Chapter 7 LATE PREHISTORIC STAGE Stephen M. Kalasz, Mark Mitchell, and Christian J. Zier GENERAL BACKGROUND Chronology and Database of the Context Area The Late Prehistoric stage spans the period from AD. 100 to 1725 and is divided into three periods: Developmental (AD. 100 to 1050), Diversification (AD. 1050 to 1450), and Protohistoric (A.D. 1450 to 1725). Two distinct phases, Apishapa (AD. 1050 to 1450) and Sopris (AD. 1050 to 1200), are defined within the Diversification period. This stage therefore largely corresponds to the Ceramic stage and the initial portion of the Protohistoric/Historic stage taxa presented in the previous eastern Colorado plains research context (Eighmy 1984). The current taxonomy replaces the term "Ceramic" with "Late Prehistoric" because the former places undue emphasis on a single technological component of a dynamic and complex segment of prehistory; in fact, ceramics do not occur in the archaeological record of the earliest portion of the Late Prehistoric stage. The Las Animas tradition was also developed previously to categorize selected post-Archaic sites in southeastern Colorado, specifically small sites lacking diagnostic materials sufficient for their assignment to either the "Graneros" or "Apishapa" focus (see Chapter 4). However, this spatially restricted taxon tends to ignore marked similarities and interrelationships among sites in both the South Platte and Arkansas River basins as well as in northeastern New Mexico. According to Gunnerson (1989: 13), "Traits diagnostic of the Las Animas tradition would be rock enclosures, cord roughened pottery, and small projectile points. The predominance of non-cord roughened pottery or the predominance of large projectile points would disqualify a component from inclusion in the Las Animas tradition. At present, I would see this more inclusive tradition as being restricted to southeastern Colorado and I would not necessarily assume close cultural relationships among all the components." By this definition, sites such as Lindsay Ranch and Magic Mountain would be excluded on the basis of location despite the presence of Las Animas tradition diagnostic traits (Nelson 1971; Kalasz and Shields 1997). The generic Late Prehistoric stage is applicable to all of eastern Colorado and thus circumvents any spatial preconceptions. Therefore, this taxon describes more appropriately the bridge between a widespread, long-standing hunter-gatherer tradition and the appearance of historically known cultures. At its commencement, the Late Prehistoric stage was characterized by new technologies superimposed on a well-established Archaic stage mode of existence. As the Late Prehistoric stage progressed, the Arkansas River Basin witnessed important changes in settlement, subsistence, technology, trade, and demographics. As is apparent from Figure 4-1 (see also Appendix A), the great majority of chronometric ally dated sites in the basin are associated with this segment of prehistory. Indeed, the sheer volume of Late Prehistoric stage data relative to those available for earlier stages necessitates a deviation from the format followed in the Paleoindian and Archaic chapters. In contrast to previous sections, sufficient data exist to synthesize research at each hierarchical level in the proposed taxonomy. Such synthesis is intended to provide the reader with summaries that become increasingly detailed as one progresses from general Late Prehistoric stage developments to finer grained cultural units such as the Developmental, Diversification, and Protohistoric periods. Phase distinctions (Sopris and Apishapa) currently discernible only within the Diversification period are the ultimate level of description in the following text. This manner of presentation is intended to provide researchers 141 with greater flexibility to access particular kinds of data. Some may require specific information pertaining to the Sopris phase, and others may desire a only a general overview of the Late Prehistoric stage. A degree of redundancy is therefore purposefully built into the text to address more easily a range of research needs. Identical research themes (chronology, population dynamics, technology, site type and locational variability, ecooomy, and architecture) are provided for each taxon, but additional subheadings are placed where the data are adequate to address more specific topics. A discussion of community mortuary practices, for example, is currently appropriate only for the Sopris phase. Overall, this section is hierarchically organized so that the general Late Prehistoric stage synthetic narrative is followed by more detailed, chronologically ordered Developmental, Diversification, and Protohistoric period data. The Diversification period is similarly organized