nmcris no. 107271 · 2020-05-11 · nmcris no. 107271 hokona: a pueblo iii-iv settlement on nm 53...

NMCRIS No. 107271

HOKONA: A PUEBLO III-IV SETTLEMENT ON NM 53 NEAR EL MORRO (CIBOLA COUNTY, NEW MEXICO)

Prepared for and Submitted to

NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Contact: Jeff Fredine 1120 Cerrillos Road, Room 213

Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505-1842 Telephone: (505) 827-5232; Fax: (505) 827-6862

NMDOT Cultural Resource Technical Series No. 2007-2

NMDOT Project Number TPM-TPE-0053(25)45 NMDOT Control Number 1533 NMDOT Task Number 4592-14

SLO Right of Entry Permit Contract No. ROE-1458

Submitted by

SWCA® ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS

5647 Jefferson Street, NE Albuquerque, New Mexico 87109

Telephone: (505) 254-1115; Fax: (505) 254-1116 www.swca.com

Principal Investigator

Jim A. Railey

Prepared by Rebecca H. Schwendler

With contributions by

Patricia M. Apt William T. Brown Keri Burns

Christopher Carlson Janet Hagopian Amalia Kenward Thomas C. O’Laughlin Cynthia Manseau Bruce Phillips

Jim A. Railey Anne Russell Joshua Sammons Heather Timmons Ryan Trollinger Cherie Walth

NMCRIS No. 107271

SWCA Project No. 7571-0014 SWCA Report No. 2007-375

August 5, 2008

Acknowledgements

In addition to the analysts and researchers who contributed chapters to this report, specific acknowledgements should be extended to several people who provided technical expertise and document support. The SWCA Geographic Information Technology team, led by Heather Timmons and including Anne Russell, Josh Sammons, Ryan Trollinger, and Patricia Apt, produced all of the maps. Chris Carlson provided indispensable assistance, tracking down pieces of information and taking photographs of artifacts. Amalia Kenward was available at short notice to finalize the feature and profile drawings. Cynthia Manseau, technical editor, and Sheri Waldbauer, formatter, worked magic to get the report into its final form.

Front cover: Drawings of the Feature 1 and Feature 3 masonry structures (top) and the Feature 24 pit structure (bottom) at Hokona, by Dr. Jim Railey. Layout by Keri Burns.

Table of Contents ii

Table of Contents

List of Figures.............................................................................................................................. vii

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ xi

Administrative Summary.......................................................................................................... xiii

CHAPTER 1 Introduction....................................................................................................... 1 Project Description.......................................................................................................................... 2 Site Investigated.............................................................................................................................. 4

Report Organization .................................................................................................................. 5

CHAPTER 2 Environmental and Cultural Setting............................................................... 7 Natural Environment....................................................................................................................... 7

Physiography and Geology ....................................................................................................... 8 Soils......................................................................................................................................... 10 Surface Water.......................................................................................................................... 12 Climate .................................................................................................................................... 13 Vegetation ............................................................................................................................... 14 Fauna ....................................................................................................................................... 15

Cultural Environment.................................................................................................................... 16

CHAPTER 3 Culture History and Literature Review........................................................ 18 Pre-Puebloan Traditions................................................................................................................ 18 Ancestral Puebloan (Anasazi) Tradition....................................................................................... 18

Basketmaker II ........................................................................................................................ 18 Basketmaker III ....................................................................................................................... 19 Pueblo I ................................................................................................................................... 19 Pueblo II .................................................................................................................................. 19 Pueblo III................................................................................................................................. 21 Pueblo IV ................................................................................................................................ 21 Pueblo V.................................................................................................................................. 22

Historic Tradition.......................................................................................................................... 23 Pueblo II-IV Social Developments in the El Morro Valley.......................................................... 24

Large Settlements.................................................................................................................... 26 Small Settlements.................................................................................................................... 30

Sites in the Vicinity of LA 153714 ............................................................................................... 31

CHAPTER 4 Research Design .............................................................................................. 33 Site-Specific Research Questions ................................................................................................. 33 Region-Specific Research Question ............................................................................................. 34 Data Needs .................................................................................................................................... 35

Chronological Data, Cultural Affiliation, and Site Use .......................................................... 35

CHAPTER 5 Field and Laboratory Methods...................................................................... 39 Mapping LA 153714..................................................................................................................... 39 Determining Depth of Deposits .................................................................................................... 41 Identifying, Documenting, and Excavating Features.................................................................... 42 Methods Used for Hand Excavation Units ................................................................................... 44 Mechanical Excavation Units ....................................................................................................... 44

Table of Contents iii

Collecting and Analyzing Artifacts .............................................................................................. 44 Ceramic Artifacts .................................................................................................................... 45 Lithic Artifacts ........................................................................................................................ 45

Collecting Special Samples........................................................................................................... 47 Human Remains ...................................................................................................................... 47 Faunal Remains ....................................................................................................................... 48 Flotation Samples.................................................................................................................... 48 Pollen Samples ........................................................................................................................ 48 Radiocarbon Samples.............................................................................................................. 49 Dendrochronology Samples .................................................................................................... 50 Archaeomagnetic Samples ...................................................................................................... 50

Monitoring Procedures.................................................................................................................. 50 Backfill and Site Stabilization Plan .............................................................................................. 50 Geoarchaeology ............................................................................................................................ 51

CHAPTER 6 Data Recovery Activities at Hokona ............................................................. 52 Site Description............................................................................................................................. 52 Previous Investigations at LA 153714.......................................................................................... 53 Correction of Feature Numbering................................................................................................. 54 Site Stratigraphy and Geomorphology.......................................................................................... 59 Data Recovery Activities .............................................................................................................. 59

Changes in Plan....................................................................................................................... 60 Mapping and Surface Collection............................................................................................. 61 Shovel Scrape Units ................................................................................................................ 61 Test Units ................................................................................................................................ 62 Midden Units........................................................................................................................... 66 Soil Probes .............................................................................................................................. 71 Feature Units ........................................................................................................................... 71 Hand Trenches ........................................................................................................................ 81 Features ................................................................................................................................... 83

Materials Recovered ................................................................................................................... 128 Ceramic Artifacts .................................................................................................................. 128 Lithic Artifacts ...................................................................................................................... 131 Human Remains .................................................................................................................... 132 Faunal Remains ..................................................................................................................... 132 Macrobotanical Remains....................................................................................................... 132 Flotation Samples.................................................................................................................. 132 Pollen Samples ...................................................................................................................... 132 Dendrochronology Samples .................................................................................................. 132 Radiocarbon Samples............................................................................................................ 133

Site Chronology .......................................................................................................................... 133 Site Interpretation........................................................................................................................ 133 Management Recommendations................................................................................................. 133 Curation....................................................................................................................................... 134

CHAPTER 7 Ceramic Artifacts.......................................................................................... 135 Methods....................................................................................................................................... 135 Wares and Types......................................................................................................................... 135

Table of Contents iv

Cibola White Ware................................................................................................................ 136 White Mountain Red Ware ................................................................................................... 139 Cibola Gray Ware ................................................................................................................. 141 Indeterminate Ware Figurine ................................................................................................ 141

LA 153714 Site Assemblage ...................................................................................................... 142 Chronology ................................................................................................................................. 143

Vessel Form and Function .................................................................................................... 148 Modified Sherds .................................................................................................................... 161 Production and Distribution .................................................................................................. 163

Summary and Conclusions ......................................................................................................... 173

CHAPTER 8 Lithic Artifacts .............................................................................................. 183 Characteristics of Hokona’s Lithic Assemblage......................................................................... 183 Ground Stone .............................................................................................................................. 184

Hand stones ........................................................................................................................... 186 Grinding Slabs....................................................................................................................... 190 Other Shaped and/or Ground Stone Objects ......................................................................... 194 Ornaments ............................................................................................................................. 196 Unidentified Ground Stone ................................................................................................... 198 Manuports ............................................................................................................................. 198 Ground Stone Summary........................................................................................................ 198

Flaked Stone................................................................................................................................ 198 Flaked Stone Raw Material and Cortex Summary................................................................ 206

Projectile Points .......................................................................................................................... 206 Flaked Stone Tools ..................................................................................................................... 208

Hammerstones....................................................................................................................... 208 Scrapers ................................................................................................................................. 208 Flake Tools............................................................................................................................ 209 Bifaces................................................................................................................................... 209 Lithic Tool Summary ............................................................................................................ 210

Cores ........................................................................................................................................... 210 Core Summary ...................................................................................................................... 212

Utilized Flake and Debitage Analysis......................................................................................... 212 Utilized Flakes ...................................................................................................................... 213 Attributes Recorded .............................................................................................................. 213 Material Type ........................................................................................................................ 214 Cortex.................................................................................................................................... 214 Size........................................................................................................................................ 216 Weight ................................................................................................................................... 217 Debitage Completeness ......................................................................................................... 217 Platform Type........................................................................................................................ 218 Edge Use ............................................................................................................................... 219 Burning and Heat Treating.................................................................................................... 219 Summary of Debitage Analysis ............................................................................................ 219

Comparison with Other Lithic Assemblages .............................................................................. 219 Answering Research Questions .................................................................................................. 220

Nature of Site Use ................................................................................................................. 220

Table of Contents v

Relationships Among Features ............................................................................................. 220 Post-Depositional Processes.................................................................................................. 221 Regional Mobility and Exchange Patterns ............................................................................ 221

CHAPTER 9 Human Osteology.......................................................................................... 222 Methods....................................................................................................................................... 222

Sex Estimation ...................................................................................................................... 222 Age at Death Estimation ....................................................................................................... 222 Stature Estimation ................................................................................................................. 223 Pathology............................................................................................................................... 223

Description of the Burials ........................................................................................................... 224 Feature 34.............................................................................................................................. 224 Feature 41.............................................................................................................................. 225 Feature 42.............................................................................................................................. 227

Mortuary Practices ...................................................................................................................... 228

CHAPTER 10 Faunal Remains......................................................................................... 231 Methods....................................................................................................................................... 231 Natural History............................................................................................................................ 232

Mammals............................................................................................................................... 233 Birds ...................................................................................................................................... 235 Unidentified Vertebrates ....................................................................................................... 235 Faunal Remains from Individual Features ............................................................................ 235 Worked Bone ........................................................................................................................ 238 Discussion ............................................................................................................................. 239

CHAPTER 11 Macrobotanical Remains.......................................................................... 241 Methods....................................................................................................................................... 241 Results......................................................................................................................................... 242

Macrobotanical Specimens ................................................................................................... 242 Charred Wood Samples for Dating ....................................................................................... 245 Flotation Samples.................................................................................................................. 247

Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 255

CHAPTER 12 Pollen Analysis .......................................................................................... 257 Methods....................................................................................................................................... 257 Discussion................................................................................................................................... 262 Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 262

CHAPTER 13 Dating Methods ......................................................................................... 263 Introduction................................................................................................................................. 263 Radiocarbon Dating .................................................................................................................... 263 Dendrochronology ...................................................................................................................... 265 Archaeomagnetometry................................................................................................................ 267 Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 267

CHAPTER 14 Answers and Interpretations ................................................................... 268 Addressing the Research Questions............................................................................................ 268 A Picture of Life at Hokona........................................................................................................ 290

Table of Contents vi

References.................................................................................................................................. 295

Appendix A Project Location .................................................................................................. 319

Appendix B Ceramic Analysis ................................................................................................. 323

Appendix C ICPS Analysis Report ......................................................................................... 330

Appendix D Lithic Analysis ..................................................................................................... 350

Appendix E Report of Obsidian X-ray Fluorescence ............................................................ 369

Appendix F Burial Catalogue .................................................................................................. 372

Appendix G Faunal Analysis ................................................................................................... 391

Appendix H Radiocarbon Dates .............................................................................................. 397

List of Figures and Tables vii

List of Figures

1.1. Approximate locations of some major prehistoric culture areas and historic pueblos. .......1 1.2. Project location. ...................................................................................................................3 1.3. LA 153714 boundary and locations of features...................................................................6 2.1. Overview of the El Morro Valley, facing west....................................................................7 2.2. Location of Pueblo IV period sites and geological formations in the Zuni region..............8 2.3. Site overview, facing southwest. .......................................................................................10 2.4. LA 153714 facing northwest, showing sediments exposed by mechanical stripping. ......12 2.5. Map of New Mexico and Arizona showing Western Pueblo site clusters during the

Pueblo IV period. ...............................................................................................................13 2.6. Modern impact to LA 153714, facing west. ......................................................................17 2.7. Cattle grazing across NM 53 from LA 153714, facing north. ...........................................17 3.1. Location of Duff’s Pueblo IV Western Pueblo area sites and districts..............................23 3.2. Locations of large and small sites in the Zuni region, as recorded by the

Archaeological Records Management Section. .................................................................25 3.3. Views of the mesa top Pettit Site that overlooks the large valley floor Kluckhohn

Pueblo ............................................................................................................................29 3.4. Part of Atsinna Pueblo, facing northeast............................................................................30 5.1. Surface data recovery activities at LA 153714. .................................................................40 6.1. Overview of LA 153714 during pin flagging, facing southwest. ......................................53 6.2. LA 153714 site map...........................................................................................................56 6.3. LA 153714, overview, facing south...................................................................................57 6.4. LA 153714, overview, facing northwest............................................................................57 6.5. LA 153714, Feature 1, facing northwest. ..........................................................................58 6.6. LA 153714, Feature 2, facing southeast. ...........................................................................58 6.7. LA 153714, Feature 3, facing southeast. ...........................................................................59 6.8. LA 153714, site map showing surface artifacts and shovel scrape units...........................63 6.9. LA 153714, data recovery activities. .................................................................................64 6.10. Test Units 2, 1, 4, and 5, facing south................................................................................65 6.11. West wall profile of Midden Units 11 and 1......................................................................67 6.12. West profile of Midden Units 11, 10, 1, and 2. .................................................................70 6.13. Feature Units 4, 3, 7, and 8, facing west............................................................................73 6.14. Main excavation block of LA 153714, facing north..........................................................76 6.15. Feature Unit 23, facing west, with Feature 13, Feature 14, and Feature 3. .......................79 6.16. Part of the west wall of Feature 1, facing southeast.. ........................................................79 6.17. West wall profiles from the northern portion of the site....................................................82 6.18. LA 153714, feature location map. .....................................................................................84 6.19. Feature 1 at the base of level 2, facing northeast.. .............................................................88 6.20. Wall gap seen at the Pettit Site. .........................................................................................88 6.21. Features 1 and 3 oblique plan view....................................................................................90 6.22. South-facing profile of units running through the middle of Feature 1.............................91 6.23. Feature 3 plan view............................................................................................................93 6.24. Feature 3 north profile. ......................................................................................................94 6.25. Feature 3 foundation and internal pit completely excavated, facing north........................95 6.26. West profile of the backhoe trench used to define Feature 4’s north and south edges

and its relation to the southern boundary of the site. .........................................................96

List of Figures and Tables viii

6.27. Feature 4 plan view............................................................................................................98 6.28. Feature 4 north profile. ......................................................................................................99 6.29. Feature 4 completely excavated, facing west. ...................................................................99 6.30. Features 5 and 5B post-excavation, facing south.............................................................101 6.31. Feature 11 partly excavated, facing south........................................................................103 6.32. Feature 12 excavated down to fill rocks, facing east. ......................................................104 6.33. Feature 16B completely exposed, facing west.................................................................106 6.34. Feature 18 completely excavated, facing north. ..............................................................107 6.35. Feature 19 south half excavated.......................................................................................108 6.36. Probable ventilator hatch cover fragment from near the bottom of Feature 22...............110 6.37. Feature 23, facing north.. .................................................................................................111 6.38. Feature 24 completely excavated, facing south.. .............................................................112 6.39. Drawing of features, artifacts, and macrobotanical remains found on the floor of

Feature 24.........................................................................................................................114 6.40. Cluster of artifacts found on the floor of Feature 24 in KU 1, facing south. ...................116 6.41. Feature 35 excavated, facing south. Feature 1 is in the top right of the photo. ...............120 6.42. Feature 37 plan view........................................................................................................122 6.43. Feature 37 west profile.....................................................................................................123 6.44. Feature 37 pit house completely excavated, facing north................................................125 6.45. Feature 43 half excavated, facing north. ..........................................................................127 6.46. Excavation of Feature 44 (black) in progress, facing southeast. .....................................128 7.1. Interior and exterior of Chaco/McElmo sherds from LA 153714. ..................................137 7.2. Tularosa Black-on-white sherd from LA 153714............................................................137 7.3. Klagetoh Black-on-white sherd from LA 153714. ..........................................................138 7.4. Pinedale Black-on-white sherd from LA 153714. ...........................................................139 7.5. a) St. Johns Black-on-red double neck jar fragment and b) interior and exterior of

St. Johns Polychrome sherds from LA 153714. ..............................................................140 7.6. Pinedale Polychrome sherds from LA 153714. ...............................................................141 7.7. Figurine fragment from Feature 24 pit structure at LA 153714. .....................................142 7.8. Reconstructed indented corrugated Cibola Gray Ware wide-mouth jar recovered

from the floor of Feature 24 at LA 153714......................................................................153 7.9. Three-dimensional representation of the distribution of sherds from ceramic Vessel

18......................................................................................................................................155 7.10. Three-dimensional representation of the distribution of sherds from ceramic Vessel

9........................................................................................................................................156 7.11. Three-dimensional representation of the distribution of sherds from ceramic Vessel

15......................................................................................................................................157 7.12. Three-dimensional representation of the distribution of sherds from ceramic Vessel

1........................................................................................................................................158 7.13. Complete disc recovered from the Feature 23 slab-lined hearth at LA 153714. .............161 7.14. Interior and exterior views of the reconstructed Indeterminate Cibola White Ware

sherd modified into a jar cover recovered from the floor of Feature 24 at LA 153714. ..........................................................................................................................162

7.15. Bivariate plot of Principal Components 1 and 2, sample ware group indicated..............175 7.16. Bivariate plot of Principal Components 1 and 3, sample ware group indicated..............176 7.17. Bivariate plot of Principal Components 2 and 3, sample ware group indicated..............177

List of Figures and Tables ix

7.18. Bivariate plot of Principal Components 1 and 2, Cibola White ware samples only, sample type group indicated. ...........................................................................................178



7.21. Bivariate plot of Principal Components 1 and 2, sample ware and firm/project group indicated. 181

7.22. Bivariate plot of Principal Components 1 and 2, Cibola White and Gray ware samples from LA 153714 only, sample ware and type groups indicated. .......................182

8.1. Examples of manos from LA 153714.. ............................................................................189 8.2. Pestle recovered from LA 153714. ..................................................................................190 8.3. Example of refitting metate fragments from LA 153714. ...............................................192 8.4. Three-dimensional representation of the dispersion of seven pieces of a sandstone

metate within LA 153714. ...............................................................................................193 8.5. Two possible ornament polishing stones recovered from LA 153714. ...........................195 8.6. Shaped block found in the Feature 19 mealing bin, facing north. ...................................195 8.7. Bead found within Feature 24 fill at LA 153714.............................................................196 8.8. Stone pendants found on the floor of Feature 24 at LA 153714......................................197 8.9. Ornament blanks recovered from Feature 22 at LA 153714. ..........................................197 8.10. Percents of analyzed flaked stone artifacts by raw material class, artifact count, and

artifact weight. .................................................................................................................203 8.11. Large Zuni spotted chert core, recovered from the surface of LA 153714......................204 8.12. Distribution of percent cortex categories within raw material types. ..............................206 8.13. Projectile points recovered from LA 153714 during data recovery ................................207 8.14. Distribution of raw materials across cortex percentage categories at LA 153714. .........215 8.15. Distribution of debitage types across size classes............................................................216 8.16. Distribution of flake completeness categories for all chert debitage. ..............................218 9.1. Plan view drawing of the Feature 34 child burial. ...........................................................224 9.2. Plan view drawing of the Feature 41 adult burial. ...........................................................225 9.3. Plan view drawing of the Feature 42 child burial. ...........................................................227 10.1. Turkey bone awl from Feature 24....................................................................................239 13.1. Calibrated radiocarbon dates from LA 153714 by numbered feature. ............................264 14.1. Three-dimensional representation of features at LA 153714, with select features

numbered..........................................................................................................................269 14.2. Abutting foundation walls of Feature 1 and Feature 3, facing north. ..............................270 14.3. Comparison of wall building techniques between Hokona and Pueblo de los

Muertos ..........................................................................................................................271 14.4. Three-dimensional representation of the locations of all ceramic sherds that were

determined to come from 33 different vessels. ................................................................274 14.5. Sandy, wind-deposited sediments (blue) just above the floor of the Feature 37 pit

structure. ..........................................................................................................................281 14.6. Clayey, water-eroded sediments (yellow) in the fill of the Feature 37 pit structure. ......282 14.7. Profile through Feature 17 fill, with small rocks, possibly related to original west,

wall still in place. .............................................................................................................282

List of Figures and Tables x

14.8. Feature 1 foundation, facing northeast, showing jog in wall and concentration of wall fall immediately north of Feature 19 area................................................................283

14.9. Area of wall fall on sunken Feature 24 fill, facing east-northeast. ..................................284 14.10. Pedestalled rocks east of Feature 1, facing west, showing construction on top of

cultural fill........................................................................................................................284 14.11. Tabular basalt rocks fallen into Feature 4, facing south. .................................................285 14.12. Southern half of Feature 1 at the base of level 1, facing north.. ......................................286 14.13. Sandstone basin metate with line of burning. ..................................................................287 14.14. Fragmentary ceramic animal figurine recovered from LA 153714. ................................289 14.15. Representation of how the Feature 24 pit structure may have been used just prior to

its abandonment. ..............................................................................................................292 14.16. Representation of how the Feature 1 masonry and jacal structure may have looked

at one time, with a simplified activity area and Feature 3 in the foreground. .................293 A.1. Locations of LA 153714 and LA 153713. .......................................................................320 A.2. Locations of LA 153714 and LA 153713 in relation to proposed take areas. .................321 C.1. Scree plot, PCA of El Morro ICPS data. .........................................................................336 C.2. Bivariate plot of Principal Components 1 and 2, sample ware group indicated..............339 C.3. Bivariate plot of Principal Components 1 and 3, sample ware group indicated..............340 C.4. Bivariate plot of Principal Components 2 and 3, sample ware group indicated..............341 C.5. Bivariate plot of Principal Components 1 and 2, Cibola White ware samples only,

sample type group indicated. ...........................................................................................342 C.6. Bivariate plot of Principal Components 1 and 3, Cibola White ware samples only,

sample type group indicated. ...........................................................................................343 C.7. Bivariate plot of Principal Components 2 and 3, Cibola White ware samples only,

sample type group indicated. ...........................................................................................344 C.8. Bivariate plot of Principal Components 1 and 2, sample ware and firm/project group

indicated. 345 C.9. Bivariate plot of Principal Components 1 and 2, Cibola White and Gray ware

samples from LA 153714 only, sample ware and type groups indicated. .......................346 F.1. Right and left maxilla with wear and black pits.. ............................................................374 F.2. Left mandible.. .................................................................................................................375 F.3. Layout of all elements recorded with Feature 34.............................................................375 F.4. Detail view of ilium, pubis, and scapula..........................................................................381 F.5. Layout of all elements recorded with Feature 41.............................................................382 F.6. Detail view of the cranium with mandible.......................................................................382 F.7. Detail view of maxilla......................................................................................................383 F.8. Detail view of the mandible.. ...........................................................................................384 F.9. Layout of all elements recorded with Feature 42.............................................................388 F.10. Maxilla and mandible.. ....................................................................................................389 F.11. View of eye orbits with cribra orbitalia.. .........................................................................390

List of Figures and Tables xi

List of Tables

1.1. LA 153714, Summary of Data Recovery Investigations. ....................................................5 2.1. Characteristics of Teco Soil by Depth ...............................................................................11 2.2. Characteristics of Atarque Soil by Depth ..........................................................................11 3.1. Previously Recorded Sites within 0.5 Kilometer (0.3 Mile) of the Project

Realignment APE...............................................................................................................32 3.2. Previous Surveys with No Recorded Sites within 0.5 Kilometer (0.3 Mile) of the

Project Realignment APE ..................................................................................................32 6.1. LA 153714, Representative In-field Surface Artifact Inventory .......................................55 6.2. LA 153714 Feature Data....................................................................................................85 6.3. Ceramic Artifacts Collected from LA 153714, by Type and Form.................................130 6.4. Lithic Artifacts Analyzed from LA 153714, by Material and Type ................................131 7.1. Frequency of Ceramic Types by Ware at LA 153714 .....................................................143 7.2. Date Ranges for Decorated Ceramic Types.....................................................................144 7.3. Mean Ceramic Dates and Date Ranges, and Minimum Use Dates for LA 153714

and Features Containing Decorated Ceramics.................................................................145 7.4. Frequency of Decorated Ceramic Types by Feature or Grouping of Features ................147 7.5. Tree-Ring Dates for Feature 24 .......................................................................................148 7.6. Decorated Ceramic Types by Level for Feature 24 .........................................................148 7.7. Distribution of Ceramic Types by Vessel Form for LA 153714. Numbers Represent

Sherd Counts....................................................................................................................151 7.8. Distribution of Sooting on Bowls and Jars by Ceramic Ware .........................................152 7.9. Vessel Measurements for the Reconstructed Vessel .......................................................152 7.10. Vessels Represented in the Sherd Assemblage by Ceramic Type and Vessel Form.......152 7.11. Distribution of Sherds Associated with Recognizable Vessels by Feature .....................159 7.12. Distribution of Modified Sherds by Ceramic Type, Including Refits .............................162 7.13. Color Groups and Corresponding Munsell Color Codes.................................................164 7.14. Refired Sherds by Color Group .......................................................................................165 7.15. Refired Misfired White Mountain Red Ware Sherds ......................................................167 7.16. Projects Included in the ICPS Analysis ...........................................................................169 7.17. Distribution of ICPS Sherd and Clay Samples by Project...............................................169 8.1. Lithic Artifacts Analyzed from LA 153714.....................................................................183 8.2. Numbers of Individual Pieces and Maximum Numbers of Objects for Each

Category of Ground Stone Found at LA 153714.............................................................185 8.3. Distribution of Pieces of Burned Ground Stone within LA 153714................................186 8.4. Distribution of Pieces of Heat-treated or Burned Flaked Stone Within LA 153714. ......199 8.5. Material Types and Frequencies for All Flaked Stone Artifacts from LA 153714 .........201 8.6. Comparison of Average and Total Flaked Stone Artifact Weights With and Without

Cores by Material Type ...................................................................................................202 8.7. Projectile Point Data ........................................................................................................207 8.8. Major Lithic Tool Types by Material ..............................................................................208 8.9. Stages of Biface Manufacture..........................................................................................210 8.10. Cores from LA 153714 by Type and Material.................................................................211 8.11. Counts of Different Materials from LA 153714 by Debitage Category..........................214 8.12. Numbers of Pieces of Unused and Utilized Debitage Across Cortex Categories............216 8.13. Weights of Different Raw Materials from LA 153714 by Debitage Category................217

List of Figures and Tables xii

8.14. Average Weight in Grams of Unused Debitage and Utilized Flakes by Size Class........217 10.1. NISP and MNI for Site LA153714 ..................................................................................233 10.2. NISP from Features..........................................................................................................236 11.1. Macrobotanical Specimens Collected During Excavation. Measurements are

Uncorrected for Carbonization. .......................................................................................244 11.2. Counts and Weights for Charcoal in Radiocarbon Dating Samples ................................246 11.3. Counts of Charcoal and Pine Needles and Presence of Ponderosa Bark for Flotation

Samples ..........................................................................................................................248 11.4. Counts of Carbonized Seeds and Other Reproductive Parts from Flotation Samples.....252 12.1. Latin Names and Common Names for Taxa Identified in Pollen Samples from LA

153714 ..........................................................................................................................260 12.2. Pollen Results for LA 153714, West-central New Mexico .............................................261 13.1. Radiocarbon Samples Submitted from LA 153714 .........................................................263 13.2. LA 153714 Features for which Dendrochronology Samples were Submitted ................265 13.3. Results of Tree-Ring Dating by the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research .........................266 14.1. Possible Evidence for Relationships Among Features Based on the Presence of

Charred Annuals ..............................................................................................................276 14.2. Chronological Sequences for Feature Construction and/or Use at LA 153714...............277 A.1. Project Legal Location.....................................................................................................322 A.2. Locations of Center Point and Data Recovery Datum at LA 153714..............................322 B.1. LA153714 ICPS Refiring Data........................................................................................327 B.2. LA153714 ICPS Original Raw Data................................................................................328 C.1. ICPS Samples by Project and Ceramic Ware, All Submitted Sherds..............................333 C.2. Basic Descriptive Statistics, ICPS Analysis ....................................................................334 C.3. Eigenvalues and Total Variance Explained .....................................................................335 C.4. Component Matrix, PCA of El Morro ICPS Data ...........................................................337 C.5. Ceramic Ware Group Predictions by DFA, Grayware and Whiteware Samples Only ...338 D.1. Hand Stones .....................................................................................................................351 D.2. Grinding Slabs .................................................................................................................352 D.3. Other Ground Stone .........................................................................................................353 D.4. Ground Stone Ornaments.................................................................................................353 D.5. All Ornament Material.....................................................................................................354 D.6. Unidentified Ground Stone ..............................................................................................355 D.7. Manuports ........................................................................................................................356 D.8. Projectile Points ...............................................................................................................356 D.9. Tools ..........................................................................................................................357 D.10. Cores ..........................................................................................................................357 D.11. Debitage ..........................................................................................................................358 F.1. Measurements for Burial 41.............................................................................................378 F.2. Nonmetric Traits for Burial 41 ........................................................................................379 F.3. Dental Wear for Burial 41................................................................................................380 F.4. Measurements for Burial 42.............................................................................................386 G.1. Faunal Analysis................................................................................................................392

Administrative Summary xiii

Administrative Summary

Between March 27, 2007, and August 10, 2007, SWCA Environmental Consultants conducted just over 14 weeks of data recovery activities at the Hokona Site (LA 153714) along NM 53 near El Morro National Monument. Excavations were funded and sponsored by the New Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT) to fulfill National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 requirements prior to beginning road improvements in the area; the proposed project involved Federal Highway Administration funding. Permission to work on State Land was granted by the New Mexico State Land Office. Because Hokona was located within the NM 53 right-of-way and future take area, it was slated for complete destruction during the proposed straightening of the “S” curve in the adjacent portion of road. Data recovery activities included site mapping, collection of surface artifacts, excavation of test units, hand excavation of all features, and use of a backhoe to mechanically strip the site.

Located in the eastern part of the El Morro Valley in Cibola County, New Mexico, Hokona sat on the northeast-facing slope of a

low basalt rise on the valley floor. Excavation determined it to be a multi-occupation Pueblo III-IV site containing 45 cultural features, a diffuse midden area, and thousands of associated artifacts. Features included three large pit structures, one large masonry habitation structure, several smaller masonry structures and rock alignments, numerous other intramural and external hearths, post holes, and pits, and three human burials. Features were found from the surface of the site down to more than 2 meters below the surface and dated primarily between A.D. 1275 and A.D. 1350. Hokona was interpreted as a year-round settlement, occupied at least two different times, by one or a few small family units. In contrast with the many large Pueblo III-IV settlements farther west, Hokona offers a glimpse into life at a small, contemporary hamlet, and provides a study in the effects of diverse post-depositional processes on prehistoric Puebloan sites.

SWCA Project No. 7571-0014 NMDOT Project No. TPM-TPE-0053(25)45, CN 1533 SLO ROE Permit Contract No. ROE-1458 NMCRIS No. 107271

Chaco

Mogollon

Mesa Verde

Hohokam

Acoma

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

Rebecca H. Schwendler

During the mid-A.D. 1200s, the El Morro Valley of western New Mexico became a locus of social, cultural, and economic mixing and innovation, as large numbers of people migrated into the area. Over the course of only a few generations, the permanent human population in the valley grew enormously, as hundreds of people moved into the area, probably from regions to the north and southwest (Schachner and Kintigh 2004). Not surprisingly, immigrants brought with them a diversity of cultural practices and social allegiances. The causes of this large-scale population movement are not completely known or understood, but it occurred after the

late twelfth century re-organization of the extensive Chacoan system, centered in Chaco Canyon to the northeast (Stein and Fowler 1996) (Figure 1.1). Accordingly, it is likely that the massive population relocation was driven, at least in part, by the desire and need of both families and whole communities to start over in a new place. This may have been a reaction to the disruption of their social and economic orders, as well as to adverse environmental conditions and social conflict (e.g., Dean and Robinson 1977; Dean et al. 1985; Haas and Creamer 1996; Roney 1996; Watson et al. 1980; but see Kintigh 1996).

Figure 1.1. Approximate locations of some major prehistoric culture areas (red) and historic pueblos (small black) (modified from Duff 2002).

Chapter 1 Introduction 2

Site LA 153714, located approximately 4.3 kilometers (km) (2.7 miles [mi]) east of El Morro National Monument, near the east edge of the El Morro Valley, gives us a complicated yet informative picture of old cultural practices that people brought with them into the valley, and new ones that they developed while in the valley. While the site initially appeared to be a modest surface scatter of artifacts associated with three masonry structures, it gradually revealed an assemblage of thousands of artifacts associated with 45 diverse cultural features. Because our understanding of the size and nature of LA 153714 changed each week during excavation and the site contained some artifacts more typical of other cultural regions (and because interpretations of the site metamorphosed each month with the results of different analyses), the field crew named it “Hokona,” a permutation of the Hopi word “Hookona,” meaning Monarch butterfly. Despite its large number of features, Hokona was, at any given time, a small site, most likely occupied by only one or two family units at once. Accordingly, it expands our knowledge of the kinds of small communities that people created in the valley during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, perhaps as alternatives to the large-scale aggregation and pueblo construction that occurred at Atsinna, Pueblo de los Muertos, and several other large pueblos less than 16.1 km (10 mi) to the west between A.D. 1250 and A.D. 1325 (Duff 1996, 2002; Duff and Kintigh 1997; Kintigh 1985, 1996). As such, information gathered from Hokona expands our knowledge of the social dynamics and the cultural and economic variability that were present in western New Mexico during Pueblo III and IV times.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

As part of a plan to reconstruct and rehabilitate the New Mexico (NM) 53 corridor in Cibola County from milepost (MP) 45.4 to MP 50.5 (NMDOT Project No. TPM-TPE-0053[25]45; CN 1533), the New Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT) District 6 proposed straightening an existing reverse “S” curve in the road between MPs 47.43 and 47.96, a few miles east of El Morro National Monument (Figure 1.2). The larger proposed project also includes pavement reconstruction, roadway widening, addition of shoulders, drainage structure extensions and replacements, installation of safety gates as needed, slope flattening, replacement of right-of-way fencing, and roadside improvements that meet roadway clear zone compliance requirements (Brown and Brown 2006). The proposed realignment area of potential effect (APE) extends 853 meters (m) (2,798 feet [ft]) along NM 53 from MP 47.43 (Beginning of Project [BOP]) to MP 47.96 (End of Project [EOP]). The NM 53 south right-of-way is approximately 18 m (60 ft) wide. In addition, the take area south of the right-of-way has a maximum width of 43 m (140 ft), with tapered west and east ends (Brown and Brown 2006). Because of the involvement of Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) funds, this NM 53 improvement project is subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended through 1992 and applicable regulations. Accordingly, construction plans prompted archaeological investigations, including an archaeological survey conducted by Marron and Associates (Brown and Brown 2006), a data recovery plan for investigating one site (Railey et al. 2006), and the excavation findings reported on here.


Figure 1.2. Project location.


In July 2006, Marron and Associates conducted a Class I and Class III cultural resources survey (New Mexico Cultural Resource Information System [NMCRIS] No. 100613) and recorded two prehistoric archaeological sites—LA 153714 and LA 153713 (Brown and Brown 2006). While LA 153713 is located north of the right-of-way and take area on the north side of NM 53 and will not be impacted by current road improvements, LA 153714 was located partially within the right-of-way and partially within the take area on the south side of NM 53; the NM 53 south right-of-way fence bisected the site (Figure A.1, Figure A.2). Hence, LA 153714 was completely within the APE of the highway project, with its take area portion on State Trust Land managed by the New Mexico State Land Office (SLO). According to current engineering drawings, LA 153714 could not be avoided by the realignment project, and the criterion of adverse effect was applied to the project in regard to it. While LA 153714 is located on lands managed by the SLO, the NMDOT is the lead agency for oversight of cultural resources treatment for this project (contact: Jeff Fredine, Environmental Section, 1120 Cerrillos Road, P.O. Box 1149, Santa Fe, NM, 87504-1149, [505] 827-5232; [email protected]).

After completion of survey documentation, and as part of a NMDOT on-call contract, SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) prepared a data recovery plan (Railey et al. 2006) that was submitted to the NMDOT in September 2006. Following consultation with the NMDOT, the SLO, and the Cultural Properties Review Committee (CPRC), the plan was revised four times—on October 12, 2006, on October 16, 2006, on November 9, 2006, and again on December 4, 2006. The last version included Addendum I, pertaining to feature sediment processing in the laboratory. All parties approved SWCA’s

final version of the plan and addendum by January 2007.

Data recovery activities at LA 153714 were conducted on February 9, 2007, and then between March 27, 2007, and August 10, 2007, for a total of just over fourteen weeks of work. Those activities defined the size of LA 153714 as approximately 29.3 m × 21.6 m (96.1 ft × 70.9 ft), for a total area of 632.88 m2 (6,812.9 ft2), or 0.12 acre. The Principal Investigator for SWCA was Dr. Jim A. Railey (5647 Jefferson Street, NE, Albuquerque, NM 87109; [505] 254-1115; [email protected]), while the Co-Principal Investigator and Field Supervisor was Dr. Rebecca H. Schwendler (295 Interlocken Boulevard, Suite 300, Broomfield, CO 80021; [303] 487-1183; [email protected]). Rotating crew members included Greg Mastropietro, Craig Host, Tim Antonio, Chris Carlson, Jaime Hilyard, Bill Brown, and Adrienne Actis. Mr. Brown also served as crew chief from July 16, 2007, to August 10, 2007. Data recovery was performed under NMCRIS No. 107271 and NM SLO Right of Entry Permit Contract No. ROE-1458.

SITE INVESTIGATED

Only one site—LA 153714—was investigated during this project. Table 1.1 summarizes the findings from both the survey and data recovery phases. During survey, LA 153714 was recorded as a Pueblo II-III site consisting of a small surface scatter of artifacts, three surface field houses, and one midden area. However, data recovery showed that, while small, LA 153714 was occupied at least two different times between A.D. 1275 and A.D. 1300-1350, and may have seen limited use both before and after that time. It contained a total of 45 features, including one large surface masonry habitation structure (Feature 1), one surface (Feature 3) and one subsurface (Feature 35) masonry storage rooms, several other small masonry foundations and rock


alignments, three large pit structures (Features 4, 24, and 37), three human burials (Features 34, 41, and 42), and numerous other intra-

mural and external hearths, post holes, pits, and other features (Figure 1.3).

Table 1.1. LA 153714, Summary of Data Recovery Investigations.

LA Field No. Land Status Site Description Survey Activities

Data Recovery Activities

153714 Marron 2 NM State Land Office

632.88 m2 (6,812.9 ft2) PIII-PIV site at base of basalt outcrop; 45 surface and subsurface features including 3 human burials; flaked stone, ground stone, ceramic artifacts; faunal, macrobotanical remains

Mapped surface artifacts; recorded all flaked stone artifacts (n=11), 50% of ceramic artifacts (n=69); recorded all 3 surface features, midden

Mapped and collected surface artifacts; excavated all 45 features, midden sample; total of 133.28 m2 excavated via 8 shovel scrape units, 5 test units, 7 midden units, 31 feature units, 9 kiva units, and 4 trenches; mechanically trenched and stripped site

Data recovery at LA 153714 resulted in a thorough documentation of the site, with all features excavated and all cultural fill mechanically removed through trenching and scraping. While considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) prior to data recovery, data potential at LA 153714 was completely exhausted by excavation and mechanical stripping of the site, so it is no longer considered eligible for the NRHP.

REPORT ORGANIZATION

Following this introduction, Chapter 2 presents an overview of the natural environment of LA 153714, while Chapter 3 places it in a broader cultural background.

Chapter 4 summarizes the research design, and Chapter 5 describes the methods used for carrying out the investigations. Chapter 6 provides a description of LA 153714 itself, the work conducted there, and the excavation findings. Chapter 7 discusses analysis of ceramic artifacts, while Chapter 8 summarizes results of lithic artifact analysis. Chapter 9 presents information on human osteology, while Chapter 10 provides the results of faunal analysis, Chapter 11 addresses analysis of macrobotanical remains, and Chapter 12 presents the results of pollen analysis. Chapter 13 discusses the results of various dating methods used at the site. The final chapter, Chapter 14, addresses the project’s four research questions and interprets LA 153714’s prehistoric occupations.


Figure 1.3. LA 153714 boundary and locations of features.

CHAPTER 2 ENVIRONMENTAL AND CULTURAL SETTING

Jim A. Railey and Rebecca H. Schwendler

NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

LA 153714 is located in the Zuni region of western New Mexico, within the El Morro Valley. Figure 2.1 was taken approximately 3.2 km (2 mi) west of the project area, looking towards El Morro National Monument. Generally, the Zuni region is characterized by broad river valleys, low volcanic outcrops, high surrounding sedimentary mesas, and little surface water. More specifically, it can be segmented into four distinct geological provinces, with the El Morro Valley being situated in a Mancos

Shale and Dakota Sandstone region farthest to the east (Duff 2002) (Figure 2.2). Because the region lies at a relatively high elevation, with the eastern portion above 2,133.6 m (7,000 ft), it has a semiarid continental climate characterized by cold winters and warm summers and a fairly short growing season. Vegetation consists largely of the grasses and scattered junipers and piñons characteristic of a Plains-Mesa Grassland and Juniper Savanna, while the diverse fauna are adapted to both grasslands and conifer woodlands. Detailed information on the natural environment of the site is provided below.

Figure 2.1. Overview of the El Morro Valley, facing west.

Chapter 2 Hokona’s Setting 8

Figure 2.2. Location of Pueblo IV period sites and geological formations in

the Zuni region (Figure 6.9 from Duff 2002:131).

PHYSIOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY

The El Morro Valley in western New Mexico falls within the Acoma-Zuni Section of the southeastern portion of the Colorado Plateau Physiographic Province (Hawley 1986, cited in Brown and Brown 2006). The Zuni Mountains, which bound the El Morro Valley to the northeast, are the only major mountain uplift in the region. Part of the Continental Divide, they extend in a crescent shape that runs nearly 96 km (60 mi) from Grants to Gallup, with a maximum elevation of 2,821 m (9,256 ft) on Mt. Sedgwick. The portion of the Divide formed by the Zuni Mountains is specifically called Oso Ridge (Robinson 1994, cited in Brown and Brown 2006). Created by volcanic activity, uplift, and erosion, the Zunis contain some of the oldest

exposed rock—mostly granite—in northwestern New Mexico (Robinson 1994, cited in Brown and Brown 2006). Permian rocks cover large parts of this Precambrian granite core, while the Zuni uplift is surrounded by hogbacks and cuestas having dipslopes and scarps capped by Permian and Triassic sandstone and limestone. Given the volcanic activity in the area, Quaternary basalt flows and lava and cinder cones cover the broad plains that extend south and east of the Zuni Mountains (Chronic 1987 and Hawley 1986, cited in Brown and Brown 2006). The Zunis provide several sources of good lithic raw material, including Zuni spotted chert and Horace Mesa obsidian—both recovered from LA 153714—and other kinds of obsidian, volcanics, and cherts (LeTourneau 1997; Shackley 1998).

Hokona


Other prominent landforms include cuestas, hogbacks, and scarp-bounded tablelands-mesas, plateaus, buttes, and benches. El Morro National Monument, located just a few miles west of LA 153714, is an example of a cuesta—a jutting bluff or cliff—that consists of cream-colored layers of Triassic and Jurassic Zuni sandstone that slopes southward. Characteristics of the sandstone, including its broad, sweeping crossbedding and the rounded, finely frosted surfaces and uniform size of its sand grains belie its sand dune origin. Those dunes would have been part of a Jurassic desert similar to the modern Sahara (Chronic 1987, cited in Brown and Brown 2006). The El Morro cuesta is capped by Dakota sandstone, the oldest Cretaceous sedimentary layer, which formed in water along the western shore of an advancing Cretaceous sea. In contrast, the sandstone cuesta is underlain by “easily eroded Triassic mudstone that forms a ringlike ‘racetrack’ valley around the Zuni uplift” (Chronic 1987:231, cited in Brown and Brown 2006). Early Spanish explorers and American travelers inscribed their names and the dates of their visits in the Zuni sandstone, although the top of the cuesta was inhabited by prehistoric Puebloans in the late thirteenth to mid fourteenth centuries A.D. They and later travelers acquired water from rain-fed pools on the cuesta top and at its base (Chronic 1987, cited in Brown and Brown 2006). The sedimentary landform that lies to the southwest of LA 153714 is separated from the El Morro cuesta by a fairly narrow gap.

Balancing these high points in the Acoma-Zuni Section are a variety of valley and canyon types, cut into the “relatively undeformed sequences of sedimentary and [Cenozoic] volcanic rocks” (Hawley 1986:23, cited in Brown and Brown 2006) that form the Colorado Plateau. The LA 153714 project area lies within the drainage system of the Little Colorado River, to the west of the Continental Divide, albeit still at a fairly high elevation of 2,229 m (7,313 ft). LA 153714 itself sat in a relatively flat area at the base of a moderate northeast-facing slope created by a low north/south-trending vesicular basalt outcrop, seen in the middle ground of Figure 2.3. It is this outcrop that created the need for a reverse “S” curve in NM 53, as the road originally skirted around the north end of it and the site was tucked within the curve. Not surprisingly, the abundance of very accessible, small basalt boulders made them the chosen building blocks at the site. This contrasts with most of the other Pueblo III-IV masonry structures in the area, most of which were made of sandstone collected from cliffs lining the edges of the El Morro Valley. The sedimentary cliffs that lie approximately 1,200 m (3,937 ft) to the southwest of LA 153714, and that are separated from the El Morro cuesta by a small gap, can be seen in the background of Figure 2.3. While several of the ground stone manos found at LA 153714 are basalt, all of the grinding stones (i.e., metates and netherstones) are made of sandstone, which likely came from those cliffs.


Figure 2.3. Site overview, facing southwest.

SOILS

Soils that have formed in the erosional and depositional landscape of the Zuni region are classified as Teco-Cabezon, which consists of deep (Teco) and shallow (Cabezon) soils that are found largely on ridges and mesas. Teco soils—well-drained soils that formed in mixed alluvium and occur on mesas—make up 40 percent of the soil unit. Cabezon soils—well-drained soils that formed in eolian deposits and alluvium over basalt and occur on ridges—represent 60 percent of the soil unit. Within the general Teco-Cabezon classification is one specific soil, the Teco-Atarque association, 1 to 8 percent slopes (575) (Teco-Atarque association), that occurs within the LA 153714 project area (Parham 1993, cited in Brown and Brown 2006).

The Teco-Atarque Association

The Teco-Atarque association forms on old basalt-capped mesas in mixed alluvium reworked by the wind. Sixty percent of the association consists of Teco fine sandy loam, 1 to 4 percent slopes, found in low areas on

basalt-capped mesas and in swales. Another 25 percent is Atarque fine sandy loam, 1 to 8 percent slopes, which occurs on knolls in high areas on basalt-capped mesas. The remaining 15 percent of the association consists of small areas of other soils. Because native grasses and scattered trees grow on this soil association, it is often used for livestock grazing (Parham 1993, cited in Brown and Brown 2006).

Teco Soil

Teco soil is deep and well drained and forms in alluvium and eolian material derived primarily from sandstone and shale. Its available water capacity is high because permeability is moderately slow and runoff is slow. In addition, water and wind erosion hazards are slight. A variety of native vegetation types, including alkali sacaton, western wheatgrass, galleta, and winterfat, grow in Teco soil. Table 2.1 shows general colors and characteristics of Teco soils according to depth (Parham 1993:69, cited in Brown and Brown 2006).


Table 2.1. Characteristics of Teco Soil by Depth Depth Color Type

0-15 cm (0-6 in) Light brown Fine sandy loam 15-61 cm (6-24 in) Reddish brown Clay loam 61-104 cm (24-41 in) Light brown and pink Clay loam and sandy clay loam 104-152 cm (41-60 in) Reddish yellow Gravelly sandy loam

Atarque Soil

Atarque soil is shallow to very shallow and well drained, forming in wind-modified, mixed alluvium. Its permeability is moderate but runoff is rapid, resulting in a very low capacity for holding available water. In addition, its water and wind erosion hazards are severe. Native vegetation that grows in Atarque soil includes blue grama, sideoats grama, black grama, little bluestem, and wolftail. Table 2.2 provides information on the typical colors and characteristics of Atarque soils according to depth (Parham 1993:69, cited in Brown and Brown 2006). Based on the results of excavation, sediments within LA 153714 itself vary from very shallow (<10 centimeters [cm] [<3.9 inches (in)]) sandy loam and clay loam on the west edge of the site immediately overlying the basalt outcrop, to deep (>1 m [>3.3 ft]) compact sand and sandy loam on the downslope, east edge of the site (Figure 2.4). Post-occupational fill excavated within surface masonry structures and in the diffuse midden area in the northeast portion of the site consisted largely of light brown eolian sand and sandy loam. Hence, wind seems to have been an important source of long-term

sediment erosion and deposition, though heavy monsoon rains—such as those witnessed during site excavation—also contributed to short-term sediment erosion and deposition and structure decomposition, particularly in the once-exposed deep pit structures.

While cultural deposits at the site are not very old (with most dating to between A.D. 1250 and A.D. 1350 at a maximum), relatively few artifacts remained on the surface prior to data recovery, and all but the very tops of the rock structures present at the site had been covered over. This suggests moderate post-occupational sediment deposition at the site. In contrast, sediment deposition during and between different occupations of the site appears to have been more rapid; over the span of only 100 years or less, anywhere from 20 to 175 cm (7.9 to 29.5 in) of sediment was deposited in cultural features. This suggests that, in addition to natural agents such as wind and water, prehistoric people actively moved sediments around the site and remodeled the local environment.

Table 2.2. Characteristics of Atarque Soil by Depth Depth Color Type

0-8 cm (0-3 in) Brown Fine sandy loam 8-48 cm (3-19 in) Brown and light brown Clay loam 48 cm (19 in) maximum N/A Basalt


Figure 2.4. LA 153714 facing northwest, showing sediments exposed by mechanical stripping.

SURFACE WATER

As mentioned above, little natural surface water is present in the El Morro Valley; Bluewater Lake on the north flank of the Zuni Mountains and Ramah Lake near the western end of the valley are modern, man-made reservoirs. Prehistoric water sources included some natural sandstone catchment areas (e.g., around the El Morro cuesta), small springs located in the center of the valley (e.g., near Cienega Pueblo), and some intermittent drainages that are part of the Zuni River basin. Those include the Rio Pescado and Cebolla Creek, located approximately 16 km (10 mi) west of the LA 153714 project area (Brown and Brown 2006). The Zuni River basin itself feeds into the Little Colorado River in eastern Arizona, just downstream of the Upper Little Colorado region (Duff 2002)

(Figure 2.5). The tributaries of the Little Colorado River facilitated human population movement among various culture areas located within its larger basin (Duff 2002; see Chapter 3, this volume). Based on local knowledge, it appears that the water sources located closest to LA 153714 may have been natural springs or catchments at the base of the cliffs running approximately 1.2 km (0.7 mi) to the west of LA 153714, or a series of extant wetlands areas located less than 3.2 km (2 mi) southeast of the site. Alternatively, there may have been small natural or human-made basin areas associated with LA 153713 (Brown and Brown 2006), located to the northeast of Hokona on the north side of NM 53 (Figure A.1). However, direct investigation of those alternatives was not feasible during the data recovery project.


Figure 2.5. Map of New Mexico and Arizona showing Western Pueblo site clusters during the Pueblo IV period (Figure 4.1 in Duff 2002).

CLIMATE

In accordance with its relatively high elevation near the Continental Divide, the LA 153714 project area is characterized by a semiarid continental climate featuring warm summers and cold winters. The average annual temperature ranges from 12 degrees Celsius (ºC) (54 degrees Fahrenheit [ºF]) at lower elevations to 8ºC (47ºF) at higher elevations. Temperatures at or above 32ºC (90ºF) are reached an average of 15 days per year, while the average number of days with freezing temperatures ranges from 150 to 200. The average number of frost-free days per year at El Morro National Monument is 110. Relative humidity there averages 77 percent in the early morning but decreases to 39 percent in the afternoon between July and May. In June it averages only 25 percent. The

data recovery field crew working at LA 153714 between late March and mid August experienced many days of strong and gusty winds, and one day of extremely high winds. El Morro Valley winds come primarily from the west, although weather that moved through the area of the site appeared to be complex; storms often seemed to circulate within the valley rather than simply moving through it.

Together with a fairly short growing season, the El Morro Valley has a low average annual precipitation level of 229 to 305 millimeters (mm) (9–12 in). Most precipitation comes in the form of rain from brief, heavy thunderstorms that form over the Gulf of Mexico and are blown westward between June and October. Occasionally moisture also comes from the eastern subtropical Pacific


(Parham 1993 and Houghton 1977, cited in Brown and Brown 2006). Together with seasonally strong and gusty winds, rain from heavy summer storms actively erodes and re-deposits surface sediments. The region also receives a modest amount of snow in winter from eastward-moving Pacific Ocean storms. Still, the area is generally protected from very heavy snow by the various mountains located west of New Mexico, so its average annual snowfall ranges from only 0.3 to 1.2 m (1–4 ft); most snow falls between November and March. Temperatures and precipitation in the El Morro Valley can be highly changeable, though, even within the same day, and precipitation levels vary from month to month and year to year. For example, in August 1947, El Morro National Monument received only 227 mm (8.9 in) of rain, but during the winter of 1974–1975, it was covered by 2.61 m (8.57 ft) of snow (Parham 1993, cited in Brown and Brown 2006).

Environmental degradation and drought often are cited as catalysts for large-scale population movement in the prehistoric Southwest (e.g., Ahlstrom et al. 1995; Dean and Robinson 1977; Dean et al. 1985). At the same time, many researchers (e.g., Damp 2000; Plog 1997; Van West 1996) point out that one-to-one correlations between droughts and population movements are non-existent, or tenuous at best. Accordingly, while drought conditions in lower elevations of the Four Corners area may have motivated people to move into the higher elevation El Morro Valley, this cannot be proven. Still, some researchers have suggested that a crippling drought that plagued the Southwest from A.D. 1130 through 1180 and contributed to the abandonment of Chaco Canyon (e.g., Dean and Robinson 1977; Dean et al. 1985) may have pushed people to higher elevations, including the El Morro Valley, where rainfall was somewhat greater. A century later, the Great Drought of A.D. 1276–1299 may have spurred larger-scale immigration and

aggregation. Prior to the droughts, the El Morro Valley’s growing season would have been too short to consistently support farming. However, as the Four Corners region became hotter and drier, the growing season in the higher elevations of the El Morro Valley would have lengthened. People would have been forced to move there from lower elevations, to take advantage of the greater natural rainfall and adequate growing season (Watson et al. 1980). After the drought ended, most or all of the population in the El Morro region eventually moved back to lower elevations along the Zuni River and founded a series of large villages, including Zuni Pueblo (Ferguson 1980; Kintigh 1985; Woodbury 1956). Regardless of the details, the relatively high elevation and short growing season in the El Morro Valley undoubtedly affected human use of the area.

VEGETATION

Lying within the Upper Sonoran Zone (Bailey 1913, cited in Brown and Brown 2006), the El Morro Valley contains vegetation variously classified as Plains-Mesa Grassland and Juniper Savanna (Brown 1994a; Dick-Peddie 1993a, 1993b, cited in Brown and Brown 2006) and Plains and Great Basin Grassland and Great Basin Conifer Woodland (Brown 1994b; Brown and Lowe 1994, cited in Brown and Brown 2006). The Plains-Mesa Grassland is the most extensive grassland community in New Mexico. As a result of grazing, farming, and urbanization, however, most of the areas in New Mexico historically occupied by this plant community have changed to Juniper Savanna in its upper reaches and to Desert Grassland in its low areas. Transitional areas from grassland to desert grassland vegetation are subtle and extensive. In climax condition, however, Plains-Mesa Grassland consists almost entirely of grasses, including grama (Bouteloua spp.), threeawn (Aristida spp.), dropseed (Sporobolus spp.), muhly


(Muhlenbergia spp.), buffalograss (Buchloe dactyloides), and Indian ricegrass (Oryzopsis hymenoides). Major shrubs include fourwing saltbush (Atriplex canescens), rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus nauseosus), broom snakeweed (Gutierrezia sarothrae), sagebrush (Artemisia spp.), cholla and prickly pear cacti (Os puntia spp.), and yucca (Yucca spp.). Forbs include prairieclover (Petalostemum spp.), prairie coneflower (Ratibida tagetes), and globemallow (Sphaeralcea spp.) (Dick-Peddie 1993b, cited in Brown and Brown 2006).

Juniper Savanna is also an extensive ecotone in New Mexico, most common on the edges of valleys since it represents a transition from woodland to grassland. It is characterized by a marked decrease in tree density and often a reduction to a single tree species—juniper (Dick-Peddie 1993b, cited in Brown and Brown 2006). In New Mexico, that is usually the one-seed juniper (J[uniperus] monosperma). The Juniper Savanna ecotone also contains shrubs, and those noted within the original project survey area included rabbitbrush, snakeweed, sagebrush, and mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus montanus). Juniper is the dominant tree in the El Morro area, but piñon (Pinus edulis) and an occasional ponderosa pine (P. ponderosa) are also present on the valley floor. However, vegetation most abundant in the immediate vicinity of LA 153714 included various grasses (especially grama), sagebrush, and juniper; no piñon or ponderosa pines could be seen from the site itself.

While modern vegetation around LA 153714 is characteristic of a Plains-Mesa Grassland and Juniper Savanna, archaeological evidence suggests that prehistoric vegetation there was somewhat different. For example, a predominance of ponderosa wood and bark, together with a much smaller amount of piñon but almost no juniper, was recovered from features at the site (see Chapter 11). The fact

that even hearths contained little or no juniper as fuel wood suggests that ponderosa may have dominated the prehistoric landscape, rather than juniper.

FAUNA

The El Morro Valley and its environs contain a variety of vertebrate fauna (e.g., Findley et al. 1975; Peterson 1990; see also Chapter 10 of this volume). Rodent species include Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), the white-throated woodrat (Neotoma albigula), and the Mexican woodrat (Neotoma mexicana), as well as various mouse species, including the deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), canyon mouse (Peromyscus crinitus), white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), brush mouse (Peromyscus boylii), rock mouse (Peromyscus difficilis), and piñon mouse (Peromyscus truei). A variety of small to large mammals, hawks, owls, lizards, and snakes also are found in the region. Carnivores include bears (Ursus spp.), wolves (Canis lupus), coyotes (C. latrans), bobcats (Felis rufus), striped skunks (Mephitis mephitis), and gray foxes (Urocyon cinereoargenteus).

In prehistoric times, the cottontail (Sylvilagus spp.), black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), pronghorn (Antilocapra americana), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), and wapiti (Cervus elaphus) were particularly important meat sources for human inhabitants of the region. Other species used less often for food included the bighorn sheep (Ovis canidensis), white-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys gunnisoni), turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), woodrat, and pocket gopher. Prehistoric people often used the pelts, hides, bones, and claws of carnivores and mammals for tools, clothing, ornaments, and ceremonial objects. They also used the feathers, talons, and bones of birds, including eagles, hawks, ravens (Corvus corax), various perching birds, and wild and domesticated turkeys for


similar purposes (Brown and Brown 2006; Walth 2008, this volume).

Both modern and prehistoric evidence suggests that parts of LA 153714 were significantly disturbed by the actions of a variety of rodents and small mammals. Those animals moved sediments around both vertically and horizontally, thereby introducing cultural materials into non-original contexts. Key food animals at LA 153714 were cottontails and jackrabbits. Turkey and large mammal bones were used for tools, but there is less evidence for the species’ use as food (see Chapter 10).

CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT

In modern times, the area around LA 153714 has been modified largely through road building and ranching activities. Built and paved between the 1920s and 1950s (Brown and Brown 2006), NM 53 runs just east and north of the site. Law enforcement officers working in the area reported that, because of the road’s sharp curve, numerous car accidents have occurred on this stretch of NM 53. While it is unclear whether any have breached the boundary of LA 153714, one accident that occurred on the morning of the second day of fieldwork created a shallow trench just outside the east boundary of the site (Figure 2.6). It is known that at least a portion of the northeast corner of the site was removed during road construction and maintenance, creating a vertical cut in which cultural deposits were exposed in profile; this area was recorded as a midden during survey (Brown and Brown 2006). Much of the area immediately east of the pre-data recovery site boundary consists of a moderate depression caused by mechanical removal of sediments along NM 53. As a result, at least some surface artifacts appear to have eroded downslope and were found east of their presumed original locations. Given that LA 153713 is located just north of NM 53, and

east of LA 153714, it is possible that NM 53 bisects what originally was one large site, or at least a locus of occupation.

Ranching activities—and especially cattle grazing—also have impacted LA 153714 to some degree. A private landowner runs cattle on the south side of the NM 53 right-of-way fence that bisects the site, and other cattle graze on land located just north of NM 53 (Figure 2.7). Cattle undoubtedly have trampled on some of the basalt rocks used to construct the jacal and masonry structures at the site and dispersed some of the surface artifacts, but overall their impacts to cultural deposits appear to have been minimal.


Figure 2.6. Modern impact to LA 153714, facing west.

Figure 2.7. Cattle grazing across NM 53 from LA 153714, facing north.

CHAPTER 3 CULTURE HISTORY AND LITERATURE REVIEW

Jim A. Railey, William T. Brown, and Rebecca H. Schwendler

The human past in western New Mexico can be divided into four broad traditions: Paleoindian (ca. 11,000–5500 B.C.), Archaic (ca. 5500 B.C.–A.D. 400), Ancestral Puebloan (or Anasazi, ca. A.D. 400–1600), and Historic (A.D. 1600–present). Because LA 153714 dates to within the Ancestral Puebloan tradition, and specifically to Pueblo III-IV times, this overview focuses on that time frame. Still, given that the time period from A.D. 1050 to the time of Coronado’s conquest in 1540–1542 witnessed widespread and significant change in the prehistoric cultures of the Southwest, it is important to place Hokona within a longer time frame, to better understand its place in the history of the El Morro Valley. For example, outside the Anasazi area, the Hohokam were in their Classic Phase (A.D. 1100–1450), the Mogollon were in the Mimbres Phase (A.D. 1100–1500), and the massive trade center at Casas Grandes in Chihuahua, Mexico was at its peak. Other important transitions were taking place in the prehistoric Southwest outside the Western Pueblo region of far western New Mexico and eastern Arizona between A.D. 1275 and A.D. 1325, including in the Verde River Valley (Pilles 1996), the Tonto Basin (Elson 1996), the Hohokam area (Abbott 2000), and the Rio Grande area (Crown et al. 1996).

PRE-PUEBLOAN TRADITIONS

Sites of the Paleoindian tradition are often difficult to identify archaeologically and are rare in the area surrounding LA 153714. The same is essentially true for Early and Middle Archaic sites (ca. 5500–1800

B.C.). However, there is a growing body of information on Late Archaic/Basketmaker II period occupation in the Zuni area. For example, there is some evidence for irrigation-based food production as early as 1000 B.C. (Damp et al. 2002; Zuni Cultural Resource Enterprise [ZCRE] 2000). In addition, two Archaic projectile points recovered from LA 153714 provide direct evidence for occupation of at least the surrounding region at that time.

ANCESTRAL PUEBLOAN (ANASAZI)

TRADITION

The following discussion is taken largely from the ZCRE (2000) summary of Ancestral Pueblo occupation in the Zuni area. Archaeologists traditionally defined the Ancestral Puebloan tradition in terms of the Pecos sequence, which originally subdivided the tradition’s culture history into the following eight developmental stages: Basketmaker I Basketmaker II, Basketmaker III, Pueblo I, Pueblo II, Pueblo III, Pueblo IV, and Pueblo V (Kidder 1927). Years after Kidder created the Pecos Classification, archaeologists combined the first two periods into Basketmaker II and bracketed each period with dates (e.g., Lipe et al. 1999). The classification has been widely criticized as being inappropriately region-specific and evolutionary (e.g., Kintigh 1996; Stein and Fowler 1996). However, it is summarized here to provide a chronological context for LA 153714’s occupations.

BASKETMAKER II

Dates used for the Basketmaker II period range from 1000 B.C.–A.D. 500 to A.D. 1–500, depending on whether sites with the earliest evidence for maize domestication are

Chapter 3 Culture History 19

classified as Basketmaker II or Late Archaic or something else all together (e.g., Huckell 1996). The standard Pecos Conference definition of Basketmaker II is any preceramic assemblage that includes evidence of maize. Hence, given recent discoveries of very early evidence for that domesticate, the larger time frame is more appropriate. Typical Basketmaker II habitation sites are characterized by shallow, round pit structures with long entryways, large amounts of fire-cracked rock, one-hand manos, shallow middens, and large corner-notched projectile points with prominent tangs. Multi-occupation campsites also are characteristic of the period. Ceramic sherds actually do occur in small numbers on some late Basketmaker II sites, although they are a distinctive sand-tempered brownware very different from the graywares of later periods. Basketmaker II sites often occur on arable land on the edges of river valleys, with pit houses cut into terraces. Temporary campsites are located in a wider range of environments (Lipe et al. 1999). As mentioned in the preceding section, some Basketmaker II sites exhibiting irrigation-based agriculture are known from the Zuni area (Damp et al. 2002; Zuni Cultural Resource Enterprise [ZCRE] 2000).

BASKETMAKER III

Characterizing the Basketmaker III period (A.D. 400–700) was plain gray utility pottery (Lino Gray), some black-painted pottery (Lino Black-on-gray), and pottery with a nonpermanent hematite coating (Lino Fugitive Red). Habitation sites included round to rectangular pit structures and interior and exterior storage features. The habitation structures often included an "antechamber." The exterior storage features were often themselves small pit structures, and were often arrayed in an arc behind the habitations. Some sites included larger pit structures that are usually viewed as ceremonial. Sites tend to occur on alluvial terraces or low rises next

to drainages. ZCRE (2000) noted few examples of investigated Basketmaker III sites in the area.

PUEBLO I

Characterizing the Pueblo I period (A.D. 700–900) was neck-banded utility pottery (Kana'a Gray) and black-on-white pottery (White Mound, Kiatuthlanna, La Plata, and Red Mesa Black-on-white) that, at least at first, featured fine overlapping lines and tick marks. Habitation sites continued to include pit structures, but the row of features behind each habitation became a rectangular or curving row of surface storage rooms (of masonry, jacal, or both). The antechamber room of the Basketmaker III habitation structures was replaced with a ventilation shaft, and the structures began to include features reminiscent of later kivas. According to Anyon et al. (1983), who term this period the Kiatuthlanna phase, site locations tended to shift to ridges and other upland settings, away from the valley bottom locations preferred in Basketmaker III times.

PUEBLO II

The Pueblo II period originally was assigned a date of A.D. 900–1100, although ZCRE (2000), among others (see Adler 1996), extended its ending date to A.D. 1150 and broke it into Early Pueblo II (A.D. 900–1050) and Late Pueblo II (A.D. 1050–1150). Either way, it coincides with the early development of many of the large and small pueblos that were associated with Chaco Canyon through geography and/or social, economic, and ritual integration. At the core of this so-called Chacoan regional system were several large, integrative, planned “Great House” pueblos that contained hundreds of rooms and large, subsurface, ceremonial structures called “Great Kivas,”


used for communal rituals. Also located within Chaco Canyon were many smaller residential sites. In addition, at least 70 “Chacoan Outliers”—Great Houses located outside the canyon, both in the San Juan Basin and beyond—were built during this time period and slightly later (e.g., Fowler et al. 1987; Marshall et al. 1979; Powers et al. 1983). Several road systems connected many of the Great Houses with sites in the canyon. Regardless of the specific integrative mechanisms that tied people to the Chacoan system (e.g., Stein and Fowler 1996), many items identified with Chaco were traded around and outside the San Juan Basin between A.D. 1000 and A.D. 1150, including ceramic vessels, turquoise, copper bells, and macaw feathers (Earle 2001; Elliott 1995). Hence, the presence of such items at archaeological sites outside Chaco Canyon can be used as evidence for participation in the regional system (e.g., Upham et al. 1994).

Characteristic Pueblo II pottery included corrugated gray utility wares, black-on-white pottery (Red Mesa, Puerco, Escavada, Gallup, and Chaco/McElmo Black-on-white), and, at the end, White Mountain Red Wares including Puerco and Wingate Black-on-red. Pueblo II ceramics found at LA 153714 include Red Mesa, Escavada, and Chaco-McElmo Black-on-white. However, there is no definitive evidence for Hokona being occupied at that time, so the ceramics likely were curated as heirlooms, perhaps because they symbolized ancestral social, economic, and/or ritual connections with the Chacoan regional system (see Chapter 7).

Broad Pueblo II–IV settlement trends are moderately well known in the Zuni area, thanks to a rich history of archaeological investigations, albeit mostly surveys and small-scale excavations. Although Pueblo II sites are more numerous than sites of other periods, they may not have housed as large a population as was present in later periods

(Varien 1987), although not necessarily in terms of total human population. Between A.D. 1000 and 1200, thousands of pueblos and some pit houses were spread evenly across the Cibola region, but until approximately A.D. 1150 few or none of the pueblos had more than 60 rooms. The ubiquity of small sites and lack of large sites led Kintigh (1994) to suggest that the region was uncomplicated vis-à-vis social organization. In Early Pueblo II, surface storage rooms became habitation rooms, often arranged in rectangles or in U shapes. Inhabitants continued to use pit structures, but those were more stylized in construction and presumably more exclusively ceremonial in function; many archaeologists do not hesitate to call them "kivas." The site axis often included the surface habitation rooms, a kiva, and a midden where burials were commonly placed.

In the Late Pueblo II period (ca. A.D. 1050–1150), sites in the Zuni River drainage typically were small, with most having fewer than 20 rooms. Room blocks were widely scattered across the landscape or loosely clustered along canyon edges. There were a few Chacoan outliers in the area (e.g., Village of the Great Kivas northeast of Zuni village), but the well-defined communities known from many other parts of the Chacoan world were not clearly evident in the Zuni drainage (Kintigh 1996). An important outstanding research question concerns the relationship between Zuni region residential sites and Chacoan Great House complexes (see Kintigh 1996).


PUEBLO III

While the Pueblo III period traditionally is dated to A.D. 1100–1300, Hayes et al. (1981) split it into Early Pueblo III (A.D. 1050–1180) and Late Pueblo III (A.D. 1180–1400). In contrast, Adler (1996) dates Pueblo III between A.D. 1150 and 1350. During Pueblo III times, characteristic pottery continued to include corrugated utility wares and black-on-white wares (including Chaco/McElmo, Reserve, Tularosa, Pinedale, and Snowflake Black-on-white), but redwares shifted from black-on-red to polychrome designs (including Wingate, St. Johns, Pinedale, and Kwakina Polychrome). Pueblo III ceramics from LA 153714 include Chaco/McElmo, Tularosa, Klagetoh, and Pinedale Black-on-white, and St. Johns and Pinedale Black-on-red and Polychrome. Utilitarian graywares include festoon, obliterated, and indented corrugated (see Chapter 7).

During the century from A.D. 1150–1250, site distributions began to form more discrete clusters, and most room blocks were situated along canyon edges and at the bases of mesa slopes. These site clusters were quite variable, however, with some communities consisting of small, dispersed pueblos and others being more tightly aggregated. In addition, some clusters had post-Chacoan style architecture and unroofed great kivas at their cores (e.g., Los Gigantes, Hinkson), while others did not (Kintigh 1996). Most conjoined room blocks consisted of 4 to 40 rooms, but the larger clusters of these blocks could contain hundreds of rooms (see Kintigh 1996). This appears to have been a very dynamic time, when pueblo peoples in the area were grappling with organizational challenges associated with the reorganization of the Chacoan system.

Between A.D. 1250 and A.D. 1375, the nucleation trend changed course with the construction of large, planned, aggregated pueblos, and the apparent disappearance of small pueblo sites by A.D. 1300 (Kintigh 1996). The large pueblos built in the Zuni region typically contained hundreds of rooms conjoined as a single block, enclosing a plaza (Kintigh 1985, 1994; ZCRE 2000). This super-aggregation trend must have presented challenges in terms of both social integration and depletion of local natural resources, as at least 28 large pueblos totaling 13,000 rooms were built and abandoned in the Zuni District between A.D. 1250 and 1400 (Kintigh 1996). ZCRE (2000:25) reports that large, late Pueblo III sites "are well represented from Pescado to El Morro...and were occupied until slightly after AD 1300." This was a time of severe drought in many areas, and most of these large, nucleated villages in the Zuni District are at relatively high elevations (2,000–2,300 m, or 6,500–7,500 ft), close to the threshold at which precipitation, runoff, and seasonal temperature conditions were still suitable for maize-based food production. At 2,229 m (7,313 ft) above sea level, LA 153714 is also within this elevation zone, although it represents a different kind of occupation contemporary (or at least alternating) with the nucleated pueblos.

PUEBLO IV

As with earlier periods, Pueblo IV’s traditional dates of A.D. 1300–1540 (or 1600) have been modified by some researchers. For example, Duff (2002) divides Pueblo IV into Early (A.D. 1275–1325) and Late (A.D. 1325–1400) periods, situating it within an earlier time frame than most other chronologies. Therefore, this discussion of Pueblo IV encompasses the more commonly used dates of A.D. 1300–1600. By the middle of the fourteenth century, permanent settlement within the once-populous San Juan Basin had essentially ended. In contrast, the


Zuni area was part of a broad arc, extending from the Rio Grande Valley on the east to the Hopi Mesas on the west, that was still occupied by Pueblo peoples. For example, by A.D. 1300, most of the population in the Zuni area was nucleated in a small number of large pueblos with room counts ranging from 200 to 1,400, particularly in the eastern segment of the Zuni District (Kintigh 1985). Pueblo IV ceramics in the Zuni region included the first true glazes—Kwakina Polychrome (A.D. 1275–1400) and Heshotauthla Polychrome (A.D. 1300–1400) (Fowler 1989; Kintigh 1985). Despite the fact that several of Hokona’s radiocarbon dates fall within this Pueblo IV timeframe, it yielded no glaze ceramics (see Chapter 7).

Duff (2002:5) uses the term “Western Pueblo” to refer to “settlements located throughout the southern Colorado Plateau and the mountains below the Mogollon Rim in Arizona and New Mexico.” Many cultural regions can be defined within that area, although populations centered largely around tributaries of the Little Colorado River and the Salt River (Figure 3.1). Duff (2002) posits that the Pueblo IV population of the Western Pueblo area was concentrated in the Hopi and Zuni regions. Based on settlement patterns, ceramic characteristics, and linguistic studies, interactions in the latter area seem to have been internally focused (e.g., Adams 1996; Duff 2002; Kintigh 1985), with large populations being restricted to the Zuni region. For example, settlements in the Zuni

region tended to average over 500 rooms, whereas those elsewhere in the Upper Little Colorado area never exceeded 60 to 100 rooms (Duff 2002; Kintigh 1985, 1994, 1996). Sites from the Zuni region also have yielded very different ceramic assemblages than other parts of the Upper Little Colorado; the entire Pueblo IV period in Zuni was dominated by Zuni Glaze and Cibola White Ware (Duff 2002:82). Not only were Zuni ceramics stylistically homogenous, but sourcing studies undertaken by Duff (2002) indicate that almost all ceramics were produced and consumed locally in the Cibola area. Still, Duff (2002) notes the blending of Anasazi and Mogollon cultural traits in the Zuni region, arguing that by Pueblo IV times in the Cibola area, many of the distinctions between Anasazi and Mogollon traditions were obliterated.

Around A.D. 1400, people appear to have migrated from the Ramah-El Morro Valley westward toward the Zuni River (Ferguson and Hart 1985; Kintigh 1985, 1990), where they established six historic towns, including the present-day Zuni Pueblo. Those towns were inhabited until the Spanish invasion in 1539–1540 (Kintigh 1985).

PUEBLO V

Also called the Historic period, Pueblo V usually is assigned the arbitrary date of A.D. 1600–present. Historic developments relevant to the project area are discussed in the next section.


Figure 3.1. Location of Duff’s (2002) Pueblo IV Western Pueblo area sites and districts (Figure 2.2 in Duff 2002).

HISTORIC TRADITION

The Historic tradition in the Zuni River drainage centers on the Zuni people, descended from the Ancestral Puebloan peoples who occupied the area for centuries, along with more recently arrived Southern Athapaskan speakers and Euroamerican settlers. Espejo reported “Querechos” at

Acomita in 1583. Many scholars believe that these Querechos were Southern Athapaskan speakers, whom the Spaniards could distinguish as the Navajos by the 1620s. Today, the Navajo remain on land allotments that comprise the Ramah Indian Area. Beginning in the middle 1700s, Spanish settlers made repeated attempts to settle west of the Rio Grande Valley but were usually


driven back by the Navajo. After 1846, the presence of the U.S. Army tipped the balance of power in favor of expanding Hispanic populations. The forced removal of the Navajo to Bosque Redondo in 1864 further allowed Hispanics to expand their holdings. A few Anglos from the United States began to enter the area, establishing trading posts and ranching operations. Euroamerican occupation remains sparsely distributed in the area today, although many of the large prehistoric pueblos found in the El Morro Valley are located on privately owned land.

PUEBLO II-IV SOCIAL

DEVELOPMENTS IN THE EL MORRO

VALLEY

The aforementioned construction of aggregated settlements in the El Morro Valley occurred in different waves, with one beginning around A.D. 1150–1225, another double episode between A.D. 1250 and A.D. 1300, and a third after A.D. 1400. The first two building episodes are most relevant to LA 153714 and are discussed here. As mentioned above, the results of the first period of large community building shared some characteristics with Chacoan settlements, while the second period saw the construction of very different looking pueblos. The fact that many communities were depopulated generally less than 50 years after they were built, and that settlement configurations changed between and within the two building episodes, suggests that significant social changes occurred in the Zuni region, and specifically within the El Morro Valley, within the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.

At the same time, the restructuring of the ancient Southwest after the abandonment of major areas also spurred organizational changes that are evidenced in artistic and ritual realms. Adams (1991) states that the kachina cult first appears in the Upper Little

Colorado area by around A.D. 1275 and that by the early 1400s it had spread throughout the Puebloan world. Crown (1994) feels that the production of Pinedale style ceramics in the Mogollon Rim area in A.D. 1280 reflects the emergence of a pan-regional cult (which she aptly calls the Southwestern Cult) that was based on fertility and earth symbolism. These religions possibly arose out of a need to integrate larger numbers of people from increasingly more diverse backgrounds, and the adoption of widespread symbolism rather than local, settlement, or region-specific ideology would enable strangers to communicate with each other on terms that all of them understood (Adams 1991).

Another indicator of a different kind of social negotiation was the presence of small settlements apparently inhabited before, during, and after occupation of the large settlements (Figure 3.2). While few small sites have been completely excavated, now with the exception of Hokona, testing at some of them (e.g., Anyon 1984; Anyon et al. 1983; Watson et al. 1980) provided indications of their uses and dating.


Figure 3.2. Locations of large and small sites in the Zuni region, as recorded by the Archaeological

Records Management Section (ARMS).


LARGE SETTLEMENTS

In some ways, it is not surprising that the first episode of large-scale social integration in the Zuni region appears to have been modeled after that of the Chacoan system. The presence of both Chacoan great houses and post-Chacoan great houses in the Cibola region demonstrates that Chacoan influence was strong in the area. In addition, Chacoan trade goods were coveted throughout the Southwest for more than a century. Hence, adoption of Chacoan social organization, architecture, and material culture in other regions could have provided symbolic historical justification for the development of social control there (e.g., Powers and Orcutt 2005; Renfrew and Cherry 1986). Basic information on the Chacoan system is presented below as background to later events.

Approximately 150 years before the first aggregated settlements were built in the El Morro Valley, a relatively wet period in Chaco Canyon from A.D. 1100–1130 led to an economic boom and construction of Great Houses during the Late Bonito (McElmo) phase. Those occupations were distinguished by Chaco/McElmo Black-on-white ceramics and masonry techniques more common in the Mesa Verde region. After approximately A.D. 1130, the large Chacoan centers increasingly resembled northern architectural styles, and particularly Mesa Verde. However, by A.D. 1200, Pueblo Bonito and the other Great Houses in the canyon were abandoned and there was a period of upheaval, reorganization, and population reduction in the region for the next 100 years (e.g., Adler 1996). This period of great change is thought to have been accompanied by massive outward migrations. Still, while the Chacoan system was different, it was not forgotten. Chacoan style centers, such as Salmon and Aztec Ruins, sprang up in the upper San Juan, and it is thought that whatever social

organization characterized Chaco Canyon during its heyday was transferred to these new centers, albeit on a smaller scale. During the thirteenth century, Chaco Canyon continued to be thinly inhabited by groups with probable northern ties, and from A.D. 1250–1300, the “Big House” period centered on the construction of relatively large communal buildings, perhaps as an attempt to return to the formerly successful integrative mechanisms of the Great House communities. This series of events was summarized by Fowler et al. (1987) as the “Manuelito model” (summarized in ZCRE 2000).

First Phase of Large-Scale Construction in the Zuni Region

The Cibola area hosted several Chacoan great houses, including the Village of the Great Kivas. Clearly people in the Upper Little Colorado area were cognizant of Chaco and its influence, and their architecture reflected that (Duff 2002). In the Upper Little Colorado and Zuni areas, circular great kivas were associated with great houses during and immediately after the Chacoan fluorescence (Danson 1957). At the same time, the presence of a single structure with a square great kiva may have represented a more southerly, Mimbres type influence (Duff 2002). Chacoan great houses in the Upper Little Colorado area southwest of the Zuni region were located at Garcia Ranch and Bean Patch (A.D. 1150), along Coyote Creek, and possibly north of Quemado (Danson 1957; Duff 2002; Kintigh 1994, 1996; Lekson 1996). In the post-Chacoan era, the first nucleated towns in the Zuni region arose sometime between A.D. 1150 and A.D. 1225 (Kintigh 1994) and were centered around the construction of large villages that incorporated modified Chacoan architecture and features (Duff 2002; Kintigh 1994). Aggregation began by combining room blocks, which still did not exceed 60 rooms, into compact clusters that formed very large


pueblos with total room counts ranging from 100 to 500. Some of the first nucleated towns contained Chacoan style communal architecture, including roads, great houses, great kivas, and earthen berms—probably as an attempt to use the formerly successful integrative mechanisms seen in the Chacoan regional system (Fowler et al. 1987). Unlike the earlier Chacoan outliers in the Cibola area, though, the first nucleated towns in the Zuni region had very large residential populations. They also contained locally adapted great kivas; the typical Chacoan great kiva gave way to very large (ranging in diameter from 20–30 m [65.6–98.4 ft]), circular, unroofed great kivas. The lack of roofs suggests that the ceremonies conducted within the structures could have been visible to the entire community and, thus, integrated more people (Kintigh 1994).

Kintigh’s (1994; Kintigh et al. 1996) work at the Hinkson site south of the Zuni Reservation revealed a community that post-dated the Chacoan phenomenon and yet retained diagnostic architectural attributes, including a multiple story great house constructed of rubble-core, pecked and ground, banded masonry similar to that seen at several Chacoan outliers, including the Village of the Great Kivas. However, one major difference between the Hinkson architecture and that typical of Chacoan great houses is the size of the Hinkson pueblo, which was composed of 23 room blocks with a total of 440 rooms—much larger than any of the Chacoan communities. Similarly, Hinkson contained a great kiva larger than any Chacoan example, including those in Chaco Canyon itself. The structure was unroofed with a floor area of 34 square meters, and was morphologically similar to one dug by McGimsey (1980) on Mariana Mesa (Kintigh 1994). Hinkson also contained a large earthen berm and a prehistoric road segment. Ceramic data collected from the middens of the three room blocks Kintigh

(1994) tested suggested that the three room suites were contemporaneous with the great kiva, with all four structures built in the late A.D. 1100s to early A.D. 1200s and occupied until approximately A.D. 1275 (Kintigh 1994). Findings similar to those at Hinkson were made even earlier by Fowler et al. (1987) at sites on Mariana Mesa and in Manuelito Canyon, prompting them to create their “Manuelito model” described above. Citing Fowler et al.’s (1987) research and his own work at Hinkson and at Los Gigantes in the El Morro Valley, Kintigh (1994:137) argued:

Thus, the first aggregated sites, these great house-oriented pueblo clusters, are seen as arising, in the wake of the collapse of the Chacoan system, from the competition among coalitions of villages with little prior supravillage political integration. According to the peer polity model, however, an increase in complexity in one place is likely to be accompanied by similar transformations throughout a region; in this case essentially simultaneous aggregation over a broad area…An appropriation of the Chacoan symbolic system (ie, symbolic entrainment), powerfully evidenced by its architectural forms, seems an obvious ideological basis for the newly aggregated groups. Competitive emulation would account for the repetition of this distinctive architectural form across the landscape. The replacement of the Chacoan great kivas with the much larger unroofed great kivas may be understood in terms of a need to integrate larger groups of people than had been necessary (at least in the Chacoan hinterlands) during the Chaco era.

To Kintigh, the competitive emulation aspect of the peer polity model explains why aggregation was so rapid. It also implies that the presence of large unroofed great kivas at slightly later but overlapping nucleated pueblos (e.g., Archaeotekopa II, Kluckholn


Ruin, and Box S, all built between A.D. 1225–1250 [Duff 2002; Kintigh 1985, 1996]) was a symbolic link to the earlier polities and symbolism of the Chacoan system and to these first aggregated sites. Kintigh speculates that the cessation of Chacoan Great Kiva construction may have reflected a shift in ceremonial life from great kivas to plazas, and possibly the introduction of the kachina cult. Kintigh also notes that the unroofed great kiva may be an architectural form that is under-reported in the later stages of Southwestern prehistory, citing the presence of architecturally similar features, such as the ball court/amphitheater at Wupatki (A.D. 1130–1200s), Kiva Fat at Gran Quivira, and Kiva 12 at Pecos (Kintigh 1994).

Second Phase of Large-Scale Construction in the Zuni Region

By the mid to late A.D. 1200s, most of the early nucleated settlements in the Zuni region had been abandoned and new settlements had been constructed, with the center of settlement shifting to the Ramah-El Morro area in the eastern part of the region (Duff 2002; Kintigh 1985, 1996). Most of the later pueblos were well-planned, large, nucleated villages built around plazas; as such, they were unrelated to the post-Chacoan community form described above (Kintigh 1985, 1994). Kintigh (1985) explains this aggregation as the result of the need for social reorganization concomitant with the massive surge in population at the end of the A.D. 1200s, stating “The great amount of construction and abandonment between about A.D. 1250 and 1400 may have resulted from social instability caused by initial population aggregation.” Similarly, Woodbury (1956) three decades earlier suggested that nucleation was the result of an increase in population and increasing social complexity that made large villages a more viable option than the dispersed small sites. However, the shift to nucleated villages would not have been

possible without an increasing agricultural surplus. At the same time, he noted that warfare may also have been an impetus for settlement aggregation.

LeBlanc (1978) and Watson et al. (1980) have looked at this settlement pattern shift in the El Morro Valley and see the movement to true nucleated villages as occurring around A.D. 1275, the same year that roof timbers for Hokona’s Feature 24 “kiva” were cut. These authors also cite a population boom, environmental degradation, and violence as the prime factors that spurred the aggregation of dispersed prehistoric hamlets. In support of the last argument, they cite the building of the “El Morro Group,” a cluster of villages spaced less than 4.8 km (3 mi) apart, with each one composed of several tightly spaced room blocks (LeBlanc 1999). While some are located in low areas near water sources, others (often paired with them) are located on high spots that Watson et al. (1980) and LeBlanc (1999) interpret as lookouts for the approach of invaders; together, the high mesa top sites would have formed a line of sight communication network among the villages (LeBlanc 1999).

These large, planned pueblos replaced a series of “pueblitos” or clusters of small pueblos, that appear to have been built between approximately A.D. 1250 and A.D. 1275 and abandoned very shortly thereafter. The best investigated pueblito is Scribe S, which was abandoned sometime in the late A.D. 1270s (Watson et al. 1980) and gives its name to Watson et al.’s “Scribe S Phase.” The site was burned and much of its construction stone salvaged after its abandonment, although no unburied bodies were recovered there. LeBlanc (1999) feels that the inhabitants of Scribe S subsequently founded the nearby Pueblo de los Muertos, a 500-room settlement that sits on a low piece of ground with permanent water close by and gives its name to Watson et al.’s (1980) “Muerto Phase.”


LeBlanc suggests that the same pattern seen at Scribe S and Pueblo de los Muertos existed elsewhere in the El Morro Valley, noting that several of the earlier villages were burned and scavenged for construction stone, and were replaced by massive, inward oriented pueblos centered around a plaza. Examples of settlements consisting of large, planned pueblos surrounded by much smaller (and perhaps slightly earlier) settlements include Cienega, Mirabal, Atsinna, Hole-in-the-Rock (Lookout), and Kluckhohn (LeBlanc 1999; Watson et al. 1980). In the latter case, the smaller Pettit Site is located high on a mesa top overlooking Kluckhohn (Figure 3.3). Many of the larger settlements were immediately adjacent to permanent water and, in some cases, there were permanent, walk-in wells located inside the pueblos themselves (LeBlanc 1999). Zier (1976) noted the same pattern at a group of sites near Heshotauthla (located between Zuni and the El Morro Valley), and Barnett (1974) found clustered room blocks at Miller Ranch and Sandstone Hill, located farther west.

However, while defensive considerations may have influenced the architecture of nearly all of the large sites, only some of them (e.g., Atsinna, North Atsinna, the Lookout Site, the Pettit Site) (Figure 3.4) were located in clearly defensible positions. In addition, there is little or no evidence for trauma on the few human remains excavated at “Scribe S” or “Muerto” phase sites, and there is no confirmation that rooms and structures burned as a result of warfare specifically (Kintigh 1996). Other large sites (e.g., Pueblo de los Muertos, Rainbow Spring, Pescado Springs, Cienega) appear to have been built in areas of prime agricultural productivity, while still others appear to have been best suited for no one thing in particular (e.g., Jack’s Lake and Archeotekopa II) (Kintigh 1985). Many of the pueblos built during this second wave of aggregation were not inhabited for long either, although Pueblo de los Muertos, Atsinna, and Cienega Pueblo continued to be occupied well into the 1300s, albeit with substantially reduced populations (Duff 1996, 2002; Duff and Kintigh 1997; Kintigh 1996).

Figure 3.3. Views of the mesa top Pettit Site (left) that overlooks the large

valley floor Kluckhohn Pueblo (right).


Figure 3.4. Part of Atsinna Pueblo, facing northeast.

SMALL SETTLEMENTS

Preceding and contemporaneous with the large aggregated villages and pueblos found in the El Morro Valley were small settlements, often clustered in groups. Because most have been recorded during survey or testing, rather than being completely excavated, background information on them comes from farther north in the Four Corners region. In early Pueblo III times in southwest Colorado, the most common settlement pattern consisted of weak clusters of small habitations on mesa tops adjacent to fertile agricultural land (Lipe and Varien 1999; Lipe and Wilshusen 1999). Settlements typically consisted of a single “Prudden Unit” composed of a small room block with a pit structure/kiva and a trash midden located to the south or southeast (Lipe and Varien 1999; Prudden 1903), although some habitations consisted of multiple Prudden Units. Lekson (1988) was one of the first to question the assumption that Pueblo II-III pit structures were not domestic houses. He reasoned that kivas, along with the surface rooms, were one component in a household;

that is, that the Prudden Unit building block consisting of a room block, kiva, and midden represented the remains of one household.

In southern Colorado, Lipe and Wilshusen (1999) define “homesteads” as sites composed of a single Prudden Unit, and “hamlets” as sites consisting of multiple Prudden Units, but not large enough to be villages proper. Using this scheme, Hokona could be referred to as a hamlet. These small habitation sites are thought to have integrated periodically at community centers having great kivas. This settlement pattern can also be seen in the Zuni area during the same time (Adler and Varien 1994; Lipe and Varien 1999). Kintigh (1985) assumes that nuclear or extended family households were the unit cell building blocks of un-nucleated pueblos in the Zuni region. It can be assumed that the small, dispersed homesteads and hamlets also centered around some kind of nuclear households, and Ware (2002; Ware and Blinman 1999) makes a specific suggestion about this. He hypothesizes that matrilineality with matrilocal residence became the norm beginning in Pueblo I times. In that situation,


a woman would have owned the primary house within a small settlement; her husband would have been of a different lineage. Accordingly, the pit structures that made up one part of the Prudden Units became men’s houses, where the woman’s brothers (who were of her lineage) could stay when they returned to their natal home to visit, help with lineage matters, and instruct the woman’s sons (the man’s nephews) in lineage rituals. This arrangement would account for pit structures being used for both residential and ritual activities (Dennis Gilpin, personal communication 2007).

Kintigh (1994, 1996) suggests that such small, dispersed settlements essentially disappear from the archaeological record of the Zuni area by A.D. 1300. However, Hokona’s fourteenth century radiocarbon dates provide evidence that people used small settlements for temporary, if not longer-term, lodging well beyond that date.

During the Cibola Archaeological Research Project (CARP) in 1972 and 1973, block surveys recorded a few pit house structures containing Red Mesa White Ware and dating to circa A.D. 900–1000. Most were located along the upper valley margins in the present-day piñon zone. Later smaller settlements are not specifically described in their summary documentation (e.g., Watson et al. 1980).

However, a series of seven small settlements located near Ramah, approximately 24 km (15 mi) west of Hokona, was tested as part of the Clo-Chin-Toh land exchange project (Anyon 1984). While ceramics and some dendrochronology dates suggest that the settlements were occupied in the early to mid A.D. 1200s—slightly earlier than Hokona’s concentrated occupation—their architecture and contents make them comparable. For

example, all but one site contained a mix of jacal, masonry, and pit structures; while many seemed to be contemporaneous, at least a few of the pit structures had been filled in with trash presumably associated with surface structure occupations. In addition, some of Hokona’s more unusual contents, such as hearths and deflectors located along the east walls of structures, burials dug into pit structure fill, and ceramic animal figurines, also were seen at the Clo-Chin-Toh sites (Anyon 1984).

SITES IN THE VICINITY OF LA 153714

On June 27, 2006, an initial electronic review of site records maintained by the Archaeological Records Management Section (ARMS) of the Laboratory of Anthropology identified two previously recorded sites—LA 9103 and LA 9104—within 0.5 km (0.3 mi) of the proposed realignment APE (Table 3.1). That information was verified on March 20, 2007. The ARMS search also identified five previous surveys, none with recorded sites, within 0.5 km (0.3 mi) of the proposed project area (Table 3.2) (Brown and Brown 2006). However, Marron’s survey of the stretch of NM 53 near LA 153714 identified one additional site—LA 153713—on the north side of the road, slightly east of Hokona (Figure A.1, Figure A.2). Based on a single White Mountain Red Ware sherd found on the surface of LA 153713, along with its four recorded basalt features, the site is assumed to date to approximately the same time period as Hokona—Pueblo III-IV. An examination of the current listings of the NRHP and the State Register of Cultural Properties indicated that no registered properties are located within 0.5 km (0.3 mi) of the project area. The El Morro National Monument and Collections (SR 59, NR 66000043) is more than 4 km (2.5 mi) west of the project area.


Table 3.1. Previously Recorded Sites within 0.5 Kilometer (0.3 Mile) of the Project Realignment APE

LA No. Affiliation Reference NMCRIS No. 9103 Ancestral Puebloan (A.D. 1100–1300)

Historic Unknown (A.D. 1880–1940) Alexander 1964 Whitley 1994

40 53300

9104 Ancestral Puebloan (A.D. 900–1100) Alexander 1964 40

Table 3.2. Previous Surveys with No Recorded Sites within 0.5 Kilometer (0.3 Mile) of the Project Realignment APE

NMCRIS No. Reference 22420 Robertson 1982 46900 Peckham 1973 93292 Boggess 2005 25443 Marshall 1989 64579 Montoya 1999

CHAPTER 4 RESEARCH DESIGN

Rebecca H. Schwendler and Jim A. Railey

Conducting data recovery at LA 153714 provided an opportunity for defining the nature and occupational history of the site, and investigating how its occupation fit into broader regional developments during the Puebloan period. Accordingly, specific research questions were divided into categories: (1) three questions concerning the prehistoric creation and use of LA 153714 itself, and (2) one question pertaining to Hokona’s relationship to other sites in the Four Corners region. Both sets of questions are outlined below. While they were formulated under the assumption that the site was occupied during Pueblo II-III times, excavation and analysis showed that it actually dated to the Pueblo III-IV periods. Nonetheless, all of the research questions remained relevant and the regional question was simply expanded upon accordingly. Hence, the research design is presented here in its original form, and each question is addressed fully in Chapter 14.

