HOW GREAT WERE CEDAR MESA GREAT HOUSE COMMUNITIES, A.D. 1060-1270?
By
NATALIE ROCHELLE FAST
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS IN ANTHROPOLOGY
WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY Department of Anthropology
MAY 2012
To the Facultyof WashingtonState University:
The membersof the Committeeappointed to examinethe thesisof NATALIE ROCHELLE FAST flnd it satisfactoryand recommendthat it be accepted.
WilliamD. Lipe,Ph.D. *p,a/2/a R.G.Matson. Ph.D. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I owe many thanks to the numerous people and organizations who assisted and supported my work on the Cedar Mesa Cultural Landscapes Survey and this thesis. First and foremost, I would like to thank my thesis committee, Drs. Andrew Duff, Bill Lipe, and R.G. Matson. Their thoughtful guidance and time spent discussing ideas with me has been invaluable. I thank
Andrew for his consistent encouragement, and Bill and R.G. for sharing their immense knowledge of all things Cedar Mesa with me. Allowing me to tap into the 40-plus years of their work on Cedar Mesa is an honor.
Many years have led me to this point, and I cannot forget to thank the people who guided me here. First, to Drs. Ruth Van Dyke and Richard Wilshusen, who showed me the wonderful world of archaeology in the Southwest, and especially to Rich, who gently turned me toward work in the Mesa Verde region. At the Anasazi Heritage Center and Canyons of the Ancients
National Monument, I would like to thank Tracy Murphy and Linda Farnsworth, who gave me my first real jobs in curation and archaeology- their wisdom has shaped my knowledge of archaeology in the Four Corners to this day. Abajo Archaeology, and especially Jonathan Till and Mark Bond, introduced me to the Pueblo II in southeast Utah, and patiently taught me how to wield a trowel. I would also like to thank LouAnn Jacobson, Marietta Eaton, Vince
MacMillan, and Heather Musclow with the Colorado Bureau of Land Management, and Shelley
Smith, Tom Heinlein, Don Simonis, and Laird Naylor with the Utah BLM, for arranging for me to continue working for the BLM during the Cedar Mesa Cultural Landscapes Survey, and for encouraging collaboration between Washington State University and the BLM.
Returning to the project at hand, I would like to thank the National Trust for Historic
Preservation, Washington State University, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research
iii Council of Canada for assisting the survey financially. I would also like to thank those who gave generously of their time to assist me with survey work. My crew, Jesse Clark and Jordan Jarrett, who let me boss them around for four weeks- I really could not have done this without them.
Insufficient thanks also go out to my volunteer crewmembers, Bill Lipe, R.G. and Susan Matson,
Alison Bredthauer, Tucker Robinson, Jonathan Till, Winston Hurst, and Rosemary Sucec.
Without Alison and Tucker, we would not have covered nearly as much ground. Thanks also for their friendship and consistent encouragement. I thank Jonathan and Winston, who were willing to spend multiple days with us in the field, imparting their knowledge about roads and archaeology in southeast Utah. To Jonathan, for continuing to be a patient teacher and encouraging colleague- I owe him for much more than just this project. Once we were out of the field, Mary Collins and Diane Curewitz helped greatly with access to the Cedar Mesa ceramic assemblages in the WSU museum.
Finally, I would like to thank my family and friends for their unwavering support and encouragement. I would not have been able to complete this project without them. To Mom and
Dad, who have been supportive of all my academic and personal endeavors, and especially for continuing to be a stable, supportive source of love and encouragement even in the face of the unexpected illness and passing of our Abby. Thanks also to Jesse, who stuck by me during all the breakthroughs and the meltdowns. He has been an amazing support through every challenge this thesis, and life in general, have thrown at me these past couple years.
iv HOW GREAT WERE CEDAR MESA GREAT HOUSE COMMUNITIES, A.D. 1060-1270?
Abstract
By Natalie Rochelle Fast, M.A. Washington State University May 2012
Chair: Andrew I. Duff
Questions about the structure of ancient communities and the socially constructed landscape have been explored and explained in other parts of the northern Southwest (e.g.
Cameron 2009; Gilpin 2003; Kantner and Mahoney 2000; Varien and Wilshusen 2002), but until recently, the size and structure of Pueblo period communities on central Cedar Mesa in southeast
Utah have not been intensively investigated. Two great houses—the Et Al and Owen sites— other landscape features (such as shrines, great kivas, and roads), and numerous residential sites suggest the presence of a substantial ancient community on the mesa, which was part of a larger network of communities in southeast Utah and the Northern San Juan region. This thesis examines three scales of the Pueblo II and Pueblo III period (A.D. 1060-1270) community associated with the Et Al great house—the first-order community, the community of participation, and the regional community—and proposes that Et Al functioned as a symbol and locus of integration for the Et Al community. Et Al and Owen may also be the material remnants of competition among individuals vying for political power and personal prestige on the mesa top and across the region. Evidence of feasting at publicly used sites provides evidence for both community integration and individual competition. Using previous research in the
Northern San Juan, known sites on Cedar Mesa, and site data gathered during the summer of
v 2011, I describe aspects of the community that utilized the Bullet Canyon drainage and surrounding areas and argue that the inhabitants of Cedar Mesa constructed landscape features which connected them to more widely held Puebloan ideology and cosmology. Et Al and Owen were not anomalous great houses on the margin of the Mesa Verde region, but represent structures used by a substantial community, which was part of a larger network of great house communities in the prehispanic Pueblo world.
vi TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...... iii!
ABSTRACT...... v!
TABLE OF CONTENTS...... vii!
LIST OF TABLES...... x!
LIST OF FIGURES ...... xi
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1!
Environmental, Cultural Historical, and Archaeological Background ...... 3!
The Greater Cedar Mesa Region Environment...... 3!
Culture History...... 9!
Previous Archaeological Investigations at Cedar Mesa...... 12!
Defining Communities...... 15!
Defining Chacoan Great House Communities...... 18!
Scales of Community...... 20!
2. THE CEDAR MESA COMMUNITY AND COMMUNITY SITES ...... 22!
Great Houses: the Et Al and Owen Sites ...... 22!
Fortified Mesa...... 26!
3. COMMUNITY USE OF CENTRAL CEDAR MESA SITES...... 30!
Methods...... 33!
vii Assemblages ...... 34!
Et Al...... 34!
Fortified Mesa...... 36!
Analysis of Et Al and Fortified Mesa Assemblages ...... 37!
Cedar Mesa Habitation Site Assemblages ...... 41!
Summary...... 45!
Fortified Mesa: A Defensible Food Storage Facility? ...... 46!
Fortified Mesa Summary ...... 50!
4. SCOPE OF THE CEDAR MESA FIRST-ORDER COMMUNITIES ...... 52!
First-Order Community Expectations...... 52!
The Cedar Mesa Cultural Landscapes Survey...... 54!
Methods...... 55!
Survey Results and Analysis...... 56!
5. GREAT HOUSE COMMUNITIES IN THE NORTHERN SAN JUAN...... 63!
Great Houses in the Northern San Juan Basin (with an example from the Cibola Region)...... 64!
Cedar Mesa Communities and Social Implications...... 69!
Summary...... 74!
6. THE COMMUNITY OF PARTICIPATION: CEDAR MESA CULTURAL LANDSCAPE FEATURES...... 76!
Defining Cultural Landscapes...... 76!
The Landscape Features...... 77!
viii Possible Great Kivas...... 77!
Roads...... 80!
Shrines...... 80!
7. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 84!
Community Cohesion and the Great House Network...... 84!
Competition Between Great House Leaders...... 87!
Cedar Mesa Cultural Landscapes...... 92!
Final Thoughts ...... 95!
REFERENCES CITED...... 98
APPENDIX
A. SITES LOCATED DURING THE CEDAR MESA CULTURAL LANDSCAPES SURVEY AND DESCRIPTIONS OF THE PUEBLO II AND III SITES ...... 109!
B. CERAMIC DATA ...... 140!
ix LIST OF TABLES
3.1. Et Al ceramic assemblage...... 35!
3.2. Et Al rim sherd assemblage ...... 35!
3.3. Ceramic collection from Fortified Mesa...... 37!
3.4. Bullet Canyon drainage quadrat ceramic assemblages...... 38!
3.5. Frequencies of ware types at Et Al and nearby habitation sites ...... 42!
3.6. Bowl and jar frequencies ...... 45!
3.7. Pueblo III sherd frequencies at habitation sites and Fortified Mesa...... 49!
4.1. Habitation site densities for the Upper Grand Gulch and Bullet Canyon drainage units ...... 53!
4.2. Pueblo II and III sites located during the 2011 CMCL Survey, habitation sites highlighted in red...... 57!
4.3. Estimated momentary population within survey area...... 60!
A.1. Summary of sites found during the 2011 Cedar Mesa Cultural Landscapes Survey...... 110!
B.1. Et Al (42SA18431) rim sherd data...... 141!
B.2. Fortified Mesa (42SA3680) ceramic data ...... 142!
B.3. Fortified Mesa (42SA3680) rim sherd data...... 154!
x LIST OF FIGURES
1.1. Map of the Mesa Verde Region. Cedar Mesa area is designated in orange (adapted from map drafted by Neal Morris, courtesy of Crow Canyon Archaeological Center)...... 4!
1.2. Map of the Cedar Mesa Project study area (adapted from Matson et al. 1990 [2010]:Figure I- 1)...... 5!
1.3. Cedar Mesa Project area phase sequence (adapted from Matson et al. 1988:Figure 2) ...... 10!
1.4. Cedar Mesa Project drainage units and surveyed quadrats (Matson et al. 1990 [2010]:Figure 4.1a)...... 14!
2.1. Owen site (42SA24584) (Lipe, Matson, and Morin 2011:Figure 17) ...... 23!
2.2. Et Al site (42SA18431) (Lipe, Matson, and Morin 2011:Figure 4) ...... 25!
2.3. 42SA3680 Site map (adapted from 1967 sketch map [Lipe 1970b]) ...... 27!
2.4. Location of Et Al, Owen, and Fortified Mesa ...... 28!
3.1. Ware proportions of Et Al ceramic assemblage ...... 35!
3.2. Ware proportions of Et Al rim sherd assemblage...... 36!
3.3. Bullet Canyon drainage site ware proportions...... 39!
3.4. Rim diameters from Et Al and Fortified Mesa ...... 40!
3.5. Ware proportions from CMCLS habitation sites and Et Al...... 42!
3.6. Red/orange ware rim diameters from selected Bullet Canyon drainage sites ...... 44!
3.7. White ware rim diameters from selected Bullet Canyon drainage sites ...... 44!
3.8. Metric multidimensional scaling of the Fortified Mesa (Fortress) site and the 47 CMP "Seriation" sites. Unstandardized Euclidean Distance of 14 decorated pottery types (figure drafted by Matson and Matson 2012)...... 50!
4.1. Pueblo II and Pueblo III sites located during the Cedar Mesa Cultural Landscapes Survey 58!
xi 5.1. Mesa Verde region showing great houses (adapted from Kendrick and Judge 2000:Figure 9.1)...... 64!
5.2. Bluff great house community (Jalbert and Cameron 2000:Figure 6.4) ...... 64!
5.3. Edge of the Cedars great house (Hurst 2000:Figure 5.2)...... 64!
5.4. Cottonwood Falls community (adapted from Mahoney 2000:Figure 2.3) ...... 64!
6.1. Landscape features on central Cedar Mesa...... 78!
6.2. H.S.T. (42SA28201) site map (Lipe, Matson, and Morin 2011)...... 79!
6.3. Shrine at 42SA4146 (photograph by Jesse Clark) ...... 79!
6.4. 42SA6179 Snow Flats Road site, aerial photograph of Feature 2 shrine (Blackburn and Rogero 1975)...... 79!
6.5. 42SA30000 Shrine (photograph by author)...... 80!
6.6. 42SA30000 Site map ...... 83!
xii
Dedication
This thesis is dedicated to my parents, Greg and Sharon Fast, to my sister Ricci Kumpost, and especially to my little sister, Abigail Lynae Fast. Her time among us was far too short, but she
taught us more about faith and hope than any of us could have ever imagined.
xiii CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Over one hundred years of archaeological work on Cedar Mesa in southeast Utah
(Blackburn and Williamson 1997) has led to the recognition of a cultural landscape that includes two great houses, which functioned as community centers amid a dispersed settlement of households in the eleventh to thirteenth centuries A.D. Questions about the structure of ancient communities and the socially constructed landscape have been explored and explained in other parts of the northern Southwest (e.g. Cameron 2009; Gilpin 2003; Kantner and Mahoney 2000;
Varien and Wilshusen 2002), but until recently, the size and structure of Pueblo period communities on central Cedar Mesa have not been intensively investigated. Two great houses— the Et Al and Owen sites—other landscape features (such as shrines, great kivas, and roads), and numerous residential sites suggest the presence of an ancient community, which was likely part of a larger network of communities in southeast Utah. This thesis examines the first-order
Pueblo II and Pueblo III (A.D. 1060-1270) community associated with the Et Al great house and proposes that Et Al may have functioned as a symbol and locus of integration for the Et Al community, and for its relations with communities in southeast Utah and the larger San Juan area. Using previous research in the Northern San Juan, known sites on Cedar Mesa, and site data gathered during the summer of 2011, I describe aspects of the community that utilized the
Bullet Canyon drainage and surrounding areas and argue that the inhabitants of Cedar Mesa constructed landscape features which connected them to more widely held Puebloan ideology and cosmology.
After providing a brief background on the environmental, culture historical, and archaeological research on Cedar Mesa, I define three tiers of community explored in this thesis:
1 the first-order (or face-to-face) community, the community of participation, and the regional community; these scales imply different kinds of relationships and interactions among individuals. Next, I describe three known community centers on central Cedar Mesa and place these within the context of the first-order community. I present evidence for community- oriented activity at Et Al and Fortified Mesa using ceramic evidence to show how the community utilized these sites and to explore the possibility that feasting occurred at them.
In Chapter 4, using data from the Cedar Mesa Project (1970s) and the Cedar Mesa
Cultural Landscapes Survey (2011), I estimate the habitation site density and population of the first-order communities associated with the two great houses. I also examine the scale of the community of participation in irregular ritual activity, and whether or not this community would have been biologically sustainable. With these estimates in mind, I then discuss the Cedar Mesa communities in the context of other Northern San Juan great house communities in Chapter 5, examining the social and biological implications of these communities.
Chapter 6 surveys the known cultural landscape features on central Cedar Mesa. These sites are important to a community-oriented interpretation of Cedar Mesa, as they provide a window into the community’s cosmology and how the community used these spaces ritually.
These sites would have been used by the first-order community, as well as the community of participation and possibly also by visitors to the area from the larger region.
Finally, in Chapter 7 I discuss the results of the previous analysis. Using population and site density estimates from the Cedar Mesa Cultural Landscapes survey, I am able to determine, to some extent, aspects of the community associated with the Et Al great house. I argue that Et
Al may have served as a competitive symbol to nearby communities in an agriculturally marginal region, but that the first-order community’s primary purpose was not necessarily to manage
2 access to resources. I also discuss how the public landscape features indicate construction and use by multiple households and how this places the Cedar Mesa communities in a larger system of great houses. Evidence of landscape features associated with great houses is typical of other great house communities, and the Pueblo II and Pueblo III community on central Cedar Mesa emulates this Chacoan style of landscape organization. Also, ceramic evidence shows Puebloan prehistoric, protohistoric, and historic interest in Cedar Mesa, suggesting that the mesa was once, and continues to be, meaningful in some way for Puebloan people. On the margins of the Mesa
Verde region, ancestral Puebloan Cedar Mesa residents were signaling association with the larger San Juan region and Puebloan world.
Environmental, Cultural Historical, and Archaeological Background
The Greater Cedar Mesa Region Environment
Cedar Mesa is a natural uplift within the Northern San Juan basin and greater Mesa
Verde region. The central Mesa Verde region contains high ancient settlement densities and includes Mesa Verde National Park, the Ute Mountain Ute Tribal Park, and surrounding areas.
Cedar Mesa lies in the western portion of the greater Mesa Verde region (Figure 1.1), and is located centrally on the Grand Gulch Plateau (or the Greater Cedar Mesa area) in the west- central portion of San Juan County, southeastern Utah. The mesa is physiographically defined by a steep escarpment facing the San Juan lowlands on the south and by the steeply rising slopes of Elk Ridge to the north. Spangler et al. (2010:2) define the Greater Cedar Mesa area as encompassing approximately 475,743.5 acres (1,925 km2) bounded by the Red House Cliffs and
Lower Grand Gulch to the west, the San Juan River to the south, Comb Ridge to the east, and slopes draining the southern portion of Elk Ridge to the north. The land is managed by several
3 state and federal entities; the Utah Bureau of Land Management manages over 99 percent of the
Cedar Mesa Project study area (Matson and Lipe 1975:125).
Figure 1.1. Map of the Mesa Verde Region. Cedar Mesa area is designated in orange (adapted from map drafted by Neal Morris, courtesy of Crow Canyon Archaeological Center) The elevation for the Greater Cedar Mesa region ranges from 1,311 m in the bottom of the San Juan River corridor to 2,713 m on the Woodenshoe Buttes (Spangler et al. 2010:8).
Narrow, deep canyons with large alcoves and seasonal runoff dissect the relatively flat mesa top.
The primary canyon waterways are fed by numerous smaller drainages and the main canyons eventually drain into the San Juan River, which feeds the Colorado River. Streambeds are typically fed by seasonal runoff from rainstorms and winter snowmelt. The average annual rainfall in the Greater Cedar Mesa region is 30.5 cm, and annual precipitation can range from 15 to 40 cm (Hansen and Fish 1993). In the Cedar Mesa Project study area, annual average rainfall ranges from about 25 cm (10 inches) on the southern tip of the mesa to between 30 and 33 cm
(12-13 inches) on the northern edge (US. Bureau of Land Management 1967, 1967-68). Average
4
Figure 1.2. Map of the Cedar Mesa Project study area (adapted from Matson et al. 1990 [2010]:Figure I- 1)
5 temperatures in the Greater Cedar Mesa area range from 23°F in the winter to 87°F in the summer, with extremes ranging from -23°F to 110°F (Hansen and Fish 1993). In southeast Utah, the frost-free season lasts for between 133 and 174 days (Spangler et al. 2010:17). The growing season in the Cedar Mesa Project area is between 129 days on the north end to 144 on the southern edge (U.S. Bureau of Land Management 1967-68), just exceeding the minimum necessary 120 frost-free days to sustain maize agriculture (Gregory 1938:20).
Exposed sandstone in the Greater Cedar Mesa area consists primarily of Cedar Mesa sandstone, overlaid with the Organ Rock Shale and Moenkopi formations comprised of marine shale, siltstone, and fine-grained mudstone (Stokes 1986). The Shinarump layer of the Chinle formation lies above the Moenkopi formation and contains stream deposited gravels, sand, and shale. The Moss Back formation was deposited above the Shinarump layer and consists of sandstone, siltstone, and conglomerate materials. Wingate sandstone caps the Moss Back layer and is comprised of mainly small, rounded quartz grains (Stokes 1986).
The soils on Cedar Mesa range from very shallow (barely covering parts of exposed sandstone) to depths up to 152 cm (Hansen and Fish 1993; Spangler et al. 2010:11) and are comprised of alluvial and aeolian deposits of sandy loam. Areas with deeper aeolian soils, such as those concentrated on the mesa spine and on divides between major drainages, were probably preferred by prehistoric agriculturalists, as they are more suitable for dry farming (Matson et al.
1988:247). Deep soils occur amid large pinyon-juniper stands, and these areas were probably adequate locations for agriculture (Haase 1983:24; Matson et al. 1988:248), as evidenced by their association with habitation sites. The soils on Cedar Mesa are relatively unstable and readily impacted by wind and water erosion, except in areas where a stable cryptobiotic soil crust
6 has developed. Thus, soils in the area are susceptible to down cutting and water erosion due to flash flooding during the summer monsoonal season.
The vegetative community in the Greater Cedar Mesa region is characteristic of the
Upper Sonoran Life Zone (Cronquist 1972). The primary vegetation above 1,500 m consists of pinyon (Pinus edulis) and juniper (Juniperus sp.) woodland, punctuated by areas of big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata). Secondary vegetation includes rabbit brush (Chrysothamus nauseosus), four-wing salt bush (Atriplex canscens), shadscale (Atriplex concertifolia), greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus), Mormon tea (Ephedra viridis), black brush (Coleogyne ramosissima), round leaf buffalo berry (Shepherdia rotundifolia), Utah serviceberry
(Amelanchier utahensis), western chokecherry (Prunus virginiana), cliff rose (Purshi mexicana), curl-leaf mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus ledifolius), scrub oak (Quercus gambelii), bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata), narrow-leaf yucca (Yucca angustissima), banana yucca (Yucca baccata), prickly pear cactus (Opuntia spp.), Indian rice grass (Stipa hymenoides), broom snakeweed (Gutierrizia sarothrea), penstemon (Penstemon spp.), globemallow (Sphaeralcea ambigua), evening primrose (Oenothera biennis), and other grasses and forbs. Canyon bottom riparian vegetation is dominated by cottonwood (Populus fremontii), willow (Salix spp.), ash
(Fraxinus anomala), and boxelder (Acer negundo) trees and other water-dependent shrubs, forbs, and grasses. Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) and tamarisk (Tamarix ramosissima), both non-native invasive species, are also prevalent in riparian areas (Spangler et al. 2010:14).
Cedar Mesa supports diverse wildlife including coyote (Canis latrans), mountain lion
(Puma concolor), bobcat (Felis rufus), black bear (Ursus americanus), wolverines (Gulo gulo), beaver (Castor canadensis), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), badger (Taxidea taxis), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), mule deer (Odocioleus hemionus), desert
7 bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis), striped skunk (Mephistis mephistis), porcupine (Erythrizon dorsatum), ringtailed cat (Bassariscus astutus), black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), and desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii). Numerous rodents such as woodrats (Neotoma spp.), chipmunks (Eutamius spp.), mice (Dipodomys ordii, Peromyscus spp., Peroganthus sp.), ground squirrels (Spermophylus sp.), and bats (Myotis spp.) are also present. Bird species include red- tail hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), turkey vultures (Cathartes aura), peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), kestrel (Falco sparverius), great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), and wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo merriami). Various reptiles including snakes
(primarily rattlesnakes [Crotalus viridis], bull snakes [Pituophis melanoleucus], and garter snakes [Thamnophis elegans and Thamnophis cyrtopsis]) and lizards (such as the collared
[Crotaphytus collaris] and short-horned or horny-toad [Phryonosoma hernandesi] lizards) also inhabit the area (Spangler et al. 2010:16-17). Ancient and modern Puebloan people regularly utilized many of these flora and fauna.
Cyclical patterns of drought evident today are generally assumed to be characteristic of the prehistoric Cedar Mesa climate as well. These cycles of drought are evidenced by tree-ring data (Dean et al. 1985) and contributed to prehistoric settlement history (Matson et al. 1988).
Over a period of about one thousand years on Cedar Mesa (ca. A.D. 200-1250), the area experienced cycles of occupation and abandonment. The Greater Cedar Mesa area was occupied during the Basketmaker II (1000 B.C. to A.D. 500), Basketmaker III (A.D. 500-750), Pueblo I
(A.D. 750-900), and Pueblo II-III periods (A.D. 900-1280), when the climate allowed for adequate agricultural production (Matson et al. 1988). Before approximately A.D. 200, the
Greater Cedar Mesa area experienced normal to high precipitation, probably attracting
Basketmaker II peoples to the area, followed by a time of increased climatic variability with
8 normal to low precipitation, reaching a low point about A.D. 400 (McVickar and Eininger 2001).
By about A.D. 550, climatic conditions became stable again with above average precipitation
(McVickar and Eininger 2001), followed by a period of high climatic variability from about A.D.
750 to 1050, with above-normal but unpredictable precipitation. Starting at about A.D. 1060, the climate again became stable with predictable precipitation. Beginning at about A.D. 1150, the climate became highly variable, fluctuating between extreme highs and lows, but precipitation remained favorable to agriculture. This lasted until two serious droughts occurred in A.D. 1273 and 1276, followed by cooler temperatures and increased precipitation unfavorable for agriculture (Spangler et al. 2010:Table 1.3). Cedar Mesa was completely depopulated by about this time (Lipe et al. 2010).
Culture History
Matson and colleagues (1988) have defined seven periods of occupation during the
Basketmaker II, Basketmaker III, and Pueblo II-III periods within the Cedar Mesa Project (CMP)
800-km2 sampling universe (Figure 1.3). Little evidence has been found to indicate an Archaic presence on in the CMP area (Lipe, Matson, and Kemp 2011; Spangler et al. 2010:78), although some late-Archaic projectile points have been found, usually in association with post-Archaic sites. Therefore, Basketmaker II groups probably arrived to Cedar Mesa and were the first to intensively occupy the mesa by the late B.C. to early A.D. time period (Matson et al. 1988,
1990). The Basketmaker II inhabitants of Cedar Mesa were sedentary and cultivated maize on the mesa-top (Matson and Chisholm 1991). They typically utilized rockshelters and caves for habitation, food storage, and burial, and primarily lived in pitstructures in mesa-top locations
(Spangler et al. 2010), sometimes in clusters (Dohm 1994). This period is marked by a lack of ceramics, the presence of limestone fragments and one-hand manos at sites, pit houses with long,
9 narrow, slab-lined entryways, and dart points (Matson 1991; Pollock 2001). Cedar Mesa experienced two periods of Basketmaker II occupation; during the White Dog Phase (dated to before A.D. 200 and primarily focused in the canyons), and then during the Grand Gulch Phase
(A.D. 200-400), when the mesa top was extensively occupied.
Between about A.D. 400 and 650, Cedar Mesa was abandoned and subsequently resettled during the Mossbacks Phase (A.D. 650-725), late in the Basketmaker III period (Matson et al.
1988:250). Basketmaker III people continued to dwell in pit houses, although wattle-and-daub technology, evidenced by burned jacal, was also employed for surface structures. In addition to the use of plain gray ware and early decorated pottery, other material culture changes included
the appearance of arrow points, troughed
metates, and two-hand manos (Matson et
al. 1988).
The CMP study area was then
abandoned again during the Pueblo I and
early Pueblo II periods, between A.D. 725
and 1060. About A.D. 1060, Ancestral
Puebloan people returned to the area,
bringing with them corrugated gray ware
and decorated white, orange, and red ware
pottery. The Pueblo II-III occupation of
Cedar Mesa has been divided into four
Figure 1.3. Cedar Mesa Project area phase sequence phases with a possible 15-year hiatus in the (adapted from Matson et al. 1988:Figure 2) middle: the Windgate (A.D. 1060-1100),
10 Clay Hills (A.D. 1100-1150), Woodenshoe (A.D. 1165-1210), and Red House (A.D. 1210-1270) phases (Matson et al. 1988:247). Habitation sites characteristic of this period on Cedar Mesa are single household complexes consisting of a few masonry and/or jacal rooms, sometimes associated with a subterranean kiva. A few small multiple-household settlements do occur on
Cedar Mesa (Matson et al. 1988:252; Spangler et al. 2010:120). Upland dry farming was the preferred agricultural strategy (Lipe and Varien 1999a:257), and storage facilities such as granaries suggest an emphasis on storage for buffering agricultural shortfalls. On Cedar Mesa during the late Pueblo II period (A.D. 1060-1150), both Kayenta and Mesa Verde ceramic types are found in sites. However, the Pueblo III period (A.D. 1165-1270) seems to be dominated by
Mesa Verde white wares such as McElmo and Mesa Verde black-on-white ceramics (Matson et al. 1990:Tables VII-2-5; Spangler et al. 2010), suggesting a decrease in contact or interactions with Kayenta groups.
The late Pueblo II period includes the “Chaco phenomenon,” a period marked by the construction of great houses and an increase in population throughout the Four Corners region
(Lekson 2006). During this time, the final episodes of construction of the defining great houses occurred in Chaco Canyon, the construction of great houses at Aztec, New Mexico intensified, and many smaller great houses were constructed throughout the Mesa Verde region, including on
Cedar Mesa. The great houses in Chaco and at Aztec included masonry core-and-veneer construction, however, excavation of the first story of the Cedar Mesa great houses has not been completed, and therefore it remains unclear if core-and-veneer masonry was also used there.
Other surface features also used masonry, although on Cedar Mesa, it appears that jacal construction was also utilized.
11 Finally, the Pueblo III period on Cedar Mesa experienced a continuation of small mesa- top habitations and the use of at least one great house. Decorated ceramics were primarily white wares and corrugated gray wares remained in use. The later part of the Pueblo III period on
Cedar Mesa, and in the Mesa Verde region as a whole, witnessed a shift to canyon-oriented sites, as opposed to mesa-top locations near arable soils (Lipe and Varien 1999b; Morton 2002;
Spangler et al. 2010). These sites had access to permanent water sources and also placed an emphasis on food storage facilities (Lipe and Ortman 2000; Matson et al. 1990). These shifts might be due to the need to buffer against poor or uncertain agricultural yields (Bloomer 1989).
Previous Archaeological Investigations at Cedar Mesa
Public interest in archaeology in southeastern Utah reaches as far back as the 1870s, stemming from explorations such as the Hayden Expedition and from private or museum-related artifact collecting. In the 1890s, the Wetherill brothers, Charles McLoyd, J.H. Graham, and
Charles Graham were among the most prolific collectors in the Cedar Mesa area, as evidenced by numerous inscriptions (Blackburn and Williamson 1997; Spangler et al. 2010:32). Richard
Wetherill led two expeditions to Grand Gulch in the 1890s, including the Hyde Exploring
Expedition in 1893-1894, during which he discussed and named the “Basket Makers”
(Blackburn and Williamson 1997; Spangler et al. 2010:36).
More problem-oriented scientific inquiry into Cedar Mesa began with William Lipe’s reconnaissance in 1967 and further fieldwork in 1969 and 1970 (Lipe 1978). Lipe and R.G.
Matson carried out further survey work in 1971 as methodological preparation for the following quadrat and canyon surveys (Lipe and Matson 1971). The “Cedar Mesa Project” was designed in 1971 and funded by two NSF grants in the 1970s. Most of the survey work was carried out between 1972 and 1974 as the Quadrat Survey, and between 1972 and 1975 as the Canyon
12 Inventory and Collecting Study (Matson et al. 1990). Various smaller “follow-up” projects directed by Matson and/or Lipe continued from the later 1970s to the present (e.g., Lipe et al.
1977; Lipe, Matson, and Morin 2011). Many other researchers have also used Cedar Mesa
Project data.
Matson et al. (1990) delimit the CMP area as the central part of a divide between the
Comb Wash and Grand Gulch drainage basin. This divide slopes from about 2,150 m on the north end to 1,700 m on the south end (Matson and Lipe 1975:125). The top of Cedar Mesa gradually slopes to the east and west from this divide; a contour of about 1,710 m delimits the edge of the mesa top, encompassing an 800-km2 area (Matson et al. 1990).
The Cedar Mesa Project Quadrat Survey used a stratified sampling design, first dividing the mesa into 20 watershed drainage units, split into north and south, from which three northern units (Upper Grand Gulch, North Road, and Bullet) and two southern units (West Johns and
Hardscrabble) were selected (Figure 1.4). These were then divided into 400-meter square quadrats and a random sample of quadrats was selected from each drainage unit; a total of 76 quadrats were intensively surveyed (Matson and Lipe 1975). All artifacts observed on the surface of each recorded site were collected and given a specific provenience. However, on a few occasions when middens containing high artifact density were located, only a sample of artifacts was collected from gridded units. The collections from this survey are curated at the
WSU Museum of Anthropology, and many of the collections are utilized in the following analyses.
The canyons within the five drainage units were also surveyed and further collections were made as part of the Canyon Inventory and Collection Study, bringing the total number of
13 W 600 h 0 ite Ca t ny in on Po k eric 95 Mav 720 0
5600 7600 8000
0
0
0 6 9 1 6 5 6400 6400 6800 Upper 8 6800 95 Grand 3 M Gulch
o 2 6400 ss s 95 back 4 s liff C 6000 use 5600 Red Ho
6000 11 28 7 34 55 ch 25 ul 33 68 6 e G an CEDAR 43 48 Pine-Dripping K 61 39 Extension 65 MESA 00 Fis 64 n h 59 60 276 60 o 54 47 5 C y Todie r 57 n e 40 a e 12 C Spring k g 37 in 29 p p ri on D any h C ulc e G nd 6000 in Gra 261 P 6400 6
5 h 12 600 6400 lc 14 u 1 G 17 7 nd 5 18 ra 15 16 G 6000 5600 13 North 1 52 7 19 4 00 11 Road 9 2 6 20 4 1 13 22 12 5 00 9 3 9 3 52 2 6 Hardscrabble 11 Bullet 11 10 8 10 3 5 8 10 14 5600 4 8 21
6400
520 16 0 6000 11 5600 19 68 69 70 600 Slickhorn 22 0 7 Extension 74 46 12 21 27 19 2 18 8 Lim 73 10 e C 4 20 re 2 3 ek 5600 6 6000 56 64 00 20 75 72 5200 4800 63 4000 5200 38 30 orn Canyon 9 52 ckh 55 9 00 Sli 6 6400 West 5 4000 S8 600 5600 Johns 4800 WJ1 22 13 WJ17 n 4800 o y 0 S 3 n a a 520 n S40 15 C Ju 0 ns a 600 14 oh n J R 5 iv 5600 e N r 5600 5600 Cedar Mesa 4800 Sampled 0 5 km Drainages magnetic 600 5200 0 Extension 0 3 mi Area contour interval = 400 feet 7 Quadrat
Figure 1.4. Cedar Mesa Project drainage units and surveyed quadrats (Matson et al. 1990 [2010]:Figure 4.1a)
14 sites collected to about 500. This survey divided the canyons into quadrats plotted by aerial photography, but the whole of the canyons were surveyed. Following, a stratified random sample of canyon sites was selected for intensive recording and surface collection (Matson et al.
1990). These collections also reside at the WSU Museum of Anthropology.
In 1976, the Pine-Dripping and Slickhorn extensions were added to the project as part of a 1976 study done for the BLM. This was a non-collection survey not tied to the CMP study area, but used similar methods of sampling survey and record-keeping. A total of 24 and 23 quadrats were surveyed in the Pine-Dripping and Slickhorn units, respectively. As in the previous Canyon Inventory, canyons were entirely surveyed (Lipe et al. 1977).
Other projects were also conducted in conjunction with the Cedar Mesa Project, and since the 1970s, numerous smaller projects have supplemented data collected for Cedar Mesa (Lipe and Matson 2007), including that reported in this thesis. Additionally, various projects have been undertaken as part of Section 106 compliance for development. In a recent overview of the cultural resources of the greater Cedar Mesa area, Jerry Spangler and colleagues (2010:xii) estimate that only about two percent of the overall Cedar Mesa area has been surveyed.
Defining Communities
In order to understand the settlement patterns and communities associated with the Cedar
Mesa great houses and those in the Northern San Juan basin, I first establish working definitions for settlement pattern and community (or Chacoan community). John Kantner (2008:43) views settlement pattern analysis as concentrating narrowly on quantifiable spatial relationships among material remains. Spatiality is important in identifying communities, and here I use the term settlement pattern as the material record of the built environment in space and time.
15 As Dennis Gilpin (2003:173) notes, Chaco archaeologists have assessed “the community concept as an interpretation of the settlement patterns observed on the ground,” or have interpreted communities in terms of how sites are spatially associated. This study does the same, but recognizes the problems in assessing communities in such a way. Cedar Mesa, and the Mesa
Verde region in general, is littered with archaeological sites. Fortunately, as Mark Varien
(1999:147) notes, “small residences form larger clusters, with relatively empty areas between clusters” in the northern Southwest, allowing for a clearer definition of boundaries. But how might we define communities without clear boundedness? As Nancy Mahoney and John Kantner
(2000:14) note, archaeologists have failed to make a concerted effort to look for Chacoan boundary maintenance. How far do communities extend from a central great house (Gilpin and
Purcell 2000)? Are great house communities the settlements associated with one great house, or do communities associate with multiple, interacting great houses? Finally, how well integrated were great house communities?
