o'hara ma
TRANSCRIPT
RED-ON-BUFF NORTH OF THE MOGOLLON RIM
A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT
by F. Michael O’Hara, III
A ThesisSubmitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree ofMaster of Arts
in Anthropology
Northern Arizona University
May 1998
Approved:
Christian E. Downum, Ph.D., Chair
Kelley Hays-Gilpin, Ph.D.
James M. Wilce, Ph.D.
ii
ABSTRACT
RED-ON-BUFF NORTH OF THE MOGOLLON RIM
A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT
F. MICHAEL O’HARA, III
Interpretations of prehistoric culture change in the Flagstaff area after
the A.D. 1064-1065 eruption of Sunset Crater have placed different emphases
on migration and exchange. Culture-historical archaeologists of the 1930s
and 1940s focused on inter-regional migration as a determining factor in
cultural change, whereas processual archaeologists of the 1960s and 1970s
focused on economic exchange. Coconino Buff Ware, a decorated pottery ware
of the Flagstaff area, plays an important role in both of these models.
Originally, Coconino Buff Ware was interpreted as the product of immigrant
potters and was believed to be derivative of the Hohokam decorative
tradition. Later interpretations saw it as derivative of black-on-white pottery
of the Ancestral Pueblo decorative tradition. However, no methodical
comparison of the wares and types in question has ever been performed.
I have selected samples of Buff Ware and White Ware pottery from two
Winona Focus sites — Turkey Tanks Pithouses and Winona Village. Using
iii
measurements of element width and spacing, and of element and motif use, I
have statistically characterized the samples of pottery. Results indicate that
Coconino Buff Ware is quite distinct from White Wares from the same
depositional contexts, and may be derivative of the Hohokam pottery
tradition. I propose that Coconino Buff Ware may have been manufactured by
Sinagua who had adopted a social identity linking them with their Hohokam
exchange partners. Some members of Sinagua society adopted the use of
ballcourts for communal rituals, a cremation death ritual, and the
manufacture of red-on-buff pottery with unique vessel forms as behavioral
and material expressions of this identity. I consider the possibility that
Sinagua from the Verde Valley may have introduced these ideas to the
Flagstaff area, and that a Hohokam trader may have may have lived at
Winona Village.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would first like to thank my thesis committee chair and academic
advisor Dr. Chris Downum. He has freely shared his extensive knowledge of
Flagstaff archaeology with me. We have had many productive hours of
discussion not only about this thesis topic, but other aspects of Flagstaff
prehistory. I also greatly appreciate the wonderful job opportunities he has
provided me, jobs that were more learning experiences than tasks or duties.
Most of all he has provided an example of how to conduct professional and
ethical archaeological research.
Dr. Kelley Hays-Gilpin’s class on ceramic analysis was one of the best
courses I have ever taken, and it provided me invaluable preparation for
completing this thesis. She also provided me access to the computer and
scanner in the Ceramic Laboratory at Bilby Research Center. Without her,
this thesis would be a lot less colorful.
Dr. Jim Wilce’s classes on linguistics and anthropological theory
challenged me to think in different ways and forced me to confront my
aversion to postmodernism. His pre-thesis seminar helped lay the ground
work for this thesis.
v
I would like to thank Dr. David R. Wilcox, Tracy Murphy, and Noland
Wiggins at the Museum of Northern Arizona for their assistance in
researching the collections from NA2098T and NA2133T. Dr. Wilcox
introduced me to archaeological fieldwork at NA158, and has always been an
eager disscussant of any ideas I might broach.
Thanks to all of my classmates in Dr. Wilce’s pre-thesis seminar whose
comments and critiques helped shape my research prospectus.
Iwould like to thank two former professors who inspired me to pursue
research in anthropology — Dr. Jerrold Levy and Dr. Jeff Reid. Your interest
in my ideas about ethnology and archaeology encouraged me to continue my
studies.
Most of all I thank my parents for supporting me in all my endeavors. I
especially thank them for all of the cultural and educational opportunities
they have afforded me throughout my life. Most memorable was the trip my
father and I took to Wupatki National Monument on January 17, 1991. That
snowy day was my first introduction to Southwestern archaeology.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
CHAPTER 2 - HISTORICAL AND THEORETICAL BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Archaeological Cultures and the Interpretation of the Past . . . . . . . . . . 3Red-on-Buff and Archaeological Cultures in the Flagstaff Area . . . . . 14
CHAPTER 3 - DESCRIPTION OF THE SITES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Turkey Tanks Pithouses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Winona Village . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28The Trash Mounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
CHAPTER 4 - THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF POTTERY . . . . . . . . . . . . 42Classification of Pottery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42Sourcing Pottery Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44Style and Pottery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
CHAPTER 5 - CLASSIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE RED-ON-BUFFPOTTERY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50The Ware Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50The Type and Variety Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53Decorative treatment of Coconino Buff Ware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55Dating Coconino Buff Ware Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67Hohokam Buff Ware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67The Red-on-Buff Pottery Assemblages from NA2098T and NA2133T . . 70
CHAPTER 6 - CLASSIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION OF THEBLACK-ON-WHITE POTTERY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76The Sample of Black-on-White Pottery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76White Wares Present in the Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76Black-on-White Types and Styles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79Stylistic Differences in the White Ware Assemblages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
CHAPTER 7 - COMPARISON AND ANALYSIS OF THE BUFF ANDWHITE WARES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
vii
CHAPTER 8 - CONCLUSIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128Migration, Ethnicity, Ritual, and Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129Agency and Structure in Sinagua Prehistory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140Future Research Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
BIBILIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
ENDNOTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159Appendix 1 - Measurement of Variables on Coconino Buff
Ware Sherds from NA2098T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159Appendix 2 - Measurement of Variables on Coconino Buff
Ware Sherds from NA2133T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161Appendix 3 - Measurement of Variables on White Ware
Sherds from NA2098T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164Appendix 4 - Measurement of Variables on White Ware
Sherds from NA2133T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173Appendix 5 - Measurement of Variables on Hohokam Buff
Ware Sherds from NA2098T and NA2133T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
viii
LIST OF TABLES
1. Stem-and-leaf plot of tree-ring dates from NA2133A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 372. Types and varieties of Alameda Brown Ware, Rio de Flag series. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 543. Coconino and Hohokam Buff Ware sherds from NA2098T and NA2133T. . . . . . . 744. Frequencies of White Wares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 775. Dates of production for White Ware types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 796. Frequencies of Black-on-white styles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 997. Frequencies of Sosi styles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 998. Coding key for stylistic variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Map of Southwestern archaeological cultures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62. Chronology of Southwestern culture-historical sequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93. Red-on-buff types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194. Black-on-white types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205. Known sites with Coconino Buff Ware in the Flagstaff area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236. Plan map of Turkey Tanks Pithouses, NA2098 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257. Plan map of NA2098B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278. Plan map of Winona Village . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299. Coconino Red-on-buff jar with a Gila shoulder from NA2133
(MNA catalog number 932/NA2133A.51) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3210. Coconino Red-on-buff heavy-walled vessel, or censer, from NA2133A
(MNA catalog number 932/NA2133A.60), one of two such vessels fromNA2133A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
11. Plan view of NA2133A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3412. Plan view of a Hohokam Sedentary period house type 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3513. Coconino Red-on-buff heavy-walled vessel, or censer, from NA2133T
(MNA catalog number 932/NA2133T.104) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4014. The opposed serrated barb motif and its construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5615. The opposed serrated barb motif on Coconino Buff Ware sherds from
NA2098T and NA2133T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5716. Various line forms on Coconino Buff Ware sherds — straight, jagged,
wavy, and meandering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5817. Fringing on Coconino Buff Ware sherds from NA2098T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5918. Various forms of hatching on Coconino Buff Ware sherds — straight,
wavy, and grid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6019. Coconino Buff Ware sherd from NA2133T with singly capped hatching . . . . . . . . 6120. Rectilinear and curvilinear scrolls on Coconino Buff Ware sherds from
NA2098T and NA2133T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6221. The opposed serrated barb motif combined with a rectilinear interlocking
ix
scroll on Coconino Buff Ware sherds from NA2133T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6322. Generalized diagram and profile of a Gila shouldered jar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6523. Various line forms on Sacaton Red-on-buff sherds from NA2098T and
NA2133T — jagged and straight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6924. Sacaton Red-on-buff sherds from NA2098T and NA2133T with different
forms of hatching — herringbone and uncapped . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7125. Sacaton Red-on-buff sherds with hatching capped with jagged lines
used in a variant of the opposed serrated barb motif . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7226. Two Hohokam Buff Ware jar rim sherds, most likely from the same
vessel, from NA2098T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7327. Triangular solid elements on sherds with Black Mesa style from
NA2098T and NA2133T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8028. Other solid elements on sherds with Black Mesa style from NA2098T
and NA2133T — squares, diamonds, and stepped frets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8129. Solid elements flagged onto the end of lines on sherds with Black Mesa
style from NA2098T and NA2133T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8230. Various checkerboard layouts of squares, diamonds, parallelograms, and
triangles on sherds with Black Mesa style from NA2098T and NA2133T . . . . . . . 8331. Solid elements translated and appended into bands on sherds with
Black Mesa style from NA2098T and NA2133T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8432. Bands of solid elements used to define negative designs on sherds with
Black Mesa style from NA2098T and NA2133T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8533. Panels of thin parallel lines on sherds with Black Mesa style from
NA2098T and NA2133T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8734. Curvilinear interlocking scrolls on sherds with Black Mesa style from
NA2098T and NA2133T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8835. Pendant dots on solid elements on sherds with Black Mesa style from
NA2098T and NA2133T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8936. Pendant dots on lines on sherds with Black Mesa style from
NA2098T and NA2133T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9037. Sosi A style sherds from NA21098T and NA2133T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9138. Sosi B style sherds from NA21098T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9239. Repeated band layout on Sosi B style sherds from NA21098T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9340. Broadline style sherds from NA2098T and NA2133T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9441. Flagstaff style sherds from NA2098T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9642. Dogoszhi style sherds from NA2098T and NA2133T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9743. Gallup Black-on-white sherds from NA2098T and NA2133T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9844. Comparison of the frequency of line and solid element width modes of
the Coconino Buff Ware and White Wares from NA2098T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10345. Comparison of the frequency of line and solid element width modes of
the Coconino Buff Ware and White Wares from NA2133T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10446. Comparison of the frequency of line and solid element width modes of the
Coconino Buff Ware and White Wares from both NA2098T and NA2133T . . . . . . 10547. Comparison of the frequency of line and solid element width modes of the
Coconino and Hohokam Buff Wares from NA2098T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10648. Comparison of the frequency of line and solid element width modes of the
Coconino and Hohokam Buff Wares from both NA2098T and NA2133T . . . . . . . . 107
x
49. Comparison of the frequency of line and solid element spacing modesof the Coconino Buff Ware and White Wares from NA2098T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
50. Comparison of the frequency of line and solid element spacing modesof the Coconino Buff Ware and White Wares from NA2133T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
51. Comparison of the frequency of line and solid element spacingmodes of the Coconino Buff Ware and White Wares from bothNA2098T and NA2133T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
52. Comparison of the frequency of line and solid element spacingmodes of the Coconino and Hohokam Buff Wares from NA2098T . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
53. Comparison of the frequency of line and solid element spacingmodes of the Coconino and HohokamBuff Wares from both NA2098Tand NA2133T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
54. Comparison of line width and spacing on White Ware and CoconinoBuff Ware sherds from NA2098T and NA2133T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
55. Comparison of line width and spacing on White Ware and CoconinoBuff Ware sherds from NA2098T and NA2133T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
56. Comparison of the opposed serrated barb motif on Sosi style, Flagstaffstyle, and Coconino Buff Ware sherds from NA2098T, showing thedifference in element size and spacing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
57. Comparison of the opposed serrated barb motif on Sosi style, Flagstaffstyle, and Coconino Buff Ware sherds from NA2098T and NA2133T,showing the difference in element size and spacing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
58. Comparison of the opposed serrated barb motif on Sosi style, Flagstaffstyle, and Coconino Buff Ware sherds from NA2098T, showing thedifference in element size and spacing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
59. Comparison of the frequency of use of the opposed serrated barbmotif in Coconino Buff Ware, Hohokam Buff Ware, and White Waresfrom NA2098T and NA2133T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
60. Coconino Buff Ware sherds with independent dots inside of gridsfrom NA2133T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
61. Coconino Red-on-buff jar from NA2133A. Note the use of a griddedpanel with independent dots on the left side, about midway betweenthe rim and shoulder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
62. Coconino Buff Ware sherds and a Sacaton Red-on-buff sherd from NA2098Twith nearly identical use of hatching between parallel jagged lines . . . . . . . . . . . 124
63. A Coconino Buff Ware sherd from NA2133T and a Sacaton Red-on-buffsherd from NA2098T with nearly identical use of singly capped hatchingopposing a barbed line in a variation on the opposed serrated barb motif . . . . . . 125
64. Schema of layouts used on Buff and White Ware pottery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12665. Physiographic provinces and features of the Southwest with
modern cities and archaeological sites that will be discussed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13166. Map of the distribution of Hohokam-style ballcourts in the Flagstaff area . . . . . 13367. Hohokam-style pithouses found at sites in the Flagstaff area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13468. Plan map of the Piper Site, NA4266 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Southwestern archaeologists have long been intrigued by cultural
interaction and population movement, and various theoretical perspectives
have given different weight to these processes in the development of
prehistoric cultural systems. In the Flagstaff area, issues of cultural
interaction and population movement are central to interpretations of
prehistoric culture history. Disagreement exists over whether Coconino Buff
Ware, a decorated pottery ware of the Flagstaff area, derived its design from
Hohokam or Ancestral Pueblo decorative traditions. Previous assessments
have been based upon subjective impressions, rather than systematic
comparative analyses of the pottery types in question. I seek to resolve this
question about Coconino Buff Ware and provide new insights into the
interactions between populations of the Sonoran Desert lowlands and those
of the Colorado Plateau highlands.
First, in Chapter 2, I will outline the historical and theoretical
background of the problem, describing archaeological approaches to culture
in the Southwest, especially the Flagstaff area, and the previous research on
and interpretations of Coconino Buff Ware. In Chapter 3, I will then describe
2
the sites and contexts from which I have selected samples of red-on-buff and
black-on-white pottery for comparative analysis. Chapter 4 is a discussion of
archaeological approaches to analyzing pottery in which I will outline a
model of style that recognizes both a conscious level that reflects active intent
and an unconscious level that reflects learned motor habits. Chapters 5 and 6
will provide descriptions and illustrations of the pottery wares and types in
question, first the buff wares and then the white wares. In Chapter 7, I will
use measurements of element width and spacing, and of element and motif
use, to statistically characterize the samples of pottery. Using this
information, I will present a comparative analysis of the wares and types in
question. In Chapter 8, I will discuss these findings in relation to ideas about
migration, ritual, ethnicity, and exchange. I will propose a new model of
population interaction between the Colorado Plateau and Sonoran Desert
that incorporates ideas of agency and identity. This thesis is an initial
exploration of the topic, and in conclusion, I will outline future research
directions.
3
CHAPTER 2
HISTORICAL AND THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
ARCHAEOLOGICAL CULTURES AND THE INTERPRETATION OF THE PAST
Archaeologists interpret past human behavior through the analysis of
the material remains of past activities — including houses and other
structures and constructions; tools, utensils, and implements; trash and
refuse; and interments of the dead and their associated offerings. By
analyzing patterns of these material remains through time and space,
archaeologists have traditionally defined “Cultures” (Gladwin and Gladwin
1934; McKern 1939). While seemingly straightforward, this trait-oriented
approach reduces and simplifies the dynamics of past human behavior to
static material culture distributions.
The nuances of the meaning of culture in anthropology have been
vigorously debated (Alexander and Seidman 1990), but it has been generally
accepted that in small-scale societies culture is the behaviors and practices
that are learned, shared, and transmitted within localized communities. The
behavior and practices that anthropologists studying living cultures have
often focused on have been kinship, language, and social, economic, and
ritual organization. While cultural anthropologists have conducted their
4
research by observing living people, archaeologists must study material
objects. However, archaeologists, as anthropologists, are interested in the
cultural practices and developments that contributed to the archaeological
record. The patterning of material remains serves as a proxy to address
questions about past cultures.
As archaeology transformed itself from a hobby into a discipline at the
turn of the century, changing from the mere collection of antiquities to the
scientific investigation of the past, the idea that archaeological cultures could
be discerned from patterning of material cultures became an important
analytic tool. Archaeologists grappled with the definition of spatial and
temporal patterns in the archaeological record, creating regional historical
sequences of cultural development. This period of archaeological thought and
practice has been called culture-historical archaeology (Trigger 1989:148-
206).
In the Southwestern United States these developments were
spearheaded by Alfred Vincent Kidder with his excavations on the Pajarito
Plateau and at Pecos Pueblo (Givens 1992). The definition of the
Basketmaker-Pueblo, or Anasazi1, cultural sequence for the Colorado Plateau
and upper Rio Grande Valley at the first Pecos Conference (Kidder 1927)
spurred culture-historical investigations in other regions of the Southwest
and the development of regional cultural sequences. These initial attempts
were eventually refined and elaborated to form boundaries of the major
5
“cultures” in the Southwest (Figure 1). During these exciting early forays into
the uncharted past, privately endowed archaeological research foundations,
and the dynamic individuals at their helms, conducted much of the fieldwork,
laboratory analysis, and publication.
Exemplifying these trends, in 1924 a wealthy retired broker and
investor from New York, Harold S. Gladwin, was introduced to Southwestern
archaeology on a trip with Kidder to the Hopi country. After a brief
association with the Southwest Museum in Los Angeles, in 1927, Gladwin
moved to Globe, Arizona. The next year he established the Gila Pueblo
Archaeological Foundation in a reconstructed Salado pueblo in Six-Shooter
Canyon (Haury 1988). Researchers from Gila Pueblo recognized that the
Basketmaker-Pueblo sequence was not a valid model for the prehistory of the
entire Southwest. It did not fit the greater regional diversity in material
culture discovered in the Sonoran Desert and the central highlands below the
Mogollon Rim. Gila Pueblo archaeologists were instrumental in the definition
of the Hohokam culture of the Sonoran Desert (Gladwin and Gladwin 1929a,
1929b, 1930a, 1935) and the Mogollon culture of the central highlands
(Haury 1936).
Another of the independently wealthy Southwestern archaeological
scholars was Harold S. Colton, a professor of Zoology at the University of
Pennsylvania. Piqued by his son’s questions about ceramic artifacts found
Figure 1 - Idealized distribution of prehistoric cultures of the American Southwest. Areas in orange represent distinct subcultures of Ancestral Pueblo.
Hohokam
Mogollon
Chaco
Sinagua
Kayenta
MesaVerde
Virgin
Patayan
LittleColorado
Cibola
RioGrandeCoho-
nina
Mimbres
6
Salado
Prescott
N
Kilometers0 200
7
while picnicking in the Flagstaff area in 1916, Colton began a life-long
research program into the archaeology of the Colorado Plateau. After
inheriting a substantial estate upon the death of his father, Colton retired
from teaching actively and moved to Flagstaff in 1926. He was instrumental
in the 1928 establishment of the Museum of Northern Arizona (MNA) in
Flagstaff, and became the institution’s first director. Colton’s initial research
focused upon small sites that had been neglected by previous researchers who
had emphasized collecting artifacts from larger sites (Downum 1988:66-78,
96-100; Miller 1991). Following this approach, MNA researchers investigated
the culture history of lesser known areas in northern and western Arizona,
identifying similarities with and differences from the cultures of adjacent
areas. These investigations led to definitions of the Sinagua (Colton 1939,
1946), Patayan (Colton 1939, 1945), and Cohonina (Hargrave 1938; Colton
1939; McGregor 1951) cultures.
Of these Southwestern archaeological cultures, the Sinagua, Hohokam,
and Ancestral Pueblo are most relevant to this research topic. Architecture,
mortuary treatment, and pottery technology are the material culture
elements that most distinguish these three cultures. These distinctive
elements apparently evolved over the course of millennia. Highly mobile
populations of Paleoindian big game hunters that entered the Southwest at
the end of the Pleistocene (Haynes 1980; Kelly and Todd 1988) developed
through time into more regionally distinctive, yet adaptively similar,
8
populations of Archaic foragers (Jennings 1964; Irwin-Williams 1967, 1973).
These foragers adopted maize agriculture between 1000 and 500 B.C., with
the rapid diffusion of maize agriculture possibly assisted by population
growth and movement (Berry 1982; Berry and Berry 1986; Matson 1991). The
adoption of maize agriculture by archaic foragers, coupled with a more
sedentary settlement pattern, led to greater cultural divergence and the
development of the Sinagua, Hohokam, and Ancestral Pueblo as distinctive
cultures (Figure 2).
The origins of the Ancestral Pueblo sequence appear with the
Basketmaker periods during which agriculture and pottery making were
either integrated into an indigenous Archaic foraging culture, introduced by
migrants from the southern deserts, or some combination of the two
processes (Berry 1982; Matson 1991). Greater sedentism was accompanied by
changes in architecture, from slab-lined pit houses to above ground
structures, first of jacal and later of masonry. Pit structures underwent a
transformation from primarily domestic dwellings to ritual facilities, or
kivas, with formalized features. Flexed inhumation characterized mortuary
treatment. Pottery technology provides the main point of distinction between
the various subgroups of Ancestral Pueblo, but they all shared a pottery
tradition of vessels finished by scraping and fired in a reducing atmosphere.
Prior to the Pueblo IV period, black-on-white decorated wares and corrugated
gray utility
Figure 2 - Culture-historical phase sequences for the Ancestral Pueblo, Sinagua, and Hohokam cultures.
200 BC
100
AD/BC
100
300
400
500
600
700
900
1000
800
1100
1200
1300
AD 1400
200Basketmaker II
Basketmaker III
Pueblo I
Pueblo II
Pueblo III
Pueblo IV
Ancestral Pueblo Northern Sinagua Southern Hohokam
Tuzigoot
Honanki
Camp Verde
Cloverleaf
Hackberry
Squaw Peak
Archaic
Turkey Hill
Elden
Clear Creek
Angell, Winona, Padre
Rio de Flag
Sunset
Cinder Park
Archaic
200 BC
100 AD/BC
100
300
400
500
600
700
900
1000
800
1100
1200
1300
AD 1400
200
Lipe (1992:2) Downum (1992) Pilles (1996:62) Dean (1991)
Archaic
Archaic
Cla
ssic
Pre
-Cla
ssic
Vahki
Civano
Soho
Sacaton
Santa Cruz
Gila Butte
Snaketown
Sweetwater
Estrella
Se
de
nta
ryC
olo
nia
lP
ioneer
9
10
wares characterized the Ancestral Pueblo pottery tradition region-wide
(Kidder 1924, 1962; Gumerman 1988; Cordell 1994).
The Hohokam of the pre-Classic period constructed pit houses as well,
but with a different method of construction. Ancestral Pueblo pit houses were
truly “pit” houses, because the walls of the pit formed the walls of the
dwelling. In contrast, Hohokam pit houses were not as deeply excavated and
actually were “houses-in-pits,” for the walls were built up from the bottom of
the pit (Haury 1976:72; Howard 1988:77). During the Classic period, the
Hohokam added adobe buildings and compounds to their architectural
repertoire. Pre-Classic communal architecture included both elliptical-shaped
ballcourts and formally constructed trash mounds. During the Classic, these
trash mounds developed into large adobe platform mounds, some with
structures on top. Some of the trash mounds of the pre-Classic may have
been related to cremation or mourning rituals (Haury 1976:171; McGuire
1992a). During the pre-Classic, cremation was the preferred form of
mortuary treatment, although that was largely supplanted by extended
inhumations in the Classic period. The Hohokam sequence of periods reflects
initial interpretations (Gladwin et al. 1937) of the Hohokam as Mexican
immigrants who pioneered, colonized, and settled in southern Arizona. In
contrast with Ancestral Pueblo potters, the Hohokam potters used the
paddle-and-anvil method of finishing and fired in an oxidizing atmosphere,
11
producing red-on-buff decorated wares and both plain and red-slipped utility
wares (Haury 1976).
The Sinagua shared aspects of this pottery technology with the
Hohokam, producing a plain brown utilitarian pottery, Alameda Brown
Ware, using paddle-and-anvil finishing and an oxidizing firing atmosphere.
The preferred form of mortuary treatment was extended inhumation,
although, during the Winona focus, cremation was practiced. Small clusters
of deeply excavated pit houses characterized the early phases, gradually
shifting to larger pithouse villages, and then to masonry pueblos beginning in
the Elden phase. A variety of ritual facilities have been documented for the
Sinagua, including ballcourts and kiva-like structures. The Sinagua culture
has been divided into two regional branches — the Northern Sinagua of the
Flagstaff area and the Southern Sinagua of the Verde Valley (Colton 1946;
Downum 1992; Pilles 1981, 1996).
The eruption of Sunset Crater in A.D. 1064-1065 played an important
role in Northern Sinagua cultural development. Great changes in local
settlement patterns, accompanied by an apparent increase in agricultural
production and growth of population, occurred after the eruption. MNA
researchers identified what they believed to be evidence of immigration into
the Flagstaff region by Hohokam and Mogollon peoples at Winona Village
(McGregor 1937:46-50; Colton 1938; McGregor 1941:274-286; Colton
1946:270). The cultural units these researchers developed reflect these
12
notions. They believed that the Winona focus represented Hohokam
immigrants, the contemporaneous Angell focus represented Mogollon
immigrants and indigenous Sinagua populations, and the succeeding Padre
focus represented a fusion of the immigrants and local peoples (Wilcox
1986:21-24; Downum1988:173-175).
As noted on Figure 1 with the subdivisons of Ancestral Pueblo, these
archaeological cultures have internal variability, both in space and in time.
The Southern Sinagua are an excellent example. The occupational sequence
of the middle Verde Valley envisioned by Breternitz (1960) has an earlier
Hohokam population with a lowland settlement pattern replaced in the
Honanki phase by a Sinagua population living in the uplands. Recent
interpretations of the Hohokam (Wilcox and Shenk 1977; Wilcox 1979; Wilcox
and Sternberg 1983; McGuire 1991) have used a model of core-periphery
relations, calling it a regional system rather than a culture. This model notes
and attempts explain the internal variability in terms of differential
participation by populations of peripheral areas in a social, ritual, and
economic organizational network centered in the core of the Salt-Gila basin.
This processual approach rejected earlier ideas of ethnicity and culture,
focusing on systems of exchange and adaptation. Whittlesey (1998) has
recently “unpacked” interpretations and models of Hohokam culture, seeking
to expand upon the regional system idea by reintroducing the idea of
13
ethnicity and emphasizing an understanding of cultural, rather than simply
adaptive, processes.
While Figure 1 may make these cultures appear as distinct buffered
entities, gray areas of overlap exist and the archaeological record is better
known in some areas, leaving gaps that are often filled with assumptions and
presumptions. Not all cultural developments and manifestations were
contemporaneous. Thus these prehistoric culture units that archaeologists
define and discuss are idealized heuristic constructs that might in some cases
approximate true sociocultural groups, but cannot truly describe the breadth
of variability in language and culture nor the dynamics of change. Speth
(1988) has argued that these labels have no real meaning without
understanding the cultural bases for the material culture variability they
describe. These heuristic constructs of cultures with periods and phases
partition and compartmentalize space and time on a material basis, and this
may sometimes obscure the social processes that archaeologists, as
anthropologists, seek to understand: how social identities are established and
negotiated by individuals and groups.
RED-ON-BUFF AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL CULTURES IN THE FLAGSTAFF AREA
Under Harold Colton’s directorship, MNA undertook an ambitious
research program to develop cultural historical sequences for the Flagstaff
area. This research program emphasized the role of Sunset Crater’s eruption
14
and inter-regional interaction on cultural development in the Flagstaff area,
was informed and guided by the developing science of dendrochronology, and
was highly dependent upon ceramic classification (Downum 1988:140-201).
Turkey Tanks Pithouses (NA2098) was one site excavated by MNA in the
summer of 1932 as part of MNA’s quest for datable tree-ring specimens for
chronology construction (Hargrave 1932b; McGregor 1941:287-295; Downum
1988: 117-121). NA2098 was selected “because of the large trash mound, one
of the very few noticed at that time in the area about Flagstaff, and the
presence of red-on-buff sherds” (McGregor 1941:287, 290). Although no
datable wood specimens were recovered, the excavations confirmed surface
evidence of the presence north of the Mogollon rim of several
characteristically Hohokam traits: red-on-buff pottery (both imported and
locally produced), Gila shouldered jars, formal trash mounds, and cremation
burials. Lyndon Hargrave (1932b:28), an MNA assistant in charge of
excavations, hailed this evidence as indicative of Hohokam migration into the
area.
