Craft Specialization and Exchange in Small-Scale Societies: A Virgin Anasazi Case Study

CRAFT SPECIALIZATION AND EXCHANGE IN SMALL-SCALE SOCIETIES:

A VIRGIN ANASAZI CASE STUDY

by

James R. Allison

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY

December 2000

ABSTRACT

This study examines craft specialization and exchange in small-scale societies through

detailed documentation of a case study from the American Southwest. Three modeJs that

could explain the development of complex economies in smaH-scale societies are developed

and tested against data from the case study. Two of these models, based on the concepts of

risk-buffering and mutualism, explain the occurrence of craft specialization and exchange as

a response to ecological conditions. The third model emphasizes the role of individual

ambition and the use of objects from distant sources in political strategies.

The case study is developed through detailed analysis of ceramic collections from

northwestern Arizona and southeastern Nevada and examination of modern climatic records

from the same areas. These data demonstrate that, from about A.D. 1050 to A.D. 1150,

Puebloan people living in the Moapa Valley of southeastern Nevada imported a large

percentage of the pottery they used from upland areas on the Shivwits and Uinkaret Plateaus

75-100 km to the east.

Ecological differences in agricultural potential and risk apparently provided important

motivations for people in the two areas to interact. Specifically, horticulture in the Moapa

Valley was more productive and less risky than in the ceramic-producing areas. Fuel suitable

for firing pottery was scarce in the Moapa Valley, however, which would have made ceramic

production there costly.

Patterns in the distribution and sta.11dardization of the exchanged pottery suggest that

Moapa Valley households probably imported pottery directly through contacts with producers

and that there was continuity across generations in the links between producers and

111

consumers. In both the ceramic-producing areas and the Moapa Valley, however, some

households were more involved than others in ceramic exchange.

The case study appears to have many characteristics expected for a mutualistic

interaction, but none of the original models adequately explains it. A more detailed model is

developed that takes into account the specifics of the case study, stressing the importance of

differences in the timing of harvests across the study area and the possible role of harvest

festivals as a context for interaction.

lV

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Writing this dissertation was a long and difficult task that would not have been

possible without help and support from many people. Circumstances forced me to do almost

all my research and writing while working full time away from the university, which made the

process even more difficult for all concerned. The members of my committee, Katherine

Spielmann, Keith Kintigh, Barbara Stark, and Margaret Lyneis deserve many thanks for the

valuable support, encouragement, and advice they provided even when distance made

communication difficult.

I also benefitted greatly from association with other members of the Arizona State

University Department of Anthropology. The department provide an incredible intellectual

environment, and virtually every faculty member and graduate student who was there with

me influenced my thinking in some way. Several courses with George Cowgill were

particularly important in refining my thinking about archaeological method and theory.

After I moved away from the university, Francis E. Smiley and Susan Gregg of

Northern Arizona University, and Chip Hughes and Asa Nielson of Baseline Data, Inc.,

accommodated my need for time to write despite the many other things they needed me to

do. Despite this support, I never would have been able to complete this dissertation without

the financial assistance provided at various times by my parents, Robert and Joan Allison, and

by my grandparents, James and Roma Sabine.

Finally, I would like to thank my wife Linda and my children Christopher, Elizabeth,

and Robert for their love and support. They endured many nights without me while I was

writing and tolerated bad moods and absent-mindedness when I wasn't.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x

LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................... 1

CHAPTER 2. CRAFT SPECIALIZATION AND EXCHANGE IN SMALL-SCALE SOCIETIES .................................. 5

Describing the Organization of Production .............................. 7 Definitions of Craft Specialization .............................. 8 Models for Describing the Organization of Production .............. 11

Explaining Production and Exchange in Small-Scale Societies ............. 14 Risk-Buffering Model ....................................... 16 Mutualism Model ........................................... 18 Debt-Creation (Political) Model ............................... 19

Discussion ...................................................... 22

CHAPTER 3. THE CASE STUDY ........................................ 25

Introduction ..................................................... 25

Place Names and Geography of the Virgin Anasazi Region ................ 28 The Virgin River ........................................... 29 The Plateaus ............................................... 32

Virgin Anasazi Exchange ........................................... 33

Data Sources .................................................... 36 The Muddy River Survey ..................................... 3 7 The Mount Trumbull Survey .................................. 40 Shivwits Plateau Sites ....................................... 4 7 Discussion ................................................ 48

CHAPTER 4. TESTING THE MODELS .................................... 49

Tests ........................................................... 51

VI

Volume of Goods Exchanged ................................. 51 Type of Goods Exchanged .................................... 52 Participation in Exchange .................................... 53 Subsistence Risk ........................................... 58 Environmental Conditions Favoring Greater Interaction ............. 58

Discussion ...................................................... 59

Conclusion ...................................................... 61

CHAPTER 5. ESTABLISHING A TEMPORAL FRAMEWORK ................ 63 Temporal Change in Virgin Anasazi Ceramics .......................... 63

Utility Wares .............................................. 64 Painted Design Styles ........................................ 67 Red and Orange Ware ....................................... 69 Ware Frequencies in the Moapa Valley .......................... 71

Periods and Phases ................................................ 72

Dating the Periods ................................................ 7 4 Radiocarbon Dating ......................................... 74 Ceramic Cross-Dating ....................................... 77 A Virgin Anasazi Chronology ................................. 80

Relative Dating .................................................. 83 A Finer Relative Chronology for the Muddy River Survey ........... 86

Conclusion ...................................................... 95

CHAPTER 6. SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL DISTRIBUTIONS OF CERAMIC WARES ..................................... 97

The Regional Distribution of Wares .................................. 98

The Distribution of Wares in the Moapa Valley ........................ 103 General Temporal Trends ................................... 103 Variation among Contemporaneous Sites ....................... 109

The Volume of Exchange ......................................... 123

Decorated and Undecorated Pottery .................................. 129

Summary and Conclusions ......................................... 133

vu

CHAPTER 7. CERAMIC VARIABILITY .................................. 136

Refired Colors .................................................. 136 The Sample .............................................. 13 7 Comparing Colors among Wares and Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 Diversity of Refired Colors at Individual Sites ................... 144

Metric Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 Jars ..................................................... 154 Bowls ................................................... 157

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 8

CHAPTER 8. CLTh1ATE, AGRICULTURAL POTENTIAL, AND RISK ......... 160

Climate Requirements for Maize .................................... 161

Modem Climate Records .......................................... 164 Precipitation .............................................. 167 Growing Season Length ..................................... 170 Summary ................................................ 174

Planting, Harvesting, and Risk ....................................... 176 The Plateaus .............................................. 177 Moapa Valley ............................................. 179

Discussion and Conclusion ........................................ 180

CHAPTER 9. OBSCURE ASPECTS OF VIRGIN ANASAZI PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE ........................... 184

Ornaments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 Turquoise ................................................ 186 Shell .................................................... 186

Cotton and Cotton Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190

Salt ........................................................... 191

Wild Plant and Animal Products .................................... 192

Other Trade Ceramics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 Red/Orange \\'ares ......................................... J 96

Vlll

Prescott Gray Ware ........................................ 197 Other Pottery ............................................. 198

Conclusion ..................................................... 199

CHAPTER 10. CONCLUSION .......................................... 201

Ecological Aspects of Virgin Anasazi Interaction ....................... 201

Virgin Anasazi Pottery Economics .................................. 202 Production ............................................... 202 Distribution .............................................. 204 Consumption ............................................. 205

Evaluation of the Models .......................................... 206 Risk-Buffering ............................................ 207 Mutualism ............................................... 208 Debt-Creation ............................................. 209 A Model of Virgin Anasazi Interaction ......................... 211

Discussion ..................................................... 216

Conclusion ..................................................... 223

End Notes ............................................................ 225

References Cited ...................................................... 228

Appendix A. Ceramic Counts and Weights ................................. 254

Appendix B. Virgin Anasazi Radiocarbon Dates ............................. 299

Appendix C. Observations on Kayenta Anasazi Ceramic Chronology ............ 303

Appendix D. Moapa Gray Ware Abundance in Sites from the Virgin Anasazi Region ...................................... 322

IX

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Typologies of Forms of Production ..................................... 13

2. Some Implications of the Models Outlined in Chapter 2 ..................... 50

3. Date Ranges Suggested for Selected Types ............................... 68

4. Period Affiliations for Sites Included in the Analysis ....................... 84

5. Six-period Classification for the Muddy River Survey Sites .................. 89

6. Upland Pottery Within the Muddy River Survey Sites, by Period ............. 105

7. Upland Pottery in the Period 1 Muddy River Survey Assemblages ............ 112






13. Upland Pottery in the Period 1 Main Ridge Assemblages ................... 122

14. Estimated Total Household Vessel Discard under Different Assumptions about Vessel Discard Rates and Site Occupation Length ......... 126

15. Percentages ofMoapa Gray Ware and Shivwits Plain in the Muddy River Survey Assemblages, by Period ............................ 127

16. Estimated Total Moapa Gray Ware Vessel Discard under Different Assumptions about Vessel Discard Rates and Site Occupation Length ......... 128

17. Plausible and Probable Ranges for Vessel Imports into the Muddy River Survey Sites, by Period ......................................... 128

x

18. Percentages of Decorated Pottery in the Muddy River Survey Assemblages, by Period ............................................. 130

19. Counts of the Decorated and Undecorated Pottery in the Muddy River Survey Sites ................................................. 131

20. Refired Sherds from the Muddy River Survey Sites ....................... 138

21. Refired Sherds from the Mount Trumbull Survey Sites ..................... 139

22. Retired Color Groups ............................................... 140

23. Oxidized Colors ofRefired Sherds .................................... 141

24. Statistics for Metric Variables on Jars .................................. 155

25. Statistics for Metric Variables on Decorated Bowls ....................... 157

26. Sources of Climate Data ............................................. 166

27. Occurrences of Turquoise in Virgin Anasazi Sites outside of the Moapa Valley .................................................. 187

28. Occurrences of Olivella Ornaments in Virgin Anasazi Sites outside of the Moapa Valley .................................................. 188

29. Occurrences of Shell Ornaments other than Olivella in Virgin Anasazi Sites outside of the Moapa Valley ..................................... 189

30. Muddy River Survey Sites with Prescott Gray Ware ....................... 198

XI

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Map of the Virgin Anasazi region ...................................... 26

2. Map of the lower Moapa Valley ........................................ 38

3. Location of the Muddy River Survey sites included in the study ............... 41

4. Map of the Uinkaret Mountain area ..................................... 42

5. Examples of Virgin Anasazi utility ware jars .............................. 65

6. Calibrated 1-sigma intervals for Virgin Anasazi radiocarbon dates, by period .... 75

7. Date ranges implied by radiocarbon dates for Pecos Classification periods ...... 76

8. Various chronologies that have been proposed for the Virgin Anasazi .......... 81

9. Comparison of the percentages of Tusayan Gray Ware and Moapa Gray Ware that are corrugated ................................... 87

10. Histogram of the percentage of Tusayan Gray Ware that is corrugated for the Muddy River Survey sites .............................. 88

11. Plot of the first two axes of a correspondence analysis on ceramic counts from the Muddy River sites ............................... 90

12. Muddy River Survey, Period 1 sites ..................................... 92

13. Muddy River Survey, Period 2-3 sites ................................... 93

14. Muddy River Survey, Period 4-6 sites ................................... 94

15. Regional distribution ofMoapa Gray Ware in the early Pueblo II period ........ 99

16. Regional distribution of Moapa Gray Ware in the middle Pueblo II period ...... 99

17. Regional distribution of Moapa Gray Ware in the late Pueblo II - early Pueblo III periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Xll

18. Tripolar graph of ceramic ware percentages from all the sites included in the analysis .............................................. 102

19. Scatter plot of upland pottery as a percentage of the ceramic assemblage versus the percentage of Tusayan Gray Ware that is corrugated for each of the Muddy River Survey sites ...................................... 104

20. Scatter plot ofMoapa Gray Ware as a percentage of the ceramic assemblage versus the percentage of Tusayan Gray Ware that is corrugated for each of the Muddy River Survey sites ......................................... 107

21. Scatter plot of Shivwits Plain as a percentage of the ceramic assemblage versus the percentage of Tusayan Gray Ware that is corrugated for each of the Muddy River Survey sites ...................................... 108

22. Comparison of the locally weighted least-squares regression lines from Figures 19-21 ................................................. 109

23. Boxplots showing the percentages of upland pottery within the Muddy River Survey assemblages for different periods .................... 110

24. Scatter plot of collection size versus percent upland pottery for the Period 1 Muddy River Survey sites .................................... 114




28. Scatter plot of collection size versus percent upland pottery for the Period 1 Main Ridge houses .......................................... 123

29. Correspondence analysis of the retired colors of the different wares ........... 142

30. Bar charts of color groups ofrefired Moapa Gray Ware sherds ............... 143

31. Plot of sample size versus evenness for oxidized color of Moapa Gray Ware from the Muddy River Survey sites ............................... 145

Xlll

32. Plot of sample size versus evenness for oxidized color of Shivwits Plain from the Muddy River Survey sites .................................... 146

33. Plot of sample size versus evenness for oxidized color of upland pottery from the Muddy River Survey sites .................................... 147

34. Dendrogram of a cluster analysis using Ward's method on the proportions of Moapa Gray Ware and Shivwits Plain refired colors from the Muddy River Survey sites .................................................. 148

3 5. Correspondence analysis based on the counts of refired colors of Moapa Gray Ware and Shivwits Plain from the Muddy River Survey sites ........... 149

36. Map of the Muddy River Survey sites included in Clusters 2-5 ............... 152

37. Bootstrap 67-percent confidence intervals for the coefficients of variation for metric variables measured on jars ................................... 156

38. Bootstrap 67-percent confidence intervals for the coefficients of variation for metric variables measured on painted bowls .......................... 158

39. Locations of weather stations on the Uinkaret Plateau, the Shivwits Plateau, and in the Moapa Valley ............................................. 165

40. Box plots of annual precipitation ..................................... 168

41. Bar charts of mean weekly precipitation ................................ 169

42. Box plots of the number of days between recorded temperatures of 32 degrees For less ................................................ 171

43. Box plots of the number of days between recorded temperatures of 28 degrees F or less ................................................ 172

44. Box plots of the recorded dates of the last spring and first fall temperatures of 28 degrees F or less .............................................. 173

45. Box plots of the annual number of growing degree days .................... 174

46. Approximate locations of the production areas of non-local ceramics found in the Moapa Valley and in northwestern Arizona .................... 195

XlV

CHAP1'ER 1 INTRODUCTION

This dissertation examines specialized production and long-distance exchange within

small-scale societies, with special attention to one example of specialized production and

exchange among the Virgin Anasazi, ancestral Puebloans who occupied a portion of the

American Southwest. This examination entails working on several different levels of

abstraction and spatial scales, from general theories about craft specialization and exchange,

to the intricate, even tedious, details of ceramic distributions on 11th and 12th centwy

Puebloan sites in northwestern Arizona and southeastern Nevada.

These multiple levels of analysis are a reflection of a multiplicity of goals. At a general

level, the most im.porta.11t goals of this dissertation are to: 1) show that many societies lacking

political liJerarchy are economically complex; 2) contribute to the development of heuristic

models and concepts for understanding the variation in economic complexity that occurs

within small-scale societies; and 3) demonstrate some ways that general models can be tested

and refined so that they help us understand the economic organization of specific societies.

At a more specific level, this dissertation contributes to archaeological understanding

of the Virgin Anasazi through the collection and analysis of significant amounts of data on the

distributions of ceramics and other likely trade items, the refinement of the regional

chronology, the analysis of variability across the region in agricultural and ceramic production

potentials, and the application of concepts and models drawn from economic anthropology

and ethnographic analogy. The strong patterns of exchange documented for the Virgin

2

Anasazi, especially in Chapters 6 and 7, and the analysis of chronology in Chapter 5, should

contribute to better reconstructions of Virgin Anasazi society and cultural change than

currently exist.

A final goal of this dissertation is to help draw the attention of archaeologists working

in the American Southwest to the possibility that significant numbers of utilitarian ceramic

vessels were exchanged, quite possibly for their own value rather than as containers of other

goods. Southwestern archaeologists have increasingly come to accept the evidence that

decorated vessels were exchanged, although this acceptance was quite slow (despite

Shepard's [1942] convincing demonstration that Rio Grande glaze-paint ceramics were

widely traded). The idea that utilitarian ceramics could have been produced by specialists and

widely distributed is not as well accepted. Much work is now being done throughout the

Southwest on ceramic production and distribution, but almost all of it focuses on decorated

wares (e.g., the papers in Mills and Crown [1995], for exceptions see Abbott [2000], Simon

[1988], Toll [1991:92-94], and VanKeurenet al. [1997]). Among the VirginAnasazi, both

decorated and utilitarian ceramics were traded.

With these goals in mind, the remainder of the dissertation is organized to address

general issues first, followed by data from the Virgin Anasazi region. I return to more general

considerations in the final chapter.

Chapter 2 considers theoretical issues related to production and distribution in small

scale societies, including how definitions of specialization and ways of studying variability in

production have made it difficult to recognize economic complexity in small-scale societies.

This chapter also addresses the reasons people in small-scale societies engage in specialization

3

and exchange. Three heuristic models are developed that may explain specialization and

exchange in many specific situations. The emphasis is on regional or community

specialization and on intercommunity exchange because this kind of specialization appearsto

be more common in small-scale societies than other forms, and the Virgin Anasazi example

involves regional specialization and long-distance, intercommunity exchange.

Chapter 3 introduces the Virgin Anasazi case study. It includes a general discussion

of the geography and culture history of the region, along with a discussion of the specific

archaeological data available for the present study. In Chapter 4, the models developed in

Chapter 2 are reconsidered with specific tests that can be conducted with the available data.

Chapters 5-9 then discuss the Virgin Anasazi data in detail.

Chapter 5 summarizes the chronology for the Virgin Anasazi region. Good

chronological control is an important part of any archaeological research, but it has not

generally been available in the Virgin Anasazi area. I summarize published radiocarbon dates

and stylistic change in ceramics to develop a more refmed chronology.

In Chapter 6, the spatial and temporal distributions of ceramic wares are examined.

The distributions of different ceramic wares in time and space across the entire Virgin Anasazi

region are examined based on both published data and those collected specifically for this

dissertation. Then I examine variation in ceramic ware distributions within more restricted

areas of southeastern Nevada and northwestern Arizona.

Chapter 7 focuses on variation within the ceramic wares. Variation in raw materials

is examined using refrring analysis of large numbers of sherds. Standardization in vessel

morphology is also studied, as is standardization in design elements on painted ceramics.

4

In Chapter 8 I describe variation in climate and agricultural productivity across the

Virgin Anasazi region. Climatic records suggest variation in the agricultural potential of

different areas within the Virgin Anasazi region. This information also indicates that

prehistoric farmers in some areas may have been vulnerable to subsistence risk.

Chapter 9 discusses some poorly known aspects of Virgin Anasazi production and

exchange. A number of items are likely to have been important parts of Virgin Anasazi

economic relationships, but their production and archaeological distributions are poorly

known. These include several types of ornaments (shell, turquoise, and selenite), cotton

products (raw, partially processed, or textiles), salt, wild plant and animal foods, and certain

kinds of ceramics. Most of these items either were relatively rarely discarded (e.g.,

ornaments) or do not preserve well, so their archaeological distributions may never be

accurately known. Any consideration of Virgin Anasazi economic organization, however,

needs to take their potential importance into account.

Finally, Chapter 10 summarizes the Virgin Anasazi data and evaluates the models in

light of those data and the tests outlined in Chapter 4. The chapter also develops more

specific models for the Virgin Anasazi, and points out directions for future research that will

lead to better explanations and understanding of craft specialization and exchange among the

Virgin Anasazi, and in small-scale societies in general.

CHAPTER2

CRAFT SPECIALIZATION AND EXCHANGE IN

SMALL-SCALE SOCIETIES

The focus of this dissertation is economic complexity within small-scale societies. I

use the term "small-scale" to refer to societies that have a small demographic scale, and

limited political hierarchy. Almost all highly mobile hunter-gatherer societies fit this

definition, as well as many relatively sedentary societies. My main concern is with the

relatively sedentary societies. Most of these societies are horticultural, but they generally have

low population densities, and the largest settlement or political unit usually does not exceed

a few hundred people. There are inequalities within these societies, but power is relatively

diffuse and heredity is not very important in determining who has it. Leadership positions and

status are based primarily on age, sex, and personal ability, decision making is usually

consensus-based (although the opinions of individuals are not weighted equally), and leaders

and high status individuals lack coercive power.

Economic production and distribution have long been a focus of archaeological

research. Much of this research has assumed a strong relationship among political hierarchy,

specialization, and certain forms of exchange (e.g. Brum:fiel 1987; Brum:fiel and Earle 1987;

Earle 1987; D'Altroy and Earle 1985; Lewis 1996; Peregrine 1991; Rice 1981, 1989).

Economies in small-scale societies are usually depicted as relatively undifferentiated, with

every household engaged in virtually the same productive activities. Exchange, when it is

acknowledged, is not seen as an important means of provisioning the society. Specialization

6

and large-scale exchange are often taken as evidence for the existence of political hierarchies,

because it assumed that complex economies must be managed by elites.

This view has been challenged in archaeology by recent studies that show that some

forms of craft specialization commonly occur in small-scale societies (e.g., Clark 1995; Clark

and Parry 1990; Cross 1993), and there is extensive ethnographic documentation showing

that complex patterns of economic specialization and extensive intersocietal exchange can

exist without managerial elites (e.g., Allen 1984; Costin 1991:8; Ford 1972; Graves 1991;

Groves 1960; Harding 1967; Hogbin 1935; Lauer 1970; Rice 1987; Spielmann 1986; M.

Stark 1991; Tschopik 1950).

The ethnographies provide a wealth of data on the economic organization of a number

of societies, but their usefulness is limited by their lack of time depth. It is difficult to explain

how and why specialization and exchange develop without infom1ation on the economic

organization of these societies in the past. AH the ethnographic societies have also been

influenced to some degree by state-level societies, and it has been argued that some of these

societies that currently lack political hierarchies once had them (e.g., Lilly 1985).

Because of the limitations of the ethnographic data, archaeological research is crucial

to a full understanding of the role of craft specialization and exchange in small-scale societies.

Archaeologists in the American Southwest have already contributed to this understanding by

documenting several examples ofcommunity orregional specialization in small-scale societies

(e.g., Hegmon et al. 1995, 1997; Shepard 1942; Spielmann 199la, 199lb).

7

Describing the Organization of Production

Despite the extensive evidence for economic complexity in small-scale societies, the

idea that specialization is confined to large-scale societies with political elites still influences

archaeological thought. For example, Rice (1987:188) says "economic specialization in

production and distribution is generally acknowledged to be a concomitant oflarge, complex,

highly differentiated societies." More recently, Lewis (1996:357-358) sees economic

specialization as "a diacritic of social complexity" and talks about ''the systemic relationship

among elite participation, systems of specialization, and sociopolitical complexity."

It is true that large, stratified societies often have complex and specialized production

arrangements on a scale exceeding that of small-scale societies, but the overemphasis on the

relationship between economic and political complexity has had at least two undesirable

consequences. First, productive arrangements similar to those known in ethnographic small

scale societies (which lack institutionalized political hierarchies) have been used to infer the

presence ofhierarchical political systems in prehistoric societies. This tendency is especially

notable in the Southwest, where evidence of specialized ceramic production and long-distance

exchange of ceramics has been one basis for assertions that Pueblo IV communities had

political hierarchies (e.g., Upham 1982). Second, definitions of craft specialization and the

models that have been developed for describing the organization of production and exchange

are often more appropriate for studying politically complex societies. The concept of craft

specialization has often been defined in ways that draw attention away from the part-time,

household-based specialization that is commonly found in small-scale societies. Descriptive

models incorporate typological distinctions that emphasize the variation in economic

8

organization within hierarchical societies. These models tend to obscure the variation in

economic organization among small-scale societies and encourage the view that the

development of craft specialization is a great leap forward that accompanies the development

of political hierarchies. The economic specialization that is so pronounced in large-scale,

hierarchical societies has its roots in small-scale societies, however.

Definitions of Craft Specialization

In recent years archaeologists have used several different definitions of craft

specialization. While these definitions all share some similarities, it has been difficult to agree

on some details. These details are important because archaeologists usually assume (at least

implicitly) that specialized production is more interesting, and thus more worthy of study,

than unspecialized production. It is therefore important to have a definition that

simultaneously is precise, conforms with intuitive notions of what specialized production is,

and does not obscure important variation.

Explicit definitions of craft specialization do not have a long history in archaeology;

the earliest commonly cited definition is that of Evans' (1978:115), although the use of the

concept has a much longer history (cf. Clark 1995 :269-272). Clark (1995), Cobb (1993 :66),

and Costin (1991 :3-4) have all recently discussed various definitions of craft specialization,

and each has settled on a slightly different idea about what specialization is. Costin (1991 :4)

states that "specialization is a differentiated, regularized, permanent, and perhaps

institutionalized production system in which producers depend on extra-household exchange

9

relationships at least in part for their livelihood, and consumers depend on them for

acquisition of goods they do not produce themselves."

Cobb (1993:66) notes that "specialization entails that production of a given type of

goods is restricted to a certain subset of society" and that it "implies exchange to individuals

who desire said type of goods but do not produce it themselves." He goes on to add that

"specialization thus implies not only production, but production for exchange."

Clark (1995 :273; Clark and Parry 1990:297) defines craft specialization more broadly

as "production of alienable, durable goods for nondependent consumption."

Each of these definitions entails some problems. Clark (1995:273) argues that

Costin' s definition is too restrictive, a judgment with which I concur. Cobb's definition also

seems more restrictive than necessary, but Clark's is too broad.

Costin' s definition includes several requirements, that I believe are unnecessary, which

must be met for a productive arrangement to qualify as specialized. These are the

requirements that specialized production must be "differentiated", and that producers must

"depend on extra-household exchange relationships at least in part fortheir livelihood," with

consumers depending on the specialists "for acquisition of goods they do not produce

themselves." There are several problems with these requirements. First, as Clark (1995 :278)

points out, whether production appears to be differentiated or not may depend on the scale

of analysis. Production may be differentiated on a regional scale, with different goods

produced in different communities, but undifferentiated within the individual communities.

Second, there may be situations where all households produce a certain commodity, but most

households produce less than they need and a few households make up the difference by

10

producing a surplus and exchanging it to the other households. I would consider this an

example oflow-level specializatio~ but it would be excluded from consideration by Costin' s

definition. Cobb's requirement that "production of a given type of goods is restricted to a

certain subset of society" and that these goods are exchanged to individuals who do not

produce the same goods would also exclude this hypothetical example. Finally, Costin's

requirement that producers "depend on extra-household exchange relationships at least in part

for their livelihood" to be considered specialized seems to eliminate the possibility that the

producers are motivated by the desire to obtain things that they do not actually need to

surv1ve.

On the other hand, Clark does not incorporate the concept of surplus production into

his definition of craft specialization, which makes his definition overly broad. For example,

consider a hypothetical situation where each household within a community produced exactly

the number of ceramic vessels that they needed for household use, but through gift giving and

food sharing a number of the vessels were transferred between households. "Alienable,

durable goods" have been produced "for nondependent consumption," but it does not seem

reasonable to consider this kind of production specialized.

Two other recent definitions of craft specialization are better suited for the study of

the organization of production in small-scale societies. B. Stark (1992:184) argues that

"specialization involves production beyond the needs of the co-residential unit, with the effect

that a number of additional households are supplied by the specialists on a fairly regular

annual basis." Spielmann (1991c) defines specialization more simply as "production above

the needs of the household for purposes of exchange." These definitions are preferable to the

one o:ftered by Clark because they incorporate the notion of surplus - production in excess

of household needs. They are preferable to the definitions used by Costin, Cobb, and most

other archaeologists studying craft specialization because they avoid the extraneous

requirements of difterentiation and mutual dependency.

Models for Describing the Organization of Production

.Archaeologists have developed several conceptual schemes for classifying productive

arrangements. However, these typologies tend to emphasize the kinds of variation in the

organization of production that commonly occur in large, highly differentiated societies, and

are not very useful for studying variation in production in small-scale societies. For example,

the models developed by van der Leeuw (1984) and Peacock (1982) are :frequently cited

typologies that describe the organization of production (Table 1 ). Bothof these authors posit

a number of different types of increasingly complex productive arrangements. Each identifies

'household production' as the simplest form of production. Household production

corresponds to the domestic mode of production (Sahlins 1972), in which each household

makes the goods it requires for its own consumption. Commodities may still be distributed

to other households, but usually only through generalized reciprocity (Sahlins 1972: 193-194)

involving closely related individuals.

The next level in these typologies is 'household industry', which represents the simplest

form of productive specialization, As described by van der Leeuw (1984:722), household

industry involves part-time production by at most several individuals for use by the local

group. Peacock (1982: 8) generally agrees with this definition, although he objects to the idea

12

that consumption can only be by the local group. He says "if there are facilities for wide

marketing, these will be exploited." In either case, household industry involves little

investment in productive technology, and remains a supplement to other forms of subsistence.

The distinction between household production and household industry is useful, as far as it

goes, but the other kinds of production defined in these typologies are unlikely to occur in

small-scale societies and are only useful in the study of production in large, administratively

complex societies. These typologies are thus poor conceptual tools for studying variation in

the organization of production in small-scale societies.

Costin (1991) also proposes a typology of productive arrangements (Table 1).

Because she is specifically interested in specialized production, she does not include a

category equivalent to Peacock's and van der Leeuw's 'household production', but her

category of 'individual specialization' is roughly equivalent to their 'household industry'

category. Importantly, she distinguishes between "community specialization", in which

"autonomous individual or household-based production units" are "aggregated within a single

community", and "nucleated workshops", in which larger workshops are aggregated.

Community specialization - the aggregation of producers engaged in household-industry

production- appears to be important in small-scale societies. In a number of ethnographic

cases, producers of particular goods are concentrated within one community or a small

number of neighboring communities (e.g., Groves 1960; Harding 1967; M. Stark 1991 ). The

other levels in Costin's typology involve elites in managing production and again are likely to

only be found in societies that are large, and administratively complex.

13

Table 1. Typologies of Forms of Production (forms most likely to occur in small-scale societies are italicized).

van der Leeuw (1984) Peacock (1982) Costin (1991)

Household Production Household Production Individual Specialization

Household Industry Household Industry Dispersed Workshops

Workshop Industry Individual Workshops Community Specialization

Village Industry Nucleated Workshops Nucleated Workshops

Large-Scale Industry Manufactory Dispersed Corvee

Factory Individual Retainers

Estate Production Nucleated Corvee

Official Production Retainer Workshop

The most important aspect of Costin' s work is that she bases her typology on a more

explicit approach to variation in the organization of production than either Peacock or van

der Leeuw. She defines "four general parameters that describe the organization of

production" (Costin 1991 :8). These are intensity, scale, concentration, and context. Costin

conceives of each of these variables as a continuum, each independent from the others.

Intensity refers to the amount of time devoted to production of a particular commodity. Scale

concerns both the size and composition of production units. The concentration of production

is the spatial organization of production units (dispersed or nucleated), while context refers

to the degree to which production is sponsored by elites.

This sort of approach, based on continuous, independent variables is much more

suited to studying the organization of production in small-scale societies. Of the four

variables identified by Costin, concentration is likely to vary the most in small-scale societies.

Intensity and scale may vary somewhat, but most craft production will be part-time and will

14

only rarely be organized above the scale of the household. Another variable that Costin

(1991 :4) discusses (but does not integrate into her typology) called the degree of

specialization, is also likely to vary. The degree of specialization is related to the

producer/consumer ratio, and can be seen as varying from universal production (where every

consumer is also a producer) to very restricted production (in the most extreme case, only one

producer and numerous consumers).

Craft production in small-scale societies is thus likely to involve only a few of the

kinds of production identified in the typologies. Household production, household

industry/individual specialization, and community specialization are the most common forms.

These typologies tend to create the impression that there is little variation in the organization

of production within small-scale societies. However, when the organization of production

is conceived in terms of the independent variables defined by Costin it becomes possible to

think about variation within the categories defined by the typologies, and about variation in

production in small-scale societies.

Explaining Production and Exchange in Small-Scale Societies

Within communities in any small-scale society, some exchange can be expected. As

Sahlins (1972: 10 l) says, "it never really happens that the household by itself manages the

economy, for by itself the domestic stranglehold on production could only arrange for the

expiration of society. Almost every family living solely by its own means sooner or later

discovers it has not means to live." Much of the intra-community exchange will be in the

form of sharing or what Sahlins calls generalized reciprocity. This exchange will generally

15

be between socially close individuals, often close kin, and may or may not involve specialized

production. Craft specialization within communities may also occur in small-scale societies,

where individuals or households within a single community specialize in the production of

different items that are exchanged within the community where they are produced. In general,

though, this arrangement is less often described in both the ethnographic and archaeological

literature about small-scale societies than is community or regional specialization (although

the difficulty in recognizing intra-community exchange archaeologically is a factor). While

within-community exchange is interesting in its own right, my focus is on explaining

interaction across larger spatial and social distances.

Exchange between members of different communities or societies will most often

involve individuals of intermediate social distance-somewhat distant relatives (often affinal

kin) or trade partners (with whom fictive kin relationships are often established). This inter

community exchange will often involve some degree of specialized production, with

individuals and/or households in different communities producing surpluses of different

goods, then exchanging the products that they produce.

In discussing explanations of the origins of craft specialization in complex societies,

Brumfiel and Earle (1987) have distinguished between adaptationist and political models. A

similar distinction is useful with regard to models explaining specialization and exchange in

small-scale societies. Adaptationistmodels see specialization and exchange as a response to

certain environmental conditions. Most such models emphasize benefits to the society as a

whole rather than any particular individual or group within the society. Political models, on

the other hand, explain specialized production and exchange as a consequence of certain

16

individuals' attempts to enhance their power and prestige. Other members of the society may

benefit little, if at all.

I focus on three heuristic models that together are likely to explain the existence of

many complex productive arrangements in small-scale societies. Two of these models are

adaptationist, and one political. The two adaptationist models have been contrasted by Spiel

mann (1986). She emphasizes the distinction between a risk-buffering model, which explains

exchange as a response to subsistence risk, and a mutualistic model in which exchange is a

response to unequal distribution of subsistence resources. The political model is drawn from

ethnographic literature on so-called 'big-man' societies and the concept of debt as discussed

by Gosden (1989a). This model explains the production of surplus goods for exchange as a

result of the desire by some individuals in the surplus-producing communities to gain access

to relatively valuable goods that could be used to enhance personal prestige and influence.

Risk-Buffering Model

The risk-buffering model is best explicated by Braun and Plog (1982). They expect

that " ... the intensity of regional integration, i.e. the social connectedness among already

interconnected parties, will vary directly with the level of region-wide uncertainty and risks"

(Braun and Plog 1982:507-508). Local populations buffer themselves against these risks by

forming alliances with other groups who can provide help if there are local shortages of food.

A variety of factors can cause an increase in risk. In particular, anything that reduces

the size of the territory exploitable by a local group is likely to increase subsistence risk.

Population growth, increasing sedentism, or both, would decrease the area that each group

17

could exploit directly. This "would increase the spatial and temporal variance in productive

yields among neighboring coresidential units" (Braun and Plog 1982:508). Increasing

emphasis on food production could also increase risk, due to both the "simplification of the

natural ecosystem, and ... the restriction of production to a smaller spatial sample of

microclimatic conditions" (Braun and Plog 1982:508).

Braun and Plog expect increasing connectedness between risk-buffering societies to

be manifested in two ways; 1) changes in stylistic behavior, and 2) changes in the nature and

intensity of exchange. Stylistic behavior, "as expressed in domestic utensils," is expected to

reflect the decreasing social distance between the parties involved. Stylistic similarity should

increase between the interacting localities. At the same time, stylistic similarity over large

regions should decrease, as a number ofrelatively compact "alliances" form, each with its own

relatively homogeneous style (Braun and Plog 1982:512).

The changes in exchange patterns that would be expected to reflect increasing

connectedness between groups are 1) increases in the intensity of exchange, 2) a decrease in

the distance over which goods are exchanged, and 3) a shift toward the exchange of goods

"that are less costly, less standardized, or made of less scarce materials than previously"

(Braun and Plog 1982:512).

The risk-buffering model predicts no specialized production of subsistence resources,

although some incidental craft specialization may occur. Each local population is expected

to be involved in the production of similar resources, presumably producing a large enough

surplus to be able to assist other groups whose crops fail. The exchange of craft items in a

18

risk-buffering system serves to maintain the social relationships that can be exploited in times

of localized subsistence stress.

In the Virgin Anasazi case, a risk-buffering model would see the exchange of ceramic

vessels as occasional gift-giving done to create and maintain social relationships among

people living in different areas. In times oflocalized scarcity, these social relationships would

facilitate the exchange of food to the area with a shortfall or the movement of people to areas

where food supplies are more abundant.

Mutualism Model

In contrast to the buffering model, which implies interaction between groups

exploiting the same basic resources, the mutual.ism model explains interaction between groups

who produce and exchange different resources. This generally involves patchy distribution

of, and unequal access to, the resources involved (Spielmann 1986:286). The mutualistic

model is specifically designed to explain the exchange of subsistence resources, but can be

generalized to other kinds of goods.

In mutualistic relationships, "interaction is regular, rather than a response to periodic

conditions" (Spielmann 1986:286). This implies that production of the resources involved

must be relatively dependable. Because of this need for dependable production, mutualistic

systems tend to be sensitive to climatic change. Ethnographic mutualistic systems often go

through cycles ofintegration and disintegration that are related to environmental fluctuations

(Spielmann 1986:304). The periods of greatest integration would be expected to coincide

19

with relatively favorable climatic conditions, while the system should tend to disintegrate

during periods of environmental stress.

By making otherwise unobtainable resources available to the participating populations

the carrying capacity of each is raised. To raise the carrying capacity, however, "the benefits

accrued through resource exchange must be greater than the energy expended for production

and exchange" (Spielmann 1986:286). Therefore, a mutualistic relationship requires

resources that are predictable and abundant, with relatively low marginal costs associated with

the intensification of their production for exchange.

In a mutualistic, as in a buffering interaction, any circumstance that reduces the

mobility of populations might be expected to increase interaction among them. As mobility

is reduced, distant resources may become more costly, or impossible, to acquire directly. In

such a situation, acquiring these resources through interaction with other populations may

become an attractive option.

lfVirgin Anasazi ceramic exchange were mutualistic, the exchange of ceramic vessels

would be unidirectional and regular. Ceramic vessels would be exchanged for products more

economically produced in the areas receiving ceramics than in the areas producing the ceramic

surplus.

Debt-Creation (Political) Model

There is abundant ethnographic evidence that exchange can have a profound effect

on the internal politics of small-scale societies. Individuals in many of these societies enhance

their status and influence through manipulation of production and exchange (e.g. Allen 1984;

20

Dutton 1982; Feil 1984, 1985, 1987; Harding 1967; Lederman 1986, 1990; Sahlins 1963,

1972; Strathem 1971, 1982).

Gosden (1989a, 1989b) suggests that the main way individuals enhance their social

standing is by creating debt obligations. He says:

If a gift received cannot be adequately repaid then the recipient is under obligation to the giver. In such a system people are constantly searching for sources of gifts which cannot be repaid easily, as then they will be able to create groups of people with debt obligations ... [T]he main source of gifts which are difficult to repay ... come from outside the region. (Gosden 1989b:47).

Societies in which relatively large differences in prestige and influence are created

through debt are often referred to as big-man societies, but even when large differences are

not created, similar debt-creation strategies may be used.

Recent ethnographies expand upon common conceptions of big-man societies in

several important ways. First, there is a great deal of variability among societies in the degree

of differentiation between big-men and ordinary men (Lederman 1990). The status

differences seem to be more pronounced, in general, when population densities are high and

agricultural production is relatively intense. Second, the popular conception is that the

competitive exchanges that characterize many big-man societies are competitions between

local social groups, each represented by a big man whose participation is financed by controll-

ing the labor of his followers (e.g. Braun 1986; Johnson and Earle 1987; Lightfoot and

Feinman 1982; Meggitt 1965). Only the few big-man societies with the most pronounced

status differences come close to fitting this model. Rather, in many societies most members

of each group participate in the competitive exchanges themselves, often obtaining the goods

21

that they need from sources outside their local group. The main competition is among

members of the same local group or clan, to see who can enhance his (and sometimes her)

status by appearing the most generous (e.g., Lederman 1986, 1990; Feil 1984, 1987).

This debt-creation model is similar to prestige-goods models of exchange, but there

are important differences. Prestige-goods models have been applied in Southwestern

archaeology to explain the distribution of valuables, but several aspects of them are

problematic. Specifically, in a prestige-goods model, all the long-distance movement of

valuables occurs as exchange between elites, who control access to the valuable items. Other

members of the community may come to possess valuables, but only through the elite

members of their community; "Prestige good systems emphasize vertical ties of dependence"

(Schortman and Urban 1992:153). Prestige-goods models thus entail the assumption that

political elites were present in the society. In the debt-creation model, participation in the

exchange of socially valued goods is more democratic. Those who are most successful at

establishing trade partnerships and managing their trade networks are able to create

indebtedness and enhance their prestige. Often, however, the differences in prestige and

influence created this way are minimal. In some times and places, self-aggrandizers may come

to control certain aspects of production and exchange, and pronounced inequality may

deve1op and become institutionalized (cf. Clark and Blake 1994). In many other societies,

however, uncertain productivity, socially imposed limitations on the acquisition of prestige,

small demographic scale, or the diffusion of prestige and in!1uence due to the number of

would-be aggrandizers, prevents large or pennanent status differences from developing.

22

These societies remain relatively egalitarian despite the exchange of valuables and the

attempted manipulation of that exchange.

In the specific case involving Virgin Anasazi ceramic exchange, application of the debt

creation model would imply that some households in the ceramic-producing communities had

greater access than others to long-distance exchange. These households would obtain

surpluses of ceramics, either by intensifying their own production or by manipulating

exchange with other households. The surplus would then be traded for valuables such as

turquoise, shell beads, salt, or cotton. There were probably no sources for these items near

the ceramic-producing communities, and they would only be available through exchange.

Those who accumulated surpluses of ceramics and successfully negotiated exchange with

people near the sources of these valuable items would have greater access to these socially

valued goods. The valuables could then be used to enhance individual prestige through their

use as symbols of status or as gifts within the local community.

Discussion

These three models do not exhaust the possible explanations for specialization and

exchange in small-scale societies. Other possible motivations include obtaining exotic items

for ceremonies, creating military alliances, or making and maintaining peace with old enemies.

There is little evidence for either ceremonialism or warfare among the Virgin Anasazi,

however, so these motivations are not likely to be important in this particular case. On the

other hand, subsistence risk due to climatic fluctuations, extreme spatial variability in resource

distributions, and exchange of socially valued goods are all likely to be important. The

23

relatively small, dispersed nature of Virgin Anasazi settlements (Chapter 3) may have made

debt-creation strategies unproductive, however. The remainder of this dissertation is devoted

to documenting some important aspects of the Virgin Anasazi economy and to testing the

three models against the evidence presented.

Testing of the models is complicated by the fact that they are not necessarily mutually

exclusive. In many real-world cases combinations of the idealized models may lead to better

explanations than any one model alone, as different individuals or households may participate

in the same production and exchange system for different reasons. These differences will

often be patterned geographically because households that share geographical and social

contexts with other nearby households will often have similar interests. Households

elsewhere in the exchange system may have very different interests, however.

Also, the economic factors that lead to community specialization and mutualistic

exchange can create opportunities for debt-based political strategies. In particular, when the

distances between producing communities are large relative to the spatial extent of kin

networks, it may become difficult for all members of one producing community to establish

direct trade links with members of the others. Most members of the community will have

trade partners among kin in nearby communities, but a few may be able to establish

partnerships among unrelated individuals in more distant communities, allowing greater access

to products from distant sources. Further, the ability to create debt through access to distant

products may also provide motivations for community specialization and exchange even when

the purely economic benefits are minimal (e.g., Gosden 1989a:362).

24

Despite the potential difficulties, the models are testable because each leads to

somewhat different expectations about the sorts of patterns that should be observed in the

archaeological record. Following a general introduction to the case study in Chapter 3,

Chapter 4 discusses how the models can be tested against the archaeological record left by

the Virgin Anasazi.

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

This dissertation examines specialized production and long-distance exchange within

small-scale societies, with special attention to one example of specialized production and

exchange among the Virgin Anasazi, ancestral Puebloans who occupied a portion of the

American Southwest. This examination entails working on several different levels of

abstraction and spati~ scales, from general theories about craft specialization and exchange,

to the intricate, even tedious, details of ceramic distributions on 11th and 12th century

Puebloan sites in northwestern Arizona and southeastern Nevada.

These multiple levels of analysis are a reflection of a multiplicity of goals. At a general

level, the most important goals of this dissertation are to: 1) show that many societies lacking

political hierarchy are economically complex; 2) contribute to the development of heuristic

models and concepts for understanding the variation in economic complexity that occurs

within small-scale societies; and 3) demonstrate some ways that general models can be tested

and refined so that they help us understand the economic organization of specific societies.

At a more specific level, this dissertation contributes to archaeological understanding

of the Virgin Anasazi through the collection and analysis of significant amounts of data on the

distributions of ceramics and other likely trade items, the refinement of the regional

chronology, the analysis of variability across the region in agricultural and ceramic production

potentials, and the application of concepts and models drawn from economic anthropology

and ethnographic analogy. The strong patterns of exchange documented for the Virgin

2

Anasazi, especially in Chapters 6 and 7, and the analysis of chronology in Chapter 5, should

contribute to better reconstructions of Virgin Anasazi society and cultural change than

currently exist.

A final goal of this dissertation is to help draw the attention of archaeologists working

in the American Southwest to the possibility that significant numbers of utilitarian ceramic

vessels were exchanged, quite possibly for their own value rather than as containers of other

goods. Southwestern archaeologists have increasingly come to accept the evidence that

decorated vessels were exchanged, although this acceptance was quite slow (despite

Shepard's [1942] convincing demonstration that Rio Grande glaze-paint ceramics were

widely traded). The idea that utilitarian ceramics could have been produced by specialists and

widely distributed is not as well accepted. Much work is no~ being done throughout the

Southwest on ceramic production and distribution, but almost all of it focuses on decorated

wares (e.g., the papers in Mills and Crown [1995], for exceptions see Abbott [2000], Simon

[1988], Toll [1991:92-94], and VanKeurenetal. [1997]). Among the VirginAnasazi, both

decorated and utilitarian ceramics were traded.

With these goals in mind, the remainder of the dissertation is organized to address

general issues first, followed by data from the Virgin Anasazi region. I return to more general

considerations in the final chapter.

Chapter 2 considers theoretical issues related to production and distribution in small

scale societies, including how definitions of specialization and ways of studying variability in

production have made it difficult to recognize economic complexity in small-scale societies.

This chapter also addresses the reasons people in small-scale societies engage in specialization

3

and exchange. Three heuristic models are developed that may explain specialization and

exchange in many specific situations. The emphasis is on regional or community

specialization and on intercommunity exchange because this kind of specialization appears to

be more common in small-scale societies than other forms, and the Virgin Anasazi example

involves regional specialization and long-distance, intercommunity exchange.

Chapter 3 introduces the Virgin Anasazi case study. It includes a general discussion

of the geography and culture history of the region, along with a discussion of the specific

archaeological data available for the present study. In Chapter 4, the models developed in

Chapter 2 are reconsidered with specific tests that can be conducted with the available data.

Chapters 5-9 then discuss the Virgin Anasazi data in detail.

Chapter 5 summarizes the chronology for the Virgin Anasazi region. Good

chronological control is an important part of any archaeological research, but it has not

generally been available in the Virgin Anasazi area. I summarize published radiocarbon dates

and stylistic change in ceramics to develop a more refined chronology.

In Chapter 6, the spatial and temporal distributions of ceramic wares are examined.

The distributions of different ceramic wares in time and space across the entire Virgin Anasazi

region are examined based on both published data and those collected specifically for this

dissertation. Then I examine variation in ceramic ware distributions within more restricted

areas of southeastem Nevada and northwestern Arizona.

Chapter 7 focuses on variation within the ceramic wares. Variation in raw materials

is examined using refiring analysis of large numbers of sherds. Sta.'ldardization in vessel

morphology is also studied, as is standardization in design elements on painted ceramics.

4

In Chapter 8 I describe variation in climate and agricultural productivity across the

Virgin Anasazi region. Climatic records suggest variation in the agricultural potential of

different areas within the Virgin Anasazi region. This infom:i.ation also indicates that

prehistoric farmers in some areas may have been vulnerable to subsistence risk.

Chapter 9 discusses some poorly known aspects of Virgin Anasazi production and

exchange. A number of items are likely to have been important parts of Virgin Anasazi

economic relationships, but their production and archaeological distributions are poorly

known. These include several types of ornaments (shell, turquoise, and selenite), cotton

products (raw, partially processed, or textiles), salt, wild plant and animal foods, and certain

kinds of ceramics. Most of these items either were relatively rarely discarded (e.g.,

ornaments) or do not preserve well, so their archaeological distributions may never be

accurately known. Any consideration of Virgin Anasazi economic organization, however,

needs to take their potential importance into account.

Finally, Chapter 10 summarizes the Virgin Anasazi data and evaluates the models in

light of those data and the tests outlined in Chapter 4. The chapter also develops more

specific models for the Virgin Anasazi, and points out directions for future research that will

lead to better explanations and understanding of craft specialization and exchange among the

Virgin Anasazi, and in small-scale societies in general.

CHAPTER3

THE CASE STUDY

Introduction

Archaeologists use the label "Virgin Anasazi" to refer to ancestral Puebloans who

practiced horticulture in the Virgin River drainage of southwestern U~ northwestern

Arizona, and southeastern Nevada from about A.D. 200 to A.D. 1250 or 1275, and to

contemporary, culturally similar people who inhabited parts of the Colorado Plateau north of

the Grand Canyon and west of Kanab Creek (Figure 1 ). The Virgin Anasazi were similar in

many ways to their better-known contemporaries in the Four Comers area, especially to the

Kayenta Anasazi who inhabited northeastern Arizona and southeastern Utah. During some

time periods, these similarities are quite close, and some controversy exists over whether the

Virgin Anasazi warrant status as a distinct regional subgroup of the Anasazi or should be

considered as part of the KayentaAnasazi Branch (Dalley and McFadden 1988:275; Metcalfe

1981:81-84).

There are, however, several consistent differences between the Virgin Anasazi and

their KayentaAnasazi contemporaries who lived east of the Colorado. These differences are

seen most clearly in several aspects of ceramic and architectural styles.

miles

0 kilometers 25

0

Figure 1. Map of the Virgin Anasazi region, showing the lo~tions of archaeological surveys and sites discussed in the text.

26

50

Virgin and Kayenta Anasazi ceramic styles contrast because Virgin Anasazi people

1) rarely painted ceramic jars (although many bowls are painted); 2) never adopted the neck-

banded gray ware styles common among more eastern Anasazi during Pueblo I and early

Pueblo II times; 3) used painted designs during Pueblo I times that did not incorporate the

27

fine (ca. 1.5 mm or narrower) lines that are a hallmark of Pueblo I Kayenta Anasazi (Kana-a

style) ceramic designs; 4) often used a unique "across the bowl" layout (not used by the

Kayenta Anasazi) for many painted ceramic designs prior to about A.D. 1050; and 5)

continued to make plain gray ware jars long after they began corrugating the exterior of some

jars. Virgin Anasazi ceramic assemblages dating to the mid-11th century or later include a

mixture of plain and corrugated vessels, while the Kayenta Anasazi stopped making plain

vessels soon after the practice of corrugating vessel exteriors began at around A.D. 1050.

The most obvious architectural distinction between Virgin and KayentaAnasazi is the relative

lack of kivas among the Virgin Anasazi. A few kivas are known west of Kanab Creek, but

they all seem to be very late (post A.D. 1100) and are never common.

These differences seem sufficientto justify recognizing tlJe Virgin Anasazi as a distinct

regional variant of the Anasazi, but the nature of the boundary between Virgin and Kayenta

Anasazi is not known. The boundary has sometimes been placed at either the Colorado River

or slightly west of there, with the prehistoric horticulturalists who lived from Kanab Creek

east to the Colorado being classified as Virgin Anasazi, although similarities to the Kayenta

Anasazi are more evident east of Kanab Creek. More recently, Lyneis (1995:201) has

suggested that "the Virgin Anasazi interface with the Kayenta fell just to the east of Kanab

Creek," hut that there was no sharp boundary between them.

Within the Virgin Anasazi area, most sites are small. The degree of aggregation that

occurred throughout most of the puebloan Southwest (Adler 1996) appears not to have

occurred in the Virgin area, although a few large sites are known. The two largest sites for

which published information is available (AZ B: 1 :68 [BLM] and Main Ridge) may each have

28

housed 50-75 people (Allison 1988a; Lyneis 1992, 1995, 1996). Most of the other known

sites could not have been occupied by more than a few families. Lyneis (1995 :210) argues

that the generally small and dispersed nature of Virgin Anasazi habitation sites implies that

"coresidential groups" of one to several nuclear families were ''the basic economic unit of this

society."

Virgin Anasazi subsistence is poorly documented but appears to have included a mix

of wild and domesticated plants, as well as large and small game (Allison 1990; Westfall

1987). Maize is the most frequently found domesticate. Given the extreme environmental

diversity of the area, variation should be expected in the amounts and kinds of wild resources

included in the diet and perhaps in the kinds and relative importances of domesticated plants

as well, but few details are available. Similarly, although both Myhrer (1986) and Larson

(1996) argue that dependence on domesticates increased through time, the evidence for any

kind of temporal variation in subsistence remains circumstantial.

Because the area formerly inhabited by the Virgin Anasazi is currently remote and

poorly known (both geographically and archaeologically), I will first provide a basic

introduction to the geography of the region. The remainder of the chapter will then provide

an overview of the exchange system that is the focus of the remainder of this dissertation, and

of the sources of the ceramic collections that provide the data detailed in Chapters 6 and 7.

Place Names and Geography of the Virgin Anasazi Region

The area occupied by the Virgin Anasazi is highly diverse. It can be subdivided into

two overlapping regions -- the Virgin River Drainage and the series of plateaus that form the

29

western portion of the Colorado Plateau. The Virgin River drains through a portion of the

plateaus, but the two parts of the Virgin River drainage that appe~ to have supported the

largest prehistoric populations -- the Saint George Basin and the Moapa Valley -- are in

lowland settings that contrast with the upland environments that dominate the plateaus.

The Virgin River

The Virgin River headwaters are in the high plateaus that mark the southern rim of

the Great Basin in south-central Utah. The river flows first southwest, then turns west as it

flows through Zion Canyon before eventually entering the more open Saint George Basin.

The elevation of the Saint George Basin ranges from about 750 to 1250 m above sea

level, and the climate is warm and dry. On the average, annual rainfall is about 20 cm (8

inches), with a median of 215 frost-free days and 244 days without a hard freeze (Western

Regional Climate Center 1997). Vegetation within the basin is dominated by creosote bush

and associated Lower Sonoran plants, although riparian plant c.ommunities including

cottonwood, mesquite, and desert willow are found along the Virgin River and its tributaries.

The proximity of the surrounding uplands provided the prehistoric inhabitants of the basin

relatively easy access to a wide variety of other plant and animal resources (Allison 1990).