SITE-SPECIFIC RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Marron’s discovery of structural, buried, and diagnostic cultural resources at LA 153714 during the survey phase (Brown and Brown 2006) suggested that the site retained significant information about the nature and timing of its use and the post-depositional processes that affected it. That allowed us to ask and answer three specific, interrelated research questions pertaining to the prehistoric occupation of LA 153714 itself.

Question 1: What are the temporal and spatial relationships among the various features at LA 153714?

Marron interpreted LA 153714’s cultural deposits as representing a single Pueblo II–III

component, based on the presence of three possible surface "field houses," a midden, and a modest scatter of ceramic sherds, some of which are diagnostic of those temporal phases (Brown and Brown 2006). Because Pueblo II habitation rooms often were arranged in rectangles or U-shapes (Brown and Brown 2006), it was important to determine whether the three surface structures identified during survey were separate entities or were disturbed surface remains of one conjoined structure, and whether they were contemporaneous with the so-called midden.

The discovery of many more features (a total of 45) than expected made answering this question both more complicated and more important than originally thought. The location and nature of many of the features suggested that the site had been re-occupied and re-modeled several different times, so determining the sequence of site occupation was important for understanding short- and long-term human use of the area. Lines of evidence used to determine feature contemporaneity and chronology included radiocarbon, tree-ring, and archaeomagnetic dating; types of cultural deposits found within different features; ceramic and ground stone artifact refits; and architectural and stratigraphic relationships.

Question 2: What was the nature and length of human occupation at LA 153714?

During survey of LA 153714, Marron recorded one non-diagnostic projectile point base and many diagnostic Pueblo II and III ceramics. Those designations led to an assumption that the site had seen relatively small-scale occupation(s) related to nearby agricultural activities. However, thorough excavation of the site and its diverse features

Chapter 4 Research Design 34

revealed that Hokona contained more than just field houses, and that its use changed over the course of its occupation. The unexpectedly large number of features also suggested that the site had more time depth than originally thought. These revelations were important for discussing Hokona’s relationship to changing human occupation of the El Morro Valley and the larger Four Corners region. Lines of evidence used to determine site use and occupation length included types of artifacts and features; micro- and macro-botanical remains; and relative and chronometric dating techniques.

Question 3: What post-depositional processes have been active at LA 153714, and how might these processes affect our identification and interpretation of this and other sites in the region?

During the survey phase, Marron reported that post-depositional processes affecting LA 153714 included water erosion, wind erosion, cattle grazing, and construction and maintenance of NM 53 (Brown and Brown 2006:34). Most significantly, at least a portion of the midden in the northeast part of the site was removed during road construction and/or maintenance. Determining whether the surface structures had originally looked different, whether surface artifacts had been moved from their original contexts, and whether subsurface cultural deposits were preserved outside the midden area was important for understanding the site’s history. Prior to data recovery, it was assumed that sediments were shallow across the site, so few features would be found below the surface.

However, excavation of test units and subsequent mechanical stripping demonstrated that, while sediment deposition was minimal along the west edge of the site near the basalt outcrop, it was greater near the center of the site and significant in the eastern portion of the site. Similarly, human

remodeling of Hokona was moderate within the surface structures, as people dug some hearths and pits down into eolian sand deposits, but significant in the eastern and southern portions of the site, as they created, filled in, and built on top of large pit structures. Understanding post-depositional processes at Hokona is vital for identifying and interpreting other small sites in the region. For example, Hokona demonstrates that feature modification and sediment deposition can occur very rapidly, particularly when people play active roles. As a result, seemingly small sites may be much larger and more complex than they appear on the surface. Lines of evidence used to investigate post-depositional processes at Hokona included sediment depth and type; feature depth; feature fill; feature form; wall integrity; burning; and faunal and pollen remains.

REGION-SPECIFIC RESEARCH

QUESTION

Only four sites (LA 153713, LA 9104, LA 9103, and LA 1582) have been recorded within a 1.6-km (1-mi) radius of LA 153714, although many more are known from within a 8-km (5-mi) radius. In particular, a dense concentration of large (>50 rooms) pueblo sites is found in the center of the El Morro Valley to the west. While some of the large settlements (e.g., Los Gigantes, Pueblo de los Muertos, Atsinna) within the valley have been at least partly excavated (see Kintigh 1996; Kintigh et al. 2004) and tens of small sites have been recorded (e.g., CARP [Watson et al. 1980]; Anyon 1984; Anyon et al. 1983; ZCRE 2000), additional information on the timing of valley occupation and the relationships between small and large settlements must be obtained. More is known about the earlier twelfth century settlement of the Chacoan region and thirteenth and fourteenth century occupations of the Mesa


Verde, Hohokam, and Mogollon areas. Hence, excavating Hokona provided an opportunity for dramatically increasing our understanding of El Morro Valley prehistory.

Question 4: What is the cultural affiliation and nature of the Pueblo II–III occupation at LA 153714, and what might that tell us about trends and changes in late prehistoric demography, settlement patterns, and sociopolitical organization in the area? What is the relationship, if any, of LA 153714 to the Chacoan system of the late Pueblo II period and subsequent population movements into upland areas?

To understand the cultural affiliation of LA 153714 and its place in local prehistoric developments (see Chapter 3), it was important to confirm the dating of the site and determine how many different occupations it may have seen. After that, it was possible to compare Hokona’s features and artifacts with those from preceding and contemporary sites to determine if Hokona’s inhabitants were closely related to people of a particular geographic area or tradition. Hence, information on surrounding sites and population movements also was needed. For example, there is evidence for marked shifts in population from the San Juan Basin to surrounding upland areas, including Mesa Verde and Zuni-Cibola during the transitional time between Pueblo II and Pueblo III, circa A.D. 1150 (Vivian 1990:331). Given Hokona’s assumed Pueblo II-III age, we originally felt that it may have played an important role during those cultural transitions. In addition, some of the architectural forms and ceramic artifacts found at LA 153714 during excavation suggested that people using the site blended a variety of different traditions, or even created their own local tradition. Lines of evidence used to investigate the cultural affiliation of LA 153714 and its relation to the Chacoan system included chronological data; ceramic

type and clay composition; lithic raw material; artifact form; architectural style; and burial position.

DATA NEEDS

Addressing the above research questions required many different lines of evidence. In some cases, excavation revealed pieces of information not expected prior to data recovery. For example, many burned timbers and some burned clay deposits were recovered from previously unrecorded subsurface features. Accordingly, in addition to relying on the originally proposed radiocarbon dating and macroscopic ceramic and lithic artifact analysis, SWCA incorporated tree-ring dating, archaeomagnetic dating, and inductively coupled plasma spectroscopy (ICPS) into its analyses; these added information vital to understanding this particular site.

CHRONOLOGICAL DATA, CULTURAL AFFILIATION, AND SITE USE

Chronological evidence was critical for answering all four research questions pertaining to LA 153714. During the survey phase, sampling of diagnostic ceramic artifacts in the field suggested that the site contained one Pueblo II–III component (Brown and Brown 2006). In addition to chronological and cultural identification based on post-excavtion laboratory analysis of ceramic, ground stone, and flaked stone artifacts, radiocarbon dating was planned for narrowing down the timing of site occupations. In addition, it was thought that the identification of rare or non-local objects could help to answer questions about the relationship of LA 153714 to settlements in the larger region, and specifically to the Chacoan system. Analysis of artifacts, faunal remains, and micro- and macro-botanical remains also was planned for identifying the kinds of activities that people conducted at the


site, and the length and intensity of its occupation.

Prehistoric Ceramic Data

The range of ceramic types in Hokona’s pottery assemblage primarily was important for assessing the nature and extent of the site's prehistoric component, its cultural affiliation(s), and its place in the larger region. At the same time, refitting ceramics from different areas of the site informed upon site use and post-depositional processes. While the sample assemblage recorded during survey consisted of only 69 sherds, at least 10 different ceramic types were identified. Post-excavation ceramic analysis confirmed that there was much variation in the Cibola White Ware assemblage, in particular. In order to more fully investigate the origins of the ceramic artifacts and the possible mobility and trade patterns of the site’s inhabitants, two analytical techniques not originally planned for were also used. First, re-firing a sample of sherds helped to determine whether different vessels found at Hokona had been made in different locations or the same location. Second, ICPS was used to compare chemical compositions of sherds to those collected from sites in the region during previous excavations. Taken together, the different methods of ceramic analysis helped to address all four research questions pertaining to chronology, site use, post-depositional processes, cultural affiliation, human mobility, and regional interaction.

Ground Stone Data

While no ground stone objects were recorded at LA 153714 during survey, it was assumed that some would be found in subsurface contexts during excavation, particularly

within the three structural features already identified. It was hoped that the ground stone objects would yield some information on the kinds of activities conducted at the site, and the nature and intensity of site use. For example, different sizes and shapes of manos, metates, and other grinding implements can be used to process different kinds and amounts of materials. This is often correlated with resource type and availability, food stress, and/or population density (e.g., Adams 1993). In addition, the presence of highly worn grinding implements, such as manos with multiple ground surfaces and facets, suggests intensive food processing at the site, transport and use of the tools from one site to another, and/or frequent or long-term use of the site (Adams 1996, 1999). The presence of other kinds of ground stone artifacts, such as palettes, can provide evidence for rituals and other activities besides food processing (Logan and Fratt 1993). Hence, analysis of ground stone artifacts found during data recovery largely was intended to help answer Research Question 2, pertaining to the nature of human occupation at Hokona. As it turned out, refitting ground stone artifacts that had been broken apart and deposited in different parts of the site also helped to answer Research Questions 1 and 3 concerning relationships among features and post-depositional processes.

Flaked Stone Data

During survey, only 11 flaked stone artifacts were observed at LA 153714, including a proximal fragment of a non-diagnostic projectile point. It was anticipated that only a small number of flaked stone artifacts would be recovered during data recovery, and that most would represent an expedient industry focused on production of flake and core tools. In addition, it seemed


likely that all lithic raw materials used at Hokona would have come from locally available gravels. Hence, flaked stone data were expected to provide minimal information for answering Research Question 2 about the nature of site occupation. The flaked stone assemblage turned out to be larger than expected, but it did represent only a small percentage of the artifacts found at the site. In addition, few tools and cores were recovered, and of the three fragmentary projectile points found, two were typical Archaic forms that clearly had been collected by the site’s inhabitants. On the other hand, positive identification of two specific raw materials—Zuni spotted chert and Horace Mesa obsidian—provided some information for answering Research Question 4 pertaining to regional settlement patterns and interactions.

Biological Data

Results of the analysis of faunal materials and macro- and micro-botanical remains from LA 153714 were used to help address Research Questions 1, 2, and 3; the results provided information on relationships between different features, the nature of the prehistoric occupation of the site, the diet of the inhabitants, their choice of medicinal plants and firewood, and post-depositional processes that affected the site. In addition, the analysis results yielded information about the local prehistoric environment. Faunal remains, of which many were fragments from invasive rodents, were collected largely during screening of sediments during excavation. Macrobotanical materials (e.g., burned maize kernels and cobs, and beans) largely were collected on their own, although all sediment flotation samples contained at least small amounts of macrobotanical materials. Smaller sediment-derived pollen samples also were collected and analyzed.

In addition to faunal and floral materials, three human burials unexpectedly were discovered at LA 153714. Following approved protocol, SWCA excavated the remains and then performed non-invasive analysis of the burials. Resulting data helped to answer Research Questions 2 and 3, in particular, concerning the nature of site occupation and post-depositional processes. Given the variability in burial practices found in the Zuni region during Pueblo III-IV times, the osteological analysis provided little help with answering Research Question 4, concerning cultural affiliation. However, it did yield information on the ages and health of some of the site’s inhabitants.

Radiocarbon Dating

Prior to data recovery, it was expected that a series of five radiocarbon dates from Hokona’s three features and midden would help to answer all four Research Questions concerning relationships among features, the nature and length of site occupation, post-depositional processes, and cultural affiliation. However, because many more features were found than expected, many additional radiocarbon dates were needed to establish feature contemporaneity and number of site occupations. Samples were selected for radiocarbon dating according to three categories. Preferred materials were fragments of annual plant matter (e.g., charred seeds) that can date human food processing activities directly. Second-priority specimens were pieces of wood charcoal, which can sometimes represent “old wood” that has been sitting on the ground surface for tens or hundreds of years, rather than the date of human activity. The lowest priority material was charcoal dust extracted from bulk sediment samples. Because so many good specimens of charred seeds and burned wood were recovered from LA 153714, only the first two kinds of samples were used.


The discovery of some features containing numerous pieces of burned timbers and/or areas of burned clay warranted the use of additional chronometric dating techniques. Tree-ring dating (dendrochronology) remains the most precise dating method, so as many potentially datable samples as possible were collected and processed. In addition, archaeomagnetic dating of burned clay can sometimes be used, particularly in conjunction with radiocarbon dating, to

establish narrow time frames for site occupation. Accordingly, it was used for two features (a slab-lined hearth and a pit structure loosely called a kiva) that contained appropriate materials. While the relative dating technique of obsidian hydration can sometimes be used effectively for intrasite analysis (see Byram 1995), it was unwarranted at LA 153714; only two obsidian artifacts were recovered from the site.

CHAPTER 5 FIELD AND LABORATORY METHODS


Excavations at LA 153714 followed prescribed procedures for site delineation and mapping; surface collection; identification, documentation, and excavation of features, test pits, and trenches; and further exploration of site stratigraphy and buried deposits via mechanical stripping. In addition, diverse lines of evidence were used to interpret cultural and environmental aspects of the site. Those included analysis of ceramic and lithic artifacts; human, faunal, and macrobotanical remains; and flotation and pollen samples; along with dating of radiocarbon, tree-ring, and archaeomagnetic samples. All of these activities and the methods appropriate to each are described below.

MAPPING LA 153714

Site maps were created by first using a combination of a sub-meter Trimble GeoXT global positioning system (GPS) unit and a Nikon DTM-332 Total Station with data logger to collect precise vertical and horizontal data points in the field, and then using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) software in the office to display those data. Site boundaries were determined by the distribution of surface artifacts, cultural features, subsurface deposits, and topographic features. During survey, Marron and Associates (Brown and Brown 2006) had estimated LA 153714 to be 20 × 18 m (66 × 59 ft), or 360 m² (3,894 ft²) in size. Data recovery results were similar, although the presence of subsurface features and additional surface artifacts expanded the site limits somewhat, resulting in a size of approximately 29.3 × 21.6 m (96.1 × 70.9 ft), totaling 632.9 m² (2,076.5 ft²), or 0.12 acre.

Upon arrival at the site, SWCA personnel relocated Marron’s survey datum, pin flagged

all surface artifacts, and relocated the three surface features identified during survey. Because the survey datum was located too close to the surface features for effective mapping with a total station, a new excavation datum was established approximately 6 m (19.7 ft) south and 2 m (6.6 ft) east of the survey datum (Figure 2.1), at N166 E312 Z100 (see Appendix A for full UTM coordinates). Then the field supervisor created a 1- × 1-m (3.3- × 3.3-ft) grid system across the site, based on actual Universal Transverse Mercator (UTMs) as the x and y coordinates, rather than an arbitrary grid system such as 1000 N, 500 E. Because LA 153714 was characterized by a moderately sized surface artifact assemblage (15.8 artifacts per 100 m2), artifacts were UTM point provenienced (rather than collected within the grid system), recorded, and collected individually.

To better determine the limits of the surface features, eight “shovel scrape units” (SSs) were laid out over the top of them. The units initially were established with a tape measure and compass, but the locations of their southwest corners were later mapped with the total station (Figure 5.1). Similarly, four “midden units” (MUs) and two “test units” (TUs) initially were laid out with a tape measure and compass but later mapped with the total station. After that, however, the UTM grid system itself was used for placing a large number of hand excavation units and trenches across the site to investigate features and to look for cultural deposits between features. Hand-drawn maps were used in conjunction with the total station data as quick references for unit and feature locations and as data backups.

Chapter 5 Field and Laboratory Methods 40

Figure 5.1. Surface data recovery activities at LA 153714.


Color and black-and-white digital photography was an integral part of site mapping and recording in the field, and detailed photo logs were maintained separately for each camera used. Photographs were taken of site overviews, excavation activities, feature plans and profiles, and unusual events and artifacts. In some cases, photographs helped to verify the accuracy of the digital maps that were created later because, while aerial photographs were available for the site location, they were available at too large a scale for the site size. Accordingly, the total station was used to map in locations of natural topographic features (e.g., surface contours) and man-made features (e.g., NM 53, the right-of-way fence and posts). In the office, all visible surface artifacts and features were electronically displayed on a geo-referenced map with contour intervals of 20 cm (7.9 in). Maps were created to depict the locations of the survey and excavation datums, point-provenienced artifacts, features, different kinds of hand excavation units, and site boundaries. All maps contain the site number, north arrow, numbered metric scale, location within New Mexico, and legend for symbols used.

DETERMINING DEPTH OF DEPOSITS

Based on the presence of midden deposits identified in the NM 53 road cut, Brown and Brown (2006) indicated that cultural materials could be found to at least 50 cm (19.7 in) below modern ground surface in the northeast portion of LA 153714. During data recovery, excavation units and mechanical scraping were used to formally determine the depth of cultural deposits across the site.

Four 1- × 1-m hand excavation MUs (and later three 2- × 2-m MUs) were placed in the aforementioned midden area, in part to investigate site stratigraphy and the depth of cultural deposits. Those units revealed that,

particularly in the northern portion of the midden, cultural materials went down to a depth of 50 to 60 cm (19.7 to 23.6 in). In a few cases, rodent burrows carried some materials, such as small pieces of ceramics and charcoal, to slightly greater depths.

Five TUs totaling 5.42 m² (58.32 ft2) were used to sample variation in cultural resources and artifact densities at the site and to determine maximum depth of cultural deposits. SWCA had proposed the use of two units in areas of dense concentrations of surface artifacts, and one in an area with few or no surface artifacts. In actuality, the first unit placed in an area with many surface artifacts uncovered few subsurface artifacts, but the one located in an area of very low surface density yielded a large number of subsurface artifacts and, more importantly, a large subsurface pit structure. Accordingly, three other units were placed between those first two to further define subsurface artifact densities, feature locations, and depths of cultural deposits.

After hand excavation, a backhoe was used to mechanically scrape the site, investigate site stratigraphy, expose subsurface features, and further define depth of deposits. In contrast with SWCA’s original proposal, stripping began in areas that did not already contain evidence for subsurface features; because of their locations and sizes, all known subsurface features had already been excavated by hand. Stripping continued until the machine reached sterile subsoil or failed to reveal subsurface cultural features or artifact concentrations in two subsequent levels across the entire site. On the west edge of the site, subsoil was revealed within as little as 20 cm (7.9 in) below the surface. On the east edge, it was located up to 70 cm (27.5 in) below the ground surface. All features uncovered during stripping were documented and excavated, according to the methods outlined below.


IDENTIFYING, DOCUMENTING, AND

EXCAVATING FEATURES

All three structural features and the midden that were identified during survey of LA 153714 were relocated at the beginning of the data recovery phase. Each was investigated thoroughly, using a combination of whole and partial 1-m2 hand excavation units. The three structural features were excavated completely, while the midden was sampled in a way approved by representatives of all agencies involved. The structures were recorded separately on feature forms that corresponded to their feature numbers, and each 1- × 1-m MU was recorded on its own data recovery excavation unit form that corresponded to its MU number.

In all, 31 individually numbered “Feature Units” totaling 66.75 m² (718.23 ft2) were used to fully excavate and define the site’s surface and subsurface masonry structures and to expose any additional features located within them (see Chapter 6). SWCA had proposed using three 1- × 1-m units outside the three surface features to compare extra- and intramural deposits. In actuality, however, many more extramural units were excavated, as additional features were exposed just under the ground surface to the north, east, and south of the original three features. While all of the units were based on a 1- × 1-m grid, not all 1-m² units were numbered individually; some were excavated as quadrants of individually numbered 1- × 2-m or 2- × 2-m units, to expedite excavation. In addition, two measured 0.25 × 4.00 m (1 m²) and three measured 0.5 × 0.5 m.

As mentioned above, many additional features were discovered during the course of hand excavation and mechanical scraping. Each was treated in the same manner as those first recorded during survey, beginning with the assignment of a unique number that followed the sequence established during

survey. Next, each was photographed and recorded via a unique feature form that documented its size, shape, construction detail, fill, probable function, and relationship to other features and activity areas. Then each feature was completely excavated according to the procedures described below.

For surface and near-surface features, a shovel scrape unit measuring at least 2 × 2 m was placed over the top and excavated down a few centimeters in order to expose the feature boundaries and identify any cultural concentrations within them. For the original surface structures (Features 1–3), more than one 2- × 2-m unit was required. For features whose boundaries were not clear on the exposed surface (Features 4, 24, and 37), a hand trench 30–50 cm (11.8–19.7 in) wide was excavated through the staining to obtain a profile and determine at least two of the feature’s boundaries. In that way, an appropriate half or portion of the feature could be chosen for excavation; if the feature’s boundaries were not at least somewhat well defined prior to excavation, the portion initially removed might have turned out to be only a small, non-representative sample of the entire feature. In other words, delineating the approximate limits of the whole feature prior to beginning excavation ensured that the feature was investigated appropriately and efficiently, and it enabled the field supervisor to better estimate the time needed for excavation. Given its large and amorphous nature, the site’s midden was initially delineated through probing with a 1-in Oakfield soil probe. Then, as described above, a series of 1- × 1-m MUs was used to explore it more fully. None of the features discovered at LA 153714 were covered with sterile or disturbed sediments; rather, each—including the large buried pit structures—contained cultural fill. For those structures, then, a control unit was screened through 1/8-in mesh to determine what percentage of artifacts would not be caught in


1/4-in mesh, and then a large percentage of the remaining sediments were screened through the latter.

Plan view drawings were made before and after excavation of entire features. Each non-structural feature (e.g., hearth, post hole) less than 1.5 m (4.9 ft) in diameter was excavated in two halves, while each structural feature (e.g., rock foundation) was excavated via a series of 1- × 1-m units. Excavation was conducted in arbitrary 10-cm levels until natural strata were defined. After that, excavation followed the natural units when they were less than 10 cm thick, and used 10-cm levels within natural levels when they were thicker. A feature-specific datum allowed for measurement of excavation depth and recording of feature location. Once excavation of the first half of the feature was completed, the excavator drew a profile of the fill in the remaining half of the feature. For structural features, an attempt was made to expose a representative profile through the feature using the excavation units. Fill profiles were tied to the feature datum, and feature cross sections were plotted in three dimensions using hand drawings. Locations of the feature datum and the feature itself were recorded on drawings and in the total station. When no stratigraphy was visible in the feature profile, the second half of the feature was excavated as a single level. When stratigraphy was visible, the second half of (or other units within) the feature was excavated following the natural levels or in 10-cm levels within the natural strata. In most cases, top and bottom elevations of the feature center point also were recorded with the total station. The locations of small features were recorded with the total station as those center points, but the locations of large features were recorded as a series of total station points outlining the feature.

Fill from thermal features (i.e., hearths) was not screened, since that fill was collected for

laboratory analysis. For other features, though, fill not collected generally was screened through 1/8-in hardware mesh. For large features, including masonry structures and pit structures, fill from an initial control unit (e.g., 1-m2) was screened through 1/8-in hardware mesh. Because in all cases the majority of artifacts from control units were caught in 1/4-in hardware mesh, the field supervisor authorized that fill from similar contexts within each feature be screened through 1/4-in mesh. Only a few pieces of culturally unmodified fire-cracked rock (FCR) were found at the site, and they were counted and described on excavation forms.

Prior to data recovery, SWCA agreed to process sediment samples from all features discovered. Accordingly, crew collected up to a 10-liter sediment sample from all features, and two 10-liter samples from the so-called midden. Additional sediment samples were collected from different levels and portions of the pit structures (Features 4, 24, and 37) since those were very large and their fill appeared to have been introduced during different dumping episodes. When possible, materials appropriate for specific kinds of dating and analysis (e.g., pieces of burned wood and seeds, and sediments preserved under ground stone artifacts on living floors) also were collected directly from features. After fieldwork was completed, Rebecca Schwendler provided David Eck (SLO) and Blake Roxlau and Jeff Fredine (NMDOT) with brief descriptions of all of the features and justifications for not processing and analyzing certain ones. In a subsequent meeting, all four people agreed to a thorough analysis of flotation samples from all features from which sediments had been collected, with the exception of seven features; because of their dubious natures and/or their disturbed fill, they were more cursorily examined after flotation processing (see Chapter 11).


METHODS USED FOR HAND

EXCAVATION UNITS

Hand excavation units were given different names, depending on where they were placed. TUs were used for quantifying subsurface artifact densities and investigating site stratigraphy outside of features. MUs were used for accomplishing the above tasks within the midden area that had been defined during survey. Feature units (FUs) were used for recovering artifacts associated with specific activities and structures. More specifically, kiva units (KUs) were used for excavating and mapping the contents of the Feature 24 “kiva” that were located on and just above its floor. All of the different kinds of units used 1 m2 as their basis, although many were numbered as 2- × 2-m units that were excavated in 1- × 1-m quadrants, and some were adjusted in size to fit specific excavation locations. For example, a few 0.25- × 4.00-m units were used to try to define feature boundaries, and a small number of 30- to 50-cm-wide hand trenches of different lengths were used to define feature boundaries, investigate site stratigraphy, and determine site limits. Sizes and descriptions of individual hand units are provided in the next chapter. Most units were excavated with shovels, although units containing abundant wall fall were excavated by trowel, and those in areas with very compact and/or clayey sediments required hand axes and/or pick axes.

As with features, hand units usually were excavated by arbitrary 10-cm levels within natural strata. However, when thinner natural strata could be distinguished, levels followed those. Because LA 153714 lies on a slight slope down to the east, most arbitrary and natural levels also were excavated on a slight slope. For arbitrary levels, that ideally meant that each corner and center of a unit were taken down 10 cm from their starting points.

Sediments removed from hand excavation units were screened through 1/4-in or smaller mesh. In any given part of the site, fill from at least one unit was screened through 1/8-in mesh to determine how many artifacts might be missed in 1/4-in mesh, and whether 1/8-in mesh was needed. Because very few artifacts smaller than 1/4-in were recovered in 1/8-in mesh, the former size was used for most units. The exceptions were KUs, whose fill was only screened through 1/8-in mesh.

Each differently numbered hand unit was recorded on an individual standard excavation unit form. Units that represented quarters of larger 2- × 2-m units (e.g., FU 16 SE quad or FU 16 NW quad) were recorded on the same forms. On those forms, crew members noted sediment characteristics, including color, texture, moisture content, inclusions, organic content, and types of cultural materials present. Colors were described using Munsell terminology (Munsell Color 2000). In addition, select stratigraphic profiles, such as those in sample TUs, MUs, and trenches, were recorded via scale diagrams, photographs, and narrative descriptions.

MECHANICAL EXCAVATION UNITS

After all appropriate hand excavation was finished, a small backhoe was used to dig exploratory trenches, strip the site, and locate subsurface features and cultural deposits. In contrast with activities proposed in the data recovery plan, the backhoe was not used to remove sterile overburden from features because feature boundaries were difficult to define, and pit features contained cultural fill from later occupations, rather than sterile sediments.

COLLECTING AND ANALYZING

ARTIFACTS

Artifacts from surface and subsurface contexts were collected in somewhat different


ways. All pin-flagged and point-provenienced surface artifacts were collected individually and placed in a plastic bag with a completed field specimen label. All artifacts recovered during excavation or screening of sediment from a specific level within a particular unit were placed in the same bag. Fragile artifacts, such as faunal remains and ornaments, were wrapped in aluminum foil and/or put in film canisters to protect them and then included in the general artifact bag. Because of their large size, three ground stone artifacts (one metate and two shaped stones) were given field specimen numbers, analyzed in the field—following the same techniques used in the laboratory—and left there. All field specimen numbers and their associated artifact classes were recorded on a field bag list.

Formal analyses of prehistoric ceramic and lithic artifacts collected from LA 153714 were important means of establishing the site's cultural affiliation and chronology. Ceramic analysis contributed more information than lithic analysis since more than five times as many ceramic artifacts as lithic artifacts were recovered during the data recovery phase. Analysis techniques for both kinds of artifacts are described below.

CERAMIC ARTIFACTS

Ceramic analysis was used to address all four research questions pertaining to relationships among features, the nature and length of human occupation, post-depositional processes, and cultural affiliation and regional interaction. All ceramic artifacts encountered were collected from the site. Of those, all decorated ceramics and rim sherds, as well as non-diagnostic body sherds larger than 2.0 cm (0.8 in) in maximum dimension, were analyzed by Janet Hagopian of SWCA (see Chapter 7). Attributes recorded during

ceramic analysis included named pottery type, temper, vessel form, portion of vessel, count, weight, presence of sooting, and type of modification such as mend holes or edge grinding. The larger than anticipated ceramic assemblage warranted some additional analyses not anticipated prior to excavation. Those were ICPS and sherd re-firing, both ways of determining numbers and locations of clay sources. Because they helped to determine whether ceramic vessels were made locally or were imported, the extra analyses contributed specifically to answering Research Question 4 concerning regional interactions.

LITHIC ARTIFACTS

The ground stone and flaked stone assemblages also contributed some information for answering all four research questions. In particular, refitted ground stone artifacts illustrated connections between features and post-depositional processes at the site; some finished and incomplete ground stone ornaments added rare information about site use; and flaked stone raw materials provided some evidence for human mobility within the region. Because the lithic artifact assemblage from LA 153714 was modest in size, all flaked stone artifacts and ground stone objects were analyzed by Rebecca Schwendler of SWCA (see Chapter 8). As mentioned above, three large ground stone artifacts were analyzed in the field but not collected.

Ground Stone

To analyze the standard ground stone artifacts, a system of recording used by Van Hoose and Lundquist (2002) was adopted. In their system, ground stone is classified into three broad categories: hand stones, grinding slabs, and unidentified ground stone. The presence of additional types of ground stone at LA


153714, including ornaments and shaped stones, required the addition of specific object categories to those basic ones. Analysis of special ground stone objects followed the same set of analytical techniques, augmented by more qualitative observations.

Basic attributes for ground stone analysis included general raw material (e.g., sandstone, vesicular basalt), material coarseness, artifact type, size and weight, and evidence for burning. Characteristics specific to ground stone included plan view shape (ovate, rectangular, subrectangular, irregular, unknown); cross-section shape (uniface, parallel face, wedge, triangular); completeness (broken, whole); degree of intentional shaping (none, slight, moderate, heavy); number of grinding surfaces; presence or absence of pecking; striation directionality (uni-directional or multi-directional); and grinding surface shape (flat, uniaxially or biaxially convex, uniaxially or biaxially concave). Raw materials were identified visually, and analysis of surface morphology was conducted with a hand-held loupe. The primary goals of ground stone analysis were to determine the kinds of processing conducted at the site and to see whether the technology changed there (e.g., Hard 1990; Lancaster 1983, 1984; Mauldin 1993). However, ground stone analysis also yielded information relevant to other research questions.

Flaked Stone

Flaked stone analysis involved a modified version of the Sullivan and Rozen (1985) completeness method. When differences in material type are controlled for, the modified Sullivan and Rozen system provides one of the best methods for characterizing debitage assemblages, and particularly those consisting of durable materials (i.e., chert and volcanics, but not obsidian). Most importantly for this project,

the method is largely replicable in assignment of flake completeness categories, and the binary, hierarchical decision tree used to assign those categories lends itself well to straightforward statistical techniques such as the residual chi-square method (Railey 2006), provided that assemblages are of sufficient size (e.g., minimally 100 artifacts). As a result, different analysts can use the raw data for comparing assemblages from different sites. The primary goal of lithic analysis for this project was to identify the kinds of activities in which people were engaged, as indicated by tool and core forms and flake sizes, although lithic analysis provided additional information relevant to other research questions.

Attributes noted in flaked stone analysis included basic (and sometimes specific) raw material, material texture, artifact type, size and weight, completeness, amount of cortex, platform type, evidence for modification, use, heat treating, or burning. In addition, number of flake scars was recorded for cores, while neck thickness, neck/stem width, stem length, and basal width were recorded for projectile points. Raw materials were identified visually, usually to only a basic level (e.g., chert, obsidian, quartzite, petrified wood). The exceptions were Zuni spotted chert, which has been well described and photographed and is very distinctive, and Horace Mesa obsidian, whose likely source was identified through X-ray fluorescence analysis (see Chapter 8). Those two materials were provisionally used as evidence for patterns of local resource acquisition. Evidence of modification and/or use was observed with a hand-held loupe. The three fragmentary projectile points recovered from LA 153714 were compared with published type descriptions in the literature (e.g., Turnbow 1997). All three were identified to type. However, while one fit within a Pueblo III timeframe, the other two were typical Archaic forms that must have been collected


by Hokona’s occupants. Other flaked stone tools also were measured, described, and interpreted using comparative literature.

COLLECTING SPECIAL SAMPLES

Special samples included human remains, faunal remains, flotation samples for macrobotanical analysis, sediment samples for pollen analysis, burned organic samples for radiocarbon dating, wood samples for dendrochronology, and clay samples for archaeomagnetometry. Methods and conditions under which special samples were collected are described below.

HUMAN REMAINS

It was not anticipated that human burials would be encountered at LA 153714. However, as it turned out, one child burial was exposed in the southern portion of the site during mechanical scraping, and two burials (one child, one adult) were uncovered within Feature 37 fill during hand excavation. When the burials were encountered, the following procedures were followed:

1) All work stopped in the area of the discovery.

2) SWCA contacted the Cibola County Sheriff's office (505-768-4100), the NMDOT, the Office of the Medical Investigator (OMI), and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), consistent with 4.10.11 NMAC.

3) SWCA asked that the Cibola County Sheriff's office also contact the Office of the Medical Investigator (OMI).

4) Based on information provided to Dr. Debra Komar of the OMI by Dr. Rebecca Schwendler, Dr. Komar agreed that the remains were prehistoric, rather than a crime scene, and authorized Dr. Schwendler to convey that information to Dr. Glenna Dean (505-827-3989), burial

specialist in the Historic Preservation Division. Dr. Komar’s recommendation was seconded by Dr. Amy Weiman of the OMI, who was contacted by Lieutenant Harry Hall of the Cibola County Sheriff’s office. Hence, the OMI passed their jurisdiction on to the SHPO, and subsequent treatment of the remains was carried out in accordance with New Mexico state law pertaining to unmarked human burials.

5) Dr. Dean activated SWCA’s annual burial permit and advised Dr. Schwendler on how best to proceed.

6) Because the burials could not be preserved in place, SWCA staff proceeded with burial excavation after obtaining permission from Lieutenant Hall and Dr. Dean. Dr. Schwendler, who is permitted by the State to excavate human burials, supervised their excavation.

7) Hand excavation of the burials recovered all skeletal elements. Those were bagged separately in the field to help expedite laboratory analysis, and padded with a non-cotton material to protect them from damage during transport from the field to the laboratory. No artifacts appeared to be associated specifically with the burials, and only one was interred within a purposely dug pit. Burials were mapped and photographed in plan view.

8) Consultation regarding the final disposition of the three prehistoric burials currently is being carried out by the SHPO.

Complete, non-invasive analysis of the human remains was conducted by Cherie Walth of SWCA, following standard osteological procedures (see Chapter 9). To the extent possible, analysis recovered information on the age, sex, taphonomy, and pathologies of the three individuals. In addition, social, dietary, and other lifeway aspects were


inferred, and the mode of interment was studied. Burials also were discussed in terms of how they compared with regional mortuary patterns.

FAUNAL REMAINS

Faunal remains were used to help answer Research Questions 2 and 3 concerning site use and post-depositional processes. Most faunal remains recovered from LA 153714 were small but in fairly good condition. As a result, they generally were placed in a film canister or larger vial to protect them and then included in a bag with the rest of the artifacts from the same unit and level. More fragmentary or fragile remains were enclosed in an aluminum foil pouch, put in a vial, and then placed in the artifact bag. Cherie Walth of SWCA analyzed all faunal remains in the laboratory, identifying specimens to the lowest possible taxonomic level (see Chapter 10). Attributes recorded were anatomical part or element, portion, side, age at death, and length (longest dimension). In addition, evidence for weathering, breaking, burning, cutting, gnawing, and working was noted. Quantification of the faunal remains involved the use of two measures. The first measure was the most direct, since it was simply the total number of identified specimens (NISP) for each recognized taxon. The second measure was the minimum number of individuals or MNI. It was calculated at the feature level and referenced the most common element or portion of an element for a taxon.

FLOTATION SAMPLES

Sediment flotation samples can yield important information about the flora and fauna present and used at a site. They also can yield rare artifacts such as pressure flakes and burned annuals that may be too small even for 1/8-in mesh. Therefore, processing and

analysis of flotation samples helped to answer Research Questions 1, 2, and 3 pertaining to relationships between features, the nature and length of site occupation, and post-depositional processes.

As mentioned above, up to a 10-liter sediment sample was collected from each feature for flotation, processing, and analysis in the laboratory, although many features yielded a smaller amount of sediment. In most cases, the top few centimeters of sediment were screened, and then sediment from lower and more intact contexts was saved for flotation. Two 10-liter samples were collected from the midden because of its large size, while all fill was collected from very small features and from thermal features. Sediment was placed in a plastic garbage bag within a 5-gallon bucket and assigned a field specimen number. That was written on a completely filled out bag label and recorded in the field specimen log. In accordance with Addendum I of the data recovery plan (Railey et al. 2006), flotation samples from all possible features were processed in the laboratory. After consultation with David Eck (SLO) and Blake Roxlau and Jeff Fredine (NMDOT), SWCA thoroughly analyzed the contents of all but 7 of the 29 flotation samples processed; the remaining seven were simply scanned for unusual materials. When present, radiocarbon samples, lithic artifacts, ceramic artifacts, and faunal remains were extracted from the flotation samples and analyzed separately from the macrobotanical remains. Liangya Jia, SWCA Laboratory Manager, floated the sediment samples and Thomas C. O’Laughlin of the Albuquerque Museum sorted their contents and analyzed the macrobotanical remains (see Chapter 11).

POLLEN SAMPLES

Pollen analysis can be used to reconstruct paleoenvironmental conditions and to identify potentially significant economic, fuel wood,


medicinal, and other floral resources present at a site. Accordingly, for this project it was most important for answering Research Question 2 pertaining to site use.

As a control for modern pollen, one sample was obtained from a non-archaeological surface context prior to removal of vegetation and excavation at the site. Then additional samples were gathered from sealed contexts on the floors of structures and other features; most often, those were under in situ artifacts such as ground stone. In one case, a broken mano fragment that likely contained pollen residue was bagged along with surrounding sediment to increase information potential.

All standard pollen samples consisted of approximately 40 grams of sediment, collected from a single level with a clean trowel and placed into a self-sealing plastic bag. Such bags were the preferred containers because they are less likely to come open or tear than paper bags, reducing the possibility of sample contamination. Each sample was given a unique field specimen number and bag label. Then the sealed sediment sample and label were placed inside a second bag to prevent contamination. Pollen sediment samples were collected from as many appropriate contexts as possible, but only nine samples from the most intact and potentially informative contexts were submitted to Bruce Phillips of EcoPlan Associates (Mesa, AZ) for analysis. He then extracted 20 cubic centimeter (cc) subsamples for processing (see Chapter 12).

RADIOCARBON SAMPLES

Radiocarbon samples are vital for dating different features and areas of a site. At LA 153714, a large number of individual macroscopic radiocarbon samples were collected from both feature and non-feature contexts and included burned and unburned wood, burned maize and beans, and burned

seeds. An attempt was made to collect at least one good sample from near the bottom of each feature. If a feature contained multiple charcoal concentrations or obvious stratigraphy or was large, more than one radiocarbon sample often was collected. While many prehistoric sites contain only small pieces of burned wood that must be dated using accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS), LA 153714 yielded many large pieces of burned timber, some of which were chosen for conventional radiocarbon dating.

In the field, charcoal samples were placed on a fresh piece of aluminum foil using a clean trowel. After collection, the aluminum foil was folded over to protect the charcoal, and the charcoal was placed in a plastic bag or vial containing a provenience tag. Bags were perforated to allow moisture to escape. No bulk 2-kilogram (kg) samples were collected. In cases where individual pieces of wood and seeds were not visible, or were too small to be collected individually in the field, samples of wood charcoal and burned annuals, when present, were extracted from flotation samples in the laboratory. Features were chosen for radiocarbon dating based on the presence of datable contents, as well as on the features’ integrity, function, and location. Because of the large number (45) of features revealed during data recovery, it was not practical to date every one. Therefore, after consultation with the NMDOT, the SLO, and the SHPO, SWCA submitted samples from the midden, from all rare features (pit structures, mealing bin), and from some remaining features (hearths, pits) to Beta Analytic for dating. In the end, 13 radiocarbon dates were obtained from charred annuals and wood charcoal recovered from 12 features and 1 non-feature context (the midden). Those dates helped to answer Research Questions 1 and 2 relating to relationships between features and the nature and length of site occupation (see Chapter 13).


DENDROCHRONOLOGY SAMPLES

Dendrochronology (tree-ring) samples provide a precise means to date wood, so they can be very effective in interpreting building sequences for prehistoric (and historic) structures. While it was not anticipated that any viable dendrochronology samples would be preserved at LA 153714, excavation uncovered tens of potential samples at the site, particularly within Feature 24, which was loosely called a kiva. The tree-ring samples were used in conjunction with radiocarbon and archaeomagnetic dating to try to pinpoint the construction date of Feature 24 and other appropriate features, and then apply that information to dating the site in general. Hence, they were particularly useful for answering Research Questions 1 and 2 relating to relationships among features and timing and duration of site occupation.

Given time and material constraints in the field, dendrochronology samples were wrapped in cloth, string, or–more commonly–aluminum foil and placed in perforated plastic bags. Each was given a field specimen number, labeled with provenience information, and recorded on the site’s master bag list. Once in the laboratory, samples chosen for dating were wrapped in string and cloth and labeled according to Laboratory of Tree-Ring Dating (University of Arizona, Tucson) guidelines. Forty-nine samples were then submitted to the laboratory for dating.

ARCHAEOMAGNETIC SAMPLES

Archaeomagnetic dating can provide precise chronometric information about when fire burned a hearth, structure, or site sediments. Although it was not anticipated that any good archaeomagnetic samples would be available from LA 153714, excavation of Feature 5 (a slab-lined hearth) and Feature 24 (loosely interpreted as a kiva) exposed burned clay samples appropriate for that technique. Jeff

Cox of the Office of Archaeological Studies (OAS) extracted eight samples from Feature 5 and five samples from Feature 24 and then processed them in the OAS laboratory. It was hoped that the archaeomagnetic dates would help to address Research Questions 1 and 2 pertaining to relationships among features and length of site occupation.

MONITORING PROCEDURES

Monitoring means the presence of, and visual inspection by, a supervisory archaeologist on the ground immediately before and during ground-disturbing actions to ensure site protection, avoidance of site deposits, or recovery of information from newly discovered cultural properties (NMAC 4.10.17.7.J).

While SWCA personnel oversaw mechanical stripping activities by backhoes during the data recovery phase at LA 153714, they will not monitor NMDOT construction at LA 153714; the site was fully excavated and scraped during data recovery so no significant cultural remains should still be present.

BACKFILL AND SITE STABILIZATION

PLAN

LA 153714 is slated for 100 percent destruction after excavation, as part of the NM 53 realignment. While sediments and features at the site were expected to be shallow, they turned out to be over 1.5 m deep in some parts of the site. Hence, since the exact timing of road construction was unknown, and because cattle graze within the boundaries of the site, all excavation units and features deeper than approximately 30 cm were backfilled by SWCA crew and/or subconsultants. Following data recovery, Rebecca Schwendler of SWCA apprised Cheryl Cooeyote, Ramah patrol supervisor for the NMDOT, of surface conditions at the site. NMDOT then further minimized potential


safety hazards at the site and re-erected the NM 53 south right-of-way fence.

GEOARCHAEOLOGY

In addition to the artifacts and samples collected from LA 153714, an understanding of local geomorphology was important for addressing Research Question 3. To that end, Jim Railey (who is trained in geoarchaeology) analyzed depositional profiles in test excavation units and trenches while visiting the site on multiple occasions. In addition to site visits, profile drawings, field notes, and photographs of fill profiles from the three deep pit structures (Features 4, 24, and 37) were carefully analyzed and interpreted in the laboratory.

CHAPTER 6 DATA RECOVERY ACTIVITIES AT HOKONA


SITE DESCRIPTION

LA Number: 153714 Survey Field Datum: Marron 2 UTMs: See Table A.1 and Table A.2 Site Type: Masonry/jacal and pit structures with associated features and artifact scatter Site Size: 29.3 × 21.6 m (632.88 m²) (96.1 × 70.9 ft [6,812.9 ft²]); 0.12 acre Elevation: 2,229 m (7,313 ft) Affiliation/Age: Ancestral Puebloan (Pueblo III-IV) Setting: Plains-Mesa Grassland and Juniper Savanna Condition: Actively eroding NRHP Eligibility: No longer eligible Anticipated Impacts: 100% destruction

Data Recovery Activities: Mapped and collected 100 percent of surface artifacts; excavated and/or recorded intact cultural Features 1, 3, 4, 5, 5B, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 11B, 12, 13, 14, 16, 16B, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 22B, 23, 24, 25, 26A, 26B, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, and 44; excavated 30 m² (322.8 ft2) of Shovel Scrape Units (one 1- × 2-m, seven 2- × 2-m); excavated 5.42 m² (58.32 ft2) of Test Units (two 1- × 1-m, one 0.3- × 1.4-m, one 0.5- × 2.0-m, one 0.5- × 4.0-m); excavated 16 m² (172.2 ft2) of Midden Units (four 1- × 1-m, three 2- × 2-m); excavated 64.75 m² (696.71 ft2) of Feature Units (two 0.25- × 4.00-m, three 0.5- × 0.5-m, twelve 1- × 1-m, three 1- × 2-m, eleven 2- × 2-m); excavated 6.76 m² (72.74 ft2) of Kiva Units (one 0.45- × 0.62-m, one 0.56- × 1.00-m, one 0.6- × 1.0-m, one 0.95- × 0.65-m, one 1.00- × 0.73-m, one 1.1- × 8.8-m, three 1- × 1-m); excavated 8.35 m² (89.85 ft2) of trenches (one 0.5- × 3.5-m, one 0.5- × 3.7-m, one 0.5- × 4.0-m, one 0.5- × 5.5-m); mechanically stripped and then backfilled entire site.

LA 153714 Data Recovery 53

Figure 6.1. Overview of LA 153714 during pin flagging, facing southwest.

Located on an east-facing slope among undulating lava fields near El Morro National Monument (Figure 6.1), LA 153714 was a fairly small, multi-occupation Pueblo III-IV site consisting of 45 intact cultural features, thousands of ceramic artifacts, hundreds of lithic artifacts, tens of faunal remains, three human burials, and a diffuse midden area. As evidenced by the superposition of multiple features, the site probably was re-built and re-occupied numerous times, albeit over a fairly short length of time. Located in a relatively flat area between the base of a low basalt outcrop and the road cut of NM 53, the road’s south right-of-way fence crossed through the middle of the site. Perhaps 90 percent of the site was intact prior to data recovery; approximately 10 percent, all within the midden area, had been removed during previous construction and maintenance of NM 53. The intact portion of the site had

approximately 75 percent visibility, with vegetation predominantly including various grasses, sage, juniper, small cacti, and mixed wildflowers. Large junipers formed a ring outside the site limits. The depositional environment at the site consisted of shallow (west) to deep (east) sheet wash and eolian deposits. Modern disturbances included the NM 53 road cut on the east and northeast, right-of-way fence building through the middle, cattle grazing on the southwest half, and moderate water and wind erosion over the whole area.

PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS AT LA

153714

LA 153714 was first recorded during survey of the project area by Marron in July 2006. Their original survey map is shown in Figure 6.2. In addition, Figure 6.3 and Figure 6.4

Chapter 6 LA 153714 Data Recovery 54

provide views of the site, while Figure 6.5, Figure 6.6, and Figure 6.7 show how the three original structural features appeared on the surface. The figures, descriptions, and data in Table 6.1 are from Marron’s survey report (Brown and Brown 2006:34–39).

Marron recorded LA 153714 as a Pueblo II-III occupation with three possible field houses, a midden, and an associated artifact scatter. Its surrounding plant community was reported to include grasses, rabbitbrush, snakeweed, juniper, piñon, and some ponderosa pine, though some of these plants are found only within a large area around the site, rather than in its immediate vicinity. By looking at the vertical road cut on NM 53’s south side, Marron estimated that cultural deposits were at least 50 cm (20 in) deep, and 75 percent of the site remained intact.

Of the three rock features recorded at the site, Feature 1 was a 3.0- × 2.5-m (10.0- × 8.2-ft) field house or room block (Figure 6.5). Feature 2 was defined as a 1.50- × 1.25-m (4.9- × 4.1-ft) room adjacent to Feature 1 (Figure 6.6), while Feature 3 was recorded as a 1.75- × 1.50-m (5.7- × 4.9-ft) rock alignment along the road cut (Figure 6.7). During survey, Marron performed an in-field inventory of all flaked stone artifacts (n=11) present on the site’s surface, including an unidentifiable projectile point fragment, and an arbitrary, representative 50 percent inventory of the ceramic artifacts (n=69) present. Decorated ceramics appeared to indicate a late Pueblo II to early Pueblo III

occupation. Marron suggested that LA 153714 could provide important information regarding the Pueblo II-III occupation of the El Morro area, and recommended it eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion D, based on information potential. The SHPO agreed with that assessment.

CORRECTION OF FEATURE

NUMBERING

Comparison of Brown and Brown’s site description, provided above, with their site map (2006: Figure A3), reproduced here as Figure 6.2, reveals discrepancies in feature numbering. In the text, Feature 1 is described as being 3.0 × 2.5 m in size, making it the largest of the three possible field houses. However, on the map, it is shown as being the smallest feature, located to the south of the others. At the same time, Feature 2 is described in the text as being 1.50 × 1.25 m in size, and located adjacent to Feature 1. However, it is shown on the map as the largest feature, located to the northwest of the others.

For the data recovery phase, SWCA numbered the features according to their descriptions in the survey report text. Hence, Feature 1 was the largest feature, located northwest of the others; Feature 2 was the smallest feature, located south of the others; and Feature 3 was the medium-sized feature, located northeast of the others and closest to NM 53.


Table 6.1. LA 153714, Representative In-field Surface Artifact Inventory Artifact Description Total

Flaked Stone (100%) Tan chert projectile point, proximal end 1 Chinle chert graver 1 Chinle chert irregular core or chopper, 5% cortex 1 Chinle chert flake, no cortex, complete 2 Banded gray and pink chert flake, no cortex, complete 1 Pink chert flake, no cortex, complete 1 Pink chert flake, 5% cortex, complete 1 White chert flake, 5% cortex, complete 1 White chert flake, no cortex, proximal fragment 1 Retouched pink fossiliferous flake, no cortex, complete 1 Flaked Stone Total 11 Ceramic Sherds (50%) Indented corrugated grayware, jar, sherd and sand temper 9 Plain grayware, sand temper 7 Undetermined grayware, carbon paint, bowl, slipped 2 Indeterminate corrugated brownware, jar 10 Indeterminate corrugated brownware, bowl, slipped 5 Brownware, black paint, bowl, slipped interior and exterior 1 Brownware, jar, polished interior and exterior 5 Indented corrugated whiteware, jar 11 Puerco Black-on-white, bowl, slipped interior and exterior 5 Undetermined Cibola White Ware 2 Black-on-red jar, sherd and sand temper, slipped exterior 2 Redware bowl, sand tempered, slipped exterior 2 St. Johns Polychrome, bowl 8 Ceramic Sherds Total 69 Adapted from Brown and Brown 2006:Table 5


Figure 6.2. LA 153714 site map (from Brown and Brown 2006:Figure A3).


Figure 6.3. LA 153714, overview, facing south (from Brown and Brown

2006:Figure 16).

Figure 6.4. LA 153714, overview, facing northwest (from Brown and Brown 2006:Figure 17).


Figure 6.5. LA 153714, Feature 1, facing northwest (from Brown and

Brown 2006:Figure 18).

Figure 6.6. LA 153714, Feature 2, facing southeast (from Brown and



Figure 6.7. LA 153714, Feature 3, facing southeast (from Brown and


SITE STRATIGRAPHY AND

GEOMORPHOLOGY

Because LA 153714 was located between the base of a low basalt outcrop and the NM 53 road cut, sediments at the site varied from west to east. In the west, a thin, modern ground covering of silty loam (7.5YR 3/3-4/3) and grass covered shallow (20–40 cm [7.9–15.7 in] thick) eolian silty sand deposits (7.5YR 4/4 dry); areas away from features generally contained few artifacts and small amounts of charcoal flecking. Those diffuse cultural deposits, in turn, overlay basalt and sterile sandy loam (7.5YR 4/6 moist). Near the southwest edge of the site, the subsoil was very compact, fine-grained silty loam (7.5YR 5/4 dry). In the east, the same modern loam and grass layer covered thicker (40–70 cm [15.7–27.5 in]) eolian and alluvial silty sand deposits (also 7.5YR 4/3-4/4 dry) with higher concentrations of cultural materials. Those overlay very compact sterile sand and sandy

loam (7.5YR 5/3-5/4 dry) exhibiting incipient carbonate formation (Jim Railey, personal communication 2007). Bottom depths of cultural deposits ranged from approximately 20 to 70 cm (7.9–27.5 in), from west to east, not including three deep pit structures dug into sterile subsoil. Erosion of site deposits by wind and water was active prior to (and during) data recovery.

DATA RECOVERY ACTIVITIES

LA 153714 was visited by SWCA staff on February 9, 2007, and then data recovery was conducted intermittently between March 27 and August 10, for a total of just over 14 weeks in the field. Dr. Jim Railey served as Principal Investigator and Dr. Rebecca Schwendler served as Co-Principal Investigator and Field Supervisor. Rotating crew members included Greg Mastropietro, Craig Host, Tim Antonio, Chris Carlson, Jaime Hilyard, Bill Brown, and Adrienne


Actis. Mr. Brown also served as crew chief from July 16, 2007, to August 10, 2007. Data recovery activities at LA 153714 included pin flagging and mapping, surface collection, shovel scraping, feature excavation, hand unit excavation, and post-excavation mechanical stripping—all conducted according to the methods outlined in the approved data recovery plan (Railey et al. 2006). This chapter provides details of those specific activities.

CHANGES IN PLAN

The original data recovery plan included excavation of the entire midden in the northeast portion of the site. However, early excavation of three 1- × 1-m midden units (MU 1, MU 2, MU 11) demonstrated that the so-called midden deposits could be better characterized as a combination of eroded and re-deposited, and directly deposited, remains of human activity at the site, rather than as a bounded and intensively used trash dump. During a site visit conducted on April 3, 2007, David Eck (SLO), Blake Roxlau and Jeff Fredine (NMDOT), and Rebecca Schwendler and Jim Railey (SWCA) agreed that those three MUs plus an additional one (MU 10) would represent a sufficient sample of the cultural deposits in that portion of the site. Hence, that change in plan resulted in a substantial reduction of effort, from perhaps 20 to 4 m² (215.2 to 43.0 ft2).

In contrast, the original proposal called for the use of approximately 12 m² (129.1 ft2) of excavation units within the three surface features (1, 2, and 3). While excavation demonstrated that Feature 2 was actually part of Feature 1, approximately 18 m² (193.7 ft2) were required to completely excavate the inside of Features 1 and 3, representing a moderate increase in effort. In addition, the original plan specified that up to six other 1-m² units would be placed elsewhere in the site, to sample variation in cultural resources

and densities. Three were suggested for outside the three original surface features, while two were suggested for locations with dense surface artifacts, and one was to be put in an area with low surface density. In actuality, approximately 10 m² (107.6 ft2) were excavated immediately outside the original surface features, to look for additional features and to verify that the structures did not continue to the north, west, and south. One m² (TU 1) was specifically excavated in an area of dense surface artifacts and 1 m² (TU 2) was excavated in an area with no surface artifacts. While the former uncovered few cultural materials below the surface, the latter exposed the top of a large pit structure at approximately 80 cm (31.5 in) below the ground surface. Numerous other excavation units were opened in areas of dense surface artifacts during the course of exposing additional structural features in the north half of the site. Hence, in total, excavation of units outside the original three surface structures required a substantial increase in effort over that originally proposed.

On a more general level, the original plan included excavation of the three surface masonry structures, plus up to twelve additional non-structural features, two pit houses, and two human burials. However, excavation uncovered a total of 43 features in addition to the two (Features 1 and 3) that were originally recorded as three separate features. The 45 features included four masonry structures, three large pit structures (all more than 1.4 m [4.6 ft] in diameter and 1.2 m [3.9 ft] deep), and three human burials. Besides excavating the features themselves, more than 27 m² (88 ft2) of hand excavation units were needed to fully expose those additional features. That resulted in a substantial increase in effort over what had originally been proposed.


The original plan also called for possible mechanical stripping of the site. This was carried out, after completion of the hand excavation described above. However, it represented an increase in effort in that sediments at the site were much deeper than originally envisioned; while they were only 30 to 40 cm (11.8–15.7 in) deep on the west edge of the site, they were more than 80 cm (31.5 in) deep on the east edge. Hence, the backhoe had to clear a much greater volume of dirt than expected. It also exposed 10 features not documented during hand excavation. Those 10 are included in the 43 additional features mentioned above.

For laboratory work, the original proposal stated that no more than five radiocarbon dates would be needed for chronometric dating. In reality, it was determined that the much larger number of features required up to 10 additional radiocarbon dates, for a total of up to 15 dates. In addition, up to 36 viable tree-ring dates and 2 archaeomagnetometry dates were deemed appropriate for obtaining more precise chronological information regarding feature use, and for complementing the radiocarbon dates. The original plan also said that SWCA would process flotation samples from all of the features found during excavation, assuming a maximum of 12 non-structural features, 2 pit houses, and 2 burials. Because a much larger number of features was found than expected, the amount of effort required to process and analyze all features increased dramatically. While the nature of some of the newly discovered features precluded the collection of sediment samples, flotation samples from 29 total features were processed and analyzed.

Even though the data recovery plan stated that lithic raw materials would be visually identified only to general raw material (e.g., chert, quartzite), rather than to specific type and source (e.g., Alibates chert), the assemblage contained two kinds of material

that were easy and useful to identify to a more specific degree. The first was the distinctive Zuni spotted chert, which represented the largest percentage of flaked stone artifacts from LA 153714. While its exact source still is unknown (see LeTourneau 1997), its likely primary and secondary locations in and just outside the Zuni Mountains and along the Rio San Jose (and Rio Puerco) help to suggest the larger catchment area used by the inhabitants of LA 153714. The second identifiable material was Horace Mesa obsidian from the Mt. Taylor area. Its likely source was determined by Dr. Steven Shackley via X-ray fluorescence analysis and helped to provide additional evidence for an interpretation of land use by Hokona’s occupants.

MAPPING AND SURFACE COLLECTION

During data recovery, the site and immediately surrounding areas first were walked in systematic transects, and features and surface artifact locations were marked with pin flags. Because the artifact assemblage was modest in size, all artifacts were then individually numbered, point-plotted (Figure 6.8), and collected. The feature boundaries, as seen on the surface, also were flagged.

SHOVEL SCRAPE UNITS

Next, eight shovel scrape (SS) units, each approximately 2 cm (0.8 in) deep, were used to better expose the three originally recorded surface masonry structures (Figure 6.8). Fill from all SS units was screened through 1/4-in mesh. While four units were placed over Feature 1, two were used to expose Feature 2, and another two were used for Feature 3. Shovel Scrape Unit 1, a 2- × 2-m unit, was placed over the southwest portion of Feature 1. Shovel Scrape Unit 2, another 2- × 2-m unit, exposed the northwest portion of Feature 1. Shovel Scrape Unit 3, also a 2- × 2-m unit, was placed over the northeast portion of


Feature 1, while Shovel Scrape Unit 4, another 2- × 2-m unit, uncovered the southeast portion of Feature 1. One of three SS units containing artifacts, it yielded 10 sherds. Shovel Scrape Unit 5, a 2- × 2-m unit, was placed over the east half of Feature 2. Next, Shovel Scrape Unit 6, also a 2- × 2-m unit, exposed the southeast portion of Feature 3 and contained eight ceramic artifacts. Jumping back to Feature 2, a smaller Shovel Scrape Unit 7 (1- × 2-m) was used to expose its west edge. The final Shovel Scrape Unit 8, once again a 2- × 2-m unit, uncovered the northeast portion of Feature 3 and yielded seven sherds.

TEST UNITS

Following the shovel scrape units, five test units (TUs) were excavated at LA 153714, adding up to a total of 5.42 m2 (58.32 ft2) (Figure 6.9). TUs 1 and 2 were dug prior to investigating the surface features, while the other three (TUs 3–5) were completed afterwards (Figure 6.10). Test Unit 1, a 1 × 1-m unit, was placed near the southern edge of the site, a little more than 6 m (19.7 ft) south and 3 m (9.8 ft) east of the exposed masonry structures. It was used to sample subsurface deposits and expose site stratigraphy in an area of high surface artifact density outside the structures. All five levels were excavated in 10-cm units. Sediments from the first three levels, which featured relatively high artifact

densities (7–19 sherds each), were screened through 1/8-in mesh. Sediments from the bottom two levels were screened through 1/4-in mesh; both were sterile. Charcoal flecking was noted in the top four levels, although in levels 2 through 4 they were concentrated in rodent burrows.

Test Unit 2, also a 1 × 1–m unit, was placed approximately 3 m (9.8 ft) south and 2.5 m (8.2 ft) east of the exposed surface structures. In contrast with TU 1, TU 2 was used to investigate subsurface cultural deposits in an area devoid of surface artifacts, albeit in the middle of a slight depression measuring less than 3 m (9.8 ft) in diameter. TU 2 was excavated in eight 10-cm levels, with all sediment screened through 1/4-in mesh. Each level contained only one or two ceramic and/or lithic artifacts, along with some small cobbles in the first four levels and charcoal flecking throughout the unit. TU 2 was terminated at the bottom of level 8 with the discovery of a very compact and slightly ashy layer of sediment. That was initially thought to be a structure floor, but subsequent excavation of the whole feature (Feature 4) determined that the compact sediment was actually the top of a very thick deposit of fill inside the large storage pit.


Figure 6.8. LA 153714, site map showing surface artifacts and shovel

scrape units. Surface manifestations of original three features are shown in light gray.


Figure 6.9. LA 153714, data recovery activities.


Figure 6.10. Test Units 2 (left foreground), 1 (left background), 4 (right foreground), and 5 (right background), facing south.

Test Unit 3 was a 0.3- × 1.4-m unit used to define the northern boundary of Feature 4 (a large storage pit) and to investigate site stratigraphy between Feature 4 and Feature 1 (one of the surface masonry structures) to the north. TU 3 began just west of center, within the south edge of Feature Unit 17 (FU 17), and continued east into the southwest corner of FU 26, where it joined TU 4, a longer unit running north–south. TU 3 was excavated down three levels, with the first two being 10 cm thick and the third one 15 cm thick. All sediment was screened through 1/4-in mesh. TU 3 was started after level 1 of FU 17 had been excavated down to a shallow compact surface. Hence, the top of TU 3 was approximately 3 cm below modern ground surface (bmgs), at the base of FU 17’s first level. While TU 3’s first level yielded three sherds (and very large chunks of charcoal), the other two levels were devoid of artifacts. TU 3 was terminated at the top of clearly

compacted Feature 4 fill, approximately 38 cm bmgs.

Test Unit 4 was a 0.5- × 2.0-m unit that began within the east end of TU 3 and ran south between the east boundary of Feature Unit 27, which was excavated later, and the west edge of TU 2. Because TU 2 was not oriented exactly north–south, a small triangular portion of sediment (20 × 80 cm maximum) to its west also was removed as part of TU 4, so that the whole combined area would be open (Figure 6.10). TU 4 was used to define the northern, southern, and western boundaries of Feature 4. Of its four levels, the first two were each 10-cm thick, and the second two were each 20-cm thick. All sediment was screened through 1/4-in mesh. While levels 1 and 2 exhibited moderate artifact densities (7 and 6 artifacts, respectively), levels 3 and 4 contained fewer artifacts per equivalent area. Feature 4 fill was


first encountered in level 3, at 20 to 40 cm bmgs, although charcoal flecking was present from level 2 down. Small pieces of jacal were recorded in levels 3 and 4, and a flotation sample was collected from level 4.

Test Unit 5, a 0.5- × 4.0-m unit, was used to define the southern boundary of Feature 4, to investigate subsurface deposits in a high surface density area, and to connect the deeper cultural fill of TU 2 and Feature 4 with the shallower fill seen in TU 1. Only two levels were excavated, but each was 20 cm deep, and all fill was screened through 1/4-in mesh. Level 1 displayed moderate artifact density (17 artifacts total), but level 2 contained only three artifacts—all from the northern portion of TU 5, which contained Feature 4 fill.

Taken together, the five test units demonstrated that culturally associated sediments in the south half of the site generally consisted of two strata. The first, a brown (7.5YR 3/3-4/3) sandy loam, generally was found within the upper 5 cm bmgs, but up to 10 cm bmgs where it had collected on top of a deep pit structure (Feature 4). The second stratum, consisting of a brown (7.5YR 4/4 dry) sandy loam, sometimes mottled with strong brown 7.5YR 4/6 (dry) sandy clay, generally began at 5 to 10 cm bmgs and continued for at least another 30 cm. It appeared across the site, and seemed to represent largely windblown sediments containing small flecks of charcoal.

MIDDEN UNITS

Seven Midden Units (MUs) of two different sizes, totaling 16 m2 (172 ft2), were excavated in the northeast portion of the site (Figure 6.9). Of those, four (MUs 1, 2, 10, and 11) were used specifically to sample the site’s so-called midden area. The other three units (MUs 3, 4, and 5) were used largely to help expose structures located farther west; they

were called MUs simply because they were located near that portion of the site. Because the midden area sloped down to the east, the MUs generally were excavated following the natural slope, rather than in perfectly horizontal levels. While the northeast portion of LA 153714 did appear to be an area for refuse, excavation of MUs 1, 2, 10, and 11 suggested that it was a diffuse, rather than a typically concentrated, midden (Figure 6.11). That may have stemmed from relatively short-term site occupation and from the use of pit structures and small masonry structures as additional trash dumps. While the boundaries of the midden were not specifically defined, it was an area of at least 4 × 6 m to the east and northeast of the masonry and pit structures but within the modern site boundary. In Figure 6.9, the midden area generally corresponds to right-hand MUs and the open area to the east of the units.

Midden Unit 1 was a 1- × 1-m unit placed by hand in a central location within the midden area. Excavated in five 10-cm levels, it yielded abundant artifacts in the first two levels (22 and 12, respectively), nothing but jacal in the third level, only two artifacts and a few small pieces of jacal in the fourth level, and only jacal in the last level. Charcoal was present throughout the unit. Sediments from level 1 were screened through 1/8-in mesh, while those from the other four levels were screened through 1/4-in mesh. A piece of burned maize recovered from level 5 (40–50 cm bmgs) of MU 1 yielded a 2 sigma radiocarbon date of Cal A.D. 1290-1420 with intercepts of Cal A.D. 1320, Cal A.D. 1350, and Cal A.D. 1390, suggesting that the midden area may have been used fairly late in the site’s occupation and that sediment deposition there was rapid.

Midden Unit 2, a 1- × 1-m unit, was established by hand immediately northwest of MU 1. It was excavated in eight 10-cm levels, with all of its sediment screened through 1/4-


in mesh. While level 1 displayed a high artifact density (17 total), levels 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 each contained only five artifacts or fewer; no artifacts were recovered from level 4. Cultural deposits containing artifacts, jacal, and/or charcoal extended to approximately 70 cm bmgs. Below that, charcoal was limited to a rodent burrow.

Midden Unit 3, in contrast with MU 1 and MU 2, was a 2- × 2-m unit placed via total station immediately west of MU 2, at approximately the same southing. Its south half was excavated in two 10-cm levels, while

its north half was excavated down only one 10-cm level. All sediment was screened through 1/4-in mesh. Artifact density in the south half was moderate to high (19 and 34 artifacts in levels 1 and 2, respectively), but artifact density in the north half was very high (79 including ceramics, lithics, ground stone, and faunal). FCR, charcoal, and jacal also were seen in MU 3, which was located at the east end of a concentration of wall fall from masonry structures. A pollen sample collected from level 2 of the southwest (SW) quadrant of MU 3 yielded evidence of 13 different tree and plant species (see Chapter 12).

Figure 6.11. West wall profile of Midden Units 11 (left) and 1 (right).

Midden Unit 4, another 2- × 2-m unit, was located immediately south of MU 3. It was used to help define the midden perimeter and the depth of cultural fill. While all of the 10-cm-thick level 1 was excavated as a complete unit, levels 2 through 4 were excavated only

in the south half of the unit, in two quarter sections (SW, southeast [SE]). Sediment from level 1 was screened through 1/4-in mesh, but that from levels 2 through 4 was screened through 1/8-in mesh. Artifact density was moderate to high in level 1 (68 total) and in


level 2 of the SW quadrant (17 total). However, density dropped off dramatically in the SE quadrant and in levels 3 and 4. Still, charcoal—including some very large pieces—was ubiquitous in MU 4, although jacal was more scattered. A thin but irregular layer of oxidized, clayey sediment, as well as numerous rodent burrows, was encountered within level 2, suggesting wide-spread burning and recent disturbances. Rodent burrows had also clearly disturbed the sediments in much of level 4.

Midden Unit 5, the third 2- × 2-m unit, was placed immediately south of MU 4. Its purpose was to help delineate the so-called midden, to investigate buried masonry structures, and to document subsurface deposits in the eastern half of the site. As with MU 4, its first 10-cm level was excavated as one unit. Then levels 2 through 4 were taken down 10 cm at a time in quarter sections. Just as in MU 4, an irregular level of oxidized sediment was found at the base of level 2. In addition, moderate amounts of charcoal and jacal were found throughout the same level. Substantial wall fall from the Feature 14 rock alignment was encountered in level 3, as well as an area of somewhat concentrated darker sediments and some ash inside a rock boundary that was labeled Feature 13. All sediments from MU 5 were screened through 1/4-in mesh, with the exception of those from Feature 13, which were screened through 1/8-in mesh. While MU 5 contained a very large number of displaced basalt boulders and cobbles from adjacent structure walls, it was characterized by only moderate artifact density, with approximately 20–30 artifacts per 2- × 2-m level. Still, the presence of numerous pieces of jacal in levels 2–4 was somewhat unusual for the site.

Midden Unit 10 was a 1- × 1-m unit excavated directly south of MU 1 and was one of the first units used to investigate the contents and depth of the midden. Nine 10-cm

levels were excavated, with all sediments screened through 1/4-in mesh, though primary cultural deposits and charcoal flecks ended with level 5. Artifact densities varied from more than 30 in level 1, to fewer than 10 in levels 2–4, to more than 15 in level 5. A few sherds and one piece of flaked stone were recovered from level 8, but they most likely came from one or more rodent burrows that ran throughout the unit. By level 9, sediments were extremely compact, with a high clay content.

Midden Unit 11 was another 1- × 1-m unit placed immediately south of MU 10 to sample and delineate the midden. One 10-cm level was excavated down to oxidized clayey sediments, and the fill was screened through 1/4-in mesh. Artifact density was moderate, with approximately 30 artifacts recovered. Then, during a site visit by representatives of the SLO and the NMDOT, MU 11 was determined to be redundant for midden sampling, so the unit was terminated.

As a whole, the seven MUs demonstrated that, while cultural deposits were abundant in the northeast portion of the site, the area did not constitute a typically dark, greasy, concentrated trash dump. Rather, it appeared that the area’s location downslope from most of the cultural features, and farthest from the shallow basalt outcrop on the west edge of the site, led to primary and secondary accumulations of more sediments and generally more artifacts there than elsewhere. A south-north profile of MUs 2, 1, 10, and 11 (Figure 6.12) shows that several different layers of sediments had accumulated in the area, with abundant disturbance and some burning in the center, as a result of natural and cultural post-depositional processes. Underneath a 5-cm layer of brown (7.5YR 4/3 dry) fine sandy silt was the slightly lighter 7.5YR 4/4 fine silty loam with charcoal sediments of the midden. Near the top of that second layer were dispersed patches of


distinctively reddish, oxidized, clayey sediments (7.5YR 4/6 dry). The midden sediments were approximately 10 to 15 cm (3.9 to 5.9 in) thick and underlain by somewhat mottled, strong brown (7.5YR 5/3 dry), wind-deposited, silty sand. Underneath those were sterile sediments consisting of lighter and increasingly compact medium-

grained sand and clayey sand. Hence, cultural deposits near the east edge of the midden area extended down to approximately 55 cm bmgs. Those on the western portion of the midden area were significantly affected by the sinking of underlying deposits, by site re-modeling, and by burning.


Figure 6.12. West profile of Midden Units 11, 10, 1, and 2.


SOIL PROBES

In addition to excavating seven MUs, more than 20 1-in Oakfield soil probe tests were used to investigate the depth of the so-called midden deposits and to delineate the eastern edge of LA 153714. Several transects of probes were conducted, beginning near the edge of NM 53 and heading southwest towards the site. Probes averaged 50 cm deep, and they demonstrated that typical 7.5YR 4/4 (dry) midden deposits were found to approximately 20 to 30 cm bmgs, beginning along the edge of the NM 53 road cut and then curving south and west from there. Underlying mottled deposits with small numbers of artifacts and some charcoal flecking extended down to approximately 50 to 60 cm bmgs. No cultural materials were recovered from the probes, although the very small diameter of the instrument may have been a factor in that. Site limits along the eastern edge of LA 153714 were confirmed during later mechanical stripping.

FEATURE UNITS

Thirty FUs of various sizes were opened in order to expose features in the main structure block. That block began with the originally defined surface masonry structures and expanded in all directions as adjacent portions of new structural features were exposed under the surface.

Feature Unit 1 was a 0.3- × 4.0-m trench that ran north-south through the center of Feature 1 in an attempt to better define the boundaries and nature of those surface structures. However, the first 10-cm level, whose sediment was screened through 1/8-in mesh, exposed as many large rocks below the “interior” areas as below those with surface “walls” that the trench proved to be too small for its intended purpose. Accordingly, excavation was terminated after level 1, with

only one ceramic and one piece of animal bone recovered.

Feature Unit 2 was another 0.3- × 4.0-m trench that ran from the south end of FU 1 south through the remainder of Feature 1 and through the center of Feature 2. It was dug at the same time and in the same manner as FU 1 and served the same purpose. Once again, however, FU 2 proved to be too small and full of interior rocks to determine the number of walls present in Features 1 and 2, and it contained only a few artifacts. Excavation also was terminated at the base of level 1. Fill in both FU 1 and FU 2 was a strong brown (7.5YR 3/4 moist) wind- and water-deposited silty sand mixed with surface vegetation and subsurface roots.

Feature Unit 3, a 1- × 1-m unit, was placed in the approximate southwest corner of what had been defined during survey as Feature 2 (but found during data recovery to be part of Feature 1), to investigate deposits within the feature and to delineate its walls. In total, four 10-cm levels were excavated in FU 3, with all fill screened through 1/8-in mesh, though the second two levels were completed well after the first two. Level 1 exposed several basalt boulders fallen off the Feature 1 wall but contained no artifacts or charcoal. In contrast, level 2 contained one sherd and some charcoal flecking. In addition, lighter, oxidized sediments appeared in the west half of the unit along the wall, at the bottom of the level. Level 3 again contained only one sherd. Its base coincided with a sediment change to level 4’s compact deposit of collapsed construction material (burned jacal and charcoal) and wind- and water-deposited silty sandy loam containing six artifacts. Underlying level 4 was sterile, mottled sediment with slightly higher clay content. A portion of the south wall of Feature 1, seen in FU 3, appeared to have been built on top of fill, while the rest of the wall sat on sterile


sediment. This suggested re-modeling of the structure.

Feature Unit 4 was another 1- × 1-m unit placed directly west of FU 3. Excavation of one 10-cm level made it clear that the unit ran just outside the west wall of “Feature 2,” so excavation was terminated for the sake of wall stability. All level 1 fill was screened through 1/8-in mesh, but only one ceramic sherd was recovered. Small areas of sediment oxidation appeared high up in the northwest corner of the unit and along its south edge, but much stronger oxidation was seen in the west half of the unit at the base of level 1. The presence of oxidized sediment along structure walls near the interface of levels 1 and 2 was typical for the main structure block.

Feature Unit 5 was a 2- × 2-m unit placed in the northeast corner of the exposed surface structures in an attempt to define the northern and eastern limits of Feature 3. While its first 10-cm level was excavated all at once and its fill screened through 1/4-in mesh, its next three levels were excavated in quadrants, though only the SE quadrant of level 4 was dug. All fill from those bottom levels was screened through 1/8-in mesh. Artifact density in the unit varied; while level 1 was moderate (about 30 total), density nearly doubled in level 2 and then sank to its lowest point in levels in 3 and 4. A clear ring of basalt boulders (ca. 40–50 cm in diameter) was uncovered in the central portion of level 1, although other portions of the unit contained large amounts of wall fall, obscuring the feature boundaries. Level 2 was characterized by the same kind of oxidation as was present in the feature units farther west. Levels 3 and 4 contained a mix of sediments, including dark brown (7.5YR 3/3 moist) silty sand with abundant charcoal, oxidized strong brown (7.5YR 4/6 moist) silty loam, and brown (7.5YR 4/4 moist) silty sand. Small pieces of jacal, charcoal, and burned ceramics also were recovered from level 3. The

percentage of 7.5YR 4/4 silty sand increased in level 4, as dark cultural fill was increasingly restricted to a central pit within the boundary of stacked rocks. Excavation of FU 5 was terminated after excavation of the SE quadrant of level 4, and the rest of Feature 3 was excavated in two halves.

Feature Unit 6, which started out as another 2- × 2-m unit, was placed directly north of FU 5 to help define the northern boundary of Feature 3. One 10-cm level was excavated, with fill screened through 1/4-in mesh; nearly 40 artifacts were recovered. What appeared to be scattered wall fall was found at the base of level 1, but no intact structure walls were defined. Subsequently, four more levels were excavated in the 1- × 1-m SE corner of the unit to investigate extra-mural sediments and to compare those from the midden on the east with those from the structure block to the west. All sediments were screened through 1/8-in mesh. Level 2 sediments were unusually dark brown (7.5YR 3/3 moist) silty loam cultural fill containing charcoal flecking and yielding abundant ceramics, lithics, and one turkey bone. In addition, a large piece of burned timber (originally called Feature 10) was extracted from the west edge of the unit as a tree-ring sample; unfortunately, it did not yield a date. Artifact densities dropped by approximately half in level 3, which ended at a sediment change to the ubiquitous brown (7.5YR 4/4 moist) silty sand. Artifact density increased in level 4, which also contained some charcoal, but decreased dramatically in level 5, which was sterile except for its northwest corner.

Feature Unit 7 was a 1- × 1-m unit placed just south of survey Feature 2 (data recovery expanded Feature 1), in its southwest corner, to investigate the relationship between that structural feature and a large upright stone located just to the southwest of it (Figure 6.13). Three 10-cm levels were excavated to match the depth of units inside survey Feature


2, and all fill was screened through 1/4-in mesh. Sediments in level 1 were darker brown (7.5YR 3/3 moist) silty loam than those seen inside survey Feature 2, but only one sherd was recovered. Sediments in level 2 were slightly lighter dark brown (7.5YR 3/4 moist) silty loam, similar to those seen in top levels within the masonry structure, but contained only a few sherds. Level 3 sediments were somewhat darker again, but they changed mid-level and became a mottled mixture of 7.5YR 4/4 (moist) silty sand and 7.5YR 4/3 (moist) silty loam. Sediments in the northeast corner of the unit remained darker to a greater depth. No differential staining or features were identified near the large upright.

Feature Unit 8 was another 1- × 1-m unit placed directly west of FU 7, also to investigate the relationship between survey Feature 2 (data recovery expanded Feature 1) and the large upright. Four 10-cm levels were

excavated, with all sediment screened through 1/4-in mesh. As with FU 7, the level 1 sediments were darker than those seen within the masonry structure, though they yielded only a few artifacts. In contrast, though, four circular to oval stains (Features 6–9) were found oriented in a northwest–southeast line in level 2. Each was excavated and, though very small and shallow, they may have been post holes from some kind of structure related to the large upright. Sediments in level 3 also were dark, while those in level 4 were highly variable; at the top they were similarly dark, with small pieces of oxidized clay and some charcoal flecks, but the center of the level contained patches of pure sand, silty sand, and sandy clay. The base of the level coincided with a stratum change to the ever-present 7.5YR 4/4 (moist) silty/loamy sand. No artifacts were recovered from levels 2 through 4.

Figure 6.13. Feature Units 4, 3, 7, and 8 (clockwise from top right), facing west.


Feature Unit 9 began as a 2- × 2-m unit that was placed immediately west of FU 6, along the north edge of the main structure block. It was used to look for masonry structures located north of Features 1 and 3, and all of its fill was screened through 1/4-in mesh. The first 10-cm level was excavated as one unit, which uncovered approximately 10 artifacts and numerous medium to small rocks that appeared to be fall from the structure walls to the south. There was also some indication of compacted sediments in the southeast corner of the unit, and a semi-circular arrangement of cobbles with oxidized sediment on the south edge of the unit. Still, no clear features could be distinguished, as the whole northern edge of the site was characterized by small, scattered rocks and disturbed sediments. Level 2 was excavated in only the south half of the unit and contained many more pieces of basalt (5–20 cm long) and some burned sediments, as well as twice as many artifacts. FU 9 was excavated down one more level in its southwest quadrant, but no artifacts were recovered and excavation of the unit was terminated at the sediment change to 7.5YR 4/4 (moist) silty sand.

Feature Unit 10 was a 1- × 1-m unit placed just north of FU 4, along the west edge of Feature 1. It was used to expose the west wall of the structure and to investigate sediments just outside it. One whole and one partial 10-cm level were excavated. Screened through 1/4-in mesh, the first level yielded one piece of flaked stone. It also exposed two areas of oxidized sediments—one in the east along the Feature 1 wall, and the other outside the structure, along the very west edge of the unit. Only a small sliver of the second level was excavated to the east of the Feature 1 wall, inside the structure. That fill was screened through 1/8-in mesh but yielded no artifacts. Excavation of the unit was terminated at a stratum change to silty sand with some oxidation in the south.

Feature Unit 11, another 1- × 1-m unit, was excavated just east of FU 10, within the central masonry structures, at the apparent junction of Feature 1 and Feature 2. Three 10-cm levels were used to remove feature sediments and to investigate the relationship between the “two” structures. Level 1 contained numerous large boulders that appeared to have fallen off the west wall of the structure, rather than being a formal, intact wall separating Features 1 and 2. Its fill was screened through 1/4-in mesh and contained one sherd, as well as a small amount of charcoal and oxidized sediment in the northeast corner of the unit. One-quarter of levels 2 and 3 in FU 11 were excavated as the 50- × 50-cm FU 20, as a means of quickly investigating underlying deposits within Feature 1. When rocks and clay were discovered at the base of level 3 in FU 20, excavation of the small window stopped. To get a more complete picture of the newly discovered cultural deposits (which became Feature 19), the remainder of levels 2 and 3 was removed as FU 11 and screened through 1/8-in mesh. The ever-present 7.5YR 4/4 (moist) silty sand was already visible in level 2 and no artifacts were recovered. Level 3 was excavated weeks later to investigate a long sandstone upright discovered in FU 19 to the east. Sediments were mottled and contained no artifacts when screened through 1/4-in mesh, but at the base of the level was compact clay with ash inclusions and light charcoal flecks. Further investigation determined that those sediments and the upright were actually part of the buried Feature 19, which was then excavated in halves.

Feature Unit 12 was also a 1- × 1-m unit, located directly north of FU 10, near the west edge of the approximate Feature 1–2 boundary. It was used to delineate the west wall of the masonry structure(s) and to investigate the relationship between the features. FU 12 was excavated in three 10-cm


levels, with sediment from levels 1 and 3 screened through 1/4-in mesh and that from level 2 screened through 1/8-in mesh. Wall fall covered level 1, but by the base of level 2, only the west wall foundation remained. In combination with the evidence from FU 11, this suggested that “Feature 2” was actually just the southern half of Feature 1; from the surface, the wall fall gave the false impression that there were two separate structures. While only two artifacts were found in the entire unit, all three levels of FU 12 contained evidence for burning and the deposition of cultural sediments, including ash, jacal, and charcoal. The base of level 3 coincided with the beginning of the underlying compact 7.5YR 4/4 (moist) silty sand.

Feature Unit 13 was a fourth 1- × 1-m unit, placed immediately east of FU 12. Excavated in three 10+-cm levels, its purpose was to remove fill from the southwest corner of Feature 1. Sediment from level 1 was screened through 1/4-in mesh, but sediment from levels 2 and 3 was screened through 1/8-in mesh. Still, only a few artifacts were recovered from the unit, and mostly from level 1. Oxidized and ashy sediments were encountered near the base of level 1, as well as within level 2; the compact surface created by the former was interpreted as a floor, perhaps formed in part by use of the central Feature 5 hearth just to the north of FU 13. Once again, the compact 7.5YR 4/4 (moist) silty sand was found underlying the darker burned deposits.

Feature Unit 14, a 2- × 2-m unit, was excavated over the intersection between Features 1 and 3. Its top levels helped to define the boundary between the two structures, while its bottom levels removed different deposits of cultural fill within Feature 1. Level 1 was excavated as a single unit, with fill screened through 1/8-in mesh. Level 2 was excavated in west and east halves (1- × 2-m units), again with all fill screened

through 1/8-in mesh. Only the western half of the unit and the SE quadrant were excavated for level 3, and only the SW quadrant and a tiny sliver of the SE quadrant inside Feature 1 were taken down to level 4; fill from those two levels was screened through 1/4-in mesh. Much wall fall—probably originating from both structures—was uncovered in levels 1 and 2, with the Feature 1 rectangular foundation appearing in level 3. As seen in many of the other feature units, the base of FU 14’s level 2 showed significant oxidation and charcoal flecking. However, a stratum change to compact silty sand was seen by the bottom of level 3. Level 4 consisted of more mottled sandy sediment disturbed by rodent burrows. Artifact densities in FU 14 generally were very low, with the most items coming from level 2 (still fewer than 30 artifacts total).

Feature Unit 15 was a 2- × 2-m unit opened in the northwest corner of the Feature 1 masonry structure to delineate its boundary and look for other structures to the north and west. Only one 10-cm level was excavated, with fill screened through 1/4-in mesh, yielding approximately 15 artifacts. Within level 1, unconsolidated wind- and water-deposited sediments rested on top of moderately compacted sediment and many small pieces of wall fall were exposed. Because collapsed Feature 1 rocks created a clearly defined diagonal across FU 15—with no evidence for additional structures—excavation of the unit was terminated after level 1.

Feature Unit 16 was another 2- × 2-m unit placed immediately south of FU 15, along the west edge of Feature 1 (Figure 6.14), to further expose the structure and sample its fill. Excavating FU 16 was difficult because the NM 53 right-of-way fence ran through the unit from southeast to northwest. After level 1 was dug as a single 10-cm unit, level 2 was excavated in a western and an eastern half and


level 3 was removed by quadrant. Only the SW quadrant was sampled for level 4. Level 1, 3, and 4 sediments were screened through 1/4-in mesh, while those from level 2 were screened through 1/8-in mesh. Excavation of level 2 exposed the northwest corner of the Feature 1 structure and uncovered limited evidence for burning. The underlying level 3 was composed of typical compact silty sand

albeit with uncharacteristically abundant evidence for pockets of burning. Feature 5B, an ash dump associated with the Feature 5 hearth, was most clearly seen in levels 2 and 3 of FU 16’s SE quadrant. In contrast, the mottled sandy sediments of level 4 showed no clear evidence of human activity. Artifact densities throughout FU 16 were extremely low.

Figure 6.14. Main excavation block of LA 153714, facing north. Feature 1’s west edge runs along the west edge of the photo.

Feature Unit 17, a 2- × 2-m unit, was located partly inside but largely outside the southeast corner of Feature 1. All of its fill was minimally screened through 1/4-in mesh. FU 17 was begun like many others, with the top 10-cm level excavated as one unit. Within level 1, work paused at approximately 2 to 3 cm bmgs when very compact sediments were encountered. After further investigation, though, it was determined that the compact sediments were the result of natural, local weathering processes rather than from the

area’s use as a living surface. Accordingly, the remaining 7 to 8 cm of level 1 subsequently were removed. Lying on the base of level 1, particularly in the NE quadrant, were many large basalt boulders, apparently representing wall fall from Feature 1. Level 2 and all subsequent levels were then excavated in quadrants. Multiple courses of tabular rocks (sandstone and basalt) remaining from Feature 1’s south wall were exposed in the NW quadrant of level 2. Outside the structure, evidence for burning


included charcoal flecks and chunks, oxidized sediments, and small, reddened pieces of jacal. Level 3 was characterized by the typical compact 7.5YR 4/4 (moist) silty sand in all but the NE quadrant, which contained abundant wall fall and darker and looser sediment, possibly part of the later defined Feature 14. In the NW quadrant, four small, flat rocks were found embedded in the sandy sediments, possibly as part of a prepared floor within the structure. An area of loose and bioturbated sediments was present in the northeast portion of the NW quadrant, overlying the Feature 18 slab-lined hearth that was fully exposed in the subsequent level. Level 4 was excavated in only the NE, NW, and SE quadrants of FU 17, revealing more compact silty sand with some charcoal and jacal. Dark staining remained in the NE quadrant. Finally, a fifth 10-cm level was removed from the NW quadrant to investigate a concentration of mottled gray clay apparently associated with the Feature 19 mealing bin located just to the northwest. Artifact densities throughout FU 17 were very low.

Feature Unit 18 was a 1- × 1-m unit used to define the western edge of the main structure block. One 10–cm level was removed and its sediment screened through 1/4-in mesh, yielding more than 15 artifacts, as well as some charcoal and FCR. Still, because level 1 clearly showed that no structures extended to the west, excavation of FU 18 was then terminated.

Feature Unit 19, a 2- × 2-m unit, was placed over the east edge of Feature 1, near its junction with the original Feature 2. While FU 19’s first 10-cm level was excavated as one unit, its subsequent levels were excavated in quadrants. Most fill was screened through 1/4-in mesh, with level 2 sediment screened through 1/8-in mesh. Level 2 contained typical dark cultural fill with some small pieces of wall fall and few artifacts, while level 3 was largely 7.5YR 4/4 (moist) silty

sand, with some krotovinas and areas of deeper cultural fill but even fewer artifacts. The deep fill was concentrated in the eastern half FU 19, where it was labeled Feature 17 and interpreted as the highly disturbed remains of a small pit structure. In the SW quadrant of FU 19, two additional 10-cm levels were excavated to investigate the large upright sandstone slab and concentration of light gray clay that became known as Feature 19. Sediments largely were compact silty sand containing very few artifacts, as that portion of the unit was located just east of the actual feature. Artifact densities throughout FU 19 were very low.

Feature Unit 20 was a 0.5- × 0.5-m unit placed in the southeast corner of FU 11, within survey Feature 2 (expanded data recovery Feature 1), to sample sediments below level 1 and to look for living surfaces within the masonry structures. FU 20 was numbered and excavated after the first 10 cm were removed from FUs 1 through 19, but before subsequent levels were completed. Two 10-cm levels were removed from FU 20, with fill screened through 1/8-in mesh. Only one sherd was recovered, and no clear living surfaces were encountered. In part, that was because FU 20 was located over the top of Feature 19, a large mealing bin, and upon discovery of Feature 19, excavation of FU 20 was discontinued.

Feature Unit 21, another 0.5- × 0.5-m unit, was excavated in the southwest corner of FU 14, overlapping the southern end of FU 1. It was also used to sample fill within Feature 1 and to look for buried living surfaces. Two 10-cm levels were excavated, with fill from the first level screened through 1/4-in mesh, and fill from the second level screened through 1/8-in mesh. Oxidized sediments and charcoal flecking at the bottom of level 2 foreshadowed the discovery of the east half of Feature 5, a central slab-lined hearth, within level 3. Accordingly, excavation of FU 21


was terminated and Feature 5 was subsequently dug as a separate unit. No artifacts were recovered from FU 21 itself.

Feature Unit 22, the third 0.5- × 0.5-m unit, was placed near the northwest corner of FU 5 within Feature 3, in a third attempt to locate buried living surfaces within the main rock structures. Three levels were excavated, with all sediment screened through 1/8-in mesh. While several artifacts were recovered from the mottled sediments of the first 10-cm level, none were found in the similar fill of the next level. Excavation of the final level was terminated after only 5 cm because of the discovery of a stratum change to a possible compacted living surface. More extensive excavation after FU 22 was completed revealed that what was thought to be a living surface was really the site-wide stratum of compact silty sand—largely the result of natural depositional processes.

Feature Unit 23 was a 2- × 2-m unit located just south of Feature 3 and just east of Feature 1. It was opened to help define the southeast edge of Feature 1 and to look for other buried structures connected to the main block. The first 10-cm level was excavated as one unit, with fill screened through 1/4-in mesh. That revealed the southern portion of Feature 1’s eastern foundation. A gap in the rock alignment in the very southwest corner of the unit was interpreted as the possible entrance to Feature 1. The top two levels of FU 23 were characterized by greater artifact density than usual, including a projectile point found in level 1, suggesting that this area just east of the “entrance” to the main structure may have been an open-air activity area. Levels 2 through 6 were excavated in quadrants, with fill from level 2 screened through 1/8-in mesh but that from the lower levels screened through 1/4-in mesh. Level 2 exposed the southern wall of Feature 3 along the north edge of FU 23, and consisted largely of dark cultural fill and oxidized sediments with

charcoal and some jacal. Across the unit, levels 3 and 4 consisted of more dark cultural fill with densely packed basalt boulders and rocks representing overlying fall and underlying foundations from two curving rock foundations—one from Feature 3 to the north, and one from Feature 14 to the south. Levels 5 and 6 were excavated only in the SW and SE quadrants of FU 23 to further uncover the Feature 14 foundation and to remove the fill within its half-circle boundary. Exposed in level 5 of the SE quadrant was a smaller half-circle alignment of rocks with initially somewhat ashier fill; that alignment and fill together were labeled Feature 13 (Figure 6.15).

Feature Unit 24 was a 1- × 2-m unit located just outside the western wall of Feature 1. It was used to investigate sediments immediately outside the structure, to look for buried walls heading west, and to study wall construction techniques. FU 24 was excavated in quadrants, with fill minimally screened through 1/4-in mesh. Level 1 exposed many rocks of varying sizes that had fallen off the Feature 1 foundation. Fill was dark brown 7.5YR 3/3 (moist) sandy loam—typical upper-level cultural fill with fairly low artifact density. All of the wall fall was gone by the base of level 2 and very few artifacts were recovered, although that surface contained patches of oxidized sediment, suggesting burning outside the structure. Excavation of FU 24 revealed an undulating band of loose fill, approximately 6 cm wide, running immediately outside the rock foundation (Figure 6.16). This suggested either that the rocks had been set down into a dug-out trench, rather than being laid directly on the prehistoric ground surface, or that water running off the structure had undermined its outer edge. Elsewhere in the unit sediment was very compact with higher clay content. Mechanical scraping at the end of the field session showed that only sterile sediments underlay level 2.


Figure 6.15. Feature Unit 23, facing west, with Feature 13 (blue), Feature

14 (red), and Feature 3 (yellow).

Figure 6.16. Part of the west wall of Feature 1, facing southeast. Arrows

point to loose fill immediately outside the structure wall.