Similar surface indications led MNA to conduct excavations at nearby
Winona Village, a site with individually numbered clusters of pit depressions
with associated trash mounds (NA2131, NA2133, NA2134, NA2135, and
NA3644). The project began as a joint project between MNA and Arizona
State Teacher’s College at Flagstaff, with field seasons in 1936 and 1937. The
excavations were completed as a Works Progress Administration project
15
directed by MNA from 1938 to 1939 (McGregor 1937a, 1937b, 1941;
McGregor and Wetherill 1938; Colton 1946:180-202, 222-236; Downum
1988:130-131, 134-135). These excavations revealed more locally produced
red-on-buff pottery and even more Hohokam traits: a ballcourt (NA2132), a
Hohokam style pit house (NA2133A, see Haury 1976:53-57), and 45
cremation burials.
In their Handbook of Northern Arizona Pottery Wares, Colton and
Hargrave (1937:178-183) defined these locally produced red-on-buff sherds as
Coconino Buff Ware. Generally, the taxonomic system used by Colton and
Hargrave defines ceramic wares on the basis of manufacturing technology —
forming techniques, paste and temper composition, and firing atmosphere.
The classification then divides wares into types based on stylistic differences
in decorative treatment. The local production of Coconino Buff Ware was
determined by the presence of local volcanic tuff or cinders used as temper
added to the clay to affect the clay’s plasticity, reducing shrinkage during
drying. Presence or absence of a buff-colored slip distinguishes the Coconino
Buff Ware's two decorated types: Coconino Red-on-buff (slipped) and Winona
Red-on-buff (unslipped). Each type has two varieties differentiated by
temper: 1) tuff, or 2) cinder. In the type description, characterizations of the
design styles and vessel forms are vague, but McGregor (1941:46, 283)
described them as copies of Hohokam pottery.
16
In the emerging model of cultural boundaries and interaction, Colton
(1938; 1946:270, 311; 1960:9-12, 44; Downum 1988:171-189, 267-269) used
the evidence from Winona Village and Turkey Tanks to support a model of
large scale migration into the Flagstaff region by diverse ethnic groups,
including the Hohokam. Colton hypothesized these migrations to have begun
after A.D. 1064 in response to the eruption of Sunset Crater. The ash fall from
the volcanic eruption was believed to have increased the agricultural
potential of the region because of its moisture retaining capacity. Colton
believed this to have promoted a prehistoric land rush to capitalize upon the
enhanced agricultural possibilities. Probably colored by these conclusions,
Colton classified the Coconino Buff Ware types as Hohokam Buff Wares in
his book The Sinagua (1946:endpiece). The agricultural benefits of the ash
fall were believed to have been short lived, and as the ash blew away, conflict
led to aggregation into the larger Pueblos of the later phases of the Sinagua
sequence.
As regional historical sequences of cultural development became well
established, the culture-historical approach fell from favor. Walter Taylor
(1948) criticized culture-history’s focus on material culture and its spatial
and temporal distribution as sterile description lacking explanatory goals.
This critique and a growing optimism about the interpretive potential of
material culture inspired new generation of archaeologists. Rather than
viewing archaeological cultures as clusters of traits, the new archaeologists
17
viewed them as systems that articulated with environments via processes of
adaptation (Trigger 1989:294-319; Pinsky 1992). In the Southwest, the
processual school of archaeology has primarily focused on social organization,
economic exchange, and environmental adaption (e.g. Longacre 1970; Earle
and Erickson 1977; Gumerman 1988). In the process, ideas of migration,
culture history, and historical contingency were dismissed in favor of
adaptive studies.
The research of John Wilson of Harvard University introduced
processual studies to Flagstaff area archaeology in the 1960s (Downum
1988:274-278). After surveying an area on Anderson Mesa southeast of
Flagstaff, Wilson (1969) questioned Colton=s Ablack sand@ hypothesis, arguing
that the same processes of agricultural extensification and population
aggregation occurred at the same time in areas without any significant ash
fall. He also questioned the cultural significance of the constellation of traits
called Sinagua, not accepting Colton=s (1939:5) use of the term Atribe@ in
association with the Sinagua. Wilson=s challenge to the Colton model of
Flagstaff prehistory spurred further questions about Colton=s assumptions
about population increase, climate change, and migration.
In this new theoretical vein, Peter Pilles of the Coconino National
Forest and others have challenged Colton=s land rush model (Pilles 1978,
1979; Fish et al. 1980). Pilles has discounted the possibility of a Hohokam
migration, seeing the Hohokam traits as too few and too isolated to represent
18
large-scale population movement. He has proposed an alternative model of
Hohokam influence in the Flagstaff area involving the development of
formalized exchange relations between the two regions (Pilles 1979:472; Fish
et al. 1980:169-174; Downum 1988:287-290). The ballcourt communities may
have been loci for these exchange relations, possibly occupied by resident
Hohokam traders. As part of this challenge, Pilles has asserted that the
designs on Coconino Buff Ware are actually “identical to [the local white ware
design styles] Flagstaff or Walnut Black-on-whites” (Pilles 1979:472; Fish et
al. 1980:164). Pilles questions Coconino Buff Ware's connection to Hohokam
pottery, although possible “inspiration” is allowed.
These assessments of Coconino Buff Ware designs by Colton,
McGregor, and Pilles appear to be based upon subjective impressions. Prior
stylistic analyses have been limited to observations based on the presence or
absence of certain elements. None of the researchers has performed a
methodical comparative analysis of the design styles in question: Coconino,
Winona, and Sacaton Red-on-buffs (Figure3); and Black Mesa, Holbrook
(varieties A and B), Sosi, Walnut, and Flagstaff Black-on-whites (Figure 4).
Formal stylistic comparisons of these types could resolve some of the
questions regarding the genesis of the decorative designs on Coconino Buff
Ware. The association of these decorated types with either the Hohokam
decorative tradition or the Ancestral Pueblo decorative tradition affects
A B
C
19
0 5
Centimeters
Figure 3 - The Red-on-Buff types in question: A) Coconino Red-on-buff,B) Winona Red-on-buff, and C) Sacaton Red-on-buff. All sherds fromNA2098T.
A B
C
Figure 4 - The analogous Black-on-White types in question: A) BlackMesa/Holbrook A Black-on-White, B) Sosi/Holbrook B Black-on-White,and C) Flagstaff/Walnut Black-on-White. All sherds from NA2098T.
20
0 5
Centimeters
21
interpretations of the interaction between populations on the Colorado
Plateau and those in the Sonoran Desert.
While the focus of this thesis will be on a stylistic comparison of the
decorated types in question, other evidence about pottery technology will be
used to support assertions made based on the stylistic analyses. These
interpretations of the pottery will be combined with an analysis of other
traits of material culture — including architecture and mortuary practices —
and interpreted in a framework that considers the roles of migration, inter-
regional exchange, communal ritual, and cultural emulation in the
establishment of social and ethnic identity.
22
CHAPTER 3
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITES
Only 22 sites with Coconino Buff Wares are known by the author to
have been recorded in the Flagstaff area (McGregor 1941; Colton 1946; Smith
1952; Wendorf et al. 1956; Kelly 1969; Pilles 1969; Wilson 1969; Hudgens
1974; Fish et al. 1980; Wilcox 1986; Bradley et al. 1993; Kamp and Whittaker
1998; personal observations of the MNA Ceramic Type Collection 1997). The
distribution of the Coconino Buff Wares is restricted to the area east of the
San Francisco Peaks (Figure 5). Two of these sites, Turkey Tanks Pithouses
and the NA2133 cluster at Winona Village, were chosen for analysis. The
sites were selected for three reasons : 1) published sherds counts (Colton
1946:179, 186-187) indicated that these sites had significant quantities of
Coconino Buff Ware, 2) Turkey Tanks Pithouses is the type site for the
Coconino Buff Wares, and 3) Winona Village provided critical evidence for
Colton’s hypothesized Hohokam migration.
TURKEY TANKS PITHOUSES
Turkey Tanks Pithouses (NA2098) is located on the south side of San
Francisco Wash in a pinyon-juniper woodland at an elevation of 1,950 meters.
Padre
Canyon
Youngs Canyon
Walnut Canyon
Rio de
Flag
SanFrancisco Wash
Deadman
Wash
Sites with Coconino Buff Ware
1
2 3
4
56
79
10
11
12
14
18
19
21 20
17
16 15
Little
Colorad
oRiver
22
Figure 5 - Known archaeological sites in the Flagstaff Area with CoconinoBuff Ware. The Pershing Site, NA7207, is off the map, approximately 33km southeast of Winona Village.
23
1 - Turkey Tanks Pithouses, NA20982 - Winona Village, NA2133, NA2134, NA2135, and NA36443 - Ridge Ruin, NA1785, NA3673, NA3679, and NA39794 - Red Bead Pueblo, NA85075 - NA98816 - NA85297 - NA98148 - Lizard Man Village, NA179579 - NA872310 - Piper Site, NA426611 - NA1080612 - NA1079213 - NA1079314 - NA426415 - AZ I:10:5716 - AZ I:11:6 17 - AR-03-04-02-124318 - McCormack Springs, NA586619 - AZ I:10:120 20 - Three Courts Pueblo, NA61821 - NA68022 - Pershing Site, NA7207 (off map)
8
13
DeadmanMesa
SunsetCrater
SanFranciscoPeaks
EldenMountain
SP Crater
250
Kilometers
N
24
Excavated by Lyndon Hargrave of MNA in 1932 (Hargrave 1932b; McGregor
1941:287-295; Colton 1946:176-180), the site consists of two excavated pit
structures (NA2098A and NA2098B), an excavated trash mound (NA2098T),
an unexcavated trash mound, and an excavated cremation area (Figure 6).
While one of the purposes of the MNA fieldwork that summer was to
secure wood specimens for dendrochronological dating (Hargrave 1932b:25),
none was recovered at NA2098. In spite of this, Hargrave (1932b:27) termed
the excavations as “The most important of the season.” This site had been
selected because of the surface presence of Red-on-Buff pottery and Gila
shoulder vessel forms and the desire to investigate “Hohokam contact to
Pueblo II” (Hargrave 1932b:27). The recovery of both imported and locally
produced Red-on-Buff, cremation burials, and a trash mound was considered
evidence “indicating a migration of Hohokam peoples to this region”
(Hargrave 1932b:28).
All ceramic types have a “type site,” the provenience from which the
first described examples were collected. Turkey Tanks Pithouses is type site
for the Coconino Buff Ware types. The only excavated feature at the Turkey
Tanks Pithouses that yielded Red-on-Buff pottery was the trash mound
NA2098T. This trash mound was completely excavated after having first a
central block and then five radial trenches excavated. Other than a sketch of
the excavation units, no notes or photographs exist in the MNA site files or
photo archives about the excavation of this feature, preventing any detailed
Figure 6 - Plan view map of Turkey Tanks Pithouses, NA 2098.
NA2098T
cremationarea
unexcavatedtrashmound
Turkey Tanks Pithouses
N
0 10Meters
After McGregor (1941)and MNA site file
25
NA2098A
NA2098B
26
analysis of the stratigraphy which could allow interpretations about the
construction of the trash mound. A smaller trash mound to the south was left
unexcavated. North of NA2098T was a cremation area which contained three
cremation trenches with burned bones and two secondary interments of
ceramic vessels filled with burned bones (McGregor 1941:294-295).
Colton (1946:178) claimed that one of the pit houses, NA2098B (Figure
7), exhibited “Hohokam influence.” McGregor (1941:288) described it as “one
of the first structures in this region thought to have been Hohokam,” on the
basis of the posthole pattern and the shallow excavation (McGregor
1941:291). However, there was no evidence of posts to indicate support of a
central gable, and the lining of portions of the wall with basalt slabs is not a
typical Hohokam construction technique. But the masonry could be additive,
related to post-construction renovation of the structure. The other pit house,
NA2098A, was a deeper masonry lined structure that had been later
subdivided with an interior wall.
Colton’s (1946:180) counts of the plain wares from the analyzed lots2
from NA2098T indicate an assemblage dominated by Alameda Brown Ware
(82% of all plainware sherds counted). This high frequency of Alameda Brown
Ware at NA2098T indicates Sinagua cultural affiliation (Colton 1946). The
lesser frequencies of Tusayan Gray Ware (12%) and San Francisco Mountain
Gray Ware (5%) probably indicate exchange relations with the Kayenta and
27
0 2Meters
NA2098BAfter McGregor (1941:288)
NMasonry
Posthole
Hearth
Cist
Figure 7 - Plan view map of NA2098B.
28
Cohonina. In addition to Coconino Buff Wares, the decorated pottery
assemblage includes (Colton 1946:179) Little Colorado and Tusayan White
Wares, Tsegi Orange Wares, San Francisco Mountain Gray Ware, and
Hohokam Buff Ware, indicating probable exchange relations with the
Kayenta and Winslow Anasazi, the Cohonina, and the Hohokam.
Hargrave also recovered shell jewelry of various forms and made from
several species. Although McGregor (1941:293) does not report what features
these artifacts were excavated from, they include a bilobed bead (no species),
an Olivella sp. bead, three whole Glycymeris sp. bracelets, eight fragments of
Glycymeris sp. bracelets, one Haliotis sp. pendant, and one Turritella sp.
pendant. The presence of these shell artifacts, especially those of Glycymeris
sp. and Turritella sp. from the Gulf of California (McGregor 1941:215),
provides further evidence of probable exchange relations with the Hohokam,
who are believed to have controlled the flow of shell from the Gulf of
California into the northern Southwest (McGuire 1985; McGuire and Howard
1987; McGuire 1992b).
WINONA VILLAGE
From 1936 to 1939, McGregor led MNA excavations at Winona Village,
a large grouping of pit houses and trash mounds with a ballcourt (Figure 8).
Winona Village is located in a pinyon-juniper woodland four kilometers south
of Turkey Tanks Pithouses at an elevation of 1,930 meters. In addition to the
NA
21
32
Ba
llco
urt
Mete
rs
N
Un
exca
va
ted
pit s
tru
ctu
res
Tra
sh
mo
un
ds
Cre
ma
tio
na
rea
sE
xca
va
ted
or
teste
ds t
ructu
res
Bo
un
da
rie
s o
f N
A#
Fe
atu
re D
esig
na
tio
ns
C
on
tou
r in
terv
al 3
m
Win
on
a V
illa
ge
NA
2131, N
A2132, N
A2133, N
A 2
134, N
A2135, and N
A3644
After
McG
regor
(1937, 1941)
and D
ougla
ss (
1987)
NA
21
31
XA
K
A
E
TX
C
B
AD
NA
21
35
NA
21
33
A
C
B D
T
HI
F GX
E
NA
36
44
AB
K
C
JD
I
QH
PR M
L
O
NA
21
34
250
0
Fig
ure
8 -
Pla
n m
ap
of
Win
on
a V
illa
ge.
29
30
ballcourt (NA2132), five individually numbered clusters of features were
identified — NA2131, NA2133, NA2134, and NA3644. Tree-ring dates from
structures at Winona Village indicate an occupation span from around A.D.
1080 to 1120 (Robinson et al. 1975:88-91; Wilcox 1986:21-24)
At NA2131, one pit house (K) and a three room masonry pueblo (A)
were excavated, and a trash mound (T) was trenched and tested. At NA2133,
five pit houses (A, B, C, D, G) were excavated, a trash mound (T) was
trenched and tested, four pit depressions (E, F, H, I) were tested, and a
cremation area (X) was tested. At NA2134, two pit houses (A, E) were
excavated, a cremation area (X) with 24 interments was excavated, and a
trash mound (T) was trenched. At NA2135 three pit houses (A, B, C) were
excavated and one pit depression (D) was tested. At NA3644, nine pit houses
(A, C, H, J, K, L, M, P, Q) were excavated, three trash mounds (D, I, O) were
trenched, one trash mound (B) was trenched and tested, and one pit
depression (R) was tested. Two pit houses had complex histories of
construction and renovation. The excavation of NA2134E revealed two floor
plans and that of NA3644Q revealed three.
Located in the center of the site, the NA2133 cluster can be divided
into two distinct groups of features — 1) pit houses A, B, C, and D, and trash
mound T, and 2) pit house G and tested features E, F, H, I, and X. The first
group is situated on top of a low ridge with a commanding view of the rest of
the site. Within this group is the feature with the greatest frequency of red-
31
on-buff pottery according to published sherd counts for Winona Village
(Colton 1946). The pit house NA2133A was reported to have Coconino Red-
on-buff comprising 35% of the decorated sherd assemblage (Colton 1946:186).
A large Winona Red-on-buff jar bearing a Gila shoulder (Figure 9) was found
crushed on the floor and a fragments of two Coconino Red-on-buff heavy
walled were found inside the doorway (Figure 10). The structure had been
burned with a rich floor assemblage. While McGregor lists 22 vessels
(1941:92), the MNA artifact catalog has 25 vessels or fragmentary vessels
from NA2133A (Downum 1988:428-429). The other decorated vessels, four
Black Mesa Black-on-white bowls and one Tusayan Black-on-red bowl, are of
Kayenta origin. Sinagua cultural affiliation is indicated by the plainware
vessel assemblage, with 14 Alameda Brown Ware vessels (82%). The three
other plainware vessels — a Tusayan Corrugated jar, a Deadmans Fugitive
Red jar, and a Forestdale Red bowl — indicate exchange with the Kayenta,
Cohonina, and Mogollon, respectively.
This pit house (Figure 11) is the type site of the Winona Focus
(McGregor 1941:89), a culture historical unit that was believed to represent
migration of Hohokam peoples to the Flagstaff area (McGregor 1937a;
McGregor 1941:274, 281-283; Colton 1946:270). It shares many structural
similarities with Hohokam house-in-pit construction methods, in fact it
seems typical of Haury’s Sacaton phase type S-1 house (Haury 1976:53-57;
Figure 12). It was built in a shallow pit with rounded corners. Postholes
Figu
re 9
- C
ocon
ino
Red
-on-
buff
jar
with
a G
ila s
houl
der
from
NA
2133
A (M
NA
cat
alog
num
ber
932/
NA
2133
A.5
1).
05
Cen
timet
ers
Figu
re 1
0 - C
ocon
ino
Red
-on-
buff
heav
y-w
alle
d ve
ssel
, or
cens
er, o
ne o
f tw
osu
ch v
esse
ls fr
om N
A21
33A
(MN
A c
atal
og n
umbe
r 93
2/N
A21
33A
.60)
.
05
Cen
timet
ers
NA2133AAfter McGregor (1941:91)
20Meters
N Posthole
Hearth
Cist
Figure 11 - Plan view map of NA 2133a.
34
35
Figure 12 - Plan view of a Hohokam Sedentary period house type 1.
Hohokam House Type S-1 After Haury (1976:74)
posthole
hearth
36
indicate that posts were used to support a central gable along the wide axis of
the structure and that there were exterior wall posts set in a groove around
the edge of the excavated pit. Presence of the characteristic step in the
entrance way could not be determined because of previous pothunting in that
portion of the structure (McGregor 1941: 90). These structural similarities
with Hohokam pit houses of the Sedentary period were immediately noticed
(McGregor 1941:89). Of the six “Hohokam houses” of the Winona focus
excavated at Winona Village identified by Colton (1946:270) — NA2133A,
NA2133B, NA2133C, NA2134E1, NA2135B, and NA3644Q1 — only
NA2133A, in this author’s opinion, can be securely associated with Hohokam
construction methods.
While no wood specimens amenable to dendrochronological analysis
were recovered from Turkey Tanks Pithouses, numerous samples were
recovered at Winona Village (McGregor 1941:17-19). Because NA2133A had
been burned, it yielded numerous well preserved specimens, including
charred wall posts in their original positions. McGregor (1941:18) reports 15
dates for this structure, Harlan (1962:85-87) lists 28, Breternitz (1966:6)
mentions 52, but claims duplication of original timbers. These duplicates
were eliminated by Robinson (1975:88-90) and Downum (1988:428), who
provide 34 dates, with quality codes (Table 1). The cluster of cutting dates in
1086 indicate that NA2133A was probably built that year (Downum
1988:428), with a possible occupation span of 1086 through 1101.
37
Table 1 - Stem-and-Leaf Plot of Tree-Ring Dates from NA2133A
106 4vv
107 3vv 4vv 4vv 5vv 6vv 6vv 7vv 9vv
108 0vv 0vv 2vv 2vv 3vv 4vv 4+v 4v 4v 5v 5v 5r 6vv 6v 6v 6+r 6r 6r 6r 6r 6rB 6rB 7vv 8vv
109 5vv
+ - one or two rings may be missing near end of the ring seriesvv - sample lacks the attributes of a cutting date; unknown number of exterior rings missingv - considered to be a cutting date by the analyst although it lacks diagnostic attributesr - outer ring is consistent with the arc of the circumference present on the sample; cutting dateB - bark present; cutting dateCutting dates underlined
Robinson et al. (1975:88-89), Downum (1988:428), Dean et al (1996:16)
Great variability in mortuary treatment was practiced at Winona
Village. Of the 67 human burials excavated, 45 (67%) were cremations
(McGregor 1941:262-270). Cremations were excavated from four features, two
formal cremation areas (NA2133X and NA2134X) and from two trash
mounds (NA2134T and NA3644B). Great variability in the treatment of the
cremated remains occurred. Two were left scattered on the surface where the
body had been burned, the remaining 43 were placed in shallow pits — 20 as
secondary interments in ceramic vessels, two in pits covered with bowls, six
in pits covered with large sherds, and 15 in pits with no container or cover.
While those cremations that had been treated as secondary interments had
more offerings, including more vessels and shell and stone jewelry, the
scattered cremation from NA2133X (McGregor 1941:266-267) had five
ceramic vessels, a nose plug (no material given), and burnt turquoise (no
quantity given).
38
The 22 inhumations were excavated from two different contexts
(McGregor 1941:271-273). Most (18) were excavated from within and beneath
trash mounds. The other four were excavated from the fill of three pit houses
(NA2133C, NA2133G, and NA2134E), and one of these was an infant. None
of the inhumations have offerings as numerous or as varied as the greater
endowed cremations, although previous pothunting was noted at the site
(McGregor 1937:42). As noted in Chapter One, extended and flexed
inhumation has been used as cultural marker, distinguishing the Sinagua
culture from the Ancestral Pueblo. Of the burials with information on this
practice (n=18), 72% were extended inhumations, indicating Sinagua cultural
affiliation.
From the first excavations at Winona Village, the abundance of shell
has been noted (McGregor 1937:37). This abundance was not only as finished
jewelry, but also as debitage from the manufacture of shell products and
unworked shell to serve as raw materials (McGregor 1941:214-215). The shell
was analyzed to determine the species present and their geographic origins
(McGregor 1941:215; Wigglesworth 1985), 21 marine and one freshwater
species, as well as land snail shells, were identified. All of the marine species
are from the Pacific, but two different areas of origin can be identified – the
Gulf of California to the south and California’s Pacific coast to the west. One
species is found only on the California coast, six are found in both areas, and
14 species are found only in the Gulf of California. As mentioned before, the
39
Hohokam are believed to have controlled exchange mechanisms that brought
shell from the Gulf of California to the northern Southwest (McGuire 1985;
McGuire and Howard 1987; McGuire 1992b), and the dominance of shell from
this source in the assemblage indicates strong exchange relations with the
Hohokam.
THE TRASH MOUNDS
A trash mound from each of these sites was chosen to select samples of
red-on-buff and black-on-white pottery for comparative analysis. Based on
several lines of evidence (the orientation of houses, the limited range of
temporally sensitive pottery types, tree-ring dates, and the relatively shallow
depth of the mounds), I infer that the red-on-buff and black-on-white sherds
found together in the same trash deposits were in use as vessels during
roughly contemporaneous periods and resulted from the stream of refuse of a
limited number of households. These depositional contexts should allow
chronologically secure comparisons of the different types.
Of the seven trash mounds at Winona Village, Colton (1946) presents
sherds counts for only NA2131T, NA2134T and NA3644B. The first two have
low frequencies of red-on-buff pottery while the last has none reported. Sherd
counts are not published for the trash mound associated with the Hohokam pit
house, nor are any contained in the site file at MNA. However, the presence of
a fragmentary Coconino Red-on-buff heavy walled vessel (Figure 14) from this
05
Cen
timet
ers
Figu
re 1
3 - C
ocon
ino
Red
-on-
buff
heav
y-w
alle
d ve
ssel
, or
cens
er, f
rom
NA
2133
T(M
NA
cat
alog
num
ber
932/
NA
2133
T.10
4).
41
trash mound, the inclusion of 14 red-on-buff sherds from this trash mound in
the MNA ceramic type collection, and the presence of red-on-buff pottery at
three of the four pit houses in close proximity, provided a strong indication
that more red-on-buff could be present in the apparently unanalyzed
collections at MNA. This mound was only trenched and a significant portion of
the resource remains on site for possible future investigation (McGregor
1941:11; personal observations 1997). Based on the tree-ring dates of the
structures nearby, Douglass (1987:410) inferred this trash mound’s period
accumulation to have been from 1072 to 1106.
At Turkey Tanks Pithouses, only one of the trash mounds, NA2098T,
was excavated. After trenching, the remainder of the mound was completely
excavated. This feature was the only excavated feature at the site to yield red-
on-buff pottery. Both locally produced Coconino Buff Wares and imported
Sacaton Red-on-buff sherds were recovered, comprising 9% of the decorated
sherd assemblage according to published counts (Colton 1946:179). Neither
excavated structure yielded datable tree-ring specimens, so the occupation
span of the site, and hence the accumulation period of the mound are difficult
to determine. While the presence of only two structures and a limited number
of human burials indicates a brief occupation, the possible renovations of the
two structures may indicate a longer period of occupation. In any case, the
occupation apparently was brief, perhaps no more than a few decades at most.
42
CHAPTER 4
THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF POTTERY
Pottery is an ubiquitous artifact at most Southwestern archaeological
sites. Its durability assures its preservation. Pottery is also a highly
informative material class of artifact. If culture is defined as behaviors and
practices that are learned, shared, and transmitted, then pottery
manufacture is especially amenable to cultural analysis. Various choices in
how to proceed with the manufacture of ceramic vessels are culturally
determined decisions. Where should clays be procured? What tempering
agent should be added to the clay? How should the vessel be formed and
finished? What shape should it take? How should it be decorated? How
should it be fired? Alternatives could be taken at each stage, each leading to
different results. Pottery contains many clues of distinctive cultural practices
that make it an excellent artifact class to investigate questions of community
and regional social organization (Shepard 1956; Rice 1987; Sinopoli 1991).
CLASSIFICATION OF POTTERY
Beginning with W. H. Holmes (1886), the analysis of pottery has
played a central role in Southwestern archaeology. A system of binomial
43
nomenclature has been developed to describe ceramic variability (Gladwin
and Gladwin 1930; Hargrave 1932a; Colton and Hargrave 1937). This method
of hierarchical taxonomy borrows much from biological classificatory systems
(see esp. Hargrave 1932a). Wares differ based on materials and construction
techniques, while types generally differ based on decorative treatment. Type
names consist of two parts, hence the binomial nomenclature, a geographical
reference and a descriptive term (exs. Black Mesa Black-on-white, Winona
Red-on-buff, Sunset Red, Deadmans Gray).
Southwestern prehistoric pottery has been notably used for
chronometry (McGregor 1938; Breternitz 1966). The association of pottery
with tree-ring samples from multiple locations allows inferences to be made
regarding the production and use periods of particular types. Therefore, in
the absence of tree-ring dates, sites can be dated on the basis of what pottery
types are present or absent. Expanding upon this, several researchers (Colton
1946:248-254; Wilson 1969:Table 20; Downum and Sullivan 1990:11) have
identified groups of co-occurring types that characterize particular time
periods.
While most notably used for chronology construction, ceramic
typologies as heuristic constructions should also be useful for elucidating past
human behavior. Rather than merely describing the material variability of
ceramic artifacts, they should implicitly describe the behavioral variability of
prehistoric potters. While explicitly material and based upon biological
44
analogy (Hargrave 1932a:7-8), a point that has been critiqued (Brew 1941),
the method of binomial classification (Gladwin and Gladwin 1930; Hargrave
1932a; Colton and Hargrave 1937), with refinements (Wheat et al. 1958;
Gifford 1960; Smith 1962), was explicitly designed to investigate prehistoric
sociocultural variability through material culture variability.
SOURCING POTTERY PRODUCTION
Since prehistoric potters generally used locally available materials
(clays and tempers) to manufacture pottery, these materials can be analyzed
to indicate geological provenience of the raw materials. This geologic sourcing
allows the identification of the probable area within which the pottery was
manufactured. This characteristic makes tracing the production and
exchange of pottery vessels possible through many methods of optical and
chemical analysis (Rice 1987:371-404). Merely inspecting Coconino Buff Ware
sherds with the naked eye allows the trained observer to ascertain their
origin in the Flagstaff area based on the readily observable mineral
constituents in the temper — volcanic tuff and cinders. But more
sophisticated chemical testing methods — like Inductively Coupled Plasma
Spectroscopy, Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis, or X-Ray
Diffraction — could determine the elemental constituents of the clay used
that could be matched with sample clays from the environment. These
45
techniques have successfully applied to Southwestern pottery with very
revealing results (e.g. Zedeño 1994; Triadan 1997; Douglass 1987).
