artist’s conception of life at 5mt5498 during the late ... ii/pii synthetic.pdf · other late...

LA

TE

AN

AS

AZ

I

Artist’s conception of life at 5MT5498 during the Late Anasazi Period (by Cory Dangerfield © 2000)

LATE ANASAZI SYNTHESIS

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................... 5-1Project Area Sites ............................................................................................................................................ 5-1

CHRONOLOGY...................................................................................................................................................... 5-2Dendrochronological Dating........................................................................................................................... 5-2Radiocarbon Dating ........................................................................................................................................ 5-2Archaeomagnetic Dating ................................................................................................................................ 5-2Projectile Point Styles .................................................................................................................................... 5-2Ceramic Chronometry by Lori Reed .............................................................................................................. 5-2

Gray Ware Chronology .............................................................................................................................. 5-5White Ware Chronology ............................................................................................................................ 5-7Red Ware Chronology .............................................................................................................................. 5-10Summary .................................................................................................................................................. 5-11

Regional Chronology ..................................................................................................................................... 5-11CULTURAL AFFILIATION ................................................................................................................................ 5-12

Cultural Regions ........................................................................................................................................... 5-12Chaco ........................................................................................................................................................ 5-12Mesa Verde ............................................................................................................................................... 5-13Project Area Sites .................................................................................................................................... 5-13New Mexico Sites ..................................................................................................................................... 5-13Colorado Sites ............................................................................................................................................ 5-1

Phase Sequences ...............................................................................................................................................19Upper San Juan Phase Sequence ...............................................................................................................19Dolores River Phase Sequence ...................................................................................................................19

PALEOENVRIONMENT .........................................................................................................................................20Precipitation ......................................................................................................................................................20Tree Use .............................................................................................................................................................20Tree/Forest Age .................................................................................................................................................20

SITE ELEMENTS: STRUCTURES AND ACTIVITY AREAS .............................................................................22Pit Structures ....................................................................................................................................................22Kivas .................................................................................................................................................................22Pithouses ...........................................................................................................................................................23Pithuts ...............................................................................................................................................................23Surface Structures ........................................................................................................................................ 5-19

Mesa Verde Sites ..................................................................................................................................... 5-19Aztec Site .................................................................................................................................................. 5-19

Activity Areas and Extramural Features ................................................................................................... 5-21SITE LAYOUT ...................................................................................................................................................... 5-21

Mesa Verde Sites ........................................................................................................................................... 5-21Aztec Sites ..................................................................................................................................................... 5-21

SITE TYPE ........................................................................................................................................................... 5-24Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 5-24Project Area Sites .......................................................................................................................................... 5-24

LENGTH OF SITE OCCUPATION .................................................................................................................... 5-24Kent’s Model .................................................................................................................................................. 5-24Sherd Weight Model ..................................................................................................................................... 5-25

TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................................................................................... 5-26Lithics ............................................................................................................................................................ 5-26

Flaked Lithics .......................................................................................................................................... 5-26Nonflaked Lithics .................................................................................................................................... 5-27

Ceramics by Kathy Niles Hensler, Lori S. Reed, and Andrea Carpenter .................................................. 5-28Basketry by Laurie Webster ......................................................................................................................... 5-31Faunal Bone .................................................................................................................................................. 5-32

SUBSISTENCE .................................................................................................................................................... 5-32Cultivated and Wild Plants .......................................................................................................................... 5-33Domesticated and Wild Animals .................................................................................................................. 5-33Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... 5-34

CHAPTER 5: Late Anasazi Synthesis--Table of Contents

List of Figures

SEASONALITY .................................................................................................................................................... 5-34EXTRA-REGIONAL RELATIONSHIPS ............................................................................................................ 5-34

Lithic Items ................................................................................................................................................... 5-34Ceramic Items by Kathy Niles Hensler, Lori S. Reed, and Andrea Carpenter ......................................... 5-35

SETTLEMENT PATTERNS ................................................................................................................................ 5-37Mesa Verde Area Sites .................................................................................................................................. 5-37Aztec Area Sites ............................................................................................................................................ 5-38

SOCIAL ORGANIZATION .................................................................................................................................. 5-39Residential Group Size ................................................................................................................................. 5-39Community Size ............................................................................................................................................ 5-39Aztec Community .......................................................................................................................................... 5-40Escalante/Emerson/Reservoir Community ................................................................................................. 5-40Yellow Jacket Community ............................................................................................................................ 5-40

Post-marital Residence ........................................................................................................................................ 5-40

Figure 5-1. Map showing location of Late Anasazi sites along pipeline corridor. ............................................ 5-1Figure 5-2. Bar graph illustrating date ranges of Late Anasazi sites. ............................................................. 5-2Figure 5-3. Bar graph of dendrochronological dates from three Late Anasazi sites. ...................................... 5-2Figure 5-4. Illustrations of projectile points from Late Anasazi proveniences. .................................. 5-4 and 5-5Figure 5-5. Bar graph illustrating distribution of gray ware types from 5MT5498. ....................................... 5-6Figure 5-6. Bar graph illustrating distribution of white ware types for 5MT5498. ........................................ 5-7Figure 5-7. Photograph of organic-painted Mancos Black-on-white bowl (Vessel 16) from 5MT5498. .......... 5-8Figure 5-8. Bar graph illustrating distribution of painted designs styles for

Mancos Black-on-white from 5MT5498. ................................................................................... 5-8Figure 5-9. Column graph comparing dendrochronological data from Late Anasazi sites

(MAPL, Salmon and Aztec Ruins). (Note: scale is logarmithic.) ......................................... 5-11Figure 5-10. Column graph comparing dendrochronological data from southwestern

Colorado and southeastern Utah Late Anasazi sites . ........................................................... 5-12Figure 5-11. Map showing relation of study area (pipeline corridor) to

Mesa Verde and Chaco cultural areas. .................................................................................... 5-12Figure 5-12. Graph illustrating climatic conditions

in the Northern San Juan Region between 900-1300. ........................................................... 5-14Figure 5-13. Graph illustrating relation between climatic conditions and

dates of occupation of four project area sites. ......................................................................... 5-14Figure 5-14. Pie charts showing types and percentages of fuel and

construction wood from Structures 6 and 7, 5MT5498. ......................................................... 5-15Figure 5-15. Plan maps of Late Anasazi kivas at 5MT5498 and LA46147. ....................................5-16 and 5-17Figure 5-16. Photograph of pithouse at 5MT10820, looking south;

note central hearth, wall niche and sipapu. ........................................................................... 5-18Figure 5-17. Photograph of Structure 5 at LA80316. ....................................................................................... 5-19Figure 5-18. Plan map or photograph of some nice surface room from 5MT5498. ........................................ 5-20Figure 5-19. Plan map of surface structure (Feature 10) at LA46147. .......................................................... 5-20Figure 5-20. Plan maps illustrating layouts of four Mesa Verde Late Anasazi sites. ................................... 5-22Figure 5-21. Plan maps illustrating layouts of three Aztec Late Anasazi sites. ............................................ 5-23Figure 5-22. Pie charts comparing percentages of flaked lithic tool types from

Mesa Verde and Aztec sites. ..................................................................................................... 5-26Figure 5-23. Column graph comparing percentages of biface thinning flakes

in debitage assemblages from Mesa Verde and Aztec sites. ................................................. 5-27Figure 5-24. Column graph comparing percentages of

flaked lithic materials from Mesa Verde and Aztec sites. ..................................................... 5-27Figure 5-25. Distribution of temper petrofacies in Pueblo II MAPL assemblages. ....................................... 5-29Figure 5-26. Illustrations of complete bone tools from selected Late Anasazi sites. ..................................... 5-32Figure 5-27. Column graph comparing ubiquity of cultivated crops

in sites from Mesa Verde and Aztec areas. ............................................................................. 5-33Figure 5-28. Column graph comparing calculated numbers of

non-human bones per household year for Mesa Verde and Aztec area sites. ....................... 5-33Figure 5-29. Pie charts comparing percentages of faunal types for Mesa Verde and Aztec area sites. ....... 5-34Figure 5-30. Map illustrating points of origin of non-local items recovered from Late Anasazi sites. ........ 5-34

List of Tables

Table 5-1. Late Anasazi Sites Located Along MAPL Pipeline Corridor ............................................................... 5-2Table 5-2. Interpreted Date Ranges of Pueblo II-III Site Occupations ............................................................... 5-2Table 5-3. Dates from Pueblo II-III Archaeomagnetic Samples ........................................................................... 5-3Table 5-4. Frequency of Gray Ware Ceramic Types for Pueblo II MAPL Sites ................................................... 5-6Table 5-5. Frequency of Typeable White Ware Ceramics from Pueblo II MAPL Sites ....................................... 5-7Table 5-6. Design Style Designations Assigned to Mancos Black-on-white Ceramics ....................................... 5-9Table 5-7. Frequency of Red Ware Types in MAPL Assemblages ...................................................................... 5-10Table 5-8. Types and Percentages of Fuel and Construction Wood from

Structures 6 and 7, 5MT5498 ...................................................................................................... 5-14Table 5-9. Architectural Attributes of Excavated Late Anasazi Kivas along Pipeline Corridor...................... 5-15Table 5-10. Late Anasazi Kiva Features .............................................................................................................. 5-17Table 5-11. Architectural Attributes of Excavated Late Anasazi Pithouses

along Pipeline Corridor ................................................................................................................. 5-18Table 5-12. Late Anasazi Pithouse Features ....................................................................................................... 5-18Table 5-13. Architectural Attributes of Excavated Late Anasazi Pithuts at LA80316 .................................... 5-18Table 5-14. Late Anasazi Pithut Features at LA80316 ...................................................................................... 5-19Table 5-15. Activity Areas and Extramural Features on Late Anasazi Sites ................................................... 5-21Table 5-16. Attributes of Late Anasazi Sites ....................................................................................................... 5-21Table 5-17. Site Types, Using a Modified Version of Binford’s Typology ........................................................... 5-24Table 5-18. Anticipated vs. Actual Occupation at Late Anasazi Sites ............................................................... 5-25Table 5-19. Weight of Corrugated Gray Ware Sherds from 5MT5498 ................................................................ 5-25Table 5-20. Weight of Corrugated Gray Ware Sherds from LA46147 and LA80316 ........................................ 5-26Table 5-21. Bone Tools from Late Anasazi Sites .................................................................................................. 5-32Table 5-22. Charred Macrobotanical Remains from Three Mesa Verde and

Three Aztec Area Sites. ................................................................................................................. 5-33Table 5-23. Inferred Seasons of Occupation for Mesa Verde and Aztec Area Sites .......................................... 5-34Table 5-24. Sites Used for Regional Comparison ................................................................................................ 5-35Table 5-25. Trade Wares from Sites in the Escalante/Emerson/Reservoir Area ............................................... 5-38Table 5-26. Some Temporally Diagnostic Northern San Juan Ceramics from

Sites in Escalante/Emerson/Reservoir Area ............................................................................... 5-39Table 5-27. Estimated Residential Group Size at Six Late Anasazi Sites ........................................................ 5-39Table 5-28. Estimated Populations at Three Late Anasazi Communities ......................................................... 5-40

Figure 5-31. Five cluster k-means solution of Chuska, Chaco, Mesa Verde, and Totah region sites. .......... 5-36Figure 5-32. Map showing location of Mesa Verde project area sites

in relation to four identified community centers. .................................................................. 5-37Figure 5-33. Map showing location of Aztec project area sites in relation to Aztec and Salmon Ruins. ..... 5-39

CHAPTER 5: Late Anasazi Synthesis--Table of Contents

5-1VOLUME 4, CHAPTER 5: Late Anasazi Synthesis

ARCHAIC ANASAZI NAVAJO

Early Middle Late BMIII PI PII PIII Dinetah Gobernador

Chapter 5

Late Anasazi (Pueblo II-III):A.D. 900-1300

by Peter Rohman, Jerry Fetterman andLinda Honeycutt

Project Area Sites

As can be seen from Figure 5-1, the 16 Late Anasazi sitescluster in two locations: the Mesa Verde area, northwestof Mesa Verde, Colorado, and the Aztec area, east of thepresent-day town of Aztec, New Mexico.

The sites in these locations differ from each other in manyways (see Table 5-1). Most of the sites in the Mesa Verdearea were permanent residences, and several containedsubstantial structures. In contrast, most of the sites inthe Aztec area were temporary residences, locations orfield camps, and only one contained a substantialstructure.

Three sites (5MT5457, LA80321, LA81172) yielded suchlimited data that they are only minimally referencedelsewhere in this chapter. In addition, LA80321 has beenreinterpreted by the primary author as being a location,not a field house.

INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents a synthesis of the 16 Pueblo II andPueblo III sites found along the pipeline corridor innorthwestern New Mexico and southwestern Colorado.Traditionally, the Pueblo II period has been dated from900-1150 and the Pueblo III period has been dated from1150-1300. Because several of the pipeline corridor sitesspan both of these periods, however, for the purposes ofthis chapter we have chosen to use the broader term “LateAnasazi.

Figure 5-1. Map showing location of Late Anasazi sites along pipeline corridor.

MESA VERDESLEEPING UTE

MOUNTAIN

LA PLATAMOUNTAINS

SAN JUAN MOUNTAINS

COLORADO

NEW MEXICO

UT

AH

AR

IZO

NA

Mancos River

San Juan River

Animas River

Dolores River

La Plata River

Aztec

Durango

DoveCreek

Cortez

Dolores

5MT5498

5MT54565MT5501

5MT5496

5MT54665MT10820

5MT5495��

LA82289

LA79076

LA81169

LA46147LA80316

LA80319

0 10 20 miles

5-2

CHRONOLOGY

Based on chronometric data gathered from excavation,each site was assigned a date range (see Table 5-2 andFigure 5-2). The tightness of each interpreted date rangevaries, depending on the type of chronometric dataavailable. Obviously, dates based on small ceramicassemblages are less precise and less secure than datesbased on several dendrochronological samples.

Of the seven sites in Colorado, only one (5MT10820) wasassigned a date range of less than 50 years. The othersites were either occupied more than once, or could onlybe roughly dated because of a lack of tree ring samplesor a paucity of temporally diagnostic artifacts.

The six sites in New Mexico were generally less preciselydated than those in Colorado. Based on ceramic cross-dating, the kiln on Site LA82289 is thought to have beenfired sometime between 1200 and 1300. However, theother Late Anasazi sites in the Aztec area were assignedlonger date ranges, reflecting either a single poorly datedoccupation or multiple occupations on one site.

Dendrochronological Dating

As shown in Table 5-2, only three Late Anasazi sites(5MT5498, LA46147 and LA80316) were dated on thebasis of dendrochronology. A total of 36dendrochronological samples (all from burned structuralremains) yielded dates, as shown in Figure 5-3.

Table 5-1. Late Anasazi Sites Located Along MAPLPipeline Corridor

Site # Site Type Project(s)

5MT10820 primary residential: 1 pithouse, 1 activity area PV Comp.

5MT5456 primary residential: 1 roomblock, 1 windbreak, 2 activityareas

MAPCO

5MT5457 primary residential: probable roomblock and kiva MAPL

5MT5466 possible field house: 1 activity area MAPL, MAPCO

5MT5495 primary residential: 1 roomblock MAPCO

5MT5496 possible field house MAPCO

5MT5498 primary residential: 4 roomblocks, ~12 pitstructures MAPL, MAPCO

5MT5501 primary residential: 1 roomblock, 2 kivas, 1 activity area MAPL, MAPCO

LA46147 location (ceremonial?): 1 kiva, 1 surface room, 1 activityarea

MAPL

LA79076 location: 1 activity area MAPL

LA80316 primary residential: 9 pitstructures, 8 activity areas MAPL, Loop

LA80319 field camp: 1 brush shelter, 14 activity areas MAPL, Loop

LA80321 location (or possible field house) MAPL, Loop

LA81169 possible field camp: 1 activity area MAPL, Loop

LA81172 location: 1 activity area Loop

LA82289 location: 1 pottery kiln Loop

Table 5-2. Interpreted Date Ranges of Pueblo II-IIISite Occupations

Figure 5-2. Bar graph illustrating date ranges of LateAnasazi sites.

Site Period Date Range Basis for dating

5MT10820 P bl II 1100 1140 C i h i l i5MT10820 Pueblo II 1100 to 1140 Ceramics, archaeomagnetic analysis

5MT5456 Pueblo II 1000 to 1150 Ceramics

5MT5466 Pueblo II-III 1025 to 1250 Ceramics, radiocarbon analysis



5MT5498 Pueblo II 980 to 1150 Dendrochronology, ceramics, strata


LA46147 Pueblo II 1000 to 1140 Dendrochronology, ceramics

LA79076 Pueblo II-III 980 to 1250 Ceramics, radiocarbon analysis

LA80316 Pueblo II 975 to 1175 Dendrochronology, ceramics

LA80319 Pueblo III 1100 to 1300 Ceramics, radiocarbon analysis

LA81169 Pueblo II-III 1000 to 1300 Radiocarbon analysis, strata

LA82289 Pueblo II 1200 to 1300 Ceramics

Site #

Date Range (years A.D.)

Figure 5-3. Bar graph of dendrochronological datesfrom three Late Anasazi sites.

The dates for 5MT5498 come from two kivas: Structure 6was the kiva associated with the Northwest Pueblo, andStructure 7 was the kiva associated with the East Pueblo.As can be seen from Figure 5-3, the dendrochronologicaldata suggest that the two pueblos were occupiedconsecutively. Structure 6 appears to have beenconstructed around 1130 using some salvaged timbers;alternatively, it may have been built around 1085 andthen repaired 45 years later. Structure 7 was probablyconstructed around 1145.




The two New Mexico sites are located adjacent to eachother: LA80316 is situated at the base of, and LA46147is situated on the top of, Arch Rock Butte. Thedendrochronological data from these sites suggest thatthe occupation of LA46147’s kiva (Structure 1) wasprobably contemporaneous with the occupation ofLA80316’s pithouse (Structure 6) both being built aroundAD 1130. The few tree ring samples from Structure 5 onLA46147 and Structure 13 on LA80316 yielded onlynoncutting dates.

Radiocarbon Dating

In general, radiocarbon analysis was not particularlyuseful in dating the Late Anasazi sites. When dates wereobtained from the analysis of burned annual seeds (suchas Activity Area 29 at LA80319), the information wasfairly reliable but the standard deviation on these datesare relatively large. In most instances, however, dateswere obtained from the analysis of burned wood. In thesecases, the problems inherent in dating “old wood”rendered the dates fairly meaningless.

Two examples are worth pointing out. On LA80316, twosamples of wood from the roof fall of Structure 6 weresubmitted for radiocarbon dating. They producedcalibrated date ranges of 130-450 and 1030-1400.Dendrochronological samples from the same pithouseindicate that it was probably built around 1130. In thiscase the earlier radiocarbon date is probably based onwood from the inner rings of a large timber, and the laterdate is probably based on a sample of outer rings. In thesecond example, two samples of fuel wood from theisolated kiln on LA82289 were submitted for radiocarbonanalysis. They yielded calibrated date ranges of 440-660 and 660-890. However, based on the ceramics foundassociated with the kiln, the site obviously datedsometime between 1200 and 1300.

Archaeomagnetic Dating

Archaeomagnetic sampling did not prove to beparticularly useful in dating late Anasazi sites within thepipeline corridor. Some samples could not be successfullydated, while others produced uncertain dates.

The two samples that yielded the best results werecollected from a kiva hearth on 5MT5498 and from apithouse hearth on 5MT10820 (see Table 5-3). Althoughanalysis of the sample from 5MT5498 suggested twopossible date ranges for the use of the hearth, those rangesdo not coincide with cutting dates obtained from tree ringsamples from the same kiva. The dendrochronologicaldating suggests a construction date of around 1145, a datethat is compatible with the sizable ceramic assemblagefound in the kiva. That date is well after the earlier daterange and well before the later date range obtained fromthe archaeomagnetic testing. The sample collected fromthe pithouse hearth on 5MT10820 yielded a visual daterange of 1015-1250 and a statistical date range of 990-1160. Given that these two samples produced the bestresults, the value of processing archaeomagnetic samplesfrom late Anasazi contexts appears to be questionable.

