeastem Arizona with !! Review of Some Current Theories in Southwestem Archaeology. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. XXXIII, No.1. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Daniel, G. E. 1981 AShort History of Archaeology. Thames and Hudson, London.

Daniels, H. S. 1938 Introduction. In Durango Public Ubrary Museum Project vol. III, compiled by H. S. Daniels, pp. 16-18. Durango Public Ubrary, La Plata County, Colorado.

Daniels, H. S., and F. D. Lee 263

1940 Griffiths Heights Excavations Ignacio 12:1. In Durango Public Librarv Museum Project, vol. III, complied by H. S. Daniels, pp. 16-29. Durango Public Library, La Plata County, Colorado

Darwin, C. 1871 The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. John Murray, London.

1872 The Expression of The Emotions in Man and Animal. John Murray, London.

1962 [1839] The Voyage ofthe Beagle. Doubleday, New York.

Davenport, W. H. 1986 Two Kinds of Value in the Eastern Solomon Islands. In The Social Life of Things, edited by A. Appadurai, pp. 95-109. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

David, N. 1992 Integrating Ethnoarchaeology: A Subtle Realist Perspective. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 11 :330-359. Dean, J. S. 1969 Chronological Analysis of ~ Phase sites in Northeastern Arizona. Papers ofthe Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research No.3. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

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

De la Vega, G. 1987 [1609, 1616-1617] Royal Commentaries of the Incas and General Historv of Peru. Parts 1 and g. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Demarcay, G. B., J Setzer, and L. Michalik 1980 Arizona 0:11:2001. In Excavations on Black Mesa. 1980 A Descriptive Report, edited by P. P. Andrews, R Layhe, D. Nichols, and S. Powell, pp. 185-191. Research Paper No. 24. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

Derrida, J. 1978 Writing and Difference. Translated by A. Bass. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Descartes, R. 1972 [1664] Treatise on Man. Translated by T.S. Hall. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

De Williams, A. A. 1983 Cocopa. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 10, edited by A. Ortiz, pp. 99- 112. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Dickson, B. D. 1990 The Dawn of Belief. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

DiPeso,C. 264

1958 The Reeve Ruin of Southeastern Arizona. Arnerind Foundation Series NO.9. Northland Press, Flagstaff, Arizona. Dittert, A. E. 1959 Culture Change in the Cebolleta Mesa Region. Central Western New Mexico. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson. Dittert, A. E., F. W. Eddy, and B. L. Dickey 1966 LA4195 Sambrito Village. In Prehistory in the Navajo Reservoir District Northwestern New Mexico, edited by F. W. Eddy, pp. 230-254. Papers in Anthropology No. 15, Pt. t. Museum of New Mexico, Santa Fe.

Dobres, M., and C. R. Hoffman 1994 Social Agency and the Dynamics of Prehistoric Technology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 1:211-258.

Dohm, K.. M. 1988 Excavations in Area 7. In Dolores Archaeological Program: Anasazi Communities at Dolores: Grass Mesa Village Book 6 of 6, pp. 847-871. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Engineering and Research Center, Boulder.

Dole,G. 1962 Endocannibalism Among the Amahuaca Indians. Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences 24:567-573.

Douglas, M. 1966 EYmv and Danger. Praeger, New York.

Downey, D. B., and R. M. Hyser 1991 No Crooked Death. University of Illinois Press, Chicago.

Downum, C. E. 1988 One Grand History: A Critical Review of Flagstaff Archaeology. 1851-1988. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson.

Drennan, R. D. 1976 Religion and Social Evolution in Fonnative Mesoamerica. In The Earfy Mesoamerican Village, edited by K. Flannery, pp. 345-368. Academic Press, New York. Drucker, P. 1941 Culture Element Distributions: XVI Yuman-Piman. Anthropological Records 6(3). University of California Press, Berkeley.

Dunand, M. 1944- 1995 Les sculptures de la favissa du Temple d'Amrit. Bulletin du Musee de Beyrouth 7:99- 107.

Duncan, J. 1847 Travels in West Africa in 1845 and 1846. Richard Bradley, London.

Dunnell, R. C. 1978 Style and Function: A Fundamental Dichotomy. American Antiquity 43:192-202. 265

1980 Evolutionary Theory and Archaeology. In Advances in Archaeological Theory and Method, vol. 3, edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 35-99. Academic Press, New York.

1989 Aspects of the Application of Evolutionary Theory in Archaeology. In Archaeological Thought in America, edited by C. Lamberg-Kariovsky, pp. 35-49. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Durkheim, E. 1947 [1912J The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. Free Press, Glencoe, Illinois. Originally published 1915 in English by George Allen and Unwin, New York.

Earie, T. K. 1991 Toward a Behavioral Archaeology. In Processual and Postprocessual Archaeologies: Multiple Ways of Knowing the Past, edited by R. W. Preucel, pp. 83- 95. Occasional Paper No. 10. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

Earie, T. K., and R. Preucel 1987 Processual Archaeology and the Radical Critique. Current Anthropology 28:501-538.

Eddy, F. W. 1966 Prehistory in the Navajo Reservoir District Northern New Mexico. Papers in Anthropology No. 15. Museurn of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

1974 Population Dislocation in the Navajo Reservoir District, New Mexico and Colorado. American Antiquitv 39:75-84.

Eggan, F. 1954 Social Anthropology and the Method of Controlled Comparison. American Anthropologist 56:743-763. Eliade, M. 1958a Patterns in Comparative Religion. Sheed and Ward, New York.

1958b yoga: Immortalitv and Freedorn. New York.

1959 The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York.

1978 The Fome and the Crucible. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Ellis,A. B. 1965 [1890J The Ewe-Speaking Peoples of the Slave Coast of West Africa. Benin Press, Chicago.

Ellis, F. H. 1951 Patterns of Aggression and the War Cult in Southwestern Pueblos. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 7:177-201.

1970 Pueblo Witchcraft and Medicine. In Systems of North American Witchcraft and Sorcery, edited by K. H. Basso and D. E. Walker, pp. 37-72. University of Idaho Press, Moscow. 266

Emslie, S. D. 1978 Dog Burials From Mancos Canyon, Colorado. Kiva 43:17e-182.

Eggan, F. 1954 Social Anthropology and the Method of Controlled Comparison. American Anthropologist 56:743-763.

Etzkorn, M. C., L. Shifrin, and M. Hegmon 1993 Pottery. In Descriptive Archaeology, edited by R. R, Ughtfoot and M. C. Etzkorn, pp. 131-156. The Duckfoot Site, vol. 1. Occasional Paper NO.3. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado.

Evans-Pritchard, E. E. 1937 Witchcraft, Oracles, and Magic Among the Azande. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Faris, J. C. 1990 The Nightway. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Ferguson, T. J., and W. Eriacho 1990 Ahayu:Da Zui'li War Gods: Cooperation and Repatriation. Native Peoples 4(1):6-12.

Fernstrom, K. W. 1980 Arizona 0:7:719. In Excavations on Black Mesa, 1979: 8 Descriptive Report, edited by S. Powell, R. Layhe, and A. Klesert, pp. 182-202. Research Paper No. 18, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

Fernstrom, K. W., and M. S. Riley 1980 Arizona 0:7:214. In Excavations on Black Mesa, 1979: 8 Descriptive Report, edited by S. Powell, R. Layhe, and A. Klesert, pp. 61-72. Research Paper No. 18, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

Fewkes, J. W. 1892 The Ceremonial Circuit of the Cardinal Points Among Tusayan Indians. American Naturalist Vol. XXVI:24-31.

1893 A-Wa-to-bi: An Archaeological Verification of a Tusayan Legend. American Anthropologist 6 (0.s.):363-375.

1896 Preliminary Account of an Expedition to the Cliff Villages ofthe Red Rock Country, and the Tusayan Ruins of Sikyatki and Awatobi, Arizona. In Smithsonian Annual Report for 1895, pp. 557-588. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

1897 The Group of Tusayan Ceremonials Called Katcinas. The Fifteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology for the Years 1893-1894, pp. 245-313. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

1898a Archaeological Expedition to Arizona in 1895. In Seventeenth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology for the Years 1895-1896, Pt. 2, pp.519-742. Washington, D.C.

1898b Aspects of Sun Worship Among the Moki Indians. Nature 58:295-298. ...

267

1898c A Preliminary Account of Archaeological Field Work in Arizona in 1897. In Smithsonian Annual Report for 1897, pp.601-624. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

1898d Preliminary Account of an Expedition to the Pueblo Ruins of Near Winslow, Arizona, in 1896. In Annual Report ofthe Smithsonian Institution for 1896, pp. 517-540. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

1900a Tusayan Migration Traditions. In The Nineteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology for the Years 1897-1898, Pt 2, pp. 5n-633. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

1900b Property-Right in Eagles Among the Hopi. American Anthropologist 2:690-707.

1901 a The OwakOIti Altar at Sichomovi Pueblo. American Anthropologist 3:211-226.

1901 b The Lesser New-Fire Ceremony at Walpi. American Anthropologist 3:438-453.

1901c An Interpretation of Katcina Worship. Journal of American Folk-Lore XIV{UII):81-94.

1904 Two Summers' Work in Pueblo Ruins. In Twenty-Second Annual Report Bureau of American Ethnology. pp. 17-196. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

1908 Ventilators in Ceremonial Rooms of Prehistoric Cliff-dwellings. American Anthropologist 10:387-398.

1909 Antiquities of the Mesa Verde National Park: Spruce Tree House. Bulletin No. 41. Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

1911 Preliminary Report on A Visit to the Navaho National Monument Arizona. Bulletin No. 50, Bureau of American Ethnology. Smithsonian Institution Washington D.C.

1916 The Relation of Sun Temple, A New Type of Ruin Lately Excavated in the Mesa Verde National Park, To Prehistoric Towers. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 6(8):212-221.

1919a Prehistoric Villages. Castles, and Towers of Southwestern Colorado. Bulletin No. 70, Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D,C,

1919b Designs on PrehistoriC Hopi Pottery. In The 33rd Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology for the Years 1911-1912, pp. 207-284. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

1920 Sun Worship of the Hopi Indians. In Smithsonian Institution Annual Report for 1918, pp. 493-527. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

1922a Ancestor Worship of the Hopi Indians. In Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution for 1921, pp. 485-506. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

1922b Fire Worship of the Hopi Indians. In Annual Report for the Smithsonian Institution for 1920, pp. 589-610. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 268

1922c Field WorK on the Mesa Verde National Monument Park, Colorado. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 72(1):47-64. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

1925 Archaeological Fieldwork on the Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 74(5):89-115. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Fewkes, J. W., and A. M. stephen 1892 The Na-ac-nai-ya: A Tusayan Initiation Ceremony. Journal of American Folk-Lore 5:189-221.

