COSTLY SIGNALING AMONG GREAT HOUSES ON THE CHACO PERIPHERY

By

KRISTIN NAREE SAFI

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY Department of Anthropology

MAY 2015

© Copyright by KRISTIN NAREE SAFI, 2015 All Rights Reserved

© Copyright by KRISTIN NAREE SAFI, 2015 All Rights Reserved

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This project relied on the support and encouragement of a number of individuals. Dr. Andrew

Duff allowed me to join his project and test out my ideas at an interesting site. I am grateful for

the opportunity and his support tackling a big project. I am also thankful that he granted me the

freedom to run a large field project for multiple years, the best office in College Hall, the

opportunity to excavate with someone as incredibly skilled as he is, and for his impressive

memory of every article on the Southwest ever published. I have enjoyed working with him these

many years. Many thanks to Dr. Tim Kohler and Dr. Luke Premo for pushing me to do my best

work, to be theoretically informed in conducting this research, and for providing their lessons in

the form of puns or amazing, on-the-fly analogies. This dissertation and my knowledge of

evolutionary archaeology are markedly improved after their time and effort. More thanks to Tim

for letting me rent the house next door and pilfer spinach from his garden. Thanks as well to Dr.

Carl Lipo for his support and encouragement despite no longer being in charge of my education,

and for bluntly telling me when I have said something incredibly stupid or touchy-feely. Finally,

thanks to Dr. Bill Lipe for our many conversations and for regaling me with tall tales of early

archaeology in the Southwest. Bill is an incredible man and I have enjoyed our friendship.

My time completing this research was financially supported by the Department of

Anthropology and through a National Science Foundation IGERT Program in Evolutionary

Modeling (IPEM) fellowship. This research was financially supported by the National Science

Foundation through a Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grant (#1340542) and a

research grant from the Arizona Archaeological and Historical Society. Ceramic compositional

analysis was supported by a National Science Foundation Grant (#1110793) through the

iv

University of Missouri Research Reactor. Research at Largo Gap was also supported by a Spatial

Archaeometry Research Collaborations Award (SPARC). The SPARC program is based at the

Center for Advanced Spatial Technologies at the University of Arkansas and is generously

funded through a National Science Foundation Grant (#1321443). Andrew’s research in the Cox

Ranch Pueblo, Cerro Pomo, and Largo Gap communities has been supported by grants from the

New Mexico Bureau of Land Management, the National Geographic Society (#7427-03, #7822-

05, and #9323-13), and the National Science Foundation (BCS-0514595). Many thanks to

Andrew, Matt Peeples, Deb Huntley, and Greg Schachner for the use of their compositional data,

and huge thanks to Will Gilstrap, Matt Peeples, and Mike Glascock for instructions on how to

work the new and improved Gauss. Many thanks to Katie Simon, Adam Wiewel, and Rachel

Optiz at the Center for Spatial Technologies for their time planning and conducting the remote

sensing field work as well as for their time, efforts, and enthusiasm in processing the complex

data sets and improving aerial thermography methods.

Several individuals helped with data collection and analysis. I appreciate all of the

individuals who helped out in the field over the years, but especially Carly Kendall, Jesse Clark,

Patrick Dolan, Kyle Bocinsky, and Tyler Retherford for their boundless enthusiasm, good

attitudes, strong work ethics, and wonderful senses of humor. We not only had productive field

seasons, but lots of fun, chips and salsa, and green chile along the way. Thanks, guys. Many

thanks as well to Merrhea Teixeira, Kay Nelson, Austin Knight, and Taelor Shepard for

volunteering their assistance in lab analyses, and to my niece Desma for “helping” in the field.

A dissertation is a long, often vexing process. My colleagues at WSU made many parts of

it fun. To Patrick Dolan, Justin Williams, Charlie Reed, Kyle Bocinsky, and Tyler Retherford

especially: couldn’t have asked for better friends or colleagues. Thanks for being exceptional

v

people who positively influenced my life. Many thanks to Courtney Helfrecht for always editing

my articles and grant applications. To the rest of my friends at WSU (and UW), but especially

Fer Villanea, Phil Fisher, Natalie Clark, and Stefani Crabtree: thanks for the friendship, laughs,

and grad student office hours. Additionally, there is no one like your original cohort or your

childhood friends, and despite not seeing them nearly as often as I would like, Will Gilstrap, Ian

Scharlotta, Aline Lo, and Mattie Kaiser kept my reality in check as we all tackled our respective

doctorates (or music career).

My family has been endlessly supportive as I work on my “big paper.” Much love to

Michelle, Gale, Shirley, Shauna, Doris, Duane, Desma, Jimya, Jade, Conner, Don, Cindy, Rick,

Layne, Lacey, Tagen, and Jim. Only family would let you ignore them entirely during a rare, two

week holiday visit as you locked yourself in the basement to cram for your preliminary exams.

vi

COSTLY SIGNALING AMONG GREAT HOUSES ON THE CHACO PERIPHERY

Abstract

by Kristin Naree Safi, Ph.D. Washington State University

May 2015

Chair: Andrew I. Duff

Despite decades of Chaco-style great house research, the impetus for their construction

and the extent to which their communities directly interacted across the northern Southwest

remain poorly understood. A key question is whether great houses represent an articulated

system centered at Chaco Canyon or whether they are a regional conceptualization of communal

activities enacted on a local scale. The amount of documented great house variability suggests

that local social and environmental contexts played an important role in the construction and use

of these structures.

I present a case study of three late Pueblo II (A.D. 1050-1130) communities in the

southern Cibola sub-region, located on the southern extent of the Pueblo culture area, to evaluate

the role of great houses within their local and broader social contexts. I argue great houses in this

area were constructed as costly signaling displays directed by local leaders to gain community

prestige and access to non-local resources. I draw on survey, architectural, ceramic, faunal, and

compositional data from each community to identify links between these great houses and others

across the northern Southwest, examine the nature of great house use within the context of each

associated community, and evaluate patterns of interaction with local and more distant

vii

communities. I then expand this analysis to evaluate evidence for costly signaling activities

between great house communities from across the Chacoan sphere.

The results suggest that southern Cibola great houses were locally constructed using

elements from the traditional Chaco architectural canon, and utilized remodeling events to

increase their architectural link to Chaco Canyon. These great houses hosted community-

integrating activities that incorporated ceramics from both the Pueblo and Mogollon ancestral

traditions, possibly in an effort to socially integrate a multi-ethnic population. No evidence was

identified to support the historically dominant model that southern Cibola great houses were built

and controlled by Chaco Canyon populations. Based on this analysis, a costly signaling model

better accounts for the construction of southern Cibola great houses than others posed for a

Chaco regional system. This inference is supported at other great houses across the Chaco

sphere, given the available macro-regional great house data.

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.........................................................................................................iii

ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................................vi

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................xi

LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................xiii

CHAPTER

1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................1

The Southern Cibola Sub-Region of West-Central New Mexico........................5

Community Terminology.....................................................................................8

Organization of Argument ...................................................................................11

Summary ..............................................................................................................14

2. CHACO CANYON AND CHACO-STYLE GREAT HOUSES ................................16

Chaco Canyon and the Puebloan Southwest........................................................17

Understanding Chaco as a Macro-Regional System............................................25

Chaco-Style Great Houses and a History of “Outlier” Research.........................27

The Southern Cibola Sub-Region ........................................................................30

Cultural Setting, A.D. 900-1150 ..........................................................................32

Previous Southern Cibola Research.....................................................................36

3. COSTLY SIGNALING AND CREDIBILITY-ENHANCING DISPLAYS ..............40

Costly Signaling Theory ......................................................................................42

ix

Costly Signaling through Great House Investment in Southern Cibola ..............56

Alternative Models for a Chacoan Regional System ..........................................60

Evaluating Models for Great House Construction and Use.................................65

4. THE LARGO GAP GREAT HOUSE .........................................................................82

Characterizing the “Chaco-ness” of the Largo Gap Great House .......................84

Evidence for Feasting, Ritual, and Specialized or Exotic Items..........................119

Summary of Largo Gap’s Architecture and Use Characteristics.........................127

5. LARGO GAP AND ITS SUPPORT COMMUNITY .................................................130

Settlement Patterning of the Largo Gap Community ..........................................130

Pottery Production and Use .................................................................................144

Largo Gap’s Role within its Support Community ...............................................153

6. EXAMINING SOUTHERN CIBOLA GREAT HOUSE COMMUNITIES ..............156

Spatial Patterning and Community Settlement Through Time............................157

Community Population Estimates........................................................................160

Ceramic Use and Temporal Communities...........................................................164

Costly Signaling Using Chaco-style Architecture ...............................................169

The Use of Southern Cibola Great Houses ..........................................................179

Long Distance Trade and Resource Procurement................................................193

Southern Cibola Great House Communities........................................................228

7. GREAT HOUSE COMMUNITIES AND A CHACOAN REGIONAL SYSTEM ....240

Evaluating Chaco-era Great Houses ....................................................................241

Evaluating Measures of Macro-Regional Articulation ........................................261

Macro-Regional Patterns of Great House Construction and Use ........................270

x

8. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS ......................................................272

Great House Construction and Use Across Scales ..............................................273

Revising and Rejecting Models for a Chacoan Regional System........................278

Considerations for Moving Forward in Chaco-Based Research..........................285

REFERENCES CITED ...............................................................................................................288

APPENDIX

A. Southern Cibola Ceramic Frequencies by Type ........................................................322

B. Ceramic Technological Style Analysis .....................................................................332

C. INAA Compositional Analysis ..................................................................................363

D. Comparative Pueblo Chaco-Style Great House Data ................................................438

xi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1. Costly Signaling Dynamics Among Signalers and Viewers .....................................50

Table 3.2. Comparison of Chaco Model Data Expectations for Southern Cibola Great

Houses........................................................................................................................61

Table 4.1. Chaco-era Attributes Identified at the Largo Gap Great House ................................87

Table 4.2. Summary of the Largo Gap Great House Excavations by Unit.................................100

Table 5.1. Pre-contact Sites Identified Around the Largo Gap Great House .............................135

Table 5.2. Chronology of Cibola White Wares and White Mountain Red Wares......................140

Table 5.3. Independent t-test of Ceramic Stylistic Manufacturing Attributes............................148

Table 6.1. Pre-contact Site Types by Great House Community .................................................160

Table 6.2. Momentary Population Estimates Per Great House Community ..............................162

Table 6.3. Chacoan Architectural Characteristics by Great House ............................................176

Table 6.4. Aggregated Ceramic Frequencies By Community ....................................................182

Table 6.5. Independent t-test Results of Technological Style Characteristics of Brown

and Gray Jars Across All Three Great House Communities .....................................191

Table 6.6. INAA Samples from Cox Ranch Pueblo and Cerro Pomo Communities .................197

Table 6.7. Ceramic Samples Submitted to MURR from the Largo Gap Great House,

Largo Gap Community, and H-Spear Great House ...................................................198

Table 6.8. Steps in Sample Assignment to Production Groups ..................................................199

Table 6.9. Group Assignments Using Log-10 Transformed Elemental Data, Principal

Component Scores, and Discriminant Functions.......................................................206

Table 6.10. Core Group Membership by Community ................................................................212

Table 6.11. Trade Indicated by Sherd Core Membership by Great House Community.............218

xii

Table 6.12. Trade Suggested by Non-Core Group Members .....................................................221

Table 6.13. Identified Obsidian Source by Great House Community Using XRF.....................226

Table 6.14. Summary of Characteristics by Great House Community.......................................229

Table 6.15. Evaluation of Chaco Models Using Southern Cibola Great House Community

Data ............................................................................................................................230

Table 7.1. Available Macro-Regional Great House Data by Spatial Scale of Analysis .............242

Table 7.2. Available Macro-Regional Great House Construction and Remodeling Data ..........244

Table 7.3. Evidence for Feasts and Ritual Fauna Use ................................................................253

Table 7.4. Frequency of Gallup Black-on-white Sherds in Southern Cibola Great House

Communities ..............................................................................................................270

xiii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1. Distribution of sites identified as Chaco-style great houses on the Chaco

Research Archive Outlier Database ......................................................................3

Figure 1.2. Pueblo II great houses within the southern Cibola sub-region along the Largo-

Carrizo drainage, shown on a 1 m National Elevation Dataset available

from the USGS The National Map server .............................................................4

Figure 1.3. Sub-regions referred to in this study ........................................................................6

Figure 2.1. Main great houses, great kiva, and Basketmaker III sites within the “Downtown”

of Chaco Wash ......................................................................................................19

Figure 2.2. View of the Largo Gap great house from the base of the knoll, view to the

south-southwest .....................................................................................................39

Figure 3.1. Testing the logical consistency of costly signaling between great house leaders

by comparing the number of rooms in a great house to the number of identified

exchange partners .................................................................................................51

Figure 4.1. Position of the Largo Gap great house on a small knoll in Largo-Carrizo Wash ....88

Figure 4.2. Plan view map of the Largo Gap great house based on surface wall alignments ....94

Figure 4.3. Aerial thermography map of the Largo Gap great house .........................................95

Figure 4.4. Topographically corrected GPR time slice across the Largo Gap great house ........96

Figure 4.5. Potential blocked-in kiva identified in the aerial thermography within the

bounded plaza........................................................................................................97

Figure 4.6. Location of excavation units within the Largo Gap great house and its

associated midden..................................................................................................99

Figure 4.7. East-facing wall of Unit 7.........................................................................................104

xiv

Figure 4.8. Type II masonry across the great house ...................................................................106

Figure 4.9. Episodes of great house remodeling.........................................................................109

Figure 4.10. Episodes of wall remodeling in Unit 9 ...................................................................111

Figure 4.11. Bounding walls of the kiva with exposed low benches..........................................113

Figure 4.12. Kiva floor exposed in Unit 1.2 ...............................................................................116

Figure 4.13. Roof beams identified at approximately 45 cm below modern ground surface.....117

Figure 4.14. Frequency of ceramic wares across excavation units at the great house................122

Figure 4.15. Examples of worked Glycymeris shell fragments found at the great house...........126

Figure 4.16. Pieces of worked basalt identified within the blocked-in kiva...............................126

Figure 4.17. Ladle recovered within kiva with possible snake-style pattern on handle .............127

Figure 5.1. Survey around the Largo Gap great house conducted from 2010-2014 on

publicly accessible lands .......................................................................................131

Figure 5.2. Distribution of pre-contact sites around Largo Gap by site type..............................133

Figure 5.3. Distribution of roomblocks distinguished by their surface-identified room

count ......................................................................................................................134

Figure 5.4. Correspondence analysis of Cibola white wares and White Mountain red wares from

across the Largo Gap community, aggregated by design style .............................141

Figure 5.5. Correspondence analysis of Cibola white wares and White Mountain red wares

across the Largo Gap community..........................................................................142

Figure 5.6. Methods of attribute tabulation for technological style analysis..............................147

Figure 5.7. (a) Distribution of coil counts across brown jars and gray jars. (b) Distribution

of indentation counts across brown jars and gray jars...........................................149

Figure 5.8. Distribution of maximum thickness across brown jars and gray jars.......................150

xv

Figure 5.9. Correspondence analysis of decorated wares from the Largo Gap great house

and associated sites................................................................................................152

Figure 6.1. Survey boundaries around the Cox Ranch Pueblo, Cerro Pomo, and Largo

Gap great houses, 2002-2014 ................................................................................158

Figure 6.2. Distribution of pre-contact sites by type across each community............................159

Figure 6.3. Distribution of roomblocks by size class across each community ...........................161

Figure 6.4. Correspondence analysis of painted wares aggregated by design style using

ceramic assemblages with 20 or more total sherds from all three

communities ..........................................................................................................166

Figure 6.5. Correspondence analysis of Cibola white wares and White Mountain red

wares at sites with 20+ decorated assemblages.....................................................167

Figure 6.6. Adjusted spatial limits of correspondence analysis plot to illustrate spread of

types by community ..............................................................................................168

Figure 6.7. (a) The Cox Ranch Pueblo (LA 13681) site showing location of great house

and midden relative to associated roomblocks. (b) Structural outline of the

great house.............................................................................................................171

Figure 6.8. Structural outline of the Cerro Pomo great house and associated features ..............174

Figure 6.9. Proportions of brown jars, gray jars, smudged brown bowls, and red bowls/

jars at each great house..........................................................................................182

Figure 6.10. Distribution of gray and brown jars by z-score ......................................................187

Figure 6.11. Distribution of red, smudged brown, and white bowls by z-score.........................188

Figure 6.12. Correspondence analysis of all wares across sites with 20 or more total

sherds.....................................................................................................................189

xvi

Figure 6.13. Adjusted spatial limits of correspondence analysis plot to illustrate spread of

types by community ..............................................................................................190

Figure 6.14. Box plot of (a) coil, (b) indentation, and (c) thickness measurements on brown

and gray jars from across all three communities ...................................................192

Figure 6.15. Location of the H-Spear great house relative to other PII great houses.................197

Figure 6.16. Locations of compositional core groups discussed in this study............................201

Figure 6.17. Plot of all compositionally tested sherds from all southern Cibola

communities by principal components 1 and 2 .....................................................208

Figure 6.18. Plot of all white, gray, and red compositionally tested sherds from all

southern Cibola communities by principal components 1 and 2...........................209

Figure 6.19. Element plot (log-10 transformed) of southern Cibola core groups.......................210

Figure 6.20. Principal components plot of southern Cibola core groups and three non-local

groups, Plateau, South, and ULC4, illustrating the compositional similarity

between them.........................................................................................................211

Figure 6.21. Non-core members of SCib1 and SCib2 ................................................................213

Figure 6.22. Element plot (log-10 transformed) of southern Cibola clays plotted against the

two southern Cibola core groups...........................................................................214

Figure 6.23. Probable core members of non-local core groups ..................................................217

Figure 6.24. Element plot (log-10 transformed) illustrating the distribution of sherds from H-

Spear across local and non-local core groups .......................................................222

Figure 6.25. Location of obsidian sources identified by XRF at southern Cibola sites .............225

Figure 7.1. Sample of great houses with available construction and remodeling information...243

Figure 7.2. Great houses within the Middle San Juan sub-region ..............................................247

xvii

Figure 7.3. Great houses with analyzed faunal assemblages ......................................................252

Figure 7.4. Great houses with some evidence for non-local resource procurement or

ceramic exchange.......................................................................................................258

1

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Archaeologically, the North American Southwest is best known for its well-preserved material

culture and the thousands of architectural remains scattered across the Four Corners. The

monumental architecture in Chaco Canyon of northwestern New Mexico represents some of the

most compelling archaeological evidence for social complexity within pre-contact communities

of the Southwest. The “Great Houses” of Chaco Canyon and the 200+ scaled-down versions

scattered across the northern Southwest represent a shared sphere of social interaction that

expanded to an unprecedented scale in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. The widespread

adoption of Chaco-inspired great house architecture, the community-integrating activities

presumed to occur at these structures, and the scale of imported exotic items into Chaco Canyon

have led many to suggest these remains represent a regional system that had Chaco at its center.

These hypothesized systems take various names, including “Chaco sphere,” “Chaco

phenomenon,” and “Chacoan regional system.”

Although the 200+ Chaco-style great houses typically contain a suite of architectural

features that replicate Chaco Canyon great houses, variation and architectural redundancy in the

number of these scaled-down great houses exist across the visible extent of the Chaco sphere

(Kantner 1996; Meyer 1999; Van Dyke 2002). While we can measure variation in “key”

components of great house architecture, archaeologists have done little to investigate the source

of variation within and between great house communities. The source of variation in great house

form, and possibly in function, has important implications for understanding the nature of a

Chacoan system and the broader articulation between these structures through time. As Van

Dyke notes:

2

Some outlier communities might have been in direct and frequent contact with Chaco Canyon, and others may have interacted with Chaco rarely if at all (Doyel et al. 1984:48-52). It is unlikely that all outliers had the same kind of relationship with Chaco Canyon, and it is not necessarily the case that all great kivas and great houses were built and used for the same purposes [2002:233-235].

If “outlying” great houses had variable relationships with Chaco Canyon populations, or

conducted a range of activities not consistently replicated across all known great houses, then our

understanding of peer-to-peer great house interactions and periphery-to-core interactions with

Chaco may be inappropriately subsumed under the umbrella of an over-arching regional system.

Over a century of research has been designed to understand what and/or who prompted

the construction of the great houses in Chaco Canyon; much less research has been directed at

understanding why replicas are found throughout the northern Southwest and even less has

explored the articulation between Chaco-style great houses and their local, sustaining

communities. Accurately characterizing how a great house functioned within its associated

community is important for identifying the local economic, social, political, and/or ritual role a

great house may have served. Understanding its local role can lead to more precise explanations

for the material patterning seen in these structures across space. By generating a better

understanding of the dynamics between a great house and the households that use it, we stand to

better explain the great house phenomenon and the type of impact Chaco Canyon had on

contemporaneous Southwest peoples. The research presented here directly addresses the

relationship dynamics between great houses and their local communities by focusing on great

houses at the margins of the Chaco sphere in the southern-most portion of the Cibola sub-region

of west-central New Mexico (Figure 1.1).

3

Figure 1.1. Distribution of sites identified as Chaco-style great houses on the Chaco Research Archive Outlier Database. Location of the southern Cibola sub-region is at the southern extent of the “Chaco sphere.” The Largo Gap great house is denoted by a star.

As many as nine Chaco-style great houses have been identified within the southern

Cibola sub-region, seven of which appear to date to the late Pueblo II (PII) period (A.D. 1050-

1130; Figure 1.2). These great houses appear to differ in their architectural layout, placement on

the landscape, and seemingly in their spatial association with surrounding households thought to

form their support community (Fowler et al. 1987; Vivian 2005). While not unique to this area,

the number of contemporaneous Chaco-style great houses in such close vicinity is intriguing,

particularly because southern Cibola is generally considered to be the southern margin of

4

Figure 1.2. Pueblo II great houses within the southern Cibola sub-region along the Largo-Carrizo drainage, shown on a 1 m National Elevation Dataset available from the USGS The National Map server.

Chaco’s sphere of influence. Did the function of these great houses differ within a larger

hierarchy, making each one of them necessary to perform a specialized role? Did each represent

a unique community that could not or chose not to be integrated into a larger aggregated group?

Does the number of great houses and the large amount of variation suggested from their surface

remains indicate that their function differed from those more spatially/socially integrated with

Chaco (e.g., Van Dyke 2002), or that these structures represent the local imitation of a broader

cultural phenomenon?

5

If all southern Cibola great houses were well integrated into a Chacoan system, what does

their variation signal about their respective roles within the local southern Cibola population, the

greater Cibola sub-region, and within an over-arching regional system? This dissertation

evaluates these scalar relationships as well as the nature of an integrated Chacoan system by

focusing on three spatially associated great house communities. Examining multiple great house

communities just under 200 km away from Chaco Canyon’s direct daily influence permits an in-

depth analysis of the multiple functions a great house may have served. A scalar examination of

multiple communities also better evaluates current interpretations for how regionally integrated

Chaco-style great houses, and their constituent communities, may have been. In the following

sections, I refer to the southern Cibola sub-region as the area south of the Zuni Plateau in the

broader Cibola sub-region (Figure 1.3.). Where comparative data are available, great houses are

referred to within their respective sub-region, all of which are noted in Figure 1.3. The “macro-

region” refers to the spatial extent of great houses distributed across the northern Southwest. This

scale is synonymous with the “Chaco sphere,” “Chaco world,” and the “Chaco regional system.”

THE SOUTHERN CIBOLA SUB-REGION OF WEST-CENTRAL NEW MEXICO

During the late A.D. 900s/early A.D. 1000s, population density in the southern Cibola sub-region

of west-central New Mexico rapidly increased, likely due in part to improved agricultural

conditions across the Colorado Plateau (Dean 1988; Huckleberry and Duff 2008). The influx of

migrants into the sparsely settled sub-region coincided with the appearance of multiple Chaco-

style great houses, both in this area and others across the northern Southwest (Fowler et al. 1987;

LeBlanc 1989; Lekson 1991; Lipe 2006; Vivian 2005). The southern Cibola sub-region sits at

6

Figure 1.3. Sub-regions referred to in this study.

the interface between the Mogollon and Pueblo culture areas. Ceramic assemblages from

southern Cibola sites include wares associated with both Mogollon and Puebloan culture groups

throughout all periods of occupation, primarily in the form of gray jars and brown bowls/jars

(Crown 1981; Danson 1957; Peeples 2011). If the rapidly built social environment caused by

these PII migrations was composed of households from both the north (Puebloan) and south

(Mogollon), then integrating members of these two historically distinct traditions into the

emerging social groups would have been important. It would have also been important to

organize access to ritual and economic resources as the number of individuals on the landscape

increased. I argue that these emerging social groups used great houses to serve this organizing

and integrating role.

7

This study evaluates the extent to which great houses were used to structure household

access to economic and ritual resources, integrate members of two distinct cultural identities

through communal events, and facilitate inter-community interactions. I draw on a costly

signaling model proposed by Kantner (1996, 1999) to evaluate the extent to which great house

use, community organization, and community-level interaction are consequences of localized

competition to attract community members, to organize local economic and ritual resource

access, and to build non-local interaction networks. It is unclear whether the role of great houses

was consistent across the proposed macro-regional system. Characterizing the construction and

use of multiple great houses within the context of their support communities will better define

broader trends in great house function, especially among contemporary great houses located in

close proximity (Kintigh 2003). My research directly evaluates the organization, use, and

resource exchange patterns of three late PII great house communities—Largo Gap, Cerro Pomo,

and Cox Ranch Pueblo—as a function of localized competition between leaders of each

community enacted through costly signaling displays. Such an explanation situates the

construction of great houses within a social context of relatively limited social differentiation

between members of each community and that emphasizes differences between communities.

This is distinct from an explanation that relies on the construction of great house as a function of

within-group social processes, such as construction instigated through strong social hierarchies to

visibly emphasize class distinctions.

The research objectives of this study are to: (1) characterize the construction sequence

and techniques, and chronology of use of the Largo Gap great house; (2) characterize the Largo

Gap support community and the role of the great house within this community; (3) compare the

architectural structure, settlement pattern, and use of the Largo Gap great house and its two

8

nearest neighbors, Cox Ranch Pueblo and Cerro Pomo, to understand the role of, and

relationships between, these structures and their communities; and (4) explore the articulation

between great houses in southern Cibola with contemporaneous great house communities across

the Chacoan macro-region. Meeting these objectives requires multiple data sets, including:

knowledge of construction techniques and Largo Gap’s sequence of construction; settlement

patterning of the Largo Gap community sites; the chronology of use for the great house and the

occupational history of its community; faunal use at both the great house and tested community

sites; stylistic and technological characteristics of ceramics from across the Largo Gap

community; and compositional data from ceramics and obsidian. These data will first be

compared with complementary, existing data sets from the Cox Ranch Pueblo and Cerro Pomo

great house communities, followed by a comparison with accessible great house data from across

the “Chaco World” (Kantner 2003a).

COMMUNITY TERMINOLOGY

It is necessary to define what “community” means because the term can have many social

interpretations. Community may indicate a spatially clustered distribution of similar architectural

features, the number of individuals necessary to maintain a reproductively viable social group,

all individuals that display similar cultural material, and so on. Chacoan communities in

particular are frequently discussed within a mixed array of implied spatial and social scales

(Kintigh 2003). In contrast, while perhaps variable in the size of the constituent groups, the study

of the “household” is a conceptually accessible unit of measure that allows small-scale economic,

social, and ecological relationships to be qualitatively and quantitatively defined (e.g., Flannery

9

1976; Wilk and Rathje 1982). The aggregation of household data into a larger "community"

dataset allows one to examine how these aspects of past human activity interact at a much larger

spatiotemporal scale. While using multiple community concepts permits a variety of spatial and

social interactions to be examined, each type or scale must be defined to avoid behavioral

implications caused by the use of the term “community” alone.

First, I draw on previous research (Duff and Nauman 2010; Elkins 2007; Nauman 2007)

and refer to the settlements of southern Cibola broadly as “multi-ethnic.” Archaeological issues

of ethnic identity are loaded because one’s personal identification may be different than our

interpretation of cultural identity based on material culture. The term is used here to refer to the

presence and abundance of both Mogollon and Pueblo material culture across the sub-region.

Wichlacz (2009) argued against ethnic co-residence in southern Cibola, and suggested instead

that the mixed assemblages were the result of extensive and intensive exchange. I acknowledge

the implied social baggage connoted by the use of “multi-ethnic,” but choose to explore the

archaeological concept of ethnic co-residence through lines of material culture patterning

between households indicative of kinship ties and ancestral history, of learning frameworks and

community-integrating activities, and through networks of long-distance exchange to potential

migrant homelands. I also evaluate the appropriateness of the “multi-ethnic community” concept

through a study of the “behavioral community.”

The behavioral community is defined as households that live close enough to one another

to engage in regular, face-to-face interaction (Varien 1999, 2002; see also Murdock 1949). This

definition relies heavily on a spatial notion of community and is visible through spatial clustering

of functionally redundant architectural features and artifacts (Varien 1999:3). This scale of

community will hereafter be referred to as the great house community or the spatial community.

10

It is characterized by the spatial clustering of household sites around public architecture (Adler

and Wilshusen 1990) and is spatially distinct from other local communities.

The spatial proximity required between multiple households to result in regular, face-to-

face interaction also results in an overlapping use of local resources, necessitating some degree

of cooperation among community members. Land use rights, access to ritual resources, and

access to water are all examples of tasks that impact a group that are organized at the level above

the household. This research is not an in-depth investigation of inter-personal differences in local

power between each group member, although I do identify material distinctions between

households where the resolution of data allows. Instead, this study investigates the consequences

of the collective behavior of individuals within a community, such as the aggregate labor of

building and maintaining a great house under the direction of an authoritative leader.

While spatial clustering of architectural features and artifacts is an attractive means to

define a community, one also must consider the social consequences of living within a particular

area. A community is only viable so long as it is biologically reproducible. A second measure of

community then is that of the reproductive community. Competition for resources necessitates

some degree of boundary-making strategies between local groups, which may become more

relaxed or rigid depending on the availability of local resources (Mills 2007). Limited access to

available marriage partners would either necessitate strong, long-distance ties to external

communities or a decrease in local boundary-making strategies to maintain a reproductively

viable population. Limited intra-community marriage partners would be one means by which

other communities could attract new followers. Following Mahoney (2000), I not only examine

the spatial characteristics of each great house community, but ask if these great house clusters

were capable of biologically reproducing themselves. I estimate momentary populations using

11

the total number of habitation rooms identified across each great house group in order to evaluate

the extent to which southern Cibola communities were demographically viable in isolation.

Finally, I explore southern Cibola’s participation in a broad ideational community: the

proposed Chaco regional system. Over 100 years of research has been dedicated to

understanding what Chaco Canyon meant to contemporaneous populations and how households

outside of the canyon participated in or were connected to that meaning. By labeling great houses

as Chaco-style, archaeologists have linked great house communities to the activities and ideals

present in, and possibly stemming from, PII Chaco Canyon populations. Yet, there are many

ways in which the Chaco system has been characterized, which underscores how little we

understand the impact that canyon populations had on the beliefs and practices of the rest of the

Southwest. I examine the participation of southern Cibola settlements in a broader Chacoan

ideational community by comparing the characteristics of these settlements to great house

communities from across the Four Corners. This scale of analysis relies on great house

communities that have been examined sufficiently to permit evaluation of models of the

proposed system. Examining community concepts across multiple scales enables a wider range

of social, political, economic, and ritual relationships within and between great house settlements

to be explored.

ORGANIZATION OF ARGUMENT

This dissertation examines the role of Chaco-era great houses within three spatially related

communities. Southern Cibola great houses are located within a transitional zone between the

Mogollon and Pueblo culture areas, and most sites contain abundant ceramics linked to both

12

ancestral traditions. Through a multi-scalar analysis, I explore the function that multiple great

houses could have served within the context of a multi-ethnic sub-region, and evaluate how these

roles may have corresponded to or differed from other Chaco-style great houses.

In Chapter Two, I briefly discuss the monumental architecture of Chaco Canyon and

identify archaeological characteristics frequently linked to participation in a Chaco-based

regional system. I then outline the history of archaeological research within Chaco Canyon and

the subsequent shift to great house-centered research as a means to understand the articulation

between Chaco and Chaco-like structures during the PII period. Chapter Two ends with a

contextualized discussion of the southern Cibola sub-region and the archaeology conducted on

PII great house communities there to date.

I define the theoretical framework I use to investigate the great houses of southern Cibola

in Chapter Three. Specifically, I outline a costly signaling model of great house construction and

use. I briefly detail the tenets of costly signaling theory before presenting case studies in which

this theory has been used to explain archaeological phenomena. I then identify three alternative

models for a Chaco regional system that I evaluate against a costly signaling model of great

house use. Finally, I present the hypotheses examined in this study and the data requirements

necessary to test them within the southern Cibola sub-region.

Chapters Four, Five, Six, and Seven present the results of the three scalar analyses.

Chapter Four explores the construction and use of the Largo Gap great house. This chapter

evaluates the extent to which the great house contains architectural characteristics suggesting its

makers possessed first-hand knowledge of Chacoan architectural conventions. I then identify

episodes of use and remodeling that would support costly signaling displays at Largo Gap, such

13

as through communal feasts and ritual activities. Chapter Five examines the role of the Largo

Gap great house within its local support community. This chapter presents Largo Gap’s

community settlement pattern, population estimates through time, ceramic use, and ceramic

production to examine great house use, the development of the community, and community

trends through time. Material culture differences between households and the great house clarify

the local function and use of the great house by its community through time. Through these

analyses, I also evaluate ethnic co-residence in the Largo Gap community by analyzing ceramic

production styles associated with each cultural tradition.

Chapter Six addresses evidence for costly signaling and community-level relationships at

Largo Gap, Cox Ranch Pueblo, and Cerro Pomo. This analysis includes an assessment of

community growth and occupation histories, the use and remodeling characteristics of each great

house as a costly signal of competitive ability, and evidence for external trade and long distance

resource procurement. This chapter evaluates the hypothesis that costly signals between great

houses display adherence to Chacoan architecture, hosted community-level integrating events,

and demonstrates the ability of each great house group to import external goods or resources.

This chapter concludes with a review of southern Cibola great house communities in light of the

data expectations outlined in Chapter 3 for a costly signaling model of great house construction

and use.

Chapter 7 examines broader trends in macro-regional great house construction and use,

and evaluates the extent to which the five identified models for a Chaco regional system account

for these patterns. Comparative community information is drawn from survey and limited

excavations or analyses from multiple PII great houses from across the northern Southwest. I

argue that, of these models, a Chacoan-directed outpost model is the least supported while a

14

costly signaling model better accounts for the contemporaneous construction and use of PII great

houses across the Four Corners given available data.

In the concluding chapter, I bring together the different scales of analysis and examine

how a costly signaling model of great house function within the southern Cibola sub-region

explains the local archaeological record of the PII period and how this study has contributed to a

better understanding of the “Chaco Phenomenon” (Lekson 2006). I highlight where models of

PII social organization are still lacking and what next steps can be taken, both theoretically and

methodologically, to improve our explanations for one of the most elaborate set of

archaeological remains in North America.

SUMMARY

The goals of this dissertation are to: 1) generate a better understanding of the role(s) great houses

served within their local communities; 2) explain why multiple contemporaneous great houses

are located in close proximity within the southern Cibola sub-region; 3) evaluate if the local role

of southern Cibola great houses is consistent with those of others from across the Chacoan

world; and 4) re-evaluate the models posed for a Chacoan regional system and determine if the

addition of community-level data from three great house communities can refine our conceptions

of how Chaco-style great house communities articulated with activities and ideals represented

within Chaco Canyon.

Social complexity, and the presence and structure of a Chaco regional system, are topics

that continue to be important to understanding the archaeological record of the American

Southwest. The Chaco sphere potentially represents a scale of social organization unprecedented

15

within the Southwest during the pre-contact period. Extensive study has been made of both the

architectural remains within Chaco Canyon and the scaled-down versions scattered across the

Four Corners. Yet the degree of integration and interaction between Chaco-style great houses

remains unclear, as does the nature of the organizing factor (e.g., coercive, economic, ideational)

of a proposed macro-regional system. I present an analysis of great houses within their support

communities as a means to better understand the underlying link between Chaco-style great

houses and the roles they may have played during the PII period.

16

CHAPTER 2: CHACO CANYON AND CHACO-STYLE GREAT HOUSES

The cultural remains within Chaco Canyon represent a pivotal point in the florescence of cultural

activities for Pueblo populations across much of the Southwest, beginning in the late A.D. 800s

and lasting through approximately A.D. 1130. Many scholars believe Chaco Canyon served as

the center of the Pueblo world during the eleventh and twelfth centuries, and it is home to some

of the largest and most intriguing pre-contact architectural monuments in North America. That

the cultural heritage of Chaco is recognized as important to Pueblo descendants, scholars of

various disciplines, and popular audiences alike is underlain by its status as both a National

Historic Park and a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

How could a potentially ecologically limited location support the high population density

witnessed during Chaco’s peak in the eleventh century? Why were the large, multistory

structures of varying architectural design built side-by-side within the canyon’s “downtown”?

How did residents of these massive structures co-exist with occupants of contemporaneous

“small sites” typical in scale to family-sized structures found throughout the Puebloan

Southwest? Why were hundreds of non-local items brought into the canyon? These questions

have all been the focus of previous research and many are as relevant today as they were during

early investigations. Understanding current explanations for Chaco’s origins is pertinent to

examining the impetus for the construction and use of similar, though smaller, architectural

features across the Southwest. Below, I provide a brief summary of the cultural remains within

Chaco Canyon, the history of canyon-based research, and the broader implications of a regional

system for studying contemporaneous communities across the Four Corners. I then provide the

environmental and social context for studying the multiple great houses of southern Cibola.

17

CHACO CANYON AND THE PUEBLOAN SOUTHWEST

While the communities of the eleventh and twelfth centuries are the most renowned for the San

Juan Basin, Chaco Canyon was periodically occupied by mobile hunter-gatherers as early as the

Archaic period, with evidence of settled populations by A.D. 500 (Vivian and Hilpert 2002). The

most notable early settlements are Shabik’eshchee and 29SJ423, two large, late Basketmaker III

(ca. A.D. 450-750) pit house villages located on the east and west ends, respectively, of Chaco

Canyon (Roberts 1929; Wills and Windes 1989; Wills et al. 2012). These two villages are

generally much larger than many other Basketmaker III pit house villages outside of the canyon,

although there is at least one nearby exception, Tohatchi Village, in the southern Chuska Valley

(Marshall et al. 1979:285-286).

Short-lived, small “hamlets” arose within the canyon in the 800s (Wilshusen and Van

Dyke 2006:224). These and later population incursions are argued to be the result of in-migration

from the northern San Juan Basin, suggesting a lack of affiliation between the residents of

Shabik’eshchee and 29SJ423 and those later villages (Sebastian 2006; Vivian 1990:398-399,

446-448). All across the San Juan Basin, however, antecedents of another feature associated with

Chaco’s height were making their appearance during Basketmaker III. Known as great kivas,

these formalized, subsurface circular structures began to manifest in Basketmaker III settlements,

including at Shabik’eshchee and 29SJ423 (Lekson et al. 2006). Shared symbols and rituals, such

as those enacted within great kivas, could have united local and in-migrating groups into the

early, integrated social communities within the canyon.

Despite what are interpreted as a few large, aggregated Basketmaker III settlements

(Lekson et al. 2006:70; but see Wills and Windes 1989; Wills et al. 2012), canyon populations

remained sparse during the majority of the succeeding Pueblo I (PI; A.D. 700-900) period until

18

the construction of the earliest large masonry constructions that led to the great houses for which

Chaco is best known. By the late A.D. 800s, three masonry structures dominated the confluences

of three washes with Chaco Wash: Penasco Blanco, Pueblo Bonito, and Una Vida (Figure 2.1).

These early structures were in prime locations with access to water runoff as well as to some of

the best agricultural land (Judge and Cordell 2006:194; Wilshusen and Van Dyke 2006:225).

Their location within the canyon is interpreted as a form of controlling water access for

agricultural activities (Dean 1992; Mills 2002). Not only were these settlements larger than other

contemporary structures within the canyon, even in their early phases, but they also began to

display Type I masonry, the first masonry style characteristic of Chacoan architecture (Lekson

1984; Lekson et al. 2006).

These structures display the beginnings of later social and economic patterns that

characterize Chaco at its height, including group-level activities and differential trade

relationships between major settlements and other areas of the San Juan Basin (Sebastian

2006:397). However, Lekson et al. (2006:74; see also Wilshusen and Van Dyke 2006) argue that

some PI sites in the northern San Juan contain large structures that are great house-like and that,

when communities north of the San Juan River were abandoned, their residents reformed this

style of settlement in various parts of the canyon. One implication of their argument is that the

early use of great house-like structures in the northern San Juan during PI indicates a social

pattern that is currently not well understood, but one that was then consolidated and wildly

elaborated into the monumental structures built in Chaco during the PII period. Chaco’s

elaboration on patterns that seem to also be present in the north may have been linked to a direct

population influx from the northern San Juan (Wilshusen and Ortman 1999; Wilshusen and

19

Figure 2.1. Main great houses, great kiva, and Basketmaker III sites within the “Downtown” of Chaco Wash.

20

Van Dyke 2006:222). Judge and Cordell (2006) argue that such a population influx may have

resulted in group-level investment in monumental architecture to unite disparate populations into

non-kin sodalities.

Construction of monumental architecture intensified during portions of the A.D. 900s and

1000s, with the addition of Chetro Ketl, Pueblo Alto, and Pueblo del Arroyo great houses, and

the expansion of Pueblo Bonito and Penasco Blanco. Further investment in large-scale

architecture may link with hypotheses of integrating disparate communities into newly formed

settlements. Cooperative ritual and economic activities that increased in scale with the rapid

increase in population density within Chaco could have been manifest in these elaborate

architectural complexes. A lull in construction between A.D. 960 and 1020 is interpreted by

some as a time when inhabitants invested more heavily in other landscape features, such as

canals and slick rock catchments (Judge and Cordell 2006:197). Other lulls in monumental

construction throughout the majority of Chaco Canyon’s occupation correspond to periods of

arroyo down cutting (Lekson 1984; Mills 2002; Vivian et al. 2006). Although scholars most

frequently identify 11 great houses within Chaco Canyon proper (e.g., Lekson 1984), others have

identified six additional structures within the full extent of the canyon that are larger than canyon

small sites and that contain elements of great house masonry (Lekson et al. 2006:78).

The main Chaco great houses do not replicate one another in form; each has a unique

architectural footprint. However, several similarities in form and construction exist, both within

and between great houses through time. These include the characteristic “D” shape best

expressed at Pueblo Bonito (but also visible in Chetro Ketl, Pueblo del Arroyo, and Pueblo Alto),

the dominant use of core-and-veneer construction, patterned or faced masonry walls, internal

circular rooms, and multiple room suites that appear to be used for storage rather than domestic

21

activities (Bernardini 1999; Lekson 1984; Lekson et al. 2006). Some argue the Chaco great

houses, particularly those of Downtown Chaco (see Figure 2.1), represent ceremonial houses of

distinct lineages or ethnic groups from across the Southwest, possibly as a function of in-

migration (Vivian 1990; Vivian and Mathews 1965:108-111).

Regardless of each building’s unique use or the ethnicity of its builder, the structures

within Downtown Chaco formed an architecturally integrated urban-style center. Canyon great

houses are linked by roads, contain formalized great kivas, mounds or artificial platforms,

enclosed plazas, and an extensive signaling system (Lekson 1984). The scale and labor

investment, not just of these architectural characteristics, but also in the amount of imported

material culture (Toll 2001, 2006), supports an inference of socially organized labor at a scale

not visible in any other pre-contact Puebloan settlements.

Chaco Canyon has been proposed as a center of large-scale, communal activities based

around solidified economic networks and ritual practices (Earle 2001; Judge and Malville 2004;

Mathien 2001; Powers et al. 1983; Renfrew 2001; Yoffee 2001). This hypothesis is due in part to

the abundance of items imported into Chaco from a wide range of distances. Imported materials

include the exotic (copper bells, macaws, many species of shell, turquoise, cacao) as well as the

mundane (ceramics, timbers, lithics) (Cameron 2001; Cameron and Toll 2001; Hull et al. 2014;

Mathien 2001; Nelson 2006). However, the origin of foreign (i.e., not local to the canyon)

materials shifts through time and differs based on location within the canyon, including an

increase in foreign materials during the eleventh century (Toll 2006). This indicates that either

different Chaco "great house groups" (to follow the in-migration/ethnic group hypothesis)

maintained distinct networks of alliances that shifted through time, or that alliances maintained

by canyon groups more broadly shifted across generations. The latter assumes a broader socially

22

organizing structure for canyon populations, while the former depends more generally on

localized group organization. A third alternative would suggest a dominant structure of localized

group organization subsumed under an overarching canyon-wide organizing leadership.

While any of the three scenarios could involve hierarchical relationships, none is

dependent on an entrenched leadership structure or institution. In particular, communal activities

of this scale would have needed some central organization, even if that position were not fixed to

a particular individual or group of individuals throughout the history of Chaco’s activities. Thus,

the extent to which leadership at Chaco was coercive versus influential remains debated (e.g.,

Lekson 2006; Sebastian 1992; Wills 2000), although most scholars conclude that some

organizing leadership must have been present to direct construction and events of this magnitude

(e.g., Cameron and Toll 2001). Minimally two individuals buried with lavish goods in an old

section of Pueblo Bonito provide the most direct support for leaders broadly, not only in Chaco

Canyon, but also potentially of an entrenched leadership position associated with ritual activity

of successive generations (Judge and Cordell 2006; Lekson 2006; Neitzel 1992; Plog and

Heitman 2010). The extent to which a similar leadership role was present at external great houses

is debatable, and depends largely on the model of the Chaco regional system to which one

subscribes.

Although some canyon and non-canyon great houses had early components that were

constructed during the A.D. 900s (Wilshusen and Van Dyke 2006), the bulk of the external great

houses were built during the mid-to-late A.D. 1000s (Mills 2002). According to Sebastian

(2006), many early great houses south of the canyon were constructed within existing small

communities. Following a larger wave in Chaco great house construction around the mid-

eleventh century, external great houses began taking on many of the architectural characteristics

23

listed above, which are considered today to be hallmarks of Chacoan architecture (Lekson et al.

2006:94). Variation in the replication of these features, as well as those emulating Chaco’s

patterns of imported goods and possibly patterns of group-scale communal activities, seem to

broadly group great houses across space, with those closest to Chaco appearing to have stronger

ties to canyon activities (Doyel et al. 1984; Van Dyke 2002, 2003).

Construction within the canyon began to decline near the end of the eleventh century with

a burst of construction activity around A.D. 1100 that took on a new form known as McElmo-

style architecture. This lasted until approximately the A.D. 1130s, when construction largely

ceased (Lekson et al. 2006:99-102; Van Dyke 2004). Van Dyke (2004) argues that these

McElmo-style constructions were an effort by Chaco leaders to restore public confidence in

Chaco as a macro-regional center after both social and environmental challenges led to

population shifts to more permanent water sources, and potentially, to the rise of a new

cosmology. She argues that Chaco leaders instigated a new building agenda that reflected links

to past ideology but in a new form, and that ultimately, these efforts failed, perhaps within a

generation.

Population estimates suggest Chaco Canyon was largely depopulated during the late

twelfth century with reoccupation by a small group during the thirteenth century (Cameron and

Toll 2001). The shift of construction and large-scale depopulation of the canyon is linked to a

severe, 50-year drought from A.D. 1130-1180 (Dean 1992; Vivian et al. 2006:63). Canyon

activities appear to have moved north to Aztec (Lekson 1999). The move north may have

coincided with a shifting ideology away from whatever the “Chaco sphere” represents, perhaps,

as Van Dyke (2004) suggests, as a consequence of a perceived failure of the ideology centered

within the canyon. These changes are largely indicated by the limited construction of post-Chaco

24

great houses, a lack of evidence for large-scale events at Chaco, and a decrease in exchange

relationships between great house communities (Sebastian 2006:401-402).

The populations within Chaco Canyon seem to have had incredible cultural influence

across the northern Southwest during the PII period that is not replicated after activities shifted to

the north. Chaco’s influence is noted in the abundance of exotic materials imported into the

canyon, the similarity of Chaco-style structures built across the Four Corners, and in the oral

histories of modern descendent groups referencing the power held by Chaco populations (Lekson

1999, 2006). Problematically, scholars’ understandings of the relationship(s) between the Chaco

Core and archaeological phenomena outside of the canyon vary widely. Similarly, scholars

disagree on the data proposed to characterize these relationships and even the base definitions

applied to understanding what is “Chacoan” archaeology and what is not (Kantner and Kintigh

2006; Kintigh 2003). At the root of all investigations is the attempt to understand whether

settlements containing Chaco-style architecture represent coercive influence exerted by canyon-

centered communities, participation in a region-wide economic/political/social/ritual system, or

shared cultural ideals expressed at a scale larger than typical Southwestern culture area

boundaries, one that is not repeated in any subsequent time period.

It is within these attempts to understand what role(s) or degree of influence Chaco

Canyon communities held across the broader Southwest and beyond that the concept of a macro-

regionally articulated system emerged. Below, I highlight key research programs within Chaco

Canyon’s history of scholarship that have molded the current understandings of “Chacoan”

archaeology and the proposed underlying relationships that unite archaeological remains within

and beyond the canyon. I conclude with a discussion of the Chaco-era remains in southern

Cibola sub-region, the setting in which questions about Chaco are addressed in this study.

25

UNDERSTANDING CHACO AS A MACRO-REGIONAL SYSTEM

Considerable research has been aimed at explaining the monumental architecture of Chaco

Canyon and their relationship to the many communities across the Four Corners apparently

influenced by canyon populations. Early research focused on exploring and describing the Chaco

great houses and the “small sites” distributed throughout the canyon itself (Lekson 2006; see

Judge [1991], Lister and Lister [1981] for a review of canyon-centered research). Early Chaco-

centered projects identified the beginning of the primary “Chacoan” occupations as in the mid-

to-late A.D. 800s, which extended until the mid-1100s (Windes and Ford 1996). The peak of the

canyon’s activity, however, occurred during the eleventh and twelfth centuries.

Projects outside of Chaco Canyon had also noted similarities in the structure and

chronology of use between external sites and the canyon’s monumental structures (e.g., Aztec

[Morris 1918, 1928], Salmon Ruin [Irwin-Williams 1972; Reed 2002, 2006], Lowry [Martin

1936], Village of the Great Kivas [Roberts 1932]). However, the identification of similarities

between Chaco and non-canyon communities did not at this point result in any model for what

social processes were responsible for these similarities. It was not until the focus of research

shifted in the 1970s that the study of Chaco and Chaco-like structures became more macro-

regionally inclusive. This began with the National Park Services’ Chaco Project conducted in the

1970s and ‘80s (Lekson 2006). Among many other insights, the Chaco Project identified

Chacoan roads and their articulation with sites beyond Chaco that contained similar architectural

patterns. The identification of connecting roads led to research evaluating the degree to which

contemporaneous sites in the macro-region displayed architectural characteristics similar to

Chaco’s central monuments (Marshall et al. 1979; Powers et al. 1983).

Similar characteristics between these sites, and the recognition of numerous others

26

throughout the San Juan Basin, prompted the eventual identification of over 200 sites with

“Chacoan” characteristics across the Four Corners. It was out of the architectural links between

Chaco and other large non-canyon sites that researchers first conceived of a regional system, the

nature of which was uncertain, but all of which identified Chaco Canyon as the organizational

center.

Vivian (1970, 1990) and Grebinger (1973) articulated the first models of a regional

system. Both posed social models rooted in economic surplus but differed in their implications

for social organization. Vivian (1990) argued that competing ethnic groups with different forms

of social organization constructed the monumental houses and small sites within Chaco Canyon.

Vivian argued that Chaco great house builders were organized corporate groups who utilized

surplus production to invest in monumental architecture and expand beyond the canyon.

Conversely, Grebinger (1973) argued differential agricultural productivity allowed some to

capitalize on consistent surpluses and to accumulate social status through redistribution.

The regional nature of the system was first fully explicated by Altschul (1978), who

framed the relationships between great houses and canyon communities as an “interaction

sphere.” Since then, models of regional organization have been posed and repositioned multiple

times as old data are reinterpreted and new data accumulate. Explanations for the basis of the

regional system range widely and include the “Chaco Halo” (individuals within a 5 km zone of

the canyon who participated in canyon activities) (Doyel et al. 1984), an empty distribution

center (Judge 1989), a redistribution center (Earle 2001; Lekson et al. 1988; Powers et al. 1983),

a coercive center with colonizing outposts (Wilcox 1996), and an egalitarian cosmological or

pilgrimage center (Kantner and Vaughn 2012; Mills 2002; Renfrew 2001).

The hierarchical nature of Chaco and the evidence for elites has also been debated (Akins

27

1984; Judge and Cordell 2006; Lekson 2006; Neitzel 1995; Plog and Heitman 2010; Sebastian

1992). The volume of research on the interactions between the canyon communities and those

with great house-style structures scattered across the Puebloan culture area suggests two things:

first, consensus between proposed models remains elusive (e.g., Lekson 2006; Mills 2002;

Sebastian 2004; Vivian 1996; Wilcox 1993); and second, understanding the role Chaco Canyon

played in structuring community interactions across the Southwest remains one of the most

provocative questions within Southwest archaeology.

CHACO-STYLE GREAT HOUSES AND A HISTORY OF “OUTLIER” RESEARCH

The continued debate regarding the articulation between Chaco Canyon and contemporaneous

communities across the Southwest has resulted in a shift toward directly investigating

communities within the regional system, or more directly, those that display “Chacoan”

components (papers in Kantner and Mahoney 2000). Settlements included within this regional

sphere are primarily identified by the presence of a Chaco-style great house, or less frequently by

a great kiva. Of primary interest is determining whether great houses were “Chaco-directed” or

“Chaco-emulated” (Vivian 2005). This question has been addressed in part by evaluating

whether great houses arose within existing communities (“ancestral”) or whether these were

colonies established while Chaco was at its height (“scion”) (Doyel et al. 1984:38-39). Great

houses are argued to have promoted group-scale economic interactions as well as the

participation in, and reification of, rituals and ceremonial institutions (Crown and Wills 2003).

The suite of architectural characteristics linking a structure to a Chacoan system are often

extrapolated from surface characteristics (Van Dyke 1999b); few, perhaps only 20, of the over

200 great houses have been sufficiently tested (Lekson 2000; Mills 2002; Van Dyke 1999b),

28

although some effort has been made to synthesize data available from great houses across the

Chacoan macro-region (Kantner 2003b; Lekson 1991; Mahoney 2000; Neitzel 1994; Van Dyke

2002). Even fewer great houses have been systematically examined within the context of their

associated communities (but see Kantner and Mahoney 2000; Marshall et al. 1979; Powers et al.

1983; Van Dyke 1999a). Despite this, some trends are evident from surface characteristics of

great houses across the Four Corners. Of note is the wide range of variability of great houses in

their size and overall layout, particularly as one moves south of Chaco Canyon (Duff and Lekson

2006; Meyer 1999; Van Dyke 2002; Vivian 2005).

The amount of structural variability in macro-regional great houses suggests either the

cultural ideas expressed at Chaco were not faithfully replicated across the macro-regional sphere

or that consistency in form was not a requirement of participation within the system. Because

structural variation is well noted, consistency in overall layout is clearly not a defining

characteristic of participation in a regional system. However, the consistency of some major

aspects of great house architecture (greater size when compared to local unit pueblos, for

example) provides generalized criteria by which a great house can be identified from only

surface remains. This tactic has largely been how great houses have been identified during

survey procedures to date.

Suggested variation in great house community layout, population dynamics, and location

relative to other great house communities also implies the function of Chaco-style great houses

may have been more locally directed than regionally dictated, though some would argue a

macro-regional link is undoubted, whatever its nature. For example, Lekson (2000:159) asserts:

“Whoever designed great houses shared a set of ideas about form and, presumably, about

meaning.” Similarly, Herr (2001:3) states: “Homogeneity in public architecture and in symbolic

29

systems may be indicative of this institutionalization of meaning.” While we can measure

variation in “key” components of great house architecture and evaluate the manifestations of

these “shared ideas” and their potential meaning, little has been done to investigate the source of

the observed variation within and between contemporaneous great house communities,

particularly in terms of evaluating peer-to-peer interactions. If PII great houses were united under

a common system, their variability in settlement placement, architectural layout, and degree of

dispersion within their associated communities signals important differences in their respective

community roles. Such variability may ultimately indicate related but unique functions for

spatially proximate great houses, such as those observed within the southern Cibola sub-region.

While admirable steps have been taken recently to examine Chacoan communities (e.g.,

Cameron 2008; Kantner and Mahoney 2000; Van Dyke 1999a), little work has been done to

better understand the articulation of great houses to their surrounding households, both in terms

of settlement patterns and interactions at the community level. I examine the function of Chaco-

style great houses within the context of their local support communities, particularly those at the

margins of the Chaco sphere. I focus my analysis on the Largo Gap great house and its

associated community. I then address great house use and macro-regional articulation by

comparing the Largo Gap great house with its two nearest neighbors—Cox Ranch Pueblo and

Cerro Pomo—before expanding the analysis to a broad comparison of great house communities

across the Four Corners (Cameron 2008; Damp 2013; Durand and Durand 2008; Kantner 1996,

1999; Marshall et al. 1979; Powers et al. 1983; Reed 2008, 2014; Van Dyke 1998, 1999). I argue

that a multi-scalar analysis of great house communities provides a better context for

understanding the articulation between great houses, and the nature and extent of a regionally

based system.

30

THE SOUTHERN CIBOLA SUB-REGION

The southern Cibola sub-region is centered on the Largo-Carrizo drainage of the Little Colorado

River tributary system, approximately 96 km south of modern Zuni Pueblo. This sub-region is

bounded by the Continental Divide to the east and extends west to approximately St. John’s,

Arizona, north to the Zuni Plateau, and south to the Mogollon Rim. The area immediately within

and around the project area falls within the Semi-Desert-Open Woodland-Coniferous Forest-

Alpine Meadow Province environmental zone (Brown and Lowe 1982; Dick-Peddie 1999). This

zone is characterized by a mixed pinyon-juniper woodland along the dry mountains and foothills

of the Colorado Plateau. Elevations ranging between 1,500-2,440 meters above mean sea level

(amsl) are typical.

Southern Cibola straddles the boundary between the Colorado Plateau physiographic

province and the Mogollon-Datil Section. The Mogollon-Datil Section is characterized by an

array of volcanic features (Basabilvazo 1997:7). This project focuses on only a portion of the

southern Cibola sub-region, and includes the area bounded by Tejana Mesa to the northeast, east,

and southeast, Mesita Blanca to the west, and Santa Rita Mesa to the northwest. Cobble lag

blankets the ridgelines extending from these mesas, providing an abundant local source of

heterogeneous lithic materials. Several volcanic remnants are located within the study area,

including the Cerro Pomo cinder cone and the Zuni Salt Lake, the remains of a blown out cinder

cone volcanic maar (Basabilvazo 1997; Bradbury 1971; Darton 1905; Jones 1980). Quaternary

alluvium comprises the Largo-Carrizo drainage and surrounding tributaries while alluvial fans

connect these floodplain deposits to the surrounding mesa/ridge physical landscape. Freshwater

flows perennially through Largo Creek, which drains into the manmade Quemado Lake, the

largest freshwater source in the area. Largo Creek runs roughly northwest-southeast along the

31

north edge of the project area while Quemado Lake is located approximately 30 km to the south.

The Zuni Salt Lake is a geologic feature of immense cultural importance to Southwest

peoples (Ferguson and Hart 1985; Griffin-Pierce 2000; Marshall 1997). While located

approximately 72 km south of the Zuni Reservation, ethnographically the Zuni Salt Lake is a

sacred place for many Native American groups in the Southwest (Bunzel 1932; Cushing 1896;

Ferguson and Hart 1985; Ferguson et al. 2009; Griffin-Pierce 2000). The Zuni Salt Lake and

landmarks along the way are part of oral traditions and origin narratives for several native groups

(Griffin-Pierce 2000:129). Specific ancient travel routes into the southern Cibola area to the lake

have been documented for several groups and continue to be used during sacred pilgrimages

(Marshall 1997:64-66). Trails leading to the Zuni Salt Lake have characteristics associated with

Chacoan roads, potentially linking the natural resource directly to a larger macro-regional

cultural system (Marshall 1997).

Given the large amount and variety of materials imported into Chaco Canyon, it is

reasonable to hypothesize that the southern Cibola great houses were Chaco-instigated or Chaco-

sanctioned outposts, located on the periphery of the system for the control of this sacred

resource. Salt may have been one of the few tangible resources redistributed out of Chaco,

although no direct evidence for Chacoan control or redistribution of salt has been identified. The

Salt Lake may have played an important role in structuring socioeconomic interactions between

local residents and external communities, but such salt-based interactions are not directly

evaluated by this study due to a lack of evidence for local salt processing, caching, or macro-

regional distribution.

32

CULTURAL SETTING, A.D. 900-1150

Evaluating the nature of a Chacoan regional system and its effect on communities outside of

Chaco Canyon is not the only question of interest for this sub-region. In addition to tackling

questions of integration and macro-regional interaction between Chaco-style great houses, I

examine sociocultural relationships among the inhabitants of southern Cibola during the late PII

period. The prehistoric sites of the southern Cibola sub-region are situated within a cultural

transition zone. Households in this sub-region consistently possess a blend of Mogollon and

Puebloan material culture, primarily in the form of ceramics. Sites with both ceramic styles are

present in the area throughout the sub-region’s occupation.

The presence of both Mogollon and Pueblo material culture here and in immediately

neighboring areas is not a new observation (e.g., Crown 1981; Danson 1957; Elkins 2007;

Vivian 2005); however, it is the high ratios of ceramics from both traditions that makes southern

Cibola unique. The overlap and abundance of both ceramic wares suggests a local familiarity

with ceramics from other ancestral traditions prior to the increase in population density during

the late A.D. 900s. Here, I briefly describe the cultural characteristics typically associated with

the Mogollon and Ancestral Puebloan peoples. I focus primarily on the characteristics of the PII

period in order to establish expectations for material culture patterns within the project area, but

include earlier cultural patterns where necessary.

Pueblo II Period, approximately A.D. 900-1150

The early half of the PII period is characterized by an increase in moisture over many

areas of the Southwest and a general improvement in environmental conditions (Plog et al.

33

1988). By A.D. 900, sedentary villages that began to appear during PI are present all across the

Southwest. Village economies continued to rely largely upon agriculture supplemented with

bow-and-arrow hunting. During this period, many households transitioned from pithouses to

above ground, multi-room, masonry structures. The rooms in these structures were split between

habitation and storage, emulating a division of space that began during PI period (Cordell 1997;

Plog 2008; Van West and Greenwald 2005).

It is during the Late PII period that major construction episodes occurred within Chaco

Canyon and small great houses were constructed within many settlements across the Southwest

(Lekson 1984; Marshal et al. 1979; Powers et al. 1983). Importantly, not all PII communities

have a great house, which indicates variation in a social pattern that should not be ignored when

considering a regional “system” based on Chaco Canyon. Large, pithouse-like structures

continued to be present at household sites. These features, labeled as kivas, are interpreted as

rooms serving a dual residential and ceremonial role (Lekson 1988; Lipe 1989, Lipe 2006).

Kivas have been identified at two general scales: smaller subterranean structures associated with

residences that imply household-level use and larger, community-scale structures (great kivas)

(Lekson 1988). Great kivas are argued to be community-integrating features that united

settlements through ritual (Adler and Wilshusen 1990). As noted above, some great kivas were

present in the northern Southwest prior to A.D. 900, including in the San Juan Basin.

Within the study area, PII settlements are distinguished primarily by Cibola White Ware

types that roughly divide the PII period into temporal categories. Earlier sites are characterized

by Kiatuthlanna and Red Mesa black-on-white types (~A.D. 850-1050), while sites that are

occupied later in PII are identified by an increase in Puerco Black-on-white types (Escavada,

Gallup, and Puerco; ~A.D. 1050-1130/1150). Late PII has an increase in Puerco Black-on-red

34

(~A.D. 1050-1130), along with the rise of Reserve Black-on-white and Wingate Black-on-red

(~A.D. 1030/1050-1200/1225) (Hays Gilpin and van Hartesveldt 1998). Despite some temporal

overlap in the Puerco and Reserve black-on-white types, general chronological assignments of

sites can be made using the ratios of these types present within a site’s assemblage (Hays Gilpin

and van Hartesveldt 1998). Most of the pre-contact sites within this sub-region contain gray

wares, which are linked to Pueblo groups. These same sites also contain brown wares,

definitively linking them to the Mogollon cultural tradition as well. The broad patterns of the

northern Mogollon are discussed below.

Mogollon Culture History, A.D. 900-1150

This section emphasizes patterns of the northern Mogollon rather than the Mimbres

branch of the Mogollon where possible, because these northern populations are the most likely

source locations for southern Cibola immigrants arriving from the south. However, in some cases

group-level patterns are best expressed among Mimbres groups and will be used for temporal

comparison where necessary. Similarities between early archaeological findings below the

Mogollon Rim and those observed at sites within the Pueblo area initially led researchers to

consider Mogollon sites dating between ~A.D. 950-1150 as an extension of Pueblo culture

(Cordell 1997:206; Wheat 1955:7). Excavations in the 1930s within Mogollon villages resulted

in the designation of the Mogollon cultural tradition (Haury 1936). Haury’s (1936) excavations

at Mogollon Village, located near Glenwood, NM, formed the basis for many cultural historical

descriptions of the northern Mogollon during the Georgetown (~A.D. 550-650) and San

Francisco phases (~A.D. 650-800; Wheat 1955), while excavations at Starkweather Ruin near

35

Reserve, NM, established patterns from the Georgetown through Three Circle phases (~A.D.

800-1000) (Wheat 1955:17; see also Anyon et al. 1981).

San Francisco and Three Circle phase Mogollon pithouse architecture and material

culture are generally distinguishable from those of other culture areas. Pueblo pithouses were

typically entered from the roof, whereas Mogollon households were entered on the side via an

entrance ramp (Haury 1936). Similarly, Mogollon pithouses persisted long after the appearance

and habitual use of surface structures within the Pueblo area. When above-ground structures did

appear, ca. A.D. 1000 (Haury 1936:85), their style and construction were considered to be less

advanced than pueblos to the north, although they consisted of contiguous rectangular structures

with open plaza-like areas. Utility wares did not resemble those of the north; rather, many sites

were characterized by a polished or corrugated brown ware, red-on-brown, or slipped-and-

polished red ware (Gladwin and Gladwin 1934).

Mogollon communities were fairly dispersed until ~A.D. 1000 with a settlement pattern

that consisted of several small, scattered households united by a centrally placed large communal

feature, typically interpreted as a kiva (Alder and Wilshusen 1990; Creel and Anyon 2003). Early

Mogollon communal structures tend to contain different architectural organization and features

than Pueblo-style great kivas (Anyon and LeBlanc 1980; Creel and Anyon 2003), and often

shared characteristics with Mogollon pit structure architecture. After around A.D. 1000,

Mogollon groups began to consolidate into larger, above-ground villages that represent the

Classic Mimbres phase (Creel and Anyon 2003; Hegmon et al. 1998). A similar transition occurs

within the Reserve Branch of the northern Mogollon (LeBlanc 1989), which is most closely

associated with southern Cibola populations. This transition has been interpreted as an increase

in social complexity with an increased emphasis on sedentism, corporate group organization (but

36

see Powell 2000), and potentially a shift to irrigated agriculture (e.g., Creel and Anyon 2003:

69). These villages were largely abandoned around A.D. 1150 (Hegmon et al. 1998).

Brown wares are prevalent across southern Cibola sites examined to date (e.g, Danson

1957; Elkins 2007; Mills 1988; Nauman 2007; Vivian 2005; Wheat 1955). Pithouse structures

are present, and it is unclear whether these architectural features represent a movement of

Mogollon peoples into the area or if they represent earlier phases of low-density Puebloan

settlement (LeBlanc 1989:338). The consistent occurrence of both brown and gray utility wares,

the nearly ubiquitous presence of Cibola White Ware, and a potential mixture of both subsurface

and above-ground household architecture types across southern Cibola suggests blending of the

two cultural traditions within settlements, rather than the isolated clustering of households by

ancestral heritage (LeBlanc 1989:339). I explore the concept of mixed-heritage settlements

further within the context of southern Cibola research to date.

PREVIOUS SOUTHERN CIBOLA RESEARCH

While PI/early PII sites are present, southern Cibola was largely devoid of settlements until

approximately the eleventh century, or until what LeBlanc refers to as the “Chaco Expansion”

period (1989; see also Duff and Schachner 2007). During this time, local population densities

increased dramatically (Huckleberry and Duff 2008), coinciding with the first great houses in the

area. By the transition to the Pueblo III period, settlements relocated upslope, resulting in the

abandonment of some great houses and in new construction of post-Chaco period great houses

(Duff and Schachner 2007; LeBlanc 1989). By the Pueblo IV period (A.D. 1275-1400),

settlement patterns across the Southwest shifted dramatically with population aggregation into

fewer but increasingly larger, plaza-oriented structures until they were abandoned in favor of

37

aggregated communities at Zuni, Hopi, Acoma, Laguna, or the Rio Grande (Adams and Duff

2004; Duff 2002; LeBlanc 1989).

Little previous research has focused directly on southern Cibola. Few of the early projects

were conducted systematically, resulting in relatively coarse information regarding the spatial

extent and patterning among habitation units. The Cibola sub-region was surveyed as part of the

Upper Gila Expedition, a reconnaissance project by the Peabody Museum (Danson 1957) that

largely targeted upland areas to the east of the project area. This was followed by limited

excavations of representative sites of each major period located northeast of the Largo Gap great

house near Mariana Mesa (McGimsey 1980). Other major projects generated a broad view of the

location, timing, nature, and extent of cultural remains across portions of the Largo-Carrizo

drainage (Camilli et al. 1988; Fowler et al. 1987; Van West and Huber 2005, Whalen 1984).

Duff has conducted research within the southern Cibola sub-region since 2002 and has

specifically targeted understanding settlement patterns and the organization of PII great house

communities within this cultural transition zone. His research has largely focused on two PII

great house communities, Cox Ranch Pueblo (LA 13681) and Cerro Pomo (LA 31808).

Components of his project explored the expression of identity between ancestral cultural

traditions, termed “ethnic groups” (Elkins 2007), and gendered identity within these ethnic

groups (Duff and Nauman 2010; Nauman 2007), material culture learning traditions (Duff and

Nauman 2007; Williams et al. 2013); periodic feasting events and faunal use (Bouknight 2014;

Mueller 2006), raw resource procurement and exchange (Duff et al. 2012; Jarrett 2013; Nauman

and Duff 2004; Wichlacz 2009), and stylistic differentiation in material culture between

communities (Clark 2010). These analyses clarified the chronology of great house construction,

modification, and use primarily within the Cox Ranch Pueblo and Cerro Pomo communities,

38

while also identifying ceramic learning frameworks linking the communities to both Puebloan

and Mogollon cultural traditions.

Because it is unclear how integrated great house communities were with one another,

attention shifted to the Largo Gap great house and its associated community. This dissertation

generates comparable data from Largo Gap to clarify southern Cibola great house function and

articulation. Extending the view to another nearby great house provides a better sociopolitical

context in which to interpret southern Cibolan great house structure, function, and use.

Extending the View to Largo Gap

The Largo Gap great house is located on a small hill within Largo-Carrizo Wash

immediately south of Largo Creek (Figure 2.2). The surface remains of the great house contain

extensive stone rubble but little obvious architectural patterning is visible beyond the large

rectangular block at the top of the hill. The rectangular block seems to consist of three main

room sets, one of which seems to contain a central blocked-in kiva. The foundations of at least

two historic ranch structures adjacent to the great house suggest extensive stone-robbing may

have altered the surface expression of some architectural features or wall alignments.

In addition to exploring the architectural patterning and characteristics of use at Largo

Gap, this project aims to identify the spatial and temporal structure of the great house’s

associated community. Systematic survey efforts were directed at establishing the abundance and

spatial extent of habitation structures associated with the great house. Previous research at Cerro

Pomo and Cox Ranch Pueblo highlighted variation in both the physical layout of each great

house and in their arrangement within their associated communities (Duff 2011).

39

Figure 2.2. View of the Largo Gap great house from the base of the knoll, view to the south-southwest. Tejana Mesa is visible in the background.

Additionally, at 6 km apart, Cox Ranch Pueblo and Cerro Pomo are paired both spatially and

ritually by their complementary views of the Cerro Pomo cinder cone during the winter and

summer solstices (Duff et al. 2008).

The ritual viewshed of these two great houses implies a strong socio-ritual relationship

that may be replicated at nearby great houses. Previous research at Cerro Pomo and Cox Ranch

identified ritual activities at each great house as well as strong social links to their respective

associated communities (Clark 2010; Elkins 2007; Mueller 2006; Nauman 2007). Evaluating the

relationship between the Largo Gap great house and its associated community will help identify

if local great houses overlapped in function, or if each served a unique but complementary

macro-regional role. Examining the relationships between households to each of three great

houses further defines the function(s) great houses served for late PII communities and clarifies

the nature of interaction between great houses locally and across the Chacoan sphere.

40

CHAPTER THREE: COSTLY SIGNALING AND CREDIBILITY-ENHANCING DISPLAYS

This dissertation evaluates the impetus for construction of the seven PII great houses in the

southern Cibola sub-region. I argue that between-group processes drove the construction and use

of these structures, and that these processes are rooted in leadership competition in the form of

costly signaling displays. This chapter establishes the basis for testing a model of costly

signaling within the PII Southwest by detailing costly signaling’s theoretical framework, the

archaeological correlates of between-group competition enacted through costly signaling

displays, and the derived data expectations for great houses of the PII Chacoan Southwest that

are tested in the following chapters.

However great houses were articulated, all were likely constructed as a consequence of

some organizing leadership. Leaders possess “some combination of essential skills and abilities,”

which can take many forms (e.g., charisma, generosity, intelligence, diplomacy) (Kantner

2009:251). Leadership exists along a spectrum that grants leaders authority (influential power)

on one end and coercive power on the other (Kantner 2009:251). Little evidence for entrenched

hierarchical leadership has been identified for the PII period (cf. Lekson 2006), suggesting local

leaders did not rely on coercive power to construct a great house. It is equally unlikely that

strictly egalitarian groups cooperatively built a great house without some organizing influence,

or that permanent great house occupants did not gain some status/prestige/authority. I argue that

great house leaders emerged by capitalizing on their own skills and abilities to influence others

into constructing and maintaining a great house.

“[C]ollective action can serve the ends of the group, as well as the desires of the leader,

by mobilizing labor and creating economies of scale that benefit everyone but might especially

41

benefit the leader” (Kantner 2009:253). If group members benefitted from having a great house

(materially, ideologically, economically), then the distribution of those benefits after collective

effort to construct a great house would be loosely analogous to a version of a public goods game

(e.g., Kohler et al. 2012). The following discussion is framed using a model where great houses

and communal activities are the combined outcome of authoritative leaders and collective action

among group members, who devote labor and resource procurement efforts to the construction of

great houses and the events that occurred within them. These actions ultimately benefit all

members, although the distribution of resources among individuals may be unequal.

Peer-polity interaction is a mechanism suggested by several researchers as the link

between great houses, particularly between spatially related great houses (e.g., Durand 2003;

Kintigh 2003; Van Dyke 1999). As Van Dyke suggests,

Peer–polity interaction could account for the appearance of Bonito-style architecture over a wide area without necessitating shared labor or direct participation in events at Chaco Canyon. In a peer–polity situation, Bonito-style architecture would have spread through observation and competition between neighboring communities. Construction of Bonito-style architecture could have benefited local leaders seeking to bolster personal prestige through competition on a regional scale. Great houses are impressive features; once they appeared in one community, leaders of a neighboring community might have little trouble convincing their populace that competitive emulation was necessary [1999:498].

Van Dyke establishes key elements for the redundant use of great house-style architecture

in proximate communities: imitation of architecture, local leaders, prestige, and competition. I

couch this peer-competition mechanism for great house construction and use within a costly

signaling framework. Doing so permits the derivation of theoretical expectations that can be

tested empirically through great house research. Below, I summarize costly signaling theory with

emphasis on its application to archaeological data and detail how costly signaling can account for

the construction and use of southern Cibola great houses. I then propose a series of hypotheses

42

and data requirements necessary to evaluate leadership-driven competition between local

communities using costly signals. Finally, I juxtapose a costly signaling model of great house

construction and use against the data expectations for other proposed Chaco models to better

define how we can evaluate models for a Chacoan regional system.

COSTLY SIGNALING THEORY

I investigate sociopolitical competition among great houses within the southern Cibola sub-

region using costly signaling theory, supplemented with cultural transmission theory (Aranyosi

1999; Boone 1998; Boyd and Richerson 1985; Eerkens and Lipo 2007; Henrich 2009; Henrich

and Gil-White 2001; Hildebrandt and McGuire 2002, 2003; Hildebrandt et al. 2010; McGuire

and Hildebrandt 2005; Neiman 1995, 1997; Smith and Bliege Bird 2000; Stark et al. 2008).

“[C]ostly-signaling theory involves the communication of attributes that are relatively difficult or

expensive to perceive directly and that vary in quality, intensity, or degree between signalers

(either groups or individuals)” (Bliege Bird and Smith 2005a:224). The cost(s) associated with

signaling behavior is viewed in terms of activities that divert one’s energy from those that lead

directly to one’s reproductive success (e.g., divert time away from resource procurement).

The origins of costly signaling are rooted in biological models of sexual selection, which

propose phenotypic and behavioral markers of underlying mate quality that serve to advertise to

a potential mate while also incurring the cost of limiting its own survival by investing in

advertising efforts (Zahavi 1975). This principle attempts to explain the evolution of “elaborate”

secondary sexual characteristics and “counter-productive” behaviors that indicate one is

behaviorally/physically more capable of maintaining high-cost traits than others within their

population (Aranyosi 1999:357). These physical traits or behaviors function “to attract mates and

43

repel predators and competitors” (Aranyosi 1999:358) as well as to form alliances (Gintis et al.

2001:115). Behaviors or displays that come at a cost to one’s personal reproductive fitness

ensure the honesty of the broadcasted information and prevent lesser-quality individuals or

communities from faking traits without high risk of exposure (Neiman 1997). Bliege Bird and

Smith summarize “costs” associated with costly signaling in the following way:

The theory requires that one distinguish between the observable or objective cost of a signal (e.g., the money a suitor spends on an engagement ring, the energy a peacock expends in dragging around a large tail) and the fitness or utility deficit the signal imposes on the signaler. If cost in the latter sense is quality-dependent, then the objective cost (signal intensity) will be a good index of ability to pay and hence of some underlying dimension or quality of interest to recipients [2005a:236].

Their description expands the model beyond secondary sexual characteristics and indicates that

material correlates (observable cost) can be reliably used to signal underlying quality traits. If

leadership quality was the underlying trait being signaled among great house communities, then

the observable cost must reflect the material result of strong leadership characteristics, such as

those involved in organizing labor and resource procurement.

Costly signaling among humans is often discussed in terms of male hunting and generous

provisioning ability (e.g., Gurven et al. 2000; Smith and Bliege Bird 2000). In mate choice or

provisioning examples, behaviors that indicate “quality” characteristics in a potential mate lead

to visible examples of individual reproductive success as well as individual social benefits

(Smith et al. 2003). Good hunters, for example, possess many qualities that attract females (e.g.,

strength, intelligence, ability to feed a [future] family), which mark them as a good potential

mate and (should) lead to their individual reproductive success. Poor hunters have little to gain

within their own group by attempting to signal their hunting prowess because their utility deficit

would be equal to or greater than the objective cost of the signal they were attempting to display.

44

Thus, “good provisioner” competitions would become restricted to between those with some

ability to compete and who can incur the costs of investing in hunting activities. Individuals in a

group vary in their underlying abilities or “quality” characteristics (Bliege Bird and Smith

2005a:224). Fine distinctions in the manifestation of these characteristics (e.g., overall hunting

success, choice of fletching material, the distances hunters are willing to go to capture large

game, hunting accuracy, extent of shared provisions) allow observers a means to differentiate

between these underlying attributes that are otherwise difficult or impossible to observe.

Bliege Bird and Smith state that:

Sexual selection is not an inherent component of all signaling contexts, and…signaling is not just about males attempting to impress potential mating partners with honest signals of hidden genetic quality. Such signals are not necessarily designed to acquire immediate reproductive advantages but do function as a way to acquire social, symbolic, or material benefits. These benefits may translate into competitive advantages in acquiring strong marriage alliances or a high-quality partner, in reducing infant mortality, or in achieving access to resources during periods of scarcity— all of which could have reproductive benefits [2005b:243-244].

Following this line of thought, signaling activities can extend beyond males attracting mates and

to a scale above the individual because “the arena for signaling is fluid and culturally variable”

(Lupo 2007:168). Attractive qualities can also be signaled at larger scales, such as the

competitive abilities of larger social aggregates to physically or economically best other groups

(e.g., Baines 2006; Bliege Bird and Smith 2005a; Kantner and Vaughn 2012; Neiman 1997).

How individuals benefit from contributing to an aggregate or collective signal varies by

context, with some social settings providing more equal access to resources, protection by the

group, or individual reproductive success based, in part, on the degree of local social

stratification. Because an individual’s reproductive success cannot be directly evaluated within

the archaeological record, the shift of energy away from reproductive activities must be

45

examined in material culture remains that represent visibly costly activities. Demonstrating that

an archaeological manifestation is the result of costly signaling behavior can be a challenge

(Lupo 2007:168), but as pointed out by Bliege Bird and Smith (2005a:236), material correlates

can provide a reliable index of fitness/utility costs associated with signaling behaviors.

Investment in monumental architecture is one means by which costly signaling theory can be

evaluated within an archaeological context. Monumental architecture is that where “scale and

elaboration exceed the requirements of any practical functions that a building is intended to

perform” (Trigger 1990:119). In addition to buildings, monumental architecture can encompass

shrines, henges, mounds, and other forms of engineered landscapes.

If many possess the ability to produce monumental architecture, then the capacity to

convey unique qualities loses its strength among both signalers and viewers (Lupo 2007:168).

Competitive leaders must produce multiple characteristics perceived as contributing to the

success of another group with high fidelity, such as building monumental architecture,

conducting elaborate rituals, or performing mass sacrifices. Investing in all observed activities

would indicate the scale of labor a leader can direct and their access to resources (e.g., ritual,

subsistence, or expendable individual lives). The extent to which a leader can effectively harness

the necessary resources to produce a comparable range of activities will visibly impact how

successful they are in organizing the production of a comparable, competitive signal. Much like

hunting success, variation in the manifestation of these displays will permit observers to assess

the competitive abilities of each group. Those with low abilities to incur these costs (i.e., amass

necessary resources and direct labor) are eliminated from competing.

To put this example in the context of the Southwest, not all PII communities have great

houses. Thus, only groups capable of incurring the labor, organizational, and resource-

46

procurement costs could have constructed a great house. Non-canyon great houses are similar to

but much smaller than great houses in Chaco Canyon (with the exception of Salmon Ruins and

Aztec). If non-canyon great house builders were projecting the scale of power and labor

organization visible among Chaco Canyon groups by diverting energy into the construction and

use of monumental architecture, then non-canyon great houses should overlap in the observed

architectural characteristics and behaviors associated with the monumental features in Chaco

Canyon. However, differences in local power and competitive ability should result in visible

distinctions in the quality of great house construction, in the structure’s size or scale of

construction events, and in the amount and quality of resources used during great house events.