Site # Provenience Date Ranges

5MT5498 Structure 7, hearth 1000 to 1025 and 1250 to 1350

5MT10820 Structure 2, hearth visual 1015 to 1250, statistical 990 to 1160

Projectile Point Styles

The projectile points recovered from the Late Anasazi siteswere of three basic styles: side-notched, corner-notchedand stemmed (see Figure 5-4). All of the side-notchedpoints were small and fit well with the points found onother Pueblo II-III sites (Moore 1981). The corner-notchedand stemmed points, however, were all fairly large andappeared to be curated Archaic dart points.

Ceramic Chronometry by Lori Reed

With the proliferation of pottery design styles during theearly Pueblo II period, ceramic mean dates based on thedistribution of types and styles are of greater utility thanfor earlier assemblages. When compared with the limitedrepertoire of design styles for the Basketmaker III andPueblo I periods, the abundance of Pueblo II types andstyles offers greater opportunities to apply ceramic meandates and examine changes in pottery style overrelatively short periods of time. Whereas BasketmakerIII and Pueblo I wares remained constant (technologicallyand stylistically) over longer periods of time, Pueblo IIwares underwent more rapid change in all areas of designand surface treatment. Because Pueblo II and earlyPueblo III designs and surface treatments for theNorthern San Juan tradition parallel ceramic trends inother areas of the Anasazi region (e.g., Cibola, Chuska,and Kayenta), local and regional ceramic chronologiesmay be compared.

For the MAPL Pueblo II sites, ceramics recovered from5MT5498 near Dolores, Colorado represent by far thelargest assemblage with the greatest stylistic variability.The remaining six sites with Pueblo II components arelocated along the Animas River valley just north of Aztec,New Mexico. These assemblages are significantly smallerthan 5MT5498, but provide another piece of the puzzletoward understanding the ceramic technological andstylistic transitions in the lower Animas River valley.

Ceramic mean dates for the MAPL sites were calculatedusing a modification of the formula proposed by South(1977) and implemented in analysis of assemblagesthroughout the San Juan Basin and Chuska Valley(Goetze and Mills 1993; Goff and Reed 1998a; Hays-Gilpin et al. 1998; Reed and Hensler 1998). Mean ceramicdates were calculated using Excel 97 for proveniencescontaining temporally sensitive ceramic types by a four-step calculation process. First, for a specific provenience,types with over a 300 year temporal span were eliminatedfrom the date calculation and only ceramic types with anarrow (<300 year) range were used in the mean datecalculation. Second, each remaining type was weighted

Table 5-3. Dates from Pueblo II-III ArchaeomagneticSamples

5-4

LA46147.121.2.1 LA46147.39.1.25

LA46147.44.5.1 LA46147.143.2.1 LA46147.123.3.1 LA46147.29.1.22 LA46147.8.3.9

LA46147.134.1.2 LA46147.121.3.1 LA46147.18.1.6 LA46147.134.1.11 LA46147.65.1.8 LA46147.49.1.4

LA46147.23.4.7

LA46147.122.4.1

5MT5498.57.7.30

5MT5498.88.1.7 5MT5498.10.3.1 5MT5498.115.11.13

5MT5498.118.4.1 5MT5498.65.19.1 5MT5498.36.1.10 5MT5498.134.2.9

LA80316.515.3.1 LA80316.600.2.3 LA80316.600.2.1 LA80316.680.1.2 LA80316.601.2.17LA80936.600.2.2

LA80316.509.1.3

0 1 2 cm

Figure 5-4. Illustrations of projectile points from Late Anasazi proveniences.




LA80316.515.6.1LA80316.691.2.1 LA80316.601.2.18LA80316.696.1.2

0 1 2 cm

Figure 5-4. Illustrations of projectile points from Late Anasazi proveniences (cont.).

Points Recovered During 1990

Arkansas Loop Excavations

by calculating a type percentage. The type percentagewas calculated by dividing the number of itemsrepresenting each type by the total number of itemsremaining in the provenience (after eliminating sherdswith over a 300-year temporal span). Third, the earliestdate for each type was multiplied by the type percentageand then all early weighted dates were added togetherto produce a single weighted early date for theprovenience. The same calculation was repeated for thelate dates for each type in the provenience. Finally, themean for the weighed early and late dates was calculatedby adding the early date and late date together and thendividing by two. Once the mean date for a proveniencewas calculated, a mean date range (see Reed and Hensler1998) was calculated by first subtracting the earlyweighted date from the late weighted date and dividingthat number by four to obtain a range value. Then,subtract the range value from the mean date and addthe range value to the mean date to get the date range.

Gray Ware Chronology

Ceramics from each of the Late Anasazi componentsconsidered temporally sensitive are examined by warecategory in the following discussion. As shown in Table5-4, gray ware ceramics include predominantly PuebloII corrugated types, but the 5MT5498 assemblageincludes several types typical of Basketmaker III andPueblo I periods. Given that Chapin Gray and MoccasinGray occur in low frequencies through at least 950 andMancos Gray may occur in small number as late as 1000(Blinman and Wilson 1989; Breternitz et al.1974), thepresence of literally a handful of these types does notindicate an earlier Pueblo I component at 5MT5498. Thedistribution of Northern San Juan ceramic types from5MT5498 (Figure 5-5) clearly shows the dominance ofPueblo II corrugated ceramics, suggesting an 950 to 1130assemblage. The large number of plain gray bodyfragments, however, suggests that a significant portionof the corrugated vessels may have been neck corrugated.

5-6

By examining the presence and distribution of neck-corrugated ceramics, occupations dating between 950 and1000 can be identified. It was during this short period oftime that the transition from neck banded to full bodycorrugation occurred. Only one of the corrugated rimsfrom 5MT5498, however, clearly originated from a neck-corrugated vessel. Because neck-corrugated vesselsfrequently fracture along the coil juncture connecting theplain body with the corrugated neck, it is often difficultto establish the presence of transitional neck textured tofull vessel textured types.

A ratio of corrugated to plain body fragments is anothermeans of evaluating the presence of neck-corrugatedvessels, indicating assemblages dating between 950 and1000. Following an assumption that gray wareassemblages dating prior to 1000 would havesignificantly greater numbers of plain body fragmentsthan assemblages dating after 1000, body fragments area useful temporal marker for this texturing transition.For 5MT5498, the ratio of corrugated to plain bodyfragments is 3:2, indicating that for every five gray warebody fragments two are plain gray.

To examine the corrugated to plain gray ratio further,Hayes and Lancaster’s (1975) analysis of ceramics fromthe trash mound at Badger House in Mesa Verde NationalPark provides an excellent comparison. In theirdiscussion of gray ware ceramics from the trash moundat Badger House, percentages for gray ware types andplain versus corrugated body fragments are presentedfor each strata of the trash mound. After converting thepercentages of corrugated and plain gray body sherdsinto actual numbers, ratios of corrugated to plain surfacesare generated using their distributional data of trashmound strata (Hayes and Lancaster 1975:99, Table 29).In the upper strat (Strat A) of the trash mound dominatedby Mancos Corrugated, the ratio of corrugated to plainbody sherds is 3:1. In contrast, the lowest levels of thetrash mound (Strat D and E) dominated by Mancos Grayand some Mancos Corrugated have a ratio of 1:1 forcorrugated versus plain body. It is evident fromexamination of gray ware body sherd assemblages from5MT5498 and Badger House that ratios of surfacetexturing can be used as a relative means of placingproveniences into early Pueblo II and middle/late PuebloII temporal categories.

The Animas Valley assemblages include a greater varietyof ceramic traditions, but are dominated by Pueblo IIcorrugated gray ware. None of the corrugated sherdswere identified as Pueblo III types such as Mesa Verde

Table 5-4. Frequency of Gray Ware Ceramic Types forPueblo II MAPL Sites

Figure 5-5. Bar graph illustrating distribution of gray ware types from 5MT5498.

Ceramic Series andType

5MT5498

LA46147

LA79076

LA80316

LA80319

LA80321

LA81172 Total

Northern San Juan

Chapin Gray 8 -- -- -- -- -- -- 8

Moccasin Gray 13 -- -- -- -- -- -- 13

Mancos Gray 8 -- -- -- -- -- -- 8

Mancos NeckCorrugated 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 1

Mancos Corrugated 286 -- -- -- 1 -- -- 287

Dolores Corrugated 37 -- -- -- 3 -- -- 40

Mummy Lake Gray 14 -- -- -- -- -- -- 14

Mesa Verde Corrugated 4 -- -- -- -- -- -- 4

Corrugated gray 252 44 69 15 26 4 -- 410

Plain gray 76 6 -- 1 -- -- -- 83

Cibola

Tohatchi Neckbanded 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 1

Coolidge Corrugated 7 1 -- -- -- -- -- 8

Chaco Corrugated 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 1

Corrugated gray 11 35 -- 29 -- -- -- 75

Plain gray 1 16 -- -- -- -- -- 17

Chuska

Blue Shale Corrugated 2 -- -- -- -- -- -- 2

Corrugated gray -- 20 -- 4 1 -- -- 25

Indeterminate

Corrugated gray 1 -- -- -- -- 1 -- 2

Plain gray 2 -- -- -- -- -- -- 2

Plain gray rim 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 1

Not Analyzed

Corrugated gray 6018 4 -- 24 228 -- -- 6274

Neckbanded gray 2 -- -- -- -- -- -- 2

Plain gray 4247 3 -- 15 2 -- -- 4267

Plain gray rim 98 -- -- -- -- -- -- 98

Total 11,091 129 69 88 261 5 0 11,643

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Chapin Gray MoccasinGray

Mancos Gray Mancos NeckCorruga ted

MancosCorruga ted

DoloresCorrugated

Mummy LakeGray

Mesa VerdeCorrugat ed




Corrugated, Chaco Corrugated, or Hunter Corrugated.Also, the number of plain gray body fragments associatedwith these components is low, further suggesting PuebloII assemblages dating after 1000.

Unlike 5MT5498, the remaining sites lack typesassociated with an early 900s component and LA 81172yielded no gray ware. The presence of corrugated sherdsin assemblages from LA 46147, LA 79076, LA 80316, LA80319, and LA 80321 indicate assemblages dating after1000. Of the Animas valley sites, LA 80319 is the onlyassemblage containing typeable corrugated rims. ThreeDolores Corrugated and one Mancos Corrugated clearlyindicate a middle to late Pueblo II assemblage.

As discussed for LA 46147, the apparent antiquity of theceramic assemblage in comparison to an 1130construction date for the kiva, suggest that this site isunique for the lower Animas River valley area. Althoughmore evident from the white ware discussion below, thegray ware assemblage from LA 46147 includes ceramicsassociated with a Pueblo II occupation dating between1000 and 1100. This site, in particular, demonstratesthe limitations of ceramic mean dates as the solechronometric method for dating an occupation. A ceramicmean date range for the assemblage was calculated as1027 to 1098, roughly 30 to 100 years earlier than theconstruction date of the kiva.

White Ware Chronology

Temporal distributions and chronology building for whiteware ceramics is much more complex than for gray wareceramics. As shown in Table 5-5, 5MT5498 has thegreatest number and variety of Pueblo II white waretypes. Sites in the lower Animas Valley segment of MAPLyielded significantly smaller assemblages withsubsequently fewer ceramic types. LA 46147, LA 80316,and LA 81172 are the only New Mexico MAPLassemblages that produced typeable white ware. To

highlight the chronologically sensitive ceramics from thePueblo II assemblages, ceramics identified asindeterminate white or as broad period-based styles, suchas Pueblo I/II black-on-white or Pueblo II/III black-on-white, are excluded from the following discussion.

Given the large assemblage recovered from 5MT5498, thedistribution illustrated in Figure 5-6 is not unexpected.Mancos Black-on-white clearly dominates the assemblage,with Cortez Black-on-white comprising the next largesttype grouping at 13.8 percent and late Pueblo II/III typesmaking up just over 1 percent of the typeable white ware

Table 5-5. Frequency of Typeable White WareCeramics from Pueblo II MAPL Sites

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Chapin B/ w Cor tez B/ w Mancos B/ w Mancos/McElmoB/ w

McElmo B/ w Mesa Verde B/ w

Figure 5-6. Bar graph illustrating distribution of white ware types for 5MT5498.

Ceramic Series andType 5MT5498 LA46147 LA80316 LA81172 Total

Northern San Juan

Chapin B/w 1 -- -- -- 1

Cortez B/w 69 -- -- -- 69

Mancos B/w 425 6 22 1 454

Mancos/McElmo B/w 1 -- -- -- 1

McElmo B/w 4 -- -- -- 4

Mesa Verde B/w 1 -- -- -- 1

Cibola

Chaco B/w -- 1 1 -- 2

Escavada B/w 11 4 1 -- 16

Gallup B/w 8 14 -- -- 22

Puerco B/w 4 -- -- -- 4

Red Mesa B/w 4 3 1 -- 8

Reserve B/w 1 -- -- -- 1

Chuska

Chuska B/w 1 1 -- -- 2

Taylor B/w -- 4 7 -- 11

Tusayan

Black Mesa B/w -- 4 -- -- 4

Sosi B/w 1 -- -- -- 1

Indeterminate

Cortez style b/w 2 -- -- -- 2

Dogoszhi style b/w 6 -- -- -- 6

Not analyzed

Chaco style b/w 1 -- -- -- 1

Dogoszhi style b/w 141 -- -- -- 141

Mancos style b/w 109 -- -- -- 109

Sosi style b/w 40 -- -- -- 40

Total 830 37 32 1 900

5-8

assemblage. Compared to the gray ware distributionsdiscussed above, the white ware types further supportan occupation between 950 and 1130. With the smallnumber of Mancos/McElmo and McElmo Black-on-whitesherds, it is possible that the Pueblo II/III transition wasbeginning at the end of the 5MT5498’s occupation, butthe ceramic data suggest that the site was abandonedprior to the full transition into Pueblo III.

Another indicator that the Pueblo II/III transition wasbeginning at 5MT5498 is the percentage of Mancos Black-on-white sherds having organic-painted designs. Blinman

and Wilson (1989) indicate that organic-painted MancosBlack-on-white is sometimes present in late Pueblo II toPueblo III transitional assemblages. Organic paint ispresent on 10.5 percent (13.4 percent by sherd weight) ofthe Mancos Black-on-white ceramics. For example, Vessel16 is a complete Mancos Black-on-white bowl havingorganic painted designs (Figure 5-7). Because the bowllacks rim ticking and thick walls, it was classified asMancos Black-on-white rather than McElmo Black-on-white.

Because Mancos Black-on-white encompasses a widerange of design styles that are differentiated in otherceramic traditions as distinct types, classifying sherdsas Mancos style or Mancos Black-on-white is problematic(Toll et al. 1992). For this study, Mancos Black-on-whitewas subdivided into smaller stylistic units by assigninga design style designation, such as Sosi style or Dogoszhistyle. This approach provided a means for evaluatingthe general distribution of style within the broad typeMancos Black-on-white. As shown in Figure 5-8, sixdesign styles were identified along with an unspecifieddesign category. Because the DAP lacked evidence ofsignificant post-AD 1000 occupations and design stylesfor Mancos Black-on-white were not segregated (Blinman1988), data from the Dolores Project are of limited utilityin this examination of design style and chronology.

Breternitz et al. (1974:39) indicate that†“the frequencywith which solids and hatching are found on ‘Southern’specimens (almost in the budding Tularosa Style) andthe preoccupation with the triangle design in Mancosboth tend to set Mancos apart.” Although this may bethe case, the lack of greater stylistic differentiation withinMancos Black-on-white limits Pueblo II Northern SanJuan data in addressing large-scale regional stylisticchange from temporal and spatial perspectives.

It appears that very few studies in the Northern SanJuan have used design details as a means of refining the

Figure 5-7. Photograph of organic-painted MancosBlack-on-white bowl (Vessel 16) from 5MT5498.

0 4 cm

Figure 5-8. Bar graph illustrating distribution of painted designs styles for MancosBlack-on-white from 5MT5498.

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

Red Mesa Black Mesa Sosi Dogoszhi Puerco Reserve Unspecified

Design Style




temporal sequence of Mancos Black-on-white. Hayes andLancaster (1975) and Wilson (1988) are two such studiesthat provide design tallies for Mancos Black-on-white.For the Badger House collections, Hayes and Lancaster(1975) classify Mancos Black-on-white designs within agroup of nine elements, straight hatchure, squigglehatchure, scrolls, checkers, dots, cross hatchure,triangles, broad lines, and lifeforms. There is someoverlap of design elements present on Cortez and MancosBlack-on-white ceramics, but the fine-lined execution andcontinual division of repetitive elements on Cortez Black-on-white designs set this type apart. In Hayes andLancaster’s detailed discussion of Mancos designs,temporal patterning in designs from Badger Houseparallel those of 5MT5498, demonstrating that stylisticsubdivisions in Mancos Black-on-white can be aworthwhile approach.

For example, Hayes and Lancaster indicate that in thelower three strata of the Badger House trash moundsquiggled line hatchure is evident on some Cortez Black-on-white sherds, but is the most prevalent on MancosBlack-on-white. Using the MAPL design style divisionpresented below, the Mancos Black-on-white sherds withsquiggled hatchure are identified as Red Mesa style. Asshown in other studies (e.g., Hays-Gilpin et al. 1999; Millset al. 1993; Reed and Hensler 1998) just beyond theNorthern San Juan region, Red Mesa style is mostassociated with narrow neckbanded types (e.g., TohatchiNeckbanded and Tocito Gray) and the early stages of neckcorrugated gray ware. Given these data, it is clear thatRed Mesa style and the low ratio of corrugated to plaingray, discussed above, co-occur in the same strata of theBadger House trash mound.

For the MAPL study, Red Mesa style designs, named afterthe Cibola type, were identified as broader-lined versionsof Cortez Black-on-white designs. Blinman and Wilson(1989) clearly indicate that typical Red Mesa styledesigns, such as squiggle hatchure are assigned to MancosBlack-on-white in the Northern San Juan series. Studiesin the central San Juan Basin and along the ChuskaValley assign a date range of 900 to 1000 for assemblagesdominated by Red Mesa Black-on-white, but extend thedate to 1100 during which time Red Mesa style occurs indiminishing numbers (see Goff and Reed 1998; Hays-Gilpin et al. 1999; Windes 1977). Black Mesa style designsare considered a continuation of Red Mesa after Sosi styledesigns become the predominant element configurationsbeginning by 1000 and continuing to 1100. This style isparticularly prevalent in the Kayenta region of Arizona(Colton 1955). Design motifs associated with Black Mesastyle include large solidly-painted triangles and thicklinear elements similar to Sosi style, but retaining theappended dots of Red Mesa style (Table 5-6).

Sosi style is one of the most common designs identifiedon Mancos Black-on-white. As shown in Figure 5-8, Sosistyle comprises almost 42 percent of the Mancos Black-on-white designs from 5MT5498. Motifs consist of broad-lined solid elements, such as triangles, and thick linearelements, such as parallel lines and scrolls (Blinman and

Wilson 1989). Absent from these motifs are appendeddots or ticks characteristic of Red Mesa and Black Mesastyles. On the Colorado Plateau, Sosi style is consideredone of the hallmarks of middle to late Pueblo IIassemblages, but is recognized as distinctive types in theChuska (e.g., Toadlena Black-on-white and Taylor Black-on-white), Cibola (Escavada Black-on-white), andKayenta (Sosi Black-on-white) traditions. As a cohesivedesign, Sosi style types dominate assemblages from 1000to 1125 (Goetze and Mills 1993; Goff and Reed 1998;Hays-Gilpin et al. 1999), but occur as early as 975.