STYLE AND POTTERY
The archaeological analysis of pottery can be divided into two basic
approaches — the investigation of functional aspects of manufacturing
technology and the investigation of decorative aspects of style. Style can be
broadly defined as a way of doing, but the analytic meaning of style in
archaeology has been thoroughly debated [for reviews see Plog (1983) and
Hegmon (1993)], with two basic positions developing. Sackett (1977, 1986)
has proposed a model of “isochrestic variation,” where stylistic variability
derives from culturally conditioned choices made between functionally
equivalent alternatives. For Sackett, style is a passive reflection of
historically and temporally contingent learned behavior. Wobst (1977) and
Weissner (1983, 1984) offer an information model of style. The cultural
function of stylistic variability is to encode information. This model of style
sees it actively employed by its producers to communicate information about
their identity. While Sackett (1985, 1986) and Weissner (1985) have engaged
in a spirited debate, it seems that the positions may not really be mutually
exclusive. Some aspects of style may passively reflect learned behaviors,
while others are actively employed to communicate information.
46
Viewing style as a way of doing makes it almost a subset of Bourdieu’s
(1977b) habitus. Bourdieu develops a “theory of practice” that attempts to
explain the functioning of mental templates that allow individuals to act and
react with culturally appropriate manners in social situations. Bourdieu
broadly defines the habitus as being “objectively organized as strategies
without being the product of a genuine strategic intention” (1977b:73). This
may seem contradictory, but it explains how style, as a manner of creating,
can both reflect learned behavior passively and actively signal intentions.
Some levels of style may simply reflect what has been learned as culturally
appropriate ways of doing that are not performed with strategic intent, but
are organized to correspond to the expectations of others as to what is correct.
Other levels of style may be strategically manipulated to communicate to
others the intentions or identity of the creator.
As either the passive product of learned behavior or the active product
of intentional messaging, stylistic variability can inform archaeologists about
cultural relationships. Decorated pottery is a valuable material for
investigating stylistic variability and the cultural relations of its producers.
Variation in line width has been shown to be a valuable indicator of both
cultural interaction and temporal placement (Voss 1980; Plog and Hantman
1986). Line width reflects learned motor skills — how did the potter learn to
hold the brush and make a stroke? What tools, like brushes, the potter was
taught were appropriate to use may affect outcomes. Line width, and
47
similarly line spacing, solid element size, and solid element spacing, all
reflect unconscious levels of stylistic variability. The size and spacing of the
design elements result from learned motor skills and are not likely to be
intentionally employed to signal information.
The analysis of decorated pottery uses a hierarchical method of
description and analysis (Friedrich 1970). The lowest level of design is the
individual element, the most simple unit used in the construction of the
design. Elements include lines, triangles, squares, etc. Elements are
combined together to form recognizable design components called motifs. A
simple example of a motif is two lines combined together to form a cross.
Motifs and elements are arranged together in the design field according to a
layout. A layout is the basic structural organization of the design. While the
size and spacing of elements may reflect simple motor habits, the
combination of elements into motifs and the structuring of motifs and
elements in layouts reflect deliberate choices made by the potter.
How much these choices result from the passive reflection of cultural
norms or from the individual expression of meaning and identity is difficult
to determine. The weakness of the information model of style is trying to
determine what the producer intended to signal. Critics could accuse this
model of style requiring the practice of “paleopsychology” that may reflect the
analyst’s desired understanding, rather than the producer’s intended
meaning. It is in this vein that Sackett (1982:64) criticized the whole concept
48
of style as being merely that part of “formal variation that we happen to
regard as being stylistic significant.”
This discussion may have seemed to presuppose that any stylistic
analysis of pottery must be of the decorative designs. But, if style is a way of
doing, then methods of manufacture and vessel forms are also components of
style. These components would seem to fit Sackett’s idea of style as choices
between functional equivalents. The methods used to form, finish, and fire
the vessels probably have little potential for carrying information, however
they reflect cultural choices between functional equivalents — paddling or
scraping? Oxidizing or reducing atmosphere? The functional uses for which
vessels are intended restricts the forms used, but visible differences in vessel
form can bear information, most simply indicating vessel function, but also
carrying messages of identity. Michael Graves (1981:105) found that the
forms of Kalinga rice cooking pots in the Philippines seem "to be actively
employed as a marker of important social boundaries ... at the regional level."
Similarly, Ingrid Herbich (1987) found that the form of beer drinking vessels
was distinct community marker among the Luo of Kenya.
Saitta has proposed different signaling potential for functionally
different vessels. Information laden style “should be associated with artifacts
requiring little post-production maintenance or artifacts which have low
turnover rates, so that message integrity and longevity is maximized” (quoted
in Plog 1983:138). Saitta assumes that investment in a stylistic message
49
should be balanced by a long broadcast period. Thus cooking pots should
convey less message than serving vessels because cooking vessels have a
shorter use life. However, Wobst (1977) noted that ceramic vessels as
domestic utensils would have low visibility and would not be particularly
useful for carrying messages outside the household. But serving vessels may
be used in contexts outside of the household, when sharing food with other
households at feasts, for example. In such circumstances, serving vessels
could serve an important function, identifying who is sharing with whom. I
would also argue that ceramic vessels are not always domestic utensils, some
vessels apparently were for ritual use. Likewise, in order to maximize the
signal, the style bearing object need not be durable. Instead of a long-term
low intensity broadcast, maybe a brief, high intensity broadcast in a ritual
context is desired.
Style has two levels of expression — an unconscious level that reflects
learned behaviors and motor skills, and a conscious level that reflects the
strategic use of stylistic variability to encode information. These different
aspects can be approached through different analytical means to investigate
issues of cultural interaction and affiliation. I will present descriptions of the
buff and white wares, illustrating the decorative designs and discussing the
vessel forms and manufacturing technologies. I will then compare the two
wares, contrasting different stylistic approaches.
50
CHAPTER 5
CLASSIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE RED-ON-BUFF POTTERY
When the excavations at Turkey Tanks Pithouses and Winona Village
occurred, the methods of ceramic classification and the regional ceramic
typologies were still being developed and fine-tuned (Downum 1988:154-168).
When confronted with the red-on-buff sherds from these sites, MNA
researchers immediately recognized the local manufacture of some of the red-
on-buff sherds and the exotic origins of others on the basis of the tempers
used. The locally produced pottery was previously unidentified and needed to
be classified. This was initially done by Colton and Hargrave in their
Handbook of Northern Arizona Pottery Wares (1937:178-183), but debate
exists in the literature over the ware classification of Flagstaff area
red-on-buff types, the typological treatment of this pottery has questionable
points, and the decorative treatment has not been adequately described.
THE WARE QUESTION
Colton and Hargrave (1937:178-183) originally designated the red-on-
buff pottery with volcanic ash or tuff temper found at Turkey Tanks
51
Pithouses and Winona Village as Coconino Buff Ware. Vessels of this ware
were formed and finished with the paddle-and-anvil technique. The volcanic
ash or tuff temper varies from coarse to fine. The surface is often slipped,
usually poorly slipped, with wiping marks often visible. Decorative designs
were executed with an iron oxide mineral paint. Coconino Buff Ware vessels
were fired in an oxidizing atmosphere, resulting in a buff, orange, or brown
core.
Later, Colton (1946:endpiece) classified the types formerly considered
Coconino Buff Ware as Hohokam Buff Ware. This classificatory revision may
have been biased by Colton’s Hohokam migration hypothesis (Colton
1946:270, 311; Colton 1960:9-12, 44). In a recent ceramic typology for the
Flagstaff area prepared to analyze data recovered during the Transwestern
Pipeline Expansion Project (Mills et al. 1993), the types originally classified
as Coconino Buff Ware are classified as Alameda Brown Ware (Mills et al.
1993:16-17, 80-81). While not explained, I assume this re-classification to be
based on the technological similarities between the Coconino Buff Ware and
Alameda Brown Ware. The same tempering, forming, finishing, and firing
methods were used in both wares. The significant difference between
Coconino Buff Ware and Alameda Brown Ware are the designs executed with
an iron oxide paint on Coconino Buff Ware. However, other painted pottery
with similar technology, like Sunset and Turkey Hill White-on-red, were
never considered separate wares.
52
There may be another difference precluding classification of the
Flagstaff area red-on-buff types within the taxon of Alameda Brown Ware.
Colton (1941:20) asserts that different clays were used to manufacture the
buff and brown pottery. He proposed that the buff-firing clay came from a
low-iron alluvial source, whereas the brown-firing clay came from a higher-
iron residual source. This use of secondary versus primary sources may
reflect differences in resource procurement strategies that may be culturally
significant. In the vicinity of Turkey Tanks and Winona Village, primary clay
deposits would occur on top of the basalt mesas while secondary clay deposits
would occur along Walnut Creek, San Francisco Wash, and other drainages.
Exploitation of these different sources would have been by deliberate, most
likely determined by cultural choice. Another possible explanation for the
different clay colors is an additive. Hohokam potters of the Salt-Gila Basin
added salt and/or caliche to “bleach” clay to fire a lighter color (David Abbott
personal communication). If this practice, rather than gathering clays from
different sources, were the reason for a lighter color for Coconino Buff Ware,
it would also be the result of a specific culturally-conditioned choices.
I will follow the original (Colton and Hargrave 1937:178-183)
designation of Coconino Buff Ware as a distinct and separate from two very
technologically similar wares, Hohokam Buff Ware and Alameda Brown
Ware. I believe this classification reflects certain important aspects of human
behavior, allowing the classification to be more than an exercise in typology.
53
THE TYPE AND VARIETY QUESTION
Colton and Hargrave (1937:178-183) defined two decorated types for
Coconino Buff Ware. The presence or absence of a buff-colored slip
distinguishes these two types: Coconino Red-on-buff (slipped) and Winona
Red-on-buff (unslipped). Each type has two varieties differentiated by
temper: 1) tuff, or 2) ash. The Transwestern Pipeline Expansion Project
(Mills et al. 1993:81) followed the same method for distinguishing the two
types, but only recognized these types as having ash temper, possibly because
the small number of sherds recovered (n=5) did not include any with tuff
temper (Bradley et al. 1993).
There are problems with this typological treatment, or more
specifically, with an uneven application of criteria used to discriminate types.
In Coconino Buff Ware, the presence or absence of slip distinguishes types
and the use of cinder or tuff temper distinguishes varieties. In contrast,
Tusayan White Ware types and Sacaton Red-on-buff can be either slipped or
unslipped without being different types, but some Alameda Brown Ware
types and varieties are differentiated by the presence or absence of a slip. In
Alameda Brown Ware, the use of cinder or tuff temper distinguishes types,
not varieties, as it does in Coconino Buff Ware (Table 2). It would seem that
typological distinctions in Coconino Buff Ware could be just as well based on
the tempering agent used, rather than on presence or absence of slip, which
might better be used to distinguish varieties.
54
Table 2 - Types and Varieties of Alameda Brown Ware, Rio de Flag Series
Type or Variety Temper Surface Treatment
Rio de Flag Brown sanidine unslipped
Angell Brown fine tuff unslipped
Winona Brown coarse tuff unslipped
Turkey Hill Red tuff slipped
Turkey Hill White-on-red tuff slipped and painted
Youngs Brown tuff and ash unslipped
Sunset Red ash slipped
Sunset Brown ash unslipped
Sunset White-on-red ash slipped and painted
Colton (1958)
The current typology of Coconino Red-on-buff and Winona Red-on-buff
differentiated by the presence and absence of a slip, with cinder and tuff
tempered varieties, appears to be inconsistent with the application of similar
criteria to Alameda Brown Ware. However, inconsistent criteria are also used
to divide Alameda Brown Ware into types and varieties. I will refer to all
Flagstaff area red-on-buff sherds simply as Coconino Buff Ware, avoiding
these pitfalls. Before proposing a revision of the standard typology (Colton
and Hargrave 1937; Colton 1958), the opinions of several archaeologists who
specialize in the prehistoric pottery Flagstaff area should be consulted.
55
DECORATIVE TREATMENT OF COCONINO BUFF WARE
In the original type descriptions (Colton and Hargrave 1937:182-183),
the painted decorations are not well described. The designs are said to
“apparently cover vessel from rim to near base” with decorative elements
consisting of “lines and (occasionally) solid areas.” Only one type sherd is
illustrated (Colton and Hargrave 1937:183). Three others are illustrated by
McGregor (1937b:Plate XX). McGregor (1941:45-46) later provided a better
description, emphasizing the use of repeated block layouts and the
predominance of right triangles translated and opposed into the “opposed
serrated barb” motif (Figure 14). McGregor noted without elaboration that
the designs are “in imitation” (1937a:30) or “copies” (1941:46, 283) of
Hohokam pottery designs.
In addition to the opposed serrated barb motif (Figure 15), the designs
on Coconino Buff Ware are characterized by thin parallel lines, often wavy or
jagged (Figure 16); fringe attached to lines (Figure 17); hatching, with the
hatched areas often doubly capped with jagged lines (Figure 18), although
occasionally singly capped (Figure 19); and both rectilinear and curvilinear
scrolls (Figure 20). The brushwork and the execution of design is generally
poor. As noted by McGregor (1941:46), layouts visible on the reconstructed
vessels and interpretable from sherds use repeated block motifs, often
alternating opposed serrated barb motifs with rectilinear scrolls (Figure 21,
see also Figure 9).
56
Steps in Constructing theOpposed Serrated Barb Motif
2. translated and attached
3. rotated and opposed
1. right triangle
Figure 14 - Schema of the opposed serrated barb motif.
Figure 15 - The opposed serrated barb motif on Coconino Buff Ware sherdsfrom NA2098T and NA2133T.
0 5
Centimeters
57
Figure 16 - Various line forms on Coconino Buff Ware sherds — straight,jagged, wavy, and meandering.
0 5
Centimeters
58
Figure 17 - Fringing on Coconino Buff Ware sherds from NA2098T.
0 5
Centimeters
59
Figure 18 - Various forms of hatching on Coconino Buff Ware sherds —straight, wavy, and grid.
0 5
Centimeters
60
Figure 19 - Coconino Buff Ware sherd from NA2133T with uncappedhatching. Also has meandering parallel lines and portions of whatappears to be the opposed serrated barb motif.
0 5
Centimeters
61
0 5
Centimeters
Figure 20 - Rectilinear and curvilinear scrolls on Coconino BuffWare sherds from NA2098T and NA2133T.
62
Figure 21 - The opposed serrated barb motif combinedwith a rectilinear interlocking scroll on Coconino BuffWare sherds from NA2133T.
0 5
Centimeters
63
64
COCONINO BUFF WARE VESSEL FORMS
Some characteristic Hohokam vessel forms appear in the Coconino
Buff Ware, as well as in contemporaneous Alameda Brown Ware types. These
vessel forms include jars with Gila shoulders and heavy-walled vessels. A
Gila shoulder is an angular change of direction of vessel walls near the base
(Figure 22). The Gila shoulder is a common vessel form of Sacaton
Red-on-buff, the Hohokam decorated type of the Sedentary period. What
Haury (1976:205-206) identifies as a decline in the quality of Sedentary
period decorated pottery may be evidence of increased production. The
production of decorated pottery may have become a specialized craft activity
during the Sedentary period, with workshops associated with residence
groups (Haury 1976:194-197). It may be possible that the development of the
Gila shoulder by Hohokam potters was related to this specialized production.
The Gila shoulder vessel form may have assisted the mass-production of
large jars from flattened slabs of clay using the paddle-and-anvil forming and
finishing method.
The mass production of Coconino Buff Ware by craft specialists hardly
seems likely given the ware’s low frequency. Gila shoulders on Alameda
Brown Ware jars appear to be higher on the vessel and not as sharp as those
on Hohokam jars (Downum, personal communication, 1997). Therefore, the
Gila shoulder may not have the same function in the different wares. Its
appearance on Alameda Brown Ware and Coconino Buff Ware jars may not
Figure 22 - Generalized diagram and profile of a Gila shouldered jar.
65
66
relate to productive efficiency as it may for Hohokam Buff Ware. Two of the
three reconstructable jars of Coconino Buff Ware recovered in excavations at
Winona Village and Ridge Ruin have Gila shoulders, and numerous other
sherds bear evidence of this vessel form.
Another characteristic Hohokam vessel form that appears in Coconino
Buff Ware is heavy-walled vessels, believed to be some sort of censers
(Figures 11 and 14). These vessels have a solid base with a thick walled (3-5
cm) cup, sometimes with a collar around the rim. Fragments of three of these
vessels were recovered from Winona Village, two from the Hohokam-style pit
house (NA2133A), the other from the trash mound in front of that pit house
(NA2133T). Like censers found at Snaketown (Haury 1976:226-228), the
Coconino Buff Ware censers appear to have been deliberately broken and
have a similar pattern of sooting and oxidation in the cup, indicating that
some substance was burned in the cup of these vessels. I concur with Haury
(1976:226-228; see also McGuire 1992) that these vessels were used in a
mourning ritual that was related to cremation burial. The Hohokam style
pithouse at Winona Village, NA2133A, was burned with a rich floor
assemblage. While this could have been the result of an accidental fire, it
may well have been deliberately burned as part of a mourning ritual.
Fragments of two censers (932/NA2133A.1 and 932/NA2133A.60) were found
inside the doorway, as if they had been cast in as offerings while the
structure was burning.
67
DATING COCONINO BUFF WARE PRODUCTION
In the northern Southwest, the time period of a pottery type’s
production has been dated by the associations between room floor contexts
and tree-ring dates for the structures (Hargrave 1938; Colton 1953:63-64;
Breternitz 1966; Downum 1988:355-497). This method usually involves
multiple contexts from different sites. However, the only room floor contexts
from structures with tree-ring dates for Coconino Buff Ware are from two
structures at Winona Village, NA2133A and NA2133B (Breternitz 1966:6, 72,
103). Extrapolating from the available dates, Coconino Buff Ware is inferred
to have been produced at NA2133 between 1086 and 1105 (Breternitz
1966:72, 103; Downum 1988:427-429), a brief period of time possibly
representing a single generation of potters. Production dates elsewhere are
not as securely known, but production after about A.D. 1140 seems unlikely.3
HOHOKAM BUFF WARE
Hohokam Buff Ware was found at both NA2098T and NA2133T. The
decorated Hohokam Buff Ware sherds have been identified as Sacaton
Red-on-buff (Gladwin and Gladwin 1933:16-20; Haury 1976:205-209). The
time period during which this type was produced is not well defined, partly
because of regional design variability, but also because of the lack of the
precise dating allowed by dendrochronology.4 The ending dates proposed for
Sacaton Red-on buff production have varied from as early as A.D. 1075
68
(Wallace 1995:81) to as late as A.D. 1250 (Abbott 1988:184, 192). In general, it
may be said that production of Sacaton Red-on-buff was phased out during
the mid-1100s.
Various tempers were used by Hohokam potters, either sand alone, or
a combination of sand and crushed micaceous or phyllitic schist. All of the
sherds from NA2098T and NA2133T have a distinctive micaceous schist
temper that geologically sources its manufacture to the middle Gila Basin
(Abbott, personal communication, 1998) combined with sand. Current
research on the production and distribution of Hohokam Buff Ware (Abbott
1997) may be able to identify which of these areas was the source of the
micaceous schist temper. Like Coconino Buff Ware, Hohokam Buff Ware
vessels were formed and finished with the paddle-and-anvil technique;
decorated with a mineral paint (iron oxide); often slipped, although usually
poorly; and fired in an oxidizing atmosphere. Its core varies from buff to pink,
with some orange to brown.
Sacaton Red-on-buff designs varied considerably, through both time
and space (Masse 1982; Neitzel 1991). Haury (Gladwin et al. 1938:178; Haury
1976:208-209, 251) describes this change through time as an increasing use
of rectilinear scroll elements and a decreasing use of large solid elements,
leading to a "lightness and laciness of pattern" (Haury 1976:208). Sacaton
Red-on-buff designs are characterized by thin parallel lines, often wavy or
jagged (Figure 23); fringe on lines; tight, fine hatching, sometimes singly
Figure 23 - Various line forms on Sacaton Red-on-buff sherdsfrom NA2098T and NA2133T — jagged and straight. Note insherd 2098.76.15 how parallel jagged lines are used to form avariant of the opposed serrated barb motif.
0 5
Centimeters
69
70
capped, and occasionally done in a herring-bone fashion (Figure 24);
curvilinear and rectilinear interlocking and non-interlocking scrolls; and the
opposed serrated barb motif (Figure 25). Jars often have a wavy or scalloped
line framing the design (Figure 26), a trait that may be characteristic of later
Sacaton Red-on-buff (Abbott, personal communication, 1998). A common
layout uses plaited large rectangular motifs interspersed with scrolls.
THE RED-ON-BUFF POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES FROM NA2098T AND NA2133T
The bulk sherd collections from NA2098T and NA2133T at MNA were
carefully sorted with all red-on-buff sherds separated for analysis — 73
Coconino Buff Ware sherds and 24 Sacaton Red-on-buff sherds from
NA2098T, and 119 Coconino Buff Ware sherds and 2 Sacaton Red-on-buff
sherds from NA2133T. Additionally, sherds from these features in the MNA
ceramic type collection were included in the analysis — nine Coconino Buff
Ware sherds and 16 Sacaton Red-on-buff sherds from NA2098T, and 14
Coconino Buff Ware sherds and one Sacaton Red-on-buff sherd from
NA2133T. A total of 258 red-on-buff pottery sherds will be analyzed for this
research — 215 Coconino Buff Ware sherds and 43 Sacaton Red-on-buff
sherds (Table 3).
Some differences in the assemblages from the two sites exist, most
notably the vessel forms present. All 82 Coconino Buff Ware sherds from
NA2098T are from jars, while only 33% of the sherds from NA2133T came
Figure 24 - Sacaton Red-on-buff sherds from NA2098T with different formsof hatching — herringbone hatching on sherds in top and uncapped hatchingon sherds in bottom.
0 5
Centimeters
71
Figure 25 - Sacaton Red-on-buff sherds with hatching capped withjagged lines used in a variant of the opposed serrated barb motif.
0 5
Centimeters
72
Figure 26 - Two Hohokam Buff Ware jar rimsherds, most likely from the same vessel, fromNA2098T with a wavy line bounding the top ofthe design field.
0 5
Centimeters
73
74
Table 3 NA2098T NA2133T
# % # %
Coconino Buff Ware 82 - 133 -
slipped 76 92.7 98 73.7
unslipped 6 7.3 35 26.3
tuff temper 45 54.9 133 100
cinder temper 35 42.7 0 0
sand temper 2 2.4 0 0
jars 82 100 90 67.7
bowls 0 0 43 32.3
Sacaton Red-on-buff 40 - 3 -
from jars, the other 67% coming from bowls. In addition, three heavy-walled
vessels, or censers, were recovered from the NA2133 cluster, including one
from the trash mound. No censers were found at NA2098, either in the pit
houses or in the trash mound. All of the Sacaton Red-on-buff sherds from
both sites are from jars. Evidence of Gila shoulders was found on Coconino
Buff Ware jar sherds from both sites, 10% of those from NA2098T and 12% of
those from NA2133T.
Another major difference between the assemblages is in the tempering
agents used. All of the Coconino Buff Ware sherds from NA2133T have tuff
temper, which varies in texture from fine to coarse. In contrast, only 55% of
the Coconino Buff Ware sherds from NA2098T have tuff temper, with 43%
with cinder temper, and 2% with sand temper. There is a minor difference in
75
surface treatment between the two sites: 93% of the Coconino Buff Ware
sherds from NA2098T are slipped, while only 73% of those from NA2133T
are. Colton and Hargrave (1937:178-183) used these criteria, temper and
slipping, to split Coconino Buff Ware into types and varieties. However, the
inconsistent methods used to define types and varieties of the technologically
similar Coconino Buff and Alameda Brown Wares have led me to refer to
Flagstaff area red-on-buff sherds simply as Coconino Buff Ware.
76
CHAPTER 6
CLASSIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE BLACK-ON-WHITE POTTERY
THE SAMPLE OF BLACK-ON-WHITE POTTERY
The bulk sherd collections from NA2098T and NA2133T were carefully
sorted with all white ware sherds separated out. Samples were then drawn
from these white ware assemblages. Sherds greater than five centimeters
across with two or more decorative elements were selected for analysis.
Sherds that were too burnt to accurately view the designs were eliminated.
These selection criteria eliminated sherds with no decoration, and increased
the likelihood that the sherds could be typed. Of the 837 white ware sherds
from NA2098T, 420 (50.2%) were selected for analysis; and of the 1,842 white
ware sherds from NA2133T, 523 (28.4%) were selected, for a total of 943
white ware sherds used in this analysis.
WHITE WARES PRESENT IN THE SAMPLE
The black-on-white pottery found at Turkey Tanks Pithouses and
Winona Village comes from three different wares — Tusayan White Ware,
Little Colorado White Ware, and Cibola White Ware. The third ware occurs
only in low frequencies at both sites (Table 4). None of these wares were
locally produced.
77
Table 4 - Frequencies of White Wares
WareNA2098T NA2133T
number percent number percent
Tusayan 148 35.2 481 91.9
Little Colorado 271 64.5 39 7.5
Cibola White 1 0.2 3 0.6
Total 420 100 523 100
Tusayan White Ware is the decorated black-on-white pottery of the
Kayenta branch of the Ancestral Pueblos, north of the Flagstaff area. The
vessels of this ware are formed and finished with the coil-and-scrape
technique, and tempered with fine quartz sand. It is decorated with as
organic carbon paint, which is often watery and brownish. The surface is
sometimes thinly slipped. Fired in a reducing atmosphere, the core is light
gray to white with an occasional carbon streak (Colton and Hargrave 1937;
Colton 1955). The sample of white wares from NA2098T has 35% Tusayan
White Ware. In contrast, the sample from NA2133T has 92% Tusayan White
Ware (Colton and Hargrave 1937:203-205; Colton 1955).
Little Colorado White Ware is the decorated black-on-white pottery of
the Winslow branch of the Ancestral Pueblos, east of the Flagstaff area.
Vessels were formed and finished with the coil-and-scrape technique, and
tempered with crushed sherds, although occasionally the temper includes
some coarse quartz sand. The surface has a thick chalky slip, and is
78
decorated with organic carbon paint, which is often watery and brownish.
Fired in a reducing atmosphere, the core is dark gray due to high iron
content, not carbon (Colton and Hargrave 1937:233-234; Colton 1955). The
sample of white wares from NA2098T has 65% Little Colorado White Ware.
In contrast, the sample from NA2133T has only 7% Little Colorado White
Ware.
Cibola White Ware is the decorated black-on-white pottery of the
Cibola branch of the Ancestral Pueblos, even farther east of the Flagstaff
area. Similar in most ways to the other white wares — coil-and-scrape,
reducing atmosphere, either sherd or sherds and sand temper — the use of a
mineral paint distinguishes Cibola White Ware (Colton 1941:55-56). The
samples from both sites have only low frequencies, less than 1%, of Cibola
White Ware.
Despite the fact that these two sites are only four kilometers apart,
they have significant differences in the wares present. NA2133T has
predominantly (92%) Tusayan White Ware, indicating a strong exchange
relationship with the Kayenta. NA2098T has much less Tusayan White
Ware, only 35% of the assemblage, but much more Little Colorado White
Ware, with 65% rather than the mere 7% present at NA2133T. This indicates
a greater amount of trade with the Winslow area by the inhabitants of
NA2098T (Douglass 1987).
79
BLACK-ON-WHITE TYPES AND STYLES
Tusayan White Ware and Little Colorado White Ware share analogous
design styles that correspond to types (Mills et. al 1993:22, 24-25). The
periods of time during which these types were produced and used have been
determined through associations with tree-ring dates (Table 5).
Table 5 - White Ware Types with Analogous Design Styles
Tusayan White Ware Little Colorado White Ware Production Dates
Kana’a B/w St. Joseph B/w 800-1025
Black Mesa B/w Holbrook A B/w 1025-1150
Sosi B/w Holbrook B B/w 1075-1200
Dogoszhi B/w Padre B/w 1075-1200
Flagstaff B/w Walnut B/w 1150-1225
Tusayan B/w Leupp B/w 1225-1275
Downum (1996)
Black Mesa style includes Black Mesa Black-on-white (formerly known
as Deadmans Black-on-white) and Holbrook A Black-on-white (Colton and
Hargrave 1937:207-209; 235-236; Colton 1955; Douglass 1987:428-430). This
style is characterized by large solid elements, especially isosceles and
elongated triangles (Figure 27), but also squares, diamonds, and stepped
frets (Figure 28). Solid elements are often flagged onto the ends of lines
(Figure 29), but also arranged in checkerboard layouts (Figure 30), or
translated and attached in bands (Figure 31) sometimes forming designs with
the intervening negative (Figure 32). The lines are generally wide, but panels
0 5
Centimeters
Figure 27 - Triangular solid elements on sherds with Black Mesa style fromNA2098T and NA2133T.
80
0 5
Centimeters
Figure 28 - Other solid elements on sherds with Black Mesa style fromNA2098T and NA2133T — squares, diamonds, and stepped frets.
81
0 5
Centimeters
Figure 29 - Solid elements flagged onto the end of lines on sherds withBlack Mesa style from NA2098T and NA2133T.