The signaler must incur costs for their “signals” to both ensure the honesty of the signal

and to prevent others from faking these traits (Neiman 1997). For example, the pursuit of large

game far from home camps at the expense of prey that is easier to capture “wastefully” costs the

hunter calories, time that could be spent pursuing other tasks, raw material resources, and

immediate provisioning payoffs for a potential mate, family, or cooperative group (Bliege Bird et

al. 2001; Grimstead 2010, 2012; Smith et al. 2003). In return for these immediate costs, a

successful hunter gains social prestige, provides visible evidence of his skill as a hunter and

provisioner, and ultimately enjoys individual reproductive success. Neiman (1997) provides an

archaeological correlate, arguing that high status Maya individuals used dated monuments (stele)

as a means to signal competitive ability between elites. Neiman suggests the costs incurred

include quarrying and transporting stones large enough, and training and maintaining individuals

to carve them and to oversee such work. These stele are often located in front of monumental

buildings, which also require high costs. All are costs incurred by Maya elites at the expense of

resources that could have been directly invested in themselves and their kin (Neiman 1997:269-

47

270) or used for some “practical” purpose, such as improving landesque capital.

It is important to note that “quality” traits or “ability” has no fixed meaning or behavioral

correlate and thus, the attribute being signaled is very much context dependent. The

interpretation of signals must therefore be in a socially recognized form for both signalers and

viewers. A good hunter, for example, would not necessarily display the same behaviors as a good

shaman, but both may be equally important roles for a community and each can use their

behavioral signals to gain local prestige. Neiman (1997:270) argues that monumental dated

stones indicate a Maya elite’s ability to physically best a competitor in battle. Viewers

(competing elite Maya groups) could accurately interpret this signal of competitive ability and

avoid conflicts they cannot win, thus benefiting each group over the long term.

In the archaeological context examined here, signaled characteristics would be similar to

Lekson’s (2000:159) idea that Chaco Canyon great houses share an architectural symbolism that

viewers were able to decode. Following this, non-canyon great houses would have drawn on

Chaco’s symbolism to project the same signals of ability as those represented in Chaco. I expand

Lekson’s architectural symbolism to include performed behaviors as costly signals. Chaco-style

great houses frequently show planned construction. Procuring materials in sufficient quantity to

construct these impressively large structures, organizing construction labor and skilled

craftsmen, and organizing the procurement of enough resources to host large feasts or rituals

diverts time from one’s personal provisioning efforts.

Replicating Chaco’s architectural conventions, including shaped stones, thick core-and-

veneer walls, non-local timbers, and banded masonry, also requires “costly” effort and skilled

stone-working individuals. By accurately performing behaviors and constructing monumental

features associated with Chaco Canyon, viewers link the signaled traits/behaviors of non-canyon

48

great house groups with Chaco Canyon groups. Under a costly signaling model, viewers would

need to be at least generally familiar with Chaco symbolism or behaviors conducted within

canyon great houses in order to accurately perceive the signaled qualities of each group. In this

case, qualities signaled by a great house group may indicate both the ability to physically

compete (“don’t mess with us”) and access to economic, ritual, and/or political resources.

As Neiman notes, this process results in the “continual selective pressure to invest in

wasteful signals at a level that just exceeds the level that inferior competitors can afford”

(1997:270). Under this theoretical model, there are three potential responses by a viewer to a

signal. First, a viewer accurately interprets a competitive signal by another, which stimulates an

investment in the signaler by the viewer. Second, a viewer interprets a signal by a competitor

and, recognizing that the signal observed is superior to one the viewer could produce, the viewer

decreases their own competitive activities against the signaler. Finally, a viewer interprets the

signaled quality and increases their own signal to exceed the one just observed. The implications

here are that weaker elites or groups can recognize their inferior competitive abilities based on

the extravagant costs that go into competitive signals and potentially avoid conflicts they cannot

win; followers are able to align themselves with those that are most likely able to provide them

with resource benefits and protection (Aranyosi 1999:357). Low population estimates for several

great house communities (e.g., Mahoney 2000) suggest exogamous mate selection was

necessary. Costly signals could therefore also function to attract new, contributing group

members (followers) during the costly signaling process enacted among competing leaders.

The scale of labor necessary to construct great houses requires an organizing entity, even

if that leader or directing group had limited authority over others outside of construction.

Because not all community members lived in a great house, great house occupants are the most

49

visible evidence of some level of social differentiation. However, it is unlikely that the individual

social or material benefits of contributing to the costly signal of a great house will be identified

among the remaining group members given constraints on the available data. Instead, I propose

that examining the extent to which leadership-driven costly signals were displayed between

southern Cibola great house groups is an informative avenue toward understanding the impetus

for great house construction.

In this model, I argue that great houses functioned as costly signals at two levels for

aspiring leaders: to attract/retain group members in order to construction and maintain a

competitive signal, and to signal competitive qualities to competing leaders (Table 3.1). In order

for a model of great houses as costly signals to be logically consistent, leadership-driven costly

displays must have been the attribute that was selected for by other leaders and what resulted in

differential selection between signalers by viewers. Recall that these signals could be used to

convey several sets of information, including to ward off potential conflict with other groups as

well as to build alliances between them. I briefly examine this model using the hypothesis that

alliances formed through costly signaling interactions between competing leaders resulted in

direct ceramic exchange. Compositional analyses are the most direct way to measure ceramic

exchange between great house leaders. Great house size is one measure of “quality” (indicative

of the scale of labor organization, person hours of construction effort, etc.). I evaluate the logical

consistency of a “great house as costly signals” model by comparing room size to the number of

local and long-distance exchange partners (Figure 3.1). I draw on two available compositional

studies of ceramic exchange between great houses (Kantner et al. 2000; Neitzel et al. 2002).

“Exchange partners” are identified by the presence of ceramics from a compositionally defined

core group (Glascock 1992).

50

Table 3.1. Costly Signaling Dynamics Among Signalers and Viewers Signaler-Viewer

Benefit to Viewer “Selection” of Leader by Viewer

Benefit to Local Leader

Archaeological Correlate

Aspiring great house leader to current community members

Access to local community prestige and economic/ ritual/ political resources

Contribute to construction of great house or to procurement of items for use during great house activities

Local prestige, construction of great house (personal habitation) that is larger in size and/or quality than other great houses depending on contributing members, access to economic/ritual/ political resources

Great house size, hours of estimated labor, quality of craftsmanship, inclusion of additional architectural features (e.g., entrance road, great kiva), and the number, source distance, or quality of non-local or ritual items

Great house leader to potential community member

Access to non-local community prestige, potential access to economic/ritual/ political resources, access to non-local marriage partner

Join community, contribute to construction maintenance or remodeling events at great house, or invest energy into resource procurement for activities at great house

Increase in local and non-local prestige, larger/higher quality habitation, access to additional economic/ ritual/political resources

Increase in great house size, number of Chaco architectural features, or in the quality of craftsmanship during remodeling, increase in community size not attributable to in situ population growth, increase in number, source distance, or quality of non-local or ritual items

Great house leader to competing great house leader

Accurate assessment of competitive qualities of rival leader and leader’s community, resulting in decision to compete or not compete

Alliance formation, avoidance of unwinnable conflict, access to prestige by association with high-quality rival

Avoidance of conflict with rival group, increase in local and non-local prestige, access to non-local economic/ ritual/political resources

Increase in number of connections to non-local resources, potential increase in scale of group-level activities (e.g., ability to host larger feasts)

51

Figure 3.1. Testing the logical consistency of costly signaling between great house leaders by comparing the number of rooms in a great house to the number of identified exchange partners (defined by ceramics from an identified compositional core group). Top graph represents 14 great houses with some available compositional data, and shows no correlation between great house size and number of macro-regional exchange relationships (R2=0.002, p=0.70). Bottom graph removes sites with core groups identified only to the resolution of a single broad sub-region, which can and often do include ceramics produced through local production, to better evaluate trends in great house size versus the number of macro-regional exchange relationship. Using these limited data, the relationship between the two variables improves (R2=0.43, p=0.11), but is still not considered representative of patterns of past interaction based on great house size due to the small sample size of the example.

y = 0.0045x + 2.4785 R! = 0.00221

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Exc

hang

e w

ith O

ther

Com

mun

ities

Number of Rooms

y = 0.0582x + 2.3718 R! = 0.4277

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Exc

hang

e w

ith O

ther

Com

mun

ities

Number of Rooms

52

As Figure 3.1a illustrates, there is no correlation between larger great houses and the

number of identified ceramic production core groups (R2=0.002, p=0.70). A Spearman’s rank

correlation suggests the relationship between number of rooms and the number of exchange

regions is weakly positive but not significant (rs=0.10, p=0.71). These patterns are likely not

representative of the relationship between great house size versus number of ceramic exchange

partners for a number of reasons.

First, only 14 great houses (all with small sample sizes) are represented in the example,

which is an insufficient sample size to fully evaluate signaling competition and alliance

formation between great house leaders. Second, a number of great houses had ceramics from

only one identified production zone. Compositional analysis relies on geologic similarity

between samples to identify production zones, rather than on individual ceramic producing

communities, as well as on a representative number of tested ceramics from a number of

locations. This means that ceramics produced locally are often indistinguishable from others

within the same geologic area. Some “exchange partners” were eliminated from this simple

analysis because local production could not be distinguish from trade with others in the same

production zone (e.g., whether ceramics from the “Chaco” core group [Neitzel et al. 2002]

represent movement of ceramics from a single Chaco Canyon great house, a single San Juan

Basin great house, or a household from the Chuska Mountains/San Juan Basin). When cases with

only one identified core production group are removed (Figure 3.1b), the strength of the

relationship between the two variables improves (R2=0.43, p=0.11). This pattern, too, is based on

very few case studies (n= 7) with small sample sizes and is likely not an accurate representation

of the relationship between great house size and number of great house exchange partners.

However, these patterns are suggestive, particularly for the great house with the highest

53

number of ceramic exchange partners, Chimney Rock. Chimney Rock is geographically isolated

in south-central Colorado and represents a great house that is relatively difficult to access. Its

identified exchange partners are spatially expansive, and include several great houses within the

Middle San Juan, the San Juan Basin, and the Red Mesa Valley. Finally, several compositionally

analyzed ceramics were not assigned to a compositional core group, including some at Chimney

Rock, which means that the production zone and number of exchange partners represented by

these sherds are unknown; those identified above represent only a minimum number of partners.

In summary, there does seem to be a relationship between the strength of the costly signal

(in this case, size) and the frequency with which other leaders select that signal. Great house size

is only an example by which one could measure the “success” of costly signals enacted at great

houses; other attributes such as wall thickness, number of storage rooms, number of feasts,

amount of turquoise encrusted headdresses, etc., all could potentially signal competitive

activities organized by leaders and broadcast to other leaders. Although based on a weak pattern,

these results indicate that a costly signaling model is framed appropriately for testing in this

cultural setting, and also highlights an area where further data could provide additional insight

into the relationship between great house attributes and Chaco-era macro-regional exchange.

Below, I provide a brief summary of the use of costly signaling models as applied to

archaeological data. I then detail how a costly signaling model can account for the construction

and use of multiple great houses within southern Cibola, which I then contrast with other models

proposed to explain the emergence and macro-regional spread of Chaco-like structures. Finally, I

propose a series of hypotheses and data requirements necessary to evaluate the use of costly

signaling (and other great house models) within these PII great house communities and how this

information can further our understanding of a Chacoan regional system.

54

Archaeological Case Studies of Costly Signaling

Evolutionary models emphasize change over time and mechanisms of selection to study

variation in the archaeological record (Dunnell 1995; O’Brien and Lyman 2000, 2002).

Evolutionary archaeologists study populations of “things”—ceramics, lithics, architecture—

which represent phenotypes whose relative abundances through time are subject to some sorting

mechanism (O’Brien and Lyman 2002). Archaeologically based costly signaling theory in

particular attempts to explain a specific distribution of artifact phenotypes, typically those termed

“cultural elaborations,” in terms of energy investment and costly behaviors (Aranyosi 1999;

Kornbacher and Madsen 1999; Neiman 1997).

Costly signaling has already been invoked to explain the archaeological remains within

Chaco Canyon (Kantner and Vaughn 2012). Kantner and Vaughn (2012) argue that Chaco

Canyon was a pilgrimage center for late PII populations and cite the combination of monumental

architecture, huge labor investment, the interment of two “high-status” individuals, and the

extremely high percentage of non-local goods as evidence. In their model, individuals made

pilgrimages to Chaco (incurring travel costs) and participated in large-scale activities in order to

illustrate their own commitment to a religious system and “the identity and moral system tied to

it” (Kantner and Vaughn 2012:73). Participating in Chaco activities may have been equally

costly in terms of importing items long distances or in contributing labor. Individuals would have

taken that costly display of commitment back to their own groups for local prestige, potentially

along with more intimate knowledge to be used during activities in their community’s great

house, and as a signal of their adherence to a broader social system.

Ritual performance and religious prestige are common pathways to political power, and

many examples highlight the non-specific archaeological context in which ritual plays a

55

powerful role (e.g., Baines 2006; Coben 2006; Inomata and Coben 2006; Neiman 1997). The

production of and investment in ritual events reinforces and reproduces ideology (DeMarrais et

al. 1996), particularly at the grand scale expressed in Chaco’s many assemblages. Furthermore,

visible participation in a ritual signals commitment to a group identity and to group solidarity

(Kantner and Vaughn 2012; Sosis and Ruffle 2003; Triadan 2006). Participation in ritual

activities at local great houses would have signaled such commitments to those with whom

individuals had more frequent interaction than would a pilgrimage to Chaco. Investment in

communal efforts, such as the construction and maintenance of a great house, the contribution of

items to a group feast, or to the acquisition and distribution of local and non-local resources

within a community, may have signaled commitment to group welfare and a local coalition. The

combination of such efforts would have enhanced the prestige of local great house leaders, and

would have signaled the extent of their authority and competitive ability to other groups.

That great houses may have been the product of group coalitions is not without

archaeological correlates in other areas of North America. Trubitt (2000), drawing on multiple

data lines from Cahokia, identified a shift in the power structure responsible for the construction

of monumental architecture during the later Mississippian periods. According to Trubitt’s (2000)

model, monumental architecture in the American Bottom began as the manifestation of a

corporate group ritual that later transformed into a network model of individual power and

prestige. Trubitt’s case study demonstrates the potential for a costly signal constructed through

the organization of collective effort, while also providing a range of archeological correlates for

the use of monumental architecture and prestige goods. This model is in contrast to many

suggested for the construction and use of monumental architecture, which rely on coercive action

to attain elite prestige and power (e.g., Baines 2006; Dunnell 1995; Glatz and Plourde 2011;

56

Hendon 1991; Neiman 1997; Trigger 1990).

Many other models pose environmental uncertainty as a driving characteristic of

monumental investment, or “bet-hedging” practices (Aranyosi 1999; Dunnell 1989, 1999;

Hamilton 1999; Madsen et al. 1999; Sterling 1999; see also Seger and Brockmann 1987 for a

more thorough discussion of bet-hedging). While environmental uncertainty may have played a

role in instigating southern Cibola group formation, it seems a less likely explanation for the

construction of great houses overall. As noted in Chapter 2, many episodes of construction at

Chaco Canyon are within intervals of environmental productivity while lulls in construction

appear to coincide with environmental downturns. Furthermore, agricultural productivity

increases during the time period in which southern Cibola great houses, and others more broadly,

are constructed (e.g., Dean 1992). Identifying a causal mechanism other than environmental

instability for the construction of the great houses is necessary.

COSTLY SIGNALING THROUGH GREAT HOUSE INVESTMENT IN SOUTHERN

CIBOLA

Kantner (1996, 1999) proposed that spatially clustered Chaco-style great houses with high

architectural variability were not a function of Chacoan coercion or the nature of the Chacoan

system itself, but rather were a function of localized political competition. He argued that

aspiring leaders and their kin-based factions built and maintained great houses within

communities to attract followers, resulting in the redundancy of these features across space

where leadership competition and kin support were high (Kantner 1996:84). Under this

argument, aspiring leaders would form a kin-based coalition who would then mobilize local

resources to support the leader’s activities. Kin members would reap more benefits by

57

contributing resources to a leader’s bid for power than general group members who grant the

aspiring leader authority. There are up to seven PII great houses within southern Cibola,

suggesting high levels of competition between aspiring leaders.

Kantner’s model (1996) relies on the activities of ambitious individuals organizing the

construction of within-group structures based on external competition (see also Hayden [1998]

for a related model of aggrandizing behavior). There are some material correlates that suggest

community “leaders” received direct benefits or prestige by directing labor and activities (e.g.,

Trigger 1990). The most visible is that great houses are visually distinct from surrounding

habitations; living in one would be a visible marker of social prestige. Similarly, contributing to

the construction, maintenance, and communal activities of a great house has theoretically based

reproductive and cultural benefits to individual community members. These cannot be examined

here outside of the coarsest measures of material culture differences because the level of data

necessary to evaluate reproductive/cultural benefits between individuals is not available. Rather,

my intentions are to explore why a large number of great houses were built here during the late

PII period and what kinds of relationships existed between their form, placement, and the

activities conducted therein compared to the surrounding habitation sites. In so doing, I argue

southern Cibola groups were organized in an emerging corporate group-like structure where

members would have benefited from the input of communal efforts and any leadership that was

present was neither entrenched nor coercive.

Plourde (2009:269) argues that prestigious competition escalates as group size increases

and the complexity/knowledge/skills necessary for success increase. She further argues

that increasing competition for prestige ‘clientele’ and the increased benefits to be gained from them could favor new strategies to win prestige competition, including the use of physical goods as advertisements of degree of skill and knowledge [Plourde 2009:269-270].

58

There are many benefits to be gained by increasing, within limits, the number of contributing

members of a community. These include increasing the genetic pool of potential mates, the

amount of overall agricultural production, extending access to non-local goods through increased

exchange networks, decreasing the input of one’s own labor during the construction of

monumental features, and protection during engagement with hostile groups (Adler 2002).

Investment in public architecture is one visible way in which individuals could have contributed

to the costly signal of their community. Participating in the construction and maintenance of a

great house, procuring or producing items for use during communal activities, or generating an

external resource connection would signal contributions to a public good. Such a contribution

would be provided with the expectation of gaining access to community prestige or prestige

goods (such as those distributed through a ritual or feasting event) or individual access to other

resources (e.g., agricultural land, non-local items) (Plourde 2009). Through the organization of

collective effort a reliable signal of a leader’s ability (e.g., promoting group cooperation,

providing access to local and non-local resources, the scale of communal and ritual events

hosted) could have emerged. Such a signal would solidify group solidarity while also visibly

indicating competitive ability to non-members.

Research at other great houses highlights consistent behaviors associated with

community-integrating activities (e.g., Cameron 2008:302; Cameron and Toll 2001; Durand

2003; Durand and Durand 2008). The ability to host a community event, such as a feast or ritual

celebration, would be visible to both members and invited guests, and potentially would have

been discussed by other non-participating groups. Regularly hosting community events would be

a visible signal of a group’s ability to undertake their costs. A great house, then, would have

served as an honest signal of a group’s claimed ability, what Henrich (2009) terms a “credibility

59

enhancing display.” These displays could have facilitated the recruitment and retention of group

members, increased a community’s local prestige, and increased social and trade relationships

with neighboring communities, all of which are expected in a costly signaling model.

If groups were advertising competitive abilities in the context of visible costly displays,

then variation along several lines of evidence should both indicate the diversity of prestige or

resource items and access that a community can provide, as well as the skill and knowledge

available within a community. Skill and knowledge may be most visible in the architectural

signature of the costly signal (i.e., a great house must be built with skills and knowledge that link

it to a broader social concept of what monumental architecture should look like). If activities at

Chaco Canyon were primarily ritually based (e.g., Kantner and Vaughn 2012; Renfrew 2001;

Van Dyke 2002; Yoffee 2001), then similar communal rituals would have been necessary at

community great houses in order to accurately convey the signal expected at monumental

structures.

Constructing and maintaining a great house signals the ability to harness and provide

some necessary good—real or perceived—to other group members and broadcasts the ability to

acquire these resources to an audience at a distance. The unique combination of architectural

attributes displayed by each great house would have been a stable signal of these abilities. This

signal could be changed via remodeling if the nature or scale of competition changed. Thus, a

great house was a stable, physical signal of ability that could be reinforced by regular costly

displays. Correlating the number of associated habitations or the variety of prestige goods

associated with great house deposits with the architectural fidelity of each great house would be

one measure of signaling success among great house leaders.

Continuous social pressure from both within and between communities should have

60

stimulated relatively frequent displays of a group’s ability to continue to provide their co-

members with access to sociopolitical or ritual resources. Periodic feasts would be one arena in

which costly signals could be most visible to the widest audience, while also promoting internal

social cohesion for each group and broadcasting a competitive display (Clarke 2010; Dietler

2001; Grimstead and Bayham 2010; Hayden 2001; Mills 2007; Pauketat et al. 2002; Potter

1997). Signals of effective leadership, group commitment, and periodic credibility-enhancing

displays could be used to distinguish between the competitive ability of local communities,

especially among exogamous groups.

Analyzing the physical variation between great houses, the activities associated with their

use, and the homogeneity of cultural material traits between great house groups will characterize

the extent and form of competition between southern Cibola communities. It will also allow this

project to address alternative models of great house construction and use. Such variation would

indicate the role competitive displays played in creating and maintaining social boundaries.

ALTERNATIVE MODELS FOR A CHACOAN REGIONAL SYSTEM

While not the direct focus of this study, this research addresses three alternative models for how

Chaco-style great houses articulated with Chaco Canyon (Table 3.2): Chaco-directed outposts

(Vivian 1990; Wilcox 1996), Chaco emulation (Kantner 1996; Meyer 1999; Van Dyke 1998,

2003), and Chaco as an ideological system (Durand 2003; Kantner and Vaughn 2012; Renfrew

2001; Van Dyke 2002; Yoffee 2001). Because several variants exist, I present a simplified

version of each model, but address important variant distinctions where necessary. For example,

data expectations for an ideological model centered on great kivas may differ slightly from one

that emphasizes great houses as the focus of ritual activity. The derived expectations are based

61

Table 3.2 Comparison of Chaco Model Data Expectations for Southern Cibola Great Houses Data Expectation Costly

Signaling Chacoan Outpost

Ideological System

Chaco Emulation

n Models Distinguished from Costly Signaling

(1) External Chacoan wall architecture (e.g., banding) + + ! + 1

(2) Internal Chacoan wall characteristics + + +⁄! ! 1-2

(3) Great house remodeling and expansion + + +/! + 0-1

(4) Presence of a great kiva + /! + + ! 1-2

(5) Consistent Pueblo kiva features ! + + ! 2

(6) “Hidden” or symbolic construction elements (high-elevation timbers, core-and-veneer walls)

! + + /! ! 1-2

(7) Located in prominent position on the landscape + + ! + /! 1-2

(8) Periodic feasts + + + + 0 (9) Ritual fauna/rare artifact classes (e.g., birds, cougar paws) + + + + 0

(10) Distinct pottery manufacture learning traditions

+ + /! + + 0-1

(11) Contemporaneous establishment of southern Cibola great houses

! + ! ! 1

(12) Contemporaneous occupation of southern Cibola great houses

+ + + /! + 0-1

(13) Close spatial patterning of associated community (“scion” community distribution)

! + ! ! 1

(14) External ceramic trade relationships

+ + + ! 1

(15) Unique networks of macro- regional ceramic exchange at each great house

+ ! + + 1

(16) Unique patterns of obsidian procurement at each great house + ! + /! + 1-2

(17) Unique networks of exchange at households not replicated at great house

+ ! + + 1

62

on the driving mechanism and not on each possible variant of each model. Models that I do not

address are great houses as Mesoamerican outposts (Mathien 1986) and Chaco as a redistribution

center (Judge 1979; Powers et al. 1983) because little support for them has been identified.

Proponents of a Chacoan outpost model argue great houses were built at the direction of

Chaco Canyon populations, possibly by elites (Vivian 1990; Wilcox 1996). Under a hierarchical

version of this model, leaders at Chaco requested the construction of non-canyon great houses.

Builders from Chaco intimately familiar with Chaco’s architectural canon constructed scaled-

down great house “outposts”; models vary on the extent to which non-canyon great houses and

their communities were under some form of Chacoan control. One version of the Chaco outpost

model argues that great houses were built at increasing distances from Chaco, increasing the

amount of agricultural surplus that flowed into the canyon to support elaborate construction and

associated activities (Vivian 1990). The large quantity of non-local cultural material at Chaco is

cited as support for Chaco as an administrative center with sub-regional outposts.

A Chaco-directed model requires the replication of architectural features visible at Chaco

in non-canyon great houses, particularly symbolic features (e.g., banded masonry, core-veneer

walls, high-elevation timbers), even if each great house served a distinct administrative purpose.

A distinct function may be visible in the variation of architectural features and activity debris,

such as an abundance of kivas at one while another had abundant evidence of large-scale feasts.

Southern Cibola great houses are expected to be largely contemporaneous with closely spaced

communities (“scion” versus “ancestral” [Doyel et al. 1984:38-39]). Group-level activities

should be visible at all great houses with ritual items concentrated at great houses rather than

habitation sites. External exchange relationships should overlap with the expectation (not tested

here) that some of that material was forwarded on to Chaco.

63

The second model I address is Chaco emulation. Tainter and Gillo (1980:102, cited in

Vivian 1996:45) posed the first direct model of emulation and argued that great house similarity

was a product of emulation after intense economic interaction between canyon and non-canyon

communities. However, others suggest great house variation is more indicative of individuals

bringing Chaco-style architecture and activities to their own community (Kantner 1996; Meyer

1999; Van Dyke 1998, 1999a, 2003).

Most Chaco models are some version of emulation, including costly signaling, which

poses some difficulty in identifying material correlates that clearly distinguish between models.

Under a general model of emulation, great houses are expected to widely vary architecturally,

indicating the extent to which those emulating were familiar with Chaco versus familiar with

non-canyon Chaco-like structures. Each community should be spatially variable, reflecting

differential construction of great houses built within existing communities (“ancestral”

communities) versus those that formed a community and built a great house in tandem.

Communal activities are expected to vary in the material culture and fauna used. Individual

households are expected to have maintained long-distance exchange relationships, resulting in

different community-level patterns of resource exchange or procurement (Herr 2001:18).

Next, several models posit Chaco Canyon as a center of ritual activity (Durand 2003;

Judge 1989; Kantner and Vaughn 2012; Renfrew 2001; Van Dyke 2002; Yoffee 2001). Van

Dyke (2002) identified a spatial pattern of great kiva presence or absence. According to her

research, great kivas are more common as the distance from Chaco increases (Van Dyke

2002:239). Given southern Cibola’s location on the periphery of the Chaco sphere, great kivas

are expected within at least some of these great house communities if united by an ideological,

great kiva-centric system. If kivas were the center of ideological importance, then consistency in

64

kiva architecture is expected between tested great houses, even in blocked-in kivas.

Alternatively, Durand (2003:161) suggests a model of “symbolic entrainment” where

non-competing communities adopt a belief system present in Chaco. Thus, great houses, rather

than great kivas, would be the ritual structures emulating an ideological system centered at

Chaco (Bernardini 1999; Durand 2003; Marshall et al. 1979:337; Judge 1989). If great houses

were the focus of ideological activity, then items associated with ritual activity should dominate

the great house assemblage. Ritual fauna would be a strong signal of ritual activity (Durand

2003). Identifying ritual paraphernalia and feasts would support the use of a great house as a

community-integrating ritual structure. Their association with exotic or specialized items (e.g.,

unused obsidian projectile points, non-utilitarian ceramics, shell) may also indicate a ritual

function for each great house.

These models are contrasted with a costly signaling model, which draws on elements of

peer-polity interaction to define material correlates of competitive peer interaction among great

house leaders. Durand (2003:161-162; see also Van Dyke 1999a) sees great houses as emulative

structures that spread through observation and leadership competition. According to Durand and

Kantner, community members may have been more willing to support a local leader if that

support were manifest in the construction of a community ritual feature (Durand 2003:161;

Kantner 1996:51). Materially, the distribution of prestige items (imported ceramics, obsidian

from distant sources, ritual goods, or choice fauna) is expected to be more prevalent within the

great house’s midden assemblage than at community habitations, reflecting the use of such items

at an important community structure. Distinctions in the number and type of material goods,

especially non-local or rare goods, between the great house and small sites, and their

concentration in great house contexts, is expected as are those reflecting communal events.

65

EVALUATING MODELS FOR GREAT HOUSE CONSTRUCTION AND USE

Analyzing the same suites of data across three increasing scales (Largo Gap great house to its

associated community; southern Cibola great house communities to each other; southern Cibola

communities to other great house communities) will help differentiate between costly signaling

and the three alternative models (see the last column of Table 3.2). By comparing multiple data

lines across these spatial scales, I will evaluate whether local great houses were, for example:

minimizing local competition in favor of gaining political/ritual resources as part of a Chaco

Canyon directed system; a local response to rapid in-migration by potentially unlinked household

groups; or a means to establish autonomous long-distance exchange networks. Four research

aims are detailed below and are distinguished by spatial scale of comparison to provide multiple

insights into how these communities were locally organized and the extent to which they

participated in a regional system. I detail the goal of each research aim, and the corresponding

data expectations and data lines necessary to test a costly signaling model of great house

construction and use.

Intra-community Relationships and Costly Signaling Displays at Largo Gap

This scale reflects the relationship of the Largo Gap great house to its surrounding

households. Data from the great house and surrounding settlements will further define the extent

to which constituent households were integrated into the activities organized and conducted at

the great house, or whether localized competition was the focus of a few individuals at the great

house that excluded the participation of members of the surrounding community.

Aim (1): Characterize the construction sequence and techniques, and chronology of use

at the Largo Gap great house. Determining the founding, nature of community growth, and

66

longevity of use for each southern Cibola great house community is imperative to understand

whether temporal relationships alone account for their distribution, or if changes in their growth

and longevity indicate local competition between great house leaders. Establishing the

architectural attributes of the great house and blocked-in kiva, how they were used, and their

patterns of remodeling or expansion are of primary importance in evaluating Largo Gap’s

participation in a regional system (Van Dyke 2002; Vivian 2005). Drawing on models for a

Chacoan system, Aim 1 is addressed by analyzing architectural, chronometric, and stylistic

ceramic data.

A) Construction Sequences and Techniques: Architectural characteristics of Largo Gap

establish the extent to which this great house represents construction patterns visible at Chaco as

well as the extent to which symbols of Chaco were part of a competitive display. The number

and types of Chacoan architectural motifs utilized, the architectural layout, and whether the

building was constructed all at once or was remodeled and expanded through time is unclear.

This study maps Largo Gap’s overall shape, layout, and room count. It also evaluates the

association of major architectural features, such as an entrance road, a great kiva, or a berm, and

evidence of remodeling, so that the great house’s physical characteristics can be compared to

core features considered to typify Chaco-style structures (Van Dyke 1999; Vivian 2005).

Identifying evidence for remodeling is important because it could suggest how the nature of

localized, leadership-driven competition between communities changed through time. Exposing

internal and external walls by excavating to floor level illustrates the sequences and techniques

used in the construction of Largo Gap and how those techniques may have changed through

time. In aggregate, these data are important for identifying both the broadcasted signal of Chaco-

style architecture and intimate knowledge of Chacoan construction techniques. Characterizing

67

the blocked-in kiva’s shape and internal features is necessary to distinguish what aspects were

influenced by Pueblo or Mogollon cultural traditions (e.g., round or square, presence of corner

pilasters, shape of central hearth), or reflect a mixture of both. I use floor artifacts and features to

determine whether the kiva’s function was predominately related to ritual or the extent to which

Largo Gap was utilized as a more general habitation space. If the structure functioned for both

ritual and habitation purposes, then features such as internal storage, debris from tool

manufacture, or species not commonly associated with ritual function may indicate domestic use.

B) Chronology of Use: Evaluating competition between local great house leaders requires

establishing the founding, growth, and use of the Largo Gap great house through time.

Excavation targeted the recovery of structural timbers and datable wood from within the great

house, blocked-in kiva, and the Largo Gap midden to clarify the great house’s initial

construction, dates of use, and episodes of remodeling. Wood samples, even those that fail to

provide dates, are used to distinguish whether the species used in construction or the layout of

the great house changed through time, and if the timber used was locally available. Structural

changes are evaluated with reference to identifying if the costly signal was amplified or if the

great house was built and maintained in the same fashion throughout its use-life. Amplifying the

architectural component of a costly signal via remodeling episodes would suggest that a more

elaborate signal was necessary in order to remain locally competitive over time. I use the

combination of architectural patterns of construction and remodeling, dendrochronological data,

and frequencies of ceramic types to clarify the chronology and use of the Largo Gap great house.

Aim 1 is addressed through a “top-down” approach of invasiveness in order to limit

disturbance to the great house. Aerial thermography, ground penetrating radar, and topographic

mapping were employed to characterize the overall shape and layout of the great house, and to

68

identify the presence of an associated “Chaco road” or great kiva. Minimally intrusive wall

trenching was used to outline the overall structural plan and to note bond-abut patterning

between walls to clarify the structure’s episodes of construction and remodeling. Finally,

excavations targeted four visible architectural areas of the great house and its blocked-in kiva.

Some excavation units targeted internal walls visible on the surface to identify if construction

characteristics demonstrate intimate knowledge of Chaco building conventions or if the

architecture signals a connection to Chaco externally, but fails to demonstrate direct knowledge

of construction techniques associated with Canyon communities.

Aim 1 addresses the first seven data expectations presented in Table 3.2. All but one

(great house remodeling and expansion) can differentiate between costly signaling and the three

alternative models. An ideological model relies less on consistency in great house architecture

than on consistency in kiva architecture and evidence for ritual activity. A Chaco-directed model

requires the most consistency in architectural features, although some variability between

structures is anticipated, such as layout or number of blocked-in kivas. Both general emulation

and costly signaling expect high variability in structural adherence to the Chaco architectural

canon based on the degree of observance and replication by the viewing audience.

Aim (2): Characterize the Largo Gap support community and the role of the great house

within the community. Relatively little is known about the relationships between great houses and

their local support communities (Kantner 2003b). These relationships must be understood before

their function can be interpreted within the context of a posited regional system. Southern Cibola

great house communities are hypothesized to be “multi-ethnic” based on the presence of both

brown and gray utility wares at household sites as well as a mixture of both brown smudged and

red ware bowls (Duff and Nauman 2010; Elkins 2007; Nauman 2007; cf. Wichlacz 2009). If one

69

aspect of great house function was to promote community cohesion among members of

historically distinct ancestral traditions (Herr 2001), then there should be evidence of

community-integrating activities at the great house using materials from both traditions.

Additionally, material culture at household sites should exhibit characteristics associated with

either Mogollon or Puebloan stylistic traditions, a pattern that may become less distinct through

time. Aim 2 is evaluated with ceramic and faunal data.

A) Community-Integrating Activities: Great houses are, by default, an architectural

feature associated with northern groups. If great houses in southern Cibola were used to integrate

households from distinct cultural traditions, then the Largo Gap great house should exhibit

patterns of ceramic use consistent with both Mogollon and Pueblo activities (i.e., both brown and

gray jars as well as smudged brown and red bowls). While this pattern could also indicate

extensive trade with Mogollon groups, the spatiotemporal patterning of ceramics will elucidate

how these materials were utilized in community-level activities, as well as how representative

their use was compared to that of the community. I evaluate the relative use of each ware to

examine if there was a preference in the material culture used in costly signaling displays and if

or how this changed through time. I then contrast the great house assemblage to that of

household sites to identify the extent to which this was a “multi-ethnic” community, and the

extent to which the pattern of representative community wares was reflected in great house

activities.

One would expect knowledge of feasting events not to be limited to those within the

Largo Gap community, given the close spatial proximity of other southern Cibola great houses.

The quantity of bowls/fauna present in discrete feasting deposits is examined not only to identify

the presence of a community-level feasting event, but also the scale of participation. If great

70

house groups were engaging in costly signaling behavior, then the inclusion of members from

other communities (visible in the ratio of feasting material to estimated community size) would

be a measure of the scale of the viewing audience.

I expect Largo Gap to have a higher ratio of bowls–to-jars and a bimodal distribution of

bowl size when compared to habitation sites (Mills 2007). More bowls than jars (more serving

vessels than cooking vessels) would demonstrate the presence of feasts, while both personal

consumption bowls and larger serving bowls would characterize communal participation in

feasting activities (Blinman 1989; Mills 2007). Similarly, I expect the types and abundance of

fauna to be distinct between the great house and community sites, with greater consumption of

either large mammals (e.g., artiodactyls) or an increased abundance of minimally processed

lagomorphs expected at the great house. More faunal remains should also appear in discrete

depositional layers if they reflect periodic feasting events rather than day-to-day consumption

practices. Additionally, I expect more ritual fauna, primarily avifauna, to be present at the great

house than at household sites. These remains would reflect the use of fauna in rituals expected to

occur at great houses rather than within the community (Cameron 2008:302; Durand 2003;

Durand and Durand 2008).

B) Multi-ethnic Community: Stylistic and functional ceramic ware and type data are

imperative to understanding not only the relationship between the great house and the habitation

sites surrounding it, but also the presence of a “multi-ethnic” community. Ceramics are an

additive technology whose patterns of construction are passed down through generations.

Through the learning process, the motor habits of pottery manufacture become unconscious

(Dietler and Herbich 1998:244-248). By tracing specific manufacturing characteristics, such as

coil thickness, patterns of production can be used to identify particular learning traditions. The

71

identification of two distinct learning traditions would highlight that brown wares and gray wares

were produced using distinct learning traditions, either locally or non-locally (i.e., were items of

trade). Persistent variation in manufacturing techniques between wares traditionally associated

with Mogollon or Pueblo ceramics that was not the result of trade (addressed by Aim 4b below)

may highlight the presence of both ancestral learning traditions within the Largo Gap population

that were maintained through time by intra-community social boundaries. When combined with

the ratio of wares at each site through time, the distinctions in community use of particular

ancestral wares and in learning traditions can be evaluated across the length of community

occupation. An increase toward homogeneity in both the ratio of wares and in ceramic

manufacturing characteristics would indicate high levels of integration between members of both

ancestral traditions. The maintenance of distinct trends would indicate the maintenance of ethnic

identities, regardless of participation in collective activities.

Pedestrian survey around the Largo Gap great house documented the spatial extent of the

associated community, while surface collections at many recorded sites and limited testing of

middens at five household sites associated with Largo Gap generated ceramic data sets

comparable to previously collected data from the Cerro Pomo and Cox Ranch Pueblo

communities. The comparative data were used to clarify the chronological relationship between

the great house and its associated settlement, and to determine the duration of community

occupation. Two patterns can be understood by examining the use of specific ceramic wares at

the great house compared to the use of wares at households: the specific roles the great house

served within the community and material benefits to leaders or community members. First, this

analysis focuses on the use of material culture in activities at the great house in contrast to

everyday activities visible in household sites. Second, the use of particular wares at the great

72

house that are not used at households is one measure of material benefits leaders gain by

organizing the construction and use of a great house. The limited distribution of such wares

across the community would suggest unequal access to specific materials by community

members.

Aim 2 addresses data expectations 8-10 of Table 3.2. These three data lines are the most

ambiguous for differentiating between Chaco models. All four models expect evidence for ritual

activity and feasts to be present, though all have different assumptions concerning the reasons for

the presence of such activities. Similarly, all models anticipate a multi-ethnic community given

southern Cibola’s location at the interface of two culture areas. Each model benefits from

incorporating members from the Mogollon ancestral tradition into a Pueblo-based system. If, for

example, Largo Gap was Chaco-directed, then the incorporation of Mogollon people into the

group would generate more labor for surplus production of goods to be sent back to Chaco. In

contrast, an ideological model may posit their integration in the form of missionizing efforts. The

intentionality behind why a particular model would promote multi-ethnic communities cannot be

directly examined in the archaeological record; therefore, I simply assume all models would not

discount the benefits of a multi-ethnic community. I do, however, measure the degree to which

only Pueblo wares are identified in feasting or ritual contexts in order to evaluate the use of

material culture during communal events, and compare this to patterns from across the regional

system.

Inter-community Dynamics and the Nature of Local Competition in Southern Cibola

Aim (3): Compare the architectural structure, settlement pattern, and use of the Largo

Gap great house and its two nearest neighbors, Cox Ranch Pueblo and Cerro Pomo, to

73

understand the role of these community-organizing structures and the relationships between

their associated communities. Aim 3 is addressed through architectural, chronological,

settlement pattern, and ceramic manufacturing and stylistic data. All 17 data expectations are

examined at this scale.

A) Construction and Chronology: The extent to which the three focal great houses

incorporated Chaco architectural conventions should reflect the extent to which their builders

identified Chacoan symbols as sociopolitically/religiously important, participated in its regional

symbolism, and utilized Chacoan symbols in the realm of local group competition. Because

Chaco Canyon great houses display architectural variability, some variation in physical layout or

in associated features (kivas, berms, entrance roads, etc.) is expected among non-canyon great

houses, even under a model of Chaco colonization or directed outposts (Lekson 2006).

Differences in the use of externally visible versus “hidden” traits could indicate copying

of architectural styles among local great houses rather than direct knowledge derived from

Chaco. While the overlap in Chacoan architectural features across tested great houses may

indicate direct knowledge from Chaco, it may also indicate high-fidelity replication of great

house groups copying one another. Because viewers select characteristics to include in a

signaling display, higher variability should indicate locally driven construction, rather than

Chaco-directed construction. If great houses were locally instigated, direct knowledge of Chaco

building techniques may have been less important to group members. If, however, great houses

were united under some regional system where symbols linked to Chaco Canyon were important,

the use of both externally visible and “hidden” conventions may have been important in

constructing a credibility-enhancing display.

Competition between groups requires contemporaneous competitors, which I assess

74

through dendrochronology and seriation of each great house’s respective ceramic assemblages. I

also use evidence of remodeling at each great house to characterize how the structure changed

through time, perhaps indicating a more direct connection to Chaco as well as responding to an

increased competitive display by other groups.

Determining the founding, timing of community growth, and longevity of each southern

Cibola great house group is imperative to understanding whether temporal relationships alone

account for each community’s spatial distribution. Changes in community growth and longevity

would suggest shifts in community populations through time, potentially as a result of group

competition through costly signals at each great house. Additionally, seriation of ceramic

assemblages from community sites and each great house will illustrate the growth and retention

of community membership through time, as well as community population histories. If each

community was not reproductively viable on its own (i.e., had fewer than 475 group members

[Wobst 1974]), then exogamy would be necessary. Competition for group members through

exogamy is one way in which communities could attract new members, particularly from

neighboring communities. A group that appeared to provide more benefits to members would

similarly be an attractive way to gain new individuals or households. A growth in one

community’s population timed with the depopulation of another, viewed through seriated

settlement pattern analysis, would highlight the differential success in competitive signaling

expected among southern Cibola great houses.

B) Southern Cibola Feasting Events: If great house leaders were competing against one

another for followers, resource access, and local prestige, then each great house is expected to

have evidence for multiple costly displays. Research at great houses across the Chacoan sphere

highlights evidence for periodic feasting or ritual activities that promote community integration

75

(Akins 1985; Cameron and Toll 2001; Durand 2003; Durand and Durand 2008; Potter 1997,

2000; Potter and Ortman 2004; Roler 1999). Southern Cibola great houses may have used these

events as opportunities to display to other great house groups their competitive ability in

harnessing valuable resources. The use of large, periodic feasts as a costly signal is evaluated

between the three great houses by examining first the evidence for temporally discrete feasting

events, followed by an examination of the type of feast(s) (if present).

As noted in Aim 2A, evidence for feasts relies on both ceramic and faunal data (Blinman

1989; Potter 1997; Potter and Ortman 2004); I compare the ceramic and faunal assemblages of

all three great houses, as well as their respective aggregated community data sets where

available. Second, the types of animals used in community events, ratios of bowls-to-jars, and

serving vessel size are used to identify if a feast was more characteristic of a potlatch or a

potluck (Blinman 1989; Potter 1997). If a feast was potlatch style, or those that are sponsored by

aggrandizing individuals or kin groups (Hayden 2001), then I expect an elevated ratio of larger

mammals, such as artiodactyls, or foods that are more labor intensive to prepare, as well as large

cooking jars and serving bowls relative to standard consumption vessels. Potluck-style feasting,

on the other hand, would do more to promote group solidarity through communal participation in

capture, preparation, and consumption (Potter 1997; Hayden and Villeneuve 2011). This should

be evident in the mass consumption of minimally processed smaller mammals, such as

lagomorphs, and less notable distinctions in serving vessel sizes when compared to ordinary

consumption vessels.

Identifying feasts at great houses assumes that all great house feasts or rituals involving

consumption are the same, both between great houses as well as across the range of activities

occurring at individual great houses. An event promoting group solidarity, for example, may rely

76

on group-procurement strategies for lagomorph capture. This pattern may be very different from

that expected during a ritual event wherein avifauna or atypical mammals are more abundant, or

during a provisioning feast where large artiodactyls would be anticipated. Parsing out

distinctions in different communal consumption events relies on accurately identifying distinct

episodes of communal consumption, identifying complementary ceramic and fauna data from

each episode, and linking those activities to a measure of periodicity. I aggregate the Largo Gap

excavation data and compare it to data from Cox Ranch Pueblo and Cerro Pomo to analyze

distinctions in possible feasting deposits. The substantial amounts of previously analyzed data

(architectural and community patterning, ceramic design and manufacturing characteristics,

fauna, and lithics) provide robust comparative datasets that allow peer-to-peer interactions and

the extent of competition through costly signaling between these three communities to be

examined.

Aim 3 addresses data expectations 1-13 across all three southern Cibola great house

communities. In aggregate, these data lines best distinguish a model of Chaco-directed

construction from Chaco-emulative construction. Contrasting each data line at the scale of the

community will help distinguish between each emulative model. A costly signaling model relies

heavily on credibility-enhancing displays (remodeling, co-option of Chaco symbols, feasts) at a

visible scale and that recur over time between great houses. A general model of emulation

expects these data lines to all be present but, given southern Cibola’s distance from Chaco,

places less emphasis on high-fidelity replication of Chaco symbolism.

Great House Characteristics and Patterns of Interaction across the Chacoan Sphere

Aim (4): Explore the articulation between great houses in this sub-region with

77

contemporaneous great house communities across the Chacoan regional network. Aim 4

addresses the broader nature of great house use and community structure by characterizing their

use, types and abundances of dominant artifact types, and patterns of non-local interaction.

Evaluating these characteristics across a broader scale, rather than simply noting the presence

and absence of “Chacoan” features, will emphasize variation that may otherwise be masked by

assumed participation within a regional system (Kantner 1996; Neitzel 1999).

A) Great House Architecture and Use Characteristics: If Chaco-style great houses

indicate participation in a regional system, we should expect them to display a largely similar

suite of architectural and use characteristics. If great houses were united by an ideological

system, then great houses should also express a consistent set of ritual features and/or artifacts.

While great houses are broadly variable in structure and layout (e.g., Marshall et al. 1979; Van

Dyke 2003), I expect the great houses examined in this research will indicate that great houses

display consistent behavioral use. Specifically, I hypothesize that southern Cibola great houses

served as community-integrating structures united by a partially overlapping suite of “Chacoan”

characteristics, such as monumental architecture, feasting events, the use of ritual fauna, or the

presence of ritual or rare artifact classes (Cameron and Toll 2001; Durand 2003; Potter 1997;

Potter and Ortman 2004). This analysis compares southern Cibola great houses with existing

great house data from across the Southwest in order to compare physical characteristics and

assemblages indicative of use. These comparisons illustrate the extent to which great house roles

overlapped regionally, as well as how southern Cibola great houses may have served distinct or

additional roles due to their social context at the margins of the regional sphere.

B) Networks of Macro-Regional Exchange: Competition between leaders requires

increased control over, and access to, both economic and ritual resources that are used or held by

78

distinct kin- or corporate-based groups (Kantner 1996; Schachner 2010). Evidence for restricted

access to ritual resources should manifest in activities at each great house (Crown and Wills

2003). Locally controlled economic resources are more difficult to identify because viable

agricultural soils, lithic raw materials, and raw clays were readily available. However, one would

anticipate external trade relationships were important mechanisms with which to display access

to prestigious economic materials and potential political alliances (Plourde 2009). Economic

access to outlying communities and their resources are evaluated through compositional analyses

of ceramics and obsidian.

I use instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA) data to distinguish between raw

material sources and to identify patterns of ceramic production and circulation through the use of

geologic subgroups (Glascock and Neff 2003; Glowacki and Neff 2002). There is a large sub-

regional dataset available that I draw on to identify Largo Gap’s, Cerro Pomo’s, and Cox Ranch

Pueblo’s role within macro-regional trade networks (Duff 2002; Huntley 2008; Peeples 2011;

Schachner 2007; Schachner et al. 2011). Approximately 600 INAA-analyzed sherds and

geologic clays from the Cox Ranch Pueblo and Cerro Pomo communities provide a large,

contemporaneous comparative dataset. Decorated and plain ware sherds recovered from surface

and stratified contexts across the Largo Gap community were sampled to reflect their relative

abundance in the overall assemblages and analyzed at the University of Missouri Research

Reactor. Additionally, geologic clay samples from around the Largo Gap community were

analyzed by INAA in order to provide local clay reference samples.

While many of the previous INAA studies of pottery from across the Cibola sub-region

targeted ceramic types dating to later occupations, their chemical signatures are linked to specific

geographic areas and will allow Largo Gap sherds to be evaluated for inclusion into one or more

79

of 13 identified broader compositional reference groups (Peeples 2011; Schachner et al. 2011).

The generated compositional data will not only identify patterns of production and circulation

activities centered at the Largo Gap great house, but also will highlight if members of the

community built and maintained external ceramic exchange networks. I expect patterns of

interaction will be greatest among southern Cibola great houses, high between others in the

Cibola sub-region (e.g., Zuni, El Morro Valley), and decrease with distance outward. The INAA

data should not only highlight differential economic relationships between great houses and

between leaders versus community members, but also how great houses on the margins of the

Chacoan sphere articulated with others across the northern Southwest. I examine the frequency

of trade interactions (number of sherds) versus the distance to the source location for all

identified exchange relationships across the three communities.

Compositional analysis of obsidian also provides a measure of differential resource

access between southern Cibola great houses. Obsidian does not occur in the immediate area; the

nearest source, Red Hill, is approximately 25 km to the south. I use x-ray fluorescence (XRF) to

chemically characterize Largo Gap’s obsidian to highlight patterns of raw material access and

circulation (Freund and Tykot 2001; Phillips and Speakman 2009; Shackley 2011). Previous

XRF analyses at the Cox Ranch Pueblo and Cerro Pomo great houses and surrounding

community sites (N=250) highlighted a direct link to sources to the south and west, with limited

obsidian identified from sources to the north (Duff et al. 2012). Some obsidian from these

southern sources were identified at Chaco, but only during the Basketmaker III and PI periods.

Access to more distant obsidian by the Largo Gap community may reflect continued ties with

previous Mogollon communities. Compositional data are necessary to evaluate models of great

house community organization because they can delineate if long-distance resource procurement

80

was limited to great house leaders, managed by great house leaders on behalf of the community,

or if community members maintained their own access to non-local raw materials. Obsidian

collected from both Largo Gap and its community sites were submitted to the Geoarchaeology

XRF Laboratory in Albuquerque, NM. These compositional data are compared to other obsidian

sourcing data for the Cibola sub-region and across the Southwest (Duff et al. 2012).

Aim 4 addresses data expectations 14-17. These expectations distinguish the Chaco-

directed model from all others. The expectation that households maintained unique trade

networks that are not replicated at the great house (#17) may best differentiate between the four

models. Under costly signaling, there should be unique access to long-distance goods between

great house communities that is most visible at the great house (peer-to-peer interaction). This

model relies on group labor for construction but not on individual members to pool access to

exotic resources; household and great house networks should be unique. A general emulation

model also anticipates members individually managed their own long distance exchange/

resource procurement networks, rather than the great house.

Distinguishing Between Chaco Models

The data generated through this study can support multiple Chaco models across many

analytical categories. This is not unexpected, given that most Chaco regional models were

developed by reinterpreting the same existing data. Consistency in a great house’s form, timing,

activities, and spatial orientation to its community will help distinguish a Chaco-directed model

from any Chaco-emulated model. Consistency in great house architectural form is expected to be

low while consistency in kiva architecture and ritual items/activities should be high if great

house groups were united by kiva-centered ideology (Durand 2003; Kantner and Vaughn 2012;

81

Renfrew 2001; Van Dyke 2002). Support for emulative models will be largely differentiated

based on their driving mechanism (leadership-driven competition between groups versus general

emulation of great house form and use). Thus, while a model of leadership-based group

competition through costly signaling overlaps across several data expectations with alternative

explanatory models, there are multiple model-to-model distinctions to differentiate between

explanations.

As the last column of Table 3.2 indicates, usually at least one line of data can be used to

distinguish between these four models. In aggregate, and when examined between great house

communities, these data lines will not only help distinguish between models, but will also refine

our data expectations and identify those that are currently lacking or inconclusive. In the end, the

distinctions examined here may not fully identify which model is best supported regionally, but

may help weaken some. Chapter 7 draws on the data presented in the following chapters, and

revisits the extent to which models for a Chacoan regional system continue to be supported.

82

CHAPTER FOUR: THE LARGO GAP GREAT HOUSE

The focus of the next two chapters is on the Largo Gap great house and its surrounding

habitation sites with emphasis on the following research questions: what do the construction

techniques and architectural features present at the great house suggest about Largo Gap’s

relationship to Chaco Canyon and to other Chaco-style great houses? How does the great house’s

layout change through time and what do these changes imply about the function of the great

house within the surrounding community? How does the use of material culture vary between the

great house and Largo Gap’s associated households? What aspects of material culture indicate

the use of the great house by a multi-ethnic constituency? Do aspects of craft production indicate

multiple learning lineages, a trait expected in a rapidly built multi-ethnic settlement, and do these

patterns become more homogeneous through time? How extensive are the external trade

relationships visible through imported materials and how pervasive were these relationships

across the Largo Gap settlement? Were community-integrating activities conducted at the great

house and how do these activities compare to other great houses? These topics, while descriptive,

provide a basis for examining the role of the Largo Gap great house within the social context of

its associated support community. This chapter focuses on the construction and use of the Largo

Gap great house. These data establish comparative bases for evaluating the role of the great

house within its associated community, which is examined in the next chapter.

Characterizing the great house’s architectural layout and the techniques used in

construction is imperative to understanding the degree to which this structure displayed

architectural ideals represented within Chaco Canyon, and thus, participated in some aspects of a

Chaco-based regional system. Several methods were used to identify the overall size and

83

structural layout of the great house, which are summarized here and detailed below. Aerial

thermography and total station mapping were used to identify Largo Gap’s architectural extent.

These techniques were also used to detect large-scale features typically associated with Chaco-

style great houses, such as an entrance road, a great kiva, and a bounded plaza. Ground

penetrating radar was used to better delineate wall alignments and the structural layout of the

great house.

Excavations were conducted across the great house’s architectural extent to identify

methods of construction and room use. First, I discuss the architectural techniques employed

within the great house and the degree to which these features reflect intimate knowledge of

Chaco’s building conventions. I then reconstruct its episodes of construction and remodeling

through time.

I also focus discussion on the blocked-in kiva and evaluate if it adheres to Pueblo kiva

traditions or if it represents a mixture of Mogollon and Puebloan kiva characteristics. The

architecture of Mogollon kivas is less consistently defined but they tended be square or sub-

rounded with masonry-lined walls, and sometimes included a stepped or ramped entrance and a

flat roof supported by posts (Anyon and LeBlanc 1980; Haury 1936; Martin 1979:67-68). In

contrast, PII Pueblo-style great kivas tended to be circular with a formal bench, central box

hearth, four-to-six pilasters, a cribbed roof, vents, and sub-floor vaults (Vivian and Reiter 1965).

Adherence to Puebloan kiva conventions would link the structure more broadly to an

ideologically based Chacoan system (e.g., Van Dyke 2002; Vivian 2005).

Finally, the use of the great house should represent activities distinct or in addition to

those that indicate day-to-day activities. The use of material culture and the evidence for group-

level or ritual events is evaluated using excavated materials from the great house and its midden.

84

I argue the great house reflects the use of Chacoan architectural ideals and held periodic group-

level events that featured the visible use of ritual items; both link the great house’s use to other

Chaco-style structures across the Southwest. Despite the Chaco connections, I argue the great

house served a multi-ethnic constituency visible through the incorporation of Mogollon elements

in the kiva and during group-scale events.

CHARACTERIZING THE “CHACO-NESS” OF THE LARGO GAP GREAT HOUSE

Because few great houses have been investigated with any intensity beyond surface mapping

(Van Dyke 2002), it remains unclear how the role of great houses varied or overlapped across the

Southwest. Many scholars have used architectural similarities to link structures to the activities

occurring within Chaco Canyon (e.g., Cameron 2008; Marshall et al. 1979; Mills 2002; Powers

et al. 1983; Van Dyke 1999b, 2002; Vivian 2005). There is general agreement that Chaco-style

great houses must be distinct from their contemporaneous associated habitation sites—a

“significantly bigger bump than other contemporaneous bumps in its vicinity” (Lekson 1991:36),

include elements of great house architecture in their construction, and be in use during Chaco’s

main active period (A.D. 1020-1150) (Kantner and Kintigh 2006). Chaco-style great houses are

often identified as large, symmetrical buildings with an excessive number of large rooms with

high ceilings, distinctly thick-walled masonry, blocked-in kivas, planned construction, multiple

stories and, frequently, roads leading to their entrance (Lekson 1991; Mills 2002; Vivian 2005).

While not all of these architectural characteristics are expected to be present in every

great house, within or outside Chaco Canyon (Van Dyke 2002), several scholars have debated

how many of these features must be present before a structure is “Chacoan” rather than simply a

large household roomblock (Gilpin 2003; Kintigh 2003; Lekson 1991; Van Dyke 2003). I do not

85

apply a features threshold here; however, I do use the presence and type of “Chacoan” features to

differentiate between either a direct link between Largo Gap and Chaco Canyon, or the use of

Chacoan symbols to mimic the ideas represented by Chaco (Herr 2001).

Distinguishing between direct knowledge and co-opting of symbols is important because

adherence to Chacoan conventions increases the strength of the costly signal for viewers. Lekson

(2000:159) argues that symbolic meaning was encoded within Chaco-like structures, and that

decoding and properly interpreting the meaning of those symbols by the viewing audience was

imperative. Encoded symbolism necessitates adherence to a macro-regional set of architectural

symbols and directly associates Largo Gap with a location of macro-regional importance. The

dominant display of Chacoan symbols may equally signal the degree of peer interactions with

other great houses, both locally and more broadly. If Largo Gap utilized a mixture of Chacoan

and Mogollon architectural conventions, then it would suggest the great house was a locally

constructed community structure. Mixed traits would imply a difference in what was being

signaled: local traditions for a local audience or Chacoan symbols intended primarily to be seen

by a local audience but linked to broader developments.

Little work has been conducted at Largo Gap prior to this project. Fowler et al.

(1987:163) describe the great house as rectangular or U-shaped with a central kiva depression.

They identify a large kiva depression to the south of the great house and another, smaller

depression to the north. Fowler et al. also note the probable presence of a Chaco-style entrance

road, citing aerial photographs obtained in 1986. Notably, they base their interpretations on the

original site record and did not visit the site themselves. Unlike many of the great houses

discussed by Fowler et al. (1987), no map of Largo Gap is provided. These characteristics are

important for understanding the scale of a competitive architectural display as well as shifts in

86

the use of space or activities conducted within the great house through time.

The Chaco Research Archive (2014; see also Lekson 1991; Mills 2002; Van Dyke 2002;

Vivian 2005) records the following features for each great house: number of stories, the number

and type of kivas (e.g., great kiva, tower kiva, blocked-in kiva), core-and-veneer masonry,

compound walls, enclosed plaza, berms, elevated location, and presence/number of roads. Great

houses are also often located in visually prominent places on the landscape. Vivian (2005:40.31)

cites additional characteristics, which include: earthen platform; banded masonry; linear axis;

multistory; berm/nazha/roads; and related communities. I combine these lists and use remote

sensing, surface mapping, and excavation to evaluate their presence/absence, and extent at Largo

Gap (Table 4.1).

Mapping the Largo Gap Great House

Aerial thermography, ground penetrating radar, and topographic mapping were

conducted across the extent of the great house rubble as well as on areas immediately

surrounding the site (Figure 4.1). Aerial thermography and ground penetrating radar have been

successfully used in tandem in surveys in other disciplines (e.g., Moropoulou et al. 2002; Piccolo

et al. 2009) as well as within archaeology (Kvamme and Ahler 2007). Erosion, cattle trampling,

and historic stone borrowing have visibly impacted Largo Gap. Complementary, non-destructive

archaeometric and topographic techniques were employed to characterize the structure’s shape

and extent without intensive excavation of the entire structure and to identify features that lack

surface expression.

87

Table 4.1. Chaco-Era Attributes Identified at the Largo Gap Great House Architectural Characteristics*

Identified in Vivian 2005 for Largo Gap

2012-2013 Investigations

Comments

Elevated location Yes Yes

Earthen platform ? No

Core-and-veneer masonry

? No

Banded masonry ? Yes Banded, Type II-style masonry with compound walls

Linear axis Yes Yes

Multi-story Yes No Absolute floor elevations suggest approximately same visible height across structure

Blocked-in kiva, elevated kivas

Possibly? Yes Central blocked-in kiva, possible second blocked-in kiva

Masonry-enclosed plazas

No Yes

Berm/nazha/roads No No

Large, formal, roofed great kiva

Possibly? No

Related communities

Yes Yes

*Chaco-era attributes based on characteristics identified on the Chaco Research Archive (2014) and Vivian (2005).

88

Figure 4.1. Position of the Largo Gap great house on a small knoll in Largo-Carrizo Wash.

89

While aerial thermography has had limited use in archaeology, it has great potential to

identify the architectural layout of Largo Gap under the local depositional conditions. A case

study at the Chaco-era Blue J community, located approximately 130 km to the northeast of the

study area, illustrates the potential for aerial thermography to define the layout and organization

of large-scale architectural features (Casana et al. 2014). Casana et al.’s (2014) study utilized an

unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) to control altitude and speed of the thermal camera over and

around the Blue J great house. Image processing delineated several architectural features

associated with the Blue J great house and documented previously unidentified sub-surface

architectural remains.

The Largo Gap great house is covered in loose, aeolian fill sands. The sand should have

low thermal inertia (Kvamme and Ahler 2007:555) that will contrast markedly with the large

stones used in Largo Gap’s construction. These stones should better maintain heat and should

better resist rapid temperature fluctuations than the surrounding fill sands. Little vegetation

obscures the Largo Gap great house, exposing it and the surrounding archaeological deposits to

full sunlight throughout the day.

Ground penetrating radar (GPR) has been utilized successfully in several archaeological

contexts, both internationally as well as within the Southwest (e.g., Barone et al. 2011; Conyers

and Cameron 1998; Ernenwein 2006; Gale 2007; Safi et al. 2012). Largo Gap is built on a low

hill, which resulted in significant rubble fall down slope. Both the hill slope and rubble-covered

terrain impose difficult topographic constraints for GPR survey. Rubble fall combined with

significant historic stone robbing has potentially removed or obscured the surface expression of

associated architectural features or rooms. GPR survey was used to target subsurface walls and

features; when combined with the aerial thermography, a volumetric view of the Largo Gap great

90

house is generated.

The research questions addressed by these techniques include: delineating the overall

structural outline and, if possible, the number of rooms; clarifying if structural remains are

present in areas where surface rubble is lacking; identifying the location of the structure’s back

wall; understanding the articulation between walls that are seemingly unconnected to the great

house’s floor plan; distinguishing the shape of the blocked-in kiva (circular, sub-rounded,

square); identifying the presence/absence of a great kiva; and identifying the presence/absence of

a suspected Chaco road. If Largo Gap’s size, structure, and layout are consistent with typical

“Chacoan” features, then it would support the interpretation that great houses were integrated

across the macro-region.

Aerial thermography was conducted in collaboration with Adam Wiewel and Katie

Simon from the Center for Advanced Spatial Technologies (CAST) using a Tau LWIR thermal

camera and DJI Phantom 2 quadcopter with DJI PC Ground Station software (Wiewel and

Simon 2015). Ten ground control targets were placed across the survey area and were tied into

the local grid system using a total station and control datum points. Two flights were conducted

over the survey area on July 4 and 5, 2014. Thermal imagery surveys conducted were conducted

early in the morning best capitalize on the differing thermal inertia between the construction

stones and the surrounding sedimentary matrix (Casana et al. 2014; Kvamme and Ahler 2007).

Each flight occurred between 4:45-5:15 a.m., and lasted approximately 10 minutes. Two

orthoimagery flights were conducted over the site to aid in interpretation. These flights were

conducted on July 4, 2014, between 6 and 7 a.m. Transects were flown over the survey area at an

elevation between 70 and 130 m and at a speed of 5 m/s. In order to achieve an approximate 40%

overlap in aerial images, each transect was spaced roughly 20 m apart. Following this

91

methodology, five north-south transects were conducted for a resulting total image footprint of

approximately 60 m E-W by 68 m N-S.

Thermal imagery data were processed by CAST staff using AgiSoft PhotoScan. Still

images from each flight were extracted from the video feed at a rate of one frame/2s. Each frame

was examined and a composite of representative thermal images was generated from across the

site. Readers are referred to Casana et al. (2014) for a more thorough discussion of aerial

thermography image processing methods and considerations.

Ground penetrating radar was conducted by CAST staff using a GSSI 3000 radar system

with a 400 MHz antenna between July 2 and 5, 2014 (Wiewel and Simon 2015). Eight

contiguous 20 m x 20 m grids were placed directly over the great house while an additional 20 m

x 40 m grid extended down slope to the south across a low saddle and over a smaller, additional

rubble pile that is spatially distinct from the great house rubble. Transects were spaced 50 cm

apart. The eight great house grids were conducted in unidirectional transects that began at the top

of the hill and went either to the east or west down slope. The ninth grid was collected bi-

directionally because of the relatively low angle of the slope.

GPR data is most accurate when connection is maintained between the surface antenna

and the ground surface. Because the surface of the site is covered in a high density of rubble,

constant connection was not always maintained. In most instances, the antenna was moved

alongside rock rubble or around large vegetation. Where rocks were densely clustered, the

antenna system was moved over the rubble. Whenever possible, loose rocks that were entirely on

the surface were picked up, the antenna passed by, and the rock replaced in its original surface

position.

92

The raw GPR data files were processed using GPR-Slice and Radan. Each grid was

processed individually in order to explore the variation between collected data before the files

were mosaiced and processed together. High-frequency filtering was used to process some grids;

these data were over-amplified by a “GPS Interference Test” conducted at White Sands Missile

Range at the same time. The transect files were oriented to the same direction before being

stacked vertically. The 3D block of data was then sliced horizontally across a range of

thicknesses to examine architectural patterning at different depths. Because Largo Gap is located

atop a steep natural hill, topographic corrections were applied during data processing using GPR-

Slice (Wiewel and Simon 2015).

A laser transit was used to map the surface topography of the great house and areas

immediately adjacent to the site. These data were used to clarify the overall shape and extent of

the great house as well as to identify the presence of a Chaco road leading to the entrance of the

great house. Transects were spaced roughly 1 m apart across the visible great house extent and

approximately 5 m apart along the immediately surrounding landscape. Additional transit points

followed walls identified on the surface, delineated the boundary of the midden, and the extent of

wall fall. While some wall alignments were visible from the surface, many were obscured or

unclear. Minimally invasive wall clearing was employed to further delineate wall alignments and

to identify episodes of construction through bond-and-abut wall patterning.

Structural Layout

Prior to this project, Largo Gap appeared to be a relatively small great house compared to

others. The combination of aerial thermography, ground penetrating radar, and topographic

mapping demonstrates that this great house is as architecturally complex as others identified

93

across the northern Southwest (see Chaco Research Archive). The data sets show strong overlap

in their characterization of Largo Gap’s overall shape and layout (Figures 4.2-4.4). While a main

rectangular block is present along the top of the hill, there are a number of rooms that extend

down the front (east) and back (west) slope as well as down the south slope.

Based on exposed wall alignments, there are approximately 22 rooms that comprise the

Largo Gap great house, including a blocked-in kiva and bounded plaza (see Figure 4.2). The

main rectangular block contains a bank of rooms on either side (north and south, respectively) of

the blocked-in kiva. A bounded plaza abuts the main block down slope to the east where it

connects to a group of rooms to the south. Another five-to-ten rooms are visible in the aerial

thermography and GPR data extending down slope from the main architectural block to the south

(see Figures 4.3 and 4.4). The front main wall is highly visible in both remote sensing data sets,

possibly as a function of its compound wall construction. An additional set of rooms might

extend along the front wall of the great house in the bounded plaza. No great kiva or entrance

road was identified, although some low thermographic signatures may indicate a small, round

feature that lacks abundant construction stone. Wiewel and Simon (2015) interpret this low

thermal inertia area as a blocked-in kiva within the bounded plaza (Figure 4.5); because

excavations were completed before remote sensing was conducted, this hypothesis is untested.

Overall, all three data sets mark Largo Gap as a large structure composed of multiple

rooms, and possibly containing multiple ritual structures. Between 22 to 37 rooms were

identified at Largo Gap, a size that is at least as large as many great houses identified across the

northern Southwest. The combination of aerial thermography and topographic mapping in

particular illustrates the potential for effectively mapping other great houses that have been

impacted by erosion or historic/modern populations using minimally invasive methods.

94

Figure 4.2. Plan view map of the Largo Gap great house based on surface wall alignments.

95

Figure 4.3. Aerial thermography map of the Largo Gap great house (image modified from Wiewel and Simon 2015:10).

96

Figure 4.4. Topographically corrected GPR time slice across the Largo Gap great house. Time slice produced by Adam Wiewel using GPR Slice.

97

Figure 4.5. Potential blocked-in kiva identified in the aerial thermography within the bounded plaza. Image modified from Wiewel and Simon (2015:10).

98

Chacoan Architectural Features of the Great House

Ten excavation units were placed within the surface-mapped great house structure. These

units were intended to evaluate the presence of Chacoan-style masonry, methods of construction,

and room use through time (Figure 4.6; Table 4.2). Excavations targeted internal and external

wall faces to clarify construction techniques and, where available, the bond-abut pattern between

perpendicular wall alignments. These units were excavated in arbitrary 10-20 cm levels down to

floor level to identify the depth of floor surfaces and any artifacts or features comprising floor

deposits. All wood samples obtained from each unit, including beams, door lintels, and charcoal,

were individually collected and packaged to maintain their integrity. These samples were

submitted to the Laboratory for Tree Ring Research at the University of Arizona in order to

identify the chronology of the great house and the species used in construction. Seven additional

1m by 1m excavation units were placed within the midden around the great house. Midden unit

locations were selected through a random number generator corresponding to a plan view map of

the high-density midden extent.

The Largo Gap great house incorporated many features identified above as typical of

Chaco-style great houses. It is worth noting that several typical “Chacoan” characteristics are

believed to be absent, or alternatively, they have yet to be definitely identified at Largo Gap.

These include the lack of a berm, true core-and-veneer masonry, a great or tower kiva, an

entrance road, and the consistent use of compound walls. I focus my discussion on four

particular architectural attributes: multi-story construction, Chaco-style masonry, patterns of

remodeling, and the central blocked-in kiva.

99

Figure 4.6. Location of excavation units within the Largo Gap great house and its associated midden. Midden Unit 1 is the southern-most unit noted on the top image.

100

Table 4.2. Summary of the Largo Gap Great House Excavations by Unit Excavation

Unit Location in

Great House Depositional Sequence Chaco-style

Masonry Wall

Plastering Evidence for Remodeling

Tree Ring Date (A.D.)

1.1 Blocked-in kiva

Post-occupational sediment mixed with construction stone (ca. 11-51 cm), roof collapse mixed with daub-rich silty sand and some artifacts (ca. 24-98 cm), wall fall layer (ca. 9-23 cm), prepared floor with floor assemblage

Type II - - -

1.2 Blocked-in kiva

Post-occupational sediments with construction stone (ca. 48-80), silty sands interspersed with beams, artifacts, and clay/ash lenses (ca. 80-90), prepared floor with floor assemblage

Type II Yes - 1066vv, charcoal, pinyon

2 External main wall, plaza area

Post-occupational sediment mixed with construction stone (ca. 53 cm), silty sand with slight increase in artifact content (ca. 40 cm), consolidated clays with increased artifact density representing “floor” assemblage

Type II Yes - -

3 Southwest portion of main architectural block

Post-occupational sediment mixed with construction stone (ca. 8-64 cm)

N/A N/A Excessive rubble; no defined pattern

N/A

4 North room bank, main architectural block

Post-occupational sediment with construction stone (ca. 16-56 cm), silty sand interspersed with clayey silts and some artifacts (ca. 8-84 cm), prepared floor with beam

Type II on one of two main walls; none on low dividing walls

- - 1116vv, structural beam, pinyon

5 Northwest back corner of structure toward back wall

Post-occupational sediment with abundant construction stone, increasing frequency of artifacts and burnt/unburnt daub at depth (ca. 88-140), prepared floor with light artifact assemblage

Type II Yes - Multiple 1117vv on associated structural, burnt, and

101

unburnt samples, pinyon

6 South room bank, main architectural block

Post-occupational sediments with abundant construction stone and daub with potential prepared floor at base (ca. 95-105 cm), daub-rich silty sand with increasing charcoal and artifacts at depth (ca. 82-105), prepared floor with floor assemblage

Type II Yes New dividing wall with door; door later blocked; later remodeling w/ possible kiva during last phase of occupation

1070vv, door lintel, pinyon

7 South room bank, main architectural block

Post-occupational sediment mixed with construction stone (5-75 cm), mounded loose silty sand with increasing charcoal and ash at depth, and variable amounts of artifacts (ca. 100-135 cm), mounded, ashy layers with rich artifacts interspersed with sediments lacking ash or charcoal (ca. 35-95 cm), prepared floor with floor assemblage

Type II Yes Blocked doorway 1030vv and 1046vv, loose samples associated with trash deposit, pinyon; 1039++vv, structural, pinyon; 1057++vv, structural, pinyon

8 Lower tier, east room bank

Post-occupational sediment with construction stone (ca. 15-20 cm), daub-rich silty sand with some artifacts (ca. 30-55 cm), prepared floor surface interrupted by bioturbation

Mix of large flat sandstone and stones facing sterile soil; south wall has tabular sandstone and some chinking

Yes - -

102

9 Upper tier, east room bank

Post-occupational sediment (ca. 7-25 cm), natural sediment and abundant construction stone (ca. 27-100 cm), primary trash deposition (ca. 30 cm), prepared floor surface lacking artifacts in west half; floor cut into followed by clay/sandstone deposit in each half

Type II Yes, on early cross

wall

Early cross-wall removed; late addition of small perpendicular wall, possible as wall support

-

Midden 1 South side of midden

Post-occupational sediments (ca. 35 cm), fine-grained silty sand with several discrete layers of ash/charcoal, fauna, and artifacts (ca. 135-145 cm), dense clay layer with some cultural materials present (ca. 12-50 cm), largely sterile sand with some ash lenses and minimal artifacts (ca. 18-24 cm)

-

Midden 2 West-northwest side of midden

Silty sand with relatively high artifact density (ca. 35 cm), compact clay with low artifact density (ca. 3-15 cm)

-

Midden 3 South-southwest side of midden

Post-occupational sediment (ca. 3-14 cm), silty sand with charcoal flecking and higher density of artifacts (ca. 37-47 cm), sterile clay (ca. 7-10 cm)

-

Midden 4 Southwest side of midden

Post-occupational sediment (ca. 15-28 cm), silty sand with some artifacts (ca. 12 cm)

-

Midden 5 West side of midden

Silty sand with some artifacts (ca. 4-14 cm) -

Midden 6 South-southwest side of midden

Post-occupational sediment (ca. 4-10 cm), silty sand with charcoal flecks and artifacts (ca. 5-43 cm), sterile clay (ca. 2-30 cm)

-

Midden 7 South-southwest side of midden

Silty sand with few artifacts (ca. 9 cm), sterile clay (ca. 5 cm)

-

103

Multi-Story Construction

Largo Gap’s original site recorders suggested the structure was multi-story (Hammack

and Marshall 1963, cited in Fowler et al. 1987). This interpretation is likely based on the tiered

appearance of rubble and wall alignments along the front (east) slope of the knoll. Rooms with a

preserved wall height of approximately 2.4 m were identified in the main architectural block

(Units 6 and 7; Figure 4.7). These rooms contained a large amount of rubble, potentially

suggesting they were two stories tall before abandonment. In contrast, three units extending

down slope to the east/front (Units 2, 8, and 9) and one to the back (Unit 5) of the main structure

had remaining standing wall heights between 56 cm and 1.4 m.

A beam embedded within the east-facing wall of Unit 7 (the wall dividing the two units)

was located 1.8 m above the ground (see Figure 4.7). If the wall height of these two rooms was a

typical 1.8 m, then the excess 0.6 m may denote a structural division or bounding of roof top

space, possibly for craft production. The excess may also indicate rooms in this portion of the

great house were two stories tall. When absolute floor elevation is considered across all units,

then a standing wall height of 1.8 m would put all other exposed walls in the main architectural

block at approximately the same visual height as those of rooms of Units 6 and 7; rooms in the

lower tiers in the front would be at approximately 30 cm below. This pattern of rooms tiered

down a slope would be similar to that observed at several other great houses (e.g., Comb Wash,

Hammond Canyon, Red Knobs, and Cottonwood Falls [Hurst and Till 2008:50]). If standing

wall height was closer to 2 m for all remaining exposed walls, then those in the lower tier (Units

8 and 9) would be 20 cm above the remaining visible height of the internal rooms of the main

architectural block. The central rooms may have been excavated down into the hill surface to

make the height of the structure appear to be consistent across all rooms.

104

Figure 4.7. East-facing wall of Unit 7. Remaining wall height was approximately 2.4 m; an inset wall beam is visible near the top right of the wall, with its base at approximately 1.8 m above floor level.

Based on the present information, is unclear how much taller the standing wall height

was within the central rooms. At least one portion of the great house may have been at least two

stories tall or these may represent over-tall rooms, which is another characteristic of Chaco

structures. This dividing wall may also have been added onto later in Largo Gap’s use when the

second kiva was constructed in the southwest portion in order to fully bound the new structure. It

is also unclear whether the rooms extending down slope to the east were intended to appear

tiered, and thus enhanced the appearance of the great house as a multi-story structure. Further

excavation would be needed to differentiate between these alternatives.

105

Chaco Walls and Banded Masonry

Most exposed walls displayed Chaco-style masonry. Unit 2, located on the exterior front

of the main rectangular block, shows the most direct evidence of Chaco-style masonry (Figure

4.8a). This unit exposed the intersection of two walls that face the bounded plaza. Both walls

display large shaped sandstone blocks with banded chinking, which is similar to that of Chaco

Type II masonry characteristic of the mid-to-late A.D. 1000s (Lekson 1984:18). Other areas of

the great house that may have been less visible also display Chaco-style masonry. The interior

wall separating Units 6 and 7 is composed of large, shaped sandstone blocks with bands of

chinking along its height (Figure 4.8b). Unit 5 exposed an interface between the two walls

composing the northwest corner of the main rectangular block. Once interpreted as the back wall

of the great house, this unit demonstrated that the northernmost great house wall continues past

the main rectangular block down slope for at least 3 m. Both the exposed east masonry wall and

the exposed interior portion of the north wall display nicely shaped and faced masonry with

notable patterns of large sandstone blocks with banded chinking (Figure 4.8c).

The north-south trending wall exposed in Unit 5 abuts the northernmost structural wall

rather than bonds with it. This is unexpected, particularly because the main rectangle of the great

house was suspected to have been built first with rooms added later. Furthermore, Unit 4 was

placed on the opposite face of the north-south trending wall from Unit 5 to explore room use in

the room suite to the north of the blocked-in kiva. While the masonry style of the exposed east-

west trending wall (the northern-most structural wall) was constructed similarly to that exposed

in Unit 5, the interior face of the north-south wall displayed coarse internal masonry.

106

Figure 4.8. Type II masonry across the great house. (a) Exterior walls of Unit 2, (b) west-facing wall of Unit 6, (c) west-facing wall of Unit 5, (d) low, cobble constructed dividing walls of Unit 4. These low walls do not display Chaco-style masonry.

There are minimally two explanations for the coarse masonry on the inner-most wall and

a well-constructed exterior face. First, each room’s function, access, and public visibility may

have played a role in how much effort was expended in wall facing. The function of the back

room exposed by Unit 5 is unclear; it contained relatively few artifacts beyond the fragments of a

large Reserve jar and some worked shell. Yet this room’s location at the prominent corner of the

107

great house’s back slope and its seemingly large size may have made it more visible or

accessible to more individuals.

In contrast, the opposing room exposed in Unit 4 suggested a potential storage function.

Three contiguous 1-by-1 m units were placed at the junction of the two masonry walls and

extending along the northern-most wall to the east. Two low, poorly constructed cross-walls

were encountered approximately 1 m apart from each other along the main east-west trending

wall (Figure 4.8d). They were composed largely of cobbles with periodic bracing beams

embedded within. This room is provisionally interpreted as a “storage” room based solely on its

architectural features and an overall lack of artifacts. These poorly constructed walls may also

have been in a portion of the great house that was less accessible or visible to most community

members or visitors.

Many walls showed plastering, suggesting that even if they were constructed in Chaco

style, this was not always visible. Similarly, walls that did not seem to display Chaco-style

masonry contained abundant plaster, such as the exposed walls of Unit 8. Unit 8 is located in a

room within the last two room banks extending down slope to the front right of the main

rectangular block, and is now relatively shallow due to wall collapse and/or slope erosion. This

unit exposed the corner of two abutting walls, an east-west trending wall that forms the southern

boundary for the great house structure and a cross-wall separating the shallow banks of rooms to

the south of the possible plaza. The room’s lower walls were cut into sterile sediments of the hill

with larger, shaped sandstone blocks built on the top of the natural ground surface. While neither

of Unit 8’s exposed walls displayed consistent Chaco-style masonry, the amount of plaster

remaining on these walls, particularly at the wall joint and “rounding” out the corner onto the

108

floor, perhaps indicating that heavy plastering may have been used to cover walls that did not

reference Chaco masonry as directly.

Evidence of Great House Remodeling

While limited test excavations did not clarify the entire construction sequence, they did

highlight many periods of expansion or remodeling. Unit 7 had a low blocked-in doorway or

room vent with lintels above the blocking masonry (Figure 4.9a). Blocking this feature closed

access between Unit 6 and Unit 7’s rooms. Unit 6 displayed both evidence for remodeling as

well as room repurposing later in time. Sooting is present along the majority of the east wall (the

wall separating Unit 6 from Unit 7; see Figure 4.8b). The lack of sooting on the north wall

suggests a disjunction in the construction and use of this room through time. The north masonry

wall also had a blocked-in doorway, with three lintel beams at the top of the door. One lintel

provided a non-cutting date of 1070 (1070vv; see Table 4.2). The blocking of this doorway

indicates that access into this room was later inhibited.

Artifact density was very low within Unit 6, which may be due to its later episodes of

remodeling. The remains of a possible curved wall were identified in Unit 6 extending from the

south to the west in the upper half of this unit’s fill (approximately 75 cm below modern ground

surface; Figure 4.9b). To the immediate north of the curved wall in the western profile were the

remains of a prepared masonry surface and an interior wall (Figure 4.9c). The wall was narrow

and presently slumps off the prepared rock surface to the north. This wall is not connected to any

other exposed architecture within Unit 6 but it does terminate at the same depth as the circular

wall, indicating they were constructed roughly contemporaneously. These features suggest a

109

Figure 4.9. Episodes of great house remodeling (a, left) Blocked doorway of Unit 7; (b, upper right) Remains of curved wall in Unit 6, approximately 1 m below modern ground surface; (c, lower right) Remains of slumped wall on prepared surface in Unit 6. Its location adjacent to the curved wall suggests it was a bounding wall of a second kiva.

possible remodeling event that resulted in a second blocked-in kiva near the back (southwest)

corner of the main rectangular block.