1893 The Pa-Iu-Iu-kon-ti: A Tusayan Ceremony. Journal of American Folk-Lore 6:269- 294.

Firth, R. 1940 The Work of the Gods in Tikopia. Lund, Humphries, London.

Flannery, K. V. (editor) 1976 The Early Mesoamerican Village. Academic Press, New York.

1982 The Golden MarshalHown: A Parable for the Archaeology of the 19805. American Anthropologist 84:265-278.

Flinn, L., C. G. Turner, and A. Brew 1976 Additional Evidence of Cannibalism in the Southwest: The Case of LA 4528. American Antiquity 41:308-318.

Forbes, R. J. 1950 Metallumy in Antiquitv. E. J. Brill, Leiden.

Ford, C. S. 1939 Society, Culture, and the Human Organism. Journal of General Psychology 20:135- 179.

Ford, J. A 1956 Review of Recent Discoveries Suggesting an Early Woodland Burial Cult in the Northeast, by William A Ritchie. American Antiquity 21 :330-331.

Ford, J. A, and G. R. Willey 1941 An Interpretation of the Prehistory of the Eastern United states. American Anthropologist 43:325-363.

Fortune, R. F. 1969 [1932] Omaha Secret Societies. AMS press, New YorK.

Foucault, M. 1970 The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. Tavistock, London.

1982 The Archaeology of Knowledge. Translated by A. M. S. Smith. Tavistock, London.

Frazer, J. G. 1910 Totemism and Exogamy. MacMillan, London.

1911- 1915 The Golden Bough: Astudy in Magic and Religion. Macmillan, London. 269

Freud, S. 1918 Totem and Taboo: Resemblances Between the Psychic Ufe of Savages and Neurotics. Moffat Yard, New York.

1957 Future of An Illusion. Double Day, Garden City, New York.

Frisbie, C. J. 1987 Navajo Medicine Bundles or Jish. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Fritz, J. M. 1978 Paleopsychology Today: Ideational Systems and Human Adaptation in Prehistory. In Social Archaeology: Beyond Subsistence and Dating, edited by C. L. Redman and M. J. Berman, pp. 37-60. Academic Press, New York. Gadd, C.J. 1960 The Spirit of the Uving Sacrifice in Tombs. Iraq 22:51-58.

Geary, P. 1986 Sacred Commodities: The Circulation of Medieval Relics. In The Social Ufe of Things, edited by A Appadurai, pp. 169-194. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Geertz, A 1982 The Sa'iakwamanawyat Sacred Puppet Ceremonial Among the Hopi Indians of Arizona: A Preliminary Investigation. Anthropos 77:163-90. Geertz, C. 1966 Religion as a Cultural System. In Anthropological Approaches to the study of Religion, edited by Michael Blanton, pp. 1-46. AS.A. Monograph No.3. Praeger, New York.

Gifford, E. W. 1932 The Southwestern Yavapai. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 29, No.3. University of California Press, Berkeley.

1940 Culture Element Distributions XII Apache Pueblo. Anthropological Records 4:1. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Gill,S. 1983 Navajo Views of Their Origin. In Southwest, edited by A Ortiz, pp. 502-505. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 10, W. C. sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Ginzburg, R. 1988 100 Years of Lynchings. Black Classic Press, Baltimore.

Gladwin, H. S. 1945 The Chaco Branch: Excavations at White Mound and in the Red Mesa Valley. Medallion Papers No. 26. Gila Pueblo, Globe, Arizona.

1957 AHistory of the Ancient Southwest. Bond and Wheelright, Portland, Maine.

Gladwin, H. S., E. W. Haury, E. B. Sayles, and N. Gladwin 1937 Excavations at Snaketown I: Material CuHure. Medallion Papers No. 25. Gila Pueblo, Globe, Arizona. 270

Glennie, G., D., and W. D. Upe 1984 Replication of an Early Anasazi Pithouse. Paper presented at the 49th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Portland.

Goiten, S. D. 1967 AMediterranean Society. vol. 1. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Goldfrank, E. S. 1927 The Social and Ceremonial Organization of Cochiti. Menasha, Wisconsin. Goodwin, G. 1942 The Social Omanization of the Western Apache. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Goody, E. 1970 Legitimate and Illegitimate Aggression in a West African State. In Witchcraft Confessions and Accusations, edited by M. Douglas, pp. 207-244. Tavistock, London.

Gothheil, R. J. H., and W. H. Worrell 1927 Fragments from the Cairo Genizah in the Freer Collection. Macmillan, London.

Gould, R.A. 1980 Uving Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Gould, S.J. 1984 The Mismeasure of Man. Pelican Books, New York.

Grant, S. 1989 Secondary Burial or Cannibalism?: An Example from New Mexico (Abstract). American Joumal of Physical Anthropology 78:230-231.

Gregory, C. 1983 Kula Gift Exchange and Capitalist Commodity Exchange: A Comparison. In The Kula: New Perspectives on Massim Exchange, edited by J. Leach and E. Leach, pp. 103-117. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Griffin, J. B. 1949 Meso-america and the Southeast: A Commentary. In The Florida Indian and His Neighbors, edited by J. B. Griffin, pp. 77-99. Inter-American Center, Winter Park, Florida.

Grimes, R. L. 1992 Reinventing Ritual. Soundings 75:21-41.

Grossman, F. E. 1873 The Pima Indians of Arizona. In the Smithsonian Annual Report for 1871, pp.407- 419. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Hall,E.T. 1944 Early Stockaded Settlements in the Govemador, New Mexico: A Marginal Anasazi Development from Basket Maker ill to Pueblo! Times. Columbia University Studies in Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 2 Pt. 1. Columbia University, New York. Hallowell, A. J. 271

1926 Bear Ceremonialism in the Northern Hemisphere. American Anthropologist 28:1-175. Hambly, W. D. 1931 Serpent Worship in Africa. Anthropology Series 21 (1). Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago. Hamilton, H., J. T. Hamilton, and E. F. Chapman 1974 Spiro Mound Copper. Memoir No. 11. Missouri Archaeological Society, Columbia.

Hamlyn, D. W. 1962 Behavior. In The Philosophy of Mind, edited by V. C. Chappell, pp. 60-73. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

Hantman, J. L. 1980 Arizona 0:11:425. In Excavations on Black Mesa, 1979: ADescriptive Report, edited by S. Powell, R. Layhe, and A. Klesert, pp. 237-252. Research Paper No. 18. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

Hansen, J. A., and M. B. 1975 The Joint Site-A Preliminary Report. In Chapters in the Prehistory of Eastern Arizona, IV. Fieldiana Anthropology 65:47-91.

Hargrave, L. L. 1970 Mexican Macaws: Comparative Osteology and Survey of Remains from the Southwest. Anthropological Papers No. 20. University of Arizona, Tucson.

Hanill, B. G. 1973 The Dobell Site: Archaeological Salvage near The Petrified Forest. Kiva 39:36-67.

Hanington, M. R. 1953 Southern Nevada Pit-Dwellings. The Masterkey 27(4):136-142.

Hanis, M. 1964 The Nature of Cultural Things. Random House, New York.

1977 Cannibals and Kings: The Origins of Cultures. Random House, New York.

1980 Cultural Materialism. Vintage Books, New York.

Harvey, W. 1957 [1628] Movement of the Heart and Blood in Animals. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford. Orginally published by William Fitzer, Frankfurt.

Hastings, C. S. 1893 The History of the Telescope. In Smithsonian Annual Report for 1892, pp. 95-109. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Haury, E. W. 1931 Kivas oftf:m Tusayan Ruin, Grande Canyon, Arizona. Medallion Papers NO.9. Gila Pueblo, Globe, Arizona.

1935 Tree-Rings The Archaeologist's Time Piece. American Antiquity 1:98-108. 272

1937 Figurines and Miscellaneous Clay Objects. In Excavations at Snaketown I: !IIaterial -.J Culture. edited by H. S. Gladwin. E. W. Haury. E. B. Sayles. and N. Gladwin. pp. 233-245. Medallion Papers No. 25. The Gila Pueblo Foundation. Globe. Arizona.

1958 Evidence at Point of Pines for a Prehistoric Migration from Northern Arizona. In Migrations in New Wor1d Culture Historv, edited by R. Thompson. pp. 1-8. Social Science Bulletin No. 27. University of Arizona. Tucson.

Haury. E. W .• and L. L. Hargrave 1931 Recently Dated Ruins in Arizona. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections Vol. 18 No. 2. Smithsonian Institution. Washington. D.C.

1931 Excavation at Kin TIel and Kokopnyama. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections. Vol. 82. No. 11. Smithsonian Institution. Washington. D. C.

Haven. S. 1856 Archaeology of the United states. Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge. No.8. Pt. 2. Smithsonian Institution. WaShington. D.C.

Hawley. F. M. 1950 The Mechanics of Perpetuation in Pueblo Witchcraft. In For the Dean. edited by E. Reed and D. King. pp. 143-158. Hohokam Museum Association and the Southwestem Monuments Association. Tucson.

Hawkes. C. F. 1954 Archaeological Theory and Method: Some Suggestions from the Old Wor1d. American Anthropologist 56:155-168.

Hayes. A.. and J. Lancaster 1975 Badger House Community. National Park Service. Washington. D. C.

Hayes. A.. J. N. Young. and A. H. Warren 1981 Excavation of Mound L Gran Guivira National Monument. Publications in Archeology No. 16. National Park Service. Washington. D. C.

Helmuth. H. 1973 Cannibalism In Paleoanthropology and Ethnology. In Man and Aggression. edited by A. Montague. pp. 229-253. Oxford University Press. New York.

Hepworth. J. T .• and S. G. West 1988 Lynchings and the Economy: A Time-Series Reanalysis of Hovland and Sears (1940). Joumal of Personality and Social Psychology 55:239-247.

Hibben. F. C .• and W. Dick 1944 A Basketmaker III Site in Canyon Largo. New Mexico. American 00!i9.Y,ity 9:381- 385.

