The Reserve Area Archaeological Project

The Reserve Area Archaeological Project

Stephen E. Nash and Michele L. Koons

Abstract- The Reserve Area Archaeological Project (RAAP) is a collaborative effort between the Denver Museum of Nature & Science (DMNS), the United States Forest Service (USFS), and the Field Museum. Generally speaking, the RAAP area is bounded by a rectangle extending from Tularosa Cave, located northeast of Aragon, New Mexico, to Hinkle Park Cliff Dwelling, near the Arizona border, on the southwest corner. RAAP builds on prior work in the region, much of which was conducted by the Field Museum between 1939 and 1955, by engaging (primarily) in non-invasive research techniques such as pedestrian survey, remote sensing, and collections-based research methods. This paper offers preliminary results of Project activities, which to date have included fieldwork to find and properly record Martin and Rinaldo-excavated sites, compositional analysis of obsidian tools from Tularosa Cave, ground-penetrating radar studies, preliminary field research with Zuni colleagues, analysis of existing regional paleoenvironmental reconstructions, analysis of existing archaeological tree-ring date distributions, and analysis of new AMS radiocarbon dates on sandals from Tularosa Cave (Koons and Nash, this volume).

INTRODUCTION From 1939 to 1955, Paul Sidney Martin and John Beach Rinaldo based the Field Museum’s Archaeological Expedition to the Southwest at the Pine Lawn Tourist Camp in the Pine Lawn Valley of west-central New Mexico, about eight miles west of the small town of Reserve (Figure 1). During that period, they conducted a major archaeological survey and excavated or tested 32 sites in the region (Table 1). In so doing, they made substantive contributions to the delineation and definition of the pre-Columbian Mogollon culture, the culture history of west-central New Mexico and east-central Arizona, and the identification of material relationships between pre-Columbian cultures and modern-day Zuni (Chazin and Nash 2013, Nash 2001, 2003, 2005, 2006, in press). Unfortunately, 38% (12 of 32) of their site excavations were never published in any way, shape,

Figure 1. Mrs. Crackel’s store at the Pine Lawn Tourist Camp office outside of Reserve, New Mexico, in the early 1960s. Uncatalogued photo, accession 2013-593, Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, William A. Longacre, photographer.

Stephen E. Nash and Michele L. Koons : Department of Anthropology, Denver Museum of Nature & Science, 2001 Colorado Blvd. Denver, CO 80205 ([email protected], [email protected])

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Collected Papers from the 18th Biennial Mogollon Archaeology Conference

Table 1: RAAP Area Sites Excavated by the Field Museum 1939 - 1955

Site Name Excavation Years

Number of Artifacts* Site Report

SU Site, NM 1939, 1941 34,860 Martin and Rinaldo 1940, 1947

1946

Martin 1943

Wet Leggett Site, NM 1947, 1948 80 Martin et al. 1949 Promontory Site, NM 1947 450 Martin et al. 1949 Twin Bridges Site, NM 1947 980 Martin et al. 1949 Oak Springs Pueblo, NM 1947 920 Martin et al. 1949 Turkey Foot Ridge, NM 1947, 1948 8,220 Martin et al. 1949;

Martin and Rinaldo 1950a

Wet Leggett Pueblo, NM 1949 2,350 Martin and Rinaldo 1950b South Leggett Pueblo, NM 1949 1,360 Martin and Rinaldo 1950b Three Pines Pueblo, NM 1949 1,410 Martin and Rinaldo 1950b Pine Lawn Camp, NM 1949 180 Unpublished Tularosa Cave, NM 1950 51,670 Martin et al. 1952 Apache Cave, NM 1950 330 Unpublished Bull Basin Cave, NM 1950 20 Unpublished Balke Site, NM 1950 80 Unpublished Cordova Cave, NM 1951 15,060 Martin et al. 1952 Negrito Cliff Dwelling, NM 1951 300 Unpublished Kiehne Pueblo, NM 1951 170 Unpublished Sawmill Site, NM 1951, 1952 1,200 Bluhm 1957

1954

O Block Cave, NM 1952 6,780 Martin et al. 1954 Y Canyon Cave, NM 1952 650 Martin et al. 1954 Hinkle Park Cliff Dwelling, NM 1952 3,790 Martin et al. 1954 Cosper Cliff Dwelling, AZ 1952 830 Martin et al. 1954 Higgins Flat Pueblo, NM 1953, 1954 9,970 Martin et al. 1956, 57 Apache Creek Pueblo, NM 1954 990 Martin et al. 1957 Valley View Pueblo, NM 1954 350 Martin et al. 1957 Foote Canyon Pueblo, AZ 1955 5,540 Rinaldo 1959 Saddle Mountain Pueblo, NM 1955 280 Rinaldo 1956 Powerline Site, NM 1955 260 Rinaldo 1956 Delgar Site, NM 1955 510 Rinaldo 1956 Perry Lawson Site, NM 1955 40 Rinaldo 1956 BO Site, NM 1955 30 Rinaldo 1956 Frisco Pueblo, NM 1955 40 Rinaldo 1956

*Rounded to the nearest 10

or form, and more than 90% of the objects they returned to Chicago remained uncatalogued until the late 1990s, when Nash catalogued them under a National Science Foundation grant awarded to Jonathan Haas (SBR-9710181). To make matters worse, an unknown, and unknowable, number of artifacts were simply left in the field at the Pine Lawn Tourist Camp and in back dirt piles at excavated sites.

Despite extensive searching, those artifacts are now apparently lost to science. Nevertheless, a great

deal of productive research remains to be done on the Field Museum collections and in the greater Reserve region.

In the six decades since Martin and Rinaldo left the region, west to Vernon, Arizona, there has been remarkably little systematic archaeological research in the greater Reserve region. Notable exceptions include the following. Beginning in 1989, a major road-widening project occurred on U.S. Highway 180, which cuts the western portion of the project area



Figure 2. Map of the Reserve Area Archaeological Project area, with sites excavated by the Field Museum between 1939 and 1955. (Map by Michele Koons)

from north to south, and New Mexico Highway 12, which bisects much of the northern portion of the project area from southwest to northeast and runs through Reserve. This effort, which excavated or tested 25 sites, led to a massive six volume publication (Oakes and Zamora 1999). James Neely led the University of Texas at Austin’s field school in west-central New Mexico from 1979 through 1993, including excavations at O Block Cave and Apache Creek Pueblo, but these efforts remain essentially unpublished. Chip Wills conducted excavations at the SU Site in 1987 and 1988 as part of the University of New Mexico’s field school activities, leading to several publications (Wills 1996 and references therein). The Reserve Area Archaeological Project (RAAP) is a collaborative effort between the Denver Museum of Nature & Science (DMNS), the United States Forest Service (USFS), and the Field Museum. Generally speaking, the RAAP area is bounded by a rectangle extending from Tularosa Cave, located northeast of Aragon, New Mexico, to Hinkle Park

