Comparative Analysis of Ceramics from Three Great Houses and One Small House Site in Southeast Utah

Transcription

1 Brigham Young University BYU ScholarsArchive All Theses and Dissertations Comparative Analysis of Ceramics from Three Great Houses and One Small House Site in Southeast Utah Rachel Marie Harris Brigham Young University - Provo Follow this and additional works at: Part of the Anthropology Commons BYU ScholarsArchive Citation Harris, Rachel Marie, "Comparative Analysis of Ceramics from Three Great Houses and One Small House Site in Southeast Utah" (). All Theses and Dissertations This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact scholarsarchive@byu.edu, ellen_amatangelo@byu.edu.

2 Comparative Analysis of Ceramics from Three Great Houses and One Small House Site in Southeast Utah Rachel M. Harris A thesis submitted to the faculty of Brigham Young University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts James R. Allison, Chair John E. Clark Michael T. Searcy Department of Anthropology Brigham Young University December Copyright Rachel M. Harris All Rights Reserved

3 ABSTRACT Comparative Analysis of Ceramics from Three Great Houses and One Small House Site in Southeast Utah Rachel M. Harris Department of Anthropology, BYU Master of Arts Ceramics from three Utah great houses, Bluff, Cottonwood Falls, and Edge of the Cedars, were analyzed and compared with ceramics from Three Kiva Pueblo, which is not a great house site but was occupied contemporarily. Data on jar and bowl rim diameters were considered to understand great house feasting dynamics. Cooking jars with large rim diameters were more common at Three Kiva than they were at the great houses. This suggests that Three Kiva residents prepared large batches of food more frequently than great house residents. Distributions of Mancos Black-on-white bowl diameters were very similar at great houses and Three Kiva, but Three Kiva had bowls with larger diameters than those found at the great houses. Jar sizes suggest it is possible that feasting at great houses took place with a potluck model; however, bowl sizes suggest that Three Kiva also hosted feasts. Data on ceramic origins were considered to look for direction and strength of relationships with outside regions. All of the great houses had higher proportions of imported ceramics than Three Kiva, suggesting that great house residents interacted with people from other regions more frequently. All sites had large proportions of imported ceramics from the Kayenta region. All great house sites had Chuskan and Cibolan sherds, suggesting interaction with Chaco Canyon. Proportions of imported ceramics and the regions from which they came varied for each site, indicating that site residents maintained independent connections to people living in other regions. Keywords: Ceramics, Rim Arc, Utah, Chaco Canyon, Great House

4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I feel extremely grateful for the help and assistance I have received throughout this thesis process. Many people have sacrificed time and effort to make my thesis a reality. Thank you Peter for constantly supporting me and my goals and for not allowing me to give up when things were hard. Thank you Natasha for your friendship and support and for countless hours of babysitting. I could not have written this without you. Thanks also to Mom, Sara, and Rebecca for sacrificing your time to babysit so I could work. Thanks to Anna and Dad for sending Mom out here to help me. Thanks to Elyse for babysitting and editing assistance. Thanks to Caitlin for babysitting for me so often even though you were underpaid. Thanks to Lydia for being a good sport about all the babysitters most of the time. I appreciate Paul Stavast and the Museum of Peoples and Cultures for allowing me use of collections and research space. I m also grateful to Deborah Westfall and the Edge of the Cedars State Park Museum for the use of collections and for help accessing archival documents. Thanks to the Charles Redd Center for Western Studies for providing funding for this thesis. Thanks to Dr. Allison for guidance and assistance throughout this thesis process. Thanks to Dr. Clark and Dr. Searcy for helpful feedback and comments that have (I hope) greatly improved this thesis. This thesis is dedicated to Aria Lynn Rutkowski, whose life was much too short. I finished this for you.

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract...ii Acknowledgements...iii List of Figures...vi List of Tables....viii 1 INTRODUCTION... 1 Research Directions... 2 Methods... 8 Overview CONTEXT Chaco Canyon Theories of the Nature of the Chaco System Other Great Houses Discussion BLUFF GREAT HOUSE Site History Data Vessel Size Ceramic Origins EDGE OF THE CEDARS... 5 Site History... 5 Ceramic Analysis Data Vessel Size Ceramic Origins COTTONWOOD FALLS... 6 Site History... 6 Ceramic Analysis Data iv

6 Vessel Size Ceramic Origins THREE KIVA PUEBLO... 7 Site History... 7 Ceramic Analysis Data Vessel Size Ceramic Origins COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS... 8 Gray Ware Jar Diameters White Ware Bowl Diameters Imported Vessels CONCLUSION Vessel Sizes and Feasting Interactions with Outside Regions... Conclusion APPENDIX A: DATA FROM EDGE OF THE CEDARS APPENDIX B: DATA FROM COTTONWOOD FALLS APPENDIX C: DATA FROM THREE KIVA REFERENCES... 8 v

7 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1 Map of the Four Corners region showing relative locations of sites discussed in text Figure 3.1 Image of the Bluff great house site Figure 3.2 Bar charts showing diameters of Mancos Gray jars by count and by degrees Figure 3.3 Bar charts showing diameters of Mancos Corrugated jars by count and by degrees.. 39 Figure 3.4 Bar charts showing diameters of Dolores Corrugated jars by count and by degrees.. 4 Figure 3.5 Bar charts showing diameters of both Mancos Corrugated and Dolores Corrugated vessels by count and by degrees Figure 3.6 Bar charts showing diameters of Mesa Verde Corrugated jars by count and by degrees Figure 3.7 Bar charts showing diameters of Mancos Black-on-white bowls by count and by degrees Figure 3.8 Bar charts showing diameters of McElmo Black-on-white vessels by count and by degrees Figure 3.9 Bar charts showing diameters of Mesa Verde Black-on-white vessels by count and by degrees Figure 3.1 Bar charts showing diameters of all Pueblo III white ware vessels by count and by degrees Figure 3.11 Deadmans Black-on-red diameters by degrees Figure 3.12 Tusayan Black-on-red diameters by degrees Figure 3.13 Distributions of diameters of Mancos Black-on-white, Deadmans Black-on-red, and Tusayan Black-on-red Figure 4.1 Great house at Edge of the Cedars Figure 4.2 Graphs showing diameters of Mancos Gray sherds by count and by degrees Figure 4.3 Charts showing diameters of Mancos Corrugated sherds by count and by degrees Figure 4.4 Charts showing diameters of Dolores Corrugated sherds by count and by degrees Figure 4.5 Charts of Mancos Corrugated and Dolores Corrugated sherds by count and by degrees Figure 4.6 Charts showing diameters of Mancos Black-on-white sherds by count and by degrees Figure 5.1 Cottonwood Falls great house site Figure 5.2 Bar charts showing diameters of Chapin Gray sherds by count and by degrees Figure 5.3 Bar charts showing diameters of Mancos Corrugated sherds by count and by degrees Figure 5.4 Bar charts showing diameters of Mancos Corrugated and Dolores Corrugated sherds by count and by degrees Figure 5.5 Charts showing diameters of Pueblo II white ware bowl sherds by count and by degrees vi

8 Figure 5.6 Bar charts showing diameters of Pueblo III white ware bowl sherds by count and by degrees Figure 6.1 Three Kiva Pueblo during excavations in 197. Image courtesy of Museum of Peoples and Cultures, 1MS Figure 6.2 Mancos Gray diameters by count and by degrees Figure 6.3 Mancos Corrugated diameters by count and by degrees Figure 6.4 Dolores Corrugated diameters by count and by degrees Figure 6.5 Mancos Black-on-white diameters by count and by degrees Figure 6.6 McElmo Black-on-white diameters by count and by degrees Figure 6.7 Mesa Verde Black-on-white diameters by count and by degrees Figure 6.8 All Pueblo III white wares by degrees Figure 7.1 Boxplot of Mancos Gray jar diameters for all four sites Figure 7.2 Graphs of Mancos Gray jar diameters by degrees Figure 7.3 Graphs showing Mancos Gray jar diameters from all great houses combined and from Three Kiva by count Figure 7.4 Boxplots of Mancos Corrugated jar diameters Figure 7.5 Graphs of Mancos Corrugated jar diameters by degrees Figure 7.6 Graphs of Mancos Corrugated Diameters by count at Three Kiva and at all great houses combined Figure 7.7 Graphs of Dolores Corrugated jar diameters by count Figure 7.8 Graphs of Dolores Corrugated jar diameters by degrees Figure 7.9 Graphs of Dolores Corrugated jar diameters by count Figure 7.1 Boxplots for Mancos Corrugated and Dolores Corrugated diameters combined Figure Graphs of Mancos Corrugated and Dolores Corrugated jar diameters by degrees. 91 Figure 7.12 Graphs of Mancos Corrugated and Dolores Corrugated jar diameters at Three Kiva and at all great houses combined Figure 7.13 Boxplot showing Mancos Black-on-white bowl diameters by count Figure 7. Bar charts of Mancos Black-on-white diameters by count Figure 7.15 Graphs showing Mancos Black-on-white diameters from all great houses combined and from Three Kiva by count Figure 7. Boxplot of all Pueblo III white ware bowl diameters by count Figure 7.17 Pueblo III white ware diameters by degrees Figure 7.18 Graphs of Pueblo III white wares for Three Kiva and all great houses combined vii

9 LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1 Gray Ware Sherds from 42SA22674 (after Blinman 9) Table 3.2 White Ware Bowl Sherds from 42SA22674 (after Blinman 9) Table 3.3 White Ware Jar Sherds from 42SA22674 (after Blinman 9) Table 3.4 Imported Sherds from 42SA22674 (after Blinman 9) Table 4.1 Gray Ware Sherds from 42SA Table 4.2 White Ware Bowl Sherds from 42SA Table 4.3 White Ware Jars from 42SA Table 5.1 Gray Ware Sherds from 42SA Table 5.2 White Ware Bowl Sherds from 42SA Table 5.3 White Ware Jar Sherds from 42SA Table 5.4 Imported Sherds at 42SA Table 6.1 Gray Ware Ceramics from 42SA Table 6.2 White Ware Bowls from 42SA Table 6.3 White Ware Jars from 42SA viii

10 1 Introduction Chaco Canyon in New Mexico is the center of an archaeological enigma. It is the home of large structures known as great houses, comprising hundreds of rooms in several stories and much larger than anything previously built by the Ancestral Pueblo people. In the regions surrounding Chaco Canyon, hundreds of smaller great houses were constructed contemporaneously in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah. There has been a tremendous amount of research and debate regarding the purpose of great houses, why they were built, and how they were connected to each other. Research on great houses in the northern San Juan has focused on sites in Colorado (Cameron 9b). However, it should not be assumed that Utah great houses were the same as sites to the east. Glowacki (6) showed that during the period after the decline of Chaco Canyon people in Utah exchanged ceramics differently than people living in the eastern part of the northern San Juan. Utah sites need to be considered and understood in their own right, rather than being assumed to share characteristics of sites to the east. This thesis examines ceramic data from three Utah great house sites: Bluff, Cottonwood Falls, and Edge of the Cedars, and one small house residential site without a great house: Three Kiva. Data are compared to determine similarities and differences among great houses and between great houses and Three Kiva. Ceramic assemblages from the great houses are more similar to each other than they are to the assemblage from Three Kiva in both rim diameter distributions and origins of imported ceramics. This suggests that great houses are distinct from small house sites in more aspects than architecture alone. 1

