i
“THE AMBASSADOR’S HERB”:
TOBACCO PIPES AS EVIDENCE FOR PLAINS-PUEBLO INTERACTION, INTERETHNIC
NEGOTIATION, AND CEREMONIAL EXCHANGE IN THE NORTHERN RIO GRANDE
by
KAITLYN ELIZABETH DAVIS
B.A., University of Notre Dame, 2014
A thesis submitted to the
Faculty of the Graduate School of the
University of Colorado in partial fulfilment
of the requirement for the degree of
Master of Arts
Department of Anthropology
2017
ii
This thesis entitled: “The Ambassador’s Herb”: Tobacco Pipes as Evidence for Plains-Pueblo Interaction, Interethnic Negotiation, and Ceremonial Exchange in the Northern Rio Grande written by Kaitlyn Elizabeth Davis has been approved for the Department of Anthropology
______Catherine Cameron Committee Chair
______Scott Ortman Committee Member
______Douglas Bamforth Committee Member
Date ______
The final copy of this thesis has been examined by the signatories, and we find that both the content and the form meet acceptable presentation standards of scholarly work in the above mentioned discipline.
iii
Davis, Kaitlyn Elizabeth (M.A., Anthropology)
“The Ambassador’s Herb”: Tobacco Pipes as Evidence for Plains-Pueblo Interaction, Interethnic
Negotiation, and Ceremonial Exchange in the Northern Rio Grande
Thesis directed by Professor Catherine M. Cameron
This study examines use of pipes and smoking materials at trade centers in the Northern
Rio Grande region of New Mexico. It explores whether these objects were part of ritually mediated interactions between these two regional groups, asking: were smoking pipes an element in negotiations between Pueblo people and their Plains neighbors? Ethnographic and ethnohistoric literature indicates that pipe-smoking was part of rituals that cemented inter-tribal trade relationships. Therefore, I propose that pipes, which were used in trade negotiations and ceremonial interactions, can be useful for examining social interaction and regional mediation aspects of trade and decision making.
Three categories of data totaling 1,306 pipes were collected. The first was a comprehensive analysis of pipes from Pecos Pueblo, a large Protohistoric trade center located at the boundary of Pueblo and Plains territory. The second was an analysis of pipes from a selection of Southwest and Plains sites held in several museums. The third involved data collected from site reports for Eastern Pueblo sites. The methods used in this study included analyses and tabulations of particular physical attributes of pipes that provide information on pipe use and regional style, as well as spatial and temporal analyses of pipe concentrations and concentrations of particular pipe attributes.
The overall abundance of pipes, particularly at sites in the Northern Rio Grande, as well as the large number of pipes with use-wear, suggests that pipe smoking was a frequent activity in the Protohistoric period. Finding pipes of ceremonial forms and materials, as well as
iv concentrations of pipes in areas where ceremonial structures were located and at locations within sites where interaction between Plains and Pueblo people was reported to have taken place, provides evidence that at least some pipes were used in ceremonial interactions between different groups. The presence of non-local pipe forms and materials at Pueblo sites and Plains sites supports the idea that Plains and Pueblo people were interacting, and that pipes were part of this interaction. The blending of Plains and Pueblo form and materials suggests that there may have been a certain level of integration, alliance, or partnership in these interactions.
v
DEDICATION
To the colleagues and friends I have gained along the way to completing this project;
To the family members who were supportive of a twelve year old girl’s ambition to become an archaeologist, then and now, especially my grandfather, with whom I will always cherish the wisdom he shared during our evening chats under the stars while he smoked his pipe; and
To my best friend, who both challenges me and inspires me to do and be my best, and also supports me with the best blend of encouragement, pick-up basketball games, ice cream, and classic car stories.
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My deepest thanks go to the following individuals and organizations (and any others I may have neglected to mention here), without whom this research could not have been completed!
Catherine Cameron; Scott Ortman; Doug Bamforth; the Pueblo of Jemez (especially Chris
Toya); the Peabody Museum (especially Bonnie Sousa); Pecos National Historical Park
(specifically Rhonda Brewer and Jeremy Moss); Colorado Archaeological Society (for Alice
Hamilton Scholarship Fund); University of Colorado, Boulder, Department of Anthropology (for conference travel funds and student fees scholarships); Ziegler Geological Consultants
(especially Kate Ziegler); Grant Coffey; David Nighteagle; Museum of Indian Arts and Culture and Laboratory of Anthropology (especially Julia Clifton and Kate Arrighetti); Anasazi Heritage
Center (especially Bridget Ambler); The Maxwell Museum (especially Dave Phillips and
Meghan Truckey); WACC (especially Brenda Mclain and Lauren Butero); History Colorado
(specifically Sheila Goff); Denver Museum of Nature and Science (especially Michele Koons and Melissa Bechhoefer); the Notre Dame Club of New Mexico (specifically Joe and Chella
Butler and Leola Sena); Kari Schleher; Jenny Adams; Karen Adams; Timothy Baugh; David
Snow; Dave Wilcox; Regge Wiseman; John Cater; Chaz Evans; Rebecca Hawkins; Mark
Henderson; Jacque Kocer; Scout Ennis, Sara Cullen, Jen Deats, and Brian Skrabec.
vii
CONTENTS
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1
A. Topic of Study...... 1
B. Importance of the Study ...... 4
C. Summary of Methods ...... 6
D. Summary of Results ...... 7
E. Organization of the Thesis ...... 9
II. BACKGROUND ...... 11
A. Regional Background...... 11
1. The Southwest ...... 11
2. The Great Plains ...... 14
3. Plains-Pueblo Interaction on the Eastern Pueblo Frontier ...... 16
B. Site Background: Pecos Pueblo ...... 22
1. The Location of Pecos ...... 23
2. Pecos Occupation History and Site Layout ...... 23
3. History of Archaeological Research at Pecos ...... 25
4. The Pipe Sample from Pecos ...... 27
C. Artifact Class Background: Pipes ...... 29
1. An Overview of Archaeological Research on Pipes in the Southwest and Great Plains ...... 29
2. Typologies...... 31
a. Southwest Typologies ...... 31
b. Plains Typologies ...... 32
viii
c. Kidder’s Typology ...... 34
3. Pipe Manufacture, Anatomy, and Mechanics of Smoking ...... 36
4. Social Contexts of Pipe Smoking ...... 38
D. Applicable Frameworks and Theory ...... 41
1. Negotiation with Material Objects: Using Pipes to Meet with People ...... 41
2. Social Identity and Style: Using Pipes to Identify and Track People ...... 43
3. Materiality: Understanding the Meaning of Different Properties of the Pipe .47
III. METHODS ...... 50
A. Data Sources and Permissions ...... 52
1. Museum Collections Analyzed in Person ...... 52
2. Site Report Sample ...... 56
B. Data Recording ...... 58
1. Museum Collections Analyzed in Person ...... 59
2. Site Report Sample ...... 65
C. Data Analysis ...... 65
1. Creation of the Pipe Database ...... 65
2. Pipe Density Calculations ...... 66
3. Spatial and Temporal Analyses in ArcGIS ...... 67
D. Data Integrity ...... 67
IV. RESULTS ...... 70
A. When and Where Are Most Pipes Found? ...... 73
1. Pipe Frequencies Before and After 1450 ...... 74
2. Pipes at Trade Centers versus Other Sites ...... 76
ix
B. Assessing Interaction through Non-Local Styles ...... 81
1. Detecting Plains-Pueblo Interaction ...... 83
2. Indications of Deeper Levels of Plains-Pueblo Interaction ...... 92
C. Assessing Pipe Function through Examination of Pipe Elaboration ...... 99
D. Tracing Pipe Creation and Consumption ...... 109
E. Intra-Site Spatial Analyses ...... 115
1. First Site Division: North Pueblo-South Pueblo-Mission ...... 117
2. Second Site Division: East or West Side of Site...... 120
3. Third Site Division: Inside and Outside of Kivas ...... 124
F. Analysis and Discussion of Results ...... 127
1. Summary of Questions and Lines of Evidence ...... 128
2. Strongest Cases for Pipe Use in Facilitating and Negotiating Interaction .....129
3. Potential Sources of Error ...... 131
V. CONCLUSIONS ...... 133
A. Merits of the Study...... 133
B. Directions for Future Research ...... 136
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 138
APPENDIX ...... 149
A. Tables with Additional Site-by-Site Detail ...... 149
B. Raw Data ...... 163
x
TABLES
Table
1. Curation Locations of Pecos Pipe Collections ...... 28
2. The Pipe Assemblage ...... 57
3. Number of Pipes by Time Period...... 76
4. Number of Pipes Recorded at a Sample of Plains and Pueblo Sites ...... 76
5. Ratio of Number of Pipes to Number of Excavated Rooms ...... 78
6. Number of Pipes at Trade Centers versus Other Sites ...... 80
7. Density of Pipes at Trade Centers versus Other Sites ...... 80
8. Raw Material Breakdown ...... 83
9. Pipe Material at Plains and Pueblo Sites...... 84
10. Inventory of Stone Types for Pipes at Pecos Pueblo ...... 89
11. Pipe Forms at Plains and Pueblo Sites ...... 91
12. Distribution of Materials to Make the Various Pipe Forms at Plains Sites ...... 94
13. Distribution of Materials to Make the Various Pipe Forms at Pueblo Sites ...... 95
14. Relationship of Pipe Form to Raw Material at Pecos ...... 97
15. Pipe Forms at Pueblo and Plains Sites, Highlighting Pecos ...... 102
16. Sites with Pipes of Elaborate Form ...... 103
17. Pipe Forms with Surface Decoration at Pecos Pueblo ...... 106
18. Connection of Pipes with Surface Decoration to Ceremonial Structures at Pecos ....107
19. Range of Dimensions of Pipes at Pecos Pueblo...... 108
20. Unfinished Pipes at Pecos ...... 112
21. Use-Wear by Form at Pecos Pueblo ...... 112
xi
22. Use-Wear Relative to Surface Decoration at Pecos Pueblo ...... 113
23. Relationship of Use-Wear to Whether a Pipe Was Broken or Intact ...... 114
24. Density of Pipes in Pecos Pueblo Site Sections ...... 117
25. Site Section Location of Pipe Form at Pecos ...... 118
26. Site Section Location of Pipe Materials at Pecos ...... 119
27. Use-Wear Relative to Site Section Location within Pecos ...... 120
28. Density of Pipes on Opposite Sides of Pecos Pueblo ...... 121
29. East/West Location of Pipe Forms at Pecos ...... 123
30. East/West Location of Pipe Materials at Pecos ...... 124
31. Use-Wear Relative to East/West Site Division of Pecos ...... 124
32. Density of Pipes Inside and Outside of Kivas at Pecos ...... 125
33. Location of Pipe Forms Respective to Kivas at Pecos ...... 125
34. Location of Pipe Materials Respective to Kivas at Pecos...... 126
35. Use-Wear Relative to Kiva Location at Pecos ...... 127
A.1. Raw Material Breakdown by Site ...... 149
A.2. Distribution of Pipe Form by Site ...... 149
A.3. Relationship between Form and Material ...... 151
A.4. Inventory of Unfinished Pipes at Pecos Pueblo ...... 155
A.5. Used v. Unused Pipes by Site ...... 157
A.6. Inventory of Pipes from Sealed Deposits at Pecos ...... 158
xii
FIGURES
Figure
1. Prehistoric Plains and Eastern Pueblo Settlement Areas (Pre-1450) ...... 18
2. Protohistoric Plains and Eastern Pueblo Settlement Areas (Post-1450) ...... 18
3. Pecos Pueblo Mapped as It Appears Today ...... 25
4. Plains Pipe Forms: Elbow and T-Shape...... 33
5. Plains Pipe Forms: Effigy ...... 34
6. Illustration of Pipe Form Typology ...... 36
7. Diagram of a Pipe ...... 37
8. Pipe Dimension Measurement Locations ...... 60
9. Spatial Analysis of Pipe Density in the Rio Grande ...... 79
10. Spatial Distribution of Pipe Raw Materials by Site for the Rio Grande ...... 87
11. Common Surface Designs Found on Pipes at Pecos ...... 106
12. Map of the North Pueblo of Pecos, Showing Pipe Concentration Areas ...... 118
13. Pipe Concentration Areas across the Entire Pecos Site ...... 122
B.1. The Pecos South Pueblo Today ...... 165
B.2. The Mission Church at Pecos ...... 165
B.3. The Pecos North Pueblo, Circa 1930 ...... 166
B.4. A.V. Kidder ...... 166
B.5. Pecos Main Plaza, Circa 1880 ...... 167
B.6. Nusbaum’s Crew at the 18th Century Pecos Church Ruin ...... 167
B.7. Kidder’s Crew Excavating the Midden ...... 168
B.8. Artist’s Rendition of Plains-Pueblo Trade at Pecos ...... 169
xiii
B.9. Reconstruction of Pecos Pueblo ...... 170
B.10. Photo of PECO10047 ...... 170
B.11. Photo of PECO10060 ...... 170
B.12. Photo of PECO10165 ...... 171
B.13. Photo of PECO10136 ...... 171
B.14. Letter from A.V. Kidder ...... 172
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Topic of the Study
This research explores how ancient people interacted along cultural frontiers and what social mechanisms suppressed conflict and encouraged interaction. The particular cultural frontier that this study focuses on is located in present-day eastern New Mexico, in a place referred to archaeologically as the Northern Rio Grande region. This area is where American
Indian groups from the Great Plains region of central North America and groups from the Pueblo region of the North American Southwest came into contact. In the Protohistoric period, which is the primary focus of this study, mobile bison hunters from the Plains exchanged goods such as bison hides and other products, as well as people, with agricultural village residents of the
Pueblos for corn, cotton, and other agricultural products. Interaction and inter-dependency between nonhierarchical societies, such as the Plains and Pueblo groups, has gained increasing interest among North American archaeologists over the past thirty years (Spielmann 1991). In the Northern Rio Grande and eastern New Mexico, some of these interactions were peaceful trade exchanges at particular Pueblo villages and others were raids by Plains people on Pueblo villages (Hamailainen 2008, Spielmann 1991). How the peaceful trade interactions were facilitated and structured has received little attention. In the historic Great Plains and Eastern
North America, pipe smoking was an important part of councils, meetings, negotiations, and inter-group interactions. It is likely that smoking might have come to be equally important in the encounters between Plains people and their Pueblo neighbors. This study gathers and analyzes data on tobacco pipes in the Protohistoric Northern Rio Grande to explore the idea that pipe smoking may have been a means of facilitating trade interactions between Plains and Pueblo
2 people of the Protohistoric period. This thesis addresses the following question: Were smoking pipes an element, or even a key element, in negotiations between Pueblo people and their Plains neighbors? What can be learned about Plains-Pueblo and inter-group interaction, especially at
Pecos Pueblo, through examining smoking pipes?
To address this question, we need to consider what is currently known about the time period and parameters of Plains-Pueblo interaction. Settlement pattern data from the Great Plains and American Southwest shows that Plains and Pueblo people began living in closer proximity to each other and exchanging complementary resources around AD 1450 (Baugh 1991, Lintz 1991,
Speth 2005, Spielmann 1991). The archaeological record and ethnohistoric accounts from the earliest Spanish expeditions confirm that an active Pueblo-Plains trade network existed during the 16th and 17th centuries (Hammond and Rey 1966, Seymour 2015). This study falls within a time period that archaeologists have called the Protohistoric. The Protohistoric period in North
America defines an interval between prehistory and history, when indigenous people encountered Europeans or their goods, but had not yet been heavily impacted by them. In the
Southwest, this period is not consistently dated. Adams and Duff 2004 provide the broadest range of dates, from AD 1250-1600. Other scholars provide a narrower range of dates and define an Early Protohistoric Period (AD 1450-1600) and Late Protohistoric Period (AD 1600-1700)
(Boyd 1997, Mitchell 2010). The present study focuses primarily on the Protohistoric period as defined by Mitchell (2010): AD 1450-1700.
Although evidence for this Plains-Pueblo interaction in the Protohistoric period is clear, what remains less clear is how these exchanges were mediated, as well as the mechanics of the interactions and exchange. How did these people who were historically strangers with different languages and customs trade instead of fight? One possible mechanism of negotiation and
3 alliance formation involves tobacco smoking. Ethnohistoric and ethnographic literature documents the importance of this activity for Plains groups, as previously mentioned (Blakeslee
1975), and there is evidence that tobacco smoking was also involved in Pueblo ceremonialism
(Fowles 2013, Ford 1972, Parsons 1939).
These accounts of the importance of tobacco smoking in inter-group negotiation and alliance formation prompted my interest in understanding the role of pipe smoking in the
Protohistoric Southwest. I used detailed examination of regional pipe styles, design variations, pipe use, and deposition to explore the role of these objects in interactions between Plains and
Pueblo people in the Southwest during the Protohistoric period. The study examined pipes from both Plains and Pueblo sites, but focused on pipes from specific Pueblo sites that were recorded to be Plains-Pueblo trade centers, especially Pecos Pueblo. This thesis considers three possible functions of pipes. The first is that individuals may have smoked tobacco from pipes as recreation. A second possible use of pipes is as trade objects, traded in the same way as goods such as hides, cotton, and pottery. A third possibility is that most pipes were not just part of mundane exchange, but were intimately involved in the ceremonies that facilitated trade and interaction between different groups.
If pipes were mainly for recreation, then pipes might be expected to be found evenly distributed throughout habitation sites. We would not expect particular styles or types of pipes to be concentrated in particular areas of the site, and would not expect pipes to be concentrated in religious or ceremonial areas such as kivas. If pipes were simple trade objects, then they might be concentrated at sites that served as trade centers, and sites participating in this trade might have a higher presence of non-local pipe forms or materials. Again, pipes would not be expected to be concentrated in areas used for ceremony. If pipes played an important role in ceremonially
4 facilitating trade and interaction between different groups, then they would be expected to be concentrated at trade centers, found deposited in or associated with ceremonial structures or places of inter-group interaction, and to have particular forms, materials, or decorations that might indicate ceremonial use. These possibilities, or hypotheses, are explored in this thesis.
Importance of the Study
This research contributes to three particular areas of scholarship: 1) improving the understanding of the nature of Plains-Pueblo relationships, 2) expanding understanding of how trade negotiations and inter-group interactions occurred without common currency, common language, etc, and 3) increasing the amount of available data on pipes, an understudied artifact class in the Southwest.
Much has been written on Plains-Pueblo interaction. Some have focused on seeing evidence of Plains people at Pueblo sites and Pueblo people at Plains sites and dating artifacts to determine when these movements of people occurred (e,g. Habicht-Mauche 2008, Lintz 1991,
Speth 2005, Speth 1991). Others have focused on what goods were being exchanged and whether the trade system was symbiotic or one directional, and what amount of interaction came from mutualistic trade versus raiding (e.g. Ford 1972, Spielmann 1991, Hamalainnen 2008). Scholars working in this region have noted that more work needs to be done in the area of understanding the nature of these interactions and the context in which people viewed them; the mechanics of how these interactions came about and worked and what they meant to people who were engaged in them (Speth and Newlander 2012). Seymour (2015) has begun to address this call by studying visitation practices among some Plains and Pueblo groups. Trigg and Gold (2005) have attempted to address this call in colonial times. This thesis, through analyzing artifacts likely
5 used in trade ceremonies, attempts to better understand if these ceremonies took place and what we can learn about who may have been involved in them through examining pipe style. Through assessing concentrations of pipes, particularly styles likely used in ceremonies, this thesis also seeks to better understand where and when these interactions and ceremonies likely occurred. It focuses specifically on the Protohistoric period to try to understand these Plains-Pueblo dynamics before the colonial period and before Spanish influence and control of trade became common.
Beyond Plains and Pueblo groups specifically, scholars have sought to understand how trade negotiations and agreements between groups occurred without common currency, common language, or common cultural practices. There is evidence that larger-scale social networks are beneficial, but humans do not seem to be innately predisposed to trust strangers from other groups to the extent that social networking becomes productive (Bettencourt 2013, Boas 1905,
Lobo 2017, Ortman et al 2015). It is necessary to invent means of overcoming this barrier, especially in cases where there is no central government to monitor or direct social behavior.
Scholars have pointed to ritual as a key social technology for solving these kinds of problems within regions (Lipe and Hegmon 1989). The Calumet ceremony, common in the protohistoric and historic Plains communities, involves smoking a shared pipe and is an example of using ritual as a social technology to welcome and interact with other groups (Hall 1997, Paper 1988).
The results of this thesis suggest that smoking ceremonies were a means of facilitating negotiation and building rapport between groups.
Finally, this thesis adds to the study of pipes themselves as an artifact class. Much has been written on the meaning and use of pipes in the Great Plains, and Eastern North America, as well as in other countries, particularly Ireland, (eg Agbe-Davies 2015, Carmody 2015, Evans
6 n.d., Graham et al 2007, Hartnett 2004), but this type of scholarship is more limited in the
Southwest. Pipes are recorded in site reports in the Southwest and there are multiple studies of tobacco types and other materials smoked, as well as regional spatial distributions of pipe forms
(Adams 1990, Adams et al 2015, Adams and Toll 2000, Ariss 1938, Switzer 1969), but the meaning of pipes, and distinguishing and identifying the various uses of pipes at particular sites and in particular areas has not received much detailed attention. This thesis contributes to filling those gaps in Southwest pipe research. Furthermore, the Southwest pipe database that was started as part of this project can be used by other scholars who may wish to add pipe data from their sites. As the database expands, the understanding of pipe distribution, style, and use in the
Southwest will continue to improve.
Summary of Methods
To explore the three hypotheses of pipe use outlined at the beginning of this chapter,
1,306 pipes were analyzed as part of this study. Of those pipes, I examined 1,030 in person, and relied on site report information for the other 276. While the focus of the analysis was on pipes from the protohistoric Northern Rio Grande Pueblos, the Pueblo sites where Plains-Pueblo interaction was most likely to have occurred, the assemblage included pipes from Plains sites and pipes from Pueblo sites in the northern San Juan region of southwest Colorado, as well. The assemblage focused mostly on pipes from the Protohistoric Period, but also included earlier and later time periods to serve as comparisons. Pecos Pueblo received particular attention it had the largest number of pipes, was recorded in ethnohistoric accounts as a prominent Plains-Pueblo trade center, and was the site whose collections I was able to spend the most time with. Ceramic data was used to determine what time period each pipe dated to. Provenience data from the Pecos
7
National Historical Park database was used to determine where each was located. Location was determined to the level of region for pipes from Plains sites (particular site names or numbers were not recorded in the museum records), to the level of site for most of the Pueblo sites (site name and number), and to the level of location within site for the pipes from Pecos. The following physical attributes of the pipes examined in person were studied and recorded: material, form, surface decoration, use-wear, and size. The list of attribute states and their definitions for each of these attributes can be found in Appendix B. The methods for classifying the pipes into particular attribute state groups are explained in Chapter III. For the 276 pipes that
I only had site report information for and was unable to analyze in person, only the physical attributes of material and form were recorded.
Time period, location, and the physical attributes previously listed were chosen for study because tabulating them allowed me to address the following questions that help distinguish which of the three hypotheses of the roles of pipes are evident in the assemblage: are there areas of higher pipe concentration and do those correspond to sites where trade was known to have occurred historically?; can we differentiate Plains from Pueblo pipes and see these two different groups interacting by studying pipe styles?; what can be learned about mundane versus ceremonial pipe use through examining elaboration of pipes?; were certain types of pipes used more often than others and what does that say about what pipes were being used for?; and what information does pipe deposition location provide regarding the role pipes played in social negotiations?.
Summary of Results
8
Through an analysis of selected attributes of pipes in the assemblage, this thesis aimed to address the three hypotheses of the role of pipes previously described by answering questions about where pipes were concentrated, which groups may have been using pipes in social interactions, and how pipes were used. Data to support these results are explained in more detail in Chapter IV, and the results are summarized here. By comparing number of pipes at the sites in the assemblage, it became evident that pipes were more frequent in sites occupied after AD
1450, the time when an increase in Plains-Pueblo trade was documented, and that pipes were even more abundant at sites reported to be Plains-Pueblo trade centers. The presence of non-local pipe forms and materials at Pueblo sites and Plains sites supported the idea that Plains and
Pueblo people were interacting, and that pipes were part of this interaction. The blending of
Plains and Pueblo form and materials suggests that there may have been a certain level of integration, alliance, or partnership in these interactions.
Analyses of pipe function resulted in multiple possible uses. The overall abundance of pipes, particularly at sites in the Northern Rio Grande, as well as the large number of pipes with use-wear, suggests that pipe smoking was a frequent activity in the Protohistoric period. Finding pipes of forms and materials that are recorded in previous archaeological literature as ceremonial, as well as finding concentrations of pipes in areas where ceremonial structures were located and at locations within sites where interaction between Plains and Pueblo people was reported to have taken place, provides evidence that at least some pipes were used in ceremonial interactions between different groups.
Of the three hypotheses of the role of pipes, the hypothesis of ceremonial use of pipes to facilitate trade and negotiate interaction had particularly strong lines of evidence to support it.
The concentration of pipes at post-1450 sites, the concentration of pipes at sites reported to be
9
Plains-Pueblo trade centers, particularly Pecos, and the concentration of pipes with ceremonial forms, materials, and decorations at Pecos in particular support this idea.
Organization of the Thesis
Following this introduction chapter, Chapter II covers background information relevant to the topic, including theories of migration and trade, style, social identity, and tobacco use; history of the western Plains and eastern Pueblos and Plains-Pueblo interaction; existing knowledge of pipe typologies; and previous work at Pecos Pueblo. This is followed by a discussion of the methods used in the study (Chapter III), which includes a description of the criteria for the attributes chosen for analysis, the means for measuring pipe density within a site, and how spatial analyses were conducted. In Chapter IV, the results of this study are presented, analyzed, and discussed. These results include the tabulations of the physical attributes of the pipes and tabulations of pipes by location and time period, as well as GIS maps of pipe concentration locations and GIS maps of distribution of pipe materials. Chapter V contains concluding thoughts and future directions. Appendix A contains data tables that tabulate the pipe attributes at the site level for every site. Appendix B contains the attribute state identification sheet as well as relevant selections from archival materials.
The overarching research objective for this project was to determine what different styles and depositional patterns of pipes at Plains and Pueblo sites, particularly at Protohistoric Eastern
Pueblo sites on the Plains-Pueblo frontier, such as Pecos, may be able to tell us about the occurrence of Plains-Pueblo interaction or inter-Pueblo interaction activity at protohistoric
Pueblos through time, and the potential use of pipes in those interactions. Overall, this thesis provides a better understand of the unusually dense cluster of pipes at Pecos, how these pipes
10 compare in terms of number, style, and location to those of the Plains and Pueblo regions involved in exchange at Pecos, and what these anomalous quantities and forms might mean for how inter-group interaction operated on the Eastern Pueblo frontier.
11
CHAPTER II
BACKGROUND
Before the methods and results of this particular study can be discussed, it is important to review what is known about the area, people, sites, and artifacts relevant to this study, as well as to outline the theoretical approaches that influenced this study. In this chapter, I will summarize archaeological research on the American Southwest and Great Plains regions that is relevant to the study of Plains-Pueblo interaction and pipes. Then, I provide further detail on what archaeological work has been done at Pecos (the focal trade center of this thesis) and what is known about the trade interactions that took place there. Following this, there is a discussion of what research has been done on pipes in the Southwest and Plains and how that research contributed to the pipe typology used in this study. Finally, I review the theoretical work that informs trade and interaction studies and theories of the meaning and significance of smoking in the past.
Regional Background
The Southwest
The American Southwest, of which the Pueblo culture group was a part, extends from the southern portions of present-day Colorado and Utah to the northern portions of present day
Sonora and Chihuahua. The comparatively good preservation of sites and datable materials have helped make the Southwest a focus of much archaeological research. Topics of interest among
Pueblo archaeologists that relate to the subject of this thesis include migration, social networking and interregional contacts, economic specialization and trade, and the role of the environment
(Cameron and Ortman 2011, Mills and Peeples 2017, Wilcox 1991). Chronologies and culture-
12 areas are relatively well-defined in the archaeology of the Southwest, partially as a result of the
Pecos conference, convened by A.V. Kidder in 1927.
The northern portion of the Southwest coincides with the Colorado Plateau environmental province and extends south to the northern edge of the Mogollon Rim and east to the Rio Grande. This northern portion of the Southwest was home to Ancestral Pueblo people and is home to Pueblo people today. The comparatively good preservation of sites and datable materials have helped make the Southwest a focus of much archaeological research. Some of the sites in the regional sample for this thesis were excavated as part of salvage projects, and others were for academic research projects and field schools.
The majority of pipes examined from Southwest sites in this thesis are from the
Protohistoric period, so that period will receive the most attention in this background section.
During the Protohistoric period, the Pueblo world was characterized by apartment-style stone and adobe villages organized around plazas, and a reliance on agriculture. Social organization was largely egalitarian and village specialization was beginning, with villages trading with each other for other goods they needed. The eastern pueblos were concentrated around the Northern
Rio Grande area of New Mexico, near present-day Santa Fe and Albuquerque. During the
Protohistoric period of the Southwest (defined by Mitchell [2010] as spanning AD 1450-1700), which roughly correlates with the Pueblo IV period in the Pecos chronology, the Southwest had settlement clusters in the Northern Rio Grande area of New Mexico, the area around the Little
Colorado River and Hopi Mesas in northeast Arizona, the Zuni and Acoma areas of west-central
New Mexico, the Mogollon Rim and Highlands, the Chihuahuan Desert, and smaller clusters in central and southeastern New Mexico (Adams and Duff 2004). Certain eastern pueblo villages, occupied during the Protohistoric period, including Gran Quivira, Taos, and Pecos were on the
13 eastern frontier of the Pueblo world, and thus were the first substantial Southwestern pueblo settlements Plains visitors met when they entered the Southwest.
Historically, the greater Northern Rio Grande area, where Pecos Pueblo is located, was inhabited by Tewa, Tiwa, and Towa-speaking people. Pecos was linked linguistically to the still- inhabited Jemez Pueblo; Jemez people speak Towa, and Pecos people reportedly spoke a variant of Towa when they arrived at Jemez in 1838 (Whatley 1993). Archaeological, biological, and linguistic evidence suggests that at least the Tewa-speaking peoples in this area were descendants of the migrants from the Northern San Juan area at the end of the Pueblo III period
(Ortman 2012). Because some pipes from the Pueblo III and earlier periods in the Northern San
Juan area are of similar form to Plains styles (which will be discussed further in this chapter), it was important to look at pipes from a small sample of these Northern San Juan sites to see how they were distinct or similar to Plains and Protohistoric Pueblo styles. In contrast to the
Protohistoric period (which includes Pueblo IV), the Pueblo III period, when the Pueblo population was concentrated in southwestern Colorado, has more evidence of violence and defensible structures as well as less evidence of inter-village trade and specialization. In the
Pueblo III period, and the earlier Pueblo I and II periods, agricultural villages were still the primary habitation sites of Pueblo people, as was the case in the Protohistoric period.
During the Protohistoric period, not only is there evidence of Pueblo villages in the
Southwest trading with each other, but also with regions beyond the Southwest. Pueblo cooking pots found on the Plains beginning around AD 1250 are one line of evidence for connection between the Plains and Southwest (Habiht-Mauche 2008). Plains cordmarked pottery has also been found at Eastern Pueblos such as Pecos (Speth 1991). The interactions were at least in part funneled through a few hubs. The Pecos Valley had at least two hubs of this interaction, evident
14 through archaeological investigations (the Jornada Branch of the Mogollon and Gran Quivira in the south, and Pecos, Picuris, and the Taos/Pot Creek area in the north) (Speth and Newlander
2012). The nature of and evidence for the connection of the Eastern Pueblo region to the Plains has been further explored in Spielmann’s 1991 edited volume (Spielmann 1991).
The Great Plains
In order to understand interactions between Pueblo and Plains people it is important to understand the organization of the Plains. The Great Plains region is considered to extend roughly from the Rocky Mountains to the Mississippi River. Compared to the Southwest, cultural time periods and sub-regions of the Plains, as well as the areal extent, are less well- established. This is in part because, compared to the Southwest, the Plains region has less research-based archaeological investigation and more contract archaeology. Plains sites also tend to be more ephemeral (Bamforth n.d.). Culture history and chronological change are still somewhat contested topics among Plains archaeologists. Some of the larger questions that excavation and survey of Plains sites help address is how and where to define the boundaries of the Plains region and its subregions and phases, and how the groups on the Plains interacted with each other and groups in neighboring regions. Other current topics of interest among Plains archaeologists that relate to the subject of this thesis include how Plains groups moved across and interacted with the landscape, and what groups were physically moving in and out of the
Plains, not just influencing the Plains.
Despite some of these challenges, there still is a decent amount of information about how
Great Plains communities were structured and who they were interacting with. The Plains, particularly in the Late Plains Village Period (circa AD 1200 to mid-1400s) when Plains-Pueblo interaction began to appear, was characterized by a diversity of groups exhibiting a variety of
15 settlement patterns, foodways, and material culture. “At the beginning of Late Plains Village times, fundamentally Southwestern communities extended from the Pecos Valley nearly to
Oklahoma, small scattered communities of Plains farmers lived north and east of them…..
Northward up the Missouri into the Dakotas, distinctly different farmers lived in fairly substantial towns. Beyond these, bison hunters lived in the north and northwest” (Bamforth
2016). In the period spanning from AD 1250-1450, when archaeological evidence of Plains groups interacting with Pueblo groups begins to appear, Spielmann’s (1991) model of mutualistic exchange between Plains foragers and Pueblo farmers does not apply. During this time, the Plains groups that would have come into contact with Pueblo people were farmers, as well (Boyd 1997; Vehik 2002).
