THE KIVA, Volume 53, No. 4, 1988

ARIZONA BIFACES OF WYOMING CHERT

JOHN C. WHITTAKER Department of Anthropology

Grinnell College Grinnell, IA 50112

ALAN FERG Arizona State Museum University of Arizona

Tucson, AZ 85721

JOHN D. SPETH Museum of Anthropology

University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI 48109

ABSTRACT

Seven bifaces from sites in Arizona and one from New Mexico are so simi­lar in material, form, and workmanship that a single source is inferred. The distinctive raw material is tentatively identified as "Tiger Chert" from southwestern Wyoming. These finds suggest widespread exchange of large bifaces among the pueblos of the late thirteenth to fourteenth centuries, and a previously unrecognized contact to the north.

INTRODUCTION

Large, well-made bifaces are unusual finds in prehistoric Southwestern pueblos. Although the use of soft-hammer flaking to produce bifacial tools was widespread and common in the prehistoric Southwest, it was most often applied to relatively small tools that probably functioned as knives and spear points. Bifaces longer than 10-15 cm occur at many sites throughout the South­west, and most artifact assemblages from large pueblos include a few such tools. Examples can be cited from such diverse sites as Awatovi (Woodbury 1954), Pecos (Kidder 1932), Long House (Cattanach 1980), the Galaz Ruin (Anyon and LeBlanc 1984), and Pueblo Bonito (Judd 1954). However, large bifaces are not characteristic or common in any late Southwestern lithic as­semblage, and they tend to occur as disparate individual artifacts rather than a common type or consistent form. An exception is an assemblage of about 60 bifaces from a single room at Grasshopper Pueblo in central Arizona (Whit­taker 1984, 1986). These are mostly unfinished fragments accompanied by much manufacturing debris and other lithic artifacts, and may well be the work of a single knapper.

The present authors, each analyzing materials from different sites, indi­vidually became interested in three bifaces in the collections of the Arizona State Museum. Upon combining forces, we realized that a number of South­western bifaces had a common origin, which eventually we were able to iden-

321

322

130 km

WHITTAKER ET AL.

r Tiger Chert ca.500km

o Flagstaff

0 Prescott

3.A

D s _... Phoenix

0show Low

4.A 7,A

5

2.A

D Tucson

Henderson ca. 415 km ~

Figure 1. Locations of the biface finds in Arizona: 1 = Q Ranch; 2 = Safford; 3 = Gipe Site; 4 = Kinishba; 5 = Cutter Ruin; 6 = Gila Pueblo; 7 = Point of Pines. Distances from Arizona borders to the Tiger Chert sources and the Henderson Site are indicated.

tify tentatively as southwestern Wyoming. The bifaces are described below, and some interpretations offered.

THEBIFACES

The three bifaces that first attracted our attention come from three diffe­rent sites in Arizona (Figure 1). Regrettably, none of the three bifaces is from a controlled excavation, and only two of the find sites are known.

Arizona Bifaces 323

a b c

- - - - -!J•(,

Figure 2. Three bifaces from Arizona: a = GP12253 from Q Ranch; b = A-30,678 from south of Safford area; c = A-30,500 from the Gipe Site.

324 WHITT AKER ET AL.

QRanch

According to Arizona State Museum records, the specimen labeled GP12253 (Figure 2a; Figure 3) was excavated from a grave at Q Ranch Pueblo (AZ P:l3:13 ASM, Holbrook:l3:6 GP) by V. Steward and purchased for Gila Pueblo by Harold S. Gladwin. The Q Ranch Pueblo (Whittlesey 1982) is a large fourteenth-century pueblo that is contemporary with Grasshopper Pueblo and situated in a neighboring drainage system in east-central Arizona. The grave also contained a set of 10 small, triangular, unnotched arrowheads made of gray Redwall Chert, the main lithic material in the Grasshopper region (Whittaker 1984; Agenbroad 1982), and five pots (one Gila Red jar, one polished Tonto Plain pitcher, and three Gila Black-on-red bowls with Pinto de­sign layouts). This ceramic assemblage suggests a date in the eafly A.D. 1300s.