Cliff Dwelling, near the Arizona border, on the southwest corner (Figure 2). New Mexico Highway 12 runs along the Tularosa River from the northeast corner to where it intersects U.S. Highway 180 near the SU Site. From the SU Site, U.S. Highway 180 runs northwest to the Arizona border and south, ultimately to Silver City, New Mexico. Remnants of the Pine Lawn Tourist Camp, headquarters of the Field Museum’s Expedition to the Southwest, are located among a dense concentration of sites in the Pine Lawn Valley south of the SU Site. The Tularosa and Apache Creek Rock Art panels are located in the northeast portion of the project area and are indicated by stars in Figure 2. Eagle Peak is the highest point in the Tularosa Mountains, reaching 9,790 ft (2,984m) above sea level, and should have remnant wood suitable for dendroclimatic reconstructions preserved near its peak. RAAP builds on prior work in the region by engaging (primarily) in non-invasive research techniques such as pedestrian survey and remote sensing methods. A large component of RAAP will


include the analysis of previously excavated collections at the Field Museum. Project activities to date have included fieldwork to find and properly record Martin and Rinaldo-excavated sites, compositional analysis of obsidian tools from Tularosa Cave, ground-penetrating radar studies, preliminary field research with Zuni colleagues, analysis of existing regional paleoenvironmental reconstructions, analysis of existing archaeological tree-ring date distributions, and analysis of new AMS radiocarbon dates on sandals from Tularosa Cave.1

Site Relocation Since 2010, researchers from DMNS and USFS have been working to re-locate and properly record the Martin and Rinaldo-excavated sites, many of which were never registered with state and federal authorities. To date, we have re-located all but six of the sites listed in Table 1: Bull Basin Cave, the Balke site, Kiehne Pueblo, the Perry Lawson Site, the BO Site, and Frisco Pueblo (see Rinaldo 1956). Fortunately, all of these were comparatively minor and poorly recorded projects that might best be characterized, in modern parlance, as test excavations. We may yet conduct test excavations or new mapping activities at the Field Museum sites in order to determine their future research potential.

Obsidian Sourcing In 2008, Jeff Ferguson of the University of Missouri conducted compositional analysis on 17 obsidian tools from Tularosa Cave (Table 2). Recognizing that the stratigraphic sequence at Tularosa Cave is complicated and remains a focus of ongoing research, it is premature to read too much into the chronological implications of the data. Recognizing also, however, that Martin and colleagues (1952) published these artifacts with phase designations, we include Martin et al.’s phase designations and approximate dates in Table 2. We proceed with caution. Working our way clockwise from the north, what we can say is that one tool (Field Museum catalog no. 260240) is made of Cerro del Medio obsidian, which is found in a source near Jemez, New Mexico, ca. 280 miles north of Tularosa Cave. One tool (260180) is made of McDaniel Tank obsidian, a source located just south of the town of Magdalena, which is ca. 100 miles east/northeast of the cave. Seven tools (260373, 260282, 260223, 260367, 260448, 260251, 260250) are made of Gwynn Canyon obsidian, which is the closest source to Tularosa Cave but still located ca. 40 miles to the south. Five tools (260219, 260311, 260310, 260366, 260187) are made of obsidian from Antelope Creek in the Mule Creek area, which is a

Table 2: Compositional Analysis of Obsidian Tools from Tularosa Cave

FM Cat. No. Unit Martin Phase Martin Dates TCP No. Source 260240 6L1 Level 01 SF/Tularosa A.D. 700-1200 TCP019 Cerro del Medio 260373 6L1 Level 02 SF/Tularosa A.D. 700-1200 TCP020 Gwynn Canyon 260282 3R1 Level 03 San Francisco A.D. 700-900 TCP003 Gwynn Canyon 260223 3R2 Level 04 San Francisco A.D. 700-900 TCP005 Gwynn Canyon 260367 4R1 Level 02 San Francisco A.D. 700-900 TCP010 Gwynn Canyon 260448 5R1 Level 02 San Francisco A.D. 700-900 TCP016 Gwynn Canyon 260219 4L1 Level 02 San Francisco A.D. 700-900 TCP008 Antelope Creek 260182 4R1 Level 02 San Francisco A.D. 700-900 TCP009 Red Hill 260369 4R1 Level 03 San Francisco A.D. 700-900 TCP012 Red Hill 260180 5 Level 03 Georgetown A.D. 500-700 TCP013 McDaniel Tank 260311 6R1 Level 04 Pine Lawn 300 B.C. – A.D. 500 TCP022 Antelope Creek 260310 3R2 Level 08 Pine Lawn 300 B.C. – A.D. 500 TCP006 Antelope Creek 260366 5L1½ Level 1 PL/Georgetown 300 B.C. – A.D. 700 TCP014 Antelope Creek 260283 3R2 Level 11 Pre-Pottery Pre A.D. 0? TCP007 Mt. Taylor 260251 2R2 Level 10 Pre-Pottery Pre A.D. 0? TCP002 Gwynn Canyon 260250 2R2 Level 10 Pre-Pottery Pre A.D. 0? TCP021 Gwynn Canyon 260187 2R2 Level 09 Pre-Pottery Pre A.D. 0? TCP001 Antelope Creek

1 See Koons and Nash, this volume.



major source of archaeological obsidian in the Southwest and is located ca. 80 miles to the south/southwest. Two tools (260182, 260369) are made of Red Hill obsidian, from a source located ca. 50 miles northwest of Tularosa Cave. Finally, one tool (260283) is made of Mount Taylor obsidian, from the Mount Taylor volcanic field not far from Grants, New Mexico, ca. 135 miles north/northwest of the cave (data in possession of the authors). To summarize, the Tularosa Cave obsidian assemblage includes 17 tools from six sources, probably spanning at least 1,500 years of site occupation. It is clear that inhabitants of Tularosa Cave were fully integrated in resource, and therefore social, networks stretching across a wide swath of western New Mexico. Much more research needs to be done to explore the implications of these data, especially to search for trends in resource exploitation through time. We will work to enhance the sample size by conducting compositional analysis on obsidian tools and debitage from other sites in the Field Museum collections. Stay tuned. Ground-Penetrating Radar In collaboration with Larry Conyers and his students at the University of Denver, RAAP conducted ground-penetrating radar (GPR) studies in 2013 at Apache Creek Pueblo, the SU Site, the Sawmill Site, Three Pines Pueblo, and the Turkey Foot Ridge Site in a proof-of-concept study. In 2014, the team returned to Three Pines Pueblo and Turkey Foot Ridge for additional investigations. Regional geomorphology is complex and poorly understood. Many sites, including the SU Site, are located on Pleistocene river terraces with abundant cobbles and pebbles, which can make GPR challenging (Conyers 2013). Later sites, including Three Pines Pueblo and the Turkey Foot Ridge Site, tend to be located on higher, older terraces made of volcaniclastic sediments with weathered ash and cobbles, as well as alluvial sand and silt. GPR results in these sediments appear more promising (Nemecek 2014). Preliminary indications are that we have identified a previously unexcavated pithouse at the Turkey Foot Ridge Site and possible, previously unrecorded architectural features at Three Pines Pueblo and the SU Site; these inferences have not yet been field tested. We hope to field test these findings in the future. Collaborative Archaeology with Zuni Pueblo In 2014, we hosted a visit by Octavius Seowtewa, a Zuni cultural advisor who had never seen the rock art