By the mid-1400s, however, changes in the environment on the Plains, including a drought, and increased violence pushed Plains farmers eastward as they were replaced by the more mobile bison-hunting groups from the north (Baugh 1991:109,116). During this time,
Plains-Pueblo interaction intensified and reorganized. The Plains groups that visited the eastern pueblo trade centers such as Pecos were recorded in Spanish chronicles in the 1500s as
Querechos and Teyas, which are believed to be Apachean and Caddoan groups, respectively
(Bamforth nd, Boyd 1997). The area occupied by these groups roughly equates to present-day western Kansas, Oklahoma, and northern Texas.
During the Protohistoric Period (AD1450-1750), the Southern Plains sites were organized archaeologically into the Edwards (AD1500-1650) and Wheeler (AD1650-1750) complexes in southwest Oklahoma and the Garza complex in the Panhandle-Plains region in Texas (Baugh
1986:167). The Wichita bands, who lived in what is now Kansas, also were participating in interactions across the Plains and into the Southwest (Hoard 2012). Between AD 1450-1500,
16 there also was an influx of Athabaskans into the area. These Athabaskan-speaking peoples, which included the Apache, controlled much of the buffalo plains separating sedentary villages on the eastern prairies from the eastern pueblos of the Southwest from AD1525-1725
(Gunnerson 1969:23). Recent archaeological research on artifacts found in the Taos region at
Taos and Pot Creek Pueblos also supports pre-colonial, late-Prehistoric and Early Protohistoric presence of Apache and Athabaskan people in the Eastern Pueblos in the Northern Rio Grande
(Fowles 2017). The Comanche, which emerged as a distinct group in the 17th century, had become the prominent group on the western Plains by the late 18th century, when Pueblo trade centers such as Pecos were nearing the end of their occupation (Hamalainen 2008).
Although interactions between more nomadic Plains bands and more sedentary Plains villages were not always peaceful, some peaceful trade links between them were maintained through pipe smoking in the Calumet ceremony (Blakeslee 1975), which will be explained further in the pipe background portion of this chapter. Artifact sourcing also demonstrates that exchange relationships extended beyond the Plains to the east and west (Mitchell 2010:259).
These Plains sites were dated using ceramic trade wares from the Southwest, Southeast, and
Southern Plains, notably from Pecos, Picuris, Gran Quivira, and Caddoan sites in the area of
Spiro (Baugh 1986:169). Objects sourced specifically to Pecos were especially numerous. For example, at the Bridwell site, Oliva shell pendants and Glaze F ceramics were connected to
Pecos (Baugh 1986:179). “Tubular pipes of the Pecos variety” were recovered from Garza complex and Wheeler phase sites (Baugh 1986:182).
Plains-Pueblo Interaction on the Eastern Pueblo Frontier
Since the focus of this thesis is on how Plains and Pueblo people interacted, particularly at trade centers such as Pecos, it is important to review what evidence there is for Plains-Pueblo
17 interaction and what is known about the dynamics of those interactions. The first ethnohistoric record of Plains-Pueblo interaction is found in the chronicles of Onate’s expedition, which was one of Spanish explorers’ early entradas north into the Southwest from Mexico in the late 1500’s
(Habicht-Mauche 2008). Archaeologists have expanded the record of Plains-Pueblo interaction beyond these ethnohistoric accounts. Trade and interaction between Plains and Pueblo groups was initially noted around AD 1200, as previously discussed, but became more formalized, more intensified, and underwent a significant reorganization around the 15th century (Lintz 1991:93).
This reorganization of the trade system around AD 1450 was driven by changes in the environment, including a drought, and a settlement pattern shift from pithouse farmers to more mobile groups on the Great Plains (Figures 1 and 2; Baugh 1991:109,116; Boyd 1997:137). The movement of groups on the Plains discussed earlier resulted in Plains groups inhabiting areas closer to the interior Southwest than they had previously, and coincided with the increase in village size and population density in the Eastern Pueblos, which began around AD 1300 and continued into the 1400s. This increased proximity of these two groups encouraged increased
Plains-Pueblo contact, as evidenced by increasing quantities of Plains goods in the middens at pueblos such as Pecos (Doug Bamforth, personal communication April 7, 2015). Lintz (1991:93-
94) noted that there was a marked increase in the quantity and variety of Pueblo goods on the
Plains near the beginning of the Protohistoric period, particularly an increase in non-local ceramics on the Plains (Speth 2005:130-131). The replacement of farming groups on the Plains with foraging groups also shifted the predominant direction of trade movement from Pueblo-to-
Plains to Plains-to-Pueblo, which will be discussed further in the remainder of this section.
18
Figure 1. Prehistoric Plains and Eastern Figure 2. Protohistoric Plains and Eastern Pueblo settlement areas (pre-1450). Pueblo settlement areas (post-1450). (Baugh 1991:109) (Baugh 1991:116).
Archaeologists have distinguished three phases of Plains-Pueblo exchange. The first phase is the Late Prehistoric Period, spanning from AD 1250 to AD 1450. Pueblo people and the
Plains groups they would have interacted with were both farming at this time (Vehik 2002).
During this time period, Plains-Pueblo exchange occurred primarily in two areas. One area was the Texas Panhandle, where Antelope Creek phase sites show ceramic evidence of exchange with the Rio Grande Pueblos such as Pecos (Mitchell 2010). The other area is the southern Llano
Estacado area (south of the Canadian River in northwest Texas), which shows ceramic evidence of exchange with southern pueblos such as Gran Quivira (Mitchell 2010). It is important to note the direction of this exchange: Pueblo people were going to the Plains. The archaeological record shows more evidence of Pueblo people trading at Plains sites at this time than Plains people trading at Pueblo sites. Perhaps this is because the Plains items brought to the Pueblos did not preserve, but it is likely due to Pueblo people needing to obtain bison products, whereas the
Plains farmers at this time did not need to obtain Pueblo crops. Pueblo people at this time would
19 have needed bison meat to remedy nutritional deficiencies and bison hides for shields (LeBlanc
1999).
The second phase is the Early Protohistoric Period (AD1450-1600). At this time, trade from the Pueblo side became funneled through a few main site areas (Taos/Picuris, Pecos, the
Galisteo Basin, and Gran Quivira). This is also the period when Apachean groups appeared on the Plains. The intensity of trade began to increase at this time (Mitchell 2010:260), and continued to increase into the third phase, the Late Protohistoric Period (AD1600-1700). The interactions that occurred during this time have been referred to by archaeologists as the
“Pueblo-Southern Plains-Wichita-Caddoan macroeconomy” (Boyd 1997:341). Annual trade fairs were held at particular Puebloan and Caddoan villages (Boyd 1997:341). Due in part to pressures on Plains and Pueblo people from the Spanish, some traditional peaceful Plains-Pueblo trade networks were disrupted and raiding increased at the end of the Late Protohistoric Period and into the Historic period (Liebmann 2017).
Throughout these three periods of Plains-Pueblo exchange, there was a distinction in the nature of the exchange north of Gran Quivira versus south of Gran Quivira. Exchange relationships at Gran Quivira and pueblos to the north largely followed the pattern described in the previous paragraph. Exchange relationships at pueblos south of Gran Quivira differed because these pueblos in the Roswell area of New Mexico (including Henderson, Fox Place, and
Rocky Arroyo) were also hunting bison, and thus were not as reliant on neighboring Plains communities for bison products. The archaeological record shows more limited evidence of
Plains-Pueblo exchange in this southern region, primarily projectile points (Speth and Newlander
2012; Speth and Staro 2012).
20
To summarize, exchange in the Prehistoric period was more regional (smaller scale) in scope and provided access to utilitarian items. In contrast, exchange in the Protohistoric period was expanded at a few communities and involved the procurement of not only utilitarian items, but also nonutilitarian objects, such as shell, elaborately decorated ceramics, objects made of non-local stone, and smoking pipes imported from outside of the region, which were found in high concentrations at a few particular sites, supporting the idea of trade centers (Brosowske
2005:xix,3). Because I am particularly interested in these trade centers and because the majority of pipes in the assemblage I was able to access are from the period during which these trade centers operated, I focus mostly on the period when trade intensified around AD1450/1500, at pueblos including and north of Gran Quivira.
Now that the time period, area, and items involved in Plains-Pueblo trade have been discussed, we can consider what motivated these trade interactions and what was exchanged in them, as well as what is known about the social dynamics that helped influence when trade occurred through mutually-agreed-upon exchange versus raiding. Social relationships and material goods were both important parts of trade (Habicht-Mauche 2008). When examining
Plains-Pueblo interaction, one line of research aims to study how the Pueblos and Plains complemented each other with the different resources they could provide. For example, Ford
(1972) suggested that both ceremonial and utility goods were traded. Women were also captured as wives between Pueblo and Plains groups as a means of increasing status and forming alliances outside of one’s community (Habicht-Mauche 2008; Speth 1991). Items that were traded included meat products and hides from the Plains, in exchange for woven goods, pottery, salt, shells, turquoise, and silver from the Pueblos (Ford 1972:38). These items complemented each other by increasing the breadth of diet for both groups, as well as providing vessels for cooking
21 and storage and clothing materials appropriate for different seasons for both groups, Pueblo cotton in warmer weather and Plains hides in colder weather. Other things were mutually exchanged beyond utilitarian goods, as well. In particular, Ford noted ceremonial items and knowledge traded among Pueblo groups and between the Pueblos and the Plains, including the pipe dance being brought to the Tewa Pueblos from outside groups (Ford 1972:38). Ford does not describe the pipe dance, but there is mention of a pipe dance in the ethnohistoric literature of the Chippewa, where a man would dance in a crouched position with a pipe stem and his body would represent the pipe (Densmore 1913:293).
In addition to trade being motivated by resource exchange, as noted by Ford, other scholars have studied different interaction motivators, such as competition and the need to form alliances to deal with troublesome groups. Historians and archaeologists discuss cycles of trading and raiding and point out the competition for trade partners in the later Protohistoric and into the
Historic period (Hamalainen 2008; Wilcox 1991). Baugh (1986:181) notes that disruption of alliances between certain Plains groups (groups archaeologists have called Garza and Wheeler) and the Eastern Pueblos such as Pecos may have been caused by the incursion of the
Athapaskans, which led to increased raids and tensions, which at other times might have been resolved peacefully through exchange. Some Eastern Frontier pueblos were negatively impacted by these raiding cycles, but Pecos withstood the raids (Baugh 1986:181).
According to Seymour (2015), a characteristic of Plains-Pueblo interactions is variation.
Certain Plains groups were welcomed into certain pueblos, while others were accepted trade partners, but to some extent considered untrustworthy. During trade episodes, these groups had to remain on the outskirts of the village. Still other groups were viewed as enemy raiders.
Visitation practices were determined by the host, and may have differed from village to village
22
(Seymour 2015:10). There is no record of the Calumet ceremony explicitly occurring in the pueblos as part of the visitation practices, although this or other ceremonies may have occurred.
In addition to variation in motivation, trade also varied in scale. Ford (1972) outlined three systems of trade in the Southwest: individual itinerant traders visiting communities, trading periods at saint’s day fiestas, and exchange of ceremonial goods which accompanied the lending of ceremonial services by ritual personnel. Certain pueblos were reported in historic accounts to be engaged in trade on larger scales than others because they were involved in the facilitation of trade between regions by acting as Plains-Pueblo pathways. “We need to explore the role of these ‘middleman’ communities within the broader social, political, and economic matrix in which such interaction was embedded, in order to better understand how Plains-Pueblo interaction came about and how it may have influenced what was going on within the culture areas—Plains and Pueblo—that bounded southeastern New Mexico on its eastern and western flanks” (Speth and Newlander 2012:6-7). One of these pueblos was Pecos.
Site Background: Pecos Pueblo
Pecos Pueblo (LA625) was chosen as the focus site for this study because of its role as a trade center and the fact that the Pecos sample size of pipes and pipe fragments is significantly larger than that of contemporaneous pueblos (867 pipes v. 52 or less). Pecos stands out in the
Protohistoric Southwest in the density, variety, and elaboration of its pipes. In addition to pipes with non-local designs and forms, Pecos also has evidence of non-local materials and traces of visitors’ encampments along the east side of the village supporting its role as an interregional hub (Morgan 2010, Seymour 2015). For all of these reasons, previous research and existing literature pertaining to Pecos will be discussed.
23
The Location of Pecos
Pecos’s location made it an ideal intersection for multiple groups in North America.
Referred to in Spanish accounts as Cicuye, the site is strategically located on a small mesa above the Pecos River in a pass between the Glorieta Mountains to the west, the Tecolate range to the east, and the Sangre de Cristo Mountains to the north (Pecos National Historical Park 2015b). It was a location through which Plains groups could travel west and Spaniards traveled north and east (Adams and Duff 2004:27, Morgan 2010:1). The National Park Service refers to Pecos’s location as a “funnel” connecting the Great Plains to the interior Southwest (Pecos National
Historical Park 2015b). In other words, it was the least-costly path for travel into and through the
Southwest (White and Barber 2012).
Plains visitors to Pecos included the Apache and Athapaskans (Head and Orcutt 2002:6).
Comanche raids also took place in later years of occupation of Pecos Pueblo (Hamalainen 2008).
There is material evidence that goods from the interior Southwest were brought to Pecos, as well.
For example, stone from Eastern Arizona (Pecos National Historical Park 2015a) was either brought to Pecos from Arizona by Pecos people themselves traveling to Arizona or by Hopi or other Puebloan people traveling to Pecos.
Pecos Occupation History and Site Layout
Pecos Pueblo (showing currently visible architectural remains in Figure 3) is about forty kilometers east of present day Santa Fe, NM. The Pecos area has evidence of habitation as early as AD 1000, but habitation in the area of the pueblo itself began around AD 1250, lasting until
1838 (Kidder 1979[1932]:2). The site consists of a northern pueblo complex (with plazas and kivas), a southern pueblo complex, and a mission church and convent area (constructed by 1625) south of the south pueblo, all surrounded by an enclosing wall (Kessell 1987). The north pueblo
24 is thought to be the primary and largest occupation area of the site. The mission church was constructed toward the end of the Late Protohistoric Period, and thus is still included in this discussion. At its peak population, the pueblo had more than 2,000 residents (Pecos National
Historical Park 2015b). As the population declined, in 1838, the remaining residents went to the
Pueblo of Jemez, as previously noted.
Multiple accounts (Hammond and Rey 1966, Morgan 2010, Winship 1899) point to
Pecos as a trade center for Plains and Southwest peoples, describing trade encampments of
Plains peoples on the eastern side of Pecos during the 16th century. When the Spanish formalized trade fairs, Pecos was one of the designated locations (Adams and Duff 2004:50). Accounts of
Spanish explorers describe stopping at Pecos prior to going through Glorieta Pass to access the
Tewa pueblos (Hammond and Rey 1966:37). The Coronado Expedition called Pecos the most eastern of the walled pueblos and the point that they could cross east to the buffalo plains
(Winship 1899:77). Pecos continued to be used as a traveler’s stop into the historic period and after it was abandoned; Pecos was commonly used as a campsite for travelers on the Santa Fe
Trail (Head and Orcutt 2002).
The layout of the site reflected Pecos’s predominant role in inter-regional and inter-ethnic interaction. Architecture can tell us something about the duration and level of investment in these inter-regional relationships at Pecos. There is evidence of tipi rings and other temporary Plains structures in encampments outside the eastern wall of Pecos and other frontier pueblos (Seymour
2015:6). Gunnerson (1970) suggested a more intimate and sustained level of Pueblo-Plains interaction, interpreting Plains materials inside the pueblos to be evidence of cohabitation within the pueblo walls during the trading and visiting periods. There is evidence of pueblo architecture constructed to temporarily house visitors (Seymour 2015:9-10). The external row of kivas facing
25 the eastern frontier at Pecos is unusual for pueblo architecture (the only other pueblo noted with a separate row of external kivas is Tsiping with kivas facing the northwest frontier back toward
Mesa Verde) and has been hypothesized as a place where inter-regional transactions took place or where guests could reside (Hammond and Rey 1966, Scott Ortman personal communication
2014).
Figure 3. Pecos Pueblo mapped as it appears today, courtesy Rhonda Brewer, Pecos NHP.
History of Archaeological Research at Pecos
The first archaeologist to visit Pecos Pueblo was Adolph Bandelier, who noticed it while on a train ride through New Mexico in 1880. Jesse Nusbaum conducted early excavations there in 1915, but the most extensive excavations were conducted by Alfred Vincent Kidder from
26
1915 to 1929 (Kidder 1958:xi). Kidder spent ten field seasons excavating the north pueblo of
Pecos, which he refers to as the main pueblo. The 1926, 1927, and 1929 field seasons were spent excavating smaller sites surrounding Pecos, such as Forked Lightning Ruin, which pre-dates
Pecos. At the same time, Elsie Clews Parsons was gathering an ethnology of the Pueblo of
Jemez, where the last residents of Pecos Pueblo moved to in 1838, and C.E. Guthe was conducting an ethnoarchaeological study of pottery making in nearby San Ildefonso Pueblo
(Kidder 1958:xi).
Kidder did publish a monograph based on his notes from the Pecos excavations, as well as a monograph with inventories and descriptions of some of the artifact classes from the site
(Kidder 1958, Kidder 1979[1932]). He and Anna Shepard then analyzed the ceramics from the site in further detail (Kidder and Shepard 1936). Recent analyses of objects from the excavations from the first half of the 20th century include a detailed analysis of skeletal remains (initially begun by Edward Hooton in 1930) conducted by the Peabody Museum, where Kidder had been affiliated, in advance of the repatriation of the remains (Morgan 2010).
In the decades following Kidder’s excavations, additional excavations took place in smaller areas of the site. These include J.W. Hendron’s work excavating and recording the kiva just to the north of the south mound, as well as M.F. Tichy and the Civilian Conservation
Corps’s work excavating the south mound. Subsequent concentrated excavations have been conducted by the National Park Service over the years, including excavation of the south pueblo in 1939 and 1940. These south pueblo excavations were overseen by John M. Corbett. Since, as far as I could determine, nothing was published on these additional 20th century excavations, what is presented here is an overview of information gleaned from field notes and other archival materials. The main purpose of the NPS excavation overseen by Corbett was the recovery of all
27 artifacts and the exposure of as many rooms as possible to create a focal point of interest for tourists attending the Coronado Cuatro-Centennial celebration in 1940. Rooms were excavated to floor level, and the amount of architectural material uncovered in the excavations led the crews to believe that the buildings were 3-4 stories tall. Large groundstone was left in situ, sherds were analyzed and then, if not reconstructible, deposited on either side of the south pueblo. There was limited restoration of the excavated rooms, most were slightly filled in and the upper part of the walls were coated with adobe, and some taller walls had upper courses removed, to try to limit collapse. With the exception of rooms 6 and 4, most of the masonry was considered “rough.”
Awls were the most numerous artifacts recovered in the south pueblo during these excavations.
Other bone artifacts included bone beads and bone fleshers. For stone artifacts, manos and metates were the most numerous, followed by polishing stones, the single-grooved axe, and stone hammers. Fifty-three flaked-stone (chipped-stone) points were found. Multiple worked sherds and copper and bronze (Spanish-origin) artifacts were also recovered (Laboratory of
Anthropology Archive Notes Document 47-50).
More recently, the National Park Service published an inventory of the cultural and environmental resources found during recent surveys of the park (Head and Orcutt 2012). Linda
Cordell conducted research at nearby Rowe pueblo in the 1990s, and made an inquiry into the pipes of Pecos, but, as far as my research determined, no analysis or publication came of this inquiry. Photographs from some of these excavations can be found in the Appendix B, Figures
B.2-B.7.
The Pipe Sample from Pecos
Today, the pipes recovered from Pecos Pueblo are owned by three entities: the Pueblo of
Jemez, the Peabody Museum in Andover, MA (where Kidder was affiliated), and the National
28
Park Service (NPS). The majority of the collection is housed at Pecos National Historical Park
(NHP), but some pipes are at the Pueblo of Jemez, the Western Archeological and Conservation
Center (WACC: NPS’s regional collection facility in Tucson, AZ), the Museum of Indian Arts and Culture in Santa Fe (MIAC), and various other museums throughout the United States. The sample I analyzed for this thesis includes 867 pipes, pipe plugs (stoppers placed in the bowl of the pipe), and fragments currently housed at Pecos NHP, MIAC, and WACC, as shown in Table
1. The collection’s provenience and descriptive information is variable, as the pipes were excavated by multiple entities and cataloged by different people over the years. Some pipes have been provenienced to specific strata, some to particular rooms or locations, and others just to the pueblo overall. Some have associated chronologically diagnostic ceramics and others do not. The pipes are currently only available for visual inspection, measurement, and photography; no destructive analysis or removal from the collections facility is permitted.
Curation Locations of Pecos Pipe Collections Location Project Quantity Kidder excavations 1915-1927 817 Pecos NHP NPS projects 1930s-present 15 MIAC NPS south pueblo excavations 1939-1940 23 NPS south pueblo excavations 1939-1940 WACC 12 NPS projects 1930s-present Total 867 Table 1. This table shows which portions of the pipe collection are housed in which repositories.
As previously discussed, Pecos Pueblo’s occupation spans from around AD 1250 to
1838. Therefore some of the pipes at Pecos are likely prehistoric, some protohistoric, and some historic. Because pipes were usually provenienced to the level of room, rather than layers within a room, the pipes usually could not be connected to a particular ceramic strata to determine what specific time period(s) the pipes came from. Most of the rooms that pipes were found in included glaze wares from post-1450, and the bulk of occupation at Pecos was post-1450. Therefore, for
29 the purposes of this thesis, I considered the pipe sample from Pecos to be post-1450 (which includes the Protohistoric period), although a few of the pipes may have been deposited earlier.
Artifact Class Background: Pipes
An Overview of Archaeological Research on Pipes in the Southwest and Great Plains
There have been studies of the distribution of different types of smoking materials across the Southwest, but primarily at a regional level, looking at patterns in pipe form on a large scale, rather than studies of variation among a group of individual sites. Ariss (1939) created a map with the distribution of general pipe type (tubular pipes, elbow pipes, effigy pipes, monitor pipes, and cone cigarettes) across the Southwest. Tubular pipes had a simple round body, elbow pipes had a right angle between bowl and stem, effigy pipes resembled an animal or person, monitor pipes looked like a more flattened version of the Plains t-shape pipe, and cone cigarettes were small narrow cylindrical objects. Ariss noted that elaborate-effigy pipes and elbow pipes were most concentrated in the Northern San Juan, monitor pipes along the Rio Grande, cone cigarettes near Chaco Canyon and the Hohokam area of southern Arizona, and some elbow pipes in the
Mogollon region. The rest of the Southwest primarily had tubular pipes. Pipes were more plentiful in New Mexico and Arizona than in Utah and Colorado, and pipe and smoking imagery appeared on pottery (Ariss 1939). Ariss hinted at Plains-Pueblo interaction as well, by noting that the monitor pipe is a form from further east. This interaction is evidenced by Pueblo pipes on the
Plains as well, as recorded by Lintz (1991). For example, Pueblo pipes are represented at
Antelope Creek Phase sites in Oklahoma and Texas by a series of clay and stone tubular pipes or cloud blowers (Lintz 1991:95). Switzer (1969) wrote one of the most detailed studies specifically dedicated to pipes and tobacco use in the Southwest, in which he described the pipe types
30 mentioned by Ariss (1939) and others in more detail and discusses their distribution and the different types of tobacco and other plants used in smoking practices. In addition to pipe form being associated with region of origin, particular pipe forms may have been associated with particular ceremonies (McGuire 1899:381).
Although no large regional pipe-focused work concentrated in the Southwest has been published recently, Thibodeau (1993:186) did tabulate some Rio Grande pipes by type and pueblo. With the development of techniques such as Neutron Activation Analysis, scholars have been able to do more scientific analysis of pipe materials and smoke residues. Adams (2014) has recently been conducting use-wear studies of prehistoric pipes in southern Arizona, in which she noted lip wear, smoke residues, and different purposes of the smoke (inhaling versus blowing onto another person or an object). Such studies of how the pipes were used can provide useful information about their purpose, use in different ceremonies, and whether a pipe was smoked by a group or an individual, in addition to utilitarian versus symbolic use.
Residue analyses to determine what was smoked in the pipes have been more limited than research on pipe styles and distribution. Switzer (1969:13-14) documents the use of Nicotiana attenuata (wild tobacco) in the prehistoric Southwest, and Nicotiana tabacum (domesticated tobacco) in the historic Southwest. N. attenuata was found in pipes, cigarettes, ceramic vessels, and as quids for chewing (Switzer 1969:13-14). In addition to certain species of the Nicotiana genus being used for smoking, residue analysis from a Hohokam Classic Period shrine in
Camelback Mountain, north of Phoenix, showed that red willow bark (Salix sp.) and ocotillo
(Fouquieria splendens) were also smoked (Switzer 1969:13-14). In historic times, Cochiti, Santa
Ana, and Hopi were reported to have mixed Nicotiana with various other plants to lessen its strength (Switzer 1969:14). Adams et al (2015) analyzed quids or residue plugs to determine
31 their plant components, and found blends of tobacco and other plants, particularly yucca. More recently, Scott-Cummings and Logan (2012) analyzed the residue from smoking pipes at the
Agua Fria site in the Northern Rio Grande area of New Mexico, and documented residue from a variety of different plants, including corn, but they noted that the pipes were excavated from contexts with other floral remains that may potentially have contaminated the pipes. Previous research notes that the ceremonial tobacco/smoking mix was different than the one for personal use, but there is not a consensus as to what each type was. “Most of the Tewa Pueblos in New
Mexico distinguish towasa (Indian tobacco) from sa (ceremonial tobacco), but all wild tobaccos are referred to as po’se sa (ceremonial tobacco)” (Switzer 1969:14).
While some reports focused on descriptions of the types of pipes and smoking materials found, as just described, others focused more on the mechanics of pipe manufacture and smoking, while others extended their analysis to exploring the social meaning and origins of smoking. These topics will be explored further in subsequent sections in this chapter. However, before discussing the meaning and origins of various types of pipes, it is important to review what the different types of pipes in the Southwest and Plains regions are.
Typologies
Southwest Typologies. As the previous discussion of Ariss’s work shows, different
Southwestern sub-regions had different pipe styles at different times. However, the most abundant style in the Pueblo region overall was the simple tubular pipe, or “cloudblower.”
Although some early prehistoric pipes in the Southwest were stone (Adams 2014), the most common material for pipes in the Southwest was clay, particularly in the Eastern Pueblo area during the Protohistoric time period, the place and time this thesis focuses on.
32
In a more recent typology for Southwestern pipes, Adams (1997) distinguished pipe form by shape of the overall pipe (conical or cylindrical) and of the bore hole (conical or cylindrical). She also noted use-wear and presence or absence of stem. This typology was formed through analyzing pipes earlier in time and from a different sub-region of the Southwest than those at
Pecos. Her typology focused on pipes from archaic and prehistoric sites in southern Arizona, such as the Las Capas site (1250-800 BC) (Adams 2014:213).
The fact that different typologies have used different terminologies for the same pipe forms creates some issues for tabulating pipe forms from site reports, when pictures of the pipes are not present. In Southwestern site reports, the names of pipe forms are often based on or slightly adapted from Kidder’s typology, which will be discussed in more detail at the end of this section
(Habicht-Mauche 1993; Switzer 1969; Thibodeau 1993). The simple tubular pipe is often given its common or colloquial name of “cloudblower.” Depending on the question and interests of the researcher or report writer, sometimes Kidder’s categories will be lumped or further broken down by such attribute states as presence or absence of design (for example, Thibodeau
1993:182). Often, however, the pipes are not broken down in much detail and are grouped under the broad heading of “pipe” in the “Other Ceramic Artifact” or “Other Stone Artifact” sections of reports.
Plains Typologies. For the Great Plains, pipes are broken down into the major common forms of t-shape, elbow, and effigy (called elaborate-effigy in this thesis), and then specific effigy forms (site-dependent) are listed, such as frog, bird, and human (Brown 1996). Figure 4 depicts t-shape and elbow pipes, and Figure 5 depicts effigy pipes. Brown reported on the excavations of the Spiro Mounds Site in Oklahoma, noting the variety of pipes found at that site, which he called a ceremonial center. Although Spiro is a Caddoan site, Brown notes that the
33 typology used for Spiro pipes is also applicable to Plains sites. He situated his pipe analysis in the context of the common Plains pipe styles, which he delineated as listed above. Plains reports also indicate that the stone elbow pipe and t-shape pipes were among the most characteristic
Plains pipes (Blakeslee and Halwey 2006; Brosowske 2009). Some elbow pipes had a detachable long wooden pipe stem. The commonly used material was stone, although some were made of clay. One of the most recognizable and therefore well-known of the Plains pipe materials was a type of pipestone called catlinite (Evans n.d.), a reddish stone with sources in Minnesota and elsewhere further east. Its presence in the Rio Grande region where the raw material is not found indicates trade across the Great Plains and into the Southwest.
Figure 4. Plains pipe forms: elbow and t-shape pipe forms. (Brown 1996)
34
Figure 5. Plains pipe forms: effigy. An example of a human effigy pipe form. (Brown 1996)
Kidder’s Typology. The most well-known pipe typology used in the Southwest, and the typology that most heavily influenced the typology created for this thesis, was produced by
Kidder (1979[1932]:157), largely based on the assemblage from Pecos. Because Kidder’s form typology was created based on the Pecos assemblage, it includes Pueblo types and Plains types.
For this reason, it is presented in its own section here. His typology is as follows:
1. Simple tubular 1. Round slim 2. Flattened slim 3. Heavy fat 2. Pipes of elaborate form 1. Body round or oval in cross section 2. Body rectangular in cross section 1. Plain sides, or sides with etched decoration 2. Decoration in relief on all four sides 3. Decoration in relief on broad sides, narrow sides dentate 4. Incised decoration on broad sides, narrow sides dentate 3. Elbow Pipes 4. Unclassifiable 5. Fragments too small to classify
In his typology list, copied above, he did not include pipe plugs, but they are referred to in notes from his excavations and thus they are included in the form description chart in Figure 6.
Figure 6 depicts photographs of Pecos pipes that illustrate the forms in Kidder’s typology. The
Plains form that he highlighted in his typology was the elbow pipe. The Pueblo form that he
35 highlighted was the simple tubular pipe. The elaborate category he described, which has a
Pueblo-style pipe body and a flattened mouthpiece common on Plains pipes (Wendorf 1953), only includes pipes of the elaborate-Pecos-style form.
Kidder’s typology was adjusted and additional pipes were added to create the form typology used in this thesis analysis. The adjustments and additions I made to his typology are as follows.
Kidder recorded effigy pipes found at Pecos in his notes and artifacts volume, but did not include a category for the effigy pipe in his typology. I expanded elaborate category in his typology to include both the elaborate-Pecos-style pipe just described and the elaborate-effigy pipe, a form found in the prehistoric Northern San Juan and common on the Plains during the Protohistoric and Historic periods (Brown 1996). I also added a category of “Other.” This other category acknowledges the fact that a few pipes at Pecos were complete enough to identify their form, but at the same time were of forms that did not fit into any known typologies. Examples of pipes that fit the form categories used for this thesis are pictured in Figure 6. The “Elaborate” category in this figure is synonymous with the elaborate-Pecos-style form. The various pipes classified as
“Other” are each depicted individually in Appendix B.
36
Figure 6. Illustration of pipe form typology: pipe form attribute states used for this analysis.
Pipe Manufacture, Anatomy, and Mechanics of Smoking
The pipes in the different typologies just discussed were made and used in different ways.
The following illustration (Figure 7) points out the different parts of a modern pipe. For the pipes that are the focus of this thesis, the following terms are relevant: lip, mouthpiece, stem, bowl, bore (hole), chamber. The lip is the very end of the mouthpiece. The bore hole is the opening in the pipe. The chamber is the widened portion of the bore hole at the bowl end of the pipe, the hollow space in the bowl where tobacco was inserted.
37
Figure 7. Diagram of a Pipe. (Miller, n.d.)
Relatively little is known about pipe manufacture in the Pueblos compared to the Plains.
Pipes in the Pueblos were drilled in a similar way to those on the Plains, but the pipes were more often molded from clay than carved from stone. The Plains pipes, referred to by Paper (1988:9) were distinguished by having a separate bowl and stem, with the stem being of considerable size.
The pipes west of the Plains were usually smoked directly through a small opening that was drilled into to the bowl of the pipe (such as the simple tubular pipe of the Pueblos) or a small reed stem inserted into the opening at the base of the pipe (Paper 1988:12). Pipes on the Plains were carved out of quarried stone, shaped, and then the bore hole was created using an ensiform pipe drill (Baugh 1986:173). This process has been studied in more detail through experimental archaeological work. Once the pipe raw material is gathered, there were two different shaping methods used: the peck and grind method or the scraping method. To adjust the shape of the bore hole, flint reamers could be added to the drill. The pipe can be smoothed into its final form using sandstone, water, and reamers (Chandlee et al 2014:126-127).
In Europe and North America during colonial times, pipes of various materials were made using a pipe mold. Pipe-making tools were relatively inexpensive and long lasting, enabling families from different classes of society to be pipe makers (Agbe-Davies 2015:141).
The first record of pipe-making becoming a designated profession is in 1619 in England, with the
38 chartering of the pipe-makers guild in Westminster (Agbe-Davies 2015:141). Just as pipe- making was a group effort in European and Euro-American towns, experimental archaeological work demonstrated the increased efficiency when a few people contribute to making a Plains- style stone pipe, as opposed to one individual (Chandlee et al 2014:124). However, oral tradition among some Plains groups, such as the Lakota Sioux, refers to individuals who make and watch over the pipes to ensure their proper maintenance and use: the pipe keepers (David Nighteagle, personal communication, June 2016).