HiII.J.N. 1968 Broken K Pueblo: Patterns of Form and Function. In New Perspectives in Archaeology, edited by S. R. Binford and L. R. Binford. pp. 103-143. Aldine. Chicago. 273

1970 Prehistoric Social Organization in the American Southwest, Theory and Method. In Reconstructing Prehistoric Pueblo Societies, edited by W. A. Longacre, pp. 11-58. School of American Research Series, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Hobhouse, L. T., G. C. Wheeler, and M. Ginsberg 1930 The Material Culture and Social Institutions of the Simpler Peoples. Sociology Monograph NO.3. London School of Economics and Political Science, London.

Hodder, I. 1985 Postprocessual Archaeology. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, edited by M. B. Schiffer, Vol. 8, pp. 1-26. Academic Press, New York.

1986 Reading the Past. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.

1989 This Is Not an Article About Material Culture as Text. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 8:250-269.

1991 Interpretative Archaeology and Its Role. American Antiquity 56:7-18.

Hodder, I. (editor) 1987 The Archaeology of Contextual Meanings. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Hoebel, E. A. 1952 Keresan Witchcraft. American Anthropologist 54:586-589.

Hoffman, J. M. 1993 Human Skeletal Remains. In Descriptive Archaeology, edited by R. R. Lightfoot and M. C. Etzkorn, pp. 253-296. The Duckfoot Site, vol. 1. Occasional Paper NO.3. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado.

Hohmann. J. (editor) 1985 Hohokam and Salado Hamlet in the Tonto Basin: Site Descriptions. Office of Cultural Resource Management Report No. 63. Arizona State University, Tempe.

Hoig, S. 1961 The Sand Creek Massacre. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Holland, J. G., and B. F. Skinner 1961 The Analvsis of Behavior. A Program for Self-Instruction. McGraw-Hili, New York.

Hough, W. 1902 Ancient Peoples ofthe Petrified Forest of Arizona. Harper's Monthly Magazine 105:897-901.

1903 Archaeological Field Work in North-Eastern Arizona. The Museum-Gates Expedition of 1901. In Report of the United States National Museum for 1901, pp. 278-358. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C.

1915 The Hopi Indians. Utile Histories of the North American Indians Series NO.4. Torch Press, Cedar Rapids, Iowa. 274

Hovland, C. J., and R. R. Sears 1940 Correlation of Lynchings with Economic Indices. Minor Studies in Aggression: VI. Journal of Psychology 9:301-310.

Howells, W. 1948 The Heathens. Doubleday and Company, New York.

Huber, E. K. and W. D. Upe 1992 Excavations at the Green Uzard Site. In The Sand Canyon Archaeological Project: AProgress Report, edited by W. D. Upe, pp. 69-n. Occasional Paper No.2, Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado.

Hughes, J. T. 1947 An Archaeological Reconnaissance In Tamaulipas, Mexico. American Antiquity 13:33-44.

Hull, C. L. 1943 Principles of Behavior: An Introduction to Behavior Theory. Appleton Century Crofts, NewYori<.

Hurst, C. T., and E. Anderson 1949 A Com Cache From Western Colorado. American Antiquity 14:161-167.

Huxley, T. H. 1874 On The HypothesiS that Animals are Automata. Nature 10:362-366. llif, F. G. 1954 [1901] People of the Blue Water: My Adventures Among the Walapai and Havasupai Indians. Harper and Brothers, New Yori

Isbell,W. 19n Cosmological Order Expressed In PrehistOric Ceremonial Centers. In Proceedings of the 42nd International Congress of Americanlsts, vol. 4, pp. 269-297. Paris.

James, W. 1958 [1902] The Varieties of Religious Experience. Mentor, New Yori

Jarvie, I. C. 1965 Umits of Functionalism and AHematives to It in Anthropology. In Functionalism in the Social Sciences: The Strength, and Umits of Functionalism in Anthropology, Economics, Political Science, and Sociology, edited by D. Martindale, pp. 18-34. Monograph NO.5. The American Academy of Political and Social Science, Philadelphia.

Jayaswal, V., and K. Krishna 1986 An Ethno-archaeological View of Indian TerracoHas. Agam Kala Prakashan, Delhi.

Jefferson, T. 1955 [1784] Notes on the State of Virginia. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.

Johnsen, H., and B. Olsen 275

1992 Hermeneutics and Archaeology: On the Philosophy of Contextual Archaeology. American Antiquity 57:419-436.

Jorgensen, J. G. 1980 Western Indians: Comparative Environments. Languages. and CuHures of 172 Western American Indian Tribes. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco.

Judd, N. M. 1924 Two Chaco Canyon Pit Houses. Smithsonian Institution Annual Report for 1922, pp. 319-413. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

1926 Archaeological ObselVations North of the Rio Colorado. Bulletin No. 82. Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

1930 The Excavation and Repair of Betatikin. United States National Museum Proceedings, Vol. 77. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

1954 The Material CuHure of Pueblo Bonito. Smithsonian rt~iscellaneous Collections Vol. 124. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Judge, W. J. 1991 Chaco: Current Views of Prehistory and the Regional System. In Chaco and Hohokam, edited by P. L. Crown and W. J. Judge, pp. 11-30. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe. Kahle, P. 1959 The Cairo Geniza. Blackwell, Oxford.

Kapur, S. 1983 Witchcraft in Western India. Orient Longman, Bombay.

Kelly, W.H. 1977 Cocopa Ethnography. Anthropological Papers No. 29. University of Arizona, Tucson.

Kent, K. P. 1983 Pueblo Indian Textiles: A Living Tradition. School of American Research, Santa Fe.

Kent, S. 1984 AnalYZing Activity Areas: An Ethnoarchaeological Study of the Use of Space. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. KeY,H. 1970 A Mohave Cremation. Kiva 36:23-38.

Kidder, A. V. 1921 Excavations at Pecos in 1921. EI Palacio X(1-2):3-16.

1924 An Introduction to the Study of Southwestern Archaeology. with !! Preliminary Account of the Excavations at Pecos. Papers of the Southwestern Expedition NO.1. Phillips Academy, New Haven, Connecticut.

1926 The Excavations at Pecos. EI Palacio XX(1): 3-32. 276

1932 The Artifacts of Pecos. Papers of the Southwest Expedition NO.6. Yale University Press, London.

1958 Pecos. New Mexico: Archaeological Notes. Papers ofthe Robert S. Peabody Foundation for Archaeology Vol. 5. Phillips Academy, Andover, Massachusetts.

Kidder, A. V., and S. J. Guernsey 1919 Archaeological Explorations in Northeastern Arizona. Bulletin 65, Bureau of American Ethnology. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. E51 U6 No. 65

Kidder, A. V., and A. O. Shepard 1936 The Pottery of Pecos, vol. II. Yale University Press, New Haven.

Kitchener, R. F. 19n Behaviorism and Behavior. Behaviorism 5:11-72.

Klesert, A. L. 1984 Arizona 0:11:348. In Excavations on Black Mesa. 1971-1976. A Descriptive Report, edited by S. Powell, pp. 68-72. Research Paper No. 48. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

Kluckhohn, C. 1945 The Personal Document in Anthropological Science. In Use of Personal Documents in History. Anthropology. and Sociology, edited by L. Gottschalk, C. Kluckhohn, and R. Angel, pp. n-173. Bulletin No. 53. Social Science Research Council, New York.

K1uckhohn, C., P. Reiter, and C. Bohannon 1939 Preliminary Report on the 1937 Excavations. Bc 50-51. Chaco Canyon New Mexico. With Some Distributional Analyses. Bulletin No.3, Pt. 2. University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

Kopytoff, I. 1986 The CuHural Biography of Things: Commoditization as Process. In The Social Ufe of Things, edited by A. Appadurai, pp. 64-91. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Kopytoff, I., and S. Miers 19n African Slavery as an Institution of Marginality. In Slavery in Africa, edited by S. Miers and I. Kopytoff, pp. 3-81. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.

Kors, A. C., and E. Peters (editors) 1972 Witchcraft in Europe 1100-1700: A Documentary History. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

Kramer, H., and J. Sprenger 1971 [1486] Malleus maleficarum. Dover Books, New York.

Krause, R. A. 1990 The Death of the Sacred: Lessons from a Mississippian Mound in the Tennessee River Valley. The Journal of Alabama Archaeology 36(2):63-98.

Kroeber, A. L. 277

1916 Zuili Potsherds. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 18(1):7-33.

1925 Handbook of the Indians of Califomia. Bulletin No. 78. Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Kroeber, A. L., and C. Kluckhohn 1952 CuHure-A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 47. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Kushner, G. 1970 A Consideration of Some Processual Designs for Archaeology as Anthropology. American Antiquity 35:125-133.

Lamphere, L. 1983 Southwestem Ceremonialism. In Southwest, edited by A. Ortiz, pp. 743-m. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 10, general editor, W. C. Sturtevant. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Lancaster, J. A., J. M. Pinkley, P. F. van Cleve, and D. Watson 1954 Archaeological Investigations in Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado 1950. Archaeological Research Series, NO.2. National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

Lancaster, J. A., and D. Watson 1943 Excavation of Mesa Verde Pit Houses. American Antiquity 9:190-198.

Lange, C. H., and C. L. Riley (editors) 1970 The Southwestern Joumals of Adolph F. Bandelier, 1883-1884. Albuquerque.

Langness, L. L. 1965 The Life History in Anthropological Science. New York.

Langness, L. L., and G. Frank 1981 Lives: An Anthropological Approach to Biography. Chandler and Sharp, Navato, Califomia.

Lansman, S. A.. 1980 Arizona 0:7:1135. In Excavations on Black Mesa, 1979: ADescriptive Report, edited by S. Powell, R. Layhe, and A. K1esert, pp.206-210. Research Paper No. 18. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southem Illinois University, Carbondale.

Lapham,l. 1855 The Antiquities of Wisconsin. Smithsonian Institution and the American Antiquarian Society, Washington, D.C.

Larco Hoyle, R. 1941 Los cupisniques. Casa Editorial, "La Cronica' y "Variedades." Lima.