panels in the greater Reserve region. He noted that the Tularosa Rock Art Panel contains a significant portion of the Zuni origin story and some excellent thunderbirds. The Apache Creek Rock Art Panel is less comprehensive but is important nonetheless. In 2015, we hope to host a longer visit by a delegation of Zuni advisors who can help us interpret and properly record the regional rock art to garner a better understanding of regional history, thus closing a loop on Rinaldo’s (1964) efforts to connect the Zuni to the archaeology of the RAAP region. We will also record regional rock art installations using digital photogrammetry. Paleoenvironmental Research Over the last four decades, a number of dendroclimatic studies have been developed in the greater RAAP region to provide a better understanding of the environmental context in which regional occupations occurred. It turns out that western and southern New Mexico are some of the best places in North America to reconstruct precipitation records from tree-growth, so these studies warrant detailed attention. Dean and Robinson (1977) included a tree-ring chronology from samples collected near Reserve in their reconstruction of decadal temperature departures from mean conditions across the American Southwest. This pioneering study has been improved upon by more specific, regionally focused studies using modern techniques and computing power, but it bears mentioning because it provided archaeologists with the first good suite of dendroclimatic data in which to ground their interpretations of regional archaeology. Grissino-Mayer (1995) reconstructed 2,129 years of precipitation and fire regimes for El Malpais National Monument, located 114 miles north/ northeast of Reserve. To do so, he used published tree-ring chronologies from Canyon de Chelly, Arizona, Cebolleta Mesa, New Mexico, Cibola, New Mexico, and Durango, Colorado, to accurately date newly collected living-tree and remnant wood specimens from El Malpais. For precipitation data he used the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) New Mexico Climate Division Four data, rather than single-station data, as the statistical properties of the reconstruction were stronger with the aggregated regional data for western New Mexico. (The Climate Division Four region completely surrounds and includes the RAAP project area.) The Malpais Long Chronology (MLC) he developed was “the longest single-site chronology


then developed in the Southwest and has statistical properties equal to or better than those derived for the network of Southwestern archaeological chronologies” (Grissino-Mayer 1995:262). More importantly for our purposes,

The calibration equation that predicted climate [i.e. precipitation] as a function of tree growth revealed 70% of the variance in historic climate data was explained by the tree-ring data. The tree-ring chronology also successfully simulated both high [occurring more than once every 25 years] and low frequency [occurring less than every 25 years] trends in the historic climate data, thus ensuring long-term climate trends would be reconstructed. Statistically significant correlations between the MLC and other chronologies in the Southwestern tree-ring network indicated a common climate signal existed throughout the Four Corners area. (Grissino-Mayer1995:262-263)

Two years later, Grissino-Mayer et al. (1997) published a 1,373 year reconstruction of hydrologic year (prior August to current July) precipitation for the southern Rio Grande Basin, located east and south of the RAAP project area. The authors collected cores from living-trees and cross sections from old, dead, remnant wood still preserved at high elevations in the region. They also mined the archaeological collections curated by the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research at the University of Arizona for 244 samples that extended their new chronologies deeper into the past. Greater RAAP region sites represented in that sample include Bat Cave, Duck Creek Ruin, Higgins Flat Pueblo, LA 2948, LA 5936, Mogollon Village, Starkweather Ruin, the SU Site, Twin Bridges Site, Turkey Foot Ridge Site, and the Wheatley Ridge Site. Two primary tree-ring chronologies resulted from this effort. The first is from the Magdalena Mountains, about 100 miles east of the RAAP area, and dates back to A.D. 622. The second is from the San Mateo Mountains, slightly closer to the RAAP area and south of the Magdalena Mountains and dates back to A.D. 534. (A third chronology, from the Organ Mountains east of Las Cruces, was folded into the San Mateo chronology because of their statistical similarities.) Grissino-Mayer et al.’s (1997) reconstruction of hydrologic year precipitation also used NOAA’s New Mexico Climate Division Four, and goes back to A.D.

622. From an interpretive standpoint the results are less reliable prior to A.D. 800 due to small sample sizes and should not be considered further. Statistically, Grissino-Mayer et al. (1997) found that precipitation accounts for more than 50% of the annual variation in tree-growth in the southern Rio Grande Basin. Though lower than the 70% seen at El Malpais, this is still a remarkably high value and one of the best such statistics in the American Southwest. To make a detailed and complicated story short, Grissino-Mayer et al. (1997) found the following. The century from A.D. 940 to 1040 is the most severe long-term drought period of the last 1,400 years; especially severe drought conditions occurred between A.D. 970 and 1030. The period from A.D. 1210 to 1305 marks the second most severe long-term drought in the region. The Great Drought, from A.D. 1270 to 1295, was the most severe decades-long drought in the region, occurring as it did within a century-long drought. With regard to wet periods, they found that A.D. 1040 to 1210 was the wettest in the last 1,400 years, with A.D. 1065 – 1105 being particularly wet. From a longer-term perspective, the period from A.D. 900 to 1300 was marked by high precipitation variance, indicating unusual swings between extremely wet and extremely dry periods, each of which often lasted over 100 years. After A.D. 1300, precipitation variance diminished somewhat. Grissino-Mayer’s (1995) work at El Malpais and the southern Rio Grande Basin (Grissino-Mayer et al. 1997) provide remarkably robust precipitation reconstructions with which to contextualize archaeological research in the greater RAAP area. Although it may appear as if all weather is local, especially during the monsoon season, it is a well-established dendroclimatological fact that there is a common climate (e.g. precipitation) signal across the American Southwest. Given that the RAAP area is bounded on the north by Grissino-Mayer’s (1995) El Malpais work, and on the east by Grissino-Mayer et al.’s (1997) southern Rio Grande work, these data are applicable to our research and provide an excellent context in which to consider regional archaeology. In 2015, we will search for remnant wood and old-growth living trees to sample on Eagle Peak, 20 miles south of Tularosa Cave and squarely in the RAAP project area (Figure 2) in an effort to continue these remarkable paleoenvironmental studies. More than two decades ago, Chester W. Shaw Jr. (1993) used prehistoric tree-ring chronologies to generate estimates of summer drought for the Mimbres and Pine Lawn-Reserve areas of New



Mexico. Shaw then tried to apply Jeffrey S. Dean’s (1988) Anasazi behavioral model to “account for critical features of past human behavior” in the region (Shaw 1993:13). In Shaw’s (1993:16) words, Dean’s model “embodies a theoretical perspective whereby critical links are established between aspects of past environment, population, and human behavior,” while being selective about which environmental variables are likely to influence such behavior. In the end, Shaw focused on behavioral responses to environmental change including intensification of agricultural production, upland/lowland settlement shifts, popula-tion aggregation, abandonment, and the changing nature of alliance networks. Shaw’s (1993) dissertation was never published and remains a challenge to read; it never received much attention from archaeologists. The task remains to find a theoretically informed way to integrate incredibly precise paleoenvironmental reconstructions with the notoriously imprecise archaeological record. Tree-Ring Dating in the Greater RAAP region Dendrochronology is the only chronometric technique that does not have statistical uncertainty associated with the dates produced (see Nash 2000, 2009 and chapters therein). When properly crossdated, tree-ring dates yield solar calendar dates in the strictest sense; they have no associated random or systematic error, and they are accurate and precise to that calendar year. In spite of their high chronometric quality, tree-ring dates still require contextual analysis and interpretation by the archaeologist. A substantial body of theory for the proper interpretation of tree-ring dates has been developed over the last eight decades (Ahlstrom 1985, 1997; Bannister 1962; Dean 1978; Haury 1935; Nash 1997; Towner 2000). Several key concepts warrant review. There are several prerequisites to successful tree-ring dating in archaeological contexts (Dean 1996a, 1996b). The first is behavioral and requires that pre-Columbian construction workers made use of tree species with crossdatable ring sequences. If inhabitants of an archaeological site built their structures with cottonwood trees and cooked their food exclusively with ironwood logs, it would not be possible to tree-ring date those phenomena because cottonwood and ironwood do not crossdate. Thankfully, pre-Columbian inhabitants of the RAAP region used pinyon, juniper, ponderosa pine, and Douglas fir, all of which are datable species, in their daily lives. The second and third prerequisites for arch-