11 RESEARCH DIRECTIONS Feasting First, I examine ceramic vessel diameters to assess evidence for feasting. Many scholars consider great houses to have been used as elite residences with ceremonial functions because there is lots of evidence that great houses were ritually important but the evidence of domestic activities does not indicate a large resident population (Bernardini 1999; Cameron 9e:297; Durand 3; Kintigh 3; Lekson 1999, 8; Reed 8; Wills ; Windes 1987a). Feasting in combination with ritual activities likely took place at great houses (Cameron 9a; Toll 1985; Varien ; Windes 1987c). Ethnographic studies of various Puebloan groups demonstrate that feasting is nearly always an important component of ritual activity (Bunzel 1932; Goldfrank 1923; Mills 7; Rodriguez 1991; Stevenson 194; White 1932). Feasting is also known to have taken place among Ancestral Puebloan groups in many different time periods, including during the Chacoan era (Blinman 1989; Mills 7; Potter and Ortman 4; Potter, 1; Wills and Crown 4). What is a feast, and how would one be identified archaeologically? Definitions of feasting vary, ranging from any sharing of special food (in quality, preparation, or quantity) by two or more people for a special event (Hayden and Villaneuve 11:434) to a form of public ritual activity centered around the communal consumption of food and drink (Dietler and Hayden 1:67). While the first definition is more inclusive, the second is more in line with previous archaeological research in the Southwest and is the definition that will be used in this thesis. Feasting is strongly associated with ritual activity (Twiss 12:364), though not all rituals involving food are feasts (Joyce 1:222). Feasts can be described as either competitive or cooperative (Hayden and Villeneuve 11; Mills 1999; Potter, 1; Twiss 12:364). 2

12 Competitive feasts enhance the prestige of hosts, and cooperative feasts promote community solidarity. However, a single feast may have both competitive and cooperative elements everyone eats together, and everyone remembers who is in charge (Joyce 1; Twiss 12). Discussion of feasting in the Southwest has mainly focused on the cooperative side of the scale (Potter, 1; Wills and Crown 4). However, Potter () noted that the Chaco era seems the most likely time for competitive feasting to have occurred in Puebloan history. Large bowls and cooking pots, in combination with animals typically hunted communally, are the most commonly cited archaeological indications of feasting in the Southwest (Hayden and Villeneuve 11:441; Klarich 1:3-4; Mills 1999, 7; Potter, 1; Varien ; Wills and Crown 4). Other archaeological indications of feasting include large roasting pits (Plog and Watson 12; Wills 9; Wills and Crown 4; Windes 1987c) and large quantities of food processing implements such as grinding stones (Cameron 9e; Wills 9; Wills and Crown 4). It can be difficult to identify feasts archaeologically in the Southwest, where there is not a great difference between food served at daily meals and food served at feasts (Mills 7; Potter, 1:245; Potter and Ortman 4:174). More than one line of evidence should be considered to provide real evidence for feasting and to allow interpretation of the significance of feasting. Competitive feasts and cooperative feasts leave different remains. Plog and Watson (12: Table 1) identified six archaeological traits unique to competitive feasts: high frequency of meat-bearing skeletal elements, unusually large quantities of animal remains, evidence of wastage, spatial association of material remains with public/communal space, special middens or unusually dense bone dumps, and [special] food preparation facilities. Cooperative feasts may have large quantities of communally hunted animals and special ritual items that are also 3

13 common at competitive feasts, but would not be expected to have the other characteristics of competitive feasts (Plog and Watson 12:Table 1). Plog and Watson (12:Table 1) identified large cooking and serving vessels as a trait specific to competitive feasts, but others (Blinman 1989; Mills 7; Potter ) have included large cooking and serving vessels among traits of cooperative feasts as well. A potluck model of feasting has been proposed for the Bluff great house, with food consumption taking place at the great house and preparation taking place elsewhere (Cameron 9e). Blinman (1989) identified potluck-style feasting at a Pueblo I village by higher ratios of serving bowl sherds to cooking jar sherds in areas where feasts took place and higher proportions of large cooking jar sherds in areas where the food was prepared. These feasts were cooperative, with all residents in the village presumed to have participated, but also supported a ritual hierarchy (Blinman 1989; Potter ). If a potluck model of feasting was also used at great houses in southeast Utah, we would expect to see larger cooking jars at small sites surrounding great houses. We would also expect higher bowl-to-jar ratios at the great houses, and higher frequencies of large serving bowls at great houses. We might expect some large serving bowls to be found at small sites where food was prepared, but they would be more likely to be broken and discarded during use at the feast site (Blinman 1989). Bones of animals consumed during feasts might be more likely discarded at the great house, but food processing implements such as metates should be more prevalent at smaller sites. This thesis focuses on vessel rim diameter data to evaluate evidence for feasting, but includes data on faunal remains and ground stone where available. Rim diameter has been shown to correlate strongly with vessel height and vessel volume for Mesa Verde ceramics; increases in rim diameter indicate increases in vessel volume (Mills 1989, 1999). Increases in 4

14 vessel volume can be assumed to indicate increases in the quantity of food prepared and/or served (Adams 4; Blitz 1993; Brown 1; Clarke 1; Deal 1998; Hayden 1; Longacre 1985; Pauketat and Emerson 1991:923). Unfortunately, it was not possible to calculate bowl to jar ratios at Three Kiva, the small house site, because vessel forms were not reported in the original analysis. That line of evidence remains as yet untested. Regional Interaction A second purpose of this research is to examine the connections residents of Utah great houses maintained with people in outlying regions. It is well-documented that although many ceramics were imported into Chaco Canyon, ceramics from Chaco Canyon were not commonly exported to other regions (Durand 3; Judge and Cordell 6; Kantner and Kintigh 6, Kantner et al. ; Mathien 1993; Powers et al. 1983; Toll 1991, 1, 6). Exotic items commonly imported to Chaco Canyon, including turquoise, shell, and copper, are also present in small quantities at great house sites outside Chaco Canyon (Durand and Durand ; Gilpin 3; Hurst ; Kantner and Kintigh 6; Lekson 1999). Although it is possible that items not archaeologically preserved such as macaw feathers were exchanged in a political-prestige economy (Lekson 1999:5), a market exchange economy does not appear to have been part of the Chacoan system (Durand 3; Judge and Cordell 6; Kantner and Kintigh 6; Kantner et al. ; Lekson 1999; Mathien 1993; Powers et al. 1983; Toll 1991, 1, 6). The presence of Cibolan and Chuskan ceramics in Utah artifact assemblages provides evidence of interaction with the Chacoan system. Cibolan ceramics were produced in and around Chaco Canyon, and Chuskan ceramics are the most common imported type found within Chaco Canyon (Judge and Cordell 6; Toll 1, 6). As previously mentioned, large-scale ceramic exchange is not an expected trait of Chacoan sites outside of Chaco Canyon (Durand 5

15 3; Judge and Cordell 6; Kantner and Kintigh 6, Kantner et al. ; Mathien 1993; Powers et al. 1983; Toll 1991, 1, 6). However, some ceramic exchange is known to have occurred. The presence of Cibolan and Chuskan ceramic types is evidence of contact with people who were part of the Chacoan system (Blinman 9; Gilpin 3; Gilpin and Purcell ; Kantner et al. ; Windes et al. ). Imported ceramics can also indicate that great houses were homes of the elite. Blinman (1989) demonstrated that people at ritually important roomblocks had more access to imported ceramics than people at roomblocks without ritual features in a Pueblo I village in Colorado. Finding higher proportions of imported ceramics at the great houses than at Three Kiva could provide another line of evidence in addition to architecture that great houses were homes of the elite. However, Gilpin and Purcell (:3) discovered that some of the sites surrounding the Peach Springs great house in New Mexico had higher proportions of imported ceramics than the great house, leading them to conclude that different parts of the community had different trading partners and trade was not controlled by the occupants of the great house. Imported ceramics may not have been acting as indications of status during Pueblo II times. There is a great deal of stylistic similarity among white wares produced throughout the Chacoan world, and though ceramics certainly may have given signals unknown to us today, the unity in decoration suggests that differentiation was not their purpose (Toll 1). Even if imported ceramics were not overt status symbols, their presence indicates access to distant goods and ties to people living far away. It is important to understand how imported ceramics differ among great houses and between great houses and small house sites. Additionally, Kantner et al. () determined that great house residents in the southern San Juan basin maintained independent trade relationships and in some cases avoided 6

16 exchanging with their immediate neighbors in preference of people living farther away. My research is not able to speak directly to the question of how much interaction people living at Utah great houses had with each other, but examining sources and proportions of imported ceramics may show whether people at these Utah sites maintained independent relationships as did great house residents in other parts of the Chacoan world. It can also show if some Utah great houses appear to be more connected to outside regions than others, or if all interaction with outside regions seems to have been rare. Definitions To maintain consistency throughout the thesis, the following definitions will be used. A great house is a large building, usually with multiple stories, with at least some of the distinctive architectural characteristics found within Chaco Canyon, including core-and-veneer masonry, blocked-in or above grade kivas, earthworks, and roads (Hurst ; Kantner and Kintigh 6; Van Dyke 3). All of these characteristics are not necessary for a great house, but great houses have more than one. These architectural similarities bespeak a connection to Chaco Canyon. Various theories about the nature of this connection are discussed in chapter 2. I have attempted to follow Hurst (:64) in reserving the word Chacoan for items or attributes that can be confidently ascribed to direct importation from the San Juan Basin; for instance, Chacoan sherds come from Chaco Canyon. This is to avoid the presumption of influence by people from Chaco Canyon where it may not necessarily have been present. The Chaco era is approximately AD 9 to 115, though the period of great house occupation in Utah begins in the late AD 9s or early 1s. The Chacoan world refers to the geographic location generally extending as far as there are great houses within Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah. 7

17 As previously discussed, a feast is defined here as a form of public ritual activity centered around the communal consumption of food and drink (Dietler and Hayden 1:67). There were surely smaller and private feasts in the past, but remains of these smaller gatherings would be extremely difficult to distinguish from the remains of typical everyday meals. METHODS I use ceramics to evaluate evidence for feasting practices and connections to Chaco Canyon during the Pueblo II occupation of each site. This is the time when the great houses were built and also the time when Chaco Canyon was occupied. All four sites were also occupied during the Pueblo III period, when Chaco Canyon was abandoned, but Aztec may have continued to act as a center of the Chacoan system (see chapter 2). Therefore, I focus on ceramic types that were used during these time periods, with emphasis on Pueblo II types. Ceramic Typology Gray ware jars were used for cooking and are important to understand food preparation during great house occupation. Mancos Gray was produced from AD 85 through 975 (Wilson and Blinman 1996:42). Jars of this type may pertain to the end of the Pueblo I occupation of each site, or they may have been in use at the beginnings of great house construction. Mancos Corrugated was produced from approximately AD 93 to 11, and was the most common ceramic type after AD 1 (Wilson and Blinman 1995:44). Mancos Corrugated is the most common Pueblo II utility ware at all sites in this study except Bluff. Dolores Corrugated began to be produced around AD 15 and increased in popularity through the 11s (Wilson and Blinman 1995:44). Mesa Verde Corrugated was not produced before AD 11 and was the most common corrugated type after AD 1 (Wilson and Blinman 1995:44). Bluff is the only site included in this study with a large number of Mesa Verde Corrugated sherds. 8