Feature Unit 25, a 2- × 2-m unit, was placed to the southwest of the main structure block to follow a rock alignment (Feature 21) heading south from the large upright stone at the southwest corner of Feature 1; to investigate sediments located within the curve of that alignment; and to look for other enclosing walls. Excavation focused on the northwest, northeast, and southeast quadrants, with all sediment from levels 2, 3, and 4, respectively, screened through 1/4-in mesh. Unlike sediments within the main structure block, those in FU 25 were consistently lighter and sandier—apparently the typical 7.5YR 4/4 (moist) silty sand that underlay cultural fill in parts of the site to the north. Not surprisingly, artifact yields were extremely low throughout FU 25. Flecks of charcoal and small patches of oxidation suggested that burning had only a minor impact in this area of the site. In addition, the nature of the sediments and the lack of evidence for any other enclosing walls suggested that the Feature 21 alignment was probably a windbreak or water deflection system, rather than an enclosed habitation structure.

Feature Unit 26 was another 2- × 2-m unit, excavated near the southeast corner of the main structure block. It was used to explore the southern half of the Feature 14 and Feature 13 rock alignments and to document sediments located between the rock structures to the north and the pit structures to the south. Each of its four 10-cm levels was excavated in quadrants and the fill screened through 1/4-in mesh. FU 26 contained very few rocks, though artifact density remained moderate in all four levels and mottled cultural fill went deeper than in most other structure block units. That stemmed, in part, from the fact that the large and deep Feature 24 pit structure was located underneath the northern edge of the unit, so that overlying fill had sunk lower in that area. Excavation of FU 26 was terminated with the discovery of the top of Feature 24.

Feature Unit 27 was an east/west-trending 1- × 2-m unit placed on the south edge of the main structure block. Originally planned as a 2- × 2-m unit, its purpose was to excavate internal Feature 21 fill. However, the three 10-cm levels excavated in the NW and NE quadrants of the unit showed that, from the surface, sediments consisted of windblown 7.5YR 4/4 (moist) silty sand with generally few artifacts and minimal evidence for human modification. Exceptions were level 1 of the NE quadrant, which contained more than 15 sherds, and level 2 of the NW quadrant, which featured many small rocks and some oxidized sediments. While the former appeared to be related to a concentration of cultural fill that had slumped down on top of the large Feature 4 pit structure just to the east, the latter was rock fall from the north end of Feature 21. Excavation of FU 27 was terminated when it became clear that it was outside all structures.

Feature Unit 28 was an east/west-trending 1- × 2-m unit located in the southeast corner of the main structure block area, directly south of MU 5. Excavated in four 10-cm levels, all of its fill was screened through 1/4-in mesh. Sediments contained abundant charcoal, jacal, and artifacts, even when the typical 7.5YR 4/4 (moist) silty sand appeared at the top of level 4. FU 28 originally was opened to help define the boundary of the Feature 14 wall to the northwest. While that proved unsuccessful because the Feature 14 wall did not continue around, level 4 in FU 28 did expose a pile of rocks that were labeled Feature 22. At that point, excavation of the unit was terminated. Subsequent excavation showed that Feature 22 was the ventilator shaft for the Feature 24 pit structure.

Feature Unit 29, a 1- × 1-m unit, was excavated near the northwest corner of the main structure block to determine if another wall extended west, as suggested by two surface rocks. The first 10-cm level contained


very small rocks, little charcoal, and four sherds, but did not uncover any underlying wall rocks. Like the first level, level 2 consisted of compact silty sand with no evidence for an additional wall, and no artifacts. Accordingly, excavation of the unit was terminated.

Feature Unit 30 was another 1- × 1-m unit placed on the very southern edge of the main excavation block to look for the Feature 21 wall. While one sherd was recovered from the first 10-cm level, whose fill was screened through 1/4-in mesh, no wall was found. Accordingly, excavation of the unit was terminated.

HAND TRENCHES

Four hand-excavated trenches were used in and near the main structure block to explore known structural features, to investigate architectural relationships among features, and to look for additional features. Trench 1 was a 0.5- × 5.5-m unit that ran from the middle of MU 3 south into FU 28. It was excavated as one level with a maximum depth of 45 cm. A representative sample of fill was screened through 1/4-in mesh, and all artifacts seen within the fill during excavation were collected. Trench 1 was originally begun to investigate two upright rocks that had been labeled Feature 20 on the south edge of MU 3, but it quickly showed that there was no discrete feature there. Still, because it uncovered deeper than expected cultural fill, it was extended in both directions to help determine the northern boundary of the masonry structures and the southern boundary of cultural fill. It accomplished the first goal and then, even farther north, exposed in profile a possible footer trench for a dismantled north wall, or a water drainage system (Figure 6.17). In the south, Trench 1 clipped the very east edge of a large pit structure (Feature 24) with a burned plaster edge and clayey fill. It was terminated at a

cluster of basalt rocks that became known as Feature 22—the ventilator shaft for Feature 24.

Trench 2 was a 0.5- × 4.0-m unit with a maximum depth of 40 cm that went from the southeast corner of FU 25, just west of FU 30, directly south. It was used to explore the southern boundary or wall of the Feature 21 rock alignment that ran south-southeast from the large upright stone just southwest of Feature 1. However, it did not uncover any additional or new walls. Trench 2 fill was excavated as one unit, but was not screened, and no artifacts were observed. Based on Trench 2’s west wall profile, cultural fill containing artifacts and associated with the block of masonry structures ended within 1 m of the southern edge of FU 25 SE; the ubiquitous lighter 7.5YR 4/4 (dry) silty sand with tiny charcoal flecks continued approximately 6 m (19.7 ft) farther south.

Trench 3 was a 0.5- × 3.5-m unit that ran from the western edge of Trench 1 in the MU 4 NW quadrant to the west on the north edge of Feature 3 and just into Feature 1. It was used to look for buried storage rooms near the north edge of the main structure block. Trench 3 was excavated as one unit to a depth of 40 cm. While its fill was not screened, all artifacts observed during excavation were collected. No buried storage rooms were found.

Trench 4 was a 0.5- × 3.7-m unit that went from the southwest corner of the FU 5 NW quadrant, north past FU 6. It was used to investigate sediments located outside the main structure block, and to look for additional structures. While not all of the Trench 4 sediment was screened through 1/4-in mesh, many artifacts—including several large sherds, a jug handle, and numerous small pieces of architectural sandstone and basalt—were recovered. At 20 cm below ground surface, Trench 4 uncovered an


approximately 60-cm-wide rock wall located within the NW quadrant of FU 6. The trench was dug down a maximum of 60 cm to expose the base of the wall, which had very dark cultural fill concentrated within and immediately south of it. Trench 4’s west wall profile also exposed a sudden dip in dark

cultural fill to the south of the wall, only 60 cm north of the south edge of the trench; this lined up with other dips in fill seen in FU 6 SE and Trench 1, suggesting the presence of an abandoned footer trench or water drainage system to the north of the main structure block (Figure 6.17).

Figure 6.17. West wall profiles from the northern portion of the site.


FEATURES

LA 153714 was a single component site with 45 cultural features (Figure 6.18, Table 6.2). Of those, Marron identified two (two masonry structures, originally interpreted as three) on the surface during survey (Brown and Brown 2006). SWCA located an additional 43 features, all below the surface, during data recovery. Of the 43 total subsurface features, 35 (2 ash/thermal pits, 1 collared hearth, 1 deflector, 1 pit house, 2 ladder holes, 3 masonry structures, 1 mealing bin, 7 pit features, 6 post holes, 2 rock alignments, 1 sipapu, 5 slab-lined hearths, 1 storage pit, 1 ventilator shaft, and 1 wall niche) were uncovered during hand excavations and 8 features (3 burials, 1 hearth, 1 pit feature, 1 pit house, 1 concentration of ceramic vessel fragments from an unknown feature, and 1 ventilator shaft) were uncovered during or as a result of mechanical excavation.

Many of the smaller features were intramural, located within the masonry structures and two of the large pit structures (Features 24 and 37). For example, the Feature 1 main masonry structures contained 5 other features (3 slab-lined hearths, 1 ash pit, and 1 mealing bin), while the Feature 24 pit structure contained 13 other features (1 post hole, 1 ventilator shaft, 1 deflector, 1 collared hearth, 2 ladder holes, 5 pit features/post holes, 1 sipapu, and 1 wall niche), and the Feature 37 pit house

contained 4 features (2 burials, 1 ventilator shaft, and 1 hearth).

All features were cleaned off, described, drawn, and photographed in ways appropriate to their types, and each feature was recorded on its own field forms. In addition, all cultural features were excavated, except for Feature 38, which did not retain a discrete location. Large pieces of charcoal were collected for dating by Beta Analytic, and samples of fill from all possible features were collected for flotation analysis; after processing, their macrobotanical contents were analyzed by Thomas O’Laughlin and smaller charred organic samples were extracted for radiocarbon dating, also by Beta Analytic. Special sediment samples were collected in the field for pollen analysis by EcoPlan Associates; phytolith analysis was deemed redundant. Each of the above kinds of sampling and analysis was conducted according to the methods outlined in Chapter 5, Chapter 11, and Chapter 12. In addition, unexpected but appropriate dendrochronology and archaeomagnetometry samples were collected in the field for dating by the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research and Jeffrey Cox of the Office of Archaeological Studies, respectively. Descriptions of each feature follow below, and descriptions of analytical and dating methods and results are presented in Chapter 7 through Chapter 13.


Figure 6.18. LA 153714, feature location map.


Table 6.2. LA 153714 Feature Data

Feature Number

Intramural/ Extramural Feature Type Dimensions

(cm) Depth Below

Ground Surface (cm)

Internal Feature No.(s)

1 N/A Rectangular masonry/jacal habitation structure

350 × 240 × 40 0 5, 5B, 11, 11B, 18, 19

2 N/A Decommissioned N/A N/A N/A 3 N/A Round masonry

structure 215 × 173 × 40 0 16

4 N/A Rectangular pit structure

230 × 200 × 130

60 None

5 Intramural (F. 1) Slab-lined hearth 56 × 56 × 30 18 None 5B Intramural (F. 1) Ash dump for F. 5 60 × 30 × 23 24 None 6 Extramural Post hole 9 × 7 × 4 18 None

7 Extramural Post hole 14.5 × 11.0 ×

4.0 18 None

8 Extramural Post hole 8 × 7 × 5 18 None 9 Extramural Post hole 10.5 × 8.0 × 3.0 19 None 10 N/A Decommissioned N/A N/A N/A 11 Intramural (F. 1) Slab-lined hearth 40 × 30 × 23 20 None 11B Intramural (F. 1) Small pit; possibly

bottom of original F. 11 28 × 25 × 16 50 None

12 Extramural Slab-lined hearth 52 × 44 × 33 0 None 13 Intramural (F. 14) Semi-circular rock

alignment 104 × 99 × 17 42 None

14 N/A Semi-circular rock alignment

240 × 200 × 25 15–39 13

15 N/A Decommissioned N/A N/A N/A 16 Intramural (F. 3) Post hole 40 × 39 × 34 36 None 16B Intramural (F. 24) Clay-filled post hole 40 × 15 × 140 20 None 17 N/A Round masonry

structure with central pit

130 × 130 × 25 20 None

18 Intramural (F. 1) Slab-lined hearth 68 × 43 × 43 20 None 19 Intramural (F. 1) Mealing bin 139 × 90 × 43 20 None 20 N/A Decommissioned N/A N/A N/A 21 N/A Rock alignment—

probable wind/water break

230 × 50 × 48 10 None

22 Intramural (F. 24) Ventilator shaft 61 × 50 × 120 39 None 22B Intramural (F. 24) Hearth deflector 70 × 10 × 43 130 None 23 Extramural Slab-lined hearth 81 × 63 × 45 35 None 24 N/A Rounded pit structure 260 × 260 ×

140 40 22, 22B, 25,

26A, 26B, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33

25 Intramural (F. 24) Collared hearth 95 × 50 × 20 155 None 26A Intramural (F. 24) Left ladder hole 8 × 8 × 6 160 N/A 26B Intramural (F. 24) Right ladder hole 10 × 10 × 3 162 N/A 27 Intramural (F. 24) Post hole 7 × 7 × 6 163 N/A 28 Intramural (F. 24) Post hole or pit 27 × 30 × 9 161 N/A


Table 6.2. LA 153714 Feature Data, continued

Feature Number

Intramural/ Extramural Feature Type Dimensions

(cm) Depth Below

Ground Surface (cm)

Internal Feature No.(s)

29 Intramural (F. 24) Post hole or pit 25 × 21 × 21 160 N/A 30 Intramural (F. 24) Wall niche 15 × 14 × 23 65 N/A 31 Intramural (F. 24) Post hole 8 × 6 × 2 158 N/A 32 Intramural (F. 24) Post hole or pit 24 × 18 × 18 150 N/A 33 Intramural (F. 24) Kidney bean-shaped

pit 10 Intramural (F. 24) 6 Intramural (F. 24) 8

150 N/A

34 Extramural Child burial 30 × 25 × 7 30 None 35 N/A Square masonry

structure 190 × 100 × 50 20 39

36 Extramural Pit 33 × 30+ × 32 10 None 37 N/A Rectangular pit

structure 275 × 225 × 170

30 41, 42, 43, 44

38 Extramural Concentration of fragmentary ceramic vessels

Unknown 20+ None

39 Intramural Thermal feature 60 × 36 × 15 35 None 40 Extramural Pit 38 × 20+ × 23 10 None 41 Intramural (F. 37) Adult burial 110 × 46 × 32 120 None 42 Intramural (F. 37) Child burial 54 × 46 × 10 150 None 43 Intramural (F. 37) Hearth 54 × 44 × 28 200 None 44 Intramural (F. 37) Ventilator shaft 30 × 30 × 148 30 None


Feature 1 was the largest of the three surface masonry structures, originally identified during survey as being 3.0 × 2.5 m (9.8 × 8.2 ft) in size (Figure 6.2) (Brown and Brown 2006). During data recovery, its maximum dimensions were revealed to be 3.5 × 3.4 × 0.4 m (11.5 × 11.2 × 1.3 ft) (Figure 6.18, Figure 6.19). Prior to excavation, Feature 1 and Feature 2, a smaller surface masonry structure identified just south/southeast of Feature 1 during survey, were thought to be discrete round structures. However, excavation led to the interpretation that they were, in fact, part of one large rectangular structure. At some point there may have been a single-course line of rocks forming an ephemeral division between the two, although the rocks found within data recovery Feature 1 (survey Features 1 and 2 combined) largely appeared to be the result of wall fall. As such, Feature 1 made up a large portion of the so-called main structure block at the site.

Interpreted as a large habitation structure, Feature 1 contained three slab-lined hearths (Features 5, 11, and 18), one ash dump/pit (Feature 5B), one pit feature (Feature 11B), and one mealing bin (Feature 19). Judging by Feature 1’s remaining wall height and amount

of rock fall, its walls probably never were full height; rather, it likely had some kind of jacal superstructure. However, its fill consisted largely of windblown sediments, with no evidence for a collapsed superstructure.

Initially, four Shovel Scrape Units (SSs 1–4) were used to fully expose the Feature 1 basalt boulders present on the surface and two units (SS 5, SS 7) were used to expose Feature 2. Then the equivalent of 18 whole or partial 1 × 1–m Feature Units were used to completely expose the walls of Feature 1 and excavate its fill. The most intact walls were located on the southern end of the feature, where up to four courses of rocks, including some small, tabular pieces of sandstone, remained to a maximum height of 40 cm (15.7 in). In the middle of the south wall, on its lowest level, was a gap in the rocks; this was covered by a larger rock, forming what may have been a drain hole or air space at the bottom of the wall. Nearly identical wall construction was seen at the Pettit Site, a 20+ room Pueblo III-IV structure located on top of a small sandstone mesa above the Kluckhohn site, less than 16.1 km (10 mi) northwest of LA 153714 (Figure 6.20).


Figure 6.19. Feature 1 at the base of level 2, facing northeast. Feature 5 is

near the top center of the photo, and Feature 3 is in the top right corner of the photo.

Figure 6.20. Wall gap (outlined in white) seen at the Pettit Site.


Feature 1’s west and north walls generally consisted of either one remaining course of large basalt boulders or two courses of large boulders topped by much smaller pieces of basalt. The north end of its east wall was similarly intact, but much of its south end had been rearranged or removed (Figure 6.22). A narrow opening in its southeast corner may have been an entrance at one point, given that immediately outside it a greater than usual density of artifacts was observed, including many lithics and one projectile point fragment. The base of the rocks forming Feature 1’s foundation generally sat approximately 20 to 30 cm bmgs. Fill over and inside Feature 1 began with a thin layer (2–5 cm) of wind- and water-born silty loam with many roots. Below that in some areas was a thicker layer (10+ cm) of 7.5YR 3/3–4/3 sandy loam. Concentrated largely around the foundation rocks at the base of that layer were areas of reddish 7.5YR 4/6 oxidized sandy clay. Underneath that or continuing down from the previous level (if the oxidized sediment was absent) were 10–20 cm of compact 7.5YR 4/2 sandy loam cultural fill, on top of 7.5YR 4/4 silty sand (Figure 6.22). Within Feature 1, a mix of the latter sediment with patches of underlying clayey sediment represented pre-cultural subsoil. In accordance with the data recovery plan

(Railey et al. 2006), all cultural fill was removed from within Feature 1 via the equivalent of whole or partial 1- × 1-m feature units, and its base was checked for additional in-floor features. While oxidized sediments did form a distinct layer in some places and may have coincided with a living surface, they were patchy and no formal floors or living surfaces could be identified within Feature 1. The presence of oxidized sediment on top of windblown sediment and around the structure walls but the general paucity of burned wood within Feature 1 suggest that a natural fire sweeping through the area, rather than human agency, may have been responsible for the burning. Fill and ponderosa charcoal samples were collected from various units within Feature 1 for laboratory analysis and dating. A variety of ceramic and lithic artifacts, faunal remains, and building materials (e.g., jacal, basalt) also were recovered from Feature 1. However, it appeared that Feature 1 fill consisted predominantly of naturally deposited materials, rather than human-produced trash or architectural materials. Conifer charcoal recovered from a flotation sample collected from level 2 of FU 19 within Feature 1 yielded a 2 sigma date of Cal A.D. 1270–1330 and Cal A.D. 1340–1400 with an intercept of Cal A.D. 1290 (see Chapter 13).


Figure 6.21. Features 1 and 3 oblique plan view.


Figure 6.22. South-facing profile of units running through the middle of Feature 1.

Feature 2 was the label originally given to the smallest of the three surface masonry structures recorded during survey (Brown and Brown 2006). Originally measured at 1.50 × 1.25 m (4.9 × 4.1 ft), it was first exposed in SS 5 and SS 7. Then it was excavated using a series of 1- × 1-m units, including FUs 1–4 and FUs 10–11. By the time all units across the main structure block had been taken down to the base of level 1, it was clear that Feature 2 was a southerly extension of Feature 1. Hence, the former feature’s number was

decommissioned and only the latter number was subsequently used.

Feature 3 was an intermediate-sized, basalt masonry structure originally identified to the northeast of Feature 1 during survey (Figure 6.18); at that time, it was measured at 1.75 × 1.50 m (5.7 × 4.9 ft) (Brown and Brown 2006). However, excavation showed that the feature consisted of both a circular rock foundation measuring 2.15 × 1.73 m × 0.40 m (7.1 × 5.7 × 1.3 ft) and a smaller, rounded, internal pit (Figure 6.18, Figure 6.23)


approximately 60 × 55 × 28 cm (23.6 × 21.7 × 11.0 in). It was interpreted as a storage structure that may subsequently have been used for trash, since the upper fill within its masonry walls (versus the lower fill in the central pit) was higher in organic content than that of most of the other masonry structures. Feature 3’s walls, like those of Feature 1, probably never were full height, so they may have been capped by some kind of jacal superstructure.

The line of rocks forming the west side of Feature 3’s foundation abutted, but was separate from, that forming the northeast part of Feature 1’s foundation (Figure 6.21). The Feature 3 rocks sat somewhat lower than the Feature 1 rocks, since the site was located on a slight slope down to the east. Similarly, Feature 3’s south wall abutted Feature 14’s wall, creating a large area of wall fall. Removal of the top layer of boulders revealed what may have been two double walls—one for each of those features. Whether the double walls were intentional or the result of rocks falling between two single walls was difficult to ascertain. Excavation of Feature 3 began using two 2- × 2-m units (SS 6, SS 8) to remove grass and unconsolidated surface sediments from the Feature 3 rocks, to better determine their extent. Then FUs 5, 14, and 23 were taken down in quadrants for two 10-cm levels to further expose the rocks and to investigate the feature’s internal fill. Sediments in those levels consisted of dark 7.5YR 3/2–4/3 silty sand and silty loam overlying oxidized 7.5YR 4/6 (moist) clay loam. Sediments were highly disturbed by rodent activity, wall fall, and burning. In most places the rock foundation was two courses high, with a maximum of three courses,

measuring 30 cm (11.8 in) high at the most. At the base of level 2, when the abundant wall fall had been documented and removed and the feature’s intact fill more clearly exposed, excavation targeted the central pit. First the south half of the entire area within the rock walls was excavated down 40+ cm (15.7+ in) to create a north wall profile of the pit. That exposed a central, basin-shaped cultural deposit cut down into compact 7.5YR 4/4 (dry) silty sand, underlain by even more compact 7.5YR 5/4 (dry) silty sand (Figure 6.24, Figure 6.25). Three different burned timbers were discovered in the south half of Feature 3 at somewhat different depths. The largest ran northwest from a small presumed post hole (Feature 16) located against the south wall of Feature 3. The timber measured 40 × 15 cm (15.7 × 19.7 in) and was assumed to have fallen out of the post hole. The timber was submitted for tree-ring dating but did not yield a date. After the entire south half was excavated and the north profile was drawn, the north half of Feature 3’s central pit was removed. Flotation and pollen samples were collected for laboratory analyses. Ponderosa wood and bark charcoal and a small amount of juniper charcoal were recovered from the flotation sample (see Chapter 11). Because insufficient charred annuals were recovered from the Feature 3 flotation sample for dating, ponderosa charcoal was submitted to Beta Analytic and yielded a 2 sigma date of Cal A.D. 1280–1400 (see Chapter 13). The burned wood and the heavily oxidized sediment present around the rocks and also near the base of Feature 3 provided incontrovertible evidence for burning in and around the structure. Various ceramic and lithic artifacts also were recovered from Feature 3.


Figure 6.23. Feature 3 plan view.


Figure 6.24. Feature 3 north profile.


Figure 6.25. Feature 3 foundation (white) and internal pit (red) completely

excavated, facing north.

Feature 4 was a large, rectangular pit structure located near the center of LA 153714. Interpreted as a storage pit because of its lack of internal features, it measured 2.3 × 2.0 × 1.3 m (7.5 × 6.6 × 4.3 ft) (Figure 6.18). Feature 4 retained no evidence of a superstructure and was filled largely with naturally wind- and water-born sediments.

The center of Feature 4 initially was discovered in level 8 of TU 2 during the first week of fieldwork; the 1- × 1-m TU 2 serendipitously had been placed in the center of a slight depression containing no surface artifacts, to investigate subsurface deposits. At approximately 60 to 70 cm bmgs, it exposed strong brown 7.5YR 4/6 sandy loam with charcoal flecking, alerting the field crew to the presence of unusually deep cultural fill. However, Feature 4 was not defined until 10 cm deeper, when a decorated redware sherd

was found lying on a compact, undulating, somewhat oxidized surface. At that point, Feature 4 was thought to be the floor of a pit house. Subsequently, the linear TU 4 and TU 5 were used to define the northern, western, and southern extents of Feature 4. Then, several weeks later, during the mechanical stripping phase of data recovery, a north/south-running backhoe trench (Figure 6.26) was used to expand TUs 4 and 5 and to define the north and south boundaries of Feature 4 and its relation to LA 153714’s south edge. A second, west/east-running, backhoe trench was used to define the east boundary of the feature.

At that point, it became clear that what had been interpreted as the bottom of a pit house was actually the top of compacted structure fill.


Figure 6.26. West profile of the backhoe trench used to define Feature 4’s

north and south edges and its relation to the southern boundary of the site (near left edge of profile).

Because of the difficulty of getting a backhoe in position to remove fill from within Feature 4, it was excavated by hand using a 1.3- × 1.5-m (4.3- × 4.9-ft) control unit for the north half and treating the rest of the fill as a single entity (Figure 6.27). The control unit was dug in 13 10-cm levels, with fill screened through 1/8-in mesh. Likewise, the last 10 cm of fill remaining above the floor on the south half of the feature was screened through 1/8-in mesh. Otherwise the rest of the feature was completely excavated but not screened; still, all artifacts and large pieces of charcoal and wood seen during excavation were collected. Fill within Feature 4 consisted largely of very compact, brown, wind- and water-born 7.5YR 4/4–4/6 (dry) loamy sand containing small pieces of charcoal, jacal, fire-modified sandstone, and basalt cobbles. Some thin lenses of yellowish-red 5YR 5/6 (dry) clay loam also appeared within the bottom 50 cm of the fill; the lenses represented native

sediment that had fallen off the walls of the pit. In the south half of the feature, many large, tabular pieces of basalt also were found in the lowest 30 cm of fill. The pit walls were more or less vertical (Figure 6.28), although the south portion of the east wall undercut its top edge before continuing straight down. In the same area of the east wall—located within the top 40 cm—was a clearly burned and friable area. It was not clear whether that had resulted from an attempt to heat-harden the walls or whether it occurred during a more wide-spread fire, although the apparently localized burning and the small amount of burned wood recovered from the fill suggested the former was more likely. The floor was very smooth and fairly level, with some charcoal staining and patches of oxidized sediment (Figure 6.29). The northeast corner of the feature appeared to have two steps cut into the native sediment just above and just below the top of the pit; it


is possible that these served as steps to facilitate access into the structure. One of the pit structures tested during the Clo-Chin-Toh land exchange project (Anyon 1984) also had steps leading down into it. Very few artifacts were recovered from Feature 4, and the pollen sample collected from under a basalt boulder on the floor of the feature contained no discernible pollen. Flotation and pollen samples, along with radiocarbon and dendrochronology samples, also were collected from the feature for laboratory analysis and dating. While none of the latter were viable, a very small sample of burned maize, pine needles, and conifer twigs

extracted from a bottom flotation sample yielded a surprisingly late 2 sigma date of Cal A.D. 1290–1420 with intercepts of Cal A.D. 1320, 1350, and 1390 (see Chapter 13). It is possible that the structure was used or re-used for quite a while after it was first dug out, or that the pine needles and conifer twigs, in particular, represented younger materials that blew into the pit while it stood open. The assumption prior to dating was that Feature 4 was created at the same time as the other pit structures (Features 24 and 37), of which Feature 24 was tree-ring dated to A.D. 1275 (see below).


Figure 6.28. Feature 4 north profile.

Figure 6.29. Feature 4 completely excavated, facing west.


Feature 5 was the central, squarish, slab-lined hearth in Feature 1 that measured 56 × 56 × 30 cm (22.0 × 22.0 × 11.8 in) (Figure 6.18). It was located 1.5 m from both the north and west walls of Feature 1 and was one of the best preserved features at the site. First discovered as a concentration of ashy and oxidized sediment inside three upright basalt slabs in level 2 of FU 21, the upper 10 cm of its east half were excavated as part of that unit. To completely expose the feature, part of the second level of FU 16, located immediately west of FU 21, also was excavated. After that, the remainder of Feature 5’s east half was excavated in two 10-cm levels. Then its west wall was profiled and its west half was excavated, again in two levels. In total, Feature 5 was completely bounded by five upright basalt slabs, whose joints originally were filled in with clay that became an oxidized bright red color from hearth use; a sixth stone, lying several centimeters above the tops of the uprights, capped the hearth’s fill. Sediments inside the feature consisted of dark reddish brown 5YR 3/3 silty sandy loam containing charcoal, jacal, oxidized pieces of sandstone, and a few sherds. Nearly covering the base of the hearth was a concentration of hardened clay, approximately 1 cm thick (Figure 6.30). Jeff Cox of the Office of Archaeological Studies removed eight archaeomagnetic samples from that basal clay, resulting in an improbably early date of A.D. 1130–1195. Despite careful evaluation of sediments in the field, a variety of factors could have led to an inaccurate date. For example, the fire in the hearth may not have been hot enough to create a strong and coherent alignment; the sediments that were sampled may have moved from their

original alignment; laboratory measurements may have contained errors; or the relationship between the resulting date range and the error ellipse and calibration curve may not have been interpreted correctly (Dennis Gilpin, personal communication 2007). One flotation sample, two radiocarbon samples, and two pollen samples were collected from Feature 5. Ponderosa bark and wood charcoal were extracted from the flotation sample (see Chapter 11), and a radiocarbon sample of the latter material yielded a 2 sigma date of Cal A.D. 1230–1300 with an intercept of Cal A.D. 1280 (see Chapter 13)—older than expected, although possibly resulting from the use of wood salvaged from earlier occupation of the site. Pollen represented 12 different tree and plant species plus maize (see Chapter 12).

Feature 5B was a discarded ash pile located mostly to the west of Feature 5, with a 2- to 3-cm-wide ring of material circling the hearth. Its main western portion measured approximately 60 × 30 × 23 cm (23.6 × 11.8 × 9.1 in). Sediment consisted of very dark gray 7.5YR 3/1 silty clay with ash, disturbed by insect and rodent activity and the placement of a now old fence post on its western edge. The upper 20 cm of the south half of Feature 5B were excavated as part of level 3 in FU 16 SE. However, the north half was excavated as one unit, with all fill collected as a flotation sample. The flotation sample yielded ponderosa wood charcoal and burned pine needles (see Chapter 11). Feature 5B was undercut by a large trough-shaped rodent burrow extending to the north; the latter was covered with two pieces of basalt and contained one sherd and one burned animal bone, but excavation showed that it was not a cultural feature.


Figure 6.30. Features 5 and 5B post-excavation, facing south.

Feature 6 was a possible oval post hole measuring 9 × 7 × 4 cm (3.5 × 2.8 × 1.6 in). Along with the very similar Features 7, 8, and 9, it was discovered in level 2 of FU 8, just outside the southwest corner of Feature 1 but northwest of the large upright slab (Figure 6.18). All four features were drawn in plan view and photographed together. Then, because they ran in a northwest–southeast line, they were initially explored together; all were bisected by a trench running northwest–southeast, and their north halves removed together. Then all were drawn in profile, and their south halves excavated as separate, single units. All fill from each was collected as a separate flotation sample and each was recorded on separate field forms. In profile, Feature 6 had a very shallow, basin-like shape and was filled with dark brown 7.5YR 3/2 silty loam. No artifacts or charcoal were seen in its fill during excavation, though a tiny amount of the latter was noted during a scan of its flotation sample contents.

Feature 7 was the largest of the four possible oval post holes, measuring 14.5 × 11.0 × 4.0 cm (5.7 × 4.3 × 1.6 in). In profile, its west

edge was vertical but its bottom and east edge formed more of a basin shape. It also contained dark brown 7.5YR 3/2 silty loam, as well as an unusual piece of unmodified chert having a natural crystal-like shape. After much of its north half was removed (see above), its south half was excavated as one unit. Part of the fill from the north half and all of the fill from the south half of Feature 7 was collected as a flotation sample. As with Feature 6, a tiny amount of conifer charcoal was noted during analysis of the flotation sample.

Feature 8 was another possible post hole, with maximum dimensions of 8 × 7 × 5 cm (3.1 × 2.7 × 2.0 in). Like Features 6, 7, and 9, it was oval in plan view and filled with dark brown 7.5YR 3/2 silty loam. In profile it was basin-shaped but with a pointy center extending farther down. No artifacts or charcoal were seen during its excavation, but all of the fill from its south half was collected as a flotation sample. Again, a tiny amount of conifer charcoal was noted in its flotation sample.


Feature 9 was the fourth possible post hole, located approximately 20 cm (7.9 in) to the east of the others. It also was oval and basin-shaped and measured 10.5 × 8.0 × 3.0 cm (4.1 × 3.1 × 1.2 in). Two small rocks were located just under and east of its 7.5YR 3/2 silty loam fill. Feature 9 was the most dubious of the four small post holes because of its shallowness. Still, after its north half was removed, its south half was excavated as one unit and all of its fill was collected as a flotation sample. No artifacts or charcoal were seen during excavation of Feature 9, but a tiny amount of charcoal was noted when its flotation sample contents were scanned.

The label “Feature 10” initially was given to a burned timber uncovered on the west edge of FU 6 SE within levels 3 and 4; it was assumed that the timber would be found to be located within a post hole. However, excavation and removal of the timber as a tree-ring sample showed that no discernible feature was associated with it. Accordingly this feature number was decommissioned, although the wood was submitted for tree-ring dating. Unfortunately, it did not yield a date.

Feature 11 was an oval-shaped slab-lined hearth found in level 2 of FU 17 NW, just north of Feature 1’s south wall (Figure 6.18, Figure 6.31). Measuring 40 × 30 × 23 cm (15.7 × 11.2 × 9.0 in), its top edge was incompletely bounded by three upright pieces of basalt and two pieces of oxidized sandstone. Feature 11 was bisected north-south and its west half excavated first, in two 10-cm levels. That exposed a regular, basin-shaped pit dug down into compact, fine-grained 7.5YR 4/4 silty sand; feature fill itself was medium-grained 7.5YR 3/3 silty sand.

The east half of Feature 11 subsequently was excavated as one unit, with sediment from its lower half collected as a flotation sample. Contained in that sample were ponderosa wood charcoal and bark, as well as a tiny amount of oak charcoal (see Chapter 11). An area of oxidized sediment was found at the bottom of the hearth, in its south half, but no artifacts were found within the hearth’s fill. Feature 11 was significantly disturbed by insect holes, a rodent burrow, and a large juniper root running through its north half.

Feature 11B was a 28- × 25- × 16-cm (11.0- × 9.8- × 6.3-in) pit located just north of and below Feature 11, inside the southern boundary of Feature 1, at the bottom of level 5 in FU 17 NW (Figure 6.18). It was bisected along an east–west line, with its south half excavated first and its fill screened through 1/4-in mesh; one sherd and one radiocarbon sample were collected. Subsequent excavation of the remainder of the feature exposed a small upright slab against the north wall. All fill from the north half was collected as a flotation sample, which yielded ponderosa wood charcoal and needles, as well as a Cheno-am seed (see Chapter 11). Fill was a wind-/water-born dark brown 7.5YR 3/3 silty loam mixed with collapsed construction material, including burned jacal and charcoal. The fill was identical to that of Feature 1, so it probably was not indicative of Feature 11B’s function. The pit’s proximity to Feature 11 and its upright slab suggest that it might have been the bottom of the Feature 11 hearth before the latter was remodeled. Alternatively, it could have been a small storage pit used in conjunction with the Feature 19 mealing bin to the northwest.


Figure 6.31. Feature 11 partly excavated, facing south, with Feature 1’s

south wall seen along the top of the photo.

Feature 12 was a square, slab-lined, external hearth found protruding just above modern ground surface approximately 2.3 m (7.5 ft) north of Feature 1 (Figure 6.18). Measuring 52 × 44 × 33 cm (20.5 × 17.3 × 13.0 in), it was almost completely enclosed by three large and two small upright basalt rocks; another piece of basalt created the bottom (Figure 6.32). Fill consisted largely of dark brown 7.5YR 3/2 (dry) silty sand, with 4 cm of wind-blown sand on the very top. The hearth had been intentionally filled in after use, as it also contained six pieces of basalt, beginning approximately 15 cm down into the fill. Those ranged from 2 to 35 cm (0.8 to 13.8 in) in maximum dimension. Feature 12

was excavated in two halves, beginning with the west half. A pollen sample was collected from the base of the feature, but all other sediment was collected as a flotation sample. Thirteen species of trees and plants were represented in the pollen sample (see Chapter 12) while the flotation sample contained burned maize cupules and kernels, a yucca seed, ponderosa wood charcoal, bark, and needles; piñon charcoal; and pine needles (see Chapter 11). A sample of burned maize submitted to Beta Analytic yielded a 2 sigma radiocarbon date of Cal A.D. 1160–1280 with an intercept of Cal A.D. 1230 (see Chapter 13). One corrugated sherd also was revealed during excavation and collected separately.


Figure 6.32. Feature 12 excavated down to fill rocks, facing east.

Feature 13 was a 104- × 99- × 17-cm (40.9 × 39.0 × 6.7 in) enigmatic rock alignment first uncovered in level 5 of FU 23 and extending into level 6 (Figure 6.15, Figure 6.18). It appeared as a semi-circular arrangement of five flat basalt rocks plus one interior rock, all located at approximately the same level (41–43 cm bmgs). Inside the curve of the rocks, around the central rock, was what appeared to be compact, ashy sediment containing charcoal chunks; those deposits initially seemed to change exactly at the outside boundary of the rocks, becoming browner, looser, and sandier. Accordingly, Feature 13 was first thought to be a thermal feature—possibly a fire ring located in the middle of the Feature 14 structure. At the time that Feature 13 was exposed in FU 23, the adjacent FU 26 to the south and MU 5 to the east were not excavated to the same depth. Accordingly, excavation of Feature 13 was halted until equivalent levels in those other two units were dug, so that what presumably was the remainder of Feature 13 would be exposed. Surprisingly, however, when both adjacent units were taken down to level 4 and below, during unit excavation and/or scraping to expose all Feature 24 boundaries, no

additional rocks were seen. Therefore, the portion of Feature 13 that was originally defined was re-investigated on its own. During the nearly month-long hiatus between its two investigations, a large, underlying in-filled structure labeled Feature 24 was discovered. When the sediments within the Feature 13 curve of rocks were re-examined, they appeared to be no different from the sediments that filled Feature 24. As a result, Feature 13 was interpreted as a cultural feature of unknown use that appeared to have been built on top of the in-filled Feature 24 but that may have shifted somewhat as the fill settled. No separate sediments were collected, though seven artifacts were recovered from within the rock curve.

Feature 14 was another enigmatic rock alignment that ran around the outside of Feature 13, roughly 125 and 50 cm (49.2 and 19.7 in) to its west and north, respectively (Figure 6.15, Figure 6.18). Covering approximately 2.4 × 2.0 m (7.9 × 6.6 ft) of horizontal distance, it was a curving line of basalt boulders up to two courses, or 25 cm (9.8 in), high. It sloped down to the east, following the natural ground, so the


shallowest rock at the west end of the feature was uncovered in level 2 of FU 23 SW at 15 cm bmgs, but the deepest rock on the east edge sat in level 4 of FU 23 NE at 39 cm bmgs. Most of the feature was excavated in 10–cm levels, as part of three 1- × 1-m units (FU 23 SW, NW, and NE). Fill was screened through 1/4-in mesh, and various kinds of artifacts were collected from within and around the rocks. In addition, two flotation samples and three radiocarbon samples were collected from the area of Feature 14. Macrobotanical remains included piñon wood charcoal; ponderosa charcoal, bark, and needles; and Chenopodium sp. seeds. Interpretation of Feature 14 initially was hampered in the same way that the Feature 13 interpretation was; because FU 26 was not excavated to the same level, the south boundary of Feature 14 could not be defined. Accordingly, Feature 14 documentation paused while FU 26 was taken down. However, as with Feature 13, no additional rocks were seen at the same level as Feature 14, so the latter remained simply a semi-circular line of rocks. Feature 14 was interpreted as a once–surface structure built on top of Feature 24 fill. While the former’s base sediments were the same as those seen within much of the latter’s fill (strong brown 7.5YR 4/6 [dry] sandy loam), they were heavily compacted as if they had once been an occupation surface.

The label “Feature 15” was given to a 60-cm–long (23.6-in-long), nearly straight line of burned plaster uncovered in the middle of level 6 in FU 23 SW, east of Feature 17 but west of Feature 14. An upright stone, all but the top of which remained under the ground, was connected to its east side, on its south end. Subsequent excavation of Trench 1 and FUs farther to the north and east showed that the burned line was actually the south end of the west edge of the large Feature 24 pit. Accordingly, the Feature 15 label was decommissioned.

Feature 16 was a post hole located on the south edge of Feature 3 and the northwest corner of Feature 24 (Figure 6.18). Its boundaries were difficult to define because it may have been part of or disturbed by the adjacent Feature 16B. However, maximum dimensions were approximately 40 × 39 × 34 cm (15.7 × 15.3 × 13.4 in) while minimum ones were 20 × 10 × 34 cm (7.9 × 4.0 × 13.4 in). The base of Feature 16 was originally discovered during excavation of Feature 3’s south half when a 40-cm-long burned timber running slightly northeast–southwest was uncovered at approximately 34 cm below datum. Excavation of sediments immediately south of the timber revealed an oval patch of brown 5YR 5/3 fine-grained silty sand containing some charcoal flecking. It appeared that the timber had once stood upright in the post hole. That timber and two others from Feature 3 were collected as dendrochronology samples (see above). While the north half of Feature 16 was removed along with Feature 3, its south profile was preserved in the south wall of Feature 3. It was photographed and drawn and then the remaining fill was removed and collected as a flotation sample. When the sample’s contents were scanned, ponderosa wood charcoal and bark, as well as pine needles, were noted (see Chapter 11). However, no artifacts were recovered from Feature 16. It was originally thought to be a post hole for the Feature 3 possible storage structure, although evidence from later excavation of the adjacent Feature 24 suggested that, alternatively, it may have been related to that feature. Feature 16B was an adjacent post hole located in the northwest corner of Feature 24 (Figure 6.18), where it most likely served as a roof support for that large pit structure. Feature 16B consisted of a column of light brownish gray 10YR 6/2 clay and fill rocks, with maximum dimensions of 40 × 15 × 140 cm (15.7 × 5.9 × 55.1 in), that began above but then ran behind the plastered west wall of Feature 24 (Figure 6.33). Prior to


excavation of Feature 24, the 10- 20-cm portion of Feature 16B that was located above the pit structure’s wall was recorded in a plan view drawing along with Feature 16 and Feature 3. After Feature 24 had been completely excavated and documented, its wall plaster was chipped away to reveal the remaining lower portion of Feature 16B, essentially in profile. All together, the post hole contained nine flat basalt rocks, eight of which were stacked on top of one another, starting at the very top of the feature. A burned wood post remained in the bottom 60 cm of the post hole. Because the feature fill

was dense, sticky clay, a sample was collected for pollen analysis but no sediments were screened or systematically excavated. Pollen analysis revealed some maize grains plus 16 different types of wild pollen—the largest variety for features tested at the site (see Chapter 12). The source of the light gray clay is unknown, though it may have been brought from wetlands now dried up near the site, or still existing less than 3.2 km (2 mi) to the south/southeast of it. What appeared to be the same kind of clay also was found in Feature 19, a mealing bin.

Figure 6.33. Feature 16B (outlined in black) completely exposed, facing west.

Feature 17 was a heavily disturbed feature overlapping the southeast portion of Feature 1, immediately northeast of Feature 18 (Figure 6.18). It may once have been similar to Feature 3—a low, round rock foundation with an internal pit. A portion of its sediment was removed along with levels 2 and 3 in FU 19 NE because it initially appeared to be fill

from rodent burrows, rather than an intact feature. Any sediments remaining in FU 23 NW and SW immediately to the east were undetectable because of extensive site remodeling and construction of Feature 14; those quadrants also were excavated down prior to Feature 17’s discovery in FU 19. In addition, while some large rocks remaining at


the base of excavation level 2 suggested a curved line running approximately 20 cm (7.9 in) west and southwest of the Feature 17 fill, they did not form a complete wall. As such, Feature 17’s actual dimensions are unknown, but it is estimated to have been at least 1.30 × 1.30 × 0.25 m (4.3 × 0.8 ft) in size. After it was identified in FU 19 SE, the remaining brown to dark brown 7.5YR 4/3–3/3 silty sand fill from Feature 17 was profiled in the west wall of FU 23 SW. It appeared to be a shallower but larger pit than that seen in Feature 3. Its underlying sediments were the same 7.5YR 4/4 compact silty sand as seen across the rest of the site. A flotation sample was collected from feature fill remaining within FU 19 SE, and the rest of the fill was excavated as one unit, screened through 1/8-in mesh. Only a few artifacts were found in it, but analysis of the flotation sample revealed ponderosa wood charcoal and bark; piñon charcoal; and one burned bean. The bean was submitted to Beta Analytic and yielded a 2 sigma radiocarbon date of Cal A.D. 1320–1350 and Cal A.D. 1390–1440 with an intercept of A.D. 1420—the youngest date from LA 153714 (see Chapter 13). Interpretation of Feature 17 is difficult, given the combination of its lack of integrity and its young date. However, it is possible that a rodent carried the burned bean from the

surface of the site down into the feature’s central pit, making it appear younger than it actually is.

Feature 18 was the third of three slab-lined hearths found within the main Feature 1 structure, in its southeast corner (Figure 6.18). It was first identified during excavation of level 3 in FU 19 SE and measured 68 × 43 × 43 cm (26.8 × 17.0 × 17.0 in). Upright basalt slabs remained only around the north margin of the feature, and they extended only about 10 cm down into the hearth pit (Figure 6.34). Feature 18’s south half was excavated first but no artifacts were seen in its fill. After the north wall profile was drawn and photographed, the remaining north half was excavated. Fill consisted of dark brown 7.5YR 3/4 silty sandy loam dug into the typical compact 7.5YR 4/4 silty sand. Both a flotation sample and a pollen sample were collected from the north half of the feature, with the pollen sample collected from just above the hearth’s slightly oxidized bottom. The flotation sample contained a maize kernel and Chenopodium sp. seed, ponderosa wood charcoal and bark, piñon charcoal, and juniper charcoal—relatively rare at LA 153714. As with the Feature 12 external hearth, Feature 18 pollen represented 13 different species of trees and plants. Feature 18 was heavily disturbed by roots and rodent burrows.

Figure 6.34. Feature 18 completely excavated, facing north.


Feature 19 was a 139- × 90- × 43-cm (54.7- × 35.4- × 17.0-in) mealing bin located in the south half of Feature 1, just inside its west wall (Figure 6.18). A small portion of an upright sandstone slab rising more than 20 cm above the feature fill on its east boundary was first discovered during excavation of level 2 in FU 19 NW. However, the feature was not defined as such until it was completely exposed in plan view in level 4 of FU 19 NW and SW, FU 11, and FU 13. Then it was bisected, slightly more than its south half was excavated (Figure 6.35), and its north wall profile was drawn. Fill was screened through 1/4-in mesh and contained different kinds of ceramics, one lithic artifact, and numerous pieces of broken ground stone and architectural stone. Fill consisted of mottled 7.5YR 3/4–4/4 (dry) silty sand, 7.5YR 5/2 (dry) ashey clayey sand, light gray clay, and oxidized sediments with charcoal flecking. The light gray clay, which also was seen in a few isolated clumps immediately outside Feature 19 (and in the Feature 16B post hole), may have been used to fill in depressions within the bin, thereby creating a smoother floor for working. In addition to the large, shaped, upright sandstone slab on Feature 19’s east edge, five pieces of shaped and/or

ground stone were recovered from the mealing bin—a large, subrectangular piece that may originally have been upright along the south edge of the feature, one grinding stone, two broken two-hand manos, and one netherstone. A pollen sample was collected from underneath one of the mano fragments, in the southwest portion of the feature. Analysis showed that it contained pollen from 10 different tree and plant species (see Chapter 12). A flotation sample was collected from the north half and yielded two small pieces of fused maize kernels, as well as piñon charcoal, ponderosa bark and charcoal, and pine needles (see Chapter 11). Parts of the bottom of the bin were oxidized, although the upright slab showed no evidence of fire. Accordingly, the charcoal, bark, and needles may have come from burning of the Feature 1 superstructure, or post-depositional movement of sediments around the site. A sample of burned maize from the mealing bin yielded a surprisingly early 2 sigma radiocarbon date of Cal A.D. 1230–1300 (the same as Feature 5’s date), with an intercept of Cal A.D. 1280, making it potentially contemporaneous with the Feature 24 pit structure (see Chapter 13).

Figure 6.35. Feature 19 south half excavated. The west wall of Feature 1 is

seen along the left edge of the photo.


The label “Feature 20” was given to two upright, flat pieces of basalt found just below modern ground surface on the north edge of FU 5 NE. No other rocks or dark sediments were found near them, but the area within the rocks was bisected and the north half excavated down 65 cm. That showed brown 7.5YR 4/3 (moist) cultural fill on top of 7.5YR 4/4 (moist) compact sand, but revealed no bounded feature. Accordingly, excavation was terminated and the feature number was decommissioned. Serendipitously, Trench 1 was later purposely started over Feature 20 to further confirm that it was not a feature. Running due south, the trench uncovered the very east edge of the large Feature 24 pit structure.

Feature 21 was a slightly curving rock alignment that ran from the southwest corner of Feature 1, just south of the large upright slab, south and somewhat east (Figure 6.18). It measured approximately 2.30 × 0.50 × 0.48 m (7.5 × 1.6 × 1.5 ft), although much of its width resulted from the movement of wall rocks down its east face. The presence of Feature 21 was first suspected when two angled rocks were seen in the south wall profile of FU 7. To determine the nature of the possible feature, FU 25 NW and NE initially were opened and excavated down two 10-cm levels. Those exposed a wall running south, so FU 25 SW and SE also were excavated, with the latter going down to 40 cm bmgs. The wall continued south of those units, so Trench 2 was used, in part, to locate the southern edge of Feature 21 and to determine if the wall curved east, suggesting a complete structure. However, no rocks were found in Trench 2. Therefore, a 60- × 70-cm (23.6- × 27.5-in) area directly south of FU 25 SE was shoveled out, revealing only very small rocks. Accordingly, Feature 21 was interpreted as a possible wind break or water deflection feature; its location at the base of the basalt outcrop, less than 4 m due west and upslope from the large Feature 4 pit structure,

made the latter a real possibility. Starting at the ground surface, sediment surrounding Feature 21 was different from that inside Feature 1; it consisted solely of brown 7.5YR 4/4 silty sand with charcoal flecking and fewer than five artifacts per quadrant level—no darker cultural fill overlay the sand. Fill from FU 25 was screened through 1/4-in mesh. No sediment samples were collected because no fill was directly associated with the feature.

Feature 22 was the ventilator shaft for the Feature 24 pit structure (Figure 6.18). Its surface opening was 61 × 50 cm (24.0 × 19.7 in), and it extended approximately 120 cm (47.2 in) down towards the northwest, into the bottom of the pit. It was first discovered when excavation of level 4 in FU 28 uncovered a pile of five tilted basalt rocks. Those and others had been used to help fill in the ventilator shaft. Sediments immediately surrounding the pile of rocks were oxidized and contained burned jacal, charcoal, and ash. Feature 22 was fully documented and excavated only after Feature 24 was completely excavated. At that time, the rocks and the upper 50 cm of fill were removed as one unit, while the lower 50–70 cm were removed as another. Fill was sampled but not all was screened. Feature sediments consisted of mottled cultural fill and oxidized clay, along with significant amounts of charcoal, pieces of burned timbers, burned jacal, and pieces of sandstone and basalt. What appeared to be half of a flat sandstone ventilator hatch cover was found in the middle of the fill approximately 20 cm above the base of the shaft (Figure 6.36). Several rodent burrows had disturbed sediments within the feature, although the shaft appeared to have been purposely filled in with sediments, construction materials, and basalt boulders after its use. Artifacts found within the fill were collected, along with two dendrochronology samples, one flotation sample, and a vial of burned seeds. Of


particular note from Feature 22 were four thin pieces of pink-colored siltstone that had been shaped into what appeared to be pendant preforms. A completed pendant made of the same material was found on the floor of Feature 24 (see Chapter 8). Feature 22 also contained ponderosa charcoal and bark, piñon

charcoal, and one Chenopodium sp. seed. Two dendrochronology samples were submitted for analysis, with one yielding a non-cutting date of A.D. 1272 (albeit close to several cutting dates of A.D. 1275 obtained from Feature 24) (see Chapter 13).

Figure 6.36. Probable ventilator hatch cover fragment from near the

bottom of Feature 22.

Feature 22B was a hearth deflector located immediately north of where the Feature 22 ventilator shaft entered the Feature 24 pit structure, and immediately south of the structure’s Feature 25 collared hearth (Figure 6.18). The deflector was uncovered during excavation of Unit 3 in Feature 24. Constructed of an upright, east/west-trending slab of basalt completely covered with plaster, it measured 70 cm (27.5 in) long × 10 cm (4.0 in) wide × 43 cm (17.0 in) high. A two–hand mano fragment was found lying on top of the eastern part of the deflector, near the structure wall. In addition, two large, flat pieces of basalt were found leaning against the south side of the deflector. The remnants of a burned vertical post were seen stuck to the north/underside of the western rock, between it and the deflector. Because the bottom of the charred line was very close to Feature 26A—a ladder hole on the pit structure floor—the

charcoal line was interpreted as the remains of the structure’s ladder; the basalt rocks probably were thrown into the structure directly or slid down the ventilator shaft. Because of the nature of Feature 22B, it was not excavated and no fill was collected for analysis.

Feature 23 was a rectangular slab-lined hearth measuring 81 × 63 × 45 cm (31.9 × 24.8 × 17.7 in) (Figure 6.37). Revealed during excavation of the NW and SW quadrants of FU 23, at the base of level 4, it sat directly on top of Feature 24 fill and was, in turn, buried beneath wall fall created by the collapse of the Features 3 and 14 foundations (Figure 6.18). Eight small to medium–sized upright basalt rocks created the hearth’s boundary. After it was recorded in plan view, Feature 23 was excavated in two halves, beginning with the south half. Four different strata of fill were present, including 7.5YR 3/4 (moist)


fine-grained sandy cultural fill mottled with oxidized, clayey sediments on top of lighter brown compact 7.5YR 4/3-4/4 (moist) silty sand mottled with darker cultural fill and charcoal, above a 12-cm-thick layer of pale brown 10YR 6/3 (moist) ash, with a bottom of strong brown 7.5YR 4/6 (moist) silty sand containing patches of ash and very compact gray clay. The hearth appeared to have been purposely filled in after use, as it contained more than 20 small to medium basalt rocks, particularly in its top two levels. It also contained several sherds and a few bones and lithic artifacts. Separate fill was collected for flotation and pollen analysis, and charcoal

was collected for radiocarbon dating. The flotation sample contained a few burned maize cupules, a small amount of cholla, some ponderosa charcoal and bark, and a large amount of unspecified conifer charcoal, but no preserved pollen was detected in that sample. A piece of conifer charcoal was radiocarbon dated to Cal A.D. 1240–1300 and Cal A.D. 1370–1380 with an intercept of Cal A.D. 1280. Because this hearth was built on top of the Feature 24 pit structure fill, which must post-date A.D. 1275 (the date that Feature 24’s roof was built), it suggests that the pit structure was filled in over a matter of only years.

Figure 6.37. Feature 23, facing north. The south half is completely

excavated while the north half is excavated down to the ash layer. FU 23 NE is to the right.

Feature 24 was a square-to-round pit structure measuring 2.6 × 2.6 × 1.4 m (8.5 × 4.6 ft) (Figure 6.38). It was first indisputably identified in Trench 1, which clipped its entire east side. Located at least 40 cm bmgs, it underlay Features 3, 13, 14, and 23 (Figure 6.18). As such, it must have been associated

with the earliest occupation of the site. Of the three large pit structures found at the site, Feature 24 demonstrated the greatest investment in time and materials. For example, all of Feature 24’s walls and its floor, as well as a wall niche (Feature 30), were plastered with a generally well-


preserved layer of clay of variable thickness. Parallel marks from presumably a vegetal brush of some kind could be seen in many places in the plaster, and a few finger marks also remained. Because of that time investment and because Feature 24 contained some floor offerings and numerous internal features, including post holes, pits, and a possible sipapu (Feature 33), it was loosely called a “kiva” by the field crew. However, its lack of formal features preclude it from being considered a true kiva in the Pueblo IV sense of the term (e.g., Smith 1990). Rather, it could

plausibly be interpreted as a joint domestic and ritual structure (e.g., Lekson 1988); given Hokona’s small size, there may have been no need for a completely separate, restricted ritual space. Inhabitants’ larger-scale integrative and ritual needs above the household level may have been satisfied through participation in ceremonies at one or more of the large nucleated pueblos in the El Morro Valley (e.g., Pueblo de los Muertos, Atsinna, Cienega, Kluckhohn). Feature 24’s possible use is discussed more thoroughly in Chapter 14.

Figure 6.38. Feature 24 completely excavated, facing south. Features 25,

22B, 22, 30, and 27 can be seen, starting in the lower left corner of the photo and moving clockwise.

During excavation, the small sliver of Feature 24 (a maximum of 30 cm wide) that was found in Trench 1 was removed as one unit to investigate the feature’s fill, boundaries, and depth. Then all of the features overlying the rest of Feature 24 and the midden units in which they were located were completely excavated down to at least 40 cm bmgs, to expose all of the pit structure’s boundaries. Subsequently, three hand units were used to excavate Feature 24. Because of the tremendous amount of fill in the structure, not

all of it was systematically screened. Unit 1 was a 1.0- × 1.5-m control unit, located in the northeast portion of the feature. It was excavated in 11 10-cm levels, with all fill screened through 1/4-in mesh. Many ceramic and lithic artifacts were recovered from Unit 1, as well as numerous burned timbers, pieces of ponderosa pine bark, and chunks of charcoal that were collected for tree-ring and radiocarbon dating. Throughout Feature 24, fill was a mixture of 7.5YR 4/4 silty sand and 7.5YR 4/6 sandy clay—both sediments


common throughout the rest of the site. Structure fill was highly disturbed by large rodent and animal burrows, particularly in levels 3 through 7. Excavation of Unit 1 stopped approximately 10 to 15 cm above the floor and the rest of the feature was taken down to around the same level. Unit 2 was located on the west side of the feature and measured approximately 1.0 × 2.4 m (3.3 × 7.9 ft). It was used to more quickly explore a larger part of the pit structure and its plastered walls and floor, though it was terminated approximately 5 to 10 cm above the latter. While sediment from Unit 2 was not screened, all artifacts seen during its excavation were collected. Those included an unusual baked clay animal figurine (see

Chapter 7 and Figure 7.7). Unit 3 was a 1.5- × 1.6-m unit, excavated in 11 10-cm levels, that was used to remove sediment from the southeast corner of Feature 24; approximately 65 percent of its fill was screened through 1/4-in mesh. Unit 3 exposed building material, including jacal, sandstone, basalt, and timbers. Flotation, radiocarbon, and dendrochronology samples, along with many different kinds of artifacts, were collected from the unit. After all three units were terminated at 5 to 15 cm above the floor, a series of nine whole and partial 1- × 1-m units—called Kiva Units (KUs) 1 through 9—were used to increase spatial control for recording artifacts and features found on the floor (Figure 6.39). All are described below.


Figure 6.39. Drawing of features, artifacts, and macrobotanical remains

found on the floor of Feature 24.


Within or immediately adjacent to Feature 24 were 13 other features—a collared hearth (F. 25), a ventilator shaft (F. 22), a deflector (F. 22B), a possible sipapu (F. 33), two ladder holes (F. 26A, 26B), three large post holes or pits (F. 28, 29, 32), two small post holes (F. 27, 31), a tall clay-filled post hole (F. 16B), and a wall niche (F. 30) (Figure 6.34). In addition, the northwest corner of the structure floor featured a round impression adjacent to a band of clay whose top was even with the floor. The impression may have formed from a post or pot sitting on the floor, while the band of clay may formerly have been the edge of a collared hearth that was filled in. Some parts of the floor were slightly disturbed by small rodent burrows. After all fill was removed and all intra-mural features were recorded and excavated, approximately 60 percent of the wall plaster was randomly removed to look for wall niches that may have been plastered over. None were found. A small area of the floor also was removed to determine if additional floors were present underneath the most recent one, but, again, none were found. A backhoe trench later was used to remove a significant amount of sediment on the east edge of the structure in case the Feature 25 hearth had originally been in the center of a larger structure—a more typical position. However, only sterile subsoil was revealed behind the plaster.

Feature 24 Kiva Units

Kiva Units (KUs) were numbered sequentially, starting in the southwest corner of the pit structure and running north, then moving 1 m (3.3 ft) east and running north, etc. Fill from all KUs was screened through 1/8-in mesh, and flotation samples were collected from three of the units (KU 1, KU 3, and KU 5). Unit thicknesses ranged from 6 to 22 cm (2.4 to 8.7 in).

Kiva Unit 1 measured 0.56 m (1.8 ft) north–south × 1.00 m (3.3 ft) east–west, with a thickness of 7 cm (2.7 in), and was located in the very southwest corner of Feature 24. It contained burned maize cobs on its south edge and in its southwest corner, as well as a large area of friable burnt wood in its east half with a whole corrugated pot and its broken shaped lid amongst the wood. Underlying the wood, just northwest of the whole pot and under its broken lid, lay two stone pendants, one turkey bone awl, and one large obsidian flake tool (Figure 6.40). The first three artifacts had left impressions in the plaster floor of the structure so that their exact original positions could be determined. The cluster of the pot, lid, and four smaller artifacts appeared to have been a purposeful arrangement of special items; they were the only human-made artifacts left on the floor itself. Macrobotanical remains and artifacts recovered from KU 1 are more thoroughly discussed in their appropriate chapters in this volume.


Figure 6.40. Cluster of artifacts found on the floor of Feature 24 in KU 1, facing south.

Kiva Unit 2, a 1- × 1-m (3.3- × 3.3-ft) unit, was located on the west edge of Feature 24, immediately north of KU 1. It was 6 cm (2.4 in) thick and yielded a large amount of burned wood from its northeast corner, as well as one sherd.

Kiva Unit 3 measured 1.10 m (3.6 ft) north–south × 0.88 m (2.9 ft) east–west. Located in the northwest corner of the structure, it was 19 cm (7.5 in) thick and consisted largely of strong brown sandy loam post-occupation but pre-collapse fill. It also contained several whole and fragmentary burned beans and part of one maize kernel.

Kiva Unit 4 measured 0.6 m (2.0 ft) north–south × 1.0 m (3.3 ft) east–west, with an average thickness of 10 cm (4.0 in). Located on the south edge of Feature 24, KU 4 yielded one sherd and four pieces of burned bone, along with several pieces of burned wood, three of which were collected as dendrochronology samples. In addition, a piece of basalt approximately 40 cm (15.7 in) in maximum dimension was resting just above the floor in the northeast corner of the unit and a much smaller piece of sandstone was found on the floor itself.

Kiva Unit 5, a 1- × 1-m (3.3- × 3.3 ft) unit, was located in the center of the structure. With a thickness of 8 cm (3.1 in), it contained one lithic and one ceramic artifact and burned ponderosa pine bark. Separate flotation and pollen samples were collected for laboratory analysis.

Kiva Unit 6 was another 1- × 1-m unit, located on the north edge of the structure. It was a maximum of 22 cm (8.7 in) thick but contained no artifacts, only numerous burned small-diameter timbers and some burned ponderosa pine bark. Five dendrochronology samples were collected from the unit.

Kiva Unit 7 measured 0.45 m (1.5 ft) north–south × 0.62 m (2.0 ft) east–west, with a thickness of approximately 17 cm (6.7 in). It was located in the southeast corner of Feature 24, next to the opening of the Feature 22 ventilator shaft and immediately south of the Feature 22B hearth deflector. A 40-cm-long piece of basalt took up much of the unit, though it also contained one sherd, one piece of flaked stone, and a small amount of burned wood, of which one dendrochronology sample was collected.


Kiva Unit 8 was a 1.00- × 0.73-m (3.3- × 2.4-ft) unit with a maximum thickness of 12 cm (4.7 in). Located on the east edge of the structure, it yielded no artifacts or samples for dating or analysis. As in the rest of Feature 24, its sediment consisted of a mixture of strong brown sandy loam and post-abandonment wind– and water–born silty sand, both with charcoal.

Kiva Unit 9 measured 0.95 m (3.12 ft) north–south × 0.65 m (2.13 ft) east–west. Having a maximum thickness of 8 cm (3.1 in), it contained very small pieces of construction material and some burned ponderosa pine bark but no artifacts.

Macrobotanical remains deposited within Feature 24, and found mostly on its floor, included beans and abundant maize cobs and kernels. Flotation samples collected from Feature 24 fill and from three KUs contained ponderosa bark and charcoal and piñon charcoal (see Chapter 11). Feature 24 appeared to have been purposely burned after its use, given that nearly all of the abundant wood and shaped timbers found within it had turned to charcoal—something that likely required a large fuel load and persistent stoking. As a result, numerous dendrochronology samples were collected from the field and submitted for tree-ring dating. Of 33 samples submitted from Feature 24, 9 yielded dates, and 6 of those represented cutting or near-cutting dates. The latter dates place construction of the structure’s roof at A.D. 1275, somewhat later than initially expected. Surprisingly, the wood submitted for tree-ring dating was predominantly ponderosa, with some piñon but no juniper, even though today LA 153714 is surrounded by junipers, with no ponderosas in sight. A 2 sigma radiocarbon date of Cal A.D. 1210–1320 and Cal A.D. 1350–1390 with an intercept of Cal A.D. 1280 matches well with the dendrochronology dates (see Chapter 13). The mixture of wind- and water-derived

sediments found within Feature 24’s fill above its burned macrobotanical remains and timbers suggest that it, like the other two large pit structures at Hokona, stood open for at least some time after its abandonment and burning. However, it was not used as a trash dump the way Feature 37 was (see below).

Feature 25 was the 95- × 50- × 20-cm (37.4- × 19.7- × 7.9-in) collared hearth located on the east edge of Feature 24 (Figure 6.18, Figure 6.39). It was ringed with adobe around its north and west edges, lined with adobe on the bottom, and topped with a 30- × 50- × 3-cm (11.2- × 19.7- × 1.2-in) adobe platform on its south half, covering approximately 25 cm (9.8 in) of the hearth’s south edge (Figure 6.38). The platform was not a traditional comal, but it had similar characteristics and probably functioned as a pot rest, food warmer, or bread cooker. Based on still-visible lines of clay in the structure floor, Feature 25 appeared to have been remodeled at least once. During data recovery, the hearth was bisected along an east-west line, with its north half excavated in two arbitrary 10–cm levels. Its south half was subsequently excavated in two natural levels, as hearth fill consisted of two strata—the top 15 cm were identical to the general Feature 24 fill, while the lower 5 cm were pure ash and represented in situ hearth deposits. Flotation samples were collected from both strata but no artifacts were seen. Feature 25’s flotation samples contained ponderosa bark and charcoal, piñon charcoal, and juniper charcoal—rare at the site—as well as Chenopodium sp. seeds, Cheno-am seeds, and Portulaca sp. seeds (see Chapter 11). The hearth’s location next to Feature 24’s eastern wall (as well as the LA 153714 pit house hearth’s location next to the pit house’s eastern wall) was very unusual, as most hearths in pit structures known from the Southwest are located at or near the centers of pit structures. Still, the same off-center hearth placement is known from a Pueblo I site in the Acoma area (Post 2002) and from one of


the Clo-Chin-Toh sites near Ramah (Anyon 1984). Whether the placement of the pit structures’ hearths at Hokona was practical (e.g., in reaction to a prevailing wind), cultural, and/or symbolically significant is not known.

Feature 26A was the western of two shallow holes that formed when inhabitants climbed the ladder into Feature 24 and it rubbed into the floor (Figure 6.18, Figure 6.39). Located approximately 12 cm (4.7 in) south of the west edge of the Feature 22B deflector, it measured 8 × 8 × 6 cm (3.1 × 3.1 × 2.4 in) and had a very regular shape with a flat bottom. Feature 26A was excavated as one unit but no fill was collected because it was so small. As described above, a thin piece of burned timber that may have been the left ladder pole was found underneath a piece of fill basalt that leaned against the south side of the deflector. Feature 26B was the eastern of the two ladder holes, located 33 cm (13.0 in) east-northeast of Feature 26A and 11 cm (4.3 in) south of the east edge of Feature 22B. It was much more irregular than Feature 26A; while the left leg of the ladder apparently had remained steady during use, the right leg had shifted north and south when inhabitants climbed up and down. Measuring 10 × 10 × 3 cm (4.0 × 4.0 × 1.2 in), Feature 26B also was excavated as one unit, with no sediment collected.

Feature 27 was a small, round, flat-bottomed post hole located less than 20 cm (7.9 in) from the central portion of the west wall of Feature 24, and 21 cm (8.3 in) south of the larger Feature 28 post hole/pit (Figure 6.18, Figure 6.39). It measured 7 × 7 × 6 cm (2.7 × 2.7 × 2.4 in) and was excavated as a single unit because of its small size. No artifacts were seen and no fill was collected, as the latter appeared to be the same as the general Feature 24 fill.

Feature 28 was a larger, round, relatively flat-bottomed post hole or possible pit located 21 cm (8.3 in) north of Feature 27 and 2 cm (0.8 in) east of the central portion of Feature 24’s west wall (Figure 6.18, Figure 6.39). The 27- × 30- × 9-cm (10.6- × 11.2- × 3.5-in) hole was bisected, with its south half excavated first to determine if it was a cultural feature or the remnants of a rodent burrow. Its fairly regular bottom and the presence of a small amount of clay in its bottom west edge provided evidence that it was the former. All sediment was collected from Feature 28, although it appeared to be identical to that in Feature 24 as a whole since the fill contained ponderosa charcoal, bark, and needles; piñon charcoal; juniper charcoal; and maize kernels (see Chapter 11).

Feature 29 was another large, basin-shaped post hole or pit measuring 25 × 21 × 21 cm (9.8 × 8.3 × 8.3 in). Located just south of the north-central edge of the Feature 24 pit structure, it was situated between Features 31 and 32 (Figure 6.18, Figure 6.39). Feature 29 was difficult to define on the floor of the structure, so it was excavated as one unit. Its fill was a combination of hard, charcoal-flecked, orangish clay overlying compact silty sand without visible charcoal. All sediment was collected from the feature, but no artifacts were observed. The fact that the sandy fill contained no charcoal and was covered with more clayey sediments suggests that the pit may have been filled in intentionally, not too long before the structure burned. All together, Feature 29 sediments contained ponderosa charcoal, bark, and needles; Chenopodium sp. seeds; and one Cheno-am seed (see Chapter 11).

Feature 30 was a more than 23-cm-deep (9.0-in-deep) wall niche measuring 15 × 14 cm (5.9 × 5.4 in) at its mouth. It began in the southwest corner of Feature 24, approximately 27 cm below the top remaining edge of the structure’s plastered wall, and ran


horizontally southwest into sterile subsoil (Figure 6.18, Figure 6.39). Much of the inside of the niche itself was plastered. Because it ran back into the structure wall, Feature 30 was excavated as one unit. Fill was largely the typical 7.5YR 4/4 silty sand, mixed with some more compact, clayey patches of the same color sediment. Some rodent disturbance was seen (or felt) in the back southwest corner of the niche. Some sediments were screened through 1/8-in mesh, and other fill was collected for flotation analysis, but no artifacts were recovered during excavation. Flotation analysis identified ponderosa charcoal, bark, and needles; piñon charcoal; juniper charcoal; and dropseed and Cheno-am seeds (see Chapter 11).

Feature 31, a small, oval, flat–bottomed post hole, was located approximately 30 cm (11.2 in) west of Feature 29, near the central north edge of Feature 24 (Figure 6.18, Figure 6.39). Because it measured only 8 × 6 × 2 cm (3.1 × 2.4 × 0.8 in), it was excavated as one unit. No artifacts were observed and none of the small amount of 7.5YR 4/4 silty sand fill was collected because it appeared to be the same as the rest of the structure fill.

Feature 32 was a generally oval–shaped 18- × 24- × 18-cm (7.1- × 9.4- × 7.1-in) post hole or pit found in the northeast corner of Feature 24 (Figure 6.18, Figure 6.39). While its south half was located in the floor, its north half extended partly into or under the north wall of the pit structure. Feature 32’s east half was excavated first, with all fill screened through 1/8-in mesh. Because only one stratum of post-abandonment fill was found, its west half was excavated as one unit, with all sediment collected as a flotation sample. This revealed a basin-shaped bottom. No artifacts were seen during excavation. The three large post holes or pits (Features 32, 29, and 28), plus the floor impression in the northwest corner of Feature 24, were fairly evenly spaced and formed a 90-degree angle in the north half of

that structure. In addition, the tall, clay-filled Feature 16B post hole was located between the floor impression and Feature 28. The arrangement of all of these features suggests that at least some of them may have originally contained large timbers that supported the pit structure’s roof. The flotation sample collected from Feature 32 contained materials typical for Feature 24—ponderosa charcoal, bark, and needles; juniper charcoal; burned maize; and Chenopodium sp. seeds, as well as mustard seeds that were found in only one other feature at the site—Feature 33 (see Chapter 11).

Feature 33 was a small, D- or bean-shaped, flat-bottomed pit located approximately 10 cm (4.0 in) west of Feature 24’s east wall and 15 cm (5.9 in) north of the Feature 25 hearth (Figure 6.18, Figure 6.39). It measured 10 × 6 × 8 cm (4.0 × 2.4 × 3.1 in) and was excavated in halves, with all fill collected for flotation analysis. Analysis showed that its fill contained the typical ponderosa charcoal and bark and juniper charcoal, along with a maize kernel, Chenopodium sp. seeds, and, unusually, mustard seeds (see Chapter 11). Feature 33 lined up with the hearth and deflector and may have been a post hole for a drying rack, but its actual function is unknown.

Feature 34 was the primary interment of a 2 to 3 year old child of unknown sex. Located nearly 4 m (13.1 ft) south of the Feature 4 storage pit and the same distance southwest of the Feature 37 pit structure (Figure 6.18), it was the southernmost cultural feature at the site. Feature 34 was discovered during mechanical stripping, when a portion of the right parietal bone of the cranium was removed by the backhoe at approximately 30 cm bmgs. After the proper authorities were notified and SWCA’s burial permit was activated, the burial was exposed by hand, photographed, and drawn in plan view. While it did not appear to be associated with any kind of pit, the poorly preserved skeleton took


up an area approximately 30 × 25 × 7 cm (11.2 × 9.8 × 2.7 in). Most of the long bones and thorax were missing, due to post-depositional processes such as root and rodent activity and erosion. Sediments surrounding the burial were the same water- or wind-born 7.5YR 4/4 silty sand with some charcoal flecking that appeared across the site. After the burial was documented, related skeletal elements were collected separately to facilitate analysis. Results of that analysis are presented in Chapter 9.

Feature 35, a square basalt masonry structure probably used for storage (Figure 6.41), was found in Trench 4 within the west half of FU 6 and the east edge of FU 9, only 20 cm bmgd, and less than 0.5 m (1.6 ft) north of Feature 3 (Figure 6.18). It measured 190 × 100 cm (74.8 × 39.4 in), with a maximum of three courses of basalt rocks standing 50 cm (19.7 in) high. Feature 35 contained no floor features, but a thermal pit or hearth (Feature 39) was located underneath and somewhat within the junction of its east and north walls; it was excavated separately.

Because Trench 4 happened to go north through the middle of Feature 35, most of the

latter’s fill was removed before it was defined as a structure. Accordingly, excavation of Feature 35 consisted largely of using three 10- to 15-cm excavation levels to expose the rocks that formed the east, north, and west walls; no south wall was found. Fill underlying the walls also was sampled to ensure no additional rocks lay underneath. Basal rocks sat a maximum of 55 to 60 cm below the surface, with those on the west and east sides up to 20 cm shallower than those on the north side, albeit sloping down from south to north. That arrangement suggested that the feature may have been partially dug into the ground.

Sediments within Feature 35, and particularly just within its northern boundary, were very dark. Similarly, sediments sampled from underneath the west and east walls were generally dark and ashy and disturbed by krotovinas, although compact 7.5YR 4/4 silty sand underlay them. The concentration of much darker than usual sediments within and under the Feature 35 walls suggests that the structure probably served as a trash dump for at least part of its use life.

Figure 6.41. Feature 35 excavated, facing south. Feature 1 is in the top right of the photo.


Feature 36, a 33- × 30+- × 32-cm (13.0- × 11.2- × 12.6-in) pit of unknown function, was discovered during hand excavation of Trench 1, approximately 1 m (3.3 ft) east of the southeast corner of Feature 35 (Figure 6.18). It was observed and recorded only after its east half was removed as part of the trench but its west profile remained. That was drawn and photographed and then the remainder of the feature was excavated as one unit, with all sediment collected as a flotation sample. Fill consisted of wind- and/or water-born sandy loam containing a moderate amount of charcoal and daub flecking. No artifacts were observed during excavation. Flotation analysis identified ponderosa charcoal, bark, and needles, as well as maize cupules and kernels and a Chenopodium sp. seed (see Chapter 11).

Feature 37 was a 2.75- × 2.25- × 1.70-m (9.0- × 7.4- × 5.6-ft) rectangular pit structure located slightly less than 4 m (13.1 ft) east of Feature 4, in the southeast corner of LA 153714 (Figure 6.18). It was discovered at approximately 30 cm bmgs during mechanical stripping of the site, when the backhoe dug a trench leading from Feature 4 east through the south half of the site. Only the very north edge of Feature 37 was clipped, so it (maximum width 50 cm) was excavated down by hand to determine the feature’s depth. During the course of that excavation, two human metatarsals and the north edge of an ash-filled pit were discovered approximately

45 cm below the base of the backhoe trench. Labeled Feature 42, the remainder of that human burial was excavated as part of Feature 37’s level 9. Because Feature 37’s boundaries were very difficult to see and the structure clearly was very deep, a hand trench measuring 0.8 m (2.6 ft) in width and 2.5 m (8.2 ft) in length was dug from the center of the north edge toward the south. Sediment was screened through 1/8-in mesh. The west edge of another human burial (Feature 41) was found near the southern edge of the trench, just inside Feature 37; it was excavated separately. The size, location, contents, and unclear boundaries of Feature 37 required that it be excavated by hand, rather than with the backhoe. Accordingly, one 2.5- × 2.0-m control unit was set up to the south of the initial east–west backhoe trench and to the west of the north–south hand trench. It was excavated in 15 10-cm levels, with multiple flotation samples collected and all other fill screened through 1/8-in mesh. Because the west and south boundaries of Feature 37 were defined within the control unit at the base of level 2, the unit was subsequently reduced in size to the approximately 2.15-m (7.1-ft) north–south × 1.27-m (4.2-ft) east–west area located within the feature. The east half of the feature was excavated as a separate unit (Figure 6.42). Artifacts observed during its excavation were collected and a flotation sample was collected from near the floor of the structure, but its fill was not systematically screened.



Four strata were identified in the control unit (Figure 6.43). The first, which was a maximum of 65 cm (25.6 in) thick, consisted of post-abandonment compact 7.5YR 4/4 silty sand containing structural materials, charcoal, and roots. The second, a maximum of 70 cm (27.5 in) thick, was a midden layer containing abundant charcoal, burned maize, and some light gray clay. The Feature 41 and 42 burials were located within this midden layer. The third stratum, with 40 cm (15.7 in) maximum thickness, consisted of post-abandonment wind-blown sand and small chunks of collapsed clayey wall material. The fourth stratum was at most 50 cm (19.7 in) thick and consisted of post-abandonment wind- and/or water-derived laminated sand without wall

material. Underneath and mixed with the bottom stratum of sand were patches of clay representing pieces of collapsed wall.

Based on that sediment deposition, it appears that the pit structure stood open for a while after its abandonment during a relatively dry part of the year. Then it probably was flooded several times (with wind-blown deposition in between), causing pieces of sterile clay from the walls to slough off and fall into the pit. When the same or other people returned to the site—perhaps for a relatively long period of time, given the presence of the two burials—they used Feature 37 as a trash dump. After they left, natural wind and water processes filled in the pit the rest of the way.


Figure 6.43. Feature 37 west profile.

Feature 37 contained only two architectural features—a hearth (Feature 43) along its east wall and a ventilator shaft (Feature 44) in its southeast corner (Figure 6.18, Figure 6.44). Unlike those of Feature 24, the walls of Feature 37 were not plastered. Similarly, Feature 37’s hearth was simpler than the one found within Feature 24. In addition, no

artifacts were found on its floor. The paucity of internal features and the absence of floor artifacts in Feature 37 led to it being interpreted as a pit house that saw much less time investment than the Feature 24 habitation/ritual structure. While several pieces of burned wood were found just above the floor and a large patch of burning was


visible near the center of the floor itself, Feature 37 contained many fewer burned timbers than Feature 24. In addition, Feature 37’s walls did not exhibit the same kind of marked burning that Feature 24’s did. This evidence suggests that most of the wood from the pit house’s superstructure was salvaged before the structure burned, or that the pit house burned only partially, with most of its superstructure decomposing after it was abandoned. Analysis of macrobotanical remains and representative flotation samples collected from Feature 37 identified burned maize cob fragments and kernels; beans; one yucca seed; Chenopodium sp. seeds and Cheno-am seeds; ponderosa charcoal, bark, and needles; piñon charcoal; and unspecified conifer charcoal (see Chapter 11). While none of the five dendrochronology samples submitted from Feature 37 yielded dates, a large sample of conifer charcoal from the bottom level of the pit house was radiocarbon dated to Cal A.D. 980–1260 (2 sigmas) with intercepts of Cal A.D. 1050, Cal A.D. 1090, Cal A.D. 1130, and Cal A.D. 1140 (see

Chapter 13). All of these dates are appreciably older than those from the other two large pit structures, suggesting that Feature 37’s early date may have resulted from the burning of old wood collected from the surface of the site. Alternatively, the pit house’s old date may be correctly indicative of an older occupation of LA 153714 that matches with the presence of some late Pueblo II ceramics found at the site (see Chapter 7). That would suggest either that the three pit structures were not contemporaneous, or that Feature 24’s roof was rebuilt in A.D. 1275 (rather than being originally built then) and Feature 4 was filled in long after the storage pit was created. Unfortunately, the one charred annual found just above the pit house floor (a Yucca baccata seed) proved to be too light for radiocarbon dating. While Feature 37’s date is likely older than the actual time of the pit house’s construction, the possibility that it represents an earlier occupation of the site cannot be ruled out completely.


Figure 6.44. Feature 37 pit house completely excavated, facing north. Note

the area of burning near the center of the floor.

Feature 38 was the label given to a concentration of sherds from two or more partial ceramic vessels, as well as other individual sherds, that were found in and around one backhoe bucket near the south edge of the site during mechanical stripping (Figure 6.18). Scraping stopped as soon as the cluster of large sherds was seen, and a broad area around the approximate location from which they came was shovel scraped. One or a few examples each of flaked stone, charcoal, jacal, architectural stone, and FCR (present in low levels across the site) were recovered from the same backhoe bucket as the sherds, but no staining was ever found to indicate the presence or location of a feature in the vicinity. Still, the significant number of sherds (108), many of which re-fit to form two different indented corrugated Cibola Gray Ware vessels too friable for reconstruction, suggested that there was some kind of human-created feature, of unknown size, in the vicinity.

Feature 39, a 60- × 36- × 15-cm (23.6- × 14.2- × 5.9-in), generally oval thermal pit, was found underneath the northeast corner of the Feature 35 structure (Figure 6.18). The top of Feature 39 was even with the base of the east wall but even with the top of the north wall; its dark fill extended under two small rocks in the north wall. Because the boundaries of Feature 39 were difficult to see, the feature was excavated as one unit, albeit with more than half of its sediment collected as a flotation sample. Fill was dark brown 7.5YR 3/2 (moist) ashy, silty sand and contained ponderosa charcoal, bark, and needles; piñon charcoal; maize kernels and hundreds of cupules; beans; and Chenopodium sp., Cheno-am, knotweed, and globemallow seeds. The last species was found only in Feature 39 (see Chapter 11).

Feature 40 was a 38- × 20+- × 23-cm (15.0- × 7.9- × 9.0-in) pit feature of unknown use, discovered in the north wall of the same east/west-trending backhoe trench that


explored Feature 4 and uncovered Feature 37. It was located approximately 1 m (3.3 ft) east of Feature 4 and 2 m (6.6 ft) west of Feature 37 (Figure 6.18), with the top of its fill at approximately 10 cm bmgs. Because it had already been cut in half by the backhoe, Feature 40 initially was profiled and photographed and then its north half was removed as one unit, with all fill collected as a sediment sample. Flotation analysis identified the typical ponderosa charcoal, bark, and needles, piñon charcoal, maize cupules and kernels, and Chenopodium sp., Cheno-am, portulaca, knotweed, dropseed, hedgehog cactus, and Graminaea seeds (see Chapter 11). Basin-shaped in profile, the feature was probably originally circular in plan view. Its fill consisted of slightly orange silty clay with some charcoal flecking; that was surrounded by a matrix of compact, charcoal-flecked 7.5YR 4/4 silty sand—the same sediment that was ubiquitous across the site. No artifacts were observed during excavation, but one piece of burned architectural sandstone (5.3 cm square) was found near the bottom of the pit.

Feature 41 was the 110- × 46- × 32-cm (43.3- × 18.1- × 12.6-ft) primary interment of an adult female, approximately 30 to 40 years old, and was found during excavation of a north–south hand trench through the middle of the Feature 37 pit house. Located near Feature 37’s southern wall (Figure 6.18), the individual was found within the midden stratum of fill, approximately 100 cm bmgs and 100 cm above the pit house floor. She was lying face down with her arms by her sides but her knees completely bent and her feet over her pelvis, possibly because she had been pushed down into the fill with her head coming to rest at least 20 cm lower than her legs. Her head was to the east, with her face turned to the north. Most of her bones were encased in dark brown clay, indicating the decomposition of organic material—possibly skin and organs and/or a burial wrap. More

detailed information from osteological analyses is provided in Chapter 9. The Feature 41 burial was first exposed by hand and drawn in plan view. Then related skeletal elements were removed, labeled, and bagged together to facilitate laboratory analysis. No artifacts were observed in association with the burial, although a tabular piece of unmodified basalt had either fallen on top of or been placed above the very top of the skull. A pollen sample was collected from immediately under the skull and flotation samples were collected from around the burial.

Feature 42 was the primary interment of a child of unknown sex, approximately 1.5 to 2.0 years old, located within the northern portion of the midden stratum of the Feature 37 pit house fill (Figure 6.18), approximately 110 cm bmgs and 80 cm below the top of the pit house. Feature 42 was defined at the base of level 9 in the Feature 37 control unit. Then it was fully exposed and drawn and photographed in plan view. The child was buried within a 54- × 46- × 10-cm (21.2- × 18.1- × 4.0-in) oval 7.5YR 6/2 (moist) pinkish-gray ash-filled pit—the only identifiable burial pit at the site. The skeleton was tightly flexed, lying on its right side with its head to the west and its face looking south. After being recorded, related skeletal elements were removed, labeled, and bagged together to facilitate laboratory analysis. No artifacts were observed during excavation, but a sample of the ashy fill was collected for flotation analysis and a pollen sample was collected from underneath the skull. Flotation analysis identified ponderosa charcoal, bark, and needles; piñon charcoal; maize cupules and kernels; and Chenopodium sp., portulaca, and buckwheat seeds; the last species was identified only in Feature 42 (see Chapter 11). More detailed information from osteological analysis is provided in Chapter 9.


Feature 43 was the rectangular 54- × 44- × 28-cm (21.2- × 17.3- × 11.0- in) central hearth of the Feature 37 pit house, although like the hearth in the Feature 24 pit structure, it was located just centimeters from Feature 37’s east wall, approximately equidistant from its north and south walls (Figure 6.18, Figure 6.45). The unusual location of both hearths suggested that the structures were made by the same or at least a related group of people. However, similar square pit structures with corner ventilator shafts were found at Wingate Polychrome sites (ca. A.D. 1100–1225) excavated during the N2007 and N9 archaeological projects in Navajo, Arizona and Tohatchi, New Mexico, respectively (Dennis Gilpin, personal communication 2007). Feature 43 was of a simpler design than the collared Feature 24 hearth, as the

former had straight, unplastered walls, albeit with a plastered floor. During data recovery, Feature 43 was bisected along an east–west axis, with its south half removed first and all of its fill collected for flotation analysis. Then the north wall profile was drawn and three strata of fill were recorded. The first stratum consisted of wind-blown loamy sand identical to the earliest post-abandonment fill in Feature 37, while the second stratum was a layer of burned wood and the third was a layer of pure white ash. The first stratum was screened through 1/8-in fill, but the second two were collected for flotation analysis and dating. The former analysis yielded only ponderosa charcoal and bark and piñon charcoal. The one dendrochronology sample submitted from Feature 43 did not yield a date.

Figure 6.45. Feature 43 half excavated, facing north.

Feature 44 was the ventilator shaft for the Feature 37 pit house, so it also was uncovered during mechanical scraping. Its surface opening measured 30 × 30 cm (11.2 × 11.2 in), but its length was 148 cm (58.3 in). Like Feature 24’s ventilator shaft, Feature 44 was located just outside the southeast corner of the pit structure and ran northwest down into the pit house. Their identical, unusual locations are another line of evidence that both structures were made by the same or at least a

related group of people. Feature 44 was excavated as one unit, albeit from both ends. Four large basalt rocks and one sherd were collected from the fill. No flotation samples were collected because the sediment was the same as that seen in the pit house—sandy lenses and patches, with small lumps of slightly orange clay that most likely sloughed off the sterile subsoil into which the ventilator shaft was dug.


Figure 6.46. Excavation of Feature 44 (black) in progress, facing southeast.

MATERIALS RECOVERED

A total of 2,696 ceramic and lithic artifacts were collected and/or analyzed from LA 153714; three large pieces of ground- and/or shaped-stone were analyzed at the site and left there. Of the artifacts, 98 were found on the surface (76 ceramics and 22 lithics) and the rest came from various subsurface contexts. Janet Hagopian analyzed the ceramic artifacts (Chapter 7) while Rebecca Schwendler analyzed the lithic artifacts (Chapter 8). The site also yielded human remains, faunal remains, and macrobotanical remains. Of those, Cherie Walth analyzed the human and faunal remains (Chapter 9 and Chapter 10) and Thomas O’Laughlin analyzed the macrobotanical remains (Chapter 11). Numerous flotation samples, pollen samples, dendrochronology samples, and radiocarbon samples also were collected for analysis and dating. While Liangya Jia processed the flotation samples, O’Laughlin analyzed their contents and extracted burned annuals and wood charcoal from them for dating. Bruce Phillips of EcoPlan Associates analyzed

pollen samples (Chapter 12), while dendrochronology samples were submitted to the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research and radiocarbon samples were submitted to Beta Analytic (Chapter 13).

CERAMIC ARTIFACTS

Ceramic artifacts were by far the most abundant artifact class at LA 153714, with a total of 2,298 sherds representing 14 different identified ceramic types and 7 additional unidentified classes. Refitting and matching of sherds dispersed both horizontally and vertically across the site demonstrated that multiple features were used and/or filled in at the same time, and that the occupation of LA 153714 occurred over a short period of time and included significant site re-modeling. Eight vessel or object forms also were identified, including one animal figurine. Analysis revealed the use of bowls, wide- and narrow-necked jars, seed jars, a double-necked jar, ladles, and pot lids for cooking, reheating, storing, serving, and eating wet and dry foods. The ceramic animal figurine also suggested ritual or even whimsical activities


at the site. Sooting, breaking, and scattering of sherds suggested significant site burning and re-modeling that most likely stemmed from human activities but also could have resulted from natural processes. Finally, Cibola Gray Wares, Cibola White Wares, and White Mountain Red Wares generally were typical of late Pueblo III contexts, although a group of 17 Chaco/McElmo sherds, one Escavada Black-on-white, one Red Mesa Black-on-white, and one Festoon Corrugated sherd usually are associated with earlier Pueblo II times. The Chaco-McElmo sherds also point to a cultural origin, a long-standing cultural affiliation, or at least a trading relationship, with the Chacoan system. Hence, the abundance and variety of ceramic artifacts made them suitable for answering all four proposed research questions concerning temporal and spatial relationships among features; the nature and length of human occupation; post-depositional processes active at the site; and cultural affiliation and regional interactions.

Table 6.3 presents numbers of ceramic artifacts recovered from LA 153714 by type and form. Details of ceramic analyses, including categorization of type, form, and temper; results of ICPS and oxidation; and implications for answering the project’s research questions are presented in Chapter 7.


Table 6.3. Ceramic Artifacts Collected from LA 153714, by Type and Form

Ceramic Type Bowl Straight Rim Bowl Ladle Jar Narrow-

neck Jar Wide-

neck Jar Seed Jar Figurine Indeterminate (including too

small to analyze) Grand Total

Chaco/McElmo Black-on-white 5 12 17

Clapboard corrugated Cibola Gray Ware 1 1

Escavada Black-on-white 1 1

Festoon Corrugated 1 1 Indented Corrugated Cibola Gray Ware 924 57 981

Indeterminate 1 1 Indeterminate Cibola Gray Ware 4 23 1 28

Indeterminate Cibola White Ware 66 24 3 90 3 13 199

Indeterminate Corrugated Cibola Gray Ware

1 1

Indeterminate Plain Cibola Gray Ware 5 1 6

Indeterminate White Mountain Red Ware 91 13 1 5 26 136

Klagetoh Black-on-white 2 2 4

Obliterated Corrugated 28 1 29 Pinedale Black-on-red 32 3 35 Pinedale Black-on-white 2 1 18 21

Pinedale Polychrome 83 17 1 101 Red Mesa Black-on-white 1 1

Small 549 549 St. Johns Polychrome 53 32 1 86 St. Johns Black-on-red 50 11 2 2 6 71 Tularosa Black-on-white 29 29

Grand Total 384 116 6 1111 3 80 2 1 595 2298


LITHIC ARTIFACTS

Totaling only 398, lithic artifacts were far less abundant at LA 153714 than ceramic artifacts (Table 6.4). Flaked stone artifacts outnumbered ground stone artifacts nearly three to one, although there were few formal flaked stone tools and only three projectile point fragments, of which two had been collected, rather than made, by the site’s inhabitants. In addition to typical flaked and ground stone artifacts, a number of stone objects (including all of those made on siltstone) appeared to be related to the production of ornaments; while some exhibited typical flake characteristics and others were modified by grinding, they can be thought of as a separate class of lithic artifacts.

Like ceramic analysis, lithic analysis was used to answer all four research questions, although somewhat less definitively. For example, refitting of a few ground stone artifacts that had been broken into pieces and scattered across the site provided some additional information on relationships among features, as well as post-depositional processes. The kinds of ground stone, flaked stone, and ornamental stone objects also added some information on the nature of human occupation at LA 153714. At the same time, two lithic raw materials—Horace Mesa obsidian and Zuni spotted chert—indicated a minimum exploitation area or sphere of interaction for the site’s inhabitants. More details on the various kinds of lithic artifacts found at the site and their contribution to answering the project’s research questions are presented in Chapter 8.

Table 6.4. Lithic Artifacts Analyzed from LA 153714, by Material and Type

Material Core Flaked Stone

Ground Stone Manuport Ornaments/

Preforms Projectile

Point Tool Grand Total

Basalt 5 5 Chert 5 83 1 3 3 95 Micaceous Schist 3 3

Obsidian 1 1 2 Petrified Wood 1 30 31 Quartz 1 31 1 1 3 37 Quartzite 3 15 2 1 21 Sandstone 1 66 67 Schist 1 1 Siltstone 11 7 12 30 Slate 1 1 Volcanic 3 3 6 Zuni Spotted Chert 4 91 4 99

Grand Total 15 265 74 9 20 3 12 398


HUMAN REMAINS

The remains of three individuals—two children between the ages of 1.5 and 3 and one adult female approximately 30 to 40 years of age—were found during data recovery at LA 153714. Protocol described in the approved data recovery plan (Railey et al. 2006) was followed in the field, and then all remains were non-invasively analyzed in the laboratory. While two of the three individuals were well preserved, no causes of death could be identified definitively; each individual displayed some pathologies, but no signs of trauma were observed. Details on the contexts, completeness, and pathologies of the remains are presented in Chapter 9.

FAUNAL REMAINS

All together, 67 pieces of animal bone were recovered from LA 153714. Most came from intrusive rodents, although possible food sources at the site included jackrabbits, cottontail rabbits, turkeys, and possibly deer or antelope. More information on the results of faunal analysis and discussion of how the analysis of faunal remains helped to answer the various research questions is provided in Chapter 10.

MACROBOTANICAL REMAINS

Macrobotanical remains were discovered both in the field and in the laboratory. For example, several film vials and/or bags of burned beans and maize kernels and cobs were collected separately from the floor of the Feature 24 pit structure and from the midden stratum of the Feature 37 pit house. In addition, those and other macrobotanical materials were found in flotation samples collected from the midden, from the Feature 19 mealing bin, from the Features 5 and 12 hearths, and from various other features, particularly those within the Feature 24 pit structure. Per the approved data recovery plan

(Railey et al. 2006), burned annuals were used whenever possible for radiocarbon dating. Results of macrobotanical analyses are presented more throroughly in Chapter 11.