aelogical tree-ring dating are good specimen preservation and subsequent recovery of those datable specimens by archaeologists. Although tree-ring dating was first applied to sites in the Mogollon Highlands during the 1920s (Nash 1999), it has been far less successful in this part of the world than in the Colorado Plateau to the north, for a number of reasons. First, greater amounts of precipitation mean that buried wood decays quickly, making the recovery of datable specimens relatively rare. The exception to this is in the form of charcoal, which is chemically inert, if physically fragile. If a given structure burned when it was abandoned, particularly if that burn event was intentional, then charcoal specimens have a reasonable chance of survival, and may, in select instances, be tree-ring dated. Unfortunately, the heavy clay soils of the region tend to reduce burned beams to numerous small charcoal fragments. Excavation of such charcoal fragments from theses soils tends to reduce the fragments into even smaller pieces (Jeffrey S. Dean, personal communication, 13 January 2015). Much of the wood used for construction and fire in this part of the world is pinyon and juniper, which is much harder to date than Douglas fir or ponderosa pine. Even if ponderosa pine was used in ancient times, the beams often come from well-watered and therefore fast-growing trees that lack enough rings to be datable. Indeed, the wetter climate of the Mogollon Highlands and the location of archaeological sites in forest interiors often leads to the use of trees with complacent ring series (i.e. relatively constant ring widths), which cannot be dated (Jeffrey S. Dean, personal communication, 13 January 2015). Finally, given that much of the region is on federal land, there has been far less commercial or residential development, and with it associated cultural resource management activity. Less excavation means fewer samples, so comparatively fewer samples have been submitted for dating purposes than in, for instance, areas to the north, on the Colorado Plateau, where residential and oil and gas development have ensured a steady stream of tree-ring samples for dating. An additional challenge comes from changes in archaeological excavation techniques through time. Whereas it was once standard practice to excavate a whole pueblo or pithouse, a well-intentioned preservation ethic means that excavations today are


less extensive than they were in the past, with 2x2m sampling units often replacing architectural unit (i.e. whole house or room) excavations. This does not bode well for tree-ring dating in the future. Even under the best of circumstances, the simple fact is that not all tree-ring samples can be dated. Indeed, fewer than 33% of all archaeological tree-ring samples collected in the Mogollon Highlands ever yield dates because of vagaries in tree growth, preservation, and other random and non-random natural and cultural formation processes that are beyond the dendrochronologist’s control (Jeffrey S. Dean, personal communication, 13 January 2015). If and when a tree-ring date can be determined for a given wood or charcoal specimen, the dendro-chronologist will assign symbols that distinguish between a “cutting” and a “noncutting” date. More than 80% of the tree-ring dates in the Mogollon Highlands are non-cutting dates, because natural and cultural formation processes have eroded the specimen’s outer surface (see Schiffer 1987). Cutting dates are assigned to archaeological specimens that possess attributes, like bark or beetle galleries, indicating that the last ring present on the specimen was the last ring grown by the tree before it died, or (preferably) was intentionally killed by pre-Columbian construction workers. If such attributes are present, the dendrochronologist assigns symbols (i.e. “B” for bark, “G” for beetle galleries) to the outer date indicating that it is a “cutting date”. Noncutting dates are assigned to specimens for which there is no evidence that the last ring present on the specimen was the last one grown by the tree before it died, or was killed. In this case, the dendrochronologist assigns symbols (e.g. “vv” for “very variable” outer ring) to the specimen’s outer date indicating that it is a “non-cutting date” (see Nash 1999:17). Near cutting dates are assigned when the dendrochronologist believes that one (or rarely more) rings are missing from the extreme outer portion of a specimen’s ring sequence. The dendrochronologist cannot prove the existence of the missing ring(s) and therefore cannot definitively assign a cutting date, but based on experience with tens of thousands of other tree-ring samples, s/he is confident enough to assign a “v” symbol indicating the date is a near cutting date. From an interpretive standpoint, near cutting dates may be considered cutting dates. Cutting and near cutting dates are of far greater utility to the archaeologist than are noncutting dates. Because a cutting date indicates the solar calendar year in which the tree died (or was killed), it is by

definition closer to the behavioral events of interest to the archaeologist (Dean 1978; Smiley and Ahlstrom 1998:7-10). The situation is more complicated with non-cutting dates. Because an unknown, unknowable, and potentially very large number of rings are missing from the outside of the dated specimen, many more potentially mitigating circumstances must be taken into account before a noncutting date may be accepted as a reliable date for some pre-Columbian behavior or archaeological phenomenon (Dean 1978). In the absence of additional, high-quality contextual data, a noncutting date merely offers a terminus post quem, a date after which, a given event must have occurred. Despite substantive efforts to alleviate the interpretive difficulties associated with noncutting dates, they remain a serious problem for archaeological interpretation (see Nash 1997 and references therein). There is some interpretive safety in numbers, however. Archaeological analysis and interpretation are better served when large numbers of tree-ring dates are available (Nash 1997). Dendroarchaeologists typically place greater interpretive reliance on date clusters than on individual dates. At the site level, date clusters are defined as accumulations of three or more dates in the same or proximal calendar years within some spatially delineated space, such as a room or, possibly, a site (Ahlstrom 1997; Smiley and Ahlstrom 1998). If a number of tree-ring dates from a given site cluster, one can infer that some behavioral event (e.g. wood cutting, stockpiling, construction, etc.) in the past has been well dated. At the regional level, there are 134 tree-ring dates from nine sites in the project area (Table 3). They are distributed in three primary groups of small- to medium-sized clusters covering more than 1,000 years of local wood cutting and use activity, if not site occupation, in the RAAP area (Figure 3). The dated sites include Higgins Flat Pueblo, LA 2948, LA 5936, Luna Village, Starkweather Ruin, SU Site, Turkey Foot Ridge, Twin Bridges Site, and Wheatley Ridge Ruin. The earliest date in the sequence is a non-cutting date of A.D. 350 from Pithouse G at the SU Site; the latest is a non-cutting date of A.D. 1281 from Room M at Higgins Flat Pueblo. Note that critically important sites in the region, including Apache Creek Pueblo, Cordova Cave, the Sawmill Site, Wet Leggett Pueblo, the Wet Leggett Site, and many others have never yielded any tree-ring dates. Our chronometric knowledge about many sites in the region is therefore restricted to ceramic cross-dating and AMS radiocarbon dating, all of which are the subject of future research (Koons and Nash, this volume).