A number of tributaries join the Virgin River from the north as it passes through the

Saint George Basin. These tributaries, combined with the Virgin River itself, make the Saint

George Basinrelativelywell-watered. The combination of warm climate and adequate water

attracted Mormon settlers in the nineteenth century, and several of the towns they founded

support substantial populations today.

30

The Saint George Basin has been the object of a fair amount of archaeological work

since the early 1980s (Allison 1990; Billat et al. 1992; Dalley and McFadden 1985, 1988;

Walling et al. 1986; Westfall et al. 1987), most of which has been contract archaeology

associated with the development of the area. It is clear from this and earlier work that the

Saint George Basin supported a relatively large prehistoric population and was occupied from

at least A.D. 500. Sites within the basin are concentrated along the Virgin River and its

tributaries; few sites are known from non-riverine settings.

The Virgin River flows southwest out of the Saint George Basin, passes through the

northwestern comer of Arizona, then crosses the Nevada state line near the modem town of

Mesquite. After flowing about another 48 km southwest and then south, the river enters Lake

Mead some 35 km north ofits pre-Hoover Dam junction with the Colorado River.

A few kilometers south of the point where the Virgin River now enters Lake Mead,

it was formerly joined by another major tributary. This is the Muddy River, which now also

flows into Lake Mead. The Muddy River is spring fed and flows through the Moapa Valley,

creating a linear oasis about 46 km long in one of the driest areas in the American Southwest.

About 19 km below its source, it flows through a canyon called the Narrows. The Moapa

Valley is divided into upper and lower valleys at the Narrows. As Harrington (1930:7)

described it, the lower Moapa Valley "is seldom less than half a mile in width, and reaches its

greatest width of nearly a mile and a half near Overton. The whole distance is one continuous

sweep of green fields and leafy trees - a precious emerald oasis in a stem desert setting."

The elevation is about 500 m above sea level, and precipitation is extremely low. The

Muddy River provides a dependable source of water, however (Larson 1987; Larson and

31

Michaelsen 1990), and the growing season is well over 200 days long. Once away from the

river, vegetation is sparse, dominated by bursage and creosote bush. Potential firewood is

in particularly short supply, although mesquite and willow would have been available along

the river.

The Moapa Valley supported a large prehistoric population, and has been the subject

of much archaeological research, although the bulk of this research was conducted in the

1920s and 1930s and has not been adequately reported. Shutler (1961) summarizes this early

work, and there are a number of short articles written by Mark Harrington who supervised

most of it (e.g., Harrington 1927; 1937a; 1942). The only actual site report from this era,

however, is for Mesa House, one of the latest Puebloan sites in the valley (Hayden 1930).

More recently, reports have been produced describing work at three Moapa Valley

sites: Bovine Bluff, Main Ridge, and Adam 2 (Myhrer and Lyneis 1985; Lyneis 1992; Lyneis

et al. 1989). The restudy of Main Ridge, which had been excavated by Harrington, is

especially pertinent to the research reported below. Main Ridge is a relatively large site for

the Virgin Anasazi area, probably a true village (albeit a small one) as defined by Wilshusen

(1991). More to the point, a large proportion of the pottery discarded at Main Ridge was

. made elsewhere, and presumably acquired through some form of exchange.

The Moapa Valley is even lower and warmer than the Saint George Basin, but the

areas are similar in several ways. Both areas have long growing seasons and relatively reliable

water. Because of this, both were settled in the nineteenth century by Mormon colonists.

Prior to Mormon settlement, both areas were farmed by Southern Paiute.

32

There is at least one important difference between the two areas as well; the Moapa

Valley is much farther from upland environments than is the Saint George Basin. Lyneis

(1982: 178) notes that "it is about 30 kilometers from Lost City [in the Moapa Valley] to the

nearest pinyon," and it is nearly that far to the nearest juniper. The closest woodlands are

found in the Virgin Mountains, about 25 km east of the Moapa Valley, and about 30 km to

the north, in the Mormon Mountains.

The Plateaus

The portion of the Colorado Plateau north of the western Grand Canyon includes a

series of east-west oriented cliffs between the southern rim of the Great Basin and the Grand

Canyon. In many cases these cliffs form the southern escarpments of plateaus that rise

gradually from north to south. This area is located in southwestern Utah and northwestern

Arizona. The part of Arizona that is north and west of the Grand Canyon, which was

inhabited by the Virgin Anasazi, is often called the Arizona Strip.

For current purposes, two plateaus in the southern part of the Arizona Strip are

important: the Uinkaret Plateau and the Shivwits Plateau. The north part of both of these

plateaus is grassland and relatively few prehistoric habitation sites are known from these

areas. The south end of the Uinkaret Plateau is a volcanic field with numerous cinder cones

and lava flows. These cinder cones are called the Uinkaret (or Pine) Mountains. Pinyon

juniper and ponderosa pine woodlands are the dominant vegetation in and around the

Uinkaret Mountains, and the area supported relatively large prehistoric populations.

33

Elevation in the vicinity of the Uinkaret Mountains ranges from about 1400 m above

sea level in the Tuweep Valley just east of the mountains to more than 2400 m at the top of

Mount Trumbull, the largest mountain in the area. Precipitation and growing season length

vary with elevation, but at least the areas below about 2000 m elevation appear to be suitable

for maize dry farming in average or good years (Chapter 8).

The Shivwits Plateau is a bit lower than the Uinkaret; most of it is below 2000 m

above sea level, and the highest elevation is 2156 m. Geologically, much of the southern

Shivwits Plateau consists of ancient basalt flows, with some cinder cones. The cinder cones

are not as recent nor as numerous as those on the Uinkaret, however. Few prehistoric

habitation sites have been recorded on the Shivwits Plateau, although some have been found

on the southernpartoftheplateau(JohnHerronpersonalcommunication 1998; Wells 1991).

Very little of the plateau has been surveyed, but it seems likely that prehistoric populations

on the Shivwits Plateau are concentrated near the southern end, where pinyon-juniper

woodlands and springs are more abundant. Climatic data are sparse and of low quality but

suggest that maize dry farming would have been possible in some parts of the Shivwits

Plateau, but not others.

Virgin Anasazi Exchange

Virgin Anasazi populations in southeastern Nevada were linked to people who lived

in upland areas on the Uinkaret and Shivwits Plateaus by an exchange system that today is

most easily traced by the distributions of two kinds of ceramics -- Moapa Gray Ware and

Shivwits Plain. As the name suggests, Moapa Gray Ware is common in the Moapa Valley,

34

but it was not made there. It is tempered with crushed olivine-rich xenoliths, which are found

in lava flows in the Uinkaret Mountains (Best 1970; Lyneis 1988; Menzies et al. 1987).

The xenoliths used in the production ofMoapa Gray Ware only occur in basanitic and

alkali olivine basalts. These kinds of basalts form from magmas that rise rapidly from the

mantle to the surface. Within the area occupied by the Virgin Anasazi, only relatively recent

lava flows have these characteristics; this may be related to a regional upwelling of the upper

mantle and associated thinning of the lithosphere over a period of millions of years (Best and

Brimhall 1974:1688). Further, over the same time period there has been an eastward

migration of volcanic activity so that, even though basalts are common on the Shivwits

Plateau, the youngest flows are all on the Uinkaret Plateau (Hamblin 1974:143). Therefore,

the only known sources of xenolitb..s within the Virgin Anasazi region are on the southern

Uinkaret Plateau, and the regional geologic patterns suggest that it is unlikely that other

sources wiU be discovered elsewhere in the region (Myron Best, personal communication

February 1997). Despite the restricted distribution of the raw materials used to temper

Moapa Gray Ware, Moapa Gray Ware itself is widely distributed,

Shivwits Plain, the second kind of pottery involved in this exchange system, was made

with a dark-firing, iron-rich clay, and tempered with crushed Moapa Gray Ware potsherds.

Lyneis (1988; 1992) has recently reviewed both geological and archaeological evidence and

concluded that Shivwits Plain was probably manufactured on the Shivwits Plateau, while

Moapa Gray Ware was produced near the Uinkaret Mountrun lava flows. The Moapa Gray

Ware exchanged to the Moapa Valley includes some decorated bowls, but the majority of the

exchanged vessels were small jars.

35

The links between the uplands and the Moapa Valley appear to have been especially

strong beginning around A.D. 1050. Moapa Gray Ware and Shivwits Plain make up as much

as half the pottery on some eleventh and twelfth century sites in the Moapa Valley (Allison

1992a; Lyneis 1988, 1992) even though the Moapa Valley is separated from the apparent

production areas of these ceramics by some 100-150 km of rugged, arid terrain.

Contemporaneous sites in the Saint George Basin also have Moapa Gray Ware and Shivwits

Plain, but in smaller amounts than in the Moapa Valley sites.

Just how long this period of intense trade lasted is not clear, although an estimate of

75-100 years seems reasonable (Chapter 5). It is clear, however, that the exchange network

that linked the uplands with the Moapa Valley had dissolved prior to the demise of the Virgin

Anasazi, as the latest sites in the Moapa Valley lack Shivwits Plain and have almost no Moapa

Gray Ware (Allison 1992a; Larson 1987; Larson and Michaelsen 1990; Lyneis 1988; Lyneis

et al. 1989).

As noted in the previous section, the areas of northwestern Arizona where the

ceramics were produced contrast with the Moapa Valley in a number of ways. They are

characterized by higher elevations, greater rainfall, colder temperatures, and shorter growing

seasons. Much of the area is covered with pinyon-juniper and ponderosa pine forests.

Double cropping was out of the question due to the short growing season, and in particularly

cold and/or dry years bringing even a single com crop to maturity may have been difficult

(although the com may still have been eaten green [Snow 1991]). Thus agriculture in the

Moapa Valley was probably both more productive and less risky than in the uplands of

northwest Arizona (Chapter 8).

36

In addition to its greater agricultural potential, the Moapa Valley was ideally located

to control trade in a number of probable high-value commodities (Chapter 9). Turquoise and

sah were both mined in or near the Moapa Valley, and the Moapa Valley was situated along

probable trade routes for marine shell from the Pacific coast and from the Gulf of California

(Hughes and Bennyhoff 1986:239). The environmental contrasts between the Moapa Valley

and the ceramic-producing areas, combined with the Moapa Valley's greater access to salt,

shell, and turquoise make it likely that items other than ceramic vessels were exchanged

between the two areas. Trade in other items is more difficult to detect, however.

The ceramic distributions raise two basic questions that I hope to resolve with this

research. First, why would people in the Moapa Valley rely on such distant sources for so

much of their pottery? and, second, why would people living on the Uinkaret and Shivwits

Plateaus make all this extra pottery and supply it to the Moapa Valley residents?

Data Sources

The bulk of the data used in subsequent chapters comes from the analysis of ceramic

collections resulting from two archaeological projects conducted in the 1970s. One of these,

the Muddy River Survey, provides a large data set from the Moapa Valley. The second, the

Mount Trumbull Survey, provides data from in or near the production zone ofMoapa Gray

Ware. A small amount of additional data comes from three sites on the Shivwits Plateau.

37

The Muddy River Survey

The Muddy River Survey was conducted in 1973 as part of the University ofNevada,

Las Vegas archaeological field school. The field school was supervised by Dr. Claude

Warren, but the survey record keeping was completed by Lawrence Alexander (1973). The

quality of the notes from the survey is inconsistent, with detailed notes for some sites, but

only a sentence or two, or no notes at all, for others.

The survey covered the terrace above the :floodplain on the east side of the Muddy

River for a distance of about 3 .4 km (Figure 2). In this area, known locally as "Sand Bench''

or "Anasazi. Bench'', a total of about 80 Puebloan or Late Prehistoric sites were recorded.

Sites were assigned numbers beginning with the prefix ''MRS 73-" (MRS being an acronym

for Muddy River Survey, and 73 designating the year the survey took place. I will not use

the ''73-" in reference to the Muddy River Survey sites, instead referring to them as, e.g.,

MRS 10) , and the last such number assigned was MRS 73-80. Presumably this means that

80 sites were recorded, but the notes make no mention at all of MRS 1, MRS 2, MRS 3, or

MRS 78.

A map accompanying the notes shows the locations of sites MRS 4-72, but the

locations of MRS 1-3 and MRS 73-80 are not clear. Many of the sites had been badly

vandalized, and sand obscured portions of others, making it difficult to determine the extent

and nature of the architectural features. Sketch maps were produced for about twenty of the

sites, and the mapped sites generally include 8-12 rooms. Each appears to be roughly

equivalent to a single "house" at Main Ridge (Lyneis 1992), which is located about 15 km

38

0 2 3 4 5

Contour Interval 200 Meters

Figure 2. Map of the lower Moapa Valley and surrounding area showing the location of major topographic features, modern towns, the Muddy River Survey, and other selected archaeological sites.

downstream. Like the Main Ridge houses, each of the mapped Muddy River Survey sites

probably housed a single household consisting of one nuclear or extended family.

Surface collections were made at most of the sites recorded; of the 7 6 sites for which

some records exist, only three were not collected. Analysis of the ceramics from these

collections provides much of the data for this project. Additionally, I analyzed collections

39

from single test pits excavated at four sites (MRS 4, MRS 10, MRS 13, and MRS 19) along

with more extensive excavated samples from MRS 20 (also known as Pueblo Point) and MRS

26 (also known as Raven Point). Collections from some sites are too small to be useful,

however, so I only analyzed collections of greater than 100 sherds. In all, I examined ceramic

collections from 42 of the Muddy River Survey sites. Some of these sites are subdivided,

however, so I include a total of 48 sites or site components in my analyses. Figure 3 shows

the locations of the sites included in the analysis.

Surface collection strategies at these sites varied somewhat. In some cases, a grid was

laid over the site and the entire surface collected in 10 x 10 foot squares (e.g., Pueblo Point).

In other cases, only certain squares were collected, usually selected in some quasi-systematic

fashion. In yet other cases the site was divided into two or more areas, each assigned a letter

suffix (e.g., MRS 54A, MRS 54B), and each area was collected separately. Finally, a number

of sites were apparently collected without any attempt to spatially subdivide the site.

The procedure for deciding which sherds to collect is not described, but the relative

scarcity of decorated sherds and the amount of plain and corrugated pottery collected

suggests that sherds were collected regardless of type. It is likely that some (perhaps fuzzy)

size criterion was used, so that the collections should provide a representative sample of all

sherds above a certain (but unknown) size that were present on the site surfaces in 1973.

Portions of the Muddy River Survey collections and the field school excavations at

sites included in the survey have been previously analyzed by UNL V graduate students.

Olson's (1979) attribute analysis ofMoapa Valley ceramics used surface collections from

MRS 11, MRS 26, MRS 35, MRS 36, and MRS 65, and a different portion of the excavated

40

collections from MRS 20 (Pueblo Point) than what I have analyzed. Acker (1983) included

decorated sherds from field school excavations at MRS 21 (subsumed with MRS 20 under

the name Pueblo Point) in her analysis of decorated pottery from the Moapa Valley.

Also, in addition to the excavations conducted in the 1970s by the UNL V field school

at Raven Point and Pueblo Point, several other of the Muddy River sites have been excavated.

Field classes from UNL V underthe direction ofDr. Margaret Lyneis have excavated at MRS

48 and MRS 49 in recent years (these sites have been rechristened Yamashita 2 and

Yamashita 3 after the owner of the property the sites are on), and the Adam 2 site tested by

Lyneis et al. (1989) is MRS 71.

The Mount Trumbull Survey

In 1975, the Museum of Northern Arizona conducted a survey in the vicinity of

Mount Trumbull (Figure 4). The survey included a sample of slightly more than 800 hectares

(2000 acres) in an irregularly shaped study area of about 3600 hectares (9000 acres). The

sample consisted of a series of transects 45, 90, or 180 m (150, 300, or 600 feet) wide. These

transects were oriented in a haphazard manner and scattered across the study area.

Moffitt and Chang (1978:188) explain the sampling strategy:

The sample survey was designed to adequately cover the widely diversified environmental, topographical, and elevational forms present within the study area. As the need of the Bureau of Land Management to have specific areas looked at and the extremely rugged nature of portions of the terrain were taken into consideration during the formulation of this design, this sample cannot be considered truly random. However, the sampling fraction is so large, and the average of environmental variation so thorough, thatthe sample is probably representative.

e6o 66• e65 e59

~ •23 58

~62 \

~o~ /? ~~51~

\ ,!Jlr~;

e45

"'4'

E

~-~ \ •3935

" 3~·3432 ~ 3 ~;/:31

~3 ,,.28 36 30

~26

0 200 400 600 800 1000 meters

Figure 3. Location of the Muddy River Survey sites included in the study.

41

0

X = Known Xenoiith Locality " = Archaeological Site

Kilometers

1 2 3 4 Contour Interval 250 Meters

42

Figure 4. Map of the Umbret Mountain Area showing the location of major topographic features, the Mount TrumbuU Survey, known xenolith localities, and selected archaeological sites.

43

In :fu.ct, the judgmental, haphazard nature of the survey makes it unlikely that the

sample is representative enough to accurately reveal settlement patterns or to use as a basis

for estimating prehistoric site densities, but the surveyors did discover a number of sites.

Moffitt and Chang (1978) classified the sites they recorded into five categories: 'c

shaped pueblos', 'habitation sites', 'field houses', arti:fu.ct scatters, and 'special-use sites'. The

c-shaped pueblos and habitation sites range in size from 3 to 21 rooms, with most in the 5-10

room range. C-shaped pueblos tend to be larger than the habitation sites, but the ranges

overlap considerably. Most of these sites probably housed no more than one or two :fu.milies.

They are probably :functionally equivalent to the Main Ridge ''houses" or the majority of the

sites recorded by the Muddy River Survey. Sites classified as field houses have one or two

rooms and few artifacts, while the other site types generally lack structures.

Moffitt and Chang (1978 :234-23 7) noted that overall site density was highest between

about 1900 and 2100 m. The c-shaped pueblo and habitation sites are also densest in this

elevation range (10of10 c-shaped pueblos and 24 of27 habitation sites are within this zone).

The sites were sur:fu.ce-collected by judgmentally defining circular sampling units in

one or more places on each site with collection of all sherds found within the sampling unit.

A few sites produced large samples, but many of the collections were small. Many sites in

the area, especially those above 2,000 m elevation, have few surface arti:fu.cts and may have

been seasonally occupied (Diana Hawkes, personal communication 1998). Some of the sites

that were classified as habitation sites by the Mount Trumbull survey, but which lack

substantial sur:fu.ce artifact assemblages, may not have been year-round habitations. The sites

included in this study are those most likely to have been occupied year-round. I initially

44

looked at collections from the 13 "c-shaped" or "habitation" sites that had more than 50

sherds collected (Appendix A). The collections from all but one of these sites were

subdivided by the :field workers. After the initial analysis was completed, I found that the

ceramic type counts from different parts of seven of the sites varied only slightly, so the

subdivisions at these sites were ignored in subsequent analysis. On the other hand, intrasite

differences in ceramic type counts at five sites were large enough that combining the

subdivided collections for analysis could not be justified. At three of these sites (NA 13684,

NA 13691, and NA 13693) the subdivided collections included fewer than 50 sherds. These

sites were eliminated from further consideration . I treated collections from Unit 1 and Unit

2ofNA13719 as separate assemblages and combined Units 1and2 from NA 13685 while

keeping Unit 3 separate. This left a total of 12 sites or site components. The included sites

are shown in Figure 4.

There is no direct evidence that Moapa Gray Ware ceramics were produced at these

sites, but the sites are near several of the known sources of olivine-rich xenoliths that were

used for tempering material (Figure 4). Best (1970:26) mentions that "green cpx type"

xenoliths are found at four locations. He then goes on to describe three of the locations: 1)

"about 2 Yz miles north of Mt. Emma and lying along the west boundary fence of the Grand

Canyon National Monument" (now Grand Canyon National Park), where xenoliths up to a

foot across can be found on "a series of elongate cinder cones"; 2) the "lava flow extending

over most of the floor oflower Toroweap (Tuweep) Valley northwest of Vulcan's Throne

... ";and 3) "a flow two miles south of Mt. Trumbull near Sullivan's Ranch" (Best 1970:27).

The fourth location is Vulcan's Throne (Myron Best, personal communication, February

45

1997). Also, I have located xenolitbs on the lava flow that is within the study area boundaries

for the Mount Trumbull Survey.

Other than the Mount Trumbull Survey, little systematic archaeological research has

been done in the Uinkaret Mountain area. Field schools from Southern Utah State College

(now Southern Utah University) worked in the former Grand Canyon National Monument

near the southeast edge of the Uinakret Mountains for a number of years in the late 1960s and

early 1970s. They recorded a large number of sites and excavated at GC 663 and GC 671

(Thompson 1970; Thompson and Thompson 1974, 1978). More recently, the Bureau of

Land Management has begun surveying large blocks between Mount Trumbull and Mount

Logan, including most of the area within the Mount Trumbull Survey study area, much of

which was not sampled during the original survey (Diana Hawkes, personal communication,

February 1997).

Both the Grand Canyon National Monument Survey and the ongoing BLM survey

have located numerous small- to medium-sized habitation sites, as well as smaller structural

sites with relatively sparse surface artifact assemblages. These findings are consistent with

those of the Mount Trumbull Survey. There is one site, however, that is currently not well

recorded but that may significantly aher interpretations of prehistory in the Uinkaret Mountain

region because of its large size. This is the Zip Code site (AZ A:12:131 [BLM]).

The Zip Code site is located just outside of the Mount Trumbull Survey study area

(Figure 4). When I first learned of the site in early 1997, available information consisted of

a two-page site form, which does not include a site map or any information that could be used

to estimate when the site was occupied ( ahhough under period of occupation the form lists

46

"PI" and "PII"). I visited the site for two days in the summer of 1997 and produced a crude

GPS-based map. The site is covered with a dense growth of pine and juniper, so it was

impossible to map (or see) many details with the methods I used, and it is difficult to derive

accurate room-count estimates. However, the site is clearly larger than any other known

Virgin Anasazi site. The site includes two clusters of rubble mounds and artifacts, separated

by about 120 m of open space containing a sparser artifact scatter but no rubble. At the

northwestern end of the site there are at least four roomblocks and several isolated rooms,

covering an area about 95 m by 55 m This area probably includes at least 30-40 rooms.

Southeast of there, across the apparent 120 m gap in the rubble, is the main part of the site.

At least six roomblocks (probably more) are found in an area 175 m long and 30-55 m wide.

There also is a depression about 15 m across. Both parts of the site have extremely dense

concentrations of surface artifacts, mostly pottery. Some of the pottery clearly dates to the

middle Pueblo II period, but without detailed analysis it is not possible to determine how

much of the site occupation dates to that time period

Much more work needs to be done to understand the Zip Code site, but its presence

has implications for the understanding of regional ceramic trade. If most or all of the site

occupation dates to the period when ceramic trade with the Moapa Valley was at its peak

(which seems likely based on my observations at the site), the presence of an aggregated

village in the ceramic-producing area would increase the plausibility of a debt-creation model

as an explanation for the interaction.

47

Shivwits Plateau Sites

The archaeology of the Shivwits Plateau is less well known than that in the Moapa

Valley or the Uinkaret Mountains. Very little of the plateau has been examined and few sites

have been recorded. I have examined ceramic collections from three sites, only one of which

is descnbed very well. These collections are too small and their associations too uncertain

for any strong conclusions, but they do provide some hints about where Shivwits Plain (and

its corrugated equivalent) might have been manufactured.

AZ A: 15 :8, originally recorded by Shutler (1961: 10), is located near the southern end

of the Shivwits Plateau (Figure 1 ). He describes the site as "a multi-roomed surface pueblo"

with "walls of uncoursed masonry." He suggests that the "occupation of this site was

seasonal due to the severe winters at this elevation." Shutler collected 926 sherds from the

site, most of which he describes as Southern Paiute Brown Ware, evenly divided between

plain and corrugated. Wells (1991) rerecorded the site as a 15- or20-room, almost circular

pueblo. She observed no Paiute pottery on the site, and my reanalysis of a portion of

Shutler' s collections makes it clear that most if not all of what Shutler called Southern Paiute

Brown Ware is Shivwits Plain or Shivwits Corrugated. While there is no evidence to

conclusively decide whether the site was seasonally occupied or not, it appears to be at least

as substantially built as sites in the Moapa Valley.

Wells recorded a similar site (AZ A:14:50 [ASM]) about 5 km southwest of AZ

A: 15: 8, as well as a number of smaller sites with structures and several sites with formal

agricultural features including terraces and check dams.

48

The other two Shivwits Plateau sites (AZ A:2:44 [BLM] and AZ A:l 1:28 [BLM])

that I have included in my analysis are widely separated (Figure l ), and no information at all

is available on site types or settlement patterns in their vicinities. The Bureau of Land

Management archaeologist who originally recorded these sites surface collected ceramics

from them. I analyzed these collections, which are housed at the University ofNevada, Las

Vegas, although no information is available about the collection strategy used. I included the

sites despite the lack ofinformation because ceramic collections from the Shivwits plateau are

rare.

Discussion

I initially examined ceramics from 48 Muddy River Survey sites or components, 13

Mount Trumbull Survey sites, and three sites on the Shivwits Plateau. Appendix A includes

tables of ceramic counts and weights for all the assemblages examined. After the initial

analysis it was clear that two Muddy River Survey sites (MRS 4 and MRS 19) had temporally

mixed ceramic assemblages, and three Mount Trumbull Survey sites (NA 13684, NA 13691,

and NA 13693) had collections that were too small to be useful. These sites were not

included in the analyses in Chapters 6 and 7. The proportions of various kinds of ceramics

from different parts of two other Mount Trumbull Survey sites (NA 13685 and NA 13719)

were significantly different, and so were treated separately. Chapters 6 and 7 therefore

analyze data from 46 Muddy River Survey components, 12 Mount Trumbull Survey

components, and the three Shivwits Plateau sites.

CHAP1~ER4

TESTING THE MODELS

. . . we are uncomfortably aware that many of our favorite conjectures cannor yet be connected to our data by tightly reasoned arguments. The fact is that our models ... are rarely unambiguous in their implications about what we should observe archaeologically, while what we do observe is often consistent with more than one hypothesis (Cowgill et al. 1984:157).

The models outlined in Chapter 2 suggest some different reasons why the Virgin

Anasazi might have participated in a complex system of ceramic production and exchange.

Determining which model or combination of models provides the best explanation is no

simple matter, however. Ideally, each of the kinds of production and exchange arrangements

suggested by the models would lead to behavior with unambiguous material correlates that

could be observed easily in the archaeological record. In practice, however, it is rare that any

but the most simplistic models of human behavior have such clear connections to

archaeological patterning. Rather, as the quotation above suggests, both the implications of

models and the patterning observed in the archaeological record are usually ambiguous.

On the other hand, the models do imply some differences in behavior and there are

differences in the environmental conditions in which one or the other kind of

production/exchange arrangement should predominate. Table 2 lists some of these

differences.

50

Table 2. Some Implications of the Models Outlined in Chapter 2.

Risk Buffering Mutualism Debt Creation

Volume of goods low volume during moderate to high low volume exchanged normal times, high volume

volume in bad years

Type of goods gills (perhaps of high variable socially valued exchanged value) during good goods

times, subsistence goods (or movement of people) in bad years

Similarity of similar different usually different resources exchanged between populations

Participation in universal (or nearly universal (or unequal exchange so) participation, nearly so) participation -

benefits shared participation, some individuals equally benefits shared benefit more

equally than others

Short-term high low low subsistence risk

Environmental high spatial variability good good conditions encouraging greater interaction

The situation is further complicated by the fact that some combination of these

models, rather than just one of them, is likely to be needed to adequately explain the patterns

observed in the archaeological record. Leaving that problem aside for now, the challenge is

to find ways to estimate (for example) how widespread participation in the exchange was, or

how severe subsistence risk was, using the available data from the Virgin Anasazi region.

51

These available data include the analyses of the ceramic collections described in

Chapter 3, combined with a smattering of information from previous excavations of sites in

the area, some data on twentieth century climatic conditions in the region, and general

information on prehistoric climatic change in the southwestern United States.

Tests

Volume of Goods Exchanged

The volume of goods exchanged is relatively easy to estimate archaeologically, at least

for the ceramics. It is much more difficult to estimate the volume of other perishable or less

easily-sourced goods that may have moved in the same system. In Chapter 6, I summarize

the distnbution ofMoapa Gray Ware throughout the VirginAnasazi area, based on previously

excavated and analyzed collections. I also more specifically examine the distribution of the

various ceramic wares, especially Moapa Gray Ware and Shivwits Plain, in the Moapa Valley

and on the Shivwits and Uinkaret Plateuas. This latter discussion is based on my analysis of

collections from the Muddy River Survey, the Mount Trumbull Survey, and the Shivwits

Plateau, which included identification of temper materials under a 15-40 power binocular

microscope, with the classification of wares based on the temper identification.

Chapter 6 thus gives a general idea of the relative importance oflocal versus distant

production in providing ceramics needed by the inhabitants of the Muddy River Survey sites

as well as other parts of the Virgin Anasazi region. Moving from this general idea to more

specific statements - about the number of vessels exchanged per year or the number of

surplus vessels produced per potter, for instance - requires a number of assumptions about

52

the number of vessels required per household per year, how many households occupied the

Moapa Valley region, how many potters lived in the ceramic-producing areas, etc. It will be

possible to make some estimates from the available data, but these will not be independent

of the assumptions made. Nevertheless, these data should be adequate to make a rough

assessment of the volume of ceramic trade between the plateaus and the Moapa Valley.

Type of Goods Exchanged

The Virgin Anasazi clearly exchanged ceramics, but other goods were probably

exchanged as well. For the purposes of testing the models, it is important to know whether

high-value goods moved from the Moapa Valley back to the ceramic-producing areas, or

whether other low-value, utilitarian objects were exchanged. Unfortunately, little information

is available on non-ceramic aspects of Virgin Anasazi trade; what is available, based on

previous excavations throughout the region, is summarized in Chapter 9.

The kinds of ceramics exchanged may also be important. Were they primarily

utilitarian cooking pots needed for survival (or at least efficient subsistence), or relatively

high-value decorated vessels, or a mixture of the two? Lyneis (1992:49) notes that at Main

Ridge both decorated bowls and plain jars ofMoapa Gray Ware occur, while Shivwits Plain

occurs only as jars. For the Moapa Gray Ware there, however, ''more vessels were bowls,

and a higher proportion of them were painted than was the case with the locally produced

pottery." A mutualistic exchange system in which the emphasis was on obtaining pottery for

its use value would likely involve exchange of predominantly utilitarian vessels, or of a mix

of decorated and utilitarian vessels in roughly the same proportions they occur in household

53

assemblages. In an exchange system based on either risk-buffering or debt-creation,

decorated vessels are likely to be more often exchanged. Because of their probable greater

social value they would be better suited for gift-giving to create and maintain social

relationships.

In Chapter 6 I examine the relative abundances of decorated and utilitarian ceramics

of the various wares in the Muddy River Survey collections and compare them with the

Mount Trumbull Survey collections to assess whether the same patterns are found in the

Muddy River Survey sites as at Main Ridge, and to determine the relative importance of

exchange of decorated vessels versus utilitarian cooking/storage pots.

Participation in Exchange

Measuring participation in exchange is a complex task involving several interrelated

questions. Some of these can be at least approximately answered through indirect

archaeological evidence, while others are probably not answerable with current data These

questions include: (1) Did all pottery-making households in the ceramic-producing areas

participate in exchange with the Moapa Valley?; (2) Was pottery made in all households in

the ceramic-producing areas?; (3) If not, did non-producers acquire pots from ceramic

producers (presumably through local exchange) and then participate in trade with the Moapa

Valley?; ( 4) Did all households in the Moapa Valley receive pottery from the upland areas?;

(5) Did Moapa Valley households that received pottery from the uplands participate in the

exchange directly, or did the pottery come through one or a few central sites (perhaps Main

54

Ridge, for instance) before being redistributed throughout the valley?; and ( 6) Did all

households in the Moapa Valley participate to the same degree in the ceramic exchange?

This list does not exhaust the questions that could be raised. However, most of these

can be addressed to some degree with current data, with the exceptions of questions 2 and

3, which cannot be addressed without considerable research in the ceramic-producing areas.

Relatively equal access to (and benefit from) the exchange relationship is an important

part of the mutualism model. It also is likely to characterize most risk-buffering situations.

In a debt-creation system, however, participation may be widespread, but it should not be

equal. The discussion in Chapters 6 provides the information necessary to answer questions

5 and 7, concerning whether all Moapa Valley households participated in the exchange, and

to what degree.

Ceramic assemblages from the Moapa Valley sites provide a relatively direct measure

oflocal versus non-local consumption at those sites, and by extension, of the participation of

the site occupants in ceramic exchange. Judging the extent of participation of upland

households in the exchange must be done less directly because the exchanged pottery was

broken and deposited in the Moapa Valley, far from the sites where it was produced, and

because there is currently no evidence concerning which specific sites or households produced

Moapa Gray Ware or Shivwits Plain. Therefore, the variability in the pottery itself will be

used to infer whether there were many or a few producers ofMoapa Gray Ware and Shivwits

Plain, and whether most or all Moapa Gray Ware producers participated equally in the

exchange. In Chapter 7 I discuss several different aspects of variability within the ceramic

products.

55

Methods. One measure of ceramic variability that I use extensively is retired color.

I reheated large samples of sherds from the Muddy River Survey, the Mount Trumbull

Survey, and the Shivwits Plateau sites to 900 degrees centigrade in an oxidizing atmosphere.

The goal of this retiring is to completely oxidize the sherd. The color of the sherds before

refiring is a :function of the composition of the clay, the conditions under which the sherd was

originally fired, any later exposure to fire, and post-depositional processes that primarily affect

the color of exposed surfaces. Refiring the sherds until they are completely oxidized removes

the effects of the original firing and any other exposure to heat. The effects of post

depositional processes can be minimized by measuring color only in fresh breaks. Therefore,

the color of a retired sherd as measured in a fresh break should reflect only the composition

of the clay used to make the pottery. The most important aspects of the composition in

determining retired color are the amount of iron and the size and distribution of the oxidized

iron particles and clay particles (Rice 1987:335; Shepard 1956:103).

Measuring refired color is a rather crude way to determine clay compositio~

especially when compared with techniques such as instrumental neutron activation analysis,

but it has the advantage of being relatively inexpensive and widely available. As Shepard

(1956: 103) says, "irrespective of the fact that color does not serve as an accurate key to the

chemical composition of clay, it serves as a simple, direct criterion for classification when

firing conditions are standardized ... "

Moapa Gray Ware, Shivwits Plain, and the sand-tempered Tusayan Gray Ware that

is indigenous to the Moapa Valley and many other parts of the VirginAnasazi region all refire

to a variety of colors, suggesting that a number of different clay sources were used to make

56

each of these kinds of pottery. Many different potters may have used each source, so the

number ofre:fired colors cannot be used directly to estimate the number of potters. However,

comparison of the diversity (evenness) of the refired colors in samples ofMoapa Gray Ware

from the Moapa Valley and from the Mount Trumbull Survey sites should indicate whether

the Moapa Gray Ware producers whose ceramics remained in the Mount Trumbull Survey

sites participated equally in the exchange with the Moapa Valley inhabitants. If so, then

Moapa Gray Ware from the Moapa Valley should be about as diverse as that from the Mount

Trumbull Survey sites. If all potters did not participate in the long-distance exchange, or did

not do so equally, then Moapa Gray Ware from the Moapa Valley should be less diverse than

that from near the ceramic-producing area Unfortunately, the lack of data from the Shivwits

Plateau precludes making the same sort of comparison for Shivwits Plain.

The refired-color data are also used to compare assemblages from different sites in

the Moapa Valley. If pottery entering the Moapa Valley was filtered through some central

source, as might be expected if the exchange system were based on debt-creation, then

imported pottery from contemporaneous site assemblages should be similar at every site. The

diversity of refired colors exlnbited by the imported pottery on individual sites should be

similar to the diversity within the Moapa Valley as a whole, except for the effects of sampling

error. Also, each site should have a similar assemblage in terms of the specific refired colors

present and their relative abundances. u: on the other hand, households in the Moapa Valley

maintained direct relationships with households in the ceramic-producing areas, then

contemporaneous site assemblages should be less diverse than the assemblage from the entire

57

valley, and relative abundances of specific refired colors from individual sites should vary.

I make this comparison for both Moapa Gray Ware and Shivwits Plain in Chapter 7.

A number of recent studies have used standardization in metric attributes as a proxy

measure for the intensity or degree of specialization (e.g., Crown 1995; Hegmon et al 1995;

Mills 1995). The relationship between standardization and specialization is complex, but in

many cases standardization will reflect the ratio of producers to products (B. Stark 1995), or

what Costin (1991) refers to as the degree of specialization. That is, 10 vessels from a single

:functional and size class, for example, made by a single potter are likely to vary less than 10

similar vessels made by 10 different potters. Therefore, an archaeological assemblage

produced by a relatively small number of potters may appear more standardized than a

similar-sized assemblage produced by more potters. This assumes that :functional and size

classes can be discriminated archaeologically, which may be problematic when working with

sherds rather than whole vessels. In cases of community specialization, where many

households produce small surpluses for exchange, standardization may increase only slightly,

making it difficult to detect archaeologically.

In Chapter 7, I compare the standardization ofMoapa Gray Ware, Shivwits Plain, and

Tusayan Gray Ware, as measured on a number of variables. These variables include orifice

diameter, rim and vessel wall thickness, and distance from the rim to the start of rim eversion

on jars. For decorated bowls, line thickness and the distance below the rim of the upper

design framing line are used. I also compare the standardization ofMoapa Gray Ware from

the Moapa Valley and from near the production zone.

58

Subsistence Risk

An assessment of subsistence risk is important to distinguish between the risk

buffering and mutualism models. If subsistence risk is not significant in all areas involved in

the exchange system, then it is difficult to explain the interaction in terms of risk-buffering

alone. In Chapter 9 I assess the agricultural potential of different parts of the Virgin Anasazi

region using historic climate data from several locations in the region, combined with

estimates of temperature and moisture requirements for maize. This information allows

evaluation of the risk of crop failures in different parts of the region under modem climatic

conditions.

Environmental Conditions Favoring Greater Interaction

The risk-buffering model predicts that interaction will increase during periods with

highly variable, unpredictable climatic conditions. More specifically, when the risk of

subsistence failure in any given location is relatively high, but not all areas are likely to

experience subsistence failure at the same time, risk-buffering interactions are especially

useful. Debt-creation and mutualism, on the other hand, require relatively favorable,

predictable climatic conditions. These kinds of exchange relationships are likely to deteriorate

when climatic conditions worsen (Spiehnann 199lb:68-69). A substantial amount of

paleoclimatic data exist for the southwestern United States, most based on analysis of tree

rings from outside the Virgin Anasazi region. The specific relevance of these data for the

Virgin Anasazi region is debatable, but there are some broad regional trends that allow

generalizations about which time periods were most favorable climatically. This information

59

is summarized in Chapter 8. Also, to tie into the paleoclimatic data, it is important to know

as precisely as possible when exchange peaked. Therefore, Chapter 5 reviews the available

information on Virgin Anasazi chronology, and more specifically on the timing and length of

the period of greatest interaction.

Discussion

The tests described above should theoretically allow evaluation of the models, and

potentially can be implemented with the available data (although some practical difficulties

remain). Other potential tests either less strongly discriminate among the models or simply

cannot be implemented without much more and better quality data. An example of the latter

relates to the regularity of subsistence exchange. In a risk-buffering system, subsistence

exchange should be irregular, occurring only when there are localized food shortages. Gift

giving to maintain the social relationships that allow for subsistence exchange during bad

times should be more regular, however. In mutualism, subsistence goods should move

regularly, in similar amounts each year, in a consistent direction. Unfortunately, the

chronological resolution necessary to determine whether subsistence exchange was episodic

or regular is well beyond our reach today, and likely always will be. Even if archaeological

deposits could be dated with precision many subsistence goods are highly perishable and/or

not traceable to a specific provenance.

Another aspect of these exchange systems that may be relevant is whether trade

partnerships were inherited from generation to generation. None of the models necessarily

entails specific expectations about this. Inherited trade partnerships can be important in

60

mutualistic systems because they contribute to continuity and stability. Intergenerational

inheritance of trade partnerships may also be a factor in debt-creation systems because the

children of successful traders often inherit a larger number of trade partners than other

individuals of their generation and may therefore have an advantage in enhancing their own

status and prestige. This sort of trade-partner inheritance is also one means by which purely

economic exchange systems (whether risk-buffering or mutualistic) become increasingly

political through time. It therefore seems relevant to determine whether any evidence exists

that trade partners were inherited~

To do this requires the same kinds of data that are used to assess the participation of

Moapa VaUey households in the exchange relationship -- especially data on the variety and

intersite patterning of ceramics made from difterent raw materials as measured by refired

color -- combined with fine clrronological resolution. In Chapter 5, the relative chronology

of the Moapa Valley sites is examined in some detail, and two different schemes proposed

(one more precise but more tenuous than the other) for dividing the sites into temporal

periods. If sites from difterent periods have similar mixes of Moapa Gray Ware and Shivwits

Plain, and similar mixes of refued colors within those categories that would imply consistency

through time in exchange relationships. This would be particularly true if the similar

assemblages are from sites located near each other, assuming there is a tendency fur people

to establish new households near the houses of parents or other relatives. Although not

definitive, such patterns of similarity among sites of different time periods would be consistent

with inheritance oftrade partners. Jn Chapter 7 I examine the distribution of the wares and

61

differentrefired colors of the wares at sites of different temporal periods to determine whether

any such evidence exists.

Conclusion

The foregoing discussion has, I hope, made two things clear. First, the models

presented in Chapter 2 are testable. That is, they imply different kinds of behavior and should

occur under somewhat divergent environmental conditions, and they therefore entail different

expectations for the kinds of patterning that should be observed in the archaeological and

paleoenvironmental record. The second point, however, is that there are practical difficulties

in making the necessary observations. The generally low quality of currently available

archaeological data from the Virgin Anasazi region, combined with the small quantity of data

relative to the size of the area that was apparently included in the exchange system make it

difficult not to skeptical about actually testing the models.

A further difficulty results from the possibility that the real-life exchange system

probably did not conform to a single idealized model. It is likely that some combination of

risk buffering, mutual ism, and/or debt creation (and perhaps some other things not considered

here) was involved. The implications of a mixed model for archaeological patterning are less

clear than what I have presented above and may lead to evidence that seems contradictory.

While a degree of realism is a good thing, it is unnecessary to be overly pessimistic.

Despite the many ways in which more and better quality data would help, there is still enough

information available that describing it and recognizing significant patterning within it is a

worthwhile challenge. The remaining chapters take up that challenge and demonstrate how

62

even incomplete archaeological information can significantly improve our understanding of

a specific prehistoric economic system when used to evaluate multiple hypotheses about the

nature of that system.

CHAPTERS

ESTABLISHING A TEMPORAL FRAMEWORK

A solid chronological framework is important to this study, as it is for almost every

other archaeological endeavor. Unfortunately, Virgin Anasazi chronology is not well

established. In this chapter I use stylistic change in ceramics as the basis for a refined

temporal framework. Radiocarbon dates from the Virgin Anasazi region and the timing of

ceramic stylistic change in the Kayenta Anasazi region help establish the absolute dating of

Virgin Anasazi ceramic stylistic changes. These stylistic changes can in tum be linked to

events of more immediate interest such as the onset and termination of the period of intense

ceramic trade between the Uinkaret and Shivwits Plateaus and the Moapa Valley.

Temporal Change in Virgin Anasazi Ceramics

Certain characteristics of the ceramics made and used by the Virgin Anasazi changed

during the course of occupation. Many details remain to be worked out, and absolute dating

is poor, but enough of these changes are understood to allow Virgin Anasazi ceramics to be

used to place sites into a temporal framework. Many of these changes seem to occur more

or less contemporaneously across at least the western part of the Virgin Anasazi region, while

other changes appear to be limited to the Moapa Valley. The widespread changes involve

painted design styles and the forms and finishing techniques of utility ware jars. The first

appearance of non-local red wares in ceramic assemblages also seems to occur at about the

64

same time across the Virgin Anasazi region. Changes in the relative frequencies of San Juan

Red Ware and Tsegi Orange Ware also may be roughly contemporaneous across the entire

area. ln addition to these widespread tempora] trends, the relative :frequencies of the various

utility wares changed through time in the Moapa Valley. These changes include, but are not

limited to, changes in the :frequencies ofMoapa Gray Ware and Shivwits Plain, which are the

focus of this study.

Utility Wares

Stylistic change in Virgin Anasazi utility wares consists of two main trends. The first

is a tendency for jar rims to be more flared, or everted, on vessels made late in the occupation

than on earlier ones. The second trend is the introduction and increase through time of the

practice of corrugating the exteriors of jars.

Rim Eversion. The earliest gray ware jars had plain exterior surfaces. They were

constructed by coiling but were smoothed so that the coils were not visible. The rim forms

on plain gray jars made later in the puehloan occupation tend to be more sharply everted than

ones made earlier, and corrugated jars almost always have sharply everted rims. Figure 5

shows some examples of Virgin Anasazi utility ware jars.

Some authors (including me) have implied that the tendency of plain ware jar rims to

become more flared represents relatively consistent, vectored change (Allison 1988a:47;

Dalley and McFadden 1985:42-43; Thompson 1988:230; Walling and Thompson 1988:54).

They suggest that jar rims can be divided into three categories based on the degree of rim

eversion: "Basketmaker Ill" rims, "Pueblo I" rims, and "Pueblo II" rims. The usual

65

0 0 a

OQ 0 k

b

0 d

e

m

g n

0

h 0 centimeters 50

Figure 5. Examples of Virgin Anasazi utility ware jars. The jars on the left are all Tusayan Gray Ware, those on the right are Moapa Gray Ware. Jars a-e and i-k are plain,f-h and l-o are corrugated. All the corrugated jars and plain jars d-e and k have the highly everted "Pueblo Il" rim form, b-c and i-j have "Pueblo I" rims, and a has a "Basketmaker Ill" rim form.

assumption is that Basketmaker III jar rims have little or no rim eversion (e.g., Figure Sa),

Pueblo I rims are slightly everted (e.g., Figure 5b-c, i-j), and Pueblo TI rims evert sharply

(e.g., Figure 5d-e, k). This assumption has rarely been rigorously tested, however, and Lyneis

66

(1989:26) has expressed doubt about whether these changes are really as consistent as is often

assumed.

A recent analysis of ceramics from Antelope Cave (Allison 1992b ), located in

northwestern Arizona about 50 km north of Mount Trumbull, suggests that there are

temporal trends in rim form. Rim sherds from sand-tempered jars were divided into three

categories based on the angle of eversion: slightly everted rims were defined as those having

an eversion angle ofless than about thirty degrees, moderately everted rims were those with

an eversion angle of thirty to sixty degrees, and sharply everted rims had eversion angles of

75 to 110 degrees. Sharply everted rims were the most common on the surface of the cave,

and were absent in the lower layers of two deep test pits. Slightly and moderately everted

rims occur together throughout the deposits, but are most common in the lower levels. The

designs on painted sherds and two radiocarbon dates (Janetski and Wilde 1989) suggest that

the majority of the Puebloan occupation of the cave occurred during Pueblo I times, but most

of the painted sherds from the surface have Pueblo II designs. The Antelope Cave analysis

thus supports the idea that sharply everted rims are later, but suggests that the distinction

between slightly and moderately everted rim forms may not be very useful for dating

purposes.

Data from Main Ridge suggest that sharply everted rim forms may not occur as early

in the Moapa Valley as elsewhere, however. Lyneis (1992:48) notes that rims with "eversion

up to B" (i.e., slightly everted rims roughly equivalent to what others have called "Pueblo I"

rims) are "by far the most common" in the Main Ridge ceramic assemblage, which based on

other criteria clearly dates to middle Pueblo II times.

67

It seems, then, that the variation injar rim eversion can be a useful dating tool, but it

may not work as well as is sometimes supposed, especially since there appears to be variation

among different parts of the Virgin Anasazi region in when sharply everted rims appeared.

Corrugation. Sometime in the eleventh century some potters began to leave

unobliterated coils on the exterior of some of the jars they made and to indent those coils with

a finger or tool (Figure 5f-h, 1-o ). These corrugated jars appear to increase in frequency

through time, but never completely replace plain gray jars, which continue to be made until

the end of the Anasazi occupation. It is not clear whether the rate of increase in corrugated

jars is linear, nor is it clear whether all households at any single point in time used plain and

corrugated jars in roughly equivalent proportions. Still, variation in the percentage of

corrugated sherds in ceramic assemblages from the Moapa Valley has been used to seriate

sites (Larson and Michaelsen 1990; Lyneis 1986), apparently with some success, and I will

use it extensively below.

Painted Design Styles

Virgin Anasazi black-on-gray styles and types are often explicitly identified as

'cognates' of white ware styles and types in the K.ayenta Anasazi region (e.g., Wailing et al.

1986). Colton (1953; 195 5) identifies six styles common at various times from Basketmaker

ill to late Pueblo II in the Kayenta region. These are, from earliest to latest, Lino, Kana-a,

Black Mesa, Sosi, Dogoszhi, and Flagstaff. Each of these styles corresponds to a formally

defined and similarly named type within the Tusayan Series ofTusayan White Ware, except

68

Table 3. Date Ranges Suggested for Selected Types.

Co hon Breternitz Schroedl Ambler Christenson (1955, (1966) and (1985) (1994) 1956) Blinman

(1989)

Tusayan White Ware

Black Mesa Black-on-white 900-1100 875-1130 ?-1175 1000-1100 900-1160

Sosi Black-on-white 1070-1150 1075-1200 1020-1240 1070-1180 1050-1180

Dogoszhi Black-on-white 1070-1150 1085-1200 1050-1240 1040-1210 1050-1190

Flagstaff Black-on-white 1125-1200 1085-1275 1135-1250 1165-1220 1130-1230

Tusayan Gray Ware

Tusayan/Moenkopi Corrugated 950-1275 1000-1300 1050-1285 1030-1260 1020-1250

San Juan Red Ware

Deadmans Black-on-red 750-1050 775-1066 ?-1080 ?-1065 780-1040

Tsegi Orange Ware

Medicine Black-on-red 1050-1100 1075-1125 1050-1175 ?-1115 1040-1170

Tusayan Black-on-red 1050-1150 1050-1300 1050-1285 1000-1290 1045-1240

Note: Date ranges from Schroedl and Blinman (1989) are inferred from type :frequencies in calibration periods. Ambler's ending date for Deadmans Black-on-red is inferred from his Figure 10 (Ambler 1985:48).

for Lino Style, which occurs on Lino Black-on-gray, considered by Colton (1955) to be a

Tusayan Gray Ware type. Table 3 shows a variety of opinions about the temporal ranges of

the Kayenta types that date near the time that ceramic exchange from the Shivwits and

Uinkaret Plateaus to the Moapa Valley was most intense.

A similar sequence of design changes can be recognized in Virgin Anasazi black-on-

gray designs, although the styles are not identical to those from the Kayenta region. The

assumption

69

the dating of these Virgin Anasazi types parallels that of the Tusayan White

Ware types cannot be tested with available data, although in general it is often assumed that

the dating of "cognate" types is similar.

Red and Orange Ware

Red and orange ware vessels are made with high-iron clays and fired in an oxidizing

or neutral atmosphere that allows the iron in the clay to wen oxidized, leading to the

characteristic red or orange color. They are well smoothed or polished on at least one surface

and almost always painted. Often they are slipped, and both bowls and jars are common.

Designs in black paint or polychrome decorated most red and orange ware vessels. Red and

orange ware was apparently made in several relatively localized areas and traded very widely.

In the western part of the Virgin Anasazi area, all red and orange ware vessels were probably

imported.

Red and orange ware designs change through time, but production areas also change.

Because the raw materials used to make red and orange wares were different in the different

production areas, the red and orange wares found in the Virgin Anasazi region can be divided

into three categories based on paste color and inclusions. Two of these categories have

relatively well-known axeas of production outside the Virgin Anasazi region, while the third

was apparently made somewhere in the eastern part of the Virgin Anasazi region or in the

area bet:ween Ka.11ab Creek and the Colorado River.

San Juan Red Ware. The first category includes ceramics classified as San Juan Red

Ware, which are tempered with a crushed igneous rock. They have orange-colored paste and,

70

despite what Colton (1956) says, San Juan Red Ware vessels made after aboutA.D. 850 or

900 have a red slip. Most San Juan Red Ware was made in southeastern Utah, in the Mesa

Verde Anasazi region (Allison 1988b; Hegmon et al. 1995, 1997). It was produced from

about A.D. 750 until sometime late in the 11th century, although San Juan Red Ware is

generally not found in the Virgin Anasazi region until not long before it stopped being

produced.

Tsegi Orange Ware. Tsegi Orange Ware was tempered with crushed white ware

potsherds and quartz sand, and is also generally slipped red with an orange paste color

(Colton 1956). It was made in the northern part of the Kayenta Anasazi region (Ambler

1985), and was produced beginning sometime in the 11th century.

Sand-Tempered Red Ware. The third type of red or orange ware is tempered with

fine, well-rounded quartz sand. It is often referred to as "sand-tempered red ware" (Allison

1988a, 1988b; Lyneis 1992:32). This third variety ofred/orange ware probably includes what

Colton (1952) called Middleton Black-on-red and Middleton Red, types Colton included in

the Little Colorado Series of San Juan Red Ware. Because of similarities in dating and design

styles, it might be more appropriately classified as a regional variety of Tsegi Orange Ware.

The paste on these sherds, however, often fires to a deep red, rather than orange, color. They

often have a slip that contrasts only slightly with the paste, making it difficult to determine

whether a slip is actually present on many sherds. Sand-tempered red ware was probably

produced in the vicinity ofKanab Creek or slightly east of there, where it is common (Allison

1988b).

71

Red or orange ware of any kind is rare in the Virgin Anasazi region prior to about the

time that ceramic trade between the uplands and the Moapa Valley became intense. The

temporal ranges of the three kinds of red/ orange wares overlap, but some tendency might be

expected for San Juan Red Ware to appear alone on ear Her sites and for Tsegi Orange Ware

and sand-tempered red ware to appear without San Juan Red Ware on later sites. On the

other hand, the distinctiveness and probable high value of red and orange ware vessels might

have led to them often being kept as heirlooms, lengthening their period of use well beyond

their actual manufacturing dates and reducing their utility as temporal markers. This is most

likely to be a problem with San Juan Red Ware, which apparently ceased to be made well

before the end of the Puebloan occupation of the Virgin Anasazi region.

Ware Frequencies in the Moapa Valley

In addition to these widespread changes, the relative frequencies of different wares

change through time in the Moapa Valley. A limestone-tempered ware, caned Logandale

Gray Ware, is common early. It wa-; apparently produced locally in the Moapa Valley.

Moapa Gray Ware and Shivwits Plain are most common in the middle of the sequence. Sand

tempered Tusayan Gray Ware, at least some of which was probably produced locally, occurs

throughout, but becomes dominant after Moapa Gray Ware and Shlvwits Plain are no longer

imported in any quantity. Finally, near the end oft.lie Pueb]oan occupation, Prescott Gray

Ware and buff ware from the Lower Colorado appear.

72

Periods and Phases

There are two main schemes that have been used to divide the Virgin Anasazi

temporal sequence. One of these consists of a series of phases defined for the Moapa Valley

by Shutler (1961 ). The other applies the terminology of the Pecos Classification more widely

(Basketmaker II, Basketmaker III, Pueblo I, Pueblo II, and Pueblo III), usually with

subdivisions of the Pueblo II period.