18 White ware and red ware bowls were used for serving food. I focus on white ware bowls because red ware sherds were much less common than white ware sherds at the sites included in this study and finding a large enough sample for analysis would have been difficult (Hurst 1999; Severance 4; Miller 1974). Cortez Black-on-white and White Mesa Black-on-white are types that were produced during the early Pueblo II period (Wilson and Blinman 1995:49-5). Very low quantities of sherds of these types were discovered at each site (Blinman 9; Hurst 1999; Severance 4). Mancos Black-on-white began to replace these two types in the late AD 9s and was the most common white ware type from AD 1 through 115 (Wilson and Blinman 1995:5). McElmo Black-on-white began to be produced around 175, and became the most common type after 115 (Wilson and Blinman 1995:51). Mesa Verde Black-on-white was first produced around 118 and became the most common white ware during the 1s (Wilson and Blinman 1995:52). Data Collection Specific data collection methods for ceramics from each site are detailed in chapters 4, 5, and 6. However, some data collection methods were standard for each site. Only rim sherds that were at least 2.5 cm in length are included in the analysis. For each sherd, I recorded ware, style, form, and type. I also recorded a diameter estimate and then measured the length of the rim of the sherd from end to end using calipers. For jars with everted rims, the orifice opening was measured instead of the rim. Mills (1989) demonstrated that although vessel height is a better approximation of vessel volume for jars, orifice diameter and vessel height are directly correlated for both bowls and jars. In the absence of data on vessel height, differences in orifice diameter can be used to indicate differences in vessel size (Mills 1989). 9

19 In order to allow comparison among the rim sherds from each site, I calculated the degrees of arc represented by each sherd I measured. This was completed using the equation arcsin(c/d)*2 where c is the measured length between the two ends of the sherd and d is the vessel diameter estimated for the sherd. Once these values were calculated, I rounded each to the nearest 5 degrees. This was done to conform to the measurement protocol used by Blinman (9) as well as to avoid false precision in my arc estimates. Several regions throughout the Chacoan world produced ceramics using distinct tempers that can be identified using a microscope (Blinman 9; Hurst 1999; Toll 1985). I used existing data on ceramic tempers and origins for Edge of the Cedars and Cottonwood Falls. Because there was no previously existing temper data from Three Kiva, I nipped each sherd to expose a fresh break and identified temper using a microscope. Data Organization Each site s ceramic data is considered separately before the sites are compared. First, I report total counts and degrees of arc for all rims of ceramic types identified. Then, I present graphs showing distributions of rim diameters by type for Chaco-era gray wares and white wares. I also include a discussion of quantities of ceramics imported from various sources identified at each site. These data include body sherds as well as rim sherds, so sizes of imported vessels are not discussed. At Cottonwood Falls and Edge of the Cedars, not all imported sherds were given type designations beyond the original region of origin, so it was not always possible to distinguish sherds from vessels imported during the Chacoan occupation of the site from those imported before or after. 1

20 Weaknesses A weakness of this comparative analysis is that Three Kiva is not directly associated with any of the great houses analyzed. Three Kiva was chosen as a site representative of small house sites, but people living at Three Kiva may not have interacted with great house residents in their local area in the same way that people at other small houses interacted with residents of the great houses included in this study. Despite this, the comparison of ceramic data from all four sites can still be used to illuminate general differences between great houses and small houses, even if it may not directly show the ways in which great house residents and small house residents interacted. There is also a weakness inherent in comparing data from excavated collections with surface collections. Cottonwood Falls data comes from a surface collection, and the other three sites were excavated. Surface collections can be accurate representations of types and quantities of artifacts below the surface (Redman and Watson 197; Riordan 1982), but they are not always so (Rick 1976; Shott et al. 2). Without excavation, it is impossible to know for certain how accurately the surface collection represents the complete site assemblage. Additionally, ceramics collected from surface collections are often smaller than ceramics below the surface because they are not protected from erosional processes as are the ceramics that are buried (Schiffer 1976). Although the 2.5 cm minimum sherd length was standard for all sites, many of the rim sherds from Cottonwood Falls were smaller than rim sherds from Edge of the Cedars and Three Kiva. This means that they represented fewer degrees of arc and were less likely to accurately represent the actual diameter of the vessels from which they came (Ortman 1999). 11

21 OVERVIEW Chapter 2 contains a survey of past and current research in Chaco Canyon and surrounding areas. I discuss excavations at great houses within the canyon, as well as excavations at a few great houses outside the canyon. Theories about the functions of great houses and the connections between great houses within Chaco Canyon and without are explored. Chapters 3 through 6 detail previous work at each of the four Utah sites included in this study, and present the results of my ceramic analysis. They include tabulations of all ceramics I analyzed, graphs showing vessel size, and a discussion of the origins of ceramics found at the site. In chapter 3 I discuss the Bluff great house, in chapter 4 I discuss Edge of the Cedars, in chapter 5 I discuss Cottonwood Falls, and in chapter 6 I discuss Three Kiva Pueblo. In Chapter 7, I compare the results from the analyses presented in the previous four chapters. I propose explanations for the patterns and lack of patterns that become apparent. Chapter 8 contains a summary of the most important data and conclusions from previous chapters. 12

22 2 Context Many volumes have been written on Chaco Canyon and the areas surrounding it. This chapter summarizes past and current research on Chaco Canyon during the Pueblo II period and its relationship with contemporary sites across the southwest. CHACO CANYON Location and Environment Chaco Canyon is located in northwest New Mexico. The canyon is about 3 km in length and from.5 to one km wide (Lekson 6:9; Vivian et al. 6:48). A core area within the canyon, known as Downtown Chaco because of the large number of sites it contains, is two kilometers in diameter (Lekson 8:125). The Chaco River runs through the canyon, providing periodic water (Judge 1979:92). Precipitation in the canyon averages around cm annually (Vivian et al. 6:48). The Chaco River at the west end of the canyon was dammed at least twice during the Chacoan occupation, creating a pool of water that could be used by canyon residents (Vivian et al. 6:49). Water for domestic use is believed to have been acquired from springs around the canyon (Vivian 1992). Vivian (1992; Vivian et al. 6) sees Chaco Canyon as having largely been a well-watered, good place to farm, even the best place to farm in the interior San Juan Basin (Vivian et al. 6:52). Other researchers do not share this view and prefer to note the challenges of farming in the region (Judge 1979 Judge and Cordell 6; Lekson 8; Wilcox 4; Windes 1987a). From 125 to 19, canals were built in tributaries of the Chaco River to irrigate agricultural land, and these canals continued to be used until the canyon s abandonment in 113 (Vivian 1992; Vivian et al. 6:59). Immediately surrounding the canyon are areas containing sagebrush, grasses, cottonwoods, pinyons, and junipers. The Chacra Mesa, to the southeast of Chaco Canyon, 13

23 contained ponderosa pine and Douglas fir. Various wild animals were available including pronghorn, deer, bighorn, cottontails, jackrabbits, and prairie dogs (Vivian et al. 6). Turkeys consumed in Chaco Canyon, especially during the later parts of the occupation, are thought to have been captured and traded from people living in the north because the environment in the north is more conducive to their survival (Vivian et al. 6:64). Great Houses in the Canyon Twelve great houses are located within Chaco Canyon: Peñasco Blanco, Casa Chiquita, Kin Kletso, Pueblo Alto, New Alto, Pueblo del Arroyo, Kin Sabe, Pueblo Bonito, Chetro Ketl, Hungo Pavi, Una Vida, and Wijiji. Casa Chiquita, New Alto, Hungo Pavi, and Wijiji remain unexcavated. The other seven great houses have received some level of excavation. Kin Sabe was partly excavated before being washed away by the Chaco River; the site no longer exists (Chaco Archive 1a). All other sites are still visible today in the Chaco Culture National Historic Park. A tremendous number of imported items were brought to Chaco Canyon. More than % of timbers used in construction were brought to the canyon from the Chuska and Mount Taylor mountains, located at a distance of 75 to 1 kilometers (English et al. 1). Ceramics, lithics, and animals were also imported into the canyon (Kantner and Kintigh 6:6; Toll 1, 6). The greatest numbers of ceramics, lithics, and exotics were imported in the late 1s (Toll 6:131). During this time period, more than 9% of gray wares and 5% of white wares were imported (Toll 1:59). Exotic items found in Chaco Canyon include copper, turquoise, shell, and Mexican birds such as macaws and parrots (Toll 6:136). One of the important distinctions of Chaco Canyon s great houses is the amount of coordinated labor required to produce such carefully designed great houses. Lekson et al.

24 (6:81) estimated that 3, person hours were needed to complete the construction that occurred within the canyon in the year 15 alone. Population estimates for Chaco Canyon vary, from less than 1, (Bernardini 1999) to 5, (Hayes 1981). At the high estimate, that much construction would have been possible, at the lower ranges, outside labor would have been needed (Lekson et al. 6:82). The organization of this labor is a point of contention. Some think that the organization and planning of so many large buildings so close together implies hierarchical leadership of some kind (Lekson et al. 6; Lipe 6; Sebastian 1992, 6; Vivian 1992). Others (Saitta 1997; Wills ) argue that construction projects of this kind could have taken place without a centralized hierarchy. Pueblo Bonito Pueblo Bonito and Pueblo Alto have received the most attention as their excavations were most extensive and have been most widely published. A full description of each great house in Chaco Canyon is beyond the scope of this thesis; however, Pueblo Alto and Pueblo Bonito will be discussed in detail to illustrate the research, conclusions, and disagreements involved in Chaco Canyon archaeology. Pueblo Bonito was first excavated from 1896 to19 by the Hyde Exploring Expedition directed by George Pepper and Richard Wetherill. This first excavation was made primarily for the purpose of acquiring artifacts for the American Museum of Natural History (Stuart 1996). These excavations are reported in Pepper (19). A second set of excavations at Pueblo Bonito took place from 19 to 1927 under the direction of Neil Judd for the National Geographic Society. These excavations are reported in Judd (1954). Patricia Crown and Wirt Wills reexcavated some of Judd s trenches in 5 (Chaco Research Archive 1b). 15

