HOW GREAT WERE CEDAR MESA GREAT HOUSE COMMUNITIES, A.D. 1060-1270? By NATALIE ROCHELLE FAST A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS IN ANTHROPOLOGY WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY Department of Anthropology MAY 2012 To the Facultyof WashingtonState University: The membersof the Committeeappointed to examinethe thesisof NATALIE ROCHELLE FAST flnd it satisfactoryand recommendthat it be accepted. WilliamD. Lipe,Ph.D. *p,a/2/a R.G.Matson. Ph.D. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I owe many thanks to the numerous people and organizations who assisted and supported my work on the Cedar Mesa Cultural Landscapes Survey and this thesis. First and foremost, I would like to thank my thesis committee, Drs. Andrew Duff, Bill Lipe, and R.G. Matson. Their thoughtful guidance and time spent discussing ideas with me has been invaluable. I thank Andrew for his consistent encouragement, and Bill and R.G. for sharing their immense knowledge of all things Cedar Mesa with me. Allowing me to tap into the 40-plus years of their work on Cedar Mesa is an honor. Many years have led me to this point, and I cannot forget to thank the people who guided me here. First, to Drs. Ruth Van Dyke and Richard Wilshusen, who showed me the wonderful world of archaeology in the Southwest, and especially to Rich, who gently turned me toward work in the Mesa Verde region. At the Anasazi Heritage Center and Canyons of the Ancients National Monument, I would like to thank Tracy Murphy and Linda Farnsworth, who gave me my first real jobs in curation and archaeology- their wisdom has shaped my knowledge of archaeology in the Four Corners to this day. Abajo Archaeology, and especially Jonathan Till and Mark Bond, introduced me to the Pueblo II in southeast Utah, and patiently taught me how to wield a trowel. I would also like to thank LouAnn Jacobson, Marietta Eaton, Vince MacMillan, and Heather Musclow with the Colorado Bureau of Land Management, and Shelley Smith, Tom Heinlein, Don Simonis, and Laird Naylor with the Utah BLM, for arranging for me to continue working for the BLM during the Cedar Mesa Cultural Landscapes Survey, and for encouraging collaboration between Washington State University and the BLM. Returning to the project at hand, I would like to thank the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Washington State University, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research iii Council of Canada for assisting the survey financially. I would also like to thank those who gave generously of their time to assist me with survey work. My crew, Jesse Clark and Jordan Jarrett, who let me boss them around for four weeks- I really could not have done this without them. Insufficient thanks also go out to my volunteer crewmembers, Bill Lipe, R.G. and Susan Matson, Alison Bredthauer, Tucker Robinson, Jonathan Till, Winston Hurst, and Rosemary Sucec. Without Alison and Tucker, we would not have covered nearly as much ground. Thanks also for their friendship and consistent encouragement. I thank Jonathan and Winston, who were willing to spend multiple days with us in the field, imparting their knowledge about roads and archaeology in southeast Utah. To Jonathan, for continuing to be a patient teacher and encouraging colleague- I owe him for much more than just this project. Once we were out of the field, Mary Collins and Diane Curewitz helped greatly with access to the Cedar Mesa ceramic assemblages in the WSU museum. Finally, I would like to thank my family and friends for their unwavering support and encouragement. I would not have been able to complete this project without them. To Mom and Dad, who have been supportive of all my academic and personal endeavors, and especially for continuing to be a stable, supportive source of love and encouragement even in the face of the unexpected illness and passing of our Abby. Thanks also to Jesse, who stuck by me during all the breakthroughs and the meltdowns. He has been an amazing support through every challenge this thesis, and life in general, have thrown at me these past couple years. iv HOW GREAT WERE CEDAR MESA GREAT HOUSE COMMUNITIES, A.D. 1060-1270? Abstract By Natalie Rochelle Fast, M.A. Washington State University May 2012 Chair: Andrew I. Duff Questions about the structure of ancient communities and the socially constructed landscape have been explored and explained in other parts of the northern Southwest (e.g. Cameron 2009; Gilpin 2003; Kantner and Mahoney 2000; Varien and Wilshusen 2002), but until recently, the size and structure of Pueblo period communities on central Cedar Mesa in southeast Utah have not been intensively investigated. Two great houses—the Et Al and Owen sites— other landscape features (such as shrines, great kivas, and roads), and numerous residential sites suggest the presence of a substantial ancient community on the mesa, which was part of a larger network of communities in southeast Utah and the Northern San Juan region. This thesis examines three scales of the Pueblo II and Pueblo III period (A.D. 1060-1270) community associated with the Et Al great house—the first-order community, the community of participation, and the regional community—and proposes that Et Al functioned as a symbol and locus of integration for the Et Al community. Et Al and Owen may also be the material remnants of competition among individuals vying for political power and personal prestige on the mesa top and across the region. Evidence of feasting at publicly used sites provides evidence for both community integration and individual competition. Using previous research in the Northern San Juan, known sites on Cedar Mesa, and site data gathered during the summer of v 2011, I describe aspects of the community that utilized the Bullet Canyon drainage and surrounding areas and argue that the inhabitants of Cedar Mesa constructed landscape features which connected them to more widely held Puebloan ideology and cosmology. Et Al and Owen were not anomalous great houses on the margin of the Mesa Verde region, but represent structures used by a substantial community, which was part of a larger network of great house communities in the prehispanic Pueblo world. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...........................................................................................................iii! ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................................... v! TABLE OF CONTENTS.............................................................................................................. vii! LIST OF TABLES.......................................................................................................................... x! LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... xi CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1! Environmental, Cultural Historical, and Archaeological Background ................... 3! The Greater Cedar Mesa Region Environment........................................... 3! Culture History............................................................................................ 9! Previous Archaeological Investigations at Cedar Mesa............................ 12! Defining Communities.......................................................................................... 15! Defining Chacoan Great House Communities.......................................... 18! Scales of Community................................................................................ 20! 2. THE CEDAR MESA COMMUNITY AND COMMUNITY SITES ........................ 22! Great Houses: the Et Al and Owen Sites .............................................................. 22! Fortified Mesa....................................................................................................... 26! 3. COMMUNITY USE OF CENTRAL CEDAR MESA SITES................................... 30! Methods................................................................................................................. 33! vii Assemblages ......................................................................................................... 34! Et Al.......................................................................................................... 34! Fortified Mesa........................................................................................... 36! Analysis of Et Al and Fortified Mesa Assemblages ............................................. 37! Cedar Mesa Habitation Site Assemblages ............................................................ 41! Summary................................................................................................... 45! Fortified Mesa: A Defensible Food Storage Facility? .......................................... 46! Fortified Mesa Summary .......................................................................... 50! 4. SCOPE OF THE CEDAR MESA FIRST-ORDER COMMUNITIES ...................... 52! First-Order Community Expectations................................................................... 52! The Cedar Mesa Cultural Landscapes Survey...................................................... 54! Methods..................................................................................................... 55! Survey Results and Analysis..................................................................... 56!