Units 8 and 9 share a north-south trending wall. A cross-wall extends to the west from

Unit 8’s west masonry wall at an obtuse angle on the north edge of Unit 9 for approximately 1 m

but only for a few courses. Unit 9’s west wall is the same as that of Unit 2 and defines the

eastern-most wall of the main rectangular block. This room contained a thick deposit of bowls,

jars, ladles, and fauna mixed with ash deposited before the great house fell out of use (discussed

further below); the room had fallen out of use at some point before activity at the great house

110

ceased. A later second perpendicular wall was installed against the main west masonry wall

(Figure 4.10). At first this short wall was identified as a possible doorway leading to rooms

directly adjacent to the plaza area. However, this room had 30 cm of trash fill before the eastern

half of unit’s trash and floor were cut into and a stub wall was then abutted to the western wall.

Because no opposing door wall was identified, it is more likely that this wall was constructed to

stabilize the main west wall than as a means of permitting room access.

In Chapter 3, I argued that patterns of remodeling would be important to understanding if

the nature of competition or the costly signal changed through time at Largo Gap. The patterns of

remodeling at Largo Gap do not provide clear resolution to this question, in part because so few

areas excavated contained evidence for such remodeling. The removal of a cross wall and the

addition of a stabilizing wall in Unit 9 in a room adjacent to the plaza suggests both a

repurposing of space for a formerly small room and a later stabilization of the main masonry wall

of the great house. Whether the repurposing of this room was simply to change its function (e.g.,

shifting a smaller storage area to a large activity room) or to alter access points between rooms is

unclear. That the stabilization of the main wall occurred long after the room fell out of use and

had already filled partially with refuse is important. It symbolizes maintenance activities at the

great house that would extend its use life, which in turn signals the long-term use of the Largo

Gap great house by its support community rather than the relatively quick abandonment of this

great house in favor of another.

111

Figure 4.10. Episodes of wall remodeling in Unit 9. The low remains of a dividing wall indicates the room was later remodeled to increase its size or access. A later remodeling event added the short stabilizing wall, which rests on 30 cm of fill.

The later addition of a possible second internal kiva in Unit 6 is equally significant. It

signals the ritual importance of the great house and, presumably, of the community-integrating

activities conducted at Chaco-style great houses more broadly. Such remodeling would be

expected if great houses held both a ritual and administrative role for its associated community

(Fowler et al. 1987:72). That this probably original great house room (Unit 6) also had the first

evidence of continued occupational activity visible through dense sooting on its east wall,

followed by the addition of a new north wall segmenting the room but providing access through

a doorway that was later blocked, shows the complexity of remodeling activities within the main

architectural block through time. To be followed by the much later construction of a ritual

112

feature within the original structure implies a ritual renewal of the great house (e.g., Crown and

Wills 2003) that supports the structure’s continued importance to the community and thus the

continuation of a competitive signal broadcasted by its primary users.

Largo Gap contains many of the architectural features associated with Chaco-style great

houses and, importantly, is linked by these features to architectural ideals expressed at Chaco

Canyon. However, one architectural feature shared by both Pueblo and Mogollon peoples is the

kiva. Below, I identify the presence or absence of features associated with either Pueblo or

Mogollon kiva traditions and evaluate the extent to which the kiva can be definitively labeled as

Chaco-style or ethnically blended.

Architectural Features of the Blocked-in Kiva

Two perpendicular 3 m by 1 m units (excavated as three separate 1 by 1 m proveniences)

that overlap slightly in the center of the circular depression were placed within the blocked-in

kiva. Unit 1.1 abutted the interior of the east-facing external wall of the main room block to the

center of the room while Unit 1.2 abutted an interior wall on the south side of the room. The

blocked-in kiva displayed many architectural characteristics linking it to Pueblo-style kivas,

although some unique features were identified. The interior portion (Unit 1.1) of the main east

wall exposed in Unit 2 was poorly preserved but was built as a compound wall (Figure 4.11a).

Banding was not visible on the interior face, although chinking was present. The interior south

wall exposed at the south end of Unit 1.2 appears to display Type II masonry facing (Figure

4.11b). This wall retained very little plaster at the time of excavation. Two footing stones were

identified at its base. At least 1 m remained of each bounding wall, both of which rested directly

113

Figure 4.11. Bounding walls of the kiva with exposed low benches. (a) East bounding wall, illustrating compound wall construction and Type II masonry of circular bench with wall niche/ventilator shaft. (b) South enclosing wall of the blocked-in kiva displaying tabular stone masonry with chinking and the remains of an interior, possibly plastered, bench.

on the natural sediments of the hill. Both bounding walls would have been visible to individuals

within the kiva.

Each kiva excavation encountered a low wall interpreted as a bench set into the room

approximately 50 cm from the bounding walls and began only a few courses above their base.

114

The depth of the kiva floor and the low benches in relation to the base of the bounding walls

indicates the blocked-in kiva was excavated down into the native hill sediment. Similar to the

interior room walls, the portions of the bench encountered were in varying states of preservation.

The east bench was in very good condition (see Figure 4.11a); it displayed well-constructed

Type II style masonry, comprised primarily of sandstone, and was visibly curved.

The south bench was not as well preserved and displayed no distinct wall facing,

although much of it appeared to be plastered (see Figure 4.11b). The base of the south bench was

not fully identified. The last course of masonry appears to rest on a constructed clay layer 20 cm

above the floor surface, perhaps to artificially raise the height of the bench to be even around the

kiva. The curvature on both benches suggests the overall shape of the kiva was rounded, linking

it to Pueblo-style kivas.

The east bench had a niche or ventilator located at its south base (14 cm tall by 15 cm

wide). The niche was directly in line with an interior, potentially box-shaped hearth. The niche

had a large, flat rock propped adjacent to it, suggesting the rock served as a deflecting stone for

the feature, though this does not appear to have been embedded into the floor, which is a

characteristic of northern kiva deflectors. The location of this feature suggests that, if it served as

a ventilator, it would have opened into the open plaza and would not have needed a shaft. An

incised turkey femur and a few sherds were identified within the niche. The central hearth

contained a dense whitish grey ash with some sherds, and burned and unburned fauna, while a

large, flat mano rested on its northeast corner.

The floor was a thick, dark, ashy clay sand overlying a sterile, loose red sand. A thin

layer of plaster was identified on the west side of the unit, suggesting the entire floor may have

been completely plastered at one point in time. Several concentrated charcoal and ash dumps

115

were located within the excavation units at floor level. Floor artifacts consisted primarily of

several pieces of two large patterned corrugated brown jars—one of which was largely intact—

the remains of a large Reserve Black-on-white jar, partially articulated and disarticulated fauna

(discussed further below), a bone awl, eggshell, burnt pieces of corn, a ladle handle with a

possible snake pattern, two pieces of worked basalt (described further below), worked shell, and

worked painted sherds.

Excavations within the blocked-in kiva identified many important clues regarding the

construction, use, and abandonment of this space. As noted, the kiva appears to have been

excavated down into the natural soils of Largo Gap’s hill. Two flat footing stones were located

directly in front of the south bench, 16 cm below the floor level (Figure 4.12). A post hole with

disintegrated wood was also identified within the south unit, approximately 115 cm from the

south bench. This feature was in direct line with the central hearth and terminated at a depth of

19 cm below the floor. These features suggest they were both placed during the initial

construction phase of the kiva. Sterile red sands were identified to the immediate west of the

stones in the intervening layers between the floor surface and the footing stones (approximately

10 cm below floor surface).

Some artifacts were encountered directly above the stones but below the identified floor,

and along a north trajectory away from the bench. These include portions of a red ware bowl,

several mano fragments, several lithics, and the cup of a ladle. These items are distinct from

those considered to be within the “floor zone” because they occur at greater depths (5-10 cm

below the other floor artifacts) and usually within less ashy anthropogenic soils. This may

suggest that the kiva was in use extensively over time, allowing artifacts to become gradually

covered by the build-up of anthropogenic soils.

116

Figure 4.12. Kiva floor exposed in Unit 1.2. Two footing stones are visible adjacent to the bench (right), approximately 16 cm below floor level. A portion of the hearth and a support post are visible on left.

Daub and large pieces of charcoal were encountered at depth within the units, suggesting

some ritual closing of the room at abandonment. However, multiple large beams were recovered

from within the kiva, several at the same depth (~45 cm below modern ground surface) and lying

parallel to one another; none showed more than a limited amount of charring on the outside

(Figure 4.13). If the kiva was ritually closed, the fire was not intense enough to make a

noticeable impact on the roof timbers. Beams identified in the kiva were predominantly pinyon

with some juniper. A single non-cutting date of A.D. 1066 (1066vv) was obtained from charcoal

117

Figure 4.13. Roof beams identified at approximately 45 cm below modern ground surface (multiple beams not pictured to south of image extent). Their articulation suggests the roof was flat, rather than cribbed.

associated with a non-datable beam 30 cm below the cluster of large beams.

Multiple ash dumps were identified over what appeared to be thin laminated strata of

alternating clay and silty sand layers (primarily associated with the south bench and extending

toward the center of the kiva). These ash dumps occurred between 60-80 cm below modern

ground surface and at the same level as the 1066vv date. While the ash dumps themselves are

less than 10 cm thick at their thickest point, they are spatially extensive across the northwest

third of Unit 1.2. Because the roof beams were identified higher within the stratigraphic

118

sequence than the ash dumps, it appears the roof was not fully collapsed when the room may

have been revisited at a later date after post-depositional infilling began.

The depositional history of this unit thus suggests a possible closing of the kiva with

some items intentionally left on the floor (such as the large corrugated jar and multiple turkeys),

but this did not sufficiently burn the roof beams to collapse them or the in-place support beam.

Several thin, laminated layers of clay and silty sand were then deposited extending from the

south bench toward the center of the kiva. Ash dumps and some artifacts were then added during

a period of infilling by silty sand before the roof fully collapsed. This was followed by wall

collapse, which extended out from the identified bounding walls at an inward slope toward the

center of the room. The remaining sediment, extending above the wall collapse to the surface,

was composed of wind- or water-born silty sand.

In total, these architectural features present a mix of Pueblo and Mogollon characteristics.

The bounding walls displayed visible Type II masonry and compound wall construction.

Similarly, one portion of the identified bench displayed well-constructed Chaco masonry while

the other was too deteriorated to definitively classify. Based on the curvature of the benches, the

kiva’s shape appears to be circular rather than sub-rounded. Finally, while limited floor features

were identified, a central box hearth, a niche/ventilator shaft, and possible deflector stone support

the characterization of the blocked-in kiva as more closely aligned with the Pueblo kiva tradition.

No pilasters were identified, although the orientation of the excavation units may not have

identified these features if they were present. The internal support post with two footing rocks

below floor level and the recovery of several parallel beams suggest a Mogollon-style flat (rather

than cribbed) roof supported by posts.

119

EVIDENCE FOR FEASTING, RITUAL, AND SPECIALIZED OR EXOTIC ITEMS

Beyond its “great” architecture, Chaco Canyon is frequently associated with group feasting

events and a wealth of imported items (e.g., Cameron and Toll 2001; Crown and Hurst 2009:

Durand 2003; Lekson 2006). Ceramics and high-elevation timbers from the Chuska Mountains

were present in very high numbers in Chaco (Toll 2001; Windes and McKenna 2001). Patterns

of obsidian procurement encompassed multiple macro-regional sources, but were dominated by

Mount Taylor obsidian with a notable shift to obsidian from the Jemez Mountains over time

(Duff et al. 2012). Chaco Canyon was typified by a “goods come in but relatively little material

goods leave” model (Cameron and Toll 2001; Lekson 2006). Importantly, some of the items

imported into Chaco Canyon were from notably distant sources. Macaws, copper bells,

turquoise, and cacao are the most notable exotic items imported into Chaco (Cameron and Toll

2001; Crown and Hurst 2009; Hull et al. 2014; Lekson 2006).

While tested great houses have not demonstrated the same scale of imported exotic

goods, it is still expected that non-local items are present in great houses in greater abundances

than their surrounding small sites. This expectation stems directly from concepts associated with

Chaco-style great houses: their shared architectural scale distinguishes these structures from the

unit pueblos that surround them. This is particularly expected if great house leaders maintained

external trade connections as part of a costly signal of resource access. I first discuss the

evidence for feasting behavior at the Largo Gap great house before examining the presence and

type of any items that are considered to be ritual, specialized, or exotic.

Feasting Activities

One of the primary activities associated with great houses is the periodic occurrence of

120

communal gatherings, often in the form of feasts (Cameron 2008:302; Durand and Durand 2008;

Potter 1997, 2000). I argue that the Largo Gap great house followed this trend and was used as a

hosting location for periodic feasting events as a component of a costly signal of community

ability to procure economic resources and display the scale of those resources through communal

events. According to Potter (1997:358), the reasons for hosting a feast may vary, but “their

repetitive nature (as a component of rituals), their communal scale, and their seasonal timing,

make them potentially detectable with archaeofaunal remains.” Communal feasts at Largo Gap

may have been used to convey many things, such as commitment to community well-being

through group consumption or redistribution, participation in and adherence to recognized ritual

events, and/or a strategy to “show-off” to neighboring communities or prospective new members

(e.g., attracting external mates). Faunal data can also be used to address the frequency of these

events, the species used, and the scale of participation.

Aletheia Bouknight (2014) analyzed all fauna at Largo Gap. She followed Driver (1999)

in coding each specimen’s taxon, element, portion of the element represented, side, degree of

fusion, breakage, modification (e.g., burning, cutmarks, polishing), length, and cortical thickness.

Bouknight (2014) also added a subjective, scalar measure of the specimen’s completeness in

order to examine the relationship between the degree of processing at different areas of the site

and the occurrence and differential access to subsistence and ritual resources at the Largo Gap

great house.

The majority of Largo Gap’s collected fauna consisted of lagomorphs (rabbits and hares),

which comprised 24.4 percent of the assemblage (n=3,525). This pattern is consistent with the

use of lagomorphs in communal feasting events within the Southwest (Potter 1997). In contrast,

few artiodactyls, such as deer, were present within the recovered artifact assemblage (n=167, 1.2

121

percent) (Bouknight 2014:32). The abundance of minimally processed lagomorphs at Largo Gap

relative to artiodactyls, particularly in deposits suggestive of feasts, indicates group-scale

activities at the great house were communal in nature (Potter 1997), and provided another avenue

to integrate community members from diverse ancestral backgrounds.

While none of the great house excavations identified a fully trash-filled room, both Units

7 and 9 contained abundant trash deposition that may be linked to periodic feasting events. Based

on stratigraphic context, the sherds, fauna, and ash dumps identified in Unit 9, located adjacent

to the enclosed plaza, appear to have been deposited in a series of events over a discrete period

of time, although the periodicity of these events is unknown. Brown wares dominated this unit,

over 75 percent of which are jars, with very few gray wares (1.2 percent) (Figure 4.14). Unit 9

also contained 1.4:1 ratio of smudged brown bowls to red painted bowls, ten ladles, and the

majority of faunal remains recovered from within the structure (dominantly lagomorphs

[NISP=1,256]) recovered from the great house or the associated midden (Bouknight 2014:32).

While this room had nearly equal amounts of Puerco and Reserve black-on-white sherds, it had

twice as many Wingate Black-on-red as Puerco Black-on-red ceramics. Although these design

styles overlap temporally, twice as many Wingate Black-on-red as Puerco Black-on-red suggests

the deposit dates to the latter stages of the great house’s occupation, perhaps after the A.D.

1100s. Unit 9’s ceramic assemblage suggests a series of mid-to-late period feasting episodes

within Largo Gap’s history that largely utilized Mogollon-style cooking vessels and a relatively

equal use of decorated bowls from both traditions. This deposit’s stratigraphic context, together

with the room’s pattern of remodeling, indicates this series of events occurred well before the

great house fell out of use.

122

Figure 4.14. Frequency of ceramic wares across excavation units at the great house. GH= excavation units within the great house structure, M= excavation units within the great house midden. Refer to Figure 4.6. for excavation locations.

123

Similar to Unit 9, Unit 7 displayed discrete episodes of rapid trash deposition across its

2.4 m of fill sequence. Unit 7 contained the second-highest abundance of lagomorph remains

(NISP = 993) identified within the great house or in the associated midden (Bouknight 2014:32).

This room’s assemblage was dominated by brown ware jars relative to gray ware jars (14:1) and

a roughly 2:1 ratio of smudged brown bowls to red bowls. Most of the bowls in this room were

larger than an individual serving bowl, suggesting their use in communal events. This room also

contained a 4:1 ratio of Wingate Black-on-red/Polychrome bowls to Puerco Black-on-red bowls,

indicating a later phase of great house use. Like Unit 9, Unit 7 contained several ladles (n=9).

The number of ladles recovered from these two contexts can also be used to support an

interpretation of community feasting events, with an emphasis on serving implements. Notably,

there are gaps in Unit 7’s use as a trash repository throughout its stratigraphic sequence. The

variation in ceramic and fauna frequency per level would suggest sporadic episodes of trash fill

in between periodic group-scale feasting events.

Evidence for discrete feasting deposits in Largo Gap’s midden is less well defined,

although the assemblage recovered from Midden Unit 1 is suggestive. This unit extended to a

depth of 2.4 m and contained numerous ash dumps and charcoal, in addition to a high density of

ceramics, fauna, and lithics throughout. Two concentrated ash features containing burnt faunal

and corn remains were encountered at approximately 127 cm and 133 cm below modern ground

surface. Based on surface remains, this unit is approximately 22.5 m from the great house; if the

wall alignments identified in the aerial thermography are accurate, then this deposit is ~15 m

south of the last bank of rooms.

Although evidence for feasts is limited to a few great house contexts, it suggests these

events largely incorporated Mogollon brown wares with a potentially later influx in the relative

124

ratio of large red ware bowls compared to smudged brown bowls. This is not the pattern one

would expect if the great house catered to an exclusively ancestral Puebloan constituency. In

fact, gray wares are present in such low proportions within these discrete trash deposits, as well

as within the great house as a whole, that their use does not appear to have been well-integrated

with great house events or its daily use (see Figure 4.14). The incorporation of Mogollon and

Pueblo wares, especially in the visibility of both large bowl types and their decorations in what

appear to be feast-related deposits (e.g. Mills 2007), supports the use of the great house as a

means to integrate members from both ancestral traditions.

In contrast, Unit 6 has a much higher proportion of gray wares than any other tested unit

as well as (proportionally) a suppressed amount of brown wares. Because this room showed the

most evidence of extensive remodeling and the possible construction of a second kiva during

final occupations, these ceramics may have been part of an architectural renewal activity, similar

to the relationship suggested by Crown and Wills (2003) between the repainting and refiring of

Chaco mugs and kiva remodeling. The higher proportion of gray jars in this context may also be

indicative of a shift toward more Pueblo-oriented activities or ties to the north later in time at a

great house that is largely dominated by Mogollon ware use.

Presence of Exotic, Specialized, or Ritual Items

Several long-distance items and items of ritual use were identified within the Largo Gap

great house. Three pieces of carved marine shell, likely of the genus Glycymeris, were identified

within multiple rooms of the great house (Figure 4.15). Two of the Glycymeris shell fragments

had multiple incised lines along their external edge while the third had no incisions but had been

burnt, possibly to draw out its natural patterning. All are in the shape of bracelets. There were

125

also an equal number of worked pieces of a much flakier, iridescent shell type found within the

great house. These are much thinner, much smaller in size than the Glycymeris shell fragments,

and are possibly a species of mussel. All three have been worked around the edges and contain a

perforation. Personal ornaments made from Glycymeris or Haliotis shells are common

throughout the Hohokam area (Colton 1941), but have also been recovered in both Mogollon and

Pueblo contexts (Haury 1936). These pieces of worked shell represent trade items, either directly

with the Hohokam or as part of down-the-line trade from the Pacific Coast near the Gulf of

California (Colton 1941; Haury 1936), possibly as bracelet blanks (Woodward 1936).

Other recovered items appear to have been intended for specialized or ritual use. Two

pieces of worked vesicular basalt were identified near the base of the kiva’s south bench (Figure

4.16). While the function of these two items is unknown, their morphology could suggest their

use as small, cylindrical pestles. A lack of grinding or polishing on the ends of either piece of

basalt, however, implies they were either intended for but not used as pestles, or that their use did

not result in an identifiable wear pattern. An alternative suggestion based on their location in the

kiva (near but not directly within a pile of burnt corn cobs) and their morphological similarity to

burnt corn is as symbolically representing corn cobs or symbolic pestle use during ritual

activities. These may have served a similar purpose as, or be conceptually similar to, “lava corn,”

or basalt lava with pre-contact corn impressions (Elson et al. 2002). Rocks that looked similar to

the basalt lava rocks recovered by Elson et al. were identified at habitations near Largo Gap,

suggesting a similar conception associated with symbolic representations of corn. Although the

link is extremely tenuous, there may be a connection between basalt lava corn and the worked

basalt/associated burnt corn in the kiva. The worked basalt items were recovered near a ladle

handle with a possible snake patterning on the handle.

126

Figure 4.15. Examples of worked Glycymeris shell fragments found at the great house.

Figure 4.16. Pieces of worked basalt identified within the blocked-in kiva. Both pieces were identified near the bench and in associated with burnt corn, possibly suggesting their use as “corn effigies” during ritual activity.

127

Figure 4.17. Ladle recovered within kiva with possible snake-style pattern on handle.

The most notable indicator of ritual activity was turkey and turkey eggshell in different

locations of the great house, which parallels that of other Pueblo communities (e.g., Badenhorst

and Driver 2009; Durand 2003; Durand and Durand 2008; Muir and Driver 2002; Potter 1997).

Turkey, a ritually important species during this time period (Potter 1997), comprised 0.84

percent of the overall assemblage (n=121) while other important species, hawks and quails,

constituted 2.24 percent of the assemblage (n=323) (Bouknight 2014:23-24). The majority of the

identified turkey bones were from within the kiva (n= 74) (Bouknight 2014). The positioning of

several bones (partially articulated and mixed) suggest multiple turkeys were placed on the kiva

floor at abandonment and at least one long bone was in the process of being carved into beads.

Nearly 400 pieces of turkey eggshell and an immature turkey skeleton were identified in great

house contexts.

SUMMARY OF LARGO GAP’S ARCHITECTURE AND USE CHARACTERISTICS

Several lines of material evidence were examined to evaluate the construction and use of Largo

Gap as a Chaco-style great house. Nine data expectations outlined in Chapter 3 are analyzed at

the scale of the great house (see Table 3.2); six meet the expectations for a costly signaling

128

model of great house use, which I summarize here. First, Largo Gap’s layout and architectural

features are consistent with other Chaco-era great houses (Cameron 2008; Chaco Research

Archive 2014; Lekson 1991; Marshall et al. 1979; Mills 2002; Powers et al. 1983; Van Dyke

2002; Vivian 2005). Largo Gap is in a prominent location (data expectation 7). Anyone passing

through the area along Largo-Carrizo Wash, through the gap in Tejana Mesa, or across adjacent

floodplains would see Largo Gap, especially given its location atop a knoll.

Following Lekson (1991), Largo Gap does seem to be a “big bump” on the landscape

given its large size and amount of surface rubble. Through the use of aerial thermography,

ground penetrating radar, and topographic mapping, Largo Gap’s architectural size and layout

have been better defined. Approximately 22 rooms, a blocked-in kiva, and a bounded plaza were

identified within the D-shaped great house, with an additional 10 rooms suggested by the aerial

thermography and GPR data. These techniques did not identify the presence of a great kiva or

Chaco road (data expectation 4), both of which had been suspected but not confirmed.

Architecturally, Largo Gap contained several features typically associated with Chaco-

style great houses across the Southwest (Lekson 1991; Van Dyke 1999b, 2000; Vivian 2005).

These include the use of Chaco Type II masonry, over-tall/multi-story rooms, some compound

walls, a blocked-in kiva, an enclosed plaza, and some evidence for remodeling that suggests both

extended use and possibly ritual renewal (i.e., the addition of a second internal kiva) (data

expectations 1 and 2). No prepared earthen platform was identified, although the rooms within

the main rectangular block were excavated into the natural hill during construction. No core-and-

veneer walls or high-elevation timbers (symbolic construction traits, data expectation 6) were

identified. Several episodes of remodeling were identified (data expectation 3). These rooms

display not only several episodes of internal remodeling that altered room access through time,

129

but also the much later addition of a second blocked-in kiva.

The central blocked-in kiva was also largely similar to Pueblo-style kivas, although some

unique features were identified (data expectation 5). Pueblo kiva characteristics include a low

encircling bench, a box hearth, a niche/ventilator shaft and deflector stone, and Chaco-style

masonry within all visible walls. However, the use of footing stones, a roof-support post, and the

organization of recovered beams suggestive of a flat roof indicate features typically associated

with Mogollon pithouses. Regardless of kiva style, the remains of several turkeys on the kiva’s

floor directly denote ritual activity within this space (data expectation 9).

Midden units varied in density and content. Several contained the remains of large red

ware and smudged brown bowls, fauna, projectile points, and ash dumps although most were

shallow. Only Midden Unit 1 was deep and mirrored Units 7 and 9 in containing an abundance

of smudged brown ware and red ware bowls and fauna. All three units (7, 9, Midden Unit 1)

contained these items in layers of rapid deposition suggestive of multiple communal feasts,

though the frequency of such events is unknown. Minimally processed lagomorphs dominated

these deposits, which is consistent with communal feasts (data expectation 8).

Finally, multiple pieces of shell were recovered within the great house. Shell bracelets

and pendants were imported, either as blanks or fully formed, to Largo Gap and deposited within

several areas of the great house. Other ritual items include a possible snake-style ladle handle

and two worked pieces of vesicular basalt located within the kiva. Combined with the aggregate

architectural characteristics, Largo Gap displays many features consistent with Chaco-style great

houses, and evidence of what appear to be communal activities, ritual events, and long distance

trade for prestigious resources.

130

CHAPTER FIVE: LARGO GAP AND ITS SUPPORT COMMUNITY

Understanding how Largo Gap’s construction and use compare to other great houses cannot be

accomplished without first examining its local social context and its role within the associated

settlements. I first detail the results of full-coverage survey around the great house in order to

identify the extent of contemporaneous settlement and the degree of clustering represented in the

great house community or the “spatial community.” The spatial community is most frequently

identified by archaeologists and is often inferred to represent a social community. The survey

results are used to construct a relative momentary population estimate of the Largo Gap

community. The calculated population estimates are compared to a correspondence analysis of

ceramic samples from across the community to better define the chronology of community

development and occupation. I then examine patterns in ceramic ware distribution through time

to evaluate if a “multi-ethnic” community is suggested by the ceramic technology. Finally, I

compare the use of wares between the great house and the household sites in order to further

evaluate Largo Gap’s role within the community.

SETTLEMENT PATTERNING OF THE LARGO GAP COMMUNITY

Five seasons of survey and excavation were conducted in the vicinity of the Largo Gap great

house during the summers of 2010-2014. Full-coverage survey targeted accessible Bureau of

Land Management holdings and State of New Mexico lands in the sections surrounding the great

house (Figure 5.1). Survey goals were to identify and record the spatial extent of Largo Gap’s

associated community, to document landscape use, and to estimate the population throughout

131

Figure 5.1. Survey around the Largo Gap great house conducted from 2010-2014 on publicly accessible lands.

N

LEGENDGreat HousePrecontact Site

0 1

kilometers

132

the period of occupation. Survey crew members were spaced 15 m apart. Identified cultural

materials were categorized into the following site types: ceramic and lithic scatter, field house,

roomblock, and historic feature; isolated artifacts were also documented.

Field houses were defined as architectural units that lacked abundant construction stone,

consisted of fewer than four rooms, and lacked a midden but had an associated scatter of

artifacts. Roomblocks were defined as having four or more rooms and a midden. No structural

remains that appeared to have at least four rooms lacked an associated midden.

One hundred and thirty-seven pre-contact sites were identified within Largo Gap’s

immediate vicinity (Figure 5.2; Table 5.1). These sites range in elevation from roughly 6,660 to

7,520 ft amsl. Ceramic and/or lithic samples were obtained from scatters, field houses, and

roomblock sites using 2-by-2 m surface units where collections seemed dense enough to

document the range of materials present and their frequency by type. These samples were also

used to assign a relative temporal occupation to each site. One hundred percent of the artifacts

were collected from each 2-by-2 m unit where permanent collections were made. At some sites

only surface tallies were made, although this was largely limited to those that had been

previously recorded. All diagnostic lithic projectile points identified during survey were

collected and assigned their own specimen number, with their provenience recorded.

Fifty-eight roomblock sites were identified largely to the south and west of Largo Gap

(Figure 5.3). There are limited landforms to the immediate east of Tejana Mesa or across Largo

Wash to the north that fit the characteristics associated with roomblock placement. This suggests

that fewer than 10 additional roomblocks would be identified in these areas if these areas were

open to survey, although this is only a hypothesis. Scatters and field houses were fewer in

133

Figure 5.2. Distribution of pre-contact sites around Largo Gap by site type.

N

LEGENDLargo GapRoomblocksField HousesArtifact Scatter

0 1

kilometers

134

Figure 5.3. Distribution of roomblocks distinguished by their surface-identified room count.

N

LEGENDLargo Gap20 30 Rooms10 19 Rooms4 9 Rooms

0 1

kilometers

135

Table 5.1 Pre-contact Sites Identified Around the Largo Gap Great House

Site Type Largo Gap Community Roomblock 63 Field House 29

Ceramic/Lithic Scatter 37 Lithic Scatter/Quarry 24

number. The New Mexico Cultural Resource Information System was consulted to include any

previously identified roomblock sitesin the analysis; nine previously recorded roomblocks were

identified during the record search. Although no survey has been conducted as part of this project

to the east of Tejana Mesa, the spatial extent of the identified support community is wide; this

survey identified sites equidistant between the Largo Gap and Cerro Pomo great houses. Within

this area, several roomblock sites were located close to one another along ridge tops that extend

from the surrounding mesas. Many sites were situated on or adjacent to cobble lag deposits,

which provided immediate access to toolstone. These locations often overlooked drainages.

Some roomblock sites contained abundant construction stone; however, many field houses and

roomblocks lacked abundant rubble, perhaps indicative of jacal construction. There were no

spatial correlations between sites that had abundant stone rubble and those considered to

represent a mix of jacal/masonry construction.

Roomblock size varied, with 51 roomblocks in the Largo Gap area in the 5-to-19-room

range and seven roomblocks with over 20 rooms. Importantly, the Lekson (1991) analogy of “big

bumps” (great houses) amid “little bumps” (habitation sites) may not translate so easily to the

Largo Gap community. While Largo Gap was indeed composed of many rooms, two of the 20+

roomblock sites were located directly across from the Largo Gap knoll on the opposing ridge,

approximately 700-750 m west, while another cluster of four roomblocks (two 20+ roomblocks,

two with 10-19 rooms) were identified on an elevated landform approximately 540 m from

136

Largo Creek and 1.6 northwest of Largo Gap. These large roomblocks contained abundant

construction rubble as well as medium-to-dense middens; however, none of the architectural

characteristics associated with Chaco-style great houses (e.g., Vivian 2005) were identified in

their surface remains. Based on these characteristics, all structures with greater than 20 rooms

were classified as habitation sites.

Of the identified roomblocks, five were selected for further subsurface investigations in

order to generate household assemblages to compare to the great house. These sites were

selected from all household sites documented around the Largo Gap great house before 2014.

Sites were chosen based on the definitive presence of a roomblock with at least five rooms, the

presence of a visible midden, and its position relative to all other identified households. Once a

list of possible sites meeting these criteria was compiled, the candidate sites were ranked in order

of testing potential based on field revisitation. Each midden was further mapped to identify high-

density areas. A grid composed of 1-by-1 m units was placed over the high-density midden and a

random number generator was used to identify which units would be tested. Five 1-by-1 m test

units were placed in each of the five candidate sites’ middens. Midden assemblages were

excavated in arbitrary 10 cm levels to sterile soils. A new random unit was selected if the

original was in an untenable location (e.g., under a juniper trunk) or if human remains/funerary

objects were encountered. While the materials from each test unit were analyzed individually,

the data from each site was aggregated and compared across roomblock sites.

Largo Gap’s Settlement Pattern

Although Largo Gap is highly visible to those traveling along Largo-Carrizo Wash, many

of Largo Gap’s community sites are located along several ridge lines extending north from

137

Tejana Mesa, and are less directly visible. Spatially, the support community is expansive. The

documented household sites range up to 6.6 km away from Largo Gap, but most are located

within 4.5 km of the great house. These sites are within Varien’s (2002:176) catchment zone of

regular resource use, which are those within 2-7 km of one another. This pattern indicates that

household placement was primarily governed by access to good agricultural land more so than an

attempt to be near the great house. Furthermore, it suggests that community members used the

available lands around Largo Gap while still maintaining a zone of regular interaction. However,

the 7 km zone of regular, but not daily, interaction potential rests on the great house being at the

center of the community. Largo Gap is located on the eastern margins of the documented

community sites. When the distance between the documented sites is measured from east to

west, the radius from the center is around 3 km. While still within Varien’s (1999; 2002) zone of

regular resource use, the spatial proximity of most households would suggest a higher degree of

day-to-day interaction between them, and indicates a relatively clustered social community.

Community Population Estimate

Following Mahoney (2000:23), I calculate a population estimate across the community’s

occupation span using the total number of rooms from all identified roomblocks. Most Chaco-

style great houses were constructed during the late PII period (A.D. 1050-1130) (Lekson 1986).

Thus, the duration of occupation is estimated to be 80 years. Because field houses are considered

to be temporary habitations, these are not included in the analysis. Lekson et al. (2006:82) note

that, “proportionally, only small areas of Great Houses [within Chaco Canyon] were identifiably

domestic.” It is unclear the extent to which the Largo Gap great house was occupied, or how

138

many rooms were occupied at any point in time. Population estimates are therefore calculated

both with and without the great house’s rooms included in the total room count.

In the following calculations, one room is equated with one person (Mahoney 2000:23).

The total number of community rooms (n=524) is divided by four to represent a 20-year average

use-life and abandonment sequence, by three to roughly represent a 30-year average use-life, and

by 2 to represent a 40-year average use-life. The average estimated momentary population is

131, 175, and 262 respectively. When the 22 rooms of the great house are included, these

estimates increase to 137, 182, and 273.

Mahoney (2000:20) draws on simulations by Wobst (1974) to argue that a minimum of

475 people is necessary to maintain a demographically viable community. However, Kantner and

Kintigh (2006:156) note that Wobst’s (1975) second set of simulations suggest as few as 75

people may be all that is necessary to maintain a reproductively viable population and that, in the

short term, communities may not have recognized the long term effects of a small reproductive

population. Estimates for Largo Gap’s population are relatively low, but the proximity of other

local great house communities (discussed more in Chapter 6) would have provided additional

opportunities to find marriage partners; based on these estimates exogamy is expected for this

community, which provides an opportunity for aspiring leaders to attract new group members

through costly signaling displays. While informative, this method of population estimation does

not capture the chronological aspect of community formation and interaction, nor does it identify

the temporal relationship between the great house and its associated households. I compare these

estimates to the average timing of household occupation represented by the sampled ceramic

assemblages.

139

Relative Chronology of Community Occupation

Seriation can order a group of spatially related sites into a relative chronology using the

frequency of temporally sensitive ceramic styles within each assemblage (Duff 1996; Lyman and

O’Brien 2006:254). Cibola white wares are temporally sensitive with four styles that, together,

span the PII period (Table 5.2; Hays-Gilpin and van Hartesveldt 1998). Three types of White

Mountain red ware are also considered to be temporally sensitive, with Puerco Black-on-red

preceding, with some chronological overlap, Wingate Black-on-red and Wingate Polychrome

(Carlson 1970; Sullivan and Hantman 1984).

Two design styles are represented by these wares: Puerco (Puerco Black-on-white and

Puerco Black-on-red) and Wingate (Reserve Black-on-white, Wingate Black-on-red, and

Wingate Polychrome; see Carlson 1970). There is some disagreement on the amount of temporal

overlap between Puerco Black-on-white and Reserve Black-on-white (e.g., Carlson 1970; Hays-

Gilpin and van Hartesveldt 1998:64-84; Kintigh et al. 2004:436-437; Mills et al. 1999:280; see

Table 5.2), and on the chronological distinction between these wares and Puerco/Wingate red

wares. If there is complete overlap in these styles, then seriation of these types will not produce a

chronological distribution of spatially associated sites. I evaluate both the temporal distinction of

these design styles as well as their relative abundances in Largo Gap community assemblages.

Sampled surface ceramics and excavated ceramic assemblages were sorted into

typological categories of Cibola white ware and White Mountain red ware, and their frequencies

were tabulated. All sites with a painted ceramic sample of 20 or more sherds were included in a

correspondence analysis in order to assess the temporal distinction of design styles and the

contemporaneity of Largo Gap sites. Appendix A1 provides the frequency of ceramic types at

each Largo Gap site used in the correspondence analysis. The first correspondence analysis

140

Table 5.2. Chronology of Cibola White Wares and White Mountain Red Wares Type Carlson

(1970:7-27) Hays-Gilpin & van Hartesveldt (1998:64-84, 162-167)

Kintigh et al. (2004:436-437)

Mills et al. (1999:280)

Kiatuthlanna Black-on-white - A.D. 850-950 A.D. 850-950 A.D. 850-930

Red Mesa Black-on-white - A.D. 900-1050 A.D. 900-1050 A.D. 850-950

Gallup Black-on-white - A.D. 1030-1125 A.D. 925-1200 A.D. 1040-1160

Escavada Black-on-white - A.D. 1000-1130 A.D. 925-1200 A.D. 1000-1100

Puerco Black-on-white - A.D. 1030-1150 A.D. 925-1200 A.D. 1030-1200

Reserve Black-on-white - A.D. 1030-1200 A.D. 950-1175 A.D. 1100-1200

Puerco Black-on-red A.D. 1000-1200 A.D. 1030-1150 A.D. 1025-1175 A.D. 1000-1180

Wingate Black-on-red A.D. 1050-1200 A.D. 1050-1200 A.D. 1050-1200 A.D. 1050-1200

Wingate Polychrome A.D. 1125-1200 A.D. 1125-1200/25 A.D. 1125-1225 A.D. 1100-1200

plots sites by their relative count of each design style (Kiatuthlanna, Red Mesa, Puerco, and

Wingate). Based on the results, Cibola white wares and White Mountain red wares can be used

to seriate assemblages from this sub-region, despite some temporal overlap in Puerco and

Wingate design styles (Figure 5.4).

Although tightly compressed on the right side of the graph, these styles do sort

chronologically, represented by an arc that begins with the earliest styles in the lower left

quadrant (Kiatuthlanna), moving up through Red Mesa, and continuing down to the lower right,

culminating with Wingate, the latest design style. A second analysis separated wares by types

rather than design styles; effectively, this splits the design styles into two background paint

colors—red and white. The results indicate that the majority of the Largo Gap sites are

ceramically contemporaneous with one another as well as with the 17 excavated collections from

the great house’s rooms and midden (Figure 5.5). Four sites extend to the left of the origin on

141

Figure 5.4. Correspondence analysis of Cibola white wares and White Mountain red wares from across the Largo Gap community, aggregated

by design style. Puerco style represents both Puerco Black-on-white and Puerco Black-on-red. Wingate style represents Reserve Black-on-white, Wingate Black-on-red, and Wingate Polychrome.

142

Figure 5.5. Correspondence analysis of Cibola white wares and White Mountain red wares across the Largo Gap community.

143

dimension one and denote sites where earlier types are well represented. Two of these sites

contain 50-75% Kiatuthlanna, 25-50% Red Mesa, and less than 5% Puerco Black-on-white (see

Appendix A1). The other two “earlier” sites have a much higher percentage of Red Mesa and

Puerco Black-on-white, but also contain later types. These four sites may represent founding

sites for the community. These results highlight distinct temporal separation of ceramic

assemblages. Earlier sites were characterized by higher proportions of Kiatuthlanna and Red

Mesa black-on-white ceramics. Sites in the middle of the occupational sequence were dominated

by Puerco Black-on-white and an increase in Puerco Black-on-red. Later sites were characterized

by higher proportions of Reserve Black-on-white and Wingate Black-on-red (or, less frequently,

Wingate Polychrome); intermediate categories contained notable proportions of each type within

one assemblage. No assemblage contained only Reserve white wares.

The majority of the sites have similar ceramic assemblages dominated by Puerco and/or

Reserve Black-on-white, with some red wares. This pattern suggests that most households

migrated into the drainage and formed a community relatively rapidly. If this were the case, then

Largo Gap’s population may have been larger than the momentary population estimates

presented above, but still unlikely to have been near 500 people. The correspondence analysis

also indicates that, unlike the great house in the nearby Red Mesa Valley (Van Dyke 1999a),

Largo Gap was built within about a generation of its associated community, and was used until

relatively late into the end of the PII occupation. This interpretation is supported by the

distribution of ceramics within the great house and the prevalence of later ceramic types in

rooms that had already been remodeled multiple times. Because these sites are relatively

contemporaneous, the activities conducted at the great house and at the associated households

can be used to evaluate Largo Gap’s local community role.

144

POTTERY PRODUCTION AND USE

The presence of both (Mogollon) brown and (Pueblo) gray wares at sites in the Upper Little

Colorado River has been interpreted as occurring through trade and/or migration between

ethnically distinct populations (see Crown 1981:255 for a sub-regionally contextualized

discussion). In contrast, Cox Ranch Pueblo and Cerro Pomo have been hypothesized to represent

multi-ethnic communities (Duff 2015; Duff and Nauman 2007; Nauman 2007; cf. Wichlacz

2009). Duff and Nauman interpret the presence and abundance of both wares in each settlement

as co-residence by households from both ancestral traditions within socially interactive groups,

rather than as distinct settlements of “Pueblo” or “Mogollon” people (Duff and Nauman 2010;

Nauman 2007). In contrast, Wichlacz (2009) interprets the presence of both wares at most sites

as the result of extensive trade for gray wares with Pueblo communities to the north.

Brown and gray wares were abundant across the Largo Gap community and were present

at every sampled roomblock, field house, and ceramic scatter except one (see Appendix A1). It is

unclear what social mechanisms resulted in the present distribution of gray and brown wares

across the Largo Gap community and southern Cibola more broadly. Brown and gray jars

represent utility wares considered to be equivalent in terms of function (Duff and Nauman 2010),

which may have resulted in the adoption of both styles by most households. But did individuals

with distinct ethnic backgrounds make these wares or were local potters producing both wares?

Given the roughly 2:1 ratio of brown-to-gray jars, were most households producing brown wares

and receiving gray wares—either locally made or traded in—from potters from the Pueblo

ceramic tradition? If production of gray wares was limited to ancestral Pueblo people, were these

potters residing locally (e.g., Jarrett 2013), were all gray wares traded into the area (e.g.,

145

Wichlacz 2009), or do these gray wares represent both local production by ancestral Pueblo

women and ties to external communities to the north?

Jarrett (2013) and Wichlacz (2009) have addressed whether or not gray wares were

locally produced within the southern Cibola sub-region. Together, their analyses sampled wares

and raw clays from all three great house communities studied to date. Both researchers utilized

low-technological studies (oxidation, apparent porosity, and temper analysis) combined with

microprobe analysis to investigate the origin of the gray wares; each came to a different

conclusion, in part because there was no direct overlap between the raw clays tested and the

sherds sampled (Jarrett 2013; Wichlacz 2009). Both document a local origin for most brown

ware ceramics, despite the same degree of chemical compositional “spread” visible during factor

analysis between the ceramic samples and the raw clays tested. I follow Jarrett (2013) and expect

that all four wares—brown, gray, white, and red—can be made from locally available resources.

However, the ability to make these wares from local materials and their distribution across the

Largo Gap settlement indicates only that both styles were made, not that they were made by

individuals from distinct ethnic backgrounds.

One means to identify the presence of two distinct technological styles of pottery

production is to examine the manufacturing characteristics of both wares. Ceramics are an

additive technology involving both conscious and unconscious characteristics that arise while

learning the production process. Temper selection, choice of raw materials, and firing

environment are conscious choices made by the potter while the size of the coil, vessel thickness,

and the amount of temper are often ingrained during the learning phase and become unconscious

choices (Dietler and Herbich 1998:244-248). By examining the manifestations of these choices,

146

the amount of variation present across an assemblage can be used to evaluate the presence of

multiple learning traditions at a site or within a sub-region (Nauman 2007).

I measure three attributes—coil count, number of indentations, and vessel thickness—to

examine the presence of multiple technological styles of ceramic production within the Largo

Gap community (Appendix B1). The size of coils and number of indentations should reflect

unconscious motor habits acquired by individual potters during the learning process. Variation in

thickness between the two wares should reflect functional differences between gray and brown

wares. Their overlap would indicate both kinds of “utility” wares were not made by individuals

from distinct learning traditions.

Methods of Attribute Analysis

Brown bowls, jars, and gray jars were sampled from each Largo Gap site when a large

enough sherd was available. The number of coils was obtained by placing a 3 cm window

vertically along a sherd and counting from the base of a complete coil to the last complete coil

visible (Figure 5.6). The number of indentations was counted by placing a 3 cm window

horizontally along a sherd and counting from the left-most edge of a complete indentation to the

last complete indentation visible within the window. Two rows of indentations were tabulated in

order to determine the average indentations per row per vessel. Maximum thickness was

obtained using manual calipers. Because coil/indentation size may vary according to which

portion of the vessel was being measured, vessel portion (top/rim, neck, body, base) was also

recorded. Sherds were included in the analysis if they represented a unique vessel; measurements

of sherds from the same vessel within one level or spread across multiple levels were taken to

track consistency across a vessel, but no more than one representative sherd of each vessel was

147

Figure 5.6. Methods of attribute tabulation for technological style analysis. Number of coils (left) or

number of indentations (right) were tabulated within a 3 cm window for each decorated gray or brown sherd.

included in the statistical analysis. A total of 351 gray and brown sherds was analyzed (gray n=

83; brown n=268).

Implications for a Multi-Ethnic Community

An independent-sample t-test was performed in R on all sherd attribute data (Table 5.3).

The number of coils, number of indentations, and maximum thickness differed significantly

between all brown and gray wares within the Largo Gap community as did the number of

indentations by ware and maximum thickness. By restricting the independent t-test to brown jars

versus gray jars, manufacturing distinctions between the two utility wares can be better

examined. When conducted on each attribute, the differences between brown jars and gray jars

were all statistically significant (see Table 5.3; Figure 5.7), including the differences in thickness

148

Table 5.3. Independent t-test of Ceramic Stylistic Manufacturing Attributes Attribute Mean t df p

Brown Ware to Gray Ware Number of Coils Brown= 8.57

Gray=5.83 10.6 97.5 <0.001

Indentations Brown=4.49 Gray= 3.73

7.8 273.2 <0.001

Thickness Brown=0.36 Gray=0.27

9.7 159.5 <0.001

Brown Jar to Gray Jar (see Figures 5.6, 5.7) Number of Coils Brown=8.04

Gray=5.83 8.3 107.6 <0.001

Indentations Brown=4.29 Gray=3.73

4.6 212.9 <0.001

Thickness Brown=3.52 Gray=2.68

7.8 211.8 <0.001

Brown Bowl to Brown Jar Number of Coils Bowl=9.29

Jar=8.04 5.0 188.9 <0.001

Indentations Bowl=4.68 Jar=4.29

2.8 265.0 0.005

Thickness Bowl=3.63 Jar=3.52

1.2 265.7 0.234

between the jars of both wares (Figure 5.8). This is the opposite of the expected result, which

predicted no significant differences because jars of both wares were anticipated to have the same

function, and therefore, to also have similar thicknesses (Duff and Nauman 2010; Nauman

2007). These results support two distinct technological ceramic styles across Largo Gap and

parallel those identified at the Cox Ranch Pueblo community (Duff and Nauman 2010; Nauman

2007); wares from both production styles are present at the Largo Gap great house.

Two forms are represented in the data set—bowls and jars. Independent t-tests were

performed between brown bowls and brown jars to explore if these values are statistically

significant or if they are a product of vessel type. The number of coils and the number of

indentations differed significantly between brown bowls and brown jars, while maximum

149

Figure 5.7. (a, top) Distribution of coil counts across brown jars and gray jars. (b, bottom) Distribution of

indentation counts across brown jars and gray jars.

thickness did not. The difference in the number of coils and indentations may be attributable to

the difference size classes represented by bowls versus jars.

There is a small amount of overlap in the spread of these characteristics (see Figure 5.7).

There is no stratigraphic component to these midden assemblages that could be used to test if the

Num

ber o

f Coi

ls

Brown Gray

Num

ber o

f Ind

enta

tions

Brown Gray

150

Figure 5.8. Distribution of maximum thickness across brown jars and gray jars.

two styles became more homogenous through time. It is possible that Mogollon and Pueblo

women produced pottery in isolation rather than in communal groups, thus preserving the

technological attributes of each respective style. If, however, marriage partners were selected

from across the community (or neighboring communities) despite ancestral background, then

some mixing of styles may have occurred between associated households over time.

Furthermore, if some individuals were producing both wares, then the overlap in technological

attributes may be due to imperfect replication of the alternative ware’s style or their inability to

alter their production motor habits.

Differential Use of Wares Between the Great House and the Community

Elkins (2007) interprets the use of brown smudged bowls (Mogollon) and black-on-red

bowls (Pueblo) as functionally equivalent decorated wares. Elkins (2007) documented the spatial

distribution of red bowls versus smudged brown bowls within and around the southern Cibola

Thic

knes

s (m

m)

Brown Gray

151

sub-region, and used vessel size and apparent porosity to identify their functional similarities.

Overall, and in contrast to communities to the north, she argues southern Cibola residents

exhibited a general preference for smudged brown wares over red wares, perhaps related to

expression of ethnic identity on the margins of a Chacoan system.

The Largo Gap community has several sites with both red and smudged brown bowls,

though the proportion of each varies (see Appendix A1). Compared to the great house, the Largo

Gap community has much lower individual and aggregate proportions of both red and smudged

brown bowls. The high visibility of these wares and their lower frequencies across the

community may indicate they were primarily used during activities at the great house. The use of

these wares in particular may have been linked to larger community events held at the great

house, such as feasts.

When all decorated wares (white ware bowls and jars, red ware bowls and jars, and

smudged brown bowls) are analyzed using correspondence analysis, differences are visible

between the great house and the community in the use of wares (Figure 5.9). High proportions of

white ware bowls and, to a much lesser degree, jars, on the right side of Dimension 1,

differentiate most of the community sites from the great house; in contrast, the majority of great

house midden units emphasize the use of smudged brown bowls (upper left) while great house

rooms are dominated by red wares (lower left). A few community roomblocks and two artifact

scatters are noted on Figure 5.9 as containing higher proportions of red and/or smudged brown

wares; these roomblocks tend to be the larger ones within the community. The correlation

between larger roomblocks and a higher proportional use of red/smudged brown wares may

suggest some differential access to goods between community members. However, these

correlations may also be a function of time and may simply represent larger kin groups that

152

Figure 5.9. Correspondence analysis of decorated wares from the Largo Gap great house and associated sites. The community sites are

characterized by a higher proportional use of white bowls and white jars. The great house has a relatively higher proportion of red bowls and jars to other decorated wares, while more smudged brown bowls are represented in the great house midden.

153

settled in this community much later in the occupational sequence than most other households.

Based on ceramic ware, activities involving ceramic use at the great house were distinct from

those conducted at the majority of household sites. The use of red or smudged brown wares may

be associated with important events, group-level activities, or rituals performed at the great

house, such as in the potential feasting deposits discussed in Chapter 4.

LARGO GAP’S ROLE WITHIN ITS SUPPORT COMMUNITY

Full coverage survey on publicly accessible lands identified numerous residences up to 7 km

from the Largo Gap great house. This distribution of sites is equivalent to Varien’s (1999;

2002:176) 2-7 km zone of regular resource use, indicative of regular interaction among

community members but likely not day-to-day contact. However, this assumes the great house

was the center of the community. Largo Gap is on the eastern margin of the settlement where it

is immediately visible to individuals entering the drainage through Tejana Gap. When distance is

measured east to west across the identified community, the radius from the center of the

community is closer to 3 km. This proximity suggests many of Largo Gap’s households had a

high potential for daily interaction. The correspondence analysis of ceramic collections indicates

the majority of households and the great house were contemporaneous, which would support the

spatial interpretation of a socially interactive community. The distribution of households and

their ceramic contemporaneity suggest the great house was built relatively quickly once the

larger settlement formed, and that the local population density may have been higher than the

“momentary population” estimates.

One data expectation outlined in Chapter 3 applies directly to the scale of the Largo Gap

community. This expectation is that brown and gray utility wares display distinct manufacturing

154

traditions indicative of multi-ethnic settlement (Table 3.2 data expectation 10). This expectation

was supported for the Largo Gap community. Both the identified associated sites and the great

house used utility wares associated with both the Mogollon and Pueblo ceramic traditions.

Technological analyses indicate that gray and brown ware production practices are statistically

distinct and reflect two distinct technological styles. The production of two technological styles

suggests Largo Gap’s community represents a multi-ethnic settlement, similar to that of the

nearby Cox Ranch Pueblo and Cerro Pomo great house communities where constituents retained

some ties to ancestral ceramic production practices (Duff 2015; Duff and Nauman 2010). The

extent to which these two technological styles remained distinct through time is unclear given the

relatively short PII occupation and a lack of clearly stratified deposits at community sites. The

range observed in the number of coils, number of indentations, and in thicknesses may suggest

some homogenization in these production styles through time or the production of both wares by

most individuals, but neither option can be tested using the data available.

Pottery from both traditions was used at the great house, demonstrating great house

activities incorporated wares from both groups not only in communal events, but also during

everyday activities. There are, however, striking differences in the use of decorated wares

between the great house and the associated households. Whereas white bowls or jars dominated

the majority of the community site assemblages, the great house was characterized by its higher

proportional use of smudged brown and red wares. Use of these visually distinct wares would

have marked some great house activities as notably separate from the everyday activities

occurring at local households. Possible evidence of communal feasts was identified at the great

house, which is also characterized by higher proportions of red and smudged brown wares. The

use of functionally equivalent decorated bowls from both ceramic traditions during communal

155

events implies these activities were geared to be visible to a multi-ethnic constituency. Because

these wares were recovered in significantly lower proportions across the rest of the community,

their use may have been an important component of a costly signal at Largo Gap and imply their

use was restricted to great house leaders or other influential community members.

156

CHAPTER SIX: EXAMINING SOUTHERN CIBOLA GREAT HOUSE COMMUNITIES

This chapter examines patterns across three southern Cibola great house communities and draws

on survey data, ceramic collections, and excavations at the Largo Gap, Cox Ranch Pueblo, and

Cerro Pomo great houses. I first explore the spatial organization of each community. I then

calculate population estimates and construct a relative occupational history for each community

to better explore the relationship between costly signaling and community formation. Next, I

examine patterns of construction and use at each great house to identify the degree to which they

follow patterns associated with macro-regional great houses, and the extent to which each

community displays ethnic co-residence. Variation in the local role of each great house is

explored further by examining the resource and external trade relationships held by each

community, first through ceramic production and circulation, followed by patterns of obsidian

procurement. This chapter concludes with a comparison of patterns across the three great house

communities and an evaluation of their fit to a costly signaling model’s data expectations, in

order to better examine the local role of PII great houses within the southern Cibola sub-region.

In the following analyses, I make a distinction between great house data sets and those

from associated roomblocks. In practice, this means treating the Cox Ranch Pueblo great house

and its associated midden (Midden 12) as separate and distinct from the spatially associated

roomblocks and middens that are encompassed within the single site number assigned to Cox

Ranch Pueblo (LA 13681). This distinction is drawn in order to fully appreciate differential

patterns of material culture, resource access, and activities between great houses and households.

From this point forward, “Cox Ranch Pueblo” refers solely to the great house, its associated

midden, and any collections from these two contexts; I refer to all other associated roomblocks

157

and midden collections by an identifying spatial referent where applicable.

SPATIAL PATTERNING AND COMMUNITY SETTLEMENT THROUGH TIME

Full coverage survey was conducted around Cox Ranch Pueblo and Cerro Pomo on publicly

accessible BLM lands from 2002 to 2009 (Figure 6.1). While all three great house “settlements”

appear to have boundaries between them, readers should note that these reflect artificial

community boundaries imposed by land access and the extent of survey coverage. Some sites are

likely present on the landforms between the surveyed areas that would alter the boundary of each

great house group, or blur the distinctions separating communities. Where possible, sites

identified through previous research were added to the following analyses, especially several

sections of land surveyed by Whalen (1984) for the BLM. Despite the artificial boundaries, the

large amount of survey conducted around each great house permits settlement pattern analysis

(Figure 6.2). All three communities display a relatively even distribution of site types (Table

6.1).

The habitations around each great house appear to be clustered. Rather than reflecting

direct proximity to the great house, most habitation locations appear to be a function of landform

orientation (Figure 6.3). When measuring each community’s expanse east to west rather than

from the great house, Largo Gap and Cox Ranch Pueblo’s communities are a maximum of 8 km

end to end, although the majority of households in each are within 3.5 km of one another. Cerro

Pomo habitation sites are primarily clustered within 2 km of the great house, with a maximum

spatial extent of 5 km end to end. Cerro Pomo’s community may be spatially constrained by the

topography surrounding the great house, which is situated at the edge of Tejana Mesa and east-

southeast of a remnant cinder cone. When measured this way, the majority of households had

158

Figure 6.1. Survey boundaries around the Cox Ranch Pueblo, Cerro Pomo, and Largo Gap great houses, 2002-2014.

N

LEGENDGreat HousePrecontact Site

0 3

kilometers

159

Figure 6.2. Distribution of pre-contact sites by type across each community.

160

Table 6.1. Pre-contact Site Types by Great House Community Site Type Largo Gap Cerro Pomo Cox Ranch Pueblo

Roomblock 63 (41%) 35 (36%) 46 (33%) Field House 29 (19%) 24 (24%) 36 (26%) Ceramic/Lithic Scatter 37 (24%) 38 (39%) 27 (19%) Lithic Scatter/Quarry 24 (16%) 1 (1%) 30 (22%)

potential for day-to-day interaction within their own communities. Great houses are frequently

discussed as the center of communities, but a spatial analysis of at least these three suggests that

factors other than centrality of monumental architecture structured the spatial relationships

between households and great houses. Based on their placement on the landscape, it appears a

driving force in household location was access to agricultural land.

Survey was limited by the same topography and land access constraints across the three

project areas. Despite this, some spatial clustering is evident among the three communities.

Spatial clustering does not, however, preclude fluidity of membership among communities or

imply that areas without habitation were not utilized. An absence of sites is expected within

some zones between these spatial groups as a function of the landscape, rather than because of

social boundaries. The maximum use of the landscape evident in the distribution of site types

(see Figure 6.2) may indicate weak social boundaries between great house groups. Given these

behavioral community interpretations, what do population densities indicate about household to

great house interactions, as well as the relationships between local great house communities?

COMMUNITY POPULATION ESTIMATES

Understanding the population size of each great house community is important for understanding

how many people constituted a great house group and if each group was reproductively viable

161

Figure 6.3. Distribution of roomblocks by size class across each community.

162

Table 6.2. Momentary Population Estimates Per Great House Community Community Number of

Community Rooms

People per 20-year

Occupation

People per 30-year

Occupation

People per 40-year

Occupation

Largo Gap 524 131 175 262 Cox Ranch Pueblo 430 106 143 215 Cerro Pomo 293 73 98 147 With Great House Rooms Largo Gap 546 137 182 273 Cox Ranch Pueblo 474 119 158 237 Cerro Pomo 336 84 112 168

on its own. Independent reproductive viability might support stronger social boundaries between

great house communities. Population estimates for each community were calculated using the

same methods as in Chapter 5. The average momentary population based on average room use

and abandonment sequences of 20, 30, and 40 years is presented in Table 6.2.

Cerro Pomo is the smallest of the three communities (~73-168 people); this community

had the least likely chance of being reproductively viable on its own under any of the use and

abandonment estimates. Cox Ranch Pueblo mirrors Largo Gap in having between ~100-230

estimated individuals. If approximately 475 people are necessary to maintain a demographically

viable community (Mahoney 2000:23; see also Wobst 1974), then none of the three great house

groups was reproductively viable on its own, even when great house rooms are included.

However, all would have been viable using Wobst’s (1975) second simulated estimates of 75-

100 people for a viable reproductive pool, particularly in the short term.

This difference in these simulated population thresholds is important because it may

indicate which population level was most influential for expanding or contracting southern

Cibola social boundaries. Wobst’s (1974) first simulation was an attempt to balance band size,

territoriality, mating networks, and population growth, which resulted in an estimated 475-500

163

people necessary to maintain a reproductively viable mate choice network. The second

simulation (Wobst 1975) was an effort to understand the origins of the incest taboo, which

resulted in a minimum of 75-100 people necessary to maintain high enough fertility to prevent

small group extinction. Wobst’s larger population estimate is more likely for southern Cibola

populations for two reasons. First, southern Cibola’s PII occupation was relatively short.

However, occupants were most likely unaware social and environmental conditions would shift

so rapidly, and likely did not alter their social rules to permit incest knowing the occupation was

short-lived. Second, social rules regarding mate choice were present prior to this period.

Migrating to a new drainage would not be enough impetus to relax incest rules, but rather, would

likely stimulate extra-local social connections. Consequently, I propose southern Cibola residents

needed to expand their social boundaries to include a larger pool of potential mates beyond their

own communities and that residents of these groups were aware of this need.

While the momentary population within any great house group may have been limited,

the social landscape of the southern Cibola sub-region had potential to be much larger. The

aggregate population of these three adjacent communities ranges from a low of 310 to a high of

678, suggesting viability as a collective. If the other four probable PII great houses are included,

all of which are located within 11-30 km of these great houses, then the occupied landscape

extends across at least 1,860 km2. Members of the Danson 202 great house community (see

Figure 1.2) are the most likely candidate for inclusion in this social landscape, given its 11 km

distance from the Largo Gap great house, the same distance that separates Largo Gap and Cerro

Pomo. Households, perhaps even whole community groups, likely interacted, either through

ritual/social gatherings or through kinship ties emerging within the broader reproductive

community. If even selective social relationships existed between two or more local great house

164

groups, then the local population would have been sufficiently dense to be reproductively viable

without moving outside of the drainage.

Calculating population estimates is achieved through the arbitrary division of household

room use by time (e.g., rooms per 20 year intervals) or on the systematic grouping of all

households into one occupational span (total rooms identified). Both methods impose unrealistic

assumptions on community structure and, as noted for the Largo Gap community in Chapter 5,

momentary population estimates may not accurately represent the population structure through

time across southern Cibola because they assume a flat distribution of population through the

course of the occupation. In the following section, I refine the occupation pattern for each

community using ceramic assemblages.

CERAMIC USE AND TEMPORAL COMMUNITIES

Many Chaco-era great houses were constructed within existing communities (Sebastian

2006:398). Given southern Cibola’s low population density prior to the A.D. 1000s, it is

important to resolve the temporal relationship between each community and its great house in

order to evaluate if southern Cibola great houses were constructed within existing communities

or if they appear relatively soon within a newly formed settlement (Doyel et al. 1984).

Ceramic samples were collected from 124 sites across all three communities. These were

primarily surface collections, although limited subsurface testing was conducted at a handful of

household sites from each community. Of these assemblages, 91 had 20 or more painted sherds

and, along with the excavated great house assemblages, were used in the following

correspondence analyses to test the temporal distinction of ceramic design styles, the temporal

relationship between great houses and their associated households, and the general occupational

165

trend for each community (Appendix A2).

First, following the methods outlined in Chapter 5 (see pg. 139), I conducted a

correspondence analysis of all decorated sherd assemblages grouped by design style to illustrate

the temporal distinctions, despite their chronological overlap (see Table 5.2; Hays Gilpin and

Van Harstveldt 1998). The results, depicted in Figure 6.4, are consistent with those identified for

the Largo Gap community (Figure 5.4), and indicate that both Puerco and Wingate design styles

are differentiated from Kiatuthlanna and Red Mesa design styles. Thus, Cibola White Wares and

White Mountain Red Wares can be used to temporally differentiate sites.

I then conducted a correspondence analysis on frequencies of ceramic types to identify

the temporal relationships between households and great houses across communities (Figure

6.5). Six “outlier” sites had a very clear early ceramic signal (some of which are the same cases

noted in Chapter 5). All six lacked red wares and Reserve sherds; the broader implications of

these sites for community settlement through time are discussed further below. Figure 6.6 shows

just the area near the origin to better illustrate the temporal spread of each site by community.

Separating Puerco and Reserve black-on-white types by bowl/jar and running another

correspondence analysis had a very limited impact on explaining the inertia and did not provide

finer temporal resolution.

The Cerro Pomo and Largo Gap communities appear to be occupied contemporaneously.

Sites in these communities are generally dominated by Puerco white wares, with varying

amounts of Red Mesa Black-on-white (earlier) and more limited amounts of Reserve Black-on-

white (later). In contrast, most Cox Ranch Pueblo community sites mirror their great house in

containing more later types, including red wares. Based on the correspondence analysis, Cox

166

Figure 6.4. Correspondence analysis of painted wares aggregated by design style using ceramic assemblages with 20 or more total sherds from all three communities. The results highlight that Puerco and Wingate design styles are temporally distinct.

−15 −10 −5 0

−20

24

68

10

All Communities Style CA

Dimension 1: 60%

Dim

ensio

n 2:

27%

CPCPGHCPMCRPCRPGHCRPMLGLGGHLGM

Dimension 1: 60%

Dim

ensi

on 2

: 27%

Cerro PomoCerro Pomo GHCerro Pomo MiddenCox Ranch PuebloCox Ranch Pueblo GHCox Ranch Pueblo MiddenLargo GapLargo Gap GHLargo Gap Midden

KiatuthlannaStyle

Red MesaStyle

PuercoStyle

WingateStyle

167

Figure 6.5. Correspondence analysis of Cibola white wares and White Mountain red wares at sites with 20+ decorated assemblages. Bounded area represents area depicted in Figure 6.6.

−15 −10 −5 0

−10

−8−6

−4−2

02

4

All Communities CA

Dimension 1: 50%

Dim

ensi

on 2

: 23%

CPCPGHCPMCRPCRPGHCRPMLGLGGHLGM

Cerro PomoCerro Pomo GHCerro Pomo MiddenCox Ranch PuebloCox Ranch Pueblo GHCox Ranch Pueblo MiddenLargo GapLargo Gap GHLargo Gap Midden

Dimension 1: 50%

Dim

ensi

on 2

: 23%

Kiatuthlanna

Red Mesa

Puerco B/w

Puerco B/r

Reserve

Wingate

168

Figure 6.6. Adjusted spatial limits of correspondence analysis plot to illustrate spread of types by community.

−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1

−3−2

−10

12

3

Dim1: 50%

Dim

2: 2

3%CPCPGHCPMCRPCRPGHCRPMLGLGGHLGM

Dimension 1: 50%

Dim

ensi

on 2

: 23%

Cerro PomoCerro Pomo GHCerro Pomo MiddenCox Ranch PuebloCox Ranch Pueblo GHCox Ranch Pueblo MiddenLargo GapLargo Gap GHLargo Gap Midden

Red Mesa

Puerco B/w

Puerco B/r

Reserve

Wingate

−15 −10 −5 0

−10

−8−6

−4−2

02

4

All Communities CA

Dimension 1: 50%

Dim

ensi

on 2

: 23%

CPCPGHCPMCRPCRPGHCRPMLGLGGHLGM

169

Ranch Pueblo and its associated community developed after the roughly contemporaneous Largo

Gap and Cerro Pomo communities were established. All great house and community

assemblages overlap substantially, indicating that they were contemporaneous for much of the

PII occupation.

Six sites were identified above as having predominately early ceramic assemblages; four

were noted previously in the correspondence analysis of the Largo Gap community (sites 302,

313, 328, and 329, see pg. 140) and were considered “founding” sites. The remaining two (sites

163 and 215) were associated with Cerro Pomo and contained relatively equal amounts of Red

Mesa and Puerco black-on-white; they both lacked Reserve Black-on-white or any identifiable

red wares. Five of these six sites (all but site 313, which had only one brown sherd and no gray)

contained a large proportion of both brown and gray sherds (see Appendix A2). If these

remaining five sites represent a glimpse of founding settlements for the area, they appear to be

households that used both Pueblo and Mogollon utility wares. This may suggest their source

communities were from nearby areas where a mixed brown-gray assemblage was not uncommon

(see Crown 1981). The presence of both utility wares in early assemblages is intriguing and may

suggest a foundation for later multi-ethnic settlements and/or combined ancestral traditions

during group-level activities (Bullard 1962).

COSTLY SIGNALING USING CHACO-STYLE ARCHITECTURE

If local great house communities were competing with one another for local resources and

prestige, then it must be demonstrated that the Cox Ranch Pueblo, Cerro Pomo, and Largo Gap

great houses were contemporaneous, that great house architecture was used as a stable costly

signal, and that patterns of remodeling correspond to increasing credibility-enhancing displays

170

(Henrich 2009). Correspondence analysis identified temporal overlap in assemblages from all

three great houses (see Figure 6.6). I present first a brief architectural description of the Cox

Ranch Pueblo and Cerro Pomo great houses before evaluating whether the evidence for

remodeling increased the strength of the credibility-enhancing displays among the three

structures.

Cox Ranch Pueblo

The Cox Ranch Pueblo great house consists of a large, rectangular structure with an

estimated 44 rooms, an enclosed plaza, and at least one blocked-in kiva (Figure 6.7; Duff

2005:6). A large depression was noted to the southeast of the great house and was initially

interpreted as a great kiva (Fowler et al. 1987:161); however, subsequent sub-surface testing

indicated this feature was a walk-in well. Excavations within the well encountered the remains of

a buried turkey, underscoring the importance of water control features within this landscape. A

large, shallow depression is partially bounded by the architecture of Roomblock 2, a structure

located ~150 m south of the great house. Test excavations illustrated that it, too, was not a

subterranean great kiva, but it may have served a ritual function, possibly associated with the

winter solstice sunrise (discussed below).

Cox Ranch Pueblo exhibits several characteristics associated with Chacoan architecture

(Chaco Research Archive 2014; Lekson 1991; Vivian 2005), including its large size, a blocked-

in kiva, a bounded plaza, Chaco-style masonry, core-and-veneer wall construction, over-tall

rooms, and compound walls (Duff 2005:6-8; Nauman 2007:55). Cox Ranch Pueblo also

incorporated non-local high-elevation timbers (spruce and fir, along with some ponderosa pine);

the nearest source for spruce/fir is in the White Mountains near Springerville, AZ (Towner

171

Figure 6.7. (a) The Cox Ranch Pueblo (LA 13681) site showing location of great house and midden relative to associated roomblocks (from Duff 2009). (b) Structural outline of the great house (modified from Elkins 2007).

172

2006). The use of non-local, high-elevation timbers mimics a pattern of great house architecture

evident in Chaco Canyon, where high-elevation timbers were imported long distances from the

Chuska Mountains (Windes and McKenna 2001). Both core-and-veneer masonry and the use of

high-elevation timbers are symbolic characteristics of Chaco Canyon great house architecture

(Van Dyke 1999a), and are less visible or directly observable than masonry style. The knowledge

of these symbolic architectural traits and their use in Cox Ranch Pueblo tie the construction of

this building directly to Chaco Canyon communities or to non-canyon great houses that

replicated Chaco-style architecture with high fidelity.

As at Largo Gap, excavations at Cox Ranch Pueblo identified episodes of remodeling.

The great house appears to have begun as a square structure with a blocked-in kiva. At least two

additions were constructed, possibly during the same construction event, which added extra room

banks to either side of the initial square. One room in the south addition had several beams

dating between A.D. 1104-1106, suggesting the construction of the addition around A.D. 1106

(Towner 2006). An enclosing wall, defining a plaza, followed the construction of these room

banks. Other examples of remodeling include construction extending an additional room bank

beyond the initial exterior back wall; the masonry styles between the initial and final back walls

show different masonry styles. The initial exterior wall, exposed in Unit 5 (see Figure 6.7),

displayed a higher chinking-to–tabular-stone ratio than the later exterior wall exposed in Unit 3,

which conforms more to Chaco-style Type II masonry (Duff 2005:7-9; Nauman 2007:54-55).

Multiple trash filled rooms were identified, suggesting extended use of the great house. Several

spruce/fir beams incorporated during a later construction event may indicate increased influence

from Chaco or an increase in the use of Chacoan symbolism within this community. Although it

cannot be tested here, the further incorporation of architectural symbolism would correspond to

173

Kantner and Vaughn’s (2012) pilgrimage model. Under this model, participation in, and

knowledge gained from, ritual events at Chaco would be brought back to home communities as a

costly signal of adherence or commitment to a macro-regional ideological system.

Unlike Largo Gap, Cox Ranch Pueblo is not located in a visually prominent location on

the landscape. It would have been visible to people walking past its location at the base of Mesita

Blanca (~1,984 m amsl), partially because the structure is surrounded by 18 roomblocks of

varying room quantity but totaling approximately 175 rooms; each roomblock is paired with an

associated midden. While Cox Ranch Pueblo was not the focus of a dominant viewshed, this

great house is the closest of the seven PII great houses to the Zuni Salt Lake. Proximity to this

ethnohistorically significant traditional cultural property may have played some role in Cox

Ranch Pueblo’s location. Because the great house is not directly adjacent to the Zuni Salt Lake,

the exact nature of the relationship between the great house and this feature are unclear.

Cerro Pomo

The Cerro Pomo great house is situated at a higher elevation than either Cox Ranch

Pueblo or Largo Gap (~2,131 m amsl). Cerro Pomo is a large rectangular architectural block of

approximately 43 rooms (Figure 6.8; Clark 2010:17). An external kiva is located in front of the

structure and was the only one identified at the three tested great houses; no great kiva was

identified at any of the three. Cerro Pomo also has a large, roughly circular bermed depression

located ~56 m to the northwest of the great house. From the bermed depression, the view of the

summer solstice sun setting in the saddle of the Cerro Pomo cinder cone is most visible (Duff et

al. 2008; discussed further below). Cerro Pomo is not situated in a particularly visible location on

the landscape, and may not have been immediately visible beyond many of its associated

174

Figure 6.8. Structural outline of the Cerro Pomo great house and associated features (modified from Elkins 2007).

households. Cerro Pomo is situated ~2 km southeast of the remnant volcano and the great

house’s spatial association to a landscape feature whose ritual significance can be inferred from

its relationship with the bermed depression during the summer solstice sunset may have

performed the role often served by prominent landscape location in other great houses.

Cerro Pomo displays some Chacoan architectural conventions, although fewer than the

other two great houses overall (Chaco Research Archive 2014; Lekson 1991; Vivian 2005).

Multiple wall masonry styles are incorporated into the great house’s construction, including

large, coursed sandstone blocks, some banded masonry, and small stone masonry (Buvit et al.

175

2007). An entrance road is also consistent with Chaco-like structures (Clark 2010:17). The great

house contains a foundation trench and footing stones along its back wall, characteristics more

broadly associated with the construction of monumental architecture and evident at other great

houses (e.g., Hurst 2000:65; Reed 2014:6). No rooms exhibited over-tall height, nor does the

great house appear to be multi-story.

The dates of construction and use of the Cerro Pomo great house are unclear. The

ceramic assemblage places its use in the early-to-middle occupational sequence for the sub-

region (see Figure 6.6). However, dendrochronological dating of one room near the back of the

great house produced an A.D. 1193vv date (Towner 2007a). Like this room, multiple cutting and

near cutting dates suggest the small kiva located immediately in front of the main structure was

roofed around A.D. 1210 (Towner 2007b). Because no ceramics dating to the PIII period were

recovered from any context at Cerro Pomo, it seems likely that the late use of the great house and

the external kiva were related to ritual events associated with the Cerro Pomo volcano, perhaps

by it former residents.

Comparison of Chaco Architectural Conventions

Table 6.3 summarizes the architectural characteristics most frequently associated with

Chaco-style great houses at Largo Gap, Cox Ranch Pueblo, and Cerro Pomo. Of these three,

Largo Gap and Cox Ranch Pueblo contain at least half of the identified Chacoan characteristics

(6/10) (Chaco Research Archive 2014; Vivian 2005); Cerro Pomo (3/10) contains fewer

elements overall. Although Cox Ranch Pueblo only contains six of the ten features, it contains

important symbolic elements of construction that are lacking at the other two great houses (high-

elevation timbers and core-and-veneer masonry). Strict adherence to a set of architectural

176

Table 6.3. Chacoan Architectural Characteristics by Great House Architectural Characteristics Largo Gap Cerro Pomo Cox Ranch Pueblo Elevated location Yes No No Earthen platform No No No Core-and-veneer masonry No No Yes Banded masonry Yes Yes Yes Multi-story, over-tall rooms Yes No Yes Blocked-in kiva, elevated kiva Yes No* Yes Masonry enclosed plaza Yes No Yes Berm/nazha/roads No Yes No Large, formal, roofed great kiva No No No Related community Yes Yes Yes *Cerro Pomo has ~4 m diameter kiva in front of great house

features may not have been necessary to participate in a Chaco-based regional system. The high

degree of variation represented within Chaco Canyon great houses underscores this point

(Lekson et al. 2006:68-70). Still, architecture is one of the most accessible ways in which to

measure variation among Chaco-style great houses and these points of commonality offer a

window into what united these features, which distinguish them, and how these differences may

be linked to differentiating costly signals between great houses.

Based on Largo Gap’s construction techniques and apparent prominence on the

landscape, its architecture is indicative of a credibility-enhancing display, linking the structure to

Chacoan architectural ideals. Cox Ranch Pueblo, however, best encompasses symbolic features

of Chacoan construction, including true core-and-veneer masonry and the use of non-local, high-

elevation timbers, as well as the typical architecturally impressive building features of Chaco. It

is also the only one to be directly associated with other roomblocks and to contain a visible walk-

in well. The fact that Cox Ranch Pueblo and its associated roomblocks are the largest settlement

would have formed an equally impressive credibility-enhancing display. Architecturally, Cerro

Pomo contains fewer of the trait-list characteristics, but includes several features that may

177

indicate its adherence to Chacoan symbols, including an entrance road, a front kiva, and its size

(especially compared to other sites in its vicinity).

In contrast to Largo Gap, both Cerro Pomo and Cox Ranch Pueblo are in relatively out of

the way locations on the landscape. However, Cox Ranch Pueblo and Cerro Pomo are paired by

complementary views of a ritual landscape (Duff et al. 2008). Their orientations to the winter

solstice sunrise and the summer solstice sunset, respectively, on either side of the Cerro Pomo

cinder cone link each great house to a recognized ideology as well as to each other, and may

signal coordination in ritual events. The importance of solstice events to the ritual calendar

across the Pueblo world has been noted elsewhere (Sofaer 1997), and includes a solar/lunar

marker on Fajada Butte in Chaco Canyon and in the orientation of several Chaco Canyon and

non-canyon great houses (Malville 2011; Sofaer 1997; Sofaer et al. 1979). The alignment of the

unroofed circular feature of the associated Roomblock 2 at Cox Ranch Pueblo is reminiscent of

the orientation of Mogollon great kivas, and perhaps signals an important ideological link to

Mogollon communities to the south.

The solstice-viewing relationship between Cox Ranch Pueblo and Cerro Pomo may not

have been the only way in which ritual activities were enacted at these great houses. Numerous

ritual fauna were identified at Cox Ranch Pueblo (Mueller 2006:81-83,132-133). These species

extend beyond turkeys (n=119, 0.7 percent) to include other ritual birds (e.g., mallards, golden

eagle, hawks, corvids; n=76, 0.5 percent) as well as canids, badger, striped skunk, gray fox, and

lynx (n=23 total, 0.1 percent) (Mueller 2006:81-83). Mueller (2006:142) interprets their

distribution as indicating roughly equal access to ritual resources among these households,

although the increased amounts in the great house might indicate privatized knowledge or

activities associated with these species.

178

Comparatively, ritual birds were identified in much lower frequencies at Cerro Pomo

(n=28 [1.6 percent] total, 10 [0.7 percent] of which were turkey) than either Cox Ranch Pueblo

or Largo Gap. Bouknight identified slightly more ritual birds at Cerro Pomo community sites

(n=6 turkey [11.8 percent] compared to n=4 [0.8 percent]) at the great house), suggesting greater

access to ritual paraphernalia in this community than perhaps elsewhere (Bouknight 2014:43-44).

While these differences suggest a decreased ritual role for Cerro Pomo, perhaps the strongest

evidence of Cerro Pomo’s ritual importance was the continued or renewed activities at the

external kiva around A.D. 1210 (Towner 2007a, 2007b), long after occupation of the great house

apparently ceased. The post-abandonment continued/renewal of ritual practices conducted at the

Cerro Pomo locality links the architecture of this community to a continued ritual practice at an

important location.

No great kivas were identified at these great houses, although all have kivas; Cox Ranch

Pueblo occupants may have made use of the shallow, unroofed circular feature adjacent to

Roomblock 2 for group-scale ritual activities. Many great houses across the Four Corners do not

have an associated great kiva and, similarly, some great kivas are found without an

accompanying great house (Van Dyke 2002). Whatever ritual activities were conducted at these

structures did not appear to require the same large-scale ritual features present at Chaco or in

other communities. Rather, group-level activities could take place within a bounded plaza, within

great house rooms, or in a less formalized architectural space. Such activities could include

group feasting, which is discussed below. Second, it is possible that household-sized kivas were

sufficient for whatever ritual activities were necessary. Finally, the association between southern

Cibola great houses and ritual landscapes may have been more symbolic than an integral

component of participation. Symbolic ties to landscape features may not have been impressive to

179

non-community members and those passing through the sub-region, but were perhaps more

important to individuals joining these communities.

THE USE OF SOUTHERN CIBOLA GREAT HOUSES

Great houses are often characterized as community-integrating structures associated with

feasting and ritual activities, based in part on activities evident in Chaco Canyon (Badenhorst

2008; Cameron 2008:302; Cameron and Toll 2001; Durand 2003; Durand and Durand 2008;

Potter 1997, 2000; Toll 1991). The best indicators of ritual activity at Chaco Canyon great

houses are in the form of ritual fauna, including the interments of a variety of bird species and

carnivore paws across several great houses in Chaco’s Downtown (Durand 2003:154-155). An

abundance of ritual paraphernalia identified within Pueblo Bonito represents the most visible

evidence of ritual and potentially of group-level activities, possibly including a ritual stick game

(Durand 2003:150-152). Ritual items from other canyon great houses have also been identified.

indicating that great houses may have served similar roles, though variable levels of subsurface

testing precludes direct comparison (Durand 2003:149, 153). Feasts have been proposed for at

least Pueblo Alto, although the evidence has been recently disputed (e.g., Durand and Durand

2008; Plog and Watson 2012; Toll 1985).

If great houses served standardized ritual and community roles across the Chacoan

sphere, then both ritual activities and evidence for community-integrating events should vary

only minimally across tested great houses. All are expected to have high indices of either

artiodactyls or lagomorphs (group events) and ritual fauna, primarily in the form of turkey

although other birds and canids may be present as well (ritual activity). If great houses varied in

whether, and how, they performed these roles for their respective communities, then at least two

180

hypotheses are possible: 1) great houses were independently constructed and activities conducted

within these were largely a function of, and dictated by, their respective constituents or local

organizers; or 2) great houses served overlapping roles but distributed the organization and

hosting of important events across neighboring great house communities.

Both hypotheses have implications for a costly signaling model of great house use and

construction. In the first scenario, local community members would be responsible for

organizing and conducting ritual and group-level great house events; this includes determining

when events occur, the scale of participation, and the material culture or fauna utilized. The

visibility of events as costly signals would be entirely up to group members. If events were

coordinated across groups, then some choices would be made beyond the group-level. These

include which group hosts what event and its timing, as well as the scale of participation.

Members outside the immediate community may influence, to some degree, which material

culture or fauna are utilized in each event. If this level of organization structured southern Cibola

ritual and community-integrating activities, then to some extent the costly signal of hosting

events would be structured by members outside the local group. I use these models below to

identify ritual and community-integrating events between the Largo Gap, Cerro Pomo, and Cox

Ranch Pueblo communities.