Safford

The other two bifaces were given to the Arizona State Museum by differ­ent donors in the 1960s, and they have even poorer provenience information. The catalog card for A-30,678 (Figure 2b) reads, "Found by a Navajo Indian who turned it over to donor's husband, now deceased"; however, thiJ; informa­tion was crossed out and replaced by, "Donor states that it was purchased from one of local inhabitants (south of Safford) ca. 28 years ago." The location given as "probably south of the Safford area" can be considered only as reliable as the rest of this ambiguous card.

Gipe Site

According to the donor of the third biface (A-30,500; Figure 2c), it also was found in the 1930s near Richinbar Mine, near Bumblebee, Arizona, ap­parently at the Gipe Site (AZ N:l6:6 ASM), in the Agua Fria drainage. This site is a basalt boulder pueblo of about 40 rooms (AZSITE File, Arizona State Museum). A surface collection of sherds from the site includes Jeddito Black­on-yellow, Roosevelt red wares (Gila/Tonto Polychrome), and Alameda brown wares, suggesting a southern Sinagua occupation sometime during the period A.D. 1300-1425. Neither the Gipe Site specimen nor the Safford speci­men is likely to have been a surface find, given their fresh and unweathered condition.

Discussion

In spite of some differences in size and shape, these three bifaces are strik­ingly similar. All are made of an unusual dark chocolate brown chert (Munsell colors around 10 YR 4/2) with concentric or parallel, wavy, lighter and darker banding. The Q Ranch and Gipe Site specimens are of identical material, while

Arizona Bifaces 325

O 2 3 4 5cm

Figure 3. Biface from the Q Ranch site (ASM GP12253) showing typical flaking pattern (length is 171 mm).

326 WHITTAKER ET AL.

the material of the Safford specimen is lighter in color but similar in pattern. The material of all three is of very high quality. It is fine-grained and has a sur­face texture ranging from slightly dull to quite glossy on the Safford specimen. There are occasional small crystalline or fossil remnant inclusions.

All three bifaces show the same techniques of manufacture. The Q Ranch specimen, although the smallest, is representative (Figure 3). Wide, flat, soft­hammer percussion scars cover both faces. Flakes were removed at regular in­tervals and skillfully controlled, and the scars often extend past the midline of the biface, usually feathering without step terminations or other flaws. After the basic form was achieved in this manner, the edges were finished with a single regular series of short, wide, flakes that straightened the edge and re­moved remnant platforms. The regular spacing and consistent size of these flake scars, their parallel edges, and their frequent small step terminations suggest that this was probably done by pressure flaking. The pressure retouch is slightly less regular on the Safford specimen than on the others.

While the proportions of the bifaces differ slightly, all are lanceolate in form with greatest width at midpoint, and narrow, squared-off bases (Table 1). The cross-sections are thin and flatly biconvex, a result of the knapper' s ability to extend the flaking past the midline.

There are no macroscopic signs of use. The Q Ranch specimen was glued together at a break originating in a fresh notch, suggesting recent pick damage. The Gipe Site specimen has some old damage to the tip and one edge as if it had been dropped or bumped. Otherwise all edges appear sharp and unworn.

Kinishba

A similar specimen (Figure 4c) comes from Byron Cummings's (1940) excavations at Kinishba (AZ V:4: 1 ASM), another late Mogollon or Western Pueblo community of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. In the Arizona

Table 1. Biface measurements (in mm).

Site QRanch Safford area Gipe Site Kinishba

tip base reconstructed

Cutter Ruin Gila Pueblo Point of Pines Henderson

Date(A.D.) early 1300s no date 1300-142S 1300-1400

1300-14SO 1300-14SO 1280-1300 1290-1330

Length 171 204 281

6S lOS 240

S8 194 174 127

Maximum Width

S7 69 S3

S3 SS S2 so 41 Sl

Midpoint Maximum Midpoint Width Thickness Thickness

S6 11 10 69 10 9 63 12 8

10

10 44 13 11

10 47 10 10

Arizona Bifaces 327

a b c d

Figure 4. a = biface from Gila Pueblo (ASM 82-45-53); b = burned biface from Point of Pines (ASM A-18913); c = two fragments of a biface from Kinishba (ASM A-33,616-x-1,5); d = "Turkey Tail" biface from Hen­derson Site burial.

State Museum are two pieces that do not join but that are almost certainly from the same biface. The midsection and basal edge are missing. The tip (ASM catalog A-33,616-x-1) came from Room 143, and the base (A-33,616-x-5) is presumably from the same provenience. Excavation notes for Room 143 (Arizona State Museum Archives Folder A-414) yield no additional infmma­tion on the location of the biface fragments within the room or whether the room had been burned.