The periods of the Pecos Classification are not always defined consistently, and in

some cases architectural and other characteristics are important in their definition. For

current purposes, however, I prefer to define the periods based solely on the nature of the

ceramic assemblages, except for the preceramic Basketmaker II period, which is characterized

by (among other things) a lack of ceramics, the presence of cul ti gens (especially maize), and

the predominance (if not exclusive use) of dart rather than arrow points.

Basketmaker III ceramic assemblages are characterized by plain gray jars with little

or no rim eversion. Plain gray bowls are also present. Painted bowls are rare, especially early

in the period, but when present are usually decorated in Lino style.

Painted bowls are more common in Pueblo I times. They are generally decorated in

a style somewhat reminiscent of Kana-a, incorporating narrow lines and solids with appended

tics or fringes, but the lines are not aq fine as in Kana-a style. Jars are plain gray (not neck

banded as Pueblo I jars are finther east), usually with moderate rim eversion.

In early Pueblo II, painted designs are more like Black Mesa style, with wider lines

and dots, rather than tics, appended to soHds. In parts of northwestern Arizona (e.g.,

Yellowstone Mesa [Allison 1988a]) and in the Saint George Basin, most plain grny jars have

73

sharply everted rims, but in the Moapa Valley most jar rims are only moderately everted. In

the Moapa Valley, Logandale Gray Ware becomes rare by the end of this period.

The first use of corrugated jars marks the beginning of the middle Pueblo ll period.

Plain gray jars also continue to be made. Red and orange wares make their first regular

appearance at about the same time; although they are never common, they regularly account

for 1-2 percent of ceramic assemblages. Black-on-gray designs are Black Mesa style (but

usually without the appended dots) or Sosi Style. Moapa Gray Ware becomes more popular

in the Moapa VaHey than it had been earlier, and Shlvwits Plain appears there for the first

time.

In late Pueblo II, corrugated jars become more common; corrugated sherds generally

make up more than 20 percent of ceramic assemblages. Red and orange wares continue to

be imported, while black-on-gray designs are Sosi or Dogoszhi style. Moapa Gray Ware and

Shlvwits Plain continue to be imported to the Moapa Valley during the first part of this

period, but by the end they have ceased to be regularly imported. Prescott Gray Ware and

Lower Colorado Buff Ware occur by the end of the period (Chapter 9; Lyneis et al. 1989).

Pueblo III ceramic assemblages are characterized by high frequencies of corrugated

sherds, generally more than 40 percent. Red and orange ware polychromes occur for the first

time (although they are never common), along with the continued presence of black-on-red

types. Black-on-gray designs indude elements and layouts reminiscent of Flagstaff style,

although Sosi and Dogoszhi styles are stin found. From Mesa House, one of the sites

in the Moapa Valley, Hayden ( 1930:79-80) describes what is apparently Prescott Gray Ware,

and Lyneis et al. (1989:26) state that Lower Colorado Buff Ware occurs there as well.

74

Shutler's (1961) phases for the Moapa Valley can be equated to this Pecos

Classification scheme. His Moapa Phase is equivalent to Basketmaker II, while the Muddy

River Phase is Basketmaker ill. The Lost City Phase is equivalent to Pueblo I and II

combined, and the Mesa House Phase is what I have called Pueblo ill.

It is important to note that many black-on-gray designs may not fall easily into one of

Colton' s styles. The classification of sherds can be especially problematic, and the smaller the

sherd the more difficult classification can be. Thus, black-on-gray assemblages from any part

of the Pueblo II - Pueblo III sequence are often dominated by sherds with nothing but a single

broad ( 4-7 mm) line, and/or by sherds that are clearly painted but cannot be further classified.

Dating the Periods

Radiocarbon Dating

Figure 6 shows calibrated 1-sigma intervals for radiocarbon dates from Virgin Anasazi

sites classified into periods as described above. To aid interpretation, dates with 1-sigma

intervals that did not overlap the intervals of the majority of dates from the period have been

excluded. A set of five very late dates from the late Pueblo II Pinenut site (Westfall 1987),

for which I suspect laboratory error, have also been excluded.1 The dates used, including

those excluded from Figure 6, are listed in Appendix B.

The shaded areas in Figure 6 represent my interpretation of the most likely date ranges

for each period based on both radiocarbon dates and the ceramic cross-dating described

below. It is clear, though, that the dates from every period (except perhaps Pueblo I) are

widely dispersed relative to the suggested length of each period, and multiple interpretations

75

Pueblo Ill

Late Pueblo II

Middle Pueblo II

Early Pueblo II

Pueblo I

Basketmaker Ill

100 300 500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 Calibrated Years AD.

Figure 6. Calibrated I-sigma intervals for Virgin Anasazi radiocarbon dates by period. The shaded areas represent a subjective assessment of the most likely date ranges for each period based on both radiocarbon dates and ceramic crossdating.

1300

400 BM Ill

Figure 7. Date ranges implied by radiocarbon dates for Pecos Classification periods as defined in the Virgin Anasazi region.

76

are possible. The early Pueblo II period is especially problematic. Figure 7 is a more realistic,

though still subjective, portrayal of the uncertainty involved based on the radiocarbon dates

alone. The "possible" ranges of every period overlap with the ranges of adjacent periods, and

the "probable" range of the early Pueblo II period overlaps with the "probable" ranges ofboth

Pueblo I and middle Pueblo II (and even the "possible" range of late Pueblo II). The timing

77

of the transitions between some periods - especially· between early and middle Pueblo Il

is important for dating the period of most intense interaction between the Moapa Valley

populations and people on the Uinkaret and Shivwits Plateaus. The radiocarbon dates are

insufficient for precise dating, but ceramic cross-dating can provide additional relevant

information.

Ceramic Cross-Dating

Temporal trends in ceramic styles in the Kayenta Anasazi region are similar in many

respects to Virgin Anasazi trends, and Virgin Anasazi ceramics have usually been dated by

reference to simi1ar, butbetter-datedKayentaAnasaziceramics(e.g.,Fairley 1989a; Walling

et al. 1986). Ceramic cross-dating usually refers to the practice of using the presence of well

dated ceramic types to date otherwise-undated sites where they occur. No Virgin Anasazi

ceramic types are well dated in this sense, and the only relatively well-dated types that occur

as trade wares in the Virgin Anasazi region are red or orange wares (Deadma.11s Black-on-red,

Medicine Black-on-red, and TusayanBlack-on-red), and occasionally Black Mesa Black-on

white. For the most part,- ceramic cross-dating in the Virgin Anasazi region relies on the

assumptions that certain Virgin Anasazi ceramic types are cognates of types from the Kayenta

region, and that dates of mai1ufacture and ust':: of the Virgin cerarnic types were similar to

those of their better-dated cognates.

Fairley and Geib (1989:225-226) point out that the assumption that ceramic change

is contemporaneous over such a large area is questionable and that the stylistic similarities

between supposedly cognate types are sometimes exaggerated. addition, dating of the

78

Kayenta types, despite being much better than that for the Virgin types, is not as secure as is

sometimes assumed. Variation in the dates given for certain types (Table 3) results from a

number of factors. Disagreement about how to interpret tree-ring dates and how to decide

which sherd assemblages should be associated with dated structures are important sources

of variation, as are inconsistent classification of ceramics, the small number of well-dated sites

from any given region, and a few critical periods with no well-dated sites at all. Nevertheless,

I agree with Fairley and Geib (1989:226) that ceramic cross-dating "is still the most viable

alternative" for dating most Virgin Anasazi sites.

A closer look at the evidence for the timing of certain stylistic changes can !esolve

some of the disagreement shown in Table 3. Of particular importance are changes that can

help date the middle Pueblo Il period during which strong trade links were established

between the Moapa Valley and the upland areas in northwestern Arizona. The beginning of

this period coincides with several stylistic transitions. These are the first use of corrugated

utility wares, the adoption ofSosi style on decorated bowls, and the transition from San Juan

Red Ware to Tsegi Orange Ware. A bit later, Dogoszhi-style designs appear on black-on

gray vessels.

All these changes apparently took place during the 11th century A.D., but, as Table

3 shows, the precise dates are a matter of some disagreement. 2 The date ranges from Colton

(1955, 1956) andBreternitz (1966), though widely used, were derived prior to the excavation

of many well-dated Kayenta sites and need revision. Ambler (1985), Blinman (in Schroedl

and Blinman 1989), and Christenson (1994), however, are all relatively recent reviews that

are based largely on excavations on Black Mesa. Despite incorporating data from many of

79

same sites, their estimates for the date of introduction of corrugated utility wares vary

from A.D. 1020 to A.D. 1050; estimates for the first use ofSosi Black-on-white vary from

1020 to 1070. The first use of Dogoszhl Black-on-white is consistently estimated at either

A.D. 1040 or 1050 (though these dates may be too early, see Appendix C), but the first use

ofTusayan Black-on-red (essentially a Tsegi Orange Ware with Dogoszhi-style decoration)

is tentatively estimated as A.D. 1000 by Ambler (1985:62), while the other estimates are A.D.

1045 and l 050. Ambler (1985:62) implies that Medicine Black-on-red, representing the

earliest Tsegi Orange Ware production, may start prior to A.D. 1000, while Christenson and

Blinman suggest a date of around A.D. 1040-1050 for the same event. Finally, the ending

date for Deadma.ns Black-on-red, representing the last use of San Juan Red Ware in the

Kayenta region, is variously estimated at A.D. 1040, 1065, or 1080.3

The maximum difference between the estimated timing of these ceramic transitions

is 50 years, which is relatively precise dating compared to anything available for the Virgin

Anasazi region. StiH, more precise estimates are desirable. In Appendix C 1 examine the

basis for the Kayenta region dates in an attempt to clarify the timing of eleventh-century

ceramic changes.

On the basis of my review, I believe that corrugated ceramics were not common in the

Kayenta region until shortly after A.D. 1050, but they appear to have completely replaced

plain ceramics by the late 1070s. I am suspicious about the accuracy of red/orange ware

classification from some of the sites used in building the chronology, but if the classifications

are accurate, then Tsegi Orange Ware may begin to replace San Juan Ware by about

A.D. 1025. The San Juan Red Ware/Tsegi Ora.:11ge Ware transition appears to be complete

80

(on Black Mesa at least), by about A.D. 1080. On the other hand, if some of the red/orange

ware classification is unreliable, then A.D. 1025 may be too early for the start of this

transition. Neither Sosi nor Dogoszhi Black-on-white appear to have been used before A.D.

1050, although they are in use by the late eleventh century.

If we maintain the assumption that the timing of stylistic transitions in the Virgin

Anasazi region was similar, then it appears t'lat A.D. 1050 is a reasonable estimate for the

start of the middle Pueblo n period and approximates the beginning of the period of most

intense ceramic importation to the Moapa Valley.

Precise dates for the middle~Iate Pueblo II transition and the end of the late Pueblo II

period are more difficult to determine. lfDogoszhi-style black-on-gray ceramics in the Virgin

region date to about the same time as Dogoszhi Black-on-white, then the late Pueblo II

period must begin by about A.D. 1100. It probably ends sometime around A.D. 1150-1175.

Since the period of intense Moapa Valley-upland ceramic exchange runs from

approximately the beginning of the middle Pueblo IT period into the late Pueblo II period, it

must last about 75-100 years, from about A.D. 1050 to A.D. 1125 or 1150.

A Virgin Anasazi Chronology

Figure 8 shows chronologies proposed for Virgin Anasazi by Shutler (l 961) and

Fairley (1989a), compared with my suggested chronology based on the radiocarbon and

ceramic cross-dating described above. There are many similarities, especially with Fairley' s

chronolof:;J', but there are a few differences as well. I have not specifically reviewed the

81

----~--- --1300

1111 11111 11111 lill!ll 119 ll!ll 1!!111 - llli!I ..... 1!111' lllll lli!ll

Pueblo !II 1200 Pueblo Ill

1100 Mesa House Phase Late Pueblo II

Middle Pueblo II

Late Pueblo II

Middle Pueblo Ii

1000 Early Pueblo II

Early Pueblo II

900 lost City Phase Pueblo I

Pueblo I

800

700

00 Muddy River Phase .._

600 ro Basketmaker Ill Basketmaker Ill Q)

>-._ ro 500 'U c <D ro 400 u

300

200 Moapa Phase Basketmaker II Basketmaker 11

100

BC/AD

100 --------111111-llllllllllllllG

200

300 Shutler 1961 , __ F_a_lrle;t 1989a Thi~_study J

F'igure 8. Various chronologies that have been proposed for the Virgin Anasazi.,

82

Basketmaker II radiocarbon dates, but I am not aware of any from the Virgin region prior to

about 100 B.C. Given the dates on the Basketmaker II period in the Four Comers area, it is

possible that dates much earlier than that may eventually be obtained, but for now I have

represented the beginning of the period with a dashed line at about 100 B.C.

The biggest difference in my chronology is in the length of the Pueblo II and Pueblo

ID periods. I suggest that the early Pueblo II period begins about 50 years earlier than Fairley

(A.D. 950 as opposed to A.D. 1000), and that the late Pueblo II period lasted about 25 years

longer (ending at A.D. 1175 rather than 1150). This implies that the Pueblo II period as a

whole lasts some 225 years, rather than the 150 years suggested by Fairley.

Shutler' s dating of the Mesa House Phase (equivalent to Pueblo ill in the Moapa

Valley) reflects the traditional belief that the Puebloan occupation of the Virgin region ended

by A.D. 1150. Fairley's later dating of the Pueblo ID period reflects the large number of

post-1150 radiocarbon dates that have accumulated in recent years, but does not go far

enough, in my opinion. Although the lack of Virgin Anasazi cognates for the late Pueblo III

Kayenta ceramic types make me reluctant to argue for occupation of the Virgin region later

than the early A.D. 1200s, the radiocarbon dates clearly suggest occupation until at least then.

In fact, the radiocarbon dates by themselves seem to suggest that the Virgin Anasazi may

have been around as late as A.D. 1300 (Allison 1996). It may be that the small sample of

dates available for the Pueblo ID period is misleading, but it no longer seems reasonable to

argue for an A.D. 1150 abandonment of the Virgin region (although population may well

have begun to decline then).

83

In the Mount Trumbull area, GC-671 has radiocarbon dates that suggest occupation

in the late 1200s, while the latest sites in the Moapa Valley (e.g., Mesa House) are not dated.

The latest radiocarbon date from the Moapa Valley comes from the Adam 2 site and appears

to suggest occupation at around A.D. 1200. Based on the ceramic assemblage, the Adam 2

site is late Pueblo II (in Figure 6 the latest of the late Pueblo II dates is from Adam 2), and

several of the Muddy River survey sites have ceramic assemblages that seem later (as does

Mesa House).

· Relative Dating

Based on the criteria described above and on the ceramic data reported in Appendix

A, each of the sites from the Muddy River Survey, the Mount Trumbull Survey, and the

Shlvwits Plateau can be assigned to one or more of the periods (Table 4). The majority of

sites from the Muddy River Survey and the Mount TrumbuH Survey date to the middle

Pueblo II period. No sites were identified as dating to the Basketmaker Ill period, and the

only two sites that clearly have a Pueblo I component are both Muddy River Survey sites that

appear to have mixed Pueblo I and middle Pueblo II occupations. No Muddy River Survey

sites have an obvious early Pueblo II occupation (although several appear to be borderline

early/mid Pueblo II), but thxee Mount TrumbuH Survey sites do.

It is possible that the apparent dearth of pre-middle Pueblo II sites reflects the

difficulty of recognizing mixed assemblages in the absence of good samples of decorated

sherds. The one Moapa ValJey early Pueblo U site for which good infonnation is available,

84

Table4. Period Affiliations for Sites included in the Analysis.

Early Middle Late Pueblo I Pueblo II Pueblo II Pueblo II Pueblo III

Muddy River Survey

MRS4 x x MRS5A x MRS5B x MRS5C x MRS9 x MRS IO x MRS 11 x MRS12 x MRS 13 x MRS14 x MRS 19 x x MRS 20 (Pueblo Point) x MRS 26 (Raven Point) x MRS28 x MRS30 x MRS31 x MRS32 x MRS33 x MRS34 x MRS35A x MRS36 x MRS37 x MRS39A x MRS39B x MRS42A x MRS44A x MRS45 x MRS47 x MRS48 x MRS49A x MRS50 x MRS51 x MRS54A x MRS54B x MRS54C x MRS55A x

85

Table 4, continued

MRS55B x J\1RS 58 x MRS59 x MRS60 x MRS62A x MRS62B x MRS63B x MRS65 x MRS66 x ?vfRS 68 x MRS75 x MRS76 x

Mount Trumbull Survey

NA 13679 x NA 13683 x NA 13685 x NA 13689 x NA 13698 x NA 13713 x NA 13718 x NA 13719 x x NA 13727 x NA 13728 x

Shivwits Plateau

AZA:2:44 X? X?

AZA:ll:28 X? X?

AZA:l5:8 x

however, has a ceramic assemblage dominated by Logan dale Gray Ware (Myhrer and Lyneis

1985), which is not common on any of the Muddy River Survey sites.

In contrast to the lack of earlier sites, a number oflate Pueblo II and Pueblo Ill sites

were coHected during the Muddy River Survey, and tliere is one borderline late Pueblo

II/Pueblo Ill site from the Mount TrumbuH Survey. One of the Shivwits Plateau sites also

appears to date to the Pueblo Ill period, while a second is either late Pueblo TI or Pueblo m.

86

The impression from both Mount Trun1bull Survey and the Muddy River Survey

is that population (or at least the number of sites) within the surveyed areas grew quickly at

the beginning of the middle Pueblo II period. It then declined suddenly at the end of the

period, with occupation continuing at a reduced level through the late Pueblo II and Pueblo

III periods. It is not clear to what extent these patterns can be generalized to the entire

Moapa Valley or Mount Trumbull areas, but the population of both of these larger areas also

seems to have peaked during the middle Pueblo II period.

A Finer Relative Chronology for the Muddy River Survey

In order to complete some of the tests outlined in Chapter 4, a finer relative

chronology is desirable for at least the Muddy River Survey sites. Unfortunately, most of the

assemblages have few jar rims or painted sherds, and many of the painted sherds are not

classifiable to a specific design style. The study of rims and painted sherds is therefore not

very useful in developing a finer seriation.

The percentage of corrugated sherds within ceramic assemblages has been used to

seriate sites in the Moapa Valley (Larson 1987; Larson and Michaelsen 1990; Lyneis 1986)

and seems likely to be useful with the Muddy River Survey sites. One modification to

previous uses of the method is necessary, however. Moapa Gray Ware pottery imported to

the Moapa VaHey is rarely corrugated. On any given site in the Moapa Valley, the percentage

of Moapa Gray Ware that is corrugated is often zero, and almost always far less than the

percentage of Tusayan Grny Ware pottery that is corrugated (Figure 9), even though

corrugated Moapa Gray Ware is common on some sites near Mount Trumbull. It is not clear

87

15

5

0

0 10 20 30 40 50

Tusayan Gray Ware

Figure 9. Comparison of the percentages of Tusayan Gray Ware and Moapa Gray Ware that are corrugated for the Muddy River Survey sites. MRS 58 and MRS 59 are extreme outliers and are excluded from this graph.

whether this pattern is due to late adoption of corrugation in the areas that produced Moapa

Gray Ware, or whether corrugated Moapa Gray Ware was made but not traded during the

middle Pueblo II period. Whatever the reason, the percentage of corrugated pottery in

contemporaneous assemblages from the Moapa Valley could differ if the relative abundances

of Moapa Gray Ware varied among those same assemblages. In other words, the

proportionof corrugated pottery in the assemblage as a whole is affected by the relative

5

4

~ ~3 0 .... ~ E :::J z

2

1

Period Period Period 1 2 3

11

0 10 20 30

Period 4

40

Period 5

50 Percent Corrugated

60

Period 6

n

70

88

Figure 10. Histogram of the percent ofTosayan Gray Ware that is corrugated for the Muddy River Survey sites. The proposed six-period classification is shown at the top.

proportions ofMoapa Gray Ware and Tusayan Gray Ware used and discarded at the site, as

well as by when the site was occupied.

The percentage ofTusayan Gray Ware that is corrugated is not affected by how much

pottery was imported to that site, however, and should be a better temporal indicator than the

89

Table 5. Six-Period Classification for the Muddy River Survey Sites.

Period Percentage Corrugated Number of Sites (ofTusayan Gray Ware)

1 0-7 19

2 9-16 9

3 17-26 7

4 32-39 3

5 42-53 6

6 >70 2

percentage of the total ceramic assemblage that is corrugated. Figure 10 is a histogram of the

percentage ofTusayan Gray Ware that is corrugated for the Muddy River Survey sites. These

percentages vary from 0 to just over 70 percent, but most sites fall between 1 and 15 percent.

I have divided the sites into six ''periods" based on this histogram (Table 5). Other groupings

are possible, but these divisions correspond to natural breaks in the histogram. Periods 1-2

correspond roughly with the middle Pueblo II period (though a few Period 1 sites could

perhaps be considered either early or middle Pueblo IT), Period 3 is transitional between

middle and late Pueblo II, Period 4 is late Pueblo II, and Periods 5-6 are Pueblo Ill.

Figure 11 shows the results of a correspondence analysis using Muddy River Survey

counts for plain, corrugated, and black-on-gray varieties of Moapa Gray Ware and Tusayan

Gray Ware, as well as Shivwits Plain and Corrugated. The first axis on this plot appears to

mainly represent time, with earlier sites on the left and later sites to the right. The second axis

appears to separate the sites based on the kinds and amounts of imported pottery they have.

Sites with unusually large amounts ofMoapa Gray Ware are toward the top of the plot while

90 ,----·----MB

MC

MP

.1 f---

N (j)

33

~ 2 4

11 33 55 6 TC 11~ 2 3 4 55

0 ~ 11 2 4 6

1111 ~ 2TB3 5

-r~12 3 5 11 2

-.1 SC

f---

AXIS 1

I _____ .·----:Figure n. Pfot of the first two axes ofa correspondence analysis on ceramic counts from the Muddy River sites. Individual sites are represented by the number of the period to which they belong. Ceramic catgories are represented by two-letter cod~<S. The first letter designates the ware (M = Moa1ia Gray Ware, S = Shivwits., T = Tusayan Gray Ware), while the second letter represents a specific category (P = riiain, C =corrugated, B = Bfack-1:m-gray). Axis 1 and Axis 2 account for 46.8 percent and 26.4 percent, respectively, of the total inertia.

91

sites with unusual amounts of Shivwits Plain and/or Corrugated are toward the bottom. The

amount ofMoapa Gray Ware and Shivwits Plain also appears to contribute to the first axis,

so that for any given period (especially for periods 2-5) sites with high quantities of either

Moapa Gray Ware or Sbivwits Plain and/or Corrugated are farther to the left of the plot (and

farther from the origin of the second axis) than same-period sites with less of those wares.

The results of the correspondence analysis are not completely independent of the six

period classification based on the relative abundance of corrugated Tusayan Gray Ware (in

fact, the first axis of the correspondence analysis is strongly correlated with the amount of

corrugated Tusayan Gray Ware), but these results show that the classification still makes

sense when more data are included.

The relative chronology is useful in exposing trends in settlement location within the

Muddy River Survey area. Figures 12-14 plot the sites from Period 1, Periods 2-3, and

Periods 4-6 respectively. These figures show a clear trend toward more upstream locations

in the latest time periods: Period 1-3 sites are distributed throughout the length of the survey

area; but Period 4-6 sites are only found in the northwest half. This pattern would appear

even stronger if the Adam 2 site (located near MRS 68), MRS 75, and MRS 76 (exact

locations unknown but somewhere at the northwest end of the survey area) were included in

the Period 4-6 plot. Adam 2 would be a Period 4 site, while MRS 75 and MRS 76 are both

Period 5.

\=---~-\ ~~~92

'10 66• eas 0 0

ea3 es2

/

meters

Figure 12 M • uddyRiv erSurv

vi

ey' Period 1 s 'tes I •

c 0

oO 0 es2

0 0

meters 1000

F' igure l3. Mudd · yRiverSn - sites. rvey' Period 2 3 .

00

/

0

0 es2

200

\

•so .59

8

N

meters

0

ooo ~ Beo

800 1000

Figure 14. Muddy River Survey, Period 4-6 sites.

94

95

Conclusion

Chronology in the Virgin Ana~azi region is not as well established as in other parts of

the Southwest, but temporal change in ceramic styles allows sites from across the Virgin

region to assigned to periods. These periods can be roughly dated by a combination of

radiocarbon dating and ceramic cross-dating. The middle Pueblo II period, when ceramic

exchange from the Shivwits and Uinakret Plateaus to the Moapa Valley was at it<J peak,

probably lasts from about A.D. 1050 to 1100. The exchange system declines during the

subsequent late Pueblo II period, probably between A.D. 1125 and 1150, although both the

Moapa Valley and the ceramic-producing upland areas probably continued to be occupied

until at least the early 1200s.

The sequence from about A.D. 1050 to the end of Puebloan occupation of the area

in the 1200s can be subdivided into middle Pueblo TI, late Pueblo II, and Pueblo III periods

based on the abundance of corrugated pottery and the styles on painted vesse1s. Painted

sherds are rare in the surface collections that provide almost all the data for my ana1ysis, and

most are too small to be useful in dating the assemblages. Therefore, in the analyses

described in Chapters 6 and 7, relative dating of the Muddy River Survey assemblages relies

almost exclusively on the relative abundance of corrugated Tusayan Gray Ware. As a proxy

measure of date of occupation, comparisons among Muddy River Survey assemblages use

either the raw proportion of Tusayan Gray Ware that is corrugated, or the six-period

classification that is based on that proportion. When upland assemblages are included, I use

periods based on the Pecos Classification.

96

While precise absolute dating of the individual site assemblages would be desirable,

the relative dating methods appear to work reasonably well. Their application in Chapters 6

and 7 facilitates the recognition of temporal trends in ceramic distributions, as well as

important patterns of variation among closely contemporaneous sites.

CHAPTER6

SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL

DISTRIBUTIONS OF CERAMIC WARES

This chapter summarizes the distributions of ceramic wares within the Virgin Anasazi

region, with special attention to their distribution in the Muddy River Survey sites. The goal

is to provide some of the data specified in Chapter 4, in order to test the models proposed

earlier. Specifically, information on the region-wide distribution of ceramic wares will

indicate the relative importance oflocal versus distant production in supplying ceramics used

by the inhabitants of different parts of the Virgin Anasazi region. Within the Muddy River

Survey sites, the distribution of Moapa Gray Ware and Shivwits Plain will show that much

of the pottery used in the Moapa Valley came from distant sources. The distributions of these

types among contemporaneous sites from the Muddy River Survey will demonstrate that all

households in the Moapa Valley did not participate equally in ceramic exchange; some

households were more involved than others. Estimates of the probable volume of exchange

suggest the observed patterns could be created without any individual household importing

huge amounts of pottery, however.

I also examine the relative abundances of decorated and utilitarian ceramics among

the different wares in the Muddy River Survey and Mt. Trumbull Survey sites. This indicates

the degree to which exchange favored decorated or utilitarian ceramics, which is important

because in a mutualistic system exchange should be predominantly in utilitarian ceramics,

98

while a risk-buffering or debt-creation system would favor exchange of more socially valued

goods such as decorated vessels.

The Regional Distribution of Wares

Figures 15-17 shows distribution maps for Moapa Gray Ware in the early Pueblo II,

middle Pueblo II, and late Pueblo II-Pueblo ill periods. These maps are based on both my

analyses and published ceramic analyses from across the Virgin Anasazi area. The data used

to generate these maps are presented in Appendix D. These data include UTM coordinates

for each site or group of sites and the proportion of each assemblage that is Moapa Gray

Ware. The contour lines represent the results of a distance-weighted least squares smoothing

of these data (Wilkinson 1990) and depict general patterns in the distribution of Moapa Gray

Ware in each of the time periods. These figures need to be interpreted with caution since the

algorithm used, and my efforts to fit the contour lines to the maps (by truncating them or

curving them back when the computer extended them into areas beyond the limits of the

Virgin Anasazi region), create the impression of clinal distributions in areas where there is

little data (like the Shivwits Plateau), and across areas that probably had no permanent

occupation (like the area from the Grand Wash Cliffs west to the lower Virgin River). The

general patterns ofMoapa Gray Ware distribution are still informative, however, even though

the actual distributions are probably much less continuous than they appear on the maps.

These general patterns indicate that Moapa Gray Ware is most common in the

Uinkaret Mountain area, where it was made, in all the time periods represented. The

distributions shown for the early Pueblo II and the late Pueblo II-Pueblo ill periods are

Z·C ~:or .,.::r Q.• .,.

: Beaver .Dam Mins

·~

miles

kilometers - 25

Figure 15. Regional distribution of Moapa Gray Ware in the early Pueblo II period.

Z•C

;i:~ O.· .,.

miles - 25 kilometers -

Figure 16. Regional distribution ofMoapa Gray Ware in the middle Pueblo II period.

99

Z·C:

~:~ a, • ...

miles

kilometers - 25

Figure 17. Regional distribution ofMoapa Gray Ware in the late Pueblo II-early Pueblo ID periods.

100

similar, showing a relatively symmetrical distribution and suggesting that Moapa Gray Ware

was not particularly common in ceramic assemblages at any distance from where it was made.

The middle Pueblo II distribution contrasts with the other two periods. During this time

period Moapa Gray Ware is both more widely and less symmetrically distributed than it was

before or after. The contour lines show a pronounced stretching, indicating a strongly

westward movement of pottery out of the Uinkaret Mountain area toward the Moapa Valley

during the middle Pueblo II time period. A more accurate depiction of the actual distribution,

taking into account the unoccupied area west of the Grand Wash Cliffs, would show a gap

in the distribution between the Mount Trumbull/Shivwits Plateau area and the Moapa Valley

101

and lower Virgin region. The apparent c1inaI faH-off in Moapa Gray Ware abundance across

the areas with no data is imposed on the map by the smoothing method used.

Shivwits Plain has not been consistently recognized in previous analyses, so it is not

possible to create maps like those in Figures 15-17 that would show Shlvwits Plain

distributions across the Virgin Anasazi region. It is possible, however, to examine its

distribution together with the distributions of Moapa Gray Ware and Tusayan Gray Ware

within the assemblages that I analyzed, which come from widely separated parts of the region.

Figure 18 is a tripolar graph that shows the relative percentages ofMoapa Gray Ware,

Tusayan Gray Ware, and Shivwits Plain and Corrugated within the analyzed assemblages.

Each symbol represents a site assemblage, and sites from the Muddy River Survey, the Mount

Trumbull Survey, and the Shlvwits Plateau are plotted with different symbols. This graph

shows that, with one exception, all the Mount Trumbull survey sites have more Moapa Gray

Ware than any of the other sites. Only three sites from the Shivwits Plateau are included

here, 4 and they vary greatly in the relative amounts of the three wares, but the two sites with

the highest percentages of Shivwits Plain and Corrugated are from the Shivwits Plateau. It

is also important to note that Shivwits Plain is rare in the Mt. Trumbu!l Survey collections,

but common at some Muddy River Survey sites. This suggests that the distribution of

Shivwits Plain, like that of Moapa Gray \Vare, is strongly oriented westward toward the

Moapa Valley, with very little Shivwits Plain found east of the Shivwits Plateau.

Perhaps the most intriguing pattern that can be seen in Figure 18 is the relatively wide

dispersion oft.he points from the Muddy River Survey. Several Muddy River Survey sites

have over 40 percent l\ifoapa Gray Ware, others have over 30 percent Shivwits, and still

I I .&.

I j \

20 i-MRS34 A A I A.:\ A. A.Jti \ A &~ I A

A~~ ~ A

102

A. Muddy River Survey Site

• Mount Trumbull Survey Site

I

Figure 18. Tripolar graph of ceramic ware percentages from an the sites included in the analysis.

others have virtually none of either type. This dispersion is partly due to lumping sites from

different time periods together, and some of it is sampling error. As I will show below,

however, there is considerable variation arnong contemporaneous assemblages in the amount

ofMoapa Gray Ware and Shivwits Plain they contain. The three Muddy River Survey sites

with the largest assemblages are labeled. sites are emphasized in Figure 18 (and in

103

several subsequent figures) because there are at least 800 sherds from each of these sites, so

sampling error is unlikely to be responsible for much of the variation observed among their

assemblages. These sites all have relatively high percentages of pottery from the uplands, but

vary in the mix of Moapa Gray Ware and Shivwits Plain.

In summary, the regional distributions of the wares show that Moapa Gray Ware is

always most common in the Uinkaret Mountain region, but its distribution extends to the west

during the middle Pueblo II period. The distribution of Shivwits Plain is not as well

documented, but it is most common in the Shivwits Plateau sites. It also occurs in many of

the Muddy River Survey sites. Finally, assemblages from individual Muddy River Survey

sites vary in the amounts ofMoapa Gray Ware and Shivwits Plain they have. This variation

is analyzed in more detail in the next section.

The Distribution of Wares in the Moapa Valley

General Temporal Trends

Figure 19 is a scatterplot showing the percentage of upland pottery (Moapa Gray

Ware and Shivwits Plain combined) in each of the Muddy River Survey assemblages. The x

axis shows the percentage of Tusayan Gray Ware from each site that is corrugated, which

roughly correlates with the date of site occupation. The earliest sites (dating to about A.D.

1050) are to the left of the graph, while later sites are to the right. The line is the result of a

locally-weighted least-squares regression, and depicts the general trend of relatively high

amounts of upland pottery in the earliest assemblages (averaging a little more than 30 percent

of the total ceramic assemblages), followed by a rapid decrease to almost no upland pottery

A

60

~ 50 Q) •• ~ 0

Q. 40 A A

-c ~ A c A m a. 30 ::::> ..... c Q) 20 0 I... Q)

Q. 10

A A

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Percent Corrugated

Figure 19. Scatter plot of upland pottery as a percentage of the ceramic assemblage versus the percentage ofTusayan Gray Ware that is corrugated for each of the Muddy River Survey sites. The larger triangles represent the three sites with the largest ceramic assemblages (Pueblo Point, Raven Point, and MRS 34). The line represents the results of a locally-weighted least-squares regression.

104

in the two latest sites. These latest sites do have relatively high quantities of another kind of

imported pottery, Prescott Gray Ware, which was not imported regularly (if at all) during the

time that Moapa Gray Ware and Shivwits Plain were common in the Moapa Valley.

These same trends are reflected in Table 6, which shows the abundance of upland

pottery for the Muddy River Survey sites, grouped into the periods defined in Chapter 6.

Three different sample statistics are shown for each period, the mean of all the site

percentages of upland pottery, the median of the site percentages of upland pottery, and the

105

Table 6. Upland Pottery within the Muddy River Sites, by Period.

MeanofSite Standard Median of Site Percentage of Period Sites Percentages Deviation Percentages Total Sherds Total Sherds

1 19 35.1 12.1 30.6 6068 37.0

2 9 27.5 7.5 28.4 2461 27.7

3 7 33.6 9.0 32.8 2723 37.7

4 3 29.0 32.5 825 30.2

5 6 18.7 11.8 17.2 1126 18.0

6 2 5.4 5.4 310 6.1

percentage of the total number of sherds from each period that are from the uplands. These

values are somewhat different from each other in each of the periods, and it is not clear which

provides the most useful estimate of the true abundance of upland pottery. However, the

percentages of the total sherd counts are clearly inflated in Period 1 and Period 3 by the

presence of large collections from sites with extremely high percentages of upland pottery

(Raven Point and MRS 34 in Period l, Pueblo Point in Period 3). If these inflated numbers

are ignored, then all three measures of abundance provide similar views of the overall trends.

That is, Moapa Gray Ware and Shivwits Plain combined make up about 30 percent of the

total pottery from the Period 1-4 sites, but the amount of upland pottery imported to the

Muddy River Survey sites declined rapidly in Periods 5 and 6.

Figure 18 showed that the collections from the Muddy River Survey sites varied

greatly in the amount ofMoapa Gray Ware and Shivwits Plain pottery they had. In Figure

19 it is clear that some of this variation is related to the decline in importation of upland

pottery in the latest sites. This is not all that is important, however. There is a great deal of

106

variation around the trend line, and this variation indicates that apparently contemporaneous

sites have quite different amounts of upland pottery. This variation can also be seen in Table

6, which shows the standard deviation of the site percentages of upland pottery for each of

the periods with more than three sites. These standard deviations are quite high relative to

the means; the coefficients of variation range from 27 to 63 percent.

Figures 20 and 21 are graphs similar to Figure 19, but show only the abundance of

Moapa Gray Ware and Shivwits Plain, respectively, on their y-axes. Not surprisingly, the

temporal trends in both Shivwits Plain and Moapa Gray Ware are similar to the trends for

upland pottery as a whole (Figure 22), especially in the rapid decrease from an early peak.

There are differences between the lines for Shivwits Plain and Moapa Gray Ware, however.

Shivwits Plain is never as common in the Moapa Valley as Moapa Gray Ware, and its

occurrence is more restricted temporally. Shivwits Plain peaks in the assemblages with about

10 percent corrugated pottery, then begins to decline immediately. Moapa Gray Ware is at

its peak in the earliest sites, declines just as Shivwits Plain is peaking, then increases again

before beginning a steady decline in the assemblages with more than about 25 percent

corrugated.

As Figures 20 and 21 both show, the pattern of great variation about the trend line

that was evident for upland pottery as a whole is repeated for both Moapa Gray Ware and

Shivwits Plain separately. Sites from any given time period (but especially from the earliest

time periods when the most pottery was imported) vary widely in the total amount of

imported pottery they have, and in the amounts of Shivwits Plain and Moapa Gray Ware

specifically.

60 .. Q)

50 s... C\1

~40 ... .. ...

C\1 ... s... (!) ... [30

... C\1 0 ... :2: ..... c: Q) 0 s... Q) ...... a.. ... ...

... 00 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Percent Corrugated Figure 20. Scatter plot of Moapa Gray Ware as a percentage of the ceramic assemblage versus the percentage ofTusayan Gray Ware that is corrugated for each of the Muddy River Survey sites. Tlte larger triangles represent the three sites with the largest ceramic assemblages (Pueblo Point, Raven Point, and MRS 34). The line represents the results of a locally-weighted least-squares regression.

107

They also vary in the mix ofMoapa Gray Ware and Shivwits Plain. This is most

easily seen by examining the three sites with the largest analyzed assemblages (Pueblo Point,

Raven Point, and MRS 34). These sites are represented by larger triangles in Figures 19-21.

They all have greater than average amounts of upland pottery, varying from about 45 to about

55 percent of their ceramic assemblages. Raven Point and Pueblo Point both have much more

Moapa Gray Ware than most of the other sites, and plot far above the trend line in Figure 20,

40

3 en ... j ..r::.. 2 en ... +-' c: ... ... Cl) 0 4 r... Cl) a.. 1

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Percent Corrugated

Figure 21. Scatter plot of Shivwits Plain as a percentage of the ceramic assemblage versus the percentage ofTusayan Gray Ware that is corrugated for each of the Muddy River Survey sites. The larger triangles represent the three sites with the largest ceramic assemblages (Pueblo Point, Raven Point, and MRS 34). The line represents the results of a locally-weighted least-squares regression.

108

while MRS 34 is only slightly above the line. In Figure 21, MRS 34 is well above the trend

line, Pueblo Point is near the line but slightly below it, while Raven Point is far below it, in

the lower left comer of the plot. Put another way, all three of these sites have similar (and

quite high) amounts of imported pottery, but at Raven Point virtually all of it is Moapa Gray

Ware, at Pueblo Point most of it is Moapa Gray Ware but there is a close-to-average amount

UJ

~ 3 ~ <I>

(..)

«J 0 2 l-o +J c: <I> ~ 1 Q)

a.

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Percent Corrugated

Figure 22. Comparison of the locally weighted least-squares regression lines from Figures 19-21.

109

of Shivwits Plain, and at MRS 34 there are roughly equal amounts ofMoapa Gray Ware and

Shivwits Plain. At this latter site, the amount ofMoapa Gray Ware is close to average, but

the amount of Shivwits Plain is well above the average for Muddy River sites that date to

about the same time.

Variation among Contemporaneous Sites

The site-to-site variation in the kinds of upland pottery imported to the Moapa Valley

will be addressed in more detail in Chapter 7. This section addresses more specifically the

110

Period 1

Period 2 -----:.. ______ J--

Period 3 x -[[]-- x

Period 4 x

Period 5 __________ _.I-

x

Period 6 x x

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Percent Upland Pottery

Figure 23. Bo:xplots showing the percentages of upland pottery within the Muddy River Survey assemblages for different periods. For periods with fewer than five sites, each site is depicted individually.

already noted variation among apparently contemporaneous Muddy River Survey sites in the

amount of pottery imported (Figure 23). One question that remains to be answered is how

much of this variation could be a result of sampling error. The analyzed collections vary in

size from about I 00 potsherds to over 1,000, and it is possible that some or most of the

variation could result from sampling error, especially with the inclusion of relatively small

collections.

This question is important because, if the site-to-site variation in the amount of upland

pottery cannot be attributed to sampling error, then it probably reflects variation in the

111

amount of imported pottery used by different households and in the degree to which different

households participated in exchange with people living on the Shivwits and Uinkaret Plateaus.

Period 1. Period l has the dearest pattern of variation, perhaps in part because there

are more sites than in any of the later periods. Overall, 36.9 percent of the pottety from

Period 1 sites is either Moapa Gray Ware or Shivwits Plain, but the percentage of upland

pottery within individual Period 1 assemblages varies from 12.7 to 63.9 percent (Table 7).

A chi-square test, using the counts for upland and other pottery for the 19 sites, shows that

this variation is far beyond what can be attributed to sampling error (chi2 = 509.9, p < .001,

d.f. = 18). The chi-square test only provides an indication of the probability of the cumulative

deviation from the values that would be expected under the assumption that the observed

variation is solely due to sampling error (i.e., that each site assemblage is a sample from a

population in which 3 7 percent of the sherds are either Moapa Gray Ware or Shivwits Plain).

Since both the magnitude of the deviation from the expected value and the assemblage size

are important, it is not immediately obvious which of the individual assemblages deviate most

from expected values.

The chi-square test also uses the overall percentage of upland pottery (36.9 percent)

from Period 1 sites as the basis for deriving expected counts for each site. It is not clear that

this is the best estimate of the actual amount of upland pottery in the Period 1 Muddy River

Survey sites, however. The collection sizes vary from site to site, in ways that do not

necessarily reflect real differences in the total amount of pottery on the sites. Rather, some

sites were totally surface collected, others were only partially surface collected, single test pits

were excavated at a few sites, more extensive excavations were done at Raven Point, and no

112

Table 7. Upland Pottery in the Period 1 Muddy River Survey Assemblages.

Site Upland Pottery Other Total Percent Upland Status

MRS65 168 95 263 63.9 High

MRS63B 86 68 154 55.8 High

MRS 26 (Raven 453 387 840 53.9 High Point)

MRS49A 112 100 212 52.8 High

MRS12 111 132 243 45.7 High

MRS39B 49 60 109 45.0 Ambiguous

MRS34 404 502 906 44.6 High

MRS5B 39 63 102 38.2 Expected

MRS37 59 131 190 31.1 Expected

MRS62A 108 245 353 30.6 Ambiguous

MRS28 40 91 131 30.5 Expected

MRS66 131 314 445 29.4 Ambiguous

MRS35A 121 305 426 28.4 Ambiguous

MRS 13 100 264 364 27.5 Ambiguous

MRS47 133 370 503 26.4 Low

MRS33 32 130 162 19.8 Low

MRS42A 32 151 183 17.5 Low

MRS9 18 118 136 13.2 Low

MRS36 44 302 346 12.7 Low

Total 2240 3828 6068 36.9

excavation was done at others. The overall percentage of upland pottery in the combined

assemblages is affected by the resulting differences in collection size. Specifically, two sites

(Raven Point and MRS 34) with unusually large amounts of upland pottery have collection

sizes that are much larger than those from the other sites. These large collections are

113

weighted more heavily than other collections in calculating the overall percentage of upland

pottery, causing it to be higher than it would be if all the collections were of equal size.

Table 6 gives two other sample statistics that weight each collection equally (the mean

of the site percentages and the median of the site percentages) that may be used as estimates

of the true percentage of upland pottery in the period. Of these, the median of the site

percentages differs the most from the overall percentage, and the choice of which of these

statistics to base expectations on leads to slightly different conclusions about which specific

sites are within the expected range.

Figure 24 graphically represents the expected range around both the overall

percentage of upland pottery (36.9) and the median of the site percentages (30.6) for the

range of sample sizes from 100 to 900, and shows where each of the site assemblages plots

relative to those ranges. The ranges shown are 95-percent confidence intervals based on the

normal approximation to the binomial distribution. A 95-percent interval around the true

percentage of upland pottery in Period 1 sites should include all but 1 or 2 of the sites, ifthe

site-to-site variation were due to sampling error alone.

Using the overall percentage of upland pottery, six of the seven sites with the highest

percentages of upland pottery have significantly more upland pottery than expected, and nine

of the ten sites with the lowest percentages have significantly less upland pottery than

expected. The higher-than-expected sites have from 44.6 to 63.9 percent upland pottery.

The assemblage from MRS 39B includes 45 percent upland pottery, but the collection is small

enough that sampling error alone could account for the deviation from the expected

percentage. The lower-than-expected sites have 12.7 to 30.6 percent upland pottery. MRS

C" (]) ..... ..... 0 a.

60-

50-)t...._ --------------------

'"C c: <tS

40-~

------------------------c. ::::>

30- A ... ---&- • .----------,,,...-- A a• ..... * ffi ~

~ 20- A CD A a.

10-

-I

100 300 500 700 900 Collection Size

114

Figure 24. Scatter plot of collection size versus percent upland pottery for the Period 1 Muddy River Survey sites, showing 95-percent confidence intervals around the median of the site percentages (solid lines) and the overall percentage for the combined assemblages (dashed lines).

28 also falls within that range but again the assemblage size is too small to rule out sampling

error. Only four sites (including MRS 28 and MRS 39B) do not differ significantly from the

expected values.

Use of the interval around the median of the site percentages suggests that seven,

rather than six, sites have higher-than-expected percentages of upland pottery, as MRS 39B,

despite its small sample size, plots above the 95-percent interval. Only five sites are below

115

the interval (and one of those is just barely beyond it) leaving seven sites within the expected

range.

Using different estimates of the true percentage of upland pottery in the Period 1 sites

does affect perceptions about which of the individual site assemblages have more or less

upland pottery than would be expected if the variation were due to sampling error alone.

However, it is important to note that there is no estimate for which more than eight of the 19

sites would fall within the expected range (an estimate slightly lower than the median of the

site percentages [30.6] could lead to a 95-percent interval that included eight sites by adding

MRS 47 without excluding any of the sites that are already within the interva] in Figure 24).

Also, the status of most sites relative to the expectations is the same regardless of which 95-

percent interval is used. The last column in Table 7 shows this status for each site; six sites

have significantly higher than expected amounts of upland pottery, five have significantly less,

and four are clearly within the expected range. The status of the four other sites is ambiguous

because it depends on decisions about which estimate to use.

Period 2. The amount of upland pottery in the nine Period 2 assemblages varies from

14.1 to 36.8 percent (Table 8). This is a smallerrange than for the Period 1 assemblages, but

a chi-square test for the Period 2 sites still shows that the variation is significantly more than

would be expected from sampling error (chi-square= 55.1, p < .001, d.f. = 8). Plotting the

sites relative to 95-percent intervals around the median of the site percentages and the overaH

percentage for the period suggests consistent interpretations for all the sites (Figure 25). The

results are more consistent in this case because the median of the site percentages (28.4) is

closer to the overall percentage of upland potte1y in the combined assemblages (27.7) than


Site

MRS51

MRS5C

MRS5A

MRS IO

MRS48

MRS45

MRSll

MRS39A

MRS31

Total

Upland Pottery Other Total Percent Upland

~ Q)

= 0 CL "'C c: ca 0.

::::> +-' c: Q)

~ Q) a.

110 189 299 36.8

80 138 218 36.7

115 229 344 33.4

54 135 189 28.6

55 139 194 28.4

80 231 311 25.7

95 316 411 23.1

67 251 318 21.l

25 152 177 14.1

681 1780 2461 27.7

30 - ~

-------..-20 -~ -·--10 -

100 300 500 Collection Size

Status

High

High

High

Expected

Expected

Expected

Low

Low

Low


116

117

were the similar statistics for Period I. Three assemblages have significantly more upland

pottery than expected, three have significantly less, and three fall within the expected range.

Period 3. The seven Period 3 assemblages contain from 19.2 to 48.3 percent upland

pottery (Table 9). Overall, 37. 7 percent of the pottery from the Period 3 assemblages is either

Shivwits Plain or Moapa Gray Ware, although this statistic is influenced by the large

assemblage from Pueblo Point (which has the highest percentage of upland pottery of the

Period 3 sites). Once again, a chi-square test indicates that this variation is far beyond what

could reasonably be expected due to sampling error (chi-square= 117.9, p < .001, d.f. = 6).

Figure 26 shows that, no matter whether the site median or overall percentage of

upland pottery in the period is used, three sites are within the interval, two sites are above,

and two below.



MRS20 544 583 1127 48.3 High (Pueblo Point)

MRS55B 94 143 237 39.7 High

MRS32 83 168 251 33.l Expected

MRS50 42 86 128 32.8 Expected

MRS54B 34 71 105 32.4 Expected

MRS30 173 416 589 29.4 Low

MRS 14 55 231 286 19.2 Low

Total 1025 1698 2723 37.6

60-

-c:: ~ 20-(1)

a.. 10-

100 300

118

500 700 900 1100 Collection Size


Period 4. There are only three assemblages from Period 4. Two of these have

virtually equal percentages of upland pottery, while the third has much less (Table 10). A chi-

square test again indicates that it is unlikely sampling error is the only cause of this much

variation, although it is not as unlikely as in the earlier periods (chi-square= 8.59, p = .014,

d.f. = 2). With so few assemblages, it is not worth graphing the 95-percent intervals, but

MRS 54C falls below the intervals regardless of which estimate of the true percentage is used,

and the other two assemblages faH within them.

119



MRS62B 116 237 353 32.9 Expected

MRS 54A 93 193 286 32.5 Expected

MRS54C 40 146 186 21.5 Low

Total 249 576 825 30.2

Period 5. The Period 5 assemblages again exhibit extreme variation in the amount of

upland pottery they have, ranging from 4.2 to 3 7 .6 percent upland pottery (Table 11 ). A chi

square test is highly significant (chi-square= 7 5 .62, p < .001, d.f. = 5). Three sites fall within

the 95-percent interval around the median of the site percentages, but only two are within the

95-percent interval around the overall percentage of upland pottery for the combined

assemblages (Figure 27). Two assemblages are below both intervals, while one is above both.

Considering the overall temporal trends and how much, more upland pottery than the

other Period 5 assemblages it has, it may be that MRS 68 should really be classified into an

earlier period. Without it, the site median percentage for the period would be 12.5, and the

overall percentage of upland pottery would be 15.0. A chi-square test would still be

significant (chi-square= 36.05, p < .001, d.f. = 4). Both 95-percent intervals would include

MRS 44A and MRS 76, with MRS 60 and MRS 55A above and MRS 75 below. This may

be a better interpretation of the variation among the Period 5 sites, although it is not certain

that it is. In any case, the site-to-site variation in the amount of upland pottery in Period 5

assemblages is more than sampling error alone could account for.

~ 40-

ID +-' ... 0 30-a.. -.. ...... 'U

~ c ro 20-a.

:::> .,..,,.,.,,,_.- ... .... c 10-~ (I) u l.... ... (I) a..

100 300

Collection Size


Table 11. Upland Potte1y in the Period 5 Muddy River Survey Assemblages.


MRS68 56 93 149 37.6 High

MRS60 32 100 132 24.2 Expected

MRS55A 57 204 261 21.8 Expected

MRS44A 19 133 152 12.5 Ambiguous

MRS76 32 234 266 12.0 Low

MRS75 7 159 166 4.2 Low

Total 203 923 1126 18.0

120


Site

MRS59

MRS58

Total

Upland Pottery

16

3

19

Other

178

113

291

Total

194

116

310

Percent Upland Status

8.2 Expected

2.6 Expected

6.1

121

Period 6. The two Period 6 sites both have less than l 0 percent upland pottery (Table

12), but the variation benyeen them is still statistically significant (chi-square= 4.04, p = .044,

d.f. = 1 ). Even so, both of the sites fall within the intervals around either the median of the

site percentages or the overall percentage of upland pottery for the combined assemblages.

Summary. The amount of upland pottery in contemporaneous Muddy River Survey

assemblages varies considerably more than sampling error alone would allow for. This

variation appears to be most important in Periods 1-3, when the amount of upland pottery

imported to the Moapa Valley was at its peak. The differences among these assemblages

appear to reflect differences in the amount of upland pottery that different households used,

and in the extent to which individuals or households participated in exchange with the uplands.

This pattern of variation is not unique to the Muddy River Survey sites. There is

considerable variation in the amount of upland pottery associated with the individual Main

Ridge "houses", almost all of which fall into Period 1 (Table 13, Figure 28). As with the

Muddy River Survey sites, the variation among the Main Ridge houses is statistically

significant (chi-square= 983.2, p < .001, d.f. = 21) and appears to reflect real differences

among households in the amount of upland pottery they used.

122

Table 13. Upland Pottery in the Period 1 Main Ridge Assemblages.

House Upland Pottery Other Total Percent Upland Status

30 82 37 119 68.9 High

29 186 92 278 66.9 High

27 695 456 1151 60.4 Hig.h

20,23 102 78 180 56.7 High

26 289 283 572 50.5 High

25 121 125 246 49.2 High

32 107 113 220 48.6 High

35 473 508 981 48.2 High

28 110 148 258 42.6 Expected

4' 24 35 59 40.7 Expected

3 673 1012 1685 39.9 Expected

20 169 264 433 39.0 Expected

4 276 547 823 33.5 Low

15 81 175 256 31.6 Low

16 229 585 814 28.l Low

33 229 609 838 27.3 Low

34 24 76 100 24.0 Low

38 28 99 127 22.0 Low

6 and 7 382 1359 1741 21.9 Low

17 71 304 375 18.9 Low

36 90 386 476 18.9 Low

40 10 70 80 12.5 Low

Total 4451 7361 11812 37.7

70- ...

~soa> ;:

123

~so~ ... "'C ~"r"F-=--=-=-=-=-=-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-=~~.....,,.....,,,..,,,,,,..,,,,,,..,,,,,J ~ 40-... - ... ---------™----- -z--·

g30- ~---- ---~------......

100 300

... ...

500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 Collection Size

Figure 28. Scatter plot of collection size versus percent upland pottery for the Period 1 Main Ridge houses, showing 95-percent confidence intervals around the median of the house percentages(solid lines) and the overall percentage for the combined assemblages (dashed lines). Based on data from Lyneis (1992, Table 14).

The Volume of Exchange

While the variation in the amount of upland pottery at Moapa Valley sites seems

impressive, consideration of the probable scale of exchange suggests that there were not huge

numbers of vessels imported by any given household. Estimates of the total vessels imported

depend on a number of different parameters that can only be guessed, so it is impossible to

be precise, but it is unlikely that much more than about 1,000 Moapa Gray Ware and Shivwits

Plain vessels were brought into the Muddy River Survey sites during middle Pueblo II times,

when the ceramic trade was at its peak.

Recent accumulations research (e.g., Nelson et al. 1994; Varien and Mills 1997;

V arien and Potter 1997) helps establish a plausible range for the mean number of vessels

124

discarded by a household each year, which is important in estimating the number of vessels

imported. The number of vessels discarded per year is a function of vessel use-life (which

varies depending on vessel function) and the number of vessels in use in the household.