Jason Yaeger and Marcello Canuto (2000) provide a brief synthesis of theoretical perspectives on community in archaeology. They write that structural-functionalist approaches focus on the functions that a community serves within a social structure. This viewpoint assumes the existence of community integration. Historical-developmental approaches began as a reaction to structural-functionalism, emphasizing how communities come into existence and how external and historical conditions influence a community’s internal structure. Ideational approaches focus on the concept of identity, seeking an understanding of community that accounts for how people perceive of themselves and their place in a community. Finally, Yaeger and Canuto note interactional approaches, which use practice or agent-oriented methods to ask
16 how people create and maintain communities through relationships (Yaeger and Canuto 2000:2-
3).
Following Adler (2002), Kintigh (2003), Lipe (1970a), Mahoney (2000), and Varien
(1999), I choose to use Murdock’s (1949) and Murdock and Wilson’s (1972) structural- functionalist definition of community as a group of people who lived in close enough proximity that individuals would (or could) come into face-to-face contact with each other on a regular, and possibly daily, basis. I use this definition because this study does not focus on how potential communities on Cedar Mesa came into being, nor does it use agent-oriented methodology.
Rather, the term community is conceived as the spatial patterning of settlements whose contemporaneity and proximity would indicate interaction between households. In the particular case of Cedar Mesa discussed here, two great houses may have played a role in community activity and perceptions of community. This is similar to Michael Adler’s (2002:28) definition of community that accounts for “spatialization,” meaning that social interaction and shared identity occurred within a relatively localized spatial scale, yet recognizes that “spatial distance between households is not necessarily equivalent to social distance.” As Yaeger and Canuto
(2000:3) remark, this structural-functionalist definition “includes several archaeologically visible material markers: discrete spatial patterning of activities, residential nucleation, and shared material culture” (emphasis added). This definition also recognizes the social processes inferred by spatial clustering (as indicated by Murdock’s emphasis on face-to-face interaction). Finally, when defining community, Mahoney (2000:20) distinguishes between residential and sustainable communities. This thesis examines both types of communities when examining the social implications of settlement types.
17 Ideational approaches are important to understanding the Cedar Mesa communities as well. Michael Kolb and James Snead (1997:611) define communities as made up of three elements: social reproduction, subsistence production, and self-identification and social recognition by members. In their view, “a community possesses a minimum demographic component comprised of a core of individuals who interact regularly and whose repeated interactions socially reproduce that group” (Kolb and Snead 1997:611). The subsistence production element encompasses subsistence labor, access to resources, land tenure, and general economic aspects. Lastly, the self-identification and social recognition element recognizes physical and symbolic boundaries—which can have tangible correlates such as shrines, roads, etc.—and a sense of membership linked to residence and subsistence. Taken together, Kolb and
Snead argue that these elements create a sense of “place” linked to community identity.
Therefore, in their view, community is spatially defined and incorporates social reproduction, subsistence production, and self-identification; community is both structural and ideological.
Defining Chacoan Great House Communities
Thus far I have provided a definition for communities on a broader scale. This section examines concepts of Chacoan great house communities in particular. Dennis Gilpin (2003:175) reviews definitions of “community” used in relation to Chaco, concluding that most Chacoan researchers define the Chacoan community as “the cluster of small houses around a great house and great kiva.” Using a sample of Chacoan site clusters, Gilpin assesses them in terms of cluster sizes, density, population, boundedness, organization, date, duration, histories, interaction, and ranking. Based on this sample, Gilpin determines that boundaries, settlement organization, and size vary. However, each Chacoan cluster followed one of three general patterns of development:
18 (1) A pre-Chaco great kiva was established within an existing site cluster, and then a great house (with or without a great kiva) was established there later; (2) a great house (with or without a great kiva) was established within an existing site cluster that had not previously contained an integrative structure; and (3) a great house (with or without a great kiva) and the surrounding small houses were constructed together over a few decades (Gilpin 2003:199).
Mahoney and Kantner (2000:12) write that southwestern archaeologists usually approach the Chacoan community as a “spatial distribution of recognizable residential sites; communities are defined as relatively dense clusters of habitations surrounded by zones containing few or no sites.” They also note that communities may have integrated habitations located some distance away from great houses, as shown by Gilpin and Purcell (2000:33-34). Following a spatial recognition of great house communities, Mahoney (2000) examines communities in terms of residential and sustainable units. She defines residential communities as spatially distinct clusters of residences and sustainable communities as the spatial and demographic scale of a social network needed to maintain residential communities (Mahoney 2000:20). In other words, residential communities operate within sustainable communities, but they can also be both at the same time. Mahoney (2000:20) follows Varien’s (1999:154) two-kilometer radius (or approximately 13 km2 area) for the spatial limit of residential communities and estimates, following Wobst (1974), that a minimum of 475 people would be necessary to maintain a demographically stable social unit (sustainable community). Using survey information from four great house communities, Mahoney (2000:25-26) finds that residential communities surrounding great houses contained fairly small populations. Therefore, larger, sustainable communities comprised of multiple residential communities would have been essential to community maintenance. This study focuses primarily on residential communities, but also explores the social implications of sustainable communities on Cedar Mesa.
19 Scales of Community
In this thesis, I use three scales to analyze community on Cedar Mesa. The smallest scale is the first-order community. This is equivalent to Murdock’s (1949) face-to-face community and is a demographic unit of individuals who regularly interact (Kolb and Snead 1997:611) and share access to resources within a geographically limited area (Varien 1999:4). Varien (1999) operationalizes this scale of community in terms of the existence of a relatively permanent community center associated with public architecture and a related, less densely settled, residential area. In his view, the distance from the center is an indicator of probability of face-to- face interaction, in this case two kilometers. Communities defined in this way on Cedar Mesa were probably small because of the small size of residences and the dispersed settlement pattern.
Therefore, in this thesis I also examine a higher-order concept of community useful in conceptualizing the relationships of people who might have been attending feasts or other events at a center like Et Al.
This second tier is what I will call the community of participation. This is socially and demographically defined as individuals who interact infrequently to maintain social and biological ties (sensu Wobst 1974). On Cedar Mesa, this would be the community that infrequently uses the community centers, such as great houses and great kivas, for ritual and ceremonial events. In this case, it is also the biologically sustainable community, which I discuss in Chapters 4 and 6.
The final scale of community is regional, including the larger network of great house communities in southeast Utah and the Northern San Juan region. This is a community of shared ideology and symbolism as seen through the similar patterns of architectural and settlement layout employed throughout the San Juan. This long-lasting pattern of symbolism and widely
20 held beliefs about cosmology and social order has roots in the Pueblo I period, flourished in the late Pueblo II period during the height of Chaco’s influence, and continued in the Northern San
Juan until the late 1200s (Lipe 2006).
21 CHAPTER 2
THE CEDAR MESA COMMUNITY AND COMMUNITY SITES
Great Houses: the Et Al and Owen Sites
Despite the extensive sampling surveys carried out in the central part of Cedar Mesa, two
Chacoan-style great houses were not discovered at that time. One of the two great houses—the
Et Al site (42SA18431)—was reported to William Lipe by hikers in the early 1980s and subsequently documented by Winston Hurst and J. Richard Ambler (1993). The Owen site
(42SA24584) was discovered by Owen Severance and also subsequently documented by Hurst
(1999). The Et Al and Owen sites exhibit many characteristics that qualify them as Chacoan great houses (Lipe, Matson, and Morin 2011; Matson and Lipe 2011).
Archaeologists have long recognized great houses based on characteristics such as architectural features, position on the landscape, and high-investment construction (Lekson et al.
2006; Windes 2004). These features include specific types of masonry, enclosed kivas, earthworks (including mounded middens), roads, surrounding communities, and clear lines-of- sight to other sites and important land features (Lekson et al. 2006). The Et Al and Owen sites exhibit some, if not all, of these features. These two sites also contrast markedly with the typical habitation sites that have been recorded on Cedar Mesa, and especially with those of the late
Pueblo II period. Cedar Mesa Pueblo II habitation sites are quite small, often appear to have had non-masonry surface structures, and usually represent the residence of a single household
(Matson et al. 1988).
The Owen site (42SA24584; Figure 2.1) consists of a large rubble mound (Feature 1), two small habitation units with kiva depressions (Features 3 and 4/5), a probable great kiva
(Feature 2), a midden that may have been mounded (Feature 9a/b), and at least one associated
22 potential road swale (Feature 10) (Figure 2.1). Feature 1 is substantial by Cedar Mesa standards and represents a multi-storied unit with a second-story element along the back wall and consists of 15-20 total rooms. This site firmly dates to the late Pueblo II period, as evidenced by the ceramic assemblage (Lipe, Matson, and Morin 2011; Matson and Lipe 2011).
1030 8
Collected FEATURE 13 Units FEATURE 6b Owens Site Collected Grid 42Sa 24584 FEATURE 6a 1020 Site Datum 9 Arbitrary 10 m height Features mapped Feature area FEATURE 7 not mappped
1010
FEATURE 14
2 FEATURE 8 1 FEATURE 3 3 4 5 6 7 FEATURE 11 Collected 1000 squares 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 41 15 16 17 18 19 20 10 FEATURE 5 42 21 22 23 24 25 FEATURE 1 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 38 FEATURE 4 33 34 35 36 37 40 38 990 9
FEATURE 10 FEATURE 2 Kiva Road 9 980 1 2 3 4 8 5 6 7 Grid North True North FEATURE 8 FEATURE 9C 9a and 9b 9 971.88N 970 145.77E Collected Grid 14 13 12 11 10 15 16 17 18 19 Meters 24 23 22 21 20
N 25 26 27 28 29 34 33 32 31 30 961.86N 960 148.75E 35 36 37 38 39
40 41 42 43 44 FEATURE 12 0 5 10 15 20 m Collected squares 45 46 47 FEATURE 9D
60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 E Meters
Figure 2.1. Owen site (42SA24584) (Lipe, Matson, and Morin 2011:Figure 17) The Et Al site (Figure 2.2) includes multiple great house features and is a masonry roomblock with some still-standing walls that were, in part, two stories tall and two courses wide
(Feature 1). Two associated deep kiva depressions, a shallow, irregular depression that may represent a great kiva (Feature 10), and several mounded midden areas area also present
(Features 2, 3, 7, and possibly 5). Feature 1 is “front-oriented,” with a blocked-in kiva to the southeast and another kiva blocked in on three sides to the south. The back (north) row of rooms
23 in this feature is two stories tall, with unusually large rooms in the eastern portion. This roomblock contains a minimum of 34 rooms. A small probable habitation site (Feature 16) dating to the late Pueblo II period is located approximately 35 meters northwest of the great house building (Lipe, Matson, and Morin 2011). There are also two linear swales adjacent to the great house that probably represent an associated road segment (42SA28202 and 42SA28203) that runs north from the Et Al site intermittently for about 3.3 kilometers (Hurst 2009a). The road is clearly visible and well preserved in some segments, punctuated by segments that have eroded. It potentially connects the Et Al site with the H.S.T. site, a late Pueblo II probable great kiva. Ceramic analysis and tree-ring dating from Et Al indicates a late Pueblo II and a Pueblo III component (A.D. 1060-1150 and A.D. 1165- mid-to-late 1200s) (Dean 1999; Lipe, Matson, and
Morin 2011). Though it appears that Et Al’s initial construction occurred during Chaco florescence, the site was important during later times, when Chacoan influence had generally subsided in the Northern San Juan.
Owen and Et Al were apparently both initially constructed and used in the late 1000s (or
Windgate phase). Tree ring dates and ceramics confirm that Et Al was reoccupied in the late
1100s or early 1200s, possibly after a brief hiatus between the Clay Hills and Woodenshoe phases, but Owen seems to have gone out of use by the early 1100s (Lipe, Matson, and Morin
2011). Though some ceramic evidence indicates that the Owen site continued to be visited in the
Pueblo III period, there is not enough evidence at this time to show that the site was regularly used or inhabited (Lipe, Matson and Morin 2011:18-19).
24 1040 Bullet Canyon Road 42SA 28203 6 FEATURE 16 6.5 meters 7 1030 Et Al Site 42SA 18431
1020 Edge of Wall Fall and Rubble from Juniper FEATURE 2 Room Block Trees Juniper Trees Pinyon FEATURE 15 7 Trees FEATURE 13 Pinyon Tree 1010 Rubble 1 Pile of sandstone Collected Grid chunks, recent 2 (possiby from 3 pothunting) 8 Collected Grid 4 9 Pile of sandstone 1000 5 8 98 slabs, recently 6 stacked
7 Kiva FEATURE 14 8 8 Kiva
990 FEATURE 11 Collected Grid Edge of Wall Fall and Rubble from Room Block FEATURE 8 Juniper 980 Stump 7 FEATURE 4 7 8 FEATURE 12 FEATURE 3
970 Juniper Trees FEATURE 10 Great Kiva?
7 960 4 meter Radius Collected Area FEATURE 6 Pinyon Tree FEATURE 7 FEATURE 5 Rubble
950 7 FEATURE 9
FEATURE FEATURE 11
940
1073 Pinyon and Juniper Trees Grid 1070 Rubble, Sherds 930 North and Ash 1069N-168E 7 Sosi True Dead Pinyon and Tsegi North 1065 Orangeware Juniper Tree and Corregated Some Sherds Rubble 1060 Site Datum 1000N 100E 920 Collected Grid Pinyon Trees Arbitrary 10 m height Dead Pine 1056N 168E 4 meter Radius 1055 Grid Features located but not N Collected Area mapped or collected
meters FEATURE 16 meters Feature mapped 1050 910 156 160 165 170 175 179 meters FEATURE 17 and collected map by J. Morin, R. Dickie, S. Matson 905 60 meters 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Figure 2.2. Et Al site (42SA18431) (Lipe, Matson, and Morin 2011:Figure 4)
25 Fortified Mesa
Fortified Mesa (42SA3680) represents another site that may have served special functions within its associated community. The site was originally mapped in 1967 and subsequently recorded in somewhat more detail in as part of a block survey conducted in 1969 and 1970 (Lipe 1978). This is an anomalous site atop a narrow mesita that rises between Sheiks and Coyote Flats (Figure 2.4). It was originally interpreted as a possible defensive site, primarily based on the wall construction and location (Lipe 1970b); the site potentially served as a refuge for surrounding community members. The site is in an approximate north-south alignment with the H.S.T. great kiva and Et Al and commands a view of a large area of Cedar Mesa as well as prominent landforms to the north and northwest. I would also argue, however, that the site may have served other communal activities, based on its location and low-walled, rectangular spaces probably representing formal plazas.
Masonry walls make up the central roomblock, which seems to be divided into at least four large rooms, surrounded by courtyard areas (Figure 2.3). The central roomblock walls are over a foot thick in places, built of rubble masonry with shaped exterior stones. The amount of rubble and height of still-standing walls suggests that the roomblock was at least in part two stories high. Enclosing walls around the central structure consist of rough masonry and boulder walls of varying height, and there are additional walls beyond these. Some possible rooms lie outside the central roomblock, but these appear to have less-than full-height walls and these, along with small rooms under overhangs, could be interpreted as food storage facilities. At least two formal rectangular areas exist (Figure 2.3, Areas B and C), bounded by low walls. The site’s location on top of a mesita with difficult!access and 360-degree views, as well as !
26 !
Figure 2.3. 42SA3680 Site map (adapted from 1967 sketch map [Lipe 1970b])
27 the thick walls and enclosing walls, do suggest a defensive posture of the site. What seem to be open plaza spaces (a.k.a. courtyards) could also be interpreted as areas for community-oriented activity (Till and Hurst 2011:10).
The ceramic assemblage suggests that Fortified Mesa may have been used minimally during the late Pueblo II period, though there is not enough data to indicate whether this occupation should be assigned to the Windgate or Clay Hills phases. The most extensive use of this site seems to be during the Pueblo III period.
# 42SA24584 (Owen)
# 42SA3680 (Fortified Mesa)
# 42SA18431 (Et Al)
0 0.5 1 2 3 4 Kilometers ± 1:100,000
Figure 2.4. Location of Et Al, Owen, and Fortified Mesa
28 Summary
The Chaco-esque features at Et Al and Owen indicate that they were part of a regional system of great houses throughout the Northern San Juan basin (Lipe 2006). Chacoan great houses are greatly enlarged and elaborated San Juan-type roomblocks with increased scale, formality, and elaboration of architecture (Lipe 2006:269). Great houses were architectural symbols “rooted in beliefs and symbolic systems that were widely held through most of the San
Juan drainage and that long preceded the Chacoan florescence of ca. A.D. 1040-1135” (Lipe
2006:770). Et Al, Owen, and Fortified Mesa were more than just residences, built to be highly visible and thus possibly of symbolic importance. These sites likely served as places where non- residents occasionally assembled, and this is supported by ceramic evidence, detailed in the following chapter.
29 CHAPTER 3
COMMUNITY USE OF CENTRAL CEDAR MESA SITES
Many archaeologists (e.g., Blinman 1989; Blitz 1993; Mills 1989, 2007; Underhill 1990) have recognized the utility of using ceramic assemblages to identify feasting activities at ritual locations. Ceramics provide a way to analyze site use on Cedar Mesa, especially at important community-oriented sites. Sites that were gathering places for more than their residents will often show some differences in proportions of various ceramic variables. I use the ceramic assemblages from Et Al, Fortified Mesa, and nearby habitation sites to show that feasting activity occurred at Et Al and possibly also at Fortified Mesa. Statistical tests show that the vessels found at these community-oriented features are typically larger, and that there are proportionally more decorated wares than gray ware and more bowls than jars than at domestic sites.
Comparable analysis of the assemblage from the Owen site reveals a similar pattern (Williams
2009).
Numerous studies have shown the utility of using ceramic assemblages, and specifically vessel rim measurements, in evaluating the activities associated with a site. Ware types and rim diameters can contribute to inferences about whether feasting occurred regularly in certain contexts. For example, Blitz (1993:84), working in the Southeast, hypothesizes that a greater proportion of fine serving ware would have been discarded at Mississippian mound locations than in more domestic contexts. He found that there is a narrower range of larger vessel types within mound contexts than household contexts, indicating an emphasis on large-group food consumption and storage (Blitz 1993:90).
In the northern Southwest, Lipe (1970a), Blinman (1989, 2009), and Mills (1999, 2007) have documented similar results. Lipe argues that the “Fortress” site on the Red Rock Plateau in
30 southeast Utah exhibits unusual characteristics for the area. It has a very large walled plaza with a large fire pit in the center, and only two large rooms, attached to one end of the plaza. Noting a scarcity of gray wares (which are typically cooking jars) and abundant decorated wares (which are more often in bowl form), he surmised that this site may have been a location where food was brought rather than prepared (Lipe 1970a:130). Blinman later examined McPhee Village, a
Pueblo I site with ritual facilities occupied from A.D. 840-880 in the Dolores region, and supports Lipe’s (1970a) brief assertions. He notes that cooking jars have shorter life spans than serving bowls, therefore, jar sherds should accumulate more quickly in midden deposits. In the context of large samples, there should be a consistent ratio of cooking jars to bowl sherds. He also writes that the ratio of jar to bowl sherds should be equal at all roomblocks if cooking and eating occurred primarily in domestic contexts. “However,” Blinman (1989:116) hypothesizes,
“if food consumption played a significant role at social gatherings, there is a possibility for differential accumulations of cooking jar and bowl sherds, depending upon the specific spatial pattern of food preparation and consumption.” He finds that the smallest ratios of jars to bowls
(meaning more decorated bowls than cooking jars) coincide with the roomblocks associated with the highest-ranking ritual structures (Blinman 1989:119). These results support a “potluck model” of ceremonialism in which individuals prepared food elsewhere and brought it with them as they gathered for feasting activities at ritual locations. Small batches of food may have been prepared at ceremonial roomblocks, but the ceramic assemblages indicate little food preparation, with greater proportions of serving vessels. Additionally, Blinman (1989:120) notes that, “The relative contribution of red ware vessels to the bowl category increases with the increasing rank of pit structure ceremonialism. This pattern implies a strong preference for the use (and breakage) of red ware rather than other decorated bowls for ceremonial food consumption.”
31 Therefore, at the Et Al and Fortified Mesa sites, we should expect higher proportions of 1) serving vessels to cooking jars and 2) decorated wares to gray wares than at “ordinary” habitations.
Mills (1999) further supports the observations Blinman makes with a study of food consumption patterns in northern Southwest communities between A.D. 1000 and 1300. She examines both the size and the amount of discarded vessels, hypothesizing that these factors might reveal variation in food consumption (Mills 1999:104). Comparing Mesa Verdean and
Tusayan collections, Mills (1999:110) finds that, as time went on, cooking pots in the Mesa
Verde region are made in increasingly large sizes, while Tusayan cooking jar sizes show less pronounced change through time. She argues that these changes are not due to changes in cuisine, but rather due to increasing participation in suprahousehold ritual feasting (Mills
1999:113).
Closer to the Et Al great house, feasting activity is also evidenced at the Bluff Great
House through ceramic evidence (Blinman 2009; Cameron 2009b:303). Blinman (2009) compared vessel diameters from the Bluff great house to the vessel sizes of white ware bowls in museum collections (compiled by Mills 1999). He found that the Pueblo II and III white ware bowls and Pueblo II red ware bowls at Bluff were larger than comparable vessels in the northern
San Juan region as a whole. This follows the potluck pattern mentioned above, indicating that feasting activity also occurred at Bluff, with participants bringing food prepared elsewhere in large serving vessels to the great house.
Clearly, feasting above the household level was an important activity in ancestral
Puebloan communities. As demonstrated, evidence for feasting can be determined through ceramic analysis. I expect similar patterns to those demonstrated by Blinman, Blitz, Mills, and
32 Lipe in the ceramic assemblages of Et Al and Fortified Mesa, sites at which there was likely ritual activity; there should be larger vessels, more bowls than jars, and more decorated ware than gray ware at ritually used sites when compared to domestic sites.
Methods
The following analyses use data from Mills’ (1989) dissertation, which examines ceramic assemblages on Cedar Mesa in order to infer the types of activities at various sites. This study also uses the collections from the Et Al site made in 2009 by Bill Lipe and R.G. Matson (Lipe,
Matson, and Morin 2011) and collections made by Lipe from Fortified Mesa in 1970 (Lipe
1970b), and compares these to Mills’ samples. Both assemblages are curated at the WSU
Anthropology Museum. Mills’ large Cedar Mesa data set includes primarily rim sherds from surface collections, as does the data used from the Et Al and Fortified Mesa sites; no excavation has taken place at the sites evaluated in this study. Vessels are defined as bowl or jar based on interior and exterior decoration and coil-and-scraping patterns, and types are defined generally as gray wares, white wares (which includes slipped and black-on-white wares), and red/orange wares.
Though Mills (1999:106) notes that rim sherd diameter is problematic in that it is not the best proxy measure of overall vessel size, especially for jars, it is the best method given the assemblages we have to work with. In her 1989 study, Mills used a diameter calculation technique described by Plog (1985), which uses a spherometer and removable brass appendages of different increments. Because this instrument was not available for measurements made on the Et Al assemblage, measurements were made with a rim arc chart in 0.5 cm increments. In both Plog’s method and the method I used, measurements were made to the rim interiors. Mills only used rim sherds with a minimum arc length of 2 cm, though I use all rim sherds with a
33 minimum arc length of 1.5 cm in order to allow for a larger sample size. Rims with irregularities
(inconsistent arcs) were also excluded from tests involving rim arc data, but were not excluded from general assemblage counts. The Et Al ceramic assemblage counts were tabulated by Bill
Lipe and Diane Curewitz from Washington State University (Lipe, Matson, and Morin 2011). I also use tabulated data from the 2011 Cedar Mesa Cultural Landscapes Survey to compare assemblages from habitation sites to Et Al and to compare the proportions of Mesa Verde Black- on-white sherds at Fortified Mesa to nearby habitation sites. These data were gathered in-field, and therefore did not include use of a microscope, however, ware types and Pueblo III Mesa
Verde styles are distinctive enough that I consider the analyses reliable.
Assemblages
Et Al
For the Et Al site, rim arc information of sufficient sample sizes is available for Features
2, 8, 13, and 16 (Figure 2.2). Feature 2 is a large, mounded midden to the east of the great house style roomblock and Feature 8 is a small mound of ashy soil and slabs to the southeast of this roomblock. Feature 13 is a refuse feature located to the northwest of this roomblock and Feature
16 is a small habitation unit in the northeast corner of the site. Worth recognition is that Et Al has probably been illegally surface collected, and this is likely to preferentially reduce the number of white and red/orange wares (as opposed to undecorated pieces) on the surface. Assuming this has occurred, there may have once been even higher proportions of white and red/orange wares to gray wares than the observations made here. Almost half of the Et Al rim arc data comes from
Feature 16, and this is probably a product of greater pot hunting activity in the main portion of the site. Unfortunately, we have no collections from Feature 10, a possible great kiva and likely ritual location at the site with relatively few associated artifacts on the surface. Because Feature
34 16 is smaller and located some distance from the main part of the site, it is likely that casual surface collections have not been made as extensively from this part of the site. Table 3.1 shows all ceramic data from the Et Al site, while Table 3.2 shows just the rim arc data. Figures 3.1 and
3.2 show the same data as proportions.
Table 3.1. Et Al ceramic assemblage Feature 2 3 4 5 8 13 16 17 Total Gray Wares 156 121 8 20 72 26 106 0 509 White Wares 194 108 15 64 53 36 48 3 521 Red/orange wares 35 22 1 5 13 2 28 0 106 Total 385 251 24 89 138 64 182 3 1136
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% Red/Orange Ware 30% 20% White Ware 10% Gray Ware 0%
Et Al Feature Number
Figure 3.1. Ware proportions of Et Al ceramic assemblage Table 3.2. Et Al rim sherd assemblage Feature 2 8 13 16 Total Gray Ware 3 1 1 9 14 White Ware 9 1 3 3 16 Red/Orange Ware 1 0 0 4 5 Total 13 2 4 16 35
35 80% 70% 60% 50%
40% Red/Orange Ware 30% White Ware 20% Gray Ware 10% 0% Feature 2 Feature 8 Feature 13 Feature 16 Et Al Feature Number
Figure 3.2. Ware proportions of Et Al rim sherd assemblage Fortified Mesa
Surface collections from Fortified Mesa were made in 1970 and the ceramic collections come from three units, two 20-meter-diameter intensive collection units from outside the structure on the west base of the mesa (ISP #1 and ISP #2) and one from the southern portion of the central roomblock, within a walled courtyard area (Area A) (Figure 2.3). More recent work at Fortified Mesa includes the collection of tree-ring samples from relatively well-preserved beams by Tom Windes and crew during the summer of 2011, but the analysis has not yet been completed.
In 2011, I analyzed the Fortified Mesa ceramic collection curated at WSU; based on the frequency of ceramic types from the Fortified Mesa ceramic collection (Table 3.3), it seems that the site was used primarily during the Woodenshoe and Red House phases (Pueblo III period) identified for Cedar Mesa. Following the comparative ceramic analysis, several lines of evidence are examined to determine Fortified Mesa’s function. The presence of some Kayenta ceramics as well as Mancos Black-on-white suggests that the site may have been used minimally
36 during the late Pueblo II period, though there are not enough data to indicate whether this occupation should be assigned to the Windgate or Clay Hills phases. Numerous Mesa Verde
Black-on-white sherds suggest that the site was occupied well into the mid- to late-thirteenth century. I use the assemblage to determine if the site was occupied later into the Pueblo III period than other Bullet Canyon drainage sites, which might indicate whether the site was used as a defensible unit. I also examine the structural aspects of the site to identify any modifications that would show an emphasis on food storage or defensibility.
Table 3.3. Ceramic collection from Fortified Mesa Type Count Corrugated Gray Ware 234 Plain Gray Ware 36 San Juan Red Ware 7 Cortez Black-on-white 1 Mancos Black-on-white 12 McElmo Black-on-white 44 Mesa Verde Black-on-white 20 PIII Mesa Verde Tradition Black-on-white 58 Unidentified Mesa Verde White Ware 73 Tsegi Orange Ware 10 Citadel Polychrome 1 Cameron Polychrome 3 Sosi Black-on-white 10 Dogoszhi Black-on-white 5 Unidentified Tusayan White Ware 18 Total 532
Analysis of Et Al and Fortified Mesa Assemblages
One way to examine whether or not the Et Al and Fortified Mesa sites were feasting locations would be to determine if there are similarities between Et Al and Fortified Mesa, as well as differences in the overall number of decorated to gray ware ceramics between these sites and typical habitation sites on Cedar Mesa. Barbara Mills’ (1989) rim arc information provides comparative data, but it is an extremely large dataset that includes numerous sites. To limit this analysis, I use her data only for Pueblo II and III sites from the Bullet Canyon drainage, where Et
37 Al is located and which is near Fortified Mesa. I have also selected sites from survey quadrats in the Bullet Canyon drainage unit closest to these two sites in order to most accurately represent what we assume to be an associated community. Finally, I include only sites with more than 30 rim arc samples in the collections. The final analysis includes four habitation sites from the
Bullet Canyon drainage quadrat survey (sites labeled BU), as well as Et Al Feature 16, which appears to be a small habitation unit immediately adjacent to Et Al. BU10-7, BU12-1, and
Feature 16 date to the Windgate and/or Clay Hills phases (both late Pueblo II), while BU19-1 and BU22-2 date to the Woodenshoe and Red House phases (Pueblo III).
Table 3.4 and Figure 3.3 show the frequencies and proportions of gray, white, and red/orange wares for each assemblage at the five selected habitation sites, Et Al, and Fortified
Mesa. Based on the histogram, it seems that Et Al and Fortified Mesa contain higher proportions of decorated to gray wares than at most of the habitation sites. After comparing Et Al and
Fortified Mesa, I return to these assemblages.
Table 3.4. Bullet Canyon drainage quadrat ceramic assemblages Site Et Al Fortified BU10-7 BU12-1 BU19-1 BU22-2 Et Al Total Feat. 16 Mesa Gray Ware 820 642 262 648 106 403 269 3150 White Ware 292 362 236 478 48 473 244 2133 Red/Orange Ware 226 146 18 15 28 78 18 529 Total 1338 1150 516 1141 182 954 531 5812
If both potentially communal sites were used for ritual feasting, we would expect the assemblages to be similar in terms of the proportions of decorated and red/orange ware ceramics to gray ware and in terms of decorated vessel rim diameter. In other words, we would expect statistical analyses to show no significant difference between the assemblages. Of note in Figure
3.3 is the difference in red/orange ware and white ware between the sites, a product of the limited Pueblo II occupation at Fortified Mesa. It appears that the Et Al occupation
38 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% Red/Orange Ware 10% White Ware 0% Gray Ware
Site
Figure 3.3. Bullet Canyon drainage site ware proportions during the late Pueblo II period was more extensive than Fortified Mesa, so there may be proportionally more red/orange ware at Et Al. Therefore, I combined the red/orange ware and white ware into one “decorated ware” category for the following analysis. This is because I expect higher proportions of decorated ware than gray ware in feasting assemblages, and the differences in proportions of red/orange ware to white ware are not as important. This also helps control for time, as red/orange ware is more prominent in Pueblo II than in Pueblo III assemblages.
A chi-squared test between the Et Al great house and Fortified Mesa shows that the distribution of the ceramic wares (gray and decorated) between the two sites is significantly different (χ2 = 2293.31, df = 1, p < 0.001). Lipe, Matson, and Morin (2011:14) found that
Feature 5 at Et Al, a refuse area located west of and probably associated with a potential great kiva, has an unusually high proportion of decorated sherds. The available data “show 120 white and orange ware sherds (approximately 76 percent of the total) relative to 38 gray ware sherds
(approximately 24 percent of the total). The collections from the Et Al site as a whole
39 (excluding Feature 5) have 53.5 percent white and red/orange wares, and 46.5 percent gray ware” (Lipe, Matson, and Morin 2011:14). Overall, the Fortified Mesa assemblage contains 262
(49.2%) decorated (white and red/orange) ware and 270 (50.8%) gray ware sherds.
Proportionally, Et Al has more decorated ware than Fortified Mesa.
If Fortified Mesa and Et Al decorated ware rim sherds are comparatively similar, we might still be able to say something about potential feasting activity at Fortified Mesa. Figure
3.4 shows the distributions of rim diameters in gray ware, red/orange ware, and white ware between the sites. The median rim diameters for each category seem to be within a few centimeters of each other, and the size ranges are relatively similar. The diameters for gray ware vessels are not significantly different between Et Al and Fortified Mesa (t = 0.24, df = 20, p =
0.81). This is not surprising, given that decorated serving vessels (as opposed to gray ware) are
more likely to have had larger diameters in settings where feasting occurred.
102030405060Diameter (cm) WhiteGrayRed/Orange Ware Ware Ware Etn=9n=4n=25Fortified Al n=13n=4n=16 Mesa 60 50 40 30 Diameter Diameter (cm)
Fortified Mesa n=4 20
Fortified Mesa n=9
Fortified Mesa Et Al n=13 Et Al n=4 n=25 10 Et Al n=16 Gray Ware Red/Orange Ware White Ware
Figure 3.4. Rim diameters from Et Al and Fortified Mesa
40 The white ware and red/orange ware rim diameters from the two sites are not statistically different, though this might be partially attributed to small sample sizes (white ware: t = 1.48, df
= 39, p = 0.15; red ware: t = 0.43, df = 6, p = 0.68). Based on these analyses, the rim diameters from Et Al and Fortified Mesa seem to be similar.
Though the ceramic assemblages do not appear to be statistically similar in terms of the wares present, they do seem similar in terms of vessel diameters. We might infer that feasting occurred at both sites, but perhaps more cooking occurred at Fortified Mesa, whereas people may have brought prepared food to Et Al. One way to more definitively assess if feasting activity occurred at Et Al and Fortified Mesa is to examine these assemblages in comparison to habitation sites.
Cedar Mesa Habitation Site Assemblages
Et Al and Fortified Mesa exhibit similarities in terms of decorated ware vessel diameters, suggesting that both sites were used for ritual feasting activity. Therefore, if true, these site assemblages should show statistically significant differences when compared to habitation sites.
Ceramic tallies collected during the CMCL Survey (Table 3.5) provide categorical data from habitation sites in direct association with Et Al. These data were assembled in-field, and do not include rim or vessel type information. In the first part of this analysis, I compare basic habitation unit assemblage data with the Et Al assemblage to show differences in the proportions of wares. I then use the Bullet Canyon quadrat sites discussed above to compare with Et Al and
Fortified Mesa in terms of rim diameters and vessel types.
Comparing the pooled habitation site assemblages with Et Al in terms of ware types (gray to decorated) shows that there is a difference in the assemblages (χ2 = 1480.51, df = 1, p <
0.001). There are proportionally more decorated wares than gray ware in the Et Al assemblage
41 than at habitation sites immediately surrounding the great house, though there is some variation in assemblage composition (Figure 3.5).