25 Pueblo Bonito is the largest of the Chaco Canyon great houses. It has more than 35 ground floor rooms, and parts of the building rose four or five stories. Construction began at the site in AD 85 (Lekson 6:11). Many sites in Chaco Canyon were founded during this time, and it is likely that people moved into the canyon from regions to the north (Wilshusen and Van Dyke 6). The latest tree ring dates from Pueblo Bonito are from AD 1125 to 1129 (Windes and Ford 1996:299). The quantities and kinds of exotics and imports found at Pueblo Bonito have not been found at other great houses within the canyon. Macaw and parrot burials were found at the site, including 26 macaw burials in a single room (Pepper 19: ). More human remains have also been recovered from Pueblo Bonito than from other great houses within the canyon (Windes 1987a:56). Some of the burials from Pueblo Bonito were accompanied by large quantities of exotic grave goods; two in particular are noted for being buried with thousands of pieces of turquoise, shell, and ceremonial objects (Pepper 19:3-177; Plog and Heitman 1). These two burials have been interpreted in a variety of ways, from being the remains of kings (Lekson 6:3) to warlords (Wilcox 4) to ritual leaders (Mills 2:91). Pueblo Alto Pueblo Alto was excavated by the Chaco Project from 1975 to These excavations are reported in Windes (1987a, 1987b, 1987c). Pueblo Alto is located atop the north mesa of Chaco Canyon overlooking Pueblo Bonito. The first construction of the great house had 77 ground floor rooms and between three and five kivas. By the time the site was abandoned, the site contained 133 ground floor rooms; there are no additional stories at Pueblo Alto (Windes 1987a:12). Pueblo Alto is unique in the number of roads that lead out from the site; seven different road segments pass by or terminate at the site (Windes 1987a:99). Windes (1987a:356)

26 discussed the presence of big-room suites that were the very first units built at Pueblo Alto, Pueblo Bonito, and Kin Bineola, in addition to being present at other great houses in the canyon. These rooms did not have features indicative of habitation use and were interpreted as having been used for storage or ceremonies (Windes 1987a:38). Within the habitation rooms excavated, Windes (1987a:391) found that heating pits were used instead of permanent firepits, and suggested that this indicated an intermittent occupation not committed to permanency. A reason for this interpretation is that permanent firepits were found in small house sites nearby (Windes 1987b:359). Vivian (8:371) interpreted these heating pits not as signifying intermittency but lack of wood to burn. Windes suggested that Pueblo Alto was home to to 5 residents during its initial occupation, ending in the late 1s (Windes 1987a:392). Plog and Watson (12:462) have questioned Windes population estimate since he assumed no occupation of the eastern portion of the site, even though none of the eastern rooms were excavated. They believe the site s population may have been much larger. Several fire pits were excavated within the plazas at Pueblo Alto. The location of three very large fire pits in a separate building within a plaza suggested a communal use, although it was not clear if the ovens were for food preparation or firing ceramics (Windes 1987c:424). These and other fire pits date near the end of Pueblo Alto s occupation in the early 11s (Windes 1987c:424). Windes (1987c:67) noted that the stratification of the Pueblo Alto midden was unique in Southwestern middens outside the Chacoan sphere. Trash was deposited in distinct layers (Windes 1987c:61). Faunal remains were predominantly from animals killed in the fall or winter (Windes 1987c:613). Additionally, midden layers high in faunal remains were immediately followed by layers high in ceramics, suggesting feasting events (Windes 17

27 1987c:613). Chipped stone deposition in the Pueblo Alto midden occurred at much higher rates than that of contemporary small sites in the canyon, suggesting ritual deposition not associated with chipped stone use (Cameron 1:93). Windes (1987c:67) concluded that the bulk of the material [in the midden] must have come from a population that was only intermittently present. Pueblo Alto did not have the same type of exotics that were found at Pueblo Bonito; however, it should be noted that a smaller portion of Pueblo Alto was excavated. Only two copper bells were discovered during excavations, and no remains of exotic birds were found (Windes 1987a:49). Cylinder vessels were not found at Pueblo Alto, with the exception of a single sherd (Windes 1987a:49). Artifacts made with imported Mexican shell were abundant, but turquoise was not (Windes 1987a:49). Ceramic analysis at Pueblo Alto determined that over 5 percent of gray wares and percent of white wares were imported from the Chuska region (Toll and McKenna 1987:Table 1.6). This is much higher than the percentages of Chuskan ceramics found in Chacoan small site ceramic assemblages (Toll and McKenna 1987:41). Within the Pueblo Alto trash mound, layers alternated between having higher proportions of local ceramics and higher proportions of imported ceramics from the Chuska region and from other regions outside Chaco Canyon (Toll 1:Table 1). These ceramic studies indicate that Pueblo Alto residents had a great deal of contact with people living outside Chaco Canyon, but the amount of contact appears to have fluctuated over time rather than having been at a consistent level (Toll 1; Toll and McKenna 1987). 18

28 THEORIES OF THE NATURE OF THE CHACO SYSTEM Redistributive Center Judge (1979, 1989) suggested that early residents of Chaco Canyon may have specialized in the production of turquoise ornaments because the canyon was lacking in other kinds of resources. Turquoise is imported to the region, but it is clear that it was being processed throughout Chaco Canyon. Judge (1979:93) proposed a redistributive function for Chaco Canyon, with turquoise as a sort of currency being used for the exchange of food and other necessities. He suggested that the larger-than-average rooms within Chaco Canyon were used for storage of these trade goods, which might have been redistributed at one of the central great houses such as Pueblo Bonito. Judge (1979:93) also proposed that a relatively small population including administrators and craft specialists maintained the great houses and that the large number of rooms was not indicative of a large permanent population. Judge s critics have focused on lack of evidence for redistribution, rather than on lack of evidence for specialists. They note that most ceramics and lithics in outlying areas are locally produced and thus infer that redistribution or exchange were not primary reasons for coming to Chaco Canyon (Durand 3; Kantner and Kintigh 6; Mathien 1993; Toll 1991,6; Vivian 1992). Malville (1) noted that most great houses outside of Chaco Canyon are not too far away for large amounts of food to have been carried by foot, suggesting that redistribution may have been possible. In a chemical sourcing study of maize, Benson et al. (3) determined that maize found at Pueblo Bonito was grown 8 km to the west near the Chuska Mountains and along the Animas River 9 km to the north. Maize was imported into the canyon, along with other materials, although what (if anything) was given in exchange for it is unknown. 19

29 Pilgrimage Center The economic distribution center theory has largely been replaced by the religious pilgrimage center theory. This promotes the idea that Chacoan society was primarily cooperative and religious in nature (Crown and Judge 1991; Judge and Cordell 6; Mills 2; Wills ). Judge and Cordell (6:1) noted that most imported goods were recovered from contexts suggesting ritual use. They suggested periodic pilgrimages to Chaco to carry out ceremonies and perform service in the form of building and public works construction as the source behind the extra labor required for the periodic intensive levels of construction in the canyon (Judge and Cordell 6:2). Plog and Watson (12) noted that this pilgrimage center theory is currently the most popular explanation for the organization of Chacoan society. The excavations at Pueblo Alto have been used as one of the key supports for the pilgrimage model of the Chacoan society. Windes s (1987c:67) conclusions about the low population of Pueblo Alto and the feasting events indicated by the midden are frequently cited. Toll s (1985) estimate that 15, vessels had been discarded in the Pueblo Alto midden is another piece of evidence commonly cited to support ritual ceremonies at Pueblo Alto. The interpretation of Pueblo Alto as a pilgrimage site has been challenged by Plog and Watson (12) and Wills (1). Plog and Watson (12:455) argued that the Pueblo Alto midden is more similar to the discard patterns we might expect from a normal range of activities the stratigraphic data from the Alto mound are not consistent with a hypothesis of periodic occurrences of ceremonies, fairs, or festivals at Pueblo Alto. They further suggested, upon comparing quantities of ceramics discarded at Pueblo Alto with small sites within Chaco Canyon and farther away, that the proportions and absolute quantities of ceramics in the Pueblo Alto midden are well within a normal range (Plog and Watson 12: ).

30 Sofaer (9) supported the idea that Chaco Canyon was primarily used for ritual purposes. She said Chaco Canyon had a cosmological purpose motivating and directing the construction and the orientation, internal geometry, and interrelationships of the primary Chacoan architecture (Sofaer 9:225). She noted that twelve buildings in Chaco Canyon have exterior orientations to solar and lunar events. Eleven buildings in Chaco Canyon have interior orientation to solar and lunar events. She noted similarities in both modern Puebloan religion and Mesoamerican religion contemporary with Chaco Canyon s occupation to suggest that the Chacoan system was created for religious purposes. Commemoration of these recurring [solar and lunar] cycles appears to have been a primary purpose of the Chaco phenomenon (Sofaer 9:246). Coercive Theories Stein et al. (9:1) report a Navajo tradition about the origins of Chaco Canyon: Chaco Canyon [is] Jish Chaago (The Place of the Sacred Bundle) and [is] a place of dark power and spiritual danger Navajo tradition describes the reign of Nihwiilbiih (The Gambler), a sorcerer who came from far to the south. Nihwiilbiih seized the power of the portal at the Amphitheater, enslaved the peoples living in the region, and focused the Chaco complex on the portal. This story of the Gambler appears in the oral histories of other modern tribes residing in the Four Corners region, leading Stein et al. (9:217) to believe that essential elements of the tradition are true and The Gambler was a real individual or, more probably, individuals. Judd (1954:354) reported that as early as 1878 there were accounts of Chaco Canyon belonging to the Gambler, and was himself told different versions of the Gambler story by Navajo informants. According to these stories, most of the inhabitants of Chaco Canyon and surrounding areas were not willing participants in events that took place within the canyon. 21

31 Wilcox (4:17) argued that Chaco Canyon was a tribute-demanding polity using violence and coercion. Collecting tribute would account for the large quantities of imported goods in Chaco Canyon and the lack of exports. He suggested that the religion at the time included human sacrifice, and that the disarticulated remains discovered at Pueblo Bonito are better explained as having been disarticulated before burial than as being secondary burials. In his view, roads were used to allow military access to and from Chaco Canyon. He viewed great kivas associated with great houses as places where the state cult was performed, legitimized the claims to obedience by the Chacoan polity and the likely focal points for tribute collection (Wilcox 4:175). Wilcox s view represents a differing opinion on existing data from the Chacoan world, without having any additional data to support it. Chaco Meridian The Chaco Meridian Theory is the work of Stephen Lekson (1999, 8). According to the Chaco Meridian Theory, 18 degrees longitude is a line of significance along which political centers of the Pueblo world moved, north and south. The first proposed political center is at Shabik eschee, a Basketmaker III site in Chaco Canyon. The next is Sacred Ridge, the largest site in a group of Pueblo I sites in Colorado directly north of Shabik eschee along the 18 th longitudinal line. Chaco Canyon great houses are the proposed Pueblo II political center. Aztec took primacy during Pueblo III, and Paquimé in Mexico is the proposed termination of the Chaco Meridian (Lekson 1999). Lekson (1999, 6, 8) speaks of Chacoan leaders as kings, and of great houses as palaces. He does not deny that ritual was an important part of Chacoan life, but emphasizes the hierarchical political and economic aspects of Chacoan leadership that other researchers do not see, or minimize. Lekson sees the ritually-oriented modern pueblos as a reaction against Chaco, rather than as a natural development out of Chaco that should be used for interpretation of sites in the canyon (Lekson 6:29). 22