so that the thematic discussion of overall trends is followed by separate detailed descriptions of the two constituent phases, Sopris and Apishapa. Given the profusion of data associated with post-Archaic adaptation in the context area, and the confusion that has sometimes accompanied its interpretation, a major goal of this section is to synthesize and summarize available information at each taxonomic level. The onset of this stage has long been tied to dates associated with the initial appearance of bow-and-arrow and ceramic technologies. However, the absolute timing of these events has not been well established in the context area. Further, construction of dwellings with stone wall foundations and the introduction of maize horticulture are traditionally associated with the beginning of the Late Prehistoric stage, but more recent excavations indicate that the initial appearance of these attributes may need to be pushed back into the Archaic stage (Rood 1990; Rood and Church 1989; Zier 1989). Although absolute dates are infrequently associated with diagnostic artifacts and features, the few that are available can be used to establish a baseline chronology for the Late Prehistoric stage. On the other hand, undue emphasis on these dates may limit our ability to perceive variability in the adoption and integration of new technologies. Most importantly, the exchanges and/or innovations tied to these events are probably not going to occur at uniform rates across the context area. Indeed, the available data indicate that these technological changes did not appear in the region as a coherent complex. Perhaps for this reason the age given for the beginning of the Late Prehistoric stage varies from A.D. 1 to AD. 200 to AD. 450, depending on the investigator (Alexander et al. 1982; Campbell 1969a; Eighmy 1984; Hunt 1975; Lintz and Anderson 1989; Zier 1989). Given the limited data sets, all may be more or less correct, especially given the potential effects of the old wood/heartwood problem on radiocarbon-dated contexts. This timing problem on the eastern plains and foothills of Colorado is often circumvented by proposing a long, chronological buffer or transition between the Archaic and Late Prehistoric stages or within the latter stage itself. It is first important to review a number of absolute dates discussed in the previous research context for the Arkansas River Basin (Eighmy 1984). The earliest absolute age associated with ceramics and arrow-size projectile points in the context area was recovered from Metate Cave (Eighmy 1984:104; Campbell 1969a:187-193). This single radiocarbon age, 1680 ± 95 B.P. (uncalibrated), or AD. 270, was obtained from charcoal recovered in proximity to cord-marked pottery sherds and a variety of projectile points including small, triangular, comer-notched Scallorn arrow points (Campbell 1969a: 193). Additionally, the Metate Cave interior was circumscribed by a low-standing semicircular wall that, if one assumes the charcoal sample and structure are contemporaneous, represents one of the oldest radiocarbon-dated examples of Late Prehistoric stage stone wall construction in the context area (Campbell 1969a:187). The earliest absolute date for open or free-standing Late Prehistoric stage architecture in the Arkansas River Basin was recovered from the Belwood site (Hunt 1975). This radiocarbon age, 1500 ± 55 B.P. (uncalibrated), or AD. 450, was obtained from charcoal located at the base of a bell-shaped pit in House 1 (Hunt 1975:6). Earlier Late Prehistoric stage architectural dates are known from northeastern New Mexico occupations adjacent to the context area (Biella and Dorshow 1997a). 142 The radiocarbon-dated context at the Belwood site was also associated with cord-marked ceramics and the mixture of arrow and dart points long recognized as typical of the early portion of the Late Prehistoric stage. Belwood therefore represents the earliest radiocarbon-dated ceramic association in the context area after Metate Cave. Relatively few excavations in the 15 years since publication of the previous research context have provided additional insight into the timing of Late Prehistoric stage technological advances. Early dates for pottery and arrow points are suggested by the recovery of radiocarbon data from two sites, 5EP576 and 5EP935, in the Crow's Roost region along Black Squirrel Creek east of Colorado Springs (McDonald 1992; Wynn et al. 1993). At site 5EP576, a two-sigma, calibrated radiocarbon estimate of976-538 B.C. (raw age of2640 ± 80 B.P.) was obtained from bone recovered in a stratum designated Level A A number of small, triangular comer-notched points, similar to the Scallom type and presumably associated with bow-and-arrow technology, were also collected from this thick, undifferentiated