Dogoszhi style is the second hallmark of middle to latePueblo II assemblages across the Colorado Plateau. Forthe 5MT5498 assemblage, Dogoszhi style represents thesecond most abundant sub-group of Mancos Black-on-white with 36.7 percent (Figure 5-8). As shown in Table5-6, linear, rectilinear, and curved ribbons filled withhatchured lines characterize this style. Dogoszhi styledesigns dominate assemblages from 1000 to 1100, butare slowly replaced by McElmo style designs between1100 and 1150. Although not identified in the 5MT5498assemblage, Dogoszhi style can be further sub-dividedinto Chaco style designs characterized by noticeablythicker ribbon borders and contrasting thinner and moreclosely spaced hatchure. In the Cibola series, Chaco styledesigns are identified as Chaco Black-on-white datingto the late Pueblo II period from roughly 1075 to 1150(Windes and McKenna 1989).

Table 5-6. Design Style Designations Assigned toMancos Black-on-white Ceramics

5-10

Although apparently more common to the south of theNorthern San Juan region (Hays-Gilpin and vanHartesveldt 1998), Puerco style designs occur on MancosBlack-on-white ceramics from 5MT5498, comprisingabout 2 percent of the design motifs. As shown in Table5-6, Puerco style is basically a variation on Sosi stylewith a combination of solid elements separated by seriesof parallel lines. Its presence on Mancos Black-on-whitevessels may be an indication of influence and interactionfrom people to the south (e.g., Puerco Black-on-white ofthe Cibola series). Hays-Gilpin and van Hartesveldt(1998) assign a date range of 1030 to 1150 for PuercoBlack-on-white, but as a design style on Mancos Black-on-white the Puerco motifs certainly date no earlier than1030. Further evaluation of Mancos design variation andabsolute chronometric dates from other sites in theNorthern San Juan is necessary before a confident daterange can be assigned.

Reserve style designs are similar to Puerco designs, butsolid elements are separated by hatchured ribbon elementsrather than by series of parallel lines. Classification ofthis style is complicated by the abundance of small sherdshaving fragments of solid or hatchured elements that mayhave been applied to the vessel in Sosi, Dogoszhi, Puerco,or Reserve styles. As a discrete style, both solid andhatchured elements on a sherd or vessel are required forclassification as Reserve style. Similar to Puerco Black-on-white, a date range of 1030 to 1200 is proposed forReserve Black-on-white of the Cibola series (Hays-Gilpinand van Hardesveldt 1998), but as a design style forMancos Black-on-white it occurs no later than 1150. Asimilar date range for Mancos Black-on-white (Reservestyle) is proposed, but further evidence for this design styleand its association with well-dated contexts is neededbefore it can be used as a temporal marker.

Finally, 13.4 percent of the designs on Mancos Black-on-white sherds from 5MT5498 were subsumed under anunspecified style category. Some designs included in thiscategory represent styles potentially unique to MancosBlack-on-white, such as large solid dots in a linearpattern or randomly scattered and lifeform motifs.Because this category includes motifs that could not beconfidently assigned to a sub-style, a date range forunspecified style covers the Pueblo II period, 900-1150.

The same design style segregation of Mancos Black-on-white was applied to all Pueblo II sites along the MAPL.Utilizing these stylistic variations and differences in dateranges, a Mancos Black-on-white style mean date may begenerated for Pueblo II sites. For 5MT5498, a Mancosstyle mean date of 1068 was calculated with a mean rangeof 1031-1105. Because all of the Mancos Black-on-whitesherds from LA 46147 are Dogoszhi style a mean daterange for the Mancos style designation spans 1000 to 1150.The same date range is suggested for LA 80316 and LA81172, both of which have Mancos Black-on-whiteassemblages containing only Sosi and Dogoszhi styles.Fortunately 5MT5498 has a large assemblage with enoughstylistic variability and time depth to adequately utilizea Mancos style mean date calculation. Although the style

mean date for LA 46147 fits with the overall ceramic meandate for the site (1027 to 1098), tree ring dates from theKiva indicate that the structure was built in 1130. Theabsence of early Pueblo III ceramics from LA 46147, suchas McElmo and Mesa Verde Black-on-white, suggests thatthe assemblage may represent an heirloomed collectionof pottery specific to functions of the kiva.

Red Ware Chronology

Two Pueblo II MAPL sites, 5MT5498 and LA 46147yielded red ware ceramics (Table 5-7). As expected, themajority of red ware from 5MT5498 consists of San JuanRed Ware produced in the Northern San Juan region (seeHegmon et al. 1995). From a chronological perspective,44 percent of the San Juan Red Ware consists of AbajoRed-on-orange and Abajo Polychrome dated primarily tothe Pueblo I period between 700 and 850. The singleDolores Red sherd probably dates to the same period asthe Abajo ceramics, although its primary manufacturingrange is from 610 to 800. Another 44 percent of the SanJuan Red Ware consists of Bluff and McPhee Black-on-reds dating to the late Pueblo I and early Pueblo IIperiods, roughly between 800 and 1000. Surprisingly,Deadman’s Black-on-red, a hallmark of the Pueblo IIperiod, is represented by only 3 sherds at 5MT5498. Thesmall size of the red ware assemblage probably is not areliable indicator of site chronology. Although not clearlydelineated during the analysis, the San Juan Red Waremay represent fragments of only three to five pots, furtherindicating the general absence of red ware from5MT5498. As a result, the red ware data contributeslittle to the ceramic chronology of 5MT5498, but doespoint to larger social issues that may have influenced alack of participation in San Juan Red Ware exchangenetworks.

Table 5-7. Frequency of Red Ware Types in MAPLAssemblages

Ceramic Ware and Type 5MT5498 LA46147 Total

San Juan

Abajo Red-on-orange 14 -- 14

Abajo Polychrome 1 -- 1

Bluff Black-on-red 2 -- 2

McPhee Black-on-red 13 -- 13

Deadman's Black-on-red 3 -- 3

Dolores Red 1 -- 1

White Mountain

Puerco Black-on-red 2 2 4

Wingate Black-on-red -- 1 1

Indet. White Mountain Red Ware -- 2 2

Kayenta (Tsegi)

Medicine Black-on-red -- 13 13

Total 36 18 54

Puerco Black-on-red of the White Mountain Red Wareseries is the only additional type identified at 5MT5498.The two sherds also are the only red ware representinglong distance trade for red ware vessels outside of theNorthern San Juan region. In contrast to the San JuanRed Ware assemblage, Puerco Black-on-white clearlydates to the middle to late Pueblo II period and wasproduced in west-central New Mexico and east-centralArizona beginning in 1000 (Carlson 1970).




As shown in Table 5-7, red ware from LA 46147 suggeststhat Pueblo II/III people living in the lower Animas Rivervalley had significantly different social and economicrelationships than the Dolores, Colorado area folks.Chronologically, the red ware assemblage from LA 46147indicates a late Pueblo II occupation based on productionof both White Mountain Red Ware in the southern Cibolaregion and Medicine Black-on-red in the Kayenta regionbeginning at roughly 1000 (see Carlson 1970; Colton1955). None of the red ware sherds from LA 46147suggest an occupation dating later than 1100, contrastingwith the tree-ring dates from the kiva.

Summary

One of the primary goals of the Pueblo II ceramic analysiswas to utilize broad stylistic categories of white waredesign as a means of refining the chronological sensitivityof Mancos Black-on-white. For example, if an earlierPueblo II component had been present at 5MT5498,greater numbers of Mancos Black-on-white (Red Mesastyle), Cortez Black-on-white, and Mancos Gray wouldhave been expected along with concentrations of thesetypes in discrete proveniences. Examination of thesetypes by provenience show that these potentially earlierceramic types are scattered across the site in variousstructures within the North and East Pueblo areas.Using the same logic, an early Pueblo III componentwould have been identified by greater numbers ofMcElmo Black-on-white, Mesa Verde Black-on-white,Mesa Verde Corrugated, and possibly Mancos Black-on-white (Puerco and Reserve styles).

As a combined assemblage, the ceramics from 5MT5498clearly indicate a middle to late Pueblo II occupationwhich is supported by tree-dated contexts from Structures6 and 7. Ceramic mean dates were generated for eachstructure resulting in 15 of the 16 structures having dateranges beginning after 1000 or in the last decade of the900s. Structures 9 and 10 have mean ceramic date rangesspanning the 800 and 900 period, but these dates arebased on a much smaller sample of typeable sherds thanthe latter structures. Without absolute chronometricdates to substantiate the early ceramic dates forStructures 9 and 10, further speculation as to a latePueblo I to early Pueblo II occupation is problematic.

The lower Animas Valley sites presented differentchronological difficulties, with the small size of theassemblages and tree ring dated contexts for which theceramic assemblage lags stylistically and typologicallyby at least 50 years. The small size of the assemblagesprobably is related to the function of these sites. Theisolated Great Kiva at LA 46147 with construction datedto 1130 and a ceramic assemblage consisting of latePueblo II types, probably functioned as a special useceremonial structure.

The small size of the remaining assemblages from thelower Animas Valley limits the usefulness of ceramicmean dating. The assemblage from LA 79076 includes69 corrugated body sherds from a single jar and a paintedladle fragment of an unidentified Pueblo II type. Themost that can be suggested from the ceramics is a generalPueblo II occupation. Typeable sherds from LA 80316include Chaco, Escavada, Mancos, Red Mesa, and TaylorBlack-on-whites along with corrugated body sherds,indicating that the assemblage post-dates 1000. Theassemblage from LA 80319 includes Mancos Corrugated,Dolores Corrugated, corrugated gray body sherds, and afew plain gray sherds, all of which indicate a middle tolate Pueblo II component. Five corrugated gray bodyfragments recovered from LA 80321 indicate a Pueblo IIoccupation dating after 975. A single Mancos Black-on-white (Sosi style) sherds was identified in the assemblagefrom LA 81172, suggesting that the site was used byPueblo II people sometime after 1000. Although theseassemblages are small, they clearly indicate use of theare north of Aztec Pueblo during the Pueblo II and IIIperiods. Given the large Pueblo II and III communitiespresent on the lower Animas River, the middle San JuanRiver, and the lower La Plata River, small special usesites with Pueblo II/III ceramics would be expected.

Regional Chronology

Figure 5-9 presents a graph of dendrochronological datafrom Salmon (Reed, personal communication) and Aztec(Brown et al., 2002 ) Ruins, two sites excavated innorthwestern New Mexico near the project area. As canbe seen from this graph the main construction of theselarge sites was during the last decades of the 11th andthe first decades of the 12th century A.D. By the time the

1060 1070 1080 1090 1100 1110 1120 1130 1140 1150 1160 1170 1180 1190 1200 1210 1220 1230 1240 1250 1260 1270 12801

10

100

250

Salmon Aztec EastAztec West � � ��

��

��

��

Figure 5-9. Column graph comparing dendrochronological data from Late Anasazi sites(MAPL, Salmon and Aztec Ruins). (Note: scale is logarmithic.)

5-12

dendrochronologically-dated MAPL sites were occupied,these sites had been largely built for 10 years. A secondwave of construction and occupation at these site occursin the 13th century. It is most likely that the kiln atLA82289 is associated with this second occupation.

Figure 5-10 presents a column graph of cutting datesfrom excavated sites in southwestern Colorado andsoutheastern Utah. As can be seen from this graph, thefirst construction episode at MAPL site 5MT5498 wasduring a period (1080-1090) when few sites are knownto have been built. However, the second constructionepisode was during a period (1100-1140) when many sitesare known to have been built, including the nearbyEscalante Pueblo (Halasai 1979).

Of course, the correlation between spatial division andcultural region it not actually that straight forward. Innorthwestern New Mexico, sites with Mesa Verdeinfluence are found in the La Plata River drainage, andeven the influence of the Chaco Canyon-based cultureon the Aztec-area Anasazi varied through time (seeHogan 1991). In southwestern Colorado, sites withChacoan influence (known variously as Chacoan outliersor Chacoan Great Houses) are found in low numbersthroughout much of the area.

Chaco

Sites with Chacoan affinity exhibit one or more of thefollowing attributes: double-coursed walls of fine tabular

Figure 5-10. Column graph comparing dendrochronological data from southwestern Colorado and southeasternUtah Late Anasazi sites (Varien 1999: Figure 7.17 reprinted with permission).

CULTURAL AFFILIATION

Cultural Regions

For the Pueblo II and Pueblo III periods, archaeologistshave defined several spatial (and presumably cultural)divisions in the Anasazi world, including the Mesa Verdeand the Chaco regions (see Figure 5-11). As can be seenfrom this figure, the pipeline corridor originates in theChaco Region. From here it heads north and travelsthrough the southern foothills of the La Plata Mountains,an area virtually uninhabited by the Anasazi during thePueblo II-III time period. After leaving the foothillsbehind, the pipeline enters the Mesa Verde Region, oncehome to thousands of Pueblo II-III Anasazi.

Interval Midpoint Year A.D.

Nu

mb

er

of

Da

tes

5MT5498 Dates: 1085, 1130, 1145 Escalante Dates: 1129, 1138

��

��

��

��

��

�� !�� "��#��$��"��

%�&��

'�'��Figure 5-11. Map showing relation of study area

(pipeline corridor) to Mesa Verde and Chacocultural areas.




low percentage of their ceramic assemblages. The onlysite that was significantly excavated, 5MT5498,contained small surface rooms made of simple wallconstruction, and keyhole-shaped kivas containingearthen or masonry pilasters and lacking sub-floorventilators.

The Dolores sites (5MT5495, 5MT5496, 5MT5498, and5MT5501) are part of a prehistoric community thatsurrounded a Chacoan Outlier site, Escalante Pueblo.The type of relationship between the MAPL sites andthe contemporaneous Escalante Pueblo is not known.

Phase Sequences

One of the topics in the research design for the RockyMountain Loop Project was to evaluate how the sitesrelate to two phase sequences: one developed for theUpper San Juan River drainage in New Mexico and onedeveloped for the Dolores River drainage in Colorado.

Upper San Juan Phase Sequence

The Upper San Juan phase sequence was devised duringthe Navajo Reservoir project to characterize the localmanifestations of the Upper San Juan drainage (Eddy1966). The latest Puebloan phase identified in thesequence was the Arboles Phase, dating from 950-1050.Arboles Phase sites were characterized by clusteredearthen pithouses and smaller pitrooms and surfacerooms. The smaller rooms were sometimes constructedwith cobble-paved floors and/or masonry walls, andserved as both residences and storage rooms. Bothhunting and milling tools decreased from the earlierphase, although tools associated with wild plantgathering increased. Later, Eddy (1977) devised theChimney Rock Phase to describe the sites in the upperpart of the Piedra drainage around Chimney Rock. Thesesites date from 1050-1125 and range from a classicChacoan Outlier in the High Mesa Group to pithousevillages near the river.

The New Mexico MAPL sites date later than the sites ofthe Upper San Juan Phase sequence. In addition,compared to the MAPL sites, the Chimney Rock Phasepithouse villages contain much larger structures andmore robust surface rooms (Eddy 1993:16). Based onalbeit limited comparative data, it can be stated that theNew Mexico MAPL sites have little affiliation with theUpper San Juan Phase sequence sites.

Dolores River Phase Sequence

The Dolores River phase sequence was based on workconducted in the Dolores River valley just west of thetown of Dolores, Colorado. It was developed during theDolores Archaeological Project to explain the localAnasazi subsistence-settlement system centered on theDolores River Canyon (Kane 1984:25). The phases areproject-specific archaeological constructs and were notintended to represent cultural affiliation assignments.

masonry built on adobe or cobble footings; large surfacerooms; kivas with (often eight) log pilasters and subfloorventilation systems; Great Houses or “large, formal, highlyvisible houses that clearly differentiate those who livedthere from the rest of the community” (Lipe and Varien1999:259); and a relatively high incidence of trade wares.

Mesa Verde

Sites with Mesa Verdean affinity exhibit one or more ofthe following attributes: small surface rooms; large blockmasonry; keyhole-shaped kivas with (usually six)masonry pilasters.

Project Area Sites

The project area sites cluster in two locations: the sitesin New Mexico are located in an area near Chacoan sitesor sites that have Chacoan traits, while the sites inColorado are located in an area where Mesa Verde sitesare dominant.

New Mexico Sites

The New Mexico sites were unique. Site LA46147contained a kiva with log pilasters and a high incidenceof tradewares. Associated with this Chaco “style” kiva,however, were not walls of a Great House, or walls at all,but rather an aggregation of pit rooms at LA80316.Instead of viewing this site as a Chacoan Outlier, itprobably more likely viewed as a Chacoan Outpost inthe outback. It is possibly located on the trail from theAztec area to the higher terrain of Mesa Mountain.

The artifact assemblages associated with the New Mexicosites suggest an orientation towards hunting rather thanthe typical Chacoan Pueblo II-III assemblage orientedheavily towards agriculture. This difference inassemblages might reflect a difference in function anduse of the sites by the Chacoan Anasazi. Perhaps thesites represent seasonally utilized hunting campsassociated with the Chacoan villages (Aztec, etc.) fivemiles distant in the valleys.

An alternative explanation is that the sites representthe occupation of the area by people who were notculturally affiliated with the Chacoan Anasazi. TheAnasazi people did not live in a vacuum; non-Anasazihunters and gatherers probably lived in the terrain atthe eastern and northern edges of the Anasazi world. Thepeople who occupied the New Mexico sites might havebeen such people, and they might have traded with andbeen allied with the Chacoan Anasazi. They could havetraded game meat and hides to the people of the Chacoanvillages in the valleys and obtained ceramics andagricultural products in return.

Colorado Sites

The Colorado sites contained attributes indicating thatthey were of Mesa Verde affiliation. None of the MAPLsites were Great Houses, and tradewares comprised a

5-14

PALEOENVRIONMENT

Based on pollen evidence, the paleoenvironment of theproject area sites was similar to the environment of today.The pollen samples indicate that the sites were situatedin woodland areas dominated by juniper, pinyon, andsagebrush. Not surprisingly, the major components ofthe plant communities surrounding the sites then wereprobably the same as those that grow there today.

Precipitation

As can be seen from Figure 5-12, in the Northern SanJuan Region during the Pueblo II-III period, precipitationpatterns apparently produced alternating periods offavorable and unfavorable growing conditions (Van Westand Dean 2000). From about 1000 to 1130, favorableconditions, including increasing precipitation, risingwater tables, and aggrading flood plains, existed; inaddition, the weather was less variable from year to year.During the following fifty years, from about 1130 to 1180,the trends were reversed. Unfavorable conditionsprevailed, with decreased precipitation, depressed watertables, and stream channel entrenchment being typical.From around 1180 to 1250, conditions again improved,but not to the level of the earlier favorable period. Whilewater tables were rising and flood plains were againaggrading, the long-term precipitation rate was droppingand the weather was becoming unpredictable. Eventually,from around 1270 to 1300, unfavorable growing conditionsagain prevailed; seasonal precipitation patterns weredisrupted and the area entered a drought period.

apparently abandoned after growing conditions declinedduring the mid-1100’s (see Figure 5-13). Because thosesite abandonments did not coincide with a largerabandonment of the San Juan basin, it can be assumedthat general environmental conditions had notdeteriorated to the point where farming was impossible.It seems likely that the site inhabitants were influencedby other factors in their decision to move. A major factormay have been the depletion of natural resources neededfor daily living, such as trees for building and fuel,animals for protein, and water for drinking and cooking.

Tree Use

To examine if there were changes in the surroundingenvironment as a result of human activities, the fuel andconstruction wood of two successively occupied kivas at5MT5498 were analyzed. Structure 6 was occupiedsometime after 1130 and Structure 7 was occupied around1145. Table 5-8 and Figure 5-14 present this data: thefuel wood was recovered as charcoal from the hearths,and the construction wood was recovered asdendrochronological samples from the roof fall.

Figure 5-12. Graph illustrating climatic conditions inthe Northern San Juan Region between 900-1300.

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300

��&��#(�)��$��#�*��&�(��!��+

��*��,-�&��*��#(

.�*��/��$��)��0��1---+

��*��/��$��)��0��1---+

��

��

��#(

��

��

Figure 5-13. Graph illustrating relation betweenclimatic conditions and dates of occupation of four

project area sites.

