UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones

2009

Puebloan plain-weave pointed/rounded-toe sandals

David Toy Yoder University of Nevada Las Vegas

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/thesesdissertations

Part of the Archaeological Anthropology Commons

Repository Citation Yoder, David Toy, "Puebloan plain-weave pointed/rounded-toe sandals" (2009). UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones. 48. http://dx.doi.org/10.34917/1363615

This Thesis is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by Digital Scholarship@UNLV with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Thesis in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself.

This Thesis has been accepted for inclusion in UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones by an authorized administrator of Digital Scholarship@UNLV. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PUEBLOAN PLAIN-WEAVE POINTED/ROUNDED-TOE SANDALS

by

David Toy Yoder

Bachelor of Science Weber State University 2003

Master of Arts Brigham Young University 2005

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

Doctor of Philosophy Degree in Anthropology Department of Anthropology College of Liberal Arts

Graduate College University of Nevada, Las Vegas August 2009 ABSTRACT

Puebloan Plain-Weave Pointed/Rounded-Toe Sandals

by

David Toy Yoder

Dr. Barbara Roth, Examination Committee Chair Associate Professor of Anthropology University of Nevada, Las Vegas

An assemblage of 226 Puebloan pointed/rounded-toe sandals from sites throughout the northern Southwest was examined to answer the following questions: how were these sandals constructed, when where they used, and where were they distributed. The answers to these questions were then used to investigate cultural boundaries, communities of practice, and interaction among the Anasazi. Methods of analysis included a technical analysis, soft X-ray radiography, microscopic fiber identification, spatial analysis, AMS radiocarbon dating, and experimental reconstruction.

Based on these analyses it appears that pointed/rounded-toe sandals were used as early as A.D. 631 to as late as A.D. 1178. Spatially, this sandal type is primary distributed in geographic regions traditionally associated with the Virgin and Kayenta Anasazi, although a small number can also be found in southeastern Utah.

The general similarities of plain weave pointed/rounded-toe sandals indicate that a broad overarching community of practice encompassed the making of this sandal type,

iii and that this community likely had its origins in the Western Basketmaker culture. The introduction of the plain weave pointed/rounded-toe sandal may be associated with the intensification of ceramics at the cost of high investment basketry, including twined sandals.

Subtle differences in the distribution and proportions of sandal attributes also suggest that two smaller sandal making communities of practice, within the larger overarching one, existed in the Western and Eastern areas. The Western community was characterized by a high degree of homogeneity in its plain weave pointed/rounded-toe sandals, while the Eastern community was slightly more heterogeneous and had a larger amount of variance in sandal attributes. These findings have implications for how Anasazi groups interacted with one another and with neighboring populations.

iv TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT……………………………...... iii

LIST OF FIGURES……………………………...... ix

LIST OF TABLES ……………………………...... xii

AKNOWLEDGMENTS……………………………...... xiii

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION………………...... 1 Research Focus……………………………...... …3 Construction...... 3 Temporal Distribution ...... 5 Spatial Distribution...... 6 Communities of Practice and Cultural Interaction...... 6 Organization of Dissertation...... 8

CHAPTER 2 THEORY...... 10 Style in Archaeology...... 10 A Brief History of Style...... 10 Active Style...... 11 Passive Style...... 15 The Unified Middle-Range Theory of Artifact Design...... 19 Style As It Relates to Ethnicity and/or Enculturation...... 22 Ethnicity...... 22 Enculturation...... 27 Archaeological Examination of Ethnicity and Enculturation...... 32 Sandals/Basketry-A Promising Medium in Stylistic Research...... 36 Low or No Visibility Attributes...... 38 High Visibility Attributes...... 40 Summary...... 42

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH GOALS...... 44 Cultural-Historic Focus...... 44 Research Question 1...... 45 Research Question 2...... 46 Explanatory Focus...... 47 Research Question 3...... 47

v CHAPTER 4 CULTURAL CONTEXT...... 51 The Anasazi...... 51 Anasazi Branches...... 57 Chaco...... 57 Kayenta...... 59 Mesa Verde...... 60 Rio Grande...... 61 Virgin...... 62

CHAPTER 5 PREVIOUS RESEARCH...... 65 Basic Yarn and Sandal Terminology...... 65 Yarn Structure...... 65 Sandal Structure...... 69 Puebloan Sandals...... 75 Twined Sandals...... 75 Braided Sandals...... 76 Plain Weave Sandals...... 77

CHAPTER 6 METHODS...... 81 The Sample...... 81 Technical Analysis...... 86 Artifact Number...... 87 Site...... 87 Collector/Donator...... 91 Direct Reference...... 91 General Reference...... 91 Curated...... 91 X-Rayed...... 91 Material...... 91 Condition...... 91 Fragment...... 92 Length and Width...... 92 Toe Silhouette Percentage...... 92 Weft Density...... 96 Weft Ply and Spin...... 96 Warp Number, Ply, Twist, Diameter, Helix Angle, and Knots...... 96 Warp/Toe Configuration...... 97 Body Silhouette...... 98 Heel silhouette...... 99 Tie System...... 99 Toe Loop Type, Number, Ply, and Twist...... 101 Side Loop Ply and Twist...... 101 Tie Cord/Ankle Loop Ply and Twist...... 101 Heel Loop Type, Ply, and Twist...... 103 Summary...... 103

vi Radiographic Analysis...... 104 Microscopic Fiber Identification...... 107 Radiocarbon Dating...... 109 Spatial Distribution...... 110 Statistical Analysis...... 112 Replication Experiment...... 113

CHAPTER 7 RESULTS OF ANALYSIS...... 116 Technical Analysis...... 116 Weave Structure and Number of Warps...... 116 Warp and Weft Composition...... 120 Toe Construction...... 124 Body Silhouette...... 125 Pointed- Versus Rounded-Toe Silhouette (Toe Silhouette Percentage)...126 Dimensions...... 128 Tie System...... 132 Toe Loops...... 133 Side Loops...... 135 Tie Cord/Ankle Loops...... 135 Heel Loops...... 136 Decoration...... 138 Radiographic Analysis...... 139 Arrangement of Warps...... 139 Warp Ply and Twist...... 144 Tie System...... 144 Microscopic Fiber Identification...... 146 Spatial Analysis...... 149 Statistical Analysis of Geographic Distribution...... 149 Analysis of Geographic Distribution...... 160 AMS Radiocarbon Dating...... 168 Experimental Reconstruction...... 171 Summary...... 174

CHAPTER 8 DISCUSSION...... 176 An Overarching Community of Practice...... 177 Material...... 178 Construction...... 178 Decoration...... 180 The Community and Its Origins...... 180 Smaller Communities of Practice...... 189 Evaluation of the Use of Style...... 197

CHAPTER 9 CONCLUSION...... 201 Future Research...... 204

vii REFERENCES...... 208

APPENDIX 1 Curatorial Facilities and their Collections...... 229

APPENDIX 2 Sandal Provenience and Material Data...... 233

APPENDIX 3 Sandal Construction Data...... 244

APPENDIX 4 Sandal Tie System Data...... 258

VITA...... 273

viii LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1. Examples of plain weave pointed- or rounded-toe sandals...... 4 Figure 4.1. Map of northern Southwest showing general locations of Anasazi sub-groups...... 58 Figure 5.1. Photograph showing yarn ply and twist...... 66 Figure 5.2. Measurements for helix angle...... 68 Figure 5.3. Photograph of sandal NA5507.M.106 showing location of warps and wefts...... 70 Figure 5.4. The four main components of the toe-heel tie system...... 70 Figure 5.5. The three types of tie systems and their primary parts...... 71 Figure 5.6. Example of pointed- and rounded-toe sandals...... 74 Figure 5.7. Examples of sandal body silhouettes...... 74 Figure 6.1. Examples of sandal condition classification...... 93 Figure 6.2. Photograph of artifact NA5507.M.96 showing the location of key measurements taken for each sandal...... 94 Figure 6.3. Sandal SUU 1 showing series of measurements taken to quantify toe silhouette...... 95 Figure 6.4. Photographs of artifact NA5507.M.99 showing overhand knot with left warp existing the top (Overhand Type 1)...... 98 Figure 6.5. Examples of variant heel silhouettes...... 100 Figure 6.6. Examples of sandal tie systems...... 102 Figure 6.7. Photograph of sandal NA5507.M.47 showing the Looped type of toe loop...... 103 Figure 6.8. Example of lumen to cell wall width for broad and narrow leaf yucca (from Haas 2003:Figure 13)...... 108 Figure 6.9. Example of lumen to cell wall width for broad and narrow leaf yucca...109 Figure 7.1. Photograph of sandal NA5507.C.71 showing how final weft is secured...... 119 Figure 7.2. Percentage of sandals with 4, 6, or 5 warps by area...... 120 Figure 7.3. Percentage of sandals with final Z or S-twist warps by area...... 122 Figure 7.4. Photograph of sandal NA5507.C.71 showing alternating S and Z-spun weft...... 124 Figure 7.5. Graph showing the mean weft density for sandals by area...... 125 Figure 7.6. Histogram showing the distribution of all sandals by toe silhouette percentage...... 127 Figure 7.7. Histograms showing the distribution of sandals by toe silhouette percentage...... 127 Figure 7.8. Graph showing the mean toe silhouette percentage for sandals by area..129 Figure 7.9. Graph showing the mean length for sandals by area...... 129

ix Figure 7.10. Graph showing the mean widths of sandals by area...... 131 Figure 7.11. Percentage of sandals with differing toe loop types by area...... 134 Figure 7.12. Percentage of sandals with differing heel loop types by area...... 138 Figure 7.13. Photograph and radiograph of four warp sandals...... 140 Figure 7.14. Example of four warp sandal in which the warps can be seen to be spliced together at the toe (86.017.003-Bag 2)...... 140 Figure 7.15. Example of four warp sandal in which the warps can be seen to be spliced together at the toe (NA5507.M.100)...... 141 Figure 7.16. Reconstruction of warp layout for a four-warp pointed- or rounded-toe sandal...... 142 Figure 7.17. Photograph and radiograph of six warp sandals...... 143 Figure 7.18. Examples of six and four warp sandals in which the warps are not spliced at the toe...... 143 Figure 7.19. Examples of sandals with extremely rounded to rectangular toe silhouettes...... 145 Figure 7.20. Radiograph of four warp sandal (86.017.003-Bag 2)...... 146 Figure 7.21. Percentage of sandals made from broadleaf or narrowleaf yucca by area...... 148 Figure 7.22. Examples of sandals with turkey feather cordage...... 149 Figure 7.23. Sites and localities with pointed- or rounded-toe sandals included in this analysis...... 150 Figure 7.24. Ward’s Method dendrogram...... 154 Figure 7.25. Scatterplot of factor scores for the Western, Eastern, and No Provenience groups...... 157 Figure 7.26. Percentage of four, five, and six warp sandals by site or locality...... 161 Figure 7.27. Percentage of warps with final S or Z twist direction by site or locality...... 162 Figure 7.28. Location of sandals with an extremely rounded to rectangular toe shape...... 163 Figure 7.29. Location of 20 sandals with the highest and lowest weft densities...... 164 Figure 7.30. Location of sandals with splicing and non-splicing toe construction...... 164 Figure 7.31. Location of 20 sandals with the highest and lowest toe silhouette percentages...... 165 Figure 7.32. Location of 20 sandals with the largest and smallest lengths...... 166 Figure 7.33. Location of 20 sandals with the largest and smallest widths...... 167 Figure 7.34. Percentage of sandals with side-loop or toe-heel tie systems by site or locality...... 168 Figure 7.35. Probability distributions of radiocarbon dates created from the Calib radiocarbon calibration program...... 170 Figure 7.36. AMS radiocarbon dates on plain weave pointed- or rounded-toe sandals...... 171 Figure 7.37. Sandals with the remains of cordage at the tip of the toe, possibly used in the construction process to keep the warps under tension...... 173 Figure 8.1. Distribution of finely made twined Basketmaker sandals and Puebloan plain weave pointed/rounded-toe sandals...... 184

x Figure 8.2. Graph showing the mean weft density for sandals by area...... 192 Figure 8.3. Graph showing the mean length for sandals by area...... 192 Figure 8.4. Graph showing the mean widths of sandals by area...... 193 Figure 8.5. Ward’s Method dendrogram...... 194 Figure 8.6. Scatterplot of factor scores for the Western, Eastern, and No Provenience groups...... 195

xi LIST OF TABLES

Table 6.1. Number and provenience of sandals held by museums or private individuals...... 82 Table 6.2. Name, site number, and location of archaeological sites included in analysis...... 88 Table 7.1. Sites and sandals included in the analysis...... 117 Table 7.2. Four, six, and five warp sandals by area...... 120 Table 7.3. Individual sandals attributes with final Z or S-twisted elements by area...... 121 Table 7.4. Mean warp diameter, weft density, and standard deviation by area...... 123 Table 7.5. Type of toe construction by area...... 126 Table 7.6. Mean toe silhouette percentage and standard deviation by area...... 128 Table 7.7. Mean length and width of sandals by area...... 130 Table 7.8. Type of tie system used in sandals by area...... 133 Table 7.9. Type of toe loops used in sandals by area...... 134 Table 7.10. Type of heel loop used in sandals by area...... 138 Table 7.11. Type of yucca used in sandals by area...... 148 Table 7.12. Results of Mann-Whitney U Test ...... 151 Table 7.13. Results of Mann-Whitney U Test...... 152 Table 7.14. Correlation matrix for variables included in principle components analysis...... 156 Table 7.15. Component matrix for variables included in principle components analysis...... 156 Table 7.16. Results of Chi-square test between listed variable and geographic group...... 158 Table 7.17. Results of One-way ANOVA between listed variable and geographic group...... 159 Table 7.18. Probability values from Tukey’s HSD post hoc test for listed variables by geographic group...... 159 Table 7.19. AMS radiocarbon dates from plain weave pointed- or rounded-toe sandals...... 169

xii Acknowledgements

My thanks to the curators and support staff who helped facilitate analysis of the many museum collections and to my committee members: Barbara Roth, Karen Harry, and Alan

Simmons, whose comments greatly improved the quality of this work. My thanks and appreciation also goes to Brooke Arkush who introduced me to the discipline and made sure my side walls were always straight, and to my mentor Joel Janetski who tolerated odd and sundry questions about numerous subjects for multiple years and greatly shaped my view of archaeology. It’s been a privilege to work with you Dr. J.

Finally, my wife Sally has had to endure being married to a poor university student for 11 long years, one who was often in the field and even when home was usually

‘busy’. She has always supported me, and I offer her my heartfelt love and thanks.

Financial support was generously provided by grants and scholarships from the

National Science Foundation (Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant no.0823848), the

University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and the Nevada Archaeological Association.

xiii chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

The next step in chronology leads us to that shadowy, indeterminate period of the Prepueblo and early Pueblo…the short series of sandals undoubtedly representing this time does not as yet throw further light on the matter [Ann Axtell Morris in Deegan 1998a:22].

Perishable artifacts, by their very nature, are poorly represented in archaeological collections. Prehistoric clothing, one of the most personal of artifact categories, is rarely recovered during excavations. This makes finding such artifacts all that much more exciting, as the study of textiles and basketry has been shown to inform on such issues as social and ethnic identity, symbolic systems, trade relations, migration, gender, and technology (Kent 1983a, 1983b; Adovasio 1986a, 1986b; Hays 1992; Webster and

Hays-Gilpin 1994; Webster 1997, 2000; Teague 1998, 2000; Webster and Drooker 2000;

Webster and Loma’omvaya 2004). One piece of clothing that is found relatively often in the dry caves, shelters, and sites of the American Southwest is the fiber sandal.

The observation and admiration of yucca sandals has a long history in southwestern archaeology. As early as 1895 descriptions of southwestern sandals were gracing the pages of academic journals (Mason 1895). Studies of these artifacts, however, have been characterized by an emphasis in two areas. First, they have primarily focused on the more aesthetically pleasing twined Basketmaker sandals. This is understandable, as

1 aspects of these sandals have been described as, “textile perfection at no time excelled for beauty upon the face of the globe,” (Ann Axtell Morris in Deegan 1998a:21), yet somewhat regrettable in that other less complex sandal types have been ignored. Second, studies of Basketmaker and Puebloan sandals have been primarily descriptive in nature.

This is unfortunate, as sandals have the potential to address multiple social and cultural lines of inquiry (Webster and Hays-Gilpin 1994; Hays-Gilpin 1998; Geib 2000; McBrinn

2005).

A good example of this research potential is Phil Geib’s work on Archaic period sandals from the Colorado Plateau (Geib 1996, 2000). Based on an analysis of style and multiple radiocarbon dates, Geib discovered that sandal construction and design attributes prior to 5700 B.C. were very different between the northern and southern Colorado

Plateau. The northern Colorado Plateau was characterized by an open Z-twined sandal while the southern Colorado Plateau was characterized by a plain weave type. Around

5700 B.C., the style of sandals on the northern Plateau began to change as sandals made with twined technology decreased in numbers and geographic extent and plain weave types increased. Geib was careful to note, however, that some northern characteristics remained the same, most notably the tie system and warp structure. These consistencies, along with the fact that a few intermediate types dating to the transition period exist, led him to conclude that the spread of twined sandals did not represent a population movement or replacement, but was rather a diffusion of ideas through “sustained contact and interaction” among Archaic hunter and gatherers (Geib 2000:520). Work such as Geib’s demonstrates that sandal research can effectively investigate cultural and technological interaction in prehistory.

2 One of the types of sandals that has seen the least amount of research in the

Southwest is the Puebloan plain weave pointed- or rounded-toe sandal (Figure 1.1).

Aside from anecdotal evidence, very little is known about their temporal or geographic distribution, which has in part led to their not being used in studies of Puebloan

(Anasazi) culture. This dissertation helps to put an end to this data gap, by firmly establishing when and where these sandals were in use. It demonstrates the utility of using museum collections for answering questions about prehistoric culture, and emphasizes archaeologists’ collective responsibility to analyze and publish the results of previous excavations. Most importantly, however, the data are used to investigate the origins and implications of distinctive sandal making communities of practice in the northern Southwest. The results of the study show that learning pools, the transmission of technology and culture, and group interaction can be effectively investigated using construction data from footwear.

Research Focus

Two hundred and twenty-six plain weave pointed- or rounded-toe sandals from 33 archaeological sites or localities in Utah, Arizona, and Nevada were examined to address the questions: how were these sandals constructed, when where the used, and where were they distributed. These data were then used to investigate cultural boundaries, communities of practice, and interaction among the Anasazi.

Construction

Most aspects of plain weave pointed- or rounded-toe sandal construction remain undetermined. Kidder and Guernsey (1919:103) have given a brief description of warp

3 Figure 1.1. Examples of plain weave pointed- or rounded-toe sandals: (a) A315588 no.2, (b) 2-3612. Note that the bottom of the photograph of A315588 no.2 has been cut off to conserve space. This is done on a few figures throughout the dissertation when warps extended for a long distance.

arrangement, but based on recent work by the author this description may be incorrect, or at least incomplete (see Chapter 5 for an explanation of sandal terms). Contrary to

Kidder and Guernsey’s assertion that this type of sandal was constructed by, “looping either two or three cords, the open ends of the loops being at the heel, the closed ends forming the toe,” I have found that at least some of these sandals have warps that were spliced at the toe, not looped (Yoder 2008). A general lack of construction data, among other things, leads to confusion in sandal terminology. Even the designation of pointed or rounded is subjective, as no one has defined at what point the angle of the toe changes from one to the other. General belief within the archaeological community has been that

4 pointed- and rounded-toe sandals were constructed differently, yet preliminary research has shown that this may not be the case (Yoder 2006). To determine how this type of sandal was constructed, 226 sandal or sandal fragments were physically analyzed and

43 were examined using soft X-ray radiography. As previous sandal and perishable researchers have suggested, the attributes analyzed included the number and arrangement of warps, warp helix angle, type of knots used, formation of toe, body, and heel areas, body silhouette, type and construction of the tie system, spin, ply, twist, and diameter of all elements, raw material choice, weft density, toe angle (toe silhouette percentage), and measurements of length and width (Emery 1966; Deegan 1995; Talge 1995; Minar

2000; McBrinn 2005). Such an analysis allowed for the description of individual sandal attributes and paves the way for a unified sandal terminology; both essential for sandal research to be useful in the American Southwest. Quantification of these same construction attributes also allowed for comparisons of technology across the region.

Temporal Distribution

Using cross dating, early researchers assigned plain weave pointed/rounded-toe sandals to the early Pueblo periods (Judd 1926; Kidder and Guernsey 1919). This belief has continued despite the fact that only one specimen has ever been radiocarbon dated

(Janetski and Hall 1983) and a few examples have been reported from later contexts

(Anderson 1969; Cummings 1953). To determine the temporal range of this sandal type, 22 specimens from multiple localities were AMS radiocarbon dated. Doing so established the time period these artifacts were in use and indicates that their adoption varied temporally across the region.

5 Spatial Distribution

Based on a small number of references in the literature, plain weave pointed/ rounded-toe sandals appear to be primarily distributed in northeastern Arizona (Kidder and Guernsey 1919; Kankainen 1995; Guernsey 1931; Cummings 1953; Anderson

1969; Judd 1926; Bartlett 1934; Baldwin 1938), although there are a few examples from northwestern Arizona and southwestern Nevada (Janetski and Hall 1983; Shutler 1961).

Such a distribution may be caused by sampling bias, however, as much of the early work in the Puebloan region was conducted in northeastern Arizona. Many sandal collections that could refine the distribution of this artifact type have lain unanalyzed and unreported in museums throughout the country. To determine the geographic distribution of these sandals and their attributes, all known specimens with provenience information were geographically mapped. This established their spatial distribution and showed that plain weave pointed/rounded-toe sandals were constrained to certain areas within the Puebloan region. Analysis of the spatial distribution of specific sandal construction attributes further implied cultural and technological boundaries between two primary geographic areas.

Communities of Practice and Cultural Interaction

Once a basic characterization of this sandal type was established, sandal attributes were grouped as to whether they were more likely to reflect active or passive style. In general, active style is embodied in highly visible traits and more often reflects conscious group identity while passive styles are found in low visibility traits and may reflect subconscious enculturation (Carr 1995a, 1995b; Clark 2001, 2004). Sandal attributes that are more likely to reflect active style, therefore, are those that are highly visible, such

6 as the type of tie system used, body silhouette, and toe and heel shape. Attributes more likely to reflect passive style have low visibility, and include raw material choice, the ply, twist, helix angle, and diameter of yarn elements (including warps, wefts, and elements used in the tie system), number or warps, internal arrangement of warps, and knots used in construction.

These attributes were explored to determine if there were distinct spatial or temporal clusters. Both ethnographic and archaeological research indicates that individuals may signal self ascription to a group by displaying distinctive material styles (Barth 1969;

Jones 1997; Shennan 1989; Wobst 1977). Clusters of attributes reflective of active style may indicate that individuals within these boundaries see themselves as belonging to a distinct ethnic or socially defined population. Clusters of attributes reflective of passive style may indicate individuals who shared an enculturative background, or participated in a ‘community of practice’ (Clark 2001; Lave and Wenger 1991; Minar 2000). Such groups share technological styles through a social learning network and likely interacted with each other on a regular basis, with more frequency, and greater intensity, than with populations from other groups.

Analysis of individual characteristics did not find any significant temporal or spatial clusters of highly visible sandal attributes that differed in any way from attributes containing passive style, and indicates that Puebloan individuals were not using plain weave pointed/rounded-toe sandals to actively communicate group identity. Analysis of low visibility traits, however, revealed both temporal and spatial clusters in a number of different categories. The general similarity of plain weave pointed/rounded-toe sandals suggests that a broad overarching community of practice encompassed the making of this

7 sandal type, and that this community likely had its origins in the Western Basketmaker culture. The introduction of the plain weave pointed/rounded-toe sandals may be associated to the intensification of ceramics at the cost of high investment basketry.

Subtle differences in the distribution and proportions of sandal attributes also suggest that two smaller sandal making communities of practice, within the larger overarching one, existed in the Western (Virgin) and Eastern (Kayenta/Mesa Verde) areas. The

Western community was characterized by a high degree of homogeneity in its plain weave pointed/rounded-toe sandals, while the Eastern community was slightly more heterogeneous and had a larger amount of variance in sandal attributes. These findings have implications for how Anasazi groups interacted with one another and neighboring populations.

Organization of Dissertation

Following this introduction, Chapter 2 provides a short discussion of stylistic theory, with a greater emphasis on the active and passive style schools of thought. Carr’s

Unified Middle Range Theory of Artifact Design is introduced, as well as how style can relate to group boundaries, communities of practice, and cultural interaction. I propose that sandal research can be greatly aided by the use of both active and passive style in investigating cultural issues. Chapter 3 outlines the three research questions that guide this study. Questions 1 and 2 seek to establish the temporal and cultural distribution of this sandal type and to better understand their construction characteristics. Question

3 asks if the distribution of sandals and their individual characteristics can be used to analyze boundaries, communities of practice, and cultural interaction during the Pueblo

8 period. The cultural-historic nature of Questions 1 and 2 are discussed and justified, and the social and cultural implications of Question 3 are explained. In Chapter 4 the cultural context for the sandals is established, with the Pecos classification described and a general outline of the Basketmaker and Puebloan periods and regions provided. Chapter

5 provides sandal, yarn, and weaving terminology that is essential in understanding the data and discussion in the rest of the dissertation. Types of Puebloan sandals are discussed with an emphasis on the plain weave pointed/rounded-toe type; the subject of study. Chapter 6 outlines the methods that are used in the analysis as well as definitions of the categories created during the study. The composition of the sandal assemblage analyzed for the dissertation is listed, as well as the museums and sites from which they came. In Chapter 7 the data produced from the analyses are presented. This includes a statistical analysis using both nonparametric and parametric techniques, a technical analysis that involved physically inspecting all specimens, soft X-ray radiographic analysis, microscopic fiber identification to identify the type of yucca used in construction, spatial analysis to find geographic patterning, and a replication experiment to more fully understand the construction process. In Chapter 8 these data are interpreted and discussed in relation to the three primary research questions. The construction characteristics and the temporal and cultural distribution of plain weave pointed/rounded- toe sandals are outlined, the existence of two small communities of practice within one large overarching one is explained, and the use of stylistic research for this type of sandal is evaluated. Finally, Chapter 9 summarizes the key points of the dissertation and presents avenues for future research.

9 Chapter 2

Theory

Style in Archaeology

The concept of style in archaeology has a long and varied past. Exactly what style is has been debated by numerous researchers, and a definitive definition of style is difficult as it means different things to different people. Hegmon has stated that it sometimes appears as if archaeologists, “have as many approaches to style as we have works on the topic” (Hegmon 1992:517). Despite an apparent lack of consensus, most researchers recognize two basic tenets of style, “First, style is a way of doing something, and second, style involves a choice among various alternatives” (Hegmon 1992:517-518). As the literature on style is vast (and ever growing), I provide only a brief history of the major concepts in stylistic research. Thereafter I constrain my discussion to the forms and theories of style that play a direct role in this dissertation, namely, active and passive stlye.

A Brief History of Style

Style, as with so many other concepts in archaeology, was defined and used very differently by the earlier cultural-historical school of thought and later theoretical orientations. During the first part of the 20th century, and up until roughly the 1960s,

10 theory was dominated by the culture historians. This perspective took a normative view of culture and saw style as something divorced from the function of an artifact. Style was viewed as variability in material culture that could be used to categorize artifacts for three primary purposes: 1) to create archaeological cultures, 2) develop chronologies, and 3) to track diffusion or migration. This changed in the 1960s as the New Archaeology with its focus on explaining cultural change developed. This perspective focused much less on documenting stylistic differences and much more on explaining what these differences meant, how they developed, and how they impacted (and were impacted by) the cultural system they were in. Multiple processual and post-processual theories about style have arisen since this major change, but these can be categorized within two broad schools of thought: active and passive.

Active Style

At the core of the active style school of thought is the belief that individuals consciously imbue artifacts with visible elements (styles) that are used as a means of nonverbal communication, such as signaling group or individual identity, power, or social relations. In this view style is functional; but it is important to note that, “not all material variation is style; rather, style is that part of variation that conveys information” (Hegmon

1992:521). The premise behind active style comes from the work of many researchers, but is primarily based on the research of Martin Wobst and Polly Wiessner.

In the late 1970s, Martin Wobst developed a theory of style that has come to be known as the information-exchange theory. He defined style as, “that part of the formal variability in material culture that can be related to the participation of artifacts in processes of information exchange” (Wobst 1977:321). According to Wobst, style was

11 used by individuals to communicate information to others, primarily those outside of the group. Because style was viewed as an ‘expensive’ form of communication (involving more work to create than would be necessary if an artifact was strictly functional), it was expected to only be used in certain situations. Wobst used ethnographic examples of male dress in Yugoslavia to test many of his predictions. Latter researchers, however, have shown key aspects of Wobst’s theory to be flawed, especially the notion that all style is actively used to communicate information and directed only at people a certain social or cultural distance removed (Dietler and Herbich 1989; Sackett 1990). Although not all of Wobst’s theory has not held up to later empirical testing, what is important is that his presentation of the information-exchange theory (however flawed) promoted the idea of style being used as an active element in the communication of information.

The idea that style is actively used by individuals was the focus of a congenial debate about the meaning and interpretation of style between Polly Wiessner (1983; 1985; 1990) and James Sackett (1977; 1982; 1985; 1990). Wiessner (1983:256) defined style as,

“formal variation in material culture that transmits information about personal and social identity,” and believed it was composed of two different types: emblemic and assertive.

Emblemic style was material variation that transmitted clear, conscious messages about group affiliation or identity and had a distinct referent. The referent was most often the social group and its material and/or immaterial aspects of culture. Because emblemic style dealt with material variation that transmitted messages about social identity, it could be searched for in the archaeological record to define social boundaries. Assertive style was variation in material culture that was personally based and contained information about individual identity. It differed from emblemic style in that it did not have a distinct

12 referent, focused more on individual expression, and transmitted more of a message that said, “I am myself,” without directly saying, “I am not like you” (Wiessner 1983:258).

According to Wiessner, these two types of style could occur separately or in conjunction with one another.

Wiessner used these principles in an ethnographic study of arrows among three different linguistic groups of Kalahari San who were, “remarkably homogeneous in their economic base, technological level, ideological systems, and social organization”

(Wiessner 1983:255). The groups also shared an estimated 90 percent of each other’s material culture, but distinguished themselves from one another. To examine group boundaries and identity, Wiessner collected arrows from individuals in each linguistic group and a year later had them try to identify their own arrows as well as the arrows from the other groups. Wiessner found that her informants easily recognized arrows from other language groups based on physical variability such as size and the shape of point, but for more specific cultural groupings (e.g. dialect group, band cluster, or band) the San were not able to differentiate based on arrow attributes. This led Wiessner to conclude that emblemic style could be useful in determining group boundaries ethnographically as well as archaeologically, but that the level of specificity would vary by case. Further, she believed that because emblemic style is based on the principle of transmitting information, group boundaries were more than just arbitrary lines in the sand and could mark real socio-cultural or linguistic differences between groups that may otherwise seem very similar.

Wiesnner also found that assertive style was expressed differently among the arrow makers than emblemic style. Characteristics that were said to show assertive style

13 included the shape of the arrow shaft and base, the overall quality of the arrow, and how the arrow shaft was decorated (e.g. engraved or painted). None of these characteristics could be used by San informants to distinguish between groups at any level.

Interestingly, often the original creator of the arrow could not even distinguish his own work from that of others within his group. Based on discussions with San informants,

Wiessner concluded that the most frequent motive for this type of style was a, “desire to present a positive image to partners in reciprocity and to members of the opposite sex”

(Wiessner 1983:258). Assertive style, at least among the Kalahari San, was therefore not useful in determining group boundaries.

A closely related concept to Wiessner’s emblemic and assertive style is Macdonald’s protocol and panache (Macdonald 1990). Macdonald also viewed style as an active expression (and one that communicates social information), but whereas Wiessner focused on the material variation that created style (e.g. arrow characteristics),

Macdonald focused on the social processes and behaviors that created the material correlates. Macdonald defined panache as, “those social processes and behaviors that are aimed at an atomistic emphasis on the individual as a separate, independent, and unique element” (Macdonald 1990:53). In other words, panache was the social circumstances or beliefs that lead people to want to differentiate themselves from others within their group, or to stand out from their peers in terms of style. This is analyzed on the ‘element’ or individual level. Protocol, on the other hand, was defined as, “a set of social processes that is aimed at the promotion of group identity and membership at the expense of the individual” (Macdonald 1990:53). This is analyzed on a ‘composite’ level, where a single composite may be composed of multiple elements.

14 Macdonald felt that because human behavior is situational and context dependent, style would vary depending on social situations. It was therefore “multireferential,” meaning that there were multiple levels of symbolic coding in and among artifacts

(Macdonald 1990:52). Archaeological analysis must take into account these multiple levels of panache and protocol to help explain variability in style. To show how this could be done, Macdonald analyzed mortuary data from 239 burials belonging to two

Plains groups (Pawnee and Arikara). Macdonald used both element and composite variables to perform a regression analysis that focused on sex, age, group membership, diversity of grave inclusions, and relative wealth; and found that some variables produced statistically significant results. Based on these statistical findings, Macdonald concluded that among the Pawnee, group membership was more important in determining what grave goods were to be included in the burial than either sex or age (although both sex and age played a role). Among the Arikara, group membership played a much less important role in determining grave goods. This analysis compared favorably to ethnohistoric records which noted the, “lower importance of corporate groups” among the Arikara (Macdonald 1990:59). Macdonald’s research further emphasized the use of active style in investigating group identity and boundaries, but most importantly it emphasized the social processes and behaviors that lead to the production of material variability.

Passive Style

At the core of the passive style school of thought is the belief that individuals make subconscious technological choices that imbue artifacts with information that may communicate group boundaries or norms (be they social, political, ethnic, etc). In this

15 view, style is not necessarily functional, but is simply an unintended byproduct of the production sequence. Much of the theory that underpins the passive style school of thought is based on the work of James Sackett, although many other theorists contribute to the overarching idea (Leroi-Gourhan 1964, 1993; Lechtman 1977, Lemonnier 1986,

1992; Childs 1991, Gosselain 1992, and others).

Sackett was involved in the debate about meaning and interpretation of style with

Polly Wiessner in the 1980s (Sackett 1977, 1982, 1985, 1990). While acknowledging that some style may actively and purposefully convey information, Sackett proposed the idea that isochrestic variation may represent the bulk of style in material culture. The term isochrestic translates from Greek to mean, “equivalent in use,” and refers to the idea that when creating an artifact there is a countless number of equally functional ways of doing something, or as Sackett puts it, “there is more than one way to skin a cat” (Sackett

1990:33). Despite this vast constellation of choices, however, only a few options are recognized as culturally valid, and even fewer (sometimes only one) is actually used. At each step in the production sequence isochrestic variation is possible, and the option that is consistently settled upon becomes stylistic through the acceptance of one technology and the rejection of all others.

The technological choice an artisan makes when faced with isochrestic variation is largely, “dictated by the technological tradition within which they have been enculturated” (Sackett 1990:33). It is the specific culturally constrained variant that is chosen from the innumerable combination of technological choices available that makes up style, and it is these styles that can be used to identify cultural groups and boundaries.

An example given by Sackett illustrates the concept:

16 Let us imagine an American tourist in Paris. He is directed to his hotel by a police- man, whose uniform and its accompanying insignia do indeed constitute active style. But consider what our tourist encounters once he enters his room: armoire instead of closet, shutters over the windows, door handles and window hardware of novel configurations, pillow the shape of a sausage running the full width of the bed, toi- let (if not located on the stair landing) partitioned off from the bathing area, and so forth. There is no reason to believe that these furnishings were deliberately designed to signal “you have crossed an ethnic border and are now in France,” or “you are a foreigner,” or even “we are different and perhaps not to be trusted,” even though the tourist is sure to draw one or more of these ethnic conclusions. Instead they constitute passive style and are simply the product of French artisans doing things the way they have learned is the proper manner of doing them [Sackett 1990:37].

It is important to note, as is demonstrated in the latter half of this example, that although the artisan may be unaware that he or she is passing cultural information through an object, the artifact none-the-less contains information that will be interpreted by other individuals (both from their own and other cultural groups).

Also important is that some of the stronger messages and interpretations in the example came not from the conspicuous elements containing active style (such as the policeman’s uniform and insignia), but instead were found in the commonplace and ordinary furnishings and layout of the hotel room. This brings outs a key point of

Sackett’s theory that is particularly important for archaeologists. Unlike active style, isochrestic variation can be found in essentially any artifact, including the mundane and undecorated. This is because all artifacts, be they highly decorated Fremont figurines or undecorated pieces of grayware pottery, are constructed through a series technological choices wherein lie isochrestic variation. This makes the passive style approach especially useful to archaeologists because the bulk of the archaeological record is made up of the mundane fragments of everyday life.

Many of the principles found in Sackett’s isochrestic variation are similar to those

17 found under the rubric of ‘technological style’ espoused by Lechtman (1977), Lemonnier

(1986, 1992), Childs (1991), Gosselain (1992), and others; which is based in part on

the notion of chaînes opératoires. Leroi-Gourhan (1964, 1993) used the term chaînes opératoires (which translates to ‘operational sequence’) to imply that human behavior is structured by deeply embedded ways of doing things, and that these sequences shape a cultures technology and can therefore be seen in all aspects of material culture. By understanding an artifact’s production sequence, one can better understand what roles it plays in society.

The intricacies of technological style vary depending on the author, but generally revolve around the idea that, “similar aims can always be reached in different ways, but that the choices that artisans make essentially proceed from the social contexts in which they learn and practice their craft” (Gosselain 1992:82). This viewpoint does not disregard the importance of active style, but emphasizes the technological process employed in artifact creation, as well as the choice of raw materials, sources of energy, tools, scheduling, etc. (Stark et al. 1998).

As with Sackett’s isochrestic variation, the proponents of technological style generally believe that cultural information is best found in the utilitarian and mundane

(Carr 1995a). These types of artifacts are more reliable in examining group identity or interaction because they are less likely to contain active social messages which can change quickly and are defined, used, and manipulated differently depending on the social context (Stone 2003). Mundane utilitarian objects are good for examining boundaries and interaction specifically because they are less likely to have active social messages, instead containing latent subconscious cultural information. These vary in

18 type and effectiveness at conveying information, but generally include domestic material culture such as spatial organization and architecture, ground stone, and certain types of ceramics, textiles, and lithics.

The Unified Middle-Range Theory of Artifact Design

While the concepts of active and passive style have contributed greatly to our knowledge of prehistoric and ethnographic cultures, when used by themselves they have been accused of lacking the theoretical rigor needed to interpret all facets of style

(exemplified in the Wiessner/Sackett debate of the 1980s). To bridge the gap between passive and active style, Christopher Carr developed the ‘unified middle-range theory of artifact design’ (Carr 1995a, 1995b). Although Carr avoids much of the terminology used by the passive style school of thought, he relies heavily on the principles behind technological style. Foremost amongst these being that researchers must try to understand all steps in the production sequence, all of the artifacts physical attributes and how they relate to one another, and how the artifact is used in a cultural setting. As the formal attributes of an artifact are understood, they can be hierarchically ranked. As attributes are ranked, some will be much more likely to communicate active messages while some will be much more likely to communicate passive ones. In Carr’s words,

“the appropriate question is not which theory of style is “right” but, rather, which kinds of formal attributes can reflect which kinds of processes – enculturation, communication, or other processes” (Carr 1995a:153).

Attributes can be defined as nearly anything; as Carr describes, “the term “attribute” is used in the most general way to refer to either the content or structure of an artifact: its forms, engineering, and other properties (e.g. cord twist tightness, color), relationships

19 among forms or properties, part-whole relationships, syntactic patterns, and Gestalt- perceptual qualities (e.g., visual texture)” (Carr 1995b:172-173). Once all attributes are defined, they must be ordered hierarchically according to: 1) attribute and artifact visibility, 2) relative order of the attribute in the artifact design sequence, and 3) the relative order of the attribute in the artifact production sequence.

Carr gives visibility the most weight in determining an artifacts’ potential for conveying active and passive messages, and measures visibility by both physical and contextual variables. Physical visibility is affected by such variables as size, the degree to which the attribute contrasts with its background, overall complexity, an attributes frequency within an artifact, etc. (Carr 1995b:Table 7-5). Contextual visibility is affected by artifact ubiquity, average viewing time and distance, openness or closure of the context of viewing, the number of viewers, lighting conditions, viewing context for manufacture of the artifact, use life of the artifact, etc (Carr 1995b:Table 7-5; Clark

2001:12). Generally, the higher the physical or contextual visibility of an artifact or attribute the greater its potential to contain active style. Conversely, the lower the physical or contextual visibility the greater its potential to contain passive style. This makes intuitive sense, for as Jeffery Clark has said, “you can’t read what you can’t see”

(Clark 2004:45).

Secondary to the visibility of an attribute or artifact are the design and production hierarchies. The design hierarchy is the sequence of decisions that is made in the planning of an artifacts design. Generally, the lower the attribute in the design sequence, the greater its potential to communicate active style. This is in large part due to the fact that attributes low in the design sequence are usually highly visible. For example, one

20 of the first design decisions made when creating a projectile point is what type of raw material will be used. Whatever the choice, this attribute will be highly visible and is one of the first things noticed when viewing the end product. Conversely, attributes high in the design sequence are more likely to contain passive style in part because of their lower visibility.

The production hierarchy arranges attributes according to their position in a sequence of production steps; how the artifact is actually made. It is highly dependent on the medium being studied, as some mediums closely follow the design sequence while others do not. This means that the production hierarchy can correlate, “either positively or negatively with its decision and visibility hierarchies,” so that the position of an attribute in the production hierarchy does not by itself predict its likelihood to communicate active or passive information (Carr 1995b:231). Instead, the production sequence is best used to, “substantiate or refine an attribute hierarchy already established with the visibility and decision hierarchies” (Carr 1995b:230).

One of the major positive aspects of the unified middle range theory of artifact design is that it focuses on the individual attributes of an artifact. This allows for each attribute to be evaluated on its own merits as to whether it is more likely to contain active or passive style. The theory can also be applied to multiple mediums and tries to synthesize theory from both the active and passive style schools of thought. However, the particulars of the theory are numerous, complex, and their operationalization poorly defined. Some of these shortcomings are expressed by Sackett, who states:

21 Given that it requires taking into consideration “the workings of all potentially causal factors at all levels” [p. 17], the unified theory is not easily summarized. Its principle exposition by Carr in chapters 5 and 6 alone calls for over 50,000 words accompanied by 29 tables and figures [many of them extending over two or more pages]…there may be many like myself who suspect that Carrr has constructed neither a theory nor a model but rather a kind of over-arching heuristic, a superchecklist to consult in order to ensure that one has covered all the bases when looking for style in material culture [Sackett 1996:926].

Despite these shortcomings, the unified middle range theory of artifact design has much to offer in the study of style, and is the primary theoretical orientation used in this dissertation. In determining the potential for conveying active or passive style, I have focused primarily on physical and contextual visibility, in part because this is where Carr himself places the most emphasis, but also because the design hierarchy is partially based on physical and contextual visibility and the production hierarch does not by itself predict the likelihood of an attribute to communicate active or passive information (Carr 1995a,

1995b; Car and Maslowski 1995).

Style As It Relates to Ethnicity and/or Enculturation

Using style to investigate communication (both active and passive) between individuals and groups logically leads to questions of what information is being transmitted. A number of studies have shown how style can be used to actively communicate information about cultural or social boundaries (sometimes reflective of ethnicity), but can also be used to examine learning pools or communities of practice

(shaped through passive enculturation).

Ethnicity

Like style, the definition and use of the term ethnicity, or what defines an ethnic

22 group, has changed multiple times in the last half century (Barth 1969a, 1969b; De

Vos 1975; Shennan 1989; Jones 1997). Although the terms ethnicity and ethnic group

are used commonly in everyday conversation, and when invoked people generally

know what one means, an exact definition that works well in all situations is elusive.

Classically, among anthropologists the term ethnic group has been defined as a group

that: 1) is primarily biologically self-perpetuating, 2) shares fundamental cultural values,

3) communicates and interacts regularly, and 4) and identifies itself, and is identified by

others as a distinct category (Barth 1969a). However, many researchers have rejected

parts of this definition (Barth 1969b), with some going as far as to say that the concept of

ethnicity and real ethnic groups did not exist until the emergence of the first civilizations

(Smith 1986) or the industrialization of the modern world (Gellner 1983; Bentley 1987).

Barth stressed that the most important defining characteristic of an ethnic group is self ascription and ascription by others. This led him to see ethnicity as primarily a means of social organization, and that when studying ethnic groups the focus should be on the ethnic boundary that defines the group rather than the cultural ‘stuff’ that it encloses. Others have defined an ethnic group as a, “self-perceived group of people who hold in common a set of traditions not shared by others with whom they are in contact”

(De Vos 1975:9), or ethnicity as a, “self-conscious identification with a particular social group at least partly based on a specific locality or origin” (Shennan 1989:14). Other definitions exist, but the general principle behind most is that ethnic groups are self ascribing (individuals within the group define themselves in part through opposition to other groups) and that they share some common feature, be it a set of traditions, ancestry, origin, locality, language, etc. What is important in the context of this dissertation is

23 that ethnicity is an active principle. Or in other words, individuals are conscious of ethnic distinctions and may imbue artifacts (be it rock art, ceramics, clothing, etc) with styles that try to communicate this information. Therefore, artifacts that possess active style are some of the best candidates for finding and understanding ethnic groups in the archaeological record.

Unfortunately, the process of interpreting artifact styles in relation to ethnicity can be very difficult for a number of reasons. One of the most problematic is determining out of the vast universe of artifacts or artifact attributes which ones are markers of ethnicity and which ones are not. Even when/if these markers are identified for a specific group during a specific time period, they may change depending on the context in which they are viewed. This is because ethnic identity is a, “dynamic social construct” that individuals are aware of and try to actively manipulate (Stone 2003:62). They do this by emphasizing or de-emphasizing parts of their social identities to their advantage dependent on the situation. This creates a vexing task for archaeologists who try to use active style to search for ethnic identities in the past. Despite these difficulties, many researchers have found this avenue of research fruitful (Wiessner 1983; Macdonald 1990;

Stone 2003).

Tammy Stone’s (2003) research from the mountain region of east/central Arizona emphasized that ethnic identity can be actively manipulated dependent on the situation.

Although Stone also used passive style markers in her study, her emphasis was on material culture likely used in active communication. Synthesizing the data of other researchers in the area, she examined the migration of Kayenta Anasazi groups into the

Silver Creek, Grasshopper, and Point of Pines regions in Arizona.

24 In the Silver Creek area, Stone documented two migrations into the region by

Kayenta groups, one around A.D. 1100 and another around A.D. 1275. In both cases the groups moving into the area had different, “learning frameworks” than the indigenous populations (Stone 2003:49). However, artifacts that may have served as ethnic markers showed little differences between the groups. Specifically, sites show relatively equal proportions of imported and decorated ceramics, and little difference in the architectural construction and the arrangement of space. Stone noted a homogeneity of style that represented a, “lack of ethnic signaling” (Stone 2003:49), used to, “build a common social identity out of disparate backgrounds” (Mills 1999:510).

Stone also examined the Grasshopper region in eastern Arizona, an area that has been the focus of intensive archaeological investigations (Reid and Whittlesey 1999). Ceramic types and technology, cranial deformation, strontium isotope analysis, and the use of space in architecture all indicated an influx of northern migrants aroundA.D. 1200 to

1300, but a different pattern emerged in the Grasshopper region than the amalgamation of groups in the Silver Creek area. At Grasshopper, while some of the enculturative traits used by immigrant groups remained the same (such as the division of space inside habitation structures and certain ceramic technologies) more public, ethnic markers, did not. Exterior architecture of immigrant groups changed to match local styles, new ceramic types that were a hybrid of local and immigrant styles occurred and were distributed throughout both communities, and burial artifacts suggesting membership in indigenous sodalities were found in burials of immigrants. In the Grasshopper region it appears that while migrants retained much of their enculturative backgrounds (seen through passive style), the active adoption of indigenous markers of ethnic identity

25 allowed them to be incorporated into the local system.

Finally, in the Point of Pines region a very different pattern of ethnic signaling took place. As with the other localities discussed, evidence showed that a group of northern migrants moved into the area, but did so later than in Silver Creek and Grasshopper, around A.D. 1265. Once again analysis of artifacts and patterns containing passive style showed that the two groups had different enculturative backgrounds. But, unlike in the other areas, at Point of Pines active ethnic signaling seemed to have continued, and may have been in part responsible for violence between the two groups. When the northern migrants first appeared at site W:10:50, they built a temporary pit house village on the outskirts of the village that was later replaced with a two story pueblo in the center of the site and an associated semi-subterranean D-shaped kiva. All of these architectural forms were different from the ones being used by the indigenous groups in the region at the time. Decorated ceramics characteristic of the Kayenta region were found in large quantities in the immigrant room block, but only rarely found in the indigenous habitations. Finally, a type of squash and maize that was common to the Kayenta region was found in the immigrant room block, but was rare outside of the structure.

All of these features (domestic and sacred architecture, decorated ceramics, and types of cultigens) would have been highly visible and loudly communicated the differences between the two groups, possible inhibiting integration. These actively displayed differences likely played a part in the destruction of the Kayenta room block around A.D.

1300 (Stone 2003).

These examples show that interaction between different groups can vary widely depending on how, or whether, they choose to express social or ethnic identities. It

26 also demonstrates that research into prehistoric ethnicity or group boundedness can be successfully done when examined in the proper context, and is best accomplished when other lines of evidence (such as enculturation) can be incorporated.

Enculturation

All human beings learn the cultural norms of a group in which they are raised through processes like observation, instruction, and experience. This process, called enculturation, is essential for the reproduction of any group. Cultural training occurs first and foremost in the household, but later incorporates information from other parts of the community (Netting 1993). As Clark states, “During the course of the domestic routine, culturally specific “where-to dos,” “how-to-dos,” and “what-to-dos” are passed from old to young through instruction and imitation” (Clark 2004:44). Social groups can be formed by individuals sharing a settlement history and having close contact through an extended period of time.

Part of the enculturation process is learning how to re-create the material culture of the group one is raised in. In many societies, a novice learns how to perform a task by observing or being instructed by an accomplished individual who lives in close geographic proximity to them (often a family member). For a number of reasons, the novice is enculturated into that particular skill set and reproduces the techniques of the teacher (Minar and Crown 2001 and references therein). This process creates what learning theorists Lave and Wenger (1991) have called a community-of-practice; a concept related to what others have called learning pools (Carr and Maslowski 1995).

Within such communities, “the teaching and learning of skills is situated within a social context in which who you are, what you know, and how you do certain things are all

27 inextricably linked” (Minar 2000:96). Technological styles are passed from teacher to learner so that there is continuity in material culture. Communities of practice are based on learning/teaching networks, so depending on the situation they can transcend social or ethnic boundaries or can divide larger seemingly homogenous groups into smaller cultural units (Lave and Wenger 1991; Minar 2000).

