migration, regional reorganization, and spatial group...

Journal of Archaeological Science (2002) 29, 499–520doi:10.1006/jasc.2001.0745, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on

Migration, Regional Reorganization, and Spatial GroupComposition at Grasshopper Pueblo, Arizona

Joseph A. Ezzo

Area Studies Program, Tsukuba University, Tsukuba, Japan 305-8572 and Department of Anthropology,University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, U.S.A.

T. Douglas Price

Laboratory for Archaeological Chemistry, Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin, Madison,WI 53706, U.S.A.

(Received 22 January 2001, revised manuscript accepted 5 September 2001)

Strontium-isotope (87Sr/86Sr) analysis of first-molar enamel of 70 adult individuals interred at Grasshopper Pueblo,Arizona, when coupled with a variety of other lines of evidence, reveal a complex pattern of immigration and settlementat the site. Thirty-three of the individuals pattern as local (most likely having been born at Grasshopper), and 13 othersoriginate from the region immediately surrounding the site. The remaining 24 individuals are of non-local,extra-regional origin. Recent 87Sr/86Sr analysis of rodent bone from archaeological sites in several regions surroundingGrasshopper—including the Tonto Basin, Payson area, Mogollon Rim, and Chevelon Valley, as well as prehistorichuman bone from the Walnut Creek/Cherry Creek region—reveal potential matches for all of the nonlocal individuals.It is suggests that immigrants at Grasshopper likely derived from the Chevelon Valley, at least two localities from thecentral Mogollon Rim region, and possibly the Payson area at the western edge of the Mogollon Rim. Migrationoccurred throughout the occupational history of the site, but patterns of migration clearly changed through time. Thestructure of migrations likely followed the internal frontier model of Kopytoff (1987). A number of inferences that havebeen postulated for Grasshopper regarding ethnicity, diversity, and social and community organization are evaluatedand supported. � 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: PREHISTORIC MIGRATION, AMERICAN SOUTHWEST, STRONTIUM ISOTOPE ANALYSIS,PUEBLO AGGREGATION, ETHNIC CORESIDENCE, BONE CHEMISTRY.

Introduction

I n a recent study of undecorated ceramics fromeast-central Arizona, Reid & Montgomery (1998:447) state:

The marginal environments of the American Southwesthave always required adaptive strategies characterized bymultiple responses. One of these responses is a high degreeof residential mobility. If any statement about prehistoricbehavior in the Southwest has a high truth value, it is thatpeople moved . . . population movement was a recurrentresponse to the conditions of life when natural and socialenvironmental variables reached untenable values in areaswhere geographic circumscription was minimal. Popula-tion movement, therefore, was a major influence on thecharacter and developmental trajectory of prehistoricSouthwestern peoples.

This study examines patterns and processes of settle-ment dynamics at Grasshopper Pueblo, an aggregatedpueblo in the American Southwest, through the com-bined use of bioarchaeological, ceramic compositional,

4990305–4403/02/$-see front matter

architectural, and chronometric data. From thesedata sets, a number of inferences regarding mobilitystrategies and migration may be made. Whereas it isprobable that migrants moved primarily in socialgroups based on kin relationships, the particularpatterns of nonlocal female burials in the major roomblocks at Grasshopper Pueblo suggest that inter-marriage between communities was an importantsocial and economic dynamic in the history ofsettlement at Grasshopper Pueblo (cf. Tuggle, 1970).

Previous work (Ezzo, Johnson & Price, 1997; Priceet al., 1994) defined and delineated several importantcomponents of this research, including the theoreticalfoundation for studying migration at GrasshopperPueblo, the local strontium-isotope (87Sr/86Sr) rangefor Grasshopper Pueblo and the Grasshopper region,the processes of migration and residential mobility thathas been inferred at Grasshopper Pueblo, and thepotential significance of 87Sr/86Sr analysis on humanremains as a means of pursuing the study of ancienthuman mobility.

� 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

500 J. A. Ezzo and T. D. Price

We begin our discussion with a brief description ofGrasshopper Pueblo and its environs. This is followedby presentation of 87Sr/86Sr data of human and faunalremains that provide an archaeometric fingerprint forthe geographic origin of individuals. These data arethen integrated with ceramic compositional, architec-tural, and chronometric data to interpret the natureof movement and mobility, how such a complex ofmovement shaped the occupational history of thesite, and how certain aspects of social and economicorganization can be inferred from such data.

Valshni

0 20 40 60 80 100 Miles

0 20 40 60 80100 Kilometres

TOWNSPrehistoric Sites

MEXICO

Jackrabbit

Batid

Ventana CaveCerro Prieto

Casa GrandeGrewe

YUMA

GilaRiver

Burnet Cave

Gran Quivira

Pecos

Sapawe

Falsom

TAOS

Arroyo Hondo

SANTA FE

LAS VEGAS

ALBUQUERQUE

NEW MEXICO

SOCORRO

COLORADO

Rio

Gra

nde

PecosR

iver

LAS CRUCES

EL PASO TEXASMEXICO

MOGOLLON

HOHOKAM

PHOENIX

ARIZONA

Lehner

Cave Creek

San Simon

WILLCOXTUCSON

Hodges

Santa Crus

River

SnaketownLos MuertosPueblo Grande

La Cludad

River

Rye Creek

River

Verde

WalnutCreek

SierraAncha Canyon Creek

SaltRiverRoosevelt 9:6

GLOBEGilla Pueblo

Point of Pines

Kinishba

Gila

Tularosa Cave

Bat CaveSU

Cordova CaveMogolian

Mattocks HarrisGalazSwarts

CameronCreek

Mim

br es River

Showlow

Hay Hollow ValleyPinedale

HomoioviRiver

Colorado

Wupstki

OraibiTusayan

Little

River

River

Col

orad

o

UTAH San JuanRiver

Mancos

San Juan

Riv

er

Rio Puerco

Hawikuh

ZUNI

White MoundKin Tei

Awatowi

Kawaiku

ANASAZI

Betatakin

Kiet Siel Aztec

Salmon

Pueblo BonitoChacoCanyon Shabik'eshchee

DURANGOC

AL

IFO

RN

IA

PATAYAN

Color

ado

Riv

er

NEVADA

Murray Springs

Metty CanyonTanque Verde

Naco

Double Adobe

Gleeson

River

San

Fra

nci

sco Riv

erGRASSHOPPER PUEBLO

Forestdale Valley

Kistuthianna

Kokopyama

Canyon da Chelly

Broken Flute Cave

Vandal Cave

Painted Cave

Messa Verde

Three Circle

Roosevelt Lake

Escalante

Las Collnas

RiverNew

FLAGSTAFF

Turkey Hill

Ridge

Chavez Pass

Colorado

SanPedro

River

N

Agu

aFr

ia

Tuzigoot

Winona

Figure 1. Map of the East-Central Arizona showing the location of Grasshopper Pueblo.

Grasshopper Pueblo: A Brief Description

Grasshopper Pueblo is a 14th-century masonry pueblosite located on the Salt River drainage in east-centralArizona (110�40�E, 34�5�N) (Figure 1). The site consistsof 447 numbered room spaces with an estimated 68two-storey rooms (Riggs 1999, 2001). It is composed ofthree major room blocks, three rectangular plazas(associated with each of the room blocks [Plaza 1 withRoom Block 3; Plaza 2 with Room Block 1; and theGreat Kiva (Plaza 3) with Room Block 2]), 10 smaller,outlying blocks of rooms and 15 smaller habitationunits (Longacre & Reid, 1974; Longacre & Graves,

1982; Riggs, 1999, 2001; Thompson & Longacre, 1966)(Figures 2 and 3).

Initial settlement of the site occurred in the 1270s;a fairly rapid period of aggregation followed, and theGrasshopper community reached a population maxi-mum of perhaps 600–700 individuals (c. 180 house-holds) around 1330 (Reid & Whittlesey, 1982, 1999:23–68). This occupation is referred to as the Establish-ment and Aggregation periods of Grasshopper Pueblooccupation. This was followed by the Dispersion andAbandonment periods, in which population declinedand regional social and economic ties apparently brokedown or were reconfigured. Coupled with environmentdeterioration due to an unpredictable climate andover-use of local resources, the site and the surround-ing region was abandoned completely around 1400.(More detailed descriptions of the site, its environs,and the history of excavation and research can befound in Agenbroad, 1982; Ezzo, 1993: 1–8, 15–28;Holbrook, 1982, 1983; Holbrook & Graves, 1982;Longacre & Graves, 1982; Longacre & Reid, 1974; S.Olsen, 1982; Olsen & Olsen, 1970; Peirce, 1985; Reid,1989, 1999; Reid & Whittlesey, 1999: 1–11, 17–22,71–74; Riggs, 1999, 2001; Thompson & Longacre,1966; and Tuggle, Reid & Cole, 1984; Longacre et al.,1982.)

Migration and Spatial Group Composition at Grasshopper Pueblo 501

The Radiogenic Data Base: ModellingMigration at Grasshopper Pueblo
The rationale for using 87Sr/86Sr analysis
Since the 1970s, the dynamics of settlement occupationresulting from a variety of mechanisms has been a focalpoint of research at Grasshopper (Ezzo, 1999; Ezzo,Johnson & Price, 1997; Fulginiti, 1993; Price et al.,1994; Reid, 1973, 1978; Reid et al., 1996; Riggs, 1999,2001; Triadan, 1997; Tuggle, 1970; Zedeno, 1994,1995). The use of radiogenic isotopes as a mean of‘‘fingerprinting’’ individuals to determine their geo-graphic origin has been one of the principal avenues ofinquiry in this regard (Ezzo, Johnson & Price, 1997;Price et al., 1994). 87Sr/86Sr analysis was chosenbecause the differences in 87Sr/86Sr in calcified tissuesvary as a function of geographic regions where foodwas obtained.

Variations in 87Sr abundances in the Earth, which isthe long-lived radioactive decay product of 87Rb, areexpressed as 87Sr/86Sr. The 87Sr/86Sr of rocks, minerals,and soils are therefore dependent upon the age andRb/Sr of the materials. Because the decay of 87Rb is sosmall, there has been essentially no change in the87Sr/86Sr of natural materials in the last several 100,000years; variations in 87Sr/86Sr are only observed formaterials that are millions or billions of years old(Faure, 1986).

Initial research on fossil and modern animals(Ericson et al., 1985; Sealy, 1989) has demonstrated thepotential for using 87Sr/86Sr for studying questions ofmigration and movement away from original localenvironment. Central Arizona is especially well-suitedfor these investigations because geological units arediverse and well-studied and their 87Sr/86Sr composi-tions, which vary markedly between physiographicprovinces, are known in some detail.

Bone undergoes a complete replacement cycle of itsinorganic phase every 7–10 years so that measure-ments of bone strontium reflect dietary intakes fromapproximately the last 10 years of an individual’s life(Lowenstam & Weiner, 1989). First-molar enamel, onthe other hand, forms during the first year of life andundergoes virtually no subsequent change duringlife. Enamel has no organic structures that can carrynutrients into it, so that the calcified tissue becomessequestered shortly after forming. The strontium in theenamel of the first molar should provide informationregarding where a person lived during the first year orso of life.

Room Block 2

0 10 20 30 40 50

Metres

TN

MN

Room Block 6Plaza 1

Plaza2

Room Block 8

Room Block 7

Room Block 3

Room Block 9

Room Block 10(Location not to scale)

Room Block 5

Room Block 1

Ovens

Room Block 4

Room Block 12

Room Block 13

Room Block 11

Ovene

GreatKiva

Figure 2. Map of Grasshopper Pueblo (AZ P:14:1 [ASM]).