��

��

��#(

��

��

Table 5-8. Types and Percentages of Fuel andConstruction Wood from Structures 6 and 7, 5MT5498

Dendro Str 6 Charcoal Str 6 Dendro Str 7 Charcoal Str 7

Pinyon 18% 10% 4% 80%

Juniper 33% 60% 52% 15%

Populus 43% 30% 44% 0%

Ponderosa 5% 0% 0% 0%

Rosa 0% 0% 0% 5%

Given the dependence on corn, beans, and squash by theAnasazi, those changes in growing conditions probablyhad a considerable impact on settlement in the San JuanBasin. The dating of the Late Anasazi sites along thepipeline corridor indicates that most of them were settledduring the earlier period of favorable conditions and were




As can be seen from the above table and figure, Populus(cottonwood or willow) is used in the relatively samepercentage in the roofs of the structures and representsa relatively high percentage of the fuelwood in the earlystructure but is absent in the fire of the later structure.The use of pinyon decreases in use for wood in the roofsbut increases in use for fuelwood. Correspondingly, theuse of juniper increases in use for wood in the roofs butdecreases in use for fuelwood.

Tree/Forest Age

In addition to the examination of species used forconstruction material and fuelwood, thedendrochronological data was examined for age oftimbers. If younger trees were being used for constructionmaterial overtime, it could be postulated that older usabletrees were becoming more scarce and the Puebloan peoplestarted to harvest younger trees. The data, however, doesnot support such a premise, with the average age oftimbers in Structure 6 of 150 years and the average ageof timbers in Structure 7 of 170 years.

In the process of examining the age of timbers, a patternemerged from the data that suggests that the Pueblo IIoccupants occupied an area with a fairly young forestthat was recovering from Pueblo I exploitation. Almostall of the timbers used in the construction of Structure 6and 7 had pith dates that dated the start of the treesafter the late 800s, the time of the heavy Pueblo Ioccupation of the area. The use of these timbers mightbe related to availability of older trees or preferences forconstruction. To examine whether this correlation mightbe related to the availability of trees, the average age ofthe timbers was compared to those from a nearbyBaskemaker III site, site 5MT5458. When site 5MT5458was occupied the forest must have been mature as therewas no significant previous occupations to affect the

composition of the forest. Data from this site yielded anaverage age of timbers of 211 years, 40 years older thanStructure 7 and 60 years older than Structure 6. Insummary, the patterns in the pith dates and differencesin age of timbers from Basketmaker III time and thePueblo II time suggest that the Pueblo III occupants mayhave lived in an area where the forest had been heavilyimpacted by the preceeding Pueblo I people, and whereavailable timbers were from younger trees than wouldhave been available in a mature forest.

SITE ELEMENTS: STRUCTURES ANDACTIVITY AREAS

Pit Structures

A total of 14 pit structures were located on four sites.They consisted of four kivas, three pit houses, and sevensmall informal structures, referred to here as pit huts.

Major differences in the pit structures correlate todifferences in the locations of the four sites where theywere excavated. Three of the four kivas were located onone site (5MT5498) in Colorado. The fourth kiva waslocated on LA46157 in New Mexico. All seven pit hutswere located on one site (LA80316) in New Mexico. Twoof the three pit houses were also located on this samesite (LA80316). The third pit house was located on5MT10820 in Colorado.

Kivas

Kivas were located on two sites: one (5MT5498) in theMesa Verde area, and the other (LA46147) in the Aztecarea (see Table 5-9). The kivas at 5MT5498 were key-hole shaped and contained four masonry pilasters. Thekiva at LA46167 was circular in shape and contained sixadobe-covered horizontal log pilasters (see Figure 5-15).

Figure 5-14. Pie charts showing types and percentagesof fuel and construction wood from Structures 6 and 7,

5MT5498.

Pinyon

JuniperPopulus

Ponderosa

Pinyon

Juniper

Populus

Pinyon

Juniper

Populus

Pinyon

Juniper

Rosa

Construction Wood

Fuel Wood

Structure 7 Structure 6

Table 5-9. Architectural Attributes of Excavated LateAnasazi Kivas along Pipeline Corridor

Site, Structure # Surface Area (m2) Depth, m Use of Masonry

floor bench*

5MT5498, Str. 5 9.4 4.0 2.2 pilasters, vent shaft

5MT5498, Str. 6 9.9 2.71 2.3 pilasters, vent opening

5MT5498, Str. 7 11.0 5.7 2.2 pilasters, vent shaft, wall lining

LA46147, Str. 1 12.4 6.1 0.7 upper wall, vent

The kivas at 5MT5498 are somewhat unusual for theregion but share traits with other contemporary kivasexcavated in the local area. While kivas from the MesaVerde region dating to the period 1075 to 1150 typicallyhave fully lined-masonry benches and contain six pilasters,only one of the kivas from 5MT5498 contained anymasonry bench lining and all three contained fourpilasters. Locally, however, two other Mesa Verde kivas(Dominguez Pueblo [Reed 1979] and Casa De Suenos[Douthit 1984]) have been excavated that arecontemporaneous with the kivas at 5MT5498 and sharetraits with the kivas at 5MT5498. Neither of these kivascontained masonry bench lining and one of these kivascontained four masonry pilasters and the other containedsix pilasters.

5-16

Area of BenchImpactedBy Pothunters

Sipapu (F4)

Pit(F16)

Hearth (F1)

Ash Pit (F3)

VentTunnel (F11)

VentShaft

Bench

PilasterRemnant (F38)


Pilaster(F17)

Pilaster(F13)

Upper Wall (F41)

+A'

+ B'

A +


Pilaster (F14)

Pit(F2)

0 1m

1

2

3

4

5

6

- Adobe Melt

- Plaster

- Wood

%�&2

VentCover

ExteriorMasonry

InteriorMasonry

Figure 5-15. Plan maps of Late Anasazi kivas at 5MT5498 and LA46147 (cont.).

SouthernRecess(F20)Vent

Tunnel(F41)

0 .5 1m

- Rock

- Capped Feature (First Floor Surface)

- Posthole

- Ceramic

- Flaked Lithic

- Non-Flaked Lithic

- Non-Human Bone

- Inorganic

- Vegetal

- Hidden or Inferred Boundary

- Scatter Boundary

%�&2

12

34

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

13

14

15

16

18

1920

21

22

23

2425

26

3133

34

35

36

3740

41

42

43

44

46

47

48

49

51

52

53

54

5556

575859

50

62

636465

66

67

6869

71

72

73

74

75 76

7778

79

80

70

95

96

Ax Frags.FL Scatter

(PL17)

818283

84

85 86

87

8889

90

Vent Cover(PL97)

91

Ax Frags.

94

92

FL Scatter(PL45)

FL Scatter(PL32)

30

Willow Stick Mat(PL27-29; 38,39)

Bench(F17) Bench

(F22)

Bench(F19)

Pilaster(F44)

Pilaster(F45)

Pilaster(F46)Pilaster

(F47)

Shelf(F21)

VentShaft(F42)

Mealing Bin(F68)

Mealing Bin(F69)

AshPit

(F36)

Rock SetIn Floor(F48)

DogBurial(F26)

DogBurial(F43)

AshPit

(F66)

Sipapu(F28)

Sipapu(F67)

Hearth(F29)

HearthRemodels

RemodelFloor Plaster

PH(F61)

PH(F62)

Deflector

PH(F72)

PH(F76)

PH(F71)

Pit(F70)

PH(F60)

PH

+

B’+

0 .5 1m

- Rock

- Ceramic

- Flaked Lithic

- Non-Flaked Lithic

- Non-Human Bone

- Inorganic

- Vegetal

- Hidden or Inferred Boundary

- Intact Bench

- Architectural Profile Line

%�&2

AdobeCoping

A-A'

13

4

56

78

910

1112

14

1516

1718

19

20

21

2223

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

35

38

3940

41

42

43

Shaped SlabVent Cover

(PL44)

Shaped Slab(PL34)

VentTunnel(F66)

Hearth(F51)

Ash Pit(F53)

Earlier HearthBoundary

CappedSipapu(F63)

Sipapu(F73)

Sipapu(F74)

Sipapu(F75)

Wall Niche(F49)

Wall Niche(F50)

Wall Niche(F52)

Pit(F65)

Bench(F8)

Bench(F24)

Bench(F23)

Earlier Pitstructure(Structure 18)

33

Pilaster(F38) Pilaster

(F39)

Pilaster(F40)

Upper South Portionof Kiva Removed

by Pothunters

+

+A

Wall Niche(F84)

Structure 7

5MT5498Structure 6

5MT5498

- Adobe Melt

- Plaster

- Wood

- Sandstone

- Flaked Lithic

- Non-Human Bone

- Ceramic

- Vegetal

- Inferred Boundary

- Profile Lines

%�&2

A-A’B-B’

Structure 1

LA46147




A

1

2

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

15

16

17

18

19

2122

23

24

25

2627

28

PL’s 54,55,56and F30 underPL 29 (NFL)

30

3132

33

3435

36

37

38

40

42

43

44

46

48

49

51

52

54

55

56

57

58

59

50

61

62

6364

65

66

67

68

69

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

70

60

Ceramic Scatter(PL14)

Posthole(F30)

Hearth(F12)

Ash Pit(F31)

Pit(F25)

Wall Niche(F11)

Pilaster(F83)

Pilaster(F79)

Pilaster(F77)

Pilaster(F81)

Bench(F78)

Bench(F82)

Bench(F80)

Vent Shaft(F34)

Sipapu(F33)

Posthole(F15)

Vent Tunnel(F35)

SouthernRecess(F18)

A’+

0 .5 1m

- Rock

- Ceramic

- Flaked Lithic

- Non-Flaked Lithic

- Non-Human Bone

- Hidden Boundary

- Eroded Bench Edge

- Architectural Profile Line

- Stratigraphic Profile Line

%�&2

B+

B’+

A-A'

B-B'

One of the kivas, Structure 6, at 5MT5498 containedpainted plaster walls. The painting was composed of ahorizontal band that was painted around the lowest 40cmof the wall and apparently extending approximately 10cmout onto the floor. A series of thinner vertical bands, each9 to 15cm wide, were then painted in the space abovethe horizontal band.

Painted kivas are rare on Mesa Verde Pueblo II sites andrelatively unusual in Mesa Verde Pueblo III sites. Theonly other Pueblo II painted kiva from the Mesa Verdearea known to the authors was the kiva at Lowry Pueblo.Here a geometric (or pottery) design was painted on thekiva wall. Painted walls have been found in the PuebloIII kivas west of the project area on Cahone Mesa (Morris1991) and on Mesa Verde (Rohn 1971; Fewkes 1909; andothers). Some painting on Pueblo III kivas utilizegeometric shapes or pottery designs and some utilized abichrome design with triangles and dots.

The kiva from New Mexico is relatively unusual. It isisolated from other structures and built on top of a butte.It is only partially subterranean with the bench surface25 cm, and the floor only 70 cm, below the ground surface.Located on the bench were six pilasters built of logs andcoped with adobe. These pilasters may have beenfunctional only in form, as there was no evidence thatthey bore the weight of the roof. What did bear the weightof the roof and how that roof was configured is not cleardespite ample burned roof-fall deposits in the kiva.

As can be seen from Table 5-10, all the kivas containedthe standard features of hearths, ash pits, and sipapus.Other features include pits, mealing bins, and wall-niches.

Figure 5-15. Plan maps of Late Anasazi kivas at 5MT5498 and LA46147 (cont.).

Structure 5

5MT5498

Table 5-10. Late Anasazi Kiva FeaturesSite, Structure # Hearth Ash Pit Mealing Bin Pit Niche Sipapu Other

5MT5498, Str. 5 1 1 1 1 1

5MT5498, Str. 6 1 1 1 4 3 1 pot-rest

5MT5498, Str. 7 1 1 2 1 1

5MT5498, Str. 7 1 1 1 1 rock in floor

LA46147, Str. 1 1 1 2 1

5-18

Pithouses

Pithouses were located on two sites, 5MT10820 andLA80316 (see Table 5-11). In addition to having unique

Figure 5-16. Photograph of pithouse at 5MT10820, looking south; note central hearth, wall niche and sipapu.

Hearth

Sipapu

Wall Niche Wall Niche

Table 5-11. Architectural Attributes of Excavated LateAnasazi Pithouses along Pipeline Corridor

Site, Structure # Shape Surface Area (m2) Depth (m) Roof Support Vent

Floor Bench

5MT10820, Str. 2 circular 7.6 2.02 1.7 ground surface? yes

LA80316, Str. 6 circular 8.0 none 1.3 unknown no

LA80316, Str. 13 rectangular 10.6 none 1.3 posts yes

)

Site, Structure # Hearth Ash Pit Pit Wall Niche Sipapu Comments

5MT10820, Str. 2 1 2 1 large storage cist withaccess from outside

LA80316, Str. 6 1 1* 1 unoxidized pitinterpreted as hearth

LA80316, Str. 13 1 1 1 2 pot-rests

Table 5-12. Late Anasazi Pithouse Features

5-12). Located in the pithouses were hearths and otherdomestic features. The only ritual feature located was asipapu in the pithouse at 5MT10820 (see Figure 5-16).

Table 5-13. Architectural Attributes of Excavated LateAnasazi Pithuts at LA80316

Structure # Shape Floor Area (m2) Depth (m)

Str. 1 circular 4.4 0.5

Str. 2 ovoid 4.4 1.0

Str. 3 circular 5.6 0.4

Str. 4 subrectangular 5.1 0.5

Str. 5 ovoid 6.5 0.9



pithouses, these sites were atypical for the Pueblo II periodin that they lacked both kivas and masonry surface rooms.

While pithouses are unusual for Pueblo II or Pueblo IIIsites in the Northern San Juan Region, they are notunheard of. Pithouses have been found on Pueblo II siteswest of Pleasant View (Kuckelman 1988) and in theFarmington area (Reed 1984). Pithouses are common onPueblo II sites south of the San Juan Basin in the LittleColorado River Drainage (Hensler and Rohrer 1999).

Based on their location on sites without substantialsurface structures or kivas, they are interpreted asdomestic structures. This interpretation is corraboratedby the types of features located in the structures (see Table

Pithuts

Located at LA80316 were seven pithuts. As can be seenfrom Table 5-13, these structures were relatively smalland shallow. They contained no masonry, ventilators, orbenches. Their method of roofing is unknown, as neitherpostholes nor roofing materials were found.




The structures typically contained a central hearth andseveral of them contained an associated ash pit (seeFigure 5-17). No storage or ritual features were foundin these small structures (see Table 5-14).

Mesa Verde Sites

At 5MT5498, the ten rooms were located in two separateroomblocks. The rooms were fairly small, averaging 4.6m2 of floor space, and were built of simple masonryconstruction using unshaped sandstone blocks (seeFigure 5-18). At least half of the rooms were probablyused mostly for storage and contained no features. Theother half also may have been used for storage but containedfeatures and artifacts which suggest that part of the timethey were used for other domestic purposes. Four of theserooms contained ephemeral hearths.

At 5MT10820, agricultural plowing has apparentlydestroyed most of the surface rooms. The remains ofonly one surface room were identified. It was a shallow,roughly ciruclar, pitroom approximately 2.5 m indiameter and containing two wall niches.

Aztec Site

At LA46147, two surface rooms were excavated. One(Feature 10) was a collapsed jacal room located west ofthe kiva. Its east and west walls had been made ofupright posts and abundant adobe (see Figure 5-19).Because of its small size (1.2 m in width by (inferred) 1.3m in length) it was probably not a habitation room. Assuggested by burned adobe to both the north and thesouth, this room may have been one in a series of

Figure 5-17. Photograph of Structure 5 at LA80316.

Table 5-14. Late Anasazi Pithut Features at LA80316Structure # Hearth Ash Pit Comments

Structure 1 1

Structure 2 1 1 oxidized pit; may have been hearth

Structure 3 1 1 oxidized pit; may have been hearth

Structure 4 1

Structure 5 1 1 may have first been used as hearth

Structure 7 2* 1 one was abandoned and sealed

Structure 12 2* hearth and shallow “roasting pit”

The pithuts were probably roofed with poles and brush.These pithuts are definitely more ephemeral thanstructures typically found on Late Anasazi habitations,suggesting a short-term occupation at site LA80316.

Surface Structures

Thirteen surface structures were excavated at the LateAnasazi sites. Eleven of these were at two Mesa Verdesites: 5MT5498 (10 rooms) and 5MT10820 (one room).Two of these were at one Aztec site: LA46147.

5-20

0 .5 1 m

1

2

3 4

56

78

910

11

1213

1415

1617

1819

20

2122

23

24

25

26 27

28

29

30

31

3233

34

Pit(F9)

Pit(F10)

- Flaked Lithic

- Ceramic

%�&2 - Non-Flaked Lithic

- Adobe

- Rock

Str

uctu

re 2

Structure 17

Earlier Wall Remnant

(Structure 9)

Inferred Wall

Figure 5-18. Plan map of surface room (Structure 2) at 5MT5498.

Inferred Boundary

Wood FoundUnder Adobe Melt

A+

- Posthole with Upright Post Remnant A-A’ - Profile Line%�&2

Adobe melt(Feature 10)

0 25cm

F23

F24

F42

F43

F44

F45

F46

F47

F48

Edge of Excavation

+ A'

Figure 5-19. Plan map of surface structure (Feature 10) at LA46147.




noncontiguous rooms, or part of an arc of rooms. Theother surface room (Structure 5) was located on the talusslope west of and below the butte top. This structurewas built against the vertical cliff face and incorporateda crevasse in the rock for access to the butte top.

Activity Areas and Extramural Features

Over 100 extramural features were excavated at 24defined and 2 undefined activity areas on 11 of the sites(see Table 5-15). As can be seen from this table, thermalfeatures, unburned pits and postholes are the commonesttypes of features.

Aztec Sites

The layouts of the five Aztec sites (LA46147, LA79076,LA80316, LA80319, and LA82289) show little patterningin this area. Figure 5-21 presents an illustration of threeof the layouts.

One layout, the one seen at LA46147 could be a modifiedPrudden-unit layout. Here a kiva was found flanked onthe northwest by a plaza area and a small possible adoberoom. Associated with this butte-top kiva complex wasan unusual talus-slope cliff-face structure apparentlydesigned to control access, via a crevasse, to the top ofthe butte and, presumably, the kiva.

A second layout was shown at LA80316 where a clusterof pithuts and pithouses was found. While there is nooverlap in structures, it appears that not all the pithousesare contemporaneous, with the structures located in thesouthwest portion of the cluster being occupied prior tothose in the northeast.

A third layout was observed at LA80319, where a singlestructure was found with numerous widely dispersedactivity areas, or one very large activity area. It isprobable that these dispersed activity areas are notcontemporaneous and the site actually represents at leastseveral visits to the site during the Late Anasazi timeperiod.

Site # AA # Hearth Pit Mealing Bin Kiln Burial Posthole

roasting warming bell-shaped unburned borrow

5MT10820 plaza 6 1 1 16 9 (no pattern)

5MT5466 1 2

5MT5456 n/a 6 1 1 3 22 (arcing windbreak)

5MT5501 1, 2 2 1 1 1 2

5MT5498 1-3, 5 1 2 2 1 3

LA81169 2 1

LA46147 3, 5 6-9 (jacal wall?)