A good example of such networks is Delores Newton’s research examining the social boundary between two Timbira groups, the Krikati and Pukobye (Newton 1974). Newton described how the two Brazilian groups lived roughly a days journey from one another and saw themselves as separate peoples, but were generally considered by outsiders as,

“local groups of a single tribal entity” (Newton 1974:235). Newton examined seven attributes of cloth hammocks used by both groups to ask the question, “to what extent do material culture differences delineate social distance” (Newton 1974:240). She found that two of the hammock attributes, cordage twist direction and twining stitch slant direction, were statistically different between the two groups. Prior to the 1930s the two groups practiced a village endogamous marriage system; this created two separate communities of practice (or learning pools) wherein the shared tradition associated with cordage twist direction and twining stitch slant direction were passed from mother to daughter, thereby embodying a passive style. However, later in time the regional situation forced/encouraged intermarriage between the two groups, particularly a higher proportion of Krikati marrying into the Pukobye group. This resulted in a change in the communities of practice, which was exemplified through changing patterns in cordage twist direction and twining stitch slant direction. Specifically, differences between the two groups in regards to these attributes diminished, especially in the Pukobye tribe.

28 Closer to the present study area, multiple researchers from the American Southwest and Colorado Plateau have applied the concept of passive or technological style to the study of enculturation and group boundaries (Geib 2002; Haas 2003, 2006; Stark et al.

1998). One particularly interesting example is research by William Haas (2003, 2006) using fiber cordage. As discussed previously, Basketmaker II populations are often split by researchers into eastern and western variants. Since numerous studies have shown that cordage is a good transmitter of passive style (Newton 1974; Carr and Maslowski

1995; Maslowski 1996; Minar 2000; Petersen and Wolford 2000) Haas used Basketmaker

II cordage to test this east/west division.

After analyzing 474 pieces of cordage from museum collections and the published literature, he found that cordage from both areas was highly similar, indicating a single community of practice. The Basketmaker II cordage was very different from contemporaneous non-Basketmaker groups in the nearby areas and from earlier time periods, indicating separate learning pools. Specifically, 97 percent of Basketmaker II cordage was made from yucca, and 81 percent was 2 ply s-spun Z-twisted (2s-Z). This contrasted with the non-Basketmaker cordage, 60 percent of which was made from bast fibers, and only 43 percent of which was 2 ply s-spun Z-twisted (2s-Z). Haas also discovered that most of the Basketmaker cordage that was re-plied had a final Z-twist, which would have required an initial spin and twist opposite of the usual Basketmaker design. This meant that Basketmaker II populations where going out of their way to have a final Z-twist in their cordage, implying that there were ideological reasons for maintaining this style. Such a preference createed a weighted decision in the cordage making process and had implications for social boundary formation and maintenance.

29 Haas’ cordage data clearly show that there was some type of social boundary between

Basketmaker and non-Basketmaker groups which kept the two communities of practice from mingling. The similarity of the Eastern and Western Basketmaker II cordages styles, however, indicated a different type of boundary that was much more permeable.

If one assumes that the Eastern and Western Basketmaker II groups had different origins, as many do (Reed 2000a; Matson 1991, 2006), how then does the technological style of their cordage become so similar? Haas posited that because one group had a weighted decision in their cordage manufacture (must have a final Z-twist) this characteristic would have been differentially maintained when introduced into a new group. Therefore, when Basketmaker individuals with the weighted factor married into other Basketmaker groups without this characteristic, the weighted factor would persist and be passed to the next generation. This would eventually lead to the homogenization of Basketmaker

II populations in regard to cordage manufacture. The boundary between Eastern and

Western Basketmaker groups therefore may have been a permeable one in which marriage partners were traded back and forth. Haas’s work shows that passive style is important at a number of different scales, and its interpretation must be viewed with this in mind.

Stark et al. (1998) used technological style as it relates to domestic architecture, in conjunction with utilitarian ceramics, in their analysis of social boundaries in the Tonto

Basin of Arizona. During the Colonial Period (ca A.D. 750 to 950), small domestic pithouses began to be replaced by larger “houses-in-pits” (Stark et al. 1998:217). These new habitations were arranged in courtyard groups, which along with trash mounds, surrounded a central plaza and cremation cemetery. This type of residential unit, as

30 well as the domestic and ritual arrangement of space, closely paralleled those in the contemporary Phoenix Basin, just 75-100 km southwest of the Tonto Basin. At the same time, construction techniques for forming and finishing vessels were “indistinguishable” from those in the Phoenix Basin, and over 70 percent of the plain ware ceramics were tempered with micaceous schist, a change from the previous technological style that utilized nonmicaceous stream sands (Stark el al. 1998:217). As multiple studies have shown that enculturated practices such as domestic architecture, the conceptualization of space, and utilitarian ceramic manufacture rarely change rapidly, Stark et al. stated that sometime between A.D. 700 and 800 there was a migration of Hohokam-affiliated groups from the Phoenix Basin who brought with them their enculturated behaviors.

Later, during the Roosevelt Phase of the Early Classic period (ca. A.D. 1250 to 1350) there was a shift in population. Stark et al. use a room contiguity index to show that two very different communities of practice (in relation to the construction and arrangment of architectural) characterized the region. Sites generally to the northeast of the Tonto

Basin were characterized by a low room contiguity index number indicating they were constructed in a room block manner, while sites generally to the south and southwest of the Tonto Basin scored high on the index, indicating that they were constructed as more open compounds. The sites in the Tonto Basin had values distributed throughout index, and approximately 25 percent had numbers that suggested the presence of, “two different architectural traditions within the same settlement” (Stark et al. 1998:223). The introduction of a new architectural style (pueblo type room blocks) into the Tonto Basin suggested to Stark et al. that migrants were moving into the area from the north.

In addition to the architectural data, a new ceramic technology (corrugation) was

31 introduced to the area, adopted in some cases, and customized in others. Corrugated ceramics are formed through the coil-and-scrape method, common to the Anasazi in the north, but in contrast to the paddle-and-anvil method of the south. Stark et al. believe that architectural and ceramic styles appearing in the Tonto Basin during the Classic Period indicate migration of Anasazi groups into the region. The authors note that while studies of active style in decorative elements can be useful in understanding broad interaction spheres, the use of passive style is well suited for exploring cultural affiliation and interaction on the local level.

As the above examples show, although not always explicitly stated, the tenets of passive or technological style are based on the assumption that enculturation of individuals occur and that communities-of-practice (or learning pools) exist. Because passive style is based on technological choices that are often unconscious and deeply embedded within the production sequence, they can be used to distinguish individual groups that share enculturative backgrounds and participate in communities of practice.

Once groups that share an enculturative background are identified, analysis of active styles that may reflect ethnic divisions can be overlaid on the enculturative base to see how the two may, or may not, align.

Archaeological Examination of Ethnicity and Enculturation

As the previous discussion has shown, examining ethnicity and enculturation in the archaeological record can be difficult, but highly rewarding. In addtion, an examination of one often leads to an examination of the other. This is the case in two broad reaching examples of the use of both active and passive style in the Southwest and Colorado

32 Plateau (Clark 2001, 2004; Geib 1996).

Returning to the Tonto Basin of central Arizona, Clark (2001; 2004) has built on his earlier work with Stark and Elson (Stark et al. 1998) to examine the dual concepts of ethnicity and enculturation in an analysis of the migration of Kayenta Anasazi groups into the area. As discussed above, Stark, Elson, and Clark’s analysis indicate that an immigrant group of Kayenta Anasazi moved into the eastern Tonto Basin during the late

A.D. 1200s (Stark et al. 1998). Although these findings are interesting in their own right,

Clark went on to explore the specific relationships between the two culturally distinct groups (Clark 2001, 2004).

Beginning with the assumption that there were two groups with different enculturative backgrounds in the Tonto Basin, Clark notes that certain artifacts, or patterns, can actively project social messages and serve as ethnic markers. Using Carr’s (1995a, 1995b) unified middle range theory of artifact design, he stated that some of these ethnic markers in the

Tonto Basin may have included items related to personal decoration, public architecture, and decorated ceramics. If groups were actively trying to communicate ethnic identities, one may expect differences in these highly visible media. Instead, Clark found only a slight difference in the distribution of decorated ceramics and artifacts related to personal ornamentation (stone and shell jewelry) between local and migrant communities.

Public architecture, in the form of platform mounds, was found exclusively in the local communities, however, and not in migrant settlements. Taken at face value, it would appear that the construction of these mounds (built roughly at the time of the migrants arrival) was a way for the indigenous population to signal their separate ethnic standing. However, one of the rooms atop the Meddler Point platform mound used both

33 Douglas and white fir as construction materials (characteristic of the migrant pueblo groups) and platform mounds in the eastern portion of the Tonto Basin were associated with, “relatively high percentages of White Mountain Red Ware, a pattern also noted for migrant settlements” (Clark 2004:59). These facts led Clark to believe that the migrant

Puebloan groups may have, “participated in mound activities and perhaps even in mound construction” (Clark 2004:59). This meant that exclusionary facets of ethnicity such as personal ornamentation and the distribution of decorated ceramics may have been de- emphasized among both ethnic groups, while the platform mounds may have acted in an integrative fashion. The mounds would then be representative of a new type of identity or ethnicity, one which incorporated both indigenous and migrant groups. Clark’s research demonstrates that once enculturative backgrounds have been established, it becomes possible to search for actively communicated social messages.

On the northern Colorado Plateau, Phil Geib (1996) used both active and passive styles to examine the boundary between the Anasazi and Fremont cultures. Although a hypothesized border between these groups in the Glen Canyon area had been tacitly recognized by some, other researchers had questioned the existence of such ethnic or group boundaries (Madsen 1982). Geib used an analysis of rock art styles, lithics, ceramics, and basketry technology to help clarify this border.

Since the Anasazi and Fremont cultures have two distinctive styles of rock art,

Geib used this medium to note that most Fremont rock art occurs to the north and west of the Colorado River, and rarely occurs to the south. Since rock art, “provides an excellent medium for territorial marking and public announcements,” he believed that the distinction between the two types marked a social boundary, one that was actively

34 communicated (Geib 1996:109). Geib also examined numerous ceramic samples and found that Anasazi specimens in the area were formed by overlapping coils on the exterior, in contrast to Fremont vessels which were formed by overlapping coils on the interior. As coils were almost always visually obliterated during the finishing of the ceramic, they were not likely to carry overt social messages. He next examined the

‘Bull Creek’ projectile point which is common to south-central Utah and found in both

Fremont and Anasazi contexts. By analyzing a sample of this point type, he found those to the north and east of the Colorado River generally had a length greater than 45cm, while those to the south and west of the river were usually shorter than 45cm. Although the overall form of the points was the same, the technologic styles used to create the two groups of points implied two different learning groups (although he did not discuss raw material which may influence length). Finally, Geib compared basketry from north and south of the Colorado River and concluded that the, “two rod and bundle bunched foundation basketry” that represented the standard Anasazi technique was found only rarely north of the river (Geib 1996:112). By analyzing mediums that communicated both active and passive style, Geib was able to show support for a cultural boundary (the

Colorado River) between the Anasazi and Fremont groups which lasted until roughly

A.D. 1000.

Both Clark and Geib have been able to use multiple data sets, including items related to personal decoration, architecture, ceramics, lithics, rock art, and basketry, to establish the existence of different enculturative backgrounds and ethnic identities in their respective areas. One of these data sets, basketry, is the basis for this dissertation.

35 Sandals/Basketry-A Promising Medium in Stylistic Research

Woven fiber sandals can be subsumed under the label of basketry, as sandals are essentially, “baskets worn on the feet” (Adovasio 2006:2). The study of basketry can help to illuminate divisions in enculturative backgrounds because the construction process is dictated by a group’s shared traditions, or technological style (King 1975;

Elsasser 1978; Adovasio 1986a, 1986b; Adovasio et al 1982). Among ethnographic groups, these shared traditions are passed from one generation to the next, “en bloc,” with very little change (Adovasio 1986:47). As a result, a number of highly standardized technological choices are embedded within basketry artifacts. In fact, Adovasio has stated that, “no class of artifacts normally available to the archaeologist for analysis possesses a greater number of culturally bound yet still visible attributes than does basketry” (Adovasio 1986a:45). However basketry, like most mediums, also has the potential to display active styles in such attributes as shape, size, material, and decoration

(Webster and Hays-Gilpin 1994).

Laurie Webster and Micah Loma’Omvaya (2004) provide an example of how both active and passive style can be used when examining perishable data sets. The ethnographic Hopi community has been viewed by researchers as being formed from multiple prehistoric groups, but with an emphasis on a northern, or Anasazi influence.

Webster and Loma’Omvaya (2004) do not dispute this influence, but contend that textile

and basketry evidence indicate a strong southern influence in Hopi culture as well. They

examined the artifacts represented on mural walls at historic Hopi Pueblos and compared

the technological and iconological styles of the ‘maiden shawl,’ woman’s sheep dress,

cotton kilts, plaid blankets, warp-faced and warp-float belts, twill plaited baskets,

36 wickerwork plaques, coiled basketry plaques, and certain decorative motifs, to the passive and active styles to both the north and south of the traditional Hopi area. Their findings suggest that many of the Hopi textiles and baskets used in ceremonial roles seem to have originated south of the Mogollon Rim and were integrated into Hopi culture during the

Pueblo IV period, while contributions from the Colorado Plateau were of a more limited extent and related primarily to secular garments. Webster and Loma’Omvaya’s research in perishable artifacts indicate the Hopi’s multi-ethnic origins, based on both active and passive styles.

As has been stated previously, attributes or artifacts that are more likely to reflect active communication include those that are highly visible and relatively low in the artifact design sequence; while those that are more likely to reflect enculturation have low visibility and are ranked relatively high in the artifact design sequence (Carr 1995b).

Certain attributes of Puebloan sandals are found throughout this spectrum, implying that they may reflect both passive enculturation and active communication. This makes some of these sandal types doubly useful. For this research I choose to examine the plain weave pointed/rounded-toe sandal, both because of its simpler design compared to other types of Puebloan sandals and because it has a mix of attributes that may reflect passive enculturation and active communication.

Using the basic principles behind Carr’s Unified Middle Range Theory of Artifact

Design, the sandal attributes most likely to reflect passive enculturation may include raw material choice, the ply, twist, helix angle, and diameter of yarn elements

(including warps, wefts, and elements used in the tie system), number of warps, internal arrangement of warps, knots used in construction, and subtle differences in length and

37 width. Sandal elements that are more likely to reflect processes of active communication may include the body silhouette, toe and heel shape, and type of tie system (Webster and

Hays-Gilpin 1994).

Low or No Visibility Attributes

Of primary importance for the attributes reflective of passive style is that all of them are of low visibility, with some being completely hidden within the artifact once it is complete. Raw material choice is an attribute that would seem to be highly visible, however in this instance the initial reaction is misleading. While it is true that a choice of leather versus plant fiber would be instantly recognized, all plain weave pointed/ rounded-toe sandals are made of yucca fiber. This would render this attribute useless in determining technological style if not for the fact that yucca can be divided into two morphologically dissimilar types: broadleaf yucca (Yucca baccata) and narrowleaf yucca (Yucca angustissima). This classification does not strictly follow formal scientific taxonomic categories, but is a morphological classification used by Bell and King (1944) and Hass (2003) to describe the visible attributes of leaf width and fiber structure. What is important to note is that although the differences in broadleaf and narrowleaf yucca are easily distinguishable before the plant has been processed, once processed and the fibers transformed into cordage, there is no visible difference to the naked eye. This means that it would be a very poor vehicle for the active transferal of cultural information as observers would be unable to ‘read’ the message. But, under the microscope the structure of the fibers can be analyzed and the two types of yucca differentiated, meaning that the extremely low visibility of this sandal attribute actually makes it a likely candidate for passive style.

38 The visibility of the ply, twist, helix angle, and diameter varies by individual element, but all have low or no visibility. All four characteristics can not be seen unless the sandal is inspected at an extremely close range, to the point where one has to physically hold the sandal and inspect it. Further, the ply, twist, and helix angle for the warps would have no visibility as they are hidden within the sandal once it is complete (except in the cases where the warps are extended and become part of the tie system). This would make such elements very poor candidates for actively transmitting cultural information. In addition, studies of both ethnographic and archaeological populations have shown that the direction of the spin and twist of cordage is generally stable within a group (Carr and Maslowski 1995; Croes 1989; Maslowski 1996, Minar 2000; Petersen and Wolford

2000). Carr and Maslowski (1995:321) have stated, “initial direction of cordage spin and subsequent twist directions are most likely to be determined by passive, traditional social patterns of cord making that are learned by the individual and retained through life (i.e., isochrestic formal variation), rather than by active messaging about personal or social identity” (Car and Maslowski 1995:321, original italics).

The number and internal arrangement of warps also have low or no visibility. The internal arrangement of warps in the sandal is hidden by its final form, and while the number of warps can be determined by viewing the sandal when it is not in use (i.e. no foot on the sandal) it is yet another instance where the artifact would have to be viewed at a very close range. The knots used in construction and how the individual elements within the tie system are connected are all low visibility and would have to be examined closely to determine their characteristics. The same can be said for subtle differences in the length and width of individual sandals.

39 Because the many sandal attributes listed above have both low physical and contextual visibility, they are excellent candidates for transmitting passive or technological styles (Carr 1995a; 1995b). They can therefore be used to test whether different communities of practice (in regards to this type of sandal) existed in the northern

Southwest. If the distribution (and/or combination) of these sandal attributes cluster together into distinct groups, it will imply that mulitple communities of practice (and therefore multiple enculturative backgrounds) existed in the northern Southwest. These can then be examined to see if they correspond to the traditional geographic boundaries associated with the Anasazi sub-groups. Alternating alignments from those traditionally recognized may offer new insights into cultural boundaries of the Anasazi region.

High Visibility Attributes

Sandal body silhouette, toe and heel shape, and the type of tie system are all highly visible in comparison to other sandal elements and are therefore the attributes most likely to be used in active communication of ethnicity, group inclusiveness, or personal identification. Of these three, the type of tie system used would be most effective in face- to-face interaction where differences in tie system styles could be quickly assessed to let the viewer know whether the individual wearing the sandal belonged to their group or to another. The type of tie system could also communicate information when the sandal was not in use, such as when left outside of a residence while an individual was within.

Hays-Gilpin (1998:121-122) suggests that sandals may have been left just outside of the entrance to some of the burned houses in Broken Flute Cave, Arizona, possibly identifying the occupants.

Depending on the context, body silhouette, toe, and heel shape can also be highly

40 visible, indicating that they may have been as effective (or possibly more effective) than the tie system in actively communicating social or personal information. In face-to-face interaction the body silhouette, toe, and heel shape would have reduced visibility as the wearer’s foot would have covered most of these attributes. But, sandals can leave marks in soft soil or sand, so that silhouette, toe, and heel shape can be seen and then interpreted by others long after the wearer has left the area. In fact, ethnologists (Mason 1896), archaeologists (Hays-Gilpin 1998), and law enforcement specialists (Abbot 1964) have all noted that impressions made by footwear can be used to track individuals or members of a group that share a particular footwear style. The shape of a sandal could therefore be used to broadcast ethnicity, group membership, or personal identification to anyone who came across its imprint.

Because body silhouette, toe and heel shape, and the type of tie system all have higher physical and contextual visibility than other sandal attributes, they are the most likely candidates for transmitting active social messages (Carr 1995a; 1995b). Their capacity in this function is far from guaranteed, however, as they have only moderate to low visibility overall. Once distinct communities of practice are established through the use of traits with low visibility (passive style), then the same process can be used to test whether clusters of traits most likely to contain active style exist. Such clusters can be compared to the communities of practice established through passive styles, as well as the traditional geographic boundaries of Anasazi sub-groups, to examine issues of ethnicity and group membership.

41 Summary

Although style has had various meanings within the last century, most are based on the idea that style is 1) a way of doing something, and 2) involves a choice among various alternatives. Active style implies that individuals consciously imbue artifacts with visible elements that are used as a means of nonverbal communication, while passive style implies that individuals make subconscious technological choices when creating artifacts without meaning to convey cultural information. Carr’s Unified Middle

Range Theory of Artifact Design attempts to bridge these two schools of thought by examining all artifact attributes and determining which ones are more likely to convey active or passive messages. Attributes that convey active style are more likely to relate to ethnicity and an emic idea of group identity, while attributes that convey passive styles are more likely to relate to enculturative backgrounds and communities of practice.

Puebloan plain weave pointed or rounded-toe sandals contain attributes that span the range of style, with raw material choice, the ply, twist, helix angle, and diameter of yarn elements (including warps, wefts, and elements used in the tie system), number or warps, internal arrangement of warps, knots used in construction, and length and width displaying passive style which is likely reflective of enculturative backgrounds. Sandal attributes most likely to actively communicate social information such as group identity include body silhouette, toe shape, heel shape, and type of tie system, although their use in such a manner remains to be seen. Analysis of attributes displaying passive or active style will be used to determine if clusters of such traits exist. These clusters can then be examined to see if they correspond to the traditional geographic boundaries for the

Anasazi sub-groups or whether they differ from these conceptions. Such clusters may

42 also be representative of distinct communities of practice and can offer insights into interaction between such groups.

43 Chapter 3

Research goals

Two primary goals guide this research. The first is to better understand how pointed/ rounded-toe Puebloan sandals are constructed, as well as their temporal and spatial distribution. The second goal, which is directly dependent on the first, is to examine these data for patterning that may correspond to group boundaries representative of passive enculturative backgrounds or active self ascription. The first goal is addressed through primarily a cultural-historic focus, while the second goal is more explanatory in nature.

Cultural-Historic Focus

The cultural-historic approach has received, and in many cases continues to receive, a good deal of criticism by both processual and post-processual archaeologists. Part of this criticism is warranted, in that many cultural-historians focused almost exclusively on categorizing and delimiting archaeological complexes through trait lists and cultural area maps without investigating the individuals and social structures that created the artifacts they so fastidiously quantified. However, the work of the cultural-historians laid the foundation to which later generations would return again and again in their study of archaeology, which, in essence, is the study of material objects.

44 As has already been mentioned, the construction properties of pointed/rounded-toe sandals are not well understood, neither is their distribution through time or space. The first step in using this type of artifact in an analysis of prehistoric culture then, is to understand these basic characteristics. As Adovasio has stated:

the cultural-historical approach is a necessary predecessor or forerunner to any other analytical stratagem where the ultimate goal is, rightfully, explanation [Thomas 1979]. The “what,” “where,” “how,” and “when” must be established before the “why” [Adovasio 1986a:84].

Two research questions were employed to help establish the baseline characteristics of pointed/rounded-toe sandals.

Research Question 1: What are the construction attributes of pointed/rounded-toe

Puebloan sandals?

Research Question 1 represents the “what” and “how” of Adovasio’s statement above.

The materials that pointed/rounded-toe sandals are made of and how these are arranged must be understood before more probing questions about prehistoric culture can be asked using this data set. Technical and radiographic analyses were used to help answer this question. First, 226 specimens from numerous sites scattered throughout the northern

Southwest were physically analyzed. These sandals were curated at 15 museums and two private residences. The analysis concentrated on determining the construction attributes of the toe, body, and heel areas, the number and arrangement of warps, the type and construction of the tie system, the spin, ply, twist, and diameter of all elements, the choice of raw material, compactness of the weft, toe and heel silhouette, and measurements of length and width. By analyzing sandals in differing stages of preservation and

45 completeness, a better understanding of the construction attributes of this sandal type was obtained. Second, to complement the technical analysis, soft X-ray radiography was used to observe the internal structure of 43 of the specimens. This method was particularly helpful in determining hidden construction attributes such as the internal arrangement of warps and how the tie system was attached to the sandal.

Research Question 2: What is the spatial and temporal distribution of pointed/rounded- toe sandals and their attributes?

Research Question 2 represents the “where” and “when” of Adovasio’s statement on the cultural-historic approach. Currently, the spatial distribution of pointed/rounded-toe sandals is known only through artifact descriptions in a few reports and articles (most of which were published in the early to mid 20th century), while the temporal distribution is based on relative dating and a single radiocarbon date from Antelope Cave, Arizona.

Even the single radiocarbon date (lab No. A-3511) is problematic, however, as it is a combined assay from a pointed-toe sandal and a corn cob, with a large age uncertainty of

±100 years (372 calibrated years) (Janetski and Hall 1983).

To address the spatial distribution component of research question 2, a massive literature search was conducted in an attempt to find all references to this sandal type.

Next, museums across the country were contacted and queried about their sandal collections. Those containing pointed/rounded-toe sandals from the Southwest were visited and their collections studied (per research question 1). All pointed/rounded-toe sandals and their individual construction attributes were then geographically mapped and their distribution analyzed.

To address the temporal distribution of this sandal type, 22 specimens were submitted

46 for accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) radiocarbon dating. The specimens were taken from pointed/rounded-toe sandals throughout the spatial distribution as well as from sandals with a variety of construction attributes. This was done to date as many individual attributes and geographic regions as possible. The absolute dated chronology created through radiocarbon dating was used to evaluate the relative chronology currently in place.

Explanatory Focus

Once a basic understanding of the characteristics of pointed/rounded-toe sandals was established, it was possible to move on to using them to better understand prehistoric culture and lifeways. This was done by using specific sandal attributes to define distinct communities of practice and how they may have interacted.

Research Question 3: Are sandal attributes that are more likely to reflect passive or active styles spatially or temporally clustered, and if so, what does this imply about cultural boundaries, communities of practice, and group interaction?

Sandal attributes that are likely to be reflective of passive styles, and therefore enculturative backgrounds and communities of practice, are raw material choice, the ply, twist, tightness of twist, and diameter of yarn elements (including warps, wefts, and elements used in the tie system), number or warps, internal arrangement of warps, knots used in construction, and length and width. The spatial and temporal distribution of each of these attributes was explored to determine if distinct groupings existed. If sandal attributes embodying passive or technological style cluster together creating homogenous groups, this would suggest that individuals within these groups interacted with each other

47 on a regular basis and with a much greater intensity than with populations from other clusters. Such groups likely shared an enculturative background or participated in a community of practice (Clark 2001; Lave and Wenger 1991; Minar 2000). If, however, these same sandal attributes are distributed homogeneously across the entire Puebloan area, it would suggest that there was an open flow of individuals and/or interaction across geographic regions. Alternatively, a heterogeneous mix of passive sandal attributes with no distinct geographic boundaries may indicate numerous communities of practice with individuals from diverse backgrounds interacting and in constant flux.

For example, some researchers have noted the different possible origins and developmental histories of Puebloan populations living in northwestern Arizona, southwestern Utah, and southeastern Nevada (Virgin Anasazi), with those living contemporaneously in the four corners region. Ceramic design styles (Lyneis 1992,

Allison 2000), architecture (Talbot 1990), and population distributions suggest that the

Virgin Anasazi were somewhat removed from the rest of the Puebloan world during the

Pueblo I period. If sandal attributes that are reflective of passive style are significantly different among the populations that inhabit the Virgin Anasazi area and those to the east, this would offer support for the hypothesis that these populations did not share an enculturative background or community of practice, and therefore are not likely to have interacted regularly or intensively during the early Puebloan period. If however there is a homogenous distribution of passive sandal attributes across the area it would suggest that populations in the two geographic areas likely interacted regularly (through trade or land use patterns), intensively (possibly through marriage networks), or both. This same approach can be applied to a smaller scale, specifically, interaction between geographic

48 populations within the generalized Puebloan subgroups. The use of technological style with its emphasis on passively produced variation is well suited to distinguishing such smaller inter-group divisions (Stark et al. 1998).

The expansion or contraction through time of technological styles can also be used as proxy data for the movement of peoples. Although artifacts cannot be directly equated with people, they can be effectively used to help investigate these relationships (e.g. Geib

2000; Stone 2003; Stark et al. 1998; Clark 2001, 2004). The appearance of an intrusive technological style can represent the movement of a different cultural group into an area (Cameron 1998; Clark 2001; Lekson et al. 2002). Artifacts reflective of passive styles are particularly well suited for this type of analysis as they are unlikely to contain active social messages which can change quickly and are defined, used, and manipulated depending on the social context (Stone 2003; Clark 2001, 2004).

Sandal elements that are more likely to reflect processes of active communication include the overall sandal silhouette, toe and heel shape, and type of tie system. These attributes are may reflect active communication because they are all more highly visible in comparison to other sandal elements. Their distribution was also explored to determine if there were distinct spatial groupings. Such spatial clusters might imply that individuals within these boundaries are signaling that they belong to a distinct cultural group while others do not. Ethnographically and archaeologically individuals often signal self ascription to a group by displaying distinctive material styles (Barth 1969;

Jones 1997; Shennan 1989; Wobst 1977). If an individual chose to communicate social information through his footwear, the type of tie system, sandal silhouette, toe, and heel angle would all be effective ways to do so. Of these three, the type of tie system used

49 would only be effective in face-to-face interaction, while sandal silhouette and toe and heel shape could have been used to broadcast the group affiliation of a wearer to anyone who came across its imprint in the sand.

As with the other sandal elements, the distribution of attributes more likely to represent active communication were explored to determine if there were distinct spatial groupings at both a large and small scale. Such clusters may represent ethnic or socially defined populations. As it is unlikely that a pan-Southwestern cultural identity dominated the early Pueblo period (due to the large geographic size of the region and the different cultural origins of some of the groups), a homogenous distribution of these characteristics may suggest that they are not an effective medium (or were not used as such) for the active communication of group identity. The research focus of the distribution of these traits was generally the same as that discussed for elements reflecting passive enculturation. The benefit of using both active and passive styles is that the same issues can be investigated using two different methods, increasing the explanatory power of any conclusions drawn from the research.

50 Chapter 4

Cultural context

The Anasazi

As the sandals to be discussed can only be fully understood in their cultural context, a brief introduction to the makers of these artifacts is necessary. In the following discussion I use the term Anasazi in referring to the prehistoric people of the northern

Southwest. In recent years some individuals and groups have objected to this term and have favored ‘Ancestral Puebloan’ in its place. With due respect to those individuals, I continue the use of the term Anasazi for two reasons. First, there is the high probability that some of the descendants of the Anasazi are populations not considered as Puebloan

(e.g., the Ute, Paiute, Hualapai, and Mohave). I agree with Paul Reed (2000b:15) when he states, “The prehistory and history of the Southwest are complex and document significant population movement, intermarriage between apparently distinct ethnic groups, and fluidity in cultural boundaries. In this light, drawing a direct and exclusive link between the prehistoric Basketmakers and any particular group of present-day native Southwestern people through use of the phrase “Ancestral Puebloans” seems presumptuous.”

Second, the term Anasazi has been in use a number of years and has a research

51 history, meaning that the use of the term conjures a geographic area and prehistoric lifeway that researchers are familiar with. Reed (200b:15) also conveys this sentiment well when he states, “the term has historical precedence and serves as a useful shorthand that neither reflects nor implies any specific (and ultimately unprovable) relationship to modern groups.” For these reasons I retain the use of the term ‘Anasazi’ instead of

‘Ancestral Puebloan’.

Archaeological remains can be found in the American Southwest dating to the close of the Pleistocene, however, Formative groups in the area are a much more recent phenomena, beginning roughly 2500 to 2000 years ago. The first official southwestern framework that addressed the temporal and cultural order of these groups was formulated at what became known as the first Pecos Conference, in Pecos, New Mexico (Kidder

1927). Organized by Alfred V. Kidder in 1927, and attended by the major researchers of the day, the Pecos classification divided the southwestern archaeological record into cultural stages, characterized by diagnostic traits (primarily architecture and ceramics).

The stages put forth by Kidder and others have been summarized by Linda Cordell as:

Basketmaker I, or Early Basketmaker: This was a postulated pre-agricultural stage, and the one Pecos category that is no longer used. Rather, the developments envi- sioned are now considered Archaic. Basketmaker II, or Basketmaker: Pottery is not present; however, agriculture is known, and the atlatl (spear thrower) is used. Basketmaker III, or Post-Basketmaker: Dwellings are pithouses or slab houses. Pottery is made. The cooking ware is plain, without plastic (scoring, incising, and applique) decoration. The people of this and preceding Basketmaker stages do not practice cranial deformation. Pueblo I or Proto-Pueblo: This is the first period during which cranial deformation is practiced. Culinary vessels have unobliterated coils or bands at the neck, and villages are composed of above ground, contiguous rectangular rooms of true masonry. Pueblo II: Corrugations extend over the exterior surfaces of cooking vessels. Small villages occur over a large geographic area. Pueblo III, or Great Pueblo: This period is characterized by the appearance of very large communi- ties and artistic elaboration and specialization of crafts. Pueblo IV or Proto-Historic:

52 Much of the Pueblo area is abandoned, particularly the San Juan region. Artistic elaboration declines and corrugated ware gradually disappears, giving way to plain ware. Pueblo V or Historic: This period compasses the time from AD 1600 to the present [Cordell 1997:164-165].

While the Pecos classification has obviously been added to and refined, it is amazing how well it has generally held up to 80 years of additional archaeological scrutiny. One of the most fundamental refinements was made in 1936, when Kidder suggested that the term Anasazi be geographically restricted to use in the northern Southwest, being applied only to the Basketmaker-Pueblo sequence (Kidder 1936). This distinguished the Anasazi from other Formative groups further south, specifically those that came to be known as the Hohokam and Mogollon.

A modified version of the Pecos classification is still used over much of the northern

Southwest, although more specific phase designations have been formulated for some geographic localities (Cordell 1997:Table 7.1). The Pecos classification also makes a major distinction between the Basketmaker and Puebloan stages, with the separation being both chronologically and materially based. For all of the following periods the dates given are rough estimates with exact dates varying by geographic locale.

The Basketmaker II period dates from roughly 1000 B.C. to A.D. 500, with many scholars recognizing a western variant concentrated in southeastern Utah and northeastern

Arizona, and an eastern variant concentrated in southwestern Colorado and northwestern

New Mexico (Reed 2000a; Matson 1991, 2006; Webster and Hays-Gilpin 1994). The similarities between the two regions (western/eastern) outnumber their differences, and it was during the Basketmaker II period that cultigens (beginning with maize) became an

53 important part of subsistence, and sedentism increased in comparison to the preceding

Archaic pattern (Cordell 1997; Matson 1991; Lipe 1993). Basketmaker II populations made heavy use of rock shelters and caves, with architecture including circular storage cists and small pit houses. Other material culture traits included the use of the atlatl, corner- and side-notched dart points, shallow metates, one-handed manos, extensive basketry (including twined and plain weave sandals) and woven bags, and the first use of crude ceramics (Matson 1991, 2006; Atkins 1993; Hays-Gilpin 1994; Lipe et al. 1999;

Reed 2000b).

The Basketmaker III period dates from roughly A.D. 400 to 700. In most places,

Basketmaker III populations are seen as representing in situ continuity from Basketmaker

II (Geib and Spurr 1993; L. Reed et al. 1993; Hays-Gilpin 1994). The range of

Basketmaker III sites increased relative to Basketmaker II, and pit houses became deeper and more elaborate, reflecting a greater level of investment. Large pit structures known as great kivas appeared for the first time, and were likely used (in part) to help integrate growing populations. Other important material traits included the use of slab- lined storage cists and rooms, the introduction of the bow and arrow, trough metates, two-handed manos, and less crudely made ceramics (including the appearance of early red and white ware) (Reed 2000b). In some regions relatively large villages of multiple pithouses are found, and an accumulating body of data suggest that many Basketmaker

III populations were fully committed to agriculture (McVickar 1999; Reed and Wilcox

2000; Kearns et al. 2000; Altschul and Huber 2000).

The Pueblo I period dates from roughly A.D. 700 to 900, and marks a break between the Basketmaker periods based primarily on two major differences. First, it is during the

54 Pueblo I period that surface rooms were extensively used (Cordell 1997; Reed 2000b).

These rooms were often made of masonry, jacal, or some combination of the two, and arranged contiguously into room blocks. Second, it was during this period that ceramics increased in number, type, and geographic distribution (Powell 2002; Cordell 1997).

Neckbanded gray ware became common, black-on-white painted ceramics began to proliferate, and red and orange wares appeared.

It is also during the Pueblo I period that the intensive use of rock shelters, caves, and slab lined cists decreased, although pit houses continued to be used throughout the region and kivas became relatively common. Population growth occurred in many areas, however, changing settlement patterns, group movement, and the destruction of PI sites by later occupations make estimating population growth difficult (Wilshusen 1999b;

Coffey 2006) and in some areas it actually decreased (Reed 2000b; Powell 2002). People began to aggregate into relatively dense settlements, or clusters of settlements, which broke up and reformed through time (Cordell 1997).

The Pueblo II period dates from A.D. 900 to 1100. The unit pueblo, consisting of a room block facing a plaza with associated kiva and midden, characterized many of the small disperse settlements found throughout the northern southwest (Prudden 1903, 1914,

1918). The addition of some site types (such as the fieldhouse) as well as water control features (check dams and ditches) (Cordell 1997), may suggest subsistence intensification and/or an expansion of groups into less used environments. Ceramic types continued to diversify, especially decorated ones, and true corrugation expanded to cover entire vessels

(Lyneis 1992; Cordell 1997). Growth in the number and size of sites indicate an overall increase in population throughout the region. Near the end of the Pueblo II period, some

55 truly monumental settlements were constructed, specifically many of the Great Houses in

Chaco Canyon and the surrounding area (Vivian 1990). These settlements were made of multiple storied room blocks, contained hundreds of masonry rooms, multiple kivas, and huge plazas. A large road system led to settlements outside of the canyon proper and into outlying regions, connecting to other great houses known as Chacoan Outliers (Crown and Judge 1991). Although the scale of the Chaco phenomenon was impressive, it is important to note that most settlements within the northern Southwest during the Pueblo

II period were much smaller in scale and dispersed across the landscape (Cordell 1997).

The Pueblo III period dates from A.D. 1100 to 1300 and was a time of massive reorganization of people and settlement strategies. Early in the period the prominence of the Chaco area declined, with many of the great houses falling into disrepair and the number of inhabitants substantially decreasing (Vivian 1990). Throughout the northern

Southwest, elaboration of decorated ceramics continued, with many regions characterized by distinct types (Adler 1996). Polychrome vessels, decorated in orange, red, black, and white, appeared for the first time (Cordell 1997). The growth in the number and diversity of features used to control water and soil moisture, such as check dams, reservoirs, rock alignments, bordered gardens, and rock mulch, indicate subsistence intensification in an attempt to extract more resources from limited agricultural lands (Lipe and Varien 1999b;

Cordell 1997).

Early in the Pueblo III period, site size and aggregation generally increased, however this trend grew significantly stronger near the middle and end of the period, as the number of smaller sites shrank and large multistory pueblos began to dominate the settlement strategy (Adler 1994, 1996; Dean 1996). Site location also changed,

56 with many habitation sites located at the mouth of canyons and/or in rock shelters (cliff dwellings). The location of these sites often created limited access, which along with other features such as encircling masonry walls, has lead some researchers to believe that these characteristics represent a defensive posture brought on by the threat of violence

(Haas and Creamer 1996; Kuckelman 2002; LeBlanc 1999). While there is no doubt that extreme acts of violence on individuals and larger groups took place during the Pueblo

III period (Billman et al. 2000; Turner and Turner 1999; Kuckelman et al. 2002), it is less clear whether these acts increased in comparison to earlier periods (Baker 1994; Turner and Turner 1999; White 1992).

By the mid to late 1200s, most of the northern Southwest saw a major population decline, with many areas being completely abandoned. The reasons precipitating this change were many, and likely included environmental, social, political, and ideological factors (Cordell 1996; Dean 1996; Lekson 1996; Lyneis 1996; Varien et al. 1996).

Anasazi Branches

While the Pecos classification is now used primarily as a chronologic framework, the populations within the northern Southwest during the Pueblo periods have been categorized into five branches of the Anasazi culture: Chaco, Kayenta, Mesa Verde,

Rio Grande, and Virgin (Figure 4.1). The designation of the these groups are based on differences in material culture, temporal trends, and geography, and do not necessarily translate into ethnic or linguistic divisions.

Chaco

The Chaco branch was centered in Chaco Canyon in northwestern New Mexico

(Figure 4.1). Basketmaker sites in the area generally consisted of a few semi-

57 MESA VERDE

VIRGIN

KAYENTA

CHACO

RIO GRANDE

Figure 4.1. Map of northern Southwest showing general locations of Anasazi sub-groups.

subterranean pithouses located on the mesa tops bordering Chaco canyon proper (Cordell

1997). During the Pueblo I period, architecture became increasingly above ground, the number of sites increased, and site location shifted towards the canyon floor (Cordell

1997). Research focus in the Chaco area has not been as intense on these earlier sites, as their smaller size and less impressive architecture have made them less visible and not as well studied.

The Chaco region is most widely recognized for its monumental great houses and road system built and utilized primarily from A.D. 1020 to 1120. During this period, sites such as Pueblo Alto, Kin Kletso, Pueblo del Arroyo, Pueblo Bonito, Chetro Ketl, and others had very distinct planned layouts and specific types of temporally diagnostic

58 masonry (Vivian 1990; Lekson 2007). Population within the canyon no doubt increased during this time, however, the extent of this growth is still debated (Vivian 1990; Lekson

1999, 2006). Although this period is best known for the large great houses, smaller habitation sites existed throughout the canyon and the San Juan drainage (Cordell 1997).

During its maximum, Chacoan influence was likely felt throughout theAnasazi region, and into other parts of the Southwest as well (Lekson 1999). Chacoan outliers can be found to the south, east, and north of the canyon (Van Dyke 1999), but it is in the Mesa

Verde area (to the north) that the strongest connections seem to have been formed and where the locus of influence shifted to early in the Pueblo III period (Cameron 2005).

Around A.D. 1120 population began to decline, the number of sites being built slowed significantly, and by A.D. 1300 the region was no longer occupied (Cordell 1997).

Kayenta

The Kayenta Anasazi were so named because sites identified to this branch are clustered around the town of Kayenta, in northeast Arizona (Figure 4.1). The

Basketmaker period is well documented in the area (Matson 1991; Guernsey and Kidder

1921; Kidder and Guernsey 1919), and is the basis for much of the classic Western

Basketmaker traits. The transition from the Basketmaker into the Pueblo I period was much more gradual here than in some of the other Anasazi regions, and was primarily marked by changes in settlement location (expansion into the uplands) and ceramic design (Dean 1996). During the Pueblo II period, Kayenta groups expanded to their maximum geographic extent, and inhabited more disperse, small settlements, primarily composed of unit pueblos (Cordell 1997).

This expansion quickly came to a halt, however, and by the beginning of the Pueblo

59 III period populations were contracting back to the Kayenta heartland. Communities once again became more aggregated, with larger sites dotting the landscape, separated by uninhabited “empty” areas (Dean 1996:34). The end of the Pueblo III period among the Kayenta can be characterized by, “considerable morphological and functional differentiation of sites and architectural units within sites” (Dean 1996:36). Despite this inter-site variability, most sites were located in rock shelters, allowing the highly visible and well documented cliff dwellings like those in Tsegi canyon to leave the impression of well planned conformity. Most of the Kayenta region was likely abandoned by the middle of the 1280s, and most certainly by A.D. 1300 (Varien et al. 1996)

Mesa Verde

The Mesa Verde Anasazi were concentrated in southwestern Colorado, northwestern

New Mexico, and southeastern Utah (Figure 4.1). It is from the eastern part of this area that many of the classic Eastern Basketmaker traits were established, being based primarily on excavations near Durango, Colorado (Morris and Burgh 1954) and the

Navajo Reservoir area of northwestern New Mexico (Eddy 1961, 1966, 1972). The

Pueblo I period in the Mesa Verde region is quite distinct, with a relatively well developed narrative. Moderate to large villages with a minimum of 50 surface rooms formed quickly in some areas (primarily along the Mancos and Dolores rivers), but often lasted for no more than 30 years (Wilshusen 1999b). The formation of these villages was caused in part by an influx of people from the surrounding locales, and may have resulted in the mixing or increased interaction of three neighboring cultural groups (Wilshusen

1999b; Cordell 1997). This population increase abruptly came to an end around A.D.

880, when numbers declined rapidly, caused in part by emigration out of the area

60 (Wilshusen and Ortman 1999).

During early Pueblo II, sites were more disperse and generally composed of one or two unit pueblos, with populations levels lower than periods both before and after (Lipe and Varien 1999a). But by A.D. 1050, population levels began to increase again, and soon thereafter Chaco style great houses began to be built in the region, reflecting the exchange of ideas, people, and/or ideology with their southern neighbors. This process continued into the Pueblo III period, with Chacoan influence seeming to shift towards the

Mesa Verde area. By A.D. 1225, increasing aggregation had resulted in large community centers which began to move towards canyon environments, and by A.D. 1250 most communities were clustered in cliff dwellings (Lipe and Varien 1999a). This pattern appeared to not be sustainable, however, as by A.D. 1290 to 1300 the Mesa Verde region was depopulated.

Rio Grande

The Rio Grande branch was centered around the Rio Grande River in north-central

New Mexico, and in many ways was quite distinct from the other Anasazi groups (Figure

4.1). The usual Pecos classification is not used in the Rio Grande, but has been replaced instead with a chronology formulated by Wendorf and Reed (1955). It begins with the

Preceramic period, which dated from 15,000 B.C. to A.D. 600, and is considered part of the Archaic. This is followed by the Developmental period, dating from A.D. 600 to

1200. Sites from the beginning of the Developmental period are relatively rare, although they increased through time. Population levels were low, with many areas in the region uninhabited by sedentary or semi-sedentary groups until the end of the period (Crown et al. 1996; Cordell 1997). It is also during the Developmental period that ceramics first

61 appear, characterized as plain gray and brown wares, black on white decorated ware, and late in the period neck banded specimens (Cordell 1997). Architecture consisted primarily of circular pithouses with occasional above-ground jacal rooms.

The Coalition period dates from A.D. 1200 to 1325, and was characterized by a shift from pithouses to above ground pueblos made of either coursed adobe and/or masonry

(Cordell 1997). Population levels increased so rapidly after A.D. 1250 in almost all parts of the Rio Grande area that migration of new groups into the region must have occurred.

Aggregation of people took place in all localities between A.D. 1250 to 1325, resulting in relatively large pueblos (Crown et al. 1996). Finally, during the Classic period (dating from A.D. 1300 to 1600), population levels reached their maximum, culminating in large aggregated communities, many of which were abandoned during the historic period (A.D.

1600 to present) (Cordell 1997).

Virgin

The Virgin Anasazi were located in southwestern Utah, northwestern Arizona, and southeastern Nevada, and receive their name from the Virgin River which flows through the region (Figure 4.1). Basketmaker occupation of the Virgin area appears to be on a smaller scale than in the regions to the east, yet Basketmaker materials do exist in a number of sites and generally conform to the Western Basketmaker pattern (Judd 1926;

Harrington 1942; Shulter 1961; Lyneis 1995; Talbot and Richens 2002). Late during the Basketmaker III period, plain gray sand tempered ceramics first appeared (Altschul and Fairley 1989), and groups likely became increasingly reliant on horticulture as settlements became more permanent, ground stone more specialized, and the logistical use of local resources increased (Billat et al. 1992).

62 During the Pueblo I period site layouts became more formalized with pithouses and storage cists often occurring in a contiguous arc that may have been the precursor of the courtyard site layout of Pueblo II (Dalley and McFadden 1985; Heid 1982; Lyneis

1995). Storage and habitation features incorporated masonry and jacal, while ceramic types became more diverse (Talbot and Richens 2002). During the Pueblo II period an increase in water control features, the number of storage units per habitation, and sites concentrating around arable land, all suggest agricultural intensification (Lyneis 1995,

1996; Talbot and Richens 2002). Pithouses were used throughout the Virgin sequence

(particularly during the early years) but habitation and storage structures became primarily above-ground by the end of the Pueblo II period (Talbot 1990). The classic

‘unit pueblo’ site configuration that occurred through most of the rest of the northern

Southwest, does not seem to be well represented among the Virgin, in part because of a lack of kivas in the lowland area, and only limited evidence in the uplands and St. George

Basin (Lyneis 1995).

The Pueblo III period in the Virgin area is somewhat truncated, as it appears to end slightly earlier than in areas to the east (Walling et al. 1986; Westfall 1987; Allison 1996).

Interestingly, small disperse sites characterize the Virgin settlement pattern through all periods, with only a few large exceptions (Allison 1988; Lyneis 1992). Aggregation of groups into compact settlements also appears to be generally lacking from the Virgin sequence. Population densities seem to have increased slowly in the Virgin area, reaching their maximum height around A.D. 1100, and declining rapidly from west to east thereafter (Lyneis 1996).

63 Although all five branches of the Anasazi culture have been reviewed, no plain weave pointed/rounded-toe sandals (the focus of this dissertation) are found in either the Chaco or Rio Grande area, and only eight (out of 226) can be confidently assigned to the Mesa

Verde region. The remainder of the dissertation therefore focuses primarily on the Virgin and Kayenta branches.

64 Chapter 5

Previous Research

Basic Yarn and Sandal Terminology

To understand much of the following research, a basic knowledge of yarn and sandal terminology is required. Most of the following discussion on yarns is drawn from Emery

(1966) and on sandals from Deegan (1993).

Yarn Structure

Fiber is the general term that refers to the structural component of any animal or plant tissue. Unlike filaments, fibers are of naturally limited length.To increase their strength and diameter fibers can be spun (the process of which is called spinning) by

“twisting together and drawing out massed short fibers into a continuous strand” (Emery

1966:9). This creates a single yarn (often referred to as a single-ply) which is the most basic element consisting of spun fibers (Figure 5.1:a). The term yarn is used for, “any assemblage of fibers or filaments which has been put together in a continuous strand suitable for weaving, knitting, and other fabric construction” (Emery 1966:10). When two or more single yarns (or plies) are twisted together, they create plied yarn (the process of which is called plying) (Figure 5.1:a). Plied yarn is formed by twisting, not spinning, since the process of drawing out the fibers has already been done. Because

65 Figure 5.1. Photograph showing yarn ply and twist: (a) 2 ply yarn showing individual parts, (b) 2 ply yarn showing a Z twist direction, (c) 2 ply yarn showing an S twist direction. of the mechanics of yarn creation, “the direction of the plying is usually opposite to the direction of the spin of the single yarns employed” (Emery 1966:10). Twisting two or more plied yarns together produces re-plied yarn. In many parts of the world (including the American Southwest) the term cordage is often used in referring to plied or re-plied yarn. However, both Emery (1966) and Deegan (1993) point out problems with this interchangeable use and encourage the term yarn instead. I have chosen to follow this convention and use the term yarn throughout the dissertation.

The plied and re-plied levels of yarn production are characterized by twisting which can be done in two directions, either clockwise (Z-twist) or counterclockwise (S-twist)

(Emery 1952:259 and 1966:11) (Figure 5.1:b and c). Clockwise, or Z-twist, can be

66 identified by holding the yarn vertically and superimposing the letter Z on the yarn such that the twist direction corresponds with the mid-stroke of the letter Z. Conversely, if the yarn is held vertically and a superimposed letter S corresponds to the twist direction then the yarn is twisted counterclockwise and is called S-twist. Occasionally, in print the symbols / and \ are used in lieu of Z or S. Although analysis of yarns should include the twist direction for each level, sometimes early levels will be concealed or unrecognizable with the last twist level being the clearest.