328 WHITT AKER ET AL.

Figure 5. Biface fragment from Cutter Ruin (AMNH 29.1 /7050) (length is 58mm).

Both Kinishba fragments are burned black, with crazed surfaces. Potlid­ding and crenated fracturing are visible in the breaks. Although the original color cannot be determined, the distinctive banding of the chert is still faintly visible on both faces, and especially in the broken edges.

The workmanship is like that of the Q Ranch and Gipe Site specimens, but with smaller, more regular percussion scars. The cross-section is similar, as is the outline; the pieces fit nicely when laid on either the Q Ranch or especially the Gipe Site specimen. If the lines of the fragments are followed, the length can be reconstructed as about 240 mm, and the width and thickness are also within the range of the three complete specimens (Table 1).

Cutter Ruin

A single base fragment (Figure 5) comes from the Cutter Ruin (also known as Ranch Creek Ruin, AZ V:l0:4 ASM), a Classic period Salado site near San Carlos, Arizona (Ferg 1988). It apparently was recovered from the floor or floor fill of Room A during excavations in 1926 by Erich Schmidt and is now in the American Museum of Natural History in New York (AMNH 29.1/7050). This piece is similar in material and workmanship to those de­scribed above, and also has the straight base that appears to be characterstic. The broken edge has been partially reworked.

Gila Pueblo

Excavations by Charmion McKusick in the 1970s at the Salado site of Gila Pueblo near Globe (AZ V:9:52 ASM) also produced a relevant biface (Fig­ure 4a, ASM 82-45-53). The biface came from Room llOa, possibly in associ-

Ariwna Bifaces 329

ation with human skeletal remains that McKusick (personal communication) interprets as a victim of the violent destruction of the pueblo, an event she dates between A.D. 1350 and A.D. 1450. The contexts are apparently complex, and the biface could have simply been on the room floor at its destmction, or been part of the earlier burial assemblages accompanying any of several skeletons. In any case, it should date from the A.D. 1300s to the early A.D. 1400s.

The Gila Pueblo biface is somewhat different from the other specimens. The material is a very pale cream color, approaching 2.5Y 8.5/2 on the Mun­sell color chart. The surface has a grainy, chalky look, although it is not soft or friable. The thin, dark, concentric bands are of finer chert and are the same color as the Q Ranch and Gipe Site specimens. The light color does not appear to result from weathering, and there are no signs of burning such as those on the Kinishba and Point of Pines (below) pieces. The Gila Pueblo biface appears to be made of a lower quality piece of the same chert as the others, perhaps from close to the cortex on a large nodule.

Although the shape of the Gila Pueblo biface is also different, being more lanceolate with the maximum width near the base, it too shows the gently rounded shape at maximum width tapering to a squared-off base. The flaking is less regular than that of the others, with a number of small step and hinge termi­nations and only a few flakes that pass beyond the midline. The pressure finish along the edge is also less regular. The poorer appearance of this biface is prob­ably not the fault of the knapper, but of the intractability of the lower quality material.

Point of Pines

The main pueblo at Point of Pines (AZ W:10:50 ASM), a large late Mogollon or Western Pueblo community, has produced another burned speci­men (Figure 4b, ASM A-18913). This biface came from Room 110, a large workroom that burned around A.D. 1295 (Alexander J. Lindsay, Jr., personal communication). This room was part of the Maverick Mountain phase occupa­tion, which is considered to represent an intrusion of Anasazi people from northern Arizona (Haury 1958).

The Point of Pines biface has been shattered by fire, and potlidding can be seen in the photograph. In spite of the blackening produced by the fire, traces of the characteristic banding can still be discerned. The pressure retouch along the edges is continuous but less regular than on some of the other bifaces and has resulted in a slightly serrated edge, apparently intentionally. Although the base is missing, the Point of Pines biface appears most similar in form to the specimen from Gila Pueblo.

Henderson Site

The final specimen to be considered (Figure 4d) comes from a burial at the Henderson Site (LA-1549) near Roswell in the Pecos Valley in southeastern

330 WHITT AKER ET AL.

New Mexico (Rocek and Speth 1986). The site is an adobe-walled pueblo oc­cupied between A.D. 1200/1250 and A.D. 1400/1450. The biface was one of the items deposited with an adult male interment (Feature 36), which should date between about A.D. 1290 and A.D. 1330. The other goods (Rocek and Speth 1986: 109-127) include shell and turquoise beads, basketry, and a total of 43 projectile points and knives. Many of these are types that pre-date the pueblo, including some Archaic forms. Some are made of exotic materials such as Alibates and Edwards Plateau cherts from the Texas plains.