The Grasshopper 87Sr/86Sr data base: sampling andanalytical methodsThe Grasshopper adult burial assemblage consists of231 individuals; 164 date to the Establishment and


Table 1. Summary 87Sr/86Sr data for Grasshopper Pueblo burials

BurialNo. Sex Age Location

RoomNo.

Room Blockaffiliation

Temp.affil.a

87Sr/86Sr Originb

I. LOCALS (N=33)ROOM BLOCK 1/PLAZA 2573 Male 20–29 Room Block 1 62 Room Block 1 E/E 0·71038608 Female <20 Plaza 2 Room Block 1 D/A 0·70987382 Female 50+ Room Block 1 41 Room Block 1 D/A 0·70988391 Male 40–49 Room Block 1 40 Room Block 1 D/A 0·71015377 Female 20–29 Room Block 1 41 Room Block 1 D/A 0·70975

ROOM BLOCK 2/GREAT KIVA152 Male <20 Great Kiva — Room Block 2 E/E 0·71023197 Female <20 Great Kiva — Room Block 2 E/E 0·70975188 Female 30–39 Great Kiva — Room Block 2 E/E 0·71032142 Female 30–39 Great Kiva — Room Block 2 E/E 0·7102377 Female <20 Great Kiva — Room Block 2 E/E 0·71024143 Male 20–29 Great Kiva Room Block 2 E/E 0·71025233 Female 20–29 Room Block 2 23 Room Block 2 E/E 0·7100556 Female <20 Room Block 2 12 Room Block 2 E/E 0·70991248 Male <20 Room Block 2 27 Room Block 2 E/E 0·70977468 Male 40–49 Room Block 2 164 Room Block 2 E/E 0·70997150 Female 20–29 Room Block 2 22 Room Block 2 E/E 0·71041231 Male 30–39 Great Kiva — Room Block 2 E/E 0·71007531 Male <20 Room Block 2 183 Room Block 2 E/E 0·71003564 Female <20 Room Block 2 145 Room Block 2 E/E 0·71020246 Female 20–29 Room Block 2 27 Room Block 2 E/E 0·71020298 Male 30–39 Room Block 2 27 Room Block 2 E/E 0·70988141 Female 20–29 Room Block 2 22 Room Block 2 E/E 0·71036190 Male 20–29 Great Kiva — Room Block 2 E/E 0·7105368 Female 20–29 Great Kiva — Room Block 2 E/E 0·71043129 Male 30–39 Great Kiva — Room Block 2 E/E 0·71049208 Male 30–39 Room Block 2 23 Room Block 2 E/E 0·71002540 Female 20–29 Room Block 2 183 Room Block 2 E/E 0·71007

ROOM BLOCK 3/PLAZA 1588 Male <20 Plaza 1 — Room Block 3 E/E 0·71028597 Female 30–39 Plaza 1 — Room Block 3 D/A 0·71058441 Male <20 Room Block 3 211 Room Block 3 D/A 0·71049459 Female 30–39 Room Block 3 211 Room Block 3 D/A 0·710237450 Male 50+ Room Block 3 211 Room Block 3 D/A 0·71049

OTHERS543 Male 30–39 Room Block 7 352 Outliers D/A 0·70955

II. NONLOCALS (N=37)ROOM BLOCK 1/PLAZA 2

57 Female 30–39 Room Block 1 5 Room Block 1 E/E 0·71127 Grasshopper region367 Male 20–29 Room Block 1 40 Room Block 1 E/E 0·71108 Grasshopper region412 Female 40–49 Room Block 1 44 Room Block 1 E/E 0·71072 Grasshopper region575 Female 30–39 Plaza 2 — Room Block 1 E/E 0·71167 Grasshopper region576 Male 30–39 Plaza 2 — Room Block 1 E/E 0·71110 Grasshopper region579 Female 20–29 Plaza 2 — Room Block 1 E/E 0·71092 Grasshopper region400 Female 30–39 Room Block 1 44 Room Block 1 E/E 0·71170 Mogollon Rim453 Female 30–39 Room Block 1 47 Room Block 1 E/E 0·71306 Mogollon Rim664 Male 20–29 Room Block 1 68 Room Block 1 E/E 0·71189 Mogollon Rim373 Male 50+ Room Block 1 41 Room Block 1 D/A 0·71171 Mogollon Rim386 Female 30–39 Room Block 1 40 Room Block 1 D/A 0·71255 Mogollon Rim

ROOM BLOCK 2/GREAT KIVA112 Female 40–49 Great Kiva — Room Block 2 E/E 0·71066 Grasshopper region115 Female 20–29 Room Block 2 20 Room Block 2 E/E 0·71135 Grasshopper region158 Male 20–29 Room Block 2 21 Room Block 2 E/E 0·71090 Grasshopper region187 Female 30–39 Great Kiva — Room Block 2 E/E 0·71083 Grasshopper region226 Female 40–49 Room Block 2 26 Room Block 2 E/E 0·71089 Grasshopper region164 Female 20–29 Great Kiva — Room Block 2 E/E 0·71064 Chevelon Region178 Female 20–29 Great Kiva — Room Block 2 E/E 0·71321 Mogollon Rim225 Female 20–29 Room Block 2 26 Room Block 2 E/E 0·71195 Mogollon Rim466 Female < 20 Room Block 2 164 Room Block 2 E/E 0·71193 Mogollon Rim524 Male < 20 Room Block 2 187 Room Block 2 E/E 0·71062 Chevelon Region528 Female 50+ Room Block 2 183 Room Block 2 E/E 0·71308 Mogollon Rim


Aggregation periods of occupation ( 1275–1330)and 67 to the Dispersion and Abandonment periodsof occupation ( 1330–1400). A stratified randomsampling program was developed for the strontiumisotope study. Top priority was given to burials thatwere primary interments, and that had distinct spatialaffinities. Thus, the 63 adult burials from the extra-mural areas were deleted from consideration. Giventhat six had already been sampled from the roomblocks and plazas (see Price et al., 1994), and that 12were not considered primary interments, this left 150burials for sampling. Because there were only threeadults from outlying room blocks, and two fromRoom Block 5 who had first molars, which could besampled, it was decided all of these would be analysed.Thus, for the remainder of the data set, 61 of 145burials were to be sampled.

The sampling took into account sex, age, thenumber of individuals recovered from a given spatialprovenience (for example, Room Block 1, Plaza 1,etc.), distribution throughout each major room block,and, to a lesser extent, temporal provenience. All of the145 skeletons were examined to see if a first molar wasavailable for sampling. Nearly half of the individualslacked this element, which, given the frequency ofdental disease at Grasshopper (Berry, 1983, 1985), wasnot surprising. With the pool of available burials foranalysis having shrunk to 75, it was no longer possibleto derive from each room block and plaza a numberof individuals proportional to each provenience’srepresentation within the entire burial assemblage. Asa result, there is somewhat of an overrepresentation ofindividuals from Room Block 3 and the Great Kiva

and a slight underrepresentation of individuals fromRoom Block 1. Seventy-two individuals were ulti-mately sampled. One, however, was lost during samplepreparation, and another was contaminated duringanalysis; consequently, the Grasshopper data base iscomposed of 70 individuals (Table 1).

Analytical methods have been described previously(Ezzo, Johnson & Price, 1997: 451; Price et al. 1994:321) and will be reiterated briefly. Enamel was removedfrom the first molar using a Dremel tool fitted with a1/16 in. diameter drill bit. Bone samples were removedusing a small razor saw. Samples were placed in silicaglass vials that had been leached in ultrapure 6N HCl.Samples were analysed on a radiogenic isotope massspectrometer using the isotope dilution method, andthe international standard NBS-987 was run multipletimes in conjunction with the samples.

Table 1. Summary 87Sr/86Sr data for Grasshopper Pueblo burials

BurialNo. Sex Age Location

RoomNo.

Room Blockaffiliation

Temp.affil.a

87Sr/86Sr Originb

II. NONLOCALS (N=37) ContinuedROOM BLOCK 3/PLAZA 1624 Female 30–39 Room Block 3 280 Room Block 3 E/E 0·71137 Grasshopper region637 Female 40–49 Room Block 3 438 Room Block 3 E/E 0·71149 Grasshopper region536 Male 20–29 Room Block 3 274 Room Block 3 E/E 0·71367 Mogollon Rim614 Male 30–39 Room Block 3 279 Room Block 3 E/E 0·71748 Mogollon Rim617 Male < 20 Room Block 3 279 Room Block 3 E/E 0·71280 Mogollon Rim635 Male 20–29 Room Block 3 438 Room Block 3 E/E 0·71065 Chevelon Region641 Male 30–39 Plaza 1 — Room Block 3 E/E 0·71064 Chevelon Region460 Female 30–39 Room Block 3 218 Room Block 3 D/A 0·71175 Mogollon Rim580 Male 40–49 Room Block 3 438 Room Block 3 D/A 0·71379 Mogollon Rim601 Male 30–39 Plaza 1 — Room Block 3 D/A 0·71151 Tonto Rim647 Female 30–39 Plaza 1 — Room Block 3 D/A 0·71153 Tonto Rim

OTHERS318 Female 20–29 Room Block 5 114 Room Block 5 E/E 0·71262 Mogollon Rim338 Female < 20 Room Block 5 112 Room Block 5 D/A 0·70869 Walnut Creek545 Female 30–39 Room Block 11 425 Outliers D/A 0·71448 Mogollon Rim560 Female 40–49 Room Block 9 376 Outliers D/A 0·71447 Mogollon Rim

Note: All data previous published in Ezzo, Johnson & Price, (1997: Table 1).aE/E=Establishment/Expansion phases of occupation ( 1275–1330); D/A=Dispersion/Abandonment phases ofoccupation ( 1330–1400).bProbable location of origin as discussed in text.

The Grasshopper 87Sr/86Sr data base: initial resultsFifty-three individuals (22 males, 31 females) date tothe Establishment/Aggregation period of occupationand 17 individuals (7 males, 10 females) date to theDispersion/Abandonment period of occupation. Theage at death of individuals include 13 individualsunder the age of 20, 25 individuals between the ages of20 and 29 years, 19 individuals between the ages of30 and 39 years, eight individuals between the agesof 40 and 49 years, and four individuals who livedbeyond 50 years (see Table 1).

Modern field mice and archaeological bone ofhumans were employed to determine a localGrasshopper 87Sr/86Sr signature. Modern field mice


were trapped from a number of areas in theGrasshopper region, including Cibecue, Carrizo Creek,Canyon Creek, and Kinishba in order to determine the87Sr/86Sr signature of the Grasshopper region (see Ezzoet al., 1997: Table 3). The local Grasshopper 87Sr/86Srsignature ranged from 0·70978–0·71049. TheGrasshopper region values did not overlap with thelocal Grasshopper signatures, but were slightly higher,ranging from 0·71076–0·71172. Whereas these rangesmay appear to be very small, in fact they are quitesubstantial; all nonvolcanic rocks that are youngerthan Precambrian in age have 87Sr/86Sr that fallbetween about 0·70950 and 0·73000 (see Faure, 1986).