The degree to which a yarn or plied yarn is twisted is generally referred to as twist tightness or the angle of twist. This can be measured by the helix-angle, the number of twists per centimeter, or both. The helix-angle refers to the, “angle that the slant of the twist makes with the vertical axis of the yarn” (Emery 1966:11) (Figure 5.2). To describe the helix angle Emery suggests the terms loose (up to 10º), medium (10º to 25º), and tight

(25º to 45º) (Emery 1966:11-12).

Yarn structure has been recorded in a number of different ways both within and outside of the United States (Dixon 1957; Emery 1952, 1966; Hurley 1979; Wendrich

1991). This can lead to confusion among analysts and an inability to easily compare data. In a particularly telling example, two analysts (Deegan 1993; Haas 2003) devised differing methods for noting yarn structure both based on the same original researcher

(Emery 1966). As long as the method for recording yarn structure is clearly described in the text, using differing methods do not greatly matter. However it would be beneficial for comparative analysis if all researchers began using the same notation system. I have chosen to use the system described most recently by Haas (2003:50-52) as it seems both intuitive and flexible.

67 Figure 5.2. Measurements for helix angle (adapted from Emery 1966: Diagram 2 and 3).

In this system the direction a yarn is initially spun is recorded using a lower case letter while the twist of subsequent plies are recorded using capitals. The number of yarns or plies at each level precedes the letter denoting spin or twist. Thus, a single yarn spun in a Z direction would be written as 1z, and a plied yarn that is composed of two single yarns spun S then plied in a Z direction would be written as 2s-Z. When re-plied yarns are recorded, parentheses are incorporated into the notation, so that if two pieces of 2s-Z plied yarn are re-plied with an S twist, it would be recorded as 2(2s-Z)S. This notation system provides greater flexibility than some others, in that it allows for the easy recording of re-plied yarns that consist of both single and plied yarns. For example, a re-plied yarn that is composed of 2 single yarns spun S (2s) and two z spun yarns plied Z

(2z-Z), all of which have been re-plied Z, would be recorded as 3(2s)(2z-S)Z.

68 Sandal Structure

In sandals, warps are the internal elements that act as the foundation of the artifact and run vertically from toe to heel. Wefts are the elements that interact with the warps and run horizontally from side to side (Figure 5.3).

Puebloan sandals are made using three primary fabric construction techniques: twining, braiding, and plain weave. Twining is created when at least two wefts are paired together and twist around one another in-between stationary warps, while braiding is created when one set of elements interlace from a common starting point and meet side edges at a diagonal (Deegan 1993, 2006). Plain weave is created by an over-under interlacing of two sets of elements at roughly 90 degrees to each other (Deegan 1993).

When one warp interlaces with one weft it is called a 1 by 1 plain weave. If the wefts are spaced particularly close so that the warps are completely hidden then the specimen is referred to as being weft-faced.

The tie system in sandals is used to hold the sandal to the foot and is usually composed of plied or re-plied yarn (although single ply yarns are sometimes utilized).

Puebloan sandals are characterized by three primary types of tie systems: toe-heel, side- loop, and criss-cross (Kidder and Guernsey 1919; Baldwin 1938, 1939; Deegan 1993;

Christensen 1993).

The toe-heel tie system contains four main parts: the toe loop, tie cord, ankle loop, and heel loop (Figure 5.4 and 5.5:a). The toe loop is centered approximately 4-6 cm from the toe end of the sandal and consists of one or more loops that are commonly used to secure the second and third toe to the sandal (Kidder and Guernsey 1919:160; Kidder

1926: 620). The heel loop is located near the heel end of the sandal, crosses behind

69 Figure 5.3. Photograph of sandal NA5507.M.106 showing location of warps and wefts.

Figure 5.4. The four main components of the toe-heel tie system: (a) ECPR-8711, (b) Pierce 37.

70 Figure 5.5. The three types of tie systems and their primary parts: (a) toe-heel tie system, (a1) toe loop, (a2) tie cord, (a3) ankle loop, (a4) heel loop, (b) criss-cross tie system, (b1) crossed cord, (b2) ankle/heel loop, (c) side-loop tie system, (c1) side loop, (c2) lacing cord, (c3) ankle/heel loop (adapted from Kidder and Guernsey 1919:Plate 41).

71 the heel of the foot, and runs from the sandal’s side edge to side edge. The ankle loop crosses in front of the ankle and connects the heel loop with the tie cord in some manner.

The ankle loop can be a separate piece of yarn, although it is often the same piece as the tie cord. The tie cord connects the toe loop to the ankle or heel loop.

The criss-cross tie system is similar to the toe heel type, except that the toe loop and tie cord are one in the same and cross each other, “as they extend back to anchor along the sandal sides in the ankle region” (Deegan 1993:62) (Figure 5.5:b). A problem arises in identifying the criss-cross tie system in that there is no way to distinguish between a toe-heel and a criss-cross tie system if the toe loops are broken or fragmentary. As I am unaware of any criss-cross tie systems being used in plain weave pointed/rounded- toe sandals, I have decided to classify all sandals with fragmentary toe loops (and no evidence of side loops) as having a toe-heel tie system with the understanding that it is possible (although unlikely) that they may have had a criss-cross tie system.

The main characteristic of the side-loop type of tie system is the multiple loops (side loops) that are located along the sides (and sometimes the toe and heel) (Figure 5.5:c). A lacing cord (also called a tie cord) criss-crosses from side to side through the side loops, thus holding the foot to the sandal. Christensen (1993) notes that side loop tie systems may also include toe or heel loops of the type seen in toe-heel tie systems, but that the defining characteristic is the presence or absence of side loops.

Puebloan sandals also have toe and heel silhouettes that are created through construction technique. Toe silhouette includes four basic shapes while heel silhouettes include two levels of analysis. Toe silhouettes are pointed, rounded, square, and scalloped (Deegan 1993 and references therein). The two silhouettes that apply to this

72 research are the pointed and rounded shapes (Figure 5.6). Using the pointed/rounded terminology is problematic, however, as many researchers use these designations to refer to the general shape of the toe, whereas some use them to describe specific construction techniques. Deegan, for example, uses the term pointed to refer to a sandal that has its warps tied at the toe and rounded to refer to a sandal with warps that curve across the toe and are tied at the heel (Ann Deegan, personal communication, 2005). Most archaeologists refer to toe silhouette based on general shape, but as the range of sandal toe forms lie on a continuum, this makes the classification of toe form as pointed or rounded a highly subjective one.

Heel silhouettes are classified at two levels, the first being two dimensional and the second being three dimensional (Deegan 1993). The first level describes the heel prior to any three dimensional shaping, and is generally either round or square. The second level indicates what, if any, three dimensional shaping is used and can include flat, puckered, and cupped. A flat heel can be either round or square at the first level, and is also two dimensional at the second level. A puckered heel is square at the first level, but is then given a three dimensional shape by drawing the heel edges together. A cupped heel is round at the first level, but has a three dimensional second level that cups the foot (Deegan 1993). Deegan has presented heel silhouettes as distinct, well defined categories, however, as with toe silhouettes, the range of heel forms lie on a continuum.

This can occasionally make the classification of heel silhouettes difficult (and subjective).

Finally, sandals can be shaped for the left or right foot, or can be uniformly shaped

(Figure 5.7). As with the distinction between pointed- or rounded-toe silhouettes, foot

73 Figure 5.6. Example of pointed- and rounded-toe sandals: (a) traditionally classified as pointed (SUU1), (b) traditionally classified as rounded (A315588 no.4).

Figure 5.7. Examples of sandal body silhouettes: (a) left shaped (42WS4 13608), (b) uniformly shaped (599), (c) right shaped (A-24578-X-3).

74 shaping is a subjective designation, and there is as of yet no standard procedure for defining it.

Puebloan Sandals

Anasazi sandal styles varied through time and space, and are generally divided into three categories based on fabric construction technique: twined, braided, and plain weave.

Twined Sandals

Twined sandals, in one form or another, occurred throughout the Basketmaker and

Puebloan time periods and can be found in many parts of the Anasazi region (~500 B.C. to A.D. 1300) (Hays-Gilpin et al. 1998 and references therein; Shutler 1962:10; Janetski and Hall 1983; Winslow and Blair 2003). Although unified by a basic construction technique, twined sandals were composed of a variety of shapes, tie systems, and forms.

The first significant discussion of twined sandals was given by Kidder and Guernsey

(1919), and was followed by Earl and Ann Morris’s research during the 1920s through

1940s. The Morris’s research involved detailed analysis of construction techniques, facilitated in part through dissection of a limited number of sandals, and has been published (with significant elaboration) by Hays-Gilpin, Deegan, and Morris (Hays-

Gilpin et al. 1998). Hays-Gilpin et al. examined almost 200 Basketmaker twined sandals recovered from the Prayer Rock District in northeastern Arizona by Earl and Ann Morris in 1931. Through painstaking analysis of both construction methods and design styles, the authors were able to identify a number of temporal trends in design structure and content. In addition, based on the similarities with decorative styles on other artifact classes (twined aprons, tump bands, coiled baskets, and pottery), the authors posit that

75 twined Basketmaker sandals were made by women. Further, their elaboration through time seems to have occurred, “at a time when more people were living together than previously and life was becoming more socially complicated,” and in tandem to a change in complexity among artifacts associated with the male domain (iconography and communal architecture) (Hays-Gilpin 1998:126). In their concluding chapter, Hays-

Gilpin et al. note the many anthropological issues the study of sandals can contribute to, including such broad topics as ethnicity, migration, diffusion, trade, symbolism, ideology, and gender.

Braided Sandals

Braided sandals appear to have been the most common type of sandal during the Pueblo III period (~A.D. 1100 to 1300), yet examples have also been found in

Basketmaker and early Puebloan contexts (Hays-Gilpin et al. 1998; Magers 1986).

Braided sandals were usually constructed using either an over-one under-one or over- two under-two pattern, while tie systems were primarily toe-heel and side loop styles.

Toe silhouettes were usually round or square, but many were also shaped for the left or right foot. Although relatively common throughout the northern Southwest, a primarily descriptive approach to braided sandals characterizes the few references that discuss this type (Kidder and Guernsey 1919; Gordon 1938; Cummings 1953; Cattanach 1980;

Morris 1980). Magers (1986) work at Antelope House in northern Arizona deals with a particularly large assemblage of braided sandals. Using the entire collection (made up of twined, braided, and plain weave types; n=406) she developed a chronologic sequence for sandals at the site, showing the value of these artifacts as temporal markers. Specifically,

Magers found that twined sandals decreased in frequency from the mid to late Pueblo

76 periods, but that both fine and coarse-braided sandals increased through time, especially during the Pueblo III period. A comparison of characteristics between sandals from the southern and northern room blocks at Antelope House indicated that most attributes were distributed randomly, leading Magers to state, “Thus I was unable to substantiate the idea that the North and South Room Blocks diverged significantly in sandal characteristics”

(Magers 1986:265). This implies that the hypothesized social differences between the two areas may not have existed, or at least were not demonstrated through sandals.

Plain Weave Sandals

Of the three major types, plain weave sandals have seen the least amount of research. Compared to the better-known Basketmaker twined sandals, which have been described as “supreme examples of skilled finger-weaving” (Amsden 1949:128), plain- weave sandals are more coarsely woven, rarely (if ever) decorated, and considered less aesthetically pleasing. Plain weave sandals are recognized as having been used during both Basketmaker and Puebloan time periods, although in differing frequencies and styles (Deegan 1998b). The plain weave pointed/rounded-toe sandal is the focus of this dissertation.

Early researchers recovered plain weave pointed/rounded-toe sandals from early

Puebloan deposits and therefore assumed that most dated to this period (Judd 1926;

Kidder and Guernsey 1919). These inferences were based on the cross dating of artifacts, which, although useful, has its limitations (Hester et al. 1997). Despite the fact that a few examples have been reported from later contexts (Anderson 1969; Cummings 1953), plain weave pointed/rounded-toe sandals are generally assigned to the Pueblo I and

Pueblo II periods (~A.D. 700 to 1100). For preservation reasons these sandals are less

77 well represented than other styles in the archaeological record and in museum collections.

Unlike Basketmaker and later Puebloan groups who made extensive use of caves and rock shelters where perishable materials are better preserved, early Puebloan groups utilized these areas less often and fewer organic artifacts survived as a result. To wit, only a few descriptive paragraphs about plain weave pointed/rounded-toe sandals can be found in the published literature.

As with the other sandal types, Kidder and Guernsey (1919) produced the first substantial published reference of pointed-toe Anasazi sandals in which they described their general shape, gave limited information on the warps and wefts, and attributed them to the Puebloan culture. They called this sandal form Type II a, and noted that,

“The specimens are neatly made in rights and lefts and shaped to conform to the outline of the foot; the toe is brought to a sharp point, the heel is sometimes square, sometimes rounded” (Kidder and Guernsey 1919:103). Guernsey (1931:94) and latter Baldwin

(1938:4) are some of the first to mention the rounded-toe variety and insinuate that they belong to the same time period and culture as the pointed-toe type.

In the past, plain weave sandals have been described as wickerwork by some researchers (Kidder and Guernsey 1919; Anderson 1969; and others), and on at least one occasion twined (Cummings 1953:114, 115:fourth from bottom left). While wickerwork is generally used to describe the same technique (plain weave), the twined instance likely represents a mistake by the original researcher. Pointed/rounded-toe sandals are often described as “coarse” (Guernsey 1931:94) or made of yucca “cords” (Kidder and

Guernsey 1919:103). This is due to the fact that many of these sandals have much thicker and less processed wefts than some of their predecessors (Basketmaker twined sandals).

78 They are most often constructed of four warps, although six warp examples are not uncommon.

Although the construction techniques and sequences used in some types of Anasazi sandals have been studied by a few researchers (Cattanach 1980; Morris 1980; Deegan

1992; Talge 1995; Hays-Gilpin et al. 1998), most aspects of pointed/rounded-toe sandal construction remain uninvestigated. This lack of construction data, among other things, leads to confusion in sandal terminology for this type.

The spatial distribution and relative frequency of pointed/rounded-toe sandals is also poorly understood. Based on the few published sources that mention them, they appear to be primarily centered around northeastern and northwestern Arizona; although this distribution may be caused by sampling bias.

Kidder and Guernsey described this type of sandal from their early work in the

Kayenta region, primarily around Marsh Pass (Kidder and Guernsey 1919:103,Plate

39.a). A few years later Guernsey returned to the area, expanded his work into the Chinle

Valley, and described early Puebloan sandals as having a, “relatively coarse weave” and

“pointed toes” (Guernsey 1931:94,Plate 57:a,c,d). Cummings illustrated a pointed-toe sandal from Tsegi Canyon that he attributed to the, “Great Pueblo Period,” dating from

A.D. 900 to 1540 (Cummings 1953:12, 114: fourth from bottom left). Also in Tsegi

Canyon, Anderson (1969:132, Pl. 64b) described 15 pointed-toe sandals as, “wickerwork construction…having yucca bast cord warps and wefts.” Ten sandals at the Utah

Museum of Natural History collected by Byron Cummings from sites in northeastern

Arizona are also pointed/rounded-toe style (Kankainen 1995:34,36,150-155,164,195).

Kankainen attributed eight of these to the Pueblo I through Pueblo II periods. However

79 many, if not all, of the sandals illustrated by Kankainen are the same as those discussed by Cummings (1953) and Anderson (1969).

In southeastern Utah Baldwin illustrated one pointed-toe sandal from Noschaw Cave on the west side of Navajo Mountain and described it as a, “Pueblo I-III, wickerwork of cords” (Baldwin 1938:Plate 1, no. 3), Osborne described five from sites in the canyons of the Colorado (north and above the confluence with the San Juan River) (Osborne

2004:119-122, 583-584,Figure 95.a,b), while Kankainen described one from northwest of

Blanding in Cottonwood Wash (Kankainen 1995:66).

Although most published sources have been focused in the northeastern Arizona/ southeastern Utah region, there are some examples to the west. In southwestern Utah

Kankainen reported a pointed-toe sandal from site 42WS4 near Veyo (Kankainen

1995:118). Judd recovered pointed-toe “Cliff-dweller sandals” from Cottonwood

Canyon northwest of Kanab, Utah, as well as from Heaton Cave on the eastern side of

Mt. Trumbull in northwestern Arizona (Judd 1926:148, Plate 57:d,e). From Antelope

Cave, Arizona (near the Utah/Arizona border) numerous pointed/rounded-toe sandals have been recovered, not only from professional excavations but from illegal collecting as well (Janetski and Hall 1983; Janetski and Wilde 1989; Yoder 2008, 2009). Finally,

Harrington (1927:274, Figure 2) and Shutler (1961:59, Plate 102:b) describe pointed-toe sandals from the Salt Caves in southeastern Nevada and date them to the Pueblo period.

Shulter further notes that others were found in the, “Lost City ruins, caves and rock shelters” (Shutler 1961:59).

80 Chapter 6

Methods

Seven major analytical techniques were utilized during this study: a technical analysis, a radiographic analysis, microscopic fiber identification, radiocarbon dating, spatial analysis, statistical analysis, and experimental reconstruction. All sandals received a technical analysis, 43 sandals were submitted to soft X-ray radiography, 103 were examined using transmission light microscopy, and 22 were radiocarbon dated.

Technical analysis and microscopic fiber identification was performed by the author, soft

X-ray radiography took place at Utah Valley Hospital in Provo, Utah and the Imaging

Center of the Alta Bates Summit Medical Center in Oakland, California, and radiocarbon dating was performed primarily by the Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Laboratory at the

University of Arizona (although one sample was sent to Beta Analytic in Miami, Florida).

In addition, the artifacts and their individual attributes were plotted spatially and the radiocarbon dates were arranged chronologically to create a temporal framework.

The Sample

A total of 226 specimens from 33 archaeological sites or localities were analyzed,

195 of which came from unpublished museum collections (Table 6.1). This focus on museum collections was in response to two factors. First, after an extensive literature

81 Total

1 7 5 1 6 2 1 6 1 5 3 1 1 1 4 1 68 10 29 NMNH

7 1 10 NMAI

6 1 University of Penn of University

4 The Peabody The

3 1 1 UMNH

1 2 SUU Repository SUU

10 PC-Kanab

3 PC-Hurricane

2 MPC

6 61 Kanab Heritage Museum Heritage Kanab

3 Hurricane Valley Museum Valley Hurricane

2

Edge of the Cedars Cedars the of Edge Dixie State College State Dixie

11 MNA

4 2 1 Arizona State Museum State Arizona

3 1 1 1 3 Lost City Museum City Lost

1 Phoebe Hearst Museum Hearst Phoebe 1 Table 6.1. Number and provenience of sandals held by museums or private individuals. Table

Site or Locality 42WS4 Baby Mummy Cave Antelope Cave Ranch Cave-Heaton’s Cottonwood Canyon Area Kanab Area Lost City Salt Caves Area Virgin Betatakin Area Blanding Calamity Cave Canyons of the Colorado Cave 1 Cave 2 Ruin Town Cave Head Canyon Cave-Yellow Chilchintaboko Chinle Canyon

Western Area Western Eastern Area Eastern

82 Total

1 1 3 1 1 3 1 2 2 2 9 2

14 31 226 NMNH

18 NMAI

7 University of Penn of University

4 The Peabody The

3 2 2 2 9 23 UMNH

1 1 7 12 SUU Repository SUU

10 PC-Kanab

3 PC-Hurricane

2 MPC

29 96 Kanab Heritage Museum Heritage Kanab

3 Hurricane Valley Museum Valley Hurricane

2 Edge of the Cedars Cedars the of Edge

1 2 3 Dixie State College State Dixie

11 MNA

4 11 Arizona State Museum State Arizona

3 1 1 2 1 2 19 Lost City Museum City Lost

1 Phoebe Hearst Museum Hearst Phoebe 1 Table 6.1 (continued). Number and provenience of sandals held by museums or private individuals. Table

The complete names of each museum are found in the text. MNA = Museum of Northern Arizona, MPC = Museum of Peoples and Cultures, PC private = Museum of Northern The complete names of each museum are found in the text. MNA American Indian, NMNH = NMAI = National Museum of the UMNH = Utah Museum of Natural History, collection, SUU = Southern Utah University, National Museum of Natural History. Site or Locality Wash Cottonwood Dry Wash Cave Wash Dry Gourd Cave Area Kayenta Noschaw Cave Olla House Pocket Cave Poncho House Ruin 2 Tsegi Canyon Tsegi Cave Turkey Waterfall Ruin Waterfall Zele Cave No Provenience Total Eastern Area Eastern

83 review it became apparent that only 31 specimens were reported in the published literature, which necessitated additional research to increase the sample size. Second, and equally important, it is the collective responsibility of the discipline to analyze and publish unused archaeological data. The Society for American Archaeology’s Ethic No. 7 discusses records and preservation and encourages professionals and students alike to use museum collections in their research. Guideline four of Ethic 7 states:

Archaeological excavation is a destructive process, and the resulting collections are finite, nonrenewable resources. Efforts should be made to employ existing collections and databases to address research questions whenever possible, and prior to initiating new excavations or other destructive techniques [Childs 2002:6].

This research was in large part an effort to utilize sandal collections that, although excavated during the early or mid 20th century, have languished unused in museums since.

During analysis at the individual museums, an attempt was made to analyze all

Puebloan plain weave pointed/rounded-toe sandals in their collections. In part because of poor record systems, and in part to double check systems that seemed adequate, this usually involved creating a list of possible specimens to examine in conjunction with the curator, but also perusing the perishable collections to select sandals that may have gone unnoticed. In most cases it is highly likely that all of the appropriate sandals from an institution were analyzed, however, there is always the possibility that there may be a few specimens that neither I nor the curators were aware of. In addition, at the Museum of Northern Arizona there were a limited number of sandals that I was unable to access due to NAGPRA or land ownership issues. Information about the curatorial facilities and their individual collections can be found in Appendix 1.

84 Five of the 226 sandals studied were from two private collections. The provenience of the artifacts from these collections was only generally documented by the origin collectors, therefore the artifacts were assigned to the geographic category of ‘Virgin

Area.’ One of the primary critiques against using private collections for research is the possibility that, “private collections that are ‘validated’ by professionals, either through study and publication or by transfer to a museum, suddenly have a higher perceived authenticity and monetary value,” and that this can lead to increased looting of sites and trade in antiquities (Childs et al. 2008:4). Further, private collections rarely have the exacting provenience and associated documentation that archaeologists prefer.

While I generally agree with these sentiments, I also agree with Shott (2008:32), that archaeologists, “must not allow the current generation of collectors and collections to pass unrecorded.” Millions of artifacts are held by private collectors, and in many cases represent some of the best preserved and most fascinating objects from their respective areas. One such example is the Pectol-Lee collection from south-central Utah. Collected in the first half of the 20th century, by Ephraim Portman Pectol and Charles William Lee, the collection contains rare items such as a miniature cradle board with attached Fremont figurine and three painted hide shields. The rarity of such objects makes their study that much more important, and investigations by museum and archaeological personal have made interesting findings (Allen 2002). Private collections can be used responsibly on a case by case basis, and can significantly increase our understanding of the past.

One of the private collections used in this dissertation is deposited in Hurricane,

Utah. It is a small collection consisting of 15 to 20 individual artifacts, collected from southwestern Utah. The second private collection is much larger (the Southwestern

85 portion alone composed of hundreds of artifacts), and was collected and purchased from areas throughout the Southwest. In both cases the original collector is deceased and the objects have been passed down to relatives. The exact provenience for the sandals from the collections are unknown, but first hand knowledge from the relatives of the collectors

(and notes in one case), place the general provenience to southwestern Utah. Because the objects in the private collections were obtained a number of years ago, the descendents holding the collections have either no interest whatsoever in further collecting (or due to age are physically incapable of doing so), and as the addition of any sandals from sites other than Antelope Cave in the western area was desired, the use of these two private collections was deemed acceptable.

Technical Analysis

Because very little is known about the construction characteristics of plain weave pointed/rounded-toe sandals, a technical analysis was performed to both document and quantify individual sandal attributes. This helped to answer Research Question 1 by establishing the baseline data needed for a cultural-historic understanding of this type of artifact. In addition, individual attributes had to be quantified before they could be mapped geographically to look for clustering which may reflect communities of practice.

Understanding design and production sequences and sandal characteristics required the study of sandals in differing stages of preservation and completeness. The analysis of fragmentary sandals allowed the observation of internal features and construction patterns that were not easily observed in complete specimens, while analysis of complete sandals offered insight into how the construction characteristics were combined to make

86 the whole. Terminology for sandal and yarn construction general follows that established by Deegan (1993, 1995) and Emery (1966) (discussed in Chapter 5), however, as this was the first sandal study to investigate the construction attributes of plain weave pointed/ rounded-toe sandals in depth, some terms and concepts (such as toe silhouette percentage, warp knots at heel, warp toe configuration, toe loop type) were created specifically for this study as they have not been addressed previously. Tools used included tweezers, dental pick with blunt point, ruler, digital sliding caliper, protractor, camera, camera stand, and lightning. Appendixes 2, 3, and 4 list all sandals analyzed and their individual attributes. Sandal attributes, provenience information, and references recorded for the technical analysis are defined below.

Artifact Number

The primary number assigned to the artifact by the museum or owner. Some artifact numbers (particularly those from the National Museum of Natural History) represent a

‘lot’ which may include multiple sandals and other artifacts. To differentiate between artifacts in the same lot, I assigned a secondary number that is found behind the primary number, and is preceded by the abbreviation ‘no.’ For example, artifact number A315588 no.5 is the fifth sandal in lot number A315588, while artifact A315588 no.6 is the sixth sandal in lot A315588. These secondary numbers were used only for this dissertation and the museums make no such differentiation.

Site

The site that the artifact was recovered from (Table 6.2). For sites that have multiple names or numbers I have only listed the primary name in all other tables and appendixes.

Although the exact location for some of the sies is known, many have only a general

87 East slope of Mt. Trumbull, Arizona. Trumbull, East slope of Mt. Arizona. ~10 miles west of Kayenta, In the Chilchintaboko (Navajo Canyon) area, ~25 miles south of Navajo Mountain, Utah. ~25 miles south of Navajo Mountain, Utah. Arizona in the north fork of ~6 to 20 miles the east of Chinle, Chinle Canyon. Unknown sites in Cottonwood Canyon, ~5 miles to the west of Kanab, Utah. to the west and north of Bluff, Wash, Unknown site in Cottonwood Utah. Approximate Location Approximate Near Santa Barbara Creek by Veyo, Utah. Veyo, Near Santa Barbara Creek by Arizona. In this analysis it is combined with Likely northeastern Area.’ ‘Kayenta Unknown sites around Blanding, Utah. Tsegi Canyon, Arizona. Canyon, Tsegi Utah. Wash, Lower Chinle Near the head of Nakai Canyon (a tributary to San Juan River), Arizona. north and Unknown sites in the canyons of Colorado River, Utah. above its confluence with the San Juan River, Site Number(s) 42WS4 NA3160; NA8624; RB- 341 MV NA2637 Table 6.2 . Name, site number, and location of archaeological sites included in analysis. 6.2 . Name, site number, Table Secondary Site Name(s) Cave on east slope of Mt. Trumbull Cave on east slope of Mt. Cave near mouth of Head Canyon* Yellow Ruin* Town Cave Area* Chilchintaboko Chinle Canyon* Cottonwood Canyon* Wash* Cottonwood Primary Site Name 42WS4* Baby Mummy Cave* Area* Blanding Cave 1 Cave 2 Calamity Cave * Canyons of the Colorado* Cave near Heaton’s Ranch* * Exactly location of site unknown, however most are estimated to be within a few miles their correct location.

88 Approximate Location Approximate ~9 miles northwest of Blanding, Utah. in the Navajo Canyon area, ~25 miles south of Valley Tahanto Navajo Mountain, Utah. Unknown sites around Kanab, Utah. Unknown sites in extreme southeastern Utah or northeastern Arizona. ~7 miles southeast of Overton, Nevada. slope of Navajo Mountain, Utah. Western Arizona. Laguna Creek, ~6 miles east/northeast of Kayenta, Arizona. Prayer Rock District, Utah. Wash, Lower Chinle Arizona. Uinkaret Plateau, Wash, Clayhole Arizona. Canyon, Tsegi Arizona. Sayodneechee Canyon, miles south of Overton, Nevada on the west shore Lake ~11 Mead Arizona. ~15 miles west of Kayenta, Site Number(s) Either 42SA3397, 42SA3398, or 42SA3399 AZ D:5:11(ASM) NA4169 AZ E:7:11(ASM NA2660 A:3:1(ASM) AZ NA5507; AZ D:6:7(ASM) NA2515; Secondary Site Name(s) Ruin 7; Cliff House 7 Ruin 7; Cliff House 2 Cliff Table 6.2 (continued). Name, site number, and location of archaeological sites included in analysis. 6.2 (continued). Name, site number, Table Primary Site Name Dry Wash Cave Wash Dry Gourd Cave * Area* Kanab Area* Kayenta Area* Lost City Noschaw Cave* Olla House Pocket Cave Poncho House Antelope Cave Betatakin Ruin Ruin 2 Salt Caves* Canyon* Tsegi * Exactly location of site unknown, however most are estimated to be within a few miles their correct location.

89 Approximate Location Approximate Arizona. Canyon, Tsegi Arizona, or Unknown sites in southwestern Utah, northwestern southeastern Nevada. Arizona. Wash, Lower Chinle Arizona. Canyon in the Lukachukai Mountains, Track Deer Site Number(s) AZ D:3:2(ASM); NA2520; MarshPass:2:2(GP) NA2676 Turkey Cave; Rubbish House Turkey House 9; Ruin Floating Cliff House; Floating House Ruin Secondary Site Name(s) Table 6.2 (continued). Name, site number, and location of archaeological sites included in analysis. 6.2 (continued). Name, site number, Table Turkey House Turkey Area* Virgin Ruin Waterfall Zele Cave* Primary Site Name * Exactly location of site unknown, however most are estimated to be within a few miles their correct location.

90 location listed (however these are estimated to be within a few miles of their proper location).

Collector/Donator

The primary individual responsible for the initial recovery of the artifact, its donation to the museum, or the current owner of the artifact. This is followed by the year it was collected, donated, or accessioned (if known).

Direct Reference

Any published references that the specific artifact is described or photographed in.

General Reference

Any published references that are associated with information on an artifact, such as site location, collector, year collected, etc.

Curated

The institution where the artifact is currently curated.

X-Rayed

Whether the artifact was examined using soft X-ray radiography.

Material

All sandals were constructed of yucca. If examined using transmission light microscopy a distinction between the broadleaf and narrowleaf varieties was noted here.

Condition

A subjective category in which the overall completeness of the body of the sandal

(not including the tie system) was noted (Deegan 1995). This category was not used in analysis but instead recorded for museum/archival purposes. Specimens in which the body of the sandal were 1 to 75% complete were classified as a fragment, specimens with

91 the body 76 to 95% complete were classified as nearly complete, and specimens with 96 to 100% of the body remaining were classified as complete (Figure 6.1).

Fragment

If the condition of a sandal was classified as a fragment (1 to 75% complete), the portion of the artifact that remained was noted. This category was not used in analysis but instead recorded for museum/archival purposes. Fragments could be classified as toe, middle, heel, or a combination of the three. For example, a sandal that is missing most of the toe area may be classified as a heel-middle fragment.

Length and Width

The total length of the sandal at its greatest point was measured (Figure 6.2) (Deegan

1995). This measurement was taken for all sandals and sandal fragments. For sandals in which the total length could not be measured (due to fragmentation) or for those whose shape had been distorted, the measurement is prefaced with an ‘i’ indicating the measurement is incomplete. The width of the sandal was measured in three separate areas: the toe, the midsection, and the heel (Figure 6.2) (Deegan 1995). The width of the toe was taken at the widest point in the toe area. The width of the midsection was generally taken near the center of the sandal at the narrowest point, however the exact area of measurement varied as some specimens tapered and therefore did not have a well defined narrowest point. The width of the heel area was taken at the heel loop, or if the heel loop was missing at the widest point near the rear of the sandal.

Toe Silhouette Percentage

Classification of toe silhouette for pointed/rounded-toe sandals has previously been highly subjective (Kidder and Guernsey 1919; Deegan 1993), therefore an

92 Figure 6.1. Examples of sandal condition classification: (a) complete (NA5507.M.102), (b) nearly complete (NA5507.D.98), (c) fragment (NA5507.M.52).

objective measure was developed to quantify toe silhouette based on length and width measurements (Yoder 2009). First, a vertical center axis for each complete or nearly complete sandal was established. Usually this vertical axis ran down the center of sandal splitting the specimen into two equal halves (creating a mirror image), however when sandals were unevenly shaped (as with left or right foot shaped sandals) the vertical axis was adjusted so that the toe area was split into two roughly equal halves (Figure

6.3). Once the vertical axis was established a series of 3 measurements (Toe Silhouette

Measurements 1, 2, and 3) were taken from the axis to the outside edge of the sandal at 1 cm intervals, starting 1 cm below the toe of the sandal (Figure 6.3). These measurements were taken from the side of the sandal that was either more complete or had a more

93 Figure 6.2. Photograph of artifact NA5507.M.96 showing the location of key measurements taken for each sandal.

94 Figure 6.3. Sandal SUU 1 showing series of measurements taken to quantify toe silhouette: (a) vertical center axis.

95 regular shape. Each of these measurements were then divided by the toe width and converted into a percentage (this was done to standardize the measurements, which otherwise would have been affected by overall sandal size). Finally, the percentages were added and divided by 3, giving an average percentage for the width of the three measurements. This number was then used to compare toe silhouettes between sandals.

All of these measurements were taken from standardized photographs of the specimens to save time in the field.

The sandal in Figure 6.3 can be used to demonstrate how the toe silhouette percentage was calculated. Toe silhouette measurement 1 equals 1.9 cm, measurement 2 equals 2.8 cm, and measurement 3 equals 3.8 cm. Dividing each of these by the toe width (11.6 cm) and then multiplying by 100 converts these numbers into percentages (16.4%, 24.1%, and 32.8% respectively). Averaging these three percentages results in a toe silhouette percentage of 24.4 percent.

Weft Density

The number of wefts per centimeter (Deegan 1995). This measurement was taken from near the center of the sandal whenever possible (Figure 6.2); or when the sandal was fragmented from whatever area remained.

Weft Ply and Spin

Both the ply of the weft and the direction it was spun was recorded (Deegan 1995;

Emery 1966).

Warp Number, Ply, Twist, Diameter, Helix Angle, and Knots

The total number of warps within each sandal was recorded whenever possible, however highly fragmented specimens were classified as incomplete (Deegan 1995).

96 The ply of the warps was noted, as well as the final direction of twist (Emery 1966).

The spin of warp yarns was assumed to be opposite of the warp twist. For example, if a warp had a final twist direction of Z it wasassumed that the individual yarns that formed the warp were spun in an S direction. In the beginning of the analysis multiple warps were measured for their diameter and the results averaged. However it quickly became apparent that the diameter of the warps did not vary significantly within an individual sandal. Thereafter only a single warp was measured from each artifact. Which warp was measured varied depending on what element was most accessible and/or visible. The helix angle (angle that the slant of the twist makes with the vertical axis of the warp) of a single warp for each sandal was also measured (Emery 1966; Deegan 1995) (Figure 5.2).

As per Emery (1966:11-12), helix angle was defined as: loose (angle up to 10º), medium

(angle 10º to 25º), or tight (angle 25º to 45º). The type of knot used to tie off the warps at the heel of the sandal (Figure 6.2) was classified as either an overhand knot with the left warp existing the top (Overhand Type 1), overhand knot with the left warp existing the bottom (Overhand Type 2), or indeterminate (Figure 6.4).

Warp/Toe Configuration

This category recorded how the warps were configured in the toe of the sandal. In the vast majority of specimens, the warp/toe configuration was indeterminate because the warps were concealed within the body of the sandal. However, a few specimens could be classified as either splicing (warps were spliced together at the toe) or non-splicing

(outermost warp was not spliced to inside warps at the toe) (see Radiographic Analysis section of Chapter 7 for full description).

97 Figure 6.4. Photographs of artifact NA5507.M.99 showing overhand knot with left warp existing the top (Overhand Type 1): (a) heel portion, (b) heel portion with lines tracing trajectory of warps in knot.

Body Silhouette

Specimens were classified as either left foot shaped, right foot shaped, uniformly shaped (neither left or right), or indeterminate (artifact to fragmentary to determine shape) (Figure 5.7). Classifying the body silhouette was subjective, as no objective technique for classifying body shape has yet been developed in sandals studies (Deegan

1993).

98 Heel Silhouette

This characteristic was not easily classified as almost all were constructed using the same method, with subtle differences apparently caused only by the degree to which the wefts were pulled towards the center. This resulted in heel silhouettes generally taking on a rounded shape as shown in Deegan (1993: Figure 4:a), although some of the sandals grade into an almost rectangular shape. For examples of the slight gradation of heel shape, the reader is referred to the multiple photographs throughout the dissertation. In four of the six warp specimens, the warps exited the heel and were pulled toward the center and tied. This gave the heel silhouette an extremely rounded and slightly cupped shape (Figure 6.5:a-c). In addition, in one sandal as the warps exit the bottom of the heel each outside warp is paired with an inside warp and woven together using a plain weave with a small diameter single ply yarn (Figure 6.5:d).

Tie System

The diameter of the yarn used in the tie systems were not recorded as they have often separated or become loose through wear, significantly altering the diameter of the elements. Sandals that contained both a recognizable toe and heel loop (regardless of whether these were fragmentary) were classified as having a toe-heel tie system (Talge

1995; Deegan 1993). Sandals that contained either a recognizable toe or heel loop but were missing the other element were classified as toe-heel incomplete. Sandals that contained a toe loop and two small side loops at the heel (but no other side loops) were classified as toe-heel heel loops. Sandals that contained toe and heel loops but also had additional features were classified as a toe-heel variant. Sandals with side loops were classified as having a side-loop tie system and sandals in which the tie system was

99 Figure 6.5. Examples of variant heel silhouettes: (a) AR 4006 94.1, (b) NA5507.M.110, and (c) 2003-1598-1 are extremely rounded and slightly cupped while the warps of (d) 95.2.52.1 are paired and woven together using plain weave with a single ply yarn.

100 missing were classified as indeterminate (Figure 6.6) (Talge 1995; Deegan 1993).

Toe Loop Type, Number, Ply, and Twist

The type of toe loop was recorded as either solid, knotted, looped, or some

combination. Solid toe loops are composed of a single piece of yarn, plied yarn, or

re-plied yarn. Knotted toe loops consist of at least two pieces of yarn, plied yarn, or re-

plied yarn that have been tied together with a knot at some point. Looped toe loops are

composed of at least two pieces of yarn, plied yarn, or re-plied yarn; the end of one forms

a loop while the end of the other forms a small knot. The knot is passed through the

loop holding it in place (Figure 6.7). Finally, some toe loops use a combination of these

techniques. The number of toe loops was recorded, but if the sandal was fragmentary

and the number could not be confidently assigned an ‘i’ preceded the number of loops

that could be absolutely stated. A record of ‘i1’ for example, means that one toe loop

was present but that more may have existed. The ply and twist of the toe loop was also

recorded. If a second toe loop existed, and if the ply and twist was different from the first, this was also recorded.

Side Loop Ply and Twist

The ply and twist of any side loops were recorded. A second ply and twist was recorded only if it differed from the first.

Tie Cord/Ankle Loop Ply and Twist

The ply and twist of the tie cord/ankle loop was recorded, with a second type noted only if it differed from the first. The tie cord and ankle loop were recorded together as they were almost always made from the same piece of yarn.

101 Figure 6.6. Examples of sandal tie systems: (a) toe-heel (NA5507.M.102), (b) toe-heel indeterminate (NA5507.D.177), (c) toe-heel heel loops (86.017.003-Bag 1), (d) toe-heel variant (HM1), (e) toe-heel variant (Pierce no.7), (f) side-loop (23-7-10-A5661).

102 Figure 6.7. Photograph of sandal NA5507.M.47 showing the Looped type of toe loop.

Heel Loop Type, Ply, and Twist

The same classification used for the toe loop was also used for the heel loop: solid, knotted, looped, or a combination. The ply and twist of the heel loop was recorded.

Summary

All of the attributes noted during the technical analysis (listed above) were recorded for one of three reasons: (1) as information needed by museums to supplement the artifacts curation, (2) to document the technological characteristics of this specific sandal type in a cultural-historic sense, or (3) to quantify all attributes that contain active or passive style to determine if any of them clustered through time or space. This information can then be used to investigate communities of practice or ethnic/cultural boundaries across the northern Southwest (as discussed in previous chapters).

103 Radiographic Analysis

In addition to the technical analysis, 43 sandals were examined using soft X-ray radiography to assist in identifying construction techniques. Forty-two of the sandals selected were from collections at the Museum of Peoples and Cultures in Provo, Utah and the Utah Museum of Natural History in Salt Lake City. This was done for logistical reasons, making the transfer of artifacts to and from an X-ray facility much more convenient. Within these collections, specific sandals were chosen based on their overall condition, with the completeness of the specimens being the overriding criteria. The secondary selection criteria was that the specimens were composed of sandals that had a wide range of attributes. For example, instead of choosing sandals with only four warps, a mix of both four and six warp sandals were X-rayed. Due to particularly cooperative museum staff, a single sandal from the Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology in

Berkeley, California was also analyzed using soft X-ray radiography.

X-ray radiography is commonly used today in both medicine and industry to produce images of the internal structure of an object. An image produced by X-rays, called a radiograph, is actually the shadow of an object bombarded by X-rays (Hiss 2003).

The image that is produced is primary affected by two factors: the current and the maximum peak kilovoltage (Lang and Middleton 1997; O’Connor and Brooks 2007).

The current is measured in milliamps (mA) and determines the intensity of the X-ray beam. The maximum peak kilovoltage (kVp) (commonly referred to as kV) determines the, “maximum energy of the electrons (measured in kilovolt electron potential or keV) hitting the target,” which in turn determines the penetrative power of the beam (O’Connor

2007:15).

104 X-rays are commonly referred to as soft or hard, the difference primarily being the strength of the source (kV). Hard X-rays (approximately 40 kV and above) are produced using a high photon energy source and can penetrate dense materials. Radiography in archaeological applications has usually involved the use of hard X-rays. For example,

Symmons has used X-ray radiography to measure bone density of a faunal assemblage from Çatalhöyük (Symmons 2003), Allen and Munsey have used hard X-rays to examine a ceramic figurine wrapped in a Fremont cradle board (Allen and Munsey 2002), and

Rice has noted several applications of hard X-rays in ceramic analysis, including studying the orientation, size, quantity, and distribution of particulate matter, determining technique of manufacture, revealing details of construction, and identifying forgeries or areas of reconstruction (Rice 1987).

The use of hard X-rays is problematic for perishable materials, however, because the low density of the raw material allows radiation to pass through the artifact uninhibited and does not produce recognizable images. In contrast, the X-ray energies used in soft radiography (approximately 20-40 kV) are low enough that they are not attenuated by less dense artifacts as easily and so are much more suited to the examination of perishable materials. O’Connor and Brooks (2007) have used industrial X-ray units to view a variety of textiles, clothing, needlework, dolls, and paintings using soft X-ray radiograph, all of which produced exquisite images and assisted the authors in understanding the internal structure of historic and prehistoric artifacts. Although best suited for this type of investigation, the use of industrial X-ray units can be costly and their availability is limited.

105 Due to these limiting factors, I have taken an alternative route by employing medical X-ray radiography units (Yoder 2008). The radiography technique used in mammography produces low photon energies that are applicable to perishable research.

The technique is a much cheaper and more accessible alternative to the use of industrial

X-ray units discussed by O’Connor and Brooks (while still recognizing their higher performance).

Forty-two of the X-rays were performed on a General Electric Senographe mammography unit at Utah Valley Hospital in Provo, Utah and one X-ray was performed on a General Electric mammography unit used in combination with a Fuji XG 5000

Digital film processor at the Imaging Center of the Alta Bates Summit Medical Center in

Oakland, California. Preparation of the artifacts was limited to removing museum tags.

Images were usually clearest and showed the most detail when using approximately 35 kV and 4 to 7 mAs (milliamps per second) for the electric current, although depending on individual artifact thickness settings were adjusted to between 25 to 36 kV.

Depending on how the film is loaded into the unit, as well as how it is processed, the radiograph produced may appear as a mirror reflection of the artifact. This can cause confusion for artifact elements in which directionality is important, such as the spin and twist of yarn. To rectify this potential problem a metal paper clip bent into a ‘Z’ shape can be placed next to the artifact being X-rayed. This ‘Z’ shows up clearly on the radiograph and can be used to orient the reader.

Radiographs were developed on location and later scanned into a computer using a desktop scanner. As scans of radiographs using reflected light are of very low quality, transmitted light was used. This was done by setting up a light source above the

106 radiograph as it lay on the scanner and leaving the flatbed open. A piece of translucent vellum paper was placed between the radiograph and the light source to evenly distribute the light. Images were scanned in grayscale at 300 dpi, and once digitized were imported into Adobe Photoshop. When necessary the images were sharpened using the unsharp mask feature and by adjusting levels and contrast.

Microscopic Fiber Identification

Virtually all Puebloan pointed/rounded-toe sandals are made from yucca fibers. A number of different types of yucca thrive in the American Southwest and can be generally grouped under two varieties: broad leaf and narrowleaf. Before being processed these types of yucca are very different morphologically (the difference primarily being based on leaf width as the names imply), but the processed fiber from the plants are identical to the naked eye. This makes the type of yucca used in a sandal an excellent candidate for carrying passive style, because selection of a specific type for production may be ingrained in an enculturative background, but would not be useful for actively communicating cultural information, as once processed the two types of yucca are indistinguishable. Researchers have been able to differentiate between the two types, however, by using transmission light microscopy to compare lumen to cell wall width ratios. Bell and King (1944), and more recently Haas (2003), have shown that narrow leaf yucca species have a lumen to cell wall width ratio of roughly 1 to 1, while broad leaf yucca species have a lumen to cell wall width ratio of approximately 1 to 2 (Figure

6.8).

107 Figure 6.8. Example of lumen to cell wall width for: (a) broad leaf yucca, (b) narrow leaf yucca (from Haas 2003:Figure 13).

Three to four individual fiber strands were collected from 103 specimens for microscopic fiber identification. Samples were not collected from the remaining 123 artifacts because permission for destructive analysis was either not granted by the curatorial institutions or because the sandal was in such poor condition that fibers would likely not be able to be identified. Fibers were taken from the body of the sandal, not the tie system, as this caused the least amount of damage to the artifact.

Each sample was placed on a glass slide with a drop of water and lightly scraped to release individual strands from the larger vascular bundle. The slides were then examined using transmitted light under 20x magnification. Lumen and cell wall widths were examined to differentiate between broad leaf and narrow leaf yucca (Figure 6.9).

108 Figure 6.9. Example of lumen to cell wall width for: (a) broad leaf yucca, (b) narrow leaf yucca.

Radiocarbon Dating

A total of 22 sandals were AMS radiocarbon dated, 21 at the Accelerator Mass

Spectrometry Laboratory at the University of Arizona, Tucson and one at Beta Analytic in Miami, Florida (Table 7.19). The single sample run by Beta Analytic was the first submitted, and was done before funding by the National Science Foundation was granted.

Thereafter, samples were sent to the AMS lab in Tucson because of a discounted rate for

NSF funded projects which allowed for doubling the sample size. The AMS method was chosen over standard radiocarbon dating for two reasons. First, it required the destruction of a smaller portion of the artifact than standard dating (5 to 50 mg versus 20 g), and second, it offered a smaller age uncertainty. Whenever possible samples were taken from

109 the loose ends of pieces of the tie system as this minimized both structural and aesthetic damage to the artifact.

The sample selection process was structured primarily by which museums would allow destructive analysis. However, within that structure, artifacts submitted for dating were selected based on a combination of their geographic location, integrity of provenience, and physical characteristics. Ten samples from the Western area

(southwestern Utah, northwestern Arizona, southeastern Nevada) and twelve samples from the Eastern area (southeastern Utah, northeastern Arizona) were submitted for dating. As best as was possible (given museum restrictions), a range of geographic localities within the respective areas was selected. Samples with good provenience

(documented through original site notes, reports, or museum information) were selected over those with poor provenience. Even given the museum restrictions, a comparison between Figures 7.23 and 7.36 shows that the selection of sandals for dating is relatively evenly distributed. Finally, sandals were selected in an attempt to date specimens with a broad range of physical attributes. So for example, if in a given area there were five specimens that could be dated, four of which had toe-heel tie systems and one of which had a side-loop tie system, one of each type of tie-system would be dated instead of selecting two with the same type.

Spatial Distribution

The spatial distribution of pointed/rounded-toe sandals and their individual attributes were mapped using the most specific provenience information provided by published sources, the curatorial facility, original field notes and descriptions, and state databases

110 (The Arizona Archaeological Site and Survey Database-AZSITE, and the Utah Division of State History-Historic Data Management System). Often this involved cross referencing multiple sources to determine the most likely location of a site. However, because many excavations or surveys took place in the first part of the 20th century when documentation was not as exact or has since been lost, some sandals from both private and public collections had no or only general provenience information (such as

‘southeastern Utah’ or ‘northwestern Arizona’). When such was the case, specimens were mapped to a general locality and classified under the generic titles of ‘Virgin Area’ or ‘Kayenta Area’ (Figure 7.23).

In addition, some sites have been combined on the maps when they were reported as coming from the same general area but exact locations could not be made. These include two caves on the east side of Mt. Trumbull, Arizona (a cave near Heaton’s Ranch and a cave on the east side of Mt. Trumbull which are likely the same site) and three sites south of Navajo Mountain and west of Tsegi Canyon in Arizona (Cave Town Ruin,

Chilchintaboko, and Gourd Cave).

After mapping their individual locations, sandals were grouped into three geographic categories: the Western area, the Eastern area, and sandals with No Provenience (Figure

7.23). The Western category contains sandals from southwestern Utah, northwestern

Arizona, and southeastern Nevada, and is traditionally associated with the Virgin

Anasazi. The Eastern category contains sandals from southeastern Utah and northeastern

Arizona; an area traditionally associated with the Mesa Verde and Kayenta Anasazi.

Most of the sandals from the Eastern area originate from northeastern Arizona (Kayenta), eight originate from around Blanding, Utah (Mesa Verde), and five originate from the

111 canyons of the Colorado River (exact provenience unknown, making it difficult to assign to either group). I chose to combine all of these sandals into the Eastern group, as statistical analyses (discussed in detail in the next chapter) indicated there were almost no statistically significant differences between them. The No Provenience category contains sandals that have no locational information.

