Citation:

Ownby, Mary F. 2013 Petrographic Analysis of Prescott Gray Ware from Site 26CK6980 in the Las Vegas Valley, Southern Nevada. In South by Southwest: Excavations at Two Prehistoric Rockshelter Sites (26CK6980 and 26CK8637, McCullough Mountains, Clark County, Nevada, edited by Christopher Harper. HRA, Inc. Archaeological Report 11-17. HRA, Inc., Las Vegas, Nevada. .

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction

2. Cultural History and Research Orientation 3. Results of Investigations

4. Flaked Stone Analysis

5. Ground Stone Analysis

6. Ceramic from Site 26CK6980

7. Faunal Analysis

8. Paleoethnobotany at McMullough Hills Trail

9. Discussions and Conclusions

References Cited

Appendix A: Flaked Stone Analysis Data

Appendix B: Ceramic Petrographic Analysis Appendix C: Radiocarbon Analysis Results Appendix D: Updated IMACS Site Forms

127

APPENDIX B: CERAMIC PETROGRAPHIC ANALYSIS

128

PetrofromSout

ographm Site 2thern N

PD3

hic An26CK6Nevad

PetrogrDesert A3975 N. Tucson

nalysis6980 inda

raphic RArchae

n Blvd., Tucson

s of Prn the L

Report Nology, I

n, Arizona 8571

rescottLas Ve

Mary F.

Submitte ChristopDirectorHRA IncLas Vega and MargareUniversi

No. 201Inc. 16 ● November

t Grayegas V

. Ownby

ed to:

pher L. Harp/Archaeoloc. Conservatas, Nevada

et Lyneis ity of Nevad

2-04

r 2012

y WareValley,

per, RPA gist tion Archaeo

da at Las Veg

e ,

ology

gas

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................... 3 LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................. 3 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 4 GEOLOGICAL SETTING ................................................................................................................... 4 PETROGRAPHIC ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................... 4 RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................... 5 Sample 14-2 ..................................................................................................................................... 5 Sample 17-3 ..................................................................................................................................... 7 Sample 35 ......................................................................................................................................... 7 Sample 52-3 ..................................................................................................................................... 7 Sample 72 ......................................................................................................................................... 7 DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................................................... 9 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................. 10 REFERENCES CITED ....................................................................................................................... 11

LIST OF FIGURES 1. Photomicrographs: (a) cross polarized image of Sample 35 showing granite

(white=quartz, yellow=potassium feldspar, pink=plagioclase), taken at 100x magnification; (b) plane polarized image of same view. ..................................................... 8

2. Photomicrographs: (a) cross polarized image of Sample 52-3 showing metamorphic rock fragments (one on left is mostly sericite, one on right is gneiss, colorful grain in between is muscovite), taken at 100x magnification; (b) plane polarized image of same view. ................................................................................ 8

LIST OF TABLES 1. Sample inventory ....................................................................................................................... 5 2. Codes for grain size and grain frequency used in analysis of thin sections ...................... 5 4. Description of fired paste ......................................................................................................... 6 5. Types and amounts of rock fragments ................................................................................... 6 6. Types and amounts of monomineralic inclusions ................................................................ 6