The analysis of 70 individuals from GrasshopperPueblo resulted in the identification of 33 locals(Figure 4), and 37 immigrants from either theGrasshopper region or outside the Grasshopperregion. The next step of research was to fingerprintregions around Grasshopper to see if identification ofthe origins of any of the immigrants could be deter-

mined. Rodent bones from archaeological collectionsof sites in the Payson area (Shoofly Village), MogollonRim (Bailey, Pottery Hill), Tonto Basin (Kline Terrace,Grapevine Vista), and the Chevelon Valley (AZ Q:5:3,AZ P:3:11) were analysed. With the exception of thesamples from the Tonto Basin, in which bones wereidentified to the genus level (Peromyscus sp.), samplescould only be identified as being rodent. In addition,human bone samples from the Walnut Creek/CheeryCreek region were analysed as well (Figure 5; Table 2).These analyses allowed for the establishment of 87Sr/86Sr ranges for each region, just as had been under-taken previously for Grasshopper Pueblo and theGrasshopper Region.

0 10 20 30 40 50

Metres

N

Room Block 2RoomBlock 1

RoomBlock 3

GreatKiva

Plaza I

Plaza II

Room Block 5

125127

128

133

26 2712

132 131

130129

126

134135136

21 23 22

145141142

140

138137

139

307

305 306 14

197308

144 143

16304

30318

153 154

155

156

13

152

20 193

148147

162

163 166

161 160

167169

170 172

171

158 157

151150

159149

146 19

165164

179

180 178

177175

176181182

173174168

192

191 187

186 185

188 189

184 183

190

302

300295

301

440

291

285

281 282

286

283284

51287

438 439 292 293

288

295294

272271266

265

264263262264

255

250

243 244 245 246

252251

256 257 258

253 254

259 267

268 276

274 275

277

279

280

298297241240

247

270 269

248 249

278

239238237

246

232 233234

235

260231230229

225 226 227 228

222 223 224

221220

218

215 216

219

214 217 242

209 210 214 212 213

208207

202201

205 206

204 289

273203

17

25 24

9

111

3

110

109

107

15

2 104

103

102 101100

6105

10847

10 106

99988

11 97 96 5

89

90 9291

88 87 86

93 94

85 84

95

78

73 72 71 70 69

74757677

79 80 81 82 83

124

65

64

57 58

63

66 67

62

59 60

61

68

120121

122 119

118123

36

31

30 29 28

3332

35 34

50 49

5556

45

48

54 53

47

44

41 42

43

46

52

40

38 37

39

115

114

195113 112

117116

Figure 3. Map of the major Room Blocks at Grasshopper Pueblo.

Exploration of the 87Sr/86Sr DataThe resulting 87Sr/86Sr created a very complicated dataset. For one thing, there were overlaps between a


0 10 20 30 40 50

Metres

N

MF

FFFFFMMMMM

F

FF MMF F

MMF

MM

F

M

MF

M

M

FM

Figure 4. Map of major Room Blocks showing locations of local individuals. (M)=male; (F)=female. Note: Burial locations within plazas areapproximate.

number of of the regions analysed, and the ChevelonValley range overlapped completely with theGrasshopper region range (Figures 6 and 7). TheTonto Basin 87Sr/86Sr range likewise exhibited someoverlap with the higher 87Sr/86Sr from the Grasshopperregion. Consequently, the identification of the majorityof individuals originating from beyond the immediatelocal environment of Grasshopper Pueblo became verydifficult, and underscored the need for additional linesof evidence before meaningful inferences could bedrawn.

Some relatively easy matches could be made amongnonlocals, however. Thirteen individuals most likelyderived from the Grasshopper region (Figure 8), and24 fell outside either the local or regional range andwere designated as immigrants (Figure 9). Four ofthese immigrant individuals could be traced to theChevelon Valley. Only one region, the WalnutCreek/Cherry Creek area, yielded lower 87Sr/86Sr than

Grasshopper Pueblo. One individual, Burial 338, afemale from Room Block 5, fell into this range.Because this is only one individual, it is impossible todetermine whether this may reflect actual patterns ofmovement or a fortuitous quirk of the data. Of theremaining 19 immigrants, all fell within variousregional 87Sr/86Sr ranges. Burial 614, a male fromRoom Block 3 dating to the Establishment andAggregation periods, fell at the extreme high end of theMogollon Rim signature (Figure 6).

In order to determine the likely points of origin ofthe remaining immigrants, it is necessary to draw uponadditional archaeological data, which include spatialand temporal associations of the burial, associatedgrave goods, and dietary trends. For example, Burial453, an Establishment/Aggregation-period woman inher 30s buried beneath Room 47 in Room Block 1,may have come from the Tonto Basin (the region nearGrapevine Vista) or from either locality analysed from


0

ARIZONA

TUCSON

PHOENIX

FLAGSTAFF

SPRINGERVILLE

SHOW LOW

SNOWFLAKE

5 10 15 Miles

N

0 5 10 15 Kilometres

HEBER

FORT

MOGOLLON RIM

APACHE

WHITERIVER

INDIAN

RESERVATION

Cre

ekC

ibec

ue

Cre

ekC

arri

ao

Salt RiverCed

ar

Creek

WhiteRiver

Black

River

CIBECUEGRASSHOPPERPUEBLO

Cre

ek

Can

yon

Cre

ek

Che

rry

TONTONATIONAL

FOREST

Creek

Ton

to

RooseveltLake

Salt River

PAYSON

SIERRAANCHA

SAN CARLOSAPACHE RESERVATION

GLOBE

SAN CARLOS

Figure 5. Map of East-Central Arizona showing 87Sr/86Sr sampling localities.

Table 2. 87Sr/86Sr data for samples outside the Grasshopper region

Location (Site) Analyte 87Sr/86Sr

Chevelon Valley rodent bone 0·71174Chevelon Valley rodent bone 0·71226Tonto Rim (Shoofly Village) rodent bone 0·71117Tonto Rim (Shoofly Village) rodent bone 0·71266Mogollon Rim (Bailey) rodent bone 0·71250Mogollon Rim (Bailey) rodent bone 0·71259Mogollon Rim (Bailey) rodent bone 0·71541Mogollon Rim (Pottery Hill) rodent bone 0·71268Mogollon Rim (Pottery Hill) rodent bone 0·71351Mogollon Rim (Pottery Hill) rodent bone 0·71748Tonto Basin (Grapevine Vista) rodent bone 0·71168Tonto Basin (Grapevine Vista) rodent bone 0·71214Tonto Basin (Grapevine Vista) rodent bone 0·71315Tonto Basin (Kline Terrace) rodent bone 0·71311Tonto Basin (Kline Terrace) rodent bone 0·71469Walnut Creek (Walnut Creek) human bone 0·70910Walnut Creek (Walnut Creek) human bone 0·70943Walnut Creek Vosberg sand 0·70718

Note: Samples from Walnut Creek from Price et al., 1994; all otherdata presented here for the first time.

0.708MR

(PH)

0.718

87S

r/86

Sr

RB1

0.709

0.710

0.711

0.712

0.713

0.714

0.715

0.716

0.717

RB2

Localgrasshopperrange

RB3

GR

WC

CV

PA

TB

(GV)

TB

(KT)

MR

(B)

Figure 6. 87Sr/86Sr Data for Establishment/Aggregation phaseinhabitants of the major Room Blocks. (Key: RB1=Room Block 1;RB2=Room Block 2; RB3=Room Block 3; GR=Grasshopperregion; WC=Walnut Creek; TR=Tonto Rim; CV=ChevelonValley; PA=Payson area; MR=Mogollon Rim; GV=GrapevineVista; KT=Kline Terrace; B=Bailey; PH=Pottery Hill.)


0.708MR

(PH)

0.718

87S

r/86

Sr

RB1

0.709

0.710

0.711

0.712

0.713

0.714

0.715

0.716

0.717

RB2

Localgrasshopperrange

RB3

GR

WC

CV

PA

TB

(GV)

TB

(KT)

MR

(B)

Figure 7. 87Sr/86Sr Data for Dispersion/Abandonment phaseinhabitants of the major Room Blocks. (Key: RB1=Room Block 1;RB2=Room Block 2; RB3=Room Block 3; GR=GrasshopperRegion; WC=Walnut Creek; TR=Tonto Rim; CV=ChevelonValley; PA=Payson area; MR=Mogollon Rim; GV=GrapevineVista; KT=Kline Terrace; B=Bailey; PH=Pottery Hill.)

0 10 20 30 40 50

Metres

N

M

FF

F

F

F

F

M

F

FFM

F

Figure 8. Map of major Room Blocks showing locations of regional individuals. (M)=male; (F)=female. Note: Burial locations within plazasare approximate.

the Mogollon Rim. As indicated by the 87Sr/86Sr data,Room Block 1 appears to have been settled largelyby immigrants, particularly early in the occupationalhistory of the Grasshopper community. Room 47 ispart of a 10-room core construction unit—that is, oneof the first blocks of rooms to be built in Room Block1 (Figure 10). Using tree-ring data and bond-abutpatterns of room walls, Riggs (1999: 229) assignsan initial construction date of 1305 to this unit,indicating that it was constructed early in the occupa-tional history of the Grasshopper community, and thepeople who occupied this unit may have been amongthe earliest waves of immigrants to the site. Dietaryanalysis of Grasshopper adults (Ezzo, 1991, 1992,1993) revealed that inhabitants of Room Block 1 hadmore eclectic diets and less agriculturally-based dietsthan inhabitants of Room Block 2 & 3. This is certainlytrue of Burial 453, whose Sr/Ca and Ba/Ca ratios areconsiderably higher than average at the site (see Ezzo,1991: Appendix 1). Such diets are more indicative ofthe Mogollon Rim than of the Tonto Basin; by the late


1200s, maize agriculture was well established in theTonto Basin, but less so along the Mogollon Rim.Burial 453 also contained a locally-manufacturedGrasshopper Polychrome vessel. This pottery typeis a copy of the White Mountain Red Ware seriesimported to Grasshopper Pueblo from at least twolocations along the Mogollon Rim. It is thought thatthe Grasshopper Polychromes were manufacturedeither by locals or by potters who immigrated from theMogollon Rim; once at Grasshopper, these immigrantsbegan to produce a local variant of the decoratedceramics they had learned to manufacture alongthe Mogollon Rim (Triadan, 1997: 78–80, 97–103,Appendix B). Therefore, the archaeological evidencesupports a Mogollon Rim origin for Burial 453.

Using the approach just described, the 87Sr/86Sr dataare used below to explore the nature of settlement ofthe three major room blocks through time, and theimplications of settlement dynamics for the history ofthe Grasshopper community.

Settlement of the Major Room Blocks

0 10 20 30 40 50

Metres

N

FF

F

FMM

M

F

F

M

F

F

F

M

F F

MM

MM

M

F

Figure 9. Map of major Room Blocks showing locations of immigrant individuals. (M)=male; (F)=female. Note: Burial locations withinplazas are approximate.

Room Block 1/Plaza 2

According to Riggs (1999) and Graves (1991), theearliest construction at Room Block dates prior to 1320 and is represented by a 10-room core con-struction unit near the northern end of the roomblock (Figure 10). Riggs (1999: 229) estimates thatconstruction of this unit began around 1305. Thereis also a 6-room core construction unit in the south endof room block that likely dates to about this time(Figure 10). In terms of architecture, Room Block 1 isless homogeneous in construction techniques, roomsize distribution, and bond-abut patterns of room wallsthan room Block 2, but more homogeneous thanRoom Block 3. Room Block 1 has a longer construc-tion sequence than Room Block 2, with the latest datesderiving from the southern end of the room block(Riggs, 1999, 2001). This is indicative of multiple


0 10 20 30 40 50

Metres

N

133132 131134135136

142

140

138137

139

148

166

161 160

167169

170

150

159149

165164

179

180 178

177175

176181

174168

285 286 287

292 293

288

295294246 279270 269 278

107

15

2 104

6

7

10

69

74

82 83

60

61

68

47 46

52

Figure 10. Map of core construction units at Grasshopper Pueblo.

episodes of settlement by diverse groups of people,with little formal community planning.