LA80316 1-3, 5-7, 9, 17 10 1 2 3

LA80319 2, 7-9 3 3 1

LA79076 28 1

LA82289 1 1

Total 26 28 11 3 3 24 1 3 1 2 37-40

Table 5-15. Activity Areas and Extramural Features on Late Anasazi Sites

Table 5-16. Attributes of Late Anasazi SitesSite # Size (m)

n/s, e/w# of Pit Structures # of Surface Rooms # of Activity

Areas

5MT5456 100, 45 prob. 1-2 prob. 4-6 at least 3

5MT5498 160, 115 3 known, 12+ est. 10 known, 20+ est. at least 8

5MT5501 40, 38 prob. 1-2 prob. 2-4 at least 1

5MT10820 20, 30 1 pithouse 1 known 1 large plaza

LA46147 55, 70 1 kiva 1 known 1 plaza

LA79076 18, 7 none none 1

LA80316 75, 160 9 none 4

LA80319 300, 200 none none 9

LA82289 13, 13 none none 1

SITE LAYOUT

The excavation of nine sites within the pipeline corridorwas extensive enough to provide data relevant to sitelayout. Four of the sites are located in Colorado(5MT5456, 5MT5498, 5MT5501, and 5MT10820); five arelocated in New Mexico (LA46147, LA79076, LA80316,LA80319, and LA82289). As can be seen from Table 5-16 and the following discussion, these sites display threetypes of site layout

Mesa Verde Sites

Three of the four Mesa Verde sites (5MT5498, 5MT5501and 5MT10820) display variations on the first pattern ofsite layout: surface room(s) at the north end, kiva(s) inthe center and midden(s) at the south end (see Figure 5-20). This is basically the layout first described byPrudden (1903) based on his investigations inMontezuma County in the late 1800s.

Site 5MT5501 best typifies this Prudden-unit site layout.Site 5MT5498, although considerably more complex, stilldisplays this basic pattern. Site 5MT10820 deviates fromit by having (1) a pithouse instead of a kiva, and (2) themidden and extramural features to the north instead ofthe south.

One site (5MT5456) displays a second pattern of sitelayout: a stockade partially enclosing an activity area.As can be seen from Figure 5-20, this site has only beenpartially excavated; surface rooms and a kiva aresuspected to exist to the east of the excavated portion.

5-22

Figure 5-20. Plan maps illustrating layouts of four Mesa Verde Late Anasazi sites.

5MT5456 5MT5498

Rubble Mound

PossibleMidden

Possible Kivas

PossiblePitstructure

PossibleMidden

NorthwestPueblo

56

7

10

19

18

Kivas

RubbleMound

EastPueblo

NortheastPueblo

SouthPueblo

8

Kivas

extent of midden

0 10 20 m

- Excavation Unit

%�&2

Contour Interval = 1m

0 2

0 2 4 m.

5MT108205MT5501

Roomblock

1 2

Structure 1(Excavated)

Extramural features and midden

0 5 10m




Top of Butte

1998m

Str.1

Str. 5

Activity Area 6

Activity Area 1

Activity Area 3

Activity Area 4

1999m

Activity Area 2

1975m

N

0 5m

Feature 10

Figure 5-21. Plan maps illustrating layouts of three Aztec Late Anasazi sites.

STR.14

STR.3

STR.6

STR.7

STR.4

STR.2

STR.1

STR.5

STR.13STR.11

STR.12

STR.10

STR.9

Structure 15

Structure 14

Structure 11

0 10 20m

Structure 13

Structure 6

Structure 5

Structure 3

Structure 1

Structure 2

AA32

AA25

AA31

AA26

AA29

AA30

AA33

AA31AA21,22

AA23

AA27

AA28

AA33

AA34

AA24

AA35

LA46147 LA80316

LA80139

0 10 20m

N

5-24

SITE TYPE

Introduction

Binford (1980) defined five functional site types:residential bases, locations, field camps, caches, andstations. Since Binford’s typology was designed for sitesoccupied by hunters and gatherers, it must be stretchedto fit Late Anasazi sites occupied by sedentaryagriculturalists. For the purposes of this chapter, pueblos(multiple pithouses or roomblocks with kivas) andpithouse clusters are classified as residential bases; eventhough they are usually more complex and substantialthan those associated with hunting and gathering groups.Sites with one or two surface rooms but no pit structures,and some sites without structures but with complex artifactassemblages, are classified as field houses.

Project Area Sites

The 16 sites with late Anasazi components do not alwaysfit comfortably into the modified version of Binford’s sitetypology (see Table 5-17). Seven can be easily classifiedas primary residential bases, but others are moreproblematic. Site 5MT5496, one of two possible fieldhouses, is located in the vicinity of several habitationsites. Site LA46147 consists mostly of a well-constructedkiva situated on a butte above LA80316, which is a clusterof pit structures. The kiva appears to have had a mostlyceremonial function and, by itself, would not be classifiedas a residential site. Its occupation may be directlyrelated to the occupation of the lower site. Site LA80319,with its numerous activity areas, may have served as afield camp or as a repeatedly occupied procurement site.The minimal remains recovered from LA81169 suggestthat it also may have been a field camp. Site LA82289 isan isolated pottery kiln and, while it does not fit theclassic description of a location, is probably bestconsidered as such.

Site # Site Type Rationale for Type Designation

5MT10820 primary resi den tial bas e pithouse with attached storage cist, numerous hearths and pit features, artifacts include a variety of flaked lithic tools, ground stone, andceramics

5MT5456 primary resi den tial bas e minimal excavation; bladed rubble mound, probable windbreak, numerous hearths, large storage cists, artifacts include a variety of flaked lithictools, ground stone, and ceramics

5MT5457 primary resi den tial bas e minimal excavation; bladed rubble mound and midden; at least one kiva probably exists

5MT5466 possible field house minimal excavation; two roasting pits, artifact scatter including varied ceramics and a projectile point

5MT5495 primary resi den tial bas e minimal excavation; rubble mound, midden, artifacts include a variety of flaked lithic tools, manos, and ceramics

5MT5496 possible field house minimal excavation; small slab-lined room, artifacts include a variety of flaked lithic tools, manos, metates, and ceramics

5MT5498 primary resi den tial bas e four masonry roomblocks, approximately 12 kivas or pit structures, middens, storage cists, artifacts include a large variety of flaked lithictools, ground stone, ceramics, and basketry

5MT5501 primary resi den tial bas e minimal documented excavation; rubble mound, kiva, artifacts include a variety of flaked lithic tools, ground stone, and ceramics

LA46147 location (ceremonial?) kiva, artifacts include a variety of flaked lithic tools, some ground stone, and ceramics

LA79076 possible location isolated roasting pit with artifact scatter consisting mostly of corrugated sherds

LA80316 primary residential base? nine pit structures of various forms, small midden, artifacts include a variety of flaked lithic tools, some ground stone, and ceramics

LA80319 location or field camp several widely scattered informal hearths with ash dumps and small artifact scatters including flaked lithics and ceramics; no storage features

LA80321 location (field house?)

LA81169 possible field camp possible pit with a scatter of flaked lithic artifacts

LA81172 location 1 activity area

LA82289 location isolated pottery kiln

Table 5-17. Site Types, Using a Modified Version of Binford’s Typology

LENGTH OF SITE OCCUPATION

Kent’s Model

Kent (1992) has constructed a model to evaluate boththe expected length of occupation and the actual lengthof occupation of a site. The Kent model is based on thestudy of five sites with kivas and surface rooms and, assuch, its suitability for analyzing other types ofresidential sites is limited. When applied to the LateAnasazi habitation sites along the pipeline corridor, themodel is only marginally instructive (see Table 5-18).

For the Mesa Verde area, this table suggests that threesites (5MT5498, 5MT5501 and5MT10820) hadanticipated and actual long-term occupations, and threesites (5MT5456, 5MT5457 and 5MT5495) had anticipatedlong-term but actual short-term occupations. In reality,however, it is just as likely that modern disturbances tothese latter three sites have skewed their data, and thatthese sites were also actual long-term occupations. Intactrubble mounds and middens apparently existed on allthree sites before they were disturbed by moderncultivation and water line construction; it is likely thatkivas remain buried on those sites. Therefore, althoughthe small artifact assemblages from these sites suggestthey were abandoned prematurely, the evidence iscertainly not conclusive.

For the Aztec area, the table suggests that two sites(LA80316 and LA80319) had anticipated and actualshort-term occupations and one site (LA46147) had ananticipated long-term but actual short-term occupation.The occupational scenario for the two Arch Rock Buttesites is not clear. Given the formal construction of thekiva on top of the butte, it appears that the occupants ofLA46147 expected to use the site for a number of years.However, the pit structures below the butte, while theywere many in number, were mostly of rather simpleconstruction and do not appear to have been built to last;it is possible that the inhabitants of LA80316 did notintend to stay long. Application of the Kent model to thetwo sites suggests that both were occupied for only a brieftime. It is possible that the LA46147/LA80316 complex




Site (Lightfoot 1994), he suggests that 6,654 grams is“the best available estimate for the annual householdaccumulation of corrugated cooking-pot sherds” (ibid).That figure is used here in estimating the averageoccupation spans for three sites: 5MT5498, LA46147 andLA80316.

At 5MT5498 two roomblocks, three kivas, portions of twoplazas, an isolated activity area, and fourteen 1x1m unitswere excavated during the project. Data from theexcavated structures were used to estimate the weightof the corrugated sherds associated with the unexcavatedroomblocks and kivas (see Table 5-19). Data from 13 ofthe 1x1m units, multiplied by the site area, produced anestimated weight of the corrugated sherds scatteredacross the general area surrounding the architecturalfeatures. The weight of the corrugated sherds from asingle 1x1m unit within the densest midden was used toestimate the total weight from that area. The variousestimates were combined with the actual weight of thecorrugated sherds collected from the excavated surfacerooms and the isolated activity area to produce an overallestimated total for the site. That figure of 1,411,443 +/-885,217 grams, when divided by 6,654 grams/household/year, suggests that the occupation of the entire siteconsists of 212 +/- 133 household years. Using an

was seasonally occupied for short periods. Perhaps thewell-constructed kiva was not used year-round butprovided continuity from one year to the next, while themore ephemeral pit structures below were only built asneeded and were not intended as year-round residences.

Sherd Weight Model

Other attempts at quantifying occupation spans havebeen based on the amount of ceramics left by the residentsof a site. Kohler and Blinman (1987), in their study ofthe ceramics from Grass Mesa Village, estimated that ahousehold discarded approximately 600 sherds(averaging 6.5 grams) during the course of one year.Using that figure, which does not distinguish betweenthe different wares present in an assemblage, Fettermanand Honeycutt (1995) estimated that Site 5MT10820 wasoccupied for approximately eight years.

Later site duration studies, also based on ceramics, havemade a distinction between gray ware cooking jars andother vessels. Varien (1999) has conducted a detailedexamination of household residential mobility in relationto several Pueblo II-III sites in the Sand Canyon area ofsouthwest Colorado. Analyzing data from those sites inconjunction with the results of research on the Duckfoot

Table 5-18. Anticipated vs. Actual Occupation at Late Anasazi SitesAttributes 5MT5456* 5MT5457* 5MT5495* 5MT5498 5MT5501* 5MT10820 LA46147 LA80316 LA80319

pit structures or kivas prob. prob. unk yes yes yes yes yes no

max. pit structure depth (m) unk unk -- 2.2 unk 1.8 0.7 1.3 --

use of masonry in pit structures unk unk -- yes unk no yes no --

masonry surface rooms yes yes yes yes yes no no no no

quality of masonry unk unk unk mod unk -- -- -- --

formal midden prob. prob. yes yes yes prob. no no no

storage features yes unk unk yes unk yes no no no

mealing bins unk unk unk yes unk no no no no

nonlocal lithic material no no yes yes no no yes yes yes

ceramic trade wares no no yes yes yes yes yes yes 1

ornaments no no no yes no no yes no yes

turkey remains no no no yes yes yes no no no

ANTICIPATED OCCUPATION prob. long prob. long prob. long long long long poss. long poss. short short

formal flaked tools:debitage 3:133 unk 4:203 42:4886 1:784 4:219 41:1576 31:272 6:686

lithic tools/debitage (%) 2.2 -- 2.0 0.9 0.1 1.8 2.6 11.4 0.9

total sherds:ceramic types 254:6 13:2 388:7 17019:30 2459:12 1120:7 333:17 762:13 468:5

ceramic abundance index 42 7 55 567 205 160 20 59 94

ACTUAL OCCUPATION poss. short poss. short poss. short long long long short short short

* Site has only been minimally excavated, so much remains buried. Artifact data is based on a small portion of total site assemblage.

Table 5-19. Weight of Corrugated Gray Ware Sherds from 5MT5498Sherd Weight (grams)Location Basis for Calculated Result

Mean StandardDeviation

Northwest Pueblo: 5 excavated surface rooms Actual weight of collected sherds 5,598 0

East Pueblo: 5 excavated surface rooms Actual weight of collected sherds 10,719 0

Northeast Pueblo: unexcavated surface rooms Estimate of 5 rooms, multiplied by mean and standard deviation based on sherds recovered from 7typical excavated rooms

6,470 2,840

South Pueblo: unexcavated surface rooms Estimate of 5 rooms, multiplied by mean and standard deviation based on sherds recovered from 7typical excavated rooms

6,470 2,840

Northwest Pueblo: 2 excavated kivas Actual weight of sherds collected from floor, bench, and recess proveniences, combined withestimate based on controlled collection from trenches and volume of kiva fill

27,657 0

East Pueblo: 1 excavated kiva Actual weight of sherds collected from floor, bench, and recess proveniences, combined withestimate based on controlled collection from trench and volume of kiva fill

27,534 0

Unexcavated possible kivas Estimate of 9 additional kivas, multiplied by mean and standard deviation based on sherdsrecovered from 3 excavated kivas

165,573 84,537

Activity Area 3: 2 excavated pits Actual weight of collected sherds 2,942 0

South Pueblo: midden Estimate of 60m2 area, multiplied by weight of sherds collected from a single 1x1m unit in themidden

45,480 0

General site area Estimate of 10,600m2 area, multiplied by mean and standard deviation based on sherds recoveredfrom 13 1x1m units

1,113,000 795,000

TOTAL 1,411,443 885,217

5-26

estimation of twelve kivas on the site, and assuming thateach kiva represents a household, it appears that theaverage span of a household’s occupation was 18 +/- 11years. Despite the rather high standard deviation, theestimate does not seem unreasonable.

When the data on corrugated sherds from the two PuebloII sites in the Arch Rock Butte area are considered, theresults are very different (see Table 5-20). Although bothsites have been extensively excavated, the total weightsof the corrugated sherds from the excavations of LA46147and LA80316 amount to only 3,733 grams and 615 gramsrespectively. When divided by Varien’s figure of 6,654grams/household/year, the results indicate that each sitewas occupied for less than one year. There is someevidence that the two sites were related and may havebeen utilized by the same group of Anasazi. Even so, thecombined figures total less than one year’s accumulationof corrugated sherds. Given the extent of the excavations,it is thought that more than half of the sherds from thePueblo II occupation have been collected from each ofthe sites. However, even if it is assumed that an equalnumber of corrugated sherds remain uncollected, thenumbers indicate that the butte area was only brieflyoccupied during the Pueblo II period. The calculationssuggest an occupation span of approximately 1.3 years.

retouch flakes, core tools, cobble tools, or unifaces), whileonly 10 percent of the tools from the Aztec sites wereclassified as expedient. This difference is perhaps bestillustrated by comparing the percentages of projectilepoints for these two areas: on Aztec sites, projectile pointscomprise 42% of the tool assemblage, while on Mesa Verdesites, they comprise only 3% of the tool assemblage.

Table 5-20. Weight of Corrugated Gray Ware Sherdsfrom LA46147 and LA80316

Location Basis for Calculated Result Sherd Weight(grams)

LA46147 Actual weight of sherds collected from Pueblo II-IIIproveniences during 1991 and 1999 excavations

3,733

LA80316 Actual weight of sherds collected from Pueblo IIproveniences

615

TOTAL 4,348

TECHNOLOGY

Lithics

Flaked Lithics

Flaked lithic tools, from utilized flakes to formal bifaces,were used in many ways by the Anasazi. They wereuseful in the procurement and processing of plant andanimal foodstuffs and their production was important toother technologies such as leatherworking andwoodworking. It is generally thought that Late Anasaziflaked lithic technology was dominated by the productionof expedient tools from fairly coarse-grained materials.The variety of sites with Late Anasazi occupations locatedalong the pipeline corridor provides a broad spectrum ofdata concerning flaked lithic tool use. That data can beused to examine whether the common use of expedienttools was consistent across the region.

Figure 5-22 illustrates the distribution of flake lithic toolsfor the Mesa Verde and Aztec sites. As can be seen fromthis figure, the Mesa Verde sites fit the pattern ofexpedient tool use, while the Aztec sites do not. Sixty-three percent of the flake lithic tools located on the MesaVerde sites were classified as expedient (flake tools,

Figure 5-22. Pie charts comparing percentages offlaked lithic tool types from Mesa Verde and Aztec sites.

The disparity of flake lithic tools is also mirrored in thetypes of debitage recovered from the sites. As can beseen from Figure 5-23, on Mesa Verde sites only a smallpercentage of the debitage resulted from biface thinningactivities, while on Aztec sites almost 20% of the debitageresulted from these activities.

This disparity in tools and debitage is also reflected inthe types of materials found in the assemblages. As canbe seen from Figure 5-24, cryptocrystalline materialsdominate the Aztec assemblages and fine-grainedmaterials dominate the Mesa Verde assemblages. Thecryptocrystalline materials include chert, chalcedony, andobsidian. The fine-grained materials include quartzite,siltstone, and silicified mudstone. Cryptocrystallinematerials are preferred for the production of bifaces andprojectile points as they are easier to flintknap. Fine-grained materials are preferred for the production ofexpedient tools since they are often more readily availableand the resultant tool has an edge stronger than onemade of cryptocrystalline material.




In summary, the flaked lithic assemblages from the MesaVerde and Aztec sites reflect two different types oftechnology. The flaked lithic assemblages from the MesaVerde sites are similar to other assemblages from Anasazihabitation sites, where expedient tools are frequent andformalized flake tools are rare. In contrast, the flakedlithic assemblages from the Aztec sites reflect a differentadaption, one that appears to be associated with huntingactivities.

Nonflaked Lithics

A total of 837 nonflaked lithic artifacts were recoveredfrom the Late Anasazi components on nine sites alongthe pipeline corridor. Of these artifacts, 597 (71%) arewhole or fragmentary manos and metates. The rest ofthe assemblage is composed of 33 hafted tools, 59abraders, 6 anvils, 10 lapstones, 18 polishing stones, 33

shaped slabs or disks, and 81 other items. The largenumber of artifacts from 5MT5498 accounts forapproximately 70% of the total assemblage.

Like the flaked lithic assemblage, differences areapparent in the non-flaked lithic assemblages betweenthe Mesa Verde and Aztec sites. Metates or metatefragments were common on the Mesa Verde sites andrare on the Aztec sites. Two-hand manos (assumed to berelated to corn grinding) are dominant on the Mesa Verdesites while rare on the Aztec sites. For example, in thenonflaked lithic assemblage at 5MT5498, 166 two-handmanos were identified, while only 15 one-hand manoswere identified. This is to be expected, given the largeamount of corn that was probably processed by theAnasazi inhabitants of southwest Colorado. In contrast,the collection of 19 manos from Late Anasaziproveniences on Aztec sites LA46147 and LA80316includes only one that was identified as a two-hand mano.This correlates with a lack of corn from those sameproveniences. On the Mesa Verde sites, the high ratio(788:871) of nonflaked to flaked lithic tools also indicatesthe importance of vegetal processing at these sites. Onthe Aztec sites, the low ratio (49:120) of nonflaked toflaked lithic tools indicates that vegetal processing wasnot as important, but still shows that these sites did notserve exclusively as hunting camps.

As evidenced on our sites, the use of slab metates appearsto have been much more common than that of basin ortrough metates during the Pueblo II-III period. Slabmetates were usually incorporated into formal mealingbins, while basin and trough metates could be usedanywhere.