The Henderson Site biface is made of the same material as the Arizona specimens. It is a little redder in color than the first three Arizona bifaces, but there is no doubt that it is the same chert. However, the Henderson Site biface is very different in form. It is bi-pointed and has side notches near one end -the form referred to as a "Turkey Tail" in the Midwest, where it is a well-known Late Archaic type (Bell 1960). Similar forms, but on different materials, are re­ported from Idaho (Pavesic 1985), and in both areas they are associated with Archaic burials. Like the Arizona bifaces, the Archaic "Turkey Tails" are large and flat, worked by soft-hammer percussion and finished with pressure re­touch.

The flaking on the Henderson Site biface differs in detail from the Arizona specimens. The large percussion scars covering both faces pass the midline but are deeper and less regular, with marked rippling and a couple of deep hinge terminations. The pressure retouch along the edge is irregular and discontinu­ous. One edge is beveled by unifacial retouch, and the other shows signs of wear in the form of some visible dulling and microflaking. Along each edge is a short right-angled break that has not been removed by retouch, which may indi­cate that the biface has been reworked from a broken piece of different form.

The Henderson Site "Turkey Tail" is something of an enigma. We are quite confident about the identification of the material, and its presence more than 400 km east of the rest of the specimens is interesting. However, the "Tur­key Tail" form is out of place in the Southwest. It could be an old piece related to the "Turkey Tail" forms of Idaho, but it does not appear to be more weath­ered than the other specimens. Alternatively, it could have affinities with beveled and t~mged knife forms on the Texas plains. At the moment the matter cannot be resolved.

CONCLUSIONS The bifaces described above are notable for two reasons: they are large,

well-made bifaces in an area where such artifacts are rare, and they are made of an unusually distinctive material. As the bifaces seemed to cluster in southern or central Arizona, we expected a source there, but none of our Southwestern colleagues could identify the source, and it was hard to believe that a source of such distinctive and high quality material was not known to archaeologists and

Arizona Bifaces 331

modern knappers. Expanding our inquiry to the plains east of the Rio Grande was no more fruitful. Eventually the "Tiger Chert" of southwestern Wyoming (Sharrock 1966) was suggested to us by Tim Baugh, and after examining speci­mens provided by George Frison and Tim Baugh, and discussing the material with Bruce Bradley, we are convinced that Tiger Chert is indeed the raw mate­rial for the Arizona and New Mexico bifaces.

The variations of texture and color seen in the Arizona bifaces are all du­plicated in the source specimens we have seen, including the grainy white of the Gila Pueblo biface. Most noticeable and distinctive is the banding, which can also be seen in photographs of artifacts from quarry-related sites at the source (Sharrock 1966: 17, 38, Figures 45, 50). The banding actually becomes more visible with patination, and would have been much less noticeable on the freshly knapped bifaces. Some source specimens have little or no visible band­ing even when weathered, and bifaces of Tiger Chert may exist that cannot be as readily identified.

Large bifacial tools are known from the Wyoming sources of Tiger Chert (e.g., Sharrock 1966), but we have not seen anything recognizably similar to the Arizona or New Mexico bifaces. The salient characteristics of the Arizona bifaces include flat, well-controlled percussion flaking that passes the midline of the piece and results in a flattened cross-section; heavy, regular, pressure re­touch along the edges; and a symmetrical lanceolate form with a straight base and maximum width at or below mid-length. The Arizona bifaces, especially the first three, are so consistent in form and treatment that they suggest a very limited source. As no known Tiger Chert debitage exists in Arizona, and as the manufacture of such large bifaces was unusual in the Southwest as a whole, they probably reached the Southwest as finished products manufactured some­where near the chert sources.