PETROGRAPHIC ANALYSIS OF PRESCOTT GRAY WARE FROM SITE 26CK6980 IN THE LAS VEGAS VALLEY, SOUTHERN NEVADA INTRODUCTION Petrographic analysis of fives pottery samples of Prescott Gray ware from site 26CK6980 in the Las Vegas Valley aimed to establish their provenance as their ware and temper suggested they were non-local. Petrographically, the samples were dominated by a granite-derived sand temper derived from close to the outcrop. This suggested they were probably produced in an area to the northwest and west of Prescott, Arizona, where the type is prevalent and granite outcrops are common. GEOLOGICAL SETTING Site 26CK6980 is located on the western side of the McCullough Range, on the south/southeast edge of the Las Vegas Valley. This mountain range is typically divided into three sections, the northern, central, and southern ranges (Crafford 2007; Smith et al. 2010: 205-207). Site 26CK6980 is located in the northern range near Henderson in an area dominated by volcanic strata. However, Precambrian granite crops out mostly in the central range on the west side and a few areas of the eastern side of the northern range. The strata above these layers in the northern range includes the Farmer volcanic section (andesite), overlain by the Hidden Valley section (andesite). The Henderson dacite dome complex occurs at the northern tip of the McCullough Range and represents fairly recent volcanic activity. Sand temper in this area would be composed predominantly of andesite, while sands further south would also be principally volcanic. More broadly, biotite-granite can occur in Frenchman Mountain north of McCullough Range (Page et al. 2005: 7, 21). A preliminary petrofacies model that characterizes areas with specific sand compositions was developed by Miksa (2008) for the Las Vegas Valley. However, the area examined is further north and west than the location of site 26CK6980. This report highlights the absence of granite in the Las Vegas Valley. PETROGRAPHIC ANALYSIS In order to establish the origin of the temper in the Prescott Gray sherds from site 26CK6980 petrographic analysis was performed on five thin sections (Table 1). These sections were taken from the cross-section of the sherds. They were stained for feldspar identification and cover slipped. A qualitative description was made for each including clay matrix color in plane and cross polarized light, optical activity (to assess firing temperature), temper type, estimated percentage of inclusions, sorting, and size and shape range (following Whitbread

Petrographic Analysis of Prescott Gray Ware from Site 26CK6980 in the Page 5 Las Vegas Valley, Southern Nevada

1989). The minerals and rock fragments were identified and a general estimate of their frequency made (Table 2). Table 1. Sample Inventory.

Sample No. Ceramic Type Site

14-2 Prescott Gray 26CK 6980 17-3 Prescott Gray 26CK 6980 35 Prescott Gray 26CK 6980 52-3 Prescott Gray 26CK 6980 72 Prescott Gray 26CK 6980 Table 2. Codes for grain size and grain frequency used in analysis of thin sections.

Category Code Definition

Size Very fine 0.0625-0.125 mm Fine 0.125-0.25 mm Medium 0.25-0.5 mm Coarse 0.5 – 1 mm Very Coarse 1 – 2 mm Frequency 1 Very rare (1-5 grains) 2 Rare (c. 10%) 3 Sparse (c. 10-25%) 4 Frequent (c. 25-50%) 5 Abundant (c. 50-75%) 6 Highly Abundant (c. >75%)

RESULTS Petrographic analysis of the five ceramic samples revealed that three have similar mineral and rock fragments, while two show slight differences (Tables 3-5). As such, the samples will each be briefly described. The proportion of common inclusions is given to allow the results to be related to the petrographic descriptions in Zedeño et al. (1993) and Christenson (2000, 2003, 2005, 2008). The estimated percentages for the mineral types subsume those minerals within granite fragments. Sample 14-2 This sample contained granite fragments and monomineralic grains from them, mostly consisting of quartz (30 percent), potassium feldspar (10 percent), microcline (20 percent), and lesser plagioclase (10 percent). The other common inclusion was muscovite (30 percent). Along with metamorphic strain in some of the quartz grains were a few gneiss fragments that indicated a metamorphic contribution or alteration to the granite. Other rare inclusions were pyroxene and a few volcanic rock fragments. The firing temperature was between 700°C and 800°C.

Table 3. Description of fired paste.

Sample No. Color PPL1 Color XPL2 Optical Activity

Temper Type

Percentage of Inclusions

Sorting Size Range Shape Range

14-2 reddish brown reddish brown slight sand 40 poor fine to very coarse angular to subrounded 17-3 brown brown slight sand 40 poor fine to very coarse angular to subrounded 35 reddish brown reddish brown active sand 40 poor fine to very coarse angular to subrounded 52-3 tan tan active sand 40 poor fine to very coarse subangular to rounded 72 dark brown dark brown slight sand 40 poor fine to very coarse angular to subrounded

1PPL: plane polarized light 2 XPL: cross polarized light Table 4. Types and frequency of rock fragments.