Only 21, or 16%, of the 134 tree-ring dates from the RAAP region are cutting or near-cutting dates, which means that 84% are non-cutting dates. Visually, this means that each of the clusters visible in the date distribution graphs presented below should be shifted to the right, later in time, by an unknown amount. The question is, then, what do the clusters in the RAAP-area date distribution actually mean with respect to the pre-Columbian history of the region? Visual analysis of the entire date distribution curve (Figure 3) suggests three primary clusters. The first, consisting of 40 dates, from 355 until 517, corresponds roughly with the Early Pithouse Period, often designated the Pine Lawn Phase. The second and largest (N=81) date cluster from 665 (or more realistically from 715) until 899, is roughly coincident with the Late Pithouse Period that is often designated the San Francisco Phase. Note that the earliest date in this cluster, A.D. 665, is an otherwise anomalous non-cutting date from Pithouse D at the Twin Bridges Site. It is a full half-century earlier than the rest of the dates in this large cluster, so a more appropriate beginning date for this cluster is probably in the mid-710s, which corresponds even more closely with the Late Pithouse Period/San Francisco Phase designation of ca. A.D. 700-900 (see Koons and Nash, this volume, Table1). The third (N=13) date cluster is the tightest, spanning only five decades, from 1232 to 1281, well within Haury’s (1936) Tularosa Phase and the Pueblo Period of Anyon et al. (1981). Although it can be analytically perilous to read too much into a tree-ring date distribution, especially when samples sizes are small, it is worthwhile to examine the nature, integrity, and history of the three clusters in detail in order better understand regional chronologies (Nash and Rogers 2014). Figure 4 presents a histogram of 40 tree-ring dates from the RAAP area from A.D. 350 to 517. The distribution includes 38 non-cutting dates from across the distribution, one cutting date at A.D. 460 from Pithouse G at the SU Site, and a near-cutting date (effectively a cutting date) of A.D. 477 from Pithouse T at the SU Site. A total of thirty-three dates, or 83% of the dates in this cluster, come from eight pithouses (D, G, N, Q, S, T, W, and Z) and Test Trench 27 at the SU Site (see Ahlstrom 1985:99-100).

Pithouse N at the SU Site yielded a single non-cutting date at 400. Pithouse W yielded two non-cutting dates at 415 and 436. Pithouse Z yielded a single non-cutting date at 448. Pithouse S yielded a single non-cutting date at 477. Test Trench 27, excavated through a midden deposit, yielded non-

cutting dates at 479 and 487. Pithouse D yielded a single non-cutting date at 481. All that we can say from these data is that the construction and use of these SU Site structures occurred some number of years after the non-cutting dates in question. (It is possible that one or more of these dates comes from repair beams, and therefore postdates much of the use of the structure. Given the large number of beams used to construct pithouse roofs, contrasted with the paucity of dates from each structure, as a matter of chance it is statistically unlikely that a repair beam will be dated before a construction beam, but it is possible).

RAAP Area Tree-Ring Dates, A.D. 350 -1300

Year

400 600 800 1000 1200

Num

ber o

f Tre

e-R

ing

Dat

es

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Tree-Ring Dates; N = 134

Figure 3. Distribution of 134 tree-ring dates from the RAAP area.

The best dated structures at the SU Site are Pithouses G, Q, and T. Pithouse G yielded 11 dated specimens, ranging from an early non-cutting date at 350 to a late non-cutting date at 481, including a cutting date at 460. With four dates spanning an eight-year period from 453 to 460, we might infer wood cutting and construction activities shortly after 460, with the late date of 481 marking a possible repair event. Pithouse Q yielded seven dated specimens ranging from an early non-cutting date at 373 to a late non-cutting date at 484. Three dates from 413 to 419 indicate possible construction in the early 420s, with a possible repair event at A.D. 484, but use of a pithouse structure for six decades stretches the bounds of credulity. Pithouse T yielded eight dates ranging from an early non-cutting date at 379 to a late non-cutting date at 497. Four non-cutting dates at 477-8 and a non-cutting date at 482 indicate possible construction in the 480s. Three non-cutting dates from Feature 2 at LA 5936 indicate only that the structure post-dates 402.


RAAP Area Tree-Ring Dates, A.D. 350 - 520

Year

360 380 400 420 440 460 480 500 520

Num

ber o

f Tre

e-R

ing

Dat

es

0

2

4

6

8

10

Number of Tree-ring Dates; N = 40

Figure 4. Distribution of RAAP area tree-ring dates, A.D. 355 – 517. (N=40)

Three non-cutting dates from House 2 LA 2948 indicate only that it post-dates 517. Figure 5 presents a histogram of 81 tree-ring dates from the RAAP area from A.D. 655 to 899. More than half (45 of 81, or 56%) of the dates in Figure 5 come from the Turkey Foot Ridge Site. Six of fifteen excavated pithouses (B, E, F, H, K, and O) at Turkey Foot Ridge yielded dates. Pithouse B yielded eight non-cutting and two near-cutting dates beginning at 732, but with a nice cluster of four dates in 777 and 778. This suggests construction sometime in late 778 or shortly thereafter. Pithouse E yielded 13 dated specimens with a loose cluster of near-cutting and non-cutting dates in the mid-740s followed by seven non-cutting dates roughly evenly distributed between 758 and 783. Pithouse F yielded seven non-cutting dates between 748 and 788 with a loose cluster in the early 770s. Pithouse H yielded seven non-cutting dates ranging from 768 to 787. Pithouse K yielded four non-cutting dates from 751 to 775. Pithouse O yielded two non-cutting dates at A.D. 749 and 752. Taken together, these data strongly suggest the occupation of small numbers of contemporaneous pithouses at Turkey Foot Ridge from the 740s through the 780s (cf. Martin and Rinaldo 1950a). Pithouse D at the Twin Bridges Site, located in the Pine Lawn Valley just north of the Turkey Foot Ridge Site, yielded 15 non-cutting dates, including the early date at 665 followed by 14 additional dates more or less evenly distributed between 728 and 779. A near-cutting date at 782 and a cutting date at 783 indicate likely construction in the late 783 or shortly thereafter, making the site (or at least this structure) essentially

contemporaneous with some of the dated structures at Turkey Foot Ridge. The remaining 10 dates in Figure 5 span 718 to 899 and come in small numbers from Luna Village, Starkweather Ruin, and the Wheatley Ridge Ruin. Three non-cutting dates from Pithouse 1 at Luna Village suggest construction sometime after 837; a single non-cutting date from Pithouse 12 at Luna Village suggests possible construction somewhat earlier, after 789. A single cutting date from Pithouse 1 at Starkweather Ruin suggests construction after 769; two non-cutting dates at 718 and 749 don’t add much to the discussion. Twelve dates, including two


Year

700 750 800 850 900

Num

ber o

f Tre

e-R

ing

Dat

es

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Number of Tree-Ring Dates; N = 81

Figure 5. Distribution RAAP area tree-ring

dates, A.D. 655 – 899.

cutting dates, from four pithouses at Wheatley Ridge Ruin loosely suggest construction and occupation in the mid-late 800s. House 4 yielded five tree-ring dates, including a cutting date of 853 and a non-cutting date of 860, suggesting a complex architectural history including possible repair. House 5 yielded a terminal cutting date at 899, suggesting that the site was occupied for several decades at least. Given that this date is the last in the middle cluster, Wheatley Ridge may have been one of the last sites occupied in the region during this time, if indeed the gap in Figure 3 is real and represents the cessation of regional construction activity until the mid-1200s. Figure 6 graphically presents the 13 tree-ring dates from the final cluster in the RAAP area database; all are from Higgins Flat Pueblo located in the central part of the project area. The earliest is a non-cutting date of 1232 from Room B; the latest is a non-cutting