FLOTATION SAMPLES

Flotation samples were collected from all appropriate contexts, including features with intact and/or clearly associated sediments and the midden area in the northeast portion of the site. Samples were analyzed from Features 1, 3, 4, 5, 5B, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 11B, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25 (n=2), 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 36, 37 (n=2), 39, 40, 42, and 43, and from Midden Units 2 and 10. Of those, samples from Features 5B, 6, 8, 9, 11B, 14, and 16 were only scanned, but all others were thoroughly analyzed. Details on the results of flotation sample processing and analysis are presented in Chapter 11.

POLLEN SAMPLES

Pollen samples also were collected from all appropriate contexts, namely those in which pollen grains might have been trapped in their original contexts, such as on floors under pieces of ground stone or ceramic vessels. Of the collected samples, the best and most representative nine, from Features 4, 5, 12, 16B, 18, 19, 23, as well as from MU 3 and the modern site surface, were submitted for processing. While 23 different individual kinds of pollen were identified in the 9 samples, only maize pollen was present in quantities indicative of human activity. Detailed results of pollen analysis are presented in Chapter 12.

DENDROCHRONOLOGY SAMPLES

While unexpected prior to data recovery, numerous dendrochronology samples were identified in various features across the site. A total of 45 individual samples (plus some duplicates) from Features 1, 3, 10, 22, 24, 37,


and 43 were submitted to the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research for dating. Of those, only seven—all from Features 24 and 22—yielded cutting or near-cutting dates. Detailed results of tree-ring dating are presented in Chapter 13.

RADIOCARBON SAMPLES

While LA 153714 contained abundant charred annuals and pieces of wood charcoal, only the most potentially informative samples from Features 1, 3, 4, 5, 12, 17, 19, 23, 24, 36, 37, and 39 and MU 1 were submitted to Beta Analytic for dating. Because one sample proved too small for dating, a larger alternative sample from the same feature (37) was re-submitted in its place. Details on the results of radiocarbon dating are provided in Chapter 13.

SITE CHRONOLOGY

Chronological information from LA 153714 was derived from both relative and chronometric dating techniques. Ceramic types associated with specific time periods were used to create a relative chronological framework for the site spanning, at a minimum, A.D. 1200–1275. Thirteen radiocarbon samples yielded chronometric 2 sigma dates spanning Cal A.D. 980–1420, while seven dendrochronology samples of ponderosa and piñon pine yielded chronometric cutting or near-cutting dates spanning A.D. 1274–1275 (outside dates), suggesting that the roof of the Feature 24 pit structure was built in A.D. 1275. All together, LA 153714 appears to have been occupied intensively between approximately A.D. 1275 and A.D. 1300, and less intensively after that time, between perhaps A.D. 1350 and A.D. 1400. Its first occupation may have been prior to A.D. 1200, although evidence for that is limited to ceramic artifacts and one suspiciously early radiocarbon date from the Feature 37 pit house.

SITE INTERPRETATION

LA 153714 consisted of a moderate surface scatter of ceramic and lithic artifacts and 45 surface and subsurface masonry and jacal structures, pit structures, and associated internal and external features. While the site exhibited significant remodeling and superposition of features, all indications were that it was occupied during a span of only 50 to 100 years during Pueblo III-IV times. Specifically, its primary occupation appears to have coincided with Watson et al.’s (1980) “Muerto” phase of large-scale pueblo building and aggregation in the El Morro Valley between approximately A.D. 1275 and A.D. 1300. Hokona appears to have been a small hamlet occupied at the same time as the large pueblos, and perhaps on more than one occasion, by two or three families at the most, whose members lived and died there. It was located not far southwest of another probable Pueblo II-IV site (LA 153713) whose surface manifestation is at least four times larger. Separated by NM 53, the two sites may originally have been part of the same, significantly larger, cultural landscape, therefore representing a whole village that was contemporaneous with the pueblos farther west. However, LA 153713 has not been excavated so that is a matter of conjecture. If Hokona did represent an alternative to large-scale aggregation, its study provides important information on social and/or cultural variability in the El Morro Valley during Pueblo III-IV times.

MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

After survey, Brown and Brown (2006) concluded that LA 153714 retained research potential, and SWCA’s data recovery findings absolutely agreed with that assessment. SWCA’s investigations fulfilled and, indeed, exceeded the goals outlined in the approved data recovery plan (Railey et al. 2006). All surface artifacts and features identified during


survey were thoroughly investigated and many other subsurface features were found. In addition, the entire site was mechanically stripped, uncovering still more structures. All of LA 153714 will be destroyed during the course of upcoming road improvements, but no further work is required at the site; all surface artifacts were documented and all 45 cultural features were excavated and sampled in accordance with the approved data recovery plan and its addendum. Because all information was extracted from the site in the field, LA 153714 can no longer be considered eligible for the NRHP; its field research potential has been exhausted.

CURATION

All materials collected from LA 153714 and all relevant records will be curated at the Museum of New Mexico, Museum of Indian Arts and Culture, in Santa Fe, New Mexico.

CHAPTER 7 CERAMIC ARTIFACTS

Janet Hagopian

SWCA archaeologists recovered 2,298 ceramic artifacts during data recovery efforts at LA 153714. After eliminating sherds too small for analysis (n=549), 1,749 ceramics were analyzed and are discussed below. The objectives of this analysis were four-fold: (1) to identify ceramic artifacts by ware and type; (2) to develop a chronological framework based on identification of ceramic styles and types with known production dates; (3) to briefly examine site function based on vessel form; and (4) to consider the ceramic assemblage in a regional context and address economic and/or social ties with neighboring groups based on ceramic production and distribution.

A discussion of the modified sherds follows vessel form and function to address issues relating to vessel reuse. To address ceramic production and distribution, specialized studies (oxidation and Inductively Coupled Plasma Spectroscopy [ICPS]) were conducted to identify locally produced pottery, to differentiate between the locally produced wares and those that were imported, and to determine the origins of the non-locally produced pottery.

METHODS

All sherds were washed in tap water and rebagged in polyethylene bags prior to analysis. Bag tags with provenience information were placed within the bags. All sherds were examined and several attributes recorded. Sherds smaller than 2.0 cm (0.8 in) across were visually inspected but were not included in the analysis; these were only counted and weighed. Conjoining sherds with fresh breaks were counted as a single sherd in this analysis.

A small nip was removed from each sherd with pliers, producing a fresh break. This break was examined with a 10−45× binocular microscope. All sherds with the same attributes (could be identically coded) were assigned an Item Number (Item), which was sequentially assigned within each field specimen (FS) number and Bag. The attributes recorded were ware/type, temper, vessel form, vessel part, presence or absence of sooting, presence or absence of post-firing modification, lot number (number of sherds that can be identically coded), and aggregate weight in grams. A comments field was also included. The code sheets used in this analysis are found in Appendix B. Microsoft® Excel 2003 and Access 2003 programs were used for data entry and data manipulation.

A sample of sherds identified during basic analysis was further analyzed so that specific research questions about production, distribution, function, and reuse of ceramic artifacts could be addressed. The sample included modified sherds, as well as sherds selected for oxidation and ICPS studies. Methods are discussed with results in the appropriate sections.

WARES AND TYPES

The criteria used in typing ceramics recovered during the project are described below. The ceramics were classified as Cibola Gray Ware, White Mountain Red Ware, and Cibola White Ware. Descriptions and chronology of the wares and types were based primarily on Carlson (1970), Fowler (1989, 1994), Goetze and Mills (1993), Goff and Reed (1998), Hays-Gilpin and van Hartesveldt (1998), Windes (1977), and Windes and McKenna (1989).

Chapter 7 Ceramic Analysis 136

CIBOLA WHITE WARE

Cibola White Ware has a wide distribution across the Southwest (Goetze and Mills 1993; Zedeño 1994:72–73). It was manufactured in northwestern New Mexico within the San Juan Basin (Windes and McKenna 1989) and at least in several other areas to the south, including Pinedale, Snowflake, the Upper Puerco Valley, and Chevelon (Zedeño 1994:72). Cibola White Ware has a light gray to white paste with a smoothed, polished, and often slipped surface. It has sand, sherd, or sand-and-sherd temper, and (with a few exceptions) mineral paint. Mineral paint was used exclusively prior to A.D. 1100. The use of carbon paint beginning about A.D. 1100 characterizes Chaco-McElmo Black-on-white. Six black-on-white types were identified: Red Mesa, Escavada, Chaco/McElmo, Tularosa, Klagetoh, and Pinedale.

Sherds without paint or with small amounts of paint were classified as indeterminate Cibola White Ware. They included sherds with mineral paint, organic paint, or organic ghosting where a mineral and organic mix was used but the mineral paint had eroded or flaked off, leaving an organic outline of the design.

Red Mesa Black-on-white

Red Mesa Black-on-white is characterized by narrow to medium lines that frequently have pendant dots, and is analogous to the Black Mesa style seen in the Tusayan White Ware. Design elements include interlocking scrolls, checkerboards, and triangles. Hachure lines, when present, are wavy. Surfaces are usually polished and slipped, and temper is usually crushed sherd. Red Mesa Black-on-white is dated at A.D. 875/900–1050 by Windes and McKenna (1989), and A.D. 900–1050 by Goetze and Mills (1993) and Goff and Reed (1998). A date range of A.D. 900–1050 is used in this study for mean ceramic dating.

Escavada Black-on-white

Escavada Black-on-white is characterized by medium to broad lines, triangles, and barbed lines. It is comparable to the Sosi style seen in the Tusayan White Ware. Surfaces are usually slipped and polished but can vary. Escavada Black-on-white is dated at A.D. 1000–1100 by Windes and McKenna (1989), and at A.D. 925–1125 by Goetze and Mills (1993) and Goff and Reed (1998). A date range of A.D. 925–1125 is used in this study for mean ceramic dating.

Chaco/McElmo Black-on-white

Chaco/McElmo Black-on-white (Figure 7.1) is the only Cibola White Ware with organic paint (Franklin 1982a, 1982b; Franklin and Ford 1982; Hays-Gilpin and van Hartesveldt 1998; Toll et al. 1980; Windes 1984, 1985; Windes and McKenna 1989). Vessels are thinly slipped, with bowl exteriors often exhibiting a washy slip. A wide range of designs are seen, including checkerboards, dotted checkerboards, barbed lines similar to those seen in the Sosi style, and banded lines running below the rim. The design style is similar to McElmo Black-on-white in the Mesa Verde White Ware and Sosi Black-on-white in the Tusayan White Ware. Rims are often squared and painted with ticks, but can also be tapered and rounded. Researchers working within Chaco Canyon believe that this type was produced locally in the Chaco Canyon region or in the immediate San Juan Basin area (Franklin 1982a, 1982b; Toll et al. 1980; Windes 1985; see also Hays-Gilpin and van Hartesveldt 1998). Chaco/McElmo Black-on-white is dated to A.D. 1100–1150/1200 by Windes and McKenna (1989) and to A.D. 1100–1200 by Goetze and Mills (1993) and Hays-Gilpin and van Hartesveldt (1998). Based on tree-ring dates from Salmon Ruin and sites within Chaco Canyon, Windes (1985) offers a date range of A.D. 1090/1100–1140/1150. A date range of A.D. 1100–1200 is used in this study for mean ceramic dating.


Figure 7.1. Interior and exterior of Chaco/McElmo sherds from LA 153714.

Tularosa Black-on-white

Tularosa Black-on-white (Figure 7.2) has opposed solid and hachured elements, similar to Reserve Black-on-white, but is distinguished by a highly polished slip and well executed design. Hachure lines are sometimes parallel to framing lines rather than at a diagonal. Hachure line width is usually thinner than in the Reserve style, hatched and solid elements are often the same

size, and fine repeated solid elements such as opposed keys and frets are frequent (Fowler 1989; Goetze and Mills 1993; Hays-Gilpin and van Hartesveldt 1998). Tularosa Black-on-white is dated between A.D. 1175 and 1325 by Goetze and Mills (1993), A.D. 1150–1300 by Fowler (1989), and A.D. 1175–1300 by Hays-Gilpin and van Hartesveldt (1998). A date range of A.D. 1175–1300 is used in this study for mean ceramic dating.

Figure 7.2. Tularosa Black-on-white sherd from LA 153714.

Klagetoh Black-on-white

Klagetoh Black-on-white (Figure 7.3) was first described by Colton and Hargrave (1937) as a broad-line style, similar to Escavada Black-on-white, in which the painted area exceeded the unpainted area. Common design

elements include opposed stairsteps and mosquito netting. It closely resembles Snowflake Black-on-white but has a wider range of elements. Its style is bold and varied like Pinedale Black-on-white but it has matte paint instead of subglaze. Paint is often


brownish. Bowl rim treatment often echoes Mesa Verde Black-on-white with thick-thin lines, a broad banding line, sets of parallel thin lines, and sometimes rim dots. Rims are often ticked. Surface treatment is usually fine and well-polished. Klagetoh Black-on-white

is dated at A.D. 1250–1300 by Colton and Hargrave (1937), Fowler (1989), and Hays-Gilpin and van Hartesveldt (1998). This is also the date range used in this study for mean ceramic dating.

Figure 7.3. Klagetoh Black-on-white sherd from LA 153714.

Pinedale Black-on-white

Pinedale Black-on-white (Figure 7.4) motifs consist of solid elements and opposed solid and hatched elements that are usually angular. Paint has a sub-glaze quality, probably due to inclusion of mineral pigments that contain some lead. Paint is often somewhat reflective in thick or pooled areas, but looks watery in thin areas. It is not a true glaze in that it probably lacks a glassy crystalline structure. Framing lines for hatched areas are thicker

than in Tularosa Black-on-white. Hachure is usually longitudinal rather than diagonal. Pinedale vessels sometimes have a broad sub-rim framing line, and sometimes have rim dots. A very wide variety of motifs appears in this style, and elements are usually larger and bolder than in the Tularosa style. Surface treatment is usually fine and well-polished. Hays-Gilpin and van Hartesveldt (1998) assign a date range of A.D. 1250–1350 for Pinedale Black-on-white, and that is the range used in this study for mean ceramic dating.


Figure 7.4. Pinedale Black-on-white sherd from LA 153714.

WHITE MOUNTAIN RED WARE

First described by Colton and Hargrave (1937), White Mountain Red Ware is a decorated, red slipped ware whose production area appears to have been centered in the White Mountains and southern Mogollon Rim. Carlson (1970) refined the descriptions, while additional research by others (Fowler 1989; Mills et al. 1999; Triadan 1997; Zedeño 1994) demonstrated that this ware was manufactured in east-central Arizona and western New Mexico between A.D. 1000 and 1500 and was traded widely across the southern Colorado Plateau. Carlson also noted strong stylistic links between White Mountain Red Ware and Cibola White Ware (1970:1).

White Mountain Red Ware temper consists of crushed white, red, and/or gray sherds with subrounded quartz grains. Paste color varies from light brown to orange, yellow, white, or light gray. A carbon streak may be present. Early White Mountain Red Ware types have a thick, fine-grained dark red slip; later types have even thicker orange to red to brown slip. Paint may be organic, mineral, or glaze black. Later types include white outlining and occasional white solids.

In this analysis, a combination of traits was considered when typing the White Mountain Red Ware sherds. These were slip color (orange or red), paint (carbon, mineral, mixture, or matte glaze), and design style. St. Johns Black-on-red and Polychrome sherds have carbon/mineral paint or paint that is approaching matte subglaze. The latter has a clumpy appearance but is not glassy. Pinedale Black-on-red and Polychrome have matte subglaze paint, where the paint has begun to flux, creating glassy areas. All sherds with black and white paint on their exteriors were classified as Pinedale Polychrome. It is acknowledged that sherds typed as black-on-red may actually have been from polychrome vessels. None of the White Mountain Red Ware sherds in the assemblage had white paint on bowl interiors or jar exteriors. When white paint was present, it occurred only on bowl exteriors.

Four types of White Mountain Red Ware were recovered during this project—St. Johns Black-on-red, St. Johns Polychrome, Pinedale Black-on-red, and Pinedale Polychrome. Sherds containing a decorated area that was too small to be accurately typed, or containing


no decoration, were recorded as indeterminate White Mountain Red Ware.

St. Johns Black-on-red and Polychrome

St. Johns Black-on-red (Figure 7.5a) vessels feature light paste with sherd temper; a red, orange-red, or orange slip; and black iron and carbon or matte subglaze paint. Design elements consist of interlocking solid and hatched motifs that are well balanced, resembling Tularosa style, with stepped edges or appendages (Carlson 1970:31; see also Mills 1999). Fowler also notes “closely spaced, barbed lines (Flagstaff style), triangles with pendant barbed flags; and Tularosa style with longitudinal hatching” (1994:700). Other design elements include scrolls and frets. Decoration continues to the rim. St. Johns Black-on-red occurs primarily

as bowls; jars, ladles, and other forms occur but are not common.

St. Johns Polychrome is similar to its Black-on-red type with the addition of white kaolin motifs painted on bowl exteriors (Figure 7.5b). These motifs are primarily “frets, keys, meanders, opposed half terraces, and scrolls in continuous patterns” but can also include hands, small bird figures, concentric squares, scrolls, and triangles filled with squggled lines (Carlson 1970:35; see also Fowler 1989; Mills 1999). On jars, white lines border the black-on-red designs. Fowler (1989) reports that to the north of Zuni and in the El Morro area, St. Johns Polychrome bowls can have thin white lines framing the black designs. Sherds with this characteristic were not observed in this assemblage. Bowls are most common; jars, pitchers, and ladles are rare.

Figure 7.5. a) St. Johns Black-on-red double neck jar fragment and b) interior and exterior of St. Johns Polychrome sherds from LA 153714.

Carlson (1970) dates St. Johns Black-on-red and Polychrome between A.D. 1175 and 1300, while Fowler (1989) and Hays-Gilpin and van Hartesveldt (1998) date them to A.D. 1150–1300, and Mills and Herr (1999) to A.D. 1200–1300. A date range of A.D. 1150–1300 is used in this study for mean ceramic dating.

Pinedale Black-on-red and Polychrome

Pinedale Black-on-red has light paste with sherd temper; a red or orange slip; and a matte glaze or slightly shiny glaze paint. Design elements consist of interlocking solid and hatched motifs, resembling Tularosa style, but also include barbed lines, lines with stepped elements, and squiggle lines as filler (Carlson


1970:57; see also Mills 1999). Decoration continues to the rim. Pinedale Black-on-red occurs primarily as bowls; jars, ladles, pitchers, and other forms occur but are not common.

Pinedale Polychrome is similar to its Black-on-red type with the addition of white kaolin paint, and occasionally black paint, to the

exteriors of vessels (Figure 7.6). The black paint on exteriors is usually outlined with white over the red or orange slip, and the design motif is sometimes continuous. Interior design elements consist of interlocking solid and hatched motifs. Hatching is mostly parallel, and squiggle lines are common. Bowls are most common; jars, pitchers, and ladles are rare.

Figure 7.6. Pinedale Polychrome sherds from LA 153714.

Breternitz (1966) and Carlson (1970) date Pinedale Black-on-red and Polychrome to A.D. 1275–1325. Mills and Herr (1999) date Pinedale Black-on-red to A.D. 1280–1330 and Pinedale Polychrome to A.D. 1290–1330. A date range of A.D. 1275–1325 is used for both types in this study for mean ceramic dating.

CIBOLA GRAY WARE

Cibola Gray Ware closely resembles Tusayan Gray Ware in texture, vessel form, and surface treatment, but has sherd rather than coarse sand temper (Goetze and Mills 1993; Goff and Reed 1998). Cibola Gray Ware types have informal names based on surface treatment: plain rim, plain body, neck banded, neck corrugated, and various styles of corrugated. A variety of neck corrugated styles appeared in the A.D. 900s, and vessels with all-over corrugation appeared in the mid

A.D. 1000s. Cibola Gray Ware usually has a light gray to white color and refires in the buff color groups, though some refire yellowish red. The range of refired colors is very similar to that of Tusayan Gray Ware but is a bit more diverse than the range for Cibola White Ware. Cibola Gray Ware was widely produced across the San Juan Basin and as far south as the Fence Lake region of Arizona and New Mexico.

INDETERMINATE WARE FIGURINE

A figurine fragment that could not be identified to ware was recovered from the fill of the Feature 24 pit structure (Figure 7.7). It appears to be made from self-tempered alluvial clay and was incompletely fired at a low temperature. Its exterior surface is brown and the paste is a dark brown to black. The self-tempering material is fine quartz sand. The figurine was modeled by hand by


pinching the clay into shape. It was probably a four-legged animal, but the back legs and hind end are missing. What remains measures approximately 5.1 cm (2.0 in) long (from head to hind end), 2.2 cm (0.9 in) high (from back to intact legs), and 3.4 cm (1.3 in) wide.

As will be discussed in more depth in Chapter 14, the figurine is similar to many others found largely in the Hohokam area of central and southern Arizona, suggesting possible cultural ties to that region.

Figure 7.7. Figurine fragment from Feature 24 pit structure at LA 153714.

LA 153714 SITE ASSEMBLAGE

The analyzed ceramic assemblage at LA 153714 (Table 7.1) consisted primarily of Cibola Gray Ware sherds (n=1,047; 59.9%), but also included White Mountain Red Ware sherds (n=429; 24.5%) and Cibola White Ware sherds (n=272; 15.5%). The single item whose ware could not be identified was the figurine fragment. Nearly all of the Cibola Gray Ware was indented corrugated. Other surface treatments noted were plain, clapboard corrugated, festoon corrugated, obliterated corrugated, and indeterminate corrugated. The White Mountain Red Ware

assemblage included St. Johns Black-on-red and Polychrome, and Pinedale Black-on-red and Polychrome, in nearly equal amounts. A wider variety of Cibola White Ware types was noted, including Chaco/McElmo, Tularosa, Klagetoh, and Pinedale black-on-whites. Also noted were one sherd each of Red Mesa and Escavada black-on-whites. These are earlier types and were probably curated items. Specific research questions investigating the nature and occupational history of the site are discussed below and include chronology, vessel form and function, sherd modification, and production and distribution.


Table 7.1. Frequency of Ceramic Types by Ware at LA 153714

Ceramic Type Count Percent Within Ware

Percent of Total

Indeterminate, cannot identify to ware level 1 100.0 All Indeterminates 1 100.0 0.1 Indeterminate Cibola White Ware 199 73.1 Red Mesa Black-on-white 1 0.4 Escavada Black-on-white 1 0.4 Chaco/McElmo Black-on-white 17 6.2 Tularosa Black-on-white 29 10.7 Klagetoh Black-on-white 4 1.5 Pinedale Black-on-white 21 7.7 All Cibola White Ware 272 100.0 15.5 Indeterminate White Mountain Red Ware 136 31.7 St. Johns Black-on-red 71 16.6 St. Johns Polychrome 86 20.0 Pinedale Black-on-red 35 8.2 Pinedale Polychrome 101 23.5 All White Mountain Red Ware 429 100.0 24.5 Indeterminate Cibola Gray Ware 28 2.7 Indeterminate Plain Cibola Gray Ware 6 0.6 Clapboard Corrugated Cibola Gray Ware 1 0.1 Indented Corrugated Cibola Gray Ware 981 93.6 Indeterminate Corrugated Cibola Gray Ware 1 0.1 Festoon Corrugated 1 0.1 Obliterated Corrugated 29 2.8 All Cibola Gray Ware 1047 100.0 59.9 Total 1749 100.0

CHRONOLOGY

Questions relating to chronology can be addressed through relative quantities of temporally sensitive ceramic types. Using only temporally sensitive decorated types, a mean ceramic date, a mean ceramic date range, and a minimum use date were calculated for LA 153714. These dates were also calculated for features to examine any temporal and spatial relationships among the features at this site. Temporally sensitive decorated types are listed in Table 7.2. Red Mesa and Escavada black-on-whites are not included in these calculations of site chronology because only one sherd of each type was collected and these were probably

curated items. Note that all sherds in the remaining types were used to calculate the dates; no attempt was made to account for sherds from the same vessels but it is recognized that a large vessel that broke into many pieces would weigh more heavily in the calculations than the individual vessel.


Table 7.2. Date Ranges for Decorated Ceramic Types

Ceramic Ware and Type Date Range (A.D.)

Cibola White Ware Red Mesa Black-on-white 900–1050 Escavada Black-on-white 925–1125 Chaco/McElmo Black-on-white 1100–1200 Tularosa Black-on-white 1175–1300 Klagetoh Black-on-white 1250–1300 Pinedale Black-on-white 1250–1350 White Mountain Red Ware St. Johns Black-on-red 1150–1300 St. Johns Polychrome 1150–1300 Pinedale Black-on-red 1275–1325 Pinedale Polychrome 1275–1325

The methods used to calculate the mean ceramic date and mean ceramic date range are as follows (Reed and Hensler 1999). Count percentages for each type are calculated by dividing the total number of sherds by the number of each type present. Basically, the count of each type is statistically weighted by the total number of diagnostic sherds recovered. These percentages are then multiplied by the beginning date and ending date for each type. All of the calculations for the beginning dates and for the ending dates are summed, and then divided by the total count. This date is reported as the mean ceramic date in the text and tables.

The averaged mean date range spans from the beginning date to the ending date for count. The averaged mean date range is then halved to produce a “best range,” which represents “the 50 percent portion of the range closest to the mean” (Reed and Hensler 1999:56). This is reported as the mean ceramic date range in the text and tables. By providing a mean ceramic date and a mean ceramic date range by count for each site and component, comparisons can be made between all sites and components within the project area.

The minimum use date is useful for estimating the minimum time span for when a

site or component was in use. It is not as accurate as other quantitative methods but it can be used on small assemblages. The minimum use date is the range derived by noting the earliest ending date and the latest beginning date for each assemblage (Gilpin 1995; Hays-Gilpin et al. 1999:462).

For LA 153714, the mean ceramic date is A.D. 1255, the mean ceramic date range is A.D. 1229–1281, and the minimum use date is A.D. 1200–1275 (Table 7.3). The dates for Chaco/McElmo Black-on-white do not fall within the calculated mean date and mean date range for this site but the ending date for Chaco/McElmo Black-on-white matches the beginning minimum use date for this site. Calculating the mean dates for this site without Chaco/McElmo Black-on-white does not significantly change the dates (mean ceramic date is A.D. 1261, mean ceramic date range is A.D. 1234–1287) indicating that these sherds are not weighting the calculations in any way. It is possible that these vessels were curated and considered important or valuable, possibly because they were imported from a great distance. This will be explored further under Production and Distribution.


Table 7.3. Mean Ceramic Dates and Date Ranges, and Minimum Use Dates for LA 153714 and Features Containing Decorated Ceramics

Site or Feature No. Feature Type Mean Ceramic

Date (A.D.) Mean Ceramic

Date Range (A.D.)

Minimum Use Date

(A.D.) LA 153714 Entire site 1255 1229–1281 1200–1275 F.1, F.5, F.19 Main structure block, slab-lined

hearth, mealing bin 1240 1207–1272 1200–1250

F.4 Storage pit fill (post-use) 1246 1214–1279 1275–1300 F.21 Rock alignment southwest of F.1 1225 1150–1300* 1150–1300* F.23 Slab-lined hearth between F. 3

and F.14, on top of F. 24 1273 1248–1299 1275–1300

F.24 Pit structure fill (post-use) 1240 1212–1267 1200–1275 F.14 Masonry structure 1267 1252–1281 1200–1275 F.17 Masonry structure 1225 1150–1300* 1150–1300* F.3 Masonry structure 1226 1194–1259 1200–1275 F.35 Masonry room 1271 1248–1294 1275–1300 F.37 Pit house fill (post-use) 1253 1226–1280 1200–1275 F.38 Unknown; concentration of two

partial grayware vessels 1225 1150–1300* 1150–1300*

MUs Midden Units 1273 1252–1294 1200–1275 Non-Feature Associations

General site 1250 1222–1278 1200–1275

*This is the date range for St. Johns Black-on-red and Polychrome.

The LA 153714 ceramic assemblage falls within the A.D. 1250–1275 ceramic complex (Ceramic Complex C) developed by Kintigh (1985, 1996) for the Zuni District. LA 153714 lies within the eastern portion of Kintigh’s Zuni District. Ceramic types associated with this complex are Tularosa Black-on-white, St. Johns Black-on-red and Polychrome, and indented corrugated grayware. Springerville Polychrome may be present in Complex C in very small numbers, but it was not found in the LA 53714 assemblage.

For the A.D. 1275–1300 complex (Ceramic Complex D), Kwakina Polychrome—a true glaze—must be present in the ceramic assemblage; Tularosa Black-on-white, St. Johns Black-on-red and Polychrome, and indented corrugated grayware should be present; and Pinedale Black-on-red and Polychrome, and Springerville Polychrome may or may not be present. The presence of Pinedale Black-on-red and Polychrome and the absence of Kwakina Polychrome in the

LA 153714 assemblage suggest that consistent occupation of the site ceased by approximately A.D. 1275. However, this ceramic evidence contrasts with nine tree-ring cutting or near-cutting dates that place the early Feature 24 roof at A.D. 1275, and thirteen radiocarbon dates that date the site largely between A.D. 1230 and A.D. 1350.

Kwakina Polychrome was collected from Atsinna and North Atsinna Ruin, both of which are located on the El Morro National Monument mesa a few miles west of the current project area. Thus, it is clear that this type does occur in the region. Atsinna dates to A.D. 1275-1325 (Ceramic Complex D – DE) (Kintigh 1985), so it was at least partly contemporaneous with LA 153714. The major occupation of North Atsinna Ruin dates to approximately A.D. 1300–1400 (Ceramic Complex DE – F and into G), and there may be an earlier component starting around A.D. 1275 (Ceramic Complex D) (Kintigh 1985), so its dates also overlap with those of LA


153714. Both of the Atsinna sites are large, whereas LA 153714 is quite small. It is estimated that North Atsinna Ruin has at least 165 rooms, and possibly as many as 180 rooms, while Atsinna has 500 to 1,000 rooms, with 875 rooms most likely (Kintigh 1985). Still, there is no clear reason why LA 153714 should be devoid of Kwakina Polychrome if it was regularly inhabited after A.D. 1275. Another true glaze found in the Zuni region, Heshotauthla Polychrome, should be present in assemblages dating between A.D. 1300 and 1325 (Kintigh 1985). However, once again, even though several of LA 153714’s radiocarbon dates fall within that range, the site contains none of that ceramic type. Taken together, the evidence suggests that site occupation(s) after approximately A.D. 1275 likely were very short-lived, or were restricted in some way other than length of time.

The mean ceramic date, the mean ceramic date range, and the minimum use date were also calculated for those features and midden units at LA 153714 that yielded decorated ceramics (Table 7.3 and Table 7.4). Of the intramural features present within the large residential features, only those located within Feature 1, the main surface structure, contained decorated ceramics. They were used, along with the decorated ceramics from the structure itself, to calculate the dates for Feature 1. Dates for decorated ceramics from non-feature associations also were calculated.

Overall, there is considerable overlap among the dates for the various features at LA 153714 and these dates fall within the dates calculated for the entire site. This indicates relative contemporaneity among the features at the site, but the ceramics do suggest a sequence of feature use or, more likely, in-filling. It appears that Feature 3 (a masonry structure) might have been built or filled in first, followed by Feature 1 (the main

structure room block) and Feature 24 (a pit structure), then Feature 37 (another pit structure), and then Feature 35 (a masonry room). Sherds from the midden units are representative of the later occupation of the site and sherds from non-feature associations span the occupation for the site.

However, tree-ring (dendrochronology) dates analyzed from Feature 24 yielded seven cutting or near-cutting dates and indicate that its roof was constructed in A.D. 1275. The burned wood samples that yielded cutting or near cutting dates come from levels 8 through 11 of the feature fill (Table 7.5). The diagnostic sherds recovered from these levels and from a kiva unit (KU 1) excavated below them, just above the floor, represent the diagnostic types associated with the upper levels of this feature (Table 7.6) as well as what was recovered elsewhere at the site. It is possible that the pit structure was filled in with trash near the end of the site’s occupation.

Ceramic types and tree-ring dates from Feature 24 suggest that the inhabitants of LA 153714 occupied this site for a relatively short period of time and that the site was abandoned around A.D. 1300—earlier than is suggested by the site’s series of radiocarbon dates. Although much of the work in the Zuni District has focused on the large aggregated pueblos, archaeological surveys in the area also have documented clusters of small sites that were occupied contemporaneously, were sometimes organized in dense communities, and were occupied for one or two generations (25 to 50 years) (Anyon et al. 1983; Kintigh 1985; Schachner 2007). Hokona (LA 153714) appears to be one of these smaller sites and may have been part of a local community that was comprised of several adjacent small sites, as yet undiscovered and/or unexcavated.


Table 7.4. Frequency of Decorated Ceramic Types by Feature or Grouping of Features

Ceramic Type F.1, F. 5, F.19 F.4 F.21 F.23 F.24 F.14 F.17 F.3 F.35 F.37 F.38 Midden

Units Non-Fea Assoc Total

Chaco/McElmo Black-on-white 1 5 1 1 2 2 5 17 Tularosa Black-on-white 1 1 8 1 1 3 5 9 29 Klagetoh Black-on-white 1 2 1 4 Pinedale Black-on-white 3 1 3 3 1 3 7 21 St. Johns Black-on-red 4 2 1 4 4 20 1 11 24 71 St. Johns Polychrome 2 3 2 2 8 1 2 3 25 12 26 86 Pinedale Black-on-red 2 1 1 2 16 13 35 Pinedale Polychrome 1 2 5 2 1 4 31 38 17 101

Total 11 7 3 8 36 6 1 9 10 83 1 87 102 364 * Subfeatures are Feature 5, slab-lined hearth, and Feature 19, mealing bin. Note: Red Mesa and Excavada black-on-whites are not included in these calculations. Features without decorated types are not included in this table.


Table 7.5. Tree-Ring Dates for Feature 24 TRL # Field # Provenience Inside Date Outside Date Comments

ZUN-1961 503 FE 24 1185 1275B inc lev 9-11 ZUN-1962 481 FE 24 1178p 1246+vv lev 8 ZUN-1964 500 FE 24 1185p 1274+B inc lev 9-11 ZUN-1967 561 FE 24 1189p 1275v lev 11 ZUN-1968 505 FE 24 1188p 1274+v lev 9-11 ZUN-1970 530 FE 24 1174p 1274+v inc lev 10 ZUN-1971 501 FE 24 1182p 1275v lev 9-11 ZUN-1976 437, 438 FE 24 E trench 1205p 1267vv 40-65 bmgs ZUN-1978 443 FE 24 E trench 1210 1274+v 40-65 bmgs

Table 7.6. Decorated Ceramic Types by Level for Feature 24

Ceramic Type 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9-11 10 KU-1 L1 N/A TotalChaco/McElmo Black-on-white 1 2 1 1 5

Tularosa Black-on-white 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8Klagetoh Black-on-white 1 1Pinedale Black-on-white 1 1 1 3St. Johns Black-on-red 2 1 1 4St. Johns Polychrome 2 1 2 1 2 8Pinedale Black-on-red 1 1 2Pinedale Polychrome 2 1 1 1 5Total 5 3 1 7 2 1 5 3 1 2 6 36

VESSEL FORM AND FUNCTION

Vessel form, in conjunction with other attributes, can provide valuable information on what activities were performed at a site (Blinman 1988a, 1988b; Braun 1980, 1983; Hally 1983, 1986; Rice 1987; Skibo 1992; Skibo and Blinman 1999; Smith 1994). In this analysis, vessel shape and technological attributes (as defined by ware and type characteristics) and evidence of use (soot, abrasion) were examined to determine how vessels were used and for what tasks. Blinman offers a list of potential functions associated with vessel forms based on vessel morphology: cooking, storage, dispensing, and serving. With vessel shape, for example, narrow-neck and wide-neck jars serve different purposes, based on how they can contain or allow access to their contents.

Similarly, jars serve a different purpose than bowls, again based on how they contain or allow access to their contents. Wide-neck jars with exterior sooting were used for cooking. Storage is divided into short- or long-term and dry or liquid material. Vessel form is dependent upon the material being stored and can include narrow-neck jars, wide-neck jars, bowls, seed jars, and pitchers. Ladles appear to have been designed for one purpose: the dispensing of goods, and specifically transferring goods from one container to another, such as from a large jar to a smaller jar or bowl. Serving is mostly associated with bowls, but may also include pitchers and other similar forms. The purpose of serving vessels is to hold food just before and during consumption.


Most sherds were fragments from jars (68.4%; Table 7.7). Bowls (28.6%), ladles (0.2%), seed jars (0.1%), and a figurine (0.1%) were also noted. Sherds whose form could not be determined, such as unusual forms, handles, and those with highly eroded surfaces, comprised a small portion of the assemblage (2.7%). All of the grayware sherds were from jars or seed jars. Redware and whiteware sherds occurred as jars, bowls, and ladles. Specific jar and bowl forms could only be identified from rim sherds. Narrow-neck jar fragments from whiteware vessels and wide-neck jar fragments from grayware vessels were observed. Narrow-neck jars restrict access to their contents and also have a higher containment security due to the narrow neck and were probably used for the storage of water. Wide-mouth jars allowed relatively unrestricted access to their contents and were used for cooking and storage (probably dry goods). White Mountain Red Ware sherds from a double-necked jar were not recognized as such until it was reconstructed and were therefore classified as jar sherds during the analysis. Only fragments of straight-sided bowls from redware and whiteware vessels were recorded. One unusual form was noted and appeared to be a fragment of an indeterminate Cibola White Ware flat-bottomed vessel or mug.

The distribution of vessel form within each type within the decorated wares is interesting. For the whitewares, the Chaco/McElmo and Klagetoh sherds are from bowls, the Tularosa sherds are from jars, and the Pinedale sherds are from both bowls and jars. For the redwares, nearly all of the St. Johns Black-on-red and Polychrome and Pinedale Polychrome sherds are from bowls; all of the Pinedale Black-on-red sherds were from bowls. Two sherds from St. Johns Black-on-red ladles, two sherds from St. Johns Black-on-red jars, and one sherd from a Pinedale Polychrome jar were noted. The whiteware had twice as many jar sherds as bowl sherds, whereas the

redware were overwhelmingly dominated by bowl sherds. The ratio of whiteware jar to bowl sherds is problematic because jars were considerably larger than bowls, and when broken, result in considerably more sherds. Nevertheless, with decorated jars used for storage and decorated bowls used for serving, the distribution of vessel forms suggest that whiteware vessels were used for both storage and serving. Redware vessels were used primarily for serving (bowls), with a few used for storage (jars) or for dispensing (ladles) of goods.

Vessel function and use may be inferred from sooting. Vessels used over a fire for cooking will have exterior soot, and may also have interior soot depending on what was cooked and how it was prepared (boiling, reheating, etc.) (see Skibo 1992). However, post-depositional events, such as the burning of a structure, can also soot a vessel. The distribution of ceramic type, vessel form, and sooting is considered with respect to the recovery context of the sherds. For example, only one feature at this site, the Feature 24 pit structure, appears to have been purposely burned; it was filled with burned timbers and its wall plaster was charred, so it apparently burned just prior to abandonment. More than half of the sherds recovered from this feature, regardless of ceramic ware, had soot on both surfaces. On the other hand, the Feature 37 pit house had a large number of sherds with soot on both surfaces, but nearly all of these were Cibola Gray Ware, suggesting these sherds came from vessels used for cooking. If this feature had itself burned, then more of the redware and whiteware sherds would be sooted.

The presence and location of soot by vessel form and ceramic ware are shown in Table 7.8. Even after considering recovery context, the overwhelmingly large number of grayware sherds with soot indicates that many of these vessels were used for cooking. Those


without soot were either from unsooted portions of cooking vessels or were from vessels used for storage. The redware and whiteware bowls were used primarily for serving, while the redware and whiteware jars were used for storage. All of these functions point to domestic activities, indicating that LA 153714 was a habitation site.

Three partial vessels were recognized in the field and during analysis. An indented corrugated Cibola Gray Ware wide-mouth jar recovered from the floor of the plastered Feature 24 pit structure was reconstructed (Figure 7.8). It is nearly complete and vessel measurements are provided in Table 7.9. The interior base of the vessel shows erosion and blackening from cooking. The location of the erosion and discoloration suggest that the jar was not vertical during cooking but was tilted at a slight angle, perhaps to facilitate stirring. The depth of the eroded and discolored area is 3 cm (1.2 in), if the pot is placed so that this area is level. The vessel may have been used for heating or reheating foods without water (Skibo 1992; Skibo and Blinman 1999).

A nearly complete and reconstructed jar cover was found in association with this jar. It had been modified into shape and is described below under Modified Sherds.

Another Indented Corrugated Cibola Gray Ware wide-mouth jar was recovered from Feature 38. It is approximately 50 percent

complete but was in too many pieces, was too heavily sooted, and was too fragile to reconstruct. The field notes state a second vessel was in this feature but these were rim and neck fragments of a wide-mouth jar with fingernail indentations around the neck.

During analysis, it was observed that many of the redware and whiteware sherds shared similar characteristics and that a limited number of redware and whiteware vessels may have been used at this site. Although a refitting study was beyond the scope of this analysis, an attempt to define the minimum number of redware and whiteware vessels at this site was made based on vessel form, ceramic type, and design elements and motifs. This was not attempted for the grayware due to its ubiquity at the site.

A list of the recognizable vessels is provided in Table 7.10. Unfortunately, most consisted of a handful of sherds and none were more than 20 percent complete. Nineteen White Mountain Red Ware vessels and 14 Cibola White Ware vessels were recognized. The St. Johns and Pinedale polychrome vessels also consist of black-on-red versions of these types. The relatively large number of vessels recognized compared to the number of sherds recovered and the tightly clustering ceramic types suggest that the inhabitants of LA 153714 occupied this site for a relatively short period of time.


Table 7.7. Distribution of Ceramic Types by Vessel Form for LA 153714. Numbers Represent Sherd Counts.

Ceramic Type Bowl, NFS

Straight-sided Bowl

Ladle Jar, NFS

Narrow-neck Jar

Wide-neck Jar

Seed Jar Figurine Indeter-

minate Total

Indeterminate 1 1 All Indeterminate 1 1 Indeterminate Cibola White Ware 66 24 3 90 3 13 199 Red Mesa Black-on-white 1 1 Escavada Black-on-white 1 1 Chaco/McElmo Black-on-white 5 12 17 Tularosa Black-on-white 29 29 Klagetoh Black-on-white 2 2 4 Pinedale Black-on-white 2 1 18 21 All Cibola White Ware 75 40 3 138 3 13 272 Indeterminate White Mountain Red Ware 91 13 1 5 26 136 St. Johns Black-on-red 50 11 2 2 6 71 St Johns Polychrome 53 32 1 86 Pinedale Black-on-red 32 3 35 Pinedale Polychrome 83 17 1 101 All White Mountain Red Ware 309 76 3 9 32 429 Indeterminate Cibola Gray Ware 4 23 1 28 Indeterminate plain Cibola Gray Ware 5 1 6 Clapboard corrugated Cibola Gray Ware 1 1 Indented corrugated Cibola Gray Ware 924 57 981 Indeterminate corrugated Cibola Gray Ware 1 1

Festoon Corrugated 1 1 Obliterated Corrugated 28 1 29 All Cibola Gray Ware 964 80 2 1 1047 Total 384 116 6 1111 3 80 2 1 46 1749 22.0% 6.6% 0.3% 63.5% 0.2% 4.6% 0.1% 0.1% 2.6% 100.0%


Table 7.8. Distribution of Sooting on Bowls and Jars by Ceramic Ware

Ceramic Ware Form No Soot Exterior Soot

Interior and Exterior Soot Total

White Mountain Red Ware Bowl, NFS 275 11 23 309

Straight-sided Bowl 63 5 8 76

Ladle 3 3 Jar, NFS 8 1 9 Indeterminate 31 1 32 Cibola White Ware Bowl, NFS 62 13 75

Straight-sided Bowl 32 2 6 40

Ladle 3 3 Jar, NFS 118 3 17 138 Narrow-neck Jar 3 3 Indeterminate 12 1 13 Cibola Gray Ware Jar, NFS 363 135 466 964 Wide-neck Jar 39 4 37 80 Seed Jar 1 1 2 Indeterminate 1 1 Total 1014 162 572 1748

Table 7.9. Vessel Measurements for the Reconstructed Vessel Location on Vessel Measurement in cm

Maximum height from base to rim 27.0 Diameter at maximum height (diameter of vessel opening at rim) 23.0 x 21.5 Height at minimum diameter from base to where neck is most restricted 24.0 Diameter where neck is most restricted 20.0 x 17.5 Height at maximum diameter on body from base to widest point on body 10.5 Diameter at widest point on body 32.5

Table 7.10. Vessels Represented in the Sherd Assemblage by Ceramic Type and Vessel Form

Ceramic Type Bowl, NFS

Straight -sided Bowl

Jar, NFS

Double-necked Jar Total

Indeterminate White Mountain Red Ware 1 1 St. Johns Black-on-red 1 1 1 3 St. Johns Polychrome 4 7 11 Pinedale Polychrome 1 3 4 All White Mountain Red Ware 6 12 1 19 Indeterminate Cibola White Ware 1a 1b 2 Indeterminate Cibola White Ware with red oxidized paint

1 1

Chaco/McElmo Black-on-white 4 4 Tularosa Black-on-white 3 3 Klagetoh Black-on-white 1 1 2 Pinedale Black-on-white 1 1 2 All Cibola White Ware 1 8 5 14 Total 7 20 5 1 33

a Sherds from the same vessel with paint too faint to type. b Jar sherd modified into jar cover.


Figure 7.8. Reconstructed indented corrugated Cibola Gray Ware wide-mouth jar recovered from the floor of Feature 24 at LA 153714.

The distribution of sherds from the recognizable vessels, plus the three grayware vessels (Table 7.11), were examined for clues to site and feature function and the sequence of room construction at the site.

Table 7.11 demonstrates that many of the sherds from the whiteware and redware vessels were widely dispersed across the site. Approximately two-thirds of the vessels were distributed among features, the midden, and non-feature contexts and came from a variety of specific proveniences within these general contexts. For example, as seen in Figure 7.9, Vessel 18 was recovered from the largest number of different contexts, including the feature fill of the main structure room block (Feature 1), two pit structures (Features 24 and 37), masonry structures (Features 3 and 35), and the storage pit south of the main room block (Feature 4), as well as from a unit placed within the midden (MU4) and from units placed to define the features (FUs 3, 6,

and 27). This supports the construction sequence inferred from the mean ceramic dates, that Feature 3, a masonry structure, might have been built or at least filled in first, followed by Feature 1, the main structure room block, and Feature 24, a pit structure, then Feature 37, another pit structure, and then Feature 35, a masonry room.

Feature and site function based on these vessels is skewed because this analysis is weighted toward redware and whiteware vessels and virtually ignores the grayware vessels in the assemblage. Of the grayware vessels recognized, only one reconstructed vessel, one partial vessel not reconstructed, and one partial vessel were identified. The reconstructed vessel found with the jar cover offers direct evidence of cooking or storage within the Feature 24 pit structures. The partial vessel was heavily sooted and may have been burned post-depositionally,


obscuring any evidence of how it may have been used.

The largest number of sherds, largest number of vessels represented, and widest variety of ceramic types and vessel forms were recovered from various Feature 24 contexts. For example, the reconstructed vessel—which represented 116 sherds by itself—and jar cover came from a floor context. All but one of the vessels whose sherds were found in kiva units (KUs) immediately above the floor also were represented by sherds higher up in the feature fill (e.g., Figure 7.10, Figure 7.11). The one exception–Vessel 35–saw one sherd recovered from KU2, and also sherds from midden and non-feature contexts, showing how mixed the assemblages were. The large number and diversity of vessels recovered from the Feature 24 fill—equal to the number of vessels represented in the midden area—suggest that the pit structure served as a trash dump for the site.

The Feature 37 pit house also had a large number of sherds and a wide variety of

ceramic types and vessel forms, second only to the number and diversity of vessels from Feature 24 and the midden area. Several vessels were found throughout the Feature 37 fill. For example, Vessel 10 was recovered from the hand trench, and from levels 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of excavation units. That indicates that this pit structure was fairly rapidly filled with trash after it was abandoned. In the case of other vessels (e.g., Figure 7.9, Figure 7.10), a smaller number of sherds was found within the Feature 37 fill, but other sherds came from the Feature 24 fill, the midden, and various structures. Again, this suggests that people occupying other parts of the site filled the abandoned pit structures with trash fairly rapidly. In the case of Vessel 1, a Pinedale Black-on-white jar, a sherd found deep in the fill of the Feature 4 storage pit matched with several others found inside various jacal and masonry structures, in the midden, and on the surface (Figure 7.12). Hence, it appears that all three deep pit structures were filled in when people occupied the surface structures.


Figure 7.9. Three-dimensional representation of the distribution of sherds

from ceramic Vessel 18 (St. Johns Polychrome straight-sided bowl).



from ceramic Vessel 9 (Pinedale Polychrome straight-sided bowl).



from ceramic Vessel 15 (Tularosa Black-on-white jar)



from ceramic Vessel 1 (Pinedale Black-on-white jar).


Table 7.11. Distribution of Sherds Associated with Recognizable Vessels by Feature

Vessel Ceramic Type Vessel Form1 F.1 F.19 F.4 F.23 F.24 F.14 F.17 F.3 F.35 F.37 F.38 Midden Non-Fea

Assoc Total

1 Pinedale Black-on-white 20 1 2 1 3 1 3 6 17 2 St. Johns Polychrome 11 2 1 1 1 8 13 3 Indented Corrugated Cibola Gray Ware2 22 116 116 4 Indented Corrugated Cibola Gray Ware 22 63 63 5 Indeterminate Cibola White Ware3 20 16 16

6 Indented Corrugated Cibola Gray Ware with Fingernail Indentations 22 13 13

7 St. Johns Polychrome 11 3 2 5 8 Pinedale Polychrome 11 2 2 1 39 10 54

8A Pinedale Polychrome 10 1 1 1 2 4 9 9 Pinedale Polychrome 11 1 2 1 1 5 5 4 19

10 Pinedale Polychrome 11 1 3 19 1 1 25 11 St. Johns Polychrome 11 3 1 15 3 22 12 St. Johns Polychrome 10 4 4

13 Indeterminate Cibola White Ware with red oxidized paint 11 1 14 15

14 Chaco/McElmo Black-on-white 11 1 1 3 2 7 15 Tularosa Black-on-white 20 4 1 1 2 11 19 16 Tularosa Black-on-white 20 1 2 3 2 8 17 St. Johns Polychrome 10 3 1 1 3 8 18 St. Johns Polychrome 11 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 12 19 St. Johns Polychrome 10 1 2 5 8 20 Indeterminate White Mountain Red Ware4 11 1 1 2 4 21 St. Johns Polychrome 11 1 3 1 5 23 St. Johns Polychrome 10 2 2 24 St. Johns Black-on-red 11 2 2 25 St. Johns Polychrome 11 4 4 27 St. Johns Polychrome 11 5 5 28 St. Johns Black-on-red 20 8 1 9 29 St. Johns Black-on-red5 10 2 2 31 Tularosa Black-on-white 20 1 1 1 3 32 Klagetoh Black-on-white 10 1 1 1 3 33 Chaco/McElmo Black-on-white 11 1 1 1 3


Table 7.11. Distribution of Sherds Associated with Recognizable Vessels by Feature, continued

Vessel Ceramic Type Vessel Form1 F.1 F.19 F.4 F.23 F.24 F.14 F.17 F.3 F.35 F.37 F.38 Midden Non-Fea

Assoc Total

34 Chaco/McElmo Black-on-white 11 1 1 1 3 35 Indeterminate Cibola White Ware 11 1 1 1 3 36 Klagetoh Black-on-white 11 1 1 2 38 Chaco/McElmo Black-on-white 11 1 1 2 39 Pinedale Black-on-white 11 3 3

Total 5 2 6 5 158 6 1 7 8 85 76 75 74 508 1 Vessel Form: 10 = Bowl, NFS; 11 = Straight-sided Bowl; 20 = Jar, NFS; 22 = Wide-mouth Jar; 99 = Double-necked Jar. 2 Reconstructed vessel. 3 Jar sherd modified into a jar cover; reconstructed. 4 Misfired sherds originally classified as indeterminate ware. 5 Modified but of indeterminate function.


MODIFIED SHERDS

Modified sherds are those with repair holes and post-firing modification. Repair holes are important because they indicate that a vessel was valuable enough to salvage after it had cracked. Accordingly, a comparison of the repaired vessels offers insight into the relative value of different kinds of pottery. Only nine sherds from LA 153714 had repair holes, representing less than 1 percent of the project-wide assemblage. Five White Mountain Red Ware sherds and four Cibola White Ware sherds had one repair hole each. They included a Klagetoh Black-on-white, a Pinedale Black-on-red, a Pinedale Polychrome, and indeterminate sherds from both wares. The Pinedale Black-on-red sherd and the Pinedale Polychrome sherd may be from the same vessel. All but one of these sherds were from bowls; the other was missing its interior surface and was classified as indeterminate but probably also was from a bowl. Only redwares and whitewares were valuable enough to salvage after they had cracked.

Post-firing modification of sherds produced tools and other items by grinding, flaking, or drilling. The modified sherd analysis focused on identifying use categories; only a disc, a jar cover, and undifferentiated worked sherds were identified. A description of each of the use categories is provided below. The modified sherd assemblage comprised 7 items (23 modified and unmodified sherds before recognizing conjoins) (Table 7.12) and represents about 1 percent of the project-wide ceramic assemblage. The modified sherds were made from Cibola White Ware and White Mountain Red Ware sherds only. None were made from Cibola Gray Ware sherds.

Discs

Discs are circular sherds modified by grinding, flaking, or both. One unfinished disc or disc blank (Figure 7.13) was recovered from Feature 23, a slab-lined hearth constructed on the top edge of the Feature 24 fill. The disc was made from a St. Johns Polychrome bowl sherd and was flaked into shape all the way around but not ground. It was 100 percent complete and measured 4.6 cm (1.8 in) in its maximum diameter.

Figure 7.13. Complete disc recovered from the Feature 23 slab-lined hearth at LA 153714.


Table 7.12. Distribution of Modified Sherds by Ceramic Type, Including Refits

Ceramic Type Disc Jar Cover

Undifferentiated Worked Sherd Total

Indeterminate Cibola White Ware 1 (16) 1 2 (17) Indeterminate White Mountain Red Ware 1 1 St. Johns Black-on-red 2 (3) 2 (3) St. Johns Polychrome 1 1 Pinedale Polychrome 1 1 Total 1 1 (16) 5 (6) 7 (23)

Jar Cover

A probable jar cover made from an indeterminate Cibola White Ware jar was recovered from the floor of the Feature 24 pit structure. It was in several pieces that were found both outside and inside the reconstructed indented corrugated jar, and it, too, has been reconstructed (Figure 7.14). It is considered a jar cover and not a large plate because it was found in direct association with the reconstructed vessel.

The jar cover is nearly complete (95%) and was made from the base of a large whiteware

jar. The exterior base is abraded, most likely the result of its original use as a jar. For its secondary use as a jar cover, the outer edge appears to have been flaked to create the circular shape. This edge is partially ground; only the high points are slightly ground to dull the edge. The edge is so slightly ground that the edge initially appeared to be worn from use. The maximum diameter is 28.5 cm (11.2 in). Inconsistent sooting on the interior and exterior surfaces of the cover indicates that it was caused by the burning of the structure, not from the artifact’s use as a jar cover.

Figure 7.14. Interior and exterior views of the reconstructed Indeterminate Cibola White Ware sherd modified into a jar cover recovered from the floor of Feature 24 at LA 153714.


Undifferentiated Worked Sherds

The undifferentiated worked sherd category includes many small sherd fragments with one or more ground edges. Many of these fragments were too small to determine their size or shape, or had too small a ground area to determine their function or purpose. Five undifferentiated worked sherds were recovered. One was made from an indeterminate Cibola White Ware bowl sherd and had one ground edge. Four were made from redware sherds. An indeterminate White Mountain Red Ware tubular handle fragment, with a molded hole at its end, had its broken edge ground flat. A St. Johns Black-on-red bowl sherd had one ground edge and is of unknown function. A Pinedale Polychrome bowl sherd had two ground edges and may be an unfinished disc but not enough of it was present to be sure. A St. Johns Black-on-red bowl had one small ground area and a partial drill hole. This sherd conjoined with another that was not modified, forming the base and nearly opposing side walls of the bowl.

PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION

One goal of this analysis was to consider the ceramic assemblage in a regional context and to address economic and/or social ties with neighboring groups based on ceramic production and distribution. Establishing which wares could have been produced locally and which were not is an integral part of this discussion. This was investigated through oxidation and ICPS analyses. A discussion of the implications of the presence of the Chaco/McElmo Black-on-white sherds at LA 153714 also helps to answer this question.

Oxidation Study

Previous oxidation studies have shown that Ancestral Puebloan potters did not select clay randomly (Windes 1977), but in fact selected specific clays from a variety of available sources. For example, refiring colors tend to group by ceramic ware or tradition, suggesting that specific clay sources were targeted. Comparisons of the refired colors may help to determine whether certain wares were produced locally or imported, addressing questions relating to ceramic production and exchange.

Impurities in ceramic paste may provide information on clay sources and ceramic production technology (Shepard 1985). Iron content may be an especially useful indicator of source area. When refired in an oxidizing atmosphere, at a temperature high enough to drive off all organic matter (950oC [1742oF]), clays containing less than 1.5 percent iron oxide will refire to a white or cream, clays with 1.5 to 3.0 percent iron oxide content refire to buff (yellow to light orange), and clays with more than 3 percent iron oxide refire to a red (or dark orange) (Windes 1977).

All sherds selected for the oxidation study were fired at 950oC for 30 minutes in a Thermolyne 1400 furnace. Clay color was compared with a Munsell soil color handbook (Munsell 2000) before and after firing. Munsell colors were then grouped along a buff-to-red scale (Table 7.13) developed by Windes (1977) and expanded by Fowler (1994) and Bubemyre and Mills (1993).


Table 7.13. Color Groups and Corresponding Munsell Color Codes

Color Group Color Munsell Color Code 1 Buff 10YR 8/1 - 8/4

10YR 7/1 – 7/4 10YR 6/3 – 6/4 2.5Y N8/ - 8/4 2.5Y N7/ - 7/4 2.5YR 8/1 – 8/2 5Y 8/1 – 8/4 N8

2 Buff 7.5YR 8/1 - 8/4 7.5YR 7/1 – 7/4 10YR 8/6 – 8/8 10YR 7/6

3 Buff 5YR 8/1 – 8/4 5YR 7/1 – 7/4

4 Yellowish red 7.5YR 8/6 7.5YR 7/6 – 7/8 7.5YR 6/4 – 6/8 7.5YR 5/4 – 5/8

5 Yellowish red 5YR 7/6 – 7/8 5YR 6/4 – 6/8 5YR 5/4 – 5/8

6 Red 2.5YR 6/4 – 6/8 2.5YR 5/4 – 5/8 2.5YR 4/4 – 4/8

7 Red 10R 6/3 – 6/8 10R 5/3 – 5/8

The purpose of the oxidation study was threefold: 1) to characterize the range of clays used in, and provide complementary data for, the Cibola White Ware and Gray Ware sherds submitted for ICPS; 2) to determine whether the White Mountain Red Ware sherds identified as misfired were, in fact, misfired or if they were Kintiel-Klagetoh Black-on-orange and Polychrome vessels; and 3) to determine the ware of those sherds whose ware could not be determined during the basic analysis.

In all, 19 Cibola White Ware, 13 Cibola Gray Ware, 20 misfired White Mountain Red Ware, and 4 unidentifiable sherds were refired. The Cibola White Ware and Gray Ware sherds refired to Buff 1 and Buff 2 color groups, suggesting that these wares were made from similar clays. Assuming that the

grayware were locally produced, this also suggests that the whiteware were made from clays available locally.

The White Mountain Red Ware refired primarily buff (primarily to group 2 but also to groups 1 and 3). One sherd refired to the Yellowish Red color group. The refiring standardized the paste and slip colors, indicating they were misfired White Mountain Red Ware sherds and not from Kintiel-Klagetoh Black-on-orange and Polychrome vessels. The refiring colors of the paste suggest that these vessels were also produced using locally available clays.

When refired, the unidentifiable sherds were found to be from the same low-fired White Mountain Red Ware vessel. These sherds refired to the Buff 2 color group and were


probably manufactured from locally available clays.

Cibola Tradition Sherds for ICPS

The 32 Cibola White Ware and Gray Ware sherds selected for ICPS were also refired to provide complementary data (Table B.1, Table B.2). A relatively small number of typable whiteware sherds (n=71) were recovered at this site and most of these were associated with the few recognizable vessels. The whiteware sample consisted of a sherd from each of the recognizable vessels plus any additional sherds not associated with these vessels. This resulted in the selection of 19 whiteware sherds. These came from seven Chaco/McElmo Black-on-white bowls, six Tularosa Black-on-white jars, two Klagetoh Black-on-white bowls, one Pinedale Black-on-white bowl, and two Pinedale Black-on-white jars. The indeterminate Cibola White Ware bowl sherd is from a partial vessel that is misfired pink and has paint that oxidized red.

Grayware sherds are more likely to be manufactured locally and are included to provide comparative data on the clay resources available locally. The 13 grayware sherds in the sample were selected from floor and floor fill contexts of structures and from sealed deposits within hearths. All of the grayware were from jars and included indented corrugated, festoon corrugated, and obliterated corrugated surface treatments.

All of the above sherds refired to Buff 1 and Buff 2 color groups (Table 7.14) suggesting that these vessels were made from similar clays. The whiteware and grayware refired to both color groups, suggesting that the whiteware was made from clays available locally. Interestingly, the Chaco/McElmo Black-on-white sherds are in the same color groups as the later whiteware and the grayware sherds from this site, indicating the use of clay with similar iron content, and possibly with similar chemical signatures. This will be explored further in the ICPS analysis section below.

Table 7.14. Refired Sherds by Color Group Ceramic Type Vessel Form Buff 1 Buff 2 Total

Indeterminate Cibola White Ware* Bowl 1 1 Chaco/McElmo Black-on-white Bowl 3 4 7 Tularosa Black-on-white Jar 2 4 6 Klagetoh Black-on-white Bowl 2 2 Pinedale Black-on-white Bowl 1 1 Pinedale Black-on-white Jar 2 2 Indented Corrugated Cibola Gray Ware Jar 5 6 11 Festoon Corrugated Jar 1 1 Obliterated Corrugated Jar 1 1 Total 14 18 32

* From partial vessel and is misfired – pink paste and red oxidized paint.

Misfired White Mountain Red Ware Sherds

A small number of White Mountain Red Ware sherds were coded as misfired during analysis (see rim sherd in Figure 7.1). These sherds had surfaces that were gray to pale

orange to pale yellow and pastes that were gray to very pale brown to white. The pale orange to pale yellow surfaces were unusual and appeared to fit the description for Kintiel-Klagetoh Black-on-orange and Polychrome (Andrews 1978; Carlson 1970; Colton 1956;


Colton and Hargrave 1937; Fowler 1989; Hays-Gilpin and van Hartesveldt 1998; Reed 1955). A sample of these sherds was refired to determine whether these sherds were misfired or if they were sherds from Kintiel-Klagetoh Black-on-orange and Polychrome vessels.

Distinguishing between misfired White Mountain Red Ware and Kintiel-Klagetoh Black-on-orange and Polychrome has important implications for ceramic production and distribution. Misfired sherds suggest that these may have been produced locally. Kintiel-Klagetoh Black-on-orange and Polychrome are believed to be manufactured in the Kintiel (Wide ruins) and Manuelito areas of Arizona and New Mexico, approximately 121 km (75 mi) and 72 km (45 mi) west and northwest, respectively, of LA 153714, and would provide evidence of exchange with these regions.

Klagetoh Black-on-yellow and Polychrome, and Kintiel Black-on-orange and Polychrome were initially described by Colton and Hargrave (1937). Reed (1955) found that these types were not easily distinguishable from each other and lumped them into Kintiel-Klagetoh Black-on-orange and Polychrome (see also Fowler 1989; Hays-Gilpin and van Hartesveldt 1998). Hays-Gilpin and van Hartesveldt (1998:172) provide a comprehensive description of these types. The paste ranges from orange to brown, dark yellow, white or gray; surfaces are polished; and the slip, if present, can be thin or thick, ranges from “dirty yellow” to gray, tan, or orange. Refired paste colors vary widely and include all groups from Buff 1 through Red 7.

Of the 49 sherds with the above characteristics and coded as “misfired,” 20 were refired (Table 7.15). A limited number of refired colors were noted. Pastes were primarily pink, very pale brown, or reddish yellow and slips were light red or reddish

yellow. Most of the pastes refired to the Buff 2 color group, with only a few sherds refired to the Buff 1, Buff 3, and Yellowish Red 4 color groups. Slips on the refired nips were more apparent and appeared thicker than on the original sherds.

This author also visited the Ceramic Repository at the Museum of Northern Arizona (MNA) to examine the Klagetoh Black-on-yellow and Polychrome and Kintiel Black-on-orange and Polychrome placed in the type collection by Colton when he first described these types. The MNA sherds were different from the LA 153714 sherds, offering conclusive evidence that the latter were misfired White Mountain Red Ware sherds, not Kintiel-Kalgetoh types. The MNA sherds had an orange-yellow surface, and the color was much more even and consistent across the sherds than on those in the LA 153714 assemblage; the surface color of the latter sherds is uneven and a single sherd can be gray, pale orange, and pale yellow.

Unidentifiable Sherds

Four unusual sherds that could not be identified to ware were refired. Refiring revealed that these were from the same vessel. The sherds were soft, had a dark gray paste, dark brown to dark gray surfaces, and were tempered with crushed sherd. They appeared to be slipped on both surfaces but it was difficult to see the slip even under high magnification. One was a rim sherd decorated with a thin banding line just below the rim, which appears to be a mix of organic and mineral paint. All sherds were the same color before (Gley1 4/N – dark gray) and after refiring (7.5YR 8/3 – pink); they refired to the Buff 2 color group. The slip (10R 6/6 – light red) was very apparent on both surfaces of the refired nips. Refiring indicated that these were low-fired White Mountain Red Ware bowl sherds.


Table 7.15. Refired Misfired White Mountain Red Ware Sherds Paste Slip

FS Bag Item Munsell Before Color Before Munsell

After Color After Color Group Munsell Before Color Before Munsell

After Color After

8 A 1 Gley1 5/N gray 5YR8/4 pink Buff 3 10YR6/3 pale brown 5YR6/8 reddish yellow 149 A 9 10YR8/2 very pale brown 7.5YR8/4 pink Buff 2 10YR6/2 light brownish gray 5YR7/6 reddish yellow 246 A 1 Gley1 5/N gray 7.5YR7/4 pink Buff 2 10YR5/2 grayish brown 2.5YR6/6 light red 261 B 7 Gley1 5/N gray 7.5YR7/3 pink Buff 2 10YR5/2 grayish brown 2.5YR6/6 light red 262 A 3 Gley1 5/N gray 7.5YR7/4 pink Buff 2 10YR5/3 brown 2.5YR6/6 light red

290 A 1 Gley1 8/N white 7.5YR7/4 pink Buff 2 10YR6/4 light yellowish brown 2.5YR6/6 light red

300 A 3 10YR7/2 light gray 7.5YR7/6 reddish yellow Yellowish Red 4 10YR7/2 light gray 5YR7/6 reddish yellow 313 A 3 Gley1 6/N gray 7.5YR8/4 pink Buff 2 2.5Y7/2 light gray 5YR6/6 reddish yellow 328 A 5 10YR8/2 very pale brown 7.5YR8/4 pink Buff 2 10YR7/2 light gray 5YR6/6 reddish yellow 334 A 1 10YR8/2 very pale brown 7.5YR8/4 pink Buff 2 10YR7/2 light gray 5YR6/6 reddish yellow 362 A 1 10YR8/2 very pale brown 7.5YR8/4 pink Buff 2 10YR7/2 light gray 5YR6/6 reddish yellow 372 A 1 10YR8/2 very pale brown 7.5YR8/4 pink Buff 2 10YR7/2 light gray 5YR6/6 reddish yellow 436 A 4 10YR7/2 light gray 7.5YR8/4 pink Buff 2 10YR7/1 light gray 5YR6/6 reddish yellow 436 A 5 10YR8/2 very pale brown 7.5YR8/4 pink Buff 2 10YR7/2 light gray 5YR6/6 reddish yellow 470 A 6 10YR8/2 very pale brown 7.5YR8/4 pink Buff 2 10YR7/3 very pale brown 5YR6/6 reddish yellow 590 A 14 10YR8/1 white 10YR8/2 very pale brown Buff 1 10YR7/2 light gray 2.5YR6/6 light red 624 A 4 10YR8/1 white 10YR8/2 very pale brown Buff 1 7.5YR6/4 light gray 5YR6/6 reddish yellow

637 A 5 Gley1 7/N* light gray 5YR7/4 pink Buff 3 10YR6/3 pale brown 2.5YR6/6 light red

644 A 3 10YR7/1** light gray 7.5YR8/4 pink Buff 2 10YR5/3 brown 2.5YR6/6 light red

654 A 12 7.5YR6/2 pinkish gray 10YR8/2 very pale brown Buff 1 10YR6/2 light brownish gray 2.5YR7/6 light red

* Measured rind; core is Gley1 4/N (dark gray). ** Measured rind; core is close to Gley1 7/N (light gray).


ICPS Analysis

ICPS provides chemical characterization, or quantified elemental compositions, for each sample. Chemical characterization is “the qualitative and quantitative description of the composition and structure of a ceramic so as to evaluate its properties and uses” (Rice 1987:309). The goal of ICPS is to obtain data on relative quantities of elements present in pottery and potential raw materials in order to address questions relating to production and distribution.

For this project, ICPS analysis focused on the Cibola Tradition ceramics to determine whether sherds from LA 153714 were from vessels produced locally or imported. The production dates for one type within the Cibola White Ware group—Chaco/McElmo Black-on-white—are considerably earlier than the remaining decorated types recovered. Through ICPS, Chaco/McElmo Black-on-white sherds are compared to the other ceramics at this site to determine if they were local or imported.

SWCA has performed ICPS on several projects over the years, thereby increasing the database of results. In addition, the available ICPS sample also includes data from Statistical Research Institute’s (SRI’s) work on the Fence Lake Project. Information on these projects is provided in Table 7.16. Data on the Cibola Tradition ceramics and the raw clay from these previous projects were compared with those from the current project to identify any local and regional trade networks and to determine if production locales could be identified. All of the samples—including previous and current—were analyzed by the Royal Holloway

Geology Department, University of London, England, and were subjected to the same statistical procedures.

The total ICPS sample used here consists of 125 Cibola White Ware sherds, 73 Cibola Gray Ware sherds, and 41 unfired clay samples or test tiles (Table 7.17). The whiteware sample includes sherds from a variety of types spanning Late Basketmaker III to Pueblo III time periods. Similarly, the grayware sample includes sherds with a variety of surface treatments (plain, clapboard, obliterated, festoon, indented corrugated, or indeterminate), also spanning several time periods. The unfired clay samples were collected from archaeological contexts (from features within sites) or from geologic deposits in or near the projects’ rights-of-way.

The distinction between archaeological and geologic contexts is important because the clays from geologic contexts indicate which clays are available locally, while the clays from archaeological contexts indicate which clays were most likely selected and used by the prehistoric inhabitants. Some of these culturally deposited clays were perhaps transported to the sites. In addition, the processing of clays and the addition of temper alters the chemical composition of the final product so the direct comparison of the raw clays with the recovered ceramics are difficult, and exact matches of ceramics with clay sources rarely occur. Nevertheless, by comparing the chemical signatures, candidates for clay sources can be determined or ruled out.


Table 7.16. Projects Included in the ICPS Analysis Project ICPS Samples Location of Project in Relation to LA 153714

N2007 16 clay samples 113 km (70 mi) west; south of Navajo, AZ N9 (2-1) 65 sherd samples

3 clay samples 89 km (55 mi) north; between US 491 and Coyote Canyon, NM

N9 (5-1) 20 sherd samples 5 clay samples

89 km (55 mi) north; between Coyote Canyon and Standing Rock, NM

Fence Lake, AZ – SWCA 37 sherd samples 5 clay samples

97 km (60 mi) southwest; AZ side of Fence Lake area

Fence Lake, NM – SRI 11 sherd samples 6 clay samples

80 km (50 mi) southwest; NM side of Fence Lake area

N27 33 sherd samples 6 clay samples

161 km (100 mi) northwest; between Chinle and Nazlini, AZ

Table 7.17. Distribution of ICPS Sherd and Clay Samples by Project

Type LA 153714 N2007 N9

(2-1) N9

(5-1)

Fence Lake,

AZ (SWCA)

Fence Lake, NM

(SRI) N27DR Total

Indeterminate Cibola White Ware 1 1 La Plata Black-on-white 3 1* 4 White Mound Black-on-white 5 4 3* 12 Kiatuthlanna Black-on-white 5 4 11 20 Red Mesa Black-on-white 5 3 8 Escavada Black-on-white 5 1 6 Gallup Black-on-white 7 10 3 20 Reserve Black-on-white 5 8 13 Chaco Black-on-white 5 5 Chaco/McElmo Black-on-white 7 5 12 Tularosa Black-on-white 6 8 14 Klagetoh Black-on-white 2 5 7 Pinedale Black-on-white 3 3 Cibola Gray Ware 13 15 10 13 11 11 73 Unfired Clay Sample/Test Tile 16 3 5 5 6 6 41 Total 32 16 68 25 42 17 39 239

*One La Plata Black-on-white and one White Mound Black-on-white have fugitive red exteriors.


The Royal Holloway uses a full dissolution ICPS method, which combines clay and temper materials in one sample. An alternative ICPS procedure using a weak-acid extraction method to separate clay from temper (Burton and Simon 1993) is not directly comparable to the one used by the Royal Holloway. Therefore, one can only compare data among projects where the same method was used. It is important to note that the “preparation of clays, especially blending and purification, and the subsequent changes through firing and burial, may all have an impact on the analytical results” (Barclay 2001:17). With the full dissolution method, one cannot expect exact matches between pottery and unprocessed clays, but one can ascertain whether different pottery samples come from the same or different “recipes” and “ingredients.”

A small sample (at least 0.2 g) of each of the selected sherds was ground into a powder. Samples were taken from unpainted portions of the sherds to minimize the effect mineral paint would have on the results. Samples were heated to a temperature of 6000oK, creating a plasma (ionized) flame. The high temperature caused ions to emit light wavelengths, with each chemical element emitting a specific light wavelength. Instruments detected the major, minor, and trace amounts of elements within a sample. Statistical methods were used to manipulate the resulting data.

ICPS analysis identified 29 major, minor, and trace elements recorded in parts per million for each sample submitted (Appendix C). Using SPSS, a statistical package, the raw data were converted into z-scores to standardize the data so that the major elements would not overwhelm the analysis and so that the trace elements would be weighed equally to the major and minor elements. The trace elements have the potential of offering the most data when distinguishing between sherds and clays. The

standardized data were then analyzed using both principle components and discriminant function analyses. These two statistical techniques were used to determine if discrete chemical signatures of the various ware and type groups were discernable.

Based on the results presented in Appendix C, there is little difference between the Cibola White Ware and Cibola Gray Ware samples. The results of the principal component analysis (PCA) indicate that the chemical signatures of the whiteware, grayware, and clay samples overlap considerably (see Figure 7.15, Figure 7.16, and Figure 7.17). PCA plots of the whiteware samples by ceramic type again indicate that the chemical signatures overlap considerably (see Figure 7.18, Figure 7.19, and Figure 7.20). Discrete groups based on chemical composition cannot be identified. Similarly, the results of the discriminant function analysis (DFA) indicate that membership of a sherd to a ware cannot be predicted (total error rate of 23 percent; see Figure 7.18). This suggests that 1) similar sources were used for both the grayware and whiteware sherds, 2) production locales were limited, that is, only a few areas were manufacturing and distributing pottery, or 3) the geology of the entire region is compositionally more uniform than originally thought.

To test these hypotheses, a PCA plot of the samples by type (whiteware, grayware, and clay samples) and by project was created to determine if patterns in the distribution of sherds and clays could be discerned (see Figure 7.21). Similarly, a PCA plot of the sherds from LA 153714 by ceramic ware/type was performed to determine if sherds from similar types clustered and, in particular, if the Chaco/McElmo Black-on-white sherds could be differentiated (Figure 7.22). A few distinct patterns emerged when the sherd and clay samples were examined by project. The following were noted:


1) Overall, the LA 153714 sherds form two distinct clusters. The N9 (2-1 and 5-1) samples form one cluster. Nearly all of the N2007 samples, all of which were unfired clay samples, form a different cluster. The Fence Lake samples (SWCA and SRI) and the N27 samples are dispersed throughout the plot.

2) The cluster of N9 (2-1 and 5-1) sherds is located in the upper portion of the plot and several clay samples from both segments of N9 fall within the cluster. This suggests that N9 sherds were made from these or similar clays and that the pottery from this area was probably manufactured locally.

3) One of the LA 153714 clusters falls within the N9 cluster, suggesting that these sherds could have been made within the N9 region. Another of the LA 153714 clusters lies on the edge of the N9 cluster, also suggesting—albeit to a lesser degree—a common origin for these sherds.

4) Some of the Fence Lake samples (SWCA and SRI) overlap with the N9 samples, suggesting common origin of the sherds or use of similar clays.

5) The N2007 samples were all unfired clay samples, only one of which may be a candidate for the LA 153714 sherds.

6) Some of the N27 sherds cluster with the N9 sherds, and some of the N27 sherds and clays cluster with the N2007 clays, suggesting a common origin within the overlapping clusters.

7) Three of the LA 153714 sherds (two Tularosa Black-on-white and one Klagetoh Black-on-white) form one cluster that, as noted above, overlaps with the N9 sherds (Figure 7.22). The remaining sherds from LA 153714 form a separate elongated cluster that includes all of the grayware sherds sampled. Four

Chaco/McElmo Black-on-white sherds form a group at one end of the cluster and three others form another group at the opposite end of the cluster. Following the assumption that grayware vessels are more likely to be produced at or near where they were used, this suggests a local origin for all of the vessels in this elongated cluster. It also suggests that the clays in the area of LA 153714 are much more heterogeneous than originally believed when examined at this level.

To summarize, the results of the ICPS analysis suggest that several areas produced pottery and this pottery was traded widely. Sites within several of the project areas participated in pottery production as well as importation of vessels and this was not necessarily ware dependent, although whiteware was more likely to be imported than grayware. The wide distribution of the sherds and clays suggest that prehistoric potters focused on clays with specific characteristics but did not necessarily focus on specific local sources of clay for production.

The data for LA 153714 suggest that vessels at this site were produced in the El Morro area or were imported from areas to the north. The absence of raw or unfired clay, or tools associated with ceramic production (ceramic scrapers) does not support ceramic production at LA 153714, suggesting that the inhabitants of the site probably traded vessels with other households or communities relatively close to them.

The results of the current analysis concur with what was found during the Fence Lake Project, the project closest to LA 153714. During the Fence Lake Project, we found that Cibola White Ware throughout the region was made of similar materials found in several different places (Hagopian, Hays-Gilpin, and Hasbargen 2004; Hagopian, Beck, and Hays-


Gilpin 2004). We also found that there was a great deal of overlap between the Cibola White Ware and Cibola Gray Ware, indicating that these were made of similar materials as well. The grayware was more chemically diverse, however, suggesting that a wider range of clay sources was used to produce the grayware vessels. We concluded that “Although the Fence Lake samples are similar to each other, they do not cluster tightly, suggesting that more than a few clays sources were used or that local sources are chemically diverse” (Hagopian, Hays-Gilpin, and Hasbargen 2004:1053). Most likely, the geology of the entire region is compositionally more uniform than originally thought.

Chaco/McElmo Black-on-white at LA 153714

Chaco/McElmo Black-on-white, the only carbon painted type within the Cibola White Ware, was most likely produced in the Chaco Canyon region or, at the least, within the San Juan Basin (Franklin 1982a, 1982b; Toll et al. 1980; Windes 1985; see also Hays-Gilpin and van Hartesveldt 1998), and widely traded. In the A.D. 1100s, it is found in comparable amounts to other decorated types in and around Chaco Canyon. Roberts (1927) believed that Pueblo Del Arroyo was possibly a production center for this type because it was so common there (see also Windes 1984).

The distribution of Chaco/McElmo Black-on-white decreases the farther an area is from Chaco Canyon. Hence, Chaco/McElmo Black-on-white is found within the southern Cibola region but in considerably small numbers. It was recovered from sites on the Pueblo of Zuni Indian Reservation (Varien 1987, 1990; six sherds from each project and were called Carbon Paint Black-on-white) and as far west as N2007 (Blinman 1997, two sherds), the Navajo Springs Great House and the Houck Great House (Hays-Gilpin and van Hartesveldt 1998). Carbon painted sherds,

presumably Chaco/McElmo Black-on-white, were also found at sites along the Puerco River of the East (Franklin 1982a, 1982b).

The Chaco/McElmo Black-on-white sherds from LA 153714 (see Figure 7.3) fit the type description provided by many researchers in Chaco Canyon and the San Juan Basin (Franklin 1982a, 1982b; Franklin and Ford 1982; Toll et al. 1980; Windes 1984, 1985; Windes and McKenna 1989). Seventeen sherds were recovered, many of which refit or are from the same vessel. At least seven vessels are represented, all of which are bowls. One sherd (the only one with rim ticking) had a thickening of the vessel wall characteristic of a handle attachment area and may be from a ladle. The sherds are painted with organic paint and are tempered with crushed sherds. The sherds are poorly slipped but do not have a thin washy slip on their exteriors. Surfaces are unevenly or incompletely polished, and burnishing marks and areas not polished can be seen. These slip and surface characteristics sound like those described and classified as Cibola Carbon Black-on-white by Franklin (1982a, 1982b; Franklin and Ford 1982) to distinguish these sherds from the “classic” Chaco/McElmo with a washy slip. The organic paint is generally faint and blotchy, and lines are of uneven width.

All seven vessels have rim sherds associated with them, and of these five are square, including one that has rim ticking, and two are rounded. Designs include an open grid pattern, large checkerboard pattern, small and tight checkerboard pattern with rim ticking, thick banding line followed by four narrow lines, and Sosi style lines in a geometric pattern, one of which ends with a barb. Designs, when discernable, are of the classic Chaco-McElmo style—checkerboards, Sosi style geometric bands, and banding lines below rim—but a few do not fit this classic style—including a large open grid and even


larger checkerboard. These later examples may be what Franklin (1982a, 1982b; Franklin and Ford 1982) called Cibola Carbon Black-on-white.

It was hypothesized that the ICPS analysis would reveal a separate and distinct production locale for the Chaco/McElmo Black-on-white sherds when compared to the other, and presumably local, whiteware and grayware sherds from LA 153714. This was not the case. The Chaco/McElmo Black-on-white sherds clustered with most of the whiteware and all of the grayware sherds from the site. Still, the production dates for Chaco/McElmo sherds are earlier than most of the other diagnostic decorated types recovered at LA 153714, suggesting that these vessels were curated and considered important or valuable. It is possible that these vessels were imported from the San Juan Basin or were brought with the inhabitants of the site as they migrated to the area.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Data recovery excavations at LA 153714 yielded 2,298 ceramic artifacts. After eliminating sherds too small for analysis (n=549), a total of 1,749 ceramics was analyzed and discussed in this chapter. The goals of this analysis were: (1) to identify ceramic artifacts by ware and type; (2) to develop a chronological framework for the site, based on identification of ceramic styles and types with known production dates; (3) to briefly examine site function based on vessel form; and (4) to consider the ceramic assemblage in a regional context and address economic and/or social ties with neighboring groups based on ceramic production and distribution.

The assemblage was dominated by Cibola Gray Ware sherds, but also included White Mountain Red Ware and Cibola White Ware sherds. The redware consisted of St. Johns

Black-on-red, St. Johns Polychrome, Pinedale Black-on-red, and Pinedale Polychrome. The whiteware consisted of Red Mesa, Escavada, Chaco/McElmo, Tularosa, Klagetoh, and Pinedale black-on-whites.

Based on these ceramic types, the mean ceramic date for the site is A.D. 1255, the mean ceramic date range is A.D. 1229–1281, and the minimum use date is A.D. 1200–1275. Hence, ceramic evidence suggests that LA 153714 was abandoned sometime shortly after A.D. 1275. However, tree-ring dates indicate that the roof of the Feature 24 pit structure was constructed in A.D. 1275, and a series of 13 radiocarbon dates place the site largely between A.D. 1230 and A.D. 1350. Still, the relatively large number of recognized vessels compared to the number of sherds recovered and the tightly clustering ceramic types suggest that the inhabitants of LA 153714 occupied this site for a relatively short period of time.

Vessel forms correlate with the architectural evidence that LA 153714 is a habitation site. Grayware vessels were used for cooking and storage. Redware and whiteware vessels were used for serving and storing. Only one vessel was found in situ. It was a reconstructable indeterminate corrugated Cibola Gray Ware wide mouth jar found on the floor of the plastered Feature 24 pit structure. It was found with a jar cover and was probably used for cooking or storage. The lack of floor assemblages in the remaining structures, as well as the clear use of various structures as trash dumps, limits further discussion of feature function.

Considering the ceramic assemblage in a regional context and addressing the economic and/or social ties with neighboring groups based on ceramic production and distribution was approached through oxidation and ICPS analyses. The tight clustering of all the whiteware and grayware sherds from several


regions suggests that multiple areas produced pottery, and this pottery was widely traded, or that the geology of the entire region is compositionally more uniform than originally thought. The Chaco/McElmo Black-on-white sherds serve as an example. The distribution of this ceramic type indicates that it was produced in the heart of the San Juan Basin, probably in and around Chaco Canyon, and was traded widely. At the same time, the ICPS analysis revealed that, compositionally, most of the Chaco/McElmo sherds from LA 153714 clustered with sherds of the same type analyzed during other projects. This suggests that, overall, the geology of the El Morro Valley and the San Juan Basin is compositionally more uniform than originally thought. Still, the fact that the Chaco/McElmo sherds from Hokona fell into two distinct groups within the ICPS cluster suggests that there is some local geological variability, and the Chaco/McElmo sherds recovered from LA 153714 may have come from two different sources within the San Juan Basin. The fact that those vessels date earlier than most of the decorated vessels at Hokona suggests that they were probably curated, and were considered particularly important or valuable to the inhabitants of the site.


Figure 7.15. Bivariate plot of Principal Components 1 and 2, sample ware group indicated.


Figure 7.18. Bivariate plot of Principal Components 1 and 2, Cibola White ware samples only, sample type group indicated.


Figure 7.21. Bivariate plot of Principal Components 1 and 2, sample ware and firm/project group indicated.


Figure 7.22. Bivariate plot of Principal Components 1 and 2, Cibola White and Gray ware samples from LA 153714 only, sample ware and type groups indicated.

Chapter 8 Lithic Artifacts 183

CHAPTER 8 LITHIC ARTIFACTS


Research questions addressed by the analysis of lithic artifacts from LA 153714 pertained to the nature of site use, spatial and temporal relationships among features, post-depositional processes, and regional mobility and exchange patterns. Accordingly, this chapter presents descriptive results of the lithic artifact analysis, and summarizes evidence that helps to answer each of those questions. The first section of this chapter provides an overview of the lithic assemblage from LA 153714. The second section analyzes ground stone, using methods outlined in Van Hoose and Lundquist (2002). Included in that section are a discussion of the ornaments and ornament materials found at the site and a description of the recovered manuports. The third section describes some analytical methods used for all of the categories of flaked stone and summarizes raw material use. The fourth section discusses the site’s three projectile points using a method adapted from Turnbow (1997). The fifth section describes and classifies Hokona’s stone tools, using methods adapted from Rozen (1984) and Lundquist (2004). The sixth section describes the various kinds of cores found in the assemblage, following Huckell (1973). The seventh section addresses utilized flakes and unused flaked stone debitage, both of which are classified according to an expanded Sullivan and Rozen (1985) method. The eighth section compares LA 153714’s lithic assemblage with others from a comparable nearby archaeological project. The ninth and final section addresses

the project’s research questions using the results of the analysis.

CHARACTERISTICS OF HOKONA’S

LITHIC ASSEMBLAGE

Lithic artifacts represent only a small portion of the cultural assemblage recorded at LA 153714. In comparison with the thousands of ceramic artifacts found at the site, only 398 pieces of flaked stone and ground stone, including pieces used for ornaments, were recovered. Following the data recovery plan (Railey et al. 2006), all lithic artifacts from LA 153714’s modest assemblage were analyzed. In total, 94 pieces of ground stone, 3 projectile point fragments, 12 tools, 15 cores, 265 pieces of lithic debitage (including utilized flakes), and 9 manuports were found at LA 153714 (Table 8.1). Of the ground stone, 20 pieces were so thin and fine that they appeared to be the result of ornament production, rather than implements for resource processing. Similarly, of the debitage, 11 pieces were siltstone and also appeared to be related to ornament production, rather than stone tool production. Likewise, seven of the manuports were unmodified pieces of siltstone that may have been brought to the site for later ornament production. Accordingly, while the 20 pieces of ground stone and 11 pieces of flaked stone are included in their respective statistical analyses, the entire assemblage of finished and unfinished ornaments and appropriate raw materials should be viewed as a related and unique group of artifacts.

Table 8.1. Lithic Artifacts Analyzed from LA 153714

Site Age Ground Stone

Projectile Points Tools Cores Debitage/

Used Flakes Manuports Total

LA 153714 Pueblo III 94 3 12 15 265 9 398


When analyzing lithic artifacts from prehistoric archaeological sites, it can be important to distinguish between objects from surface and subsurface contexts; differences in raw material types and/or artifact forms from different stratigraphic contexts can suggest multiple occupations at a site, as different people bring materials from different areas and/or carry out different kinds of activities. At the same time, consistent differences in surface and subsurface artifact sizes can point to the action of post-depositional processes, such as eolian deposition, whereby smaller artifacts are buried or move downwards, but larger ones remain on the surface. At LA 153714, the most appropriate comparison first appeared to be between artifacts from surface and near-surface masonry structures, on the one hand, and subsurface pit structures, on the other hand. However, excavation and feature processing indicated that virtually all of the deposits found within the pit structures probably came from the slightly later site occupation(s) associated with the masonry structures; with the exception of artifacts and macrobotanical materials found directly on the floor of the Feature 24 pit structure, all of the other fill found within the pit structures was composed of naturally wind- and water-deposited sediments and post-occupation trash. Ceramic and ground stone refits, discussed and illustrated in this chapter and in Chapter 7 and Chapter 14, demonstrate that natural and/or human processes displaced Hokona’s artifacts both horizontally and vertically, so that pit structure deposits and masonry structure deposits largely are

temporally and culturally indistinguishable. Accordingly, no surface-to-subsurface comparisons were done for LA 153714.

GROUND STONE

Ninety-four pieces of ground stone from a maximum of 81 different objects were analyzed from LA 153714. Included in this category are hand stones, grinding stones, other shaped and/or ground stone objects, unidentified shaped and/or ground stone objects, and ornaments. A majority of ground stone objects were made of sandstone most likely collected along the base of the mesa located more than 100 m (328.1 ft) west of the site. Still, a handful of manos were made of basalt, such as that found just west of the site, and three ground stone or shaped stone objects were made of quartz or quartzite, most likely collected from gravels located within a few miles of the site. Ground stone is first and foremost associated with food processing, and specifically with the grinding of seeds and grain, although pigments and other items also can be ground. Shaped and/or ground stone objects can have other uses, as well, including as pot lids and ventilator shaft covers, both of which were found at LA 153714. In addition, ground stone objects can represent specialized products such as pendants and other ornaments. Table 8.2 summarizes the kinds of ground stone artifacts found at LA 153714, quantified as both individual pieces and as maximum numbers of individual objects as a result of refitting. Raw data from analysis of ground stone artifacts are presented in Table 8.2.


Table 8.2. Numbers of Individual Pieces and Maximum Numbers of Objects for Each Category of Ground Stone Found at LA 153714

Ground Stone Type No. of Pieces Maximum No. of Objects Abraders 6 6 Manos 16 14 Pestles 1 1 Polishing Stones 2 2

Hand Stones

TOTAL HAND STONES 25 23 Metates 13 7 Netherstones 13 10 Grinding Slabs TOTAL GRINDING STONES 26 17 Lids 4 3 Ventilator Shaft Covers 2 2 Other 4 3

Other

TOTAL OTHER 10 8 Unidentified Ground Stone 13 13 Unidentified TOTAL UNIDENTIFIED 13 13 Bead 1 1 Incomplete or Fragmentary Ornament 16 16

Finished Pendant 3 3 Ornaments

TOTAL ORNAMENTS 20 20 TOTALS 94 81

To analyze the ground stone artifacts, a system of recording used by Van Hoose and Lundquist (2002) was adopted. In this system, a typical piece of ground stone is classified into three broad categories: hand stones, grinding slabs, and unidentified ground stone. Given Hokona’s variety of other ground stone forms, the categories of “other” and “ornaments” also were used. Specific types of each general category are described below.

General raw material (e.g., vesicular basalt, sandstone) and material coarseness (fine, medium, coarse) were identified visually, while metric measurements of maximum length, width, and thickness (to the nearest tenth of a millimeter) were recorded with digital calipers for all complete artifacts. Weight was recorded to the nearest tenth of a gram on a digital scale for objects under 500 g and to the nearest gram for objects between 500 g and 5 kg.

Nominal and ordinal attributes recorded for all pieces of ground stone were completeness (broken, whole); degree of intentional shaping (none, slight, moderate, heavy); number of grinding surfaces; presence or absence of pecking; striation directionality (uni-directional or multi-directional); and grinding surface curvature. Roughing a surface by pecking is used to rejuvenate a worn, smooth grinding surface. Striation directionality records the primary direction of motion on ground stone. Grinding surfaces are recorded as flat (no noticeable curvature), uniaxially concave (concave relative to a single axis, but flat relative to the perpendicular axis), biaxially concave (concave relative to two perpendicular axes), uniaxially convex (convex relative to a single axis, but flat relative to the perpendicular axis), and biaxially convex (convex relative to two perpendicular axes). In general, hand stones are convex-to-flat and grinding slabs are flat-to-concave. Other attributes, including


burning and refitting, also were noted and proved to be some of the most important for helping to answer the project’s research questions.

As summarized in Table 8.3, 39 of 94 pieces (41.5 percent) of ground stone artifacts exhibited evidence for burning.

Table 8.3. Distribution of Pieces of Burned Ground Stone within LA 153714

Feature No. Feature Type Level Number of Burned Pieces

None Surface, midden, and non-feature contexts Surface—5 9 1 Main masonry/jacal habitation structure 1—3 6 3 Round masonry storage structure 2—3 6 4 Pit structure (storage pit) 11 1 14 Round masonry structure 3—4 5 19 Feature 1 mealing bin 3—4 2 22 Feature 24 ventilator shaft 2 1 22B Feature 24 hearth deflector N/A 1 23 Feature 24 hearth 2 2 24 Pit structure N/A 1 35 Square masonry structure 2 1 37 Pit structure (pit house) N/A 3 38 Concentration of broken ceramic vessels N/A 1 Total 39

Thirteen pieces of ground stone refit into five whole or still fragmentary objects, namely one mano, one metate, one netherstone, one pot lid, and one palette. In addition, several pairs of fragments—including those from manos, metates, netherstones, lids, and unidentifiable objects—appeared to be the same material and may originally have come from the same artifacts, but did not refit in their current forms. Because most of the pieces of ground stone that refit with others came from separate field specimen bags and were noted after analysis, all pieces of ground stone were counted separately—even those that refit within the same bag. That inflated the total ground stone artifact count slightly but helped to maintain consistency for studying post-depositional processes and the dispersion of artifacts and fragments across the site.

HAND STONES

Hand stones were classified based on overall shape, suitability of size for holding in the

hand, and presence of a convex-to-flat grinding surface. Most hand stones are manos, defined as a hand-held stone, usually fist-size or larger, that shows evidence of significant grinding against another rock (Lyon 2000). Other kinds of hand stones include abraders, polishing stones, and pestles. Twenty-five whole or fragmentary pieces of hand stones were found at LA 153714, although two pairs of pieces re-fit, for a total of only 23 different artifacts. Of those, 14 manos (10 two-hand, 1 one-hand, and 3 unidentified but most likely two-hand), 6 abraders, 2 polishing stones, and 1 pestle were recorded (Table D.1).