Sample No. LVF1 LVI LVM LVV LMM LMF LMA LMT LMTP LSS LSA LSCH LSCA

14-2 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 17-3 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 52-3 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 72 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

1LVF=felsic volcanic (e.g. rhyolite), LVI = intermediate volcanic (e.g. andesite), LVM = mafic volcanic (e.g. basalt), LVV = vitric volcanic, LMM = microgranular quartz aggregate, LMF = foliated quartz aggregate (e.g. quartzite), LMA = quartz-feldspar (mica) aggregate, LMT = quartz-feldspar-mica tectonite (e.g. schist), LMTP = fine-grained quartz-feldspar-mica-tectonite (e.g. phyllite), LSS = granular aggregates of equant subangular to rounded grains (e.g. siltstones), LSA = very fine-grained, semi-opaque sedimentary (e.g. shale), LSCH = microcrystalline aggregates of silica (e.g. chert), LSCA = very fine calcite crystals (e.g. carbonate). Table 5. Types and frequency of monomineralic inclusions.

Sample No. QTZ1 KSPAR MICR PLAG MUSC BIOT CHLOR PX AMPH OLIV OPAQ EPID CACO

14-2 3 2 2 2 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 17-3 3 2 2 3 3 2 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 35 3 2 2 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 52-3 2 2 1 2 2 2 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 72 3 2 2 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1QTZ=quartz, KSPAR = potassium feldspar, MICR = microcline, PLAG = plagioclase, MUS = muscovite, BIO = biotite, CHLOR = chlorite, PX = pyroxene, AMPH = amphibole, OLIV = olivine, OPAQ = opaques, EPID = epidote, CACO = calcite.

Petrographic A

nalysis of Prescott G

ray Ware from

Site 26CK

6980 in theP

age 6Las V

egas Valley, Southern N

evada

Hohokam Buff Ware from Honey Bee Village: Petrographic Analysis to Page 7 Reveal Aspects of Technology and Provenance

Sample 17-3 Granite fragments and their individual grains were also prevalent in this sample. However, plagioclase was more common (20 percent) than in the other samples, while quartz (30 percent), potassium feldspar (10 percent), microcline (10 percent), and muscovite (30 percent were roughly equivalent. Metamorphic fragments, some appearing similar to quartzite and schist, and quartz with strain were also noted. Less common inclusions were biotite, pyroxene, opaques, and epidote. This sample had some resemblance to sample 52-3, but lacked the characteristic metamorphic rock fragments in that sample. The firing temperature was probably around 700°C to 800°C. Sample 35 This sample is similar to 14-2 with common monomineralic grains derived from granite and some intact granite fragments (Figure 1). Quartz (30 percent), potassium feldspar (10 percent), microcline (20 percent), plagioclase (10 percent), and muscovite (30 percent) were the principal constituents. Some fragments of volcanic rocks, most likely basalt and rhyolite, were noted along with a few metamorphic inclusions of gneiss and some quartz showing strain. Rare inclusions consisted of biotite and opaques. This sample most likely had a lower firing temperature that was closer to 700°C. Sample 52-3 This sample was unique for having many metamorphic rock fragments that were mostly sericite, a type of mica common in weathered grains (Figure 2). While granite and its constituent minerals were still present, more of the fragments featured a metamorphic texture, including the quartz grains, and some gneiss was present. In several cases, it appeared the granite had been altered to gneiss and then the weathering had reduced many of these grains to sericite. This is a preliminary interpretation and analysis of parent rock material would be necessary to clarify the nature of these fragments. Despite these unique inclusions, comprising 20 percent of the temper, quartz (20 percent), potassium feldspar (10 percent), microcline (10 percent), plagioclase (20 percent), and muscovite (20 percent) were still common. Grains of biotite, pyroxene, and opaques were rare, while a single coarse-sized basalt fragment was seen. The firing temperature was probably similar to that for sample 35, being lower than the other three samples. Sample 72 This sample belongs with samples 35 and 14-2 in having common granite grains and quartz (30 percent), potassium feldspar (10 percent), microcline (20 percent), plagioclase (10 percent), and muscovite (30 percent). A few gneiss inclusions were present along with some quartz grains showing metamorphic strain. The only other grains were rare biotite, while a single possible volcanic rock fragment was identified. The firing temperature was probably between 700°C and 800°C.