Evidence for feasts at Cox Ranch Pueblo and Cerro Pomo has been examined elsewhere

(Bouknight 2014; Mueller 2006). Mueller (2006) examined the fauna recovered from Cox Ranch

Pueblo and its immediately associated roomblocks and middens. She identified a dominant trend

toward lagomorph consumption (n=5,977, 37 percent) over the use of artiodactyls (n=259, 1.6

percent) at the great house (Mueller 2006:81-83). Similarly, Bouknight identified a higher

relative abundance of lagomorphs than other species (n=660, 37 percent) at Cerro Pomo,

181

indicating group feasts using communally captured species (2014:39-40). Bouknight (2014:49-

50) argued that faunal markers of feasting were present at all three great houses, but that they

differed in the species used and thus, in their underlying motivation for feasting events. The data

presented here do not display a different trend; all three great houses have evidence for feasts

that rely on lagomorphs (communally gathered resources) rather than on artiodactyls

(individually empowering events). This is despite the presence of some artiodactyl remains at

each great house and their slightly elevated frequency at Largo Gap. Despite the similar use of

lagomorphs during group events, the dynamics of these events may have varied between great

houses.

The differential use of Mogollon or Puebloan material culture at great houses can help

identify if these feasts served members of both ancestral groups (Duff 2015; Duff and Nauman

2010; Elkins 2007; Nauman 2007) and whether each great house community’s display signaled

that each community was demographically similar along ancestral lines. The differential use of

material culture can also indicate if each great house community was broadcasting to a different

audience and what such activities would imply for broader social networks and relationships

within and beyond southern Cibola. Figure 6.9 and Table 6.4 illustrate the relative ceramic ware

composition for each of the three great houses.

Over 40 percent of each great house’s assemblage is composed of brown ware while at

least 30 percent of each assemblage is white ware. Notably, over half (58 percent) of Cerro

Pomo’s total ceramic assemblage is brown ware. The great houses primarily differ in how much

gray and red ware they contain. Cerro Pomo and Largo Gap contain the same relative proportion

of gray jars while Cox Ranch Pueblo has a fairly substantial amount of gray ware,

comparatively. In contrast, both Cerro Pomo and Cox Ranch Pueblo have lower proportions of

182

Figure 6.9. Proportions of brown jars, gray jars, smudged brown bowls, and red bowls/jars at each great house.

Table 6.4. Aggregated Ceramic Frequencies by Community

Community Brown Jar Gray Jar Smudged

Bowls Red

Bowls/Jars

Cerro Pomo GH 4191 (57%) 719 (10%) 2069 (28%) 380 (5%)

Cerro Pomo Community 3561 (62%) 987 (17%) 1011 (18%) 212 (4%)

Cox Ranch Pueblo GH 5526 (38%) 3064 (21%) 4842 (33%) 1081 (7%)

Cox Ranch Pueblo Community 4624 (41%) 1847 (16%) 3492 (31%) 1256 (11%)

Largo Gap GH 2821 (45%) 664 (11%) 1935 (31%) 855 (14%)

Largo Gap Community 2638 (49%) 1730 (32%) 822 (15%) 232 (4%)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Cerro Pomo GH Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Largo Gap GH

Red Bowls/Jars Smudged Bowls Gray Jar Brown Jar

183

red ware, whereas red wares (both jars and bowls) comprise a much larger proportion of Largo

Gap’s assemblage. Additionally, larger bowls are implicated in communal feasts; all three

contain statistically larger decorated bowls than their respective community sites, but differ in

which ware is larger (Cox Ranch Pueblo with larger red bowls, Cerro Pomo and Largo Gap with

larger brown bowls; Satterlee and Duff 2014).

The differences in proportions of wares and in the dominant use of one style of large

bowls, and occasionally smaller jars (Satterlee and Duff 2014), in communal events may indicate

a difference in the activities—both group-level and daily practices—between each great house;

they may also indicate different target audiences in the group-level activities conducted at each

great house. If great houses shared social roles (indicated by the solstice pairing of Cox Ranch

Pueblo and Cerro Pomo), then different events would have included members of multiple great

house groups. These events may have resulted in the use of different wares for different events,

but there is currently no data available from these great houses to evaluate this hypothesis.

Alternatively, each great house may have been conducting the same type of events but performed

them with some variability. The level of data necessary to distinguish between all great houses

conducting the same activities versus each hosting specific events is not currently available,

although the hosting of solstice events is suggestive. However, the extent to which the use of

ceramic wares reflects ethnic composition of each community can be examined.

There are two cultural distinctions that suggest either a Mogollon or Pueblo affiliation

that I explore further here. First is the expected use of both gray and brown utilitarian wares. As

noted previously (Crown 1981:255; Danson 1957; Peeples 2011), the co-occurrence of both

brown and gray utility wares spans more than just the immediate southern Cibola sub-region.

The ratio varies with more gray wares to brown wares as one moves to the north and more brown

184

wares than gray as one moves to the south and to the west. My interest here is in exploring what

the use of these utility wares between great houses may indicate about everyday and group-level

activities. I first examine the abundance of these wares at each great house and then compare this

to their constituent community.

Second, red ware bowls and smudged brown ware bowls have been proposed to serve the

same group-level function within southern Cibola communities (Elkins 2007). If these bowls

were used for group-level activities at each great house, as the larger bowl sizes suggest

(Satterlee and Duff 2014), then the frequency or preference for one style over the other may

suggest that a community’s ethnic composition influenced the choice during community-level

events at each great house. Because all great houses were occupied roughly contemporaneously

(see Figures 6.5, 6.6), their respective use of red ware should not solely be a function of time.

Additionally, differences between each great house’s use of red and/or smudged brown bowls,

compared to the use of those wares among its constituent community, may also indicate their use

as a costly signal during community events. For example, using large red ware serving bowls in a

community that has relatively low red ware use could signal a closer link between the great

house and Pueblo communities to the north, even if the wares were made locally. The higher

proportional use of imported red wares would be not only a signaled tie to the north, but an

honest signal of those ties. While I analyze the latter using compositional techniques below, I

focus first on understanding the use of Pueblo and Mogollon material culture at the great houses.

Ceramic assemblages were used to examine the extent to which the Largo Gap, Cox

Ranch Pueblo, and Cerro Pomo settlements represent multi-ethnic communities. Z-scores of the

proportion of gray jars and brown jars were calculated for all pooled community sites with an

assemblage of 20 or more gray and brown jars to explore trends in ware use linked to ethnic

185

identification. Pooled z-scores were separately calculated for the three great houses to explore if

their pattern of utility ware use indicated the use of the great house by Mogollon or Pueblo

occupants. Figure 6.10 illustrates sites with more or less than 1 standard deviation of either

brown jars or gray jars. Of the 34 Cerro Pomo community sites with large enough assemblages,

seven sites had more brown ware present than the average assemblage. Only one site had gray

ware present at more than one standard deviation above the mean. This pattern is the opposite for

the Largo Gap community, where 11 of the 23 sites had more gray wares present while only one

had more brown. The Cox Ranch Pueblo community sample size was too small to make

meaningful comparisons at a community level. However, Cox Ranch Pueblo had more brown jar

sherds than the other two great houses.

I also examine differences in the use of decorated bowls between communities. Z-scores

of the proportion of red bowls, white bowls, and smudged brown bowls were calculated on

community assemblages that had 20 or more red, smudged, and/or white bowls, and between all

three great houses’ aggregated assemblages (Figure 6.11). Four sites in Cerro Pomo, two in Cox

Ranch Pueblo, and two in Largo Gap had higher than expected smudged brown bowls, while

four each in Cerro Pomo and Largo Gap and one in the Cox Ranch Pueblo community had fewer

than average smudged brown bowls. The Largo Gap great house also had fewer smudged brown

wares while Cerro Pomo had more than one standard deviation above the mean. Only the Cerro

Pomo great house had fewer red bowls while the Largo Gap great house had more present, as did

a few sites within each community. Several Largo Gap and Cerro Pomo community sites had

more white bowls than other community sites, while five out of nine Cox Ranch Pueblo sites had

less white bowls.

The patterns of both gray/brown jar and decorated bowl use identified in Figures 6.10 and

186

6.11 illustrate that no ethnic “neighborhoods” are present in any of the communities. The use of

smudged brown bowls at the Cerro Pomo great house and red bowls at the Largo Gap great

house may indicate their respective use of material culture associated with Mogollon or Pueblo

groups during group-level events. No higher-than-average use of gray or brown jars at the great

houses was identified. If feasts were potluck style, then the bowls, rather than jars, may be a

better signal of ethnic identity among the viewing audience. This pattern may hold for Cerro

Pomo, where larger bowls were most frequently smudged brown wares. Larger smudged brown,

rather than red, bowls were identified at Largo Gap, despite the higher proportional use of

decorated red wares.

When all sites and wares are combined into a correspondence analysis, there are visible

differences between communities and their use of ceramic wares (Figures 6.12 and 6.13). Cerro

Pomo and Largo Gap communities show a strong trend toward mid-to-late white wares but

divide on their relative use of brown or gray jars. While not exclusive, Cerro Pomo’s community

and great house are dominated by brown jars and thus appear to have a strong Mogollon

presence (lower left quadrant). Largo Gap and its community display a fairly balanced

Pueblo/Mogollon signature at nearly all sites represented in the sample, although the tendency is

toward a higher percentage of gray wares than other sites (upper left quadrant). The Cox Ranch

Pueblo community sample size is less patterned but highlights the relatively late white ware

assemblages and use of red wares identified above (see Figures 6.5a, 6.5b) rather than the

dominant use of one utility ware. All communities appear to be multi-ethnic based on their use of

both brown and gray wares, yet this is represented by quite different proportions within each

community. Great houses, too, utilize all wares, suggesting southern Cibola great houses were

constructed and used by local households, rather than a colonizing Pueblo group.

187

Figure 6.10. Distribution of gray and brown jars by z-score. Z-scores were calculated independently for the pooled community sites and for the pooled excavation units from all great houses.

188

Figure 6.11. Distribution of red, smudged brown, and white bowls by z-score. Z-scores were calculated independently for the pooled community sites and for the pooled excavation units from all great houses.

189

Figure 6.12. Correspondence analysis of all wares across sites with 20 or more total sherds. Inset box shows plotting boundaries of Figure 6.13.

−15 −10 −5 0

−50

510

All Wares All Communities CA

Dimension 1: 31%

Dim

ensi

on 2

: 26%

CPCPGHCPMCRPCRPGHCRPMLGLGGHLGM

Dimension 1: 31%

Dim

ensi

on 2

: 26%

Cerro PomoCerro Pomo GHCerro Pomo MiddenCox Ranch PuebloCox Ranch Pueblo GHCox Ranch Pueblo MiddenLargo GapLargo Gap GHLargo Gap Midden

Kiatuthlanna

Red Mesa

Puerco B/w Puerco

B/r

Reserve

Wingate

Smudged Brown

Gray Jar

Brown Jar

190

Figure 6.13. Adjusted spatial limits of correspondence analysis plot to illustrate spread of types by community.

−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2

−4−2

02

4

All Wares All Communities CA

Dimension 1: 31%

Dim

ensi

on 2

: 26%

CPCPGHCPMCRPCRPGHCRPMLGLGGHLGM

Dimension 1: 31%

Dim

ensi

on 2

: 26%

Puerco B/w Puerco

B/r

Reserve

Wingate

Smudged Brown

Gray Jar

Brown Jar

Cerro PomoCerro Pomo GHCerro Pomo MiddenCox Ranch PuebloCox Ranch Pueblo GHCox Ranch Pueblo MiddenLargo GapLargo Gap GHLargo Gap Midden

−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2

−4−2

02

4

All Wares All Communities CA

Dimension 1: 31%

Dim

ensi

on 2

: 26%

CPCPGHCPMCRPCRPGHCRPMLGLGGHLGM

191

Technological styles of gray and brown wares were also compared between communities

to examine variation in their local production. Number of coils, indentations per row, and vessel

thickness were measured on brown and gray wares from across the Cerro Pomo community

using the same methods outlined in Chapter 5 (see pg. 145; Appendix B2). Comparative data for

Cox Ranch Pueblo was drawn from Nauman’s Appendix D (2007:D1-D28), which collected

attribute data only for jars. Independent t-tests were run on all brown and gray jar measurements

across all three communities. The differences in number of coils, number of indentations, and

thickness were statistically significant between the two wares (Table 6.5).

At the level of all three communities, brown and gray jars are clearly differentiated by

their number of coils. Brown wares had a wider range of coils and tended to have more per 3 cm

window than gray wares (Figure 6.14a). Of the three attributes, the differences in the means and

medians between the two wares were the strongest among coil counts (brown ware mean = 8.64,

gray ware mean = 6.49). Similarly, there was a wider range of indentations among brown jars

than were observed among the gray ware sample, although the range was less tightly compressed

for gray ware indentations than for gray ware coils (Figure 6.14b). The medians were closest

between the two wares along this attribute. Finally, the thicknesses overlapped in range but were

very different across wares (Figure 6.14c). There were many outliers among the gray jar sample,

although the first and third quartile ranges were similar.

Table 6.5. Independent t-test Results of Technological Style Characteristics of Brown and Gray Jars Across All Three Great House Communities

Attribute t df p Brown Mean

Gray Mean

Number of Coils 24.41 1225.04 <0.001 8.64 6.49 Indentations 6.52 834.08 <0.001 7.76 6.81 Thickness -10.37 324.08 <0.001 4.33 5.68

192

Figure 6.14. Box plot of (a) coil, (b) indentation, and (c) thickness measurements on brown and gray jars from across all three communities.

193

Much like the Largo Gap community sample, the aggregated data from all three

communities indicate brown and gray wares are stylistically distinct when evaluated using these

three attributes, supporting the interpretation that all three communities are characterized by

ethnic co-residence. The ranges observed among all three measured attributes may indicate that

these technological styles became more homogeneous through time. However, there are no data

available to evaluate this hypothesis given the lack of stratified midden deposits, nor is there

currently a means to distinguish if the observed overlap is due to some potters producing both

wares. Exogamous marriage may have influenced the wide range of variation in these attributes,

reflecting the production of pottery from multiple learning lineages among these communities.

LONG DISTANCE TRADE AND RESOURCE PROCUREMENT

While the great houses may be visibly distinct in their use of ceramic wares compared to

household sites, they are not the only locations to contain imported materials. Non-local items

are visible across the surface of many community sites, most notably in the form of obsidian and,

less so, the occasional turquoise or ocean shell fragment. I hypothesize that maintaining macro-

regional interaction networks was one aspect of great house function in southern Cibola.

Building and maintaining extensive interaction networks would be a costly signaling display of a

community’s ability to harness goods, resources, and items of prestige. Obsidian, ceramics,

turquoise, or shell obtained through these networks may have been limited to use during ritual or

community-integrating events at the great house, distributed across the community as a benefit of

community membership, or may have been obtained independently by each household. I

examine the spatial network of great house exchange by tracing the production and circulation of

ceramic materials and the procurement of obsidian. Tracing the origins of turquoise and shell

194

would also help clarify these relationships, but both were rarely recovered. Tracing the origin of

ceramics and obsidian at household sites will help clarify if great houses managed external trade

and resource procurement on behalf of their communities.

Tracing Ceramic Exchange Relationships

Instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA) is frequently used to establish the

compositional profile of ceramic wares in order to trace their raw material origins and patterns of

sub-regional interaction (Glascock and Neff 2003; Glowacki and Neff 2002). This technique is

commonly used within the Southwest to ask a variety of social questions based on patterns of

ceramic production and circulation (e.g., Bernardini 2005; Creel et al. 2002; Dahlin et al. 2007;

Eiselt and Darling 2012; Glowacki and Neff 2002; Neitzel and Bishop 1990; Triadan et al. 2002;

Zedeno 2002). INAA is useful for studying patterns of ceramic production and exchange because

it is a bulk compositional analysis appropriate for characterizing sherd tempered wares: all

components of the paste contribute to the chemical signature of the ceramic while slips and

paints are excluded in the preparation process. INAA measures elemental concentrations in

samples by stimulating a reaction between a neutron and a target nucleus and then measuring the

emission of gamma rays from radioactive samples (Glascock and Neff 2003). Gamma ray counts

are converted to elemental concentrations and reported in parts per million. These concentrations

can then be clustered into composition groups; patterns between a sample’s spatial origin and its

compositional grouping can be used to examine resource procurement, production, and exchange

relationships.

Several studies have conducted INAA within the broader Cibola sub-region and

neighboring areas (Duff 2002; Huntley 2008; Peeples 2011; Schachner 2007; Schacher et al.

195

2011; Triadan 1997; Triadan et al. 2002; Zedeno 1994, 2002). These studies largely focused on

delineating social interactions during the PIII and PIV periods. These studies provide

compositional reference groups bounding the project area by the Continental Divide to the east;

by Zuni, El Morro, and to a lesser extent, Manuelito Canyon communities to the north; the Upper

Little Colorado to the west; and by communities below the Mogollon Rim and Silver Creek to

the west (Triadan et al. 2002; Zedeno 1994, 2002). Peeples (2011) further refined the identified

compositional groups for the broader Cibola sub-region. He intensively sampled PIII and PIV

occupations within each of the adjacent areas as well as the core southern Cibola area, although

no samples were taken within the project area. Through these previous studies, over 2000

ceramic and clay samples have been compositionally sorted into 13 core groups and five

provisional groups (Peeples 2011). The large sample of INAA reference data from areas

immediately surrounding the study area provides a reference collection with which to assess how

Largo Gap, Cerro Pomo, and Cox Ranch Pueblo participated in ceramic interaction. The

sampling strategy, detailed below, examines wares and functional types from across Largo Gap

to determine if the patterns of interaction observed are replicated at the level of the community as

a whole, at select community sites, or if they are limited entirely to the great house.

Given the proximity between the Cox Ranch Pueblo, Cerro Pomo, and Largo Gap

communities, local signals of production between each community may be masked by using

materials from the same geologic formation (Datil Group, Moreno Hill Formation [Hoffman

1994]). Each community is situated at different elevations within that formation and is separated

by several kilometers. Their relative access to different exposures of clay may permit INAA to

detect subtle chemical differences in the geologic exposures.

To date, 585 ceramics and 40 geologic clay samples from the Cox Ranch Pueblo and

196

Cerro Pomo communities have been analyzed at the Archaeometry Laboratory at the University

of Missouri Research Reactor (MURR) (Table 6.6). This study adds to this reference sample by

not only analyzing ceramics and clays from around the Largo Gap community, but also ceramics

from the H-Spear great house. H-Spear is part of the Ojo Bonito community located along

Jaralosa Draw and dates to the PII period (Figure 6.15; Mahoney 2000). In addition to red, white,

and gray ceramics, H-Spear also has limited brown wares, making it a potential candidate for

interaction with southern Cibola communities. The compositional data provided by the PII H-

Spear sample complements that already collected by Duff (2002) from the adjacent PIV

communities of Ojo Bonito and Spier 170.

Complementary samples from the Largo Gap great house and eight community sites (373

ceramics and 30 raw clay samples; Table 6.7) and 45 ceramics from H-Spear were selected to

further explore local patterns of production and circulation within the broader context of the

Cibola sub-region (Peeples 2011; Schachner et al. 2011). The inclusion of ceramics from

household sites will help identify if exchange relationships were broadly facilitated through the

great house or if each household was responsible for negotiating its own ceramic exchange

networks (e.g., Gilpin and Purcell 2000). The sampling strategy at Largo Gap focused on

evaluating two patterns. First, I evaluated the production source for southern Cibola gray wares.

Second, I examined inter-sub-regional exchange with emphasis on trade for red or smudged

brown bowls, both of which were identified in high proportional abundance at Largo Gap, as

well as sherds that appeared to be visually distinct and possibly intrusive (e.g., pink paste,

Mimbres-style white ware, red painted brown ware). Sherds from the H-Spear great house were

also submitted to evaluate trade relationships between southern Cibola and one of the nearest

accessible contemporaneous great houses.

197

Figure 6.15. Location of the H-Spear great house relative to other PII great houses.

Table 6.6. INAA Samples from Cox Ranch Pueblo and Cerro Pomo Communities Site Brown Gray Red White Bowl Jar Total Cox Ranch Pueblo GH 84 48 37 70 90 149 239

CR-27 3 4 1 2 4 6 10 CR-32 7 6 2 13 5 23 28 CR-108 3 2 3 7 5 10 15 CR-109 7 8 1 6 6 16 22 Cerro Pomo GH 60 26 15 50 53 98 151 CP-174 10 10 10 14 15 29 44 NM-02-961 2 2 0 4 1 7 8 NM-02-965 4 3 1 6 3 11 14 NM-02-967 4 5 0 5 4 10 14 NM-02-969 10 10 7 13 13 27 40 Total Types 194 124 77 190 199 386 585

0 10 kmN

Village of the Great Kivas

H-Spear

Garcia Ranch

Cerro Prieto Kin

Cheops

Las Ventanas

Danson 202

Cox Ranch Pueblo

Cerro Pomo

Largo Gap

198

Table 6.7. Ceramic Samples Submitted to MURR from the Largo Gap Great House, Largo Gap Community, and H-Spear Great House

Site Brown Gray Red White Bowls Jars Total Largo Gap GH 47 40 42 40 84 85 169 LG-300 2 2 0 2 1 5 6 LG-308 11 10 6 8 18 17 35 LG-315 8 10 3 8 10 19 29 LG-318 11 9 8 8 19 17 36 LG-322 7 7 5 7 12 14 26 LG-323 10 9 9 9 20 17 37 LG-340 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 LG-381 8 8 9 8 19 14 33 H-Spear GH 5 15 10 15 22 23 45 Total Types 109 110 92 107 205 213 418

Identifying Compositional Core Groups

The compositional data were first explored using principal components analysis and

hierarchical clustering. These exploratory analyses formed a starting point for separating local

samples into groups to begin forming local core compositional groups. Readers are referred to

Bishop and Neff (2002), Glascock (1992), Neff (2002), and Peeples (2011) for a much more in

depth discussion of the statistical analyses involved in identifying compositional groups. I

summarize the steps involved here (Table 6.8).

Thirty-three elements were measured in parts per million (ppm) at MURR for each

ceramic and clay sample. Nickel (Ni) was consistently below detection limits and was removed

from the following analyses. The raw ppm measurements for the remaining 32 elements were

uploaded into Gauss 8.0, which performs a log 10 transformation on-the-fly during analysis steps

to standardize concentrations across major, minor, and trace elements. Missing data values—

those with elemental concentrations below detection limits—were temporarily replaced within

Gauss by substituting in the average concentration (calculated only for the group of samples

under consideration in each step) for that element (Peeples 2011:109).

199

Table 6.8. Steps in Sample Assignment to Production Groups Step Membership

Level Input Data Criteria for Membership

1. Define local core groups

Core members

Log base 10 ppm values of local samples

Local samples: !5% probability of membership in one group and "1% probability of membership in another group

2. Refine sub-regional core groups to minimize compositional overlap between sub-regional and local core groups

Core members

Log base 10 ppm values of local samples and core members of sub-regional groups

Sub-regional core members: <10% probability of membership in any group other than original core and an order of magnitude greater probability of membership in original core than any other group

3. Refine local core group against sub-regional core groups

Core members

Log base 10 ppm values of local samples and core members of sub-regional groups

Local samples: !5% probability of membership in one group and "1% probability of membership in another group; or 3-5% probability of membership in one group and "0.05% probability of membership in another group

4. Assign unassigned samples as non-core members of local and sub-regional groups

Non-core members

Principal component scores accounting for 90% of total variance (first 8)

Local samples: Membership probability at least 5 times greater in one group than any other group

5. Assign unassigned samples as non-core members of local and sub-regional groups

Non-core members

Discriminant functions accounting for 90% of total variance (first 8)

Local samples: Membership probability at least 5 times greater in one group than any other group

200

Core compositional groups for southern Cibola samples were constructed using the

“Group Membership” evaluation step in Gauss. This step performs a jackknifed Mahalanobis

distance calculation on the set of samples comprising each potential core group and uses a

Hotelling's T2 statistic to calculate a membership probability for each sample. Each sample was

considered a core group member if its probability of membership was above 5 percent. The

formation of initial southern Cibola core groups was an extremely iterative procedure. Using this

iterative process, two tentative core groups were defined for southern Cibola (discussed below):

a light-firing group (Southern Cibola 1 [SCib1]) and a dark-firing group (SCib2). Samples that

did not meet the criteria for membership were moved to an “unassigned” sample list.

Probabilities of membership for samples on the unassigned list were iteratively calculated against

the emerging core groups in each step. A sample was re-added to a core group list and

considered within all group calculations if its membership probability increased to meet the

minimum criteria.

Both core groups and all unassigned samples were then statistically analyzed in Gauss

against several sub-regional datasets in order to identify ceramic production zones (Duff 1999;

Huntley 2004; Peeples 2011; Schachner et al. 2012). Previous sub-regionally defined groups

were recently revised by Peeples (2011; Figure 6.16). Matt Peeples, Deb Huntley, Greg

Schachner, and Andrew Duff generously provided access to the raw elemental concentration data

for these sub-regional groups. The raw data allowed the compositional signatures of the two

southern Cibola core groups to be refined and for the provisional assignment of the majority of

ceramics from this study to one of the defined sub-regional groups (Appendix C1).

201

Figure 6.16. Locations of compositional core groups discussed in this study (based on Peeples 2011).

Gallup

ZuniGrants

St. John’s

Springerville

Reserve

Quemado

Plateau

South

SCib1SCib2

MM1MM2

West-1West-2

AZNM

ULC4

ULC3b

EMV1EMV2

ULC2b, ULC3a

ULC2a

0 25 kmN

202

The four previous compositional studies varied in the statistical rules used to further

refine the assignment of samples to a core group. I used a stepwise combination of rules to define

sample membership in southern Cibola core groups (see Table 6.8). A sample was assigned to a

local or sub-regional core group if it had at least a 5 percent probability of membership in one

group and a less than 1 percent probability of membership in any other group. Samples were also

included as core members if they had at least a 3 percent probability of membership in a group

and less than 0.05 percent probability of membership in any other group.

The geology of southern Cibola is similar to that of other surrounding sub-regions (see

Peeples 2001:105). Consequently, there was substantial compositional overlap between the

initial southern Cibola core groups and three of Peeples’ groups: Plateau, South, and ULC4

(Peeples 2011 Appendix A). The Plateau group covers a spatially extensive sub-region

approximately 65-90 km to the north of southern Cibola along the Colorado Plateau and reflects

ceramics that primarily used light firing clays (see Figure 6.16). The South group reflects two

geographic areas to the south and southwest of southern Cibola, approximately 45-80 km away.

Ceramics in this group were made from dark firing clays. The ULC4 group also reflects ceramics

that were made from dark firing clays and defines a production zone along the Upper Little

Colorado between Springerville and St. John’s, AZ. A large proportion of samples that had

probabilities of membership in a local southern Cibola group also had a similarly high

probability of membership in at least one of these three sub-regional groups; the reverse was also

true for a number of samples in each of the three non-local sub-regional groups (Appendix C2).

Due to the compositional overlap between the two local groups and the three non-local

groups, samples from previous studies were removed from one of Peeples’ defined core groups if

they had a high probability of membership in both his and my groups. Revising the definitions of

203

large compositional groups from several sub-regions south of the San Juan Basin is beyond the

scope of this study; therefore, I was very conservative in removing samples from these three core

groups. I established two rules for sample removal. First, if a sample had a probability of

membership of 10 percent or more in a group other than its core, it was removed. For example, a

sherd with 78 percent probability of membership in the Plateau group and 23 percent

membership in SCib1, it was removed from the Plateau group in order to increase the

compositional difference between the two core groups. The second rule was for samples with

less than 10 percent probability of membership in a second group. Under the second rule, a

sample was removed if its probability of membership in the second group was more than an

order of magnitude than its membership in its core group (e.g., Plateau membership = 67 percent,

SCib1 membership =7.8 percent).

A total of 115 samples were removed from five non-local core groups based on these

membership rules. All samples that were removed from Peeples’ revised core groups were kept

in a separate list (see Appendix C2). Each removed sample’s statistical potential for membership

in its original core group was frequently reassessed. This process helped revise compositional

signatures for all core groups and helped place formerly unassigned samples from this study into

a local or non-local group. Because I did not formally revise the core group members for the

Plateau, South, or ULC4 groups, southern Cibola samples that met the criteria for membership in

one these groups were assigned to them in a separate file, but were left out of core group

membership statistical analyses to avoid undue influence on the group’s compositional signature.

Using strict criteria for membership due to the compositional overlap between the SCib2

and South groups reduced the total number of samples in either group to approximately 60 core

members each. These two core groups do reflect internal compositional similarity among its

204

respective members that does correspond to geographically separate areas; however, these core

groups are not as statistically robust as the larger SCib1 or Plateau groups due to their low total

membership. Because group membership probabilities shift with the addition or deletion of a

single sample, core members of these groups would likely shift some if samples were added

during future research.

Core members must meet strict statistical criteria for membership, which often leaves a

large proportion of analyzed sherds unassigned to any group. However, many of the unassigned

samples were compositionally similar to those that met the strict core membership requirements.

Provisionally assigning these samples to production groups increases the number of assigned

samples and allows patterns of interaction to be more strongly identified. Principal components

analysis and canonical discriminant function analysis were used in Gauss to provisionally assign

samples to groups as non-core members.

Eight principal components and eight discriminant functions accounted for 90 percent of

the total variance in each respective analysis. Group membership probabilities were calculated in

Gauss using the first 8 components or functions. Different rules were used for establishing non-

core membership than were used for core membership assignments (see Table 6.8). A sample

was assigned as a non-core group member if its probability for membership was at least five

times greater than its membership in another group. Samples were assigned membership in name

only to evaluate patterns of production and exchange. They were not included in any of the

statistical analyses that calculated core membership probabilities in order to maintain chemical

distinction between core groups. Table 6.9 summarizes the distribution of southern Cibola sherds

into local or non-local groups based on the steps outlined above. In the sections below, I address

the local production of gray wares and patterns of regional ceramic exchange. I then evaluate

205

how well compositional data support a costly signaling explanation for great house construction

and use in the southern Cibola sub-region.

Evaluating Local Ceramic Production

Jarrett (2013) and Wichlacz (2009) disagree on whether gray wares, which are abundant

across southern Cibola, were made locally or were imported from northern sub-regions.

Wichlacz (2009) also suggests gray and white wares may be non-local due to the lack of useable

light-firing clays within the immediate area. Jarrett (2013) collected 34 geologic clays from the

Largo Gap area to analyze ceramic production patterns across the Largo Gap community. While

her electron microprobe analysis targeted primarily light colored clays to address her specific

question of gray ware manufacture, she sampled the full spectrum of local raw clays that ranged

from iron-rich to buff colored. Her study suggested southern Cibola potters generally tended to

use buff colored clays for local gray ware production and iron-rich clays for brown ware

production, but that both wares were locally produced (Jarrett 2013:33; cf. Wichlacz 2009:39).

Unlike Wichlacz (2009), I expected southern Cibola potters used local raw clays and

tempers to produce all four wares. Locally collected buff, yellow-red, and red firing clays from

the Largo Gap community were all submitted to MURR to evaluate the local production of all

four wares, as were ceramics from all four wares (see Table 6.7). Figure 6.17 illustrates the

compositional similarities of each ware across all three southern Cibola communities. There is a

clear division between brown wares and the other three wares, although samples from a few

other wares occur within the brown ware grouping. This pattern persists when the sherds are

divided by community and great house/non-great house contexts.

206

Table 6.9. Group Assignments Using Log-10 Transformed Elemental Data, Principal Component Scores, and Discriminant Functions Core Group Assignments Using Log-10 Transformed Elemental Data

SCib1 (Local)

SCib2 (Local)

AZNM (West)

EMV2 (North-

northeast)

MM1 (Local, East)

MM2 (Local, East)

Plateau (North)

South (South, South west)

ULC3a (West)

ULC3b (South west)

ULC4 (West-

southwest)

West1 (West-

northwest)

West2 (West-

northwest)

273 62 2 0 0 1 12 14 0 1 25 1 0

Non-Core Group Assignments Using Principal Component Scores

SCib1 (Local)

SCib2 (Local)

AZNM (West)

EMV2 (North-

northeast)

MM1 (Local, East)

MM2 (Local, East)

Plateau (North)

South (South, South west)

ULC3a (West)

ULC3b (South west)

ULC4 (West-

southwest)

West1 (West-

northwest)

West2 (West-

northwest)

99 43 6 1 2 5 7 0 1 1 17 1 1

Non-Core Group Assignments Using Discriminant Functions

SCib1 (Local)

SCib2 (Local)

AZNM (West)

EMV2 (North-

northeast)

MM1 (Local, East)

MM2 (Local, East)

Plateau (North)

South (South, South west)

ULC3a (West)

ULC3b (South west)

ULC4 (West-

southwest)

West1 (West-

northwest)

West2 (West-

northwest)

33 12 0 1 0 1 8 6 0 2 2 3 18

Unassigned n=293

207

Given the strong overlap between most gray, white, and red sherds, brown wares and

overlapping red wares were removed and a principal components analysis was conducted again

on each set (Figure 6.18). The spread between gray/white/red wares was consistent across a

biplot of the first two principal components and did not reveal any immediate divisions. This

suggests all three wares were produced using geologically similar clays. One red-on-buff sherd

from the Largo Gap community was analyzed as a potential trade item; this sherd was locally

produced, based on its compositional similarity to the other red, white, and gray sherds. When

these samples were analyzed in Gauss, 272 sherds from the large gray/white/red cluster formed

the first core group, SCib1 (Figure 6.19; Table 6.10; Appendix C1b). Sixty-two sherds from the

brown/overlapping red wares formed the second core group, SCib2, which is composed of only

brown wares (Appendix C1c). There were no compositional distinctions between samples in

either SCib core group that indicated differences in local production of ceramic wares between

the three southern Cibola great house communities. The ability to trace ceramic exchange

between the three communities is therefore limited by the similarity of local geology. As

illustrated by Figure 6.20, these two local core groups have some compositional similarity to

three non-local groups, Plateau, South, and ULC4.

A number of samples from all four wares were not assigned to either SCib group as core

members. Their compositional similarity suggested most were likely non-core members of these

two local groups, although many sherds had overlapping membership probabilities in a local

group and in the Plateau, South, or ULC4 groups. Only those that had a probability of

membership in SCib1 or SCib2 that was at least 5 times greater than their respective probability

of membership in a non-local group were included as non-core members (Figure 21). Sherds that

had higher membership probabilities in both a local and non-local group were left unassigned.

208

Figure 6.17. Plot of all compositionally tested sherds from all southern Cibola communities by principal components 1 and 2. Although there is some overlap, brown wares are largely compositionally distinct from the other three wares. One red-on-buff sherd from the Largo Gap community, indicated as “other” in the graphic, compositionally overlaps with the gray, white, and red group, suggesting its local origin within southern Cibola.

Principal Component 1 (49%)

Prin

cipa

l Com

pone

nt 2

(21%

)

WareBrownGrayRedWhite

209

Figure 6.18. Plot of all white, gray, and red compositionally tested sherds from all southern Cibola communities by principal components 1 and 2. Strong overlap between all three wares suggests the majority of gray wares were locally produced using chemically similar clays.

Principal Component 1 (49%)

Prin

cipa

l Com

pone

nt 2

(21%

)

WareGrayRedWhite

210

Figure 6.19. Element plot (log-10 transformed) of southern Cibola core groups.

SCib2

SCib1

Ba (ppm)

Sb (p

pm)

Core MembersSCib1SCib2

211

Figure 6.20. Principal components plot of southern Cibola core groups and three non-local groups, Plateau, South, and ULC4, illustrating the compositional similarity between them.

Principal Component #1 (51%)

Prin

cipa

l Com

pone

nt #

3 (8

%)

SCib1

Plateau

ULC4

SCib2

South

Core MembersSCib1SCib2PlateauSouthULC4

212

Table 6.10. Core Group Membership by Community Community SCib1

Gray Ware SCib1

Red Ware SCib1

White Ware SCib1

Brown Ware SCib2

Brown Ware

Bowl Jar Bowl Jar Bowl Jar Bowl Jar Bowl Jar Cerro Pomo GH - 5 2 - 6 26 - - 10 4

Cerro Pomo Community - 8 2 - 3 22 - - 4 3

Cox Ranch Pueblo GH - 17 6 - 11 26 - - 4 9

Cox Ranch Pueblo Community

- 11 0 - 2 13 - - 2 3

Largo Gap GH - 8 4 1 12 23 - 2 5 -

Largo Gap Community - 27 - - 13 24 - - 11 7

The 70 local clay samples had very little direct overlap with either southern Cibola core

group, although two had at least a 1.5 percent probability of core group membership in SCib1

based on log 10 elemental data (Figure 6.22; Appendix C3). Two clays from around Largo Gap

had at least a 1.5 percent probability of membership in a non-local group, illustrating the

geologic similarities of clays across the broader Cibola sub-region. Complete group membership

is not expected, given that INAA characterizes both the temper and clay of sherds, not just the

clay. The overlap illustrated in Figure 6.22 suggests locally available clays could be used to

make all four wares, even if no samples directly tested in this study were the primary source of

light firing clay for these communities.

213

Figure 6.21. Non-core members of SCib1 and SCib2. (a) Core members in their 90% confidence ellipses. (b) Non-core members plotted within 90% confidence ellipses of each core group.

SCib2

SCib1

Principal Component 1 (51%)

Prin

cipa

l Com

pone

nt 3

(8%

)

Core MembersSCib1SCib2

SCib2

Principal Component 1 (51%)

Prin

cipa

l Com

pone

nt 3

(8%

)

SCib1

Non-Core MembersSCib1SCib2

214

Figure 6.22. Element plot (log-10 transformed) of southern Cibola clays plotted against the two southern Cibola core groups. Several show overlap with the core groups, despite having no probability of core group membership.

Ta (ppm)

Cs

(ppm

)

SCib1

SCib2

Scib1 Core MembersScib2 Core MembersClays

215

Macro-Regional Interaction

In this section, I test two hypotheses for macro-regional interaction. First, smudged

brown and red painted bowls are distributed in unequal proportions across all three communities,

which may reflect a temporal difference in occupation. If these wares were functionally

equivalent and are the consequence of multi-ethnic community occupation, as Elkins’ (2007)

suggests, then differential circulation of these wares between southern Cibola and the

surrounding sub-regions may reflect continued connections with previous kinship-based

communities. Additionally, if these wares were used in ritual and/or feasting events, then their

presence may suggest differential trade networks for prestige items that were maintained by each

great house. In particular, large red ware bowls and smudged brown ware bowls with a

distinctive metallic sheen were targeted for compositional analysis in higher proportions at Largo

Gap as two styles that may be non-local.

Second, several ceramics from the H-Spear great house were collected during a previous

study and housed at Arizona State University (Mahoney 2000). A subset of that sample was

provided to WSU in order to examine potential trade relationships between lower Zuni area great

houses and southern Cibola great houses during the PII period. Overall, the site contained

abundant white, gray, and red wares; however, some brown wares were present, suggesting

trade. Samples of all four wares from H-Spear were compositionally analyzed.

External Trade. Provisional core groups and unassigned samples were compared to

Peeples’ (2011) revised core groups from surrounding sub-regions. Most of southern Cibola’s

red, white, and gray sherds clustered in one compositional group (SCib1) distinct from all of the

revised core groups and many more were assigned as non-core members. However, 56 local

sherds of all four wares met the criteria for membership as core members of seven sub-regional

216

groups: AZNM, MM2, Plateau, South, ULC3b, ULC4, and West1 (Figure 6.23; Table 6.11;

Appendix C4). These sherds were found among all three southern Cibola communities,

suggesting at least some community members and great house leaders were interacting with

groups to the north, west, and south. Only one core member sherd from either nearby Marianna

Mesa group (MM1 and MM2), located approximately 18 km northeast of the study area near the

Continental Divide, was identified among the locally tested sherds; seven non-core members

were also identified. The core sherd and all seven non-core sherds were located at great houses.

The sampled Marianna Mesa occupations largely reflect PIII period habitations, but suggest

other individuals from within the southern Cibola sub-region interacted with great house

individuals or participated in great house events.

Of all 56 non-local ceramics, 23 were smudged brown bowls (41 percent) while only 10

(18 percent) were red bowls. Although more common at great houses, non-local smudged brown

bowls and red bowls were not restricted to great house contexts. The majority of trade (n=25, 45

percent) was with groups in the ULC4 area, which is located between St John’s and

Springerville, AZ, approximately 55 km to the west of the study area (see Figure 6.16). Smudged

brown bowls were the dominant trade items from the ULC4 area (n=18, 72 percent), although

imported brown jars were also present. This pattern is in contrast to exchange patterns with the

other four identified trade areas, which had a relatively equal amount of bowls and jars imported.

Some sherds grouped as core members of the South and Plateau groups. The South group

represents a production zone of either the southern Upper Little Colorado area or below the

Mogollon Rim, while the Plateau group spans the Zuni River Valley east to El Malpais (Peeples

2011). The limited number of identified sherds from the Plateau and South areas reflects, in part,

217

Figure 6.23. Probable core members of non-local core groups. (a) Core members of non-local groups in their 90% confidence ellipses. (b) Probable core members plotted within 90% confidence ellipse of each core group.

Ta (ppm)

Cs

(ppm

)

AZNM

South

ULC4

PlateauCore MembersAZNMPlateauSouthULC4

Ta (ppm)

Cs

(ppm

)

AZNM

South

PlateauProbable Core MembersAZNMPlateauSouthULC4

ULC4

218

Table 6.11. Trade Indicated by Sherd Core Membership by Great House Community Community AZNM MM2 Plateau South ULC3b ULC4 West1 Cerro Pomo GH 1 gray

jar - 1 red bowl, 2 white jar 1 brown jar 1 white

bowl

3 smudged brown bowls,

2 brown jars

-

Cerro Pomo Community 1 red

bowl - 1 red jar - - - -

Cox Ranch Pueblo GH

- - 1 red bowl 1 smudged

brown bowl, 2 brown jars

-

7 smudged brown bowls,

4 brown jars

-

Cox Ranch Pueblo Community - -

1 smudged brown bowl,

1 red jar -

2 smudged brown bowls

-

Largo Gap GH

- 1 smudged

brown bowl

4 red bowls, 2 gray jars - -

6 smudged brown bowls

1 brown jar

1 gray jar

Largo Gap Community

- - 1 red bowl

2 red bowls (1 Mimbres-

style), 2 smudged

brown bowls, 4 brown jars

- - -

the geologic similarity between southern Cibola and these areas, but also suggests probable

interaction with communities to the south and to the north.

The number of core members of the South group is currently small and may be

statistically influenced by the addition of other sherds. The addition of more samples from all

three areas (southern Cibola, below the Mogollon Rim, and from the south Upper Little Colorado

communities) will help resolve the compositional signatures of membership for these groups.

219

Despite some statistical uncertainty in definitively identifying core South and SCib2 members

among local sherds, interaction with PII groups to the south is not unanticipated. Obsidian

sources are available in these southern areas as are some documented PII communities. These

interactions may represent continued ties with former homelands or the formation of new

exchange networks developed through obsidian procurement (discussed further below).

Similarly, the limited number of sherds from the Plateau area to the north may also reflect

continued ties with former home communities. They may also reflect interaction with PII great

house groups in that sub-region. Both the Plateau and SCib1 groups are large and well over 100

samples from each area showed compositional membership with both groups. Fully revising the

Plateau core compositional group in light of the light-firing southern Cibola samples would help

delineate robust production groups, subgroups, and patterns of inter-sub-regional interaction.

When principal component non-core group members are considered, the number of trade

items increases and includes ceramics from more production sub-regions (Table 6.12; see also

Table 6.9; Appendix C5; see Appendix C6 for canonical discriminant function analysis non-core

assignments). Ceramics from ULC4 still dominate non-local trade items and include smudged

brown bowls, brown jars, gray jars, and 1 Red Mesa Black-on-white ladle bowl from a Largo

Gap community site. The ladle likely represents initial in-migration by an individual or

household rather than trade due to its early design style. Trade with communities from the nearby

Mariana Mesa area becomes visible at this statistical level of group membership.

Interaction with H-Spear. Forty-five sherds from the H-Spear great house were

submitted for compositional analysis. These sherds tentatively divided into two compositionally

similar clusters but no core group could be statistically defined from either cluster due to small

sample size. No sherds were compositionally similar to either southern Cibola core group,

220

although they do overlap in an elemental biplot with several other core groups (Figure 6.24;

Appendix C7). Five H-Spear sherds met the membership criteria of four sub-regional core

groups (AZNM, Plateau, ULC4, West1), all of which bound the H-Spear great house to the

northeast or southwest. These sherds may represent trade items, but this interpretation is

provisional given that there is no locally defined compositional signature from H-Spear with

which to calculate local versus non-local membership probabilities. Increasing the sample size of

tested H-Spear sherds would enable a core group to be defined, after which unassigned sherds

from southern Cibola great house communities and previous studies can be evaluated for

membership in an H-Spear group. To date, however, no evidence for interaction between

southern Cibola great houses and the nearest PII great house was identified.

INAA Summary. Despite some geologic overlap between southern Cibola and

surrounding sub-regions, two core ceramic production groups were defined for the southern

Cibola sub-region. SCib1 is a light-firing group that includes red, white, and gray wares. Only

four gray ware sherds were identified as core members of a non-local production group. When

principal component non-core members are considered, this number rises to ten (21 percent of all

non-local non-core members). This number is still low compared to the 47 gray wares that were

identified as non-core members of SCib1. Contrary to Wichlacz’s hypothesis, the majority of

assigned gray wares from all three southern Cibola great house communities were locally

produced, as were white and red wares. Brown wares were also locally made (SCib2), but also

constituted the majority of non-local trade items. While smudged brown bowls were imported in

higher proportions, brown jars were present from both the South and ULC4 groups. Other wares

were present in limited number from other sub-regions.

221

Table 6.12. Trade Suggested by Non-Core Group Members Community AZNM EMV2 MM1 MM2 Plateau ULC3a ULC3b ULC4 West1 West2

Cerro Pomo GH - - -

2 smudged brown bowls 1 brown jar

- - - 2 brown jars 1 gray jar - -

Cerro Pomo Community 1 gray jar 1 red

bowl - - 1 red bowl, 1 gray jar - - 1 brown jar - -

Cox Ranch Pueblo GH

1 white bowl

1 gray jar - 2 white

jars 1 smudged brown bowl - 1 white

jar 1 white bowl

3 smudged brown bowls 3 brown jars

- -

Cox Ranch Pueblo Community

- - - - 1 red bowl, 1 gray jar - - - - -

Largo Gap GH

2 gray jars - - 1 smudged

brown bowl 2 red bowls - - 4 smudged

brown bowls 1 red bowl

1 red bowl

Largo Gap Community 1 gray jar - - - 1 gray jar - -

2 smudged brown bowls,

1 white bowl/ladle

- -

222

Figure 6.24. Element plot (log-10 transformed) illustrating the distribution of sherds from H-Spear across local and non-local core groups (indicated by their 90% confidence ellipse for image clarity). The majority of H-Spear sherds cluster near the Plateau, West1, and SCib1 groups, although only one met the criteria for membership as a core member in any group (Plateau). H-Spear samples likely represent a local core group, but the sample size was too small to statistically define it.

Ta (ppm)

Cs (

ppm

)West2

West1

Plateau

SCib2

ULC3A

ULC4

SCib1

H-Spear

223

Identified non-local items were relatively limited in number, and consequently, it is

unclear what proportion constitutes items brought during in-migration and which represent trade

items. If the majority of both non-local core/non-core ceramics represent trade networks, then

southern Cibola great houses and individuals from each community participated in trade with

others from several surrounding sub-regions approximately 45-90 km away. Approximately the

same number of non-local core sherds was identified at each great house (11 at Cerro Pomo and

15 each at Cox Ranch Pueblo and Largo Gap). Non-local ceramics were not restricted to great

house contexts, and were disproportionately identified in great house communities (two at Cerro

Pomo, four at Cox Ranch Pueblo, and nine at Largo Gap). These patterns suggest great house

leaders did not control non-local trade, a finding similar to that observed for obsidian (discussed

below), although some of these sherds may also represent in-migration. Non-local red and

smudged brown bowls were similarly not limited to great house contexts, nor do they seem to be

the focus of trade by great house leaders. The distribution of non-local wares at Cerro Pomo

underscores the range of imported wares across bowls and jars, and the unique range of sub-

regional connections between local great house leaders.

If non-local ceramics represent costly signals by great house leaders of peer-networks,

then no southern Cibola great house focused solely on importing items related to serving vessels

presumably to be used during group-level feasts. Due to low spatial resolution of compositional

data, it is also unclear whether great house leaders were trading with leaders from other great

house communities to the north or west. No previous study utilized in this analysis intentionally

targeted ceramics from PII great houses, and no great houses are known within the South or

ULC4 areas. No trade was identified between the H-Spear great house and southern Cibola great

houses, although this conclusion is based on preliminary data and small sample sizes. It should

224

be revisited as part of future compositional research. Sampling ceramics from PII great houses

within the Plateau sub-region would better test if local great house leaders brokered macro-

regional trade relationships with other great house leaders, or if imported items from that sub-

region reflect continued kin relationships with former home communities.

X-Ray Fluorescence and Obsidian Procurement Patterns

The nearest obsidian source, Red Hill, is located approximately 25 km to the south, with

several additional sources found in the mountains even further to the south (~100-130 km; Figure

6.25) (Duff et al. 2012). Additional sources to the north include those at Mt. Taylor, the Jemez

Mountains, and the San Francisco Peaks (Duff et al. 2012). If great houses were drawing on

community members’ kinship ties when forming exchange networks, then patterns of obsidian

procurement may reflect these ties. Such a pattern is interpreted for the Cox Ranch Pueblo and

Cerro Pomo communities (Duff et al. 2012:3004). All obsidian pieces recovered from across the

Largo Gap community were chemically characterized using x-ray fluorescence (XRF).

XRF is a highly precise method of quantifying trace amounts of ions present on artifact

surfaces (Freund and Tykot 2001; Phillips and Speakman 2009; Shackley 2011). The interaction

between the sample surface and the primary x-rays generates a secondary set of x-rays

characteristic of elements present in the sample (Henderson 2000:15). The secondary x-rays are

displayed as spectra energy peaks based on atomic weight indicative of a sample’s chemical

composition. These data are then matched against known raw material sources to identify the

geologic region from which a material was procured.

A total of 168 obsidian samples from the Largo Gap great house (n=7), the Largo Gap

community (n=138), and seven Cox Ranch Pueblo community sites (n=23) were submitted to

225

Figure 6.25. Location of obsidian sources identified by XRF at southern Cibola sites.

Steven Shackley for chemical characterization at the Geoarchaeology XRF Laboratory in

Albuquerque, NM. The compositional groupings identified by XRF data were compared to

previous obsidian sourcing data for the Cibola sub-region (n=250 for Cox Ranch and Cerro

Pomo) and across the Southwest (Duff et al. 2012). Antelope Creek, Mule Mountain, and

Sawmill Creek are all discrete obsidian sources from the Mule Creek area, located to the south of

the southern Cibola sub-region. Because all three were not distinguished from one another in

earlier XRF studies on obsidian from Cerro Pomo and Cox Ranch Pueblo, these sources will be

aggregated here for community comparison. Isolates and lithic scatters cannot be definitively

linked to the PII period; therefore, all isolated obsidian samples and those from undated lithic

scatters were removed from the following discussion. Table 6.13 presents the results of obsidian

compositional sourcing.

226

Table 6.13. Identified Obsidian Source by Great House Community Using XRF Obsidian Source

Largo Gap Great House

Largo Gap Community

Cerro Pomo Great House

Cerro Pomo Community

Cox Ranch Pueblo Great House

Cox Ranch Pueblo Community

Red Hill 0 65 40 37 36 42 Mule Creek 5 13 24 36 26 20 Cow Canyon 1 1 1 2 7 3 Gwynn-Ewe Canyon 0 5 1 3 1 4

Valles Grande Rhyolite/Cerro del Medio

0 4 1 0 8 2

Cerro Toledo Rhyolite 0 1 1 0 1 0

Horace-La Jara Mesa/Mt Taylor 1 0 0 1 0 2

Blue/San Francisco River 0 0 2 0 8 0

Government Mt 0 0 0 0 0 1 Summary By Area

Nearby (Red Hill) 0 65 (73%) 40 (57%) 37 (47%) 36 (42%) 36 (54%)

South (Mule Creek, Gwynn Ewe, Cow Canyon, Blue River)

6 (86%) 19 (21%) 28 (40%) 41 (52%) 42 (48%) 27 (40%)

North (Mt. Taylor, Valles Grande Rhyolite, Cerro Toledo Rhyolite)

1 (14%) 5 (6%) 2 (3%) 1 (1%) 9 (10%) 3 (5%)

Northern AZ (Government MT)

0 0 0 0 0 1 (1%)

Over 73 percent of Largo Gap’s community samples (n=65) derive from the Red Hill

source (Shackley 2014). Comparatively, roughly 50 percent of the obsidian recovered from the

Cox Ranch Pueblo and Cerro Pomo communities were from the Red Hill source. This is not

227

unexpected given its close proximity. When distant sources were utilized, more obsidian was

from southern sources than from the north. In all communities, Mule Creek sources were by far

the most common distant source from the south. The Cox Ranch Pueblo and Largo Gap

communities had moderately higher proportions of obsidian from northern sources than Cerro

Pomo (6 percent compared to 1 percent). Most community sites had obsidian from only one

source, although several had obsidian from two or three sources.

All seven obsidian samples recovered at the Largo Gap great house were submitted for

XRF analysis. Five were from the Antelope Creek source, one was from Cow Canyon, while the

last was from Mt. Taylor. No samples from Red Hill were identified at the great house. In

contrast, both Cox Ranch Pueblo and Cerro Pomo have high percentages of Red Hill obsidian. In

both cases, Cox Ranch Pueblo has higher proportions of obsidian from the north and the south

than Cerro Pomo, although both have the same number of unique sources (n=6). Neither have

obsidian from Mt. Taylor or northern Arizona, despite the presence of both at associated

community sites. Largo Gap has a fraction of the sample size of either great house (n=7) and yet

has half of the same number of unique sources represented (n=3).

These patterns suggest that great houses did not control obsidian access and that

individuals maintained their own access to distant sources. Connections by individual households

may stem from links to homeland communities; multiple sources present at individual sites may

reflect connections through marriage, other kin ties, or exchange relationships. The extent to

which great houses used obsidian from different sources as part of costly signals is unclear. For

example, Mt. Taylor obsidian at the Largo Gap great house may represent a connection to

northern communities much like that represented in the ceramic exchange patterns; it may also

link Largo Gap directly to Chaco Canyon communities, perhaps collected during a trip to

228

participate in canyon activities. Individuals from the Cox Ranch Pueblo and Cerro Pomo

communities with Mt. Taylor obsidian may also represent a journey to participate in Chaco’s

events (similar to Kantner and Vaughn’s [2012] pilgrimage model). Although the Chaco

participation hypothesis cannot be tested here, the use of multiple sources at each great house

seems unnecessary to daily practice. All three great houses have a variety of unique sources

represented, perhaps suggesting that obtaining non-local obsidian from multiple sources was

symbolic and a component of a costly signaling display.

SOUTHERN CIBOLA GREAT HOUSE COMMUNITIES

Architectural, settlement data, momentary population estimates, ceramic types and

manufacturing characteristics, and compositional data have been examined for three southern

Cibola great houses (Table 6.14). Of the 17 data expectations for a costly signaling model of

great house construction and use outlined in Chapter 3 (Table 3.2), 11 were supported at the

scale of all three great house communities while three were supported for individual great houses

(Table 6.15). I discuss the support for these expectations below. The data presented in this

chapter address the following research topics: the extent to which each great house’s associated

communities displayed settlement clustering with strong social boundaries; whether each great

house performed a similar function for its associated community; whether each community was

reproductively (and therefore socially) viable in isolation; if each great house community was

multi-ethnic; and the extent to which each great house participated in macro-regional exchange

networks. Addressing these inter-related topics permits a broader understanding of great house-

community interactions, the impetus for their construction (e.g., Chaco-directed or Chaco-

229

Table 6.14. Summary of Characteristics by Great House Community Characteristics Largo Gap Cerro Pomo Cox Ranch Pueblo Chaco Architectural Traits

~22 rooms, D-shape with bounded plaza, some over-tall rooms, blocked-in kiva with possible flat roof, Type II-style masonry, some compound walls. Multiple episodes of remodeling. Placed in visually prominent location.

~43 rooms, rectangular, foundation trench, footing stones, external kiva, some Type II masonry, entrance road, large bermed depression associated. Possible PIII remodeling/use episode.

~44 rooms, rectangular structure with bounded plaza, internal kiva, over-tall rooms, Type II-style masonry, compound and core-and-veneer walls, high elevation timbers used in construction. Episode(s) of remodeling.

Settlement Pattern

Up to 8 km from great house; majority of households within 3.5 km of one another

Up to 2 km from great house, which is centrally located

Up to 8 km from great house; majority of households within 3.5 km of one another

Momentary Population Estimates

~131-273 people; larger estimates fit best with ceramic seriation

~73-168 people; larger estimates fit best with ceramic seriation

~106-237 people; larger estimates fit best with ceramic seriation

Ceramic Occupation Trends

Constructed relatively contemporaneously after community formation. Constructed relatively contemporaneously with Cerro Pomo. All great houses occupied contemporaneously.

Constructed relatively contemporaneously after community formation. Constructed relatively contemporaneously with Largo Gap. All great houses occupied contemporaneously.

Constructed relatively contemporaneously after community formation. Constructed slightly later than Largo Gap or Cerro Pomo. All great houses occupied contemporaneously.

Manufacturing Characteristics

Two manufacturing traditions identified

Two manufacturing traditions identified

Two manufacturing traditions identified

Ceramic Exchange

Exchange with communities to the immediate northeast, to the west along the Upper Little Colorado, with northern communities on the Colorado Plateau, and with communities below the Mogollon Rim. Non-local ceramics are not limited to great house contexts.

Exchange with communities to the west along the Upper Little Colorado, with northern communities on the Colorado Plateau, and with communities below the Mogollon Rim. Non-local ceramics are not limited to great house contexts.

Exchange with communities to the west along the Upper Little Colorado, with northern communities on the Colorado Plateau, and with communities below the Mogollon Rim. Non-local ceramics are not limited to great house contexts.

Obsidian Procurement

Three unique sources at great house, including from Mt. Taylor; some overlapping but discrete sources identified across community. Majority of community obsidian from Red Hill.

Six unique sources at great house, including from the north and south; some overlapping but discrete sources identified across community. Majority of community obsidian from Red Hill.

Six unique sources at great house, including from the north and south; some overlapping but discrete sources identified across community. Majority of community obsidian from Red Hill.

230

Table 6.15. Evaluation of Chaco Models Using Southern Cibola Great House Community Data Data Expectation Great House

Community Data Costly Signaling

Chacoan Outpost

Ideological System

Chaco Emulation

(1) External Chacoan wall architecture (e.g., banding)

Present at all three great houses

(+) Supported

(+) Supported

(+/-) Neutral

(+) Supported

(2) Limited internal Chacoan wall characteristics

Higher representation at all three than expected; largely single wall construction at Largo Gap with some compound walls; foundation trench at Cerro Pomo; single and compound walls at Cox Ranch Pueblo; all with Type II masonry

(-) Not

supported

(+) Supported

(-) Not

supported

(-) Not

supported

(3) Great house remodeling and expansion

Present at all three; more “Chacoan” at Cox Ranch Pueblo

(+) Supported

(+) Supported

(+/-) Neutral

(+) Supported

(4) Presence of a great kiva

Not identified in any community, although precursor to PIII unroofed great kiva possible at Cerro Pomo and Cox Ranch Pueblo

(+/-) Neutral

(+) Not

supported

(+) Not

supported

(-) Neutral

(5) Consistent Pueblo kiva features

Largo Gap incorporates Mogollon elements; Cox Ranch Pueblo lacks consistent Pueblo kiva features (e.g., corner pilasters)

(-) Supported

(+) Not

supported

(+) Not

supported

(-) Supported

(6) “Hidden” or symbolic construction elements (core-and-veneer walls, high elevation timbers, )

Only Cox Ranch Pueblo contains symbolic traits

(-) Supported

(+) Not

supported

(-) Supported

(-) Supported

(7) Located in prominent position on the landscape

Only Largo Gap is in prominent location

(+) Not

supported

(+) Not

supported

(-) Supported

(+/-) Supported

(8) Periodic feasts Present at all three although signature is slightly variable

(+) Supported

(+) Supported

(+) Supported

(+) Supported

(9) Ritual fauna/rare artifact classes (e.g., birds, cougar paws)

Present at all three and in Cerro Pomo and Cox Ranch Pueblo communities

(+) Supported

(+) Supported

(+) Supported

(+) Supported

231

Table 6.15. cont. Data Expectation

Southern Cibola Great House Community Data

Costly Signaling

Chacoan Outpost

Ideological System

Chaco Emulation

(10) Distinct pottery manufacture learning traditions

Present in all three; Mogollon and Puebloan pottery technological styles are distinct

(+) Supported

(+/-) Neutral

(+) Supported

(+) Supported

(11) Contemporaneous establishment of southern Cibola great houses

Both Largo Gap and Cerro Pomo established contemporaneously, Cox Ranch Pueblo founded slightly later

(-) Supported

(+) Not

supported

(-) Supported

(-) Supported

(12) Contemporaneous occupation of southern Cibola great houses

All contain late ceramic assemblages, indicating overlap in occupation

(+) Supported

(+) Supported

(+/-) Neutral

(+) Supported

(13) Close spatial patterning of associated community (“scion” community distribution)

Variable spatial patterning; possibly related to landscape. Only Cerro Pomo seems consistent with “scion” radius and is centrally placed in community

(-) Neutral

(+) Neutral

(-) Neutral

(-) Neutral

(14) External ceramic trade relationships

True for all three great houses

(+) Supported

(+) Supported

(+) Supported

(+) Supported

(15) Unique networks of macro-regional ceramic exchange at each great house

All have ceramics from Upper Little Colorado, below Mogollon Rim, and from Colorado Plateau; only Largo Gap has sherd from Mariana Mesa area to immediate east; unclear if trade is with different communities within each area

(+) Not

Supported

(-) Supported

(+/-) Neutral

(+) Not

Supported

(16) Unique patterns of obsidian procurement at each great house

All three great houses had unique obsidian source patterns

(+) Supported

(-) Not

supported

(+/-) Neutral

(+) Supported

(17) Unique networks of exchange at households not replicated at great house

True for obsidian, but not for ceramics; only Largo Gap community had a non-local ceramic source not represented at the great house

(+) Neutral

(-) Neutral

(+) Neutral

(+) Neutral

232

emulated), and the role of costly signaling within this social context. I summarize southern

Cibola patterns for each great house and its community, and the broader implications of great

house use for this sub-region.

Great House

I argue that each great house’s construction and use support the interpretation that these

structures were utilized as credibility-enhancing displays for each community and its associated

great house leader or kin group. All three great houses were occupied contemporaneously (data

expectation 12), but based on ceramic types, appear to have been built at slightly different times

(data expectation 11). All three great houses also contain the architectural elements scholars most

frequently associate with Chaco-style great houses (Chaco Research Archive; Lekson 1991; Van

Dyke 2003; Vivian 2005), but vary in their incorporation of these Chacoan architectural

conventions, including in their ritual architecture (data expectation 5). The inconsistent

replication of Pueblo kiva conventions may indicate poor emulation of a broader ideological

feature or the intentional integration of both Mogollon and Pueblo characteristics in a ritual

space. I argue that the latter is the case for Largo Gap; it is unclear if the inconsistency in kiva

features in the Cox Ranch Pueblo blocked-in kiva is also a result of merging architectural

traditions.

All three great houses had external and internal displays of Chaco-style banded masonry

(data expectations 1 and 2). More internal wall banding was observed than was expected among

competing great houses on the edge of the Chaco sphere. This may indicate the importance of

fidelity in Chaco Canyon emulation, a higher degree of articulation between Chaco great houses

than has been observed to date using material remains, or that more individuals had access to

233

internal great house rooms than were anticipated during large-scale events alone. Only Largo

Gap is located in a visually prominent location (data expectation 7). What Cerro Pomo and Cox

Ranch Pueblo lack in “typical” Chaco-style great house visibility, they may make up in their

association with a ritual landscape feature, the Cerro Pomo cinder cone, during the

summer/winter solstice. These alignments may have provided additional prestige for these

communities, given the importance of solar alignments in the broader Puebloan cosmology (e.g.,

Malville 2011; Sofaer 1997, Sofaer et al. 1979). The predictability of solstices and other solar

and lunar events could have coordinated macro-regional groups for communal activities within

Chaco Canyon in the absence of direct communication between all communities.

The strongest architectural links exist between the Largo Gap and Cox Ranch Pueblo

great houses to other Chaco-style great houses across the Southwest; however, only Cox Ranch

Pueblo contains symbolic links to Chaco in the form of high-elevation timbers and core-and-

veneer masonry (data expectation 6). Remodeling events at Cox Ranch Pueblo included

expanding the size of the building through several additions and the incorporation of symbolic

architectural traits, while at Largo Gap, remodeling manifested as complex room segmenting,

structural reinforcement, and the late construction of a second blocked-in kiva (data expectation

3). The amount of variation in the presence, absence, and manifestation of Chaco-style

architecture in each great house supports the expectations derived from a costly signaling model

that great houses were constructed by competing groups utilizing recognizable elements or

symbolism related to Chaco Canyon.

Despite the descriptions in Fowler et al. (1987), no great kivas are associated with these

southern Cibola great houses (data expectation 4). Both Largo Gap and Cox Ranch Pueblo

contain bounded plazas, which may have been the location in which group-level activities were

234

conducted. Roomblock 2 at Cox Ranch Pueblo also had a large, unroofed, bounded circular

space that probably served a group-level function. A very large, bermed depression at Cerro

Pomo may have had a similar function. Each respective solstice event is most visible specifically

within the bounds of these circular, non-great kiva features. It is possible these features were

poor emulations of a great kiva or precursors to the larger, unroofed great kivas prevalent during

the PIII period (e.g., Benson et al. 2014; Herr 2001); further investigation is necessary at each.

All three southern Cibola great houses had evidence for feasts, possibly associated with

ritual events (data expectations 8-9). The archaeological signature of each varied somewhat in

the fauna present and in which wares were used for serving vessels (red, smudged brown, or

white bowls). All appeared to be potluck style feasts, rather than aggrandizing, potlatch style

feasts. Ritual fauna were also present at all great houses (data expectation 9), although the

presence of turkey and other ritual fauna at several Cerro Pomo and Cox Ranch Pueblo

community sites suggests access to ritual paraphernalia was not restricted. No comparable faunal

assemblage exists for the Largo Gap community.

Great House Community

All three southern Cibola great houses appear to have been constructed at about the same

time as their associated communities, which would support a “scion” model (data expectation

13). Cox Ranch Pueblo contains a later ceramic signature than the other two great houses,

suggesting its construction was later, possibly within a generation or so of the other two great

houses’ construction. The lack of tree-ring cutting dates associated with either Largo Gap or

Cerro Pomo’s construction makes defining their precise temporal relationships difficult, but all

appear to overlap in their occupation and use. Rather than being situated randomly on the

235

landscape, household sites are relatively clustered around each great house. Their variability in

spatial patterning appears to be a function of the landscape more than a lack of connectedness

between household members. Marshall et al. (1979) and others (e.g., Jalbert and Cameron 2000)

have identified the influence of the local landscape on the placement of habitations for many

great house communities. Each community’s spatial association implies both a participation in a

spatially discrete social community and suggests some degree of social boundaries between

communities.

Despite the appearance of spatial boundaries, which is influenced to some degree by

survey limitations, population estimates suggest each of the great house groups would have

struggled to be reproductively viable on their own. When combined, these communities could

have had a large enough local population density to provide genetic variability in mate selection;

the reproductive community is even more viable if households from other nearby great houses

(e.g., Danson 202, Kin Cheops, Cerro Prieto) are considered. As such, it may have been in each

community’s best interest to have permeable social boundaries to promote mate choice.

According to Varien (2000:152), permeable boundaries are to be expected among great house

groups. Thus, while southern Cibola great houses may have been geared primarily to the needs

of their own constituents, they may have promoted regular inter-community events, possibly in

the form of ritual activities or feasts. The ability to host members of adjacent communities could

have further enhanced a group’s local prestige and served as an active costly signal to attract new

members from other communities via exogamous marriage. While evidence for feasts was

identified at all three great houses, the frequency or periodicity of such events was not resolved

for any of the great houses, nor was there enough data to clarify the extent to which a great house

hosted other groups at these events.

236

Differential distributions of Mogollon and Pueblo wares between the three communities

indicate varied ethnic composition in each. These results are paralleled by distinctions in the

technological characteristics of brown and gray wares across all three communities, supporting

the interpretation that distinct ancestral ceramic traditions were passed on via learning lineages

(data expectation 10). All great houses were distinct from their respective community in the

overall use of decorated wares. Great houses were characterized by the higher proportional use

of red wares and smudged brown bowls, while community sites largely utilized white bowls and

jars. Differences in the proportional use of wares between great houses may suggest some

variation in activities or in the target audiences of such activities. These differences may be a

function of the audience of the broadcasted signal, rather than differential access to wares.

Contrary to Wichlacz’s (2009) hypothesis, gray wares were not imported in abundance.

All three great house communities locally produced all four wares, and have evidence for macro-

regional ceramic trade (data expectation 14). Non-local sherds constitute 13 percent of all sherds

assigned to core groups (17.3 percent of all core and principal component non-core sherds), and

indicate external ties to the immediate west (Upper Little Colorado River groups approximately

55 km), and to a lesser extent, to the north (Colorado Plateau [65-90 km]) and the

south/southwest (below the Mogollon Rim or the southern Upper Little Colorado area [45-

80km]); contrary to expectations, these patterns were present at each great house, although it is

unclear from the resolution of the compositional data if each great house group was trading with

different communities within those areas (data expectation 15, not supported).

Only one sherd (a smudged brown bowl from the Largo Gap great house) was identified

from the Mariana Mesa area, located approximately 18 km to the northeast. Sherds from the

ULC4 area to the west were dominated by smudged brown bowls (72 percent) compared to

237

brown jars (28 percent). Among the northern intrusive wares, gray, white, and red wares were

represented, but unequally. Over half (58 percent) of the non-local northern sherds were red

wares, and were dominated by Wingate Black-on-red (5:2 Wingate to Puerco Black-on-red).

Half of the non-local ceramics from the south were brown jars (50 percent), with the remaining

seven sherds split between red bowls/jars and smudged brown bowls. Imported ceramics were

not limited to great house contexts, but were also found at household sites in each community.

Only the Largo Gap community had ceramics from a source (South) that was not replicated at its

great house. Two great houses (Cox Ranch Pueblo and Largo Gap) each had one source

represented that was not replicated at its community, although in both cases, this was represented

by only one or two sherds.

It is unclear which PII communities all of the non-local sherds came from, but their

presence suggests the possible maintenance of kinship ties from previous communities and an

extended network with groups to the west. I hypothesized in Chapter 3 that higher frequencies of

non-local items would be from closer communities and would decrease in frequency as distance

increased. This expectation was met among both non-local core and non-core sherds. Although

no trade was identified between the H-Spear great house and southern Cibola great houses, it

does not mean southern Cibola great houses were not interacting with other great house leaders

through ceramic exchange. Southern Cibola sherds were only compared to available

compositional datasets from nearby areas; expanding this comparison to datasets generated for

the Chaco core, Red Mesa Valley, and Southwest Colorado (e.g., Neitzel et al. 2002) would

better explore peer interactions among great house leaders.

Finally, all great houses maintained their own obsidian procurement from near and

distant sources to the north and south (data expectation 16). However, there was not complete

238

overlap in the obsidian represented within each great houses and their associated sites (data

expectation 17). This suggests that great houses did not manage external trade relationships or

resource procurement activities for their communities, and that individuals were not obliged to

divert any obsidian obtained to their associated great house.

Broader Implications

In aggregate, these data suggest great houses had overlapping roles, but that these roles

were executed or participated in differently across communities. The variability between great

houses, particularly when considered in the context of their support communities, indicates all

were locally constructed and that the activities of each were directed by their own leaders to gain

local prestige. Local prestige, therefore, was not obtained through one pathway or by wholly

replicating architectural features or activities present within Chaco Canyon. For example, the

serving bowls used in feasts varied between great houses, as did the physical structure of each

great house, the spaces available for ritual or group use, and tentatively, in the abundances of

particular fauna used in each. Further, great house leaders did not control access to all resources,

especially those that were non-local. There is strong evidence for non-local ceramics and

obsidian; more limited amounts of shell and turquoise fragments hint at other trade networks

that, anecdotally based on limited surface finds across the communities, were not limited to great

house contexts.

It is unclear the extent to which community members used their own non-local ties to

import goods for use at their great house. Heavy overlap was visible in source areas for non-local

ceramics, but only some obsidian sources identified at households were also present at each great

house. This would not necessarily be expected if communities were under the control of

239

powerful local elites who produced and consumed all prestigious goods. These patterns,

combined with expectations for some population increase through in-migration and exogamy,

suggests that leaders were present in each community but that access to prestige, ritual, or non-

local goods was not restricted to great house leaders.

In summary, I argue that southern Cibola great houses meet many, but not all, criteria

expected under a costly signaling model for their construction and use (see Table 6.15).

However, the two scales and types of data used above should contribute to a broader

understanding of Chacoan archaeology, not only test a local model of great house use. I expand

my analysis to consider the broader implications of a costly signaling model to other great

houses across the Southwest, and will now evaluate the impacts of this model on understanding

others posed for a Chacoan regional system.

240

CHAPTER SEVEN: GREAT HOUSE COMMUNITIES AND

A CHACOAN REGIONAL SYSTEM

I have argued that Largo Gap, Cerro Pomo, and Cox Ranch Pueblo all share characteristics

typically associated with Chaco-style great houses, including Chaco-style banded masonry, ritual

paraphernalia, associated communities, and community-integrating feasts. All three were built

within newly formed communities, and while their occupations overlap, they appear to have

been built at slightly different times (around an estimated A.D. 1050 for Cerro Pomo and Largo

Gap, compared to perhaps within a generation later for Cox Ranch Pueblo). All have evidence

for remodeling, although the scale of that remodeling varies. No community was reproductively

viable in isolation, indicating exogamy was necessary. Leaders at each great house, as well as

individuals within the community, had evidence for long distance obsidian procurement and

external ceramic exchange. I argue that these material correlates largely meet the expectations

for a costly signaling model of great house construction and use within southern Cibola (see

Table 6.15).

Although the manifestation of these material correlates varied among the three great

houses, this need not imply that southern Cibola great houses served different roles in their local

communities. Rather, the combined data sets suggest a generalized sub-regional pattern for

architectural features, trade, and the materials used during communal events. What remains

unclear is whether other PII great houses follow a similar pattern. I explore the same material

correlates at a macro-regional scale to evaluate the four Chaco sociopolitical organization models

for great house construction and use detailed in Chapter 3.

241

The 17 data expectations detailed in Chapter 3 and evaluated in Table 6.15 are grouped

into three broad themes: great house construction and remodeling; ritual and community-

integrating activities; and exchange/non-local resource procurement. Material correlates

corresponding to all three themes have been examined for several PII great houses, listed in

Table 7.1 (with additional information in Appendix D), although these have been researched

with variable intensity (Damp 2013; Cameron 2008; Fowler et al. 1987; Kantner 1999; Kantner

and Mahoney 2000; Marshall et al. 1979; Powers et al. 1983; Reed 2008, 2014; Van Dyke 1998,

1999a; Warburton and Graves 1992). For each theme, I briefly summarize the available macro-

regional data set before highlighting representative case studies from across the northern

Southwest. I then evaluate the support these data lines provide for the alternative Chaco models.

Comparisons are limited to PII communities and datasets, as these are contemporaneous with the

cases studied here.

In aggregate, macro-regional data from tested great houses mirror patterns visible in

southern Cibola. These data decrease the explanatory power of a Chaco-directed model of great

house construction and use, suggest areas for revising an ideological model, and largely

distinguishing a costly signaling model from one of general emulation based on the expectations

for a particular mechanism driving that emulation. As illustrated in Chapters 4, 5, and 6, many,

but not all, of the data expectations for a costly signaling model were supported by data from

southern Cibola great houses; these are also broadly supported at other tested great houses.

EVALUATING CHACO-ERA GREAT HOUSES

Chaco-style Construction and Remodeling

Most of the 200+ identified great houses have not been sufficiently tested or have enough

242

Table 7.1. Available Macro-Regional Great House Data by Spatial Scale of Analysis Scale of Analysis Great House Community

Subsurface Testing Albert Porter, Aztec, Bis sa’ani, Bluff, Casamero, Chimney Rock, Guadalupe, Kiatuthlanna, Lowry, Morris 41, Salmon Ruins, Village of the Great Kivas

Associated Community Survey

Albert Porter, Andrews, Aztec, Badger Springs, Barths Well, Bluff, Edge of the Cedars, H-Spear, Kiatuthlanna, Lowry, Peach Springs, Pierre’s Survey, Village of the Great Kivas

Ceramic, Lithic, Faunal Analyses

Albert Porter, Aztec, Bis sa’ani, Blue J, Bluff, Casamero, Chimney Rock, Four Clowns, Guadalupe, Haystack, Indian Creek, Kin Ya’a, Lowry, Morris 41, Muddy Water, Peach Springs, Salmon Ruins, Skunk Springs, Tocito, Wallace Ruins, Village of the Great Kivas

architecture exposed to adequately address construction and remodeling patterns, although

several have had Chacoan architectural features identified from their surface remains (Appendix

D). Table 7.2 presents 17 case studies from across the Chaco sphere where construction and/or

remodeling data is available (Figure 7.1; Table 7.2). Kane (1993, cited in Jalbert and Cameron

2000:90) suggested that great houses constructed within existing communities would exhibit a

higher degree of local architectural style. No clear pattern was identified here between great

houses that appeared in existing communities and their adherence to Chacoan architectural

vernacular. Both scion and ancestral communities have great houses with Chaco-style masonry,

blocked-in kivas, multi-story construction, and ~25+ rooms. Many tested great houses had

episodes of remodeling, which often included the addition of blocked-in kivas within additional

room suites constructed in Chaco style.

Table 7.2 highlights only some of the range of variability in architectural features (see

Appendix D), much of which has been noted elsewhere (e.g., Marshall et al. 1979; Powers et al.

1983; Van Dyke 2003). However, architectural variability may not detract from the notion that

great houses represent a distinct idea replicated across space (Stein and Lekson 1992). I argue

243

Figure 7.1. Sample of great houses with available construction and remodeling information.

N0 50

kilometers

Bluff

CottonwoodFalls

Edge of the CedarsLowry

Wallace Ruin Chimney

Rock

Morris 41

Salmon

Bis sa’ani

Peach Springs

Kin Ya’a

Guadalupe

Haystack

AndrewsCasamero

Village of theGreat Kivas

H-Spear

Winslow

Gallup

Albuquerque

SantaFe

Durango

244

Table 7.2. Available Macro-Regional Great House Construction and Remodeling Data

Great House Date of Construction and Use (Years A.D.)

Chaco Architectural Conventions

Andrews (Red Mesa Valley)

990-1110

Probably multi-story, 22 rooms, 4 blocked-in kivas, 4 great kivas, enclosed plaza, associated roads, discontinuously banded core-and-veneer. Built over earlier late PI/ early PII site; two early PII great kivas are also present. No data available for remodeling events.

Bis sa’ani (San Juan Basin) 1100-1150

Two adjacent great houses. Total of ~45 rooms, four blocked-in kivas, multi-story, core-and-veneer masonry, over-tall rooms, compound walls, inconsistent banded masonry, two associated roads. No data available for remodeling events.

Bluff (Northern San Juan)

1075-1150

Great kiva, multi-story construction, core-and-veneer, blocked-in kivas, over-tall rooms, berm, entrance road. East addition elaborated Chaco-style construction, including multiple stories, core-and-veneer masonry, great kiva, blocked-in kivas. Construction on same leveled platform as initial structure suggests limited time between initial construction and remodeling event.

Casamero (Red Mesa Valley)

1016-1096

L-shaped pueblo, enclosed plaza, 29 rooms, blocked-in kiva, 3 great kivas, multi-story, T-shaped doorways, core-and-veneer and compound walls, foundational trenches, banded masonry, entrance road. Interior, keyhole shaped kiva shows remodeling to reorient to southeast.

Chimney Rock (Northern San Juan) 1076- early 1100s

~55 rooms, multi-story, blocked-in kivas, core-and-veneer and compound walls, great kiva, banded masonry. Remodeling ~1093 based on dendrochronology.

Cottonwood Falls (Northern San Juan)

Main use 1050-1175, with occupation until

~1200s

~40-50 room structure, great kiva, two pre-contact roads, finely shaped sandstone, blocked-in kivas, multi-story, compound masonry. No remodeling data available.

Edge of the Cedars (Northern San Juan) 1100-1130

~16 rooms, blocked-in kivas, core-and-veneer masonry, compound walls, great kiva, multi-story, banded masonry, foundation trench, associated road. Possible remodeling event ~A.D.1109

Guadalupe (San Juan Basin)

1056-1091, with construction of some

rooms ~960 and occupation until mid-

1200s.

Twenty-five of 50 rooms active during main phase. Single-story, simple and core-and-veneer masonry, banded masonry, blocked-in kivas. Extensive remodeling during PIII removed some PII elements. Three remodeling events during PII added ~6-12 rooms

Haystack (Red Mesa Valley)

1050-1125

Multiple features including GH (~28-30 rooms, great kiva, tower kiva, two elevated kivas, kiva in enclosed plaza, multi-story, core-and-veneer masonry), Locality A (Possible multi-story, 12 rooms, great kiva), Locality D (great kiva), three roads associated. Locality D and associated houses assigned to A.D. 850-1000; shifted to Locality A ~A.D. 1000; great house complex late PII

245

Table 7.2. cont. Great House

Date of Construction and Use (Years A.D.)

Chaco Architectural Conventions

H-Spear (northern Cibola) ~1050-1125/1150 Twelve to fourteen over-tall rooms, earthen berm, great

kiva. No data on remodeling available. Kin Ya’a (Red Mesa Valley) 1020-1110

~44 rooms, multi-story, tower kiva, blocked-in kivas, core-and-veneer masonry, great kiva. No data on remodeling available.

Lowry (Northern San Juan) 1080-~1130

(abandonment during PII unresolved before reuse

of structure in PIII)

~34 rooms, multiple blocked-in kivas, multi-story, (local style?) banded masonry, Chaco wall construction, great kiva. Multiple episodes of construction over three decades. First two episodes added blocked-in kivas, while later additions added additional kivas and surrounding rooms.

Morris 41 (Middle San Juan) 1090-1140

~100 rooms, banded masonry, blocked-in kivas, bounded plaza, multi-story construction. Unclear how many construction episodes are represented.

Peach Springs (San Juan Basin)

975-1175

Two story, ~30 rooms, Chaco road, bounded plaza, possibly D-shaped, great kiva, possible tower kiva, core-and-veneer and compound masonry identified. Multiple episodes of construction identified by masonry types, all of which mimic styles in Chaco.

Salmon Ruins (Middle San Juan)

1100-1200

300 rooms, fine banded masonry, blocked-in kivas, great kiva, core-and-veneer walls, planned construction. Remodeling events appear to be in PIII period, although there are a cluster of dendrochronology dates at 1072, 1088-1094, and 1105/1106. These may indicate stockpiling of wood.

Village of the Great Kivas (Northern Cibola) 1000-1200

Rectangular structure, 18 rooms, 2 blocked-in kivas, a great kiva, compound/core-and-veneer walls, banded masonry. Two phases of construction; unclear if second phase is fully PIII.