32 Not a system Some do not think that the Chaco system was really a system at all (Durand and Durand ; Hurst :76; Toll et al. 1992). Durand and Durand (:17) interpreted the earliest so-called Chacoan masonry at Guadalupe Pueblo as a Southern San Juan phenomenon rather than as something originating and spreading from Chaco Canyon. Toll et al. (1992) compared the Pueblo II ceramic traditions within Chaco Canyon and other regions, and noted that broad ceramic stylistic traditions existed across the Pueblo world before and after this period. They suggested that the Pueblo II ceramic traditions, like those before and after, came about because of doing things according to established rules and procedures, and actively maintained, very broadly based communication (Toll et al. 1992:155). They concluded that Chaco Canyon needn t have been the impetus behind everything cultural that happened during the Pueblo II period, particularly not behind changes in ceramic styles. OTHER GREAT HOUSES In this section, I will describe research at four great houses outside of Chaco Canyon. Aztec is north of Chaco Canyon and is often thought to have taken regional primacy after the decline of Chaco Canyon (Brown et al. 8; Brown et al. 13; Judge 1989; Lekson 1999, 8; Sebastian 6; Toll 6). Salmon Pueblo is located km south of Aztec. The other three great houses, Chimney Rock, Guadalupe, and Navajo Springs, are all located on different parts of the periphery of the Chaco region (see figure 2.1). Great houses and associated architecture found outside of Chaco Canyon are often called Chacoan outliers or referred to as part of a Chacoan regional system; some two hundred of these great houses have been identified (Lekson 8:13). However, researchers disagree very strongly about the nature and degree of their connection to Chaco Canyon and to each other (Cameron 9a; Kantner and Kintigh 6; 23

33 Lekson 6; Mills 2). It seems likely that different sites had different kinds of connections to Chaco Canyon. Figure 2.1 Map of the Four Corners region showing relative locations of sites discussed in text. Aztec The Aztec complex is often viewed as taking Chaco Canyon s central role during the 11s and 1s, when Chaco Canyon was no longer occupied (Brown et al. 8; Brown et al. 13; Judge 1989; Lekson 1999, 8; Lipe 6; Toll 6). Researchers remain divided as to whether the role was political or ceremonial in nature, but seem to agree that whatever happened at Chaco was continued from Aztec until the time of its abandonment. Aztec was built along a bend in the Animas River. Aztec s three large great houses form a triangle. Earl Morris conducted excavations at Aztec West from 19 to 1927 (Morris 1928). 24

34 Aztec East was excavated in 1957 by Roland Richert (Richert 1964). These excavations were done as part of a stabilization project and were much less intensive than Morris excavations at Aztec West. No sites nor artifacts within the Aztec National Monument area have been found to date earlier than 15, suggesting that the Aztec complex was built in a previously unoccupied location (Brown et al. 8:246). Aztec North was the first great house built, around -18. It is the smallest great house in the site complex and has about 1 rooms (Brown et al. 13:426). Aztec North is built of adobe rather than of core-and-veneer masonry as is typical in Chaco Canyon, and is thought to have been built in emulation of great houses in Chaco Canyon (Brown and Paddock 11; Brown et al. 13). Aztec West, similar in size to the largest great houses in Chaco Canyon, was founded around AD 11 (Lekson 8:154). It is constructed of core-and-veneer masonry. Aztec West had hundreds of room in at least three stories (Brown et al. 13:427). Much of the site was built within a ten year period, and the entire site was finished within thirty years (Brown et al. 8; Brown et al. 13:427; Lekson 8:154). At the time Aztec West was abandoned, it had approximately 5 rooms in three stories (Brown et al. 8:239; Brown et al. 13:427). Aztec West has been interpreted as an administrative-ritual center rather than being used primarily as a residence (Reed 8:24). There were significant modifications to Aztec West and architectural stylistic changes during the mid-11s. The original conclusion by Morris (1928) was that these changes occurred after a period of abandonment when people from the Mesa Verde region moved to the site, causing these changes to occur. Recent research has shown that Aztec was not ever 25

35 completely abandoned (Brown et al. 8). Additionally, some of the architectural changes thought to be intrusive from the Mesa Verde region have been demonstrated to occur earlier at Aztec than they do in the north (Brown and Paddock 11). Aztec East was the latest of the great houses to be built, with construction beginning around 11. Aztec East was built over a much longer period of time than Aztec West. More than 75% of the tree ring dates from the site are from the 1s, with the largest cluster of dates at 1215 (Brown et al. 8: ). Between the initial construction of the site and the large late clusters are a small continuous series of cutting dates. This has been interpreted to mean that construction never stopped, but was restricted because of the extreme drought in the region in the late 11s (Brown et al. 8:245). The initial construction of the site created about 15 rooms; by the time it was abandoned, it had approximately 35. (Brown et al. 8; Brown et al. 13). Salmon Salmon Pueblo is located north of Chaco Canyon on the San Juan River, about km south of Aztec. Construction began around AD 188 (Reed 8:17). Salmon Pueblo had as many as 3 rooms constructed in three stories in an E-shape, similar to Chetro Ketl and Hungo Pavi in Chaco Canyon (Brown et al. 13:424). Architectural evidence suggests that the site was built by people who left Chaco Canyon, with the assistance of people already living in the region (Brown et al. 13:424; Reed 8:22). This original Chacoan occupation continued until the 11s, when local San Juan populations began using the site, remodeling rooms and adding kivas (Reed 8:3). Reed (6) suggested that Chacoan residents of Salmon Pueblo may have left the site to move to Aztec with other Chacoans. This San Juan occupation continued until the 128s or 129s, when much of the site was destroyed by fire (Reed 8:19). 26

36 Salmon has clear evidence of being used as a residence throughout its entire use life (Reed 8:23). Formally designed room suites at Salmon Pueblo that indicate family residences within the site are not found at Aztec or at other contemporary great house sites (Reed 8:24). Reed (8:24) proposed that Salmon was built by marginal Chacoans looking for a better situation in a lesser-populated area, in contrast to other great houses that may have been built for administrative or ritual purposes. Lekson (1999) suggested that it may have been a failed first attempt to move the center of Chacoan power north out of Chaco Canyon, which later led to the construction of Aztec. Chimney Rock The Chimney Rock great house (5AA83) is the farthest northeast of the recognized great houses (Mahoney and Kantner :2). It was occupied from 175 to 1125 (Chuipka and Fetterman 13:453). The great house is built atop a mesa near the Piedra River, with smaller structures on the lower portions of the mesa (Jalbert and Cameron :85). These structures are known as crater-mound houses and are unlike structures found anywhere else (Chuipka and Fetterman 13:453, Jalbert and Cameron :85). Interpretations of the connection of the Chimney Rock great house to Chaco Canyon vary. Some view the site as a Chacoan colony, some as an emulation of Chacoan great houses, and others as an outpost built to obtain and transfer wood and other resources to Chaco Canyon (Chuipka and Fetterman 13:471, Jalbert and Cameron :9). Wilcox (4:3) claimed the site to be a military garrison and fortress. Another theory is that the Chimney Rock great house was built mainly for ritual reasons. Malville (1991:24) noted that there were major lunar standstills visible between the two peaks of Chimney Rock during 176 and 193, years for which there are many tree cutting dates showing construction at the site. This suggests that lunar rituals may have been a reason for choosing this location for a great house. 27

37 Chuipka and Fetterman (13) demonstrated the likelihood that the crater-mound houses were contemporary with the great house and show efforts by local populations to resist the new ideas brought to the area by the builders of the great house. They noted that this type of entrenchment in orthodoxy, in this case, retaining houses that resemble earlier pit houses instead of switching to pueblo-style architecture similar to the great house, is very common in unequal situations (Chuipka and Fetterman 13:471). Both architectural styles are present in the surrounding region and are thought to indicate two social groups: one participating in the Chacoan system, and another rejecting it. Whatever the connection of the Chimney Rock great house residents to Chaco Canyon may have been, it was not completely supported by the other residents of the surrounding area (Chuipka and Fetterman 13:472). Parker (4) conducted a petrographic analysis of sherds from Chimney Rock Pueblo. From his sample of 6 sherds from Chimney Rock, had trachyte temper, including locally made ceramics with crushed Chuskan grayware as temper (Parker 4). Additionally, 9.5% of Chimney Rock ceramics have been identified as Chacoan (Parker 4:87). These proportions of trachyte-tempered and Chacoan sherds are higher at the great house than proportions found at surrounding sites (Parker 4). This suggests that the Chimney Rock great house residents had relationships to people in Chaco Canyon that were not equally shared by people living in surrounding sites. Guadalupe The Guadalupe great house is a single story great house with about fifty rooms located southeast of Chaco Canyon (Mahoney :22). It was built along the Rio Puerco of the East. The original great house was built around AD 918 (Pippin 1987:11). This initial construction at Guadalupe is thought to be the only site outside of Chaco Canyon sharing Chaco Canyon s 28

38 earliest masonry style (Durand and Durand :13). The Chacoan occupation at the site lasted until the 113s. Additions were made to the site throughout this occupation in other types of Chaco-style masonry (Pippin 1987:15). During the late 11s and 1s, Guadalupe was modified by people with a radically different concept of architectural space who divided and tore down Chacoan rooms and added San Juan style kivas to the site (Pippin 1987:1). Despite this significant architectural change, the site does not appear to have been abandoned between the Chacoan and post-chacoan phases (Durand and Durand :15; Pippin 1987:1). The Guadalupe great house was built in an area with a preexisting population, and the population of the community grew during the time the great house was occupied. There is an isolated kiva building too small to be considered a true great kiva that may possibly have been used similarly to great kivas in other communities (Durand and Durand :). Because the great house was constructed within an existing community, Durand and Durand () interpreted the great house as a local development. They noted the early Chacoan masonry co-occurring at Guadalupe and in Chaco Canyon, and suggested that the masonry style might be better understood as a southern San Juan phenomenon rather than as something emerging and spreading solely from Chaco Canyon (Durand and Durand :17). Judge (1989:235) interpreted the early date and location of the great house as indication that Chaco Canyon residents were seeking better access to turquoise from Cerrillos. Cerrillos is located 115 miles southeast of Chaco Canyon (Judge 1979:92). Durand and Durand (:17) agreed that Guadalupe was an important part of the turquoise trade, but did not agree that the great house was founded to provide Chaco Canyon with turquoise. Roler (1999) evaluated faunal evidence for feasting at Guadalupe. She concluded that feasting may have taken place at the Guadalupe great house and at another nearby site during the 29