The 87Sr/86Sr data suggests that Room Block 1 wasfounded primarily by natives of the Grasshopperregion along with immigrant groups originating fromeither the Mogollon Rim or Tonto Basin. Given theprevalence of decorated vessels—in both mortuarycontexts and room floor assemblages—that likely haveantecedents along the Mogollon Rim, it is far morellikely that extraregional immigrants derived from herethan from Tonto Basin (Figure 11). It is worth notingthat the six individuals that pattern as Grasshopperregionals date to the Establishment and Aggregationperiods of occupation. This makes sense, as regionalreorganization occurred at a large scale in the late1200s and early 1300s in east-central Arizona. By the1330s, people of the Grasshopper region had aggre-gated into a small number of large sites, and a disper-sion was beginning whereby people were either leavingthe region or splitting off from large communities to

found smaller ones in relatively remote areas, such asCanyon Creek (Graves, 1982, 1983; Haury, 1934; Reid,1989; Reid & Whittlesey, 1999: 148–156).

Reid & Whittlesey (1999: 45) suggest that theregional influence in Room Block 1 may have derivedfrom Grasshopper Spring, a 15-room pueblo 2 km eastof Grasshopper Pueblo that dates to the last quarter ofthe 13th century. They cite a number of similarities,including architectural layout (rooms constructed inclusters but lacking an orientation around a plaza)and darts used for hunting with spears or atlatls(Lorentzen, 1993).

Five individuals analysed from Room Block 1originate from outside the Grasshopper region, andall appear to have affinity with the Mogollon Rim.Ceramics associated with these individuals tend to beeither Grasshopper or Fourmile polychrome, both ofwhich are in the White Mountain Red Ware decorativetradition, which, as noted, has at least two sourcesalong the Mogollon Rim (Triadan, 1997: 50–55). These


RoomBlock 2

RoomBlock 1

Regionals (early)Mogollon Rim(early/late)

Mogollon Rim(females only)

Plaza2

0 20

N

Metres

RoomBlock 3

GreatKiva

Mogollon Rim/Chevelon

(females only)

Regionals(early)

Regionals (early)Mogollon Rim

(early/late)Chevelon (early)

Payson Area (late)

Figure 11. Proposed origins of migrants into the major Room Blocks at Grasshopper Pueblo.

individuals date to both the earlier and later stages ofoccupation at Grasshopper, suggesting that movementfrom the Mogollon Rim to Grasshopper was a com-plex, on-going process that consisted of multiple eventsover several decades. It also suggests that certain kindsof ties—social, ethnic, economic, and so forth—weremaintained between at least some of the Room Block 1inhabitants and communities along the MogollonRim through much of the occupational history ofGrasshopper. Given that there are immigrant malesand females represented in both Establishment/Aggregation and Dispersion/Abandonment groupsof burials, it is likely that movement occurred insocial, kin-based groups, following the structure of thefrontier migration model (Kopytoff, 1987; Schlegel,1992), which is discussed in greater detail below.

Dietary data based on trace element and stableisotope analyses is instructive as well. The diets of

Room Block 1 inhabitants are more eclectic than thoseof Room Block 2 or 3 inhabitants, with a greateremphasis on a mixed farming and foraging subsistencebase (Ezzo, 1992, 1993: 56, 83). This would seem to beindicative of a Mogollon pattern found along theMogollon Rim, as opposed to an Anasazi pattern fromthe Colorado Plateau, which emphasized maize agri-culture. The evidence for Anasazi influences alongthe Mogollon Rim in the 14th century is consider-able (see Reid, 1989; Cameron, 1995). In summary,Room Block 1 exhibits Mogollon-like traits (decoratedceramics, diet) and Anasazi-like traits (architecture),both of which seem to derive from the Mogollon Rim(Riggs, 1999, 2001). The implications of this mixture oftraits are discussed later.

The five local inhabitants at Room Block 1 are likelyoffspring of those who founded the room block; onlyone of them dates to the earlier period of occupation.


This also suggests that there was little or no localinfluence in the founding of Room Block 1.

Room Block 2/Great KivaRoom Block 2 is very distinct from Room Block 1 inarchitectural layout, construction technique, and roomsize distribution. Two large core construction units—one of 21 rooms and one of 13 rooms—are perhaps theearliest units built at Grasshopper, dating the end ofthe 1200s or first decade of the 1300s (Figure 10). Theroom block then expanded quickly, in fairly largeconstruction episodes. Rooms constructed around theGreat Kiva were built within a short time of each otherand appear to have been planned so that they couldserve as anchor points for the heavy beams that roofedthe Great Kiva (Riggs, 1999: 231). Once the two coreconstruction units were established, probably relativelyfew migrants came to settle in Room Block 2; rathermuch of Room Block 2 was probably settled by new,local households splitting off from the core units.

Room Block 2 was settled almost exclusively bylocals and those from the Grasshopper region. UnlikeRoom Blocks 1 & 3, there is no evidence for directsettlement of this room block by immigrants. Femalesfrom the Mogollon Rim and the Chevelon Valley arein evidence (Figure 11). Based on the preponderance oflocal males associated with nonlocal females in thisroom blocks, it is likely that the nonlocal influence atRoom Block 2 is more a function of intermarriage withnonlocal females who originally settled at either RoomBlock 1 or 3. A possible example of this is Burial 466,an adolescent woman buried beneath a room in thenorthern core construction unit, who appears to havecome from the Mogollon Rim. She is buried withGrasshopper polychrome vessels, and the 87Sr/86Sr ofher first molar enamel falls within the range of theMogollon Rim. She is buried next to an adult male(Burial 468) who patterns as local. Given that there areonly two data points, a number of plausible scenarioscan be constructed to explain this patterning. It ispossible the woman was part of an immigrant groupwho settled at Room Block 2, and the man is her son,born at Grasshopper. However, the consistent lack ofnonlocal males in Room Block 2 argues against asettling of an immigrant group (only one of 12 malesanalysed is an immigrant; Table 1). More likely thiswoman arrived at Grasshopper as a young child (seeFigure 12 for a verification of this) as part of a socialgroup that settled into either Room Block 1 or 3, andthen married into Room Block 2, only to die veryshortly afterward.

0.71787Sr/ 86Sr

0.708 0.709 0.710 0.711 0.712 0.713 0.714 0.715 0.716

– Local grasshopper range

Burial 466 (14–16)

Burial 460 (30–35)

Burial 178 (25–30)

Burial 560(40+)

Tooth enamelBone

Figure 12. 87Sr/86Sr Data of bone-first molar enamel pairs ofselected individuals from Grasshopper Pueblo.

Room Block 3/Plaza 1Room Block 3 was founded in the first decade of the14th century with a 5-room core construction unit(Figure 10). Additions were made soon after, andRoom Block 3 grew very rapidly after that. RoomBlocks 2 & 3 share many more similarities of material

culture and diet than either room block shared withRoom Block 1. Nevertheless, Room Block 3 is themost heterogeneous room block from an architecturalstandpoint, and appears to have resulted from moreconstruction episodes than at either of the othertwo.

As with Room Block 1, there is virtually no localinfluence in the early settlement occupation of RoomBlock 3. There is a regional influence, but it is not asconspicuous as in the other room blocks. The twoindividuals who pattern as regional, however, arelocated adjacent to a core construction unit in thenortheastern portion of the room block, similar towhat has been described for Room Block 1. Thissuggests, as with Room Blocks 1 & 2, that regionalreorganization occurred early and some (if not all) ofthe very earliest settlers into Room Block 3 derive fromthe Grasshopper region. Reid & Whittlesey (1999: 45)suggest that the regional influence in Room Block 3may have derived from Chodistaas Pueblo, an 18-roompueblo 2 km north of Grasshopper Pueblo that datesto the last quarter of the 13th century. They cite anumber of similarities, such as architectural layout(rooms oriented around rectangular plazas) and pro-jectile points for use with the bow and arrow(Lorentzen, 1993).

There are also a Mogollon Rim and Chevelon Valleyinfluences, which likewise occur in Room Block 2.There also appears to be a late (post- 1330) influencefrom the Payson area at the western edge of theMogollon Rim (Figure 11). The Mogollon Rim con-tingent may be more closely tied to Anasazi stock;burials tend to have Pinto-Gila polychromes associatedwith them, which are part of the Roosevelt Red Wareseries, and are thought to have strong Anasaziinfluences (see Montgomery & Reid, 1990; Reid et al.,1992; Zedeno, 1992). This connection, however, is notstrong. The diets of Room Block 3 inhabitants, which


are more strongly oriented toward maize agriculturethan anywhere else at the site, are likewise moretypically Anasazi than Mogollon in nature (Ezzo,1992, 1993: 83). Room Block 3, therefore, appears tobe a cultural inversion of Room Block 1: Anasazi-liketraits (e.g., diet, possibly ceramics) and Mogollon-liketraits (e.g., architecture) fused in a complex fashion.The implications of this are discussed later.

In sharp contrast to Room Block 2, the majority ofimmigrants are males. This suggests movement ingroups, rather than intermarriage. Again, the frontiermigration model, of people moving in social groupsthat are likely kin-based, maintaining social andeconomic ties with the region(s) of their origin, func-tions well in explaining the 87Sr/86Sr data from RoomBlock 3.

As with Room Block 1, local inhabitants at RoomBlock 3 tend to date to the later period of occupation,suggesting that they are offspring of earlier, nonlocalsettlers. The Payson area connection is highly specula-tive at this time, and based on only two burials. Thereare no corroborating lines of evidence to strengthen anargument for a Payson area origin. One of the burials(Burial 601) does have a Roosevelt Red Ware vessel(Pinto Polychrome) in association, but by the mid-14thcentury this ware is fairly ubiquitous throughout east-central Arizona, and likely had several loci of manu-facture (White & Burton, 1992). It is known that thePayson area was largely depopulated by the early1300s, and it is not known where the inhabitants went,although Grasshopper has been suggested as at leastone possibility (Redman, 1993).

Dispersion/abandonment period of migration intoGrasshopper PuebloBy about 1330, Grasshopper Pueblo had reachedits peak of population. Satellite communities such asRed Rock House and Canyon Creek Ruin had beensettled (Graves, 1982, 1983; Haury, 1934), likelyresulting from the dual processes of niche filling (thebudding off of new households from Grasshopper)and arrival of new immigrants into the region (Reid,1989). Plaza 3 was converted into the Great Kivaabout this time (Riggs, 1999, 2001), and it served tohouse community-wide and regional-wide ceremonies(Reid & Montgomery, 1999). There is environ-mental and dietary evidence of increased stress on theGrasshopper population after 1330. Environ-mental degradation—resulting from climatic deterio-ration and overexploitation of forests and game herds(Holbrook, 1982, 1983; Olsen, 1990)—resulted in asignificant reduction of wild foods in the diets and aconcomitant increased reliance on maize (Ezzo, 1992,1993, 1994; Lowell, 1995, 1999; Welch, 1996). This inturn led to increased stress on health (Berry, 1983,1985), particularly with regard to subadults (Hinkes,1983; Whittlesey, 2000). There is also some evidencefor violence (Allen, Merbs & Birkby, 1985). The

combined factors of increased stress, lack of availablearable land, and possibly breakdowns in variousinterregional economic networks led to a decline inthe Grasshopper population (Ezzo, 1993; Graveset al., 1982a,b; Tuggle, Reid & Cole, 1984; Welch,1996).