Wallace Ruin (Northern San Juan)

1045-1150

Multi-story, 73 rooms, multiple kivas, bounded plaza, planned construction, banded masonry, over-tall rooms, foundations, possible earthen berms. Two identified remodeling episodes in PII. Second phases added Chaco-style banded masonry. Massive addition during third episode included many rooms, two elevated kivas, bounded plaza, stone footers.

that great house construction and use can be better explored by focusing on sub-regions with

multiple great houses and on patterns of great house remodeling. First, studying sub-regions with

several contemporaneous great houses emphasizes that the order in which great houses were

constructed may explain some of the architectural variation observed. I present a case study from

246

the Middle San Juan to illustrate how the order of construction may have influenced which

Chacoan architectural characteristics are present. Second, I have argued that great house

remodeling events signal an increase in adherence to Chacoan architectural ideals within

southern Cibola, and this pattern seems to extend to great houses in other sub-regions (see Table

7.2). I use a remodeling event at the Bluff great house to illustrate this broader trend. Finally, I

evaluate the support for the four Chacoan models based on these macro-regional patterns.

Order of Construction. Reed (2008, 2011, 2014) summarizes the complex history

currently understood for great houses in the Middle San Juan and how the order of great house

construction impacted which Chacoan elements were present (Figure 7.2). Reed (2011, 2014)

argues that three early great houses within the Animas Valley (Aztec North, Dein, and Farmers)

were emulative Chaco structures, constructed roughly around A.D 1080. Next, he argues that

Salmon Ruins was constructed as a Chacoan outpost about A.D. 1090 and was intentionally

constructed in a “largely vacant landscape” to serve as a ritual center with emphasis as a large

habitation (Reed 2008:43). Salmon is one of four structures along the San Juan River (along with

Jaquez, Sterling, and Twin Angels) that Reed identifies as built by Chacoans, in contrast to one

local structure (Point).

The Aztec complex contains two later structures, Aztec West (A.D. 1100) and Aztec East

(~A.D. 1120), both with strong architectural links to Chaco (Reed 2011). Reed (2011, 2014)

argues Aztec North is an early emulative structure because it is composed of cobble and mortar

masonry, rather than finely banded sandstone. La Plata Valley (Holmes, Morris 39, Morris 41)

communities each contain what are interpreted as one Chaco-built and one local-built structure

(Reed 2014:17-19). La Plata structures were all built within existing communities and range

from 30-45 rooms, but vary in their use of finely banded sandstone masonry and their use of

247

Figure 7.2. Great houses within the Middle San Juan sub-region. Reed (2011, 2014) interprets some as Chaco-constructed and others as Chaco-emulated.

N0 10

kilometers

CONM Morris 41

Holmes Group

Morris 39

Farmington

Farmer’s

DeinAztec Group

Point Sterling

Jaquez

Salmon Ruins

Twin Angels

248

Chaco-style wall veneers. Reed (2011:233) considers several La Plata structures (LA 1921, LA

37601, Holmes South, Morris 39 South) to be emulative due to their mixed use of cobble/

unshaped sandstone masonry, thinner walls, and the lack of/unpatterned wall veneers.

For the Animas and La Plata valleys, the later structures (Aztec West, Holmes North,

Morris 39, and Morris 41 [Reed 2011, 2014:19]) contain architectural elements that are more

consistent with Chaco Canyon architecture than Aztec North or the early Animas Valley great

houses (Brown 2014:12-13; Reed 2014:17-19). This pattern is less clear for the San Juan River

great houses where four Chaco-directed great houses were constructed relatively

contemporaneously with one local structure (Reed 2011:234). Reed (2014:17) interprets this

Middle San Juan pattern as Chaco-emulation (early structures) followed quickly by Chaco

colonization (later structures).

While intriguing, Reed’s Chaco colonization argument may not explain more than the

construction of Salmon, Aztec West, and Aztec East. All three are in an architectural class

distinct from the majority of PII great houses in terms of size and in their use as large community

habitations. All three demonstrate formalized, planned construction and contain hundreds of

rooms (compared to the 20-50 at most great houses), finely banded veneers, well-shaped

sandstone masonry, and all of the symbolic elements of Chaco construction. The Aztec complex

is often acknowledged as the location to which power shifted after Chaco Canyon leadership

became less supported during the A.D. 1100s (e.g., Judge 1989; Lekson 1999, 2006; Reed 2008;

Van Dyke 2009). The shift in power may reflect an earlier or very special social relationship

between Aztec populations and Chaco Canyon that is not represented at other great houses.

I am hesitant to accept Reed’s argument for the majority of Middle San Juan great houses

and argue against a Chaco colonization model for southern Cibola. Many of the characteristics

249

that Reed cites as indicative of Chaco-directed construction (e.g., finely shaped sandstone

masonry, foundational trenches, “L” or “D” shaped structures) are present in macro-regional

great houses that have been interpreted as emulative, locally constructed structures, including

Bluff, Cox Ranch Pueblo, and Casamero. However, Reed’s early/later pattern is similar to the

increased architectural adherence observed at Cox Ranch Pueblo compared to the earlier

construction of Largo Gap and Cerro Pomo. Readers should note that some of Cox Ranch

Pueblo’s architecturally symbolic elements (high-elevation timbers and core-and-veneer wall

construction) were only added during a remodeling phase thought to date to A.D. 1106. Tree-

ring cutting dates for Cox Ranch Pueblo are from a room in the addition, whereas Reed (2008,

2011, 2014) argues Salmon, Aztec East, and Aztec West were built during planned construction

events by builders from Chaco (see also Brown 2014; Brown and Paddock 2011; Brown et al.

2008; Irwin-Williams 1972, 2008; Morris 1918, 1928).

Remodeling Events. Many great houses show episodes of remodeling that increased the

number or type of Chacoan architectural features represented (see Table 7.2). I use the Bluff

great house in southeast Utah to illustrate how remodeling increased architectural fidelity to that

represented in Chaco Canyon structures. Multiple phases of construction were identified at Bluff,

at least two of which date to the PII period. The initial structure, built ~A.D. 1075, was

rectangular with single coursed masonry. Remodeling during the late PII period added the

eastern half of the structure and incorporated several Chacoan architectural elements. It is

unclear when this remodeling event occurred, but Cameron (2008:299) estimates it was soon

after initial construction because both portions were constructed on the same leveled platform.

Elements added include blocked-in kivas, multiple stories (up to four), tall rooms, and core-and-

veneer masonry; a great kiva adjacent to the great house (Cameron 2008:299). Bluff builders did

250

not incorporate high-elevation timbers, either because they did not recognize the symbolism or

did not deem it worth the effort to import them (Cameron 2008:304). Despite there being no

clear evidence for how much time passed before the late PII remodeling episode, it is evident the

addition more directly linked Bluff to Chaco Canyon architecture, much like the remodeling

events at Cox Ranch Pueblo.

Evaluating Chaco Models. Two trends were identified here: emulative construction and

increased architectural fidelity through remodeling. The construction of later structures with

stronger Chacoan architectural fidelity or the remodeling of existing structures to include more

Chacoan features seems to be a consistent pattern. Yet the variation in which characteristics were

added appears to be based on observation and emulation.

Rather than a model where migrants from Chaco Canyon relocated to outlying areas to

build a great house (e.g., Reed 2014:17-19), I argue the increase in adherence to architectural

symbolism reflects the identification of power associated with Chaco activities and their local

emulation during a time when Chaco was at its architectural/material peak in the late A.D. 1000s

and early 1100s. The high visibility of Chacoan architectural conventions during this period

would have made it much easier to identify poor emulation in local structures, unless labor was

invested in remodeling to increase the architectural fidelity (and, thus, costly signal) of a great

house. This architectural connection may not represent a direct link between a great house group

and Chaco; instead, it may reflect the observed construction/remodeling of other great houses in

one’s home sub-region, sites that may have had more direct association with Chaco, and

emulation in nearby communities. For example, this pattern also seems to characterize the Red

Mesa Valley great houses (e.g., Casamero, Andrews, and Haystack in Table 7.2, others in

Appendix D).

251

Only a handful of great houses—Aztec West, Aztec East, Salmon—all located within the

Middle San Juan, seem to be Chaco-directed, or at least built by individuals moving from Chaco.

Others within the Middle San Juan that are interpreted as Chaco-directed are more similar in

architecture and layout to other great houses across the macro-region than they are to Salmon,

Aztec East, or Aztec West. I suggest instead that these other “Chaco-directed” structures

represent emulative buildings that display more adherence to the Chaco architectural canon due

to their timing of construction, not their construction by Chaco builders. The presence of both

emulative and “Chaco-directed” structures in the Middle San Juan supports a regional model of

emulation. The architectural variability between structures that are near one another, the timing

of nearby great house construction, and remodeling events that increase the strength of the

architectural signal support a costly signaling model for great house construction. A model of

Chaco-directed construction is not supported across the northern Southwest using these data.

Evidence for Ritual and Community-Integrating Activities

Both ritual activities and communal activities are argued to have occurred in Chaco

Canyon great houses, and both are expected in all Chaco regional models (see Table 3.2). I focus

the following discussion on great houses as locations of ritual activity rather than (or at the

exclusion of) great kivas because it is unclear how great kiva use overlapped or was distinct from

that of great houses. This is, in part, because great kivas were present before the PII period,

persist in modified form into PIII, and are not consistently associated with PII great houses (Van

Dyke 2002). I draw on great house ceramic and faunal data to examine the occurrence of feasts

and the use of ritual fauna at great houses as part of community-integrating activities (Figure 7.3,

Table 7.3).

252

Figure 7.3. Great houses with analyzed faunal assemblages.

N0 50

kilometers

Bluff

NancyPatterson

Cox RanchPueblo Cerro Pomo

Largo Gap

Wallace Ruin

Salmon

Albert Porter Escalante

Gallup

Albuquerque

SantaFe

Durango

Guadalupe

253

Table 7.3. Evidence for Feasts and Ritual Fauna Use Great House Lagomorph

Index Artiodactyl Index

Turkey Index

Ceramic Evidence Reference

Albert Porter* 0.87 0.05 0.26 — Badenhorst 2008 Bluff* 0.65 0.45 0.11 Great house white

and red bowls larger than household bowls

Badenhorst 2008; Fothergill 2008

Cerro Pomo 0.49 0.02 0.01 Great house smudged bowls larger than household bowls

Bouknight 2014; Saterlee and Duff 2014

Cox Ranch Pueblo

0.46 0.03 0.03 Great house red bowls larger than household bowls

Mueller 2006; Saterlee and Duff 2014

Escalante 0.94 0.37 0.11 — Badenhorst 2008

Guadalupe Ruin* 0.83 0.59 0.07 — Durand and Durand 2008

Largo Gap 0.74 0.05 0.04 Great house smudged bowls larger than household bowls

Bouknight 2014; Saterlee and Duff 2014

Nancy Patterson* 0.71 0.54 0.26 — Fothergill 2008

Salmon Ruins* 0.83 0.60 0.14 — Durand and Durand 2008

Wallace Ruin (Late PII)

0.90 0.04 0.12 — Badenhorst 2008

*Indices calculated for PII component only

Lagomorph Index: (total cottontails NISP)/(total cottontails NISP + total jackrabbit NISP) Artiodactyl Index: (total artiodactyl NISP)/(total artiodactyl NISP + total lagomorph NISP) Turkey Index: (total turkey NISP)/(total turkey NISP + total lagomorphs NISP)

The sample of great houses with reported faunal assemblages is extremely small, but

some macro-regional patterns can be tentatively identified. Several PII great houses have

evidence suggesting potluck-style feasts occurred that used communally captured species and the

ritual use of turkeys and other birds, much like those identified at southern Cibola great houses.

These patterns mirror, to some extent, the use of fauna at Chaco Canyon great houses (Durand

2003; Durand and Durand 2008). Below, I briefly detail case studies from Bluff, Salmon Ruins,

254

Guadalupe Ruins, and Albert Porter before evaluating how these patterns inform models for a

Chaco regional system.

Evidence for Feasts and Ritual Faunal Use. Similar to southern Cibola great house

assemblages, Bluff’s white ware and red ware bowls were larger than bowls from all non-great

house contexts examined, suggesting a different scale of consumption at the great house

(Cameron 2008:303). Fothergill’s (2008) analysis of fauna from Bluff identified high

proportional use of lagomorphs. However, she was unable to contrast her sample with non-great

house assemblages, preventing a direct comparison of feasting patterns to everyday

consumption. Despite the lack of comparative community data, Cameron (2008:302-303)

interprets the ceramic and faunal evidence as indicative of potluck-style feasts potentially related

to rituals, similar to those suggested for southern Cibola.

Faunal use at Salmon Ruins and Guadalupe Ruins indicates the importance of both

artiodactyls and lagomorphs in the diet of individuals at both great houses; however, similar

faunal indices within the Guadalupe community indicate artiodactyl use was not restricted to

great house contexts (Durand and Durand 2008:100). The extent to which the high lagomorph

indices reflect feasting events of a mass capture species, or the extent to which their consumption

is linked to ritual events, is unclear based on their context, but is suggestive. Ritual fauna,

including two turkey burials and seven Chaco-era macaw burials, were also identified at Salmon

(Durand and Durand 2008:100).

Badenhorst (2008:215) identified a higher proportion of ritual turkey use at the Albert

Porter great house than at associated community sites, although he notes this pattern may be

weak. He did not, however, identify conclusive evidence for feasts held at the great house, nor

did he identify a difference in great house faunal consumption compared to associated

255

community sites (Badenhorst 2008:215-216). Here, too, the low artiodactyl index suggests that

large-bodied game was not the focus of consumption and that artiodactyls were not restricted to

great house occupants. Badenhorst (2008:225-226; see also Wills and Crown 2004:165)

attributes some of the lack of direct evidence for feasts at great houses to the nature of cultural

activities, such as cleaning, remodeling, bone relocation, or the use of different parts of an

animal (e.g., hide over bones). All of these cultural activities may have altered definitive

evidence for feasts as communal events distinct from everyday consumption practices.

Although community-level data are limited, no great house faunal assemblage indicated

restricted access to artiodactyls; high lagomorph indices were not directly implicated in

community feasting events at several great houses, in part because it was not clear in these

analyses where faunal remains were recovered or how fauna were spatially distributed across a

great house. High lagomorph indices were present at all great houses identified in Table 7.3,

suggesting that the use of a communally captured species could have been a recognized feasting

practice at great houses across the northern Southwest (Durand and Durand 2008:100, 103; see

also Potter 1997). More data from additional great houses and from their communities is

necessary to clarify if this pattern represents daily patterns of consumption or a mix of daily and

communal events. All great houses had turkey remains, suggesting consistency in the use of

turkey as ritual fauna at great houses.

Evaluating Chaco Models. Evidence for feasts was identified in PI communities (e.g.,

Blinman 1986; Potter 1997), and thus, feasting behavior is itself not a novel social consequence

of a rising macro-regional system during PII. Yet, “feasting deposits” at Chaco Canyon great

houses have been inconsistently identified (e.g., Badenhorst 2008; Durand 2003; Durand and

Durand 2008; Plog and Watson 2012). If group activities occurred within Chaco Canyon and

256

these activities incorporated communal feasts, then it is unclear where or with what frequency

such events occurred, or how Chaco Canyon leaders modified their form. Like great kiva use,

feasts may have been incorporated into and elaborated on in Chaco-related activities. The

consistent presence of turkey remains in each examined assemblage indicates there is some,

perhaps variable, relationship between turkey, ritual events, and great house use during the late

PII (Munro 1994), which seems to parallel their interpreted association with feasting events at

Chaco Canyon great houses (Durand 2003). The presence of feasts and ritual activities at great

houses provisionally supports their interpreted use as both ritual and community-integrating

structures. Both activities are expected components of all four Chaco models examined here.

Better data from more contexts are necessary to determine with better certainty if feasts occurred

at all great houses, if there were standard practices associated with ritual fauna, and if all great

houses show the same pattern of unrestricted community access to large terrestrial mammals.

Evidence for Exchange and Non-Local Resource Procurement

Many items were imported into Chaco Canyon, but few items preserved in the

archaeological record appear to have left (Cameron and Toll 2001; Toll 2001). Looking for a

direct material connection between great houses, rather than a direct material connection to

Chaco, may help reframe studies of how great houses were linked. If a regionally organized

system brought individuals from each great house to Chaco Canyon during periodic events, then

these events may have served to facilitate alliances between otherwise distance great house

leaders. These alliances may be visible via material exchange. Analyzing patterns of non-local

resource procurement and ceramic exchange between great houses may provide insight into how

they articulated on a macro-regional scale.

257

Broadly, the patterns of non-local exchange and resource procurement detailed below

underscore two main points. First, great houses do not appear to have managed exchange

networks for their communities and the extent to which community members capitalized on great

house networks for their own resource procurement remains unclear. Second, great house

assemblages show a wide range of interaction networks, ones that vary in their use of local items

or items from nearby communities, and in their number of external relationships and types of

materials exchanged. Patterns across material types emphasize that networks appear to have been

directly managed by great house inhabitants/managers/leaders, rather than by drawing on

individual household affiliations to support a group-level costly signal (data expectation 17). I

present two sets of case studies—surface/excavation material tabulations and chemical

compositional analyses—that highlight these macro-regional trends (Figure 7.4).

Non-local Material Tabulation. Powers et al. (1983) evaluated managed exchange

relationships for the Bis sa’ani, Peach Springs, and Pierre great house communities using surface

tabulations of both ceramic and lithic materials. Their tabulations indicate that individual

households, rather than great house occupants, managed their own long distance exchange and

obsidian procurement, some of which was from over 100 km away (see Appendix D).

Excavations at the Bluff great house also identified a high percentage of non-local materials.

Roughly 5 percent of Bluff’s late PII ceramic assemblage was from the San Juan Basin, some of

which was decorated in Chaco style (Cameron 2008:305). Almost half of the projectile points

found at Bluff were non-local, although it was not always clear from what sub-region they

originated (Cameron 2008:306; see also Ward 2004). Many points may have served a symbolic,

rather than functional, purpose (Jennings 2005, cited in Cameron 2008:306). While it is evident

258

Figure 7.4. Great houses with some evidence for non-local resource procurement or ceramic exchange.

that Bluff residents managed a range of long distance ceramic and lithic (perhaps specifically

projectile point) exchange relationships, it is unclear the extent to which these relationships were

also managed for the community.

Compositional Analyses. Compositional analyses provide another means to evaluate

interregional interaction between great house groups. Neitzel (1995) argues that Dogoszhi-style

N0 50

kilometers

Bluff

Gallup

Albuquerque

SantaFe

Durango Chimney Rock

Guadalupe

H-Spear

Cox RanchPueblo

Cerro Pomo

Largo Gap

Allentown

Wallace Ruin

Morris 41

Salmon

Aztec

Bis sa’ani

Peach Springs

Kin Ya’a

Haystack

Muddy WaterIndian Creek

Four Clowns

Pierre’s

Tocito

Skunk Springs

CasameroBlue J

259

pottery (a hatchured design style that includes Chaco, Mancos, and Gallup black-on-white sub-

regional variants) is an elite marker given the style’s use on ritual artifacts at Pueblo Bonito and

its distribution across the broader PII world, including at sites beyond the identified Chaco

sphere. Neitzel et al. (2002; see also Neitzel and Bishop 1990) compositionally evaluated

Dogoszhi-style pottery from 13 non-canyon great houses from across the regional sphere using

INAA. Their results distinguished the general origin for many non-local ceramics of this style

within Chaco Canyon, but also documented the movement of this specific style of pottery

between great house groups (Neitzel et al. 2002). For example, sherds produced in the eastern

Chuskas were recovered from several great houses north of Chaco (Wallace Ruin, Chimney

Rock, and Middle San Juan great houses), while sherds produced near Chimney Rock were

found at most of Neitzel et al.’s (2002) sampled sites to the south.

Kantner (1999:157; see also Kantner et al. 2000) evaluated ceramic production and

exchange between five non-canyon great house communities located on either side of Lobo

Mesa—Muddy Water and Kin Ya’a north of Lobo Mesa, and Haystack, Blue J, and Casamero,

located south of Lobo Mesa. He argued that great houses exhibiting more evidence for

centralization would also have more long distance exchange and more competitive interactions

with neighboring communities (Kantner 1999:158). In his study, highly centralized communities

were those where the social or environmental context imposed high individual costs on leaving a

group. These groups tended to be larger and located where good agricultural land was spatially

restricted, annual rainfall had slightly higher interannual variability, and where access to ground

water was restricted (Kantner 1999:134-148).

While all five communities had high proportions of imported ceramics, Blue J, Haystack,

and Casamero had a lower degree of centralization and a much higher degree of exchange with

260

other local great houses than with non-local great houses (Kantner et al. 2000:143-144). In

contrast, Muddy Water and Kin Ya’a had a much more limited degree of ceramic interaction

with one another and showed a higher degree of centralization. Kantner’s study highlights that

great house groups varied in the degree to which they interacted with their immediate and

increasingly distant neighbors. The degree of local competition seems to be one factor that

influenced exchange relationships and suggests one avenue for future research among other great

house communities. The origins for many imported sherds in all five communities were not

identified, which may suggest more interaction with a wider spatial range of great house groups

than has currently been identified for communities around Lobo Mesa.

Evaluating Chaco Models. Research at the Bluff great house highlights a variety of non-

locally procured resources, some of which cannot yet be tied to a distinct source (Cameron

2008). Neitzel et al.’s (2002) work suggests a higher degree of long distance interaction between

great houses related to Dogoszhi-style pottery than was previously expected given the focus on

great house-to-canyon relationships. Kantner’s (1999; Kantner et al. 2000) study highlights sub-

regional variation in the extent of local and macro-regional interaction.

Individuals attending Chaco-centered events and networking for relationships may have

facilitated long distance macro-regional exchange, but none of the identified exchange patterns

support a highly articulated regional system directed by Chaco Canyon populations. These

patterns of non-local exchange support a costly signaling model where the procurement of non-

local items may have been an emulative signal of prestige following Chaco Canyon activities.

An ideological model could be supported if the use of exchanged items was linked to ritual use,

such as the symbolic use of Dogoszhi-style pottery (e.g., Plog 2003), unused projectile points, or

turquoise in ritual paraphernalia, but such an association has not been made explicit outside of

261

Pueblo Bonito. A general model of emulation is not directly supported because no driving

mechanism for the observed exchange patterns, particularly between nearby great houses, is

explicitly patterned after Chaco Canyon great house relationships. A Chaco-directed model

would emphasize material movement into Chaco with less direct exchange relationships between

non-canyon great houses. Based on the patterns of resource exchange and procurement

highlighted above, a Chaco-directed model is not supported.

EVALUATING MEASURES OF MACRO-REGIONAL ARTICULATION

I turn now to a broader discussion of Chaco as a regionally integrated social system and briefly

revisit the Chaco-directed regional model. I argue that, while some Chaco-directed construction

may be visible at a couple of structures in the Middle San Juan, across the northern Southwest it

is the least supported of the four models for understanding the construction and use of Chaco-

style great houses. In general, costly signaling currently better accounts for the distribution and

use of these structures. Second, I address ideas for what non-architectural links may have existed

between Chaco Canyon and non-canyon groups, and how ideas about these connections have

been empirically addressed. I close with a brief summary of macro-regional trends identified

here for which architectural and material culture patterns are present across many Chaco-style

great houses.

Revisiting a Chaco-Directed Model

The Middle San Juan, more so than any other sub-region, illustrates that the construction

of Chaco-style great houses does not fit within one neatly organized model of either Chaco-

directed or Chaco-emulated. Despite being the only sub-region identified to date to contain what

262

appear to be “Chaco-directed” great houses, it remains unclear whether individuals within Chaco

ordered their construction, if groups intentionally relocated from the canyon to build their own

Chaco-like structures, or if they represent some combination of both. The idea that Chaco

Canyon groups both took over local communities and colonized new areas is equally

unsupported in this analysis, and is most visible in communities with multiple great houses. In

case studies from southern Cibola, the Middle San Juan, and the Red Mesa Valley (see Appendix

D), structures that are interpreted as more emulative are adjacent to structures with a higher

degree of Chacoan architectural fidelity. Architectural fidelity may have been a largely

unimportant component of a Chaco colonizing effort. To date, there is little other material

evidence that directly links Chaco populations to non-canyon populations, nor is there much

material evidence that identifies what canyon communities gained from colonizing new areas or

supplanting existing communities.

However, the pattern identified by Reed and colleagues of both “Chacoan” and “Chaco-

like” structures within the same communities (e.g., Holmes, Morris 39, Morris 41) emphasizes

that a costly signaling model of great house construction can better account for the construction

and use of these features than a simple model of general emulation or directed construction. I

argue this is because there is no conflict between who initiated construction and the extent to

which the structure served as a costly signal. The architectural signal would be present either

way, although the quality of that signal would vary as a direct consequence of poor emulation

versus the ability to gather the necessary resources and talented labor and organize them into a

recognizable symbol of competitive ability. As Reed (2011, 2014) highlighted, poor emulation is

visible in the use of low quality resources (e.g., a mix of cobbles and unshaped sandstone),

smaller structures, and a lack of wall veneers. This would make great houses as costly signals

263

much more visible and effective in sub-regions that have multiple contemporaneous great

houses, but would not discount those constructed in other sub-regions with no other immediately

adjacent great house with which to compare (e.g., Bluff). Bluff began as a structure with few

Chacoan architectural features but increased its architectural fidelity rapidly. Thus, its users

increased both the cost and scale of the signal, perhaps as a result of other such structures

emerging in the same general sub-region (e.g., Cottonwood Falls, Edge of the Cedars, Et al.,

Montezuma Bench, Nancy Patterson).

Many researchers conclude that some form of power—whether social, ritual, economic,

political, or a combination thereof—is represented by Chaco-style great houses. Chaco groups

building large, planned structures in the Middle San Juan with adherence to the Chaco vernacular

is a credibility-enhancing display of ability or power, including the power to marshal labor

forces, knowledge of symbolic conventions, and of attracting individuals to settle within these

massive Middle San Juan structures rather than in dispersed settlements. Builders of southern

Cibola or Red Mesa Valley great houses would be signaling many of those same indications of

quality (ability to manage labor and acquire necessary construction materials, knowledge of great

house conventions and associated activities), although evidently on a smaller architectural (and

probably social) scale. The strength of the signal comes not from whether Chaco Canyon groups

directed the construction of all great houses (although it must have contributed to a credibility-

enhancing display if/where applicable); rather, its strength is in convincing others of the honesty

of the signaled ability and power to procure and mobilize these resources. A Chaco-directed

model would involve more obvious benefits to canyon elites directing these great houses than

those living within them. A costly signaling model would propose more direct benefits to local

great house leaders, including local prestige and possibly much wider macro-regional

264

connections. Comparing the direct benefits leaders gained between great houses cannot be tested

with the data currently available, but may be more visible with larger material assemblages,

particular in terms of broad exchange patterns. I suggest this is an area where future research

would contribute substantially to resolving the relationships between great houses, and of non-

canyon communities to those within Chaco Canyon.

Empirical Measures of Macro-Regional Articulation

Why would a community divert energy from everyday tasks to link itself to Chaco by

projecting Chacoan symbolism? There are several hypotheses that range from participation in a

new ideological system centered in the canyon to participation in Chaco activities to avoid

conflict with a sociopolitical powerhouse. Van Dyke describes the rise of Chaco as a social

transformation centered on ceremonialism that was “not only larger in scale, but that was

qualitatively different from all that came before” (2008:76). Ideology is often cited as a pathway

to power (e.g., Aldenderfer 1993; Durand 2003; Earle 1991; Kantner 1996, 1999), and aspiring

leaders may have capitalized on the ideological system emerging from Chaco for their own local

material and social benefit. Alternatively, non-canyon groups may have signaled participation in

a regional system to avoid unwinnable conflicts with the larger, more powerful Chacoan group.

Canyon activities signaled to non-canyon groups the access Chaco leaders had to a large labor

pool, their ability to procure long-distance goods, and potentially, to direct a militaristic force.

The influence Chaco leaders held over hundreds of individuals may have been as attractive to

aspiring leaders as it was to communities wishing to align themselves with a powerful (and

large) group (e.g., Kantner 1996). Demonstrating sociopolitical alignment with canyon groups

through great house construction and other symbolic displays may have facilitated local and non-

265

local alliances that were intended to mitigate potential resource shortfalls just as much as it may

have demonstrated commitment to, rather than divergence from, a Chaco-centered power base.

These ideas are rooted in models for a Chaco regional system (i.e., Chaco as ideology and

Chaco as coercive state). What they lack is empirical evidence for why communities

symbolically replicated the grand architecture and behaviors exhibited in Chaco. In this section, I

explore alternative concepts for macro-regional articulation that focus largely on ideology, “Big

Men” interaction, and “ideas” as the item exported from Chaco, and detail how these notions

have been empirically tested. I focus on these particular examples because each provides a way

to reframe the discussion for how and why Chaco great houses may have been macro-regionally

articulated. I argue that future studies that focus on the material manifestation for “ideas” or

symbolic links between PII populations will help move Chaco research forward.

Sebastian (1996:44) notes that two different social or political mechanisms may have

been responsible for the construction of great houses in ancestral versus scion great house

communities. Doyel et al. (1984:38-39) identified one aspect uniting “ancestral” communities is

the presence of an early great kiva that falls out of use before or at the same time as the

construction of a great house, sometimes replaced by a new great kiva. These social mechanisms

may be directly linked with either an ideological use of great houses or their use as community-

integrating structures.

Kantner (1996:76) notes that there is no consistent relationship between the number of

habitations versus the number of great kivas among Red Mesa Valley and Lobo Mesa great

house groups. He suggests that great kivas served a much more generalized function than great

houses, one that may be supported by Doyel et al.’s observation (1984:38-39). No great kivas

were identified among the tested southern Cibola great houses, a finding contrary to the

266

expectations of a costly signaling model. However, Doyel, Kantner, and others may have

highlighted an important difference between scion and ancestral communities in noting that great

kivas may represent a pre-existing social function unrelated to, or that shifts with, the rise of

great house use (Windes 2015). Their distribution indicates that they were used at the supra-

community level, both within Chaco and beyond (Van Dyke 2002). If accurate, then our

conceptions of an ideological basis for macro-regional great house articulation seem to be in

conflict with the prevalence of great kivas before this time period, their inconsistent presence in

late PII communities, and their overlapping use by multiple groups. Exploring other examples of

ideological connectedness between communities will better define the roles of great houses,

great kivas, and ritual systems during the PII period. I return to this idea below.

Inconsistent patterns of direct exchange between great houses may argue against a highly

economically integrated regional system, particularly one centered at Chaco. Yet, maybe ceramic

movement between great houses groups, as well as into Chaco, is not an accurate representation

of what connects these groups. Earle (2001) argues that Chaco played a central role in mobilizing

external goods to support a corporate group structure based on staple finance. Under a staple

finance system, agricultural surplus and excess, everyday technological items are produced by

“commoner” households and mobilized to support the household needs of leaders, craftspeople,

ritual specialists, and potentially warriors. He further suggests that any prestige items brought

into Chaco were the result of individualized, rather than centralized, reciprocal exchange. The

amount of ceramic exchange and non-local lithic procurement between Southwest communities

prior to and after the Chaco era suggests that exchange of these items was unrelated to great

house construction and use. If material exchange between great house leaders/groups was

individualized, then non-overlapping exchange relationships are a reasonable prediction. The

267

expectation that there should be a higher degree of interaction between widespread great house

communities may not be viable, even under a centralized system.

What would be more informative is if great house assemblages reflected peer-to-peer

interaction between distant communities. This may be expected if great house representatives

traveled to Chaco for particular events, built up a network of alliances with residents of other

great houses, and maintained direct contact via material exchange. This type of relationship is

suggested at the Bluff and Chimney Rock great houses by non-locally produced sherds from

fairly distant groups (Cameron 2008:305; Neitzel et al. 2002:57-58). A much larger database of

ceramic compositional data would be necessary to better delineate such patterns; work to

generate this larger database is currently in progress (Jeffrey Ferguson, personal

communication).

Washburn (2011) argues that ceramic design styles, rather than ceramics themselves, are

the indicator of a Chaco-centered regional system. She used symmetry analysis to examine the

structural design among Gallup Black-on-white and Chaco Black-on-white sherds, which she

notes “are considered to be the ceramic markers of the great house phenomenon in Chaco

Canyon” (Washburn 2011:253). Washburn (2011) identified the faithful replication of the

“Chaco design style” on vessels and sherds from seven Chaco Canyon great houses and small

sites in the canyon, as well as at multiple non-canyon great houses at various distances from

Chaco. She argues that the spread of the design style was from the movement of people bringing

knowledge of these styles to their own communities, rather than the emulation of a style without

an understanding of the underlying represented ideas. This is best exemplified at Salmon Ruins

and Aztec, where half of the Chaco design style ceramics were made locally and the other half

were made in the Chaco Basin (Washburn 2011:255; see also Washburn and Reed 2011).

268

Neitzel et al. (2002:59) associate pottery decorated in Dogoszhi style with ceremonial,

political, economic, and social power, and argue that the pottery tradition is important for

understanding a Chaco system. The spatially widespread use of this hatchured design style at

Chaco-style great houses in all of its sub-regional variants (Chaco, Gallup, or Mancos black-on-

white) links individuals to the social power represented at Chaco. Plog (2003), too, argues for the

symbolic importance of hatchured design. He suggests that hatchure may symbolize the color

blue-green represented by pigments or turquoise on other ritual material culture, and underscores

the macro-regional importance of those colors for ritual items and activities. Washburn’s model

posits a direct link between a regionally integrated system and the Chaco-directed

construction/production of both great houses and ceramics. Together, these studies suggest the

production of not only hatchured pottery, but also of a particular design style, is indicative of

ritual power and prestige centered at Chaco and of individuals associated with that power in non-

canyon communities.

Van Dyke (2008) argues that Chaco leaders used recurring and increasingly elaborate

ceremonialism to spread a new brand of ideology centered in Chaco, one that seems to have had

a slow build during the tenth century before rapidly gaining momentum early in the eleventh

century. This is mimicked to some extent by the early construction of some great houses south of

Chaco prior to their rapid increase around A.D. 1040 (Duff and Lekson 2006). Almost a century

of effort would have been expended in organizing this new ideology—rooted in familiar

ideological symbolism—and in passively or actively influencing others to alter their current

ideological practices in favor of a new variant. Doing so appears to have centered not only a new

ideological practice on canyon communities, but also the ritual authority and social power that

accompanied it once participation and the associated activities increased in number and

269

complexity. Social pressure to align both with “Chaco elite” and with an increasingly widespread

ritual practice may have provided sufficient motivation for communities to invest in local

displays of participation.

Great houses, feasts, and the adoption of Dogoszhi-style pottery may all be a material

reflection of a shift in ideology that began within Chaco proper, was adopted slowly by

communities south of the canyon, and that, upon reaching what Van Dyke (2008) describes as a

social tipping point, spread rapidly across the northern Southwest. If, as Van Dyke suggests, the

activities building in Chaco had several generations to gain momentum and were developed out

of a continuing relationship between Chaco and Chuska populations, then the knowledge of these

activities could have spread across the Pueblo culture area without requiring coercion by Chaco

colonizing forces. The formation of a new ideology, its increased adoption through time, and the

increasing amount of power and prestige associated with Chaco leaders would have been visible

to aspiring leaders, resulting in a local repositioning of existing practices into a new form of

leadership centered on great house activities.

The number of great houses outside of the canyon suggests at least part of this

“ideological package” could be plausible. If Dogoszhi-style sherds were also a visual component

of this ideological export, then their presence in great house communities would also be

expected. In southern Cibola, the local variant of Dozoszhi-style, Gallup Black-on-white, is not

restricted to great house contexts (Table 7.4), suggesting members also participated in its use,

and may suggest a visible example of participation in an ideological practice across each

community. If the Chaco design style identified by Washburn (2011) is present on Gallup

ceramics at both the great house and community sites, it would suggest that these ceramics were

not limited to great house leaders (in contrast to Neitzel’s idea that they are a material

270

Table 7.4. Frequency of Gallup Black-on-white Sherds in Southern Cibola Great House Communities

Location n Gallup Sherds Percentage of Total Assemblage

Cerro Pomo Great House 94 0.83% Cerro Pomo Community 240 2.72% Cox Ranch Pueblo Great House 432 1.91% Cox Ranch Pueblo Community 259 1.45% Largo Gap Great House 334 3.52% Largo Gap Community 328 3.60%

manifestation of power) and that some, if not all, individuals were capable of participating within

whatever “system” the replication of this design style represents.

These ideas would fit equally with Kantner and Vaughn’s (2012) pilgrimage model,

where individuals went to Chaco Canyon and brought back knowledge of ritual activities to use

in their own communities. Under a costly signaling model, individuals attending Chaco functions

would be able to display their direct connection to these events by faithfully manufacturing a

specific variant of a Chaco design style observed during ritual activities. The distinction is not in

the general use of hatchured black-on-white, but rather the specific organization of the elements

and their consistent replication. Chaco design style was identified at Village of the Great Kivas

(Washburn 2011); identifying whether any Gallup Black-on-white sherds within southern Cibola

or the Chaco Black-on-white sherds at the Bluff great house replicate the Chaco design style

would be another measure of their engagement with Chaco Canyon communities, and would

provide a necessary component to disentangling if material goods, people, and/or ideas moved

out of Chaco, and the mechanisms by which that occurred.

MACRO-REGIONAL PATTERNS OF GREAT HOUSE CONSTRUCTION AND USE

Discussions of Chaco-style great houses have often focused on variability, yet the source of

271

variability has led to multiple Chaco models that are currently difficult to falsify. The lack of an

agreed upon model for a “regional system” must be attributed, in part, to disputes about how

Chaco Canyon great houses functioned (e.g., Durand 2003; Kantner and Vaughn 2012; Plog and

Watson 2012), the widespread variation—with some sub-regional coherence—in great house

form (Van Dyke 2003), and an unidentified link between items brought to Chaco and what (if

anything) left (Cameron and Toll 2001).

Yet there are some commonalities that seem to be supported at a macro-regional level.

Great house architectural variability seems to correlate with when each was constructed relative

to other great houses in the general area, with an increase in Chacoan architectural characteristics

built into later structures or added during remodeling events of existing structures. Great houses

outside of southern Cibola may have hosted community-integrating feasts using communally

captured species and larger bowls, although this interpretation is provisional based on a lack of

comparative community data in many locations. Great house leaders engaged in a variety of long

distance exchange relationships, including some specific ceramic exchange relationships with

other great house leaders, but do not appear to have managed these relationships on behalf of

their associated communities. In the aggregate, the macro-regional data decrease the explanatory

power of a Chaco-directed model, while they broadly support a costly signaling model for great

house construction and use and suggest areas in which an ideological model can be revised to

produce more directly testable hypotheses of great house construction and use. Examining data at

a macro-regional scale highlights which data lines are still lacking, such as more faunal

assemblages or the material manifestation of ritual participation in Chaco events, and provides a

direction for future research to further support or falsify the remaining models.

272

CHAPTER EIGHT: CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

I introduced this research by asking whether the seven PII great houses of the southern Cibola

sub-region each served different specialized roles within a larger hierarchy, if each represented a

community that could not or chose not to be integrated into a larger social aggregate, if their

distance from Chaco suggested their function differed from those more spatially/socially

integrated with Chaco, or if they represented the local imitation of a broader cultural

phenomenon. This study had several goals directed at addressing these questions: 1) to generate

a better understanding of the role(s) great houses served within their local communities; 2) to

explain why multiple contemporaneous great houses are located in close proximity within the

southern Cibola sub-region; 3) to evaluate if the local role of southern Cibola great houses is

consistent with those of other great houses across the Chacoan world; and 4) to re-evaluate the

models posed for a Chacoan regional system and determine if the addition of community-level

data from three great house communities can help to refine our conceptions of how Chaco-style

great houses articulated with activities and ideals represented within Chaco Canyon. These goals

were evaluated across four scales: the Largo Gap great house, the Largo Gap great house within

its associated community, great houses within the southern Cibola sub-region, and great houses

across the northern Southwest.

In Chapters 4, 5, and 6, I argued that at least three of these great houses represent

emulations of the power expressed within Chaco Canyon by local aspiring leaders, and that each

great house served a similar role as a location for community-integrating and ritual activities. I

briefly summarize the patterns visible across the four scales of analysis that support these

interpretations and then re-evaluate the extent to which a costly signaling model of great house

273

construction and use better accounts for the identified patterns when compared to other models

for a macro-regional system. I conclude by highlighting where data are lacking and what steps

future research might take to better understand the articulation between Chaco Canyon, great

house communities, and PII non-great house communities.

GREAT HOUSE CONSTRUCTION AND USE ACROSS SCALES

The first scale I explored focused on the construction and use of the Largo Gap great house.

Surface mapping and subsurface investigations identified many architectural characteristics

present at Largo Gap that follow Chacoan architectural conventions, including banded and

compound masonry, over-tall rooms, a blocked-in kiva, a bounded plaza, and its construction in

a prominent location. However, the great house also lacked some Chaco architectural features,

including a great kiva, the use of high-elevation timbers, core-and-veneer masonry, a berm, and a

definitively identified entrance road. Largo Gap’s blocked-in kiva contained elements associated

with both Mogollon and Puebloan pit structures, including a flat roof, footing stones, and the use

of roof support posts (Mogollon), and a circular bench, central box hearth, ventilator shaft, and

Chaco-style banded veneers on exposed bounding walls (Pueblo). While no tree-ring cutting

dates were obtained, the ceramic assemblage places Largo Gap’s construction and occupation

within the late PII period. Multiple episodes of remodeling were identified. Remodeling events

resulted in complex changes in room access, the bolstering of the main front wall, and the

addition of a second blocked-in kiva. Turkey remains and turkey eggshell were identified

throughout the structure, but were most abundant on the floor of the blocked-in kiva.

The second scale characterized the role of the great house within its associated

community. Largo Gap is surrounded by a large number of households, but is not at the spatial

274

center of the community. This pattern of settlement emphasizes the great house’s intentional

placement at a prominent location, and that day-to-day interaction was higher among households

than between most households and individuals at the great house. Although relatively large,

population estimates indicate Largo Gap’s constituent community was not reproductively viable

on its own (~262-273 momentary population). Individuals must have maintained contact with

other communities to find marriage partners.

Based on systematic ceramic collections from across the associated settlements, the

majority of sites were occupied relatively contemporaneously with the great house built soon

after the community was established. Ceramic analyses also indicated that individuals within the

community produced two technologically distinct wares, Mogollon-style brown wares and

Pueblo-style gray wares. These results suggest ethnic co-residence within the Largo Gap

community by members of both ancestral traditions. Ceramic and faunal evidence suggest

communal feasts occurred at the great house. These feasts used lagomorphs that could be caught

in large number during collective hunts and emphasized the use of red and smudged brown

bowls. The use of these wares was distinct from the typical use of decorated wares at household

sites, which were characterized primarily by white ware bowls and secondarily by white jars.

Households with more red or smudged brown bowls tended to be the larger roomblocks within

the community. This distribution may reflect different levels of access to decorated red or

smudged brown bowls between community members and great house leaders, or of later

roomblocks consisting of larger households.

Many patterns identified within the Largo Gap community were also present in the

nearby Cerro Pomo and Cox Ranch Pueblo great house communities. Ceramic and settlement

analyses suggest Cerro Pomo and Largo Gap were constructed relatively contemporaneously,

275

while Cox Ranch Pueblo was constructed slightly later. All three great houses and most

community sites overlapped in their occupation. No community was reproductively viable on its

own, suggesting permeable social boundaries and high levels of exogamy between groups.

All three great houses contained elements of the Chacoan architectural vernacular, but

varied in the traits included and in the physical manifestation of those traits. Of the three, Cerro

Pomo contained the fewest Chacoan architectural elements. Cox Ranch Pueblo contained many

Chacoan architectural elements, including Type-II banded masonry, compound walls, a blocked-

in-kiva, a bounded plaza, and over-tall rooms. Cox Ranch Pueblo was the only great house to

contain two symbolic elements of Chaco construction: core-and-veneer masonry and high-

elevation timbers. No great kiva was identified in any community, although Cox Ranch Pueblo

and Cerro Pomo are associated with large, unroofed circular features that may have had a ritual

use. These features might be precursors to the unroofed great kivas of the PIII period (e.g.,

Benson et al. 2014; Herr 2001). Both are located in the best viewing location for the winter

sunrise (Cox Ranch Pueblo) or summer sunset (Cerro Pomo) alignments with the Cerro Pomo

cindercone during solstice events. Ethnohistorically, solar and lunar cycles have important roles

within Pueblo cosmology, and features marking solstice and other solar/lunar events are present

at Fajada Butte and in the alignment of both canyon and non-canyon great houses (Malville

2011; Sofaer 1997; Sofaer et al. 1979). The alignment with solstice events may have imparted

additional ritual prestige on the Cerro Pomo and Cox Ranch Pueblo communities.

Feasts were identified at all great houses, as were ritual fauna. Ritual fauna were also

present at habitation sites in both the Cerro Pomo and Cox Ranch Pueblo communities,

suggesting access to ritual birds was not restricted. No comparable faunal sample was obtained

from the Largo Gap community. All great house communities had non-local ceramics and

276

obsidian. While these items may have been brought in during initial migrations into the drainage,

it is also likely that they represent external exchange and resource procurement. None of the

great house obsidian sources overlapped entirely with samples from their associated households,

nor did they overlap with each other. In contrast, patterns of non-local ceramic exchange

overlapped both between great houses and between communities. External ceramic ties were

identified with communities ~55 km to the west, further to the north along the Colorado Plateau,

and to the south below the Mogollon Rim. Ceramics imported from the west (n=25) were

predominantly smudged brown bowls, while ceramics from the south (n=14) included brown

jars, smudged brown bowls, and red bowls. While gray, white, and red wares were imported

from the north (n=11), non-local ceramics from the Colorado Plateau were dominated by red

wares generally, and Wingate Black-on-red specifically (n=5). These signals may indicate

prestige associated with non-local red and smudged brown bowls; they may also signal an

increase in exchange relationships to the north later in each community’s occupation. Both

patterns of resource exchange and procurement suggest great house leaders maintained their own

exchange networks. There is no evidence that they controlled the distribution of non-local

resources or exchange networks on behalf of their community constituents, nor were exchange

networks limited to great house leaders.

When expanded to a macro-regional scale, many of these patterns are evident at other

great houses across the northern southwest. Variability in which Chaco architectural elements are

present in a great house is widely recognized (e.g., Marshall et al. 1979; Powers et al. 1983; Van

Dyke 2003). I argue that differential timing of construction and patterns of remodeling are more

indicative of sub-regional competition or macro-regional articulation between great houses than

variability in form alone, and illustrate this with examples from the Middle San Juan and

277

southeast Utah. Similar patterns of ritual use and communal feasts identified at southern Cibola

great houses were suggested at many other great houses in the form of high lagomorph indices

and the ritual use of turkey. At least one great house (Bluff) had larger bowls than the average

community bowl size, paralleling the findings from southern Cibola. The identification of feasts

is provisional, however, in the absence of comparative community samples, and highlights an

avenue for future research.

Finally, several great houses had evidence for ceramic exchange and long distance

resource procurement. Ceramic exchange between great houses varied in both distance and

intensity. Some displayed high levels of ceramic movement between local great house clusters,

while others (those that had higher degrees of centralized authority and resources that could be

monopolized) had much lower levels of ceramic exchange with nearby great houses (Kantner

1996; Kantner et al. 2000). Compositional analyses of Dogoszhi-style ceramics in particular

illustrate not only that ceramics were moving from non-canyon great houses into Chaco, but also

moving across the Chaco sphere to other distant great houses (Neitzel et al. 2002).

Generally, the examined great houses illustrate the following patterns: (1) sub-regionally

clustered great houses vary in the extent to which they incorporate elements of the Chacoan

architectural vernacular; (2) structures built later in PII and episodes of remodeling increase the

amount of architectural fidelity a structure displayed to those within Chaco Canyon; these

patterns may indicate Chaco’s rising influence during the later PII period; (3) ritual fauna (often,

but not exclusively turkey) were present at all tested great houses, but may not have been

restricted to great house contexts; (4) artiodactyls were not restricted to great house contexts and

it is unclear whether high lagomorph indices consistently suggest feasts centered on communally

captured species; (5) ceramic exchange between great houses was far more macro-regionally

278

extensive than stylistic or temper analyses alone would suggest; (6) exchange/non-local resource

procurement was not limited to between great house leaders, nor did great house leaders direct

non-local resource procurement on behalf of their community members. Combined, these

patterns indicate great house construction and use was locally instigated and emulative, rather

than the consequence of a large-scale colonizing effort by Chaco Canyon groups.

REVISING AND REJECTING MODELS FOR A CHACOAN REGIONAL SYSTEM

The relationship between Chaco Canyon and Chaco-style great houses has been characterized in

many, often conflicting, ways. To date, however, none of the models that specify how the Chaco

regional system was organized and integrated have been able to fully account for the variability

evident in great house structures, the presence or absence of specific architectural features (e.g., a

great kiva), or the activities visible within Chaco Canyon. I argue that a costly signaling model

can account for the construction and use of Chaco-style great houses during the PII period. I

have presented evidence throughout this study illustrating the support for this model using data

from three southern Cibola great house communities, with reference to patterning from other

sites that were part of the “Chaco World.” Costly signaling is among the models that are best

able to account for the macro-regional spread of Chaco-style architecture and for the spread for

associated activities (e.g., community feasts featuring communally captured species, ritual use of

birds associated with great house contexts). It also accounts for the disparate patterns of resource

exchange and procurement between great houses and between households, whether examined

among lithics or ceramics, and it probably works for macaws, turquoise, and marine shell as

well.

In testing a costly signaling model, I generated data expectations for three alternative

279

models. Expectations and data often support more than one model, as illustrated in Table 6.15.

However, the data provided only limited support for a Chaco-directed model and suggested that

current models for an ideological system need to clearly distinguish between a great kiva-centric

model and one centered on great houses as ritual structures. This distinction is necessary in order

to generate more specific, testable hypotheses and data requirements than I was able to do here

for a generalized ideological model. The results of this study also decreased support for a general

model of emulation that lacked a direct mechanism to account for the spread of copied features. I

address each model and examine what great house community data from the southern Cibola

sub-region indicates about our understanding of a Chacoan regional system.

Chaco-Directed Outposts

The notion that the “Chaco system” needed a larger agricultural base upon which to

function is based on the observed spatial extent of Chaco-style great houses (Vivian 1990). The

presence of a large quantity of non-local cultural material in Chaco Canyon has also been cited

as support for the tribute/resource extraction signal that would be expected under a model of

Chaco as a colonizing force. A Chaco-directed model has important interpretive implications

within the southern Cibola sub-region.

There are several reasons Chaco Canyon populations may have emphasized colonization

of this sub-region. Colonization may have been intended to increase the flow of agricultural

surplus into Chaco from a sub-region that had become more agriculturally productive (Dean

1988). It also may have been to control access to the Zuni Salt Lake or to expand Chaco’s

influence into the northern Mogollon area. The directed construction of multiple Chaco great

houses in this sub-region could imply that Chaco leaders thought a larger colonizing presence

280

was necessary to dominate the southern reaches of Chaco’s control, perhaps due to knowledge of

rising Mimbres influence. Similarly, a large colonization effort, visible through the number of

great houses within easy travel distance to the Zuni Salt Lake, could have both increased the

amount of salt being extracted and shipped back to Chaco Canyon and visibly underlined

Chaco’s control or claimed ownership of this necessary biological and ritual resource (Ferguson

and Hart 1985; Griffin-Pierce 2000; Marshall 1997).

Testing a Chacoan outpost model, or a similar state-based model of tribute and taxation,

necessitates examining the local communities in which these “territorial chiefs” (Vivian

1996:49) enacted their role as Chaco’s local intermediaries. My analyses do not show coercive

control over southern Cibola residents, nor do they support a large-scale colonizing migration by

Chaco inhabitants or even by large Pueblo groups. Differential resource procurement and

exchange visible in great house and household assemblages, as well as between great house

groups, further supports a lack of coercive/direct control of great houses by Chaco populations or

over local households by great house leaders.

Finally, many researchers have noted that great house architecture is extremely variable

across structures (e.g., Fowler et al. 1987; Lekson et al. 2006; Marshall et al. 1979; Powers et al.

1983; Van Dyke 2003; Vivian 2005). I believe we have also realized that observing the presence/

absence of trait list features is not doing much to advance our understanding of a Chaco regional

system. I argue that patterns of remodeling, more so than simple architectural variability,

decrease the explanatory power of a Chaco-directed model of great house construction. This

pattern is provisional, however, in that the data necessary to fully examine “remodeling as a

costly signal” are currently lacking for most identified great houses. Better data on patterns of

remodeling events, and a finer resolution of the timing of those patterns in the context of an

281

associated community, are important to move discussions of an integrated system forward.

Chaco-Emulated Construction

If not Chaco-directed, then perhaps Chaco-emulated is the next common way to describe

the numerous structures reminiscent of those found at Chaco, but with a high level of

architectural variability. Of the great houses examined in Chapter 7, only a few—all in the

Middle San Juan—seem to be “Chaco built”; the rest (including many “Chaco built” structures in

the Middle San Juan) appear to be emulative structures. The notion that non-canyon great houses

were symbolic representations of Chaco Canyon structures and activities, but were not under

non-local administrative control, is becoming increasingly common (e.g., Durand 2003; Kantner

and Mahoney 2000; Mills 2002; Van Dyke 1999a). Because only three great houses—Aztec

West, Aztec East, and Salmon Ruins—display convincing evidence for construction by Chaco

individuals, the dichotomy of “directed” and “emulated” structures may no longer be a useful

way in which to evaluate (the presence of) a Chaco regional system. Instead, the important

question seems to be “why emulate Chacoan symbolism at all?” Refocusing our discussion on

aspects other than great house architectural variability will help move beyond the limits of these

two general models and move explanations toward understanding why communities invested

effort into building Chaco-like structures and conducting Chaco-like activities within them.

Ideological Model

This model suggests that communities are united by a shared and widespread ideological

system, but are otherwise locally “governed.” Based on the expectations derived for this study,

this model is reasonably well supported; notably, I do not distinguish between ideological

models that focus strictly on the great house versus strictly the great kiva as the ideological

282

symbol of such a system, and that highly influenced data expectations for this model. Southern

Cibola is on the margins of the great house distribution, and based on Van Dyke’s (2002)

analysis of great kiva locations, one is expected at this distance from Chaco. However, she also

noted that the distribution of great kivas indicates that their use was shared among multiple

communities. We should be able to look at the other four untested southern Cibola great houses

and identify if this pattern holds. Yet the incorrect identification of a great kiva during the

original site recording at Largo Gap suggests cursory surface examinations may not provide

reliable evidence for this expectation.

The difficulty with linking this model to others that pose a means of macro-regional

organization is that the data seem to suggest that “great kivas” and “great houses” belong to

different concepts and practices. Great kivas appear in Basketmaker III and continue long after

Chaco’s depopulation. Great kivas appear linked to both Chaco Canyon great houses and non-

canyon great houses, but not universally so (Varien 2001:56); some appear in communities

lacking great houses and others appear in seemingly total isolation (Van Dyke 2002). Do these

architectural features seem related? Yes, in as much as they are both architectural investments

that appear to have been rooted in community involvement, seem linked to ritual activities, and

were each a relatively widespread phenomenon. The link between great kiva architecture and

great houses, particularly during the PII period, remains unclear, although as Lekson et al.

(2006:88) note, they seem to have “operated in different but intersecting contexts.” Recent

research by Windes (2015) is aimed not only at better explicating the link between great kivas

and great houses, but also at investigating functional variation in different types of kivas.

If not great kivas, then perhaps great houses served the symbolic role of ideological

participation. While better supported, the relationship between great houses, ritual, and feasts is

283

unresolved, in part due to recent discussion regarding the definitive identification of feasts at

Chaco Canyon great houses. Durand and Durand (2008) used faunal analysis to suggest feasts

occurred at Pueblo Alto (see also Potter 2000; Potter and Ortman 2004). In contrast, Plog and

Watson (2012) dismiss claims of feasting at Pueblo Alto and argue that both the ceramic and

faunal evidence suggest larger patterns of household consumption rather than ceremonial,

pilgrimage, or large-scale feasting events. Similarly, Badenhorst (2008:217) did not identify

evidence for feasts in the mounds in front of Pueblo Bonito, although this conclusion may be a

function of early excavation methods more than archaeological reality. Feasts are an activity

expected to be associated with canyon and non-canyon great houses, but their definitive

identification and expected form are not as fully defined. If feasts were part of an ideologically

based regional system, then our current understandings of them are constrained by conflicting

interpretations and an extremely limited macro-regional dataset.

Plog and Watson (2012) do not, however, discount the presence of ceremonies involving

ritual avifauna at Pueblo Alto. Durand (2003:152-160) also noted the widespread presence of

ritual fauna at Pueblo Alto and other canyon great houses. Badenhorst (2008) noted an eagle

wing in the Pueblo Bonito mounds and suggests a similar pattern of ritual interment there as at

Pueblo Alto. Durand and Durand (2008) demonstrate a similar pattern of ritual interment for

both turkey and macaws at Salmon Ruins, as well as evidence for the more generalized use of

ritual fauna at Salmon Ruins and Guadalupe Ruin. Ritual fauna (primarily turkeys) were present

at all three southern Cibola great houses, although in highly variable quantities (Bouknight 2014;

Mueller 2006). The use of ritual fauna at great houses, then, seems ubiquitous across tested great

houses, as does the use of turkeys in at least some ritual activities, although the remainder of

284

identified ritual fauna varies widely (e.g., Badenhorst 2008; Bouknight 2014; Durand 2003;

Durand and Durand 2008; Mueller 2006).

Based on these ritual fauna associations, it seems likely that ideology of some kind

played a much larger role in great house communities, and great kiva communities, than is

currently understood. While likely underappreciated in this study, I suspect an ideologically

based system provided a broader link between these architectural features than archaeologists

have been able to capture. A modern analogue might be Catholicism. That Catholic churches are

highly integrated and hierarchical is without question. Yet there is variability in their form and

even in the activities or materials associated with them (e.g., the time at which mass is held, the

amount of local community outreach, the size of the worshiping group, the number of “ritual

items” present in households versus churches, the number of boxes holding deceased saints held

somewhere within the church). To expect a low degree of variability in both the physical

structure of ritual buildings and in their associated activities or practices undervalues the role that

variability can play in social organization, belief systems, and shared ritual tradition.

When considered in these terms, there has potential to be strong overlap between a costly

signaling model of great house construction and use and a regionally integrated ideological

system. Southern Cibola community data suggest some ideological links existed between great

houses, but one that is poorly articulated (in both senses of the term). I suggest this is largely

because we have yet to pose a model that can capture such variability and that disentangles the

relationship between kivas and great houses. Researchers that pose Chaco as the “exporter of

ideas” (Neitzel, Plog, and Washburn, to name a few) come the closest to empirically evaluating

an ideological basis for macro-regional interaction and integration. Van Dyke (2008, 2009) and

Kantner (1996) come the closest to linking the hypotheses of Chaco as an ideological

285

powerhouse with non-canyon great house construction as instigated by local aspiring leaders

capitalizing on power through association with Chaco.

CONSIDERATIONS FOR MOVING FORWARD IN CHACO-BASED RESEARCH

Community-centered great house research is necessary to move discussions of what

relationship(s) existed between Chaco Canyon and Chaco-style great houses forward. Several

models have been posed to define this relationship, and yet few parsimoniously account for the

wide range of variation observed in many aspects of great house use and material culture, and

none have been agreed on by a majority of Southwest scholars. This suggests that our

understandings of local great house use have yet to be sufficiently characterized, which prevents

a more encompassing model from being generated. Each great house community or leadership

likely had a unique relationship—if they indeed had a direct relationship—with Chaco Canyon.

This is evidenced by the individualized “trade” relationships present at Chaco that are not

uniformly replicated between great houses. No particular “good” appears to have left Chaco

except those that are intangible, including knowledge or personal participation in an event (e.g.,

Kantner and Vaughn 2012; Plog 2003; Washburn 2011). The relationship(s) between great

houses is also poorly understood and I argue that studying great houses that appear in groups and

within the context of their associated communities will better define how great house

communities articulated, both locally and more broadly. Shifting focus to other measures of

articulation, such as the spread of ideas as manifest via ceramic designs (e.g., Neitzel et al. 2002;

Plog 2003; Washburn 2011), is a promising direction for future research.

Chacoan-centered research cannot move forward without shifting focus to communities.

Yet our approach to the study of the community needs to be more consistently defined and

286

archaeologically identified (e.g., Damp 2013, Kintigh 2003; Mahoney 2000; Mahoney and

Kantner 2000). Largo Gap in particular demonstrates that great houses may be on the

periphery—rather than the center—of community settlement. Most of the households in the

Largo Gap community had more convenient access to the other households in the community

than they did to the great house. What this means, at least for Largo Gap, is that regular

household-to-household interaction may have been far more important than regular household-

to-great house interactions. By imposing our own views on what are “great house centric”

versus “marginalized” households, we are restricting our understanding of a great house’s role(s)

within the local community. Reframing how important direct daily contact with great houses was

for individual households should have a larger role in how we measure and interpret local great

house function in the future.

Finally, I have argued throughout that great houses must be studied within the context of

their associated communities in order to understand the impetus for their construction, use, and

the articulation between them. However, I also believe our inability to define and support a

model for great house construction and use is in part because most models do not account for

non-great house communities. What variables distinguish communities that could not or chose

not to construct a great house from those that did? Kantner (1999) argues that some great houses

are located in places where leaders were able to capitalize on patchily distributed resource zones

in order to gain local power. At what point was the combination of local social and

environmental resources unable to support this particular pathway to power? Or, if resources

were not the limiting factor, what others allowed a community to passively or actively resist

Chacoan influence?

287

The role that great houses play locally and more broadly is important because of how

widespread (spatially and temporally) the phenomenon is. The lack of a great house in many

communities should equally inform our understanding of the phenomenon, and I am not the first

to suggest this (e.g., Kintigh 2003). My study has taken a different approach in attempting to

explain why more than one great house was present in the PII southern Cibola sub-region; future

research should examine what variables distinguish contemporaneous communities with great

houses from those that lack them. Studying great house and non-great house communities in

tandem will not only permit a costly signaling model for great house construction and use to be

tested, but will also help define what prompted some communities to participate in displays of

Chaco symbolism. Such an approach will also move research away from focusing solely on

Chaco architectural trait lists and more toward community-level data. Studying both types of

communities will better situate studies aimed at understanding the context in which great houses

arose, and how interaction between great house and non-great house communities explains their

distribution and use.

288

REFERENCES Adams, E. Charles, and Andrew I. Duff (Editors) 2004 The Protohistoric Pueblo World, A.D. 1275-1600. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Adler, Michael A. 2002 The Ancestral Pueblo Community as Structure and Strategy. In Seeking the Center Place,

edited by Mark D. Varien and Richard H. Wilshusen, pp. 25-40. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Akins, Nancy A. 1984 Temporal Variation in Faunal Assemblages from Chaco Canyon. In Recent Research on

Chaco Prehistory, edited by W. James Judge and John D. Schelberg, pp. 225-240. Reports of the Chaco Center No. 8. Division of Cultural Research, National Park Service, Albuquerque.

1985 Prehistoric Faunal Utilization in Chaco Canyon: Basketmaker III Through Pueblo III. In Environment and Subsistence of Chaco Canyon, edited by Frances J. Mathien, pp. 305-445. Publications in Archaeology, 18E, Chaco Canyon Studies. National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Sante Fe, NM.

Aldenderfer, Mark 1993 Ritual, Hierarchy, and Change in Foraging Societies. Journal of Anthropological

Archaeology 12:1–40. Alder, Michael A., and Richard H. Wilshusen 1990 Large-Scale Integrative Facilities in Tribal Societies: Cross-Cultural and Southwestern

US Examples. World Archaeology 22(2): 133-146. Altschul, Jeffrey H. 1978 The Development of the Chacoan Interaction Sphere. Journal of Anthropological

Research 34(1): 109-146. Anyon, Roger, and Steven A. LeBlanc 1980 The Architectural Evolution of Mogollon-Mimbres Communal Structures. Kiva

45(3):253-277. Anyon, Robert, Patricia A. Gilman, and Steven A. LeBlanc 1981 A Reevaluation of the Mogollon-Mimbres Archaeological Sequence. Kiva 46:209-225. Aranyosi, E.F. 1999 Wasteful Advertising and Variance Reduction: Darwinian Models for the Significance of

Nonutilitarian Architecture. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 18:356–375.

289

Badenhorst, Shaw 2008 The Zooarchaeology of Great House Sites in the San Juan Basin of the American

Southwest. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, British Columbia.

Badenhorst, Shaw, and Jonathan C. Driver 2009 Faunal Changes in Farming Communities from Basketmaker II to Pueblo III (A.D. 1–

1300) in the San Juan Basin of the American Southwest. Journal of Archaeological Science 36:1832-1841.

Baines, John 2006 Public Ceremonial Performance in Ancient Egypt: Exclusion and Integration. In The

Archaeology of Performance: Theaters of Power, Community, and Politics, edited by Takeshi Inomata and Lawrence S. Coben, pp. 261-303, Altamira Press, Oxford.

Barone, P.M., T. Bellomo, E. Mattei, S.E. Lauro, E. Pettinelli 2011 Ground-penetrating Radar in the Regio III (Pompeii, Italy): Archaeological Evidence.

Archaeological Prospection 18:187-194. Basabilvazo, George T. 1997 Ground-Water Resources of Catron County, New Mexico. U.S. Geological Survey,

Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-4258, New Mexico, Albuquerque. Benson, L.V., J.R. Stein, R.A. Friedman, and S.W. Andrae 2014 Mummy Lake: An Unroofed Ceremonial Structure Within a Large-Scale Ritual

Landscape. Journal of Archaeological Science 44:164-179 Bernardini, Wesley 1999 Reassessing the Scale of Social Action at Pueblo Bonito, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico.

Kiva 64(4):447-470. 2005 Reconsidering Spatial and Temporal Aspects of Prehistoric Cultural Identity: A Case

Study from the American Southwest. American Antiquity 70(1):31-54. Bettinger, Robert, and Jelmer W. Eerkens 1999 Point Typologies, Cultural Transmission, and the Spread of Bow-and-Arrow Technology

in the Prehistoric Great Basin. American Antiquity 64(2):231-242. Bishop, Ronald L., and Hector H. Neff 1989 Compositional Data Analysis in Archaeology. In Archaeological Chemistry IV, edited by

R.O. Allen, pp. 576-586. American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C.

290

Bliege Bird, Rebecca, and Eric A. Smith 2005a Signaling Theory, Strategic Interaction, and Symbolic Capital. Current Anthropology

46(2):221-238. 2005b Reply. Current Anthropology 46(2):244-248. Bliege Bird, Rebecca, Eric A. Smith, and Douglas W. Bird 2001 The Hunting Handicap: Costly Signaling in Human Foraging Strategies. Behavioral and

Ecological Sociobiology 50:9-19. Blinman, Eric 1989 Potluck in the Protokiva: Ceramics and Ceremonialism in Pueblo I Villages. In The

Architecture of Social Integration in Prehistoric Pueblos, edited by W.D. Lipe and M. Hegmon, pp. 113-124. Occasional Paper No. 1. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, CO.

Boone, James L. 1998 The Evolution of Magnanimity: When Is It Better to Give Than to Receive? Human

Nature 9:1-21. Bouknight, Aletheia 2014 Zooarchaeology of The Largo Gap Site, New Mexico. Unpublished Masters Thesis,

Department of Anthropology. Washington State University, Pullman. Boyd, Robert, and Peter J. Richerson 1985 Culture and Evolutionary Process. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Bradbury, J.P. 1971 Limnology of Zuni Salt Lake, New Mexico. Geological Society of America Bulletin

82:379-398. Brown, D.E. and C.H. Lowe 1982 Biotic Communities of the Southwest, Map (1:1,000,000). General Technical Report RM

78, USDA, Forest Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. Brown, Gary M. 2014 Documenting Great House Architecture at Aztec Ruins. Archaeology Southwest

16(2):11-15.

291

Brown, Gary M., and Cheryl I. Paddock 2011 Chacoan and Vernacular Architecture at Aztec Ruins: Putting Chaco in Its Place. Kiva

77(2):203–224. Brown, Gary M., Thomas C. Windes, and Peter J. McKenna 2008 Animas Anamensis: Aztec Ruins or Anasazi Capital? In Chaco’s Northern Prodigies:

Salmon Aztec, and the Ascendancy of the Middle San Juan Region after AD 1100, edited by Paul F. Reed, pp. 231-250, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Bullard, William 1962 The Cerro Colorado Site and Pithouse Architecture in the Southwestern United States

Prior to A.D. 900. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University No. 44(2). Peabody Museum, Cambridge.

Bunzel, Ruth 1932 Zuñi Katchinas. In 47th Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology for the

Years 1929-1930, pp. 837-1086. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Buvit, Ian, Melissa Elkins, and Andrew Duff 2007 Recent Excavations at Cerro Pomo, a Focal Pueblo II Site in West-Central New Mexico.

Poster presented at the 72nd Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Austin, TX.

Cameron, Catherine M. 2001 Pink Chert, Projectile Points, and the Chacoan Regional system. American Antiquity

66(1):79-102. 2008 Chaco and After in the Northern San Juan: Excavations at the Bluff Great House.

University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Cameron, Cameron M. and H. Wolcott Toll 2001 Deciphering the Organization of Production in Chaco Canyon. American Antiquity

66(1):5-13. Camilli, Eileen, Dabney Ford, and Signa Larralde 1988 San Augustine Coal Area: Archaeological Investigations in West-Central New Mexico.

Las Cruces District Socorro Resource Area, Bureau of Land Management.

292

Carlson, Roy L. 1970 White Mountain Redware: A Pottery Tradition of East-Central Arizona and Western New

Mexico. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Casana, Jesse, John Kantner, Adam Wiewel, and Jackson Cothren 2014 Archaeological Aerial Thermography: A Case Study at the Chaco-era Blue J

Community, New Mexico. Journal of Archaeological Science 45:207-219. Chaco Research Archive 2014 Outlier Database. Accessed electronically at http://www.chacoarchive.org/cra on

multiple dates. Clark, Lindsey R. 2010 Inferring the Interaction of Two Chaco-Era Communities Through Painted Ceramic

Design Analyses. Unpublished Masters Thesis. Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman.

Coben, Lawrence S. 2006 Other Cuzcos: Replicated Theaters of Inka Power. In The Archaeology of Performance:

Theaters of Power, Community, and Politics, edited by Takeshi Inomata and Lawrence S. Coben, pp. 223-259. Altamira Press, Oxford.

Colton, Harold S. 1941 Prehistoric Trade in the Southwest. Scientific Monthly 52(4):308-319. Conyers, Lawrence, and Catherine M. Cameron 1998 Ground-Penetrating Radar Techniques and Three-Dimensional Computer Mapping in the

American Southwest. Journal of Field Archaeology 25(4): 417-430. Cordell, Linda 1997 Archaeology of the Southwest. Second edition. Academic Press, Inc., San Diego. Creel, Darrell, and Roger Anyon 2003 New Interpretations of Mimbres Public Architecture and Space: Implications for Cultural

Change. American Antiquity 68(1):67-92.

293

Crown, Patricia L. 1981 The Ceramic Assemblage. In Prehistory of the St. Johns Area, East-Central Arizona: The

TEP St. Johns Project, edited by Deborah A. Westfall. Archaeological Series 153, Arizona State Museum, Tucson.

Crown, Patricia L., and Jeffrey Hurst 2009 Evidence of Cacao Use in the Prehispanic American Southwest. Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences of the USA 106(7):2110-2113. Crown, Patricia L., and W.H. Wills 2003 Modifying Pottery and Kivas at Chaco: Pentimento, Restoration, or Renewal? American

Antiquity 68(3): 511-532. Cushing, Frank Hamilton 1896 Outlines of Zuni Creation Myths. In Thirteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of American

Ethnology, 1891-1892, pp. 321-447. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Dahlin, E.S., D.L. Carlson, W.D. James, and H.J. Shafer 2007 Distribution Patterns of Mimbres Ceramics Using INAA and Multivariate Statistical

Methods. Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 271(2):461–466. Damp, Nicholas E. 2013 Zuni Chacoan Communities: The Archaeology of Village of the Great Kivas and the

Chaco Era in the Zuni Region. Unpublished Masters Thesis. Department of Anthropology, University of Colorado, Boulder.

Danson, Edward B. 1957 Archaeological Survey of West-Central New Mexico and East-Central Arizona. Peabody

Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Cambridge. Darton, N.H. 1905 The Zuni Salt Lake. Journal of Geology 13:185-193. Dean, Jeffrey S. 1988 Dendrochronology and Paleoenvironmental Reconstruction on the Colorado Plateau. In

The Anasazi in a Changing Environment, edited by G.J. Gumerman, pp. 119-167. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

294

Dean, Jeffrey S. (cont.) 1992 Environmental Factors in the Evolution of the Chacoan Sociopolitical System. In Anasazi

Regional Organization and the Chacoan System, edited by David E. Doyel, pp. 35–43, Anthropological Papers No. 5., Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, Albuquerque.

DeMarrais, Elizabeth, Luis J. Castillo, and Timothy Earle 1996 Ideology, Materialization, and Power Strategies. Current Anthropology 17:15-31. Dick-Peddie, William A. 1999 New Mexico Vegetation: Past, Present, and Future. University of New Mexico Press,

Albuquerque. Dietler, Michael 2001 Theorizing the Feast: Rituals of Consumption, Commensal Politics, and Power in

African Contexts. In Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power, edited by Michael Dietler and Brian Hayden, pp. 65-114. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

Dietler, Michael, and Ingrid Herbich 1998 Habitus, Techniques, Style: An Integrated Approach to the Social Understanding of

Material Culture and Boundaries. In The Archaeology of Social Boundaries, edited by M.T. Stark, pp. 232-263. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Doyel, David E., Cory D. Breternitz, and Michael P. Marshall 1984 Chacoan Community Structure: Bis sa’ani Pueblo and the Chaco Halo. In Recent

Research on Chaco Prehistory, edited by W. James Judge and John D. Schelberg, pp. 37-54. Reports of the Chaco Center No. 8. Division of Cultural Research, National Park Service, Albuquerque.

Driver, Jonathan C. 1999 Crow Canyon Archaeological Center Manual for Description of Vertebrate Remains.

Unpublished Manuscript. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center. Duff, Andrew I. 1996 Ceramic Micro-Seriation: Types or Attributes? American Antiquity 61(1):89–101. 1999 Regional Interaction and the Transformation of Western Pueblo Identities, A.D. 1275-

1400. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Arizona State University. 2002 Western Pueblo Identities: Regional Interaction, Migration, and Transformation.

University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

295

Duff, Andrew I. (cont.) 2005 On the Fringe: Community Dynamics at Cox Ranch Pueblo. In Proceedings of the 13th

Mogollon Archaeology Conference (2004), edited by Lonnie Ludeman, pp. 303-319. New Mexico State University, Las Cruces.

2011 Survey of Three Pueblo II Community Centers in West-Central New Mexico. Poster presented at the 76th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Sacramento.

2015 Producing Structure: The Role of Ceramic Production in Understanding Chaco-period Communities in the American Southwest. In Renewing the “Search for Structure:” New Frameworks and Techniques in Instrumental Ceramic Analysis, edited by A.F. Greene and C. Hartley, Sheffield Equinox Publishing Ltd.

Duff, Andrew I., Jeremy M. Moss, Thomas C. Windes, John Kantner, and M. Steven Shackley 2012 Patterning in Procurement of Obsidian in Chaco Canyon and in Chaco-era Communities

in New Mexico as Revealed by X-Ray Fluorescence. Journal of Archaeological Science 39:2995-3007.

Duff, Andrew I., T.J. Ferguson, Susan Bruning, and Peter Whiteley 2008 Collaborative Research in a Living Landscape: Pueblo Land, Culture, and History in

West-Central New Mexico. Archaeology Southwest 22(1):1-24. Duff, Andrew I., and Steven H. Lekson 2006 Notes from the South. In The Archaeology of Chaco Canyon, edited by Steven H.

Lekson, pp. 315-338. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe. Duff, Andrew I., and Alissa L. Nauman 2010 Engendering the Landscape: Resource Acquisition, Artifact Manufacture, and Household

Organization in a Chacoan Great House Community. In Engendering Households in the Prehistoric Southwest, edited by Barbara J. Roth, pp. 12-33. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Duff, Andrew I., and Gregson Schachner 2007 Becoming Central: Organizational Transformations in the Emergence of Zuni. In

Hinterlands and Heartlands in Southwestern Prehistory, edited by Alan Sullivan and James Bayman, pp. 185-200. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

296

Dunnell, Robert C. 1989 Aspects of the Application of Evolutionary Theory in Archaeology. In Archaeological

Thought in America, edited by C.C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, pp. 35-49. Cambridge University, Press, Cambridge, UK.

1995 What Is It That Actually Evolves? In Evolutionary Archaeology: Methodological Issues, edited by P.A. Teltser, pp. 33-50. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

1999 The Concept of Waste in an Evolutionary Archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 18:243–250

Durand, Kathy Roler 2003 Function of Chaco-Era Great Houses. Kiva 69(2):141-169. Durand, Kathy Roler, and Steve R. Durand 2008 Animal Bone from Salmon Ruins and Other Great Houses: Faunal Exploitation in the

Chaco World. In Chaco’s Northern Prodigies: Salmon, Aztec, and the Ascendancy of the Middle San Juan Region after AD 1000, edited by Paul Reed, pp. 96-112. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Durand, Steve R., and Kathy Roler 2000 Notes from the Edge: Settlement Pattern Changes at the Guadalupe Community. In Great

House communities Across the Chacoan Landscape, edited by John Kantner and Nancy M. Mahoney, pp. 101-110. University of Arizona Anthropological Papers No. 64. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Earle, Timothy 1991 The Evolution of Chiefdoms. In Chiefdoms: Power, Economy, and Ideology, edited by

Timothy Earle, pp. 1–15. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, U.K. 2001 Economic Support of Chaco Canyon Society. American Antiquity 66(1): 26-35. Eerkens, Jelmer W., and Carl P. Lipo 2007 Cultural Transmission Theory and the Archaeological Record: Providing Context to

Understanding Variation and Temporal Changes in Material Culture. Journal of Archaeological Research 15:239-274.

Eiselt, B. Sunday, and J. Andrew Darling 2012 Vecino Economics: Gendered Economy And Micaceous Pottery Consumption In

Nineteenth Century Northern New Mexico. American Antiquity 77(3):424–448.

297

Elkins, Melissa A. 2007 Serving Up Ethnic Identity in Chacoan Frontier Communities: The Technology and

Distribution of Mogollon and Puebloan Ceramic Wares in the Southern Cibola Region. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Department of Anthropology. Washington State University, Pullman.

Elson, Mark D., Michael H. Ort, S. Jerome Hesse, and Wendell A. Duffield 2002 Lava, Corn, and Ritual in the Northern Southwest. American Antiquity 67(1): 119-135. Ernenwein, Eileen G. 2006 Imaging in the Ground-penetrating Radar Near-field Zone: A Case Study from New

Mexico, USA. Archaeological Prospection 13(2): 154-156. Ferguson, T.J. and E. Richard Hart 1985 A Zuni Atlas. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK. Ferguson, T. J., G. Lennis Berlin, and Leigh J. Kuwanwisiwma 2009 Kukhepya: Searching for Hopi Trails. In Landscapes of Movement: The Anthropology of

Paths, Trails, and Roads, edited by James E. Snead, Clark L. Erickson, and J. Andrew Darling, pp.20-41. University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia.

Flannery, Kent 1976 The Early Mesoamerican Village. New York: Plenum. Fothergill, Brooklynne T. 2008 Analysis and Interpretation of the Fauna From the Bluff Great House. Unpublished

Masters Thesis, Department of Anthropology. University of Colorado, Boulder. Fowler, Andrew P., John R. Stein, and Roger Anyon 1987 An Archaeological Reconnaissance of West-Central New Mexico, The Anasazi

Monuments Project. Report submitted to State of New Mexico, Office of Cultural Affairs, Historic Preservation Division, Albuquerque.

Freund, Kyle P., and Robert H. Tykot 2011 Lithic Technology and Obsidian Exchange Networks in Bronze Age Nuragic Sardinia

(Italy). Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 3:151-164.

298

Gale, Sara H. 2007 Use-life of a Plaza at San Lazaro Pueblo: Ground-penetrating Radar and Excavation

Analysis of Social Aggregation, Integration, and Factionalism. Unpublished Masters Thesis, University of Denver, Denver.

Gilpin, Dennis 2003 Chaco-Era Site Clustering and the Concept of Communities. Kiva 69(2):171-205. Gilpin, Dennis, David A. Phillips Jr., Jean Ballagh, F. Michael O’Hara III, Linda Martin, and Lisa Dickerson 2004 Archaeological Excavations in the Carrizo Wash Valley, East-Central Arizona: Data

Recovery on the Fence Lake Mine Transportation Corridor. SWCA Cultural Resource Report No 03-265. SWCA, Inc., Flagstaff.

Gilpin, Dennis, and David E. Purcell 2000 Peach Springs Revisited: Surface Recording and Excavation on the South Chaco Slope,

New Mexico. In Great House communities Across the Chacoan Landscape, edited by John Kantner and Nancy M. Mahoney, pp. 28-38. University of Arizona Anthropological Papers No. 64. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Gintis, Herbert, Eric A. Smith, and Samuel Bowles 2001 Costly Signaling and Cooperation. Journal of Theoretical Biology 213:103-119. Gladwin, Winifred, and Harold S. Gladwin 1934 A Method for Designation of Cultures and Their Variations. Medallion Papers No. 15.

Medallion, Gila Pueblo. Glascock, Michael D. 1992 Characterization of Archaeological Ceramics at MURR by Neutron Activation Analysis

and Multivariate Statistics. In Chemical Characterization of Ceramic Pastes in Archaeology, edited by H. Neff, pp. 11-26. Prehistory Press, Madison, WI.

Glascock, Michael D., and Hector Neff 2003 Neutron Activation Analysis and Provenance Research in Archaeology. Measurement

Science and Technology 14(9):1516.

299

Glatz, Claudia, and Aimee M. Plourde 2011 Landscape Monuments and Political Competition in Late Bronze Age Anatolia: An

Investigation of Costly Signaling Theory. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 361: 33-66.

Glowacki, Donna M., and Hector Neff (Editors) 2002 Ceramic Production and Circulation in the Greater Southwest: Source Determination by

INAA and Complementary Mineralogical Investigations. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at UCLA, Los Angeles.

Grebinger, Paul 1973 Prehistoric Social Organization in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico: An Alternative

Reconstruction. Kiva 39(1):3-23. Tucson. Griffin-Pierce, Trudy 2000 Native Peoples of the Southwest. University of New Mexico Press, Santa Fe. Grimstead, Deanna N. 2010 Ethnographic and Modeled Costs of Long-Distance, Big-Game Hunting. American

Antiquity 75(1): 61-80. Grimstead, Deanna N., and Frank E. Bayham 2010 Evolutionary Ecology, Elite Feasting, and the Hohokam: A Case Study from a Southern

Arizona Platform Mound. American Antiquity 75(4):841-864. 2012 Prestige and Prejudice: The Role of Long Distance Big Game Hunting as an Optimal

Foraging Decision. American Antiquity 77(1): 168-178. Gurven, Michael, Wesley Allen-Arave, Kim Hill, Magdalena Hurtado 2000 “It’s a Wonderful Life”: Signaling Generosity Among the Ache of Paraguay. Evolution

and Human Behavior 21:263–282. Hamilton, Fran E. 1999 Southeastern Archaic Mounds: Examples of Elaboration in a Temporally Fluctuating

Environment? Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 18:344–355. Hayden, Brian 1998 Practical and Prestige Technologies: The Evolution of Material Systems.” Journal of

Archaeological Method and Theory 5: 1–55.