When pipes are smoked, the tobacco is lit and the smoker puffs into the pipe to keep the tobacco burning, thus creating smoke and allow its inhalation. Adams (2014), through use-wear analysis and reference to historic accounts, observed that not all pipes are puffed into, however.
Pipes that exhibit lip and mouthpiece wear but no evidence of smoking may have been sucked into rather than puffed into, and used to draw out illness, ill feeling or ill spirits, etc.
Social Contexts of Pipe Smoking
Different pipe forms and materials were not only made in particular ways, but also had particular uses and meanings. A selection of those uses and meanings will be highlighted here.
Firstly, pipes played an especially important roles in ceremonies. Pipes have been documented in ceremonies related to religious and spiritual activities, healing, and alliance formation and trade.
While everyday, utilitarian, recreational smoking may have occurred in Native North America,
Paper (1988:7) argues that recreational smoking divorced of deeper significance was not widely common until historic times. In tropical areas of the Americas, smoking nicotine has been involved in inducing ritual trances. In North America, the primary purpose of the tobacco smoke is to serve as an offering to the spirits. Across the Americas, tobacco, offered directly or as smoke, allowed for communication with spirits (Paper 1988:3-5). Among the Pueblos, Parsons
39 describes smoke being blown onto altars in kivas to give luck for ceremonies (Switzer 1969:34).
At Santa Clara pueblo, pipes smoke was blown to ask for rain and in hunting ceremonies
(Switzer 1969:34, 35). More specifically, pipes were used in healing ceremonies among the
Navajo and other groups (Switzer 1969:35).
Secondly, pipes are also instrumental in initiation into a new group and alliance forming between groups, which is an important part of trade and negotiation between groups. At Santa
Clara Pueblo, pipes were used in initiation ceremonies (Switzer 1969:34). “The ritual of the
Sacred Pipe is particularly available to outsiders, because it is a ritual of sharing, of communion; it is central to the rituals of adoption and friendship” (Paper 1988:43). In the Calumet ceremony on the Plains and in Eastern North America, for example, dances involving pipes and pipe smoking occurred as part of welcoming ceremonies (Hall 1997:1). The Calumet ceremony was the means through which trading relationships were established, and it was also one of the events during which trade actually occurred (Blakeslee 1975:150). “A leading member of a band or village was expected to have a number of calumet relationships with the leading members of other tribes, bands, villages, and clans. It was this set of relationships that allowed peaceful visiting and trade between alien groups” (Blakeslee 1975:149).
Thirdly, pipe designs can have symbolic meaning. Pipes have been highlighted as symbols of status (Graham et al. 2007: 486) and an important part of religious ceremonies
(Carmody 2015). The importance of the pipe in life transition events has also been studied elsewhere, notably in Ireland (Hartnett 2004:133). In Native North America, particularly among
Plains groups, pipes also reference or symbolize different spirits or important figures, such as the
Buffalo Calf (Paper 1988:51; David Nighteagle, personal communication June 2016). Pipes can also be seen in some cultures as symbolic capital, signaling particular relationships and
40 understandings (Bird and Smith 2005). In katsina ceremonies in the pueblos, pipes “pretended” the clouds (Fowles 2013:218).
The parts of the pipe and designs on the pipe also symbolize particular things. The bowl of the pipe represents female and the stem represents male, and in Plains tradition the two pieces must be stored separately (David Nighteagle, personal communication June 2016). Pipes, depending on their design and form, can symbolize inclusion or resistance (Agbe-Davies
2015:139). For example, in Ireland, pipe designs reflected one’s social or political identity
(Hartnett 2004:133).
The roots of the various meanings previously discussed can be derived or related to, at least in part, from pipe origin stories. Different groups have different stories of how pipe smoking began in their culture. For the Omaha, the Calumet ceremony is said to originate from older mourning ceremonies (Hall 1997:57). In others, such as the Iowa and Hidatsa, pipes factor into the formation of clans and the recreation of the Earth, respectively (Paper 1988:54-55). For the Plains Cree, the pipe is the first gift to the original couple from the spirit realm (Paper
1988:53). The most detailed story I was able to find was from the Sioux. The Sioux have the following story for how they received the pipe from White Buffalo Calf Woman. This story was recorded by a Lakota Sioux pipe keeper and flute maker, who heard it from his grandfather and then shared it with me during a meeting in June 2016:
“A man was out scouting and came upon what we now call Devil’s Tower, in Wyoming. This is a sacred place, a sacred hill. There used to be a hole through it, straight across from the East to the West. The man entered, and on the North side he saw the Sacred Pipe, and on the South side he saw the sacred bow and arrows. He was going to pick up the Pipe, but instead he chose the bow and arrows and walked out the West side of the tipi. Since then the Cheyennes have had the Sacred Arrows. Later, the Sacred Pipe was brought to the Sioux. This happened on what is now the Cheyenne River Reservation, near the community of Iron Lighting. Two warriors were out hunting buffalo. There were hardly any to be found, so they went farther and farther away from camp. As they stood on top of a hill, looking into
41
the distance, they saw something white coming. They went closer to look at it and found a woman walking toward them carrying a bundle. ….Then the woman said, “Tomorrow make preparations for me to come to bring the bundle for the Sioux people. With this you will survive on the earth.” The man went back to the village and told the people what he had seen and what had happened. So the people prepared for the woman to come. The next day she arrived and presented them with the Sacred Calf pipe. The woman taught them how to use the Pipe, how to pray with it, and how to do different things to take care of it. She gave the Pipe to Buffalo Standing Upright, a medicine man, one of the leader. She explained everything about it, and then she left. She left the camp circle in a clockwise direction, then headed West. As she went she changed into four animals. The last was a white buffalo calf, which disappeared over the horizon. Ever since then the Sioux have had the Sacred Buffalo Calf Pipe.” (Nighteagle n.d., 3-5).
Applicable Frameworks and Theory
The existing information on pipes that has been outlined in this chapter has been used and contextualized by archaeologists in a few different frameworks. These frameworks are lenses through which pipes and their roles in society can be understood by scholars. These frameworks are informed by how pipes were described ethnohistorically as well as by archaeological theorization of material objects, and they influence the hypotheses about pipe use explored in this thesis.
Negotiation with Material Objects: Using Pipes to Meet with People
One framework archaeologists have used to understand pipes is pipe smoking as a means of negotiation in trade, inter-ethnic meetings, etc. Much of the more detailed literature on the ritual aspects of trade and interaction comes from ethnohistoric and ethnographic accounts.
Parsons (1939:775-779) described different ceremonies in which pipes were used in the
Southwest, such as the Hopi flute ceremony, and other scholars discussed the Calumet pipe ceremony on the Plains. McGuire (1899:361) noted that “early voyagers refer to the employment of tobacco in all treaties, councils, and functions of every kind, including social intercourse, in
42 divination, and in curing of disease.” Later scholars pointed to the importance of special objects, ritual, and specialization in fostering reciprocity and exchange relationships (Sahlins 1972; Snow
1981). While Sahlins does not elaborate on what the objects are for different cultures, pipes, with their distinctive regional styles, durability, and ceremonial importance, could serve this purpose for Plains-Pueblo and inter-Pueblo exchange relationships. One way this exchange specialization is manifest concretely in the Plains-Pueblo exchange system, according to ethnohistoric records, is particular villages that were exchange centers. Snow’s discussion of specialization in exchange and Hammond and Rey’s (1966) research into the Spanish entradas in the Rio Grande in the
1500s support the hypothesis that specialized trade centers existed. One such trade center was
Pecos (Pecos National Historical Park 2015b). This study will draw on both this theorization of specialization and ritual aspects of exchange to assess whether pipes were more common at this specialized trade center compared to other pueblos.
An important part of diplomacy is what Baugh (2008:417) called the “sacred canopy of trade.” In this system, found among different groups in pre-Hispanic North America, religious objects (such as eagle feathers, turquoise, and tobacco) are exchanged while more mundane goods are bartered at the same time, in a more secondary, utilitarian or background status. Both the foregrounded religious and backgrounded utilitarian transactions are further reinforced by various social relationships such as trade partners, fictive kin ties, and intermarriage (Baugh
2008:417).
Hill (1998:218) noted that ritual consumption aspects of trade interactions still need more attention, particularly in exchange among pre-Hispanic North American groups. Harrison
(1984:15-17), despite writing years earlier than Hill, echoed his sentiments about ritual aspects of trade, specifically noting that further study of designs on the pipes of Plains and Pueblo origin
43 found in Texas could provide clues about the religious understanding of the people exchanging and using them. There is recorded evidence of the role of pipes in inter-group welcoming ceremonies and the smoking of pipes preceded material exchanges in other parts of North
America, but there is not much written about pipes in this role in the Southwest or in prehistoric times. For a historic example, travelers recorded an arrival of a Dakota delegation and two
Frenchmen to a neighboring Midwest village and noted that pipe smoking that occurred following their arrival as part of a welcome council held by the village they were visiting (Hall
1997:1). Hall goes on to discuss how there were two types of pipes “common pipes” or utilitarian/recreational pipes and “pipes of peace and of the wars” which were used for group or inter-group meetings and encounters. These pipes were distinct from each other in form and material, in other words, style. This thesis will attempt to explore and better understand stylistic differences in pipes in Protohistoric and late prehistoric times, and address Harrison and Hill’s call for more research into ritual aspects of Plains-Pueblo trade.
Social Identity and Style: Using Pipes to Identify and Track People
Another framework for viewing pipes is as identity markers. Style is an important concept for this thesis because the style of pipes will be used to identify Plains and Pueblo people through the distinctive ways they manufactured pipes. Style, as Hall noted, can also provide some indication of the purpose of a pipe. According to Hegmon (1992:517-518), although archaeologists employing different theoretical perspectives have different conceptions of what style is and how it was used, they tend to agree on two basic tenets: (1) style is a way of doing something, and (2) style involves a choice among various alternatives. The use of the concept of style in archaeology was fundamentally changed when Martin Wobst published a paper stating that style is more than just decorative and also has function: to communicate
44 information. Calling style “a strategy of information exchange,” Wobst (1977:317) argued that recognizing the function of style would help stimulate research in the evolution and multiple manifestations of stylistic traits and behavior. Wiessner argued that style had a behavioral basis, citing cognitive literature on the importance to humans of both identifying themselves as individuals (assertive style) and distinguishing themselves from other social groups (emblemic style) (Wiessner 1984:191). Thus the style of an object can signal something about a person’s individual or group identity. Technological style is a recognition that one can see learned behavior (enculturation) in the way things are made (Stark 1998:5). Technological style was described by Cameron (1998:191) as: “recognition that artifact manufacture follows a historically derived cultural template that defines the way things should be done. Technological style may be stable over long periods of time and generally expresses social information unconsciously, but it may also be the result of conscious choices about how manufacturing should be accomplished. The intent of technological style is not however overt signaling of group membership.” Scholars using the technological style framework assert that functional or mundane, utilitarian things have style. This is then used to distinguish different groups and movement of people in the archaeological record, when assertive style or emblemic style does not show a distinction. This study tries to capture both emblemic/assertive style and technological style by looking at both surface decoration as well as material composition and form of pipes.
The work linking material culture to ethnic identity has been critiqued by post- processualists and problematized by some recent case studies, which is sometimes referred to as the “pots=people problem” in archaeology. This refers in part to earlier normative approaches to culture in which material culture style was directly mapped on to ethnic identity, thus stylistic
45 boundaries visible in ceramics, architecture, etc. automatically signaled ethnic or social boundaries, as well. Archaeologists still use stylistic boundaries of artifacts to identify archaeological cultures today. While differences in material culture style do indeed often go along with social distinctions and there is merit to using material culture changes to identify boundaries, the boundaries, especially in frontier or colonial settings, are a great deal more fuzzy than archaeologists tend to acknowledge, as identities can be multiple, blended, and negotiated, as can the style adopted by any particular group. An example of this problem of making a one-to- one link between a particular artifact style and a particular group of people is Joyce and
Henderson’s (2010) study that described a group who was not Olmec adopting Olmec designs because they conveyed with them a concept of social organization present in Olmec society that the non-Olmec group wanted to adopt and legitimize. Another example of the difficulty of mapping artifact styles to people is that it obscures narratives of coercion or blending. For example, in studies of individuals moving into new groups, there is evidence of ceramics with designs and outward appearance of the dominant group being studied, but the ceramic was constructed in the style of another region, suggesting that a person was trained in another area and either willingly or under order from another, is trying to make pots in the visual style of the new area they are living in, but is retaining the structural construction styles of their home area
(Gosselain 2000) . Blending of style at borderland areas, such as blending of elements of Plains pipes and Pueblo pipes in a new pipe form found at trade centers is another way that style is being used to move beyond just boundary distinction but to show how the interacting of different groups was negotiated and resulted in blending of designs in material culture. Often at borderland areas, social boundaries, as manifest in artifact style, are very distinct because people are emphasizing difference, but, in some cases, as seen in pipes on the Plains-Pueblo frontier,
46 there are instances of blending of styles. This archaeological theorization about the blending of styles reflecting integration of people articulates with indigenous ideas as well, particularly the
Pueblo ontology of movement. For example, integration of Tiwa-speaking Pueblo people and objects into Apache communities and Apache people and objects into Tiwa communities, as recorded through the archaeological and bioarchaeological record, can be understood through both a theoretical framework of the meaning of blending styles and identities and an ontological framework of movement as a way of being (Fowles 2017).
This linking of style to identity is still problematic, however. Janusek (2002) discusses issues with using material culture to study identity, but also points out some merits. He argues that multiple categories of material culture are needed for such studies and multiple lines of evidence. He notes that there is seldom a straightforward association between style and identity.
In light of the problems with using material to recognize ancient social groups, some scholars have argued that style is no longer a useful concept of study due to its history of limitations and rigid classifications. “Style has little conceptual use beyond a vernacular distinction between social forms distinguished within a consumerist society” (Boast 1997:191). Others, particularly in prehistoric migration studies, have pointed out that stylistic differences (particularly differences in technological or construction techniques, or more hidden ways of doing, rather than surface style) sometimes are the only, or one of the few, ways to track ancient movement of people. Stylistic variation can also tell something about group cohesion and integration.
Distributions of material culture traits can reflect a “nested set of identities that involve affiliation with increasingly inclusive sets of social groups” (Cameron 2013:220). Increased variation and diversity in style means more individual expression and potentially competition.
More similarity likely reflects more cohesion and integration (Polly Wiessner, personal
47 communication, 9 February 2017). Regardless of whether scholars use the term “style” or not, style is still implicit in not only the way attributes of the subjects of study of archaeological investigation are recorded, but also in the methods and writings of the archaeologists themselves
(Conkey and Hastorf 1990:2).
To summarize, differences in form, design, and use of material culture do have meaning, and thus style is still a useful concept of study. For example, as stated previously, in migration studies, one of the only ways we can see people moving in the past is through the “style”
(technological or otherwise) of their artifacts. The problems with how to link materials and people are best addressed by acknowledging the limitations of this link, clearly explaining how you are defining style or using another term, and describing the context of the materials you are examining. Today, archaeologists recognize that style is more than a way of doing. “Style as more than a way of doing is a view that holds style and material culture to be part of the means by which humans make sense of their world and with which cultural meanings are always in production” (Conkey and Hastorf 1990).
Returning to the case study of pipes, particular styles not only can provide information about what pipe-making traditions or regions the pipes, or the knowledge of that style, might have come from, but particular styles also signify particular functions. For example, a pipe with a longer stem is more conducive to communal use and ritual presentation because it can be passed to another person with both hands (Paper 1988:9). Increasingly elaborate pipe styles also correlate with more ceremonial use (Fowles 2013:218,221).
Materiality: Understanding the Meaning of the Different Properties of the Pipe
A branch of theory in which attributes of an object have been more deeply linked to their significance is materiality. Materiality theory cues us into focusing on the meaning and
48 significance of various properties of the objects themselves. As Fowles (2013:161) notes, substance matters, and the rising clouds of smoke from a pipe may have in themselves been important. The pipe engaging multiple senses (touch, sight, smell, taste) contributes to the overall experience and act of the different ceremonies it was used in. Feeling the smoke in one’s lungs affords certain sensory perceptions (Pauketat 2012:33). The pipe as object was in itself powerful and had animacy (Pauketat 2012:34). The act of putting the stem and bowl together meant something as well as physically handing the pipe from person to person (Paper 1988).
Pipes themselves are “magnetic or gravitational objects [that draw people together]; they draw together into consciousness the interdependency of people” (Fowles 2013:155). There is, in other words, a “cosmology of smoke” (Ken Sassaman, quoting Rafferty, personal communication, 23
April 2016).
The material a pipe was made of not only tells something about what stylistic tradition the pipe was made in, but different materials also convey different meanings. In the Taos region, for example, clay for pipes had to be collected from near the Rio Lucero, which irrigated most of the pueblo’s agricultural fields. Since a purpose of pipe smoking was to produce smoke clouds that would convey prayers for rain and river upwards, the connection of pipe clay to water has an added layer of meaning (Fowles 2013:154). The tobacco is usually Nicotiana or the inner bark or leaves of particular trees blended with or used in place of Nicotiana. These alternatives to
Nicotiana have an association with red or a resemblance to the Nicotiana plant itself (Paper
1988:4). The terracing, or 3-D edging, of elaborate pipes in the Southwest, along with the lighting arrows depicted on them has been thought to represent clouds (as terraced pyramids) or be related to the imagery displayed on katsina figures (Fowles 2013:218). These form
49 classifications and attributes will be explained in the following chapter, where the methods for conducting the analyses are outlined.
50
CHAPTER III
METHODS
The artifact assemblage analyzed to address the questions of this study consisted of 1,306 pipes. To understand if and how pipes reflect the dynamics of Plains-Pueblo interaction, pipes needed to be analyzed not only from trade centers where people of different ethnicities and group identities were known to have interacted, but also from other sites whose pipe samples could be compared to those at trade centers to see if the trade center pipe samples really were distinct, and, if so, in what way. To allow for spatial and temporal comparisons of trade centers, pipes were analyzed from a selection of sites that fit into the following groups: 1) Pueblo villages recorded as trade centers on the Plains-Pueblo frontier, 2) Late Prehistoric and Protohistoric
Pueblo sites in the Northern Rio Grande not recorded as trade centers, 3) Early Prehistoric
Pueblo sites in the Northern San Juan, and 4) Plains sites that were possibly Protohistoric (since they were not linked to particular individual Plains sites information about whether they were from sites that may have served as trade centers was not obtainable, and time period could not be confirmed with confidence).
The first site group (the trade centers) was selected based on which sites had both been recorded as trade centers in site reports in the region of interest (the Plains-Pueblo frontier) and had detailed pipe tabulations. If pipes were involved in inter-group negotiation, these sites would be the most likely candidates to have their pipes reflect this. The second group (Northern Rio
Grande sites not recorded as trade centers) consisted of a collection of sites with either site reports with tabulated pipes or pipes available for analysis at one of the museums I visited.
Assessing difference between pipes at those sites and pipes at trade centers helped address the hypotheses of the involvement of pipes in trade, either as mundane trade objects or part of trade
51 ceremonies. Comparing groups 1 and 2 helped determine if and how Plains interaction impacted, or was in part facilitated by, pipes. The third group (Early Prehistoric Pueblo sites in the
Northern San Juan) consisted of pipes I analyzed from museum collections. This group was analyzed to help determine if the pipes found in the Protohistoric Northern Rio Grande that were elaborate-effigy, t-shape (or monitor), or elbow forms were a result of Plains influence or were revivals of Northern San Juan pipe-making traditions. As a result of this analysis and analysis of pipes from Plains sites, the pipes of these forms at Northern Rio Grande sites were considered to be due to Plains influence, which will be explained further in Chapter IV. The time period and region for all of the pipes discussed thus far in this paragraph were determined based on the time period of occupation and the location of the sites the pipes came from. A few pipes from the museum collections that would fall into groups 2 or 3 did not have associated site or archaeological project information beyond “from Pueblo site.” The fourth group (pipes from
Plains sites) were analyzed from museum collections to assess what differences there are between pipe samples from Pueblo and Plains sites, and if influence or presence of Pueblo people at Plains sites can be confirmed seen through pipes at Plains sites. This was found to indeed be the case, as will be discussed in Chapter IV. None of the pipes from Plains sites were linked to particular sites in the museum records, but they were recorded as being from Plains sites potentially occupied before the Historic period.
The first part of the remainder of this chapter describes the process by which I obtained permission to analyze the pipes in this assemblage and explains the site report and museum sources in more detail. This is followed by a discussion of the attributes of pipes selected for analysis and what methods were used to analyze those attributes. The final section of this chapter
52 outlines the challenges to data integrity and measurement confidence that I encountered while performing the analyses.
Data Sources and Permissions
As just discussed, the pipe data compiled for this thesis came from a variety of sources.
For the purpose of this section, the pipes from the four site groups previously mentioned will be lumped into two groups, based on the two categories of data source. One source was in-person analysis I conducted of pipes in museum collections. The collection I examined most extensively was from Pecos Pueblo, so the data sources and permissions needed for pipes from that site will be discussed in additional detail in this section. The second source of pipe data was from site reports, which will be discussed following the collections I analyzed in person.
Museum Collections Analyzed In Person
To better understand the typical assemblage of pipes from Plains and Pueblo sites, a comparative sample was selected and subjected to visual attribute analyses. I analyzed 1,030 pipes in person. In this sample, 66 pipes were from Plains sites, 955 pipes were from Pueblo sites (including 867 from Pecos and 32 from Gran Quivira), and 9 pipes had no site information.
Permission was obtained from Denver Museum of Nature and Science (DMNS) to examine their pipe collections from Plains sites and from History Colorado to examine pipes recorded as likely from Plains sites. None of these pipes had specific site numbers. The bulk of the DMNS pipes analyzed came from the Crane Accession, and some of the pipes from History
Colorado came from “likely various sites in Oklahoma” according to a note from the donor. I do not have more information on these accessions at this time.
Permission was obtained from the Anasazi Heritage Center (AHC) to examine their
Pueblo pipe collections from various sites and projects. Most pipes at AHC had a corresponding
53 site number and site name in the museum records. A few from the Dolores project, Animas-
LaPlata project, and Grandview Mitigation project only had site numbers recorded. The Dolores
Archaeological Program spanned the 1978-1983 field seasons and was a salvage project in
Southwest Colorado in advance of the construction of the McPhee Dam and Reservoir. The
Animas-LaPlata project took place in the 1990s in Southwest Colorado in advance of a Bureau of Reclamation water project. The Grandview Mitigation project was conducted by Woods
Canyon Archaeological Consultants. The specific location of the project was not recorded with the museum notes on the pipes, and I was unable to locate a report for the project online. These collections are curated at the Anasazi Heritage Center, and the sites included in the project date from the Pueblo I-Pueblo III (prehistoric) periods. Pipes from Sapawe, Pottery Mound, and unidentified Pueblo sites housed at the Maxwell Museum of Anthropology in Albuquerque were also examined to increase the sample size for the Protohistoric Northern Rio Grande regional comparison. Pecos pipes were analyzed at Pecos NHP, MIAC, and WACC. WACC is also the repository that houses the Gran Quivira pipes that I analyzed.
For the pipes examined in person, all physical pipe attributes considered in this thesis could be recorded and analyzed. These attributes will be further explained later in this chapter.
For the pipes that could be associated with a particular site, the site occupation period was used as the time period for the pipe, unless there were additional field notes that allowed the pipe’s location in the site, and thus time of deposition, to be determined more precisely. In both the pipe sample from written reports and the pipe sample from museum collections, I intentionally included pipes dating to before and after AD 1450, to better assess whether any changes in pipe attributes coincided with the increase in Plains-Pueblo interaction. Temporal information was difficult to determine because some sites were occupied both before and after 1450 and because
54 the assemblage was biased towards post-1450 sites. Each site whose occupation fell entirely before or after 1450 was assigned to the Pre-1450 or Post-1450 group. Some sites had the majority of their occupation post-1450, but occupation began shortly prior to 1450. These sites were recorded in the data tables as “occupation post-1450.”
One challenge with the pipe sample I analyzed from museum collections is that it is not certain whether the number of pipes available in the museum for analysis from some of the sites is the same as the number of pipes that were excavated from the site. Therefore, some of the pipe tallies for some sites may be missing pipes that were lost, on loan from the museum, or otherwise not included in this analysis. One way this challenge was shown was in discrepancies between the number of pipes in museum collections and the number of pipes in site reports, for the sites that I was able to both obtain a site report for and analyze the pipes in person. Gran Quivira and
Pecos are examples of this, and so they will be discussed further here.
Because Gran Quivira was a trade center with the next highest frequency of pipes
(following Pecos), it was important to compare its pipe assemblage in more detail than obtainable from the site report, the pipes from that pueblo housed at WACC were also visually analyzed. This site exemplifies the difficulty in determining whether the total number of pipes recovered from the site was available for this analysis. For Gran Quivira (LA120), the number of pipes listed in the site report was 38, but the number of pipes housed in the collections at WACC totaled 32, and no record was found concerning where the other six pipes were located. For overall pipe density analyses (Chapter IV), the site report total were used (38), since the six missing pipes may have gone to other places besides WACC. For all other analyses, tables, and figures, the collections analysis total (32) was used, since many attribute analyses could only be completed in person. This total of 32 includes 1 soot doddle. A soot doddle is a plug of tobacco
55 residue that was inside a pipe that was not cleaned out before it was discarded. The soot doddle is counted as a pipe in this tabulation because its shape showed that it had been in a simple tubular pipe, thus providing a pipe form (although no additional information) for this particular object. The pipe that once contained it was missing. For sites that did not have a corresponding site report to list expected pipe counts, the number of pipes analyzed was used as the total.
This thesis stemmed from an interest in better understanding Plains-Pueblo interactions, and recognizing that pipes would allow me to study these interactions. Pecos is a key location for such a study. Excavations at Pecos recovered significantly more pipes than other sites in the area and time period of interest, the Protohistoric Eastern Pueblo, or Northern Rio Grande area (867 pipes as compared to 52 at the site with the next highest number of pipes). These 867 pipes include whole pipes, pipe fragments, and 8 pipe plugs. Although pipe plugs are not pipes themselves, they are considered to represent 8 pipes from Pecos, since the pipes they would have been made to fit into were not found. The majority of pipes (817) from Pecos Pueblo are from
Kidder’s 1915-1929 excavations at Pecos and are housed at the curation facility at Pecos
National Historical Park (NHP) in Pecos, NM. This collection has had limited analysis since
Kidder’s work at Pecos ended in the early 1900s. Written permission to analyze the pipes was obtained from the Peabody Museum in Andover, the National Park Service, and the Pueblo of
Jemez, the three owners of the objects from Kidder’s Pecos excavations. Permission was obtained from the Museum of Indian Arts and Culture (MIAC) in Santa Fe to analyze the twenty-three pipes from the 1939-1940 excavations of the south pueblo at Pecos which MIAC controls and houses. Twenty-seven pipes from various NPS excavations at Pecos between 1930 and today are housed at Western Archaeological Conservation Center (WACC; 12 pipes) and
Pecos NHP (15 pipes). The collections managers at Pecos and WACC granted access to analyze
56 those collections. Of the pipes that have been repatriated to the Pueblo of Jemez, the eighteen
(included in the 817 noted above) that remain at Pecos NHP were analyzed, but those sent to
Jemez were not.
The analysis permission covered handling and photographing the Pecos pipes, as well as visually analyzing them. I was not permitted to remove anything from the pipes, thus residue analysis could not be conducted. Since permission was not obtained to remove the pipes from the building in which they were housed nor to subject them to chemical analyses, the material identification portion of this thesis is based on visual examination of the pipes by consulting geologist Kate Ziegler, who has expertise in the geology of the greater Albuquerque and Santa
Fe area and visited the curation facility at Pecos to study the pipes. Archival maps and notes from Pecos excavations were obtained at the Laboratory of Anthropology in Santa Fe and form part of this study.
Site Report Sample
To expand the Northern Rio Grande site sample so as to better compare trade center sites to contemporaneous sites that were not trade centers, this thesis examined published site reports that included tabulation of pipes from eleven sites, in addition to the site reports from Pecos and
Gran Quivira. Additionally, I examined unpublished reports of pipes from Tsama East and West
Pueblos held by the Laboratory of Anthropology in Santa Fe, site databases for Tsama East and
West Pueblos and Ponsipa’akeri maintained by Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, and the database for the Cuyamugue Project, directed by Dr. Scott Ortman at the University of Colorado,
Boulder. Additionally, pipe tabulations and descriptions were found in a database of Nels
Nelson’s excavations of San Cristobal maintained by the American Museum of Natural History.
Not counting Pecos and Gran Quivira, the site report sample consisted of 276 pipes.
57
These sites were chosen because of accessibility of reports with pipe tabulation and information on form, material, and, in some cases, design. Furthermore, this site sample contains sites that were spread throughout the Rio Grande region (on the Plains-Pueblo frontier and
Pueblo areas to the west); sites that were occupied before, during, and after the AD 1450 Plains-
Pueblo interaction increase; and sites that were recorded in ethnohistoric accounts to as trade centers (Pecos, Gran Quivira, and Pot Creek) and others recorded not as trade centers. These sites were selected because they are all eastern Pueblo sites (thus closer to the Great Plains) but still part of the Southwestern Pueblo world. The various data sources of pipes discussed in this chapter thus far are summarized in Table 2. Pipes for which only site report or database information was available are highlighted in red. Pipes that I analyzed in museums, but did not have associated site reports are highlighted in yellow. Pipes that I analyzed in museums and referred to site reports are highlighted in orange. The asterisks for the sites highlighted in orange indicate that the pipe tabulations in the table reflect the number of pipes I analyzed in person, not the number of pipes tabulated in the site reports. Specifically the Gran Quivira report (Hayes
1981) had 38 pipes recorded instead of 32, and the Pecos report (Kidder 1979[1932]) had 699 pipes recorded instead of 867.
The Pipe Assemblage Occupation Number of Reference Consulted or Site Site Number Period Pipes Curation Facility Visited Arroyo Hondo LA12 pre-1450 48 Habicht-Mauche 1993 Kapo'ouinge (Leaf Water) LA300 pre-1450 2 Luebben 1953 Pindi LA1 pre-1450 10 Stubbs and Stallings 1953 Pot Creek LA260 pre-1450 27 Wetherington 1968 Te'ewi LA252 pre-1450 16 Wendorf 1953 Tsama West LA909 pre-1450 7 CCAC database 2014 Cuyamungue LA38 post-1450 16 Wendorf and Wilmeth 1952 Howiri LA71 post-1450 4 Fallon 1987, Mick-O'Hara 1987 Ponsipa'aleri LA297 post-1450 11 CCAC database 2014 Poshu'ouinge LA274 post-1450 10 Jeancon 1923
58
Pueblo del Encierro LA70 post-1450 25 Snow 1976, Warren 1976 San Cristobal LA80 post-1450 40 AMNH database 2013 Tonque LA240 post-1450 2 Barnett 1969 Tsama East LA908 post-1450 6 CCAC database 2014 Unshagi LA123 post-1450 52 Reiter 1939 Gran Quivira LA120 post-1450 32* Hayes 1981, WACC Kidder 1979[1932], Pecos Pecos LA625 post-1450 867* NHP, MIAC, WACC Chimney Rock District 5AA92 pre-1450 2 AHC Payne Site 5MT12205 pre-1450 2 AHC North Piedra Village 5AA246 pre-1450 1 AHC Singleton Site 5MT4003 pre-1450 1 AHC Mockingbird Mesa 5MT5018 pre-1450 1 AHC Animas-La Plata Project 5LP0187 pre-1450 1 AHC Animas-La Plata Project 5LP0246 pre-1450 1 AHC Animas-La Plata Project 5LP177 pre-1450 1 AHC Animas-La Plata Project 5LP184 pre-1450 1 AHC Animas-La Plata Project 5LP2026 pre-1450 1 AHC Dolores Archaeological Project 5MT12151 pre-1450 1 AHC Grandview Mitigation Project 5LP372 pre-1450 1 AHC No site name or project info 5MT4006 pre-1450 1 AHC Sapawe LA306 post-1450 12 Maxwell Pottery Mound LA416 post-1450 1 Maxwell Unprovenienced, from Pueblo sites 28 Maxwell recorded as Unprovenienced, from likely pre- Plains sites 1800 66 DMNS Unprovenienced, no site info Likely Plains 9 History Colorado Total 1306 Table 2. The sites, time periods, and data sources of the pipes in the assemblage. Sites shown in red had pipe data from site reports, sites in orange had data from site reports and I examined the collections in person, and I examined the collections in person for the sites in yellow.
Data Recording
59
This section outlines what attributes of pipes were selected for analysis, the reason behind those selections, and the methods used to analyze those attributes. I was able to analyze the
Pecos pipe sample most thoroughly, followed by the other pipes from museum collections, and then followed by the pipes from site reports that I was unable to analyze in person. This section also explains which analyses could be completed for which pipe samples.
Museum Collections Analyzed in Person
Detailed measurements and weights of complete pipes and visual observations of form, material, design, and use-wear of all pipes and pipe fragments that I could inspect in person were used in this analysis. The attributes and attribute states definition sheet used when conducting the analysis is included in Appendix B. The visual observations of form are compared against the typologies established by A.V. Kidder and Jenny Adams, along with known types for the Great
Plains. The pipes are assigned to the form categories developed by Kidder when he initially examined the Pecos pipes (Kidder 1979[1932]:157). This section outlines each attribute, why it was chosen for examination, and how it was measured for the Pecos pipe sample, and then discusses how those methods were modified for pipes from sites besides Pecos.