82
0 5
Centimeters
Figure 30 - Various checkerboard layouts of squares, diamonds,parallelograms, and triangles on sherds with Black Mesa stylefrom NA2098T and NA2133T.
83
0 5
Centimeters
Figure 31 - Solid elements translated and appended into bands on sherdswith Black Mesa style from NA2098T and NA2133T.
84
0 5
Centimeters
Figure 32 - Bands of solid elements used to define negative designs onsherds with Black Mesa style from NA2098T and NA2133T.
85
86
of thin parallel lines are sometimes employed (Figure 33). Scrolls are
curvilinear and interlocking (Figure 34). The hallmark feature of this style is
the use of pendant dots on both solid elements (Figure 35) and lines (Figure
36).
Sosi style includes Sosi Black-on-white and Holbrook B Black-on-white
(Colton and Hargrave 1937:211-213; Beals et al. 1945:103-107; Colton 1955;
Douglass 1987:431-432). Colton (1955) distinguishes styles A and B in Sosi.
Sosi style A is characterized by wide, well spaced lines, solid rectilinear
stepped elements, sometimes triangles, flagged onto the ends of lines (Figure
37). It commonly uses bifold rotational symmetry in whole vessel layouts.
Sosi style B is characterized by use of the opposed serrated barb motif,
combined with rectilinear scrolls, either interlocking or non-interlocking
(Figure 38). Sometimes a variation of the opposed serrated barb motif is
employed in a repetitive, all-over layout (Figure 39).
Depending on how a pot breaks, the resulting sherds may not all have
enough diagnostic elements to allow type classification. Such is the case with
sherds called (following Downum, personal communication, 1996) Broadline
style (Figure 40). They could be either Black Mesa or Sosi style, because they
lack additional design characteristics that would allow differentiation
between the two possibilities.
Flagstaff style includes both Flagstaff and Walnut Black-on-white
(Colton and Hargrave 1937:225-227; Colton 1955; Douglass 1987:433-435).
0 5
Centimeters
Figure 33 - Panels of thin parallel lines on sherds with Black Mesa stylefrom NA2098T and NA2133T.
87
0 5
Centimeters
Figure 34 - Curvilinear interlocking scrolls on sherds with Black Mesastyle from NA2098T and NA2133T.
88
0 5
Centimeters
Figure 35 - Pendant dots on solid elements on sherds with Black Mesa stylefrom NA2098T and NA2133T.
89
0 5
Centimeters
Figure 36 - Pendant dots on lines on sherds with BlackMesa style from NA2098T and NA2133T.
90
0 5
Centimeters
Figure 37 - Sosi A style sherds from NA2098T and NA2133T.
91
0 5
Centimeters
Figure 38 - Sosi B style sherds from NA2098T.
92
0 5
Centimeters
Figure 39 - Repeated band layout on Sosi B style sherds from NA2098T.
93
0 5
Centimeters
Figure 40 - Broadline style sherds from NA2098T and NA2133T.
94
95
This style is characterized by thinner, more closely spaced lines, and the use
of the serrated barb motif, often with a series of translated solid diamonds in
between, creating a double row of "lightning bolts" in negative (Figure 41).
Whole vessel layouts commonly uses Y-frame or plaited weave layouts (see
Beals et al. 1945:106, Figure 46). In addition to differences in design
elements and motifs, the size and spacing of these elements is an important
means of distinguishing between styles. For example, Sosi B style and
Flagstaff style bear many similarities. Flagstaff style design elements,
however, are smaller and closer together than those in Sosi B style.
Dogoszhi style includes Dogoszhi, Padre, and Gallup Black-on-whites
(Colton and Hargrave 1937; Colton 1955; Douglass 1987:439-440). The last
type is a Cibola White Ware that occurs in low frequencies at both NA2098T
and NA2133T. This style is characterized by the use of fine hatching within
circumscribed areas, with the hatching lines often at an oblique angle to the
line framing the design field. Occasionally these elements are combined with
wider lines, more frequently in Padre Black-on-white than in Dogoszhi Black-
on-white (Figure 42). The hatched areas are continuous bands, often with
pendants (see Figure 42, sherd 2098.15.5). In addition to having a mineral
paint, Gallup Black-on-white has finer lines and a more precise execution of
design (Figure 43).
0 5
Centimeters
Figure 41 - Flagstaff style sherds from NA2098T.
96
0 5
Centimeters
Figure 42 - Dogoszhi style sherds from NA2098T and NA2133T.
97
0 5
Centimeters
Figure 43 - Gallup Black-on-white sherds from NA2098T and NA2133T.
98
99
STYLISTIC DIFFERENCES IN THE WHITE WARE ASSEMBLAGES
Like the contrast in the frequencies of wares present, NA2098T and
NA2133T show significant differences in the frequencies of styles present
(Table 6). These differences are most likely attributable to different periods of
time over which these trash mounds grew through accumulation of household
refuse. The assemblage at NA2133T is predominantly (70%) Black Mesa,
with only a trace (4%) of Sosi and no Flagstaff. In contrast, NA2098T still has
mostly (48%) Black Mesa, with more Sosi (27%) and a trace (4%) of Flagstaff.
Table 6 - Frequencies of Black-on-white Styles
StyleNA2098T NA2133T
number percent number percent
Unidentified 3 0.7 3 0.5
Broadline 75 17.8 125 23.9
Black Mesa 200 47.6 365 69.8
Sosi 113 26.9 20 3.8
Dogoszhi 12 2.9 10 1.9
Flagstaff 17 4.0 0 0
Total 420 100 523 100
The variability in Sosi style differs at each site as well (Table 7), with
much more Sosi B at NA2098T than at NA2133T. The use of the opposed
Table 7 - Frequencies of Sosi Styles
StyleNA2098T NA2133T
number percent number percent
Sosi A 51 45.1 17 85
Sosi B 62 54.8 3 15
100
serrated barb motif in Sosi B is suggestive of later stylistic developments
characteristic of Flagstaff style, while Sosi A is reminiscent of Black Mesa
style. This stylistic variability may reflect temporal variability. It would
appear that NA2098T was in use later than NA2133T, but the periods of time
these features were constructed probably overlapped. I applied the mean
ceramic dating method developed by Stanley South (1977:201-235) to the
White Ware assemblages from NA2098T and NA2133T. The results yielded
by this method support my contention that NA2133T, with a mean ceramic
date of 1091 ± 43, may be earlier than NA2098T, which has a mean ceramic
date of 1111 ± 36.
101
CHAPTER 7
COMPARISON AND ANALYSIS OF THE BUFF AND WHITE WARES
To compare these different decorated wares, I measured eight variables —
line width, spacing, and form; solid element size and spacing; and the presence or
absence of the opposed serrated barb motif, dots, and hatching (Table 8). The
intervals used to measure line width (V1) are the same used by Hegmon (1995) in
Table 8 - Coding Key for Stylistic Variables
V1 Maximum line width in millimeters0) no lines1) w < 1.52) 1.5 # w < 2.53) 2.5 # w < 3.54) 3.0 # w < 5.05) 5.0 # w < 7.06) w $ 7.0
V2 Minimum spacing of parallel lines inmillimeters0) no parallel lines1) s < 52) 5 # s < 103) 10 # s < 154) 15 # s < 205) 20 # s < 256) 25 # s < 307) s $ 30
V3 Line forms0) no lines1) straight2) other than straight3) combination
V4 Hatching0) no hatching1) standard hatching2) herringbone hatching
V5 Maximum solid element width in millimeters0) no solid elements1) w < 102) 10 # w < 153) 15 # w < 204) 20 # w < 305) 30 # w < 406) w $ 40
V6 Minimum spacing of solid elements from linesor other solid elements in millimeters0) no solid elements1) s < 52) 5 # s < 103) 10 # s < 154) 15 # s < 205) 20 # s < 256) 25 # s < 307) s $ 30
V7 Opposed serrated barb0) not present1) standard motif present2) variation of the motif present3) partial motif present
V8 Dots0) not present1) pendent dots2) independent dots
102
her study of Black Mesa and Mesa Verde White Wares. Exploratory analysis of the
variability in element size and space led the adoption of the intervals used to
measure V2, V5, and V6. I chose the specific motifs and elements for
presence/absence analysis because, when initially sorting the sherds, they appeared
to be diagnostic and distinguishing decorative characteristics.
Because, as argued in Chapter Four, I believe that line and element size and
spacing reflect unconscious levels of design construction and execution relating to
learned motor habits, I will first compare and contrast the measurements of these
variables. The lines and solid elements on Coconino Buff Ware sherds are narrower
than those on White Ware sherds from the same depositional contexts (Figures 44
and 45), and this trend persists when the assemblages from both sites are combined
(Figure 46). The Coconino Buff Ware and the White Ware assemblages from the two
sites have differences: sherds from NA2133T have larger lines and elements than
those from NA2098T. These differences between the sites may be the result of their
different temporal affiliations. The line and solid element widths of Coconino and
Hohokam Buff Wares appear to be more similar (Figures 47 and 48).
Similarly, the lines and solid elements on Coconino Buff Ware sherds are
closer together than those on White Ware sherds from the same depositional
contexts (Figures 49 and 50), and when the assemblages are combined (Figure 51).
Once again, the Coconino Buff Ware and the White Ware assemblages from the two
sites have differences, sherds from NA2133T have lines and elements farther apart
than those from NA2098T. As with the differences in element size, the inter-site
1 2 3 4 5 6Line Width
50
40
30
20
10
10
20
30
40
50
5%
39%35%
20%
1%
13%
20%
42%
11%7%
1%
Coconino Buff Ware
White Wares
1 2 3 4 5 6Solid Element Width
50
40
30
20
10
10
20
30
40
50
14%
44%
17% 19%
6%
White Wares
1% 3%
43%
6%
38%
10%
Coconino Buff Ware
Figure 44 - Comparison of the frequency of line and solid element widthmodes of the Coconino Buff Ware and White Wares from NA2098T.
103
1 2 3 4 5 6Line Width
50
40
30
20
10
10
30
40
50
60
3%
21%
48%
25%
2%
60%
28%
5%3%4%
Coconino Buff Ware
White Wares
1 2 3 4 5 6Solid Element Width
50
40
30
20
10
10
20
30
40
50
5%
17%
29%33%
10%
White Wares
28%
3%
36% 33%
Coconino Buff Ware
5%
20
Figure 45 - Comparison of the frequency of line and solid element widthmodes of the Coconino Buff Ware and White Wares from NA2133T.
1%
104
1 2 3 4 5 6Line Width
50
40
30
20
10
10
30
40
50
60
5%
29%
42%
22%
2%
43%
26%
20%
6%5%
Coconino Buff Ware
White Wares
1 2 3 4 5 6Solid Element Width
50
40
30
20
10
10
20
30
40
50
9%
26% 24%29%
9%
White Wares
35%
5%
37%
21%
Coconino Buff Ware
4%
20
1% 1%1%
Figure 46 - Comparison of the frequency of line and solid element widthmodes of the Coconino Buff Ware and White Wares from both NA2098Tand NA2133T.
105
1 2 3 4 5 6Line Width
50
40
30
20
10
10
30
40
50
60
5%
39%35%
20%
1%
57%
38%
3%
Coconino Buff Ware
Hohokam Buff Ware
1 2 3 4 5 6Solid Element Width
50
40
30
20
10
10
20
30
40
50
14%
44%
17% 19%
6%
25%21%
32%
14%
7%
Coconino Buff Ware
Figure 47 - Comparison of the frequency of line and solid element widthmodes of the Coconino and Hohokam Buff Wares from NA2098T.
Hohokam Buff Ware
20
3%
106
1 2 3 4 5 6Line Width
50
40
30
20
10
10
30
40
50
60
4%
29%
42%
23%
2%
53%
40%
3%
Coconino Buff Ware
Hohokam Buff Ware
1 2 3 4 5 6Solid Element Width
50
40
30
20
10
10
20
30
40
50
8%
25% 26%29%
9%
25%21%
32%
14%
7%
Coconino Buff Ware
Figure 48 - Comparison of the frequency of line and solid element widthmodes of the Coconino and Hohokam Buff Wares from both NA2098Tand NA2133T.
Hohokam Buff Ware
20
5%
1%4%
107
1 2 3 4Line Spacing
100
80
60
40
20
20
40
60
80
100
16%
84%
1%
15%
62%
22%
Coconino Buff Ware
White Wares
1 2 3 4Solid Element Spacing
100
80
60
40
20
20
40
60
80
100
91%
9%
White Wares
47%43%
2%8%
Coconino Buff Ware
Figure 49 - Comparison of the frequency of line and solid element spacingmodes of the Coconino Buff Ware and White Wares from NA2098T.
108
1 2 3 4Line Spacing
100
80
60
40
20
20
40
60
80
100
26%
74%
5%
28%
54%
14%
Coconino Buff Ware
White Wares
1 2 3 4Solid Element Spacing
100
80
60
40
20
20
40
60
80
100
75%
19%
White Wares
24%
47%
9%
18%
Coconino Buff Ware
5%
5 6
2% 1%
Figure 50 - Comparison of the frequency of line and solid element spacingmodes of the Coconino Buff Ware and White Wares from NA2133T.
109
1 2 3 4Line Spacing
100
80
60
40
20
20
40
60
80
100
22%
78%
3%
22%
58%
18%
Coconino Buff Ware
White Wares
1 2 3 4Solid Element Spacing
100
80
60
40
20
20
40
60
80
100
80%
16%
White Wares
35%
45%
5%13%
Coconino Buff Ware
4%
5 6
1% 1%
Figure 51 - Comparison of the frequency of line and solid elementspacing modes of the Coconino Buff Ware and White Wares fromboth NA2098T and NA2133T.
110
111
differences in element spacing may also be the result of temporal differences. The
line and solid element spacing of Coconino and Hohokam Buff Wares appear to be
more similar (Figures 52 and 53).
These differences between both wares and sites in the size and spacing of
lines are visibly notable (Figures 54 and 55). Lines on red-on-buff sherds are
thinner and closer together than those on black-on-white, and lines on sherds from
NA2133T are thicker and farther apart than those from NA2098T. Coconino Buff
Ware and the White Wares use line forms differently. White Ware sherds
predominantly use straight lines, without much difference between the two sites.
On White Ware sherds from NA2098T, 90% of the lines are straight; and on those
from NA2133T, 88% are straight. Those lines that are not straight are simply
curved, only three sherds (all from the same vessel) from NA2133T have wavy lines.
Coconino Buff Wares use a greater variety of line forms, including straight, curved,
jagged, wavy, and fringed. Differences exist between the use of line forms at the two
sites. On Coconino Buff Ware sherds from NA2098T, 51% of the lines are straight;
and on those from NA2133T, 77% are straight.
The size and spacing of lines and solid elements used in the opposed serrated
motif varies by ware and type (Figures 56, 57, and 58). The elements in Sosi B
opposed serrated barbs are larger and further apart than those in Flagstaff and red-
on-buff, which are very similar in size and spacing. However, Flagstaff style sherds
were not found at NA2133T and acheive only a very low frequency (4%) at
NA2098T. Frequency of use of the opposed serrated barb motif is much lower in the
1 2 3 4Line Spacing
100
80
60
40
20
20
40
60
80
100
16%
84%
11%4%
85%
Coconino Buff Ware
Hohokam Buff Ware
1 2 3 4Solid Element Spacing
100
80
60
40
20
20
40
60
80
100
91%
9%
53%47%
Coconino Buff Ware
Figure 52 - Comparison of the frequency of line and solid element spacingmodes of the Coconino and Hohokam Buff Wares from NA2098T.
Hohokam Buff Ware
112
1 2 3 4Line Spacing
100
80
60
40
20
20
40
60
80
100
22%
78%
10%3%
87%
Coconino Buff Ware
Hohokam Buff Ware
1 2 3 4Solid Element Spacing
100
80
60
40
20
20
40
60
80
100
80%
16%
53%47%
Coconino Buff Ware
Figure 53 - Comparison of the frequency of line and solid element spacingmodes of the Coconino and HohokamBuff Wares from both NA2098T andNA2133T.
Hohokam Buff Ware
4%
113
0 5
Centimeters
Figure 54 - Comparison of line width and spacing on White Ware andCoconino Buff Ware sherds from NA2098T and NA2133T.
114
0 5
Centimeters
Figure 55 - Comparison of line width and spacing on White Ware andCoconino Buff Ware sherds from NA2098T and NA2133T.
115
0 5
Centimeters
Figure 56 - Comparison of the opposed serrated barb motif on Sosi style(top), Flagstaff style (middle), and Coconino Buff Ware (bottom) sherdsfrom NA2098T, showing the difference in element size and spacing.
116
0 5
Centimeters
Figure 57 - Comparison of the opposed serrated barb motif on Sosi style(top), Flagstaff style (middle), and Coconino Buff Ware (bottom) sherdsfrom NA2098T and NA2133T, showing the difference in element sizeand spacing.
117
Figure 58 - Comparison of the opposed serrated barb motif on Sosi style(top), Flagstaff style (middle), and Coconino Buff Ware (bottom) sherdsfrom NA2098T, showing the difference in element size and spacing.
2098.45.225
0 5
Centimeters
118
119
White Wares than in the Buff Wares (Figure 59). The opposed serrated barb motif is
very infrequent (1%) on White Ware sherds from NA2133T, but is more common
(10%) on sherds from NA2098T.
Pendant dots are a hallmark design element of Black Mesa style (see Figures
35 and 36), the predominant White Ware style at both sites. Pendant dots exist on
26% of the White Ware sherds from NA2098T and on 24% of those from NA2098T.
However, pendant dots are absent on Buff Ware sherds. Independent dots inside of
grids (Figure 60) are present on 3% of the Coconino Buff Ware sherds from
NA2133T, and on the Coconino Red-on-buff jar from NA2133A (Figure 61).
Independent dots are lacking on all White Ware sherds from NA2133T, do not
appear on any Buff Ware sherds from NA2098T. However, 1% of the White ware
sherds from NA2098T have independent dots, but they are used differently, inside
the negative diamonds of checkerboard or band layouts (see sherd 2098.45.270,
Figure 30).
In the White Wares, hatching is not usually combined with solid elements,
and when present it is expressed in a different style. But in the Buff Wares,
hatching is used integrally within the designs. Whereas hatched areas on White
Wares are expressed as continuous bands, on Buff Wares isolated panels are
hatched. However, hatching is much more frequent on the Hohokam Buff Ware
sherds (35%) than it is on the Coconino Buff Ware sherds (8%), and Coconino Buff
Ware sherds never have the herringbone hatching that is found on 33% of the
Hohokam sherds with hatching. Almost identical uses of hatching in variations on
50
40
30
20
10
C H W C H W C H WNA2098T NA2133T Both Sites
60
10%
1%5%
38% 38% 38%
33%
52% 51%
Figure 59 - Comparison of the frequency of use of the opposedserrated barb motif in Coconino Buff Ware (C), Hohokam BuffWare (H), and White Wares (W) from NA2098T and NA2133T.
120
0 5
Centimeters
Figure 60 - Coconino Buff Ware sherds with independentdots inside of grids from NA2133T.
121
05
Cen
timet
ers
Figu
re 6
1 - C
ocon
ino
Red
-on-
buff
jar
from
NA
2133
A.
Not
e th
e us
e of
a g
ridd
ed p
anel
with
inde
pend
ent d
ots
on th
e le
ft s
ide,
abo
ut m
idw
ay b
etw
een
the
rim
and
sho
ulde
r.
123
the opposed serrated barb motif appear on both Coconino and Hohokam Buff Ware
sherds (Figures 62 and 63). The singly capped hatching on both Coconino and
Hohokam Buff Ware sherds in Figure 64 was not found on any White Ware sherds.
While only seven whole or partial Coconino Buff Ware vessels have been
found (NA2133A.1, NA2133A.51, NA2133A.60, NA2133T.104, NA2134.C25.3,
NA3979.1, and NA10803.B25.???), some statements about the layouts used can be
made. As noted by McGregor (1941:45-46), blocks of elements are often paneled
together in alternating plaited layouts (Figure 64) as on NA2133A.51 (Figures 10
and 63). Y-frame layouts (Figure 64) appear on NA2133A.60 (Figure 10) and
NA2133T.104 (Figure 13). Both of these layouts often alternate opposed serrated
barb panels with rectilinear interlocking scrolls. These layouts are identical to those
employed on Hohokam Buff Ware vessels. In contrast, the White Wares use
predominantly different layouts — bifold rotation, quartered panels, and repeated
bands (Figure 64). However, Y-frame and plaited layouts similar to those used on
the Buff Wares begin appear in the later White Ware styles Sosi B and Flagstaff.
The decorative treatment of Coconino Buff Ware sherds and White Ware
sherds from the same contexts is quite different both at an unconscious level of
design construction, with the size and spacing of elements, and at a conscious level,
with the use of specific elements, motifs, and layouts in the designs. This evidence
would seem to indicate different cultural origins for these decorative traditions. The
contention that Coconino Buff Ware designs are “identical” (Pilles 1979:472) to
White Ware designs cannot be supported when comparing assemblages from the
NA2098T - AT4534
0 5
Centimeters
Figure 62 - Coconino Buff Ware sherds (top) and a Sacaton Red-on-buffsherd (bottom) from NA2098T with nearly identical use of hatchingbetween parallel jagged lines.
124
0 5
Centimeters
Figure 63 - A Coconino Buff Ware sherd from NA2133T (top) and a SacatonRed-on-buff sherd from NA2098T (bottom) with nearly identical use ofsingly capped hatching opposing a barbed line in a variation on the opposedserrated barb motif.
125
Plaited Y-Frame
Bifold Rotation Quartered Panels Repeated Bands
Figure 64 - Schema of layouts used on Buff and White Ware pottery.
126
127
same depositional contexts. The designs on the Coconino Buff Ware sherds appear
to be more similar to those on the small sample of Hohokam Buff Ware sherds than
to the White Ware sherds. Also, the evidence is contrary to Pilles’ (1979:472)
assertion that the Coconino Buff Ware decorations are similar to crudely decorated
Alameda Brown Ware types Sunset and Turkey Hill White-on-red, which use
repeated isolated white dots or crosses with wide lines and “heavy” triangles (Colton
1941:39-41; Colton 1958).
128
CHAPTER 8
INTERPRETATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
Clearly the designs of Coconino Buff Ware have a separate origin than
those on the White Wares with which they co-occur. They appear to be
similar to the Hohokam Buff Ware. However, the small number of Hohokam
Buff Ware sherds from a limited number vessels do not adequately represent
the design variability of Hohokam Buff Ware. Pilles is correct when he
asserts that many decorative elements found on Hohokam Buff Ware are not
present on Coconino Buff Ware (Pilles 1979:427; Fish et al. 1980:164).
However, some of the elements that he lists — especially repeated small
elements and life forms — are not necessarily characteristic of Sacaton Red-
on-buff, the Hohokam Buff Ware type from the time period in question.
Instead, they are typical of earlier Hohokam types like Santa Cruz Red-on-
buff. So comparison in these terms is not fair.
Nonetheless, Coconino Buff Wares are more similar to Hohokam Buff
Wares in element size and spacing; the elements, motifs, and layouts used;
vessel forms present; and even basic technology. This would appear to
indicate that the Coconino Buff Ware tradition derived somehow from the
Hohokam Buff Ware tradition. The mechanism by which this tradition was
129
transmitted from the Hohokam to the Flagstaff area has profound
implications for interpretations of regional prehistory. Initially, MNA
researchers believed this pottery was the product of Hohokam migrants
(Colton 1938, 1946, 1960; Hargrave 1932; McGregor 1937a, 1937b, 1937c,
1941).
MIGRATION, ETHNICITY, RITUAL, AND EXCHANGE
McGregor carefully hedged this assertion, wondering whether these
migrants represented “a group of Hohokam, or people closely related to the
Hohokam people” (McGregor 1937a:31). He asked, “Were the people of
Hohokam characteristics who arrived at Winona Village actually from the
Gila area or were they from an intermediate stopping place?” (McGregor
1937a:31). McGregor proposed in fact that the migrants may have been from
the Verde Valley, not the Salt-Gila Basin (McGregor 1937b:50), and only
envisioned that a few families may have migrated to the Flagstaff area
(McGregor 1987; n.d.). Colton (1946:270) states that the Hohokam migrants
consisted of “a number of families from central Arizona.” Given these
carefully qualified statements, MNA researchers apparently never imagined
a large-scale, long-distance migration.
Pilles explains the supposed Hohokam influence at Sinagua sites in
terms of a systemic model, in contrast with the model of ethnicity and
migration proposed by MNA researchers. In his view, Hohokam presence at
130
Winona Village might have been part of an expansion of Hohokam exchange
networks with the Hohokam population limited to a trader in residence at
NA2133A, the Hohokam pithouse (Pilles 1979:472; Fish et al. 1980:169-170).
Paul Fish, one of Pilles’ collaborators, excavated what appeared to be a
Hohokam trading outpost in the upper Verde Valley at Perkinsville (Figure
65). This site, dating to the early A.D. 1000s, has a ballcourt and a mixture of
Hohokam and Sinagua house types (Fish 1974:17; Fish and Fish 1977:41-42).
A large quantity of argillite was found, both as finished ornaments and
production debitage. The site is located near an argillite mine (Bartlett 1939)
and may have been established to gain access to that resource for the
Hohokam. Based on the pottery found, this site was occupied earlier than
Winona Village. From roughly the same time period, but in east central
Arizona, Stove Canyon Village (Figure 65) is a Mogollon pithouse village with
a Hohokam-style pit house containing Hohokam artifacts, a Hohokam-style
ballcourt, and a Mogollon great kiva (Neely 1974). The ballcourt and great
kiva indicate that Stove Canyon Village was an important ceremonial center
for local populations.
Ballcourts are a form of communal ceremonial architecture
characteristic of the Preclassic Hohokam. Wilcox has developed a model of a
ballcourt system proposing that the ballcourts were part of calendrically-
scheduled ceremonies, and that they also served as nodes for redistributive
exchange between groups (Wilcox and Sternberg 1983:212-214). Twelve
Gulf ofCalifornia
Snaketown
Tucson
Phoenix
StoveCanyonVillage
SanFrancisco
Peaks
Flagstaff
SunsetCrater
WinonaVillage
Perkinsville
Kilometers0 200
G
ila SantaCru
z
San
Pedro
G
ila
Verd
e
Little
C
olorado
Mogollon Rim
SaltZ
uni
Mim
bre
s
Rio
Gra
nd
e
Puerco
San Ju
an
An
ima
s
C
olo
rado
S anJuan
C
anyon
G
rand
Virgi n
Co
lora
do
N
SonoranDesert
ColoradoPlateau
Figure 65 - Physiographic provinces and features of the Southwestwith modern cities and archaeological sites that will be discussed.
131
132
ballcourts have been found in the Flagstaff area, including the one at Winona
Village (Figure 66), and most appear to have been built after the eruption of
Sunset Crater (Morales 1994). The presence of Hohokam-style pit houses
(Figure 67) at two other ballcourt communities, Juniper Terrace (NA1814)
and Three Courts Pueblo (NA618), enhances the idea of resident Hohokam
traders at these ballcourt communities. However, Wilcox proposes that these
ballcourts may have facilitated exchange between the Verde Valley and the
Flagstaff area, and he raises the possibility that there were no direct ties
between the Flagstaff area and the Hohokam heartland of the Salt-Gila
Basin (Wilcox and Sternberg 1983:214).
Doyel (1992) has proposed the existence of a Preclassic Hohokam
religious cult that included the use of ballcourts and a cremation death ritual,
as well as water symbolism. At Winona Village, in addition to a ballcourt, 45
cremation burials were found. This form of mortuary treatment differs
considerably from the standard Sinagua practice of inhumation burial.
Cremation burial appears to have been practiced for a limited period of time
in the Flagstaff area, a period of time coincident with the Winona focus
(Colton 1946:295). The cremation burials at Winona Village are not
restricted to the NA2133 house cluster with the Hohokam-style pit house,
which only had one cremation recovered. Rather, cremations were found at
three of the five house clusters, with the largest numbers of cremations
Loftin
Padre
Canyon
Youngs Canyon
Walnut Canyon
Rio de
Flag
SanFrancisco Wash
Little
Colorad
oRiver
Deadman
Wash
250
Kilometers
NFlagstaff Area Ballcourts
Figure 66 - Known Hohokam-style ballcourts in the Flagstaff Area.
133
WinonaVillage
Ridge Ruin
Porter
New Caves
Old Caves
Doney Park
Second Sink
JuniperTerrace Wupatki
Road
WupatkiPueblo
DeadmanMesa
SunsetCrater
SanFranciscoPeaks
EldenMountain
SP Crater
Figure 67 - Hohokam style pithouse in the Flagstaff Area compared withHaury's house type S-1 from Snaketown.
134
Posthole20Meters
Cist
Hearth Stone
Haury's Sacaton Phase type S-1 pithouse
NA2133A
NA618X
NA1814C
135
actually coming from the NA2134 (n=28) and NA3644 (n=16) house clusters
(McGregor 1941:262-270).