1946 A Culture Sequence for the North Coast of Peru. In The Andean Civilizations, edited by J. H. Steward, pp. 149-175. Handbook of South American Indians, vol. 2, Bulletin No. 143. Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 278

Larick,R. 1987 The Circulation of Spears Among Loikop Cattle Pastoralists of Samburu District, Kenya. Research in Economicl~nthropology 9:143-166. Layhe, R. 1978 Arizona 0:11 :275. In Excavations on Black Mesa. 1977: APreliminary Report, edited by A L. Klesert, pp. 85-91. Center for Archaeological Investigations Research Report No.1. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

Leach, J. W., and E. R. Leach (editors) 1983 The Kula: New Perspectives on Massim Exchange. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Lebo, C. J., and M. Warburton 1982 Arizona 0:7:239. In Excavations on Black Mesa. 1980 ADescriptive Report, edited by P. P. Andrews, R. Layhe, D. Nichols, and S. Powell, pp. 71-85. Research Report No.24. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

Lectchman, H. 1977 Style in Technology: Some Early Thoughts. In Material Culture: §.M§. Omanization. and Dynamics of Technology. edited by H. Lectchman and R. MerTill, pp.3-20. 1975 Proceedings of the American Ethnological SOciety, R. F. Spencer, general editor. West Publishing Co., St. Paul.

Lee, F. C. 1938 Structure of Durango Pre-kiva. In Durango Public Library Museum Project Vol."', compiled by H. S. Daniels, pp. 22-23.

Lekson, S. 1988 The Idea of the Kiva in Anasazi Archaeology. Kiva 53:213-234.

1989 Kivas? In The Architecture of Social Integration in Prehistoric Pueblos, edited by W. Lipe and M. Hegmon, pp. 161-167. Occasional Papers NO.1. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado.

Leone, M. P. 1982 Some Opinions About Recovering Mind. American Antiquity 47:742-760.

Leubben, R. A., and P. R. Nickens 1982 A Mass Internment in an Early Pueblo III Kiva in Southwestern Colorado. Journal of Intermountain Archaeology 1:66-79.

Lessa, W. A, and E. Z. Vogt 1979 General Introduction. In Reader in Comparative Religion, edited by W. A Lessa and E. Z. Vogt, pp. 1-6. Harper and Row, New York.

Levy, J. 1982 Social and Religious Omanization in Bronze Age Denmark: An AnalysiS of Ritual Hoard Finds. BAR International Series 124. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Lewis, G. 1980 Day of Shining Red: An Essay on Understanding Ritual. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 279

Lewis, S. (compiler) 1973 The Sand Creek Massacre: A Documentary History. Sol Lewis, New York. Lightfoot, R 1993 Abandonment Processes in Prehistoric Pueblos. In Abandonment of Settlements and Regions, edited by C. Cameron and S. Tomka, pp.165-1n. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Lightfoot, R R, M. C. Etzkorn, and M. Varien 1993 Excavations. In Descriptive Archaeology, edited by R R Lightfoot and M. C. Etzkorn, pp. 15-129. The Duckfoot Site, vol. 1. Occasional Paper NO.3. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado.

Lightfoot, R R, A.. M. Emerson, and E. BHnman 1988 Excavations in Area 5, Grass Mesa Village (Site 5mt23). In Dolores Archaeological Program: Anasazi Communities at Dolores: Grass Mesa Village, pp. 561-766. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Engineering and Research Center, Boulder. Linton, R 1933 The Tanalai: A Hill Tribe of Madagascar. Publications of The Field Museum of Natural History, Anthropological Series Vol. XXII. Chicago.

1944a North American Cooking Pots. American Antiquity 9:369-380.

1944b Nomadic Raids and Fortified Pueblos. American Antiquity 10:28-32.

Lipe, W. D. 1989 Social Scale of Mesa Verde Anasazi Kivas. In The Architecture of Social Integration In Prehistoric Pueblos, edited by W. D. Lipe and M. Hegmon, pp. 53-71. Occasional Paper NO.1. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado.

Lipe, W. D., and M. Hegmon (editors) 1989 The Architecture of Social Integration in Prehistoric Pueblos. Occasional Paper No. 1. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado.

Lister, R. H. 1964 Contributions to Mesa Verde Archaeology: 1 Site 499. Mesa Verde National Park. Colorado. University of Colorado Studies Series in Anthropology NO.8. University of Colorado Press, Boulder.

1965 Contributions to Mesa Verde Archaeology: !!. Site 875. Mesa Verde National Park. Colorado. University of Colorado Studies Series in Anthropology No. 11. University of Colorado, Boulder.

1966 Contributions to Mesa Verde Archaeology: !!!. Site 866. and The CuHural Sequence at Four Villages in The Far Vifm Group. Mesa Verde National Park. Colorado. University of Colorado Studies Series in Anthropology No. 12. University of Colorado Press, Boulder.

Lister, R H., J. R Ambler, and F. C. Lister 1960 The Coombs Site. Anthropology Papers No. 41. University of Utah, Provo.

Loftin, J. D. 280

1994 Religion and Hopi Life in the Twentieth CentulY. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.

Longacre, W. A. 1970a A Historical Review. In Reconstructing Prehistoric Pueblo Societies, edited by W. A. Longacre, pp. 1-10. School of American Research Series, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

1970b Archaeology as Anthropology: A Case Study. Anthropological Papers No. 17. University of Arizona, Tucson.

Lowie, R. H. 1925 Primitive Religion. Routledge, London.

Lyons, P. D., and B. L. Pitblado 1995 Inventory and In Depth Analyses of Chipped Stone Artifacts from Structure 708 at Homol'ovi II (AZ J:14:15 ASM): A Case Study In the Ufe History Approach. Manuscript on file, Homol'ovi Research Program, Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson.

McCracken, G. D. 1990 Culture and Consumption. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.

McGimsey, C. R. 1980 Mariana Mesa: Seven Prehistoric Settlements in West-Central New Mexico. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 72. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

McGregor, J. C. 1941 Southwestem Archaeology. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

1943 Burial of an Earfy American Magician. Proceedings of the American Philosophical. Society 86(2):270-298. Philadelphia.

1965 Southwestern Archaeology. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

McGuire, R. H. 1992 A Marxist Archaeology. Academic Press, Orlando.

Mackey, J., and R. C. Green 1979 Largo-Gallina Towers: An Explanation. American Antiquity 44:144-154.

MacNeish, R. S. 1947 A Preliminary Report on Coastal Tamaulipas, Mexico. American Antiquity 13:1-15.

Magers, P. C. 1975 The Cotton Industry at Antelope House. Kiva 41:39-47.

Makkay, J. 1983 Foundation Sacrifices in Neolithic House of the Carpathian Basin. In Prehistoric Art and Religion, Valcumonica Symposium 1979, pp. 157-167. Milan. 281

Malinowski, B. 1961 [1922] Amonauts ofthe Western Pacific. E. P. Dutton, New York. Originally published 1922, Routledge, London.

Malville, N. 1989 Two Fragmented Human Bone Assemblages from Yellow Jacket, Southwestern Colorado. Kiva 55:3-22.

Marcais, L., and L. Poinssot 1948 Objets kairouanais, IX au XIII siecle. Notes and Documents XI. Direction Des Antiquities et Arts, Tunis.

Marcus, J. 1978 Archaeology and Religion: A Comparison of Zapotec and Maya. Wortd Archaeology 10:172-191.

Marett, R. R. 1900 Pre-Animistic Religion. Folklore 11:162-182.

1909 The Threshold of Religion. Methuen, London.

Martin, P. S. 1929 The 1928 Archaeological Expedition of the State Historical SOciety of Colorado. Colorado Magazine 6(1):1-35. 1930 The 1929 Archaeological Expedition of the State Historical Society of Colorado in Cooperation with the Smithsonian. Colorado Magazine 7(1):1-40.

1956 Comments. American Anthropologist 56:570-572.

Martin, P. S., and F. Plog 1973 The Archaeology of Arizona. Natural History Press, Garden City, New Jersey.

Martin, P. S., and J. B. Rinaldo 1939 Modified Basket Maker Sites. Ackmen-Lowry Area. Southwestern Colorado. 1938. Anthropological Series Vol. 23, NO.3. Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago.

1950 Sites ofthe Reserve Phase. Pine Lawn Valley. Western New Mexico. Fieldiana: Anthropology Vol. 38, NO.3. Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago.

Martin, P. S., J. B. Rinaldo, and W. A. Longacre 1961 Mineral Creek and Hooper Ranch Pueblo Eastern Arizona. Fieldiana Anthropology Vol. 52. Chicago Museum of Natural History, Chicago.

Marx, K. 1971 [1887] Capital, vol. 1. Progress Publishers, Moscow.

1909 [1886] Capital, vol. 1. Translated from the 3rd ed. by S. Moore and E. Aveling. William Glaiser, London.

1918 [1859] AContribution to the Critigu~ of Political Economy. Chartes H. Herr, Chicago. 282

1974 [1884] Criticism of Religion Is the Presupposition of All Criticism. In On Religion, The Kar1 Marx Ubrary, vol. 5, edited by S. K. Padover, pp. 35-37. McGraw-Hili, New York.

1981 The Gennan Ideology, pt. 1, 8th ed. Intemational Publishers, New York.

Mauldin, R 1982 Arizona 0:7:151. In Excavations On Black Mesa. 1980 A Descriptive Report, edited by P. P. Andrews, R layhe, D. Nichols, and S. Powell, pp.65-70. Research Report No. 24. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southem illinoiS University, Carbondale.

Mauldin, R, and D. Hutto 1982 Arizona 0:7:3017. In Excavations On Black Mesa, 1980 A Descriptive Report, edited by P. P. Andrews, R.layhe, D. Nichols, and S. Powell, pp. 155-157. Research Report No. 24. Center for Archaeologicallnvestigatons, Southern Illinois Univeristy, Carbondale.

Matraux, A. 1949a Warfare, Cannibalism, and Human Trophies. In Comparative Ethnology of South American Indians, edited by J. Steward, pp. 383-409. Handbook of South American Indians, vol. 5. Bulletin No. 143. Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C.

1949b The Tupinamba. In The Tropical Forest Tribes, edited by J. H. Steward, pp. 95- 130. Handbook of South American Indians, vol. 3. Bulletin No. 143. Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Middleton, J., and E. H. Winter 1963 Introduction. In Witchcraft and Sorcery in East Africa, edited by J. Middleton and E. H. Winter, pp. 1-26. Routledge and Keagan Paul, london.

Mindeleff, V. 1891 A study of Pueblo Architecture, Tusayan and Cibola. In The Eighth Annual Report ofthe Bureau of American Ethnology for the Years 1886-1887, pp.13-228. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Modi,J. J. 1937 The Religious Ceremonies and Customs of the Parsees. 2nd ed. Jehangir B. Karanti's Sons, Bombay.