Dimensions. Measurements were used to explore patterns in pipe sizes and especially to link size and pipe form. Pipes that are fragmentary (i.e. missing parts that are necessary to determine dimensions) were not measured. Pipes that are incomplete (i.e. the pipe is broken and has pieces missing, but enough of the pipe is present for the form and most dimensions to be determined) were not measured either, unless the part that was missing was just a small chip. The following measurements were taken on each complete or mostly complete pipe: length, width at bowl end, width at the mouth end, and the diameter of the bore hole (opening in the pipe for the person to blow air into and suck smoke out of, tobacco to be placed into, and smoke to exit) at
60 the pipe bowl end and mouth end (Figure 8). Measurements were taken using digital calipers recording to the nearest 0.01mm. Each complete pipe was weighed on a digital scale to the nearest 0.1oz, and then the weight was converted to grams.
Figure 8. Pipe dimension measurement locations used in this analysis. Although the pipe shown here was not actually measured because it was broken, it is depicted here because it is easier to see where the bore hole measurements would have been taken.
Form. Form is important for distinguishing Pueblo pipes from Plains pipes, which is important for understanding the role of pipes in Plains-Pueblo trade. For the attribute of form,
Kidder 1979[1932], and Brown 1996 were used as guides for the overall shape or form of the pipe. Kidder’s typology was used to group the pipes for the final form tabulations; Adam’s typology was used as a comparison to determine whether particular types in her classification system correlated with ones in Kidder’s system. For pipes that do not fit any of these three typologies, a description of the pipe form was recorded and a note was made about whether it appears in literature as a common form for another region. Ultimately, the final form typology used for the in-person pipe analysis closely matched Kidder’s typology, with a couple attribute state additions to better accommodate Plains forms (from Brown 1996) and unique forms that did not fit any other typologies, as discussed in Chapter II. Form was determined through visual observation. The attribute states for the attribute of form (Elaborate-effigy, Elbow, T-shape,
61
Elaborate-Pecos-style, Simple tubular, and Indeterminate/Other) are individually defined in the attribute sheet in Appendix B, and summarized in the next paragraph. For visual representations of these form attribute state descriptions, refer back to Figure 6 in Chapter II.
When recording form, a pipe was only typed as “elaborate-effigy” if it resembled an animal or human form. A pipe was only typed as “elbow” if the elbow angle between bowl and stem was present. A pipe was only typed as “t-shape” if it was an elbow pipe with an additional protrusion on the side of the bowl that is opposite of the stem. A pipe was only typed as
“elaborate-Pecos-style” if it had a four-paneled bowl body, 3-dimensional relief on its narrow sides, flattened “fishtail” mouthpiece, or a combination of these characteristics, as defined by
Kidder. A pipe was only typed as “simple tubular” if enough of the pipe was present to determine that it did not have the angle of an elbow pipe or the paneled bowl body with edge relief of an elaborate pipe. A pipe was typed as “other” if it was a complete pipe, but not of a form defined in any known typologies. Pipes that are too fragmentary or missing key pieces, such as the mouth end or the angle for elbow pipes for example, could not be given a form, and thus were listed as “indeterminate.”
Material. Material type was recorded because it can provide information concerning where the pipe, or at least its raw material, came from, and thus provide information on local versus non-local interaction. For the Pecos pipes, the material classification (clay or stone) listed in the Pecos National Historical Park artifact database (Pecos National Historical Park 2015a) was the initial source relied on for classification. For the material data for the pipes that did not have material type listed in the Park Service database, the material type was visually determined by the researcher through comparison with the identified pipes. Clay and stone pipes were fairly
62 easy to distinguish, but the degree of confidence in the stone type determinations greatly increased due to consulting a geologist to check the material assessments.
The initial material assessment for stone pipes was subsequently evaluated by Dr. Kate
Zeigler, of Zeigler Geologic Consulting, LLC, a geologist with expertise in northern New
Mexico stone and mineral types. She visually examined and handled the stone pipes to determine a) whether they were actually stone, b) the stone type more precisely, and c) the closest source of that stone type to Pecos. Because the pipes cannot currently be sent away for further analysis and material verification, we were unable to determine the precise quarry area from which the raw materials came, but Dr. Ziegler was able to identify the nearest source as well as the other regions in North America where those stone types could be found. This provided better understanding on what material could be local v. non-local. In the interval between when I examined the pipes and when Dr. Ziegler examined them, the catlinite pipe was misplaced, so she was unable to confirm that it was from the Minnesota red siltstone source, thus the NPS notes and my notes and photographs were relied on for that pipe. A list of stone material types is presented in the Results chapter (Table 6).
Surface Decorations. Decoration on pipe surfaces is another line of evidence for the social identity of the pipe’s owner, as well as an indicator of pipe meaning. This attribute was chosen for study to determine if Plains motifs in addition to Pueblo motifs were appearing at
Pecos and if there were pipes that contained motifs from both regional groups. Using visual inspection, presence or absence of surface decoration was noted. If decoration was present, a note was made in the database of the nature of the decoration and whether it was in relief, grooved, or incised. In Chapter IV, relative frequencies of the different surface decorations are noted and compared. Motifs were compared to rock art interpretations and existing pipe literature
63 to determine which designs may have been Plains designs versus Pueblo designs, as well as what the design images may have signified. On some pipes, designs were obscured or broken off, but a note was placed in the database if partial designs were present and what the design appeared to be based on the portion present.
Use-Wear. Evidence of use of the pipes was recorded as a check on pipe function and location of manufacture. When combined with provenience data, one can determine if the used pipes were concentrated in a different area than the non-used ones (indicating possible production or storage versus use areas) or if used and non-used pipes were intermingled throughout the pueblo. The assemblage was divided into two attribute states based on visual inspection: used and unused. For pipes with evidence of use-wear, the type(s) of use-wear present was noted: lip wear, blackening or soot from smoking, and residue. Lip wear includes chipping or wearing of the slip or discoloration concentrated at the mouth end of the pipe.
Smoking is indicated by blackening or soot inside the pipe bore hole.
Provenience. For most of the pipes in the Pecos assemblage, I was unable to obtain precise dates, due to the pipes being provenienced at the scale of whole rooms or structures, rather than stratigraphic layers. The original plan was to use ceramics from the same provenience to more precisely date each pipe at Pecos, but the provenience locations documented were not divided horizontally such that one could associate particular pipes with particular ceramic assemblages (beyond the general Protohistoric period), except the pipes in sealed deposits. The only pipes with more precise temporal information were the eighteen pipes in seventeen sealed contexts, such as burials and caches. This sample from these caches was divided into pre- and post-1450 (approximately) to assess if there were changes in pipe style after the increase in
Plains-Pueblo interaction.
64
The methods by which I endeavored to determine locations of pipe deposition are described here. The Pecos National Historical Park artifact catalog was used to obtain provenience and assign a time period for the pipes in sealed contexts based on notes in the catalog on associated temporally-diagnostic ceramics. This information was compiled in a
Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, and all of the pipe and smoking-related objects were photographed.
Once all of the information was compiled and corresponding maps were found through archival research, the pipes were grouped by provenience and these data were imposed onto the site maps that were recoverable from publications and the Lab of Anthropology archive (including Kidder
1958:60) to assess spatial patterns.
Modifications of Methods for In-Person Examination of Pipes Not From Pecos. For the comparative sample, I visually inspected each collection, tabulating quantity, dimensions (of complete pipes), form, material, use-wear, and documenting the pipes photographically, so surface decoration and other attributes could be inspected later, since there were time constraints with the museum visits. The same attribute analysis methods used for the Pecos collection were used for this sample. Pipes of non-local form were examined a bit more closely (in the Plains site sample, pipes that were not the characteristic expected stone elbow and t-shape pipes; in the
Pueblo site sample that were not the characteristic clay simple tubular pipe). Ultimately (due to time constraints during data collection and the choice to use some attributes to address questions about pipe use within Pecos rather than across the sites in the region), dimension, use-wear, and surface design tabulations for pipes from sites other than Pecos were not tabulated in the analyses presented in Chapter IV, but the patterns observed in the non-Pecos sample for these attributes were used to inform analyses and interpretations of these attributes in the Pecos sample.
65
Site Report Sample
The site reports contained information on the number of pipes, number of excavated rooms from which pipes were recovered (used here to estimate pipe density), the material of the pipes, and some information about form and surface decoration. Because various authors used different typologies, if there were pictures of the pipe and I could confidently connect the recorded pipe form listed by the author to a form from the typology used for this thesis, the corresponding form in the thesis typology was used. If that information could not be confidently obtained, then those particular pipes were classified as “indeterminate/other.” The results of this form analysis will be further explained in the following chapter. The only attributes recorded for pipes for which I only had information from site reports were the ones previously listed (form, material, quantity of pipes, and quantity of rooms), so pipes from this component of the sample could only be included in analyses pertaining to those attributes.
Data Analysis
This section discusses how the attribute data previously described was stored and prepared for analysis. In particular, the methods for creating the pipe database, establishing pipe density, and creating the maps that reflect spatial and temporal trends are described. Some analyses were done for the entire assemblage, others for portions of the assemblage, and others just for Pecos. This will be distinguished here.
Creation of the Pipe Database
The attributes recorded on pipes, as well as any relevant associated archival information, were recorded in Microsoft Excel. Three Excel files were created: one for Pecos, one for other collections analyzed in person, and one for information from site reports, since each of these
66 three groups had different amounts of information that could be collected. I then uploaded these
Excel files into Microsoft Access. Moving the data into a relational database, such as Access, allowed for common data fields in the three separate Excel files to be integrated into an all- assemblage database, while still maintaining the three separate source databases. In Access, queries were run to highlight relationships between particular attributes. The relational database is also a more conducive format for other scholars to add new pipe data, since a data addition form is available in Access that is easy to fill out and will not tamper with existing data.
Pipe Density Calculations
Here, I explain why it was necessary to calculate pipe density, and how the numerator and denominator of the pipe density calculations were obtained. To assess regional patterns in pipe concentration, it was necessary to account for differential site size and amounts of excavation. Normally, these differences are accounted for by using the count or weight of a utilitarian artifact class, such as cooking pot sherds or metates, as a denominator. However, there was no one utilitarian artifact class that was tabulated across all of the site reports. Since number of excavated rooms was tabulated in all of the site reports, this was used as the denominator.
Although the sizes of the rooms and amount of each room excavated was not obtainable, the number of rooms is still a useful denominator as it gives a rough approximation of the volume of excavation at each site, thus establishing a standardizing denominator for assessing the frequency of pipes at sites. This method could only be applied to sites for which site report information was available, since excavated room totals were needed. The pipe density values used in Chapter IV
(Results) were derived by dividing the raw count of pipes and fragments by the number of excavated rooms at each site for the seventeen pueblos whose excavation reports were obtained.
If a site report had excavated room tabulations in the text of the report, then those values were
67 used. If a site report did not have rooms tabulated in the text, then the number of excavated rooms on the site map in the report were counted. This method will be explained further when the observations made using this method are discussed in Chapter IV.
Spatial and Temporal Analyses in ArcGIS
I was unable to find a georeferenced map of Pecos to use to assess pipe concentrations within the site (to my knowledge, no georeferenced map of Pecos existed before this thesis), so the method I used to create a georeferenced map of the site using Kidder’s original excavation maps is described here. With the help of Grant Coffey at Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, scans of the paper maps from Kidder’s excavations were georeferenced in ArcGIS, and then a map layer was created using the pipe database imported from Excel. The resulting ArcMap enables researchers to examine spatial patterns in pipe deposition within Pecos. Additional artifact layers can be added as well for future analyses. I hoped to determine if pipes were concentrated in certain areas of the site, as well as if there was a spatial patterns in distribution of pipe forms, materials, decorations, manufacture, and use within the site. Not all pipes had provenience locations listed in the NPS records, so pipes without documented locations were excluded from locational analysis. The Pecos NHP artifact database as well as archival notes for
Pecos housed at the Laboratory of Anthropology in Santa Fe provide information on other artifacts in the same context as the pipes, as well as the locations of ceremonial structures and where Plains traders were camped. That information was used to inform the spatial analysis presented in Chapter IV.
Data Integrity
68
The following section discusses possible issues with the integrity of the data collected, and efforts to control for discrepancies. The issue I had the most ability to control was my own differences in recording. Because the pipe attribute data were collected between May 2015 and
July 2016, with gaps in between, there is room for inconsistency in assigning attribute states. I also learned much more about pipe varieties during that year, and thus had more background information informing my decisions for how to classify the pipes I examined later in my data collection. This was mostly evident in a changing level of confidence in classifying something as indeterminate versus not. I tried to control for this by writing out criteria for each attribute state and trying to adhere to those, as well as reviewing the photos of the pipes I had labeled indeterminate at the end of my data collection to see if I felt comfortable re-assigning those to particular types. I tried to be clear about what information was missing by writing “NC” for “Not
Collected” in the database.
I had to control for issues of varying resolution in spatial and temporal information by omitting some pipes from the spatial and temporal analyses, and conducting those analyses at a broad enough level so as to have a representative sample size. For issues with missing provenience information and missing keys or legends in the databases at museums and repositories, particularly missing explanation for abbreviations, I tried to be consistent in interpretation. I assumed N, S, W, E, SE, SW, etc. referred to directions and assumed “Tr” referred to “trench.”
There were some differences I was unable to control for in working with these legacy collections, such as differences in recording over the years and among different researchers, both at the level of inter-site and intra-site information, which could impact the integrity of the data.
For example, the NPS database had “pipe” entered in four different ways in the database over the
69 years that I was able to find (“PIPE,” “pipe,” “Pipe,” and “_pipe”) but there may have been other pipes that were not located because they were coded differently. There may also have been other pipe fragments found during excavations that were misidentified. Hopefully the database produced as part of this thesis will be a foundation that can be used to develop a consistent pipe analysis and recording system.
70
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
As stated in Chapter I, this thesis addresses the following question: Were smoking pipes an element, or even a key element, in negotiations between Pueblo people and their Plains neighbors? What can be learned about Plains-Pueblo and inter-group interaction, especially at
Pecos Pueblo, through examining smoking pipes? The primary hypothesis, as stated in the introduction, is that smoking pipes and ceremonies in which tobacco was used were part of the traditions called upon to facilitate Plains-Pueblo exchange.
Pipes may have had a variety of uses and it is necessary to consider all of these as part of an evaluation of their use in ceremonies. One use is that individuals may have smoked tobacco from pipes as recreation. Linguistic and ethnographic evidence supports this use. The Tewa language of the Pueblo people of northern New Mexico distinguishes between ceremonial tobacco and other tobacco (Switzer 1969:14). Ariss noted that cane cigarettes and some mundane pipe forms were used in a more utilitarian manner in the pre-contact Southwest (Ariss 1939).
David Nighteagle reported that among the Lakota people, small pipes could hold less tobacco and thus were more often smoked individually (personal communication 2016).
A second possible use of pipes is as trade objects. There is abundant evidence of the exchange of goods between Plains and Pueblo people (Lintz 1991, Speilmann 1991, Speth 2005,
Seymour 2015) and it is possible that pipes were traded in the same way as hides, cotton, or pottery. Pipes were traded in historic times among Plains groups (Nighteagle, personal communication 2016). Literature on the Protohistoric period indicates that there were multiple types of trade, and that pipes were in a different category of trade objects than more mundane goods. This resonates with Paper’s (1988:7) argument that recreational smoking divorced of
71 deeper significance was not common in Native North America until more recent historic times.
He asserts that ethnohistoric accounts of recreational tobacco use reported by Europeans were a result of European explorers’ misunderstanding of the ceremonial and spiritual implications of some indigenous practices.
Ethnographic and ethnohistoric accounts recorded the importance of special objects in fostering reciprocity and exchange relationships (Sahlins 1972). In North America, Baugh (2008) traced the diplomatic process called the “sacred canopy of trade.” In this system, there are two types of trade: religious objects (such as eagle feathers, turquoise, and tobacco) are exchanged while more mundane goods, such as food and hides, are bartered at the same time, in secondary, utilitarian or background interactions. Ford (1972) recorded such a system among the Tewa pueblos, reporting that villages specialized in the production of particular utilitarian goods such as textiles, foods, and adornments, and exchanged them for different items produced in other specialist villages. A parallel system involved the exchange of ceremonial and medicinal goods.
If some pipes were ceremonial and other pipes were more for everyday use, then ceremonial pipes could have been traded with ceremonial goods and everyday pipes with utilitarian goods.
A third possibility is at the heart of the analyses in this thesis. Considerable evidence suggests that most pipes were not part of mundane exchange, but were intimately involved in the ceremonies that facilitated trade. Paper (1988) has argued that using pipes for everyday recreation was not very common until historic times. Paper’s book expands on Baugh’s model to say that the religious objects were not just exchanged, but were actually used in the interactions between the exchange partners. Baugh’s model highlights the possibility that pipes may have been both traded and formed an important element in the negotiations that surrounded this trade.
In other words, pipes were not just another set of objects being exchanged, but may have been a
72 material element of the ceremonies that allowed two unrelated groups to come together peacefully for the purposes of trade. There are multiple ethnohistoric accounts throughout North
America of the use of pipes in the ceremonies surrounding trade (see Chapter II). Perhaps the most notable is the Calumet ceremony, common in the Great Plains region and extending into the
Southeast, in which “welcome councils” engaged in smoking pipes with visitors (Hall 1997:1).
In the Pueblo region before Spanish contact, Fowles (2013) records ceremonial use of pipes in kivas. Dances and gatherings of people, involving and facilitated by the use of pipes were also observed, as well as pipes being used in healing (Densmore 1913, Adams 2014).
This thesis will evaluate the evidence for the various possible uses of pipes and attempt to reject the null hypothesis that pipes were not used in ceremonies that surrounded the interactions between Pueblo and Plains people. This thesis does not attempt to establish a single use for pipes in this sample, but does explore ceremonial use of pipes on the Protohistoric Plains-Pueblo frontier, particularly at the Plains-Pueblo trade center of Pecos.
The following paragraphs examine a variety of different attributes and analyses of pipes and smoking materials across the Protohistoric Northern Rio Grande, as well as sites on the
Great Plains and in the Northern San Juan region. Data pertaining to each of the following questions will be explored: are there areas of higher pipe concentration and do those correspond to sites where trade was known to have occurred historically?; can we differentiate Plains from
Pueblo pipes and see these two different groups interacting by studying pipe styles?; what can be learned about mundane versus ceremonial pipe use through examining elaboration of pipes?; were certain types of pipes used more often than others and what does that say about what pipes were being used for?; and what information does pipe deposition location provide regarding the role pipes played in social negotiations?. This chapter concludes with a summation of the data
73 and analyses and a review of the strongest cases for the use of pipes in negotiation present in the data.
As discussed in Chapter III, the pipe sample assembled for this study (1,306 smoking objects total) consists of objects from four sources: (1) pipes and pipe plugs from Pecos Pueblo that are curated at Pecos National Historical Park, Museum of Indian Arts and Culture, and
WACC that were analyzed in person, (2) pipes tabulated and described in site reports from late
Prehistoric and Protohistoric Rio Grande sites that could not be accessed for in-person analysis,
(3) pipes from other Pueblo sites that were analyzed in person, and (4) pipes from Plains sites that were analyzed in person. To summarize, I analyzed 1,030 pipes in person and derived data from published sources for 276 pipes. Of the 1,030 pipes I analyzed, 905 of them (from Pecos and Gran Quivira) had published source data as well. For some of the questions previously outlined, the entire assemblage was used to address the questions. For others, a portion of the assemblage was used. As noted in the previous chapter, different data sources had different amounts of information collected. When conducting the analyses presented in this chapter, if including pipes with no data collected for a particular attribute would impact the percentages of pipes in the different attribute states of that attribute by more than five percent, pipes with no data for that attribute were excluded from percentage calculations. The discussion of the data tables in each question explains what portion of the assemblage is used to address each question.
When and Where Are Most Pipes Found?: Correlations between Pipe Density, the Protohistoric
Period, and Plains-Pueblo Trade Centers
Ethnohistoric and archaeological data indicate that particular Rio Grande sites engaged in trade more often than other sites; these sites have been called trade centers. Pecos and Gran
74
Quivira were two such centers, but there were others as well. Of the sites in the assemblage with published site reports, Pecos, Gran Quivira, and Pot Creek, all located on the eastern edge of the site sample close to the Plains, were described in their respective site reports as having been trade centers (Hayes 1981, Head and Orcutt 2002, Wetherington 1968). Pecos and Gran Quivira were explicitly referred to as being involved in Plains-Pueblo trade, so they will be the focus of the discussion of Plains-Pueblo trade centers in this chapter. Pecos, Gran Quivira, and Pot Creek had archaeological evidence suggesting they were trade centers, and thus will be considered when discussing trade centers overall. If pipes were an important part of the social and economic interactions between Plains and Pueblo people, pipes should be found in greater numbers in post-
1450 sites when Plains-Pueblo interaction seems to have increased and in even greater numbers at trade centers where Plains and Pueblo people interacted, compared to other sites and time periods. If pipes were utilitarian, recreational use objects that were not linked to inter-group exchange, then they would be expected to be uniformly distributed throughout Southwest sites.
The trade center villages will be compared to others to assess if they have a greater density of pipes. As mentioned in the previous chapter, the pipe sample from some of the sites included in the museum sample may have been incomplete, due to pipes being lost, on loan or otherwise unavailable for analysis, but nevertheless, the present sample can give a useful picture of the temporal and spatial distribution of pipes.
Pipe Frequencies Before and After 1450
Archaeological evidence suggests increased interaction between Plains tribes and the Rio
Grande Pueblos after A.D. 1450, as discussed in Chapter II. If pipes were an important part of the social interactions between Plains and Pueblo people, pipes should increase in frequency after A.D. 1450. Dates of site occupation recorded in site reports or museum records were used
75 to determine how many of the pipes in the total assemblage date to pre-1450 vs. post-1450 occupation sites (Table 3). This included the eight pipe plugs from Pecos, which would have been placed inside of pipes and thus are being counted as pipes since the pipes they fit with were not found, as well as the single example of soot doddle which would have built up inside a pipe that had been broken and was not recovered. Pipes that did not have any associated provenience information to tie them to a particular site (103 pipes), were not included in Table 3. Thus the sample used to address this question of pipe amount relative to time period was 1,203 pipes.
The temporal information was difficult to assess because some sites were occupied both before and after 1450 and because the assemblage was biased towards post-1450 sites. Each site whose occupation fell entirely before or after 1450 was assigned to the Pre-1450 or Post-1450 group in Table 3, respectively. Some sites had the majority of their occupation post-1450, but occupation began shortly prior to 1450. These sites were also counted in the Post-1450 group, since that is where the majority of their years of occupation fell. One of these sites, the trade center of Pecos, was separated out in the right column of Table 3 so as to not skew the patterns, since its number of pipes was so unusually high.
There were more pipes deposited after 1450 than before (Table 3). When comparing post-
1450 to pre-1450 sites not counting Pecos, the post-1450 sites still had about twice as many pipes as the pre-1450 sites (63% versus 38% of the sample). This suggests that pipes became more common in the Southwest at the same time as interaction with Plains people increased.
However, due to the imprecision in the chronological records, as well as the bias in number of sites, I cannot be completely confident of this pattern. The records that were accessed for the analysis were not detailed enough to determine which rooms dated before or after 1450 (and
76 many of the pre-1450 sites did not have associated room count documentation), thus density estimates could not be calculated.
Number of Pipes by Time Period
Pipes from sites other than Pecos All Dated Pipes Pre or Post 1450 Occupation Quantity (Percent) Quantity (Percent)
Pre-1450 126 (10.50) 126 (37.50)
Post-1450 1077(89.50) 210 (62.50)
Total 1203 (100.00) 336 (100.00) Table 3. Pecos, mostly occupied post-1450, had significantly more pipes than other sites. Post- 1450 sites, even when not counting Pecos, had almost twice as many pipes as pre-1450 sites.
Pipes at Trade Centers versus Other Sites
To assess if the assumption of pipes being concentrated at trade centers holds true, the number of pipes (including pipe plugs and soot doddle) recovered from each site in the assemblage was tabulated. Table 4 presents data for all pipes in the sample. Pecos, a prominent
Plains-Pueblo trade center, had over half of the pipes in the sample, both by number (frequency) and percentage (relative frequency). However, Gran Quivira and Pot Creek, also reported to be trade centers, did not seem to have an exceptionally large number of pipes. This may have to do with the amount of trade and interaction that occurred at each of the trade centers, or the size of each pueblo and the amount of excavation conducted there.
Number of Pipes Recorded at a Sample of Plains and Pueblo Sites Site Number Quantity (Percent) LA625 Pecos 867 (66.39) LA123 Unshagi 52 (3.98) LA12 Arroyo Hondo 48 (3.68) LA80 San Cristobal 40 (3.06) LA120 Gran Quivira 32 (2.45) LA260 Pot Creek 27 (2.07) LA70 Pueblo del Encierro 25 (1.91)
77
LA252 Te’ewi 16 (1.25) LA38 Cuyamungue 16 (1.25) LA306 Sapawe 12 (0.92) LA297 Ponsipa’akeri 11 (0.84) LA1 Pindi 10 (0.77) LA274 Poshu’ouinge 10 (0.77) LA909 Tsama West 7 (0.54) LA908 Tsama East 6 (0.46) LA71 Howiri 4 (0.31) 5AA92 Chimney Rock District 2 (0.15) 5MT12205 Payne Site 2 (0.15) LA240 Tonque 2 (0.15) LA300 Kapo’ouinge (Leaf Water) 2 (0.15) 5AA246 North Piedra Village 1 (0.08) 5LP0187 (Animas-La Plata Project) 1 (0.08) 5LP0246 (Animas-La Plata Project) 1 (0.08) 5LP177 (Animas-La Plata Project) 1 (0.08 5LP184 (Animas-La Plata Project) 1 (0.08) 5LP2026 (Animas-La Plata Project) 1 (0.08) 5LP372 (Grandview Mitigation Project) 1 (0.08) 5MT12151 (Dolores Archaeological Project) 1 (0.08) 5MT4003 Singleton Site 1 (0.08) 5MT4006 1 (0.08) 5MT5018 Mockingbird Mesa 1 (0.08) LA416 Pottery Mound 1 (0.08) Unprovenienced, from Pueblo sites 28 (2.14) Unprovenienced, from Plains sites 66 (5.05) Unprovenienced, no site info 9 (0.69) Total 1306 (100) Table 4. This table shows the number of pipes for each site in the entire analysis assemblage, as well as the percent of the entire assemblage that number represents (in parentheses). Over half of the objects (both by frequency and relative frequency) in the assemblage are from Pecos. The unnamed sites that had site numbers were reported to be from the Dolores, Animas-La Plata, and Grandview projects, (all Northern San Juan region, dating to the Pueblo I – Pueblo III periods) except 5MT4006, which had no additional information. The pipes from Plains sites were not associated with particular sites in museum records, but were from an accession that had a note saying they were from various Plains sites.
The sites from which pipes were obtained were, of course, of different sizes and subject to varying amounts of excavation which could affect the total number of pipes recovered. To control for site size and amount of excavation, the density of these objects at each site was
78 approximated. The only common denominator recorded for a majority of the sites was number of excavated rooms, so pipe and pipe plug quantity was divided by number of excavated rooms to obtain density of these objects at individual sites. This analysis could only be completed for the sample of objects for which site reports had been written, a total of 1,181 pipes, or 90%, of the assemblage of 1,306. Of the seventeen sites in the sample for which excavated room info was available, Pecos and Gran Quivira, both Protohistoric Plains-Pueblo trade centers, had the highest pipe density (Table 5 and Figure 9), although pipe density for Pecos was considerably higher than Gran Quivira. Figure 9 also shows that, of the five sites with a pipe-to-excavated room ratio over 0.5, three of those sites were in the area where initial Plains-Pueblo contact would have occurred, on the very eastern edge of the Pueblo world. These sites (Pecos, Gran
Quivira, and San Cristobal) are circled in red in Figure 9.
Ratio of Number of Pipes to Number of Excavated Rooms Pipe Excavated Room Site Number Quantity Quantity Pipe Density LA625 Pecos 867 153 5.67 LA 120 Gran Quivira 38 37 1.03 LA252 Te’ewi 16 27 0.59 LA80 San Cristobal 40 72 0.56 LA123 Unshagi 52 101 0.51 LA297 Ponsipa’akeri 11 24 0.46 LA260 Pot Creek 27 62 0.44 LA909 Tsama West 7 18 0.39 LA908 Tsama East 6 18 0.33 LA12 Arroyo Hondo 48 150 0.32 LA70 Pueblo del Encierro 25 91 0.27 LA71 Howiri 4 15 0.27
79
LA38 Cuyamungue 16 64 0.25 LA300 Leaf Water 2 18 0.11 LA274 Poshu 10 109 0.09 LA1 Pindi 10 191 0.05 LA240 Tonque 2 82 0.02 Total 1181 1232 Table 5. Pipe density (number of pipes and pipe plugs divided by numbers of excavated rooms was highest at sites known historically to be trading centers: Pecos and Gran Quivira.
Figure 9. Spatial Analysis of Pipe Density in the Rio Grande. This figure presents the data in Table 3 spatially. Data are the number of pipes divided by the number of excavated rooms for each of the Rio Grande pueblos with available site reports with pipe tabulations. Pecos had the densest concentration of pipes (5.7), followed by Gran Quivira (1). Both were documented as trade centers in ethnohistoric accounts, and are in closer proximity to the Plains than sites with lower pipe densities. Of the five sites with pipe density over 0.5, three sites (Pecos, Gran Quivira, and San Cristobal, a post-1450 site not recorded as a trade center) are right on the Plains-facing edge of the Pueblo world, as shown in the red circle.
80
To summarize data concerning the relationship between historically known Plains-Pueblo trading centers and pipe frequency, the three trade centers of Pecos, Gran Quivira, and Pot Creek had over three times as many pipes than the other fourteen sites in the sample combined, although Pecos made up a significant portion of that number (Table 6). When considering density instead of raw numbers, the pattern of more pipes at trade centers still holds. Pecos, of course, has the largest number of pipes and the highest density, and the other trade centers’ density is not appreciably higher than non-trade centers (Table 7). However, the Pot Creek pipe density does not really reflect this pattern. This could be related to the fact that it was not explicitly a Plains-Pueblo trade center, or it could be due to the fact that the evidence for it being a trade center is more limited than that for Gran Quivira and Pecos (Wetherington 1968).
Number of Pipes at Trade Centers versus Other Sites Recorded Trade Center Quantity (Percent) No 249 (21.1) Yes (Pecos) 867 (73.4) Yes (Gran Quivira and Pot Creek) 65 (5.5) Total 1181 (100) Table 6: These totals come from the 17 Rio Grande Pueblo sites with pipes tabulated in site reports. Of these sites, three (Pecos, Gran Quivira, and Pot Creek (Taos area)) were recorded in the site reports and ethnohistoric literature as hubs for trade. Thus, these three sites had over three times more pipes than the fourteen other sites, although Pecos made up a significant portion of that number.
Density of Pipes at Trade Centers versus Other Sites Excavated Recorded Trade Center Quantity Rooms Density No 249 979 0.25 Yes (Pecos) 867 153 5.67 Yes (Gran Quivira and Pot Creek) 65 99 0.66 Total 1181 1231 Table 7: Sites reported to be trade centers have a higher density of pipes, per rooms excavated, than other sites, although the trade centers besides Pecos did not have a considerably higher density than non-trade-centers.
81
Through examining the quantity and density of the pipes in the assemblage, the data show that pipes were more frequent at sites closer to the Plains and sites known to be trade centers. There is also some suggestion that pipes increase in frequency post-1450, although it was difficult to accurately date the sites. The strongest pattern was that pipes were five times more frequent at Pecos Pueblo than at other sites, and that, at Gran Quivira, they were between
1.5 and 2 times more frequent. These analyses help support the hypothesis that pipes played a role in trade and exchange in the Protohistoric Southwest, particularly at trade centers on the
Plains-Pueblo frontier. If pipes were just used for individual use and recreational smoking, pipes would likely have been found at all of the sites in the assemblage in relatively equal densities, but the data show that this is not the case. To discern if pipes were used in ceremonies related to inter-group interaction, or if they were just trade objects, pipe styles, use-wear, and deposition locations relative to ceremonial structures will be discussed in the following sections.
Assessing Interaction through Non-Local Styles: Presence of Plains People at Pueblo Sites, and
Vice Versa, as Evidenced by Pipe Forms and Materials
Previous research has shown that Pueblo and Plains people made pipes of different styles during the Protohistoric period. Furthermore, Pueblo pipes are commonly made with clay, whereas Protohistoric Plains pipes are commonly made with stone (and later with metal inlays)
(Brown 1996, Lintz 1991). If pipes were a part of Plains-Pueblo interaction, we would expect to see evidence of Plains forms and materials at Pueblo sites, and Pueblo forms and materials at
Plains sites. This could be due to routine trade of pipes or because pipes were involved in ceremonies surrounding trade and other types of inter-group interaction. Tracing how many
Plains-style pipes were found at Pueblo sites, and how many Pueblo-style pipes were found on
82 the Plains, can provide information about how much interaction was occurring. Determining if particular sites had a higher degree of non-local forms and materials than others can also show where this interaction was concentrated. If the Pueblo sites closer to the Plains or interacting more heavily with the Plains had a higher proportion of stone pipes than other sites, it would suggest that pipes did indeed play a role in this interaction, either as trade items or means of negotiation and alliance building.
Studying material practice, or style, can allow archaeologists to trace identities in the past
(Voss 2008:4). In migration studies, when chemical sourcing is not available, stylistic differences sometimes are the only, or one of the few, ways to track ancient movement of people.