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive measures such as the mean, median, mode, range, variance, and standard deviation were used to describe the large amounts of data produced by the technical analysis. A number of both nonparametric and parametric techniques were used, all of which were run using the statistical package SPSS. The Mann-Whitney U test, chi- square, and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used to determine whether or not statistically significant differences existed between sandals from different geographic areas. Or in other words, these tests were used to determine the likelihood that sandals from two or more areas were part of the same population. The Mann-Whitney U test was used when sample sizes of groups were too small to invoke the central limit theorem and variables included both nominal and ratio level data. Chi-square was used when examining groups with nominal level variables (counts of 5 or larger), and Cramer’s V was used in interpreting the strength (or effect size) of the results. One-way ANOVA was used when examining groups based on ratio level variables. When sample size for groups was less than 30, the Kolmogorov-Smirnoff and the Shapiro-Wilk tests were used to ensure normality. Levene’s test for homogeneity was used to ensure the variance in populations was approximately equal.

112 Cluster Analysis was used to look for patterns of association within the data based on sandal attribute similarity. This analysis basically groups specimens together based on the similarity of their individual characteristics, and these groups (or clusters) can then be evaluated as to whether they make sense based on a number of factors. As some variables were correlated, Mahalanobis D² distance was used and the data standardized by converting individual values into Z-scores. The results from four different hierarchical techniques were examined (Nearest neighbor, Within-groups linkage, Furthest neighbor, and Ward’s Method).

Finally, principle components analysis was used to analyze the relationships between ratio level data, condense this information into a smaller number of components with more explanatory power, and then search for underlying relationships within the data.

More specific information on each test is given in the section of the dissertation in which it was used.

Replication Experiment

As no previous sandal research has focused on the plain weave pointed/rounded-toe sandal, the construction details of this artifact type are unknown or only hypothesized.

Although the technical analysis performed for this dissertation was able to document many of these features, questions as to why or how some of them were used or created still remained. For example, Kidder and Guernsey (1919:103) gave a brief description of warp arrangement, and assert that this type of sandal is constructed by, “looping either two or three cords, the open ends of the loops being at the heel, the closed ends forming the toe.” Yoder (2008) found that at least some of these sandals had warps that were

113 not spliced at the toe, which raised the question as to why one type would be used over another. One way to address this is to determine if one type was more costly in terms of time or effort of construction. During the technical analysis it also became clear that almost all of the sandals had wefts which alternated between being spun in an S or Z direction. This is quite different from the general pattern used in perishable construction, when a single yarn very rarely alternates spin direction (Emery 1966). The question then arises, why would such a pattern be used? These inquires could not be directly answered through the study of individual sandal attributes alone.

Experimental archaeology has been formally used by researchers for well over half a century (Ascher 1961), and has been defined as the, “fabrication of materials, behaviors, or both in order to observe one or more processes involved in the production, use, discard, deterioration, or recovery of material culture” (Skibo 1992:18). Essentially, experimental archaeology can help researchers understand how an artifact was made, used, discarded, and what processes may have influenced these decisions.

To help address the questions raised above, and to more fully understand the construction and decision making process related to the pointed/rounded-toe type, replication experiments were performed by weaving two plain weave pointed-toe sandals.

The primary goals of the experiment were to: (1) determine whether a loom or stationary object was required for the weaving process, (2) determine if splicing warps at the toe required more effort or time than simply looping or tying them, and (3) determine if there were any technical advantages to an alternating weft spin direction.

The replicas were made using processed hemp fibers. Although the use of yucca would have been preferable, processing the amount of fiber necessary for the replicas

114 would have required a significant time investment, while hemp could be bought commercially. Each of the replicas had four warps, a pointed-toe, a toe-heel tie system, and were generally the same length and width of the authentic sandals in the collection. As Ascher has pointed out, “The execution of the operations depends upon the experimenter’s skills” (Ascher 1961:811). Some experimental archaeology projects have been criticized on the grounds that the modern replicator does not have the same familiarity with the experimental task as prehistoric people most likely had and therefore would not perform as quickly or efficiently as their prehistoric counterparts. To try and mitigate this problem, I first constructed two sandals as test subjects to familiarize myself with the process. Although I was by no means proficient after weaving four sandals, the experiment was able to provide at least partial answers to each of the questions above.

115 Chapter 7

Results of Analysis

The results are divided into six sections, one corresponding to each of the major analyses: technical analysis, soft X-ray radiography, microscopic fiber identification, spatial analysis, AMS radiocarbon dating, and experimental reconstruction. Statistical analyses are spread throughout the sections, and the overall results of the chapter are summarized at the end.

Technical Analysis

A total of 226 sandals and sandal fragments from at least 33 different sites or localities were analyzed (Table 7.1). This assemblage includes artifacts from 15 museums or curatorial facilities and two private collections. Seventy-one percent (n=160) of the assemblage is in either complete or nearly complete condition, while only 29 percent

(n=37) is fragmentary. Appendixes 2, 3, and 4 present all data recorded for each sandal in the analysis.

Weave Structure and Number of Warps

All 226 sandals are woven in a weft-faced 1-by-1 plain weave. Deegan describes this weave structure as:

116 Table 7.1. Sites and sandals included in the analysis. Site or Locality n % 42WS4 1 0.4 Antelope Cave 68 30.1 Baby Mummy Cave 2 0.9 Betatakin 1 0.4 Blanding Area 6 2.7 Calamity Cave 1 0.4 Canyons of the Colorado 5 2.2 Cave 1 3 1.3 Cave 2 1 0.4 Cave Town Ruin 1 0.4 Cave-Heaton’s Ranch 10 4.4 Cave-Yellow Head Canyon 1 0.4 Chilchintaboko 4 1.8 Chinle Canyon 1 0.4 Cottonwood Canyon 7 3.1 Cottonwood Wash 1 0.4 Dry Wash Cave 1 0.4 Gourd Cave 3 1.3 Kanab Area 5 2.2 Kayenta Area 1 0.4 Lost City Area 1 0.4 No Provenience 31 13.7 Noschaw Cave 1 0.4 Olla House 3 1.3 Pocket Cave 1 0.4 Poncho House 2 0.9 Ruin 2 2 0.9 Salt Caves 6 2.7 Tsegi Canyon 2 0.9 Turkey House 14 6.2 Virgin Area 29 12.8 Waterfall Ruin 9 4.0 Zele Cave 2 0.9 Total 226 100

117 an over-one, under-one interlacing of two sets of elements at 90 degrees to each other. When one warp [element that runs from toe to heel in sandals] interlaces with one weft [element that runs side to side on sandals], it is called a 1 by 1 plain weave. In woven fabrics, if the elements running toe to heel on the sandal [warps] are com- pletely hidden by the elements going side to side [wefts], then it is called weft-faced [Deegan 1993:53].

In general the weft began by being wrapped vertically once or twice around the warps at the very tip of the toe area and then transitioned into a horizontally woven plain weave. The start of the first weft that was wrapped around the warps sometimes slightly protruded from the woven structure leaving a small tuft at the very top of the toe. The weft then progressed down the sandal until it reached the heel and usually ended by being tucked behind the last full weft row (Figure 7.1).

The number of warps used in construction could not be determined for five specimens due to their fragmentary nature. Of the remaining 221 sandals, 80 percent (n=177) are composed of four warp, 19 percent (n=43) of six warp, and one sandal has five warps

(Table 7.2). Restricting the analysis to only those sandals for which the total number of warps could be positively identified, and analyzing these numbers by geographic group, yielded interesting results. Sandals with no provenience and those from the Western group are overwhelmingly constructed using four warps (97 percent and 89 percent respectively), while the proportion of sandals from the Eastern area is generally split between 55 percent four warp and 43 percent six warp (Figure 7.2). Only a single five warp sandal is represented in the assemblage and it is provenienced to the Chilchintaboko area in the Eastern region. Excluding this one five warp specimen, the differences between the areas (including the No Provenience category) in the number of warps used

118 a

b Figure 7.1. Photograph of sandal NA5507.C.71 showing how final weft is secured: (a) photograph of heel, (b) photograph of heel with lines tracing the trajectory of final weft.

119 Table 7.2. Four, six, and five warp sandals by area. No Total Provenience Western Area Eastern Area Assemblage # of Warps n % n % n % n % 4 warps 30 97 110 89 37 55 177 80 6 warps 1 3 13 11 29 43 43 19 5 warps - - - - 1 2 1 1 Total 31 123 67 221 100

100 No. of Warps 4 0 6 5 80 70 60

50 Percent 40 30 20

10 0 No Provenience Western Area Eastern Area (n31) (n123) (n67)

Figure 7.2. Percentage of sandals with 4, 6, or 5 warps by area.

in sandals is highly significant and has a moderate strength of association (Χ²=36.528, df=2, N=220, p<.001, V=.407).

Warp and Weft Composition

Two ply warps compose the vast majority of the assemblage (98 percent; n=222), with the remaining 2 percent being composed of three sandals in which the ply of the warps could not be identified and a single specimen with three ply warps. Eight-eight percent (n=198) have warps with a final Z-twist direction while 12 percent (n=26) have

120 warps with a final S-twist.

Analyzing the results by geographic area shows a distinct difference in the final twist

of yarn used in the warps between the three groups (Table 7.3). Ninety-four percent of

the sandals from both the Western group and sandals with no provenience have Z-twisted

warps, while only 75 percent do in the Eastern group (Figure 7.3). The difference in

proportions of final twist between the areas is highly significant, although the strength

of this association is weak (Χ²=17.676, df=2, N=224, p<.001, V=.281). The warp twist

differs significantly from the twist of yarn in other parts of the sandal (Table 7.3).

Table 7.3. Individual sandals attributes with final Z or S-twisted elements by area. % % % Provenience Z-Twist S-Twist Other n No Provenience Warp 94 6 - 31 Toe Loop 50 50 - 26 Ankle Loop/Tie Cord 20 80 - 10 Side Loop - - - - Heel Loop 62 38 - 26

Western Area Warp 94 6 - 126 Toe Loop 42 58 - 92 Ankle Loop/Tie Cord 40 36 24 33 Side Loop 100 0 - 3 Heel Loop 56 44 - 71

Eastern Area Warp 75 25 - 67 Toe Loop 31 69 - 32 Ankle Loop/Tie Cord 57 43 - 7 Side Loop 75 25 - 12 Heel Loop 53 43 4 44

121 100 Warp Twist 0 S 80 70 60

50 Percent 40 30 20

10 0 No Provenience Western Area Eastern Area (n31) (n126) (n67) Figure 7.3. Percentage of sandals with final Z or S-twist warps by area.

Warp diameter for the entire assemblage ranges from 0.2 cm to 0.8 cm with a mean of 0.38 cm and a standard deviation of 0.08 (Table 7.4). A one-way analysis of variance shows that there is not a statistically significant relationship between warp diameter and geographic area (f=2.846, df=2 and 192, p=.061).

Ninety-six percent (n=149) of the warps have a tight helix angle and only 4 percent

(n=7) have a medium helix angle. Five of the warps with a medium helix angle are found in the Western area while one is located in the Eastern area and one belongs to the No

Provenience group.

The type of knot used to tie off the warps as they exit the heel of the sandal could only be determined in 75 specimens. Of these, 91 percent (n=68) have Overhand Type 1 knots, 8 percent (n=6) have Overhand Type 2 knots, and 1 percent (n=1) have both types.

Sandals in the Western and No Provenience groups both have the same high proportion

122 Table 7.4. Mean warp diameter, weft density, and standard deviation by area.

Mean Warp Standard Mean Weft Standard Provenience Diameter (cm) Deviation Density (cm) Deviation No Provenience 0.41 0.06 2.07 0.77 Western Area 0.39 0.08 2.03 0.51 Eastern Area 0.37 0.09 2.7 0.88 Total Assemblage 0.38 0.08 2.2 0.73

of Overhand Type 1 knots (95 percent), while the Eastern group is made up of only 75

percent of this type. The Eastern group is also the only one to have a sandal that uses

both types of knots in its construction. The proportion of the type of knots between areas

seem to differ significantly, but low counts inhibit the use of formal statistical tests.

The wefts of the sandals are also made of yucca fiber, although they are almost

always thicker than the warps and sometimes less processed. Ninety-six percent (n=218)

of the wefts are composed of a single yarn that is loosely spun in an alternating S or

Z-twist direction (Figure 7.4). This was done by spinning the weft in one direction for

one complete weft row, and then as the weft wraps around the outside warp the spin

direction is reversed. In four of the sandals the direction of weft spin is indeterminate, in

two it is consistently spun in an S direction, in one the direction alternates inconsistently,

and in one the weft is spun primarily in a Z direction but sometimes alternates S.

Weft density for the entire assemblage varies from 1 to 5 wefts per centimeter, with

a mean of 2.2 per centimeter and a standard deviation of 0.73 (Table 7.4). A one-way

analysis of variance shows that there is a statistically significant relationship between

weft density and geographic area at the .001 level with 15 percent of the variation in weft

density explained by geographic area (f=18.367, df=2 and 212, p=<.001, ETA²=0.15).

123 Figure 7.4. Photograph of sandal NA5507.C.71 showing alternating S and Z-spun weft.

Further, Tukey’s HSD post hoc test shows no statistically significant difference between the Western and No Provenience groups, but shows highly significant differences

(p=<.001) between the Eastern and other groups (Figure 7.5).

Toe Construction

Determining how the toe of the sandal is constructed was difficult because key diagnostic features were often hidden within the sandal. To complicate matters, the toe area was usually highly worn, further obscuring already tightly packed wefts. Toe construction could be positively determined in only 10 percent (n=23) of the sandals in the assemblage, of which 87 percent (n=20) are classified as having spliced toe

124 3.0

2.8

2.6

2.4

2.2 Weft Density (cm) Weft

2.0

1.8

No Provenience Western Area Eastern Area (n31) (n118) (n66) Figure 7.5. Graph showing the mean weft density for sandals by area. Center markers represent the mean and error bars represent the 95% confidence intervals. construction and 13 percent (n=3) are classified as non-splicing (descriptions of both splicing and non-splicing types are found in the Radiographic Analysis section of this chapter).

Spliced toe construction is found in all three groups, however non-splicing toe construction is found only in the Eastern one (Table 7.5). The type of toe construction seems to differ significantly between areas, but low counts prohibit the formal use of statistical tests.

Body Silhouette

Classification of body silhouette is subjective as no specific measurements were used. The body silhouettes of 94 specimens were unable to be classified due to their fragmentary condition. Of the remaining 132 sandals, 40 percent (n=53) are shaped for either the left or right foot and 60 percent (n=79) are uniform in shape. Of the 53

125 Table 7.5. Type of toe construction by area. No Total Provenience Western Area Eastern Area Assemblage Toe Construction n % n % n % n % Spliced 7 100 11 100 2 40 20 87 Not Connected - - - - 3 60 3 13 Total 7 11 5 23 100

sandals that are shaped, 64 percent (n=34) are lefts and 36 percent (n=19) are rights. The differences between geographic areas in the proportion of shaped versus uniform body silhouettes are not statistically significant (Χ²=3.914, df=2, N=132, p=.141).

Pointed- Versus Rounded-Toe Silhouette (Toe Silhouette Percentage)

One hundred and fifty-three specimens are complete enough to calculate a toe silhouette percentage. The lowest score in the assemblage is 18.4 percent while the highest is 46.1 percent. Figure 7.6 shows that the distribution of toe silhouette percentages is relatively normal with a slight positive skew. Scores on the lower end of the spectrum represent sandals that are more pointed in shape while scores on the higher end of the spectrum represent more rounded ones. The slightly positive skew in Figure

7.6 means that more of the total assemblage is pointed or moderately pointed in shape.

When the same data are plotted by geographic group there is a gradation from lower toe silhouette percentages in the No Provenience group, to moderate percentages in the

Western group, to finally the highest percentages in the Eastern group (Figure 7.7).

The mean toe silhouette percentage for the entire assemblage is 31.5 with a standard deviation of 5.3 (Table 7.6). Mean and standard deviation varies by group, and there is a statistically significant relationship between toe silhouette percentage and geographic area at the .001 level with 12 percent of the variation in toe silhouette percentage explained

126 28

24

20 (n153) 16

12

8 Number of Cases 4

0 17-18 1-20 21-22 23-24 25-26 27-28 2-30 31-32 33-34 35-36 37-38 3-40 41-42 43-44 45-46 Toe Silhouette Percentage

Figure 7.6. Histogram showing the distribution of all sandals by toe silhouette percentage.

12 No 8 Provenience 4

0

12

8 Western Area

4 Number of Cases 0

12

8 Eastern Area

4

0 17-18 1-20 21-22 23-24 25-26 27-28 2-30 31-32 33-34 35-36 37-38 3-40 41-42 43-44 45-46 Toe Silhouette Percentage Figure 7.7. Histograms showing the distribution of sandals by toe silhouette percentage.

127 Table 7.6. Mean toe silhouette percentage and standard deviation by area.

Mean Toe Silhouette Provenience Percentage Standard Deviation No Provenience 28.1 5.8 Western Area 31.4 4.9 Eastern Area 33.6 4.6 Total Assemblage 31.5 5.3

by geographic group (f=10.058, df=2 and 150, p=<.001, ETA²=0.12). Tukey’s HSD post hoc test shows that a statistically significant difference exists between the Eastern and

Western groups (p=.042), between the Western and No Provenience groups (p=.012), and between the Eastern and No Provenience groups (p=<.001) (Figure 7.8).

Dimensions

A total of 144 sandals were complete enough to permit length calculations. Length measurements from fragmentary sandals are indicated by a greater-than (>) symbol in

Appendix 3 to denote that the original length was greater than what is recorded. Lengths range from 20 to 34 cm, have a mean of 28 cm, and a standard deviation of 2.7 (Table

7.7). Mean and standard deviation varies by group, and there is a statistically significant relationship between length and geographic area at the .001 level with 10 percent of the variation in sandal length explained by geographic area (f=7.872, df=2 and 141, p=.001,

ETA²=0.10). Tukey’s HSD post hoc test shows no statistical significance between the

Western group and sandals with No Provenience, a statistically significant difference between the Eastern and sandals with No Provenience groups (p=.005), and a statistically significant difference between the Eastern and Western groups (p=.001) (Figure 7.9).

In her analysis of 406 sandals from Antelope House in Canyon del Muerto, Magers

128 35.0

32.5

30.0

27.5 Toe Silhouette Percentage Toe

25.0

No Provenience Western Area Eastern Area (n26) (n82) (n45)

Figure 7.8. Graph showing the mean toe silhouette percentage for sandals by area. Center markers represent the mean and error bars represent the 95% confidence intervals.

31.0

30.0

2.0

Length (cm) 28.0

27.0

26.0

No Provenience Western Area Eastern Area (n24) (n75) (n45)

Figure 7.9. Graph showing the mean length for sandals by area. Center markers repre- sent the mean and error bars represent the 95% confidence intervals.

129 Table 7.7. Mean length and width of sandals by area. Mean Width (cm) Mean Length Provenience (cm) Toe Midsection Heel No Provenience 28.9 11.8 9.9 9.7 Western Area 28.6 11.4 9.5 9.2 Eastern Area 26.9 9.5 8.0 8.0 Total Assemblage 28.0 10.9 9.0 8.9

(1986:254) estimated a maximum length of 19.6 cm for child-size sandals, while

Taylor (2003:70-71) used ethnographic information to estimate a maximum length of approximately 19 cm for his study of sandals from Coahuila caves in Mexico. Both researchers viewed a sandal length greater than roughly 19 cm as adult-sized. Based on

Magers’s and Taylor’s measurements, all of the 144 sandals for which total length could be calculated appear to be have been made for use by adults, as the smallest sandal in the analysis measures 20 cm.

Toe width was calculated for 165 sandals and sandal fragments and ranges from

6.5 to 14.2 cm with a mean of 10.9 cm and a standard deviation of 1.4 (Table 7.7).

Mean and standard deviation varies by group, and there is a statistically significant relationship between toe width and geographic area at the .001 level with 41 percent of the variation in toe width explained by geographic area (f=57.182, df=2 and 162, p=<.001, ETA²=0.41). Tukey’s HSD post hoc test shows that no statistically significant relationship exists between the Western and sandals with No Provenience groups

(p=.181), but that statistically significant differences do exists between the Eastern and other two groups (p=<.001) (Figure 7.10a).

Midsection width was calculated for 184 specimens and ranges from 5.6 to 11 cm

130 13.0

12.0

11.0 a Toe Width (cm) Width Toe 10.0

.0

10.5

10.0

.5

.0 b

8.5 Midsection Width (cm) Width Midsection 8.0

7.5

10.5

10.0

.5

.0 c

8.5 Heel Width (cm) Width Heel

8.0

7.5 No Provenience Western Area Eastern Area

Figure 7.10. Graph showing the mean widths of sandals by area: (a) toe width, (b) mid- section width, (c) heel width. Center markers represent the mean and error bars represent the 95% confidence intervals.

131 with a mean of 9 cm and a standard deviation of 1.1 (Table 7.7). Mean and standard deviation varies by group, and there is a statistically significant relationship between midsection width and geographic area at the .001 level with 46 percent of the variation in toe width explained by geographic area (f=77.089, df=2 and 181, p=<.001, ETA²=0.46).

Tukey’s HSD post hoc test shows that statistically significant differences exist between the Eastern and other two groups (p=<.001), and between the Western group and sandals with No Provenience (p=.05) (Figure 7.10b).

Heel width was calculated for 124 specimens and ranges from 5.5 to 11.3 cm with a mean of 8.9 cm and a standard deviation of 1.2 (Table 7.7). As with other width measurements, mean and standard deviation varies by group. Further, there is a statistically significant relationship between heel width and geographic area at the

.001 level with 32 percent of the variation in heel width explained by geographic area

(f=28.445, df=2 and 121, p=<.001, ETA²=.032). Tukey’s HSD post hoc test shows that the relationship between the Western and sandals with No Provenience groups is not statistically significant (p=.07), but the relationships between the Eastern and the other two groups is highly significant (p=<.001) (Figure 7.10c).

Tie System

For 25 of the sandals in the assemblage (primarily small fragments) the type of tie system could not be determined. Of the 201 specimens that could be classified, 91 percent (n=183) have some type of toe-heel tie system and only 9 percent (n=18) have a side-loop tie system (Table 7.8). Of the 183 with some type of toe-heel system, 67 percent (n=123) are classified as toe-heel, 29 percent (n=53) as toe-heel indeterminate, 2 percent (n=3) as toe-heel heel loop, and 2 percent (n=4) as a toe-heel variant. Although

132 Table 7.8. Type of tie system used in sandals by area. No Total Provenience Western Area Eastern Area Assemblage Tie System n % n % n % n % Toe-Heel* 30 100 105 96 48 77 183 91 Side-Loop - - 4 4 14 23 18 9 Total 30 109 62 201 100 * Includes toe-heel indeterminate, toe-heel heel loop, and toe-heel variant

all areas show high percentages of toe-heel tie systems, the Eastern group shows a greater

percentage of the side-loop type than the other categories (Table 7.8). The difference

between the types of tie systems by area is highly significant, although the strength of the

association is somewhat weak (Χ²=20.803, df=2, N=201, p<.001, V=.322).

The toe, heel, and side loops on the various tie systems are usually attached to

the warps in one way or another. Toe loops often wrap underneath an inside warp

and then protruded through the top of the sandal. Heel and side loops often use this

same technique, although sometimes after wrapping around the warp they re-ply upon

themselves.

Toe Loops

Roughly half (n=109) of the sandals in the study are complete enough to positively

identify the type of toe loops used in the tie system. The looped type comprises 66

percent (n=72), the knotted type comprises 18 percent (n=19), the solid type comprises

7 percent (n=8), and 9 percent (n=10) are categorized as a combination (Table 7.9).

Sandals in the Eastern group seem to differ from specimens in the Western and No

Provenience groups, in that the Eastern group has a lower proportion of the looped type

and higher proportions of both the knotted and solid types (Figure 7.11).

133 Table 7.9. Type of toe loops used in sandals by area. No Total Provenience Western Area Eastern Area Assemblage Toe Loop Type n % n % n % n % Looped 16 66 52 79 4 21 72 66 Knotted 4 17 7 11 8 42 19 18 Solid - - 3 4 5 26 8 7 Combination 4 17 4 6 2 11 10 9 Total 24 66 19 109 100

100 Toe Loop Type Looped 0 Knotted Continuous 80 Other 70 60

50 Percent 40 30 20

10 0 No Provenience Western Area Eastern Area (n24) (n66) (n1) Figure 7.11. Percentage of sandals with differing toe loop types by area.

The number of toe loops could be determined for 135 of the sandals in the

assemblage. Eight-one percent (n=109) have two toe loops, 18 percent (n=24) have one,

one sandal has three loops, and one sandal has four. The number of toe loops does not

seem to differ significantly based on geographic area, but low counts prohibit the formal

use of statistical significance tests.

The ply of the toe loops could be determined for 150 of the specimens, and ranged

134 from a single ply to six. The majority of the toe loops (79 percent; n=119) are composed of two ply, 12 percent (n=18) are four ply, 7 percent (n=11) are single ply, one specimen is three ply, and one specimen is 6 ply. The ply of yarn used in the toe loops does not seem to vary significantly across geographic groups, but low counts inhibit the use of formal statistical tests.

Eleven specimens in the assemblage use a single ply of yarn for the toe loop. All

11 are spun in a Z direction and for this section have been combined with the final twist of the plied yarn. The final twist used in the toe loops could be determined for 150 of the sandals, of these 59 percent (n=88) are S-twist and 41 percent (n=62) are Z-twist.

The differences in final twist direction of toe loop yarn between areas is not statistically significantly (Χ²=2.190, df=2, N=150, p=.335).

Side Loops

Of the 18 sandals in the entire assemblage that have a side-loop tie system, ply and twist of the yarn used could only be positively identified for 15. Of the 15 side-loop sandals, 14 use two ply yarn and one uses four ply. Twelve of the side-loop sandals use

Z-twist yarn in the actual side loops and three use S-twist yarn. The low number of side loops prohibit the use of statistical significance tests.

Tie Cord/Ankle Loops

Only 25 percent (n=57) of the entire assemblage have a tie cord or ankle loop still remaining. Seven of these sandals use multiple types of yarns in this part of the tie system. For example, artifact number A-14184 has both two ply Z-twist yarn and four ply Z-twist yarn, while artifact number NA5507.C.74 uses both two ply Z-twist and two ply S-twist yarns. These seven sandals have been excluded from this part of the analysis

135 as they would have been double counted in different categories disrupting the percentage counts. It should be noted that excluding these cases did not significantly alter the overall percentages.

Of the 50 sandals remaining, 68 percent (n=34) use two ply yarn, 16 percent (n=8) use a single ply (1 of which is a single piece of leather), 10 percent (n=5) use three ply, and 6 percent (n=3) use four ply in the tie cord/ankle loop. The sandals in the No

Provenience group are the most homogenous, in that all of the yarns used in their tie cord/ ankle loops are 2 ply. The Eastern group shows more diversity with two, three, and four ply, while the Western group shows the most diversity with one, two, three, and four ply yarns.

Forty-six percent (n=23) of the yarn used in the tie cord/ankle loops is S-twist, 38 percent (n=19) is Z-twist (including four single ply specimens that are Z-spun), 8 percent

(n=4) is braided, and 8 percent is classified as other (three use unprocessed yucca leaf and one uses a strip of leather). Sandals in the No Provenience group have the highest percentage of S-twist yarn at 80 percent, followed by the Eastern group with 43 percent, and the Western group with 36 percent. The Western group is the only one to have braided and un-spun fibers in the tie cord/ankle loops. The low number of tie cord/ankle loops left a number of categories with too few specimens to utilize statistical significance tests.

Heel Loops

A total of 145 sandals have portions of a heel loop remaining, however only 82 of these are complete enough to positively determine the type of heel loop used. Of these,

53 percent (n=43) have a solid heel loop, 29 percent (n=24) have a combination of heel

136 loop types, and 18 percent (n=15) have a knotted heel loop (Table 7.10). When the type of heel loop is broken down by geographic area a number of different proportions are represented (Figure 7.12). A Chi-square test of independence shows that the differences in the type of heel loop by geographic group is statistically significant (Χ²=19.322, df=4,

N=82, p<.001, V=.343).

Four of the sandals use multiple types of yarn in the heel loops. For example, artifact number 73.021.003.001 has both four ply Z-twist and four ply S-twist yarn, while artifact number A309672 no.4 uses both four ply S-twist and six ply S-twist yarn.

As with similar cases in the tie cord/ankle loop section, these have been excluded from this part of the analysis so as not to double count them. Seventy-one percent (n=100) of the 141 sandals use four ply yarn in the heel loops, 16 percent (n=23) use six ply, 10 percent (n=14) use two ply, 1 percent (n=2) use eight ply, one percent (n=1) use three ply, and one percent (n=1) use single ply. The Eastern group has a higher percentage of two ply heel loops, but otherwise is relatively similar to the Western and sandals with No

Provenience groups.

The final twist of the yarn in the heel loops is 56 percent (n=79) Z-twist, 43 percent

(n=60) S-twist, 0.5 percent braided, and 0.5 percent other (an unprocessed and un-spun piece of plant material). Proportions of S versus Z-twist yarn in the heel loops is similar across the three areas, with the exception that braided and un-spun fibers can only be found in the Eastern group (one of each). Excluding the yarns classified as other (due to their low number), the difference in these proportions is not statistically significantly

(Χ²=.315, df=2, N=139, p=.854).

137 Table 7.10. Type of heel loop used in sandals by area. No Total Provenience Western Area Eastern Area Assemblage Heel Loop Type n % n % n % n % Knotted 1 6 8 22 6 21 15 18 Solid 4 23 20 54 19 68 43 53 Combination 12 71 9 24 3 11 24 29 Total 17 37 28 82 100

100 Heel Loop Type Knotted 0 Continuous Combination 80 70 60

50 Percent 40 30 20

10 0 No Provenience Western Area Eastern Area (n17) (n37) (n28)

Figure 7.12. Percentage of sandals with differing heel loop types by area.

Decoration

Unlike the preceding Basketmaker types, Puebloan pointed/rounded-toe sandals are not decorated through either weaving technique or application of paint or dyes, with a single possible exception. Specimen 73.021.003.001 had a two ply Z-spun S-twist piece of yarn that was burgundy in color. The yarn appeared to be yucca that had been dyed or dry rubbed with a colorant and was only very loosely tied around the toe loop.

138 Radiographic Analysis

Forty-three sandals were examined using soft X-ray radiography to help in identifying construction techniques. Eighty-one percent (n=35) are from the Western group and

19 percent (n=8) are from the Eastern. More specifically, 35 are from Antelope Cave,

Arizona, six are from Turkey House, Arizona, one is from an unknown site in the canyons of the Colorado in southeastern Utah, and one is from an unknown site somewhere in the four corners region (most likely from Tsegi Canyon).

Arrangement of Warps

The use of soft X-ray radiography allows the analyst to observe internal construction elements hidden on the inside of the sandal body. One of the primary issues this technique shed light on was the arrangement of warps within pointed/rounded- toe sandals. Most descriptions by previous researchers fail to discuss the internal arrangement of warps or have postulated differing patterns (Kidder and Guernsey 1919;

Kankainen 1995). Kidder and Guernsey (1919:103) suggest that the four or six warp sandals were made by, “looping either two or three cords, the open ends of the loops being at the heel, the closed ends forming the toe.” However, radiographic analysis of

38 four warp sandals suggested that the inner warp was not looped, folded, wrapped, or tied to the outer warp; but may instead be spliced at the toe with the loose ends running towards the heel (Figure 7.13). Of these 38 four warp sandals, six were fragmentary enough that the internal toe structure was partially visible (NA5507.D.97, NA5507.D.98,

NA5507.M.47, NA5507.M.100, 86.017.003-Bag 2, 5002). Technical analysis of these specimens confirmed the impression formulated from the radiographic data, in all six cases the inner warp was spliced into the outer warp (Figure 7.14 and Figure 7.15). In

139 Figure 7.13. Photograph and radiograph of four warp sandals: (a) NA5507.C.3, (b) NA5507.M.43. Radiographs suggest the two inner warps splice into the two outer warps.

Figure 7.14. Example of four warp sandal in which the warps can be seen to be spliced together at the toe (86.017.003-Bag 2).

140 Figure 7.15. Example of four warp sandal in which the warps can be seen to be spliced together at the toe (NA5507.M.100). this type of toe construction the outside and inside warps were spliced together for a short length (~1 cm or less) at the very tip of the toe area (Figure 7.16) and the loose ends of the warps were drawn down to the heel portion of the sandal. Once at the bottom, the outside warps were tied to the inside warps, usually in a simple overhand knot. The warps were most often extended beyond the heel of the sandal and incorporated into the tie system.

In contrast to the four warp construction, radiographic analysis of five six-warp sandals suggested that the outer warp was not attached at the toe to the inner four warps (Figure 7.17). While this could not be confirmed through technical analysis of any of the six warp sandals that were radiographed (as the warps were not exposed), it was confirmed for at least one non-radiographed six warp sandal (23-7-10/A5659)

(Figure 7.18a). In this second type of toe construction (categorized as non-splicing) the outermost warp at the toe is not directly connected to the inside warp by splicing, but instead, it appears that the warps were held together by being wrapped by the weft

141 Figure 7.16. Reconstruction of warp layout for a four-warp pointed- or rounded-toe san- dal. Inset shows the toe splice in which the inner strand passes between the plies of the outer strand. Length of splice exaggerated to show technique.

(although this remains supposition as the toe area for the three sandals classified as non- splicing were damaged in a way to prevent physical confirmation).

Other methods of toe construction besides splicing and non-splicing are certainly possible, with one example being sandal 959. This specimen had five warps, but despite much examination, the wefts were too tightly packed to determine exactly how they were arranged. Ten sandals also had a very rounded, almost rectangular, toe shape. In these specimens it appeared that the weft began by vertically wrapping the outside warp(s) a

142 Figure 7.17. Photograph and radiograph of six warp sandals: (a) NA5507.M.105, (b) NA5507.D.53. Radiographs suggest the inner warps are not spliced into the outer warps.

Figure 7.18. Examples of six and four warp sandals in which the warps are not spliced at the toe: (a) six warp sandal no. 23-7-10-A5659, (b) four warp sandal no. 14-5-10-A1496, (c) four warp sandal no. 16-9-10-A3266.

143 number of times, before the horizontal plain weaving proceeded. This was not able to be conclusively determined, however, as there were only a small number of sandals in the assemblage that had this characteristic, all of which had very tightly packed wefts (Figure

7.19).

Warp Ply and Twist

In four of the sandals examined there were no exposed warps, however, radiographic analysis allowed for the observation of the warp’s ply and final twist direction.

Sandal number 86.017.003-Bag 2 is an excellent example in which the construction characteristics of the warps can be clearly seen through soft X-ray radiography. Based on the radiograph this specimen was classified as having 2 ply S-spun Z-twist warps (Figure

7.20).

Tie System

In addition to making visible previously hidden construction characteristics, soft

X-ray radiography also allowed for the analysis of features once present but now missing.

Virtually all sandals must have at one time employed some type of tie system to hold the sandal to the foot. Due to their fragile nature however, many artifacts are found with incomplete tie systems, or none at all. Although individual elements of the tie system may break off from the sandal, the break usually occurs outside of the body of the artifact, which can leave anchor points still attached within the specimen. These anchor points create dense spots within the sandal that show up clearly on a radiograph (like those seen in Figures 7.13 and 7.17). By comparing radiographs of sandals that have retained their tie systems against those that have not, it is possible to determine the type of tie system that was present at one time, but is now absent.

144 Figure 7.19. Examples of sandals with extremely rounded to rectangular toe silhouettes: (a) NA5507.M.101, (b) A309671 no.2, (c) A309671 no.1, (d) 959, (e) 73.021.003.001, (f) A312408.

145 Figure 7.20. Radiograph of four warp sandal (86.017.003-Bag 2). Inset shows ply and twist direction of the warp. Note that the ‘Z’ reference point above the scale is reversed, meaning that although the warp appears to be 2 ply S-twist it is actually 2 ply Z-twist.

Only two of the sandals that were radiographed had no remnants of their tie systems remaining on the surface (NA5507.D.98 and 5002). Both were determined to have toe- heel tie systems based on the areas in the radiographs near the toe that were much lighter in color, showing an increase in density. These areas are precisely where one would expect to see such an increase, as it is where the toe loops are tied to the warps in toe-heel tie systems.

Microscopic Fiber Identification

A total of 103 specimens were examined using transmission light microscopy, of which five were too degraded to classify. From the Western area, 63 sandals were

146 analyzed of which 89 percent (n=56) were made of broadleaf yucca and only 11 percent

(n=7) were made of narrowleaf. This is in contrast from the Eastern area, where 35 sandals were analyzed of which only 46 percent (n=16) were made of broadleaf and

54 percent (n=19) were made from narrowleaf yucca (Table 7.11; Figure 7.21). The difference in proportions of yucca type used in sandal construction between the two areas is highly significant and has a moderate association (Χ²=21.517, df=1, N=98, p<.001, V=.469). These findings are heavily influenced by a single site (Antelope

Cave), however, and actual use may be much more balanced than the raw percentages suggest. Forty-nine specimens analyzed for fiber identification from theWestern area were provenienced to Antelope Cave, 46 of which were broadleaf yucca and three of which were narrowleaf yucca. This could show a preference for broadleaf yucca in construction, or it may have been due to a lack of narrowleaf yucca in the immediate vicinity of the site.

Broadleaf and narrowleaf yuccas can currently be found throughout the study area

(United States Department of Agriculture 2008), although relatively homogenous pockets of one type or the other do exist. It is possible that in the past Antelope Cave existed in one of these homogenous pockets in which broadleaf yucca dominated. If the prehistoric inhabitants of the site used local and expedient materials, broadleaf yucca may be disproportionately represented. Excluding Antelope Cave from the analysis changed the proportions of sandal material in the Western area to 71 percent broadleaf and 29 percent narrowleaf. But with only 14 specimens remaining in the Western area after the removal of the Antelope Cave sample, any conclusions made for this area are tentative. In the

Eastern area 54 percent (n=19) of the samples were narrowleaf and 46 percent (n=16)

147 Table 7.11. Type of yucca used in sandals by area. Total Western Area Eastern Area Assemblage Material Type n % n % n % Broadleaf Yucca 56 89 16 46 72 73 Narrowleaf Yucca 7 11 19 54 26 27 Total 63 35 98 100

100 Yucca Types Broadleaf 0 Narrowleaf 80 70 60

50 Percent 40 30 20

10 0 Western Area Eastern Area (n63) (n35)

Figure 7.21. Percentage of sandals made from broadleaf or narrowleaf yucca by area.

were broadleaf. Based on the data from both areas, it appears likely that individual

sandal makers were using whatever raw materials happened to be closest at hand, and

were not choosing a specific type of yucca for any other reason than expedience.

Five sandals contained materials other than yucca. Sandal NA5507.C.32 had a small

leather strip incorporated into the tie system, while sandals 1027, 1028, 33-62-10/1827,

and the heel portion of sandal 21-6-10/A5320 all had turkey feather cordage incorporated

into some part of the sandal (Figure 7.22).

148 Figure 7.22. Examples of sandals with turkey feather cordage: a) 1027, b) 1028.

Spatial Analysis

Sandals and their individual attributes were mapped and their distributions visually and statistically analyzed for patterning. The distribution of the sandals, combined with the culture history of the region, suggested that there were two major clusters based on geographic location: a Western group and an Eastern group (Figure 7.23). In addition, sandals with no provenience that could not be mapped were grouped into their own separate category. The validity of this three part separation was tested using a number of different statistical measures.

Statistical Analysis of Geographic Distribution

First, because the Eastern area covers a region traditionally assigned to two Anasazi sub-groups (Kayenta and Mesa Verde), a Mann-Whitney U test was used to determine the

149 Western Area Eastern Area

20 19 21 2 ST GEORGE 1

1 222 1 1 1 2 9 10 2 1 2 11 1 29 2 2 12

Figure 7.23. Sites and localities with pointed- or rounded-toe sandals included in this anal- ysis: (1) Noschaw Cave, (2) Cave Town Ruin, Chilchintaboko, Gourd Cave, (3) Cave 1, (4) Calamity Cave, (5)Turkey House, (6) Tsegi Canyon, (7) Betatakin Ruin, (8) Cave-Yellow Head Canyon, (9) Ruin 2, (10) Olla House, (11) Kayenta Area, Baby Mummy Cave, (12) Chinle Canyon, (13) Pocket Cave, (14) Zele Cave, (15) Waterfall Ruin, (16) Cave 2, (17) Pon- cho House, (18) Cottonwood Wash, (19) Blanding Area, (20) Dry Wash Cave, (21) Canyons of the Colorado, (22) Kanab Area, (23) Cottonwood Canyon, (24) Cave-Heaton’s Ranch, (25)Virgin Area, (26) Antelope Cave, (27) 42WS4, (28) Salt Caves, (29) Lost City Area.

probability that eight sandals from near Blanding, Utah and five sandals from the canyons of the Colorado, were part of the same population as the 55 sandals from the Kayenta area. Comparing seventeen variables (excluding those with samples sizes of below 5) between sandals from the Kayenta area and those from the Blanding area resulted in only one statistically significant relationship at the .05 level: warp twist (Table 7.12).

Comparing ten of those same variables between sandals from the Kayenta area and those from the canyons of the Colorado also resulted in only one statistically significant relationship at the .05 level: material type (Table 7.13). As only a small number of

150 Table 7.12. Results of Mann-Whitney U Test demonstrating the likelihood that sandals from the Kayenta and Blanding areas are part of the same statistical population. Variable Mann-Whitney U P Value Length 62.0 0.626 Toe Width 84.5 0.699 Midsection Width 153.5 0.662 Heel Width 49.5 0.531 Toe Silhouette Percentage 64.5 0.320 Weft Density 187.0 0.974 Number of Warps 170.5 0.271 Warp Twist 86.0 <.001 Helix Angle 97.5 0.930 Knot Type * * Toe Construction * * Body Silhouette 69.5 0.342 Tie System 153.0 0.609 Type of Toe Loop * * Number of Toe Loops 38.0 0.905 Toe Loop Ply 47.5 0.482 Toe Loop Twist 37.5 0.201 Side Loop Ply * * Side Loop Twist * * Tie Cord/Ankle Loop Ply * * Tie Cord/Ankle Loop Twist * * Type of Heel Loop 50.5 0.900 Heel Loop Ply 47.5 0.091 Heel Loop Twist 57.0 0.202 Material Type * * *test not run because variable had < 5 cases sandals were provenienced to the Blanding and canyons of the Colorado areas, and as only one variable in 17 was statistically significant between the Kayenta group and the

Blanding group, and only one in 10 between the Kayenta and canyons of the Colorado groups, it seems highly unlikely that the sandals are from separate populations and so were combined into a single Eastern category.

151 Table 7.13. Results of Mann-Whitney U Test demonstrating the likelihood that san- dals from the Kayenta and canyons of the Colorado areas are part of the same statistical population. Variable Mann-Whitney U P Value Length 53.5 0.382 Toe Width 64 0.635 Midsection Width 91.5 0.366 Heel Width * * Toe Silhouette Percentage 56 0.499 Weft Density 77.5 0.120 Number of Warps 132.5 0.947 Warp Twist 74 0.101 Helix Angle * * Knot Type * * Toe Construction * * Body Silhouette 52.5 0.635 Tie System 73 0.135 Type of Toe Loop * * Number of Toe Loops * * Toe Loop Ply * * Toe Loop Twist * * Side Loop Ply * * Side Loop Twist * * Tie Cord/Ankle Loop Ply * * Tie Cord/Ankle Loop Twist * * Type of Heel Loop * * Heel Loop Ply * * Heel Loop Twist * * Material Type 25 0.019 * test not run because variable had < 5 cases

Cluster Analysis was used to look for patterns of association within the data, that

could then be compared to the three primary geographic categories (Eastern, Western, No

Provenience). The analysis basically groups specimens together based on the similarity

of their individual characteristics. As a cluster analysis cannot be run with missing data,

a number of variables were excluded as well as all specimens classified as fragments.

152 Even after removing these cases a small amount of data (5.8 percent) was missing, and so was replaced with the mean scores of the categories from which they came. A total of 152 sandals were included in the analysis. As some variables were correlated,

Mahalanobis D² distance was used and the data standardized by converting individual values into Z-scores. The analysis was based on six ratio level variables: length, toe width, midsection width, toe silhouette percentage, weft density, and number of warps.

Four different hierarchical techniques were used (Nearest neighbor, Within-groups linkage, Furthest neighbor, and Ward’s Method). After examining the results of each technique and comparing them to one another, Ward’s Method was chosen as providing the strongest pattern.

Two primary clusters can be seen in the Ward’s Method dendrogram (Figure 7.24).

The larger of the two clusters contains 78 sandals and is heavily dominated by specimens from the Western group and sandals with No Provenience. In fact, only 5 percent (n=4) of the sandals in this cluster are provenienced to the Eastern group while 65 percent

(n=51) are provenienced to the Western group and 30 percent (n=23) are from the No

Provenience group. The slightly smaller of the two clusters (n=74) contains a more mixed assemblage, although sandals from the Eastern group dominate with 58 percent

(n=43), followed by the Western group with 38 percent (n=28), and finally sandals with

No Provenience at 3 percent (n=3). This grouping corresponds with the data presented in the technical analysis section, as well as findings from chi-square andANOVA tests, all of which suggest significant differences between sandals in the Eastern area versus those in the Western and No Provenience groups.

153 156 Turkey Cave E A-14184 Pocket Cave E 33-62-10/1825 Waterfall Ruin E A30672 no.3 Cottonwood Canyon Western 158 Turkey Cave E NA5507.C.75 Antelope Cave Western 3238 Noschaw Cave E A30672 no.2 Cottonwood Canyon Western NA5507.D.133 Antelope Cave Western 1602 Turkey Cave E 33-62-10/1827 Waterfall Ruin E NA5507.D.6 Antelope Cave Western 33-62-10/1828 Waterfall Ruin E A47 Chilchintaboko E 14-5-10/A144 Olla House E 21-6-10/A531 Cave 1 E SUU 3 Virgin Area Western 14-5-10/A1657 Waterfall Ruin E A315588 no.6 Cave-Heaton’s Ranch Western NA5507.M.43 Antelope Cave Western Pierce no.7 Virgin Area Western 5.2.53.1 Blanding Area E KM 1 Kanab Area Western 16123 ele Cave E 151 Turkey Cave E Pierce no.6 Virgin Area Western 10.44.1.1 No Provenience NO-P NA5507.C.56 Antelope Cave Western NA5507.M.7 Antelope Cave Western NA5507.M.111 Antelope Cave Western 5 Chilchintaboko E A30671 no.1 Cottonwood Canyon Western A30671 no.2 Cottonwood Canyon Western A31540 no.1 Cave-Heaton’s Ranch Western 508 Tsegi Canyon E B-44 Kanab Area Western 16121 ele Cave E Pierce no. Virgin Area Western 73.021.003.001 No Provenience NO-P 2-43-643 Canyons of the Colorado E 2-43-644 Canyons of the Colorado E 23-7-10/A5754 Turkey Cave E 14-5-10/A145 Olla House E 2085 Tsegi Canyon E 22-13-10/A5554 Waterfall Ruin E 23-7-10/A5748 Turkey Cave E NA5507.D.53 Antelope Cave Western 58 Cave Town Ruin E 2003-158-1 Virgin Area Western A315588 no.3b Cave-Heaton’s Ranch Western BP 4757 Lost City Area Western 22-13-10/A5555 Waterfall Ruin E NA2521.10 Turkey Cave E SUU Virgin Area Western A315588 no.3a Cave-Heaton’s Ranch Western A-24578-X-3 Antelope Cave Western 23-7-10/A5661 Poncho House E 2688 Gourd Cave E NA5507.M.105 Antelope Cave Western NA2521. Turkey Cave E 74.31.002 No Provenience NO-P GP11052 Turkey Cave E A30672 no.4 Cottonwood Canyon Western AR 4006 4.1 Kayenta Area E 23-7-10/A5686 Cave 2 E 22-13-10/A5554 Waterfall Ruin E A-42310 Gourd Cave E 106284.000 Chinle Canyon E 1027 Chilchintaboko E 2-43-645 Canyons of the Colorado E ECPR-8711 Dry Wash Cave E 14681 Calamity Cave E 23-7-10/A565

a Poncho House b

E c 5.2.4.1 Blanding Area E A-24578-X-2 Antelope Cave Western NA2520.10 Turkey Cave E NA5507.C.77 Antelope Cave Western 72.065.053.2 No Provenience NO-P NA2520.11 Turkey Cave E 166.5..1 Blanding Area E NA5507.M.45 Antelope Cave Western OC78 Kanab Area Western OC7 Kanab Area Western 86.017.003-Bag2 Antelope Cave Western Pierce #5 Virgin Area Western SUU 1 Virgin Area Western SUU 10 Virgin Area Western ECPR-341 No Provenience NO-P Pierce no.4 Virgin Area Western Pierce no.3 Virgin Area Western NA5507.M.104 Antelope Cave Western 73.021.003.002 No Provenience NO-P NA5507.D.7 Antelope Cave Western 72.065.054.02 No Provenience NO-P SUU 8 Virgin Area Western Pierce no.2 Virgin Area Western 8.253.1.1 No Provenience NO-P

42WS4 13608 42WS4 Western E=Eastern and NO-P=No Provenience. NA5507.C.76 Antelope Cave Western NA5507.D.178 Antelope Cave Western 10.44.2.1 No Provenience NO-P NA5507.C.74 Antelope Cave Western 72.065.055.1 No Provenience NO-P 6.T.1 No Provenience NO-P 72.065.056.001 No Provenience NO-P 2-3612 Canyons of the Colorado E Pierce no.5 Virgin Area Western HM 1 Virgin Area Western NA5507.M.101 Antelope Cave Western NA5507.M.47 Antelope Cave Western NA5507.D.132 Antelope Cave Western SUU 2 Virgin Area Western ECPR-10367 No Provenience NO-P A315588 no.1 Cave-Heaton’s Ranch Western A31540 no.2 Cave-Heaton’s Ranch Western Pierce #37 Virgin Area Western NA5507.5 Antelope Cave Western A315588 no.4 Cave-Heaton’s Ranch Western NA5507.D.8 Antelope Cave Western NA5507.C.50 Antelope Cave Western NA5507.D.52 Antelope Cave Western NA5507.D.51 Antelope Cave Western 86.017.003-Bag1 Antelope Cave Western NA5507.M. Antelope Cave Western Pierce no.1 Virgin Area Western 73.021.002.001 No Provenience NO-P NA5507.M.8 Antelope Cave Western 58 Virgin Area Western NA5507.M.6 Antelope Cave Western NA5507.C.40 Antelope Cave Western 74.31.001 No Provenience NO-P 10.44.3.1 No Provenience NO-P 80.07.042.003 No Provenience NO-P 72.065.055.2 No Provenience NO-P 5 Virgin Area Western 10.44.4.1 No Provenience NO-P 72.065.053.3 No Provenience NO-P 145336.000 Salt Cave Western A-24578-X-1 Antelope Cave Western SUU 5 Virgin Area Western A315588 no.7 Cave-Heaton’s Ranch Western 80.07.042.002 No Provenience NO-P NA5507.D.54 Antelope Cave Western NA5507.D.3 Antelope Cave Western 72.065.055.5 No Provenience NO-P NA5507.M.102 Antelope Cave Western Pierce no.8 Virgin Area Western (b) site, (c) geographic group, where Method dendrogram showing cases labeled by: (a) artifact number, Ward’s Figure 7.24. 10.44.5.1 No Provenience NO-P A315588 no.2 Cave-Heaton’s Ranch Western 6.T.2 No Provenience NO-P 8.253.2.1 No Provenience NO-P 7.014.001.001 No Provenience NO-P

154 Principle components analysis was used to analyze the relationships between ratio level data, and then condense this information into a smaller number of components with more explanatory power. I have used PCA not only to reduce the amount of data, but also to search for underlying relationships within the data set. All of the variables included in the PCA were ratio level, and the sample size was sufficiently large in that there was at least 5 times as many observations as variables (160 observations to 7 variables). A small amount of missing data was replaced with the mean. As generally advised for

PCA, Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was statistically significant (p=<.001) and the Kaiser-

Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy measured 0.8 (above the minimum recommendation of 0.6).