39 Chacoan period (Roler 1999). During the post-chacoan period, faunal evidence for feasting was restricted to the great house (Roler 1999). Ritually-important bird remains were much more common at the great house than at surrounding roomblocks during both the Chacoan and the post-chacoan period, although the quantities increased dramatically during the post-chacoan period (Roler 1999). Roler (1999) suggested that the restricted feasting location and the increase in ritual bird species may be explained by individuals or groups moving from Chaco Canyon to surrounding great house sites such as Guadalupe and bringing ritual knowledge and beliefs previously unavailable. Navajo Springs Navajo Springs is located 3 km southwest of Chaco Canyon along the Rio Puerco of the West in Arizona (Warburton and Graves 1992:52). It is within sight of another great house located about 5 kilometers away (Warburton and Graves 1992:54). The Navajo Springs site includes a great house of approximately 4 rooms, a great kiva, a berm, and two prehistoric roads. One road segment leads to a complex of room blocks 15 meters to the north, and another road segment extends to the east to an unknown destination (Warburton and Graves 1992:56). Ceramic analysis places the occupation of the great house from about 15 to 1125 (Warburton and Graves 1992:63). Core-and-veneer masonry at the great house is similar to types identified in Chaco Canyon (Warburton and Graves 1992:65). Survey of acres immediately around the great house identified additional sites. The kivas at the great house were the only kivas noted in all the sites within the survey area. This lack of kivas suggested that the great kiva at Navajo Springs was a primary location for ritual and possibly economic activities in the community (Warburton and Graves 1992:58). Although areas within a few kilometers of the great house have extended occupation histories, the great house was built on land that appears to have been previously unused. This combined with the relatively short use life of the site led Warburton and 3

40 Graves (1992:65) to suggest that the site was founded by people from Chaco Canyon, and supported by people coming in from the surrounding areas. DISCUSSION The constant in research of Chaco Canyon and surrounding great houses is discord. People do not agree on their interpretations when looking at the same data. However, all of the great houses located outside of Chaco Canyon included in this chapter are believed by at least one researcher to have been constructed by people moving out from Chaco Canyon, people who had lived there and understood construction techniques used within Chaco Canyon and presumably shared some sort of Chacoan world view (Brown et al. 8; Brown et al. 13; Chuipka and Fetterman 13; Judge 1989; Lekson 1999, 8; Lipe 6; Parker 4; Reed 8; Toll 6; Warburton and Graves 19992). Despite their connections to Chaco Canyon, these sites were built and used by different groups of people and may have been used in different ways. The great houses in southeast Utah where my research is focused were a part of this larger Chacoan world. The presence of great houses suggests that people in Utah were at a minimum aware of Chaco Canyon. The nature of the connection of people at great houses outside of Chaco Canyon to people within the canyon is difficult to ascertain, as the variety of explanations demonstrates. Understanding how Utah great houses functioned within their communities is part of understanding the greater Chacoan system as a whole. Understanding the connections of people in southeast Utah to people in other places is also important in order to understand the system. The best analogs for explaining what happened at Utah great houses likely come from other great houses; however, it is also possible that Utah great houses were 31

41 unique. Understanding past and current research in other parts of the Chacoan world is necessary for correct interpretation of data from Utah great house sites. The next chapters discuss ceramic evidence from four contemporaneous Utah sites and show that even great house sites in close proximity to each other were not identical. However the Chacoan system was organized, it appears to have allowed for a great deal of individual adaptation in its application. Despite this individuality, the underlying similarities between these hundreds of great house sites suggest that something larger was linking them together. 32

42 3 Bluff Great House SITE HISTORY The Bluff Great House (42SA22674) is located within the city of Bluff, Utah, on the same hill as the city s cemetery (see figure 3.1). The Bluff great house was excavated by the University of Colorado Archaeological Field School from 1996 to 1998 and 2 to 4. The Bluff Great House site consists of a great house, great kiva, berm, terrace, and prehistoric roads (Cameron 9a:6). The great house was comprised of 5 to 6 rooms (Cameron 9c:). The Bluff Great House was built between AD 175 and 115, most likely by newcomers to the region, on land that had been previously occupied during the Basketmaker III and Pueblo I periods (Cameron 9e:298). The eastern half of the site was constructed of compound and core-and-veneer masonry, and the western half of the site was constructed of simple masonry (Cameron 9c:118). Despite the different construction styles, the entire site was built on the same artificially leveled surface indicating that both parts were built near the same time (Cameron 9e:298). The core-and-veneer walls had foundation trenches, a construction technique common in Chaco Canyon and also present at Edge of the Cedars (Cameron 9c:121; Hurst :69). Large portions of the Bluff Great House are two stories tall, and it may have been as high as four stories in some places (Cameron 9c:122). 33

43 Figure 3.1 Image of the Bluff great house site. Although the site is not thought to have been primarily used as a residence, there is evidence of it having been used for feasting and for craft production, excluding the production of ceramics (Cameron 9e:297). Analysis of ground stone from Bluff indicates that tools [were] used for polishing, abrading, and percussion shaping (Adams 9:2). These tools suggest the production of ornaments (Adams 9:2). Fifty-seven ornaments or ornament fragments were recovered during excavations (Mathien 9). Basketry and weaving at Bluff are implied by the 36 awls recovered (Dixon 9). Feasting at Bluff is suggested by the larger than usual proportions of artiodactyls than are found in contemporaneous small sites (Cameron 9e; Driver et al. 9; Fothergill 8). This difference is more pronounced during the Pueblo II period than the Pueblo III period (Driver et al. 9:8). The Pueblo II faunal assemblage at Bluff is similar to the faunal assemblage at Nancy Patterson, another site in the region with a great house, which may indicate that feasting occurred in both places (Fothergill 8:17). The presence of faunal species not identified at contemporary sites without great houses but which have been identified at other great houses outside of Chaco Canyon is further evidence for special ritual use of the site (Fothergill 8:153). 34

44 Ceramic evidence for feasting is found in the presence of serving bowls larger than those identified at other Pueblo II sites (Cameron 9e:33). Because of the change in the distribution of gray ware rim sizes (discussed below), Blinman (9:84) suggested that feasting at the Bluff great house was potluck style, with most food preparation taking place away from the great house. This suggestion is supported by the scarcity of food preparation tools such as ground stone (Adams 9; Cameron 9e:33). Other indications of communal food preparation such as roasting pits were not discovered. Interaction with people living outside the Northern San Juan region is indicated by imported lithics (Cameron 9e; Ward 4). Narbona Pass chert, Yellow-Brown spotted chert, and Jemez obsidian were identified at Bluff, and were also commonly imported into Chaco Canyon (Cameron 9e; Ward 4). Additionally, nearly half of the projectile points from the Bluff great house were made of nonlocal stone (Ward 4). These provide evidence in addition to ceramics (discussed below) that Bluff residents had connections to people in other parts of the Chacoan world. It is unclear whether the Bluff great house was abandoned at the end of the Chaco period and then reoccupied, or if the occupation was continuous. Three excavation units uncovered areas where there was a gap between deposits of Chacoan and post-chacoan artifacts, suggesting but not proving a break in occupation (Cameron 9e:3). After the decline of Chaco Canyon, the site seems to have been used in the same way that it was when Chaco was at its peak, with evidence of feasting and craft production remaining (Cameron 9e:297). The last residents left the site around AD 125 (Cameron 9e:297). The great kiva was built during the Chaco era as was the great house; it does not predate it (Cameron 9d:219). The great 35

45 kiva is thought to have been used until the site was abandoned because there was almost no trash in its fill (Cameron 9e:31). DATA The data presented include all reported rim sherds for which an orifice arc estimate was available for gray ware jars, white ware bowls, and white ware jars. All rim arc data below are from Blinman (9). In his report, orifice radii were reported to the nearest.5 cm, and degrees of arc were rounded to the nearest 5 degrees. To allow for comparison with my data from other sites, I converted radii to diameters and rounded the diameters to the nearest whole even number. Blinman (9) recorded a wider variety of vessel forms than I did. I combined Blinman s (9) records for ollas and wide mouthed jars because I did not distinguish between these forms in the other sites I examined. Mills (1999:17) noted that all jars recovered from storage contexts in her study were also used for cooking at some point before becoming storage vessels, and suggested that all unpainted necked jars should be considered cooking vessels. Counts and degrees of arc for gray ware jars are found in table 3.1. Imported gray ware ceramic types were combined to their region of origin. Table 3.1 Gray Ware Sherds from 42SA22674 (after Blinman 9) Type Count Degrees of Arc Chapin Gray Moccasin Gray 1 15 Mancos Gray Mancos Corrugated Dolores Corrugated Mesa Verde Corrugated 53 5 General Corrugated 1 4 San Juan Incised 1 55 Chuskan Gray Wares Tusayan Gray Wares Total

46 Counts and degrees of arc for white ware bowls are presented in table 3.2. Counts and degrees of arc for white ware jars are presented in table 3.3. All Mancos Black-on-white styles were combined for these tables. All Cibola types, Chuska types, and Tusayan types were also combined into a single entry for these tables. Table 3.2 White Ware Bowl Sherds from 42SA22674 (after Blinman 9) Type Count Degrees of Arc White Mesa Black-on-white 4 55 Mancos Black-on-white McElmo Black-on-white Mesa Verde Black-on-white Early Black-on-white 3 7 Late Black-on-white Pueblo III Cibola White Ware 3 5 Chuska White Ware 5 75 Tusayan White ware Unidentified Total Table 3.3 White Ware Jar Sherds from 42SA22674 (after Blinman 9) Type Count Degrees of Arc White Mesa Black-on-white 1 Mancos Black-on-white Mesa Verde Black-on-white 1 Late Black-on-white Pueblo III 4 21 Tusayan White Ware Unidentified 54 Total

47 VESSEL SIZE Gray Wares Gray ware types numerous enough for analysis of vessel size include Mancos Gray, Mancos Corrugated, Dolores Corrugated, and Mesa Verde Corrugated. Mesa Verde Corrugated was the most numerous category by degrees of arc, and Dolores Corrugated was the most numerous category by count. Fifty-four Mancos Gray sherds were measured encompassing 925 degrees of arc, or 2.6 vessel equivalents. The median jar diameter is cm. The smallest Mancos Gray diameter recorded is 8 cm. The largest is 28 cm. The peak vessel diameter by count is 22 cm, but the peak vessel diameter by degrees is cm. Interestingly, there are large numbers of sherds with diameters of cm, cm, cm, and 22 cm, but only one sherd measured with a diameter of 18 cm. This may indicate a distinction between small jars and large ones. Mancos Gray jar diameters by count and by degrees can be seen in figure Mancos Gray by Count Mancos Gray by Degrees Count 6 Degrees Diameter Diameter Figure 3.2 Bar charts showing diameters of Mancos Gray jars by count and by degrees. Fifty-eight Mancos Corrugated sherds were measured, encompassing 113 degrees of arc or 3.1 vessel equivalents. The smallest Mancos Corrugated diameter recorded is 8 cm. The largest diameter recorded is 3 cm. The peak vessel diameter by count and by degrees is 24 cm. 38