Affiliation with a particular group or identity can be displayed in the visible act of smoking a pipe of a particular form or design (Hartnett 2004). While Hartnett relied on ethnographic records of individuals in Ireland crafting their pipes in particular styles to show what political identity they aligned with, this theory of connecting material style to identity could be extended to Plains and Pueblo groups, since distinct materials and forms for each region have been identified, as previously discussed. Often at borderland areas, social boundaries, as manifest in artifact style, are very distinct because people are emphasizing difference, but, in some cases, there are instances of blending of styles. These distinctions and blends will be explored in the
Plains and Pueblo pipe data.
This section will focus on evidence of pipe form and material and introduce some of the potential special forms. The next section will focus on the ceremonial and special forms in more detail. The last two sections use the extensively documented pipes from Pecos Pueblo to examine whether different pipe styles show different amounts of or types of use-wear, and if pipes were differentially deposited in ceremonial versus non-ceremonial locations.
83
For form analyses, the entire assemblage will be discussed, but pipe plugs will be excluded from form tabulations, since they are stoppers placed in the bowl of pipes, not pipes themselves. The soot doddle will be included because it was determined to have been inside a simple tubular pipe. For material analyses, the entire assemblage will be used, except the soot doddle, since the material of the pipe it was in is unknown.
Detecting Plains-Pueblo Interaction
Material Analysis. The data do show stone pipes (Plains-type material) in the Pueblos and some clay pipes (Pueblo-type material) in the pipe sample from Plains sites, supporting this idea of pipes being involved in Plains-Pueblo interaction, either as trade objects or as objects that may have been traded but also played an important role in facilitating the exchange process. Table 8 shows the differing amounts of raw materials comprising pipes in the sample. The majority of pipes examined were clay, which is to be expected for a predominantly-Pueblo pipe assemblage.
Raw Material Breakdown Quantity Material (Percent) Bone 2 (0.15) Clay 1149 (87.98) Metal 2 (0.15) Stone 99 (7.58) Stone and metal 2 (0.15) Wood 1 (0.08) Indeterminate/unknown 50 (3.83) Total 1305 (100) Table 8. This table shows that the majority of pipes examined were clay, which is to be expected for a predominantly-Pueblo pipe assemblage. For a breakdown of material by site and time period, see Table A.1 in Appendix A.
These data are divided into a Plains site group and a Pueblo site group in Table 9. The pipes from pueblos in the Northern San Juan were distinguished from pipes found at other pueblo sites to account for Ariss’s (1939) observation that the characteristic assemblage of the
84
Prehistoric Northern San Juan Pueblos was different than that of the Protohistoric Northern Rio
Grande Pueblos. The majority of pipes in the Plains site sample for which material could be identified were stone (58%), the typical Plains pipe material, but some pipes were clay (34%), which is more common in the Pueblo region. Conversely, we find the majority of the pipes in the
New Mexico Pueblo sites to be clay (95%), but some are stone (5%), which is more common in the Plains region at this time. The Northern San Juan sites still had more clay (69%) than stone
(31%), but the predominance of clay was not as pronounced. It is interesting that the Plains sample has a higher percentage of clay than the Pueblo sample has of stone. This could suggest that, at least for pipe material, Pueblo pipe-making ideas were influencing the Plains more-so than Plains ones were influencing the Pueblos. Alternatively, it could indicate more use of clay on the Plains than has been previously recorded in other reports.
Pipe Material at Plains and Pueblo Sites Material Stone and Region Clay Stone metal Metal Bone Wood Indeterminate Total 66 (53 with material 18 31 2 0 1 1 identified, Plains (33.96) (58.49) (3.77) (0.00) (1.89) (1.89) 13 100.00) 1216 (1180 with material 1121 57 0 1 1 0 identified Pueblo (95.00) (4.83) (0.00) (0.08) (0.08) (0.00) 36 100.00) 15 (13 with Pueblo: material Northern 9 4 identified, San Juan (69.23) (30.76) 0 0 0 0 2 100.00) No Site 1 7 0 1 0 0 Info (11.11) (77.78) (0.00) (11.11) (0.00) (0.00) 0 9 (100.00) 1306 (1255 with material 1149 99 2 2 2 1 identified Total (91.55) (7.89) (0.16) (0.16) (0.16) (0.08) 51 100.00) Table 9. The data in this assemblage support the assertions in previous reports on pipes in North America: Pueblo pipes are mostly clay, and Plains pipes are mostly stone. A very small fraction
85 of historic pipes were metal or stone with metal inlays. Two bone pipes and a wooden pipe stem were included in the assemblage. The percentages were based only on the pipes for which material could be identified.
Table 9 shows that there were also a few pipes of unusual materials in the assemblage.
Two t-shape pipes from Plains sites were stone with metal inlays on the bowl, indicating they were from historic, or post-contact, sites. Gran Quivira had one metal elbow pipe, possibly from historic period contact with the Plains. There also was one metal pipe of indeterminate form from an unidentified site. One of the bone pipes was an elbow pipe from a Plains site; the other was of indeterminate form from LA80, San Cristobal. One wooden pipe stem, which rarely preserve, was recovered from a Plains site, whose site number and occupation period were not listed in museum records. There also was an object that consisted of pipe residue, also known as soot doddle, in the assemblage. This object was included as an indeterminate pipe in the Pueblo material tabulations, because the material of the pipe it was once inside could not be determined.
The stone-to-clay ratio for the Plains sites was 1.72, whereas the average stone-to-clay ratio for the Pueblo sites was 0.30 (see Table A.1 in Appendix A for the clay and stone pipe totals for each individual site).
When examining the material data temporally and spatially, we find that some pipes in the assemblage from the Northern San Juan region were stone. This raises the question of whether the stone pipes in Northern Rio Grande Pueblo sites were continuing a tradition of stone use brought to the region by migrants from the Northern San Juan region (see Chapter II).
However, the Northern San Juan region was depopulated by A.D. 1300, which is when much of the Northern Rio Grande region began to be occupied (Glowacki 2006, Lipe 1995). All but one of the Rio Grande pueblo sites with stone pipes (Te’ewi) had the majority of their occupation after 1450 suggesting that the adoption of stone pipes in the Protohistoric Northern Rio Grande
86 pueblos was more likely a result of contemporaneous Plains influence rather than a continuation or revival of earlier Northern San Juan pueblo practice (Figure 10). The data suggest that the majority of stone pipes in the Pueblo site sample were from sites occupied after 1450 and two of the sites with a noticeable portion of stone pipes were Pecos and Gran Quivira (Figure 10).
Although Figure 10 shows the relative proportion per site of clay to stone for the sample of pipes that had associated site reports, reflected by the sizes of the different colored slices of the pie charts. Pecos and Gran Quivira had a higher number of stone pipes overall, which is also reflected in Figure 10. The size of each overall circle, or pipe, representing a site in Figure 10 reflects the density of pipes at that site (number of pipes divided by number of excavated rooms).
By representing pipe material spatially, Figure 10 shows that three of the six Rio Grande sites with stone pipes were along the eastern edge of the Pueblo world. These three sites (Pecos, Gran
Quivira, and San Cristobal) were also the three sites highlighted in Figure 8 as having a high density of pipes. Some sites from the site report sample located in the Northern Rio Grande (the seventeen sites listed in Chapter III) had a very high proportion of stone pipes, but each of those sites only had a few pipes total. Without being able to conduct compositional sourcing analyses, it is uncertain whether the pipes made with material out of character for a particular region were made locally with local material or whether they represent an imported, finished pipe.
87
Pecos
Gran Quivira
Figure 10. Spatial distribution of pipe raw materials by site for the Rio Grande site report sample (the seventeen sites listed in Chapter III) (1,181 objects). Pecos (LA625), Gran Quivira (LA120), Te’ewi (LA252), Pueblo del Encierro (LA70), Howiri (LA71), and San Cristobal (LA80) are the six sites from the site report sample pictured here that had stone pipes.
Half of the sites with stone pipes in the Rio Grande site report sample were in areas of reported Plains-Pueblo interaction, as shown in the red circle in Figure 10. This provides support for the idea that pipes factored into Plains-Pueblo interaction. Even stronger support for this would be if some stone pipes at Plains-Pueblo trade centers were made of stone found on the
Plains. Furthermore, the presence of catlinite or red siltstone at these trade center sites, which is documented ethnohistorically as being a material used in making ceremonial pipes on the Plains, would lend support to the idea that pipes were used in Pueblo ceremonies that included Plains people.
The stone pipes from Pecos Pueblo were examined by Kate Ziegler, of Ziegler
Geological Consultants, to address this question. The most common type of stone used in pipe manufacture at Pecos was chlorite schist. Each of the variants of schist in Table 10 come from
88 slightly different areas or mineral veins, but all are still considered local to the area around Pecos
Pueblo. With the exception of the red siltstone pipes, the other materials listed also would have been obtainable from sources near Pecos (Robertson and Moench 1979), but there are also sources of some of these materials outside of the Pecos area. Without further compositional analysis (which cannot be undertaken unless permission is obtained to move the pipes off site or bring in additional analysis equipment), it cannot be determined whether the pipes were made from local sources of material or from sources on the Plains or further away.
Red siltstone is not local to the Pecos area. The nearest known source to Pecos is in northeastern Arizona, but there are sources throughout North America, particularly on the Plains.
Each red siltstone source has a slightly different composition and appearance. The catlinite source in particular is in Minnesota and is considered to be the most sacred of the red siltstones by Plains people (Nighteagle n.d.). Two red siltstone pipes were found at Pecos: PECO10375 and PECO228. PECO10375 was of indeterminate form and found at the North Pueblo. It was determined to be a red siltstone variety that was not the sacred Minnesota catlinite variety.
PECO228 was elaborate-Pecos-style, and its provenience was not recorded in the NPS database notes. PECO228 was recorded in the NPS database as being the catlinite variety of red siltstone
(and thus from the sacred Minnesota source), but was not locatable for Ziegler to examine. If it is indeed from the Minnesota source, then that confidently demonstrates some interaction with the interior Plains.
If the pipes (with the exception of those of red siltstone) were made of local materials, they would have come from rock formed from pre-Cambrian volcanoes from the southern
Sangre de Cristo Mountains (Robertson and Moench 1979). The pipe manufacturers would either travel north up the Pecos River to obtain these materials, or they may have been using material
89 washed downstream in Pecos River gravels. Some of these materials are difficult to cut and carve to the scale of the pipes found at Pecos, which speaks to the skill level of the pipe manufacturers.
Inventory of Stone Types for Pipes at Pecos Pueblo Stone Type Quantity chlorite schist 14 chlorite schist with garnet 2 chlorite schist with magnetite 1 muscovite schist 1 amphibolite 1 calcite/gypsum 1 gypsum 1 phyllite 1 siltstone/sandstone 2 red siltsone (MN) 1 red siltstone (other) 1 Indeterminate 1 Total 27 Table 10. The most common type of stone used in pipe manufacture was chlorite schist. This, along with the majority of the other stone types on this list, except for red siltstone, would have been obtainable from sources near Pecos.
Form Analyses. Analyses of form also reflect the presence of Plains forms in the Pueblos and Pueblo forms on the Plains, supporting the idea that pipes factored into Plains-Pueblo interaction. If they were used in ceremonial activities intended to facilitate trade, we would expect to see more non-local forms and more ceremonial and elaborated forms at trade centers where Plains-Pueblo interaction was occurring. Previous research has shown that elbow, t-shape, and elaborate-effigy pipes are common Plains forms, whereas the simple tubular pipe (also called straight conical or cloudblower) is a common Pueblo form (Brown 1996, Switzer 1969). The elaborate-Pecos-style form is considered to be a blend of Plains and Pueblo form traits (Wendorf
1953), but is found more commonly in the Pueblo region. These forms are described in Chapters
II and III, as well as in the Attribute States Sheet in Appendix B. The elaborate forms are discussed in additional detail later in this chapter.
90
A difficulty in this analysis is that different site reports and excavations used different form classification systems for their pipes, and not all of the site reports had pictures of the pipes, which prevented me from reclassifying them according to Kidder’s system. Thus they had to be placed in the indeterminate category in Table 11. For this analysis, the eight pipe plugs from
Pecos were not included in the sample, since they are not a pipe form. For a site-by-site breakdown of form, see Table A.2 in Appendix A.
Table 11 shows that, as expected, the majority of identified pipes from Pueblo sites were simple tubular (58%), and the most numerous type of form at Plains sites was elbow (49%) This supports the idea that there are indeed pipe forms characteristic of each region. However, the presence of simple tubular pipes at Plains sites (21%), as well as the presence of elbow pipes
(3%) and elaborate-effigy pipes at New Mexico Pueblo sites (1%), does provide evidence for
Plains-Pueblo interaction, since it would otherwise be unusual for those non-local pipe forms to be present. As with material, there are more non-local forms present on the Plains than in the
Pueblos. The majority of pipes at the Plains-Pueblo trade centers of Pecos and Gran Quivira, as well as pueblos that were not trade centers, were of Pueblo forms. There was not a significant pattern of more Plains-style pipe forms appearing at Plains-Pueblo trade centers than other sites, although there were other special pipe forms that were found in greater quantities at trade centers, which will be discussed later in this chapter.
For this analysis, it was again necessary to distinguish the Northern San Juan pueblos from the other pueblos, since elbow and elaborate-effigy pipes are more common in Northern
San Juan assemblages. Detailed examination of the form data supports the claim that the effigy and elbow pipes found at Protohistoric Rio Grande sites reflect Plains interaction and influence rather than a continuation of Northern San Juan traditions for three reasons. The first is that, for
91 the Pecos pipes from sealed deposits that had associated temporally-diagnostic ceramics, the pre-
1450 pipes were all simple tubular, whereas some of the post-1450 ones were elaborate. Of the eighteen pipes found in sealed deposits at Pecos, seven had associated temporally-diagnostic ceramics. Simple tubular pipes were found with ceramics ranging from Black-on-White to Glaze
V, whereas the one elaborate pipe found with diagnostic ceramics was found with Glaze V ceramics. Although the sealed deposit sample is very small, if the residents of Pecos were just continuing earlier Pueblo pipe traditions, we would not expect to see this gap in the production of those forms. The second reason is that unfinished elbow pipes were found at post-1450 Pueblo sites that interacted with the Plains, suggesting Plains interaction and influence. The third is that, for the effigy pipes at Pecos, they resembled effigy designs east of the Pueblos. In particular,
PECO11059, a toad effigy pipe found at Pecos, looks almost exactly like the toad effigy pipe found at the Caddoan site of Spiro.
Pipe Forms at Plains and Pueblo Sites Form Elaborate- T- Elaborate- Pecos- Simple Indetermi- Region Elbow Shape effigy style Tubular nate/Other Total 66 (57 with form 28 12 identified, Plains (49.12) (21.05) 4 (7.02) 1 (1.75) 12 (21.05) 9 100.00) 1208 (740 with form 23 0 284 identified, Pueblo (3.11) (0.00) 5 (0.68) (38.38) 432 (58.38) 464 100.00) Pueblo: 15 (11 with North- form ern San 3 0 identified, Juan (27.27) (0.00) 3 (27.27) 0 (0.00) 5 (45.45) 4 100.00) 9 (8 with form No Site 1 6 identified, Info (12.50) (75.00) 1 (12.50) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 1 100.00)
92
1298 (820 with form 55 18 288 identified, Total (6.71) (2.20) 10 (1.22) (35.12) 449 (54.76) 478 100.00) Table 11. The percentages of forms for Plains and Pueblo sites are based only on pipes where form could be identified.
The fact that pipes of non-local form and material were found in both Plains and Pueblo sites may be a result of their role in alliance formation, as proposed by Switzer (1969) and Paper
(1988). Furthermore, if pipe style and design reflected an aspect of social identity (Agbe-Davies
2015), sustained interactions and partnerships might be reflected in blending of Plains and
Pueblo pipe forms and materials. The next section will highlight examples of blending of Plains and Pueblo styles found in the Plains-Pueblo interaction area, while citing literature that discusses stylistic blending as a sign of interaction and networking, to provide additional lines of evidence for the claim that pipes were a key element in Plains-Pueblo interaction and exchange.
Indications of Deeper Levels of Plains-Pueblo Interaction
The foregoing analyses of form and material show that pipes from the Plains were likely being brought to the Pueblos, and vice versa. This presence of non-characteristic forms and materials at particular sites supports the hypothesis that pipes were connected with trade. The spread of material culture styles is important for understanding social relationships and their change over time (Mills and Peeples 2017). When different cultural groups interact, sometimes each group’s material culture remains distinct, which emphasizes the distinct identities of the groups and perhaps even promotes competition. In other situations, adoption of some traits of another group’s material culture or blending of different groups’ material culture traits promotes group cohesion and networking (Polly Wiessner, personal communication, 9 February 2017). If we see blending of Plains and Pueblo pipe styles, that could reflect a deeper level of cultural interaction between the two groups, and reflect the role pipes played in promoting group
93 cohesion and networking. Anthropological studies have demonstrated that frontiers between previously distinct peoples can often act as interaction regions that, under certain circumstances, produce a hybrid middle ground area where certain cultural traits are mixed and blended (Parker
2006:86). Examples of this have been recorded in the prehistoric Southwest. For example, in a study of Roosevelt Red Ware ceramics, blending of introduced ceramic traits from a non-local group with existing ceramic traits in the local group reflects ideas and innovations from the non- local group being blended with existing practices in the local group (Mills and Peeples 2017).
Since the majority of accounts of pipes used in trade and alliance ceremonies in North America, such as the calumet ceremony, come from the Plains and eastern North America, incorporation of Plains pipe traits in the Pueblos, particularly at the trade centers, could reflect this practice being incorporated into Plains-Pueblo trade. Blending of Plains pipe forms and Pueblo materials, and vice versa, could be a material reflection of trade alliances. As Wiessner noted, such hybridization, and thus production of similar styles in different groups, promotes cohesion, so this could be one way in which pipes were used to mediate exchange between groups.
Across the assemblage, the Plains-style pipe forms were made more frequently of stone than Pueblo-style pipe forms (Tables 12 and 13). The Pueblo-style pipe forms were made more frequently of clay (Table 12). However, there were Plains-style pipe forms made of clay found at
Pueblo sites, often in greater quantity than stone (Table 13). For a site-by-site breakdown, see
Table A.3 in Appendix A.
An examination of pipe form by material type at Plains sites (Table 12) shows a preponderance of stone pipes (58%), as expected. Surprisingly, however, 34% of the pipes at
Plains sites were made of clay. Of the elbow pipes (which would be expected to be stone), 40% were made of clay, as well as 33% of the elaborate-effigy pipes. Forty-five percent of simple
94 tubular pipes, a Pueblo form, were made of stone. Since the sample of simple tubular pipes is fairly small, this could reflect a few Pueblo-form pipes being brought to a Plains site, or it could reflect attempts by Plains people to make a foreign pipe form out of a familiar material. T-shaped pipes, in contrast, followed the expected pattern: 75% were stone and almost all of the rest were either indeterminate or unusual materials. Only one t-shaped pipe, a Plains form, was of clay, a
Pueblo material.
Distribution of Materials to Make the Various Pipe Forms at Plains Sites Quantity and (Percentage) by Material Stone and Indeter- Form Clay Stone metal Bone Wood minate Total 28 (25 with material 10 13 1 identified, Elbow (40.00) (52.00) 0 (0.00) (4.00) 1 (4.00) 3 100.00) 12 (8 with material 6 0 identified, T-shape 0 (0.00) (75.00) 2 (25.00) (0.00) 0 (0.00) 4 100.00) 4 (3 with material 1 2 0 identified, Elaborate-effigy (33.33) (66.67) 0 (0.00) (0.00) 0 (0.00) 1 100.00) 1 (0 with Elaborate-Pecos- 0 0 material style 0 (0.00) (0.00) 0 (0.00) (0.00) 0 (0.00) 1 identified) 12 (11 with material 6 5 0 identified, Simple tubular (54.55) (45.45) 0 (0.00) (0.00) 0 (0.00) 1 100.00) 9 (6 with material Indeterminate/ 1 5 0 identified, other (16.67) (83.33) 0 (0.00) (0.00) 0 (0.00) 3 100.00) 66 (53 with material 18 31 1 identified, Total (33.96) (58.49) 2 (3.77) (1.89) 1 (1.89) 13 100.00)
95
Table 12. This table examines the relationship of form to material for the Plains site sample. Combinations of Plains and Pueblo styles are highlighted in yellow. The percentages are based only on pipes where form could be identified. For material types and forms for each site, see Table A.3 in the appendix.
An examination of pipe form by material type at Pueblo sites (Table 13) shows a preponderance of clay pipes (95%), as expected. Also as expected, almost 94% of the Pueblo style simple tubular pipes were made of clay, as were over 99% of the elaborate-Pecos-style pipes (most of which came from Pecos Pueblo). About 93% of the pipes for which form could not be determined were made of clay, as were 100% of the pipe plugs. Pipes made of stone, the material most commonly used by Plains people, were of a variety of forms. Elbow and elaborate-effigy pipes are common Plains forms and we would expect them to be made of stone.
Surprisingly, almost 86% of the elbow pipes were made of clay and less than 10% of stone.
More elaborate-effigy pipes were made of clay than stone (71% versus 29%) which was unexpected since elaborate-effigy pipes are considered to be a Plains type during the
Protohistoric period and thus would be expected to be made mostly of stone. One stone elaborate-effigy pipe and two stone simple tubular pipes were from the Northern San Juan
Pueblos. The percentage of Plains-style pipe forms made of stone is still higher than the percentage of Pueblo-style pipe forms made of stone, which supports established pipe typologies.
Distribution of Materials to Make the Various Pipe Forms at Pueblo Sites Quantity and (Percentage) by Material Form Clay Stone Metal Bone Indeterminate Total 26 (21 with material 18 2 0 identified, Elbow (85.71) (9.52) 1 (4.76) (0.00) 5 100.00) 8 (7 with material 5 2 0 identified, Elaborate-effigy (71.43) (28.57) 0 (0.00) (0.00) 1 100.00) Elaborate-Pecos- 279 1 0 284 (280 with style (99.64) (0.36) 0 (0.00) (0.00) 4 material
96
identified, 100.00) 438 (420 with material 394 26 0 identified, Simple tubular (93.81) (6.19) 0 (0.00) (0.00) 18 100.00) 8 (8 with material 8 0 0 identified, Pipe plug (100.00) (0.00) 0 (0.00) (0.00) 0 100.00) 467 (457 with material 426 30 1 identified, Indeterminate/other (93.22) (6.56) 0 (0.00) (0.22) 10 100.00) 1231 (1193 with material 1130 61 1 identified, Total (94.72) (5.11) 1 (0.08) (0.08) 38 100.00) Table 13. This table examines the relationship of form to material for the Pueblo site sample. Combinations of Plains and Pueblo styles are highlighted in yellow. The percentages are based only on pipes where form could be identified. For material types and forms for each site, see Table A.3 in the appendix. *Note: The one soot doddle in the assemblage, although the material of the pipe it was in is indeterminate, is still included in the tabulation, since its shape suggests it was in a simple tubular pipe. The eight pipe plugs from Pecos were included because whether they were stone or clay provides information as to whether they were likely made in the Plains or Pueblo tradition.*
The pipes of most interest for this question are the 28 elbow-shape pipes made of clay (a
Plains form made of a typically Pueblo material), the 31 simple tubular pipes made of stone (a
Pueblo form made of a typically Plains material), and the 3 elaborate-effigy pipes made of clay
(Plains form, Pueblo material). These pipes suggest some blending of traditional Plains and
Pueblo pipe-making practices, which indicates that there is more to this Plains-Pueblo interaction system than just Plains people visiting pueblos to obtain necessary goods. Examples of non-local materials, such as red siltstone, as well as unique materials such as bone being used to make pipes, and the unique forms that will be discussed in the next section also support this proposal.
Individual examples of this blending of form and material will be highlighted from Pecos, the trade center with the highest density of pipes. If pipes do play a role in facilitating and
97 negotiating interactions, and if blending is a line of evidence for this, then the site with the greatest number of pipes should have multiple examples of this blending. Since trade centers have the greatest amount of inter-regional interactions, one might expect pipe makers to use locally available material even if they continued to make a form with which they were familiar, or to appreciate and learn to make a new pipe form even while using a familiar material. If this pattern is strong, it might likely be strongest at Pecos, which is known historically as a center for
Plains-Pueblo trade, and was the site with the greatest density of pipes analyzed in this study.
Plains forms made with typically-Pueblo materials, and vice versa, in the Pecos Pueblo sample are highlighted in yellow in Table 14. This pattern of Pueblo-style forms made with stone and
Plains-style forms made with clay, is not very common at Pecos, but it is still noticeable (Table
14). Perhaps these blended pipes were produced by Plains people who made frequent trade visits to Pecos or spent a good deal of time there, or residents of Pecos who had spent considerable time interacting with Plains people. Twenty-eight pipes from Pecos (highlighted in yellow) have blending of form and material: all of the elaborate-effigy pipes (3 pipes, 100%), the majority of the elbow pipes (7 pipes, 88%), and a fraction of the simple tubular pipes (17 pipes, 7%). Pecos does have a significant number of elaborate-Pecos-style pipes (highlighted in blue in Table 14), which may represent a blend of Plains and Pueblo forms with ceremonial significance. The discussion of pipe elaboration and the potential ceremonial significance of that will be pursued in the following section.
Relationship of Pipe Form to Raw Material at Pecos Quantity and (Percent) by Material Form Clay Stone Indeterminate Total 8 Elbow 7 (87.50) 1 (12.50) 0 (0.00) (100.00) 3 Elaborate-effigy 3 (100.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) (100.00)
98
270 Elaborate-Pecos-style 269 (99.63) 1 (0.37) 0 (0.00) (100.00) 261 Simple tubular 243 (93.10) 17 (6.51) 1 (0.38) (100.00) 8 Pipe plug 8 (100.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) (100.00) 317 Indeterminate/other 309 (97.48) 8 (2.52) 0 (0.00) (100.00) 867 Total 839 (96.77) 27 (3.11) 0 (0.00) (100.00) Table 14. Within Pecos the majority of pipes were clay, which is common for pueblos of this time period. However, some Plains forms were made with typical Pueblo materials, and some Pueblo forms were made with typical Plains materials. When the totals are converted to percentages of material for each form, the elbow pipes have the highest percentage of stone.
We can add to our understanding of the blending of form and material type at Pecos by examining a few individual examples. Object number PECO10352, an unfinished simple tubular pipe, was made from locally available chlorite schist, suggesting either that Pecos pipe-makers had been influenced by Plains people bringing stone pipes to the Pueblo region or that visiting
Plains people came to appreciate the simple tubular Pueblo pipe form, but wanted to make them in a familiar material. Sixteen other simple tubular pipes were made from stone. Another example, object number PECO10210 was determined by Ziegler to be made from schist, but it was an unusual schist that has an appearance of a reddish siltstone, like catlinite. Although the exact source of this material is not known, it could have been brought to Pecos from the Plains and there traded to a Pecos pipe-maker and fashioned into a Pueblo-style pipe. Alternatively, a
Plains pipe-maker visiting Pecos could have noticed this schist variant in a mineral vein or river cobble near Pecos and thought that it resembled the red siltstone material he was familiar with working with on the Plains.
There were seven elbow pipes made with clay, including PECO10170, an elbow pipe made with tan clay that also had an unusual degree of elaboration. This included three additional stem holes and a pecked dot design. Since detachable stems are potentially indicative of
99 ceremonial use (Paper 1988), the presence of not one, but four, detachable stem holes could suggest that this pipe was smoked in some sort of community ceremony, perhaps with Plains and
Pueblo people smoking it simultaneously. The one elaborate pipe that was made of stone,
PECO228, was recorded as red siltstone. Whether it is from the sacred Minnesota catlinite source or another source could not be determined, but if it was from Minnesota, this pipe was brought to
Pecos from a significant distance. We should consider the possibility that it was intended to be used in welcoming ceremonies, as many Minnesota catlinite pipes were on the Plains.
This discussion of blending of Plains and Pueblo pipe styles, particularly at the Pueblo trade centers on the eastern edge of the Pueblo world, resonates with Parker’s (2006) discussion of blending of cultural traits in frontier areas. While the Plains forms made with Pueblo clay could have just been a result of Plains people who came to the Pueblos to trade making pipes with the locally available material, but the Pueblo forms made with material other than the usual locally available clay supports the idea that this blending was about more than just expediency or necessity. Elaborate and heavily decorated pipes and blends of form, discussed in the following section, suggest that these pipes had greater significance than just mundane trade objects.
Assessing Pipe Function through Examination of Pipe Elaboration
If pipes were not just items of trade, but were used in ceremonies aimed at alliance building and facilitation of trade, we would expect to see ceremonial pipes or pipes of special forms and materials concentrated at trade centers and would also expect to find more pipes deposited in ceremonial locations within the villages. Pipes that were involved in ceremonies related to Pueblo-Plains social negotiations might be more carefully crafted and elaborately designed than pipes used for everyday smoking. Multiple pipe types may have been ceremonial,
100 but it has been previously argued for native groups in North America that the following types of pipes may have had some greater significance than other simpler pipes: (1) pipes of the elaborate form (both effigy and Pecos-style) as defined by Kidder, (2) pipes of unusual forms, (3) pipes with detachable stems, (4) pipes made of catlinite or red siltstone, (5) pipes with more surface decoration, and (6) pipes of larger size (Ariss 1939, Hall 1997, Paper 1988:9-11, Nighteagle n.d.,
Fowles 2013). Each of these types will be discussed in this section. The finding of such pipes in ceremonial locations, such as kivas, links that significance to use in ceremony (Fowles 2013). In terms of the hypotheses of pipe use explored in this thesis, finding an increase in these types of pipes post-1450, particularly at Plains-Pueblo trade centers, could support the hypothesis that pipes played a role in ceremonies that were a part of facilitating Plains-Pueblo exchange. If few of these types are found or if pipes are rarely found in ceremonial contexts, that would support the hypothesis that pipes were either more commonly used for individual recreation or that if pipes were involved in trade, it was as mundane trade objects.
The first type of pipe that is considered evidence of ceremonial pipe use is the elaborate pipe form, defined by Kidder (1979)[1932] and pictured and described in Figure 6 in Chapter II.
There are two categories of the elaborate form: the Pecos-style form and the effigy form. As discussed in Chapter II, the elaborate-Pecos-style form has a flattened mouthpiece (resembling that of a Plains pipe (Wendorf 1954)), a body like a simple tubular pipe (resembling a Pueblo form), and (usually) three-dimensional geometric serrations or dentations on two sides and etched surface decorations on the other two sides. “Dentations” or “dentate” is the way Kidder described square serrations (Kidder 1979[1932]). This form is argued in this thesis to be a blend of Plains and Pueblo forms, based on Wendorf (1954’s) assertion that flattened mouthpieces are a Plains trait and Fowles’s (2013) assertion that the dentate edges and decorations on many of
101 these pipes resemble those on katchina masks. The elaborate-effigy form resembles a human or animal and tends to be a form more common on the Plains and in Pueblo II and III periods in the
Northern San Juan. It is not common in the Protohistoric Pueblo Southwest. When elaborate- effigy pipes are found in the Protohistoric Rio Grande pueblos, they are assumed to reflect Plains influence, since elaborate-effigy pipes were being made on the Plains during that period but are thought to have largely been discontinued in the Southwest after the migration from the Northern
San Juan. There are also unique forms that do not fit the elaborate type in Kidder’s pipe typology, but still appear to be elaborated forms. Statistical evidence also supports the argument that the elaborate pipes found at Northern Rio Grande sites were linked to Plains-Pueblo interaction and exchange, and that the elaborate-Pecos-style pipe form was developed for this exchange system. Chi-square analysis of elaborate relative to non-elaborate tabulations shows the increase of elaborate pipes post-1450 to be statistically non-random, with a p-value less than
0.0001. Chi-square analysis of elaborate-effigy and elaborate-Pecos-style relative to non- elaborate tabulations show the shortage of elaborate-Pecos-style pipes pre-1450 to be statistically non-random, with a p-value less than 0.0001. Thus the increase in elaborate forms in Pueblo sites and the proliferation of the elaborate-Pecos-style form in Pueblo sites following the increase in
Plains-Pueblo trade and the establishment of Plains-Pueblo trade centers at Pueblo villages are statistically significant.
Table 15 separates out Pecos from the rest of the assemblage (excluding Northern San
Juan sites) to highlight its high number of pipes of the elaborate form. Of pipes with identified forms, Pecos had almost 50% elaborate-Pecos-style, whereas all other Plains and Pueblo sites had less than 10%. This resonates with the fact that Pecos was a major Plains-Pueblo trade center, and so it is likely that trade ceremonies and extended interaction between Plains and
102
Pueblo people that could lead to blending of pipe forms occurred at the site. Pipes of indeterminate form, as well as pipes with no provenience information that could connect them to
Plains or Pueblo sites, were not included in this table.
Pipe Forms at Pueblo and Plains Sites, Highlighting Pecos Quantity (Percent) Other Pueblo Form Plains Sites Pecos Sites Total Elaborate-Pecos- style 1 (1.75) 270 (49.82) 19 (9.18) 297 (36.62) Elaborate-effigy 4 (7.02) 3 (0.55) 2 (0.97) 9 (1.11) Elbow 28 (49.12) 8 (1.48) 15 (7.25) 51 (6.29) T-shape 12 (21.05) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 12 (1.48) Simple tubular 12 (21.05) 261 (48.15) 171 (82.61) 444 (54.75) Total 57 (100.00) 542 (100.00) 207 (100.00) 813 (100.00) Table 15. Relative percentages of identified pipe forms at Plains and Pueblo sites. Pecos had significantly more elaborate: Pecos style pipes than other sites.