Abraders

Six abraders, all made of sandstone, were found at LA 153714. Abraders are fairly small pieces of stone that are unworked except for a flat face or faces created by rubbing the artifact across another surface. Abraders from Hokona generally are smaller and/or thinner than whole manos (average


maximum dimension 7 cm, range 4.0–10.5 cm), have one smoothed surface, and appear to be complete because the tops of all of their edges (even those that appear broken) are smoothed to at least some degree. The largest object classified as an abrader may be a fragment of a metate that was re-used for some kind of small-scale grinding after it was broken, but the others appear more likely to have originated as what they are. Five have irregular plan view shapes and flat grinding surfaces, while the sixth is ovate and has one flat and one uniaxially convex grinding surface. One of the six retains ocher on one of its faces.

Manos

Fourteen whole or fragmentary manos, all made of sandstone (n=9) or basalt (n=5), were identified at LA 153714. The fact that all but two of them are fragmentary suggests that they and/or the site were used intensively. In addition, half of them are burned, suggesting that post-depositional processes also significantly affected their condition. Since only two of the manos (two-hand measuring 22.90 × 13.50 × 14.62 cm; and one-hand measuring 13.80 × 9.90 × 5.38 cm) are complete, calculations based on metric measurements were not attempted. Even so, examining the morphology of the manos and their number of grinding surfaces provides important information for interpreting people’s activities at Hokona.

Manos can be classed as either one-hand or two-hand, based on their size and shape, with two-hand manos being longer and more rectangular and one-hand manos being smaller and rounder. Eighteen centimeters appears to be a useful dividing line between the two classes (Lyon 2000). While one-hand manos most often are paired with basin metates, two-hand manos are paired with trough or flat metates. Experimental and ethnographic studies have shown that two-hand manos have larger surface areas and

allow for more grinding pressure with less fatigue and thereby were used for more efficient and intensive grinding. That was desirous during later stages of agricultural production when maize was a staple food, populations were larger and perhaps more food stressed, and/or people wanted to increase grinding efficiency to leave time for other activities (Adams 1993).

Manos at LA 153714 were classed as one- or two-hand based on their size and morphology. All whole and fragmentary manos longer than 18 cm (n=4, including one formed by two refiting fragments) were considered two-hand, while whole manos shorter than 18 cm (n=1) were classed as one-hand. Fragments measuring between 7 and 14 cm in maximum dimension were classed largely according to their morphology; those that were subrectangular in plan view (n=4) or had flat grinding surfaces (n=2) were defined as two-hand because their morphology is consistent with two-hand use (Adams 1996). Supporting the two-hand designation was the fact that all but one of those fragments was at least 9 cm long and appeared to represent no more than half of a mano. Three other fragments, measuring between 7 and 11 cm in maximum dimension, were too fragmentary to assign to one of the mano classes. In total, ten manos (consisting of eleven fragments) were classed as the two-hand type, one was of the one-hand type, and three were too fragmentary to definitively assign to a class, although they likely also were of the two-hand variety. This predominance of two-hand manos alone suggests that food processing at the site generally was intensive, and that the site is characteristic of later Pueblo times.

Two shape attributes—plan-view and cross-section—also were recorded for manos. The plan-view shape, or shape as seen from above, could be ovate (relatively symmetrical with a long axis), sub-rectangular (highly symmetrical, with four highly rounded


corners), rectangular (symmetrical, with four slightly rounded corners), irregular (often ovate, but lacking symmetry), or unknown (too fragmentary for identification). Relatively complete manos at LA 153714 came in a variety of shapes, including sub-rectangular (n=5), ovate (n=3), and rectangular (n=2).

The cross-section shape of a mano refers to the orientation of the faces relative to one another, and together with grinding surface shape has been used by researchers to infer grinding practices (Adams 1993, 1999) and temporal affiliation (Carmichael 1986). Cross-section shapes include uniface (one grinding surface, with a relatively flat overall shape), parallel face (cross-section shows two parallel faces), wedge (faces oriented at a marked angle to one another in a wedge shape), and triangular (three grinding faces oriented at pronounced angles to one another). Parallel face manos generally are indicative of more extensive grinding than uniface manos, since both available surfaces have been used (Adams 1999). In this study, eight uniface and six parallel face manos were recovered. Four of the manos also had pecking on one or both faces, suggesting that they had been refurbished to improve grinding quality and/or use life.

Grinding surface shape, otherwise known as grinding surface curvature, can be flat, uniaxially or biaxially concave, or uniaxially or biaxially convex (see above and Figure 8.1). Each face of a mano can have a different shape, so each (if different) was recorded. Since only uniface and parallel face manos were found at LA 153714, a maximum of two different grinding surface shapes were recorded for each mano. Grinding surface shape is formed by different patterns of pressure applied to the mano during grinding; these generally stem from use with different kinds of metates or netherstones, as well as from different standard techniques (Adams

1993). Four of the uniface manos had flat cross-sections, while three had uniaxially convex cross-sections, and one had a well-worn, slightly biaxially concave cross-section. Of the six parallel face manos, four had flat faces, one had two uniaxially convex faces, and the other had one flat and one uniaxially convex face. One of the parallel face manos with flat faces from the Feature 19 mealing bin appeared to have been in the very early stages of use, since it exhibited grinding only on the protruding parts of its surface; its two faces had not yet been ground down to smooth surfaces. It is possible that its particularly rough surface was used for a preliminary stage of dry maize grinding, rather than for the final stages of creating flour. Given that two of the uniaxially convex manos are stained with ochre, they may have been used for special purposes other than just grinding foodstuffs. However, none of the metates retained ochre on their surfaces.

Use of flat or trough metates can result in either flat mano surfaces or uniaxially convex surfaces due to the application of different kinds of pressures on the forward and backward strokes; if the metate is held at an angle, chances are high that the associated mano will, over time, develop one or more uniaxially convex grinding surfaces. While manos used in trough metates can have the same grinding surface shapes, they also almost always exhibit smoothing on their ends, resulting from their rubbing on the sides of the metates (Adams 1993). In contrast, biaxially convex mano surfaces more commonly are associated with use in basin metates, as the mano is moved in a circular pattern (Adams 1993; Lyon 2000). Flat mano–metate sets often were used within a bin so that the plant materials being ground could be contained (Adams 1993). One such mealing bin was found at LA 153714—Feature 19 within the main Feature 1 masonry structure. Both of the manos from that feature were, indeed, flat, while the metate fragment


had one flat and one well-worn, slightly uniaxially concave, grinding surface. The presence of just one mealing bin for use by one or a few individuals makes sense, given the small size of the site and the possibility that just one individual could grind enough maize and other plant material for everyone, using efficient mano–metate sets. The presence of a one-hand mano (Figure 8.1 top

right) at LA 153714 is not unexpected, given that one basin metate was found at the site. Only one other mano (Figure 8.1 top center) exhibited any kind of polishing on its edge, such as might have occurred during its brief use in a trough metate. Since no such metates were found at LA 153714, that mano may have been carried in from elsewhere and re-used on one of the site’s flat metates.

Figure 8.1. Examples of manos from LA 153714. Clockwise from left: two flat, two-hand manos; one uniaxially convex one-hand mano; and two uniaxially convex two-hand manos.

Taken together, the evidence from Hokona’s manos suggests that people at the site practiced fairly intensive and extensive grinding, most likely of maize. Intensive grinding is suggested by the use of flat mano–metate sets and a mealing bin during at least one occupation of the site. Extensive grinding is evidenced by the fact that several manos have two grinding surfaces, five have pecking on at least one surface, and seven are less than 3 cm thick, suggesting that they have been worn down significantly.

Pestles

Pestles are generally cylindrical or somewhat triangular stones that show evidence of wear only on their ends. They can be used to grind small quantities of seeds, plants, pigments, minerals, or other special materials. One pestle (7.70 × 5.90 × 5.49 cm) was found in the middle of the Feature 24 pit structure fill. It was heavily used on both ends, with two faces worn into the smaller end from angular grinding. The entire edge of the larger end also was worn, and the end itself was slightly pitted (Figure 8.2)


Figure 8.2. Pestle recovered from LA 153714.

Polishing Stones

Polishing stones, which are usually smaller than manos and show a high luster characteristic of polishing activities, were the third sub-category of hand stone found at LA 153714. Polishing stones most frequently are used to finish ceramics (Akins 1997; Schachner and Kilby 2005). Two such objects were recovered—one (3.60 × 3.30 × 1.92 cm) from the context of the Feature 37 pit house and another (5.00 × 3.80 × 2.35 cm) from the so-called midden in the northeast portion of the site. Both polishing stones are made of quartzite. The wedge-shaped one recovered from the pit house showed evidence of being used on two faces.

GRINDING SLABS

Grinding slabs, including metates and netherstones, form a second major group of ground stone. Grinding slabs differ from hand stones in that they have a flat-to-concave grinding surface and are stationary while in use. Thus, they are usually larger than hand stones. Twenty-six pieces of grinding slabs were found at LA 153714, though many pieces refit so that a maximum of only 17

different artifacts were present. Striking similarities in the raw materials of other fragments suggest that even though they do not refit, they may originally have come from the same artifacts. Of the 17 total grinding slabs, 7 metates (6 flat and 1 basin) and 10 netherstones were recorded (Table D.2). Since all but one of the site’s grinding slabs were fragmentary, calculations based on metric measurements were not attempted. Even so, looking at the kinds of grinding slabs present at LA 153714 is informative about the activities conducted at the site.

Metates

Metates are large grinding stones used in conjunction with manos for relatively high volume grinding, such as processing maize and seeds. Various forms of metates are known, including basin, trough, flat or slab, and boulder types. Of those, only the first three types are relevant for this project. Basin metates have prepared concave surfaces against which smaller stones held in one hand are used in circular and/or reciprocal motions. Basin metates—the earliest type seen in the archaeological record of the Southwest—have been shown to require the most grinding


effort and to cause the most muscle fatigue. Trough metates are grinding slabs in which a long, rectangular groove is created in the surface of the slab; the movement of the paired mano is constrained by that groove and often exhibits rubbing on its ends as a result. Trough metates have been shown to be the easiest technology for grinding dry kernels and seeds because they keep the material in one place. However, they still cause moderate muscle fatigue because the grinding movement is constrained (Adams 1999). Flat metates have a large, unconstrained horizontal surface against which a flat-sided mano is used. Flat metates that have been used extensively may become slightly concave. Because flat metates are open on the sides, grains and seeds can fall out during grinding. However, their large surface area and the mano’s flexibility of movement help to increase grinding efficiency while reducing human fatigue (Adams 1993) and grinding within an enclosed mealing bin can help to keep ground plant materials in one place. Over time, as people relied more and more on maize and needed to grind larger volumes of meal to feed growing populations, they developed the more formal and efficient

trough and flat metate forms and mealing bins (Adams 1999; Shachner and Kilby 2005).

Experimental studies and ethnographic research suggest that, while flat mano–metate sets are the most efficient overall because they are the most comfortable to use and often have the largest surface area (Adams 1993), trough metates are better for grinding dried seeds and kernels because the metate edges contain the seeds. On the other hand, flat mano–metate sets are probably better for grinding soaked kernels and large seeds that stick to the extensive surface area (Adams 1999). The fragmentary nature of the larger ground stone pieces at LA 153714 makes it difficult to assign metate types with absolute certainty, but it is clear that flat metates were most abundant at Hokona. Out of the 13 metate fragments recovered from the site, 6 flat metates and 1 basin metate were identified. No trough metates were found at the site. Refitting seven partially burned metate fragments (Figure 8.3) recovered from across LA 153714 indicated that post-depositional processes had a significant impact on artifact integrity and final resting place (Figure 8.4).


Figure 8.3. Example of refitting metate fragments from LA 153714.


Figure 8.4. Three-dimensional representation of the dispersion of seven

pieces of a sandstone metate within LA 153714.


Netherstones

Netherstones are smaller than metates and are defined as grinding slabs less than 20 mm thick. Given their small size, it is unlikely that they were designed for grinding large quantities of grain or seed; rather, they probably were used to grind substances such as salt or pigment. They also could have served as portable grinding stones that people could have carried with them, although the presence of grinding “site furniture”—large pieces of ground stone and a mealing bin—at Hokona begs the question of why people would carry numerous smaller grinding stones with them to that location. A total of 14 pieces of netherstones were found at LA 153714, but refits reduced the maximum number of complete netherstones to 10. Of those, five were used on two sides. Eight had flat surfaces while one had a slightly uniaxially concave surface and the other had a somewhat uneven surface. Two of the netherstones with flat surfaces had unusual curving recessed areas that do not appear to be ground themselves, but do have unnatural looking forms. Because all of the netherstones identified at LA 153714 were fragmentary, no metric analyses were conducted. Still, the presence of a large number of netherstones and the fact that more than half of them were used on two sides suggests that people carried out diverse and frequent material processing activities at the site in addition to maize grinding. While only one netherstone appeared to retain ocher on its surface, post-depositional processes may have affected what materials were detectable on the surfaces of the netherstones. The large number of netherstones found at LA 153714 supports the idea that Hokona was a fully functioning, year-round settlement rather than a seasonal, agriculture-based settlement.

OTHER SHAPED AND/OR GROUND STONE OBJECTS

Included in the “other” category of ground stone from LA 153714 are what appear to be shaped and, in some cases, minimally ground pieces of pot lids, ventilator shaft covers, palette-like objects perhaps used for ornament production, and a shaped mealing bin wall support/possible cooking stone (Table D.3).

Four fragments of shaped stone pot lids were recovered from Features 1, 3, and 37 at LA 153714. Of those, two pieces refit within Feature 3, resulting in a maximum number of three lids. All were made of sandstone, with an average maximum dimension of 8.68 cm (range 7.6–10.8 cm) and thickness of 1.25 cm (range 0.80–1.99 cm).

Two fragments from different ventilator shaft covers also were found at LA 153714. One (47 cm long) (Figure 8.5) came from the lower fill of Feature 22, the ventilator shaft for the Feature 24 pit structure. The other (31.8 cm long) came from Trench 3, somewhat farther to the north and much closer to the surface. Both were flaked and shaped to form a rounded edge.

Two other more enigmatic fragmentary objects, one of which was broken into two pieces, were recovered from LA 153714 (Figure 8.5). Both are made of very thin pieces of sandstone (0.62 and 0.65 mm thick) that have been rounded off on one end but not used intensively on their edges. One flat face of each also has been slightly ground. The maximum lengths of the fragments are 6.9 cm and 8.3 cm. Windes (1993) found a very large number of similar objects at the Spadefoot Toad Site in Chaco Canyon that were specifically associated with turquoise manufacturing from a largely A.D. 925—1050 context (see also Akins 1997; Mathien 1993). Given that a total of 38 pendants, ornament fragments, and pieces of the same


raw material were recovered from LA 153714, it is certainly possible that these palette-like artifacts were used at Hokona in the same way—probably as shapers or

polishers. Other suggestions for these two objects include wood and/or leather finishing tools, paper-bread griddles, hide softening tools, and sandal lasts.

Figure 8.5. Two possible ornament polishing stones recovered from LA 153714.

The last object included in the ground stone “other” category was a large sandstone slab found in the Feature 19 mealing bin. It had been flaked and shaped around every edge to create a fairly regularly shaped, sub-rectangular block 75 × 31 × 7 cm in size (Figure 8.6). Discovered lying on its side oriented east–west, it may originally have been used to support a metate within the

mealing bin, although it exhibited little or no wear on its faces. It also seemed to be too big to fit in the hole that remained in the bin’s east wall. The slab’s flat surfaces were uneven and raw so they did not appear to have been used for grinding. In addition, the slab’s thickness probably precluded it from being used as a cooking stone.

Figure 8.6. Shaped block found in the Feature 19 mealing bin, facing north.


ORNAMENTS

Three different categories of personal ornamentation were recorded at LA 153714—beads, pendants, and ornaments (Table D.4). The categories of “bead” and “pendant” referred to finished products, while the term “ornament” was used for fragments of ground materials that were very thin, were not used for other purposes at the site, and, in most cases, were the same as those seen in the finished pendants. Eleven other pieces of siltstone (40.3 g total)—the material most frequently used for ornaments at LA 153714—displayed flake attributes, while another seven (7.1 g total) appeared to be unmodified (Table D.5). The uniqueness of the raw material suggests that the flaked and unmodified examples also were byproducts of

ornament manufacture, which can help in the understanding of the volume of production at the site. However, only the ones that were visibly ground are discussed here.

Beads

One very small, delicate bead (Figure 8.7) was recovered from LA 153714, from within the Feature 24 pit structure fill. Its size makes identifying its raw material difficult, but it may be schist; when applied to the bead’s surface, hydrochloric acid (HCl) caused no reaction. The bead is flat, with a central hole, and measures 0.60 × 0.50 × 0.06 cm. A similar looking bead, albeit made of shell, was found at one of the somewhat earlier Pueblo II-III Jones Ranch Road project sites, located farther west near Gallup (Anyon et al. 1983).

Figure 8.7. Bead found within Feature 24 fill at LA 153714.

Pendants

Two complete pendants (Figure 8.8) and one fragmentary pendant were recovered from Hokona. The complete examples came from the floor of the Feature 24 pit structure, in its southwest corner, immediately northwest of the whole corrugated pot that was left there. They clearly were associated with two other special objects located only a few centimeters away—a whole turkey bone awl and a large, retouched piece of Horace Mesa obsidian. Both pendants had left indentations in the floor of the structure so that their original locations could be seen (Figure 8.8). One of

the whole pendants was round and made of pink siltstone, with one hole near its top. It measured 2.5 cm in diameter and 0.43 cm thick. While polished, it retained some striations on both surfaces. The other complete pendant was slightly rectangular. It was made of grayish-green slate and had two cleverly drilled holes, one at each end; each hole consisted of two tunnels drilled at right angles to one another—one from the edge and the other from the face. As a result, the pendant (or ornament) could be sewn on or suspended without the attachment showing from the outside. It, too, was polished but retained striations.


Figure 8.8. Stone pendants found on the floor of Feature 24 at LA 153714.

The pendant fragment was made of dark gray micaceous schist and was covered in ochre, with a maximum dimension of 2.7 cm and a thickness of 1.6 cm. Unlike the whole pendants, the fragment was found in level 6 of the Feature 37 pit house. That level corresponded to the top of a thick midden deposit within the fill. Similar pendants exhibiting the same kind of variability in form and material were found at several of the somewhat earlier Pueblo II-III sites excavated during the Jones Ranch Road project between Manuelito Canyon and Whitewater Arroyo southwest of Gallup (Anyon et al. 1983).

Ornament Fragments

Sixteen other ornament fragments also were found at LA 153714. Most came from the midden area in the northeast portion of the site or from the Feature 24 pit structure and its

associated ventilator shaft. Eleven were siltstone, three were volcanic material, and two were micaceous schist. Half had been ground on one side, while the other half had already been worked on both faces. As a result of the grinding and the nature of the materials of which they were made, all but one had two flat faces; one of the ornaments made of a volcanic material retained a biaxially convex face. The ornaments’ average maximum dimension was 2.2 cm (range 0.9–3.4 cm) and average thickness was 0.4 cm (range 0.18–0.70 cm). Four of the incomplete ornaments—the ones from the Feature 22 ventilator shaft—were approaching their final stages of production, as their shapes had been roughed out and they were fairly evenly ground on both faces (Figure 8.9).

Figure 8.9. Ornament blanks recovered from Feature 22 at LA 153714.


Of the four, two were rectangular, one was a rounded square, and the other was rounded. They ranged in size from 1.5–2.0 cm, with a thickness of 0.19–0.38 cm. The relatively large number of pendants, blanks, ornament fragments, and pieces of unmodified raw material recovered from LA 153714 demonstrate that ornament production occurred on a fairly large scale. Whether people made the ornaments for a single occasion or produced them over time is unknown. However, at least one person (and perhaps at least two, given the difference in quality of the two complete finished pendants) appears to have been fairly adept at making ornaments.

UNIDENTIFIED GROUND STONE

Given the evidence for site remodeling and natural post-depositional processes active at LA 153714, it is not surprising that a number of pieces of ground stone recovered from the site were too fragmentary to be confidently identified. Of the 13 pieces of ground sandstone considered unidentifiable (Table D.6), one may be an abrader fragment, two may be fragments of netherstones, and two may be fragments of shaped mano edges. The remaining pieces are too small and/or non-distinctive to make an educated guess as to their original forms and functions. The unidentifiable pieces have an average maximum dimension of 4.6 cm (range 2.7–7.4 cm).

MANUPORTS

Nine manuports were recorded at LA 153714 (Table D.7), although seven of them were pieces of the light pink or gray siltstone that commonly was ground into ornaments (see above). Of the other two, one was an unusual, crystal-shaped piece of yellow-orange chert and the second was a nearly perfectly round, waterworn piece of pink and white quartz. Measuring 3 cm in maximum length, the

former was found in the bottom of the possible Feature 7 post hole, located just southeast of the Feature 1 masonry structure and north of the Feature 21 wind/water break (Figure 6.18). The small pebble, measuring 2 cm (0.8 in) in maximum dimension, was recovered from level 2 of FU 5, within the Feature 3 possible storage structure. While the pebble may have been used as a polishing stone or gaming piece, the faux crystal most likely was collected for its unique shape and color.

GROUND STONE SUMMARY

Ground (and shaped) stone artifacts recorded at LA 153714 are consistent with those expected at a small residential site that was occupied over only a few decades. They provide evidence that Hokona’s residents regularly ground maize, less frequently processed other foodstuffs and materials, and produced crafts, generally using materials that were available within a short distance from the site. As will be discussed further in Chapter 14, the breakage and dispersal of ground stone artifacts across the site contributed to the understanding of the site’s building sequence, re-use, and post-depositional processes.

FLAKED STONE

Two hundred ninety-five pieces of flaked stone were recovered from LA 153714 and all were analyzed. They included complete or fragmentary examples of 3 projectile points, 15 cores, 12 tools, 11 utilized flakes, and 254 pieces of unmodified debitage. Each different category of flaked stone is described in more detail below. Raw data from analysis of flaked stone artifacts are presented in Table 8.4.

While some analytical techniques are specific to different categories of flaked stone (e.g., projectile points, scrapers, cores, debitage),


other descriptive and statistical methods can be applied to any and all categories of flaked stone. This section outlines those common methods, while techniques specific to certain categories of flaked stone are described in the relevant sections that follow.

ATTRIBUTES RECORDED ACROSS ALL FLAKED STONE CATEGORIES

For all flaked stone artifacts, attributes minimally recorded included general raw material type (e.g., chert, petrified wood, quartzite); raw material texture (fine, medium, coarse); percentage of exterior cortex (0

percent, 1–9 percent, 10–89 percent, 90–99 percent, 100 percent); maximum dimensions (i.e., length, width, thickness); and weight. For flakes and flake-based tools, additional attributes included completeness (complete flake, broken flake, flake fragment, debris); platform type (crushed, cortical, faceted, plain), if present; and evidence for use wear according to edge shape (none, flat, convex, concave). In addition, evidence for heating or burning was noted. Thirty of 295 flaked stone artifacts (10.2 percent) exhibited evidence for either heat treating or burning. Table 8.4 shows the distribution of heat-treated and burned flaked stone artifacts across the site.

Table 8.4. Distribution of Pieces of Heat-treated or Burned Flaked Stone Within LA 153714.

Feature No. Feature Type Level Number of Heat-treated (*) or Burned Pieces

None Midden and non-feature contexts

1–4 8*

3 Round masonry storage structure

2 1*

14 Round masonry structure 6 1* 24 Pit structure 5 1* None Surface, midden, and non-

feature contexts Surface—5 11

1 Main masonry/jacal habitation structure

1 1

4 Pit structure (storage pit) 11 1 17 Round masonry/pit structure 4 1 21 Rock alignment (wind/water

break) 2 1

23 Feature 24 hearth 4 1 24 Pit structure 4 1 35 Square masonry structure 2 1 1-3 Main masonry/jacal habitation

structure and adjacent Round masonry storage structure

1 1

Total 30

Raw Materials

Documentation of lithic raw material types across different categories of flaked stone can help to identify materials present in surrounding areas, and to characterize patterns of material collection and use. For

example, water-deposited gravels located within a few miles of LA 153714 most likely provided a diversity of materials, including cherts, petrified wood, quartz, and quartzite, that inhabitants of the site could use for knapping. The exact source of siltstone found


at the site is unknown, but it probably is located in one or more geologic formations surrounding and/or left standing within the El Morro Valley. The abundant volcanic deposits in the area of LA 153714 make it likely that the few pieces of volcanic flaked stone also are from nearby sources. If people simply picked up whatever materials were at hand, without preferentially selecting any, ratios of different materials recovered from archaeological contexts should match those that are naturally occurring in the local area. On the other hand, people may preferentially have chosen very high quality materials, such as obsidian and good chert, for projectile points and delicate tools. At the same time, they may have chosen lower quality materials, such as quartzite, for hardier implements such as choppers. Hence, identifying any correspondence between raw material types and artifact forms can help us to understand prehistoric lithic technologies and landscape use.

The data recovery plan for LA 153714 (Railey et al. 2006) stated that lithic raw materials from Hokona would be identified to general type but not to specific source. However, the presence of two very distinctive raw materials—obsidian and Zuni spotted chert—resulted in their being identified as such during analysis. Another distinctive raw material very likely present in the assemblage but not specifically identified as such is Narbona Pass chert (Cameron 2001; Bruce

Huckell, personal communication 2007). Future comparisons of LA 153714 with other sites in the Zuni region should include source-specific identifications of lithic raw materials when possible, to get a more accurate picture of raw material acquisition at the site.

As a baseline for analysis of flaked stone raw material exploitation at LA 153714, Table 8.5 summarizes the total counts and frequencies of the nine material types recorded during analysis. Statistical tests such as Chi-Square were not used here because of the generally too small numbers of artifacts per analysis category. Still, some qualitative trends do seem to be apparent. For example, Zuni spotted chert—a very distinctive material often used in the region during later Puebloan times (LeTourneau 1997)—was the most common single material by count found at LA 153714, accounting for almost 34 percent of all flaked stone artifacts. It is closely followed by other cherts counted together, at nearly 32 percent of artifacts. Quartz and petrified wood represent smaller proportions, at close to 12 percent and 11 percent, respectively, while quartzite is half as common at a little more than 6 percent. Obsidian is represented by only two artifacts. While cores consist of five different general kinds of material, all but one of the flaked stone tools left at the site is made of some kind of chert, suggesting purposeful material choice for the latter. More trends in raw material choice are discussed in their appropriate sections below.


Table 8.5. Material Types and Frequencies for All Flaked Stone Artifacts from LA 153714

Material Projectile Points

Hammer-stones Scrapers Flake

Tools Bifaces Cores Utilized Flakes Debitage Count Percent

of Total Zuni Spotted Chert

3 1 4 5 86 99 33.56

Other Chert 3 1 1 1 5 4 79 94 31.86

Quartz 3 1 31 35 11.86

Petrified Wood 1 30 31 10.51

Quartzite 1 3 2 13 19 6.44

Siltstone 11 11 3.73

Volcanic 3 3 1.02

Obsidian 1 1 2 0.68

Sandstone 1 1 0.34 Total 3 4 4 3 1 15 11 254 295 100

Because of the possibility that their exact source locations could be identified, both pieces of obsidian recovered from LA 153714 were sent to Dr. Steven Shackley at the Berkeley Archaeological X-ray Fluorescence Laboratory for chemical analysis. That analysis suggested that the likely source group for both pieces was Horace Mesa at Mount Taylor (Chapter 14Appendix E). Located approximately 80.5 km (50 mi) northeast of LA 153714, Mount Taylor lies in the same general direction as, but slightly farther than, the possible sources of Zuni spotted chert. For the El Malpais Archeological Survey, Schachner and Kilby (2005) considered raw materials available less than 100 km (62 mi) away from a site as “local.” However, Puebloan people did not regularly travel 80 km to acquire lithic raw materials (e.g., Parry and Kelly 1987; Sullivan and Rozen 1985). Thus, the obsidian and even Zuni spotted chert are not considered to have been locally available to LA 153714. Hokona’s occupants likely traded for them, or possibly collected both during the course of other activities conducted in that area.

In addition to simple counts, a way of comparing quantities of different raw materials used at a site is to look at the total weight of artifacts. Weight more accurately measures material abundance than does numbers of flakes since it essentially corrects for artifact size. In all, 3.23 kg (7.1 pounds) of flaked stone artifacts were recovered from excavations at LA 153714. Table 8.6 shows average and total weights, in grams, of all flaked stone artifacts analyzed after data recovery. When total weights and percentages are compared to total numbers (Figure 8.10), Zuni spotted chert remains at the top of the list, with other cherts somewhat farther behind. In contrast, quartz drops from third place by count to fifth place by weight, suggesting that while there is a moderate number of flaked stone artifacts made of quartz, they are generally fairly small and light. Quartzite shows the opposite trend and actually has the greatest average weight, suggesting that the smaller number of pieces generally are larger than those of the other raw materials. One very large core of Zuni spotted chert skews the average for that material type; without that core, Zuni spotted


chert artifacts average only 3.00 g, suggesting that it was one of the most heavily reduced materials at the site. In contrast, even when one large quartzite core and one quartzite hammerstone are removed from that material’s average weight calculation, it still maintains the highest artifact weight average. That is consistent with what is usually found with coarse raw materials—they cannot be knapped as finely as high-quality chert and obsidian, for example, so they are most appropriately and commonly used for large, robust tools, rather than for delicate ones. Not surprisingly, then, the dense and less flakeable quartz and quartzite were the only materials used for hammerstones.

To correct for the weight bias created by the presence of a few large cores of certain materials, Table 8.6 and Figure 8.10 also include average and total weights and percentages by raw material without cores. When cores are removed from calculations, it can be seen that the numerous chert artifacts are, on average, fairly small. In contrast, the many fewer pieces of petrified wood and quartzite are, on average, fairly large. Unexpectedly for the material, the three pieces of flaked volcanic stone are extremely small.

Table 8.6. Comparison of Average and Total Flaked Stone Artifact Weights With and Without Cores by Material Type

Material Average Weight All (g)

Average Weight No Cores (g)

Total Weight All (g)

Total Weight No Cores (g)

Percent of All Weight

Percent of Weight No

Cores Zuni Spotted Chert 12.33 2.77 1221.04 262.84 37.73 20.60

Other Chert 9.29 2.77 873.32 246.52 26.98 19.32 Quartz 4.77 4.32 166.80 146.80 5.15 11.50 Petrified Wood 12.66 10.65 392.45 319.35 12.13 25.02

Quartzite 27.33 15.01 519.19 240.19 16.04 18.82 Siltstone 3.67 3.67 40.33 40.33 1.25 3.16 Volcanic 0.27 0.27 0.80 0.80 0.02 0.06 Obsidian 9.00 14.90 18.00 14.90 0.56 1.17 Sandstone 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 0.14 0.35 Total 9.31 6.54 3236.43 1276.23 100 100.00


05

10152025303540

Zuni S

potte

d Che

rt

Other C

hert

Quartz

Petrifie

d Woo

d

Quartz

ite

Siltston

e

Volcanic

Obsidi

an

Sands

tone

Raw Material

Perc

ent o

f Tot

al A

cros

s Ty

pes

Percent Count

Percent Weight

Percent Weight NoCores

Figure 8.10. Percents of analyzed flaked stone artifacts by raw material class, artifact count, and artifact weight.

In sum, the majority of flaked stone artifact production at LA 153714 involved raw materials that were immediately available. Two clear exceptions were two pieces of obsidian from the Mount Taylor area and a large number of pieces of Zuni spotted chert, most likely from the Zuni Mountains. A third likely example is Narbona Pass chert from the Chuska Mountains in northwestern New Mexico and eastern Arizona. While people selectively chose cherts for their tools—probably because of the material’s flaking quality—they chose denser quartz and quartzite for their hammerstones. Neither of these trends is unusual. Likewise, it is not surprising that, when cores were temporarily removed from weight calculations, chert artifacts were seen to be relatively lighter, on average, than other lithic raw materials, while petrified wood and quartzite artifacts were seen to be relatively heavier; the density of the latter two materials, regardless of artifact size, contributes to that trend.

Cortex

Along with raw material, the kind and amount of cortex present on flaked stone artifacts is important for inferring human mobility and interaction and lithic reduction strategies. Crabtree (1982:30) defines cortex as the “natural surface, or rind, on flint-like materials.” When flint-like materials originate from primary sources, their cortex comes in the form of a calcareous rind. However, when cherts and other knappable materials are collected from secondary deposits, their “cortex” may simply be a water- or mechanically-worn surface. Within appropriate limits, both were considered cortex for these analyses. Because many of the lithic raw materials available near LA 153714 are found in ancient river gravels (Bradley Bowman, personal communication 2007), they display the latter kind of cortex. While pieces of Zuni spotted chert with worn cortical surfaces may be traced to such secondary sources (Bruce Huckell, personal communication 2007), those with unworn


surfaces may indicate acquisition at one or more primary sources. Only 11 of the 99 Zuni spotted chert artifacts retain cortex, and of those, none show signs of erosion or wear. This, combined with the large size of one of the Zuni spotted chert cores (13.7 cm long) (Figure 8.11) suggests that all or nearly all of the material came from a primary source. While the exact location is unknown (Bruce

Huckell, personal communication 2007; Kilby 2005), possible (although unproven) areas include Oso Ridge on the southeast side of the Zuni Mountains and Lookout Mountain within the Zuni Mountains (Kilby 2005; LeTourneau 1997). Those locations are approximately 24–48 km (15–30 mi) northeast of the site.

Figure 8.11. Large Zuni spotted chert core, recovered from the surface of LA 153714

For all flaked stone artifacts, cortex was recorded in six categories: none, 1–9 percent, 10–49 percent, 50–89 percent, 90–99 percent, and 100 percent. For non-flake-based tools and cores, those categories pertained to the amount of cortex present on the piece as a whole. For debitage and flake-based tools, the categories represented the amount of cortex present on the exterior, or dorsal side, of the artifact, and did not include the platform. As a general rule, larger artifacts (particularly in regards to flakes) retain more cortex than smaller ones.

For tools and cores, the presence and amount of cortex can indicate the stage of manufacture of the piece itself. It also can

assist in ascertaining material source, availability, and quality, and provide information about lithic technology and human mobility. For example, a tool or core that has little or no cortex remaining on it has been more intensively worked and often is closer to being a “finished” product than one that retains a large amount of cortex. It may also have been carried farther across the landscape than one that exhibits substantial cortex. Because intensity of material use and distance of material transport provide information on human behavior, they often are used to differentiate prehistoric sites from different time periods. For example, in the American Southwest, Paleoindian (especially) and Archaic hunter-gatherer groups often


“curated” a variety of morphologically distinctive tools and cores made of high quality materials, carrying them from site to site and using them repeatedly. In contrast, sedentary Puebloan groups tended to create “expedient” flake-based tools and cores out of locally available materials of varying qualities, using them only one or a few times and then discarding them at the same site (e.g., Parry and Kelly 1987).

For debitage, the amount of cortex remaining also can indicate the intensity of lithic reduction and the general phase of reduction during which the piece was removed (Schachner and Kilby 2005). For example, small flakes with little cortex generally are associated with tool production because formal tools often involve finer shaping and, hence, more knapping and reduction. Conversely, larger flakes with more cortex generally are associated with core reduction or simple, often expedient, tool use because those activities may require the removal of only a few flakes Hence, one way to gain information on site use and human mobility is to look at both artifact size and amount of cortex. Results of those analyses are presented separately below.

Figure 8.12 illustrates the distribution of percent cortex categories within each of six lithic raw material types. Percentages were calculated within material types, rather than according to total number of artifacts, to account for large differences in the total numbers of each kind of material. Siltstone and sandstone artifacts are not included because they most likely were related to the

production of ornaments and ground/shaped stone, rather than flaked stone tools. The volcanic flaked stone artifacts also were left out because of their very small number. The histogram demonstrates that the vast majority of artifacts made of Zuni spotted chert retained no cortex; hence, that material generally was very highly reduced. Similarly, a large percentage of artifacts made of other cherts and quartz also were highly reduced. In contrast, a comparatively larger percentage of artifacts made of petrified wood, quartzite, and obsidian retained a substantial amount of cortex; in other words, those materials were much less intensively reduced. While the presence of only two obsidian artifacts—one flake tool and one core fragment—skews its representation, there could be a few explanations for the other two materials. First, petrified wood and quartzite may have been available closer to LA 153714 or in larger amounts than the other materials so that people could simply pick them up, extract a few flakes, and discard them. In contrast, if the Zuni spotted chert, for example, was brought to the site from farther away, people may have needed to use it intensively once they arrived at Hokona, relatively far from its source. Second, and more likely given the distribution of raw materials near LA 153714, the kinds of artifacts being made with petrified wood and quartzite may not have required as much reduction as those made of various kinds of chert and quartz. As a result, the artifacts made of the former materials retained more cortex than those made of the latter materials. This second idea is supported by evidence from tools found at the site (see below).


0102030405060708090

100

0 1-10 11-49 50-89 90-99 100Percent Cortex

Perc

ent o

f Art

ifact

s by

Raw

Mat

eria

lOther ChertObsidianPetrified WoodQuartz

QuartziteZuni Spotted Chert

Figure 8.12. Distribution of percent cortex categories within raw material types.

FLAKED STONE RAW MATERIAL AND CORTEX SUMMARY

Flaked stone artifacts recovered from LA 153714 are typical for those from Puebloan sites in terms of raw material and cortex distributions. People probably collected most of the materials they used from within several miles of the site, and from within 50 mi (80.5 km) of it at a maximum. While they generally selected fine-grained materials for delicate tools and moderate material reduction, they chose coarse materials for heavy tools and minimal reduction. The only somewhat unusual characteristic of Hokona’s lithic artifacts is that fewer of them retained cortex than might be expected for a typically Puebloan expedient lithic industry. That may have stemmed, in part, from their use of a large amount of Zuni spotted chert, some of which was brought to the site in large chunks that were then used extensively. More

detailed information on the different kinds of flaked stone artifacts recovered from Hokona is presented below.

PROJECTILE POINTS

Only three projectile points––all broken––were collected during data recovery at LA 153714 (Figure 8.13, Table D.8). Still, they provide important information about human activities at the site. Metric data were collected following Turnbow (1997:162–167) (Table 8.7). Weight was measured to the nearest tenth of a gram using an electronic balance. Length, width, thickness, neck thickness, neck/stem width, stem length, and basal width were recorded to the nearest tenth or hundredth of a millimeter using digital calipers. The “FS” is the “field specimen” or bag inventory number used by SWCA for a given provenience. All three of the points could be identified to type.


Figure 8.13. Projectile points recovered from LA 153714 during data recovery (from left to right, FS 624, FS 230, FS 379)

Table 8.7. Projectile Point Data

FS Material Length (mm)

Width (mm)

Thickness(mm)

Weight(g) Completeness

Neck Thickness

(mm)

Neck/Stem Width (mm)

Stem Length(mm)

Basal Width (mm)

624 Chert 4.1 1.9 0.66 4.0 body N/A N/A 1.40 N/A 230 Chert 3.1 1.6 0.54 1.9 body 0.27 0.54 N/A N/A 379 Chert 1.1 1.1 0.19 0.2 body N/A N/A N/A 1.03

Shown on the left side of Figure 8.13, the tan and white conglomerate-type chert point conforms to the Pelona type (ca. 3500—1000 B.C.) that was defined by Herb Dick (1965) at Bat Cave and was dated by its radiocarbon associations. Its Archaic date clearly does not fit with the dating of the rest of LA 153714. The central point in Figure 8.13, made of gray and white chert (or possibly petrified wood), probably also dates to the Archaic ca. 1500/1000 B.C.–A.D. 200/600. While its stem is missing, it appears to be of the En Medio or San Pedro corner-notched point type. In contrast to the first two projectile points, the third and smallest one, shown on the right side of Figure 8.13, fits better with the Pueblo III date for the rest of the site; it conforms most likely to the Cottonwood type (ca. A.D. 900—Historic period) of small Puebloan arrow points (Justice 2002;

Christopher Turnbow, personal communication 2007). The latter two points came from level 1 contexts in the central portion of the site, immediately southeast of Feature 1 in what may have been an exterior activity area. The first point was found in level 1 of the Feature 37 pit house fill in the southeast corner of the site. The artifacts’ near-surface contexts, in combination with ethnographic documentation, suggest that the two Archaic projectile points were collected from elsewhere by the site’s inhabitants, rather than representing an earlier component at the site. In the nearby Zuni area, Frank Cushing recorded people collecting old points to turn into knives for ceremonies (Christopher Turnbow, personal communication 2007). While not yet refurbished or modified, the two Archaic points are nearly whole and may have


retained the potential for symbolic or functional uses. The small arrow point most likely was functional.

FLAKED STONE TOOLS

The 12 non-diagnostic flaked stone tools recovered from the project area comprise hammerstones (33.3 percent), scrapers (33.3 percent), flake tools (25 percent), and a biface (8.3 percent) (Table 8.8). For all tools, maximum length, width, and thickness were

measured with digital calipers to the nearest millimeter. Weight was recorded on a digital scale to the nearest tenth of a gram. Material type and material texture also were recorded. Completeness categories included complete; broken; base, tip, midsection, body (for bifaces); and flake fragment (for flake-based tools, including scrapers when appropriate). As described above, categories of cortex also were recorded, and any edge modification was noted. Table D.9 provides the raw data collected for lithic tools.

Table 8.8. Major Lithic Tool Types by Material Material Hammerstone Scraper Flake Tool Biface Total

Chert 4 2 1 7 Quartz 3 3 Obsidian 1 1 Quartzite 1 1 Total 4 4 3 1 12

HAMMERSTONES

Four hammerstones were recovered from Hokona, with two from near the north edge of the site around Feature 35, one from the center of the site in the Feature 24 pit structure fill, and one from the southern edge of the site. Three of the four recovered hammerstones were simple quartz cobbles, while the other was quartzite; two of the former showed minimal evidence of use. The average complete hammerstone (n=4) had a length of 4.8 cm (σ = 1.4 cm), a width of 3.7 cm (σ = 0.8 cm), and a thickness of 2.7 cm (σ = 0.8 cm). The quartzite hammerstone was by far the heaviest, weighing 155.7 g, while the others weighed between 36.2 and 49.0 g. The fact that hammerstones were more numerous than all but one other tool type at LA 153714 suggests either that lithic reduction was an important activity at the site, or that the hammerstones were used for some kind of food processing instead of or in addition to flint knapping.

SCRAPERS

Four scrapers, including three whole and one fragmentary, were found at LA 153714. Three of them came from Feature 24 fill, while the fourth was found on the site’s surface. Using a modified version of Rozen's (1984) system of tool analysis, a scraper was defined as any tool with continuous invasive retouch, which usually is unifacial. Continuous retouch consists of at least three contiguous flake scars, and with invasive retouch, the length of the longest scar exceeds 10 percent of the artifact's maximum dimension. Unifacial retouch appears on either or both sides but not on the same edge. End-scrapers were most common (n=2) but multi-sided scrapers and side scrapers also were represented by one example each. Scrapers were made only of chert, with three of them consisting of Zuni spotted chert. The fourth and fragmentary one was made of an unusually fine and distinctive honey-colored chert (or possibly chalcedony) and may actually have been part of a unifacially retouched projectile point, rather


than a scraper. The average complete scraper (n=3) had a length of 3.2 cm (σ = 0.7 cm), a width of 2.7 cm (σ = 0.5 cm), and a thickness of 0.9 cm (σ = 0.3 cm), and weighed 9.2 g (σ = 4.9 g). The fact that scrapers were tied for the most common type of tool found at LA 153714 suggests that food and/or hide processing frequently was conducted at the site. The paucity of animal food remains at LA 153714 (see Chapter 10) makes it likely that the scrapers were used on vegetal, rather than animal, materials unless the inhabitants brought hides with them from somewhere else.

FLAKE TOOLS

Only three flake tools were present at LA 153714, with one found on the surface and the other two found, again, within the Feature 24 fill. Flake tools represent minimal investment, since by definition they are flakes, or portions thereof, that exhibit limited purposeful retouch and do not fit into any of the more intuitive tool categories (e.g., scraper, biface). Given the minimal investment required for their production, flake tools generally characterize “expedient” lithic assemblages created when people use whatever materials are at hand, for only one or a few activities, and then discard them where they were used.

Two of the Hokona flake tools were made of chert, while the third was obsidian and had been left on the floor of the pit structure in its southwest corner. X-ray fluorescence showed that its material most likely came from the Horace Mesa area of Mount Taylor (Appendix E). Because this flake tool was made of a large piece of obsidian and was grouped with a complete turkey bone awl and two finished ornaments, it appears to have been a symbolically important artifact––atypical for a flake tool. However, its morphology is not regular enough to categorize it as a scraper.

On average, the three flake tools had a length of 4.0 cm (σ = 2.6 cm), a width of 2.6 cm (σ =

1.5 cm), and a thickness of 0.9 cm (σ = 0.4 cm), and weighed 12.0 g (σ = 10.5 g). Flake tools measured from 1.4 to 6.5 cm in length, and from 0.4 to 20.8 g in weight. The obsidian tool’s measurements generally fit between those of the other two tools.

The small number of flake tools at LA 153714, and the unusualness of one of them, suggest that people at the site did not use many expedient tools. More importantly, they may not have been performing the kinds of butchering activities for which they required sharp, expedient tool edges. Utilized flakes, addressed in more detail below, can be similar indicators of the use of expedient technology; they represent even more minimal time investment because they are simply picked up, used, and discarded without reworking. The interpretation that people at Hokona used few expedient tools and/or performed little butchering is supported by the fact that only 11 utilized flakes were present in the site’s lithic assemblage, representing only 4 percent of flaked stone artifacts.

BIFACES

Only one biface was found near Hokona, 20 m (65.6 ft) south of the site’s southwest corner. Accordingly, a modern person may have picked it up from the site and dropped it again as they walked along, or it may actually be unrelated to the occupation at LA 153714. Bifaces are identified by marked thinning or deep retouch on both faces of the same edge (hence the adjective “bifacial”) and generally are a hallmark of preceramic lithic technology in the Southwest. However, they also appear in smaller numbers at Puebloan sites. Roxlau et al. (1997) created an idealized six-stage typology (Table 8.9) for categorizing bifaces based on flaking patterns, intensity of reduction, and overall form. This method provides a useful guide for comparison, but it does not imply that all bifaces fit a standard trajectory from Stage I to Stage VI.


Table 8.9. Stages of Biface Manufacture Stage Characteristics

I Blank morphology is still evident on the piece; primary retouch has taken place, but no thinning.

II The artifact exhibits coarse flaking and the beginnings of thinning, obliterating most of the blank morphology.

III The biface shows regular margins and has undergone initial thinning, with none of the original blank form remaining.

IV Platform preparation and coarse thinning are apparent. V The biface exhibits regular margins and some marginal retouch, with some pressure flaking

possible. VI Final shaping; the biface shows fine marginal retouch.

Adapted from Roxlau et al. (1997)

Stage I bifaces can be either regular or irregular. A regular Stage I biface, like all later stage bifaces, is symmetrical and has initial bifacial retouch around at least 80 percent of its margins. Irregular bifaces tend to exhibit more extensive and invasive retouch than the flake-based tools, and tend to be non-symmetrical. These artifacts are probably the result of aborted attempts at bifacial thinning. The one biface recovered from LA 153714 fit the criteria for Stage II bifaces, which show the earliest signs of both shaping and thinning. Made of high quality, honey-colored chert or chalcedony, it has a length of 5.4 cm, a width of 3.8 cm, and a thickness of 1.12 cm, and it weighs 24.0 g.

LITHIC TOOL SUMMARY

Looking at the number, kind, and raw material of the flaked stone tools recovered from LA 153714 provides some information on the mobility and activities of the people who created the lithic assemblage. The fact that at least some of the raw materials (Horace Mesa obsidian and Zuni spotted chert) might have originated at sources located northeast of the site suggests that people may have come to Hokona from that direction, had social ties in that area, and/or traveled there for various reasons. Given that the site dates to Pueblo III-IV times, it is not

surprising that it yielded few formal tools and that two of the three projectile points present probably were collected by the site’s inhabitants for re-use in functional and/or symbolic ways. The four hammerstones fit with the moderate amount of debitage at the site and suggest that proximity to naturally occurring knappable gravels may have made Hokona a good place for small-scale lithic reduction; finished tools may have been used and deposited elsewhere. The four scrapers indicate that processing of vegetal materials, at least, was a relatively important activity at the site. In contrast, there appears to have been little need for expedient cutting cools.

CORES

Fifteen complete (n=13) and fragmentary (n=2) cores were recovered from LA 153714 during data recovery. Table 8.10 shows the distribution of cores by type and material. Definitions of the two types of cores identified (globular and double-platform) are taken from Huckell (1973:189). Globular cores have no consistently used platform; the flakes have been removed randomly. In contrast, double-platform cores have two major platform surfaces, usually opposed to one another. Cobbles with a single flake (or two widely dispersed flakes) removed were defined as test cobbles.


Table 8.10. Cores from LA 153714 by Type and Material Material Globular Double Platform Tested Cobble Total

Other Chert 3 2 5 Zuni Spotted Chert 2 2* 4 Quartzite 2 1 3 Obsidian 1 1 Petrified Wood 1 1 Quartz 1 1 Total 10 2 3 15

*Denotes heat-treated material.

Each core was individually measured, with its maximum length, width, and thickness recorded to the nearest millimeter or tenth of a millimeter, and weighed to the nearest tenth of a gram. Material type, number of flake scars, percent cortex (0 percent; <10 percent; 11–49 percent; 50–89 percent; and 90–100 percent), completeness, and burning also were recorded. Complete data for the cores are provided in Table D.10. Average maximum dimension of complete cores and tested cobbles is 6.0 cm (σ = 3.1 cm), with a range of 2.9–13.7 cm. Average weight is 150.2 grams (σ = 261.5 g), albeit with a large range of 11.1–929.0 g. The average number of flake scars is 4.2 (σ = 1.5) with tested cobbles and 4.9 (σ = 0.9) without them. However, the very large globular core of Zuni spotted chert skews the averages because it features more than 30 flake scars. A small, fragmentary obsidian core has 10 scars, but all of the other proper cores have a range of 4–6 scars. Those numbers are surprising, given that only two globular cores and the three tested cobbles retained any cortex. While the small number of scars suggests that most cores were minimally used, the lack of cortex suggests that cores were used thoroughly. The dichotomy may be explained if the gravels used for cores were small to begin with and their cortex could be removed with a small number of flakes.

The most common core material at LA 153714 was chert, including Zuni spotted chert and other varieties. The two double-

platform cores made of Zuni spotted chert, both from FU 23 just southeast of the Feature 1 masonry and jacal structure, were clearly heat-altered on their exteriors; their internal surfaces exposed by flaking were the typical mustard-yellow to orange color, while their exterior surfaces were red. One of the two cores had flakes removed both before and after heating. The fact that these two cores of the same type were the only ones at the site to exhibit heat alteration suggests that the treatment may have been purposeful. It may have been used to improve the material’s flaking quality or mechanical properties if certain kinds of flake products—apparently most appropriately produced on double-platform cores—were desired. Heat treating of Zuni spotted chert also was noted for nearly 30 percent of the material recorded during the El Malpais Archeological Survey further east (Schachner and Kilby 2005).

The presence of a small, fragmentary, intensively used obsidian core at LA 153714 suggests that the material was symbolically important and was curated even when it was no longer very functional. However, cores made of quartz, quartzite, and petrified wood also were present at LA 153714, suggesting that people at the site used the full range of materials that occurred naturally in the area and were not overly selective in their material choices.


CORE SUMMARY

Only two different types of cores, plus tested cobbles, were recovered from LA 153714. The fact that two-thirds were globular cores suggests that flaked stone technology at the site generally was expedient; people most often picked up readily available cobbles that were conducive to the removal of randomly sized flakes, rather than standardized flakes or blades. That pattern is consistent with a flake-based technology, which generally corresponds with expedient lithic technologies. At the same time, the presence of two heat-treated Zuni spotted chert double-platform cores; one very large and well-used globular core of Zuni spotted chert; and a small fragment of an intensively used core of Horace Mesa obsidian demonstrate that people at Hokona also found specific kinds of materials to be important and worth curating.

UTILIZED FLAKE AND DEBITAGE

ANALYSIS

Sullivan and Rozen’s (1985) completeness method of debitage analysis was used to characterize the utilized flake and unused debitage assemblages from LA 153714. Their method is based on flake completeness and uses a binary hierarchical decision tree to arrive at debitage types. Flakes are assigned to one of four mutually exclusive categories: complete flake, broken flake, flake fragment, or debris. These definitions are based on the following three dimensions of flake variability: (1) single interior surface (SIS), (2) point of applied force, and (3) margins. Each flake is first examined to determine if it has a single interior surface, which is characterized by a single bulb of percussion or ripple marks. If a flake does not have an SIS, it is categorized as debris. All flakes with a discernible SIS are then examined for the presence of a point of applied force, which occurs where the bulb of percussion intersects the striking platform. Both the bulb of

percussion and the striking platform must be present for the flake to be classified as having a point of applied force. If a flake does not have a point of applied force, it can be classified as a flake fragment. Finally, flakes with both a single interior surface and a point of applied force are examined for the presence or absence of intact margins. Intact margins exist when the original width and length of the flake can be reasonably determined. Broken flakes do not have intact margins, while complete flakes do. This simple classification system has the advantage of being replicable because it is based on mutually exclusive flake categories.

Researchers (e.g., Amick and Mauldin 1989, 1997; Ensor and Roemer 1989; Prentiss 1998) agree that one of the advantages of Sullivan and Rozen’s system lies in its replicability in assignment of flake completeness by different observers. This advantage is contingent on proper training of lithic analysts to ensure compatibility of results (Van Hoose and Lundquist 2002). For this project, a single lithic analyst helped to keep consistency high. Another advantage of the Sullivan and Rozen system is that it involves examining every piece of debitage individually, unlike mass analysis systems (e.g., Ahler 1989) that are quicker but that generalize assemblages.

The main critique of the Sullivan and Rozen system (e.g., Amick and Mauldin 1989, 1997; Ensor and Roemer 1989; Prentiss 1998) is that, by itself, flake completeness does not have inherent behavioral meaning. In an attempt to formally test the relationship between flake completeness and behavioral activity, Prentiss (1998) produced different artifacts using obsidian nodules, examined the debitage using the Sullivan and Rozen system, and found that the behavioral activities that Sullivan and Rozen suggest for their study did not correspond well to the actual activities from his experimental study. However, one problem with this critique is


that Prentiss used only obsidian to test the Sullivan and Rozen system. Obsidian is fragile, and obsidian flakes often break more readily than those of stronger sedimentary (e.g., chert) or igneous (e.g., rhyolite and basalt) rocks (see Amick and Mauldin 1997). Because of this, Sullivan and Rozen purposely based their study on assemblages consisting largely of chert, which is more durable than obsidian. Therefore, a critical reading of Prentiss’s study highlights a little-discussed but important aspect of the Sullivan and Rozen system. That is, material type plays a role in flake completeness. Accordingly, behavioral interpretations based on completeness using fragile materials such as obsidian or silicified shale should be avoided until further research can be conducted (see also Lundquist 2002). However, that problem should be minimal in this analysis because more than 65 percent of the debitage and utilized flakes from LA 153714 are made of chert and most of the other materials also are durable. In addition, behavioral interpretations should be based on a combination of evidence, rather than simply on results of the Sullivan and Rozen system analysis.

UTILIZED FLAKES

Flakes, and particularly large flakes, are well-suited for expedient use, although broken flakes and flake fragments (and even pieces of debris) also can be used. Hence, while most pieces of utilized debitage are flakes, they are not all complete flakes. It would be difficult if not impossible to separate out flakes knapped specifically for expedient use from pieces of waste product (i.e., debitage) that have been expediently used. Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, edge-modified flakes are considered to be different from unused debitage, in that they show evidence of use wear, and separate from formal tools, in that they do not show signs of intentional working. Still, like flake tools, utilized flakes

can be considered elements of expedient technologies. They also can be used for similar low-intensity activities, particularly cutting. Accordingly, their proportion in an assemblage can indicate the degree of time and energy people expended on tool production and material processing.

Utilized flakes generally differ from debitage in some important ways. First, utilized flakes often are made of stronger materials, such as chert and fine-grained quartzite, than are unused flakes. While the former must retain an edge without resharpening, the latter may simply be products of tool production using very fine materials such as chalcedony and obsidian. Second, larger flakes are used more frequently than smaller ones. This makes intuitive sense; smaller flakes are more often the by-product of tool production and are lost more readily, while large flakes are easier to (re-)locate on the landscape and can be used for numerous tasks without modification. Third, heavier flakes are used more frequently than lighter ones because the former are larger, perhaps easier to hold, and sturdier for using (e.g., Lundquist 2004).

ATTRIBUTES RECORDED

As mentioned above, all flaked stone debitage (used and unused) recovered from LA 153714 was analyzed. Attributes recorded were raw material, material coarseness, percent cortex, dimensions (length, width, thickness), weight, completeness, platform type (when applicable), evidence for use, and evidence for heat treating or burning. Raw data for all pieces of debitage are provided in Table D.11. Used and unused pieces of debitage generally are compared in this portion of the chapter, since they are, on average, distinguishable along multiple attributes.


MATERIAL TYPE

All but one of the general flaked stone raw material categories (including siltstone which appeared to be related to ornament production, rather than flaked stone reduction) were represented in the debitage assemblage. The missing material was obsidian, further suggesting that the two pieces recovered from LA 153714 were more important for symbolic than for functional reasons. Table 8.11 shows the counts of unused debitage and utilized flakes for each kind of raw material present at LA 153714, minus obsidian. When compared with Table 8.5, it is clear that the different raw materials were represented in the debitage in very similar percentages as those for all lithic artifacts taken together. Of course, that stems largely from the fact that debitage represented

the most abundant category of lithic artifacts at the site. In contrast, only three raw materials—Zuni spotted chert, other chert, and quartzite—were selected for utilized flakes. Still, percentages of those three raw materials fell within the same material hierarchy represented by unused debitage and lithics as a whole. In other words, Zuni spotted chert was most commonly used, followed by other cherts, and then quartzite. While material coarseness (fine, medium, coarse) was noted for each artifact, no separate analyses were done around it because different kinds of material generally exhibited consistent coarseness. For example, cherts were fine- to medium-grained; petrified wood and quartz were almost always medium-grained; and obsidian was fine-grained.

Table 8.11. Counts of Different Materials from LA 153714 by Debitage Category

Material Debitage Count

Percent of Total Unused Debitage

Utilized Flakes Count

Percent of Total Utilized Flakes

Zuni spotted chert 86 33.9 5 45.4 Other Chert 79 31.1 4 36.4 Quartz 31 12.2 0 0 Petrified Wood 30 11.8 0 0 Quartzite 13 5.1 2 18.2 Siltstone 11 4.3 0 0 Volcanic 3 1.2 0 0 Sandstone 1 0.4 0 0 Total 254 100 11 100

CORTEX

Figure 8.14 illustrates how different raw materials used for debitage (used and unused) are distributed across the six categories of cortex abundance. Siltstone and sandstone pieces are omitted because they appear to have been related to the shaping of stone in preparation for grinding, rather than as ends in themselves. It can be seen that different raw materials are more indicative of different stages of reduction than others. For example,

all three pieces of volcanic debitage must have come from later stages of material reduction since all are very small and none retain cortex. Similarly, most pieces of Zuni spotted chert and other chert debitage have little cortex. In contrast, more than half the pieces of quartzite debitage have 50 percent or more cortex. Petrified wood debitage appears to represent a wide range of reduction stages, from early (50–100 percent cortex) to late (no cortex). As implied near the beginning of this chapter, the presence of


different amounts of cortex on different kinds of raw materials suggests that people at Hokona acquired their raw materials from different proximities to the site and/or in different forms. The three pieces of volcanic debitage are so small and rare that they may represent repair or modification of a special tool that was carried from place to place. The large number of pieces of Zuni spotted chert that exhibit no cortex suggest that the material was brought to Hokona in large chunks (such

as the large core found on the surface) that must have been acquired from some distance. Those were then knapped intensively at the site. In contrast, quartzite and petrified wood may have been abundant close to the site so that they could be used more expediently, and/or present in smaller nodules so that cortex remained on a comparatively larger proportion of the debris produced.

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

0 1-9 10-49 50-89 90-99 100Percent Cortex

Perc

ent o

f Raw

Mat

eria

l Typ

e

Volcanic (n=3)

Zuni Spotted Chert (n=91)

Other Chert (n=83)

Quartz (n=31)

Petrified Wood (n=30)

Quartzite (n=15)

Figure 8.14. Distribution of raw materials across cortex percentage

categories at LA 153714.

When percent cortex is compared between unused debitage and utilized flakes (Table 8.12), it can be seen that the very small number utilized flakes present at LA 153714 are distributed across all but one cortex category. While 96.4 percent of unused debitage were devoid of cortex, only 63.6

percent of utilized flakes were. The latter percentage may stem from people’s selection of generally large and robust flakes, which often come from early stages of lithic reduction and are easier to hold when using. This idea of size differences is explored further below.


Table 8.12. Numbers of Pieces of Unused and Utilized Debitage Across Cortex Categories

Debitage Type 0% Cortex 1–9%

Cortex 10–49% Cortex

50–89% Cortex

90–99% Cortex

100% Cortex Total

Unused Debitage 188 16 15 14 9 12 254

Utilized Flake 7 1 1 0 1 1 11

Total 195 17 16 14 10 13 265

SIZE

Flake size can be quantified using both dimension and weight. Flake size was recorded for each flake as maximum dimension (“length”) and perpendicular dimension (“width”) measured to the nearest tenth of a centimeter, and thickness measured to the nearest hundredth of a centimeter. Maximum dimension was then broken into five different size categories: 1) 0–1 cm (flakes shorter than 1 cm), 2) 1–2 cm, 3) 2–3 cm, 4) 3–4 cm, and 5) >4 cm (flakes longer than 4 cm) for analysis.

While the number of utilized flakes per size class is too small for statistical comparison with unused flakes, some qualitative

differences can be seen between them. Figure 8.15 is a plot of the raw counts of unused debitage and utilized flakes across the five maximum dimension size classes. The comparison demonstrates that very few pieces of debitage from LA 153714 fell within the usual 0–1-cm size range of retouch flakes, suggesting that little or no tool finishing or resharpening occurred there. It also shows that the 1- to 2-cm size class contained the highest percentage of unused flakes, with progressively lower percentages with increased size. In contrast, no utilized flakes are represented in the two smallest size classes. This supports the idea mentioned above that utilized flakes generally are larger than unused pieces of debitage.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4+

Size Class

Cou

nt

debitageutilized flake

Figure 8.15. Distribution of debitage types across size classes.


WEIGHT

Weight was recorded to the nearest tenth of a gram on a digital scale, with all flakes considered to have a weight of at least 0.05 g. As mentioned above, previous research (e.g., Lundquist 2004) suggests that utilized flakes generally are heavier than unused pieces of debitage. Table 8.13 illustrates this well; for

each raw material type represented by both debitage categories, average utilized flake weight is nearly two to six times greater than average unused debitage weight. Comparisons within size classes (Table 8.14) yield less conclusive evidence, given the small number of categories represented. In the largest size class, 18 pieces of unused debitage are, on average, heavier than 3 utilized flakes.

Table 8.13. Weights of Different Raw Materials from LA 153714 by Debitage Category

Material Unused

Debitage Weight (g)

Percent Total

Weight Unused Debitage

Average Unused

Debitage Weight (g)

Utilized Flakes

Weight (g)

Percent Total

Weight Utilized Flakes

Average Utilized Flake

Weight (g)

Zuni Spotted Chert 213.84 25.11 2.49 21.10 24.91 4.22 Other Chert 168.65 19.81 2.14 23.70 27.98 5.93 Quartz 59.2 6.96 1.91 0 0 0 Petrified Wood 319.35 37.50 10.65 0 0 0 Quartzite 44.59 5.24 3.43 39.90 47.11 19.95 Siltstone 40.33 4.74 3.67 0 0 0 Volcanic 0.8 0.10 0.27 0 0 0 Sandstone 4.5 0.54 4.5 0 0 0 Total 851.26 100 3.63 84.70 100 10.03

Table 8.14. Average Weight in Grams of Unused Debitage and Utilized Flakes by Size Class Size Class Unused Debitage Utilized Flake 0-1 0.12 N/A 1-2 0.49 N/A 2-3 2.22 3.48 3-4 4.68 5.5 4+ 22.82 16.93

DEBITAGE COMPLETENESS

Flake completeness by itself also can be used to infer some cultural behavior. For example, based on Sullivan and Rozen’s (1985) analysis, a high flake fragment percentage is more frequently associated with tool production/biface reduction than with core reduction. This makes intuitive sense, as biface production produces thinner flakes that are more likely to break during flintknapping than thicker core-reduction flakes. In contrast,

a high percentage of debris can indicate intensive core reduction, with little tool manufacture. Of course, breakage patterns also can be affected by material quality and post-depositional processes. Hence, as should be the case in any study involving Sullivan and Rozen’s method, flake completeness should be used only as a starting point in analysis. Other variables are needed to infer cultural behavior.


Comparing the percentages of each completeness category for all chert debitage recovered from LA 153714 (Figure 8.16) reveals that the assemblage contains the greatest proportion of flake fragments (33.9 percent), as well as a fairly high percentage of complete flakes (27.0 percent), followed by debris (20.7 percent) and then broken flakes (18.4 percent). This distribution coincides with Sullivan and Rozen’s (1985:763) “IB2” Technological Group, which is defined by a “very high percentage of debris” and contains the following proportions of debitage: 34.7% flake fragments; 30.2% complete flakes; 23.0% debris; and 8.1% broken flakes. The authors suggest that such an assemblage is

created during intensive core reduction (with little or no tool manufacture), as platform angles increase and many striking platforms and bulbs of percussion are shattered. At the same time, it is easy to see that many pieces of debris were created during the reduction of the large Zuni spotted chert core shown in Figure 8.11. Low material quality, and specifically the presence of internal flaws, also can result in a relatively large proportion of debris, as the material shatters naturally during knapping. Still, this debitage-based interpretation of flint knapping activities at Hokona fits with the tool-based one—that people at Hokona produced few or no formal tools.

0

510

1520

25

3035

40

Broken Complete Debris Flake Fragment

Completeness Category

Perc

ent

Figure 8.16. Distribution of flake completeness categories for all chert debitage.

PLATFORM TYPE

Platform type was recorded for flakes with striking platforms or the remnants of striking platforms—in other words, for all complete and broken flakes. The following three platform types were recorded: (1) cortical striking platforms, with cortex at the point of impact; (2) plain striking platforms, which are flat; and (3) faceted striking platforms, with more than one facet. Crushed platforms were recorded as a fourth type. Faceted and

crushed platforms generally are associated with formal tool production, while cortical platforms are present on flakes that are produced during the initial stages of core reduction. The vast majority of platforms (88.8 percent) were plain, while 7.1 percent were crushed, 3.1 percent were cortical, and only 1 percent were faceted. The very low percentage represented by the last category matches other evidence from LA 153714 that the inhabitants made very few formal tools requiring precision knapping.


EDGE USE

Edge use was recorded for each flake showing regular edge damage but no intentional retouch. This was the defining characteristic of utilized flakes. The following three types of edge use were recorded based on shape: (1) “convex” for flakes with edge use restricted to a convex edge; (2) “flat” for when the edge use was restricted to a flat edge; and (3) “concave” when the edge use was restricted to a concave edge. In the rare cases where more than one type of edge use was present on a single flake, the dominant shape was subjectively recorded. Only approximately 4 percent of the flaked stone assemblage from LA 153714 exhibited edge use. That number is surprisingly low for a Puebloan site, which typically should be characterized by expedient tool use because of the focus on processing plant foods rather than hunting and butchering animals. The absence of evidence for tool production begs the question of what people’s end flintknapping goals at Hokona were.

BURNING AND HEAT TREATING

Evidence for the effects of fire was present on 27 pieces of debitage, or 10.2 percent of the debitage assemblage. Of those numbers, 18 pieces (6.8 percent) exhibited classic signs of burning, including spalling, cracking, and graying. The other nine (3.4 percent) were all Zuni spotted chert that was medium to dark red, rather than the orange color typical of the rest of the material found at the site. All were either flake fragments (n=6) or pieces of debris (n=3) and all but two came from the same general area of the site—southeast and east of the Feature 1 masonry structure, in a possible activity area. Three of the nine pieces exhibited spalling and/or cracking, but the other six did not. The difference in color of several pieces of Zuni spotted chert debitage and two globular cores (mentioned above) suggests that some of that material may have been purposely heat treated (Schachner and

Kilby 2005). Some of the flake scars on one of the cores are dark red, while others are the usual orange color, suggesting that a moderate external heat source may have changed the core’s color between uses.

SUMMARY OF DEBITAGE ANALYSIS

The results of debitage analysis from LA 153714 can be summarized as follows. First, all of the material used at the site is likely of local origin, albeit with the most abundant Zuni spotted chert possibly coming from up to 48.3 km (30 mi) away, probably from a primary source. Quartzite and petrified wood probably were available much closer to the site, albeit in smaller nodules. Second, unused and utilized debitage at Hokona exhibits classic differences—on average, pieces of utilized debitage are longer and heavier than unused ones. Third, Hokona’s debitage assemblage provides evidence that people at the site manufactured few or no formal tools. This picture is supported by the evidence from the tools themselves. Still, a fairly small number of utilized flakes were recovered from the site, so there remains the question of what people did with the flaked stone they knapped.

COMPARISON WITH OTHER LITHIC

ASSEMBLAGES

Because of time constraints and the difficulty of acquiring regional lithic analysis data comparable to those collected here, Hokona’s flaked stone assemblage will be quantitatively compared with one other set of assemblages from the region. Those come from the seven slightly earlier but architecturally and culturally similar sites tested during the Clo-Chin-Toh land exchange project approximately 24 km (15 mi) farther west, near Ramah (Anyon 1984). Most of the lithic assemblages from the Clo-Chin-Toh sites contained 10 times as many pieces of flaked stone artifacts as ground stone ones, whereas


Hokona contained only five times as many. While Hokona and the Clo-Chin-Toh sites contained some unique ground stone artifacts, the basic types were fairly similar and included two-hand manos, metates, thinner grinding slabs, and a pendant. While Hokona contained abraders, more pendants, possible ornament polishers, and a variety of shaped stone objects not seen at the Clo-Chin-Toh sites, some of the latter (e.g., 511, 518, and 788) contained pounders, peckers, and ground stone axe fragments not seen at Hokona. In addition, the Clo-Chin-Toh sites overall contained a wider variety of raw materials and flaked stone artifact forms. For example, their assemblages included petrified wood, Zuni spotted chert, breccia, quartzite, fossiliferous chert, Jemez obsidian, Grants obsidian, chalcedony, Narbona (Washington) Pass chert, red jasper, quartz crystal, sandstone, hornfels, schist, and hematite. The variety of materials and the non-local origins of some of them (e.g., Jemez obsidian, Narbona Pass chert) suggest that people using the Ramah area sites had longer distance ties than did people at Hokona, as well as access to different kinds of local materials. For example, petrified wood dominated most of their flaked stone assemblages, representing between 33 and 64 percent of the artifacts recorded, with Zuni spotted chert generally making up between 19 to 30 percent of the artifacts. While the flaked stone assemblages from the Clo-Chin-Toh sites generally could be called expedient, the excavators suggested that some prepared cores had been brought to the site. In addition, one of the sites (519) was reported to contain numerous tertiary flakes, suggesting formal tool production, and another site (511A) contained a drill. Overall, then, a qualitative comparison of the lithic artifact assemblages from seven Clo-Chin-Toh sites with that from Hokona suggests that inhabitants of the former area had access to a different set of both local and non-local raw materials, produced more tools, and

performed more varied activities than did the people at Hokona.

ANSWERING RESEARCH QUESTIONS

As stated in the introduction, information gathered from the analysis of ground and flaked stone artifacts at LA 153714 helped to answer all four of the project’s research questions.

NATURE OF SITE USE

Ground and shaped stone artifacts found at LA 153714 suggest that subsistence focused on maize, with some other wild foods, and that people also engaged in fairly large-scale ornament production at the site. Flaked stone artifacts indicate that people acquired some raw materials from the immediate vicinity of the site, and some from more distant locations. Core reduction was the primary activity with flaked stone. People at Hokona made few or no formal tools, although they did collect older Archaic projectile points for unknown use(s). The variety of ground stone artifacts, in particular, indicates that people inhabited the site year-round, although they did little hunting from that spot.

RELATIONSHIPS AMONG FEATURES

Refitting of seven metate fragments demonstrates that people at Hokona used older structures, such as the Feature 24 pit structure and the Feature 3 possible storage structure, as repositories for trash while they lived in the Feature 1 masonry and jacal structure. Because very few pieces of ground stone and no specific mano-metate sets were found on living or activity surfaces (the exception being several pieces in the Feature 19 mealing bin), ground stone artifacts were not informative about contemporaneous habitation—only about discard. Flaked stone artifacts did not contribute any definitive


information about relationships between features.

POST-DEPOSITIONAL PROCESSES

Nearly 50 percent of ground stone and 6.5 percent of flaked stone artifacts, most of which are not from hearth contexts, exhibit burning (rather than heat treating). In contrast, only a few pieces of unmodified FCR were found at LA 153714, suggesting that burning was related generally to structure and/or brush fires rather than to cooking. Burned artifacts were recovered largely from within or around masonry structures, as well as from pit structure fill that derived from habitation of the masonry structures. Sedimentary evidence supports the idea that the masonry structures burned at least once during or after their occupation. In addition to this fire, people remodeled LA 153714, breaking artifacts and discarding them in previously inhabited structures. Rodents also moved sediments around the site, although because most pieces of ground and flaked stone were larger than 2 cm, animals probably had less effect on the movement of lithic artifacts than on sediments and macrobotanical remains. Cattle grazing may have caused the breakage of some flaked stone artifacts sitting on the surface of the site, although such recent disturbances of the lithic assemblage appear to have been minimal.

REGIONAL MOBILITY AND EXCHANGE PATTERNS

Some of the lithic raw materials found at LA 153714 undoubtedly were available in gravels located within a few miles of the site. At least two others—Zuni spotted chert and Horace Mesa obsidian—most likely originated between 48 and 80 km (30 and 50 mi) away. While not specifically identified as such, Narbona Pass (formerly Chuska) chert is likely also present in Hokona’s lithic assemblage, and it would have originated

from up to 161 km (100 mi) northwest of the site. Because a large core of Zuni spotted chert, and probably most of that material recovered from the site, appears to have come from a primary source, the flaked stone evidence suggests that people had social ties with groups farther northeast, or that they occasionally made treks to that area for one or more reasons. They could have directly or indirectly obtained the obsidian in the same way. Because Narbona Pass chert originated at a much greater distance from the site, it probably was acquired through periodic aggregations and trade, perhaps centering on the large Pueblos (e.g., Atsinna, Pueblo de los Muertos) located farther west in the El Morro Valley (e.g., Cameron 2001).

CHAPTER 9 HUMAN OSTEOLOGY

Cherie K. Walth

Site LA 153714 contained three human burials and one isolated bone fragment that represents a fourth individual. The three burials were designated Feature 34, Feature 41, and Feature 42. Features 41 and 42 were found in the fill of Feature 37, a pit structure that was interpreted as a pit house. Feature 34 was discovered outside all structures, near the south end of the site, during mechanical scraping (Figure 6.18). The isolated human bone was assigned field specimen (FS) # 352 and was recovered from Midden Unit 4. This chapter summarizes the three burials and describes the methods of analysis. Appendix F provides detailed osteological information on each of the burials.

METHODS

Many books and articles have been written on human osteological analysis (Bass 1987; Brothwell 1981; Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994; İşcan and Kennedy 1989; Saunders and Katzenberg 1992;, Scheuer and Black 2000). The goal of human osteology is to contribute to the understanding of past cultures. During analysis, information is recorded on each individual including sex (for adults), the skeletal age (at death), stature, and any pathological condition that may be present. Metric measurements are recorded, when possible, to provide information on the body form, size, sex, and ancestry. Non-metric morphological characteristics are recorded to provide information on genetic distances between populations (İşcan and Kennedy 1989) and to aid in sex determination.

SEX ESTIMATION

The determination of the sex of an individual based on skeletal evidence is well described in human osteology manuals. Determinations

are based on secondary sexual characteristics that develop during puberty and on differences due to sexual dimorphism in the human species. There can be considerable variation in the expression of these traits between and among different populations. Sex determination should be population-specific to account for race-linked differences, environmental differences, and cultural differences. Ideally, evidence from the entire skeleton is used to assign the sex of the individual. In general, the indications from the pelvis are more reliable than those from the skull, and the skull is better than the long bones. The assigned sex for the skeletal remains in this study was primarily based on the morphological indications and secondarily on metric measurements.

AGE AT DEATH ESTIMATION

Subadult skeletons offer reasonably accurate means of determining their age but not their sex. Adult skeletons offer means of determining sex but have few reliable characteristics to determine their age. The most reliable age indicator for subadults is dentition. The calcification and eruption of the teeth offer reasonably accurate indicators of age through approximately age 12. Dental development charts are used to estimate the skeletal ages of subadults. The degree of fusion of the epiphyses is another means of estimating the age of subadults. Epiphyseal union occurs primarily in the teenage years and, therefore, compliments the dental development charts to extend the accurate estimate of age to approximately 18 years for subadults. The length of long bones is a third method used to estimate of the age of subadults. The lengths of long bones can vary considerably due to pathological, environmental, and genetic causes. Bone

Chapter 9 Human Osteology 223

maturation can be delayed due to stresses experienced by the individual. Studies of growth patterns, as indicated by long bone lengths, have been suggested as a possible means of assessing environmental quality of past lifeways. The use of long bones for determining age is considered a rough estimate.

Accurate age determination is much more difficult with adults. Many different methods have been proposed for estimating the age of adults, including the study of bone remodeling (microscopically and macroscopically), degenerative changes, cranial suture closure, and dental attrition. Methods of estimating age based on regular bony changes observed on the face of the pubic symphysis and auricular surface of the ilium are used by many researchers. Examinations of the articular surfaces of long bones for degenerative changes, and vertebral margins for osteophytic growth, offer estimates of age but are complicated by other factors, such as occupational stress, that produce these same degenerative changes. Dental attrition (the wearing of the occlusal surface of the tooth) can provide data on the age of adults. However, diet, method of food preparation, and cultural variations can affect the rate of wear. Attrition standards used for one population may not be accurate for a different population. Therefore, attrition standards must be developed for each population. The most accurate age estimates for adult skeletons are attained by assessing and intellectually “averaging” all criteria. Assessing all the criteria best describes the method used for age determination for this analysis. The criteria applied for each individual is detailed in the burials catalogue (Appendix F). The best that can be attained in most instances is a range of age for adult individuals.

STATURE ESTIMATION

Calculation of stature is the estimation of an individual’s living height based on skeletal measurements (long bone lengths). Stature is also population–specific because variations in body proportions to height vary due to different environmental and cultural differences. The formulae commonly applied are those developed by Trotter and Gleser (1952 and 1958). Although these formulae were developed from modern samples and are not completely accurate for past populations, they are so widely used that the results attained are readily comparable to the work of other researchers and offer a relative assessment of height.

PATHOLOGY

The recording of pathologies entails describing skeletal manifestations of abnormal conditions. The pathology is usually the result of a disease process that alters the normal quality or quantity of bone. It can occur due to congenital or developmental disorders. Occupational stress can leave patterned bone changes recorded as pathological conditions. There are also environmental stresses, changes due to age, and changes due to cultural practices that can leave observable variation in bony tissue. Only those conditions that can alter bone will be observed and the individual must have endured the condition for a sufficient amount of time for the changes to occur. These two factors are important to remember when assessing the pathologies observed in a population. Equating the presence or absence of pathological conditions to the overall health of the group is not a straightforward assessment.


The age of this individual is 30 to 45 years and is most likely in the 35- to 40-year range. Age is based primarily on the morphology of the face of the left pubis, which is 30–35 in the Todd system (Todd 1920–21), and Stage IV with a mean of 38.2 years (range 26–70) in the Suchey-Brooks system (Brooks and Suchey 1990). There are no osteophytic changes in the vertebrae or on any of the joint surfaces. The lower teeth are worn more heavily than the upper teeth, but overall wear corresponds with the 30- to 40-year age range. Cranial sutures are all fused, but this characteristic is not reliable for age determination. Fusion and obliteration could be a pathological or genetic response. The most reliable age indicator is the pubis, and this corresponds well with the lack of osteophytic changes on the vertebrae and articular surfaces and with the tooth wear.

This individual is a female based on morphological characteristics of the pelvis and cranium and on metric measurements of long bones. The pelvic characteristics of the ventral arc, subpubic concavity, and greater sciatic notch are all well within the female range. There is a slight preauricular sulcus, which is in the indeterminate category for sexing. The cranial characteristics are somewhat mixed, which may be a result of the early fusion and obliteration of the cranial sutures. The cranium is not misshapen, so fusion was not premature or prior to complete cranial growth. Premature fusion of cranial sutures is known as craniostenosis (Ortner and Putschar 1985). Changes in shape of the cranium will depend on the sutures involved and the age fusion occurred. The nuchal crest and mental eminence are well in the female range, while the mastoid process and supraorbital margin are in the probable female to indeterminate range. Measurements on the long bones, in particular the humeral head diameter, femur head diameter, and femur circumference, are all well within the female range.

Almost all of the long bones were complete enough to measure, providing information for the calculation of stature. As more long bone elements are represented, the stature estimate becomes more accurate. Using the calculation that incorporates the lengths of the humerus, tibia, and femur, the stature is estimated as 155.55 to 162.57 cm (61.2–64.0 in, or 5 ft 1.2 in to 5 ft 4 in).

Pathologies observed are an ossified ligament and various dental pathologies. The fusion and obliteration of the cranial sutures may be normal. The left scapula has the suprascapular ligament ossified, forming a bony bridge that closes the suprascapular notch. The right may have also had this ossification but was too fragmented to determine with certainty. This is likely a form of myositis ossificans resulting from a trauma (Aufderheide and Rodriguez-Martin 1998). The ossification can occur without obvious skeletal injury and after even trivial muscle trauma (Aufderheide and Rodriguez-Martin 1998:27). This appears to be the case with this individual, as there is no obvious skeletal trauma. The ossification of the ligament could be in response to stressful repeated tasks—i.e., occupational stress—or perhaps from a pulled muscle injury.

The pathologies on the dentition include tooth loss, caries, abscess, and alveolar recession. The upper left first molar was lost premortem with little to no resorbtion of the socket. A large abscess penetrates through the upper alveolar tissue. The left upper second molar has a carious lesion on the mesial side at the cemento-enamel junction on the neck. There is a large abscess exposing the tooth root on the bucchal side. A large, interproximal, occlusal caries is present on the lower left second premolar and first molar. The caries is on the distal side of the second premolar and on the mesial side of the first molar. On the lower right side, the first and second molars have been lost premortem and the sockets are


The age of this child is 1.0 to 2.5 years, but is most likely 1.5 to 2.0 years. Age is based on the size of the long bones, fusion of skeletal elements, and dentition. Long bone lengths are in the 0.5- to 2.5-year range (Bass 1987). The hypoglossal canal is joined but only very recently; this occurs between 2 and 4 years. The vertebral arches are not fused to the centrum, which occurs between 1 and 3 years of age. Age based on long bone lengths and fusion is 1 to 3 years. Age based on the development of the dentition is 1.5 to 2.0 years (±6 months). Averaging these age assessments gives the approximate age at death of 1.0 to 2.5 years, with most indicators suggesting 1.5 to 2.0 years.

The pathologies present are anemia and various dental pathologies. Cribra orbitalia is moderate to extensive in both eye orbits, but is more pronounced in the right than in the left. Cribra orbitalia is often a result of iron deficiency anemia, although it can be a result of other anemias. The anemia can be brought about from malnutrition (insufficient intake of iron, vitamin C, etc.) or diseases that inhibit the absorption of necessary nutrients. A small area, mid-center on the frontal just posterior to the nasal area, has the outer table of bone missing. This does not appear to be premortem pathology, but rather postmortem damage. The palate surface has a very porous appearance. The outer table of bone is covered with numerous small holes. It is not clear whether this is a pathological phenomenon.

The dental pathologies are on the upper left and right incisors. The incisors have small blackened pits. These lesions are on the occlusal distal surface and may be the beginnings of carious lesions. Both incisors are also slightly rotated relative to a normal occlusal position. The incisors are rotated so that the distal side is turned in to the lingual surface.

MORTUARY PRACTICES

This section discusses the details of the burials in terms of where and how on site they were buried, in what position and orientation the bodies were placed, and what burial items were present. Feature 34 was located approximately 4 m (13.1 ft) south of the Feature 4 pit structure (interpreted as a storage pit) and the same distance southwest of the Feature 37 pit structure. It was the southernmost cultural feature at the site (Figure 6.18). The cranium was impacted somewhat by mechanical scraping of the site, and most of the body was missing due to earlier post-depositional processes. The body was oriented north–south, with the head to the south. The body was placed on its left side in a flexed position, with the face towards the west. No grave goods were found, although any placed near the head could have been removed by the mechanical scraping. No burial pit was observed.

Features 41 and 42 were interred in the fill of the Feature 37 pit structure. Feature 41 was the adult female and her right knee was approximately 7 to 10 cm (2.7 to 3.9 in) north of the structure’s south wall. There was no burial pit for this individual either. The body was oriented east-west with the head to the east. The body does not appear to have been purposefully or carefully placed, as it was lying on its stomach with its head turned facing north. The arms were extended by its side with the left hand beside the pelvis and the right hand over the pelvis and under the left foot. The legs were flexed at the knees with the feet up over the pelvis. No grave goods were found with this burial. With the positioning of the body, it is as though she was dumped in the post-abandonment fill of the pit structure and dirt was filled in over her.

Feature 42 was located approximately 15 to 17 cm (5.9 to 6.7 in) south of the pit


structure’s north wall. It was a child burial oriented southwest to northeast with the head to the southwest. The child was placed on its right side in a flexed position, facing south. This is the only burial that had a definite burial pit, but no grave goods were observed with this individual.

There have not been many published summaries that incorporate mortuary practices for the El Morro region during Pueblo III and Pueblo IV times. Information presented here on burial practices is compiled from various researchers such as Mathien 1993, Akins 2003, Anyon 1984, McGregor 1982, Lipe and Varien 1999, Martin and Akins 2001, Reiter 1938, Hayes et al. 1981, Howell 2001, Plog 1997, and Palkovich 1980. The sites discussed are located from the Rio Grande Valley to the El Morro Valley and San Juan River Valley and include Mesa Verde and Chaco. The information suggests a great amount of variation in burial practices during this period. A few of the common characteristics are that burials occur in middens and structures, they are single internments in flexed and semi-flexed positions, and they have no particular orientation.

The Hokona site had two burials in the fill of pit structures, while the third burial was placed at the southernmost end of the site, apparently not associated with any feature. The Feature 42 burial had an observable pit but the other two burials did not. Pit structures and midden areas are the most common locations for burials throughout the region and in Puebloan time periods. In addition to pit structures and middens, burials at Arroyo Hondo Pueblo near Taos in northern New Mexico were also commonly placed in the plaza areas (Palkovich 1980). The most basic factor for placement of burials appears to have been a location where digging was easy, although clearly there were social aspects, as well, that influenced the placement of certain

members of society in certain locations (e.g., Howell 1994). The presence of a burial pit is not an important aspect of burial activities. There seem to be an equal number of burials in observable pits as those without burial pits.

The position that the body is laid in is variable with a slight majority of the burials being single interments in a flexed position on their right side. Semi-flexed is the next common placement type. Extended burials were found at both Chaco and Mesa Verde, with more occurring at Chaco (Martin and Akins 2001). There are burials that are placed on their stomach, on their back, or in a sitting position. In addition, while they are not numerous, there are burials that do not appear to be carefully placed. Some of the individuals appear to have been simply dumped face-first into an area and covered with dirt. While there seems to have been a slight preference to have burials face east, as at Gran Quivira in southern New Mexico (Hayes et al. 1981), burials could be oriented to any cardinal direction, with no particular preference for the direction of the head and face.

One of the interesting characteristics about the burial practices region-wide is that the presence of grave goods is variable and rarely thought to reflect complex social hierarchy. However, they may reflect social complexity in the form of different prescribed social groups (e.g., Howell 1994). Only a few elaborate burials, such as those at Pueblo Bonito (Akins 2003, Neitzel 2003), are attributable to high status individuals. At Arroyo Hondo, grave goods were more commonly placed with children and approximately 63 percent of burials had grave goods where only 17 percent of burials at surrounding sites had grave goods (Palkovich 1980). Lipe and Varien (1999:338) described Pueblo III mortuary practice as an indication of “a society in which egalitarianism was valued and the display of wealth was not.” In the La Plata sample (Martin and Akins 2001),


there was no patterning in age or sex or through time. A slight majority of the burials with grave goods had one item, followed closely by those that had two items. Commonly found grave goods were ceramic bowls and jars. Other items that were found less frequently were projectile points, cordage, and maize.

The burial information most comparable to Hokona comes from one of the Pueblo III sites tested during the Clo-Chin-Toh land exchange project conducted by the Office of Contract Archaeology near Ramah, approximately 24 km (15 mi) west of LA 153714 (Anyon et al. 1983). As at Hokona, a human burial was found in the post-occupational fill of one of the pit structures at Site 788, which also contained jacal and masonry structures. The burial was found at the top of a layer of mixed roof fall and fill approximately 35 cm (13.8 in) above the structure floor. A pit had been hollowed out 20 cm (7.9 in) into the north wall of the structure and the body was laid on top of a thin layer of sandy subsoil but was surrounded by gray sand containing charcoal flecks. While much of the burial had been disturbed when it was exposed by a backhoe, the skull appeared to have been oriented to the east and a St. Johns Black-on-red ladle may have been associated with it (Anyon et al. 1984). As with the Features 41 and 42 burials at Hokona, this one from the Ramah area provides evidence that people who buried their dead at the site inhabited the jacal and masonry structures that post-dated,

whether by a few or many years, the pit structures.

The sample of three burials from the Hokona site is too small for any meaningful demographic data analysis. The Hokona site has two young children (approximately 1 to 3 years old) and one adult (35 to 40 years old) female. Infant mortality in the prehistoric past was very high and usually near 50 percent. Typically, once a child was past the age of 5, they had a much better survival rate. Once young adulthood was reached, women often had a greater chance of dying because of complications during childbirth. Life expectancy was low in the prehistoric Pueblo world. The average age at death for the inhabitants of Chaco was 27, and 25 was the average age at Black Mesa (Plog 1997:117). The average age at death at Mesa Verde is reported to be 30 (Bennett 1975). The age range of 35 to 40 for the Hokona female is older than expected for adult mortality during this time period. The Arroyo Hondo population had a small percentage (approximately 2 percent) of individuals dying in the 50+ age group (Palkovich 1980). In general in the Southwest, 5 to 15 percent of the population reached the age of 50, and men typically lived longer than women (Plog 1997). Severe malnutrition was not common, but slight to moderate malnutrition was ubiquitous. Pueblo women were not healthy; as a result, their babies experienced prenatal stress that may have led to the high infant and child mortality rates (Martin et al. 1985).

CHAPTER 10 FAUNAL REMAINS

Cherie K. Walth

In all, 67 pieces of non-human bone were recovered from LA 153714. The remains were collected from four feature units, three midden units, one trench, and eight features. There are six identified species, including pocket gopher, black-tailed jackrabbit, cottontail rabbit, woodrat, deer mouse, and turkey.

METHODS

Each faunal specimen (bone, fragment of bone) was examined and recorded on a Faunal Analysis Data Form (Appendix G). Fragments that may have refit were looked for within features and analytic units and were noted when present. The Vertebrate Faunal Analysis Coding System written by Brian S. Shaffer and Barry W. Baker (1992) was used, with a few minor alterations. Several written and illustrative texts were used as aids in the identification of faunal remains (Gilbert 1980, 1985; Hillson 1993; Lawrence 1951; Olsen 1980, 1990; Schmid 1972). In addition, comparative collections from the analyst's private collection were utilized.

Ideally, taxon is recorded to the species level. When this is not possible, the faunal remain is identified to a descending level of taxonomic precision (i.e., genus, family, suborder, order). If identification to any of these levels is not possible, the bone fragment is categorized by general vertebrate class and size. These size and class categories are described in Shaffer and Baker (1992).

A similar hierarchical procedure is used for identification of the skeletal element. The specific element is recorded when possible (i.e., metacarpal 3). Otherwise, a general description is used (i.e., metapodial). Small fragments that retain no distinguishing

characteristics are classified according to the general bone type that they appear to represent (i.e., long, flat, or compact bone). Some fragments are so small as to be classified as indeterminate. The portion of the skeletal element (i.e., proximal, distal, etc.) and the side are also recorded. Age of a specimen is recorded and is usually indicated by epiphyseal fusion or wear on the teeth, when present. No age is recorded if there is any doubt. Measurements are recorded on all elements complete enough to be measured and are made following the system by von den Driesch (1976). A maximum length of bone fragments is recorded to provide a means of assessing degree of fragmentation of the collection.

The weathering stages of 0, 1, and 2 are used in the Shaffer and Baker system. These stages were utilized but were associated with the visible taphonomic changes documented by Anna Behrensmeyer (1978) to add a basis of comparability. In the Shaffer and Baker system, "0" (absent) is considered equivalent to Behrensmeyer's stage 0 and 1; "1" (slight) is equivalent to her 2 and 3; and "2" (marked) is equivalent to her 3 and 4. Other morphological indications are also recorded when evident, including breakage pattern, burning, gnawing, cut marks, polishing, sawing, grinding, and other modifications such as the creation of worked bone or bone tools.

A category for "intrusive" was added to flag those species that may be present due to natural rather than cultural activities. The classifications of indeterminate (0), intrusive (1), and not intrusive (2) were used. Determining whether faunal remains are present because of cultural or natural activities is not a simple procedure.

Chapter 10 Faunal Remains 232

Characteristics such as weathering, heat alteration, and gnawing can help to distinguish between remains that likely result from cultural versus non-cultural activities. Heat-altered remains are usually assumed to be cultural because the degree and duration of heat required to blacken or calcine bone is greater than that generated by most natural wildfires. Weathering and gnawing can help to suggest bone that is intrusive but does not absolutely prove a cultural or non-cultural origin. Weathering of bone occurs when bone is exposed to the elements (heat, cold, rain, and snow), and is a natural process of decomposition. The longer a piece of bone is exposed, the greater the degree of weathering. Bone that becomes part of an archaeological site is often buried fairly rapidly. Complications arise with bone that is exposed for varying amounts of time prior to becoming buried. Bone can also be re-exposed depending on the depositional history of the site. Gnawing by rodents and carnivores can also be problematic because it can occur with both naturally and culturally derived bone found on archaeological sites. Bone that exhibits marked weathering or has extensive rodent or carnivore gnawing is generally assumed to originate from a natural rather than cultural source. When there is doubt about a piece of bone being intrusive, it is categorized as not intrusive.

Bone is quantified through number of identified specimens (NISP) as well as minimum number of individuals (MNI). To reduce the over-estimation of bone count using NISP, refits for fragmented bone are looked for; when bone fragments are found or are likely to be from the same element, a count of one is tallied no matter the number of pieces from that bone. MNI is calculated by the most numerous-sided element, taking into account the age of the animal, if known. Axial elements are considered but are seldom the most numerous element. Portion of the bone is also considered for this calculation.

NATURAL HISTORY

Sixty-seven pieces of non-human bone were recovered from LA 153714. The faunal remains included 34 pieces that were identifiable (50.7 percent) and 33 pieces (49.3 percent) that were not identifiable to any particular species. Table 10.1 depicts the NISP, MNI, and percent of the sample for the faunal specimens. Following this table is a description of the taxa in the sample. Information on range, diet, and habitats for each species was gathered from Cockrum and Petryszyn (1992), Findley et al. (1975), and Kays and Wilson (2002).