V arien and Mills (1997: 17 4-178) summarize ethnoarchaeological data from many sources on

vessel use-life and number of vessels used. This information suggests that vessel use-life is

highly variable, even when vessel function is held constant. The median values from the

ethnoarchaeological data (V arien and Mills 1997: 152) imply that about 5 .25 vessels of all

functional categories should be discarded per year by a household. However, this assumes

that the household has vessels that match all of the functional categories recorded in the

ethnoarchaeological studies, which is unlikely since the data are compiled from many different

societies. Some vessel types were found in only a few societies, and it is unlikely that they all

occur in prehistoric Puebloan sites. More realistically, Nelson et al. (1994:134) conclude,

based on their own review of ethnoarchaeological data, that "a reasonable estimate would be

that the average household in the Southwest broke some three pots per year."

However, the ethnoarchaeological data probably underestimate the true rate of vessel

breakage and discard in archaeological households. All the societies included in the

ethnoarchaeological studies have been influenced to some degree by contact with western

societies, and most have at least limited access to metal pots, the use of which would lead to

less frequent breakage of ceramic vessels (V arien and Mills 1997: 167). Data from the

Duckfoot site, a Pueblo I habitation in southwestern Colorado suggest a slightly higher rate

of breakage and discard (Lightfoot 1994; Lightfoot and Etzkorn 1993; Varien and Mills

1997). The Duckfoot site was apparently occupied for 20-25 years by three households. An

125

estimated total of 391 undecorated gray ware vessels were discarded at the site, or

approximately 5 .2-6.5 vessels per household per year (Lightfoot 1994:79; V arien and Mills

1997:166). Lightfoot (1994:80) estimates that about 84 decorated vessels were also

discarded, or about 1.1-1.4 additional vessels per household per year. Thus the rate of vessel

discard at Duckfoot appears to have been two or three times the three vessels per year

estimated by Nelson and assodates. It seems, therefore, that plausible estimates for the

number of vessels broken and discarded by a household each year could range from about

three to eight

Another variable that is important in estimating vessel use is the mean length of time

sites were occupied. Lyneis (1992:80) suggests that there is "nothing to indicate an individual

structure was occupied very long. Perhaps 10 to 15 years at the most would be a good

guess." Other estimates for the longevity of similar structures in the Southwest tend to be

about 15 years (Nelson et al. 1994). Slightly longer occupations, perhaps up to 25 years,

might be plausible with remodeling.

The ranges of plausible estimates for the number of vessels discarded per year and for

the occupation length of individual sites give rise to widely varying estimates for the total

number of vessels discarded at a site. Table 14 provides these estimates for certain

combinations of plausible assumptions about site occupation length and vessels discarded per

year, for a site that is occupied by one household. These estimates range from 30 to 200

vessels, although the most plausible estimates (in my opinion at least) are those that assume

a 15 year occupation length and 5-7 vessels discarded per household per year. Thus, total

126

Table 14. Estimated Total Household Vessel Discard Under Difterent Assumptions about Vessel Discard Rates and Site Occupation Length.

Site Occupation Length in Years

Vessels/year 10 15 20 25

3 30 45 60 75

5 50 75 100 125

6 60 90 120 150

7 70 105 140 175

8 80 120 160 200

pottery discard at most sites that were occupied by a single household should be somewhere

between about 75 and 105 vessels.

To estimate the number of vessels imported, additional assumptions are necessary.

I have assumed that the relative proportions of sherds of different types at a site accurately

reflect the proportions of vessels of those types that were discarded at that site. This

assumption is unlikely to be exactly true, due to sampling error and possibly to differences in

average vessel size between types, or to differences in vessel breakage. A second assumption

is that each site was occupied by a single household. This is probably true for most of the

Muddy River Survey sites, but a few sites may have had two or three households.

Table 15 shows the proportions ofMoapa Gray Ware and Shivwits Plain in the Muddy

River Survey assemblages from each of the six periods. The numbers given are the mean of

the site percentages. Table 16 shows how total estimates for Moapa Gray Ware in Period 1

are affected by different assumptions aboutthe mean number of vessels discarded per year and

the mean occupation length of sites. These estimates are obtained by multiplying the numbers

Table 15. Percentages of Moapa Gray Ware and Shivwits Plain in the Muddy River Survey Assemblages, by Period.

Period

2

3

4

5

6

Moapa Gray Ware

22.7

15.5

25.7

22.5

12.3

3.8

Shivwits Plain Sites

12.4 19

12.0 9

7.8 7

6.5 3

6.5 6

1.6 2

127

in Table 14 by 4.31, which is the number of sites in the sample (19) times the mean proportion

ofMoapa Gray Ware in the Period 1 assemblages (.227). The product is then rounded to the

nearest whole vessel. This implies a plausible range of 129 to 863 Moapa Gray Ware vessels

discarded during Period 1, with a more probable range of 323 to 453 vessels. Table 17 gives

similar ranges for both Moapa Gray Ware and Shivwits Plain in all six periods.

These estimates imply that total imports of Moapa Gray Ware vessels to the Muddy

River Survey sites were probably in the high hundreds, while Shivwits Plain totals likely were

in the low hundreds. These imports were spread over a period of about 200 years, although

most of the pottery exchange occurred during the early part of this period. During middle

Pueblo II times, which correspond to Periods 1 and 2, total imports to the Muddy River

Survey sites probably included about 400-600 Moapa Gray Ware vessels over a period of

about 50 years, or about 8-10 vessels per year. During this same time about 5-7 Shivwits

Plain vessels per year were probably imported, If Period 1 is assumed to have been 25 years

long, then when interaction with the Moapa Valley was at its peak, about 13-18 Moapa Gray

Table 16. Estimated Total Moapa Gray Ware Vessel Discard under Different Assumptions about Vessel Discard Rates and Site Occupation Length.

Site Occupation Length

Vessels/year IO 15 20 25

3 129 194 259 323

5 216 323 431 539

6 259 388 518 647

7 302 453 604 755

8 345 518 690 863

Table 17. Plausible and Probable Ranges for Vessel Imports into the Muddy River Survey Sites, by Period.

Moapa Gray Ware Shivwits Plain

Period Plausible Probable Plausible Probable

2

3

4

5

6

Total

129-863

42-279

54-360

20-135

22-148

3-15

270-1800

323-453

105-146

135-189

51-71

55-77

6-8

675-944

71-471 177-247

32-216 81-113

16-109 41-57

6-39 15-20

12-78 29-41

1-6 2-3

138-919 345-481

128

Ware vessels and 7-10 Shivwits Plain vessels per year were brought into the Muddy River

Survey sites each year. Total imports to the Moapa VaHey were higher tha.11 this, of course;

similar estimation methods lead to an estimate of 15-20 Moapa Gray Ware and 10-12

129

Shivwits Plain vessels imported per year to the Period 1 Main Ridge houses from which

Lyneis (1992) made collections, and there are other, uncollected, houses at Main Ridge not

included in the estimates. Also, there are an unknown number of other middle Pueblo II sites,

mostly undocumented, scattered throughout the Moapa Valley.

These estimates are very tentative. Still, if we assume that all vessels imported to a

site were discarded there, then the households with the most upland pottery probably

imported 3-5 vessels per year. The households with the least upland pottery probably only

received one imported vessel every few years. The variation documented above in the amount

of upland pottery at apparently contemporaneous sites appears to reflect variation in the

economic behavior of different households, but the scale of exchange is unlikely to have

required organization above the level of household-to-household contacts

Decorated and Undecorated Pottery

Most of the Moapa Gray Ware vessels discarded in the Moapa Valley were

undecorated jars, although decorated bowls are also present. Lyneis (1992:44) suggests that

"a disproportionate amount of the Moapa Gray Ware that was brought in to Main Ridge was

in the form of painted bowls," because the proportion of Moapa Gray Ware sherds from the

site that are decorated is slightly higherthan the proportion ofTusayan Gray Ware sherds that

are. In the Muddy River Survey collections, the proportion of Moapa Gray Ware that is

decorated is also slightly higher than the same proportion for Tusayan Gray Ware. However,

when Shivwits Plain is considered, it does not seem that a disproportionate amount of the

total upland pottery used at the Muddy River Survey sites was decorated. Overall, 10.5

Period

2

3

4

5

6

Total

Table 18. Percentages of Decorated Pottery in the Muddy River Survey Assemblages, by Period.

Total Upland Pottery (Moapa Gray Ware

Moapa Gray Ware Tusayan Gray Ware + Shivwits Plain)

8.4 6.7 5.8

12.3 6.1 6.9

14.7 9.2 11.2

9.7 7.2 7.2

7.0 7.8 4.9

7.1 5.1 5.3

10.5 7.2 7.3

130

percent of the Moapa Gray Ware sherds in the Muddy River Survey assemblages, but only 7 .2

percent of the Tusayan Gray and White Ware sherds, are decorated. 5 Virtually all of these

decorated sherds are from bowls; there are three jar sherds among the 322 decorated Moapa

Gray Ware sherds, and 10 among the 602 Tusayan White Ware sherds.

The first two columns in Table 18 show the percentages of decorated sherds within

Moapa Gray Ware and Tusayan Gray Ware for the Muddy River Survey sites grouped by

period. These data indicate that the percentage of Moapa Gray Ware that is decorated is

higher in each period except Period 5, where it is only slightly lower. The differences are

largest in Period 2 and Period 3. In Period 2, the percentage ofMoapa Gray Ware that is

decorated is approximately twice the percentage of Tusayan Gray Ware that is.

Table 19 provides counts of decorated and undecorated sherds in the Muddy River

Survey collections grouped into the six periods, along with the results of two different chi-

131

Table 19. Counts of Decorated and Undecorated Pottery in the Muddy River Survey Sites, and the Results of Chi-Square Tests Based on the Counts.

Without With Moapa Gray Ware Tusayan Gray Ware Shivwits Shivwits Shivwits

Period decorated other decorated other undecorated chi2 p chi2 p

1 131 1428 244 3378 681 4.51 .034 1.82 .177

2 47 336 104 1614 298 18.15 <.001 .59 .441

3 115 66 150 1484 244 16.63 <.001 2.92 .087

4 18 168 23 296 63 .96 .327 .00 .993

5 10 132 70 825 61 .10 .747 2.05 .152

6 1 13 11 206 5 .11 .735 .00 .971

Total 322 2743 602 7803 1352

square tests for each period. The first set of chi-square values (''without Shivwits") shows

that the differences between the wares in the amount of decorated pottery are statistically

significant (at the .05 level) for Periods 1-3, when the largest amounts ofMoapa Gray Ware

were imported, but not for the later periods. 6 This suggests that decorated Moapa Gray Ware

vessels were imported in numbers that were at least slightly disproportionate when compared

with the frequency of decorated vessels in the locally made pottery.

A comparison of the Moapa Gray Ware sherds in the middle Pueblo II (i.e., Periods

1 and 2) assemblages from the Muddy River Survey and in Mount Trumbull Survey

assemblages from the same time period suggests that the amount of decorated Moapa Gray

Ware pottery in the Muddy River Survey sites is also disproportionately high compared to the

amount of decorated Moapa Gray Ware in circulation near the production area. Only 6.1

percent of the 1402 Moapa Gray Ware sherds in the Mount Trumbull Survey assemblages are

132

decorated, and a chi-square test indicates that the differences between the Muddy River

Survey and Mount Trumbull Survey middle Pueblo II assemblages are statistically significant

(chi2 = 10.29, p = .001, d.f. = 1).

While the amount of Moapa Gray Ware that is decorated is clearly disproportionately

high in the Muddy River Survey collections compared with Tusayan Gray Ware, the amount

of total upland pottery that is decorated is not. If Shivwits Plain is included in the

calculations, the percentage of decorated pottery in the imported pottery is remarkably similar

to the percentage in the locally produced Tusayan Gray Ware (Table 18, third column).

Results of chi-square tests for each period are shown in the last two columns of Table 19.

None of these are statistically significant at the .05 level (and in two periods the proportions

of decorated pottery are so similar that the chi-square statistics round to 0.00).

A similar pattern is apparent at Main Ridge. There the total counts of decorated

sherds have apparently been sharply reduced by collectors (Lyneis 1992:28-29), so only 4.1

percent of the Moapa Gray Ware sherds and 2.1 percent of the Tusayan Gray and White Ware

sherds were decorated. This difference is statistically significant (chi-square = 31.69, p <

.001, d.f. = 1 ). However, when the amount of Shivwits Plain is considered, only 2.6 percent

of the upland pottery is decorated, and the comparison with Tusayan Gray and White Ware

is not statistically significant (at the .05 level).

It thus seems that decorated and undecorated vessels were exchanged to the Moapa

Valley in proportions comparable to those found in the locally produced wares. Because all

the Shivwits Plain vessels were undecorated, this balance was achieved by importing slightly

disproportionate amounts of decorated Moapa Gray Ware. This probably means that Moapa

133

Gray Ware producers exported a slightly higher proportion of the decorated vessels they made

than of the undecorated vessels, although the majority of the Moapa Gray Ware vessels

exchanged to the Moapa Valley were undecorated.

Summary and Conclusions

This chapter has summarized the distributionofMoapa Gray Ware and Shivwits Plain

within the Virgin Anasazi region as a whole, and more specifically within the Muddy River

Survey sites. These distributions suggest that more than 30 percent of the pottery used by

Moapa Valley populations in the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries was made in upland

areas 85-110 km to the east, on the Shivwits and Uinkaret Plateaus. Within the Moapa Valley

generally, and within the Muddy River Survey sites specifically, there are temporal trends in

the amount of Moapa Gray Ware and Shivwits Plain. Combined they make up high

percentages ofMoapa Valley ceramic assemblages from middle Pueblo II into the late Pueblo

II period, but their popularity declines rapidly during late Pueblo II times, to just a trace in the

latest Puebloan sites in the valley.

After taking the temporal trends into consideration, there is still variation among

individual site assemblages in the amount of upland pottery they contain. Some of this

variation must be sampling error, but there is more variation between apparently

contemporaneous sites than sampling error alone can explain. It appears that some

households imported more pottery than others.

The estimates of the number of vessels imported must be regarded as tentative, but

they suggest that the scale of exchange was relatively small. The households with the most

134

upland pottezy probably received a few vessels annually, while households with small amounts

of upland pottery probably only received upland pottery occasionally, perhaps one vessel

every several years. This may indicate that the households with relatively little upland pottery

did not receive it through direct contacts with outsiders, but received it from neighbors who

were more active in trading with the uplands.

The amount of decorated pottezy exchanged to the Moapa Valley is proportionate to

the amount of decorated locally produced pottezy. This is consistent with the idea that the

ceramic trade between the uplands and the Moapa Valley was more a matter of utilitarian

provisioning than trade in socially valuable decorated vessels. Upland potters simply provided

an alternative source for the same kinds of pottery that were available locally. From the

perspective ofMoapa Gray Ware producers on the Uinkaret Plateau, however, it appears that

a small surplus of both plain jars and decorated bowls was produced, but a dis:proportionate

amount of the decorated pottery was exchanged. Potters on the Shivwits Plateau apparently

did not make any decorated pottery, but produced a small surplus of Shivwits Plain vessels

which found their way into the Moapa Valley.

These distributions seem consistent with small-scale, decentralized, but regular

interaction between households in the Moapa Valley and potters on the Uinkaret and Shivwits

Plateaus. Lyneis (1992:86) argues that ''we must leave open the issue of whether exchange

in the region consisted entirely of decentralized settlement-to-settlement interaction. Main

Ridge may have played a centralizing role at the west end in the Moapa Valley." Comparison

of the distributions of upland pottery in the Period I Muddy River Survey sites and at Main

Ridge suggest that this is unlikely. In particular, the overall proportion of upland pottery is

135

similar, and variation in the amount of upland pottery among the houses at Main Ridge is

similar to variation among the Muddy River Survey sites. Further, all except two of the Main

Ridge assemblages fall into Period 1 as I have defined it; the others are Period 2. Trade in

Moapa Gray Ware and Shivwits Plain continued at least through Period 4, after Main Ridge

was abandoned. It therefore seems unlikely that Main Ridge controlled the pottery trade.

The impression of decentralized, small-scale trade, in which most households obtained

upland pottery through their own trade networks is reinforced by patterns of variability in the

raw materials used to make the pottery and in metric attributes. This variability is the topic

of Chapter 7.

CHAP1'ER 7 CERAMIC VARIABILITY

The categories of Moapa Gray Ware, Tusayan Gray Ware and Shivwits Plain are

useful for dividing the ceramic assemblages into somewhat homogenous groups, but there is

still much variability within those groups. The variability within the wares is another

important source ofinformation relevant to ceramic production and distribution. This chapter

focuses on variation in the refrred colors oflarge samples ofMoapa Gray Ware and Shivwits

Plain sherds and on variation in metric attributes of vessel rims and painted lines.

Refired Colors

The analysis of refrred colors has several goals. Variation in the refired colors of

Moapa Gray Ware sherds (which is related to the number of distinct clay sources exploited),

and the diversity of color categories present at different sites are used to assess whether

Moapa Gray Ware producers participated equally in the exchange with the Moapa VaUey

inhabitants. Also, patterning in the distribution ofrefired colors ofMoapa Gray Ware and

Shivwits Plain among the Muddy River Survey sites provides complementary data that

support the argument made in Chapter 6 that ceramic importation into the Moapa Valiey was

accomplished through a decentralized network of household .. to-household contacts.

Refiring potter1 to fully oxidize the sherds eliminates variation in sherd color caused

by differences in vessel use, post-depositional processes, or the original firing of the vessel.

137

The relationship between the number of refired colors and the number of distinct clay sources

used still may complex, however. Sherds that oxidize to similar colors may have been

made with clays from different places that happen to have similar amounts ofiron (which is

the most important element in determining the oxidized color). The amount of iron may be

similar because the clays are from the same geologic formation and were created by similar

processes, but clays from different formations may also have similar amounts of iron. The

relationship is further complicated by the fact that potters sometimes mix different clays, and

refued colors may therefore reflect the specific mixture or clay recipe rather than a single

geologic source. Still, if a sample of pottery refires to a variety of colors, as the sherds

studied here do, then that indicates that multiple distinct clay sources and/or recipes were

used.

The Sample

The retired sherds analyzed here come from the middle Pueblo II sites from the

Muddy River Survey and the Mount Trumbull Survey. In general, Muddy River Survey sites

were included if they fell into Periods 1-3 in the finer relative chronology used in Chapter 6,

and if the total number ofMoapa Gray Ware and Shivwits Plain sherds exceeded 60.7 As

many Moapa Gray Ware and Shivwits Plain sherds as possible were refired from most of the

Muddy River Survey sites. Exceptions include I'vfR.S 34, from which random samples of 100

Moapa Gray Ware and 100 Shivwits Plain sherds were refi.red, and MRS 26, from which a

random sample of200 Moapa Gray Ware sherds was refired. Also, Tusayan Gray Ware plain

gray sherds were refired from four Muddy River Survey sites. 1bis sample includes all the

138

Table 20. Retired Sherds from the Muddy River Survey Sites.

Site Period MoapaGray Shivwits Plain Tusayan Gray Total Ware Ware

MRS5A 2 47 64 111

MRS5B 1 18 18 36

MRS5C 2 23 49 72

MRS 11 2 59 28 87

MRS 12 1 79 24 92 195

MRS 13 40 55 95

MRS 20 (Pueblo Point) 3 369 67 164 600

MRS 26 (Raven Point) I 200 7 207

MRS30 3 59 105 96 260

MRS32 3 58 23 81

MRS34 1 99 100 97 296

MRS35A 1 21 86 107

MRS39A 2 22 43 65

MRS39B 1 13 32 45

MRS47 1 95 16 111

MRS49 1 63 46 109

MRS51 2 72 9 81

MRS55B 3 72 1 73

MRS62A 1 82 21 103

MRS63B 45 32 77

MRS65 1 97 57 154

MRS66 1 100 15 115

Total 1733 898 449 3080

139

Table 21. Retired Sherds from the Mount Trumbull Survey Sites.

Site Total

NA 13685, Units 1 and 2 200

NA 13685, Unit 3 88

NA 13689 31

NA 13698, Unit 1 40

NA 13698, Unit 2 28

NA 13713, Units l and 2 135

NA 13718, Units 1 and 2 108

NA 13719, Unit 2 45

NA 13728, Unit 1 160

Total 835

plain Tusayan Gray Ware sherds from MRS 12, and from subsurface contexts at MRS 20, and

random samples of 100 sherds each from MRS 30 and MRS 34. A total of just over 3,000

sherds from 22 different Muddy River Survey assemblages is included in the analysis of

retired color (Table 20). 8

The sampling strategy for Mount Trumbull Survey assemblages was similar, except

that only Moapa Gray Ware sherds are included in the analysis. All the sherds that could be

included from middle Pueblo II assemblages were retired, except for the large assemblage

from NA 13685. Random samples of 100 sherds each were selected from Unit 1 and Unit

2; all the Moapa Gray Ware sherds from Unit 3 were included. In all, 835 sherds from eight

different assemblages were included from the Mount Trumbull survey (Table 21).

140

Table 22. Refired Color Groups.

Color Munsell Colors Included Correspondence with Windes' (1977) Group Groups

1 lOYR 7/2-7/4, 8/2-8/6, 2.SY 7/2-7/3, 8/2-8/4 1 (with addition of lOYR 8/6)

2 7.SYR 7/3-7/4, 8/2-8/6 2 (with addition of7.5YR 8/6)

3 2.5YR 7/4-7/8, 5YR 7/4, 8/2-8/4 3 (with addition of2.5YR 7/4-7/8)

4 7.5YR 614-616, 716 4 (with addition of7.5YR 6/4, subtraction of7.5YR 5/4 and 8/6)

5 5YR 514-518, 6/4-6/8, 7/6-7/8 5 (with addition of5YR 6/4)

6 2.5YR 4/2-4/6, 514-518, 614-618 6 (with addition of2.5YR 4/2)

7 I OR 4/3-4/8, 514-518, 6!6~618 7 (with addition of 1OR4/3-4/8)

8 5YR4/2-4/6, 5/3, 7.5YR4/1-4/4, 5/3-5/4 none

A smaller sample of 102 Shivwits Plain and 114 Shivwits Corrugated sherds from the

Shivwits Plateau was also refired. Most of these sherds came from AZ A: 15 :8, but sherds

from AZ A: 11 :28 and AZ A:2:44 were also included.

Comparing Colors among Wares and Areas

After retiring, the color of each sherd was matched to the closest tile on a Munsell

color chart (Munsell Color 1994). The sherds matched a total of 66 distinct Munsell colors,

so colors were combined into eight groups to facilitate comparison. These eight groups are

based on the seven color groups used by Windes (1977, see also Mills et al. 1993), although

I observed some colors that were not in Windes' sample, and I moved the two most extreme

141

Table 23. Oxidized Colors ofRefired Sherds.

Color Group

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total

Moapa Gray Ware, Muddy River Survey 748 595 40 82 145 79 44 1733

Tusayan Gray Ware, Muddy River Survey 27 6 1 5 86 226 95 3 449

Shivwits Plain, Muddy River Survey 3 3 116 255 77 444 898

Moapa Gray Ware, Mount Trumbull 145 76 15 44 220 217 118 835 Survey

Shivwits Plain/Corrugated, Shivwits 36 132 14 34 216 Plateau

Total 920 680 56 134 603 909 348 481 4131

colors in Windes' rather diverse Group 4 to groups where they made more sense for my

sample (Table 22).

All the wares retire to a variety of colors, though only Tusayan Gray Ware had at least

one sherd in each color group. The relative proportions of the different refired colors differ

greatly from ware to ware, and they also differ in samples of Shivwits Plain and Moapa Gray

Ware from the uplands and from the Moapa Valley (Table 23, Figure 29). In the sample from

the Moapa Valley, Moapa Gray Ware is more diverse (as measured by the Shannon-Weaver

diversity index [H/Hmax = .67] than either Tusayan Gray Ware or Shivwits Plain(~= .63

and .59, respectively). That is, the Moapa Gray Ware refired sherd colors are more evenly

distributed than refired colors of the other wares.

Moapa Gray Ware from the Muddy River Survey also has the highest proportions of

relatively light-firing sherds (Color Groups 1-4), although some sherds are relatively dark and

red (Color Groups 5-7). The same colors are also common in Moapa Gray Ware from the ,

142

300

200 ...... • Tusayan Gray Ware Muddy River Sites

100 Moapa Gray Ware • • N r-Mount Trumbull Sites Shivwits Plain

en 7 6 Shivwits Plateau

~ 5

3 4 0 ......

21 • Moapa Gray Ware

Muddy River Sites -100 ......

Shivwits Plain ~ Muddy River Sites

-200 I I I I

-200 -100 0 100 200 300

Axis 1

Figure 29. Correspondence analysis of the retired colors of the different wares from the Muddy River Survey, the Mount Trumbull Survey, and the Shivwits Plateau. Numbers represent color groups.

Mount Trumbull Survey, but a much higher proportion of the sherds from there refired to

colors in Groups 5-7 (Figure 30). The Moapa Gray Ware from the Mount Trumbull Survey

is also more evenly distributed than the Moapa Gray Ware from the Moapa Valley ~ax

= .89).

In other words, Moapa Gray Ware vessels were made with a variety of different clays,

but Moapa Gray Ware vessels made with relatively low-iron, light-firing clays (especially

clays that oxidize to colors in Groups 1 and 2) made up a disproportionate amount of the

Mount Trumbull Survey

250

200

- 150 c: ::::s 0

{.) 100

50

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Color Group

Muddy River Survey

800

600

-c ::::s 400 0 {.)

200

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Color Group

Figure 30. Bar charts of color groups of retired Moapa Gray Ware sherds from the Mount Trumbull Survey and the Muddy River Survey.

143

144

pottery exchanged to the Moapa Valley. If sherds that refire to different colors represent the

products of different groups of potters, then the potters who used the light-firing clays clearly

were more involved in the exchange with the Moapa Valley than potters using the high-iron

clays.

The proportions of different oxidized colors in the samples of Shivwits Plain from the

Muddy River Survey also differ from the colors of Shivwits Plain and Corrugated from the

Shivwits Plateau. In the Moapa Valley, about half the Shivwits Plain sherds refire to the

relatively dark and generally brownish colors in Group 8, while the Shivwits Plateau sample

(mostly from AZ A:15:8) tends more often to refire to the relatively red colors in Group 6.

Because AZ A: 15:8 was occupied later than the middle Pueblo II sites in the Moapa Valley,

the difference may reflect temporal changes in clay selection, or it may just indicate that the

small sample of sites from the Shivwits Plateau is not adequate to characterize the variation

in Shivwits Plain there.

Diversity of Refired Colors at Individual Sites

Figure 31 shows a 90-percent confidence interval for the evenness of random samples

of different sizes drawn from a population in which the relative proportions are those of the

different color groups in the sample ofMoapa Gray Ware in the Muddy River Survey. The

confidence interval is found using the resampling methods and computer programs described

by Kintigh (1984a; 1989). The figure also plots the observed evenness against sample size

for the oxidized colors ofMoapa Gray Ware from the individual Muddy River Survey sites.

:l --------....1;. . --- -----0 A ~-----------

Cl) UJ (j) Cv c· <Do > w

_ _,, -_/ /

&. --------A A~-----,c-C------

04--~~·~~+-~~--~----i-~-------........ ~~~~--~~--~----t 10 20 50 100 200 500

Sample Size

145

Figure 31. Plot of sample size versus evenness for oxidized color ofMoapa Gray Ware from the Muddy River survey sites. Triangles represent individual assemblages, and the dashed lines show a 90-percent confidence interval for random samples.

This shows that the colors ofMoapa Gray Ware from eight of the sites are less evenly

distributed than would be expected if the sherds were distributed randomly among the sites.

Retired colors from one site are actuaHy more even than would be expected in a random

sample, but 12 of21 sites fall within the expected range, and several of the sites outside the

expected range are very close to the line.

A similar pattern is apparent for Shlvwits Plain (Figure 32). Refired colors from six

sites are less evenly distributed than would be expected in a random sample, but the rest of

the sites are either well within the 90 percent confidence interval or just above it. However,

only three sites plot below confidence interval in both graphs, and ifMoapa Gray Ware

and Shivwits Plain are considered together (taking into account ilie relative amounts of

CX> ci ______ _._ ___________ ~ - ... -------~ ... ... ...

E "" :c <C! ... -----------J:o ---... --- -- -- --u; ... --· ~ ,,,,--"" C..q- / c . / Q)o ..,.,.."' > w

N ci

o-i--~~~~~-i-~~--~~--~----~--------~~~~--i 10 20 50

Sample Size 100 200

146

Figure 32. Plot of sample size versus evenness for oxidized color of Shivwits Plain from the Muddy River survey sites.

Shivwits Plain and Moapa Gray Ware, as well as the refired colors), refired colors from 12

sites are less even than they should be in a random sample (Figure 33).

In all, 15 of 21 assemblages have lower than expected evenness in the refired colors

of either Moapa Gray Ware, Shivwits Plain, or both considered together. This indicates that

the assemblages of upland pottery at these sites are not homogenized, as would be expected

if the pottery was being redistributed from a central location. Rather, the tendency of upland

pottery at individual sites to be dominated by one or a few refired colors suggests that

individual households obtained most of their upland pottery independently of each other.

Individuals or households in the Moapa Valley may have formed formal trade

partnerships with people in the uplands, although it is not clear whether such formal

d-----------------~----------... ... ... _._ ______ _

N ci

-__ _ ... \.---.,. __ _ -- .... --- .

o---~~--~~....____, ______ __,__, __ ~~~~~--~~__,--~-+---t

20 50 100 Sample Size

200 500

147

Figure 33. Plot of sample size versus evenness for oxidized color of upland pottery from the Muddy River survey sites.

relationships existed. In Chapter 4 I suggested that ifthere was variation among the Muddy

River Survey sites in the mix of Shivwits Plain and Moapa Gray Ware, and in the retired

colors of each ware, and if sites from different time periods had similar mixes, then that might

indicate that formal trade partnerships were passed down from generation to generation. This

inference would be strengthened if sites from different periods, but with similar assemblages,

were located near each other. There are some indications in the data that this may be the

case.

It is possible to divide the assemblages up into groups with somewhat similar mixes

of refired colors, but there are several ways to do this, and it is not clear which is best. Figure

34 shows the results of a Ward's-method cluster analysis, in which the Muddy River Survey

sites were clustered using the proportions of the different retired colors ofMoapa Gray Ware

1 MRS 66 I MRS26 MRS20

2 MRS 11 MRS32

~ MRS62A Qj MRS 65 ..o MRS47 § 3 MRS 51

Z rMRS 12 Qj MRS 558 _ ____, 1i> MRS 34 ..2 MRS SA U 4 MRS 35A

~ MRS SC MRS 13 MRS30 MRS39

5 MRSSB L MRS63B MRS49

..--~~-.-~~-.-~~----.-~~~.--~~-r-~~~

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

Distances

Figure 34. Dendrogram of a cluster analysis using Ward's method on the proportions of Moapa Gray Ware and Shivwits Plain retired colors from the Muddy River Survey sites.

148

and Shivwits Plain as variables. The five-cluster solution shown in Figure 34 is robust;

average-link, complete-link, and k-means clustering all give the same five-cluster solution,

except that MRS 65 is included in Cluster 4 by the average-link and k-means algorithms. A

three-cluster solution, joining Clusters 2 and 3 together, and Clusters 4 and 5 together, is also

robust, and appears to be a natural division of the data in the average-link and complete-link

300

200

N 100

en ·x <(

0

-100

-200 -200 -100 0

CD Cluster 1

M6

100 200 300 400 500 Axis 1

Figure 35. Correspondence analysis based on the counts of retired colors ofMoapa Gray Ware and Shivwits Plain from the Muddy River Survey sites.

149

dendrograms. Ward's method, however, implies that a two-cluster solution, joining MRS

66 to the Cluster 2-3 group, is more natural.

Whichever cluster solution is used, the sites are divided into groups which crosscut

the Period 1-3 subdivisions of the middle Pueblo II period. Figure 35 shows the first two

axes of a correspondence analysis based on the counts of different retired colors. The sites

are plotted with the numerals 1-3, depending on the period the site dates to, while the colors

150

are plotted with a letter (M or S) denoting Moapa Gray Ware or Shivwits Plain, and the

number of the color group.

The sites separate into the five-cluster solution on the first two axes of this

correspondence analysis, although the cluster shapes are sinuous (the separation is better if

the third axis is taken into account, although it is difficult to show this). The three cluster

solution appears the most natural here, as it can be shown with two straight lines, with MRS

65 on the boundary. MRS 66, which forms Cluster 1 by itself, is clearly different, because

it has unusually high quantities ofMoapa Gray Ware that oxidized to Color Groups 6 and 7.

The other four clusters in the five-cluster solution all contain sites from more than one time

period, as do the larger clusters in the three-cluster solution.

The three cluster solution appears to be based more on the relative proportions of

Shivwits Plain and Moapa Gray Ware than on the re:fired colors, as all the colors of Shivwits

Plain plot in the area occupied by Clusters 4 and 5, while the area of Clusters 2 and 3 has only

the lightest-firing colors of Moapa Gray Ware. The reasons for the distinctions between

Clusters 2 and 3, and between Clusters 4 and 5, are not clear in Figure 35, although

examination of the raw data suggests that the Cluster 2/3 distinction is related largely to

differences of the amounts ofMoapa Gray Ware in Color Groups 1and2 (Cluster 2 sites

have more in Group I and less in Group 2), while the Cluster 4/5 distinction results from

Cluster 5 sites having higher proportions of Shivwits Plain in Color Group 8, and more

Moapa Gray Ware in Color Groups 1and2, than sites in Cluster 4.

The sites can thus be divided into clusters which have similar kinds of upland pottery,

and sites from different periods cluster together. This suggests that not only did households

151

maintain separate exchange networks, but households that were probably occupied a

generation or two apart maintained ties with a similar range of areas in the uplands, as would

be expected if trade partnerships were maintained across generations.

In some cases the clusters include sites from different periods that are close to each

other, but in no case are all the sites in a cluster tightly grouped in space (Figure 36). The

most intriguing example is Cluster 3, which includes four sites. Three of these, one each from

Periods 1, 2, and 3, are all near each other near the north end of the map. This is just what

would be expected if members of a lineage that maintained continuity in trade partnerships

across generations also occupied the same general area over several generations, but built a

new house every generation or so.

Cluster 2 includes MRS 20 (Pueblo Point) and MRS 26 (Raven Point), two of the

three sites with the largest proportions of upland pottery, which are close to each other in the

middle group of sites. MRS 26 dates to Period 1, and MRS 20 to Period 3. There also is

another Cluster 2 site that dates to Period 3 not far north of MRS 26. Again, though, there

are sites in Cluster 2 that are farther away.

Metric Variables

Many observers have noted that the products of specialists tend to be more

standardized. This increase in standardization has often been thought to reflect greater skill

on the part of specialized producers (e.g., Longacre et al. 1988). Stark (1995) has shown,

however, that individual specialists do not always produce more standardized products than

152

\

/

• Cluster2 N

..t. Cluster 3 • Cluster4 w E

t Cluster 5

s

0 200 400 600 800 1000 meters

Figure 36. l\fap of the Muddy River Survey sites included in Clusters 2-5. Numbers next to sites indicate the period of occupation.

153

non-specialists. The apparent increase in standardization in assemblages produced by

specialists frequently results from decreased inter-producer variability as more products are

produced by fewer producers. These reductions in the ratios of producers to the number of

items produced, and in the ratio of producers to consumers, reflect increases in what Costin

(1991) calls the degree of specialization. Decreases in the ratio of producers to vessels should

often.be reflected in increasing standardization within assemblages of the products.

In a number of cases, Southwestern archaeologists have used measures of the degree

of standardization to make inferences about the contexts of ceramic production (e.g., Crown

1995; Hagstrom 1985; Hegmonetal.1995; Mills 1995). Stark(1995:234-236) suggests that

standardization in metric variables might be the most useful indicator of the ratio effect

because minor variation in them would not be sensitive to stylistic constraints. In this section,

I compare the standardization of several metric variables among four assemblages: Moapa

Gray Ware from the Motm.t Trumbull Survey, and Moapa Gray Ware, Shivwits Plain, and

Tusayan Gray Ware from the Muddy River Survey collections. The variables are all measured

on rim sherds. For jars they include the orifice diameter, the rim thickness (measured at a

point just below any tapering of the lip), the vessel wall thickness, and the rim length. The

jar rims all exhibit some degree of eversion, or out flaring; the vessel wall thickness is

measured at the point where the eversion starts, and the rim length is measured in a straight

line from the lip to the start of the eversion. On painted bowls, the rim thickness, the vessel

wall thickness (measured exactly 2 cm below the rim), and the rim line width are included.

All measurements are in centimeters.

154

One common way of measuring the standardization of metric variables in an

assemblage is to use the standard deviation divided by the mean, referred to as the coefficient

of variation (e.g., Crown 1995; Hegmon et al. 1995; Longacre et al. 1988; Mills 1995). One

problem that has been noted with using the coefficient of variation is that, because its

sampling distribution is complex, no formal test has been devised to assess whether observed

differences between samples can be attributed to sampling error (Kvamme et al. 1996; Stark

1995). I get around this problem by using bootstrapping, a computer-intensive resampling

method (DiCiccio and Efron 1996; Efron and Tibshirani 1993) to estimate the sampling

distributions of each coefficient of variation, and to generate confidence intervals for them. 9

Jars

Table 24 provides data on the metric variables measured on jars. It shows that

Moapa Gray Ware from the Muddy River Survey is the most standardized on every variable.

That Moapa Gray Ware jars from the Mount Trumbull Survey are less standardized on every

variable than the same kinds of jars from the Muddy River Survey suggests again that,

although Moapa Gray Ware production may have been nearly universal (or at least

widespread) in the area where it was produced, not all of those producers participated equally

in the exchange with the Moapa Valley. Tusayan Gray Ware and Shivwits Plain appear

somewhat less standardized than Moapa Gray Ware from the Mount Trumbull Survey.

Caution about these conclusions is appropriate, however, as the samples are small and

sampling error may play a large role in the observed coefficients of variation. Figure 37

shows confidence intervals for the coefficients of variation for the populations from which

155

Table 24. Statistics for Metric Variables on Jars, Divided by Ware and Area

Ware Area Variable N Mean c.v. Rank

Moapa Gray Ware Mt Trumbull Survey Rim Thickness 35 4.3 .19 3

Wall Thickness 25 5.0 .18 2

Diameter 8 14.8 .30 2

Rim Length 25 10.1 .32 3

Moapa Gray Ware Muddy River Survey Rim Thickness 56 3.5 .17 4


Diameter 16 14.1 .24 3

Rim Length 46 10.7 .31 4

Tusayan Gray Ware Muddy River Survey Rim Thickn.ess 201 3.1 .23 2

Wall Thickness 164 4.4 .19

Diameter 37 12.5 .40 1

Rim.Length 163 11.0 .33 2

Shivwits Plain Muddy River Survey Rim Thickness 37 3.6 .24 1


Rim.Length 28 10.2 .41 1

the samples are drawn, as estimated with the bootstrapping technique. This shows that the

observed differences in the coefficients of variation for the rim thickness variable are the most

robust, as several of the confidence intervals do not overlap. Rim thicknesses for Shivwits

Plain and Tusayan Gray Ware are clearly less standardized than for Moapa Gray Ware from

the Mount Trumbull Survey, and rim thicknesses are most standardized for Moapa Gray Ware

from the Muddy River Survey. The observed difference in the sample coefficients of variation

Moapa Gray Ware, MTS Moapa Gray Ware, MRS Tusayan Gray Ware, MRS Shivwits Plain, MRS


Moapa Gray Ware, MTS Moapa Gray Ware, MRS Tusayan Gray Ware, MRS


I .10

I .15

Wall Thickness

Rim Thickness

Diameter

Rim Length

I .20

I .25

I .30

I .35

I .40

156

Figure 37. Bootstrap 67-percent confidence intervals for the coefficients of variation for metric variables measured on jars.

for diameters ofTusayan Gray Ware and Moapa Gray Ware from the Muddy River Survey

also seems likely to reflect real differences between the sampled populations.

Figure 3 7 also shows that the other estimated confidence intervals overlap for much

of their ranges. This suggests that the observed differences among the samples in coefficients

of variation for wall thickness and rim length may result from sampling error. Observed

differences in the coefficients of variation for diameter between Moapa Gray Ware from the

Muddy River Survey and the other two samples may also reflect sampling error. Either the

157

differences in variability among the sampled populations are not great or the available samples

are not sufficient to demonstrate the differences unambiguously.

Bowls

The decorated bowls also show interesting patterns. Moapa Gray Ware from the

Mount Trumbull Survey is the ]east standardized on every variable (Table 25), and the

confidence intervals for the coefficients of variation suggest that this conclusion is robust

(Figure 38). In the samples from the Moapa Valley, rim line width is slightly less variable in

the sample of Moapa Gray Ware bowls than the sample of Tusayan Gray Ware bowls,

although this could easily be due to sampling error (Figure 38). Rim thickness is more

sta..11dardized on Moapa Gray Ware from the Muddy River Survey than on Tusayan Gray

Ware, but vessel wall thickness is less standardized on Moapa Gray Ware bowls. The

differences between Moapa Gray Ware bowls from the two areas again clearly suggest that

Table 25. Statistics for Metric Variables on Decorated Bowls, Divided by Ware and Area

Ware Area Variable N Mean c.v. Rank

Moapa Gray Ware Mt Trumbull Survey Rim Thickness 35 4.1 .21 1


Rim Line Width 27 6.3 .42

Moapa Gray Ware Muddy River Survey Rim Thickness 41 4.0 .10 3

Wall TI1ickness 30 4.3 .17 2 Rim Line Width 31 7.0 .31 3

Tusayan Gray Ware Muddy River Survey Rim Thick.11ess 50 3.6 .15 2


Rim Line Width 42 6.2 .33 2




I .10

Rim Thickness

Wall Thickness

Rim Line Width

I .15

I .20

I .25

I .30

I .35

I .40

158

Figure 38. Bootstrap 67-percent confidence intervals for the coefficients of variation for metrie variables measured on painted bowls.

not all Moapa Gray Ware producers exchanged their products to the Moapa Valley, or at

least the proportions of vessels made by different producers were not the same in the two

areas. The greater standardization of Tusayan Gray Ware bowls when compared to the

Moapa Gray Ware bowls from the Mount Trumbull Survey suggests that there may have been

some specialization in the production of Tusayan Gray Ware decorated bowls. These data

suggest that the degree of specialization may have been about the same for the Moapa Gray

Ware and Tusayan Gray Ware painted bowls that were in circulation in the Moapa Valley.

Conclusion

The patterns of variability within the wares suggest several inferences about the nature

of ceramic production and exchange. The variability in metric attributes, and especially the

variability in retired color (which implies differences in the raw materials used), indicate that

159

all the wares were made by a relatively large number of producers. It is likely that much of

the variability in retired color is related to the exact locations that vessels were made within

the broader production zone of each ware, as raw materials were likely to have been obtained

from nearby sources, and the composition of sources probably varies across space. Collection

of raw materials from different locations within the production zones of each ware would

clarify this, but it is beyond the scope of this project.

The Moapa Gray Ware that was recovered from the Mount Trumbull Survey is more

diverse than Moapa Gray Ware from the Muddy River Survey in retired color, and metric

variables are less standardized. This suggests that some Moapa Gray Ware producers

exchanged their products to the Moapa Valley in disproportionate amounts. The distribution

of the kinds of upland pottery and the specific retired colors in the Muddy River Survey sites

indicate that individuals or households in the Moapa Valley maintained their own relationships

with producers in the uplands, independent of their neighbors. These relationships may have

taken the form of multi-generational trade partnerships between families or lineages.

The information about ceramic variability summarized in this chapter has provided

insights into the social aspects of the interaction between the Moapa Valley inhabitants and

people living in upland areas on the Uinkaret and Shivwits Plateaus. This interaction probably

was inspired, at least in part, by the ecological differences between the two areas, especially

as they related to the productivity and risk of maize agriculture. These differences are the

topic of Chapter 8.

CHAPTERS

CLIMATE, AGRICUL TlJRAL

POTENTIAL, AND RISK

The Virgin River, tributary to the Colorado in Nevada, was almost as difficult for the ancients to harness, almost as intractable, and consequently we find the ruins of permanent villages along its course only in the most favorable spots. But when we come to the Moapa or Muddy River, tributary of the Virgin - here is indeed another story. Not too large, yet sufficient in volume to yield all the water needed; with low banks, making it easy to turn the water into ditches with the crudest of brush dams; abundant level land, most of it unusually fertile - high level of ground water; the stream and its valley were well nigh perfect .from the ancient farmer's viewpoint. Consequently we find an almost unbroken line of ancient villages of various periods .from the Muddy 's junction with the Virgin to the large springs forming its source some 30 miles to the north. (Harrington 1930:5-6)

The topography and climate of the region occupied by the Virgin Anasazi was

extremely diverse, and this diversity led to variation in agricultural potential and risk in

different areas. In particular, the climate in the upland areas in northwestern Arizona

contrasts sharply with that along the middle and lower Virgin River and its tributaries in

southwestern Utah and Nevada. Because of the longer growing season and the availability

of dependab1e water, agricultural potential was higher along the rivers. This chapter reviews

the climatic requirements of maize and modem temperature and rainfall data from the Moapa

Valley, the Uinkaret Plateau, and the Shivwits Plateau. Variation in modem cJimatic

conditions suggests that there would have been differences among these areas in prehistoric

161

times in the timing ofharvests, the risk of catastrophic crop failure, and the risk of the maize

crop failing to mature fully. Specifically, if the prehistoric climate was at all similar to modem

conditions, the first maize harvests would have been available about six weeks earlier in the

Moapa Valley, and harvest yields would have been much more variable in the upland areas

due to variation in precipitation and in the timing of frosts. These differences in maize

productivity may have provided important motivations for people living in the uplands to

maintain ties with Moapa Valley residents.

Climate Requirements for Maize

The precipitation and temperature requirements of modem maize varieties are well

documented, although different varieties of maize have different tolerances, and the precise

requirements of ancient southwestern maize varieties are not known. Both temperature and

precipitation are important in determining where maize can be grown, what range of planting

and harvest times are viable, and how much grain the crop will yield.

Maize yields will be reduced by moisture stress, especially if it occurs around the time

of silking (Barnes and Woolley 1969; Claassen and Shaw 1970; Denmead and Shaw 1960;

Grant et al. 1989; Shaw 1977, 1988:626-627; Spielmann 1982:148-150). Shaw (1988:611)

notes that modem com is grown in areas with as little as 25 cm (about 10 inches) of

precipitation, and states that "a summer rainfall of 15 cm [about 6 inches] is approximately

the lower limit for com production without irrigation." Because of the importance of

162

moisture during the silking stage, at least a moderate amount of rainfall probably needs to

come immediately before and during silking to ensure a good crop.

The exact amount of rainfall required depends on the amount of moisture in the soil,

among other things, so it is difficult to specify a precise lower limit. Historically known

aboriginal maize varieties are more drought resistant than the modem com that Shaw

discusses (Collins 1914; Muenchrath 1995), and a number of archaeologists (e.g., Cordell et

al.1984;Hill 1998a, 1998b; Kintigh 1984b:222, 1985:98-99; Mobley-Tanaka and Eddy 1995)

believe that ancient Southwestern maize may have been more resistant to both drought and

frost than the modem varieties (which have been bred to maximize yields rather than to

tolerate difficult climatic conditions). In estimating the risk of crop failure, I will assume that

summer rainfall below 10 cm (about 4 inches) would result in major crop losses, and that at

least half an inch needs to come in the four week period immediately before and during silking

or catastrophic crop failure would occur.

Temperature and growing season requirements vary greatly from one maize variety

to another (e.g., Muenchrath and Salvador 1995: 311; Snow 1991:77-78). Also, the length

of time needed to mature a specific variety depends somewhat on where it is grown. The

actual time to maturity depends more on the cumulative amount of heat to which the maize

is exposed, rather than the number of days per se, although stress from lack of moisture or

other factors can also affect the time to maturity (Brown 1977; Milo 1994:36-37; Neild and

Seeley 1977; Ritchie et al. 1992; Shaw 1988:616-617; Treidl 1977). Within the Virgin

Anasazi area temperature varies strongly with elevation (Rose 1989); a given variety of com

would mature much faster in the Moapa Valley than in the cooler upland areas. There is

163

probably also significant variation in temperature within small areas due to cold air drainage

or other microclimatic effects, so field location could affect both the length of the growing

season and how quickly the maize crop matures (Bye and Shuster 1984: 137; Shuster and Bye

1984; Peterson and Clay 1987).

For estimating the time to maturity (or to other stages of development) agronomists

typically measure cumulative temperature in units of growing degree day units. Growing

degree days (GDD) can be calculated in several ways (Shaw 1988:617), but a simple way is

to subtract 50 degrees Fahrenheit (I 0 degrees Celsius) from the mean of the daily maximum

and minimum temperature, with the caveat that daily maximum temperatures greater than 86

degrees F (30 degrees C) are entered as 86 degrees in the calculations (because maize does

not grow well at higher temperatures), and minimum temperatures less than 50 degrees

Fahrenheit are entered as 50 degrees. Because modern climate records, and most data on

modem crop requirements are in degrees Fahrenheit, GDDs used here also are in Fahrenheit.

Again, the specific number of growing degree days required to mature ancient

Southwestern varieties of maize is not known, but in a recent experiment, Tohono O' odham

maize required about 1550 GDD to reach the silking stage and was harvested after about

2700 GDD (Adams et al. 1998; Muenchrath 1995). In general, varieties that require longer

growing seasons have higher yields than faster-maturing varieties (Ritchie et al. 1992), so

prehistoric farmers probably would have used the slower-maturing varieties whenever they

could be grown without significantly increasing the risk of reduced crop yields due to a late

spring or early fall frost.

164

Late spring killing frosts that occurred after the emergence of seedlings may have

required replanting. Seedlings may have been able to survive brief exposures to temperatures

below 32 degrees F, but daily minimum temperatures much below :freezing would seriously

damage or kill the plants. In the summaries of modem climate and in assessments of risk

below, temperatures of 28 degrees F or lower are assumed to indicate killing frosts. Early

fall frosts could greatly reduce yields, and if a killing frost occurred before seed was viable,

it may have been necessary to obtain seed com from other areas. Fall frosts probably would

never result in a total crop failure, however, because maize could be eaten green (Snow

1991). Substantial portions of the maize crop were eaten green by many Native American

groups in the Southwest, even where the risk of frost was minimal (Beaglehole 1937;

CastetterandBell 1951:106, 158;Forde 1931;Hack 1942;Kelly 1964:40; Snow 1991:83-87;

Spier 1928:104, 115-116, 1978:63, Titiev 1938, 1944).

Modem Climate Records

Modem climate records from the Shivwits Plateau, the Uinkaret Plateau, and the

Moapa Valley demonstrate variability in growing season length and in the abundance of water

that may help explain the prehistoric interaction between people from the different areas.

Rose (1989) has shown that precipitation and temperature in northwestern Arizona are

strongly correlated with elevation; this relationship is reflected in the sharp contrasts between

the Moapa Valley and the upland areas, although there is some variation among upland

locations that does not appear to be related to elevation.

165

Uinkaret

~ 6 Nixon Flats

miles

0 kilometers 25

0 50

Figure 39. Locations of weather stations on the Uinkaret Plateau, the Shivwits Plateau, and in the Moapa Valley.

1bis section summarizes climate data from the Uinkaret Plateau, the Shivwits Plateau,

and the Moapa Valley (Figure 3 9). These data are of variable duration and quality (Table 26).

Relatively long records of daily precipitation and minimum and maximum temperatures are

available from Tuweep (which was probably near the east edge of the area where Moapa Gray

Ware was produced) and from several sites in the Moapa Valley. Of the Moapa Valley sites,

166

Table 26. Sources of Climate Data.

Station Name Location Elevation Years Included

Overton Moapa Valley 380 m (1250 ft) 1948-1968, 1988, ]992-1995

Tuweep Tuweep Valley (east ofUinkaret 1450 m (4780 ft) 1948-1985 Plateau)

Tweeds Point western edge of Shivwits Plateau 1630 m (5350 ft) 1985-1994

Mount Trumbull eastern edge ofShivwits Plateau 1700 m (5600 ft) 1919-1922, 1925-1977

Yellow John southern Shivwits Plateau 1875 m (6150 ft) 1988-1999 Mountain

Nixon Flats southern Uinkaret Plateau 1980 m (6500 ft) 1987-1999

only the data from Overton are summarized here. There also is a relatively long record of

daily precipitation totals from the former town site ofMount Trumbull (located on the eastern

edge of the Shivwits Plateau about 15 km west of the mountain of the same name), but

minimum and maximum temperatures were only recorded from 1919-1922. The summaries

for these stations were compiled from daily records obtained in electronic format from the

Utah Climate Center at Utah State University.

Three other weather stations in the uplands are maintained by the Bureau of Land

Management and are part of the Remote Automated Weather Station (RAWS) network that

has been established since the mid-1980s. These stations record temperature and precipitation

hourly. The Western Regional Climate Center provided electronic files of daily precipitation

and minimum and maximum temperature readings (which do not necessarily reflect true

minimum or maximum temperature because the readings are taken hour1y). Two of these

167

stations, Tweeds Point and Yellow John Mountain, are on the Shivwits Plateau, while the

Nixon Flats station is just south ofMount Trumbull, within the Mount Trumbull Survey study

area. 10 The data from all these stations have been recorded in inches of precipitation and

degrees Fahrenheit; my summary and analysis will also use those units rather than their metric

equivalents.

Precipitation

Figure 40 shows box plots of the total annual precipitation for each station. The

stations are ordered from least to most precipitation. Several patterns can be seen in this

figure. First, Overton receives much less precipitation than any of the other stations; most

years had less than 4.5 inches of precipitation, although two consecutive unusually wet years

(in 1992 and 1993) had more than 8 inches. The stations in the uplands all have annual

medians of between about 10 and 15 inches of precipitation, but total annual precipitation is

highly variable in some places. In particular, during the 11 years for which records were

available, Nixon Flats had two years with more than 20 inches of precipitation (1993 and

1998), and two years with less than six inches (1989 and 1991).

Bar graphs of mean weekly precipitation (Figure 41) show that Overton contrasts with

all the other stations in the timing of precipitation too. The upland stations all receive

substantial amounts of precipitation in July and August, while almost all the precipitation at

Overton falls in the winter. The long precipitation record from Mount Trumbull shows the

summer-dominant pattern most clearly; the three RAWS stations show amix of summer and

168

Overton ~ I I

Tweeds Point -[I]-- *

Tuweep * I I * *

Mt Trumbull *

Nixon Flats

Yellow John Mountain

I I I I I I 0 5 10 15 20 25

Annual Precipitation (inches}

Figure 40. Box plots of annual precipitation at weather stations on the Shivwits and Uinkaret Plateaus,and at Overton, Nevada.

winter rainfall which may reflect the influence of one or two unusual years (the first ten weeks

of both 1993 and 1995 were extremely wet).

The mean annual precipitation for all the upland stations is adequate for growing

maize, although all the stations had dry years when moisture may have been inadequate.

Mean summer rainfall averages less than four inches at Tweeds Point, so dry farming maize

may have been impossible there, and it clearly is impossible to dry farm in the Moapa Valley.