The stone heads of several hafted tools were collectedfrom the sites along the pipeline corridor. Twenty-two ofthem have bit ends that were shaped by grinding to forma fairly sharp edge and were used as axes. Eight of theax heads are encircled by a shallow pecked grooveintended to receive a wooden handle that probably wouldhave wrapped around the head. They are usually madeof siltstone, basalt, or quartzite that has been well-shapedby grinding; in most cases, striations are visible over theentire tool. Fourteen of the axes are notched, rather thangrooved. Two notches served the same purpose as thegroove, but required far less work. The notched ax headsdo not exhibit the same craftsmanship as the groovedheads. Most of the tools are quartzite or basalt cobblesthat were roughly shaped, notched, and then sharpenedby grinding. Eleven other hafted items appear to havebeen used as hammers or mauls. Four of those are fullygrooved, while the remainder are notched. Two of thefully grooved heads are made of sandstone; this may seema curious material for a pounding tool, but sandstonegrooved hammers have also been recovered from BigJuniper House on Mesa Verde (Swannack 1969). Thenotched hammers were classified as such because theylacked the sharpened bit end characteristic of an ax, andinstead showed evidence of battering. It is likely thatmost of them were used as hammers, but it is possiblethat some of the smaller heads, perhaps combined with

% BifaceThinning

Flakes

Figure 5-23. Column graph comparing percentages ofbiface thinning flakes in debitage assemblages from

Mesa Verde and Aztec sites.

Figure 5-24. Column graph comparing percentages offlaked lithic materials from Mesa Verde and Aztec sites.

%

5-28

a different method of hafting, functioned as hoes ormattocks.

Several pieces of shaped sandstone were found; most ofthem have flaked edges. Those with a rectangular shapewere probably used as covers for storage cists. The largercircular disks could also have served as covers for storagecists, while the smaller shaped disks were probably usedas jar lids. Many of the other nonflaked lithic items wereminimally shaped and exhibited only minor use wear.Their function was not always evident, but some appearto have been used as anvils, lapstones, abraders, orpolishing stones.

Ceramics by Kathy Niles Hensler, Lori S. Reed,and Andrea Carpenter

Petrographic and oxidation analyses were used tocompare ceramic raw materials use on the Mesa Verdeand New Mexico sites. The bulk of the Pueblo II oxidationanalysis was conducted for the Dolores site, 5MT5498.This analysis has been extensively discussed in the sitedescription but is summarized here.

Based on principles of clay mineralogy, iron content, andthe reaction of clays to high temperatures in an oxidizingatmosphere (see Shepard 1956), by consistently oxidizingsherds and raw clays (e.g., 900∞ C for 30 minutes),homogenized colors classified as buff, yellowish red, orred may be compared to discuss clay selection in generalterms. A total of 425 sherds was selected for oxidationanalysis from 5MT5498 including Chuska, Cibola, andNorthern San Juan traditions. These were matched withraw clay samples collected from archaeological contextsat the same site that produced a very close colordistribution match.

The distribution of oxidized colors for Northern San Juansherds and raw clays from 5MT5498 suggests that themajority of the potters were selecting clays with low ironcontent (buff colors 1 and 2). This pattern of buff-firingclay selection along with the use of diorite tempercorresponds well with the Dolores production tractidentified by Lucius (1981). To produce white and grayware ceramics, low iron content clays are much easier tocontrol in a neutral firing atmosphere, having less chanceof reacting to excessive oxygen in the fire. Using theDolores Project clay study (Wilson et al. 1988), oxidizedcolors of local and archaeological context clays from theDolores area may be compared with the 5MT5498 data.Wilson and his colleagues found that a variety of oxidizedcolors could be obtained from the locally outcroppingformations, including Dakota Sandstone, Mancos Shale,Morrison, and Burro Canyon clays. Based on theiranalysis of locally collected clays and clays fromarchaeological contexts, buff-firing clays were thepredominant resources selected.

The color distribution for Northern San Juan ceramicsfrom 5MT5498 (80 percent buff firing) suggest that theselection of clays followed that identified for the DoloresProject communities. Although there is considerable time

depth between the 5MT5498 occupation and most of theDolores Project communities, it appears that consistencyin clay resource use may have continued through timeand across space. Consistency in clay use may have beeninfluenced by a number of technological or culturalfactors, including the poor quality of yellowish red or red-firing clays or a long-standing tradition of buff-firing clayuse. The remaining 30 percent of the Northern San Juansherds refired to yellowish red colors, suggesting thateither some local yellowish red-firing clays were beingused or that these ceramics could be imports from otherareas in the Northern San Juan region.

A somewhat different pattern of clay use is suggestedfor the neighboring Colorado site, 5MT5501. Althoughmuch the same colors described above also were notedfor Northern San Juan sherds from 5MT5501, thedistribution of refired colors for gray ware divergessignificantly from that of the white ware. This patternsuggests that either local potters selected different clayresources when producing the two wares, or that thewares derive from different sources. The sherd sampleselected for refired analysis from this site, however, isfairly small. Thus the ware differences noted must beviewed cautiously.

Relatively few of the Northern San Juan sherds obtainedfrom New Mexico MAPL sites were refired. But thosefrom LA 46147, LA 79076, LA 80316, LA 80321, and LA81172 reflect the light color scheme of the Coloradoceramics with the exception of a single gray ware sherdfrom LA 80321 which fired red (color group 6).

Different color distribution patterns were found for theChuska and Cibola tradition ceramics from 5MT5498.The majority of the Cibola sherds refired to colors similarto those of the locally made Northern San Juan ceramics,contrasting with the Chuska samples, whichpredominantly refired to yellowish red and red colors.When these color distributions are compared withoxidation studies undertaken in other areas of theColorado Plateau, general patterns of production emerge.Following Hensler’s (1999) detailed study of ceramictraditions associated with sites in the Cove-RedrockValley area of northeastern Arizona, the Cibola seriessamples from 5MT5498 produced a similar pattern ofoxidized colors. In her comparison of oxidation data setsfrom several projects in the San Juan Basin and alongthe Chuska Slope, Hensler (1999) shows that Pueblo IICibola Gray and White Ware were produced primarilywith buff-firing clays. In contrast, Reed and colleagues(1998) indicate that yellowish red-firing clays were morecommonly used in areas such as the southern ChuskaValley for producing Basketmaker III, Pueblo I, andPueblo III Cibola ceramics. Windes (1977) also indicatesthat clays used at Chaco Canyon sites that oxidized tobuff and yellowish red-firing clays account for half of therefired samples from the lower Chaco River area. Itappears that Menefee Formation clays closer to theChuska Slope examined by Windes (1977) and Reed etal. (1998) oxidize to redder colors than Menefee clays in




the Chaco area, possibly providing a clue to Cibolaproduction locales. If so, the Cibola assemblage from5MT5498 would appear to derive from eastern sourcesrather than those adjacent to the Chuska Slope. Yet, asis discussed below, petrographic evidence suggests thatthe source of the Cibolan ceramics is atypical even foreastern sources.

As may be expected, the refired Cibola ceramics fromNew Mexico MAPL sites are much more in keeping withthose produced in the central San Juan Basin. Theyinclude, for example, more dark colors. The variabilityof colors at sites such as LA 46147 and LA 80316, however,suggests that a multiplicity of sources is represented.

For the small number of Chuska ceramics from 5MT5498,the oxidation data is less definitive as to source. Most ofthe trachyte-tempered vessels were produced withyellowish red or red-firing clays. Data compiled fromthe southern Chuska Valley (Reed, Goff, andHensler1998) and the northern Chuska Valley (Cove-Redrock Valley area; Hensler 1999) show that buff-firingclays were more commonly used for production of Chuskapottery than yellowish red-firing clays. Thus, the originof Chuska vessels from 5MT5498 is less clear. Smallerrefired Chuskan assemblages from LA 46147 and LA80316, are likewise uncertain as to origin.

Petrographic analysis was conducted for two Pueblo IIMAPL sites from the Dolores and Animas River Valleyareas, including11 sherds from 5MT5498, and 7 from LA46147. The assemblages tested consisted of NorthernSan Juan, Cibola, and Chuska ceramics. The analyzedsherds were parsed into volcanic, dioritic, quartzose, andsandstone derived petrofacies with greater or lesseramounts of sherd added (see Figure 5-25). In a nutshell,the nine Northern San Juan ceramics from these siteswere tempered with diorite porphyry, seriate dioriteporphyry, cryptocrystalline diorite porphyry, sandstone,and quartz-rich sand. Significant proportions of sherdtemper were added to five of these. Cibolan ceramicsfrom these same sites were tempered with quartz-richsand, sandstone, and a fine-grained volcanic rock that is

possibly an altered quartz andesite. Again two of thesesherds also contain significant amounts of sherd temper.The three Chuskan ceramics contain trachyte andcalcareous sandstone with significant amounts of sherdtemper found in two of these.

The presence or absence of sherd temper in the PuebloII ceramics appears to be independent of ceramictradition, but dependent on ware. Six of the eight sherdsthat contain a significant amount of sherd temper aredecorative white ware, while two-thirds of the white wareceramics analyzed also contain sherd temper. Given thatthe sherds used as temper could in and of themselvescontain other temper types, there is a greater potentialfor temper mixtures in such sherds. This mixing isapparent in one of the Chuska White Ware sherds from5MT5498 that contains, along with crushed sherd temper,calcareous sandstone rather than the expected trachyte,presumably because it was present in the original sherdcrushed for temper.

Crushed rock and quartz-rich sands are more typical ofgray ware ceramics. Of the nine gray ware sherdsanalyzed only two, both from the Northern San JuanTradition, contained sherd temper. To a large extent,this dependence on crushed rock temper is probablyassociated with the technological requirements of theutilitarian gray ware ceramics. The repeated heatingand cooling cycles associated with cooking pot use canserve to erode residual strength. This thermal stress isaggravated when the temper used in such pots has asignificantly different thermal expansion rate than thatof the clay matrix in which it is embedded (Rice 1987).The use of quartz-poor crushed rock temper such asdiorite, diorite porphyry, and trachyte may havecontributed greater long-term thermal strength to PuebloII cooking pots. An experimental study by Hensler (1999)demonstrated the superior strength of trachyte-temperedover quartz sand-tempered sherds, after repeatedexposure to thermal stress. After an extensiveconsideration of all potential effects by such factors asdiffering initial hardness, prior thermal exposure, andvessel morphology, Hensler concluded temperingdifferences would have substantially affected vessel uselife. Further, she suggested thermal oscillation of themineral quartz as a key factor in the poorer performanceof the sand-tempered ceramics.

To a large extent, the use of appropriate quartz-poorcrushed rock tempers is dependent on availability. Sincesuch rocks are generally not available in much of theCibolan ceramic province, the large-scale importation offinished vessels from the Chuska Valley to Chaco Canyon,for example, makes sense. What is less clear is whysubstantially similar proportions of Northern San Juanceramics are lacking at the same sites, especially whenit is considered that some sources of Northern San Juanceramics, such as the lower Animas River, areequidistant. The nature of the trade networks thatsupplied such goods to Chaco Canyon has beenextensively discussed (Cameron and Toll 2001; Earle2001; Renfrew 2001; Shepard 1954; Stoltman 1999; Toll

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

5MT5498 LA 46147

Sherd

Trachyte

Quartzose

Sandstone

Quartz Andesite

Diorite Porphyry

Figure 5-25. Distribution of temper petrofacies inPueblo II MAPL assemblages.

5-30

2001) while the latter question has yet to be addressed.Clearly this issue revolves around differing socialinteractions spheres, an issue that is amenable toexamination through observations of ceramic source.

Because volcanic rocks suitable for temper found in thelower Animas and La Plata rivers derive from northerlysources, most researchers contend that northern andsouthern sources of Northern San Juan ceramics cannotbe differentiated. Yet internal differentiation on the basisof petrographic characteristics has been noted forassemblages from southwestern Colorado (Hegmon1995b), and similar petrographic variations noted forMAPL ceramics appear to distinguish western (i.e. thoseof 5MT5498) versus eastern sources of igneous rocks fromthe same region-the significance of this differentiationbeing that only eastern sources could have supplied thecobble beds of the Animas River (the source of such rockused at LA 46147).

Differences in the petrography of ceramics imported toeach of these sites likewise suggest that each region wasserved by a disparate exchange network. In the summaryabove, the petrographic data do not suggest substantialvariation between the Dolores site 5MT5498 and theAnimas River Valley site LA 46147. Yet, furtherexamination suggests substantial regional differences inceramics assumed to be locally produced as well as thosewhich were imported. Cibolan White Ware recovered from5MT5498 contains a very fined-grained crushed volcanicrock that is possibly quartz andesite, while the singleCibolan Gray Ware analyzed contains crushed sandstone.Crushed rock temper is uncommon in Pueblo II Cibolanceramics and its presence in all three of the analyzedsherds suggests an unusual source. In contrast, the threeCibolan sherds analyzed from LA 46147 all contain themore typical quartz-rich sand characteristic of most SanJuan Basin sources (Hensler and Goff 2001; Mills, Goetze,and ZedeÒo1993; Reed, Goff and Hensler 1998).Differences are found as well in the Chuskan ceramicsfrom both sites. The petrography of Chuskan sherds fromLA 46147 is typical for imports found throughout thelower San Juan Basin, while the single Chuskan sherdanalyzed from 5MT5498 is again atypical. Thus it maybe said that those southern ceramics (Cibolan andChuskan) imported to the Dolores site are unusual fortheir kind, representing perhaps peripheral or marginalareas of their production province, while those of LA46147 fall within general production norms for thesouthern San Juan Basin.

The question of local ceramic production hinges in thisstudy on ceramic petrography. As has been discussedabove, locally produced ceramics recovered from LA46147 would be expected to reflect resources from theadjacent Animas River Valley with origin in the easternLa Plata Mountains while those of 5MT5498 would fallinto the western La Plata, northwestern San Juan, andUte Mountain resources tract. Drainage patterns insouthwestern Colorado that shift from southern towestern ensure that cobbles originating from these

adjacent regions are more broadly segregated the furtherthey fall from their point of origin.

The distinguishing mafic minerals in most of the dioriticrocks in the Ute Mountain area are hornblende andhornblende altered to magnetite, sericite, or chlorite. Ofthe ten reported varieties of plutonic rocks in the UteMountain area, including two microgabbros, two dioriteporphyries, one quartz diorite porphyry, threegranodiorite porphyries, and two quartz monzoniteporphyries, only one variety, a diorite porphyry, hasunaltered augite (Ekren and Houser 1965). All tenvarieties are reported to contain hornblende or alteredhornblende. The dioritic rocks in the La Plata Mountainsarea are reported to include quartz diorite porphyry andmonzonite (Haynes, Vogel, and Wyant 1972) that containaugite, aegerine-augite, hornblende, and sphene. Thedioritic rocks in the Mount Wilson and Dolores Peak areaare reported to include granodiorite, granodioriteporphyry, granogabbro, granogabbro porphyry,microgabbro porphyry, monzonite porphyry, and variousporphyritic rocks (Bromfield and Conrad 1963; Bush andBromfield 1966; Haynes, Vogel, and Wyant 1972). Ofthese seven varieties of igneous rock, only two varieties,the various porphyritic rocks and the monzoniteporphyry, contain significant amounts of hornblende. Theporphyritic rocks are reported to have either augite orhornblende, whereas the monzonite porphyry lacks orhas very little augite. The Glade Mountain area isreported to have andesite porphyry (diorite porphyry?)composed of plagioclase and augite phenocrysts (Shaweet al. 1961).

Given that the Ute Mountain area is the only dioriteporphyry source in the immediate project area withsignificant amounts of altered hornblende, dioritictempers that lack augite and contain altered hornblendemay likely be from this area. Dioritic sherds that lackhornblende and contain primarily augite, on the otherhand, most likely have tempers that originate from theLa Plata Mountains, Glade Mountain, or the MountWilson/Dolores Peak areas.

Based on these mineralogical distinctions, Northern SanJuan ceramics with a diorite porphyry temper can beclassified by probable origin. However, only three of thesix Pueblo II sherds, all from 5MT5498, could be classifiedon the basis of the appearance of their diorite porphyryparticles. For this reason the total minerallic componentof all MAPL sherds for which positive temperidentification was made was examined to see if furthersorting could be achieved. For this analysis, thepercentage of quartz, plagioclase, potassium feldspar,clinopyroxene, hornblende, diorite porphyry, diorite, andsherd was considered as well as the proportions of clay,silt, and sand-sized particles in each sherd. Discriminantanalysis based on the first 8 variables was comparableto that assigned by the petrographer of the basis of theappearance of the diorite porphyry alone in 93 percentof the cases. When the last three variables wereconsidered, the discriminant analysis was comparable




in all identified cases. The results of this analysis suggestthat the crushing of different diorite porphyry varietiesreleases specific patterns of monominerallic particles thatin themselves can be used to distinguish temper source.It should be noted, however, that this form of analysis isless definitive than that which examines the characterof the diorite porphyry alone and appears to beconsidering differences in clay bodies as well as temper-much as Hegmon’s (1995b) study found that differencesin silt content were also diagnostic of differentcommunities in the Dolores Archaeological Project.Principle component analysis of these same variables alsowas less successful in sorting Ute Mountain temper fromother sources, with high sherd proportions serving as aconfounding variable.

Given these caveats, the further assignment ofungrouped Pueblo II sherds by discriminant analysisreveals interesting differences in the Northern San Juanceramics of the two sites. Both the discriminant andprinciple component analyses suggest that one of the twoNorthern San Juan sherd tested from LA 46147 derivesfrom the Ute Mountain resource tract area. Thus, thisPueblo II corrugated sherd could not have been locallymade. On the other hand, the second Northern San Juansherds tested from this New Mexico site contains quartz-rich sand that is rare for the Colorado assemblage butmatches the characteristics of what may be locallyproduced Cibolan ceramics. In contrast, although thediorite porphyry in Northern San Juan ceramics from5MT5498 is the most diverse of any assemblage, it allderives from local or nearby resource tracks.

In summary, petrographic and refired color analysisindicate that significantly different sources of Cibolan,Chuskan, and Northern San Juan ceramics suppliedColorado and New Mexico sites. Northern San Juanceramics from 5MT5498 match that of the earlier DoloresProject suggesting a broad regional and temporalconformity. A diversity of temper types, that still fitspatterns of regional supply, however, suggests that theseceramics may have been frequently exchanged at theregional level. Color differences between gray and whiteware from 5MT5501 suggest that some of this exchangecould reflect specialized production at the ware level. Incontrast, refired color data for the New Mexico NorthernSan Juan ceramics suggests greater uniformity inproduction. Temper characteristics indicate that someof these ceramics were not produced locally but wereimported from the resource tract encompassed by5MT5498. Oxidized color differences as well a tempertypes that match other local ceramics indicate that localproduction of Northern San Juan types also wasoccurring.

Differences are to be found as well in the Chuskan andCibolan ceramics recovered from the New Mexico andColorado sites. Those tradition types recovered from5MT5498 represent production sources that are marginalto the central San Juan Basin. Sources with odd tempertypes and colors possibly reflect a more northerly origin.

In contrast, the Cibola ceramics of the New Mexico sitesfit in well with the usual array of temper and colordiversity seen in central San Juan Basin while Chuskansources are unclear. What is interesting about theCibolan ceramics of LA 46147 is that certain evidencesuggests some local production, while at the same timethe refired color data suggests that many differentsources are represented. If local production of Cibolaceramics could be proved for this site it would reflect atrue oddity—that of dual ceramic traditions, for localproduction of Northern San Juan ceramics is alsosuggested. Nevertheless, the nature of the ceramicassemblage from this nonresidential site indicates off siteceramic production from what may be a diversecommunity with indigenous and Chacoan admixture.

Basketry

by Laurie Webster

The MAPL project is significant for extending ourknowledge of textiles and basketry from openarchaeological sites, particularly for the little understoodPueblo II period. Information about textiles and basketryduring Pueblo II is especially rare. New data from5MT5498 demonstrate that certain artifact types,including sewn willow matting, stacked two-rod-and-bundle-foundation basketry, and plaited ring basketswith ornamental rim braids, have their origins in PuebloII rather than mid-to-late Pueblo III, as previouslysupposed.