Nevertheless, immigrants continued to relocate intothe pueblo. Nine of the 17 individuals analysedfor 87Sr/86Sr who date to the Dispersion andAbandonment periods of occupations pattern asimmigrants. None of these individuals derive from theGrasshopper region, which was expected. Regionalreorganization was largely completed by this time, asinhabitants from the Grasshopper region moved fromsmall, dispersed communities into larger settlements.By the 1320s, however, a reverse process was begin-ning in which residents of the large settlements weremoving back into the hinterlands and founding smallcommunities, often in areas of restricted accessthat emphasized defense, again reflecting a state ofheightened stress (Welch, 2000).

Immigration appears to have continued into RoomBlocks 1 & 3 from the Mogollon Rim, along with apossible enclave of Payson area natives relocating intoRoom Block 3. The latter inference has some supportfrom archaeological data, in which it appears that thePayson area, particularly sites such as Shoofly Ruin,was abandoned in the early 1300s and its populationdispersed, with most of them likely going southinto Tonto Basin, but others splitting off and goingelsewhere (Redman, 1993).

Burial 338, a resident of Room Block 5, matches theWalnut Creek signature (Table 1). This is the onlyindividual to have such a signature; it may represent amigration from the Q Ranch region (discussed below),or from a region not analysed in the present study.Room Block 5—a small room block immediately northof Room Block 1 consisting of six room spaces—isunique at Grasshopper for its conspicuous presence ofturquoise (Welch & Triadan, 1991) and copper bells(Reid, 1989; Reid & Whittlesey, 1999: 81–83). Thesingle data point makes interpretation highly specula-tive at best; the one other individual analysed from thisroom block (from the Establishment and Aggregationperiods) appears to have originated from the MogollonRim (Burial 318; Table 1).

Little can be said of migration into the outliers. Onlythree individuals were available for 87Sr/86Sr analysis(one each from Room Blocks 7, 9, & 11); two wereimmigrants with a likely origin on the Mogollon Rim,whereas the third (from Room Block 7) is local(Table 1). From these few data points, nothing unusualor unique with regard to Grasshopper settlementcan be inferred. It can be suggested that MogollonRim immigrants of the Dispersion and Abandonmentperiods settled in both the main room blocks and theoutliers, and that some locals—most likely the off-spring of households from the main room blocks—settled in the outliers as well.


Discussion

General trends

The 87Sr/86Sr data, coupled with chronometric,ceramic, and architectural data, have provided anumber of insights into the settlement dynamics ofGrasshopper Pueblo. At least two distinct patterns ofmigration are observed: first, movement in socialgroups, which would consist of men, women, andchildren who are likely related by kin; and second,movement of females for purposes of marrying into thecommunity. This marriage pattern would have servedseveral purposes, including the maintenance of socialand economic links with extraregional communities.According to Graves et al. (1982a,b), such ties wereessential to the survival of the Grasshopper com-munity. Breakdowns in such ties, which occurred latein the 1300s, contributed to instability and the eventualabandonment of the site and region around 1400.In terms of the presence of immigrants, the internalfrontier pattern of movement (discussed below) isindicative of migration into Room Blocks 1 & 3,whereas migrants found in Room Block 2 reflect apattern of intermarriage.

The pattern of intermarriage at Room Block 2 wasthe result of marrying immigrant females who hadsettled at Room Blocks 1 & 3. Immigrant females fromRoom Blocks 1 & 2 with 87Sr/86Sr signatures from theMogollon Rim, for example, exhibit considerable simi-larity in associated grave goods. If this pattern ofintermarriage did occur, it would accord with Birkby’s(1982) interpretation, based on discontinuous morpho-logical cranial traits, of male exogamy at the majorroom blocks (his data make a somewhat stronger casefor Room Block 2 & 3 as opposed to Room Block 1).This practice would have served to solidify ties betweenroom blocks; community-wide sodalities likely existedat Grasshopper (see Reid, 1989; Reid & Whittlesey,1999: 112–119), and the Great Kiva, built in the 1320s(Riggs, 1999, 2001), was used for community- andregional-wide ceremonies (Reid & Montgomery, 1999).Intermarriage between room blocks may have servedas an additional integrating mechanism within thecommunity.

In the foregoing discussion of the settlement trendsin the three room blocks, reference was made for anAnasazi (Colorado Plateau) influence along theMogollon Rim. The 87Sr/86Sr data failed to fingerprintany individuals who may have come to Grasshopperdirectly from the Colorado Plateau, but 15 immigrantsexhibited a signature indicative of the MogollonRim. We hypothesize a two-step migration from theColorado Plateau to Grasshopper via the MogollonRim. Social groups from the Plateau resettled along theMogollon Rim, and offspring of these settlers, perhapsonly one or two generations removed, then proceededfurther south to Grasshopper, moving primarily inkin-based groups.

It is intriguing to note that immigrants continuedto relocate into the site despite the depopulation ofGrasshopper Pueblo after 1330. This underscoresthe complexity of aggregated pueblo settlement, thefluidity of such communities, and the multiple direc-tions of movement that must be considered in dealingwith issues of interregional migration. The majority ofthese migrants appear to derive from MogollonRim, suggesting they already had developed ties toGrasshopper, which would have facilitated movementthere. It is very likely that some of the individualsdispersing from Grasshopper at this time may haverelocated back to the Mogollon Rim homeland. Otherimmigrants, such as the possible Payson area enclave,may have made an initial migration to Grasshopperafter 1330. It is certainly feasible that such indi-viduals had ties to the site from an earlier period, andthat sampling bias has simply obscured the presence ofsuch ties.

Dynamics of residential mobility and migrationThe settlement of Grasshopper Pueblo coincidedwith an intense period of aggregation in the WhiteMountains (Longacre, 1976; Reid, 1989). TheGrasshopper region was sparsely populated in the late1200s, with small groups of people living in dispersedsites, and served as an internal frontier for bothregional reorganization and interregional migration.Frontiers have generally been described by historiansas unsettled land into which states moved (e.g. Turner,1961), and by geographers as unoccupied zonesbetween settled regions (e.g. Prescott, 1978). Kopytoff(1987) took the frontier concept further, formulatingthe notion of an ‘‘internal’’ or ‘‘interstitial’’ frontier,a sparsely populated region that lacked politicalhegemony and into which disaffected or ambitiousgroups of individuals could move. According toSchlegel (1992: 377):

Kopytoff (1987: 11) pointed out two features of particularimportance: frontier areas were unpoliced by the small‘‘metropoles,’’ as he calls them, from which the frontiers-men came; and, in most instances, the frontiersmen werenot the advance agents of metropolitan expansion. Hence,the frontier could become a stage for the emergence ofnumerous small-scale independent communities, most ofwhich eventually faltered but some of which grew intolarger polities that provided the nucleus for the emergenceof new societies. In Kopytoff’s analysis, the frontier is aset of conditions rather than half of the state-frontierquestion.

Kopytoff’s (1987) conditions were described andapplied by Schlegel (1992) to the Hopi. Six con-ditions were of particular importance, and are likewiseimportant to the Grasshopper Pueblo analysis:

� Movement into the frontier. Factors for movementoften result from intracommunity conflict—witchcraft accusations, oppressive authority of


elders, power struggles between factions, and soforth. ‘‘Open land made it possible for the dis-affected or the ambitious to move onward’’(Schlegel, 1992: 378).

� Movement in groups. People moved in groups,and remembered where they came from; commonorigin in fact or myth became the basis for kin orpseudo-kin groups at the new settlement.

� Social integration through kinship. Immigrant groupswere often kin, and, if not, they created ties ofkinship. In many middle-range societies, ‘‘claims tomutual protection and to sharing of resources aregenerally phrased in terms of kinship’’ (Schlegel,1992: 379).

� Firstcomers versus Later comers. Firstcomers werelikely to welcome later arrivals as additions to thecommunity’s marital pool and fighting force. Laterimmigrant groups tended to be small, so they moreor less had to accept the firstcomers’ terms.

� Shared backgrounds. Most migrants at a settle-ment have shared cultural backgrounds andsimilar technological capabilities. Shared beliefs,values, and organizational assumptions facilitatedadjustment.

� Weak hold of authority. In those frontier com-munities that failed to evolve into complex polities,the firstcomers who represented the ruling groupshad a weak hold of authority on their followers, whocould always move on. ‘‘There had to be somecongruence between the authority that leaders couldassert and the willingness of the subordinatesto remain, putting a brake on leaders’ power.’’(Schlegel, 1992: 379).

The settlement dynamics of Grasshopper Puebloclosely followed the basic conditions of the internalfrontier migration model. Clearly the area wassparsely populated and lacked any sort of centralizedpolitical authority prior to the migrations of the late13th century. Migration almost certainly involvedgroups who were kin or pseudo-kin. Much of theremaining discussion of this paper deals with thisissue. The shared cultural backgrounds and tech-nological similarities of various groups will also be aprincipal focus of discussion. The weak hold ofauthority is likewise discussed in detail below.Some thoughts on the idea of firstcomers versus latercomers are provided here.

It is not by coincidence that earliest settlers—be theylocal, regional, or extraregional in origin—selected thesite where Grasshopper Pueblo was constructed astheir location of settlement. Walter Hough (1930)recognized the wealth of local resources and favourablefarmlands adjacent to the site when he visited theregion more than 70 years ago. According to Tuggle,Reid & Cole (1984; see also Welch, 1996), approxi-mately 85% of the best arable land on the GrasshopperPlateau occurs within a 5-km radius of GrasshopperPueblo. The combination of the channel of Salt River

Draw and local springs provided a permanent sourceof fresh water, the surrounding pinyon-juniper wood-lands and conspicuous bedrock outcrops providedeasily accessible fuel and construction materials(Agenbroad, 1982; Holbrook, 1982; Reid & Shimada,1982; Riggs, 1999, 2001; Scarborough & Shimada,1974). Firstcomers to Grasshopper Pueblo not onlydesigned and formulated the first rule-making groups,they also had access to the best farmland, and thereforestaked an important claim to ensure the opportunityfor stable habitation.

Latecomers to the site were more restricted in select-ing where they could build, what lands they couldutilize for agriculture, and they needed to learn therules of membership in order to be admitted into thedifferent social groups that had already been estab-lished. This in part might explain variability in the dietsof the inhabitants of the major room blocks, a pointbrought out in considerable detail by Riggs (1999,2001). In short, latecomers likely had little choice butto follow the rules developed by the firstcomers. If suchrules were not to their liking, they could always moveon. Some apparently did, founding sites such asCanyon Creek Pueblo (Graves, 1982, 1983; Haury,1934); others, perhaps less disaffected, settled intooutlying room blocks at Grasshopper Pueblo. It isfurther likely that some of them married locals atGrasshopper and set up households either in the mainroom blocks, or outliers, or may have decided againstsettling at Grasshopper after marriage and relocated toa satellite community.

The inference that immigrants to GrasshopperPueblo likely moved in social groups finds supportfrom the 87Sr/86Sr data when bone—first molar enamelpairs are considered (Figure 12). Because the fourindividuals in Figure 12 lived the last years of theirlives and were interred at Grasshopper, it was expectedthat their bones would reflect the local Grasshopper87Sr/86Sr range. In fact, 11 of the 14 Grasshopperindividuals whose bones (in each case the femoralmidshaft) were analysed conformed to this expectation(Ezzo, Johnson & Price, 1997: Table 2). The threeexceptions were immigrants whose bone 87Sr/86Srfell between their enamel 87Sr/86Sr and the localGrasshopper range. This suggests that these indi-viduals had not lived long enough at Grasshopper—certainly less than 10 years prior to death—to havetheir bones fully remodel to the local 87Sr/86Sr signa-ture, and allows for an estimation of the age of theseindividuals when they arrived at Grasshopper. Thefour immigrants in Figure 12—all of whom arefemale—arrived at Grasshopper at different ages:Burial 466, as a young child; Burial 178, as anadolescent; Burial 460, in her mid-20s, and Burial 560,in her mid-30s or later. This range of ages reflects whatwould be expected if people were moving in kin-basedsocial groups, as opposed to moving singly (forexample, females moving expressly to marry into thecommunity).