Available dates suggest a limited time span for the production and ex­change of these bifaces. The range of dates is from the last decades of the thir­teenth century to about A.D. 1450, but the best dates point to the early part of this span, from the late A.D: 1200s to the early A.D. 1300s. In the Southwest, this was a period of population movement, aggregation, long-range contacts, and some increase in social complexity. The bifaces from Q Ranch Pueblo, the Henderson Site, and possibly Gila Pueblo are from well-endowed burials. Large bifaces are found as burial goods elsewhere in the Southwest, for exam­ple in the Grasshopper region (Whittaker 1984: 101), with the Sinagua "Magi­cian" at Ridge Ruin (McGregor 1943), and at Pecos (Kidder 1932:34); and as ritual deposits, as in Kiva Q at Pueblo Bonito (Judd 1954:323). The recurrent presence of large bifaces in such contexts suggests their frequent use as cere­monial paraphernalia, elite burial goods, or status items. Like many better­known goods with similar functions, large bifaces evidently circulated as part of the prehistoric trade in exotic, ornamental, and prestige items.

332 WHITTAKER ET AL.

Exotic goods found in many parts of the Southwest demonstrate that con­tacts and exchange moved a wide variety of goods in many directions and over impressive distances. In the case of the Tiger Chert bifaces, we see an artifact spread over at least 700 km of the Southwest. From the Wyoming sources to the central Arizona pueblos the straight-line distance is over 850 km; to the Hen­derson site more than 1,000 km. We do not know the nature of the contacts and exchange of the bifaces. Puebloan connections to the north are poorly under­stood, but there are a few indications of contact and exchange. Sharrock ( 1966) reports Fremont sherds from the Pine Spring Site, evidence of northern pueblo contact with the Tiger Chert source area, but too early to directly involve the Arizona bifaces. Obsidian from Idaho was transported to the plains of Ok­lahoma between the twelfth to the sixteenth centuries (Baugh and Nelson 1987). We note also that the Point of Pines biface came from the rooms oc­cupied by supposed migrants from northern Arizona. With further study it may be possible to pinpoint the Wyoming chert source more specifically, identify specimens from the northern Southwest, and trace some possible routes of ex­change.

The probable use of the Tiger Chert bifaces as elite goods or ceremonial paraphernalia, and their spread along far-flung networks of exchange, suggests that other large bifaces may have been similarly valued and exchanged. Large bifaces require material of unusual size and quality, and their manufacture was rare in the Southwest. The distinctive nature of large bifaces makes them ideal for delineating networks of exchange and interaction within the greater South­west and adjoining regions. As more sites are excavated and more attention paid to lithic artifacts in the Southwest, it may be possible to identify other dis­tinctive, widely circulated lithic artifacts, and locate the centers that produced them.

Acknowledgments. The assistance of Mike Jacobs of the Arizona State Museum in locating and researching the Arizona bifaces was indispensable. The authors also wish to thank Larry Banks, Bruce Bradley, Tim Baugh, Mike Collins, George Frison, Emil Haury, Brnce Huckell, William Parry, Jeff Reid, David Snow, Kate Spielmann, Waldo Wedel, and others for ransacking their mental files in search of comparable raw material sources. The Arizona State Museum per­mitted publication of the bifaces in their collections, and Helga Teiwes of the Arizona State Museum photographed the bifaces for figures 2, 4, and 5. The Arizona Projects Office of the Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior made possible the grant-funded study of Erich Schmidt's materials at the American Museum of Natural History; David R. Wilcox, John Hohmann, Linda Kelly, Thomas R. Lincoln, and David Hurst Thomas all aided in the rediscovery of the Cutter Ruin specimen. Rick Ahlstrom, Phil Chase, Ralph Luebben, William Parry, Alan P. Sullivan, and a number of other colleagues anonymous and otherwise made useful comments on the manuscript.

Arii;ona Bifaces 333

REFERENCES CITED

Agenbroad, Larry D. 1982 Geology and Lithic Resources of the Grasshopper Region. In Mu/tidisciplinmy

Research at Grasshopper Pueblo, Ariwna, edited by W. A. Longacre, S. J. Hol­brook, and M. W. Graves, pp. 42-45. Anthropological Papers No. 40. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Anyon, Roger, and Stephen A. LeBlanc 1984 The Galaz; Ruin: A Prehistoric Mimbres Village in Southwest New Mexico. Max­

well Museum of Anthropology, Albuquerque. Baugh, Timothy G., and Fred W. Nelson, Jr.