HohokaReveal

Figurepotass

Figure(one omagni

Overfrom sparsgraniMuscgranifrom to be was snotedgraniexplaangu(2000mater

am Buff Ware froAspects of Techn

e 1. Photomicroium feldspar, p

e 2. Photomicon left is mostification; (b) pla

all, the inclua dominan

se volcanic roite, while thcovite attachite pieces imvolcanic rocsand as cru

suggested ead that petroite would bains why a slar fragmen

0: 157). The crial did not

m Honey Bee Vilnology and Proven

ographs: (a) cropink = plagioclas

rographs: (a) ctly sericite, oneane polarized i

usions in thetly granitic ocks. The prhe commonhed to grani

mplies they hack fragments

ushed rock warly in the degraphically

be quite a chsand compots even thoucommon mumove far fro

llage: Petrographnance

oss polarized ise), taken at 100

cross polarizede on right is gimage of same

se samples iarea, but on

revalence of n muscovite ite was seenave been sligs, mostly bas

would not inefinition of Pit was not hallenging e

osed of granugh it had uuscovite, a grom the paren

ic Analysis to

image of Samp0x magnification

d image of Samgneiss, colorfuview.

indicate the ne that also potassium fsuggest th

n in a numbghtly metamsalt. This ind

nclude any oPrescott Graydefinitively endeavor as

nite and its cundergone srain that floant rock. Thu

ple 35 showingn; (b) plane pola

mple 52-3 showul grain in betw

source of thfeatured so

feldspar andhis mineral ber of cases.

morphosed. Ldicates that tother rock tyy Ware, alththe source

s the rock iconstituent

some transpoats easily do

us, the appea

g granite (whitearized image of

wing metamorween is musco

he temper waome metamod microcline

was a part. The textureLess commonthe source o

ypes. Crushehough Christ

of temper. is extremelyminerals woort, as noted

ownstream, aarance of the

P

e = quartz, yelf same view.

rphic rock fragovite), taken a

as a sand deorphic rocksindicate an t of the gre of some on were inclu

of temper is led granite tetenson (2000In fact, crus

y hard. Thisould still cod by Christealso indicatee sand sugge

Page 8

llow =

gments at 100x

erived s and alkali anite.

of the usions likely

emper 0: 157) shing

s also ontain enson es the ests it

Hohokam Buff Ware from Honey Bee Village: Petrographic Analysis to Page 9 Reveal Aspects of Technology and Provenance

did not travel far from the source and the clay also appears to derive from a granitic area. Therefore, both the clay and sand were probably acquired close to alkali granite outcrops in an area where a few metamorphic and volcanic rocks occur nearby. Sample 52-3 had more rounded fragments, especially the unique metamorphic grains, suggesting a sand that had been weathered and transported some distance. DISCUSSION The five analyzed samples can be compared to several other petrographic studies of Prescott Gray ware. In fact, based on the petrographic descriptions in Zedeño et al. (1993) the samples from 26CK6980 most closely resemble the Prescott Gray ware they analyzed. However, their samples did not contain the high quantities of muscovite that were seen in the 26CK6980 samples. This may be due to the sherds being undecorated (see discussion below). They derived from two sites near Seligman (AZ G:15:35 [ASM] and AZ G:15:40 [ASM]) located northwest of Prescott along Chino Wash. This area has common sedimentary outcrops indicating the sherds were likely brought to this site, having been produced elsewhere. Closer to the presumed area of production for Prescott Gray ware were samples analyzed by Christenson (2000, 2003). The petrographic results indicate a dominance of quartz, potassium feldspar, and plagioclase with variation in the proportions of these minerals. In fact, two groups could be distinguished based on whether plagioclase or potassium feldspar was more prevalent (Christenson 2003: 147). This was also noted in the current study where two samples (17-3 and 52-3) contained more plagioclase than the other three samples. This variation could be the result of different temper sources, which would also explain the appearance of volcanic rock fragments in some samples and the unusual metamorphic rock fragments in Sample 52-3. Such temper differences were seen in the petrographic analysis of Prescott Gray ware from sites in the Verde Valley (Christenson 2005). Several of the Prescott Black-on-gray samples featured an alkali granite based temper and common muscovite. A similar analysis of two Prescott Black-on-gray sherds from Upper Burro Creek also revealed a temper with common quartz, potassium feldspar, and plagioclase, but less frequent muscovite inclusions (Christenson 2008: 10.6-10.7). The samples lacked basalt and could not have been made in the Upper Burro Creek area. More recently, petrographic analysis of Prescott Gray and Black-on-gray samples from Coyote Ruin showed these samples had more plagioclase and quartz than alkali feldspar (Christenson in prep.). In two cases, the temper appeared to derive from muscovite schist. These samples, and some of the others previously analyzed, would not have a similar temper to the sherds from 26CK6980 suggesting several sources for the temper. Analysis of sand samples from seven drainages in the Prescott area revealed that most of the sand had some volcanic rocks in addition to granite and its component minerals (Christenson 2000: 157-160, 2003: 147). However, none of the samples were a good match to the Prescott Black-on-gray sherds with common muscovite and a lack of volcanic rock fragments. Some temper similarities were seen for undecorated Prescott Gray sherds. Geologically, the granite rocks in the Prescott area do not contain significant muscovite, but do have common biotite as seen in the Prescott Pluton and Government Canyon Tonalite (DeWitt et al. 2008: 48). The Kirkland Peak granite, southwest of Prescott, does contain muscovite as a part of an alkali