300

Hayden, Brian (cont.) 2001 Fabulous Feasts: A Prolegomenon to the Importance of Feasting. In Feasts:

Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power, edited by Michael Dietler and Brian Hayden, pp. 23-64, University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

Hayden, Brian, and Suzanne Villeneuve 2011 A Century of Feasting Studies. Annual Review of Anthropology 40:433–449. Hays-Gilpin, Kelley, and Eric van Hartesveldt (Editors) 1998 Prehistoric Ceramics of the Puerco Valley: The 1995 Chambers-Sanders Trust Lands

Ceramic Conference. Ceramic Series No. 7, Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff. Haury, Emil 1936 The Mogollon Culture of Southwestern New Mexico. Medallion Papers 20. Globe,

Arizona: Gila Pueblo. Hegmon, Michelle, Margaret C. Nelson and Susan Ruth 1998 Abandonment, Reorganization, and Social Change: Analyses of Pottery and Architecture

from the Mimbres Region of the American Southwest. American Anthropologist 100:148-162.

Henderson, Julian 2000 The Science and Archaeology of Materials. Routledge, London. Hendon, Julia A. 1991 Status and Power in Classic Maya Society: An Archaeological Study. American

Anthropologist 93(4): 894-918. Henrich, Joseph 2009 The Evolution of Costly Displays, Cooperation and Religion: Credibility Enhancing

Displays and Their Implications for Cultural Evolution. Evolution and Human Behavior 30: 244-260.

Henrich, Joseph, and Francisco J. Gil-White 2001 The Evolution of Prestige: Freely Conferred Deference as a Mechanism for Enhancing

the Benefits of Cultural Transmission. Evolution and Human Behavior 22(3):165-196.

301

Herr, Sarah A. 2001 Beyond Chaco: Great Kiva Communities on the Mogollon Rim Frontier. Anthropological

Papers of the University of Arizona, No. 66. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Hildebrandt, William R., and Kelly R. McGuire 2002 The Ascendance of Hunting during the California Middle Archaic: An Evolutionary

Perspective. American Antiquity 67(2):231-256. 2003 Large-Game Hunting, Gender-Differentiated Work Organization, and the Role of

Evolutionary Ecology in California and Great Basin Prehistory: A Reply to Broughton and Bayham. American Antiquity 68(4):790-792.

Hildebrandt, William R. Kelly R. McGuire, and Jeffrey S. Rosenthal 2010 Human Behavioral Ecology and Historical Contingency: A Comment on the Diablo

Canyon Archaeological Record. American Antiquity 75(3):679-688. Hogan, Patrick (editor) 1985 Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in West-Central New Mexico: The Fence Lake Coal

Lease Surveys. Office of Contract Archaeology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

1987 Archaeological Investigations at Eight Small Sites in West-Central New Mexico. Office of Contract Archaeology, Museum of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

Huckleberry, Gary, and Andrew I. Duff 2008 Alluvial Cycles, Climate, and Puebloan Settlement Shifts near Zuni Salt Lake, New

Mexico, USA. Geoarchaeology 23: 107-130. Hull, Sharon, Mostafa Fayek, F. Joan Mathien, Heidi Roberts 2014 Turquoise Trade of the Ancestral Puebloan: Chaco and Beyond. Journal of

Archaeological Science 45:187-195 Huntley, Deborah L. 2004 Interaction, Boundaries, and Identities: A Multiscalar Approach to the Organizational

Scale of Pueblo IV Zuni Society. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Arizona State University.

2008 Ancestral Zuni Glaze-Decorated Pottery: Viewing Pueblo IV Regional Organization Through Ceramic Production and Exchange. Anthropological Papers No. 72, University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

302

Hurst, Winston 2000 Chaco Outlier or Backwoods Pretender? A Provincial Great House at Edge of the Cedars

Ruin, Utah. In Great House Communities Across the Chacoan Landscape, edited by John Kantner and Nancy M. Mahoney, pp. 63-78. Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona No. 64. The University of Arizona, Press, Tucson.

Hurst, Winston, and Jonathan Till 2008 A Brief Survey of Great Houses and Related Features in Southeastern Utah. In Chaco

and After in the Northern San Juan: Excavations at the Bluff Great House, edited by Catherine M Cameron, pp. 44-80. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Inomata, Takeshi, and Lawrence S. Coban 2006 The Archaeology of Performance: Theaters of Power, Community, and Politics. Altamira

Press, Oxford. Irwin-Williams, Cynthia 1972 The Structure of Chacoan Society in the Northern Southwest: Investigations at the

Salmon Site—1972. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology 4(3). Portales.

2008 Chacoan Society: The View from Salmon Ruin. In Chaco’s Northern Prodigies: Salmon Aztec, and the Ascendancy of the Middle San Juan Region after AD 1100, edited by Paul F. Reed, pp. 273-283. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Jalbert, J. Peter, and Catherine M. Cameron 2000 Chacoan and Local Influences in Three Great House Communities in the Northern San

Juan Region. In Great House Communities Across the Chacoan Landscape, edited by John Kantner and Nancy M. Mahoney, pp. 79-90. Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona No. 64. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Jarrett, Jordan E. 2013 Ceramic Evidence for Pueblo-Mogollon Cohabitation at Largo Gap in New Mexico.

Unpublished Masters Thesis, Washington State University, Pullman. Jones, D.P. 1980 Volcanic Geology of the Alegres Mountain Area, Catron County, New Mexico.

Unpublished Master’s Thesis, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

303

Judge, W. James 1979 The Development of a Complex Cultural Ecosystem in Chaco Basin, New Mexico. In

Proceedings of the First Conference on Scientific Research in the National Parks, Vol. II edited by R. Linn, pp. 901-905. National Park Service, Washington D.C.

1989 Chaco Canyon—San Juan Basin. In Dynamics of Southwest Prehistory, edited by Linda S. Cordell and George J. Gumerman, pp. 209-261. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

1991 Chaco: Current Views of Prehistory and the Regional System. In Chaco and Hohokam: Prehistoric Regional Systems in the American Southwest, edited by Patricia L. Crown and W. James Judge, pp. 11-30. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

Judge, W. James, and Linda S. Cordell 2006 Society and Polity. In The Archaeology of Chaco Canyon: An Eleventh-Century Pueblo

Regional Center, edited by Stephen H. Lekson, pp. 189-210. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

Judge, W. James, and J. McKim Malville 2004 Calendrical Knowledge and Ritual Power. In Chimney Rock: The Ultimate Outlier,

edited by J. McKim Malville, pp. 151-163. Lexington Books, Lantham, MD. Kane, Allen E. 1993 Settlement Analogies for Chimney Rock: Models of 11th and 12th Century Northern

Arizona Society. In The Chimney Rock Symmposium, October 20-21, 1990, Durango, Colorado, edited by J. M. Malville and Gary Matlock, pp. 43-60. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-227. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experimental Station, Fort Collins.

Kantner, John 1996 Political Competition among the Chaco Anasazi of the American Southwest. Journal of

Anthropological Archaeology 15:41-105. 1999 The Influence of Self-Interested Behavior on Sociopolitical Change: The Evolution of the

Chaco Anasazi in the Prehistoric American Southwest. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara.

2003a Preface: The Chaco World. Kiva 69(2): 83-92. 2003b Rethinking Chaco as a System. Kiva 69(2): 207-227. 2009 Identifying the Pathways to Permanent Leadership. In The Evolution of Leadership:

Transitions in Decision Making from Small-Scale to Middle-Range Societies, edited by Kevin J. Vaughn, Jelmer W. Eerkens, and John Kantner, pp. 249-281. School for Advanced Research Press, Santa Fe.

304

Kantner, John, and Keith W. Kintigh 2006 The Chaco World. In The Archaeology of Chaco Canyon: An Eleventh-Century Pueblo

Regional Center, edited by Stephen H. Lekson, pp. 153-188. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

Kantner, John, and Nancy Mahoney (Editors) 2000 Great House Communities Across the Chaco Landscape. Anthropological Papers of the

University of Arizona No. 64. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Kantner, John, and Kevin J. Vaughn 2012 Pilgrimage as Costly Signal: Religiously Motivated Cooperation in Chaco and Nasca.

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 31: 66-82. Kantner, John, Nate Bower, Jeffrey Ladwig, Jacob Perlitz, Steve Hatta, and Darren Greve 2000 Interaction Between Chaco Anasazi Communities: An X-Ray Fluorescence Trace

Element Analysis of Chacoan Ceramics. In Great House Communities Across the Chacoan Landscape, edited by John Kantner and Nancy M. Mahoney, pp. 130-146. Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona No. 64. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Kendrick, James W., and W. James Judge 2000 Household Economic Autonomy and Great House Development in the Lowry Area. In

Great House communities Across the Chacoan Landscape, edited by John Kantner and Nancy M. Mahoney, pp. 111-129. University of Arizona Anthropological Papers No. 64. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Kintigh, Keith W. 2003 Coming to Terms with the Chaco World. Kiva 69(2):93-116. Kintigh, Keith W., Donna M. Glowicki, and Deborah L. Huntley 2004 Long-Term Settlement History and the Emergence of Towns in the Zuni Area. American

Antiquity 69(3):432-456. Kohler, Timothy A. Denton Cockburn, Paul L. Hooper, R. Kyle Bocinsky, and Ziad Kobti 2012 The Coevolution of Group Size and Leadership: An Agent-Based Public Goods Model

for Prehispanic Pueblo Societies. Advances in Complex Systems 15(1&2):1150007.

305

Kornbacher, Kimberly D. and Mark E. Madsen 1999 Explaining the Evolution of Cultural Elaboration. Journal of Anthropological

Archaeology 18:241–242. Kvamme, K.L., and S.A. Ahler 2007 Integrated Remote Sensing and Excavation at Double Ditch State Historic Site, North

Dakota. American Antiquity 72(3): 539-561. LeBlanc, Steven A. 1989 Cibola: Shifting Cultural Boundaries. In Dynamics of Southwest Prehistory, edited by

Linda S. Cordell and George J. Gumerman, pp. 337-369. Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D.C.

Lekson, Steven H. 1984 Great Pueblo Architecture of Chaco Canyon. Publications in Archaeology, No. 18b.

National Park Service, Washington, D.C. 1986 Great Pueblo Architecture of Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. University of New Mexico

Press, Albuquerque. 1988 The Idea of the Kiva in Anasazi Archaeology. Kiva 53(3):213-234. 1991 Settlement Patterns and the Chaco Region. In Chaco and Hohokam: Prehistoric Regional

Systems in the American Southwest, edited by P.L. Crown and W.J. Judge, pp. 31-56. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

1999 The Chaco Meridian: Centers of Political Power in the Ancient Southwest. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

2000 Great. In Great House Communities Across the Chacoan Landscape, edited by John Kantner and Nancy M. Mahoney, pp. 157-163. Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona No. 64. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

2006 Chaco Matters: An Introduction. In The Archaeology of Chaco Canyon: An Eleventh-Century Pueblo Regional Center, edited by Stephen H. Lekson, pp. 3-44. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

Lekson, Steven H., Thomas C Windes, and Peter J. McKenna 2006 Architecture. In The Archaeology of Chaco Canyon: An Eleventh-Century Pueblo

Regional Center, edited by Stephen H. Lekson, pp. 67-116. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

306

Lekson, Stephen H., Thomas C. Windes, John R. Stein, and W. James Judge 1988 The Chaco Canyon Community. Scientific American 256(7):100-109. Lipe, William D. 1989 Social Scale of Mesa Verde Anasazi Kivas. In The Architecture of Social Integration in

Prehistoric Pueblos, edited by William D. Lipe and Michelle Hegmon, pp. 53-71. Occasional Paper No. 1, Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado.

2006 Notes from the North. In The Archaeology of Chaco Canyon: An Eleventh-Century Pueblo Regional Center, edited by Stephen H. Lekson, pp. 261-313. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

Lister, Robert H., and Florence C. Lister 1981 Chaco Canyon: Archaeology and Archaeologists. University of New Mexico Press,

Albuquerque. Lupo, Karen D. 2007 Evolutionary Foraging Models in Zooarchaeological Analysis: Recent Applications and

Future Challenges. Journal of Archaeological Research 15:143-189. Lyman, R. Lee, and Michael J. O’Brien 2006 Measuring Time with Artifacts: A History of Methods in American Archaeology.

University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE. Madsen, Mark E., Carl P. Lipo, and Michael D. Cannon 1999 Fitness and Reproductive Trade-Offs in Uncertain Environments: Explaining the

Evolution of Cultural Elaboration. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 18:251–281. Mahoney, Nancy M. 2000 Redefining the Scale of Chacoan Communities. In Great House Communities Across the

Chacoan Landscape, edited by J. Kantner and N. Mahoney, pp. 19-27. Anthropological Paper of the University of Arizona, Number 64, University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona.

Mahoney, Nancy M., and John Kantner 2000 Chacoan Archaeology and Great House Communities. In Great House Communities

Across the Chacoan Landscape, edited by John Kantner and Nancy M. Mahoney, pp. 1-15. Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona Nol 64. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

307

Malville, J. McKim 2011 The People, The Moon, and the Great House. In In The Shadow of the Rocks:

Archaeology of the Chimney Rock District in Southern Colorado, edited by Florence C. Lister, pp. 109-126. 2nd ed. Durango Herald Small Press, Durango, Colorado.

Marshall, J.L. 1997 The Chacoan roads: A Cosmological Interpretation. In Anasazi Architecture and

American Design, edited by B.H. Morrow and V.B. Price, pp. 62-74. University of New Mexico Press, Santa Fe.

Marshall, Michael P., John R. Stein, Richard W. Loose, and Judith E. Novotny 1979 Anasazi Communities of the San Juan Basin. Public Service Company, Albuquerque, and

New Mexico State Historic Preservation Bureau, Santa Fe. Printed by Albuquerque Photo Lab. Inc.

Martin, Paul S. 1936 Lowry Ruin in Southwestern Colorado. Anthropological Series Volume 23:1. Field

Museum of Natural History, Chicago. 1979 Prehistory: Mogollon. In Handbook of North American Indians, edited by A. Ortiz, pp.

61-74. vol. 9. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Mathien, Frances Joan 1987 Ornaments and Minerals from Pueblo Alto. In Investigations at the Pueblo Alto Complex,

Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, 1975-1979. Volume III. Artifactual and Biological Analyses, edited by Frances Joan Mathien and Thomas C. Windes, pp. 381-428. Publications in Archeology 18F, Chaco Canyon Studies, National Park Service, Santa Fe.

2001 The Organization of Turquoise Production and Consumption by the Prehistoric Chacoans. American Antiquity 66:103-118.

McGimsey, Charles R. 1980 Mariana Mesa: Seven Prehistoric Settlements in West-Central New Mexico: A Report of

the Upper Gila Expedition. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Cambridge.

McGuire, Kelly R., and William R. Hildebrandt 2005 Re-Thinking Great Basin Foragers: Prestige Hunting and Costly Signaling During the

Middle Archaic. American Antiquity 70(4):695-712.

308

Meyer, Daniel Alexander 1999 Masonry and Social Variability in the Chaco System. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,

Department of Archaeology, University of Calgary, Calgary. Mills, Barbara J. 1988 Ceramic Production and Distribution. In Archeological Investigations at Eight Small

Sites in West-Central New Mexico, edited by Patrick Hogan, pp. 145-154. Office of Contract Archaeology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

2002 Recent Research on Chaco: Changing Views on Economy, Ritual, and Society. Journal of Archaeological Research 10(1): 65-117.

2007 Performing the Feast: Visual Display and Suprahousehold Commensalism in the Puebloan Southwest. American Antiquity 72(2):210-239.

Mills, Barbara J., Sarah Herr, and Scott Van Keuren 1999 Living on the Edge of the Rim: Excavations and Analysis of the Siver Creek

Archaeological Research Project, 1993-1998. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series No. 192. Arizona State Museum, Tucson.

Moropoulou, A., N.P. Avdelidis, M. Koui, A. Aggelopoulos, and P. Karmis 2002 Infrared Thermography and Ground Penetrating Radar for Airport Pavements.

Nondestructive Testing and Evaluation 18 (1): 37–42. Morris, Earl H. 1918 The Aztec Ruin. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History. v.

26, Part I, pp. 3-108. 1928 Notes on Excavations in the Aztec Ruin. Anthropological Papers of the American

Museum of Natural History. v. 26, Part IV, pp. 259-420. Mueller, Jennifer L. 2006 Ritual, Feasting and Trajectories to Ritual Power in a Southern Cibola Great House

Community. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman.

Muir, Robert J., and Jonathon C. Driver 2002 Scale of Analysis and Zooarchaeological Interpretation: Pueblo III Faunal Variation in

the Northern San Juan Region. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21:165-199.

309

Munro, Natalie D. 1994 An Investigation Of Anasazi Turkey Production In Southwestern Colorado. Unpublished

Masters Thesis, Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby. Murdock, G.P. 1949 Social Structure. The MacMillian Company, New York. Nauman, Alissa L. 2007 Learning Frameworks and Technological Traditions of Pottery Manufacture in a Chaco

Period Great House Community on the Southern Colorado Plateau. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman.

Nauman, Alissa L., and Andrew I. Duff 2004 The Founding, Growth, and Decline of the Cox Ranch Community: A Chaco-Period

Settlement on the System’s Southern Frontier. Paper presented at the 69th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Montreal.

Neff, Hector 2002 Quantitative Techniques for Analyzing Ceramic Compositional Data. In Ceramic

Production and Circulation in the Greater Southwest: Source Determination by INAA and Complementary Mineralogical Investigations, edited by D.M. Glowacki and H. Neff, pp. 15-36. The Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Monograph 44. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at UCLA, Los Angeles.

Neiman, Fraser D. 1995 Stylistic Variation in Evolutionary Perspective: Inferences from Decorative Diversity and

Inter-Assemblage Distance in Illinois Woodland Ceramic Assemblages. American Antiquity 60:7-36.

1997 Conspicuous Consumption as Wasteful Advertising: A Darwinian Perspective on Spatial Patterns in Classic Maya Terminal Monument Dates. In Rediscovering Darwin: Evolutionary Theory in Archaeological Explanation, edited by C. M. Barton and G. A. Clark, pp.267-290. American Anthropological Association, Arlington.

Neitzel, Jill E. 1994 Boundary Dynamics in the Chacoan Regional System. In The Ancient Southwest

Community: Models and Methods for the Study of Prehistoric Social Organization, edited by W. H. Wills and Robert D. Leonard, pp. 209-240. University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

310

Neitzel, Jill E. (cont.) 1995 Elite Styles in Hierarchically Organized Societies: The Chacoan Regional System. In

Style, Society, and Person: Archaeological and Ethnological Perspectives, edited by Christopher Carr and Jill E. Neitzel, pp. 393-417. Plenum Press, New York.

1999 Examining Societal Organization in the Southwest: An Application of Multiscalar Analysis. In Great Towns and Regional Polities, edited by Jill E. Neitzel, pp. 243-254. Amerind Foundation, Dragoon, Arizona.

Neitzel, Jill E., and R. L. Bishop 1990 Neutron Activation of Dogoszhi Style Ceramics: Production and Exchange in the

Chacoan Regional System. Kiva 56:67-85. Neitzel, Jill E., Hector Neff, Michael D. Glascock, and Ronald L. Bishop 2002 Chaco and the Production and Exchange of Dogoszhi-Style Pottery. In Ceramic

Production and Circulation in the Greater Southwest, edited by Donna M. Glowicki and Hector Neff, pp. 47-65. The Costin Institute of Archaeology Monograph No. 44. University of California at Los Angeles.

Nelson, Ben A. 2006 Mesoamerican Objects and Symbols in Chaco Canyon Contexts. In The Archaeology of

Chaco Canyon: An Eleventh-Century Pueblo Regional Center, edited by Stephen H. Lekson, pp. 339-371. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

O’Brien, Michael J., and R. Lee Lyman 2000 Meeting Theoretical and Methodological Challenges to the Future of Evolutionary

Archaeology. The Review of Archaeology 20(20:14-22. 2002 Evolutionary Archeology: Current Status and Future Prospects. Evolutionary

Anthropology 11:26-36. Pauketat, Timothy R., Lucretia S. Kelly, Gayle J. Fritz, Neal H. Lopinot, Scott Elias, Eve Hargrave 2002 The Residues of Feasting and Public Ritual at Early Cahokia. American Antiquity

67(2):257-279. Peeples, Matthew A. 2011 Identity and Social Transformation in the Prehispanic Cibola World: A.D. 1150-1325.

Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University.

311

Phillips, S. Colby, and Robert J. Speakman 2009 Initial Source Evaluation of Archaeological Obsidian from the Kuril Islands of the

Russian Far East Using Portable XRF. Journal of Archaeological Science 36: 1256-1263. Piccolo, M., A. Zanelli, and G. Soncin 2009 Integrated Application of High-Resolution Shallow Geophysics: Aerial Thermography

and Ground Penetrating Radar on a Spring Barrier System. Bollettino di Geofisica Teorica ed Applicata 50:3-14.

Plog, Stephen 2003 Exploring the Ubiquitous through the Unusual, Color Symbolism in Pueblo Black-on-

white Pottery. American Antiquity 68(4):665-695. 2008 Ancient Peoples of the American Southwest. Thames and Hudson, London. Plog, Stephen, and Carrie Heitman 2010 Hierarchy and Social Inequality in the American Southwest, A.D. 800-1200. Proceedings

of the National Academy of Science 107(46):19619. Plog, Stephen, and Adam S. Watson 2012 The Chaco Pilgrimage Model: Evaluating The Evidence From Pueblo Alto. American

Antiquity 77(3):449-477. Plourde, Aimee M. 2009 Prestige Goods and the Formation of Political Hierarchy. In Pattern and Process in

Cultural Evolution, edited by Stephen Shennan, pp. 265-276. University of California Press, Oakland.

Potter, James M. 1997 Communal Ritual and Faunal Remains: An Example from the Dolores Anasazi. Journal

of Field Archaeology 24(3): 353-364. 2000 Pots, Parties, and Politics: Communal Feasting in the American Southwest. American

Antiquity 65(3):471-492. Potter, James M., and Scott G. Ortman 2004 Community and Cuisine in the Prehispanic American Southwest. In Identity, Feasting,

and the Archaeology of the Greater Southwest, edited by B. J. Mills, pp. 173–191. Proceedings of the 2002 Southwest Symposium. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado.

312

Powell, V.S. 2000 Iconography and Group Formation During the Late Pithouse and Classic Periods of the

Mimbres Society, AD 970-1140. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation Department of Anthropology, University of Oklahoma, Norman.

Powers, Robert P., William B. Gillespie, and Stephen H. Lekson 1983 The Outlier Survey: A Regional View of Settlement in the San Juan Basin. Reports of the

Chaco Center No. 3. Division of Cultural Research, National Park Service, Albuquerque. Reed, Paul F. 2002 Salmon Ruins: Past, Present, and Future. Archaeology Southwest 16(2):1-2. 2006 (Editor) Thirty-Five Years of Archaeological Research at Salmon Ruins, New Mexico.

Center for Desert Archaeology and Salmon Ruins Museum, Tuscon. 2008 Chaco’s Northern Prodigies: Salmon Aztec, and the Ascendancy of the Middle San Juan

Region after AD 1100. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 2011 Middle San Juan Settlement Patterns: Searching for Chacoan Immigrants and Evidence

of Local Emulation on the Landscape. Kiva 77(2):225–249. 2014 Chaco’s Legacy. Archaeology Southwest Magazine Winter 2014 28 (1). Renfrew, Colin 2001 Production and Consumption in a Sacred Economy: The Material Correlates of High

Devotional Expression at Chaco Canyon. American Antiquity 66(1):14-25. Roberts, Frank H.H., Jr. 1929 Shabik'eschee Village: A Late Basket Maker Site in the Chaco Canyon. Bulletin 92.

Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 1932 Village of the Great Kivas on the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico. BAE Bulletin 111. Roler, Kathy L. 1999 The Chaco Phenomenon: A Faunal Perspective from the Peripheries. Unpublished

Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe. Ryan, Susan C. 2004 Albert Porter Pueblo (5MTI23), Montezuma County, Colorado: Annual Report, 2004

Field Season. Accessed at http://www.crowcanyon.org/albertporter2004. Access January 23, 2015.

313

Safi, Kristin N., Oswaldo Chinchilla Mazariegos, Carl P. Lipo, and Hector Neff 2012 Using Ground-Penetrating Radar to Examine Spatial Organization at the Late Classic

Maya Site of El Baúl, Cotzumalhuapa, Guatemala. Geoarchaeology 27(5): 410-425. Satterlee, Ashton, and Andrew I. Duff 2014 Vessel Size and Feasting in three Chacoan Great House Communities. Paper presented at

the 79th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Austin. Schachner, Gregson 2010 Corporate Group Formation and Differentiation in Early Puebloan Villages of the

American Southwest. American Antiquity 75(3):473-496. Schachner, Gregson, Deborah L. Huntley, and Andrew I. Duff 2011 Changes in Regional Organization and Mobility in the Zuni Region of the American

Southwest during the Pueblo III and IV Periods: Insights from INAA Studies. Journal of Archaeological Science 38: 2261-2273.

Sebastian, Lynne 1992 Chaco Canyon and the Anasazi Southwest: Changing Views of Sociopolitical

Organization. In Anasazi Regional Organization and the Chaco System, edited by David E. Doyel, pp. 23-31. Anthropological Papers No. 5. Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

1996 Taking Charge in Chaco: The Evolution of Political Structure. In Debating Complexity: Proceedings of the 26th Annual Chacmool Conference, edited by D. A. Meyer, pp. 339-344. Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, Calgary.

2004 Understanding Chacoan Society. In In Search of Chaco. New Approaches to an Archaeological Enigma, edited by David Grant Noble, pp. 93-99. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

2006 The Chaco Synthesis. In The Archaeology of Chaco Canyon: An Eleventh-Century Pueblo Regional Center, edited by Stephen H. Lekson, pp. 393-422. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

Seger, J., and H.J. Brockmann 1987 What is Bet-Hedging? In Oxford Surveys in Evolutionary Biology, edited by P. H.

Harvey and L. Partridge, pp. 182–211. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

314

Shackley, M. Steven (Editor) 2011 X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry (XRF) in Geoarchaeology. Springer, New York. 2014 Source Provenance of Obsidian Artifacts from the Largo Gap and Cox Ranch Pueblos,

Southern New Mexico. Report from the Geoarchaeological X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry Laboratory, Albuquerque, NM.

Smith, Eric A., and Rebecca L. Bliege Bird 2000 Turtle Hunting and Tombstone Opening: Public Generosity as Costly Signaling.

Evolution and Human Behavior 21:245-261. Smith, Eric A., Rebecca Bliege Bird, and Douglas W. Bird 2003 The Benefits of Costly Signaling: Meriam Turtle Hunters. Behavioral Ecology 14(1):

116–126. Sofaer, Anna 1997 The Primary Architecture of the Chacoan Culture. A Cosmological Expression. In

Anasazi Architecture and American Design, edited by Baker H. Morrow and V. B. Price, pp. 88-130. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Sofaer, Anna, Volker Zinser, and Rolf M. Sinclair 1979 A Unique Solar Marking Construct. Science 206(4416):283-291. Sosis, Richard, and Bradley J. Ruffle 2003 Religious Ritual and Cooperation: Testing for a Relationship on Israeli Religious and

Secular Kibbutzim. Current Anthropology 44(5):713-722. Stark, Miriam T., Brenda J. Bowser, and Lee Horne (Editors) 2008 Cultural Transmission and Material Culture: Breaking Down Boundaries. The

University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona. Stein, John R., and Stephen H. Lekson 1992 Anasazi Ritual Landscapes. In Anasazi Regional Organization and the Chaco System,

edited by David E. Doyel, pp. 87-100. Anthropological Papers No. 5. Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

Sterling, Sarah 1999 Mortality Profiles as Indicators of Slowed Reproductive Rates: Evidence from Ancient

Egypt. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 18:319–343.

315

Sullivan, Alan P., and Jeffrey L. Hantman (Eds). 1984 Regional Analysis of Prehistoric Ceramic Variation: Contemporary Studies of the Cibola

Whitewares. Anthropological Research Papers No 31. Arizona State University, Tempe. Toll, H. Wolcott 1985 Pottery, Production, Public Architecture, and the Chaco Anasazi System. Unpublished

Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Colorado, Boulder. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

2001 Making and Breaking Pots in the Chaco World. American Antiquity 66(1):56-78. 2006 Organization of Production. In The Archaeology of Chaco Canyon: An Eleventh-Century

Pueblo Regional Center, edited by Stephen H. Lekson, pp. 117-151. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

Towner, Ronald L. 2006 Dendrochronology of Cox Ranch Pueblo 2005 Submission (A-1770). Final report,

Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, University of Arizona, Tucson. 2007a Dendrochronology of Cerro Pomo 2006 Submission (A-1807). Final report, Laboratory

of Tree-Ring Research, University of Arizona, Tucson. 2007b Dendrochronology of Cerro Pomo 2007 Submission (A-1842). Final report, Laboratory

of Tree-Ring Research, University of Arizona, Tucson. Triadan, Daniela 1997 Ceramic Commodities and Common Containers: Production and Distribution of White

Mountain Red Ware in the Grasshopper Region, Arizona. Anthropological Paper 61. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

2006 Dancing Gods: Ritual, Performance, and Political Organization in the Prehistoric Southwest. In Theaters of Power and Community: Archaeology of Performance and Politics, edited by Takeshi Inomata and Lawrence Coben, pp. 159-186. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

Triadan, Daniela, Barbara J. Mills and Andrew I. Duff 2002 From Compositional to Anthropological: Fourteenth-Century Red- Ware Circulation and

Its Implications for Pueblo Reorganization. In Ceramic Production and Circulation in the Greater Southwest: Source Determination by INAA and Complementary Mineralogical Investigations, edited by D.M. Glowacki and H. Neff, pp. 85-97. The Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Monograph 44. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at UCLA, Los Angeles.

316

Trigger, Bruce 1990 Monumental Architecture: A Thermodynamic Explanation of Symbolic Behavior. World

Archaeology 22:119-131. Trubitt, Mary Beth D. 2000 Mound Building and Prestige Goods Exchange: Changing Strategies in the Cahokia

Chiefdom. American Antiquity 65(4): 669-690. Van Dyke, Ruth M. 1998 The Chaco Connection: Bonito Style Architecture in Outlier Communities. Unpublished

Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona. 1999a The Andrews Community: A Chacoan Outlier in the Red Mesa Valley, New Mexico.

Journal of Field Archaeology 26(1):55-67. 1999b The Chaco Connection: Evaluating Bonito Style Architecture in Outlier Communities.

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 18: 471-506. 2000 Chacoan Ritual Landscapes: The View from Red Mesa Valley. In Great House

Communities Across the Chacoan Landscape, edited by J. Kantner and N. Mahoney, pp. 91-100. Anthropological Paper of the University of Arizona, Number 64, University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona.

2002 The Chacoan Great Kiva in Outlier Communities: Investigating Integrative Spaces across the San Juan Basin. Kiva 67(3): 231-247.

2003 Bounding Chaco: Great House Architectural Variability Across Time and Space. Kiva 69(2):117-139.

2004 Memory, Meaning, and Masonry. The Late Bonito Chacoan Landscape. American Antiquity 69(3):413-431.

2007 Great Kivas in Time, Space, and Society. In The Architecture of Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, edited by Stephen H. Lekson, pp. 93-126. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

2008 Temporal Scale and Qualitative Social Transformation at Chaco Canyon. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 18(1):70-78.

Van West, Carla R., and David H. Greenwald 2005 Introduction and Background. In Fence Lake Project: Archaeological Data Recovery in

the New Mexico Transportation Corridor and the First Five-Year Permit Area, Fence Lake Coal Mine Project, Catron County, New Mexico, edited by Carla Van West and E.K. Huber, pp. 1.1-1.1119. Statistical Research. Inc, Technical Series 84. Submitted to Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District, Contract #FF68530FWP.

317

Van West, Carla R., and E.K. Huber 2005 Fence Lake Project: Archaeological Data Recovery in the New Mexico Transportation

Corridor and the First Five-Year Permit Area, Fence Lake Coal Mine Project, Catron County, New Mexico. Statistical Research. Inc, Technical Series 84. Submitted to Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District, Contract #FF68530FWP.

Varien, Mark D. 1999 Sedentism and Mobility in a Social Landscape: Mesa Verde and Beyond. University of

Arizona Press, Tuscon. 2001 We Have Learned a Lot, But We Still Have More to Learn. In Chaco Society and Polity:

Papers from the 1999 Conference, edited by Linda S. Cordell, W. James Judge, and June-el Piper, pp. 47-61. NMAC Special Publication No. 4. New Mexico Archeological Council, Albuquerque.

2002 Persistent Communities and Mobile Households. In Seeking the Center Place, edited by Mark D. Varien and Richard H. Wilshusen, pp. 163-183. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Vivian, R. Gordon, and Tom Matthews 1965 Kin Kletso: A Pueblo III Community in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. Technical Series

6(1):1-115. Southwest Parks and Monuments Association, Globe, AZ. Vivian, R. Gordon, and Paul Reiter 1965 The Great Kivas of Chaco Canyon and Their Relationships. School of American

Research Monograph No. 22. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Vivian, R. Gwinn 1970 Inquiry into Prehistoric Social Organization in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. In

Reconstructing Prehistoric Pueblo Societies, edited by William Longacre, pp. 59-83. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

1990 The Chacoan Prehistory of the San Juan Basin. Academic Press, New York. 1996 “Chaco” As a Regional System. In Interpreting Southwestern Diversity: Underlying

Principles and Overarching Patterns, edited by Paul R. Fish and J. Jefferson Rid, pp. 45-53. Arizona State University Anthropological Research Paper No. 48. Tempe.

2005 Chaco Phenomenon on the Southern Periphery. In Fence Lake Project: Archaeological Data Recovery in the New Mexico Transportation Corridor and the First Five-Year Permit Area, Fence Lake Coal Mine Project, Catron County, New Mexico, edited by E.K. Huber and C.R. Van West, 40.1-40.36. Statistical Research. Inc, Technical Series 84. Submitted to Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District, Contract #FF68530FWP.

318

Vivian, R. Gwinn, and Bruce Hilpert 2002 The Chaco Handbook. An Encyclopedic Guide. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Vivian, R. Gwinn, Carla R. Van West, Jeffrey S. Dean, Nancy J. Atkins, Mollie S. Toll, and Thomas C. Windes 2006 Ecology and Economy. In The Archaeology of Chaco Canyon: An Eleventh-Century

Pueblo Regional Center, edited by Stephen H. Lekson, pp. 45-65. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

Warburton, Miranda, and Donna K. Graves 1992 Navajo Springs, Arizona: Frontier Outlier or Autonomous Great House? Journal of Field

Archaeology 19:51-69. Ward, Christine G. 2004 Exploring Meanings of Chacoan Community Great Houses Through Chipped Stone: A

Biographical Approach (New Mexico). Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Colorado, Boulder.

Washburn, Dorothy K. 2011 Pattern Symmetries of the Chaco Phenomenon. American Antiquity 76(2):252. Washburn, Dorothy K. and Lori Stephens Reed 2011 A Design and Technological Study of Hatched Ceramics: Tracking Chacoan Migrants in

the Middle San Juan. Kiva 77(2):173–201. Whalen, Michael E. 1984 Settlement System Evolution on the Mogollon-Anasazi Frontier. In Recent Research in

Mogollon Archaeology, edited by S. Upham, F. Plog, D. Batcho, and B. Kauffman, pp. 75-89. New Mexico State University Occasional Papers No. 10. The University Museum, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces.

Wheat, Joe Ben 1955 Mogollon Culture Prior to A.D. 1000. Memoirs of the Society for American

Archaeology No. 10., Menasha, Wisconsin. Wichlacz, Caitlin A. 2009 Complementary Compositional Analyses of Ceramics from Two Great House

Communities in West-Central New Mexico. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Department of Anthropology. Washington State University, Pullman.

319

Wiewel, Adam, and Katie Simon 2015 Remote Sensing Investigations at Largo Gap, New Mexico. Final report, Center for

Advanced Spatial Technologies, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Wilcox, David R. 1993 The Evolution of the Chacoan Polity. In Chimney Rock Archaeological Symposium,

edited by J. Malville and G. Matlock, pp. 76-90. USDA Forest Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

1996 The Diversity of Regional and Macroregional Systems in the American Southwest. In Debating Complexity: Proceedings of the 26th Annual Chacmool Conference, edited by D. A. Meyer, P. C. Dawson, and D. T. Hanna, pp. 375-390. Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary.

Wilk, Richard R., and William J. Rathje 1982 Household Archaeology. American Behavioral Scientist 25:617-639. Williams, Justin P., Andrew I. Duff, and William A. Andrefsky, Jr. 2013 Debitage Stylistic Variability at Cox Ranch Pueblo. Journal of Lithic Technology

38(1):3-16. Wills, Wirt H. 2000 Political Leadership in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, A.D. 1020-1140. In Alternative

Leadership Strategies in the Prehispanic Southwest, edited by Barbara J. Mills, pp. 19-44. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Wills, Wirt H., and Patricia L. Crown 2004 Commensal Politics in the Prehispanic Southwest: An Introductory Review. In Identity,

Feasting, and the Archaeology of the Greater Southwest, edited by Barbara J. Mills, pp. 153-172. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.

Wills, Wirt H., and Thomas C. Windes 1989 Evidence for Population Aggregation and Dispersal during the Basketmaker III Period in

Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. American Antiquity 54(2):347-369. Wills, Wirt H., F. Scott Worman, Wetherbee Dorshow, and Heather Richards-Rissetto 2012 Shabik'eschee Village in Chaco Canyon: Beyond the Archetype. American Antiquity

77(2):326-351.

320

Wilshusen, Richard H., and Scott G. Ortman 1999 Rethinking the Pueblo I Period in the San Juan Drainage: Aggregation, Migration, and

Cultural Diversity. Kiva 64(3):369-399. Wilshusen, Richard H., and Ruth M. Van Dyke 2006 Chaco’s Beginning. In The Archaeology of Chaco Canyon: An Eleventh-Century Pueblo

Regional Center, edited by Stephen H. Lekson, pp. 211-259. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

Windes, Thomas C. 2015 The Chacoan Court Kiva. Kiva 79(4):337-379. Windes, Thomas C., and Dabney Ford 1996 The Chaco Wood Project: The Chronometric Reappraisal of Pueblo Bonito. American

Antiquity 61(2):295-310. Windes, Thomas C., and Peter J. McKenna 2001 Going Against the Grain. Wood Production in Chacoan Society. American Antiquity

66(1):119-140. Wobst, H.M. 1974 Boundary Conditions for Paleolithic Social Systems: A Simulation Approach. American

Antiquity 40: 147-178. 1975 The Demography of Finite Populations and the Origins of the Incest Taboo. American

Antiquity 40: 75-81. Woodward, Arthur 1936 A Shell Bracelet Manufactory. American Antiquity 2(2):117-125. Yoffee, Norman 2001 The Chaco “Rituality” Revisited. In Chaco Society and Polity: Papers from the 1999

Conference, edited by Linda S. Cordell, W. James Judge, and June-el Piper, pp. 63-78. NMAC Special Publication No. 4. New Mexico Archeological Council, Albuquerque.

Zahavi, Amotz 1975 Mate Selection: A Selection for a Handicap. Journal of Theoretical Biology 53:205-214. Zedeño, Maria Nieves 1994 Sourcing Prehistoric Ceramics at Chodistaas Pueblo, Arizona: The Circulation of Pots

and People in the Grasshopper Region. Anthropological Papers 58. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

321

Zedeño, Maria Nieves (cont.) 2002 Artifact Design, Composition, and Context: Updating the Analysis of Ceramic

Circulation at Point of Pines, Arizona. In Ceramic Production and Circulation in the Greater Southwest: Source Determination by INAA and Complementary Mineralogical Investigations, edited by D.M. Glowacki and H. Neff, pp. 74-84. The Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Monograph 44. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at UCLA, Los Angeles.

APPENDIX A:

SOUTHERN CIBOLA CERAMIC FREQUENCIES BY SITE

!

323

Table A1a. Largo Gap Community Ceramic Frequencies Used in Correspondence Analyses Survey Site

Site Type*

Brown Jar

Smudged Bowl

Gray Jar

Puerco Black-on-red

Wingate Black-on-red/ Polychrome

Kiatuthlanna Black-on-white

Red Mesa Black-on-white

Puerco Black-on-white

Reserve Black-on-white

275 FH 5 4 8 0 0 0 0 9 0 280 RMBK 25 2 20 0 0 3 4 15 3 285 RMBK 32 7 8 0 0 1 0 23 4 288 CLS 5 8 19 0 0 0 1 7 0 291 RMBK 25 13 9 0 0 0 1 4 0 297 CLS 69 69 56 6 0 1 2 41 10 298 RMBK 7 0 10 0 0 2 3 2 0 299 RMBK 24 13 16 0 0 0 0 10 3 300† RMBK 210 19 78 0 0 1 4 52 0 302 PS 91 23 131 0 0 8 16 19 0 305 RMBK 17 3 31 0 0 2 2 5 0 307 RMBK 5 0 7 0 0 1 0 7 3 308† RMBK 550 125 107 1 3 1 8 170 36 310 RMBK 66 22 52 0 0 0 7 30 8 311† RMBK 226 47 59 1 3 2 4 112 27 313 FH 0 1 0 0 0 5 7 8 0 315 RMBK 62 54 150 3 3 5 3 42 14 317 RMBK 35 5 41 0 0 1 1 4 0 318† RMBK 197 84 77 5 3 0 3 55 25 322 CLS 17 14 28 0 6 0 0 23 4 323† RMBK 374 148 202 9 10 0 4 207 55 325 RMBK 47 12 26 0 0 1 0 31 5 328 CLS 18 0 86 0 0 15 7 0 0 329 RMBK 19 2 16 0 0 11 12 1 0 331 FH 3 0 12 0 0 0 1 7 0 336 RMBK 27 6 8 0 0 3 2 1 1 338 FH 18 6 56 0 0 7 6 46 2 348 CLS 34 8 8 0 0 0 0 14 0

!

324

Survey Site cont.

Site Type

Brown Jar

Smudged Bowl

Gray Jar

Puerco Black-on-red

Wingate Black-on-red/ Polychrome

Kiatuthlanna Black-on-white

Red Mesa Black-on-white

Puerco Black-on-white

Reserve Black-on-white

351 CLS 12 4 26 0 0 0 5 28 3 353 RMBK 11 0 58 0 0 0 8 24 1 359 RMBK 31 3 20 0 0 3 3 28 3 364 RMBK 16 1 8 2 0 0 0 3 0 374 RMBK 72 2 60 0 0 2 1 37 11 381 RMBK 103 28 99 14 4 0 5 104 37 384 RMBK 54 34 1 0 2 0 0 4 21 389 RMBK 48 24 15 4 4 0 0 25 10 396 RMBK 15 1 20 3 0 0 0 40 1 399 RMBK 33 3 13 1 0 0 0 6 1 411 FH 4 0 33 0 0 0 9 18 0 418 RMBK 41 0 23 0 0 0 0 17 0 419 RMBK 78 6 45 0 0 1 5 18 0 422 RMBK 25 0 62 0 0 2 19 45 3 424 RMBK 8 2 27 0 0 0 4 13 0 425 RMBK 41 7 35 1 1 0 0 24 3 428 RMBK 9 0 7 0 0 0 2 5 1 430 RMBK 27 7 31 0 0 0 2 22 2 437 RMBK 39 2 23 0 0 0 4 15 0 438 FH 4 0 24 0 0 0 3 8 0 397a RMBK 9 7 9 0 3 0 0 16 9 397b RMBK 16 12 17 3 6 0 0 21 9 397c RMBK 19 5 9 1 2 0 0 19 14 445 RMBK 52 47 38 9 6 0 0 80 24

*CLS= ceramic/lithic scatter; FH= field house; RMBK= roomblock † Sites with subsurface testing of middens (five 1 x 1 m units per site)

!

325

Table A1b. Largo Gap Great House Ceramic Frequencies Used in Correspondence Analyses Largo Gap Excavation Unit

Brown Jar

Smudged Bowl

Gray Jar

Puerco Black-on-red

Wingate Black-on-red/ Polychrome

Kiatuthlanna Black-on-white

Red Mesa Black-on-white

Puerco Black-on-white

Reserve Black-on-white

GH1 877 201 90 33 80 0 1 201 152 GH2 25 14 2 3 2 0 0 16 13 GH3 30 21 7 1 10 0 0 23 20 GH4 56 39 4 2 3 0 0 32 3 GH5 22 13 4 3 0 0 0 13 31 GH6 73 38 92 13 7 0 0 98 24 GH7 506 643 36 44 180 0 15 512 332 GH8 76 50 8 1 14 0 0 20 19 GH9 518 174 30 35 65 0 0 184 231 Midden 1 115 256 80 35 16 0 0 223 71 Midden 2 43 45 40 2 0 0 0 42 23 Midden 3 67 80 40 6 6 2 2 79 18 Midden 4 209 165 94 10 32 3 0 170 44 Midden 5 135 60 101 6 8 1 1 81 15 Midden 6 24 74 27 0 4 0 0 39 18 Midden 7 45 62 9 6 1 0 0 44 5

!

326

Table A2a. Ceramic Frequencies from the Cerro Pomo (CP) and Cox Ranch Pueblo (CRP) Communities Used in Correspondence Analyses

Survey Site

Community Site Type*

Brown Jar

Smudged Bowl

Gray Jar

Puerco Black-on-red

Wingate Black-on-red/ Polychrome

Kiatuthlanna Black-on-white

Red Mesa Black-on-white

Puerco Black-on-white

Reserve Black-on-white

1 CRP CLS 37 5 0 0 0 1 9 6 3 6 CRP FH 3 0 10 0 0 0 0 3 6 8 CRP RMBK 2 8 7 1 2 0 0 7 8 16 CRP FH 19 11 5 6 9 0 0 10 5 17 CRP RMBK 67 22 13 1 1 0 0 26 6 27 CRP RMBK 33 40 14 0 1 0 2 11 14 32 CRP RMBK 40 19 41 0 2 1 0 30 18 58 CRP FH 6 0 1 2 0 0 0 6 2 60 CRP FH 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 9 8 62 CRP FH 7 2 3 0 0 0 2 10 1 69 CRP RMBK 47 4 7 2 0 0 0 6 7 72 CRP FH 5 2 1 0 0 0 1 9 7 108 CRP RMBK 33 11 14 0 0 0 0 6 8 109 CRP RMBK 84 75 38 3 0 0 0 8 8 155 CP RMBK 70 4 11 0 0 0 0 33 9 161 CP RMBK 39 8 15 0 0 2 4 22 21 162 CP RMBK 31 2 4 0 0 1 3 16 0 163 CP RMBK 11 0 4 0 0 3 9 9 0 164 CP FH 25 3 10 0 0 1 0 15 5 165 CP RMBK 38 4 0 0 0 0 7 12 3 166 CP RMBK 16 9 4 0 2 0 0 15 5 171 CP RMBK 35 3 6 1 0 0 2 16 27 172 CP RMBK 77 0 8 0 0 1 2 25 5 173 CP RMBK 27 3 11 0 0 0 0 10 6 174 CP RMBK 194 100 95 19 5 2 2 190 63 182 CP RMBK 8 1 3 0 0 0 0 16 6 184 CP RMBK 9 11 6 0 0 0 0 7 3 187 CP RMBK 44 10 10 0 0 4 1 20 0

!

327

Survey Site cont.

Community Site Type

Brown Jar

Smudged Bowl

Gray Jar

Puerco Black-on-red

Wingate Black-on-red/ Polychrome

Kiatuthlanna Black-on-white

Red Mesa Black-on-white

Puerco Black-on-white

Reserve Black-on-white

190 CP RMBK 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 191 CP RMBK 24 4 1 0 0 0 2 22 2 192 CP RMBK 84 0 4 0 0 3 2 41 0 196 CP RMBK 265 57 42 2 0 0 0 16 20 197 CP RMBK 166 15 13 3 0 0 0 12 13 199 CP RMBK 35 4 5 0 0 0 0 3 1 201 CP CLS 82 23 10 0 0 0 1 20 9 204 CP CLS 17 20 10 4 0 0 0 21 3 207 CP FH 5 5 12 1 0 0 0 8 1 213 CP RMBK 41 32 15 0 0 0 2 38 7 215 CP RMBK 15 2 16 0 0 4 8 8 0 216 CP CLS 26 25 19 0 0 0 0 12 10 218 CP RMBK 36 20 9 0 0 0 2 23 5 219 CP RMBK 60 23 1 0 0 1 0 12 3 222 CP CLS 39 7 21 0 0 3 4 1 0 225 CP RMBK 49 4 6 0 0 3 5 16 2 230 CP CLS 18 20 21 3 3 0 0 14 5 235 CP RMBK 55 21 15 12 12 2 6 35 4 240 CP CLS 28 11 7 0 0 0 0 9 1 241 CP FH 44 9 2 0 0 0 7 12 1 242 CP CLS 55 39 15 0 0 3 0 34 10 246 CP CLS 53 10 2 0 0 1 0 27 2 247 CP RMBK 30 20 16 5 5 0 0 10 0 262 CRP RMBK 9 10 8 11 11 0 0 13 0 270 CRP FH 15 4 18 1 1 0 1 15 5 NM-02-961

CP RMBK 221 21 43 0 0 1 13 83 4

NM-02-963

CP RMBK 61 8 8 2 0 0 0 18 6

NM-02-965

CP RMBK 868 208 183 5 0 0 3 177 70

!

328

Survey Site cont.

Community Site Type

Brown Jar

Smudged Bowl

Gray Jar

Puerco Black-on-red

Wingate Black-on-red/ Polychrome

Kiatuthlanna Black-on-white

Red Mesa Black-on-white

Puerco Black-on-white

Reserve Black-on-white

NM-02-967

CP RMBK 272 127 160 5 0 0 2 102 31

NM-02-969

CP RMBK 248 118 144 3 5 0 3 33 26

*CLS= ceramic/lithic scatter; FH= field house; RMBK= roomblock

!

329

Table A2b. Ceramic Frequencies from the Cerro Pomo (CP) and Cox Ranch Pueblo (CRP) Great Houses Used in Correspondence Analyses

Cerro Pomo and Cox Ranch Excavation Area

Unit Brown Jar

Smudged Bowl

Gray Jar

Puerco Black-on-red

Wingate Black-on-red/ Polychrome

Kiatuthlanna Black-on-white

Red Mesa Black-on-white

Puerco Black-on-white

Reserve Black-on-white

CP GH 1 41 71 2 1 5 0 3 40 24 CP GH 2 79 58 27 0 0 0 0 64 54 CP GH 3 54 53 10 0 3 0 0 21 22 CP GH 4 79 126 15 0 3 0 0 44 13 CP GH 5 57 31 5 0 0 0 0 7 17 CP GH 6 47 80 26 3 4 0 0 41 13 CP GH 8 14 5 5 0 1 0 0 16 6 CP GH 9 71 40 12 1 5 0 0 33 40 CP GH 10 48 88 13 1 39 0 0 6 37 CP GH 11 43 32 16 0 0 0 0 6 2 CP GH 12 196 80 16 0 2 0 5 19 14 CP GH 13 136 114 80 11 7 0 4 50 63 CP Midden 1 1 234 49 17 3 7 0 1 31 30 CP Midden 1 2 46 13 16 4 3 0 0 21 10 CP Midden 1 3 199 80 33 6 11 0 1 38 32 CP Midden 1 4 156 73 30 5 2 1 0 18 28 CP Midden 1 5 82 24 8 0 2 1 0 13 3 CP Midden 2 1 229 111 35 0 14 0 0 44 36 CP Midden 2 2 349 187 42 6 7 2 3 45 37 CP Midden 2 3 516 217 78 0 2 1 1 51 81 CP Midden 2 4 239 67 38 1 6 0 1 23 26 CP Midden 2 5 260 58 32 0 3 0 1 39 33 CP Midden 2 6 125 40 14 1 1 1 7 11 13 CP Midden 2 7 220 115 39 1 0 0 4 25 21 CP Midden 2 8 249 91 37 2 8 1 5 37 25 CP Midden 2 9 206 47 22 0 0 0 7 11 22 CP Midden 2 10 216 119 51 7 1 0 6 35 39 CRP GH 1 30 37 16 5 4 0 0 27 15

!

330

Cerro Pomo and Cox Ranch Excavation Area cont.

Unit Brown Jar

Smudged Bowl

Gray Jar

Puerco Black-on-red

Wingate Black-on-red/ Polychrome

Kiatuthlanna Black-on-white

Red Mesa Black-on-white

Puerco Black-on-white

Reserve Black-on-white

CRP GH 2 21 40 3 3 0 0 0 19 8 CRP GH 3 47 108 22 6 0 0 0 58 77 CRP GH 4 330 590 228 40 22 1 2 284 196 CRP GH 5 278 265 201 22 12 3 2 184 160 CRP GH 6 315 461 246 16 61 1 1 193 249 CRP GH 7 157 118 98 3 33 0 0 40 102 CRP GH 8 169 214 102 10 36 0 3 86 104 CRP GH 9 233 251 162 25 40 7 2 143 108 CRP GH 10 178 121 80 2 11 0 1 59 64 CRP GH 11 49 57 28 2 3 0 0 14 42 CRP GH 12 977 172 462 33 9 0 7 94 152 CRP GH 13 328 113 54 8 16 0 0 60 198 CRP GH 14 33 17 10 1 2 0 3 5 14 CRP GH 15 492 345 282 31 33 2 10 157 246 CRP GH 16 495 570 243 19 43 0 9 281 279 CRP GH 17 200 217 244 49 34 0 2 76 110 CRP Midden 12 1 233 246 126 13 11 0 4 175 72 CRP Midden 12 2 205 221 86 11 4 0 6 197 63 CRP Midden 12 3 156 114 64 4 4 2 3 92 40 CRP Midden 12 4 195 140 88 13 7 0 5 153 57 CRP Midden 12 5 144 122 84 3 0 1 4 118 34 CRP Midden 12 6 261 303 135 21 11 2 3 250 85 CRP Roomblock 2 1128 259 101 12 34 2 0 227 395 CRP Roomblock 7 114 168 178 34 35 0 0 65 107 CRP Roomblock 15 58 10 3 0 13 0 0 5 10 CRP Roomblock 16 51 85 82 3 0 0 0 11 11 CRP “Great Kiva” 89 103 16 6 28 1 0 44 60 CRP “Anomaly” 46 28 16 0 7 0 0 9 9 CRP LA27381 48 12 25 3 3 0 0 11 11 CRP Midden 1 325 330 106 15 17 0 4 177 101

!

331

Cerro Pomo and Cox Ranch Excavation Area cont.

Unit Brown Jar

Smudged Bowl

Gray Jar

Puerco Black-on-red

Wingate Black-on-red/ Polychrome

Kiatuthlanna Black-on-white

Red Mesa Black-on-white

Puerco Black-on-white

Reserve Black-on-white

CRP Midden 2 6 15 14 0 1 0 0 12 2 CRP Midden 3 297 310 82 15 30 3 7 184 89 CRP Midden 5 33 5 15 2 1 1 0 26 12 CRP Midden 6 389 382 150 19 116 1 9 177 179 CRP Midden 7 232 269 112 19 29 1 4 82 108 CRP Midden 8 177 126 78 4 20 0 0 45 63 CRP Midden 9 18 9 8 1 1 0 0 7 0 CRP Midden 10 207 207 84 19 26 0 5 171 41 CRP Midden 11 267 293 205 28 40 0 1 145 158 CRP Midden 13 318 189 148 12 28 0 6 95 65 CRP Midden 15 401 471 233 41 48 1 15 379 212 CRP Midden 16 13 7 6 6 5 0 0 13 6

APPENDIX B:

CERAMIC TECHNOLOGICAL STYLE ANALYSIS

333

Table B1. Technological Measurements on Largo Gap Great House and Community Brown and Gray Sherds Sample ID

Spec Area Unit Level Locus Ware Type 3 cm Dimension

Coil Count

Indentation Count

Max Thickness (mm)

1 4753 Site 381 2x2 Quant B - 2 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 6 4 4

2 4753 Site 381 2x2 Quant B - 2 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 6 4 4

3 4753 Site 381 2x2 Quant B - 2 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Horizontal N/A 5 4

4 4753 Site 381 2x2 Quant B - 2 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 7 N/A 3

5 4753 Site 381 2x2 Quant B - 2 Brown Pattern Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Vertical 10 N/A 4.5

6 4753 Site 381 2x2 Quant B - 2 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 11 N/A 3 7 4753 Site 381 2x2 Quant B - 2 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Both 8 4 4 8 4753 Site 381 2x2 Quant B - 2 Brown Pattern Corrugated Brown Jar Yes 7 4 4.5 9 4753 Site 381 2x2 Quant B - 2 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Both 6 4 3

10 5068 LGGH 1 14 2 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Horizontal N/A 3 2

11 4751 Site 381 2x2 Quant A - 2 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar No N/A 4 3

12 4751 Site 381 2x2 Quant A - 2 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 8 N/A 3

13 4751 Site 381 2x2 Quant A - 2 Brown Pattern Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 10 4 5

14 4751 Site 381 2x2 Quant A - 2 Brown Pattern Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 9 N/A 4 15 4751 Site 381 2x2 Quant A - 2 Brown Pattern Corrugated Brown Jar Both 7 3 3.5 16 4751 Site 381 2x2 Quant A - 2 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 10 N/A 4 17 4751 Site 381 2x2 Quant A - 2 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 8 N/A 5 18 4751 Site 381 2x2 Quant A - 2 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 11 N/A 4 19 4751 Site 381 2x2 Quant A - 2 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 6 N/A 4 20 4751 Site 381 2x2 Quant A - 2 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 7 N/A 5 21 4751 Site 381 2x2 Quant A - 2 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Vertical 7 N/A 2 22 4751 Site 381 2x2 Quant A - 2 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Both 7 3 3 23 4751 Site 381 2x2 Quant A - 2 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Both 10 3 2 24 4749 Site 381 Diagnostic - 2 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Both 7 4 4 25 4749 Site 381 Diagnostic - 2 Brown Indented

Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl

Both 6 4 4

334

Sample ID Cont.

Spec Area Unit Level Locus Ware Type 3 cm Dimension

Coil Count

Indentation Count

Max Thickness (mm)

26 4749 Site 381 Diagnostic - 2 Brown Pattern Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 8 6 4

27 4749 Site 381 Diagnostic - 2 Brown Pattern Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 11 6 4

28 4543 Site 374 2x2 Quant B - 3 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 8 N/A 6 29 4486 LGGH 1 12 3 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Both 8 N/A 4

30 4486 LGGH 1 12 3 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Both 7 3 4

31 4486 LGGH 1 12 3 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Horizontal N/A 4 4

32 4394 LGGH 1 8 3 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Both 8 3 3

33 4466 LGGH 1 12 2 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 7 5 4

34 4420 LGGH 1 8 2 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Both 8 N/A 3 35 4390 LGGH 1 7 3 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 8 N/A 4

36 4390 LGGH 1 7 3 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Horizontal N/A 5 3.5

37 4390 LGGH 1 7 3 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 10 6 3.25

38 4377 LGGH 1 5 2 Brown Plain Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 10 N/A 5

39 4308 LGGH 1 5 3 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Both 9 4 3

40 4308 LGGH 1 5 3 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Both 8 5 3

41 4308 LGGH 1 5 3 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 9 4 3.5

42 4332 LGGH 1 5 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 8 5 3

43 4400 LGGH 1 6 2 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Both 9 4 3

44 4285 LGGH 1 6 3 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Both 7 6 3

45 4219 LGGH 1 4 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Both 12 6 3

46 5065 LGGH 1 1 7 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Both 6 4 3

47 5065 LGGH 1 14 7 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Horizontal N/A 5 3

335

Sample ID Cont.

Spec Area Unit Level Locus Ware Type 3 cm Dimension

Coil Count

Indentation Count

Max Thickness (mm)

48 5065 LGGH 1 14 7 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 9 4 3

49 5065 LGGH 1 14 7 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Horizontal N/A 3 4

50 5065 LGGH 1 14 7 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Both 8 4 4.25

51 5053 LGGH 1 14 6 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Both 8 3 3

52 5053 LGGH 1 14 6 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 11 5 4

53 4985 LGGH 1 12 6 Brown Pattern Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 10 4 3

54 4931 LGGH 1 12 7 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 11 4 4

55 4797 LGGH 1 11 6 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 8 4 4

56 4770 LGGH 1 8 6 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Horizontal N/A 4 3.5

57 4770 LGGH 1 8 6 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Horizontal N/A 3 3

58 4770 LGGH 1 8 6 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Both 9 N/A 4.75 59 4698 LGGH 1 7 7 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Both 9 N/A 5.25

60 4701 LGGH 1 7 8 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Horizontal N/A 4 5

61 4561 LGGH 1 3 7 Brown Plain Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 9 N/A 3.5

62 4646 LGGH 8 1 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 12 N/A 4

63 4646 LGGH 8 1 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Horizontal N/A 5 4

64 4646 LGGH 8 1 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Both 8 6 3.75

65 4737 LGGH 8 1 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Both 7 4 3.5

66 4745 LGGH 8 1 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Both 9 5 3

67 4745 LGGH 8 1 1

Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 9 4 3

336

Sample ID Cont.

Spec Area Unit Level Locus Ware Type 3 cm Dimension

Coil Count

Indentation Count

Max Thickness (mm)

68 5172 LGGH 9 2 2 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Both 6 4 3.5

69 5169 LGGH 9 2 2 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 10 4 4

70 5169 LGGH 9 2 2 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 11 5 5

71 5002 LGGH 9 2 2 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 9 5 4

72 5002 LGGH 9 2 2 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Both 9 5 3

73 5002 LGGH 9 3 2 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Both 10 3 3.5

74 5001 LGGH 9 1 3 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Both 8 3 3

75 5006 LGGH 9 5 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Both 8 3 3

76 5006 LGGH 9 5 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 10 5 3

77 5006 LGGH 9 5 1 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Both 6 4 2 78 5006 LGGH 9 5 1 Brown Pattern Corrugated Brown Jar Both 12 N/A 7 79 5006 LGGH 9 5 1 Brown Pattern Corrugated Brown Jar Both 10 3 7 80 5027 LGGH 9 6 1 Brown Pattern Corrugated Brown Jar Both 8 5 3.5

81 4912 LGGH 9 2 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Both 8 4 4

82 4933 LGGH 9 4 1 Brown Pattern Corrugated Brown Jar Both 11 N/A 3.25 83 4236 LGGH 3 1 1 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Both 6 3 3 84 4236 LGGH 3 1 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Both 8 N/A 3.5

85 4236 LGGH 3 1 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 13 5 3

86 4236 LGGH 3 1 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 14 N/A 3.5

87 4239 LGGH 3 2 1 Brown Pattern Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 9 N/A 3.5

88 4335 LGGH 3 4 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 11 N/A 3

89 4477 LGGH 2 8 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 12 N/A 4

90 4477 LGGH 2 8 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 9 4 4.5

337

Sample ID Cont.

Spec Area Unit Level Locus Ware Type 3 cm Dimension

Coil Count

Indentation Count

Max Thickness (mm)

91 4145 Site 352 1 0 1 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Vertical 7 N/A 2.5

92 4145 Site 352 1 0 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 9 5 3

93 4178 Site 334 1 0 0 Brown Pattern Corrugated Brown Jar Both 7 N/A 3.25

94 4474 LGGH 2 7 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 10 3 3

95 4749 Site 381 1 0 2 Brown Pattern Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Vertical 9 N/A 5

96 4150 Site 351 1 0 0 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Vertical 6 N/A 1.5 97 4168 Site 348 1 0 0 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Vertical 6 N/A 2.5 98 4168 Site 348 1 0 0 Brown Incised Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 7 N/A 3 99 4168 Site 348 1 0 0 Brown Incised Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 11 N/A 4

100 4168 Site 348 1 0 0 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 9 N/A 3.5 101 4143 Site 323 1 0 1 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Vertical 5 N/A 2 102 4143 Site 323 1 0 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Both 9 N/A 3

103 4143 Site 323 1 0 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Both 7 5 2.5

104 4143 Site 323 1 0 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Horizontal N/A 3 3.5

105 4143 Site 323 1 0 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Horizontal N/A 5 4

106 4143 Site 323 1 0 1 Brown Pattern Corrugated Brown Jar Both 8 4 4 107 4143 Site 323 1 0 1 Brown Pattern Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 8 N/A 3 108 4143 Site 323 1 0 1 Brown Pattern Corrugated Brown Jar Both 8 5 4 109 4143 Site 323 1 0 1 Brown Pattern Corrugated Brown Jar Both 7 3 4 110 4136 Site 336 1 0 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Both 9 N/A 3 111 4136 Site 336 1 0 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Both 6 N/A 5 112 4136 Site 336 1 0 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 8 N/A 2 113 4136 Site 336 1 0 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 8 N/A 3

114 4154 Site 322 1 0 0 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 5 2 4

115 4154 Site 322 1 0 0 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Both 5 4 3 116 4134 Site 338 1 0 0 Gray Plain Corrugated Gray Jar Both 3 N/A 3 117 4134 Site 338 1 0 0 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Both 5 N/A 4 118 4108 Site 315 1 0 2 Gray Plain Corrugated Gray Jar Vertical 7 N/A 3

338

Sample ID Cont.

Spec Area Unit Level Locus Ware Type 3 cm Dimension

Coil Count

Indentation Count

Max Thickness (mm)

119 4108 Site 315 1 0 2 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Horizontal N/A 4 2 120 4108 Site 315 1 0 2 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Horizontal N/A 4 3 121 4108 Site 315 1 0 2 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Horizontal N/A 5 2 122 4108 Site 315 1 0 2 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Horizontal N/A 4 2.75 123 4108 Site 315 1 0 2 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Horizontal N/A 4 2 124 4129 Site 328 1 0 0 Gray Plain Corrugated Gray Jar Both 2 N/A 3 125 4129 Site 328 1 0 0 Gray Plain Corrugated Gray Jar Both 4 N/A 3 126 4129 Site 328 1 0 0 Gray Plain Corrugated Gray Jar Both 7 N/A 4 127 4129 Site 328 1 0 0 Gray Plain Corrugated Gray Jar Both 3 N/A 3 128 4129 Site 328 1 0 0 Gray Plain Corrugated Gray Jar Both 4 N/A 1.5 129 4129 Site 328 1 0 0 Gray Plain Corrugated Gray Jar Both 6 N/A 1.5 130 4129 Site 328 1 0 0 Gray Plain Corrugated Gray Jar Vertical 3 N/A 3 131 4129 Site 328 1 0 0 Gray Plain Corrugated Gray Jar Vertical 4 N/A 4 132 4129 Site 328 1 0 0 Gray Incised Corrugated Gray Jar Both 3 N/A 2 133 4152 Site 320 1 0 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Both 5 N/A 3 134 4152 Site 320 1 0 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Both 5 N/A 3.5 135 4152 Site 320 1 0 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Both 7 N/A 2.75

136 4719 LGGH 5 6 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Both 11 5 3

137 4551 LGGH 5 1 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Both 9 N/A 3 138 4710 LGGH 4 3 3 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Both 9 N/A 3 139 4710 LGGH 4 3 3 Brown Pattern Corrugated Brown Jar Both 11 N/A 3

140 4710 LGGH 4 3 3 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 11 7 3.5

141 4783 LGGH 5 9 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 11 N/A 4.75

142 4728 LGGH 5 6 2 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 11 4 4

143 4728 LGGH 5 6 2 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 6 N/A 4 144 4728 LGGH 5 6 2 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Vertical 11 N/A 3 145 4868 LGGH 4 6 3 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Both 9 N/A 4

146 4964 LGGH 4 9 2 Brown Pattern Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 10 N/A 3

147 4584 LGGH 4 3 2 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Vertical 10 N/A 3

339

Sample ID Cont.

Spec Area Unit Level Locus Ware Type 3 cm Dimension

Coil Count

Indentation Count

Max Thickness (mm)

148 4584 LGGH 4 3 2 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Both 8 N/A 3 149 4685 LGGH 4 8 2 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Both 7 N/A 5 150 4774 LGGH 4 4 3 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Both 9 N/A 3

151 4588 LGGH 4 4 2 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Both 8 7 3

152 4588 LGGH 4 4 2 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Both 8 N/A 4

153 4588 LGGH 4 4 2 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 9 5 3

154 4588 LGGH 4 4 2 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Vertical 9 N/A 4

155 4588 LGGH 4 4 2 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 10 4 3

156 4588 LGGH 4 4 2 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 8 8 4

157 4707 LGGH 4 2 3 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 8 N/A 3.5

158 4535 LGGH 4 4 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Both 9 7 2.5

159 4842 LGGH 6 4 2 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 11 N/A 5 160 5235 LGGH 6 14 2 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Both 9 N/A 5 161 4805 LGGH 6 1 2 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Vertical 6 N/A 2

162 4805 LGGH 6 1 2 Brown Pattern Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 11 N/A 3.5

163 5257 LGGH 6 18 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Both 10 N/A 2

164 5262 LGGH 6 19

1 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Horizontal N/A 4 2 165 5262 LGGH 6 19 1 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Horizontal N/A 4 2 166 5262 LGGH 6 19 1 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Both 7 3 2.75 167 5131 LGGH 6 11 2 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Both 6 3 3 168 5131 LGGH 6 11 2 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Horizontal N/A 3 3 169 5131 LGGH 6 11 2 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Vertical 8 N/A 2 170 4838 LGGH 6 3 2 Gray Plain Corrugated Gray Jar Vertical 6 N/A 2

171 4838 LGGH 6 3 2 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Horizontal N/A 4 2.5

172 5141 LGGH 6 13 2 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Both 6 5 2.5

340

Sample ID Cont.

Spec Area Unit Level Locus Ware Type 3 cm Dimension

Coil Count

Indentation Count

Max Thickness (mm)

173 5239 LGGH 6 15 2 Brown Pattern Corrugated Brown Jar Both 9 N/A 5

174 5239 LGGH 6 15 2 Brown Plain Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Vertical 7 N/A 3

175 5122 LGGH 6 15 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Both 5 4 4

176 5088 LGGH 6 10 1 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Both 5 2 2.5 177 5088 LGGH 6 10 1 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Vertical 5 N/A 2.5 178 4042 Site 280 1 0 0 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Both 7 4 3 179 4044 Site 280 2 0 0 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 6 N/A 2 180 4044 Site 280 2 0 0 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Horizontal N/A 4 2.5 181 4069 Site 297 1 0 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Both 7 N/A 5.5 182 4069 Site 297 1 0 1 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Horizontal N/A 4 3.5

183 4069 Site 297 1 0 1 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Horizontal N/A 5 2.5

184 5228 LGGH 7 21 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 6 7 3

185 5228 LGGH 7 21 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 8 5 3

186 5228 LGGH 7 21 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Both 8 4 3.5

187 5228 LGGH 7 21 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 12 N/A 3.5

188 5224 LGGH 7 20 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Both 9 4 3

190 5277 LGGH 7 16 2 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Both 9 4 4

191 5277 LGGH 7 16 2 Brown Pattern Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 13 N/A 3.5

192 5271 LGGH 7 15 2 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 10 5 2.5

193 5271 LGGH 7 15 2 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 9 6 3

194 5266 LGGH 7 14 2 Brown Plain Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 10 N/A 3

195 5266 LGGH 7 14 2 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Both 9 4 2.75

196 5266 LGGH 7 14 2 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Both 8 N/A 3

341

Sample ID Cont.

Spec Area Unit Level Locus Ware Type 3 cm Dimension

Coil Count

Indentation Count

Max Thickness (mm)

197 5146 LGGH 7 15 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Both 9 3 3

198 5042 LGGH 7 14 1 Gray Plain Corrugated Gray Jar Vertical 5 N/A 3.5

199 5161 LGGH 7 12 1 Brown Pattern Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 10 7 4

200 4755 LGGH 7 7 1 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Horizontal 7 N/A 3.5 201 4973 LGGH 7 10 1 Brown Pattern Corrugated Brown Jar Both 10 5 3.5 202 4663 LGGH 7 4 1 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Both 5 3 2.5 203 4660 LGGH 7 3 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Both 7 N/A 4

204 5046 LGGH 7 10 2 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Horizontal N/A 5 3.75

205 4942 LGGH 7 7 2 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Both 8 N/A 2

206 4904 LGGH 7 5 2 Brown Pattern Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 10 4 3.5

207 4071 Site 291 1 0 0 Brown Pattern Corrugated Brown Jar Horizontal N/A 3 4 208 4071 Site 291 1 0 0 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Both 7 N/A 3 209 4115 Site 311 2 0 2 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Both 11 N/A 4 210 4115 Site 311 2 0 2 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 6 N/A 2 211 4094 Site 302 1 0 2 Gray Plain Corrugated Gray Jar Vertical 2 N/A 3 212 4080 Site 300 1 0 8 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Both 6 N/A 2.5 213 4108 Site 315 1 0 2 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Horizontal N/A 3 3 214 4108 Site 315 1 0 2 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Horizontal N/A 3 3.25 215 4108 Site 315 1 0 2 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Vertical 6 N/A 2.25

216 4108 Site 315 1 0 2 Brown Plain Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Vertical 9 N/A 3.5

217 4108 Site 315 1 0 2 Brown Pattern Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Horizontal N/A 4 2.75

218 4163 Site 318 1 0 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 8 N/A 3

219 4163 Site 318 1 0 1 Brown Pattern Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 10 6 4

220 4186 Site 364 1 0 1 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Both 8 5 3

221 4245 LGGH 1 4 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Both 7 5 4

222 4211 LGGH 1 2 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 10 N/A 3.5

342

Sample ID Cont.

Spec Area Unit Level Locus Ware Type 3 cm Dimension

Coil Count

Indentation Count

Max Thickness (mm)

223 5181 Site 300 3 2 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Both 2 N/A 3.5

224 5181 Site 300 3 2 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Both N/A 2 2.75

225 5184 Site 300 4 1 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 4 N/A 2.5 226 5336 Site 308 1 0 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 5 N/A 3 227 5338 Site 308 1 1 1 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Vertical 4 N/A 5 228 5338 Site 308 1 1 1 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Vertical 6 4 2 229 5338 Site 308 1 1 1 Gray Plain Corrugated Gray Jar Both 6 N/A 2.5 230 5338 Site 308 1 1 1 Gray Plain Corrugated Gray Jar Both 7 N/A 3 231 5338 Site 308 1 1 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Both 6 N/A 4

232 5338 Site 308 1 1 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 10 N/A 4

233 5338 Site 308 1 1 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 8 N/A 4

234 5338 Site 308 1 1 1 Brown Incised Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 9 N/A 5.5

235 5338 Site 308 1 1 1 Brown Incised Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Vertical 5 N/A 3.75

236 5338 Site 308 1 1 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Both 7 4 2.5

237 5338 Site 308 1 1 1 Brown Pattern Corrugated Brown Jar Both 8 N/A 5.5 238 5341 Site 308 2 0 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Both 9 N/A 3.5 239 5347 Site 308 3 1 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 4 N/A 2 240 5347 Site 308 3 1 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Both 8 N/A 3 241 5347 Site 308 3 1 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Both 8 N/A 2

242 5347 Site 308 3 1 1 Brown Incised Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Vertical 5 N/A 4.5

243 5352 Site 308 4 1 1 Brown Pattern Corrugated Brown Jar Both 8 N/A 3.5 244 5352 Site 308 4 1 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 9 N/A 2 245 5352 Site 308 4 1 1 Brown Incised Corrugated Brown Jar Horizontal N/A 3 3

246 5352 Site 308 4 1 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 7 4 3

247 5355 Site 308 5 0 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 6 N/A 3.5 248 5355 Site 308 5 0 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Both 7 N/A 4 249 5357 Site 308 5 1 1 Brown Incised Corrugated Brown Jar Both 10 N/A 4.5 250 5323 Site 311 3 2 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Both 8 N/A 3

343

Sample ID Cont.

Spec Area Unit Level Locus Ware Type 3 cm Dimension

Coil Count

Indentation Count

Max Thickness (mm)

251 5320 Site 311 3 1 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Horizontal N/A 3 3

252 5320 Site 311 3 1 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Horizontal N/A 3 4

253 5320 Site 311 3 1 1 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Horizontal N/A 4 2.5

254 5198 Site 318 1 1 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Horizontal N/A 5 3.5

255 5208 Site 318 4 0 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Both 9 N/A 4

256 5208 Site 318 4 0 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 10 N/A 4

257 5210 Site 318 4 0 1 Brown Pattern Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 7 4 3.5

258 5210 Site 318 4 1 1 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Vertical 7 N/A 2.75 259 5213 Site 318 5 0 1 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Both 5 4 3 260 5215 Site 318 5 1 1 Brown Pattern Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 10 N/A 3

261 5215 Site 318 5 1 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Horizontal N/A 4 3.25

262 5215 Site 318 5 1 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Horizontal N/A 6 4.75

263 5246 Site 323 1 1 1 Brown Pattern Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 7 N/A 2.75 264 5246 Site 323 1 1 1 Gray Plain Corrugated Gray Jar Both 5 N/A 3 265 5246 Site 323 1 1 1 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Vertical 5 N/A 2.5 266 5246 Site 323 1 1 1 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Horizontal N/A 5 3

267 5246 Site 323 1 1 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Horizontal N/A 3 3

268 5246 Site 323 1 1 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Horizontal N/A 5 4

269 5246 Site 323 1 1 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 8 N/A 3.75

270 5246 Site 323 1 1 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 7 N/A 4.25

271 5290 Site 323 2 1 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 9 N/A 3

272 5290 Site 323 2 1 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Both 11 N/A 4.5

273 5290 Site 323 2 1 1 Brown Pattern Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 11 N/A 3

274 5290 Site 323 2 1 1 Brown Pattern Corrugated Brown Jar Both 6 N/A 3.5 275 5290 Site 323 2 1 1 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Horizontal N/A 4 2

344

Sample ID Cont.

Spec Area Unit Level Locus Ware Type 3 cm Dimension

Coil Count

Indentation Count

Max Thickness (mm)

276 5290 Site 323 2 1 1 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Horizontal N/A 4 3 277 5290 Site 323 2 1 1 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Horizontal N/A 4 4 278 5293 Site 323 2 2 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Both 7 N/A 4 279 5293 Site 323 2 2 1 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Both 7 4 2 280 5299 Site 323 4 1 1 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Vertical 7 N/A 3.5

281 5299 Site 323 4 1 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Vertical 9 N/A 5

282 5299 Site 323 4 1 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Both 9 5 4.5

283 5299 Site 323 4 1 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 7 N/A 4 284 5308 Site 323 6 1 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Both 10 N/A 4

285 4305 LGGH Midden 3 4 1 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Both 4 3 2.75

286 5117 Site 300 1 2 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Both 7 N/A 2.25 287 5117 Site 300 1 2 1 Gray Clapboard Corrugated Gray Jar Both 5 N/A 2.5 288 5117 Site 300 1 2 1 Brown Incised Corrugated Brown Jar Both 7 N/A 1.75

289 4289 LGGH Midden 3 2 1

Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Both 7 4 2

290 4289 LGGH Midden 3 2 1

Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 6 4 4

291 4269 LGGH Midden 3 1 1

Brown Plain Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 11 N/A 4.75

292 4269 LGGH Midden 3 1 1

Brown Plain Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 9 N/A 5

293 4269 LGGH Midden 3 1 1

Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Horizontal N/A 4 4

294 4269 LGGH Midden 3 1 1 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Horizontal N/A 3 1

295 4269 LGGH Midden 3 1 1 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Horizontal N/A 3 2

296 4208 LGGH Midden 2 1 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Both 8 N/A 3.5

297 4208 LGGH Midden 2 1 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Both 9 N/A 4

298 4208 LGGH Midden 2 1 1

Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Horizontal N/A 4 3.5

345

Sample ID Cont.

Spec Area Unit Level Locus Ware Type 3 cm Dimension

Coil Count

Indentation Count

Max Thickness (mm)

299 4208 LGGH Midden 2 1 1

Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Both 7 5 2

300 4208 LGGH Midden 2 1 1

Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 5 3 3

301 4208 LGGH Midden 2 1 1 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Both 5 4 2

302 4357 LGGH Midden 4 1 1

Brown Pattern Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 9 4 3

303 4385 LGGH Midden 4 2 1

Brown Pattern Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 9 4 3.5

304 4385 LGGH Midden 4 2 1

Brown Plain Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 10 N/A 4

305 4388 LGGH Midden 4 2-3 1

Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Both 7 6 1.5

306 4388 LGGH Midden 4 2-3 1

Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Both 6 5 1

307 4438 LGGH Midden 5 0 1

Brown Plain Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Vertical 12 N/A 3

308 4438 LGGH Midden 5 0 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 9 N/A 4.75

309 4459 LGGH Midden 7 1 1

Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Horizontal N/A 6 3

310 4459 LGGH Midden 7 1 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 10 N/A 3.75

311 4459 LGGH Midden 7 1 1

Brown Pattern Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 10 3 5

312 4459 LGGH Midden 7 1 1

Brown Pattern Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 13 6 4.5

313 4454 LGGH Midden 6 3 1 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Both 6 4 3

314 4454 LGGH Midden 6 3 1

Brown Pattern Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 9 N/A 3.25

315 4454 LGGH Midden 6 3 1

Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 7 5 4

316 4448 LGGH Midden 6 1 1

Brown Plain Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Vertical 8 N/A 3

317 4448 LGGH Midden 6 1 1

Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 7 N/A 4

346

Sample ID Cont.

Spec Area Unit Level Locus Ware Type 3 cm Dimension

Coil Count

Indentation Count

Max Thickness (mm)

318 4448 LGGH Midden 6 1 1

Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Horizontal N/A 4 4

319 4409 LGGH Midden 1 17 1 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Both 6 3 3

320 4409 LGGH Midden 1 17 1

Brown Pattern Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 10 3 3

321 4409 LGGH Midden 1 17 1

Brown Pattern Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 8 5 4

322 4409 LGGH Midden 1 17 1

Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 8 4 4

323 4409 LGGH Midden 1 17 1

Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 9 N/A 3.75

324 4409 LGGH Midden 1 17 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Both 11 N/A 3

325 4409 LGGH Midden 1 17 1

Brown Plain Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 8 N/A 4

326 4325 LGGH Midden 1 12 1 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Vertical 5 N/A 2.25

327 4325 LGGH Midden 1 12 1 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Horizontal N/A 3 1.75

328 4325 LGGH Midden 1 12 1

Brown Plain Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Vertical 6 N/A 3.25

329 4325 LGGH Midden 1 12 1

Brown Plain Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 15 N/A 4

330 4325 LGGH Midden 1 12 1

Brown Plain Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 15 N/A 3

331 4325 LGGH Midden 1 12 1

Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 10 5 3.5

332 4325 LGGH Midden 1 12 1

Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 10 6 3

333 4325 LGGH Midden 1 12 1

Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 6 4 4

334 4303 LGGH Midden 1 10 1

Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 8 5 3.25

335 4303 LGGH Midden 1 10 1

Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 9 5 3

336 4303 LGGH Midden 1 10 1

Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 10 4 3.5

347

Sample ID Cont.

Spec Area Unit Level Locus Ware Type 3 cm Dimension

Coil Count

Indentation Count

Max Thickness (mm)

337 4303 LGGH Midden 1 10 1

Brown Pattern Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 9 5 3

338 4303 LGGH Midden 1 10 1

Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Horizontal N/A 6 2.25

339 4303 LGGH Midden 1 10 1

Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Both 7 4 4.25

340 4299 LGGH Midden 1 9 1

Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 8 7 3

341 4277 LGGH Midden 1 8 1

Brown Pattern Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Vertical 11 N/A 2

342 4262 LGGH Midden 1 6 1

Brown Plain Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 8 N/A 3

343 4262 LGGH Midden 1 6 1 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Horizontal N/A 4 3

344 4249 LGGH Midden 1 5 1

Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 9 5 3.5

345 4249 LGGH Midden 1 5 1

Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 9 3 4

346 4204 LGGH Midden 1 1 1

Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Both 6 3 3.5

347 4204 LGGH Midden 1 1 1

Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 11 5 4

348 4204 LGGH Midden 1 1 1

Brown Pattern Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 9 6 4

349 4204 LGGH Midden 1 1 1

Brown Pattern Corrugated Smudged

Brown Bowl Both 8 N/A 4

350 4441 LGGH Midden 5 1 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Both 9 N/A 3

351 4441 LGGH Midden 5 1 1 Brown Pattern Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 7 N/A 2.75

348

Table B2. Technological Measurements on Cerro Pomo Great House and Community Brown and Gray Sherds Sample ID

Spec Area Unit Level Locus Ware Type 3 cm Dimension

Coil Count

Indentation Count

Max Thickness (mm)

1 2949 CPGH 6 2 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Bowl Vertical 11 N/A 8.1

2 2949 CPGH 6 2 1 Brown Plain Brown Bowl N/A N/A N/A 4.8

3 2949 CPGH 6 2 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Bowl Both 10 5 6.1

4 2949 CPGH 6 2 1 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Both 8 4 5.1

5 2949 CPGH 6 2 1 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Both 2 5 5.1

6 2949 CPGH 8 1 1 Gray Other Gray Jar Vertical 3 N/A 5.7

7 2981 CPGH 8 1 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Bowl Vertical 10 N/A 5.3

8 2981 CPGH 8 1 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Bowl Vertical 11 N/A 8.3

9 2981 CPGH 8 1 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Both 8 6 5.2

10 2981 CPGH 8 1 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Both 7 4 7.5

11 2981 CPGH 8 1 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 10 N/A 6.4

12 2919 CPGH 6 0 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Both 6 5 7.5

13 2997 CPGH 8 3 1 Brown Smudged Brown Bowl N/A N/A N/A 6.2

14 2997 CPGH 8 3 1 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Both 9 5 5.5

15 3101 CPGH 4 7 2 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Bowl Vertical 7 N/A 5

16 3070 CPGH 6 7 2 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Bowl Both 7 5 5.9

17 3051 CPGH 6 6 2 Brown Plain Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Vertical 10 N/A 6.1

18 2984 CPGH 8 2 1

Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Bowl Both 11 4 6.2

19 2920 CPGH 6 1 1

Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Both 8 5 6.6

349

Sample ID Cont.