Based on the correlation matrix and individual components eigenvalues (and associated scree plot), I retained only two components (Tables 7.14 and 7.15). These explained 71 percent of the variance in the database and any components below these two had eigenvalues of less than one. The first component is based on correlations primarily among length and width measurements, but also includes the toe silhouette percentage

(Table 7.15). Component one, then, seems to be revealing underlying relationships based on the overall shape, outline, or dimensions of the sandals. The second component is based on correlations between the number of warps and weft density (Table 7.15). This component seems to be revealing relationships based on features within the outline of the sandal, or internal features. Plotting these components reveals that sandals in the Western and No Provenience groups cluster together in space while sandals from the Eastern area are spread throughout the scatterplot (Figure 7.25). This suggests, as do almost all other tests, that sandals in the Western and No Provenience groups share more similarities

155 Table 7.14. Correlation matrix for variables included in principle components analysis. -

Variable Length Width Toe Width Midsection Width Heel Silhouette Per Toe centage Density Weft Warps No. of Length 1 .554 .539 .469 -.402 -.146 -.025 Toe Width .554 1 .801 .672 -.462 -.273 -.179 Midsection Width .539 .801 1 .708 -.452 -.463 -.342 Heel Width .469 .672 .708 1 -.440 -.301 -.134 Toe Silhouette Percentage -.402 -.462 -.452 -.440 1 .127 .092 Weft Density -.146 -.273 -.463 -.301 .127 1 .630 No. of Warps -.025 -.179 -.342 -.134 .092 .630 1

Table 7.15. Component matrix for variables included in principle components analysis. Component Variable 1 2 Midsection Width .914 - Toe Width .860 - Heel Width .810 - Length .674 .359 Toe Silhouette Percentage -.617 - No. of Warps -.393 .811 Weft Density -.530 .721

with each other than with the Eastern Group. It also shows that the Western and No

Provenience groups are more homogenous than the Eastern group which has much more variability in sandal characteristics.

Chi-square was used to determine whether or not statistically significant differences existed between sandals from the three major geographic categories (No Provenience,

Western, Eastern) based on nominal level data. Only variables with counts of 5 or larger were examined, and Cramer’s V was used in interpreting the strength (or effect size)

156 Area 2.00000 Western Eastern No Provenience

1.00000

0.00000

-1.00000 Factor Score 1

-2.00000

-3.00000

-4.00000

-2.00000 0.00000 2.00000 4.00000 Factor Score 2

Figure 7.25. Scatterplot of factor scores for the Western, Eastern, and No Provenience groups. of the results. As the statistical analyses presented earlier in this chapter demonstrate, statistically significant differences exist between the three groups based on the number of warps, warp twist, the type of tie system, and material type variables (Table 7.16). No statistically significant differences were found for body silhouette, toe loop twist, or heel loop twist variables (Table 7.16).

One-way ANOVA was used to determine if statistically significant differences exist between sandals from the three geographic groups based on ratio level variables. When sample size for individual areas was less than 30, the Kolmogorov-Smirnoff test and the

157 Table 7.16. Results of Chi-square test between listed variable and geographic group (Eastern, Western, and No Provenience). Variable X² df N p V Number of Warps 36.528 2 220 <0.001 0.407 Warp Twist 17.676 2 224 <0.001 0.281 Body Silhouette 3.914 2 132 0.141 Type of Tie System 20.803 2 201 <0.001 0.322 Toe Loop Twist 2.19 2 150 0.335 Heel Loop Twist 0.315 2 139 0.854 Material Type 21.517 1 98 <0.001 0.469

Shapiro-Wilk test were employed to ensure normality. Levene’s test for homogeneity was used to ensure the variance in populations was approximately equal. The tests show that there are statistically significant differences between the geographic sandal groups based on weft density, toe silhouette percentage, length, toe width, midsection width, and heel width (Table 7.17). No statistically significant relationships were found between groups based on warp diameter (Table 7.17). Tukey’s HSD post hoc test was used to determine what the relationships between the variables and the individual geographic groups were. The results showed that a statistically significant differences existed between the Eastern group and other two groups (Western and No Provenience) for all of the variables tested (weft density, toe silhouette percentage, length, toe width, midsection width, and heel width) (Table 7.18). Between the Western and No Provenience groups, statistically significant differences existed only for the toe silhouette percentage and midsection width variables (Table 7.18). These results strengthen many other indicators which suggest a significant difference between the Eastern and other groups, and the similarities between the Western and No Provenience groups.

158 Table 7.17. Results of One-way ANOVA between listed variable and geographic group (Eastern, Western, and No Provenience). Variable f df p ETA² Warp Diameter 2.846 2 and 192 0.061 Weft Density 18.367 2 and 212 <.001 0.15 Toe Silhouette Percentage 10.058 2 and 150 <.001 0.12 Length 7.872 2 and 141 0.001 0.1 Toe Width 57.182 2 and 162 <0.001 0.41 Midsection Width 77.089 2 and 181 <0.001 0.46 Heel Width 28.445 2 and 121 <0.001 0.032

Table 7.18. Probability values from Tukey’s HSD post hoc test for listed variables by geographic group (Eastern, Western, and No Provenience). Western Eastern No Provenience Variable p p p Weft Density <0.001 <0.001 Toe Silhouette Percentage 0.042 <0.001 Length 0.001 0.005 Toe Width <0.001 <0.001 Eastern Midsection Width <0.001 <0.001 Heel Width <0.001 <0.001

Weft Density <0.001 - Toe Silhouette Percentage 0.042 0.012 Length 0.001 - Toe Width <0.001 - Western Western Midsection Width <0.001 0.05 Heel Width <0.001 -

Weft Density - <0.001 Toe Silhouette Percentage 0.012 <0.001 Length - 0.005 Toe Width - <0.001 Midsection Width 0.05 <0.001 No Provenience No Provenience Heel Width - <0.001

159 Analysis of Geographic Distribution

Sandals and their individual attributes were mapped and their distributions analyzed for patterning. Fifty-six percent (n=127) of pointed/rounded-toe sandals are found in the Western area, 30 percent (n=68) in the Eastern area, and 14 percent (n=31) have

No Provenience. This distribution is heavily influenced by the history of research in the region. While the Western area has a larger number of sandals, 68 of the 127 come from a single site: Antelope Cave, Arizona. If we remove Antelope Cave from the analysis, the numbers are reduced to 59 specimens from the Western area and 68 from the Eastern area, a much more equal distribution. If we go further and reduce the data to simple presence or absence of this type of sandal at a site, the Eastern area has 24 sites or localities while the Western area has only 8, a ratio of three to one (Figure 7.23).

Although it should be remembered that the Four-Corners region has seen a large amount of formal archaeological investigation, while northwestern Arizona has not.

What is much more clear, based on Figure 7.23, is that plain weave pointed/rounded- toe sandals are concentrated in the areas that have been traditionally associated with the

Virgin and Kayenta Anasazi. A minor 4 percent (n=8) of the sandals in the assemblage are definitively associated with the Mesa Verde area (with the possible addition of another

2 percent depending on how 5 sandals from the canyons of the Colorado are classified), and no plain weave pointed/rounded-toe sandals have been found in the Chaco or Rio

Grande regions.

Mapping the distribution of the number of warps shows that the Western area is dominated by four warp sandals (89 percent) while the Eastern area has a much small percentage of four warps (55 percent) and a much greater proportion of six warp (43

160 percent) (Table 7.2; Figure 7.2 and 7.26). The difference between the geographic groups has been shown to be statistically significant (Table 7.16). Mapping the distribution of the final twist direction of warps is interesting, in that it may show a trend not seen in the technical analysis (Figure 7.27). Sandals with warps having a final S-twist direction are found in the extreme eastern and northern portion of the study area. A chi-square test has already shown that the difference in proportion of final twist direction between the three groups is statistically significant (Table 7.16), but Figure 7.27 shows that there may be a additional pattern within the Eastern area. Sandals from sites in Tsegi Canyon proper have 100 percent Z-twist warps, those from sites within 20 miles of Tsegi Canyon have 87 percent Z-twist, those from outside of the 20 mile radius (but still within the

Kayenta area) have 64 percent Z-twist, and sites from the Mesa Verde area have only

ST GEORGE

Warps 6 5 4 Figure 7.26. Percentage of four, five, and six warp sandals by site or locality.

161 ST GEORGE

Warp Twist S

Figure 7.27. Percentage of warps with final S or Z twist direction by site or locality.

25 percent Z-twist warps. Such differences may reflect separate learning pools, but the small number of sandals from the Mesa Verde area and Lukachukai Mountains prohibits drawing conclusions until further data is obtained.

Twelve sandals have an extremely rounded to rectangular toe shape (958, 16121,

20985, Pierce no.9, NA2520.11a, NA5507.M.101, 73.021.003.001, A309671 no.1,

A309671 no.2, A309672.4, A312408, and 1598). One of these sandals has no provenience and so cannot be mapped, but of the others, five are located in theWestern area and six in the Eastern area (Figure 7.28).

Weft density varies by geographic area with the Eastern area generally having smaller, more tightly packed wefts than the Western and No Provenience groups (Table

7.4; Figure 7.5). These differences have been shown to be statistically significant (Table

162 ST GEORGE

Figure 7.28. Location of sandals with an extremely rounded to rectangular toe shape.

7.17 and 7.18). Due to the large sample size, visually assessing the distribution of weft density for 226 individual artifacts would be confusing, so instead only the ten most extreme cases on opposite ends of the spectrum were plotted (Figure 7.29). As is clearly apparent, eight of the ten lowest weft densities are in the Western area and eight of the ten highest weft densities are in the Eastern area.

The type of toe construction could only be positively identified for 16 sandals with provenience information. Although spliced toe construction was found in the Virgin,

Kayenta, and Mesa Verde areas, non-spliced construction was found only in the Kayenta region (Figure 7.30).

The differences in toe silhouette percentage between areas has been shown to be statistically significant (Table 7.17 and 7.18), with the Eastern area having a higher

163 ST GEORGE

Weft Density High Low Figure 7.29. Location of 20 sandals with the highest and lowest weft densities.

ST GEORGE

Toe Construction Spliced Non-Splicing

Figure 7.30. Location of sandals with splicing and non-splicing toe construction.

164 proportion of sandals with more ‘rounded’ toes while the Western area has a higher proportion of more ‘pointed’ toes (Figure 7.7 and 7.9; Table 7.6). This is reinforced by a visual mapping of the data as seen in Figure 7.31 which plots the location of sandals with the ten lowest and ten highest toe silhouette percentages. Only one of the ten lowest percentages is found in the Eastern area, and only four of the highest percentages are found in the Western area.

A one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD post hoc test has shown statistically significant differences between the Eastern and Western groups in regards to length and width (toe, midsection, and heel) (Table 7.17 and 7.18), with sandals in the Western group being larger (Figure 7.9 and 7.12; Table 7.7). Visually assessing the distribution of the ten lowest and highest cases for length and width (toe, midsection, and heel) offer support for

ST GEORGE

Toe Silhouette Percentage High (rounded) Low (pointed)

Figure 7.31. Location of 20 sandals with the highest and lowest toe silhouette percentages.

165 the statistically findings, with nine of the ten longest sandals located in theWestern area, ten of the ten sandals with the widest toe width, ten of the ten sandals with the widest midsection width, and ten of the ten sandals with the widest heel width, all located in the

Western area (Figure 7.32 and 7.33).

Although the toe-heel tie system is dominant in both areas, the Eastern area has a much higher proportion of side-loop types than does the Western area (Table 7.8). This difference has been shown to be statistically significant (Table 7.16). Visual analysis of the distribution of the types of tie systems reinforces the statistical findings, in that the vast majority of sites with side-loop tie systems are found in the Eastern area, although there does not seem to be any smaller scale patterning within the geographic region

(Figure 7.34).

ST GEORGE

Length High Low

Figure 7.32. Location of 20 sandals with the largest and smallest lengths.

166 ST GEORGE

Toe Width High Low a

ST GEORGE

Midsection Width High Low b

ST GEORGE

Heel Width High Low c Figure 7.33. Location of 20 sandals with the largest and smallest widths: (a) toe width, (b) midsection width, (c) heel width.

167 ST GEORGE

Tie System Side-Loop Toe-Heel

Figure 7.34. Percentage of sandals with side-loop or toe-heel tie systems by site or locality.

The type of toe loop, number of toe loops, ply of toe loops, side loop ply, side loop twist, tie cord/ankle loop ply, tie cord/ankle loop twist, and heel loop ply, all had numbers too low to perform statistical tests analyzing geographic distribution. The differences between the geographic areas in the final twist of toe loops and heel loops were not found to be statistically significant. All of these attributes were mapped and visually analyzed, however, but showed no additional patterning.

AMS Radiocarbon Dating

Twenty-two sandals from fourteen different sites or localities were submitted for

AMS radiocarbon dating (Table 7.19). Sample selection was structured primarily

168 789 789 792 837 667 710 725 774 773 776 860 862 879 887 890 932 939 1003 1085 1086 1091 1093 1093 Midpoint Sigma* A.D. 711-866 A.D. 714-863 A.D. 715-868 A.D. 779-894 A.D. 646-688 A.D. 655-765 A.D. 674-776 A.D. 688-860 A.D. 689-856 A.D. 692-860 A.D. 780-939 A.D. 782-942 A.D. 772-985 A.D. 813-961 A.D. 813-966 A.D. 894-970 A.D. 888-989 A.D. 972-1034 A.D. 1020-1150 A.D. 1021-1151 A.D. 1030-1151 A.D. 1032-1153 A.D. 1032-1153 Calibrated range-1 Sigma* A.D. 690-881 A.D. 688-885 A.D. 771-971 A.D. 631-771 A.D. 649-772 A.D. 660-869 A.D. 662-894 A.D. 683-878 A.D. 680-885 A.D. 687-883 A.D. 772-978 A.D. 776-971 A.D. 778-973 A.D. 775-985 A.D. 868-993 A.D. 895-1124 A.D. 998-1158 A.D. 999-1159 A.D. 660-1032 A.D. 809-1019 A.D. 1025-1155 A.D. 1020-1167 A.D. 1019-1178 Calibrated range- 2 971 ± 35 968 ± 35 948 ± 26 943 ± 35 942 ± 38 1324 ±38 1119 ± 28 1119 ± 50 1110 1174 ± 38 1174 1166 ± 39 1166 1162 ± 36 1162 1156 ± 37 1156 1154 ± 43 1154 1230 ± 28 1228 ± 36 1347 ± 37 1273 ± 48 1242 ± 56 1241 ± 36 1237 ± 42 1231 ± 36 1028 ± 41 1160 ± 100 1160 Radiocarbon Age Radiocarbon Cave-Heaton’s Ranch Cave-Heaton’s AZ (NA5507) Antelope Cave, Canyons of the Colorado Tsegi Canyon Tsegi Dry Wash Cave Wash Dry Cottonwood Canyon Canyons of the Colorado Area Lost City AZ (NA5507) Antelope Cave, AZ (NA5507) Antelope Cave, 42WS4 Waterfall Ruin (NA2676) Waterfall Provenience Antelope Cave, AZ (NA5507) Antelope Cave, Cave-Heaton’s Ranch Cave-Heaton’s Zele Cave Cottonwood Canyon AZ (NA5507) Antelope Cave, Cave (NA2520) Turkey Poncho House (NA2660) Ruin (NA2676) Waterfall Cave (NA2520) Turkey Olla House (NA4169) Zele Cave Table 7.19. AMS radiocarbon dates from plain weave pointed- or rounded-toe sandals. 7.19. Table A315588.3a NA5507.C.77 29-43-643 508 ECPR-8711 A309672.3 29-43-644 4757 BP NA5507.M.110 NA5507.C.56 42WS4-13608A A5555 Artifact No. Unknown A315588.7 16123 A309671.1 NA5507.M.104 1591 A5661 1825 1603 A1494 16121 AA83833 AA80802 AA83182 AA83186 AA82453 AA83832 AA83183 AA83423 AA80803 AA80801 AA81544 AA81935 Sample No. A-3511** AA83834 AA83184 AA83831 Beta-229134 AA82555 AA81938 AA81937 AA82556 AA81936 AA83185 * Probability for both 1 and 2 sigma is ≥ 95% **Date from Janetski and Hall 1983

169 by which museums would allow destructive analysis, however, within that structure artifacts were selected based on a combination of their geographic location, integrity of provenience, and physical characteristics. All of the samples were of yucca and were extracted from the body of the sandal or tie system. The dates range from as early as

A.D. 631 to as late as A.D. 1178. Although the dates span this entire period, based on their probability distributions, they generally cluster into three temporal groups: Early

(~A.D. 650-825), Middle (~A.D. 825-1000), and Late (~A.D. 1000-1150) (Figure 7.35).

These clusters are not specific, unchanging chronologic periods, but are general temporal groupings.

Figure 7.35. Probability distributions of radiocarbon dates created from the Calib radiocarbon calibration program.

170 ST GEORGE

Time Period Late Mid Early Figure 7.36. AMS radiocarbon dates on plain weave pointed- or rounded-toe sandals.

When these dates are mapped, an interesting pattern takes shape. Plain weave pointed/rounded-toe sandals from the early period are found almost exclusively in the Western area (with two exceptions), those from the middle period are distributed throughout the region, and sandals dating to the late period are found exclusively in the

Eastern area (Figure 7.36). The two early dates from the east are provenienced to Dry

Wash Cave near Blanding and the canyons of the Colorado, both in southeast Utah. The implications of these dates are discussed in more detail in Chapter 8.

Experimental Reconstruction

Unlike some other sandal types, to the best of my knowledge none of the plain weave pointed/rounded-toe variety have been found unfinished (partially completed), with the

171 possible exception of specimen 33-62-1-1895 from Waterfall Ruin, Arizona. This has made understanding their construction process even more difficult. Three construction- related questions were addressed through the use of experimental archaeology: 1) was a loom or stationary object required for the weaving process? 2) do splicing warps at the toe require greater effort or time than simply looping or tying them? 3) are there any technical advantages to an alternating weft spin direction? As outlined in Chapter

6, two practice sandals and then two replicas were constructed using processed hemp fibers. Each of the sandals were plain woven, had four warps, a pointed-toe, a toe-heel tie system, and were generally the same length and width as the authentic sandals in the collection.

This process provided a number of interesting insights into sandal construction.

One of the first insights gained revolved around the use of tension on the warps. When weaving the sandals was attempted ‘freehand,’ without the benefit of a stationary object, the warps dangled loosely, the outside warps pulled toward the center, and progress became nearly impossible. When the warps where held under tension however, the weaving process could proceed quickly. To do so, a small piece of 2 ply yarn was used to tie the warps to a stationary object at the tip of the toe. When weaving was complete, the piece of yarn holding the sandal to the stationary object was cut and then pulled out.

During the examination of sandals for the technical analysis portion of the study, three sandals were found with what appeared to be such a piece of yarn still embedded in the toe (Figure 7.37). These three specimens offer support for weaving performed with the warps under tension. To be under tension the warps had to be pulled at the other end, which was accomplished by tying the warp ends to an anchor on the ground, although

172 Figure 7.37. Sandals with the remains of cordage at the tip of the toe, possibly used in the construction process to keep the warps under tension: (a) 33-62-10/1895, (b) 33-62-10/1827, (c) 23-7-10/A5661.

something more flexible like a belt attached to a back strap could also have been used.

During replication I also used two small sticks inserted between the outside warps to help keep them taut and separated, which greatly increased the ease of passing the weft over and under the warps. Such a practice would leave no archaeological trace, however, making it difficult to confirm through the material record.

To determine if splicing the warps at the toe required greater effort or time than simply looping or tying them, three sandals were made by splicing and one was made by looping. Although looping required no effort or time (essentially placing two pieces of plied yarn perpendicular to one another and then pulling the ends toward the heel of the

173 sandal), splicing warps together required almost no additional effort or time (roughly 30 seconds).

To determine whether there was any technical advantage to an alternating S and

Z-spun weft (of which 96 percent of the sandals in the assemblage used), I constructed three of the sandals using this alternating weft and one of the sandals with only a Z-spun weft. Surprisingly, changing the direction the weft was spun as it wraps around the outside warp made the weft curl slightly upwards, in that it seemed to bind tighter around the warp. The same effect was not noticed when the weft was spun in only one direction.

Although there may be other reasons why the weft was spun in alternating directions, this seems a likely possibility.

Summary

Technical, statistical, and geographic based analyses suggest that at a general scale, plain weave pointed/rounded-toe sandals are highly similar, and share all basic characteristics across space and through time. However, at a smaller scale of analysis, statistically significant differences in the geographic distribution of proportions of sandal attributes suggest that two sub-groups can be recognized: an Eastern and a Western group. Chi square, one-way ANOVA, cluster analysis, and PCA all indicate that the majority of sandals from the No Provenience group are highly similar to those from the

Western area, and likely belong to the same population. Further, the same tests show that statistically significant differences exist between the Eastern and Western groups, and that at the small scale sandals from the two areas likely do not belong to the same population.

Radiocarbon dating of 22 specimens indicate that this type of sandal was in use from

174 approximately A.D. 650 to 1150, with three general temporal periods present. During the early period (A.D. 650-825) plain weave pointed/rounded-toe sandals appear primarily in the Western area, during the middle period (A.D. 825-1000) they extend into both areas, and during the late period (A.D. 1000-1150) they are found exclusively in the Eastern area. The implications of the above findings are discussed in the next chapter.

Experimental reconstruction of this sandal type suggests that they were likely woven with the aid of a stationary object, that splicing of warps at the toe of the sandal was no more difficult or time intensive then simply looping or tying of warps, and that using an alternating S and Z-spun weft may have offered a slight technological advantage over a yarn spun in a single direction.

175 Chapter 8

Discussion

The previous chapter presented the results of a number of analyses that documented how plain weave pointed/rounded-toe sandals were constructed, their spatial and temporal distribution, and the similarities and differences in sandal attributes between two geographic regions (West versus East). This chapter synthesizes the results and discusses what these findings mean in the context of the prehistoric Pueblo world. I find that the general similarity of plain weave pointed/rounded-toe sandals indicate that a broad overarching community of practice encompassed the making of this sandal type, and that this community likely had its origins in the Western Basketmaker culture. The introduction of the plain weave pointed/rounded-toe sandal may be associated with the intensification of ceramics at the cost of high investment basketry, including twined sandals.

Subtle differences in the distribution and proportions of sandal attributes also suggest that two smaller sandal making communities of practice, within the larger overarching one, existed in the Western and Eastern areas. The Western community is characterized by a high degree of homogeneity in its plain weave pointed/rounded-toe sandals, while the Eastern community is slightly more heterogeneous and has a larger amount of variance in sandal attributes. These findings have implications for how Anasazi groups interacted with one another and with neighboring populations.

176 An Overarching Community of Practice

At the beginning of the dissertation, a number of sandal elements were recognized as likely candidates for relaying subconscious technological choices (passive style) that could be used to indicate communities of practice. In explaining the concept behind community of practice, Wenger states:

Being alive means that we are constantly engaged in the pursuit of enterprises of all kinds, from ensuring our physical survival to seeking the most lofty pleasures. As we define these enterprises and engage in their pursuit together, we interact with each other and with the world and we tune our relationships with each other and with the world accordingly. In other words, we learn. Over time, this collective learning results in practices that reflect both the pursuit of our enterprises and the attendant social relations. These practices are thus the property of a kind of community created over time by the sustained pursuit of a shared enterprise. It makes sense, therefore, to call these kinds of communities communities of practice [Wenger 1998:45].

Communities of practice, then, can be understood as the knowledge, relationships, and materials that are engaged in the performance of an activity. They can take place on a number of scales, and can combine otherwise disparate groups or can divide otherwise similar populations. As Minar (2000:96) states, “Communities-of-practice can transcend cultural or “ethnic” boundaries or they can divide these larger social groupings into smaller units, depending on who is teaching whom.”

The high degree of similarity among a number of sandal elements (weave structure, the ply, twist, diameter, and helix angle of warps, knots used at end of warps, weft ply and twist, body silhouette, toe silhouette percentage, tie system, and raw material) indicate that at a broad level, a single overarching community of practice encompassed the making of plain weave pointed/rounded-toe sandals in the northern Southwest. This is not to say that differences did not exist between areas within the region, on the contrary,

177 in the next section such differences are specifically addressed. Generally, however, plain weave pointed/rounded-toe sandals show highly similar material, construction, and decoration wherever they are encountered, as reflected in the 226 sandals from this study.

Material

All sandals from both the Western and Eastern areas were constructed of yucca fibers, even though many other options existed, such as the tule or leather used in some neighboring regions). When the sandals from Antelope Cave are removed from the analysis (due to their skewing effect discussed in Chapter 7), 71 percent (n=10) of the sandals from the Western group were made of broadleaf yucca and 29 percent (n=4) were made of narrowleaf yucca. This contrasts somewhat with the percentages from the

Eastern group of 46 percent (n=16) broadleaf and 54 percent narrowleaf (n=19), but the greater sample size of the Eastern group (East n=35, West n=14) suggests that the Eastern percentage is more likely representative of the true proportion used. Only five sandals used any material other than yucca, and in each case the alternate material was either used in the tie system or to repair a breach in the body of the sandal.

Construction

With one exception (sandal 959) all sandals in which the total number of warps could be identified were made with either four or six warps. Ninety-eight percent (n=222) of the sandals had 2 ply warps, and of those for which the helix angle could be identified,

96 percent (n=149) had a tight angle. Mean warp diameter for the assemblage was 0.38 cm, with a standard deviation of only 0.08, and a one-way analysis of variance found that there was no statistically significant difference between geographic areas in respect to warp diameter (f=2.846, df=2 and 192, p=.061). In both the Western and Eastern

178 areas most warps had a final Z-twist direction (Western=94 percent, Eastern=75 percent).

For sandals in which the way the warps were tied off at the heel could be identified, 95 percent (n=37) in the Western area used Overhand Type 1 knots and 75 percent (n=12) in the Eastern area. The wefts in both areas were single ply and made of processed yucca fibers that were drawn together and twisted in an alternating S and Z direction for 96 percent (n=218) of the assemblage. The yucca used in the warps and tie systems was relatively highly processed, making a fine, pliable yarn. The yucca used in the weft of the sandals was usually less processed and somewhat rougher in general (although exceptions occur), leading Kankainen (1995) to refer to the weft in this type of sandal as being made of, “shredded yucca.”

Of the 132 sandals for which body silhouette could be classified, 60 percent (n=79) were uniform in shape and 40 percent (n=53) were shaped for either the left or right foot.

A Chi-square test of independence showed that there were no statistically significant differences between the geographic areas based on body silhouette (Χ²=3.914, df=2,

N=132, p=.141). The distribution of the toe silhouette percentage (which quantifies the degree of ‘pointedness’ or ‘roundedness’ of a sandal toe silhouette) for the entire assemblage was relatively normal and demonstrated that ‘pointed’ and ‘rounded’ toe sandals could be found in both Western and Eastern areas. The primary type of tie system used throughout the region was the toe-heel type (91 percent, n=183), which was used in 96 percent (n=105) of the sandals from the Western area and 77 percent (n=48) from the Eastern area. Although represented in smaller proportions, the side-loop tie system is also found in both the Western and Eastern areas.

179 Decoration

With only one possible exception, none of the plain weave pointed/rounded-toe sandals from either geographic region were decorated, either through weaving technique or application of paint or dyes. The single exception is sandal 73.021.003.001, which had a small two ply z-spun S-twist piece of burgundy colored yarn that had been dyed with a colorant and was loosely tied around the toe loop.

The Community And Its Origins

The point of the above review is to demonstrate the broad similarities among plain weave pointed/rounded-toe sandals throughout the vast geographic expanse of the

Anasazi region. The materials used, the overall method of construction, individual attributes, and the lack of decoration all stand in stark contrast to the sandal types which chronological proceed and come after plain weave pointed/rounded-toe sandals, as well as footgear from neighboring area (Morss 1931; Wheeler 1942; Martin et al. 1952;

Morris and Burgh 1954). The similarity in sandal attributes most likely to reflect passive style, indicate that across the region, the construction of plain weave pointed/rounded- toe sandals was guided through a shared mental template. This template was part of a large overarching community of practice (or learning pool), in which members taught one another how this type of sandal was to be constructed. A community of practice at such a large scale can be the result of a, “shared cultural history” (Pryor and Carr 1995:285).

In the case of the sandal making community of practice, this shared cultural history may have its roots in the origins of the Basketmaker cultures.

Anasazi Basketmaker origins have been debated, with some suggesting in situ

180 development, some an influx of new peoples, and some a combination of the two

(Berry 1982; Wills 1988; Matson 1991, 2006; Reed 2000a). While these populations shared many traits (thus their designation as Basketmaker), most scholars recognize a western Basketmaker variant (White Dog Cave, Lolomai, Grand Gulch) concentrated in southeastern Utah and northeastern Arizona, and an eastern variant (Durango, Los Pinos) concentrated in southwestern Colorado and northwestern New Mexico (Reed 2000a;

Matson 1991, 2006; Webster and Hays-Gilpin 1994). The differences between these two variants have been explored in burial data (Mowrer 2003, 2006), dental features (Turner

1993; Matson 2003), symmetry analysis of textile designs (Washburn and Webster 2006), habitation type and construction (Matson 1991), and basketry and textile manufacture and decoration (Webster and Hays-Gilpin 1994).

Research on the Western Basketmaker variant has focused around such areas as Cedar

Mesa, Grand Gulch, Monument Valley, Red Rock Plateau, Rainbow Plateau, Marsh Pass,

Black Mesa, Canyon de Chelly, and Kanab, Utah. All of these areas (with the exception of Kanab, Utah) are located in southeastern Utah or northeastern Arizona. One of the patterns that these groups seemed to have shared is sandal making technology.

During the Basketmaker II and III periods, sandals began to be made in the northern

Southwest that differed significantly from the previous Archaic types (Geib 2000). From roughly 500 B.C. to A.D. 400, twined square toe-square heel sandals were constructed.

These sandals were characterized by twined construction (although other techniques were often used within an individual twined specimen to a lesser degree), a square toe silhouette that often had a fringe or bolster toe, a square flat heel, a tapering rectangular body shape, and were sometimes decorated with simple geometric motifs (Deegan 1998).

181 Deegan (1998:Table 4.1, Figure 4.6) reports the distribution of these sandals as being generally restricted to central and southeastern Utah and northeastern Arizona, although specimens have also been reported from Antelope and Heaton Caves in northwestern

Arizona and Back Dog Cave in southeastern Nevada (Janetski and Hall 1983; Judd 1926;

Winslow and Blair 2003). Researchers have only a general understanding of the temporal distribution of Basketmaker twined sandals, as they are almost exclusively relatively dated. However, it appears that around A.D. 400, the square toe-square heel variant began to be replaced by the twined scalloped toe-square heel sandal (Deegan 1998).

This type shared most of the characteristics of the preceding variety, but toe construction changed to create a scalloped (concave indentation) toe silhouette. The amount of decoration and raised patterning on the body of the sandal also increased. Deegan

(1998:Table 4.2, Figure 4.10) reports these sandals as primarily occurring in northeastern

Arizona, specifically the Prayer Rock District and Canyon del Muerto.

By approximately A.D. 600, the two final twined Basketmaker sandal types appear

(Deegan 1998). The scalloped toe-puckered heel sandal continued the use of the construction method that created the scalloped-toe silhouette, as well as a tapering rectangular body shape. However, the edges of the square heel were pulled together and tied to create a ‘puckered’ three dimensional shape. Decoration, through color, motif, and patterned raised construction, all increased and often covered the entire sandal. This sandal type seemed to have the broadest geographic distribution of Basketmaker twined sandals. Although the vast majority were still to be found in southeastern Utah and northeastern Arizona, scalloped toe-puckered heel sandals have also been recovered from two locations in southwestern Colorado and one in northwestern New Mexico (Deegan

182 1998:Table 4.3, Figure 4.11). The other type during this period, the round toe-puckered heel, maintained most of the characteristics of the scalloped toe-puckered heel type, with the primary exception being the toe was shaped in a rounded form and decoration

(particularly the application of color) was somewhat less than the scalloped-puckered type. Distribution was also more restricted, with Deegan (1998:Table 4.4, Figure 4.13) reporting this type of sandal only in northeastern Arizona.

Twined sandals continued to be made through the Pueblo period (until ~A.D. 1300), although these later sandals usually had a shaped-toe and cupped heel (Deegan 1998).

Left and right foot shaping was common, and many also had a toe jog. Decoration seemed to decrease, however, and overall construction became less complex as raised sole patterning became less common (Deegan 1998; Earl Morris 1944). These twined

Pueblo Period sandals had a wide distribution, with examples being found in southern

Utah, southern Colorado, northern Arizona, and northern New Mexico (Deegan

1998:Table 4.5, Figure 4.15).

A review of the distribution of twined Basketmaker sandals shows that they are found mostly in southeastern Utah and northeastern Arizona, although a limited number are also found in areas slightly to the east and farther to the west (Figure 8.1). What is clear, is that finely made twined Basketmaker sandals are confined to the areas traditionally assigned to the Western Basketmaker groups. No twined Basketmaker sandals have been found east of the Mesa Verde area. Very little information is known about sandal styles in the Eastern Basketmaker area, but of the six sandals reported in Morris and Burgh’s

(1954) classic work on Basketmaker II sites near Durango, Colorado, four are twilled

(braided) tule sandals, one is plain weave, and one is made of tanned leather. Twilled

183 Durango

KKanabanab

KKayentaayenta

Basketmaker Twined Puebloan Plain Weave Pointed/Rounded-Toe

Figure 8.1. Distribution of finely made twined Basketmaker sandals and Puebloan plain weave pointed/rounded-toe sandals.

(braided) sandals are extremely rare from Basketmaker contexts in the Western area, as evidenced by Morris and Burgh’s statement, “No twilled sandals of this type are reported from classic BM sites” (Morris and Burgh 1954:65). Further, the use of tule as a sandal material is not seen amongst the Western Basketmaker. Finally, the plain weave and leather sandal types discussed by Morris and Burgh are also uncommon in the Western area during this time (Morris and Burgh 1954; Kidder and Guernsey 1919).

Although more research into the technological similarities of these sandals is warranted, preliminary evidence of the use of finely made twined sandals throughout southeastern Utah and northern Arizona (in contrast to sandal types found around the

Durango, Colorado area) suggests Western Basketmakers participated in a sandal making community of practice which represented a common cultural history, an increased degree of interaction within this community compared to without, and/or both. These ties

184 could have been established and maintained through marriage networks, trade relations, residential mobility, or shared ideologies (Plog 1983; Cashdan 1985; Matson 1991;

Webster and Hays-Gilpin 1994; Robins and Hays-Gilpin 2000; Haas 2006).

Plain weave pointed/rounded-toe sandals began to be constructed by the end of the

Basketmaker III period, and by early in the Pueblo I period twined sandals had become less decorated, less technologically complex (due to fewer sandals with raised sole patterning), and seemed to decrease in numbers (although later in the Pueblo period their use increased significantly) (Earl Morris 1944:240). The distribution of plain weave pointed/rounded-toe sandals generally corresponds to that of the previous Western

Basketmaker twined types (Figure 8.1). It seems likely, therefore, that the sandal making community of practice that existed in the Western Basketmaker area from approximately

500 B.C. to A.D. 700, continued into the early Pueblo period. If a community of practice can be understood as the knowledge, relationships, and materials that are engaged in the performance of an activity, than it appears that while much of the relationships remained the same, parts of the material and knowledge shifted from that focused on making twined sandals to that focused on making plain weave pointed/rounded-toe sandals.

The question logically arises, why would a community of practice retain the

‘community’ (as it were) yet change the ‘practice’? The maintenance of the community through the mechanisms discussed above (marriage networks, trade, ideology, etc.) makes sense in that these systems help groups buffer against risk during difficult times

(Plog 1983; Cashdan 1985; Smith 1988; Cordell 1997; MacDonald and Hewlett 1999).

Why the ‘practice’ of specific sandal making changed is a much more difficult question; however, one possibility may have to do with the development of ceramics.

185 Compared to other sandal types, Basketmaker twined sandals would have required a huge investment of time, energy, and materials. Highly processed yucca was spun into fine yarn to weave warps, wefts, and the tie system. In describing the tie system of an extraordinary pair of twined Basketmaker sandals from Cave du Pont, Nusbaum states:

As each tie-string is 10 or more feet long, is three-strand, and each strand is made of at least ten small two-strand cords, we get the surprising total of not less than 2 X 10 X 3 X 10 X 2 = 1200 feet of fine hair string used for the attachment of this one pair of sandals. The above figures represent a bare minimum; the twist in the strings and the “take-up” in braiding probably required the use of 20 to 30 percent more material than is recognized in the calculation [Nusbaum et al. 1922:78].

Basketmaker twined sandals are often decorated through the use of color and raised patterns created through weaving techniques. Such work has lead Hays-Gilpin to state,

“the investment of time and skill in elaborate decoration suggests that Basketmaker

III sandals also had other functions, social, ideological, aesthetic, or all three” (Hays-

Gilpin 1998:121). Webster and Hays-Gilpin (1994) have pointed out that textile and basket decoration (including twined sandals) intensifies during the Basketmaker III period. Increasing community size may have made social relations more numerous and complicated, and the elaboration of the visual arts could have been used, “not only to signal relationships and identities, but to actively negotiate the meanings of relationships among individuals, families (kin groups), households (economic groups), and communities (residence groups)” (Webster and Hays-Gilpin 1994:323).

During this same period, as textile, basketry, and sandal decoration was increasing, a major technological innovation took place. It was during the Basketmaker III period that ceramics were first widely used in the northern Southwest. The use of brown ware

186 on the Colorado Plateau stretches from roughly A.D. 200 to 600 (Reed et al. 2000). This early ware was made of materials, “that would have been easy to obtain and not very time consuming to prepare” (Reed et al. 2000:218). Construction techniques were simple, the primary shape was the seed jar, and decoration was rare. After A.D. 500, however, potters began experimenting with temper, paste recipe, the addition of slips, and by A.D.

600 gray ware was the most common ceramic on the Plateau (with white and red wares also present) (Reed et al. 2000; Wilshusen 1999a). Although these developments led to stronger, more durable ceramics, they also increased the amount of time and effort needed to prepare materials, form, finish, and decorate vessels (Reed et al. 2000).

At the same time ceramics were becoming more important to increasingly sedentary populations, basketry may have been becoming less essential as the gathering of wild resources decreased, and many of the roles of basketry (storage, cooking, transport) were subsumed by pottery (Crown and Wills 1995a, 1995b). If basketry played a significant role in the social, ideological, and/or aesthetic fabric or Basketmaker society as Webster and Hays-Gilpin (1994) suggest, then even this function must have been reduced as ceramic forms proliferated, became decorated, and took a major role in Anasazi trade, ideology, and social relations. Hoopes and Barnett (1995:4) have suggested that the

“nutritional advantages of food products made possible by the use of ceramics vessels may well have been secondary to the value of social contexts these foods helped to create.” Interestingly, Webster and Hays-Gilpin (1994:324) note that, “many of the same design elements, layouts, and symmetry categories used in Basketmaker II baskets and especially Basketmaker III baskets and textiles including sandals, appear later in pottery.”

187 It is therefore easy to imagine a direct relationship between ceramics and basketry.

As the need, time and energy investment, and social and ideological role of ceramics increased through the Basketmaker III period, the same factors decreased for basketry.

As the complexity and practice of creating finely twined sandals declined (following an overall decline in basketry production), and their social, ideological, or aesthetic role was replaced by ceramics, the large amount of effort and time needed to produce this type of sandal was no longer as worthwhile. The need for a less costly, simpler, yet still highly functional sandal may have led to the elaboration of an existing form.

Expedient, low cost (in terms of materials, time, and energy), plain weave sandals had been in use by Basketmaker populations for hundreds of years (Kidder and Guernsey

1919; Earl Morris 1944; Deegan 1998) (although few if any have been directly dated).

Individual attributes of this type of sandal were highly variable, but many were made of whole yucca leaves or leaves that had not been heavily processed. These types of sandals would have worn out quickly and have had to be replaced frequently. But, by elaborating on these early plain weave types, primarily by greater processing of both warps and wefts, a sandal that was, “considerably more flexible... than the whole-leaf sandal and must have had far greater wearing qualities” could be created (Kidder and Guernsey

1919:103). The plain weave pointed/rounded-toe sandal may have been created out of this necessity. The community of practice already in place throughout the Western

Basketmaker area was maintained, yet the sandal practices within that community evolved with the intensification and addition to an existing technology.

188 Smaller Communities of Practice

As mentioned above, communities of practice can take place on a number of scales

(Minar 2000). Having established that a large overarching sandal making community of practice was in place during both the Basketmaker and early Pueblo periods, it becomes necessary to examine the data for smaller scale patterning. Doing so indicates that two smaller communities of practice existed within the larger overarching community. These two communities are evident through the differences in proportions of sandal elements utilized by geographic area (West versus East). Although these proportions were discussed in detail in the previous chapter, key characteristics are summarized here to illustrate the differences between the two communities.

The number of warps used in sandals between the two areas differs and is statistically significant (Χ²=36.528, N=220, p<.001, V=.407), with four warp sandals characterizing

89 percent (n=110) of the sandals from the Western area and only 55 percent (n=37) from the Eastern area. The difference in the final twist of warps is statistically significant

(Χ²=17.676, N=224, p<.001, V=.281), with Z-twist warps characterizing 94 percent

(n=118) of the sandals from the Western area and 75 percent (n=50) of the sandals from the Eastern area. A one way analysis of variance shows that the difference in weft density between the two areas is statistically significant (f=18.367, p=<.001, ETA²=0.15), with the mean weft density being lower in the Western area (2.03 per cm) and higher in the

Eastern area (2.7 per cm).

The mean toe silhouette percentage is different between the two areas, with the

Western area being characterized by smaller toe silhouette percentages (mean of 31.4

189 percent) and the Eastern area by larger ones (mean of 33.6 percent). Sandals from the

Western area are therefore generally more pointed and sandals from the Eastern area are

generally more rounded. This difference between the two areas is statistically significant

(f=10.058, p=<.001, ETA²=0.12).

Differences in the length (f=7.872, p=.001, ETA²=0.10), toe width (f=57.182,

p=<.001, ETA²=0.41), midsection width (f=77.089, p=<.001, ETA²=0.46), and heel width

(f=28.445, p=<.001, ETA²=.032) are all statistically significant, with mean dimensions

from sandals in the Western area being larger than sandals in the Eastern area. Finally,

the toe-heel type of tie system is found in 96 percent (n=105) of the sandals from the

Western area and 77 percent (n=48) from the Eastern area. This difference is also

statistically significant (Χ²=20.803, N=201, p<.001, V=.322).

In addition to the characteristics discussed above, the raw counts and percentages of other attributes (type of knots used in construction, the internal arrangement of warps, and type of toe loop used in the tie system) also suggest a difference between the Western and Eastern groups, however the numbers for these variables are too low to perform formal statistical analyses.

A close inspection of the attributes of the two groups demonstrates that the differences between the areas are one of degree and not of kind. The Western group is characterized by its homogeneity, in that in almost all of the major categories an attribute being measured is dominated by approximately 90 percent of a single type and only a small amount of variance. There is a consistency in how plain weave pointed/rounded-toe sandals were created in the Western area that is not as strong as sandals from the Eastern area. This is not to say that sandals in the Eastern area were made completely differently,

190 on the contrary, a dominate attribute in one area is almost always the dominate attribute in the other. However, whereas a Western category will be dominated by a certain type by 90 to 95 percent, the same category will be dominated by the same type in around 75 percent in the Eastern area. The sandals from the Eastern area are not of a different style, but do have a greater amount of variance in how they were constructed.

A quick review of figures from Chapter 7 (reproduced here for ease of interpretation) demonstrates these differences. Figures 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 are error bar graphs in which the center markers represent the mean and the error bars represent the 95 percent confidence intervals. Although these figures show that the differences between the areas for the attributes represented are statistically significant, what is more important in the current discussion is the length of space between the error bars (which is representative of the amount of variance within each population). As can be seen in each of the figures, the

Western area is characterized by a smaller amount of variance and the Eastern group by a larger amount.

The Ward’s Method dendrogram (Figure 8.5) created through cluster analysis shows a relatively homogeneous large cluster composed of 95 percent of sandals from the Western area and No Provenience and only 5 percent from the Eastern area; and a much more heterogeneous cluster composed of 58 percent from the Eastern area, 38 percent from the Western area, and 3 percent of sandals with No Provenience. Here again, the cluster that represents the Western area is more homogenous and the cluster that represents the

Eastern area is less so. Finally, Figure 8.6 is the scatter plot created through principle components analysis. The specimens from the Western area have a relatively tight distribution (indicating their highly similar nature), whereas the Eastern group has a much

191 3.0

2.8

2.6

2.4

2.2 Weft Density (cm) Weft

2.0

1.8

No Provenience Western Area Eastern Area (n31) (n118) (n66)

Figure 8.2. Graph showing the mean weft density for sandals by area. Center markers represent the mean and error bars represent the 95% confidence intervals.

31.0

30.0

2.0

Length (cm) 28.0

27.0

26.0

No Provenience Western Area Eastern Area (n24) (n75) (n45)

Figure 8.3. Graph showing the mean length for sandals by area. Center markers repre- sent the mean and error bars represent the 95% confidence intervals.

192 13.0

12.0

11.0 a Toe Width (cm) Width Toe 10.0

.0

10.5

10.0

.5

.0 b

8.5 Midsection Width (cm) Width Midsection 8.0

7.5

10.5

10.0

.5

.0 c

8.5 Heel Width (cm) Width Heel

8.0

7.5 No Provenience Western Area Eastern Area

Figure 8.4. Graph showing the mean widths of sandals by area: (a) toe width, (b) midsec- tion width, (c) heel width. Center markers represent the mean and error bars represent the 95% confidence intervals.

193 156 Turkey Cave E A-14184 Pocket Cave E 33-62-10/1825 Waterfall Ruin E A30672 no.3 Cottonwood Canyon Western 158 Turkey Cave E NA5507.C.75 Antelope Cave Western 3238 Noschaw Cave E A30672 no.2 Cottonwood Canyon Western NA5507.D.133 Antelope Cave Western 1602 Turkey Cave E 33-62-10/1827 Waterfall Ruin E NA5507.D.6 Antelope Cave Western 33-62-10/1828 Waterfall Ruin E A47 Chilchintaboko E 14-5-10/A144 Olla House E 21-6-10/A531 Cave 1 E SUU 3 Virgin Area Western 14-5-10/A1657 Waterfall Ruin E A315588 no.6 Cave-Heaton’s Ranch Western NA5507.M.43 Antelope Cave Western Pierce no.7 Virgin Area Western 5.2.53.1 Blanding Area E KM 1 Kanab Area Western 16123 ele Cave E 151 Turkey Cave E Pierce no.6 Virgin Area Western 10.44.1.1 No Provenience NO-P NA5507.C.56 Antelope Cave Western NA5507.M.7 Antelope Cave Western NA5507.M.111 Antelope Cave Western 5 Chilchintaboko E A30671 no.1 Cottonwood Canyon Western A30671 no.2 Cottonwood Canyon Western A31540 no.1 Cave-Heaton’s Ranch Western 508 Tsegi Canyon E B-44 Kanab Area Western 16121 ele Cave E Pierce no. Virgin Area Western 73.021.003.001 No Provenience NO-P 2-43-643 Canyons of the Colorado E 2-43-644 Canyons of the Colorado E 23-7-10/A5754 Turkey Cave E 14-5-10/A145 Olla House E 2085 Tsegi Canyon E 22-13-10/A5554 Waterfall Ruin E 23-7-10/A5748 Turkey Cave E NA5507.D.53 Antelope Cave Western 58 Cave Town Ruin E 2003-158-1 Virgin Area Western A315588 no.3b Cave-Heaton’s Ranch Western BP 4757 Lost City Area Western 22-13-10/A5555 Waterfall Ruin E NA2521.10 Turkey Cave E SUU Virgin Area Western A315588 no.3a Cave-Heaton’s Ranch Western A-24578-X-3 Antelope Cave Western 23-7-10/A5661 Poncho House E 2688 Gourd Cave E NA5507.M.105 Antelope Cave Western NA2521. Turkey Cave E 74.31.002 No Provenience NO-P GP11052 Turkey Cave E A30672 no.4 Cottonwood Canyon Western AR 4006 4.1 Kayenta Area E 23-7-10/A5686 Cave 2 E 22-13-10/A5554 Waterfall Ruin E A-42310 Gourd Cave E 106284.000 Chinle Canyon E 1027 Chilchintaboko E 2-43-645 Canyons of the Colorado E ECPR-8711 Dry Wash Cave E 14681 Calamity Cave E 23-7-10/A565

a Poncho House b

E c 5.2.4.1 Blanding Area E A-24578-X-2 Antelope Cave Western NA2520.10 Turkey Cave E NA5507.C.77 Antelope Cave Western 72.065.053.2 No Provenience NO-P NA2520.11 Turkey Cave E 166.5..1 Blanding Area E NA5507.M.45 Antelope Cave Western OC78 Kanab Area Western OC7 Kanab Area Western 86.017.003-Bag2 Antelope Cave Western Pierce #5 Virgin Area Western SUU 1 Virgin Area Western SUU 10 Virgin Area Western ECPR-341 No Provenience NO-P Pierce no.4 Virgin Area Western Pierce no.3 Virgin Area Western NA5507.M.104 Antelope Cave Western

73.021.003.002 No Provenience NO-P and NO-P=No Provenience. NA5507.D.7 Antelope Cave Western 72.065.054.02 No Provenience NO-P SUU 8 Virgin Area Western Pierce no.2 Virgin Area Western 8.253.1.1 No Provenience NO-P 42WS4 13608 42WS4 Western NA5507.C.76 Antelope Cave Western NA5507.D.178 Antelope Cave Western 10.44.2.1 No Provenience NO-P NA5507.C.74 Antelope Cave Western 72.065.055.1 No Provenience NO-P 6.T.1 No Provenience NO-P 72.065.056.001 No Provenience NO-P 2-3612 Canyons of the Colorado E Pierce no.5 Virgin Area Western HM 1 Virgin Area Western NA5507.M.101 Antelope Cave Western NA5507.M.47 Antelope Cave Western NA5507.D.132 Antelope Cave Western SUU 2 Virgin Area Western ECPR-10367 No Provenience NO-P A315588 no.1 Cave-Heaton’s Ranch Western A31540 no.2 Cave-Heaton’s Ranch Western Pierce #37 Virgin Area Western NA5507.5 Antelope Cave Western A315588 no.4 Cave-Heaton’s Ranch Western NA5507.D.8 Antelope Cave Western NA5507.C.50 Antelope Cave Western NA5507.D.52 Antelope Cave Western NA5507.D.51 Antelope Cave Western 86.017.003-Bag1 Antelope Cave Western NA5507.M. Antelope Cave Western Pierce no.1 Virgin Area Western 73.021.002.001 No Provenience NO-P NA5507.M.8 Antelope Cave Western 58 Virgin Area Western NA5507.M.6 Antelope Cave Western NA5507.C.40 Antelope Cave Western 74.31.001 No Provenience NO-P 10.44.3.1 No Provenience NO-P 80.07.042.003 No Provenience NO-P 72.065.055.2 No Provenience NO-P 5 Virgin Area Western 10.44.4.1 No Provenience NO-P 72.065.053.3 No Provenience NO-P 145336.000 Salt Cave Western A-24578-X-1 Antelope Cave Western SUU 5 Virgin Area Western A315588 no.7 Cave-Heaton’s Ranch Western 80.07.042.002 No Provenience NO-P NA5507.D.54 Antelope Cave Western NA5507.D.3 Antelope Cave Western 72.065.055.5 No Provenience NO-P NA5507.M.102 Antelope Cave Western Pierce no.8 Virgin Area Western 10.44.5.1 No Provenience NO-P A315588 no.2 Cave-Heaton’s Ranch Western 6.T.2 No Provenience NO-P 8.253.2.1 No Provenience NO-P 7.014.001.001 No Provenience NO-P Figure 8.5. Ward’s Method dendrogram showing cases labeled by: (a) artifact number, (b) site, (c) geographic group, where E=Eastern where group, geographic (c) site, (b) number, artifact (a) by: labeled cases showing dendrogram Method Ward’s 8.5. Figure

194 Area 2.00000 Western Eastern No Provenience

1.00000

0.00000

-1.00000 Factor Score 1

-2.00000

-3.00000

-4.00000

-2.00000 0.00000 2.00000 4.00000 Factor Score 2

Figure 8.6. Scatterplot of factor scores for the Western, Eastern, and No Provenience groups. more disperse distribution (indicating their greater heterogeneity).