The other stations all average at least 4.5 inches of precipitation during the growing season,

so there probably was enough summer precipitation to dry farm at those locations.

1.2~------------------.

0.9

Overton o.6

1.2~--------------~

0.9

Tweeds Point o.6

0.3

0.9

Tuweep o.s

0.3

1.2 r-------------------,

0.9

Mt Trumbull o.6

0.3

0.9

Nixon Flats o.6

0.3

0.9

Yellow John o.6

Mountain 0.3

Figure 41. Bar charts of mean weekly precipitation at weather stations on the Sbivwits and Uinkaret Plateaus, and at Overton, Nevada.

169

170

At Overton, the Muddy River provided about 34,000 acre feet annually (Larson

1987:116-119). The flow varies somewhat, but the river is spring fed and so is not subject

to extreme fluctuations. Records of streamflows from 1951 to 1965 show that even in the

lowest years at least 29,000 acre feet of water flowed down the river. Monthly flows are

lowest during the summer growing season, but were always at least 1800 acre feet. In recent

times the river has provided enough water to irrigate more than 3,500 acres, with water left

over for domestic and other uses (Bagley 1980:2).

Growing Season Length

The length of time between the last spring frost and the first fall frost is shown in

Figure 42. The Yellow John Mountain station has by far the shortest frost-free period, with

a median length of 95 days. Nixon Flats is about 100 m higher, but has a median frost-free

period of 121 days. Despite the name, the Yellow John Mountain RAWS station is located

several miles west of Yellow John Mountain, in the East Fork of Parashant Wash; the

unusually short frost-free period there suggests that it may be subject to cold air drainage and

thus not reflect the conditions in other nearby microclimates. The other three stations have

median frost-free periods ranging from 187 to 240 days, and the recorded frost-free periods

at the three stations all exceed 150 days. At Mount Trumbull, data on the frost-free period

are only available for 1920 and 1921, when it was 166 and 171 days long, respectively.

The length of time between killing frosts (i.e., temperatures of28 degrees For lower)

is even longer (Figure 43), although the median length of time between killing frosts is still

Overton

Tweeds Point

Tuweep

Nixon Flats

Yellow John Mountain

50 100

________r-T1 --- * * ---i._._~

---ITJ--{I]--

150 200 250 300 Number of Days

171

350 400

Figure 42. Box plots of the number of days between recorded temperatures of 32 degrees F or less at weather stations on the Sbivwits and Uinkaret Plateaus, and at Overton, Nevada.

only 115 days at the Yellow John Mountain station. At Nixon Flats the median is 157 days,

and the other three stations have medians well in excess of 200 days. In one year no

temperatures as low as 28 degrees F were recorded at Overton.

It appears that the length of the growing season would not be a limiting factor for

growing maize at any of the weather station locations except Yellow John Mountain. The

specific timing ofkiliing frosts may still be a problem, however. As Figure 44 shows, the

timing of spring kiliing frosts varies more from station to station than the timing of fall killing

frosts. Also, at each individual station except Y eHow John Mountain, the dates of spring

killing frosts are more variable than the dates of full killing frosts. nus variability may have

created some problems for prehistoric fam1ers. If planting was timed to the latest date when

a spring frost could be expected, then in most years it would be impossible to take ad vantage

of the fuU length of the growing season. On the other hand, if planting was earlier, around

172

Overton * * Tweeds Point

Tuweep -ldk-rn- *

Nixon Flats -ITJ-Yellow John Mountain-{}]-

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Number of Days

Figure 43. Box plots of the number of days between recorded temperatures of 28 degrees F or less at weather stations on the Shivwits and Uinkaret Plateaus, and at Overton, Nevada.

the median date of the last spring killing frost for instance, then seedlings would often be

killed by late frosts.

All the stations have about 3,000 or more growing degree days annually (Figure 45),

more than enough to mature most modern maize hybrids, and almost certainly more than

would be required for prehistoric varieties of maize. Overton receives about 6,000 growing

degree days annually, which may have been enough to mature two crops annually. Of course

only the growing degree days during the growing season would have any effect on com

maturation; calculation of the number of growing degree days received during the growing