Montgomery, B. K. 1992 Pueblo Room Fill and Prehistoric Ritual. In Proceedings of the Second Salado Conference. Globe, Arizona. 1992, edited by R C.lange and S. Gennick, pp.125- 130. Arizona Archaeological Society, Phoenix.

1993 Ceramic Analysis as a Tool for Discovering Processes of Pueblo Abandonment. In Abandonment of Settlements and Regions, edited by C. M. Cameron and S. A. Tompka, pp. 157-164. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Montgomery, R G., W. Smith, and J. O. Brew 1949 Franciscan Awatovi: The Excavation and Conjectural Reconstruction of!i 17th CentUry Spanish Mission Establishment at A Hopi Indian Town in Northeast Arizona. 283

Papers ofthe Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 36. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Morgan, I. H. 1965 [1881] Houses and House Life. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Originally Published as Smithsonian Contribution to North American Ethnology Vol. IV.

1985 [1877] Ancient Society. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Originally published by H. Holt, New York.

Morris, E. A.. 1980 Basketmaker Caves in the Prayer Rock District. Northeastern Arizona. Anthropological Papers No. 35. University of Arizona, Tucson.

Morris, E. H. 1919 Preliminary Account of the Antiquities of the Region Between the Mancos and La Plata Rivers in Southwestern Colorado. Thirty-Third Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, pp. 157-206. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

1919 The Aztec Ruin. Anthropological Papers ofthe American Museum of Natural History Vol. XXVI, Pt. I. The American Museum of Natural History, New York.

1925 Exploring the Canyon of Death: Remains of a People Who Dwelt in Our Southwest at Least 4,000 Years Ago Are Revealed. National Geographic Magazine 48(2):263- 300.

1939 Archaeological studies in the La Plata District. Southwestern Colorado and Northwestern New Mexico. Publication No. 519 Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, D.C.

Morris, E. H., and R. F. Burgh 1954 Basket Maker 11 Sites Near Durango. Colorado. Carnegie Institution Publication No. 604. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, D.C. Morris, J. N. 1988a Excavations in Area 6. In Dolores Archaeological Program: Anasazi Communities at Dolores: Grass Mesa Village Book ~ of g, pp. 767-846. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Engineering and Research Center, Boulder.

1988b Excavations In Area 8. In Dolores Archaeological Program: Anasazi Communities at Dolores: Grass Mesa Village Book ~ of g, pp. 873-932. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Engineering and Research Center, Boulder.

Morris, J. N., R. V. N. Ahlstrom, and Karen M. Dohm 1988 Excavations in Area 4. In Dolores Archaeological Program: Anasazi Communities at Dolores: Grass Mesa Village Book! of~, pp. 441-559. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Engineering and Research Center, Boulder.

Mount,J. E. 1993 Wide Reed Ruin. Professional Papers No. 51. Southwest Cultural Resources Center, National Park Service, Washington, D.C. 284

Mueller, J. W. 1969 Burial Salvage and Reconnaissance in the Four Comers Area. Manuscript on file, Museum of Northern Arizona Library, Flagstaff.

Murdock, G. P. 1940 The Cross-Cultural Survey. American Sociological Review 5(3):361-370.

Nadel, S. F. 1952 Witchcraft in Four African Societies: An Essay in Comparison. American Anthropologist 54:18-29.

Nass, G., and N. Bellatoni 1982 A Prehistoric Multiple Burial from Monument Valley Evidencing Trauma and Possible Cannibalism. Kiva 47:257-271.

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 1969 [1919] Thirty Years of Lynching in the United States 1889-1918. Negro University Press, New York.

Negbi,O. 1966 A Deposit of Terracottas and Statuettes from Tel Sippor. Atiqot IV:1-26.

Nelson, N. C. 1914 Pueblo Ruins of the Galisteo Basin. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History Vol. 15, Pt. 1. Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago.

1916 Chronology ofthe Tano Ruins, New Mexico. American Anthropologist 18:159-180.

Nequatewa, E. and M. RusselJ-Colton 1933 Hopi Courtship and Marriage. Museum Notes 5:41-54.

Nichols, D. C., and F. E. Smiley 1984 Excavations on the Black Mesa, 1982. ADescriptive Report. Research Paper No. 39. Center for Archaeological Investigations. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

Nickens, P. R. 1975 PrehistOriC Cannibalism in the Mancos Canyon, Southwestern Colorado. Kiva 40:283-293.

Nielsen, A. E. 1991 Trampling the Archaeological Record: An Experimental Study. American Antiquity 56:483-503.

1995 Architectural Performance and the Reproduction of Social Power. In Expanding Archaeology, edited by J. M. Skibo, W. H. Walker, and A. E. Nielson, pp. 47-66. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Nordenski61d, G. 1893 The Cliff-Dwellers of the Mesa Verde. Southwestern Colorado. Norstedt and Soner, Stockholm.

Nusbaum, J. L. 285

1981 The 1926 Re-excavation of step House Cave. Mesa Verde National Park. Research Series Paper No. 11. Mesa Verde National Monument Park, Colorado.

O'Brien, M. J., and T. D. Holland 1995 Behavioral Archaeology and the Extended Phenotype. In Expanding Archaeology, edited by J. M. Skibo, W. H. Walker, and A. E. Nielsen, pp. 143-161. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

O'Connell, J. M. 1985 The Origins of Behaviorism: American Psychology. 1870-1920. New York University Press, New York.

Ogilvie, M. D., and C. E. Hilton 1993 Analysis of Selected Human Skeletal Material from Sites 423-124 and -131. In Across the Colorado Plateau: Anthropological Studies for the Transwestem Pipeline Expansion Project, vol. XVIII, edited by N. Herrmann, M. D. Ogilvie, C. E. Hilton, and K. L. Brown, pp. 133-179. Office of Contract Archaeology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

Olsen, S. J., and J. W. Olsen 1974 The Macaws of Grasshopper Ruin. Kiva 40:67-70.

Olson, A. P. 1966 A Mass Burial From Northern Arizona. American Antiquity 31 :822-826.

Olson, A. P., and W. W. Wasley 1956 An Archaeological Traverse Survey in West-Central New Mexico. In Pipeline Archaeology, edited by F. Wendorf, N. Fox, and O. L. Lewis, pp. 256-390. The Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff.

Olszewski, D. 1984 Arizona 0:11:2023. In Excavations on Black Mesa. 1982: ADescriptive Report, edited by, edited by D. L. Nichols and F. E. Smiley, pp. 183-192. Research Paper No. 39. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southem Illinois University, Carbondale.

Olszewski, D. L., M. C. Trachte, and R. M. Kohl 1984 Arizona 0:11 :2027. In Excavations on Black Mesa. 1982: ADescriptive Report, edited by D. L. Nichols and F. E. Smiley, pp. 209-222. Research Paper No. 39, Center For Archaeological Investigations, Southem illinois University, Carbondale.

Olszewski, D. L., R. M. Kohl, M. C. Trachte, and S. J. Gumerman 1984 Arizona 0:7:2103. In Excavations Q!l Black Mesa, 1982: ADescriptive Report, edited by D. L. Nichols and F. E. Smiley, pp.140-155. Research PaperNo. 39. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southem Illinois University, Carbondale.

Orans, M. 1975 Domesticating the Functional Dragon: An AnalysiS of Piddocke's Potlatch. American Anthropologist 77:312-328. otto, R. 1958 The Idea ofthe Holy. Oxford University Press, New York. 286

Owens,J.G. 1892 Natal Ceremonies ofthe Hopi Indians. In Journal of American Ethnology and Archaeology, vol. II, edited by J. W. Fawkes, pp. 163-175. The Hemenway Expedition and Riverside Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Palkovich, A. M. 1980 Pueblo Population and Society: The Arroyo Hondo Skeletal and Mortuary Remains. Arroyo Hondo Archaeological Series, vol. 3. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

Parsons, E. W. C. 1927 Witchcraft Among the Pueblos: Indian or Spanish. Man XXVII: 106-128.

1932 Isleta. In The 47th Annual Report ofthe Bureau of American Ethnology for 1929- 1939, pp. 193-466. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.

1933 Hopi and Zuni Ceremonialism. Memoir No. 39. American Anthropological Association, Menasha.

1939 Pueblo Indian Religion. 2 vols. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Peacock, J. L. 1984 Religion and Life History: An Exploration in Cultural Psychology. In Text, Play, and StOry: the Construction and Reconstruction of Self and SOCiety, edited by E. Bruner, pp. 94-116. The Ethnological SOCiety, Washington, D.C.

Peacock, J. L., and D. C. Holland 1993 The Narrated Self: Life Stories in Process. Ethos 21 :367-383.

Penny, J. M., K. W. Fernstrom, and M. M. Bargielski 1984 Appendix J: Groundstone Artifacts From Excavated Sites, 1982. In Excavations on Black Mesa. 1982: A Descriptive Report, edited by D. L. Nichols and F. E. Smiley, pp. n5-797. Research PaperNo. 39. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

Pepper, G. H. 1905 Ceremonial Objects and Ornaments from Pueblo Bonito, New Mexico. American Anthropologist 7:183-197.

1906 Vases from Chaco Canon, New Mexico. In Boas Anniversary Volume, edited by B. Laufer and H. A. Andrews, pp. 320-334. G. E. Stechert, New York. 1909 The Exploration of a Burial-Room in Pueblo Bonito, New Mexico. In Putnam Anniversary Volume, Anthropology Essays, edited by Committee, chairman F. Boas, pp.192-252. G. E. Stechert, New York.

1920 Pueblo Bonito. Anthropological Papers Vol. XXVII. American Museum of Natural History, New York.

Piddocke, S. 1965 The Pot/atch System of the Southern Kwakiutl: A New Perspective. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 21 :244-264.

Pike, K. L. 287

1967 Language in Relation to !! Unified Theory of the Structure of Human Behavior. 2nd ed. Mouton, The Hague.

Plante, R. R., E. S. Word, and G. E. Avery 1982 Arizona 0:7:2001. In Excavations on Black Mesa, 19808 Descriptive Report, edited by P. P. Andrews, R. Layhe, D. Nichols, and S. Powell, pp. 185-191. Research Report No. 24. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southem Illinois University, Carbondale.

Plog, S., and J. Solometo 1993 AHemative Pathways in the Evolution of Western Pueblo Ritual. Paper originally presented at the Chacmool Conference, Calgary, Alberta.

Polo,M. 1929 The Book of Ser Marco Polo The Venetian Conceming the Kingdoms and Marvels of the East. Translated and edited by Colonel Sir H. Yule. John Murray, London.