Although a large overarching community of practice ensured a general similarity of plain weave pointed/rounded-toe sandal form across the region, these data indicate that two smaller communities of practice existed within the larger group, differentiated by the high degree of homogeneity in the Western group and a greater degree of heterogeneity in the Eastern group. Since the differences between these two groups are clear, it begs the question: what caused them? Although multiple causes are possible, two seem most likely.

195 The first is temporal. It may be that the differences between the two groups have more to do with the passage of time than with differences inherent in the populations.

It is possible that early on this new type of sandal was highly homogenous, but that the longer it was around, the greater the chance that more variance was introduced into the population. As discussed in the previous chapter, plain weave pointed/rounded-toe sandals occur early in the Western area, through time spread throughout the region, and late in their sequence appear to be utilized only in the Eastern area. If sandals were more homogenous during the earlier period, but became more heterogeneous simply through the increased chance of variance through time, then the differences between the sandal populations may actually be between Early and Late, rather than East and

West. Unfortunately, this proposition can not be tested with the sandals that have been radiocarbon dated in this research, as the samples were not randomly chosen, but were selected in large part because of their specific construction attributes. This would create a serious bias if one were to try and compare the dated sandals. Although outside the purview of the current research, determining which scenario is more likely correct will require random dating of multiple sandals from both periods, comparing the sandal attributes as has been done above, and conducting statistical tests to examine the differences between time periods.

The second possible cause for differences between the Western and Eastern groups may have to do with geographic and cultural isolation versus interaction. Most of the

Eastern group is composed of populations traditionally associated with the Kayenta

Anasazi. This area is located to the southwest of Mesa Verde, to the west of Chaco

Canyon, and to the east of the Virgin, basically in the geographic center of the Anasazi

196 world. Trade and interaction between the Kayenta and each of these other groups is documented (Powell and Smiley 2002; Lipe et al. 1999; Cordell 1997; Lyneis 1992,

1995). The Virgin Anasazi, however, are separated from the Kayenta by a large geographic expanse (~70 miles or more as the crow flies), and are separated from the

Mesa Verde and Chaco regions by an even greater distance. This is not to say that the

Virgin Anasazi were completely isolated; on the contrary, research has shown that they did interact with other groups (Talbot 1990; Lyneis 1992, 1995). However, in a world before modern transportation, the sheer degree of geographic distance between the

Virgin and the rest of the Anasazi, likely meant that they were more isolated from other

Puebloan groups than populations living in the Kayenta region. Reduced interaction with other Puebloan groups may have helped maintain the homogenous nature of sandals in the Western area, whereas increased interaction and influence from other Puebloans in the

Kayenta region may have increased the amount of variance, and contributed to the more heterogeneous nature, of sandals in the Eastern area.

Evaluation of the Use of Style

Part of the purpose of this study was to evaluate the applicability and usefulness of recent style research in the study of plain weave pointed/rounded-toe sandals. Based on the principles of the Unified Middle Range Theory of Artifact Design, a number of sandal attributes were identified as likely containing passive style. Although nothing in the analyses suggested otherwise for most of these attributes, some of them do not appear to be useful in differentiating smaller communities within the Pueblo region, and their respective patterns may be based more on functionality than stylistic differences or

197 similarity. For example, once Antelope Cave is excluded from the analysis (due to its skewing effect), the distribution of broad leaf yucca versus narrow leaf is 53 percent to 47 percent (roughly half and half) and appears randomly distributed throughout the region.

The type of yucca used in construction is probably based on what species was locally available and so varied depending on micro-environments.

In both the Western and Eastern areas, warps are almost always two ply, have a tight helix angle, and an average diameter of 0.38 cm with a standard deviation of 0.08 cm, while the wefts are almost always single ply with an alternating spin direction of S and Z.

All of these attributes are also likely functional. Warp ply has to be minimally one, but is much easier to work with if it is at least two. Three, four, or more plies would certainly be stronger, but as wefts and tie systems appear to usually wear out before warps break, two ply warps may have been optimal, in that they perform the necessary function with the least amount of effort and resources. The same could be said of warp diameter and the number of toe loops used in the tie system. The warp helix angle is almost always tight, which provides for a strong structure with little additional effort, and as previously suggested, the alternating spin direction of the weft seems to help bind the weft to the warps creating a tighter weave. This is not to say that there are not alternative ways to produce the same effects in any of these attributes, but all of them do seem to have a strongly functional aspect, in part explaining their homogenous distribution.

Other plain weave pointed/rounded-toe sandal attributes (particularly the number of warps, final twist direction of warps, weft density, toe silhouette percentage, type of tie system, and length and width measurements) appear to be good indicators of passive style and their analysis has demonstrated the existence of a large overarching sandal

198 making community of practice in part of the northern Southwest, as well as two smaller communities of practice within the first.

Based on the principles of the Unified Middle Range Theory of Artifact Design, four sandal attributes were postulated to be more likely to reflect active style. These were: sandal body silhouette, toe shape (toe silhouette percentage), heel shape, and tie system.

For reasons discussed in Chapter 6, heel silhouette was not specifically quantified in this study, although the general outline of almost all of the sandals could be classified as rounded (as per Deegan 1999). In this sense, heel shape had a homogenous spatial distribution, in that the rounded shape was used almost exclusively throughout the region.

The sandal body silhouette had a mixed distribution with roughly half of the sandals in both areas being shaped for the left or right foot and half being uniformly shaped. There were no specific clusters within the areas and distribution was random. For the other two attributes, toe shape and tie system, a chi-square test of independence and one-way analysis of variance showed that there were statistically significant differences between the Western and Eastern groups of sandals.

Based on a number of factors, it appears unlikely that any of these attributes are reflective of active style, but instead conform to the trends already discussed amongst the passive style attributes. Heel shape had a homogenous distribution with almost all sandals having a rounded heel. This would not be an effective way to actively communicate group identity, unless it was to individuals outside of the Anasazi area.

The different types of sandal body silhouette were randomly distributed, failing to form spatial clusters reflective of group boundaries. Toe silhouette percentage could be broken into two separate groups, however this break was not clean (being on a gradient), and

199 some of the sandals that were classified in one group could fall within the 95 percent confidence interval of the other. Such interchangeability would not make for an effective symbol of group identity. Finally, differences in the type of tie system also suggested two groups (Western and Eastern), but as with most other attributes, the difference was one of degree and not of kind. Ninety-six percent of the tie systems in the Western group are toe-heel type and 77 percent in the Eastern group. These proportions are directly in line with those seen in the passive attributes (the general trend of Western attributes to be characterized by ~90 to 95 percent of a certain type and the Eastern group to be ~75 percent of that same type).

Although these four attributes were those most likely to reflect active style, based on the data and analysis presented above it appears that they were not used to communicate information about group inclusiveness or individual identity. Failing to do so they automatically fall into the purview of passive style, where they only lend further strength to the patterns already noted above. All of the sandal attributes appear to reflect passive style (or functionality), and the lack of active style indicates that plain weave pointed/ rounded-toe sandals were not used to intentionally communicate ethnic distinctions.

200 Chapter 9

Conclusion

The purpose of this dissertation was to establish the construction attributes of Anasazi plain weave pointed- or rounded-toe sandals, their temporal and spatial distribution, and to use these data to examine cultural boundaries, communities of practice, and interaction among prehistoric Puebloan populations. An assemblage of 226 sandals from locations throughout the northern Southwest was analyzed, 103 of which were examined for microscopic fiber identification, 43 X-rayed using soft radiography, and 22 AMS radiocarbon dated.

Although exceptions occur, plain weave pointed/rounded-toe sandals typically have four or six warps that are made of 2 ply s-spun Z-twisted yarn. Warps can be spliced together to form the toe, but non-splicing also occurs. The weft is a thick single ply yarn that alternates between an S and Z-spin. Body silhouette can be shaped either for the left or right foot, or can have a uniform shape with no foot contouring. Toe silhouette is on a continuum, with very pointed to very rounded shapes occurring. Heel silhouette is almost always flat and rounded. The toe-heel tie system is most frequently used, although side- loop types exist. Twist direction for yarn elements in the tie system are roughly half

S-twisted and half Z-twisted. No form of decoration has been found on plain weave pointed/rounded-toe sandals, with the one possible exception being a short piece of colored yarn attached to the toe loop of a sandal.

201 Spatially, this type of sandal is not distributed evenly throughout the northern

Southwest. Its primary distribution is in geographic regions traditionally associated with the Virgin and Kayenta Anasazi, although a small number can also be found in southeastern Utah (traditionally associated with the Mesa Verde Anasazi). The distribution of this sandal type is bounded on the east by the Lukachukai Mountains in northeastern Arizona, on the north by Abajo Peak in southeastern Utah, on the west by

Muddy River in southeastern Nevada, and on the south by the Grand Canyon in northern

Arizona. Although a larger number of plain weave pointed/rounded-toe sandals are found in the western area, a larger number of individual sites that have at least one of the sandals are found in the east.

Temporally, this sandal type ranges from as early as A.D. 631 to as late as A.D. 1178.

The earliest sandal (ECPR-8711) is from Dry Wash Cave in southeastern Utah and is dated to 1347±37 (A.D. 631-771). Sandal ECPR-8711 is expertly made, being more finely constructed than many of the sandals which come later. Based on probability distributions, the rest of the plain weave pointed/rounded-toe sandals seem to cluster into three temporal groups: early (~A.D. 650-825), middle (~A.D. 825-1000), and late (~A.D.

1000-1150). Seven of the nine sandals from the early period are found in the Western area, sandals dated to the middle period are distributed throughout the Western and

Eastern areas, and sandals from the late period are found exclusively in the Eastern area.

Theory on active and passive style was used to determine the sandal attributes that had the highest potential to actively communicate cultural information or passively reflect enculturation and communities of practice. A number of sandal attributes appear to be good conduits of passive style (particularly the number of warps, final twist direction of

202 warps, weft density, toe silhouette percentage, type of tie system, and length and width measurements) while within the plain weave pointed/rounded-toe style others appear to be primarily functional in nature (type of yucca used in construction, ply, helix angle, and diameter of warps, and the ply and spin of wefts). Spatial distribution and varying proportions of the four sandal attributes with the highest potential to contain active style (sandal body silhouette, toe shape, heel shape, and tie system) suggest that it is unlikely that any of them were used by prehistoric populations to actively communicate information, and that they instead match the patterning created by passive style attributes and rightfully belong to that domain.

The broad similarity of all plain weave pointed/rounded-toe sandals suggests that a large overarching community of practice encompassed the making of this type. Based on a similar geographic distribution of finely made twined Basketmaker sandals, this community likely had its origins in the Western Basketmaker culture. The decrease in numbers and complexity of twined sandals, and the elaboration of plain weave types (in the form of pointed/rounded-toe sandals), was likely associated with the intensification of ceramics and the concomitant decline in high investment basketry (including sandals). Although the community of practice already in place throughout the Western

Basketmaker area was maintained, sandal practices within that community evolved with the introduction of new ceramic technologies.

Within this large overarching community of practice, numerous and significant differences in the distribution and proportions of sandal attributes indicate that two smaller sandal making communities existed. The Western group (Virgin Anasazi) produced plain weave pointed/rounded-toe sandals that were characterized by their

203 homogeneity and small amount of variance. Sandals from the Western area were generally large (length and width), bulky (low weft density), incorporated four warps that were Z-twisted, used a toe-heel tie system, and had a relatively pointed toe (low toe silhouette percentage). In contrast, while sandals from the Eastern area (Kayenta and

Mesa Verde) were still dominated by these same attributes, there was a relatively higher incidence of sandals that were smaller (length and width), had six warps and yarn that was S-twisted, had a higher weft density, used a side-loop tie system, and had a more rounded toe (high toe silhouette percentage). While sandals from the Western area were generally homogenous, and sandals from the Eastern area showed more heterogeneity, the difference was one of degree and not of kind. The differing degrees of variance within the groups may indicate that the Virgin Anasazi were more culturally isolated (compared to the Kayenta) from the rest of the Puebloan world, and/or that variance in the sandal attributes increased through time and that this is disproportionately represented in the

Eastern area due to geographic/temporal patterning.

The use of stylistic theory in the study of plain weave pointed/rounded-toe sandals has been demonstrated to be highly useful, and it is hoped that future research using other styles and types of sandals will prove to be just as fruitful.

Future Research

Although this dissertation has initiated a serious study of plain weave pointed/ rounded-toe sandals, many other avenues of research remain to be investigated. One such avenue is the use of this sandal type in the study of population movements. Seven sandals from Cottonwood Canyon to the west of Kanab, Utah offer an interesting

204 possibility of the movement of a group of Eastern sandal makers into the Western area. Of the five sandals from Cottonwood Canyon that were complete enough to be included in the cluster analysis, all five were grouped by SPSS into the Eastern cluster.

Further, when the most extreme values of different attributes were mapped, sandals from Cottonwood Canyon were distinctly out of place. For example, only four sandals of 127 in the Western area had side-loop tie systems (an Eastern trait), but two of these four were from Cottonwood Canyon (A309672 no.2 and A315636). Only 13 sandals of

127 in the Western area had six warps (an Eastern trait), but three of these 13 were from

Cottonwood Canyon (A309672 no.1, A309672 no.4 and A315636). Of the 10 sandals with the highest weft densities (an Eastern trait), only two were from the Western area, but of these two, one was from Cottonwood Canyon (A309672 no.4). Of the 11 sandals with an extremely rounded to rectangular toe shape (an Eastern trait), five were from the

Western area, but of these five, three were from Cottonwood Canyon (A309671 no.1,

A309671 no.2, and A309672 no.4). Of the 10 sandals with the highest toe silhouette percentage (an Eastern trait), only four came from the Western area, but of these four, two came from Cottonwood Canyon (A309671 no.1 and A309671 no.2).

All of these factors suggest that the sandals from Cottonwood Canyon were made by individuals from the Eastern area. As plain weave pointed/rounded-toe sandals were probably utilitarian in nature (since none are decorated and most are found with moderate to heavy use wear), they were likely not trade goods as they would have had to been transported at least 70 miles over difficult terrain. In addition to plain weave pointed/ rounded-toe sandals, a single braided sandal was also found in Cottonwood Canyon

(Judd 1926:148, Plate 57:c). As the earliest braided sandals in the northern Southwest

205 appear to be associated with eastern populations, and as this seems to be the westernmost occurrence of a braided sandal (Laurie Webster, personal communication, 2009), this specimen offers further support for the movement of eastern populations into the area.

Although additional collaborating evidence is necessary, this instance demonstrates the potential of using sandals to study population movement in the prehistoric Pueblo world.

Another future line of inquiry may revolve around the fact that the final twist direction of yarn used in the tie systems varies and does not correlate to the final twist direction of warps. Final twist direction of warps was Z-twist 94 percent of the time in the Western area and 75 percent in the Eastern area, but for yarns in the tie system it was roughly 50 percent Z-twist and 50 percent S-twist for both groups. It may be that the final twist direction of the warps used in sandals may have had special cultural prescriptions to be Z-twisted, while the yarn used in the tie system could (and did) vary widely. Cultural prescriptions about the final twist of yarn (or act of spinning) have been documented in ethnographic cultures and surely existed prehistorically as well (Minar

2000, 2001 and references therein).

Since some avenues of inquiry were avoided because of limited data on other types of Puebloan sandals, future research will need to focus on earlier and later types just as has now been done for the plain weave pointed/rounded-toe sandal. It is only after the base line data for these sandals has been established that researchers will be able to make informed interpretations backed by solid data. Because of the complexity of most twined sandals, this will require skilled, devoted researchers willing to commit to long term investigations. Puebloan braided sandals, while much simpler in design, present their own difficulties (in part due to their sheer numbers). It is only by understanding these

206 earlier and later sandal types that the plain weave pointed/rounded toe sandal can be fully understood in context.

Research on the technological and stylistic influences between the Pueblo area and its neighbors is another important avenue of inquiry. For example, a small number of sandals from Hidden House (Dixon 1956), Honanki, an un-named site near the San

Francisco Mountains (Bartlett 1934), Tularosa Cave, Cordova Cave (Martin et al. 1952), and the Gila River Caves (Martin et al. 1952), all in central Arizona and western New

Mexico, show interesting similarities with some of the plain weave pointed/rounded-toe sandals in the Eastern area. These similarities include plain weaving, the use of four or six warps, high weft densities, and high toe silhouette percentages (very rounded).

Depending on the temporal context, these similarities may suggest interaction and influence between the Kayenta Anasazi and their Hohokam or Mogollon neighbors.

Whatever directions are taken in the future, the use of museum collections must play a crucial role. While such collections offer their own set of challenges, they also offer their own set of rewards; not the least of which is helping to fulfill our collective responsibility to make use of data which in many cases has sat unused and unpublished for decades. The sandal analyst in the Southwest is fortunate not only to have access to such a large sample, but one that is also reflective of the diversity and complexity of its creators.

207 References

Abbot, John Reginald 1964 Footwear Evidence: The Examination, Identification, and Comparison of Footwear Impressions. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, Illinois.

Adler, Michael A. 1994 Population Aggregation and the Anasazi Social Landscape: A View from the Four Corners. In The Ancient Southwestern Community: Models and Methods for the Study of Prehistoric Social Organization, edited by W. H. Wills and Robert D. Leonard, pp. 85-101. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Adler, Michael A. (ed) 1996 The Prehistoric Pueblo World, A.D. 1150-1350. University of Arizona Press: Tucson.

Adovasio, James M. 1986a Artifacts and Ethnicity: Basketry as an Indicator of Territoriality and Population Movements in the Prehistoric Great Basin. In Anthropology of the Desert West: Essays in Honor of Jesse D. Jennings, edited by Carol J. Condie and Don D. Fowler, pp. 43-88. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 1986b Prehistoric Basketry. In The Handbook of North American Indians Vol. 11: Great Basin, edited by Warren L. D’Azevedo, pp.194-205. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. 1994 A Tisket, a Tasket: Looking at the Numic Speakers through the “Lens” of a Basket. In Across the West: Human Population Movement and the Expansion of the Numa, edited by David B. Madsen and David Rhode, pp.114-123. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, Utah. 2006 Discussion for the Symposium “Perishable Technologies and Great Basin Anthropology: Recent Research on Technology, Chronology, and Social Interaction”. Paper presented at the 30th Biennial Great Basin Anthropological Conference, Las Vegas, NV.

Adovasio, James M., Rhonda L. Andrews, and Cathrine S. Fowler 1982 Some Observations on the Putative Fremont “Presence” in Southern Idaho. Plains Anthropologist 27(95):19-27.

208 Aikens, Melvin C., and David B. Madsen 1986 Prehistory of the Eastern Area. In The Handbook of North American Indians Vol. 11: Great Basin, edited by Warren L. D’Azevedo, pp.149-160. Washington D.C., Smithsonian Institution.

Allen, Marti L (ed) 2002 The Pectol-Lee Artifacts from Capitol Reef. Relics Revisited: New Perspectives on an Early Twentieth-Century Collection. Museum of Peoples and Cultures Popular Series No. 3, Brigham Young University, Provo.

Allen, Marti L., and Michelle R. Munsey 2002 In Search of Function: The Pectol-Lee Cradle Board. In Relics Revisited: The Pectol-Lee Artifacts from Capital Reef: New Perspectives on An Early Twentieth- Century Collection, edited by Marti L. Allen, pp.55-96. Museum of Peoples and Cultures Popular Series No. 3. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.

Allison, James R. 1988 The Archaeology of Yellowstone Mesa, Mohave County, Arizona. Museum of Peoples and Cultures, Technical Series No. 88-24. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. 1996 Comments on the Impacts of Climatic Variability and Population Growth on Virgin Anasazi Cultural Development. American Antiquity 61(2):414-418.

Altschul, Jeffrey H., and Helen C. Fairley 1989 Man, Models, and Management: An Overview of the Archaeology of the Arizona Strip and the Management of its Cultural Resources. Report prepared for the USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix.

Altschul, Jeffrey H., and Edgar K. Huber 2000 Economics, Site Structure, and Social Organization During the Basketmaker III Period: A View from the Lukachukai Valley. In Foundations of Anasazi Culture: The Basketmaker-Pueblo Transition, edited by Paul F. Reed, pp. 145-160. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Amsden, Charles A. 1949 Prehistoric Southwesterners from Basketmaker to Pueblo. Los Angeles Southwest Museum, Los Angeles.

Anderson, Keith Maxwell 1969 Tsegi Phase Technology. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Washington, Seattle.

Ascher, Robert 1961 Experimental Archaeology. American Anthropologist 63:793-816.

209 Baldwin, Gordon C. 1938 An Analysis of Basket Maker III Sandals from Northeastern Arizona. American Anthropologist 40(3):465-485. 1939 Further Notes on Basket Maker III Sandals from Northeastern Arizona. American Anthropologist 41(2):223-244.

Baker, Shane A. 1994 The Question of Cannibalism and Violence in the Anasazi Culture. A Case Study from San Juan County, Utah. Blue Mountain Shadows 13:30-41.

Baldwin, Gordon C. 1938 Basket Maker and Pueblo Sandals. Southwestern Lore 4(1):1-6.

Barth, Fredrik (ed) 1969a Introduction. In Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Cultural Difference, edited by Fredrik Barth, pp.9-38. Little, Brown and Company, Boston, Massachusetts. 1969b Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Cultural Difference. Little, Brown and Company, Boston, Massachusetts.

Bartlett, Katharine 1934 The Material Culture of Pueblo II in the San Francisco Mountains, Arizona. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin 7. Northern Arizona Society of Science and Art, Flagstaff.

Berry, Michael S. 1982 Time, Space, and Transition in Anasazi Prehistory. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Bell, Willis H., and Carl J. King 1944 Methods for the Identification of the Leaf Fibers of Mescal (Agave), Yucca (Yucca), Beargrass (Nolina), and Sotol (Dasylirion). American Antiquity 10(2):150-160.

Bentley, G. Carter 1987 Ethnicity and Practice. Comparative Studies in Society and History 29(1): 24-55.

Billat, Lorna Beth, James D. Wilde, and Richard K. Talbot 1992 Archaeological Testing and Excavation of Five Western Anasazi Sites Along State Route 9, East of Virgin City, Utah. Museum of Peoples and Cultures Technical Series No. 90-20. Brigham Young University, Provo.

Billman, Brian R., Patricia M. Lambert, and Leonard L. Banks 2000 Cannibalism, Warfare, and Drought in the Mesa Verde Region During the Twelfth Century A.D. American Antiquity 65(1):145-178.

210 Cameron, Catherine M. 1998 Coursed Adobe Architecture, Style, and Social Boundaries in the American Southwest. In The Archaeology of Social Boundaries, edited by Miriam Stark, pp.183-207. Smithsonian Institution Press: Washington, D.C. 2005 Exploring Archaeological Cultures in the Northern Southwest: What Were Chaco and Mesa Verde? Kiva 70(3):227-253.

Carr, Christopher 1995a Building a Unified Middle-Range Theory of Artifact Design: Historical Perspectives and Tactics. In Style, Society, and Person: Archaeological and Ethnological Perspectives, edited by Christopher Carr and Jill E. Neitzel, pp. 151-170. Plenum Press, New York. 1995b A Unified Middle-Range Theory of Artifact Design. InStyle, Society, and Person: Archaeological and Ethnological Perspectives, edited by Christopher Carr and Jill E. Neitzel, pp. 171-258. Plenum Press, New York.

Carr, Christopher and Robert F. Maslowski 1995 Cordage and Fabrics: Relating Form, Technology, and Social Processes. In Style, Society, and Person: Archaeological and Ethnological Perspectives, edited by Christopher Carr and Jill E. Neitzel, pp. 297-343. Plenum Press: New York.

Cashdan, Elizabeth A. 1985 Coping with Risk: Reciprocity Among the Basarwa of Northern Botswana. Man 20:454-474.

Cattanach, George S., Jr. 1980 Long House, Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado. Publications in Archeology 7H, Wetherill Mesa Studies. National Park Service, Washington.

Childs, S. Terry 1991 Style, Technology, and Iron Smelting Furnaces in Bantu-Speaking Africa. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 10(4):332-359. 2002 Committee on Curation Update: Implementing SAA Ethic #7, Records and Preservation. The SAA Archaeological Record 2(3):6.

Childs, S. Terry, Alex Barker, and Patrick Lyons 2008 SAA Committee Response to Shott. The SAA Archaeological Record 8(3):3-4.

Christensen, Diana 1993 Analysis of Ties, Tie Systems, and Attachment Methods of Fibrous Sandals of Tsegi Phase (Pueblo III) Kayenta Branch, From Tsegi Canyon, Arizona. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Human Environments, Utah State University, Logan.

211 Clark, Jeffery J. 2001 Tracking Prehistoric Migrations: Pueblo Settlers among the Tonto Basin Hohokam. Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona No.65. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 2004 Tracking Cultural Affiliation: Enculturation and Ethnicity. In Identity, Feasting, and the Archaeology of the Greater Southwest, edited by Barbara J. Mills, pp.42- 73. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.

Coffey, Grant 2006 Reevaluating Regional Migration in the Northern San Juan during the Late Pueblo I Period: A Reconnaissance Survey of the East Dove Creek Area. Kiva 72(1):55-70.

Cordell, Linda 1996 Big Sites, Big Questions: Pueblos in Transition. In The Prehistoric Pueblo World, A.D. 1150-1350, edited by Michael A. Adler, pp.228-240. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 1997 Archaeology of the Southwest. 2nd ed. Academic Press, Inc, San Diego.

Croes, Dale R. 1989 Prehistoric Ethnicity on the Northwest Coast of North America. An Evaluation of Style in Basketry and Lithics. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 8:101- 130.

Crown Patricia L, and Wirt H. Wills 1995a The Origins of Southwestern Ceramic Containers: Women’s Time Allocation and Economic Intensification. Journal of Anthropological Research 51:173-186. 1995b Economic Intensification and the Origins of Ceramic Containers in the American Southwest. In The Emergence of Pottery: Technology and Innovation in Ancient Societies, edited by William Barnett and John Hoopes, pp. 241-254. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

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

Crown, Patricia L., Janet D. Orcutt, and Timothy A. Kohler 1996 Pueblo Cultures in Transition: The Northern Rio Grande. In The Prehistoric Pueblo World, A.D. 1150-1350, edited by Michael A. Adler, pp.188-204. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Cummings, Byron 1953 First Inhabitants of Arizona and the Southwest. Cummings Publication Council, Tucson.

212 Dalley, Gardiner F., and Douglas A. McFadden 1985 The Archaeology of the Red Cliffs Site. Cultural Resource Series No. 17. Utah Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake City.

Dean, Jeffery S. 1996 Kayenta Anasazi Settlement Transformations in Northeastern Arizona, A.D. 1150-1350. In The Prehistoric Pueblo World, A.D. 1150-1350, edited by Michael A. Adler, pp.29-47. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Deegan, Ann Cordy 1992 Scalloped-toe Anasazi Sandals: Fabric and Overall Construction. ARS TEXTRINA 18:171-192. 1993 Anasazi Fibrous Sandal Terminology. Kiva 59(1):49-64. 1995 Anasazi Sandal Features: Their Research Value and Identification.Kiva 61(1):57- 69. 1998a The Morris Manuscripts. In Prehistoric Sandals from Northeastern Arizona. The Earl H. Morris and Ann Axtell Morris Research, by K.A. Hays-Gilpin, A.C. Deegan, and E.A. Morris, pp. 15-28. Anthropological Paper No. 62. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 1998b Prehistoric Puebloan Footwear. In Prehistoric Sandals from Northeastern Arizona. The Earl H. Morris and Ann Axtell Morris Research, by K. A. Hays- Gilpin, A. C. Deegan, and E. A. Morris, pp. 37-50. Anthropological Paper No. 62. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 2006 Anasazi Braided Sandals from Tsegi Canyon: Analysis Techniques and Terminology. Kiva 71(3):299-316.

De Vos, George A. 1975 Ethic Pluralism: Conflict and Accommodation. In Ethnic Identity: Cultural Continuities and Change, edited by George De Vos and Lola Remanucci-Ross, pp. 5-41. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Dietler, Michael, and Ingrid Herbich 1989 Tich Matek: The Technology of Luo Pottery Production and the Definition of Ceramics Style. World Archaeology 21:148-164.

Dixon, Keith, A. 1956 Hidden House: A Cliff Ruin in Sycamore Canyon, Central Arizona. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin 29. Northern Arizona Society of Science and Art, Inc., Flagstaff. 1957 Systematic Cordage Structure Analysis. American Anthropologist 59(1):134- 136.

Eddy, Frank 1961 Excavations at Los Pinos Phase Sites in the Navajo Reservoir District. Museum of New Mexico Papers in Anthropology No. 4, Santa Fe.

213 1966 Prehistory in the Navajo Reservoir District, Northwestern New Mexico. Museum of New Mexico Papers in Anthropology No.15, Pts. 1 and 2, Santa Fe. 1972 Culture Ecology and the Prehistory of the Navajo Reservoir District. Southwestern Lore 38(1,2):1-75.

Elsasser, Albert B. 1978 Basketry. In Handbook of North American Indians Vol. 8: California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp.626-641. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.

Emery, Irene 1952 Naming the Direction of the Twist in Yarn and Cordage. El Palacio 59:251- 262. 1966 The Primary Structures of Fabrics: An Illustrated Classification. The Textile Museum, Washington D.C.

Gellner, Ernest 1983 Nations and Nationalism. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

Geib, Phil R. 1996 Formative Cultures and Boundaries: Reconsideration of the Fremont and Anasazi. In Glen Canyon Revisited, by Phil R. Geib, pp.98-114. University of Utah Anthropological Paper No. 119. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 2000 Sandal Types and Archaic Prehistory on the Colorado Plateau. American Antiquity 65(3):509-524. 2002 Basketmaker II Horn Flaking Tools and Dart Point Production. In Traditions, Transitions, and Technologies: Themes in Southwestern Archaeology, edited by Sarah H. Schlanger, pp.272-306. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.

Geib, Phil R., and Kimberly Spurr 2000 The Basketmaker II-III Transition on the Rainbow Plateau. In Foundations of Anasazi Culture: The Basketmaker-Pueblo Transition, edited by Paul F. Reed, pp. 175-200. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Gosselain, Olivier P. 1992 Technology and Style: Potters and Pottery among Bafia of Cameroon.Man (n.s.) 27(3):559-586.

Guernsey, Samuel James 1931 Explorations in Northeastern Arizona: Report on the Archaeological Fieldwork of 1920-1923. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 12 No. 1. Harvard University, Cambridge.

214 Guernsey, Samuel J., and Alfred V. Kidder 1921 Basket-Maker Caves of Northeastern Arizona. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 13 No. 2, Harvard University, Cambridge.

Haas, Jonathan and Winifred Creamer 1996 The Role of Warfare in the Pueblo III Period. In The Prehistoric Pueblo World A.D. 1150-1350, edited by Michael A. Adler, pp. 205-213. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Haas, William R. Jr. 2003 The Social Implications of Basketmaker II Cordage Style Distribution. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff. 2006 The Social Implications of Basketmaker II Cordage Design Distribution. Kiva 71(3):275-298.

Harrington, Mark R. 1927 A Primitive Pueblo City in Nevada. American Anthropologist 29(3):262-277.

Haury, Emil W. 1950 The Stratigraphy and Archaeology of Ventana Cave, Arizona. University of Arizona, Tucson, and University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

Hays, Kelley A. 1992 Anasazi Ceramics as Text and Tool: Toward a Theory of Ceramic Design “Messaging.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson.

Hays-Gilpin, Kelley A. 1998 Epilogue: “this sandal business.” In Prehistoric Sandals from Northeastern Arizona: The Earl H. Morris and Ann Axtell Morris Research, by K. A. Hays- Gilpin, A. C. Deegan, and E. A. Morris, pp. 121-126. Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona No. 62. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Hays-Gilpin, Kelley A., Ann Cordy Deegan, and Elizabeth Ann Morris 1998 Prehistoric Sandals from Northeastern Arizona: The Earl H. Morris and Ann Axtell Morris Research. Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona No. 62. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Hegmon, Michelle 1992 Archaeological Research on Style. Annual Review of Anthropology 21:517-536. 1998 Technology, Style, and Social Practices: Archaeological Approaches. In The Archaeology of Social Boundaries, edited by Miriam Stark, pp.264-279. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

215 Heid, James L. 1982 Settlement Patterns on Little Creek Mountain. Western Anasazi Reports, Vol. 3, No.2, Southern Utah State College, Cedar City.

Hester, Thomas R., Harry J. Shafer, and Kenneth L. Feder 1997 Field Methods in Archaeology. Mayfield Publishing Company, California.

Hiss, Stephen S. 2003 Understanding Radiography. Charles C Thomas Publisher, Springfield, Illinois.

Hoopes, John W., and William K. Barnett 1995 The Shape of Early Pottery Studies. In The Emergence of Pottery: Technology and Innovation in Ancient Societies, edited by W. K. Barnett and J. W. Hoopes, pp. 1-7. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Janetski, Joel C., and Michael J. Hall 1983 An Archaeological and Geological Assessment of Antelope Cave (NA5507), Mohave County, Northwestern Arizona. Brigham Young University Department of Anthropology Technical Series No. 83-73. Provo, Utah.

Janetski, Joel C., and James D. Wilde 1989 A Preliminary Report of Archaeological Excavations at Antelope Cave and Rock Canyon Shelter, Northwestern Arizona. Utah Archaeology 2 (1):88-106.

Jones, Sian 1997 The Archaeology of Ethnicity: Constructing Identities in the Past and Present. Routledge, London.

Judd, Neil M. 1926 Archeological Observations North of the Rio Colorado. Smithsonian Institution Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 82. Government Printing Office, Washington.

Kearns, Timothy M., Janet L. McVickar, and Lori Stephens Reed 2000 The Early to Late Basketmaker III Transition in Tohatchi Flats, New Mexico. In Foundations of Anasazi Culture: The Basketmaker-Pueblo Transition, edited by Paul F. Reed, pp. 115-142. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Kent, Kate Peck 1983a Prehistoric Textiles of the Southwest. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico. 1983b Temporal Shifts in the Structure of Traditional Southwestern Textile Design. In Structure and Cognition in Art, edited by Dorothy K. Washburn, pp. 113-137. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.

216 King, Mary Elizabeth 1975 Archaeological Textiles. In Irene Emery Roundtable on Museum Textiles 1974 Proceedings, edited by Patricia L. Fiske, pp. 9-16. The Textile Museum, Washington D.C.

Kidder, Alfred Vincent 1926 A Sandal from Northeastern Arizona. American Anthropologist 8(4):618-632. 1927 Southwestern Archaeological Conference. Science 66:489-491. 1936 Discussion. In The Pottery of Pecos, Vol. 2, The Glaze-Paint, Culinary, and Other Wares, by Alfred V. Kidder and Anna O. Shepard, pp. 589-628. Papers of the Phillips Academy Southwest Expedition 7. Yale University Press, new Haven.

Kidder, Alfred Vincent and Samuel J. Guernsey 1919 Archeological Explorations in Northeastern Arizona. Smithsonian Institution Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 65. Government Printing Office, Washington.

Kuckelman, Kristin A. 2002 Thirteenth-Century Warfare in the Central Mesa Verde Region. In Seeking the Middle Place: Archaeology and Ancient Communities in the Mesa Verde Region, edited by Richard H. Wilshusen and Mark D. Varien, pp. 233-256. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Kuckelman, Kristin A., Ricky R. Lightfoot, and Debra L. Martin 2002 The Bioarchaeology and Taphonomy of Violence at Castle Rock and Sand Canyon Pueblos, Southwestern Colorado. American Antiquity 67(3):486-513.

Lang, Janet and Andrew Middleton (Eds) 1997 Radiography of Cultural Materials. Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, Burlington, MA.

Lave, Jean and Etienne Wenger 1991 Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

LeBlanc, Steven A. 1999 Prehistoric Warfare in the American Southwest. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Lekson, Stephen H. 1996 Southwest New Mexico and Southeastern Arizona, A.D. 900 to 1300. In The Prehistoric Pueblo World, A.D. 1150-1350, edited by Michael A. Adler, pp.170- 176. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

217 1999 The Chaco Meridian: Center of Political Power in the Ancient Southwest. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California.

Lekson, Stephen H. (ed) 2006 The Archaeology of Chaco Canyon: An Eleventh Century Pueblo Regional Center. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico. 2007 The Architecture of Chaco Canyon. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Lekson, Stephen H., Curtis P. Nepstad-Thornberry, Brian E. Yunker, Toni S. Laumbach, David P. Cain, and Karl W. Laumbach 2002 Migrations in the Southwest: Pinnacle Ruin, Southwestern New Mexico. Kiva 68(2):73-101.

Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1964 Le geste et la parole, Tome I, Techniques et language. Albin Michel, Paris 1993 Gesture and Speech (Le geste et la parole). Translated from the French by Anna Bostock Berger. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Lechtman, Heather 1977 Style in Technology – Some Early Thoughts. In Material Culture. Styles, Organization, and Dynamics of Technology, edited by H. Lechtman and R. S. Merrill, pp.3-20. West Publishing, St. Paul, Minnesota.

Lemonnier, Pierre 1986 The Study of Material Culture Today: Toward an Anthropology of Technical Systems. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 5:147-186. 1992 Elements for an Anthropology of Technology. Anthropological Papers pf the Museum of Anthropology, No. 88. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Lipe, William D. 1993 The Basketmaker II Period in the Four Corners Area. In Anasazi Basketmaker: Papers from the 1990 Wetherill-Grand Gulch Symposium, edited by Victoria M. Atkins, pp. 1-10. Cultural Resource Series No. 24. Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake City.

Lipe, William D., and Mark D. Varien 1999a Pueblo II (A.D. 900-1150). In Colorado Prehistory: A Context for the Southern Colorado River Basin, edited by William D. Lipe, Mark D. Varien, and Richard H. Wilshusen, pp. 242-289. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center. Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists, Denver. 1999b Pueblo III (A.D. 1150-1300). In Colorado Prehistory: A Context for the Southern Colorado River Basin, edited by William D. Lipe, Mark D. Varien, and Richard H. Wilshusen, pp. 290-352. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center. Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists, Denver.

218 Lipe, William D., Mark D. Varien, and Richard H. Wilshusen (Eds) 1999 Colorado Prehistory: A Context for the Southern Colorado River Basin. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center. Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists, Denver.

Lyneis, Margaret M. 1992 The Main Ridge Community at Lost City: Virgin Anasazi Architecture, Ceramics, and Burials. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. 117. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 1995 The Virgin Anasazi: Far Western Puebloans. Journal of World Prehistory 9(2):199-241. 1996 Pueblo II-Pueblo III Change in Southwestern Utah, the Arizona Strip, and Southern Nevada. In The Prehistoric Pueblo World, A.D. 1150-1350, edited by Michael A. Adler, pp.11-28. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

MacDonald, Douglas H., and Barry S. Hewlett 1999 Reproductive Interests and Forager Mobility. Current Anthropology 40:501- 523.

Macdonald, William K. 1990 Investigating Style: an exploratory analysis of some Plains burials. In The Uses of Style in Archaeology, edited by Margaret Conkey and Christine Hastorf, pp. 52-60. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Madsen, David B. 1982 Salvage Excavations at Ticaboo Town Ruin (42Ga2295). In Archaeological Investigations in Utah at Fish Springs, Clay Basin, Northern San Rafael Swell and Southern Henry Mountains, edited by David B. Madsen and Richard E. Fike, pp. 1-41. Bureau of Land Management Utah Cultural Resource Series No. l2, Salt Lake City.

Magers, Pamela C. 1986 Chapter 18: Weaving at Antelope House. In Archaeological Investigations at Antelope House, edited by Don P. Morris, pp. 224-276. National Park Service, Washington.

Martin, Paul S., John B. Rinaldo, Elaine Bluhm, Hugh C. Cutler, and Roger Grange, Jr. 1952 Mogollon Cultural Continuity and Change: The Stratigraphic Analysis of Tularosa and Cordova Caves. Fieldiana: Anthropology 40. Chicago Natural History Museum, Chicago.

Maslowski, Robert F. 1996 Cordage Twist and Ethnicity. In A Most Indispensable Art: Native Fiber Industries from Eastern North America, edited by James B. Petersen, pp.88-99. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

219 Mason, Otis T. 1895 Aboriginal Sandals. Science 2(31):134-136. 1896 Primitive Travel and Transportation. Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution for the Year Ending June 30, 1894.

Matson, R. G. 1991 The Origins of Southwestern Agriculture. University of Arizona Press: Tucson. 2003 The Spread of Maize Agriculture into the U. S. Southwest. In Examining the Farming/Language Dispersal Hypothesis, edited by Peter Bellwood and Colin Renfrew, pp. 241-356. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge. 2006 What is Basketmaker II? Kiva 72(2):149-166.

McBrinn, Maxine 2005 Social Identities Among Archaic Mobile Hunters and Gatherers in the American Southwest. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 197, University of Arizona.

McVickar, Janet L. 1999 Analysis of Plant Macrofossils. In Anasazi Community Development in Redrock Valley: Archaeological Excavations along the N33 Road in Apache County, Arizona, edited by P. F. Reed and K. N. Hensler, pp. 809-850. Navajo National Papers in Anthropology No. 33, Window Rock, Arizona.

Mills, Barbara J. 1999 The reorganization of Silver Creek communities from the 11th to the 14th centuries. In Living on the Edge of the Rim, Excavations and Analysis of the Silver Creek Archaeological Research Project 1993-1998, edited by Barbara J. Mills, Sara A. Herr, and Scott Van Keuren, pp.505-512. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 192, University of Arizona, Tucson.

Minar, C. Jill 2000 Spinning and Plying: Anthropological Directions. In Beyond Cloth and Cordage: Archaeological Textile Research in the Americas, edited by Penelope B. Drooker, pp.85-99. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Minar, Jill C., and Patricia L. Crown 2001 Learning and Craft Production: An Introduction. Journal of Anthropological Research 57(4):369-380.

Earl H., Morris 1944 Anasazi Sandals. Clearing House for South-western Museums News-Letters #68-69:239-241.

220 Morris, Earl H., and Robert F. Burgh 1954 Basket Maker II Sites near Durango, Colorado. Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication 604, Washington, D.C.

Morris, Elizabeth Ann 1980 Basketmaker Caves in the Prayer Rock District, Northeastern Arizona. Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona No. 35. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona.

Morss, Noel 1931 The Ancient Culture of the Fremont River in Utah. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 12, No. 2. Harvard University, Cambridge.

Mowrer, Kathy 2003 Basketmaker II Mortuary Practices: Social Differentiation and Regional Variation. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff. 2006 Basketmaker II Mortuary Practices: Social Differentiation and Regional Variation. Kiva 72(2):259-281.

Netting, Robert M. 1977 Cultural Ecology. Cummings Publishing Company, Menlo Park, California.

Newton, Delores 1974 The Timbira Hammock as a Cultural Indicator of Social Boundaries. In The Human Mirror, edited by Miles Richardson, pp.231-251. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge.

Nusbaum, Jesse L, Alfred V. Kidder, and Samuel J. Guernsey 1922 A Basket-Maker Cave in Kane County, Utah. Indian Notes and Monographs. Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, New York.

O’Connor, Sonia A. 2007 Principles of X-radiography. In X-Radiography of Textiles, Dress and Related Objects, by Sonia O’Connor and Mary M. Brooks, pp. 12-22. Elsevier, Italy.

O’Connor, Sonia A., and Mary M. Brooks 2007 X-Radiography of Textiles, Dress and Related Objects. Elsevier, Italy.

Petersen, James B., and Jack A. Wolford 2000 Spin and Twist as Cultural Markers: A New England Perspective on Native Fiber Industries. In Beyond Cloth and Cordage: Archaeological Textile Research in the Americas, edited by Penelope B. Drooker, pp:101-117. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

221 Plog, Fred 1983 Political and Economic Alliances on the Colorado Plateaus, A.D. 400-1450. In Advances in World Archaeology, Volume 2, edited by F. Wendorf and A. Close, pp.289-330. Academic Press, New York.

Powell, Shirley 2002 The Puebloan Florescence and Dispersion: Dinnebito and Beyond, A.D. 800- 1150. In Prehistoric Cultural Change on the Colorado Plateau: Ten Thousand Years on Black Mesa, edited by Shirley Powell and Francis E. Smiley, pp. 79-117. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Powell, Shirley and Francis E. Smiley (Eds) 2002 Prehistoric Cultural Change on the Colorado Plateau: Ten Thousand Years on Black Mesa. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Prudden, T. Mitchell 1903 The Prehistoric Ruins of the San Juan Watershed in Utah, Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico. American Anthropologist 5(2):224-288. 1914 The Circular Kiva of Small Ruins in the San Juan Watershed. American Anthropologist 16(1):33-58. 1918 A Further Study of Prehistoric Small House Ruins in the San Juan Watershed. Memoirs of the American Anthropological Association 5(1).

Pryor, John and Christopher Carr 1995 Basketry of Northern California Indians. In Style, Society, and Person: Archaeological and Ethnological Perspectives, edited by Christopher Carr and Jill E. Neitzel, pp. 259-296. Plenum Press: New York.

Rafferty, Kevin A. 1990 The Virgin Anasazi and the Pan-Southwestern Trade System, A.D. 900-1150. Kiva 56(1):3-24.

Reed, Lori Stephens, C. Dean Wilson, and Kelley A. Hays-Gilpin 2000 From Brown to Gray: The Origins of Ceramic Technology in the Northern Southwest. In Foundations of Anasazi Culture: The Basketmaker-Pueblo Transition, edited by Paul F. Reed, pp. 203-220. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Reed, Paul F. (ed) 2000a Foundations of Anasazi Culture: The Basketmaker-Pueblo Transition. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 2000b Fundamental Issues in Basketmaker Archaeology. In Foundations of Anasazi Culture: The Basketmaker-Pueblo Transition, edited by Paul F. Reed, pp. 3-16. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

222 Reed, Paul F., and Scott Wilcox 2000 Distinctive and Intensive: The Basketmaker III to Early Pueblo I Occupation on Cove-Redrock Valley, Northeastern Arizona. In Foundations of Anasazi Culture: The Basketmaker-Pueblo Transition, edited by Paul F. Reed, pp. 69-93. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Reid, Jerrerson J., and Stephanie Whittlesey 1999 Grasshopper Pueblo, A Story of Archaeology and Ancient Life. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Rice, Prudence M. 1987 Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Robins, Michael R., and Kelley A. Hays-Gilpin 2000 The Bird in the Basket: Gender and Social Change in Basketmaker Iconography. In Foundations of Anasazi Culture: The Basketmaker-Pueblo Transition, edited by Paul F. Reed, pp. 231-247. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Sackett, James R. 1977 The Meaning of Style: A General Model. American Antiquity 42(3):369-380. 1982 Approaches to Style in Lithic Archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1:59-112. 1985 Style and Ethnicity in the Kalahari: A Reply to Wiessner. American Antiquity 50(1): 154-159. 1990 Style and Ethnicity in Archaeology: The Case for Isochrestism. In The Uses of Style in Archaeology, edited by Margaret Conkey and Christine Hastorf, pp. 32-43. Cambridge University Press, New York. 1996 Review of Style, Society, and Person: Archaeological and Ethnological Perspectives, edited by Christopher Carr and Jill E. Neitzel. American Anthropologist 98(4):925-926.

Shennan, Stephen 1989 Introduction: Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity. In Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity, edited by Stephen Shennan, pp. 1-32. Unwin Hyman, London.

Shott, Michael J. 2008 A Proposal for Conservation of Private Collections in American Archaeology. The SAA Archaeological Record 8(2):30-35.

Shulter, Richard, Jr. 1962 Lost City: Pueblo Grande de Nevada. Nevada State Museum Anthropological Papers No. 5, Carson City.

223 Skibo, James M. 1992 Pottery Function: A Use-Alteration Perspective. Plenum Press: New York.

Smith, Anthony D. 1986 The Ethnic Origins of Nations. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

Smith, Eric Alden 1988 Risk and Uncertainty in the ‘Original Affluent Society’: Evolutionary Ecology of Resource-Sharing and Land Tenure. In Hunters and Gatherers 1: History, Evolution, and Social Change, edited by Tim Ingold, David Riches, and James Woodburn, pp. 222-251. Berg, Oxford.