All the sites in the assemblage with elaborate pipes recorded are listed and discussed in
Table 16. The elaborate form at all of the Northern San Juan sites examined in this study
(highlighted in pink in Table 16) was the elaborate-effigy form, which fits the records of pipe form distributions made by Ariss in 1939. Ariss, in his pan-Southwest inventory of pipes, noted that this pipe form was made in the prehistoric Northern San Juan occasionally, but not in the
Protohistoric Northern Rio Grande, hence this study identifies the effigy form as a Plains form for the Protohistoric period, for reasons previously explained. The elaborate form at the Northern
Rio Grande sites (highlighted in purple in Table 16) was mostly the Pecos-style form outlined in
Kidder’s Pecos artifact report (1979[1932]), which this thesis contends is a blend of Plains and
Pueblo form elements. The only sites in the Protohistoric sample that also contained the effigy form were Pecos (LA625) (3 pipes) and Sapawe (LA306) (2 pipes). For the Plains sample, most of the elaborate pipes were effigy form and a few were Pecos-style form. The Pueblo sites with multiple elaborate pipes were Pecos (LA625), Gran Quivira (LA120), Sapawe (LA306), and
103
Cuyamungue (LA38). Of sites with multiple pipes, Pecos and Cuyamungue had the highest percentage of elaborate pipes.
Sites with Pipes of Elaborate Forms Number of Elaborate Number of Total Proportion of Site Number Pipes Pipes Examined Elaborate Pipes 5LP177 (Animas-La Plata Project)*+ 1 1 1.00 5LP184 (Animas-La Plata Project)*+ 1 1 1.00 5LP2026 (Animas-La Plata Project)*+ 1 1 1.00 LA416 Pottery Mound+ 1 1 1.00 LA306 Sapawe* 5 12 0.42 LA625 Pecos* 273 867 0.31 LA38 Cuyamungue 5 16 0.31 LA1 Pindi+ 1 10 0.10 Plains* 5 66 0.08 LA120 Gran Quivira 2 32 0.06 LA252 Te'ewi+ 1 16 0.06 LA12 Arroyo Hondo+ 1 48 0.02 No Site Info 1 - 0.11 Total 298 Table 16. The elaborate-Pecos-style pipe form was only present at Northern Rio Grande Pueblo (purple) and Plains sites. The elaborate-effigy pipe form was present at Northern San Juan Pueblo sites (pink), Plains sites, Pecos, and Sapawe; these sites are indicated with an asterisk. Pre-1450 sites are indicated with a plus sign. See Figure 6 in Chapter II for form definitions and descriptions.
The data in Table 16 show more elaborate pipes in the assemblage post-1450 and in the
Northern Rio Grande region, thus seeming to reflect blending of Plains and Pueblo form and increasingly elaborate forms. When considering all of the sites together, this seems to support the idea that pipes were increasingly used in ceremony during the time of Plains-Pueblo exchange, but when comparing individual sites, this pattern is not apparent, since the highest percentages of elaborate pipes are not all at trade centers.
In addition to the elaborate forms, as defined by Kidder, there also was elaboration of other forms and presence of a few unique forms at Pecos that did not fit into existing typologies,
104 but provided important information on pipe function. One such pipe (object number
PECO10170) was an elbow pipe made with tan clay that also had an unusual degree of elaboration. This included three additional stem holes and a pecked dot design. If detachable stems are one example of ceremonial significance of pipes, as Paper has suggested, then having four total places to attach stems could indicate ceremonial use in a communal setting. The fact that this pipe is a blend of Plains form (elbow pipe with detachable stem) and Pueblo material
(clay) might signify that this ceremonial use was between Plains and Pueblo people. Two pipes at Pecos that were included in the indeterminate/other category seemed to resemble a seed pod shape, and two others resembled the “Datura pots” found occasionally in Pueblo sites. These special, unusual forms (pictured in Appendix B) may have had special uses, such as in particular ceremonies.
The presence of clearly non-local materials (such as red siltstone), as well as the unusual and elaborate forms previously discussed, at Plains-Pueblo trade centers suggest that at least some of these pipes were likely part of ceremonies that accompanied Plains-Pueblo interaction and exchange, and were not just mundane trade goods. This could support Baugh’s (2008) discussion of the sacred canopy of trade, in which smoking objects were exchanged between groups as a way of sanctioning and sanctifying trade negotiations.
Other potential indicators of ceremonial meaning or use of pipes are increased surface decoration and increased size. Pecos was the only site in the assemblage for which the attributes of surface design, form, size, and intra-site locational data were all available, hence the 867
Pecos pipes will be used in the analysis for the remainder of this section. Common surface designs (illustrated in Figure 11) include lightning arrows, feathers, rain clouds, T-shaped doorways, stepped designs thought to resemble corn stalks, geometric “S” shapes (referred to in
105 discussions of Pecos pipes as shepherd’s hooks [NPS]), and geometric designs. These are common design motifs in Pueblo culture. The elaborate pipe form is the only one that had a greater presence than absence of surface decoration, by form (Table 17). For non-elaborate forms, the Pecos sample also had more pipes with surface decoration than other site samples had.
Specifically, it is significant that almost 20% of simple tubular pipes had surface decoration, as this is not common at other sites. While surface decoration was not tabulated for every site in the sample, I did observe relative abundance of surface decoration for the pueblo pipes in MIAC,
AHC, WACC, and the Maxwell, and tabulated decoration for a comparison site, Gran Quivira.
At Gran Quivira, 5 out of 32 pipes (16%) had surface decoration, and of these, 1 out of the 7 simple tubular pipes (14%) had surface decoration. With the exception of Sapawe, pipes observed from other sites appeared to have even less surface decoration. At Pecos, surface decoration on pipes not of one of the elaborate forms were geometric, not any of the more intricate motifs illustrated in Figure 11.
106
Figure 11. Common surface designs found on pipes at Pecos.
Pipe Forms with Surface Decoration at Pecos Pueblo Decoration Present, Quantity and (Percentage) Form Yes No No Data Total Elbow 3 (37.50) 5 (62.50) 0 (0.00) 8 (100.00) Elaborate-effigy 3 (100.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 3 (100.00) Elaborate 162 (77.14) 102 (48.57) 6 (2.85) 270 (100.00) Simple Tubular 52 (19.52) 208 (76.69) 1 (0.38) 261 (100.00) Pipe Plugs 1 (12.50) 7 (87.50) 0 (0.00) 8 (100.00) Indeterminate/Other 118 (37.22) 199 (62.78) 0 (0.00) 317 (100.00) Total 339 (39.10) 521 (60.09) 7 (0.81) 867 (100.00) Table 17. The only pipe form with a greater presence than absence of surface decoration (by quantity or percentage) was the elaborate pipe form, both the effigy sub-form and the Pecos-style sub-form. It is significant that almost 20% of simple tubular pipes had surface designs though, as this is not common at other sites. Due to a time shortage, I did not take notes on surface decoration for some pipes and took photographs of those pipes instead, so I could take notes on design later. Of those photographs, seven of them did not turn out with clear enough resolution to determine design (those in the No Data column).
107
The excavated context for decorated pipes provides additional support for the use of these objects in ceremonial activities. Almost half of the pipes found inside kivas had surface decoration (48%), whereas 32% of pipes found outside of kivas had surface decoration (Table
18). However, the provenience resolution recorded in field notes was not precise enough to determine if these pipes were found on the floor or in wall niches of the kivas or if they were deposited there after the kiva was abandoned. Kiva 16, the only exception, contained a cache of two pipes deposited before it was filled in. One pipe was the Pecos-style elaborate form, and the other was a simple tubular pipe with a pecked dot design. This example supports the link of the elaborate form and surface decoration to use in ceremonial contexts.
Connection of Pipes with Surface Decoration to Ceremonial Structures at Pecos Decoration Present, Quantity and (Percent) Location Relative to Kivas Yes No No Data Total Inside of kiva 43 (48.31) 44 (49.44) 2 (2.25) 89 (100.00) Outside of kiva 131 (32.35) 271 (66.91) 3 (0.74) 405 (100.00) No locatable provenience 165 (44.24) 206 (55.23) 2 (0.54) 373 (100.00) Total 339 (39.10) 521 (60.09) 7 (0.81) 867 (100.00) Table 18. The relative proportion of pipes with surface decoration is higher inside kivas compared to outside kivas, as the percentages show, although whether those pipes were placed in the kivas during or after the use of the kivas is uncertain in most cases.
For complete pipes at Pecos, as well as pipes complete enough to measure, four sets of measurements were taken: length, two width measurements, and two measurements of the bore hole (Table 19; see Chapter III for how measurements were taken). These data were collected to determine if there was an increase in size of pipes after 1450 and whether pipes at trade centers were larger than other pipes, a possible indicator of communal use. Larger pipes can hold more tobacco and thus can be smoked by more people. The average dimensions of pipes at Pecos were slightly smaller than those of pipes from other Pueblo sites. The Pecos pipes were about 6 cm in length, 1.5 – 2.0 cm in width, with a hole that varied from 0.5 to 1 cm wide. A random sample
108 of twelve measured pipes from other sites in the assemblage averaged 6.6 cm in length, 1.4-3.0 cm in width, with 0.9 to 1.4 cm wide. When reviewing the data collected, I discovered that some of the measurements of complete pipes from sites besides Pecos had not been entered in the database, hence I used a random sample of the pipes that did have dimensions entered. However,
Pecos had three exceptionally large pipes: PECO9839 (169.4mm long, Pecos-style elaborate, clay), PECO9413 (162.37mm long, simple tubular, stone), and PECO10315 (176.76mm long, simple tubular, clay). These are the most likely candidates for communal, ceremonial use (Paper
1988). Additionally, the site had as two rather small pipes that were documented as “mini pipes” in the notes, PECO9884 and PECO9835. These exceptionally large and small pipes broadened the size range of the Pecos sample considerably, as shown in the maximum and minimum values in Table 19. These outliers were not excluded from the average because the averages for the comparative sample may have included outliers for those sites as well (since the pipes used to determine the average dimensions for the comparative sample were randomly selected).
Range of Dimensions of Pipes at Pecos Pueblo Width at Width at Hole diameter Hole diameter larger end smaller end at larger end at smaller end Weight Length (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (oz) Average 58.42 18.43 14.97 11.10 5.91 1.02 Max 176.76 37.96 83.77 19.12 12.25 11.4 Min 18.19 8.76 0.55 1.5 1.92 0.05 Table 19. Complete pipes and pipes complete enough to measure dimensions were used to obtain these size ranges. The size range was considerable, as the maximum and minimum values show.
Through studying elaborate pipe forms, unique forms, surface decoration, and size, it seems likely that there was ceremonial activity involving pipes in the Pueblo Southwest, particularly in the Protohistoric Northern Rio Grande. There also could have been some more mundane pipe use as well, since both simple and elaborate forms were found. To summarize the data from this section, with the exception of a few effigy pipes, there are more elaborate pipes
109 post-1450, which marks increased Plains-Pueblo interaction (Table 16). This suggests a link between more elaborate pipes (thus implying more ceremonial use) and Plains-Pueblo trade.
Table 16 showed that Pecos had the largest number of elaborate pipes and they made up almost
1/3 of the pipe assemblage from Pecos. Pecos also has a higher percentage of pipes with surface decoration than comparative sites did. The distribution and frequency of elaborate pipes could have a few different explanations, which would be interesting directions for future research. One could be that elaborate pipes are symbols of alliance or membership in a trade network, so trade hubs have multiple elaborate pipes and outlying sites each have one. It also would be useful to research Sapawe and Cuyamungue further, the sites with multiple elaborate pipes not recorded to be Plains-Pueblo trade centers. What the data do show though is more elaborate pipes post-1450 seeming to reflect blending of Plains and Pueblo form and increased surface decoration (Tables
16 and 17), and some large pipes (Table 19), pipes of unique form, and pipes of non-local ceremonial material. In aggregate, these seem to support the ceremonial pipes in Plains-Pueblo trade idea. The strongest line of evidence in this section to support that idea is that the number of elaborate and decorated pipes is significantly higher at Pecos, a major Plains-Pueblo trade center.
Tracing Pipe Creation and Consumption: Understanding How Pipes Were Used and Cared For
Examining the locations and styles of pipes at sites have helped us see Plains-Pueblo interaction manifest in pipes. However, the question of whether pipes were just trade objects or were also used in ceremonies facilitating trade still merits further examination. In this section, evidence of pipe manufacture and pipe use at Pecos Pueblo will be discussed. Previous analyses have suggested that ceremonial pipes were present at Pecos, but were they actually made there and smoked in ceremonies, or just exchanged? Were particular pipes discarded in particular
110 ways, and what information can that provide about pipe meaning and use? To address these questions unfinished pipes will be discussed as well as use-wear relative to form and surface decoration. Pecos was the only site in the assemblage for which use-wear was examined in detail for all the pipes found at the site, hence why that sample is being used to address these questions.
If pipes are being made on site, that demonstrates that pipes were not only brought to the site for trade, although this still may have been occurring as well. Determining what forms were being made on site can provide information about the uses the people at the site had in mind for pipes (i.e. mundane/utilitarian v. ceremonial) as well as who was making them (i.e. Plains v.
Pueblo), although there are problems with this one-to-one connection between pipe form and a person’s identity, as discussed in Chapter II (Janusek 2002, Joyce and Henderson 2010).
Evidence of used pipes at Pecos, can provide information concerning the nature of smoking activities at the site (either recreational or ceremonial). If the Pecos pipe assemblage shows a high degree of use-wear, it could suggest that smoking was a frequent activity at Pecos, which could relate to the utilitarian pipe use scenario proposed at the beginning of this chapter, or it could suggest that pipes were frequently used in ceremonies to facilitate trade, since Pecos was a Plains-Pueblo trade center. However, if more pipes of elaborate forms and pipes with greater surface decoration discussed in this chapter show evidence of use than more mundane forms, this could support smoking of pipes in ceremonies. If pipes do not show much evidence of use-wear, it would suggest that pipes were brought to Pecos to be objects of trade rather than being smoked to facilitate that trade. Determining condition of pipes of particular forms and in particular structures is also important for assessing if different types of pipes were cared for differently. In the Plains tradition, the stem is separated from the bowl when a pipe is not being used, for spiritual reasons (Paper 1988). If pipe bowl parts were separated from stem parts, in the
111
Pecos assemblage, that could suggest that this ceremonial role of pipes was present there, although pipes could have been broken or had their parts separated through site formation processes and excavation. This use-wear data must be considered with the caveat that although we know that these pipes were deposited at Pecos, we cannot say for sure that the use of the pipes occurred at Pecos. For the purposes of this thesis, it will be assumed that use-wear on pipes found at Pecos reflects use of pipes at Pecos.
If Plains and Pueblo styles were being manufactured at Pecos, particularly forms or styles that were reported to be ceremonial, it could support the idea that people who lived there linked pipes to Plains-Pueblo exchange, and ceremonies that were part of that exchange. Another indicator of the importance of pipes in Plains-Pueblo exchange could be if Plains forms were manufactured at Pecos. Table A.4 (see Appendix A) lists the full inventory of unfinished pipes at
Pecos, but the form and material are listed here in Table 20. Six of the seven unfinished pipes were finished enough for form to be determined. Five were simple tubular, and one was an elbow pipe, object number PECO10365. The elbow pipe was made of chlorite schist with magnetite, which could be obtained locally. Four of the simple tubular pipes were stone, and one was clay.
The elbow pipe, as well as the use of stone, suggests that both Plains and Pueblo styles were being manufactured at Pecos. Five of the seven unfinished pipes were found on the east side of the North Pueblo at Pecos, which is the side where Plains visitors camped. Although Table 18 shows that most of the unfinished pipes at Pecos were local types, which is not unusual, the fact that stone pipes and at least one pipe of Plains form were being manufactured at Pecos does provide some limited indication that Plains people were either manufacturing pipes at Pecos or influencing what pipe types were manufactured. The majority of unfinished pipes being located
112 near the Plains encampment area also supports linking pipes to Plains-Pueblo interaction at
Pecos.
Unfinished Pipes at Pecos Material Form Clay Stone Total Simple tubular 4 1 5 Elbow 0 1 1 Indeterminate 1 0 1 Total 5 2 7 Table 20. The seven unfinished pipes found at Pecos. The majority are local form and material.
Another indicator that pipes were not just traded through Pecos, but were actively made and used there, is the presence of use-wear on many of the pipes. Most pipes at Pecos (72%) showed some sign of use-wear, as shown in Table 21. This indicates that the residents of Pecos smoked often. Since about 82% of the elaborate-Pecos-style pipes and about 63% of the elbow pipes were used, this supports the idea that at least some of the smoking at Pecos was related to
Plains-Pueblo interaction. The elaborate-effigy pipes, the other Plains form, had the same percentage of used to unused pipes, but the sample size was only three.
Use-Wear by Form at Pecos Pueblo Quantity (and Percent) Use-Wear Form Yes No No Data Total 270 (265 Elaborate-Pecos- 216 49 with use style (81.51) (18.49) 5 data, 100.00) 1 1 3 (2 with use Elaborate-effigy (50.00) (50.00) 1 data, 100.00) 5 3 Elbow (62.50) (37.50) 0 8 (100.00) 261 (260 190 70 with use Simple tubular (73.08) (26.92) 1 data, 100.00) 2 4 8 (6 with use Pipe plug (33.33) (66.67) 2 data, 100.00) 317 (316 205 111 with use Indeterminate/other (64.87) (35.13) 1 data, 100.00)
113
867 (857 619 238 with use Total (72.23) (27.77) 10 data, 100.00) Table 21. Overall, more Pecos pipes were used than unused. The only forms that had a higher percentage of unused than used pipes were the elaborate-effigy pipes and the pipe plugs, which would pick up soot stains if they were placed inside used pipes. The percentages reflect only the pipes for which use data was collected.
The three large pipes discussed in the previous section all had evidence of use-wear.
Pipes with surface decoration also had a slightly higher percentage of use-wear (78%) compared to pipes without surface decoration (68%) (Table 22). That elaborate forms, large pipes, and decorated pipes all have considerable evidence of use-wear supports the argument that pipe smoking and use may have factored into social negotiations at interregional centers, specifically
Pecos, and were not just utilitarian trade items.
Use-Wear Relative to Surface Decoration at Pecos Pueblo Presence or Absence of Use-Wear, Quantity and (Percent) No Presence of Surface Decoration Present Absent Data Total Yes 264 (77.88) 73 (21.53) 2 (0.59) 339 (100.00) No 354 (67.95) 165 (31.67) 2 (0.38) 521 (100.00) No Data 1 0 6 7 10 Total 619 (71.40) 238 (27.45) (1.15) 867 (100.00) Table 22. Pipes with surface decoration had slightly higher occurrence of use-wear than pipes without surface decoration at Pecos.
At Pecos, pipes from all categories of completeness showed more use-wear than not use- wear (Table 23). As stated in Chapter III, completeness refers to whether a pipe was found broken or intact. Broken pipes are considered incomplete if only a small portion of the pipe is broken or chipped off, whereas fragments are small pieces of pipes. Each completeness category had between 70 and 85% used pipes. There also appeared to be no correlation between form and level of completeness, material and level of completeness, or location and level of completeness
114 either. Thus, it does not appear as if particular groups or types of pipes were cared for differently than others.
Relationship of Use-Wear to Whether a Pipe Was Broken or Intact Presence of Use-Wear by Quantity and (Percent) Completeness Yes No No Data Total 32 6 44 (38 with use Complete (84.21) (15.79) 6 data, 100.00) 87 23 Incomplete (79.09) (20.91) 0 110 (100.00) 711 (709 with 500 209 use data, Fragment (70.52) (29.48) 2 100.00) 2 (0 with use No Data 0 0 2 data) 867 (857 with 619 238 use data, Total (72.23) (27.77) 10 100.00) Table 23. Regardless of whether pipes were broken or complete, a significant majority of the pipes at Pecos had use-wear. There also appeared to be no correlation between form and level of completeness or material and level of completeness either. Percentages reflect pipes for which there was use data.
If we assume that use-wear of pipes deposited at Pecos reflects those pipes being used at
Pecos, then the fact that, across all forms and materials, there was a higher percentage of used than non-used pipes supports the idea that pipes were frequently smoked at Pecos. The fact that elaborate forms and Plains forms have a higher percentage of used versus unused pipes suggests that at least some of the use of pipes at this site was related to ceremony and Plains-Pueblo exchange; if these pipes were used in ceremonies they were smoked during these events, not just present there. Another way to assess what objects were used for is to assess what type of locations or structures within a site they might have been used in, which is the subject of the next section.
115
Intra-Site Spatial Analyses: Assessing the Connection of Pipes to Ceremonial Locations or
Locations of Inter-group Interaction
If pipes played a role in facilitating Plains-Pueblo interactions and negotiations, pipes would be expected to be concentrated in the areas of the site where visitors gathered or where ceremonies took place. Select spatial analyses were highlighted in previous sections of this chapter to support the linking of certain types of pipes to ceremonial structures. This section builds on and extends these analyses to map pipe locations across the entirety of Pecos, not just particular structures at the site. Spatial analysis within Pecos Pueblo will be used to determine if areas of concentrated pipe deposition coincided with ceremonial areas within the pueblo and/or in other areas where (based on historic accounts) Plains-Pueblo exchanges were likely to have occurred. Pecos Pueblo contains a north pueblo section, a south pueblo section, and the mission church complex. If pipes are concentrated in the mission complex, it would suggest that pipe use increased with Spanish arrival. Ethnohistoric accounts compiled by Hammond and Ray (1966) and Winship (1892) reported that Plains people camped along the east edge of the North Pueblo of Pecos. This was later supported by NPS research. If pipes are concentrated along the east side of the north pueblo, it would add support to the view that pipes were used in exchange ceremonies with Plains visitors, who would have entered the pueblo from the east. A line of kivas on the outer edge of the north pueblo on the east side is reportedly where Plains visitors were invited into the pueblo (Scott Ortman, repeated from Porter Swentzell, personal communication, 2014). A concentration of pipes in these kivas could suggest that pipes were involved in the associated ceremonies.
To explore these questions, the proveniences for pipes at Pecos were grouped in three ways: 1) north pueblo v. south pueblo v. mission complex, 2) west side v. east side, and 3) inside
116 v. outside of kivas. The site was divided in these three ways to better understand when, by whom, and for what purpose pipes may have been used.
As noted in previous sections, deposition location does not necessarily equal use location, unless pipes were found in wall or floor deposits. Locational data needs to be considered with the caution that pipes could have ended up in the places in which they were found in excavations for a number of reasons that are a part of site formation processes, from people moving broken things from an active use area to a discard area to natural processes disturbing the site over time.
Unfortunately, Pecos provenience data were not recorded with enough specificity in the field notes to determine primary versus secondary context, so, in most cases, pipes were located to whole rooms or kivas or test trenches. Spatial analyses could only to be completed for a sample of the Pecos pipes, as not all had locatable proveniences on the site map, due to portions of the map being lost over time, some of the room numbers, trench numbers, and other provenience numbers fading over the years on the map, and the provenience of some pipes being listed as unknown or “general digging” in the artifact database, as discussed in Chapter III.
Just as it was necessary to divide by number of rooms to account for differential amounts of excavation at different sites when comparing pipe densities between sites, it was necessary to divide number of pipes by number of proveniences excavated in the sub-regions of Pecos to account for differential amounts of excavation in different portions of the site (Tables 24, 28,
32). After the density estimates are discussed for each of these three locations, form, material, and use-wear will be considered. Because certain pipe forms and materials have been associated with particular regional identities or particular uses in past accounts, as previously discussed, assessing where these pipes are concentrated within a site can provide information as to where interactions were taking place within a site and within what context (ceremonial, public/private,
117 etc). Adding analysis of the attribute of use-wear to this discussion may help see if pipes were smoked in these contexts, or just exchanged.
First Site Division: North Pueblo-South Pueblo-Mission
The first division was north pueblo-south pueblo-mission. Table 24 shows that pipes were almost three times more frequent in the north and south pueblo than the mission. The predominance of pipes in the north and south pueblo versus the mission supports the idea that pipes played an important role in native-native interactions, rather than native-Spanish interactions (Table 24). For the pipes that had locations that could be found on an excavation map of the north pueblo, there was a concentration in kiva 12, the northern plaza, and the far eastern portion of the site, including kiva 16 (Figure 12). Kiva 16 contained a cache with pipes deposited in the ventilator shaft.
Density of Pipes in Pecos Pueblo Site Sections Average Number of Site Number of Number of Pipes Per Sections Proveniences Pipes Provenience Mission 5 5 1 North pueblo 166 483 2.91 South pueblo 9 25 2.78 No data 120 354 2.95 Total 300 867 Table 24. The average number of pipes per provenience is not significantly different between the north and south pueblos.
118
Figure 12. Map of the north pueblo of Pecos, showing pipe concentration areas. The area circled in red is the region in which pipes of all types were most concentrated, and where the majority of Plains forms were found.
All of the Plains pipe forms found at Pecos that have detailed provenience (one elaborate- effigy pipe and five elbow pipes) were found in the north pueblo. The simple tubular and elaborate-Pecos-style pipes were found in each of the three sections of the site, but were found in noticeably higher percentages in the north pueblo (96% and 90%, respectively) (Table 25).
Site Section Location of Pipe Forms at Pecos Quantity and (Percent) of Pipes per Site Section Form North Pueblo South Pueblo Mission No Data Total 270 (145 with location elaborate- identified, Pecos-style 131 (90.34) 13 (8.97) 1 (0.69) 125 100.00) 3 (1 with location identified, elaborate-effigy 1 (100.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 2 100.00)
119
8 (5 with location identified, Elbow 5 (100.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 3 100.00) 261 (162 with location identified, simple tubular 155 (95.68) 3 (1.85) 4 (2.47) 99 100.00) 8 (4 with location identified, pipe plug 4 (100.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 4 100.00) 317 (196 with location identified, indeterminate 187 (95.41) 9 (4.59) 0 (0.00) 121 100.00) 867 (513 with location identified, Total 483 (94.15) 25 (4.87) 5 (0.97) 354 100.00) Table 25. All pipe forms were concentrated in the North Pueblo. Percentages reflect only the pipes for which forms could be identified.
For distinctions in location by material, there were three stone pipes in one excavation trench at the site (Trench II, whose location was not recorded in the archived notes), but other than that there were not really any noticeable concentrations. The pipes in all identified locations were predominantly clay (95%) (Table 26).
Site Section Location of Pipe Materials at Pecos Quantity and (Percent) of Pipes by Site Section No Material North Pueblo South Pueblo Mission Data Total 839 (495 with location identified, Clay 466 (95.14) 24 (4.84) 5 (1.01) 344 100.00) 27 (17 with Stone 17 (100.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 10 location
120
identified, 100.00) Indeterminate 0 (0.00) 1 (100.00) 0 (0.00) 0 1 (100.00) 867 (513 with location identified, Total 483 (94.15) 25 (4.87) 5 (0.97) 354 100.00) Table 26. All pipe materials were concentrated in the North Pueblo. Percentages reflect only the pipes for which forms could be identified.
The percentage of used pipes was higher in north pueblo (72%) than the south pueblo
(56%), but 100% of pipes in the mission block showed signs of use-wear (Table 27). These analyses show that, when the site is divided into the three sections or blocks of the site (the north pueblo, south pueblo, and mission), pipes are concentrated in the north pueblo. The north pueblo also contains pipes of Plains form and material, which articulates with the ethnohistoric accounts of Plains people camping to the east of the north pueblo. The next division will compare the east side of Pecos to the west side of Pecos, to see if Plains or mixed styles spread into the pueblo, or remained on the east edge near the Plains encampment.
Use-Wear Relative to Site Section Location within Pecos Presence of Use-Wear, Quantity (Percent) Site Section Yes No No Data Total North pueblo 347 (71.84) 130 (26.92) 6 (1.24) 483 (100.00) South pueblo 14 (56.00) 11 (44.00) 0 (0.00) 25 (100.00) Mission 5 (100.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 5 (100.00) No locatable provenience 253 (71.47) 97 (27.40) 4 (1.13) 354 (100.00)
Total 619 (71.40) 238 (27.45) 10 (1.15) 867 (100.00) Table 27. For pipes with a provenience that could be located on the site map, the mission area had the highest percentage of used pipes, but the north pueblo had the largest number of used pipes.
Second Site Division: East or West Side of the Site
121
The second division was by east versus west side of the site, which I divided along the
75-feet-East line on Kidder’s site grid. The portion of the site east of this line contains the eastern row of kivas, as well as the Plains encampment. Ceremonies involving pipes have been reported to have occurred in kivas in Rio Grande archaeological sites in the Tiwa-speaking area of Taos
(Fowles 2013). Kivas in pueblos that are in a line on the edge of a pueblo have been considered to be traveler’s rest stops (Scott Ortman and Porter Swentzell, personal communication, 2015). If pipes were found in greater quantity in this eastern portion of Pecos, it would support the idea that pipes played a role in interaction and exchanges with visitors. It also would suggest that, if pipes were used to facilitate Plains-Pueblo exchange, that these exchanges took place on the edge of the pueblo, rather than in the center of the pueblo. Table 28 shows that pipes were more than twice as frequent on the east side of the pueblo than the west side of the pueblo. The predominance of pipes on the eastern side of the site (Figure 13) could be due to the fact that there was a midden located on the eastern edge of the pueblo (Kessell 1987), or it could be related to the fact that the visiting Plains people camped on the eastern side of the pueblo and that pipes were frequently used in interactions with these people.
Density of Pipes on Opposite Sides of Pecos Pueblo Average East or west Number of side of the Number of Number Pipes Per pueblo Proveniences of Pipes Provenience East 63 276 4.38 West 112 219 1.96 No data 124 372 3 Total 299 867 Table 28. T-test value= 0.003275. Pipes are twice as dense on the eastern side of the pueblo compared to the western side.
122
Figure 13. Pipe concentration areas across the entire Pecos site. The red outlines are outlines of the three sections of the site: North Pueblo, South Pueblo, and Mission.
For distinctions in location by form (Table 29), the effigy pipes and three of the eight elbow pipes were in the east portion of the north pueblo, in a concentrated area circled on Figure
12. This supports the idea that Plains-style pipe forms at Pecos reflect Plains influence (because they are in the location near the supposed Plains encampment).
123
East/West Location of Pipe Forms at Pecos East/West Site Division Location Form West East No Data Total 270 (130 with 70 60 location data, Elaborate-Pecos-style (53.85) (46.15) 140 100.00) 3 (1 with 0 1 location data, Elaborate-effigy (0.00) (100.00) 2 100.00) 8 (5 with 0 5 location data, Elbow (0.00) (100.00) 3 100.00) 261 (167 with 76 91 location data, Simple tubular (45.51) (54.49) 94 100.00) 8 (4 with 2 2 location data, Pipe plug (50.00) (50.00) 4 100.00) 317 (188 with 71 117 location data, Indeterminate/other (37.77) (62.23) 129 100.00) 867 (495 with 219 276 location data, Total (44.24) (55.76) 372 100.00) Table 29. Although the sample size is small, Plains forms are present on the eastern side of the pueblo, and not on the west side. Percentages reflect the pipes that had location data recorded.
Interestingly, although there was a higher percentage of Plains forms on the eastern side of the pueblo, as expected, the percentage of stone pipes was higher on the west side of the pueblo (73% to 27%) (Table 30). One possible explanation for this is that, if people were procuring the local stone as cobbles washed down the Pecos River, they would have picked these up on the west side of the pueblo. The percentage of used pipes on the western side of the pueblo was also slightly higher than on the eastern side of the pueblo (76% to 68%) (Table 31). Of the pipes that were in process of manufacture, five of nine had recorded locations. Those five were all in the north pueblo outside of kivas. Three were on the east side of the pueblo, and two were on the west side.
124
When comparing the east and west sides of the pueblo, the fact that more pipes were on the east side and the fact that most of the Plains-form pipes were on the east side, which is the place where Plains visitors would have first come in contact with the inhabitants of Pecos
Pueblo, supports linking increased pipe use to Plains-Pueblo interaction.
East/West Location of Pipe Materials at Pecos East/West Site Division Location Material West East No Data Total 208 272 839 (480 with location Clay (43.33) (56.67) 359 data, 100.00) 11 27 (15 with location Stone (73.33) 4 (26.67) 12 data, 44.44) 1 (0 with location Indeterminate 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 1 data) 219 276 867 (495 with location Total (44.24) (55.76) 372 data, 100.00) Table 30. Clay pipes were present in higher numbers on the eastern side of the pueblo. Stone pipes were present in higher numbers on the western side of the pueblo. Percentages reflect the pipes that had location data recorded.
Use-Wear Relative to East/West Division of Pecos Presence of Use-Wear, Quantity (Percent) East/West Site Division Location Yes No No Data Total East 188 (68.12) 86 (31.16) 2 (0.72) 276 (100) West 166 (75.80) 49 (22.37) 4 (1.83) 219 (100) No locatable provenience 265 (71.24) 103 (27.69) 4 (1.08) 372 (100) Total 619 (71.40) 238 (27.45) 10 (1.15) 867 (100.00) Table 31. A higher percentage of pipes on the west half of the site had use-wear than those on the east half of the site.
Third Site Division: Inside and Outside of Kivas
The third division was inside versus outside of kivas, regardless of where in the site the kivas were located. Focusing on just the row of external kivas on the eastern side of the pueblo did not bring to light any distinctive patterns in the data. Concentrations of pipes in ceremonial structures would suggest that they were used in ceremonial contexts, with the caution that we cannot distinguish primary versus secondary deposits of pipes in structures at this site. Table 32
125 shows that there was not a significant difference in the number of pipes found inside versus outside of kivas, either, with the average number of pipes per provenience being around three for both contexts.
Density of Pipes Inside and Outside of Kivas at Pecos Average Location Number of Relative Number of Number Pipes Per to Kivas Proveniences of Pipes Provenience Inside of kiva 32 89 2.78 Outside of kiva 142 405 2.85 No data 125 373 2.98 Total 299 867 Table 32. T-test value= 0.470496. Overall, pipes were found as frequently inside kivas and outside of kivas.