Pond, G. 1966 A Painted Kiva Near Winslow, Arizona. American Antiquity 31:551-558.

Poole, F. P. 1983 Cannibals, Tricksters and Witches: Anthropophagic Images Among Bimin Kuskusmin. In The Ethnography of Cannibalism, edited by P. Brown and D. F. Tuzin, pp. 6-32. SOCiety for Psychological Anthropology, Washington, D.C.

Prudden, M. 1903 The Prehistoric Ruins of the San Juan Watershed in Utah, Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico. American Anthropologist 5:224-288.

1914 The Circular Kivas of Small Ruins in the San Juan Watershed. American Anthropologist 16:33-58.

1918 A Further Study of Prehistoric Small House Ruins in the San Juan Watershed. Memoirs ofthe American Anthropological Association 5(1):3-50.

Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. 1933 [1922] The Andaman Islanders. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Radin, P. 1913 Personal Reminiscences of a Winnebago Indian. The Joumal of American Folklore XXVI:293-319.

1983 [1923] Crashing Thunder. The Autobiography of an American Indian. University of Nebraska Press, Uncoln.

Ragon, M. 1981 The Space of Death. University of Virginia Press, Chartottesville.

Rappaport, R. 1968 Pigs for the Ancestors: Ritual in the Ecology of!! New Guinea PeoP/e. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut. 288

Rathje, W. L.,and C. Murphy 1992 Rubbishl The Archaeology of Garbage. Harper Collins, New York.

Rathje, W. L.,and M. B. Schiffer 1982 Archaeology. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich: New York.

Ravesloot, J., and J. French 1980 Arizona 0:11 :426. In Excavations on Black Mesa. 1979, A Descriptive Report, edited by S. Powell, R. Layhe, and A. L. Klesert, pp. 253-261. Research Paper No. 18, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

Ravesloot, J., and P. Plante 1980 Arizona 0:7:222. In Excavations on Black Mesa, 1979. A Descriptive Report, edited by S. Powell, R. Layhe, and A. L. Klesert, pp. 119-128. Research Paper No. 18, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

Read, P. 1974 Alive: The StOry of the Andes Survivors. Lippincott, Philadelphia.

Reed, E. K. 1944 Archaeological Work in Mancos Canyon, Colorado. American Antiquity 10:48-58.

1953 Human Skeletal Remains From Te'ewi. In Salvage Archaeology in the Chama Valley. New Mexico, edited by F. Wendorf, pp. 104-118. School of American Research, Santa Fe.

1966 Appendix I: Human Skeletal Material from Tse-ta'a. In Tse-ta'a; Excavations at Tse ta'a, Canyon de Chelly National Monument. Arizona, edited by C. R. Steen, pp. 123- 129. Archaeological Research Series NO.9. National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

Reid,J. J. 1978 Response to Stress at Grasshopper Pueblo, Arizona. In Discovering Past Behavior. Experiments in the Archaeology of the American Southwest, edited by P. F. Grebinger, pp. 195-213. Gordon and Breach, London.

1995 Four Strategies After Twenty Years: A Retum to Basics. In Expanding Archaeology. edited by J. M. Skibo, W. H. Walker, and A. E. Nielsen, pp. 15-21. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Reid, J. J., W. Rathje, and M. B. Schiffer 1974 Expanding Archaeology. American Antiquity 39:125-126.

1975 Behavioral Archaeology: Four Strategies. American Anthropologist 77:864-869.

Renfrew, C., and P. Bahn 1991 Archaeology: Theories, Methods, and Practice. Thames and Hudson, New York.

Rinaldo, J. B. 289

1964 Artifacts. In The Prehistory of Eastem Arizona. 11, pp. 63-109. Fieldiana Anthropology Vol. 55. Chicago Natural History Museum, Chicago.

Ritchie, W. A. 1947 Archaeological Evidence for Ceremonialism in the OWasco Culture. Research and Transactions ofthe New York State Archaeological Association 11(2):55-75. Albany.

1950 Another Probable Case of Prehistoric Bear Ceremonialism in New York. American Antiquity 15:247-249.

1955 Recent Discoveries Suggesting an Ear1y Woodland Burial Cult in the Northeast. Circular No. 40. New York State Museum, Albany.

Riviere, P. 1970 Factions and Exclusions in Two South American Village Systems. In Wrtchcraft Confessions and Accusations, edited by M. Douglas, pp. 245-255. Tavistock, London.

Roberts, F. H. H. Jr. 1929 Shabik'eschee Village, A Late Basketmaker Site in the Canyon. New Mexico. Bulletin No. 92. Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

1930 Ear1y Pueblo Ruins in The Piedra District. Southwestem Colorado. Bulletin No. 96. Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C.

1931 The Ruins at Kiathulanna Eastem Arizona. Bulletin No. 100. Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

1939 Archaeological Remains in the Whitewater District Eastem Arizona. Bulletin No. 121, Pt. 1. Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C.

Robins, L. N. 1972 An Actuarial Evaluation of the Causes and Consequences of Deviant Behavior in Young Black Men. In Life History Research in Psychopathology, vol. 2, edited by M. Roft, L. N. Robins and M. Pollack, pp. 137-154. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.

Roediger, V. M. 1961 Ceremonial Costumes of the Pueblo Indian: Their Evolution. Fabrication. and Significance in the Prayer Drama. University of Califomia Press, Berkeley.

Rohn,A. H. 1971 Mug House. National Park Service, Washington, D. C.

Romanes, G. J. 1882 Animal Intelligence. Kegan, Paul, Trench, London.

Roney, J. R. 1992 Prehistoric Roads and Regional Integration in the Chacoan System. In Anasazi Regional Reorganization and the Chaco System, edited by D. E. Doyel, pp. 123-143. Anthropological Paper NO.5. Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, Albuquerque, New MexiCO. 290

Ross, L.A. 1985 16th-Century Spanish Basque Coopering. Historical Archaeology 19:1-31.

Runciman, S. 1946 The Medieval Manichee: A Study of the Christian Dualist Heresy. Cambridge.

Russell, F. 1908 The Pima Indians. In Twenty-Sixth Annual Report ofthe Bureau of American Ethnology For the Years 1904-1905, pp. 3-389. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Sackett, J. 1990 Style and Ethnicity in Archaeology: The Case for lsochrestism. In The Use of ~ in Archaeology, edited by M. W. Conkey and C. A. Hastorf, pp. 32-43. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Sadan, J. 1986 Genizah and Genizah-Uke Practices in Islamic and Jewish Traditions. Bibliotheca Orientalis 43:36-58.

Sahlins, M. D. 1976 Culture and Practical Reason. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Saile, D. G. 19n Making a House in the Pueblo Indian Wor1d: Building Rituals and Spatial Concepts. Architectural Association Quarter1y 9(2-3):72-81.

Sayles, E. B. 1937 Houses. In Excavations at Snaketown 1;, Material Culture, edited by H. S. Gladwin, E. W. Haury, E. B. Sayles, N. Gladwin, pp. 59-90. Medallion Papers No. 25. Gila Pueblo, Globe, Arizona.

Schieffelin, E. L. 1976 The Sorrow of the Lonely and the Burning of the Dancers. St. Martin's Press, New York.

Schiffer, M. B. 1972 Archaeological Context and Systemic Context. American Antiquity 37:156-165.

1975 Archaeology as Behavioral Science. American Anthropologist n:836-848.

1976 Behavioral Archeology. Academic Press, New York.

1978 Methodological Issues in Ethnography. In Explorations in Ethnoarchaeology, edited by R. Gould, pp. 229-247. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

1982 Hohokam Chronology: An Essay on History and Method. In Hohokam and Patayan: Prehistory of Southwestern Arizona, edited by R. H. McGuire and M. B. Schiffer, pp. 299-344. Academic Press, New York.

1987 Fonnation Processes of the Archaeological Record. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 291

1988 The Structure of Archaeological Theory. American Antiquity 53:461-485.

1991 The Portable Radio in American Life. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

1992 Technological Perspectives on Behavioral Change. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

1994 Taking Chame: The Electric Automobile in America. SmHhsonian InstHution Press, Washington, D.C.

1995 Social Theory and History in Behavioral Archaeology. In Expanding Archaeology, edHed by J. M. Skibo, W. H. Walker, and A. E. Nielsen, pp. 22-35. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Schiffer, M. B., and R. H. McGuire 1983 A Theory of ArchHecturai Design. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 2:2n- 303.

Schiffer, M. B., and J. M. Skibo 1987 Theory and Experiment in the Study of Technological Change. Current Anthropology 28:595-622.

Schiffer, M. B., J. M. Skibo, T. C. Boelke, M. A. Neupert, and M. Aronson 1994 New Perspectives on Experimental Archaeology: Surface Treatments and Thermal Response ofthe Clay COOking Pot. American Antiquity 59:197-217.

Schlanger, S., and R. H. Wilshusen 1993 Local Abandonments and Regional Conditions in the North American Southwest. In Abandonment of Settlements and Regions, edHed by C. Cameron and S. Tomka, pp. 85-98. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Schroeder, A. H. 1955 Archaeology of Zion National Park. Anthropology Paper No. 22. University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

Sears, W. H. 1961 The Study of Social and Religious Systems in North American Archaeology. Current Anthropology 2:223-246.

Sebastian, L. 1992 The Chaco Anasazi: SociopolHicai Evolution in the Prehistoric Southwest. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Seme,M. 1980 Appendix VI: Faunal Analysis of Material From the 1979 Field Season. In Excavations on Black Mesa. 1979: ADescriptive Report, edHed by S. Powell, R. Layhe, and A. L. K1esert, pp.464-508. Research Paper No. 18, Center for Archaeological Investigations, SOuthem Illinois University, Carbondale.

Senter, D., and F. Hawley 1937 Hopi and Navajo Child Burials. American Anthropologist 39:131-134.

Seymour, D., and M. B. Schiffer 292

1987 A Preliminary Analysis of Pithouse Assemblages from Snaketown, Arizona. In Method and Theory for Activity Area Research: An Ethnoarchaeological Approach, edited by S. Kent, pp. 549-603. Columbia University Press, New York.

Shanks, M. 1992 Experiencing the Past: On the Character of Archaeology. Routledge, London. Shanks, M., and C. Tilley 1987a Re-constructing Archaeology: Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1987b Social Theory and Archaeology. Polity Press, Oxford.