season requires assumptions about the timing of planting, which will be discussed below.

~~~~~·~~~~~~~~--~~~~~~--~~~~~--~~~

-DJ-* * -OJ- * Overton * *

I I Tweeds Point * m- * ill *

Tuweep *--en- -[]}--

Nixon Flats * -{0- -[[}--«

Yellow John Mountain * -[] * * ill-

I Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure 44. Box plots of the recorded dates of the last spring and first fall temperatures of 28 degrees F or less at weather stations on the Shivwits and Uinkaret Plateaus, and at Overton, Nevada. -...)

w

174

Overton -DJ-Tweeds Point -{J]-

Tuweep -ID Nixon Flats -DJ- *

Yellow John Mountain *-[[}-

I I I I I 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Growing Degree Days

Figure 45. Box plots of the annual number of growing degree days recorded at weather stations on the Shivwits and Uinkaret Plateaus, and at Overton, Nevada.

Summary

Modem climate data suggest that maize could probably be grown at many locations

in the study area. Overton is certainly too dry for dry farming, but the Muddy River provides

a dependable water supply. The Tweeds Point RAWS station may also be too dry for dry

farming under average conditions; it receives less summer rainfall than the other stations on

the Shivwits and Uinkaret Plateaus. The short growing season at the Yell ow John Mountain

RAWS station probably would preclude successful maize farming there. It appears that some

parts of the Shivwits Plateau were too cold or too dry for maize farming under average

modem conditions, although the area around the Mount Trumbull station was probably

suitable, and other parts of the southern Shivwits Plateau are probably warmer than the

specific microenvironment of the Yell ow John Mountain station.

175

Most of the Moapa Gray Ware producers were probably living in the area from just

west of the Nixon Flats RAWS station east to about the location of the Tuweep station.

Average modern climate in this area appears to range from wet enough but barely warm

enough for maize dry farming around Nixon Flats to warm enough but perhaps barely wet

enough in the Tuweep Valley.

It is not clear how similar the climate was in prehistoric times. A number of studies

have reconstructed aspects of prehistoric Colorado Plateau climates (e.g., Dean 1988; Dean

et al. 1985; Grissino-Mayer 1996; Larson 1987; Larson and Michaelsen 1990; Larson et al.

1996;Plogetal. 1988; Rose 1989; Van West 1994a, 1994b). Noneofthesereconstructions

are based on data from the Virgin Anasazi region except Larson's (1987; Larson and

Michaelsen 1990) stream flow reconstruction, which uses tree-ring indices from Mt.

Charleston, Nevada to retrodict Virgin River stream flow volume. Therefore, none of the

existing reconstructions are likely to reflect specific local conditions, but some general long

term trends appear to have been similar across the entire Colorado Plateau.

In general, it appears that during the period when Virgin Anasazi ceramic exchange

was most intense, from about A.D. I 050 to A.D. 1150, precipitation was relatively high, and

conditions were probably good for maize farming. In the mid-11 OOs there was a dry period

that probably lasted several decades, followed by a return to generally more favorable

conditions until the late 1200s A.D. It may be that the mid-I I OOs drought played a role in

ending the ceramic exchange between the Moapa Valley and the Uinkaret and Shivwits

Plateaus, although these areas all continued to be occupied after A.D. 1150.

176

Planting, Harvesting, and Risk

The risk of crop failure is largely detennined by the timing of planting. Planting must

occur early enough that the risk oflosing a substantial portion of the crop to an early fall frost

is minimized, but planting too early is counterproductive. Late spring frosts will kill seedlings

that are planted too early, necessitating replanting. Also, in areas dependent on rainfall

planting too early could mean that the plants reach the silking stage in June, before the

summer rains.

Planting times have been recorded for anumber of different Native American groups.

The Hopi are usually reported to do the bulk of their planting from late May into June. Their

main harvest is in September or October, although some early com is planted in April and

harvested green in July (Beaglehole 1937; Bradfield 1971; Forde 1931; Hack 1942; Whiting

1939). Titiev (1938, 1944) reports planting dates for Oraibi that are three to four weeks

earlier than the majority of the other dates given for the Hopi.

In low-elevation riverine environments, more like the Moapa Valley, planting times

varied considerably with local conditions. The tribes along the Colorado River planted most

of their maize after the annual floods died down around the first of July and harvested it in

OctoberorNovember(CastetterandBell 1951; Spier 1978; Stewart 1983). The Mohave and

Yuma also planted small amounts of maize in February and harvested it in June (Castetter and

Bell 1951: 146, 149). The Havasupai planted away from the main river channel and so were

not constrained by the floods. They planted from mid-April into June, then began to harvest

(presumably green com) in mid-June. The harvest continued into September (Schwartz

1983:15; Spier 1928).

177

On the Gila River in southern Arizona, the Pima and the Maricopa grew two crops a year.

The Pima planted from late March or early April, harvested in June, planted again in July, and

harvested in October (Castetter and Bell 1942: 179). The Maricopa apparently began planting as early

as February, harvested in June, then planted a second crop in July or early August which was

harvested in November (Castetter and Bell 1951:157; Spier 1978:61).

The Plateaus

If we assume that the prehistoric inhabitants of the Shivwits and Uinkaret Plateaus would

have timed their maize planting to minimize the danger of killing frost, and so that the plants would

reach silking during the summer rains, then they probably would have planted on about the same

schedule as the Hopi. Because of the relatively short growing season in the uplands, the following

discussion assumes that a fast-maturing variety of maize, requiring about 2200 GDD for maturity,

would have been used.

Nixon Flats. Under modem climate conditions at Nixon Flats, a 2200 GDD maize variety

planted on May 15th would reach the silking stage around the third week of July when summer rains

are strongest and would first be edible as green com in early to mid August. The crop would fully

mature toward the end of September. In the nine years (1988-1989, 1992-1998) for which sufficient

temperature data are available, crops planted May 15th would have been killed by a late spring frost

twice (in 1995 and 1996), once 10 days after planting, and once 22 days after planting. These crops

could be replanted, but the crop that would have had to be replanted in June after the later frost

would have been killed by a fall killing frost about 14 days before reaching maturity. During four

years less than three inches of total precipitation fell during the growing season (1988, 1989, 1991,

and 1994), and in two of those years

178

than ha1f an inch fell during what would have been the

critical silking stage. It thus appears that dry tanning maize at Nixon Flats would have been relatively

successful in five years, but significant crop losses would probably have occurred in five other years

(including 1991, for which temperature data are lacking), and farmers might have needed seed com

from an outside source in 1995. These odds could probably be improved by selecting warmer and

wetter microenvironments, but it appears that maize dry farming at Nixon Flats would be risky under

modem conditions.

Tuweep. The modem climate records indicate that the risk of frost is somewhat less at

Tuweep than at Nixon Flats, but Tuweep is also a bit drier. The latest recorded killing frost occurred

on May 18th and would not damage maize planted on the 15th. The plants would reach silking stage

in early-mid July, be edible green at the end of July or first week of August, and be fully mature the

last week of August or first week of September. Early fall frosts would not be a problem under

modem conditions. Growing season rainfall would be, however. In 19 of the 38 years for which

there are data, growing season rainfall would be less than four inches, including one stretch of five

consecutive years (1962-1966), coming soon after another string of three consecutive years of low

growing season rainfall in 195 8-1960. There are also two other stretches of three consecutive years

oflow growing season rainfall. In eight of the years when total growing season precipitation is low,

there is also less than a half inch of precipitation around the time the maize plants would be silking,

and there are two other years that appear to have adequate precipitation fur the entire growing

season, but have low precipitation arou..11d silking. So, while frost does not appear to be a problem

at Tuweep, lack of precipitation would probably have severely reduced yields in 21 of the 38 years

for which records are available.

179

Shivwits Plateau. On the Shivwits Plateau, the RAWS stations at Yellow John Mountain and

Tweeds Point are both in areas or microclimates where maize dry farming would have been

impossible rather than risky. The very limited temperature data for Mount Trumbull suggest that the

timing of the growing season would have been about the same as at Tuweep. If so, then total

growing season precipitation would have been less than four inches in 21 of 55 years for which

records are available. This is a bit better than at Tuweep, where half the years had inadequate

precipitation, but it appears that the risk of significant decreases in crop yields due to lack of summer

rainfall was still high. In 17 years, including four years when total growing season precipitation was

adequate, there was less than .5 inches of rain at the time maize plants would have been in the silking

stage.

Moapa Valley

The prehistoric inhabitants of the Moapa Valley would have had a range of options about

when to plant. If they grew a 2700 GDD variety of com similar to modem Tohono O'odham maize

(Adams et al. 1999), they could have planted it around the first of April. It would have been edibl~

as green com the last week of June and fully mature by the first week of August. In the 25 years for

which there are records, one late killing frost (April 12) would have required the crop to be replanted

in mid April.

A faster growing, but presumably less productive, 2200 GDD variety could have been planted

at the same time, providing green com by the middle of June. It could have been harvested fully

mature in mid-late July. A second planting in the first week of August could then have been

180

harvested in November. In one out of the 25 years the second crop would have failed to reach

maturity due to a killing frost on October 31.

Most likely, a mixture of maize varieties was grown. Some fast-growing com could have

been planted early, and eaten green in June. Maize that required 2700 GDD to mature could be

planted as fate as the middle of July and harvested by the end of October without risk of a killing

frost, but growing two crops sequentially would have been impossible without greatly increasing the

risk of serious crop loss or using a much faster-maturing variety. Planting may have been spread

throughout the spring and early summer, and the maize harvest could have started with green com

in June and gone on more or less continuously until November.

Discussion and Conclusion

There are important differences in agricultural potential and risk between the Moapa Valley

and the upland areas on the Uinkaret and Shivwits Plateaus, and these differences are reflected in the

locations people chose to farm historically, as well as in modem climate data. The distribution of

Native American farming in the early historic period is especially pertinent. Numerous historic

documents up to the late nineteenth century describe Southern Paiute farming in the Moapa Valley

and along the Virgin River and its tributaries in southwest Utah (e.g., J. Brooks 1972; G. Brooks

1977:59-60, 63; Campbell l 850;Foote 1984:170;Fuller 1865;HafenandHafen 1954;Hamblin 1855;

Lee 1852; Smith and Steele 1852; Warner 1976:79; Young 1868). A variety of crops, including

maize, squash, beans, wheat, and sunflowers were grown with simple ditch irrigation systems.

However, the historic records do not mention fanning in upland areas. Most ethnographic accounts

uf the Southern Paiute, which are based largely on groups occupying the northwestern Arizona

181

uplands, stress the importance ofhunting and gathering and imply that farming was unimportant (e.g.,

Euler 1966; Fowler 1982; Fowler and Fowler 1971; Kelly 1964; Kelly and Fowler 1986; Steward

1938:180-185. Fowler 1995 is an important exception).

Starting in the mid-nineteenth century, Mormon settlers moved into the Saint George Basin

and the Moapa Valley because of the agricultural potential of those areas. Important crops for the

early Mormon farmers were maize, wheat, sugar cane, and cotton (Foote 1984; Fuller 1865; Larson

1961:141-143; McCarty 1981). Much of the Muddy River :floodplain is still farmed today. Dry

farming on the Shivwits Plateau was also attempted by Mormon farmers in the early twentieth century

(CoxandRussell 1973;Fairley 1989b:164-166, 201-203). Theywereableto grow corn, wheat, peas

beans, squash, and potatoes. Dry farming in the uplands was never very productive, however, and

it was abandoned by the 1960s.

The differences in climate also led to variation in the kinds and abundance of native vegetation

in the two areas. Importantly, the Moapa Valley supported very few trees when the early Mormon

settlers arrived (Larson 1961:141-142; Young 1868). Some mesquite, willows, and cottonwoods

probably grew there, but the available trees did not provide good timber and "all the lumber that has

been used on the Muddy has been hauled from Pine Valley, a distance of one hundred and thirty

miles" (Young 1868). The straight-line distance to Pine Valley is actually only about 125 km, or just

under 80 miles, but the point remains that wood was scarce enough in the Moapa Valley that the early

Mormon settlers chose to haul lumber from a distance source. The earlier inhabitants also needed

wood for structures, cooking fires, and to fire pottery. It is likely that they too found the local wood

supply at best barely sufficient for their needs. The situation is quite different on the Shivwits and

Uinkaret Plateaus. The Uinkaret Mountain area in particular is heavily wooded with Pinyon, Juniper,

182

Uink:aret Plateaus. The Uinkaret Mountain area in particular is heavily wooded with Pinyon, Juniper,

and Ponderosa Pine trees. The relative scarcity of wood in the Moapa Valley, and its abundance on

the Shivwits and Uinkaret Plateaus probably made ceramic production on the plateaus less costly than

in the Moapa Valley and may have provided motivation for people in the Moapa Valley to import

pottery rather than expend scarce wood resources making their own.

Even though the modem climatic records are incomplete and not necessarily representative

of prehistoric conditions, they clearly demonstrate the differences between the areas. In particular,

they suggest that maize dry-farming would have been risky in the uplands, due mostly to variation

in precipitation during the growing season and around the time that maize plants would have been

silking. The exact cutoffs I used to define years with crop failures may not be accurate, and the odds

of a successful crop could certainly have been improved by planting in the best microenvironments

or channeling runoff. My analysis therefore probably overstates the riskiness of maize dry farming

in the uplands. Still, yields probably varied with rainfall amounts higher than my cutoff values, and

the risk involved in maize farming is clearly greater in the uplands than in the Moapa Valley.

There probably was some risk of crop failure in the Moapa Valley due to flood, insect

infestation, or plant disease, but risk due to frost or lack of water was practically non-existent there.

The abundant water and the ability to space out planting and harvesting over several months probably

meant that much more maize could be grown there than in the uplands, and edible green corn was

probably available in the Moapa Valley by mid June. In the uplands, both planting and harvesting of

green corn probably occurred about six weeks later than in the Moapa Valley. Also, as the early

Mormon settlers found, the long growing season and reliable water source made the Moapa Valley

an ideal place to grow cotton.

183

These dillerences in agricultural potential, risk ofcrop failure, the timing of harvests, and the

abundance of wood were all probably important in shaping the interaction between people living in

the uplands north of the Grand Canyon and Moapa Valley residents.

CHAPTER9

OBSCURE ASPECTS OF VIRGIN ANASAZI

PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE

Tracing patterns of Virgin Anasazi ceramic trade is relatively easy because ceramics

are broken and discarded with some regularity. Once broken into sherds ceramics are almost

indestructible, and some trade ceramics are easily recognizable. Other items were traded, but

either did not preserve (e.g., salt, textiles or raw cotton, plant foods), were not regularly

discarded (e.g., turquoise or shell ornaments), or are difficult to recognize as trade goods.

In this chapter, I will examine the possibilities that these other items could have been

important in Virgin Anasazi exchange networks. Specifically, I will review the evidence

concerning the exchange of ornaments, cotton products, and red ware ceramics, all of which

are likely to have been socially valued goods. These items could have been used in debt

creation strategies, although there is no evidence that they actually were used in that way. I

also identify subsistence-related items that may have been exchanged, including salt, and

certain wild plant and animal foods.

Ornaments

Several kinds of ornaments are found with some regularity in Virgin Anasazi sites.

These include beads and pendants made from a variety of kinds of stone, animal bone, or

shell. The animal bone and much of the stone used to make ornaments was widely available,

but two kinds of ornaments that are found in the Virgin Anasazi region, those made of

turquoise or marine shell, are likely to have entered the Virgin Anasazi region from the south

185

or west. The Moapa Valley is positioned along likely trade routes for these items (Lyneis

1982), and they are relatively common there. Therefore, many shell and turquoise items are

found elsewhere in the Virgin Anasazi region may have been traded from the Moapa Valley,

although other potential trade routes, from the east or across the Grand Canyon from the

south cannot be ruled out.

Unfortunately (from an archaeologist's perspective), ornaments were not routinely

discarded, although they were sometimes included in burials. Also, as they are generally

small, they may not be recovered even when they are present unless deposits are carefully

screened. The vast majority of excavations in the Virgin Anasazi region have been conducted

without the benefit of screens, which means that differences in the quantities of ornaments

found in different parts of the Virgin Anasazi region may have more to do with the number

ofburials excavated or with excavation techniques than with differences in the prehistoric use

of ornaments.

Shell and turquoise ornaments have been found more frequently in the Moapa Valley

than in other parts of the Virgin Anasazi region, but many more burials have been excavated

there as well. On top of this, the almost complete lack of excavation in the upland areas that

produced Moapa Gray Ware and Shivwits Plain and the resulting lack of ornaments found

there make it impossible to say whether ornaments and pottery moved ip the same exchange

networks. Nevertheless, it does seem that people living in northwestern Arizona and

southwestern Utah had access to both shell and turquoise.

186

Turquoise

Turquoise from several sources in southern Nevada and southeastern California may

have entered the Virgin Anasazi region through the Moapa Valley. Three mine areas have

been identified as possible sources for turquoise in the Moapa Valley: Halloran Springs,

Crescent Peaks, and the Sullivan Mines (Leonard and Drover 1980; Lyneis 1992; Rafferty

1989:573; Shutler 1961: 60; Warren 1984). Warren(l984)hassuggestedthatMoapa Valley

people directly exploited the Halloran Springs mines, located in the California desert almost

200 km from the Moapa Valley, but this seems unlikely (cf. Lyneis 1992:68). In any case,

turquoise beads and pendants are found with some regularity in the Moapa Valley (Hayden

1930:69; Lyneis 1992:68, Tables 63-64; Lyneis et al. 1989:72-73; Schellbach 1930:103;

Shutler 1961 :40).

Turquoise was available in other parts of the Virgin Anasazi area, as it is found in sites

in southwestern Utah and northwestern Arizona (Table 27). It is difficult to quantify the

amount of turquoise, but subjectively it seems less common outside of the Moapa Valley.

Raw turquoise or possible manufacturing debris found at Cliff's Edge and several sites in the

Saint George Basin may indicate that unworked turquoise moved in Virgin Anasazi exchange

networks in addition to, or instead of, finished ornaments.

Shell

Shell is also common in the Moapa Valley. Lyneis (1992:69-71, Tables 65-68)

describes several kinds of shell ornaments from Main Ridge, including Olivella barrels and

187

Table27. Occurrences of Turquoise in Virgin Anasazi Sites outside of the Moapa Valley.

Site Location Period Quantity and Type Reference

42Ws3105 near Hildale, Utah Basketmaker n 4 beads Allison et al. n.d.

Cliff's Edge lower Virgin River, Pueblo I 1 bead Jenkins 1981:162 Arizona

1 :fragment "probably ... a left-over scrap from bead-making"

Dead Raven Johnson Canyon, Utah early Pueblo Il . 1 pendant fragment Walling and Thompson 1988:75

NA8960D near Fredonia, Arizona early Pueblo II? 1 piece, not clear Wade 1967:33 what

Frei Site Saint George Basin, Utah mid-late Pueblo "several tiny Pendergast 1960:147 n fragments"

Gunlock Saint George Basin, Utah mid-late Pueblo 1 bead Day 1966:37 Flats II

1 pendant

"tiny pieces"

42Ws392 Saint George Basin, Utah late Pueblo Il 67 beads, various wailing et al. shapes 1986:428

ZNP2 Zion National Park, Utah Late Pueblo II "a few :fragments", Schroeder 1955:38, apparently unworked 144

42Ws395 Saint George Basin, Utah Late Pueblo II or 5 pendants Walling et al. Pueblo III 1986:428

I "irregular, unfinished piece"

3 raw fragments Walling et al. 1986:430

? Saint George Basin, Utah ? "a few small flat Palmer 1876:413 stone pendants"

NA9058 near Littlefield, Arizona ? 2 pieces, not clear Wade 1967:181 what

saucers, Haliotis pendants, and bead-pendants made from Spondylus. The Haliotis pendants

are clearly from the west coast of California, and Lyneis suggests that most of the Olivella

beads are Olive Ila dama, from the Gulf of California, although at least a few are west coast

species of Olivella. Shutler (1961 :40) also reports two Glycymeris bracelet fragments from

188

Harrington's excavations, along with a Cardium pendant, "clam shell disc beads", and

abundant Haliotis and Olivella ornaments.

In southwestern Utah and northwestern Arizona, three kinds of shell ornaments have

been identified. Olivella beads, of several different varieties, are the most common (Table

28). Haliotis pendants and Glycymeris bracelets have also been found in the eastern part of

the Virgin Anasazi area. There also are a several occurrences of shell that were too

fragmentary, or too poorly described, to identify to species (Table 29). The Haliotis

pendants are from the west coast of California and probably would have to come through the

Moapa Valley to reach southwestern Utah or northwestern Arizona. The situation is less

Table 28. Occurrences of Olivella Ornaments in Virgin Anasazi Sites outside of the Moapa Valley.


42Ws 2195 Hildale, Utah Basketmaker II 2 beads Helton 1998

Reservoir Site Colorado City, Basketmaker Il 13 beads Helton 1998 Arizona

Cliff's Edge lower Virgin River, Pueblo I 2 barrels Jenkins 1981:162 Arizona

ZNP-3 Zion National Park, early Pueblo II 3 barrels Schroeder 1955:49 Utah

2 spire-lopped

NA9079 West of Pipe midPuebloil 77 beads, most (if not Wade 1967:129, Spring, Arizona all) spire-lopped 228-229, Figure

127

42Ws 1342 Saint George Basin mid Pueblo II l barrel

42Ws 2188 Saint George Basin late Pueblo II 4 barrels

2 :fragments, probably from barrels

42Ws 1342 Saint George Basin ? 1 curved disk, probably Olivella, slightly ovoid, 5x6mm

Bonanza Dune Johnson Canyon ? 1 bead fragment Aikens 1965:124

189

Table 29. Occurrences of Shell Ornaments other than Olivella in Virgin Anasazi Sites outside of the Moapa Valley.


42Ws326 Saint George Basin Basketmaker m I pendant, with Billat et al. "mother-of~pearl" 1992:126; Loosle finish, possibly 1992 Haliotis

42Ws392 Saint George Basin late Pueblo II 2 Haliotis pendants Walling et al. 1986:430

42Ws 395 Saint George Basin Late Pueblo TI or 2Haliotis Wailing et al. Pueblo Ill fragments, probably 1986:430

from pendants

? Saint George Basin ? Haliotis pendants Palmer 1876:413

Dead Raven Johnson Canyon, Utah early Pueblo II l Glycymeris Walling and pendant Thompson 1988:85

2 Glycymeris fragments, one probably from a bracelet, the other unclear

Red CliftS Saint George Basin early Pueblo H 3 fragments, Dalley and probably McFadden Glycymeris 1985:155

NA 8960C near Fredoni~ Arizona early Pueblo TI? l Glycymeris Wade 1967:26, 229 bracelet

NA9083 near Colorado City, mid-late Pueblo l Glycymeris Wade 1967:141, Arizona lI bracelet 229

NA8960A near Fredonia, Arizona early Pueblo TI? 2 beads Wade 1967:13

NA 8960B near Fredonia, Arizona early Pueblo Il? 2 beads Wade 1967:20

NA8960D near Fredonia, Arizona ? l pendant Wade 1967:33

NA8960F near Fredonia, Arizona early Pueblo Il? 1 bead Wade 1967:47

NA9068A near Fredonia, Arizona early Pueblo H? 2 pendants Wade 1967:84

l bead

NA9069 near Pipe Spring, mid Pueblo Ii? I pendant Wade 1967:90 Arizona

NA9070 near Pipe Spring, ? J pendant Wade 1967:96 Arizona

190

clear for the Glycymeris bracelets, which are common to the south of the Virgin Anasazi

region. The route up the Colorado River to the Virgin, then to the Moapa Valley seems the

most likely way for them to reach the Virgin Anasazi area, but they actually seem to be more

common outside the Moapa Valley than within it.

Cotton and Cotton Products

Cotton was grown historically in the Saint George Basin and in the Moapa Valley,

although the early Mormon farmers found it did not produce well in the slightly higher

riverine environment between the Saint George Basin and Zion National Park (Larson 1961 ).

Hopi cotton was adapted to grow at higher elevations and probably could have been grown

on the Uinkaret and Shivwits Plateaus, although it probably would have required more water

than maize (Hill 1998a:213-214, 1998b:278-279; Huckell 1993:168-169). Abundant water

made the Moapa Valley and the Saint George Basin very suitable for growing cotton, as the

Mormon settlers found in the 1860s. Harrington (l 937b) found cotton bolls in a cave in the

Moapa Valley, which probably indicates that cotton was grown there prehistorically. One

undoubted spindle whorl made from unfired clay and still attached to the spindle was found

in the Moapa Valley, in the same cave as the cotton bolls (Harrington 1937b).

Finds of cotton fibers or textiles are rare in the Virgin Anasazi area, although

Harrington (1927:269, 273; 1937b) reports finding cotton textiles in the Moapa Valley.

Outside the Moapa Valley, the only report of textiles is from ZNP-21, a cave in Zion National

Park. Three pieces of cotton cloth were found there, along with a piece of cotton yarn and

four pieces of co~on cordage (Jones 1955: 186-187; Schroeder 1955:154).

191

Harrington's discoveries suggest that cotton was grown and spun into thread in the

Moapa Valley, although it is difficult to say precisely when. Cotton textiles were also used

in the Moapa Valley and in southwestern Utah, but textiles are so rarely preserved that it is

difficult to trace their distribution.

Salt

The salt crops out along the foot of a high bluff of brown clay. The vein we visited is about 80 feet high from the base of the hill; how deep it runs below the surface is not kn.own, so that it is impossible to tell how thick the vein may be. It is exposed for about one hundred and fifty yards, along the bluff, and extends to the Pacific Ocean, for aught I kn.ow. (Young 1868:175)

The salt deposits of the Moapa Valley and lower Virgin River were extensive, giving

rise to exaggeration on the part of some early observers. Young (1868: 175) states that three

"Salt Mountains" were located "between St. Thomas and the Colorado," although he

apparently only visited one of them. The Mormon settlers in the 1860s were mining salt by

blasting, and trading it north for use in the mines at Pahranagat, and south to Fort Mohave.

Harrington (1927, 1930:9) describes prehistoric salt mines, some of which were open

pits. Others were in "partly natural, partly artificial caverns" (Harrington 1930:9). He

mentions that "the best of these mines" was about three miles south of St. Thomas, quite

possibly in the same deposit Young (1868) describes. Shutler (1961 :58-60), working from

Harrington's notes, specifically describes three caves and an open pit mine. These contained

stone hammers and other evidence of prehistoric mining activity. The cave Shutler calls Salt

Cave No. 1 contained trash deposits including Puebloan sherds. Shutler was not able to

192

attribute any pottery to the other mines, so there is some question about when they were

exploited. Shutler (1961 :59) specifically says that no evidence ofPaiute use was found in Salt

Cave No. 1, although the Paiute apparently did exploit at least one of the salt deposits. In

1826, near the confluence of the Virgin and Muddy Rivers, Jedidiah Smith reported, "I saw

at their Lodges a large cake of rock salt weighing 12 or 15 lbs and on enquiry found that they

procured it at a cave not far distant" (Brooks 1977:64).

Salt does not preserve in most archaeological sites, and it has not been recovered from

archaeological contexts within the VirginAnasazi region (except, of course, in the salt mines),

so it is difficult to know whether it was traded out of the Moapa Valley. Spier (1928:108)

says that the Havasupai obtained salt "from a cave in the cliff on the south side of the

Colorado, where there are stalactites of it." He does not describe its exact location, although

it is presumably somewhere in the western Grand Canyon. This source, or others similar to

it, may have been closer to the people living on the Shivwits and Uinkaret Plateaus than the

sources in the Moapa Valley were. Still, the salt deposits in the Moapa V all~y and along the

lower Virgin River were extensive, and large quantities of salt could apparently be obtained,

so it is likely that some salt was traded out of the Moapa Valley.

Wild Plant and Animal Products

The environmental contrasts between the Moapa Valley on the one hand, and the

Shivwits and Uinkaret Plateaus on the other, mean that different wild plant and animal

products were available in the different areas. Several wild resources seem especially likely

to have been important. In the Moapa Valley, mesquite and screw beans provided a

193

productive, storable resource. These were important to the Paiute who lived in the Moapa

Valley (Fowler 1995) and have been found in archaeological contexts (Harrington 1927:276;

Lyneis 1992:72, Tables 69-70).

People living in the uplands would have had greater access to a number of wild

resources, including pine nuts, agave, certain kinds of cactus, and a variety of small seeds.

Lyneis (1992:72) notes the presence of one pine nut shell in the Main Ridge collections, but

no other plants that can be definitely attributed to the uplands have been reported from the

Moapa Valley.

Large ungulates (deer, elk, and antelope) are also likely to have been available in the

uplands, but would not have been common near the Moapa Valley. These animals would

have provided meat, and their hides, bones, and antlers are likely to have been used for

clothing and tools. In general, little animal bone has been recovered from Moapa Valley sites,

although a number of worked bone tools have been reported (e.g., Hayden 1930:70; Shutler

1961 :Plates 72-74). Unfortunately, the species from which these artifacts came has not been

identified, although "we can, however, say with safety that the bone artifacts found at Mesa

House were made from the limb bones of ungulates, including the mountain sheep and/or

some species of deer and/or some species of antelope" (Hayden 1930:69). Since mountain

sheep could probably be hunted relatively near the Moapa Valley, it is not possible to say

whether a.fly of these artifacts was imported.

At least three "war-clubs" made from elk antler have been recovered from burials in

the Moapa Valley (Harrington 1927 :272, Plate 38, 1929: 12; Schellbach 1930:98, 103; Shutler

1961 :Plate 89), and Shutler (1961 :39, 45) notes several antler artifacts not identified

194

to species. He also reports pieces of tanned deer skin and deer bones from a rock shelter

(RockshelterNo. 2) located east ofSaintThomas(Shutler 1961 :50-51). Most of the material

in the sheher is Puebloan, but there is some Paiute pottery too. No provenience is given for

the deer remains, so it is not clear whether they date to Puebloan or Paiute times.

These findings provide meager evidence that wild plants and arrimals that were more

available in the uplands were brought to the Moapa Valley, although it is not clear that they

necessarily came from the east. The same resources were available west of the Moapa Valley

(although e1k may not have been common for some distance to the west), and the shell and

turquoise artifacts indicate that the Moapa Valley people had connections in that direction

too. In fact Harrington (1930:12) thought it more likely that the elk-antler artifacts came

from the west.

Other Trade Ceramics

In addition to Moapa Gray Ware and Shivwits Plain, several other kinds of non-local

pottery occur in the Muddy River Survey collections, and a few of these occur as imports in

the uplands as well. Several of these types are quite rare; the Muddy River Survey collections

include one sherd each of Snake Valley Black-on-gray, (a Fremont type from southwestern

Utah), Black Mesa Black-on-white, and Honani Tooled, (both from the Kayenta Anasazi

region), and two unidentified paddle-and-anvil constructed sherds that are probably Lower

Colorado Buff Ware. The Mount Trumbull Survey collections also include one Tusayan

White Ware sherd, obviously an import from the Kayenta region, that could not be identified

-----------

Nevada

.,

195

)

. ,1 l 0

' · '§ I Colorado ~ I ';:,.o

c>°

Tsegi Orange Ware Black Mesa B/w other Kayenta types

I

I New I Mexico

flagstaff

I I I

N

miles .......,. MM ....

D kilometers SO ... ... l§IMi 0 100

Figure 46. Approximate locations of the production areas of non-local ceramics found in the Moapa Valley and in northwestern Arizona.

to type. However, at least two kinds ofimported pottery occur in greater quantities: red or

orange ware ceramics and Prescott Gray Ware. Figure 46 shows the approximate areas of

origin for the various kinds of non-local pottery.

196

Red/Orange Wares

As noted in Chapter 5, three main kinds of red or orange ware ceramics are found in

Virgin Anasazi sites: San Juan Red Ware, made in the Mesa Verde Anasazi region (mostly

in southeastern Utah); Tsegi Orange Ware, made in the northern part of the Kayenta region;

and the sand-tempered red ware that Colton (1952) called the Little Colorado series of San

Juan Red Ware. The latter is probably made in the eastern part of the Virgin Anasazi region,

east of Kanab Creek. All three kinds of red or orange wares occur in both the Mount

Trumbull Survey and Muddy River Survey collections, but always in low percentages.

Combined, the red and orange ware sherds make up 0.6 percent of the middle Pueblo

IT collections from the Mount Trumbull Survey, and about 0.5 percent of the Muddy River

Survey collections from the same time period (Periods 1-3). In the Muddy River Survey

collections, the Period 1-3 red/orange wares include roughly equal numbers of San Juan Red

Ware and Tsegi Orange Ware sherds, but fewer sand-tempered red ware sherds, while the

middle Pueblo IT sites from the Mount Trumbull Survey include about equal numbers ofTsegi

Orange Ware and sand-tempered red ware sherds, but almost no San Juan Red Ware. The

later sites from the Muddy River Survey also include about 0.5 percent red/orange ware

sherds, but no San Juan Red Ware at all. Tsegi Orange Ware and sand-tempered red ware

sherds occur in approximately equal numbers. The total number of red ware sherds is small,

however (e.g., 12 total from the Mount Trumbull Survey middle Pueblo IT sites), so it is not

clear that differences in the relative :frequencies are important.

197

Prescott Gray Ware

Prescott Gray Ware from the upland Patayan region south of the Grand Canyon

occurs on some of the latest sites in the Moapa Valley, although it has not previously been

definitively identified. Hayden (1930:79-80) first noticed sherds at Mesa House with

micaceous temper that he called Colorado River ware "for convenience" without being certain

what they were. Lyneis (Lyneis et al. 1989:23-27) also described a ••1arge-mica variety of

paddle-and-anvil pottery" at the Adam 2 site without specifically identifying it, although she

speculated that it could be Prescott Gray Ware. I found similar sherds in the Muddy River

Survey collections and was able to identify them as Prescott Gray Ware by comparison to

type collections in the Museum of Northern Arizona and consultation with archaeologists

familiar with Patayan ceramics. The ·specific type. or types within Prescott Gray Ware

represented by these sherds is unclear, although one sherd from the Muddy River Survey is

painted, and is probably Verde Black-on-gray. The Muddy River Survey sherds have not

been directly compared to the sherds from Adam 2 or Mesa House, but the descriptions of

the micaceous pottery at those sites are clear, and it is almost certain that these too are

Prescott Gray Ware.

At Mesa House, Prescott Gray Ware made up about 4 percent of the collection, while

at Adam 2 a bit less than 2 percent of the sherds were Prescott Gray Ware. At the two latest

of the Muddy River Survey sites, MRS 58 and MRS 59, Prescott Gray Ware comprised 19

percent of each assemblage.

Table 30 shows the distribution of Prescott Gray Ware in the Muddy River Survey

sites. The relatively high percentage of Prescott Gray Ware at MRS 54A suggests that some

198

Table 30. Muddy River Survey Sites with Prescott Gray Ware.

Site Period Prescott Gray Ware Total Sherd Count Percent

MRS 11 2 21 411 5.1

MRS 14 3 286 0.3

MRS 55B 3 237 0.4

MRS54A 4 22 286 7.7

MRS55A 5 8 261 3.1

MRS75 5 l 166 0.6

MRS76 5 3 266 1.1

MRS58 6 22 116 19.0

MRS59 6 37 194 19.l

households may have developed ties with people across the Colorado River at just about the

time the Moapa Gray Ware exchange was disrupted. Most or all of the Prescott Gray Ware

came into the Muddy River Survey sites after this time period, especially during Period 6

(Adam2 would be a Period 4 or 5 site in the relative chronology, while Mesa House falls into

Period 6). Three sherds of Prescott Gray Ware were also foundatAZA:l5:8 on the Shivwits

Plateau.

Other Pottery

In addition to the trade ware pottery identified above, still other kinds of pottery may

have been imported to the Moapa Valley. Sand-tempered Tusayan Gray Ware pottery was

apparently produced throughout much of the Virgin Anasazi region. Undoubtedly some of

it was traded, but it is difficult or impossible to recognize non-local sand-tempered pottery

because it lacks distinguishing characteristics. Sand-tempered pottery in the Mount Trumbull

199

Survey collections may all be imported there, but it is not certain that it is. We know people

made Moapa Gray Ware pottery in the area around Mount Trumbull, but it is not clear

whether they also made some pottery with sand temper.

Conclusion

It is difficult to trace the movement of goods other than pottery in the Virgin Anasazi

exchange system, and even some pottery exchange is probably undetected. In addition to

Moapa Gray Ware and Shivwits Plain, red and orange ware ceramics were traded into the

Moapa Valley, as well as to the area around Mount Trumbull. They may have been traded

from Mount Trumbull into the Moapa Valley, although there are other possible routes to the

north of Mount Trumbull. Prescott Gray Ware also was brought to the Moapa Valley,

although most or all ofit came after Moapa Gray Ware and Shivwits Plain had stopped being

imported there. Several other kinds of pottery were exchanged into the Moapa Valley in

small quantities, and there is a possibility that some of what is classified as Tusayan Gray

Ware in the Muddy River Survey collections was not made in the Moapa Valley.

Turquoise and shell were available to people living in southwestern Utah and

northwestern Arizona. Because of the geographic position of the Moapa Valley, much ofthe

shell and turquoise in the rest of the Virgin Anasazi area may have been obtained directly or

indirectly through people living in the Moapa Valley, although there is no way to be certain

about this. How much ofit reached the pottery-producing communities on the Uinkaret and

Shivwits Plateaus is not known, but it is li.1<ely that some ornaments were traded to people

living there. Although ornaments were probably socially valued goods, there is no evidence

200

that their distribution was restricted in any way or that they were used in debt-creation

strategies.

Several other items were potentially important, but whether and to what extent they

were traded remains obscure. These include cotton or cotton products, wild plant foods,

animal foods, hides, or other animal products, and salt. Several elk antlers and at least one

pine nut shell made it to the Moapa Valley, but other than that there is little evidence that can

be ~ed to reconstruct the role these items played in Virgin Anasazi exchange systems.

Although it is difficult to trace the distribution of most of these items, they may have

been important in Virgin Anasazi exchange. For instance, some Moapa Valley households

imported little Moapa Gray Ware or Shivwits Plain, but they may have imported other kinds

of pottery that are more difficult to recognize. Similarly, Moapa Gray Ware producers appear

not to have participated equally in ceramic exchange with the Moapa Valley, but they may

have exchanged ungulate hides or meat, or other upland products with people living in the

Moapa Valley. Whether these other kinds of interaction actually occurred, however, is

impossible to know from existing data.

CHAPTER 10 CONCLUSION

The analyses presented in Chapters 6-9 illuminate a number of aspects of the

interaction between the Moapa Valley and the Shivwits and Uinkaret Plateaus. The following

sections first summarize these aspects of Virgin Anasazi ceramic exchange, then evaluate the

models outlined in Chapter 2 against the archaeological evidence. I conclude with an outline

of a more specific model that may account for many of the patterns observed in the

archaeological data, and explore some of the broader implications of the VirginAnasazi case

study by comparing it with several other known systems of ceramic exchange in the

prehistoric Southwestern United States.

Ecological Aspects of Virgin Anasazi Interaction

Chapter 8 describes pronounced ecological contrasts between the Moapa Valley and

the uplands. Briefly, the Moapa Valley is lower, warmer, and much less rainy than the

Shivwits and Uinkaret Plateaus. Trees were also scarce in the Moapa Valley in historic times

(Larson 1961:141-142; Young 1868), and :firewood was probably not abundant

prehistorically. The Muddy River provided a dependable water supply that, combined with

the long growing season, made the Moapa Valley a good place for growing maize and

probably cotton, but the shortage of :firewood made ceramic production relatively costly

there. The situation was reversed in the uplands. Farming was possible, but

more risky and less productive because of the need to depend on summer rainfall, which was

unpredictable and not overly abundant even in good years.

202

The differences in elevation and climate also led to differences in the wild pfant and

animal resources available in each area, and the geographic position of the Moapa Valley gave

it the potential to control access to potentially valuable shell and turquoise entering the Virgin

Ana~azi area from the south and west. These ecological differences were probably all

significant prehistorically, and it is not possible to understand the Virgin Anasazi regional

economy without taking them into account. Social aspects were also important, however.

Some households in each area were more involved in ceramic exchange than some of their

neighbors, and individuals or households appear to have had independent networks of kin or

trade partners with whom they interacted.

Virgin Anasazi Pottery Economics

Production

Virgin Anasazi ceramic production was widespread. Much, probably most, of the

Tusayan Gray Ware found in the Moapa Valley was made there or nearby. Lyneis (1992:42-

43) found that the variability and specific characteristics of the sand temper in Tusayan Gray

Ware from Main Ridge indicated mostly local production, probably at the household level.

Some Tusayan Gray Ware pottery was probably acquired from people living nearby along the

lower Virgin River. lbe analyses in Chapter 7 suggest that production ofTusayan Gray Ware

jars was relatively unspecialized, or at least the degree of specialization was lower than for

Moapa Gray Ware. Decorated Tusayan Gray Ware bowls, on the other hand, are more

standardized, and their production seems likely to have been somewhat specialized.

203

The same analyses indicate that Moapa Gray Ware production was widespread,

involving a large number of producers. Production was probably at the household level. If

the scale of study were confined to the Uinkaret Plateau, Moapa Gray Ware production

would not appear specialized at all. On a regional scale, however, it is clear that Moapa Gray

Ware producers were highly concentrated relative to the distribution of their products, in a

manner similar to what Costin (1991) calls community specialization. In this case, however,

it is probably more accurate to talk about regional or zonal specialization since there is no

evidence that Moapa Gray Ware producers were concentrated into one or even several

communities.

Moapa Gray Ware in the Muddy River Survey sites is less variable than Moapa Gray

Ware from the Mount Trumbull Survey. This suggests that the degree of specialization, as

measured in the Moapa Valley, is greater than the degree of specialization in the area where

Moapa Gray Ware was made. Apparently, some Moapa Gray Ware producers were much

more involved in exchange with the Moapa Valley than others.

Shivwits Plain producers were also concentrated relative to the distribution of

Shivwits Plain pottery, at least during middle Pueblo II times. There is insufficient

information to allow comparison of the variability ofShivwits Plain on the Shivwits Plateau

with variability in the Moapa Valley, but Shivwits Plain jars in the Muddy River Survey sites

are more variable than Moapa Gray Ware vessels there, and about as variable as Tusayan

Gray Ware jars. This suggests that the degree of specialization, or the producer/vessel ratio

was more similar to that of the apparently unspecialized Tusayan Gray Ware jars than to

Moapa Gray Ware.

204

Distribution

The analyses in Chapters 6 and 7 provide several clues to the nature of Moapa Gray

Ware and Shivwits Plain distribution. On a regional scale, most upland pottery was probably

used and discarded in the general area where it was made. Some Moapa Gray Ware was

traded to the north, but in middle Pueblo n times its distribution was strongly oriented to the

west of its production zone. It is difficult to document the regional distribution of Shivwits

Plain because it has not been identified in most published ceramic analyses from the area. It

is common on the Shivwits Plateau, however, and present in small amounts in southwestern

Utah. Like Moapa Gray Ware, a large amount of Shivwits Plain was distributed west of its

production zone into southeastern Nevada during middle Pueblo Il times.

The distribution ofMoapa Gray Ware and Shivwits Plain into the Moapa Valley was

apparently accomplished through a network of individual or household-to-household

contacts. Lyneis (1992:86) suggested that " .. we must leave open the issue of whether

exchange in the region consisted entirely of decentralized settlement-to-settlement interaction.

Main Ridge may have played a centralizing role at the west end in the Moapa Valley." The

data from the Muddy River Survey sites, however, are not consistent with the idea that Main

Ridge played a centralizing or controlling role in the exchange of Moapa Gray Ware and

Shivwits Plain. The amollilt of upland pottery is similar in the middle Pueblo Il sites from the

Muddy River Survey and Main Ridge: 38 percent of the Main Ridge pottery is either Moapa

Gray Ware or Shivwits Plain, while 37 percent of the pottery from the contemporaneous

Period 1 Muddy River Survey sites is from the uplands. Further, the amount of upland

pottery in collections associated with individual houses at Main Ridge varies in much the same

205

way that the amount in Muddy River Survey assemblages does. The implication is that some

households in each location participated in exchange with the uplands more than other

households in the same general location. However, overaU the amount of imported pottery

was similar in each place.

The site-to-site variation in the kinds of upland pottery in the Muddy River Survey

assemblages provides further evidence that Moapa Valley individuals or households

maintained independent contacts with people on the Shivwits and Uinkaret Plateaus.

Temporal and spatial continuity in specific patterns of variability suggests that some of these

links may have endured for several generations.

Consumption

Virgin Anasazi pottery was probably used for a wide range of purposes, although

specific information about pottery function is lacking. Some plain ware jars were probably

used for cooking, others for storage, and decorated bowls were probably mostly used for

serving food. Comparison of the kinds of pottery imported to the Moapa Valley with

Tusayan Gray Ware, which was probably mostly produced there, suggests that local and

imported pottery were used for the same range of functions. Both utilitarian jars and

decorated bowls are present in the imported pottery, in the same proportions as in the local

pottery.

If Shivwits Plain and Moapa Gray Ware are considered separately, however, the

proportions of jars and bowls are not the sarne as in Tusayan Gray Ware. Shivwits Plain

occurs exclusively in the form of jars, most of them apparently small and probably used for

206

cooking. The Moapa Gray Ware from the Muddy River Survey includes slightly higher

proportions of decorated bowls than either Tusayan Gray Ware from the Muddy River Survey

or Moapa Gray Ware from the Mount Trumbull Survey. It seems then, that Moapa Gray

Ware was used for a similar range of functions as Tusayan Gray Ware, but the relative

importance of different functions varied between the two wares. Shivwits Plain was used for

a more restricted set of functions, perhaps just cooking, or possibly cooking and storage.

The rate of breakage and replacement probably was on the order of five or six jars

and one or two decorated bowls per household per year, judging from the rates of pottery

breakage at the Duckfoot site (Lightfoot 1994). At the households with the most imported

pottery, several upland-produced vessels per year may have been broken and replaced, but

at other households upland vessels were probably replaced at the rate of one every several

years. Overall, the total number ofMoapa Gray Ware vessels imported to the Muddy River

Survey sites must have been in the high hundreds, while 300-500 Shivwits Plain vessels were

probably imported. Extrapolating those numbers to the entire Moapa Valley is difficult, but

it is probably safe to assume several thousand vessels produced on the Shivwits and Uinkaret

Plateaus were brought to the Moapa Valley over the course of about a century. While

"several thousand vessels" sounds impressive, there may never have been more than 30-40

vessels imported in a single year.

Evaluation of the Models

The information presented in Chapters 6-9 allows each of the models to be evaluated,

although none of them can be falsified in a strict sense. As suggested in Chapter 2, none of

207

the models by itself is adequate to account fully for the patterns of interaction that can be

inferred from the Virgin Anasazi archaeological record. However, the models highlight

different aspects of Virgin Anasazi economics that were probably important for different

participants.

Risk-Buffering

The risk-buffering model is designed to explain interaction among people living in

similar environments, where subsistence failure occurs in different parts of that environment

in different years and where the specific failures are unpredictable. Much of the Southwest

fits this description, as untimely frosts or spatially restricted summer rains provide good

harvests in some places and poor harvests in other areas nearby. Subsistence risk due to

spotty summer rains was probably important on the Shivwits and Uinkaret Plateaus, but risk

due to frost or lack of moisture was negligible in the Moapa Valley. So, while the interaction

between the uplands and the Moapa Valley may well have had the effect of buffering

subsistence risk for people in the uplands, risk-buffering cannot explain why people in the

Moapa Valley participated in the interaction.

In Chapter 4 I noted that risk-buffering interactions should involve the exchange of

gifts during good years that would establish relationships and create obligations that could be

called upon in the event of subsistence failure. The gifts given are likely to have been items

that were socially valued to some degree. However, the pottery exchanged from the uplands

to the Moapa Valley appears to have been mostly utilitarian and functional. It is possible that

some red or orange ware pottery, which is likely to have been more highly valued, was

208

exchanged from the uplands to the Moapa Valley, but it is not clear whether that is the route

over which red and orange ware moved.

One other implication of the risk-buffering model is that interaction should be greatest

when environmental conditions are relatively poor. Both the mutualistic and debt-creation

models predict greater interaction during relatively good environmental conditions. As noted

in Chapter 8, our understanding of paleoenvironmental trends in the Virgin Anasazi region

is poor. However, the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries, when the volume of

interaction was at its peak, appear to have been relatively good times on the Colorado Plateau

in general. The middle part of the twelfth century, on the other hand, was apparently quite

dry, and the risk of crop fuilure in the uplands was probably higher then than it had been for

the previous century. The end of the interaction between the uplands and the Moapa Valley

appears to coincide with this period when relatively poor environmental conditions increased

the risks associated with dry farming.

Mutualism

The movement of utilitarian pottery is more consistent with a mutualistic model of

exchange, especially considering the scarcity of :firewood in the Moapa Valley, which would

have made pottery production relatively expensive there. It may have taken less effort to

produce enough of a food surplus to feed a trade partner or two for a week than to gather the

fuel to fire a load of pots. The moderate but apparently consistent volume of exchange is also

consistent with a mutualistic model.

209

From the point of view of people in the uplands, there may also have been some

mutualistic benefits to the interaction with the lvfoapa Valley, since the Moapa Valley was

almost certai..11ly able to produce more food, and it was available earlier in the summer.

Harvests probably did not begin in the uplands until about six weeks after the first edible

maize was available in the Moapa Valley. If food stores were low in the uplands, it may have

been possible for some upland residents to go to the Moapa Valley and trade pottery for food.

It is unlikely that much maize was transported back to the uplands, but a trip to the Moapa

Valley where the harvests were in progress would have relieved pressure on stored food in

the uplands.

In a mutualistic interaction, though, participation in the interaction should be

universal, or nearly so. Risk-buffering also should involve most or all members of the

population in the interaction. It seems clear, however, that households in the Moapa Valley

did not participate equally in the importation of upland pottery, and some Moapa Gray Ware

producers apparently exported more of their products than their neighbors.

Debt-Creation

The debt-creation model was originally included in the study in order to provide a

politically or socially based alternative model to test against the risk-buffering and mutualism

models. The debt-creation model is difficult to evaluate with the existing data, but it seems

unlikely that debt-creation strategit~s were an important motivating factor in Virgin Anasazi

ceramic exchange.

210

It is clear that shell and turquoise were available in the Moapa Valley, and cotton

products probably were as well. All of these items are likely to have been socially valued

goods, and might have been usefol in debt-creation. There is no evidence, however, that they

were acquired by the ceramic-producing populations, much less actually used in debt-creation

strategies.

The most important reason for doubting that debt-creation played an important role

in Virgin Anasazi exchange is the scale of Virgin Anasazi society. In general, Virgin Anasazi

sites are quite small; most were probably occupied by a nuclear or extended tamily. Most

communities aJmost certainly comprised more than a single site, but it is difficult to know how

large communities actually were. The Main Ridge community may have included around l 00

people (Lyneis 1992:75); the community on Sand Bench that included the Muddy River

Survey sites was probably about the same size or slightly smaller at its peak. There are

ahnost no data relevant to estimating the size of communities in the uplands, but the small and

dispersed sites found during the Mount Trumbull Survey suggest that large communities are

unlikely to be present. Even if the Zip Code site (briefly described in Chapter 3) turns out to

have all been occupied during the middle Pueblo II period, it does not appear that it would

have housed a population much larger than that at Main Ridge.

In such small communities opportunities to pursue debt-creation strategies are likely

to be limited, and even if such strategies were successfully pursued the rewards are also

probably minimal It thus seems unlikely that debt-creation strategies played an important

role in motivating Virgin Anasazi ceramic exchange, although there are insufficient data to

completely rule them out.

211

In retrospect, the goal of understanding the social aspects of Virgin Anasazi ceramic

exchange was worthwhile, but testing the debt-creation model was not the best way to

achieve it. Patterns in the ceramic distributions suggest that social relationships were

important in structuring the exchange, but the social implications of these patterns are not

related to debt-creation strategies. Ethnographic studies demonstrate that debt-creation is

important in many small-scale societies, but the societies where it is documented generally

have larger community sizes and higher population densities than the Virgin Anasazi.

A Model of Virgin Anasazi Interaction

A model that combines aspects ofrisk-bu:ffering and mutualism fits the evidence better

than any of the models alone, though mutualistic motivations probably were the most

important. This model takes into account the ways that exchange transactions are likely to

have been embedded in social relationships and practices, as well as the different motivations

and benefits for people living in the different areas.

From the point of view of people in the Moapa Valley, economic motivations like

those in the mutualistic model are likely to have been the most important. Risk of crop failure

was probably not serious, and people in the uplands are unlikely to have had better access to

socially valued goods than the Moapa Valley populations. However, as mentioned above, the

cost of pottery production was relatively high in the Moapa Valley, so if pottery could be

obtained from outside sources without great expense, it would make good economic sense

to import it.

212

Motivations and benefits for the pottery producers living in the uplands are likely to

have been more complex. Risk of crop failure may have been sufficient motivation for them

to maintain ties with people in other areas, but there may also have been more regular benefits

to exchanging pottery to the Moapa Valley, especially if the exchange occurred in early

summer.

The ceramic distributions in the Muddy River Survey sites suggest that some Moapa

Valley households maintained regular interaction with ceramic producers, and that there was

some continuity in the specific household-to-household relationships between producers and

consumers. The ceramic-producing households who were most involved in production for

exchange may have needed to supplement their income on a regular basis, and engaged in

mutualistic trade with households in the Moapa Valley.

Harvest Festivals as a Context for Trade. Spier (1928) describes Havasupai harvest

festivals, when people from neighboring tribes were invited for a week of dancing and

feasting. He states "the abundant harvest and the attendant dances in the canyon provided

a strong incentive for visiting and trading, especially to the Navaho and Walapai" (p. 246).

Some Hopi also participated in these festivals; they traveled about 175 km to participate while

the Navajo probably came from near the Little Colorado River, about 100 km away. Only

a few Navajo and Hopi participated, however. In 1919, nine Navajo men and five Hopi men

joined the festival, which included dancing, feasting, horse racing, and trading (Spier

1928:263-264).

Given the agricultural potential of the Moapa Valley it is easy to imagine a similar

practice there. Festivals lasting a week or two in late June or July could have provided an

213

important source of food at a critical time for some of the people living on the Shivwits and

Uinkaret Plateaus, and would have allowed them to return home in time to harvest their

crops, which would not produce the first edible green com until early August. Upland people

attending such festivals could have brought pottery, or other upland products (such as deer

skins or tools made from ungulate bones or antlers) to trade.

Labor for Food?. The upland people may also have exchanged labor in the harvest

for food. Harvesting was a cooperative endeavor in many traditional Southwestern societies,

and the labor involved in harvesting the crop and transporting it back to the village may have

limited the runount ofland that could befarmed(Bradfield 1971:22, 39). At Hopi, harvesting

involved cooperation across the whole village. As Beag]ehole (1937:43) describes it:

Formerly, when burros and wagons were few or non-existent, com was brought in from the fields in the wicker carrying basket, in skin bags or b1ankets. By arrangement with the heads ofhouseholds certain days were set aside for the harvesting of different fields . . . Men and women would form a long line stretchfog from the house to the fields, each individual ten or more paces from the next. The baskets would be filled with com and passed on from one worker to the next until they arrived at the field owner's house where they would be received by the women and prepared for storage. Empty baskets passed down the line in the opposite direction. Large amounts of com dough would be piled on the floor of the house and this too would be passed down the line from one to the next that each might eat as he desired.

In addition to the com dough that was eaten while the work was in progress,

participants were rewarded with "the usual working party foast" in the evening after the work

was completed (Beaglehole 1937:43).

Spier (1928: 104) reports that Havasupai com "is gathered by the men and women

who planted it, with the assistance of any one who is willing to help." One of Spier's

214

informants specifically states that, during the 1860s when Navajo refugees were living among

the Havasupa4 "[t]hose who had big fields got the Navajo men and women to gather it for

the~ and gave a little of it in payment."

Why Wasn't Everyone Involved?. The distribution of upland pottery among Moapa

Valley households suggests that some households interacted with upland people more

:frequently or intensively than others. The relative standardization of the Moapa Gray Ware

from the Moapa Valley compared to its variability in the area where it was made further

suggests that some Moapa Gray Ware producers were more involved than others in

producing pottery for consumption in the Moapa Valley. Other households may have

exchanged some of the less easily traced items descnbed in Chapter 9; if so the ceramic data

alone could underestimate the number of households involved in exchange between the

Moapa Valley and the uplands. Another explanation seems more likely, however.

The analysis in Chapter 8 demonstrated variability in rainfall and growing season

between the weather stations at Tuweep and Nixon Springs, both probably within the Moapa

Gray Ware production zone. Because of that variability, it is likely that maize horticulture

was more productive and less risky in some places where Moapa Gray Ware was made than

others. Also, much of the observed variation in Moapa Gray Ware refired colors is probably

related to use of different clays available in different parts of the production zone.

Arnold (1985: 171-196) argues that "pottery making and other crafts are a secondary

choice to agriculture ... resorted to by people with poor quality, insufficient or no land," and

backs up that assertion by reference to numerous ethnographic cases. Given the ethnographic

data cited by Arnold and the probable variability in the distributions of agricultural land and

215

clay resources within the Moapa Gray Ware production area, it seems lil.;:ely that the Moapa

Gray Ware producers who interacted most with people in the Moapa Valley were those who

lived in areas where soils or climate limited agricultural productivity or made farming riskier.

It is more difficult to understand why only some Moapa Valley households received

many Moapa Gray Ware vesseL5. The scarcity of firewood in the Moapa Valley would have

aftected all residents, and all households presumably would have benefitted by acquiring

vessels made in the uplands. The analyses described in Chapters 6 and 7 seem to indicate that

some Moapa Valley households had strong, regular social ties with people in the uplands.

These social ties may have been based on kinship, or they may have involved some form of

trade partnerships. Other households apparently lacked these social connections.

lf much of the ceramic exchange took place in a context similar to the Havasupai

harvest festivals, it is likely that the number of participants from the ceramic-producing areas

was smaller than the number of households in the Moapa Valley. Upland residents could

probably transport several ceramic vessels each, but only enough vessels were brought in to

satisfy about one-third of the total demand for pottery vessels in the middle Pueblo II period.

If those with access only to relatively unproductive or high-risk agricultural land were

primarily responsible for making the exchanged ceramics, the same upland residents probably

traveled annuaHy (or :frequently) to the Moapa Valley. They would likely have stayed with,

and primarily interacted with, those Moapa Valley households with whom they had the closest

social ties. These households would have benefitted :from the exchange by directly acquiring

ceramic vessels and perhaps additional labor for the harvest. Other households that lacked

these strong may occasionally have acquired ceramic vessels from upland residents

216

visiting their neighbors, or they may have received them indirectly through their neighbors.

All Moapa Valley residents would have benefitted indirectly from the importation of pottery,

however, even if they did not acquire any vessels themselves, because the demand for fuel to

fire pottery in the Moapa Valley would be reduced.

Discussion

The Virgin Anasazi case study presented here is one of a growing number of studies

of ceramic production and exchange in the prehistoric Southwest. It is notable because much

of the pottery exchanged was undecorated, utilitarian plain ware, and because this pottery was

traded across distances of 75-100 km. As Plog (1989, 1993, 1995) has pointed out, the

assumption that every household in the prehistoric Southwest made and used its own pottery

was deeply ingrained in Southwestern archaeology until the 1980s. Since then, a number of

studies of ceramic production and exchange have been completed, and have demonstrated

that production for exchange was common in the prehistoric Southwest. Most of these

studies have focused on decorated ceramics, but there have been a few detailed studies of

culinary pottery. Most of these are very recent, however, and many Southwestern

archaeologists are just beginning to take seriously the possibility of significant trade in

utilitarian pottery. A brief examination of several of these studies will help to place Virgin

Anasazi ceramic exchange in a broader context.

Prior to the 1980s, it was common for site reports to identify small numbers of

"intrusive" ceramics, but only two instances of large-scale trade in culinary pottery had been

documented in the Southwest. Anna Shepard was responsible for recognizing both. She

217

demonstrated that about 25 percent of the utility ware pottery from certain time periods at

Pecos Pueblo was tempered with sands from the Pajarito Plateau, more than 3 5 km away, and

that much of the decorated pottery was also imported (Shepard 1936:563-565). She also

identified "sanidine basalt" temper in pottery from Pueblo Bonito, and argued that there had

been large-scale importation of culinary pottery into Chaco Canyon from the Chuska

Mountains, some 60 km or more away (Shepard 1939:281, 1954).

More recent studies have shown that about half the utility pottery discarded in Chaco