A higher percentage of Plains forms was found outside the kivas. Specifically, 100% vs.
0% of effigy pipes and 80% vs. 20% of elbow pipes with recorded locations were found outside of kivas compared to inside of them (Table 33). The Pueblo forms were found more frequently outside of kivas than in them as well (Table 34). All material types had higher percentages outside of kivas than within them (Table 35). Although kivas are ceremonial structures, some ceremonies could have taken place outside of kivas, and some pipes could have been used in kivas and then used and deposited in other locations. As discussed earlier in this chapter, the presence of more pipes with surface decorations in kivas, as well as a cache of pipes in Kiva 16 with an elaborate-Pecos-style pipe and another pipe with surface decoration, shows that some pipes likely used in ceremonies were placed in ceremonial structures.
Location of Pipe Forms Respective to Kivas at Pecos Location Respective to Kivas Form Inside Outside No Data Total
126
270 (130 with 36 94 location data, Elaborate-Pecos-style (27.69) (72.31) 140 100.00) 3 (1 with 0 1 location data, Elaborate-effigy (0.00) (100.00) 2 100.00) 8 (5 with 1 4 location data, Elbow (20.00) (80.00) 3 100.00) 261 (166 with 30 136 location data, Simple tubular (18.07) (81.93) 95 100.00) 8 (4 with 0 4 location data, Pipe plug (0.00) (100.00) 4 100.00) 317 (188 with 22 166 location data, Indeterminate/other (11.70) (88.30) 129 100.00) 867 (494 with 89 405 location data, Total (18.02) (81.98) 373 100.00) Table 33. All pipe forms are found more frequently outside of kivas than inside of them. Percentages reflect the pipes that had location data recorded.
Location of Pipe Materials Respective to Kivas at Pecos Location Respective to Kivas Materials Inside Outside No Data Total 839 (479 with 87 392 location data, Clay (18.16) (81.84) 360 100.00) 27 (15 with 2 13 location data, Stone (13.33) (86.67) 12 100.00) 1 (0 with Indeterminate 0 0 1 location data) 867 (494 with 89 405 location data, Total (18.02) (81.98) 373 100.00) Table 34. All pipe materials are found more frequently outside of kivas than inside of them. Percentages reflect the pipes that had location data recorded.
However, the ratio of used to unused pipes was slightly higher inside kivas than outside
(78% compared to 70%) (Table 35). Why would used pipes be concentrated in kivas, but not the elaborate and non-local forms? Perhaps the pipes that evidence Plains-Pueblo interaction were
127 used in some ceremonies for trade and inter-group interaction that took place outside of kivas.
Ethnohistoric accounts indicate that some trade fair activities at Pecos took place outside of kivas
(Kessell 1987).
Use-Wear Relative to Kiva Location within Pecos Presence of Use -Wear, Quantity (Percent) No Location Respective to Kivas Yes No Total Data 18 2 89 Inside of Kiva 69 (77.53) (20.22) (2.25) (100.00) 117 4 405 Outside of Kiva 284 (70.12) (28.89) (0.99) (100.00) 103 4 373 No locatable provenience 266 (71.31) (27.61) (1.07) (100.00) 238 10 867 Total 619 (71.40) (27.45) (1.15) (100.00) Table 35. The percentage of used v unused pipes inside and outside of kivas was relatively comparable.
Intra-site location analyses at Pecos suggested multiple uses of pipes. The spread of a variety of pipes across the site could indicate that smoking was a frequent activity at Pecos.
However, multiple analyses demonstrated that pipes were more frequent in locations where
Plains-Pueblo interaction would have been most likely to take place. Concentration of pipes in the north pueblo on the eastern side, and concentration of Plains forms in that same area, indicates pipes were involved in Plains-Pueblo trade interactions. A higher percentage of used relative to unused pipes in kivas suggests pipe smoking played a role in ceremonial activity. The following section will summarize the various lines of evidence for the previously identified three possible hypotheses of pipe significance in the Rio Grande.
Analysis and Discussion of Results
In this chapter, numerous patterns observed in the data were discussed, and compared to patterns expected if pipes played a role in facilitating inter-group exchange and interaction at
128 sites in the Northern Rio Grande. In this section select patterns will be grouped together as evidence to address the larger questions of the thesis: Were smoking pipes an element (or “a key element”) in negotiations between Pueblo people and their Plains neighbors? What can we learn about Plains-Pueblo and inter-group interaction, especially at Pecos, through examining this particular artifact class of smoking pipes?
Summary of Questions and Lines of Evidence
At the beginning of this chapter, after introducing the overall question of the thesis previously stated, three hypotheses for pipe use were put forth. One was that pipe smoking was a recreational, everyday activity at the site. The second was that pipes were another set of objects traded between Plains and Pueblo people, in much the same way as pottery, bison hides, and other products. The third was that smoking pipes and ceremonies in which tobacco was used were part of the traditions called upon to facilitate Plains-Pueblo exchange. Based on the previous research presented in Chapter II, I had a strong suspicion that the ceremonial use of pipes was the primary use of pipes in this region at this time, but, since there is also literature supporting the other hypotheses, I wanted to assess the three and their predominance in this assemblage, and what information that would provide about Plains-Pueblo interaction.
Through an analysis of selected attributes of pipes in the assemblage, this thesis aimed to address these hypotheses by answering questions about where pipes were concentrated, which groups may have been using pipes in social interactions and how pipes were used. By comparing number of pipes at the sites in the assemblage, while accounting for the different sizes and amount of excavation of the sites, it became evident that pipes were more frequent in sites occupied after AD1450, the time when an increase in Plains-Pueblo trade was documented, and that pipes were even more abundant at trade centers. By assessing which forms and materials
129 were concentrated at which sites, there are strong indications that Plains and Pueblo people were interacting. The blending of Plains and Pueblo form and materials suggests that there may have been a certain level of integration, alliance, or partnership in these interactions.
Analyses of pipe function resulted in multiple possible uses. The overall abundance of pipes, particularly at sites in the Northern Rio Grande, as well as the large number of pipes with use-wear, suggests that pipe smoking was a frequent activity in the Protohistoric period. Tracing the spread of Plains and Pueblo forms and materials indicates that pipes, or knowledge of pipe making, were traded among Plains and Pueblo people. The more frequent occurrence of decorated and elaborate pipes at Protohistoric trade centers, as well as finding examples of such types in ceremonial structures and locations where exchange was likely to have occurred, provides evidence that at least some pipes were used in ceremonial interactions between different groups.
Overall, pipes may have had multiple uses in the Protohistoric Rio Grande; these data cannot fully discount any one hypothesis. However, since the use of pipes to facilitate and mediate Plains-Pueblo exchange was the hypothesis of most interest for this thesis, the strongest lines of evidence to support this hypothesis will be reviewed in the following section.
Strongest Cases for Pipe Use in Facilitating and Negotiating Interaction
One line of evidence to support the involvement of pipes in Plains-Pueblo exchange is that the density of pipes are significantly higher at Plains-Pueblo trade centers, Pecos and Gran
Quivira specifically, than other sites. The fact that pipes appear to increase in frequency in general in the Rio Grande site sample after the Plains-Pueblo trade increase in 1450 also supports this linking of pipes to involvement in inter-regional interaction and exchange. Within Pecos, pipes were also concentrated in the part of the site where Plains-Pueblo interaction would have
130 likely taken place. Since pipes were concentrated on the east side of the Pueblo where, based on historic accounts, visitors would have entered or camped, and that more Plains forms were interspersed with Pueblo forms in that area suggests that this meaning and importance of the pipe beyond recreational use may have had something to do with trade exchanges or ceremonies involving the welcoming or initiation of visitors.
The abundance of elaborate forms and the presence of red siltstone at Pecos also support the connection of pipes to ceremony involving Plains and Pueblo people. Gran Quivira also had a noteworthy number of stone pipes, as well as Plains forms. Non-local pipe material is not present in the same proportion at other sites (the few Pueblo sites with higher percentages of stone only had a few pipes total, and none were red siltstone). While the implications of this result would be strengthened by being able to more precisely determine raw material source locations of the stone pipes, finding stone pipes at trade centers supports the idea that pipes do reflect Plains-
Pueblo interaction. Furthermore, finding red siltstone pipes at Pecos, particularly one catlinite one, ties pipes to ceremonies involving interactions of Plains and Pueblo people.
Pecos had a higher degree of elaboration of other pipe forms besides the elaborate form, both in increased amount and complexity of surface decoration and variation on previously- existing pipe forms, such as the elbow pipe with four stem attachments. This may reflect a shift in increased importance of or meaning of the pipe at this site. The number of Plains forms at
Pecos and Gran Quivira, as well as the unusually high number of elaborate pipes at Pecos, support the theory that this elaboration and proliferation of pipes was more focused in interregional interaction areas and trade centers, thus supporting the link of pipes to ceremonies of welcome and negotiation of exchange, particularly at Pecos. Based on Pecos’s documented role as a trade center and waypoint for travelers between regions, a shift in pipe importance may
131 be evidence of the proliferation of the concept of smoking together as an act of meeting or mediation amongst different parties, an idea common in many historic North American Indian groups.
Potential Sources of Error
This study is one of the first detailed analyses of Southwestern pipes and it has uncovered significant evidence that pipes were important objects in the Protohistoric Pueblos. The study provides considerable evidence that pipes were used in ceremonies that framed Pueblo-Plains social interactions. Like most studies, however, this one was not without potential sources of error. Potential sources of variation or error include the length of the data collection period, the fragmentary nature of the collection and its associated documentation, and the assumption of what were Plains versus Pueblo attribute states. The data on Pecos pipes were collected in May,
July, and August 2015, and July 2016. Data on pipes from other sites was collected in June, July, and October 2015, and January 2016. During this eight month interval, I learned more about pipes overall in the Southwest and about variation in the Pecos assemblage itself. The fact that I approached the pipes in 2016 with a better understanding than the ones in 2015 could have led to some inconsistency or difference in how attributes were recorded. I tried to control for this by adhering to the same data collection form and attribute state definitions (see Appendix B) the whole time.
For pipes from site reports that could not be examined in person and that did not have photographic documentation, I had to rely on what was written about them, and therefore could not examine them with the same consistency or with the same attribute definitions used for the pipes that were accessible. The assemblage of pipes from sites without corresponding site reports may be incomplete, due to pipes missing, lost, or otherwise unavailable or un-accessed for
132 analysis. For Pecos specifically, the various excavators and curators at Pecos over the years recorded the pipes in varying level of detail and using varying abbreviation systems, and thus some assumptions had to be made when compiling all of the information into one system.
Each pipe object, whether fragmentary, incomplete, or complete, was considered a separate object in the pipe count (unless refitting was clearly evident), which may have inflated the pipe count. I tried to control for this by observing and recording which fragments could be refit and thus part of one pipe. Finally, the assignment of form and material to local or non-local categories was based on previous scholarship on the common forms of pipes in the Eastern
Pueblo and Plains areas during the Protohistoric period, but forms in the Protohistoric Eastern
Pueblos may have been influenced by knowledge of pipe form traditions in the prehistoric
Northern San Juan or other regions and time periods that were not a focus of this study.
133
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS
Merits of the Study
In conclusion, tabulation and detailed recording of pipes at a number of sites in the
Northern Rio Grande reveal presence, or at least influence, of Plains people in Pueblo artifact assemblage and ideology as expressed in pipes, and that pipes were an important part of Plains-
Pueblo interaction. This supports the utility of analyzing pipe form, material, and decoration to inform and support statements in the literature about time period and location of inter-regional interaction and trade. Because the majority of stone pipes were found in pueblos occupied post-
1450, the data does support the increase and reorganization in Plains interaction at the Pueblos through time that has been demonstrated in previous research. The fact that pipes increase in frequency coincident with the increase in other lines of evidence for Plains-Pueblo interaction after 1450 supports the view that pipes played an important part in these interactions in particular. This is important because it indicates that pipes were not just associated with between-village interactions, but with interethnic interactions between the Plains and Pueblo region, as well. The fact that Pecos was such an outlier in elaborate pipe forms and decorated pipes (in addition to having an unusually large quantity of pipes) corroborates the fact that Pecos was a specialized trade center involved in inter-regional exchange, and that pipes played a role in sanctioning or structuring some of those exchanges in a ceremonial way. Besides providing more artifact-based evidence to support ethnohistoric accounts, this study also offers new information regarding the likely mechanisms used to negotiate trade and interaction in this era of increased inter-regional exchange. Specifically, the higher density of pipes at trade centers overall supports the hypothesis that smoking pipes were part of systems of inter-ethnic exchange that helped
134 facilitate the increased interactions that occurred following the AD1450 uptick in trade between
Plains and Pueblo people.
Although smoking pipes have often been discussed in excavation reports, site-to-site comparisons and tabulations have been rare. Regional comparisons and individual site and typologies have been established (e.g. Switzer 1969, Kidder 1979[1932], and Brown 1996), but site-to-site analysis has not been investigated much beyond Thibodeau’s tabulations of data from about six sites for the Arroyo Hondo Pottery volume (1993:186). This particular class of artifacts, pipes, deepens understandings of Plains-Pueblo interaction by bringing to light the ritual dimension of inter-ethnic trade activity. Tobacco was considered to be the “ambassador’s herb” (McGuire 1899). Examining pipes and smoking customs thus provides a glimpse into the ceremonial aspects of trade negotiations and even of migrations of people between the two regions.
At a regional level, comparing the density, material composition, and stylistic elaboration of pipes in the Northern Rio Grande provides another line of evidence to support the concept of village-level specialization in pre-Hispanic times. Evidence that pipes were produced at trade centers, as well as being densest and most elaborate and varied at these centers, provides evidence of a connection between specialization in pipe production and consumption with specialization in inter-regional interaction and trade. Based on ethnographic and ethnohistoric accounts, this correlation is due at least in part to the role of smoking practices as part of customs of negotiation and mediation between both individuals and groups.
For Pecos specifically, the data provided answers to questions about the characterization of the assemblage, how the pipe assemblage from Pecos set Pecos apart from contemporaneous pueblos, and what information the unique pipe forms could suggest about non-local interaction.
135
In conclusion, the high density of pipes at Pecos and the elaborate pipe form largely unique to
Pecos provides evidence for Pecos as a specialized pipe center and for pipes figuring prominently in trade and interregional interactions. The hypothesis of pipes figuring prominently in trade interactions is further supported by the results of the pipe density analysis because the second highest pipe density (after Pecos) was reported at Gran Quivira, another trade center. An alternative explanation for the density and abundance of elaborate pipes could be that Pecos was just a pipe production center, and that pipes did not necessarily play a particular role in facilitating interethnic trade, but, if so, why would the pipe center be on the edge of the pueblo world near the Plains rather than more centrally located within the pueblos, and why would we not see more of the elaborate pipes at other pueblo sites? Therefore, I believe that the evidence of the highest density and elaboration of pipes that is currently known in the Protohistoric Pueblo world coinciding with a site that was one of the longest-used Plains-Pueblo trade centers, the blending of Plains and Pueblo pipe materials and forms, along with mentions of the importance of pipes in initiation ceremonies and other ceremonies scattered throughout research publications on Pueblo and Plains sites, supports the hypothesis that pipe smoking played an important role in the inter-regional exchange process and the acceptance of visitors in the Southwest during the
Protohistoric period.
In summation, this study adds a line of evidence that advances understandings of the nature and dynamics of Plains-Pueblo interaction and exchange, village specialization in the Rio
Grande region, and the Pueblo economy overall. As explained in the Chapter II, there is a wealth of evidence for the increase in Plains-Pueblo trade around AD1450 and for which Pueblo villages acted as trade centers. What this study has added to this previous research is evidence that pipe-smoking rituals were a critical component of these developments. If, as hypothesized,
136 the individuals involved in this trade utilized new ritual forms to promote trust and to provide supernatural sanction for trade partnerships, initiation, and agreements, the archaeological record should reveal the following patterns: 1) pipes will be denser in deposits at sites previously noted as trade centers; 2) evidence of pipe manufacture will be most prevalent at these same centers; 3) the incidence of stone pipes in Pueblo sites should increase after 1450; and 4) more symbolic decoration and elaborate pipe forms should be apparent on pipes found at trade centers. The data presented here are mostly consistent with all these expectations.
Directions for Future Research
To better understand the role of pipes in mediating inter-regional interaction, the pipe assemblages from other sites besides Pecos need to be studied in more detail. This will help better determine, or increase confidence in assessment of, what trends in the data from this thesis are characteristic of Pecos in particular versus characteristic of Plains-Pueblo trade centers or
Protohistoric Pueblo villages in general. The Microsoft Access database, which holds all of the data compiled for the pipes in the assemblage, is set up in such a way that other researchers can add their sites and pipe data to it to increase the amount and strength of information we can glean from the data. Specifically, it would be beneficial to see more data from Plains sites added to the database. If pipes were indeed part of ceremonial facilitation and negotiation of Plains-Pueblo trade, then pipes (including those of non-local form) should be present at the AD 1250-1450 trade centers on the Plains more-so than the sites that AD 1250-1450 sites in the Pueblo region that were not trade centers. Additionally, pueblos south of Gran Quivira that were not as heavily engaged in Plains-Pueblo exchange should have fewer pipes, as well as pipes mostly of local styles. Pipe data from existing reports on these sites supports these expectations (Speth 2004),
137 but data from additional sites in these areas could test these expectations of pipe use and meaning even further.
While it was not feasible during the completion of this thesis, it would be informative in the future to submit some samples for compositional analysis and sourcing to confirm more precise material origin locations for pipes that had non-local forms or materials. This would also allow us to determine if the stone pipes that were made from stone that could be available locally or non-locally were manufactured near Pecos or brought to Pecos from further away. Conducting residue analysis on select pipes and doing additional research to learn about the variety of materials smoked would help deepen understandings of smoking customs and where smoking materials may have been obtained. Comparing residues between Plains-Pueblo interaction centers and other sites, and comparing Plains versus Pueblo tobacco recipes would be useful for assessing whether tobacco recipes or tobacco itself may have been exchanged as well, or if certain materials were smoked in certain circumstances.
Finally, continuing to search for additional records and data to refine site chronologies and the dates of pipe deposition would improve our ability to distinguish periods of Plains,
Pueblo, and Spanish interactions, and thus better assess the place of pipes in these various interaction dynamics.
138
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams, E. Charles, and Andrew Duff. 2004. The Protohistoric Pueblo Word, AD1275-1600. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Adams, Jenny L. 2015. San Pedro Phase Grinding Technology at Las Capas, AZ AA:12:111 (ASM). In Implements of Change: Tools, Subsistence, and the Built Environment of Las Capas, an Early Agricultural Irrigation Community in Southern Arizona, edited by J.M. Vint, pp. 345-376. Anthropological Papers No. 51. Archaeology Southwest, Tucson.
Adams, Jenny L. 2014 (2002). Ground Stone Analysis: A Technological Approach. Second Edition. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Adams, Jenny L. 1997. Manual for a Technological Approach to Ground Stone Analysis. Center for Desert Archaeology.
Adams, Karen R. 1990. Prehistoric "Reedgrass" (Phragmites) "Cigarettes" with Tobacco (Nicotiana) Contents: A Case Study from Red Bow Cliff Dwelling, Arizona. Journal of Ethnobiology 10(2):123-139.
Adams, K., Johnson, K., & Murphy, T. 2015. Prehistoric Puebloan Yucca Quids with Wild Tobacco Contents: Molecular and Morphological Evidence from Antelope Cave, Northwestern Arizona. Journal of Field Archaeology, 40 (3), 310-324. http://westerndigs.org/1200-year-old-pouches-found-in-arizona-cave-contain-prehistoric- chewing-tobacco-study-finds/.
Adams, Karen R. and Mollie S. Toll. 2000. Tobacco Use, Ecology, and Manipulation in the Prehistoric and Historic Southwestern United States. In Tobacco Use by Native North Americans, Sacred Smoke and Silent Killer, Joseph C. Winter, editor. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, pp. 143-170.
Adler, Michael A. and Herbert W. Dick. 1999. Picuris Pueblo Through Time: Eight Centuries of Change at a Northern Rio Grande Pueblo. Southern Methodist University, Dallas.
Agbe-Davies, Anna S. 2015. Tobacco, Pipes, and Race in Colonial Virginia: Little Tubes of Mighty Power. Routledge, New York.
Ariss, Robert. 1939. Distribution of Smoking Pipes in the Pueblo Area. In New Mexico Anthropologist. Vol 3, Number ¾, pp. 53-57.
Baldwin, Stuart J. 1997. Apacheans Bearing Gifts: Prehispanic Influence on the Pueblo Indians. The Arizona Archaeologist No. 29. Arizona Archaeological Society, Phoenix.
Baugh, Timothy G. 2008. “The Anthropologies of Trade and Exchange: An Essay on Kirikiri’s and Southern Plains Political Economy.” Plains Anthropologist 53(208).
139
Bamforth, Douglas. 2016. Colorado Archaeological Society meeting lecture given September 8, 2016.
Baugh, Timothy G. 1991. Ecology and Exchange. In Farmers, Hunters, and Colonists: Interaction between the Southwest and the Southern Plains, edited by Katherine A. Spielmann. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Baugh, Timothy G. 1986. “Culture History and Protohistoric Societies in the Southern Plains.” Plains Anthropologist 31(114):167-187.
Bird, Rebecca Bliege and Eric Alden Smith. 2005. “Signaling Theory, Strategic Interaction, and Symbolic Capital.” Current Anthropology 46(2).
Blakeslee, Donald J. 2012. “The Windom Pipe: A Chaine Opertoire Analysis.” Plains Anthropologist 57(224):229-323.
Blakeslee, Donald J. 1975. The Plains Interband Trade System: The Ethnohistoric and Archaeological Investigation. Dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.
Blakeslee, Donald J. and Marlin F. Hawley. 2006. The Great Bend Aspect. In Kansas Archaeology, edited by Robert J. Hoard and William E. Banks. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence.
Boas, Franz. 1905. Ethnographic: The Eskimo. In Annual Archaeological Report. Warwick Brothers and Rutter, Toronto.
Bollwerk, Elizabeth Anne, and Shannon Tushingham. 2015. Perspectives on the Archaeology of Pipes: Tobacco and Other Smoke Plants in the Ancient Americas. Springer, New York.
Boyd, Douglas K. 1997. Late Prehistoric II (AD 1100/1200-1541) and Protohistoric (AD 1541- 1750) Periods. In Caprock Canyonlands Archaeology: A Synthesis of the Late Prehistory and History of Lake Alan Henry and the Texas Panhandle-Plains, Volume II.
Bozell, John and John Ludwickson. 1999. Archaeology of the Patterson Site. Native American Life in the Lower Platte Valley, AD 1000-1300, Volumes I and II.
Brosowkse, Scott D. 2009. Guide to the Identification of Prehistoric Artifact Classes of the Southern High Plains. Courson Archaeological Research, Perryton, Texas.
Brosowske, Scott D. 2005. The Evolution of Exchange in Small-Scale Societies of the Southern High Plains. Dissertation, University of Oklahoma, Norman.
Brown, James A. 1996. The Spiro Ceremonial Center: The Archaeology of Arkansas Valley Caddoan Culture in Eastern Oklahoma, Volume II. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology University of Michigan, Number 29, Ann Arbor.
140
Brumfiel, Elizabeth M., and Timothy K. Earle. 1987. Specialization, Exchange, and Complex Societies: An Introduction. In Specialization, Exchange, and Complex Societies, edited by Elizabeth M. Brumfiel and Timothy K. Earle, pp. 1-9. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Caldwell, Joseph R. 1964. Interaction Spheres in Prehistory. In Hopewell Studies, edited by J. R. Caldwell and Robert Hall, pp. 135-143. Scientific Papers No. 12, Illinois State Museum, Springfield.
Cameron, Catherine. 2013. “How People Moved among Ancient Societies: Broadening the View.” American Anthropologist 115(2):218-231.
Cameron, Catherine. 2011. “Captives and Culture Change: Implications for Archaeologists.” Current Anthropology 52(2):169-209.
Campbell, Robert Gordon. 1969. Prehistoric Panhandle Culture on the Chaquaqua Plateau, Southeast Colorado. Dissertation, University of Colorado, Boulder.
Carmody, Stephen. 2015. Secrets in the Smoke: Prehistoric Tobacco Use in Tennessee. https://tennesseearchaeologycouncil.wordpress.com/2015/09/23/30-days-of-tennessee- archaeology-2015-day-23/.
Carr, Christopher and Julie E. Neitzel. 1995. Style, Society, and Person: Archaeological and Ethnological Perspectives. Plenum Press, New York.
Chandlee, Sarah N, Collen A. Bell, and Timothy Lambert-Law de Lauriston. 2014. “Pipe Manufacture on the Plains and Experimental Archaeology: Not Just Blowing Smoke.” Lithic Technology 39(2):122-128.
Densmore, Frances. 1913. “Chippewa Music.” Indians of North America, Issue 53. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Dietler, Michael and Ingrid Herbich. 1998. Habitus, Techniques, and Style: An Integrated Approach to the Social Understanding of Material Culture and Boundaries. In Style and Function: Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Archaeology, edited by Teresa D. Hurt and Gordon F.M. Rikita, pp. 232-263. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Duwe, Samuel Gregg. 2011. The Prehispanic Tewa World: Space, Time, and Becoming in the Pueblo Southwest. Dissertation, School of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson.
Evans, Chaz. n.d. Put This In Your Pipe and Smoke It: The Apishapa We’re Not Alone In the Arkansas River Basin! Geochemical Evidence for Long Distance Trade and Exchange.
Fallon, Denise and Karen Welling. 1987. Howiri: Excavation at a Northern Rio Grande Biscuit Ware Site. Laboratory of Anthropology Note Number 261B. Santa Fe.
141
Ford, Richard. 1972. Barter, Gift Exchange, or Violence: An Analysis of Tewa Intertribal Exchange. In Social Exchange and Interaction, edited by Edwin N. Wilmsen, pp. 21-46. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
Fowles, Severin M. 2017. Taos Social History: A Rhizomatic Account. In Puebloan Societies: Cultural Homologies in Time and Space, edited by Peter Whiteley. School for Advanced Research Press, Santa Fe.
Fowles, Severin M. 2013. An Archaeology of Doings: Secularism and the Study of Pueblo Religion. SAR Press, Santa Fe.
Fox, Georgia L. 2015. The Archaeology of Smoking and Tobacco. University of Florida Press, Gainesville.
Graham, Willie, Carter L. Hudgins, Carl R. Lounsbury, Fraser D. Neiman, and James P. Whittenburg. 2007. “Adaptation and Innovation: Archaeological and Architectural Perspectives on the Seventeenth-Century Chesapeake.” The William and Mary Quarterly.
Gunnerson, James H. 1969. Apache Archaeology in Northeastern New Mexico. American Antiquity 34(1):23-39.
Habicht-Mauche, Judith A. 1993. The Pottery from Arroyo Hondo Pueblo, New Mexico: Tribalization and Trade in the Northern Rio Grande. Arroyo Hondo Archaeological Series, Volume 8. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.
Hamalainen, Pekka. 2008. The Comanche Empire. Yale University Press, New Haven.
Hammond, George P. and Agapito Rey. 1966. The Rediscovery of New Mexico, 1580-1594: The Expeditions of Chamuscado, Espejo, Castaño de Sosa, Morlete, and Leyva de Bonilla and Humaña. The University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Hall, Robert L. 1997. An Archaeology of the Soul: North American Indian Belief and Ritual. University of Illinois Press, Champaign.
Hartnett, Alexandra. 2004. “The Politics of the Pipe: Clay Pipes and Tobacco Consumption in Galway, Ireland.” International Journal of Historical Archaeology 8(2):133-147.
Harrison, Billy R. 1984. Prehistoric Trade Pipes in the Texas Panhandle. Manuscript on file at the Panhandle-Plains Historical Society, Canyon, TX.
Hayes, Alden C. 1981. Contributions to Gran Quivira Archaeology. Publications in Archaeology 17. National Park Service, US Department of the Interior, Washington D.C.
Hayes, Alden C., Jon Nathan Young, and A.H. Warren. 1981. Excavation of Mound 7, Grand Quivira National Monument, New Mexico.
142
Head, Genevieve M. and Janet D. Orcutt. 2002. From Folsom to Fogelson: The Cultural Resources Inventory Survey of Pecos National Historical Park, Volumes 1 and 2. Intermountain Cultural Resources Management Professional Paper No. 66. Department of the Interior, National Park Service.
Hegmon, Michelle. 2000. The Archaeology of Regional Interaction: Religion, Warfare, and Exchange across the American Southwest and Beyond. Proceedings of the 1996 Southwest Symposium. The University Press of Colorado, Boulder.
Hill, J. Brett. 1998. “Agricultural Production and Specialization among the Eastern Anasazi during the Pueblo IV Period.” In Migration and Reorganization: The Pueblo IV Period in the American Southwest, edited by K.A. Spielmann, pp. 209-232. Arizona State University Anthropological Research Paper 51, Tempe.
Hoard, Robert J. 2012. Archaeological Investigations at Arkansas City, Kansas. Kansas Historical Society Contract Archaeology Publication 26.
Holloway, Dennis. 2014. 3-D Images of Pecos. http://www.dennisrhollowayarchitect.com/Pecos.html.
Jeancon, JA. 1923. Excavations in the Chama Valley, New Mexico. Smithsonian Institution Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 81. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.
Johnson, Craig M. 2007. A Chronology of Middle Missouri Plains Village Sites. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology Number 47.
Jones, Volney H. and Sandra L. Dunavan. 2006. “Tobacco.” In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. III, Environment, Origins, and Population, pp.447-451. Douglas Ubelaker, volume editor; Bruce D. Smith, associate editor. Smithsonian Press, Washington D.C. Keeley, Lawrence H. 1996. Naked, Poor, and Mangled Peace: Its Desirability and Fragility. In War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage, pp. 143-163. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Kelley, Jane Holden. 1984. Archaeology of the Sierra Blanca Region of Southeastern New Mexico. In Anthropological Papers of the University of Michigan No. 74, Ann Arbor.
Kessell, John L. 1987. Kiva, Cross, and Crown: The Pecos Indians and New Mexico, 1540-1840. United States National Park Service, Washington, D.C.
Kidder, Alfred. 1979[1932]. The Artifacts of Pecos. Papers of the Southwestern Expedition, Number 6. Garland Publishing, New York.
Kidder, Alfred Vincent. 1958. Pecos, New Mexico: Archaeological Notes. Papers of the Robert S. Peabody Foundation for Archaeology, Volume 5. Phillips Academy, Andover/Peabody Foundation.
143
Kidder, Alfred Vincent and Ann Shepard. 1936. The Pottery of Pecos. Papers of the Southwestern Expedition, Department of Archaeology, Phillips Academy, Andover, Mass. No. 7. LeBlanc, Steven A. 1999. Prehistoric Warfare in the American Southwest. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Liebmann, Matt. 2017. Movement Encased in Stone: Revealing Ancestral Jemez Migration through Obsidian Source Provenience. Paper presented in the session Pueblo Movement and the Archaeology of Becoming at the 82nd Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, 30 March 2017, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Lintz, Christopher. 1991. Texas Panhandle-Pueblo Interactions from the Thirteenth Through the Sixteenth Century. In Farmers, Hunters, and Colonists: Interaction between the Southwest and the Southern Plains, edited by Katherine A. Spielmann. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Lobo, Jose. 2017. Email communication following Phase Transitions in Sociality working group held at the Santa Fe Institute, 8 and 9 February 2017.
McGuire, Joseph. 1899. Pipes and Smoking Customs of the American Aborigines.
Miller, Linda. N.d. “Do You Know Your Pipes?”
Mills, Barbara J. and Matthew A. Peeples. 2017. Reframing Diffusion through Social Network Theory. In Interaction and Connectivity in the Greater Southwest, edited by Karen Harry and Barbara Roth. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.
Mitchell, Mark. 2010. Continuity and Change in the Organization of Mandan Craft Production, 1400-1750. Dissertation, University of Colorado, Boulder.
Morgan. Michele E. 2010. Pecos Pueblo Revisited: The Biological and Social Context. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Volume 85. Harvard University, Cambridge.
Naum, Magdalena. 2010. “Re-emerging Frontiers: Postcolonial Theory and Historical Archaeology of Borderlands.” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 17:101- 131.
Newlander, Khori and John D. Speth. 2009. Interaction Patterns in the Southern Plains as Seen Through Ultraviolet Fluorescnnce (UVF): Study of Cherts from Late Prehistoric Villages in the Pecos Valley, New Mexico. In Quince: Papers from the 15th Biennia Jornada Mogollon Conference, edited by Marc Thompson. El Paso Museum of Archaeology.
Nighteagle, David. 2016. Personal Communication: Interview. June 13, 2016. Cortez, CO.
144
Nighteagle, David. n.d. Ptehincala Hu Cannunpa: The Buffalo Calf Pipe: The Sacred Pipe.
Opler, Morris E. 1971. “Jicarilla Apache Territory, Economy, and Society in 1850.” Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 27(4):309-329.
Ortman, Scott G, Andrew H.F. Cabaniss, Jeannie O. Strum, and Luis M.A. Bettencourt. 2015. “Settlement Scaling and Increasing Returns in Ancient Society,” Science Advances 1, E1400066. 20 February 2015.
Ortman, Scott G. and Catherine M. Cameron. 2011. A Framework for Controlled Comparisons of Ancient Southwestern Movement. In Movement, Connectivity, and Landscape Change in the Ancient Southwest, edited by Margaret Nelson and Colleen Strawhacker, pp. 233- 252. University Press of Colorado.
Paper, Jordan. 1988. Offering Smoke: The Sacred Pipe and Native American Religion. University of Idaho Press, Moscow.