Shay, F. 1938 Judge Lynch. Ives Washburn, New York.

Shipman, J. H. 1980 Human Skeletal Remains from the Salmon Ruin (LA 8846). In Investigations at the Salmon Site: The structure of Chacoan Society in the Northern Southwest IV, edited by C. Irwin-Williams and P. H. Shelly, pp. 45-58 . Eastern New Mexico University, Portales.

Shipman, P. 1981 Ufe History of .§ Fossil. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

Simmel,G. 1905 A Contribution to the Sociology of Religion. The American Journal of Sociology XI:359-376. Translated by W. W. Elwang.

1906 The Sociology of Secrecy and of Secret Societies. The American Journal of Sociology XI:441-498. Translated by Albion W. Small.

Simmons, L. W. 1942 Sun Chief: The Autobiography of.§ Hopi Indian: Don Talvesva. Yale University Press, New Haven.

Simmons, M. 1974 Witchcraft in the Southwest. Northland Press, Flagstaff, Arizona.

Sink, C. W., J. Manson, B. J. Baker, and J. K. Feathers 1984 Arizona 0:11 :2062 (includes A and B). In Excavations on Black Mesa. 1982: A Descriptive Report, edited by D. L. Nichols and F. E. Smiley, pp. 255-280. Research Paper No. 39, Center For Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

Sink, C. W., B. J. Baker, J. K. Feathers, G. Reed, and J. Carucci 1984 Arizona 0:11 :2108. In Excavations on Black Mesa. 1982: A Descriptive Report, edited by D. L. Nichols and F. E. Smiley, pp. 287-308. Research Paper No. 39. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

Skeat, W. W. 1912 "Snakestones" and Stone Thunderbolts as Subjects For Systematic Investigation. Folklore 23:45-80. 293

Skibo, J. M. 1992 Pottery Function: AUse-Alteration Perspective. Plenum, New York.

Skibo, J. M., and M. B. Schiffer 1995 The Clay COOking Pot: An Exploration of Women's Technology. In Expanding Archaeology, edited by J. M. Skibo, W. H. Walker, and A. E. Nielsen, pp. 80-91. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake.

Skibo, J. M., W. H. Walker, and A. E. Nielsen (editors) 1995 Expanding Archaeology. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Skinner, B. F. 1938 The Behavior of Omanisms: An Experimental Analysis. Appleton Century Crofts, New York.

1976 About Behaviorism. Vintage Books, New York.

Smiley, F. E. 1982 Arizona 0:7:3034. In Exacavations Q!l Black Mesa. 1980 A Descriptive Report, edited by P. P. Andrews, R. Layhe, O. Nichols, and S. Powell, pp. 167-169. Research Report No. 24. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

Smiley, T. L. 1949 Pithouse No.1, Mesa Verde National Park. American Antiquity 14:167-171.

Smith, W. 1952 Excavations in §ig Hawk Valley. Wupatki National Monument, Arizona. Bulletin No. 24. Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff.

1972 Prehistoric Kivas of Antelope Mesa. Report NO.9. Awatovi Expedition, Harvard Peabody Museum. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Solway, J. S., and R. B. Lee 1990 Foragers, Genuine or Spurious? Current Anthropology 31:109-146.

Spencer, H. 1870 Principles of Psychology 2nd ed. Longman, London.

Sperber, O. 1974 Rethinking Symbolism. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Spier, L. 1928 Havasupai Ethnography. Anthropology Paper NO.3. American Museum of Natural History, New York.

1933 Yuman Tribes of the Gila River. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Spurr, K. 294

1993 Nagpra And Archaeology On Black Mesa. Arizona. Navajo Nation Papers in Anthropology No. 30. Window Rock, Arizona.

Squier, E. G. and E. H. Davis 1848 Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley. Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge No.1. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Staal, F. 1989 Rules Without Meaning. Peter Lang, New York.

Stahl, A. B. 1993 Concepts of Time and Approaches to Analogical Reasoning in Historical Perspective. American Antiquity 58:235-260.

Staski, E. 1984 Just What Can a 19th Century Bottle Tell Us? Historical Archaeology 18:38-51.

Stein, J. R. and S. H. Lekson 1992 Anasazi Ritual Landscapes. In Anasazi Regional Reomanization and the Chaco System, edited by D. E. Doyel, pp. 87-100. Anthropological Paper NO.5. Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Stephen, A. 1936 Hopi Joumal, 2 VO!S. Edited by E. C. Parsons. Columbia University Press, New York.

Stevenson, J. 1884 Illustrated Catalogue of the Collections Obtained from Pueblos of Zuni, New Mexico, and Wolpi, Arizona, in 1881. Annual Report Bureau of American Ethnology. vol. 3, pp. 511-594. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C ..

Stevenson, M. C. 1904 The Zuni Indians; Their Mythology, Esoteric Fratemities, and Ceremonies. Annual Report for 1901-1902, pp. 13-604. Bulletin No. 23. Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington, D.C. Steward, J. H. 1937 Ecological Aspects of Southwestem Society. Anthropos 32:87-104.

1933 Archaeological Problems of the Northem Periphery of the Southwest. Bulletin NO.5. Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff.

1955 Theory of CuHure Change: The Methodology of MuHilinear Evolution. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

Steward, J. H., and F. M. Setzler 1938 Function and Configuration in Archaeology. American Antiquity 4:4-10.

Stone, G. D. 1984 Arizona 0:11 :2025. In Excavations on Black Mesa. 1982: A Descriptive Report, edited by D. L. Nichols and F. E. Smiley, pp. 193-208. Research Paper No. 39. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southem Illinois University, Carbondale.

Stone, G. D., C. M. Barton, and A. F. Cunningham 295

1984a Arizona 0:11 :2038. In Excavations on Black Mesa, 1982: ADescriptive Report, edited by D. L. Nichols, and F. E. Smiley, pp. 223-231. Research Paper No. 39. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southem Illinois University, Carbondale.

1984b Arizona 0:11 :2051. In Excavations on Black Mesa, 1982: ADescriptive Report, edited by D. L. Nichols, and F. E. Smiley, pp. 239-254. Research Paper No. 39. Center for Archaeological Investigations, South em Illinois University, Carbondale. Stromberg, P. 1981 Consensus and Variation in the Interpretation of Religious Symbolism: A Swedish Example. American Ethnologist 8:544-559.

Strong, W. D. 1929 Aboriginal Society in Southem Califomia. University of Califomia Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 26. University of Califomia Press, Berkeley.

Sugiyama, S. 1989 Burials Dedicated to the Old Temple of Quetzalcoatl at Teotihuacan, Mexico. American Antiquity 54:85-106.

Swarthout, J. , S. Stebbins, P. Stein, B. Harrill, and P. J. Pilles 1986 The Kayenta Anasazi: Archaeological Investigations Along the Black Mesa Railroad Corridor. Research Paper No. 30. Museum of Northem Arizona, Flagstaff.

Szuter, C. R. 1989 Hunting.ex Prehistoric Horticulturalists in the American Southwest. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation. Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson.

Taussig, M. T. 1980 The Devil and Commodity Fetishism in South America. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.

Taylor, J. V., L. Roh, and A. D. Goldman 1984 Identification of a Vietnamese Trophy Skull. Journal of Forensic Science 29:1253-1259.

Taylor, W. W. 1948 A Study of Archaeology. Memoir No. 69 American Anthropological Society, Menasha, WisconSin.

1954 An Ear1y Siabhouse Near Kayenta, Arizona. Plateau 26(4):109-116.

1956 Southwestem Archaeology, Its History and Theory. American Anthropologist 56:561-570.

Teltser, P. A. (editoQ 1995 Evolutionary Archaeology: Methodological Issues. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Thomas,C. 1894 Report of the Mound Explorations of the Bureau of Ethnology. In Twelfth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology for the Years 1892-1893, pp. 3-742. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 296

1898 Introduction to the Study of North American Archaeology. Clark, Cincinnati.

Thompson, K. 1986 Beliefs and Ideology. Tavistock, London.

Thurston, G. P. 1890 The Antiquities of Tennessee. Robert Clarke, Cincinnati.

Thurston, R. H. 1898 The Animal as Prime Mover. In Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution for 1896, pp. 297-338. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. TIlley,C. 1989 Excavation as Theatre. Antiquity 63:275-80.

Tltiev, M. 1938 Hopi Racing Customs at Oraibi, Arizona. Papers of the Michigan Academy of Sciences. Arts. and Letters XXIV(IV):33-42.

1942 Notes on Hopi Witchcraft. Papers of the Michigan Academy of Science, Arts and Letters XXVIII:549-558.

1944 Old Oraibi: Astudy of the Hopi Indians of Third Mesa. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Anthropology and Ethnology Vol. 22. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

1972 The Hopi Indians of Old Oraibi. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.

Tolman, E. C. 1932 Purposive Behavior in Animals and Men. Appleton-Century-Crofls, New York.

Trigger, B. G. 1968 The Determinants of Settlement Patterns. In Settlement Archaeology, edited by K. C. Chang, pp. 53-78. National Press, Palo Alto, California.

1982 Ethnoarchaeology: Some Cautionary Considerations. In Ethnography Q.y Archaeologists, edited by E. Tooker, pp. 1-9. American Ethnological SOciety, Washington, D.C.

1984 Archaeology at the Crossroads: What's New? Annual Review of Anthropology 13:275-300.

1989 AHistory of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Turner, C. G. 1961 Human Skeletons from the Coombs Site: Skeletal and Dental Aspects. In The Coombs Site Part ill.. Summary and Conclusions, edited by R. Lister, J. Ambler and F. Lister, pp. 117-136. Anthropological Paper No. 41. University of Utah, Provo. 297

1983 Taphonomic Reconstructions of Human Violence and Cannibalism Based on Mass Burials in the American Southwest. In Carnivores, Human Scavengers and Predators: 8. Question of Bone Technologv, edited by G. LeMoine and A. MacEachern, pp. 219-240. Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference, Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta.

1988 Another Prehistoric Southwestern Mass Burial Suggesting Violence and Cannibalism: Marshview Hamlet, Colorado. In Dolores Archaeological Program: Aceramic and Late Occupations at Dolores, edited by G. T. Gross, and A. E. Kane, pp. 81-83. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver.

1989 Teec Nos Pos: More Possible Cannibalism in Northeastern Arizona. Kiva 54:147-152.

1993 Cannibalism in Chaco Canyon: The Charnel Pit Excavated in 1926 at Small House Ruin by Frank H. H. Roberts Jr. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 91 :421-439.