Stark, Miriam (ed) 1998 The Archaeology of Social Boundaries. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Stark, Miriam T., Mark D. Elson, and Jeffery J. Clark 1998 Social Boundaries and Technical Choices in Tonto Basin Prehistory. In The Archaeology of Social Boundaries, edited by Miriam Stark, pp.208-231. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Stone, Tammy 2003 Social Identity and Ethnic Interaction in the Western Pueblos of the American Southwest. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 10(1):31-67.

Symmons, Robert 2003 Digital Photodensitometry: A Reliable and Accessible Method for Measuring Bone Density. Journal of Archaeological Sciences 31:711-719.

Talbot, Richard K. 1990 Virgin Anasazi Architecture: Toward a Broader Perspective. Utah Archaeology 1990 3(1):19-41.

Talbot, Richard K., and Lane D. Richens 2002 Shifting Sands: The Archaeology of Sand Hollow. Brigham Young University Museum of Peoples and Cultures Technical Series No. 01-5. Provo, Utah

Talge, Julia 1995 Replication of Ancient Puebloan Sandal-Toe Constructions: Comparison of Complexity. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Human Environments, Utah State University, Logan.

224 Taylor, Walter W. 2003 Sandals from Coahuila Caves. Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology Number 35. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collections, Washington D.C.

Teague, Lynn S. 1998 Textiles in Southwestern Prehistory. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 2000 Revealing Clothes: Textiles of the upper Ruin, Tonto National Monument. In Beyond Cloth and Cordage: Archaeological Textile Research in the Americas, edited by Penelope B. Drooker, pp.161-177. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Turner, Christy G. 1993 Southwest Indian Teeth. National Geographical Research & Exploration 9(1):32-53.

Turner, Christy G., and Jacqueline Turner 1999 Man Corn: Cannibalism and Violence in the Prehistoric American Southwest. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

United States Department of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Service 2008 The PLANTS Database. Electronic document, http://plants.usda.gov, accessed November 19, 2008.

Van Dyke, Ruth M. 1999 The Chaco Connection: Evaluating Bonito-Style Architecture in Outlier Communities. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 18:471-506.

Varien, Mark D., William D. Lipe, Michael A. Adler, Ian M. Thompson, and Bruce A. Bradley 1996 Southwestern Colorado and Southeastern Utah Settlement Patterns: A.D. 1100 to 1300. In The Prehistoric Pueblo World, A.D. 1150-1350, edited by Michael A. Adler, pp.86-113. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Vermeulen, Hans, and Cora Govers (eds) 1994 The Anthropology of Ethnicity: Beyond ‘Ethnic Groups and Boundaries.’ Het Spinhuis, Amsterdam.

Vivian, R. Gwinn 1990 The Chacoan Prehistory of the San Juan Basin. Academic Press, San Diego.

Walling, Barbara A., Richard A. Thompson, Gardiner F. Dalley, and Dennis G. Weder 1986 Excavations at Quail Creek. Bureau of Land Management Utah State Office Cultural Resources Series No. 20, Salt Lake City.

225 Washburn, Dorothy and Laurie Webster 2006 Symmetry and Color Perspectives on Basketmaker Cultural Identities: Evidence from Designs on Coiled Baskets and Ceramics. Kiva 71(3):235-263.

Webster, Laurie D. 1997 Effects of European Contact on Textile Production and Exchange in the North American Southwest: A Pueblo Case Study. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Washington, Seattle. 2000 The Economics of Pueblo Textile Production and Exchange in Colonial New Mexico. In Beyond Cloth and Cordage: Archaeological Textile Research in the Americas, edited by Penelope B. Drooker, pp.179-204. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Webster, Laurie D., and Penelope Ballard Drooker 2000 Archaeological Textile Research in the Americas. In Beyond Cloth and Cordage: Archaeological Textile Research in the Americas, edited by Penelope B. Drooker, pp.1-24. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Webster, Laurie D., and Kelley A. Hays-Gilpin 1994 New Trails For Old Shoes: Sandals, Textiles, and Baskets in Basketmaker Culture. Kiva 60(2):313-327.

Webster, Laurie D., and Micah Loma’omvaya 2004 Textiles, Baskets, and Hopi Cultural Identity. In Identity, Feasting, and the Archaeology of the Greater Southwest, edited by Barbara J. Mills, pp.74-92. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.

Wendorf, Fred, and Erik K. Reed 1955 An Alternative Reconstruction of Northern Rio Grande Prehistory. El Palacio 62(6):131-173.

Wendrich, Willemina 1991 Who is Afraid of Basketry? A Guide to Recording Basketry and Cordage for Archaeologists and Ethnographers. Centre for Non-Western Studies No. 6, Leiden University, The Netherlands.

Westfall, Deborah A. 1987 The Pinenut Site; Virgin Anasazi Archaeology on the Kanab Plateau of Northwestern Arizona. Cultural Resource Series No. 21. Utah Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake City.

Wheeler, Sidney Merrick 1942 The Archaeology of Etna Cave, Lincoln County, Nevada. Nevada State Parks Commission, Carson City, Nevada.

226 White, Tim D. 1992 Prehistoric Cannibalism at Mancos 5MTUMR-2346. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Wiessner, Polly 1983 Style and Social Information in Kalahari San Projectile Points. American Antiquity 48:253-276. 1985 Style or Isochrestic Variation? A Reply to Sackett. American Antiquity 50(1):160- 166. 1990 Is there a unity to style? In The Uses of Style in Archaeology, edited by Margaret Conkey and Christine Hastorf, pp. 105-112. Cambridge University Press, New York.

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

Wilshusen, Richard H. 1999a Basketmaker III (A.D. 500-750). In Colorado Prehistory: A Context for the Southern Colorado River Basin, edited by William D. Lipe, Mark D. Varien, and Richard H. Wilshusen, pp. 166-195. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center. Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists, Denver 1999b Pueblo I (A.D. 750-900). In Colorado Prehistory: A Context for the Southern Colorado River Basin, edited by William D. Lipe, Mark D. Varien, and Richard H. Wilshusen, pp. 196-241. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center. Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists, Denver

Wilshusen, Richard H., and Scott G. Ortman 1999 Rethinking the Pueblo I Period in the San Juan Drainage: Aggregation, Migration, and Cultural Diversity. Kiva 64(3):369-399.

Winslow, Diane L., and Lynda M. Blair 2003 Mitigation Black Doge Mesa Archaeological Complex (26CK5686/BLM 53-7216) Volume II-Black Dog Cave. Harry Reid Environmental Center Report 5-4- 26(2).

Wobst, H. Martin 1974 Conditions for Paleolithic Social Systems: A Simulation Approach. American Antiquity 39:147-178. 1977 Stylistic Behavior and Information Exchange. In For the Director: Research Essays in Honor of James B. Griffin, edited by Charles E. Cleland, pp.317-42. Museum of Anthropology Anthropological Paper 61. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

227 Yoder, David T. 2008 The use of “soft” X-ray radiography in determining hidden construction characteristics in fiber sandals. Journal of Archaeological Science 35:316-321. 2009 Plain-Weave Sandals from Antelope Cave (NA5507), Arizona. Kiva, in press.

228 Appendix 1

Curatorial Facilities and their Collections

229 The Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology in Berkeley, California has one complete sandal from southeastern Utah that was collected by Charles McLoyd and

Charles C. Graham around 1891 or 1892.

The Lost City Museum of Archaeology in Overton, Nevada has one complete sandal.

Although the museum has no records associated with the artifact, it is illustrated by

Shutler (1961:Plate 102), and likely comes from the salt caves in southeastern Nevada.

The Arizona State Museum in Tucson, Arizona has 18 complete or nearly complete sandals and one fragment. Individuals who either recovered or donated the sandals include Byron Cummings, Harold S. Gladwin, Merle R. Guthrie, Emil W. Haury and

Edwards J. Hands, Earl Morris, and Fred Pashley. The Museum of Northern Arizona in Flagstaff has 11 sandals. Individuals who either recovered or donated the artifacts include Harold S. Colton, Byron Cummings, Irwin Hayden, and Robert Euler.

The Dixie State College of Utah, in St. George has 11 complete sandals that were donated by local residents Frank and Claudia Pierce. The only provenience for the collection is southwestern Utah or northwestern Arizona. The Edge of the Cedars State

Park Museum in Blanding, Utah has three complete sandals, two of which have no provenience. The Hurricane Valley Pioneer and Indian Museum in Hurricane, Utah has two sandals that were donated by Thelma Schulzen, a private citizen of Hurricane. Their only provenience is southwestern Utah. The Kanab Heritage Museum in Kanab, Utah has three sandals that were collected in the Kanab area and donated by unknown private citizens. The Museum of Peoples and Cultures in Provo, Utah has 96 specimens that can be divided into two groups. The first group contains 57 sandals on long term loan from the Museum of Northern Arizona. This collection consists of 31 complete or nearly

230 complete sandals and 26 fragments. All are from Antelope Cave in northwestern Arizona and were excavated by Robert Euler in 1953. The second group is comprised of 39 sandals, 29 of which have no provenience whatsoever, six are from the general Blanding

Utah area, and four come from Antelope Cave. Individuals who either recovered or donated these sandals include Hubert Bowen, Don Gobler, Charles B. Lang and Platt

Lyman, and Joel C. Janetski. A private collection from Hurricane, Utah contains two sandal fragments from a cave in northwestern Arizona; and a private collection from

Kanab, Utah (the Andrew Johnston Collection) contains two complete specimens from a cave in northwestern Arizona and one fragment with unknown provenience. The

Southern Utah University Archaeological Repository in Cedar City, Utah has ten sandals that were donated by a private citizen (Carl Walker) in the 1960s, but whose only provenience is southwestern Utah. The Utah Museum of Natural History in Salt Lake

City, Utah has 12 sandals, most of which come from northeastern Arizona. Individuals who either recovered or donated the sandals include Byron Cummings, Ben and Hyrum

Perkins, Hans Bayles, Platte Lyman, and Kuman Jones.

The Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology in Cambridge, Massachusetts has 15 complete or nearly complete sandals and eight fragments. Individuals who either recovered or donated the sandals include Alfred V. Kidder, Samuel J. Guernsey, and Mr. and Mrs. W. H. Claffin Jr. The University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology in Philadelphia, has four specimens from southeastern Utah that were collected by Charles McLoyd and Charles C. Graham around 1891 or 1892. The

National Museum of the American Indian in Washington, D.C. has six specimens from the salt caves near Lost City, Nevada, and one from the north fork of Chinle Canyon in

231 Arizona. Finally, the National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C. has 14 complete or nearly complete sandals and four fragments. Neil M. Judd recovered or acquired all of the sandals in this collection, with two being donated to him by Franklin

A. Heaton and his wife.

232 Appendix 2

Sandal Provenience and Material Data

233 ------Material ------X-Rayed DSC DSC DSC DSC DSC DSC ASM ASM ASM ASM ASM ASM ASM ASM ASM ASM ASM ASM ASM ASM ASM ASM ASM ASM ASM Curated ------General Reference* ------2 13 Direct Reference* 22 22 22 22 22 22 3: 1916 3: 1916 3: 1916 9: 1927 9: 1927 3: 1917 3: 1915 3: 1915 3: 1915 3: 1915 3: 1926 5: 1929 3: 1915 3: 1938 8: 1970 19: 1931 20: 1957 20: 1957 20: 1957 Collector* Appendix 2: Sandal Provenience and Material Data Gourd Cave Gourd Cave Gourd Cave Zele Cave Zele Cave Pocket Cave Antelope Cave Antelope Cave Antelope Cave Noschaw Cave Chilchintaboko, Chilchintaboko, Chilchintaboko, Ruin Town Cave Calamity Cave House Turkey Canyon Tsegi Canyon Tsegi Area Virgin Area Virgin Site Virgin Area Virgin Virgin Area Virgin Virgin Area Virgin Virgin Area Virgin Virgin Area Virgin Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Western Western Western Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Western Western Area Western Western Western Western Western A-42310 2688 2743 16121 16123 A-14184 A-24578-X-1 A-24578-X-2 A-24578-X-3 3238 959 1027 1028 958 14681 GP11052 508 20985 2003-1598-1 Pierce 5 Artifact No. Pierce 37 Pierce no.1 Pierce no.2 Pierce no.3 Pierce no.4 *See the reconciliation table at the end of Appendix 1 for names and references. *See the reconciliation table at end of

234 ------Material ------X-Rayed DSC DSC DSC DSC DSC LCM ECM ECM ECM MNA MNA MNA MNA MNA MNA MNA MNA MNA MNA MNA KHM KHM KHM Curated HVPIM HVPIM ------General Reference* ------4 15 Direct Reference* ------24 24 22 22 22 22 22 4: 1953 4: 1953 4: 1953 4: 1953 3: 1915 2: 1928 2: 1928 10: 1933 10: 1933 Collector* Appendix 2 (continued) Turkey House Turkey Turkey House Turkey Antelope Cave Antelope Cave Antelope Cave Antelope Cave Turkey House Turkey House Turkey Chilchintaboko, Kanab Area Kanab Kanab Area Kanab Area Kanab Area Kanab Area Lost City Area Kanab Virgin Area Virgin Virgin Area Virgin Dry Wash Cave Wash Dry No Provenience Virgin Area Virgin Site Virgin Area Virgin Virgin Area Virgin Virgin Area Virgin Virgin Area Virgin No Provenience Eastern Eastern Western Western Western Western Eastern Eastern Eastern Western Western Western Western Western Western Western Western Eastern No Provenience Western Area Western Western Western Western No Provenience *See the reconciliation table at the end of Appendix 1 for names and references. *See the reconciliation table at end of NA2521.10 NA2521.9 NA5507.M.106 NA5507.M.102 NA5507.M.98 NA5507.5 NA2520.10 NA2520.11 A497 OC79 B-44 KM 1 KM 2 4757 BP OC78 HM 2 HM 1 ECPR-8711 ECPR-10367 Pierce no.5 Artifact No. Pierce no.6 Pierce no.7 Pierce no.8 Pierce no.9 ECPR-3941

235 i - - B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B Material ------Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y X-Rayed Curated MPC-mna MPC-mna MPC-mna MPC-mna MPC-mna MPC-mna MPC-mna MPC-mna MPC-mna MPC-mna MPC-mna MPC-mna MPC-mna MPC-mna MPC-mna MPC-mna MPC-mna MPC-mna MPC-mna MPC-mna MPC-mna MPC-mna MPC-mna MPC-mna MPC-mna - 8, 9, 16 8, 9, 16 8, 9, 16 8, 9, 16 8, 9, 16 8, 9, 16 8, 9, 16 8, 9, 16 8, 9, 16 8, 9, 16 8, 9, 16 8, 9, 16 8, 9, 16 8, 9, 16 8, 9, 16 8, 9, 16 8, 9, 16 8, 9, 16 8, 9, 16 8, 9, 16 8, 9, 16 8, 9, 16 8, 9, 16 8, 9, 16 General Reference* ------9 Direct Reference* 4: 1953 4: 1953 4: 1953 4: 1953 4: 1953 4: 1953 4: 1953 4: 1953 4: 1953 4: 1953 4: 1953 4: 1953 4: 1953 4: 1953 4: 1953 4: 1953 4: 1953 4: 1953 4: 1953 4: 1953 4: 1953 4: 1953 4: 1953 4: 1953 4: 1953 Collector* Appendix 2 (continued) Antelope Cave Site Antelope Cave Antelope Cave Antelope Cave Antelope Cave Antelope Cave Antelope Cave Antelope Cave Antelope Cave Antelope Cave Antelope Cave Antelope Cave Antelope Cave Antelope Cave Antelope Cave Antelope Cave Antelope Cave Antelope Cave Antelope Cave Antelope Cave Antelope Cave Antelope Cave Antelope Cave Antelope Cave Antelope Cave Western Area Western Western Western Western Western Western Western Western Western Western Western Western Western Western Western Western Western Western Western Western Western Western Western Western NA5507.C.3 Artifact No. NA5507.C.5 NA5507.C.31 NA5507.C.32 NA5507.C.40 NA5507.C.50 NA5507.C.56 NA5507.C.71 NA5507.C.72 NA5507.C.73 NA5507.C.74 NA5507.C.75 NA5507.C.76 NA5507.C.92 NA5507.C.77 NA5507.D.39 NA5507.D.51 NA5507.D.52 NA5507.D.53 NA5507.D.54 NA5507.D.96 NA5507.D.97 NA5507.D.98 NA5507.D.128 NA5507.D.129 Appendix 1 for names and references. *See the reconciliation table at end of

236 i - - B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B N N N Material ------Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y X-Rayed Curated MPC-mna MPC-mna MPC-mna MPC-mna MPC-mna MPC-mna MPC-mna MPC-mna MPC-mna MPC-mna MPC-mna MPC-mna MPC-mna MPC-mna MPC-mna MPC-mna MPC-mna MPC-mna MPC-mna MPC-mna MPC-mna MPC-mna MPC-mna MPC-mna MPC-mna 8, 9, 16 8, 9, 16 8, 9, 16 8, 9, 16 8, 9, 16 8, 9, 16 8, 9, 16 8, 9, 16 8, 9, 16 8, 9, 16 8, 9, 16 8, 9, 16 8, 9, 16 8, 9, 16 8, 9, 16 8, 9, 16 8, 9, 16 8, 9, 16 8, 9, 16 8, 9, 16 8, 9, 16 8, 9, 16 8, 9, 16 8, 9, 16 8, 9, 16 General Reference* ------Direct Reference* 4: 1953 4: 1953 4: 1953 4: 1953 4: 1953 4: 1953 4: 1953 4: 1953 4: 1953 4: 1953 4: 1953 4: 1953 4: 1953 4: 1953 4: 1953 4: 1953 4: 1953 4: 1953 4: 1953 4: 1953 4: 1953 4: 1953 4: 1953 4: 1953 4: 1953 Collector* Appendix 2 (continued) Antelope Cave Site Antelope Cave Antelope Cave Antelope Cave Antelope Cave Antelope Cave Antelope Cave Antelope Cave Antelope Cave Antelope Cave Antelope Cave Antelope Cave Antelope Cave Antelope Cave Antelope Cave Antelope Cave Antelope Cave Antelope Cave Antelope Cave Antelope Cave Antelope Cave Antelope Cave Antelope Cave Antelope Cave Antelope Cave Western Area Western Western Western Western Western Western Western Western Western Western Western Western Western Western Western Western Western Western Western Western Western Western Western Western NA5507.D.130 Artifact No. NA5507.D.131&D.154 NA5507.D.132 NA5507.D.133 NA5507.D.175 NA5507.D.176 NA5507.D.177 NA5507.D.178 NA5507.D.200 NA5507.M.43 NA5507.M.45 NA5507.M.46 NA5507.M.47 NA5507.M.48 NA5507.M.49 NA5507.M.50 NA5507.M.51 NA5507.M.52 NA5507.M.53 NA5507.M.96 NA5507.M.97 NA5507.M.99 NA5507.M.100 NA5507.M.101 NA5507.M.104 *See the reconciliation table at the end of Appendix 1 for names and references. *See the reconciliation table at end of

237 i ------B B B B B Material ------Y Y Y Y Y X-Rayed MPC MPC MPC MPC MPC MPC MPC MPC MPC MPC MPC MPC MPC MPC MPC MPC MPC MPC MPC MPC Curated MPC-mna MPC-mna MPC-mna MPC-mna MPC-mna ------8, 9, 16 8, 9, 16 8, 9, 16 8, 9, 16 8, 9, 16 8, 9, 16 8, 9, 16 8, 9, 16 8, 9, 16 8, 9, 16 8, 9, 16 General Reference* ------Direct Reference* ------4: 1953 4: 1953 4: 1953 4: 1953 4: 1953 4: 1953 4: 1953 12: 1983 12: 1983 12: 1983 12: 1983 15: 1890s Collector* Appendix 2 (continued) No Provenience No Provenience No Provenience No Provenience No Provenience No Provenience No Provenience No Provenience No Provenience Antelope Cave Antelope Cave Site No Provenience Antelope Cave No Provenience Antelope Cave Blanding Area Blanding Antelope Cave Antelope Cave No Provenience Antelope Cave Antelope Cave Antelope Cave Antelope Cave Antelope Cave No Provenience No Provenience No Provenience No Provenience No Provenience No Provenience No Provenience No Provenience No Provenience No Provenience Western Western Area No Provenience Western No Provenience Western Eastern Western Western No Provenience Western Western Western Western Western No Provenience *See the reconciliation table at the end of Appendix 1 for names and references. *See the reconciliation table at end of 72.065.054.02 72.065.054.1 72.065.053.3 72.065.053.2 72.065.053.1 66.053.001.001 1990.44.5.1 1990.44.4.1 1990.44.3.1 NA5507.M.105 NA5507.M.110 Artifact No. 1990.44.2.1 NA5507.M.111 1990.44.1.1 NA5507.M.113 1966.59.9.1 NA5507.M.114 86.017.003-Bag 1 96.T.2 86.017.003-Bag 2 FS94 in F47 F42 FS95a in F46 F42 FS95b in F46 F42 87.177.89 96.T.1

238 ------Material ------X-Rayed MPC MPC MPC MPC MPC MPC MPC MPC MPC MPC MPC MPC MPC MPC MPC MPC MPC MPC MPC MPC MPC NMAI NMAI NMAI NMAI NMAI Curated ------15 15 General Reference* ------15 Direct 7 and 15 Reference* ------1: 1980 1: 1980 6: 1979 15: 1890s 15: 1890s 15: 1890s 15: 1890s 15: 1890s Collector* Appendix 2 (continued) Salt Cave Salt Cave Salt Cave Salt Cave Chinle Canyon No Provenience No Provenience Blanding Area Blanding Blanding Area Blanding Blanding Area Blanding Blanding Area Blanding Blanding Area Blanding No Provenience No Provenience No Provenience No Provenience No Provenience No Provenience No Provenience No Provenience No Provenience No Provenience No Provenience No Provenience No Provenience No Provenience Site Western Western Western Western Eastern No Provenience No Provenience Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern No Provenience No Provenience No Provenience No Provenience No Provenience No Provenience No Provenience No Provenience No Provenience No Provenience No Provenience No Provenience No Provenience No Provenience Area 145337.000 145338.000 *See the reconciliation table at the end of Appendix 1 for names and references. *See the reconciliation table at end of 141989.000 145336.000 106284.000 98.253.1.1 98.253.2.1 95.2.87.1 95.2.85.1 95.2.53.1 95.2.52.1 95.2.49.1 80.079.042.003 80.079.042.002 79.014.001.001 74.319.002 74.319.001 73.021.003.002 73.021.003.001 73.021.002.001 72.065.056.001 72.065.055.5 72.065.055.4 72.065.055.3 72.065.055.2 72.065.055.1 Artifact No.

239 ------B N N N N Material ------X-Rayed NMAI NMAI NMNH NMNH NMNH NMNH NMNH NMNH NMNH NMNH NMNH NMNH NMNH NMNH NMNH NMNH NMNH NMNH NMNH NMNH Curated Peabody Peabody Peabody Peabody Peabody - - - - - 5 5 5 15 15 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 12 General Reference* ------5 10 10 10 Direct Reference* - - - 7: 1923 7: 1922 11: 1920 11: 1920 11: 14: 1919 14: 1919 14: 1919 14: 1919 14: 1919 14: 1919 14: 1917 14: 1920 14: 1920 14: 1920 14: 1920 14: 1920 14: 1920 14: 1920 14: 1920 14: 1920 16: 1923 17: 1914 Collector* Appendix 2 (continued) Salt Cave Site Salt Cave Cottonwood Canyon Cottonwood Canyon Cottonwood Canyon Cottonwood Canyon Cottonwood Canyon Cottonwood Canyon Betatakin Ruin Ranch Cave-Heaton’s Ranch Cave-Heaton’s Ranch Cave-Heaton’s Ranch Cave-Heaton’s Ranch Cave-Heaton’s Ranch Cave-Heaton’s Ranch Cave-Heaton’s Ranch Cave-Heaton’s Ranch Cave-Heaton’s Ranch Cave-Heaton’s Cottonwood Canyon Poncho House Waterfall Ruin Waterfall Turkey House Turkey Waterfall Ruin Waterfall Waterfall Ruin Waterfall Western Area Western Western Western Western Western Western Western Eastern Western Western Western Western Western Western Western Western Western Western Western Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern 145339.000 Artifact No. 145340.000 A309671 no.1 A309671 no.2 A309672 no.1 A309672 no.2 A309672 no.3 A309672 no.4 A312408 A315490 no.1 A315490 no.2 A315588 no.1 A315588 no.2 A315588 no.3a A315588 no.3b A315588 no.4 A315588 no.5 A315588 no.6 A315588 no.7 A315636 23-7-10/A5661 33-62-10/1828 23-7-10/A5748 14-5-10/A1688 22-13-10/A5555 *See the reconciliation table at the end of Appendix 1 for names and references. *See the reconciliation table at end of

240 ------B B B B B B B B B N N N N N N N N N Material ------Y X-Rayed PAH SUU Curated Peabody Peabody Peabody Peabody Peabody Peabody Peabody Peabody Peabody Peabody Peabody Peabody Peabody Peabody Peabody Peabody Peabody Peabody PR-Kanab, UT PR-Kanab, UT PR-Kanab, UT PR-Hurricane, UT PR-Hurricane, UT ------5 5 5 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 12 12 12 12 12 General Reference* ------5 5 12 14 Direct Reference* - - - 13 13 13 23 23 7: 1920 7: 1916 7: 1922 7: 1922 7: 1923 7: 1920 7: 1920 7: 1923 16: 1923 17: 1914 17: 1914 17: 1914 17: 1914 17: 1914 17: 1914 26: 1960s Collector* 18: ~1891-1892 Appendix 2 (continued) Cave 1 Site Turkey House Turkey Waterfall Ruin Waterfall Waterfall Ruin Waterfall Olla House Cave-Yellow Head Canyon Cave-Yellow Waterfall Ruin Waterfall Waterfall Ruin Waterfall Cave 2 Cave 1 Cave 1 Waterfall Ruin Waterfall Ruin 2 Virgin Area Virgin Ruin 2 Virgin Area Virgin Olla House Virgin Area Virgin Olla House Virgin Area Virgin Poncho House Waterfall Ruin Waterfall Area Virgin Virgin Area Virgin Canyons of the Colorado Eastern Area Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Western Eastern Western Eastern Western Eastern Western Eastern Eastern Western Western Eastern 21-6-10/A5319 Artifact No. 23-7-10/A5754 33-62-10/1827 33-62-10/1825 14-5-10/A1494 16-9-10/A3266 22-13-10/A5554 22-13-10/A5554.1 23-7-10/A5686 21-6-10/A5320 (toe) 21-6-10/A5320 (heel) 14-5-10/A1657 14-5-10/A1199 *See the reconciliation table at the end of Appendix 1 for names and references. *See the reconciliation table at end of SUU 1 14-5-10/A1221 AJ-SW-TS-001 14-5-10/A1495 599 14-5-10/A1496 598 23-7-10/A5659 33-62-10/1895 HPC 2 HPC 1 2-3612

241 i i - - B B B B B B B B B B B B B B N N N N N N N Material ------Y Y Y Y Y Y Y X-Rayed SUU SUU SUU SUU SUU SUU SUU SUU SUU UPenn UPenn UPenn UPenn UMNH UMNH UMNH UMNH UMNH UMNH UMNH UMNH UMNH UMNH UMNH UMNH Curated ------General Reference* ------11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 14 14 14 14 Direct 1, 3, 11 4 and 11 Reference* 3 3: 1911 3: 1911 3: 1911 3: 1911 3: 1911 3: 1911 3: 1911 3: 1914 3: 1914 25: 1949 21: 1892 26: 1960s 26: 1960s 26: 1960s 26: 1960s 26: 1960s 26: 1960s 26: 1960s 26: 1960s 26: 1960s Collector* 18: ~1891-1892 18: ~1891-1892 18: ~1891-1892 18: ~1891-1892 Appendix 2 (continued) Virgin Area Virgin House Turkey Virgin Area Virgin Area Virgin Turkey House Turkey Virgin Area Virgin Area Virgin Area Virgin Area Virgin Area Virgin Area Virgin Site Turkey House Turkey Turkey House Turkey Turkey House Turkey House Turkey Baby Mummy Cave Baby Mummy Cave House Turkey Canyons of the Colorado Canyons of the Colorado Canyons of the Colorado 42WS4 Canyons of the Colorado Cottonwood Wash Cottonwood Kayenta Area Kayenta Western Eastern Western Western Eastern Western Western Western Western Western Western Area Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Western Eastern Eastern Eastern SUU 9 1591 SUU 8 SUU 10 1594 SUU 2 SUU 3 SUU 4 SUU 5 SUU 6 SUU 7 Artifact No. 1596 1598 1602 1603 2567 2576 5002 *See the reconciliation table at the end of Appendix 1 for names and references. *See the reconciliation table at end of 29-43-643 29-43-644 29-43-645 42WS4 13608 29-42-824 7167 AR 4006 94.1

242 Yoder 2008 Yoder Shutler 1961 Osborne 2004 Morris 1980 Kidder and Guernsey 1919 Judd 1926 Kankainen 1995 Janetski and Wilde 1989 Wilde Janetski and Janetski and Hall 1983 Harrington 1927 Guernsey and Kidder 1921 Guernsey 1931 Deegan 1993 Cummings 1953 Baldwin 1938 Anderson 1969 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 11 16 15 14 13 12 10 Reference Reconciliation Appendix 2 (continued) A.V. Kidder and Samuel J. Guernsey A.V. Charles McLoyd and C. Graham Earl Morris Fred Pashley and Kuman Jones Ben and Hyrum Perkins, Hans Bayles, Platte Lyman, Frank and Claudia Pierce Private-Unknown Thelma Schulzen Statewide Survey Walker Carl A.V. Kidder and Mr. and Mrs. W. H. Claffin Jr W. and Mrs. Kidder and Mr. A.V. Charles B. Lang and Platt Lyman Neil M. Judd Andrew Johnston (private collection) Joel Janetski Franklin A. Heaton and wife through Neil M. Judd Franklin Irwin Hayden Emil W. Haury and Edwards John Hands W. Emil Merle R. Guthrie Samuel J. Guernsey Don Gobler Harold S. Gladwin Robert Euler Byron Cummings Harold S. Colton Hubert Bowen 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 11 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 16 15 14 13 12 10 Collector Reconciliation

243 appendix 3

Sandal Construction Data

244 Body Silhouette Body

------L L R U U U U U U Warp/Toe Configuration Warp/Toe

------Warp Knots at Heel at Knots Warp ------

OH-1 OH-1 OH-2 OH-2 OH-1 OH-2 OH-1 OH-1 Warp Helix Angle Helix Warp

- -

35 35 30 40 40 30 40 30 40 30 30 20 30 30 30 Warp Diameter (cm) Diameter Warp -

0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.8 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.42 0.45 0.38 0.35 0.35 0.39 0.36 0.36 Warp Twist Warp

S S S Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Warp Ply Warp

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 # of warps of #

- 6 5 4 4 4 6 6 6 6 6 6 4 6 4 4 4 Weft Spin Weft

A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Weft Density (per cm) (per Density Weft

- 4 2 3 2 3 2 2

2.2 1.9 1.5 2.3 2.2 3.3 2.3 2.5 1.5 Toe Silhouette Percentage Silhouette Toe - - - - -

41

37.9 29.1 37.6 26.3 37.3 35.0 34.7 44.2 35.3 25.2 29.2 Toe Measurement 3cm Measurement Toe

- - - - -

5.1 4.4 4.1 3.6 4.6 4.8 5.5 4.1 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.6 Toe Measurement 2cm Measurement Toe

- - - - - 3

4.4 3.9 3.4 3.5 4.1 4.3 3.4 4.1 3.8 3.4 3.3 Toe Measurement 1cm Measurement Toe

- - - - -

3.4 3.3 2.2 2.3 2.4 3.2 3.1 2.8 3.6 2.4 2.6 2.4 Toe Width (photo) Width Toe - - - - -

7.9 9.9 9.2 11.1 10.5 10.2 13.3 10.8 12.3 10.1 13.9 10.6 Heel Width Heel

i6 i8 Appendix 3: Sandal Construction Data

8.1 8.1 8.5 8.8 9.5 9.9 7.5 7.9 8.9 i10 i8.2 i8.2 11.1 10.2 10.2 Midsection Width Midsection

8 i7

7.7 7.8 8.5 9.3 7.7 7.5 9.4 9.4 7.6 7.5 7.6 8.6 10.1 10.3 10.5 Toe Width Toe

i7 i8 11

9.9 9.7 9.5 8.5 8.8 9.1 9.9 i9.5 i7.5 i6.6 i6.5 10.3 12.5 14.2 Length (cm) Length

30 25 31 29 26 28

i25 i29 i27 i24 28.5 24.3 27.5 28.5 24.5 25.5 30.5 Fragment ------

H,M,T H,M,T H,M,T H,M,T Condition F C C C C C C C C C C C C C N N N with left warp existing bottom, OH-I=overhand knot indeterminate direction, SP=splicing, NS=non-splicing, L=left, R=right, U=Uniform C=complete, N=nearly complete, F=fragment, H=heel, M=middle, T=toe, A=Alternates, OH-1=overhand knot with left warp existing top, OH-2=overhand T=toe, C=complete, N=nearly complete, F=fragment, H=heel, M=middle, 959 GP11052 508 3238 1027 A-24578-X-3 1028 958 2688 A-24578-X-2 Artifact No. A-42310 14681 2743 16121 A-14184 A-24578-X-1 16123

245 Body Silhouette Body

- - - - - L L L L R U U U U U U U U Warp/Toe Configuration Warp/Toe

------

SP Warp Knots at Heel at Knots Warp ------

OH-1 OH-1 OH-1 Warp Helix Angle Helix Warp

------

- 30 40 30 30 30 30 30 30 35 30 Warp Diameter (cm) Diameter Warp

- -

0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.3 Warp Twist Warp

- S S S Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Warp Ply Warp

- 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 # of warps of #

4 4 4 4 4 4 6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 4 4 4 Weft Spin Weft

A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Weft Density (per cm) (per Density Weft

- 2 2 2 3 2 2 2

1.7 1.7 2.2 1.8 1.8 1.2 2.1 2.8 1.2 1.2 Toe Silhouette Percentage Silhouette Toe - - - - -

28.2 29.8 32.5 28.7 32.3 46.1 27.4 37.5 23.1 31.6 38.3 26.3 43.9 Toe Measurement 3cm Measurement Toe

- - - - - 5

4.8 4.3 5.1 4.2 4.9 3.6 3.8 5.4 3.5 3.8 3.9 4.3 Toe Measurement 2cm Measurement Toe

- - - - - 4 3

3.4 4.3 3.4 4.1 3.5 3.2 4.7 2.6 3.1 4.1 4.2 Toe Measurement 1cm Measurement Toe

- - - - - 3

2.7 2.4 2.7 2.3 3.1 2.3 3.3 1.6 2.2 3.3 2.1 3.1 Appendix 3 (continued) (photo) Width Toe - - - - -

7.3 9.6 8.8 11.3 11.5 11.3 11.9 11.1 11.4 13.6 12.4 12.5 10.8 Heel Width Heel -

9 7 9 6 8 8 i9 10

i11 9.6 5.5 9.4 8.5 9.6 i9.5 10.4 10.5 Midsection Width Midsection -

10 10 10

8.5 9.1 9.5 5.9 9.5 9.9 8.5 6.5 9.5 9.8 8.4 10.5 10.5 10.3 Toe Width Toe -

9 9 11 13 12 12

6.5 9.8 11.5 11.5 11.6 11.5 11.3 12.5 12.5 10.5 10.7 Length (cm) Length -

28 31 30 26 28 20 34 31 28 24

27.5 29.5 26.5 31.5 22.5 27.5 i30.5 Fragment ------

H,M,T H,M,T Condition C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C N N with left warp existing bottom, OH-I=overhand knot indeterminate direction, SP=splicing, NS=non-splicing, L=left, R=right, U=Uniform C=complete, N=nearly complete, F=fragment, H=heel, M=middle, T=toe, A=Alternates, OH-1=overhand knot with left warp existing top, OH-2=overhand T=toe, C=complete, N=nearly complete, F=fragment, H=heel, M=middle, Pierce no.2 Pierce no.1 Pierce 37 Pierce no.3 2003-1598-1 Pierce 5 Pierce no.4 Artifact No. 20985 Pierce no.5 ECPR-10367 HM 1 Pierce no.7 Pierce no.8 ECPR-8711 Pierce no.6 ECPR-3941 HM 2 Pierce no.9

246 Body Silhouette Body

------L L L R R R U U U U U Warp/Toe Configuration Warp/Toe

------

SP Warp Knots at Heel at Knots Warp ------

OH-1 OH-2 OH-1 OH-1 Warp Helix Angle Helix Warp

------

30 30 35 40 30 30 30 30 Warp Diameter (cm) Diameter Warp - - - -

0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.47 0.53 0.44 0.38 0.35 0.36 0.47 0.45 0.38 0.32 Warp Twist Warp

S Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Warp Ply Warp

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 # of warps of #

- 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 6 4 4 4 6 Weft Spin Weft

A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Weft Density (per cm) (per Density Weft

3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 5 2

1.2 2.3 1.6 1.6 1.8 Toe Silhouette Percentage Silhouette Toe ------

31 24

37.3 38.9 31.2 32.7 31.2 33.3 31.9 31.2 29.5 26.5 Toe Measurement 3cm Measurement Toe

------5

4.6 4.3 4.2 3.9 4.3 4.7 4.9 4.1 4.8 4.1 4.4 Toe Measurement 2cm Measurement Toe

------

4.1 3.8 3.5 3.3 3.5 3.8 4.6 3.9 3.5 3.9 3.3 3.1 Toe Measurement 1cm Measurement Toe ------

3.5 3.1 2.4 2.6 2.6 2.9 3.5 2.5 2.6 2.9 1.9 1.8 Appendix 3 (continued) (photo) Width Toe ------

10

9.6 11.1 11.4 11.8 11.7 10.9 10.8 14.1 10.9 13.1 12.9 Heel Width Heel

- - - - - i9 i9

10 7.4 8.2 9.2 8.2 9.4 9.1 8.6 9.2 6.8 i8.5 Midsection Width Midsection

- - 9 9

10 10 10 8.8 8.7 8.3 9.8 9.3 8.7 7.5 9.8 8.9 9.5 6.7 Toe Width Toe -

11

9.9 9.3 9.4 i12 i7.4 11.4 10.4 10.9 10.3 10.6 12.9 10.5 12.1 10.7 10.9 12.2 Length (cm) Length

28 29 29 31 29 30 31 i11 i29 i17 i23

i5.5 29.5 30.5 29.5 26.5 i10.8 i22.5 Fragment ------T

M,T M,T M,T M,T

H,M,T H,M,T Condition F F F F F C C C C C C C C C C C N N with left warp existing bottom, OH-I=overhand knot indeterminate direction, SP=splicing, NS=non-splicing, L=left, R=right, U=Uniform C=complete, N=nearly complete, F=fragment, H=heel, M=middle, T=toe, A=Alternates, OH-1=overhand knot with left warp existing top, OH-2=overhand T=toe, C=complete, N=nearly complete, F=fragment, H=heel, M=middle, Artifact No. B-44 OC79 KM 1 A497 NA2520.10 NA5507.5 OC78 BP 4757 BP KM 2 NA5507.C.3 NA5507.C.5 NA5507.C.31 NA2520.11 NA5507.M.98 NA2521.10 NA5507.M.102 NA5507.M.106 NA2521.9

247 Body Silhouette Body

------L L R R U U U U U U U Warp/Toe Configuration Warp/Toe

------Warp Knots at Heel at Knots Warp ------

OH-1 OH-1 OH-1 OH-1 OH-1 OH-1 OH-1 OH-1 Warp Helix Angle Helix Warp

- - - - -

30 30 30 40 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 40 25 Warp Diameter (cm) Diameter Warp - -

0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.44 Warp Twist Warp

Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Warp Ply Warp

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 # of warps of #

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 4 4 4 4 Weft Spin Weft

A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Weft Density (per cm) (per Density Weft

- 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

2.8 2.5 1.2 1.4 1.2 2.5 2.5 1.2 1.5 Toe Silhouette Percentage Silhouette Toe - - -

24

25.9 31.6 33.9 34.8 37.7 34.2 36.1 30.5 33.1 25.9 31.4 34.1 38.1 33.3 Toe Measurement 3cm Measurement Toe

- - - 5 4

4.3 4.4 4.8 4.7 5.9 4.5 5.1 5.1 4.7 4.6 5.2 4.4 4.6 Toe Measurement 2cm Measurement Toe

- - - 4 3

3.4 3.7 4.1 4.9 3.8 4.5 4.3 4.5 3.6 3.8 4.3 3.9 3.9 Toe Measurement 1cm Measurement Toe - -

- 4 3 2

2.1 2.6 3.2 3.1 3.4 3.3 3.3 2.1 2.9 3.4 2.9 2.7 Appendix 3 (continued) (photo) Width Toe - - -

11 12 12

9.8 11.3 11.9 11.3 11.2 12.6 13.1 13.9 12.9 13.4 12.6 12.5 Heel Width Heel - - - -

9.2 9.2 9.1 9.7 9.7 9.5 7.8 8.9 9.6 i9.6 10.3 10.5 10.3 10.4 Midsection Width Midsection - -

11

9.7 9.4 8.4 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.4 9.5 9.3 8.9 8.4 9.6 9.1 10.3 10.9 Toe Width Toe - - -

9.8

11.7 11.3 11.3 11.9 11.9 11.3 11.6 10.2 12.5 12.8 12.3 10.7 12.4 i11.1 Length (cm) Length

29 31 25 29 31 25 32 i26 i12 i14

i6.2 i9.5 20.8 31.5 28.3 28.5 28.5 i26.5 Fragment ------H M

M,T H,M

H,M,T H,M,T Condition F F F F F C C C C C C C C C N N N N with left warp existing bottom, OH-I=overhand knot indeterminate direction, SP=splicing, NS=non-splicing, L=left, R=right, U=Uniform C=complete, N=nearly complete, F=fragment, H=heel, M=middle, T=toe, A=Alternates, OH-1=overhand knot with left warp existing top, OH-2=overhand T=toe, C=complete, N=nearly complete, F=fragment, H=heel, M=middle, NA5507.C.50 NA5507.C.40 Artifact No. NA5507.C.32 NA5507.C.56 NA5507.C.71 NA5507.C.72 NA5507.D.96 NA5507.C.73 NA5507.C.92 NA5507.D.51 NA5507.C.74 NA5507.D.52 NA5507.D.54 NA5507.D.53 NA5507.C.76 NA5507.C.75 NA5507.C.77 NA5507.D.39

248 Body Silhouette Body

------L L L U U U Warp/Toe Configuration Warp/Toe

------

SP SP SP SP Warp Knots at Heel at Knots Warp ------

OH-1 OH-1 OH-1 OH-1 Warp Helix Angle Helix Warp

------

- - - 30 30 30 30 30 30 35 30 30 Warp Diameter (cm) Diameter Warp

- - -

0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 Warp Twist Warp

S Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Warp Ply Warp

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 # of warps of #

- 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Weft Spin Weft

A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Weft Density (per cm) (per Density Weft

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

1.8 1.6 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.5 1.2 Toe Silhouette Percentage Silhouette Toe ------

36

27.5 32.7 32.8 37.8 33.3 35.5 30.1 32.8 28.5 Toe Measurement 3cm Measurement Toe

------

5.3 4.3 4.1 5.4 5.2 4.4 5.1 4.7 5.3 5.1 Toe Measurement 2cm Measurement Toe

------4

4.5 3.5 3.3 4.5 4.7 3.5 4.6 3.9 4.6 Toe Measurement 1cm Measurement Toe

------2 3

3.5 2.2 3.4 3.6 2.5 3.4 3.3 2.6 Appendix 3 (continued) (photo) Width Toe ------

9.8 11.9 11.9 12.3 13.5 10.4 12.3 13.2 13.1 13.7 Heel Width Heel

------

9.1 9.4 7.6 9.5 i9.5 i9.9 i8.3 i8.7 i9.4 Midsection Width Midsection ------

9 10

9.4 8.4 8.7 9.2 i10 i9.1 10.1 10.1 Toe Width Toe - - - -

11

9.6 i9.8 11.2 11.2 12.1 12.3 10.7 10.1 12.1 12.1 12.2 10.8 12.6 Length (cm) Length

i7 i8 27

i18 i19 i20 i13 i25 i12 i16 i6.2 30.5 27.5 26.5 27.5 24.5 30.5 29.5 Fragment ------T T T M

H,T M,T M,T M,T H,M

H,M,T Condition F F F F F F F F F F C C C C N N N N with left warp existing bottom, OH-I=overhand knot indeterminate direction, SP=splicing, NS=non-splicing, L=left, R=right, U=Uniform C=complete, N=nearly complete, F=fragment, H=heel, M=middle, T=toe, A=Alternates, OH-1=overhand knot with left warp existing top, OH-2=overhand T=toe, C=complete, N=nearly complete, F=fragment, H=heel, M=middle, NA5507.M.48 NA5507.M.47 NA5507.M.46 NA5507.M.45 NA5507.M.43 NA5507.D.200 NA5507.D.177 NA5507.D.178 NA5507.D.175 NA5507.D.176 NA5507.D.133 NA5507.D.132 Artifact No. NA5507.D.97 NA5507.D.131&D.154 NA5507.D.98 NA5507.D.128 NA5507.D.129 NA5507.D.130

249 Body Silhouette Body

------L L R R R U U Warp/Toe Configuration Warp/Toe

------

SP SP SP SP Warp Knots at Heel at Knots Warp ------

OH-1 OH-1 OH-1 OH-1 OH-1 OH-1 OH-1 Warp Helix Angle Helix Warp

- - - - -

30 30 25 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 20 30 25 Warp Diameter (cm) Diameter Warp -

0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.45 Warp Twist Warp

Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Warp Ply Warp

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 # of warps of #

- 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 4 4 6 4 4 4 Weft Spin Weft

A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Weft Density (per cm) (per Density Weft

- 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3

2.3 1.5 2.2 1.6 1.9 1.9 Toe Silhouette Percentage Silhouette Toe ------

28 26

35.7 31.1 30.6 31.4 29.2 Toe Measurement 3cm Measurement Toe

------5

4.9 4.5 4.9 4.5 4.1 4.5 Toe Measurement 2cm Measurement Toe

------4

4.5 4.3 3.5 3.7 3.4 3.6 Toe Measurement 1cm Measurement Toe - -

------2

3.9 3.2 2.5 2.8 2.5 2.4 Appendix 3 (continued) (photo) Width Toe ------

12 12

11.9 12.5 13.3 12.1 12.8 Heel Width Heel ------

9.2 9.9 9.8 9.5 9.1 8.2 i10 i8.4 i8.3 10.7 Midsection Width Midsection ------

10

9.3 8.9 9.1 9.8 8.1 9.9 9.2 9.7 8.7 10.1 Toe Width Toe ------

9.9

i9.1 11.5 11.2 11.7 11.7 11.8 12.3 10.1 12.2 i10.7 i12.1 Length (cm) Length

i8 i7 32 27 23 31 32 i11 i19 i28

i3.5 i2.5 31.5 28.5 30.5 25.2 20.5 i12.5 Fragment ------T T T H H M

M,T

H,M,T Condition F F F F F F F F C C C C C C C N N N with left warp existing bottom, OH-I=overhand knot indeterminate direction, SP=splicing, NS=non-splicing, L=left, R=right, U=Uniform C=complete, N=nearly complete, F=fragment, H=heel, M=middle, T=toe, A=Alternates, OH-1=overhand knot with left warp existing top, OH-2=overhand T=toe, C=complete, N=nearly complete, F=fragment, H=heel, M=middle, NA5507.M.101 Artifact No. NA5507.M.49 NA5507.M.52 NA5507.M.104 NA5507.M.50 NA5507.M.51 NA5507.M.53 NA5507.M.97 NA5507.M.99 NA5507.M.105 NA5507.M.100 NA5507.M.96 NA5507.M.113 NA5507.M.110 NA5507.M.114 86.017.003-Bag 1 NA5507.M.111 86.017.003-Bag 2

250 Body Silhouette Body

------L L R U U U U U U U Warp/Toe Configuration Warp/Toe

------

SP SP Warp Knots at Heel at Knots Warp ------

OH-1 OH-1 OH-1 OH-1 OH-1 OH-1 OH-2 OH-1 Warp Helix Angle Helix Warp

------

30 30 30 30 35 30 30 30 30 35 30 Warp Diameter (cm) Diameter Warp - - -

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.35 0.44 0.43 0.41 0.49 0.45 0.46 0.43 Warp Twist Warp

- S S Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Warp Ply Warp

- 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 # of warps of #

- 4 4 4 6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Weft Spin Weft

- A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Weft Density (per cm) (per Density Weft

- - 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

1.5 1.2 1.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.3 2.5 Toe Silhouette Percentage Silhouette Toe ------

25

32.8 18.4 29.5 32.5 27.8 23.1 31.2 35.8 27.4 22.8 35.5 Toe Measurement 3cm Measurement Toe

------4

5.6 3.4 4.3 5.1 4.8 4.1 4.9 5.2 4.2 3.9 5.6 Toe Measurement 2cm Measurement Toe

------4 4 3

4.4 3.4 2.6 3.8 3.7 3.1 4.7 3.5 4.4 Toe Measurement 1cm Measurement Toe - -

- - - - 3 2

2.5 1.5 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.1 2.9 3.3 2.2 3.2 Appendix 3 (continued) (photo) Width Toe ------

11.8 13.2 13.2 13.6 12.3 12.2 13.3 13.4 12.6 12.3 13.3 12.4 Heel Width Heel - - - - - 8 9

i9 8.9 8.9 8.6 9.8

10.9 10.6 10.5 10.4 i10.4 i10.1 Midsection Width Midsection - - -

9 i9 10

8.9 9.2 9.7 9.1 9.4 9.3 9.6 i9.1 10.4 10.1 10.1 10.8 Toe Width Toe - -

i9 11

11.6 11.4 11.7 11.7 11.2 11.3 12.5 12.2 12.6 10.8 12.9 12.3 12.4 i10.1 Length (cm) Length

29 29 28 27 i26 i25 i15 i33 i25

31.5 28.5 27.4 21.2 30.5 30.8 28.4 i14.5 i16.5 Fragment ------M

M,T M,T M,T

H,M,T H,M,T Condition F F F F F F C C C C C C C C C C N N with left warp existing bottom, OH-I=overhand knot indeterminate direction, SP=splicing, NS=non-splicing, L=left, R=right, U=Uniform C=complete, N=nearly complete, F=fragment, H=heel, M=middle, T=toe, A=Alternates, OH-1=overhand knot with left warp existing top, OH-2=overhand T=toe, C=complete, N=nearly complete, F=fragment, H=heel, M=middle, 66.053.001.001 1990.44.5.1 72.065.053.1 1990.44.4.1 FS95a in F46 F42 FS95b in F46 F42 87.177.89 1966.59.9.1 1990.44.1.1 Artifact No. FS94 in F47 F42 72.065.053.2 72.065.053.3 72.065.054.1 1990.44.2.1 1990.44.3.1 96.T.2 72.065.054.02 96.T.1