Table 10.1. NISP and MNI for Site LA153714 Scientific Name Common Name NISP % of Total MNI % of Total

Mammals Thomomys sp. Pocket gopher 9 13.5 4 36.3 Neotoma sp. Woodrat 6 9.0 2 18.2 Peromyscus sp. Mouse 2 3.0 1 9.1 Lepus sp. Jackrabbit 4 6.0 1 9.1 Sylvilagus sp. Cottontail rabbit 4 6.0 1 9.1 Micro mammal 1 1.4 Small mammal 12 18.0 Small/medium

mammal 1 1.4

Large mammal 1 1.4 Birds Meleagris gallopavo Turkey 9 13.5 2 18.2 Large bird 11 16.4 Vertebrate Unknown Medium vertebrate 7 10.4 TOTAL 67 11 Mammals 40 59.7 9 81.8 Birds 20 29.9 2 18.2 Vertebrates 7 10.4

MAMMALS

Rodents

Pocket gopher: Thomomys sp.

Two species of Thomomys, commonly called a pocket gopher, may be found in the project area today: the Northern pocket gopher (Thomomys talpoides) and Botta's pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae). However, different species are rarely known to share ranges and the pocket gopher remains found in the project area more likely belong to Botta's pocket gopher. Botta’s pocket gopher lives in valleys and mountain meadows, preferring to burrow in loam soils, though some have been found living in sandy or rocky soils. Their burrows are easily identified by fan-shaped mounds of dirt, which they usually plug except when foraging. Most frequently they pull plant foods down through the soil into their burrows, rather than venturing out to collect it. Finds of pocket gopher remains in archaeological sites are very likely to be

intrusive. Still, prehistoric people did use them as a food resource at times and obtained them through opportunistic hunting activities.

Woodrat: Neotoma sp.

Two species of Neotoma, the woodrat, may be found in the project area today: the white-throated woodrat (Neotoma albigula) and the Mexican woodrat (Neotoma mexicana). The woodrat is a common rodent and is also known as a pack rat. The woodrat den can be a few sticks to a large heap of sticks and other debris found in a rock crevice or under vegetation. These are nocturnal animals that live in a wide range of habitats from the forest edge to the low desert. They eat a variety of plant material, but especially parts of various cacti. Most woodrat specimens found in archaeological sites are likely to be intrusive. As with the pocket gopher, though, there were times when woodrats were used for food.


Mouse: Peromyscus sp.

The deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus) is the most widely distributed and variable of the Peromyscus genus. It can be found from Alaska to Mexico and from coast to coast, wherever there is dry land to inhabit. This includes forests, grasslands, deserts, and mountains. Because they are so variable in morphology and overlap the ranges of most other North American mice, deer mice are often difficult to distinguish from other species. They nest in ground burrows, in trees, and in human habitations. They eat seeds, nuts, acorns, and insects, and store food in their nests. Since they will burrow into buildings, their presence in archaeological faunal collections does not necessarily indicate their use by humans, but it also does not preclude it. Related species that could be in the project area, historically and prehistorically, include canyon mouse (Peromyscus crinitus); white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus); brush mouse (Peromyscus boylii); rock mouse (Peromyscus difficilis); and piñon mouse (Peromyscus truei).

Lagomorphs

Jackrabbit: Lepus sp.

Of the jackrabbits, only the black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus) currently inhabits the project area. These live in open prairies and sparsely vegetated deserts up to 2,134 m (7,000 ft) elevation. They feed on green plants in the summer and on buds and bark of shrubs in the winter. Jackrabbits are extremely common in Southwestern archaeological sites, being primarily exploited for their meat and secondarily for their hide and bones for tools and ornaments.

Cottontail rabbit: Sylvilagus sp.

Of the cottontail rabbits, the desert cottontail (Sylvilagus auduboni) and Nuttall's cottontail

(Sylvilagus nuttallii) currently inhabit the project area. Although they share much of their range, Nuttall's cottontail inhabits higher elevations, while the desert cottontail is the rabbit most familiar in the valleys of the Southwest. Both are valuable for their meat and were exploited throughout prehistory. They are also very difficult to distinguish from skeletal elements.

Nuttall's cottontail inhabits thickets, sagebrush flats, and mountain forests in the southern part of its range (including the project area), between 1,800 and 2,500 m (6,000–8,200 ft) elevation. They eat green vegetation in the summer, and bark and twigs in the winter. The desert cottontail inhabits open plains, sagebrush flats, open piñon-juniper woodlands, low valleys, and foothills, and is usually found at elevations below 1,800 m (6,000 ft). They use grass-lined nests in depressions in the ground rather than true burrows.

Postcranial remains of the two cottontail species are indistinguishable, but mandible size has been found to separate them (Findley et al. 1975). The measurements used are the depth of the jaw at the notch between premolar 3 and premolar 4 to the base of the mandible and the length of the tooth row measured from the beginning of premolar 3 to the end of molar 3. These measurements are then plotted with the line established by Findley et al. (1975:Fig. 35) to distinguish the species. Unfortunately, no measurable mandibles were recovered from this site.

Unidentified Mammals

The term “unidentified mammal” was used for fragments of bone that could be identified as from a mammal and grouped by the size of mammal they were likely from.

• Micro mammal: mammals that are mouse to gopher size


• Small mammal: mammals that are gopher to small dog size

• Small/medium mammal: mammals that are gopher to large dog or sheep size

• Large mammal: mammals that are deer or antelope size

BIRDS

Indian domestic turkey: Meleagris gallopavo

The Indian domestic turkey was a common resident of Ancestral Puebloan habitations from at least Pueblo I, if not Basketmaker III or even Basketmaker II times. However, it is very difficult to distinguish domestic from wild turkey, and both are often found together in Southwestern archaeological sites. Turkeys were mainly used by historic pueblo tribes as sources of feathers, which were incorporated into thread and woven into blankets. They seem to have been eaten only occasionally, in spite of their nutritional value. This pattern is borne out for prehistory, as butchery marks are not often found on turkey bones in archaeological sites in this area. The occurrence of turkey burials suggests that some turkeys may have had a status akin to domestic dogs for prehistoric Pueblo peoples. The Puebloan peoples also used the eggs for food and made tools and ornaments from turkey bone.

Unidentified Birds

The term “unidentified bird” was used for fragments of bone that could be identified as being from a bird; they were grouped by the size of bird they were likely from.

• Large bird: birds that are vulture, turkey, or duck size

UNIDENTIFIED VERTEBRATES

The term “unidentified vertebrate” referred to fragments of bone that could not be identified as to which vertebrate they were likely from.

• Medium size vertebrate: remains that are likely from a large bird or small mammal

FAUNAL REMAINS FROM INDIVIDUAL FEATURES

Faunal remains were recovered from three midden units (MUs): MU 3, MU 4, and MU 5. MU 3 was a 2- × 2-m unit placed via total station immediately west of MU 2, at approximately the same southing. One turkey humerus shaft was recovered from it. MU 4 was a 2- × 2-m unit located immediately south of MU 3. Rodent burrows had clearly disturbed the sediments in much of level 4. The only faunal remains were three pieces of pocket gopher, probably present as a result of the rodent disturbance in the area. The faunal remains were all from one animal and were the left and right pelvis and sacrum. The left pelvis was fused to the sacrum. MU 5 was the third 2- × 2-m unit, placed immediately south of MU 4. One piece of bone was recovered and was a small to medium size mammal fragment.

Four Feature Units (FUs) also contained faunal remains. FU 5 was a 2- × 2-m unit placed in the northeast corner of the exposed surface structures in an attempt to define the northern and eastern limits of the Feature 3 possible storage structure. FU 5 was terminated after excavation of the southeast quadrant of level 4, and the rest of Feature 3 was excavated in two halves. FU 5 yielded one piece of large bird long bone shaft fragment that was possibly heat altered. FU 6, which started out as another 2- × 2-m unit, was placed directly north of FU 5 to help define the northern boundary of Feature 3. One turkey scapula, glenoid fossa portion,


right side, and one large bird long bone shaft fragment were recovered from this unit. FU 23 was a 2- × 2-m unit located just south of Feature 3 and just east of the main Feature 1 surface structure. It was opened to help define the southeast edge of Feature 1 and to look for other buried structures connected to the main block. One left mandible from a cottontail rabbit was recovered from this unit. FU 26 was another 2- × 2-m unit, excavated near the southeast corner of the main structure block. It was used to explore the southern half of the Feature 14 and Feature 13 rock alignments and to document sediments located between the rock structures to the north and the pit structures to the south. FU 26 was terminated with the discovery of the top of Feature 24. It contained one piece of a long bone shaft fragment from a large bird.

Faunal remains also were recovered from one trench. Trench 4 was a 0.5- × 3.7-m unit that went from the southwest corner of the FU 5 northwest quadrant, north past FU 6. It was used to investigate sediments located outside the main structure block and to look for additional structures. Two pieces of unidentified small mammal bone and one right tibia, proximal end, of a cottontail rabbit were recovered from this trench.

In addition, faunal remains were recovered from eight features: Feature 1, Feature 3, Feature 5, Feature 23, Feature 24, Feature 35, Feature 37, and Feature 42. Table 10.2 summarizes the feature type, feature number, NISP, and percent of the sample (out of the total NISP of 67). Each feature is discussed in detail below the table.

Table 10.2. NISP from Features Feature Type Feature # NISP % of Sample

Masonry structure 1 4 6.0 Masonry structure 3 3 4.5 Slab-lined hearth 5 1 1.4 Slab-lined hearth 23 5 7.5 Pit structure 24 22 32.9 Masonry structure 35 1 1.4 Pit house 37 17 25.4 Burial 42 1 1.4 Total 54 80.5

Feature 1 was the largest of the three surface masonry structures, originally identified during survey as being 3.0 × 2.5 m (9.8 × 8.2 ft) in size (Brown and Brown 2006), and determined by excavation to be 3.5 × 3.4 m (11.5 × 11.2 ft). As such, it made up a large portion of the so-called main structure block at the site. Interpreted as a large habitation structure, it contained three slab-lined hearths (Features 5, 11, and 18), one ash dump/pit (Feature 5B), one pit feature (Feature 11B), and one mealing bin (Feature 19). Four pieces of bone were recovered from Feature 1. They included cranial remains of a woodrat, the

right tibia of a deer mouse, the right tibia of a micro mammal, and a shaft fragment from a large bird. The large bird bone was possibly heat altered and is the only piece that is not intrusive; the deer mouse, woodrat, and micro mammal bone are all likely intrusive. Feature 5 was the central, squarish, slab-lined hearth in Feature 1 and measured 56 × 56 × 30 cm (22.0 × 22.0 × 11.8 in). It was located 150 cm from both the north and west walls of Feature 1 and appeared to be one of the best preserved and most recent features at the site. One small mammal tibia shaft fragment was recovered


from Feature 5. The tibia shaft was charred black.

Feature 3 was an intermediate-sized basalt masonry structure that was identified to the northeast of Feature 1 during survey (Brown and Brown 2006). Excavation revealed that the feature consisted of both a circular rock foundation and a smaller, round, basin-shaped internal pit. The cranial remains of a pocket gopher, an unidentifiable fragment from a small mammal, and an unidentifiable fragment from a medium vertebrate were recovered. The pocket gopher is likely an intrusive animal to the site.

Feature 23 was a rectangular slab-lined hearth measuring 81 × 63 × 45 cm (31.9 × 24.8 × 17.7 in). Exposed during excavation of the northwest and southwest quadrants of FU 23, at the base of level 4, it sat directly on top of Feature 24 fill and was, in turn, buried beneath the wall fall created by the collapse of the foundations of Feature 3 and 14. The hearth contained five pieces of bone: the left maxilla, left premaxilla, and left mandible of a woodrat; a right tarsometatarsus of a turkey; and an unidentifiable medium vertebrate fragment. These pieces were not heat altered. The woodrat is likely an intrusive find in the site.

Feature 24 was a square-to-round pit structure that measured 260 × 260 × 140 cm (102.4 × 102.4 × 55.1 in). Located at least 40 cm bmgs, it underlay Features 3, 13, 14, and 23, and, along with Features 4 and 37, was associated with the earliest occupation of the site circa A.D. 1275. Feature 24 appeared to have been purposely burned, given that nearly all of the wood found within it had turned to charcoal—something that likely required a large fuel load and persistent stoking.

Faunal remains were recovered from levels 0, 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 10, and 9 though 11, as well as from Kiva Unit (KU) 1 and KU 4 excavated

just at and above Feature 24’s plastered floor. A total of 22 pieces of bone were found, representing 32.8 percent of all the faunal remains recovered from the site. KU 1 measured 0.56 m (1.8 ft) north–south × 1 m (3.3 ft) east–west, with a thickness of 7 cm (2.7 in), and was located in the very southwest corner of Feature 24. It contained burned maize cobs on its south edge and in its southwest corner, as well as a large area of friable burnt wood in its east half and a whole corrugated pot and its broken shaped lid amongst the wood. Underlying the wood, just northwest of the whole pot and under its broken lid, lay two stone pendants, one turkey bone awl, and one large obsidian flake tool. The cluster of the pot, lid, and four smaller artifacts appeared to have been a purposeful arrangement of special items. In addition to the turkey awl, there was one left tibia of a jackrabbit. KU 4 measured 0.6 m (2.0 ft) north–south × 1 m (3.3 ft) east–west, with an average thickness of 10 cm (3.9 in). Located on the south edge of Feature 24, it yielded one sherd and four pieces of burned bone, along with several pieces of burned wood. The four pieces of bone included one shaft fragment from a large mammal that was worked and may have been part of an awl, one jackrabbit right tibia, and a tibia and long bone from a small mammal. All six pieces of bone recovered from KU 1 and KU 4 were burned. The 16 pieces of faunal remains from levels 0 to 11 included large bird, jackrabbit, cottontail rabbit, pocket gopher, woodrat, deer mouse, and medium vertebrate. There were at least three pocket gophers and one each of the jackrabbit, cottontail rabbit, woodrat, and deer mouse. The pocket gopher, woodrat, and deer mouse were all likely intrusive animals in this feature. The unidentifiable fragment of medium vertebrate was heat altered. While the culturally derived contents of the KUs appeared to have been from the occupation of the pit structure itself, those from level 0 to at


least level 9 probably represented trash from later occupations of the masonry structures.

Feature 35, a square basalt masonry structure probably used for storage, was exposed in Trench 4, within the west half of FU 6 and the east edge of FU 9, only 20 cm bmgs, and less than 0.5 m (1.6 ft) north of Feature 3. It measured 190 × 100 × 50 cm (74.8 × 39.4 × 20.0 in), with a maximum of three courses of basalt rocks. Because Trench 4 happened to go north through the middle of Feature 35, most of the latter's fill was removed before it was defined as a structure. Still, the concentration of much darker than usual sediments within and under the Feature 35 walls suggests that the structure probably served as a trash dump for at least part of its use life. The three pieces of bone from Trench 4 are described above. The sediments remaining in Feature 35 contained one piece of small mammal bone, a long bone shaft fragment.

Feature 37 was a 275- × 225- × 170-cm (108.3- × 88.6- × 67.0-in) rectangular pit structure interpreted as a pit house. It was discovered at approximately 30 cm bmgs during mechanical stripping of the site when the backhoe dug a trench leading from Feature 4 east through the south half of the site. Based on sediment deposition, it appears that the pit house stood open for a short while after its abandonment. At first it filled with wind- and water-derived sediments, and then when people returned to the site they used it as a trash dump. After they left, natural wind and water processes filled it in the rest of the way.

Faunal remains were recovered from levels 0, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9 of Feature 37. A total of 17 pieces of bone were found, representing 25.4 percent of all the faunal remains recovered from the site. The faunal remains included large bird, turkey, jackrabbit, small mammal, and medium vertebrate. At least two turkeys

and one jackrabbit were represented. There were no intrusive animals in this feature. The three small mammal long bone shaft fragments and the three unidentifiable fragments of medium vertebrate were heat altered.

Feature 42 was a primary interment of a child of unknown sex, approximately 1.5 to 2.0 years old, located within the northern portion of the midden stratum of the Feature 37 pit house fill, approximately 110 cm bmgs and 80 cm below the top of the pit house. One unidentifiable fragment of a large bird was found when the human bone was analyzed.

WORKED BONE

Hokona contained two pieces of bone that were worked. Both of these were recovered from the Feature 24 pit structure. One was a complete awl made from a turkey tibiotarsus, right side. The proximal end was cut, shaped, and polished to form the punch end of the awl. The distal end was left intact. This tool was found on the floor of the pit structure along with two stone pendants and one large obsidian flake tool. The cluster of artifacts appeared to have been a purposeful arrangement of special items, placed perhaps just prior to the purposeful burning of the pit structure. The other worked piece was near the floor of the structure and was incomplete. It was the shaft of a long bone from a large mammal that had been cut and polished. This piece was burned, which may have been done as part of the tool manufacturing or as a result of the burning of the structure. The turkey awl is illustrated in Figure 10.1 with a photograph and drawing of the tool.


Figure 10.1. Turkey bone awl from Feature 24.

The typology for worked bone presented by Kidder in the Artifacts of Pecos (Kidder 1932) is often cited for typing worked bone. Kidder's typology for awls includes mammal and avian examples. According to that reference, the fragment of bone from KU 4 in Feature 24 is possibly part of a large mammal splinter awl. This would correspond to Kidder's Class D awls (Kidder 1932:208) where no trace of the articular end is present. Kidder does not have a particular class name for bird bone awls but does mention that they usually have the articular end present. For turkeys, the tibiotarsus and tarsometarsus are commonly used elements for awl production.

DISCUSSION

In general, this site has a paucity of faunal remains given the presence of pit structures, surface structures, features, and a midden. It is possible that the bone representing food resources did not survive because it was not rapidly buried or because it was degraded by the chemistry of the sediment. In other words, the bones completely deteriorated through diagenetic processes or were removed from the site through erosion and chemical weathering. It is also possible that food remains were deposited outside the boundaries of the site as defined by the current excavation.

The faunal remains recovered include a large portion of identified remains, with 34 pieces (50.7 percent) identified and 33 pieces (49.3 percent) unidentified; that is, a ratio of essentially 1 to 1. The high number of identified remains is partly due to the large number of intrusive species in the collection. The pocket gopher, woodrat, and deer mouse are all likely intrusive to the site. The micro mammal specimen is also likely to be intrusive, which makes a total of 18 pieces (26.9 percent) of the sample likely to be from natural rather than cultural activities. Because intrusive remains are often relatively recent additions to the site assemblage, they are frequently intact (complete or nearly complete) and identifiable.

There were only two pieces of bone that had cut marks on them and these were the two worked pieces. One was the turkey awl and the other was the large mammal long bone that may also have been an awl. One piece of bone had rodent gnawing, but given the high degree of rodent disturbance and the large number of intrusive rodent remains at the site, this is a surprisingly small number. The majority of the faunal collection, 51 pieces (76.1 percent), showed no weathering, while 14 pieces (20.9 percent) had slight weathering and 2 pieces (3.0 percent) had marked weathering. The large percentage of bone pieces with no weathering is, in part, because


of the large number of intrusive specimens, which are often recent additions to the site and have not been exposed to the elements for much time. For the non-intrusive specimens, those pieces may have been quickly buried, thereby minimizing the amount of time exposed to sun, wind, and rain. The bone that was heat altered totaled 16 pieces: 7 from Feature 24, 6 from Feature 37, and 1 each from Feature 5, Feature 1, and FU 5. There were 51 pieces (76.1 percent) that were not heat altered.

Species utilized by the prehistoric inhabitants included cottontail rabbits, jackrabbits, and turkey. The small mammal remains are likely to be either cottontail or jackrabbit, and adding up all three (cottontail, jackrabbits, and small mammals) results in 20 pieces of bone (29.9 percent of the sample). The inhabitants probably utilized these small mammals as a food resource. These species may have been gathered through opportunistic hunting. The large bird remains are likely turkey. Taken together with the identifiable turkey specimens, they also total 20 pieces of bone (29.9 percent of the sample). Turkey was not usually a food resource but it was used for feathers and its bones were used for ornaments and tools. No turkey eggshell fragments were found, which may suggest that turkey were not kept on site, unlike at some other sites. Additionally, the turkey may have been wild birds and not domestic birds, but the skeletal evidence does not offer a means of distinguishing between these two. LA 153714 has a lack of large mammals, particularly deer, that were a common prehistoric food resource. The lack of larger game animals could suggest several things: that meat was supplied largely from small mammals; that meat was brought in without the bones; that very little meat was consumed; or that the faunal sample is not representative of the meat consumption of the residents.

Habitation sites reported in the area of LA 153714, such as those associated with the Jones Ranch Road project (Anyon et al. 1983), have on average several hundred bone specimens per site. There were exceptions, though, as two sites had low bone counts; only five pieces were recovered from site NM:12:U2:63 and 65 pieces of bone from site NM:12:V2:108B (Anyon et al. 1983). Thus, the lack of faunal specimens is not unprecedented, just unusual. The identified species at Hokona—cottontail, jackrabbit, and turkey—can be easily obtained without going far. The inhabitants may have been constrained to stay within a short distance of the site, so other ecozones that may have provided additional animal resources, such as deer, were not exploited.

Habitation sites often have a variety of bone tools, including awls, scrapers, reamers, and flakers. Bone awls are most commonly made from large mammals (Kidder 1932). The daily use of tools results in tools being broken or expended and consequently thrown away. Hence, the fragment of possible large mammal awl in Feature 24 may have been a broken or used awl that was discarded. Turkey bone is a commonly used resource, second to large mammals, for awls. Turkey bone awls, made from the tibiotarsus, were reported in the Jones Ranch Road project by Anyon et al. (1983). The lack of large mammal bones at this site suggests that the inhabitants did not have that resource available for tools, so they used the next best thing—turkey. If the inhabitants had any large mammal tools, they may have taken them when the site was abandoned. Other bone objects typically found at habitation sites are ornaments, bone beads, and tubes. Whistles, flutes, and gaming pieces are occasionally found as well, but none of these was identified at Hokona. The lack of faunal remains and lack of variety of worked bone pieces may mean that this site was sporadically occupied, rather than for a long duration.

CHAPTER 11 MACROBOTANICAL REMAINS

Thomas C. O’Laughlin

This report describes the analysis of 36 flotation samples and a large number of charcoal and other macrobotanical samples from LA 153714. This site is located east of Zuni Pueblo and in the El Morro Valley, not far east of El Morro National Monument, New Mexico. At an elevation of 2,229.3 m (7,314 ft), juniper is the dominant aspect of the vegetation in the vicinity of LA 153714. Piñon and ponderosa pine may be found in protected and better watered areas nearby, and open areas of grassland likely occurred in the area at the time of occupation (Dick-Peddie 1993b).

Archaeological remains at LA 153714 include masonry-lined rooms and possible storage structures, earlier pit structures, and a variety of extramural features associated with either of the two principal occupations or possibly some intermediate occupation. The pit structures appear to date to the last quarter of the thirteenth century, and occupation of the site did continue into the fourteenth century. LA 153714 dates near the end of a period of population movement and aggregation in the Zuni region and a shift of occupation to higher elevations, particularly the eastern portion of the El Morro Valley, and possibly in response to drought (Anyon and Ferguson 1983; Kintigh 1985).

The study of flotation samples and other carbonized plant remains from LA 153714 was undertaken principally to detail the evidence of subsistence activities and characterize the site environment. Additionally, it was anticipated that the plant remains could be interpreted with respect to the principle occupations and different types of features at LA 153714. It was further anticipated that remains of maize would be present in the samples and that attributes of

cobs and kernels might prove useful in comparison to other maize samples in the region and the evaluation of any agricultural stress indicators.

METHODS

SWCA staff prepared the flotation samples. The samples were processed by water flotation, with recovery efficiency monitored by the addition of 100 count poppy (Papaver sp.) seeds to five samples. The flotation process involved an approximately 8-gallon container fitted in the bottom with coiled copper tubing, a removable 1-mm screen at mid depth, and a spout at the rim. The copper tubing was connected to a pressurized water source and had numerous small ports or jets. The container was filled with some 5 gallons of water, and a soil sample for flotation was then added slowly. Water was again added to the container through the copper tubing, resulting in turbulence and mixing of water and soil. Dense particles such as rocks, flakes, and large pieces of charcoal settled on the screen and constituted the heavy fraction of the sample. Lighter materials such as roots, insect parts, and small pieces of charcoal or burned seeds floated to the top, passed through the spout, and were captured in a chiffon square resting on a screen. The screen with the heavy fraction was removed from the flotation chamber, and the heavy fraction was cleaned with sprayed water. Light and heavy fractions were air dried, packaged, and labeled. Soil sample volume and volume of the processed or light fraction were also recorded.

For 29 flotation samples—representing LA 153714’s midden area and all but seven of the cultural features whose fill could be sampled—all materials of both the light and

Chapter 11 Macrobotanical Remains 242

the heavy fractions of flotation samples were viewed at 10 to 40 power with a binocular microscope. Notes were taken of contaminants, and burned and unburned seeds, charcoal, and unburned plant parts other than roots were separated from the light fraction for identification. Bones were also present in some of the light fractions and were isolated for faunal analysis (Chapter 10), rather than being identified as part of this analysis. The heavy fraction was similarly treated; however, little other than wood charcoal and a few bones were retrieved.

Following a decision agreed upon by representatives of the SLO, the NMDOT, and SWCA, seven other flotation samples were treated in a more cursory manner because of the more dubious contexts of their source features and/or their very small volumes. For those seven other flotation samples, all materials of the light and heavy fractions were scanned with the microscope. Notes were taken of contaminates, and charcoal and burned seeds were identified as described below but not separated from the processed samples. No counts were tabulated, and represented taxa were recorded simply as present. These samples generally had little charcoal and few burned seeds.

Charcoal retrieved from the light and heavy fractions was snapped to reveal a fresh transverse section and viewed at 10 to 40 power for identification in comparison to reference specimens. When possible, 20 pieces of charcoal were identified to characterize a flotation sample. The remaining pieces were then scanned to ascertain whether other taxa were present. The combined weight of charcoal in the light and heavy fractions was also recorded. Burned and unburned seeds and other plant parts from the flotation samples were examined at 10 to 60 power and identified by comparison to the analyst's reference collection and standard published sources. In

cases where identification was uncertain but reasonable on morphological grounds, a "cf" (compares favorably) was used with the taxon in question.

A cursory examination of tree-ring dating samples was undertaken to provide a preliminary identification of woods and to recommend samples for submission for dating. Charcoal in radiocarbon dating samples was also typed and weighed, and a number of the samples included maize cobs and kernels and cultivated beans for which attributes could be noted or measured.

RESULTS

A variety of kinds of information are available from the flotation samples and the other carbonized plant remains. Each class of samples is discussed below in order, beginning with the macrobotanical remains collected during excavation and included in radiocarbon dating samples, then the specimens for tree-ring dating and charcoal within radiocarbon dating samples, and finally the carbonized plant materials in the flotation samples.

MACROBOTANICAL SPECIMENS

Aside from a single seed of banana yucca or datil (Yucca baccata) from the floor fill of Feature 37, macrobotanical specimens from excavation consist entirely of maize (Zea mays) cob fragments and kernels and whole beans and cotyledons of the common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) (Table 1). One maize kernel fragment was recovered from general sheet trash on the site, and two pieces of fused kernels were found in the fill of Feature 19, the mealing bin in Feature 1. However, most of the remains of cultigens were retrieved from the lower fill and floors of Features 24 and 37, two deep pit structures. The amount of burned maize and beans from Feature 24 is not overly large, but the presence of beans,


kernels, and cobs with kernels could suggest that some quantity of these food items was stored in the structure at the time it was burned or, perhaps, placed in the structure as an offering before it was intentionally burned. For Feature 37, the burned cultigens appear to have been introduced into the structure as trash deposits well after the structure was abandoned. Regardless of the exact reasons for the burned cultigens, the presence of maize and beans in features at this site is indicative of the important role of agriculture in subsistence related activities. Maize and beans are common remains in sites of the region from both earlier and contemporary times (Gasser 1983; Miksicek 1978; Toll 1984; Toll and Donaldson 1982).

The lengths and widths of cotyledons and the thicknesses of cotyledons and whole beans (Table 1) are well within the range of measurements for the common bean (Kaplan 1956). The beans from Feature 37 are, on average, smaller than those from Feature 24 and may have come from a different population. This makes sense since the Feature 37 beans appear to have been introduced during a different site occupation than those from Feature 24. However, they are not so small as to suggest drought induced variation.

The remains of maize include 8, 10, and 12-rowed specimens, of which 35 percent are 8-rowed (Table 1). Miksicek (1974, cited in Winter 1983) reports the percentage of 8-rowed maize in PII–PIII assemblages as 24 percent in the western El Morro Valley but 38 percent in the eastern part of the valley and in the same general area as LA 153714. One wonders whether this clinal variation in 8-rowed maize might be related to an increase in elevation from the western to the eastern side of the valley. Winter (1983) suggests that clinal distributions in 8-rowed maize reflect important socio-economic information but not necessarily the intentional selection of maize

with particular characteristics. He additionally recognizes that environmental changes that have been proposed for PII–PIII times may have increased the percentages of 8-rowed maize. Thus, the high percentage of 8-rowed maize at LA 153714 could imply the differential propagation of maize suited to higher elevations during a period of drought.

Other monitored attributes of maize include kernel thickness, rachis diameter of the cob, and cob cupule width. Kernel thicknesses measured directly from kernels are significantly greater than those indicated by measurements across glumes on cobs (Table 11.1), and this would indicate substantial shrinkage of cobs when burned as compared to kernels. Kernels are of a flour type, and a few suggest a dent variety of maize. Rachis diameters and cupule widths are on the small side, even with any correction for shrinkage, and would suggest somewhat slender cobs. Rachis diameters and cupule widths tend to be somewhat smaller than those recorded for cobs of other PII–PIII sites of the general region, but kernel thickness is within the range of variation (Gasser 1983; Toll 1985; Toll and Donaldson 1982; Winter 1993). However, sample sizes for the region are relatively small, and any conclusion should be tempered with this knowledge. It is, nevertheless, a possibility that the slender proportions of cobs could be a result of moisture or temperature (higher elevation/shorter growing season) stress though kernel size would appear to suggest sufficient conditions for growth.


Table 11.1. Macrobotanical Specimens Collected During Excavation. Measurements are Uncorrected for Carbonization.

Feature Context Taxon Number Row Number of Cob

Rachis Diameter (mm) of Cob

Cupule Width (mm) of Cob

Phaseolus vulgaris bean and Zea mays kernel attributes

(mm)

19 Mealing bin in F.1 Zea mays 2 small pieces of

fused kernels

24 Pit structure Phaseolus vulgaris

2 whole beans, 27 cotyledons, 34 cotyledon fragments

length: n=16, 15.1 (14.2-16.7) width: n=16, 8.5 (7-9.6) thickness: whole n=2, 6.4 (6.1-6.8) cotyledon n=14, 3.4 (2.7-4.2)

24 Pit structure Zea mays

85 cob fragments, some with kernels; 753 whole and partial kernels

8 row, n=5 10 row, n=7 12 row, n=2

8 row, 5.2 (4-6.2) 10 row, 5.7 (4.5-7.2) 12 row, 11 (9-13.1)

8 row, 5.3 (4.3-6.1) 10 row, 5.2 (4.2-6.2) 12 row, 6.5 (6.4-6.7)

whole kernels, n=21 thickness: 4.3 (2.7-5) width: 7.4 (6.1-8.7) cobs, kernel thickness: 8 row, 3.6 (3.1-4.5) 10 row, 3.4 (3-4.3) 12 row, 4.4 (4.2-4.6)

37 Pit house Phaseolus vulgaris

3 whole beans, 3 cotyledons, 1 cotyledon fragment

length: n=6, 10.5 (8.2-13.4) width: n=6, 6.0 (4.4-7.3) thickness: whole n=3, 5.3 (4.8-6) cotyledon n=3, 2.4 (2.3-2.5)

37 Pit house Zea mays 31 cob fragments, 389 kernels and fragments

8 row, n=4 10 row, n=6 12 row, n=2

8 row, 5.8 (5.2-6.5) 10 row, 6.3 (5-7.4) 12 row, 5.1 (5-5.3)

8 row, 5.2 (4.4-5.8) 10 row, 4.7 (4.1-5.4) 12 row, 4.1 (3.8-4.5)

whole kernels, n=39 thickness: 4.9 (3.5-6.3) width: 7.5 (5.8-9.6) cobs, kernel thickness: 8 row, 3.1 (2.8-3.5) 10 row, 3.4 (2.4-4) 12 row, 3.5 (3.3-3.7)

37 Pit house Yucca baccata 1 seed

Non-feature Zea mays 1 kernel fragment


CHARRED WOOD SAMPLES FOR DATING

A total of 33 potential samples for tree-ring dating were examined prior to submission to evaluate their suitability for dating and provide a preliminary species identification. Three samples were collected from the fill of masonry structures (Features 1 and 3), one sample was collected from a hearth (Feature 23), and another was an isolated find unassociated with a feature. The remaining specimens were recovered from the lower fill and floors of the deep pit structures, Features 24 and 37. The five specimens from Feature 37 appear to be of possible structural beams of small to medium size, and three of these had measurable diameters of 4, 7, and 8 cm (1.6, 2.7, and 3.1 in). The 25 specimens from Feature 24 include 12 with diameters of 4 to 10 cm (1.6 to 3.9 in) and three with diameters of 15 to 20 cm (5.9 to 7.9 in). One specimen in each of these size classes appears to have been shaped to a rectangular cross-section. The variation in size of specimens from Feature 24 and the large size and possible shaping of some of the pieces would suggest that the tree-ring samples from this feature are parts of structural elements. Evidence would indicate that Feature 24 may have been intentionally burned, resulting in the quantity of burned possible roofing material within it. However, it is also possible that fuel may have been added to the fire. For example, a considerable amount of ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) bark was uncovered around the perimeter of the structure and on the floor. While it is possible that structural elements were not stripped of their bark, it is also possible that the charcoal remains are a mixture of shaped roof beams and latillas as well as fuel wood with bark. Preliminary identification of the species represented by the tree-ring dating samples indicated a preponderance of ponderosa pine and a few specimens of piñon (Pinus cf edulis).

After preliminary analysis of potential samples, 49 tree-ring samples were actually submitted for dating. Those were determined to include 34 specimens of ponderosa pine and 15 of piñon (letter from Ronald H. Towner to Rebecca Schwendler, December 3, 2007). The relative abundance of ponderosa pine, the smaller representation of piñon, and the lack of other species noted for the tree-ring samples was largely paralleled in the charcoal of radiocarbon dating samples. Hence, the presence of ponderosa primarily and piñon secondarily, with few or no other wood species, seems to have resulted from prehistoric human activity, rather than modern sampling bias.

Table 11.2 presents counts and weights for charcoal in potential samples for radiocarbon dating. Ponderosa pine is very well-represented by both charcoal and bark, and piñon charcoal occurs less often and accounts for 23 percent of the combined weight of charcoal of ponderosa and piñon pine. Conifer (Gymnospermae) charcoal includes pine and possibly juniper charcoal, but no pieces of charcoal could be identified as juniper. Given that juniper is the dominant and most abundant conifer in the site vicinity today, it is surprising that juniper is not represented in this charcoal. The charcoal in the radiocarbon samples is likely a mixture of fuels and structural woods, and juniper should have been in these samples if it was at all common in the site area, as juniper has a recorded usage in both circumstances. Forest fires, timbering, and decreased precipitation may account for the present abundance of juniper but paucity of ponderosa. Aside from pines, the only other taxa noted in these samples are one occurrence of oak (Quercus sp.) and one of an unknown dicot (Dicotyledoneae).


Table 11.2. Counts and Weights for Charcoal in Radiocarbon Dating Samples

Pinus ponderosa charcoal

Pinus ponderosa bark

Pinus cf edulis charcoal

Gymnospermae charcoal

Quercus sp. charcoal

Dicotyledoneae charcoal Feature Context

no. grams no. grams no. grams no. grams no. grams no. grams

1 Masonry room 1 1.80

3 Storage room 6 12.70

4 Storage pit 2 3.40 1 4.60 3 2.75 2 28.60

5 Hearth in F.1 11 2.30 41 0.70

14 Rock alignment 23 10.40 2 0.80

19 Mealing bin in F.1 11 3.20 5 3.30

22

Ventilator shaft of F.24 1 0.05

23 Hearth 18 1.40 103 0.60 24 kKva 16 12.20 241 7.25 7 2.00

28 Post hole in F.24 14 0.20

37 Pit house 64 91.30 1 0.05 23 40.70 78 9.30

Non-feature 75 21.65 60 2.40 3 0.50 72 3.80 1 0.30 1 0.10

Total 227 160.35 318 14.55 43 50.05 296 43.00 1 0.30 1 0.10 % by count (n=886) 25.6% 35.9% 4.9% 33.4% 0.1% 0.1% % by weight (n=268.35g) 59.8% 5.4% 18.7% 16.0% 0.1% 0.0%


FLOTATION SAMPLES

Thirty-six fully examined or scanned flotation samples were analyzed from LA 153714. The average recovery for the 100 count poppy seed additions to five of the samples was 93 percent. This was a good return and reflects well on the processing of the soil samples and the examination of the light fractions. The volumes of soil samples available and/or analyzed from features ranged from as little as 0.1 to 5 liters (Table 3). The smaller sample volumes were principally from features that also had small volumes, and the majority of samples were 4 to 5 liters in size. The weights of charcoal for these samples varied considerably, but the larger weights were associated with the residential pit structures (Features 24 and 37), hearths in masonry rooms (Features 18 and 39), the fill of storage rooms (Features 3 and 17), and extramural hearths (Features 12 and 23). The association of charcoal with hearths (including those of Features 24 and 37) is obvious, and the burning of Feature 24 and possibly Feature 37 is additionally reflected in the weights of charcoal for these structures, as well as the numerous tree-ring samples from them.

Contaminants were noted for nearly all of the samples and were most abundant in the samples closest to the surface. They included roots, insect parts, rodent droppings, and a variety of unburned seeds and other plant parts that clearly reference the modern vegetation of the site. Herbaceous plants best represented by unburned seeds were goosefoot (Chenopodium sp.), curly dock

(Rumex crispus), portulaca (Portulaca sp.), spurge (Euphorbia cf glyptosperma), sweetclover (Melilotus cf alba), and bugseed (Corispermum sp.). Few grass seeds were recovered but included dropseed (Sporobolus sp.) and panicum (Panicum sp.). Unburned seeds of cacti were of hedgehog (Echinocereus sp.), prickly pear (Opuntia sp.), and cholla (Opuntia sp.). Unburned twigs of juniper and seeds of the one-seed juniper (Juniperus cf monosperma) were present in a number of samples and mark the dominant tree form of the site vicinity. In addition to the comparability of unburned remains of plants and the modern vegetation, the condition of these remains further indicates that they are of recent origin and are unrelated to archaeological features.

Table 11.3 provides a breakdown of charcoal, pine needles, and grass stems for the analyzed flotation samples. Data from earlier pit structures are provided in the upper third of the table, while those from the later masonry features are found in the middle third, and information on extramural features is presented in the bottom third of the table. For fully examined flotation samples, the weight of charcoal is a little more than 11 g per liter of soil for the pit structures, while the weight of charcoal is closer to 1 g per liter for the masonry structures and extramural features. The greater abundance of charcoal within the pit structures may be related to the burning of these structures, their use as trash dumps, and/or perhaps the better preservation of charcoal in these deep features.


Table 11.3. Counts of Charcoal and Pine Needles and Presence of Ponderosa Bark for Flotation Samples

Feature Context Sample Volume (liters)

Charcoal Weight

(9) Pinus sp.

needle Pinus

ponderosa needle

Pinus ponderosa

bark


Pinus cf edulis

charcoal

Juniperus sp.

charcoal Count of other

woods/grass stems

4 Storage pit 5.000 1.05 10 13 ++ 5 15 conifer 24 Pit structure 2.500 270.80 +++ 19 1

22 Ventilator shaft of F.24 5.000 46.00 ++ 18 2

25 Hearth in F.24, N half 5.000 128.00 +++ 15 5

25 Hearth in F.24, S half 5.000 4.70 ++ 13 5 2

28 Post hole in F.24 0.375 5.70 1 ++ 15 3 2 29 Post hole in F.24 5.000 2.05 9 59 ++ 12 8 conifer

30 Wall niche in F.24 0.100 3.90 1 ++ 14 4 2

32 Post hole in F.24 0.100 7.50 7 ++ 19 1

33 Sipapu in F.24 0.125 3.70 +++ 7 2 10 conifer; 1 ring porous

37 Pit house, 70-80 cm 5.000 3.25 3 31 3 17 conifer

37 Pit house, 160-173 cm 5.000 49.20 ++ 20

42 Child burial 5.000 5.80 18 17 ++ 11 1 43 Hearth in F.37 5.000 19.50 + 9 11

1 Masonry room 5.000 0.55 2 2 18 conifer 5 Hearth in F.1 5.000 1.80 2 ++ 6 14 conifer

5B* Ash from F.5 in F.1 2.800 * + + + conifer

11 Hearth in F.1 4.000 1.40 ++ 3 16 conifer; 1 Quercus sp

11B* Pit of F.11 in F.1 5.000 * + + + conifer 18 Hearth in F.1 5.000 6.80 ++ 18 1 1

19 Mealing bin in F.1 5.000 0.75 21 ++ 9 11 conifer


Table 11.3. Counts of Charcoal and Pine Needles and Presence of Ponderosa Bark for Flotation Samples, continued

Feature Context Sample Volume (liters)

Charcoal Weight

(9) Pinus sp.

needle Pinus

ponderosa needle

Pinus ponderosa

bark


Pinus cf edulis

charcoal

Juniperus sp.

charcoal Count of other

woods/grass stems

3 Storage room 5.000 3.90 ++ 11 1 8 conifer 14* Rock alignment 4.100 * + + + + conifer

17 Storage room 0.250 3.70 ++ 15 2 2 conifer; 1 ring porous

39 Hearth in F.35 5.000 8.95 15 67 +++ 14 1 5 conifer; 4 grass stems

6* Extramural post hole 5.000 * + conifer

7 Extramural post hole 1.800 0.05 2 conifer



12 Hearth 3.000 17.30 4 25 + 19 1 16* Post hole 5.000 * + ++ + + conifer

23 Hearth 1.250 2.15 1 + 5 14 conifer; 1 cf Cylindropuntia

36 Pit 5.000 1.85 9 ++ 20

40 Pit 1.000 1.25 11 + 5 1 4 conifer; 1 grass stem

non-feature 0-10 cm 5.000 0.60 16 conifer non-feature 10-20 cm 5.000 1.80 2 ++ 6 14 conifer Identified Conifer Charcoal Count (total = 365) 316 38 11 % of Count Total 86.6% 10.4% 3.0% % of samples (n = 36) 28.6% 40.0% 74.3% 86.1% 36.1% 19.4% * Scanned samples + Present in sample


In spite of the differences in quantity of charcoal, little difference was noted between the pit structures and other features in terms of the relative abundance of recorded taxa. Burned stems of grass and non-coniferous charcoal were noted in few samples and in small numbers. Non-coniferous woods include one specimen of oak, one of cholla (Cylindropuntia), and two of a ring porous dicot. Only slightly more abundant is juniper which accounted for 4 percent of the identified conifer charcoal in the pit structures and 2 percent in the masonry structures. Juniper was not identified in the samples from extramural features. Piñon charcoal is next most popular and makes up 15 percent of the charcoal from pit structures, 5 percent from masonry structures, and 4 percent from extramural features. The most common wood represented by charcoal was ponderosa pine, and the percentages for this taxon range from 81 percent for pit structures to 93 percent for masonry structures to 96 percent for extramural features. Ponderosa pine bark and needles were recorded for many features throughout the site, and pine needles that could include piñon needles were noted for a smaller number of features. With respect to charcoal, needles, and bark, the only features that stand out from the others are extramural post holes which yielded little charcoal.

The increase in ponderosa pine charcoal and the decrease in piñon and juniper charcoal from the earlier pit structures to the later masonry structures could reflect a decrease in the availability or over-use of piñon and juniper late in the occupation of LA 153714, the maturation of a ponderosa pine parkland late in the occupation, or just a better representation of fuel woods as opposed to structural woods in the late samples. Given the somewhat short length of occupation for this site, a change in tree species that might be related to a shift in precipitation or temperature cannot be argued with this data. It is more probable that piñon and juniper

were differentially exploited with respect to ponderosa pine. Additionally, and as observed with the tree-ring and radiocarbon samples, the vegetation in the site vicinity appears to have been a mixed conifer forest with a dominance of ponderosa pine. Juniper is poorly represented, and would have been better represented if the vegetation had been closer to that of today.

The analysis of pollen samples from LA 153714 (Phillips, Chapter 12 of this report) follows, in part, the results from the analysis of charcoal. The surface control sample is substantially different from the archaeological samples. Juniper pollen is two and one-half to eight times more common in the surface sample than in the subsurface samples. The percentage of piñon pollen in three archaeological samples is similar to the percentage for the surface sample, but three other archaeological samples have three to six times the amount of pollen registered for the surface sample. Ponderosa pine pollen is not well-represented in the archaeological samples, but one sample does have five times the amount of pollen as compared to the surface sample. However, poor preservation of archaeological pollen grains was reported, and the counts should be interpreted cautiously. Even so, the better representation of piñon and ponderosa pine in the archaeological pollen samples and the abundance of juniper in the surface sample compares with the abundance of ponderosa pine and piñon charcoal in the archaeological deposits and the common occurrence of juniper in the area today.

Cultigens and/or burned seeds occur in 75 percent of the flotation samples from LA 153714, and a moderately diverse assemblage is represented by 14 recognized taxa (Table 11.4). As might be expected, burned seeds or cultigens were not recovered from four of five extramural post holes. Half of the samples from Feature 1 or features within this room


also show no burned seeds or cultigens. Either activities within this room were limited or preservation of carbonized materials within this surface feature may not have been very good. On the whole, however, there are no obvious differences in the preservation of burned seeds and cultigens between the pit structures, surface structures, and extramural features. It is, however, noteworthy that features with three or more taxa include hearths (Features 12, 25, 39) where some items may have been burned during food preparation or consumption. Other circumstances where trash disposal or post-occupation in-filling of features may have occurred and where three or more taxa are documented include the fill of an extramural pit (Feature 40), and the upper fill of one of the pit structures and the fill around a burial within it (Features 37, 42). A total of 514 items were found in the 36 flotation samples, and the majority of the remains are of maize.

Maize kernels or cob cupules were retrieved from 39 percent of the samples, and cultivated beans were detected in three samples. In somewhat earlier but similar sites near Ramah, Toll (1984) reports finding maize in only 12 percent of the flotation samples and infers poor preservation of carbonized remains. For Jones Ranch Road near Gallup, Gasser (1983) gives an average of 53 percent of samples with maize for sites of somewhat earlier age, and Miksicek (1978, cited in Gasser 1982) notes an average of 91 percent for a variety of earlier to contemporary sites in the El Morro Valley. The intermediate value of 39 percent for LA 153714 would suggest that preservation may have been an issue at this site, but the orientation of sampling features rather than charcoal bearing deposits may also have lowered the frequency of occurrence. Beans often occur in

assemblages of the region but never in anything but small numbers.

Remains of beans and maize are associated with both the pit structures and the surface rooms, and maize is also found in extramural pits and hearths. Maize cob cupules outnumber kernels by three to one, but there is variation in their distribution. Cob cupules are more common in the surface structures and extramural features and are relatively abundant in two hearths (Features 12, 39) where cobs were probably used as fuel. Kernels are more numerous than cob fragments in the pit structures, particularly Feature 37. Kernels and cobs from two pit structures (Features 24 and 37) have previously been described and it has been proffered that maize, as cobs with kernels, was either stored or placed as an offering within these structures at the time they burned.

The use of a variety of wild resources is indicated by the burned seeds from flotation samples (Table 11.4). Weedy plants common to disturbed soils and agricultural fields are well-represented in the assemblage and in order of decreasing number are goosefoot (n=38), Cheno-Am (n=15), portulaca (Portulaca sp, n=5), mustard (Brassicaceae, n=4), and perhaps knotweed (Polygonum cf aviculare, n=3), globemallow (Sphaeralcea sp, n=1), and buckwheat (Eriogonum sp., n=1). Cheno-Am is an artificial category that includes fragmented seeds or deteriorated seeds of goosefoot or similar looking seeds of the same family (Chenopodiaceae) and amaranth (Amaranthus sp.). Amaranth was not specifically identified but is frequent in flotation samples of the region (Gasser 1983; Miksicek 1978, cited in Gasser 1982; Toll 1984; Toll and Donaldson 1982).


Table 11.4. Counts of Carbonized Seeds and Other Reproductive Parts from Flotation Samples

Feature Context Zea

mays cupule

Zea mays kernel or fragment

Phaseolus sp.

cotyledon

Chenopodium sp.

seed Cheno-Am

seed Portulaca

sp. seed

Polygonumcf aviculare

seed

Sporobolussp.

seed Other

4 Storage pit 4 1 24 Pit structure

22 Ventilator shaft of F.24

1

25 Hearth in F.24, N half

2 1 1

25 Hearth in F.24, S half

1

28 Post hole in F.24 2

29 Post hole in F.24

3 1

30 Wall niche in F.24

1 1

32 Post hole in F.24 1

3 2 Brassicaceae seeds

33 Sipapu in F.24 7 1 2 cf Brassicaceae seeds

37 Pit house, 70-80 cm 3 54 1 2 6

37 Pit house, 160-173 cm

54

42 Child burial 3 22 1 1 1 Eriogonum sp. 43 Hearth in F.37

1 Masonry room

5 Hearth in F.1

1 1 Echinocereus sp. seed

5B* Ash from F.5 in F.1

11 Hearth in F.1 1

11B* pit of F.11 in F.1

18 Hearth in F.1 1 1


Table 11.4. Counts of Carbonized Seeds and Other Reproductive Parts from Flotation Samples, continued

Feature Context Zea

mays cupule

Zea mays kernel or fragment

Phaseolus sp.

cotyledon

Chenopodium sp.

seed Cheno-Am

seed Portulaca

sp. seed

Polygonumcf aviculare

seed

Sporobolussp.

seed Other

19 Mealing bin in F.1

1 Juniperus sp. seed fragment

3 Storage room 1 1

14* Rock alignment *

*

17 Storage room 1 (P. vulgaris)

39 Hearth in F.35 237 6 2 (P. vulgaris) 11 3 1 1 Sphaeralcea sp. seed

6* Extramural post hole

7 Extramural post hole



12 Hearth 24 4 1 Yucca baccata seed 16* Post hole * 23 Hearth 3 1 36 Pit 6 1 1

40 Pit 5 2

3 1 1 1 1

1 Echinocereus sp. seed; 1 Gramineae seed fragment

non-feature 0-10 cm 1

non-feature 10-20 cm 1

2

Count (total = 514) 288 94 4 38 15 5 3 56 % of Count Total 56.0% 18.3% 0.8% 7.4% 2.9% 1.0% 0.6% 10.9% % of samples (n = 36) 30.6% 27.8% 11.1% 36.1% 22.2% 13.9% 8.3% 8.3% * Scanned samples, presence only noted for taxa


Knotweed is an interesting plant with recorded medicinal uses by the Hopi and Navajo (see Hough 1898; Wyman and Harris 1941). It has also been reported by the Navajo that knotweed can strangle crops and that its presence in fields is good reason to abandon them (Knight 1982). The root and leaves of globemallow are also reported to have medicinal uses by the Zuni, Hopi, and others (see Stevenson 1915; Whiting 1939). Neither of these taxa is important in the assemblage from LA 153714, and only globemalow has been reported from other sites of PII-PIII times in the immediate region (Gasser 1983; Miksicek 1978, cited in Gasser 1982).

Goosefoot, amaranth, other Cheno-Am, portulaca, and mustard have edible greens that become available in the spring and edible seeds that can be on plants as late as first frost. The greens and seeds of these plants have been used by many groups, including the Zuni and Hopi (see Castetter 1935; Hough 1898; Stevenson 1915; Whiting 1939). The presence and importance of these taxa at LA 153714, as well as the relative abundance of maize and beans would indicate seasonality during the pit structure and masonry room occupations from spring through summer and into early fall. This along with the deep pit structures and hearths within structures could imply that occupations were year-round. In addition, the seeds and even dried greens can be stored to extend their utility to seasons beyond their natural availability. Mustards occur in some assemblages of the region, but goosefoot, amaranth, and portulaca generally dominate the wild plant assemblages, as they do at LA 153714, and reflect the important contribution of these taxa to the diet (Gasser 1983; Miksicek 1978, cited in Gasser 1982; Toll 1984; Toll and Donaldson 1982).

Burned grass seeds are limited to an unidentifiable grass seed and a seed of dropseed in the fill of a surface pit (Feature 40), one dropseed in a wall niche of Feature

24, and 54 dropseed in the lower fill of Feature 37. Whiting (1939) records the use of dropseed as food by the Hopi. The large number of dropseed from Feature 37 would suggest the use of this summer grass for food; however, it is also possible that dropseed plants with seeds were incorporated in the superstructure of this pit structure and were burned when the structure burned. Dropseed is a taxon of small importance for other flotation samples of the region (Gasser 1983; Miksicek 1978, cited in Gasser 1982).

The remaining taxa detected in the flotation samples are juniper, datil or banana yucca, and hedgehog cactus. The single juniper seed fragment was recovered from the mealing bin in Feature 1. Juniper berries can persist on one-seed juniper trees for a year or longer and have been used for food or medicine by the Zuni and Hopi (see Castetter 1935; Stevenson 1915; Whiting 1939). One burned hedgehog seed was located within a hearth of Feature 1 and the fill of an extramural pit (Feature 40). Whiting (1939) notes the use of the summer fruits of hedgehog as food by the Hopi, and Castetter (1935) reports similar uses for a number of pueblos. The fruit of banana yucca has been used by the Zuni and Hopi for food (Stevenson 1915; Whiting 1939), and a seed of banana yucca was identified from a flotation sample from an extramural hearth (Feature 12). A second seed of banana yucca was recorded for a radiocarbon dating sample from the floor fill of Feature 37 (Table 11.1); unfortunately, the seed proved too small for effective radiocarbon dating. Fruits of banana yucca mature in late spring or early summer depending upon elevation. Juniper, hedgehog, and banana yucca appear to be important but minor resources for the region, given their relatively low frequency of occurrence in flotation samples (Gasser 1983; Miksicek 1978, cited in Gasser 1982; Toll and Donaldson 1982).


Goosefoot is present in 36 percent of the flotation samples from LA 153714, Cheno-Am seeds are in 22 percent of the samples, and portulaca is in 14 percent of the samples. The remaining taxa occur in 8 percent or fewer of the samples. The diversity of taxa for wild resources and their frequency of occurrence are greater than for similar sites of slightly earlier age near Ramah where the preservation of carbonized remains was not good (Toll 1984). However, more diverse assemblages with higher frequencies of occurrence for the same taxa recorded at LA 153714 and other taxa are reported for other sites of the same or earlier ages (Gasser 1983; Miksicek 1978, cited in Gasser 1982; Toll and Donaldson 1982). These other assemblages have evidence of wild resources that could well have been expected for LA 153714 with better preservation and perhaps with the analysis of a larger number of samples. They include piñon nuts and seeds of beeweed (Cleome serrulata), winged pigweed (Cycloloma sp.), Indian rice grass (Oryzopsis hymenoides), prickly pear, sunflower (Helianthus sp.), and possibly a few others. Unfortunately, the archaeological pollen from LA 153714 was degraded and neither confirmed the use of taxa identified in the flotation samples nor added to the list of represented wild resources (Phillips, Chapter 12 of this report).

SUMMARY

The findings with respect to the analysis of flotation samples and other samples of carbonized plant remains from LA 153714 relate to three principle subjects: intrasite distributions of materials, subsistence, and site environment. Although the preservation of carbonized plant materials appears to be intermediate to that from flotation samples from other slightly earlier or contemporary sites in the region, the diversity and frequency of observed taxa are comparable to some of the richer assemblages. The information

gained from this analysis certainly adds to that of other studies and further details a growing body of data on subsistence and environment.

The distribution of burned plant materials within LA 153714 is not uniform. Two pit structures (Features 24 and 37) have an abundance of tree-ring and radiocarbon dating samples and flotation samples with considerable charcoal. In contrast to these two structures, extramural features and later surface rooms have few tree-ring and radiocarbon dating samples, and have flotation samples with a tenth of the amount of charcoal. The evidence indicates that Feature 24 burned and was perhaps intentionally set afire. It has also been suggested that the presence of substantial amounts of ponderosa pine bark in this feature could be related to fuel used to fire the structure. The presence of burned timbers and general quantities of other burned material would similarly indicate that Feature 37 had burned. Within Feature 37, a substantial number of seeds of dropseed was found that may have been stored in the structure at the time it burned. More interesting is the plentiful evidence of maize cobs and kernels from Features 24 and 37 that could indicate the storage of maize in these structures, or possibly offerings of ears of maize if the structures were intentionally burned. Certain aspects of Feature 24 suggest that it may have been used for ritual activities. However, there is nothing unusual about the assemblage of cultigens or wild species from Feature 24, as compared to Feature 37 and other structures and extramural features, which would support this contention.

Aside from burning of the two pit structures and the greater accumulation of carbonized plant remains within them, there are three other general observations. First, extramural post holes have little within them, indicating little trash deposition around them. Second,


the greater numbers of taxa are associated with the fill material of extramural pits and pit structures where some trash obviously accumulated. Third, two hearths (Features 12 and 39) exhibit a diversity of plant remains that may be related to food preparation/consumption and the burning of maize cobs as fuel.

Cultigens and wild resources indicate a mixed farming and collecting economy that is well-documented in the region. Common beans are associated with both the earlier pit structures and the later surface rooms, and maize cobs and kernels were recovered throughout the site and from 39 percent of the features, including the earlier and later occupations. Maize kernels are of a flour type and average size. However, cobs measure on the small side for the region. This could be a result of moisture or temperature (higher elevation/shorter growing season) stress associated with return to pre-drought conditions at about this time. Still, the number of measured cobs is too small to put any reliance on such a conclusion. There is, nevertheless, another pattern that may have some regional meaning. That is, an increase in the percentages of 8-rowed maize with elevation is observed and could imply some advantage to growing 8-rowed maize at higher elevations.

The diversity and relative abundance of wild resources follows that of other sites in the region. Weedy species with edible greens and seeds often found growing on disturbed soils around places of occupation and in fields or on abandoned plots are the most conspicuous and include goosefoot and other Cheno-Ams, portulaca, and mustards. Other recorded resources are grass seeds, cactus fruits, and the fruits of banana yucca. The availability of these wild resources, the evidence of maize agriculture, and the presence of deep pit structures, surface and subsurface structures with hearths, and storage rooms would

indicate multiseasonal, if not year round, occupation.

Finally, quantities of bark, needles, and charcoal of ponderosa pine in the various samples analyzed herein indicate that the site environment at the time of occupation was very different from that of today. Juniper is poorly represented in the archaeological samples, and piñon fairs better but is nowhere near the importance of ponderosa pine. Additionally, there is a decrease in charcoal of both juniper and piñon from the earlier to the later occupation. Today, the site vicinity is dominated by juniper. The greater occurrence of ponderosa pine in the area at the time of the occupation as compared to the dominance of juniper today could be related to historic fires and timbering or a general decrease in effective precipitation in recent historic times. Whatever the reason, it would appear that the site vicinity was well-forested at the time of occupation. The decrease in juniper and piñon from the earlier to the later occupation of LA 153714 most probably reflects the over-exploitation of these species near the site, but it could also be mirroring a change to pre-drought conditions. Hopefully future work in the region can monitor charcoal to better elucidate trends in the environment.

CHAPTER 12 POLLEN ANALYSIS

Bruce G. Phillips, EcoPlan Associates, Inc.

Pollen grains are male cells carrying genetic material necessary for reproduction, and range in size from about 8 µm to 120 µm (0.008 mm–0.120 mm). For pollination, pollen is carried by wind (anemophilous) and by animals (zoophilous). At any time, varying amounts of pollen are in the air (pollen rain). Pollen assemblages resulting from the pollen rain are expected to reflect surrounding plant communities. As pollen falls to the ground, it is incorporated into sediment. In a strict sense, most pollen recovered from unconsolidated sediment is not fossilized, but is nevertheless called fossil pollen. In cultural settings, pollen assemblages are affected by human activity, obscuring the natural pollen rain. Pollen is often found in contexts that would not happen naturally; in such cases, the pollen can be interpreted culturally. In a sense, fossil pollen grains are artifacts and, therefore, can be used to examine certain aspects of behavior, such as subsistence.

LA 153714 is a Pueblo III–Pueblo IV site east of El Morro National Monument in west-central New Mexico. Nine pollen samples were analyzed. Contexts included modern ground surface, intramural and extramural slab-lined hearths, a midden, a mealing bin, a post hole, and a storage pit. Analysis was conducted to examine subsistence practices.

The project area is approximately 2,229 m (7,314 ft) above mean sea level (amsl) in the eastern portion of the Colorado Plateau. The site was situated on a slight northeast-facing slope in a dune area at the base of a north/south-trending volcanic outcrop. While surface water today is rare in the immediate vicinity of the site, small wetlands areas are interspersed among sand dunes located less than 3.2 km (2 mi) to the south and southeast. In addition, a culvert running under NM 53 is

surrounded by a perpetually damp or wet area located immediately northeast of LA 153714. The site falls within the Great Basin Conifer Woodland vegetative community (Brown 1994a). Grasses, rabbitbrush, juniper, and piñon pine are the dominant plant types; ponderosa pine is sparse.

METHODS

Sediment samples were sent to the Palynology Laboratory, Texas A&M University, for pollen extractions. Sample bag contents were mixed thoroughly, and 20 cc subsamples were extracted. Approximately 25,000 grains of Lycopodium were added to estimate pollen concentration. Samples were then treated with 10 percent hydrochloric acid to reduce carbonates, followed by a swirl-and-decant step (Mehringer 1967:136–137) to reduce the heavier matrix fraction (greater than 180 µm). Silicates were reduced by a hydrofluoric acid treatment of approximately 20 hours. Heavy liquid flotation in zinc bromide (with a specific gravity of 1.9) was followed by acetolysis to further reduce organics. The remaining residues were washed with water and alcohol, stained with saffranin, and suspended in glycerol.

At EcoPlan in Arizona, extracts were mounted and examined at a viewing power of 400X on an Olympus BHTU compound microscope. Subsequent percentage calculations were based on 200 grain counts. Identifications were aided by EcoPlan reference material and keys (Kapp 1969; Moore et al. 1991). Each fossil pollen grain was identified to the generic level when possible. If a grain could not be differentiated from similar genera, it was identified only to the family level. Pollen grains that were broken, corroded, or degraded beyond

Chapter 12 Pollen Analysis 258

recognition were assigned to the “degraded” category. Many partially degraded tricoplate and tricoporate grains were seen, but could not be confidently identified to the family. Based on size and apparent exine structure, the grains were assigned to the categories cf. mustard family and cf. pea family, resembling pollen of these two families.

Following standard examination, slides were scanned at 100X magnification to record rare pollen types with possible cultural significance (such as cultigens and cacti). Pollen aggregates (clumps) were also monitored. Because aggregates are not efficiently transported by wind, they indicate either a source in the immediate sampling area (Fish 1995:661) or introduction to the site by humans (Gish 1991). Based on work by Gish (1993) and Smith (1995), the following size cutoffs were used: cultigens and cacti, none; Cheno-Ams, 30 grains; others, 10 grains. Although cutoffs are subjective, they help filter out small aggregates resulting from natural processes or laboratory procedures (Smith 1995:171). Finally, the number of tracers per slide was determined. This allowed a concentration estimate for each category recorded in scanning.

Pollen concentrations were calculated with the following formula:

pollen grains counted

tracer concentration

Concentration = X

tracers counted sample

volume

Pollen concentration values are estimates of the quantity of fossil pollen preserved in each cubic centimeter of sediment. In natural settings, these values can indicate sedimentation rates, pollen production and dispersion rates, and the effects of differential

preservation. In cultural settings, concentrations can indicate the intensity of site and/or feature use. Because many factors can influence pollen concentrations, they must be interpreted with discretion. The figures are estimates; differences on an order of a magnitude or more are likely significant (Susan Smith, personal communication 1997). So, while the data are presented as they were calculated, 20 grains/cc is not necessarily greater than 10 grains/cc; rather 200 grains/cc versus 20 grains/cc should be considered a significant difference.

Degraded pollen assemblages are not uncommon in the Southwest (Hall 1981, 1985; Holloway 1981). Many factors cause pollen deterioration, and the process is not well understood. Mechanical factors can cause grains to be crushed or torn apart, whereas chemical agents can affect their structural integrity. Chief among chemical agents is the cycle of wetting and drying (Holloway 1989) that commonly affects open-air sites. Another factor is heat, which can oxidize and destroy pollen grains. Also affecting the number and distribution of pollen types is the amount of sporopollenin in grains of different plants. Sporopollenin is a highly resistant organic compound that allows pollen to be preserved in sediments and other settings. Because Cheno-Ams and Compositae often have large amounts of the compound and hence preserve well, they are often over-represented in the pollen record. Degraded grains were tracked in the analysis.

Twenty-three taxa were detected in pollen samples (Table 12.1). Maize was the only domesticated type identified. Seven of nine samples (77 percent) had sufficient amounts of pollen for analysis. Nomenclature and plant ecology follow Kearney and Peebles (1960); plants are discussed using their common names, except for Cheno-Ams, and high- and low-spine Asteraceae (sunflower family).


Sources for flowering season are Gish (1989) and Smith (1995).

The surface control sample differed substantially from the archaeological samples; total pollen concentration was highest in this assemblage, and pollen grains were very well preserved (Table 12.2), suggesting that the prehistoric data set might not be an entirely accurate reflection of the original assemblage. Also, both grass and juniper percentages were nearly three times higher than in any prehistoric sample, which likely is a product of surface sample collection when nearby plants were flowering. Low-spine Asteraceae pollen dominated the pollen assemblage. Subdominants were Cheno-Ams, the grass family, juniper, and high-spine Asteraceae. Other common local types were the mustard, pea, nightshade, and spurge families, typically found in low percentages. Pollen signatures generally reflected Great Basin Conifer Woodland vegetation. Cattail was the only riparian type identified.

Average pollen concentrations varied widely, suggesting different levels of activity within the site. The number of pollen types per sample was moderate, suggesting occupation over several seasons—and possibly year-round—or multiple short-term occupations at different times of the year. Feature 16B, a clay-filled post hole, had the highest number of types; the feature likely acted as a trap, collecting pollen from a range of activities and seasons. Across the site, degraded grain frequencies were high to very high, further indicating poor preservation. Percentages of individual taxa within features were relatively consistent; no distinct wild plant use was indicated.

Within scans, maize pollen was recognized in five samples, including the surface control. Apparently, surface sediments were a mix of modern and prehistoric soils. Maize pollen aggregates in two features indicated that fresh

produce was introduced. It is possible that small-scale farming was conducted in the area, perhaps along the banks of wetlands. Although three types of wild pollen aggregates were recorded, none were common and concentrations were low; cultural use was not indicated. The sparse grain-aggregate assemblage did not reflect seasonality.


Table 12.1. Latin Names and Common Names for Taxa Identified in Pollen Samples from LA 153714

Taxa Common Name Cultigen Zea mays Maize Arboreal Pinus ponderosa-type Ponderosa Pine-type Pinus edulis-type Piñon Pine-type Juniperus Juniper Quercus Oak Acer Box Elder Non-Arboreal Cheno-Am Goosefoot, Pigweed Asteraceae, Low-spine Ragweed and Goldenrod Group Asteraceae, High-spine Sunflower Group Artemisia Sagebrush Poaceae Grass Family Brassicaceae Mustard Family Fabaceae Pea Family Solanaceae Nightshade Family Euphorbiaceae Spurge Family Eriogonum Desert Buckwheat Rosaceae Rose Family Kallstroemia Arizona poppy Sphaeralcea Globemallow Boerhaavia-type Spiderling Ephedra Joint Fir Liliaceae Lily Family Onagraceae Evening Primrose family Typha Cattail Degraded Too poorly preserved to identify


Table 12.2. Pollen Results for LA 153714, West-central New Mexico FS 97 140 244 299 333 358 469 595 614 Feature N/A N/A 5 12 18 19 23 16B 4

Feature Type Surface control

Midden Unit 3

Slab-lined hearth

Slab-lined hearth

Slab-lined hearth

Mealing bin

Slab-lined hearth

Post hole Storage

Ponderosa pine 1.0 0.5 0.5 5.0 Piñon pine 1.0 0.5 1.0 3.0 0.5 3.0 6.5 Juniper 43.5 17.0 5.5 9.0 6.5 9.0 5.0 Oak 1.0 0.5 Maple 0.5 Cheno-Am 1.5 11.5 4.0 6.0 12.0 14.0 5.5 Low-spine Asteraceae 5.5 12.5 10.5 18.5 17.0 14.0 11.5 High-spine Asteraceae 3.0 9.5 8.0 6.5 6.0 5.0 5.5 Sagebrush 0.5 1.5 4.0 2.0 Grass family 40.5 8.0 6.5 11.5 11.5 15.0 21.0 Mustard family 4.0 4.0 3.0 8.0 6.0 6.5 Pea family 2.0 1.0 5.5 4.0 5.0 Nightshade family 2.0 4.0 1.5 0.5 0.5 Spurge family 1.5 0.5 2.0 1.0 2.0 Wild buckwheat 0.5 2.0 0.5 Rose family 0.5 1.0 1.5 Arizona poppy 0.5 0.5 Globemallow 0.5 Spiderling 0.5 Mormon tea 0.5 Lily family 1.0 Evening Primrose family 0.5 Cattail 1.0 Degraded 1.0 32.5 53.0 35.5 27.5 24.0 21.5 Types per sample 10 13 12 13 13 10 0 16 0

200 Grain Count (percent)

Concentration (grains/cc) 21,667 13,684 6,190 13,684 16,250 2,000 0 3,421 0 Maize (grains/cc) 23 10 18 21 8

Maize 5 10 Juniper 8 Low-spine Asteraceae 10

Scans Aggregates/ cc

Grass family 4 8


DISCUSSION

By reviewing plant ecology and how historic and modern groups have used different species, we better understand how the remains recovered during excavation originally entered the archaeological record. The only clear economic resource identified at LA 153714 was maize. This is not to say that other plants were not important. Essentially all of the taxa identified in the study area have ethnographically documented uses.

Maize was a staple of prehistoric groups in the Southwest, and is often the most abundant cultigen at archaeological sites. For example, maize was planted by the Rio Grande Tewa in April and harvested in late September or early October (Robbins et al. 1916:82-83). Ears were picked by hand and carried in sacks to the plaza where they were piled for husking. Everyone participated in the husking, which could take several days. Children played among the large piles of refuse and the husks also provided comfortable seats for the workers. Eventually the husks were raked together and disposed. After the best ears were husked, they were tied in a bundle (ristra) and hung indoors from roof beams. The remaining ears were laid outdoors on a well-drained spot, such as a platform or rooftop, to dry. Maize was stored as whole cobs or ground into meal, an involved process with several steps. Besides being cooked and eaten, maize meal was used in numerous rituals.

Maize pollen grains are large and do not fall far from flowering stalks. Therefore, the presence of significant amounts of pollen in non-field areas implies introduction during transport and processing of mature ears. Pollen is progressively removed from maize as it is processed. For example, the most pollen is expected on fresh, unhusked ears with some tassel remaining (Smith and Geib 1999). Discarded husks would have

contributed a significant amount of pollen to middens. After roasting, shelling, and processing, little pollen may remain with the fruit. If maize was husked in a plaza and the refuse allowed to rest, much (if not most) of the pollen would be expected to fall in the plaza. However, people working and playing among the husks would have unknowingly carried maize grains to other areas of the pueblo, potentially causing maize pollen to be ubiquitous at a site.

At LA 153714, maize pollen and aggregates indicate that the inhabitants had access to fresh produce. Wetlands on the surrounding terrain would have provided a water source; the margins of these riparian areas also would have been good planting grounds. The site is at a greater elevation than historic riverine pueblos and likely had a shorter growing season. Maize pollen was relatively common, but was not present in high concentrations. It is possible that the cultigen was a staple of the occupants, but was heavily supplemented by other foods. Maize aggregates indicated that fresh maize was brought to the site, but in relatively low quantities. Perhaps produce was processed at field locations or in places outside the current project area.

SUMMARY

Seven of nine pollen samples collected from LA 153714 were suitable for analysis; two samples were barren. Substantial differences between the well-preserved surface control sample and the high frequencies of degraded grains in archaeological samples reflect poor prehistoric preservation; accordingly, the pollen data set likely is not an accurate reflection of the original assemblage. Maize was the only clearly utilized resource, though the plant diet could have been augmented by a number of herbs and trees. Crops may have been grown adjacent to wetlands.

CHAPTER 13 DATING METHODS


INTRODUCTION

Four dating techniques—ceramic typology, radiocarbon dating, tree-ring dating (dendrochronology), and archaeo-magnetometry—were used to place LA 153714 within its prehistoric time frame. Of the materials required for those methods, only decorated ceramic artifacts and charred organic remains were expected at Hokona. However, the discovery of many charred wood samples, and burned clay preserved in two different features, made the second two techniques appropriate. While archaeomagnetometry was not as successful as hoped, tree-ring dating of the Feature 24 pit structure provided vital information about Hokona’s age and its relationship to other sites in the El Morro Valley. Results of ceramic analysis and dating are presented in Chapter 7, but findings from radiocarbon, tree-ring, and archaeomagnetic dating are provided below. Implications of the dates are explored more fully in Chapter 14.

RADIOCARBON DATING

A total of 14 samples of charred annuals or wood charcoal were submitted to Beta Analytic in Miami, Florida (Table 13.1, Appendix H). Of those, one sample (burned Sporobolus sp. [dropseed] seeds from Feature 37) turned out to be too small to date. Eleven samples were assessed using accelerator mass spectrometry, but the other two samples (burned maize from Feature 24 and conifer charcoal from Feature 37) were dated using the radiometric technique. Figure 13.1 provides a visual representation of the results of the radiocarbon dating. Intercepts of samples’ radiocarbon ages with the calibration curve are shown as diamonds, while 2 Sigma probability ranges are shown as vertical lines, with the ends clearly delineated with crossbars. Additional intercepts for Features 4 and 37 and MU 1 are shown as horizontal lines.

Table 13.1. Radiocarbon Samples Submitted from LA 153714

FS No.

Feature No. Feature Type Sample Material Sample

Weight (g) Conventional

Radiocarbon Age (BP)

214 1 Central masonry/jacal habitation structure Conifer charcoal 0.55 670 ± 40

340 3 Masonry storage structure Ponderosa charcoal 3.90 650 ± 40

616 4 “Storage pit” pit structure Maize, pine needles, conifer twigs 0.05 600 ± 40

245 5 Feature 1 central slab-lined hearth Ponderosa charcoal 2.30 730 ± 40

295 12 External hearth Maize 0.20 810 ± 40

323 17 Masonry and pit storage structure Bean 0.10 520 ± 40

353 19 Feature 1 mealing bin Maize 0.05 730 ± 40 435 23 External slab-lined hearth Conifer charcoal 2.15 720 ± 40 559 24 Pit structure Maize 26.00* 720 ± 60 592 36 External pit Maize, small seed 0.15 570 ± 40 681 37 “Pit house” pit structure Conifer charcoal 49.10* 930 ± 70 599 39 Feature 35 thermal pit Maize 1.00 730 ± 40 129 MU 1 Midden Maize 0.05 600 ± 40

*radiometric technique used

Chapter 13 Dating Methods 264

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

F. 3

7

F. 1

2

F. 5

F. 1

9

F. 2

3

F. 2

4

F. 3

9

F. 1

F. 3

MU

1

F. 4

F. 3

6

F. 1

7

Cal

ibra

ted

Year

s A

.D.

Show

ing

Inte

rcep

t and

2 S

igm

a R

ange

Figure 13.1. Calibrated radiocarbon dates from LA 153714 by numbered

feature (F.).

Statistically speaking, the 13 dates from LA 153714 fall into two general temporal groups: one from approximately A.D. 1160–1300, and another from approximately A.D. 1270–1440, although two dates—from Features 23 and 24—fall within both groups. Looking at the distribution of intercepts, however, dates fall into perhaps five different groups: one before A.D. 1100, one at approximately A.D. 1230, another around A.D. 1280–1300, a fourth at A.D. 1350, and a final one between A.D. 1400 and A.D. 1420. These chronological groupings suggest that the surface masonry structures of Features 1 and 3, along with Feature 1’s internal features (Features 5 and 19) were used at the same time as an external hearth (Feature 23) located just outside Feature 3, a thermal pit (Feature 39) within the wall of another surface masonry structure, and the Feature 24 pit structure. Therefore, at least one pit structure was contemporaneous

with several masonry structures. Contrary to expectation, the three pit structures do not all date earlier than the surface and near-surface masonry structures, although that may have been due to a variety of factors described below.

Given its large probability range and unusually early date, the conifer charcoal sample from the floor of Feature 37 may have been contaminated with “old wood” that had been lying on the surface (Schiffer 1986). If that is true, use of the Feature 37 pit structure itself probably did not occur as early as its date range suggests. In contrast, the dendrochronology cutting date of A.D. 1275 (see below) for Feature 24’s roof matches extremely well with its radiocarbon date, suggesting that it was, in fact, built and occupied right around A.D. 1275–1280. The third pit structure, Feature 4, contained very


few datable radiocarbon samples, of which some (pine needles and conifer twigs) could have blown in after the pit’s use. Accordingly, this large storage pit may have been created earlier than its date of around A.D. 1350. This is suggested by the fact that the Feature 37 pit structure, in particular, contained abundant evidence for use as a post-occupation trash pit, and all three pits appeared to have stood open, at least for a while, after their abandonment (see Chapter 6). The other features, all of which were, or were associated with, surface or near-surface masonry structures, had a lesser chance of being used for trash dumping. The late and very late dates for the midden and for Features 4, 36, and 17 are surprising, since ceramic evidence suggests that Hokona was not occupied regularly after about A.D. 1275, given its lack of glazewares. Still, the large number of radiocarbon dates falling between A.D. 1275 and A.D. 1300 suggest that the site was predominantly occupied during that time. It is possible that social, cultural, or economic factors prevented its inhabitants from acquiring glazewares.

DENDROCHRONOLOGY

SWCA submitted 45 charred wood tree-ring samples, plus 4 duplicates, to the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research (LTRR) in Tucson, Arizona for a total of 49 samples. Table 13.2 summarizes the contexts for each of the original 45 samples. Of those submitted, the LTRR accessioned 22 viable samples into

their permanent collection, but only 10 yielded dates, with 7 representing cutting or near cutting dates.

When tree species were identified as part of the initial process of assigning dendrochronology dates, the LTRR found somewhat surprising results. The species distribution consisted entirely of piñon pine (n=15) and ponderosa pine (n=34) (Towner letter to Schwendler 2007), despite the fact that LA 153714 today is surrounded by junipers, with few or no piñon or ponderosa in sight. This suggests that either 1) the prehistoric inhabitants of Hokona purposely chose only ponderosa and piñon as construction materials, or 2) the environment around the site was dramatically different than it is today. Macrobotanical evidence supports the latter idea (see Chapter 11), though the reality was probably a combination of the two factors.

Table 13.3 presents the results of the tree-ring dating itself. As mentioned above, only 10 of the 22 accessioned samples actually yielded dates. Still, the date distribution indicates construction of the Feature 24 pit structure in A.D. 1275, while the incomplete terminal rings indicate construction in the spring or summer of that year. None of the non-cutting dates postdate A.D. 1275, so construction may have been accomplished in a single episode. The 1272vv date from Feature 24’s ventilator shaft (FE 22) supports this inference (Towner letter to Schwendler 2007).

Table 13.2. LA 153714 Features for which Dendrochronology Samples were Submitted Feature No. Feature Type No. of Samples

1 Surface masonry habitation structure 1 3 Surface masonry storage structure 2 10 De-accessioned feature no.; timber only 1 22 Feature 24 ventilator shaft 2 24 Pit structure 33 37 Pit house 5 43 Feature 37 hearth 1 Total 45


Table 13.3. Results of Tree-Ring Dating by the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research

Site Field

Specimen (FS) #

Species Provenience Feature Type Date in Years A.D.

(Inside-Outside Dates)

LA 153714 503 Piñon Feature 24 levels 9-11

Pit structure 1185-1275B inc

LA 153714 481 Piñon Feature 24 level 8

Pit structure 1178p-1246+vv

LA 153714 567 Ponderosa Feature 24 Pit structure no date LA 153714 500 Piñon Feature 24

levels 9-11 Pit structure 1185p-1274+Binc

LA 153714 508 Ponderosa Feature 24 Pit structure no date LA 153714 536 Piñon Feature 24 Pit structure no date LA 153714 561 Piñon Feature 24

level 11 Pit structure 1189p-1275v


Pit structure 1188p-1274+v

LA 153714 498 Ponderosa Feature 24 Pit structure same as FS 567 LA 153714 530 Piñon Feature 24

level 10 Pit structure 1174p-1274+v inc


Pit structure 1182p-1275v

LA 153714 556 Ponderosa Feature 24 Pit structure same as FS 567 LA 153714 565 Ponderosa Feature 24 Pit structure same as FS 567 LA 153714 545 Piñon Feature 24 Pit structure no date LA 153714 529 Ponderosa Feature 24 Pit structure same as FS 567 LA 153714 437, 438 Ponderosa Feature 24 E

trench; 40-65 cm bmgs

Pit structure 1205p-1267vv

LA 153714 306 Ponderosa Feature 3 Round masonry structure

no date

LA 153714 443 Piñon Feature 24 E trench; 40-65 cm bmgs

Pit structure 1210-1274+v

LA 153714 260 Piñon Feature 10 Isolated timber no date LA 153714 577 Ponderosa Feature 22;

50-150 cm bmgs

Pit structure ventilator shaft

1236p-1272vv

LA 153714 687 Piñon Feature 37 floor

Pit house no date

LA 153714 689 Piñon Feature 37 floor

Pit house no date

inc = incomplete terminal ring (on a cutting date) B = bark present p = pith ring present + = one or more rings may be missing near the end of the ring series whose presence or absence cannot be determined because the ring series does not extend far enough to provide an adequate check v = although there is no direct evidence of a true exterior surface on the sample, the analyst subjectively judges it to be a cutting date vv = due to the absence of attributes diagnostic of a true exterior surface on the sample, the outermost ring may not be the last ring grown by the tree. There is no way of estimating how many rings, if any, have been removed from the outside of the sample


ARCHAEOMAGNETOMETRY

On July 11, 2007, Jeff Cox of the Office of Archaeological Studies (OAS) visited LA 153714 to extract archaeomagnetic samples from Feature 5—the primary masonry/jacal structure’s central hearth—and Feature 24—one of the pit structures. Mr. Cox removed eight burned clay samples from the hearth and five from the pit. After processing the samples in the OAS laboratory, he found that the dates for the material collected were not as expected. Dates for Feature 5 fell substantially off the Wolfman SW curve, although after moving them to the closest intersection of the curve, a date range of A.D. 1130-1195 was suggested. For the Feature 24 pit, three possible date ranges based on the best three of the five individual specimens were obtained. They were A.D. 935–1035, A.D. 1320–1405, and A.D. 1370–1425. The result for all five specimens from the pit structure taken together had an alpha-95 value too large to give a reliable date range, although it would encompass the time period between A.D. 1200 and A.D. 1400, in addition to the more extended date ranges from those given for only the three specimens (Jeff Cox, personal communication 2007).

While a date of A.D. 1200–1400 certainly fits LA 153714, it is clearly too broad to be of much use in this analysis. Unfortunately, as well, the individual archaeomagnetic date ranges for Feature 24 are at odds with the dates obtained through radiocarbon and tree-ring dating, suggesting that the archaeomagnetic dates likely are in error. Similarly, the date range for Feature 5 is very different from the radiocarbon date (cal. A.D. 1230–1300) obtained for it; the archaeomagnetic date is 100 years older than the radiocarbon date. Hence, in this case, the clay samples used for dating may have been more disturbed than originally thought and their results do not enhance our understanding of the timing of Hokona’s occupation(s).

SUMMARY

Four different kinds of dating were used for LA 153714. While ceramic typologies suggested that the site was occupied minimally between A.D. 1200 and A.D. 1275 (see Chapter 7), radiocarbon dates suggest that its most intensive use occurred from A.D. 1275–1300, and dendrochronology dates showed that the roof of the Feature 24 pit structure was constructed in A.D. 1275. Archaomagnetometry dates for Hokona did not appear to be viable. Differences in date ranges are addressed further in Chapter 14, but all three effective dating methods provide evidence that LA 153714 was occupied at the end of Pueblo III/beginning of Pueblo IV, perhaps with some ephemeral use both earlier and later than that. As such, it appears to be contemporaneous with Watson et al.’s (1980) “Muerto phase” of aggregation, characterized by the building of large, inwardly facing pueblos arranged around a central plaza and located generally less than 16.1 km (10 mi) west and northwest of Hokona.

CHAPTER 14 ANSWERS AND INTERPRETATIONS


ADDRESSING THE RESEARCH

QUESTIONS

Data recovery activities at LA 153714 and resulting analyses aimed to answer four research questions concerning relationships among features at the site, the nature and length of human occupation at the site, post-depositional processes that affected the archaeological materials, and the site’s cultural affiliation and relation to other areas. While the first three questions were site based, the last one aimed to place Hokona within a regional and temporal framework. This chapter provides some answers—and many other questions—to these inquiries using all of the different kinds of evidence gathered from the site and from research into its geographical and chronological contexts. Also provided in this chapter is a picture of life at Hokona and the interactions of its inhabitants with other people in the El Morro Valley.

Question 1: What are the temporal and spatial relationships among the various features at LA 153714?

Only three surface masonry structures and a midden area were defined at Hokona prior to the beginning of excavation. The discovery of a total of 45 cultural features by the end of excavation made this question both more important and more difficult to answer than originally thought. Lines of evidence used to address this first research question included architectural relationships and similarities, stratigraphic superpositions, kinds of artifacts and remains found within them, refits of artifacts among features, and dating of features. Figure 14.1 provides a three-dimensional representation of all of the features recorded at LA 153714, with key features numbered for reference. While the spatial perspective is difficult to maintain with three-dimensional maps, the figure is intended to illustrate the ways in which many of the features overlapped one another.

Chapter 14 Answers and Interpretations 269

Figure 14.1. Three-dimensional representation of features at LA 153714, with select features numbered.

21

1 519

11 183

1416

3935

12

4

17

24

13

40

36

41

374234

38

N

N

4344

23


Surface Masonry Structures

As discussed in Chapter 6, what originally were thought to be three different surface masonry structures turned out to be one large, rectangular masonry and jacal habitation structure (Feature 1) and one small, round masonry structure with a central pit (Feature 3); the latter combination may have been used for storage. That the walls of the two structures abutted one another but were not joined (Figure 14.2) suggests that they were built at different times, perhaps even by different groups of people. In fact, the immediate juxtaposition of rectangular and circular masonry structures is rare or even unknown elsewhere in the El Morro Valley. A possible second, highly disturbed round masonry structure with a central pit (Feature 17) was located just south of Feature 3. While its form was suggested, most of the western

portion of its wall was gone, suggesting that it may have predated Feature 1, whose inhabitants used its rocks to build up their larger structure. Unfortunately, though, that interpretation is muddled by the fact that the youngest radiocarbon date from the site was obtained from a piece of burned maize recovered from what appeared to be the central pit of Feature 17. However, extensive remodeling of the area or rodent burrowing—of which there was a large amount in the immediate vicinity—may have moved the organic material into a non-original context. Because many of the masonry structures at LA 153714 were spread out across the site (with the exception of those already discussed above), it is difficult to assess their contemporaneity. Virtually all consisted of simple basalt foundations created with often irregularly shaped rocks presumably gathered from the outcrop immediately west of the site.

Figure 14.2. Abutting foundation walls of Feature 1 (blue) and Feature 3

(red), facing north.


Within Feature 1 were three slab-lined hearths (Features 5, 11, and 18) that appeared to have been used at different times. While Feature 5, located in the center of the north half of Feature 1 (Figure 14.1), was covered with recent loose fill and retained a well-preserved, adjacent ash pile (Feature 5B), both Feature 11 and Feature 18, located along the south edge of Feature 1, were covered with compact, windblown sediments and were poorly preserved. Of the latter two hearths, Feature 18 was found at a slightly greater depth. These characteristics suggest that

Feature 5 was used most recently while Feature 18 was the oldest of the three. As seen in Figure 14.3, both Feature 11 and the south wall of Feature 1 contained tabular pieces of sandstone—unlike other features and walls at the site—suggesting that they may have been built around the same time. This method of wall construction is vaguely reminiscent of that used in the larger pueblos (e.g., Pueblo de los Muertos, Pettit) several miles west of Hokona, although it does not approach their quality and regularity.

Figure 14.3. Comparison of wall building techniques between Hokona (top)

and Pueblo de los Muertos (bottom).

Feature 18’s proximity to Feature 11, and the location of Features 18 and 11 within the somewhat curving and architecturally distinctive southeast portion of Feature 1, suggests that the two hearths may have been

associated with an earlier structure that was then remodeled into the Feature 1 form that was revealed during excavation. Given their proximity, different depths, and different contents (see below), however, the two


hearths probably were not used at the same time. In fact, Feature 18 may originally have been an extramural hearth, associated with habitation of the site’s pit structures (see below), that was then incorporated into the early form of Feature 1. Also located in the south half of Feature 1 and covered by windblown sand was the Feature 19 mealing bin. While a radiocarbon date derived from it was statistically identical to that from the Feature 5 hearth, its horizontal and vertical position as the lowest of Feature 1’s four main intramural features suggests that it may have been used closer to the time of Features’ 11 and 18 use than to that of Feature 5. Regardless, the amount of time that passed between use of the four now intramural features most likely was only a matter of years, rather than decades.

Stratigraphically Intermediate Structures

A clearer example of a sequence of feature construction is evidenced by the superposition of the Feature 23 external slab-lined hearth and the Feature 13 and Feature 14 rock alignments on top of the Feature 24 pit structure. Feature 14 itself underlay the sediments that remained from the central portion of the round Feature 17 structure, so this group of three masonry features appeared to represent activities that chronologically fell between the pit structure and the primary masonry structure. Clearly the pit structure was dug and filled in before each of the other structures was built on top of it. Based on that sequence, the assumption is that all three of the pit structures were built before all or most of the other structures. However, that model is complicated by the fact that radiocarbon dates from several of the surface structures (Features 5, 19, 23, 24, and 39) could be virtually identical to the A.D. 1275 dendrochronology cutting date for Feature 24’s roof. Radiocarbon dates from Features 1 and 3 also were not much younger than that. In addition, fill from Feature 4 provided one

of the youngest dates for the site. Still, it is clear that Feature 24 must have been one of the first features created at LA 153714.

Pit Structures

Unusual architectural similarities between the Feature 24 and Feature 37 pit structures suggest that they most likely were constructed by the same people; as in Feature 24, Feature 37’s hearth (Feature 43) was located on the east edge of the pit structure and its ventilator shaft (Feature 44) was discovered in the structure’s southeast corner. Feature 4, in turn, was made in a way and shape similar to Feature 37, although it contained no internal features whose locations can be compared with those of Features 24 and 37. Still, the fact that all three pit structures were filled in largely with wind- and water-born sediments suggested that they stood open for at least a few years after they fell out of use. After being half filled with natural sediments, Feature 37 was used for trash disposal, which filled it three-quarters of the way. Subsequently, it was capped off with natural sediments. Feature 24 also was used for post-occupation trash, albeit not in such an intensive way. Hence, there is incontrovertible evidence that Features 24 and 37 represented an early occupation of the site. Feature 4 most likely was created at the same time, but may have been kept clean of natural materials and used as a storage unit for some time after occupation of the other two pit structures ceased.

Artifacts and Other Remains

Comparing artifacts and other remains across features to determine building sequences and contemporaneity was complicated by the fact that the pit structures largely contained trash from later occupations of the masonry structures, rather than in situ artifacts associated with their own habitation. The exception was a whole indented corrugated jar found on the floor of Feature 24, along


with its lid (originally a large, shaped, plain grayware sherd). Unfortunately, neither ceramic form is temporally sensitive enough to establish Feature 24’s contemporaneity with other features. Even ceramic sherds recovered from just above the floor were the same as those found across the site in surface, masonry, and midden contexts. Figure 14.4 is a dramatic representation of the numbers and locations of ceramic sherds that refit into 33 different vessels. In many cases, sherds from the same vessel originated from very different horizontal and/or vertical locations (see Chapter 7). Hence, comparing ceramic artifacts among features did not provide conclusive evidence for feature

contemporaneity. Likewise, because very few diagnostic lithic artifacts were recovered from LA 153714, and different raw materials—including obsidian—were dispersed across the site, those provided little information about relationships among features. The most important outcome of the comparisons of ceramic and lithic artifacts across the site was the evidence that people using the masonry structures deposited their trash across the site, from the Features 4, 24, and 37 pit structures to the Features 3 and 35 masonry storage structures to the diffuse midden area in the northeast portion of the site. The two human burials found within Feature 37’s midden layer (Chapter 9) demonstrate the same thing.


Figure 14.4. Three-dimensional representation of the locations of all

ceramic sherds that were determined to come from 33 different vessels.


Similarly, remains of most of the non-intrusive or food animals (e.g., turkey, cottontail rabbit, jackrabbit) were recovered from the three pit structures, in upper levels containing post-occupation fill. Hence, differential use of specific kinds of meat cannot be established among features.

In contrast, the distribution of specific macrobotanical and microbotanical remains offers a small amount of additional information pertaining to relationships among features. For example, burned beans recovered from the floor of Feature 24 are, on average, larger than those recovered from the midden layer of Feature 37. Hence, this provides supporting evidence that Feature 24 was used at a different time than the masonry structures whose occupants discarded burned beans in Feature 37. While the beans’ sizes are not distinct enough to indicate drought-induced variation, they likely were grown during different seasons or at least in different locations. Similarly, oak (Quercus sp.) charcoal was found in only one feature—the Feature 11 slab-lined hearth located on the southern edge of Feature 1. This supports the idea presented above that the hearth was used at a different time, or even during a different season, than most or all other features.

In contrast, the limited distribution of juniper (Juniperus sp.) charcoal across LA 153714 may suggest feature contemporaneity. Juniper was identified in seven different features, of which five are internal to the Feature 24 pit structure. The other two were Feature 18—the slab-lined hearth located just inside the curving southeast corner of the Feature 1 masonry structure—and Feature 3—the round masonry foundation located immediately north of Feature 24. While some of Feature 3’s foundation rocks slightly overlapped Feature 24’s fill, the rocks may have slumped southward as the fill settled. Given that the two structures appeared to have adjoining or commonly re-worked post holes (Features 16

and 16B), it is possible that they existed immediately next to one another and were used at the same time. As discussed in Chapter 3, Pueblo II-III “Prudden Units” defined in areas farther north on the Colorado Plateau typically consisted of a combination of small masonry structures, pit structures, and middens that were used simultaneously (Lipe and Varien 1999; Lipe and Wilshusen 1999; Prudden 1903). Hence, Features 24, 37, 4, 18, and 3 might have been elements of a cluster of such units at LA 153714.

Remains of charred annuals provide little additional evidence for relationships among features because their small size, typical prevalence around prehistoric sites, generally small numbers, and likelihood of being carried by the wind and by small mammals undermine their use. Evidence from pollen analysis provides similarly weak evidence for the contemporaneity of features because all but maize pollen was present in such low quantities that it appeared to have accumulated because of natural, rather than human, processes (see Chapter 12). Still, with information extracted from Chapter 11 of this volume, Table 14.1 displays possible relationships among features based on the presence of identical charred annuals. Because maize probably was used during every occupation of LA 153714, and Chenopodium sp. and Cheno-Am also were widespread, they are not included below. Large numbers of beans were found in different contexts in Features 24 and 37, but only one or two came from Features 17 and 39. Some sherds from the same ceramic vessels were found in Features 24 and 37, as well as in the general areas of Features 17 and 39, albeit never from all four areas at once (see Chapter 7). Hence, if at all valid, the combination of beans and sherds from the same vessels indicates only contemporaneous use of masonry structures since all but the beans in Feature 24 came from trash contexts.