Parker, Bradley. 2006. “Toward an Understanding of Borderland Processes.” American Antiquity 71(1):77-100.
Parsons, Elsie Clews. 1936. The Hopi Journal of Alexander M. Stephen. Columbia University. Contributions to Anthropology, vol. 23 pt. 2. Columbia University Press, New York.
Pauketat, Timothy R. 2012. An Archaeology of the Cosmos: Rethinking Agency and Religion in Ancient America. Routledge, New York.
Pecos National Register of Historic Places Registration Form. 1991.
Phagan, Carl J. 1993. The Stone Artifacts from Arroyo Hondo Pueblo. In The Pottery from Arroyo Hondo Pueblo, New Mexico: Tribalization and Trade in the Northern Rio Grande. Arroyo Hondo Archaeological Series, Volume 8. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.
Reiter, Paul. 1938. The Jemez Pueblo of Unshagi, New Mexico. The University of New Mexico Bulletin, Monograph Series, Vol 1, Number 4. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Robertson, James M. and R.H. Moench. 1979. The Pecos Greenstone Belt. New Mexico Geological Society, Santa Fe County.
Sahlins, Marshall. 1972. On the Sociology of Primitive Exchange. In Stone Age Economics, pp 185-230. Routledge, New York.
Schaafsma, Polly. 2000. Warrior, Shield, and Star: Imagery and Ideology in Pueblo Warfare. Western Edge Press, Santa Fe.
145
Schortman, Edward M. 1989. “Interregional Interaction in Prehistory: The Need for a New Perspective.” American Antiquity 54(1):52-65.
Scott-Cummings, Linda, and Melissa K. Logan. 2012. Organic Residue (FTIR) Analysis of Ceramic Pipes and Miniature Vessels from the Agua Fria Schoolhouse Site (LA2). In Pueblo at the Cold Water Place, P'O'Karige: Archaeological Investigation of The Agua Fria School House Site, by Cherie L. Scheick, Glenda Deyloff, and Cortney A. Wands. Southwest Archaeological Consultants Research Series 507F.3, in press.
Secord, Paul R. 2014. Pecos. Images of America series. Arcadia Publishing, Charleston.
Seymour, Deni. 2015. “Mobile Visitors to the Eastern Frontier Pueblos: An Archaeological Example from Tabira.” Plains Anthropologist 60(233):4-39.
Shippee, J.M. 1972. Archaeological Remains in the Kansas City Area: The Mississippian Occupation. Missouri Archaeological Society Research Series. Number 9. Columbia, Missouri.
Shippee, J.M. 1960. “A Mississippian House from Western Missouri.” American Antiquity 29(2):281-283.
Sievert, April K and J. Daniel Rogers. 2011. Artifacts from the Craig Mound, Spiro, Oklahoma. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology, Number 49.
Slifer, Dennis. 1998. Signs of Life: Rock Art of the Upper Rio Grande. Ancient City Press, Santa Fe.
Snow, David. 1989. Pots, Pipes, and Trade Partners: Aspects of the Social and Cultural Contexts of Southern Plains-Eastern Pueblo Exchange Systems. Paper Presented at the 49th Annual Plains Conference.
Snow, David H. 1981. “Prehistoric Rio Grande Pueblo Economics: A Review of Trends.” In The Protohistoric Period in the North American Southwest, AD 1450-1700, edited by David A Wilcox and W. Bruce Masse, pp. 354-377. Anthropological Research Papers, Number 24. Arizona State University, Tempe.
Speth, John D. 2005. The Beginnings of Plains-Pueblo Interaction: An Archaeological Perspective from Southeastern New Mexico. In Engaged Anthropology: Research Essays on North American Archaeology, Ethnobotany, and Museology, edited by Michelle Hegmon and B. Sunday Eiselt. Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Number 94.
Speth, John D. 2004. The Henderson Site. In Life on the Periphery: Economic Change in Late Prehistoric Southeastern New Mexico, edited by John D. Speth, p. 4-66. Memoir 37. University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology, Ann Arbor.
146
Speth, John D. 1991. Some Unexplored Aspects of Mutualistic Plains-Pueblo Food Exchange. In Farmers, Hunters, and Colonists: Interaction between the Southwest and the Southern Plains, edited by Katherine A. Spielmann, pp. 18-35. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Speth, John D. and Khori Newlander. 2012. Plains-Pueblo Interaction: A View from the “Middle.” In The Toyah Phase of Central Texas: Late Prehistoric Economic and Social Processes, edited by Nancy A. Kenmotsu and Douglas K. Boyd. Texas A&M Press, College Station, TX.
Speth, John D. and Laura Staro. 2012. Bison Hunting and the Emergence of Plains-Pueblo Interaction in Southeastern New Mexico: The View from Rocky Arroyo and Its Neighbors. In The Artifact, Volume 50, edited by David T. Kirkpatrick, pp. 1-44. El Paso Archaeological Society, Texas.
Spielmann, Katherine. 1998. “Ritual Craft Specialization in Middle Range Societies.” Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 8(1):153-159.
Spielmann, Katherine A. 1991. Coercion or Cooperation? Plains-Pueblo Interaction in the Protohistoric Period. In Farmers, Hunters, and Colonists: Interaction between the Southwest and the Southern Plains, edited by Katherine A. Spielmann, pp. 36-50. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Spielmann, Katherine A. 1991. Interaction among Nonhierarchical Societies. In Farmers, Hunters, and Colonists: Interaction between the Southwest and the Southern Plains, edited by Katherine A. Spielmann, pp. 1-17. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Stark, Miriam T. (ed.). 1998. The Archaeology of Social Boundaries. Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press, Washington D.C.
Stubbs, Stanley A. and W.S. Stallings, Jr. 1953. The Excavation of Pindi Pueblo, New Mexico. Monographs of the School of American Research and the Laboratory of Anthropology, Number 18. Santa Fe.
Switzer, Ronald. R. 1969. Tobacco, Cigarettes, and Pipes of the Prehistoric Southwest. El Paso Archaeological Society Special Report.
Thibodeau. 1993. Miscellaneous Ceramic Artifacts from Arroyo Hondo Pueblo In The Pottery from Arroyo Hondo Pueblo, New Mexico: Tribalization and Trade in the Northern Rio Grande. Arroyo Hondo Archaeological Series, Volume 8. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.
Trigg, Heather B. 2004. “Food Choice and Social Identity in Early Colonial New Mexico.” Journal of the Southwest 46(2):223-252.
Trigg, Heather B. 2003. “The Ties That Bind: Economic and Social Interactions in Early-
147
Colonial New Mexico, AD 1598-1680.” Historical Archaeology 37(2):65-84.
Trigg, H. and D. Gold. 2005. Mestizaje and Migration: Modeling Population Dynamics in Seventeenth-Century New Mexico's Spanish Society. In Engaged Anthropology: Research Essays on North American Archaeology, Ethnobotany, and Museology, edited by M. Hegmon and B. Eiselt, pp. 73-88. Michigan Museum of Anthropology Paper 94. University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology, Ann Arbor.
Vehik, Susan. 2002. “Conflict, Trade, and Political Development on the Southern Plains.” American Antiquity 67(1):37-64.
Vivian, Gordon. 1961. Gran Quivira. http://core.tdar.org/document/178258/gran-quivira- excavations-in-a-17th-century-jumano-pueblo.
Voss, Barbara L. 2008. The Archaeology of Ethnogenesis: Race and Sexuality in Colonial San Francisco. University Press of Florida, Gainsville.
Wendorf, Fred. 1953. Salvage Archaeology in the Chama Valley, New Mexico. Monographs of the School of American Research, Number 17. Santa Fe.
West, George. 1950. Tobacco, Pipes, and Smoking Customs of the American Indians. Bulletin of the Public Museum of the City of Milwaukee, Volume 17.
Wetherington, Ronald K. 1968. Excavations at Pot Creek Pueblo. Fort Burgwin Research Center, Number 6. Taos.
Whatley, William. 1993. “History of the Pueblo of Jemez.” Pueblo of Jemez. < http://www.jemezpueblo.com/History.aspx>.
White, Devon A. and Sarah B. Barber. 2012. “Geospatial Modeling of Pedestrian Transportation Networks: a Case Study from Precolumbian Oaxaca, Mexico.” Journal of Archaeological Science 39:2684-2696.
Wilcox, David. R. 1991. Changing Contexts of Pueblo Adaptations, AD 1250-1600. In Farmers, Hunters, and Colonists: Interaction between the Southwest and the Southern Plains, edited by Katherine A. Spielmann, pp. 128-154. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Wilcox, David A. 1981. Changing Perspectives on the Protohistoric Pueblos AD1450-1700. In The Protohistoric Period in the North American Southwest, AD 1450-1700, edited by David A Wilcox and W. Bruce Masse, pp. 378-409. Anthropological Research Papers, Number 24. Arizona State University, Tempe.
Winship, George. 1896. The Coronado Expedition: 1540-1542. Rio Grande Press, Chicago.
Winter, Joseph C. (ed.). 2000. Tobacco Use by Native North Americans: Sacred Smoke and
148
Silent Killer. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Wiseman, Regge. 2002. The Fox Place: A Late Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherer Pithouse Village near Roswell, New Mexico.
Wiseman, Regge. 1971. “A Mountain Lion Pipe from Southern New Mexico.” The Artifact: Journal of the El Paso Archaeological Society 9(3).
Wiseman, Regge. 1970. “Artifacts of Interest from the Bloom Mound, Southeastern New Mexico.” The Artifact: Journal of the El Paso Archaeological Society 8(2).
Wobst, H. Martin. 1977. Stylistic Behavior and Information Exchange. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Ylimaunu, Timo. 2014. “Borderlands as Spaces: Creating Third Spaces and Fractured Landscapes in Medieval Northern Finland.” Journal of Social Archaeology 14(2):244- 267.
Zier, Christian J., Stephen M. Kalasz, and Mary W. Painter. 1999. Colorado Prehistory: A Context for the Arkansas River Basin. Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists.
149
APPENDIX
A: Tables with Additional Site-By-Site Detail
Raw Material Breakdown by Site Material residue Pre or Post plug/pipe 1450 indeter tobacco and stone and Site Number Occupation bone clay minate metal soot doddle stone metal wood stone:clay total LA625 strad 839 1 27 0.0321812 867 LA80 post 1 35 4 0.1142857 40 LA120 strad 23 1 1 7 0.3043478 32 LA70 strad 18 7 0.3888889 25 LA252 pre 11 5 0.4545455 16 5LP184 pre 1 no clay 1 5LP372 pre 1 no clay 1 5MT12151 pre 1 no clay 1 5MT12205 pre 2 no clay 2 5MT5018 pre 1 no clay 1 LA306 post 11 1 no clay 12 LA71 strad 4 no clay 4 LA416 pre 1 no data 1 5AA246 pre 1 no stone 1 5AA92 pre 2 no stone 2 5LP0187 pre 1 no stone 1 5LP0246 pre 1 no stone 1 5LP177 pre 1 no stone 1 5LP2026 pre 1 no stone 1 5MT4003 pre 1 no stone 1 5MT4006 pre 1 no stone 1 LA1 pre 10 no stone 10 LA12 pre 48 no stone 48 LA123 strad 52 no stone 52 LA240 strad 2 no stone 2 LA260 pre 27 no stone 27 LA274 post 10 no stone 10 LA297 strad 11 no stone 11 LA300 pre 2 no stone 2 LA38 strad 16 no stone 16 LA908 post 6 no stone 6 LA909 pre 7 no stone 7 Pueblo 4 22 2 0.5 28 Plains 1 18 13 31 2 1 1.7222222 66 No Site Info 1 1 7 7 9 Total 1306 Table A.1. Raw material breakdown by site.
Distribution of Pipe Form by Site Form Quantity (Form Percent)
150
pip Site e simple t- Numb compl fragme indeterm unfinis elabor elbo flatte mod othe plu tubula shap er ete ntary inate hed ate w ned ern r g r e Total No 1 1 6 9 Site (11.11 (11. (66. (100) Info 1 (11.11) ) 11) 67) 1 1 5AA24 (100 (100) 6 ) 1 2 5AA92 1 (50) (50) (100) 1 1 5LP01 (100 (100) 87 ) 5LP02 1 1 46 (100) (100) 5LP17 1 1 7 (100) (100) 5LP18 1 4 (100) 5LP20 1 26 (100) 5LP37 1 2 (100) 1 5MT12 1 (100) 151 (100) 2 5MT12 (100) 205 2 (100) 5MT40 1 03 1 (100 (100) 5MT40 1 1 06 (100) (100) 5MT50 1 1 18 (100) (100) 10 LA1 1 (10) 9 (90) (100) 1 32 48 14 1 (2.0 (66.67 (100) LA12 (29.17) (2.08) 8) ) 3 10 32 17 2 (9.3 (31.25 (100) LA120 (53.13) (6.25) 8) ) 13 28 52 11 (25.0 (53.85 (100) LA123 (21.15) 0) ) 2 2 LA240 (100) (100) 1 8 16 1 (6.2 (50.00 (100) LA252 6 (37.50) (6.25) 5) ) 27 27 LA260 (100) (100) 1 9 10 (10. (90.00 (100) LA274 00) )
151
11 11 LA297 (100.00) (100) 1 2 (50.00 (100) LA300 1 (50.00) ) 5 1 2 12 (41.67 (8.3 (16. 1 (100) LA306 3 (25.00) ) 3) 67) (8.33) 5 2 9 16 (31.25 (12. (56.25 (100) LA38 ) 50) ) 1 1 LA416 (100) (100) 273 8 6 8 261 867 311 (31.49 (0.9 (0.6 (0.9 (30.10 (100) LA625 (35.87) ) 2) 9) 2) ) 7 25 (28.0 18 (100) LA70 0) (72.00) 4 LA71 4 (100) (100) 5 40 35 (12.50 (100) LA80 (87.50) ) 6 6 (100.0 (100. LA908 0) 00) 6 7 (85.71 (100. LA909 1 (14.29) ) 00) 28 12 12 66 5 (42. (18.18 (18. (100. Plains 9 (13.64) (7.58) 42) ) 18) 00) 6 18 28 (21. (64.29 (100. Pueblo 4 (14.29) 43) ) 00) Table A.2. Distribution of pipe form by site.
Relationship between Form and Material Quantity and (Percentage) by Material residue plug/pi pe tobacc o and stone Site indeter soot and Number Form bone clay minate metal doddle stone metal wood No Site 1 Info elaborate 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (100.00) 0.00 0.00 No Site 1 Info elbow 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (100.00) 0.00 0.00
152
1 No Site indeterm (100.0 Info inate 0.00 0.00 0.00 0) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 No Site Info t-shape 0.00 1 (16.67) 0.00 0.00 0.00 5 (83.33) 0.00 0.00 1 5AA246 elbow 0.00 (100.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 5AA92 elbow 0.00 (100.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 indeterm 1 5AA92 inate 0.00 (100.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 5LP0187 elbow 0.00 (100.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 simple 1 5LP0246 tubular 0.00 (100.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 5LP177 elaborate 0.00 (100.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 5LP184 elaborate 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (100.00) 0.00 0.00 1 5LP2026 elaborate 0.00 (100.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 5LP372 flattened 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (100.00) 0.00 0.00 5MT121 simple 1 51 tubular 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (100.00) 0.00 0.00 5MT122 No Form 2 05 Info 0.00 0.00 (100.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5MT400 simple 1 3 tubular 0.00 (100.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5MT400 simple 1 6 tubular 0.00 (100.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5MT501 simple 1 8 tubular 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (100.00) 0.00 0.00 1 LA1 elaborate 0.00 (100.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 straight 9 LA1 conical 0.00 (100.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 LA12 elaborate 0.00 (100.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 LA12 elbow 0.00 (100.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 straight 32 LA12 conical 0.00 (100.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
153
unclassifi 14 LA12 ed 0.00 (100.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 No Form (100.00 LA120 Info 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ) 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 LA120 elaborate 0.00 (100.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 (33.33 LA120 elbow 0.00 1 (33.33) 0.00 ) 0.00 1 (33.33) 0.00 0.00 indeterm 16 LA120 inate 0.00 (100.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 simple LA120 tubular 0.00 4 (40.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 6 (60.00) 0.00 0.00 13 LA123 flattened 0.00 (100.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 straight 28 LA123 conical 0.00 (100.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 unclassifi 11 LA123 ed 0.00 (100.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 straight 2 LA240 conical 0.00 (100.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 No Form LA252 Info 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 1 LA252 elaborate 0.00 (100.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 LA252 elbow 0.00 (100.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 straight 8 LA252 conical 0.00 (100.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 unclassifi 1 LA252 ed 0.00 (100.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 straight 27 LA260 conical 0.00 (100.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 LA274 elbow 0.00 (100.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 straight 9 LA274 conical 0.00 (100.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 No Form 11 LA297 Info 0.00 (100.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 straight 1 LA300 conical 0.00 (100.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
154
unclassifi 1 LA300 ed 0.00 (100.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4 LA306 elaborate 0.00 0.00 (80.00) 0.00 0.00 1 (20.00) 0.00 0.00 1 LA306 elbow 0.00 0.00 (100.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 indeterm 3 LA306 inate 0.00 0.00 (100.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 LA306 other 0.00 0.00 (100.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 simple 1 LA306 tubular 0.00 0.00 (100.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5 LA38 elaborate 0.00 (100.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 LA38 elbow 0.00 (100.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 straight 9 LA38 conical 0.00 (100.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 LA416 elaborate 0.00 0.00 (100.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 272 LA625 elaborate 0.00 (99.63) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 (0.37) 0.00 0.00 LA625 elbow 0.00 7 (87.50) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 (12.50) 0.00 0.00 indeterm 303 LA625 inate 0.00 (97.43) 0.00 0.00 0.00 8 (2.57) 0.00 0.00 6 LA625 other 0.00 (100.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8 LA625 pipe plug 0.00 (100.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 simple 243 LA625 tubular 0.00 (93.10) 1 (0.38) 0.00 0.00 17 (6.51) 0.00 0.00 No Form 18 LA70 Info 0.00 (100.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7 LA70 complete 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (100.00) 0.00 0.00 fragment 4 LA71 ary 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (100.00) 0.00 0.00 No Form LA80 Info 1 (20.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4 (80.00) 0.00 0.00 straight 5 LA80 conical 0.00 (100.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 unclassifi 30 LA80 ed 0.00 (100.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
155
straight 6 LA908 conical 0.00 (100.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 straight 6 LA909 conical 0.00 (100.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Unclassi- 1 LA909 fied 0.00 (100.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 no Form 1 Plains Info 0.00 0.00 (100.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 Plains elaborate 0.00 1 (20.00) (40.00) 0.00 0.00 2 (40.00) 0.00 0.00 10 3 13 1 Plains elbow 1 (3.57) (35.71) (10.71) 0.00 0.00 (46.43) 0.00 (3.57) indeterm 2 Plains inate 0.00 1 (12.50) (25.00) 0.00 0.00 5 (62.50) 0.00 0.00 simple Plains tubular 0.00 6 (50.00) 1 (8.33) 0.00 0.00 5 (41.67) 0.00 0.00 2 4 (16.6 Plains t-shape 0.00 0.00 (33.33) 0.00 0.00 6 (50.00) 7) 0.00 No Form 3 Pueblo Info 0.00 0.00 (100.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4 Pueblo elbow 0.00 2 (33.33) (66.67) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 indeterm 1 Pueblo inate 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (100.00) 0.00 0.00 simple 15 Pueblo tubular 0.00 2 (11.11) (83.33) 0.00 0.00 1 (5.56) 0.00 0.00 Table A.3. Relationship between form and material by site.
Inventory of Unfinished Pipes at Pecos Pueblo Location 1 (north pueblo, Location south 3 (inside pueblo, Location or or 2 (east or outside Comments Form Material Provenience mission) west) kiva) Quantity bore hole in simple 1400-E-150, north progress tubular clay trench pueblo East outside 1
156
bore hole unfinished (based on narrowing as going up north body) indeterminate clay 1550-W-50 pueblo West outside 1 hole not finished (needle thickness simple right now) tubular clay surface 1
in progress based on size of bore hole and unfinished scraping of simple north bowl tubular clay 1350-E-100 pueblo East outside 1
in progress based on small size of simple north bore hole tubular clay room BVI pueblo West outside 1
in progress north elbow pipe Elbow stone 1250-E-100 pueblo East outside 1
possibly in progress of simple trench I manufacture? tubular clay section H 1
157
simple trench I unfinished tubular stone section F 1
unfinished? (based on size of bore hole vs size of simple pipe) tubular clay T X cut 6 1 Table A.4. This inventory shows that most of the unfinished pipes who were finished enough for form to be determined were simple tubular, with the exception of one elbow pipe. There were a mix of stone and clay unfinished pipes. The ones that had determinable locations were all in the north pueblo outside of kivas, pretty evenly split between the east and west side of the pueblo.
Used v. Unused Pipes by Site Presence or Absence of Use-Wear Site Data Not Number Collected N Y 2 7 5AA246 1 5AA92 2 5LP0187 1 5LP0246 1 5LP177 1 5LP184 1 5LP2026 1 5LP372 1
5MT12151 1
5MT12205 2 5MT4003 1 5MT4006 1 5MT5018 1 LA120 14 18 LA306 2 10 LA416 1 LA625 10 238 619 Plains 21 16 29 Pueblo 18 4 6 Total 51 280 699
158
Total Minus Pecos 41 42 80 Percentage Minus Pecos 25.15337423 25.76687 49.07975 Percentage at Pecos 1.153402537 27.45098 71.39562 Table A.5. Overall, most pipes recovered from sites that I was able to examine showed evidence of some type of use-wear. When comparing percentages of used to unused pipes at Pecos v. other sites, however, Pecos had a higher percentage of used pipes than other sites.
Inventory of Pipes from Sealed Deposits at Pecos Pueblo Loc atio n 1 (nor th Loc pue atio Sub Tempor blo, n 3 - al Info: sout Loc (insi for Ceramic h atio de m Period pue n 2 or Other (aft (Roman blo, (eas outs associa er Desig Use- Numera or t or ide ted Compl Part Form Kid n Wear ls=Glaze Proven miss wes kiva artifact Mater etenes Prese (after der Descr Descr Burni Periods) ience ion) t) ) s ial s nt Kidder) ) iption iption ng 1550- W-50 black nort black and h body and white pue wes outs fragme fragm simple black black white strat blo t ide clay nt ent tubular ind none ened ened Grave 1134, Due W of room 53, slightl slight Depth: y ly 5 ft 6 nort fragm black black in, 1 ft h ent of ened ened IV, above pue wes outs fragme mouth indeter interi interi biscuit B bottom blo t ide bowl clay nt end minate ind none or or Grave 1139, 1550- W-0, near passag e in NE resid corner rim ue, of nort and black black room, h part ened ened Depth: pue wes outs fragme of indeter interi interi 2 ft 8 blo t ide bowl clay nt body minate ind none or or
159
in, 1 ft above bottom
Grave 122, 1400- E-100, Depth: 8'; approxi resid mately project ue, 5' nort ile black black above h point, ened ened red pue insi penda fragme mouth indeter interi interi soil. blo east de nt clay nt end minate ind none or or groov ed Grave band 1419, near resid 1200- rim, ue, W-150 incise black black B, rim d zig ened ened Depth: nort and zag rim rim 4 ft 6 h part band and and in, on pue wes outs awls, fragme of indeter on interi interi bottom blo t ide beads clay nt body minate ind body or or compl Grave ete black black 426, (altho ened ened 1400- nort ugh 3-D rim rim E-100, h awl, body ring and and Depth: pue insi scrape comple is very elabor oth near interi interi 83 in blo east de r clay te short) ate er rim or or
Grave 433, 1400- E-100, incise Base of d slightl slight cut 5, bowl, band y ly test XI, nort bead, s black black Depth: h arrow near ened ened indeter pue insi smoot fragme mouth simple broke interi interi V minate blo east de her clay nt end tubular ind n end or or
160
chipp ing at mout h end, compl whitis ete h except spots, Grave chippi resid 544, ng at ue, 1000- nort mouth black black W-50, h end ened ened Depth: pue wes outs incom and simple interi interi 6 in blo t ide clay plete rim tubular IA none or or Grave 591, 1550- W-0, Depth: resid 32 in, rim ue, 45 in nort and black black above h part ened ened red pue wes outs fragme of indeter interi interi clay blo t ide clay nt body minate ind none or or Grave 675, 1400- E-100, Depth: elbow 3 ft, ,with whitis about comal part h 12 in stone, of spots, above stone bowl pecke resid red effigy body d ue, soil. 3' nort fragme and dashe black black BELOW h nt, part s at ened ened SKELET pue insi scrape fragme of N/ elbo interi interi ON 675 blo east de r clay nt stem elbow A w or or
Grave 764, Kiva 6, Depth: 6 ft 8 in, 3 ft resid 2 in (or ue, 4 ft 2 nort black black in?) h ened ened above pue wes insi comple compl indeter interi interi biscuit B bottom blo t de sherds clay te ete minate IA none or or
161
chip and wear (slip worn off) at mout Grave h 764, end, Kiva 6, black Depth: ened 6 ft 8 compl rim, in, 3 ft ete resid black 2 in (or except ue, ened 4 ft 2 nort chip black rim in?) h at ened and above pue wes insi incom mouth simple interi interi biscuit B bottom blo t de sherd clay plete end tubular IB none or or Grave 894, Kiva 6, resid Depth: resid ue 12 ft, 6 stone ue, and in into nort - black black glaze III, scoop h chlori ened ened black of red pue wes insi sherds, te comple compl simple interi interi olla clay blo t de bowl schist te ete tubular IB none or or etche d recta ngles with diam ond patte rning on broad Grave sides 955, 6 and ft S of etche SW d corner, triang room fishtail les 23, 2 ft mouth with 10 in, piece diam 11 in and ond above part patte resid bottom of rning ue, , 2' bowl on black black ABOVE body narro ened ened SKELET fragme prese elabor IIB w interi interi ON 955 clay nt nt ate 1 sides or or
162
black body ening in fragm , adobe ent whitis floor of (mout h second nort hpiece resid story h end ue in room pue wes outs fragme broke simple interi black 52 blo t ide clay nt n) tubular IC none or ening 6 shaft straigh teners, fibrolit e axe, stone with usewe ar, 2 kiva stones XVI, with horizon red tal ochre, passag nort mica, e of h project ventilat pue insi ile comple compl elabor V or blo east de point clay te ete ate SKELET ON 1707, Grave 1707, compl SW ete passag except e, sub, chippi resid Depth: ng at ue, 6'8"; stone rim black black on - and ened ened bottom amphi incom mouth simple interi interi . bolite plete end tubular IA none or or SKELET ON 327, Grave 512, 1000- E-100, Depth: 89"; black black 21" ened ened below nort rim rim surface h and and of red pue outs comple compl simple interi interi clay. blo east ide clay te ete tubular IA none or or Table A.6. The above table shows the inventory of pipes from sealed deposits, which were the only contexts that had more tightly-defined contexts/proveniences to try to allow for more precise temporal estimates of time of deposition. However, only some of the pipes/contexts had
163 associated ceramics, which were used for the dating. Of the ones that could be dated precisely, the pre-1450 pipes are highlighted in red and the post-1450 pipes are highlighted in yellow. While this sample is a very small fraction of the overall Pecos pipe assemblage, there are no elaborate or Plains-style pipes in the pre-1450 sample, while there are elaborate pipes in the post- 1450 sample.
B: Raw Data
1. Attribute Sheet
Here, I present a more detailed definition of each attribute examined when analyzing the
Pecos pipe collection. This was the sheet I consulted when determining how to classify each pipe at Pecos. The attribute is noted in bold and the attribute states are written in italics.
A. Form: overall shape of the pipe. These categories are largely based on those established by Kidder (1979[1932]), with some modification and expansion by the author. i. simple tubular: roughly conical or cylindrical, with no “fishtail” or diamond-shaped mouthpiece or relief or bends in the form Sub-forms: a. round slim (IA) b. flattened slim (IB) c. heavy fat (IC) ii. elbow: approximately ninety-degree angle between the stem/mouth end of the pipe and the bowl end iii. elaborate-Pecos-style: has fishtail or diamond shaped mouthpiece and often has 3-D relief on sides of bowl body. a. body round or oval in cross section (IIA) b. body rectangular in cross section (IIB) -plain sides, or sides with etched decoration (IIB1) -decoration in 3-D relief on all four sides (IIB2) -narrow sides dentate (broad sides may or may not have design) (IIB3) -narrow sides serrate (broad sides may or may not have design (IIB4) iv. elaborate-effigy: in the shape of an animal or human v. pipe plug: solid piece of material placed inside of the pipe vii. t-shape: approximately ninety-degree angle between the stem/mouth end of the pipe and the bowl end, with a protrusion beyond the bowl, on the opposite side of the bowl from the stem vi. indeterminate: fragment too small or missing diagnostic pieces to classify in forms i-v vii. other: form that is complete enough to determine but does not fit one of the previous form attribute states. For this collection, specifically, these pipes had 3-D protrusions, but not like those of elaborate-Pecos-style or elaborate-effigy pipes
B. Material: composition of the pipe.
164
i. clay: made from ceramic material ii. stone: made from inorganic rock iii. bone: made from faunal material iv. indeterminate
C. Surface Design: i. design: decoration/imagery on the pipe a. lighting arrow: arrow with “zig zag” shaft b. step motif (possibly represents corn plant): stepped design, steps at acute angle or steps at 90 degree angle c. t-shape: design in the shape of a “T” d. rain cloud: appears as 1-3 arcs, often with lightning or dots emanating from them e. shepherd’s hook: appears like an angular “S” f. feathers: clusters of roughly diamond-shaped designs, with interior lines representing the individual feather blades g. geometric: lines, dots, diamonds, triangles, circles, rectangles, bands h. other: pipe is not of one of the common design motifs (effigy pipes and pipes with 3-D protrusions that do not fit the standardized elaborate pipe form) ii. no design
D. Use-Wear: evidence of smoking or other use i. presence a.. lip wear: chipping at mouth end, discoloration of slip concentrated at mouth end, and/or wear of the polish concentrated at the mouth end b. blackening/soot: pipe discolored to dark gray or black in parts, particularly in the interior of the bowl c. residue: tobacco or remnants or spots of other materials found in the pipe ii. absence
E. Size (if complete or complete except for stem/mouthpiece) i. length (mm): measured along the long-axis of the pipe with calipers from the end of the bowl to the end of the stem (if present) or mouth opening ii. width (mm): measured with calipers at the bowl end and the mouth end/stem iii: diameter of opening/bore hole (mm): measured with calipers at the bowl end and the mouth end/stem, but measured inside of the bore hole instead of outside of it iv. weight (g): measured with a balance
2. Images
a. Images of Pecos
165
Figure B.1. The Pecos south pueblo today (2016), looking south toward the mission.
Figure B.2. The mission church at Pecos, photo taken between 1910 and 1915. (Secord 2014)
166
Figure B.3. The Pecos north pueblo, circa 1930. (Secord 2014)
Figure B.4. A.V. Kidder, with archaeological field equipment, circa 1915-1925 (note rubble mound in the background). (Secord 2014)
167
Figure B.5. Pecos main plaza, north pueblo, looking north, circa 1880. (Kessell 1987, courtesy NPS)
Figure B.6. Jesse Nusbaum’s crew at the 18th century Pecos church ruin, circa 1915. (Kessell 1987, courtesy NPS)
168
Figure B.7. Kidder’s crew excavating the midden on the east side of the north pueblo, circa 1915. (Kessell 1987, courtesy NPS)
169
Figure B.8. Artist’s rendition of Plains-Pueblo trade at Pecos. The north pueblo (east side) is in the background. The painting currently hangs in the Visitor’s Center at Pecos National Historical Park. Photographed with permission from Pecos NHP.
S
E W N
170
Figure B.9. Reconstruction of Pecos Pueblo (by Dennis Holloway). The mission is at the upper left corner of the image, the south pueblo is in the middle of the image, and the north pueblo is in the lower right corner. Note the row of kivas along the eastern wall, near where Plains people camped.
b. Photographs of the “other” pipe forms Six pipes were complete enough to distinguish a form, but their forms did not fit into Kidder’s categories or other Pueblo or Plains categories. Four examples of those forms are shown here.
Figure B.10. PECO10047 “Seed pod” shape
Figure B.11. PECO10060 “Datura” shape
171
Figure B.12. PECO10165 “Datura” shape
Figure B.13. PECO10136 undetermined shape
PECO9847 and PECO11416 were seed pod shaped and undetermined shape, respectively. They were photographed with a group of pipes, instead of individually, so they do not have close-up photos to present here.
c. Final Note: I came across this ending to a letter while scouring all of Kidder’s field notes and correspondence at the Lab of Anthropology in Santa Fe in hopes of finding an elusive master site map for Pecos as well as some documentation or notes to fill in some of the holes in the data was able to obtain, and so it particularly resonated with me at the time (and I am sure many others who work with inherited or legacy collections). I eventually (with the help of colleagues at the lab) found the master site grid and maps of sub-portions of the site that I could overlay on the site grid, but because it had been done in pencil, some of the room numbers, trench numbers, etc. had faded and were illegible, and it took time to try to piece the map back together, since it had been cut up sometime between 1927 and 2015 for easier storage as it moved through various archives.
172
This project taught me many things about the trials and potentials of working with legacy collections. Despite wishing that things had been more consistently documented over the years of Pecos excavation and research, and wishing that some things were recorded that were not deemed important to record in the early 1900s, I hope this project serves as an example of how much potential there still is for research in Kidder’s collections (and for, compared to some other researchers of his time, how much documentation Kidder did have) as well as how much archaeologists can still learn from archived collections.
Figure B.14. Letter from A.V. Kidder.