1987 New Mexico Obsidian Sources and Exchange on the Southern Plains. Journal of Field Archaeology 14:313-330.

Bell, Robert E. 1960 Guide to the Identification of Certain American Indian Projectile Poi/Ifs, Ok­

lahoma Anthropological Society Special Bulletin 2. Norman. Cattanach, George

1980 Long House, Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado. National Park Service Publi­cations in Archeology No. 7H. Department of the Interior, Washington.

Cummings, Byron 1940 Kinishba, A Prehistoric Pueblo of the Great Pueblo Period. Hohokam Museum

Association and the University of Arizona, Tucson. Ferg, Alan

1988

Haury, Emil W.

Shrines and Exotic Artifacts. Appendix E in Erich F. Schmidt's Investigations of Salado Sites in Central Arizona: the Mrs. W. B. Thompson Archaeological Ex­pedition of the American Museum of Natural History, by John W. Hohmann and Linda B. Kelly. Bulletin No. 56. Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff (in press).

1958 Evidence at Point of Pines for a Prehistoric Migration from Northern Arizona. In Migrations in New World Culture Histo1y, edited by Raymond H. Thompson, pp. 1 -8. University of Arizona Social Sciences Bulletin No. 21, Tucson.

Judd,Nei!M. 1954 The Material Culture of Pueblo Bonito. Smithsonian Institution Miscellaneous

Collections 124. Smithsonian Institution, Washington. Kidder, Alfred V.

1932 The Artifacts of Pecos. Yale University Press, New Haven. McGregor, John C.

1943 Burial of an Early American Magician. Proceedings of the American Philosophi­cal Society 88:270-298.

Pavesic, Max G. 1985 Cache Blades and Turkey Tails: Piecing Together the Western Idaho Archaic Bur­

ial Complex. In Stone Tool Analysis: Essays In Honor of Don E. Crabtree, edited by M. Plew, James C. Woods, and Max G. Pavesic, pp. 55-90. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Rocek, Thomas R., and John D. Speth 1986 The Henderson Site Burials: Glimpses of a Late Prehistoric Population in the

Pecos Valley. Technical Reports No. 18. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Sharrock, Floyd W. 1966 Prehistoric Occupation Pattems in Southwest Wyoming and Cultural Relation­

ships with the Great Basin and Plains Culture Areas. Anthropological Papers No. 77. Department of Anthropology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

Whittaker, John C. 1984 Arrowheads and Artisans: Stone Tool Manufacture and Individual Variation at

Grasshopper Pueblo. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona. University Mi­crofilms, Ann Arbor.

334 WHITTAKER ET AL.

1986 A Preliminary Assessment ofBifaces from Grasshopper Pueblo, Arizona. Paper presented at the 4th Mogollon Conference, Tucson.

Whittlesey, StephanieM. 1982 Examination of Previous Work in the Q Ranch Region: Comparison and

Analysis. In Chol/a Project Archaeology, Vol. 3: The Q Ranch Region, edited by J. Jefferson Reid, pp. 123-150. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series No. 161. University of Arizona, Tucson.

Woodbury, Richard B. 1954 Prehistoric Stone Implements of Northeastern Arizona. Papers of the Peabody

Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 34. Harvard University, Cambridge.

7 Nov. 1988

Dear John:

Enclosed you will find 20 reprints of the biface article. The cost is $12.80. Everything looks to have come out OK. I have sent reprints to the following list of people. I figured you knew these people too, but there are a bunch of people in the acknowledgments that you know better than I, and I will let you take care of them as you see fit. I purposely did not send McKusick one. I am avoiding her until I can make more headway on the report on Room 111 at Gila Pueblo. So, if you could send her one, that would be good.

Bruce Bradley Tim Baugh David Snow Waldo Wedel Lex Lindsay Kate Spielman Mike Jacobs Gwinn Vivian Marty Tagg, Apache-Sitgreaves Nat. Forest Tom Lincoln, Bureau of Rec. Archaeologist David Hurst Thomas, American Museum of Nat. Hist. Ray Palmer, BIA Forestry in Whiteriver John Hohmann

That's all I can think of at the moment. Thanks again for having me as a co-author. Who knows, maybe we'll hear about more of these things as a result of the article getting around. We'll See

· (' '\ ' ,.//I. {j(~ • · / J 1<,: ;rv,i, 0 , 1' -. .- • ( ·7 · '/ 1Tti. v/ -:JA (''!- r r I i~f j.'Jt7 C<

r• lfi1 Ao< J(• ,; V"

-