48 Both charts show a secondary peak at 28 cm diameter, demonstrating the possibility of a larger jar class. Mancos Corrugated jar diameters can be seen in figure 3.3. Mancos Corrugated by Count Mancos Corrugated by Degrees Count 6 4 Degrees Diameter Diameter Figure 3.3 Bar charts showing diameters of Mancos Corrugated jars by count and by degrees. Dolores Corrugated was the most numerous gray ware vessel category by count at the Bluff great house. Sixty-one Dolores Corrugated sherds were measured, encompassing 188 degrees of arc or 5.2 vessel equivalents. The smallest jar measured has a diameter of 8 cm, and the largest has a diameter of 3 cm. Unlike the Mancos Corrugated jars, where the jars were more broadly distributed among the different diameters, most of the Dolores Corrugated sherds have diameters between and 22 cm. The median jar diameter is cm. The peak jar diameter is also cm, and there is a secondary peak at 26 cm diameter. It appears that Dolores Corrugated jars, like Mancos Corrugated jars, may have had a small jar class and a large jar class. Figure 3.4 shows graphs of Dolores Corrugated diameters. 39

49 Dolores Corrugated by Count Dolores Corrugated by Degrees Count 8 6 Degrees Diameter Diameter Figure 3.4 Bar charts showing diameters of Dolores Corrugated jars by count and by degrees. When the Mancos Corrugated and Dolores Corrugated sherds are combined, no secondary peak is visible. The peak rim size is cm, the same as the peak rim size for Dolores Corrugated. The median jar diameter is also cm. Graphs of Mancos Corrugated and Dolores Corrugated sherds combined are visible in figure 3.5. Mancos Corrugated and Dolores Corrugated by Count 7 Mancos Corrugated and Dolores Corrugated by Degrees Count 1 Degrees Diameter Diameter Figure 3.5 Bar charts showing diameters of both Mancos Corrugated and Dolores Corrugated vessels by count and by degrees. Mesa Verde Corrugated is the most numerous gray ware type by degrees. Fifty-three Mesa Verde Corrugated sherds were measured, encompassing 5 degrees of arc or 5.7 vessel equivalents. The median diameter is 18 cm, smaller than the medians for both Mancos Corrugated and Dolores Corrugated. The smallest jar measured has a diameter of 12 cm, which is larger than the smallest vessel of both Mancos Corrugated and Dolores Corrugated. The 4

50 largest diameter recorded is 3 cm, the same as the other corrugated types. The chart by count shows equal numbers of sherds with diameters of 18 cm and cm, but the chart by degrees of arc shows the peak vessel diameter to be cm. Mesa Verde Corrugated sherds have a single mode. Figure 3.6 contains bar charts of Mesa Verde Corrugated diameters by count and by degrees. Mesa Verde Corrugated by Count 6 Mesa Verde Corrugated by Degrees Count 8 6 Degrees Diameter Diameter Figure 3.6 Bar charts showing diameters of Mesa Verde Corrugated jars by count and by degrees. White Wares Sizes for white ware bowls will be discussed for Mancos Black-on-white, McElmo Black-on-white, and Mesa Verde Black-on-white. McElmo Black-on-white is the most numerous bowl category by type and by degrees. Ninety Mancos Black-on-white sherds were measured, encompassing 217 degrees of arc or about 6 vessel equivalents. The median bowl diameter is 22 cm. The smallest Mancos Blackon-white diameter recorded is 12 cm, and the largest is 38 cm. The chart by count shows an equal number of bowls with diameters of and 22 cm, but the chart by degrees shows a peak vessel size of 22 cm. A secondary peak at cm is visible in the chart by degrees, but not 41

51 present in the chart by count. This is likely to be the effect of measuring large sherds from small bowls. Figure 3.7 shows Mancos Black-on-white diameters by count and by degrees. Mancos Black-on-white by Count Mancos Black-on-white by Degrees Count 8 6 Degrees Diameter Diameter Figure 3.7 Bar charts showing diameters of Mancos Black-on-white bowls by count and by degrees. McElmo Black-on-white is the most numerous white ware bowl category at the Bluff great house. There were 112 McElmo Black-on-white sherds measured, encompassing 259 degrees of arc or 7.2 vessel equivalents. The median bowl diameter is 26 cm. The smallest diameter recorded is cm. The largest bowl diameter recorded is 38 cm, just as it was for the Mancos Black-on-white bowls. The peak bowl size was 26 cm, larger than the 22 cm peak for Mancos Black-on-white bowls. There is a slight secondary peak at 18 cm by count or cm by degrees. Graphs of McElmo Black-on-white diameters are shown in figure 3.8. McElmo Black-on-white by Count 6 McElmo Black-on-white by Degrees Count 1 Degrees Diameter Diameter Figure 3.8 Bar charts showing diameters of McElmo Black-on-white vessels by count and by degrees. 42

52 There were 61 Mesa Verde Black-on-white sherds measured encompassing 15 degrees of arc or 3.4 vessel equivalents. This is the smallest group of bowl sherds. The median bowl diameter is 28 cm, the largest of all white ware types. The Mesa Verde Black-on-white bowls have a slightly more restricted range than the previous two white ware types. The smallest bowl size recorded is cm, and the largest is 36 cm. The peak bowl size is 3 cm. A secondary peak is visible at 24 cm by count or 22 cm by degrees. Figure 3.9 shows Mesa Verde Black-on-white diameters. Mesa Verde Black-on-white by Count Mesa Verde Black-on-white by Degrees Count Degrees Diameter Diameter Figure 3.9 Bar charts showing diameters of Mesa Verde Black-on-white vessels by count and by degrees. When all Pueblo III white ware bowls are combined, the bimodality disappears. The smallest bowl diameter is 12 cm, and the largest is 4 cm. The median diameter is 24 cm. The peak bowl size by count is 24 cm, but the peak bowl size by degrees is 26 cm. Bar charts of all Pueblo III white wares are found in figure

53 All Pueblo III White Wares by Count All Pueblo III White Wares by Degrees Count 15 1 Degrees Diameter Diameter Figure 3.1 Bar charts showing diameters of all Pueblo III white ware vessels by count and by degrees. Red Wares I did not conduct analysis of red ware bowls from Edge of the Cedars, Cottonwood Falls, or Three Kiva. However, published data was available on red ware bowls from Bluff (Blinman 9). I examine red ware bowl sizes and compare them to white ware bowl sizes at Bluff to determine whether red ware bowls may have been more likely to have been used in feasting than white ware bowls. Two red ware types at Bluff may have been used during the great house occupation. Deadmans black-on-red was produced in the Northern San Juan region from AD 88 to 11 (Wilson and Blinman 1995:56). Tusayan Black-on-red was produced in the Kayenta region from AD 1 to 115 (Wilson 13). Both types are present at Bluff. Deadmans Black-on-red rims at Bluff encompassed 13 degrees of arc, or 3.6 vessel equivalents, and Tusayan Black-on-red rims encompassed 85 degrees of arc, or 2.4 vessel equivalents (Blinman 9). Deadmans black on red bowls have a minimum diameter of 12 cm and a maximum diameter of 34 cm. The peak vessel diameter is 24 cm. Tusayan Black-on-red bowls have a smaller range, with a minimum diameter of cm and a maximum diameter of 32 cm. The peak diameter form Tusayan Black-on-red bowls is 22 cm. Figure 3.11 shows distributions of Deadmans Black-on- 44

54 red bowl diameters, and figure 3.12 shows distributions of Tusayan Black-on-red bowl diameters. 35 Deadmans Black-on-red 3 25 Degrees Diameter Figure 3.11 Deadmans Black-on-red diameters by degrees. Tusayan Black-on-red 15 Degrees Diameter Figure 3.12 Tusayan Black-on-red diameters by degrees. 45

55 When charts of all three types are compared, the distributions are fairly similar. Deadmans Black-on-red has the highest peak, at 24 cm, but the peaks of Mancos Black-on-white and Tusayan Black-on-red are very close at 22 cm. Bowls of all three types may have been used to serve food at feasts taking place at Bluff, as all three types have a small number of very large bowls. The largest bowls at Bluff were Mancos Black-on-white, with a diameter of 38 cm. The similar size distributions suggest that red ware and white ware bowls were used in similar ways at Bluff. However, white ware bowl diameters are the largest and may have been more important for serving food at feasts. Figure 3.13 shows comparisons of size distributions for Mancos Black-on-white, Deadmans Black-on-red, and Tusayan Black-on-red. 4 Mancos B/w Deadmans B/r Tusayan B/r Diameter Figure 3.13 Distributions of diameters of Mancos Black-on-white, Deadmans Black-on-red, and Tusayan Black-onred. 46

56 CERAMIC ORIGINS The Bluff great house had a much higher proportion of imported ceramics than the other sites included in this study. Almost 3 percent of white wares and percent of the utility wares were from the Kayenta (Tusayan) region during the late Pueblo II period (Cameron 9e:35). However, this prevalence of imported ceramics did not continue throughout the entire use of the great house. After the decline of Chaco, there was virtually no importation of white ware ceramics from any region, though the exchange of utility vessels with the Kayenta region seems to have continued at approximately the same level (Cameron 9e:35). The residents of the Bluff great house must have had significant ties to the Kayenta region. A total of 2867 sherds from imported vessels were identified at the site, 2736 of which came from the Kayenta region. Seven sherds were from vessels imported from the Mogollon region, 39 sherds were from vessels imported from the Cibola region, and 85 sherds were from vessels imported from the Chuska region (Blinman 9). Table 3.4 shows types and quantities of all imported sherds identified at Bluff. Vessels imported from the Cibola and Chuska regions indicate that Bluff residents had interaction with Chaco Canyon. At Bluff, Chuskan and Cibolan sherds represent 4.32% of total imports and.7% of total ceramics. These percentages do not suggest a very frequent interaction. However, as discussed in chapter 2, large quantities of imported sherds are not commonly found at great houses outside Chaco Canyon (Durand 3; Judge and Cordell 6; Kantner and Kintigh 6, Kantner et al. ; Mathien 1993; Powers et al. 1983; Toll 1991, 1, 6). The level of interaction between Bluff and Chaco may not be accurately reflected by the proportions of ceramics. These imported sherds provide clear evidence that there was some 47

57 interaction between Bluff and Chaco, but it is not certain how frequently or in what manner this interaction took place. 48

58 Table 3.4 Imported Sherds from 42SA22674 (after Blinman 9) Tradition Type Count Tradition Type Count Cibola Corrugated Gray 4 Kayenta Indeterminate Gray 4 Red Mesa Black-on-white 2 Lino Gray 11 Escavada Black-on-white 2 Kana'a Gray 7 Puerco Black-on-white 1 Coconino Gray 6 Gallup Black-on-white 2 Erect Rim Corrugated 4 Chaco Black-on-white 7 Oblique Rim Corrugated 29 Late Black-on-white 1 Everted Rim Corrugated Indeterminate Black-on-white 1 Plain Body 384 Tallahogan Red (Cibola) 1 Corrugated Body 121 Puerco Black-on-red 4 Honani Tooled 1 Wingate Black-on-red 2 Kana'a Black-on-white 29 Wingate Polychrome 3 Black Mesa Black-on-white 52 Unpainted White Mountain Redware 1 Sosi Black-on-white 1 Indeterminate White Mountain Black-on-red 3 Dogoszhi Black-on-white 53 Chuska Indeterminate Gray 1 Flagstaff Black-on-white 9 Sheep Springs Gray 1 Early Black-on-white 4 Tocito Gray 2 Late Black-on-white Gray Hills Banded 7 Indeterminate Black-on-white 15 Captain Tom Corrugated 6 Indeterminate White 155 Blue Shale Corrugated 1 Indeterminate Tsegi Orange Ware 5 Hunter Corrugated 2 Tallahogan Red (Kayenta) 1 Plain Gray Body 23 Medicine Black-on-red 23 Corrugated Body 17 Tusayan Black-on-red 185 Naschitti Black-on-white (m) 1 Cameron Polychrome 25 Newcomb Black-on-white (o) 3 Citadel Polychrome 19 Toadlena Black-on-white (o) 6 Tusayan Polychrome 29 Chuska Black-on-white (o) 1 Kiet Siel Polychrome 1 Brimhall Black-on-white (m) 1 Indeterminate Red 218 Nava Black-on-white (o) 1 Indeterminate Black-on-red 88 Late Black-on-white (o) 5 Indeterminate Polychrome 11 Painted, polished (o) 3 Mogollon Plain brown 1 Unpainted, polished white 4 Plain smudged 4 Corrugated smudged 2 49