Routes of migration

The themes of the internal frontier and the conditionsfor migration will continue throughout the remainderof the paper. While the model provides some inferencesregarding the processes of movement, it is appropri-ate now to turn to a discussion of the migratoryroutes. First, it is necessary to distinguish betweenintraregional and interregional movement. Intra-regional movement concerns regional reorganization;interregional movement deals with at least three paths:from the Mogollon Rim; from Chevelon Valley; andfrom the Payson area.

Regional reorganization began in the Grasshopperregion in the last quarter and the 13th century and bythe early 14th century the dispersed nature of settle-ment pattern based on small pueblos had disappeared,giving way to a pattern of relatively few larger, aggre-gated sites located in well-watered areas. No doubtdeteriorating environmental conditions, brought on bythe Great Drought ( 1276–1299) had an impact onthe aggregation strategy (Dean & Robinson, 1982;Reid & Shimada, 1982), but there appears to be othervariables as well, such as an evolution toward a greaterreliance on agriculture (Ezzo, 1992, 1993, 1994; Welch,1996), and defense and safety concerns (Montgomery,1992; Tuggle, 2000; Welch, 2000). In addition, nativeinhabitants of the region had begun encountering thefirst waves of immigrants. This interaction no doubtstimulated greater interest in interregional exchangenetworks; moving to localities where immigrants weresettled would have provided ready ties to distant areas.In summary, reorganization was rapid, regional-widein scale, and the result of a complex mix of social,economic, and environmental factors. For indi-vidual groups, relocation to large pueblos such asGrasshopper and Kinishba was most likely a single-step process. The deliberate burning of some late-13thcentury sites, such as Chodistaas Pueblo, suggestseither a ritual death of the site by its inhabitants as theydeparted, or possibly was the result of deliberate actionby early settlers at aggregated sites that compelled thesmall-site residents to do likewise (Montgomery, 1992;Reid, 1989).

The movement from Chevelon Valley, over 100 kmfrom Grasshopper, may have been a two-step processthat involved Q Ranch Pueblo. Q Ranch Pueblo is notonly close to Grasshopper, but also contemporaneous,and the two sites are remarkably similar in terms ofmaterial culture, architecture, and so forth (Reid, 1989;Riggs, 1999, 2001; Whittlesey & Reid, 1982a,b).Economic ties between the two sites likely existed. TheChevelon Valley was largely depopulated by the end ofthe 13th century (Whittlesey & Reid, 1982a), and it islikely that inhabitants there moved south into the QRanch region, which does become intensively occupiedduring the early portions of the fourteenth century(Whittlesey & Reid, 1982b). From there it would havebeen relatively easy to continue on to Grasshopper.

This could have been accomplished in the samegeneration, with Chevelon Valley natives relocatingfor a short period at Q Ranch, then moving on toGrasshopper.

The Mogollon Rim migration pattern is somewhatmore complex, because of the fusion of Anasazi andMogollon material culture carried down from the Rimarea into Grasshopper. As discussed in the followingsection, the central portion of the Mogollon Rim isviewed as a ‘‘melting pot’’, where locals and immi-grants from the Colorado Plateau interacted forgenerations. Although the actual movement of peoplefrom the Rim into Grasshopper was probably via adirect route, the earlier Anasazi migrations into theRim area must be taken into account, as it was highlylikely that the descendents of some of these migrants,born and raised along the Mogollon Rim, eventuallymoved on and relocated at Grasshopper Pueblo.Therefore, although the route to Grasshopper wasprobably direct, the ethnic diversity and cultural rootsof the various groups of Mogollon Rim migrants wereconsiderable.

The Payson area origin for migration is the leastconvincing suggested by the 87Sr/86Sr data, and there-fore will be dealt with very briefly. The distance fromthe Payson area to Grasshopper is such that a migra-tion could have occurred as a direct, single-stepprocess.

Ethnicity and diversityIt is important to recognize that for whatever reasonspeople chose to migrate—disaffection, ambition,economic anxiety, and so forth—the inability tobecome sufficiently integrated into the new communitylikely led to additional movement, or more drasticresults, such as violence. Haury’s (1958) documenta-tion of a Kayenta migration into Point of Pines is acase in point. Here a very distinct group of foreignersrelocated to the pueblo, living separately and maintain-ing a discrete material culture. It is not certain howlong they remained, but the small room block wherethey lived was eventually burned in its entirety. There-fore, for distinct social or ethnic groups to residetogether in relative harmony, certain similarities, suchas level of technology, cultural heritage, level of sub-sistence practices, or level of political sophistication,may have been necessary. In addition, such a configu-ration may have provided an efficient means of socialcontrol and decision making.

The fusion of Mogollon and Anasazi traits found inthe various room blocks at Grasshopper Pueblo makesit difficult to define specific, spatially-discrete ethnicgroups. As discussed above, diets in Room Block 1suggest a Mogollon affiliation; yet the architectureof the room block clearly exhibits strong Anasazitendencies. The inverse is true of Room Block 3. Thecommonality of extraregional immigrant origins forRoom Blocks 1 & 3 is the central portion of the


Mogollon Rim, and it is here that some explanationsfor this complex fusion of traits may be found.

The Silver Creek drainage of the Mogollon Rim,where 87Sr/86Sr analysis was undertaken on localrodents (the sites of Bailey and Pottery Hill) has a longrecord of prehistoric human occupation and contactwith the Colorado Plateau. Newcomb (1999) modelleda variety of population trajectories through time forthe region in a variety of ways, but in each case showedthat population reached a peak at about 1075. Themajority of her models also showed a trend towarddecreased population in the first half of the 14thcentury, a period of time when the Grasshopperregion was growing from 200 rooms to 1900 rooms(Longacre, 1976; Tuggle, 1970). This pattern of 14thcentury dispersion is indicative of several areas alongthe Mogollon Rim (Kintigh, 1996; Lightfoot, 1984;Pilles, 1996). From a demographic point of view, theMogollon Rim is therefore a likely point of origin formigrants into the Grasshopper Region.

The long-standing influences of the ColoradoPlateau on the Mogollon Rim are important to recog-nize. There is a general consensus that RooseveltRed Ware, a widespread decorated ceramic traditionin the 13th and 14th centuries in central Arizona,derives from Colorado Plateau influences (Reid et al.,1992; White, 1993; White & Burton, 1992; Zedeno,1992, 1994, 1995). Crown (1994) maintains thatRoosevelt Red Wares are a combination of Tusayan-Kayenta, Cibola, and White Mountain ceramic tradi-tions, and that the earliest Roosevelt Red Ware vesselsmost closely resemble Hopi Orange/Yellow Ware inform and design. The arrival of these ceramic traitsfrom the Colorado Plateau to the Mogollon Rimis indicative more of a migration of people thanmerely long-distance exchange of pots (see Reid &Montgomery 1998; Triadan, 1997; White, 1993;Zedeno, 1994). Roosevelt Red Ware vessels are com-mon in the Silver Creek Drainage, along with WhiteMountain Red Wares—which have a Rim origin(Triadan, 1997)—in the late 13th century. Theyare also present at Chodistaas Pueblo (Reid &Montgomery, 1990; Reid et al., 1989, 1992; Zedeno,1992, 1994).

This ceramic diversity, along with considerableheterogeneity in architectural styles, subsistencepatterns, and exchange networks, suggests that theMogollon Rim region may have functioned as a cul-tural ‘‘melting pot’’ or ‘‘joint-use area’’ in whichtraits of local and of the Colorado Plateau traditionscoexisted, commingled, and occasionally fused (Reid,1989; Reid & Whittlesey, 1999: 32). Based on recentstudies of ceramic sourcing (Triadan, 1997; Zedeno,1994, 1995; also see Cameron, 1995), in which itappears that people were moving on the landscape atleast as often as pots, it makes sense to believe thatpeople with roots on the Colorado Plateau and thosewith local Mogollon Rim origins were living side-by-side. This would help to explain the fusion of Anasazi

and Mogollon traits carried down into GrasshopperPueblo by immigrants from the Mogollon Rim.

In summary, the Grasshopper Pueblo communitymust be viewed not only in terms of its own evolutionbut also in light of those forces shaping earlier com-munities that could come to influence Grasshopper.Distinctive ethnic groups may not be clearly visiblein the archaeological record at Grasshopper Pueblobecause migrant groups did not necessarily move intothe community as representatives of a single ethnicity,but as a mixture of different ethnic groups that hadsettled and commingled for some generations along theMogollon Rim. Nevertheless, ethnic coresidence isevident at Grasshopper, and certainly the communityreflected a variety of distinctive backgrounds carried byvarious locals and nonlocals who settled at the site.

Networks: exchange of goods, movements of peopleMovements of people on the landscape was not aparticularly interesting topic to the early processualarchaeologists. A greater emphasis was placed on themovement of goods as viewed in terms of economictransactions and the creation of exchange networks.More recent compositional studies of ceramics haveindicated that potters as well as pots move andrelocate. This migration of potters has much to offertoward explanations of the local manufacture ofceramic styles that originate elsewhere (e.g., Triadan,1997; White & Burton, 1992; Zedeno, 1994). Zedeno(1994: 124) sums up the economic significance of thismovement as follows:

Frequent or even sporadic movement of social unitsmay have stimulated the establishment of long-distancereciprocal relationships among two or more communities.This system likely opened access to resources fromdifferent environments as well as nonlocal goods, main-taining social and political ties through marriage, andfostered community identity by transcending social andethnolinguistic boundaries.

Graves et al. (1982a,b) postulate a similar mech-anism for social and economic stability in theGrasshopper community, and maintain that the break-down of such interregional networks was a criticalfactor—perhaps even more so than the environmentaldeterioration after 1350—in the stress that grippedthe community after 1330 and led to its ultimateabandonment.

The complex and varied material culture record ofGrasshopper Pueblo reflects the multiple points oforigin and ethnic diversity of the community, andthe multiple interregional networks that such groupsdeveloped and maintained during their residence. Oneneed not postulate any centralized authority as amechanism for such a diverse ceramic assemblage, forexample, when a far more useful and parsimoniousexplanation considers the diversity of groups inhabit-ing the site and maintaining economic and social ties


with their points of origin (see Reid & Whittlesey,1990).

Fragmentation of the internal frontierThe overall fragility of the Grasshopper system, as wellas a number of factors that contributed to the declineand abandonment of the community, have been dis-cussed above. Just as the lack of centralized authoritycontributed to the growth and development of theGrasshopper community, allowing immigrants fromseveral regions to settle and live at the site, so the lackof the evolution of strong, centralized political organ-ization contributed to the ultimate demise, or fragmen-tation, of the community. This freedom of movementand relocation, as well as the prospect of welcomingnew immigrants, created a level of community instabil-ity that would eventually become too vulnerable to themanifold levels of stress encountered after 1330. Inthis sense it is worthwhile to view Grasshopper Puebloas a node—rather than a beginning or end point—in acyclical continuum of human movement that charac-terized much of Southwestern prehistory. Conse-quently, the dynamics of Grasshopper communitysettlement, evolution, and organization, can only beunderstood analytically in terms of what came beforeand after. Schlegel (1992: 389) states the following withregard to the Hopi, which has implications for theGrasshopper case study:

No matter how many integrative institutions and practiceswere devised and how often people expressed the need tomaintain harmony and a ‘‘good heart,’’ the system failedfrom time to time. Disgruntled secondary lineages, low-status clans, or losing factions could simply move on.Without the resources to form larger and more centralizedpolities, Hopi communities were always vulnerable tofragmentation.