Table 14.1. Possible Evidence for Relationships Among Features Based on the Presence of Charred Annuals

Annual Type (scientific name)

Annual Type (common name)

Feature Numbers Feature Types Supported by Other

Evidence? Phaseolus sp. bean 17, 24, 37, 39 Rock alignment/structure,

pit habitation structure, pit habitation structure, thermal feature in F. 35

Limited—ponderosa bark and charcoal; ceramic deposition in general areas

Portulaca sp. portulaca 4, 25, 40, 42 Storage pit, F. 24 hearth, external pit, child burial in F. 37

Limited—only ponderosa charcoal

Polygonum sp. knotweed 3, 39, 40 Round storage structure, thermal feature in F. 35, external pit

Limited—ponderosa bark and charcoal; ceramic deposition in general areas

Sporobolus sp. dropseed 30, 37, 40 Wall niche in F. 24, pit habitation structure, external pit

Limited—only ponderosa charcoal and needles

Brassicaceae mustard 32, 33 Post hole in F. 24, small pit in F. 24

Yes—location

Echinocereus sp. hedgehog cactus 5, 40 Hearth in F. 5, external pit Limited—only ponderosa charcoal and bark

While all of the other charred annual species were used by prehistoric peoples, they are wild species that could have been found naturally around the site. All but the dropseed in Feature 37 were found in very low numbers, suggesting that they were deposited naturally. The presence of some portulaca seeds in Features 4 and 42 and in contexts within Features 24 and 37 provides some supporting evidence that all three pit structures stood open at the same time. Similar depositional conditions may be indicated by the presence of dropseed in Features 30 (within Feature 24) and 37. The location of Features 32 and 33 within Feature 24 and the presence of mustard seeds in both indicate that they were used at the same time. That sherds from the same ceramic vessels, as well as knotweed seeds, were found in or near Features 3, 39, and 40 supports the idea that the first two, in particular, may have been used for trash at the same time. That four of

the six rare charred annuals were found in Feature 40 suggests that, while it exhibited the morphology of a feature, the pit may actually have been part of a rodent burrow or a consistent low spot at the site that naturally collected a variety of materials.

Relative and Chronometric Dates

Finally, as seen in Chapter 7 and Chapter 13, ceramic, radiocarbon, and dendrochronology dates suggest some relationships among features but cannot provide incontrovertible evidence for specific sequences of construction and use largely because of the confusing effects of site remodeling and trash deposition. Not surprisingly, feature chronologies also differ somewhat according to dating technique. Table 14.2 provides possible sequences of use, based on the three dating methods. Numbers in the table correspond to individual feature numbers.


Table 14.2. Chronological Sequences for Feature Construction and/or Use at LA 153714

Calendar Years A.D.

Ceramic Sequence*

Radiocarbon Sequence+

Dendrochronology Sequence^

Suggested Relative Chronological

Sequence of Use~ Post-1400 17, 36 36 1380-1399 1360-1379 1340-1359 4 (fill), midden 40 1320-1339 1300-1319 3 1290-1299 1 41, 42 1280-1289 5, 19, 23, 24, 39 Late: 1, 5, 5B, 35

Early: 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 23, 39

1260-1279 14, 35, 23, midden 24 3, 4, 6-9, 16, 16B, 21, 22-23, 24, 25-33, 34, 37, 43, 44

1240-1259 1, 4 (fill), 5, 19, 24 (fill), 37 (fill)

1220-1239 3, 17, 21, 38 12 12, 38 1200-1220 Pre-1200 37 *Based on mean ceramic dates; +Based on calibrated intercepts; ^Based on cutting dates; ~Based on a combination of evidence;

The suggested relative chronological sequence of feature use shown on the right side of Table 14.2 is based on a combination of all of the different kinds of evidence presented so far. In sum, it appears that the earliest use of the site was very brief, as archaeological evidence for it consists of only a slab-lined hearth (Feature 12) and an artifact concentration (Feature 38) dating between perhaps A.D. 1220 to 1239.

The first substantial occupation of LA 153714 seems to have occurred between perhaps A.D. 1270 and 1279, as inhabitants constructed two residential pit structures (Feature 24 and 37) and one storage pit structure (Feature 4), as well as their associated intramural features (16, 16B, 22-23, 25-33, 34, 43, 44). Occupants of the site may have built a round extramural storage structure (Feature 3), a wind/water break (Feature 21), and possibly a series of adjacent post holes (Features 6–9) during that same period. A child (Feature 34), buried to the south of the pit structures, may also have died during that first substantial occupation. Shortly thereafter, perhaps

between A.D. 1280 and 1285, the two residential pit structures fell into disuse, probably because Hokona’s inhabitants left the site. Before they did, they left offerings on the floor of one of the structures (Feature 24) and burned it down. The other structure (Feature 37) they may simply have abandoned, and both began to fill with wind- and water-born sediments.

However, people returned only a few years later, using both of the pit structures as trash dumps to a greater or lesser degree. Feature 24 filled faster than Feature 37, and Hokona’s occupants built three new features on top of it—two rock alignments (Features 13 and 14) and a slab-lined hearth (Feature 23). Two other hearths (Features 11 and 18) and a mealing bin (Feature 19) located slightly upslope may have been used then, as well. The timing of construction of another round storage structure (Feature 17) is difficult to gauge, although it must have been generally contemporaneous.

The next wave of substantial building seems to have occurred somewhere between A.D.


1285 and 1290. Archaeological evidence consists of a large, rectangular masonry/jacal habitation structure (Feature 1), a well-preserved intramural hearth (Feature 5) and ash pile (Feature 5B), and a likely masonry storage structure (Feature 35). Immediately underneath the east wall of the latter was a thermal feature (Feature 39) that must have just preceded its construction. Inhabitants left some of their trash in the storage structures (Features 3 and 35), at least towards the end of that last major occupation. They also buried an adult and a child in the rising fill of one of the habitation structures (Feature 37). In contrast, they may have continued to use the old pit storage structure (Feature 4), keeping it clean until they, too, moved on, perhaps in the early A.D. 1300s. Feature 4 then also filled with wind- and water-born sediments.

Hokona appears to have been used intermittently and ephemerally in the mid-A.D. 1300s and even past A.D. 1400, leaving only some trash and two small pits (Features 36, 40). However, it never saw another substantial occupation. Small mammals active at the site may have carried some of the recent charred annuals down into their burrows in Features 17 and 4, thereby making it appear that the structures were used more recently than they probably were.

Question 2: What was the nature and length of human occupation at LA 153714?

LA 153714 was originally thought to contain three Pueblo II-III field houses, used as temporary residences while people performed agricultural activities. However, while subsistence at Hokona did center on maize, evidence collected during excavation demonstrated that Hokona was occupied year-round, during at least Pueblo III-IV times. Information used to support this scenario comes from feature types; artifact forms; human, faunal, macrobotanical, and

microbotanical remains; and a variety of relative and chronometric dating techniques.

While true agricultural field houses can run the gamut from very ephemeral windbreaks to more substantial stone structures with internal hearths (e.g., Sebastian 1983), the three pit structures (Features 4, 24, 37) and one masonry habitation structure (Feature 1) recorded at LA 153714 suggest longer-term use and larger populations than are usually associated with field houses. As discussed in Chapter 3 and again above, late Pueblo II—Pueblo III hamlets often consisted of a combination of masonry structures, jacal structures, and pit structures with smaller associated intramural and external features (e.g., Anyon 1984; Lipe and Varien 1999; Lipe and Wilshusen 1999; Prudden 1903). Hokona likely also contained each of these three types of structures, some of which exhibited considerable time investment. For example, the walls, floor, and wall niche of the Feature 24 pit habitation structure were plastered and its collared hearth had been remodeled at least once. Likewise, an area of clay inset into the floor in its northwest corner may also have represented a remodeled hearth or at least a floor patch. Several of the burned timbers recovered from the Feature 24 fill had been squared off, again suggesting significant labor investment. The presence of three human burials, including two associated with occupation of the site’s masonry structures, also suggests long-term human association with the site. In addition, the presence of three hearths and a mealing bin inside the main Feature 1 masonry/jacal structure provides evidence that the site was occupied even during cold months.

The presence of two different and probably contemporaneous habitation pit structures at Hokona suggests that two different social units used the site simultaneously during its early occupation. Each structure could have been used by a different extended family,


although the greater investment in Feature 24 suggests that it was used for both habitation and ritual (e.g., Lekson 1988; Lipe and Varien 1995; Roney 1996), while Feature 37 appears to have been used only for the former. Ware (2002; Ware and Blinman 1999) suggests that, with the advent of matrilineality with matriclocal residence in Pueblo I times, pit structures became the domain of women’s brothers, who periodically returned to their sisters’ residences to instruct their nephews in lineage ritual. While this may be applicable to LA 153714, stratigraphic evidence suggests that Feature 24 and Feature 1 (the masonry habitation structure) were not actually inhabited at the same time. Hence, it is difficult to say exactly how the occupants of the two pit structures were differentiated. The multiple storage structures (Features 3, 17, and 35), if used simultaneously, also support the idea that the site was inhabited year-round, by more than one family unit.

The types of artifacts recovered from LA 153714 provide more detailed information about the activities conducted by the inhabitants. Ceramic analysis demonstrates that people performed the full range of cooking and food storage activities at Hokona, although they did not make any ceramics themselves. Rather, they must have brought most of their vessels and implements to the site from elsewhere in the Zuni region; special vessels came from farther north in the San Juan Basin. Ground stone artifacts from LA 153714 together with large numbers of burned maize kernels and cobs and ubiquitous maize pollen provide evidence that maize processing was the focus of subsistence at the site, perhaps accomplished by only one or two people; flat manos and two-hand metates prevalent at the site allowed for intensive and efficient grinding of food materials. Beans also were a food staple for the occupants of both the earlier pit structures and the later masonry structures. At the same time, the presence of several species of wild plants in

many different features demonstrates that Hokona’s inhabitants used them to supplement their domesticated foodstuffs. The range of other ground stone and shaped stone implements, including netherstones, possible lapidary tools, and numerous finished and fragmentary pendants support the idea that inhabitants performed a full range of activities at Hokona, from food and pigment grinding to ornament production. The paucity of flaked stone tools at the site further supports the idea that subsistence activities at the site generally depended on agricultural production. The fact that only three fragmentary projectile points were found at LA 153714, of which two were Archaic points collected by the site’s inhabitants, indicates that hunting played a small role. The surprisingly small number of faunal remains recovered supports this idea; food animals primarily were cottontails and jackrabbits that could have been snared or trapped. Many lithic raw materials were collected from nearby the site, although the most abundant single material—Zuni spotted chert—appears to have originated from a primary source up to 48 km (30 mi) from the site. Two pieces of obsidian most likely from Horace Mesa near Mount Taylor could have come from even a bit farther away. Hence, the site’s inhabitants did exploit some more distant areas or social ties.

It seems clear from the results of relative ceramic dating and chronometric radiocarbon and tree-ring dating that LA 153714 was inhabited primarily between A.D. 1275 and A.D. 1325—dates that fall within the traditionally defined Pueblo III and Pueblo IV periods (Adler 1996; Duff 2002; Hayes et al. 1981; Kintigh 1985, 1996; ZCRE 2000). One radiocarbon date from Feature 37, three types of Cibola White Ware (Escavada, Red Mesa, and Chaco/McElmo Black-on-white), and one type of Cibola Gray Ware (Festoon Corrugated) suggest that people might have occupied the site during late Pueblo II/early Pueblo III times around A.D. 1100–1150.


However, no direct evidence supports this idea, so it is assumed that the radiocarbon date (Chapter 13), derived from conifer charcoal, was skewed by old wood, and the ceramic vessels or fragments were brought to the site as special, curated items. At the opposite extreme, four radiocarbon date intercepts fall between A.D. 1350 and A.D. 1420, suggesting later use of the site. Again, however, there is no direct supporting evidence for those dates, and ceramic types expected for that time period were not found. For example, no true glazes (e.g., Kwakina Polychrome) were found at LA 153714 even though Kintigh (1985, 1996) posits that they should be found in assemblages dating after A.D. 1300. Hence, it is possible that people stopped at Hokona for short periods of time during both the early and late periods mentioned above. The latter, in particular, would be consistent with the site’s location adjacent to a major thoroughfare between the Zuni and Acoma areas (Ferguson and Hart 1985). Even during the core time of Hokona’s occupation people must have come and gone a few times, given that all of the pit structures stood open for some time, were then used as trash dumps, and then were filled again with natural sediments. Likewise, the masonry structures and their intramural features were filled largely with windblown sediments.

Question 3: What post-depositional processes have been active at LA 153714, and how might these processes affect our identification and interpretation of this and other sites in the region?

Modern, documented post-depositional processes affecting LA 153714 included construction and maintenance of NM 53, cattle grazing, wind and water erosion, and rodent burrowing. NM 32, the predecessor to NM 53, was built sometime by the 1930s, with the modern version of NM 53 being established by the 1940s (Steve Riner Highways 2006). Both roads followed a

traditional, pre-Spanish contact trail connecting the pueblos of Zuni and Acoma (Ferguson and Hart 1985). Because major construction occurred long before the advent of Section 106, the destruction of a portion of the site is not surprising. What is still not known even after the completion of data recovery activities is whether NM 53 removed part of a larger, related settlement, or just an area of trash deposition. Given that the entire east edge of the site coincides with the NM 53 culvert, it is likely that the road did remove additional evidence of settlement in the area. Still, the apparent preference of people in the area to building sites on small rises (e.g., Anyon 1984) suggests that the missing area may have contained largely artifact deposits rather than structures. As mentioned earlier in this chapter, cattle did sometimes graze within the area of the site, but because most of the structures and archaeological deposits were located below the ground surface, they probably had a minimal impact on the site. Each of the other three post-depositional processes—wind erosion, water erosion, and rodent burrowing—occurred both prehistorically and in modern times so they are addressed in more detail below. Burning and site remodeling by human agency were other post-depositional processes that altered LA 153714 between and after its various occupations.

Based on sediment deposition within features, erosion of sediments by the wind was an important factor in preserving the site. Compact, windblown 7.5YR 4/4 (dry) silty sand was virtually ubiquitous across Hokona. Located generally 5 to 40 cm (2.0 to 15.8 in) bmgs, its sediments filled in Feature 1, the primary masonry/jacal habitation structure. Feature 1’s intramural features (e.g., Features 5, 11, 18, and 19) were dug into the sand, so it must have formed one or more living surfaces during prehistoric times. Even more clearly, wind-deposited sand helped to fill all three of


the large pit structures (Feature 4, 24, and 37) (Figure 14.5). In the case of Feature 4 and Feature 37, in particular, windblown sand formed a significant portion of the first layers above the floors, thereby providing evidence that the structures may initially have stood open during a dry season. Windblown sand also was present just above the floor of Feature 24, albeit mixed with a significant

amount of burned roofing material. Strong winds that blew during excavation demonstrated that erosion and re-deposition of sediments by the wind rapidly helped to cover LA 153714 both between its different occupations and after its final abandonment, so that only the tops of many rocks from Features 1 and 3 were visible above the modern eolian and grass layer.

Figure 14.5. Sandy, wind-deposited sediments (blue) just above the floor of

the Feature 37 pit structure.

Similarly, water erosion significantly affected the deep pit structures, in particular; large chunks of the natural clay into which the structures were dug sloughed off into the pits, most likely during wet seasons. These areas of clay (Figure 14.6) became interbedded with those of the windblown sediments, suggesting that the site remained unoccupied for at least a few seasons after the pit structures were abandoned. Still, radiocarbon and dendrochronology dates from LA 153714 provide evidence that the site was occupied primarily within only a couple of generations, and that at least some of the activities

conducted in the masonry structures and pit structures occurred close together in time. Accordingly, one lesson to take from the post-depositional processes at Hokona is that structures could be naturally filled in and covered up over a very short period of time. Hence, deep portions of sites that appear to represent long periods of time may, in actuality, represent only intensive human activity. Carefully examining fill sediments in other sites in the region is important for determining how much time depth they actually represent.


Figure 14.6. Clayey, water-eroded sediments (yellow) in the fill of the

Feature 37 pit structure.

Humans also modified LA 153714, helping to fill in and cover up the pit structures, and probably borrowing rocks from earlier masonry foundations to build others. For example, the curvature in the southeast corner of Feature 1’s wall, together with the

area of deep Feature 17 fill and a few residual rocks underlying shallower eolian fill inside the southeast part of Feature 1 (Figure 14.7), suggest that people borrowed from Feature 17’s foundation to build up Feature 1.

Figure 14.7. Profile through Feature 17 fill, with small rocks, possibly

related to original west, wall still in place (arrow).


Similarly, it is possible that, at one time, Feature 1 was loosely divided into a north and a south half—or even that it originally was just the south half—but by the time of its last occupation, people had opened it into one large area. This is suggested, in part, by the fact that the three features (Features 11, 18, and 19) in the south half of Feature 1 appear to be slightly older than Features 5 and 5B in

its north half. In addition, Feature 1’s west wall jogs west near its center point, rather than continuing north in a direct line. At the same time, there was a particularly dense area of wall fall immediately north of Feature 19 that suggests a partial dividing line or an originally more substantial portion of wall at that spot (Figure 14.8).

Figure 14.8. Feature 1 foundation, facing northeast, showing jog in wall

(blue arrow) and concentration of wall fall immediately north of Feature 19 area (red arrow).

Still, remodeling of Hokona was generally less intensive within the surface structures in the west half of the site than it was in the pit structures in the eastern and southern portions of the site. In those locations, people actively filled in formerly occupied structures and built on top of them and older cultural fill. This can be seen in Figure 14.9 and Figure 14.10. The former was indicated by the presence of numerous artifacts in the fill of Features 24 and 37, in particular, as well as by

the 50- to 70-cm–thick (20.0- to 27.5-in-thick) dark midden layer in Feature 37. The fact that Feature 4 itself contained many fewer artifacts, charcoal, and macrobotanical remains than Features 24 and 37 suggests that it may have been used longer than the others and swept clean, then filled largely by natural processes. This is corroborated by the fact that a pollen sample collected from the floor of Feature 4, protected by a piece of basalt, yielded no detectable pollen (see Chapter 12).


Figure 14.9. Area of wall fall on sunken Feature 24 fill, facing east-northeast.

Figure 14.10. Pedestalled rocks east of Feature 1, facing west, showing

construction on top of cultural fill (arrow).

Human-induced and possibly nature-induced fire also impacted LA 153714. The large number of completely burned timbers and significant amount of ponderosa bark—possibly used as fuel (see Chapter 11)—found in the Feature 24 pit structure provide strong evidence that the structure was intentionally

burned, most likely at or shortly after abandonment. Small burned timbers lay on the floor in various areas of the structure, and the entire southwest corner of the floor was covered with burned maize cobs and loose kernels. Burned timbers also were present in the ventilator shaft. In addition, some basalt


rocks appear to have slid down through the ventilator shaft, and many others were stacked at its top, as people used them to seal the shaft. The placement of four special artifacts (two whole stone pendants, a large obsidian flake tool, and a whole turkey bone awl), a whole corrugated pot with lid, and numerous maize cobs on the structure’s floor, in combination with its burning, may have had particular significance. At the least, it suggests that the burning of Feature 24 most likely did not result from violence against the people living there.

The somewhat lesser amount of wood charcoal found just above the floor of the Feature 37 pit structure, together with an area of burning near the center of the floor, provide evidence that it, too, may have

burned. Alternatively, the pit structure could have served as a receptacle for burned wood from Feature 24. In contrast, while Feature 4’s east wall showed signs of burning, that structure contained very little charcoal. Hence, the burning may have been the result of site occupants heating the native sandy clay to harden the structure’s walls, rather than burning the structure after use. Feature 4 did contain numerous flat pieces of basalt that collected in its south half near the base of the structure, but unlike the basalt pieces seen in Feature 24, those in Feature 4 may have fallen into the pit naturally. Because they were all tabular and concentrated in the south half of the structure, they may represent a wall or other support structure that collapsed into the pit after it was no longer used.

Figure 14.11. Tabular basalt rocks fallen into Feature 4, facing south.

The area inside Feature 1 and around the various masonry structures and alignments to its east also showed evidence of burning, in the form of small amounts of wood charcoal, burned jacal, and dispersed concentrations of oxidized, clayey sediments. The latter most often were found adjacent to the structure walls. For example, the Feature 3 round masonry structure contained three different

burned timbers, as well as numerous small pieces of charcoal, burned jacal, and oxidized sediments. Feature 1 also contained small pieces of charcoal, but no sizeable burned timbers. In fact, the small total amount of burned wood found within Feature 1 provides evidence that most of the burnable materials used in its superstructure must have been scavenged before it actually burned. In


contrast, most of the burned masonry, jacal, and pit structures found in several of the Clo-Chin-Toh sites (Anyon 1984) still contained collapsed burned beams. Oxidized sediments were common along the inside of Feature 1’s well-preserved west wall, appearing approximately 10 to 15 cm (3.9 to 5.9 in) bmgs. Farther inside the structure they were fewer and slightly deeper, at approximately 15 to 20 cm (5.9 to 7.9 in) bmgs. The largest number and the biggest pieces of burned jacal were found in the midden units that were located in the northeast portion of the site and that overlay Feature 24. However, many other pieces were found inside Feature 3, to the east of Feature 1’s south half, and in the fill of the three large pit structures (Features 4, 24, and 37). This suggests that at least some structures

at the site burned between occupations and were then cleaned up.

At the same time, most of the pieces of ground stone recovered from levels 1—3 at LA 153714 also exhibited some evidence of burning, suggesting that other fire may have been natural. Figure 14.12 shows the location of a sandstone basin metate that was partly exposed at the base of level 1 in Feature 1, while Figure 14.13 shows the line of burning that was present on the metate, less than 10 cm (3.9 in) below its top edge. Given that the burning did not affect the entire metate, the fire that caused it may have been a brush fire that swept across the surface of the site, rather than an intentional, high-intensity fire set by the site’s occupants to burn down the structure.

Figure 14.12. Southern half of Feature 1 at the base of level 1, facing north.

Sandstone basin metate (arrow) is shown in situ, with line of burning exposed.


Figure 14.13. Sandstone basin metate with line of burning (arrow).

The last major source of post-depositional disturbance of deposits at LA 153714 was rodent burrowing. Numerous prehistoric and modern burrows were encountered during excavation of the site, particularly around Features 5, 17, and 19 and in the area to the east of Feature 1 above (and within) Feature 24’s fill. The floor of Feature 24 also contained some small rodent runs. Mechanical scraping of the site flushed a pocket gopher out of its burrow in the east half of the site, demonstrating that small mammals were still active at Hokona at the time of its excavation.

Understanding post-depositional processes at LA 153714 is important for identifying and interpreting other small sites in the region. For example, Hokona demonstrates that feature modification and sediment deposition can occur very rapidly, particularly when people play active roles. As a result, seemingly small, shallow sites may be much larger and more complex than they appear on the surface. Accordingly, testing small sites with soil probes or even limited numbers of shovel tests prior to excavation is useful for determining the actual depth of deposits and

the likelihood of finding pit structures along with surface masonry structures. In addition, determining whether fires at prehistoric sites resulted from human or natural agency is important for interpreting prehistoric social behavior and interactions.

Question 4: What is the cultural affiliation and nature of the Pueblo II–III occupation at LA 153714, and what might that tell us about trends and changes in late prehistoric demography, settlement patterns, and sociopolitical organization in the area? What is the relationship, if any, of LA 153714 to the Chacoan system of the late Pueblo II period and subsequent population movements into upland areas?

Chronological data served as the framework for determining the cultural affiliation and nature of human occupation at LA 153714. Most importantly, chronometric tree-ring and radiocarbon dates indicated that Hokona was actually occupied during Pueblo III-IV times, primarily between A.D. 1275 and A.D. 1325, rather than during Pueblo II-III times. The fact that relative dates derived from ceramic types placed the site somewhat earlier than that, between A.D. 1200 and 1275, suggests


that people using the site may have been living somewhat out of step with others in the region. For example, the absence of true glazes (e.g., Kwakina Polychrome) at Hokona is surprising, given that they were present by A.D. 1300 just a few miles west at the large pueblo of Atsinna. It is important to note that Hokona appears to have been occupied during the time of the two major waves of aggregation and large pueblo building that occurred within the El Morro Valley. It is impossible to determine whether people occupied Hokona to avoid the large-scale aggregations occurring several miles west, or as short-term habitation before, between, and/or after the construction episodes.

While an exact correlation between the multiple episodes of occupation at LA 153714 and at the various larger pueblos elsewhere in the El Morro Valley could not be established, it is clear that Hokona’s inhabitants had cultural and social ties to the larger Zuni region, as well as to the older cultural traditions with which Puebloan peoples first entered the valley (e.g., Duff 2002; Ferguson and Hart 1985). Means of investigating relationships between Hokona’s inhabitants and people elsewhere in the Zuni region and beyond included analyzing ceramic vessel compositions and forms, burial practices, architectural styles, and lithic raw materials.

Most of the ceramic types found at LA 153714 are typical of Pueblo III sites in the region, but ceramic analysis aimed to determine whether the vessels were produced locally or imported from elsewhere. Inductive coupled plasma spectroscopy (ICPS) performed by the Royal Holloway Geology Department at the University of London, England, compared the chemical compositions of Hokona’s sherds with many other ceramic artifacts and raw clay samples from projects previously conducted in western New Mexico and eastern Arizona. Their findings were that the chemical compositions

of the natural clay sources throughout that portion of the Four Corners region are fairly similar. As a result, it is difficult to determine exactly where specific vessels or kinds of vessels were made. However, it is likely that those found at LA 153714 were produced within the El Morro Valley or slightly north of there; excavation uncovered no evidence for ceramic production at the site itself. Hence, ICPS analysis determined that people at Hokona had strong ties with others to the west and north (see Chapter 7). Predominantly local (i.e., intra-valley) production of ceramics is consistent with trends noted even for the large pre-A.D. 1400 pueblos within the Zuni region (Kintigh 1996).

At the same time, the presence of a small clay animal figurine (Figure 14.14) found in the fill of Feature 24 suggested that people at LA 153714 also had cultural ties with groups to the west and south of the El Morro Valley. Ceramic animal figurines most similar to the one found at Hokona are known largely from earlier and contemporaneous sites in southern, central, and occasionally northern Arizona, including within the Hohokam culture area. Different examples have been interpreted as dogs, sheep, and bears (e.g., Reinhard and Gregonis 1997). Interestingly, they frequently are found broken in midden contexts (Kelley Hays-Gilpin, personal communication 2007; Motsinger 2003; West and Mitchell 2002) and may be toys or personal offerings, rather than formal ritual objects (Linda Gregonis, personal communication 2007). Other animal effigies have been recovered from sites in the Zuni area and farther west (David Hill, personal communication 2007; Deborah Huntley, personal communication 2007), although many of those are more finely made than the one from Hokona. The figurines known from both areas come from both large and small sites dating between at least A.D. 1100 and A.D. 1350 (Linda Gregonis, personal communication 2007; Kelley Hayes-


Gilpin, personal communication 2007; Debra Huntley, personal communication 2007). Thus, as a tradition they encompass a large

time range and much variation. Still, they are unique enough to suggest a cultural link with LA 153714.

Figure 14.14. Fragmentary ceramic animal figurine recovered from LA 153714.

As discussed briefly in Chapter 9, mortuary practices in the Zuni region and beyond were highly variable during Pueblo III-IV times. Likewise, each of the three human burials discovered at LA 153714 was different. As a result, it is impossible to assign a cultural affiliation to the site based on observed mortuary practices. Still, the two burials in Hokona’s Feature 37 pit structure fill are in keeping with one from one of the Clo-Chin-Toh sites near Ramah, approximately 24 km (15 mi) to the west, that was recovered from the fill of a pit habitation structure.

Using architectural styles at LA 153714 to assign cultural affiliation is similarly inconclusive. The ventilator shafts and hearths in most Pueblo III-IV pit structures are located in the center of the structures, and most room blocks and storage rooms are rectangular. In contrast, in the two pit structures at Hokona that contained internal features; the ventilator shafts and hearths were located on the east edges of the structures. That same configuration was seen at a Pueblo I site in the Acoma area (Post 2002), at one of the Pueblo III Clo-Chin-Toh sites near Ramah (Anyon 1984), and at a few Pueblo III sites in Navajo, Arizona and Tohatchi, New Mexico (Dennis Gilpin, personal communication 2007). Because the

unusual placement of the two intramural features could have been an adaptation to weather conditions as well as a cultural prescription, they cannot be used to make a determination of cultural affiliation for Hokona.

In contrast to the western connections cited above, two of the lithic raw materials found at LA 153714—Zuni spotted chert and Horace Mesa obsidian—originally came from sources located 48–80 km (30–50 mi) to the northeast of the site (see Chapter 8). This is well within the area traditionally used by Zuni people for acquiring a variety of foods, plants, and raw materials (Ferguson and Hart 1985) and suggests that the prehistoric occupants of Hokona must already have had trading relationships with people in that area, or direct access to it, as well as to culture areas farther to the west in modern-day Arizona.

Most of the lines of information presented above support the idea that people inhabiting the El Morro Valley during Pueblo III–IV times were descended from people who had originally moved into the area from other places along the Little Colorado River in Arizona, and possibly from the San Juan Basin in New Mexico. If the tree-ring dates from Feature 24 at Hokona do mark the


earliest occupation of the site, then people built the pit structure right around the time that the large pueblos, including Pueblo de los Muertos, Cienega, and Kluckhohn, were built several miles to the northwest (e.g., Adler and Johnson 1996; Duff 1996, 2002; Duff and Kintigh 1997; Kintigh 1996; Watson et al. 1980). Contemporaneity of small and large settlements suggests that there was some resistance to large-scale aggregation, or at least some alternative to it; not all people lived in large pueblos by A.D. 1300. The absence of Kwakina Polychrome ceramic vessels at LA 153714 suggests that smaller outlying settlements may not have had access to all of the same resources as the large settlements, although people at Hokona still produced “non-essential” ornamental items such as stone pendants. On the other hand, it is possible that Hokona and other nearby small settlements served as short-term habitation sites for people (or the families of people) who helped to build the large pueblos. They may also have helped to provide additional agricultural products to the large sites, although the lack of farming tools at Hokona does not support that idea. Regardless of the exact relationship between Hokona and the large aggregated settlements, it seems that cultural traditions within the El Morro Valley during Pueblo III and IV times were still flexible, as people used elements of more distant traditions and acquired raw materials from different locations.

The small assemblage of late Pueblo II–early Pueblo III Chaco/McElmo, Escavada, and Red Mesa Black-on-white ceramic sherds dating to perhaps A.D. 1100–1200 suggests an even longer-term connection with traditions outside the El Morro Valley. As discussed in Chapter 3, early large-scale settlements in the Zuni region as a whole exhibited characteristics of earlier Chacoan settlements, with their use of great houses and reinterpreted great kivas. Thus, the presence of Chacoan style ceramics at Hokona is not

wholely unexpected, just somewhat surprising because it would have meant curation of ceramic vessels or sherds for up to 100 years. The seventeen Chaco/McElmo sherds represented at least seven different vessels—a fairly sizeable collection considering the length of time since the vessels may have been made. Thus, it appears that people in small, geographically peripheral settlements such as Hokona also used their ancestors’ connections with the far-reaching Chacoan system to symbolize their social ties or to justify their cultural place in the larger Four Corners region.

A PICTURE OF LIFE AT HOKONA

Using all of the information presented in this report, we can develop a picture of Hokona’s history. Traveling through the El Morro Valley in the early A.D. 1200s, perhaps during a trading expedition, a few people stopped briefly next to a low basalt outcrop to make a fire. They may also have broken some pots while they were there, or left them filled with food for other travelers. Regardless, the people did not stay in the area for long before they continued on their way.

Years later, other people moved east through the increasingly populated El Morro Valley in search of available farmland. They may have known about the location next to the basalt outcrop already and seen earlier evidence of people there, or they may have chosen the location on a little rise for its well-drained soils and its position above slightly wetter, low-lying areas that would have been adequate for growing maize and beans. Members of only one or two extended family units dug two, and perhaps three, large pit structures out of the site’s subsurface clayey sediments. Then they felled ponderosa pines and piñons from nearby slopes to roof the structures, probably at ground level. While they used both of the structures for habitation, they nevertheless singled one of them out for


increased investment in time and materials; using their hands, they covered the structure’s walls with plaster, smoothing it out with vegetal brushes. They also plastered an arm-length niche that they had dug out of the top southwest corner of the pit. The subsurface structures kept them warm during cold nights and months and provided a place for them to perform domestic activities. In addition, the plastered structure allowed them to perform the kinds of rituals that were necessary for proper social and spiritual integration of their family members. To process and store their domesticated and wild plant foods, they may also have built some small round rooms on the surface of the site and perhaps constructed some hearths and activity areas there. Gathering irregularly shaped pieces of basalt from the rock outcrop just to the west of the site, they built rock foundations but probably capped them with jacal superstructures. After

only a matter of years, though, the family members may have decided to move to one of the large pueblos being built several miles to the northwest, where agricultural land was more abundant and productive and people were safer from conflict because they lived in large groups. Before Hokona’s inhabitants moved from their hamlet, they left four symbolic objects—two stone pendants, one bone awl, and one obsidian tool—perhaps representing individuals or clans or cardinal directions, on the floor of their special pit structure, as well as a whole pot and lid with which they had reheated food—perhaps their last symbolic meal at the site. They also left an offering of maize near the special objects (Figure 14.15). Then they ritually closed their former home by burning the plastered structure and possibly filling in its ventilator shaft.


Figure 14.15. Representation of how the Feature 24 pit structure may have

been used just prior to its abandonment (drawing by Dr. Jim Railey).

Habitation in the large aggregated settlement may not have been as easy as they or other El Morro Valley residents expected, however, because some people returned to Hokona not many years later. When they did so, they found the remains of two or three pit structures that had partially filled in with windblown sand and with clay from the structure walls. They may also have seen some small structure foundations and a few surface hearths that had been partially

covered with sand. Adding on to the site, perhaps to incorporate their slightly larger number of family members, they built new surface structures of masonry and jacal and cleaned out the large storage pit for maize. Like their predecessors at the site, they spent time growing and grinding maize and collecting and processing wild plants foods that grew in their fields. In addition, they snared some rabbits that liked to eat their crops. They also had time for making


pendants and other ornaments similar to those that had been left on the floor of the special pit structure, and they knapped spotted chert for which they had traded. However, life was hard at Hokona as meat was generally scarce and children did not have a well-balanced diet. At least one died and was buried in the partially filled former habitation pit structure used by the site’s previous inhabitants. Life was hard for the adults, too, and an older woman who had ground much of the maize for her family probably succumbed to some

kind of disease and was quickly buried in the pit structure fill as well. After several more years, people left the site again to try their luck in one of the larger settlements to the west. Still, Hokona was located in a good place for travel and periodically people stopped there for a little while, using a hearth, digging a small pit for storing food, or disposing of trash. However, most people eventually left the valley and moved west to establish several large towns near Zuni where they could farm and live in large numbers.

Figure 14.16. Representation of how the Feature 1 masonry and jacal

structure may have looked at one time, with a simplified activity area and Feature 3 in the foreground (drawing by Dr. Jim Railey).


The people who inhabited Hokona at different times throughout its history performed similar activities, including growing maize and beans, collecting wild plants, hunting small game, and importing ceramic vessels. Each community at Hokona probably also consisted of only one or a few extended family units. Still, the site saw many changes as people arrived, built new structures, remodeled existing ones, and then left shortly thereafter. Whether people lived at Hokona to resist integration into huge towns with hundreds of people, or to support those towns by providing construction labor or producing various food and/or non-food items is unknown. What is clear is that life at Hokona

was not static or isolated; the site’s inhabitants were connected with a larger regional community whose members negotiated their cultural identities and organizational strategies throughout the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries A.D. Thus, Hokona’s short-lived but repeated and changing occupations mirror larger trends in the El Morro Valley during Pueblo III and IV times. By continuing to study Hokona and other small residential sites in the valley, along with the large, populous towns, we can begin to create a complete picture of prehistoric Puebloan life in western New Mexico.

References

Abbott, David R. 2000 Ceramics and Community

Organization Among the Hohokam. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Adams, Charles E. 1991 The Origin and Development of the

Katsina Cult. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

1994 The Katsina Cult: A Western Pueblo

Perspective. In Kachinas and the Pueblo World, edited by Polly Schaafsma, pp. 35-46. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

1996 The Pueblo III-Pueblo IV Transition

in the Hopi Area, Arizona. In The Prehistoric Pueblo World, A.D. 1150-1350, edited by M. Adler, pp. 48-58. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Adams, Jenny L. 1993 Toward Understanding the

Technological Development of Manos and Metates. Kiva 58(3):331-343.

1996 Manual for a Technological Approach

to Ground Stone Analysis. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson.

1999 Refocusing the Role of Food-Grinding

Tools as Correlates for Subsistence Strategies in the U.S. Southwest. American Antiquity 64(3):475-498.

Adler, Michael A. (editor) 1996 The Prehistoric Pueblo World, A.D.

1150–1350. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Adler, Michael A., and Amber Johnson 1996 Mapping the Puebloan Southwest. In

The Prehistoric Pueblo World A.D. 1150–1350, edited by Michael A. Adler, pp. 255–272. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Adler, Michael A., and Mark D. Varien 1994 The Changing Face of Community in

the Mesa Verde Region, A.D. 1000-1300. In Proceedings of the Anasazi Symposium 1991, edited by J. E. Smith and A. Hutchinson, pp. 83-97. Mesa Verde Museum Association, Mesa Verde, CO.

Ahler, Stanley A. 1989 Mass Analysis of Flaking Debris:

Studying the Forest Rather than the Trees. In Alternative Approaches to Lithic Analysis, edited by D. Henry and G. Odell, pp. 85–118. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association No. 1.

Ahlstrom, R. V., C. R. Van West, and Jeffrey S. Dean 1995 Environmental and Chronological

Factors in the Mesa Verde-Northern Rio Grande Migration. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 14(2):125-142.

Akins, Nancy J. 1997 The Abraders of Chaco Canyon: An

Analysis of Their Form and Function. In Ceramics, Lithics,and Ornaments of Chaco Canyon: Analyses of Artifacts from the Chaco Project Vol. II: Lithics, edited by F. J. Mathien, pp. 701-945. Publications in Archaeology 18G, Chaco Canyon Studies, National Park Service, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

References 296

2003 The Burials of Pueblo Bonito. In Pueblo Bonito: Center of the Chacoan World, edited by Jill E. Neitzel, pp. 94–106. Smithsonian Books, Washington and London.

Alexander, Robert K. 1964 Highway Cultural Inventory Final

Report 1961–1964. Laboratory of Anthropology, Museum of New Mexico, Santa Fe.

Amick, Daniel S., and Raymond P. Mauldin 1989 Comments on Sullivan and Rozen’s

“Debitage Analysis and Archaeological Interpretation.” American Antiquity 54: 166–168.

1997 Effects of Raw Material on Flake

Breakage Patterns. Lithic Technology 22(1):18–32.

Andrews, Michael John 1978 St. Michaels Pueblo: Pueblo III

Subsistence and Adaptation in Black Creek Valley, Arizona. M.A. Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff.

Anyon, Roger 1984 Test Excavations at Seven Prehistoric

Sites on the Clo-Chin-Toh Land Exchange near Ramah, McKinley County, New Mexico. Preliminary Draft Report. Office of Contract Archaeology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Anyon, Roger, Susan M. Collins, and Kathryn H. Bennett 1983 Archaeological Investigations

Between Manuelito Canyon and Whitewater Arroyo, Northwest New Mexico. Report No. 185. Zuni Archaeology Program, Pueblo of Zuni, New Mexico.

Anyon, Roger, and T. J. Ferguson 1983 Settlement Patterns and Changing

Adaptations in the Zuni Area after A.D. 1000. Paper presented a the Anasazi Symposium, San Juan Museum Research Center, Bloomfield, New Mexico.

Aufderheide, Arthur C., and Conrado Rodriguez-Martin 1998 The Cambridge Encyclopedia of

Human Paleopathology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.

Bailey, Vernon 1913 Life Zones and Crop Zones of New

Mexico. North American Fauna No. 35. USDA Bureau of Biological Survey, Washington, D.C.

Barclay, Katherine 2001 Scientific Analysis of Archaeological

Ceramics: A Handbook of Resources. Oxbow Books, Oxford, England.

Barnett, Franklin 1974 Sandstone Hill Pueblo Ruin: Cibola

Culture in Catron County, New Mexico. Albuquerque Archaeological Society, Albuquerque.

Bass, William M. 1987 Human Osteology: A Laboratory and

Field Manual. Missouri Archaeological Society.

References 297

Behrensmeyer, A. K. 1978 Taphonomic and Ecologic Information

from Bone Weathering. Paleobiology 4:150–163.

Bennett, Kenneth A. 1975 Skeletal Remains from Mesa Verde

National Park, Colorado. Publications in Archaeology 7F, Wetherill Mesa Studies, National Park Service, Washington D.C.

Blinman, Eric R. 1988a Ceramic Vessels and Vessel

Assemblages in Dolores Archaeological Program Collections. In Dolores Archaeological Program: Supporting Studies: Additive and Reductive Technologies, compiled by E. Blinman, C. J. Phagan, and R. Whilshusen, pp. 449-482. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver.

1988b The Interpretation of Ceramic

Variability: A Case Study from the Dolores Anasazi. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Washington State University.

1997 Ceramics, Chapter 7. In Rio Puerco

Bridge and Road N2007 Realignment Project: Phase I and Phase II Excavations at Sites AZ-P-61-74 and AZ-P-61-211, Apache County, Arizona, edited by D. C. Irwin, pp. 141-192. La Plata Archaeological Consultants Research Paper No. 2. Dolores, Colorado.

Boehm, Christopher 1993 Egalitarian Behavior and Reverse

Dominance Hierarchy. Current Anthropology 34(3):227-254.

Boggess, Douglas H. M. 2005 An Intensive Cultural Resource Survey

of 687 Acres for the Malpais Brush Management Area, Cibola County, New Mexico. Report No. 854. Lone Mountain Archaeological Services, Albuquerque.

Braun, David P. 1980 Experimental Interpretation of

Ceramic Vessel Use on the Basis of Rim and Neck Formal Attributes. In The Navajo Project: Archaeological Investigations, Page to Phoenix 500 KV Southern Transmission Line, by D. Fiero, R. Munson, M. McClain, S. Wilson, and A. Zier, pp. 171-231. Museum of Northern Arizona, Research Paper 11. Flagstaff.

1983 Pots as Tools. In Archaeological

Hammers and Theories, edited by J. A. Moore and A. S. Keane, pp.107-134. Academic Press, New York.

Braun, David P., and Stephen Plog 1982 Evolution of "Tribal" Social

Networks: Theory and Prehistoric North American Evidence. American Antiquity 47:504–525.

Breternitz, David A. 1966 An Appraisal of Tree-Ring Date

Pottery in the Southwest. Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona, Number 10. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Brothwell, D.R. 1981 Digging Up Bones. London: Trustees

of the British Museum (Natural History).

References 298

Brown, David E. 1994a Plains and Great Basin Grasslands. In

Biotic Communities: Southwestern United States and Northwestern Mexico, edited by David E. Brown, pp. 115–121. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Originally published 1982, Biotic Communities of the American Southwest—United States and Mexico, Desert Plants 4(1–4).

1994b Great Basin Conifer Woodland. In

Biotic Communities: Southwestern Unites States and Northwestern Mexico, edited by David E. Brown, pp. 52-57. University of Utah Press. Salt Lake City. Originally published 1982, Biotic Communities of the American Southwest—United States and Mexico, Desert Plants 4(1–4).

Brown, David E., and Charles H. Lowe 1994 Biotic Communities of the Southwest.

A Supplementary Map to Biotic Communities: Southwestern United States and Northwestern Mexico, edited by David E. Brown. Reprinted. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Originally published 1980, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, USDA, Forest Service, Tempe.

Brown, Marie E., and Kenneth L. Brown 2006 A Class I and Class III Survey of the

NM 53 Right-of-way and Additional Take Areas between Mile Posts 47.43 and 47.96 and between Mile Posts 49.55 and 49.73 near El Morro, Cibola County, New Mexico. Prepared for New Mexico Department of Transportation. Marron and Associates, Inc., Albuquerque.

Bubemyre, Trixi, and Barbara J. Mills 1993 Clay Oxidation Analyses. In

Interpretation of Ceramic Artifacts, by Barbara J. Mills, Christine E. Goetze, and Maria Nieves Zedeño, pp. 235–277. Across the Colorado Plateau: Anthropological Studies for the Transwestern Pipeline Expansion Project, Volume XVI. Office of Contract Archeology and Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

Buikstra, Jane E., and Douglas H. Ubelaker 1994 Standards for Data Collection from

Human Skeletal Remains, Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series No. 44, Fayetteville, Arkansas

Burton, James H., and Arleyn Simon 1993 Acid Extraction as a Simple and

Inexpensive Method for Compositional Characterization of Archaeological Ceramics. American Antiquity 56:45–59.

Byram, Scott 1995 Methodological Notes on the Use of

Obsidian Hydration Data. Current Archaeologcial Happenings in Oregon 20(4):6–14.

Cameron, Catherine M. 2001 Pink Chert, Projectile Points, and the

Chacoan Regional System. American Antiquity 66(1):79–102.

Carlson, Roy L. 1970 White Mountain Redware: A Pottery

Tradition of East-Central Arizona and Western New Mexico. Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona, No. 19, University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

References 299

Carmichael 1986 Archaeological Survey in the Southern

Tularosa Basin of New Mexico. Publications in Anthropology No. 10, El Paso Centennial Museum, University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso.

Castetter, E. F. 1935 Ethnobiological Studies in the

American Southwest, I: Uncultivated Native Plants Used as Sources of Food. University of New Mexico Bulletin, no. 266, Biological Series, vol. 4, no. 1, Albuquerque.

Charles, D. K., and J. E. Buikstra 1983 Archaic Mortuary Sites in the Central

Mississippi Drainage: Distribution, Structure, and Behavioral Implications. In Archaic Hunters and Gatherers in the American Midwest, edited by J. L. Phillips and J. A. Brown, pp. 117–145. Academic Press, New York.

Chronic, Halka 1987 Roadside Geology of New Mexico.

Mountain Press, Missoula. Cockrum, E. L., and Y. Petryszyn 1992 Mammals of the Southwestern United

States and Northwestern Mexico. Treasure Chest Publications, Inc., Tucson, Arizona.

Cohen, Michael N. 1977 The Food Crisis in Prehistory:

Overpopulation and the Origins of Agriculture. Yale University Press, New Haven.

Colton, Harold S. 1956 Pottery Types of the Southwest: Wares

5A, 5B, 6A, 6B, 7A, 7B, 7C, San Juan Red Ware, Tsegi Orange Ware, Homolovi Orange Ware, Winslow Orange Ware, Awatovi Yellow Ware, Jeddito Yellow Ware, Sichomovi Red Ware. Museum of Northern Arizona, Ceramic Series No. 3C. Northern Arizona Society of Science and Art, Flagstaff.

Colton, Harold S., and Lyndon L. Hargrave 1937 Handbook of Northern Arizona

Pottery Wares. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin No. 11. Flagstaff.

Crabtree, Don E. 1982 An Introduction to Flintworking.

Idaho Museum of Natural History, Pocatello, Idaho.

Crown, Patricia L. 1994 Ceramics and Ideology: Salado

Polychrome Pottery. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Crown, Patricia L., Janet D. Orcutt, and Timothy A. Kohler 1996 Pueblo Cultures in Transition: The

Northern Rio Grande. In The Prehistoric Pueblo World, A.D. 1150-1350, edited by M. Adler, pp. 188-204. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

References 300

Damp, Jonathan E. 2000 Culture History: A Brief Review of

Zuni Prehistory. Households and Farms in Early Zuni Prehistory: Settlement, Subsistence, and the Archaeology of Y Unit Draw, Archaeological Investigations at Eighteen Sites Along New Mexico State Highway 602-Part 1. Zuni Cultural Resource Enterprise Report No. 593, ZCRE Research Series No. 11, pp. 19-39.

Damp, Jonathan E., Stephen A. Hall, and Susan J. Smith 2002 Early Irrigation on the Colorado

Plateau near Zuni Pueblo, New Mexico. American Antiquity 67(4):665–676.

Danson, Edward B. 1957 An Archaeological Survey West

Central New Mexico and East Central Arizona. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. Harvard University, vol. 44, no. 1. The Peabody Museum, Cambridge, MA.

Dean, Jeffrey S., Robert C. Euler, George J. Gumerman, Fred Plog, Richard H. Hevly, and Thor N. V. Karlstrom 1985 Human Behavior, Demography, and

Paleoenvironment on the Colorado Plateaus. American Antiquity 50(3):537-554.

Dean, Jeffery S., and W. J. Robinson 1977 Dendroclimatic Variability in the

American Southwest, A.D. 680 to 1970. Final Report to the National Park Service, Department of the Interior. Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, University of Arizona, Tucson.

Dick, Herbert W. 1965 Bat Cave. School of American

Research, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Dick-Peddie, William A. 1993a New Mexico Vegetation Map.

University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

1993b New Mexico Vegetation: Past,

Present, and Future. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Duff, Andrew I. 1996 Ceramic Micro-Seriation: Types or

Attributes? American Antiquity 61(1):89-101.

2002 Western Pueblo Identities: Regional

Interaction, Migration, and Transformation. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Duff, Andrew I., and Keith W. Kintigh 1997 Beyond Microseriation: Chronology,

Ceramics, and Social Process. Paper presented at the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Nashville.

Dunnell, R. C. 1980 Evolutionary Theory and

Archaeology. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 3, edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 35–99. Academic Press, New York.

Durham, William H. 1976 The Adaptive Significance of Cultural

Behavior. Human Ecology 4:89–121. Earle, T. 2001 Economic Support of Chaco Canyon

Society. American Antiquity 66(1):26–35.

References 301

Elliott, Melinda 1995 Great Excavations. School of

American Research Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Elson, Mark D. 1996 A Revised Chronology and Phase

Sequence for the Lower Tonto Basin of Central Arizona. The Kiva 62(2):117-147.

Ensor, H. B., and E. Roemer 1989 Comments on Sullivan and Rozen’s

“Debitage Analysis and Archaeological Interpretation.” American Antiquity 54:175–178.

Ferguson, T. J. 1981 The Emergence of Modern Zuni

Culture and Society: A Summary of Zuni Tribal History A.D. 1450-1700. In The Protohistoric Period in the North American Southwest, A.D. 1450-1700, edited by D. Wilcox and W. B. Masse, pp. 335-353. Anthropological Research Papers No. 24. Arizona State University, Tempe.

Ferguson, T. J., and E. Richard Hart 1985 A Zuni Atlas. University of Oklahoma

Press, Norman. Findley, J. S., A. H. Harris, D. E. Wilson, C. Jones 1975 Mammals of New Mexico. University

of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Fish, Suzanne K. 1995 Pollen Results from Los Morteros. In

Archaeological Investigations at Los Morteros, a Prehistoric Settlement in the Northern Tucson Basin, edited by Henry D. Wallace and Allen Dart, pp. 661–671. Anthropological Papers No. 17. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson.

Fowler, Andrew P. 1989 Ceramic Types of the Zuni Area. New

Mexico Archaeological Council Ceramics Workshop, Silver City New Mexico.

1994 Ceramics. In Excavations at Early

Puebloan Sites in the Puerco River Valley, Arizona: The N2007 Project, edited by Mark B. Sant and Marianne Marek, pp. 323-383. Zuni Archaeology Program Report No. 271. Zuni, New Mexico.

Fowler, Andrew P., John R. Stein, and Roger Anyon 1987 An Archaeological Reconnaissance of

West-Central New Mexico: The Anasazi Monument Project. Report Submitted to the State of New Mexico, Office of Cultural Affairs, Historic Preservation Division, Albuquerque.

Franklin, Hayward H. 1982a Ceramic Analysis of Nineteen Sites in

the Bis sa’ani Community. In Bis sa’ani: A Late Bonito Phase Community on Escavada Wash, Northwest New Mexico, edited by C. D. Breternitz, D. E. Doyle, and M. P. Marshall, pp. 873-934. Navajo Nation Papers in Archaeology No. 14. Navajo Nation Cultural Resource management Program, Window Rock, New Mexico.

1982b Ceramics from Seven Excavated Sites

in the Gallo Wash Mine Lease. In Prehistoric Adaptive Strategies in the Chaco Canyon Region, Northwestern New Mexico, assembled by A. H. Simmons, pp. 253-308. Navajo Nation Papers in Archaeology No. 9. Navajo Nation Cultural Resource Management Program, Window Rock, New Mexico.

References 302

Franklin, Hayward H., and Dabney Ford 1982 Attribute Analysis of Cibola and San

Juan McElmo Black-on-white Ceramic Types. In Bis sa’ani: A Late Bonito Phase Community on Escavada Wash, Northwest New Mexico, edited by C. D. Breternitz, D. E. Doyle, and M. P. Marshall, pp. 935-954. Navajo Nation Papers in Archaeology No. 14. Navajo Nation Cultural Resource Management Program, Window Rock, New Mexico

Gasser, R. E. 1982 Anasazi Diet. In The Coronado

Project Archaeological Investigations. The Specialists’ Volume: Biocultural Analyses, compiled by R. E. Gasser, pp. 8-95. Coronado Series 4, MNA Research Paper 23, Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff.

1983 Flotation Analysis. In Archaeological

Investigations between Manuelito Canyon and Whitewater Arroyo, Northwest New Mexico, Vol. 2, edited by R. Anyon,S. M. Collins, and K. H. Bennett, pp. 699-723. Zuni Archaeology Program Report No. 185, Zuni.

Gilbert, B. M. 1980 Mammalian Osteology. Modern

Printing Co., Laramie, Wyoming. 1985 Avian Osteology. Modern Printing

Co., Laramie, Wyoming. Gillespie, W. B. 1976 Culture Change at the Ute Canyon

Site: A Study of the Pithouse to Kiva Transition in the Mesa Verde Region. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Colorado, Boulder.

Gilpin, Dennis 1995 Chronology. In Late Pueblo II

Settlement and Subsistence on Puerco Ridge: Archaeological Data Recovery along Navajo Route 2007 Extension, Chambers-Sanders Trust Lands, Apache County, Arizona, by D. Gilpin and D. Greenwald, pp. 611-625. SWCA Archaeological Report No. 95-63. SWCA, Inc. Environmental Consultants, Flagstaff.

Goetze, Christine E., and Barbara J. Mills 1993 Classification Criteria for Wares and

Types. In Across the Colorado Plateau. Anthropological Studies for the Transwestern Pipeline Expansion Project: Interpretation of Ceramic Artifacts, vol. 16, edited by Barbara J. Mills, Christine E. Goetze, and Maria Nieves Zedeño, pp. 21-185. Office of Contract Archeology and Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

Goff, Joell, and Lori Stephens Reed 1998 Classification Criteria for Temper,

Generic Ceramic Types, and Specific Ceramic Types. In Exploring Ceramic Production, Distribution, and Exchange in the Southern Chuska Valley: Analytical Results from the El Paso Natural Gas North System Expansion Project. Pipeline Archaeology 1990-1993: The El Paso Natural Gas North System Expansion Project, New Mexico and Arizona, vol. XI, edited by L. S. Reed, J Goff, and K. N. Hensler, pp. 2-1–2-74. Report WCRM(F)074. Western Cultural Resource Management, Inc., Farmington, New Mexico.

References 303

Gish, Jannifer 1989 Palynological Perspectives on La

Cuenca Del Sedimento. In Prehistoric Agricultural Activities on the Lehi-Mesa Terrace: Excavations at La Cuenca Del Sedimento, edited by T. Kathleen Henderson, pp. 243-302. Northland Research, Tempe.

1991 Current Perceptions, Recent

Discoveries, and Future Directions in Hohokam Palynology. The Kiva 56:237-254.

1993 Shelltown and the Hind Site: A Pollen

Study of Two Settlements, with an Overview of Hohokam Subsistence. In Shelltown and the Hind Site, a Study of Two Hohokam Craftsman Communities in Southwestern Arizona, Volume 1, edited by W. S. Marmaduke and R. J. Martynec, pp. 449-562. Northland Research, Flagstaff.

Goldstein, L. G. 1976 Spatial Structure and Social

Organization: Regional Manifestations of Mississippian Society. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Northwestern University, Evanston.

Haas, Jonathan, and Winifred Creamer 1996 The Role of Warfare in the Pueblo III

Period. In The Prehistoric Pueblo World, A.D. 1150–1350, edited by Michael A. Adler, pp. 205–213. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Hagopian, Janet, Margaret Beck, and Kelley Hays-Gilpin 2004 Sourcing Ceramics from the Fence

Lake Data Recovery Project. Paper presented at the 69th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Montreal, March 31 - April 4, 2004

Hagopian, Janet, Kelley Hays-Gilpin, and Jim Hasbargen 2004 Ceramic Artifacts. In Archaeological

Excavations in the Carrizo Wash Valley, East-Central Arizona: Data Recovery on the Fence Lake Mine Transportations Corridor, edited by Dennis Gilpin, pp. 941-1079. SWCA Cultural Resources Report No. 03-265.

Hall, Stephen A. 1981 Deteriorated Pollen Grains and the

Interpretation of Quaternary Pollen Diagrams. Review of Paleobotany and Palynology 32:193-206.

1985 Bibliography of Quaternary

Palynology in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah. In Pollen Records of Late-Quaternary North American Sediments, edited by Vaughn Bryant and Richard G. Holloway, pp. 407-423. American Association of Stratigraphic Palynologists, Dallas.

Hally, David J. 1983 Use Alteration of Pottery Vessel

Surfaces: An Important Source of Evidence for the Identification of Vessel Function. North American Archaeologist 4(1):3-26.

References 304

1986 The Identification of Vessel Function: A Case Study from Northwest Georgia. American Antiquity 51:267-95.

Hard, Robert J. 1990 Agricultural Dependence in the

Mountain Mogollon. In Perspectives on Southwestern Prehistory, edited by Paul E. Minnis and Charles L. Redman, pp. 135–149. Westview Press, Boulder.

Hawley, John W. 1986 Physiographic Provinces I. In New

Mexico in Maps, edited by Jerry L. Williams, pp. 23–25. 2nd ed. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Hayes, A. C. 1981 A Survey of Chaco Canyon

Archaeology. In Archaeological Surveys of Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, compiled by A. C. Hayes, D. Brugge, and W. J. Judge, pp. 1-68. Publications in Archaeology 18A. National Park Service, Washington D.C.

Hayes, A. C., D. Brugge, and W. J. Judge 1981 Archaeological Surveys of Chaco

Canyon, New Mexico. Publications in Archaeology 18A. National Park Service, Washington D.C.

Hays-Gilpin, Kelley, Joell Goff, and Kathy Niles Hensler 1999 Analysis of Ceramics. In Anasazi

Community Development in Cove-Redrock Valley: Archaeological Investigations Along the N33 Road in Apache County, Arizona, by P. Reed and K. Niles Hensler, pp. 445-550. Navajo Nation Papers in Anthropology No. 33, Navajo Nation Archaeology Department, Window Rock, Arizona.

Hays-Gilpin, Kelley, and Eric van Hartesveldt (editors) 1998 Prehistoric Ceramics of the Puerco

Valley: The 1995 Chambers-Sanders Trust Lands Ceramic Conference. Museum of Northern Arizona Ceramic Series No. 7. Flagstaff.

Hegmon, M. 1989 Social Integration and Architecture. In

The Architecture of Social Integration in Prehistoric Pueblos, edited by W. D. Lipe and M. Hegmon, pp. 5-14. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado.

Helms, Mary W. 1979 Ancient Panama: Chiefs in Search of

Power. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Hillson, Simon 1993 Teeth. Cambridge Manuals in

Archaeology, University of London Institute of Archaeology, Cambridge University Press. New York.

Hodge, Frederick Webb 1939 A Square Kiva at Hawikuh. In So Live

the Works of Men: Seventieth Anniversary Volume Honoring Edgar Lee Hewett, edited by Donald Dilworth Brand and Fred Harvey, pp. 195-214. The University of New Mexico and the School of American Research, Albuquerque and Santa Fe.

Holloway, Richard G. 1981 Preservation and Experimental

Diagenesis of the Pollen Exine. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas.

References 305

1989 Experimental Mechanical Pollen Degradation and Its Application to Quaternary Age Deposits. Texas Journal of Science 41:131-145.

Hough, W. 1898 Environmental Interrelations in

Arizona. The American Anthropologist 11:133–155.

Houghton, Frank E. 1977 Climate. In Soil Survey of Bernalillo

County and Parts of Sandoval and Valencia Counties, New Mexico, by Leroy W. Hacker, pp. 95–96. USDA Soil Conservation Service and USDI Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, D.C.

Howell, Todd L. 1994 Leadership at the Ancestral Zuni

Village of Hawikku. Dissertation thesis, Arizona State University.

2001 Foundations of Political Power in

Ancestral Zuni Society. In Ancient Burial Practices in the American Southwest: Archaeology, Physical Anthropology, and Native American Perspectives, edited by D. R. Mitchell and J. L. Brunson-Hadley, pp. 149–166. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Huckell, Bruce B. 1973 The Hardt Creek Site. The Kiva

39(2):171–197. 1996 The Archaic Prehistory of the North

American Southwest. Journal of World Prehistory 10(3):305–373.

İşcan, Mehmet Yaşar, and Kenneth A. R. Kennedy, editors 1989 Reconstruction of Life from the

Skeleton. Alan R. Liss, Inc., New York.

Justice, Noel D. 2002 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of

the Southwestern United States. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.

Kaplan, L. 1956 The Cultivated Beans of the

Prehistoric Southwest. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 43:189-251.

Kapp, Ronald O. 1969 Pollen and Spores. Wm. C. Brown

Publishers, Dubuque, Iowa. Kays, R. W., and D. E. Wilson 2002 Mammals of North America. Princeton

Field Guides, Princeton University Press, New Jersey.

Kearney, Thomas H., and Robert H. Peebles 1960 Arizona Flora. University of

California Press, Berkeley. Kent, Susan 1992 Studying Variability in the

Archaeological Record: An Ethnoarchaeological Model for Distinguishing Mobility Patterns. American Antiquity 57(4):635-660.

Kidder, Alfred V. 1927 Southwestern Archaeological

Conference. Science 66:489-491. 1932 The Artifacts of Pecos. Published for

Phillips Academy by the Yale University Press, New Haven.

References 306

Kilby, J. David 2005 A Survey of Lithic Raw Material

Sources In and Around El Malpais National Monument. In The El Malpais Archeological Survey Phase I, edited by Robert P. Powers and Janet D. Orcutt, pp. 233-250. Intermountain Cultural Resources Management Professional Paper No. 70.

Kintigh, Keith W. 1985 Settlement, Subsistence, and Society in

Late Zuni Prehistory. Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona No. 44, Tucson.

1990 Protohistoric Transitions in the

Western Pueblo Area. In Patterns of Southwestern Prehistory, edited by P. Minnis and C. Redman, pp. 258-275. West View Press, Boulder.

1994 Chaco, Communal Architecture, and

Cibolan Aggregation. In The Ancient Southwestern Community: Models and Methods for the Study of Prehistoric Social Organization, edited by Wirt H. Wills and Robert D. Leonard, pp. 131-140. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

1996 The Cibola Region in the Post-

Chacoan Era. In The Prehistoric Pueblo World, A.D. 1150-1350, edited by M. A. Adler, pp. 131-144. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Kintigh, Keith W., and Andrew I. Duff 1993 The Changing Face of Community:

Patterns from the Zuni River Drainage. Paper presented at the 58th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, St. Louis.

Kintigh, Keith W., Donna M. Glowacki, and Deborah L. Huntley 2004 Long-Term Settlement History and the

Emergence of Towns in the Zuni Area. American Antiquity 69(3):432–456.

Kintigh, Keith W, Todd L. Howell, and Andrew I. Duff 1996 Post-Chacoan Organizational

Developments as Evidenced at the Hinkson Site, New Mexico. The Kiva 61(3):257-274.

Knight, P. J. 1982 Ethnobotany and Agriculture on the

McKinley Mine Lease. In Anasazi and Navajo Land Use in the McKinley Mine Area near Gallup, New Mexico, edited by C. G. Allen and B. A. Nelson, pp. 668-711. Office of Contract Archeology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

Lancaster, James W. 1983 An Analysis of Manos and Metates

from the Mimbres Valley, New Mexico. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

1984 Groundstone Artifacts. In The Galaz

Ruin: A Prehistoric Mimbres Village in Southwestern New Mexico, edited by R. Anyon and S. A. LeBlanc, pp. 247–262. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Lawrence, Barbara 1951 Post-Cranial Skeletal Characters of

Deer, Pronghorn, and Sheep-Goat with Notes on Bos and Bison. Reports of the Awatovi Expedition. Papers of the Peabody Museum, Harvard University, volume 35, number 3.

References 307

LeBlanc, Steven A. 1978 Settlement Patterns in the El Morro

Valley, Mew Mexico. In Investigations of the Southwestern Anthropology Research Group, edited by R. Euler and G. Gumerman, pp. 45-51. Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff.

1989 Cibola. In Dynamics of Southwestern

Prehistory, Linda S. Cordell and George J. Gumerman, editors. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C.

1999 Prehistoric Warfare in the American

Southwest. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Lee, Richard E. 1990 Primitive Communism and the Origin

of Social Inequality. In The Evolution of Political Systems, edited by Steadman Upham, pp. 225–246. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Lekson, Stephen 1988 The Idea of the Kiva in Anasazi

Archaeology. The Kiva 53:213-234. 1996 Southwestern New Mexico and

Southeastern Arizona, A.D. 900-1300. In The Prehistoric Pueblo World, A.D. 1150-1350, edited by M. Adler, pp. 170-176. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Leonard, Robert D., and George T. Jones 1987 Elements of an Inclusive Evolutionary

Model for Archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 6:199–219.

LeTourneau, Philippe D. 1997 Sources and Prehistoric Use of

Yellowish Brown Spotted Chert in Northwest-Central New Mexico. Paper presented at the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Nashville, TN.

Lipe, William D. 1989 Social Scale of Mesa Verde Anasazi

Kivas. In The Architecture of Social Integration in Prehistoric Pueblos, edited by W. D. Lipe and M. Hegmon, pp. 53-71. Occasional Paper No. 1. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, CO.

Lipe, William D., and Mark D. Varien 1999 Pueblo III. In Colorado Prehistory: A

Context for the Southern Colorado River Basin, pp. 290-353. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, CO.

Lipe, William D., Mark D. Varien, and Richard H. Wilshusen 1999 Colorado Prehistory: A Context for

the Southern Colorado River Basin. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado.

Lipe, William D., and Richard H. Wilshusen 1999 Pueblo II. In Colorado Prehistory: A

Context for the Southern Colorado River Basin, pp. 242-290. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, CO.

Logan, Erik N., and Lee Fratt 1993 Pigment Processing at Homol’ovi III:

A Preliminary Study. Kiva 58(3):415-428.

References 308

Lundquist, Lance 2002 Lithic Artifacts. In The Box:

Archaeological Testing at Ten Rockshelters near Socorro, New Mexico, edited by J. Railey, pp. 97–121. TRC Project No. 01234. Albuquerque.

2004 Prehistoric Lithic Artifacts. In

Archaeology of Albuquerque's Ceja Mesa and the Middle Rio Puerco Valley, Bernalillo and Sandoval Counties, New Mexico, edited by Howard Higgins and Lance Lundquist, pp. 261–289. TRC Project No. 37992. Albuquerque.

Lundquist, Lance, and Deann Muller 2006 Archaeological Data Recovery Plan

for Development of the Campbell Ranch Village 2 West Housing Development In Edgewood, Bernalillo County, New Mexico. SWCA Cultural Resources Report No. 2006-351. Albuquerque.

Lyon, Jerry D. 2000 Ground Stone Artifacts. In

Procurement, Processing, and Passing Through Volume II. SWCA Cultural Resources Report No. 98-267, Phoenix, Arizona.

Marshall, Michael P., John R. Stein, Richard W. Loose, and Judith E. Novotny 1979 Anasazi Communities of the San Juan

Basin. Public Service Company of New Mexico and New Mexico Historic Preservation Bureau, Albuquerque and Santa Fe.

Marshall, Sandra L. 1989 A Cultural Resource Survey for a Tree

Clearing Project on 26.5 Miles of Right-of-way on State Road 53 District Six Maintenance Project. Report No. 89-22. New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department, Santa Fe.

Martin, Debra L., and Nancy J. Akins 2001 Unequal Treatment in Life as in

Death: Trauma and Mortuary Behavior at La Plata (AD 1000-1300). In Ancient Burial Practices in the American Southwest: Archaeology, Physical Anthropology, and Native American Perspectives, edited by D. R. Mitchell and J. L. Brunson-Hadley, pp. 223-248. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Martin, Debra L, Carol Piacentini, and George J Armelagos 1985 Paleopathology of the Black Mesa

Anasazi: A Biocultural Approach. In Health and Disease in the Prehistoric Southwest, edited by C. F. Merbs and R. J. Miller. Arizona State University Anthropological Research Papers No. 34, Tempe.

Mathien, Frances Joan 1993 Ornaments and Minerals from Site

29SJ 629. In The Spadefoot Toad Site: Investigations at 29SJ 629 Chaco Canyon, New Mexico Vol, II. Reports of the Chaco Center Number Twelve, Santa Fe, pp. 269-316.

Mauldin, R. P. 1993 The Relationship between Ground

Stone and Agricultural Intensification in Western New Mexico. Kiva 58:317–330.

References 309

McGimsey, Charles R., III 1980 Mariana Mesa: Seven Prehistoric

Settlements in West-Central New Mexico. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

McGregor, John C. 1982 Southwestern Archaeology. University

of Illinois Press, Urbana and Chicago. Mehringer, Peter 1967 Pollen Analysis of the Tule Springs

Area, Nevada. In Pleistocene Studies in Southern Nevada, edited by H. M. Wormington and D. Ellis, pp. 130-200. Anthropological Papers 13. Nevada State.

Miksicek, C. 1978 Subsistence Ecology of a prehistoric

Human Population under Environmental Stress: the El Morro Proto-Zuni Example. Unpublished M.A. thesis. Washington University, St. Louis.

Miller, Myles R., and Chad Burt 2007 Miscellaneous Investigations at the

Conejo Site (LA 91044/FB 46) Fort Bliss, Doña Ana County, New Mexico. Historic and Natural Resources Report No. 03-17(B), Directorate of Environment, Conservation Division, U.S. Army Air Defense Artillery Center and Fort Bliss.

Mills, Barbara J. 1999 Ceramic Ware and Type Systematics.

In Living on the Edge of the Rim: Excavations and Analysis of the Silver Creek Archaeological Research Project 1993-1998, edited by B. J. Mills, S. A. Herr, and S. Van Keuren, pp. 243-268. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 192. Arizona State Museum and University of Arizona, Tucson.

Mills, Barbara J., and Sarah A. Herr 1999 Chronology of the Mogollon Rim

Region. In Living on the Edge of the Rim: Excavations and Analysis of the Silver Creek Archaeological Research Project 1993-1998, edited by B. J. Mills, S. A. Herr, and S. Van Keuren, pp. 269-293. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 192. Arizona State Museum and University of Arizona, Tucson.

Mills, Barbara J., Sarah A. Herr, Susan L. Stinson, and Daniela Triadan 1999 Ceramic Production and Distribution.

In Living on the Edge of the Rim: Excavations and Analysis of the Silver Creek Archaeological Research Project 1993-1998, edited by B. J. Mills, S. A. Herr, and S. Van Keuren, pp. 295-324. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 192. Arizona State Museum and University of Arizona, Tucson.

Montoya, Richard 1999 Section 106 Consultation Form

(Cultural Resources), Troughs, Fences, and Pipelines for Larry Carver. U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service, New Mexico State Office, Albuquerque.

References 310

Moore, P. D., J. A. Webb, and M. E. Collinson 1991 Pollen Analysis. Blackwell Scientific

Publications, London. Morris, James N. 1991 Archaeological Excavations on the

Hovenweep Laterals. Four Corners Archaeological Project Report No. 16. Complete Archaeological Service Associates, Cortez, CO.

Motsinger, Thomas N. 2003 Ceramic Figurines. In Prehistory in

West Prescott, Arizona, edited by Richard A. Anduze, Thomas N. Motsinger, and James M. Potter, pp. 73–78. SWCA Anthropological Research Paper Number 9. Phoenix.

Munsell Color 2000 Munsell Soil Color Chart, revised

edition. Kollmorgan Instrument Corp. Newburgh, New York.

Neitzel, Jill E. 2003 The Organization, Function, and

Population of Pueblo Bonito. In Pueblo Bonito: Center of the Chacoan World, edited by Jill E. Neitzel, pp. 143-149. Smithsonian Books, Washington and London.

Olsen, S. J. 1980 Fish, Amphibian and Reptile Remains

from Archaeological Sites. Papers of the Peabody Museum, Harvard University, volume 56, number 2.

1990 Mammal Remains from

Archaeological Sites. Papers of the Peabody Museum, Harvard University, volume 56, number 1.

Ortner, Donald J., and Walter G. J. Putschar 1985 Identification of Pathological

Conditions in Human Skeletal Remains. Smithsonian Institution Press, City of Washington.

Palkovich, Ann M. 1980 Pueblo Population and Society: The

Arroyo Hondo Skeletal and Mortuary Remains. Arroyo Hondo Archaeological Series, Volume 3, School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

Parham, Tommie Lee 1993 Soil Survey of Cibola Area, New

Mexico: Parts of Cibola, McKinley, and Valencia Counties. USDA Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.

Parry, William J., and Robert L. Kelly 1987 Expedient Core Technology and

Sedentism. In The Organization of Core Technology, edited by J. K. Johnson and C. A. Morrow, pp. 285-304. Westview Press, Boulder.

Peckham, Stewart 1973 An Archaeological Survey of a

Proposed AT&T Co. Buried Cable Route between Clovis and Zuni, New Mexico. Report No. 264a. Laboratory of Anthropology, Museum of New Mexico, Santa Fe.

Peterson, Roger Tory 1990 A Field Guide to Western Birds.

Houghton Mifflin, Boston.

References 311

Pilles, Peter J. 1996 The Pueblo III Period Along the

Mogollon Rim: The Honanki, Elden, and Turkey Hills Phases of the Sinagua. In The Prehistoric Pueblo World, A.D. 1150-1350, edited by M. Adler, pp. 59-72. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Plog, Stephen 1997 Ancient Peoples of the American

Southwest. Thames and Hudson, London.

Post, Stephen S. 2002 Archaeological Investigation of Two

Multicomponent Sites Along Interstate 40 Near the State Road 6 Exit, Cibola County, New Mexico. Museum of New Mexico Office of Archaeological Studies, Archaeology Notes 253, Santa Fe.

Powers, Robert P., William B. Gillespie, and Stephen H. Lekson 1983 The Outlier Survey: A Regional View

of Settlement in the San Juan Basin. Reports of the Chaco Center 3. Division of Cultural Research, National Park Service, Albuquerque.

Powers, Robert P., and Janet D. Orcutt, editors 2005 The El Malpais Archeological Survey

Phase I. Intermountain Cultural Resources Management Professional Paper No. 70.

Prentiss, William C. 1998 The Reliability and Validity of a

Lithic Debitage Typology: Implications for Archaeological Interpretation. American Antiquity 63(4):635-650.

Prudden, T. Mitchell 1903 The Prehistoric Ruins of the San Juan

Watershed in Utah, Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico. American Anthropologist 5:224-288.

Railey, Jim A. 2001 A Social-Evolutionary Perspective on

El Paso–area Prehistory. In Jornada Mogollon Archaeology: Collected Papers from the Eleventh Jornada Mogollon Conference, edited by P. H. Beckett, pp. 37–86. COAS Publishing and Research, Las Cruces.

2006 Archaeological Testing and Data

Recovery Plan for Portions of LA 152871 in the City of Belen, Valencia County, New Mexico. SWCA Cultural Resources Report No. 2006-318. Albuquerque.

Railey, Jim A., Rebecca H. Schwendler, and Christopher A. Carlson 2006 Archaeological Data Recovery Plan

for LA 153714 Along NM 53 Between Mile Posts 47.43 and 47.96, Cibola County, New Mexico. Prepared for the New Mexico Department of Transportation. SWCA Cultural Resources Report No. 2006-426, Albuquerque.

Rambo, A. T. 1991 The Study of Cultural Evolution. In

Profiles in Cultural Evolution: Papers from a Conference in Honor of Elman R. Service, edited by A. T. Rambo and K. Gillogly, pp. 23–109. Museum of Anthropology Anthropological Papers No. 85. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

References 312

Reed, Erik K. 1955 Painted Pottery and Zuni History.

Southwest Journal of Anthropology 11(5):178-193.

Reed, Paul F., and Kathy Niles Hensler 1999 Anasazi Community Development in

Cove-Redrock Valley: Archaeological Investigations Along the N33 Road in Apache County, Arizona. Navajo Nation Papers in Anthropology No. 33, Navajo Nation Archaeology Department, Window Rock, Arizona.

Reinhard, Karl J., and Linda M. Gregonis 1997 Ceramics. In The Hardy Site at Fort

Lowell Park, Tucson, Arizona, edited by Linda M. Gregonis, pp. 23-34. Archaeological Series No. 175. Arizona State Museum, Tucson.

Reiter, Paul 1938 The Jemez Pueblo of Unshagi, New

Mexico, with Notes on the Earlier Excavations at Amoxiumqua and Giusewa, 2 parts. Monographs of the School of American Research, Vol. 5-6, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Renfrew, Colin 1987 Archaeology and Language: The

Puzzle of Indo-European Origins. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Renfrew, C., and J. F. Cherry (editors) 1986 Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-

political Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Rice, Prudence M. 1987 Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook.

University of Chicago Press. Chicago.

Robbins, W. W., J. P. Harrington, and B. Freire-Marreco 1916 Ethnobotany of the Tewa Indians.

Smithsonian Institution–Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin No. 55.

Roberts, Frank H. H., Jr. 1927 The Ceramic Sequence in Chaco

Canyon, New Mexico, and its Relation to the Cultures of the San Juan Basin. Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge.

Robertson, Ben P. 1982 Archaeological Survey of Buried

Cable Extensions in the Ramah–El Morro Area, McKinley County, New Mexico, for Universal Telephone Company of the Southwest. Report No. 179. Zuni Archaeology Program, Pueblo of Zuni, New Mexico.

Robinson, Sherry 1994 El Malpais, Mt. Taylor, and the Zuni

Mountains: A Hiking Guide and History. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Roney, John R. 1996 The Pueblo III Period in the Eastern

San Juan Basin and Acoma-Laguna Areas. In The Prehistoric Pueblo World, A.D. 1150–1350, edited by M. A. Adler. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Roxlau, R. B., G. M. Brown, and R. Loehman 1997 Lithic Typology for the Jemez

Mountains. In OLE Volume II: Artifacts, edited by John C. Acklen, pp. 31–90. TRC Mariah Associates, Albuquerque.

Rozen, Kenneth C. 1984 Flaked Stone. Hohokam Habitation

Sites in the Northern Santa Rita

References 313

Mountains. Archaeological Series–Cultural Resource Management Section, Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona No. 147, Vol. 2, pt. 1, pp.421–604.

Saunders, Shelley R., and M. Anne Katzenberg 1992 Skeletal Biology of Past Peoples:

Research Methods. Wiley-Liss, New York.

Schachner, Gregson 2007 Population Circulation and the

Transformation of Ancient Cibola Communities. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe.

Schachner, Gregson, and J. David Kilby 2005 Interaction and Exchange. In The El

Malpais Archeological Survey Phase I, edited by Robert P. Powers and Janet D. Orcutt, pp. 99-128. Intermountain Cultural Resources Management Professional Paper No. 70.

Schachner, Gregson, and Keith W. Kintigh 2004 Community Formation and Migration

in the 13th Century El Morro Valley, New Mexico. Poster presented at the 69th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Montreal, Canada.

Scheuer, Louise, and Sue Black 2000 Developmental Juvenile Osteology.

Academic Press, San Diego. Schiffer, Michael B. 1986 Radiocarbon Dating and the "Old

Wood" Problem: The Case of the Hohokam Chronology. Journal of Archaeological Science 13:13–30.

Schlanger, Sarah H., and Richard.H. Wilshusen 1993 Local Abandonments and Regional

Conditions in the North American Southwest. In Abandonments of Settlements and Regions: Ethnoarchaeological and Archaeological Approaches, edited by C. M. Cameron and S. A. Tomka, pp. 85-98. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Schmid, Elisabeth 1972 Atlas of Animal Bones. Elsevier Publishing Company, New York. Sebastian, Lynne 1983 Anasazi Site Typology and

Chronology. In Economy and Interaction Along the Lower Chaco River: The Navajo Mine Archaeological Program, Mining Area III, San Juan County, New Mexico, edited by Patrick Hogan and Joseph C. Winter, pp. 403-419. Office of Contract Archeology and the Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

Shackley, M. S. 1998 Geochemical Differentiation and

Prehistoric Procurement of Obsidian in the Mount Taylor Volcanic Field, Northwest New Mexico. Journal of Archaeological Science 25:1073-1082.

Shaffer, Brian S., and Barry W. Baker 1992 A Vertebrate Faunal Analysis Coding

System. University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology, Technical Report 23, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

References 314

Shepard, Anna O. 1985 Ceramics for the Archaeologist.

Publication 609. Carnegie Institution of Washington. Washington, D.C.

Skibo, James M. 1992 Pottery Function: A Use-Alteration

Perspective. Plenum Press. New York. Skibo, James M., and Eric Blinman 1999 Exploring the Origins of Pottery on

the Colorado Plateau. In Pottery and People: A Dynamic Interaction, by J. M. Skibo and G. M. Feinman, pp.171-183. University of Utah Press. Salt Lake City.

Smith, Marion, Jr. 1994 Function and Technology of Anasazi

Ceramics from Black Mesa, Arizona. Occasional Paper No. 15. Center for Archaeological Investigations. Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.

Smith, Susan J. 1995 Mcdowell-to-Shea Pollen Analysis. In

Archaeology at the Head of the Scottsdale Canal System, Volume 2, edited by T. Kathleen Henderson and David R. Abbott, pp. 165-184. Anthropological Papers No. 95-1. Northland Research, Flagstaff.

Smith, Susan J., and Phil R. Geib 1999 An Experimental Study of Grinding

Tool Pollen Washes: Bridging the Inferential Gap between Pollen Counts and Past Behavior. Poster presented, 64th Annual Meeting, Society for American Archaeology, Chicago.

Smith, Watson B. 1990 When Is a Kiva? And Other Important

Questions About Southwestern Archaeology. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Stein, John R., and Andrew P. Fowler 1996 Looking beyond Chaco in the San

Juan Basin and Its Peripheries. In The Prehistoric Pueblo World, A.D. 1150–1350, edited by Michael A. Adler, pp. 114–130. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Steve Riner Highways 2006 The Unofficial New Mexico

Highways Page. Available online at http://www.steve-riner.com/nmhighways/NM51-75.htm. Accessed on February 25, 2008. Last updated November 18, 2006.

Stevenson, M. C. 1915 Ethnobotany of the Zuni Indians. In

Thirtieth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, 1908-1909, pp. 35–102. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Sullivan, A. P., and K. C. Rozen 1985 Debitage Analysis and Archaeological

Interpretation. American Antiquity 50:755–779.

Todd, T. Wingate 1920-21 Age Changes in the Pubic Bone

(Parts I–IV). American Journal of Physical Anthropology 3:285–334; 4:1–70, 333–424.

References 315

Toll, H. Wolcott, Thomas C. Windes, and Peter J. McKenna 1980 Late Ceramic Patterns in Chaco

Canyon: The Pragmatics of Modeling Ceramic Exchange. In Models and Methods in Regional Exchange, edited by R. E. Fry, pp. 95-117. SAA Papers No. 1. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D. C.

Toll, M. S. 1984 Botanical Materials from Late

Pithouse Occupations in the El Morro Valley, New Mexico. Castetter Laboratory for Ethnobotanical Studies, Technical Series No. 125. The University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

1985 An Overview of Chaco Canyon

Macrobotanical Materials and Analyses to Date. In Environment and Subsistence of Chaco Canyon, edited by F. J. Mathien, pp. 247-277. Publications in Archeology 18E, Chaco Canyon Studies, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Albuquerque.

Toll, M. S., and M. Donaldson 1982 Flotation and Macro-botanical

Analyses of Archeological Sites on the McKinley Mine Lease: A Regional Study of Plant Manipulation and Natural Seed Dispersal over Time. In Anasazi and Navajo Land Use in the McKinley Mine Area near Gallup, New Mexico, Vol. 1 Archaeology, Part 2, edited by C. G. Allen and B. A. Nelson, pp. 712-786. Office of Contract Archaeology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

Triadan, Daniela 1997 Ceramic Commodities and Common

Containers: Production and Distribution of White Mountain Red Ware in the Grasshopper Region, Arizona. Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona 61. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Trotter, M., and G. C. Gleser 1952 Estimation of Stature from Long-

bones of American Whites and Negroes. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 49:315-318.

1958 A Re-evaluation of Estimation of

Stature Based on Measurements of Stature Taken During Life and Long-bones After Death. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 16:79-123

Turnbow, Christopher A. 1997 Projectile Points as Chronological

Indicators. In OLE Volume II: Artifacts, edited by John C. Acklen, pp. 161–230. Public Service Company of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

Upham, Steadman, Patricia L. Crown, and Stephen Plog 1994 Alliance Formation and Cultural

Identity in the American Southwest. In Themes in Southwest Prehistory, edited by George J. Gumeman, pp. 183–210. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Van Hoose, Jonathan E., and Lance Lundquist 2002 Prehistoric Lithic Artifacts. In Across

the Desert Floor: Cultural Resource Investigations along US 54, Otero County, New Mexico, edited by J. Railey, pp. 577–651. TRC Technical Report No. 2002-1, TRC Project No. 33639. Albuquerque.

References 316

Van West, Carla R. 1996 Agricultural Potential and Carrying

Capacity in Southwestern Colorado, A.D 900-1300: A GIS Approach. In The Prehistoric Pueblo World, A.D. 1150-1350, edited by M. Adler, pp. 214-227. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Varien, Mark 1987 Survey, Testing, and Excavation Along

New Mexico State Highway 53, Between the Black Rock Cutoff Road and the Nutria Road, Zuni Indian Reservation, McKinley County, New Mexico. Zuni Archaeology Program Report No. 232, Zuni Archaeology Program Research Series No. 5. Zuni, New Mexico.

1990 Excavations at Three Prehistoric Sites

Along Pia Mesa Road, Zuni Indian Reservation, McKinley County, New Mexico. Zuni Archaeology Program Report No. 233, Zuni Archaeology Program Research Series No. 45. Zuni, New Mexico.

Vivian, R. Gwinn 1990 The Chacoan Prehistory of the San

Juan Basin. Academic Press, San Diego.

von den Driesch, Angela 1976 A Guide to the Measurement of

Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. Peabody Museum Bulletin 1, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University.

Ware, John A. 2002 Why Is a Kiva? The Social

Organization of Early Pueblo Communities. In Culture and Environment in the American Southwest: Papers in Honor of Robert C. Euler, edited by David A. Phillips, Jr., and John A. Ware, pp. 79–88. SWCA Anthropological Research Paper No. 8. SWCA, Inc., Environmental Consultants, Phoenix.

Ware, John, and Eric Blinman 1999 A Social History of the Western

Pueblos. Paper presented at the 1999 Meetings of the Society for American Archaeology, Chicago.

Watson, Patty Jo, Steven A. LeBlanc, and Charles L. Redman 1980 Aspects of Zuni Prehistory:

Preliminary Report of Excavations and Survey in the El Morro Valley of New Mexico. Journal of Field Archaeology 7(2):201-218.

West, Heather M., and Douglas R. Mitchell 2002 Whole Vessels and Other Ceramics. In

Carlota Copper Mine Archaeological Project, Volume 3, Part I, Prehistoric Artifact Studies and Special Analyses, edited by Douglas R. Mitchell and Jean H. Ballagh, pp. 67-76. Cultural Resource Report No. 97-191. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Phoenix.

Whiting, A. F. 1939 Ethnobotany of the Hopi. Bulletin, no.

15, Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff.

References 317

Whitley, Thomas 1994 An Archaeological Survey for the

Proposed Improvement of 27.95 Miles of State Highway 53 in Cibola County, New Mexico. Report No. 438. Zuni Cultural Resource Enterprise, Pueblo of Zuni, New Mexico.

Wilshusen, Richard H. 1989 Architecture as Artifact. Part

II: A Comment on Gilman. American Antiquity 54(4):826-833.

Windes, Thomas C. 1977 Typology and Technology of Anasazi

Ceramics. In Settlement and Subsistence along the Lower Chaco River: The CGP Survey, edited by Charles A. Reher, pp. 279-370. Office of Contract Archeology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

1984 A View of the Cibola White Ware

from Chaco Canyon. In Regional Analysis of Prehistoric Ceramic Variation: Contemporary Studies of the Cibola Whitewares, edited by A. P. Sullivan and J. L. Hantman, pp. 94-119. Anthropological Research Papers No. 31. Arizona State University, Tempe.

1985 Chaco-McElmo Black-on-white from

Chaco Canyon with an Emphasis on the Pueblo Del Arroyo Collection. In Prehistory and History in the Southwest, edited by N. L. Fox, pp. 19-42. Papers of the Archaeological Society of New Mexico: 11. Archaeological Society of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

1993 Groundstone, Chopping, and Percussion Tools at 29SJ 629. In The Spadefoot Toad Site: Investigations at 29SJ 629 Chaco Canyon, New Mexico Vol. II. Reports of the Chaco Center Number 12, Santa Fe, pp. 201-264.

Windes, Thomas C., and Peter J. McKenna 1989 Cibola White Ware and Cibola

Grayware: The Chaco Series. Paper presented at the New Mexico Archaeological Council Ceramics Workshop, Northwestern New Mexico Region, Red Rock State Park, Gallup.

Winter, J. C. 1983 Corn Across the Southwest. In Across

the Colorado Plateau: Anthropological Studies for the Transwestern Pipeline Expansion Project, Vol. 15 Subsistence and Environment, edited by J. C. Winter, pp. 521-600. Office of Contract Archaeology and Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

Woodbury, Richard B. 1956 The Antecedents of Zuni Culture.

Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences Series II, 18(6):557-563.

Wyman, L. C., and S. K. Harris 1941 Navajo Indian Medical Ethnobotany.

University of New Mexico Bulletin, no. 366, Anthropological Series, vol. 3, no. 5. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

References 318

Zedeño, María Nieves 1994 Sourcing Prehistoric Ceramics at

Chodistaas Pueblo, Arizona: The Circulation of People and Pots in the Grasshopper Region. Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona 58. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Zier, Christian J. 1976 Excavations Near Zuni, New Mexico:

1973. Museum of Northern Arizona Research Paper No. 2, Flagstaff.

Zuni Cultural Resource Enterprise (ZCRE) 2000 Households and Farms in Early Zuni

Prehistory: Settlement, Subsistence, and the Archaeology of Y Unit Draw, Archaeological Investigations at Eighteen Sites along New Mexico State Highway 602. ZCRE Report No. 593, Research Series No. 11, Pueblo of Zuni, and New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department Technical Series No. 2001-3, Santa Fe.

APPENDIX B CERAMIC ANALYSIS

Appendix B Ceramic Analysis 324

Ceramic Analysis Codes SITE NO Site Number FS FS Number BAG Letter assigned to bag within each FS. ITEM Item Number. Number assigned sequentially within each FS and assigned to each

lot of sherds (one or more with same attributes). VES Vessel Number assigned to sherds from same vessel. TYPE See code list, appended TEMP Temper 12 = Crushed Sherd 99 = Indeterminate FORM Vessel Form 10 = Bowl, undifferentiated 11 = Straight Rim Bowl 14 = Ladle 20 = Jar, undifferentiated 21 = Narrow Neck Jar 22 = Wide Neck Jar 23 = Seed Jar 42 = Figurine 99 = Indeterminate/unknown form PART Part of Vessel 1 = Rim 2 = Neck 3 = Body 4 = Base 5 = Handle 8 = Indeterminate 9 = Other/Self (for figurines, pipes, beads – describe in comments) MOD Modification, post-firing 0 = Absent 1 = Present 2 = Repair (drill) hole only SOOT 0 = Absent 1 = Present on exterior 2 = Present on interior, both surfaces, and/or edges


COUNT Number of sherds in lot with same attributes. WEIGHT Weight in grams of sherds in lot. COMMENTS Note anything unusual or interesting. Note refits or sherds from the same vessel.

Also may note misifiring, pitting, design elements, etc.