This large number of cremations at Winona Village would seem odd if
only a Hohokam resident trader were present, just as the presence of only
one Hohokam-style pit house seems odd if a number of Hohokam families
migrated into the area. Combining ideas of systemic relations between
regional populations with those of ethnic identity leads to a consideration
that the cremated individuals who used the ballcourt at Winona were
Sinagua. Local Sinagua people may have emulated their Hohokam exchange
partners, they may have accepted the cremation death ritual along with
ballcourt use as part of an integrated system of ritual and belief.
A variety of methods of cremation burial were practiced at Winona
Village, ranging from leaving the remains scattered where they were burned
(primary cremations) to collecting the remains in a vessel (secondary
cremations). The offerings that accompanied cremated individuals also varied
from people with no offerings to those with numerous vessels, projectile
points, and shell jewelry. The differential treatment of those cremated at
Winona Village, both in terms of the offerings present and method of
interring the cremated remains, may reflect differences in social status,
demonstrating that cremation was not a practice restricted to an exclusive
group. Also, cremation burials were found at three of the five house clusters
at Winona Village.
136
In contrast, at the Piper Site (Figure 68), there exist two distinct
cemeteries — one with exclusively inhumation burials, the other with almost
exclusively cremations. All but one of the cremations were secondary
interments. Offerings included pottery, shell and stone jewelry, and projectile
points (Wendorf et al. 1956:134-135). The pottery found in the two features
and with the burials indicates that they were roughly contemporaneous with
one another and with Winona Village (Wendorf et al. 1956:115-116). The
burial pattern at the Piper Site seems to indicate the co-residence of two
social groups with distinct differences in mortuary practices that may reflect
differences in religious practice and ethnic identity. The distribution of
Coconino Buff Ware at Piper Site appears to be correlated with the presence
of cremation burials. Structure 10, the house most closely associated with the
trash mound containing the cremation cemetery, and containing an intrusive
secondary cremation, contained 79% (n=19) of the Coconino Buff Ware sherds
from the site (Wendorf et al. 1956:114).
Changing from inhumation to cremation burial is a drastic change that
must reflect a change in religious beliefs concerning the afterlife. Such a
change in religious belief and practice would have to be motivated by some
sense of gaining advantages, either religious, social, or even economic.
Combining Wilcox’s model of the ballcourt network (Wilcox and Sternberg
1983) and Doyel’s (1992) idea of a Hohokam religious cult, the co-occurrence
of ballcourts and cremations at Winona Village could be explained by the
1
3
10
12
4
5
9
Piper Site
After Wendorf et al. (1956)
0 20
unexcavated pit structure
trashmound
burialcremation
unexcavated masonry structure
excavated structure
11
6
7
8
2
N
Figure 68 - The Piper Site (NA4266).
137
138
integration of local populations into an economic exchange network
organized and facilitated by ritual practices involving calendrical ballcourt
rites and a shared group identity underscored by a cremation death ritual. A
resident Hohokam trader, whose cultural practices were emulated by local
peoples, may very well have been present at Winona Village, living in
NA2133A. There exists historical and ethnographic evidence of Akimel and
Tohono O’odham traders who seasonally traveled from their homes in the
Sonoran Desert to marine shell sources on the Gulf of California in the
winter and to pueblo villages on the Colorado Plateau in the summer (Wyllys
1931:139; Underhill 1939:21, 103-104). As proposed by MNA researchers, a
few Sinagua families from the Verde Valley who already had established
exchange relations with the Hohokam may also be present at Winona Village.
But what items were exchanged? Marine shell, much of it from the Gulf of
California, was one item that was brought to Winona Village.
McGregor (1941:214) states that bracelets and pendants made from
Glycymeris sp. are the most abundant form of shell jewelry found at Winona
Village. Research on Hohokam shell exchange (McGuire 1985, 1992b;
McGuire and Howard 1987) has postulated that shell circulated within a
prestige goods economy. Certain classes of shell jewelry, like Pecten sp. and
Turritella sp. pendants, are interpreted as high value goods, the exchange of
which served to establish relations between elites in different settlements or
regions. Others, like the Glycymeris sp. bracelets, are interpreted as low
139
value goods that were distributed through exchange relations that linked
elites and dependents. Only one pendant each of Pecten sp. and Turritella sp.
were found at Winona Village, while 92 whole Glycymeris sp. bracelets and
281 fragments were found. This quantification matches the expectations of
high and low value goods circulating in a prestige goods network.
While localized specialist production of shell jewelry in the Papagueria
has been proposed (McGuire 1985, 1992b; McGuire and Howard 1987),
evidence of the production of shell jewelry at Winona Village exists in the
form of both manufacturing debitage and unworked raw materials (McGregor
1941:214-215). As an aspect of the model of a Hohokam migration, McGregor
(1941:226) identifies the craft tradition of shell working at Winona Village as
derivative of the Hohokam tradition. Similar evidence of the craft production
of jewelry from argillite, turquoise, and other stone was also found, including
argillite copies of Glycymeris sp. shell jewelry (McGregor 1941:204-205). It
has been proposed (Fish et al. 1979:171; Pilles 1979:472) that Winona Village
was a regional exchange center that may have been the residence of a
Hohokam trader. In this context of a regional center, Winona Village also
appears to have been a center of production as well as distribution of prestige
goods like shell and stone jewelry.
Cotton textiles, raw cotton, and cotton seed may have been other items
offered by Hohokam traders. Sinagua textiles are similar in design, especially
the use of the opposed serrated barb motif, and twill structure to Hohokam
140
textiles (Kent 1957; Folb 1996). The plaited layout (Figure 64), which is also
found on pottery, is characteristic of textile designs. Haury noted the
similarities in plaited layouts used on Hohokam pottery found at Snaketown
and on pottery with Flagstaff style designs. However, he noted that Hohokam
sherds with this layout were found with Black Mesa style and infers that the
use of the plaited layout in Flagstaff style was derivative of Hohokam
decorative traditions (Gladwin et al. 1938:178). But the transmission of this
decorative style may not have been through the exchange of vessels. Rather,
it may have been through the exchange of cotton textiles bearing the same
layout and motifs.
AGENCY AND STRUCTURE IN SINAGUA PREHISTORY
Within this model of Winona Village as a center of production and
exchange, I interpret Coconino Buff Ware as pottery produced by local
Sinagua or Sinagua immigrants from the Verde Valley who strategically used
this decorated pottery, with its distinct color combinations and vessel forms,
to materially signify, represent, and demonstrate their newly emerging
social, economic, and cultural ties with the Hohokam. Bourdieu (1977a)
suggests that language can serve as social capital. Knowing how to
appropriately use language, and having a sufficient command of linguistic
resources, allows individuals to establish identity and authority. If decorated
pottery is considered to encode information and communicate messages, it
141
could be considered the same way as language. If so, Sinagua potters may
have adopted Hohokam Buff Ware stylistic traditions and employed them as
visible signs to communicate their social and cultural relationship with the
Hohokam.
Of the seven vessels of Coconino Buff Ware that are known, three are
censers, which were believed to have been used in cremation or mourning
rituals (Haury:1976:226-228). Two others contained cremated remains as
secondary interments. The use of these vessels in cremation death rituals,
which may have been performed on top of the trash mounds, would have been
highly visible. Those Sinagua who emulated the Hohokam would want to
broadcast that message of shared group identity to their Hohokam trading
partners, to their fellow Sinagua who also adopted these practices, and to
their neighbors who had not changed.
Potter (1997) has recently applied Giddens’ (1979) concepts of agency
and structure to an archaeological case in the Zuni area of New Mexico.
Giddens (1977) defines structures as rules and resources that define and
constrain society, and agency as the ability of individuals and groups to
intervene and manipulate these structures. Potter suggests that individual
agents in Zuni prehistory manipulated structures of communal ritual
feasting in order to secure social and economic benefits. Following these
interpretations, I propose that individual agents in Sinagua society, perhaps
nascent elites, sought to manipulate various social structures — including
142
distinctly decorated pottery of unusual vessel forms, cremation death rituals
(which utilized Red-on-Buff vessels) performed in public on top of trash
mounds, and the ritual games played in ballcourts — to establish an identity
(both within the local Sinagua community and with the neighboring
Hohokam community) associating them with their Hohokam exchange
partners in order to maximize the social benefits obtainable from exercising
some control over inter-regional exchange.
FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
These ideas are speculative and more research needs to be done to test
them. The first step should be performing stylistic analyses and comparisons
of the red-on-buff and black-on-white assemblages at the other 20 sites with
Coconino Buff Ware (Figure 5). This analysis and comparison should focus on
inter-site differences between wares and intra-site differences within wares.
What stylistic variability exists in Coconino Buff Ware? I noted slight
differences in line width and spacing on the Coconino Buff Ware sherds from
NA2098T and NA2133T. Does this variability exist at other sites, and what is
its importance?
The comparative sample of Hohokam Buff Ware needs to be expanded
to include samples from the Salt-Gila Basin and intermediate areas like the
lower Verde Valley and the Agua Fria River. With an expanded sample of
Hohokam Buff Ware, more conclusive statements about the stylistic
143
relationship between Coconino Buff Ware and Hohokam Buff Ware could be
made. Based upon my initial observations of Hohokam Buff Ware from
Snaketown (Figure 65) in the MNA Ceramic Type Collection, I expect that
the design variability present in Hohokam Buff Ware is not fully expressed in
Coconino Buff Ware.
Locally-produced red-on-buff pottery has also been found in the middle
and upper Verde Valley and in the Prescott area, and may represent local
emulation of the Hohokam. Understanding the stylistic relationships
between these types, Hohokam Buff Ware, and Coconino Buff Ware, will
illuminate how red-on-buff designs were used in different regions. These
different local expressions of red-on-buff may not be contemporaneous.
Prescott Red-on-buff from the Neural Site appears to be later than Coconino
Buff based on co-occurring black-on-white types (Grossman 1997:20-22, 47),
and also appears to be stylistically different from both Hohokam and
Coconino Buff Wares (Grossman 1997:36-38, 45).
The dates of Coconino Buff Ware production need to be better assessed.
Four Coconino Buff Ware sherds were found in surface contexts at AZ I:11:6,
a site that, when excavated, revealed pre-eruptive occupation from the
Archaic through the Sunset phase (Bradley et al. 1993:97-145). At Lizard
Man Village, a post-eruptive site occupied into the 1200's (Kamp and
Whittaker 1990, 1998), 50 Coconino Buff Ware sherds were recovered (Kamp
and Whittaker 1998:Table 3.3), and the illustrated examples (Kamp and
144
Whittaker 1998:Figure 3.5) appear to differ slightly from those seen at
NA2098T and NA2133T. The co-occurrence of Coconino Buff Ware sherds
with well dated black-on-white types in secure contexts at different sites
needs to be examined to better understand when Coconino Buff Ware was
produced and used.
The relationship between Coconino Buff Ware and Alameda Brown
Ware needs to be clarified. Both wares use the same volcanic ash and tuff
tempers, are formed and finished using the same paddle-and-anvil method,
and are fired in an oxidizing atmosphere. Colton (1941:20) asserts that the
two wares were made from different sources clays containing different
amounts of iron. Refiring Coconino Buff Ware and Alameda Brown Ware
sherds found in the same depositional contexts and comparing the resulting
Munsell colors would be an easy method of compositional analysis that could
held address this problem. Depending on the results of this testing, more
sophisticated methods of chemical sourcing could be pursued.
Three sherds from NA2098T and NA2133T with sand-temper were
classified as Coconino Buff Ware. However, these sherds not only had
different tempers, but also appeared to be made from a different paste and
decorated with a different paint. These unslipped sand tempered sherds were
more yellow than the ash- and tuff-tempered sherds, which were brown to
orange when unslipped. In the MNA Ceramic Type collection, another sand-
tempered sherd exists. This sherd was found at Three Courts Pueblo
145
(NA618), a Cohonina site with a Hohokam-style pithouse that is located near
the Second Sink Ballcourt. Recent excavations along U.S. Highway 89 have
recovered sand-tempered red-on-buff pottery at AZ I:10:120 (Mark Elson,
personal communication 1997). It may be that these sand-tempered red-on-
buff sherds are a Cohonina expression of Hohokam emulation. Cohonina
pottery, San Francisco Mountain Gray Ware, was fired in a reducing
atmosphere. Refiring sand-tempered red-on-buff and San Francisco
Mountain Gray Ware sherds from the same depositional contexts in an
oxidizing atmosphere could establish whether the same clays were used.
While it is certain that marine shell from the Gulf of California was
traded into Winona Village via the Hohokam, what the inhabitants of
Winona Village provided in exchange is not known. Pottery from their
Kayenta neighbors is a possibility, such pottery is found at Hohokam sites in
the Salt-Gila Basin (Crown 1985), but in small quantities. McGregor
proposed that the inhabitants of Winona Village may have specialized in the
craft production of leather goods (McGregor 1937:39; McGregor and Wetherill
1939:53). The relative frequency of certain artifacts used for hide processing,
like chipped stone and bone scrapers and bone awls, to other artifacts not
used for hide processing could be used to assess the importance of hide-
processing as an activity. Certain types of ground stone were used for hide-
processing and use-wear analysis can distinguish between ground stone
artifacts used for hide-processing and those used to process foods like corn
146
(Adams 1988).
Raw materials for and debitage from the manufacture of shell and
stone jewelry indicate the craft production of prestige goods at Winona, but
how this production was organized is not understood. Published reports
discuss the importance of these activities (McGregor 1937:37; McGregor and
Wetherill 1939:53-54), but no analysis of the inter-site distribution of these
materials is presented. Wigglesworth (1986) provides information on the
inter-site distribution of finished shell jewelry, but to understand how the
production of these goods was organized, the distribution of raw materials
and debitage needs to be examined.
McGregor (1941) presented no detailed analysis of the stratigraphy of
the trash mounds at either Turkey Tanks Pithouses or Winona Village, and
no such information was located by the author in the MNA site files. Without
such information, the formation processes that created these features cannot
be understood and the hypothesis that they may have functioned in
cremation death rituals cannot be tested. Fortunately, the trash mounds at
Winona Village were only tested, and significant portions of the resources
remain for future investigation. At Turkey Tanks, NA2098T was completely
excavated, but another trash mound remains untouched. Additional testing
and trenching of these trash mounds could provide valuable information on
how these mounds were constructed and used.
While this thesis provides an initial exploration of Coconino Buff Ware,
147
it provides the groundwork for a great deal of future research. The paradigm
shift from culture-history to processualism in Southwestern archaeology
during the 1960s dismissed ideas of culture, ethnicity, and migration in favor
of systems, adaptation, and exchange. These ideas may have been discarded
to hastily (Anthony 1990), and now Southwestern archaeologists are
rediscovering these notions and incorporating them into processual models of
prehistoric change (Cameron 1995; Reid 1998). Coconino Buff Ware provides
an excellent opportunity to explore ideas of culture, ethnicity, migration, and
exchange in the archaeological record.
148
REFERENCES
Abbott, David R.1988 Form, Function, Technology, and Style in Hohokam Ceramics. In The 1982-1984 Excavations
at Las Colinas: Material Culture, D. R. Abbott et al., pp. 73-197. Archaeological Series 162(4).Arizona State Museum, Tucson.
1997 Unlocking the Mystery of Hohokam Buffware Production and Distribution at National Parks.Research Proposal to Sothwest Parks and Monuments Association. Manuscript in possessionof the author.
Adams, Jenny L.1988 Use-Wear Analyses on Manos and Hide-Processing Stones. Journal of Field Archaeology
15:307-315.
Alexander, Jeffrey C., and Seidman, Steven1990 Culture and Society: Contemporary Debates. Cambridge University Press, New York.
Anthony, David W.1990 Migration in Archaeology: The Baby in the Bathwater. American Antropologist 92:895-914.
Bartlett, Katherine1939 A Prehistoric “Mine” of Red Argillite, Resembling Pipestone, Near Del Rio, Arizona. Museum
Notes 11:75-78.
Beals, Ralph L., George W. Brainerd, and Watson Smith1945 Archaeological Studies in Northeast Arizona: A Report on the Archaeological Work of the
Rainbow Bridge-Monument Valley Expedition. Publications in American Archaeology andEthnology 44(1). University of California Press, Berkeley.
Berry, Michael S.1982 Time, Space, and Transition in Anasazi Prehistory. Universtiy of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Berry, Claudia F., and Michael S. Berry1986 Chronological and Conceptual Models of the Southwestern Archaic. In Anthropology of the
Desert West: Essays in Honor of Jesse D. Jennings, Carol J. Condie and Don D. Fowler, eds.,pp. 253-327. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. 110. University of Utah Press, SaltLake City.
Bourdieu, Pierre1977a The Economics of Linguistic Exchange. Social Science Information 16:645-688.1977b Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Bradley, Ronna J., ed.1994 Across the Colorado Plateau: Anthropological Studies for the Transwestern Pipeline Expansion
Project - Volume XII, Before the Sky Fell: The Pre-Eruptive Sinagua of the Flagstaff Area. Officeof Contract Archaeology and Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, Albuquerque, NM.
Breternitz, David A.1960 Excavations at Three Sites in the Verde Valley. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin No. 34.
Northern Arizona Society of Science and Art, Flagstaff, AZ.1966 An Appraisal of Tree-Ring Dated Pottery in the Southwest. Anthropological Papers of the
University of Arizona No. 10. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
149
Brew, J. O.1946 Archaeology of Alkali Ridge, Southeastern Utah. Papers of the Peabody Museum of
Archaeology and Ethnology 21. Peabody Museum, Cambridge, MA.
Cameron, Catherine M.1995 Migration and the Movement of Southwestern Peoples. Journal of Anthropological
Archaeology 14:104-124.
Colton, Harold S.1938 The Economic Geography of the Winona Phase. Southwestern Lore 3(4):64-66.1939 Prehistoric Culture Units and Their Relationships in Northern Arizona. Museum of Northern
Arizona Bulletin No. 17. Northern Arizona Society of Science and Art, Flagstaff, AZ.1941 Winona and Ridge Ruin Part II, Notes on the Technology and Taxonomy of the Pottery.
Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin No. 19. Northern Arizona Society of Science and Art,Flagstaff, AZ.
1945 The Patayan Problem in the Colorado River Valley. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology1:114-121.
1946 The Sinagua: A Summary of the Archaeology of the Flagstaff Region. Museum of NorthernArizona Bulletin No. 22. Northern Arizona Society of Science and Art, Flagstaff, AZ.
1953 Potsherds: An Introduction to the Study of Prehistoric Southwestern Ceramics and Their Usein Historic Reconstruction. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin No. 25. Northern ArizonaSociety of Science and Art, Flagstaff, AZ.
1960 Black Sand: Prehistory in Northern Arizona. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Colton, Harold S., ed.1955 Pottery Types of the Southwest. Wares 8A, 8B, 9A, 9B: Tusayan Gray and White Ware, Little
Colorado Gray and White Ware. Museum of Northern Arizona Ceramic Series No. 3. NorthernArizona Society of Science and Art, Flagstaff.
1958 Pottery Types of the Southwest. Wares 14, 15, 16, 17, 18: Revised Descriptions, Alameda BrownWare, Tizona Brown Ware, Lower Colorado Buff Ware, Prescott Gray Ware, San FranciscoMountain Gray Ware. Museum of Northern Arizona Ceramic Series No. 3D. Northern ArizonaSociety of Science and Art, Flagstaff.
Colton, Harold S., and Lyndon L. Hargrave1937 Handbook of Northern Arizona Pottery Wares. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin No. 11.
Northern Arizona Society of Science and Art, Flagstaff, AZ.
Cordell, Linda S.1994 Ancient Pueblo Peoples. Exploring the Ancient World. St. Remy Press, Montreal; Smithsonian
Books, Washington, DC.
Crown, Patricia L.1985 Intrusive Ceramics and the Identification of Hohokam Exchange Networks. In Proceedings of
the 1983 Hohokam Symposium, Part II, Alfred E. Dittert, Jr., and Donald E. Dove, eds., pp.439-458. Occasional Paper 2. Arizona Archaeological Society, Phoenix.
Dean, Jeffrey S.1991 Thoughts on Hohokam Chronology. In Exploring the Hohokam: Prehistoric Desert Peoples of
the American Southwest, George J. Gumerman, ed., pp. 61-150. University of New MexicoPress, Albuquerque.
150
Dean, Jeffrey S., Slaughter, Mark S., and Dennie O. Bowden1996 Desert Dendrochronology: Tree-Ring Dating Prehistoric Sites in the Tucson Basin. The Kiva
62:7-26.
Douglass, Amy A.1987 Prehistoric Exchange and Sociopolitcal Development: The Little Colorado White Ware
Production-Distribution System. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Arizona StateUniversity, Tempe.
Downum, Christian E.1988 "One Grand History": A Critical Review of Flagstaff Archaeology, 1851-1988. PhD dissertation,
Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson.1992 The Sinagua. Plateau 63(1):1-33.1996 Wupatki Area Ceramic Types and Wares. NAU-MNA Archaeological Field School Manual.
Downum, Christian E., and Alan P. Sullivan, III1990 Settlement Patterns. In The Wupatki Archaeological Inventory Survey Project: Final Report,
Bruce A. Anderson, ed., Ch. 5, pp. 1-90. Southwest Cultural Resources Center ProfessionalPaper No. 35. National Park Service, Santa Fe.
Doyel, David E.1992 On Models and Methods: Comments on the History of Archaeological Research in the
Southern Southwest. In Proceedings of the Second Salado Conference, R. C. Lange and S.Germick, eds., pp. 345-351. Occasional Paper No. ???. Arizona Archaeological Society, Phoenix.
Earle, Timothy K., and Johnathan E. Ericson, eds. 1977 Exchange Systems in Prehistory. Academic Press, New York.
Fish, Paul R.1974 Prehistoric Land Use in the Perkinsville Valley. Arizona Archaeologist 8:1-36.
Fish, Paul R., and Suzanne K. Fish1977 Verde Valley Archaeology: Review & Prospectus. Anthropology Research Report 8. Museum of
Northern Arizona, Flagstaff.
Fish, Paul R., Peter J. Pilles, Jr., and Suzanne K. Fish1980 Colonies, Traders and Traits: The Hohokam in the North. In Current Issues in Hohokam
Prehistory: Proceedings of a Symposium, David Doyel and Fred Plog, eds., pp. 151-175.Anthropological Research Papers 23. Arizona State University, Tempe.
Folb, Lisa1996 Cotton Fabrics and Wupatki Pueblo. Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, Northern
Arizona University, Flagstaff.
Friedrich, Margaret Hardin1970 Design Structure and Social Interaction: Archaeological Implications of an Ethnographic
Analysis. American Antiquity 35:332-343.
Giddens, Anthony1979 Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure, and Contradiction in Social Analysis.
University of California Press, Berkeley.
151
Givens, Douglas R.1992 Alfred Vincent Kidder and the Development of Americanist Archaeology. Albuquerque:
University of New Mexico Press.
Gifford, James C.1960 The Type-Variety method of Classification as an Indicator of Cultural Phenomena. American
Antiquity 25:341-347.
Gladwin, Harold S., Emil W. Haury, E. B. Sayles, and Nora Gladwin1937 Excavations at Snaketown: Material Culture. Medallion Papers XXV. Gila Pueblo, Globe, AZ.
Gladwin, Winifred, and Harold S. Gladwin1929a The Red-on-Buff Culture of the Gila Basin. Medallion Papers III. Gila Pueblo, Globe, AZ.1929b The Red-on-Buff Culture of the Papagueria. Medallion Papers IV. Gila Pueblo, Globe, AZ.1930a The Western Range of the Red-on-Buff Culture. Medallion Papers V. Gila Pueblo, Globe, AZ.1930b A Method for the Designation of Southwestern Pottery Types. Medallion Papers VII. Gila
Pueblo, Globe, AZ.1933 Some Southwestern Pottery Types, Series III. Medallion Papers XIII. Gila Pueblo, Globe, AZ.1935 The Eastern Range of the Red-on-Buff Culture. Medallion Papers XVI. Gila Pueblo, Globe, AZ.
Graves, Michael A.1981 Ethnoarchaeology of Kalinga Ceramic Design. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
University of Arizona, Tucson.
Grossman, Joanne A., ed.1997 The Neural Site NA 20788. Yavapai Chapter, Arizona Archaeological Society, Prescott.
Gumerman, George J., ed.1988 The Anasazi in a Changing Environment. Cambridge University Press, New York.
Hargrave, Lyndon L.1932a Guide to Forty Pottery Types from the Hopi Country and the San Francisco Mountains,
Arizona. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin No. 1. Northern Arizona Society of Science andArt, Flagstaff, AZ.
1932b The Museum of Northern Arizona Archaeological Expedition. Museum Notes 5:25-28.1938 Results of a Study of the Cohonina Branch of the Patayan Culture in 1938. Museum Notes
11:43-50.
Harlan, Thomas P.1962 A Sequence of Ruins in the Flagstaff Area Dated by Tree-Rings. Master’s thesis, Department
of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson.
Haury, Emil W.1936 The Mogollon Culture of Southwestern New Mexico. Medallion Papers XX. Gila Pueblo, Globe,
AZ.1976 The Hohokam, Desert Farmers & Craftsmen: Excavations at Snaketown, 1964-1965.
University of Arizona Press, Tucson.1988 Gila Pueblo Archaeological Foundation: A History and Some Personal Notes. The Kiva 54:1-77.
Haynes, C. Vance, Jr.1980 The Clovis Culture. Canadian Journal of Anthropology 1:115-121.
152
Hegmon, Michelle1992 Archaeological Research on Style. Annual Review of Anthropology 21:517-536.1995 The Social Dynamics of Pottery Style in the Early Puebloan Southwest. Occasional Paper 5.
Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, CO.
Herbich, Ingrid1987 Learning Patterns, Potter Interaction and Ceramic Style among the Luo of Kenya. African
Archaeological Review 5:193-204.
Holmes, W. H.1886 Pottery of the Ancient Pueblos. Fourth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, pp. 265-360.
Howard, Jerry B.1988 Casa Buena Architectural Types and Descriptions. In Excavations at Casa Buena: Changing
Hohokam Land Use along the Squaw Peak Parkway, Jerry B. Howard, ed., pp. 67-143. SoilSystems Publications in Archaeology Number 11. Soil Systems, Phoenix.
Hudgens, Bruce R.1974 Turkey Hills Community: A Sinagua Settlement Pattern Study. Manuscript on file, Museum
of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff.
Irwin-Williams, Cynthia1967 Picosa: The Elementary Southwestern Culture. American Antiquity 32:441-456.1973 The Oshara Tradition: Origins of the Anasazi Culture. Eastern New Mexico University
Contributions in Anthropology 5(1). Eastern New Mexico University, Portales.
Jennings, Jesse D.1964 The Desert West. In Prehistoric Man in the New World, Jesse D. Jennings and Edward
Norbeck, eds., pp. 149-174. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Kamp, Kathryn A., and John C. Whittaker1990 Lizard Man Village: A Small Site Perspective on Northern Sinagua. The Kiva 55:99-125.1998 Surviving Adversity: The Sinagua of Lizard Man Village. University of Utah Anthropological
Papers (in press). University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Kelly, Robert L., and Lawrence C. Todd1988 Coming into the Country: Early Paleoindian Hunting and Mobility. American Antiquity 53:231-
244.
Kelly, Roger E.1969 Salvage Excavations at Six Sinagua Sites. Plateau 41:112-132.
Kent, Kate Peck1957 The Cultivation and Weaving of Cotton in the Prehistoric Southwestern United States.
Transactions of the American Philosophical Society n.s. 47. American Philosophical Society,Philadelphia.
Kidder, Alfred Vincent1924 An Introduction to the Study of Southwestern Archaeology, with a Preliminary Account of the
Excavations at Pecos. Phillips Academy, Papers of the Southwestern Expedition, 1. YaleUniversity Press, New Haven.
153
1927 Southwestern Archaeological Conference. Science 66: 489-491.1962 An Introduction to the Study of Southwestern Archaeology, with a Preliminary Account of the
Excavations at Pecos, and a Summary of Southwestern Archaeology Today. Yale UniversityPress, New Haven.
Lipe, William D.1993 The Basketmaker II Period in the Four Corners Area. In Anasazi Basketmaker: Papers from
the 1990 Wetherill-Grand Gulch Symposium, Victoria M. Atkins, ed., pp. 1-10. CulturalResource Series No. 24. Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake City.
Longacre, William A.1970 Reconstructing Pueblo Societies. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Masse, W. Bruce1982 Hohokam Ceramic Art: Regionalism and the Imprint of Societal Change. In Southwestern
Ceramics: A Comparative Review, Albert H. Schroeder, ed., pp. 70-105. Arizona ArchaeologistNo. 15. Arizona Archaeological Society, Phoenix.
Matson, R. G.1991 The Origins of Southwestern Agriculture. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
McGregor, John C.n.d. Tape Recording Transcription of John C. McGregor’s Comments on “Sunset Crater and the
Sinagua: A New Interpretation,” by Peter J. Pilles, Jr. Manuscript on file, Museum ofNorthern Arizona, Flagstaff.