Spec Area Unit Level Locus Ware Type 3 cm Dimension

Coil Count

Indentation Count

Max Thickness (mm)

20 2920 CPGH 6 1 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Bowl Vertical 9 N/A 5.6

21 2920 CPGH 6 1 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Vertical 14 N/A 6.7

22 2924 CPGH 5 2 0 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Bowl Both 7 4 6.1

23 2924 CPGH 5 2 0 Brown Plain Brown Jar N/A N/A N/A 6.85

24 3100 CPGH 5 5 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Bowl Both 7 3 6.2

25 3100 CPGH 5 5 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Both 7 5 6.5

26 2940 CPGH 4 1 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Both 5 4 6.25

27 2954 CPGH 5 3 0 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Both 6 4 6.8

28 3109 CPGH 9 3 0 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Both 7 4 6.95

29 2939 CPGH 4 0 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Both 7 5 6.1

30 3040 CPGH 6 5 1 Brown Indented corrugated Brown Bowl Horizontal N/A 4 5.05

31 3040 CPGH 6 5 1 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Both 7 3 6.35

32 3028 CPGH 4 3 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Bowl Both 9 4 5.3

33 3028 CPGH 4 3 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Bowl Vertical 8 N/A 4.95

34 3060 CPGH 4 5 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Both 9 5 6.5

35 3060 CPGH 4 5 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Both 5 5 4.7

36 3060 CPGH 4 5 1

Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Both 10 5 6.9

37 3085 CPGH 5 4 0 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Bowl Both 7 5 5.5

38 3085 CPGH 5 4 0

Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Both 6 5 5.8

350

Sample ID Cont.

Spec Area Unit Level Locus Ware Type 3 cm Dimension

Coil Count

Indentation Count

Max Thickness (mm)

39 3022 CPGH 9 2 0 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Both 11 5 6.7

40 3022 CPGH 9 2 0 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Bowl Horizontal N/A 5 7.1

41 3139 CPGK 1 2 1 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Both 7 3 7.3

42 3112 CPGH 9 4 0 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Both 9 4 6.5

43 3112 CPGH 9 4 0 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Bowl Horizontal N/A 5 5.4

44 3112 CPGH 9 4 0 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Bowl Horizontal N/A 4 5.5

45 3132 CPGH 9 5 0 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Bowl Both 10 4 4.7

46 3132 CPGH 9 5 0 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Both 9 4 6

47 3132 CPGH 9 5 0 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Bowl Both 9 5 7.4

48 3132 CPGH 9 5 0 Brown Patterned Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Both 10 5 6.4

49 3315 NM-02-963 0 0 2 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Both 6 3 4.7

50 3315 NM-02-964 0 0 2 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Bowl Horizontal N/A 3 6.7

51 3315 NM-02-965 0 0 2 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Bowl Vertical 4 N/A 6.1

52 3288 NM-02-967 3 2 1

Brown Plain Corrugated Smudged Worked Brown Bowl Vertical 4 N/A 6.5

53 3284 NM-02-967 1 1 1

Brown Patterned Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Vertical 8 N/A 6

54 3284 NM-02-967 1 1 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 5 N/A 6.4

55 3316 NM-02-967 1 2 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Bowl Both 6 3 7.3

56 3357 NM-02-967 3 1 1

Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Bowl Vertical 3 N/A 7.7

351

Sample ID Cont.

Spec Area Unit Level Locus Ware Type 3 cm Dimension

Coil Count

Indentation Count

Max Thickness (mm)

57 3166 Site162 0 0 2 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Bowl Vertical 6 N/A 6.15

58 3166 Site 162 0 0 2 Brown Patterned Corrugated Brown Bowl Vertical 6 N/A 7.2

59 3161 Site 163 0 0 2 Gray Plain Corrugated Gray Jar Vertical 4 N/A 5.6

60 3153 Site 155 0 0 4 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Bowl Vertical 9 N/A 5.7

61 3153 Site 155 0 0 4 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Bowl Vertical 6 N/A 7.3

62 3153 Site 155 0 0 4 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Bowl Horizontal N/A 5 5.4

63 3153 Site 155 0 0 4 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Horizontal N/A 4 7.25

64 3159 Site 161 0 0 1 Brown Patterned Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Vertical 7 N/A 6.05

65 3159 Site 161 0 0 1 Brown Incised Corrugated Brown Bowl Vertical 7 N/A 6.55

66 3159 Site 161 0 0 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Bowl Vertical 7 N/A 4.65

67 3159 Site 161 0 0 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Bowl Vertical 8 N/A 6.1

68 3159 Site 161 0 0 1 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Horizontal N/A 4 5.05

69 3159 Site 161 0 0 1 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Horizontal N/A 3 6.1

70 3164 Site 164 0 0 2 Brown Incised Corrugated Brown Bowl Vertical 5 N/A 4.9

71 3164 Site 164 0 0 2 Brown Incised Corrugated Brown Bowl Vertical 6 N/A 6.5

72 3164 Site 164 0 0 2 Brown Incised Corrugated Brown Bowl Vertical 5 N/A 6.55

73 3164 Site 164 0 0 2 Brown Other Corrugated Brown Bowl Vertical 9 N/A 8.05

74 3164 Site 164 0 0 2 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Both 6 4 4.35

75 3164 Site 164 0 0 2

Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Both 6 4 5.15

352

Sample ID Cont.

Spec Area Unit Level Locus Ware Type 3 cm Dimension

Coil Count

Indentation Count

Max Thickness (mm)

76 3144 Site 165 0 0 2 Brown Patterned Corrugated Brown Bowl Vertical 4 N/A 6.75

77 3144 Site 165 0 0 2 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Both 6 4 7.1

78 3144 Site 165 0 0 2 Brown Plain Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Vertical 5 N/A 5.65

79 3144 Site 165 0 0 2 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Bowl Both 4 3 6.1

80 3143 Site 165 0 0 2 Brown Incised Corrugated Brown Bowl Vertical 5 N/A 5.25

81 3143 Site 165 0 0 2 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Bowl Vertical 9 N/A 7.45

82 2913 CPGH 1 1 1 Brown Patterned Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Vertical 9 N/A 7.4

83 2913 CPGH 1 1 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Vertical 7 N/A 5.45

84 3012 CPGH 6 4 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Both 10 3 6.3

85 3012 CPGH 6 4 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Bowl Both 9 4 5.8

86 3012 CPGH 6 4 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Bowl Both 9 5 5.5

87 3045 CPGH 4 4 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Bowl Vertical 10 N/A 7.15

88 3045 CPGH 4 4 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Bowl Horizontal N/A 4 6.95

89 3045 CPGH 4 4 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Bowl Both 10 3 6.2

90 3045 CPGH 4 4 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Bowl Both 8 4 5.75

91 3127 CPGH 3 6 2 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Both 8 4 6.7

92 3091 CPGH 4 6 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Both 8 3 6.65

93 3091 CPGH 4 6 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Both 9 4 5.7

94 3091 CPGH 4 6 1

Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Bowl Vertical 8 N/A 6.65

353

Sample ID Cont.

Spec Area Unit Level Locus Ware Type 3 cm Dimension

Coil Count

Indentation Count

Max Thickness (mm)

95 2948 CPGH 1 2 1 Brown Patterned Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Vertical 7 N/A 6.25

96 2948 CPGH 1 2 1 Brown Patterned Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Vertical 9 N/A 6.45

97 2948 CPGH 1 2 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Vertical 10 N/A 6.85

98 3105 CPGH 3 6 5 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Both 10 5 6.7

99 2896 CPGH 2 1 0 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Both 10 5 5.9

100 3650 NM-02-969 6 2 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Bowl Vertical 6 N/A 6.15

101 3147 Site 171 0 0 4 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Bowl Vertical 8 N/A 7.8

102 3149 Site 173 0 0 2 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Both 8 3 5.85

103 3149 Site 173 0 0 2 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 6 N/A 7.3

104 3142 Site 172 0 0 4 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Both 3 3 4.3

105 3178 Site 174 0 11 Brown Plain Smudged Corrugated Brown Bowl Vertical 12 N/A 6.9

106 3178 Site 174 0 11 Brown Patterned Corrugated Brown Bowl Both 10 4 5.95

107 3178 Site 174 0 11 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Bowl Horizontal N/A 6 6.2

108 3155 Site 166 0 0 2 Brown Plain Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Vertical 8 N/A 5.85

109 3155 Site 166 0 0 2 Brown Plain Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Vertical 8 N/A 5.7

110 3155 Site 166 0 0 2 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Bowl Vertical 9 N/A 5.8

111 3155 Site 166 0 0 2 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Both 6 4 5.7

112 3157 Site 166 0 0 2 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Horizontal N/A 4 5.5

113 3196 Site 184 0 0 2

Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Horizontal N/A 4 7.1

354

Sample ID Cont.

Spec Area Unit Level Locus Ware Type 3 cm Dimension

Coil Count

Indentation Count

Max Thickness (mm)

114 3196 Site 184 0 0 2 Brown Patterned Corrugated Brown Bowl Vertical 10 N/A 7.3

115 3196 Site 184 0 0 2 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Both 4 3 5.3

116 3246 Site 190 0 0 6 Brown Patterned Corrugated Brown Bowl Vertical 7 N/A 4.9

117 3246 Site 190 0 0 6 Brown Patterned Corrugated Brown Bowl Vertical 7 N/A 5.1

118 3246 Site 190 0 0 6 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Bowl Vertical 7 N/A 5.9

119 3246 Site 190 0 0 6 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Bowl Vertical 8 N/A 6.7

120 3189 Site 174 0 0 17 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Bowl Horizontal N/A 5 7.05

121 3189 Site 174 0 0 17 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Bowl Vertical 8 N/A 6.3

122 3198 Site 187 0 0 4 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Bowl Vertical 5 N/A 7.4

123 3198 Site 187 0 0 4 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Vertical 4 N/A 5.4

124 2913 CPGH 1 1 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Both 10 5 6.3

125 2913 CPGH 1 1 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Both 12 4 6.7

126 2913 CPGH 1 1 1 Brown Patterned Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Vertical 6 N/A 8.2

127 2913 CPGH 1 1 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 10 N/A 7.7

128 2948 CPGH 1 2 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 7 N/A 7.5

129 2948 CPGH 1 2 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Bowl Horizontal N/A 4 7.75

130 2948 CPGH 1 2 1 Brown Patterned Corrugated Brown Bowl Vertical 6 N/A 7.85

131 2948 CPGH 1 2 1 Brown Patterned Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Vertical 8 N/A 7.5

132 2948 CPGH 1 2 1

Brown Patterned Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Vertical 10 N/A 6.4

355

Sample ID Cont.

Spec Area Unit Level Locus Ware Type 3 cm Dimension

Coil Count

Indentation Count

Max Thickness (mm)

133 2948 CPGH 1 2 1 Brown Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Vertical 12 N/A 6.3

134 2948 CPGH 1 2 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Both 11 5 8.1

135 2896 CPGH 2 1 0 Brown Plain Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Vertical 10 N/A 6.1

136 2896 CPGH 2 1 0 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Bowl Vertical 10 N/A 6.5

137 2896 CPGH 2 1 0 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Horizontal N/A 4 6.9

138 2896 CPGH 2 1 0 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Bowl Both 7 5 5.9

139 2896 CPGH 2 1 0 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Horizontal N/A 5 5.95

140 2908 CPGH 2 3 0 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Bowl Vertical 9 N/A 6.5

141 2930 CPGH 2 3 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Bowl Horizontal N/A 3 6.55

142 2905 CPGH 2 2 0 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Both 7 5 6.3

143 2960 CPGH 3 1 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Bowl Vertical 10 N/A 6.3

144 3105 CPGH 3 6 5 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Vertical 9 N/A 6.8

145 3105 CPGH 3 6 5 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Bowl Both 9 5 7.05

146 2940 CPGH 4 1 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Bowl Both 9 4 5.85

147 2940 CPGH 4 1 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Both 10 5 6.3

148 2940 CPGH 4 1 1 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Both 7 3 6.1

149 3665 NM-02-969 4 1 1 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Both 5 3 5.7

150 3665 NM-02-969 4 1 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 9 N/A 7.8

151 3665 NM-02-969 4 1 1

Brown Plain Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Vertical 10 N/A 6.05

356

Sample ID Cont.

Spec Area Unit Level Locus Ware Type 3 cm Dimension

Coil Count

Indentation Count

Max Thickness (mm)

152 3593 NM-02-969 3 1 1 Brown Patterned Corrugated Brown Bowl Vertical 8 N/A 7.05

153 3593 NM-02-969 3 1 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Bowl Both 11 7 6.9

154 3593 NM-02-969 3 1 1 Brown Incised Corrugated Brown Bowl Vertical 5 N/A 6.5

155 3650 NM-02-969 6 2 1 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Both 7 3 5.1

156 3650 NM-02-969 6 2 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 6 N/A 5.6

157 3650 NM-02-969 6 2 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Vertical 5 N/A 5.7

158 3650 NM-02-969 6 2 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 10 N/A 6.5

159 3594 NM-02-969 3 2 1 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Both 5 3 5.3

160 3594 NM-02-969 3 2 1 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Horizontal N/A 3 4.4

161 3676 NM-02-969 4 2 1 Brown Patterned Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Vertical 8 N/A 6.1

162 3676 NM-02-969 4 2 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Vertical 14 N/A 6.1

163 3668 NM-02-969 6 1 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Bowl Vertical 4 N/A 6.1

164 3586 NM-02-969 1 1 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Vertical 9 N/A 6.6

165 3598 NM-02-969 2 1 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Bowl Vertical 8 N/A 8.1

166 2670 CP Midden 1 1 1 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Bowl Both 5 3 7.1

167 2670 CP Midden 1 1 1 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Bowl Both 6 5 7.1

168 2670 CP Midden 1 1 1 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Bowl Vertical 6 N/A 6.4

169 2670 CP Midden 1 1 1 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Vertical 7 N/A 8.5

170 2695 CP Midden 1 1 2 1

Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Horizontal N/A 4 6.9

357

Sample ID Cont.

Spec Area Unit Level Locus Ware Type 3 cm Dimension

Coil Count

Indentation Count

Max Thickness (mm)

171 2695 CP Midden 1 1 2 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Bowl Vertical 12 N/A 6.4

172 2695 CP Midden 1 1 2 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Bowl Vertical 6 N/A 6.2

173 2695 CP Midden 1 1 2 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Bowl Vertical 12 N/A 6.85

174 2695 CP Midden 1 1 2 1 Gray Indented Corrugated Brown Bowl Vertical 6 N/A 6.1

175 2661 CP Midden 1 2 1 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Bowl Both 6 3 5.7

176 2661 CP Midden 1 2 1 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Horizontal N/A 4 7.6

177 2682 CP Midden 1 2 2 1 Brown indented Corrugated Brown Bowl Both 7 4 7.3

178 2667 CP Midden 1 3 1 1 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Horizontal N/A 3 6.9

179 2677 CP Midden 1 3 2 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Bowl Both 10 6 6.9

180 2691 CP Midden 1 3 3 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Bowl Vertical 7 N/A 7.4

181 2691 CP Midden 1 3 3 1 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Both 7 5 4.3

182 2687 CP Midden 1 4 1 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Bowl Both 7 4 7.1

183 2687 CP Midden 1 4 1 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Vertical 9 N/A 7.3

184 2687 CP Midden 1 4 1 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Both 8 5 6.2

185 2687 CP Midden 1 4 1 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Bowl Vertical 5 N/A 6.6

186 2687 CP Midden 1 4 1 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Both 9 4 6.5

187 2706 CP Midden 1 4 2 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Vertical 10 N/A 5.6

188 2658 CP Midden 1 5 1 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 6 N/A 7.8

189 2658 CP Midden 1 5 1 1

Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Both 7 4 6.1

358

Sample ID Cont.

Spec Area Unit Level Locus Ware Type 3 cm Dimension

Coil Count

Indentation Count

Max Thickness (mm)

190 2701 CP Midden 2 1 1 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Horizontal N/A 5 5.2

191 2701 CP Midden 2 1 1 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Both 9 6 6.6

192 2701 CP Midden 2 1 1 1 Brown Patterned Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Vertical 6 N/A N/A

193 2701 CP Midden 2 1 1 1 Brown Patterned Corrugated Brown Bowl Vertical 8 N/A 7.2

194 2701 CP Midden 2 1 1 1 Brown Patterned Corrugated Brown Jar Both 10 7 7.7

195 2701 CP Midden 2 1 1 1 Brown Patterned Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Vertical 8 N/A 6.8

196 2701 CP Midden 2 1 1 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Bowl Vertical 5 N/A 7.1

197 2711 CP Midden 2 1 2 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Vertical 10 N/A 6.5

198 2711 CP Midden 2 1 2 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 7 N/A 6.8

199 2711 CP Midden 2 1 2 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Bowl Vertical 10 N/A 6.9

200 2711 CP Midden 2 1 2 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Bowl Vertical 11 N/A 5.7

201 2728 CP Midden 2 1 3 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged Brown Jar Horizontal N/A 4 7.95

202 2728 CP Midden 2 1 3 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 7 N/A 7.9

203 2728 CP Midden 2 1 3 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Horizontal N/A 5 6.3

204 2724 CP Midden 2 2 2 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 7 N/A 6.8

205 2724 CP Midden 2 2 2 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Bowl Vertical 8 N/A 6.5

206 2738 CP Midden 2 2 3 1 Brown Patterned Corrugated Brown Bowl Vertical 8 N/A 6.6

207 2722 CP Midden 2 3 0 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Vertical 6 N/A 7.7

208 2754 CP Midden 2 2 4 1

Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Horizontal N/A 3 7.8

359

Sample ID Cont.

Spec Area Unit Level Locus Ware Type 3 cm Dimension

Coil Count

Indentation Count

Max Thickness (mm)

209 2754 CP Midden 2 2 4 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Both 9 5 6.4

210 2754 CP Midden 2 2 4 1 Brown Patterned Corrugated Brown Bowl Vertical 2 N/A 7.3

211 2754 CP Midden 2 2 4 1 Brown Patterned Corrugated Brown Bowl Vertical 5 N/A 8.5

212 2754 CP Midden 2 2 4 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Both 11 6 5.3

213 2766 CP Midden 2 2 5 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Both 11 6 6.4

214 2766 CP Midden 2 2 5 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Both 6 3 7.8

215 2743 CP Midden 2 3 1 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 7 N/A 6.6

216 2743 CP Midden 2 3 1 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Bowl Vertical 5 N/A 5.9

217 2743 CP Midden 2 3 1 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 6 N/A 7.8

218 2743 CP Midden 2 3 1 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 8 N/A 5.95

219 2743 CP Midden 2 3 1 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Vertical 6 N/A 6.2

220 2743 CP Midden 2 3 1 1 Brown Patterned Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Vertical 9 N/A 6.4

221 2743 CP Midden 2 3 1 1 Brown Patterned Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Vertical 7 N/A 6.3

222 2743 CP Midden 2 3 1 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Both 9 4 6.7

223 2743 CP Midden 2 3 1 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Both 6 3 6.2

224 2743 CP Midden 2 3 1 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Both 6 3 7.5

225 2743 CP Midden 2 3 1 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Both 7 5 6.7

226 2779 CP Midden 2 3 3 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 6 N/A 7.5

227 2779 CP Midden 2 3 2 1

Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Bowl Vertical 6 N/A 7.1

360

Sample ID Cont.

Spec Area Unit Level Locus Ware Type 3 cm Dimension

Coil Count

Indentation Count

Max Thickness (mm)

228 2779 CP Midden 2 3 2 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Vertical 9 N/A 6.5

229 2812 CP Midden 2 3 5 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 6 N/A 7.3

230 2812 CP Midden 2 3 5 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Bowl Vertical 7 N/A 6.5

231 2769 CP Midden 2 3 2 1 Brown Patterned Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 8 N/A 6.6

232 2769 CP Midden 2 3 2 1 Brown Patterned Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Vertical 6 N/A 6.6

233 2769 CP Midden 2 3 2 1 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Both 6 5 6.4

234 2779 CP Midden 2 3 3 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Vertical 9 N/A 6.1

235 2779 CP Midden 2 3 3 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Both 5 5 5.5

236 2779 CP Midden 2 3 3 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Both 6 3 5.8

237 2794 CP Midden 2 3 4 1 Brown Incised Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 6 N/A 6.5

238 2794 CP Midden 2 3 4 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Both 7 3 6.3

239 2794 CP Midden 2 3 4 1 Brown Patterned Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Vertical 7 N/A 6.8

240 2794 CP Midden 2 3 4 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Bowl Vertical 4 N/A 6.9

241 2799 CP Midden 2 5 4 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Both 5 3 7.2

242 2772 CP Midden 2 3 3 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Both 5 3 6.8

243 2817 CP Midden 2 1 3 4 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Both 8 5 6.8

244 2817 CP Midden 2 1 3 4 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 5 N/A 6.1

245 2763 CP Midden 2 5 2 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 7 N/A 6.4

246 2763 CP Midden 2 5 2 1

Brown Patterned Corrugated Brown Bowl Vertical 9 N/A 6.7

361

Sample ID Cont.

Spec Area Unit Level Locus Ware Type 3 cm Dimension

Coil Count

Indentation Count

Max Thickness (mm)

247 2763 CP Midden 2 5 2 1 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Both 6 5 5.4

248 2763 CP Midden 2 5 2 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Both 7 4 6.9

249 2799 CP Midden 2 5 4 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 6 N/A 5.8

250 2799 CP Midden 2 5 4 1 Brown Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Vertical 7 N/A 5.7

251 2799 CP Midden 2 5 4 1 Brown Incised Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 6 N/A 6.85

252 2815 CP Midden 2 8 0 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Horizontal N/A 3 5.4

253 2808 CP Midden 2 6 2 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Vertical 12 N/A 8.3

254 2808 CP Midden 2 6 2 1 Brown Patterned Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Vertical 9 N/A 7.7

255 2832 CP Midden 2 6 3 1 Brown Incised Corrugated Smudged Brown Jar Vertical 6 N/A 6.2

256 2832 CP Midden 2 6 3 1 Brown Incised Corrugated Smudged Brown Jar Vertical 7 N/A 4.9

257 2823 CP Midden 2 7 3 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Both 5 4 5.6

258 2823 CP Midden 2 7 3 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Vertical 9 N/A 6.2

259 2823 CP Midden 2 7 3 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Bowl Vertical 6 N/A 5.6

260 2885 CP Midden 2 8 2 1 Gray Indented Corrugated Gray Jar Both 6 4 5.2

261 2885 CP Midden 2 8 2 1 Brown Patterned Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 9 N/A 5.9

262 2837 CP Midden 2 8 1 1 Brown Indented Corrugated Brown Jar Both 5 4 6.5

263 2837 CP Midden 2 8 1 1 Brown Patterned Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Vertical 4 N/A 7.6

264 2837 CP Midden 2 8 1 1 Brown Patterned Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Vertical 11 N/A 6.5

265 2837 CP Midden 2 8 1 1

Brown Plain Corrugated Smudged Brown Bowl Vertical 10 N/A 6.6

362

Sample ID Cont.

Spec Area Unit Level Locus Ware Type 3 cm Dimension

Coil Count

Indentation Count

Max Thickness (mm)

266 2837 CP Midden 2 8 1 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 7 N/A 8.7

267 2837 CP Midden 2 8 1 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 6 N/A 6.1

268 2837 CP Midden 2 8 1 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 8 N/A 8.9

269 2837 CP Midden 2 8 1 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 7 N/A 6.3

270 2837 CP Midden 2 8 1 1 Brown Plain Corrugated Brown Jar Vertical 8 N/A 7.4

APPENDIX C:

INAA COMPOSITIONAL ANALYSIS

364

Table C1a. Descriptive INAA Sample Information Sample

ID Community Site Ware Type Form Clay ID

AID755 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo GH Gray - Jar AID756 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Gray - Jar AID757 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Gray - Jar AID758 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Gray - Jar AID759 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Gray - Jar AID760 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Gray - Jar AID761 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Gray - Jar AID762 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Gray - Jar AID763 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Gray - Jar AID764 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Gray - Jar AID765 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Gray - Jar AID766 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Gray - Jar AID767 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Gray - Jar AID768 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Gray - Jar AID769 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Gray - Jar AID770 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Gray - Jar AID771 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Gray - Jar AID772 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Gray - Jar AID773 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Gray - Jar AID774 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Gray - Jar AID775 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Gray - Jar AID776 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Gray - Jar AID777 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Gray - Jar AID778 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Gray - Jar AID779 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Gray - Jar AID780 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Gray - Jar AID781 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Brown - Jar AID782 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Brown - Jar AID783 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Brown - Jar AID784 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Brown - Jar AID785 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Brown - Jar AID786 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Brown - Jar AID787 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Brown - Jar AID788 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Brown - Jar AID789 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Brown - Jar AID790 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Brown - Jar AID791 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Brown - Jar AID792 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Brown - Jar AID793 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Brown - Jar AID794 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Brown - Jar AID795 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Brown - Jar AID796 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Brown - Jar AID797 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Brown - Jar AID798 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Brown - Jar AID799 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Brown - Jar AID800 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Brown - Jar

365

Sample ID cont. Community Site Ware Type Form Clay

ID AID801 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Brown - Jar AID802 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Brown - Jar AID803 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Brown - Jar AID804 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Brown - Jar AID805 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Plain Corrugated Bowl AID806 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Plain Corrugated Jar AID807 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Patterned Corrugated Jar AID808 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Indented Corrugated Jar AID809 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Plain Corrugated Jar AID810 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Plain Corrugated Jar AID811 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Plain Corrugated Jar AID812 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Indented Corrugated Bowl AID813 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Plain Corrugated Jar AID814 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Plain Corrugated Jar AID815 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Plain Corrugated Bowl AID816 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Plain Corrugated Jar AID817 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Plain Corrugated Jar AID818 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Plain Corrugated Jar AID819 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Patterned Corrugated Jar AID820 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Plain Corrugated Jar AID821 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Indented Corrugated Jar AID822 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Plain Corrugated Jar AID823 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Plain Corrugated Jar AID824 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Plain Corrugated Jar AID825 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Indented Corrugated Jar AID826 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Plain Corrugated Jar AID827 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Patterned Corrugated Jar AID828 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Patterned Corrugated Jar AID829 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Patterned Corrugated Jar AID830 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Indented Corrugated Jar AID831 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Plain Corrugated Jar AID832 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Plain Corrugated Jar AID833 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Plain Corrugated Jar AID834 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Patterned Corrugated Jar AID835 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Patterned Corrugated Bowl AID836 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID837 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID838 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID839 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID840 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID841 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID842 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID843 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID844 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID845 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID846 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID847 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Gray Indented Corrugated Jar

366

Sample ID cont. Community Site Ware Type Form Clay

ID AID848 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID849 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID850 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID851 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID852 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID853 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID854 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID855 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Red Wingate Bowl AID856 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Red Wingate Bowl AID857 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Red Wingate Bowl AID858 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Red Wingate Bowl AID859 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Red Wingate Bowl AID860 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Red Wingate Bowl AID861 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Red Plain Bowl AID862 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Red Plain Bowl AID863 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Red Puerco Bowl AID864 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Red Puerco Jar AID865 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Red Puerco Bowl AID866 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Red Wingate Bowl AID867 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Red Puerco Bowl AID868 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Red Wingate Bowl AID869 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Red Puerco Bowl AID870 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House White Reserve Jar AID871 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House White Reserve Jar AID872 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House White Gallup Jar AID873 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House White Gallup Jar AID874 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House White Reserve Jar AID875 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House White Puerco Jar AID876 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House White Gallup Jar AID877 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House White Puerco Bowl AID878 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House White Puerco Jar AID879 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House White Gallup Jar AID880 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House White Reserve Jar AID881 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House White Puerco Jar AID882 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House White Gallup Bowl AID883 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House White Reserve Jar AID884 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House White Reserve Jar AID885 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House White Gallup Bowl AID886 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House White Reserve Jar AID887 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House White Puerco Jar AID888 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House White Puerco Jar AID889 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House White Puerco Jar AID890 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House White Reserve Jar AID891 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House White Puerco Jar AID892 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House White Puerco Jar AID893 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House White Reserve Bowl AID894 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House White Reserve Jar

367

Sample ID cont. Community Site Ware Type Form Clay

ID AID895 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House White Reserve Jar AID896 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House White Reserve Jar AID897 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House White Puerco Jar AID898 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House White Reserve Jar AID899 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House White Reserve Jar AID900 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House White Puerco Jar AID901 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House White Reserve Jar AID902 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House White Puerco Jar AID903 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House White Gallup Jar AID904 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House White Reserve Jar AID905 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House White Plain Jar AID906 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House White Reserve Jar AID907 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House White Gallup Jar AID908 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House White Puerco Bowl AID909 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House White Puerco Jar AID910 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House White Puerco Bowl AID911 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House White Reserve Jar AID912 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House White Reserve Jar AID913 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House White Puerco Bowl AID914 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House White Gallup Jar AID915 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House White Puerco Jar AID916 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House White Puerco Jar AID917 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House White Puerco Bowl AID918 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House White Puerco Jar AID919 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House White Reserve Bowl AID920 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Brown Plain Corrugated

Smudged Bowl

AID921 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Brown Plain Corrugated Jar AID922 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Brown Plain Smudged Bowl AID923 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Brown Indented Corrugated Bowl AID924 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Brown Indented Corrugated Bowl AID925 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Brown Plain Bowl AID926 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Brown Plain Jar AID927 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Brown Patterned Corrugated Jar AID928 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Brown Plain Jar AID929 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Brown Plain Smudged Bowl AID930 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Brown Plain Smudged Bowl AID931 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Brown Indented Corrugated Jar AID932 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Brown Plain Smudged Bowl AID933 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Brown Incised Corrugated Jar AID934 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Brown Plain Corrugated

Smudged Bowl

AID935 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Brown Plain Smudged Bowl AID936 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Brown Plain Smudged Bowl AID937 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Brown Plain Smudged Bowl AID938 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Brown Plain Corrugated

Smudged Bowl

AID939 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Brown Plain Smudged Bowl

368

Sample ID cont. Community Site Ware Type Form Clay

ID AID940 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Brown Patterned Corrugated

Smudged Bowl

AID941 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Brown Patterned Corrugated Smudged

Bowl

AID942 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Brown Patterned Corrugated Smudged

Bowl

AID943 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Brown Plain Corrugated Smudged

Bowl

AID944 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Bowl

AID945 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Brown Plain Corrugated Smudged

Bowl

AID946 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Bowl

AID947 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Brown Incised Corrugated Bowl AID948 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Brown Plain Bowl AID949 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Brown Indented Corrugated

Smudged Bowl

AID950 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Brown Indented Corrugated Bowl AID951 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Brown Indented Corrugated Bowl AID952 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Brown Indented Corrugated

Smudged Bowl

AID953 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Brown Plain Smudged Bowl AID954 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Brown Plain Smudged Bowl AID955 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Great House Brown Plain Corrugated

Smudged Bowl

AID956 Cerro Pomo NM-02-969 Red Wingate Bowl AID957 Cerro Pomo NM-02-969 Red Wingate Bowl AID958 Cerro Pomo NM-02-969 Red Puerco Bowl AID959 Cerro Pomo NM-02-969 Red Plain Bowl AID960 Cerro Pomo NM-02-969 Red - - AID961 Cerro Pomo NM-02-969 Red Plain Bowl AID962 Cerro Pomo NM-02-969 Red Wingate Bowl AID963 Cerro Pomo NM-02-969 White Puerco Bowl AID964 Cerro Pomo NM-02-969 White Puerco Jar AID965 Cerro Pomo NM-02-969 White Gallup Jar AID966 Cerro Pomo NM-02-969 White Puerco Jar AID967 Cerro Pomo NM-02-969 White Puerco Jar AID968 Cerro Pomo NM-02-969 White Puerco Jar AID969 Cerro Pomo NM-02-969 White Reserve Jar AID970 Cerro Pomo NM-02-969 White Reserve Jar AID971 Cerro Pomo NM-02-969 White Reserve Jar AID972 Cerro Pomo NM-02-969 White Reserve Jar AID973 Cerro Pomo NM-02-969 White Reserve Jar AID974 Cerro Pomo NM-02-969 White Reserve Bowl AID975 Cerro Pomo NM-02-969 White Reserve Jar AID976 Cerro Pomo NM-02-969 Gray Plain Jar AID977 Cerro Pomo NM-02-969 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID978 Cerro Pomo NM-02-969 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID979 Cerro Pomo NM-02-969 Gray Plain Jar

369

Sample ID cont. Community Site Ware Type Form Clay

ID AID980 Cerro Pomo NM-02-969 Gray Plain Corrugated Jar AID981 Cerro Pomo NM-02-969 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID982 Cerro Pomo NM-02-969 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID983 Cerro Pomo NM-02-969 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID984 Cerro Pomo NM-02-969 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID985 Cerro Pomo NM-02-969 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID986 Cerro Pomo NM-02-969 Brown Indented Corrugated Jar AID987 Cerro Pomo NM-02-969 Brown Plain Jar AID988 Cerro Pomo NM-02-969 Brown Patterned Corrugated

Smudged Bowl

AID989 Cerro Pomo NM-02-969 Brown Incised Corrugated Jar AID990 Cerro Pomo NM-02-969 Brown Plain Smudged Bowl AID991 Cerro Pomo NM-02-969 Brown Indented Corrugated Bowl AID992 Cerro Pomo NM-02-969 Brown Plain Corrugated

Smudged Bowl

AID993 Cerro Pomo NM-02-969 Brown Plain Jar AID994 Cerro Pomo NM-02-969 Brown Patterned Corrugated

Smudged Bowl

AID995 Cerro Pomo NM-02-969 Brown Plain Corrugated Jar AID996 Cerro Pomo Site 174 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID997 Cerro Pomo Site 174 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID998 Cerro Pomo Site 174 Gray Plain Jar AID999 Cerro Pomo Site 174 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID1000 Cerro Pomo Site 174 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID1001 Cerro Pomo Site 174 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID1002 Cerro Pomo Site 174 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID1003 Cerro Pomo Site 174 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID1004 Cerro Pomo Site 174 Gray Plain Jar AID1005 Cerro Pomo Site 174 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID1006 Cerro Pomo Site 174 Brown Plain Corrugated Jar AID1007 Cerro Pomo Site 174 Brown Indented Corrugated Jar AID1008 Cerro Pomo Site 174 Brown Plain Jar AID1009 Cerro Pomo Site 174 Brown Patterned Corrugated Jar AID1010 Cerro Pomo Site 174 Brown Plain Corrugated Jar AID1011 Cerro Pomo Site 174 Brown Plain Corrugated

Smudged Bowl

AID1012 Cerro Pomo Site 174 Brown Plain Smudged Bowl AID1013 Cerro Pomo Site 174 Brown Plain Smudged Bowl AID1014 Cerro Pomo Site 174 Brown Plain Corrugated

Smudged Bowl

AID1015 Cerro Pomo Site 174 Brown Plain Corrugated Smudged

Bowl

AID1016 Cerro Pomo Site 174 Red Puerco Bowl AID1017 Cerro Pomo Site 174 Red Puerco Bowl AID1018 Cerro Pomo Site 174 Red Puerco Bowl AID1019 Cerro Pomo Site 174 Red Puerco Bowl AID1020 Cerro Pomo Site 174 Red Puerco Bowl AID1021 Cerro Pomo Site 174 Red Puerco Bowl AID1022 Cerro Pomo Site 174 Red Puerco Bowl

370

Sample ID cont. Community Site Ware Type Form Clay

ID AID1023 Cerro Pomo Site 174 Red Puerco Jar AID1024 Cerro Pomo Site 174 Red Plain Bowl AID1025 Cerro Pomo Site 174 Red Wingate Bowl AID1026 Cerro Pomo Site 174 White Puerco Jar AID1027 Cerro Pomo Site 174 White Puerco Jar AID1028 Cerro Pomo Site 174 White Puerco Jar AID1029 Cerro Pomo Site 174 White Puerco Jar AID1030 Cerro Pomo Site 174 White Puerco Jar AID1031 Cerro Pomo Site 174 White Reserve Jar AID1032 Cerro Pomo Site 174 White Reserve Jar AID1033 Cerro Pomo Site 174 White Reserve Jar AID1034 Cerro Pomo Site 174 White Reserve Jar AID1035 Cerro Pomo Site 174 White Reserve Bowl AID1036 Cerro Pomo Site 174 White Gallup Jar AID1037 Cerro Pomo Site 174 White Gallup Jar AID1038 Cerro Pomo Site 174 White Gallup Jar AID1039 Cerro Pomo Site 174 White Gallup Jar AID1040 Cerro Pomo NM-02-965 Red Puerco Bowl AID1041 Cerro Pomo NM-02-967 White Reserve Jar AID1042 Cerro Pomo NM-02-967 White Reserve Bowl AID1043 Cerro Pomo NM-02-967 White Reserve Jar AID1044 Cerro Pomo NM-02-965 White Reserve Jar AID1045 Cerro Pomo NM-02-965 White Reserve Jar AID1046 Cerro Pomo NM-02-965 White Reserve Jar AID1047 Cerro Pomo NM-02-965 White Reserve Jar AID1048 Cerro Pomo NM-02-961 White Gallup Jar AID1049 Cerro Pomo NM-02-965 White Gallup Jar AID1050 Cerro Pomo NM-02-967 White Gallup Jar AID1051 Cerro Pomo NM-02-961 White Puerco Bowl AID1052 Cerro Pomo NM-02-961 White Puerco Jar AID1053 Cerro Pomo NM-02-967 White Puerco Jar AID1054 Cerro Pomo NM-02-965 White Puerco Jar AID1055 Cerro Pomo NM-02-961 White Puerco Jar AID1056 Cerro Pomo NM-02-961 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID1057 Cerro Pomo NM-02-961 Gray Plain Jar AID1058 Cerro Pomo NM-02-967 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID1059 Cerro Pomo NM-02-965 Gray Plain Corrugated Jar AID1060 Cerro Pomo NM-02-965 Gray Plain Jar AID1061 Cerro Pomo NM-02-967 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID1062 Cerro Pomo NM-02-965 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID1063 Cerro Pomo NM-02-967 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID1064 Cerro Pomo NM-02-967 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID1065 Cerro Pomo NM-02-967 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID1066 Cerro Pomo NM-02-967 Brown Patterned Corrugated Jar AID1067 Cerro Pomo NM-02-965 Brown Plain Corrugated Jar AID1068 Cerro Pomo NM-02-965 Brown Plain Jar AID1069 Cerro Pomo NM-02-961 Brown Plain Corrugated Jar

371

Sample ID cont. Community Site Ware Type Form Clay

ID AID1070 Cerro Pomo NM-02-961 Brown Plain Jar AID1071 Cerro Pomo NM-02-965 Brown Plain Smudged Bowl AID1072 Cerro Pomo NM-02-967 Brown Plain Smudged Bowl AID1073 Cerro Pomo NM-02-967 Brown Plain Corrugated

Smudged Bowl

AID1074 Cerro Pomo NM-02-967 Brown Plain Smudged Bowl AID1075 Cerro Pomo NM-02-965 Brown Plain Bowl AID1076 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Red Puerco Other

Form

AID1077 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Red Wingate Bowl AID1078 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Red Puerco Bowl AID1079 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Red Puerco Bowl AID1080 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Red Wingate Bowl AID1081 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Red Puerco Bowl AID1082 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Red Wingate Bowl AID1083 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Red Wingate Bowl AID1084 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Red Puerco Bowl AID1085 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Red Puerco Bowl AID1086 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Red Wingate Jar AID1087 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Red Wingate Bowl AID1088 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Red Puerco Bowl AID1089 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Red Wingate Bowl AID1090 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Red Puerco Bowl AID1091 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Red Wingate Bowl AID1092 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Gallup Bowl AID1093 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Gallup Jar AID1094 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Gallup Jar AID1095 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Gallup Jar AID1096 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Gallup Bowl AID1097 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Reserve Bowl AID1098 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Reserve Jar AID1099 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Reserve Jar AID1100 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Reserve Jar AID1101 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Reserve Jar AID1102 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Reserve Jar AID1103 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Reserve Bowl AID1104 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Reserve Jar AID1105 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Reserve Jar AID1106 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Reserve Jar AID1107 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Reserve Jar AID1108 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Reserve Jar AID1109 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Reserve Bowl AID1110 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Reserve Bowl AID1111 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Reserve Bowl AID1112 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Reserve Bowl AID1113 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Reserve Bowl AID1114 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Reserve Jar AID1115 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Reserve Jar

372

Sample ID cont. Community Site Ware Type Form Clay

ID AID1116 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Reserve Jar AID1117 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Reserve Bowl AID1118 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Reserve Jar AID1119 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Reserve Bowl AID1120 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Puerco Jar AID1121 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Puerco Jar AID1122 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Puerco Bowl AID1123 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Puerco Jar AID1124 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Puerco Jar AID1125 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Puerco Bowl AID1126 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Puerco Bowl AID1127 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Puerco Jar AID1128 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Puerco Jar AID1129 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Puerco Jar AID1130 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Puerco Jar AID1131 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Puerco Jar AID1132 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Puerco Jar AID1133 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Puerco Jar AID1134 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Puerco Jar AID1135 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Puerco Bowl AID1136 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Puerco Bowl AID1137 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Puerco Bowl AID1138 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Puerco Bowl AID1139 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Puerco Jar AID1140 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Puerco Jar AID1141 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Puerco Bowl AID1142 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo Survey - - - 30 AID1143 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo Survey - - - 21 AID1144 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo Survey - - - 69 AID1145 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo Survey - - - 18 AID1146 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Survey - - - 73 AID1147 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo Survey - - - 68 AID1148 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Survey - - - 74 AID1149 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo Survey - - - 61 AID1150 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Survey - - - 79 AID1151 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Survey - - - 88 AID1152 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Survey - - - 87 AID1153 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo Survey - - - 45 AID1154 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo Survey - - - 4 AID1155 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Survey - - - 78 AID1156 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo Survey - - - 8 AID1157 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo Survey - - - 34 AID1158 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo Survey - - - 31 AID1159 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo Survey - - - 5 AID1160 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo Survey - - - 9 AID1161 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo Survey - - - 40 AID1162 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo Survey - - - 44

373

Sample ID cont. Community Site Ware Type Form Clay

ID AID1163 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo Survey - - - 35 AID1164 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo Survey - - - 38 AID1165 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo Survey - - - 51 AID1166 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo Survey - - - 55 AID1167 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo Survey - - - 56 AID1168 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo Survey - - - 59 AID1169 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo Survey - - - 64 AID1170 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo Survey - - - 67 AID1171 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Survey - - - 71 AID1172 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Survey - - - 97 AID1173 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Survey - - - 98 AID1174 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo Survey - - - 7 AID1175 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo Survey - - - 10 AID1176 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo Survey - - - 13 AID1177 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo Survey - - - 36 AID1178 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo Survey - - - 65 AID1179 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo Survey - - - 57 AID1180 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Survey - - - 84 AID1181 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Survey - - - 82 AID1182 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 27 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID1183 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 27 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID1184 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 27 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID1185 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 27 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID1186 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 32 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID1187 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 32 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID1188 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 32 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID1189 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 32 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID1190 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 32 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID1191 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 32 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID1192 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 32 Brown Indented Corrugated Jar AID1193 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 32 Brown Plain Corrugated Jar AID1194 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 32 Brown Plain Jar AID1195 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 32 Brown Plain Jar AID1196 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 32 Brown Plain Smudged Bowl AID1197 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 32 Brown Plain Corrugated Jar AID1198 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 32 Brown Plain Smudged Bowl AID1199 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 27 Brown Plain Smudged Bowl AID1200 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 27 Brown Plain Smudged Bowl AID1201 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 27 Brown Plain Smudged Bowl AID1202 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 27 Red Wingate Bowl AID1203 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 32 Red Painted Bowl AID1204 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 32 Red Wingate Bowl AID1205 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 27 White Puerco Jar AID1206 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 27 White Reserve Jar AID1207 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 32 White Puerco Jar AID1208 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 32 White Puerco Jar AID1209 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 32 White Reserve Jar

374

Sample ID cont. Community Site Ware Type Form Clay

ID AID1210 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 32 White Reserve Jar AID1211 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 32 White Reserve Jar AID1212 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 32 White Gallup Bowl AID1213 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 32 White Gallup Jar AID1214 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 32 White Reserve Jar AID1215 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 32 White Reserve Jar AID1216 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 32 White Reserve Jar AID1217 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 32 White Puerco Jar AID1218 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 32 White Puerco Jar AID1219 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 32 White Puerco Jar AID1220 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 109 Red Puerco Bowl AID1221 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 108 Red Puerco Bowl AID1222 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 108 Red Painted Jar AID1223 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 108 Red Puerco Bowl AID1224 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 108 White Reserve Bowl AID1225 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 108 White Puerco Jar AID1226 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 108 White Puerco Jar AID1227 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 108 White Puerco Bowl AID1228 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 108 White Reserve Jar AID1229 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 108 White Reserve Jar AID1230 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 108 White Reserve Jar AID1231 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 109 White Reserve Jar AID1232 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 109 White Gallup Bowl AID1233 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 109 White Gallup Jar AID1234 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 109 White Puerco Jar AID1235 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 109 White Puerco Jar AID1236 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 109 White Puerco Jar AID1237 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 108 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID1238 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 108 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID1239 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 109 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID1240 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 109 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID1241 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 109 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID1242 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 109 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID1243 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 109 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID1244 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 109 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID1245 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 109 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID1246 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 109 Gray Patterned Corrugated Jar AID1247 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 108 Brown Plain Smudged Bowl AID1248 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 108 Brown Plain Jar AID1249 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 108 Brown Plain Jar AID1250 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 109 Brown Indented Corrugated

Smudged Bowl

AID1251 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 109 Brown Indented Corrugated Jar AID1252 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 109 Brown Plain Corrugated Jar AID1253 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 109 Brown Patterned Corrugated

Smudged Bowl

AID1254 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 109 Brown Plain Corrugated Smudged

Bowl

375

Sample ID cont. Community Site Ware Type Form Clay

ID AID1255 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 109 Brown Plain Smudged Bowl AID1256 Cox Ranch Pueblo Site 109 Brown Plain Corrugated Jar AID1257 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Reserve Jar AID1258 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID1259 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID1260 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID1261 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID1262 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID1263 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID1264 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID1265 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID1266 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID1267 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Indented Corrugated Jar AID1268 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Patterned Corrugated Jar AID1269 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Patterned Corrugated Jar AID1270 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Patterned Corrugated Jar AID1271 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Patterned Corrugated Jar AID1272 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Patterned Corrugated Jar AID1273 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Patterned Corrugated Jar AID1274 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Indented Corrugated Jar AID1275 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Patterned Corrugated

Smudged Bowl

AID1276 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Plain Smudged Bowl AID1277 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Indented Corrugated

Smudged Bowl

AID1278 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Patterned Corrugated Smudged

Bowl

AID1279 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Patterned Corrugated Smudged

Bowl

AID1280 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Plain Smudged Bowl AID1281 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Plain Smudged Bowl AID1282 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Plain Smudged Bowl AID1283 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Plain Corrugated

Smudged Bowl

AID1284 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Plain Corrugated Smudged

Bowl

AID1285 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Plain Corrugated Smudged

Bowl

AID1286 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Plain Corrugated Smudged

Bowl

AID1287 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Bowl

AID1288 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Bowl

AID1289 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Bowl

AID1290 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Bowl

AID1291 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Bowl

376

Sample ID cont. Community Site Ware Type Form Clay

ID AID1292 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Indented Corrugated

Smudged Bowl

AID1293 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Bowl

AID1294 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Bowl

AID1295 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Patterned Corrugated Smudged

Bowl

AID1296 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Patterned Corrugated Smudged

Bowl

AID1297 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Patterned Corrugated Smudged

Bowl

AID1298 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Plain Smudged Bowl AID1299 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Plain Smudged Bowl AID1300 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Plain Bowl AID1301 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Plain Smudged Bowl AID1302 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Plain Smudged Bowl AID1303 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Plain Smudged Bowl AID1304 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Indented Corrugated

Smudged Bowl

AID1305 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Indented Corrugated Jar AID1306 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Indented Corrugated Jar AID1307 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Indented Corrugated Jar AID1308 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Plain Jar AID1309 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Plain Corrugated Jar AID1310 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID1311 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID1312 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID1313 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID1314 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID1315 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID1316 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID1317 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID1318 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID1319 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID1320 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Gallup Jar AID1321 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Reserve Jar AID1322 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Puerco Jar AID1323 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Puerco Jar AID1324 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Puerco Jar AID1325 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Puerco Jar AID1326 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Reserve Jar AID1327 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Reserve Jar AID1328 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Reserve Jar AID1329 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Reserve Jar AID1330 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Red Wingate Bowl AID1331 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Red Wingate Bowl AID1332 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Red Wingate Bowl AID1333 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Red Wingate Polychrome Bowl

377

Sample ID cont. Community Site Ware Type Form Clay

ID AID1334 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Red Wingate Bowl AID1335 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Red Wingate Bowl AID1336 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Red Wingate Bowl AID1337 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Red Puerco Bowl AID1338 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Red Puerco Bowl AID1339 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Red Puerco Bowl AID1340 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Plain Smudged Bowl AID1341 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Plain Smudged Bowl AID1342 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Patterned Corrugated

Smudged Bowl

AID1343 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Plain Smudged Bowl AID1344 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Plain Smudged Bowl AID1345 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Indented Corrugated Jar AID1346 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Indented Corrugated Jar AID1347 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Indented Corrugated Jar AID1348 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Plain Corrugated Jar AID1349 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Brown Indented Corrugated Jar AID1350 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID1351 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID1352 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID1353 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID1354 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID1355 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID1356 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID1357 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID1358 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID1359 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Gray Indented Corrugated Jar AID1360 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Puerco Jar AID1361 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Puerco Jar AID1362 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Puerco Jar AID1363 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Puerco Jar AID1364 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Puerco Jar AID1365 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Reserve Bowl AID1366 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Reserve Jar AID1367 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Reserve Jar AID1368 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Puerco Jar AID1369 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH White Reserve Jar AID1370 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Red Puerco Bowl AID1371 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Red Puerco Bowl AID1372 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Red Puerco Bowl AID1373 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Red Puerco Bowl AID1374 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Red Puerco Bowl AID1375 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Red Plain Jar AID1376 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Red Wingate Bowl AID1377 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Red Wingate Jar AID1378 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Red Wingate Bowl AID1379 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo GH Red Wingate Polychrome Bowl KNS001 Largo Gap Site 300 Brown Plain Jar

378

Sample ID cont. Community Site Ware Type Form Clay

ID KNS002 Largo Gap Site 300 Brown Indented Corrugated Jar KNS003 Largo Gap Site 300 Gray Plain Jar KNS004 Largo Gap Site 300 White Puerco Jar KNS005 Largo Gap Site 300 White Red Mesa Jar KNS006 Largo Gap Site 300 Gray Clapboard Corrugated Jar KNS007 Largo Gap Site 308 Gray Plain Corrugated Jar KNS008 Largo Gap Site 308 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS009 Largo Gap Site 308 Brown Plain Corrugated Jar KNS010 Largo Gap Site 308 Brown Plain Corrugated

Smudged Bowl

KNS011 Largo Gap Site 308 White Puerco Bowl KNS012 Largo Gap Site 308 White Puerco Bowl/

Ladle

KNS013 Largo Gap Site 308 White Reserve Bowl KNS014 Largo Gap Site 308 White Reserve Jar KNS015 Largo Gap Site 308 Brown Indented Corrugated Jar KNS016 Largo Gap Site 308 Brown Plain Smudged Bowl KNS017 Largo Gap Site 308 Gray Plain Jar KNS018 Largo Gap Site 308 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS019 Largo Gap Site 308 Red Plain Bowl KNS020 Largo Gap Site 308 Red Painted Bowl KNS021 Largo Gap Site 308 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS022 Largo Gap Site 308 Gray Plain Jar KNS023 Largo Gap Site 308 Gray Plain Corrugated Jar KNS024 Largo Gap Site 308 Brown Indented Corrugated

Smudged Bowl

KNS025 Largo Gap Site 308 White Red Mesa Jar KNS026 Largo Gap Site 308 White Puerco Bowl KNS027 Largo Gap Site 308 White Plain Jar KNS028 Largo Gap Site 308 White Kiatuthlanna Jar KNS029 Largo Gap Site 308 Red Wingate Bowl KNS030 Largo Gap Site 308 Gray Plain Corrugated Jar KNS031 Largo Gap Site 308 Gray Plain Jar KNS032 Largo Gap Site 308 Brown Indented Corrugated

Smudged Bowl

KNS033 Largo Gap Site 308 Brown Plain Jar KNS034 Largo Gap Site 308 Brown Indented Corrugated Jar KNS035 Largo Gap Site 308 Brown Plain Corrugated Jar KNS036 Largo Gap Site 308 Gray Plain Jar KNS037 Largo Gap Site 308 Red Plain Bowl KNS038 Largo Gap Site 308 Brown Plain Jar KNS039 Largo Gap Site 308 White Plain Jar KNS040 Largo Gap Site 308 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS041 Largo Gap Site 308 Gray Plain Jar KNS042 Largo Gap Site 308 Red Plain Jar KNS043 Largo Gap Site 308 Red Puerco Jar KNS044 Largo Gap Site 323 Gray Plain Corrugated Jar KNS045 Largo Gap Site 323 White Painted Bowl

379

Sample ID cont. Community Site Ware Type Form Clay

ID KNS046 Largo Gap Site 323 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS047 Largo Gap Site 323 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS048 Largo Gap Site 323 Red Plain Bowl KNS049 Largo Gap Site 323 Red Wingate Bowl KNS050 Largo Gap Site 323 Brown Patterned Corrugated Jar KNS051 Largo Gap Site 323 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS052 Largo Gap Site 323 White Gallup Bowl KNS053 Largo Gap Site 323 Red Wingate Bowl KNS054 Largo Gap Site 323 Gray Plain Corrugated Jar KNS055 Largo Gap Site 323 White Reserve Jar KNS056 Largo Gap Site 323 Brown Plain Smudged Bowl KNS057 Largo Gap Site 323 Red Painted Bowl KNS058 Largo Gap Site 323 Red Puerco Bowl KNS059 Largo Gap Site 323 Brown Plain Smudged Bowl KNS060 Largo Gap Site 323 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS061 Largo Gap Site 323 White Puerco Jar KNS062 Largo Gap Site 323 White Plain Jar KNS063 Largo Gap Site 323 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS064 Largo Gap Site 323 Brown Plain Smudged Bowl KNS065 Largo Gap Site 323 Brown Patterned Corrugated Jar KNS066 Largo Gap Site 323 Brown Plain Jar KNS067 Largo Gap Site 323 White Gallup Jar KNS068 Largo Gap Site 323 Brown Plain Smudged Bowl KNS069 Largo Gap Site 323 Brown Plain Jar KNS070 Largo Gap Site 323 White Reserve Jar KNS071 Largo Gap Site 323 Red Plain Bowl KNS072 Largo Gap Site 323 Gray Plain Corrugated Jar KNS073 Largo Gap Site 323 Gray Painted Jar KNS074 Largo Gap Site 323 White Red Mesa Jar KNS075 Largo Gap Site 323 Red Plain Bowl KNS076 Largo Gap Site 323 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS077 Largo Gap Site 323 White Painted Jar KNS078 Largo Gap Site 323 White Puerco Bowl KNS079 Largo Gap Site 323 Red Plain Bowl KNS080 Largo Gap Site 323 White Reserve Bowl KNS081 Largo Gap Site 323 White Puerco Jar KNS082 Largo Gap Site 302 Red Unknown (Mimbres?) Bowl KNS083 Largo Gap Site 302 White Kiatuthlanna Bowl KNS084 Largo Gap Site 302 White Kiatuthlanna Bowl KNS085 Largo Gap Site 302 Gray Plain Corrugated Jar KNS086 Largo Gap Site 302 Brown Unknown (Mimbres?) Jar KNS087 Largo Gap Site 315 Brown Plain Corrugated

Smudged Bowl

KNS088 Largo Gap Site 315 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Bowl

KNS089 Largo Gap Site 315 Brown Plain Smudged Bowl KNS090 Largo Gap Site 315 Brown Plain Smudged Bowl KNS091 Largo Gap Site 315 Brown Patterned Corrugated Jar

380

Sample ID cont. Community Site Ware Type Form Clay

ID KNS092 Largo Gap Site 315 Brown Patterned Corrugated Jar KNS093 Largo Gap Site 315 Brown Plain Jar KNS094 Largo Gap Site 315 Brown Plain Jar KNS095 Largo Gap Site 315 Gray Incised Corrugated Jar KNS096 Largo Gap Site 315 Gray Plain Corrugated Jar KNS097 Largo Gap Site 315 Gray Plain Corrugated Jar KNS098 Largo Gap Site 315 Gray Plain Jar KNS099 Largo Gap Site 315 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS100 Largo Gap Site 315 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS101 Largo Gap Site 315 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS102 Largo Gap Site 315 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS103 Largo Gap Site 315 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS104 Largo Gap Site 315 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS105 Largo Gap Site 315 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS106 Largo Gap Site 315 White Puerco Bowl KNS107 Largo Gap Site 315 White Puerco Jar KNS108 Largo Gap Site 315 White Puerco Jar KNS109 Largo Gap Site 315 White Reserve Bowl KNS110 Largo Gap Site 340 White Red Mesa Bowl/

Ladle

KNS111 Largo Gap Site 322 Gray Plain Jar KNS112 Largo Gap Site 322 Gray Plain Jar KNS113 Largo Gap Site 322 Gray Plain Jar KNS114 Largo Gap Site 322 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS115 Largo Gap Site 322 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS116 Largo Gap Site 322 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS117 Largo Gap Site 322 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS118 Largo Gap Site 322 Red Plain/Faded painted? Bowl KNS119 Largo Gap Site 322 Red Painted Bowl KNS120 Largo Gap Site 322 Red Wingate Bowl KNS121 Largo Gap Site 322 Brown Plain Smudged Bowl KNS122 Largo Gap Site 322 Brown Plain Smudged Bowl KNS123 Largo Gap Site 322 Brown Plain Smudged Bowl KNS124 Largo Gap Site 322 Brown Plain Jar KNS125 Largo Gap Site 322 Brown Plain Jar KNS126 Largo Gap Site 322 Brown Indented Corrugated

Smudged Bowl

KNS127 Largo Gap Site 322 Brown Plain Corrugated Jar KNS128 Largo Gap Site 322 White Reserve Jar KNS129 Largo Gap Site 322 White Painted Jar KNS130 Largo Gap Site 322 White Puerco Jar KNS131 Largo Gap Site 322 White Puerco Bowl KNS132 Largo Gap Site 322 White Gallup Jar KNS133 Largo Gap Site 318 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS134 Largo Gap Site 318 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS135 Largo Gap Site 318 Gray Plain Jar KNS136 Largo Gap Site 318 Red Wingate Jar KNS137 Largo Gap Site 318 Red Wingate Bowl

381

Sample ID cont. Community Site Ware Type Form Clay

ID KNS138 Largo Gap Site 318 Red Puerco Bowl KNS139 Largo Gap Site 318 Red Plain Bowl KNS140 Largo Gap Site 318 White Puerco Jar KNS141 Largo Gap Site 318 White Gallup Jar KNS142 Largo Gap Site 318 White Reserve Jar KNS143 Largo Gap Site 318 Brown Plain Smudged Bowl KNS144 Largo Gap Site 318 Brown Patterned Corrugated

Smudged Bowl

KNS145 Largo Gap Site 318 Brown Plain Corrugated Smudged

Bowl

KNS146 Largo Gap Site 318 Brown Plain Jar KNS147 Largo Gap Site 381 Gray Plain Jar KNS148 Largo Gap Site 381 Gray Plain Jar KNS149 Largo Gap Site 381 Gray Plain Corrugated Jar KNS150 Largo Gap Site 381 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS151 Largo Gap Site 381 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS152 Largo Gap Site 381 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS153 Largo Gap Site 381 Brown Plain Smudged Bowl KNS154 Largo Gap Site 381 Brown Plain Jar KNS155 Largo Gap Site 381 Brown Patterned Corrugated

Smudged Bowl

KNS156 Largo Gap Site 381 Brown Plain Corrugated Smudged

Bowl

KNS157 Largo Gap Site 381 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Bowl

KNS158 Largo Gap Site 381 Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Bowl

KNS159 Largo Gap Site 381 Red Plain Bowl KNS160 Largo Gap Site 381 Red Puerco Bowl KNS161 Largo Gap Site 381 White Reserve Jar KNS162 Largo Gap Site 381 White Reserve Jar KNS163 Largo Gap Site 381 White Reserve Bowl KNS164 Largo Gap Site 381 Red Wingate Bowl KNS165 Largo Gap Site 381 Red Puerco Bowl KNS166 Largo Gap Site 381 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS167 Largo Gap Site 381 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS168 Largo Gap Site 381 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS169 Largo Gap Site 381 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS170 Largo Gap Site 381 White Reserve Jar KNS171 Largo Gap Site 381 White Reserve Jar KNS172 Largo Gap Site 381 White Puerco Jar KNS173 Largo Gap Site 381 White Puerco Jar KNS174 Largo Gap Site 381 White Puerco Bowl KNS175 Largo Gap Site 381 White Puerco Bowl KNS176 Largo Gap Site 381 Brown Plain Corrugated Jar KNS177 Largo Gap Site 381 Brown Plain Jar KNS178 Largo Gap Site 381 Red Wingate Bowl KNS179 Largo Gap Site 381 Red Plain Bowl KNS180 Largo Gap Site 381 Red Puerco Bowl

382

Sample ID cont. Community Site Ware Type Form Clay

ID KNS181 Largo Gap Site 381 Red Puerco Bowl KNS182 Largo Gap Site 381 Red Puerco Bowl KNS183 Largo Gap Site 381 White Red Mesa Bowl KNS184 Largo Gap Site 374 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS185 Largo Gap Site 374 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS186 Largo Gap Site 374 Red Plain Bowl KNS187 Largo Gap Site 318 White Puerco Jar KNS188 Largo Gap Site 318 Gray Plain Jar KNS189 Largo Gap Site 318 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS190 Largo Gap Site 318 Brown Plain Jar KNS191 Largo Gap Site 318 Brown Indented Corrugated Jar KNS192 Largo Gap Site 318 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS193 Largo Gap Site 318 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS194 Largo Gap Site 318 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS195 Largo Gap Site 318 Red Plain Bowl KNS196 Largo Gap Site 318 Red Plain Bowl KNS197 Largo Gap Site 318 Brown Plain Smudged Bowl KNS198 Largo Gap Site 318 Brown Plain Smudged Bowl KNS199 Largo Gap Site 318 Brown Plain Smudged Bowl KNS200 Largo Gap Site 318 White Painted Jar KNS201 Largo Gap Site 318 Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS202 Largo Gap Site 318 White Red Mesa Jar KNS203 Largo Gap Site 318 White Gallup Jar KNS204 Largo Gap Site 318 White Reserve Jar KNS205 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House White Puerco Bowl KNS206 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House White Reserve Jar KNS207 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Brown Plain Smudged Bowl KNS208 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Brown Plain Smudged Bowl KNS209 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Brown Plain Corrugated Jar KNS210 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS211 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Gray Plain Jar KNS212 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS213 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Red Wingate Bowl KNS214 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Brown Indented Corrugated

Smudged Bowl

KNS215 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Brown Plain Corrugated Jar KNS216 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House White Plain Jar KNS217 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Brown Plain Corrugated

Smudged Bowl

KNS218 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Brown Plain Corrugated Jar KNS219 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Red Puerco Bowl KNS220 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House White Puerco Jar KNS221 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS222 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Brown Indented Corrugated Jar KNS223 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Red Wingate Bowl KNS224 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Red Wingate Bowl KNS225 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Brown Indented Corrugated Jar KNS226 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Red Plain Bowl

383

Sample ID cont. Community Site Ware Type Form Clay

ID KNS227 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House White Puerco Bowl KNS228 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House White Puerco Jar KNS229 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Red Painted Bowl KNS230 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House White Other Bowl KNS231 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House White Reserve Jar KNS232 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS233 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Gray Plain Jar KNS234 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House White Plain Jar KNS235 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Brown Indented Corrugated

Smudged Bowl

KNS236 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Brown Plain Smudged Bowl KNS237 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House White Reserve Bowl KNS238 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House White Escavada Jar KNS239 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House White Puerco Jar KNS240 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House White Puerco Bowl KNS241 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Brown Patterned Corrugated

Smudged Bowl

KNS242 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Gray Plain Jar KNS243 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House White Escavada Jar KNS244 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House White Reserve Jar KNS245 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House White Puerco Bowl/

Ladle

KNS246 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House White Puerco Jar KNS247 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Red Puerco Jar KNS248 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Red Wingate Bowl KNS249 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Red Wingate Bowl KNS250 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Red Wingate Bowl KNS251 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Red Wingate Bowl KNS252 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Brown Indented Corrugated

Smudged Bowl

KNS253 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Bowl

KNS254 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Bowl

KNS255 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Brown Plain Smudged Bowl KNS256 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Brown Patterned Corrugated

Smudged Bowl

KNS257 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS258 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Red Puerco Bowl KNS259 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Red Wingate Polychrome Bowl KNS260 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House White Escavada Bowl KNS261 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House White Reserve Bowl KNS262 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House White Reserve Jar KNS263 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House White Gallup Bowl KNS264 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Brown Plain Corrugated

Smudged Bowl

KNS265 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House White Puerco Bowl KNS266 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House White Puerco Jar KNS267 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Red Painted Bowl

384

Sample ID cont. Community Site Ware Type Form Clay

ID KNS268 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Red Plain Bowl KNS269 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House White Kiatuthlanna Jar KNS270 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS271 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House White Kiatuthlanna Jar KNS272 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Red Painted Bowl KNS273 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Red Puerco Bowl KNS274 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Red Wingate Jar KNS275 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Brown Plain Smudged Bowl KNS276 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House White Red Mesa Jar KNS277 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Red Wingate Bowl KNS278 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Red Other Bowl KNS279 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Red Plain Bowl KNS280 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Red Wingate Bowl KNS281 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Brown Indented Corrugated Jar KNS282 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House White Gallup Bowl KNS283 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Brown Patterned Corrugated

Smudged Bowl

KNS284 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Red Puerco Bowl KNS285 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS286 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Red Wingate Polychrome Bowl KNS287 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House White Reserve Jar KNS288 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House White Reserve Jar KNS289 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Red Puerco Bowl KNS290 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House White Puerco Ladle KNS291 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Gray Plain Corrugated Jar KNS292 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Brown Patterned Corrugated

Smudged Bowl

KNS293 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Bowl

KNS294 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS295 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS296 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Gray Plain Jar KNS297 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Brown Indented Corrugated

Smudged Bowl

KNS298 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Red Wingate Bowl KNS299 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Red Puerco Jar KNS300 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Red Puerco Bowl KNS301 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Red Puerco Bowl KNS302 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Red Wingate Polychrome Bowl KNS303 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House White Puerco Jar KNS304 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House White Puerco Ladle KNS305 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House White Reserve Jar KNS306 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House White Plain Jar KNS307 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Red Wingate Jar KNS308 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House White Reserve Ladle KNS309 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS310 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House White Reserve Jar KNS311 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House White Puerco Bowl

385

Sample ID cont. Community Site Ware Type Form Clay

ID KNS312 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Brown Indented Corrugated

Smudged Bowl

KNS313 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House White Puerco Jar KNS314 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS315 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Gray Plain Jar KNS316 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Gray Plain Corrugated Jar KNS317 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Red Wingate Jar KNS318 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Red Wingate Bowl KNS319 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Brown Patterned Corrugated

Smudged Bowl

KNS320 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House White Gallup Jar KNS321 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS322 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Red Wingate Polychrome Bowl KNS323 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Gray Plain Corrugated Jar KNS324 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS325 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS326 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS327 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Red Puerco Bowl KNS328 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Red Puerco Bowl KNS329 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House White Puerco Bowl KNS330 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House White Puerco Jar KNS331 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Brown Indented Corrugated

Smudged Bowl

KNS332 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Brown Patterned Corrugated Smudged

Bowl

KNS333 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS334 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Red Puerco Bowl KNS335 Largo Gap Site 344 White Red Mesa Ladle KNS336 Largo Gap Site 344 Gray Plain Jar KNS337 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House White Puerco Jar KNS338 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House White Reserve Bowl KNS339 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House White Reserve Jar KNS340 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House White Puerco Jar KNS341 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Brown Plain Smudged Bowl KNS342 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Brown Indented Corrugated

Smudged Bowl

KNS343 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS344 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Red Puerco Bowl KNS345 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Red Wingate Polychrome Bowl KNS346 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Brown Plain Corrugated Jar KNS347 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Brown Plain Corrugated Jar KNS348 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Gray Plain Jar KNS349 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Brown Plain Corrugated

Smudged Bowl

KNS350 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Bowl

KNS351 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS352 H-Spear H-Spear Great House Brown Plain Jar KNS353 H-Spear H-Spear Great House White Reserve Bowl

386

Sample ID cont. Community Site Ware Type Form Clay

ID KNS354 H-Spear H-Spear Great House Gray Plain Corrugated Jar KNS355 H-Spear H-Spear Great House Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS356 H-Spear H-Spear Great House Brown Plain Smudged Bowl KNS357 H-Spear H-Spear Great House Red Wingate Bowl KNS358 H-Spear H-Spear Great House White Reserve Bowl KNS359 H-Spear H-Spear Great House White Puerco Bowl KNS360 H-Spear H-Spear Great House Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS361 H-Spear H-Spear Great House Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS362 H-Spear H-Spear Great House Brown Plain Smudged Bowl KNS363 H-Spear H-Spear Great House Red Wingate Bowl KNS364 H-Spear H-Spear Great House Red Wingate Bowl KNS365 H-Spear H-Spear Great House Red Puerco Bowl KNS366 H-Spear H-Spear Great House Red Puerco Bowl KNS367 H-Spear H-Spear Great House Red Puerco Bowl KNS368 H-Spear H-Spear Great House Red Puerco Bowl KNS369 H-Spear H-Spear Great House Red Puerco Bowl KNS370 H-Spear H-Spear Great House Red Wingate Bowl KNS371 H-Spear H-Spear Great House Brown Plain Smudged Bowl KNS372 H-Spear H-Spear Great House Brown Plain Smudged Bowl KNS373 H-Spear H-Spear Great House White Reserve Jar KNS374 H-Spear H-Spear Great House White Reserve Jar KNS375 H-Spear H-Spear Great House White Puerco Bowl KNS376 H-Spear H-Spear Great House Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS377 H-Spear H-Spear Great House Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS378 H-Spear H-Spear Great House Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS379 H-Spear H-Spear Great House White Reserve Bowl KNS380 H-Spear H-Spear Great House White Puerco Ladle KNS381 H-Spear H-Spear Great House Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS382 H-Spear H-Spear Great House Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS383 H-Spear H-Spear Great House White Reserve Jar KNS384 H-Spear H-Spear Great House Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS385 H-Spear H-Spear Great House White Reserve Jar KNS386 H-Spear H-Spear Great House Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS387 H-Spear H-Spear Great House Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS388 H-Spear H-Spear Great House White Puerco Jar KNS389 H-Spear H-Spear Great House Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS390 H-Spear H-Spear Great House Gray Plain Jar KNS391 H-Spear H-Spear Great House White Reserve Jar KNS392 H-Spear H-Spear Great House Red Puerco Bowl KNS393 H-Spear H-Spear Great House Red Plain Bowl KNS394 H-Spear H-Spear Great House Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS395 H-Spear H-Spear Great House White Reserve Bowl KNS396 H-Spear H-Spear Great House White Gallup Jar KNS397 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House White Puerco Jar KNS398 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Red Puerco Bowl KNS399 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Red Wingate Bowl KNS400 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House White Reserve Jar

387

Sample ID cont. Community Site Ware Type Form Clay

ID KNS401 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Gray Plain Corrugated Jar KNS402 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS403 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Red Puerco Bowl KNS404 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House White Escavada Bowl KNS405 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Brown Plain-Other Jar KNS406 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Red Wingate Jar KNS407 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Gray Plain Jar KNS408 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House White Other Bowl KNS409 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Gray Indented Corrugated Jar KNS410 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Red Puerco Bowl KNS411 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Red Plain Bowl KNS412 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House White Reserve Bowl KNS413 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Brown Plain Corrugated

Smudged Bowl

KNS414 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House Brown Indented Corrugated Smudged

Bowl

KNS415 Largo Gap Largo Gap Great House White Puerco Bowl KNS416 Largo Gap Largo Gap Survey - - - 122 KNS417 Largo Gap Largo Gap Survey - - - 123 KNS418 Largo Gap Largo Gap Survey - - - 124 KNS419 Largo Gap Largo Gap Survey - - - 125 KNS420 Largo Gap Largo Gap Survey - - - 127 KNS421 Largo Gap Largo Gap Survey - - - 128 KNS422 Largo Gap Largo Gap Survey - - - 129 KNS423 Largo Gap Largo Gap Survey - - - 130 KNS424 Largo Gap Largo Gap Survey - - - 131 KNS425 Largo Gap Largo Gap Survey - - - 134 KNS426 Largo Gap Largo Gap Survey - - - 135 KNS427 Largo Gap Largo Gap Survey - - - 136 KNS428 Largo Gap Largo Gap Survey - - - 137 KNS429 Largo Gap Largo Gap Survey - - - 138 KNS430 Largo Gap Largo Gap Survey - - - 140 KNS431 Largo Gap Largo Gap Survey - - - 141 KNS432 Largo Gap Largo Gap Survey - - - 142 KNS433 Largo Gap Largo Gap Survey - - - 144 KNS434 Largo Gap Largo Gap Survey - - - 145 KNS435 Largo Gap Largo Gap Survey - - - 146 KNS436 Largo Gap Largo Gap Survey - - - 147 KNS437 Largo Gap Largo Gap Survey - - - 148 KNS438 Largo Gap Largo Gap Survey - - - 149 KNS439 Largo Gap Largo Gap Survey - - - 150 KNS440 Largo Gap Largo Gap Survey - - - 151 KNS441 Largo Gap Largo Gap Survey - - - 152 KNS442 Largo Gap Largo Gap Survey - - - 153 KNS443 Largo Gap Largo Gap Survey - - - 154 KNS444 Cox Ranch Pueblo Cox Ranch Pueblo Survey - - - 27 KNS445 Cerro Pomo Cerro Pomo Survey - - - 86

All raw compositional data can be downloaded from the MURR website.