Probably the most important assemblage of perishablematerials recovered during the course of the project isthe collection from the late Pueblo II site of 5MT5498.The site is noteworthy for its wide range of materials—especially coiled basketry, including a rare form with astacked, two-rod-and-bundle foundation, the plaited ringbasket with its probable ornamental rim braid, a winterwicker sandal, and the willow matting. Not only is thewicker sandal unusual for the region, but the stacked-foundation basketry, plaited basketry with ornamentalrim braid, and willow matting are all items heretoforereported only from later Pueblo III cliff dwelling sites atMesa Verde. I have yet to discover any comparablecollections of Pueblo II perishables from the region, and5MT5498 may emerge as the “type site” for basketry andtextile objects for this period. The 5MT5498 assemblageindicates that many perishable artifacts previouslyassociated with the “fluorescence” of Pueblo III wereestablished by late Pueblo II.

The MAPL assemblage substantiates not only theemergence of new forms of perishable technologies in latePueblo II, but also an underlying continuity in perishablematerial culture spanning the 400 year period fromBasketmaker III to late Pueblo II, a continuityexemplified by the persistence of plaited ring baskets,two-rod-and-bundle basketry (bunched), and plaitedsandals.

5-32

Faunal Bone

A total of 55 bone tools were found associated with LateAnasazi occupations of sites within the pipeline corridor(see Table 5-21). Many of them are complete, but severalare missing their tips, while others are represented onlyby small fragments.

Most of the items in the assemblage had been fashionedinto various kinds of pointed tools (see Figure 5-26). Theyinclude 16 awls, 6 drills, 3 matting tools, 1 needle, 3 pins,and 4 punches; 12 pointed tools of indeterminate functionand one possible preform with a pointed tip were alsocollected. In addition, 2 pressure flakers, 1 rubbing tool,and 5 scrapers are present in the assemblage. The bonetools from 5MT5498 account for 89% of the totalassemblage. The quantity and variety of the items fromthat site suggests that bone tools were commonly usedin leatherworking and in the production of basketry andother woven items. Baskets, matting, and a sandal werefound in two of the kivas that were excavated on thatsite. The six items from sites 5MT10820 and LA46147constitute the rest of the assemblage. Although most ofthe tools were recovered from solid Pueblo IIproveniences, they could probably not be distinguishedfrom bone tools from earlier time periods or from othergeographical areas. By its nature, bone tool technologyis conservative; it is limited by the material, which isavailable in a finite number of forms and can only bemodified in a few ways.

The three most common manufacturing techniques werethe split shaft, spiral fracture and splinter methods. Themost common technique is the split shaft method; at least23 of the bone tools were produced in this way. Thetechnique involves scoring longitudinal grooves along theanterior and posterior surfaces of a long bone, splittingand quartering the bone, and then shaping the tip bytrimming and grinding. If successful, the split shaftmethod can produce four tools from one bone. At leastthree of the tools were made spiral fractured bones,produced when a bone is struck by a hammer or is hitagainst an anvil. It is possible that these bones wereinitially broken during butchering to extract marrow;their subsequent transformation into tools may have beena secondary consideration when they were fractured.Smaller fragments of bone were sometimes made intotools; eight of the items in the assemblage were producedfrom splinters.

Tool Type 5MT5498 5MT10820 LA46147

awl 14 1 1

drill 5 1

matting tool 3

needle 1

pin 3

pressure flaker (antler) 1 1

punch 3 1

rubbing tool 1

scraper 5

pointed tool 11 1

possible preform 1

unknown 1

Total 49 2 4

Table 5-21. Bone Tools from Late Anasazi Sites

Figure 5-26. Illustrations of complete bone tools from selected Late Anasazi sites, actual size.

5MT5498.172.3.1

0 1 2 cm

5MT5498.133.5.3

5MT5498.153.3.2

5MT5498.58.3.1

5MT5498.165.4.1

SUBSISTENCE

The people of the Pueblo II and III periods wereagriculturalists who relied heavily on corn in their diet.Evidence from previous excavations and analysisindicates that corn increased in importance in thepuebloan diet and that wild plant foods decreased inimportance after Pueblo II times (Stiger 1977 and Minnis1989). While domestic plants such as corn and beansmay have been the source of much of the food for thesepeople, they augmented their diet with animal proteinand wild plant foods. Studies suggest that during thePueblo II and III periods small wild animals and domesticanimals such as turkey and dog served as importantprotein sources (Lipe 1992). Animal protein may havebecome more valued and rare during this time as




indicated by the intensified utilization of animalcarcasses by crushing bones and boiling them to removebone grease (see Potter 1995).

As discussed in the previous section, lithic technologysuggests an orientation towards corn agriculture in theMesa Verde sites and an orientation towards hunting andgathering in the Aztec sites. The following sections willevaluate the macrobotanical and faunal data to examineif these data support these interpretations.

Cultivated and Wild Plants

A total of 130 flotation samples were collected from thelarger Pueblo II-III sites along the MAPL Project. Ofthese samples, 63 are from sites in the Mesa Verde areaand 67 are from sites in the Aztec area. Figure 5-27illustrates the ubiquity of cultivated crops in thesesamples. As can be seen from this figure, corn wascommon in the samples from the Mesa Verde sites andrare in the samples from the Aztec sites. Beans werefound in almost 10 percent of the Mesa Verde samplesbut were absent from the New Mexico samples. Squashwas found in 3 percent of the Mesa Verde samples butwas absent from the Aztec samples.

Domesticated and Wild Animals

Wild plant foods were found in the samples at both MesaVerde and Aztec sites. Table 5-22 presents the data fromthese samples. Nearly 30% of the samples from 5MT5498contained Chenopodium sp. (goosefoot), Amaranthus sp.(pigweed) or Chenoam seeds. Other common seeds fromthis Mesa Verde site are Physalis/Solanum(groundcherry) and Portulaca sp. (purslane). Thesamples from LA80316, an Aztec site, might contain aclue as to the plants being processed at the Aztec sites.Sporobolus sp. (dropseed), Chenopodium sp., Juniperussp. (juniper) and Helianthus sp. (sunflower) seeds arefound in a number of samples and may have beencollected and processed.

Table 5-22. Charred Macrobotanical Remains fromThree Mesa Verde and Three Aztec Area Sites.

Figure 5-27. Column graph comparing ubiquity ofcultivated crops in sites from Mesa Verde and Aztec areas.

Taxon 5MT5498

5MT5501

5MT10820

LA46147

LA80316

LA80319

Number of Samples 50 6 7 5 62 10

Amaranthus sp. 8

Artemisia sp. 6

Atriplex sp.

Cactaceae 1 1

Chenoam 17 3 3

Chenopodium sp. 13 4 1 6 1

Cleome sp. 2

Compositae 1 1

Cyperaceae 3

Descurainia sp. 3

Euphorbia sp. 1

Gramineae 1 1 1

Helianthus sp. 1 3

Juniperus sp. 1 10 2

Lycium sp.

Malvaceae 3

Mentzelia sp. 1

Nicotiana sp. 1

Opuntia sp. 1

Oryzopsis hymenoides 2

Physalis/Solanum 12 1

Polygonum sp. 2

Portulaca sp. 10 1 1

Rumex/Polygonum 3

Sporobolus sp. 7

Yucca baccata 2

Yucca sp. 1 1

Lithic technology suggested that the Aztec area sites wereoriented toward hunting and gathering activities. Anexamination of the faunal assemblages from these sitessupports this assertion (see Figure 5-28). Compared tothe Aztec area sites, the Mesa Verde area sites containedrelatively few faunal remains.

Figure 5-28. Column graph comparing calculatednumbers of non-human bones per household year for

Mesa Verde and Aztec area sites.

The data also show that large mammal (deer, elk, andbighorn sheep) remains dominate the Aztec areaassemblage, while they represent less than 50% of theMesa Verde assemblage (see Figure 5-29). In contrast,bones from turkey represent 15% of the Mesa Verdeassemblage, but are absent from the Aztec assemblage.

5-34

Summary

The macrobotanical and faunal data suggest that largedifferences existed between the subsistence of the PuebloII-III inhabitants of the Mesa Verde and Aztec area sites.The diet of the Mesa Verde area inhabitants was basedprimarily on agricultural products (corn, beans, andsquash), supplemented by wild plant foods, and domesticand wild animals. In contrast, the diet of the Aztec areainhabitants was based primarily on wild animals,supplemented by wild plant foods and, to a lesser extent,cultivated corn.

The Mesa Verde data are consistent with data for otherPueblo II-III sites in both the Mesa Verde and Aztec areas.The MAPL Aztec sites are anomalous and probablyrepresent short-term habitations associated with huntingand ceremonial feasting activities.

EXTRA-REGIONAL RELATIONSHIPS

The Late Anasazi inhabitants of study area maintainedcontact with groups outside the area. Our evidence for

Figure 5-29. Pie charts comparing percentages offaunal types for Mesa Verde and Aztec area sites.

SEASONALITY

The seasonality data suggest that the Mesa Verde areasites were occupied for longer periods of time than werethe Aztec area sites. As can be seen from Table 5-23, allfour of the year-round and both of the spring-fall occupiedsites were located in the Mesa Verde area. In contrast,the Aztec area contained sites that were occupied for justone or two seasons of the year.

Table 5-23. Inferred Seasons of Occupation for Mesa Verde and Aztec Area Sites

these extra-regional relationships derives from theidentification of lithic and ceramic items from non-localsources. Figure 5-30 presents a map showing the pointsof origin for these non-local items.

Lithic Items

Out of the thousands of lithics recovered from the LateAnasazi sites, less than 100 artifacts were identified asbeing from non-local sources.

Most (62) of these non-local artifacts were made ofobsidian which probably originated in the JemezMountains of New Mexico. Of the four samples tested,three originated from the Jemez Mountains: two fromthe Cerro del Medio source and one from the PolvaderaPeak source. The fourth sample originated from WildHorse Canyon, Utah. Not surprisingly, the Aztec areasites contained significantly more (55) of these artifactsthan did the Mesa Verde sites (7).

Other local lithic items consist of Narbona Pass chert (3items) and azurite. The azurite, found at 5MT5498, isbelieved to have come from the Lisbon Valley area,southeast of Moab, Uah.

Site # Site Type Season(s) of Use Evidence

5MT10820 primary resi den tial year-round

5MT5456 primary resi den tial unknown artifact scatter

5MT5457 primary resi den tial spring-fall seeds of spring, summer, and fall wild food plants; corn present

5MT5466 possible field house unknown none

5MT5495 primary resi den tial year-round rubble mound, midden

5MT5496 possible field house spring-fall spring and summer pollen, incl. corn; seeds of late summer and fall wild food plants

5MT5498 primary resi den tial year-round storage facilities, substantial rooms and kiva, corn present, juvenile faunal remains

5MT5501 primary resi den tial year-round

LA46147 location (ceremonial?) summer-fall juvenille large mammal bones

LA79076 possible location unknown

LA80316 possible primary residential fall-winter seeds of late summer-fall food plants, architecture, large ash-filled hearths, juvenille dog bones

LA80319 possible location or field camp summer-fall corn pollen

LA81169 possible field camp unknown

LA82289 location spring or summer safest time of year to fire pottery

Figure 5-30. Map illustrating points of origin of non-local items recovered from Late Anasazi sites.

0 25 50 miles �

Chaco Canyon

��$� � ��

��

0��3��&��

��4��

Colorado

New MexicoArizonaUtah

%�&��




Ceramic Items by Kathy Niles Hensler, Lori S.Reed, and Andrea Carpenter

Petrographic and refired colored analyses indicate thatdifferent sources of ceramic products supplied Colorado andNew Mexico MAPL sites. These differences are even moreapparent when trade wares are considered. Yet prior toidentifying ceramic exchange, local ceramics must be clearlydemarcated. The Pueblo II MAPL sites from Colorado,5MT5498 and 5MT5501, fall within the Northern San Juanceramic production tract and all other ceramic traditionsare presumed imports. This includes all Cibolan, Chuskan,Kayenta, and Mogollon types as well as all Northern SanJuan Red Ware whose production tract has been pinpointedto southeastern Utah, and perhaps the extremesouthwestern corner of Colorado—west of the MAPL Projectarea (Glowacki et al. 1997; Hegmon et al. 1995,1997). Theunanswered question for the Colorado sites, however, is justhow much of the presumably “local” Northern San Juanceramics could actually be imports from the lower AnimasRiver Valley that is home to the New Mexico MAPL sites,LA 46147, LA 79076, LA 80316, LA 80319, and LA 81172.The New Mexico sites, on the other hand, are encompassedby a nebulous boundary between the sand-tempered Cibolaand rock-tempered Northern San Juan ceramic provinces.Thus, the Cibolan and Northern San Juan ceramicsrecovered from these sites can neither presumed to beimports, nor yet local products. There is evidence, bothfrom the petrographic and refired color analyses, suggestiveof both importation and local production. Thus a secondunanswered question is just how much of these ceramicsare locally produced. A definitive understanding of ceramicsource and exchange in the Lower Animas, La Plata, andmiddle San Juan River area—that area generally referredto as the Totah, awaits further sourcing studies. Yet, indirectevidence at hand can be used to address the scale andvolume of ceramic exchange at both the Colorado and MewMexico sites, and in this way come to a better understandingof their social interaction spheres.

By the Pueblo II period, many if not most sites wereaffiliated with larger community groups. These Anasazicommunities and the broader regions within which theyare found are distinguished by individualistic networks ofsocial obligation and exchange—what may be called a socialinteraction sphere. Thus, for example, Chaco Canyon isdistinguished by very close ties to the Chuska Valley. Duringthe Pueblo II period up to one fifth of lithic raw materialsderived from the Chuska Mountains (Cameron 2001), whileat certain sites one third of the ceramics were importedfrom the Chuska Valley (Toll 2001:73). Most of the largetimbers used in the construction of the Chacoan greathouses are also thought to derive from the ChuskaMountains (Windes and McKenna 2001). Thus, multiplelines of evidence indicate that the Chacoan social interactionsphere encompassed the Chuska Valley. Another exampleis found in the Cove Anasazi Community of the northernChuska Valley which is distinguished from neighboringcommunities by unusually close ties to the west, as indicatedby massive importation of Kayenta Tradition ceramics (Reed1999). This is not to say the social interaction sphere ofindividual sites or even portions of larger sites within thecommunity group do not vary. Random historical events,marriage alliances, local enmities, and immigration, ensure

that such differences do occur (see for example, Haury 1958;Hensler and Reed 1999, ZedeÒo 1994). Nevertheless,intracommunity variation can be distinguished through thesame patterns of differential ceramic exchange thatdistinguishes communities. Not all ceramic exchangereflects social rather than economic obligations. Yet theproportions and volume of ceramics exchanged at each sitecan be said to reflect the overall worldview and theinclinations of its inhabitants.

For this reason, ceramic proportions from each of the PuebloII period MAPL sites with a ceramic assemblage of at least100 sherds was examined for regional inclinations. Thesesites, 5MT5498, 5MT5501, LA 46147, LA 80316, and LA80319, were then compared with representative Pueblo IIsite assemblages from adjacent regions in order to assesscommonalities. The sites used in the comparison includetwo Mesa Verde region sites, the combined Pueblo IIassemblage from the Ute Mountain Ute Irrigated LandsArchaeological Project sites (Errickson 1998) and the TwoRaven House, a Pueblo II site excavated on Mesa Verdeproper (Hayes 1998). The three sites from the Totah areaconsist of the Box B Site (Mills 1991), the Tommy site, andSalmon Ruins, all located on the San Juan River nearFarmington and Bloomfield. Data from the Tommy sitederives from the 1999 and 2000 excavations of the ongoingSan Juan College field school (L. Reed personalcommunication). That from Salmons Ruin comes fromceramic summaries of the primary occupation (Franklin1979; courtesy of P. F Reed). Chuska Valley communitiesare represented by AZ-I-26-3 a central Cove Communitysite (Reed and Hensler 1999) from the northern ChuskaValley, and by combined data from the Tocito Communitylocated in the central Chuska Valley (Reed and Hensler2001). Chaco Canyon is represented by 29SJ 627, a verylarge Pueblo II assemblage from a comparatively recentexcavation (Toll and McKenna 1992). The size and age ofeach component used in this study is found in Table 5-24.

The nature of changing ceramic perception, variablecompilations by multiple analysts, and the age of someof these collections required manipulation of the originaldata in certain cases. The ceramic assemblage of theChaco sites, 29SJ 627, for example, was not broken downinto traditional ware categories, but attention to tempertype and paint characteristics of the decorated waresreported in the rough sort allowed for a gross derivationof ceramic tradition. This is reported in Table 5-24 and

Region Project Site/Assemblage Age (A. D.) Count

ChacoCanyon

29SJ 627D 775–1150 7,184

29SJ 627V 775–1150 67

ChuskaValley

N33 Project AZ-I-26-3

Feature 5

1000–1075 3,279

N5000Project

Pueblo II, TocitoCommunity

Middle-LatePueblo II

547

Mesa Verde MAPL 5MT5498 975–1150 17,265

MAPL 5MT5501 1000–1140 178

WetherillMesa

Two Raven Site 850–1150 10,725

UMUILAP Period 10Assemblage

1075–1125 47,400*

Totah MAPL LA 46147 1000–1140 328

MAPL LA 80316 975–1175 199

MAPL LA 80319 1100–1200 314

Box B Site 1050-1300 8,824

Tommy Site 850–1175 1,803

Salmon Ruins 1090–1130 260,106

*Ceramic traditions extrapolated from other data.

Table 5-24. Sites Used for Regional Comparison

5-36

Figure 5-31 as 29SJ 627D. In order to obtain a lessdeterministic sample from the same site the 67 whole orreconstructible vessels recovered from the same site,which were named by type or temper were alsoconsidered. This data is reported as 29SJ 627V in thesame table and figure. In both cases the resultantproportions were similar enough to be grouped in allsucceeding analyses.

ceramics at LA 80319, the Box B Site, and Salmon Ruinsthat resulted in these sites placement within the MesaVerde sites. The abundance of Cibolan ceramics at LA46147, on the other hand, prompted grouping with theChacoan site in the principle component analysis, despiteproportions of Northern San Juan ceramics that are morein keeping with the Totah region as a whole.

To return to the first question discussed above concerninghow much of the Northern San Juan tradition ceramicsfrom the Colorado MAPL sites is likely derived from theAnimas River Valley, rather than having been locallyproduced? Also, it is critical to determine how such tradewares reflect the social interaction sphere of these sites,both of which were included in Reservoir Village by theDolores Project. Although as discussed above, a definitiveanswer to this question is currently outside projectresources, although the relative abundance of key tradeware types that typify all Totah area sites can be used toassess the extent of contact between the two regions. Asshown in Figure 5-31, 5MT5498 does not containsignificant quantities of Cibolan and Chuskan ceramics,those types that signify most of the Totah sites. Instead,only a smattering of Chuskan and Cibolan ceramics occurat 5MT5498, while none of these markers occur at5MT5501. Likewise, those few Chuskan and Cibolanceramics that do occur are typified by certain oddities oftemper and paste indicating that they derived fromdifferent sources than those of the Totah sites. That is,they do not reflect central San Juan Basin sources, butpossibly have a more northerly origin. Petrographicanalysis of the Northern San Juan ceramics from theNew Mexico sites, however, indicates that some exchangebetween the two regions did occur. Thus, the best thatcan be said is that the social interaction sphere ofReservoir Village reflects a fairly limited southern extent.While contact with the Totah area is indicated, any moresoutherly trade appears unlikely. However, the diversityof temper types exhibited by the Colorado sites indicatesthat extensive regional exchange was occurring. Thus,they appear to have been relatively autonomous if richlyinteractive within their own region.