Hohokam Buff Ware from Honey Bee Village: Petrographic Analysis to Page 10 Reveal Aspects of Technology and Provenance

granite (DeWitt et al. 2008: 30). Further west, granite with common muscovite is found in the northern exposures of Lawler Peak near Bagdad (Anderson et al. 1955: 18-19). North of Prescott is the Dells Granite outcrop that is also an alkali granite (DeWitt et al. 2008: 30). Granite in Tucker Canyon, north of Prescott near the Big Chino Valley, also features muscovite (DeWitt et al. 2008: 53). Clearly, there are several potential sources of granitic and muscovite rich sand and clay that derive from outcrops to the west and northwest of the Prescott area. This seems to match well with the early assertions that the primary occurrence of Prescott Gray ware was found in an area northwest and west of Prescott (Christenson 2008: 10.8). Both the current study and that by Christenson (2000) noted the prevalence of muscovite mica in the Prescott Gray samples. In fact, mica presence is a “defining characteristic” of the ware as noted by those who categorized it, although some examples lacked mica. There is some indication that decorated types contain common mica, while undecorated vessels have less of this inclusion (Christenson 2005: 115-120; 2008: 10.2, 10.4). Along with the petrographic information, this may suggest that Prescott Gray sherds can be made locally, but there are fewer producers of Prescott Black-on-gray. Clearly additional work is necessary to investigate this distinction. Finally, a petrographic study of pottery from sites in the Clark County Wetlands Park in Henderson, Nevada, did not examine Prescott Gray samples (Carpenter 2005, Miksa 2008). However, the results suggest the presence of granite temper in a number of sherds that are interpreted to have been produced outside the Valley due to the lack of granite outcrops in the area. Along with the distribution Prescott Gray ware predominantly in northwestern Arizona, these results confirm that the analyzed sherds are unlikely to have been produced in the Las Vegas Valley. CONCLUSION The analysis of five Prescott Gray ware sherds from 26CK6980 in the Las Vegas Valley confirmed their non-local origin. This site is within the McCullough Mountains that are dominated by volcanic outcrops, while the temper in the analyzed sherds derives from a granitic area. This material is likely to be sand acquired close to the bedrock granite, which also contained notable muscovite inclusions. The presence of a metamorphic signature to the sand and rare volcanic rock fragments provides further provenance information. Nevertheless, the exact area where the sherds were made is still difficult to establish. There are several potential granite outcrops in the greater Prescott area that could be the source of the temper in the examined sherds. In comparison to other petrographic studies of Prescott Gray ware, it is clear this ware was made in several locations, though common granite, its derived minerals, and muscovite are typical. The variation in proportions of the inclusions indicates several sources of temper. Geologically, a confined area for its production can be suggested in Yavapai County, south of Chino Valley and west of the Verde River where granite outcrops are fairly common. Further sand analysis in this area and additional petrographic analyses of Prescott Gray ware may clarify the temper variability and locations of production.