388

Table C1b. Probabilities of Core Group Membership for Sherds in the Light Firing Core Group (SCib1, Log-10 Transformed Data)

ANID SCib1 SCib2 AZNM EMV1 EMV2 MM1 MM2 Plateau South ULC2 ULC3A ULC3B ULC4 West1 West2 Best Group

AID1000 28.883 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.052 0.000 0.000 0.360 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 SCib1 AID1003 6.414 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1018 3.591 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 SCib1 AID1021 9.613 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 SCib1 AID1026 48.345 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1029 62.503 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.026 0.000 0.068 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1030 99.179 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.657 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1032 49.845 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1034 72.831 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.109 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1036 15.740 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1038 77.274 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.520 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.000 SCib1 AID1039 94.636 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1041 4.971 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 SCib1 AID1042 26.288 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1043 22.512 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1044 75.520 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1045 29.680 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1050 58.541 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.327 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 SCib1 AID1055 96.090 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.032 0.000 1.070 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.008 SCib1 AID1062 15.152 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 SCib1 AID1090 6.722 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 SCib1 AID1091 19.225 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.831 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 SCib1 AID1093 83.038 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.204 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1094 20.934 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1096 31.941 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1098 31.955 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1103 29.836 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1107 17.673 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.167 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1110 32.970 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1114 86.553 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1115 34.327 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1116 84.754 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.072 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1117 34.283 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1118 98.066 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1119 98.292 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.418 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1120 89.872 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.053 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1

389

ANID cont. SCib1 SCib2 AZNM EMV1 EMV2 MM1 MM2 Plateau South ULC2 ULC3A ULC3B ULC4 West1 West2

Best Group

AID1122 62.954 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1123 88.745 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 SCib1 AID1124 96.453 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1125 7.055 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1126 70.985 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1130 82.706 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1132 11.066 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1134 48.467 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1135 24.586 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.037 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 SCib1 AID1139 86.930 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1140 48.360 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1141 96.046 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.053 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1182 7.025 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 SCib1 AID1185 13.205 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 SCib1 AID1186 74.905 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1188 71.488 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1189 55.512 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1190 83.387 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.054 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 SCib1 AID1191 7.962 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.009 SCib1 AID1205 95.553 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.040 0.000 0.017 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1206 89.040 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1215 98.345 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1216 17.413 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.019 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.109 SCib1 AID1217 96.772 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1218 86.516 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1219 5.849 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1224 87.636 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.810 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 SCib1 AID1225 17.479 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.000 0.215 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.025 0.885 SCib1 AID1226 20.850 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1228 99.930 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1231 57.025 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1232 43.095 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1233 5.372 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1236 70.376 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1241 31.967 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 SCib1 AID1242 23.075 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.010 SCib1 AID1243 57.130 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.009 SCib1

390

ANID cont. SCib1 SCib2 AZNM EMV1 EMV2 MM1 MM2 Plateau South ULC2 ULC3A ULC3B ULC4 West1 West2

Best Group

AID1245 67.635 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.038 SCib1 AID1257 65.805 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1263 34.496 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1266 9.630 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.036 0.000 0.531 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.078 SCib1 AID1311 5.257 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1320 6.219 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.092 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.012 SCib1 AID1322 83.802 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.017 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1324 92.611 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1328 24.415 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1333 26.058 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1339 22.419 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1351 9.357 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.000 SCib1 AID1353 4.248 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1355 17.318 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.032 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1356 27.488 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1358 30.450 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 SCib1 AID1359 8.442 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1362 35.075 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1364 59.369 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1365 72.406 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1366 68.149 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1367 99.115 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1369 93.699 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1377 81.545 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1379 59.989 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID760 15.925 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.173 0.000 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.051 0.001 0.969 SCib1 AID769 17.239 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID771 34.813 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID774 15.446 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.022 SCib1 AID779 7.980 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID836 60.920 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID839 12.554 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID842 49.046 0.000 0.040 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.403 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.027 0.001 SCib1 AID845 48.273 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.076 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.000 SCib1 AID850 90.682 0.000 0.037 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.000 SCib1 AID851 49.235 0.000 0.036 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.000 SCib1 AID852 24.878 0.000 0.207 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.544 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.036 SCib1

391

ANID cont. SCib1 SCib2 AZNM EMV1 EMV2 MM1 MM2 Plateau South ULC2 ULC3A ULC3B ULC4 West1 West2

Best Group

AID856 11.119 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID867 3.23 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.003 SCib1 AID870 98.136 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID871 88.052 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID873 13.723 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID874 41.721 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.013 0.000 0.299 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 SCib1 AID876 89.620 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.040 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID878 4.089 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID880 11.622 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID881 36.861 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.000 SCib1 AID882 68.735 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID884 94.597 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID885 91.785 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID887 86.940 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID888 94.371 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID889 90.953 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID890 55.994 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID892 46.791 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID893 67.933 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID894 27.361 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID895 14.354 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID896 30.359 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.000 0.896 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID898 85.017 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID899 87.286 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID900 91.195 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID901 97.851 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.820 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID903 5.172 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID907 39.068 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID908 64.988 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID909 64.898 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID912 62.539 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID916 50.714 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID917 31.200 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID919 4.790 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.077 SCib1 AID963 20.355 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID964 51.018 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.039 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID966 70.643 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1

392

ANID cont. SCib1 SCib2 AZNM EMV1 EMV2 MM1 MM2 Plateau South ULC2 ULC3A ULC3B ULC4 West1 West2

Best Group

AID968 98.297 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID970 57.289 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID971 83.918 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.068 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID972 84.788 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID973 91.238 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID974 94.871 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID975 44.731 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 SCib1 AID976 11.314 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID977 6.740 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID980 15.412 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID984 57.575 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID985 6.276 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS004 40.378 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS008 79.637 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.127 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS011 30.658 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS012 43.162 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.024 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS013 92.548 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS014 94.370 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.061 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS018 54.697 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.112 SCib1 KNS021 14.258 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS027 56.844 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS030 6.949 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS036 11.327 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.013 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS039 37.455 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS040 5.834 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.018 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 SCib1 KNS044 84.428 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.073 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.049 SCib1 KNS045 24.745 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS046 70.411 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS047 98.652 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS051 36.526 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS055 9.934 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS060 4.416 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS061 83.590 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS062 56.248 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.314 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 SCib1 KNS063 73.737 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 SCib1 KNS067 45.383 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS070 23.152 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1

393

ANID cont. SCib1 SCib2 AZNM EMV1 EMV2 MM1 MM2 Plateau South ULC2 ULC3A ULC3B ULC4 West1 West2

Best Group

KNS074 15.211 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS077 55.338 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.048 0.000 0.000 0.147 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 SCib1 KNS080 96.389 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS081 9.199 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS099 3.451 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS102 6.359 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS103 17.463 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.006 SCib1 KNS104 9.173 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.031 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS105 25.728 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 SCib1 KNS106 12.422 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.095 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.082 SCib1 KNS107 97.639 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS108 77.860 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS109 5.323 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.573 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.040 SCib1 KNS112 22.426 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS113 6.349 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS116 6.869 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.001 SCib1 KNS117 52.757 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS128 53.913 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS129 36.852 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS130 94.564 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS131 21.249 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.017 SCib1 KNS132 22.900 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 SCib1 KNS134 37.130 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS148 62.068 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS152 36.303 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS161 98.994 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS167 48.244 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS168 61.775 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS170 61.258 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS171 86.172 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS175 32.624 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS183 28.242 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS187 11.084 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS193 41.697 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.002 SCib1 KNS202 91.998 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS204 26.457 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS205 7.764 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1

394

ANID cont. SCib1 SCib2 AZNM EMV1 EMV2 MM1 MM2 Plateau South ULC2 ULC3A ULC3B ULC4 West1 West2

Best Group

KNS206 83.344 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS216 20.075 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 SCib1 KNS220 98.362 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 SCib1 KNS228 63.371 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS230 7.715 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS231 86.268 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS232 53.924 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 SCib1 KNS234 8.013 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS237 57.583 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS238 52.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS239 39.143 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS242 88.492 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS243 7.620 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS244 44.637 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS245 99.987 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.030 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS246 23.963 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS247 3.520 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS251 30.397 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 SCib1 KNS257 19.440 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS260 8.316 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS262 42.981 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS265 94.422 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS266 97.691 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS271 6.993 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.000 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS276 13.337 0.000 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.019 0.000 0.000 0.013 0.151 SCib1 KNS281 68.330 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS282 81.806 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS285 17.260 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS287 86.496 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS290 89.715 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS294 41.760 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS296 99.932 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS304 88.857 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS306 99.821 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS308 67.027 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS310 81.415 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS311 33.495 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1

395

ANID cont. SCib1 SCib2 AZNM EMV1 EMV2 MM1 MM2 Plateau South ULC2 ULC3A ULC3B ULC4 West1 West2

Best Group

KNS313 37.699 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.014 0.000 0.018 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS315 21.830 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS316 12.677 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS320 91.553 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS334 70.537 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 SCib1 KNS337 42.401 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS338 17.788 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS346 10.238 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS397 32.735 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS400 91.721 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS403 42.978 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS404 86.979 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS408 15.923 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.019 0.000 0.037 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 SCib1 KNS410 93.713 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.036 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS412 38.763 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1

396

Table C1c. Probabilities of Core Group Membership for Sherds in the Dark Firing Core Group (SCib2, Log-10 Transformed Data) ANID cont. SCib1 SCib2 AZNM EMV1 EMV2 MM1 MM2 Plateau South ULC2 ULC3A ULC3B ULC4 West1 West2

Best Group

AID1006 0.00 90.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SCib2 AID1010 0.00 25.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SCib2 AID1072 0.00 47.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SCib2 AID1074 0.00 6.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SCib2 AID1195 0.00 22.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SCib2 AID1247 0.00 55.94 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SCib2 AID1249 0.00 12.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SCib2 AID1253 0.00 40.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SCib2 AID1256 0.00 86.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SCib2 AID1272 0.00 17.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SCib2 AID1284 0.00 50.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SCib2 AID1289 0.00 38.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 SCib2 AID1299 0.00 50.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 SCib2 AID801 0.00 21.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SCib2 AID807 0.00 87.94 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SCib2 AID808 0.00 88.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SCib2 AID810 0.00 11.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SCib2 AID815 0.00 94.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SCib2 AID826 0.00 71.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SCib2 AID829 0.00 98.94 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SCib2 AID832 0.00 32.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SCib2 AID833 0.00 99.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SCib2 AID834 0.00 20.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SCib2 AID920 0.00 47.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SCib2 AID923 0.00 51.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SCib2 AID925 0.00 22.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SCib2 AID926 0.00 54.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 SCib2 AID929 0.00 30.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SCib2 AID931 0.00 30.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SCib2 AID933 0.00 25.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 SCib2 AID935 0.00 90.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SCib2 AID940 0.00 47.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SCib2 AID948 0.00 25.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SCib2 AID949 0.00 52.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SCib2 AID950 0.00 48.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SCib2 AID955 0.00 9.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SCib2

397

ANID cont. SCib1 SCib2 AZNM EMV1 EMV2 MM1 MM2 Plateau South ULC2 ULC3A ULC3B ULC4 West1 West2

Best Group

AID989 0.00 31.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SCib2 AID992 0.00 93.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 SCib2 AID994 0.00 19.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SCib2 KNS010 0.00 68.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SCib2 KNS038 0.00 30.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SCib2 KNS059 0.00 49.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 SCib2 KNS064 0.00 9.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SCib2 KNS065 0.00 16.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SCib2 KNS066 0.00 40.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SCib2 KNS069 0.00 14.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SCib2 KNS088 0.00 14.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 SCib2 KNS124 0.00 99.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SCib2 KNS126 0.00 97.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SCib2 KNS127 0.00 74.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SCib2 KNS143 0.00 86.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SCib2 KNS153 0.00 9.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.01 SCib2 KNS155 0.00 73.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 SCib2 KNS156 0.00 55.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SCib2 KNS157 0.00 70.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SCib2 KNS190 0.00 64.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SCib2 KNS197 0.00 67.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SCib2 KNS207 0.00 38.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SCib2 KNS236 0.00 9.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SCib2 KNS241 0.00 70.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 SCib2 KNS332 0.00 27.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SCib2 KNS349 0.00 7.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SCib2

398

Table C2. Sherds Removed from Non-Local Core Groups Due to Overlapping Compositional Membership (from Peeples 2011, Log-10 Transformed Data) ANID cont. SCib1 SCib2 AZNM EMV1 EMV2 MM1 MM2 Plateau South ULC2 ULC3A ULC3B ULC4 West1 West2

Best Group

AID113 4.503 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 1.197 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.007 SCib1 AID116 13.589 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.000 71.580 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.173 Plateau AID117 63.253 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.019 0.000 95.676 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.002 Plateau AID122 52.717 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.099 0.000 21.456 0.000 0.001 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.229 SCib1 AID130 92.243 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.017 0.000 76.390 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.144 SCib1 AID266 21.966 0.000 3.297 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.704 0.000 0.000 12.079 0.000 0.000 0.839 0.000 SCib1 AID368 42.438 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 47.744 0.000 0.006 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.061 Plateau AID446 19.215 0.000 0.055 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.213 0.000 0.000 99.732 0.000 0.000 1.293 0.000 ULC3A CAP367 56.564 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 11.210 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.000 SCib1 CAP384 14.935 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.272 0.000 62.892 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.026 Plateau CAP385 45.841 0.000 0.019 0.000 0.000 0.201 0.000 61.113 0.000 0.001 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.001 3.026 Plateau CAP389 58.808 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.014 0.000 90.836 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.040 Plateau CAP391 11.147 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 43.276 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Plateau CAP393 34.007 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.025 0.000 63.760 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 Plateau CAP395 21.274 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.000 48.348 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.493 Plateau CAP404 59.401 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 20.871 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.000 SCib1 CAP412 19.186 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 80.013 0.000 0.000 0.064 0.000 0.000 0.380 0.004 Plateau CAP416 5.535 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 19.276 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.031 0.008 Plateau DLH011 9.014 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 31.402 0.000 0.000 0.139 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Plateau DLH024 28.663 0.000 1.090 0.034 25.728 0.000 0.000 0.374 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.303 0.000 SCib1 DLH078 22.840 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 59.473 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.001 Plateau DLH082 48.259 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.321 0.000 96.708 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.000 Plateau DLH083 10.391 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 57.635 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.002 Plateau DLH087 7.517 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.000 38.908 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.139 Plateau DLH090 8.898 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.000 43.565 0.000 0.000 0.098 0.000 0.000 0.198 0.000 Plateau DLH102 67.692 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.013 0.000 80.701 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.018 0.000 Plateau DLH119 7.696 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.022 0.000 39.218 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Plateau DLH120 21.214 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.051 0.000 79.243 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.002 Plateau DLH123 41.591 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 41.651 0.000 0.000 0.067 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.103 Plateau DLH124 41.834 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 18.808 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 DLH125 10.514 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.140 0.000 95.752 0.000 0.000 0.029 0.000 0.000 0.041 0.200 Plateau DLH133 49.221 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 69.124 0.000 0.000 0.140 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.000 Plateau GSC002 28.430 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.080 0.000 61.794 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Plateau GSC004 13.225 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 92.893 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 Plateau GSC010 58.301 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.233 0.000 98.120 0.000 0.001 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.001 Plateau GSC015 15.506 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 72.861 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Plateau GSC068 28.321 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 99.848 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 Plateau GSC069 72.101 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.848 0.000 99.994 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 Plateau

399

ANID cont. SCib1 SCib2 AZNM EMV1 EMV2 MM1 MM2 Plateau South ULC2 ULC3A ULC3B ULC4 West1 West2

Best Group

GSC071 7.532 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 42.934 0.000 0.000 0.115 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 Plateau GSC100 9.808 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 62.978 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.189 Plateau GSC115 30.666 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 13.793 0.000 0.000 0.013 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 GSC119 8.506 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 8.944 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Plateau GSC145 12.910 0.000 0.042 0.002 41.671 0.000 0.000 7.316 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.302 0.000 EMV2 GSC163 3.464 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.477 0.000 19.807 0.000 0.001 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.714 Plateau GSC165 9.733 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 16.018 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Plateau GSC166 48.557 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.830 0.000 90.164 0.000 0.000 0.033 0.000 0.000 0.025 0.121 Plateau GSC167 17.560 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.865 0.000 49.438 0.000 0.000 0.078 0.000 0.000 0.024 0.014 Plateau GSC170 9.608 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.209 0.000 14.924 0.000 0.000 0.115 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 Plateau GSC171 24.558 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.052 0.000 92.184 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.619 Plateau GSC219 33.749 0.000 1.598 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 96.818 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.002 Plateau GSC232 21.252 0.000 0.142 0.000 35.583 0.000 0.000 4.199 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.046 0.000 EMV2 GSC235 6.235 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 9.064 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Plateau GSC238 17.221 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.000 5.985 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.928 SCib1 GSC240 54.156 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 78.215 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 Plateau GSC250 24.489 0.000 0.160 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 93.663 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 Plateau GSC268 1.963 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 8.259 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Plateau GSC269 50.458 0.000 1.753 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.000 17.936 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.717 0.006 SCib1 GSC323 3.410 0.000 0.394 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.910 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.047 SCib1 GSC328 58.995 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.000 4.456 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.338 0.000 SCib1 GSC330 7.431 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.505 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.373 0.000 SCib1 GSC333 38.854 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.657 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 SCib1 GSC336 71.767 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.000 1.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 GSC347 24.545 0.000 1.081 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 4.741 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.654 0.000 SCib1 GSC370 9.581 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 52.798 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Plateau GSC381 52.386 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 43.197 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 GSC408 8.566 0.000 0.589 0.000 5.560 0.000 0.000 1.417 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.044 0.136 SCib1 GSC488 5.768 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.000 32.285 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.008 Plateau GSC491 15.561 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 97.865 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Plateau GSC512 59.457 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 93.550 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 Plateau GSC517 6.395 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.029 0.000 12.943 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Plateau GSC570 18.219 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.000 99.066 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 Plateau GSC627 63.109 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.572 0.000 99.907 0.000 0.000 0.171 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.001 Plateau GSC630 31.564 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.000 12.509 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 GSC631 4.298 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.386 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.004 Plateau GSC637 35.609 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.018 0.000 33.960 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.041 0.000 SCib1 GSC641 18.546 0.000 0.045 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.116 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 89.345 0.397 WEST1 MAP001 0.000 26.605 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 96.091 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 South

400

ANID cont. SCib1 SCib2 AZNM EMV1 EMV2 MM1 MM2 Plateau South ULC2 ULC3A ULC3B ULC4 West1 West2

Best Group

MAP005 0.000 11.542 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 98.313 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 South MAP008 0.000 1.813 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.025 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 South MAP009 0.000 20.222 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 21.985 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 South MAP011 0.000 5.884 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 30.399 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 South MAP014 0.000 1.136 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.823 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib2 MAP021 58.657 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.107 0.000 19.591 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.007 SCib1 MAP023 99.969 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.815 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 MAP059 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.304 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.002 South MAP062 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.034 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 South MAP068 0.000 2.132 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.315 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 South MAP124 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.663 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.598 0.000 0.000 ULC4 MAP133 87.793 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 8.240 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.000 SCib1 MAP165 71.403 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.167 0.000 14.734 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.029 0.000 SCib1 MAP170 75.680 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 9.518 0.000 0.000 0.058 0.000 0.000 0.287 0.000 SCib1 MAP175 64.304 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.021 0.000 6.230 0.000 0.000 0.064 0.000 0.000 0.106 0.000 SCib1 MAP187 7.242 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.000 18.063 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.000 Plateau MAP195 17.679 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.000 3.446 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.494 0.000 SCib1 MAP200 9.164 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.000 1.002 0.000 0.000 0.037 0.000 0.000 1.521 0.000 SCib1 MAP201 16.307 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.018 0.000 88.649 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.027 0.000 Plateau MAP203 97.797 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.278 0.000 43.263 0.000 0.000 0.019 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 MAP215 56.768 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.383 0.000 24.275 0.000 0.003 0.090 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.000 SCib1 MAP245 17.631 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 90.692 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.077 Plateau MAP273 76.158 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.852 0.000 90.735 0.000 0.000 0.149 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.000 Plateau MAP312 9.066 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 22.697 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.003 Plateau MAP316 3.338 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 3.439 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Plateau MAP317 11.345 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.300 0.000 99.147 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.017 Plateau MAP322 6.764 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.047 0.000 52.910 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Plateau MAP324 37.224 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 99.478 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Plateau MAP333 0.000 3.480 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 51.805 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 MM2 MAP335 0.000 3.223 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 66.020 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 MM2 MAP342 28.025 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.314 0.000 88.107 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Plateau MAP345 15.957 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.965 0.000 72.458 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 Plateau MAP362 15.777 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.000 2.846 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 MAP386 12.686 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.031 0.000 33.623 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.025 0.000 Plateau MAP401 0.000 3.276 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 23.811 0.000 0.966 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.052 0.000 0.004 MM2 MAP512 25.182 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.000 47.601 0.000 0.000 0.050 0.000 0.000 4.205 0.000 Plateau MAP518 16.391 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.734 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.002 SCib1 MAP535 0.000 11.524 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 24.102 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 South

401

Table C3. Probabilities of Core Group Membership for Southern Cibola Clays (Log-10 Transformed Data) ANID SCib1 SCib2 AZNM EMV1 EMV2 MM1 MM2 Plateau South ULC2 ULC3A ULC3B ULC4 West1 West2 AID1142 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1143 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1144 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1145 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 AID1146 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1147 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.371 0.000 0.000 AID1148 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1149 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.034 AID1150 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1151 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.017 AID1152 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1153 1.604 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1154 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1155 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1156 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1157 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1158 0.330 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 AID1159 0.169 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.001 AID1160 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1161 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.156 AID1162 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 AID1163 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1164 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1165 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 AID1166 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1167 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1168 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.003 AID1169 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.623 0.000 0.000 AID1170 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1171 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1172 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 AID1173 0.037 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1174 0.121 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.007 AID1175 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 AID1176 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.000 AID1177 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

402

ANID cont. SCib1 SCib2 AZNM EMV1 EMV2 MM1 MM2 Plateau South ULC2 ULC3A ULC3B ULC4 West1 West2 AID1178 0.060 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 AID1179 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1180 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 AID1181 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KNS416 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KNS417 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.024 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.001 KNS418 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KNS419 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 1.928 KNS420 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.117 0.000 0.003 KNS421 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.018 0.000 0.000 0.407 0.000 0.000 KNS422 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KNS423 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KNS424 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.017 0.000 0.000 0.065 0.000 0.000 KNS425 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 KNS426 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.031 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.013 KNS427 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KNS428 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KNS429 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KNS430 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 KNS431 1.552 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.018 0.000 0.025 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.165 KNS432 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.019 0.000 0.000 0.112 0.000 0.000 KNS433 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KNS434 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KNS435 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.418 0.000 0.052 KNS436 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.675 0.000 0.021 KNS437 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KNS438 0.134 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.260 KNS439 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 1.604 0.000 0.010 KNS440 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 KNS441 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.018 KNS442 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KNS443 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 KNS444 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KNS445 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

403

Table C4. Probable Core Members of Non-Local Core Groups Using Log-10 Transformed Data These sherds met the criteria for membership in each of the following non-local groups using log-10 transformed element

concentrations. These samples were calculated against non-local compositional groups revised by Peeples (2011) after samples with

overlapping membership were removed (see Table C3).

C4a. Core Members of AZNM

ANID SCib1 SCib2 AZNM EMV1 EMV2 MM1 MM2 Plateau South ULC2 ULC3A ULC3B ULC4 West1 West2 Best Group

AID1022 0.002 0.000 51.778 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.006 AZNM AID766 0.035 0.000 54.640 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.091 AZNM

C4b. Core Member of MM2

ANID SCib1 SCib2 AZNM EMV1 EMV2 MM1 MM2 Plateau South ULC2 ULC3A ULC3B ULC4 West1 West2 Best Group

KNS297 0 0.364 0 0 0 0 5.203 0 0.016 0 0 0 0.152 0 0 MM2 C4c. Core Members of Plateau

ANID SCib1 SCib2 AZNM EMV1 EMV2 MM1 MM2 Plateau South ULC2 ULC3A ULC3B ULC4 West1 West2 Best Group

AID1023 1.074 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 57.995 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.134 0.000 Plateau AID1335 0.925 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.038 0.000 30.720 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.644 0.000 Plateau AID860 0.057 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 10.178 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 Plateau AID886 Plateau AID897 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 5.122 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.000 Plateau KNS164 0.084 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 8.514 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Plateau KNS248 0.093 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 13.771 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.006 Plateau KNS250 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 12.250 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Plateau KNS301 0.443 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.282 0.000 87.312 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.000 Plateau KNS318 0.934 0.011 13.438 0.005 0.003 0.030 0.195 Plateau KNS358 0.239 0.000 0.115 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 64.427 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.872 0.000 Plateau KNS402 0.866 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 9.615 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 Plateau KNS407 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.197 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.276 0.000 Plateau

404

C4d. Core Members of South

ANID SCib1 SCib2 AZNM EMV1 EMV2 MM1 MM2 Plateau South ULC2 ULC3A ULC3B ULC4 West1 West2 Best Group

AID1201 0.000 0.309 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 10.279 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.245 0.000 0.000 South AID1222 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 9.133 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 South AID1342 0.000 0.226 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.045 0.000 9.289 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 South AID800 0.000 0.048 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 33.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.000 South AID825 0.000 0.399 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.000 24.546 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 South AID830 0.000 0.649 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.895 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 South KNS015 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 19.837 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 South KNS016 0.000 0.100 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 10.020 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 South KNS035 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.196 0.000 13.497 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 South KNS082 0.000 0.312 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 33.219 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.031 0.000 0.000 South KNS091 0.000 0.084 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 10.951 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 South KNS094 0.000 0.013 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 15.311 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 South KNS123 0.000 0.296 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 12.359 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 South KNS186 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 9.519 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 South

C4e. Core Members of ULC3B

ANID SCib1 SCib2 AZNM EMV1 EMV2 MM1 MM2 Plateau South ULC2 ULC3A ULC3B ULC4 West1 West2 Best Group

AID913 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 94.306 0.000 0.000 0.011 ULC3B

405

C4f. Core Members of ULC4

ANID SCib1 SCib2 AZNM EMV1 EMV2 MM1 MM2 Plateau South ULC2 ULC3A ULC3B ULC4 West1 West2 Best Group

AID1199 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.014 0.001 0.000 0.000 35.171 0.000 0.020 ULC4 AID1200 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.269 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 20.140 0.000 0.041 ULC4 AID1278 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.093 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 10.885 0.000 0.001 ULC4 AID1280 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 8.899 0.000 0.003 ULC4 AID1281 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 10.605 0.000 0.009 ULC4 AID1291 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.538 0.000 0.000 ULC4 AID1292 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.033 0.000 0.000 0.000 23.898 0.000 0.048 ULC4 AID1296 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.280 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 16.426 0.000 0.003 ULC4 AID1297 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.107 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 38.933 0.000 0.000 ULC4 AID1307 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.022 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 64.336 0.000 0.001 ULC4 AID1348 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.117 0.000 0.000 0.000 9.587 0.000 0.000 ULC4 AID781 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.000 51.008 0.000 0.253 ULC4 AID782 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 31.351 0.000 0.000 ULC4 AID816 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.042 0.000 0.283 0.000 0.000 0.000 46.202 0.000 0.338 ULC4 AID831 0.000 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.232 0.000 0.000 0.000 5.599 0.000 0.085 ULC4 AID922 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 16.579 0.000 0.074 ULC4 AID930 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 12.771 0.000 0.018 ULC4 AID937 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 65.058 0.000 0.125 ULC4 KNS222 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 55.051 0.000 0.000 ULC4 KNS253 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.298 0.000 0.182 0.000 0.000 0.000 12.231 0.000 0.040 ULC4 KNS254 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 28.783 0.000 0.000 ULC4 KNS264 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 57.743 0.000 0.000 ULC4 KNS319 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 13.408 0.000 0.000 ULC4 KNS331 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.163 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 15.510 0.000 0.000 ULC4 KNS356 0.000 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.016 0.000 0.000 0.000 10.806 0.000 0.000 ULC4 KNS413 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 56.472 0.000 0.000 ULC4

4f. Core Members of West1

ANID SCib1 SCib2 AZNM EMV1 EMV2 MM1 MM2 Plateau South ULC2 ULC3A ULC3B ULC4 West1 West2 Best Group

KNS348 0.019 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.012 0 0 0 0 0 6.465 0.016 WEST1

406

Table C5. Non-Core Assignments of Southern Cibola Sherds Using Principal Component Scores C5a. Non-Core PCA SCib1

ANID SCib1 SCib2 AZNM EMV1 EMV2 MM1 MM2 Plateau South ULC2 ULC3A ULC3B ULC4 West1 West2 Best Group

AID1028 38.854 0.000 0.079 0.000 0.001 0.997 0.000 3.321 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1046 90.496 0.000 1.566 0.000 0.000 7.355 0.000 6.218 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.283 0.021 SCib1 AID1047 28.051 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1048 23.084 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.126 0.000 0.066 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1052 19.609 0.000 0.092 0.000 0.000 0.054 0.000 1.549 0.000 0.097 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.084 SCib1 AID1056 15.252 0.000 0.100 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1061 13.797 0.000 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1065 8.973 0.000 0.121 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1077 83.629 0.000 0.078 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1083 31.474 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1089 36.724 0.000 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.249 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.018 0.000 SCib1 AID1100 74.157 0.000 0.022 0.000 0.000 1.142 0.000 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1113 19.015 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1183 86.229 0.000 0.154 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.211 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1184 6.385 0.000 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1210 43.346 0.000 0.485 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.006 0.000 0.005 0.002 0.000 0.001 0.006 0.102 SCib1 AID1214 32.247 0.000 0.037 0.000 0.000 0.157 0.000 1.512 0.000 0.445 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.025 0.847 SCib1 AID1234 4.912 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 SCib1 AID1237 8.486 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1238 12.243 0.000 0.066 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1261 3.959 0.000 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1312 8.809 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.124 0.000 0.027 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1315 7.992 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1319 6.899 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1321 86.191 0.000 2.386 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.000 0.093 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1329 3.673 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.000 SCib1 AID1330 75.124 0.000 0.227 0.000 0.000 6.755 0.000 2.743 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1332 10.358 0.000 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.631 0.000 0.026 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 SCib1 AID1337 31.354 0.000 4.722 0.000 0.000 6.772 0.000 2.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.417 SCib1 AID1360 54.303 0.000 0.520 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 SCib1 AID1371 8.756 0.000 0.013 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1376 4.644 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1378 88.411 0.000 0.128 0.000 0.000 0.042 0.000 0.028 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID761 34.979 0.000 0.102 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.000 2.568 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 SCib1 AID767 38.001 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID777 29.396 0.000 0.103 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.135 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 SCib1

407

ANID cont. SCib1 SCib2 AZNM EMV1 EMV2 MM1 MM2 Plateau South ULC2 ULC3A ULC3B ULC4 West1 West2

Best Group

AID780 77.488 0.000 0.216 0.000 0.000 0.132 0.000 0.234 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 SCib1 AID802 3.147 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID838 15.429 0.000 0.963 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID840 11.200 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID847 6.258 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID849 12.588 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.016 0.000 SCib1 AID853 83.910 0.000 0.053 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 1.031 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID854 5.444 0.000 0.000 0.030 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID883 80.078 0.000 2.726 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.000 0.682 0.000 0.000 0.052 0.000 0.003 0.004 0.000 SCib1 AID902 73.396 0.000 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID910 13.372 0.000 0.237 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.000 0.028 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.856 SCib1 AID911 37.918 0.000 3.249 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.013 0.000 SCib1 AID914 19.366 0.000 0.085 0.000 0.006 0.004 0.000 0.351 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID915 7.908 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.013 0.018 0.000 0.526 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID996 32.853 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID998 3.113 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID999 10.621 0.000 0.153 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.013 0.300 SCib1 KNS003 20.920 0.000 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.058 0.000 0.000 0.062 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS005 31.661 0.000 0.016 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.148 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 SCib1 KNS007 26.676 0.000 0.294 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS026 80.905 0.000 1.552 0.000 0.000 0.029 0.000 1.542 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.004 0.001 0.000 SCib1 KNS041 7.264 0.000 0.184 0.000 0.004 0.088 0.000 0.180 0.000 0.000 0.018 0.000 0.000 0.849 0.000 SCib1 KNS052 7.346 0.000 1.054 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.612 0.000 1.140 SCib1 KNS054 4.009 0.000 0.860 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.741 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS072 5.859 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.072 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS073 3.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS095 32.880 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS097 59.587 0.000 0.304 0.000 0.000 0.033 0.000 0.048 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.006 0.033 0.014 SCib1 KNS098 11.833 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS101 14.197 0.000 0.057 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.237 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.027 0.008 SCib1 KNS115 76.772 0.000 0.049 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS133 49.041 0.000 2.937 0.000 0.000 1.392 0.000 0.594 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 SCib1 KNS136 35.525 0.000 1.239 0.000 0.140 7.232 0.000 0.934 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.002 SCib1 KNS139 20.547 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.316 0.000 4.041 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 SCib1 KNS140 22.120 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS149 8.481 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS163 5.615 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS169 35.834 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS172 33.569 0.000 1.056 0.000 0.000 0.098 0.000 0.042 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS174 30.926 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1

408

ANID cont. SCib1 SCib2 AZNM EMV1 EMV2 MM1 MM2 Plateau South ULC2 ULC3A ULC3B ULC4 West1 West2

Best Group

KNS189 5.803 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.074 0.001 0.171 0.000 0.000 0.028 SCib1 KNS194 38.577 0.000 0.047 0.158 0.288 0.000 0.000 0.803 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS200 66.578 0.000 0.025 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS203 7.338 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS210 56.582 0.000 0.159 0.000 0.000 0.277 0.000 5.390 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.015 0.000 SCib1 KNS212 48.884 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.013 0.000 4.008 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 SCib1 KNS227 55.515 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.524 0.000 1.311 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.017 0.000 SCib1 KNS229 22.587 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS233 7.499 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.121 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS272 30.298 0.000 5.006 0.000 0.004 5.484 0.000 0.151 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.086 2.942 SCib1 KNS274 8.569 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS288 49.308 0.000 0.454 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 SCib1 KNS299 14.946 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS303 42.745 0.000 0.106 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.227 0.000 0.000 0.039 0.000 0.000 7.892 0.000 SCib1 KNS309 28.604 0.000 2.517 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.066 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS322 34.908 0.000 0.045 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.504 0.000 0.000 2.941 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.000 SCib1 KNS325 62.597 0.000 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.416 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.085 0.000 SCib1 KNS326 70.795 0.000 1.146 0.000 0.000 0.052 0.000 2.576 0.000 0.020 0.046 0.000 0.000 0.673 3.069 SCib1 KNS328 14.917 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS339 99.130 0.000 1.700 0.000 0.000 0.033 0.000 0.763 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 SCib1 KNS340 64.761 0.000 0.161 0.000 0.000 0.757 0.000 1.471 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.069 0.041 SCib1 KNS351 9.165 0.000 0.025 0.044 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.029 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS406 33.729 0.000 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.159 0.000 1.010 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1

C5b. Non-Core PCA SCib2

ANID SCib1 SCib2 AZNM EMV1 EMV2 MM1 MM2 Plateau South ULC2 ULC3A ULC3B ULC4 West1 West2 Best Group

AID1007 0.000 54.337 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.597 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.557 0.000 0.000 SCib2 AID1008 0.000 30.368 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.150 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib2 AID1009 0.000 68.243 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 7.694 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.022 0.000 0.000 SCib2 AID1011 0.000 81.101 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.105 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.732 0.000 0.000 SCib2 AID1013 0.000 6.189 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.044 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.149 0.000 0.000 SCib2 AID1015 0.000 95.528 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 11.984 0.000 0.000 0.000 5.920 0.000 0.000 SCib2 AID1069 0.000 32.190 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.035 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.837 0.000 0.001 SCib2 AID1073 0.000 29.459 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.611 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.177 0.000 0.000 SCib2 AID1075 0.000 94.392 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.515 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.410 0.000 0.000 SCib2 AID1279 0.000 83.467 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.902 0.000 7.758 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.382 0.000 0.000 SCib2 AID1300 0.000 22.059 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.675 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.257 0.000 0.000 SCib2

409

ANID cont. SCib1 SCib2 AZNM EMV1 EMV2 MM1 MM2 Plateau South ULC2 ULC3A ULC3B ULC4 West1 West2

Best Group

AID1306 0.000 83.219 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.885 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.227 0.000 0.000 SCib2 AID783 0.000 72.907 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.684 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.986 0.000 0.000 SCib2 AID796 0.000 36.923 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.792 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.294 0.000 0.000 SCib2 AID797 0.000 85.183 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 8.215 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.183 0.000 0.000 SCib2 AID804 0.000 77.189 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 4.896 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.069 0.000 0.000 SCib2 AID805 0.000 11.254 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.327 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 SCib2 AID812 0.000 77.555 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 9.524 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.332 0.000 0.000 SCib2 AID824 0.000 3.020 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib2 AID921 0.000 34.046 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.285 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.040 0.000 0.000 SCib2 AID924 0.000 39.290 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.783 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.477 0.000 0.000 SCib2 AID927 0.000 31.096 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.635 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.823 0.000 0.000 SCib2 AID928 0.000 83.776 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.288 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.092 0.000 0.000 SCib2 AID942 0.000 93.999 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.512 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.000 0.000 SCib2 AID986 0.000 14.918 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.000 0.525 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.447 0.000 0.000 SCib2 AID987 0.000 20.126 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.073 0.000 3.094 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.027 0.000 0.000 SCib2 AID990 0.000 96.828 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.060 0.000 53.683 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.045 0.000 0.000 SCib2 KNS002 0.000 29.378 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.496 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.940 0.000 0.000 SCib2 KNS024 0.000 26.332 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.120 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.015 0.000 0.000 SCib2 KNS032 0.000 54.905 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.636 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.174 0.000 0.000 SCib2 KNS033 0.000 74.013 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 5.258 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.640 0.000 0.000 SCib2 KNS034 0.000 76.969 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 1.721 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.406 0.000 0.000 SCib2 KNS068 0.000 19.359 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 SCib2 KNS071 0.000 89.270 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.804 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.617 0.000 0.000 SCib2 KNS092 0.000 50.294 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.138 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.014 0.000 0.000 SCib2 KNS122 0.000 15.181 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.819 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.304 0.000 0.000 SCib2 KNS125 0.000 38.690 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.406 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.056 0.000 0.000 SCib2 KNS177 0.000 58.099 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.046 0.000 6.939 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.707 0.000 0.000 SCib2 KNS191 0.000 28.987 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.013 0.000 0.473 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.150 0.000 0.000 SCib2 KNS215 0.000 54.234 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 5.251 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.477 0.000 0.000 SCib2 KNS217 0.000 63.177 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.391 0.000 6.777 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.467 0.000 0.000 SCib2 KNS218 0.000 33.404 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.234 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.000 SCib2 KNS235 0.000 35.328 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.528 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.666 0.000 0.000 SCib2

410

C5c. Non-Core PCA AZNM

ANID SCib1 SCib2 AZNM EMV1 EMV2 MM1 MM2 Plateau South ULC2 ULC3A ULC3B ULC4 West1 West2 Best Group

AID1112 0.023 0.000 31.788 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AZNM AID844 0.034 0.000 7.425 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AZNM AID978 0.678 0.000 56.425 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AZNM KNS135 5.590 0.000 53.165 0.000 0.000 0.392 0.000 1.065 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.098 0.000 AZNM KNS333 0.011 0.000 33.403 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AZNM KNS343 2.526 0.000 14.769 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.237 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.168 0.000 AZNM

C5d. Non-Core PCA EMV2

ANID SCib1 SCib2 AZNM EMV1 EMV2 MM1 MM2 Plateau South ULC2 ULC3A ULC3B ULC4 West1 West2 Best Group

AID1020 2.106 0.000 2.045 0.000 15.241 0.086 0.000 0.741 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.452 0.001 EMV2 C5e. Non-Core PCA MM1

ANID SCib1 SCib2 AZNM EMV1 EMV2 MM1 MM2 Plateau South ULC2 ULC3A ULC3B ULC4 West1 West2 Best Group

AID1104 12.197 0.000 0.020 0.000 0.000 54.089 0.000 0.310 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 MM1 AID1105 9.635 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 47.143 0.000 0.282 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 MM1

C5f. Non-Core PCA MM2

ANID SCib1 SCib2 AZNM EMV1 EMV2 MM1 MM2 Plateau South ULC2 ULC3A ULC3B ULC4 West1 West2 Best Group

AID1304 0.000 0.301 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 33.824 0.000 2.045 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.015 0.000 0.000 MM2 AID791 0.000 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 8.053 0.000 0.152 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 MM2 AID934 0.000 1.062 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 20.992 0.000 2.092 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 MM2 AID943 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.230 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 MM2 KNS293 0.000 5.719 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 13.144 0.000 0.567 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.567 0.000 0.000 MM2

411

C5g. Non-Core PCA Plateau

ANID SCib1 SCib2 AZNM EMV1 EMV2 MM1 MM2 Plateau South ULC2 ULC3A ULC3B ULC4 West1 West2 Best Group

AID1004 0.161 0.000 0.182 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 5.300 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.038 0.158 Plateau AID1017 0.682 0.000 0.529 0.000 0.000 0.236 0.000 13.460 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.296 0.000 Plateau AID1223 0.028 0.000 0.023 0.000 0.164 0.077 0.000 4.156 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.036 0.002 Plateau AID1246 0.317 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 13.812 0.000 0.000 0.169 0.000 0.000 0.089 0.000 Plateau KNS111 4.256 0.000 0.216 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.000 19.575 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.402 0.000 Plateau KNS219 0.129 0.000 0.672 0.000 1.302 0.020 0.000 12.753 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.470 0.003 Plateau KNS300 0.066 0.000 1.214 0.000 0.909 0.006 0.000 13.750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.573 0.002 Plateau

C5h. Non-Core PCA ULC3A

ANID SCib1 SCib2 AZNM EMV1 EMV2 MM1 MM2 Plateau South ULC2 ULC3A ULC3B ULC4 West1 West2 Best Group

AID1327 0.237 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.047 0.000 0.000 39.783 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 ULC3A C5i. Non-Core PCA ULC3B

ANID SCib1 SCib2 AZNM EMV1 EMV2 MM1 MM2 Plateau South ULC2 ULC3A ULC3B ULC4 West1 West2 Best Group

AID1136 0.207 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.013 0.000 13.027 0.005 0.000 0.033 ULC3B

412

C5j. Non-Core PCA ULC4

ANID SCib1 SCib2 AZNM EMV1 EMV2 MM1 MM2 Plateau South ULC2 ULC3A ULC3B ULC4 West1 West2 Best Group

AID1066 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.637 0.000 0.000 ULC4 AID1268 0.000 0.613 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.991 0.000 0.000 ULC4 AID1286 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 31.035 0.000 0.183 ULC4 AID1290 0.027 0.000 0.044 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 8.668 0.000 0.882 ULC4 AID1294 0.000 0.196 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.018 0.000 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.000 89.453 0.000 0.008 ULC4 AID1308 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.259 0.000 0.017 ULC4 AID770 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.093 0.001 0.832 ULC4 AID787 0.000 0.811 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.802 0.000 0.000 0.000 15.670 0.000 0.000 ULC4 AID803 0.000 1.072 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.027 0.000 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.000 25.360 0.000 0.015 ULC4 AID823 0.000 0.765 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.910 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 70.055 0.000 0.047 ULC4 KNS110 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.539 0.000 0.000 ULC4 KNS144 0.000 0.280 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 28.422 0.000 0.084 ULC4 KNS199 0.000 0.061 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.123 0.000 0.013 0.000 0.000 0.000 18.084 0.000 0.001 ULC4 KNS275 0.000 1.717 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.070 0.000 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.000 14.543 0.000 0.032 ULC4 KNS283 0.000 1.033 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.343 0.000 0.269 0.000 0.000 0.000 13.857 0.000 0.000 ULC4 KNS341 0.000 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.000 87.179 0.000 0.947 ULC4 KNS342 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 92.314 0.000 0.003 ULC4

C5k. Non-Core PCA West1

ANID SCib1 SCib2 AZNM EMV1 EMV2 MM1 MM2 Plateau South ULC2 ULC3A ULC3B ULC4 West1 West2 Best Group

KNS273 0.011 0.000 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.771 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 43.902 0.000 WEST1 C5l. Non-Core PCA West2

ANID SCib1 SCib2 AZNM EMV1 EMV2 MM1 MM2 Plateau South ULC2 ULC3A ULC3B ULC4 West1 West2 Best Group

KNS344 0.941 0.000 2.591 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.185 0.000 0.059 3.655 0.000 0.002 0.014 10.923 WEST2

413

Figure C1. Non-core (PCA) members of the AZNM, EMV2, MM1, and MM2 core groups. (a) Core groups within 90% confidence ellipse. (b) Non-core members plotted within confidence ellipse of core groups.

Principal Component 1 (51%)

Prin

cipa

l Com

pone

nt 3

(8%

)AZNM

EMV2MM1

MM2

Core MembersAZNMEMV2MM1MM2

Principal Component 1 (51%)

Prin

cipa

l Com

pone

nt 3

(8%

)

AZNM

EMV2MM1

MM2

Non-Core MembersAZNMEMV2MM1MM2

414

Figure C2. Non-core (PCA) members of the Plateau, South, and WEST2 core groups. (a) Core groups within 90% confidence ellipse. (b) Non-core members plotted within confidence ellipse of core groups.

Principal Component 1 (51%)

Prin

cipa

l Com

pone

nt 3

(8%

)

PlateauWEST2

South

Core MembersPlateauSouthWEST2

Principal Component 1 (51%)

Prin

cipa

l Com

pone

nt 3

(8%

)

PlateauWEST2

South

Non-Core MembersPlateauSouthWEST2

415

Figure C3. Non-core (PCA) members of the ULC3A, ULC3B, ULC4, and WEST1 core groups. (a) Core groups within 90% confidence ellipse. (b) Non-core members plotted within confidence ellipse of core groups.

Principal Component 1 (51%)

Prin

cipa

l Com

pone

nt 3

(8%

)

ULC3A

ULC3B

ULC4WEST1

Core MembersULC3AULC3BULC4WEST1

Principal Component 1 (51%)

Prin

cipa

l Com

pone

nt 3

(8%

)

ULC3A

ULC3B

ULC4WEST1

Non-Core MembersULC3AULC3BULC4WEST1

416

Table C6. Non-Core Member Assignments of Southern Cibola Sherds Using Canonical Discriminant Function Analysis C6a. Non-Core CDA SCib1

ANID SCib1 SCib2 EMV2 MM2 Plateau South ULC3B ULC4 West1 West2 Best Group

AID755 12.455 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID759 35.564 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.994 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.012 1.347 SCib1 AID768 98.843 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.568 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 SCib1 AID837 40.939 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.466 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 4.531 SCib1 AID841 21.604 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID846 19.707 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.004 SCib1 AID904 13.018 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.170 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.001 0.018 SCib1 AID906 16.211 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.143 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 SCib1 AID979 14.731 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1002 14.118 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.048 0.000 0.318 SCib1 AID1025 4.935 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.326 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.001 SCib1 AID1049 99.744 0.000 0.000 0.000 5.356 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 SCib1 AID1059 26.167 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1102 33.903 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.671 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.016 SCib1 AID1187 14.174 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1209 48.248 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1227 84.245 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.409 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 SCib1 AID1230 20.459 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.886 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 SCib1 AID1235 31.181 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.222 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.037 SCib1 AID1318 32.180 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1334 52.061 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 AID1357 38.141 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.583 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.486 0.094 SCib1 AID1368 6.506 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS150 22.499 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.120 SCib1 KNS192 13.199 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.815 0.000 1.118 SCib1 KNS221 5.283 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.061 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.031 SCib1 KNS223 56.153 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS224 71.080 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS240 7.342 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib1 KNS269 10.465 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.019 0.000 0.229 SCib1 KNS278 31.441 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.632 0.000 0.000 0.108 0.000 2.235 SCib1 KNS324 55.764 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.268 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.060 SCib1

417

C6b. Non-Core CDA SCib2

ANID SCib1 SCib2 EMV2 MM2 Plateau South ULC3B ULC4 West1 West2 Best Group

AID1255 0.000 5.814 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.092 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 SCib2 AID1288 0.000 70.124 0.000 3.463 0.000 1.411 0.000 0.856 0.000 0.000 SCib2 AID1293 0.000 21.282 0.000 0.002 0.000 1.610 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 SCib2 AID945 0.000 21.582 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.209 0.000 0.055 0.000 0.010 SCib2 AID951 0.000 65.470 0.000 0.000 0.000 8.830 0.000 0.016 0.000 0.000 SCib2 AID995 0.000 80.772 0.000 0.027 0.000 0.816 0.000 0.113 0.000 0.000 SCib2 KNS087 0.000 52.977 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.116 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 SCib2 KNS090 0.000 13.706 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.140 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCib2 KNS091 0.000 32.283 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.366 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 SCib2 KNS158 0.000 38.292 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.864 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 SCib2 KNS214 0.000 23.571 0.000 0.010 0.000 0.189 0.000 0.276 0.000 0.001 SCib2 KNS414 0.000 77.441 0.000 0.005 0.000 4.008 0.000 2.797 0.000 0.006 SCib2

C6c. Non-Core CDA EMV2

ANID SCib1 SCib2 EMV2 MM2 Plateau South ULC3B ULC4 West1 West2 Best Group

KNS291 0.001 0.000 10.473 0.000 1.153 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 EMV2 C6d. Non-Core CDA MM2

ANID SCib1 SCib2 EMV2 MM2 Plateau South ULC3B ULC4 West1 West2 Best Group

KNS312 0.000 5.667 0.000 29.490 0.000 0.215 0.000 0.204 0.000 0.000 MM2

418

C6e. Non-Core CDA Plateau

ANID SCib1 SCib2 EMV2 MM2 Plateau South ULC3B ULC4 West1 West2 Best Group

AID1127 4.314 0.000 0.000 0.000 30.558 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.003 Plateau AID1370 9.208 0.000 0.000 0.000 67.041 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.111 Plateau AID872 0.809 0.000 0.000 0.000 16.156 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.025 0.231 Plateau KNS049 0.024 0.000 0.028 0.000 6.680 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.353 Plateau KNS173 0.593 0.000 0.000 0.000 17.027 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.488 0.003 Plateau KNS178 2.329 0.000 0.000 0.000 15.649 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.076 Plateau KNS180 3.232 0.000 0.000 0.000 67.330 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.666 0.500 Plateau KNS415 4.438 0.000 0.000 0.000 24.756 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.088 0.014 Plateau

C6f. Non-Core CDA South

ANID SCib1 SCib2 EMV2 MM2 Plateau South ULC3B ULC4 West1 West2 Best Group

AID792 0.000 6.038 0.000 0.007 0.000 29.643 0.000 0.845 0.000 0.014 South AID821 0.000 1.364 0.000 0.000 0.000 8.444 0.000 0.087 0.000 0.003 South AID835 0.000 0.802 0.000 0.000 0.000 16.508 0.000 1.241 0.000 0.009 South AID991 0.000 3.216 0.000 0.000 0.000 38.124 0.000 0.432 0.000 0.001 South KNS208 0.000 0.248 0.000 0.001 0.000 34.026 0.000 0.358 0.000 0.169 South KNS405 0.000 3.655 0.000 0.000 0.000 50.735 0.000 1.944 0.000 0.003 South

C6g. Non-Core CDA ULC3B

ANID SCib1 SCib2 EMV2 MM2 Plateau South ULC3B ULC4 West1 West2 Best Group

AID1033 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 20.063 0.000 0.000 0.077 ULC3B AID1363 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 5.152 0.000 0.000 0.447 ULC3B

C6h. Non-Core CDA ULC4

ANID SCib1 SCib2 EMV2 MM2 Plateau South ULC3B ULC4 West1 West2 Best Group

KNS009 0.000 0.006 0.000 1.110 0.000 0.795 0.000 48.775 0.000 1.191 ULC4 KNS255 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.027 0.000 10.768 0.000 0.002 ULC4

419

C6i. Non-Core CDA WEST1

ANID SCib1 SCib2 EMV2 MM2 Plateau South ULC3B ULC4 West1 West2 Best Group

AID1373 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.083 0.000 0.000 0.000 10.282 0.035 West1 KNS025 0.631 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.108 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.797 3.120 West1 KNS327 0.448 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.283 0.000 0.000 0.000 27.169 0.738 West1

C6j. Non-Core CDA WEST2

ANID SCib1 SCib2 EMV2 MM2 Plateau South ULC3B ULC4 West1 West2 Best Group

AID954 2.338 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.217 0.006 0.000 0.183 0.000 16.744 West2 AID939 0.001 0.773 0.000 0.005 0.000 1.459 0.000 1.760 0.000 6.795 West2 AID1012 0.003 0.354 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.499 0.000 0.266 0.000 6.242 West2 AID1060 0.201 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.006 0.000 4.560 West2 AID1088 0.318 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.590 0.000 0.000 0.038 0.008 14.055 West2 AID1220 0.112 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.337 0.002 21.885 West2 AID1282 0.003 0.799 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.246 0.000 0.997 0.000 8.814 West2 AID1303 0.034 0.068 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.134 0.000 0.958 0.000 10.314 West2 AID1343 0.113 0.076 0.000 0.002 0.001 0.273 0.000 1.506 0.000 22.069 West2 AID1372 0.971 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.001 0.000 0.008 0.000 41.191 West2 AID1375 0.014 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.002 0.000 0.001 0.000 16.307 West2 KNS017 4.247 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.001 0.000 0.559 0.000 68.505 West2 KNS160 0.062 0.167 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.018 0.000 2.534 0.000 65.570 West2 KNS249 0.905 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.000 0.000 1.448 0.000 12.460 West2 KNS259 0.460 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.063 6.377 West2 KNS261 0.071 0.024 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.358 0.000 27.967 West2 KNS286 0.207 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.120 0.009 22.745 West2 KNS336 0.893 0.187 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.173 0.000 10.668 West2

420

Figure C4. Non-core (CDA) members of the SCib1 and SCib2 core groups. (a) Core groups within 90% confidence ellipse. (b) Non-core members plotted within confidence ellipse of core groups.

CD 1 (30%)

CD

# 2

(19%

)

SCib1

SCib2

Core MembersSCib1SCib2

CD 1 (30%)

CD

# 2

(19%

)

SCib1

SCib2

Non-Core MembersSCib1SCib2

421

Figure C5. Non-core (CDA) members of the MM2, Plateau, South, and EMV2 core groups. (a) Core groups within 90% confidence ellipse. (b) Non-core members plotted within confidence ellipse of core groups.

CD 1 (30%)

CD

# 2

(19%

)

EMV2South

Core MembersEMV2MM2PlateauSouth

MM2

Plateau

CD 1 (30%)

CD

# 2

(19%

)

EMV2South

Non-Core MembersEMV2MM2PlateauSouth

MM2

Plateau

422

Figure C6. Non-core (CDA) members of the ULC3B, ULC4, WEST1, and WEST2 core groups. (a) Core groups within 90% confidence ellipse. (b) Non-core members plotted within confidence ellipse of core groups.

CD 1 (30%)

CD

# 2

(19%

)

WEST1

WEST2ULC4

ULC3B

Core MembersULC3BULC4WEST1WEST2

CD 1 (30%)

CD

# 2

(19%

)

WEST1

WEST2ULC4

ULC3B

Non-Core MembersULC3BULC4WEST1WEST2

423

Table C7. Probabilities of Core Group Membership for H-Spear Sherds (Log-10 Transformed Data)

ANID SCib1 SCib2 AZNM EMV1 EMV2 MM1 MM2 Plateau South ULC2 ULC3A ULC3B ULC4 West1 West2 Best Group

KNS352 0.000 0.233 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.682 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KNS353 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.202 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KNS354 0.548 0.000 5.978 0.000 1.754 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.000 KNS355 0.033 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.129 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KNS356 0.000 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.016 0.000 0.000 0.000 10.806 0.000 0.000 ULC4 KNS357 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 KNS358 0.239 0.000 0.115 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 64.427 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.872 0.000 Plateau KNS359 0.602 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KNS360 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KNS361 0.050 0.000 0.434 0.000 0.102 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.307 KNS362 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.775 0.000 0.000 KNS363 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.011 KNS364 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.025 KNS365 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KNS366 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.208 KNS367 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.046 0.000 KNS368 0.002 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.257 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 KNS369 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 KNS370 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.001 KNS371 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.202 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 1.006 0.000 0.006 KNS372 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.059 0.000 0.007 KNS373 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.004 KNS374 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 99.317 0.000 West1 KNS375 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 KNS376 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KNS377 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KNS378 0.000 0.000 0.180 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.445 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 84.790 0.000 West1 KNS379 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.850 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 KNS380 8.247 0.000 8.032 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.009 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.117 1.219 KNS381 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KNS382 0.005 0.000 0.911 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.316 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 1.054 0.000 KNS383 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.000 KNS384 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KNS385 0.000 0.000 0.354 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.017 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.894 0.000 KNS386 0.011 0.000 0.553 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.903 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 5.657 0.000 KNS387 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.026 0.000

424

ANID cont. SCib1 SCib2 AZNM EMV1 EMV2 MM1 MM2 Plateau South ULC2 ULC3A ULC3B ULC4 West1 West2

Best Group

KNS388 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 KNS389 0.013 0.000 0.670 0.000 0.404 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KNS390 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.000 KNS391 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.003 KNS392 0.080 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.015 0.000 KNS393 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.085 KNS394 0.320 0.000 0.137 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.047 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.083 0.000 KNS395 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KNS396 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000

Table C8. Unassigned Southern Cibola Sherds (Log-10 Transformed Data) ANID SCib1 SCib2 AZNM EMV1 EMV2 MM1 MM2 Plateau South ULC2 ULC3A ULC3B ULC4 West1 West2

AID756 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID757 0.328 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 AID758 0.297 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.016 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID762 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID763 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 AID764 8.115 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 17.169 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.174 0.000 AID765 1.207 0.000 0.078 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 59.244 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.285 0.000 AID772 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID773 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID775 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID776 0.000 15.010 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.618 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.075 0.000 0.000 AID778 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.214 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.193 AID784 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.273 0.000 0.000 AID785 0.000 10.557 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 18.990 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID786 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID788 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.022 0.000 0.168 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID789 0.000 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.359 0.000 0.000 AID790 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.163 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000

425

ANID SCib1 SCib2 AZNM EMV1 EMV2 MM1 MM2 Plateau South ULC2 ULC3A ULC3B ULC4 West1 West2

AID793 0.000 1.560 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.573 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID794 0.000 1.285 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 25.218 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.031 0.000 0.000 AID795 0.000 43.287 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 24.681 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID798 0.000 18.356 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.467 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 AID799 0.000 7.679 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 14.530 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID806 0.000 8.088 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.332 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID809 0.000 90.555 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 5.031 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID811 0.000 77.594 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.584 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID813 0.000 32.467 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 60.542 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID814 0.000 41.769 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 18.082 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID817 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.075 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID818 0.000 38.502 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.372 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID819 0.000 31.720 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.218 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID820 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.773 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID822 0.000 13.793 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 5.477 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 AID827 0.000 11.425 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 5.773 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.000 0.000 AID828 0.000 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.171 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.000 AID843 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID848 0.428 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID855 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 AID857 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID858 6.131 0.000 0.304 0.000 4.520 0.000 0.000 11.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 1.979 AID859 32.442 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.536 0.000 84.926 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.921 AID861 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 AID862 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.006 2.433 AID863 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.019 0.015 AID864 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID865 54.506 0.000 25.498 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 1.852 0.000 0.001 0.024 0.000 0.000 15.071 0.000 AID866 39.214 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.000 16.647 0.000 0.002 0.044 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.095 AID868 0.050 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

426

ANID SCib1 SCib2 AZNM EMV1 EMV2 MM1 MM2 Plateau South ULC2 ULC3A ULC3B ULC4 West1 West2

AID869 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 AID875 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.507 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.015 AID877 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID879 0.201 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 AID891 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.118 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.029 0.000 AID905 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.031 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID918 0.270 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID932 0.000 2.257 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 20.732 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.928 0.000 0.000 AID936 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.121 0.000 0.000 AID938 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID941 0.000 0.680 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.798 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID944 0.000 1.458 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID946 0.000 34.572 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.000 1.455 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.062 0.000 0.000 AID947 0.000 81.895 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.723 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID952 0.000 0.266 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.029 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID953 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.050 0.000 0.000 AID956 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID957 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID958 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 AID959 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID960 29.437 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.059 0.000 25.559 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.059 0.310 AID961 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID962 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID965 2.286 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.276 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID967 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID969 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID981 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 AID982 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID983 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID988 0.000 1.099 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.780 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.814 0.000 0.000

427

ANID SCib1 SCib2 AZNM EMV1 EMV2 MM1 MM2 Plateau South ULC2 ULC3A ULC3B ULC4 West1 West2

AID993 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID997 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1005 0.392 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.216 0.018 AID1014 0.000 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.935 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1016 0.033 0.000 0.488 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.607 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.001 AID1019 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.324 0.000 AID1024 0.000 0.751 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 AID1027 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1031 0.453 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.252 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.019 0.004 AID1035 1.590 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1037 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.000 AID1040 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1051 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1053 37.681 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 5.436 0.000 0.000 0.065 0.000 0.000 0.019 0.047 AID1054 4.113 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.078 0.000 3.367 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 AID1057 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 AID1058 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1063 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1064 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1067 0.000 0.120 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.484 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1068 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1070 0.000 0.086 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.439 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1071 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.000 0.004 AID1076 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 AID1078 0.033 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.081 0.404 AID1079 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.175 0.000 AID1080 26.501 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.489 0.000 32.671 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.008 AID1081 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 AID1082 0.095 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.048 AID1084 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.061

428

ANID SCib1 SCib2 AZNM EMV1 EMV2 MM1 MM2 Plateau South ULC2 ULC3A ULC3B ULC4 West1 West2

AID1085 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1086 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1087 96.893 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.000 34.198 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1092 92.962 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 20.714 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 AID1095 0.117 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.018 AID1097 0.146 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.191 0.000 0.000 1.842 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.052 AID1099 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 3.247 0.000 AID1101 90.657 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.044 0.000 36.910 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1106 0.259 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.029 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1108 0.025 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 AID1109 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.190 0.000 AID1111 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 AID1121 0.035 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 AID1128 16.330 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 8.515 0.000 0.000 0.037 0.000 0.000 0.056 0.130 AID1129 81.339 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 19.192 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1131 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1133 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.019 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 AID1137 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 AID1138 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1192 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.078 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.001 AID1193 0.000 2.817 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.249 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.016 0.000 0.000 AID1194 0.000 1.237 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.754 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 AID1196 0.000 7.870 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 10.782 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.000 AID1197 0.000 3.740 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.272 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1198 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.053 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.015 0.000 0.000 AID1202 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.007 AID1203 21.823 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.239 0.000 0.000 0.036 0.000 0.000 0.201 0.014 AID1204 7.134 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.021 0.000 20.785 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1207 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.001 AID1208 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.446 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.000

429

ANID SCib1 SCib2 AZNM EMV1 EMV2 MM1 MM2 Plateau South ULC2 ULC3A ULC3B ULC4 West1 West2

AID1211 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.013 AID1212 0.470 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.255 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.005 AID1213 2.075 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.691 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.311 0.000 AID1221 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.000 AID1229 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1239 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1240 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1244 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1248 0.000 98.451 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 52.659 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.000 AID1250 0.000 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.018 0.000 0.000 AID1251 0.000 83.652 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 39.059 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1252 0.000 64.483 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 30.396 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1254 0.000 5.222 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.120 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.434 0.000 0.000 AID1258 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1259 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1260 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1262 0.004 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.069 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.000 AID1264 0.017 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1265 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1267 0.000 0.873 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.143 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1269 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.955 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1270 0.000 31.313 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 8.182 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1271 0.000 57.294 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 48.328 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1273 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.079 0.000 0.000 AID1274 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.033 0.000 0.032 AID1275 0.000 1.574 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.857 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.000 AID1276 0.000 74.857 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 22.518 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.000 AID1277 0.000 0.363 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.920 0.000 0.000 0.000 24.582 0.000 0.006 AID1283 0.000 3.840 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.681 0.000 2.917 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1285 0.000 0.793 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.437 0.000 1.887 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.231 0.000 0.000

430

ANID SCib1 SCib2 AZNM EMV1 EMV2 MM1 MM2 Plateau South ULC2 ULC3A ULC3B ULC4 West1 West2

AID1287 0.000 0.026 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.647 0.000 0.000 0.000 9.345 0.000 0.016 AID1295 0.000 9.129 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.248 0.000 0.074 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.878 0.000 0.000 AID1298 0.000 65.945 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.278 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1301 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.093 0.000 0.000 AID1302 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.000 0.114 AID1305 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.055 0.000 0.001 AID1309 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.000 0.009 AID1310 0.258 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1313 12.251 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 19.160 0.000 0.001 0.055 0.000 0.000 19.343 1.491 AID1314 0.080 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 AID1316 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.029 0.000 0.296 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.057 AID1317 78.784 0.000 0.227 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 24.195 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.394 0.928 AID1323 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1325 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1326 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.001 AID1331 5.745 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.458 0.000 60.198 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.027 0.000 AID1336 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.386 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.682 0.332 AID1338 18.826 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 39.457 0.000 0.073 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 AID1340 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.057 0.000 0.000 AID1341 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.486 0.000 0.000 AID1344 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.074 0.000 0.001 AID1345 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.260 0.000 0.105 AID1346 0.000 0.026 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.000 2.444 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.599 0.000 0.000 AID1347 0.000 19.711 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 23.546 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1349 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1350 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1352 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1354 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.071 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 AID1361 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.359 0.000 AID1374 0.124 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.933 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.181 0.000

431

ANID SCib1 SCib2 AZNM EMV1 EMV2 MM1 MM2 Plateau South ULC2 ULC3A ULC3B ULC4 West1 West2

KNS001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KNS006 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KNS019 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.000 0.000 KNS020 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.020 KNS022 0.144 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KNS023 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 KNS028 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KNS029 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 KNS031 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KNS037 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.043 0.000 KNS042 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KNS043 0.141 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 KNS048 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 KNS050 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.046 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KNS053 0.061 0.000 11.340 0.000 5.917 0.000 0.000 1.654 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.392 KNS056 0.000 19.343 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 9.303 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.067 0.000 0.000 KNS057 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 KNS058 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.013 0.000 KNS075 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.000 KNS076 0.058 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KNS078 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KNS079 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KNS083 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 KNS084 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KNS085 0.147 0.000 0.107 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.039 0.033 KNS086 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KNS089 0.000 4.203 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.532 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KNS093 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KNS096 0.714 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KNS100 0.098 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 2.183 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.001

432

ANID SCib1 SCib2 AZNM EMV1 EMV2 MM1 MM2 Plateau South ULC2 ULC3A ULC3B ULC4 West1 West2

KNS114 0.287 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KNS118 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 KNS119 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KNS120 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KNS121 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.185 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KNS137 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.024 0.004 KNS138 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.015 0.608 KNS141 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KNS142 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KNS145 0.000 0.249 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.033 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KNS146 0.000 15.123 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 42.997 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KNS147 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KNS151 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KNS154 0.000 0.142 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.021 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KNS159 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.307 0.006 KNS162 1.584 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.019 0.302 KNS165 0.000 0.000 0.031 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.072 0.028 KNS166 1.392 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.019 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 KNS176 0.000 12.745 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.031 0.000 5.612 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KNS179 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.153 KNS181 0.025 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.616 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.151 0.052 KNS182 0.390 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 1.362 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.030 0.025 KNS184 0.077 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KNS185 0.125 0.000 0.288 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.027 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.081 0.001 KNS188 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KNS195 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KNS196 0.165 0.000 0.059 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.061 0.537 KNS198 0.000 9.657 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 39.172 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.269 0.000 0.000 KNS201 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 KNS209 0.000 18.988 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.897 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

433

ANID SCib1 SCib2 AZNM EMV1 EMV2 MM1 MM2 Plateau South ULC2 ULC3A ULC3B ULC4 West1 West2

KNS211 0.286 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.157 KNS213 70.763 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.000 20.051 0.000 0.003 0.030 0.000 0.000 0.001 1.860 KNS225 0.000 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.000 0.000 KNS226 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.000 KNS252 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.054 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 KNS256 0.000 29.221 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.568 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.048 0.000 0.000 KNS258 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.042 0.000 2.488 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KNS263 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.056 0.005 KNS267 0.038 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.045 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 KNS268 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.033 0.000 0.009 KNS277 0.009 0.000 0.312 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.105 0.000 KNS279 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.003 KNS280 8.281 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 8.712 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 KNS284 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.035 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 KNS289 0.054 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KNS292 0.000 1.161 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.068 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.000 0.000 KNS295 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KNS298 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 KNS302 0.981 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KNS305 67.374 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.640 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.000 KNS307 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 KNS314 0.361 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KNS317 7.998 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.358 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.027 KNS321 72.428 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 57.292 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KNS323 0.001 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.897 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.495 0.330 KNS329 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.141 0.000 0.000 0.001 KNS335 2.076 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 8.711 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.000 KNS345 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KNS347 0.000 20.357 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.521 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.053 0.000 0.000 KNS350 0.000 0.288 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.506 0.000 0.000

434

ANID SCib1 SCib2 AZNM EMV1 EMV2 MM1 MM2 Plateau South ULC2 ULC3A ULC3B ULC4 West1 West2

KNS398 0.051 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.416 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KNS399 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KNS401 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KNS409 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.000 KNS411 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000

435

Figure C7. Unassigned sherds plotted over the southern Cibola core groups. Many sherds show compositional similarities to the two groups, but were unassigned due to chemical similarity to non-local core groups (see Figure C8 below).

Ta (ppm)

Cs

(ppm

)

SCib1

SCib2

SCib1 Core MembersSCib2 Core MembersUnassigned Sherds

436

Figure C8. Unassigned sherds plotted over local and non-local core groups. The CDA plot illustrates the compositional similarity of these groups and the overlap of many unassigned sherds with more than one group (see Figure C9 below).

CD 1 (30%)

CD

# 2

(19%

)

SCib1

ULC4Plateau

SCib1 Core MembersSCib2 Core MembersPlateau Core MembersSouth Core MembersULC4 Core MembersUnassigned Sherds

South SCib2

437

Figure C9. Unassigned sherds plotted within the 90% confidence ellipse of local and non-local groups with which they show the most compositional similarity. Many sherds showed high statistical probabilities of membership in more than one group.

CD 1 (30%)

CD

# 2

(19%

)

SCib1

ULC4Plateau

South SCib2

SCib1 Core MembersSCib2 Core MembersPlateau Core MembersSouth Core MembersULC4 Core MembersUnassigned Sherds

APPENDIX D:

COMPARATIVE PUEBLO II CHACO-STYLE GREAT HOUSE DATA

439

The great houses detailed below represent only a very small subset of all identified great houses. These great houses have a PII

component, and have some information regarding their associated community, community-integrating activities, and/or for

resource procurement and exchange. Information was obtained from cited sources and from the “Outlier Database” on the Chaco

Research Archive. More information on a wider range of great houses is available on the Chaco Research Archive.

Table D1. Sample of Macro-regional Great Houses Detailing Chaco Conventions, Community Information, and Resource Procurement and Exchange Great House Community

Chaco-style Construction and Remodeling

Associated Community

Evidence for Community- Integrating Activities

Evidence for Regional Interaction/Resource Procurement

Citation

Albert Porter (Northern San Juan)

A.D. 1020-1280. Great house is multi-story with 80 rooms, multiple blocked-in kivas, and a great kiva.

Great house is built within an existing community.

Possible feasts and use of ritual fauna during PII period: artiodactyl index =0.05, lagomorph index = 0.87, turkey index = 0.26

Badenhorst 2008; Ryan 2004

Allantown (Rio Puerco of the West)

Unclear dates due to PI component. Some tree-rings dated to early 1100s. Approximately 115 great house rooms estimated, multi-story construction, multiple blocked-in kivas, 1 exterior kiva, 1 great kiva, an enclosed plaza, berms, and three associated pre-contact roads.

Situated within existing community but no data available on number of associated sites.

No direct compositional core group identified but some tested sherds chemically similar to samples from Black Mesa; suggests some movement of ceramics from Allantown into Chaco core (Neitzel et al. 2002).

Chaco Research Archive

440

Great House Community cont.

Chaco-style Construction and Remodeling

Associated Community

Evidence for Community- Integrating Activities

Evidence for Regional Interaction/Resource Procurement

Citation

Andrews Ruin (Red Mesa Valley)

A.D. 990-1110. Great house is a multi-story structure with 22 rooms, several internal kivas, a great kiva, associated roads, discontinuously banded core-and-veneer masonry, and compound masonry. No data on remodeling events is available.

The great house is built over an earlier late PI/early PII site. Approximately 27 habitations are associated.

Van Dyke 1999a

Aztec Ruins (Middle San Juan)

Complex composed of three structures: Aztec North, Aztec East, and Aztec West. Reed (2011, 2014) considers Aztec North to be an early, Chaco-emulative structure, while Aztec East and West are Chaco-directed great houses. Hundreds of rooms (402 estimated in Aztec West alone), multiple stories, Chaco veneers, multiple internal kivas and great kivas, roads, and many associated smaller buildings are present as part of the complex.

According to Chaco Research Archive, Howe (1947) identified approximately 90 associated sites forming community around Aztec complex. Approximately 15 great kivas were also identified in the surrounding community.

Ceramics recovered from Aztec were chemically linked to Chaco Core and Chimney Rock compositional core groups (Neitzel et al. 2002). Turquoise procurement patterns during PIII period mirrors Chaco Canyon great houses, but contrasts with Salmon Ruins; this pattern may have been established earlier but no PII turquoise tested (Hull et al. 2014).

Brown et al. 2008; Reed 2011, 2014

441

Great House Community cont.

Chaco-style Construction and Remodeling

Associated Community

Evidence for Community- Integrating Activities

Evidence for Regional Interaction/Resource Procurement

Citation

Badger Springs (Northern Cibola)

~A.D. 1100-1200. Possible multi-story construction with associated great kiva. Associated with Bosson Wash great house.

Constructed within an existing community; 67 habitations date to the PII period. The great house’s spatial community overlaps with that associated with the Bosson Wash great house.

Damp 2013

Bis sa’ani (San Juan Basin)

~A.D. 1100-1150. Two L-shaped roomblocks are located 105 m apart. The west block has 12 rooms and a blocked-in kiva; the east block has 25 rooms and four blocked-in kivas with two stories in one corner. Core-and-veneer masonry, over-tall rooms, and compound walls were identified with inconsistent banded masonry.

Ten associated households were identified in a limited survey radius; ceramics suggest this was a scion community. Only 2 habitations indicate early PII occupation while most indicate late PII (identified by Powers et al. as early PIII A.D. 1050-1175).

Ten pieces of obsidian identified at great house (n=1), two associated community sites (n=2), and two field houses (n=7); all were from the Valle Grande-Redondo Peak source 100 km southeast.

Mahoney 2000; Powers et al. 1983: 21-54

442

Great House Community cont.

Chaco-style Construction and Remodeling

Associated Community

Evidence for Community- Integrating Activities

Evidence for Regional Interaction/Resource Procurement

Citation

Bluff (Northern San Juan)

~A.D. 1075-1150 (PII component). The structure has a great kiva, multi-story construction, core-and-veneer masonry, blocked-in kivas, over-tall rooms, a berm, and an entrance road. The east addition elaborated Chaco-style construction, including multiple stories, core-and-veneer masonry, great kiva, and blocked-in kivas. Construction on same leveled platform as initial structure suggests limited time between initial construction and remodeling event.

Nine contemporaneous sites within 10 km; Jalbert and Cameron (2000:83-84) note some evidence for habitation likely no longer exists.

Some tentative evidence for feasts: larger bowls than at habitation sites, artiodactyl index= 0.45, lagomorph index =0.65. Suggested use of turkey as ritual species during PII period (turkey index=0.11).

Non-local ceramics (Kayenta and Chaco/Cibola) and non-local projectile points.

Cameron 2008; Fothergill 2008:10; Ward 2004

Bosson Wash (Northern Cibola)

A.D. 1050-1150. Approximately 50 rooms with associated great kiva.

Constructed within an existing community. This site is near to the Badger Springs great house; communities overlap spatially. Approximately 47 habitations are near Bosson Wash great house.

Damp 2013

443

Great House Community cont.

Chaco-style Construction and Remodeling

Associated Community

Evidence for Community- Integrating Activities

Evidence for Regional Interaction/Resource Procurement

Citation

Casamero (Red Mesa Valley)

A.D. 1016-1096 (tree-ring 1014+w). Great house is an L-shaped pueblo with an enclosed plaza to form a rectangle, 20-29 rooms, a blocked-in kiva, great kiva, possible multi-story construction, T-shaped doorways, core-and-veneer and compound walls, foundational trenches, and banded masonry. Interior, keyhole shaped kiva shows remodeling to reorient to southeast.

Great kiva constructed in early PII after population growth/ influx. Great house constructed in late PII; great kiva continued to be used (Marshall et al. 1979:134). Suggests ancestral community.

Ceramic exchange identified between Casamero and Blue J, Haystack, Muddy Water, and Kin Ya’a (Kantner et al. 2000).

Marshall et al. 1979: 131-137; Van Dyke 1998

Chimney Rock Pueblo (Northern San Juan)

A.D. 1076- early 1100s. Great house is ~55 rooms and multi-story with blocked-in kivas, core-and-veneer and compound walls, a great kiva, and banded masonry. Remodeling event ~1093 based on dendrochronology.

Two hundred and seventeen habitations identified around Chimney Rock.

Extensive regional trade with other great houses, including Wallace Ruin, Morris 41, Salmon, Four Clowns, Aztec, Pueblo Pintado, Peach Springs, Tocito, and sites within the Chaco Core compositional group (Neitzel et al. 2002).

Jalbert and Cameron 2000:85-87

444

Great House Community cont.

Chaco-style Construction and Remodeling

Associated Community

Evidence for Community- Integrating Activities

Evidence for Regional Interaction/Resource Procurement

Citation

Coolidge Pueblo (Red Mesa Valley)

Two roomblocks identified: East House has 11 rooms and a blocked-in kiva, while West House has 10 rooms and 2 blocked-in kivas. Possible core-and-veneer and/or compound walls in both, but not verified. Two great kivas south of great houses connect to each other by linear road.

Numerous habitations identified but no formal survey. Early great kiva (PI) with associated community; great house and second great kiva constructed in PII, suggesting ancestral community (Marshall et al. 1979:144).

Kantner 1999; Marshall et al. 1979:141-144

Cottonwood Falls (Northern San Juan)

Main use ~A.D. 1050-1175, with occupation until ~1200s. Great house is a ~40-50 room structure with a great kiva, two pre-contact roads, finely shaped sandstone, blocked-in kivas, multi-story construction, and compound masonry.

Thirty-three contemporaneous habitations.

Mahoney 2000

Edge of the Cedars (Northern San Juan)

The structure has ~16 rooms, blocked-in kivas, core-and-veneer and compound walls, great kiva, multi-story construction, banded masonry, foundation trench, and an associated road. Possible remodeling event ~A.D. 1109.

Five habitation sites noted around great house, but no block survey completed. Several additional habitations may have been removed or impacted by modern construction.

Copper bells and olivella shell beads recovered from the great house. Chaco Black-on-white and Chuska white ware were also identified.

Hurst 2000

445

Great House Community cont.

Chaco-style Construction and Remodeling

Associated Community

Evidence for Community- Integrating Activities

Evidence for Regional Interaction/Resource Procurement

Citation

Escalante (Northern San Juan)

A.D. 1075-1180. Approximately 25 rooms, 2 internal kivas, and both compound and core-and-veneer masonry. Masonry is often unshaped, but structure contains T-shaped doorways.

Some habitations identified around great house, but no thorough survey conducted.

Possible feasts and ritual use of fauna: lagomorph index= 0.94, artiodactyl index = 0.37, turkey index=0.11.

An abundance of obsidian was identified, but no source information provided.

Badenhorst 2008; Chaco Research Archive

Far View House (Northern San Juan)

Building constructed in the late 800s with multiple rooms added or remodeled throughout PII period. Multiple stories with approximately 50 rooms, five internal kivas, core-and-veneer masonry, and an enclosed plaza.

At least 14 early PII settlements; expanded to 36 during middle PII, suggesting the community is ancestral.

Chaco Research Archive; Jalbert and Cameron 2000:87-89

Guadalupe (San Juan Basin)

~A.D. 1056-1091, with construction of some rooms ~A.D. 960 and occupation until mid-1200s. Twenty-five of 50 rooms active during main phase. Core-and-veneer masonry identified along with several internal kivas, an enclosed plaza, and a great kiva. Three remodeling events suspected during late PII.

~110 occupied habitation sites during any 15 year interval; approximately 30 sites clustered at base of butte below great house.

Feasting events suggested along with some limited use of ritual fauna during PII period: lagomorph index = 0.83, artiodactyl index = 0.59, turkey index= 0.07.

Chaco Research Archive; Durand and Durand 2000:101-110; 2008

446

Great House Community cont.

Chaco-style Construction and Remodeling

Associated Community

Evidence for Community- Integrating Activities

Evidence for Regional Interaction/Resource Procurement

Citation

H-Spear (Northern Cibola)

~A.D. 1050-1125/1150. Twelve to fourteen over-tall rooms were identified, along with a great kiva and earthen berm. No remodeling data available.

Eighty-six residences or field houses associated.

Mahoney 2000

Haystack (Red Mesa Valley)

~A.D. 1050-1125. Multiple features including great house (~28-30 rooms, great kiva, tower kiva, two elevated kivas, kiva in the enclosed plaza, multi-story construction, and core-and-veneer masonry), Locality A (possible multi-story structure with 12 rooms and a great kiva), and Locality D (a great kiva).

Locality D and associated habitations assigned to A.D. 850-1000; shifted to Locality A ~A.D. 1000; great house complex dates to late PII; suggests small ancestral community with shifting community center through time.

Ceramic exchange identified between Haystack and Casamero, Blue J, Muddy Water, and Kin Ya’a (Kantner et al. 2000).

Kantner 1999; Marshall et al. 1979:159-168

Holmes Group (Middle San Juan)

~A.D. 1075-1125 construction. Thirty-five rooms interpreted as Chaco-driven construction. Paired with additional, locally-directed great house structure. Two great kivas are associated.

Ancestral community suggested.

Reed 2011, 2014.

447

Great House Community cont.

Chaco-style Construction and Remodeling

Associated Community

Evidence for Community- Integrating Activities

Evidence for Regional Interaction/Resource Procurement

Citation

Kin Nizhoni (Red Mesa Valley)

Two great houses are identified, Site 60 and 61. Site 61 has 14 rooms, multi-story and double-terraced construction, two blocked-in kivas, core-and-veneer and compound walls, and banded masonry. Site 60 has three rooms, a bounded plaza, and a blocked-in kiva. Both sites connected by a road.

Eighty-six habitation sites documented around great house. Seems to be scion given orientation to great house and lack of occupation in previous periods.

Marshall et al. 1979: 169-185

Kin Ya'a (San Juan Basin)

A.D. 1020-1110. Approximately 44 rooms were identified along with multi-story construction, multiple internal kivas, core-and-veneer masonry, a great kiva, and a road. No data on remodeling is available.

Approximately 94 rooms identified associated with great house. PI occupations are also present, suggesting the great house was constructed within an ancestral community.

Ceramic exchange identified between Kin Ya’a and Muddy Water, Casamero, Blue J, and Haystack (Kantner et al. 2000). Sherds recovered from Kin Ya’a linked to Chaco Core compositional group, while sherds from Kin Ya’a core group recovered from Four Clowns, Indian Creek, and Pueblo Pintado (Neitzel et al. 2002).

Kantner 1999; Kantner et al. 2000

448

Great House Community cont.

Chaco-style Construction and Remodeling

Associated Community

Evidence for Community- Integrating Activities

Evidence for Regional Interaction/Resource Procurement

Citation

Lowry Ruin (Northern San Juan)

A.D. 1080-~1130 (abandonment during PII unresolved before reuse of structure in PIII). Great house built over early occupation. Contains ~34 rooms, multiple blocked-in kivas, multi-story, (local style?) banded masonry, Chaco wall construction, great kiva, and a road. Multiple episodes of construction occurred over three decades. The first two episodes added blocked-in kivas, while later episode added more kivas and surrounding rooms.

Basketmaker III through early PII settlements identified, suggesting Lowry is an ancestral community. Expansion of community from 37 habitations to 65 during late PII period is noted.

Association with ritual structures not directly adjacent to great house identified through time in addition to those within great house. The ritual complex is comprised of two kiva and associated rock art. Many shrines across the community have also been identified.

Kendrick and Judge 2000

Morris 41 (Middle San Juan)

~A.D. 1075-1125. One hundred rooms interpreted as Chaco-driven construction. Includes banded masonry, blocked-in kivas, bounded plaza, multi-story construction. Unclear how many construction episodes are present. Paired with additional, locally-directed great house.

At least 30 habitations within 1 km of the great house, although it is unclear how many date to PII occupation.

Sherds recovered from Morris 41 linked to Chaco Core and Chimney Rock compositional core groups (Neitzel et al. 2002).

Reed 2011, 2014:18-19

449

Great House Community cont.

Chaco-style Construction and Remodeling

Associated Community

Evidence for Community- Integrating Activities

Evidence for Regional Interaction/Resource Procurement

Citation

Nancy Patterson (Northern San Juan)

A.D. 1000-1250. The great house has approximately 75 rooms, with 5 blocked-in kivas and compound masonry noted.

At least 9 residential households identified associated with great house.

Some evidence for feasts and ritual use of fauna: lagomorph index= 0.71, artiodactyl index= 0.54, turkey index= 0.26.

Chaco Research Archive; Fothergill 2008

Navajo Springs (Rio Puerco of the West)

A.D. 1050- early 1100s. Approximately 60 rooms with core-and-veneer masonry, 2 blocked-in kivas, 1 great kiva, surrounding berms, and a courtyard. Possibly some portions two stories tall; most is single story with tall rooms suggested. Between 2-7 roads suggested.

Twelve community structures identified and interpreted as constructed ~A.D. 1000, prior to GH. Suggests ancestral community.

Damp 2013; Warbuton and Graves 1982

450

Great House Community cont.

Chaco-style Construction and Remodeling

Associated Community

Evidence for Community- Integrating Activities

Evidence for Regional Interaction/Resource Procurement

Citation

Peach Springs (San Juan Basin)

~A.D. 975-1175. Two story, ~30 rooms, Chaco road, bounded plaza, possibly D-shaped, great kiva, possible tower kiva, core-and-veneer and compound masonry identified. Multiple episodes of construction identified by masonry types, all of which mimic styles in Chaco.

Sixteen of 20 structures occupied by 950; 17 of 20 occupied 1000-1100. Suggests ancestral community.

Site NM-Q-13-58 interpreted as field house but with inordinate masonry construction of Chaco style; given attached granary, interpreted as elite field house or community field.

Some habitations with higher than average Chuska wares, one with more Showlow red ware than elsewhere, and one with Mogollon brown ware (latter dates to 1100s), suggesting trade was not controlled by great house and was consistent throughout occupation. Ceramics recovered from Peach Springs chemically match Chaco Core and Chimney Rock compositional groups (Neitzel et al 2002). Obsidian from great house and small sites is from Valle Grande-Redondo Peak and Red Hill source (180 km south), with provisional (visual) identifications of Grants Ridge obsidian.

Gilpin and Purcell 2000; Powers et al. 1983: 55-93

451

Great House Community cont.

Chaco-style Construction and Remodeling

Associated Community

Evidence for Community- Integrating Activities

Evidence for Regional Interaction/Resource Procurement

Citation

Pierre's Survey (San Juan Basin)

Tree-ring dates of A.D. 1106vv-1109vv and 1124. Three great houses (House A, House B, P-6). House A: 15 rooms, 3 kivas, compound and core-and-veneer masonry. House B: 13 rooms, 1 kiva, core-and-veneer masonry. P-6: 18 rooms, 2 kivas, core-and-veneer masonry. Associated Chaco road, white fir used in construction (105 km south).

Eleven associated habitation sites. At least nine contemporaneous with great houses. Suggested scion community.

Obsidian (n=2) from Valle Grande-Redondo Peak (125 km southeast).

Powers et al. 1983: 94-133

Salmon Ruins (Middle San Juan)

A.D. 1100-1200. 300 rooms, fine banded masonry, blocked-in kivas, great kiva, core-and-veneer walls, planned construction. Remodeling events appear to be in PIII period, although there are a cluster of dendrochronology dates at 1072, 1088-1094, and 1105/1106. These may indicate stockpiling of wood.

Large number of habitations noted near structure, but unclear to what extent all were associated with great house.

Evidence for feasts and use of ritual fauna: lagomorph index= 0.83, artiodactyl index= 0.60, turkey index= 0.12. Also two Chaco-era turkey burials and seven Chaco-era macaw burials.

Ceramics recovered at Salmon chemically similar to Chaco Core, Tocito, and Chimney Rock core groups (Neitzel et al. 2002). Non-local turquoise was identified dating to PIII; patterns may have been established earlier, although no PII turquoise tested (Hull et al 2014).

Durand and Durand 2008:100; Reed 2014:6,17

452

Great House Community cont.

Chaco-style Construction and Remodeling

Associated Community

Evidence for Community- Integrating Activities

Evidence for Regional Interaction/Resource Procurement

Citation

Skunk Springs (San Juan Basin)

Construction estimated to be in the 800s with occupation through ~A.D. 1200. Approximately 45 rooms in two stories, along with a road, multiple great kivas, and multiple internal kivas.

Multiple structures oriented around great house, although some are from PI component (suggesting ancestral community).

Sherds recovered from Skunk Springs chemically linked to the Chaco Core and Chimney Rock compositional groups (Neitzel et al. 2002).

Marshall et al. 1979

Tocito (San Juan Basin)

A.D. 1030-1120. Two great houses (~1.2 km apart) and a great kiva. Tocito North has two internal kivas, a plaza kiva, was possibly multi-story, and has approximately 30 rooms.

~30 sites were identified between the great houses.

Ceramics recovered at Tocito chemically linked to the Chaco Core group, while sherds from Chimney Rock, Salmon, and Four Clowns linked to Tocito ceramic core group (Neitzel et al. 2002).

Chaco Research Archive

Village of the Great Kivas (Northern Cibola)

A.D.1000-1222. Rectangular structure with 18 rooms, 2 blocked-in kivas, a great kiva, compound/core-and-veneer walls, and banded veneers. Two phases of construction are noted; unclear if second phase is fully PIII.

Great house constructed contemporaneously with community (~18 roomblocks of various size).

Damp 2013

453

Great House Community cont.

Chaco-style Construction and Remodeling

Associated Community

Evidence for Community- Integrating Activities

Evidence for Regional Interaction/Resource Procurement

Citation

Wallace Ruin (Northern San Juan)

A.D. 1045-1150. Great house is multi-story with 73 rooms, multiple kivas, a bounded plaza, planned construction, banded masonry, over-tall rooms, foundations, and possible earthen berms. Two identified remodeling episodes occurred in PII. Second phases added Chaco-style banded masonry. Massive addition during third episode included many rooms, two elevated kivas, bounded plaza, and stone footers.

Small sites are associated with great house, but it is unclear how many are contemporaneous with great house use.

Suggested evidence for feasts and the use of ritual fauna: turkey index =0.90, artiodactyl index= 0.04, turkey index= 0.12

Ceramics recovered at Wallace Ruin are linked to the Chaco Core and Chimney Rock chemical compositional groups; a number of tested sherds were unassigned to a core group (Neitzel et al. 2002)

Chaco Research Archive