Fragmentation is a political process that can have manyprecipitating causes . . . threats to economic well-beingresulting from environmental stress must have been acommon cause for disaffection in the arid Southwest.

Concluding ThoughtsThe reconstruction of community dynamics atGrasshopper Pueblo based on the data presented hereis one of a loosely knit community based aroundhouseholds and small social groups. A considerablediversity of such groups likely cohabited the site,maintaining social and economic ties to regions whencethey originated. The community was likely fluid, withpeople moving in and out of the site throughout itsoccupational history. Certain integrative mechanisms,like sodalities, ceremonialism, and intermarriage,created stronger ties that committed people to themaintenance of a certain level of stability to perpetuatethe life of the community. Consequently, the com-munity was composed of multiple layers of socialand economic relationships, most likely arranged in

heterarchical rather than hierarchical fashion (Ezzo,1999, 2000). The general fragility of the system,coupled with a marginal subsistence technology in anunstable climatic and environmental setting, createdmultiple layers of stress—not just at Grasshopper, butthroughout the region and neighbouring regions—thatoutstripped the efficiency of regional and inter-regional economic networks and brought about rapiddepopulation that concluded with the completeabandonment of the region by about 1400.

This paper has generated some new inferencesregarding settlement and community dynamics atGrasshopper Pueblo, as well as revisiting a consider-able number of inferences formulated by other scholarsworking at Grasshopper. The inferences revisited arelargely and rather powerfully supported by the 87Sr/86Sr data, demonstrating the remarkably stronganalytical case that the data base from GrasshopperPueblo has provided its researchers.

Finally, this paper has underscored the potentialanalytical power of 87Sr/86Sr data in archaeologicalresearch. More importantly, it has sought to emphasizehow critical it is for such data to be integrated into thelarger sphere of archaeological evidence if meaningfulinferences are to be drawn. The multiple lines ofevidence from Grasshopper Pueblo have made it anideal natural laboratory for the employment of 87Sr/86Sr data as a tool for learning about the human past.

AcknowledgementsOur special thanks to the White Mountain ApacheTribal Council for allowing this research to beundertaken. Various analyses were performed in theRadiogenic Isotope Laboratory (Department ofGeology, University of Wisconsin), the Laboratoryfor Archaeological Chemistry (Department ofAnthropology, University of Wisconsin), and theIsotope Geochemistry Laboratory (University ofNorth Carolina, Chapel Hill). Funding for earlierphases of this research was provided by NationalScience Foundation Grant BNS-9111680 and theGraduate School of the University of Wisconsin to theauthors, along with Clark M. Johnson and James H.Burton. Portions of this paper were presented at theconference ‘‘Human Mate Choice and PrehistoricMarital Networks’’ at the International ResearchCenter for Japanese Studies, Kyoto, Japan, November2000, and at the 66th Annual Meeting of the Societyfor American Archaeology, New Orleans, April 2001.J. A. E. expresses his deepest thanks to TakeruAkazawa for inviting him to participate in the KyotoConference. We thank those who were instrumental inproviding permission and access to the prehistoricrodent bones analysed in this study: Jonathan Haasand Steven Nash (Field Museum of Natural History,Chicago); Barbara Mills (University of Arizona);Arleyn Simon (Archaeological Research Center,


Arizona State University); Charles Redman andMichael Barton (Department of Anthropology,Arizona State University); and George Gumerman andArthur Vokes (Arizona State Museum). We also thankJ. Jefferson Reid, Charles R. Riggs, Gina Lee Barnes,Mark Hudson, Jean-Jacques Hublin, Minoru Yoneda,Richard Klein, and two anonymous reviewers forcomments on earlier drafts of this paper. CharlesRiggs and Chester Schmidt digitized the figures. Allerrors and shortcomings in the paper are solely theresponsibility of the authors.

ReferencesAgenbroad, L. D. (1982). Geology and lithic resources of the

Grasshopper region. In (W. A. Longacre, S. J. Holbrook & M. W.Graves, Eds) Multidisciplinary Research at Grasshopper Pueblo,Arizona. Tucson: Anthropological Papers of the University ofArizona 40, University of Arizona, pp. 42–45.

Allen, W. H., Merbs, C. F. & Birkby, W. H. (1985). Evidencefor prehistoric scalping at Nuvakwewtaqa (Chavez Pass) andGrasshopper Ruin, Arizona. In (C. F. Merbs & R. J. Miller, Eds)Health and Disease in the Prehistoric Southwest. Tempe:Anthropological Research Papers 34, Arizona State University,pp. 23–42.

Berry, D. R. (1983). Disease and climatological relationship amongPueblo III-Pueblo IV Anasazi of the Colorado Plateau. Ph.D.Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, U.S.A.

Berry, D. R. (1985). Dental pathology of Grasshopper Pueblo,Arizona. In (C. F. Merbs & R. J. Miller, Eds) Health and Diseasein the Prehistoric Southwest. Tempe: Anthropological ResearchPapers 34, Arizona State University, pp. 253–274.

Birkby, W. H. (1982). Biosocial interpretations from cranial nonmet-ric traits of Grasshopper Pueblo skeletal remains. In (W. A.Longacre, S. J. Holbrook & M. W. Graves, Eds) MultidisciplinaryResearch at Grasshopper Pueblo, Arizona. Tucson: Anthropologi-cal Papers of the University of Arizona 40, University of Arizona,pp. 36–41.

Cameron, C. M. (1995). Migration and the movement of South-western peoples. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 14,104–124.

Crown, P. L. (1994). Ceramics and Ideology: Salado PolychromePottery. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Dean, J. S. & Robinson, W. J. (1982). Dendrochronology ofGrasshopper Pueblo. In (W. A. Longacre, S. J. Holbrook & M. W.Graves, Eds) Multidisciplinary Research at Grasshopper Pueblo,Arizona. Tucson: Anthropological Papers of the University ofArizona 40, University of Arizona, pp. 46–60.

Ericson, J. E., Hurst, R. W. & David, T. E. (1986). Strontium isotopecharacterization of teeth for tracing residence patterns. GeologicalSociety of America Abstracts 99945.

Ezzo, J. A. (1991). Dietary change at Grasshopper Pueblo, Arizona:the evidence from bone chemistry analysis. Ph. D. dissertation,University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, U.S.A.

Ezzo, J. A. (1992). Dietary change and variability at GrasshopperPueblo. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 11, 219–289.

Ezzo, J. A. (1993). Human Adaptation at Grasshopper Pueblo,Arizona: Social and Ecological Perspectives. Ann Arbor:International Monographs in Prehistory.

Ezzo, J. A. (1994). Paleonutrition at Grasshopper Pueblo, Arizona.In (K. D. Sobolik, Ed.) The Diet and Health of PrehistoricAmericans. Carbondale: Occasional Papers No. 22, Center forArchaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University,pp. 265–279.

Ezzo, J. A. (1999). A heterarchical perspective on aggregatedpueblo social organization: A case study of Grasshopper Pueblo,east-central Arizona. In (S. M. Whittlesey, Ed.) Sixty Years ofMogollon Archaeology. Tucson: SRI Press, pp. 31–37.

Ezzo, J. A. (2000). Complexity. Paper presented at the TenthMogollon Conference, Las Cruces, New Mexico, October.

Ezzo, J. A., Johnson, C. M. & Price, T. D. (1997). Analyticalperspectives on prehistoric migration: A case study from east-central Arizona. Journal of Archaeological Science 24, 447–466.

Faure, G. (1986). Principles of Isotope Geology. New York: JohnWiley & Sons.

Fulginiti, L. (1993). Discontinuous Morphological Variation atGrasshopper Pueblo, Arizona. Ph.D. Dissertation, University ofArizona, Tucson, AZ, U.S.A.

Graves, M. W. (1982). Anomalous tree-ring dates and the sequenceof room construction at Canyon Creek Ruin, east-central Arizona.The Kiva 47, 107–131.

Graves, M. W. (1983). Growth and aggregation at Canyon CreekRuin: implications for evolutionary change in east-centralArizona. American Antiquity 48, 290–315.

Graves, M. W. (1991). Estimating ring loss on tree-ring specimensfrom east-central Arizona: implications for prehistoricpueblo growth at Grasshopper Ruin. Journal of QuantitativeAnthropology 3, 83–115.

Graves, M. W., Holbrook, S. J. & Longacre, W. A. (1982).Aggregation and abandonment at Grasshopper Pueblo: evolution-ary trends in the late prehistory of east-central Arizona. In (W. A.Longacre, S. J. Holbrook & M. W. Graves, Eds) MultidisciplinaryResearch at Grasshopper Pueblo, Arizona. Tucson: Anthropologi-cal Papers of the University of Arizona 40, University of Arizona,pp. 110–121.

Graves, M. W., Longacre, W. A. & Holbrook, S. J. (1982b).Aggregation and abandonment at Grasshopper Pueblo, Arizona.Journal of Field Archaeology 9, 193–206.

Haury, E. W. (1934). The Canyon Creek Ruin and Cliff Dwellings ofthe Sierra Ancha. Globe, AZ: Gila Pueblo.

Haury, E. W. (1958). Evidence at Point of Pines for a prehistoricmigration from northern Arizona. In (R. H. Thompson, Ed.)Migrations in New World Culture History. Tucson: Social ScienceBulletin 27, University of Arizona, pp. 1–6.

Hinkes, M. J. (1983). Skeletal Evidence of Stress in Subadults: Tryingto Come of Age at Grasshopper Pueblo. Ph.D. Dissertation,University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, U.S.A.

Holbrook, S. J. (1982). The prehistoric local environment ofGrasshopper Pueblo. Journal of Field Archaeology 9, 207–215.

Holbrook, S. J. (1983). Paleoecology of Grasshopper Pueblo,Arizona. National Geographic Society Research Reports 15,387–402.

Holbrook, S. J. & Graves, M. W. (1982). Modern environment of theGrasshopper region. In (W. A. Longacre, S. J. Holbrook & M. W.Graves, Eds) Multidisciplinary Research at Grasshopper Pueblo,Arizona. Tucson: Anthropological Papers of the University ofArizona 40, University of Arizona, pp. 5–11.

Hough, W. (1930). Exploration of ruins in the White MountainApache Indian Reservation. Smithsonian MiscellaneousCollections 72, 64–66. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.

Kintigh, K. W. (1996). The Cibola region in the post-Chacoan era.In (M. A. Adler, Ed.) The Prehistoric Pueblo World, 115–1350.Tucson: University of Arizona Press, pp. 131–144.

Kopytoff, I. (1987). The internal African frontier: The making ofAfrican political culture. In (I. Kopytoff, Ed.) The AfricanFrontier. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. 3–86.

Lightfoot, K. G. (1984). Prehistoric Political Dynamics: A CaseStudy from the American Southwest. Dekalb: Northern IllinoisUniversity Press.

Longacre, W. A. (1976). Population dynamics at the GrasshopperPueblo, Arizona. In (E. B. W. Zubrow, Ed.) DemographicArchaeology: Quantitative Approaches. Albuquerque: Universityof New Mexico Press, pp. 169–184.