REFERENCES CITED

Anderson, C.A., E.A. Scholz, and J.D. Strobell, Jr. 1955 Geology and Ore Deposits of the Bagdad Area, Yavapai County, Arizona. USGS Professional

Paper No. 278. Washington, D.C. Carpenter, Andrea 2005 Petrographic Analysis. In Desert Oasis: The Prehistory of Clark County Wetlands Park,

Henderson, Nevada, edited by R.V.N. Ahlstrom, pp. 73-83. HRA Papers in Archaeology No. 4, Conservation Archaeology, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Christenson, Andrew L. 2000 Petrographic Analysis of Sands, Self-tempered Clays, and Prehistoric Ceramics from the

Prescott Area. In Archaeology in West-Central Arizona: Proceedings of the 1996 Arizona Archaeological Council Prescott Conference, edited by T. N. Motsinger, D. R. Mitchell, and J. M. McKie, pp. 155-163. Sharlot Hall Museum Press, Prescott, Arizona.

2003 Petrographic Analysis of Sand and Sherd Samples. In Prehistory in West Prescott, edited

by R.A. Anduze, James M. Potter, and Thomas N. Motsinger, pp. 145-153. SWCA Anthropological Research Paper 9, Phoenix, Arizona.

2005 Petrographic Analysis. In Data Recovery at 22 Sites in the Stoneridge Development, Prescott

Valley, Yavapai County, Arizona, Vol. 3, edited by B.L. Leonard and C.K. Robinson, pp. 8.111-8.121. Soil Systems Publications in Archaeology No. 23. Phoenix, Arizona.

2008 Prescott Gray Ware from Upper Burro Creek, Yavapai County, Arizona. In Prescott to

Perry Mesa: 4,000 Years of Adaptation, Innovation, and Change in Central Arizona, edited by C.K. Robinson, C.D. Breternitz, and D.R. Mitchell, pp. 10.1-10.9. Sharlot Hall Museum Press, Prescott, Arizona.

In prep Petrographic Analysis of Sherd, Bedrock, and Clay Samples from Coyote Ruin. In Coyote

Ruin, NA 6654, A Prescott Area Community, edited by M. Spall. Arizona Archaeologist. Crafford, A. Elizabeth Jones 2007 Geologic Map of Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 249, 1 CD-ROM, 46 p., 1 plate. DeWitt, Ed, Victoria Langenheim, Eric Forcel, R.K. Vance, P.A. Lindberg, and R.L. Driscoll 2008 Geologic Map of the Prescott National Forest and the Headwaters of the Verde River, Yavapai

and Coconino Counties, Arizona. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 2996, scale 1:100,000, 100-p. pamphlet.

Miksa, Elizabeth 2008 Preliminary Report on Petrofacies Modeling for Archaeological Investigations at the

Clark County Wetlands Park, Nevada. In Persistent Place: Archaeological Investigations at the Larder and Scorpion Knoll Sites, Clark County Wetlands Park, Nevada, edited by R.V.N. Ahlstrom, pp. 328-344. HRA Papers in Archaeology No. 7, Conservation Archaeology, Las Vegas, Nevada

References Cited Page 12

Smith, Eugene, Denise Honn, and Rachael Johnsen 2010 Volcanoes of the McCullough Range, southern Nevada. In Miocene Tectonics of the Lake

Mead Region, Central Basin and Range, edited by P.J. Umhoefer, L.S. Beard, and M.A. Lamb, pp. 203–219. Geological Society of America Special Paper 463. Boulder, Colorado.

Whitbread, Ian 1989 A Proposal for the Systematic Description of Thin Sections towards the Study of Ancient

Ceramic Technology. In Archaeometry: Proceedings of the 25th International Symposium, edited by Y. Maniatis, pp. 127-138. Elsevier, New York.

Zedeño, Maria Nieves, James Busman, James Burton, and Barbara J. Mills 1993 Ceramic Compositional Analysis. In Across the Colorado Plateau: Anthropological Studies

for the Transwestern Pipeline Expansion Project, Vol. 16: Interpretation of Ceramic Artifacts, edited by Barbara J. Mills, Christine E. Goetze, and Maria Nieves Zedeño, pp. 187-234. Office of Contract Archaeology and Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.