1937a A Small Island of Culture near Flagstaff, Arizona. Southwestern Lore 3:28-32.1937b Winona Village: A XIIth Century Settlement with a Ball Court near Flagstaff, Arizona.
Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin No. 12. Northern Arizona Society of Science and Art,Flagstaff, AZ.
1937c Winona Village: A Prehistoric site Showing Hohokam Influence in th eFlagstaff Area. Plateau9:39-42.
1938 How Some Important Northern Arizona Pottery Types Were Dated. Museum of NorthernArizona Bulletin No. 13. Northern Arizona Society of Science and Art, Flagstaff, AZ.
1941 Winona and Ridge Ruin Part I, Architecture and Material Culture. Museum of NorthernArizona Bulletin No. 18. Northern Arizona Society of Science and Art, Flagstaff, AZ.
1951 The Cohonina Culture of Northwestern Arizona. University of Illinois Press.1987 Reminiscences. Manuscript in possession of Dr. Christian E. Downum, Department of
Anthropology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff.
McGregor, John C., and Milton A. Wetherill1939 Winona Village — 1938 (A Report of Progress). Museum Notes 11:51-54.
McGuire, Randall H.1985 The Role of Shell Exchange in the Explanation of Hohokam Prehistory. In Proceedings of the
1983 Hohokam Symposium, Part II, Alfred E. Dittert, Jr., and Donald E. Dove, eds., pp. 473-482. Occasional Paper 2. Arizona Archaeological Society, Phoenix.
1991 On the Outside Looking In: The Concept of Periphery in Hohokam Archaeology. In Exploringthe Hohokam: Prehistoric Desert Peoples of the American Southwest, George J. Gumerman, ed.,pp. 347-382. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
1992a Death, Society, and Ideology in a Hohokam Community. Investigations in American
154
Archaeology. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.1992b The Structure and Organization of Hohokam Exchange. In The American Southwest and
Mesoamerica: Systems of Prehistoric Exchange, Jonathan E. Ericson and Timothy G. Baugh,eds., pp. 95-119.
McGuire, Randall H., and Ann Valdo Howard1987 The Structure and Organization of Hohokam Shell Exchange. The Kiva 52:113-146.
McKern, W. C.1939 The Midwestern Taxonomic Method as an Aid to Archaeological Culture Study. American
Antiquity 4:301-313.
Masse, W. Bruce1982 Hohokam Ceramic Art: Regionalism and the Imprint of Societal Change. In Southwestern
Ceramics: A Comparative Review, Albert H. Schoeder, ed., pp. 70-105. Arizona Archaeologist15. Arizona Archaeological Society, Phoenix.
Mills, Barbara J., Christine E. Goetze, and Maria Nieves Zedeño1993 Across the Colorado Plateau: Anthropological Studies for the Transwestern Pipeline Expansion
Project - Volume XVI, Interpretation of Ceramic Artifacts. Office of Contract Archaeology andMaxwell Museum of Anthropology, Albuquerque, NM.
Morales, Michael, Jr.1994 Prehistoric Ballcourts in Northern Arizona. Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology,
Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff.
Neely, James A.1974 The Prehistoric Lunt and Stove Canyon Sites, Point of Pines, Arizona. PhD dissertation,
Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson. Neitzel, Jill E.1991 The Regional Organization of the Hohokam in the American Southwest: A Stylistic Analyisi of
Red-on-Buff Pottery. The Evolution of North American Indians. Garland Publishing, NewYork.
Pilles, Jr., Peter J.1969 Habitation and Field Houses near Winona and Angell, Arizona. The Kiva 34:90-102.1978 The Field House and Sinagua Demography. In Limited Activity and Occupation Sites: A
Collection of Conference Papers, Albert E. Ward, ed., pp. 119-133. Contributions toAnthropological Studies No. 1. Center for Anthropological Studies, Albuquerque.
1979 Sunset Crater and the Sinagua: A New Interpretation. In Payson D. Sheets and Donald K.Grayson, eds. Volcanic Activity and Human Ecology, pp. 459-485. Academic Press, New York.
1981 The Southern Sinagua. Plateau 53(1):6-17.1996 The Pueblo III Period along the Mogollon Rim: The Honanki, Elden, and Turkey Hill Phases
of the Sinagua. In The Prehistoric Pueblo World, A.D 1150-1350, Michael A. Adler, ed., pp. 59-72. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Pinsky, Valerie Ann1992 Anthropology and the New Archaeology: A Critical Study of Disciplinary Change in American
Arhcaeology. PhD dissertation, Department of Archaeology, Cambridge University, Cambridge.
155
Plog, Stephen1983 Analysis of Style in Artifacts. Annual Review of Anthropology 12:125-142.
Plog, Stephen, and Jeffrey L. Hantman1986 Multiple Regression Analysis as a Dating Method in the American Southwest. In Spatial
Organization and Exchange: An Archaeological Survey on Northern Black Mesa, Stephen Plog,ed., pp. 87-104. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.
Potter, James Michael1997 Communal Ritual, Feasting, and Social Differentiation in Late Prehistoric Zuni Communities.
PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe.
Reid, J. Jefferson1998 Return to Migration, Population Movement, and Ethnic Identity in the American Southwest.
In Vanishing River: Landscapes and Lives of the Lower Verde River, Stephanie M. Whittlesey,Richard Ciolek-Torrello, and Jeffrey H. Altschul, eds., pp. 629-638. Statistical Research Press,Tucson.
Rice, Prudence M.1987 Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Robinson, William J., Bruce G, Harrill, and Richard L. Warren1975 Tree-Ring Dates From Arizona H-I Flagstaff Area. Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, Tucson.
Sackett, James1977 The Meaning of Style: A General Model. American Antiquity 42:369-380.1982 Approaches to Style in Lithic Archaeology. Journal of Anthrolpogical Archaeology 1:59-112.1985 Style and Ethnicity in the Kalahari: A reply to Weissner. American Antiquity 50:154-159.1986 Isochrestism and Style: A Clarification. Journal of Anthrolpogical Archaeology 5:266-277.
Shepard, Anna O.1956 Ceramics for the Archaeologist. Publication 609. Carnegie Institution, Washington, DC.
Sinopoli, Carla M.1991 Approaches to Archaeological Ceramics. Plenum Press, New York.
Smith, Watson1952 Excavations in the Big Hawk Valley, Wupatki National Monument, Arizona. Museum of
Northern Arizona Bulletin 24. Northern Arizona Society of Science and Art, Flagstaff, AZ.1962 Schools, Pots, and Potters. American Anthropologist 64:1165-1178.
South, Stanley1972 Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.
Speth, John1988 Do We Need Concepts Like “Mogollon,” “Anasazi,” and “Hohokam” Today? A Cultural
Anthropological Perspective. The Kiva 53:201-204.
Taylor, Walter1948 A Study of Archaeology. Memoir No. 69. American Anthropological Association, Menasha, WI.
Triadan, Daniela
156
1997 Ceramic Containers and Common Commodities: Production and Distribution of WhiteMountain Redware in the Grasshopper Region, Arizona. Anthropological Papers of theUniversity of Arizona No. 61. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Trigger, Bruce G.1989 A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge University Press, New Uork.
Underhill, Ruth Murray1939 Social Organization of the Papago Indians. Columbia University Contributions to
Anthropology Volume 30. Columbia University Press, New York.
Voss, Jerome A.1980 Tribal Emergence during the Neolithic of Northwestern Europe. PhD dissertation, Department
of Anthroplogy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Wallace, Henry D.1995 Decorated Buffware and Brownware Ceramics. In The Roosevelt Community Development
Study, Volume 2: Ceramic Chronology, Technology, and Economics, James M. Heidke andMiriam T. Stark, eds., pp. 19-84. Anthropological Papers 14. Center for Desert Archaeology,Tucson.
Weissner, Polly1983 Style and Social Information in Kalahari San Projectile Points. American Antiquity 49:253-276.1984 Reconsidering the Behavioral Basis for Style: A Case Study among the Kalahari San. Journal
of Anthropological Archaeology 3:190-234.1985 Style or Isochrestic Variation? A Reply to Sackett. American Antiquity 50:160-166.
Wendorf, Fred, Nancy Fox, and Orian L. Lewis, eds.1956 Pipeline Archaeology: Reports of Salvage Operations in the Southwest on El Paso Natural Gas
Company Projects, 1950-1953. Laboratory of Anthropology, Santa Fe; Museum of NorthernArizona, Flagstaff.
Wheat, Joe Ben, James C. Gifford, and William W, Wasley1958 Ceramic Variety, Type Cluster, and Ceramic System in Southwestern Pottery Analysis.
American Antiquity 24:34-47.
Whittlesey, Stephanie M.1998 Rethinking the Core-Periphery Model of the Pre-Classic Hohokam. In Vanishing River:
Landscapes and Lives of the Lower Verde River, Stephanie M. Whittlesey, Richard Ciolek-Torrello, and Jeffrey H. Altschul, eds., pp. 597-628. Statistical Research Press, Tucson.
Wigglesworth, Karen S,1985 Shell from Winona Village Sites. Manuscript on file, Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff.
Wilcox, David R.1979 The Hohokam Regional System. In An Archaeological Test of Sites in the Gila Butte-Santan
Region, South-Central Arizona. G. Rice, D. Wilcox, K. Rafferty, and J. Schoenwetter, eds., pp.77-116. Anthropological Research Papers No. 18. Arizona State University, Tempe.
1986 Excavations of Three Sites on Bottomless Pits Mesa, Flagstaff, Arizona. Manuscript on file,Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff.
1991 The Mesoamerican Ballgame in the American Southwest. In The Mesoamerican Ballgame,Vernon L. Scarborough and David R. Wilcox, eds., pp. 101-125. University of Arizona Press,
157
Tucson.
Wilcox, David R., and Charles Sternberg1983 Hohokam Ballcourts and Their Interpretation. Archaeological Series 160. Arizona State
Museum, Tucson.
Wilcox, David R., and Lynette O. Shenk1977 The Architecture of Casa Grande and Its Interpretation. Archaeological Series No. 115. Arizona
State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson.
Wilson, John P.1969 The Sinagua and Their Neighbors. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Harvard
University, Cambridge.
Wobst, H. Martin1977 Stylistic Behavior and Information Exchange. In For the Director: Research Essays in Honor
of James B. Griffin, C. F. Cleland, ed., pp. 317-342. Anthropological Papers No. 61. Universityof Michigan Museum of Anthropology, Ann Arbor.
Wyllys, Rufus Kay, ed.1931 Padre Luis Velarde’s Relacion of Pimería Alta, 1716. New Mexico Historical Review 6:111-???
Zedeño, María Nieves1994 Sourcing Prehistoric Ceramics at Chodistaas Pueblo, Arizona: The Circulation of People and
Pots in the Grasshopper Region. Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona No. 58.University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
158
NOTES
1. The term Anasazi has traditionally been used in Southwestern archaeologyas a cultural label for the Basketmaker-Pueblo people. However, it is aNavajo word meaning “ancient enemies,” and is considered offensive to manycontemporary Pueblo people. I prefer to use the term Ancestral Pueblo ratherthan Anasazi.
2. Colton (1946:180) only presents sherd counts for trench 3, trench 5, andthe remainder of the mound excavated after trenching.
3. Turkey Tanks Pithouses and other undated sites with Coconino Buff Wareare mostly Angell-Winona focus (A.D. 1070-1130). Critical evidence is thatCoconino Buff Ware was not found at Wupatki Pueblo (NA405), JuniperTerrace (NA1814), or the fill of pueblo rooms at Ridge Ruin (NA1785).Wupatki Pueblo has a ballcourt and abundant Alameda Brown Ware (Colton1946:55-63), and tree-rings for major construction after A.D. 1137 (Robinsonet al. 1975:92-96). Juniper Terrace is near a ballcourt (NA804), has aHohokam-style pit house (NA1814C), and has tree-ring dates after A.D. 1129(Colton 1946:76-77, 145-155; Robinson et al. 1975:52-53; Downum 1988:342-345). While Coconino Buff Ware was found in some contexts at Ridge Ruin,none was found in the fill of pueblo rooms with construction dates after A.D.1118 (Colton 1946:138-145; Robinson et al. 1975:78-79). However, thepresence of Coconino Buff Ware at Lizard Man Village (Kamp and Whittaker1998:Table 3.3), which was occupied from approximately 1070 to 1250 (Kampand Whittaker 1998:8-12), may indicate possible later production.Unfortunately, the contexts from which Coconino Buff sherds were recoveredat Lizard Man Village are not published, so the dates of use cannot bedetermined.
4. Dendrochronology has seen limited application in Hohokam archaeologybecause Hohokam house construction generally used wood from mesquite,cottonwood, and other trees which are not amenable to dendrochronologicalanalysis. Hohokam ceramic chronology is based on less precise radiocarbonand archaeomagnetic dating methods, and cross-dating with tree-ring datedpottery found in co-occurrence.
159
APPENDIX 1 - MEASUREMENT OF VARIABLES ON COCONINO BUFF WARESHERDS FROM NA2098T
Lot # Sherd # V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 Temper Vessel Form Rim/Body? Slipped? Notes11 1 3 0 2 0 2 1 0 0 Tuff Jar Body N11 2 4 0 1 0 4 2 0 0 Sand Jar Body Y41 3 5 1 1 0 2 1 2 0 Tuff Jar Body Y76 4 4 1 3 1 0 0 2 0 Cinder Jar Body Y76 5 3 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 Cinder Jar Body Y76 6 3 0 3 1 0 0 2 0 Cinder Jar Body Y76 7 5 0 3 1 0 0 2 0 Cinder Jar Body Y76 8 4 1 3 1 0 0 2 0 Cinder Jar Body Y76 9 6 1 3 1 0 0 2 0 Cinder Jar Body Y76 10 4 0 3 1 0 0 2 0 Cinder Jar Body Y76 11 3 0 3 1 0 0 2 0 Cinder Jar Body Y76 12 2 1 3 0 2 1 1 0 Cinder Jar Body Y76 13 2 1 3 1 0 0 2 0 Cinder Jar Body Y76 14 3 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 Cinder Jar Gila Shoulder Y76 15 3 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 Cinder Jar Gila Shoulder Y76 16 3 1 3 0 2 1 2 0 Cinder Jar Gila Shoulder Y76 17 3 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 Cinder Jar Gila Shoulder Y76 18 4 0 1 0 3 1 1 0 Tuff Jar Body Y76 19 4 0 1 0 3 1 1 0 Tuff Jar Body Y76 20 3 1 1 0 3 1 1 0 Cinder Jar Body Y76 21 4 1 1 0 2 1 1 0 Tuff Jar Body Y76 22 3 1 3 0 2 1 2 0 Cinder Jar Body Y76 23 4 1 1 0 2 1 1 0 Tuff Jar Body Y76 24 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 Tuff Jar Body Y76 25 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 Tuff Jar Body Y76 26 3 0 2 0 2 2 2 0 Cinder Jar Body Y76 27 4 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 Tuff Jar Body Y76 28 4 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 Tuff Jar Body Y76 29 4 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 Tuff Jar Body Y76 30 5 1 3 0 2 1 2 0 Tuff Jar Body Y76 31 4 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 Tuff Jar Body Y76 32 4 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 Tuff Jar Body Y76 33 5 2 1 0 2 1 2 0 Tuff Jar Body Y76 34 4 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 Cinder Jar Body Y76 35 5 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 Tuff Jar Body Y76 36 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Cinder Jar Body Y76 37 4 0 1 0 2 1 1 0 Tuff Jar Body Y76 38 4 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 Cinder Jar Body Y76 39 5 1 1 0 2 1 1 0 Tuff Jar Body Y76 40 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Cinder Jar Body Y76 41 3 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 Cinder Jar Body Y76 42 4 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 Tuff Jar Body Y76 43 5 0 1 0 4 1 0 0 Cinder Jar Body Y76 44 3 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 Cinder Jar Gila Shoulder Y76 45 4 0 3 0 5 1 2 0 Cinder Jar Body Y76 46 5 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 Sand Jar Body Y76 47 4 0 1 0 5 1 0 0 Tuff Jar Body N
160
Lot # Sherd # V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 Temper Vessel Form Rim/Body? Slipped? Notes76 48 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Tuff Jar Body Y76 49 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Tuff Jar Body Y76 50 5 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 Tuff Jar Body Y76 51 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Tuff Jar Body Y76 52 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Tuff Jar Body Y76 53 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Tuff Jar Body Y76 54 4 1 1 0 4 1 0 0 Cinder Jar Body Y76 55 3 1 1 0 4 1 0 0 Cinder Jar Body Y76 56 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Cinder Jar Body Y76 57 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Cinder Jar Body Y76 58 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Tuff Jar Body Y76 59 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Tuff Jar Body Y76 60 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 0 Cinder Jar Body Y76 61 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tuff Jar Body Y76 62 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Tuff Jar Body Y76 63 2 0 2 0 4 1 0 0 Cinder Jar Body Y76 64 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Tuff Jar Body Y76 65 5 0 1 0 2 1 1 0 Tuff Jar Body Y76 66 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Tuff Jar Gila Shoulder Y76 67 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Tuff Jar Gila Shoulder Y76 68 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Cinder Jar Gila Shoulder Y76 69 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Tuff Jar Rim Y76 70 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Tuff Jar Rim Y76 71 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 Tuff Jar Rim Y76 72 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Cinder Jar Rim Y76 73 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Cinder Jar Rim Y
74 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Tuff Jar Body N AT456575 4 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 Tuff Jar Body N AT456476 5 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 Tuff Jar Body N AT455177 5 1 1 0 3 1 0 0 Tuff Jar Body N AT455078 4 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 Tuff Jar Body Y AT454679 3 1 2 0 4 1 2 0 Tuff Jar Body Y AT455480 3 1 1 0 2 1 3 0 Tuff Jar Body Y AT455781 3 0 2 0 3 1 2 0 Tuff Jar Body Y AT454982 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Tuff Jar Body Y AT4548
161
APPENDIX 2 - MEASUREMENT OF VARIABLES ON COCONINO BUFF WARESHERDS FROM NA2133T
Lot # Sherd # V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 Temper Vessel Form Rim/Body? Slipped? Notes1 1 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Tuff Bowl Body Y1 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Tuff Bowl Body Y1 3 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 Tuff Bowl Body Y1 4 4 2 1 0 4 1 0 0 Tuff Bowl Body Y1 5 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Tuff Bowl Body Y1 6 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 Tuff Jar Body Y1 7 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 0 Tuff Bowl Rim Y3 8 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Tuff Bowl Body N4 86 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 Tuff Bowl Rim Y4 85 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Tuff Jar Body N4 87 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Tuff Jar Body N6 88 3 1 3 0 1 1 2 0 Tuff Bowl Rim Y6 89 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 Tuff Bowl Body Y6 90 4 0 1 0 3 2 1 0 Tuff Jar Body Y8 9 0 0 0 0 4 0 3 0 Tuff Bowl Body Y9 105 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Tuff Bowl Rim Y9 106 4 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 Tuff Bowl Rim Y9 107 4 2 1 0 4 2 1 0 Tuff Bowl Rim Y
14 190 4 0 1 0 2 1 3 0 Tuff Jar Body N17 10 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 Tuff Bowl Body Y19 78 0 0 0 0 4 2 1 0 Tuff Jar Body N19 79 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 Tuff Jar Body N19 80 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 Tuff Bowl Body Y27 11 4 1 3 0 1 1 1 0 Tuff Jar Body Y27 12 5 1 1 0 3 1 0 0 Tuff Bowl Body N27 13 4 1 2 0 6 1 0 0 Tuff Bowl Rim Y27 14 2 1 1 1 5 1 0 0 Tuff Bowl Body Y33 81 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 0 Tuff Jar Body Y33 82 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Tuff Bowl Body Y34 83 4 1 1 0 5 1 0 0 Tuff Jar Gila Shoulder Y34 84 5 1 3 1 2 1 2 0 Tuff Jar Body Y40 109 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Tuff Bowl Body Y40 110 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 0 Tuff Bowl Rim Y40 111 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 Tuff Bowl Body Y40 112 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 Tuff Bowl Rim N48 113 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Tuff Jar Gila Shoulder Y48 114 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Tuff Bowl Rim N50 115 4 0 1 0 4 1 0 0 Tuff Bowl Body N54 15 5 1 1 0 3 2 1 0 Tuff Bowl Body Y54 16 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Tuff Bowl Body Y54 17 3 1 2 0 3 1 1 0 Tuff Bowl Body Y62 116 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Tuff Bowl Body N62 117 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Tuff Bowl Body N62 118 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Tuff Bowl Body Y62 119 0 0 0 0 3 1 3 0 Tuff Bowl Body N68 18 4 0 1 0 4 3 0 0 Tuff Bowl Body Y68 19 4 1 2 0 3 1 0 0 Tuff Bowl Rim N
162
Lot # Sherd # V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 Temper Vessel Form Rim/Body? Slipped? Notes70 91 3 0 3 0 2 1 0 0 Tuff Jar Body Y70 92 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 Tuff Jar Body Y70 93 3 0 1 0 3 1 3 0 Tuff Jar Body Y70 94 3 1 1 0 3 1 3 0 Tuff Jar Body Y70 95 4 1 1 1 0 0 2 0 Tuff Jar Body Y70 96 3 1 1 0 2 1 1 0 Tuff Jar Body Y70 97 4 1 1 0 4 1 0 0 Tuff Bowl Rim Y81 98 5 2 1 0 3 1 1 0 Tuff Bowl Body Y81 99 5 1 1 0 3 2 1 0 Tuff Bowl Body Y81 100 3 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 Tuff Bowl Body Y82 101 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 Tuff Bowl Rim Y85 68 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 Tuff Bowl Body Y85 69 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tuff Jar Body N87 102 4 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 Tuff Jar Body Y88 103 5 1 1 0 3 1 1 0 Tuff Bowl Body Y88 104 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 Tuff Bowl Body N90 20 5 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 Tuff Jar Body Y91 21 0 0 0 0 5 3 1 0 Tuff Bowl Body Y91 22 0 0 0 0 6 0 3 0 Tuff Bowl Body Y91 71 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 Tuff Jar Body N93 23 4 0 1 0 2 1 2 0 Tuff Jar Body N93 24 4 0 1 0 3 1 0 0 Tuff Bowl Rim Y93 25 0 0 0 0 4 1 1 0 Tuff Bowl Body Y97 54 4 1 2 0 3 1 0 0 Tuff Bowl Body Y97 55 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 Tuff Bowl Body N97 56 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 Tuff Bowl Body Y97 57 4 0 1 0 2 2 1 0 Tuff Bowl Rim Y97 58 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 Tuff Bowl Rim Y97 59 4 0 1 0 3 1 1 0 Tuff Bowl Rim Y97 60 0 0 0 0 2 2 3 0 Tuff Jar Body N97 61 5 0 1 0 4 1 1 0 Tuff Jar Body N97 62 5 0 1 0 4 1 1 0 Tuff Jar Neck N97 63 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 0 Tuff Jar Body N97 64 5 0 1 0 4 1 0 0 Tuff Jar Body N97 65 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 Tuff Jar Body N97 66 6 0 1 0 4 1 3 0 Tuff Jar Gila Shoulder N97 67 4 0 1 0 5 1 0 0 Tuff Jar Gila Shoulder N99 26 4 0 1 0 4 1 3 0 Tuff Bowl Body Y99 27 4 1 3 0 2 1 3 0 Tuff Bowl Body Y
103 28 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Tuff Bowl Body Y103 29 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Tuff Bowl Body Y105 108 5 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 Tuff Bowl Body N108 30 5 2 1 0 4 2 0 0 Tuff Bowl Body Y109 31 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 Tuff Bowl Body Y110 32 0 0 0 0 3 2 2 0 Tuff Bowl Body Y112 33 5 0 1 0 2 1 3 0 Tuff Jar Body N112 34 4 1 1 0 3 1 1 0 Tuff Bowl Body Y112 35 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Tuff Bowl Body Y112 70 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Tuff Bowl Body Y113 36 0 0 0 0 4 0 3 0 Tuff Jar Body Y
163
Lot # Sherd # V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 Temper Vessel Form Rim/Body? Slipped? Notes113 37 5 1 1 1 4 2 2 0 Tuff Bowl Rim Y115 38 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Tuff Bowl Body Y115 39 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 Tuff Jar Body N116 73 4 0 1 0 4 1 0 3 Tuff Bowl Body Y118 40 4 0 1 0 2 1 1 0 Tuff Bowl Rim Y122 41 4 1 1 1 6 1 0 0 Tuff Jar Body Y122 42 5 1 1 0 5 0 0 0 Tuff Jar Body Y129 43 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Tuff Bowl Body Y129 44 5 1 1 0 4 1 3 0 Tuff Bowl Body Y131 74 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 Tuff Bowl Body Y131 75 4 2 1 0 2 1 0 0 Tuff Bowl Body Y131 76 3 0 1 0 4 0 0 3 Tuff Bowl Body Y133 45 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Tuff Bowl Body Y133 46 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Tuff Jar Rim Y136 77 0 0 0 0 3 1 3 0 Tuff Jar Body Y140 47 5 1 3 1 5 0 3 0 Tuff Bowl Rim Y140 48 6 2 3 0 6 1 0 0 Tuff Bowl Body Y142 49 4 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 Tuff Bowl Body Y142 50 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 Tuff Bowl Body Y142 51 3 1 1 0 3 1 1 0 Tuff Jar Body Y142 52 4 0 1 0 3 1 0 0 Tuff Jar Gila Shoulder Y142 53 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Tuff Bowl Rim Y
120 5 2 1 0 4 3 0 0 Tuff Bowl Body Y No AT #121 4 1 1 0 4 1 1 0 Tuff Bowl Body Y AT6247122 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Tuff Bowl Rim Y AT13273123 4 1 1 0 3 1 1 0 Tuff Bowl Rim Y AT7366124 0 0 0 0 4 0 3 0 Tuff Bowl Body Y AT13281125 4 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 Tuff Bowl Body Y AT13280126 4 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 Tuff Bowl Body Y AT13278127 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 Tuff Bowl Body Y AT13276128 3 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 Tuff Bowl Body Y AT6245129 1 0 1 0 4 1 0 0 Tuff Bowl Rim N No AT #130 4 0 2 0 3 3 0 0 Tuff Bowl Neck N AT7503131 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Tuff Bowl Rim N AT7505132 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Tuff Bowl Body N AT13282133 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 Tuff Bowl Body N No AT #
164
APPENDIX 3 - MEASUREMENT OF VARIABLES ON WHITE WARE SHERDS FROMNA2098T