251 Body Silhouette Body

- - - - - L L L U U U U U U U U U U Warp/Toe Configuration Warp/Toe

------

SP SP SP SP SP Warp Knots at Heel at Knots Warp ------

OH-1 OH-1 OH-1 OH-1 OH-1 OH-1 OH-1 OH-1 OH-1 Warp Helix Angle Helix Warp

-

- - 30 30 35 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 35 30 35 Warp Diameter (cm) Diameter Warp - -

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.32 0.35 0.42 0.32 0.45 0.38 0.44 0.49 0.35 0.35 Warp Twist Warp

S S S Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Warp Ply Warp

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 # of warps of #

6 4 6 4 4 4 4 6 4 6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Weft Spin Weft

S A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Weft Density (per cm) (per Density Weft

3 2 5 3 2 3 5 2 2 2 4 1 2

1.3 1.5 2.2 2.2 1.8 Toe Silhouette Percentage Silhouette Toe - - - -

43

21.7 32.3 23.8 22.6 32.2 22.7 36.1 26.7 22.9 28.3 32.7 34.9 27.6 Toe Measurement 3cm Measurement Toe

- - - -

3.8 3.7 3.9 4.1 4.5 3.7 5.1 4.2 3.4 4.5 3.7 4.2 5.8 3.9 Toe Measurement 2cm Measurement Toe

- - - -

2.9 3.1 3.1 3.3 3.9 2.7 4.3 3.2 2.6 3.7 3.6 3.5 4.5 3.1 Toe Measurement 1cm Measurement Toe

- - - - 2 3

1.9 2.3 1.9 2.3 3.6 2.3 1.7 2.5 2.9 2.9 3.4 2.1 Appendix 3 (continued) (photo) Width Toe - - - -

11 12

9.4 7.9 11.8 11.2 13.2 12.6 13.7 12.8 12.1 12.6 10.8 13.1 Heel Width Heel -

9

9.3 9.1 8.6 8.5 8.7 i6.7 i9.6 i7.9 i4.8 i7.7 10.4 10.2 10.5 10.6 10.1 10.2 Midsection Width Midsection -

9 11 10

7.4 9.6 8.9 9.8 9.4 9.7 9.6 9.2 i7.9 i7.3 10.4 10.5 10.4 10.9 Toe Width Toe - -

i4 11 12 12 8.9

i7.4 11.5 11.3 11.5 12.6 10.2 10.1 12.5 10.3 i11.7 i11.4 Length (cm) Length

31 31 30 27 i11 i23 i32 i22

26.5 30.1 33.5 25.2 30.5 30.4 24.5 28.5 30.5 i28.6 Fragment ------T

H,M

H,M,T H,M,T Condition F F F F C C C C C C C C C C C C N N with left warp existing bottom, OH-I=overhand knot indeterminate direction, SP=splicing, NS=non-splicing, L=left, R=right, U=Uniform C=complete, N=nearly complete, F=fragment, H=heel, M=middle, T=toe, A=Alternates, OH-1=overhand knot with left warp existing top, OH-2=overhand T=toe, C=complete, N=nearly complete, F=fragment, H=heel, M=middle, 72.065.056.001 80.079.042.003 95.2.49.1 72.065.055.5 79.014.001.001 74.319.002 80.079.042.002 95.2.52.1 Artifact No. 72.065.055.1 72.065.055.3 72.065.055.4 72.065.055.2 95.2.85.1 73.021.002.001 73.021.003.001 95.2.53.1 73.021.003.002 74.319.001

252 Body Silhouette Body

------L L U U U U U U U U U Warp/Toe Configuration Warp/Toe

------Warp Knots at Heel at Knots Warp ------

OH-1 OH-1 OH-1 OH-1 OH-1 OH-1 OH-1 Warp Helix Angle Helix Warp

------

30 30 30 25 35 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Warp Diameter (cm) Diameter Warp - - - - -

0.3 0.3 0.3 0.29 0.34 0.38 0.34 0.37 0.33 0.28 0.37 0.34 0.31 Warp Twist Warp

S S S Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Warp Ply Warp

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 # of warps of #

4 6 4 4 4 4 4 6 4 4 6 6 4 4 4 4 4 4 Weft Spin Weft

A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Weft Density (per cm) (per Density Weft

- - 2 3 2 2 2 4 3 2 2 2 2

1.2 1.5 2.5 2.3 2.3 Toe Silhouette Percentage Silhouette Toe - - -

34

21.6 27.1 22.7 29.8 31.3 36.8 30.6 35.9 37.2 40.3 35.5 34.2 40.7 45.8 Toe Measurement 3cm Measurement Toe

- - - 5

4.2 3.6 4.9 4.2 4.7 3.9 4.1 4.8 4.4 4.7 4.9 4.6 4.9 4.7 Toe Measurement 2cm Measurement Toe

- - - 3 4 4

3.6 3.2 3.8 3.3 3.8 4.4 3.9 4.2 4.5 4.1 4.6 4.7 Toe Measurement 1cm Measurement Toe - - -

2 4

2.5 1.9 2.5 2.4 2.2 2.8 3.2 2.8 3.6 3.4 2.9 2.9 4.3 Appendix 3 (continued) (photo) Width Toe - - -

14 10

9.7 11.2 11.6 10.1 13.1 13.8 12.2 13.5 10.3 10.6 10.8 10.9 10.2 Heel Width Heel ------

8

8.8 9.7 8.4 7.3 8.9 8.8 8.6 i6.8 i9.8 10.1 Midsection Width Midsection - - - - -

9

7.4 9.3 8.1 8.4 8.1 9.1 9.1 8.6 i9.0 10.9 10.4 10.5 Toe Width Toe

i9 9.6 9.8 8.6 9.5

i9.5 i9.7 i9.5 11.1 12.1 12.8 12.6 12.8 10.6 10.4 10.4 10.2 i11.3 Length (cm) Length

28 29 i17 i23 i23

i8.7 i9.1 29.5 28.5 28.5 30.1 27.5 25.5 29.3 29.5 29.4 i10.7 i13.5 Fragment ------

T T T

M,T M,T M,T M,T Condition F F F F F F F C C C C C C C C C C N with left warp existing bottom, OH-I=overhand knot indeterminate direction, SP=splicing, NS=non-splicing, L=left, R=right, U=Uniform C=complete, N=nearly complete, F=fragment, H=heel, M=middle, T=toe, A=Alternates, OH-1=overhand knot with left warp existing top, OH-2=overhand T=toe, C=complete, N=nearly complete, F=fragment, H=heel, M=middle, 141989.000 106284.000 145336.000 98.253.1.1 145337.000 145338.000 98.253.2.1 145339.000 A309672 no.4 A309672 no.3 145340.000 A309672 no.1 Artifact No. 95.2.87.1 A312408 A309672 no.2 A309671 no.2 A315490 no.1 A309671 no.1

253 Body Silhouette Body

------L L L R U U U U U U U U Warp/Toe Configuration Warp/Toe

------

SP Warp Knots at Heel at Knots Warp ------

OH-1 OH-1 OH-1 OH-2 OH-1 OH-1 OH-2 OH-1 OH-1 Warp Helix Angle Helix Warp

- -

- 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Warp Diameter (cm) Diameter Warp - -

0.3 0.3 0.34 0.37 0.38 0.33 0.36 0.45 0.35 0.39 0.35 0.43 0.33 0.28 0.27 0.41 Warp Twist Warp

S Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Warp Ply Warp

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 # of warps of #

4 6 4 4 4 4 6 4 6 4 4 6 6 6 4 4 4 4 Weft Spin Weft

A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Weft Density (per cm) (per Density Weft

3 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3

2.5 1.5 1.5 2.5 2.7 Toe Silhouette Percentage Silhouette Toe - - - - -

28 28

31.1 34.1 29.3 25.4 29.8 26.2 31.7 27.3 32.1 38.6 34.3 Toe Measurement 3cm Measurement Toe

- - - - - 4

5.5 5.3 4.3 4.6 4.5 5.1 3.3 3.7 4.1 3.3 3.2 3.9 Toe Measurement 2cm Measurement Toe

- - - - - 4 3

4.6 3.1 3.2 3.7 3.7 4.1 2.7 3.1 2.7 2.7 3.5 Toe Measurement 1cm Measurement Toe

- - - - - 3

3.5 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.7 2.1 2.2 2.3 1.9 2.1 2.8 Appendix 3 (continued) (photo) Width Toe - - - - -

13

9.9 8.2 6.9 9.9 11.3 13.4 13.1 10.7 12.1 13.5 12.5 10.6 Heel Width Heel 9 9 7

10 9.2 7.9 8.9 7.4 9.2 5.7

i8.8 i5.3 i9.2 i8.9 i9.2 i6.9 10.6 i10.1 Midsection Width Midsection

10

9.9 9.9 8.4 9.9 9.7 9.3 8.7 8.2 7.9 8.2 7.3 5.7 8.8 i9.6 10.2 10.5 10.3 Toe Width Toe

10 9.6 7.8 6.5 9.6

11.8 11.9 11.1 12.9 12.5 12.2 12.3 12.6 10.5 10.3 i10.9 i10.8 i10.6 Length (cm) Length

26 32 i27 i26

28.3 29.5 29.3 28.5 31.2 30.6 33.2 28.2 28.4 25.2 21.2 25.8 27.8 i24.5 Fragment ------

M,T

H,M,T H,M,T Condition F F F C C C C C C C C C C C C N N N with left warp existing bottom, OH-I=overhand knot indeterminate direction, SP=splicing, NS=non-splicing, L=left, R=right, U=Uniform C=complete, N=nearly complete, F=fragment, H=heel, M=middle, T=toe, A=Alternates, OH-1=overhand knot with left warp existing top, OH-2=overhand T=toe, C=complete, N=nearly complete, F=fragment, H=heel, M=middle, A315588 no.5 A315588 no.3a A315588 no.4 A315588 no.6 A315588 no.1 A315588 no.2 A315588 no.3b A315588 no.7 A315636 Artifact No. A315490 no.2 23-7-10/A5661 33-62-10/1828 22-13-10/A5555 33-62-10/1827 14-5-10/A1688 23-7-10/A5754 23-7-10/A5748 21-6-10/A5319

254 Body Silhouette Body

------L L L L R U U U U U Warp/Toe Configuration Warp/Toe

------N N N Warp Knots at Heel at Knots Warp ------

OH-1 OH-1 Warp Helix Angle Helix Warp

- -

- - 30 30 30 30 35 35 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Warp Diameter (cm) Diameter Warp -

0.5 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.42 0.32 0.32 0.31 0.31 0.44 0.36 0.42 0.37 0.26 Warp Twist Warp

S S S S Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Warp Ply Warp

- 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 # of warps of #

4 4 4 6 4 4 6 4 4 4 6 6 4 4 6 4 4 4 Weft Spin Weft

- - ? A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Weft Density (per cm) (per Density Weft

- - 2 2 3 4 3 4 2 3 2 2 3 3 4

3.2 2.5 3.5 Toe Silhouette Percentage Silhouette Toe ------

34

29.3 31.4 38.7 29.9 30.9 25.1 33.3 21.7 27.3 32.8 Toe Measurement 3cm Measurement Toe

------

4.5 3.6 3.3 3.3 3.9 3.7 3.3 3.9 3.9 2.9 4.6 Toe Measurement 2cm Measurement Toe

------3 3 3 3

3.7 2.8 3.6 2.6 3.5 2.5 4.1 Toe Measurement 1cm Measurement Toe - - - -

- - - 2

2.6 2.1 1.9 2.4 2.8 2.3 1.7 2.3 1.9 3.1 Appendix 3 (continued) (photo) Width Toe ------

12

9.9 8.5 7.5 9.7 9.7 8.9 11.5 10.6 10.1 13.7 Heel Width Heel

- - 6 8 7 i8

8.1 8.1 7.1 6.9 8.1 i8.1 i7.4 i5.4 i8.2 i8.1 i7.2 i3.7 Midsection Width Midsection

- - 8 8 7 7

8.3 8.9 5.6 6.8 7.3 8.4 8.5 7.3 8.8 8.2 i5.3 i5.2 Toe Width Toe - -

9

9.9 9.3 7.2 7.6 9.5 9.3 8.3 9.2 i8.2 i7.8 i9.6 i4.3 11.2 10.1 10.7 Length (cm) Length

24 i24 i21

i2.3 26.4 29.2 26.8 28.2 26.8 25.5 22.8 26.5 i19.5 i16.5 i14.2 i22.5 i23.4 i30.5 Fragment ------T H

M,T M,T H,M

H,M,T H,M,T H,M,T H,M,T Condition F F F F F F F F F C C C C C C N N N with left warp existing bottom, OH-I=overhand knot indeterminate direction, SP=splicing, NS=non-splicing, L=left, R=right, U=Uniform C=complete, N=nearly complete, F=fragment, H=heel, M=middle, T=toe, A=Alternates, OH-1=overhand knot with left warp existing top, OH-2=overhand T=toe, C=complete, N=nearly complete, F=fragment, H=heel, M=middle, Artifact No. 33-62-10/1825 14-5-10/A1494 16-9-10/A3266 23-7-10/A5686 22-13-10/A5554.1 22-13-10/A5554 21-6-10/A5320 (toe) 21-6-10/A5320 (heel) HPC 2 14-5-10/A1221 14-5-10/A1657 14-5-10/A1496 23-7-10/A5659 HPC 1 14-5-10/A1495 33-62-10/1895 14-5-10/A1199 2-3612

255 Body Silhouette Body

- - - - L L R R R R R U U U U U U U Warp/Toe Configuration Warp/Toe

------

SP Warp Knots at Heel at Knots Warp ------

OH-1 OH-1 OH-1 OH-1 OH-1 Warp Helix Angle Helix Warp

- - -

- - 30 40 25 40 30 30 35 30 30 40 30 30 35 Warp Diameter (cm) Diameter Warp - - - -

0.5 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.35 0.38 0.48 0.37 0.45 Warp Twist Warp

S Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Warp Ply Warp

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 # of warps of #

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 4 4 6 4 4 4 Weft Spin Weft

- A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Weft Density (per cm) (per Density Weft

- 3 2 2 2 3 4 5

1.2 2.5 1.7 2.2 1.5 2.2 2.1 1.5 1.8 1.5 Toe Silhouette Percentage Silhouette Toe - - - - -

33

21.3 30.1 24.4 27.2 26.8 33.7 34.3 30.1 27.8 31.9 28.5 35.4 Toe Measurement 3cm Measurement Toe

- - - - - 4

3.6 4.9 3.8 4.5 5.5 3.8 4.1 4.3 4.4 4.3 3.7 3.9 Toe Measurement 2cm Measurement Toe

- - - - - 3

2.7 4.1 2.8 3.6 3.8 3.3 3.6 3.8 3.6 3.4 3.2 3.5 Toe Measurement 1cm Measurement Toe

- - - - - 3

1.5 3.1 1.9 2.6 2.1 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.4 2.4 2.1 2.2 Appendix 3 (continued) (photo) Width Toe - - - - -

11

9.6 9.2 9.8 11.6 11.5 12.2 13.4 13.1 14.2 10.5 10.4 12.1 Heel Width Heel - - - - -

9 9

9.5 9.4 8.5 9.7 8.6 8.3 9.4 i6.8 i5.3 i8.9 11.3 Midsection Width Midsection

8 10 10

9.5 9.1 9.9 8.6 8.3 8.6 9.2 9.6 6.4 7.2 8.6 8.5 10.9 10.7 10.2 Toe Width Toe -

10

9.4 i7.5 i9.4 i6.8 i8.2 11.3 11.1 11.6 10.2 13.1 12.7 12.8 12.5 10.3 10.2 10.3 Length (cm) Length

28 28 30 26 27 27 i21 i25 i28 i16 i22 i25

30.5 28.5 27.5 27.7 i29.5 i28.5 Fragment ------

M,T M,T

H,M,T H,M,T H,M,T H,M,T H,M,T H,M,T Condition F F F C C C C C C C C C C N N N N N with left warp existing bottom, OH-I=overhand knot indeterminate direction, SP=splicing, NS=non-splicing, L=left, R=right, U=Uniform C=complete, N=nearly complete, F=fragment, H=heel, M=middle, T=toe, A=Alternates, OH-1=overhand knot with left warp existing top, OH-2=overhand T=toe, C=complete, N=nearly complete, F=fragment, H=heel, M=middle, AJ-SW-TS-001 SUU 4 599 SUU 8 SUU 1 SUU 5 SUU 2 Artifact No. 598 SUU 3 SUU 9 SUU 7 SUU 6 SUU 10 1594 1602 1596 1591 1598

256 Body Silhouette Body

------L L R U U Warp/Toe Configuration Warp/Toe

------

SP Warp Knots at Heel at Knots Warp ------

OH-1 OH-1 Warp Helix Angle Helix Warp

- - -

30 30 30 30 30 35 30 30 Warp Diameter (cm) Diameter Warp -

0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.55 0.35 0.36 0.28 0.37 0.37 Warp Twist Warp

S S S S Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Warp Ply Warp

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 # of warps of #

6 4 6 4 4 6 4 4 6 6 4 Weft Spin Weft

S A A A A A A A A A A Weft Density (per cm) (per Density Weft

3 4 3 3

1.8 1.5 1.7 2.2 1.5 3.5 2.2 Toe Silhouette Percentage Silhouette Toe - - - - -

35

36.2 32.7 26.9 32.1 41.6 Toe Measurement 3cm Measurement Toe

- - - - -

4.4 4.5 4.6 3.4 4.2 4.2 Toe Measurement 2cm Measurement Toe

- - - - -

3.9 3.8 3.7 2.7 3.4 3.6 Toe Measurement 1cm Measurement Toe

- - - - -

2.9 2.7 2.1 2.1 2.6 2.8 Appendix 3 (continued) (photo) Width Toe - - - - -

7.8 8.5 11.2 10.3 12.9 10.6 Heel Width Heel

- - - 7 i8

6.8 9.4 7.6 i8.4 i7.2 i4.8 Midsection Width Midsection

9 7

8.2 8.7 8.8 6.8 7.1 5.7 8.2 8.3 10.1 Toe Width Toe - - -

12

9.7 9.9 7.4 9.9 i9.2 10.8 10.1 Length (cm) Length

27 i24 i16 i25

i9.2 28.5 22.4 28.6 25.3 i21.5 i18.5 Fragment - - - - - M

M,T M,T H,M

H,M,T H,M,T Condition F F F F F C C C N N N with left warp existing bottom, OH-I=overhand knot indeterminate direction, SP=splicing, NS=non-splicing, L=left, R=right, U=Uniform C=complete, N=nearly complete, F=fragment, H=heel, M=middle, T=toe, A=Alternates, OH-1=overhand knot with left warp existing top, OH-2=overhand T=toe, C=complete, N=nearly complete, F=fragment, H=heel, M=middle, Artifact No. 1603 2567 2576 5002 7167 AR 4006 94.1 42WS4 13608 29-42-824 29-43-644 29-43-645 29-43-643

257 appendix 4

Sandal Tie System Data

258 Heel Loop-Twist 2 Loop-Twist Heel

------S Heel Loop-Ply 2 Loop-Ply Heel

------2 Heel Loop-Twist 1 Loop-Twist Heel

- - - - S S S S S S Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Heel Loop-Ply 1 Loop-Ply Heel

- - - - 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 4 4 4 3 2 4 Heel Loop Type Loop Heel

------

K K K K SD SD SD SD SD Tie Cord/Ankle Loop-Twist 2 Loop-Twist Cord/Ankle Tie

------Z Tie Cord/Ankle Loop-Ply 2 Loop-Ply Cord/Ankle Tie

------4 Tie Cord/Ankle Loop-Twist 1 Loop-Twist Cord/Ankle Tie

------Z Tie Cord/Ankle Loop-Ply 1 Loop-Ply Cord/Ankle Tie

------2 Side Loop-Twist 2 Loop-Twist Side

------S Z Side Loop-Ply 2 Loop-Ply Side

------4 2 Side Loop-Twist 1 Loop-Twist Side

------Z Z Side Loop-Ply 1 Loop-Ply Side

------2 2 Toe Loop-Twist 2 Loop-Twist Toe ------

Appendix 4: Sandal Tie System Data Tie Appendix 4: Sandal Toe Loop-Ply 2 Loop-Ply Toe

------Toe Loop -Twist 1 -Twist Loop Toe

------S S S S S S S S Z Toe Loop-Ply 1 Loop-Ply Toe

------4 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 # of Toe Loops Toe of #

------1 2 2 2 i1 i1 i1 i1 i1 Toe Loop Type Loop Toe

------L

SD SD SD Tie System Tie - SL SL TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH-i TH-i TH-i TH-i TH-i TH-i TH=toe-heel, TH-I=toe-heel indeterminate, TH-hl=toe-heel heel loop, TH-v=toe-heel variant, SL=side-loop, SD=Solid, K=knotted, L=looped, CB=combination TH-hl=toe-heel heel loop, TH-I=toe-heel indeterminate, TH=toe-heel, 508 GP11052 958 14681 1028 1027 959 3238 A-24578-X-1 A-24578-X-2 A-24578-X-3 A-14184 2743 16121 16123 2688 Artifact No. A-42310

259 Heel Loop-Twist 2 Loop-Twist Heel

------S S Heel Loop-Ply 2 Loop-Ply Heel

------4 4 Heel Loop-Twist 1 Loop-Twist Heel

- - - S S S S S S S Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Heel Loop-Ply 1 Loop-Ply Heel

- - - 4 4 4 4 6 4 4 6 4 4 4 4 4 4 Heel Loop Type Loop Heel

------

K K CB Tie Cord/Ankle Loop-Twist 2 Loop-Twist Cord/Ankle Tie

------Z Z Tie Cord/Ankle Loop-Ply 2 Loop-Ply Cord/Ankle Tie

------4 2 Tie Cord/Ankle Loop-Twist 1 Loop-Twist Cord/Ankle Tie ------S S S S S Z Z Z

Braided

yucca leaf Tie Cord/Ankle Loop-Ply 1 Loop-Ply Cord/Ankle Tie

------6 2 4 2 3 1 2 2 2 2 Side Loop-Twist 2 Loop-Twist Side

------Side Loop-Ply 2 Loop-Ply Side

------Side Loop-Twist 1 Loop-Twist Side

------Side Loop-Ply 1 Loop-Ply Side ------

Appendix 4 (continued) Toe Loop-Twist 2 Loop-Twist Toe

------Toe Loop-Ply 2 Loop-Ply Toe

------Toe Loop -Twist 1 -Twist Loop Toe

- - - S S S S S S S S S Z Z Z Z Z Toe Loop-Ply 1 Loop-Ply Toe

- - - 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 # of Toe Loops Toe of #

- - - 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 i1 Toe Loop Type Loop Toe

------L L L L L

K SD Tie System Tie - - TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH-i TH-v TH-v TH=toe-heel, TH-I=toe-heel indeterminate, TH-hl=toe-heel heel loop, TH-v=toe-heel variant, SL=side-loop, SD=Solid, K=knotted, L=looped, CB=combination TH-hl=toe-heel heel loop, TH-I=toe-heel indeterminate, TH=toe-heel, HM 1 ECPR-10367 ECPR-8711 ECPR-3941 Pierce no.9 Pierce no.8 Pierce no.7 Pierce no.6 Pierce no.5 Pierce no.4 Pierce no.3 Pierce no.2 Pierce no.1 Pierce 37 2003-1598-1 Artifact No. 20985 Pierce 5

260 Heel Loop-Twist 2 Loop-Twist Heel

------Heel Loop-Ply 2 Loop-Ply Heel

------Heel Loop-Twist 1 Loop-Twist Heel ------* S S S Z Z Z

Braided 2(2s-Z)Z Heel Loop-Ply 1 Loop-Ply Heel ------4 4 4 4 2 * 4 4

2(2s-Z)Z Heel Loop Type Loop Heel

------

K K SD SD SD SD Tie Cord/Ankle Loop-Twist 2 Loop-Twist Cord/Ankle Tie

------Tie Cord/Ankle Loop-Ply 2 Loop-Ply Cord/Ankle Tie

------Tie Cord/Ankle Loop-Twist 1 Loop-Twist Cord/Ankle Tie

------S Z Tie Cord/Ankle Loop-Ply 1 Loop-Ply Cord/Ankle Tie

------2 2 Side Loop-Twist 2 Loop-Twist Side

------Side Loop-Ply 2 Loop-Ply Side

------Side Loop-Twist 1 Loop-Twist Side

------S Side Loop-Ply 1 Loop-Ply Side ------2

Appendix 4 (continued) Toe Loop-Twist 2 Loop-Twist Toe

------Toe Loop-Ply 2 Loop-Ply Toe

------Toe Loop -Twist 1 -Twist Loop Toe ------S S S S S S S S Z

Z spun Toe Loop-Ply 1 Loop-Ply Toe

------2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 # of Toe Loops Toe of #

------2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 i1 i1 Toe Loop Type Loop Toe

------L L L L L K K Tie System Tie - SL TH TH TH TH TH TH TH-i TH-i TH-i TH-i TH-i TH-i TH-i TH-i TH-i TH=toe-heel, TH-I=toe-heel indeterminate, TH-hl=toe-heel heel loop, TH-v=toe-heel variant, SL=side-loop, SD=Solid, K=knotted, L=looped, CB=combination TH-hl=toe-heel heel loop, TH-I=toe-heel indeterminate, TH=toe-heel, NA5507.C.3 NA2521.9 NA2521.10 NA5507.5 NA5507.M.98 NA5507.M.106 NA5507.M.102 NA2520.10 NA2520.11 A497 OC79 OC78 BP 4757 BP KM 2 B-44 KM 1 Artifact No. HM 2

261 Heel Loop-Twist 2 Loop-Twist Heel

------Heel Loop-Ply 2 Loop-Ply Heel

------Heel Loop-Twist 1 Loop-Twist Heel

------S S S S Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Heel Loop-Ply 1 Loop-Ply Heel

------4 4 4 4 4 4 6 6 4 4 6 Heel Loop Type Loop Heel

------

K SD SD CB Tie Cord/Ankle Loop-Twist 2 Loop-Twist Cord/Ankle Tie

------S Tie Cord/Ankle Loop-Ply 2 Loop-Ply Cord/Ankle Tie

------2 Tie Cord/Ankle Loop-Twist 1 Loop-Twist Cord/Ankle Tie ------Z Z Z Z

Z spun Braided Tie Cord/Ankle Loop-Ply 1 Loop-Ply Cord/Ankle Tie

------3 1 2 2 2 2 1 Side Loop-Twist 2 Loop-Twist Side

------Side Loop-Ply 2 Loop-Ply Side

------Side Loop-Twist 1 Loop-Twist Side

------Side Loop-Ply 1 Loop-Ply Side ------

Appendix 4 (continued) Toe Loop-Twist 2 Loop-Twist Toe

------Toe Loop-Ply 2 Loop-Ply Toe

------Toe Loop -Twist 1 -Twist Loop Toe

- - - - S S S S Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Toe Loop-Ply 1 Loop-Ply Toe

- - - - 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 4 2 2 # of Toe Loops Toe of #

- - - - 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 i1 Toe Loop Type Loop Toe

- - - - - L L L L L L L L L L

CB CB Tie System Tie - - TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH-i TH-i TH-i TH-i TH-i TH-i NA5507.D.51 TH=toe-heel, TH-I=toe-heel indeterminate, TH-hl=toe-heel heel loop, TH-v=toe-heel variant, SL=side-loop, SD=Solid, K=knotted, L=looped, CB=combination TH-hl=toe-heel heel loop, TH-I=toe-heel indeterminate, TH=toe-heel, NA5507.D.52 NA5507.C.77 NA5507.D.39 NA5507.C.76 NA5507.C.92 NA5507.C.74 NA5507.C.75 NA5507.C.72 NA5507.C.73 NA5507.C.71 NA5507.C.40 NA5507.C.50 NA5507.C.56 NA5507.C.32 NA5507.C.31 Artifact No. NA5507.C.5

262 Heel Loop-Twist 2 Loop-Twist Heel

------Heel Loop-Ply 2 Loop-Ply Heel

------Heel Loop-Twist 1 Loop-Twist Heel ------S S S Z Z Z Z

2(2s-Z)S Heel Loop-Ply 1 Loop-Ply Heel ------6 4 4 4 4 2 6

2(2s-Z)S Heel Loop Type Loop Heel

------

CB Tie Cord/Ankle Loop-Twist 2 Loop-Twist Cord/Ankle Tie

------Tie Cord/Ankle Loop-Ply 2 Loop-Ply Cord/Ankle Tie

------Tie Cord/Ankle Loop-Twist 1 Loop-Twist Cord/Ankle Tie ------S S Z

Z spun Braided Tie Cord/Ankle Loop-Ply 1 Loop-Ply Cord/Ankle Tie

------2 3 1 3 2 Side Loop-Twist 2 Loop-Twist Side

------Side Loop-Ply 2 Loop-Ply Side

------Side Loop-Twist 1 Loop-Twist Side

------Side Loop-Ply 1 Loop-Ply Side ------

Appendix 4 (continued) Toe Loop-Twist 2 Loop-Twist Toe

------Toe Loop-Ply 2 Loop-Ply Toe

------Toe Loop -Twist 1 -Twist Loop Toe

- - - - - S S S S Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Toe Loop-Ply 1 Loop-Ply Toe

- - - - - 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 # of Toe Loops Toe of #

- - - - - 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 i1 Toe Loop Type Loop Toe

------L L L L L L L L

CB Tie System Tie - - TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH-i TH-i TH-i TH-i TH-i TH-i TH-i TH-i TH=toe-heel, TH-I=toe-heel indeterminate, TH-hl=toe-heel heel loop, TH-v=toe-heel variant, SL=side-loop, SD=Solid, K=knotted, L=looped, CB=combination TH-hl=toe-heel heel loop, TH-I=toe-heel indeterminate, TH=toe-heel, NA5507.M.43 NA5507.D.200 NA5507.D.130 NA5507.D.131 and D.154 NA5507.D.178 NA5507.D.175 NA5507.D.176 NA5507.D.177 NA5507.D.133 NA5507.D.132 NA5507.D.128 NA5507.D.129 NA5507.D.98 NA5507.D.97 NA5507.D.96 NA5507.D.54 Artifact No. NA5507.D.53

263 Heel Loop-Twist 2 Loop-Twist Heel

------Heel Loop-Ply 2 Loop-Ply Heel

------Heel Loop-Twist 1 Loop-Twist Heel

------S S S S S Z Z Z Heel Loop-Ply 1 Loop-Ply Heel

------4 4 4 4 4 4 6 4 Heel Loop Type Loop Heel

------

SD SD CB CB CB CB Tie Cord/Ankle Loop-Twist 2 Loop-Twist Cord/Ankle Tie

------Tie Cord/Ankle Loop-Ply 2 Loop-Ply Cord/Ankle Tie

------Tie Cord/Ankle Loop-Twist 1 Loop-Twist Cord/Ankle Tie ------S Z Z spun

yucca leaf Tie Cord/Ankle Loop-Ply 1 Loop-Ply Cord/Ankle Tie

------2 1 2 1 Side Loop-Twist 2 Loop-Twist Side

------Side Loop-Ply 2 Loop-Ply Side

------Side Loop-Twist 1 Loop-Twist Side

------Side Loop-Ply 1 Loop-Ply Side ------

Appendix 4 (continued) Toe Loop-Twist 2 Loop-Twist Toe

------Toe Loop-Ply 2 Loop-Ply Toe

------Toe Loop -Twist 1 -Twist Loop Toe

------S S S S S S S Z Z Z Z Toe Loop-Ply 1 Loop-Ply Toe

------2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 # of Toe Loops Toe of #

------2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Toe Loop Type Loop Toe

------L L L L L L L L L L Tie System Tie ------TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH-i TH-i NA5507.M.96 NA5507.M.97 NA5507.M.99 NA5507.M.53 NA5507.M.52 NA5507.M.105 NA5507.M.110 NA5507.M.104 NA5507.M.101 NA5507.M.100 NA5507.M.51 TH=toe-heel, TH-I=toe-heel indeterminate, TH-hl=toe-heel heel loop, TH-v=toe-heel variant, SL=side-loop, SD=Solid, K=knotted, L=looped, CB=combination TH-hl=toe-heel heel loop, TH-I=toe-heel indeterminate, TH=toe-heel, NA5507.M.50 NA5507.M.49 NA5507.M.48 NA5507.M.47 NA5507.M.46 Artifact No. NA5507.M.45

264 Heel Loop-Twist 2 Loop-Twist Heel

------Z Z Heel Loop-Ply 2 Loop-Ply Heel

------6 4 Heel Loop-Twist 1 Loop-Twist Heel

------S S S S Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Heel Loop-Ply 1 Loop-Ply Heel

------4 6 4 4 4 6 4 2 4 4 4 Heel Loop Type Loop Heel

------

SD SD SD SD CB CB CB CB CB Tie Cord/Ankle Loop-Twist 2 Loop-Twist Cord/Ankle Tie

------Tie Cord/Ankle Loop-Ply 2 Loop-Ply Cord/Ankle Tie

------Tie Cord/Ankle Loop-Twist 1 Loop-Twist Cord/Ankle Tie

------S S Z Z Tie Cord/Ankle Loop-Ply 1 Loop-Ply Cord/Ankle Tie

------2 2 2 2 Side Loop-Twist 2 Loop-Twist Side

------Side Loop-Ply 2 Loop-Ply Side

------Side Loop-Twist 1 Loop-Twist Side

------Side Loop-Ply 1 Loop-Ply Side ------

Appendix 4 (continued) Toe Loop-Twist 2 Loop-Twist Toe ------

Z spun Toe Loop-Ply 2 Loop-Ply Toe

------1 Toe Loop -Twist 1 -Twist Loop Toe - - - - S S S S S S Z Z Z

Z spun Z spun Z spun Z spun Toe Loop-Ply 1 Loop-Ply Toe

- - - - 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 # of Toe Loops Toe of #

- - - - 2 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 i1 i1 i1 Toe Loop Type Loop Toe

------L L L L L L

K K SD CB Tie System Tie - - - - TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH-i TH-hl TH=toe-heel, TH-I=toe-heel indeterminate, TH-hl=toe-heel heel loop, TH-v=toe-heel variant, SL=side-loop, SD=Solid, K=knotted, L=looped, CB=combination TH-hl=toe-heel heel loop, TH-I=toe-heel indeterminate, TH=toe-heel, 1990.44.5.1 1990.44.4.1 1990.44.3.1 96.T.1 1990.44.1.1 1990.44.2.1 96.T.2 87.177.89 1966.59.9.1 FS95b in F46 F42 FS95a in F46 F42 FS94 in F47 F42 86.017.003-Bag 2 86.017.003-Bag 1 Artifact No. NA5507.M.111 NA5507.M.113 NA5507.M.114

265 Heel Loop-Twist 2 Loop-Twist Heel

------Z Heel Loop-Ply 2 Loop-Ply Heel

------4 Heel Loop-Twist 1 Loop-Twist Heel

- - - S S S S S S Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Heel Loop-Ply 1 Loop-Ply Heel

- - - 6 4 6 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 4 4 4 4 Heel Loop Type Loop Heel

------

SD CB CB CB CB CB CB CB Tie Cord/Ankle Loop-Twist 2 Loop-Twist Cord/Ankle Tie

------Z Tie Cord/Ankle Loop-Ply 2 Loop-Ply Cord/Ankle Tie

------4 Tie Cord/Ankle Loop-Twist 1 Loop-Twist Cord/Ankle Tie

------S S S S Z Z Tie Cord/Ankle Loop-Ply 1 Loop-Ply Cord/Ankle Tie

------2 2 2 2 2 2 Side Loop-Twist 2 Loop-Twist Side

------Side Loop-Ply 2 Loop-Ply Side

------Side Loop-Twist 1 Loop-Twist Side

------Side Loop-Ply 1 Loop-Ply Side ------

Appendix 4 (continued) Toe Loop-Twist 2 Loop-Twist Toe

------Toe Loop-Ply 2 Loop-Ply Toe

------Toe Loop -Twist 1 -Twist Loop Toe - - - - S S S S S S Z Z Z Z Z Z

Z spun Toe Loop-Ply 1 Loop-Ply Toe

- - - - 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 1 4 4 2 2 # of Toe Loops Toe of #

- - - - 4 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 Toe Loop Type Loop Toe

- - - - - L L L L L L L L

K K CB CB Tie System Tie TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH-i TH-i TH-i TH-i TH-hl 74.319.001 74.319.002 73.021.003.002 72.065.056.001 72.065.054.1 72.065.053.3 TH=toe-heel, TH-I=toe-heel indeterminate, TH-hl=toe-heel heel loop, TH-v=toe-heel variant, SL=side-loop, SD=Solid, K=knotted, L=looped, CB=combination TH-hl=toe-heel heel loop, TH-I=toe-heel indeterminate, TH=toe-heel, 73.021.003.001 73.021.002.001 72.065.055.5 72.065.054.02 72.065.053.2 72.065.053.1 Artifact No. 66.053.001.001 72.065.055.4 72.065.055.2 72.065.055.3 72.065.055.1

266 Heel Loop-Twist 2 Loop-Twist Heel

------Heel Loop-Ply 2 Loop-Ply Heel

------Heel Loop-Twist 1 Loop-Twist Heel

------S S S S S S Z Z Z Z Z Heel Loop-Ply 1 Loop-Ply Heel

------4 4 4 6 6 6 4 2 6 4 8 Heel Loop Type Loop Heel

------

SD SD SD SD SD CB CB Tie Cord/Ankle Loop-Twist 2 Loop-Twist Cord/Ankle Tie

------Tie Cord/Ankle Loop-Ply 2 Loop-Ply Cord/Ankle Tie

------Tie Cord/Ankle Loop-Twist 1 Loop-Twist Cord/Ankle Tie ------S S S

Z spun Tie Cord/Ankle Loop-Ply 1 Loop-Ply Cord/Ankle Tie

------1 2 2 2 Side Loop-Twist 2 Loop-Twist Side

------Side Loop-Ply 2 Loop-Ply Side

------Side Loop-Twist 1 Loop-Twist Side

------S Side Loop-Ply 1 Loop-Ply Side ------2

Appendix 4 (continued) Toe Loop-Twist 2 Loop-Twist Toe

------Toe Loop-Ply 2 Loop-Ply Toe

------Toe Loop -Twist 1 -Twist Loop Toe - - - S S S S S S S S S S Z Z Z

Z spun Toe Loop-Ply 1 Loop-Ply Toe

- - - 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 # of Toe Loops Toe of #

- - - 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 Toe Loop Type Loop Toe

------L L L L L L L L

SD CB Tie System Tie SL SL TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH-i TH-i TH-i TH-i TH-i TH-v 145340.000 TH-v=toe-heel variant, SL=side-loop, SD=Solid, K=knotted, L=looped, CB=combination TH-hl=toe-heel heel loop, TH-I=toe-heel indeterminate, TH=toe-heel, 145339.000 145338.000 98.253.1.1 98.253.2.1 95.2.87.1 95.2.85.1 80.079.042.002 Artifact No. 79.014.001.001 145336.000 145337.000 106284.000 141989.000 95.2.53.1 95.2.52.1 80.079.042.003 95.2.49.1

267 Heel Loop-Twist 2 Loop-Twist Heel

------S Z Z Heel Loop-Ply 2 Loop-Ply Heel

------5 4 4 Heel Loop-Twist 1 Loop-Twist Heel

------S Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Heel Loop-Ply 1 Loop-Ply Heel

------7 4 6 6 4 4 6 6 4 4 Heel Loop Type Loop Heel

------

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD Tie Cord/Ankle Loop-Twist 2 Loop-Twist Cord/Ankle Tie

------Tie Cord/Ankle Loop-Ply 2 Loop-Ply Cord/Ankle Tie

------Tie Cord/Ankle Loop-Twist 1 Loop-Twist Cord/Ankle Tie ------S Z

Braided

yucca leaf Tie Cord/Ankle Loop-Ply 1 Loop-Ply Cord/Ankle Tie

------2 1 2 4 Side Loop-Twist 2 Loop-Twist Side

------Side Loop-Ply 2 Loop-Ply Side

------Side Loop-Twist 1 Loop-Twist Side

------Z Side Loop-Ply 1 Loop-Ply Side ------4

Appendix 4 (continued) Toe Loop-Twist 2 Loop-Twist Toe

------Toe Loop-Ply 2 Loop-Ply Toe

------Toe Loop -Twist 1 -Twist Loop Toe - - - - S S S S S S S S S S Z Z

Z spun Toe Loop-Ply 1 Loop-Ply Toe

- - - - 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 # of Toe Loops Toe of #

- - - - 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 Toe Loop Type Loop Toe

------L L L L L L

K K CB Tie System Tie - SL TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH-i TH-i TH=toe-heel, TH-I=toe-heel indeterminate, TH-hl=toe-heel heel loop, TH-v=toe-heel variant, SL=side-loop, SD=Solid, K=knotted, L=looped, CB=combination TH-hl=toe-heel heel loop, TH-I=toe-heel indeterminate, TH=toe-heel, A315588 no.7 A315588 no.6 A315588 no.5 A315588 no.4 A315588 no.3b A315588 no.3a A315588 no.2 A315588 no.1 A315490 no.2 A315490 no.1 A312408 A309672 no.4 A309672 no.2 A309672 no.3 A309672 no.1 A309671 no.2 Artifact No. A309671 no.1

268 Heel Loop-Twist 2 Loop-Twist Heel

------Heel Loop-Ply 2 Loop-Ply Heel

------Heel Loop-Twist 1 Loop-Twist Heel

------S S S S S Z Z Z Z Z Z Heel Loop-Ply 1 Loop-Ply Heel

------4 4 4 2 4 4 4 6 6 4 i2 Heel Loop Type Loop Heel

------

SD SD SD SD Tie Cord/Ankle Loop-Twist 2 Loop-Twist Cord/Ankle Tie

------S Z Tie Cord/Ankle Loop-Ply 2 Loop-Ply Cord/Ankle Tie

------1 2 Tie Cord/Ankle Loop-Twist 1 Loop-Twist Cord/Ankle Tie

------S S Z Z Tie Cord/Ankle Loop-Ply 1 Loop-Ply Cord/Ankle Tie

------2 2 2 2 Side Loop-Twist 2 Loop-Twist Side

------Z Side Loop-Ply 2 Loop-Ply Side

------4 Side Loop-Twist 1 Loop-Twist Side

------S Z Z Z Z Side Loop-Ply 1 Loop-Ply Side ------2 2 2 2 2

Appendix 4 (continued) Toe Loop-Twist 2 Loop-Twist Toe

------Toe Loop-Ply 2 Loop-Ply Toe

------Toe Loop -Twist 1 -Twist Loop Toe

------S S S S Z Z Z Z Z Toe Loop-Ply 1 Loop-Ply Toe

------2 6 4 4 2 2 2 2 4 # of Toe Loops Toe of #

------2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 Toe Loop Type Loop Toe

------L

K K K K SD CB Tie System Tie - SL SL SL SL SL SL TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH-i TH-i TH=toe-heel, TH-I=toe-heel indeterminate, TH-hl=toe-heel heel loop, TH-v=toe-heel variant, SL=side-loop, SD=Solid, K=knotted, L=looped, CB=combination TH-hl=toe-heel heel loop, TH-I=toe-heel indeterminate, TH=toe-heel, 21-6-10/A5320 (heel) 21-6-10/A5320 (toe) 21-6-10/A5320 23-7-10/A5686 22-13-10/A5554.1 16-9-10/A3266 22-13-10/A5554 14-5-10/A1494 33-62-10/1825 33-62-10/1827 23-7-10/A5754 21-6-10/A5319 14-5-10/A1688 22-13-10/A5555 23-7-10/A5748 33-62-10/1828 23-7-10/A5661 Artifact No. A315636

269 Heel Loop-Twist 2 Loop-Twist Heel

------Z Z Heel Loop-Ply 2 Loop-Ply Heel

------4 2 Heel Loop-Twist 1 Loop-Twist Heel - - - - - S S S S Z Z Z Z Z Z Z

2(2z-S)S Heel Loop-Ply 1 Loop-Ply Heel - - - - 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 1 4

2(2z-S)S Heel Loop Type Loop Heel

------

K K K K SD SD CB CB Tie Cord/Ankle Loop-Twist 2 Loop-Twist Cord/Ankle Tie

------Tie Cord/Ankle Loop-Ply 2 Loop-Ply Cord/Ankle Tie

------Tie Cord/Ankle Loop-Twist 1 Loop-Twist Cord/Ankle Tie

------S S S S Z Tie Cord/Ankle Loop-Ply 1 Loop-Ply Cord/Ankle Tie

------2 2 2 2 3 Side Loop-Twist 2 Loop-Twist Side

------Side Loop-Ply 2 Loop-Ply Side

------Side Loop-Twist 1 Loop-Twist Side

------Z Side Loop-Ply 1 Loop-Ply Side ------2

Appendix 4 (continued) Toe Loop-Twist 2 Loop-Twist Toe

------Toe Loop-Ply 2 Loop-Ply Toe

------Toe Loop -Twist 1 -Twist Loop Toe ------S S S S S S S S Z Z

Z spun Toe Loop-Ply 1 Loop-Ply Toe

------2 1 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 4 # of Toe Loops Toe of #

------2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 Toe Loop Type Loop Toe

------L L

K K K K K CB Tie System Tie - - SL TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH-i TH-v TH-hl TH=toe-heel, TH-I=toe-heel indeterminate, TH-hl=toe-heel heel loop, TH-v=toe-heel variant, SL=side-loop, SD=Solid, K=knotted, L=looped, CB=combination TH-hl=toe-heel heel loop, TH-I=toe-heel indeterminate, TH=toe-heel, SUU 4 SUU 1 SUU 2 SUU 3 AJ-SW-TS-001 599 HPC 2 598 2-3612 HPC 1 23-7-10/A5659 33-62-10/1895 14-5-10/A1495 14-5-10/A1496 14-5-10/A1221 14-5-10/A1199 Artifact No. 14-5-10/A1657

270 Heel Loop-Twist 2 Loop-Twist Heel

------Heel Loop-Ply 2 Loop-Ply Heel

------Heel Loop-Twist 1 Loop-Twist Heel ------S Z Z Z Z Z Z

2(2s-Z)S 2(2z-S)Z Heel Loop-Ply 1 Loop-Ply Heel ------6 4 6 4 4 4 8

2(2s-Z)S 2(2z-S)Z Heel Loop Type Loop Heel

------

K SD SD SD SD Tie Cord/Ankle Loop-Twist 2 Loop-Twist Cord/Ankle Tie

------Tie Cord/Ankle Loop-Ply 2 Loop-Ply Cord/Ankle Tie

------

Tie Cord/Ankle Loop-Twist 1 Loop-Twist Cord/Ankle Tie

------Tie Cord/Ankle Loop-Ply 1 Loop-Ply Cord/Ankle Tie

------Side Loop-Twist 2 Loop-Twist Side

------Side Loop-Ply 2 Loop-Ply Side

------Side Loop-Twist 1 Loop-Twist Side

------Z Z Z Z Side Loop-Ply 1 Loop-Ply Side ------2 2 2 2

Appendix 4 (continued) Toe Loop-Twist 2 Loop-Twist Toe

------Toe Loop-Ply 2 Loop-Ply Toe

------Toe Loop -Twist 1 -Twist Loop Toe ------S Z Z

Z spun Z spun Toe Loop-Ply 1 Loop-Ply Toe

------2 1 4 2 1 # of Toe Loops Toe of #

------2 1 2 2 i1 Toe Loop Type Loop Toe

------L Tie System Tie - - - SL SL SL SL SL TH TH TH TH TH-i TH-i TH-i TH-i TH-i AR 4006 94.1 TH-v=toe-heel variant, SL=side-loop, SD=Solid, K=knotted, L=looped, CB=combination TH-hl=toe-heel heel loop, TH-I=toe-heel indeterminate, TH=toe-heel, 7167 2576 5002 2567 1603 1596 1598 1602 1594 1591 SUU 10 SUU 8 SUU 9 SUU 7 SUU 6 Artifact No. SUU 5

271 Heel Loop-Twist 2 Loop-Twist Heel

- - - - - Heel Loop-Ply 2 Loop-Ply Heel

- - - - - Heel Loop-Twist 1 Loop-Twist Heel

- - S S S Heel Loop-Ply 1 Loop-Ply Heel

- - 4 4 4 Heel Loop Type Loop Heel

- - -

K CB Tie Cord/Ankle Loop-Twist 2 Loop-Twist Cord/Ankle Tie

- - - - - Tie Cord/Ankle Loop-Ply 2 Loop-Ply Cord/Ankle Tie

- - - - - Tie Cord/Ankle Loop-Twist 1 Loop-Twist Cord/Ankle Tie - - - -

2(2z-S)Z Tie Cord/Ankle Loop-Ply 1 Loop-Ply Cord/Ankle Tie - - - -

2(2z-S)Z Side Loop-Twist 2 Loop-Twist Side

- - - - - Side Loop-Ply 2 Loop-Ply Side

- - - - - Side Loop-Twist 1 Loop-Twist Side

- - - - - Side Loop-Ply 1 Loop-Ply Side - - - - -

Appendix 4 (continued) Toe Loop-Twist 2 Loop-Twist Toe

- - - - - Toe Loop-Ply 2 Loop-Ply Toe

- - - - - Toe Loop -Twist 1 -Twist Loop Toe

- - S S S Toe Loop-Ply 1 Loop-Ply Toe

- - - 4 2 # of Toe Loops Toe of #

- - 1 2 2 Toe Loop Type Loop Toe

- - L

K SD Tie System Tie TH TH TH TH TH-i TH=toe-heel, TH-I=toe-heel indeterminate, TH-hl=toe-heel heel loop, TH-v=toe-heel variant, SL=side-loop, SD=Solid, K=knotted, L=looped, CB=combination TH-hl=toe-heel heel loop, TH-I=toe-heel indeterminate, TH=toe-heel, 29-43-643 29-43-644 29-43-645 Artifact No. 42WS4 13608 29-42-824

272 VITA

Graduate College University of Nevada, Las Vegas

David Toy Yoder

Home Address : 4110 west 250 north Cedar City, Utah 84720

Degrees: Bachelor of Science, Anthropology/History, 2003 Weber State University, Utah

Secondary Education Teaching Licensure, Anthropology and History Teaching, 2003 Weber State University, Utah

Master of Arts, Anthropology, 2005 Brigham Young University, Utah

Publications Yoder, David T. 2008 The use of “soft” X-ray radiography in determining hidden construction characteristics in fiber sandals.Journal of Archaeological Science 35:316-321. Yoder, David T., Jon Blood, and Reid Mason 2005 How Warm Were They? Thermal Properties of Rabbitskin Robes and Blankets. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 25(1):55-68. Yoder, David T. 2004 Current Issues in Cultural Resource Management Institutions. Utah Archaeology 17(1):1-12.

Dissertation Title: Puebloan Plain-Weave Pointed/Rounded-Toe Sandals.

Dissertation Examination Committee: Chairperson, Dr. Barbara Roth, Ph.D. Committee Member, Dr. Karen Harry, Ph.D. Committee Member, Dr. Alan Simmons, Ph.D. Graduate Faculty Representative, Dr. Christie Batson, Ph.D.

273