Table 3.5. Frequencies of ware types at Et Al and nearby habitation sites Site Ware 42SA29954 42SA29960 42SA29971 42SA29975 42SA29976 42SA29977 Gray 44 4 25 2 41 17 White 47 0 35 2 55 12 Red/Orange 12 1 1 1 9 37 42SA29980 42SA29986 42SA29988 42SA29989 42SA29990 42SA29992 Gray 5 18 25 90 21 3 White 14 8 25 125 58 7 Red/Orange 0 3 4 17 3 2 42SA29995 42SA29996 42SA29997 42SA30001 42SA30004 42SA30005 Gray 7 127 46 97 10 12 White 8 173 26 33 3 18 Red/Orange 1 16 9 49 4 1 Et Al Feat. 42SA30005 42SA30009 42SA30011 42SA30012 16 Et Al Gray 12 49 14 21 106 403 White 18 20 18 25 48 473 Red/Orange 1 17 3 0 28 78
90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% Gray Ware 10% Decorated Ware 0%
Site
Figure 3.5. Ware proportions from CMCLS habitation sites and Et Al
42 When compared to the selected Bullet Canyon quadrat domestic sites (BU10-7, BU12-1,
BU19-1, BU22-2, and Et Al Feature 16), the assemblages should again be significantly different.
Figure 3.3 shows the proportions of the wares, and for the following analysis, I again lumped red/orange and white wares into one decorated ware category. There is a significant difference between these pooled habitation sites and the combined Et Al and Fortified Mesa site assemblages in terms of gray to decorated wares (χ2 = 3730.03, df = 1, p < 0.001).
Analysis of rim diameters shows that the rim diameters from habitation sites are generally smaller than at Fortified Mesa and Et Al. Figures 3.6-7 display the distribution of rim diameters at each of the sites by red/orange and white ware. Two-sample t-tests of the pooled
Bullet Canyon drainage habitation site assemblages and the combined Et Al and Fortified Mesa assemblages shows that there is a significant difference in both white ware (t = 3.87, df = 148, p
< 0.001) and red ware rim diameters (t = 3.21, df = 65, p = 0.002). These results indicate that Et
Al and Fortified Mesa have larger decorated vessels than residential sites.
Finally, if feasting activities occurred primarily at great house sites, we would expect a higher proportion of bowls at Et Al and Fortified Mesa than at habitation sites (Table 3.6). The following analysis uses only rim sherds, as bowl and jar data are not available for all sherds in some of the assemblages. (Also worth noting is that assemblages will naturally display higher proportions of bowl rim sherds because bowls have larger rim diameters than jars, creating more broken pieces in any given assemblage. This might, however, be offset by longer use-lives of bowls.) Chi-squared tests between combined Et Al and Fortified Mesa data and the pooled habitation site data with respect to vessel type show a clear difference between the assemblages
(χ2 = 210.11, df = 1, p < 0.001). Considering that most jars are gray wares and most bowls are
43 decorated, this supports the hypothesis that these central sites contain both more decorated wares
and more bowls than habitation sites.
1020304050Diameter (cm) BUEtFortifiedn=34n=22n=2n=1n=4n=3 Al10-712-119-122-2 Feat. Mesa 16 50 40
Et Al
30 n=1 Diameter Diameter (cm)
Fortified Mesa n=4 20
BU 22-2 n=1 BU 10-7 BU 19-1 n=34 n=2 BU 12-1 n=22 Et Al Feat. 16
10 n=3
Figure 3.6. Red/orange ware rim diameters from selected Bullet Canyon drainage sites
0102030405060Diameter (cm) BUEtFortifiedn=11n=31n=26n=41n=25n=3n=13 Al10-712-119-122-2 Feat. Mesa 16 60 50 40 30 Diameter Diameter (cm) 20
Et Al Feat. 16 n=3
Fortified Mesa
10 BU 19-1 n=25 BU 10-7 BU 22-2 Et Al n=26 n=11 n=41 n=13 BU 12-1 n=31 0
Figure 3.7. White ware rim diameters from selected Bullet Canyon drainage sites
44 Table 3.6. Bowl and jar frequencies Habitation Sites Et Al & Fortified Mesa Total Bowls 168 46 214 Jars 81 22 103 Total 249 68 317
Summary
In addition to the above analysis, Justin Williams (2009) examined the ceramic assemblage from the Owen site, including measuring vessel diameters. He found that the rim sherds from Feature 9a and b (a mounded midden south of the main roomblock and the great kiva; Figure 2.1) had a higher proportion of larger vessels than from the rest of the site. Also,
Owen Feature 9a and b contained larger vessels than BU10-7, however, there were not enough orange ware rims from Feature 9a and b to compare these with BU10-7. Williams (2009) also found that within the Owen assemblage, Feature 9a/b contained 43 percent white ware sherds, as opposed to 32 percent from Feature 8, 21 percent from Feature 9c, and 19 percent from Features
6 and 7. Additionally, the Owen site Feature 9a and b assemblage included a substantially greater proportion of white ware than in the total site assemblage from sites BU10-7, UGG4-3, and UGG6-3. It seems that feasting activity was also taking place at Owen, and that the vessels used during these feasts were deposited in the midden associated with the great kiva (Williams
2009).
Feasting also seems to have occurred at Et Al and Fortified Mesa. Although these two sites display different proportions of decorated to gray wares—more decorated wares than gray ware at Et Al versus nearly equal proportions at Fortified Mesa—the rim diameters of decorated vessels are similar between the sites, indicating some similarity in feasting activity. Feasting probably occurred at both sites, but may have been more intensive or more frequent at Et Al.
45 Et Al and Fortified Mesa have higher proportions of decorated wares to gray ware than habitation sites. The vessel rim diameters are also larger at Et Al and Fortified Mesa, and the two sites contain proportionally more bowls than habitation sites. The combined evidence indicates that feasting occurred at Et Al, and probably also at Fortified Mesa. These sites were important community ritual locations on Cedar Mesa, however, this analysis does not satisfactorily explain Fortified Mesa’s function.
Fortified Mesa: A Defensible Food Storage Facility?
The ceramic analysis above indicates that Fortified Mesa probably served as a location for community ritual activity in the form of feasting, but the architectural layout of the site suggests that it may have served additional functions, chiefly that it was a defensive site. Based on the ceramic assemblage, it seems that Fortified Mesa was occupied primarily during the
Pueblo III period, but continued to be in use later than most other known sites on central Cedar
Mesa. This is an observation made solely from the frequency of Mesa Verde Black-on-white ware at the site. This is the latest ceramic type in the assemblages on Cedar Mesa, and occurs from about A.D. 1180 to 1300, following the appearance of McElmo Black-on-white (A.D. 1075 to 1275) (Breternitz et al. 1974). After about A.D. 1260, it seems that many sites on Cedar Mesa and in the Mesa Verde region in general began to be abandoned (Curewitz and Matson 2010;
Glowacki 2006; Lipe 1995; Lipe et al. 2010). In the Mesa Verde region, evidence for a shift to defensible cliff dwelling and canyon rim sites with more food storage facilities in the late Pueblo
III period suggests that residents may have been raiding each other after food had been harvested and stored, and this may have also occurred at Cedar Mesa (Matson et al. 1988:255). If Fortified
Mesa was occupied later than most other sites on Cedar Mesa, we could say that it served as a
46 defensive site with food storage facilities during a period of deteriorating climate in the Mesa
Verde region (Dean et al. 1985; Varien et al. 1996).
Weak evidence for actual habitation structures is consistent with the idea that the site may have served as a defensible structure. The Moon House Complex in McLoyd’s Canyon, on the eastern side of Cedar Mesa, appears to be a similar site occupied into the A.D. 1260s, and contains numerous storage rooms with small, high doorways and lacking sooting (as would be seen in a living space) (Bloomer 1989). The site is built into a cliff face, which is difficult to access, and contains what seems to be a defensive wall.
The Citadel site, southeast of Fortified Mesa in Road Canyon on Cedar Mesa, has also been interpreted as a late-period defensive site with storage facilities. The site is located on a mesa with access only from a narrow bridge way, which may have had a wall built across it.
Numerous rooms just under the rim of the mesa are constructed with high, small doorways, suggesting a food storage function. This site has not been adequately recorded or interpreted, but its location, storage features, and limited access also suggest a defensive site with a storage function (Bill Lipe, personal communication, November 2011).
Curewitz and Matson (2010) show that Moon House was occupied later than other Red
House phase sites on Cedar Mesa based on ceramic assemblages, and was likely the latest occupied site on Cedar Mesa using a design element based seriation of Mesa Verde tradition
Pueblo III rim sherds. They found that the mid-point of the Moon House occupation was A.D.
1260-1263 and other Red House sites had a mid-point occupation of A.D. 1245. Based on tree ring dates, Lipe et al. (2010) found that central Cedar Mesa experienced a peak in population (or at least in construction) by about A.D. 1250, and then people began to move out of southeast
Utah in the mid-1200s. They also find parallel evidence that Moon House continued to be
47 occupied later than the rest of Cedar Mesa through tree ring dates. Perhaps Moon House, and potentially Fortified Mesa, served the defensive and food storage needs of those still inhabiting or making seasonal use of Cedar Mesa at this time of social upheaval and climatic change.
Using both ceramic and architectural features of Fortified Mesa might tell us something about its function.
Unfortunately, when the collections were made for Cedar Mesa in the 1970s, the analysis did not distinguish between McElmo and Mesa Verde Black-on-white, but instead categorized them as general Mesa Verde Pueblo III style black-on-white with mineral or carbon paint.
Studies since the 1970s have shown that the distinction between McElmo and Mesa Verde styles is a useful chronological indicator (Matson et al. 1990 [2010], Appendix B:1). Therefore, in this analysis I use the in-field analysis of habitation sites with a Pueblo III component made during the 2011 Cedar Mesa Cultural Landscapes Survey. Table 3.7 shows the frequencies of Pueblo
III sherds at the various sites. The overall ratio of Mesa Verde Black-on-white sherds to
McElmo Black-on-white sherds at habitation sites is 1:1.4 and the ratio of Mesa Verde Black-on- white to McElmo and all other unspecified Pueblo III white ware is 1:4.4. Conversely, at
Fortified Mesa the ratio of Mesa Verde to McElmo Black-on-white sherds is 1:2.2 and the ratio of Mesa Verde to McElmo Black-on-white and all other unspecified Pueblo III sherds is 1:4.6. If
Fortified Mesa was in fact occupied later than the other habitation sites on Cedar Mesa, we would expect the ratio of Mesa Verde to McElmo Black-on-white sherds to be higher, however, this is not the case. There are proportionally more McElmo than Mesa Verde Black-on-white sherds at Fortified Mesa than at nearby small Bullet Canyon drainage Pueblo III period habitation sites. Hence, the typological analysis does not support the hypothesis that Fortified
Mesa was used during the terminal occupation of Cedar Mesa.
48 Table 3.7. Pueblo III sherd frequencies at habitation sites and Fortified Mesa Unspecified McElmo Mesa Verde Site PIII WW B/W B/W 42SA29954 5 0 2 42SA29976 18 3 2 42SA29980 5 3 2 42SA29986 1 0 1 42SA29989 2 2 0 42SA29990 12 6 0 42SA29991 10 7 3 42SA29993 1 0 1 42SA29995 0 1 0 42SA29996 20 15 5 42SA30005 5 1 4 42SA30011 4 3 4 Fortified Mesa 58 44 20
Finally, an initial ceramic seriation completed by R.G. Matson using the 1970s CMP ceramic classification (personal communication, November 2011) with the data assembled from
Fortified Mesa places the site solidly at the Woodenshoe-to-Red House boundary (Figure 3.8). If
Fortified Mesa was occupied well into the Red House phase, we would expect it to fall in the
Red House cluster. Since the comparative CMP collections did not separate McElmo from Mesa
Verde Black-on-white types, they could not be used in this analysis. The tree-ring cores collected by Windes and crew may provide a more accurate date for the terminal use of Fortified
Mesa.
Like Fortified Mesa, Moon House and the Citadel are also both difficult to access.
Fortified Mesa lies on a mesita top with clear views in all directions, which may have served a defensive purpose. Occupants of the site had the advantage of seeing an approaching raiding group, and had the uphill position from which to defend their resources. Although the site does not have the same advantage of channeling traffic to the site through a narrow or otherwise difficult access route, it still has defensible characteristics.
49 Dim.1
0.06
0.04 Fortress
Redhouse Phase Woodenshoe Phase Windgate Phase 0.02 Clay Hills Phase
Dim.2 0.06 0.04 0.02 -0.02 -0.04
-0.02
-0.04
-0.06
Figure 3.8. Metric multidimensional scaling of the Fortified Mesa (Fortress) site and the 47 CMP "Seriation" sites. Unstandardized Euclidean Distance of 14 decorated pottery types (figure drafted by Matson and Matson 2012) Fortified Mesa Summary
Fortified Mesa’s unusual characteristics set it apart from typical habitation sites on Cedar
Mesa. The site may have been a location that hosted community activity for ritual activities such as feasting; the similarity between the Et Al and Fortified Mesa assemblages shows that it may have been, though on a smaller scale. Comparison between Fortified Mesa and nearby
50 habitations also supports this assertion, although some small sample sizes do not allow me to make a definitive statement that clear feasting activity can be seen at Fortified Mesa. Perhaps some communal consumption occurred at the site, but these analyses, taken together, show that it may not have been extensive, nor was it a primary use of the site. However, some feasting evidence in conjunction with the plazas at the site indicate formalization of group activities.
Also, small, low-walled enclosures below around the edges of the mesita may be the remains of temporary camps, which indicate occasional group assembly at the site.
Finally, analysis of the Fortified Mesa assemblage does not show that the site was occupied well into the Pueblo III period, serving as a defensive storage facility as Moon House and the Citadel may have. This does not, however, rule out its seemingly defensive purpose.
Although this preliminary study sets the groundwork for understanding the function of
Fortified Mesa, other diagnostic tests and further ceramic analysis will be needed before we can assign the site a definitive function. Tree ring cores obtained by Tom Windes in the summer of
2011 will ultimately show construction and potentially reconstruction dates for the site, which would allow us to more accurately interpret the site’s use. Regardless of the inconclusive analysis here, we cannot reject the hypothesis that Fortified Mesa functioned as a community center.
51 CHAPTER 4
SCOPE OF THE CEDAR MESA FIRST-ORDER COMMUNITIES
Evaluating the community use of the Owen, Et Al, and Fortified Mesa sites requires a discussion of the nature and scale of the community associated with these sites. The remainder of this thesis examines these scales, starting with the first-order communities associated with
Owen and Et Al.
First-Order Community Expectations
Based on the composition of other great house communities (Lipe 2006; Varien 1999), we would expect some contemporary residential settlement connected to the Et Al and Owen sites. The Owen site is located within the Upper Grand Gulch drainage unit in the Cedar Mesa
Project study area (Matson et al. 1988, 1990). Seven percent (1.44 km2) of this drainage unit was surveyed, and 46 sites were located, indicating a site density of about 32 sites per square kilometer. Seven (or 15 percent) of the 46 sites located in these quadrats definitively date to the
Pueblo II period (contemporaneous with the Owen site). Only five of these are habitations
(Matson et al. 1990:Table XI:8), meaning about 11 percent of the sites are habitation sites. Thus, the density of approximately contemporaneous sites in the Upper Grand Gulch drainage unit is about 3.5 per km2. Using Varien’s (1999) 2-km radius, or 13 km2, approximation for the extent of a community, the habitation site density of 3.5 sites per km2 would give us an estimate of 44 contemporaneous habitation sites within a 2 km radius of the Owen great house (Table 4.1).
In evaluating the site density for the Bullet Canyon drainage, where the Et Al site is located, the four western-most quadrats (nos. 5, 14, 17, and 18) surveyed in the 1970s were excluded because they are located distantly from and to the northwest of Et Al. With these
52 exclusions, the Bullet Canyon quadrats represent about six percent (2.72 km2) of the Bullet
Canyon drainage, in which 113 sites were recorded. The site density indicated by these data is about 43 sites per square kilometer. Forty-one (or 36 percent) of the known sites in the Bullet
Canyon drainage date contemporaneously with the Et Al site (late Pueblo II- Pueblo III), of which 20 (Matson et al. 1990:Table XI:8), or 49 percent, are definite habitation sites. Therefore, there is an estimated Pueblo II-III habitation site density of 7.4 per square kilometer, suggesting that 92 Pueblo II and III habitation sites would be within a 2-km2 radius of Et Al (Table 4.1).
Table 4.1. Habitation site densities for the Upper Grand Gulch and Bullet Canyon drainage units Est. no. Area (km2)/ No. habitations Habitations/ Total no. sites habitation sites Drainage unit % of drainage contemp. with km2 in survey recorded within 2 km2 unit surveyed great house area radius Upper Grand 1.44/ 7% 46 5 3.5 44 Gulch Bullet Canyon 2.72/ 6% 113 20 7.4 92
The higher estimated density around Et Al can be attributed to the overall higher site density in the Bullet Canyon drainage compared to all other drainages surveyed during the Cedar
Mesa Project, and with the longer occupation span of the Et Al site. Moreover, elevation and soil differences in the two areas may account for the varied site densities (Matson et al. 1990:XI-
3-XI-4). Granted, these estimates range over a broad time span and the households were likely not occupied continuously throughout the periods. A community at any one point in time probably has a much lower site density than the one estimated above.
Varien (1999:107) suggests that Pueblo II habitations were only occupied between 16 and
26 years, or one generation. Pueblo III site occupations can extend up to 80 years, or four generations (Varien 1999), however, Matson et al. (1988) suggest that Cedar Mesa sites were occupied more briefly than those in the central Mesa Verde area, between about 10 and 20 years depending on habitation size. Because the Owen site dates entirely within the Pueblo II period,
53 the 44 estimated sites were likely only occupied for one generation each, further reducing the community size. If the Owen site was occupied for a maximum of approximately 70 years (Lipe,
Matson, and Morin 2011), 44 associated habitation sites suggests a small associated community.
Of the 20 habitation sites recorded in the Bullet Canyon drainage during the CMP, there are 10 each from the Pueblo II and Pueblo III periods. Assuming these proportions are equal in a
13 km2 area around et al, 46 would be Pueblo II and 46 would be Pueblo III. If we follow
Varien’s suggestion that Pueblo II habitations were only occupied for one generation, and Pueblo
III sites generally for two to three generations, these estimates are reduced further because Et Al seems to have been occupied longer than Owen; the Et Al community may not be as large as initially estimated. However, because the Bullet Canyon drainage area contains a higher Pueblo
II and III site density than the Upper Grand Gulch drainage area, the local population around Et
Al is apt to be larger than the population around Owen.
The Cedar Mesa Cultural Landscapes Survey
In order to document the first-order community and landscape features potentially associated with Et Al, I conducted an intensive block survey centered on the Et Al great house in the Bullet Canyon drainage area under the direction of Dr. William Lipe, with funding from the
National Trust for Historic Preservation, Washington State University (WSU), and the Social
Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, provided by a grant to R.G. Matson of the
University of British Columbia. Due to time and funding restraints, we decided to survey only around the Et Al great house, which seems to have been used more extensively, in order to gain a more thorough understanding of the sites associated with one of the great houses.
This 3.6-km2 survey, entitled the Cedar Mesa Cultural Landscapes Survey, was undertaken to 1) determine if there was a definable Pueblo II-III community associated with the
54 Et Al site evidenced by habitations and 2) to identify Pueblo II-III period sites such as shrines, towers, or other special non-habitation features that contributed to a "cultural landscape.” All sites were recorded, but when located, the Pueblo II and III sites were recorded in more detail than Basketmaker II and III sites (no Pueblo I sites were located, as was also true for the CMP surveys). The following is primarily an analysis of the results from this survey.
Methods
The Cedar Mesa Cultural Landscapes Survey (CMCLS) was conducted between July 10 and August 8, 2011. A core crew of three WSU graduate students—Natalie Fast, Jesse Clark, and Jordan Jarrett—conducted the survey with periodic assistance from Bill Lipe, R.G. Matson,
Susan Matson, and numerous other volunteers. The survey area was divided into 150-m by 150- m units to allow for easy management of the ground to be covered. Three to five archaeologists spaced no more than 10 m apart walking parallel transects intensively surveyed each quadrat.
This search procedure is equivalent to those used by Matson and Lipe in the 1970s (Matson et al.
1990).
A site was defined minimally by the presence of more than 10 artifacts within a 30-m radius, a feature, and/or a structure with associated artifacts. Once a site was located, a brief recording was made of the site type and UTMs were recorded with a portable GPS unit. The site was then recorded in more detail later in the day or the following day. Detailed site descriptions were made on forms created specifically for the CMCLS, which were later transcribed to
IMACS forms. The sites were hand-mapped and an ArcPad Mobile Mapper GIS device was used to collect datums (generally in the center of the site) and the site boundaries, as well as points on some features and at the center of collection units. Site boundaries were typically defined as the extent of the artifact scatter, except in areas where light lithic flake scatters
55 continued indefinitely. Much of the area surveyed contained a “background noise” of chipped stone; therefore, site boundaries were drawn around the densest areas when the extent of the flaked lithics continued indefinitely. Otherwise, boundaries were delimited to areas where there were more than 10 artifacts within a 10-m radius. Each site was given a number prefaced by
“CMLS”; 68 site numbers were assigned (numbers 1-69, no site was assigned number 23), and additional information was gathered for three previously recorded CMP sites with 42SA numbers
(Appendix A).
At each Pueblo II and III site, either all or a sample of the artifacts on the surface were tallied. Using forms created for the CMCLS that were as compatible as possible with CMP data, we recorded ceramic types, chipped stone tools, debitage and material types, ground stone, and any other recognizable ceramic or lithic artifacts. If we encountered one or more dense artifact scatters within the site, dog-leash units four m in diameter were tallied; on sites with few artifacts or no dense areas of artifacts, we documented all artifacts visible on the surface. This in-field analysis was conducted primarily to accurately assign a time period to each site.
Survey Results and Analysis
During the CMCL Survey, we located a total of 71 sites, of which three were previously recorded (42SA4146 [BU12-1], 42SA4334 [BU-C16-4], and 42SA18431 [Et Al]). Appendix A contains all survey results, but here I present those relevant to this study. Table 4.2 summarizes sites with a definitive Pueblo II and/or III component recorded during the survey, and Figure 4.1 plots these.
In total, 25 Pueblo II-III habitations (including Et Al and defining Et Al Feature 16 as a distinct site) were located in the 3.6 km2 survey area. Additionally, one previously unrecorded shrine site (42SA30000) was added to the known cultural landscape features on central Cedar
56 Table 4.2. Pueblo II and III sites located during the 2011 CMCL Survey, habitation sites highlighted in red Site Number Period Site Type 42SA29946 PIII Limited Activity 42SA29948 BMIII; PII-III Limited Activity 42SA29949 BMII; PII Limited Activity 42SA29950 PII Limited Activity 42SA29951 BMII; PII-III Limited Activity 42SA29954 PII-III Habitation 42SA29955 PIII Limited Activity 42SA29958 PII Camp 42SA29959 BMIII; PIII Habitation; Temp Habitation 42SA29960 BMII; PII Habitation 42SA29961 PII-III Temp Habitation 42SA29962 PII-III Limited Activity 42SA29963 PII-III Temp Habitation 42SA29967 PII Limited Activity 42SA29971 PII Habitation 42SA29972 BMII; PII Temp Habitation; Limited Activity 42SA29973 PII Limited Activity 42SA29974 BM?; PIII Water control 42SA29975 PII Habitation 42SA29976 PII-III Habitation 42SA29977 PII Habitation 42SA29978 BMII; PII-III Limited Activity; Habitation? 42SA29980 BMII; PII-III Habitation 42SA29981 PII-III Limited Activity 42SA29982 PII Limited Activity 42SA29983 PIII Limited Activity 42SA29986 PII-III Habitation 42SA29987 PIII Limited Activity 42SA29988 PII-III Habitation 42SA29989 PII-III Habitation 42SA29990 PII-III Habitation 42SA29991 PII-III Limited Activity 42SA29992 PII-III Habitation 42SA29995 PII-III Habitation 42SA29996 PII-III Habitation 42SA29997 PII Habitation 42SA30000 PII-III Special use 42SA30001 PII Habitation 42SA30003 PII Limited Activity 42SA30004 PII Habitation 42SA30005 PIII Habitation 42SA30009 PII Habitation 42SA30011 PIII Habitation 42SA30012 PII Habitation; Limited Activity 42SA30013 PII-III Limited Activity 42SA4334 (BU-C16-4) PIII Tower; Special use 42SA4146 (BU12-1) PII-III Habitation 42SA18431 (Et Al) PII-III Habitation Et Al Feature 16 PII Habitation
57
0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 2 2 4 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 2 4 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 .
0 42SA29982 0 42SA29986 42SA4146 8 42SA29995 1 (BU12-1) 4
1 42SA29992 4 0
0 42SA29980 42SA29983 0 0 0 0 .
0 42SA29981 0 6 1 4
1 42SA29991 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 .
0 42SA29961 0 42SA29959 4
1 42SA29990 4 42SA29960 1 4
0 42SA29976 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0
2 42SA29963 1 42SA30005 4
1 42SA29958 42SA29962 4
0 42SA29955 0 42SA29951 0 0
0 42SA30004 0 .
0 42SA4334 42SA29950 42SA29946 0
0 (BU-C16-4) 1
4 42SA29967 1 4
0 42SA29954 0 42SA18431 (Et Al) 0 0 0 0
. 42SA29948 0 0 8 0
4 42SA29949 1 4 0 0
0 42SA29978 0 0 0 . 42SA29974 42SA29973 42SA29977 0 0
6 42SA29971 0 4 1
4 42SA30001 0 0
0 42SA29988 0
0 42SA30003 0 . 0 0
4 42SA30013
0 42SA29997 4 42SA29972 42SA29975 1 4
0 42SA29989 0 0
0 42SA30000 0 0 .
0 42SA29987 0 42SA29996 2 0 4 1 4 0 0 0 0
0 42SA30009 0 . 0 0 0 0 4 1
4 42SA30011 42SA30012 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 8 9 3 1 4
592200.000000 592400.000000 592600.000000 592800.000000 593000.000000 593200.000000 593400.000000 593600.000000 593800.000000
Figure 4.1. Pueblo II and Pueblo III sites located during the Cedar Mesa Cultural Landscapes Survey
58 Mesa. These results show that the immediate area around the Et Al great house contains a habitation site density of 6.7 sites per square kilometer. This density is close to the Bullet
Canyon Pueblo II-III habitation site density estimate of 7.4 sites per square kilometer, indicating that the settlement density immediately around the Et Al great house is not, in fact, much more dense than the surrounding Bullet Canyon drainage area.
Following Matson, Lipe, and Haase’s (1988) definitions of site size and use-life, tentative population estimates can be made for the surveyed area surrounding Et Al. Better methods of estimating population exist (e.g. Varien 1999), but we presently lack the data to use these methods. Therefore, tentative estimates are made based on surface examination of habitation sites. Matson et al. (1988:252) distinguish between small habitation sites, housing only one nuclear family, and Prudden units, which contain a roomblock and usually a kiva and would have housed a maximum of four households. We located few sites with kiva depressions visible on the surface, and therefore in this analysis, I call sites with a clear roomblock and more than four rooms visible on the surface Prudden units, and sites with only one to three rooms and no apparent roomblock small habitation sites (Appendix A). Additionally, I assume that Et Al housed about twice as many inhabitants as the average Prudden unit (possibly 30 people in the
34 rooms). Given these definitions, we encountered 18 small habitation sites and 7 Prudden units in 2011 (including Et Al and Feature 16 as two separate sites). The momentary population can then be estimated by multiplying the number of habitation units by the estimated site use- life, dividing by the Pueblo phase duration (Pueblo II: 90 years, Pueblo II-III: 180 years, Pueblo
III: 90 years), and then multiplying by the estimated number of residents to a habitation unit:
No. of habitation units x est. site use life est. no. of Momentary population = Phase duration (years) x inhabitants
59 Momentary population refers to the number of people residing in an area at any one point in time. Though multiple Pueblo II and Pueblo III households were located in the survey, we cannot assume that all sites were occupied at the same time, and Varien (1999:107) demonstrates that many residential structures were only occupied for one decade.
Assuming that habitation sites and Prudden units were both occupied for five to ten years with five people per small habitation and 15 in each Prudden unit (Matson et al. 1988:253,
1990), we derive the minimum and maximum momentary population estimates within the 2011 survey area shown in Table 4.3. However, Prudden units may have been occupied twice as long as habitation sites (10-20 years), therefore a maximum momentary population for the 3.6 km2 area around (and including) Et Al could have been significantly higher, especially assuming that
Et Al was occupied continuously by about 30 inhabitants (Table 4.3). This results in an average momentary population density of between 3.5 and 5 people per square kilometer for the whole
Pueblo occupation, significantly higher than Matson, Lipe, and Haase’s (1988) estimate of 0.75 to 1.5 persons per square kilometer throughout the CMP study area. Table 4.3 also shows the population density within the survey area by period. It seems that the Pueblo II (and perhaps early Pueblo III) occupation of the area was slightly denser than the Pueblo III and/or late Pueblo
III period.
Table 4.3. Estimated momentary population within survey area Min. population Max. population Max. population Population Period (habs. occupied 5 (habs. occupied 10 (Prudden units density yrs) yrs) occupied 20 yrs) (people/ km2) PII 3.8 7.7 11.1 1.1-3.1 PII-III* 32.1 34.1 35.8 8.9-9.9 PIII 2 3.9 7.3 0.6-2 Total 37.9 45.7 54.2 --- Average 12.6 15.2 18.1 3.5-5 *Includes Et Al inhabitants
60 Assuming that the rest of the Et Al first-order community is similar in terms of site and population density—a safe assumption given that the Bullet Canyon drainage site density is similar to the density within the CMCLS survey area—the face-to-face Et Al community could have consisted of between 44.2 and 62.8 people at any point in time. Assuming also that the dispersal of habitation sites remains constant (which might be a false assumption, given that the
CMP and CMCLS study area density estimates are different), a sustainable community of 475 people (in Mahoney’s [2000] terms, or Wobst’s [1974] upper limit) could have existed within a
95 to 135 km2 area, or within a 5.5 to 6.6 km radius from Et Al. Using the low population density estimate from the CMP surveys (0.75 people/km2), 475 people could have lived within an 190 to 633 km2 area, or within a 7.8 to 14 km radius from Et Al, well within the defined 800 km2 CMP study area. Therefore, even if the above estimates are high for the environs surrounding the CMCLS study area, it is clear that a biologically sustainable community would have existed on Cedar Mesa.
The site density around Et Al is not greater than in the rest of the Bullet Canyon drainage, but the population estimates are generally higher than the rest of the CMP study area, suggesting there was a substantial face-to-face community associated with the Et Al great house. In fact, comparison with other drainage site densities over time shows that during the late Pueblo II and
Pueblo III periods, people seemed to be aggregating in the Bullet Canyon drainage unit.
Additionally, ceramic evidence from Et Al shows that the site was used for communal purposes such as feasting, suggesting that the site was not simply a large habitation for a prestigious family or group. The presence of sites and features demarcating a cultural landscape on Cedar
Mesa (discussed in the Chapter 6) also indicates that the mesa-top was an important location for the Et Al (first-order) community and the community of participation. The following chapter
61 presents the above discussion in the context of other first-order communities in the Northern San
Juan region.
62 CHAPTER 5
GREAT HOUSE COMMUNITIES IN THE NORTHERN SAN JUAN
The greater Mesa Verde region in the southwestern United States has been the focus of numerous surveys and investigations, and many great houses and their associated communities have been identified. The defining Chacoan great houses lie in Chaco Canyon in northwestern
New Mexico. Between A.D. 850 and 1150, at least 18 of these great houses were constructed in
Chaco Canyon (Lekson 2006; Mahoney and Kantner 2000:1). These structures were likely centers used for ritual, political, and social purposes (Durand 2003; Lipe 2006). Surrounding areas seem to have emulated this style—communities containing great houses extend south, west, and north of Chaco Canyon, including into the Mesa Verde region. Great houses in the
Mesa Verde region were typically constructed during the Chacoan era, though many of these structures continued to be in use into the A.D. 1200s, when sites in Chaco Canyon were no longer occupied. These great houses are all associated with habitations or an inferred community, however, it is likely that not all Pueblo II and III peoples were participants in a great house community.
This chapter reviews five potentially analogous Pueblo II and Pueblo III great house communities in the Northern San Juan, and includes an example from the Cibola region, in order to understand the range of variation for known great house communities. Then, using the data from the CMCLS, I examine the Et Al first-order community and community of participation in the context of research from other Northern San Juan communities, providing a framework for exploring the social implications of the settlement patterns found on Cedar Mesa.
63 Great Houses in the Northern San Juan Basin (with an example from the Cibola Region)
An examination of great houses and their associated residential communities provides a base for interpreting the Cedar Mesa great house communities. Of the great houses in closest proximity to Cedar Mesa (Figure 5.1), the Bluff great house is the best documented. This great house is located within the town of Bluff, Utah, southeast of Cedar Mesa. Survey around the
Bluff great house identified nine contemporaneous sites ranging between 0.8 kilometers and 9.6 kilometers away (Figure 5.2). These sites consist of multiple household pueblos, individual unit pueblos, and a dance plaza site (Jalbert and Cameron 2000:83-84). Joseph Jalbert (1999:101) found that these sites are dispersed along the San Juan River and up Cottonwood Wash and identified three relevant scales for the Bluff great house: the “community core” of sites within three km, the “extended community” within eight km, and the larger “locality” including those within 19 km. Jalbert’s community core is of interest to this study, as it most closely resembles the two-km radius defined earlier. Seven sites contemporary with the Bluff great house lie in the community core (Jalbert 1999:101). Compared to the Cedar Mesa site density estimates (which
Figure 5.1. Mesa Verde region showing great houses (adapted from Kendrick and Judge 2000:Figure 9.1)
64 will be discussed later), the Bluff great house community core appears rather small, but this might be due to topographical differences. The Bluff great house is located at the base of
Cottonwood Wash and along the San Juan River floodplain. Narrow canyons and the area of land necessary for agricultural production may have influenced a more dispersed settlement pattern within the Cottonwood Wash location, with less dispersal in the San Juan floodplain area
(Jalbert and Cameron 2000:89), while a mesa-top setting may not have been as confining.
Additionally, some sites may have been destroyed by prehistoric and historic flooding of the San
Juan River and construction of the modern town of Bluff.
Edge of the Cedars is a relatively small great house located near Blanding, Utah (Figure
5.3). This site has been partially excavated, though as Hurst (2000:66) notes, the documentation remains gravely incomplete. The associated community consists of five identified tightly clustered unit and double-unit houses. Hurst observes that more kivas and presumably associated house mounds may have been obliterated during nearby modern house construction, and that other small habitation sites are known to exist or have existed in and around Blanding.
Other nearby sites dating to the same time period may also be part of the Edge of the Cedars community (Hurst 2000:75). Though the extent of the Edge of the Cedars community has yet to be determined, a substantial one probably existed.
Nancy Mahoney (2000) investigated the Cottonwood Falls great house community in her examination of sustainable communities (Figure 5.4). This community is north of the Bluff great house and west of the Edge of the Cedars great house, near the head of Cottonwood Wash. Full- coverage survey conducted by Arizona State University covered an approximately 14-km2 area around the great house, nearly approximating Varien’s (1999) 13-km2 face-to-face community.
This survey located 33 residential sites contemporaneous with the great house (Mahoney
65
Figure 5.2. Bluff great house community (Jalbert and Cameron 2000:Figure 6.4)
Figure 5.3. Edge of the Cedars great house (Hurst 2000:Figure 5.2)
Figure 5.4. Cottonwood Falls community (adapted from Mahoney 2000:Figure 2.3)
66 2000:21-22, Figure 2.6). Jalbert and Cameron (2000:89) note that this community has a similar dichotomous pattern as the Bluff great house: “Habitations in the narrow canyon were more dispersed than the closely aggregated habitations on the mesa top.” Mahoney’s focus in her
2000 study was on the demographic scale of sustainable communities, so she provides some population estimates for the Cottonwood Falls community. In her estimation, the Pueblo II period may have seen a momentary population of 39 (minimum), 103 (average), or 196 (maximum) people (Mahoney
2000:Table 2.1).