date from Room M. Room A appears well dated with a near-cutting date of 1248 and a cutting date of 1249, suggesting construction in late 1249 or early 1250. Room C is also well dated, at least when considered with other pueblo rooms in the Mogollon Highlands. Room C yielded six dates, including cutting dates at 1237, 1242, 1257, 1258, and 1260, possibly suggesting construction in the 1240s and repair shortly after 1260. Additional contextual analysis is necessary to test these assertions, however. The only non-cutting date from Room C is from 1253. Room D yielded a cutting date of 1257 and a non-cutting date at 1254. Room M yielded a single non-cutting date of 1281. Taken together, 13 dates from a site as large as Higgins Flat Pueblo does not constitute a great sample, but the large number of cutting dates suggests construction and occupation beginning in the 1240s and lasting, perhaps, to as late as 1290. At the time they were working in west-central New Mexico, Martin and Rinaldo were quintessential culture historians (Nash 2003, in press). They specifically sought to sample the entire chronological range of sites in the region, so we should not (necessarily) be surprised to see dated sites over a span of 1000 years (Figure 3) Tree-ring dates from the RAAP region provide tantalizingly precise clues about the occupational history of particular structures in certain sites in the region. In the grand scheme of things, however, a sample of 134 dates from nine sites in a large region is a small sample with which to work. (By way of comparison, Nash and Rogers (2014) conducted a similar, historic analysis of the tree-ring date distribution for Mesa Verde National Park in southwestern Colorado. They analyzed 4,389 dates from 143 sites in an area far smaller than RAAP. One site, Long House on Wetherill Mesa, yielded 683 tree-ring dates alone. Such are the benefits of archaeological preservation and recovery in dry environments.) Nevertheless, the tree-ring dates from the RAAP area provide chronometric context in which to conduct further analyses and seem to confirm, at least initially, the tripartite occupational history posited by Anyon et al. (1981) and indicated in the preliminary analysis of AMS dates from Tularosa Cave reported herein (Koons and Nash, this volume). Given that modern excavation techniques (e.g. 2x2 m units) do not typically yield large numbers of tree-ring specimens, it is unlikely that clusters in Figure 3 will grow tremendously in the near future. Equally impor-tant with the peaks, however, are the valleys, and it will be interesting to see if ceramic cross-dating and


Year

1230 1240 1250 1260 1270 1280 1290

Num

ber o

f Tre

e-R

ing

Dat

es

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Number of Tree-Ring Dates, N = 13

Figure 6: Distribution of 13 tree-ring dates from A.D. 1232 to 1281.

AMS radiocarbon dating at other sites suggest that the RAAP area was occupied, or not, during the gaps in the tree-ring date distribution. Conclusion RAAP seeks to build on previous work by engaging in non-invasive, ethically grounded, collections-based, systemic archaeological research. Archaeologically, the greater Reserve region is one of the richest, but most understudied, areas in the entire American Southwest. This report, as well as that by Koons and Nash (this volume) summarizes RAAP activity to date; we look forward to honing the focus of RAAP research in the coming years.

References

Ahlstrom, R. V. N. 1985 The Interpretation of Archaeological Tree-Ring

Dates. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, the University of Arizona.

1997 Sources of Variation in the Southwestern Archaeological Tree-Ring Record. Kiva 62:321-348.

Ahlstrom, R.V.N., J.S. Dean, and W.J. Robinson. 1991 Evaluating Tree-Ring Interpretations at Walpi

Pueblo. American Antiquity 56(4):628-644. Anyon, Roger, Patricia Gillman, and Steven LeBlanc

1981 A Re-evaluation of the Mogollon-Mimbres Archaeological Sequence. The Kiva 46:209-222.

Bannister, B. 1962 The Interpretation of Tree-Ring Dates. American

Antiquity 27:508-514.


Bluhm, E.A. 1957 The Sawmill Site: A Reserve Phase Village, Pine

Lawn Valley, Western New Mexico. Fieldiana: Anthropology 47(1).

Chazin, H.M. and S.E. Nash 2013 Moments, Movements, and Metaphors: Paul

Sidney Martin, Pedagogy, and Professionalization in Field Schools, 1926-1974. American Antiquity 78(2):322-343.

Conyers, L.B. 2013 Ground-penetrating radar assessment and results

near Reserve, New Mexico. Report on file, Department of Anthropology, Denver Museum of Nature & Science.

Dean, J. S. 1978 Independent Dating in Archaeological Analysis.

In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 1, edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 223-255. Academic Press, New York.

1988 A Model of Anasazi Behavioral Adaptation. In The Anasazi in a Changing Environment, edited by G.J. Gumerman, pp. 119-167. Cambridge University Press, London.

1996a Dendrochronology and the Study of Human Behavior. In Tree-Rings, Environment, and umanity: Proceedings of the International Conference, Tucson, 1994, edited by J. S. Dean, D. M. Meko, and T. W. Swetnam, pp. 461- 469. Radiocarbon, Tucson, AZ.

1996b Behavioral Sources of Error in Archaeological Tree-Ring Dating: Navajo and Pueblo Wood-Use. In Tree-Rings, Environment, and Humanity: Proceedings of the International Conference, Tucson, 1994, edited by J. S. Dean, D. M. Meko, and T. W. Swetnam, pp. 497-504. Radiocarbon, Tucson, Arizona.

Dean, J.S. and W.J. Robinson 1977 Dendroclimatic Variability in the American

Southwest. Final Report to the National Park Service. Southwest Paleoclimate Project (CX-1595-5-0241).

Douglass, A.E. 1929 The Secret of the Southwest Solved by Talkative

Tree-Rings. National Geographic 56(6):736-770. Grissino-Mayer, H.G.

1995 Tree-Ring Reconstructions of Climate and Fire History at El Malpais National Monument, New Mexico. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson.

Grissino-Mayer, H.G., C.H. Baisan, and T.W. Swetnam 1997 A 1,373 Year Reconstruction of Annual

Precipitation for the Southern Rio Grande Basin. Report Submitted to Directorate of the Environment, Natural Resources Division, Fort Bliss, Texas.

Haury, E.W. 1935 Tree-Rings: The Archaeologist’s Time Piece.

American Antiquity 1(2):98-108. Martin, P.S.

1943 The SU Site: Excavations at a Mogollon Village,

Second Season, 1941. Fieldiana: Anthropology 32(2):98-271 Martin, P.S. and J.B. Rinaldo

1940 The SU Site: Excavations at a Mogollon Village, Western New Mexico, 1939. Fieldiana: Anthropology 32(1):1-97.

1947 The SU Site: Excavations at a Mogollon Village, Third Season, 1946. Fieldiana: Anthropology 32(2):275-382.

1950a Turkey Foot Ridge Site: A Mogollon Village, Pine Lawn Valley, Western New Mexico. Chicago Natural History Museum. Fieldiana: Anthropology 38(2):237-396.

1950b Sites of the Reserve Phase, Pine Lawn Valley, Western New Mexico. Chicago Natural History Museum. Fieldiana Anthropology 38(3):403-577

Martin, P.S., J.B. Rinaldo, and E. Antevs 1949 Cochise and Mogollon Sites, Pine Lawn Valley,

Western New Mexico.Chicago Natural History Museum. Fieldiana: Anthropology 38(1).

Martin, P.S., J.B. Rinaldo, and E.R. Barter 1957 Late Mogollon Communities: Four Sites of the

Tularosa Phase, Western New Mexico. Field Museum of Natural History. Fieldiana: Anthropology 49(1):1-144.

Martin, P.S., J.B. Rinaldo, E.A. Bluhm 1954 Caves of the Reserve Area. Field Museum of

Natural History. Fieldiana: Anthropology 42. Martin, P.S., J.B. Rinaldo, E.A. Bluhm, and H.L. Cutler

1956 Higgins Flat Pueblo, Western New Mexico. Field Museum of Natural History. Fieldiana: Anthropology 45.

Martin, P.S., J.B. Rinaldo, E.A. Bluhm, H.C. Cutler, R. Grange, Jr.