Longacre, W. A. & Graves, M. W. (1982). Multidisciplinary studiesat Grasshopper Pueblo. In (W. A. Longacre, S. J. Holbrook &M. W. Graves, Eds) Multidisciplinary Research at GrasshopperPueblo, Arizona. Tucson: Anthropological Papers of theUniversity of Arizona 40, University of Arizona, pp. 1–4.


Longacre, W. A. & Reid, J. J. (1974). The University of ArizonaArchaeological Fieldschool at Grasshopper: eleven years ofmultidisciplinary research and teaching. The Kiva 40, 3–38.

Longacre, W. A., Holbrook, S. J. & Graves, M. W. (Eds) (1982).Multidisciplinary Research at Grasshopper Pueblo, Arizona.Tucson: Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona 40.

Lorentzen, L. H. (1993). From Atlatl to Bow: The Impact ofImproved Weapons on Wildlife in the Grasshopper Region.Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Department of Anthropology,Univesity of Arizona, Tucson, U.S.A.

Lowell, J. C. (1995). Illuminating fire-feature variability in theGrasshopper region. Kiva 60, 351–369.

Lowell, J. C. (1999). The fires of Grasshopper: Enlightening trans-formations in subsistence practices through fire-feature analysis.Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 18, 441–470.

Lowenstam, H. A. &. Weiner, S. (1989). On Biomineralization.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Montgomery, B. K. (1992). Pueblo room fill and prehistoric ritual.In (R. C. Lange & S. Germick, Eds) Proceedings of the SecondSalado Conference, Globe, AZ. Phoenix: Arizona ArchaeologicalSociety, pp. 125–130.

Montgomery, B. K. & Reid, J. J. (1990). An instance of rapidceramic change in the American Southwest. American Antiquity55, 88–97.

Newcomb, J. M. (1999). Silver Creek settlement patterns and paleo-demography. In (B. J. Mills, S. A. Herr & S. Van Keuren, Eds)Living on the Edge of the Rim. Tucson: Arizona State MuseumArchaeological series 192, University of Arizona, pp. 31–52.

Olsen, J. W. (1990). Vertebrate Faunal Remains from GrasshopperPueblo, Arizona. Ann Arbor: Anthropological Papers No. 83,University of Michigan.

Olsen, S. J. (1982). Water resources and aquatic fauna atGrasshopper Pueblo. In (W. A. Longacre, S. J. Holbrook & M. W.Graves, Eds) Multidisciplinary Research at Grasshopper Pueblo,Arizona. Tucson: Anthropological Papers of the University ofArizona 40, University of Arizona, pp. 61–62.

Olsen, S. J. & Olsen, J. W. (1970). A preliminary report on the fishand herpetofauna of Grasshopper Pueblo. The Kiva 36, 40–43.

Peirce, H. W. (1985). Arizona’s backbone: the transition zone.Arizona Bureau of Geology and Mineral Technology Fieldnotes 15,1–6.

Pilles, P. J. (1996). The Pueblo III period along the Mogollon Rim:The Honanki, Elden, and Turkey Hill phases of the Sinagua. In(M. A. Adler, Ed.) The Prehistoric Pueblo World, 115–1350.Tucson: University of Arizona Press, pp. 63–72.

Prescott, J. R. V. (1978). Borders and Frontiers. London: CroomHelm.

Price, T. D., Johnson, C. M., Ezzo, J. A., Ericson, J. E. & Burton,J. H. (1994). Residential Mobility in the late prehistoric South-west: A preliminary study using strontium isotopes. Journal ofArchaeological Science 21, 315–330.

Redman, C. L. (1993). People of the Tonto Rim. Washington, D.C.:Smithsonian Institution Press.

Reid, J. J. (1973). Growth and Response to Stress at GrasshopperPueblo, Arizona. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University ofArizona, Tucson, AZ, U.S.A.

Reid, J. J. (1978). Response to stress at Grasshopper Pueblo,Arizona. In (P. F. Grebinger, Ed.) Discovering Past Behavior:Experiments in the Archaeology of the Southwest. London: Gordonand Breach, pp. 195–213.

Reid, J. J. (1989). A Grasshopper perspective on the Mogollon ofthe Arizona mountains. In (L. Cordell & G. Gumerman, Eds)Dynamics of Southwestern Prehistory. Washington, D.C.:School of American Research Advanced Seminar SmithsonianInstitution, pp. 65–98.

Reid, J. J. (1999). The Grasshopper-Chavez Pass debate: Existentialdilemmas and archaeological discourse. In (S. M. Whittlesey, Ed.)Sixty Years of Mogollon Archaeology. Tucson: SRI Press,pp. 26–32.

Reid, J. J. & Montgomery, B. K. (1998). The brown and the gray:pots and population movement in east-central Arizona. Journal ofAnthropological Research 54, 447–459.

Reid, J. J. & Montgomery, B. K. (1999). Ceremonialism atGrasshopper Pueblo, Arizona. In (S. M. Whittlesey, Ed.) SixtyYears of Mogollon Archaeology. Tucson: SRI Press, pp. 16–22.

Reid, J. J. & Shimada, I. (1982). Pueblo growth at Grasshopper:Methods and models. In (W. A. Longacre, S. J. Holbrook &M. W. Graves, Eds) Multidisciplinary Research at GrasshopperPueblo, Arizona. Tucson: Anthropological Papers of theUniversity of Arizona 40, University of Arizona, pp. 12–18.

Reid, J. J. & Whittlesey, S. M. (1982). Households at GrasshopperPueblo. American Behavioral Scientist 25, 687–703.

Reid, J. J. & Whittlesey, S. M. (1990). The complicated and thecomplex: Observations on the archaeological record of largepueblos. In (P. Minnis & C. Redman, Eds) Perspectives onSouthwestern Prehistory. Boulder: Westview Press, pp. 184–195.

Reid, J. J. & Whittlesey, S. M. (1999). Grasshopper Pueblo: A Storyof Archaeology and Ancient Life. Tucson: University of ArizonaPress.

Reid, J. J., Welch, J. R., Montgomery, B. K. & Zedeno, M. N.(1996). A demographic overview of the late Pueblo III period inthe mountains of east-central Arizona. In (M. A. Adler, Ed.) ThePrehistoric Pueblo World, 115–1350. Tucson: University ofArizona Press, pp. 73–85.

Reid, J. J., Montgomery, B. K., Zedeno, M. N. & Neupert, M. A.(1992). The origin of Roosevelt Red Ware. In (R. C. Lange & S.Germick, Eds) Proceedings of the Second Salado Conference,Globe, AZ. Phoenix: Arizona Archaeological Society, pp. 212–215.

Reid, J. J., Schiffer, M. B., Whittlesey, S. M., Hinkes, M. J., Sullivan,A. P., Downum, C. E., Longacre, W. A. & Tuggle, H. D. (1989).Perception and interpretation in contemporary Southwesternarchaeology: Comments on Cordell, Upham, and Brock.American Antiquity 54, 802–814.

Riggs, C. R. (1999). The Architecture of Grasshopper Pueblo:Dynamics of Form, Function, and Use of Space in a PrehistoricCommunity. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson,AZ, U.S.A.

Riggs, C. R. (2001). The Architecture of Grasshopper Pueblo:Dynamices of Form, Function, and Use of Space in a PrehistoricCommunity. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

Scarborough, R. & Shimada, I. (1974). Geological analysis of wallcomposition at Grasshopper with behavioral implications. TheKiva 40, 49–66.

Schlegel, A. (1992). African political models in the American South-west: Hopi as an internal frontier society. American Anthropologist94, 376–397.

Sealy, J. C. (1989). Reconstruction of Later Stone Age Diets in theSouthwestern Cape, South Africa: Evaluation and Application ofFive Isotopic and Trace Element Techniques. Capetown: Universityof Capetown, South Africa.

Thompson, R. H. & Longacre, W. A. (1966). The University ofArizona archaeological fieldschool at Grasshopper, east-centralArizona. The Kiva 31, 255–275.

Triadan, D. (1997). Ceramic Commodities and Common Containers:Production and Distribution of White Mountain Red Wares in theGrasshopper Region, Arizona. Tucson: Anthropological Papers ofthe University of Arizona 61.

Tuggle, H. D. (1970). Prehistoric Community Relationships inEast-Central Arizona. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Arizona,Tucson, AZ, U.S.A.

Tuggle, H. D. (2000). Warfare. Paper presented at the TenthMogollon Conference, Las Cruces, New Mexico, October.

Tuggle, H. D., Reid, J. J. & Cole, R. C. (1984). Fourteenth centuryMogollon agriculture in the Grasshopper region of Arizona. In(S. K. Fish & P. R. Fish, Eds) Prehistoric Agricultural Strategies inthe Southwest. Tempe: Arizona State University AnthropologicalResearch Papers 33, pp. 101–110.

Turner, F. J. (1961 [1893]). The significance of the frontier inAmerican history. In (R. A. Billington, Ed.) Frontier and Section:Selected Essays. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, pp. 28–36.

Welch, J. R. (1996). The Archaeological Measures and SocialImplications of Agricultural Commitment. Ph.D. Dissertation,University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, U.S.A.


Welch, J. R. (2000). Tactical sites. Paper presented at the TenthMogollon Conference, Las Cruces, New Mexico, October.

Welch, J. R. & Triadan, D. (1991). The Canyon Creek turquoisemine. Kiva 56, 145–164.

White, D. E. (1993). Pinto Polychrome Origin and Distribution,Indicator of Interaction and Trade, in East-central Arizona.Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ,U.S.A.

White, D. E. & Burton, J. H. (1992). Pinto Polychrome: A clue to theorigins of the Salado Polychromes. In (R. C. Lange & S. Germick,Eds) Proceedings of the Second Salado Conference, Globe, AZ.Phoenix: Arizona Archaeological Society, pp. 216–222.

Whittlesey, S. M. (2000). The cradle of death: Mortuary practices,bioarchaeology, and the children of Grasshopper Pueblo. Paperpresented at the 65th Annual Meeting of the Society for AmericanArchaeology, Philadelphia.

Whittlesey, S. M. & Reid, J. J. (1982a). Analysis of interassemblagevariation and settlement system reconstruction. In (J. J. Reid, Ed.)Cholla Project Archaeology, Volume 2: The Chevelon Region.Tucson: Archaeological Series No. 161, Arizona State MuseumCultural Resource Management Division, University of Arizona,pp. 151–179.

Whittlesey, S. M. & Reid, J. J. (1982b). Analysis of interassemblagevariation and settlement system reconstruction. In (J. J. Reid, Ed.)Cholla Project Archaeology, Volume 3: The Q Ranch Region.Tucson: Archaeological Series No. 161, Arizona State MuseumCultural Resource Management Division, University of Arizona,pp. 176–192.

Zedeno, M. N. (1992). Roosevelt Black-on-white revisited: TheGrasshopper perspective. In (R. C. Lange & S. Germick, Eds)Proceedings of the Second Salado Conference, Globe, AZ. Phoenix:Arizona Archaeological Society, pp. 206–211.

Zedeno, M. N. (1994). Sourcing Prehistoric Ceramics at ChodistaasPueblo, Arizona: The Circulation of People and Pots in theGrasshopper Region. Tucson: Anthropological Papers of theUniversity of Arizona 58.

Zedeno, M. N. (1995). The role of population movement andtransfer technology in Southwestern ceramics. In (B. J. Mills &P. L. Crown, Eds) Ceramic Production in the American Southwest.Tucson: University of Arizona Press, pp. 113–141.

migration, regional reorganization, and spatial group...

Documents