Two other nearby great houses—Lowry Pueblo and Escalante Ruin in southwestern
Colorado—have documentation of associated communities. Lowry Pueblo “is part of an extensive community that, during the Chaco era, included multiple great houses, numerous small habitation sites, prehistoric roads that radiated from a great kiva, nonresidential storage, specialized ceremonial sites, shrines, and reservoirs” (Cameron 2009:31). The Lowry
Community Pattern Survey conducted a 14.5 km2 block survey centered on Lowry Ruin, again approximating Varien’s 13-km2 face-to-face community (Kendrick 1998; Kendrick and Judge
2000:116). This survey found that the Chaco era Lowry community (A.D. 1050-1150) showed distinct site clustering of 65 habitation sites (Kendrick and Judge 2000:119, 122). Kendrick and
Judge (2000:Table 9.1) estimate that the average 20-year momentary population was 385.8 during the late Pueblo II period (based on an estimate of 1.5 persons per 10 m2 of rubble area within the 14.5 km2 survey area). This site density contrasts markedly with any of the previously discussed great houses in southeast Utah. We might expect, then, that the social organization for the dense Lowry community would differ greatly from the Bluff, Edge of the Cedars, and
Cottonwood Falls communities.
67 The Escalante Ruin community was probably limited to a number of small sites on the surrounding slopes (Cameron 2009:33). Within a 300-meter radius (approximately 0.3 km2) of
Escalante Ruin, there are at least 12 associated small unit-pueblos that lie at the base of the hill or on benches along the hillside (Reed 1979:115). Reed calls this the associated Pueblo II and
Pueblo III community, but notes that many of these sites lie on private land, so they have not been extensively recorded or analyzed. Though incomplete, this site density appears to better reflect that of Lowry Pueblo than of the Bluff, Edge of the Cedars, or Cottonwood Falls communities.
Since 2002, Professor Andrew Duff of Washington State University has conducted survey around two great houses—Cox Ranch Pueblo and Cerro Pomo in west-central New
Mexico. Duff and his students have identified a dense, yet confined community associated with each great house (Duff and Wichlacz 2009). The survey leaves out areas of private landholdings, but overall, 231 sites have been documented within the survey areas, the majority of which date to the late Pueblo II period. These sites are generally habitations or field houses.
Duff and Wichlacz (2009) estimate that each community had over 100 (or perhaps as many as
200) residents at any one time. They also note that Whalen’s 1984 survey in the general area showed that settlement density in areas further away from great houses is dramatically lower
Residential clustering for the Cox Ranch and Cerro Pomo communities may equate to residential communities, but their proximity and contemporaneous occupation suggests that they may have been part of a larger sustainable community (Duff and Wichlacz 2009).
The above examples illustrate variation in settlement patterns surrounding great houses.
There seems to be no standard community size or boundary for Chacoan outlier great house communities, but these examples may allow us to make some inferences about the Et Al and
68 Owen great house communities. Interpretations of social organization based on the communities summarized above may lead us to a better understanding of the social implications for the Cedar
Mesa great house communities.
Cedar Mesa Communities and Social Implications
Based on the estimated site densities and types above, it appears that the estimated Owen community is not nearly as dense as Lowry, and more closely resembles the neighboring Bluff and Edge of the Cedars communities. The Et Al habitation site estimate, however, sits near the densities for the Cottonwood Falls and Lowry communities. What, then, are the social implications suggested by these estimates and what hypotheses can we make about the organization of the Cedar Mesa communities?
As noted above, Mahoney (2000:20) examines communities in terms of residential and sustainable units, unlike Varien’s (1999) notion of face-to-face community. She defines residential communities as spatially distinct clusters of residences and sustainable communities as the spatial and demographic scale of a social network needed to maintain residential communities. Mahoney argues that larger, sustainable communities would have been essential to community maintenance. The Et Al and Owen face-to-face communities certainly did not meet
Mahoney’s 475-person limit for biological reproductive sustainability, as I have demonstrated based on estimates from the CMP and CMCLS results. Unsurprisingly, this indicates that the communities would have had to interact with each other and with other communities, whether nearby or more distant, and were not isolated, socially reproductive units. Keith Kintigh
(2003:104-105), however, disagrees with Mahoney, noting that Kantner suggests pilgrimages to
Chaco Canyon may have facilitated marriage networks, contracting sustainable networks that maintain demographic stability. In examining the ability for the Et Al and Owen communities to
69 biologically reproduce, then, investigations should be made into the communities’ relationships with other great houses in the sense of a regional community. The data from the CMP and the
CMCLS suggest that people living at and within a 2 km radius of Owen and Et Al would usually need to find marriage partners from outside the face-to-face community. Gatherings at these great houses would have facilitated this, as is the case for such gatherings cross-culturally.
Settlement patterns might also tell us about the economic sustainability of the Cedar
Mesa communities. Kendrick and Judge (2000:126) observe changes in the organization of households and communities in the Lowry region and argue that these changes “reflect a relative loss of autonomy (or control) over economic production at the household level by the end of the
13th century.” Increased population during the Chaco era may have intensified competition for resources between households, and competition may have been expressed by emulation of great house architecture at the household level (Kendrick and Judge 2000:126). The Lowry great house residents may have introduced different ways of organizing labor, and as population and aggregation in the Lowry community increased, reaching its height during the Chaco era, households may have increasingly adopted the great house style of labor organization. In this system, the work group shifted from household to multi-household groups. Thus, emergent powerful family or lineage groups, rather than the household, increasingly made decisions regarding economic pursuits of the household, especially regarding access to important resources
(such as land). This may be a reaction to the ability to access resources during a period when demographic expansion was testing the region’s carrying capacity. Organizational focus shifted from the household to a settlement of related households in order to pool more labor and provide a competitive advantage (Kendrick and Judge 2000:128). However, in terms of the resources that land availability provides, Matson et al. (1988) have demonstrated that there was not much
70 pressure on land availability on Cedar Mesa. Therefore, while Kendrick and Judge’s interpretations of labor organization and access to resources at Lowry is worth considering, the residents of Cedar Mesa were likely not competing for land in a way that required highly controlled allotment by a multi-household or other such entity. Furthermore, there does not seem to be a major shift in population density around Et Al between the Pueblo II and III periods; if a substantial shift did occur, it is more likely that fewer people were associated with the great house during the Pueblo III period than the Pueblo II period.
Ruth Van Dyke (1999) argues that the construction of a great house within the Andrews community (south of Chaco Canyon in northwestern New Mexico) might suggest competition among communities. Citing Renfrew and Cherry’s (1986) peer-polity model, she notes that the construction of highly visible great houses may have been an attempt to bolster personal prestige
(Van Dyke 1999:64). If other local leaders or communities saw these, they may have emulated them in order to stay competitive in terms of personal status. Thus, the presence of multiple great houses and great house communities on Cedar Mesa may indicate competition between communities. This would further support Kendrick and Judge’s (2000) arguments that segments within communities became competitive economically, but might also show that the Cedar Mesa communities were competitive symbolically and politically. The scale of potential competition has yet to be determined, but examination of great house and emulative household construction in the Cedar Mesa communities might imply competitive relationships. I return to this point in the discussion chapter.
Communities may have also buffered risk, while mediating competition for resource access. Adler (2002:29) repeats the idea that the community is a social and organizational entity that operates to define access to necessary resources. He writes:
71 Although the spatial distribution of community members does affect how often community members interact, the community still serves as an active social theater in which claims of resource access rights are mediated above the level of the primary residential or kin group. Thus, communities play a substantial role in the social definition of local resource use and access (Adler 2002:29).
Therefore, communities share risk, interdependence and identity. Adler (2002:30) asserts that land-tenure systems would have provided “game rules” allowing people to negotiate the “social environment defining what should be used by whom, and the historical reality of what is actually exploited as people make a living across the landscape.” Thus, the availability of land might have been conditioned by the extent of community membership. This is also important in
Kendrick and Judge’s (2000) discussion of the Lowry community. Identification with the Lowry community may have been acknowledged by gaining land tenure. The density of the community would influence access to land, and this might indicate that the community, rather than the household, increasingly controlled land-tenure systems. Adler (2002:31) writes: “The community, then, is a group-based risk-buffering strategy that establishes and reproduces access to resources, social identities, territorial boundaries, and interdependent relationships on a local level.” The density of the face-to-face Et Al community and Cedar Mesa in general (Matson et al. 1988), however, suggests that land tenure was probably not the primary function of the community. A more tightly bounded, dense community might rely on these strategies more heavily than a less aggregated community.
Furthermore, Adler (2002:35) suggests that communities may have included contrasting household configurations, resource use groupings, and social identities. I note this because in identifying Cedar Mesa communities, we must also pay particular attention to indicators of multiple identities (through ceramics, architecture, etc.). This would imply that various groups may have been negotiating space within the Cedar Mesa communities, and might be particularly important when examining the Pueblo II Kayenta component at the Et Al site.
72 Adler’s discussion raises another important aspect of communities, that is, their ability to integrate members. Thomas Windes and colleagues (2000:45) argue that great houses drew small houses together. They write that visibility between small houses and great houses within two km was strong during Chacoan occupation before A.D. 1000 (Windes et al. 2000:45).
Visibility may have been an important indicator of prestige (Van Dyke 1999), but may also have reinforced identification with a specific community, with a great house as its integrative structure. Moreover, distance between small houses and the great house is a possible measure of community integration and social and political control. Tight aggregation around great houses might imply stronger social integration (Windes et al. 2000:49). When examining the Cedar
Mesa communities, then, great house visibility and the degree of aggregation are important in understanding the level of integration for the Et Al and Owen communities.
In addition to socially integrating people, communities represent some level of political integration. Lipe (2002) examines whether community and regional populations were large enough to support some level of supra-community socio-political hierarchy in the Mesa Verde region during the Pueblo III period. He also attempts to make inferences about political relationships based on settlement spatial distributions and rank-size profiles, and asks if the character and distribution of public architecture provides evidence of political leadership strategies (Lipe 2002:205). Lipe argues that during this period, community populations were probably large enough to support a regionally integrated polity with formal hierarchies, and that settlement cluster proximity indicates that communities would have had to accommodate one another politically. When examining rank-size analyses, Lipe (2002:219) argues that the rank- size distribution for the early Pueblo III period tentatively indicates that Mesa Verde settlement systems were well integrated, with developed hierarchy of political or economic functions. He
73 notes, however, that little other evidence supports the inference of a single well-integrated political and/or economic system for the entire region, so these rank-size distributions might be due to other factors. The late Pueblo III period rank-size distributions show less integration, implying the presence of multiple competitive settlement systems. Knowing something about the Et Al and Owen communities, we might be able to infer political organization and possibly increasing competition based on Lipe’s argument. Depending on population estimates, we would be able to argue for whether or not the communities were politically integrated, and similar rank-size plots might support this. Assuming the Et Al and Owen great house sites are community centers, we can also safely call them integrative facilities, suggesting one form of socio-political organization within the communities. The scale at which these centers served an integrative function depends on the size and distribution of the surrounding communities.
Summary
An examination of Chaco-era great house communities across the Northern San Juan shows that communities vary, but the observations of these communities can tell us much about what to expect for the Cedar Mesa communities. Estimates of the Et Al and Owen community settlement densities shows that the Et Al community likely supported a higher population than the Owen community. These settlement pattern differences suggest organizational distinctions.
First, we can make some assumptions about the ability of the Et Al and Owen communities to socially reproduce. Following Mahoney (2000), it is unlikely that the face-to- face Et Al and Owen communities were socially isolated units. They must have interacted with each other, with other Chacoan outlier communities, and/or with people in the Kayenta region to the south and in the Red Rock Plateau to the west in order to maintain sustainable social units.
Second, the more densely settled Et Al community may have organized itself differently in order
74 to remain economically sustainable and manage resources, but the dispersed settlement pattern, smaller habitation sites, and shorter habitation use-lives on Cedar Mesa indicate that access to arable land was probably not a problem on Cedar Mesa. The community may have more tightly controlled access to resources in the Et Al community than in the Owen community. This might mean that the Et Al community was able to generate more surpluses, a hypothesis that could be explored by looking at access to arable land in each community. There may have been greater household competition within the Et Al community, and this community may also have been in competition with other nearby communities. Finally, integration in the Et Al community may have been much stronger than in the Owen community, indicating tighter integration in terms of social identity, as well as in terms of sociopolitical organization.
The above examination of other great house communities suggests what we might expect for the Cedar Mesa communities in terms of socially, economically, and biologically sustainable units. The previous analysis of settlement pattern density and population estimates (Chapter 4), coupled with an examination of Cedar Mesa landscape features, the subject of the next chapter, allows me to show the organization of the Et Al community within the context of other Mesa
Verde region communities. This chapter serves as a starting point for understanding two Chaco- esque Cedar Mesa communities.
75 CHAPTER 6
THE COMMUNITY OF PARTICIPATION: CEDAR MESA CULTURAL LANDSCAPE
FEATURES
Though great house communities vary in population density and social organization, many share a common association with landscape features. Van Dyke (2007) has demonstrated that the Chaco Canyon great houses were connected with numerous constructed and natural landscape features charged with symbolism. Van Dyke examines the meaning and lived experience of this landscape, showing how it represented Chacoan beliefs and social relationships. This relationship between great houses and landscape features is not limited to
Chaco Canyon, however, and seems to be a pattern across the Northern San Juan. This chapter describes the landscape features on Cedar Mesa that represent the ritual and cosmological symbolism associated with the Cedar Mesa community of participation. These landscape features drew a wider audience than the Et Al first-order community, integrating members in a wider
“community of participation” in order to form interpersonal alliances, marriage relationships, and shared identity.
Defining Cultural Landscapes
The term “cultural landscape” has several meanings, but in this analysis I view it as the archaeological study of place and social reality (Van Dyke 2007:4-5). Archaeological sites are remnants of how “social and material worlds interact and intersect, as identity and power are negotiated… Landscapes do not simply evoke meanings—they also constrain and order” (Van
Dyke 2007:6). Landscapes both create and reflect worldviews and ideologies. Therefore, the material features we see on Cedar Mesa suggest more than spaces occupied by prehistoric peoples, but rather represent some sort of ordering of place, with ideologies represented in the
76 construction and layout of sites and their relationships to one another. The presence of multiple features that represent communal and possible ceremonial use of the mesa implies a cultural landscape, and the identification of community-gathering activity can support this interpretation.
The Landscape Features
Landscape features—great houses, possible great kivas, roads, and shrines—on central
Cedar Mesa and near Et Al (Figure 6.1) indicate that a community utilized the landscape for ritual or other community-organized activity. Recent reconnaissance survey by Winston Hurst,
Jonathan Till, Owen Severance, Bill Lipe, and R.G. Matson shows that the most agriculturally productive central portion of Cedar Mesa may have seen the development of a "symbolic landscape" during the late Pueblo II and/or Pueblo III periods. Hurst and Till (2009; Till and
Hurst 2011) recognize several “great features” on the Grand Gulch Plateau and throughout the broader southeast Utah area. Landscape features seem to be an important part of many great house communities (Till and Hurst 2011; Van Dyke 2007), and it is clear that this pattern also exists on Cedar Mesa.
Possible Great Kivas
The H.S.T. site (42SA28201) represents a possible great kiva north of Et Al (Figure 6.2).
This site contains a depression 14 to 15 m in diameter, although it is possible that this could represent multiple collapsed pitstructures. Three small patches of rubble have also been identified, two of which are situated in such a way along the north-south axis to indicate that they might be the remnants of features commonly associated with great kivas. Extensive refuse southeast of the depression contains numerous sherds, which when tabulated demonstrate a late
Pueblo II Clay Hills phase use of the site (Lipe, Matson, and Morin 2011; Matson and Lipe
77 Legend
# Landscape Features # 42SA24584 (Owen) CMCLS Survey Area Bullet N. and S. Roads Disturbed Drainage Channel 42SA28203 Visible Segment 42SA28202 Visible Segment Elevation (m) 1,145 - 1,500 1,551 - 1,650 1,651 - 1,750 1,751 - 1,850 1,851 - 1,930 1,931 - 2,025 2,026 - 2,225 2,226 - 2,520
# Todie Flats Great Kiva
# 42SA3680 (Fortified Mesa)
# 42SA6179 (Snow Flats Rd Shrine) # 42SA28201 (H.S.T.)
# BU-12-1 Shrine
# 42SA18431 (Et Al)
# 42SA30000 (Knoll Shrine)
0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 6 ± Kilometers 1:72,000
Figure 6.1. Landscape features on central Cedar Mesa
78 1015 8.5 9.5
1010
9
10
9.5 rubble R1 1000 Road 42Sa 28202
10 9.6 10 10 990
rubble Artifact Scatter rubble R3 R2
980 DL 2 4 m radius 10.5
Grid North True 10 0 5 10 m DL 1 North 2 m radius 90 100 110 120 130
H.S.T. Site Site Datum Artifact Scatter 42Sa 28201 Arbitrary 10 m height
Figure 6.2. H.S.T. (42SA28201) site map (Lipe, Matson, and Morin 2011)
79 2009). A definite road segment—42SA28202—is also visible at the site (Lipe, Matson, and
Morin 2011; Matson and Lipe 2009).
The Todie Flats Great Kiva is unrecorded, but is another recognized landscape feature on central Cedar Mesa. This great kiva is inferred from a depression approximately 11 to 12 m in diameter. Associated rubble and burned jacal suggest that there was also at least one surface structure at this site. The extensive midden indicates a late Pueblo II use of the great kiva (Bill
Lipe, personal communication, January 2012).
Roads
The prehistoric Bullet Spring North and South roads seem to connect Et Al and the
H.S.T. great kiva site and are identified as a large swale between eight and 12 m wide and about
30 cm deep. The South Road originates at the northeast end of Et Al, adjacent to the main roomblock. The two roads extend intermittently for approximately 3.3 kilometers, with Bullet
Canyon separating them. In some areas, specifically on ridge slopes, the road has eroded into small gullies, but remaining sections indicate that the road was once continuous. If extended further north, this road is also in alignment with Fortified Mesa, but as of yet, no road segments have been recognized between H.S.T. and Fortified Mesa (Hurst 2009a, 2009b; Hurst and Till
2009; Matson and Lipe 2009; Till and Hurst 2011). Few ceramics were identified on the roads, but those present indicate a late Pueblo II to Pueblo III use (Hurst 2009a, 2009b; Severance
1999:188).
Shrines
Four shrines have been identified on Cedar Mesa. Shrines in southeast Utah are typically identified as C/U- or D-shaped or circular structures with low, dry-laid masonry walls (Hurst and
Till 2009:67-69; Till 2000:256). Shrines are often located on high places with excellent
80 visibility (Hayes and Windes 1975). Often these shrines open to face a prominent landscape feature and they create a visual network linking places (Hurst and Till 2009:67-69; Van Dyke
2007:142).
A shrine on a prominence within site 42SA4146 (aka BU12-1) was discovered by the
Cedar Mesa Project surveys in the
1970s, but its significance was not recognized at the time. The shrine is U-shaped and constructed of three-to-four courses of dry-laid sandstone blocks (Figure 6.3).
When standing inside the structure, the opening of the “U” seems to point toward the Bear’s Ears, a Figure 6.3. Shrine at 42SA4146 (photograph by Jesse Clark) prominent and visually distinct natural landscape feature to the north. Also, Et Al is visible from this shrine.
The Snow Flats Road site
(42SA6179) contains two circular masonry enclosures that probably represent shrines. This site covers the surface of a small butte, with Figure 6.4. 42SA6179 Snow Flats Road site, aerial photograph of Feature 2 shrine (Blackburn and Rogero 1975) views primarily north toward the
81 Bear’s Ears and the Abajo Mountains and east toward Comb Ridge. Feature 1 is the smaller of the two shrines, with two-to-four courses of dry-laid masonry where still standing, but is mostly a rubble outline (personal communication, Bill Lipe, February 2012). Feature 2 (Figure 6.4) is much larger, with one-meter wide walls and five-to-ten masonry courses. Jacal remains dating to the late Basketmaker III-Pueblo I time period suggest surface structures covering the rest of the butte amid the shrines, with an extensive late Basketmaker III-Pueblo I midden on the east end.
Some defensive walls are also present (Blackburn and Rogero 1975). The two shrines appear to have been built later than the jacal structures, dating to the Pueblo II-III time period.
42SA30000 was recorded during the Cedar Mesa Cultural Landscapes Survey in the summer of 2011, though this is marked as “ruins” on the 1963 USGS topographical map for the area, indicating it has been known for some time. We surmise that the site is another shrine, located on a high point east of
Highway 261. This shrine is circular, with two-to-four courses of sandstone blocks (Figure 6.5), and the abundant amount of loose soils within the structure indicates that mortar may have been used.
The walls likely stood much taller, suggested by the amount of rubble Figure 6.5. 42SA30000 Shrine (photograph by author) surrounding the structure. In addition, it appears that there may have been one-to-two rooms adjacent to the eastern edge of the circular shrine, and possibly a small plaza adjacent to the shrine on the west (Figure 6.6). This shrine and its associated features use most of the flat space
82 atop a knoll, commanding a view in all directions, including a direct line-of-site to Et Al. This site is highly unlikely to be residential, exhibiting characteristics unlike any other residential sites. The shrine is more elaborate than any of the other known shrines on Cedar Mesa, and the apparent plaza adds an additional public element to the site.
In addition to site density and population estimates for the Et Al community, these landscape features suggest that ritual and cosmological symbolism were important components of the Cedar Mesa community. I revisit these sites and their implications for a central Cedar
Mesa community in the following chapter.
42SA30000 Site Map 0
0 Temp. No. CMLS-55 0 0 0 0
. N. Fast 0 4
2 August 3, 2011 0 4
1 Digitized Jan. 22, 2011 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 2 2 0 4 1 4
Possible Room 0 0
0 F1 # 0 ") F2 0 0 .
0 Possible Rubble
0 Rock Aligment 2 Plaza 0 4 1
4 t 0 f 668 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 8 1 0 4 1 4
ft 66 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0
6 Legend 1
0 t 4 # 40 f 1 Datum 66 4 ") Rock Cairn Site Boundary ± 593740.000000 593760.000000 593780.000000 593800.000000 593820.000000 593840.000000 593860.000000
Figure 6.6. 42SA30000 Site map
83 CHAPTER 7
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The Cedar Mesa Cultural Landscapes Survey results and evidence for community use of
Et Al, Owen, and Fortified Mesa raise numerous questions about the central Cedar Mesa community. First, what kind of first-order community existed around the Et Al great house?
What purpose did the great houses and other important features serve for the community? I argue that Et Al and Owen served as places that facilitated community cohesion on numerous scales. The great houses signaled inclusion in the local and regional network of great houses and are probably the archaeological remnants of interpersonal competition among leaders vying for followers. Also, the great houses and other apparently public sites situate the Cedar Mesa community within a larger pattern of great houses associated with cultural landscapes.
Community Cohesion and the Great House Network
Though there does not seem to be a higher habitation site density immediately around the
Et Al great house, the CMCL Survey indicates that the density is in keeping with the estimated site density for the Bullet Canyon drainage as a whole, which in turn was the highest found in the
CMP survey (Matson et al. 1990). Of the other Northern San Juan great house communities reviewed, the Et Al site density is most comparable to the Lowry community, however, habitation sites on Cedar Mesa are generally small (Matson et al. 1988, 1990), so it may be that the Et Al community is similar to the Lowry community in terms of site density, but not necessarily comparable in terms of population size. Kendrick and Judge (2000:Table 9.1) calculate the average late Pueblo II habitation site to be 15.4 rooms, but during the CMCL
Survey, the largest habitation sites we encountered (aside from Et Al) were only estimated to contain six to nine rooms, and many other habitations found during the project only contained
84 between one and four rooms (Appendix A).
Nevertheless, the first-order community associated with the Et Al great house remains substantial in that it is apparently larger than surrounding areas on Cedar Mesa. The CMCLS results also suggest that the community of participation during the Pueblo II and III periods contained a large enough population to maintain a biologically sustainable unit on Cedar Mesa.
Therefore, Et Al and Owen do not represent anomalous structures amid a sparsely populated mesa top. They functioned as places that facilitated numerous activities among community members at varying scales. Matson and colleagues’ (1988, 1990) argument that Cedar Mesa households were autonomous and flexible suggests that Et Al (or the leader(s) that lived at Et Al) did not function as a controlling, powerful or coercive entity on Cedar Mesa (as Kantner [1996] argues), but did play a role in integrating community members. I propose that Et Al served as a symbol of community cohesion, a place where the community could gather to form alliances among households and kin groups in order to buffer agricultural risk, resolve disputes, and reinforce alliances to ensure both social and biological reproduction. Feasting may have served more than a ceremonial function, allowing for food to be redistributed between households
(Earle 2001). Feasts and other activities at the great house might also have functioned for biological sustainability, allowing intra- and extra-community members to facilitate marriage relationships. The presence of both Kayenta and Mesa Verde tradition ceramics also suggests ties with peoples to the east and south, and perhaps the Et Al great house served as a location for people from these two traditions to participate in the same community ritual or ceremonial activities. Maybe the change in the size of the first-order community in Pueblo III times, with the disuse of Owen and the great kivas, required a shift to ties that included people beyond the mesa top. These ties would have allowed for the biologically sustainable community that
85 Mahoney (2000) argues for during the Pueblo III period. As Adler (2002) writes, communities share risk, interdependence, and identity; great houses, as loci for community activities, would have facilitated this. While Et Al may have “belonged” to a prestigious individual or group of individuals, the great house and great kiva were used by the first-order community and the community of participation, allowing for a sense of community cohesion.
Just as Et Al helped to bind together autonomous households, numerous first-order communities in southeast Utah were autonomous residential communities tied together as a larger entity. The system of communities in southeast Utah served as a network for mates, resources, and relocation. Therefore, the presence of Et Al on Cedar Mesa was a signal of the community’s association with the larger Chacoan entity in southeast Utah and the Northern San
Juan region in general. The numerous great houses and associated communities in southeast
Utah are part of a collective regional identity. Lipe (2002:269) writes, “The occupants of the
Great Houses were symbolically linking themselves to the widespread belief system and mode of social organization represented by the San Juan pattern,” which persisted into the Pueblo III period in the Northern San Juan, despite the collapse of the great houses in Chaco Canyon.
James Allison (2004) demonstrates that the Red Knobs site, northeast of Owen and Et Al and north of Cottonwood Falls, has Chacoan characteristics with an associated settlement of habitation sites. This site was occupied in two distinct periods, the second lasting from the late
Pueblo II and/or early Pueblo III to the early 1200s. Allison (2004:356) writes, however, that the site is not clearly Chacoan in any meaningful way, and rather that its great kiva, road, and possible great houses evoked connections to Chaco Canyon. Taken together with other nearby great houses in southeast Utah, Allison argues for a network of loosely linked community centers that were symbolically expressing a connection to the distant Chaco Canyon great houses. There
86 can be little doubt that Owen and Et Al were also part of this network, identifying with a widely held belief system as symbolized in architecture and settlement layout.
Competition Between Great House Leaders
This “network” of great houses may also have been in some competition with each other; it is also possible that the Et Al community was—or more specifically, one or more individuals within the Et Al community were—competing with nearby communities/community leaders
(Van Dyke 1999). As Kantner (1996) argues, the archaeological pattern of great houses is the material remnant of political competition between aspiring leaders. Individual leaders may have been competing for status by demonstrating links to the powerful Chaco Canyon centers, which would have amplified the spread of great houses (Lipe 2006:288). Perhaps during the late
Pueblo II period, individuals constructed Et Al and Owen in order to gain followers and bolster status within a regional system, a pattern that persisted in the Northern San Juan even after
Chaco’s florescence. Lipe (2002) argues that the regional structure of Northern San Juan settlement and community patterns in the late A.D. 1100s to 1200s implies that numerous, politically independent, and probably competitive communities and community clusters existed, and the Et Al community seems to have been part of this network.
The presence of great kivas on Cedar Mesa implies a concerted effort by community members to construct these (Lipe 2006:267). Lipe (2006:284) writes that “organizing large ceremonies, feasts, and work parties requires significant skill and the effective use of authority within established systems of social control,” suggesting that one or more individuals or groups on Cedar Mesa possessed the ability to control or direct the actions of other individuals and groups. It is entirely possible that individual leaders on Cedar Mesa were vying for followers in the late Pueblo II period through the construction of Owen, Et Al, and the two isolated great
87 kivas, a pattern we see across the Northern San Juan as leaders emulated Chaco symbolism
(Kantner 1996; Lipe 2002). Individuals could have accumulated power by recruiting followers,
“resulting in larger settlements and ultimately in higher local and regional population densities”
(Lipe 2002:217-8), and this process may have occurred on Cedar Mesa. The spatial dispersion of the great houses and isolated great kivas might also suggest that individual rivals or distinct groups were vying for power on Cedar Mesa, with Et Al finally winning out after a shift from the use of all these sites in the late Pueblo II period, to just one (Et Al) in the Pueblo III period.
Leaders may have also been competing between more dispersed communities, thus, an analysis of the Et Al community would not be complete without comparing it to nearby communities. The Cottonwood Falls great house and associated community lie approximately
35 km to the east of Et Al. Mahoney (2000) proposes that Cottonwood Falls was used between
A.D. 1050 and 1175, but possibly into the early 1200s, whereas Et Al seems to be utilized until about the A.D. 1220s, though it may have been in use up until A.D. 1250. In her analysis,
Mahoney (2000:24-25) uses different methods to estimate the momentary population of the
Cottonwood Falls community, but finds that there was probably a minimum population of 39 people and a maximum population of 196 people at any moment in time within 14 km2 of the great house. These estimates exceed the supposed population of the Et Al community at a similar scale, suggesting that perhaps the leader(s) of Cedar Mesa were competing with leaders from a larger nearby community. However, it appears that the Et Al great house continued to be in use after Cottonwood Falls was abandoned.
Less is known about the Edge of the Cedars community near Blanding, and therefore it is difficult to compare it to the Et Al community. However, the Bluff community, 40 km southeast of Et Al, is comparable. The Bluff great house was constructed in the early A.D. 1100s,
88 probably not long after the initial construction phase of Owen and Et Al, and was used until the middle A.D. 1200s. Thus, this great house was almost entirely contemporaneous with Et Al.
Jalbert and Cameron (2000) do not provide population estimates, but they do note that nine habitations were identified- five small unit pueblos (housing probably one household) and four multi-household sites (what I will call Prudden units sensu Matson et al. [1988]). Cameron
(2009b:301-302) compares two methods of estimating the number of residents living in the Bluff great house. She finds that there could have been between 33 and 120 people if all rooms were used as habitation sites, but about 15 to 16 households (or possibly about 75-80 people) if just the exterior rooms were used for habitation. Using kivas as a proxy for households, one to four households could have been living in the great house, or five to 20 people. Therefore, it is difficult to know definitively how many people lived in the Bluff great house. If all the sites were occupied for five to ten years, the Bluff community (excluding those living in the great house) might have been between 2.4 and 4.7 people. However, if Prudden units were occupied for longer than unit habitations, the population may have been between 4.7 and 8 people at any point in time. Given that more habitation sites likely existed but have been destroyed by flooding or the development of the town of Bluff, this population density is on par with the Et Al community (if the great house inhabitants are excluded from the community population estimates here). Again, it is possible that the leaders of the Bluff and Et Al communities were competing with each other for followers, based on their similar first-order community size.
Varien (1999:Table 7.1, Figure 7.3) identifies numerous other communities and community centers east of and contemporaneous with Et Al. Perhaps, then, the presence of a great house functioned as a powerful competitive symbol for the Et Al community and/or leader(s). The Et Al great house is smaller than both the Cottonwood Falls and Bluff great
89 houses, but the significant landscape features may have made up for this. In a landscape where the inhabitants were competing for valuable resources, perhaps the Et Al community/leader was emulating Chacoan or nearby Chaco outlier great houses to legitimize the community and its claim on central Cedar Mesa (sensu Van Dyke 1999). The presence of another great house on
Cedar Mesa (the Owen site) further supports this hypothesis. The Et Al and Owen community leaders may have been in competition for followers during the late Pueblo II period, and the abandonment of Owen before Et Al might suggest that the leader(s) at Et Al, as well as its location, were more appealing. Kantner (1996:51) writes that, “the presence of maximizable or monopolizable resources provides ambitious leaders with a potential source of power,” and that,
“relatively productive environmental conditions provide greater opportunities for aspiring leaders to increase their authority and power since their activities will have less effect on other members of the community.” Et Al was located in an area with more arable soils, and therefore more agricultural productivity, thus the leader(s) associated with Et Al could have more easily attracted and controlled members than the leader(s) associated with Owen. This could be the reason for the Pueblo II to Pueblo III shift from the use of two great houses to one on Cedar
Mesa; however, the apparent drop in population from the Pueblo II to III periods in the vicinity of Et Al might also suggest waning interest in the great house and/or the leader(s) associated with it. This is probably due to numerous factors, among them declining climatic conditions.
Dean and Van West (2002:96) show that the late Pueblo II period in the central Mesa Verde region was generally favorable for agricultural production. An increase in unfavorable climatic conditions starting at about A.D. 1130 and lasting to after A.D. 1180, which was less severe in the vicinity of Cedar Mesa than in the greater Southwest (McVickar and Eininger 2001), might have weakened individual authority and led to Owen’s downfall.
90 Feasting activities at the great houses provide further evidence that individual leaders were competing for followers. While feasting served numerous community functions (e.g. mobilizing labor, creating cooperative relationships and corporate alliances, attracting desirable mates, labor, allies or wealth exchanges, soliciting favors, or compensating for transgressions
[Hayden 2001:29-30]), individuals may have used feasting to bolster prestige and, therefore, gain followers. Kantner (1996) provides a cross-cultural survey of feasting, which follows a regular pattern of feasts associated with specialized architecture. In all circumstances, feasting increases the status and authority of the host. During feasting occasions, potential leaders or affirmed leaders “can display their wealth, knowledge, physical and supernatural power, oratory skills, and the strength of their support, which in turn attracts more followers” (Kantner 1996:53).
Feasting also benefits the supporters of the leader, furnishing opportunities for expanding social networks, obtaining marriage partners, receiving gifts and food, and trading (Hayden and Gargett
1990). Overall, then, feasting provides methods for expanding social and ritual authority and developing economic power (Kantner 1996:53).
Finally, were more people aggregating around Et Al because of the great house, or did Et
Al develop in conjunction with a community? In other words, how much control might leaders at Et Al actually have held? We can rule out the idea that the great house was built before an associated community because there are multiple contemporaneous habitation sites and great kivas. This follows one of Gilpin’s (2003:199) three patterns for the development of Chacoan site clusters. He writes that in some communities, the great house and associated small habitations were constructed together over a few decades, evidenced by the apparent contemporaneous construction of two late Pueblo II great kivas—H.S.T. and Todie Flats—and the great houses. As discussed, the Bullet Canyon drainage contained a higher settlement density
91 than other drainage units, but was this also true of the earlier Basketmaker periods? Matson et al. (1988, 1990) find that settlement location points were consistent throughout time periods, probably pointing to a basic adaptive strategy. Deep, aeolian soils on divides at higher elevations were preferred for maize dry farming. Habitations and limited activity areas were probably situated to make efficient use of these areas (Matson et al. 1988:254). Therefore, it is unlikely that Et Al and/or its leader(s) drew inhabitants. More probable is the idea that Bullet
Canyon was an ideal location for agriculture on the mesa top, and Cedar Mesa residents located the great house there because a community already existed or because they recognized the location as an important place used by previous Basketmaker people. There may have been one or more community leaders competing for followers, but it seems that Cedar Mesa households were relatively autonomous. Most importantly, the Et Al great house and other landscape features probably served to bind the more aggregated Bullet Canyon community together; this is where most people were settling, so perhaps this is where the great house was ideally located for sociopolitical purposes.