In contrast, the New Mexico MAPL sites appear to havevariable interaction spheres. Certain of the sites, LA 46147and LA 80316, along with the San Juan River Tommy Siteappear to have had extensive trade with both the ChuskaValley and more southerly sources of Cibolan ceramics.The LA 46147 assemblage that one of these sites, LA 46147was classified with the Chaco Canyon site, 29SJ 627, incertain analyses. Others, however, including the MAPLsite LA 80319 and Salmon Ruins show greater affinity tothe Mesa Verde region. Traditionally, many of the Totaharea sites have been interpreted as having receivedalternate waves of Chacoan and Mesa Verdean immigrantsor influences (see Irwin-Williams 1983). In this scenario,the split seen in the Totah sites would be expected tocorrespond to temporal variation. Yet as may be seenabove in Table 5-24, based on the best age estimates,temporal disparity can only account for a portion of thisdifference, and in certain cases, expectations are reversed.For example, the Chacoan kiva at LA 46147 clearly dates

Figure 5-31. Five cluster k-means solution of Chuska,Chaco, Mesa Verde, and Totah region sites.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

AZ-I-

26-3

Tocito

29SJ 62

7D

29SJ 62

7V

LA 4

6147

LA 8

0316

Tomm

y Site

LA 8

0319

Box

B

Salm

on R

uins

5MT54

98

5MT55

01

UM

UIL

AP

Two

Rav

en

Chuska Cibola Kayenta Mogollon Northern San Juan

The 14 ceramic assemblages described were nextsubjected to a variety of multivariate statistical analysesin order to determine similarities. Because of the smallsize of this data set, only the four most abundant ceramictraditions, Northern San Juan, Kayenta, Cibola, andChuska, were considered. In Figure 5-31, the results of afive-cluster solution K-means analysis is presentedvisually. As may be seen, this solution clearlydistinguishes between the Chuskan and Chacoan, andMesa Verde area sites, while somewhat unexpectedly sitesfrom the Totah area are split. The MAPL sites, LA 46147and LA 80316 are grouped in this analysis with theTommy Site, despite a distance of roughly 25 milesbetween the sites. Other Totah sites in closer proximity,however, are grouped with the Mesa Verde area sites,including Salmon Ruins, the Box B site, and the MAPLsite, LA 80319. Not surprisingly, the Colorado MAPL sitesfrom the Dolores area also fall within this Mesa Verdecluster. A principle component analysis of the same dataproduced very similar results to the K-means analysisindicating the robustness of this solution. A minorvariation in the results, however, was the grouping inthis second analysis of both Chuska sites, while the MAPLsite LA 46147 was placed with the Chaco site, 29SJ 627.

The division of the Totah area sites into two or morecamps in both analyses was unexpected. Given thespatial clustering of these sites and the presence of majorgreat house communities within the Totah, a greaterregional cohesiveness might be expected. Yet differencesin the proportions of three ceramic traditions, one ofwhich is clearly imported, while the other two may ormay not be locally produced dictate this split. The criticalfactor appears to be the relative paucity (or abundance)of Cibolan, Chuskan, and Northern San Juan ceramics.It is the relative abundance of Northern San Juan




after AD 1130 based on dendrochronological dating ofclosure materials, but the Mesa Verdean affiliated ceramicassemblage from Salmon Ruins terminates at the samedate. Thus if the traditional view is accepted, the MesaVerdean immigration to Totah must have beenintermittent and spatially segregated. Yet, the questionof local versus extralocal origin of “Mesa Verdean” traitsin the Totah region should be addressed. Since it has beendemonstrated that much of the Northern San Juantradition ceramics said to connote Mesa Verdeaninfluences in the Pueblo II New Mexico MAPL sitesactually are locally produced, why should these ceramicsrepresent Mesa Verde immigrants rather than a localindigenous tradition—especially when these ceramics firstappeared as early as the Pueblo I period? Equallyimportant, if the Mesa Verdean influence is so profound,why do the MAPL sites from the Mesa Verde region notreflect greater ties to the south? Clearly, this is aconundrum that cannot be explained by the traditionalview of the Totah area.

What can be said is that the Totah communities appear tohave been operating within differing social interactionspheres. Moreover, differences in social affiliation appearto appertain even within larger communities. This is bestdemonstrated in the ceramic assemblages of the NewMexico MAPL sites, LA 46147, LA 80319, and LA 80316,all of which occur within a fairly circumscribed and isolatedarea near the Lower Animas River Valley. Site LA 46147,which consists of a single kiva on a prominent bluff, isconsidered to be a specialized focus of community ritual.Yet this is the site that has the greatest affinity to ChacoCanyon, as demonstrated above. The nearby habitationsite, LA 80316, has a similar distribution of ceramictraditions suggesting a like affinity. But LA 80319, aseasonal camp, is conjoined in all analyses with the MesaVerde affines. The alternate placement of this site couldresult from sample size disparities as this is the smallestassemblage included in the analyses. Nonetheless,ceramics are not the only evidence for a mixed community.The Chacoan nature of site LA 46147 is perhaps alsoillustrated by oddities in architectural style. The kiva wasbuilt with six wooden-cored pilasters in the Chacoan style,yet they do not appear to have ever borne any weight. Whilethe relatively shallow depth of the kiva, predicated by itsexcavation into bedrock, may have dictated this result, theretention of such distinctive architectural details, beyondany functional benefits is significant in itself.

In summary, the Pueblo II period MAPL ceramicassemblages reflect a diversity of functional site types,origins, and interactions. The difficult equation of whatpercentage of Northern San Juan ceramics can beconsidered to be local products versus the products ofregional, and even interregional exchange is not easilyanswerable given the relative paucity of ceramic sourcingstudies along the extent of the MAPL Project. Yet it isclear from the character of these collections that theColorado sites were fairly autonomous within their ownregion, while the New Mexico sites reflect much greatervariation in the extent and nature of their socialinteractions.

SETTLEMENT PATTERNS

Mesa Verde Area Sites

The Late Anasazi settlement of the Mesa Verde projectarea was related to both environmental and social factors.As agriculturalists, the Anasazi chose to build theirhomes in environmental settings that provided arablesoils and sufficient precipitation and frost-free days toallow for the maturation of crops. As Puebloans, the LateAnasazi chose to build their homes in or near communitycenters and/or other residences.

Late Anasazi communities in southwestern Coloradogenerally consisted of a relatively permanent communitycenter composed of a densely settled residential area,often with public architecture, and an outlying, lessdensely settled, residential area (Varien 1999).

Varien in his study of Pueblo communities ofsouthwestern Colorado has identified four communitycenters in the project area: Emerson, Escalante,Reservoir and Yellow Jacket (see Figure 5-32). Three ofthese community centers (Emerson, Escalante, andReservoir) form the Dolores Group, a community cluster.It is possible that at least two of the centers were occupiedcontemporaneously and the third was sequentiallyoccupied (Thompson 1994).

Figure 5-32. Map showing location of Mesa Verdeproject area sites in relation to four identified

community centers.

5 6,-71-

5 6589:

5 658::

5 655-,

5 65895

��

��

#��'��

��

��

��

��"�*��

5 65897

5 6585:

;$��

"��*��

;��

5-38

To examine how the Mesa Verde sites located in thecommunity cluster might be associated with thecommunity centers, a review of the ceramic assemblagesof the sites and the centers was conducted. A comparisonof the imported ceramic assemblages from the varioussites within Escalante Village and Reservoir Villagesupports the idea that sites 5MT5496, 5MT5498, and5MT5501 are more closely associated with Reservoir Ruinthan with the Escalante great house (see Table 5-25).Tusayan wares, which were the most common tradewares recovered from the excavations at Escalante andDominguez, are represented by only two sherds in thelarge ceramic assemblages from 5MT5498 and 5MT5501.Instead, the imported ceramics from the two sites aredominated by Cibolan and Chuskan wares, whichconstitute only a small portion of the trade wares foundat Escalante and Dominguez. The assemblage from Site5MT5496 is small, but it suggests a similar pattern.These differences might reflect a lack of affiliationbetween the three sites in the pipeline corridor and theEscalante great house. They suggest, instead, anaffiliation with nearby Reservoir Ruin; although thecollection of ceramics from the surface of that sitecontains Chuskan, Cibolan, and Tusayan sherds, thelatter constitute only 25 percent of the trade wareassemblage.

Interestingly, a comparison of the Northern San Juanceramic assemblages from the various sites withinEscalante Village and Reservoir Village suggests that Site5MT5498 (and possibly 5MT5501) were occupied afterEmerson Ruin and Reservoir Ruin had been abandoned(see Table 5-26). The DAP authors suggest that theoccupation of Reservoir Village ended before 1100, butthat people from other settlements may have visited orused the area after the Reservoir Ruin site itself wasabandoned. The assemblage from Escalante Ruinincludes a considerable number of Mesa VerdeCorrugated, McElmo Black-on-white, and Mesa VerdeBlack-on-white sherds. Although those three wares,normally associated with late Pueblo II or Pueblo IIIoccupations, were not found at Emerson Ruin orReservoir Ruin during the Dolores Archaeological Project,they are present in the ceramic collections from 5MT5498and 5MT5501. One of the vessels thought to have beenon the roof of Structure 7, a kiva associated with the lateoccupation of the East Pueblo on 5MT5498, is a MesaVerde Corrugated jar. It has been suggested that

settlement of the Escalante/Emerson/Reservoircommunity initially took place around the possible greathouse and large kiva at Reservoir Ruin and the tri-wallstructure at Emerson Ruin, but that the focus latershifted toward the Escalante great house (Thompson1994). It is possible that the last inhabitants of 5MT5498had ties to the Escalante community.

If the late occupation of 5MT5498 occurred after theabandonment of Reservoir Ruin and coincided insteadwith the occupation of Escalante Ruin, the differences inthe trade ware assemblages from the sites is interesting.Both the dominance of Cibolan wares and the lack ofTusayan wares are still evident in the imported ceramicsfrom the late occupation of 5MT5498. Specifically, two ofthe vessels found associated with the last occupation ofthe East Pueblo kiva, an Escavada Black-on-white bowland a Gallup Black-on-white bowl, are Cibolan wares.The differences between the assemblages from 5MT5498and Escalante Ruin suggest that, although the two sitesmight have been occupied at the same time, differencesremained between the two groups. It is possible that theresidents of the two sites traded with different groups;other differences may have existed but are not evident inthe archaeological record. At least one other possibleexplanation exists for the discrepancies in the variousceramic assemblages. Given that neither Emerson Ruinnor Reservoir Ruin has been excavated, and that the ideasconcerning their fairly early abandonment are based onthe limited ceramic assemblages found on the surface, itis possible that the occupations of those two sites extendedbeyond 1100 A.D. As in the case of 5MT5498, laterceramics (and possibly Tusayan trade wares) may bepresent in the lower fill of the surface rooms and kivas.It may be that the Escalante great house, the possiblegreat house and large kiva at Reservoir Ruin, the tri-wall structure at Emerson Ruin, and the numeroussmaller habitation units in the area were all componentsof one larger community. The loose aggregation of thesites and inequities in the completeness of theirarchaeological documentation may be obscuring the truenature of the relationships among the sites.

Aztec Area Sites

The Aztec area sites are located at the eastern edge of alarge community cluster along the Animas and San JuanRivers. Figure 5-33 illustrates the distribution of theAztec project area sites in relation to Aztec and SalmonRuins, the two largest pueblos in the project vicinity.

Most of the Aztec area project sites were limited-occupation sites associated with resource-gathering ortask-specific activities probably conducted by people wholived in the larger pueblos in the river valleys. With theexception of LA82289 (a task-specific kiln site), the sitesare located in an area that contains water and fuelwood,and provides access to higher terrain. The two affiliatedsites (LA80316 and LA46147) represent a more intenseoccupation of the project area; these sites may, or maynot, have been created by people who lived in the largerpueblos in the river valleys.

Table 5-25. Trade Wares from Sites in the Escalante/Emerson/Reservoir Area

Site Chuskan1 Cibolan2 Tusayan1 Collected Ceramics2

5MT5496 3 1 1 408

5MT5498, NW Pueblo 2 26/1 6651/9

5MT5498, E Pueblo 2 40/2 1 8531/16

5MT5498, NE Pueblo 470

5MT5498, S Pueblo 1 501

5MT5498, AA 3 3 5 604/1

5MT5501 2 30 1 2459/including 5

Escalante (5MT2149) 9 312 9751

Dominguez (5MT2148) 3 10 1092/including 8

Emerson (5MT4447) 3 247

Reservoir (5MT4450) 15 21 12 17281 = sherds; 2 = sherds/ and vessels




Table 5-27 presents the data for the MAPL habitation sitesestimating residential group size. As can be seen from thistable, the Mesa Verde area sites probably housed morepeople than did the Aztec area sites. The figures estimatethe total population present at each site, but probablyoverestimate the momentary population at the three sitesthat contain multiple kivas or pithouses; at each of thesesites, evidence shows that not all the structures werecontemporaneous.

SOCIAL ORGANIZATION

The social organization of the Late Anasazi groups thatoccupied the project area sites can only be hinted at by theproject data. First, we will estimate residential group sizeby looking at the size and configuration of the residencesuncovered during excavation. Second, we will estimatecommunity populations by looking at the size ofcontemporaneous sites in nearby communities. Lastly, wewill evaluate post-marital residence (Peregrine 2001).

Residential Group Size

Estimating residential group size from excavation datarequires evaluating structure size and composition, andutilizing ethnographic data. For the MAPL sites twomethods of estimating residential group size were used: onefor sites containing pithouses or kivas and one for sitescontaining pithuts or brush shelters.

For project area sites containing pithouses or kivas, eachpithouse or kiva was assumed to represent a singlehousehold. Based on ethnographic data for historic pueblos(Lightfoot 1992:254), each household was estimated tocontain from 4 to 7 people. For sites containing pithuts orbrush shelters, the floor area of each structure wascalculated. Based on ethnographic data for hunter andgatherer populations (Fetterman and Honeycutt 1994), arange of 1-3 square meters of floor space per person wasused to derive the total estimated number of occupants perstructure.

Site # MancosCorrugated2

CortezBlack/white1

DoloresCorrugated2

MancosBlack/white2

Mesa VerdeCorrugated2

McElmoBlack/white2

Mesa VerdeBlack/white1

Total CollectedCeramics2

5MT5496 7 3 1 13 408

5MT5498, NW Pueblo 121/ 2 42 14 164/ 5 1 2 1 6651/ 9

5MT5498, E Pueblo 142 20 19/ 3 190/ 8 2/ 1 8531/ 16

5MT5498, NE Pueblo 3 1 1 3 470

5MT5498, S Pueblo 4 5 501

5MT5498, AA 3 8 2 1 33/ 1 2 604/ 1

5MT5501 59 3 6 288/ 2 1 2459/ including 5

Escalante (5MT2149) 230 4 1361 129 525 8 9751

Dominguez (5MT2148) 4 149/ including 1 2 56/ including 3 1092/ including 8

Emerson (5MT4447) 1 7 5 247

Reservoir (5MT4450) 11 11 28 17281 = sherds; 2 = sherds/ and vessels

Table 5-26. Some Temporally Diagnostic Northern San Juan Ceramics from Sites in Escalante/Emerson/ReservoirArea

Figure 5-33. Map showing location of Aztec projectarea sites in relation to Aztec and Salmon Ruins.

��71179

��7,,:9��8:,8<

��7-=,:��7-=,9

��<9-<:� ��"��

#��$��"��

��"�*��

#��"�*��

��$��"�*��

Site # Method 1 Method 2 # of Occupants

# of Kivas orPithouses

Str. # FloorArea (m2)

(LA80316subtotal)

Total

5MT10820 1 pithouse 4-7

5MT5495 1 kiva 4-7

5MT5501 2 kivas 8-14

5MT5498 12 kivas 48-84

LA80316 2 pithouses 8-14

Str. 1 4.4 1-4

Str. 2 4.4 1-4

Str. 3 5.6 1-5

Str. 4 5.1 1-5

Str. 5 6.5 2-6

Str. 6 3.4 1-3

Str. 7 6.0 2-6 17-47

LA80319 Str. 5 15.2 5-15

Total 18 8 86-174

Table 5-27. Estimated Residential Group Size at SixLate Anasazi Sites

Households were probably, but not necessarily, familygroups. Ethnographic evidence indicates that householdsor co-residency groups are dynamic groups that change inresponse to technological, social, or economic situations. Itis easy to see how the people occupying seasonal sites suchas LA80316 might not have been family groups but ratherco-residential groups formed to hunt or farm. It is probable,however, that the people who occupied long-term residentialsites such as 5MT5498 were some form of family group,either nuclear or extended. At 5MT5498, several familygroups probably occupied this site contemporaneously.These groups may have been related to a kin or clan group.Based on the presence of dog burials and the trapped puppyin Structure 7, it can be inferred that dogs were part of thefamily group.

Community Size

The Late Anasazi sites located along the MAPL corridorappear to be related to three Late Anasazi communities:

5-40

the Yellow Jacket Community, the Escalante/Emerson/Reservioir Community, and the Aztec Community.

Aztec Community

The Aztec Community, as defined by Stein and McKenna,was composed of all habitation sites contemporaneouswith, and located within a 3-4 km radius of, Aztec Ruin.Within this community it is estimated that there are2,250 rooms (Stein and McKenna 1988:50). Using acalculation of one room per one person (Mahoney2000:23), it is estimated that 2,250 people inhabited theAztec community (see Table 5-28).

Even though they are not spatially contained within it,eight project area sites are thought to be related to thiscommunity (see Table 5-28). Interestingly, the projectarea sites were relatively small and apparently limitedoccupation sites, while the Aztec Community wasobviously very large and quite complex. The sheer sizeof this community lends support to the idea that theproject area sites were satellite sites associated withresource procurement or specialized tasks.

Escalante/Emerson/Reservoir Community

The Escalante/Emerson/Reservoir (E/E/R) Community isthe prehistoric community centered on the Escalante,Emerson, and Reservoir sites on the south side of theDolores River. The size of this community is not known,due to incomplete survey, but a minimum size can beestimated by using data published for “Reservoir Village”and “Escalante Village”. These villages contain not onlythe three large habitations of Escalante, Emerson, andReservoir, but also the 31 smaller habitations that clusteraround them (Kane 1986:387, 396). The roomblocks ofall these sites total approximately 945 meters in length.Using a calculation of one person per meter of roomblock(ibid.), it is estimated that 945 people inhabited theEscalante/Emerson/Reservoir Community.

Contained within this community were four project areasites (see Table 5-28). The inhabitants of these sites wereprobably related by blood or through marriage toinhabitants of other sites in the community. Unlike theAztec satellite sites, the project area E/E/R sites wereprobably economically self-supporting.

Yellow Jacket Community

The Yellow Jacket Community is the prehistoriccommunity centered on the Yellow Jacket Site. The sizeof this community is not known, due to incomplete survey,

but a minimum size can be estimated by using datapublished for the Yellow Jacket Site. This site has morethan 600 rooms; using the calculation of one room perperson, it is estimated that at least 600 people inhabitedthe Yellow Jacket Site. Since 15 contemporaneous sitesare known to exist within 2 km of the Yellow Jacket Site(Lange et al., 1986:13), it is estimated that more than600 people inhabited the Yellow Jacket Community.

Associated with, but not contained within, the YellowJacket Community were three project area sites (seeTable 5-28). The inhabitants of these sites probablyreturned to the community center on a seasonal orperiodic basis.

Post-marital Residence

Post-marital residence is one aspect of social organizationstudied by anthropologists. Using a cross-culturalethnographic study, M. Embers (1973) has found thatmatrilocal societies have significantly larger dwellings thando patrilocal societies. She found that if the living floorarea is greater than 550-600 square feet (51-55 squaremeters), the residence is likely to have been matrilocal; andif the living floor area is less than 550-600 square feet, theresidence is likely to have been patrilocal.

Table 5-28. Estimated Populations at Three LateAnasazi Communities

Community EstimatedPopulation

Associated Project Area Sites

Aztec 2250 LA4 61 47 , LA7 9 07 6, LA80 31 6 , LA80 3 19 ,LA8 03 21 , LA8 1 16 9, LA81 17 2 , LA82 2 89

Escalante/Emerson/Reservoir 945 5 MT54 96 , 5 MT5 45 6, 5 MT5 49 8 , 5MT5 5 01

Yellow Jacket >600 5 MT10 82 0 , 5MT54 95 , 5 MT54 6 6

artist’s conception of life at 5mt5498 during the late ... ii/pii synthetic.pdf · other late...

Documents