1952 Mogollon Cultural Continuity and Change: The Stratigraphic Analysis of Tularosa and Cordova Caves. Field Museum of Natural History. Fieldiana: Anthropology 40.

Nash, S.E. 1997 Archaeological Cutting Date Estimation and the

Interpretation of Estimated Tree-Ring Dates. American Antiquity 62:260-272.

1999 Time, Trees, and Prehistory: Tree-Ring Dating and the Development of North American Archaeology 1914 to 1950. Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press.

2000 Seven Decades of Archaeological Tree-Ring Dating. In It’s About Time: A History of Archaeological Dating in North America, edited by Stephen E. Nash, pp. 60-82, the University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

2001 A Gentleman Scholar: Paul Sidney Martin. Archaeology Magazine, May/June, pp. 60 - 63.

2002 Archaeological Tree-Ring Dating at the Millennium. Journal of Archaeological Research 10:243-275. 2003 Paul Sidney Martin. In Curators, Collections,



and Contexts: Anthropology at the Field Museum, 1893-2002. S.E. Nash and G.M. Feinman, eds. Pp. 165- 178. Fieldiana (N.S.) 36. 2005 Paul Sidney Martin’s Mogollon Resarch in New

Mexico, 1939 – 1955. In Inscriptions: Papers in Honor of Richard and Nathalie Woodbury, edited by Wiseman, R.N., T.C. O’Laughlin, and C.T. Snow, pp. 123-144. The Archaeological Society of New Mexico 31.

2006 Sites Unseen: Paul Sidney Martin’s Unpublished Mogollon Excavations 1939 – 1972. In Mostly Mimbres: A Collection of Papers from the12th Biennial Mogollon Conference, edited by M. Thompson, J. Jurgena, and L. Jackson, pp. 5 – 16. El Paso Museum of Archaeology. El Paso.

2010 A Conflicted Legacy: Paul Sidney Martin as Museum Archaeologist 1925 – 1938. American Anthropologist 112(1):104-121. In press John Beach Rinaldo: Quintessential Culture Historian. American Antiquity, publication expected July 2015.

Nash, S.E. (editor) 2009 Readings in Chronometric Analysis: Selections

from American Antiquity and Latin American Antiquity 1935-2006. Society for American Archaeology Press, Washington, D.C.

Nash, S. E. and C.T. Rogers. 2014 An Embarrassment of Riches: Tree-Ring Dating,

the History of Archaeology, and the Interpretation of Pre-Columbian History at Mesa Verde National Park. In Archaeology in the Great Basin and Southwest: Papers in Honor of Don D. Fowler, edited by N.J. Parezo and J.C. Janetski, pp. 309-321. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Nemecek, S.J. 2014 GPR Assessment and Results for Three Pines

Pueblo and Turkey Foot Ridge. Report on file, Department of Anthropology, Denver Museum of Nature & Science.

Oakes, Y.R. and D.A. Zamora 1999 Archaeology of the Mogollon Highlands:

Settlement Systems and Adaptations. Office of Archaeological Studies, Museum of New Mexico, Archaeology Notes 232. Santa Fe.

Rinaldo, J.B. 1956 Notes on Minor Excavations in the Reserve Area,

West-Central New Mexico. Manuscript on file, Field Museum Archives Box SW25, Folder 2.

1959 Foote Canyon Pueblo, Eastern Arizona. Field Museum of Natural History. Fieldiana: Anthropology 49(2).

1964 Notes on the Origins of Historic Zuni Culture. The Kiva 30(2):86-98.

Schiffer, Michael B. 1987 Formation Processes of the Archaeological

Record. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Shaw, C.W., Jr. 1993 Human Responses to Past Climate, Environment,

and Population in Two Mogollon Areas of New Mexico. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson. Smiley, F.E. and R.V.N. Ahlstrom

1998 Archaeological Chronometry: Radiocarbon and Tree-Ring Models and Applications from Black Mesa, Arizona. Southern Illinois University at Carbondale Center for Archaeological Investigations Occasional Paper No. 16.

Towner, R. H. 2000 Dendrochronology and Historical Records:

Concordance and Conflict in Navajo Archaeology. In It’s About Time: A History of Archaeological Dating in North America, edited by Stephen E. Nash, pp. 168-185, the University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Wills, Wirt H. 1996 The Transition from the Preceramic to Ceramic

Period in the Mogollon Highlands of Western New Mexico. Journal of Field Archaeology 23:335-359.


Table 3. Tree-Ring Dates from the RAAP Region

Site Name Provenience TRL Spec. No.

Outside Date

Outside Suffix Type of Date

Higgins Flat Pueblo Room A CNH-48 1239 vv Non-Cutting Higgins Flat Pueblo Room A CNH-46 1248 v Near-Cutting Higgins Flat Pueblo Room A CNH-45 1249 r Cutting Higgins Flat Pueblo Room B CNH-41 1232 vv Non-Cutting Higgins Flat Pueblo Room C CNH-26 1237 r Cutting Higgins Flat Pueblo Room C CNH-18 1242 rB Cutting Higgins Flat Pueblo Room C CNH-29 1253 +r Non-Cutting Higgins Flat Pueblo Room C CNH-27 1257 r Cutting Higgins Flat Pueblo Room C CNH-22 1258 v Near-Cutting Higgins Flat Pueblo Room C CNH-33 1260 r Cutting Higgins Flat Pueblo Room D CNH-21 1254 +v Non-Cutting Higgins Flat Pueblo Room D CNH-20 1257 r Cutting Higgins Flat Pueblo Room M CNH-42 1281 vv Non-Cutting LA 2948 House 2 RG-2819 482 vv Non-Cutting LA 2948 House 2 RG-2817 502 vv Non-Cutting LA 2948 House 2 RG-2810 517 vv Non-Cutting LA 5936 Feature 2 HWS-29 393 vv Non-Cutting LA 5936 Feature 2 HWS-28 397 vv Non-Cutting LA 5936 Feature 2 HWS-30 402 +vv Non-Cutting Luna Village Pithouse 1 LV-3 827 ++vv Non-Cutting Luna Village Pithouse 1 LV-1 837 vv Non-Cutting Luna Village Pithouse 1 LV-2 837 vv Non-Cutting Luna Village Pithouse 12 LV-7 789 vv Non-Cutting Starkweather Ruin Pithouse 1 GP-1093 749 vv Non-Cutting Starkweather Ruin Pithouse 1 GP-1090 769 r Cutting Starkweather Ruin Pithouse K GP-1092 718 vv Non-Cutting SU Site Pithouse D SU-047 481 vv Non-Cutting SU Site Pithouse G SU-002 350 vv Non-Cutting SU Site Pithouse G SU-001 377 vv Non-Cutting SU Site Pithouse G SU-023 418 vv Non-Cutting SU Site Pithouse G SU-024 421 vv Non-Cutting SU Site Pithouse G SU-010 432 vv Non-Cutting SU Site Pithouse G SU-018 449 vv Non-Cutting SU Site Pithouse G SU-024b 453 vv Non-Cutting SU Site Pithouse G SU-020 455 vv Non-Cutting SU Site Pithouse G SU-011 458 vv Non-Cutting SU Site Pithouse G SU-023-1 460 r Cutting SU Site Pithouse G SU-021a 481 Vv Non-Cutting SU Site Pithouse N SU-102 400 vv Non-Cutting SU Site Pithouse Q SU-140 373 vv Non-Cutting SU Site Pithouse Q SU-173-1 386 vv Non-Cutting SU Site Pithouse Q SU-126 388 vv Non-Cutting SU Site Pithouse Q SU-131a 415 vv Non-Cutting SU Site Pithouse Q SU-163 419 vv Non-Cutting SU Site Pithouse Q SU-154-1 484 vv Non-Cutting SU Site Pithouse S SU-199 477 vv Non-Cutting SU Site Pithouse T SU-237 379 vv Non-Cutting SU Site Pithouse T SU-225 450 vv Non-Cutting SU Site Pithouse T SU-250 477 v Near-Cutting



(Table 3 Continued)

Site Name Provenience TRL Spec.