Cedar Mesa Cultural Landscapes
In addition to the community on Cedar Mesa evidenced by the great house and its surrounding habitations, numerous features on central Cedar Mesa serve as further evidence of community use and a social landscape. Multiple sites and features that have been identified are recognized as remnants of a landscape imbued with cultural meaning, and mark Cedar Mesa as a center of communal activity. Both great houses show evidence of communal feasting, and roads connecting multiple sites suggest that ritual procession, as seen at places such as Chaco Canyon, may have been important (Till 2001). Three known shrines on high places (42SA4146,
42SA6179, and 42SA30000) were likely ritual or otherwise meaningful features, as well.
92 Additionally, two potential great kivas—the H.S.T. site (42SA28201) and the Todie Flats great kiva (unrecorded)—may have been used as community-wide gathering places.
The concept of a cultural landscape associated with a great house community is well supported in other places, including in southeast Utah. Van Dyke (2007) has presented a phenomenological approach to the Chaco Canyon cultural landscape, showing how the contemporary experiences we have in constructed spaces are likely to be similar to the experiences of people in the past. Chaco Canyon builders intended for their work to be seen and experienced as a reflexive dimension of human social interaction, and it is likely that other great houses may have also emulated this landscape phenomenon. Till and Hurst (2011) have provided an overview of “monumental” landscapes associated with the Bluff Great House,
Decker Ruin, and Cottonwood-Comb Network, which include both constructed and natural monumental features. The Bluff Valley monumental landscape includes the great house, a dance plaza site, a road connecting multiple sites and oriented toward the Jackson Crossing site complex and the Bear’s Ears, and various springs, natural features, and protohistoric shrines (Till and Hurst 2011:Table 1). Decker Ruin is associated with a Pueblo I great kiva, a possible great house, an apparent network of roads, and other natural features such as paired alcoves (Till and
Hurst 2011:5-6). The Cottonwood-Comb network includes more road alignments, a set of paired herraduras (shrines), multiple other shrines, a great house, and towers, and again many of these features are oriented with natural landscape features (Till and Hurst 2011:Table 2). Hurst and
Till (2009) note several more great houses and associated features in southeast Utah, including the Arch Canyon Ruin complex and an associated shrine on the extreme northeast part of Cedar
Mesa. It appears that in southeast Utah, cultural landscape features were often, if not always, associated with great houses and their communities. Thus, it is not surprising that we have
93 recognized various cultural landscape features on central Cedar Mesa, within what Till and Hurst
(2011) call the “Et Al Network.”
In addition to these landscape features, ceramic evidence indicates that people continued to visit Cedar Mesa and other parts of southeast Utah as important places of the ancestors.
Bernardini and Kuwanwisiwma (2006) present linguistic, ceramic, demographic, and archaeological evidence, as well as oral traditions and historic accounts, to show ties between the
Hopi and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in south-central Utah. They compile evidence of Hopi presence in other parts of southeast Utah through the discovery of Hopi Jeddito
Yellow Ware pottery, including in Glen Canyon and on the Red Rock Plateau west and southwest of Cedar Mesa and north of Cedar Mesa in Natural Bridges National Monument
(Bernardini and Kuwanwisiwma 2006:Figure 4 and Table 3). Jalbert (1999) has also recorded
Hopi yellow ware at a candidate great house site near Cottonwood Wash. Additionally, Kinnear-
Ferris (2011) has more recently presented evidence of Hopi presence in the Needles district of
Canyonlands National Park, where a cache of Hopi Jeddito ware was found in the 1960s.
Though archaeological sites tend to be viewed as simple remnants of the past, Bernardini and Kuwanwisiwma (2006:337) write that,
The Hopi do not view these archaeological sites as “abandoned.” Instead, they view them as still occupied by the people who lived there and as important reminders of the spiritual responsibility Hopis have to the land… Shrines, springs, eagle nests, and natural features like mountains are part of the footprints left by Hopi ancestors, and many of these places have been, and continue to be, visited by later generations of Hopis.
Kuwanwisiwma and Ferguson (2009) also demonstrate the important relationship for
Hopis among archaeological sites or places of the past, the homeland, and the people. For the
Hopi, archaeological sites represent a part of their modern-day cultural landscape, and this may suggest that the construction of cultural landscapes reaches far into the past. The sites on Cedar
94 Mesa, then, are still very much alive for Hopi people, and further ceramic evidence suggests that
Hopi people continued to visit these sites during protohistoric times. As Bernardini and
Kuwanwisiwma (2006:346) write, “[Jeddito Yellow Ware] results from the revisitation of ancestral shrines and villages by Hopi individuals who had moved to the Hopi Mesas.” The discovery of fifteenth century Hopi ceramics on the road segment leading north from the Et Al site by Hurst and Till in 2009 (Till and Hurst 2011) shows that this site (or perhaps the “village” or ancestral community) may have continued to be important to some of the Hopi descendants of the original Cedar Mesa inhabitants.
The lasting importance of these places to Hopi people suggests that central Cedar Mesa once contained a community large enough to sustain a memory of place. Till and Hurst
(2011:11) write that Puebloan cosmology was deeply embedded in monumental landscapes and that “rituals performed in and across these landscapes were, at least in part, perhaps universally shared and very public.” The presence of roads, shrines, great kivas (some possibly unroofed), and plaza spaces associated with the great houses and possibly Fortified Mesa signifies that a community associated with the Et Al Network must have existed in order for these places to exist for community ritual use. The presence of a cultural landscape on central Cedar Mesa further supports the existence of an Et Al community which placed itself within a wider system of beliefs.
Final Thoughts
The multiple lines of evidence presented in this thesis provide insights into and description of Pueblo II and Pueblo III community on Cedar Mesa. Through a comprehensive overview of other great house communities in the Mesa Verde region, I was able to frame sociopolitical expectations for the Et Al community based on site and population density. Using
95 quadrat survey data from the 1970s Cedar Mesa Project allowed for site density estimates for the
Bullet Canyon drainage, and the Cedar Mesa Cultural Landscapes Survey support these estimates. Although I expected a higher site density in the area immediately surrounding the Et
Al great house than in the greater Bullet Canyon drainage area, it appears that the habitations associated with Et Al were equally dispersed across this agriculturally productive area of Cedar
Mesa. Survey data from the Cedar Mesa Project shows that the Bullet Canyon drainage, overall, has a higher site density than the rest of Cedar Mesa. Additionally, ceramic evidence indicates that feasting was associated with the Et Al great house, indicating that the site was a focus for community ritual activity.
Population estimates from the CMCL Survey suggest that the population density within the 3.6 km2 area surrounding Et Al was greater than for Cedar Mesa as a whole. The location of
Et Al probably has something to do with the relatively agriculturally productive soils in the
Bullet Canyon drainage area. Cedar Mesa inhabitants across time preferred this area, likely because it provided larger amounts of more arable soils than did lower-elevation parts of the mesa. The site density during Basketmaker and Puebloan times was higher here than in other drainage units. Therefore, Et Al may have been a symbol of community cohesion and may have been built and used by aspiring leaders. These leaders were probably not as powerful as in other large communities, such as Lowry, because Cedar Mesa households were likely more autonomous as part of their flexible adaptive strategy. The community activity at Et Al, however, would have allowed for risk-buffering alliances among Cedar Mesa residents. The presence of Et Al might also have served as a competitive and integrative symbol to other nearby communities, situating its presence within a larger landscape. Leaders may have been vying for
96 personal prestige by attempting to attract members to their community, competing with other nearby great house community leaders for followers.
Finally, the evidence of cultural landscape features on central Cedar Mesa reinforces the evidence for community activity across the mesa top and ties the Et Al community into a wider network of great house communities. Fortified Mesa may have served a community function, whether this was used as a location for feasting activity, as an open place for ritual performances, or as a defensive site for storing food—or possibly all three. The Bullet Spring road connecting
Et Al to the H.S.T. great kiva and potentially to the area of Fortified Mesa indicates an important alignment, perhaps used for ritual activity. Furthermore, shrines and great kivas point, again, to community-oriented activity. These types of landscape features are associated with numerous other great house communities, and their presence on Cedar Mesa signifies participation in the wider network of peoples that employed similar symbols and methods of marking the landscapes surrounding their residences.
Though the Et Al great house and associated landscape features have been known for some time, evidence for an Et Al community had not been assembled to this point. This thesis serves as a comprehensive analysis of the Et Al community. Even on the margins of the Mesa
Verde region, Cedar Mesa residents participated in the network of great house communities across the Mesa Verde region and the larger Puebloan world.
97 REFERENCES CITED
Adler, Michael A. 1996 Land Tenure, Archaeology, and the Ancestral Pueblo Social Landscape. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 15(4):337-371.
2002 The Ancestral Puebloan Community as Structure and Strategy. In Seeking the Center Place: Archaeology and Ancient Communities in the Mesa Verde Region, edited by Mark D. Varien and Richard H. Wilshusen, pp. 25-39. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Allison, James R. 2004 Surface Archaeology of the Red Knobs Site, A Southeastern Utah Great House. Kiva 69(4): 339-360.
Bernardini, Wesley, and Leigh J. Kuwanwisiwma 2006 Hopi Perspectives on the Archaeology of Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. In Learning from the Land: Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Science Symposium Proceedings, pp. 336-354. Grand Staircase-Escalante Partners, Cedar City, Utah.
Blackburn, Fred M., and Cynthia Rogero 1975 42SA6179 Site Form. On file, Utah State Historic Preservation Office, Salt Lake City.
Blackburn, Fred M., and Ray A. Williamson 1997 Cowboys and Cave Dwellers: Basketmaker Archaeology in Utah’s Grand Gulch. School for Advanced Research Press, Santa Fe.
Blinman, Eric 1989 Potluck in the Protokiva: Ceramics and Ceremonialism in Pueblo I Villages. In The Architecture of Social Integration in Prehistoric Pueblos, edited by W.D. Lipe and Michelle Hegmon, pp. 113-124. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez.
2009 Appendix 1: Ceramic Analysis. In Chaco and After in the Northern San Juan, edited by Catherine M. Cameron. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Blitz, John H. 1993 Big Pots for Big Shots: Feasting and Storage in a Mississippian Community. American Antiquity 58(1):80-96.
Bloomer, William W. 1989 Moon House: A Pueblo III Period Cliff Dwelling Complex in Southeastern Utah. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman.
98 Breternitz, David A., Arthur H. Rohn, and Elizabeth A. Morris 1974 Prehistoric Ceramics of the Mesa Verde Region. Ceramic Series No. 5, Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff.
Cameron, Catherine M. 2009a Chaco and Post-Chaco in the Northern San Juan Region. In Chaco and After in the Northern San Juan, edited by Catherine M. Cameron, pp. 18-43. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
2009b Understanding the Bluff Great House Site. In Chaco and After in the Northern San Juan, edited by Catherine M. Cameron, pp. 297-315. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Cronquist, Arthur 1972 Intermountain Flora: Vascular Plants of the Intermountain West, U.S.A. Hafner Publishing Company, Inc., New York.
Curewitz, Diane, and R.G. Matson 2010 The 13th-Century Depopulation of Cedar Mesa: A View from Ceramic Design Elements. Paper presented at the 75th Annual Meeting for the Society of American Archaeology, Saint Louis.
Dean, Jeffrey S. 1999 Accession A-1413. Letter to Scott Ortman. 02 June 1999. The Laboratory of Tree Ring Research, University of Arizona, Tucson.
Dean, Jeffrey S., Robert C. Euler, George J. Gumerman, Fred Plog, Richard H. Hevly, and Thor N.V. Karlstrom 1985 Human Behavior, Demography, and Paleoenvironment on the Colorado Plateaus. American Antiquity 50(3):537-554.
Dean, Jeffrey S. and Carla R. Van West 2002 Environment-Behavior Relationships in Southwestern Colorado. In Seeking the Center Place: Archaeology and Ancient Communities in the Mesa Verde Region, edited by Mark D. Varien and Richard H. Wilshusen, pp. 81-99. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Dohm, Karen M. 1994 The Search for Anasazi Village Origins: Basketmaker II Dwelling Aggregation on Cedar Mesa. Kiva 60(2):257-276.
Duff, Andrew I., and Caitlin A. Wichlacz 2009 The Spatial and Temporal Dynamics of Chacoan Communities on the Southern Frontier. Poster Presented at the 74th Annual Meeting of the Society of American Archaeology, Atlanta.
99 Durand, Kathy Roler 2003 Function of Chaco-Era Great Houses. Kiva 69(2):141-169.
Earle, Timothy 2001 Economic Support of Chaco Canyon Society. American Antiquity 73(4):26-35.
Gilpin, Dennis 2003 Chaco-Era Site Clustering and the Concept of Communities. Kiva 69(2):171-205.
Gilpin, Dennis, and David E. Purcell 2000 Peach Springs Revisited: Surface Recording and Excavation on the South Chaco Slope, New Mexico. In Great House Communities Across the Chacoan Landscape, edited by John Kantner and Nancy M. Mahoney, pp. 28-38. Anthropological Papers, Number 64, The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Glowacki, Donna 2006 The Social Landscape of Depopulation: The Northern San Juan, A.D. 1150-1300. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe.
Gregory, Herbert 1938 The San Juan Country: A Geographic and Geologic Reconnaissance of Southeastern Utah. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 188. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Haase IV, William R. 1983 Pueblo II and Pueblo III Settlement Patterns on Cedar Mesa, Southeastern Utah. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman.
Hansen, David T., and Robert H. Fish 1993 Soil Survey of San Juan County, Utah, Central Part. U.S. Department of Agriculture in Cooperation with the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, and Utah Agricultural Experiment Station.
Hayden, Brian 2001 Fabulous Feasts: A Prolegomenon to the Importance of Feasts. In Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power, edited by Michael Dietler and Brian Hayden, pp. 23-64. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Hayden, Brian and Rob Gargett 1990 Big Man, Big Heart? A Mesoamerican View of the Emergence of Complex Society. Ancient Mesoamerica 1:3-20.
100 Hayes, Alden C., and Thomas C. Windes 1975 An Anasazi Shrine in Chaco Canyon. In Collected Papers in Honor of Florence Hawley Ellis, edited by Theodore R. Frisbie, pp. 143-156. Papers of the Archaeological Society of New Mexico: 2, Hooper Publishing Company, Norman, Oklahoma.
Hurst, Winston B. 1999 42SA24584 Site Form. On file, Utah State Historic Preservation Office, Salt Lake City.
2000 Chaco Outlier or Backwoods Pretender? A Provincial Great House at Edge of the Cedars Ruin, Utah. In Great House Communities Across the Chacoan Landscape, edited by John Kantner and Nancy M. Mahoney, pp. 61-78. Anthropological Papers, Number 64, The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
2009a 42SA28202 Site Form. On file, Utah State Historic Preservation Office, Salt Lake City.
2009b 42SA28203 Site Form. On file, Utah State Historic Preservation Office, Salt Lake City.
Hurst, Winston B., and J. Richard Ambler 1993 42SA18431 Site Form. On file, Utah State Historic Preservation Office, Salt Lake City.
Hurst, Winston B., and Jonathan D. Till 2009 A Brief Survey of Great Houses and Related Features in Southeastern Utah. In Chaco and After in the Northern San Juan, edited by Catherine M. Cameron, pp. 44-80. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Jalbert, Joseph Peter 1999 Northern San Juan region Great House communities: assessing Chacoan versus regional influences. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Colorado, Boulder.
Jalbert, Joseph Peter, and Catherine M. Cameron 2000 Chacoan and Local Influences in Three Great House Communities in the Northern San Juan Basin. In Great House Communities Across the Chacoan Landscape, edited by John Kantner and Nancy M. Mahoney, pp. 79-90. Anthropological Papers, Number 64, The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Kantner, John 1996 Political Competition Among the Chaco Anasazi of the American Southwest. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 15:41-105.
2008 The Archaeology of Regions: From Discrete Analytical Toolkit to Ubiquitous Spatial Perspective. Journal of Archaeological Research 16:37-81.
101 Kendrick, James W. 1998 Results of the Lowry Community Pattern Survey: A Report Submitted to the Colorado Historical Society. In Appendix A, Report on Archaeological Investigations a Puzzle House, edited by W. James Judge. Manuscript submitted to the Colorado Historical Society, Denver.
Kendrick, James W., and W. James Judge 2000 Household Economic Autonomy and Great House Development in the Lowry Area. In Great House Communities Across the Chacoan Landscape, edited by John Kantner and Nancy M. Mahoney, pp. 113-129. Anthropological Papers, Number 64, The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Kinnear-Ferris, Sheryl 2011 Hopi Pottery in the Southern Utah Canyon Country. Paper presented at the 76th Annual Meeting for the Society of American Archaeology, Sacramento.
Kintigh, Keith W. 2003 Coming to Terms with the Chaco World. Kiva 69(2):93-116.
Kolb, Michael J., and James E. Snead 1997 It’s a Small World After All: Comparative Analyses of Community Organization in Archaeology. American Antiquity 62(4):609-628.
Kuwanwisiwma, Leigh J., and T.J. Ferguson 2009 Hopitutskwa and Ang Kuktota: The Role of Archaeological Sites in Defining Hopi Cultural Landscapes. In The Archaeology of Meaningful Places, edited by Brenda J. Bowser and Maria Nieves Zedeño, pp. 90-106. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Lekson, Stephen H. 2006 Chaco Matters: An Introduction. In The Archaeology of Chaco Canyon, edited by Stephen H. Lekson, pp. 3-44. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.
Lekson, Stephen H., Thomas C. Windes, and Peter J. McKenna 2006 Architecture. In The Archaeology of Chaco Canyon, edited by Stephen H. Lekson, pp. 67-116. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.
Lipe, William D. 1970a Anasazi Communities on the Redrock Plateau, Southeastern Utah. In Reconstructing Prehistoric Pueblo Societies, edited by William A. Longacre, pp. 84-139. School of American Research Press, Albuquerque.
1970b 42SA3680 Site Form. On file, Utah State Historic Preservation Office, Salt Lake City.
102 1978 Archaeological Work in the Grand Gulch Region, Southeastern Utah, 1969. In National Geographic Society Research Reports, 1969 Projects, edited by P.H. Oesher and J.S. Lea, pp. 389-397. National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C.
1995 The Depopulation of the Northern San Juan Region: Conditions in the Turbulent 1200s. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 14(2):143-169.
2002 Social Power in the Central Mesa Verde Region. In Seeking the Center Place: Archaeology and Ancient Communities in the Mesa Verde Region, edited by Mark D. Varien and Richard H. Wilshusen, pp. 203-232. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
2006 Notes from the North. In The Archaeology of Chaco Canyon, edited by Stephen H. Lekson, pp.261-313. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.
Lipe, William D., Donna M. Glowacki, and Thomas C. Windes 2010 Dynamics of the Thirteenth Century Depopulation of the Northern San Juan: the View from Cedar Mesa. Paper presented at the 75th Annual Meeting for the Society of American Archaeology, Saint Louis.
Lipe, William D., and R.G. Matson 1971 Human Settlement and Resources in the Cedar Mesa Area, Southwestern Utah. In The Distribution of Prehistoric Population Aggregates, edited by George Gumerman, pp. 126-151. Prescott College Anthropological Reports, No. 1, Prescott.
2007 The Cedar Mesa Project: 1967-2007. Unpublished manuscript on file, Washington State University, Pullman.
Lipe, William D., R.G. Matson, and Brian Kemp 2011 New Insights from Old Collections: Cedar Mesa Utah, Revisited. Southwestern Lore: Journal of Colorado Archaeology 77(2):103-112.
Lipe, William D., R.G. Matson, and Jesse Morin 2011 Report on Survey Conducted in 2009 in San Juan County, Utah Under BLM Permit No. 085025. Report submitted to the Bureau of Land Management, Monticello Field Office, Blanding.
Lipe, William D., R.G. Matson, and Margaret Powers 1977 Final Report for Archaeological Sampling Survey of Proposed Additions to the Existing Grand Gulch Primitive Area. Report submitted to the Bureau of Land Mananagament under contract no. YA-512-CT6-200, Moab District.
Lipe, William D. and Scott G. Ortman 2000 Spatial Patterning in the Northern San Juan Villages, A.D. 1050-1300. Kiva 66(1):91- 122.
103 Lipe, William D., Mark D. Varien, and Richard H. Wilshusen (editors) 1999 Colorado Prehistory: A Context for the Southern Colorado River Basin. Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists, Denver.
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. 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. Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists, Denver.
Mahoney, Nancy M. 2000 Redefining the Scale of Chacoan Communities. In Great House Communities Across the Chacoan Landscape, edited by John Kantner and Nancy M. Mahoney, pp. 19-27. Anthropological Papers, Number 64, The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Mahoney, Nancy M., and John Kantner 2000 Chacoan Archaeology and Great House Communities. In Great House Communities Across the Chacoan Landscape, edited by Nancy M. Mahoney and John Kantner, pp. 1- 15. Anthropological Papers, Number 64, The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Matson, R.G. 1991 The Origins of Southwestern Agriculture. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Matson, R.G. and Brian Chisholm 1991 Basketmaker II Subsistence: Carbon Isotopes and Other Dietary Indicators from Cedar Mesa, Utah. American Antiquity 56(3):444-459.
Matson, R.G., William D. Lipe, and William R. Haase IV 1988 Adaptational Continuities and Occupational Discontinuities: The Cedar Mesa Anasazi. Journal of Field Archaeology 15(3):245-264.
1990 Human Adaptations on Cedar Mesa, Southeastern Utah. Manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman and available at http://www.anth.ubc.ca/?id=3125.
Matson, R.G., and William D. Lipe 1975 Regional Sampling: A Case Study of Cedar Mesa, Utah. In Sampling in Archaeology, edited by James W. Mueller, pp. 124-143. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
2009 42SA28201 Site Form. On file, Utah State Historic Preservation Office, Salt Lake City.
104 2011 Two Chaco-Style Great Houses on Cedar Mesa—With Kayenta Pottery. Paper presented at the 76th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Sacramento.
McVickar, Janet L., and Susan F. Eininger 2001 An Archaeological Survey of Natural Bridges National Monument, Southeastern Utah. Intermountain Cultural Resources Paper No. 64, United States Government Printing Office, National Park Service, Santa Fe.
Mills, Barbara J. 1989 Ceramics and Settlement in the Cedar Mesa Area, Southeastern Utah: A Methodological Approach. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
1999 Ceramics and Social Contexts of Food Consumption in the Northern Southwest. In Pottery and People: A Dynamic Interaction, edited by James M. Skibo and Gary M. Feinman, pp. 99-144. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
2007 Performing the Feast: Visual Display and Suprahousehold Commensalism in the Puebloan Southwest. American Antiquity 72(2):210-239.
Morton, Ethan E. 2002 Late Pueblo II and Pueblo III Canyon Settlement Patterns at Cedar Mesa, Southeast Utah. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman.
Murdock, George P. 1949 Social Structure. Macmillan, New York.
Murdock, George P., and Suzanne R. Wilson 1972 Settlement Patterns and Community Organization: Cross Cultural Codes. Ethnology 11(3):254-295.
Plog, Stephen 1985 Estimating Vessel Orifice Diameters: Measurement Methods and Measurement Error. In Decoding Prehistoric Ceramics, edited by Ben A. Nelson, pp. 243-253. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.
Pollock, Katherine H. 2001 Pits Without Pots: Basketmaker II Houses and Lithics of Southeastern Utah. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman.
105 Reed, Alan D. 1979 The Dominguez Ruin: A McElmo Phase Pueblo in Southwestern Colorado. In The Archaeology and Stabilization of the Dominguez and Escalante Ruins, pp. 1-196. Colorado State Office, Bureau of Land Management, Denver.
Renfrew, Colin, and John F. Cherry 1986 Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-political Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Severance, Owen 1999 Prehistoric Roads in Southeastern Utah. In La Frontera: Papers in Honor of Patrick H. Beckett, pp.185-195, edited by Meliha S. Duran and David T. Kirkpatrick. The Archaeological Society of New Mexico: 25.
Spangler, Jerry D., Andrew T. Yentsch, and Rachelle Green 2010 Farming and Foraging on the Southwestern Frontier: an overview of previous research of the archaeological and historical resources of the Great Cedar Mesa Area. Antiquities Section, Utah Division of State History, Salt Lake City.
Stokes, William Lee 1986 Geology of Utah. Occasional Paper Number 6 of the Utah Museum of Natural History. University of Utah and Utah Geological and Mineral Survey Department of Natural Resources, Salt Lake City.
Till, Jonathan D. 2001 Chacoan Roads and Road-associated Sites in the Lower San Juan Region: Assessing the Role of Chacoan Influences in the Northwestern Periphery. Unpublished Master’s thesis, University of Colorado, Boulder.
Till, Jonathan D., and Winston B. Hurst 2011 Geography, Society, and Cosmology in the Puebloan Northwest: Monumental Features on Cedar Mesa, Utah. Paper Presented at the 76th Annual Meeting for the Society of American Archaeology, Sacramento.
Underhill, Anne P. 1990 Changing Patterns of Pottery Production During the Longshan Period of Northern China, ca. 2500-2000 B.C. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
U.S. Bureau of Land Management 1967 South San Juan Planning Unit Resource Analysis and Land Use Plan. Manuscript on file, BLM Field Office, Monticello.
1967-8 Homestead Application Evaluations. Manuscript on file, BLM Field Office, Monticello.
106 Van Dyke, Ruth 1999 The Andrews Community: A Chacoan Outlier in the Red Mesa Valley, New Mexico. Journal of Field Archaeology 26(1):55-67.
2007 The Chaco Experience: Landscape and Ideology at the Center Place. School for Advanced Research Press, Santa Fe.
Van West, Carla 1990 Modeling Prehistoric Climatic Variability and Agricultural Production in Southwestern Colorado. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman.
Varien, Mark D. 1999 Sedentism and Mobility in a Social Landscape: Mesa Verde and Beyond. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Varien, Mark D., William D. Lipe, Michael A. Adler, and Bruce A. Bradley 1996 Southwestern Colorado and Southeastern Utah Settlement Patterns: A.D. 1000-1300. In The Prehistoric Pueblo World: A.D. 1150-1350, edited by Michael A. Adler, pp. 86- 113. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Varien, Mark D. and Richard H. Wilshusen (editors) 2002 Seeking the Center Place: Archaeology and Ancient Communities in the Mesa Verde Region. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Williams, Justin 2009 A Preliminary Study of the Ceramics from Owen’s Site. Manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman.
Windes, Thomas C. 2004 The Rise of Early Chacoan Great Houses. In In Search of Chaco, edited by David Grant Noble, pp. 15-21. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.
Windes, Thomas C., Rachel M. Anderson, Brian K. Johnson, and Cheryl A. Ford 2000 Sunrise, Sunset: Sedentism and Mobility in the Chaco East Community. In Great House Communities Across the Chacoan Landscape, edited by John Kantner and Nancy M. Mahoney, 39-59. Anthropological Papers, Number 64, The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Wobst, H. Martin 1974 Boundary Conditions for Paleolithic Social Systems: A Simulation Approach. American Antiquity 39(2):147-178.
107 Yaeger, Jason, and Marcello A. Canuto 2000 Introducing an Archaeology of Communities. In The Archaeology of Communities: A New World Perspective, edited by Marcello A. Canuto and Jason Yaeger, pp. 1-15. Routledge, London.
108
APPENDIX A
SITES LOCATED DURING THE CEDAR MESA CULTURAL LANDSCAPES SURVEY
AND DESCRIPTIONS OF THE PUEBLO II AND III SITES
Table A.1. Summary of sites found during the 2011 Cedar Mesa Cultural Landscapes Survey Est. total Actual Actual ST=Search Est. total 42SA Site Temp. Site Area no. of tabulated tabulated and tally Est. No. Period Site type no. of Number No. (sq. m) flaked no. of no. of DL=Dogleash of Rooms ceramics lithics ceramics lithics unit(s) 29946 CMLS-1 PIII LA 888 10-99 <10 17 6 ST 29947 CMLS-2 BMIII Hab 3051 10-99 10-99 NA NA 29948 CMLS-3 BMIII; PII-III LA 712 1-9 10-99 NA NA 29949 CMLS-4 BMII; PII LA 18454 1-9 100-500 NA NA 29950 CMLS-5 PII LA 4048 10-99 10-99 32 26 ST 29951 CMLS-6 BMII; PII-III LA 3716 10-99 10-99 29 56 ST 29952 CMLS-7 BMII LA 1357 1-9 10-99 NA NA 29953 CMLS-8 Non-ceramic LA 470 0 10-99 NA NA 29954 CMLS-9 PII-III Hab 13962 100-500 100-500 100 92 DL 6-8 29955 CMLS-10 PIII LA 4086 10-99 10-99 34 21 ST 29956 CMLS-11 BMIII LA 12398 1-9 10-99 NA NA 29957 CMLS-12 BMII-III Camp 4068 1-9 10-99 NA NA 29958 CMLS-13 PII Camp 969 1-9 1-9 NA NA 1
10 29959 CMLS-14 BMIII; PIII Hab; Temp hab 7219 100-500 100-500 119 100 DL
29960 CMLS-15 BMII; PII Hab 1508 1-9 10-99 NA NA Small 29961 CMLS-16 PII-III Temp hab 2387 10-99 10-99 58 26 DL 29962 CMLS-17 PII-III LA 662 10-99 10-99 71 40 ST 29963 CMLS-18 PII-III Temp hab 1787 10-99 10-99 73 35 ST 29964 CMLS-19 BMII-III Hab 1816 1-9 10-99 NA NA 29965 CMLS-20 BMII-III LA 4927 1-9 10-99 NA NA 29966 CMLS-21 BMII-III LA 527 1-9 10-99 NA NA 29967 CMLS-22 PII LA 2338 1-9 10-99 NA NA 29968 CMLS-24 BMIII Temp hab 1698 1-9 10-99 NA NA 29969 CMLS-25 BMII-III LA 1267 1-9 10-99 NA NA 29970 CMLS-26 Non-ceramic LA 548 1-9 100-500 NA NA 29971 CMLS-27 PII Hab 13242 10-99 100-500 61 34 DL 6-9 29972 CMLS-28 BMII; PII Temp hab; LA 4365 <10 10-99 NA NA 29973 CMLS-29 PII LA 120 1-9 10-99 NA NA 29974 CMLS-30 BM?; PIII Water control 947 <10 10-99 3 30 ST 29975 CMLS-31 PII Hab 1770 <10 <10 5 5 ST 6-7 29976 CMLS-32 BM?; PII-III Hab 2783 100-500 100-500 105 117 DL 3-4 29977 CMLS-33 PII Hab 3473 100-500 100-500 71 105 DL Small 29978 CMLS-34 BMII; PII-III LA; Hab? 1525 10-99 10-99 40 26 DL Small
Est. total Actual Actual ST=Search Est. total Est. 42SA Site Temp. Site Area (sq. no. of tabulated tabulated and tally Period Site type no. of Number Number No. m) flaked no. of no. of DL=Dogleash ceramics of Rooms lithics ceramics lithics unit(s) 29979 CMLS-35 BMIII Hab 2554 10-99 10-99 NA NA 29980 CMLS-36 BMII; PII-III Hab 3550 10-99 100-500 19 45 DL 2-4 (?) 29981 CMLS-37 PII-III LA 532 10-99 10-99 16 82 ST 29982 CMLS-38 PII LA 1440 10-99 10-99 24 15 ST 29983 CMLS-39 PIII LA 965 10-99 10-99 8 31 ST 29984 CMLS-40 BMIII LA 2528 10-99 10-99 NA NA 29985 CMLS-41 BMII-III Temp hab 1713 1-9 1-9 NA NA 29986 CMLS-42 PII-III Hab 2695 10-99 10-99 29 69 DL at least 3 29987 CMLS-43 PIII LA 1845 10-99 10-99 19 36 ST 29988 CMLS-44 PII-III Hab 1881 10-99 10-99 54 81 DL Small 29989 CMLS-45 PII-III Hab 14083 100-500 100-500 208 159 DL 3-6 29990 CMLS-46 PII-III Hab 976 10-99 10-99 82 6 DL 2 29991 CMLS-47 PII-III LA 808 10-99 10-99 21 22 ST
1 29992 CMLS-48 PII-III Hab 2918 10-99 100-500 12 29 DL 1-3 11 29993 CMLS-49 Non-ceramic Hab 12848 0 100-500 NA NA
29994 CMLS-50 Non-ceramic LA 372 0 10-99 NA NA 29995 CMLS-51 PII-III Hab 3795 10-99 10-99 16 21 ST 3 29996 CMLS-52 PII-III Hab 5582 >500 100-500 320 57 DL 5-7 29997 CMLS-53 PII Hab 962 10-99 10-99 81 14 DL Small 29998 CMLS-54 Non-ceramic Hab 1543 0 10-99 NA NA 29999 CMLS-56 Non-ceramic LA 3009 0 10-99 NA NA 30000 CMLS-55 PII-III Special use 6945 100-500 100-500 129 60 ST 30001 CMLS-57 PII Hab 4756 100-500 100-500 174 114 DL Small 30002 CMLS-58 Non-ceramic Temp hab 571 0 10-99 NA NA 30003 CMLS-59 PII LA 1077 1-9 100-500 NA NA 30004 CMLS-60 PII Hab 571 10-99 10-99 17 16 DL 1 (?) 30005 CMLS-61 PIII Hab 3959 10-99 10-99 32 12 ST 3-5 30006 CMLS-62 Non-ceramic LA 403 0 10-99 NA NA 30007 CMLS-63 BMII-III LA 869 0 10-99 NA NA 30008 CMLS-64 BMIII-PI Hab 1913 10-99 100-500 NA NA 30009 CMLS-65 PII Hab 6685 100-500 100-500 53 28 DL Small 30010 CMLS-66 BMIII LA 2707 1-9 10-99 NA NA 30011 CMLS-67 PIII Hab 4148 10-99 10-99 35 39 DL 4 (?)
Est. total Actual Actual ST=Search Est. total Est. 42SA Site Temp. Site Area (sq. no. of tabulated tabulated and tally Period Site type no. of Number Number No. m) flaked no. of no. of DL=Dogleash ceramics of Rooms lithics ceramics lithics unit(s) 30012 CMLS-68 PII Hab; LA 1838 10-99 10-99 46 34 DL 1-2 (?) 30013 CMLS-69 PII-III LA 794 10-99 10-99 9 13 ST 4146 CMLS-70 PII-III Hab 31969 100-500 10-99 70* 8* DL 1-2 Tower; Special 4334 PIII 3743 <10 10-99 NA NA use 18431 (Et PII-III Hab 16619 NA NA NA NA Al) *Tallies from site extensions only
1 12
Pueblo II-III Site Summaries
Site Number: 42SA29946 Temporary site number: CMLS-1
Topographical features: Mesa, ridge Area (m2): 888
Site type: Limited activity area Period: Pueblo III
Site description: This site is a small concentration of sherds and one lithic flake. The artifact concentration is low- density. This limited activity area is east of Et Al (42SA18431) and contains Pueblo III ceramics. There is some sandstone rubble with no ash staining in the northwest edge of the site. Highway 261 is approximately 300 m east of the site. An old bulldozed trail linking the seismic line trace with the highway runs through the site.
Condition: Good Disturbances: Water erosion, cattle trampling
Eligibility recommendation: Unevaluated
Statement of significance: There may be subsurface deposits, but further testing is needed.
Site Number: 42SA29950 Temporary site number: CMLS-5
Topographical features: Mesa, ridge Area (m2): 4,048
Site type: Limited activity area Period: Pueblo II
Site description: This site is a light scatter of ceramics and lithics. The ceramics are primarily located in the drainages and consist of late Pueblo II sherds, both Kayenta and Mesa Verde traditions. There are more ceramics than lithics. This site is just north of 42SA29949. There are no clear features and the highest concentration of lithics and sherds don't overlap much- the area with sherds has relatively few lithics.
Condition: Good Disturbances: Water erosion
Eligibility recommendation: Unevaluated
Statement of significance: There may be subsurface deposits, but further testing is needed.