Ceramic Type Codes Informal Categories

0000 Too small, not analyzed 0099 Indeterminate, cannot identify to ware level

Cibola White Ware

0200 Indeterminate Cibola White Ware 0210 La Plata Black-on-white 0211 White Mound Black-on-white 0212 Kiatuthlanna Black-on-white 0213 Red Mesa Black-on-white 0214 Escavada Black-on-white 0215 Gallup Black-on-white 0216 Puerco Black-on-white 0217 Reserve Black-on-white 0218 Chaco Black-on-white 0219 Chaco/McElmo Black-on-white 0220 Snowflake Black-on-white 0221 Tularosa Black-on-white 0222 Klagetoh Black-on-white 0223 Pinedale Black-on-white

White Mountain Red Ware 1300 Indeterminate White Mountain Red Ware 1311 Puerco Black-on-red 1312 Wingate Black-on-red 1313 Wingate Polychrome 1314 Wingate Polychrome, Houck variety 1315 Wingate Polychrome, Querino variety 1316 St. Johns Black-on-red 1317 St. Johns Polychrome 1318 Springerville Polycrhrome 1319 Pinedale Black-on-red 1320 Pinedale Polychrome 1321 Fourmile Polychrome


21 Cibola Gray Ware 2100 Indeterminate Cibola Gray Ware 2101 Indeterminate plain Cibola Gray Ware 2106 Indeterminate clapboard corrugated 2107 Indented corrugated 2108 Indeterminate corrugated (describe in comments) 2130 Festooned corrugated 2131 Exuberant corrugated 2132 Zoned corrugated 2133 Patterned corrugated

2134 Obliterated corrugated 2135 Tooled Cibola Gray Ware (describe/define in comments)


Table B.1. LA 153714 ICPS Refiring Data ICPS No. Site No. FS Bag Item Munsell

Before Color Before

Munsell After Color After Color

Group Ceramic Type

1 LA153714 109 A 2 Gley1 8/N white 10YR8/2 very pale brown Buff 1 Tularosa Black-on-white 2 LA153714 149 A 4 Gley1 8/N white 10YR8/1 white Buff 1 Tularosa Black-on-white 3 LA153714 153 A 2 Gley1 8/N white 10YR8/2 very pale brown Buff 1 Chaco/McElmo Black-on-white 4 LA153714 173 A 4 Gley1 7/N light gray 7.5YR8/1 white Buff 2 Pinedale Black-on-white 5 LA153714 175 A 3 Gley1 8/N white 7.5YR8/1 white Buff 2 Tularosa Black-on-white 6 LA153714 273 A 1 10YR7/1 light gray 7.5YR8/1 white Buff 2 Tularosa Black-on-white 7 LA153714 274 A 1 Gley1 8/N white 10YR8/2 very pale brown Buff 1 Chaco/McElmo Black-on-white 8 LA153714 354 A 4 Gley1 8/N white 7.5YR7/4 pink Buff 2 Pinedale Black-on-white 9 LA153714 381 B 3 Gley1 8/N white 10YR8/1 white Buff 1 Klagetoh Black-on-white 10 LA153714 400 A 3 Gley1 8/N white 7.5YR7/3 pink Buff 2 Chaco/McElmo Black-on-white 11 LA153714 447 A 7 Gley1 8/N white 7.5YR8/1 white Buff 2 Tularosa Black-on-white 12 LA153714 467 A 6 Gley1 8/N white 10YR8/1 white Buff 1 Klagetoh Black-on-white 13 LA153714 470 A 4 Gley1 8/N white 10YR8/1 white Buff 1 Pinedale Black-on-white 14 LA153714 474 A 5 Gley1 8/N white 7.5YR7/3 pink Buff 2 Chaco/McElmo Black-on-white 15 LA153714 480 A 5 10YR7/1 light gray 7.5YR8/3 pink Buff 2 Chaco/McElmo Black-on-white 16 LA153714 490 A 4 Gley1 8/N white 7.5YR7/3 pink Buff 2 Chaco/McElmo Black-on-white 17 LA153714 494 A 5 Gley1 8/N white 7.5YR8/3 pink Buff 2 Tularosa Black-on-white 18 LA153714 514 A 7 Gley1 8/N white 10YR8/1 white Buff 1 Chaco/McElmo Black-on-white 19 LA153714 627 A 5 10YR8/1 white 10YR8/2 very pale brown Buff 1 Indeterminate Cibola White Ware 20 LA153714 270 C 1 Gley1 8/N white 7.5YR8/3 pink Buff 2 Indented corrugated Cibola Gray Ware 21 LA153714 279 A 1 10YR8/1 white 7.5YR8/3 pink Buff 2 Indented corrugated Cibola Gray Ware 22 LA153714 287 A 1 Gley1 8/N white 7.5YR8/3 pink Buff 2 Indented corrugated Cibola Gray Ware 23 LA153714 291 A 1 Gley1 8/N white 10YR8/2 very pale brown Buff 1 Indented corrugated Cibola Gray Ware 24 LA153714 296 A 1 Gley1 8/N white 7.5YR8/4 pink Buff 2 Indented corrugated Cibola Gray Ware 25 LA153714 309 A 1 Gley1 8/N white 10YR8/1 white Buff 1 Indented corrugated Cibola Gray Ware 26 LA153714 313 A 1 Gley1 8/N white 7.5YR8/1 white Buff 2 Indented corrugated Cibola Gray Ware 27 LA153714 313 A 2 2.5YR5/1 reddish gray 10YR8/1 white Buff 1 Indented corrugated Cibola Gray Ware 28 LA153714 339 A 1 Gley1 8/N white 7.5YR8/4 pink Buff 2 Festoon Corrugated 29 LA153714 449 A 2 Gley1 8/N white 7.5YR8/3 pink Buff 2 Obliterated Corrugated 30 LA153714 546 A 1 Gley1 8/N white 7.5YR8/4 pink Buff 2 Indented corrugated Cibola Gray Ware 31 LA153714 549 A 1 Gley1 4/N dark gray 10YR8/2 very pale brown Buff 1 Indented corrugated Cibola Gray Ware 32 LA153714 612 A 6 Gley1 4/N dark gray 10YR8/2 very pale brown Buff 1 Indented corrugated Cibola Gray Ware


Table B.2. LA 153714 ICPS Original Raw Data Oxide (%)

ICPS No. Al2O3 Fe2O3 MgO CaO Na2O K2O TiO2 P2O5 MnO 1 24.03 3.20 0.85 1.88 0.11 1.30 1.09 0.04 0.020 2 26.97 2.04 0.71 2.50 0.14 1.21 1.14 0.15 0.011 3 26.54 2.57 0.88 2.05 0.13 1.35 1.03 0.12 0.019 4 29.46 2.54 0.93 2.94 0.13 1.23 1.02 0.08 0.016 5 28.49 2.18 0.78 1.42 0.17 1.37 1.16 0.09 0.011 6 25.37 2.03 0.67 1.42 0.16 1.19 1.03 0.73 0.011 7 27.08 2.54 0.87 1.57 0.12 1.29 1.07 0.08 0.010 8 22.96 2.87 1.18 1.88 0.19 2.34 0.93 0.08 0.010 9 23.67 3.15 0.93 1.44 0.16 1.43 1.01 0.08 0.019 10 21.18 2.17 1.20 2.39 0.58 3.22 0.89 0.05 0.008 11 28.06 2.16 0.74 1.42 0.14 1.22 1.16 0.09 0.010 12 24.65 2.13 0.87 1.24 0.14 1.32 1.07 0.08 0.009 13 24.72 2.27 0.87 2.10 0.13 1.17 1.01 0.06 0.008 14 21.22 2.17 1.19 1.43 0.59 3.19 0.89 0.06 0.009 15 19.69 2.13 0.87 1.32 0.29 2.65 1.01 0.40 0.012 16 20.79 2.12 1.14 1.67 0.58 3.13 0.87 0.05 0.009 17 24.39 3.12 0.83 1.42 0.11 1.33 1.08 0.05 0.019 18 27.31 2.52 0.87 1.88 0.13 1.31 1.06 0.08 0.012 19 29.26 2.78 0.89 1.49 0.17 1.31 1.04 0.12 0.011 20 26.01 3.30 1.21 1.67 0.14 2.61 0.91 0.20 0.019 21 29.57 2.70 1.07 2.08 0.20 2.02 0.90 0.39 0.014 22 25.88 3.34 1.19 1.65 0.14 2.56 0.90 0.19 0.020 23 27.89 2.77 0.88 1.57 0.11 1.44 1.12 0.08 0.010 24 25.92 3.24 1.17 1.60 0.12 2.51 0.92 0.22 0.018 25 26.73 2.24 0.82 2.57 0.12 1.06 1.03 0.08 0.009 26 27.80 2.30 0.85 1.75 0.14 1.45 1.09 0.14 0.008 27 29.75 2.36 0.87 1.78 0.13 1.18 1.14 0.12 0.012 28 23.95 2.58 1.06 2.39 0.25 2.00 1.04 0.07 0.013 29 22.98 2.74 1.05 1.90 0.16 2.08 1.03 0.12 0.011 30 25.71 3.14 1.22 1.71 0.11 2.47 0.90 0.11 0.018 31 25.79 2.19 0.84 1.58 0.17 1.35 1.01 0.10 0.011 32 24.24 2.60 0.80 1.43 0.17 1.23 0.98 0.20 0.011 SCo1 13.58 5.33 2.70 2.56 0.88 2.69 0.55 0.19 0.051


Table B.2. LA 153714 ICPS Original Raw Data, continued Element (ppm)

ICPS No. Ba Co Cr Cu Li Ni Sc Sr V Y Zn Zr* La Ce Nd Sm Eu Dy Yb Pb 1 390 12 38 49 38 11 15 92 111 25 58 145 32 59 33 4.1 0.7 3.0 2.2 312 452 10 36 35 80 7 14 116 84 40 41 214 70 137 72 12.3 2.1 6.1 3.4 333 435 12 32 42 79 9 15 110 86 45 47 212 84 168 86 15.2 2.4 7.2 3.9 384 250 12 43 45 94 10 18 118 103 40 42 215 62 114 64 9.6 1.4 5.6 3.6 305 343 11 34 41 89 7 15 93 87 42 56 227 72 141 74 12.6 2.0 6.5 3.6 326 1025 10 31 35 66 9 15 134 80 47 41 235 71 136 73 13.2 2.1 7.1 4.1 327 385 11 32 41 87 8 16 102 86 50 44 233 84 170 86 15.3 2.4 7.6 4.4 418 427 10 34 68 56 10 16 139 85 34 48 158 75 141 75 11.3 1.8 5.3 3.0 369 320 16 49 63 45 13 16 93 114 23 75 158 34 55 35 3.8 0.7 2.9 2.3 2210 577 10 41 32 30 18 15 201 97 32 47 99 65 122 65 9.3 1.5 4.2 2.7 1511 311 11 38 33 83 8 15 90 89 43 38 221 73 146 75 13.0 2.2 6.3 3.5 3012 360 11 43 41 48 11 13 85 73 37 41 177 67 132 68 11.5 1.9 5.5 2.7 2813 288 10 42 48 92 10 15 104 83 41 39 199 76 146 77 13.6 2.3 6.4 3.4 2914 561 10 48 31 29 15 16 180 97 34 46 114 65 121 65 9.7 1.6 4.4 2.9 1715 970 10 51 39 26 9 14 169 91 35 45 141 56 114 57 9.8 1.8 5.0 3.4 2516 596 10 47 31 29 16 15 182 98 35 46 116 66 118 66 9.7 1.6 4.5 3.1 2017 359 12 54 45 37 11 16 83 114 23 56 134 32 58 33 4.2 0.6 3.1 2.2 3018 357 11 44 42 82 9 16 109 88 53 44 249 85 170 87 14.8 2.4 7.6 4.7 3719 416 11 50 38 74 8 18 107 95 50 44 250 59 107 61 8.7 1.4 6.1 4.5 3720 1007 10 50 26 49 12 15 107 98 34 59 184 65 123 66 11.7 1.9 5.6 3.1 3321 716 10 46 57 65 14 16 115 93 39 49 202 72 134 74 12.7 2.1 6.6 3.0 4722 940 10 50 31 53 13 16 105 97 37 58 199 66 125 67 11.5 1.8 5.7 3.3 2923 336 13 43 26 79 12 15 107 81 51 51 231 87 172 89 15.7 2.5 7.9 4.4 3324 742 10 48 35 55 11 16 103 96 36 53 195 64 125 65 11.5 1.8 5.3 3.3 2625 290 11 34 30 95 7 16 110 83 49 38 241 77 157 79 14.0 2.3 7.3 4.1 2526 393 11 34 35 90 7 16 100 84 55 48 254 79 158 82 14.9 2.5 7.8 4.7 2927 328 11 35 36 82 9 17 105 87 54 41 281 75 154 78 14.5 2.3 7.7 5.0 3528 670 11 31 70 57 10 13 113 72 32 45 201 59 108 60 9.8 1.3 5.1 2.8 3329 364 11 32 34 61 8 16 117 81 49 55 212 80 157 82 14.5 2.3 7.3 4.2 37 30 586 10 32 29 54 10 16 100 95 35 55 185 66 124 67 11.7 1.8 5.4 3.2 31 31 314 11 35 43 101 8 15 98 77 40 41 205 74 149 76 13.1 2.1 6.4 3.3 29 32 556 10 31 29 68 12 14 105 81 47 49 214 77 151 79 13.9 2.2 7.0 4.0 28 SCo1 583 11 76 28 45 26 11 163 127 22 95 93 30 54 31 5.3 0.9 3.0 2.3 31

APPENDIX C ICPS ANALYSIS REPORT

Appendix C ICPS Analysis Report 331

ICPS ANALYSIS

Gordon F. M. Rakita The relative diversity of ceramic paste composition represented by recovered ceramics from the El Morro (LA 153714) data recovery project was explored through chemical characterization of ceramic sherds and clay samples by means of inductively coupled plasma spectroscopy (ICPS). Selected sherd and clay samples were submitted by SWCA and the resulting elemental concentrations were compared to the results of previous ICPS analyses from other cultural resources data recovery projects. All results were statistically analyzed to examine the heterogeneity of paste composition and to determine if composition was correlated with ceramic ware category. Analytical standards and statistical methods follow those outlined in Rakita (2003). The main goal of the El Morro ICPS analysis is to determine if chemical compositions of sherds can be effective in identifying locally-produced from imported pottery. Of additional interest is the level and overlap of variability exhibited in the chemical composition of Cibola Gray and White ware ceramics.

METHODS ICPS analysis is a destructive technique that measures the amount of various trace and major elements within a given sample. Basically, a powdered sample of ceramic sherd is dissolved (to varying degrees; see below) in an acid solution. The resulting solution is then aerosolized and converted to a plasma flame at 6000oK (10,340oF). An inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometer is then used to detect the specific wavelengths emitted from ions in the sample flame. Elemental concentrations are reported as weight percent oxides or as parts per million. Considerable debate has focused on the differences between full dissolution (or bulk) ICPS and weak-acid extraction ICPS (Burton and Simon 1993, 1996; Neff et al. 1996; Triadan, Neff, and Glascock 1997). The technical difference between the two revolves around the dissolution of the powdered sample in acid. The full dissolution technique uses strong acids over a considerable period of time and results in almost complete digestion of the full sample. The weak-acid extraction technique involves only the partial digestion of the powdered sample over a shorter period of time using weaker acid solutions. The bulk, full-dissolution technique provides elemental concentrations for the entire sample, whereas the partial dissolution technique characterizes the chemical composition of that portion of the sample dissolved during the digestion process and thus is sensitive to the "extractability" of various elements within the sample. Burton and Simon (1996:406–408) claim that this measure of extractability provides useful information, above and beyond simple source composition of the paste, especially regarding firing temperature and other behavioral choices of prehistoric potters. However, Neff and colleagues (Neff et al. 1996; Triadan et al. 1997) argue that the inclusion of behaviorally induced variability in elemental concentration data unnecessarily obscures the compositional signature of clay sources.


SWCA's researchers chose to use the full-digestion bulk technique, based on the desire to examine clay source composition exclusive of behavioral variability (other than clay source choice or finished ceramic exchange). SWCA also wished to compare results from the El Morro ICPS analysis with results from previously completed projects in the region. Samples were submitted to the NERC ICP-AES facility of the Royal Holloway Laboratory at the Department of Geology, University of London. The samples were subjected to the Royal Holloway’s K-1 Programme, which provided concentrations of 29 elements: aluminum, as aluminum oxide (Al2O3), iron, as ferrous oxide (Fe2O3), magnesium, as magnesium oxide (MgO), calcium, as calcium oxide (CaO), sodium, as sodium oxide (Na2O), potassium, as potassium oxide (K2O), titanium, as titanium oxide (TiO2), phosphorus, as phosphoric oxide (P2O5), manganese, as manganese oxide (MnO), barium (Ba), cobalt (Co), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), lithium (Li), nickel (Ni), scandium (Sc), strontium (Sr), vanadium (V), yttrium (Y), zinc (Zn), zirconium (Zr), lanthanum (La), cerium (Ce), neodymium (Nd), samarium (Sm), europium (Eu), dysprosium (Dy), ytterbium (Yb), and lead (Pb). Lead and Niobium (Nb) levels were not recorded for some comparative samples and thus were not included in the statistical analyses. The El Morro samples and all comparative samples reported here were subjected to full digestion in hydrofluoric (HF) and perchloric (HClO4) solutions. Data are reported for the nine oxides as percent by weight and for the 19 individual elements as parts per million (ppm) by weight. SWCA submitted 32 ceramic samples from the El Morro data recovery project and ICPS data for an additional 207 samples were available for comparison from six previous data recovery projects conducted by SWCA and other firms: the Navajo Route (N) 2007 project from the Sanders region of Arizona (n=16), and the 2-1 and 5-1 segments of the N9 project near the prehistoric Peach Springs site in New Mexico (n=68, n=25 respectively), SWCA’s Fence Lake Samples (n=42), Statistical Research Inc.’s Fence Lake samples (n=17), and SWCA’s Navajo Route (N) 27 data recovery project (n=39). The ware designations of all 239 samples are listed in Table C.1.

RESULTS

Approach to Data For the 239 samples yielding results, basic value ranges, means, and standard deviations for the 28 elemental concentrations included in the statistical analyses appear in Table C.2. Prior to any analyses, all data values for each element were converted to standardized z-score values. Z-scores express each observation’s deviation from the mean of the variable in terms of standard deviation units. As noted by Neff (2002:16), transformations of elemental concentrations (1) reduce the effects of non-normally distributed or skewed variables, as well as (2) controlling for the effects of differing magnitudes of absolute values for the variables. Logarithmic transformations are often employed; however, variables treated in this way may still present differing variances, and z-score standardization is often used as a second step following logarithmic transformation. For the data reported here, logarithmic transformations are omitted and only z-score transformations are used.


Table C.1. ICPS Samples by Project and Ceramic Ware, All Submitted Sherds

Ware / Type

SRI -

Fen

ce L

ake

SWC

A -

Fenc

e La

ke

SWC

A -

N20

07

SWC

A -

N9

(2-1

)

SWC

A -

N9(

5-1)

SWC

A-E

l Mor

ro

SWC

A-N

27D

R

Gra

nd T

otal

Cibola Gray Ware 11 13 15 10 13 11 73 Chaco Black-on-white 5 5 Chaco/McElmo Black-on-white 5 7 12 Escavada Black-on-white 5 1 6 Gallup Black-on-white 7 10 3 20 Indeterminate Cibola White Ware 1 1 Kiatuthlanna Black-on-white 4 5 11 20 Klagetoh Black-on-white 5 2 7 La Plata Black-on-white 3 3 La Plata Black-on-white, with fugitive red 1 1 Pinedale Black-on-white 3 3 Red Mesa Black-on-white 5 3 8 Reserve Black-on-white 8 5 13 Tularosa Black-on-white 8 6 14 White Mound Black-on-white 4 5 2 11 White Mound Black-on-white, with fugitive red 1 1

Cibola White Ware

Cibola White Ware Total 24 50 10 19 22 125 Test Tile 2 2 Unfired Clay Sample 6 3 16 3 5 6 39 Grand Total 17 42 16 68 25 32 39 239


Table C.2. Basic Descriptive Statistics, ICPS Analysis

Element1 Minimum Maximum Mean Standard Deviation

aluminum oxide (Al2O3) 2.81 29.80 20.9759 4.27320 ferrous oxide (Fe2O3) .9 9.2 3.167 1.1675 magnesium oxide (MgO) .3 5.6 1.268 .7830 calcium oxide (CaO) .02 35.55 1.8521 2.75868 sodium oxide (Na2O) .0 1.7 .384 .2724 potassium oxide (K2O) .08 3.71 2.0444 .72997 titanium oxide (TiO2) .11 1.20 .8191 .18810 phosphoric oxide (P2O5) .01 .73 .0946 .06966 manganese oxide (MnO) .000 .332 .02225 .028263 barium (Ba) 0 3098 588.66 351.795 cobalt (Co) 0 96 16.67 19.113 chromium (Cr) 6 137 43.05 14.253 copper (Cu) 4 83 31.02 11.097 lithium (Li) 20 253 52.16 28.059 nickel (Ni) 6 112 17.19 9.533 scandium (Sc) 2 22 14.33 3.195 strontium (Sr) 72 1903 199.02 151.711 vanadium (V) 23 266 98.10 24.188 yttrium (Y) 8 115 30.66 12.205 zinc (Zn) 21 344 61.77 29.595 zirconium (Zr) 25 281 129.29 47.829 lanthanum (La) 8 117 49.49 18.124 cerium (Ce) 2 238 93.60 37.343 neodymium (Nd) 8 120 47.86 19.727 samarium (Sm) .8 29.3 7.472 4.1890 europium (Eu) .3 4.6 1.305 .6145 dysprosium (Dy) .5 18.2 4.792 2.1245 ytterbium (Yb) .6 9.5 2.691 1.0584

1Oxides reported as percent by weight, elements as parts per million

Principal Component (Factor) Analysis and Discriminant Function Analysis Neff (2002:18) discriminates between two approaches to pattern recognition in chemical sourcing studies. The first, ordination, involves methods based in factor analysis. As Sokal and Rohlf (1995:680–681) note, "factor analysis aims to express covariation in terms of k underlying factors that explain a large part of the variance and covariance of the original variables" (see also Gould 1981:245). Factor analysis is designed to mathematically identify linear combinations of variables that can account for the greatest amount of the variability observed in a multivariate dataset. These linear combinations are often referred to as principal components, and the technique is known as principal components analysis (PCA). Principal components of ICPS data should describe or represent the chemical composition of clay sources. In other words, PCA of ICPS data, and more specifically, plots of samples along principal component scores should indicated how discrete the chemical signatures are of various ware and type groups. The second approach described by Neff, partitioning, entails the clustering of observational units by means of a variety of hierarchical and non-hierarchical clustering techniques. The technique


used here is termed discriminant function analysis (DFA) and involves the mathematical development of linear combinations of variables that accurately classify observations into known categories (Sokal and Rohlf 1995:678–680). In the case of the ICPS data, DFA functions to differentiate the sherds in one ceramic ware group from those in other groups on the basis of their elemental concentrations. The relative success or failure of DFA to accomplish this is a measure of the discreteness of the proposed groups (in terms of ceramic paste). Simply put, high error rates in the accuracy of DFA functions’ predictions of ware or type categories for samples are indicative of an inability to differentiate ware or type groups on the basis of elemental concentrations. The PCA analysis of the ICPS data, using an unrotated factor solution and extracting principal components for eigenvalues greater than 1, yielded seven relevant principal components (Table C.3). The first three account for the greatest proportion of the observed variability in the elemental concentrations, a cumulative 55%. As the associated scree plot (Figure C.1) shows, eigenvalues, and hence the amount of explained variance, decrease rapidly after the third component.

Table C.3. Eigenvalues and Total Variance Explained

Principal Component Eigenvalue

Percent of Variance Explained

Cumulative Percent

1 8.608 30.742 30.742 2 3.639 12.997 43.739 3 3.158 11.280 55.019 4 1.829 6.531 61.550 5 1.379 4.925 66.474 6 1.156 4.130 70.604 7 1.054 3.763 74.367 8 .899 3.212 77.579 9 .802 2.864 80.443 10 .754 2.694 83.137 11 .726 2.592 85.729 12 .636 2.270 87.999 13 .599 2.140 90.139 14 .485 1.733 91.872 15 .448 1.599 93.471 16 .379 1.355 94.826 17 .346 1.236 96.062 18 .253 .903 96.965 19 .206 .736 97.701 20 .159 .568 98.268 21 .148 .530 98.799 22 .120 .428 99.227 23 .082 .293 99.520 24 .050 .179 99.699 25 .032 .113 99.812 26 .025 .089 99.901 27 .015 .054 99.954 28 .013 .046 100.000


Figure C.1. Scree plot, PCA of El Morro ICPS data.


Table C.4 presents the factor loading for the seven relevant principal components. These loadings represent the relative contribution of each elemental concentration to the linear combination represented by each component. Thus, component 1 (PC1) is heavily, and positively, affected by concentrations of yttrium (Y), lanthanum (La), cerium (Ce), neodymium (Nd), samarium (Sm), dysprosium (Dy), ytterbium (Yb), and especially europium (Eu). Component 2 (PC2), on the other hand, reflects positive concentrations of titanium oxide (TiO2), scandium (Sc), and vanadium (V); and relatively negative concentrations of lithium (Li), as well as magnesium (MgO), calcium (CaO), and manganese (MnO) oxides. Component 3 (PC3) loads positively on ferrous (Fe2O3) and magnesium (MgO) oxides, nickel (Ni), and zinc (Zn).

Table C.4. Component Matrix, PCA of El Morro ICPS Data Component Loadings Element (as z-score) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

aluminum oxide (Al2O3) .725 .356 -.252 .313 .051 .073 .043 ferrous oxide (Fe2O3) -.117 .224 .658 .131 -.184 -.307 -.170 magnesium oxide (MgO) -.249 -.491 .556 .318 .101 -.203 .232 calcium oxide (CaO) -.352 -.489 .197 .183 .009 .336 .090 sodium oxide (Na2O) -.348 .011 .437 -.345 .035 -.035 -.111 potassium oxide (K2O) .114 .376 .496 -.549 .134 .133 .180 titanium oxide (TiO2) .575 .595 -.317 .166 .049 .128 <.0001 phosphoric oxide (P2O5) .112 -.072 .302 .130 .458 .469 .162 manganese oxide (MnO) -.284 -.429 .370 .069 .056 -.191 -.221 barium (Ba) -.046 .098 .284 .104 .220 .514 -.582 cobalt (Co) -.003 .324 .078 -.191 .662 -.210 .375 chromium (Cr) .060 .569 .306 .298 -.475 .088 .258 copper (Cu) .379 .435 .083 .294 -.042 .060 -.222 lithium (Li) .180 -.424 -.030 .710 .057 -.143 .099 nickel (Ni) -.144 .320 .696 .195 -.096 .053 .143 scandium (Sc) .602 .647 .115 .041 .031 .071 .058 strontium (Sr) -.306 -.326 .458 .178 .006 .309 .192 vanadium (V) .156 .601 .315 .223 .060 -.180 .029 yttrium (Y) .862 -.248 .188 -.024 .182 -.131 -.046 zinc (Zn) .024 .237 .542 .032 .135 -.217 -.319 zirconium (Zr) .656 -.103 -.262 .406 .350 -.081 -.063 lanthanum (La) .885 -.211 .143 -.119 -.110 .071 .144 cerium (Ce) .894 -.252 .149 -.127 -.105 .032 .117 neodymium (Nd) .906 -.225 .098 -.132 -.176 .085 .038 samarium (Sm) .833 -.309 .159 -.061 -.294 .093 .018 europium (Eu) .909 -.197 .198 -.151 -.114 .049 -.016 dysprosium (Dy) .889 -.226 .169 -.140 .062 -.100 -.119 ytterbium (Yb) .868 -.169 .106 -.047 .190 -.173 -.126

1Actual value is 0.0000983

The ability of PCA to represent ceramic paste compositional groups can be examined by plotting in two-dimensional space these first three principal components scores for each ceramic sample. We can also identify the ceramic ware group of each sample and examine how the various wares do or do not cluster in a series of bivariate scatter plots. Bivariate scatter plots of principal


component scores (PC1, PC2, and PC3) with sample ware group indicated are shown in Figure C.2 (PC1 vs. PC2), Figure C.3 (PC1 vs. PC3), and Figure C.4 (PC2 vs. PC3). A previous study (Rakita 2003) indicated that PCA of ICPS data was a robust method for discriminating ceramic ware groups across the southern Colorado Plateau. In particular, that study showed that Chuska Gray wares could be effectively distinguished from Puerco Valley, and Cibola Gray wares on the basis of chemical composition. Additionally, that study found that Little Colorado White wares could be distinguished from Cibola White wares. In the present study, however, the PCA results are less discriminating for the two ware types being compared. Figure C.2, Figure C.3, and Figure C.4 demonstrate that while the first three components resolve 55% of the variation in chemical composition of the samples, the variation exhibited by the Cibola Gray and White ware samples overlaps to a significant degree. Indeed, the plots suggest that these two ware groups do not represent two discrete compositional groups. Likewise, Figure C.5, Figure C.6, and Figure C.7 plot just the Cibola White wares in terms of PC1, PC2, and PC3, with ceramic type group indicated. Here again, variation exhibited by the various types of Cibola White ware overlaps to a substantial degree, thus preventing the discrimination of distinct compositional groups. In the previous study (Rakita 2003) discriminant function analysis (DFA) was used to determine if ceramic ware groups were distinguishable on the basis of their respective ICPS compositional assays. Given the results of the PCA analysis in that case, it was expected that DFA would correctly predict ware group membership within the grayware and whiteware sample groups. The DFA was found to be quite successful with a comparatively minor error rate of 8% for the graywares and 7% for the whitewares. As the PCA results for the El Morro dataset suggest, Cibola Gray and White wares should be more difficult to accurately predict on the basis of chemical composition. The results of a DFA performed on the dataset support this inference. As expected on the basis of the PCA, the DFA was not able to distinguish the Cibola Gray wares from the Cibola White wares on the basis of functions 1 and 2. This conclusion is further reinforced by the classification, using DFA, of the grayware and whiteware sherds on the basis of their ICPS-derived chemical compositions. Table C.5 shows a cross tabulation of ceramic ware groups as determined by the ceramic analysts and by DFA. Sixteen Cibola Gray ware sherds were misclassified by the DFA as Cibola White wares, and thirty Cibola White wares were misclassified as Cibola Gray wares. This represents a total error rate of twenty-three percent. That is, the DFA misclassified over one out of every five sherds.

Table C.5. Ceramic Ware Group Predictions by DFA, Grayware and Whiteware Samples Only

DFA-Determined Ware Visually Determined Ware Group Cibola Gray Ware Cibola White Ware Total

Cibola Gray Ware 57 (29% of total) 16 (8% of total) 73 Cibola White Ware 30 (15% of total) 95 (48% of total) 125 Total 87 111 198


Figure C.2. Bivariate plot of Principal Components 1 and 2, sample ware group indicated.


Figure C.5. Bivariate plot of Principal Components 1 and 2, Cibola White ware samples only, sample type group indicated.


Figure C.8. Bivariate plot of Principal Components 1 and 2, sample ware and firm/project group indicated.


Figure C.9. Bivariate plot of Principal Components 1 and 2, Cibola White and Gray ware samples from LA

153714 only, sample ware and type groups indicated.


Despite the fact that both the PCA and the DFA indicate that the various wares and types analyzed here are difficult to distinguish in terms of their chemical composition some overall patterns can be discerned. Indeed, notwithstanding the fact that the various sample types and wares do not cluster discretely into groups on the basis of their PCA scores, the samples do cluster in other terms, albeit in clusters that overlap to a significant degree. For example, plotting the samples by not only ware but also firm and project, (figure xx.8) various patterns emerge. At first glance, Figure C.8 shows that, with the exception of six outliers, all of the samples seem to cluster into one large group. However, each of the projects’ samples does seem to cluster within that overall large group. For example, the samples from the N9 projects scored high on PC2 and fairly average on PC1 and thus fall to the top half of the main cluster. The samples from the N2007 project scored low on both PC1 and PC2 placing these samples in the low left portion of the main cluster. The N27 samples fall in the same portion of the main cluster as do the N2007 samples, but they also stretch farther into the middle of the main cluster. The samples from the El Morro project fall in two clusters (see below). One El Morro group lies with the N9 sub-cluster, the other plots high on PC1 and average to low on PC2 situating it in the lower right portion of the main cluster. Finally the Fence Lake project samples form the largest and most variable sub-cluster, one that stretches across all of the other sub-clusters. Given that firm and (more importantly) project designation may represent a proxy variable for general geographic locale for each sample, the patterns seen in these sub-clusters may represent some measure of geographic variability in clay source used by prehistoric potters living and working at the sites under investigation in each of these project areas. To examine the El Morro samples in greater detail, a similar plot (though showing both ware and type) was constructed for just the samples from this project. Figure C.9 shows the two clusters of the El Morro sherds mentioned above. The cluster in the upper left is composed of those sherds that fell within the N9 sub-cluster seen in Figure C.8. The lower left cluster in Figure C.9 fell within the edges of the N9 and N2007 clusters, but mostly within the lower right tail of the Fence Lake cluster. The upper left cluster of the El Morro samples is entirely composed of white wares while the lower right cluster includes both white and gray wares as well as all of the various types. It would be expected that the composition group of locally produced ceramics would include utilitarian wares. Thus the lower right cluster is a more convincing candidate for locally produced ceramics for the LA 153714 locale. Interestingly, the Chaco/McElmo Black-on-white sherds are only found in the lower right cluster and within that cluster they are grouped at the two farthest edges. This might indicate two discrete compositional groups for the sherds of this type from the LA 153714 site.

CONCLUSIONS In the case of the El Morro dataset, the ICPS data, using an appropriate and previously successful technique for ordination, were less useful than expected in identifying discrete ceramic paste compositional groups within the analyzed grayware and whiteware sherds. While the first three components of the PCA analysis were able to resolve fifty-five percent of the compositional variability exhibited by the samples, there was simple too much overlap in the variability exhibited by the Cibola Gray and White ware sherds to effectively discriminate between the two. While past studies have found these analytical and statistical techniques useful in discriminating


between other ancestral Puebloan ceramic compositional groups, the analyses reported here support the conclusion that Cibola White and Gray wares from the study area are indistinguishable on the basis of chemical composition using full dissolution ICPS analysis. It is quite possible that this inability to distinguish the two wares on the basis of chemical composition is due to the fact that similar overall clay sources were used for both gray and white wares ceramics. Simply put, clays from the region may overlap (compositionally) to a far more significant degree than previously suspected. However, some clustering of the samples by project was discernible and this clustering may be due to geographic variation in the clays used to produce the sherds collected by the various projects. In particular, the N2007 clay samples, which overlap with the N27 sherd samples, are somewhat distinct (compositionally) from the sherd samples recovered by the N9 project. The Fence Lake samples are the most variable, perhaps as a result of the wide geographic region represented by the sites investigated in this project. The El Morro samples form two distinct clusters that may indicated two discrete clay sources. Given that one of these El Morro clusters lacks any gray wares, it may indicate ceramic vessels produced elsewhere and traded into the El Morro region.


References Cited: Burton, J. H., and A. W. Simon 1993 Acid Extraction as a Simple and Inexpensive Method for Compositional Characterization

of Archaeological Ceramics. American Antiquity 58(1):45-59. Burton, J. H., and A. W. Simon 1996 A Pot is Not a Rock: A Reply to Neff, Glascock, Bishop, and Blackman. American

Antiquity 61(2):405-413. Gould, S. J. 1981 The Mismeasure of Man. W. W. Norton & Company, New York. Neff, H. 2002 Quantitative Techniques for Analyzing Ceramic Compositional Data. In Ceramic

Production and Circulation in the Greater Southwest: Source Determination by INAA and Complementary Mineralogical Investigations, edited by D. M. Glowacki and H. Neff, pp. 15-36. The Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles.

Neff, H., M. D. Glascock, R. L. Bishop, and M. J. Blackman 1996 An Assessment of the Acid-Extraction Approach to Compositional Characterization of

Archaeological Ceramics. American Antiquity 61(2):389-404. Rakita, G. F. M. 2003 ICPS Analysis. In Archaeological Excavations in the Carrizo Wash Valley, East-Central

Arizona: Data Recovery on the Fence Lake Mine Transportation Corridor, edited by D. Gilpin, J. David, A. Phillips, L. Dickerson, and J. H. Ballagh. SWCA Archaeological Report No. 03-265. SWCA, Inc., Environmental Consultants, Flagstaff, Arizona.

Skinner, E., and D. Gilpin (editors) 1996 Cultural Resources Investigations Along Navajo Route 9 (N9), U.S. Highway 666 to

Standing Rock, McKinley County, New Mexico. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Archaeological Report No. 96-144.

Sokal, R. R., and F. J. Rohlf 1995 Biometry: The Principles and Practice of Statistics in Biological Research. Third ed.

W.H. Freeman and Company, New York. Triadan, D., H. Neff, and M. D. Glascock 1997 An Evaluation of the Archaeological Relevance of Weak-Acid Extraction ICP: White

Mountain Redware as a Case Study. Journal of Archaeological Science 24:997-1002.

APPENDIX D LITHIC ANALYSIS

Appendix D Lithic Analysis 351

Table D.1. Hand Stones


Table D.2. Grinding Slabs


Table D.3. Other Ground Stone

Table D.4. Ground Stone Ornaments


Table D.5. All Ornament Material


Table D.6. Unidentified Ground Stone


Table D.7. Manuports

Table D.8. Projectile Points


Table D.9. Tools

Table D.10. Cores


Table D.11. Debitage

FS Feat. # Prov Level Screen

Size Count Flaked Stone

Subtype Material Texture Length

(cm) Thickness

(cm) Weight

(g) Complete

ness Cortex Platform Edge Use

Size Class Burned

11 0 surface 0 N/A 1 debitage chert medium 3.0 0.79 4.7 broken 0 plain none 3-4 no

112 0 TU 2 5 1/4 1 debitage chert medium 1.4 0.22 0.2 broken 0 plain none 1-2 no

148 0 MU 4 1 1/8 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert fine 3.3 0.49 2.1 broken 0 plain none 3-4 no

148 0 MU 4 1 1/8 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert fine 1.3 0.32 0.2 broken 51 plain none 1-2 no

158 0 FU 6 1 1/4" 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert fine 1.8 0.23 0.4 broken 0 plain none 1-2 no

165 1-3 FU 14 1 1/8" 1 debitage chert fine 2.3 0.35 0.7 broken 0 plain none 2-3 no

168 0 FU 15 1 1/4" 1 debitage quartzite medium 1.5 0.41 0.6 broken 0 plain none 1-2 no

172 1 FU 17 1 1/4" 1 debitage quartz fine 3.2 0.58 1.6 broken 0 plain none 3-4 no

182 1 FU 19 1 1/4" 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert fine 1.6 0.28 0.5 broken 0 plain none 1-2 no

223 1 FU 19 N 1/2 2 1/8" 1 debitage chert medium 1.8 0.21 0.5 broken 0 plain none 1-2 no

224 1 FU 14 NW 2 1/8" 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert medium 1.7 0.31 0.5 broken 0 plain none 1-2 no

228 0 FU 23 1 1/4" 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert medium 3.6 2.45 5.4 broken 0 plain none 3-4 no

233 3 FU 5 SW 2 1/8" 1 debitage chert fine 2.2 0.28 0.6 broken 0 crushed none 2-3 no

237 3 FU 5 NW 2 1/8" 1 debitage chert fine 3.2 0.33 1.7 broken 0 plain none 3-4 no

253 0 FU 6 SE 2 1/8" 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert fine 3.0 0.50 3.1 broken 0 plain none 3-4 no

253 0 FU 6 SE 2 1/8" 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert fine 2.7 0.37 1.8 broken 0 plain none 2-3 no

261 0 FU 6 SE 5 1/8" 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert medium 4.2 1.30 12.0 broken 0 plain none 4+ no

280 1 FU 14 W 1/2 3 1/4" 1 debitage petrified wood medium 1.7 0.44 0.9 broken 0 plain none 1-2 no

287 3 Fea. 3 S 1/2 3 1/8" 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert medium 0.9 0.18 0.1 broken 0 plain none 0-1 no

290 0 FU 23 SW 4 1/4" 1 debitage chert medium 1.3 0.17 0.2 broken 0 plain none 1-2 no

303 14 FU 23 SW 6 1/4" 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert fine 2.6 0.52 2.2 broken 100 plain none 2-3 no

315 0 FU 17 NE 4 1/4" 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert medium 2.1 0.55 2.2 broken 0 plain none 2-3 no

350 0 MU 4 SW 3 1/4" 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert medium 1.2 0.20 0.1 broken 0 plain none 1-2 no

373 0 FU 26 NE 1 N/A 1 debitage petrified wood fine 1.5 0.21 0.3 broken 0 plain none 1-2 no

378 0 FU 26 NW 2 1/4" 1 debitage quartzite medium 1.6 0.13 0.2 broken 100 crushed none 1-2 no

380 0 FU 26 NE 3 1/4" 1 debitage chert medium 2.2 0.66 1.3 broken 100 plain none 2-3 no

380 0 FU 26 NE 3 1/4" 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert fine 1.9 0.40 0.9 broken 0 plain none 1-2 no


Table D.11. Debitage, continued




(cm) Thickness

(cm) Weight

(g) Complete


Size Class Burned

384 0 FU 26 SW 2 1/4" 1 debitage chert fine 1.8 0.35 0.8 broken 0 plain none 1-2 no

394 0 FU 28 NW 4 1/4" 1 utilized flake

Zuni spotted chert medium 2.3 0.59 1.6 broken 0 plain none 2-3 no

402 0 FU 28 NE 2 1/4" 1 debitage chert medium 2.1 0.48 1.7 broken 0 plain none 2-3 no

409 3 Fea. 3 N/A 1/4" 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert medium 2.7 0.88 4.1 broken 0 plain none 2-3 no

470 24 Fea. 24 unit 1 2 1/4" 1 debitage chert medium 1.3 0.39 0.3 broken 0 plain none 1-2 no

470 24 Fea. 24 unit 1 2 1/4" 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert medium 2.3 0.29 0.6 broken 0 plain none 2-3 no

474 24 Fea. 24 unit 1 4 1/4" 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert fine 2.0 0.34 0.5 broken 0 plain none 2-3 no

494 24 Fea. 24 unit 3 3 1/4" 1 debitage siltstone medium 5.1 0.97 17.4 broken 0 plain none 4+ no

516 24 Fea. 24 unit 3 5 1/4" 1 debitage volcanic medium 1.8 0.24 0.4 broken 0 plain none 1-2 no

520 24 Fea. 24 unit 3 8 1/4" 1 debitage chert medium 1.6 0.29 0.5 broken 0 plain none 1-2 no

590 35 Fea. 35 E wall N/A 1/4" 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert fine 2.7 0.89 4.2 broken 0 plain none 2-3 no

654 37 Fea. 37 W 1/2 7 1/8" 1 debitage siltstone fine 5.1 0.71 13.6 broken 0 plain none 4+ no

161 0 FU 10 1 1/4" 1 debitage chert fine 2.0 0.24 0.8 broken 0 plain none 2-3 yes

3 0 surface 0 N/A 1 debitage quartzite medium 2.5 1.35 9.4 complete 51 cortical none 2-3 no

34 0 surface 0 N/A 1 debitage quartzite medium 1.4 0.23 0.3 complete 0 plain none 1-2 no

48 0 surface 0 N/A 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert fine 4.8 1.20 13.9 complete 0 plain none 4+ no

52 0 surface 0 N/A 1 debitage sandstone coarse 3.6 0.64 4.5 complete 100 plain none 3-4 no

91 0 surface 0 N/A 1 debitage chert fine 3.1 0.62 3.0 complete 0 plain none 3-4 no

120 0 MU 1 1 1/4 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert fine 1.4 0.25 0.2 complete 0 plain none 1-2 no

122 0 TU 2 8 1/4 1 debitage chert medium 2.4 0.38 1.2 complete 1 plain none 2-3 no

133 0 MU 2 3 1/4 1 utilized flake

Zuni spotted chert fine 2.8 0.88 4.7 complete 0 plain flat 2-3 no

141 0 MU 3 2 1/4 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert fine 3.6 0.69 3.9 complete 0 plain none 3-4 no

142 0 MU 11 1 1/4 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert medium 4.0 0.68 5.0 complete 0 plain none 4+ no

144 0 MU 3 N 1/2 1 1/4 1 debitage chert medium 1.8 0.42 0.8 complete 0 plain none 1-2 no

144 0 MU 3 N 1/2 1 1/4 1 debitage chert medium 1.2 0.31 0.2 complete 0 plain none 1-2 no

148 0 MU 4 1 1/8 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert medium 2.8 0.58 2.4 complete 0 plain none 2-3 no

153 0 FU 5 1 1/4" 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert medium 1.8 0.25 0.7 complete 0 plain none 1-2 no






(cm) Thickness

(cm) Weight

(g) Complete


Size Class Burned

158 0 FU 6 1 1/4" 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert fine 2.4 0.33 0.7 complete 0 plain none 2-3 no

158 0 FU 6 1 1/4" 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert fine 1.3 0.22 0.2 complete 0 plain none 1-2 no


176 0 MU 10 1 1/4" 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert fine 1.5 0.25 0.3 complete 0 plain none 1-2 no

191 0 TU 5 2 1/4" 1 debitage quartzite medium 2.1 0.37 0.9 complete 51 plain none 2-3 no


241 3 FU 5 SE 2 1/4" 1 debitage siltstone medium 2.1 0.38 0.9 complete 0 plain none 2-3 no



270 3 FU 5 SE 3 1/8" 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert medium 1.6 0.43 0.5 complete 0 plain none 1-2 no

273 0 FU 9 SW 2 1/4" 1 debitage chert fine 3.6 0.46 2.9 complete 0 crushed none 3-4 no

283 0 FU 23 SE 4 1/4" 1 debitage volcanic medium 1.3 0.22 0.2 complete 0 plain none 1-2 no

305 1 FU 19 NE 3 1/4" 1 debitage chert medium 4.6 1.04 11.8 complete 0 plain none 4+ no

311 14 FU 23 NW 3 1/4" 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert fine 3.4 0.48 2.5 complete 0 plain none 3-4 no

318 4 FU 23 NE 4 1/4" 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert fine 2.0 0.34 0.8 complete 0 plain none 2-3 no

339 3 Fea. 3 N 1/2 3 1/4" 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert fine 2.9 0.84 3.8 complete 0 plain none 2-3 no

363 19 Feat 19 N 1/2 4 N/A 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert fine 2.4 0.52 1.9 complete 0 plain none 2-3 no

384 0 FU 26 SW 2 1/4" 1 utilized flake

Zuni spotted chert fine 5.8 0.68 10.9 complete 0 crushed flat 4+ no

390 0 FU 26 NE 3 1/4" 1 debitage chert medium 2.4 0.50 1.7 complete 0 plain none 2-3 no

407 0 FU 19 SW 4 1/4" 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert medium 2.6 0.58 2.4 complete 0 plain none 2-3 no

411 0 FU 17 SE 2 1/4" 1 debitage chert fine 3.4 0.53 4.9 complete 11 crushed none 3-4 no

421 24 Fea. 20 Trench N/A 1/4" 1 debitage

Zuni spotted chert fine 2.2 0.60 1.5 complete 1 plain none 2-3 no

424 0 FU 27 NE 2 1/4" 1 utilized flake

Zuni spotted chert fine 2.0 0.35 0.8 complete 1 plain convex 2-3 no

474 24 Fea. 24 unit 1 4 1/4" 1 debitage chert medium 1.4 0.26 0.3 complete 0 plain none 1-2 no

476 24 Fea. 24 unit 1 6 1/4" 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert medium 2.3 0.49 1.3 complete 0 plain none 2-3 no

485 24 Fea. 24 NW N/A N/A 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert medium 3.9 0.81 5.6 complete 51 crushed none 3-4 no

490 24 Fea. 24 unit 3 1 1/4" 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert medium 3.1 0.74 3.8 complete 0 plain none 3-4 no






(cm) Thickness

(cm) Weight

(g) Complete


Size Class Burned

518 24 Fea. 24 unit 3 wall fall 1/4" 1 debitage

Zuni spotted chert fine 4.1 1.45 9.3 complete 0 plain none 4+ no

555 24 KU 5 1 1/8" 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert medium 1.6 0.30 0.2 complete 0 plain none 1-2 no

590 35 Fea. 35 E wall N/A 1/4" 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert medium 3.0 0.74 2.4 complete 0 plain none 3-4 no

590 35 Fea. 35 E wall N/A 1/4" 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert medium 2.9 0.46 1.9 complete 0 plain none 2-3 no

590 35 Fea. 35 E wall N/A 1/4" 1 utilized flake chert fine 3.3 0.58 2.5 complete 0 crushed convex 3-4 no

591 35 Fea. 35 W wall N/A 1/4" 1 debitage chert fine 1.4 0.34 0.3 complete 0 plain none 1-2 no

598 35 Fea. 35 E wall 2 1/8" 1 debitage chert medium 1.8 0.36 0.5 complete 100 plain none 1-2 no

603 0 Area around Fea. 37 N/A N/A 1 debitage

Zuni spotted chert medium 3.5 1.23 11.7 complete 1 plain none 3-4 no

611 37 Fea. 37 Hand trench N/A N/A 1

utilized flake chert medium 3.6 0.51 6.4 complete 0 plain flat 3-4 no

627 37 Fea. 37 W 1/2 3 1/8" 1 debitage quartzite medium 2.7 0.60 3.7 complete 90 plain none 2-3 no

628 37 Fea. 37 W 1/2 4 1/8" 1 debitage petrified wood fine 3.3 0.28 1.2 complete 0 plain none 3-4 no

37 0 surface 0 N/A 1 debitage chert medium 8.4 0.20 0.3 complete 0 faceted none 4+ yes

142 0 MU 11 1 1/4 1 debitage chert medium 3.0 0.54 2.0 complete 0 cortical none 3-4 yes

165 1-3 FU 14 1 1/8" 1 debitage chert medium 3.2 0.88 4.4 complete 0 plain none 3-4 yes

184 0 MU 10 2 1/4" 1 debitage chert medium 2.5 0.56 1.7 complete 11 plain none 2-3 yes

331 17 FU 19 SE 4 1/4" 1 debitage chert medium 3.3 1.06 6.3 complete 0 plain none 3-4 yes

375 0 FU 26 1 N/A 1 utilized flake quartzite medium 4.6 1.25 19.7 complete 100 cortical concave 4+ yes

149 0 MU 5 1 1/4 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert fine 1.3 0.67 0.4 debris 0 N/A none 1-2

heat treated

326 0 MU 5 SE 2 1/4" 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert fine 3.5 1.38 10.1 debris 0 N/A none 3-4

heat treated

326 0 MU 5 SE 2 1/4" 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert fine 0.8 0.21 0.1 debris 0 N/A none 0-1

heat treated

57 0 surface 0 N/A 1 debitage chert fine 1.9 0.72 1.1 debris 0 N/A none 1-2 no

103 0 TU 1 2 1/8 1 debitage chert fine 1.8 1.00 0.9 debris 0 N/A none 1-2 no

107 0 TU 2 3 1/4 1 debitage chert medium 2.4 1.00 1.9 debris 0 N/A none 2-3 no

141 0 MU 3 2 1/4 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert fine 3.7 1.22 6.2 debris 0 N/A none 3-4 no

149 0 MU 5 1 1/4 1 debitage chert medium 2.3 0.66 0.8 debris 0 N/A none 2-3 no

149 0 MU 5 1 1/4 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert fine 1.7 0.44 0.5 debris 0 N/A none 1-2 no

157 0 FU 8 1 1/4" 1 debitage quartz fine 1.9 0.75 1.3 debris 0 N/A none 1-2 no






(cm) Thickness

(cm) Weight

(g) Complete


Size Class Burned

158 0 FU 6 1 1/4" 1 debitage petrified wood medium 1.5 0.69 0.4 debris 51 N/A none 1-2 no

165 1-3 FU 14 1 1/8" 1 debitage petrified wood medium 2.8 0.76 3.0 debris 90 N/A none 2-3 no

168 0 FU 15 1 1/4" 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert medium 4.1 1.38 7.9 debris 0 N/A none 4+ no

188 0 TU 5 1 1/4" 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert fine 1.9 0.54 1.1 debris 0 N/A none 1-2 no


238 0 FU 24 1 1/8" 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert fine 2.7 0.81 1.9 debris 1 N/A none 2-3 no

240 3 FU 5 NE 2 1/8" 1 debitage volcanic medium 1.2 0.22 0.2 debris 0 N/A none 1-2 no

253 0 FU 6 SE 2 1/8" 1 debitage petrified wood fine 2.2 0.69 1.1 debris 0 N/A none 2-3 no

253 0 FU 6 SE 2 1/8" 1 debitage petrified wood medium 7.5 4.10 230.8 debris 0 N/A none 4+ no

255 5 Fea. 5 3 1/8" 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert medium 3.9 1.30 7.7 debris 0 N/A none 3-4 no

256 0 FU 6 SE 3 1/8" 1 debitage petrified wood medium 1.5 0.51 0.8 debris 0 N/A none 1-2 no


272 0 FU 23 SW 2 1/4" 1 debitage chert fine 1.4 0.35 0.5 debris 0 N/A none 1-2 no

275 1 FU 16 SW 3 1/4" 1 debitage quartz fine 1.3 0.37 0.4 debris 0 N/A none 1-2 no

287 3 Fea. 3 S 1/2 3 1/8" 1 debitage petrified wood medium 1.6 0.47 0.5 debris 0 N/A none 1-2 no

309 3 FU 5 & 23 4 1/8" 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert fine 2.1 0.97 2.2 debris 0 N/A none 2-3 no

318 4 FU 23 NE 4 1/4" 1 debitage chert medium 3.5 1.00 6.8 debris 0 N/A none 3-4 no

319 3 FU 5 & 23 5 1/4" 1 debitage chert medium 1.3 0.26 0.2 debris 0 N/A none 1-2 no

328 0 MU 5 SW 2 1/4" 1 debitage quartz fine 2.4 0.89 2.5 debris 0 N/A none 2-3 no

337 0 FU 19 3 1/4" 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert fine 2.1 0.87 2.4 debris 0 N/A none 2-3 no

350 0 MU 4 SW 3 1/4" 1 debitage petrified wood medium 2.7 0.99 4.5 debris 0 N/A none 4+ no

354 19 Fea. 19 S 1/2 4 N/A 1 debitage quartzite medium 4.2 0.72 7.0 debris 1 N/A none 4+ no

354 19 Fea. 19 S 1/2 4 N/A 1 debitage quartz fine 1.8 0.58 0.9 debris 0 N/A none 1-2 no

360 0 MU 10 8 1/4" 1 debitage chert fine 2.7 1.47 6.9 debris 11 N/A none 2-3 no

365 0 MU 5 NW 4 1/4" 1 debitage chert medium 3.1 1.64 10.3 debris 0 N/A none 3-4 no

365 0 MU 5 NW 4 1/4" 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert medium 2.5 0.88 2.6 debris 0 N/A none 2-3 no

384 0 FU 26 SW 2 1/4" 1 debitage quartz fine 2.3 0.68 2.6 debris 0 N/A none 2-3 no






(cm) Thickness

(cm) Weight

(g) Complete


Size Class Burned

417 0 FU 27 NW 3 1/4" 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert fine 1.4 0.48 0.7 debris 0 N/A none 1-2 no

421 24 Fea. 20 Trench N/A 1/4" 1 debitage

petrified wood medium 3.0 1.67 7.7 debris 11 N/A none 3-4 no

424 0 FU 27 NE 2 1/4" 1 debitage quartz fine 2.2 0.38 1.3 debris 0 N/A none 2-3 no

472 24 Fea. 24 unit 1 3 1/4" 1 debitage petrified wood medium 1.8 0.34 0.6 debris 0 N/A none 1-2 no

475 24 Fea. 24 unit 1 5 1/4" 1 debitage quartz fine 1.8 0.60 0.7 debris 0 N/A none 1-2 no

476 24 Fea. 24 unit 1 6 1/4" 1 debitage chert medium 1.6 0.40 0.5 debris 0 N/A none 1-2 no

476 24 Fea. 24 unit 1 6 1/4" 1 debitage quartz fine 2.6 0.94 4.1 debris 0 N/A none 2-3 no


485 24 Fea. 24 NW N/A N/A 1 debitage petrified wood fine 4.6 2.10 20.8 debris 11 N/A none 4+ no

485 24 Fea. 24 NW N/A N/A 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert fine 2.6 0.92 3.2 debris 0 N/A none 2-3 no

494 24 Fea. 24 unit 3 3 1/4" 1 debitage chert fine 1.5 0.77 1.3 debris 0 N/A none 1-2 no

494 24 Fea. 24 unit 3 3 1/4" 1 debitage siltstone medium 2.4 0.52 1.8 debris 0 N/A none 2-3 no




584 35 FU 9 SE 2 1/4" 1 debitage chert fine 3.2 0.71 2.5 debris 51 N/A none 3-4 no

596 38 Fea. 38 N/A N/A 1 debitage petrified wood medium 4.3 1.10 19.1 debris 11 N/A none 4+ no

598 35 Fea. 35 E wall 2 1/8" 1 debitage petrified wood medium 2.5 0.96 2.0 debris 51 N/A none 2-3 no

612 4 Fea. 4 N 1/2 11 1/8" 1 debitage petrified wood medium 0.9 0.13 0.1 debris 0 N/A none 0-1 no

624 37 Fea. 37 W 1/2 1 1/8" 1 debitage quartz fine 1.3 0.43 0.5 debris 0 N/A none 1-2 no

628 37 Fea. 37 W 1/2 4 1/8" 1 debitage chert fine 1.6 0.69 1.3 debris 0 N/A none 1-2 no

633 37 Fea. 37 E 1/2 N/A N/A 1 debitage quartz fine 1.6 0.74 1.2 debris 0 N/A none 1-2 no

633 37 Fea. 37 E 1/2 N/A N/A 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert fine 3.4 0.98 5.6 debris 0 N/A none 3-4 no


654 37 Fea. 37 W 1/2 7 1/8" 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert medium 2.0 0.77 1.4 debris 0 N/A none 2-3 no

658 37 Fea. 37 W 1/2 8 1/8" 1 debitage petrified wood medium 3.0 0.40 2.6 debris 1 N/A none 3-4 no


672 37 Fea. 37 W 1/2 12 1/8" 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert medium 1.1 0.37 0.2 debris 0 N/A none 1-2 no






(cm) Thickness

(cm) Weight

(g) Complete


Size Class Burned

673 37 Fea. 37 W 1/2 12 1/8" 1 debitage petrified wood medium 1.6 0.24 0.3 debris 0 N/A none 1-2 no

112 0 TU 2 5 1/4 1 debitage chert fine 3.5 0.74 3.7 debris 0 N/A none 3-4 yes

144 0 MU 3 N 1/2 1 1/4 1 debitage chert medium 2.0 1.17 2.5 debris 0 N/A none 2-3 yes

286 0 FU 17 NW 3 1/4" 1 debitage chert fine 4.5 1.17 6.3 debris 0 N/A none 4+ yes

371 21 FU 25 NE 2 1/4" 1 debitage petrified wood fine 2.4 1.23 3.8 debris 0 N/A none 2-3 yes

395 0 FU 17 5 1/4" 1 debitage quartz fine 1.7 0.28 0.4 debris 1 N/A none 1-2 yes

612 4 Fea. 4 N 1/2 11 1/8" 1 debitage chert fine 3.1 0.13 8.6 debris 0 N/A none 3-4 yes

148 0 MU 4 1 1/8 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert medium 2.1 0.38 0.8

flake fragment 0 N/A none 2-3

heat treated

158 0 FU 6 1 1/4" 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert medium 3.1 0.78 3.7


heat treated

240 3 FU 5 NE 2 1/8" 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert fine 1.3 0.11 0.0


heat treated

272 0 FU 23 SW 2 1/4" 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert fine 1.7 0.36 0.6


heat treated



heat treated

516 24 Fea. 24 unit 3 5 1/4" 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert fine 2.4 0.90 3.3


heat treated

29 0 surface 0 N/A 1 debitage petrified wood fine 1.8 0.49 0.5

flake fragment 1 N/A none 1-2 no

35 0 surface 0 N/A 1 debitage quartz fine 1.8 0.48 1.1 flake fragment 0 N/A none 1-2 no

41 0 surface 0 N/A 1 debitage chert fine 1.4 0.28 0.3 flake fragment 0 N/A none 1-2 no

43 0 surface 0 N/A 1 debitage chert medium 2.9 0.40 1.5 flake fragment 0 N/A none 2-3 no

73 0 surface 0 N/A 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert fine 1.1 0.42 0.3


86 0 surface 0 N/A 1 debitage quartz fine 1.3 0.46 0.5 flake fragment 0 N/A none 1-2 no

87 0 surface 0 N/A 1 debitage chert medium 3.1 0.59 4.6 flake fragment 1 N/A none 3-4 no

92 0 surface 0 N/A 1 debitage petrified wood medium 1.5 0.32 0.6


100 3 SS 8 1 1/8 1 debitage petrified wood medium 2.6 0.54 2.3


117 0 TU 2 7 1/4 1 debitage chert medium 1.4 0.31 0.4 flake fragment 0 N/A none 1-2 no

117 0 TU 2 7 1/4 1 debitage petrified wood fine 5.8 0.77 5.1

flake fragment 100 N/A none 4+ no

122 0 TU 2 8 1/4 1 debitage chert medium 1.7 0.25 0.1 flake fragment 0 N/A none 1-2 no






(cm) Thickness

(cm) Weight

(g) Complete


Size Class Burned

141 0 MU 3 2 1/4 1 debitage quartzite medium 1.4 0.32 0.6 flake fragment 1 N/A none 1-2 no

141 0 MU 3 2 1/4 1 utilized flake chert medium 3.4 0.87 7.6

flake fragment 11 N/A flat 3-4 no

142 0 MU 11 1 1/4 1 utilized flake quartzite fine 5.1 1.03 20.2

flake fragment 90 N/A convex 4+ no

148 0 MU 4 1 1/8 1 debitage petrified wood medium 2.9 0.48 1.8


148 0 MU 4 1 1/8 1 debitage quartzite fine 4.1 1.39 17.4 flake fragment 90 N/A none 4+ no

148 0 MU 4 1 1/8 1 debitage quartzite fine 1.7 0.68 0.7 flake fragment 90 N/A none 1-2 no

148 0 MU 4 1 1/8 1 debitage chert fine 1.6 0.36 0.5 flake fragment 0 N/A none 1-2 no

149 0 MU 5 1 1/4 1 debitage siltstone medium 3.7 0.44 3.2 flake fragment 51 N/A none 3-4 no



173 0 FU 18 1 1/4" 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert fine 1.8 0.14 0.1


181 0 TU 4 2 1/4" 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert fine 1.2 0.26 0.2


182 1 FU 19 1 1/4" 1 debitage quartz fine 2.6 0.85 4.3 flake fragment 0 N/A none 2-3 no

191 0 TU 5 2 1/4" 1 debitage chert medium 2.6 0.62 2.7 flake fragment 0 N/A none 2-3 no

217 0 FU 19 SW 2 1/8" 1 utilized flake

Zuni spotted chert fine 2.5 0.72 3.1

flake fragment 0 N/A convex 2-3 no



228 0 FU 23 1 1/4" 1 debitage siltstone medium 1.0 0.16 0.1 flake fragment 0 N/A none 1-2 no

228 0 FU 23 1 1/4" 1 debitage siltstone medium 2.4 0.35 1.4 flake fragment 51 N/A none 2-3 no





237 3 FU 5 NW 2 1/8" 1 debitage chert medium 1.1 0.13 0.1 flake fragment 51 N/A none 1-2 no



241 3 FU 5 SE 2 1/8" 1 debitage quartzite medium 0.9 0.32 0.2 flake fragment 51 N/A none 0-1 no

277 0 Fu 23 SE 3 1/4" 1 debitage quartz fine 1.8 0.47 0.9 flake fragment 0 N/A none 1-2 no

279 1 FU 23 SW 3 1/4" 1 debitage chert medium 2.2 0.61 1.9 flake fragment 0 N/A none 2-3 no






(cm) Thickness

(cm) Weight

(g) Complete


Size Class Burned

318 4 FU 23 NE 4 1/4" 1 debitage quartz fine 1.6 0.30 0.3 flake fragment 0 N/A none 1-2 no

318 4 FU 23 NE 4 1/4" 1 debitage quartz fine 1.7 0.32 0.5 flake fragment 0 N/A none 1-2 no

326 0 MU 5 SE 2 1/4" 1 debitage quartz fine 1.5 0.36 0.4 flake fragment 0 N/A none 1-2 no

329 0 MU 4 SW 2 1/4" 1 debitage quartz fine 1.4 0.22 0.3 flake fragment 0 N/A none 1-2 no

329 0 MU 4 SW 2 1/4" 1 debitage siltstone medium 1.8 0.23 0.6 flake fragment 0 N/A none 1-2 no



342 0 MU 5 SW 3 1/4" 1 debitage chert medium 2.4 0.45 1.0 flake fragment 0 N/A none 2-3 no

342 0 MU 5 SW 3 1/4" 1 debitage petrified wood medium 4.5 0.40 3.3


362 0 MU 5 SW 4 1/4" 1 debitage chert fine 2.4 0.22 0.5 flake fragment 0 N/A none 2-3 no

365 0 MU 5 NW 4 1/4" 1 debitage chert medium 3.6 0.56 4.3 flake fragment 1 N/A none 3-4 no

370 0 FU 26 SE 1 1/4" 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert fine 1.7 0.28 0.4


373 0 FU 26 NE 1 N/A 1 debitage quartzite fine 2.4 0.57 2.8 flake fragment 0 N/A none 2-3 no

391 0 FU 28 NW 3 1/4" 1 debitage quartz fine 1.9 0.51 1.1 flake fragment 90 N/A none 1-2 no

398 0 FU 3 4 1/4" 1 debitage quartz fine 3.4 1.28 11.5 flake fragment 100 N/A none 3-4 no

399 0 FU 26 SW 4 1/4" 1 debitage chert medium 1.0 0.17 0.1 flake fragment 0 N/A none 1-2 no

400 0 FU 28 NE 1 1/4" 1 debitage chert medium 1.8 0.23 0.4 flake fragment 0 N/A none 1-2 no

405 0 FU 28 NE 3 1/4" 1 debitage chert medium 3.4 1.00 6.2 flake fragment 0 N/A none 3-4 no

419 0 FU 17 SE 4 1/4" 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert fine 2.5 0.64 1.6


467 24 Fea. 24 unit 1 1 1/4" 1 debitage chert fine 3.0 0.32 0.9 flake fragment 0 N/A none 3-4 no



470 24 Fea. 24 unit 1 2 1/4" 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert fine 1.0 0.20 0.1


472 24 Fea. 24 unit 1 3 1/4" 1 debitage petrified wood medium 2.5 0.44 1.3


474 24 Fea. 24 unit 1 4 1/4" 1 debitage chert medium 2.2 0.17 0.3 flake fragment 0 N/A none 2-3 no






(cm) Thickness

(cm) Weight

(g) Complete


Size Class Burned


474 24 Fea. 24 unit 1 4 1/4" 1 debitage petrified wood medium 1.2 0.26 0.3



474 24 Fea. 24 unit 1 4 1/4" 1 debitage quartz fine 1.5 0.25 0.4 flake fragment 0 N/A none 1-2 no


476 24 Fea. 24 unit 1 6 1/4" 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert medium 1.6 0.37 0.4


478 24 Fea. 24 unit 1 7 1/4" 1 debitage siltstone fine 2.3 0.36 0.6 flake fragment 0 N/A none 2-3 no


485 24 Fea. 24 NW N/A N/A 1 debitage quartz fine 2.5 0.65 2.9 flake fragment 0 N/A none 2-3 no

485 24 Fea. 24 NW N/A N/A 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert medium 3.7 0.66 4.2


490 24 Fea. 24 unit 3 1 1/4" 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert medium 2.4 0.37 1.0



521 24 Fea. 24 unit 1 9 1/4" 1 debitage quartz fine 3.3 0.97 7.9 flake fragment 11 N/A none 3-4 no


551 24 KU 1 1 1/8" 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert medium 1.8 0.26 0.4


590 35 Fea. 35 E wall N/A 1/4" 1 debitage quartzite medium 1.8 0.40 0.8 flake fragment 100 N/A none 1-2 no

598 35 Fea. 35 E wall 2 1/8" 1 debitage quartz fine 1.5 0.41 0.6 flake fragment 100 N/A none 1-2 no

604 4 Fea. 4 N 1/2 1 1/8" 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert medium 1.9 0.18 0.5


606 4 Fea. 4 S 1/2 N/A N/A 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert fine 1.9 0.40 0.6


627 37 Fea. 37 W 1/2 3 1/8" 1 debitage quartz fine 1.7 0.36 0.8 flake fragment 0 N/A none 1-2 no

627 37 Fea. 37 W 1/2 3 1/8" 1 debitage Zuni spotted chert fine 3.3 0.71 2.6


633 37 Fea. 37 E 1/2 N/A N/A 1 debitage chert medium 3.0 0.62 2.0 flake fragment 0 N/A none 3-4 no

637 37 Fea. 37 W 1/2 5 1/8" 1 debitage petrified wood medium 2.7 0.54 2.9


667 37 Fea. 37 W 1/2 10 1/8" 1 utilized flake chert medium 2.9 1.13 7.2

flake fragment 0 N/A convex 2-3 no






(cm) Thickness

(cm) Weight

(g) Complete


Size Class Burned

36 0 surface 0 N/A 1 debitage chert fine 1.2 0.33 0.2 flake fragment 0 N/A none 1-2 yes

182 1 FU 19 1 1/4" 1 debitage chert fine 2.2 0.79 2.0 flake fragment 51 N/A none 2-3 yes

215 0 FU 19 NW 2 1/8" 1 debitage chert medium 1.3 0.26 0.3 flake fragment 0 N/A none 1-2 yes

473 23 Fea. 23 N 1/2 4 1/8" 1 debitage chert fine 3.0 2.60 5.0 flake fragment 0 N/A none 3-4 yes

474 24 Fea. 24 unit 1 4 1/4" 1 debitage chert medium 3.9 0.37 2.1 flake fragment 0 N/A none 3-4 yes

APPENDIX E REPORT OF OBSIDIAN X-RAY FLUORESCENCE

Appendix E Obsidian Analysis 370

Department of Anthropology 232 Kroeber Hall

University of California Berkeley, CA 94720-3710

LETTER REPORT

AN ENERGY-DISPERSIVE X-RAY FLUORESCENCE ANALYSIS OF OBSIDIAN ARTIFACTS FROM LA 153714, NORTHWESTERN NEW

MEXICO

23 October 2007 SWCA Environmental Consultants 5647 Jefferson St NE Albuquerque, NM 87109

The two obsidian artifacts were produced one of the source groups at Mount Taylor, in northwestern New Mexico (Shackley 2005). The source group is likely Horace Mesa, but there is still considerable variability present in the Mount Taylor area, and this sub-source assignment could be incorrect (see Shackley 1998, 2005:58-64).

The samples were analyzed with a Spectrace (Thermo) QuanX EDXRF spectrometer in the Archaeological XRF Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley. Instrumental methods can be found at http://www.swxrflab.net/anlysis.htm. Analysis of the USGS RGM-1 standard indicates high machine precision for the elements of interest (Govindaraju 1994; Table 1 here).

Sincerely, M. Steven Shackley, Ph.D. Director VOICE: (510) 642-2533 INTERNET: [email protected] http://www.swxrflab.net/

Appendix E Obsidian Analysis 371

REFERENCES CITED

Govindaraju, K. 1994 1994 Compilation of Working Values and Sample Description for 383 Geostandards. Geostandards Newsletter 18 (special issue). Shackley, M.S. 1998 Geochemical Differentiation and Prehistoric Procurement of Obsidian in the Mount

Taylor Volcanic Field, Northwest New Mexico. Journal of Archaeological Science 25:1073-1082.

2005 Obsidian: Geology and Archaeology in the North American Southwest. University of

Arizona Press, Tucson. Table 1. Elemental concentrations for the archaeological samples. All measurements in parts per million (ppm). Site/Sample Ti Mn Fe Zn Rb Sr Y Zr Nb Source 153714-187 737 614 7006 150 433 9 77 126 202 Mt Taylor 153714-568 763 683 7698 160 466 6 86 129 241 Mt Taylor RGM1-S3 1761 333 13109 38 149 111 19 222 4 standard

APPENDIX F BURIAL CATALOGUE

Appendix F Burial Catalogue 373

Burial Catalogue Feature No: 34 FS #: 585 Coordinate: 3881163.76N 747319.02E Depth below surface: ~30 cm Inhumation Type: Primary Position: Unknown Facing: West Burial Completeness: ~25% General Condition: The bone quality is fair. Bone weight is poor, suggesting considerable leaching of organic content. There are numerous fresh breaks because of the mechanical excavation that resulted in the discovery of the burial. There is some root etching on the bone surface. Overall condition is fair. Age: 2–4 years, but likely closer to 2–3. Criterion: Age is based on the size of the bone, fusion of skeletal elements, and dentition. Femur and tibia epiphyses are unfused. Mandible halves are fused (>1 yr). Pars lateralis is not fused to pars basilaris or occipital (occurs 5–7 yrs). Hypoglossal canal joining but is not complete (2–4 yrs). The deciduous teeth have all erupted and show some wear. The deciduous teeth are still close together in the dental arch. The crowns of the adult first molars are visible in the socket due to fragmentation of the alveolar, but not enough to determine completeness of the crown. The adult lower canine is about half complete. Age based on dentition is 3 ± 1yr (2–4 yrs). Figure F.1 and Figure F.2 show the dentition and stage of development. Sex: N/A Elements present:

Cranial Frontal Present, fragmented Parietal L near complete; R in fragments Occipital Fragments (L pars lateralis present) Temporal L near complete; R ~ half present Sphenoid L and R present, fragmented Zygomatic R present Maxilla L and R present Mandible Near complete Note: two pieces of cranium were recovered in FS#620. Postcranial Ribs R first rib near complete; three L ribs in fragments;

three unidentified body fragments Femur R near complete Tibia L distal half Comments: Proximal end of femur is mostly missing and distal end is missing except for the presence of the distal epiphysis. Tibia is in two pieces that refit. Proximal tibia epiphysis is present. Figure F.3 shows all the elements recorded with this burial. Pathologies: All pathologies observed are on the dentition. Upper deciduous dentition exhibits the following:


Feature No: 41 FS #: 608 Coordinate: 3881166.05N 747323.30E Depth below surface: 98.40–98.20 cm Inhumation Type: Primary Position: Semi-extended; on stomach; legs bent to pelvis; arms extended by side Facing: North Burial Completeness: ~98% General Condition: The bone quality is good. Bone weight is fair, suggesting some leaching of organic content. The cortex is in fair to good condition. The cortex on the left side is splintering and flaking off; the right side has some deterioration, but not as much as on the left. There are a few fresh breaks from the excavation of the burial. Overall condition is good. Measurements of individual bones from Feature 41 are provided in Table F.1. Non-metric traits are described in Table F.2. Age: 30–45 years, probably 35–40. Criterion: Age is based on the left pubis, which is 30–35 in the Todd system and Stage IV, mean 38.2 (range 26–70) in the Suchey-Brooks system. The auricular surface did not appear to correspond well to any particular category, but is not unlike the development for the 30 to 45 age group. Figure F.4 shows the auricular surface on the right ilium and the face of the left pubis used for aging. All elements are fused. There are no osteophytic changes in the vertebrae or on any of the joint surfaces. Lower teeth are worn more heavily than the uppers, but overall wear corresponds with the 30 to 40 age range. Cranial sutures are all fused, but this characteristic is not reliable for age determination. Fusion and obliteration could be a pathological or genetic response. The most reliable age indicator is the pubis, and this corresponds well with the lack of osteophytic changes and with the tooth wear. Sex: Female Criterion: The pelvic characteristics indicate female. The ventral arc, subpubic concavity, and greater sciatic notch are all well within the female range. There is a slight preauricular sulcus, which is in the indeterminate category for sexing. The cranial characteristics are somewhat mixed, which may be a result of the early fusion and obliteration of the cranial sutures. The nuchal crest and mental eminence are well in the female range. The mastoid process and supraorbital margin are in the probable female to indeterminate range. Measurements on the long bones, in particular the humeral head diameter, femur head diameter, and femur circumference, are all well within the female range. Elements present:

Cranial Frontal Complete Parietal L and R complete Occipital Complete Temporal L and R complete Sphenoid Complete Zygomatic L and R complete Maxilla L and R complete Mandible Complete


Postcranial Ribs L 12 with three complete; R 12 complete or near complete Manubrium Fragment Vertebrae: Cervical 1–7 fragmented Thoracic 1–12 fragmented Lumbar 1–5 fragmented Sacrum: complete Clavicle L and R complete Scapula L and R fragmented Humerus L and R complete Ulna L complete and R near complete Radius L complete and R near complete Carpals L 4 fragments, R 6 with five complete Metacarpals L 5 with one complete, R 5 with three complete Hand Phalanges L 4, R 3, Unsided 4 Pelvis: Ilium L and R complete Ischium L and R complete Pubis L complete and R fragmented Femur L and R complete Tibia L and R complete Fibula L and R complete Tarsals L and R 7 complete Metatarsals L and R 5 with four complete Foot Phalanges L 3 fragmented, R 4 with two complete


Table F.1. Measurements for Burial 41 Cranial Measurements

Description Measurement Description Measurement Maximum Cranial Length 165 Orbital Breadth 43.18 R Maximum Cranial Breadth 130 Orbital Height 33.85 R Basion-Bregma Height 120 Biorbital Breadth 91.07 Cranial Base Length 95 Interorbital Breadth 15.23 Biauricular Breadth 117.16 Frontal Chord 127.95 Upper Facial Height 78.94 Parietal Chord 80.86 Minimum Frontal Breadth 90.07 Occipital Chord 94.20 Upper Facial Breadth 97.47 Foramen Magnum Length 35.52 Nasal Height 50.26 Mastoid Length 36.52

Postcranial Measurements Element Measurement Element Measurement Clavicle Femur

Ant-Post Dia at Midshaft 9.99 R Max Length 420 R Sup-Inf Dia at Midshaft 11.33 R Bicondylar Length 416 R

Humerus Epicondylar Breadth 70.05 R Max Length 301 R Max Dia of Head 40.30 R

Epicondylar Breadth 48.68 R Ant-Post Subtrochanter Dia 23.80 R Vertical Dia of Head 40.98 Med-Lat Subtochanter Dia 23.80 R Max Dia at Midshaft 20.35 R Ant Post Midshaft Dia 24.05 R Min Dia at Midshaft 13.82 R Med-Lat Midshaft Dia 23.74 R

Radius Midshaft Circ 79 R Max Length 233 R Tibia

Ant-Post Dia at Midshaft 10.25 R Max Length 342 R Med-Lat Dia at Midshaft 12.68 R Max Prox Epiph Breadth 68.17 R

Ulna Max Dist Epiph Breadth 47.10 R Max Length 247 R Max Dia at Nutrient For 32.72 R

Ant-Post Dia 22.37 R Med-Lat Dia at Nutrient For 21.54 R Med-Lat Dia 11.50 R Circ at Nutrient For 84

Physiological Length 222 R Fibula Min Circ 29 R Max Length 325 R

Sacrum Max Dia at Midshaft 17.01 R Ant-Sup Breadth 106.40 Calcaneus

Max Transverse Dia of Base 46.92 Max Length 69.63 Os Coxae Middle Breadth 39.37

Height 194 R Iliac Breadth 130 R

Ischium Length 79.41 R All measurements in mm; * indicates slight breakage; left element is used unless indicated with an R for right.


Stature: Using Trotter and Glesser (Bass 1987, p.222, white female) Femur 2.47 (42.0) + 54.10 ± 3.72 = 157.84 ± 3.72 (154.12–161.56 cm) Fem/Tib 1.39 (42.0 + 34.2) + 53.20 ± 3.55 = 159.12 ± 3.55 (155.57–162.67 cm) Hum/Fem/Tib 0.68 (30.1) + 1.17 (42.0) + 1.15 (34.2) + 50.12 ± 3.51 = 159.06 ± 3.51

(155.55–162.57 cm) As more elements are present, the stature estimate becomes more accurate. Using the last calculation that incorporates the lengths of the humerus, tibia, and femur, the stature is estimated as 155.55 to 162.57 cm (61.2–64 inches or 5 feet 1.2 inches to 5 feet 4 inches). Comments: All elements are fused. Cranial sutures are all fused and obliterated. No osteophytic degeneration of any joint surfaces or vertebrae. Figure F.5 shows all the elements recorded with this burial.

Table F.2. Nonmetric Traits for Burial 41 Trait L M R Trait L M R Metopic Suture 0 Atlas Bridge Lateral 9 9 Epipteric Bone 0 0 Atlas Bridge Posterior 9 9 Coronal Ossicle 0 0 Accessory Foramen 7th

Cervical Vert 9 9

Bregmatic Bone 0 Suprascapular Notch or Foramen

2 9

Sagittal Ossicle 0 2 = foramen Apical Bone 0 Acromial Artic Facet 9 9 Lambdoid Ossicle 0 0 Supratrochlear Spur 0 0 Asterionic Bone 0 0 Septal Aperture 0 0 Ossicle in Occipitomastoid

0 0 Accessory Sacral Facet Sacrum

0

Parietal Notch 0 0 Accessory Sacral Facet Os Coxae

0 0

Supraorbital Notch 0 2 Allen's Fossae 0 1 2 = present >½

occluded by spicules 1 = present

Supraorbital Foramen 1 0 Poirier's Facet 1 1 1 = present 1 = present

Infraorbital Suture 9 0 3rd Trochanter 1 0 Multiple Infraorbital Foramen

9 0 1 = present

Zygo-facial Foramen 0 3 Vastus Notch 0 0 3 = 2 large Squatting Facet Tibia 0 0

Parietal Foramen 0 0 Squatting Facet Talus 0 0 Inca Bone 0 Condylar Canal 1 1 Hypoglossal Canal 0 0 1 = patent Flexure Sagittal Sulcus 2 Foramen Ovale 0 0

2 = left Foramen Spinosum 0 0 Pterygo-spinous Bridge 9 9 Pterygo-alar Bridge 9 9 Tympanic Dihiscence 0 0 Auditory Exostosis 0 0 Mastoid Foramen 2 2 Mental Foramen 1 1

2 = 1 in sutural 1 = Qty 1 Mandibular Torus 0 0 Mylohyoid Bridge 0 0

0 = absent in all cases; 9 = unobservable in all cases; other numbers are explained under the trait.


Pathologies: Pathologies observed are an ossified ligament and various dental pathologies. The fusion and obliteration of the cranial sutures may be normal. The cranium is not misshapen, so fusion was not premature or prior to complete cranial growth. Figure F.6 shows detail views of the cranium. The left scapula has the suprascapular ligament ossified forming a bony bridge that closes the suprascapular notch. The right may have also had this ossification but was too fragmented to determine with certainty. Figure F.4 shows the bony bridge on the left scapula. The pathologies on the dentition include tooth loss, caries, abscess, and alveolar recession (Table F.3). Upper left molar 1 was lost premortem with little to no resorbtion of the socket. There is a large abscess that penetrates through the upper alveolar tissue. The left upper second molar has a carious lesion on the mesial side at the cemento-enamel junction on the neck. There is a large abscess exposing the tooth root on the bucchal side. This is marked in Figure F.7. A large, interproximal, occlusal caries is present on the lower left second premolar and first molar. The caries is on the distal side of the second premolar and on the mesial side of the first molar. On the lower right side, the first and second molars have been lost premortem and the sockets are completely resorbed. The second premolar is represented by a root only. The entire tooth crown is gone, likely as a result of a carious lesion. There is an abscess channel visible on the bucchal surface of the alveolar directly under the tooth root. Figure F.7 shows the abscess location. The lower first incisors have considerable wear. The excessive wear may be a result of cultural modification, possibly from processing some substance or pulling something across those teeth. Both the upper and lower alveolar structure shows recession that exposes the tooth roots. The reactive bone is likely due to periodontal disease. No calculus was observed on the dentition and the alveolar recession could also be a result of the caries, abscesses, and tooth loss. Below is a table with the scores for wear on the teeth.

Table F.3. Dental Wear for Burial 41 Maxillary Tooth Wear Notes Mandibular Tooth Wear Notes Right M3 28 Right M3 32 M2 31 M2 premortem loss,

socket resorbed M1 4 M1 premortem loss,

socket resorbed PM2 4 PM2 8 root only, caries,

abscess PM1 5 PM1 6 C 5 C 5 I2 6 I2 5 I1 6 I1 7 Left I1 6 Left I1 7 I2 6 I2 5 C 6 C 5 PM1 5 PM1 4 PM2 5 PM2 4 caries M1 premortem loss, abscess M1 25 caries M2 36 caries, abscess M2 21 M3 16 M3 16


Feature No: 42 FS #: 666 Coordinate: 3881167.18N 747322.13E Depth below surface: 98.05–97.95 cm Inhumation Type: Primary Position: Flexed; right side Facing: South Burial Completeness: ~95% General Condition: The bone quality is excellent (measurements Table F.4). Bone weight is fair to good, suggesting minimal leaching of organic content. The cortex is in excellent condition. There are a few fresh breaks from the excavation of the burial. There is some root etching on the bone surface and slight distortion from soil pressure. Overall condition is excellent. Age: 1–2.5 years but likely 1.5–2. Criterion: Age is based on the size of the long bones, fusion of skeletal elements, and dentition. Long bone epiphyses are not fused. Long bone lengths are in the .5 to 2.5 year range (Bass 1987). Pars lateralis not fused to pars basilaris or pars occipitalis. Hypoglossal canal joined but very recently (2–4 yrs). The arch for the first cervical and for cervical vertebra 3 to 5 are not fused; all other arches are fused. The vertebral arches are not fused to centrum (1–3 yrs). The deciduous upper canines are erupting but are not in full occlusion. The deciduous second molars are not erupted; although the root is near complete. Age based on long bone lengths and fusion is 1–3. Age based on dentition is 1.5–2 years (± 6 months). Figure F.10 shows the dentition and the stage of development. Sex: N/A Elements present: Nearly complete; missing only the carpals, tarsals, small phalanges of the hands and feet, patellae, and developing epiphyses for the long bones.

Cranial Frontal Complete Parietal L and R complete Occipital Complete Temporal L and R complete Sphenoid Complete Zygomatic L and R complete Maxilla L and R complete Mandible Complete Postcranial Ribs L 1–12 complete; R 1–12 complete Manubrium Complete Vertebrae: Cervical 1–7 complete Thoracic 1–12 complete Lumbar 1–5 complete Sacrum: 15 pieces of bodies and arch fragments Clavicle L and R complete Scapula L and R complete Humerus L and R complete Ulna L and R complete


Radius L and R complete Metacarpals 8 unsided complete Pelvis: Ilium L and R complete Ischium L and R complete Pubis L and R complete Femur L and R complete Tibia L and R complete Fibula L and R complete Metatarsals 9 unsided complete Foot Phalanges 14 complete (seven proximal phalanges and seven middle phalanges) Comments: There are two pieces of bone that do not belong to this individual. One is a left lesser multangular that is too well developed to be this child. This element is adult size. The second is also too large to be this individual. It is an unidentified carpal. Figure F.9 shows all the elements recorded with this burial.

Table F.4. Measurements for Burial 42 Cranial Measurements

Description Measurement Description Measurement Minimum Frontal Breadth 71.26* Upper Facial Breadth 72.97 Orbital Breadth 26.99 Biorbital Breadth 67.45 Interorbital Breadth 17.29 Chin Height 18.78 Height Mandibular Body 17.42 Breadth Mandibular Body 8.95 Bigonial Width 58.50 Bicondylar Breadth 72.99 Minimum Ramus Breadth 19.63 Maximum Ramus Breadth 23.26 Maximum Ramus Height 31.02 Mandibular Length 48.26

Postcranial Measurements Element L R Element L R Clavicle Scapula

Length 58.79 58.61* Length 38.36 38.95* Diameter 5.08 5.42 Width 51.82 50.40

Humerus Spine 44.87 45.11 Length 97.94 97.36 Ulna Width 22.45 22.06 Length 89.24 89.15

Diameter 8.10 8.40 Diameter 5.64 5.51 Radius Femur

Length 79.88 80.44 Length 120.34* 118.26* Diameter 5.60 5.48 Width 28.60 28.27

Tibia Diameter 9.50 9.33 Length 101.04* 101.45 Fibula

Diameter 8.56 8.47 Length 92.32* 94.76 Ilium Diameter 4.44 4.33

Length 51.83 50.83* Ischium Width 49.61 49.10 Length 30.15 28.83

Pubis Width 20.12 18.08 Length 26.36

All measurements in mm; * indicates slight breakage


Pathologies: The pathologies present are anemia and various dental pathologies (Figure F.10, Figure F.11). Cribra orbitalia is present and is often a result of iron deficiency anemia, although it can be a result of other anemias. The lesions are moderate to extensive in both eye orbits. The right side is slightly more porous than the left. The right orbit involves an area approximately 18 mm × 19 mm in size. The outer table of bone is completely gone in parts of the lesion; the trabecular structure is clearly visible. The left orbit involves an area approximately 16 mm × 18 mm in size. The outer table of bone has numerous small to medium size porous holes. It has not completely destroyed the outer table as has happened in the right orbit. A small area, mid-center on the frontal just posterior to the nasal area, has the outer table of bone missing. This does not appear to be antimortem pathology but postmortem damage. The palate surface has a very porous appearance. The outer table of bone is covered with numerous small holes. It is not clear whether this is a pathological phenomenon. The dental pathologies are on the upper left and right incisors. The incisors have small blackened pits. These lesions are on the occlusal distal surface. These may be the first beginnings of carious lesions. Both incisors are also slightly rotated relative to a normal occlusal position. The incisors are rotated so that the distal side is turned in to the lingual surface.

APPENDIX G FAUNAL ANALYSIS

Appendix G Faunal Analysis 392

Table G.1. Faunal Analysis Cat # FS# Prov.

Type Level Fea # Qty

Len gth

(mm) Scientific

Name Common

Name Element Portion Side Age Weathering Breaking Burning Cutting Gnawing Intru

sive Worked Comments

1 100 SS 8 1 3 1 4 Small mammal

Small mammal

Compact bone Fragment Indet. Indet. Absent

Angular fracture Absent Absent Absent No Absent

2 146 MU 3 1 0 1 39 Meleagris gallopavo

c.f. Turkey Humerus

Diaphyseal fragment Indet. Indet. Slight


3 147 FU 1 1 1 1 20 Micro mammal

Micro mammal Tibia

Complete shaft Right

Subadult Absent Unbroken Absent Absent Absent Yes Absent no epiphysis

4 149 MU 5 1 0 1 16

Small/medium mammal

Small/medium mammal

Compact bone Fragment Indet. Indet. Slight


6 170 FU 16 1 1 1 27 Neotoma sp. Wood Rat Cranium

Facial area Axial Adult Absent

Angular fracture Absent Absent Absent Yes Absent

includes frontal, premaxilla, and maxilla with M1, M2, M3, & I1 (L&R)

7 215 FU 19 2 1 1 28 Peromyscus sp.

Deer Mouse Tibia

Complete shaft Right

Subadult Absent Unbroken Absent Absent Absent Yes Absent

8 254 FU 6 2 0 1 25 Meleagris gallopavo Turkey Scapula

Glenoid fossa Right Adult Slight

Angular fracture Absent Absent Absent Indet. Absent

9 261 FU 6 5 0 1 15 Large bird Large bird Long bone



in 2 pcs. that refit

10 270 FU 5 3 3 1 6 Medium vertebrate

Medium vertebrate

Compact bone Fragment Indet. Indet. Marked


possibly large bird

11 287 Fea 3 3 3 1 22 Thomomys sp.

Pocket Gopher Cranium

Fragments Axial Indet. Marked


Parietal, occipital, auditory bulla, maxilla (L&R), M3 (L&R), M2 (L); all from 1 animal; 22 mm largest pc

12 304 Fea 5C 4 5 1 24

Small mammal

Small mammal Tibia

Diaphyseal fragment Indet. Indet. Absent

Angular fracture

Charred (black) Absent Absent Indet. Absent

24 mm; in 2 pcs.

13 318 FU 23 4 0 1 12 Sylvilagus sp.

Cottontail rabbit Mandible

Horizontal ramus Left Adult Absent


includes M2 & M3 in mandible

14 329 MU 4 2 0 1 35 Thomomys sp.

Pocket Gopher Pelvis Complete Left Adult Absent Unbroken Absent Absent Absent Yes Absent

left pelvis fused to sacrum

15 329 MU 4 2 0 1 35 Thomomys sp.

Pocket Gopher Pelvis Complete Right Adult Absent Unbroken Absent Absent Absent Yes Absent


Table G.1. Faunal Analysis, continued Cat # FS# Prov.


Len gth

(mm) Scientific

Name Common



16 329 MU 4 2 0 1 22 Thomomys sp.

Pocket Gopher Sacrum Complete Axial Adult Absent Unbroken Absent Absent Absent Yes Absent



Angular fracture

Indeter. (possible burning) Absent Absent Indet. Absent

possibly burned



Angular fracture

Indeter. (possible burning) Absent Absent Indet. Absent

possibly burned




22 447 Tr 4 0 0 1 12 Small mammal

Small mammal

Indeterminate Fragment Indet. Indet. Absent


23 447 Tr 4 0 0 1 14 Small mammal

Small mammal



25 447 Tr 4 0 0 1 15 Sylvilagus sp.

Cottontail rabbit Tibia

Proximal end Right Adult Absent


26 468 Fea 23 2 23 1 34

Meleagris gallopavo Turkey

Tarsometatarsus Distal end Right Adult Absent

Angular fracture Absent Absent Absent Indet. Absent 3 pcs refit

27 468 Fea 23 2 23 1 15

Medium vertebrate

Medium vertebrate

Long bone



28 473 Fea 23 4 23 1 13

Neotoma sp. Wood Rat Cranium Maxilla Left Adult Absent


includes M1, M2, M3

29 473 Fea 23 4 23 1 12

Neotoma sp. Wood Rat Cranium

Premaxilla Left Indet. Absent


30 473 Fea 23 4 23 1 15

Neotoma sp. Wood Rat Mandible

Horizontal ramus with incisor alveolus Left Adult Absent

Angular fracture Absent Absent Absent Yes Absent with I1 & M1

31 474 Fea 24 4 24 1 55

Sylvilagus sp.

Cottontail rabbit Pelvis Complete Left Adult Absent


32 475 Fea 24 5 24 1 13

Thomomys sp.

Pocket Gopher Cranium Maxilla Axial Indet. Absent


33 475 Fea 24 5 24 1 15

Thomomys sp.

Pocket Gopher Cranium Maxilla Axial Indet. Absent





Len gth

(mm) Scientific

Name Common



34 475 Fea 24 5 24 1 28

Sylvilagus sp.

Cottontail rabbit Scapula

Glenoid fossa and incomplete blade Right Adult Absent


35 475 Fea 24 5 24 1 21

Small mammal

Small mammal

Long bone



possible distal tibia

36 484 Fea 24 0 24 1 22

Thomomys sp.

Pocket Gopher Mandible

Horizontal ramus with incisor alveolus Left

Subadult Absent


with I1, M1, M2 insitu

37 484 Fea 24 0 24 1 38

Neotoma sp. Wood Rat Pelvis Complete Left Indet. Absent


38 484 Fea 24 0 24 1 37

Neotoma sp. Wood Rat Tibia

Complete shaft Left

Subadult Absent


39 490 Fea 24 1 24 1 27

Small mammal

Small mammal Lumbar Complete Axial

Subadult Absent


40 491 Fea 24 2 24 1 61 Large bird Large bird Scapula

Blade portion Indet. Indet. Absent


41 496 Fea 24 4 24 1 42

Thomomys sp.

Pocket Gopher Cranium Complete Axial Adult Absent


no groove on front I; I1, PM4, M1, M2, M3

42 514 Fea 24 9-11 24 1 70 Lepus sp. Jackrabbit Scapula

Glenoid fossa and incomplete blade Right Adult Absent

Angular fracture Absent Absent Absent No Absent in 3 pcs

43 519 Fea 24 7 24 1 25

Thomomys sp.

Pocket Gopher Mandible

Ramus complete Left Adult Absent


includes I1, PM4, M2, M3

44 527 Fea 24 10 24 1 19

Medium vertebrate

Medium vertebrate



45 527 Fea 24 10 24 1 16

Medium vertebrate

Medium vertebrate

Long bone


Angular fracture


46 541 Fea 24 10 24 1 24

Peromyscus sp.

Deer Mouse Femur Distal end Right Adult Absent


47 549 KU 1 1 24 1 37 Lepus sp. Jackrabbit Tibia Proximal end Left Adult Absent

Angular fracture

Charred (black) Absent Absent Indet. Absent in 2 pcs

49 562 KU 4 1 24 1 30 Lepus sp. Jackrabbit Tibia Distal end Right Adult Absent Angular fracture





Len gth

(mm) Scientific

Name Common



50 562 KU 4 1 24 1 39 Small mammal

Small mammal Tibia


Angular fracture


51 562 KU 4 1 24 1 26 Small mammal

Small mammal

Long bone


Angular fracture


51 562 KU 4 1 24 1 38 Large mammal

Large mammal

Long bone


Angular fracture

Charred (black) Present Absent Indet.

Punch type tool, awl, or needle

polished; part of worked bone tool; possible awl

52 568 KU 1 1 24 1 95.9 Meleagris gallopavo Turkey

Tibiotarsus Distal end Right Adult Slight

Angular fracture Present Present Absent Indet.

Punch type tool, awl, or needle

Worked bone tool, awl; Max distal Breadth 13.93mm; Bd=14.23 mm; Dd=12.11 mm

53 594 Fea 35 0 35 1 13

Small mammal

Small mammal

Long bone



54 611 Fea 37 0 37 1 57 Large bird Large bird

Furculum Distal end Indet. Indet. Absent


probably turkey but small; possibly young or female?

55 611 Fea 37 0 37 1 24

Meleagris gallopavo

c.f. Turkey Rib

Vertebral end Right Indet. Absent


68 611 Fea 37 0 37 1 28

Meleagris gallopavo Turkey Coracoid Complete Right Indet. Absent


28 mm largest pc; in 8 pcs

56 627 Fea 37 3 37 1 14

Small mammal

Small mammal

Long bone


Angular fracture

Calcined (white) Absent Absent Indet. Absent

57 627 Fea 37 3 37 1 6

Medium vertebrate

Medium vertebrate


Angular fracture





Len gth

(mm) Scientific

Name Common




Long bone


Angular fracture Absent Ind Rodent Indet. Absent

2 pcs refit; some rodent gnawing makes bone appear to be worked but it is unlikely; can not rule it out because one area has polish which could be from boiling in pot or from working

59 628 Fea 37 4 37 1 52

Meleagris gallopavo Turkey Scapula

Blade portion Right Adult Slight

Angular fracture Absent Absent Absent Indet. Absent 2 pcs refit

69 633 Fea 37 5 37 1 48 Lepus sp. Jackrabbit Humerus

Proximal end Right

Subadult Slight


70 637 Fea 37 5 37 1 65

Meleagris gallopavo Turkey Scapula Complete Right Indet. Absent


65 mm largest pc; in 3 pcs


Long bone Fragment Indet. Indet. Absent


60 650 Fea 37 6 37 1 23

Small mammal

Small mammal

Long bone


Angular fracture

Calcined (white) Absent Absent Indet. Absent 2 pcs refit

61 650 Fea 37 6 37 1 13

Small mammal

Small mammal

Long bone


Angular fracture


62 650 Fea 37 6 37 1 11

Medium vertebrate

Medium vertebrate


Angular fracture


63 654 Fea 37 7 37 1 40

Meleagris gallopavo Turkey

Tibiotarsus Distal end Left Adult Absent


Bd=16.66 mm; Dd=16.4 mm

64 662 Fea 37 9 37 1 36 Large bird Large bird Rib

Shaft fragment Indet. Indet. Absent





66 662 Fea 37 9 37 1 12

Medium vertebrate

Medium vertebrate

Long bone


Angular fracture



Flat bone Fragment Indet. Indet. Absent


APPENDIX H RADIOCARBON DATES

Appendix H Radiocarbon Dates 398

nmcris no. 107271 · 2020-05-11 · nmcris no. 107271 hokona: a pueblo iii-iv settlement on nm 53...

Documents