Canyon during the late eleventh century has the distinctive temper Shepard called sanidine

basalt, and that pottery with that temper does come :from the Chuska Mountains (e.g., Mills

et al. 1997; Stoltman 1999; Toll 1991). Smaller amounts of decorated pottery also moved

from the Chuska region to Chaco. Ceramic vessels from other areas were brought in too,

although not in the same quantities as Chuska pottery.

Several recent studies from central Arizona also demonstrate significant trade in

culinary pottery. In the Payson region, Simon (1988) argued that, while plain ware ceramic

production pro babiy occurred at most or all sites, potters at Shoofly Village produced a

surplus of plain ware and traded it to other nearby sites.

In the Tonto Basin, production of utilitarian pottery was highly variable and complex

throughout the occupation of the area (Heidke and Stark 1995), but is documented :from

the early Classic period on (Simon and Burton 1998; Stark and Heidke 1995, 1998). Stark

and Heidke (1995, 1998) studied early Classic ceramic production in the Tonto Basin by first

identifying distinct sand-composition zones, or petrofacies, within the Basin, then matching

ceramic tempers to the petrofacies. They found that most villages produced some of the plain

218

ware they used, but obtained half or more of their plain ware from specialists located in the

Ash Petrofacies, near the center of the Tonto Basin (Stark and Heidke 1995: 384-385,

1998:503-507). Some red ware ceramics were also made in most areas, but red ware

production was even more concentrated in the Ash Petrofacies than plain ware production.

About two-thrrds of the red ware from most sites throughout the Tonto Basin came from that

area (Stark and Heidke 1995:385, 1998:508). Plain and red-slipped corrugated ceramics

were almost all produced in the Armer/Cline Petrofacies.

While they were not able to identify with certainty the specific villages that produced

utilitarian pottery for exchange, Stark and Heidke (1998:508) argued that "some Tonto Basin

settlements specialized in utilitarian ceramic production, while others were consumer

settlements." They also documented variation in vessel form that suggested "not only

complementary specialization by ware, but also by vessel shape, form, and size" among early

Classic villages (Stark and Heidke 1998:510).

Complex patterns of ceramic production and distribution continued in Roosevelt and

Gila Phase platform mound communities in the Tonto Basin, although with some variation

from the early Classic patterns (Simon and Burton 1998). Red-slipped corrugated ceramics,

which in the early Classic were almost all produced in a relatively small area, came to be made

more widely throughout the Tonto Basin by the end of the Classic Period. Salado

Polychrome ceramics also began to be made in the Basin during the Classic, and their

production apparently became more concentrated and specialized through time (Simon and

Burton 1998:154).

219

Multi-modal plain ware production has also been documented among Sedentary and

Classic Period Hohokam societies in the Phoenix Basin (Abbott 1996, 2000; Abbott and

Walsh-Anduze 1995; Van Keuren et al. 1997). Sedentary Period plain ware production and

distribution patterns are known from the study of two sites, Las Colinas and La Lomita (Van

Keuren et al. 1997). Potters at the site of Las Colinas, located north of the Salt River near

the end of what has been called Canal System 2, apparently produced a wide variety of plain

ware vessel forms. Phyllite-tempered pottery apparently made at or near Las Colinas made

up about half of the plain ware at bothLa Lomita, located near the headgates of Canal System

2, and at Las Colinas itself. Most of the rest of the plain ware at these two sites (about 30

percent of the total from each site) was made in the South Mountain area, south of the Salt

River. The pottery from the South Mountain area was almost all restricted to a single jar

form.

During the same period, substantial amounts of plain ware pottery were imported to

the site of Pueblo Grande, located at the headgates of Canal System 2 (Abbott 2000:151-

153). Roughly 70 percent of the Sedentary Period plain ware was imported, with locally

made pottery, phyllite-tempered pottery from the west end of the canal, and Squaw Peak

schist-tempered pottery from the central part of the system each accounting for just under 30

percent of the total. About 5 percent of the plain ware came from the South Mountain area.

These data suggest that several distinct modes of plain ware production coexisted in

the Sedentary Period Phoenix Basin: production of a wide variety of vessel forms throughout

Canal System 2 for local consumption, production of a wide variety of vessel forms for both

220

local consumption and exchange at Las Colinas, and production for exchange of a narrow

range of jar forms in the South Mountain area.

In the Classic Period, Pueblo Grande began to import more plain ware from the South

Mountain area, while phyllite-tempered pottery became less common. Locally made plain

ware and plain ware :from the central portion of Canal System 2 continued to occur in roughly

the same proportions as during the Sedentary Period. Other Classic period villages imported

much less of the plain ware they used (Abbott 2000: 145-156). Classic period red ware

production was apparently more specialized, as all the villages in Canal System 2 imported

many of their red ware vessels from the South Mountain area (Abbott 2000:108, 145-150;

Abbott and Walsh-Anduze 1995).

These examples show tha.t the Moapa Valley Anasazi were not unique among

prehistoric Southwestern societies in importing a relatively high proportion of the utilitarian

pottery that they used. These exchange systems all have a number of similarities with Virgin

Anasazi ceramic exchange, although the Virgin Anasazi system is also distinct in several ways.

All of these systems appear to be characterized by multiple modes of production. In

the Moapa Valley, Tusayan Gray Ware continued to be produced for local consumption while

Moapa Gray Ware and Shivwits Plain were imported. It also appears that some Moapa Gray

Ware producers made pottery only for local consumption, while others produced surpluses

for exchange. Similarly, in all the cases just described (except perhaps Chaco Canyon)

utilitarian pottery continued to be made by some people in most areas even though much of

the production was concentrated among specialists in more restricted area.;;;.

221

Every case for which abundant exchange of utilitarian pottery has been documented

has relied on "especially advantageous circumstances" (Van Keuren et al. 1997:159) of

geology to recognize and trace patterns of production and distribution. In each case,

variability in ceramic temper has made it possible to easily and inexpensively recognize

pottery made in different areas. Without this ability it is difficult or impossible to analyze

large enough samples to document patterns of production and exchange. Some of the

advantageous circumstances have only become advantageous through hard work, however,

such as mapping of different sand composition zones in the Phoenix and Tonto Basins, and

learning to recognize sometimes subtle differences among these different sands. Where

geological variability is limited or where detailed studies of potential temper materials have

not been done, exchange in utilitarian pottery may not be recognized.

The Virgin Anasazi case study relies on distinctive ceramic tempers to document the

distributions ofMoapa Gray Ware and Shivwits Plain. The study also shows the usefulness

of refiring large samples of sherds. Where a variety of clay sources or recipes were used, as

they were in the Virgin Anasazi region, refiring is an inexpensive way to examine variability

among ceramics that share the same temper type. This variability provided valuable clues to

the nature of Virgin Anasazi exchange.

I have suggested that some Moapa Gray Ware and Shivwits Plain producers may have

been motivated to trade ceramics with people in the Moapa Valley by lack of access to good

agricultural land. In the Phoenix and Tonto Basins, there is evidence that some ceramic

specialists were concentrated in areas where agricultural production was marginal, and they

may have had similar motivations for specializing in ceramic production. The Sedentary

222

period potters at Las Colinas, for example, were at the far end of the canal system and would

have been the last to get water if there was a shortfall. Ceramic exchange, therefore, "may

have helped secure the cooperation of up-canal water users or, in dry years, involved the

exchange of pottery for foodstuffs ... " (Van Keuren et al. 1997:169). Similarly, the Tonto

Basin ceramic specialists in the Ash Petrofacies were apparently living in a portion of the

Tonto Basin with relatively low agricultural potential. Stark and Heidke (1998:511) suggest

that "ceramic specialization represented an economic alternative ... where previous inhabitants

had laid claim to all available agricultural land."

Despite the similarities, the VirginAnasazi exchange system is different from the other

described cases in several ways. The most obvious of these are social and demographic scale.

Shoofly Village, Pecos, and the settlements in Chaco Canyon, the Tonto Basin, and the

Phoenix Basin were all at least several times larger than the largest Virgin Anasazi site. The

regional populations of these areas also appear to have been considerably larger, and public

architecture and/or community-integrative facilities are common, which suggests a level of

social integration beyond that of the Virgin Anasazi.

The distance across which Moapa Gray Ware was traded is greater than that of the

other systems, although it is about as far from the Chuska Mountains to Chaco as from the

Moapa Valley to the edge of the Shivwits Plateau. The Chuska-Chaco connection is also

similar to the Virgin Anasazi system in that both involve exchange of pottery from forested

uplands to lower-elevation areas that lack abundant fuel for firing pottery (cf. Stoltman

1999:24), and both exchange systems peaked in the late eleventh century. The scale of

exchange is drastically different, however; Toll (1991:96) estimates that about 49,000

223

Chuskan vessels were brought to Chaco betweenA.D. 1050and1100. My estimates suggest

that the total number of upland vessels imported to the Moapa Valley during the same time

period was unlikely to be more than a few thousand.

Conclusion

The case study of Virgin Anasazi ceramic production and exchange is important for

several reasons. It demonstrates the utility of relatively simple, low-technology methods of

ceramic analysis (cf. Burton and Simon 1993, 1996; Kojo 1996; Simon 1988), and the focus

on variability these methods allow when combined with appropriate quantitative techniques.

Because temper and retiring analyses are relatively inexpensive, it was possible to collect data

on large numbers of sherds. This in turn allowed examination of site-to-site variability in the

distribution ofceramic wares as well as of variability within the wares. The large sample sizes

facilitated quantitative analysis of collections from many different sites, which allowed the

models described in Chapter 2 to be (at least partially) evaluated. The quantitative analysis

and focus on variability also revealed patterns suggestive of the social relationships in which

Virgin Anasazi ceramic exchange was embedded.

On a more theoretical level, some aspects of the Virgin Anasazi exchange system are

likely to be found in many societies. Specifically, the Virgin Anasazi had a complex regional

economy, despite living in small-scale communities with no evidence of political

centralization. Studies of small-scale societies in the Southwest and elsewhere are beginning

to show that the production and distribution of ceramics (and, presumably, other less-easily

studied goods) was often complex, even in the absence of pronounced social differentiation

224

or political centralization. Much work remains, however, to document the variety of

productive arrangements found among prehistoric Southwestern societies and among small

scale societies world-wide, and how these complex economic relationships vary as the

societies involved change. The Virgin Anasazi case study provides an example of a regional

economy that involved craft specialization and exchange across distances of 100 km or more,

yet appears to have been maintained primarily through a network of interpersonal ties

between people in different areas. Interaction among these areas appears to have involved

a variety of motivations and consequences, and demonstrates the complexity of most real-life

economic systems.

End Notes

1. Dates from the Pinenut site were analyzed at two different radiocarbon laboratories. Three dates (970 +/- 80 B.P., 870 +/- 60 B.P ., and 860 +/- 90 B.P.) from one laboratory seem reasonable given the late Pueblo II ceramic assemblage. These suggest occupation sometime in the 12th century. Five other dates from the second laboratory (715 +\- 55 B.P., 705 +\- 60 B.P., 685 +/- 60 B.P., 660 +/- 60 B.P., and 590 +/- 85 B.P.) suggest occupation in the 1300s or very late 1200s. There is evidence for some remodeling at the site, but there is no reason, except for the radiocarbon dates, to suspect two such widely separated occupations.

2. Table 3 may overstate the disagreement about the dating of some types. There is probably more agreement about when types were common than about when they first appeared or when they disappeared. The date ranges from Blinman (Schroedl and Blinman 1989) are inferred from calibration periods, so the beginning date is the start of the period in which the type first becomes common (rather than the actual date when it becomes common), and the ending date is the end of the last period in which it is common. The date ranges from Ambler (1985) are "effective" beginning and ending dates, defined as the date when the type reaches 20 percent ofits highest total. Similarly, the date ranges from Christenson (1994) are based on the date when the type is assumed to have reached ten percent of its highest total. This would suggest that Ambler's ranges should be slightly longer than Christenson's, but in fact many of the ranges Christenson suggests are longer than those used by Ambler.

3. I may be misinterpreting Blinman, who is not explicit about the actual date ranges. The estimate of A.D. 1080 is inferred from his Figure 9 (Schroedl and Blinman 1989:62). Wilson and Blinman (1991:42) suggest that Deadmans "persists as late as A.D. 1100" in the Mesa Verde region, an estimate even farther from Ambler's or Christenson's. It is not clear whether Wilson and Blinman would suggest thatDeadmans continued to be imported into the Kayenta (or Virgin) Anasazi region as late as A.D. 1100. The A.D. 1065 date from Ambler may also be a slight misinterpretation, since it too had to be inferred from a graph (Figure 10, Ambler 1985:48).

4. AZ A:15:8 occms twice in the plot. The point in the far lower right shows the results of my analysis of a subsample of the sherds collected from the site by Shutler. The second plot ·shows data from Shutler' s own analysis, under the assumption that the sherds he classified as Southern Paiute Brown Ware were really Shivwits Plain or Corrugated. I suspect that this second plot more accurately reflects the composition of the assemblage from A: 15 :8. Of the 188 sherds that I have examined, 90 were Shivwits Plain, and 89 were Shivwits Corrugated. The others included 2 Boulder Gray, 3 Prescott Gray Ware sherds that I did not identify to type, and 2 unidentified corrugated sherds. Shutler (1961: 10) lists 926 sherds from the site, including 592 "Southern Paiute Brown Ware" sherds, about evenly divided between plain and corrugated. The sample of Shutler's collection that I examined was sent to me by the Nevada State Museum. The sample was apparently not randomly selected, and I did not choose the sample myself so I do not know what criteria were used. It appears, however, that an attempt was made to select equal numbers of plain and corrugated sherds. Even with reanalysis of

226

only a partial, nonrandom sample, the only way to reconcile Shutler' s counts with my observations is to conclude that most, if not all, of his "Southern Paiute Brown Ware" is Shivwits Plain or Shivwits Corrugated. This interpretation is strengthened by the fact that Wells (1991) rerecorded the site (as LAME 90C-24) and identified both Shivwits Plain and Shivwits Corrugated there, but no Late Prehistoric pottery.

5. These figures include a small number of sherds that lack paint but are obviously from unpainted portions of decorated vessels. Other sherds from unpainted portions of decorated vessels may not have been recognized and were classified with the plain ware.

6. In part this is because the sample sizes are larger in the first three periods. That is why differences of 2 or more percentage points in Periods 4 and 6 are not significant but a difference of 1. 7 percentage points in Period 1 is.

7. MRS 39B was included despite having only 49 upland sherds, and MRS 45 was inadvertently left out of the sample.

8. The number of sherds retired is slightly less than the total number from the site in a number of instances. There are several reasons for this. A few sherds were too small to remove large enough nips from, and in the rare cases where sherds could be identified as definitely coming from the same vessel, only one sherd from each vessel was included. Also, a few of the nips that were retired crumbled during the retiring. The latter cause specifically accounts for the fact that two of the random samples from MRS 34 and the random sample of Tusayan Gray Ware from MRS 30 are shown in Table 20 as including fewer than 100 sherds. In each of these cases, nips from 100 sherds were retired, but a few of the retired nips were not usable.

9. This involves generating large numbers of random samples (I used 1500), of the same size as the original sample, by resampling from the original observations with replacement. The coefficient of variation was calculated for each of the random samples, and 67-percent confidence intervals were derived from the 1500 randomly generated coefficients using the percentile method (Efron and Tibishirani 1993: 168-177). These confidence intervals are approximate, and there are better (but more complex) ways of bootstrapping confidence intervals (DiCiccio and Efron 1996; Efron and Tibishirani 1993: 178-199, 321-3 35). Still, the methods used here should be adequate to demonstrate the uncertainty involved in estimating the population coefficients of variations from the small samples of rim sherds that were available.

I 0. These climatic data suffer from several weaknesses. Most obviously, the RAWS stations all have very short records that do not overlap with the records from Tuweep or Mount Trumbull. Less obvious, but more serious, is the problem of missing data. All of the stations have large numbers of missing days, the daily summaries for the RAWS stations are often created from days with missing hourly readings, and stations have occasional readings

227

that are clearly erroneous (e.g., days with> 10 inches precipitation). These problems with the data complicate the process of summarizing the climate records.

For the RAWS stations, days with more than four missing hours were treated as missing days. Days with more than four inches of precipitation recorded were assumed to be errors and were treated as days with zero precipitation. Missing days were treated differently in creating weekly summaries of temperature and precipitation. If only one or two days in a week were missing precipitation data, the missing days were treated as though zero precipitation had been recorded that day. If more than two days in a week were missing precipitation data, then the weekly total was replaced by the median precipitation for that week of the year (calculated for all years for which data for that week was not missing), unless the amount of precipitation recorded on the non-missing days was more than the median amount for that week.

If one or two days in a week were missing temperature data, then the growing degree days for the missing days were estimated to be equal to the mean of the other days in that week. If more than two days in a week were missing temperature data, then the total number of growing degree days for that week was replaced by the median for that week of the year.

Finally, if more than a few days were missing temperature data around the time of the last spring or first fall frost or killing frost, the true date of the event for that year was assumed to be unknown.

11. Blinman (Schroedl and Blinman 1989) used the same sites as Ambler (1985), adding two undated sites reported by Christenson and Bender (1994). Blinman classified the sites into periods rather than assigning them precise dates.

12. A review of the dates from several sites suggests that Christenson includes 'v' dates as cutting dates, but, at AZ D:11:18 at least, he excludes '+rB' and '++rB' dates from the calculation of mean cutting dates.

13. The one possible exception to this is the introduction of Tsegi Orange Ware, which Ambler (1985) suggests could have occurred by A.D. 1000.

14. There is a discrepancy between the gray ware counts given by Powell et al. (1980:341-3 54 ), who report 17, 788 gray ware sherds, and those given by Andrews et al. (1982: 89) who report the gray ware total as 7,788.

References Cited

Abbott, David R. 2000 Ceramics and Community Organization among the Hoholmm. University of

Arizona Press, Tucson.

Abbott, David R., and Mary-Ellen Walsh-Anduze 1995 Temporal Patterns without Temporal Variation: The Paradox ofHohokam Red

Ware Ceramics. In Ceramic Production in the American Southwest, edited by Barbara J. Mills and Patricia L. Crown, pp. 88-114. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Acker, EvanF. 1983 Painted Pots: An Attribute Analysis of Muddy River Decorated Ceramics.

Unpublished M.A. Thesis, University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

Adams, Karen R., Deborah A. Muenchrath, and Dylan M. Schwindt 1999 Moisture Effects on the Morphology of Ears, Cobs and Kernels of a South-western

U.S. Maize (Zea mays L.) Cultivar, and Implications for the Interpretation of Archaeological Maize. Journal of Archaeological Science 26:483-496.

Adler, Michael A., editor 1996 The Prehistoric Pueblo World, A.D. 1150-1350. University of Arizona Press,

Tucson.

Ahlstrom, Richard V.N. 1998 Chronological Interpretation of Tree-Ring-Dated Puebloan Sites on Black Mesa.

In Archaeological Chronometry: Radiocarbon and Tree-Ring Models and Applications from Black Mesa, Arizona, by Francis E. Smilet and Richard V.N. Ahlstrom, pp. 237-265. Occasional Paper No. 16. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

Aikens, C. Melvin 1965 Excavations in Southwest Utah. Anthropological Papers No. 76. University of

Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Alexander, Lawrence 1973 Muddy River Survey. Field notes on file, University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

Allen, Jim 1984 Pots and Poor Princes: A Multidimensional Approach to the Role of Pottery

Trading in Coastal Papua. In The Many Dimensions of Pottery: Ceramics in Archaeology and Anthropology, edited by S.E. van der Leeuw and A.C. Pritchard, pp. 409-473. University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam ..

229

Allison, Jam.es R. 1988a The Archaeology ofYellowstone Mesa, Mohave County, Arizona. Brigham Young

University Museum of Peoples and Cultures Technical Series No. 88-24.

1988b Using Anasazi Redwares to Reconstruct Prehistoric Trade Networks. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Phoenix, Arizona.

1990 Anasazi Subsistence in the Saint George Basin, Southwestern Utah. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.

1992a Craft Specialization and Exchange among the Virgin Anasazi. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

1992b Antelope Cave Ceramics. Manuscript in possession of author.

1996 Comments on the Impacts of Climatic Variability and Population Growth on Virgin Anasazi Cultural Development. American Antiquity 61(2):414-418.

Allison, James R., Arlene Colman, and Quint Colman n.d. Excavations along SR-59 in Washington County, Utah. Research Report No.

U96-16. Baseline Data, Orem, Utah (in preparation).

Ambler,J.Richard 1985 Northern Kayenta Ceramic Chronology. "In Archaeological Investigations near

Rainbow City, Navajo Mountain, Utah, edited by Phil R. Geib, J. Richard Ambler, andMarthaM. Callahan, pp. 28-68. Northern Arizona University Archaeological Report No. 576. Flagstaff, Arizona.

Andrews, Peter P., Robert W. Layhe, Deborah L. Nichols, and Shirley Powell 1982 Excavations on Black Mesa, 1980: A Descriptive Report. Research Paper No.

24. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

Arnold, Dean E. 1985 Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Bagley, Donald G. 1980 Soil Survey of Virgin River Area, Nevada-Arizona. USDA Soil Conservation

Service, Washington, D.C.

230

Bannister, Bryant, Jeffrey S. Dean, and William J. Robinson 1968 Tree-Ring Dates from Arizona C-D: Eastern Grand Canyon-Tsegi

Canyon~KayentaArea. Laboratory offree-Ring Research, University of Arizona, Tucson.

Barnes, D.L., and D.G. Wooley 1969 Effects of Moisture Stress at Different Stages of Growth. Agronomy Journal

61 :788-790.

Beaglehole, Ernest 193 7 Notes on Hopi Economic Life. Yale University Publications in Anthropology No.

15. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.

Beals, Ralph L., George W. Brainerd, and Watson Smith 1945 Archaeological Studies in Northeast Arizona: A Report on the Archaeological

Work of the Rainbow Bridge - Monument Valley Expedition. Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 44 no. 1. University of California, Berkeley.

Best, Myron G. 1970 Kaersutite-Peridotite Inclusions and Kindred Megacryts in Basanitic Lavas, Grand

Canyon, Arizona. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology 27:25-44.

Best, Myron G., and W. H. Brimhall 1974 Late Cenozoic Alkalic Basaltic Magmas in the Western Colorado Plateaus and the

Basin and Range TransitionZone, U.S.A., and their Bearing on Mantle Dynamics. Geological Society of America Bulletin 85:1677-1690.

Billat, Loma Beth, James D. Wilde, and Richard K. Talbot 1992 Archaeological Testing and Excavation of Five WesternAnasazi Sites along State

Route 9, East of Virgin City, Utah. Museum of Peoples and Cultures Technical Series No. 90-20, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.

Bradfield, Maitlin 1971 The Changing Pattern of Hopi Agriculture. Occasional Paper No. 30. Royal

Anthropological Institute, London.

Braun, David P. 1986 Midwestern Hopewellian Exchange and Supralocal Interaction. In Peer Polity

Interaction and Socio-Political Change, edited by Colin Renfrew and John F. Cherry, pp. 117-126. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

231

Braun, David P ., and Stephen Plog 1982 Evolution of "Tribal" Social Networks: Theory and Prehistoric North American

Evidence. American Antiquity 47:504-525.

Breternitz, David A. 1966 An Appraisal of Tree-Ring Dated Pottery in the Southwest. Anthropological

Papers No. 10. University of Arizona, Tucson.

Brooks, George R. 1977 The Southwest Expedition of Jedidiah S. Smith: His Personal Account of the

Journey to California 1826-1827. Arthur H. Clark Company, Glendale, California.

Brooks, Juanita, editor 1972 Journal of the Southern Indian Mission: Diary of Thomas D. Brown. Utah State

University Press, Logan.

Brown, D. Murray 1977 Response of Maize to Environmental Temperatures: A Review. In

Agrometeorology of the Maize (Corn) Crop, pp. 15-26. Proceedings of the Symposium on the Agrometeorology of the Maize (Com) Crop at the Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, July 5-9, 1976. Secretariat of the World Meteorological Organization, Geneva.

Brumfiel, Elizabeth M. 1987 Elite and Utilitarian Crafts in the Aztec State. In Specialization, Exchange, and

Complex Societies, edited by Elizabeth M. Brumfiel and Timothy K. Earle, pp. 102-118. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Brumfiel, Elizabeth M., and Timothy K. Earle 1987 Specialization, Exchange, and Complex Societies, an Introduction. In

Specialization, Exchange, and Complex Societies, edited by ElizabethM. Brumfiel and Timothy K. Earle, pp. 1-9. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Burton, James H., and Arleyn W. Simon 1993 Acid Extraction as a Simple and Inexpensive Method for Compositional

Characterization of Archaeological Ceramics. American Antiquity 58:45-59.

1996 A Pot is Not a Rock: A Reply to Neff, Glascock, Bishop, and Blackman. American Antiquity 61 (2):405-413.

232

Bye, Robert. A., and Rita Shuster 1984 Developing an Integrated Model for Contemporary and Archaeological

Agricultural Subsistence Systems. In Prehistoric Agricultural Strategies in the American Southwest, edited by Suzanne K. Fish and Paul R. Fish pp. 125-145. Anthropological Research Papers No. 33. Arizona State University, Tempe.

Campbell, Robert C. 1850 Journal of Robert C. Campbell. On file, LDS Chmch Archives, Salt Lake City.

Castetter, Edward F., and Willis H. Bell 1942 Pima and Papago Indian Agriculture. University of New Mexico Press,

Albuquerque.

1951 YumanlndianAgriculture: Primitive Subsistence on the Lower Colorado and Gila Rivers. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Christenson, Andrew L. 1994 A Test of Mean Ceramic Dating Using Well-Dated Kayenta Anasazi Sites. Kiva

59(3):297-317.Christenson, Andrew L.

Christenson, Andrew L., and Marilyn J. Bender 1994 A Method for the Chronological Classification ofBlack Mesa Sherd Assemblages.

In Function and Technology of Anasazi Ceramics from Black Mesa, Arizona, edited by Marion F. Smith, Jr., pp. 223-236. Occasional Paper No. 15. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

Clark, John E. 1995 Craft Specialization as an Archaeological Category. Research in Economic

Anthropology 16:267-294.

Clark, John E., and Michael Blake 1994 The Power of Prestige: Competitive Generosity and the Emergence of Rank

Societies in Lowland Mesoamerica. In Factional Competition and Political Development in the New World,editedbyElizabethM.BrumfielandJohn W.Fox, pp. 17-30. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Clark, John and William Parry 1990 Craft Specialization and Cultmal Complexity. Research in Economic Anthropology

12:289-346.

Classen, M.M., and R.H. Shaw 1970 Water Deficit Effects on Com II, Grain Components. Agronomy Journal

62(5):652-655.

233

Cobb, Charles R. 1993 Archaeological Approaches to the Political Economy of Nonstratified Societies.

"Jn Archaeological Method and Theory, Volume 5, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 43-100. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Collins, G.N. 1914 Pueblo "Indian Maize Breeding. The Journal of Heredity 5:255-268.

Colton, Harold S. 1946 The Sinagua. BuUetin No. 22. Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff.

1952 Pottery Types of the Arizona Strip and Adjacent Areas in Utah and Nevada. Museum of Northern Arizona Ceramic Series No. 1. Northern Arizona Society of Science and Art, Flagstaff.

1953 Potsherds. Bulletin 25. Museum ofNorthem Arizona, Flagstaff.

1955 Pottery Types of the Southwest: Wares BA, BB, 9A, 9B, Tusayan Gray and White Ware, Little Colorado Gray and VVhite Ware. Ceramic Series 3A. Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff

1956 Pottery Types of the Southwest: Wares 5A, 5B, 6A, 7A, 7B, 7C, San Juan Red Ware, Tsegi Orange Ware, Homolovi Orange Ware, Awatovi Yellow Ware, Jeddito Yellow Ware, Sichomovi Red Ware. Ceramic Series 3C. Museum of N orthem Arizona, Flagstaff.

CordeU, Linda S., Amy C. Earls, and Martha R. Binford 1984 Subsistence Systems in the Mountainous Settings of the Rio Grande Valley. In

Prehistoric Agricultural Strategies in the Southwest, edited by Suzanne K. Fish andPaulR. Fisb,pp. 233-241. Anthropological Research Papers No. 33. Arizona State University, Tempe.

Costin, Cathy Lynne 1991 Craft Specialization: Issues in Defining, Documenting, and Explaining the

Organization of Production. Archaeological Method and Theory 3: 1-56.

Cowgill, George L. , Jeffrey H. Altschul, and Rebecca S. Sload 1984 Spatial Analysis ofTeotilmacan: AMesoamericanMetropolis. Inlntrasite Spatial

Analysis in Archaeology, edited by Harold J. Hietala, pp. 154-195. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Cox, Nellie t, and Helen B. Russell 1973 Footprints on the Arizona Strip. Horizon Publishers, Bountiful, Utah.

234

Cross, John R. 1993 Craft Specialization in Nonstratified Societies. Research in Economic

Anthropology 14:61-84.

Crown, Patricia L. 1995 The Production of Salado Polychromes in the American Southwest. In Ceramic

Production in the American Southwest, edited by Barbara J. Mills and Patricia L. Crown, pp. 142-166. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Dalley, Gardiner F. and Douglas A. McFadden 1985 The Archaeology of the Red Cliffs Site. Cultural Resource Series, No. 17. Utah

State Office, Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake City.

1988 The Little Man Archaeological Sites: Excavations on the Virgin River near Hurricane, Utah. Cultural Resource Series, No. 23. Utah State Office, Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake City.

D'Altroy, Terence N. and Timothy K. Earle 1985 Staple Finance, Wealth Finance, and Storage in the Inka Political Economy.

Current Anthropology 26: 187-206.

Day,KentC. 1966 Excavations at Gunlock Flats, Southwestern Utah. In Miscellaneous Collected

Papers 11-14, edited by Jesse D. Jennings, pp. 1-48. Anthropological Papers No. 83. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Dean, J e:ffrey S. 1988 Dendrochronology and Paleoenvironmental Reconstruction on the Colorado

Plateaus. In The Anasazi in a Changing Environment, edited by George J. Gumerman, pp. 119-167. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Dean, Jeffrey S., Robert C. Euler, George J. Gumerman, Fred Plog, Richard H. Hevly, and Thor N .V. Karlstrom

1985 Human Behavior, Demography, and Paleoenvironment on the Colorado Plateaus. American Antiquity 50(3):537-554.

Denmead, O.T., and R.H. Shaw 1960 The Effects of Soil Moisture Stress at Different Stages of Growth on the

Development and Yield of Com. Agronomy Journal 52(5):272-274.

DiCiccio, Thomas J., and Bradley Efron 1996 Bootstrap Confidence Intervals. Statistical Science 11(3):189-228.

235

Downum, Christian E. 1988 "One Grand History": A Critical Review of Flagstaff Archaeology. Unpublished

PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson.

Dutton, Tom 1982 The Hiri in History. Pacific Research Monograph No. 8, Australian National

University, Canberra.

Efron, Bradley, and Robert J. Tibshirani 1993 An Introduction to the Bootstrap. Monographs on Statistics and Probability 57.

Chapman and Hall, New York.

Euler, Robert C. 1966 Southern Paiute Ethnohistory. Anthropological Papers No. 78. University of

Utah, Salt Lake City.

Evans, Robert K. 1978 Early Craft Specialization: An Example from the Balkan Chalcolithic. In Social

Archaeology: Beyond Subsistence and Dating, edited by Charles L. Redman et al., pp. 113-129. Academic Press, New York.

Fairley, Helen C. l 989a Culture History. In Man, Models, and Management: An Overview of the

Archaeology of the Arizona Strip and the Management of its Resources, by Jeffrey H. Altschul and Helen C. Fairley, pp. 85-152. Report submitted to the USDA Forest Service and the USDI Bureau ofLandManagement by Statistical Research, Plateau Archaeology, and Dames and Moore.

1989b History. In Man, Models, and Management: An Overview of the Archaeology of the Arizona Strip and the Management of its Resources, by Jeffrey H. Altschul and Helen C. Fairley, pp. 153-218. Report submitted to the USDA Forest Service and the USDI Bureau of Land Management by Statistical Research, Plateau Archaeology, and Dames and Moore.

Fairley, Helen C. 1989 Data Gaps and Research Issues in Arizona Strip Prehistory. In Man, Models, and

Management: An Overview of the Archaeology of the Arizona Strip and the Management of its Resources, by Jeffrey H. Altschul and Helen C. Fairley, pp. 219-243. Report submitted to the USDA Forest Service and the USDI Bureau of Land Management by Statistical Research, Plateau Archaeology, and Dames and Moore.

236

Feil, D.K. 1984 Ways of Exchange: The Enga Tee of Papua New Guinea. University of

Queensland Press, St Lucia.

1985 Configurations of Intensity in the New Guinea Highlands. Mankind 87-100.

1987 The Evolution of Highland Papua New Guinea Societies. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Foote, Warren 1984 Autobiography of Warren Foote. Typescript compiled by Garth H. Killpack. On

file, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.

Ford, Richard I. 1972 Barter, Gift, or Violence: An Analysis of Tewa Intertribal Exchange. In Social

Exchange and Interaction, edited by Edwin N. Wilmsen, pp. 21-45. Museum of Anthropology Anthropological Paper 46. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Forde, C. Daryll 1931 Hopi Agriculture and Land Ownership. Journal of the Royal Anthropological

Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 61 :357-405.

Fowler, Catherine S. 1982 Settlement Patterns and Subsistence Systems in the Great Basin: The Ethnographic

Record. In Man and Environment in the Great Basin, edited by David B. Madsen andJamesF. O'Connen, pp. 121-138. SAA Papers No. 2. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D.C.

1995 Some Notes on Ethnographic Subsistence Systems in Mojavean Environments in the Great Basin. Journal ofEthnobiology 15(1):99-117.

Fowler, Catherine S., and Don D. Fowler 1971 Notes on the History of the Southern Paiutes and Western Shoshones. Utah

Historical Quarterly 39(2):95-113.

Fuller, J. J. 1865 St Joseph, Arizona. Deseret News 14:411.

Gosden, Chris 1989a Debt, Production, and Prehjstory. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 8:355-

387.

237

l 989b Prehistoric Social Landscapes of the Arawe Islands, West New Britain Province, Papua New Guinea. Archaeology in Oceania 24(2):45-58.

Grant, R.F., B.S. Jackson, J.R. Kiniry, and G.F. Arkin 1989 Water Deficit Timing Effects on Yield Components in Maize. Agronomy Journal

81:61-65.

Graves, Michael W. 1991 Pottery Production and Distribution Among the K.alinga: A Study of Household

and Regional Organization and Differentiation. In Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology, edited by William A. Longacre, pp. 112-143. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Grissino-Mayer, Henri D. 1996 A 2129-Year Reconstruction of Precipitation for Northwestern New Mexico,

USA. In Tree Rings, Environment and Humanity, edited by J.S. Dean, D.M. Meko, and T.W. Swetnam, pp. 191-204. Radiocarbon, Department of Geosciences, University of Arizona, Tuson.

Groves, Murray 1960 Motu Pottery. Journal of the Polynesian Society 69:3-22.

Gumerman, George J. 1970 Black Mesa: Survey and Excavation in Northeastern Arizona, 1968. Prescott

College Studies in Anthropology No. 2, Prescott, Arizona

Gumerman, George J., Deborah Westfall, and Carol S. Weed 1972 ArchaeologicallnvestigationsonBlackMesa: The 1969-1970Seasons. Prescott

College Studies in Anthropology No. 4, Prescott, Arizona.

Hack, John T. 1942 The Changing Physical Environment of the Hopi Indians of Arizona. Papers of

the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Vol 35(1 ). Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Hafen, LeRoy R., and Ann W. Hafen 1954 Journals of the Forty-Niners, Salt Lake to Los Angeles. Arthur H. Clark

Company, Glendale, California.

Hagstrum, Melissa B. 1985 Measuring Prehistoric Ceramic Craft Specialization: A Test Case in the American

Southwest. Journal of Field Archaeology 12(1):65-75.

2~8

Hamblin, Jacob 1857 Journal, 1854-1857. Typescript on file, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young

University, Provo, Utah.

Hamblin, W. K. 1974 Late Cenozoic Volcanism in the Western Grand Canyon. In Geology of the Grand

Canyon, edited by William J. Breed and Evelyn C. Roat, pp. 142-169. Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff.

Harding, Thomas G. 1967 Voyagers of the Vitiaz Strait. University of Washington Press, Seattle.

Harrington, Mark R. 1927 A Primitive Pueblo City in Nevada. American Anthropologist 29:262-277.

1930 Introduction. In Archaeological Explorations in Southern Nevada, pp. 4-25. Southwest Museum Papers No. 4, Los Angeles.

l 937a Some Early Pit-dwellings in Nevada. Masterkey 11: 122-144.

l 937b Ancient Nevada Pueblo Cotton. Masterkey 11 :5-7

1942 Black Dog Cave. Masterkey 16:173-174.

Hayden, Irwin 1930 Mesa House. In Archaeological Explorations in Southern Nevada, pp. 27-92.

Southwest Museum Papers No. 4, Los Angeles.

Hegmon, Michelle, James R. Allison, Hector Neff, and Michael Glascock 1997 Production of San Juan Red Ware in the Northern Southwest: Insights into

Regional Interaction in Early Puebloan Prehistory. American Antiquity 62(3):449-463.

Hegmon, Michelle, Winston Hurst, and James R. Allison 1995 Production for Local Consumption and Exchange: Comparisons of Early Red and

White Ware Ceramics in the San Juan Region. In Ceramic Production in the American Southwest, edited by Barbara J. Mills and Patricia L. Crown, pp. 30-62. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

239

Heidke, James M., and Miriam T. Stark 1995 Ceramic Chronology, Technology, and Economics in the Rossevelt Community

Development Study Area. In The Roosevelt Community Development Study, Volume 2: Ceramic Chronology, Technology, and Economics, edited by James M. Heidke and Miriam T. Stark, pp. 395-407. Anthropological Papers No. 14. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson, Arizona.

Helton, Clint 1998 Analysis of Worked Bone and Shell Artifacts. In Excavation/Mitigation Report,

Three Sites near Hildale, Utah: 42Ws 2195, 42Ws 2196, AZ B:1:35 (BL.A1) (Reservoir Site), compiled by Asa S. Nielson. Research Report No. U98-8. Baseline Data, Orem, Utah.

Hill, J. Brett I 998a Agricultural Production and Specialization among the Eastern Anasazi during the

Pueblo N Period. In Migration and Reorganization: The Pueblo IV Period in the American Southwest, edited by Katherine A. Spielmann, pp. 209-232. Anthropological Research Papers No. 51. Arizona State University, Tempe.

1998b Ecological Variability and Agricultural Specialization among the Protohistoric Pueblos of Central New Mexico. Journal of Field Archaeology 25:275-294.

Hogbin, I.H. 1935 Trading Expeditions in Northern New Guinea. Oceania 5:375-407.

Huckell, Lisa W. 1993 Plant Remains from the Pinalefio Cotton Cache, Arizona. Kiva 59(2):147-203.

Hughes, Richard E., and James A. Bennyhoff 1986 Early Trade. In Great Basin, edited by W. L D'Azevado, pp.238-255. Handbook

ofNorth American Indians, Volume 11. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D .C.

Janetski, Joel C., and James D. Wilde 1989 A Preliminary Report of Archaeological Excavations at Antelope Cave and Rock

Canyon She1ter, Northwestern Arizona. Utah Archaeology 2(1):88-106.

Jenkins, Dennis L. 1981 CJitr s Edge: A Pueblo I Site on the Lower Virgin River. Unpublished M.A. thesis,

University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

Johnson, Allen W., and Timothy Earle 1987 The Evolution of Human Societies: From Foraging Group to Agrarian State.

Stanford University Press, Stanford, California"

240

Jones, Volney H. 1955 Plant Materials from a Cave in Zion National Park (ZNP-21). In Archeology of

Zion Park, by AlbertH. Schroeder, pp. 183-203. Anthropological Papers No. 22. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Kelly, Isabel T. 1964 Southern Paiute Ethnography. Anthropological Papers No. 69. University of

Utah, Salt Lake City.

Kelly, Isabel T., and Catherine S. Fowler 1986 Southern Paiute. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 11, Great

Basin, edited by Warren L. d' Azevado, pp. 368-397. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Kintigh, Keith W. l 984a Measuring Archaeological Diversity by Comparison with SimuJated Assemblages.

American Antiquity 49(1):44-54.

l 984b Late Prehistoric Agricultural Strategies and Settlement in the Zuni Area. In Prehistoric Agricultural Strategies in the Southwest, edited by Suzanne K. Fish and Paul R. Fish, pp. 215-232. Anthropological Research Papers No. 33. Arizona State University, Tempe.

1985 Settlement, Subsistence, and Society in Late Zuni Prehistory. Anthropological Papers No. 44. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

1989 Sample Size, Significance, and Measures of Diversity. In Quantifying Diversity in Archaeology, edited by Robert D. Leonard and George T. Jones, pp. 25-36. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Kojo, Y asushi 1996 Production of Prehistoric Southwestern Ceramics: A Low Technology Approach.


Kvamme, Kenneth L., I\.1iriam T. Stark, and William A. Longacre 1996 Alternative Procedures for Assessing Standardization in Ceramic Assemblages.


Larson, Andrew K. 1961 I Was Called to Dixie: The Virgin River Basin, Unique Experiences in ~Mormon

Pioneering. Deseret News Press, Salt Lake City.

241

Larson, Daniel 0. 1987 An Economic Analysis of the Differential Effects of Population Growth and

Climatic Variability Among Hunters and Gatherers and Food Producers. Unpublished PhD. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara.

1996 Population Growth, Agricultural Intensification, and Culture Change among the Virgin Branch Anasazi, Nevada. Journal of Field Archaeology 23 :55-76.

Larson, Daniel 0. and Joel Michaelsen 1990 Impacts of Climatic Variability and Population Growth on Virgin Branch Anasazi

Cultural Developments. American Antiquity 55(2):227-249.

Larson, Daniel 0., Hector Neff, Donald A. Graybill, Joel Michaelsen, and Elizabeth Ambos 1996 Risk, Climatic Variability, and the Study of Southwestern Prehistory: An

Evolutionary Perspective. American Antiquity 61(2):217-241.

Lauer, P.K. 1970 Amphlett Islands Pottery Trade and the Kula. Mankind7:165-I 76.

Lederman, Rena 1986 What Gifts Engender: Social Relations and Politics in Mendi, Highland Papua

New Guinea. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

1990 Big Men, Large and Small? Towards a Comparative Perspective. Ethnology 29(1):3-15.

Lee, JohnD. 1852 Letter. Deseret News 2:11(April3, 1852).

Leonard, N. Nelson ill, and Christopher E. Drover 1980 Prehistoric Turquoise Mining in the Halloran Springs District, San Bernardino

County, California. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 2(2):245-256.

Lewis, Brandon S. 1996 The Role of Attached and Independent Specialization in the Development of

Political Complexity. Research in Economic Anthropology 17:357-388.

Lightfoot, Kent G., and Gary M. Feinman 1982 Social Differentiation and Leadership Development in Early Pithouse Villages in

the Mogollon Region of the American Southwest. American Antiquity 47(1 ):64-86.

242

Lightfoot, Rick-y R. 1994 The Duckjoot Site, Volume 2: Archaeology of the House and Household.

Occasional Paper No. 4. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado.

Lightfoot, Ricky R., and Mary C. Etzkorn 1993 The Duckfoot Site, Volume 1: Descriptive Archaeology. Occasional Paper No. 3.

Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado.

Lilley, fan 1985 Chiefs Without Chiefdoms? Comments on Prehistoric Sociopolitical Organization

in Western Melanesia. Archaeology of Oceania 20:60-65.

Longacre, William A., Kenneth L. Kvamme, and Masashi Kobayashi 1988 Southwestern Pottery Standardization: An Ethnoarchaeological View. Kiva

53(2):101-111.

Loosle, Byron 1992 Miscellaneous Artifacts. In Archaeologi.cal Testing and Excavation of Five

Western Anasazi Sites along State Route 9, East of Virgin City, Utah, by Loma Beth Billat, James D. Wilde, and Richard K. Talbot (Appendix L). Museum of Peoples and Cultures Technical Series No. 90-20, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.

Lyneis, Margaret M. 1982 Prehistory of the Southern Great Basin. In Man and Environment in the Great

Basin, edited by David B. Madsen and James F. O'Connell, pp. 172-185. SAA Papers No. 2, Washington.

1986 A Spatial Analysis of Anasazi Architecture A.D. 950-1150, Moapa Valley, Nevada. Kiva 52:53-74.

1988 Ceramic Production and Exchange among the Virgin Anasazi. Paper presented at the 53rd annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Phoenix, Arizona.

1992 The Main Ridge Community at Lost City: Virgin Anasazi Architecture, Ceramics, and Burials. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. 117, Salt Lake City.

1995 The Virgin Ana'iazi, Far Western Puebloans. Journal of World Prehistory 9(2): 199-241.

243

1996 Pueblo II-Pueblo ill Change in Southwestern Utah, the Arizona Strip, and Souu"iem Nevada. In The Prehistoric Pueblo World, A.D. 1150-1350, edited by Michael A. Adler, pp. 11-28. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Lyneis, Margaret M., Mary K. Rusco, and Keith Myhrer ] 989 Investigations at Adam 2 (26Ck 2059): A Mesa House Phase Site in the Moapa

Valley, Nevada. Nevada State Museum Anthropological Papers Number 22, Carson City, Nevada.

McCarty, Richard L. 1981 Sandy Town, A Mormon Confrontation with the Mohave Desert. Unpublished

M.A. thesis, University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

Meggitt, M.J. 1965 The Lineage System of the Mae-Enga of New Guinea. Barnes and Noble, New

York.

Menzies, M.A., R. J. Arculus, M. G. Best, S.C. Bergman, S.N. Ehrenberg, A. J. Irving, M. F. Roden, and D. J. Schulze

1987 A Record of Subduction Process and Within-Plate Volcanism in Lithospheric Xenoliths of the Southwestern USA. InMantleXenoliths, edited byP. H. Nixon, pp. 59-74. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

Metcalf, Duncan 1981 The Cockscomb Project. Reports of Investigations 80-2, University of Utah

Archaeological Center, Salt Lake City.

Mills, Barbara J. 1995 The Organization of Protohistoric Zuni Ceramic Production. In Ceramic

Production in the American Southwest, edited by Barbara J. Mills and Patricia L. Crown, pp. 200-230. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Mills, Barbara J., Andrea J. Carpenter, and William Grimm 1997 Sourcing Chuska Ceramic Production: PetTographic and Experimental Analysis.

Kiva 62(3):261-282.

Mills, Barbara J., and Patricia L. Crown, editors 1995 Ceramic Production in the American Soutlnvest. University of Arizona Press,

Tucson.

244

Mills, Barbara J., Christine E. Goetze, and Maria Nieves Zedefio 1993 Interpretation of Ceramic Artifacts. Across the Colorado Plateau,

Anthropological Studies for the Transwestem Pipeline, vol. 16. University of New Mexico Office of Contract Archaeology, Albuquerque.

Milo, Richard G. 1994 Com Production on Chapin Mesa: Growing Season Variability, Field Rotation, and

Settlement Shifts. In Proceedings of the Anasazi Symposium 1991, compiled by Art Hutchinson and Jack E. Smith, pp. 35-46. Mesa Verde Museum Association, Mesa Verde, Colorado.

Mobley-Tanaka, Jeannette L., and Frank W. Eddy 1995 Check Dams at Chimney Rock Mesa: Agricultural Strategies in a Marginal

Environment. Kiva 60(3):429-442.

Moffitt, Kathleen, and Claudia Chang 1978 lne Mount Tnunbull Archaeological Survey. WesternAnasazi Reports 1: 185-250.

Museum of Southern Utah, Southern Utah State College, Cedar City.

Munsell Color 1994 Munsell Soil Color Charts. l\.1acbeth Division of Kollmorgen Instruments, New

Windsor, New York.

Muenchrath, Deborah A. 1995 Productivity, Morphology, Phenology, and Physiology of a Desert-Adapted Native

American Maize (Zea mays L.) Cultivar. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Agronomy, Iowa State University, Ames.

Muenchratb, Deborah A., and Ricardo J. Salvador 1995 Maize Productivity and Agroecology: Effects of Environment and Agricultural

Practices on the Biology of Maize. In Soil, Water, Biology, and Belief in Prehistoric and Traditional Southwestern Agriculture, edited by H. Wolcott Toll, pp. 303-333. Spccia] Publication 2. New Mexico Archaeological Council, Albuquerque.

Myhrer, Keith E. 1986 Evidence for an Increasing Dependence on Agriculture During Virgin Anasazi

Occupation in the Moapa Valley. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

245

I'vfyhrer, Keith E., and Margaret M. Lyneis 1985 The Bovine Bluff Site: An Early Puebloan Site in the Upper Moapa Valley.

Contributions to the Study of Cultural Resources Technical Report 15. Bureau of Land Management, Nevada.

Neild, Ralph E., and Mark W. Seeley 1977 Applications of Growing Degree Days in Field Com Production. In

Agrometeorology of the Maize (Corn) Crop, pp. 426-436. Proceedings of the Symposium on the Agrometeorology of the Maize (Com) Crop at the Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, July 5-9, 1976. Secretariat of the World Meteorological Organization, Geneva.

Nelson, Ben A., Timothy A. Kohler, and Keith W. Kintigh 1994 Demographic Alternatives: Consequences for Current Models of Southwestern

Prehistory. In Understanding Complexity in the Prehistoric Southwest, edited by George Gumerman and Murray Gell-Mann, pp. 113-146. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Masachusetts.

Olson, Kathryne 1979 An Attribute Analysis of Muddy River Ceramics. Western Anasazi Reports

2( 4):303-364. Musemn of Southern Utah, Southern Utah State College, Cedar City.

Palmer, Edward 1876 Explorations of a Mound in UtalL American Naturalist l 0:410-414.

Peacock, D.P.S. 1982 Pottery in the Roman World: An Ethnoarchaeological Approach. Longman,

London~

Pendergast, David M. 1960 The Frei Site, Santa Clara, Utah. In Miscellaneous Collected Papers, by James H.

Gunnerson, David M. Pendergast, and Keith M. Anderson, pp. 127-163. Anthropological Papers No. 60. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Peregrine, Peter 1991 Some Political Aspects of Craft Specialization. -YVorld Archaeology 23(1): 1-11.

Petersen, Kem1eth Lee, and Vickie L. Clay 1987 Characteristics and Archaeological Implications of Cold Air Drainage in the

Dolores Project Area. In Dolores Archaeological Program: Supporting Studies: Settlement and Environment, compiled by Kenneth Lee Petersen and Janet D. Orcutt, pp. 186-214. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado.

246

Plog, Fred, George J. Gumerman, Robert C. Euler, Jeffrey S. Dean, Richard H. Hevly, and Thor N.V. Karlstrom

1988 Anasazi Adaptive Strategies: The Model, Predictions, and Results. In The Anasazi in a Changing Environment, edited by Gearge J. Gumerman, pp. 230-276. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Powell, Shirley, Robert W. Layhe, and Anthony L. Klesert 1980 Excavation on Black Mesa, 1979: A Descriptive Report. Research Report No.

18. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

Rafferty, Kevin 1989 VirginAnasazi Sociopolitical Organization, A.D. 1to1150. In The Sociopolitical

Structure of Prehistoric Southwestern Societies, edited by Steadman Upham, Kent G. Lightfoot, and Roberta A. Jewett, pp. 557-580. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.

Rice, Prudence 1981 Evolution of Specialized Pottery Production: A Trial Model. Current

Anthropology 22(3):219-240

1987 Pottery Analysis: A Source Book. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

1989 Ceramic Diversity, Production, and Use. In QuantiJYing Diversity in Archaeology, edited by Robert D. Leonard and George T. Jones, pp. 109-117. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Ritchie, Steven W., John J. Hanway, and Garren 0. Benson 1992 How a Corn Plant Develops. Special Report No. 48. Iowa State University

Cooperative Extension Service, Ames, Iowa.

Rose, Martin R. 1989 Present and Past Environmental Conditions. In Man, Models, and Management:

An Overview of the Archaeology of the Arizona Strip and the Management of its Resources, by Jeffrey H. Altschul and Helen C. Fairley, pp. 7-52. Report submitted to the USDA Forest Service and the USDI Bureau of Land Management by Statistical Research, Plateau Archaeology, and Dames and Moore.

Sablins, Marshall 1963 Poor Man, Rich Man, Big-man, Chief: Political Types in Melanesia and Polynesia.

Comparative Studies in Society and History 5:285-303.

1972 Stone Age Economics. Aldine, Chicago.

247

Schellbach, Louis 1930 An Unusual Burial in Mesa House Ruin. In Archaeological Explorations in

Southern Nevada: Report of the First Sessions Expedition, 1929, pp. 93-105. Southwest Museum Papers No. 4. Southwest Museum, Los Angeles.

Schortman, Edward M., and Patricia A. Urban 1992 The Political Value of Imports. In Resources, Power, and Interregional

Interaction, edited by Edward M. Schortman and Patricia A. Urban, pp. 153-156. Plenum Press, New York.

Schroeder, Albert H. 1955 Archaeology of Zion Park. Anthropological Papers No. 22. University of Utah

Press, Salt Lake City.

Schroedl, Alan R., and Eric Blinman 1989 Dating and Site Chronologies. In Kayenta Anasazi Archeology and Navajo

Ethnohistory on the Northwestern Shonto Plateau: the N-16 Project, edited and compiled by Alan R. Schroedl, pp. 53-87. P-ill Associates, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Schwartz, Douglas W. 1983 Havasupai. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 10, Southwest,

edited by Alfonso Ortiz, pp. 13-24. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Shaw, R.H. 1977 Water Use and Requirements of Maize: A Review. InAgrometeorology of the

Maize (Corn) Crop, pp. 119-134. Proceedings of the Symposium on the Agrometeorology of the Maize (Com) Crop at the Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, July 5-9, 1976. Secretariat of the World Meteorological Organization, Geneva.

1988 Climate Requirement. In Corn and Corn Improvement (3rd edition), edited by G.F. Sprague and J.W. Dudley, pp. 609-638. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin.

Shepard, Anna 0. 1939 Technology of La Plata Pottery. In Archaeological Studies in the La Plata

District, Southwestern Colorado and Northwestern New Mexico, by Earl H. Morris, pp. 249-288. Carnegie Institution, Washington, D.C.

1942 Rio Grande Glaze Paint Ware: A Study Illustrating the Place of Ceramic Technological Analysis in Archaeological Research. Contributions to American Anthropology and History, volume7,no. 39. Carnegie Institute, WashingtonD.C.

248

1954 Letter excerpt. In The Material Culture of Pueblo Bonito, by Neil M. Judd, pp. 236-238. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

1956 Ceramics for the Archaeologist. Publication 609, Carnegie Institution, Washington, D.C.

Shuster, Rita, and Robert A. Bye, Jr. 1984 Preliminary Results from the Dolores Archaeological Program Gardens. In

Dolores Archaeological Program: Synthetic Report 1978-1981, pp. 94-99. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado.

Shutler, Richard, Jr. 1961 Lost City: Pueblo Grande de Nevada. Nevada State Museum Anthropological

Papers Number 5, Carson City, Nevada.

Simon, Arleyn W. 1988 Integrated Ceramic Analysis: An Investigation ofintersite Relationships in Central

Arizona. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe.

Simon, Arleyn W., and James H. Burton 1998 Ceramic Production and Exchange in the Tonto Basin: The Chemical

Characterization Evidence. In Salado Ceramics and Social Organization: Prehistoric Interactions in Tonto Basin, edited by Arleyn W. Simon, pp. 129-155. Roosevelt Monograph Series 11, Anthropological Field Studies 40. Office of Cultural Resource Management, Arizona State University, Tempe.

Smith, J.C.L., and John Steele 1852 Letter from Parowan. Deseret News 2:20 (August 7, 1852).

Snow, David H. 1991 Upland Maize Agriculture in the Eastern Rio Grande and Its Peripheries. In

Farmers, Hunters, and Colonists: Interaction Between the Southwest and the Southern Plains, edited by Katherine A. Spielmann, pp. 71-88. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Spielmann, Katherine A. 1982 Inter-Societal Food Acquisition among Egalitarian Societies: An Ecological Study

of Plains/Pueblo Interaction in the American Southwest. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

1986 Interdependence among Egalitarian Societies. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 5:279-312.

249

1991a Farmers, Hunters, and Colonists: Interaction Between the Southwest and the Southern Plains. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

1991 b Interdependence in the Prehistoric Southwest: An Ecological Analysis of PlainsPueblo Interaction. Garland, New York.

1991c The Evolution of Craft Specialization in Tribal Societies: A Proposal for Research at Quarai Pueblo, New Mexico. Unpublished research proposal.

Spier, Leslie 1928 Havasupai Ethnography. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of

Natural History Vol. 29, Part 3. American Museum of Natural History, New York.

1978 Yuman Tribes of the Gila River. Dover Publications, New York.

Stark, Barbara L. 1992 Ceramic Production in Prehistoric La Mixtequilla, South-Central Veracruz,

Mexico. In Ceramic Production and Distribution: An Integrated Approach, edited by George J. Bey III and Christopher A. Pool, pp. 175-204. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.

1995 Problems in Analysis of Standardization and Specialization in Pottery. In Ceramic Production in the American Southwest, edited by Barbara J. Mills and Patricia L. Crown, pp. 231-267. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Stark, Miriam T. 1991 Ceramic Production and Community Specialization: A Kalinga

Ethnoarchaeological Study. World Archaeology 23(1):64-78.

Stark, Miriam T., and James M. Heidke 1995 Early Classic Period Variability in Utilitarian Ceramic Production and Distribution.

In The Roosevelt Community Development Study, Volume 2: Ceramic Chronology, Technology, and Economics, edited by James M. Heidke and Miriam T. Stark, pp. 363-393. Anthropological Papers No. 14. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson, Arizona.

1998 Ceramic Manufacture, Productive Specialization, and the Early Classic Period in Arizona's Tonto Basin. Journal of Anthropological Research 54:497-517.

Strathem, A.J. 1971 The Rope of Moka: Big-Men and Ceremonial Exchange in Mount Hagen, New

Guinea. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

250

1982 Inequality in New Guinea Highlands Societies. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Steward, Julian H. 1938 Basin-Plateau Aboriginal Sociopolitical Groups. Bureau of American Ethnology

Bulletin 120. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Stewart, Kenneth M. 1983 Mohave. fu.Handbooko/NorthAmericanlndians, Volume JO, Southwest, edited

by Alfonso Ortiz, pp. 55-70. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Stoltman, James B. 1999 The Chaco-Chuska Connection: fu. Defense of Anna Shepard. fu. Pottery and

People: A Dynamic Interaction, edited by James M. Skibo and Gary M. Feinman, pp. 9-24. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Sullivan, Alan P., III 1986 Prehistory of the Upper Basin, Coconino County, Arizona. Archaeological Series

No. 167. Arizona State Museum, Tucson.

Thompson, Richard A. 1970 Prehistoric Settlement in the Grand Canyon National Monument. Southern Utah

State College Faculty Research Series No. 1. Cedar City, Utah.

1988 The Ceramics of the Little Man Sites. In The Little Man Archaeological Sites: Excavations on the Virgin River near Hurricane, Utah, by Gardiner F. Dalley and Douglas A. McFadden, pp. 226-241. Cultural Resource Series, No. 23. Utah State Office, Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake City.

Thompson, Richard A., and Georgia Beth Thompson 1974 A Preliminary Report of Excavations in the Grand Canyon National Monument.

Sites: GC 670, GC 761, and GC 663. Unpublished manuscript on file, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona.

1978 The Little Jug Site. Unpublished manuscript on file, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona.

Titiev, Mischa 1938 Dates of Planting at Oraibi. Museum of Northern Arizona Museum Notes 11(5).

1944 Old Oraibi: A Study of the Hopi Indians o/Third Mesa. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Vol 22(1 ). Cambridge, Massachusetts.

251

Toll, H. Wolcott 1991 Material Distributions and Exchange in the Chaco System. In Chaco and

Hohokam: Prehistoric Regional Systems in the American Southwest, edited by PatriciaL. Crown and W. James Judge, pp. 77-107. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Treidl, RA. 1977 Zonation for Maize (Com) Growing in Canada. InAgrometeorology of the Maize

(Com) Crop, pp. 27-39. Proceedings of the Symposium on the Agrometeorology of the Maize (Com) Crop at the Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, July 5-9, 1976. Secretariat of the World Meteorological Organization, Geneva.

Tschopik, Harry 1950 An Andean Ceramic Tradition in Historical Perspective. American Antiquity

15:196-218.

Upham, Steachnan 1982 Polities and Power. Academic Press, New York.

van der Leeuw, Sander E. 1984 Dust to Dust: A Transformational View of the Ceramic Cycle. In The Many

Dimensions of Pottery: Ceramics in Archaeology and Anthropology, edited by S. E. van der Leeuw and A C. Pritchard, pp. 707-773. Albert Egges van Giffen Institut, Universiteit van Amsterdam.

Van Keuren, Scott, Susan L. Stinson, and David R. Abbott 1997 Specialized Production ofHohokam Plain Ware Ceramics in the Lower Salt River

Valley. Kiva 63(2):155-175.

Van West, Carla R. 1994a Modeling Prehistoric Agricultural Productivity in Southwest em Colorado: A GIS

Approach. Reports of Investigations 67. Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman, and Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado.

l 994b Reconstructing Prehistoric Climatic Variability and Agricultural Production in Southwestern Colorado, A.D. 901-1300: A GIS Approach. InProceedings of the Anasazi Symposium 1991, compiled by Art Hutchinson and Jack E. Smi~ pp. 25-33. Mesa Verde Museum Association, Mesa Verde, Colorado.

Varien, Mark D., and Barbara J. Mills 1997 Accumulations Research: Problems and Prospects for Estimating Site Occupation

Span. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 4(2):141-191.

252

Varien, Mark D., and James M. Potter 1997 Unpacking the Discard Equation: Simulating the Accumulation of Artifacts in the

Archaeological Record. American Antiquity 62(2):194-213.

Wade, William D. 1967 Archaeological Investigations in Northwestern Arizona. Report Submitted to the

Bureau of Land Management, Arizona Strip District. Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff.

Walling, Barbara A. and Richard A. Thompson 1988 Archaeology of the Dead Raven Site. Unpublished report submitted to the Kane

County Commission. Intersearch, Cedar City, Utah.

Walling, Barbara A., Richard. A. Thompson, Gardiner. F. Dalley, and Dennis. G. Weder 1986 Excavations at Quail Creek. Cultural Resource Series No. 20. Utah State Office,

Bureau of Land Management. Salt Lake City.

Ward, Albert E. 1972 The Tree-Ring Dating of the Black Mesa Project: 1968-1971. In Archaeological

Investigations on Black Mesa: The 1969-1970 Seasons, by George J. Gumerman, Deborah Westfall, and Carol S. Weed, pp. 211-223. Prescott College Studies in Anthropology No. 4, Prescott, Arizona.

Warner, Ted J. 1976 The Dominguez-Escalante Journal. Brigham Young University Press, Provo,

Utah.

Warren, Claude D. 1984 The Desert Region. In California Archaeology, edited by Michael J. Moratto, pp.

339-430. Academic Press, New York.

Wells, Susan J. 1991 The Shivwits Plateau Survey: Archaeology at Lake Mead National Recreation

Area. Publications in Anthropology 56. Western Archaeological and Conservation Center, Tucson, Arizona.

Western Regional Climate Center 1997 Western US. Climate Historical Summaries. World Wide Web Document

<http://wrcc.sage.dri.edu/climsum.html>.

253

Westfall, Deborah A. 1987 The Pinenut Site: Virgin Anasazi Archaeology on the Kanab Plateau of

Northwestern Arizona. Cultural Resource Series No. 4. Arizona State Office, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix.

Westfall, Deborah A., William E. Davis, and Eric Blinman 1987 Green Spring: An Anasazi and Southern Paiute Encampment in the St. George

Basin of Utah. Cultural Resource Series No. 21. Utah State Office, Bureau of Land Management. Salt Lake City.

Whiting, Alfred F. 1939 Ethnobotany of the Hopi. Bulletin No. 15. Museum of Northern Arizona,

Flagstaff.

Wilkinson, Leland 1990 SYGRAPH· The System for Graphics. SYSTAT, Inc., Evanston, Illinois.

Wilshusen, Richard H. 1991 Early Villages in the American Southwest: Cross-Cultural and Archaeological

Perspectives. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Colorado, Boulder.

Wilson, C. Dean, and Eric Blinman 1991 Ceramic Types of the Mesa Verde Region. Manuscript prepared for the Colorado

Council of Professional Archaeologists Ceramic Workshop, Boulder, Colorado. On file, Office for Archaeological Studies, Museum of New Mexico, Santa Fe.

Windes, Thomas C. 1977 Typology and Technology of Anasazi Ceramics. In Settlement and Subsistence

along the Lower Chaco River, edited by Charles A. Reher, pp. 279-370. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Young, Joseph W. 1868 Letter to the editor. Deseret News (July 8, 1868).

Appendix A

Ceramic Counts and Weights

255

This appendix presents counts and weights for all the analyzed ceramic assemblages. Weights are in grarns. The Muddy River Survey assemblages are listed first, followed by the Mount Trumbull Survey collections. The Shivwits Plateau sites are at the end. Sites are listed in numerical order within each of these subdivisions. Where practical, counts and weights are presented in the same table, with the weights italicized to make it easier to distinguish between the counts and weights. Where there are more than four provenience subdivisions in the same table, counts and weights are given in separate tables. On the more complex sites (e.g., the several Muddy River Survey sites with excavated collections), where there are multi-level subdivisions of provenience, several tables are provided for each site. In these cases, the first table provides a breakdown of the ceramic assemblage for the entire assemblage, and subsequent tables decompose the categories in the first table.

The Muddy River Survey Sites

Table A.I. Ceramic Counts from lv1RS 4.

Surfuce 0.00- 0.25- 0.50- 0.75- SE Side Total 0.25 0.50 0.75 l.00 Hill

Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain 30 44 177 18 7 276

Corrugated 6 9 50 66 Black-on-gray 8 B 34 6 10 72

Moapa Gray Ware

Plain 10 21 58 5 5 99 Black-on-gray 4 4

Shivwits

Plain 5 15 32 52

San Juan Red Ware

Unclassified

Tsegi Orange Ware

Unclassified

Sand-tempered red ware

Unclassified I

Total 60 !03 355 30 14 10 572

256

Table A.2. Ceramic Weights :from J\4RS 4.

Surface 0.00- 0.25- 0.50- 0.75- SE Side Total 0.25 0.50 0.75 LOO Hill

Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain 78.3 113.2 465.6 53.7 16.5 727.3

Corrugated 26.2 21.2 II5.3 3.9 166.6 Black--011-gray 12.l 31.0 65.9 27.1 2.2 33.8 172.l

Moapa Gray Ware

Plain 37.9 48.4 145.5 8.8 9.9 250.5

Black-on-gray 13.5 13.5

Shivwits

Plain 14 32.3 108.5 154.8

San Juan Red Ware

Unclassified 4.1 4.1 Tsegi Orange Ware

Unclassified 1.7 1.7



Total 169.0 247.8 914.3 93.7 32.5 33.8 1,491.J

Table A.3. Ceramic Counts and Weights from MRS 5.

MRS5A MRS5B MRS5C Total

cnt wt cnt wt cnt wt cnt wt

Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain 182 386.0 54 131.4 106 247.6 342 765.0

Corrugated 21 40.5 I 1.3 19 39.3 41 81.1

Black-on-gray 24 41.1 7 19.8 11 30.4 42 91.3

Moapa Gray Ware

Plain 47 125.7 19 48-2 24 70.5 90 244.4

Black-on-gray 2 4.7 2 8.5 4 13.2

Shivwits

Plain 68 166.3 18 32.0 54 165.8 140 364.1

Southern Paiute Utility Ware

Plain 2.0 2.0