Site Number: 42SA29951 Temporary site number: CMLS-6
Topographical features: Mesa, ridge Area (m2): 3,716
Site type: Limited activity area Period: Pueblo II-III
Site description: This site is a light-to-moderate scatter of ceramics and lithics. No features are observed. The site lies on a west-facing slope with multiple drainages and some woodcutting debris is present. The site opens to the northwest toward the Red Cliffs and the Henry Mountains. This site is located to the northwest of Et Al (42SA18431). The soil is relatively deep, and the artifact scatter may represent limited activity associated with farming. Vegetation on site consists mostly of juniper with less sagebrush relative to the surrounding areas. The eastern edge of the site contains mostly secondary and tertiary flakes and may represent a different component.
Condition: Good Disturbances: Water erosion, woodcutting
Eligibility recommendation: Unevaluated
113 Statement of significance: There may be subsurface deposits, but further testing is needed.
Site Number: 42SA29954 Temporary site number: CMLS-9
Topographical features: Mesa, ridge Area (m2): 13,962
Site type: Habitation Period: Pueblo II-III
Site description: This is a large habitation site on a north-facing slope in pinyon-juniper woodland. The site consists of two main habitation areas, two middens, and multiple burned features (Features 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13 & 14).
The large habitation site consists of two and possibly three roomblocks (Features 1 & 2). There is a washed out area in the middle of Feature 1, with some rubble in it. This may represent a break in two roomblocks, but most likely this was one contiguous roomblock and this section has just eroded away. At least two wall alignments are visible on the west end of Feature 1. This roomblock may be 4-5 rooms long.
Feature 2, a second roomblock, is northeast of Feature 1. This roomblock is smaller, possibly one or two rooms. The mortar from both of these roomblocks has eroded away and no standing walls are visible. Some wall fall was also observed. The area to the north of these roomblocks has eroded away, making it difficult to see if there is a kiva depression, as we would expect.
A midden (Feature 5) lies west and northwest of these features in a bladed road. This road cuts directly through the site north-south and has heavily disturbed the midden. There are a couple distinct ashy-stained areas within the midden. All artifacts within three dog-leash units (A, B & C) were tallied within this feature. The ceramics indicate a late Pueblo II (Windgate phase) occupation. Groundstone was also observed.
The second habitation unit consists of one room (Feature 3) and a midden (Feature 4). This habitation is on a west-facing slope, with the midden to the west of the roomblock. A drianage runs through the midden, washing it down slope. There is an ashy-stained area with charcoal within the midden. All artifacts within two dog-leash units (D & E) were tallied in this feature. The ceramic assemblage indicates a Pueblo III (Woodenshoe and/or Red House phase) occupation. The roomblock and mortar are fairly eroded and no wall outlines are visible. This habitation unit seems to be distinct from Features 1, 2, and 5 and represents a later component.
Features 6, 7 & 8 are ashy-stained areas. Feature 6 consists of mottled ash and soot mixed with loose aeolian deposits about 2.5 m in diameter. About 15 pieces of sandstone, 5 flakes, 2 possible groundstone fragments, and one piece of angular debris were located within this feature. The feature is about 75% intact.
Feature 7 is an area of mottled ash mixed with aeolian deposits about 2.5 m in diameter. There are two dark concentrated areas exposed on the surface at the north and south ends of the feature. Charcoal was noted in the north end. This feature is approximately 75% intact.
Feature 8 is a 1-m diameter area of ash-stained soil located about 5 m northwest of Feature 7. This is about 50% intact. Feautres 6-8 lie in an old two-track road and have been impacted by this area.
Feature 9 consists of sandstone rubble about 3 m in diameter. This likely represents a single-story, single-room structure and is possibly a fieldhouse. Feature 9 lies in a shallow drainage; water erosion has reduced its integrity to less than 25% intact. Few artifacts were observed.
Feature 10 is a hearth or possible kiln located east of Features 1 & 2. This consists of ashy soil mixed with aeolian deposits, 5-10 pieces of sandstone, and about 3 pieces of fire-cracked rock. This feature is about 2 m east-west by 1 m N-S and is about 75% intact. One piece of upright sandstone is on the east end.
114 Feature 11 is another ashy stain, about 1 by 2 m. This is ashy soil mixed with aeolian deposits and is about 50% intact.
Feature 12 is a possible check dam feature with about 7 pieces of sandstone. This is about 50 cm in diameter and is associated with a groundstone fragment. This check dam is about 75% intact.
Feature 13 is a large ash stain and possible kiln about 2 m in diameter. A Tsegi orangeware sherd, a Kayenta tradition plain grayware sherd, and a corrugated sherd were observed, along with 3 pieces of burned clay. This feature seems to be about 75% intact. Features 11-13 are in a west-sloping drainage, which has partially eroded the features.
Feature 14 is a discontinuous stand of ashy soil mixed with aeolian deposits. There are 3 exposed ashy areas. 1 corrugated and 1 white ware sherd were noted. A few sandstone slabs and one groundstone fragment were also noted. This feature is 5 m in diamter and a drainage runs northwest through the feature, which is about 50% intact.
This site has experienced multiple disturbances. A bladed road runs north-south through the site and an old two-track road runs east-west along the south boundary of the site along a fenceline. Multiple drainages run downslope west through the site, eroding some features. Extensive woodcutting has occurred on the site. A lack of large sherds near Features 1 and 2 and the proximity to the road might indicate some surface collection. 3 bifaces were located- 2 undiagnostic (probable projectile points) and 1 serrated (probable Archaic dart point). A couple Deadmans Black-on-red sherds were found near Features 1 and 2.
Water erosion, woodcutting, road, surface Condition: Good Disturbances: collection
Eligibility recommendation: Significant
Statement of significance: This site is recommended as eligible to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion d of 36 CFR 60.4. Despite multiple impacts to the site, 42SA29954 is significant for multiple reasons. First, it represents a relatively large habitation site for Cedar Mesa, with multiple components. The site contains rich midden deposits, and there are more than likely subsurface deposits in other portions of the site. The site could yield data about Pueblo II-III settlement patterns, as well as use of field houses, kilns, and check dams.
Site Number: 42SA29955 Temporary site number: CMLS-10
Topographical features: Mesa, ridge Area (m2): 4,086
Site type: Limited activity area Period: Pueblo III
Site description: The 42SA29955 assemblage is divided by a moderately deep drainage trending east-west. Ceramics and lithics were noted along the north and south banks of the drainages. Water erosion has somewhat impacted the site integrity, reducing it to about 75-99%. Soils are stabilized, however, by a widespread cryptobiotic soil crust. The local vegetative community is dominated by pinyon-juniper overstory. Cedar Mesa sandstone bedrock is exposed in the drainage running through the site.
A few artifacts (<10) appear to have been carried downslope to the southwest by water erosion. These artifacts may also be associated with 42SA29954, which is located about 40-50 m southwest of 42SA29955.
The majority of ceramics associated with this site are located on the north bank of the site's major drainage. Based on the ceramic types noted, 42SA29955 appears to be a Pueblo III site. A possible feature was noted on the southwest edge of the site. This feature contains one two-handed, two-sided mano fragment, one unidentifiable groundstone fragment, and one burned rock. Light ash was also noted, but the feature has been impacted by water erosion and retains less than 50% of its original integrity.
115
Condition: Poor Disturbances: Water erosion
Eligibility recommendation: Not significant
Statement of significance: The site is highly eroded and retains little integrity.
Site Number: 42SA29959 Temporary site number: CMLS-14
Topographical features: Mesa, ridge Area (m2): 7,219
Site type: Habitation; Temporary habitation Period: Basketmaker III; Pueblo III
Site description: This site consists of a few concentrated areas of ceramic and lithic fragments. There is one midden (Feature 2) oriented to the south. Ashy soil and an ashy feature are also present, as well as a feature of masonry rubble with no associated artifacts. Ceramic fragments are mostly gray ware with about 10 corrugated sherds. The site is oriented north-south, with a Pueblo component in the north indicated by the presence of corrugated ceramics. The midden contains evidence of Basketmaker presence, due to the amount of late-stage lithic debris and presence of plain gray ware. There has been minimal impact by water erosion, most likely due to the vegetation present. The south end of the site has experienced the most erosion.
Feature 1 is a rubble pile consisting of the remains of a low-lying masonry structure. This feature is likely a Pueblo period field house constructed over a Basketmaker III site. The low density of Pueblo sherds on site indicates a temporary Puebloan use of the site. One Mesa Verde Black-on-white sherd was associated with this feature. There are two upright slabs in this feature.
Feature 2 is an ashy midden, likely part of the Basketmaker III component of the site. An abundance of plain gray ware and absence of Pueblo pottery indicates that this feature is associated with Feature 3. The midden contains jacal fragments and a fragment of a non-human cervical vertebra. This feature is about 15 m south of Feature 4. Within this feature we located a Basketmaker III- Pueblo I chalcedony projectile point and a white chalcedony Pueblo III point missing its tip. This projectile point is an un-notched triangular type, probably diagnostic to between A.D. 1050 and 1300, and may be a Bull Creek point. A McElmo Black-on-white sherd was found east of Feature 2, as well.
Feature 3 is an area of small sandstone rubble fragments, plain gray ware sherds, a few corrugated sherds, and flaked lithics. One hammerstone was also noted.
Feature 4 is on the northeast end of the site and consists of a small amount of sandstone rubble approximately 2 m in diameter. There is a possible wall alignment running approximately north-south. Adjacent to this feature is a McElmo sherd. The function of this feature is unknown. To the east is a linear area of internal drainage, which may represent a pitstructure depression.
On the northern-most Pueblo component of the site, there was also a small pile of lithics and ceramic sherds, indicating a previous collector's pile and re-scatter. In the pile were 2 corrugated sherds, gray ware sherds, and several lithic fragments.
Condition: Good Disturbances: Water erosion
Eligibility recommendation: Significant
Statement of significance: This site is recommended as eligible to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion d of 36 CFR 60.4. This site could yield data on Basketmaker III and Pueblo III use of Cedar Mesa. The dual component site might shed light on the Puebloan re-use or re-occupation of Basketmaker sites.
116 Site Number: 42SA29961 Temporary site number: CMLS-16
Topographical features: Mesa, ridge Area (m2): 2,387
Site type: Temporary habitation/ camp Period: Pueblo II-III
Site description: Site 42SA29961 is located in a sandy loess deposit on a north-facing slope. There is low-to- moderate water erosion due to several shallow rills cross-cutting the site. The local vegetative community has helped mitigate the effects of wind and water erosion. The overstory consists of nearly 75% pinyon and 25% juniper. The understory is predominantly sagebrush.
This site consists of a midden and a surrounding low-to-moderate density artifact scatter. There seem to be two components. The first (Feature 1) is a midden-type deposit of ashy soils, lithic flakes, and ceramics. Dog- leash unit A was installed in this feature and reveals a late Pueblo III, primarily Mesa Verde tradition component. A small collector's pile near this feature indicates surface collection.
Feature 2 is a small pile of rubble about 2 m in diameter. This might be associated with Feature 1. There is no apparent shape to this feature, and no associated artifacts.
The southwest portion of the site is a moderate scatter of lithics and ceramics, with more flakes than sherds. The ceramic assemblage is primarily Pueblo II, containing Deadmans Black-on-red and Mancos Black-on-white sherds. One trough metate fragment was also noted. Dog-leash unit B was installed in this scatter. Two projectile points were also noted. One is a complete dart point—possibly Basketmaker II—made of purple chert, and the other is the midsection of a triangular projectile point made from jasper.
Condition: Good Disturbances: Water erosion, surface collection, woodcutting
Eligibility recommendation: Significant
Statement of significance: This site is recommended as eligible to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion d of 36 CFR 60.4. The site maintains integrity, and could yield information about Pueblo II and III use of Cedar Mesa.
Site Number: 42SA29962 Temporary site number: CMLS-17
Topographical features: Mesa, ridge Area (m2): 662
Site type: Limited activity area Period: Pueblo II-III
Site description: This site is located in a relatively open sage field opening to Highway 261 to the east. There is evidence of recent woodcutting and cattle grazing activity. Two bifaces and one cord-marked sherd were located, as well as a Deadmans Black-on-red sherd and Mesa Verde and Kayenta tradition ceramics. The associated ceramics are Pueblo II to Pueblo III. The soil on site is relatively thin.
The central portion of the site contains a small concentration of rubble. The site seems to be a limited activity area used over a long period of time. No features are noted, but there may be subsurface deposits.
Condition: Good Disturbances: Water erosion, woodcutting
Eligibility recommendation: Unevaluated
Statement of significance: There may be subsurface deposits, but further testing is needed.
117 Site Number: 42SA29963 Temporary site number: CMLS-18
Topographical features: Mesa, ridge Area (m2): 1,787
Site type: Temporary habitation Period: Pueblo II-III
Site description: This site lies in an open sagebrush plain and seems to be confined to the sage-dominant area. The site lies on a gentle, north-facing slope with deep soils. There is extensive woodcutting on the exterior boundaries of the site, and a woodcutters’ road cuts the northwest boundary.
The site consists of a light-to-moderate scatter of lithics and ceramics. There are a few areas of concentrated sandstone slabs, which may indicate subsurface features, with a diffuse scatter of sandstone throughout the site. This seems to be a temporary habitation or perhaps a field house.
Feature 1 is a rubble concentration about 5 m north-south by 8 m east-west. There are no clear wall alignments, although there are two upright sandstone slabs in the northeast part of the feature.
Feature 2 is a rubble concentration about 2 m north-south by 2 m east-west. There are three upright sandstone slabs in a clear wall alignment running north-south on the east side of the feature. Another less clear alignment runs east-west on the north side of the feature and abuts the uprights, forming the northeast corner of what appears to be a one-room structure.
Some burned sandstone fragments are dispersed throughout the site.
Condition: Good Disturbances: Woodcutting, woodcutters’ road
Eligibility recommendation: Significant
Statement of significance: This site is recommended as eligible to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion d of 36 CFR 60.4. The site maintains integrity, and could yield information about Pueblo II and III use of Cedar Mesa.
Site Number: 42SA29971 Temporary site number: CMLS-27
Topographical features: Mesa, ridge Area (m2): 13,242
Site type: Habitation Period: Pueblo II
Site description: 42SA29971 sits in an open sage plain on a small rise. Sage and grasses are predominant, but some pinyon and juniper is also present. There are likely deep soils covering many of the site features. A bladed, well- maintained road runs southeast to northwest south of the site. Wind and water erosion and cattle trampling have impacted the site. Because of its proximity to the road, as well as the presence of more flakes than ceramics, it I assumed that the site has been extensively surface collected.
This site is a late Pueblo II habitation, with three roomblocks, one clear midden, and a possible pitstructure depression.
Feature 1 is a rubble scatter with at least 2 wall alignments, interpreted as a roomblock. This feature is about 3 m north-south by 12 m east-west. It is unclear how many rooms there might be, and it is likely that there are subsurface deposits. A mounded area continuing southeast from the rubble may represent more of this roomblock.
Feature 2 is a midden to the south of Feature 1. More flakes than sherds were noted, and this is probably due to surface collecting activity. There may be a pitstructure/kiva depression between the roomblock and midden (and partially underlying the midden).
118 Feature 3 is a small rubble pile southwest of Feature 1 and west of Feature 2. One wall alignment is visible, and this feature may only be one room. Again, it is likely that much of this feature is buried.
Feature 4 is another roomblock with at least 4 wall alignments about 50 m west of Features 1-3. This part of the site may represent another distinct site, but the ceramics observed and the location on the same ridge suggests they were occupied contemporaneously and suggest to the investigators that they were part of the same habitation. This roomblock might be 2 rooms deep and about 2 or 3 rooms long.
Feature 5 is another rubble pile and possible roomblock south of Feature 4. This may be 1 or 2 rooms with one clear wall alignment.
There does not seem to be a midden or pitstructure associated with Features 4 and 5.
A basin metate fragment, grinding slab fragment, one-hand mano, and cobble chopper were noted in association with Features 1-3. There is a rubble scatter west of Feature 5, but is too buried to identify as a feature. This may represent another buried roomblock. Also, there are likely several buried pitstructures within this site.
Wind and water erosion, cattle trampling, Condition: Good Disturbances: surface collection
Eligibility recommendation: Significant
Statement of significance: This site is recommended as eligible to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion d of 36 CFR 60.4. The site maintains integrity, and could yield information about Pueblo II use of Cedar Mesa.
Site Number: 42SA29972 Temporary site number: CMLS-28
Topographical features: Mesa, dune Area (m2): 4,365
Site type: Temporary habitation; Limited activity area Period: Basketmaker II; Pueblo II
Site description: 42SA29972 is located on the northern bank of bedrock drainage. San Juan County Road 245 (Cigarette Spring Rd.) lies about 30 m south of the drainage. Several features containing diffuse rubble were noted eroding out of the aeolian deposits along the northern edge of the drainage. These features also contain some artifacts, mainly lithic debris.
Feature 1 is a 1-m diameter storage cist and associated scatter of rubble within a 2-m radius. Feature 2 also appears to be the remnants of a 1.2-m diameter cist; rubble associated with this feature is eroding south, into the bedrock drainage.
Feature 3 is a rubble scatter measuring 3 m north-south by 2.5 m east-west at the southern edge of the sage flats bordering the northern edge of the bedrock drainage. Feature 4 is a 6-m diameter scatter of rubble exposed in an inter-dunal drainage within the aeolian deposits bordering the bedrock drainage. This feature contains a projectile point base and 2 Tusayan/Moenkopi corrugated sherds. Limestone was also noted. Feature 5 is an approximately 9 by 3 m scatter of rubble oriented northwest by southeast within an inter-dunal drainage in the aeolian deposits at the northern edge of the site's associated bedrock drainage.
The assemblage contains about 25 lithic reduction flakes and shatter, one groundstone fragment, 3 pieces of Tusayan/Moenkopi corrugated ware, and one Sosi black-on-white sherd. The nature of occupation at 42SA29972 is unclear, although it is likely that the location was used for its water resources across multiple time periods. Rubble scattered in the large bedrock drainage may represent the remains of check-dams. The aeolian deposits along the northern edge of the drainage likely contain buried structural remains, based on the amount of rubble exposed by water erosion.
119 Condition: Good Disturbances: Water erosion, surface collection
Eligibility recommendation: Significant
Statement of significance: This site is recommended as eligible to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion d of 36 CFR 60.4. This site seems to have been used through multiple time periods, and is on an area with deep aeolian dune deposits. There are more than likely deep subsurface deposits at this site, and it could yield information on Ancestral Puebloan settlement and water use in the Cedar Mesa region.
Site Number: 42SA29974 Temporary site number: CMLS-30
Topographical features: Mesa, slope Area (m2): 947
Site type: Water control Period: Basketmaker III (?); Pueblo III
Site description: This site is a midden and what appears to be a possible reservoir. The site lies on a west-facing slope near the head of a drainage/canyon that feeds Bullet Canyon. Pinyon-juniper is dominant, with a sage understory and Russian olive and tamarisk in the drainage bottom.
Feature 1 is a midden consisting of sandstone rubble, flakes, and one observed sherd (Mesa Verde Black-on-white). Eight unshaped azurite spheres were found scattered at the base of the midden, near the bottom of the drainage. The midden covers much of the slope, starting on bedrock at the top of the slope and extending into the drainage bottom. Some ashy stain is evident.
Feature 2 is a possible reservoir or water control feature, about 10 m northeast of Feature 1. This feature lies on a bedrock drainage lying on a slope, feeding into the larger drainage. This feature is a combination of natural bedrock features and dry-laid masonry rubble. The bedrock forms a basin and dry-laid masonry on the south and west edges closes in the reservoir. The rubble at the base of the feature (the west edge) seems to have blown out and washed down the drainage.
Feature 3 lies above Feature 2 to the east about 10 m. This appears to be a check dam constructed with upright slabs and rubble, channeling water into the reservoir.
This site is thought to be Pueblo III, based on the site type and one sherd, however, the azurite spheres indicate a Basketmaker III use of the midden. Extensive rubble washing down slope suggests there may have been more masonry features upslope of the features observed, but they are no longer intact.
Condition: Fair Disturbances: Water erosion
Eligibility recommendation: Significant
Statement of significance: This site is recommended as eligible to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion d of 36 CFR 60.4. The site maintains integrity, and could yield information about Pueblo III use of Cedar Mesa, including data about prehistoric water control.
Site Number: 42SA29975 Temporary site number: CMLS-31
Topographical features: Mesa, ridge Area (m2): 1,770
Site type: Habitation Period: Pueblo II
Site description: This site lies just west of Highway 261 in an area of deep soils with pinyon-juniper dominant on the east edge of a sage plain. Shallow drainages cut through the site.
120 This is likely a habitation, occupied briefly as indicated by the lack of a midden and very few associated artifacts.
Feature 1 lies on a west-facing slope just east of the sage expanse. This consists of a roomblock, about 18 m north-south by 2.5 m east-west. Five wall alignments are evident, and the roomblock appears to be one room deep by possibly 6-7 rooms long. A wash cuts through this feature, so it has been mapped as Feature 1a and 1b.
Feature 2 is a storage cist that lies in a south-facing drainage, about 60 m southeast of Feature 1. Four upright sandstone slabs are evident, and this feature is about 50 cm in diameter. The soil inside the feature is ash-stained and a piece of burned clay was noted. A plain gray rim sherd was also inside this feature. A Kayenta tradition corrugated sherd, one Mesa Verde tradition white ware sherd, and one Kayenta tradition black-on-white sherd were also noted near this feature. Also, one Citadel polychrome sherd was noted between Features 1 and 2.
Condition: Good Disturbances: Water erosion
Eligibility recommendation: Significant
Statement of significance: This site is recommended as eligible to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion d of 36 CFR 60.4. There are likely subsurface deposits. This site could yield information on Pueblo II settlement on Cedar Mesa. A possible kiln at the site could also yield data on local production of ceramics, which is important because of the existence of multiple ceramic traditions on Cedar Mesa.
Site Number: 42SA29976 Temporary site number: CMLS-32
Topographical features: Mesa, ridge Area (m2): 2,783
Site type: Habitation Period: Basketmaker (?); Pueblo II-III
Site description: 42SA29976 is a Pueblo-period roomblock site and assoicated midden located along the western slopes of a low rise. The site has sustained moderate impact from water erosion- a series of shallow drainages run downslope and perpendicular to the topographic contours along the site's northern, western, and southern boudaries. The site boundaries continue east along relatively level terrain. The local vegetative community is dominated by an overstory of pinyon and juniper in nearly equal proportions. The understory is dominated by sage. Additional impacts to the site include heavy woodcutting activity.
Bedrock exposed along the western edges of the low rise has been used as the eastern wall of a roomblock containing at least three rooms. Based on the amount of rubble associated with this feature (Feature 1), it is likely that these rooms were only one story in height. The midden deposits scattered along the western and southern margins of Feature 1 have been designated Feature 2. This feature has sustained moderate-to-heavy impact from water erosion, but still retains ash- stained loesses, a dense scatter of late Pueblo II to Pueblo III ceramics, flakes and angular debris, and groundstone. Two 4-m diameter analysis units were placed within this feature. Dog-leash unit A contained a grey chert San Pedro type projectile point in addition to the assemblage components noted above. Dog-leash unit B contained one piece of raw turquoise ground on one side in addition to the artifacts previously mentioned.
Feature 3 represents the remains of a one-room structure. Several courses of sandstone blocks have collapsed in a 4-m diameter area.
Feature 4 is an approximately 6 m east-west by 3.5 m north-south scatter of rubble within ash-stained loesses. The northeast portion of the feature is defined by several sandstone uprights and a slab-lined circular pit (possible cist) was noted in the southwest portion of the feature.
121 Feature 5 is an area of ashy-stained silty soils about 6 m in diameter. No jacal was noted, but the feature is associated with a light scatter of flakes. This may represent a Basketmaker component of the site.
Condition: Good Disturbances: Water erosion, woodcutting
Eligibility recommendation: Significant
Statement of significance: This site is recommended as eligible to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion d of 36 CFR 60.4. The site maintains integrity, and could yield information about Pueblo II and III use of Cedar Mesa. The rich midden deposits suggest the site was occupied for a relatively long period of time, and the site likely contains subsurface deposits.
Site Number: 42SA29977 Temporary site number: CMLS-33
Topographical features: Mesa, ridge Area (m2): 3,473
Site type: Habitation Period: Pueblo II
Site description: This site consists of a sprawling Pueblo II midden with evidence of an early Archaic component. There are two deflated rock reatures located on top of a small ridge flanked by incised drainages. The midden is exposed in deflated areas caused by natural erosion and the presence of a user-created two-track road. No structures were observed. Based on the extent of the midden, it seems likely that buried architecture exists.
Feature 1 is the midden which wraps around the north side of the ridge and up on top of the ridge to the east. It measures 25 by 20 m and consists of ashy soil, lithic debitage, projectile points, stone tools, ceramics, and burned bone. Both burned and unburned sandstone fragments exist in the midden, as well. In the northwest portion of the midden is a depressed, deflated area on the ridge top with larger pieces of sandstone and may suggest deflated or burned architecture. Two dog-leash units (A and B) were installed in the midden, and a third to the south on the southern slope of the ridge (DL-C). Dog-leash unit A contained extensive microdebitage and burned bone.
Feature 2 is a highly deflated sandstone concentration on the south side of the ridge. It consists of 22 pieces of burned and unburned sandstone in a 1.5 by 2 m area. The function of this feature is unknown.
Feature 3 is a highly deflated sandstone concentration on the south side of the ridge. It consists of 32 pieces of sub-angular unburned and burned sandstone in a 2.5 by 0.75 m area. The function of this feature is also unknown.
Artifacts consist of primarily Pueblo II ceramics and a variety of high-quality chert flakes. Two dart points and three arrow points were also found. An Abajo Red-on-orange sherd suggests a possible Pueblo I component, though this is the only Pueblo I sherd found on the site. Deadmans Black-on-red, Mancos Black-on-white, and Black Mesa Black-on-white indicate a Pueblo II component, and the dart point and variety of lithic material suggests an Archaic component.
Condition: Fair Disturbances: Deflation, road
Eligibility recommendation: Significant
Statement of significance: This site is recommended as eligible to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion d of 36 CFR 60.4. The site has substantial midden deposits and likely contains intact subsurface deposits, including possible architecture. This site could yield data on Pueblo II use of Cedar Mesa.
122 Site Number: 42SA29978 Temporary site number: CMLS-34
Topographical features: Mesa, ridge Area (m2): 1,525
Site type: Limited activity area; Habitation (?) Period: Basketmaker II; Pueblo II-III
Site description: This site lies on a north-facing slope with deep soils and a few shallow drainages. The site is in an area of pinyon-juniper on the edge of a large sage plain.
The site consists of two features, which represent two components. Feature 1 is a midden about 10 m in diameter consisting of ashy soils, flakes, sherds, and lithic tools. The assemblage suggests a late Pueblo II- Pueblo III component. No apparent features are associated with this midden. It is possible that there are pitstructures, but they are not visible on the surface. One dog-leash unit (DL-A) was tallied within this feature.
Feature 2 is a series of four possible cists. These lie side-by-side in a north-south alignment on a ridge. The cists are constructed of upright sandstone slabs and one contains ashy soils. These cists range from 50-75 cm in diameter. The northern-most cist contains dark ash staining, but an approximately 4-m diameter area of stained soils surrounds the cists. This feature lies about 15 m south of Feature 1. The associate assemblage consists of lithics and one Archaic projectile point. This feature is likely Basketmaker II.
Extensive woodcutting an a user-created two-track road on the northeast end of Feature 1 have disturbed the site.
Condition: Good Disturbances: Wind and water erosion, woodcutting, road
Eligibility recommendation: Significant
Statement of significance: This site is recommended as eligible to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion d of 36 CFR 60.4. The site maintains integrity, and could yield information about Pueblo II and III use of Cedar Mesa.
Site Number: 42SA29980 Temporary site number: CMLS-36
Topographical features: Mesa, ridge Area (m2): 3,550
Site type: Habitation Period: Basketmaker II; Pueblo II-III
Site description: This site contains areas of masonry rubble lacking any definitive overall shape or layout and also contains numerous limestone fragments and lithic flakes. The site dates primarily to the Basketmaker II time period, but includes a Pueblo II-III component. There is extensive drainage on the site, which sits on a hill sloped both to the east and west on either side. The site is therefore exposed to wind and water erosion. The Pueblo component is in the northern edge of the site and is identified as Pueblo II-III based on the ceramic assemblage. There is a drainage down slope to the east cutting through this area, in which several sherds and two manos were found. Sherds are primarily Pueblo II-III black-on-white, one of which is a very large bowl sherd.
This site is south of a drainage into Bullet Canyon. A woodcutters’ road runs along the north edge of the site, between the site and canyon rim. Woodcutting has occurred on site.
Feature 1 is a concentration of rubble (or possibly two concentrations which have eroded into one feature) with no clear wall alignments. This feature sits on an east-facing slope, with shallow drainages running through it. Flakes and limestone fragments and one one-handed mano were observed in this feature, as well. This rubble scatter consists of sandstone fragments between 5 and 25 cm in diameter and measures 15 m north-south by 6 m east-west. 5 projectile point bases were found here. Dog-leash unit A was installed in this feature.
123 Feature 2 is a midden north of Feature 1 on an east-facing slope. Shallow drainages cut this area of ashy soil, flakes, limestone fragments, and rubble. This feature measures 7 m north-south by 9 m east-west and lies between Features 1 and 3.
Feature 3 is another amorphous rubble concentration 11 m in diameter on a ridge, which slopes to the southeast and northeast. Much of the rubble has eroded down slope to the east. Sandstone fragments in this feature range from 2 to 20 cm in diameter. Feature 3 contains flakes, limestone, fire-cracked rock, and a hammerstone. There might be two concentrations (north and south) with ashy soil down slope of the northern concentration.
Feature 4 is another rubble concentration 5 m in diameter without any real shape. Sandstone fragments range from 5 to 25 cm in diameter. Some flakes were observed in this feature. Feature 4 sits on a north-facing slope with a shallow drainage through it.
Feature 5 is a small, ash-stained rubble concentration 2.5 m in diameter northeast of Feature 3. This feature lies on a southeast-facing slope with a drainage cutting the north end. It consists of sandstone fragments ranging between 5 and 15 cm in diameter. Much of the sandstone has been burned.
Feature 6 is a late Pueblo II and III component. This feature is a roomblock 13.5 m northeast-southwest by 6 m northwest-southeast on a southwest facing slope. A shallow drainage is causing it to erode down slope. At least two wall alignments are visible on the northeast and southwest ends. One upright sandstone slab is also visible. Ceramics in this feature indicate a late Pueblo II-III occupation, primarily of the Mesa Verde tradition. Dog-leash unit B was set up in this feature.
Feature 7 is another amorphous rubble concentration measuring 9 m east-west by 2 m north-south. This feature lies in a basin created by two slopes, with a drainage running northwest through it. The sandstone rubble ranges from 5 to 30 cm in diameter. Some burned sandstone is present, but no artifacts were observed. Some flakes were noted to the northeast of this feature.
Condition: Fair Disturbances: Wind and water erosion, woodcutting
Eligibility recommendation: Significant
Statement of significance: This site is recommended as eligible to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion d of 36 CFR 60.4. This site contains multiple components which could yield data on Basketmaker II and Pueblo II-III settlement of Cedar Mesa. Numerous ashy deposits of soil suggest subsurface deposits.
Site Number: 42SA29981 Temporary site number: CMLS-37
Topographical features: Mesa, ridge Area (m2): 532
Site type: Limited activity area Period: Pueblo II-III
Site description: This site consists of a low density ceramic and lithic scatter within a small sage flat, surrounded by a mixed (50%-50%) pinyon-juniper overstory. A low-density scatter of rubble was noted near the site’s center, but was too amorphous/deflated to be recognized as a structural element or feature. Based on the results of a search- and-tally artifact inventory, this site appears to contain a late Pueblo II to Pueblo III component. In addition to nearly no flakes and angular debris, one utilized flake and one biface tip were found.
Condition: Fair Disturbances: Water erosion, deflation
Eligibility recommendation: Unevaluated
Statement of significance: There may be subsurface deposits, but further testing is needed.
124 Site Number: 42SA29982 Temporary site number: CMLS-38
Topographical features: Mesa, ridge Area (m2): 1,440
Site type: Limited activity area Period: Pueblo II
Site description: This site consists mostly of masonry rubble located on a hilltop, which slopes to the north. Just north of the site is bedrock with basins that would have been suitable for collecting and storing water. There is a small area of low concentration scatter surrounding the rubble. There are only a few Pueblo III black-on-white ceramics present. Lithic artifacts include debitage, a biface fragment, and at least one core fragment. There are no apparent alignments within the rubble. The hilltop also slopes to the south and west. Rubble is also present down slope and to the west, which may indicated terracing. There is a possible midden to the south of Feature 1; however, the low density of artifacts here indicates either largely buried refuse or previous surface collecting. There is a third feature (Feature 3) to the east of the hill consisting of rubble surrounding the base of a juniper tree. The orientation of some of these slabs indicates wall fall.
Feature 1 is a large, circular concentration of rubble on top of a hill that slopes to the north, west, and south. No wall alignments are apparent, and it is unclear if this rubble represents a tower or roomblock. At least 150 pieces of sandstone are present.
Feature 2 is a rubble alignment down slope and west of Feature 1. The situation of this rubble indicates that it may represent a terracing wall, as it bounds in soils above it between Features 1 and 2.
Feature 3 is a small rubble concentration southeast of Feature 1, measuring about 6 m in diameter. Some wall fall is apparent, and this may represent a one-room structure.
Drainages are washing rubble down the north, west, and south slopes of the hill, especially to the west. Woodcutting and a woodcutters’ road is also disturbing the site.
Condition: Good Disturbances: Water erosion, woodcutting, woodcutters’ road
Eligibility recommendation: Significant
Statement of significance: This site is recommended as eligible to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion d of 36 CFR 60.4. The site maintains integrity, and could yield information about Pueblo II use of Cedar Mesa.
Site Number: 42SA29983 Temporary site number: CMLS-39
Topographical features: Mesa, ridge Area (m2): 965
Site type: Limited activity area Period: Pueblo III
Site description: This site consists of a low-density ceramic and lithic scatter in a mixed pinyon-juniper and sage environment. The local topography appears to be relatively stable, although a 1-2 degree slope was observed in nearly every direction from the site’s center. Woodcutting activity has severely impacted the site’s integrity and surface visibility has been drastically reduced from the resulting debris. Nonetheless, a small assemblage of flakes, angular debris, one bifacial tool, one unimarginally retouched tool, Pueblo III Mesa Verde tradition ceramics, and one Tsegi polychrome were noted. In addition, two upright slabs placed end-to-end and oriented north-south were found near the site’s datum. Another two upright slabs were found about 3 m east of these. Based on the assemblage, the site appears to be a Pueblo III limited activity area.
Condition: Good Disturbances: Woodcutting
Eligibility recommendation: Unevaluated
125
Statement of significance: There may be subsurface deposits, but further testing is needed.
Site Number: 42SA29986 Temporary site number: CMLS-42
Topographical features: Mesa, ridge Area (m2): 2,695
Site type: Habitation Period: Pueblo II-III
Site description: This site is located on the southern slope of a low rise overlooking a large sage flat to the south. The vegetative community is dominated by sage and grasses at the edge of a pinyon-dominated overstory (juniper was also noted). The site may have sustained unauthorized excavation and surface collection in the past—Highway 261 is about 50 m southeast of the site—but no direct evidence was found. The major source of disturbance at the site is bioturbation. Extensive krotovina was noted in and around the roomblock structure (probably from badgers).
The site contains the remains of a Pueblo roomblock (Feature 1). Based on remaining alignments and the amount of rubble present, this feature contained at least three rooms and was only one story tall.