Turner, C. G., and N. T. Morris 1970 A Massacre at Hopi. American Antiquity 35:320-331.

Tumer, C. G., and J. Turner 1990 Perimortern Damage to Human Skeletal Remains from Wupatki National Monument, Northern Arizona. Kiva 55:187-212.

1992a The First Claim for Cannibalism in the Southwest: Walter Hough's 1901 Discovery at Canyon Butte Ruin 3, Northeastern Arizona. American Antiquity 57:661-682.

1992b On PeterY. Bullock's "A Reappraisal of Anasazi Cannibalism. Kiva 58:189-201.

Tyler, H.A. 1979 Pueblo Birds and Mvll!§. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Tylor, E. B. 1920 [1878J Primitive Culture. 2 vols., 2nd ed. John Murray, London.

Uhle,M. 1903 Pachacamac. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

Underhill, R. M. 1946 Papago Indian Religion. Columbia University Press, New York. van Dulmen, R. 1990 Theatre of Horror: Crime and Punishment in Early Modem Germany. Translated by E. Neu, Polity Press, Cambridge. van Gennep, A. 1904 Tabou et totemisme .§ Madagascar. Leroux, Paris.

Varien, M. D. 298

1988 Excavations in Areas 1 and 2. In Dolores Archaeological Program: Anasazi Communities at Dolores: Grass Mesa Village Book 1 of ~, pp. 7~316. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Engineering and Research Center, Boulder.

Varien, M. D., K. A. Kuckelman, and James Kliedon 1992 The Site Testing Program. In The Sand Canyon Archaeological Project: AProgress Report, edited by W. D. Upe, pp. 45-67. Occasional Papers of the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado.

Vivian, R. G. 1970 An Inquiry Into Prehistoric Social Organization in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. In Reconstructing Prehistoric Pueblo Societies, edited by W. A. Longacre, pp. 59-83. School of American Research Series. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

1990 The Chacoan Prehistory of the San Juan Basin. Academic Press, New York.

Vivian, R. G., D. N. Dodge, and G. H. Hartman 1978 Wooden Ritual Artifacts From Chaco Canyon New Mexico, The Chetro Ketl Collection. Anthropological Paper No. 32. University of Arizona. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Vogt, E. Z. 1968 Some Aspects of Zinacantan Settlement Patterns and Ceremonial Omanization. In Settlement Archaeology, edited by K. C. Chang, pp.154-173. National Press, Palo Alto.

Voth, H. R, 1901 The Oraibi Powamu Ceremony. Anthropology Series 111(2):67-158. Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago.

1905 Traditions of the Hopi. Publication No. ~ Fieldiana 8:24~255.

1912 Notes on the Eagle Cult Among the Hopi Indians. Anthropology Series XI(2):1 07-1 09. Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago.

Walker, D. (editor) 1989 Witchcraft and Sorcery of the American Native Peoples. University of Idaho Press, Moscow.

Walker, D. N. 1993 Faunal Remains. In Descriptive Archaeology, edited by R. R. Ughtfoot and M. C. Etzkorn, pp. 239-252. The Duckfoot Site, Volume 1. Occasional Paper NO.3. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado. Walker, W. H. 1995 Ceremonial Trash? In Expanding Archaeology, edited by J. M. Skibo, W. H. Walker, and A. E. Nielsen, pp. 67-79. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Walker, W. H., and V. M. laMotta 1995 Ufe Histories as Units of Analysis. Paper Presented at the 60th Annual meeting of the Society For American Archaeology, Minneapolis. 299

Walker, W. H., J. M. Skibo, and A. E. Nielsen 1995 Introduction: Expanding Archaeology. In Expanding Archaeology, edited by J. M. Skibo, W. H. Walker and A. E. Nielsen, pp. 1-12. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Wallace, A. F. C. 1966 Religion: An Anthropological View. Random House, New York.

Wallace, E., and E. A. Hoebel 1952 The Commanches: Lords of the South Plains. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Waring, A. J. Jr., and P. Holder 1945 A Prehistoric Ceremonial Complex in the Southeastem United states. American Anthropologist 47:1-34. Watson, J. B. 1913 Psychology as the Behaviorist Views It. Psychological Review 20:158-1 n.

1928 The Ways of Behaviorism. Harper and Brothers, New York.

Webb,C.H. 1944 Stone Vessels from a Northeast Louisiana Site. American Antiquity 9:386-394.

Webb, W. S., and R. Baby 1957 The Adena People No.~. Ohio state University Press, Columbus.

Webb, W. S., and C. E. Snow 1945 The Adena People. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

Weber, Max 1958 [1904-1905] The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Scribner's, New York. Originally published 1904-1905.

Weiner, A. B. 1976 Women of Value. Men of Renown: New Perspectives in Trobriand Exchange. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Weiner, A. B., and J. Schneider (editors) 1989 Cloth and Human Experience. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Wetherill, R. 1894 Snider's Well. Archaeologist 2:288-289.

Weyer, J. 1991 [1583 De Praestigis Daemonum sixth edition] Witches Devils and Doctors in the Renaisasance. Translated by J. Shea, notes by George Mora, Collaborators B. Kohl, E. Midelfort, H. Bacon. Center for Medieval and Renaissance studies, State University of New York Press, Binghamton. Wheat,J. B. 1955 MT-1, A Basketmaker III Site Near Yellow Jacket, Colorado (A Progress Report). Southwestem Lore 21(2):18-26. 300

White, L. A. 1935 The Pueblo of Santa Domingo. New Mexico. Memoir No. 43. American Anthropological Association, Menasha, Wisconsin.

1942 The Pueblo of Santa Ana. New Mexico. Memoir No. 60. American Anthropological Association, Menasha, Wisconsin.

1971 [1949] The Science of CuHure. 3rd ed. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, New York.

White, T. D. 1988 Cottonwood Wash. Southeastern Utah: Human Osteology of Feature 3, FS#27 , Site 42SA12209. In Report on Salvage Excavations of 42SA12209. 8. Pueblo! Habitation Site in Cottonwood Canyon. Mati-Lasal National Forest. Southeastern Utah, edited by J. Fetterman, L. Honeycutt and K. Kuckelman, pp. 1-7 and 17 unnumbered pages. U. S. National Forest Service.

1992 Prehistoric Cannibalism at Mancos 5MTUMR-2346. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Whtte, T. D., and N. Toth 1991 The Question of Ritual Cannibalism at Grotta Guattari. Current Anthropology 32:118-138.

White, W. 1929 Rope and Faggot. it Biography of Judge Lynch. Knopf, New York.

Whitecotton, S. R, and C.J. Lebo 1980 Arizona 0:7:236. In Excavations On Black Mesa. 1979 A Descriptive Report, edited by S. Powell, R Layhe, and A. L. Klesert, pp. 129-168. Research Paper No. 18. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University Carbondale.

Whiteley, P. 1988a Deliberate Acts. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

1988b Bacavi. Journey to Reed Springs. Northland Press, Flagstaff.

Whiting, J. W. 1954 The Cross-CuHural Method. In Handbook of Social Psychology, edited by G. Lindzey, pp. 523-531. Addison-Wesley, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Whitman, W. 1947 The Pueblo Indians of San IIdefonso: A Changing CuHure. Columbia University Press, New York.

Willey, G. R 1945 Horizon Styles and Pottery Traditions in Peruvian Archaeology. American Antiguity 11:49-56.

1949a The Southeastern United States and South America: A Comparative Statement. In The Florida Indian and His Neighbors, edited by J. W. Griffin, pp. 101-116. Inter American Center, Winter Park, Florida .

• 301

1949b The Archaeology of the Florida Gulf Coast. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections Vol. No. 113. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

1951 The Chavin Problem: A Review and Critique. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 7:103-144.

1953 Prehistoric Settlement Patterns !!! the Viru Valley. Peru. Bulletin No. 155. Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Willey, G. R. and J. A. Sabloff 1980 A History of American Archaeology. 2nd ed. Freeman, San Francisco.

Wilmsen, E. N., and J. R. Denbow 1990 Paradigmatic History of San-Speaking Peoples and Current Attempts at Revision. Current Anthropology 31 :489-524.

Wilshusen, R. H. 1986 The Relationship Between Abandonment Mode and Ritual Use in Pueblo I Anasazi Protokivas. Journal of Field Archaeology 13:245-254.

1988 . Excavations at Marshview Hamlet (Site 5MT2235). A Pueblo III Habitation Site. In Dolores Archaeological Program: Aceramic and Late Occupations at Dolores, edited by G. T. Gross and A. E. Kane, pp. 17-68. U. S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation, Denver.

Woodbury, R. B. 1939 Ground and pecked Stone Artifacts (Other Than Arrow-Shaft Tools). In Peliminary Report on the 1937 Excavations. Be 50-51 Chaco Canyon. New Mexico, edited C. Kluckhohn and P. Reiter, pp. 58-79. Anthropology Series Vol. 3 No.2. University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

1954 Prehistoric stone Implements of Northeastern Arizona. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 34. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massahusetts.

1959 A Reconstruction of Pueblo Warfare in the Southwestern United States. Proceedings ofthe International Congress of Americanists XXXIII:124-133.

Wright, G. C. 1990 Racial Violence in Kentucky 1865-1940. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge.

Wylie,A. 1985 The Reaction Against Analogy. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 8, edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 63-111. Academic Press, New YorX.

1989 Archaeological Cables and Tacking: The Implications of Practice for Bernstein's "Options Beyond Objectivism and Relativism." Philosophy of the Social Sciences 19:1-18. 302

1991 Gender Theory and the Archaeological Record: Why is There No Archaeology of Gender? In Engendeling Arr..haeology: Women and Prehistory. edited by J. M. Gero and M. W. Conkey, pp. 31-54. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

1992 The Interplay of Evidential Constraints and Political Interests: Recent Archaeological Research on Gender. AmericanAntiguity 57:15-35.

1995 An Expanded Behavioral Archaeology: Transformation and Redefinition. In Expanding Archaeology, edited by J. M. Skibo, W. H. Walker, and A. E. Nielsen, pp. 198-209. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Yellen,J. E. 1977 Archaeological Approaches to the Present. Academic Press, New York.

Zedeno, M. N., and L. Lorentzen 1995 Landscapes, Land Use, and the History of Territory Formation: An Example from the Puebloan Southwest. Paper presented at the 60th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Minneapolis.