San Juan Red Ware


Tsegi Orange Ware

TusayanB/R 4.7 4.7



Unclassified 0.9 I 0.9

Total 344 765.3 102 239.1 218 567.7 664 1,572.1

2S7

Table A.4. Ceramic Counts and Weights from MRS SA.

surr;;e 0.00-0.25 0.25-0.50 0.50-0.75 Totiii cnt wt cnt wt cnt wt cnt wt cnt wt

Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain 76 170.8 50 89.0 52 110.7 4 15.5 182 386.0

Corrugated 15 28.8 3 4.9 3 6.8 21 40.5

Black-on-gray 18 26.l 3 7.0 3 8.0 24 41.1 Moapa Gray Ware

Plain 26 65.1 6 17.8 13 37.2 2 5.6 47 125.7

Shivwits

Plain 35 77.0 17 37.2 14 44.2 2 7.9 68 166.3


Plain 2.0 2.0

San Juan Red Ware

Unclassified 1 3.7 1 3.7

Total 172 373.5 79 155.9 85 206.9 8 29.0 344 765.3

Table A.S. Ceramic Counts from MRS SC.

sur&e 0.00- 0.25- 0.50- 0.75-1.00 Total 0.25 0.50 0.75

Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain 46 42 14 2 2 106 Corrugated 9 7 3 19 Black-on-gray 7 2 1 11

Moapa Gray Ware

Plain 15 4 4 24

Black-on-gray 2

Shivwits

Plain 24 16 7 5 2 54

Tsegi Orange Ware

TusayanB/R Sand-tempered red ware

Unclassified

Total 103 73 25 9 8 218

258

Table A.6. Ceramic Weights from MRS SC.

Surface 0.00- o.25- 0.50- 0.75-1.00 Total 0.25 0.50 0.75

Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain 136.2 69.0 30.2 1.3 10.9 247.6 Corrugated 24.1 10.9 4.3 39.3 Black-on-gray 15.0 7.l 2.3 6.0 30.4

Moapa Gray Ware

Plain 49.0 9.1 11.2 l.2 70.5 Black-on-gray 3.5 5.0 8.5

Shivwits

Plain 63.1 65.l 21.2 12.6 3.8 165.8 Tsegi Orange Ware

TusayanB/R 4.7 4.7 Sand-tempered red ware

Unclassified 0.9 0.9 Total 291.8 170.9 62.6 17.4 25.0 567.7

Table A.7. Ceramic Counts from MRS 9.

Unit I Unit2 Unit3 Unit4 Unit 5 Unit6 Urut 7 Unit 8 Total Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain 3 2 2 28 14 57 2 4 I J2 Corrugated 1 2 Black-on-gray 2 4

Moapa Gray Ware

Plain 2 3 2 4 12 Shivwits

Plain 3 ] 6 Total 6 5 2 31 17 64 6 5 136

Table A.8. Ceramic Weights from :rv1RS 9.

Unit l Unit2 Unit 3 Unit4 Unit 5 Unit6 Unit7 Unit 8 Total Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain 8.8 4.7 10.7 102.l 30.l 105.] 6.3 6.3 274.J Corrugated l.2 1.0 2.2 Black-on-gray 1.5 2.9 4.0 8.4

Moapa Gray Ware

Plain 8.1 34.5 25.J 2.0 83 78.0 Shivwits

Plain 0.7 5.8 5.3 0.9 12.7 Total 18.4 43.3 10.7 127.2 32.8 119.2 16.6 7.2 375.4

259


Surface 0.00-0.25 0.25-0.50 Total


Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain 104 260.3 3 5.1 5 12.8 112 278.2

Corrugated 17 43.0 2.0 18 45.0 Black-on-gray 4 7.1 0.8 5 7.9

Moapa Gray Ware

Plain 22 79.9 22 79.9

Black-on-gray 3.6 1 2.4 2 6.0

Shivwits

Plain 28 91.3 I 5.8 1 3.3 30 100.4

Total 176 485.2 7 16.1 6 16.l 189 517.4

TableA.10. Ceramic Counts from MRS 11.

ROOill kOOm Room Room ROOill 2'tlnpotted Total I 2 3 4 5 Area"

Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain 14 18 16 43 148 239 Corrugated 1 2 3 6 26 38 Black-on-gray 4 10 15

Moapa Gray Ware

Plain 3 12 3 39 58 Black-on-gray 1

Shivwits

Plain 3 2 1 21 28 Corrugated 7 8

Prescott Gray Ware

Plain I 19 21 Unidentified Ware

Plain 2 3 Total 21 19 22 64 37 248 411

260

Table A.11. Ceramic Weights from MRS 11.

Room ROODl ROODl ROODl ROOm "Unpotted TOtaI I 2 3 4 5 Area''

Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain 27.3 40.5 42.1 132.4 31.7 352.7 626.7 Corrugated 1.0 4.9 6.6 19.2 46.8 78.5 Black-on-gray 7.2 1.6 14.1 22.9

Moapa Gray Ware

Plain 11.9 0.8 66.2 8.1 105.7 192.7 Black-on-gray 1.6 1.6

Shivwits

Plain 5.8 2.0 4.3 4.1 63.5 79.7 Corrugated 4.2 4.2

Prescott Gray Ware

Plain 2.5 3.2 86.2 91.9 Unidentified Ware

Plain 1.6 2.3 3.9 Total 46.0 42.5 54.6 219.7 148.4 590.9 1,102.1


Count Weight

Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain 94 272.6 Corrugated 2 5.4 Black-on-gray 2 3.6

Moapa Gray Ware

Plain 83 186.8 Black-on-gray 4 12.1

Shivwits

Plain 24 67.2 Angular-Quartz Temper

Plain 33 70.0 Tsegi Orange Ware

TusayanB/R 3.6 Total 243 621.3

261


surrace o.00: 0.25- 0.50- 0.75- Total 0.25 0.50 0.75 LOO

Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain 143 40 10 18 6 217 Corrugated 13 2 2 17 Black-on-gray 4 14 2 21

Moapa Gray Ware

Plain 35 2 4 2 43 Black-on-gray 1 2

Shivwits

Plain 43 7 3 2 55 Tsegi Orange Ware

Tusayan Black-on-red I Unclassified 4 6


Unclassified 2 2 Total 246 60 24 26 8 364


surrace 0.00- 0.25- 0.50- 0.75- Total 0.25 0.50 0.75 LOO

Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain 561.2 85.7 20.7 53.8 33.3 754.7 Corrugated 34.8 2.2 3.9 40.9 Black-on-gray 13.1 37.2 2.8 1.9 55.0

Moapa Gray Ware

Plain 143.1 5.1 20.9 7.6 176.7 Black-on-gray 5.2 6.8 12.0

Shivwits

Plain 183.8 33.3 8.5 2.1 227.7 Tsegi Orange Ware

Tusayan Black-on-red 1.5 1.5 Unclassified 5.2 2.2 0.3 7.7


Unclassified 2 .. 7 2.7 Total 950.6 139.2 81.6 72.l 35.4 1,278.9


Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain

Corrugated Black-on-gray

Moapa Gray Ware

Plain

Black-on-gray Shivwits

Plain

Prescott Gray Ware

Plain Tsegi Orange Ware

Unclassified Total

Count Weight

151 56 22

26 2

27

286

434.4

152.1

58.4

83.3

8.0

78.9

2.4

4.0

821.5

Table A.16. Ceramic Counts and Weights from l\1RS 19.

Surface 0.00-0.25 0.25-0.50 0.50-0.75 cnt wt cnt wt cnt wt cnt wt

Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain 65 286.8 78 157.6 14 65.7 17 125.2

Corrugated 3.4 2 3.6

Black-on-gray 12 34.3 20 61.5 8 24.8

Logandale Gray Ware

Plain 5.4

Moapa Gray Ware

Plain 17 66.4 31 66.8 7 11.4 1.6 Black-on-gray 3 18.5 H 27.0 2.0

Shivwits

Plain 7 23.3 3.6

Angular-Quartz Temper

Plain 6.8

Tsegi Orange Ware

Unclass;ified 2.7

[]nidentified Ware

Plain 1.6 0.7

Total 108 446.5 145 323.5 30 103.9 18 126.8

262

Total cnt wt

174 635.3

3 7.0

40 120.6

5.4

56 146.2

15 47.5

8 26.9

6.8

2.7

2 2.3

301 1,000. 7

263

Table A.17. Ceramic Counts and Weights from MRS 20 (Pueblo Point).

~urfure Q2NE 114 Q3 83 Total cnt wt cnt wt cnt wt cnt wt cnt wt

Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain 214 476.5 58 143.1 38 173.2 86 261.4 396 1,054.2 Corrugated 82 207.5 9 40.l 7 17.6 14 63.9 112 329.1 Black-on-gray 32 61.4 12 30.3 7 14.8 9 17.9 60 124.4

Moapa Gray Ware

Plain 173 425.0 61 162.9 41 115.5 103 388.5 378 1,091.9 Corrugated 7 18.0 2 3.5 1 1.6 10 23.1 Black-on-gray 40 81.5 21 76.8 9 33.7 16 74.1 86 266.1

Shivwits

Plain 40 171.1 13 50.9 13 71.0 4 21.6 70 314.6 San Juan Redware

Deadmans BIR 14.3 0.6 5.3 3 20.2 Unclassified 3.2 1 1.1 1 4.3 3 8.6

Tsegi Orange Ware

TusayanBIR 0.9 1 0.9 Unclassified 3.9 0.8 2 4.7

Fine Paste

Plain 2 2.8 2 6.7 4 9.5 Unidentified Ware

Plain 2 1.4 2 1.4 Total 592 1,450.9 178 523.0 117 427.2 240 847.6 1,127 3,248.7

TableA.18. Ceramic Counts from MRS 20 (Pueblo Point), Q2 Northeast 1/4.

0.00- 0.25- 0.50- 0.75- 1.00- 1.25- Total 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 l.50

Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain 10 18 12 6 9 3 58 Corrugated 2 4 2 9 Black-on-gray 1 5 2 2 12

Moapa Gray Ware

Plain 9 17 16 8 7 4 61 Corrugated 2 2' Black-on-gray 3 6 8 3 21

Shivwits

Plain 3 4 3 2 13 San Juan Redware

Deadmans BIR Unclassified 1

Total 27 52 46 24 20 9 178

264

TableA.19. Ceramic Weights from MRS 20 (Pueblo Point), Q2 Northeast 1/4.

0.00- 0.25- 0.50- 0.75- 1.00- l.25- Total 0.25 0.50 0.75 LOO 1.25 1.50

Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain 24.5 36.5 27.4 18.0 21.9 14.8 143.I Corrugated l.7 8.3 21.9 8.2 40.I Black-on-gray 3.0 10.4 6.3 3.9 3.7 3.0 30.3

Moapa Gray Ware

Plain 25.7 52.5 33.2 23.4 17.6 10.5 162.9 Corrugated 3.5 3.5

Black-on-gray 5.7 19.0 34.4 l.6 7.1 76.8

Shivwits

Plain 20.0 9.2 5.3 9.9 6.5 50.9 San Juan Redware

Deadmaris BIR 14.3 14.3 Unclassified Ll 1.1

Total 80.6 135.9 138.6 82.8 50.3 34.8 523.0

Table A.20. Ceramic Counts from I\1RS 20 (Pueblo Point), Q2.

General Northeast Il4 Total 0.00- 0.25- 0.25- 0.50- 0.75- LOO- 1.25-0.25 0.50 0.50 0.75 1.00 l.25 l.50

Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain 9 IO 3 9 4 2 38 Corrugated 1 3 2 7 Black-on-gray 2 2 3 7

Moapa Gray Ware

Plain 8 9 7 8 7 41 Black--0n-gray 2 2 3 2 9

Shivwits

Plain 5 2 4 13 San Juan Redware

Deadmarls B/R

Tsegi Orange Ware

Unclassified I l Total 26 23 14 26 19 5 4 117

265

Table A.21. Ceramic Weights from MRS 20 (Pueblo Point), Q3.

GeneraI Northeast 174 TotaI 0.00- 0.25- 0.25- 0.50- 0.75- 1.00- 1.25-0.25 0.50 0.50 0.75 LOO 1.25 1.50

Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain 28.5 55.3 32.9 38.5 11.3 1.4 5.3 173.2 Corrugated 1.9 6.5 3.5 5.7 17.6 Black-on-gray 2.3 5.3 7.2 14.8

Moapa Gray Ware

Plain 13.3 20.1 11.0 34.2 30.0 6.9 115.5 Black-on-gray 7.3 7.8 11.4 5.5 1.7 33.7

Shivwits

Plain 9.8 21.5 11.3 19.0 9.4 71.0 San Juan Redware

Deadmans BIR 0.6 0.6 Tsegi Orange Ware

Unclassified 0.8 0.8 Total 56.6 103.4 62.5 108.3 65.6 14.4 16.4 427.2

Table A.22. Ceramic Counts and Weights from MRS 20 (Pueblo Point), S3.

0.00-0.25 0.25-0.50 0.50-0.75 Total cnt wt cnt wt cnt wt cnt wt

Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain 15 41.7 36 127.1 35 92.6 86 261.4

Corrugated 2 4.3 6 14.2 6 45.4 14 63.9

Black-on-gray 4 8.8 5 9.1 9 17.9

Moapa Gray Ware

Plain 19 43.2 49 167.3 35 178.0 103 388.5

Corrugated 1 1.6 1.6

Black-on-gray 2 2.8 9 49.0 5 22.3 16 74.1 Shivwits

Plain 2 9.7 2 11.9 4 21.6

San Juan Redware

Deadmans BIR 5.3 5.3


Tsegi Orange Ware

TusayanB/R 0.9 0.9

Fine Paste

Plain 1.0 5.7 2 6.7 Unidentified Ware

Plain 2 1.4 2 1.4 Total 39 93.0 108 382.7 93 371.9 240 847.6

Pit 1 Pit 2

Tusayan Gray Ware Plain 17 65 Neck-banded

Corrugated

Black-on-gray 8 6

Moapa Gray Ware Plain 57 86

Black-on-gray 11 13

Shivwits Plain 2 1

San Juan Red Ware Unclassified

Tsegi Orange Ware Unclassified

Total 95 171 -

Table A.23. Ceramic Counts from MRS 26 (Raven Point).

F6NE F6NW F6 SE F7 SE F7SW G6NW

1 51 61 63 21 9 l

4 6 4 1

1 61 65 40 26 11 9 7 3 4 1

1 1 2

2 1

2 130 139 107 58 21

General F7-8 Surface Surface

54 4

4

3

42 3

6

IQ6 11

Total

346 1

8 28

392

54

7

3

840

N O'\ O'\

Tusayan Gray Ware Plain Neck-banded Cormgated Black-on-gray

Moapa Gray Ware Plain Black-on-gray

Shivwits Plain

San Juan Red Ware Unclassified

Tsegi Orange Ware

Table A.24. Ceramic Weights from MRS 26 (Raven Point).

----i:iffT Pit 2 F6 NE F6 NW-~61lE F7 SE F7 SW G6 NW General F7-8 Total

82.2 227.1

22.6 30.7

194.5 282.7 32.1 40.7

15.1 5.6

2.1 125.5

14.l

3.3 204.7 18.8

1.0

7.4

235.9 10.0

11.l

235.2 17.8

15.0

331.1

127.8 15.0

56.1

6.8 1.4

70.7 11.6

0.9 6.5

26.6

29.9 1.5

Surface Surface

187.6 12.8 1,287.0 10.0

12.8 19.6 11.9 91.8

192.0 7.6 1,348.4 18.5 156.0

29.l

22.4

Unclassified 3.4 3.4 ..L!,jEJ._ ................ 346.5 • 586.8 -· 5.4 371.5 525.0 474.8 153.1 58.0 413.4 33.2 2,967.7

N 0\ .....:i

268

Table A.25. Ceramic Counts from MRS 26 (Raven Point), Pit 1.

0.00- 0.25- 0.50- 0.75- 1.00- 1.25- 1.50- i.15- f otal 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00

Tusayan Gray Ware Plain 2 3 5 3 2 17 Black-oo-gray 2 1 2 3 8

Moapa Gray Ware Plain 12 11 12 8 5 4 2 3 57 Black-on-gray 2 3 3 1 11

Shivwits Plain 2

Total 19 18 16 16 12 7 2 5 95

Table A.26. Ceramic Weights from MRS 26 (Raven Point), Pit l.

0.00- o.25- 0.50- 0.75- 1.00: 1.25- I.56- 1.75- TotaJ 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00

Tusayan Gray Ware Plain 9.9 8.5 2.2 21.0 11.3 27.7 1.6 82.2 Black-on-gray 5.6 5.1 2.4 9.5 22.6

Moapa Gray Ware Plain 53.9 37.2 37.6 18.8 10.2 22.4 6.2 8.2 194.5 Black-on-gray 4.1 13.8 7.7 2.5 2.6 1.4 32.l

Shivwits Plain 4.3 10.8 15.1

Total 77.8 64.6 47.5 44.7 41.8 52.7 6.2 11.2 346.5

269

TableA27. Ceramic Counts from MRS 26 (Raven Point), Pit 2.

0.00- 0.25- 0.50- 0.75- 1.00- fot81 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25

Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain 13 29 10 13 65 Black-on-gray 1 3 2 6

Moapa Gray Ware

Plain 16 25 13 28 4 86 Black-on-gray 3 4 3 2 13

Shivwits

Plain Total 33 61 26 45 6 171

TableA28. Ceramic Weights from MRS 26 (Raven Point}, Pit 2.

0.00- 0.25- 0.50- 0.75- 1.00- Total 0.25 0.50 0.75 l.00 1.25

Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain 27.9 107.2 40.3 51.7 227.1 Black-on-gray 7.1 8.3 15.3 30.7

Moapa Gray Ware

Plain 49.9 79.2 59.0 75.5 19.1 282.7 Black-on-gray 82 11.4 9.1 8.7 3.3 40.7

Shivwits

Plain 5.6 5.6 Total 93.1 206.l 108.4 151.2 28.0 586.8

Table A.29. Ceramic Counts from MRS 26 (Raven Point), F6 Northwest

0.00- o.25- o.so: o.75- 1.60- 1.25- 1.50- 1.75- 2.oo- 2.50- Total 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.75

Tusayan Gray Ware Plain 8 12 12 1 7 5 2 2 1 1 51 Black-on-gray 4 2 6

Moapa Gray Ware Plrun 18 9 7 9 6 2 1 6 2 1 61 Black-on-gray 4 1 1 2 1 9

Shivwits Plain

San Juan Redware Unclassified 1 1 2

Total 35 23 22 12 14 7 3 9 3 2 130

Table A.30. Ceramic Weights from MRS 26 (Raven Point), F6 Northwest.

0.00- o.25- 6.50: 6.75- 1.06- 1.25- I.so- 1.75- 2.oo- 2.50· Total 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.75

Tusayan Gray Ware Plain 10.5 26.6 33.6 2.8 21.9 19.6 2.7 4.7 2.6 0.5 125.5 Black-on-gray 11.2 2.9 14.1

Moapa Gray Ware Plain 43.7 35.7 42.6 35.3 14.2 7.0 20.9 4.3 1.0 204.7 Black-on-gray 5.1 1.3 0.9 2.5 6.7 2.3 18.8

Shivwits Plain 1.0 1.0

San Juan Redware Unclassified 4.9 2.5 7.4

Total 71.5 68.5 80.0 40.6 38.6 26.6 9.4 27.9 6.9 1.5 371.5

N --.l 0

271

Table A.31. Ceramic Counts from MRS 26 (Raven Point), F6 Southeast.

0.00- 0.25- 0.50- 0.75- 1.25- Total 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.50

Tusayan Gray Ware Plain 29 15 15 1 61 Neck-banded Black-on-gray 2 2 4

Moapa Gray Ware Plain 19 27 16 2 65

Black-on-gray 3 2 7 San Juan Redware

Unclassified Total 49 48 34 6 2 139

Table A.32. Ceramic Weights from MRS 26 (Raven Point), F6 Southeast.

0.00- 0.25- 0.50: 0.75- 1.25- Total 0.25 0.50 0.75 l.00 1.50

Tusayan Gray Ware Plain 106.4 92.2 32.3 2.8 2.2 235.9 Neck-banded 10.0 10.0

Black-on-gray 5.2 5.9 11.l

Moapa Gray Ware Plain 74.2 82.3 63.3 15.l 0.3 235.2 Black-on-gray 2.7 9.5 1.6 4.0 17.8

San Juan Redware Unclassified 15.0 15.0

Total 183.3 204.2 103.l 31.9 2.5 525.0

Table A.33. Ceramic Counts from MRS 26 (Raven Point), F7 Southeast.

0.00- 0.25- 0.50- 0.75- i.25- sidewall Total 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 Sterile

Tusayan Gray Ware Plain 17 19 18 5 3 63

Moapa Gray Ware Plain 9 18 5 1 2 5 40 Black-on-gray 2 3

Shivwits Plain 1 1

Total 27 37 23 8 4 8 107

272

Table A.34. Ceramic Weights from MRS 26 (Raven Point), F7 Southeast.

0.00- 0.25- 0.50- 0.75- 1.25- Sidewall Total 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 Sterile

Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain 56.3 131.9 57.6 65.9 0.5 18.9 331.1 Moapa Gray Ware

Plain 23.0 40.l 25.l 2.1 7.8 29.7 127.8 Black-on-gray 6.0 9.0 15.0

Shivwits

Plain 0.9 0.9 Total 85.3 172.0 82.7 77.0 9.2 48.6 474.8

Table A.35. Ceramic Counts and Weights from MRS 26 (Raven Point), F7 Southwest.

0.00-0.25 0.25-0.50 0.50-0.75 0. 75-Sterhe Total cnt wt cnt wt cnt wt cnt wt cnt wt

Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain 15 37.7 3 12.8 3 5.6 21 56.1 Corrugated 4 6.8 4 6.8

Black-on-gray 1.4 1.4 Moapa Gray Ware

Plain 16 35.5 7 29.2 2 2.9 3.1 26 70.7 Black-on-gray 11.6 11.6

Shivwits

Plain 2 6.5 2 6.5 Total 42 99.5 10 42.0 5 8.5 1 3.1 58 153.1

TableA.36. Ceramic Counts and Weights from MRS 26 (Raven Point), 06 Northwest

0.00- o.25- 0.50- Total 0.25 0.50 0.75 cnt wt cnt wt cnt wt cnt wt

Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain 7 24.7 2 1.9 9 26.6 Moapa Gray Ware

Plain 1.1 8 22.0 2 6.8 11 29.9 Black-on-gray 1.5 1.5

Total 1.1 16 48.2 4 8.7 21 58.0

273

Table A37. Ceramic Counts and Weights from MRS 28.

Count Weight

Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain 72 333.4

Corrugated 7.2

Black-on-gray 11 32.0

Moapa Gray Ware

Plain 30 I22.4 Black-on-gray 6 26.8

Shivwits



Unclassified 2 2.8


Plain 2 11.7

Fingernail-Impressed 2 I2.2

Total 131 585.6


Count Weight

Tusayan Gray Ware


Logandale Gray Ware

Plain 3 4.0 Moapa Gray Ware

Plain 63 258.9 Black-on-gray I.I

Shivwits

Plain 109 359.I Tsegi Orange Ware

Unclassified 2 4.0 Southern Paiute Utility Ware

Plain 5 23.2 Fingernail-Impressed 2 7.7

Total 589 I,754.8

Table A.39. Ceramic Counts and Weights from MRS 31

Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain

Corrugated

Black-on-gray

Moapa Gray Ware

Plain

Black-on-gray

Shivwits Plain



Unclassified Unidentified Ware

Plain

Total

Count

117

22 10

15

9

177

Weight

505.3

98.1

29.6

57.3

3.1

78.7

3.2

3.0

6.1

784.4


Count Weight

Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain 94 345.0 Corrugated 36 106.0


Logandale Gray Ware

Plain 2 11.6

Moapa Gray Ware

Plain 58 319.9

Black--0n-gray 2 4.5

Shivwits

Plain 23 91.1


Plain 2 5.5


Plain 6 17.7 fZingernailhnpressed 2 13.8

Total 251 990.1

274

275


Count Weight

Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain 110 395.3

Corrugated 3 12.2

Black-on-gray IO 28.1

Moapa Gray Ware

Plain 15 49.3

Black-on-gray 1 6.1

Shivwits

Plain 16 73.6


Plain 6 56.8

Fingernail Impressed 1 15.6

Total 162 637.0

TableA.42. Ceramic Counts and Weights from MRS 34.

Count Weight

Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain 454 1,177.3

Corrugated 22 60.2


Moapa Gray Ware

Plain 206 576.6

Corrugated 2 5.5


Shivwits

Plain 184 589.0

Corrugated 3 11.4 San Juan Redware

Unclassified 1 4.5

Tsegi Orange Ware

Medicine BIR 2.5

Unclassified 3 4.5

Total 906 2,498.5

276

TableA.43. Ceramic Cmmts and Weights :from MRS 35.

MRSJ3A MRS 3'.SB Total

cnt wt cnt wt cnt wt

Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain 282 962.7 63 230.6 345 1,193.3 Corrugated 7 20.7 2 14.3 9 35.0 Black-on-gray 15 34.9 4 21.7 19 56.6

Moapa Gray Ware

Plain 22 105.2 8 34.1 30 139.3

Black-on-gray IO 24.5 IO 24.5

Shivwits

Plain 89 388.5 6 54.9 95 443.7

Tsegi Orange Ware

Unclassified 7.0 7.0 Southern Paiute Utility Ware

Plain 4.5 1 4.5

Total 426 1,543.8 84 360.l 5IO 1,903.9

Table A.44. Ceramic Counts and Weights :from MRS 36.

Count Weight

Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain 260 800.2 Honani Tooled 5.9 Corrugated 9 22.3 Black-on-gray 17 53.7

Logandale Gray Ware

Plain 4.2 Moapa Gray Ware


Shivwits

Plain 5 14.8


Plain 6 32.7 Fingernail Impressed 6 37.1

Unidentified Paddle-and-Anvil Ware

Plain 4.2 Unidentified

Plain 1 4.2 Total 346 1,149.5

277


Count Weight

Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain 118 389.0

Corrugated 3 1.8

Blaclc-on-gray 6 21.3

Logandale Gray Ware

Plain 2 6.7

Moapa Gray Ware

Plain 24 98.4 Black"{)TI-gray 3 11.3

Shivwits

Plain 31 116.9

Corrugated 2.3

Tsegi Orange Ware

Unclassified l 1.2


Plain 7.8

Total 190 666.6


MRS3&A MRS3SH Totai


Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain 36 212.3 53 264.9 89 477.2

Corrugated J3 88.4 24 116.8 37 205.2

Black-on-gray 4 27.6 4 30.4 8 58.0

Logandale Gray Ware

Plain 2.8 2.8

Moapa Gray Ware

Plain 11 55.9 6 54.9 17 110.8

Black-on-gray 1 2.4 2.4

Shivwits

Plain 7 50.4 7 50.4

Tsegi Orange Ware



Plain 11.5 18 160.1 19 171.6

Fingernail Impressed 12.7 12.7

Dimpled 9.7 9.7

Total 67 400.9 115 709.5 182 1,110.4

278


MRS39A MR839B MRS39 fotat (Unspecified)


Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain 213 855.6 52 211.1 2 4.8 267 1,071.5

Corrugated 25 116.3 3 14.4 2 3.5 30 134.2

Black-on-gray 9 44.5 9 44.5

Logandale Gray Ware

Plain 2.3 2.3

Moapa Gray Ware

Plain 22 119.3 16 100.7 3.1 39 223.l Black-on-gray 2 6.3 2 6.3

Shivwits

Plain 43 239.3 33 158.0 3 2.3 79 399.6 Angular Quartz Temper

Plain 2 6.5 2 6.5 Southern Paiute Utility Ware

Plain 2 26.7 2 26.7

Fingernail hnpressed 1 13.0 4.5 2 17.5 Fine Paste

Plain 3.6 3.6 Unidentified Ware

Plain 5.5 5.5 Total 318 1,423.3 109 504.3 8 13.7 435 1,941.3

279


42A 42B 42c Total cnt wt cnt wt cnt wt cnt wt

Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain 128 504.2 46 201.6 16 67.7 190 773.5

Corrugated 3 15.6 3 15.6

Black-on-gray 12 42.6 1 4.4 2 2.8 15 49.8

Logandale Gray Ware

Plain 7 51.8 6.1 8 57.9

Moapa Gray Ware

Plain 24 171.4 11 92.9 3 13.2 38 277.5


Black-on-gray 2 19.9 2.4 3 22.3

Shivwits

Plain 5 12.0 3 10.9 6 19.4 14 42.3

Corrugated 4.1 4.1


Plain 5 20.9 5 20.9


Plain 22.2 6 26.4 11 58.3 18 106.9

Fingernail Impressed 2 11.8 2 11.8

Dimpled 5.8 5.8 Fine Paste

Plain 3.7 I 3.7 Total 183 829.1 79 404.5 39 163.8 301 1,397.4

280


MR844 MR8 MRS MR8 MR8 MRS Total General 44A 44B 44C 44D 44E

Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain 7 52 47 12 82 10 210 Corrugated 6 67 13 31 56 173 Black-on-gray 9 8 3 10 31

Moapa Gray Ware

Plain 16 8 3 13 2 42 Black-on-gray 2 2

Shivwits

Plain 4 5 San Juan Red.ware

Unclassified 1 Tsegi Orange Ware

Unclassified Sand-tempered red ware

Unclassified Southern Paiute Utility Ware

Plain 4 5 Fingernail Impressed Dimpled 1

Total 14 152 76 54 165 12 473

Table A50. Ceramic Weights from MRS 44.

MRS44 MRS MRS MRS MRS MRS Total General 44A 44B 44C 44D 44E

Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain 24.5 291.7 97.1 62.6 226.3 26.9 729.1 Corrugated 36.2 323.9 74.3 133.0 196.8 764.2 Black-on-gray 0.6 31.7 27.7 14.7 31.9 106.6

Moapa Gray Ware

Plain 62.7 66.6 28.6 51.8 6.4 216.l Black-on-gray 6.3 6.3

Shivwits

Plain 2.7 12.9 15.6 San Juan Red.ware

Unclassified 12.3 12.3 Tsegi Orange Ware

Unclassified 3.0 3.0 Sand-tempered red ware

Unclassified 6.5 6.5 Southern Paiute Utility Ware

Plain 4.6 24.1 28.7 Fingernail Impressed 19.6 19.6 Dimpled 16.3 16.3

Total 61.3 769.0 265.7 264.1 530.9 33.3 1,924.3

281


Count i'f'eig'Tit

Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain 187 635.1

Corrugated 26 96.2 Black-on-gray 17 34.7

Moapa Gray Ware


Shivwits


TusayanB/R l 6.6 Total 311 1,128.9


MRS47 MRS47A MRS47B Total General


Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain 7 38.7 109 504.2 177 864.0 293 1,406.9 Corrugated 3 13.1 8 47.6 11 60.7 Black-on-gray 6 30.2 16 54.9 22 85.1

Logandale Gray Ware


Plain 9 47.l 35 211.3 58 254.8 102 513.2 Corrugated 3 13.2 3 13.2 Black-on-gray 4 16.0 6 29.3 10 45.3

Shivwits

Plain 4 13.6 14 73.2 18 86.8 San Juan Redware

Unclassified 2 3.4 2 3.4 Desert Gray Ware

Snake Valley Black-on-gray 3.0 3.0 Southern Paiute Utility Ware

Plain 19 113.1 IO 82.0 29 195.1 Fingernail hnpressed 7.2 2 11.7 3 18.9

Unidentified Ware

Plain 3 36.3 3 36.3 Total 40 228.6 161 788.4 302 1,486.8 503 2,503.8

282

TableA53. Ceramic Counts and Weights from MRS 48.

Count 'l'Peight

Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain 98 310.5

Corrugated 12 62.3


Moapa Gray Ware


Shivwits

Plain 8 60.8 Angular Quartz Temper

Plain 9 82.8 San Juan Redware

Unclassified 1 3.6 Tsegi Orange Ware

TusayanB/R 3.7


Plain 6 33.4 Fingernail Impressed 2 11.4

Unidentified Ware

Plain ?? Decorated? ??

Total 194 826.8

TableA.54. Ceramic Counts from MRS 49.

MRS49 uni ti Unit2 Unit3 Unit4 Unit5 MRS fotai General 49B

Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain 65 3 7 3 4 84 Corrugated 3 4 Black-on-gray 4 4

Moapa Gray Ware

Plain 48 6 4 3 3 2 66 Black-on-gray

Shivwits

Plain 38 2 1 4 8 54

Corrugated Angular-Quartz Temper

Plain 1 San Juan Red Ware

Unclassified 2 2 Southern Paiute Utility Ware

Plain 6 2 7 15 Fingernail Impressed 5 6 Dimpled I I

Total 168 8 11 7 15 3 27 239

283


MR849 unit unit unit Unit unit Mis Total General 1 2 3 4 5 49B

Tusayan Gray Ware Plain 384.9 4.0 4.4 14.0 26.5 15.2 26.8 475.8

Corrugated 21.7 2.9 24.6 Black-on-gray 19.7 19.7

Moapa Gray Ware Plain 299.6 25.4 13.4 11.7 14.7 6.1 370.9

Black-on-gray 6.2 6.2

Shivwits Plain 186.3 5.2 6.4 0.8 16.9 48.6 264.2

Corrugated 2.5 2.5

Angular-Quartz Temper Plain 5.9 5.9

San Juan Red Ware Unclassified 7.3 7.3

Southern Paiute Utility Ware Plain 47.9 12.7 88.7 149.3

Fingernail Impressed 6.3 40.4 46.7

Dimpled 7.5 7.5

Total 979.9 34.6 42.3 26.5 64.0 15.2 218.1 1,380.6


Count Weig1;.t Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain 53 209.7 Corrugated 18 83.7

Black-on-gray 3 7.6 Moapa Gray Ware


Shivwits Plain 8 54.4

Angular-Quartz Temper Plain 3 9.7

Tsegi Orange Ware Unclassified 2.2

Southern Paiute Utility Ware Plain 7 41.7

Dimpled 7.4

Total 128 534.2

284


General West ~i;le ii'l'II Totai


Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain 72 297.6 78 351.8 150 649.4 Corrugated 13 59.5 16 68.6 29 128.1 Black-on-gray 2 5.6 3 7.4 5 13.0

Moapa Gray Ware

Plain 38 172.0 40 187.0 78 359.0 Black-on-gray 10 37.9 13 54.2 23 92.1

Shivwits

Plain 3 10.2 6 50.0 9 60.2 San Juan Redware

Unclassified 1 2.4 2.4 Southern Paiute Utility Ware

Plain 1 12.7 1 12.7 Fingernail Impressed 1 2.8 2 32.3 3 35.1

Total 139 585.6 160 766.4 299 1,352.0


General MRS54A MRS54B MRS54<: Total cnt wt cnt wt cnt wt cnt wt cnt wt

Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain 102 298.4 46 145.5 86 300.7 234 744.6 Corrugated 54 172.5 18 67.7 41 130.5 113 370.7 Black-on-gray 2.7 10 30.1 6 19.5 1 1.3 18 53.6

Logandale Gray Ware


Plain 76 279.4 28 80.4 28 78.5 132 438.3 Corrugated 2.6 3 7.3 4 9.9 Black-on-gray 12 27.6 2 4.0 4 6.5 18 38.1

Shivwits

Plain 3 7.0 4 15.0 5 14.9 12 36.9 Corrugated 4.0 1 4.0

San Juan Redware

Unclassified 1.2 1.2 Prescott Gray Ware

Plain 22 48.9 22 48.9 Southern Paiute Utility Ware

Plain 2 11.0 16 77.7 18 88.7 Total 2.7 286 890.2 105 333.3 186 623.6 578 1,849.8

285


MRS55A MRS55B Totiil


Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain 104 349.7 107 324.2 211 673.9

Corrugated 88 274.4 23 57.2 111 331.6

Black-on-gray 2 6.9 3.0 3 9.9

Logandale Gray Ware

Plain 3 11.5 3 11.5

Moapa Gray Ware

Plain 44 157.7 77 222.0 121 379.7


Black-on-gray 3 5.0 14 43.2 17 48.2

Shivwits

Plain 6 32.5 1 3.2 7 35.7


San Juan Redware


Prescott Gray Ware

Plain 8 22.4 2.9 9 25.3


Plain 2 17.6 4 22.8 6 40.4

Dimpled 9.2 9.2

Total 261 878.9 237 714.6 498 1,593.5

TableA60. Ceramic Counts and Weights from MRS 58.

Count Weig"lit

Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain 20 103.5

Corrugated 60 275.8

Black-on-gray 5 9.5

Moapa Gray Ware

Corrugated 3.0

Shivwits


Plain 4 16.5


Unclassified 1.9

Prescott Gray_ Ware

Plain 22 133.6


Plain 5.6

Total 116 562.6

286


"Potted" Rooms Courtyard Total


Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain 10 35.2 23 77.0 33 112.2

Corrugated 32 131.6 61 228.0 93 359.6 Black-on-gray 4 8.8 2 3.2 6 12.0

Moapa Gray Ware

Plain 3 31.4 4 14.5 7 45.9 Corrugated 5 15.7 5 15.7 Black-on-gray 1.5 1.5

Shivwits

Plain 3 12.0 3 12.0 Tsegi Orange Ware

Unclassified 3 5.4 3 5.4 Sand-tempered red ware

Unclassified 5.5 3 8.8 4 14.3 Prescott Gray Ware

Plain 11 64.6 26 103.2 37 167.8 Unidentified Ware

Plain 4.5 l 1.2 2 5.7 Total 68 298.8 126 453.3 194 752.1


Count Weight

Tusayan Gray Ware


Moapa Gray Ware


Shivwits

Plain 5 48.7 Southern Paiute Utility Ware

Plain 3 48.6 Total 132 744.7

287

Table A.63. Ceramic Counts from I\4RS 62.

General MRS62A l'vfRS62B MRS62C Total

cnt wt cnt wt cnt wt cnt wt cnt wt

Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain 3 5.9 21& 819.9 127 435.5 2 4.8 350 1,266.1

Corrugated 5 9.1 12 49.5 86 264.7 2 13.2 105 336.5

Black-on-gray 1.7 Il 23.6 12 40.3 l 3.6 25 69.2

Logandale Gray Ware

Plain 2 3.1 2 7.6 4 10.7

Moapa Gray Ware

Plain 84 276.7 60 205.5 4.2 145 486.4

Black-on-gray 3 ll.7 2 7.0 5 18.7

Shivwits

Plain 4.5 21 77.3 53 226.6 75 308.4

Corrugated 1.8 1.8

Tsegi Orange Ware




Southern PaiuteUtility Ware

Plain 6.1 5 31.9 6 38.0


Unidentified Ware

Corrugated l 2.6 l 2.6

Total 10 21.2 353 1,270.5 353 1,244.8 6 25.8 722 2,562.3


MRS63A MRS63B Total


Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain 13 87.5 41 151.0 54 238.5


Black-on-grny 8 15.7 8 15.7

Moapa Gray Ware

Plain 13 58.2 46 181.5 59 239.7

Black-on--gray 1 2.0 4 9.8 5 11.8

Shivwits

Plain 5 23.3 34 144.9 39 168.2

Corrugated l 3.7 2 4.6 3 8.3

San Juan Red Ware

Unclassified 2 10.8 3.7 3 14.5


Plain 16 67.7 I6 67.7


Total 39 218.4 154 578.8 193 806.2


Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain

Corrugated

Black ·{Jn-gray Moapa Gray Ware

Plain

Corrugated

Black-on-gray Shivwits

Plain

San Juan Redware

Unclassified

Tsegi Orange Ware

Unclassified

Unidentified Ware

Plain

Total

Count Weight

71 3

14

99

7

61

5

I

263

225.3

10.4

28.4

314.2

1.4

17.1

238.2

7.4

0.8

6.2

849.4

Table A.66. Ceramic Counts and Weights from :rvlRS 66.

.MRS 66A MRS66B MRS66C cnt wt cnt wt cnt wt

Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain 173 626.6 69 239.0 26 73.8

Corrugated 2 6.2

Black--0n-gray 16 50-7 JO 38.0 5 13.5

Logandale Gray Ware

Plain 3 11.4 2 9.0

Moapa Gray Ware

Plain 70 350.5 28 117.4 8 27.1 Black ~on-gray 6 19.6 1.7 2 10.0

Shivwits

Plain 8 51.6 6 27.0 6.9

Corrugated 5.2

San Juan Redware

Unclassified 2 1.9 4.2

Tsegi Orange Ware

Unclassified I.I Southern Paiute Utility Ware

Plain 8.1

Unidentified Ware

Plain 2 15.2 6.7

Total 280 1,127.5 121 454.6 44 140.3

288

Total cnt wt

268 939.4

2 6.2

31 102.2

5 20.4

106 495.0

9 31.3

15 85.5

5.2

3 6.1

I.I

8.1

3 21.9

445 1,722.4

289


Cmmt Weight

Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain 40 129.2

Corrugated 40 136.3


Moapa Gray Ware

Plain 11 47.0

Black-on-gray 4.0

Shivwits

Plain 42 140.9

Corrugated 2 13.3 Tusayan White Ware

Black Mesa Black-on-white 5.3


Dimpled 4.2 Total 149 514.9


Count Weight

Tusayan Gray Ware


Moapa Gray Ware

Plain 4 16.l

Shivwits

Plain 3 14.2 Angular-Quartz Tempered

Plain 6.5

Prescott Gray Ware

Verde Black-on-gray 8.1

Unidentified (Paddle-and-Anvil) Ware

Plain 8.1

Total 166 785.5


Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain Corrugated

Black-on-gray

Moapa Gray Ware

Plain Shivwits

Plain Angular-Quartz Temper


Unclassified Prescott Gray Ware

Plain Total

Count Weight

100 l J3 16

30

2

3 266

389.3

432.7

40.9

123.6

6.9

3.9

3.8

12.7

1,013.8

The Mount Trumbull Survey Sites

Table A.70. Ceramic Counts and Weights from NA 13679.

Unit I Unit 2 Unit 3 Diagnostic


Tusayan Gray Ware Plain 5 17.0 1.5 6.0

Black:-on-g,-ray 2.0

Moapa Gray Ware

Plain 72 19.2 23 67.5 19 50.6 4 20.6

Black-on-gray 2 5.9 I 8.0

Total 79 242.1 24 69.0 20 58.6 6 28.6

290

Total

cnt wt

7 24.5

2.0

118 357.9

3 13.9

129 398.3

291

Table A. 71. Ceramic Counts and Weights from NA 13683.

Unit I uni12 unit3 Diagnost~c Totiii cnt wt cnt wt cnt wt cnt wt cnt wt

Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain 14 36.0 5 15.0 9 20.0 9.3 29 80.3

Corrugated 2 4.2 1 4.0 3 8.2

Black-on-gray 3 9.0 2.9 3.3 4 12.6 9 27.8

Moapa Gray Ware

Plain 49 154.3 36 92.2 43 115.1 6 54.2 134 415.8

Corrugated 81 244.6 25 62.6 13 48.2 12 71.7 131 427.1

Black-on-gray 11 22.8 2 6.1 6 16.5 8 30.3 27 75.7

Shivwits

Plain 2 8.3 3 6.8 5 19.1 5.0 11 39.2

Corrugated 17 78.4 2.0 3 6.0 21 86.4


Middleton Black-on-red 2 22.7 2 22.7


Total 177 553.4 76 191.8 82 232.4 35 209.8 370 1,187.4

Table A.72. Ceramic Counts and Weights from NA 13684

Unit I uni12 Diagnostic Total cnt wt cnt wt cnt wt cnt wt

Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain 36 74.4 5 9.6 41 84.0

Black-on-gray 7 13.8 2 4.8 9 18.6

Moapa Gray Ware

Plain 14 63.7 7 15.4 10.5 22 89.6

Corrugated 1.5 1.5

Black-on-gray 2 3.3 5 20.6 7 23.9

Total 59 155.2 15 31.3 6 31.1 80 217.6

292


Uiil'.ti Unhi UnitJ 'Oiagnostlc Total

cnt wt cnt wt cnt wt cnt wt cnt wt

Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain 49 137.8 62 208.5 43 154.5 154 500.8

Black-on-gray 1.0 4 14.9 11 30.2 10 32.2 26 78.3

Moapa Gray Ware

Plain 230 714.2 244 1,008.6 89 323.0 4 39.1 567 2,084.9

Corrugated 3 7.7 2 8.8 5 16.5

Black-on-gray 11 29.8 24 90.8 3 12.2 8 37.6 46 170.4

Tsegi Orange Ware


Unidentified Ware

Black-on-gray 1 2.5 2.5

Total 291 882.8 338 1,333.0 147 522.4 24 117.7 800 2,855.9


Count Weight

Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain 8 18.9

Black-on-gray 2 6.5

Moapa Gray Ware

Plain 32 105.3

Corrugated 10 37.5

Black-on-gray 1.0

Shivwits

Plain 3 10.2

Total 56 179.4

293

TableA.75. Ceramic Counts and Weights from NA 13691.

uni ti Diagnostic TOW cnt wt cnt wt cnt wt

Tusayan Gray Ware

Corrugated 2.6 5.1 2 7.7

Black-on-gray 2.4 I 2.4 Moapa Gray Ware

Plain 9 18.2 8.0 IO 26.2 Corrugated 23 45.9 11 62.4 34 108.3 Black-on-gray 3 9.9 3 9.9

Shivwits

Plain 2 4.1 2 12.5 4 16.6

Corrugated 5.1 I 5.1 Sand-tempered red ware

Unclassified 2 3.6 2 3.6 Unidentified ware

Plain I 4.1 4.1 Total 36 74.9 22 109.0 58 183.9


unit t Unit2 IJfugllOStic Total cnt wt cnt wt cnt wt cnt wt

Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain I 3.2 3.2 Moapa Gray Ware

Plain 16 38.6 36 99.6 4 33.0 56 171.2 Corrugated 4 15.7. 4 15.7

Total 20 54.3 36 99.6 5 36.2 61 190.l

294

Table A. 77. Ceramic Counts and Weights from NA 13698.

Unit i Unlt2 i'5l~osdc Total cnt wt cnt wt cnt wt cnt wt

Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain 3 5.9 3 4.8 6 10.7 Corrugated 4 14.7 4 14.7 Black-on-gray 3 3.1 3 3.1

Moapa Gray Ware

Plain 47 417.3 28 95.1 3 24.7 78 537.l Corrugated 9 38.9 1.4 12.6 11 52.9 Black-on-gray 7 32.3 2 6.9 9 39.2

Shivwits

Plain 4.1 5.9 2 10.0 Shinarump White Ware

Virgin Black-on-white 29.5 29.5 Unidentified Ware

Plain 7.3 I 7.3 Total 75 523.6 32 101.3 8 79.6 115 704.5


unltl unlt2 Diagnostic Total cnt wt cnt wt cnt wt cnt wt

Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain 4 14.4 2.8 5.5 6 22.7 Corrugated 0.9 0.9 Black-on-gray 0.3 2.3 2 2.6

Moapa Gray Ware

Plain 75 181.0 66 153.5 2 7.7 143 342.2 Corrugated 3 6.5 1.0 2.1 5 9.6 Black-on-gray 4 4.7 3.6 5 8.3

Shivwits

Plain 4 16.6 4 16.6 Corrugated 2.7 2.7

San Juan Redware

Unclassified I 4.8 4.8 Total 93 227.1 68 157.3 7 26.0 168 410.4

295

Table A.79. Ceramic Counts from NA 13718.

Unlti Unlt'.! 'i'5Iagnostic sWoFslte Total cnt wt cnt wt cnt wt cnt wt cnt wt

Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain 31 74.3 15 61.6 46 135.9 Corrugated 3 8.0 2 6.4 5 14.4 Black-on-gray 4 7.2 7 24.0 3 18.4 3 8.7 17 58.3

Moapa Gray Ware

Plain 79 244.7 35 209.4 4 47.6 118 501.7 Corrugated 8 22.5 7 41.6 8.4 16 72.5 Black-on-gray 9 21.3 4 26.9 3 11.9 16 60.1

Shivwits

Plain 2 12.5 4.7 3 17.2 Tusayan White Ware

Unclassified 1 4.7 4.7 Tsegi Orange Ware

TusayanBJR 1 5.9 1 5.9 Unclassified 2.1 5.2 2 4.2 4 11.5

Total 135 380.1 74 392.3 15 101.1 3 8.7 227 882.2

Table A.80. Ceramic Counts from NA 13719.

Unh 1 Unit2 Diagnostic Total cnt wt cnt wt cnt wt cnt wt

Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain 26 85.9 126 258.0 4.5 153 348.4 Corrugated 2 5.7 2 5.6 4 11.3 Black-on-gray 8 27.8 19 34.7 11 26.9 38 89.4

Moapa Gray Ware

Plain 50 194.0 46 109.6 I 8.4 97 312.0 Corrugated 33 118.1 8 24.8 4 16.6 45 159.5 Black-on-gray 2 11.4 5 9.6 3 13.0 10 34.0

Shivwits

Corrugated 5 20.0 5 20.0 Unidentified Ware

Black-on-gray 1.4 1.4 Total 126 462.9 205 438.l 22 75.0 353 976.0

296

Table A.81. Ceramic Counts and Weights frorn NA 13727

Unit 1 Unit2 Diagnostic Total


Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain 40 107.8 263 610.0 4 34.4 307 752.2

Black-on-gray 2 13.4 20 43.2 9 54.2 31 110.8

Moapa Gray Ware

Plain 95 286.0 445 J,142.0 9.7 541 1,419.7

Black-on-gray 13 21.4 27 79.9 4 18.6 46 119.9

San Juan Red Ware

Unclassified 1.4 2.0 2.4 3 5.8


Unclassified 1 4.9 l 4.9

Total 151 430.0 759 1,864.0 19 119.3 929 2,413.3


Unit l Diagnostic Total

Tusayan Gray Ware cnt wt cnt wt cnt wt

Plain 63 155.7 10.3 64 166.0

Corrugated 11 43.5 JI 43.5

Black-on-gray 4 5.9 2 11.5 6 17.4

Moapa Gray Ware

Plain 170 584.5 2 21.2 172 605.7

Corrugated 42 180.7 21.8 43 202.5

Black-on-gray 16 41.0 4 20.9 20 61.9

Shivwits

Plain 2 5.4 2 5.4



Unclassified 4 6.9 5.8 5 12.7

Unidentified

Corrugated 1.5 1.5

Red ware l 0.7 ] 0.7

Total 317 1,036.7 1l 91.5 328 1,128.2

Shivwits Plateau Sites

Table A.83. Ceramic Counts and Weights from AZ A:2:44 (BLM).

Count Weight Tusayan Gray Ware

Corrugated 1 5.8 Black-on-gray 3 8.0

Moapa Gray Ware Plain 16 68.6 Corrugated 7 33.5 Black-on-gray 12 50.0

Shivwits Plain 11 44.0 Corrugated 28 142.3

Sand-tempered red ware Unc1assified 3 5.2

Total 81 357.4

Table A.84. Ceramic Counts and Weights from AZ A:l 1:28 (BLM).

Tusayan Gray Ware Plain

Moapa Gray Ware Plain Black-on-gray

Shivwits Plain

Unidentified Black-on-gray

Total

Count Weight

21

14

3

5

44

128.3

82.6 13.1

22.4

4.0 246.4

297

298

Table A.85. Ceramic Counts and Weights from AZ A:l5:8.

Count Weight Tusayan Gray Ware

Plain 2 5.4 Moapa Gray Ware

Plain 2 2.6

Shivwits Plain 90 267.2

Corrugated 89 276.2 Prescott Gray Ware

Plain 3 10.5

Unidentified Corrugated 2 4.7

Total 188 566.6

Table A.86. Ceramic Counts:fromAZA:15:8, Reinterpreted from Shutler's (1962) Analysis.

Count Tusayan Gray Ware Plain 35 Corrugated 34 Black-on-gray 52

Tusayan White Ware Black Mesa Black-on-white 1

Moapa Gray Ware

Plain 79 Corrugated 37 Black-on-gray 50

Shivwits Plain 283 Corrugated 308

Red/Orange Ware

Unclassified 40 Prescott Gray Ware

Plain 6 Unidentified Figurine fragment I

Total 926

AppendixB

Virgin Anasazi Radiocarbon Dates

300

Table B. l. Published Radiocarbon Dates from Virgin Anasazi Sites.

Period Cl4Age Standard Deviation Site Reference

Basketmaker III 1160 60 42WS 387 Walling et al. 1986

Basketmaker III 1300 50 42WS326 Billat et al 1992

Basketmaker III 1310 60 42WS 387 Walling et al. 1986

Basketmaker III 1465 85 42WS 326 Billat et al 1992


Basketmaker Ill 1760 160 42WS326 Billat et al 1992


Basketmaker III? 1295 60 26CK2072 Myhrer 1989

Basketmaker III? 1380 70 42WS 503 Dalley and McFadden 1985

Pueblo I 690 70 AZA:l:30 Jenkins 1981

Pueblo I 1010 70 42WS268 Walling et al. 1986

Pueblo I 1040 80 AZA:1:30 Jenkins 1981

Pueblo I 1140 60 42WS 388 Walling et al. 1986


Pueblo I 1180 60 AZA:l:30 Jenkins 1981

Pueblo I ll90 50 42WS 1349 Dalley and McFadden 1988

Pueblo I 1480 60 42WS 503 Dalley and McFadden 1985





Pueblo I? 730 50 42WS268 Walling et al. 1986

Pueblo I? 1870 60 42WS 388 Walling et al. 1986

Pueblo I 1160 100 NA5507 Janetski and Hall 1983

Pueblo I 1190 llO NA5507 Janetski and Hall 1983

Pueblo I? 1070 60 42WS 392 Walling et al. 1986

Early Pueblo II 760 90 42WS 1346 Dalley and McFadden 1988




Early Pueblo II 1010 60 42KA2667 Walling and Thompson 1988

Early Pueblo II 1060 70 42WS404 Dalley and McFadden 1988



Early Pueblo II 1120 70 42KA.2667 Walling and Thompson 1988


Early Pueblo II 1250 50 42WS 1712 Walling and Thompson 1986


301

Table B.l, Continued

Early Pueblo II 1270 70 42WS 1712 Walling and Thompson 1986

Early Pueblo JI 1330 50 42WS 1346 Dalley and McFadden 1988

Early Pueblo H 1630 80 42WS 1712 Walling and Thompson 1986

Early Pueblo II 1690 80 42KA2667 Walling and Thompson l 988

Early Pueblo II? 1090 50 42WS288 Walling et at 1986

Mid Pueblo II 570 60 42WS390 Walling et al. 1986

Mid Pueblo Il 750 60 42WS288 Walling et at 1986

Mid Pueblo II 940 50 VR21 Larson 1987

Mid Pueblo ll 1020 50 42WS288 Walling et al. 1986

Ivfid Pueblo II 1250 150 VR27 Larson 1987

MidPuebJoU 1800 330 42WS 390 Walling et at 1986

Late Pueblo Il 810 50 26CK2059 Lyneis et al. 1989

Late Pueblo II 830 60 26CK2072 Myhrer 1989

Late Pueblo II 980 80 AZB:6:44 Westfall 1987

Late Pueblo II 990 60 VR22 Larson 1987

Late Pueblo II 1005 60 26CK2072 Myhn.T 1989

Late Pueblo II 1080 60 AZB:6:44 Westfail I 987


Late PuebJo II 1235 55 AZB:6:44 Westfall J 987


Late Pueblo ll 1265 60 AZB:6:44 Westfull 1987

Late Pueblo Il 1290 60 AZB:6:44 West:fuH 1987

Late Pueblo II 1340 60 42WS 392 Walling et al. 1986


Late Pueblo H? 1050 70 42WS 395 Walling et al. 1986

Pueblom 630 IOO GC 671 Berry 1982

Pueblo HI 680 80 42WS 395 Walling et al. 1986

Pueblo III 720 IOO GC671 Berry 1982

PuebioU! 780 50 42WS 395 Walling et al. 1986

Pueblo Ill 780 105 GC67l Berry 1982

Pueblo In 840 50 42WS 392 Walling et al. 1986

Pueblo III 840 110 GC671 Berry 1982

Puehlom 870 50 VR7 Larson 1987

Pueblom 920 50 42WS 395 Walling et al. J 986

Pueblo HI? 730 60 42WS 392 Walling et al. 1986

Pueblo HI? 780 50 42WS 395 Walling et al. 1986

? (Pre-Conugated) 1320 80 VR2 Larson 1987

? (Pre-Corrugated) 1350 80 VRB Larson 1987

? (Pre-Conugated) 1400 100 VR3 Larson 1987

302

Table B.l, Continued

Anasazi 890 50 42WS288 Walling et al. 1986

Anasazi 980 60 42WS 387 Walling et al. 1986

Anasazi 1240 60 42WS385 Walling et al. 1986

Pre-Ceramic? 1870 60 42WS 321 Walling et al. 1986

AppendixC

Observations on K.ayenta Anasazi Ceramic Chronology

304

The most current reviews of Kayenta ceramic dating are Ambler (1985) and

Christenson (1994). They both use ceramic assemblages associated with tree-ring dates to

make inferences about the dating of specific types. Table C. l shows the sites from which

Christenson and Ambler built their chronologies, along with the dates they assigned to each

site, 11 but including only sites that date after A.D. 900. Two points should be obvious from

this table. First, even though most of these sites are relatively well dated, when they use the

same site Ambler and Christenson do not always agree about what date should be assigned.

These discrepancies in site dating are easily attributed to methodological differences.

Christenson uses mean cutting dates for each site, 12 while Ambler's dates are estimated median

occupation dates.

Second, in both cases there is a gap at a critical point in the sequence. Using Ambler's

dates the gap is from A.D. 1025 to A.D. 1095, Christenson's dates imply a gap from A.D.

1015 to A.D. 1079. All of the ceramic transitions that are critical for dating the Moapa

Valley - Arizona Strip trade apparently occurred during this gap. 13

Kayenta Anasazi Sites Dated to the 11th Century

Between them, Ambler and Christenson use five sites with dates between A.D. 1000

and A.D. 1100. One of these, NA 8604, is dated only by one date of 1087vv, and so can be

of little use in building the chronology. The four others, and one tree-ring dated site neither

of them used, deserve a closer look.

305

Table C. l. Sites Used in Building Kayenta Region Ceramic Chronologies.

Site Date Used by Date Used by Ambler (1985) Christenson (1994)

A'ZD:7:134 not used A.D. 945

A'ZD:7:216 not used A.D. 1009

A'Z D:11:18 A.D. 1025 A.D. 1015

NA8604 A.D. 1095 not used

RB551 A.D. 1100 not used

A'ZD:11:3 A.D. 1105 A.D. 1079

A'Z D:l 1:2108 not used A.D. 1104

A'Z D: 11 :356 not used A.D. 1110-1118

NA 7537 A.D. 1115 not used

A'Z D: 11 :425 not used A.D. 1118

A'Z D:7:12 A.D. 1130 A.D. 1123

J-43-23 not used A.D. 1130

NA9460 not used A.D. 1151

NA9454 A.D. 1180 A.D. 1167

NA 5815 A.D. 1270 not used

Segazlin Mesa A.D. 1275 not used

NA 2515 (Betatakin) A.D. 1278 A.D. 1269

NA 3173 (Scaffold House) not used A.D. 1276

Keet Siel A.D. 1282 not used

AZ D:7:216

This site is relatively large, with three pithouses, four surface jacal habitation

structures, seven masonry rooms, and a large kiva. The large number of habitation structures

may indicate that the site was occupied for a long time, although that is not clear. The

306

excavators (Andrews et al. 1982:73) note that prior to excavation the site appeared to date

to the Lamoki-TorevaPhase (approximately A.D.1050-1150 A.D.) but "preliminary ceramic

analysis combined with the subsequent excavation," suggest that the site dates to the

Dinnebito Phase (A.D. 850-975). It not clear what about either the ceramics or the

excavations leads them to consider this earlier date, although it may be the large number of

white ware sherds with narrow line widths (Powell et al. 1980:343-345). Presumably these

would be classified as Kana-a Black-on-white were the analysts using the traditional typology

rather than recording attributes.

Eleven tree-ring dates were obtained from the site (Powell et al 1980:431). Ten of

these, including the only two cutting dates (1007r and 1008r) came from the kiva. The other

dates from the kiva are: 859vv, 948vv, 992+vv, 1007vv, 1009vv, 101 lvv, 1012vv, and

1012v. The other date from the site is 942vv from Structure 7.

These dates indicate that the kiva was probably built in A.D. 1008 and repaired at

least once sometime soon after A.D. 1012. The mean cutting date of A.D. 1009 that

Christenson (1994) uses for this site apparently represents the mean of the two r dates and

the 1012v date. In any case, it is a reasonable date for the kiva, although not necessarily for

the site as a whole.

The excavators note that "some form of intrasite chronological differentiation is

apparent ... ", and that "few artifacts can be directly associated with the occupation and use of

the kiva" (Andrews et al. 1982:79, 87). For the site as a whole, 22,736 sherds are reported

(Powell, et al. 1980:341-354), including 17,788 grayware sherds, 7,788 white ware sherds,

and 350 red ware sherds.14 The gray ware sherds include 824 corrugated sherds (3.6 percent

307

of the total assemblage), and the red ware sherds are dominated by "Tsegi Black-on-red" (i.e.,

Tsegi Orange Ware) with only 13 "San Juan Black-on-red (ie., San Juan Red Ware) sherds.

White ware analysis consists of counts of design attributes that can only partially be related

to the traditional types or styles, although the analysis suggests the assemblage is dominated

by Kana-a and/or Wepo Black-on-white. The presence of sherds with relatively wide lines

suggests Black Mesa and/or Sosi Black-on-white is present as well, and 23 sherds with

hatched elements would presumably be classified as Dogoszhi Black-on-white. The ceramic

analysis does not provide a breakdown by intrasite provenience, so it is impossible to tell what

ceramics are associated with the kiva The fact that "the kiva fill produced a moderate

amount of artifactual material" (Andrews et al. 1982:79) may indicate that parts of the site

continued to be occupied after the kiva burned.

Christenson (1994) uses a reanalyzed subset of the ceramic assemblage from the site,

although it is not clear what proveniences are included. Christenson and Bender (1994) list

D:7:216 as one of their "Middle Ceramic- Surface" siteswiththecountsshownin Table C.2.

Christenson (1994:306) uses 212 sherds from 8 types to obtain a mean ceramic date for

D:7:216. He may use the surface assemblage reported in Christenson and Bender (1994)

since the sum of eight of the types (Lino Gray, Kana-a Gray, Tusayan/Moenkopi Corrugated,

Tooled, Kana-a Black-on-white, Wepo Black-on-white, Black Mesa Black-on-white, and

Shato Black-on-white) is 212. This would mean that San Juan Red Ware and Black

Mesa/Sosi Black-on-white were excluded from the mean ceramic date calculations, while

Lino Gray was included despite the fact that Christenson (1994:305) does not give a range

308

Table C.2. Ceramic Counts for AZ D:7:216 from Christenson and Bender (1994).

Count

Tusayan J!Vhite Ware

Kana-a Black-on-white 62

Wepo Black-on-white 16

Black Mesa Black-on-white 20

Shato Black-on-white

Black Mesa/Sosi Black-on-white 10

Painted 78

Unpainted 117

Tusayan Gray Ware

Lino Gray 9

Fugitive Red

Kana-a Gray 95

Tusayan/Moenkopi Corrugated 6

Toole.d 3

Plain Gray 286

San Juan Red Ware 24

Total 728

or mean date for it. Or it could be that Christenson (1994) used slightly different counts than

those reported in Christenson and Bender (1994).

In any case, while the construction of the kiva at AZ D:7:216 seems clearly to have

occurred sometime close to A.D. 1010, there does not appear to be any ceramic assemblage

that can be reliably associated with that date.

309

AZD:11:18

This site is even larger and more complex than the previous one. It includes five

pithouses, two jacal structures, and three kivas, along with a number of storage rooms. Ward

(1972:217) suggests that the site was occupied for more than 50 years and was abandoned

"toward the middle of the 11th century." Ambler (1985 :3 8) generally agrees, suggesting that

"most of the site was occupied from 1010 to 1040," but that there may have been a "light

occupation" earlier than that and that the site may have been occupied until A.D. 1050.

Thirteen tree-ring dates were obtained from the site, but only five were cutting dates.

The best-dated structure is Kiva 3, which has dates of 1024vv, two dates of 1025r, and two

ofl 025rB. It seems clear that Kiva 3 was built in AD. 1025. Pithouse 1 may also have been

built in AD. 1025, as it has a single date ofl 025+rB. The only other good date is 10 lO++rB

fromK.iva 1, which is constructed over a dismantledjacal unit. As Ambler (1985:38) notes,

there is a good chance that wood from the underlying structure was recycled.

Given the large number of undated structures at AZ D: 11: 18, it seems that both

Ambler and Ward have overinterpreted the evidence for the actual dating of this site.

Occupation probably began by AD. 1010 and continued until sometime after A.D. 1025, but

it is not clear for how long after. I see no reason to be sure that the occupation (or

occupations) ended by about AD. 1050, as both Ambler and Ward suggest. Nevertheless,

Ambler (1985:37) includes all the ceramics from the site and associates them with an AD.

1025 median occupation date. Christenson relies on a small sample of the sherds, but it is not

clear where they are from. He also uses an A.D. 1015 mean cutting date for the site,

310

apparently obtained by averaging the four A.D. 1025 cutting dates with one 977v date from

a storage structure.

The ceramic counts from AZ D: 11 : 18 include small quantities ofTusayan Corrugated,

Sosi Black-on-white, and Dogoszhi Black-on-white. Also, the Tsegi Orange Ware types

(TusayanBlack-on-red and Medicine Black-on-red) are far more common than San Juan Red

Ware, according to the published sherd counts. About two percent of the Tusayan Gray

Ware from the site is corrugated. Ambler (1985:37) apparently excludes the 7391 sherds

classified as "Tusayan Gray Ware" (Gumerman, et al. 1972:112) from the counts he uses.

These "Tusayan Gray Ware" sherds are almost certainly plain gray body sherds from Lino

Gray or Kana-a Gray jars which Ambler presumably should have included in his category

"Lino, Kana-a & plain Gray." Not doing so creates the impression that about six percent of

the Tusayan Gray Ware from AZ D: 11: 18 is corrugated. This apparent oversight is at least

partly responsible for the early effective date of A.D. 1030 that Ambler assigns to Tusayan

Corrugated. The real question, though, is not whether Tusayan Corrugated is two percent

or six percent of Gray Ware assemblages at A.D. 1025, but whether it is present at all.

Fortunately, the published ceramic counts from AZ D: 11: 18 include intrasite

provenience, so it is possible to determine exactly what ceramics were associated with the

dated structures (Table C.3). Unfortunately, only twelve sherds came from the :floor of.Kiva

3, which was clearly constructed in A.D. 1025. One of these is Tusayan Corrugated and

another is Sosi Black-on-white, perhaps indicating that those types were in use soon after

A.D. 1025. However, the larger collection from the floor and :floor fill (presumably the fill

below the roof fall, although this is not clear) ofPithouse 1 (also probably constructed inA.D.

Table C.3. Ceramic Counts from Selected Proveniences at AZ D:l 1:18.

Kiva 1 Kiva 1 Kiva 1 Kiva3 Kiva3 Pithouse 1 Pithouse 1 Pithouse 1 Site Floor Floor Fill Fill Floor Fill Floor Floor Fill Fill Total

Tusayan White Ware "Tusayan White Ware" 0 3 58 1 20 7 21 37 3,074 Kana-a Black-on-white 2 0 6 0 1 0 1 1 284 Wepo Black-on-white 0 0 2 0 4 1 1 0 237 Black Mesa Black-on- 1 9 10 3 17 1 7 22 1,557

white Sosi Black-on-white 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 31 Dogoszhi Black-on-white 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 Unidentified Black-on- 5 2 39 0 40 1 24 36 2,307

white Tusayan Gray Ware

"Tusayan Gray Ware" 15 4 162 3 61 5 45 102 7,391 Lino Black-on-gray 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 6

Kana-a Gray 2 2 98 1 15 1 29 65 3,459 Tusayan Corrugated 0 0 10 1 13 0 0 1 221

San Juan Red Ware Abajo Red-on-orange 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 Deadmans Black-on-red 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12

Tsegi Orange Ware Medicine Black-on-red 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 29 Tusayan Black-on-red 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 1 99 Tsegi Orange 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 107

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 117 Total 29 20 392 12 172 16 128 271 18 965

Note: Counts are from Gumermanet al. 1972:112-113. Presumably, "Tusayan White Ware" refers to unpainted white ware sherds, "Tusayan Gray Ware" to plain body sherds, and "Tsegi Orange" to Tsegi Orange Ware that could not be classified to a specific type. w --

312

1025) does not contain either of these types, nor are they present in the collection from the

floor or floor fill ofKiva 1, which may have been built around A.D. 1010.

Tusayan Corrugated is considerably more common in the fills of these structures,

making up about four percent of the combined fill assemblages (34/835), as opposed to less

than half a percent of the combined floor and floor fill assemblages (1/205). Sosi Black-on

white is rare in all levels of these structures. My interpretation of these patterns is that these

structures filled, in part at least, during a time when Tusayan Corrugated was beginning to

be common, after Sosi Black-on-white began to be used, but before it was common. I

suspect this time was at least a couple of decades after A.D. 1025 (possibly in the A.D. 1050s

or 1060s based on the information from other sites summarized below). I would interpret the

floor and floor fill assemblages from Pithouse 1 as the best indication of what ceramic types

were in use around A.D. 1025 or shortly after. Ifl am correct about this, then Tusayan

Corrugated and Sosi Black-on-white are both absent at this time. Also, Dogoszhi Black-on

white does not appear in any context from the three dated structures, although it is present

on the site. In any case, the association ofTusayan Corrugated or Sosi Black-on-white with

the A.D. 1010 or 1025 dates from AZ D: 11: 18 is weak at best, and Dogoszhi Black-on-white

is clearly not associated with those dates.

Tsegi Orange Ware is a problem for different reasons. "Tsegi Orange" (probably

meaning Tsegi Orange Ware that was not classifiable to type) is present in the assemblage

from the floor ofKiva 1, and the majority of the red wares from the site were classified as

Tsegi Orange Ware. Some of the Tsegi Orange Ware may be attributable to the latter part

of the site occupation, which I believe extended well beyond A.D. 1025. However, the

313

scarcity of San Juan Red Ware may mean that it had already be~ to be rep1aced by Tsegi

Orange Ware by A.D. 1025 or so, when the site was obviously heavily occupied.

RB 1006

Some confirmation that corrugated pottery, Sosi Black-on-white, and Dogoszhi

Black-on-white were all absent at AD. 1025 is provided by RB 1006, a site in the Marsh Pass

area excavated by Ralph Beals (Beals et al. 1945 :24-42). The site includes two horizontally

separated occupations. The western part of the site included a four-room surface structure

and two pit structures, all of which were associated with Pueblo I pottery. The eastern part

of the site had 1ater pottery, a one-room surface structure, and a pit structure (Pit Structure

l)that yielded an AD. 1026B cutting date (Bannister et al. 1968.). The single cutting date

limits the usefulness of the site for dating purposes but indicates that at least some use of Pit

Structure I must have occurred in AD. 1026or1ater. "The decorated black-on-white pottery

found on the floor was all of an early B1ack Mesa B1ack-on-white with unusually wide lines,

crude painting, and in designs more closely resembling those of Kana-a Black-on-white than

the fully developed Black Mesa" (Beals et al. 1945 :29). Presumably this would be c1assified

as Wepo Black-on-white by most analysts today. Other pottery from Pit Structure 1 included

Kana-a Gray, Lino Gray, and Deadmans Black-on-red. No Sosi or Dogoszhi Black-on-white

sherds were found on the site, although there was one F1agstaffB1ack-on-white sherd from

the surface. Corrugated sherds were "few in number and occurred only on the surface.

Consequently they may be disregarded" (Beals et al. 1945:39).

314

RB551

By the late 1070s the pottery assemblages are very different. RB 551 is a small

residential site that includes a masonry surface roomblock, an isolated room, and a kiva (Beals

et al 1945:43-52). The construction of the kiva is well dated to A.D. 1077 by seven cutting

dates (Bannister et al. 1968:20), and there are several non-cutting dates from other parts of

the site, including one at 1108. Ambler assigns a date of A.D. 1100 to the assemblage. There

is an earlier occupation at the site indicated by Pueblo I sherds at the bottom of the trash

deposits, though around 90 percent or more of the gray ware from the upper levels is

corrugated. Ambler assumes that all the non-corrugated gray ware is from the earlier

occupation, and therefore that all the gray ware from the late Pueblo II occupation is

corrugated. This probably goes too far, but clearly the vast majority of the gray ware from

the dated occupation is corrugated. San Juan Red Ware is present in the lower levels of the

trash deposit, but only a few sherds of it came from the upper levels of trash or the excavated

structures. Tsegi Orange Ware, Dogoszhi Black-on-white, and Sosi Black-on-white are all

common in these same areas. Tiris suggests that the transitions to the use of corrugated utility

wares, and from San Juan Red ware to Tsegi Orange Ware, were complete, or nearly so, by

the late 1070s.

AZ D:11:3

The pottery from AZ D: 11 : 3 presents a similar picture. Features at AZ D: 11 :3 include

an isolated rri..asonry room., a kiva, a subterranean mealing room, and a roomb1ock comprising

four surfacerooms(Gumerman 1970:33-47). Five cutting dates were obtained fromthekiva:

315

1075r, 1078r, 1078r, 1084+r, and 1089+r (Ward 1972). Ambler (1985:39) assumes the ~va

was constructed in about 1090, near the beginning of an occupation that lasted for 30 years,

and so assigns a median occupation date of AD. 1105 to the site. Christenson uses a mean

cutting date of AD. 1079, apparently derived by excluding the two +r dates, but including

dates ofl 07 4v and l 089v in the average. Ahlstrom ( 1998 :251) suggests more cautiously that

"the dates suggest that the site was occupied, at a minimum, from 1074 to 1089."

White ware ceramics at the site are dominated by Sosi and Dogoszhi Black-on-whites

in approximately equal amounts, and 92 percent of the gray ware sherds are corrugated

(Gumerman 1970:56-57). Ambler excludes 977 sherds classified as "Tusayan Gray Ware"

from his counts and so uses even higher percentages of corrugated pottery. Only two San

Juan Red Ware sherds were identified, compared to 1,902 Tsegi Orange Ware sherds.

Summary

The makeup of Kayenta Anasazi ceramic assemblages changed dramatically during

the eleventh century A.D: corrugated gray wares were introduced and almost entirely

replaced plain and neckbanded types; Sosi and DogoszhiBlack-on-white appeared; and Tsegi

Orange Ware replaced San Juan Red Ware. There is a dearth of well-dated Kayenta sites

from about AD. I 025 to the late 1070s. My review suggests that corrugated pottery and

Sosi and Dogoszhi Black-on-white were all absent at AD. 1025, but common by the late

1070s. Tsegi Orange Ware may be present by A.D. 1025, however. Beginning dates for

corrugated pottery of A.D. l 020 (Christenson) or A.D. I 030 (Ambler) can not be supported

by the tree-ring dated Kayenta sites and appear to be based on dubious assumptions about the

316

associations of certain ceramics with the tree-ring dates at two sites with complex

occupations (AZ D:7 :216 and AZ D: 11: 18). Starting dates for Sosi and Dogoszhi Black-on

white appear to be based on the assumption that the small amounts of these types found at

AZ D:7 :216 and D: 11 : 18 were associated with occupation that occurred not long after use

of the tree-ring-dated structures at those sites, although there is no reason to be certain that

is true. Even with these problematic assumptions, the methods proposed by Ambler and

Christenson probably work well for dating most sites; the error introduced might, at worst,

lead to dating some eleventh century sites a couple of decades too early, and other sources

of error in site dating (e.g., mixing of multiple occupations or sampling error with small

collections) are likely to be greater.

Analysis of the Kayenta sites still leaves unresolved the dating of the introduction of

corrugated pottery in the Virgin region, as well as the other ceramic changes that coincided

with the onset of intensive ceramic exchange there. At best we can say that, if corrugated

pottery began to be made in the Virgin region at the same time as in the Kayenta, then that

time must have been after AD. 1025 butpriortoA.D.1080. Judgingbythealmostcomplete

absence of plain and neckbanded gray wares in the two sites that were probably occupied by

the late I 070s, the earliest corrugated pottery must have begun somewhat earlier than when

those sites were occupied, probably at least a couple of decades earlier, and rapidly become

popular.

317

Tree-Ring Uated Mid-Eleventh Century Flagstaff Area Sites

There are four tree-ring dated sites in the Flagstaff area that date in the A.D. 1025-

1078 gap in the Kayenta region sites. The Flagstaff area sites have some Kayenta pottery on

them, although they also include substantial amounts Cohonina and Sinagua pottery. Much,

if not all, of the Kayenta pottery on the Flagstaff area sites is probably imported. Because

these sites are culturally as well as geographically distant from the Virgin Anasazi, their

relevance to issues of Virgin Anasazi chronology is questionable. Still, they are worth

examining briefly.

NA 862 (Medicine Fort)

Medicine Fort was excavated by the Museum of Northern Arizona in 1930. It

includes a ''rectangular patio" and three narrow adjacent rooms surrounded by a thick

masonrywall(Colton 1946:81;Downum1988:389-396). The large number of tree-ring dates

"shows a relatively even distribution ofcutting, near-cutting, and non-cutting dates from the

late 1020s to the early 1060s" (Downum 1988:394). Downum tentatively suggests that

construction of the site took place mostly in the l 040s, with remodeling and occupation

continuing into the early 1060s.

Colton (1946:84) reports 76 Tusayan Corrugated sherds and 268 "Tusayan Gray

Ware" sherds from the site, suggesting that Tusayan Conugated was being made by the early

1060s. He also lists 300 Deadmans Black-on-red (i.e., San Juan Red Ware) sherds and 38

Tusayan Black-on-red (Tsegi Orange Ware) sherds. In 1994 I reexamined the red ware from

the site at Museum ofNorthem Arizona, although I was not able to locate as many sherds

318

Table C.4. Counts from a Reanalysis of Red and Orange Wares from NA 862.

San Juan Tsegi Unclassified Provenience Red Ware Orange Ware Red/Orange Ware Total Medicine Cave and 222 17 1 240 Fort Room East 1

Cave above fort 16 2 18 large room sherds 0 2 2 Room East ill 4 3 7 Other proveniences 9 I 10 Total 251 25 I 277

Note: The proveniences are from the bag labels. The sherds labelled "cave above fort" are probably from NA 863, although they are labelled NA 862. The bag from Room East 1 includes a note that says "gave 5 sherds Deadmans BIR to Anna Sheppar" (sic).

as Colton reported. In reexamining the sherds it was clear that Colton had sorted Tsegi

Orange Ware from San Juan Red Ware without benefit of examining temper on fresh breaks;

judging from his statements elsewhere it is likely that he relied more on design style and

perceived presence or absence of a slip. My counts are listed in Table C.4, and in general

agree with Colton's finding that San Juan Red Ware was much more common than Tsegi

Orange Ware at the site.

NA 3577 (Pittsberg Village Fort)

Pittsberg Village Fort includes a two-room structure with heavy masonry walls

(designatedNA3577A) and several outlying rooms (Colton 1946:217-220). Tree-ring dates

obtained from the fort itself and one of the outlying rooms (NA 3577D) suggest that the both

of these structures were constructed in the early 1050s (Downum 1988:360-362). The fort

319

was apparently remodeled in 1065. Cohon's sherd counts from NA 3577A include 87

Tusayan Corrugated and 67 "Tusayan Gray Ware" sherds (Cohon 1946:218). This means

that about 56 percent of the Tusayan Gray Ware at the site was corrugated. By comparison,

at Medicine Fort, which had an overlapping occupation that started perhaps ten years earlier,

only about 22 percent of the Tusayan Gray Ware was corrugated. No Sosi or Dogoszhi

Black-on-white was reported from either Medicine Fort or Pittsberg Village Fort.

Colton(1946:218) also reports 288 Deadmans Black-on-red and 53 TusayanBlack

on-red sherds fromPittsberg Village Fort. By these counts, over 80 percent of the combined

red and orange ware is San Juan Red Ware. I also reexamined the red and orange wares from

NA 3577 in 1994. It was difficult to determine exactly which sherds were associated with the

dated structures, but from NA 3577 as a whole I counted 334 San Juan Red Ware and Tsegi

Orange Ware sherds, suggesting that Tsegi Orange Ware was about twice as common as

Colton had assumed.

AZl:J:l7 (ASM)

AZ I: 1 : 17 ( ASM) is a small site containing four structures (Sullivan 1986; Downum

1988:449-460). Each of the structures has numerous dates, which indicate that most of the

site occupation took place between A.D. 1056 and 1064. Structure 1 may have been

constructed as early.as A.D. 1049, however. About 38 percent of the Tusayan Gray Ware

sherds from the four structures were corrugated ( 198/527), and there were 3 2 Sosi Black-on

white sherds and two partially reconstructible Sosi bowls from the rooms. Seven sherds were

320

identified as Dogoszhi Black-on-white, and 30 of the 35 red/orange ware sherds :from the

room5 were San Juan Red Ware.

NA 1238

NA 1238 is a burned pithouse that was apparent]y built in about A.D. 1066 (Colton

1946:96-97; Downum 1988:397-400). There is a cutting date from AD. 1068 that suggests

remodeling at that time, but it is not clear when the structure burned. Colton'.s (1946:97)

sherd counts from the site include onJy 12 Tusayan Corrugated sherds with 321 "Tusayan

Gray Ware" sherds. He also reports 25 Deadmans Black-on-red sherds, but no Tsegi Orange

Ware, Sosi Black-on-white, or Dogoszhi Black-on-white.

Summary and Conclusion

The Flagstaff· area sites provide data that complement the information from the

Kayenta area sites. They indicate clearly that Tusayan Corrugated was common on some

sites by about A.D. 1060, although the relative lack of corrugated pottery at NA 1238

confuses the interpretation somewhat. San Juan Red Ware appears to be more common than

Tsegi Orange Ware in the Flagstaff area in the l 060s, and the contrast between Medicine Fort

and Pittsberg Village Fort suggests that Tsegi Orange Ware was only beginning to become

common in the 1060s. Sosi Black-on-white appears to be relatively abundant by the A.D.

1060s, at least at AZ I: 1 : 17 ( AS.fv1), and at a fow sherds classifiable as Dogoszhi Black-

on-white are present by that time.

321

Applying either the Kayenta or Flagstaff area dates to the Virgin Anasazi requires a

geographical leap of fai~ but it appears reasonable to conclude that corrugated pottery began

to be made sometime between A.D. 1025 and AD. 1060. A date around A.D. 1050 seems

the most likely. Tsegi Orange Ware had appeared by that time, but San Juan Red Ware was

still much more common. By A.D. 1080 Tsegi Orange Ware had almost completely replaced

San Juan Red Ware, and Sosi and Dogoszhi style designs appeared.

If the timing of the introduction of corrugated pottery in the Virgin region was similar

to the Kayenta and F1agstaff regions, then the middle Pueblo II period in the Virgin region,

and the period of most intense ceramic exchange there, began around A.D. 1050.

AppendixD

Moapa Gray Ware Abundance in Sites from the Virgin Anasazi Region

323

Table D. l. Percent Moapa Gray Ware and UTM coordinates for sites from the Virgin Anasazi Region.

Percent Site Moa2a Gray Ware Easting Northing Period

Bovine Bluff 10.0 155700 4059100 Pueblo I-Early Pueblo II

VR35 10.1 201000 4045600 Pueblo I-Early Pueblo II






42WS 1342 (early) 4.5 259500 4115900 Pueblo I-Early Pueblo II

Goosen eeks 0.0 265500 4100600 Pueblo I-Early Pueblo II

Red Cliffs 0.3 287200 4122050 Pueblo I-Early Pueblo II

Little Man 1 0.0 292200 4118900 Pueblo I-Early Pueblo II

Little Man 3 0.0 292300 4119250 Pueblo I-Early Pueblo II

LittleMan2 0.0 292400 4118850 Pueblo I-Early Pueblo II

Little Creek 0.2 305250 4103650 Pueblo I-Early Pueblo II

NA 13685 77.3 306000 4029850 Pueblo I-Early Pueblo II

GC664 84.8 306050 4011300 Pueblo I-Early Pueblo II


GC662a&b 86.8 306700 4010900 Pueblo I-Early Pueblo II











ZNP3 0.0 327500 4115500 Pueblo I-Early Pueblo II

AZ B: I :68 (BLM) 3.9 333000 4071250 Pueblo I-Early Pueblo II

NA9066A 0.0 357300 4084750 Pueblo I-Early Pueblo II

NA9068A 0.2 357900 4084300 Pueblo I-Early Pueblo II

NA8630 3.5 359800 4086850 Pueblo I-Early Pueblo II

NA8964 0.2 359900 4087000 Pueblo I-Early Pueblo II


NA8960F 0.0 360350 4087350 Pueblo I-Early Pueblo II

NA8960E 0.1 360350 4087350 Pueblo I-Early Pueblo II

324

Table D.l, Continued

NA 8960D 0.1 360350 4087350 Pueblo I-Early Pueblo II

NA8960A-C 0.0 360350 4087350 Pueblo I-Early Pueblo II

Kanab Site 0.0 360700 4098800 Pueblo I-Early Pueblo II

Sand Hill 0.0 376800 4115000 Pueblo I-Early Pueblo II

Dead Raven 0.3 377600 4118000 Pueblo I-Early Pueblo II

Muddy River Survey 24.1 181100 4050250 Middle Pueblo II

Steve Perkins 44.7 182450 4048450 Middle Pueblo II

Main Ridge 24.1 189500 4041950 Middle Pueblo II

VR33 10.3 200950 4045300 Middle Pueblo II

42WS 1342 (late) 6.9 259500 4115900 Middle Pueblo II Reusch Site 14.8 272150 4106750 Middle Pueblo II 42WS288 0.8 288650 4116800 Middle Pueblo II AZA:l6:1 42.0 301700 4002400 Middle Pueblo II NA 13693 98.4 304500 4028000 Middle Pueblo II NA 13713 91.l 304500 4029000 Middle Pueblo II

Little Creek 0.2 305250 4103650 Middle Pueblo II NA 13698 85.2 305500 4030500 Middle Pueblo II

NA 13719 43.1 306300 4029600 Middle Pueblo II NA 13718 66.l 306500 4029500 Middle Pueblo II

GC663 79.0 306550 4011050 Middle Pueblo II NA 13684 37.5 306600 4029550 Middle Pueblo II

GC662d 75.7 306700 4010900 Middle Pueblo II GC662c 77.6 306700 4010900 Middle Pueblo II NA 13689 76.8 306800 4029300 Middle Pueblo II GC682 91.7 306900 4013650 Middle Pueblo II GC681 73.4 307250 4013700 Middle Pueblo II GC671 72.5 307650 4012200 Middle Pueblo II

NA 13728 71.6 307700 4028950 Middle Pueblo II NA9083 0.0 326600 4089300 Middle Pueblo n NA9080 17.l 334100 4082900 Middle Pueblo II NA9077 4.5 336800 4081000 Middle Pueblo II

NA9070 4.0 343200 4080350 Middle Pueblo II NA9069 13.0 344750 4080200 Middle Pueblo II

NA9066B 1.1 357300 4084750 Middle Pueblo II NA9066C 0.0 357300 4084750 Middle Pueblo II

Adam2 3.5 179600 4052100 Late Pueblo II-Pueblo III Muddy River Survey 10.9 181100 4050250 Late Pueblo II-Pueblo III

VR22 7.1 201800 4051050 Late Pueblo II-Pueblo III 42WS2188 3.9 259400 4Il6000 Late Pueblo II-Pueblo III 42WS2187 1.3 259400 4116050 Late Pueblo II-Pueblo III

325

Table D. l, Continued

Three-Mile Ruin 1.9 259600 4116200 Late Pueblo U-Pueblo IU

Frei Site 11.8 264400 4112300 Late Pueblo II-Pueblo III

42WS 395 l.2 288200 4116400 Late Pueblo II-Pueblo m NA 13691 62.1 304500 4026000 Late Pueblo II-Pueblo III

Little Creek 0.9 305250 4103650 Late Pueblo II-Pueblo m NA 13683 78.9 306750 4029400 Late Pueblo II-Pueblo IU

GC667 79.8 306850 4011900 Late Pueblo H-Pueblo Ill

AZ B:l :63 (BLM) 36.8 334200 4074200 Late Pueblo II-Pueblo Ill

NA9073 6.1 344200 4080050 Late Pueblo TI-Pueblo Ill

Pinenut 29.4 344400 4041600 Late Pueblo TI-Pueblo m NA9072 4.1 344450 4080050 Late Pueblo TI-Pueblo Ill

Note: Eastings and northings are in UTMs. In reality, the Nevada sites are in UTM Zone 11, while the Utah and Arizona sites are in Zone 12. The coordinates given in this table fo:r sites in Nevada are based on a westward extrapolation of the Zone 12 UTM coordinate system.

Craft Specialization and Exchange in Small-Scale Societies: A Virgin Anasazi Case Study

Documents

Transcript of Craft Specialization and Exchange in Small-Scale Societies: A Virgin Anasazi Case Study