Feature 2 is a midden associated with Feature 1. Two dog-leash analysis units, each 4 m in diameter, were placed inside the midden for artifact inventory. These contained Pueblo II and III ceramics, but Dogoszhi Black-on-white and McElmo Black-on-white sherds and possible Citadel Polychrome ladle fragment were found in other areas of the site. Two chalcedony projectile points were noted in association with Feature 2. Both dog-leash units contained a moderate amount of microdebitage and burned bone. DL-B contained a single piece of worked mammal bone and one Mancos Black-on-white shaped sherd, possibly a pendant preform.
Feature 3 is a 1-m diameter cist. It is unclear whether this feature is contemporaneous with the Pueblo component of the site- no associated artifacts were noted.
Condition: Fair Disturbances: Bioturbation- extensive krotovina
Eligibility recommendation: Significant
Statement of significance: This site is recommended as eligible to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion d of 36 CFR 60.4. Despite disturbances, this site likely contains subsurface deposits and could yield information on Pueblo II and III use of Cedar Mesa.
Site Number: 42SA29987 Temporary site number: CMLS-43
Topographical features: Mesa, ridge Area (m2): 1,845
Site type: Limited activity area Period: Pueblo II-III
Site description: This is a highly deflated site consisting of a light-to-moderate concentration of artifacts. The site lies in a sagebrush expanse with pinyon-juniper forest to the south, west, and north. Wind and water erosion have impacted the site. County Road 245 is about 150 m to the north.
The site contains about 20 sherds, of which a few are diagnostic to the Pueblo III period. About 30 flakes were noted, as well as one possible drill midsection and the base of an un-notched projectile point. One two-hand mano fragment and a grinding slab fragment were also noted.
Dispersed sandstone fragments might indicate the remains of a field house, but no features were apparent. The artifact concentration is slightly denser in a 10-m diameter area around the datum.
126 Condition: Fair Disturbances: Wind and water erosion, deflation
Eligibility recommendation: Unevaluated
Statement of significance: There may be subsurface deposits, but further testing is needed.
Site Number: 42SA29988 Temporary site number: CMLS-44
Topographical features: Mesa, ridge Area (m2): 1,881
Site type: Habitation Period: Pueblo II-III
Site description: This site lies on a south- and southeast-facing slope at the base of a sandstone rim. Moderate drainages have cut the site in a few places. Pinyon-juniper woodland is dominant, with few grasses and forbs making up the understory. No pot hunting is apparent, though woodcutting activity has occurred here.
The site consists of a shallow alcove with an enclosing wall, a midden, and another wall alignment. Feature 1 is a midden, which extends nearly across the whole slope, up to the rim rock and to Feature 2. This midden consists of a moderate-to-heavy density of artifacts with some areas of ashy-stained soil. The midden contains flakes, sherds, a one-hand mano fragment, and a few biface fragments. Dog-leash units A, B, and C were placed in this feature.
Feature 2 is set against the sandstone rim and shallow alcove. One semicircular row of large sandstone blocks extends from one end of the alcove to the other. This appears to block in the alcove and part of the slope to the southwest. A depression within this bounded area suggests a kiva or pitstructure may have been here, though water erosion has affected the integrity of the area.
Feature 3 is an alignment of 7 large sandstone blocks on the south edge of the site. It is unclear what function this alignment served. The duff from a large pinyon and juniper upslope of this feature may be concealing some of the feature.
Water erosion, possible surface collection, Condition: Fair Disturbances: woodcutting
Eligibility recommendation: Significant
Statement of significance: This site is recommended as eligible to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion d of 36 CFR 60.4. The site maintains integrity, and could yield information about Pueblo II and III use of Cedar Mesa.
Site Number: 42SA29989 Temporary site number: CMLS-45
Topographical features: Mesa, slope Area (m2): 14,083
Site type: Habitation Period: Pueblo II-III
Site description: 42SA29989 is an extensive habitation site on a south- and southwest-facing slope at the base of a sandstone rim. Deep drainages cut the site, indicating that there are deep soils (aeolian and residual). The vegetation is mostly pinyon-juniper woodland with an understory of few grasses and forbs. One looter’s hole was observed in Feature 2 (midden) and surface collection has probably occurred. Woodcutting has also taken place on site, with one woodcutters’ road coming directly into Feature 2 from Highway 261. The highway is about 100 m west and southwest of the site. 42SA29988 is just north of here.
Feature 1 is a concentration of cists and/or hearths constructed of upright sandstone slabs. Each is about 1 m in diameter and contains ashy soil. Three of the cists/hearths lie clustered together around 3 small pinyon trees, and the
127 fourth is set off from the others about 3 m to the southwest. A drainage runs down slope to the west between two of the cists/hearths and contains about 20 pieces of burned sandstone.
Feature 2 is a midden that encompasses Feature 1. Based on the amount of artifacts and dark staining, deposits were made in this midden over a long period of time. Four concentrations were noted (labeled a, b, c, d on the map) and dog-leash units A, B, and C were tallied in this feature. The midden contains flakes, sherds, a few flaked tools, including one projectile point fragment, several mano fragments, and burned sandstone. There is a looter’s pit in this feature, under a pinyon and juniper tree on the west edge.
Feature 3 is a concentration of rubble 10 m by 5 m with one clear wall alignment, probably representing a roomblock. This feature lies north of Feature 2 (the midden), between the midden and rim rock. This roomblock was only one story tall, but may have contained between 3 and 6 rooms.
Feature 4 is a small concentration of rubble about 1 m in diameter in a northwest-facing drainage. This may represent a cist or hearth and contains ashy soils. A few ceramics are associated with this feature.
Feature 5 is an area of ashy soils and another possible cist about 3 m in diameter. Two drainages lie on either side. A few pieces of sandstone rubble, flakes, and small burned sandstone fragments are in association. About 7 m south of this stained soil is a possible cist with two upright slabs visible at the base of a dead juniper.
Feature 6 is another hearth feature. This feature is square, about 175 cm in length, and contains 5 upright slabs. There is ashy-stained soil in the feature, and more stained soil outside the feature to the west. Beware of ant hill!
Feature 7 is an approximately 1.5 m diameter area of carbon-stained soil on a narrow inter-drainage ridge of residual and aeolian deposits. The feature has sustained moderate impact from water erosion and is less than 75% intact. This feature contains a handful of flakes, angular debris, and undecorated Mesa Verde tradition white ware sherds. There are two large rocks in the feature of unknown purpose.
Feature 8 is an ovate area of carbon-stained soil located on the north bank of a large drainage that extends to Highway 261. Heavy impact from water runoff and slope wash has reduced integrity to about 50%. A few blocks of sandstone are scattered in the far east portion of the feature. Flakes, one river cobble (possibly reused as a mano), and 10 small pieces of sandstone were noted in the west portion of the feature. One undecorated Mesa Verde tradition white ware was noted in the north portion.
Feature 9 is a 6-m diameter area of carbon-stained soil, about 5 groundstone fragments, about 10 sandstone pieces, less than 10 flakes, and one gray ware sherd were located on the bank of a large drainage about 15 m east of Feature 8. This feature has been impacted in the same way as Feature 8.
Feature 10 is a midden abutting sandstone bedrock and is heavily impacted by water erosion (less than 50% intact). Carbon-stained soil is still evident beneath a mixture of residual and aeolian deposits. Several sherds, flakes, and angular debris were noted throughout.
Feature 11 is an alignment of 7 large upright sandstone slabs below a shallow, short alcove. The alignment, about 5 m long, extends northwest-southeast and connects with the rim rock on the northwest end. This may have served as an enclosing wall for some sort of storage feature.
Feature 12 is an historic rock wall and brush fence in the northeast corner of the site, likely used to fence cattle. No prehistoric artifacts were noted. The rock wall is dry-laid, 1-3 courses of small-to-large sandstone blocks (10-50 cm in diameter). The wall extends across bedrock into a low overhang on the north. This wall measures about 9 m long. The remains of a brush fence have fallen down slope of this wall to the west. A brush fence lies northwest of the wall and extends east-west across the bedrock. This brush fence is about 10 m long, and more sections of a brush fence extend to the south along the rim rock.
128 Water erosion, unauthorized excavation and Condition: Fair Disturbances: surface collection, woodcutting, woodcutters’ road
Eligibility recommendation: Significant
Statement of significance: This site is recommended as eligible to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion d of 36 CFR 60.4. This site likely contains subsurface deposits and could yield information on Pueblo II and III use of Cedar Mesa. The numerous areas of dark stained soil and rich midden deposits suggest extensive use of the site.
Site Number: 42SA29990 Temporary site number: CMLS-46
Topographical features: Mesa, ridge Area (m2): 976
Site type: Habitation Period: Pueblo II-III
Site description: This site is located in a relatively open area of primarily pinyon-juniper woodland on a west-facing slope, with a drainage running down slope from Feature 1. It is mostly concentrated around Feature 1, with a low- concentration scatter of lithics in the surrounding area. The concentration is also associated with ashy soil and burned bone fragments. The layout of the masonry rubble in the center of the site indicates a 1-2 room habitation. Relatively few lithics are found on the site with a wide variety of pottery sherds in a concentrated area, possibly pointing to previous digging on the site, which would explain the artifact distribution.
Feature 1 is a probable one-story, 1 or 2 room habitation about 3 m north-south by 7 m east-west. This feature contains a high concentration of sherds and burned bone, and is filled with ashy soils. About 40 blocks of sandstone were noted. There is also a small, shallow depression in the southeast edge of this feature.
Many of the sherds in Feature 1 are clustered in one area, suggesting a collector’s pile. The amount of burned bone in addition to this collector’s pile suggests possible looting activity, although no looter’s holes were observed.
Condition: Good Disturbances: Water erosion, surface collection
Eligibility recommendation: Significant
Statement of significance: This site is recommended as eligible to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion d of 36 CFR 60.4. The site maintains integrity, and could yield information about Pueblo II and III use of Cedar Mesa.
Site Number: 42SA29991 Temporary site number: CMLS-47
Topographical features: Mesa, ridge Area (m2): 808
Site type: Limited activity area Period: Pueblo II-III
Site description: This site is an area of two small artifact concentrations, each containing between 10 and 15 artifacts. There are no associated features on this site, and there is negligible slope in any direction. The primary impact agent, therefore, is wind erosion, though some water erosion has occurred. The artifact concentration on the north end of the site contains mostly ceramic fragments with only a couple lithics, while the concentration on the south end contains mostly lithics with a handful of ceramics. There is a diffuse scatter of sandstone rubble throughout the site, and there may be buried deposits.
129 Condition: Good Disturbances: Wind erosion, some water erosion
Eligibility recommendation: Unevaluated
Statement of significance: There may be subsurface deposits, but further testing is needed.
Site Number: 42SA29992 Temporary site number: CMLS-48
Topographical features: Mesa, ridge Area (m2): 2,918
Site type: Habitation Period: Pueblo II-III
Site description: This site sits on a ridge that slopes to the north and west with deep drainages cutting into the slopes. Pinyon-juniper woodland is predominant, with buffalo berry and other grasses and forbs secondary. This area contains deep aeolian soils.
Feature 1 is a rubble scatter representing a roomblock of one to two rooms. One wall alignment and a corner are visible. The rubble is being carried down slope to the southwest by a deep drainage. One large McElmo Black-on- white bowl sherd was noted in the northwest part of the structure. Numerous Mesa Verde tradition corrugated sherds are on the northwest side of the drainage cutting this feature and probably represent a pot-drop, as all the sherds seem to be from the same vessel.
Feature 2 appears to be the remains of a burned jacal structure, likely built with Feature 1 (masonry rubble) as its base. This feature is directionally adjacent to Feature 1 to the northeast. Feature 2 contains numerous lithics, with 10-20 ceramic sherds. This feature contains darkly stained, ashy soils and dense jacal fragments. The jacal fragments, of which there are more than 100, range from gravel- to cobble-sized.
Feature 3 is an amorphous rubble scatter 3 m east-west by 2 m north-south about 25 m northwest of Features 1, 2, and 4. This consists of about 30-40 sandstone blocks washing down slope to the west.
Feature 4 is a concentration about 2 m north-south by 1 m east-west consisting of 50-100 flakes, primarily tertiary dark-streaked chalcedony. One Mesa Verde tradition white ware sherd was also noted. This feature probably represents a chipping station.
Two rubble concentrations that are highly eroded were noted on the north and northeast boundaries of this site. These may have been cists, but are too eroded down slope to make out any shape. Each is about 1 m in diameter.
Condition: Fair Disturbances: Water erosion, woodcutting
Eligibility recommendation: Significant
Statement of significance: This site is recommended as eligible to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion d of 36 CFR 60.4. The site maintains integrity, and could yield information about Pueblo II and III use of Cedar Mesa.
Site Number: 42SA29995 Temporary site number: CMLS-51
Topographical features: Mesa, ridge Area (m2): 3,795
Site type: Habitation Period: Pueblo II-III
Site description: This site lies on a small rise in a sagebrush expanse. Pinyon-juniper woodland lies immediately south and west of the site. Wind and water erosion and cattle trampling have impacted the site, and may help explain the few amount of artifacts observed.
130
Feature 1 is a roomblock, probably 3 rooms long by 1 room deep. 2, maybe 3, wall alignments are visible. One alignment seems to represent the entire front or back wall. This roomblock was probably only one story tall.
Feature 2 is a cist about 1 m in diameter, with multiple large sandstone blocks. This may or may not be contemporaneous with the roomblock.
Very few artifacts were noted, including about 20 flakes, a biface preform, and a biface fragment. 13 ceramics were noted which indicate a late Pueblo II- Pueblo III occupation.
Condition: Good Disturbances: Wind and water erosion, cattle trampling
Eligibility recommendation: Significant
Statement of significance: This site is recommended as eligible to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion d of 36 CFR 60.4. The site maintains integrity, and could yield information about Pueblo II and III use of Cedar Mesa.
Site Number: 42SA29996 Temporary site number: CMLS-52
Topographical features: Mesa, ridge Area (m2): 5582
Site type: Habitation Period: Pueblo II-III
Site description: Site 42SA29996 sits on top of a hill with deep soils and multiple drainages running north, northwest, northeast, and east from the site. The site is in pinyon-juniper woodland, with big sage, mustard, Mormon tea, and other grammanoid grasses and forbs. This site extends north and east of a small sandstone ledge. A deep drainage starts at the ledge and flows northeast, bisecting the site and cutting the midden (Feature 3). A user-created two-track runs along the western boundary of the site as well. Woodcutting has occurred on site. A large looter’s pit was noted in Feature 3 (midden), and it is assumed that surface collection has also taken place.
Feature 1 is a long roomblock facing southeast and oriented northeast by southwest. This roomblock probably stood one story high and may have contained 5-7 rooms. This roomblock appears to have been one room deep, except on the northeast end, where there appear to be two rooms. There is substantial rubble on the back side of the roomblock, with some wall fall apparent. Multiple wall alignments are visible. This roomblock is much larger than most Cedar Mesa habitations.
Feature 2 is a large depression surrounded by rubble and mounded areas. This lies adjacent to Feature 1 to the south and southwest. This feature is interpreted to be an enclosed kiva. There is an approximately 5-m diameter depression with mounded areas containing rubble extending 2 m to the north, east, and south. A large mound of rubble lies on the west edge of this kiva, and probably represents one or two rooms. Two wall alignments are visible in this area.
Feature 3 is a slightly mounded area containing ash-stained soils, rubble (much of which is burned), flakes, and sherds about 5 m west of Feature 1. This feature seems to be rectangular in shape, 3 m northeast-southwest by 2.5 m northwest-southeast. This probably represents a burned structure.
Feature 4 is a midden that lies between Features 1 and 2 and the drainage. This midden extends the length of the roomblock and past it to the east. It contains darkly stained soils, sherds, flakes, and groundstone fragments. The assemblage indicates a late Pueblo II- Pueblo III occupation of the site. A sub-rectangular looter’s pit was noted in the southwest portion of the midden, and dog-leash units A and B were place in the back dirt. Dog-leash unit C was placed in the east portion of this feature. A deep drainage cuts the edge of the midden and artifacts are eroding into the drainage.
131 Features 5-9 represent thermal features opposite the roomblock and across the drainage. These are associated with Pueblo II and III sherds, as well as flakes.
Feature 5 is a 2-m diameter area of ash-stained soil associated with flakes.
Feature 6 is a square slab-lined hearth about 50 cm by 50 cm with 4 upright slabs. The soils in the hearth are darkly stained and one brown quartzite flake was associated.
Feature 7 is a 2-m diameter area of ashy-stained soils and about 15 pieces of burned sandstone rubble ranging from 5 to 15 cm in diameter. About 10 sherds are also in this feature.
Feature 8 is another thermal feature. This is a 1-m diameter hearth, lined with 8 pieces of sandstone and filled with ashy-stained soils. 1 corrugated sherd was observed.
Feature 9 is a 1-m diameter area of ashy-stained soils and gravel- to cobble-sized burned rubble. This feature sits on the edge of a drainage.
Unauthorized excavation and collection, wind Condition: Good Disturbances: and water erosion
Eligibility recommendation: Significant
Statement of significance: This site is recommended as eligible to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion d of 36 CFR 60.4. This site likely contains subsurface deposits and could yield information on Pueblo II and III use of Cedar Mesa. The size of the roomblock is unusually large for Cedar Mesa habitations. Also, the dark staining of the soils and ceramics present in the midden suggests that the site was occupied for a long period of time.
Site Number: 42SA29997 Temporary site number: CMLS-53
Topographical features: Mesa, ridge Area (m2): 962
Site type: Habitation Period: Pueblo II
Site description: This site is located on a 4-degree slope to the north. Several shallow drainages run throughout the site, parallel to the slope. Additional impacts to the site have resulted from woodcutting activity. The local vegetative community is dominated by a pinyon-juniper overstory. The understory contains prickly pear cactus and small, grammanoid grasses and forbs.
42SA29997 consists of a possible burned structure and associated midden, represented by a single area of ash- stained soil. This feature has been directly impacted by vehicular activity- a two-track road (woodcutters’?) runs through it. A moderately dense assemblage of ceramics was noted within the feature’s approximately 6-m diameter area; one 4-m dog-leash unit was used to obtain a representative ceramic sample for the site (DL-A). The ceramics found in this unit indicate a Pueblo II occupation.
The reminder of the site consists of a diffuse artifact scatter. Some rubble was also noted within the site boundary, but no additional features were identified. The nature of occupation is unclear. The presence of a midden suggests habitation of some duration, though what remains seems fairly ephemeral.
Condition: Poor Disturbances: Water erosion, woodcutting, vehicular activity
Eligibility recommendation: Not significant
Statement of significance: The site is highly eroded and retains little integrity.
132 Site Number: 42SA30000 Temporary site number: CMLS-55
Topographical features: Mesa, knoll Area (m2): 6,945
Site type: Special use Period: Pueblo II-III
Site description: This site is on a prominent knoll about 450 m east of Highway 261 and south of an extensive sage flat. Cigarette Spring Road is about 800 m to the south. Steep slopes are on all sides, with a more gradual slope on the east side of the site. The slopes are a mix of sandstone outcrops and aeolian and residual soils.
The site consists of a walled shrine (Feature 1) and a possible enclosed plaza (Feature 2). Feature 1 is a 6-m diameter circle of rubble. What remains of the standing walls is about a 50-100 cm deep outline of upright slabs and coursed masonry. Abundant rubble has fallen down slope, indicating that the walls once stood much higher. There is a large concentration of rubble on the northeast end of the shrine, directly adjacent to it, which might have been rooms attached to the shrine. Three wall alignments are visible. The soil inside the feature is dark-stained and ashy, indicating the shrine may have been burned. This feature has been extensively looted. The soils are heavily disturbed and at least 10 looter’s holes were observed. Also, few ceramics found on the site indicate surface collection. Three metate fragments and a few sherds were found within Feature 1.
Feature 2 is a possible plaza just west and adjacent to the kiva. This is a flat area, which has been cleared of large rocks (unlike a similar flat area to the east of the shrine, which is littered with natural sandstone blocks). A few large sandstone slabs on the south and northwest edges of this area (of which 3 are stacked) indicate a low-lying wall may have enclosed this area.
A wall alignment made up of one large upright and multiple stacked sandstone blocks was noted below a ledge to the southeast of Feature 1. Its function is unknown.
Condition: Fair Disturbances: Unauthorized excavation and collection
Eligibility recommendation: Significant
Statement of significance: This site is recommended as eligible to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion d of 36 CFR 60.4. The site could yield data on Pueblo II and III ritual use of Cedar Mesa and represents an ancestral shrine, which may still be important to contemporary Pueblo people.
Site Number: 42SA30001 Temporary site number: CMLS-57
Topographical features: Mesa, ridge Area (m2): 4,756
Site type: Habitation Period: Pueblo II
Site description: 42SA30001 consists of a dense midden containing lithic flakes and debitage, ceramics, groundstone, scattered rubble, and carbon-stained soil. The site is located on the northern face of the lower slope associated with the highest elevation in the USGS section. The site is flanked on its eastern and western boundaries by deep drainages. Water erosion in those areas has exposed Cedar Mesa sandstone bedrock. Shallow drainages trending east-west flow from the site into the large drainages. Slope wash has therefore had a moderate impact on the site integrity. The local vegetative community is dominated by a mixed pinyon-juniper over story. The understory contains Mormon tea and buffalo berry.
Feature 1 is a dense midden occupying an approximately 25-m diameter area around a small stand of one pinyon and one juniper. Three dog-leash analysis units (A, B, C), each with a radius of 2 m, were placed within Feature 1 to obtain a representative sample of the site’s ceramic and lithic assemblage.
The southern portion of this site overlooks the large midden to the north and down slope. The former area contains several shallow drainages which feed into the two deep drainages bordering the east and west edges of the site.
133 These shallow drainages have exposed amorphous areas of dark carbon-stained soil, which may indicate the presence of burned pitstructures. However, further investigation is required to validate this claim.
Condition: Good Disturbances: Water erosion, woodcutters’ road
Eligibility recommendation: Significant
Statement of significance: This site is recommended as eligible to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion d of 36 CFR 60.4. The site maintains integrity, and could yield information about Pueblo II use of Cedar Mesa.
Site Number: 42SA30003 Temporary site number: CMLS-59
Topographical features: Mesa, ridge Area (m2): 1,077
Site type: Limited activity area Period: Pueblo II
Site description: 42SA30003 consists of a dense scatter of flakes and shatter eroding out of the eastern side of a juniper-stabilized aeolian dune. The area is characterized by several deep drainages and multiple shallow drainages feeding into the former. The local vegetative community is characterized by a juniper-dominated overstory, though several pinyon trees were noted. The understory contains buffalo berry.
One San Juan Redware sherd and several flakes were noted in addition to the lithic scatter. The dense cluster contains about 100 flakes and pieces of shatter from gray and red-purple chert sources in an area about 3 m east- west by 2.5 m north-south. This concentration is interpreted as a chipping station.
Condition: Good Disturbances: Wind and water erosion
Eligibility recommendation: Unevaluated
Statement of significance: There may be subsurface deposits, but further testing is needed.
Site Number: 42SA30004 Temporary site number: CMLS-60
Topographical features: Mesa, ridge Area (m2): 571
Site type: Habitation Period: Pueblo II
Site description: This site is located in an open sage plain on the edge of pinyon-juniper woodland. There are two features, including a midden and an area of ashy soil. There is a moderate-to-dense scatter of artifacts in the midden, with a relatively low density scatter of artifacts elsewhere.
Feature 1 is an ash stain and possible burned structure that is approximately 2 m in diameter. It is located in an open area within the sage. Associated with the feature are about 5 sherds and also about 5 lithic flakes. No burned jacal was noted, and it is not clear if this was a pitstructure or above-ground structure.
Feature 2 is an open area of ashy soil, likely a midden, and extends to an area of about 5-6 m2. There is a moderate- to-dense scatter of artifacts, including ceramics, a mano, lithics, groundstone, small sandstone fragments, and a projectile point tip. Burned bone is also present within this feature. Feature 2 is about 15 m southwest of Feature 1. Dog-leash unit A was installed in this feature, and one re-worked purple chert projectile point was found in the midden.
134 Condition: Good Disturbances: Wind erosion, cattle trampling, woodcutting
Eligibility recommendation: Significant
Statement of significance: This site is recommended as eligible to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion d of 36 CFR 60.4. The site maintains integrity, and could yield information about Pueblo II use of Cedar Mesa.
Site Number: 42SA30005 Temporary site number: CMLS-61
Topographical features: Mesa, ridge Area (m2): 3,959
Site type: Habitation Period: Pueblo III
Site description: Site 42SA30005 is a large habitation with multiple roomblocks. The site sits on a southwest-facing slope in an area with deep aeolian soils. Deep drainages cut some portions of the site, and a woodcutters’ road cuts directly through the site. Extensive woodcutting has occurred all over the site and within the vicinity.
Feature 1 is a roomblock in the north portion of the site. It has been highly disturbed, and a woodcutters’ road runs through the west side of it. It is in an area of silty, loamy deposits. There are probably 2-3 rooms and two visible wall alignments are apparent. The feature contains darkly-stained soils. Some burned jacal is noted, probably indicating a burned structure.
Feature 2 is a cist surrounded by about 9 large sandstone slabs, four of which are still visibly standing. This feature is located southeast of Features 1 and 3. There are no artifacts directly associated with this feature; however, it is adjacent to a midden (Feature 3), which is located just to the north of the cist. The cist is comprised of very large, blocky shaped sandstone slabs. The cist is eroding because of a drainage that runs through it.
Feature 3 is a midden located in the north portion of the site, between Features 1 and 2. The midden contains a dense scatter of ceramics and lithics. The midden has also been intersected by the woodcutters’ road and is, therefore, highly disturbed. The midden is about 6 m in diameter.
Feature 4 is a roomblock in the west portion of the site and is comprised of sandstone rubble. It is eroding due to a transecting drainage. There is one standing slab in this feature. The rubble most likely represents a 1-2 room structure. There are no apparent wall alignments. Some ceramics are associated, including a Pueblo II Kayenta tradition black-on-white sherd. There are approximately 60 sandstone blocks in this feature. Feature 4 is located on a southwest-facing slope.
There is dispersed rubble throughout the site, as well as an area of ashy soil with a few associated flakes in the southwest portion of the site.
Condition: Good Disturbances: Water erosion, woodcutting, woodcutters’ road
Eligibility recommendation: Significant
Statement of significance: This site is recommended as eligible to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion d of 36 CFR 60.4. The site maintains integrity, and could yield information about Pueblo III use of Cedar Mesa.
135 Site Number: 42SA30009 Temporary site number: CMLS-65
Topographical features: Mesa, ridge Area (m2): 6,685
Site type: Habitation Period: Pueblo II
Site description: 42SA30009 lies on an east-facing slope in pinyon-juniper woodland at the edge of a large sage expanse. An arroyo has cut the east/southeast boundary of the site, but otherwise little water erosion has occurred.
Based on the amount of refuse, this site is probably a habitation, though no pitstructures or other structures are visible on the surface. The ceramic assemblage indicates a mid-Pueblo II occupation. Much of the site is characterized by ashy-stained soils, a light-to-moderate scatter of artifacts, and gravel-to-cobble sized sandstone fragments.
Feature 1 is an extensive midden measuring 40 m northeast-southwest and 20 m northwest-southeast, cut on the southeast edge by an arroyo. Some of the midden is eroding into the arroyo. The midden is characterized by ashy soils and a dense concentration of sherds and flakes. Dog-leash units A and B were analyzed within this feature.
Feature 2 is a possible cist with 5 upright sandstone slabs. It is about 50 cm in diameter. Most of the feature seems to be buried. The cist is located about 15 m north of Feature 1.
Feature 3 is a scatter of rubble about 2 m in diameter. There are approximately 25 stones ranging in diameter between about 5 and 15 cm. Feature 3 is north of Features 1 and 2.
Feature 4 is a scatter of rubble consisting of about 15 stones ranging from 2-10 cm in diameter. The feature includes gravel-sized stones and ashy-stained soil. It is approximately 2 m in diameter. The feature is associated with ceramics, flakes, and burned jacal.
Feature 5 consists of about 3 clusters of scattered rubble with associated jacal. The two northern-most scatters are about 1.5 m in diameter each, and the southern-most scatter is about 4 m in diameter. The clusters are oriented north-northwest by south-southwest. The feature is approximately 9 m north-northeast by south-southwest and 6 m east-west. Sherds are also found within the feature. The scatters contain about 15-30 pieces of sandstone.
Condition: Good Disturbances: Water erosion
Eligibility recommendation: Significant
Statement of significance: This site is recommended as eligible to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion d of 36 CFR 60.4. The site maintains integrity, and could yield information about Pueblo II use of Cedar Mesa.
Site Number: 42SA30011 Temporary site number: CMLS-67
Topographical features: Mesa, ridge Area (m2): 4,148
Site type: Habitation Period: Pueblo III
Site description: 42SA30011 consists of a small single-story roomblock containing 2-3 rooms and an associated midden. The site is located on the upper eastern slope of a low rise in the local topography. Loess deposits within the site are shallow and the numerous drainages that run parallel to the slope have exposed sandstone bedrock. Slope wash has reduced the site integrity somewhat, carrying portions of the assemblage down slope to the east. The local vegetative community is dominated by juniper over story, but several pinyon trees were also noted. The understory contains buffalo berry, Mormon tea, and several varieties of grammanoid grasses. Additional impacts to the site may include woodcutting activity, evidence of which has been observed in the vicinity. A two-track road defines the western boundary of the site.
136
Feature 1 consists of a moderate density midden defined by an area of diffuse rubble and ash-stained soil. The midden is oriented northeast-southwest in a well-drained area containing a shallow rill. Dog-leash unit A, a 4 m diameter analysis unit, was placed within this feature to obtain a representative ceramic and lithic sample for the site. Based on the ceramic assemblage, 42SA30011 appears to be a Pueblo III period habitation.
Feature 2 consists of three concentrations of rubble representing a single-story roomblock, partitioned by aeolian deposits and low-lying juniper vegetation. Slope wash has impacted the southeast portion of the feature, and has carried small pieces of rubble down slope. Altogether, Feature 1 measures 16.6 m north-south by 4.2 m east-west and contains exposed patches of ash-stained soil through the overlying aeolian deposits. The small amount of rubble present suggests partial jacal construction.
Feature 3 is an area of rubble carried in relief by two parallel northeast-southwest trending drainages. About 25 small blocks/fragments of sandstone were noted within the feature. Light staining of the soil was also noted.
Feature 4 is a 5.1 m north-south by 2 m east-west scatter of sandstone rubble, including one sandstone trough metate. The rubble is relatively diffuse and does not retain any alignments of distinctive form. A shallow drainage has impacted the northern portion of Feature 4, carrying rubble down slope to the north. Light staining of the soil was noted in this feature.
Condition: Good Disturbances: Water erosion, woodcutting
Eligibility recommendation: Significant
Statement of significance: This site is recommended as eligible to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion d of 36 CFR 60.4. The site maintains integrity, and could yield information about Pueblo III use of Cedar Mesa.
Site Number: 42SA30012 Temporary site number: CMLS-68
Topographical features: Mesa, ridge Area (m2): 1,838
Site type: Habitation, limited activity area Period: Pueblo II
Site description: 42SA30012 consists of an area of ash-stained soil, exposed in patches beneath overlying aeolian soil. The large feature lies at the head of several drainages trending down slope to the north. Although investigators noted the presence of two distinct concentrations of ash-stained soil, the three features described here are connected by lightly stained soil exposed by foot traffic during site recording. The local vegetative community is dominated by an evenly mixed pinyon-juniper overstory. The understory contains buffalo berry and four-wing saltbush.
Feature 1 is an ovate 10 m north-south by 6.6 m east-west midden deposit exposed within a shallow rill. The eastern boundaries of the feature extend slightly within a small stand of juniper- its southern, northern and western boundaries are defined by a row of juniper trees. Feature 1 is separated from Feature 3 by a small ridge of lightly stained mixture of aeolian sand and loess. Dog-leash unit A was placed within the feature to obtain a representative sample of ceramics and lithics on the site. The results of this analysis suggest occupation of the site occurred during the Pueblo II period. Investigators also noted the presence of carbonized bone in the midden. Feature 1 is associated with Feature 3, a 5-m diameter shallow depression believed to represent the remains of a pitstructure. Lightly stained soil and a few ceramics and flakes were scattered within the boundaries of this feature. 5 sandstone blocks were noted on the south slope of the depression.
Feature 2 is a 2-m diameter area of ash-stained soil exposed on the west bank of a deep north-south trending rill. A cluster of 5 small sandstone blocks was noted upslope, on the west boundary of the feature. A few pieces of debitage and about 5 sherds were noted within the carbon-stained area.
137 Condition: Fair Disturbances: Water erosion
Eligibility recommendation: Significant
Statement of significance: This site is recommended as eligible to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion d of 36 CFR 60.4. The site maintains integrity, and could yield information about Pueblo II use of Cedar
Site Number: 42SA30013 Temporary site number: CMLS-69
Topographical features: Mesa, ridge Area (m2): 794
Site type: Limited activity area Period: Pueblo II-III
Site description: 42SA30013 consists of a low-density artifact scatter on the lower north face of a low rise. Several drainages run through the site parallel to the slope. In addition to slope wash, additional impacts include woodcutting activity. The local vegetative community is dominated by a mixed pinyon-juniper over story, the understory contains prickly pear cactus and grammanoid grasses. Based on a search-and-tally of lithics and ceramics, the site appears to have resulted from limited activity during the late Pueblo II/ early Pueblo III period. No features were noted.
Condition: Good Disturbances: Wind and water erosion, woodcutting
Eligibility recommendation: Unevaluated
Statement of significance: There may be subsurface deposits, but further testing is needed.
Site Number: 42SA4146 (extension) Temporary site number: N/A
Topographical features: Mesa, ridge Area (m2): 31,969
Site type: Habitation Period: Pueblo II-III
Site description: This description refers only to an extension of 42SA4146 to the south. The area noted above is the total area of 42SA4146. In the original CMP survey, the site boundaries were delimited to the edge of the survey quadrat boundaries. Therefore, this part of the site was not recorded during the CMP.
This portion of 42SA4146 lies in pinyon-juniper dominant woodland and a small open area dominated by sage and Mormon tea.
Feature 1 lies on the edge of the open area of sage. This is a large midden with a high density of ceramic sherds and a moderate density of lithics. The area is also characterized by darkly stained ashy soils. A basin metate fragment and large piece of dried clay were also found in this feature. The ceramic assemblage suggests a late Pueblo II- Pueblo III use of the midden. This feature measures 15 m in diameter. A small drainage cuts the southeast side of this feature. Dog-leash unit A was analyzed within this feature.
Feature 2 is a small pile of rubble located north of Feature 1. Two wall alignments are visible. The west side of this roomblock is eroding down a small drainage and the feature is covered in duff, but it appears to be 1-2 rooms, and was only one story tall. One upright slab was noted, along with some wall fall. This feature is 3 m east-west by 2 m north-south and is surrounded by young pinyon and juniper trees.
Feature 3 is a small ash-stained area located on the east bank of a small drainage and about 25 m northeast of Feature 1. The stained area is about 1 m in diameter and has been disturbed by a critter’s hole. A moderate scatter of sherds and flakes lie adjacent to the northeast.
138 Condition: Good Disturbances: Water erosion
Eligibility recommendation: Significant
Statement of significance: This site is recommended as eligible to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion d of 36 CFR 60.4. The site maintains integrity, and could yield information about Pueblo II and III use of Cedar Mesa.
Site Number: 42SA4334 (extension) Temporary site number: N/A
Topographical features: Mesa, ridge Area (m2): 3,743
Site type: Tower, special use Period: Pueblo III
Site description: This description refers only to an extension of 42SA4334 to the north. The area noted above is the total area of 42SA4334.