Lot # Sherd # Ware Style? V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 Vessel Form Rim/Body? Corrugated?2 1 L SA 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N2 2 T ? 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N2 3 L BM 5 0 1 0 5 2 0 0 Bowl Body N2 4 L SB 0 0 0 0 5 2 0 0 Bowl Body N
15 5 L D 2 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 Jar Rim N15 6 L BM 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 Jar Neck N15 7 L BL 5 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N18 8 T BM 0 0 0 0 6 3 0 1 Jar Neck N18 9 T BM 5 3 1 0 4 1 0 0 Jar Body N18 10 T BM 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 Jar Body N18 11 L SB 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 Bowl Body N18 12 L BM 5 0 1 0 5 1 1 1 Bowl Body N18 13 T BM 6 2 1 0 6 2 0 1 Bowl Body N18 14 L SB 0 0 0 0 4 2 1 0 Bowl Body N18 15 T BM 4 0 0 0 4 2 0 1 Bowl Body N18 16 L SB 4 0 1 0 6 1 0 0 Bowl Rim N18 17 T F 3 2 1 0 2 2 0 0 Bowl Rim N18 18 L SB 3 0 1 0 4 2 0 0 Bowl Rim N18 19 T BL 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N18 20 T BL 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N18 21 L BM 5 3 1 0 5 2 0 0 Bowl Rim N18 22 L SB 4 0 1 0 5 2 1 0 Bowl Rim N18 23 L BM 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 Bowl Rim N20 24 L SB 0 0 0 0 4 2 1 0 Jar Rim N20 25 L SB 5 1 1 0 5 1 0 1 Jar Body N20 26 L SB 4 0 1 0 5 3 1 0 Bowl Body N20 27 L BM 0 0 0 0 5 2 0 0 Bowl Body N20 28 T BM 0 0 0 0 6 2 0 1 Bowl Body N20 29 T BL 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N20 30 T D 5 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N20 31 L BM 5 2 1 0 6 2 0 1 Bowl Rim N20 32 L SB 5 0 1 0 4 2 1 0 Bowl Rim N20 33 L D 4 1 1 1 5 2 0 0 Bowl Rim N21 34 T BL 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Jar Body N21 35 L F 1 1 1 0 2 1 1 0 Jar Body N21 36 L SA 4 0 1 0 3 1 0 0 Jar Neck N21 37 L F 2 1 1 0 4 1 0 2 Jar Body N21 38 T BL 5 2 1 0 5 2 0 0 Bowl Rim N21 39 T ? 4 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N21 40 T BM 5 2 1 0 5 1 0 1 Bowl Rim N21 41 L SA 3 2 1 0 4 1 0 0 Bowl Rim N21 42 L SA 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 Bowl Body N21 43 L BL 3 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 Bowl Body N21 44 T BM 6 0 1 0 5 1 0 0 Bowl Body N21 45 T BM 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 Bowl Body N21 46 L BM 0 0 0 0 5 2 0 1 Bowl Body N21 47 T BM 4 0 1 0 4 2 1 1 Bowl Body N
165
Lot # Sherd # Ware Style? V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 Vessel Form Rim/Body? Corrugated?21 48 L BL 4 2 1 0 4 2 0 0 Bowl Rim N21 49 T BM 0 0 0 0 5 2 0 1 Bowl Body N21 50 L BL 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N21 51 L SA 4 2 1 0 4 1 0 0 Bowl Body N21 52 L SA 2 0 1 0 5 1 0 0 Bowl Body N22 53 L BL 4 0 1 0 5 2 0 0 Bowl Body N22 54 L BL 5 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N22 55 L BL 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N22 56 T BL 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N22 57 L BL 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N22 58 L BL 5 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N22 59 L BM 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 Bowl Body N22 60 L BM 4 0 1 0 5 2 0 1 Bowl Body N22 61 T BM 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 1 Bowl Body N22 62 L BM 4 2 1 0 4 2 0 1 Bowl Body N22 63 L BM 3 0 3 0 6 2 0 1 Bowl Body N22 64 L BM 4 0 1 0 5 2 0 1 Bowl Body N22 65 L SA 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 Bowl Body N22 66 L SA 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 Bowl Body N22 67 L SB 4 0 1 0 5 1 0 0 Bowl Body N22 68 L SB 4 0 1 0 5 2 0 0 Bowl Body N22 69 L SA 6 3 1 0 5 1 0 0 Bowl Body N22 70 L SB 2 0 1 0 5 1 0 0 Bowl Body N22 71 L BL 4 3 1 0 4 3 0 0 Bowl Rim N22 72 L BL 4 2 1 0 5 2 0 0 Bowl Rim N22 73 L BL 4 0 1 0 5 3 0 0 Bowl Rim N22 74 L BL 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N22 75 L BL 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N22 76 T BL 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N22 77 L BM 2 2 3 0 4 2 0 1 Bowl Rim N22 78 L BM 3 0 1 0 4 2 0 1 Bowl Rim N22 79 L BM 0 0 0 0 5 3 0 0 Bowl Rim N22 80 L SB 0 0 0 0 6 1 0 0 Bowl Rim N22 81 L SA 3 2 1 0 4 2 0 0 Bowl Rim N22 82 L BM 5 2 1 0 4 2 0 1 Bowl Rim N22 83 L BM 5 0 1 0 6 3 0 1 Bowl Rim N22 84 L BM 4 3 1 0 5 2 0 1 Bowl Rim N22 85 L BM 5 2 1 0 4 2 0 1 Bowl Rim N22 86 L BM 5 2 1 0 4 1 1 1 Bowl Rim N22 87 L BM 5 2 1 0 4 1 1 0 Bowl Rim N22 88 L BM 5 0 3 0 5 1 1 0 Bowl Rim N22 89 L BM 2 0 1 0 5 1 1 1 Bowl Rim N22 90 L BM 5 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 Jar Rim N22 91 L BM 5 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 Jar Rim N22 92 L BM 5 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 Jar Rim N22 93 L BM 5 2 1 0 3 1 0 1 Jar Body N22 94 L BL 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Jar Body N22 95 L BL 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Jar Body N22 96 L SA 4 3 1 0 4 2 0 0 Jar Body N22 97 L BM 0 0 0 0 4 3 0 0 Jar Rim N
166
Lot # Sherd # Ware Style? V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 Vessel Form Rim/Body? Corrugated?22 98 L SA 4 1 1 0 3 1 0 0 Jar Body N25 99 T SB 4 0 1 0 4 2 0 0 Bowl Rim N25 100 L BL 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N25 101 T BM 6 3 1 0 5 1 0 1 Bowl Rim N25 102 L BM 6 0 1 0 5 3 0 1 Bowl Rim N25 103 T BL 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N25 104 L BM 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 Bowl Rim N25 105 L SB 4 0 1 0 4 1 0 0 Bowl Rim N25 106 T BM 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 Bowl Body N25 107 L BM 5 2 1 0 4 2 0 1 Bowl Body N25 108 L BM 0 0 0 0 5 4 0 0 Bowl Body N25 109 T SA 2 0 1 0 5 2 0 0 Bowl Body N25 110 T BL 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N25 111 L SA 5 2 3 0 4 1 0 0 Bowl Body N25 112 T BM 5 2 1 0 4 2 0 1 Bowl Body N25 113 T BL 5 2 1 0 4 2 0 0 Bowl Body N25 114 L BM 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 1 Bowl Body N31 115 T SA 6 0 1 0 5 1 0 0 Bowl Body N31 116 L BM 5 2 1 0 5 2 0 1 Bowl Body N31 117 L SB 4 2 1 0 5 1 0 0 Bowl Body N32 118 L BL 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Jar Body N32 119 T BM 2 0 3 0 4 1 0 1 Jar Body N32 120 L SA 4 2 1 0 3 1 0 0 Jar Body N32 121 L SA 5 2 1 0 5 1 0 0 Bowl Rim N32 122 T SA 5 2 1 0 4 2 0 0 Bowl Rim N32 123 L BL 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N32 124 T BL 5 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N32 125 T SB 5 0 1 0 4 1 0 0 Bowl Rim N32 126 L BL 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N32 127 L BL 5 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N32 128 L BM 5 2 1 0 5 2 0 1 Bowl Body N32 129 T BM 5 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 Bowl Body N32 130 L F 6 0 1 0 5 2 0 0 Bowl Body N32 131 L BM 4 2 1 0 4 1 0 1 Bowl Body N32 132 L BM 5 0 1 0 5 1 0 0 Bowl Body N32 133 T BM 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 1 Bowl Body N32 134 T BM 6 2 1 0 5 2 0 1 Bowl Body N32 135 L BL 5 2 1 0 3 2 0 0 Bowl Body N32 136 L BM 2 0 2 0 4 2 0 1 Bowl Body N32 137 T BM 5 0 1 0 5 1 0 0 Bowl Body N35 138 L BM 4 0 1 0 4 2 0 1 Bowl Rim N35 139 L BM 4 0 1 0 4 1 0 1 Bowl Rim N35 140 L BM 4 0 1 0 4 1 0 1 Bowl Rim N35 141 T BM 5 2 1 0 6 2 0 1 Bowl Rim N35 142 L BM 4 0 1 0 5 3 0 1 Bowl Rim N35 143 L SB 3 0 1 0 4 1 0 0 Bowl Rim N35 144 L BM 6 0 1 0 5 2 0 0 Bowl Rim N35 145 L BM 5 2 1 0 4 1 0 1 Jar Body N35 146 L BM 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 Jar Rim N35 147 L BM 3 0 3 0 3 2 0 0 Jar Body N
167
Lot # Sherd # Ware Style? V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 Vessel Form Rim/Body? Corrugated?35 148 L BM 5 2 1 0 4 1 0 0 Jar Body N35 149 L SB 3 0 1 0 5 2 1 0 Jar Body N35 150 L BM 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Jar Body N35 151 L BM 4 2 1 0 5 2 0 0 Jar Body N35 152 L BM 0 0 0 0 4 3 0 0 Bowl Rim N35 153 L BM 5 2 1 0 6 1 0 0 Bowl Rim N35 154 L BM 5 0 1 0 5 3 0 0 Bowl Rim N35 155 L BM 4 0 3 0 4 2 0 1 Bowl Rim N35 156 L BM 5 0 3 0 5 1 0 1 Bowl Rim N35 157 L BM 0 0 0 0 6 4 0 0 Bowl Rim N35 158 L BM 6 2 1 0 4 1 0 1 Bowl Rim N35 159 L BM 5 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N35 160 L BM 4 2 1 0 4 1 0 1 Bowl Rim N35 161 L BM 5 2 1 0 5 1 0 1 Bowl Rim N35 162 L BM 5 2 1 0 4 1 0 1 Bowl Rim N35 163 L BM 6 2 3 0 4 2 0 1 Bowl Rim N35 164 L BM 5 4 1 0 5 2 0 1 Bowl Rim N35 165 L BM 5 2 1 0 4 1 0 1 Bowl Rim N35 166 L BM 4 0 3 0 4 1 0 0 Bowl Body N35 167 L BM 4 3 1 0 5 2 0 1 Bowl Body N35 168 L BM 5 2 1 0 5 1 0 1 Bowl Rim N35 169 L BM 4 2 1 0 5 2 0 0 Bowl Body N35 170 L SA 5 2 1 0 6 1 0 0 Bowl Body N35 171 L BM 5 2 1 0 4 1 0 1 Bowl Body N35 172 L BM 3 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 Bowl Body N35 173 L BM 4 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 Bowl Body N35 174 L BM 5 2 1 0 4 3 0 1 Bowl Body N35 175 L BL 4 1 1 0 4 1 0 0 Bowl Body N35 176 L BM 5 2 1 0 4 1 0 1 Bowl Body N35 177 T BM 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 Bowl Body N35 178 L BM 4 0 1 0 4 2 0 0 Bowl Body N35 179 L BM 4 0 1 0 4 1 0 0 Bowl Body N35 180 L BM 4 3 1 0 4 2 0 1 Bowl Body N35 181 L BM 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N35 182 L BM 5 0 1 0 4 2 0 0 Bowl Body N35 183 L BM 4 0 3 0 4 2 0 0 Bowl Body N35 184 L BM 4 2 1 0 4 1 0 1 Bowl Body N35 185 L BM 0 0 0 0 5 2 0 0 Bowl Body N35 186 T BM 5 0 1 0 4 2 0 1 Bowl Body N35 187 L BM 3 0 1 0 5 3 0 0 Bowl Body N35 188 L SA 5 1 1 0 4 1 0 0 Bowl Body N35 189 L SA 4 2 1 0 5 1 0 0 Bowl Body N35 190 L BM 4 0 1 0 5 2 0 1 Bowl Body N35 191 L BL 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N35 192 L BL 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N35 193 L BL 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N35 194 L BL 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N35 195 L BL 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N35 196 L BL 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Jar Body N35 197 L BL 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Jar Body N
168
Lot # Sherd # Ware Style? V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 Vessel Form Rim/Body? Corrugated?35 198 L BL 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Jar Body N35 199 L BL 4 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 Jar Body N35 200 T F 4 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N35 201 T F 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N35 202 T BL 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N35 203 T BM 5 0 1 0 5 1 0 1 Bowl Body N35 204 T SA 0 0 0 0 5 2 0 0 Bowl Body N36 205 L ? 2 1 1 0 3 1 0 0 Jar Jar N41 206 T BM 5 2 1 0 5 1 0 1 Bowl Rim N41 207 T BM 5 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 Bowl Body N41 208 T BM 5 0 1 0 5 1 0 1 Bowl Body N41 209 T BL 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N41 210 T BM 0 0 0 0 6 1 0 0 Bowl Body N41 211 T SB 0 0 0 0 5 3 1 0 Bowl Body N41 212 T BM 4 0 1 0 6 4 0 0 Bowl Rim N41 213 L SA 4 2 1 0 5 2 0 0 Bowl Rim N41 214 L SA 3 2 1 0 5 1 0 0 Bowl Body N41 215 T F 3 1 1 0 2 1 1 0 Bowl Body N41 216 L BM 5 0 1 0 6 2 0 0 Bowl Rim N45 217 L BM 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Jar Rim N45 218 L BM 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 Jar Rim N45 219 T BM 0 0 0 0 5 2 0 0 Jar Rim N45 220 L SA 4 0 1 0 5 2 0 0 Jar Body N45 221 L BL 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Jar Body N45 222 L F 4 1 1 0 4 1 1 0 Jar Body N45 223 T BM 4 0 1 0 4 2 0 0 Jar Body N45 224 L BM 5 0 1 0 4 2 0 0 Jar Body N45 225 L SB 4 0 1 0 4 2 1 0 Jar Body N45 226 L SB 4 0 1 0 4 2 1 0 Jar Body N45 227 L SB 5 2 1 0 6 1 1 0 Bowl Rim N45 228 L SB 5 1 1 0 5 1 1 0 Bowl Rim N45 229 L SA 5 2 1 0 5 1 0 0 Bowl Rim N45 231 T SA 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N45 232 T SA 6 2 1 0 4 2 0 0 Bowl Rim N45 233 L SB 5 0 1 0 5 2 1 0 Bowl Rim N45 234 L SB 5 0 1 0 4 1 1 0 Bowl Rim N45 235 T F 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 Bowl Rim N45 236 T F 5 0 1 0 4 1 1 0 Bowl Rim N45 237 T F 3 0 1 0 2 1 1 0 Bowl Rim N45 238 L SB 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 Bowl Rim N45 239 L SB 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 Bowl Rim N45 240 T F 4 0 1 0 4 1 1 0 Bowl Rim N45 241 L SB 3 0 1 0 4 1 1 0 Bowl Rim N45 242 T SB 3 0 1 0 4 1 1 0 Bowl Body N45 243 T SB 4 2 1 0 5 1 1 0 Bowl Rim N45 244 L SB 4 0 1 0 5 2 1 0 Bowl Rim N45 245 L SA 4 1 1 0 5 2 1 0 Bowl Rim N45 246 L SA 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N45 247 L SA 4 1 1 0 4 2 0 0 Bowl Rim N45 248 T F 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N
169
Lot # Sherd # Ware Style? V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 Vessel Form Rim/Body? Corrugated?45 249 L SB 3 1 1 0 4 1 1 0 Bowl Rim N45 250 L SA 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N45 251 L BL 5 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N45 252 T BL 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N45 253 T BL 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N45 254 L BM 5 3 1 0 0 4 0 0 Bowl Rim N45 255 T BL 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N45 256 T BL 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N45 257 L SB 5 2 1 0 5 1 0 0 Bowl Rim N45 258 L SB 4 0 1 0 4 2 0 0 Bowl Rim N45 259 L SB 3 0 1 0 3 2 1 0 Bowl Rim N45 260 L SA 5 2 1 0 5 1 0 0 Bowl Rim N45 261 L BM 4 2 1 0 5 1 0 0 Bowl Rim N45 262 T SA 6 2 1 0 4 2 0 0 Bowl Rim N45 263 T SA 5 1 1 0 4 1 0 0 Bowl Rim N45 264 L BL 5 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N45 265 T BM 5 4 1 0 4 2 0 1 Bowl Rim N45 266 L BM 4 2 1 0 2 2 0 0 Bowl Rim N45 267 L BM 5 3 1 0 4 1 0 0 Bowl Rim N45 268 T BM 5 2 1 0 3 2 0 0 Bowl Rim N45 269 L BM 5 2 1 0 6 2 0 1 Bowl Rim N45 270 L BM 4 0 1 0 4 1 0 2 Bowl Rim N45 271 L BM 4 0 1 0 4 1 0 2 Bowl Body N45 272 L BM 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 2 Bowl Body N45 273 L BM 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 Bowl Body N45 274 L BM 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 2 Bowl Body N45 275 L BM 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 Bowl Body N45 276 T SB 4 0 1 0 6 1 1 0 Bowl Body N45 277 L SB 4 0 1 0 6 2 1 0 Bowl Body N45 278 L SB 4 0 1 0 4 1 1 0 Bowl Rim N45 279 L SB 0 0 0 0 5 1 1 0 Bowl Body N45 280 T SB 0 0 0 0 5 3 1 0 Bowl Body N45 281 T SB 5 0 1 0 4 2 1 0 Bowl Body N45 282 L SB 5 0 1 0 6 1 0 0 Bowl Body N45 283 T SB 0 0 0 0 4 2 1 0 Bowl Body N45 284 T SB 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 Bowl Body N45 285 L SB 4 2 1 0 5 2 0 0 Bowl Body N45 286 L SB 4 0 1 0 4 1 0 0 Bowl Body N45 287 T SB 6 0 1 0 3 2 1 0 Bowl Body N45 288 L SB 4 0 1 0 6 1 0 0 Bowl Body N45 289 L SB 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 Bowl Body N45 290 L SB 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 Bowl Body N45 291 L SB 4 1 1 0 4 1 1 0 Bowl Body N45 292 L SB 0 0 0 0 5 2 0 0 Bowl Body N45 293 L BM 4 0 1 0 4 1 0 0 Bowl Body N45 294 T BM 6 1 1 0 5 1 0 0 Bowl Body N45 295 L BM 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N45 296 T BM 5 1 1 0 5 1 0 0 Bowl Body N45 297 T BM 5 3 1 0 5 2 0 1 Bowl Body N45 298 T BM 4 0 1 0 5 1 0 0 Bowl Body N
170
Lot # Sherd # Ware Style? V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 Vessel Form Rim/Body? Corrugated?45 299 L BM 4 3 1 0 5 2 0 0 Bowl Body N45 300 L BM 4 0 1 0 5 2 0 0 Bowl Body N45 301 T BL 5 1 1 0 4 1 0 0 Bowl Rim N45 302 L SA 5 2 1 0 4 1 0 0 Bowl Body N45 303 L BM 6 2 1 0 5 1 0 1 Bowl Body N45 304 L BM 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 Bowl Body N45 305 L SB 0 0 0 0 4 3 0 0 Bowl Body N45 306 L SA 4 0 1 0 5 1 0 0 Bowl Body N45 307 L SA 4 0 1 0 3 2 0 0 Bowl Body N45 308 L SB 5 0 1 0 5 2 0 0 Bowl Body N45 309 L BM 4 0 1 0 5 3 0 2 Bowl Body N45 310 L BL 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N45 311 L BL 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N45 312 L BL 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N45 313 L BL 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N45 314 L BL 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N45 315 L BL 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N45 316 T BL 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N45 317 L BL 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N45 318 L SA 4 1 1 0 4 1 0 0 Dipper Rim N45 319 L SA 4 2 1 0 5 1 0 0 Dipper Rim N45 320 L SA 4 2 1 0 4 1 0 0 Dipper Body N45 321 L SA 4 1 1 0 3 1 0 0 Dipper Rim N45 322 L SA 4 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 Dipper Rim N46 323 T BM 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 1 Bowl Body N46 324 L BM 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 1 Bowl Body N46 325 L D 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N46 326 T BM 2 1 1 1 4 2 0 0 Bowl Body N47 327 T BM 4 1 1 0 4 1 0 1 Bowl Body N47 328 T BM 5 0 3 0 6 2 0 1 Bowl Rim N47 329 T BL 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N47 330 L F 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 Bowl Rim N73 331 T BL 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N73 332 T BL 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N73 333 T BL 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N73 334 T BL 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N73 335 T BL 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N73 336 T F 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N73 337 T F 5 1 1 0 2 1 0 0 Bowl Body N73 338 T BL 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N73 339 T BL 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N73 340 T F 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N73 341 L D 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N73 342 L BL 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N73 343 L SB 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 Bowl Rim N73 344 L BL 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N73 345 L SA 5 2 1 0 6 2 0 0 Bowl Rim N73 346 L BL 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N73 347 L SB 0 0 0 0 6 1 0 0 Bowl Rim N73 348 L SB 3 0 1 0 6 2 0 0 Bowl Rim N
171
Lot # Sherd # Ware Style? V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 Vessel Form Rim/Body? Corrugated?73 349 L BM 5 2 1 0 2 1 0 1 Jar Body N73 350 L BM 0 0 0 0 6 2 0 0 Bowl Body N73 351 L BM 3 0 2 0 4 1 0 1 Bowl Body N73 352 L BM 3 2 3 0 4 1 0 0 Bowl Body N73 353 L BM 5 2 1 0 6 1 0 1 Bowl Rim N73 354 T BM 6 1 1 0 5 1 0 1 Bowl Rim N73 355 T BM 4 2 1 0 5 2 0 1 Bowl Rim N73 356 T BM 5 2 1 0 3 1 0 0 Bowl Rim N73 357 T BM 5 2 1 0 5 1 0 1 Bowl Rim N73 358 L SA 5 0 1 0 5 2 0 0 Bowl Rim N73 359 L SA 5 0 1 0 4 1 0 0 Bowl Rim N73 360 L SA 4 0 1 0 5 2 0 0 Bowl Rim N73 361 L BM 3 2 1 0 4 1 0 1 Bowl Rim N73 362 L BM 2 1 1 0 4 1 0 1 Bowl Rim N73 364 T BM 4 0 1 0 6 2 0 0 Bowl Rim N73 365 T BL 5 3 1 0 4 2 0 0 Bowl Rim N73 366 L BM 4 2 1 0 4 1 0 1 Bowl Rim N73 367 L BM 4 0 3 0 4 1 0 0 Bowl Rim N73 368 T BL 5 2 1 0 3 1 0 0 Bowl Rim N73 369 T BM 4 3 3 0 5 2 0 1 Bowl Rim N73 370 T SA 5 3 1 0 4 2 0 0 Bowl Rim N73 371 T SA 5 2 1 0 5 2 0 0 Bowl Rim N73 372 T SB 6 3 1 0 5 4 0 0 Bowl Rim N73 373 L SB 0 0 0 0 5 3 0 0 Bowl Rim N73 374 T BM 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 Jar Body N73 375 T BM 3 2 1 0 4 2 0 1 Jar Body N73 376 T BM 2 0 1 0 5 2 0 1 Jar Body N73 377 T BM 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 1 Jar Neck N73 378 T BM 0 0 0 0 5 2 0 0 Jar Rim N73 379 T BM 0 0 0 0 5 2 0 1 Jar Neck N73 380 T BM 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 Bowl Body N73 381 T BM 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 Bowl Body N73 382 L BM 0 0 0 0 5 4 0 0 Bowl Body N73 383 L SA 0 0 0 0 4 3 0 0 Bowl Body N73 384 L SB 0 0 0 0 5 2 0 0 Bowl Body N73 385 T BM 5 0 1 0 5 2 0 0 Bowl Body N73 386 L BM 0 0 0 0 5 3 0 0 Bowl Body N73 387 T BM 0 0 0 0 5 3 0 0 Bowl Body N73 388 T BM 0 0 0 0 6 3 0 0 Bowl Body N73 389 L BM 4 0 1 0 3 2 0 0 Bowl Rim N73 390 T SA 5 2 2 0 4 1 0 0 Bowl Body N73 391 T BM 4 0 2 0 3 2 0 0 Bowl Body N73 392 L BM 5 2 1 0 4 1 0 0 Bowl Body N73 393 T BM 3 1 1 1 4 2 0 0 Bowl Body N73 394 T BM 5 0 2 0 4 2 0 0 Bowl Body N73 395 L BM 3 0 1 0 5 2 0 0 Bowl Body N73 396 L BM 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 1 Bowl Body N73 397 T BM 5 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 Bowl Body N73 398 T BM 5 0 1 0 4 2 0 1 Bowl Body N73 399 T BM 5 0 1 0 4 2 0 1 Bowl Body N
172
Lot # Sherd # Ware Style? V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 Vessel Form Rim/Body? Corrugated?73 400 T BM 6 0 1 0 4 1 0 1 Bowl Body N73 401 T BM 5 2 1 0 5 2 0 1 Bowl Body N73 402 T BM 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 1 Bowl Body N73 403 T BM 6 0 1 0 4 0 0 1 Bowl Body N73 404 T BM 0 0 0 0 4 3 0 1 Bowl Rim N73 405 L BM 5 0 1 0 5 2 0 1 Bowl Body N73 406 T BM 6 0 1 0 4 2 0 1 Bowl Body N73 407 T BM 5 0 1 0 4 3 0 1 Bowl Body N73 408 T BM 4 0 1 0 4 2 0 0 Bowl Body N73 409 L BM 4 0 1 0 5 1 0 1 Bowl Body N73 410 T BM 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 Bowl Body N73 411 L BM 6 3 1 0 6 2 0 1 Bowl Body N73 412 T BM 5 0 3 0 4 2 0 0 Bowl Body N73 413 L BM 5 0 3 0 5 2 0 0 Bowl Body N76 414 T D 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N76 415 L BL 5 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body Y76 416 C G 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body Y76 417 T D 5 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N76 418 T D 6 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N76 419 T D 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N76 420 T D 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N76 421 T D 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N76 422 T BM 4 1 1 0 4 1 0 0 Bowl Rim Y
173
APPENDIX 4 - MEASUREMENT OF VARIABLES ON WHITE WARE SHERDS FROMNA2133T
Lot # Sherd # Ware Style V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 Vessel Form Rim/Body? Corrugated?3 40 T BM 5 2 1 0 4 2 0 1 Bowl Rim N3 41 T BM 5 0 1 0 5 2 0 0 Bowl Body N3 42 L BM 6 4 1 0 4 2 0 0 Bowl Body N3 43 T BM 6 2 2 0 5 3 0 0 Bowl Body N3 44 T BM 5 0 1 0 5 2 0 0 Bowl Body N3 45 T BL 6 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N3 46 T BL 6 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body Y3 47 T BM 6 0 1 0 4 2 0 0 Jar Neck N3 48 T BM 6 0 1 0 5 2 0 1 Jar Rim N3 49 T BM 6 3 1 0 3 4 0 0 Jar Body N3 50 T BM 6 0 1 0 5 2 0 1 Jar Body N4 404 T BM 5 3 1 0 5 2 0 1 Bowl Rim N4 405 T BM 5 0 1 0 6 2 0 1 Bowl Rim N4 406 T BM 6 0 1 0 6 2 0 0 Bowl Body N4 407 T SA 5 2 1 0 4 1 0 0 Bowl Body N4 408 T BL 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 Jar Body N4 409 L BM 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 Jar Body N4 410 T BM 3 1 1 0 5 1 0 0 Jar Body N
13 119 T BM 5 2 1 0 6 2 0 0 Bowl Body N13 120 L BM 0 0 0 0 5 4 0 0 Bowl Body N13 121 T BM 3 1 1 0 4 1 0 0 Bowl Body N13 122 T BM 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N13 123 T BM 6 0 1 0 5 2 0 0 Bowl Body N13 124 T SA 5 3 1 0 4 1 0 0 Bowl Body N13 125 T BM 5 3 1 0 4 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N13 126 T BL 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N13 127 L BL 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N13 128 T BL 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N13 129 T BL 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N14 323 L BL 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N14 324 L BM 0 0 0 0 5 3 0 0 Bowl Body N16 208 T BL 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N16 209 T BM 6 0 1 0 5 2 0 0 Bowl Rim N16 210 T BM 5 0 1 0 4 1 0 1 Bowl Rim N16 211 T BM 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 Jar Rim N16 212 T BM 5 2 1 0 4 2 0 0 Bowl Rim N16 213 T BM 6 0 1 0 4 1 0 1 Bowl Body N16 214 T BM 6 2 2 0 5 1 0 1 Bowl Body N16 215 T BM 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 Bowl Body N16 216 T BM 0 0 0 0 5 4 0 0 Bowl Body N16 217 T BM 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 1 Bowl Body N16 218 T BL 5 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N16 219 T BM 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 Bowl Body N16 220 T BL 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N16 221 T BM 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 Bowl Body N18 325 T BM 6 0 1 0 5 2 0 1 Bowl Rim N20 473 T BM 5 2 1 0 5 2 0 1 Bowl Rim N
174
Lot # Sherd # Ware Style V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 Vessel Form Rim/Body? Corrugated?20 474 T BL 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N20 475 T BM 5 1 1 0 4 2 0 1 Bowl Rim N20 476 T BL 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N20 477 T BM 6 0 1 0 5 4 0 0 Bowl Rim N20 477 T BL 6 1 1 0 4 1 0 0 Bowl Rim N20 478 T BL 6 2 1 0 4 2 0 0 Bowl Rim N20 479 T BL 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N20 480 T BM 6 2 1 0 5 2 0 1 Bowl Body N20 481 T BM 5 2 1 0 4 4 1 0 Bowl Body N20 482 T BM 5 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N20 483 T BM 6 0 1 0 5 3 0 0 Bowl Body N20 484 T BM 6 0 1 0 3 3 0 0 Bowl Body N20 485 T BL 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N20 486 T BL 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N20 487 T BM 6 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N20 488 T BL 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N20 489 T BM 5 0 1 0 6 4 0 1 Jar Body N20 490 T BL 5 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 Jar Body N20 491 T BM 6 0 1 0 5 3 0 1 Jar Body N20 492 L BM 5 2 1 0 4 2 0 0 Jar Body N21 326 L ? 4 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N21 327 L BL 6 2 1 0 4 2 0 0 Bowl Rim N23 328 T BM 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 Bowl Body Y25 33 L BL 5 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N26 222 T BL 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N26 223 T BL 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N26 224 T BL 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N26 225 T BL 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N26 226 T BM 5 0 1 0 5 2 0 0 Bowl Rim N26 227 T BM 5 2 1 0 5 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N26 228 T BM 6 0 1 0 5 3 0 0 Bowl Rim N26 229 T BM 5 0 1 0 5 3 0 0 Bowl Rim N26 230 T SA 5 2 1 0 6 1 0 0 Bowl Rim N26 231 T BL 6 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N26 232 T D 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N26 233 T BL 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N26 234 T BM 0 0 0 0 5 2 0 0 Bowl Body N26 235 T BL 6 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N26 236 T BL 6 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N26 237 T BM 6 2 1 0 6 2 0 1 Bowl Body N26 238 T BL 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Jar Body N26 239 T BM 6 0 1 0 5 3 0 0 Jar Body N26 240 T BM 6 0 1 0 6 2 0 0 Jar Body N26 241 T BM 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Jar Body N26 242 T BL 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Jar Body N26 243 T BM 6 0 0 0 6 3 0 0 Jar Body N26 244 T SA 4 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Jar Neck N31 146 T BM 0 0 0 0 6 3 0 0 Bowl Body N31 147 T BM 6 0 1 0 6 0 0 0 Bowl Body N31 148 T BL 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N