No. Outside

Date Outside Suffix Type of Date

SU Site Pithouse T SU-226 477 vv Non-Cutting SU Site Pithouse T SU-227 478 vv Non-Cutting SU Site Pithouse T SU-245 478 vv Non-Cutting SU Site Pithouse T SU-244 482 vv Non-Cutting SU Site Pithouse T SU-258 497 vv Non-Cutting SU Site Pithouse W SU-209-1 415 vv Non-Cutting SU Site Pithouse W SU-205 436 vv Non-Cutting SU Site Pithouse Z SU-262 448 vv Non-Cutting SU Site TT-27 SU-202 479 vv Non-Cutting SU Site TT-27 SU-111 487 vv Non-Cutting Turkey Foot Ridge Pithouse B SU-429 715 vv Non-Cutting Turkey Foot Ridge Pithouse B SU-408 719 vv Non-Cutting Turkey Foot Ridge Pithouse B SU-419 732 vv Non-Cutting Turkey Foot Ridge Pithouse B SU-404 733 vv Non-Cutting Turkey Foot Ridge Pithouse B SU-382 759 vv Non-Cutting Turkey Foot Ridge Pithouse B SU-442 768 vv Non-Cutting Turkey Foot Ridge Pithouse B SU-390 768 vv Non-Cutting Turkey Foot Ridge Pithouse B SU-397 774 v Near-Cutting Turkey Foot Ridge Pithouse B SU-400 777 vv Non-Cutting Turkey Foot Ridge Pithouse B SU-410 778 v Near-Cutting Turkey Foot Ridge Pithouse B SU-414 778 vv Non-Cutting Turkey Foot Ridge Pithouse B SU-379 778 vv Non-Cutting Turkey Foot Ridge Pithouse E SU-516A 725 vv Non-Cutting Turkey Foot Ridge Pithouse E SU-525 745 vv Non-Cutting Turkey Foot Ridge Pithouse E SU-516B 746 v Near-Cutting Turkey Foot Ridge Pithouse E SU-509 747 vv Non-Cutting Turkey Foot Ridge Pithouse E SU-526B 748 vv Non-Cutting Turkey Foot Ridge Pithouse E SU-517 749 v Near-Cutting Turkey Foot Ridge Pithouse E SU-524 758 vv Non-Cutting Turkey Foot Ridge Pithouse E SU-526A 759 vv Non-Cutting Turkey Foot Ridge Pithouse E SU-514 761 vv Non-Cutting Turkey Foot Ridge Pithouse E SU-511 764 vv Non-Cutting Turkey Foot Ridge Pithouse E SU-521 773 vv Non-Cutting Turkey Foot Ridge Pithouse E SU-519 782 vv Non-Cutting Turkey Foot Ridge Pithouse E SU-523 783 vv Non-Cutting Turkey Foot Ridge Pithouse F SU-488 748 vv Non-Cutting Turkey Foot Ridge Pithouse F SU-479-1 770 vv Non-Cutting Turkey Foot Ridge Pithouse F SU-486 771 vv Non-Cutting Turkey Foot Ridge Pithouse F SU-485 772 vv Non-Cutting Turkey Foot Ridge Pithouse F SU-479 774 vv Non-Cutting Turkey Foot Ridge Pithouse F SU-475A 784 vv Non-Cutting Turkey Foot Ridge Pithouse F SU-487 788 vv Non-Cutting Turkey Foot Ridge Pithouse H SU-500F 768 vv Non-Cutting Turkey Foot Ridge Pithouse H SU-489 768 vv Non-Cutting Turkey Foot Ridge Pithouse H SU-494 780 vv Non-Cutting Turkey Foot Ridge Pithouse H SU-500 781 vv Non-Cutting Turkey Foot Ridge Pithouse H SU-490 783 v Near-Cutting Turkey Foot Ridge Pithouse H SU-496 786 v Near-Cutting Turkey Foot Ridge Pithouse H SU-491 787 vv Non-Cutting


(Table 3 Continued)

Site Name Provenience TRL Spec.

No. Outside

Date Outside Suffix Type of Date

Turkey Foot Ridge Pithouse K SU-541 751 vv Non-Cutting Turkey Foot Ridge Pithouse K SU-532 767 vv Non-Cutting Turkey Foot Ridge Pithouse K SU-537 774 vv Non-Cutting Turkey Foot Ridge Pithouse K SU-533 775 vv Non-Cutting Turkey Foot Ridge Pithouse O SU-559 749 vv Non-Cutting Turkey Foot Ridge Pithouse O SU-554A 752 vv Non-Cutting Twin Bridges Site Pithouse D SU-330 665 vv Non-Cutting Twin Bridges Site Pithouse D SU-344 728 vv Non-Cutting Twin Bridges Site Pithouse D SU-302 730 ++vv Non-Cutting Twin Bridges Site Pithouse D SU-295 740 vv Non-Cutting Twin Bridges Site Pithouse D SU-341A-1 749 vv Non-Cutting Twin Bridges Site Pithouse D SU-358D 750 vv Non-Cutting Twin Bridges Site Pithouse D SU-299A 750 vv Non-Cutting Twin Bridges Site Pithouse D SU-368 754 vv Non-Cutting Twin Bridges Site Pithouse D SU-355 758 vv Non-Cutting Twin Bridges Site Pithouse D SU-369 759 vv Non-Cutting Twin Bridges Site Pithouse D SU-317 769 vv Non-Cutting Twin Bridges Site Pithouse D SU-371 769 vv Non-Cutting Twin Bridges Site Pithouse D SU-341A-2 770 +r Non-Cutting Twin Bridges Site Pithouse D SU-348 776 vv Non-Cutting Twin Bridges Site Pithouse D SU-299B 778 +vv Non-Cutting Twin Bridges Site Pithouse D SU-293 782 v Near-Cutting Twin Bridges Site Pithouse D SU-333B 783 r Cutting Wheatley Ridge Ruin House 1 GP-3615 853 vv Non-Cutting Wheatley Ridge Ruin House 3A GP-3623 800 vv Non-Cutting Wheatley Ridge Ruin House 4 GP-3668 780 vv Non-Cutting Wheatley Ridge Ruin House 4 GP-3632 786 vv Non-Cutting Wheatley Ridge Ruin House 4 GP-3629 841 vv Non-Cutting Wheatley Ridge Ruin House 4 GP-3633 853 r Cutting Wheatley Ridge Ruin House 4 GP-3635 860 vv Non-Cutting Wheatley Ridge Ruin House 5 GP-3647 758 vv Non-Cutting Wheatley Ridge Ruin House 5 GP-3646 865 vv Non-Cutting Wheatley Ridge Ruin House 5 GP-3650 891 +vv Non-Cutting Wheatley Ridge Ruin House 5 GP-3652 899 r Cutting

The Reserve Area Archaeological Project

Documents

Transcript of The Reserve Area Archaeological Project