This recording is an extension of previously recorded site 42SA4334. It is located close to a canyon ledge to the south and there is a bedrock outcrop to the east. There is extensive woodcutting in this area with many stumps and debris neighboring the features. There is also evidence of an historic site containing discarded cans and one floral- pattern ceramic sherd. This is located between the standing walls on the rim and the features noted in this description. There are no noticeable alignments in either feature described here. There is evidence of water drainage down the canyon walls, which also suggests that the area has undergone a significant degree of water erosion. There is a sparse scatter of lithics and one sherd amid the features. The site slopes to the south towards the canyon rim.
Feature 1 is a concentration of sandstone rubble and slabs, which might represent the possible low-wall masonry of a slab structure.
Feature 2 is a small concentration of sandstone blocks and slabs just northeast of Feature 1, and may represent a shrine.
Feature 3 is a probable shrine located just north of the rimrock rooms, consisting of a loose enclosure of sandstone blocks and slabs opening south toward the rimrock rooms/ tower and opening down to the canyon.
Few prehistoric artifacts were noted in association with Features 1-3. There is a pocket of about 20 flakes on the north edge of Feature 1, which is probably a surface collector’s pile.
Feature 4 is a small but dense concentration of historic trash- mostly cans, with a few pieces of crockery- about 12 m south of Feature 1.
There is an extensive, very low-density lithic scatter around Features 1, 2, and 4. This extends west and north. About 20 white ware sherds were noted on the west edge of Feature 1.
Condition: Good Disturbances: Water erosion, woodcutting
Eligibility recommendation: Significant
Statement of significance: This site is recommended as eligible to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion d of 36 CFR 60.4. The site could yield data on ritual use of Cedar Mesa as it includes towers and at least one shrine, which may still be important to contemporary Pueblo people. The site could also yield data on Pueblo II use of Cedar Mesa.
139
APPENDIX B
CERAMIC DATA
Table B.1. Et Al (42SA18431) rim sherd data Feature General Diameter Linear FS No. Type Form ° arc Notes No. Ware (cm) length (cm) 44 16 Corr Gray Jar 26 7.5 6 48 16 Corr Gray Jar 11 7.5 2.25 48 16 Corr Gray Jar 42 3.5 4.75 48 16 Corr Gray Jar 26 2.5 3 53 16 Corr Gray Jar 26 3.5 3 53 16 Corr Gray Jar 20 7.5 5 53 16 Corr Gray Jar 33 2 2 53 16 Corr Gray Jar 17 8.5 3.5 18 2 GW Gray Jar 45 2 2.25 29 2 GW Gray Jar 32 3 3.5 34 13 GW Gray Jar 42 1.5 2.25 46 16 GW Gray Jar NA NA 4 Irregular 6 2 MV Corr Gray Jar 19 2.5 1.75 63 8 MV Corr Gray Jar 36 2 2.5 56 16 Bluff B/R Red/Orange Bowl 11 7 2.5 51 16 Deadmans B/R Red/Orange Bowl 38 7 8 56 16 Deadmans B/R Red/Orange Bowl 30 2 2 29 2 Unid. SJ B/R Red/Orange Jar 31 2 2 53 16 Unid. SJ RW Red/Orange Jar NA NA 3 Irregular 29 2 McElmo B/W White Bowl 19 5 3 1 2 McElmo B/W? White Bowl 37 3 3.75 13 2 MV B/W White Bowl 24 2.5 2 61 8 MV B/W White Bowl 40 2 2.5 29 2 Sosi B/W White Bowl 20 3 2 39 13 Sosi B/W White Bowl 26 2.5 2.25 44 16 Sosi B/W? White Bowl 26 5 4 22 2 Unid. B/W White Bowl 12 5 2 29 2 Unid. B/W White Jar 56 2 3.75 32 2 Unid. B/W White Bowl 34 2 2 34 13 Unid. B/W White Jar 11 2.5 1.75 39 13 Unid. B/W White Bowl 26 2.5 2.5 6 2 WW White Jar 9 7.5 2 26 2 WW White Jar 33 2.5 2.5 42 16 WW White Bowl 17 3 1.75 48 16 WW White Bowl 21 6 4
141 Table B.2. Fortified Mesa (42SA3680) ceramic data FS Sub- General FS No. Type Form Notes No. Ware 1 12 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 1 27 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 1 38 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 1 53 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 1 54 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 1 62 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 1 64 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 1 67 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 1 69 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar Rim, everted, 1 72 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar irregular 1 79 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 1 87 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 1 90 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 1 91 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 1 92 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 1 93 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 1 95 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 1 98 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 1 99 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 1 102 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 1 103 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 1 105 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 1 114 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 1 115 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 1 117 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 1 121 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar Rim 3 3 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 6 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 8 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 10 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 37 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 43 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 44 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 46 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 47 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 57 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 68 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 70 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 75 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 76 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 80 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar Rim, everted 3 81 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 85 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 96 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 97 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 98 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 101 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar
142 FS Sub- General FS No. Type Form Notes No. Ware 3 106 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 116 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 121 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 137 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 143 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 147 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 150 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 155 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 156 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 167 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 185 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 191 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 203 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 213 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 214 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 215 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 216 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 226 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 228 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 232 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 233 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 236 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 241 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 242 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 247 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 249 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 253 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 254 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 261 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 263 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 265 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 268 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 272 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 274 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 279 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 283 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 287 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 290 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 291 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 292 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 293 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 296 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 298 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 300 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 302 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 303 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 308 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 310 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 312 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 319 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 324 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar
143 FS Sub- General FS No. Type Form Notes No. Ware 3 325 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 327 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 331 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 332 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 336 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 338 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 339 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 341 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 3 343 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 5 2 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 5 5 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 5 6 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 5 11 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 5 13 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 5 14 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 5 15 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 5 17 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar Rim 5 21 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 5 22 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 5 26 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 5 29 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 5 30 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 5 31 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 5 32 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 5 35 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar Rim 5 36 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 5 38 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 5 41 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 5 42 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 5 43 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 5 46 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 5 47 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 5 51 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 5 53 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 5 56 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 5 57 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 5 61 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 5 62 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 5 64 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 1 14 M.V. Corr., M.V. Var. Gray Jar 1 63 Moenkopi Corr. Gray Jar 1 88 Moenkopi Corr. Gray Jar 1 111 Moenkopi Corr. Gray Jar 3 21 Moenkopi Corr. Gray Jar 3 56 Moenkopi Corr. Gray Jar 3 66 Moenkopi Corr. Gray Jar 3 92 Moenkopi Corr. Gray Jar 3 94 Moenkopi Corr. Gray Jar 3 109 Moenkopi Corr. Gray Jar 3 138 Moenkopi Corr. Gray Jar 3 165 Moenkopi Corr. Gray Jar
144 FS Sub- General FS No. Type Form Notes No. Ware 3 188 Moenkopi Corr. Gray Jar 3 189 Moenkopi Corr. Gray Jar 3 195 Moenkopi Corr. Gray Jar 3 208 Moenkopi Corr. Gray Jar 3 219 Moenkopi Corr. Gray Jar 3 220 Moenkopi Corr. Gray Jar 3 235 Moenkopi Corr. Gray Jar 3 259 Moenkopi Corr. Gray Jar 3 278 Moenkopi Corr. Gray Jar 3 299 Moenkopi Corr. Gray Jar 3 304 Moenkopi Corr. Gray Jar 3 307 Moenkopi Corr. Gray Jar 3 314 Moenkopi Corr. Gray Jar 3 322 Moenkopi Corr. Gray Jar 3 323 Moenkopi Corr. Gray Jar 3 330 Moenkopi Corr. Gray Jar 3 334 Moenkopi Corr. Gray Jar 3 340 Moenkopi Corr. Gray Jar 3 149 O'Leary-Honani Tooled Gray Jar 1 15 Tusayan Corr. Gray Jar 1 26 Tusayan Corr. Gray Jar 1 46 Tusayan Corr. Gray Jar 1 70 Tusayan Corr. Gray Jar 1 73 Tusayan Corr. Gray Jar 1 76 Tusayan Corr. Gray Jar 1 77 Tusayan Corr. Gray Jar 1 97 Tusayan Corr. Gray Jar 1 106 Tusayan Corr. Gray Jar 3 12 Tusayan Corr. Gray Jar 3 20 Tusayan Corr. Gray Jar 3 54 Tusayan Corr. Gray Jar 3 102 Tusayan Corr. Gray Jar 3 104 Tusayan Corr. Gray Jar 3 105 Tusayan Corr. Gray Jar 3 170 Tusayan Corr. Gray Jar Rim, everted 3 178 Tusayan Corr. Gray Jar 3 184 Tusayan Corr. Gray Jar 3 207 Tusayan Corr. Gray Jar 3 260 Tusayan Corr. Gray Jar 3 295 Tusayan Corr. Gray Jar 3 315 Tusayan Corr. Gray Jar 3 337 Tusayan Corr. Gray Jar 3 342 Tusayan Corr. Gray Jar 5 1 Tusayan Corr. Gray Jar 5 50 Tusayan Corr. Gray Jar 3 77 Unid. Gray Ware, Undec. Gray Jar 1 28 Unid. M.V. Gray Ware Gray Jar 1 31 Unid. M.V. Gray Ware Gray Jar 1 32 Unid. M.V. Gray Ware Gray Jar 1 42 Unid. M.V. Gray Ware Gray Jar 1 48 Unid. M.V. Gray Ware Gray Jar
145 FS Sub- General FS No. Type Form Notes No. Ware 1 57 Unid. M.V. Gray Ware Gray Bowl 1 61 Unid. M.V. Gray Ware Gray Jar 1 68 Unid. M.V. Gray Ware Gray Jar 1 107 Unid. M.V. Gray Ware Gray Jar Base of handle 1 108 Unid. M.V. Gray Ware Gray Jar present 3 112 Unid. M.V. Gray Ware Gray Jar Rim, slightly 3 120 Unid. M.V. Gray Ware Gray Jar everted 3 142 Unid. M.V. Gray Ware Gray Jar 3 145 Unid. M.V. Gray Ware Gray Jar 3 153 Unid. M.V. Gray Ware Gray Jar 3 162 Unid. M.V. Gray Ware Gray Bowl Rim 3 252 Unid. M.V. Gray Ware Gray Jar 3 264 Unid. M.V. Gray Ware Gray Bowl Rim 3 276 Unid. M.V. Gray Ware Gray Jar 3 277 Unid. M.V. Gray Ware Gray Jar 5 37 Unid. M.V. Gray Ware Gray Jar 1 49 Unid. M.V. Trad. Corr. Gray Jar 1 50 Unid. M.V. Trad. Corr. Gray Jar 1 55 Unid. M.V. Trad. Corr. Gray Jar 1 65 Unid. M.V. Trad. Corr. Gray Jar 1 66 Unid. M.V. Trad. Corr. Gray Jar 1 71 Unid. M.V. Trad. Corr. Gray Jar 1 75 Unid. M.V. Trad. Corr. Gray Jar 1 78 Unid. M.V. Trad. Corr. Gray Jar 1 89 Unid. M.V. Trad. Corr. Gray Jar 1 96 Unid. M.V. Trad. Corr. Gray Jar 1 109 Unid. M.V. Trad. Corr. Gray Jar 1 112 Unid. M.V. Trad. Corr. Gray Jar 1 119 Unid. M.V. Trad. Corr. Gray Jar 3 11 Unid. M.V. Trad. Corr. Gray Jar 3 35 Unid. M.V. Trad. Corr. Gray Jar 3 40 Unid. M.V. Trad. Corr. Gray Jar 3 53 Unid. M.V. Trad. Corr. Gray Jar 3 59 Unid. M.V. Trad. Corr. Gray Jar 3 74 Unid. M.V. Trad. Corr. Gray Jar 3 79 Unid. M.V. Trad. Corr. Gray Jar 3 86 Unid. M.V. Trad. Corr. Gray Jar 3 99 Unid. M.V. Trad. Corr. Gray Jar 3 158 Unid. M.V. Trad. Corr. Gray Jar 3 160 Unid. M.V. Trad. Corr. Gray Jar 3 173 Unid. M.V. Trad. Corr. Gray Jar 3 181 Unid. M.V. Trad. Corr. Gray Jar 3 193 Unid. M.V. Trad. Corr. Gray Jar 3 212 Unid. M.V. Trad. Corr. Gray Jar 3 218 Unid. M.V. Trad. Corr. Gray Jar 3 234 Unid. M.V. Trad. Corr. Gray Jar 3 238 Unid. M.V. Trad. Corr. Gray Jar 3 273 Unid. M.V. Trad. Corr. Gray Jar 3 288 Unid. M.V. Trad. Corr. Gray Jar 3 311 Unid. M.V. Trad. Corr. Gray Jar
146 FS Sub- General FS No. Type Form Notes No. Ware 5 27 Unid. M.V. Trad. Corr. Gray Jar 5 44 Unid. M.V. Trad. Corr. Gray Jar 5 49 Unid. M.V. Trad. Corr. Gray Jar 5 52 Unid. M.V. Trad. Corr. Gray Jar 5 54 Unid. M.V. Trad. Corr. Gray Jar 5 59 Unid. M.V. Trad. Corr. Gray Jar 1 56 Unid. Tusayan Gray Ware Gray Jar 3 82 Unid. Tusayan Gray Ware Gray Jar 3 83 Unid. Tusayan Gray Ware Gray Jar 3 93 Unid. Tusayan Gray Ware Gray Jar 3 133 Unid. Tusayan Gray Ware Gray Jar 3 174 Unid. Tusayan Gray Ware Gray Jar Rim, everted 3 196 Unid. Tusayan Gray Ware Gray Jar 3 205 Unid. Tusayan Gray Ware Gray Jar Rim, exfoliated 3 206 Unid. Tusayan Gray Ware Gray Bowl surfaces 3 211 Unid. Tusayan Gray Ware Gray Jar 3 217 Unid. Tusayan Gray Ware Gray Jar 3 223 Unid. Tusayan Gray Ware Gray Jar 3 269 Unid. Tusayan Gray Ware Gray Jar 3 335 Unid. Tusayan Gray Ware Gray ? Interior exfoliated Rim, too small to 1 44 Citadel Poly. Red/Orange Bowl measure 3 305 Unid. S.J.R.W., Dec., Slpd. Red/Orange Bowl 3 248 Unid. S.J.R.W., Undec., Slpd. Red/Orange Jar 1 29 Unid. S.J.R.W., Undec., Unslpd. Red/Orange Jar 3 26 Unid. S.J.R.W., Undec., Unslpd. Red/Orange Bowl Rim, repair hole 3 95 Unid. S.J.R.W., Undec., Unslpd. Red/Orange Bowl Rim 3 148 Unid. S.J.R.W., Undec., Unslpd. Red/Orange Jar 3 166 Unid. S.J.R.W., Undec., Unslpd. Red/Orange Jar Shaped Polychrome, 1 60 Unid. Tsegi O.W., Dec., Slpd. Red/Orange Jar Everted rim 3 271 Unid. Tsegi O.W., Dec., Slpd. Red/Orange Bowl Unidentified 3 328 Unid. Tsegi O.W., Dec., Slpd. Red/Orange Bowl Kayenta trad. Polychrome 1 4 Unid. Tsegi O.W., Undec., Slpd. Red/Orange Bowl 1 6 Unid. Tsegi O.W., Undec., Slpd. Red/Orange Jar 1 33 Unid. Tsegi O.W., Undec., Slpd. Red/Orange Jar 3 30 Unid. Tsegi O.W., Undec., Slpd. Red/Orange Bowl 1 122 Unid. Tsegi O.W., Undec., Unslpd. Red/Orange Jar 3 144 Unid. Tsegi O.W., Undec., Unslpd. Red/Orange Jar Rim, everted 3 176 Unid. Tsegi O.W., Undec., Unslpd. Red/Orange Bowl Rim 3 103 Cameron Poly. Polychrome Bowl Rim 3 169 Cameron Poly. Polychrome Bowl 3 177 Cameron Poly. Polychrome Bowl 1 34 Cortez B/W White Bowl 3 9 Dogoszhi B/W White Bowl 3 52 Dogoszhi B/W White Bowl 3 127 Dogoszhi B/W White Jar Rim, slightly 3 183 Dogoszhi B/W White Bowl everted
147 FS Sub- General FS No. Type Form Notes No. Ware 3 199 Dogoszhi B/W White Jar 1 16 Mancos B/W White Bowl Everted rim 1 39 Mancos B/W White Bowl 1 41 Mancos B/W White Bowl 1 82 Mancos B/W White Jar 1 83 Mancos B/W White Jar Rim, everted 1 85 Mancos B/W White Bowl Rim 3 13 Mancos B/W White Bowl 3 87 Mancos B/W White Bowl 3 91 Mancos B/W White Jar 3 117 Mancos B/W White Bowl Rim 3 152 Mancos B/W White Bowl 3 231 Mancos B/W White Bowl Rim 1 5 McElmo B/W White Bowl 1 9 McElmo B/W White Jar 1 11 McElmo B/W White Jar 1 17 McElmo B/W White Bowl Rim 1 22 McElmo B/W White Bowl Rim 1 43 McElmo B/W White Bowl 1 51 McElmo B/W White Bowl 1 84 McElmo B/W White H Ladle handle 3 15 McElmo B/W White Jar 3 18 McElmo B/W White Jar 3 22 McElmo B/W White Jar 3 24 McElmo B/W White Bowl Misfire 3 25 McElmo B/W White Jar Irregular rim, 3 28 McElmo B/W White Bowl misfire 3 29 McElmo B/W White Bowl Rim 3 38 McElmo B/W White Bowl Rim 3 48 McElmo B/W White Bowl 3 58 McElmo B/W White Bowl 3 62 McElmo B/W White Jar 3 67 McElmo B/W White Bowl Rim 3 73 McElmo B/W White Bowl Rim, utilized 3 88 McElmo B/W White Jar 3 108 McElmo B/W White Bowl Rim 3 110 McElmo B/W White Jar 3 114 McElmo B/W White Jar 3 115 McElmo B/W White Jar 3 124 McElmo B/W White Bowl 3 125 McElmo B/W White Bowl 3 126 McElmo B/W White Bowl Rim 3 129 McElmo B/W White Jar 3 130 McElmo B/W White Jar 3 134 McElmo B/W White Bowl 3 136 McElmo B/W White Jar 3 139 McElmo B/W White Jar 3 151 McElmo B/W White Bowl Rim 3 186 McElmo B/W White Jar 3 200 McElmo B/W White Jar 3 301 McElmo B/W White Bowl
148 FS Sub- General FS No. Type Form Notes No. Ware 3 333 McElmo B/W White Bowl 5 3 McElmo B/W White Jar 5 10 McElmo B/W White Jar 5 19 McElmo B/W White Bowl 5 25 McElmo B/W White Bowl 5 60 McElmo B/W White Jar 1 8 Mesa Verde B/W White Jar 1 20 Mesa Verde B/W White Jar 1 81 Mesa Verde B/W White Jar 1 113 Mesa Verde B/W White Bowl 1 123 Mesa Verde B/W White Bowl Drill hole 3 27 Mesa Verde B/W White Jar 3 41 Mesa Verde B/W White Bowl Utilized 3 45 Mesa Verde B/W White Jar 3 63 Mesa Verde B/W White Bowl Rim 3 71 Mesa Verde B/W White Bowl 3 78 Mesa Verde B/W White Bowl Rim 3 122 Mesa Verde B/W White Bowl Rim 3 135 Mesa Verde B/W White Bowl Rim, interior 3 246 Mesa Verde B/W White Bowl exfoliated 3 258 Mesa Verde B/W White Jar 3 275 Mesa Verde B/W White Bowl Shaped/ utilized 3 294 Mesa Verde B/W White Jar 5 12 Mesa Verde B/W White Jar Misfire 5 24 Mesa Verde B/W White Jar 5 55 Mesa Verde B/W White Jar 1 2 PIII Mesa Verde Trad. B/W White Jar Utilized 1 10 PIII Mesa Verde Trad. B/W White Bowl 1 13 PIII Mesa Verde Trad. B/W White Jar 1 19 PIII Mesa Verde Trad. B/W White Jar 1 21 PIII Mesa Verde Trad. B/W White Jar 1 23 PIII Mesa Verde Trad. B/W White Bowl 1 37 PIII Mesa Verde Trad. B/W White Bowl 1 40 PIII Mesa Verde Trad. B/W White Bowl 1 47 PIII Mesa Verde Trad. B/W White Bowl 1 74 PIII Mesa Verde Trad. B/W White Bowl 1 80 PIII Mesa Verde Trad. B/W White Jar 1 101 PIII Mesa Verde Trad. B/W White Jar 1 104 PIII Mesa Verde Trad. B/W White Bowl 1 124 PIII Mesa Verde Trad. B/W White Bowl 3 36 PIII Mesa Verde Trad. B/W White Bowl 3 51 PIII Mesa Verde Trad. B/W White Jar 3 60 PIII Mesa Verde Trad. B/W White Jar 3 61 PIII Mesa Verde Trad. B/W White Jar 3 64 PIII Mesa Verde Trad. B/W White Bowl 3 65 PIII Mesa Verde Trad. B/W White Jar 3 69 PIII Mesa Verde Trad. B/W White Bowl 3 84 PIII Mesa Verde Trad. B/W White Jar 3 89 PIII Mesa Verde Trad. B/W White Bowl 3 107 PIII Mesa Verde Trad. B/W White Bowl Rim 3 111 PIII Mesa Verde Trad. B/W White Jar
149 FS Sub- General FS No. Type Form Notes No. Ware 3 113 PIII Mesa Verde Trad. B/W White Bowl 3 131 PIII Mesa Verde Trad. B/W White Bowl 3 133 PIII Mesa Verde Trad. B/W White Bowl 3 154 PIII Mesa Verde Trad. B/W White Jar Misfire 3 161 PIII Mesa Verde Trad. B/W White Jar 3 168 PIII Mesa Verde Trad. B/W White Bowl 3 192 PIII Mesa Verde Trad. B/W White Jar 3 194 PIII Mesa Verde Trad. B/W White Jar 3 197 PIII Mesa Verde Trad. B/W White Jar 3 204 PIII Mesa Verde Trad. B/W White Bowl 3 221 PIII Mesa Verde Trad. B/W White Bowl 3 225 PIII Mesa Verde Trad. B/W White Bowl 3 241 PIII Mesa Verde Trad. B/W White Jar 3 243 PIII Mesa Verde Trad. B/W White Jar 3 255 PIII Mesa Verde Trad. B/W White Bowl Rim 3 256 PIII Mesa Verde Trad. B/W White Bowl 3 280 PIII Mesa Verde Trad. B/W White Bowl 3 282 PIII Mesa Verde Trad. B/W White Bowl 3 297 PIII Mesa Verde Trad. B/W White Jar 3 317 PIII Mesa Verde Trad. B/W White Jar 3 318 PIII Mesa Verde Trad. B/W White Jar 3 320 PIII Mesa Verde Trad. B/W White Jar 3 326 PIII Mesa Verde Trad. B/W White Bowl 3 329 PIII Mesa Verde Trad. B/W White Bowl 5 8 PIII Mesa Verde Trad. B/W White Jar 5 9 PIII Mesa Verde Trad. B/W White Jar 5 18 PIII Mesa Verde Trad. B/W White Bowl 5 28 PIII Mesa Verde Trad. B/W White Bowl 5 39 PIII Mesa Verde Trad. B/W White Jar 5 40 PIII Mesa Verde Trad. B/W White Bowl 5 45 PIII Mesa Verde Trad. B/W White Bowl 5 48 PIII Mesa Verde Trad. B/W White Jar 5 58 PIII Mesa Verde Trad. B/W White Jar One edge shaped/ 3 12 Sosi B/W White Bowl utilized 3 128 Sosi B/W White Bowl 3 140 Sosi B/W White Bowl 3 141 Sosi B/W White Bowl 3 163 Sosi B/W White Bowl 3 171 Sosi B/W White Bowl 3 179 Sosi B/W White Jar 3 201 Sosi B/W White Jar 3 210 Sosi B/W White Bowl 3 227 Sosi B/W White Bowl 1 45 Unid. M.V.W.W., Dec., Cr. Rk. Temp. White Bowl 1 110 Unid. M.V.W.W., Dec., Cr. Rk. Temp. White Jar 3 34 Unid. M.V.W.W., Dec., Cr. Rk. Temp. White Bowl 3 42 Unid. M.V.W.W., Dec., Cr. Rk. Temp. White Jar 3 49 Unid. M.V.W.W., Dec., Cr. Rk. Temp. White Bowl 3 55 Unid. M.V.W.W., Dec., Cr. Rk. Temp. White Jar 3 100 Unid. M.V.W.W., Dec., Cr. Rk. Temp. White Jar
150 FS Sub- General FS No. Type Form Notes No. Ware 3 209 Unid. M.V.W.W., Dec., Cr. Rk. Temp. White Jar 3 229 Unid. M.V.W.W., Dec., Cr. Rk. Temp. White Jar 3 239 Unid. M.V.W.W., Dec., Cr. Rk. Temp. White Jar Rim, too small to 1 58 Unid. M.V.W.W., Dec., Sherd Temp. White Jar measure 3 202 Unid. M.V.W.W., Dec., Sherd Temp. White Bowl Unid. M.V.W.W., Undec., Cr. Rk. 1 3 White Jar Temp. Unid. M.V.W.W., Undec., Cr. Rk. 1 18 White Bowl Temp. Unid. M.V.W.W., Undec., Cr. Rk. 1 24 White Bowl Temp. Unid. M.V.W.W., Undec., Cr. Rk. 1 25 White Jar Temp. Unid. M.V.W.W., Undec., Cr. Rk. 1 30 White Jar Temp. Unid. M.V.W.W., Undec., Cr. Rk. 1 36 White Bowl Temp. Unid. M.V.W.W., Undec., Cr. Rk. 1 52 White Bowl Temp. Unid. M.V.W.W., Undec., Cr. Rk. 1 59 White Jar Temp. Unid. M.V.W.W., Undec., Cr. Rk. 1 86 White Jar Temp. Unid. M.V.W.W., Undec., Cr. Rk. 1 94 White Jar Temp. Unid. M.V.W.W., Undec., Cr. Rk. Sherd and rock 1 116 White Bowl Temp. temper Unid. M.V.W.W., Undec., Cr. Rk. 1 120 White Jar Temp. Unid. M.V.W.W., Undec., Cr. Rk. 1 125 White Jar Temp. Unid. M.V.W.W., Undec., Cr. Rk. 1 126 White Jar Temp. Unid. M.V.W.W., Undec., Cr. Rk. 3 2 White Jar Temp. Unid. M.V.W.W., Undec., Cr. Rk. 3 4 White Jar Temp. Unid. M.V.W.W., Undec., Cr. Rk. Rock and sherd 3 5 White Jar Temp. temper Unid. M.V.W.W., Undec., Cr. Rk. 3 7 White Jar Temp. Unid. M.V.W.W., Undec., Cr. Rk. 3 16 White Bowl Temp. Unid. M.V.W.W., Undec., Cr. Rk. 3 17 White Jar Temp. Unid. M.V.W.W., Undec., Cr. Rk. 3 19 White Bowl Temp. Unid. M.V.W.W., Undec., Cr. Rk. 3 23 White Bowl Rim Temp. Unid. M.V.W.W., Undec., Cr. Rk. 3 31 White Jar Temp.
151 FS Sub- General FS No. Type Form Notes No. Ware Unid. M.V.W.W., Undec., Cr. Rk. 3 32 White Jar Temp. Unid. M.V.W.W., Undec., Cr. Rk. Probably McElmo 3 39 White Jar Temp. B/W Unid. M.V.W.W., Undec., Cr. Rk. 3 50 White Jar Temp. Unid. M.V.W.W., Undec., Cr. Rk. 3 90 White Jar Temp. Unid. M.V.W.W., Undec., Cr. Rk. 3 118 White Jar Temp. Unid. M.V.W.W., Undec., Cr. Rk. 3 123 White Jar Temp. Unid. M.V.W.W., Undec., Cr. Rk. 3 132 White Jar Temp. Unid. M.V.W.W., Undec., Cr. Rk. 3 159 White Jar Temp. Unid. M.V.W.W., Undec., Cr. Rk. 3 187 White Jar Temp. Unid. M.V.W.W., Undec., Cr. Rk. 3 190 White Bowl Rim, exfoliated Temp. Unid. M.V.W.W., Undec., Cr. Rk. 3 198 White Jar Temp. Unid. M.V.W.W., Undec., Cr. Rk. 3 224 White Jar Temp. Unid. M.V.W.W., Undec., Cr. Rk. 3 240 White Bowl Temp. Unid. M.V.W.W., Undec., Cr. Rk. 3 245 White Jar Temp. Unid. M.V.W.W., Undec., Cr. Rk. 3 250 White Jar Temp. Unid. M.V.W.W., Undec., Cr. Rk. 3 251 White Jar Temp. Unid. M.V.W.W., Undec., Cr. Rk. 3 257 White Jar Temp. Unid. M.V.W.W., Undec., Cr. Rk. 3 266 White Jar Temp. Unid. M.V.W.W., Undec., Cr. Rk. Sherd and rock 3 267 White Bowl Temp. temper Unid. M.V.W.W., Undec., Cr. Rk. 3 285 White Jar Temp. Unid. M.V.W.W., Undec., Cr. Rk. 3 286 White Jar Temp. Unid. M.V.W.W., Undec., Cr. Rk. 3 289 White Jar Temp. Unid. M.V.W.W., Undec., Cr. Rk. 3 306 White Jar Temp. Unid. M.V.W.W., Undec., Cr. Rk. 3 309 White Bowl Temp. Unid. M.V.W.W., Undec., Cr. Rk. 3 313 White Jar Temp. Unid. M.V.W.W., Undec., Cr. Rk. 3 316 White Jar Temp. Unid. M.V.W.W., Undec., Cr. Rk. 5 4 White Jar Base Temp.
152 FS Sub- General FS No. Type Form Notes No. Ware Unid. M.V.W.W., Undec., Cr. Rk. 5 7 White Jar Temp. Unid. M.V.W.W., Undec., Cr. Rk. 5 16 White Jar Rim Temp. Unid. M.V.W.W., Undec., Cr. Rk. 5 20 White Jar Temp. Unid. M.V.W.W., Undec., Cr. Rk. 5 23 White Jar Temp. Unid. M.V.W.W., Undec., Cr. Rk. 5 33 White Jar Temp. Unid. M.V.W.W., Undec., Cr. Rk. Sherd and rock 5 34 White Jar Temp. temper Unid. M.V.W.W., Undec., Cr. Rk. 5 63 White Jar Temp. Unid. M.V.W.W., Undec., Sherd 1 118 White Bowl Rim Temp. Unid. M.V.W.W., Undec., Sherd 3 14 White Jar Temp. Unid. M.V.W.W., Undec., Sherd 3 72 White Jar Temp. Unid. M.V.W.W., Undec., Sherd 3 222 White Jar Temp. 1 1 Unid. Tus. W.W., Dec. White Jar 1 7 Unid. Tus. W.W., Dec. White Jar Dogoszhi? 3 33 Unid. Tus. W.W., Dec. White Bowl 3 182 Unid. Tus. W.W., Dec. White Bowl 3 230 Unid. Tus. W.W., Dec. White Bowl 1 100 Unid. Tus. W.W., Undec. White Jar 3 1 Unid. Tus. W.W., Undec. White Jar 3 119 Unid. Tus. W.W., Undec. White Jar 3 128 Unid. Tus. W.W., Undec. White Jar 3 146 Unid. Tus. W.W., Undec. White Jar 3 157 Unid. Tus. W.W., Undec. White Jar 3 172 Unid. Tus. W.W., Undec. White Jar 3 180 Unid. Tus. W.W., Undec. White Jar 3 237 Unid. Tus. W.W., Undec. White Jar 3 244 Unid. Tus. W.W., Undec. White Jar 3 270 Unid. Tus. W.W., Undec. White Jar 3 284 Unid. Tus. W.W., Undec. White Bowl 3 321 Unid. Tus. W.W., Undec. White Jar Exfoliated- only 3 164 Unid. Ware, Undec. Jar interior remains
153 Table B.3. Fortified Mesa (42SA3680) rim sherd data FS Linear General Diameter FS No. Sub- Type Form ° arc length Notes Ware (cm) No. (cm) 1 72 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar NA NA 2 Everted, irregular 1 121 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 18 15 2.5 Everted- measured everted 3 80 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 38 5 2 section, though rim section is longer 5 17 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar NA NA NA Interior too exfoliated 5 35 Corr., Qtz. Plus Other Temp. Gray Jar 32 9 2.5 3 170 Tusayan Corr. Gray Jar 18 20 3 3 120 Unid. M.V. Gray Ware Gray Jar 48 7 3 Slightly everted 3 162 Unid. M.V. Gray Ware Gray Bowl 26 7 1.5 3 264 Unid. M.V. Gray Ware Gray Bowl 26 12 2.75 3 174 Unid. Tusayan Gray Ware Gray Jar 22 31 5.5 Everted 3 206 Unid. Tusayan Gray Ware Gray Bowl 22 8 1.5 Exfoliated surfaces 3 26 Unid. S.J.R.W., Undec., Unslpd. Red/Orange Bowl 28 11 3 15 3 95 Unid. S.J.R.W., Undec., Unslpd. Red/Orange Bowl 26 30 7 4
1 60 Unid. Tsegi O.W., Dec., Slpd. Red/Orange Jar <10 NA 4 Everted, irregular 3 144 Unid. Tsegi O.W., Undec., Unslpd. Red/Orange Jar 48 8 3.5 3 176 Unid. Tsegi O.W., Undec., Unslpd. Red/Orange Bowl 22 27 5 3 103 Cameron Poly. White Bowl 26 14 3 3 183 Dogoszhi B/W White Bowl 22 14 2.5 Slightly everted 1 16 Mancos B/W White Bowl 22 20 4 Everted 1 83 Mancos B/W White Jar 20 27 4.5 Everted 1 85 Mancos B/W White Bowl 26 20 4.25 3 117 Mancos B/W White Bowl 32 4 1.5 3 231 Mancos B/W White Bowl 34 11 3.5 1 17 McElmo B/W White Bowl 18 15 4 1 22 McElmo B/W White Bowl 22 12 2.25 3 28 McElmo B/W White Bowl NA NA NA Irregular 3 29 McElmo B/W White Bowl 42 8 3 3 38 McElmo B/W White Bowl 36 14 5 3 67 McElmo B/W White Bowl 32 12 3.5 3 73 McElmo B/W White Bowl 42 7 2.5 Utilized 3 108 McElmo B/W White Bowl 42 7 2.5 3 126 McElmo B/W White Bowl 30 23 6
FS Linear General Diameter FS No. Sub- Type Form ° arc length Notes Ware (cm) No. (cm) 3 151 McElmo B/W White Bowl 42 8 3 3 63 Mesa Verde B/W White Bowl 26 9 2 3 78 Mesa Verde B/W White Bowl 48 6 2.5 3 122 Mesa Verde B/W White Bowl 24 15 3 Interior exfoliated- unable to 3 246 Mesa Verde B/W White Bowl NA NA NA get interior rim measurements 3 107 PIII Mesa Verde Trad. B/W White Bowl 16 15 2 3 255 PIII Mesa Verde Trad. B/W White Bowl 34 6 1.75 3 23 Unid. M.V.W.W., Undec., Cr. Rk. Temp. White Bowl 34 7 2.5 3 190 Unid. M.V.W.W., Undec., Cr. Rk. Temp. White Bowl 42 15 5.5 Highly exfoliated 5 16 Unid. M.V.W.W., Undec., Cr. Rk. Temp. White Jar 12 38 4 1 118 Unid. M.V.W.W., Undec., Sherd Temp. White Bowl 48 9 3.5 Irregular
15 5