175
Lot # Sherd # Ware Style V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 Vessel Form Rim/Body? Corrugated?31 149 T BM 6 2 1 0 6 2 0 1 Bowl Rim N31 150 T BL 6 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N31 151 T BM 3 0 1 0 6 3 0 1 Jar Body N32 373 T SA 5 2 1 0 3 2 0 0 Bowl Rim N32 374 L BM 6 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N32 375 L BM 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N33 376 T BL 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N33 377 T BL 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N33 378 T BL 6 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N33 379 T BM 5 2 1 0 4 1 0 0 Bowl Rim N33 380 T BM 6 2 1 0 5 2 0 0 Bowl Rim N33 381 T BM 6 3 1 0 6 1 0 0 Bowl Rim N33 382 T BM 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 1 Bowl Body N33 383 T BM 0 0 0 0 6 4 0 0 Bowl Body N33 384 L BM 5 2 1 0 6 2 0 0 Jar Body N34 385 T BM 6 2 1 0 6 1 0 0 Bowl Rim N34 386 T BM 0 0 0 0 6 4 0 0 Bowl Rim N34 387 T BM 0 0 0 0 6 1 0 0 Bowl Rim N34 388 T BL 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N34 389 T BM 6 2 1 0 6 2 0 1 Bowl Rim N34 390 T BM 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N34 391 T BL 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N34 392 T BM 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 1 Bowl Body N34 393 T BM 0 0 0 0 6 4 0 0 Bowl Body N34 394 T BM 6 3 1 0 4 1 0 0 Bowl Body N34 395 T BM 6 0 1 0 4 2 0 1 Bowl Body N34 396 T BM 0 0 0 0 6 4 0 0 Bowl Body N34 397 T BM 6 4 1 0 5 1 0 1 Jar Body N37 493 T BM 5 0 1 0 6 2 0 0 Bowl Rim N37 494 T BM 6 0 1 0 5 2 0 0 Bowl Rim N37 495 T BL 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N37 496 T BL 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N38 34 T BM 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N38 35 L BM 0 0 0 0 6 2 0 0 Bowl Rim N38 36 L BM 4 0 1 0 6 1 0 0 Bowl Rim N38 37 T BM 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 Bowl Body N38 38 T BL 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N41 398 T SA 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim Y44 275 T BM 5 2 1 0 6 2 0 1 Bowl Rim N44 276 ? BM 6 4 3 0 6 1 0 0 Bowl Body N44 279 T BM 6 2 1 0 6 2 0 0 Bowl Rim Y44 157 ? BL 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N44 158 ? BM 0 0 0 0 6 4 0 0 Bowl Body N44 159 ? BM 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 Bowl Body N44 160 ? BM 0 0 0 0 5 3 0 0 Bowl Body N45 280 T BM 5 0 1 0 6 2 0 1 Bowl Rim N45 282 T BM 5 3 1 0 5 2 0 0 Bowl Rim N46 331 L BL 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N46 332 L BM 5 1 1 0 6 1 0 0 Bowl Rim N46 333 L SA 6 2 1 0 5 1 0 0 Bowl Rim N
176
Lot # Sherd # Ware Style V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 Vessel Form Rim/Body? Corrugated?47 334 T BM 5 2 1 0 4 1 0 1 Bowl Rim N47 335 T BM 0 0 0 0 6 2 0 1 Bowl Rim N47 336 T BM 6 3 1 0 5 3 0 0 Jar Body N48 337 L BM 0 0 0 0 5 3 0 0 Bowl Body N49 338 T BL 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N49 339 T BM 6 0 1 0 6 2 0 0 Bowl Rim N49 340 T BM 6 0 1 0 5 2 0 0 Bowl Rim N49 341 T BM 6 0 1 0 5 2 0 0 Bowl Body N49 342 T BM 6 1 1 0 4 1 0 0 Bowl Body N49 343 T SA 6 2 1 0 6 1 0 0 Bowl Body N53 161 T BL 6 2 1 0 3 2 0 0 Bowl Rim N53 162 L BM 3 0 3 0 4 2 0 1 Bowl Rim N53 163 T BM 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N53 164 L BM 6 0 1 0 6 2 0 1 Bowl Rim N53 165 T BM 0 0 0 0 5 2 0 1 Bowl Body N53 166 T BM 0 0 0 0 5 2 0 0 Bowl Body N53 167 T BM 0 0 0 0 5 3 0 0 Bowl Rim N53 168 T BM 6 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 Bowl Body N53 169 T BM 0 0 0 0 5 2 0 0 Bowl Body N53 170 T BM 0 0 0 0 6 2 0 0 Bowl Body N53 171 T BL 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N53 172 T BM 5 2 3 0 5 1 0 1 Bowl Body N53 173 T BL 5 3 1 0 6 2 0 0 Bowl Body N53 174 T BM 0 0 0 0 5 2 0 0 Bowl Body N67 51 T BM 6 2 1 0 5 1 0 1 Bowl Rim N67 52 T BM 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N67 53 T BM 5 2 1 0 6 3 0 1 Bowl Rim N67 54 T BM 6 2 1 0 6 2 0 1 Bowl Body N67 55 T BM 5 3 1 0 5 3 0 1 Bowl Rim N67 56 T BM 2 0 1 0 4 2 0 0 Bowl Body N67 57 T BM 6 3 1 0 4 2 0 0 Jar Body N67 58 T BM 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 Bowl Body N67 59 T SA 6 0 1 0 4 2 0 0 Bowl Body N69 344 T BM 6 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body Y69 345 T BM 5 2 1 0 5 1 0 1 Bowl Rim N69 346 T BL 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N69 347 T BM 0 0 0 0 5 3 0 1 Bowl Body N69 348 T BM 0 0 0 0 6 2 0 1 Bowl Body N69 349 T BM 0 0 0 0 5 4 0 0 Bowl Body N69 350 T BM 3 0 1 0 4 4 0 1 Bowl Body N76 351 T BM 6 0 0 0 6 6 0 0 Jar Body N76 352 T BM 5 3 1 0 6 3 0 0 Bowl Rim N81 411 T BM 6 2 1 0 4 2 0 1 Bowl Rim N81 412 T BL 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N81 413 T BM 6 0 1 0 6 2 0 1 Bowl Rim N81 414 T BM 5 2 0 0 4 0 0 1 Bowl Rim N81 415 T BM 0 0 0 0 5 2 0 0 Bowl Rim N81 416 T BM 6 0 1 0 4 2 0 0 Bowl Body N81 417 T BM 4 0 2 0 6 2 0 0 Bowl Body N81 418 T SA 5 0 1 0 4 2 0 0 Bowl Body N
177
Lot # Sherd # Ware Style V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 Vessel Form Rim/Body? Corrugated?81 419 T BM 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 1 Bowl Body N81 420 T BM 6 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 Bowl Body N81 421 T BM 0 0 0 0 5 3 0 1 Bowl Body N81 422 T BM 0 0 0 0 6 2 0 1 Bowl Body N81 423 T D 6 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N81 424 T BM 5 3 1 0 6 3 0 1 Bowl Body N81 425 T BM 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 Jar Body N81 426 T BM 5 0 1 0 6 3 0 0 Jar Body N84 175 T BM 5 0 1 0 6 2 0 1 Bowl Rim N84 176 T BM 5 0 1 0 4 2 0 1 Bowl Rim N84 177 T BM 6 0 1 0 6 2 0 1 Bowl Body N84 178 T BM 5 0 1 0 6 2 0 1 Bowl Body N84 179 T BM 2 1 1 0 6 1 0 0 Bowl Body N85 283 T BL 5 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N85 284 T BM 6 3 1 0 5 1 0 1 Bowl Body N85 285 T BL 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N85 286 T BM 6 1 1 0 4 1 0 0 Bowl Body N85 287 C G 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 Jar Body N85 288 T BM 0 0 0 0 6 2 0 1 Jar Body N87 497 T BM 4 2 1 0 5 1 0 1 Dipper - N87 498 T BL 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N87 499 T BM 6 0 3 0 6 3 0 0 Bowl Rim N87 500 T BL 5 2 1 0 4 3 0 0 Bowl Rim N87 501 L BM 4 0 1 0 6 2 0 0 Bowl Rim N87 502 T BL 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N87 503 L BM 5 0 1 0 6 3 0 0 Bowl Rim N87 504 T BM 2 2 1 0 6 2 0 0 Bowl Rim N87 505 T BL 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N87 506 T BM 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 1 Bowl Body N87 507 T BM 5 2 1 0 5 2 0 1 Bowl Body N87 508 T BM 0 0 0 0 6 2 0 0 Bowl Body N87 509 T BM 6 2 1 0 6 1 0 0 Bowl Body N87 510 T BM 6 0 1 0 5 1 0 0 Jar Neck N87 511 T BM 6 0 1 0 6 2 0 0 Jar Body N87 512 T BM 5 0 1 0 5 2 0 0 Jar Body N87 513 T BL 6 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 Jar Body N87 514 L BL 5 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 Jar Body N87 515 T BM 6 0 1 0 5 1 0 0 Jar Body N87 516 T BM 6 4 1 0 6 3 0 1 Jar Body N88 517 T BM 4 0 1 0 6 2 0 0 Bowl Body N88 518 T BM 5 0 1 0 6 2 0 0 Bowl Rim N88 519 T BM 0 0 0 0 5 2 0 0 Bowl Rim N88 520 T BM 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N88 521 T BM 5 2 1 0 4 2 0 1 Bowl Rim N88 522 T BM 6 0 1 0 6 1 0 1 Bowl Rim N88 523 T BM 6 0 1 1 5 2 0 1 Bowl Rim N88 524 T BM 6 2 1 1 5 2 0 1 Bowl Rim N88 525 T BM 2 1 1 1 5 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N88 526 T BM 6 3 1 1 5 3 0 1 Bowl Rim N88 527 L BM 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 1 Bowl Body N
178
Lot # Sherd # Ware Style V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 Vessel Form Rim/Body? Corrugated?88 528 T BM 0 0 0 0 5 2 0 1 Bowl Body N88 529 T BM 6 0 1 0 3 2 0 0 Bowl Body N88 530 L BM 4 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N88 531 T SB 0 0 0 0 5 4 0 0 Bowl Body N88 532 T BM 5 2 1 0 5 1 0 1 Bowl Body N88 533 T BM 6 2 3 0 4 2 0 1 Bowl Body N88 534 T BM 6 3 1 0 5 2 0 0 Bowl Body N88 535 T BM 0 0 0 0 5 3 0 0 Bowl Body N88 536 T BL 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 Jar Body N88 537 T BM 6 2 2 0 4 2 0 0 Jar Neck N88 538 T BM 0 0 0 0 5 2 0 0 Jar Body N91 60 T BM 0 0 0 0 4 5 0 0 Bowl Rim N91 61 L BM 6 0 1 0 4 1 0 0 Bowl Body N91 62 T BM 0 0 0 0 5 2 0 0 Jar Rim N91 63 T BM 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Jar Body N91 64 T BM 6 2 1 0 5 2 0 1 Jar Body N91 65 T BM 6 0 1 0 5 2 0 0 Jar Body N91 66 T BM 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 Jar Body N91 67 T BM 0 0 0 0 5 3 0 0 Jar Body N92 245 T BL 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N92 246 T BL 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N92 247 T BL 5 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N92 248 T BM 2 1 1 0 4 1 0 0 Bowl Rim N92 249 T BM 5 2 1 0 6 2 0 0 Bowl Rim N92 250 T BM 4 0 1 0 6 2 0 0 Bowl Rim N92 251 T BL 5 2 1 0 3 2 0 0 Bowl Rim N92 252 T BL 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N92 253 T BL 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N92 254 T BL 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N92 255 T BM 6 1 3 0 4 1 0 1 Bowl Rim N92 256 T BM 6 0 1 0 5 2 0 0 Bowl Rim N92 257 T D 3 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N92 258 T BM 4 2 3 0 4 2 0 0 Bowl Rim N92 259 T BM 4 0 1 0 4 2 0 1 Bowl Body N92 260 T BM 0 0 0 0 4 3 1 1 Bowl Body N92 261 T BM 0 0 0 0 5 2 0 1 Bowl Body N92 262 T BM 4 0 1 0 4 1 0 1 Bowl Body N92 263 T BM 3 1 2 0 4 1 0 0 Bowl Body N92 264 T BM 5 0 1 0 6 2 0 0 Bowl Body N92 265 T BM 5 2 1 0 4 3 0 0 Bowl Body N92 266 T BM 5 0 1 0 5 1 0 1 Bowl Body N92 267 T SB 6 0 1 0 6 1 0 0 Bowl Body N92 268 T BM 4 0 2 0 4 1 0 0 Jar Body N92 269 T BM 4 0 1 0 4 1 0 0 Jar Neck N92 270 T BM 6 3 1 0 5 3 0 1 Jar Body N94 68 T BM 6 3 2 0 6 2 0 0 Bowl Rim N94 69 T BM 6 0 1 0 6 2 0 1 Bowl Rim N94 70 T BM 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N94 71 T BM 5 0 1 0 6 1 0 0 Bowl Rim N94 72 T BL 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N
179
Lot # Sherd # Ware Style V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 Vessel Form Rim/Body? Corrugated?94 73 T BM 6 0 1 0 4 2 0 1 Bowl Bowl N94 74 T BM 0 0 0 0 4 3 0 0 Bowl Bowl N94 75 T BM 5 0 1 0 4 2 0 0 Bowl Bowl N94 76 T BM 6 0 1 0 6 2 0 1 Bowl Bowl N94 78 T BM 0 0 0 0 4 3 0 0 Jar Rim N94 79 T BM 5 0 1 0 4 3 0 0 Jar Rim N94 80 T BL 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 Jar Body N94 81 T BM 3 0 2 0 6 0 0 0 Jar Body N94 82 T BM 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 Jar Body N94 83 T BM 6 3 1 0 5 3 0 0 Jar Body N98 289 T BM 5 0 1 0 4 2 0 1 Bowl Rim Y98 290 T BM 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N98 291 T BM 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 Bowl Rim N98 292 T BM 5 0 1 0 5 1 0 1 Bowl Rim N98 293 T BM 6 0 1 0 4 3 0 0 Bowl Rim N98 294 T BM 5 0 1 0 4 1 0 1 Bowl Body N98 295 T BM 2 0 1 0 6 2 0 1 Bowl Body N98 296 T BM 6 2 1 0 4 1 0 0 Bowl Body N98 297 T BM 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 Bowl Body N98 298 T BM 6 2 1 0 5 2 0 0 Bowl Rim N98 299 T BM 6 0 2 0 5 2 0 0 Bowl Body N98 300 T BM 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N98 301 T BM 6 0 1 0 4 1 0 1 Jar Body N98 302 C G 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 Jar Body N98 303 T BM 5 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 Jar Neck N98 304 T BL 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Jar Body N98 305 T BM 6 2 1 0 6 1 0 0 Jar Body N98 306 T BM 0 0 0 0 5 1 1 0 Jar Rim N99 180 T BM 5 0 1 0 5 2 0 1 Bowl Rim N
102 84 T BM 0 0 0 0 5 3 0 0 Bowl Rim N102 85 T BM 0 0 0 0 5 4 0 0 Bowl Rim N102 86 T BM 0 0 0 0 5 3 0 0 Bowl Body N102 87 T BM 2 2 1 0 5 0 0 0 Bowl Body N102 88 T BL 5 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N102 89 T BM 5 0 3 0 5 2 0 0 Bowl Body N102 90 T BL 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N102 91 T BM 0 0 0 0 5 3 0 0 Jar Body N102 92 T BM 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 Jar Body N105 307 T BM 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 Bowl Body N105 308 T BM 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 Bowl Rim N106 182 T BM 0 0 0 0 5 4 0 0 Bowl Rim N106 183 T BM 5 2 1 0 4 1 0 0 Bowl Rim N106 184 T BL 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N106 185 T SA 5 2 1 0 5 1 0 0 Bowl Rim N106 186 T SA 6 2 1 0 4 1 0 0 Bowl Rim N106 187 T BL 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N106 188 T BL 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N106 189 T BL 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N106 190 T BL 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N106 191 T BM 3 0 1 0 6 1 0 1 Bowl Rim N
180
Lot # Sherd # Ware Style V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 Vessel Form Rim/Body? Corrugated?106 192 T BM 5 0 1 0 4 1 0 0 Bowl Rim N106 193 T BM 5 0 1 0 4 4 0 0 Bowl Rim N106 194 T BM 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N106 195 T BL 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N106 196 T SA 5 2 3 0 4 3 0 0 Bowl Body N106 197 T SA 6 2 1 0 4 1 0 0 Bowl Body N106 198 T SA 6 2 3 0 6 1 0 0 Bowl Body N106 199 T BL 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N106 200 T SA 6 2 1 0 3 1 0 0 Bowl Rim N106 201 T BL 5 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N106 202 T BL 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N106 203 T BM 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N106 204 T BM 0 0 0 0 6 4 0 0 Bowl Body N106 205 T BM 6 0 1 0 5 4 0 0 Jar Body N106 206 T BL 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 Jar Body N106 207 T BM 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 Jar Body N108 271 T BM 0 0 0 0 6 3 3 1 Bowl Body N108 272 T BM 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 Bowl Body N108 273 T D 2 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N108 274 T BL 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N109 1 T BL 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N110 93 T BL 6 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N110 94 L ? 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N110 95 L BM 5 0 1 0 6 2 0 0 Jar Body N110 96 T BM 6 0 1 0 5 2 0 1 Jar Body N110 97 T BM 4 2 1 0 3 2 0 0 Jar Body N112 2 T BM 6 0 1 0 6 3 0 0 Bowl Rim N112 3 T BM 6 3 1 0 4 2 0 1 Bowl Rim N112 4 T BL 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N112 5 T BL 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N112 6 T SA 6 2 1 0 6 1 0 0 Bowl Rim N112 7 T BM 6 3 1 0 4 2 0 0 Bowl Rim N112 8 T BM 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 Jar Body N112 9 T BM 6 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 Jar Body N112 10 T D 4 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N112 11 T BL 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N112 12 T D 2 1 1 1 0 3 0 0 Bowl Body N112 13 T BL 5 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N112 14 T BM 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 Bowl Body N112 15 T BM 4 0 1 0 6 2 0 0 Bowl Body N112 16 T BL 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N116 353 T BM 5 2 1 0 5 3 0 0 Jar Neck N116 354 T BM 0 0 0 0 6 4 0 1 Jar Rim N116 355 T BM 5 2 1 0 5 2 0 1 Jar Body N116 356 T BL 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N116 357 T BL 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim Y116 358 T BM 6 0 3 0 5 1 0 0 Bowl Body Y116 359 T BL 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N116 360 T BM 0 0 0 0 6 4 0 0 Bowl Body N119 98 T BM 6 0 1 0 4 1 0 1 Jar Body N
181
Lot # Sherd # Ware Style V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 Vessel Form Rim/Body? Corrugated?119 99 T BM 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 1 Bowl Body N119 100 L BL 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N119 101 T BM 6 0 1 0 6 3 0 0 Jar Body N119 102 T BM 6 2 1 0 6 2 0 0 Bowl Rim N119 103 T BM 6 0 1 0 6 2 0 0 Bowl Body N120 361 T BM 5 0 1 0 6 1 0 0 Bowl Rim N120 362 T BM 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N120 363 T BM 6 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N120 366 T BM 6 0 1 0 6 3 0 0 Bowl Rim N120 368 T BM 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 Jar Body N120 369 T BM 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N120 370 T BM 0 0 0 0 6 4 0 0 Bowl Body N122 17 T BL 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N122 18 T BL 6 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N122 19 T BM 6 2 1 0 5 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N122 20 T BM 0 0 0 0 4 3 0 0 Bowl Body N122 21 T BL 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N122 22 T BL 6 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N122 23 T BL 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N122 24 T BL 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N122 25 T BM 6 4 1 0 6 2 0 0 Bowl Body N122 26 T BM 0 0 0 0 6 3 0 0 Jar Neck N122 27 T BM 5 2 1 0 5 2 0 0 Jar Body N124 427 T BM 5 0 1 0 5 1 0 1 Jar Neck N124 428 T BM 0 0 0 0 5 2 0 0 Jar Body N124 429 C G 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 Jar Body N124 430 T BM 0 0 0 0 5 4 0 0 Jar Body N124 431 T BL 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N124 432 T BL 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N124 433 T BL 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N124 434 T BL 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N124 435 T BL 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N124 436 T BL 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N124 437 T BL 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N124 438 T BM 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 Bowl Rim N124 439 T BM 6 1 1 0 6 2 0 1 Bowl Rim N124 440 T BM 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 Bowl Rim N124 441 T BM 6 2 1 0 4 3 0 1 Bowl Rim N124 442 T BM 5 0 1 0 5 1 0 1 Bowl Rim N124 443 T BM 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 Bowl Rim N124 444 T BM 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 Bowl Rim N124 445 T BM 4 0 1 0 5 1 0 0 Bowl Rim N124 446 T BM 0 0 0 0 6 3 0 0 Bowl Rim N124 447 T BM 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 Bowl Rim Y124 448 T BM 4 1 1 0 6 1 0 0 Bowl Body N124 449 T BM 6 0 1 0 6 1 0 1 Bowl Body N124 450 T BM 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 Bowl Body N124 451 T BM 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 Bowl Body N124 452 T BM 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 Bowl Body N124 453 T BM 6 0 2 0 5 2 0 0 Bowl Body N
182
Lot # Sherd # Ware Style V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 Vessel Form Rim/Body? Corrugated?124 454 T BM 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 Bowl Body N124 455 T BM 5 0 1 0 6 2 0 0 Bowl Body N124 456 T BM 6 2 1 0 3 1 0 0 Bowl Body N124 457 L BM 5 0 1 0 5 1 0 0 Bowl Body N124 458 L BM 5 0 3 0 4 1 0 0 Bowl Body N124 459 T BM 2 1 3 0 4 1 0 0 Bowl Body N124 460 T BM 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 Bowl Body N124 461 T BM 6 0 1 0 5 2 0 1 Bowl Body N124 462 T BM 5 2 2 0 5 2 0 1 Bowl Body N124 463 L BM 5 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N124 465 T BL 6 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N124 466 T BM 6 0 1 0 6 2 0 1 Bowl Body N124 467 T BM 6 0 1 0 6 2 0 1 Bowl Body N124 468 T BM 6 0 1 0 6 2 0 0 Bowl Rim N124 469 T BM 6 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 Bowl Body N124 470 T BM 6 2 1 0 4 2 0 0 Bowl Body N124 471 T BM 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 1 Bowl Body N124 472 T D 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N125 104 T BM 5 0 1 0 5 2 0 0 Bowl Rim N125 105 T BL 6 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N125 106 T BL 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N125 107 T BM 6 0 1 0 4 2 0 0 Bowl Rim N125 108 T BM 5 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N125 109 T BM 0 0 0 0 5 2 0 0 Bowl Rim N125 110 T BM 5 0 1 0 6 4 0 0 Jar Body N125 111 T BM 0 0 0 0 6 3 0 0 Jar Rim N125 112 T BM 6 2 1 0 5 0 0 1 Jar Body N130 309 T BL 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N130 310 T BL 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N130 311 T BM 6 3 1 0 6 1 0 1 Bowl Body N130 312 T BM 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N130 313 T BM 5 0 1 0 6 6 0 0 Bowl Body N130 314 T BM 6 0 1 0 5 3 0 0 Jar Body N130 315 T BM 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 Jar Body N130 316 T BL 5 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 Jar Body N132 113 T BM 6 0 1 0 6 3 0 0 Bowl Rim N132 114 T BL 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N132 115 T BM 6 0 1 0 6 2 0 1 Bowl Body N132 116 T BM 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Jar Body N132 117 T BL 5 0 1 0 4 2 0 0 Jar Body N135 317 L BM 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 Bowl Body N135 318 L BM 0 0 0 0 4 5 0 0 Bowl Body N135 319 L BM 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 Bowl Body N135 320 L BL 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N136 371 T BL 5 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N136 372 T BM 6 0 1 0 5 1 0 1 Bowl Body N137 321 T BM 0 0 0 0 6 3 0 0 Bowl Rim N137 322 T BM 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 Bowl Rim N138 118 L BL 6 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 Bowl Body N139 28 T BM 6 4 2 0 5 3 0 1 Bowl Rim N
183
Lot # Sherd # Ware Style V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 Vessel Form Rim/Body? Corrugated?139 29 T BM 5 0 1 0 5 2 0 1 Bowl Rim N139 30 T BM 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N139 31 T BM 6 0 1 0 6 2 0 0 Jar Rim N139 32 T BM 6 0 1 0 4 4 0 1 Bowl Rim N141 130 T BM 6 3 1 0 6 3 0 0 Bowl Rim N141 131 T BM 6 1 1 0 4 1 0 0 Bowl Rim N141 132 T BL 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N141 133 T BM 0 0 0 0 5 4 0 1 Bowl Rim N141 134 T BL 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N141 135 T BL 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N141 136 T BM 0 0 0 0 6 3 0 0 Bowl Body N141 137 T BL 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N141 138 T BM 4 0 1 0 6 5 0 0 Jar Rim N141 139 T BM 5 0 1 0 5 1 0 0 Jar Body N141 140 T BM 5 3 1 0 4 2 0 1 Jar Body N142 141 T BL 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N142 142 T BL 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N142 143 T ? 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N142 144 T SB 5 0 1 0 4 1 0 0 Bowl Rim N142 145 T BL 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Rim N142 152 T BM 0 0 0 0 5 2 0 1 Bowl Body N142 153 T BM 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bowl Body N142 154 L BL 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Jar Body N142 155 T BM 6 0 0 4 3 0 0 Bowl Body N142 156 T BM 0 0 0 0 5 3 0 0 Bowl Body N
184
APPENDIX 5 - MEASUREMENT OF VARIABLES ON HOHOKAM BUFF WARESHERDS FROM NA2098T AND NA2133T
Site Sherd # V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 Vessel Form Body/Rim? Slipped?2098 1 4 1 1 0 4 1 0 0 Jar Body Y2098 2 3 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 Jar Body Y2098 3 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Jar Body Y2098 4 4 0 2 1 1 1 2 0 Jar Body Y2098 5 4 0 1 0 4 2 3 0 Jar Body Y2098 6 4 3 1 0 3 0 0 0 Jar Body Y2098 7 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Jar Rim Y2098 8 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 Jar Body Y2098 9 3 1 1 0 4 2 0 0 Jar Body Y2098 10 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 0 Jar Body Y2098 11 3 0 1 0 4 1 3 0 Jar Body Y2098 12 1 1 1 1 1 0 3 0 Jar Body Y2098 13 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 Jar Body Y2098 14 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 Jar Body Y2098 15 4 1 3 0 0 0 2 0 Jar Body Y2098 16 3 1 3 1 1 2 1 0 Jar Body Y2098 18 3 0 3 0 4 1 0 0 Jar Body Y2098 19 4 2 1 0 4 2 0 0 Jar Body Y2098 20 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Jar Body Y2098 21 3 1 1 1 4 2 2 0 Jar Body Y2098 22 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Jar Body Y2098 23 4 1 1 1 3 2 0 0 Jar Body Y2098 24 4 0 1 0 1 1 3 0 Jar Body Y2098 25 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 Jar Body Y2098 26 3 1 3 1 2 1 2 0 Jar Body Y2098 27 2 1 3 1 2 1 2 0 Jar Body Y2098 28 4 1 1 1 2 2 3 0 Jar Body Y2098 29 4 1 3 1 2 1 2 0 Jar Body Y2098 30 4 1 1 1 3 1 1 0 Jar Body Y2098 31 4 3 3 0 5 2 0 0 Jar Gila Shoulder Y2098 32 4 1 1 0 4 1 0 2 Jar Body Y2098 33 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Jar Body Y2098 34 4 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 Jar Body Y2098 35 4 1 1 1 4 1 2 0 Jar Body Y2098 36 3 1 3 0 0 0 2 0 Jar Body Y2098 37 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Jar Body Y2098 38 4 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 Jar Body Y2098 39 4 1 3 0 1 1 2 0 Jar Body Y2098 40 4 1 1 1 2 1 1 0 Jar Body Y2098 41 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 Jar Body Y2133 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 Jar Body N2133 2 3 1 3 1 0 0 2 0 Jar Body Y2133 3 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Jar Body Y