59 4 Edge of the Cedars SITE HISTORY Edge of the Cedars (42SA7) is located in the city of Blanding (see figure 4.1). It was first occupied in the late AD 8s. The first occupation is known from a few excavations of the later great house complex that went deep enough to discover the first architecture at the site. This village has only been dated using ceramics, and the ceramic assemblage is not quite like other potentially contemporary sites that have been excavated. Most of the early ceramics were recovered from deposits where early and late materials were mixed (Hurst 1999:6). Although the earlier occupation has not received as much focus as the later occupation and is not well understood, it is important to note that the later site was constructed on land that had been previously used (Hurst 1999, ). Figure 4.1 Great house at Edge of the Cedars. After a lapse of more than 1 years, the site was reoccupied. The later occupation at Edge of the Cedars created six rubble mounds and eleven associated depressions, one of which is a great house abutting a great kiva (Hurst :66). The great house and great kiva are relatively central within the site and are the only parts of this later village to have been 5

60 excavated. The site has tree ring dates of AD 119, 1117, and 1215 (Hurst :66). However, because of an almost complete lack of Pueblo III ceramics such as McElmo Black-on-white and Mesa Verde Black-on-white, the site is presumed to have been largely abandoned by the mid- 12 th century (Hurst 1999:1). The latest cutting date is attributed to an unsuccessful attempt to reuse the site. The great house at Edge of the Cedars has many architectural characteristics common to other Chacoan great houses. It was originally two stories tall. It has two blocked-in kivas, one of which is known to have a subfloor ventilation shaft and no deflector as well as a subfloor vault west of the firepit, the two standard features of a Chaco-style kiva (Hurst :68). Many of the walls of the great house were built using the core-and-veneer technique common to Chaco Canyon. The great kiva at the site has an antechamber room on the north, as do most Chacoan great kivas. Other Chacoan architectural characteristics of the great house include intramural beams and a small amount of tabular sandstone. Great kivas like the one abutting the Edge of the Cedars great house are also commonly found in Chacoan sites, though they are not exclusive to the Pueblo II time period (Hurst ). The great house was excavated from 1969 to 1973 by Weber State College archaeological field schools. All field records of the site from the 1972 field school were lost, which include the only excavations conducted in the large kiva (Hurst :66). The state park that now exists at the site was founded in 1974 after Weber State had concluded its excavation. The museum has conducted small excavations over the years, mostly as part of the site maintenance process (Hurst 1999). 51

61 CERAMIC ANALYSIS In the 199s, Winston Hurst analyzed over 26, sherds recovered from the site. The data he recorded was the foundation for my analysis. His analysis was limited to basic affiliation, ware, type, style and form information for most ceramics (Hurst 1999:2). A few ceramics received microscopic temper analysis, but most did not. The original intent of the study was to record temper and many other additional details but had to be altered once the great number of sherds needing analysis became apparent (Hurst 1999:2). Hurst identified various proveniences as early, mixed, or late. Early proveniences were Pueblo I features below the great house and were not pertinent to my study. I printed a list of all accession numbers associated with proveniences identified as late and containing rim sherds. I went through these bags and pulled rim sherds measuring 2.5 cm or greater from end to end. I pulled sherds for analysis from every year from 1969 to I ended up with a sample of 298 rim sherds in total, 135 from gray ware jars, 156 from white ware bowls, and 5 from white ware jars. For each sherd, I recorded ware, style, form, and type, using the data from Hurst s analysis. Rim diameter and arc estimates were taken according to procedures outlined in Chapter 1, Methods. I did not conduct systematic temper analysis for sherds from Edge of the Cedars because Hurst (1999) reported origins of imported sherds; however, when sherds were already nipped or broken to expose the interior I recorded the temper that was present. I recorded temper for 93 sherds from Edge of the Cedars. Hurst was inconsistent in identifying sherds as either Mancos Black-on-white or as general Intermediate white ware once he ended his temper analysis (Hurst 1999:3). He 52

62 recommended that these groups be combined together in future analyses using his data (Hurst 1999:3). I have opted to use Mesa Verdean type names for sherds in this thesis even when temper was not identified. It is possible that subsequent analysis of the ceramics may change some of the type designations for sherds in this study. I also combined Hurst s Wetherill Blackon-white sherds with Mancos Black-on-white because paint type (mineral vs. carbon vs. organic) was not distinguished for the other sites included in this study. A complete chart of data recovered from my analysis of ceramics from Edge of the Cedars can be found in Appendix A. DATA Gray ware sherd types, counts, and total degrees of arc can be seen in Table 4.1. Although I only selected sherds from proveniences Hurst had identified as late, there are still quite a few early gray ware sherds mixed in. In his report, Hurst noted that roughly 7 of every 1 early component sherds were recovered from mixed or late proveniences (Hurst 1999:6). It is not surprising then that about % of the measurable gray ware sherds from late proveniences I selected were from the first occupation of the site. Table 4.1 Gray Ware Sherds from 42SA7 Type Count Degrees of Arc Chapin Gray 5 15 Moccasin Gray 4 75 Mancos Gray Late Mancos Gray 2 45 General Corrugated 3 1 Mancos Corrugated Dolores Corrugated Mesa Verde Corrugated 9 27 Unidentified Gray Total

63 White ware sherd types, counts, and total degrees of arc can be seen in Tables 4.2 and 4.3. The mixture of early and late ceramics is not as visible in the white wares as it is in the gray wares, with only two early white ware sherds (one bowl and one jar) present in the assemblage. This is likely because red ware bowls were more common at Edge of the Cedars in earlier times. Table 4.2 White Ware Bowl Sherds from 42SA7 Type Count Degrees of Arc White Mesa Black-on-white 1 15 Mancos Black-on-white Intermediate Unpainted 3 15 Sosi Black-on-white 7 18 McElmo Black-on-white 3 55 Kayenta Import 1 35 Possible Cibolan Import 1 Total Table 4.3 White Ware Jars from 42SA7 Type Count Degrees of Arc White Mesa Black-on-white 1 25 Mancos Black-on-white Total 5 24 VESSEL SIZE Gray wares The gray ware types numerous enough to warrant discussion of vessel sizes were Mancos Gray, Mancos Corrugated, and Dolores Corrugated. Mancos Gray vessels were created during the Pueblo I occupation of the site, and Mancos Corrugated and Dolores Corrugated both date to the great house occupation of the site. Twenty-one Mancos Gray jars were measured (including the two late Mancos Gray sherds), encompassing 44 degrees of arc or 1.2 vessel equivalents. The median jar diameter is 54

64 cm. An equal number of sherds came from jars measuring 18 cm in diameter and 22 cm in diameter, though the sherds from jars with diameters of 22 cm encompassed slightly more degrees of arc. This is the largest peak rim size of all three gray ware types measured. However, as the sample size is small it is not certain that this pattern would continue if more sherds had been measured. The smallest Mancos Gray diameter estimate is 12 cm, and the largest is 26 cm. This is a much smaller range than the two later gray ware types. Figure 4.2 shows graphs of Mancos Gray diameters by count and by degrees. Mancos Gray by Count Mancos Gray by Degrees Count 3 2 Degrees Diameter Diameter Figure 4.2 Graphs showing diameters of Mancos Gray sherds by count and by degrees. Thirty-six Mancos Corrugated sherds were measured, encompassing 835 degrees of arc or 2.4 vessel equivalents. The median jar diameter is 22 cm. The peak jar diameter is cm. The chart by count shows a secondary peak at 28 cm. The chart by degrees also shows a secondary peak, though not as pronounced. The smallest jar measured has a diameter of cm, and the largest has a diameter of 36 cm. Figure 4.3 shows charts of Mancos Corrugated diameters by count and by degrees. 55

65 Mancos Corrugated by Count Mancos Corrugated by Degrees Count 6 4 Degrees Diameter Diameter Figure 4.3 Charts showing diameters of Mancos Corrugated sherds by count and by degrees. Thirty-nine Dolores Corrugated sherds were measured, encompassing 1 degrees of arc or 3.3 vessel equivalents. The median jar diameter is cm. The peak jar diameter is 18 cm, slightly smaller than the peak of the Mancos Corrugated jars. Unlike the Mancos Corrugated jars, no secondary peak can be observed. The smallest jar measured is 8 cm in diameter, and the largest is 34 cm in diameter. Figure 4.4 shows charts of Dolores Corrugated diameters by count and by degrees. Dolores Corrugated by Count Dolores Corrugated by Degrees Count Degrees Diameter Diameter Figure 4.4 Charts showing diameters of Dolores Corrugated sherds by count and by degrees. 56

66 Interestingly, the largest diameter recorded was from a Mancos Corrugated jar, most likely in use at the beginning of the great house occupation. The size distributions of Mancos Corrugated and Dolores Corrugated are similar, but jars were slightly smaller in the later part of the great house occupation. There is also only a single peak in the Dolores Corrugated jars, unlike the Mancos Corrugated jars. Mancos Corrugated and Dolores Corrugated jars were combined to show size distributions throughout the great house occupation. The median jar diameter is cm. The graph shows a primary peak at 18 cm by degrees and cm by count. Both graphs show a secondary peak at 26 cm. The tail of the graph extends to the right, with more jars larger than the median and the mode. Figure 4.5 shows graphs of Mancos Corrugated and Dolores Corrugated by count and by degrees. Mancos Corrugated and Dolores Corrugated by Count Mancos Corrugated and Dolores Corrugated by Degrees Count 1 8 Degrees Diameter Diameter Figure 4.5 Charts of Mancos Corrugated and Dolores Corrugated sherds by count and by degrees. White Wares The only white ware type numerous enough to warrant discussion of vessel sizes is Mancos Black-on-white bowls. I measured 1 sherds encompassing 295 degrees of arc, or approximately 8 vessel equivalents. The median diameter is 23 cm. The peak bowl size by count 57

67 and by degrees is 22 cm in diameter. The distributions look very different by count and by degrees. A small bowl mode is present in both charts, with a peak by count at cm and by degrees at cm. By degrees, the small bowl mode is much more pronounced; though almost half as many sherds from bowls of cm diameter were measured, they represent nearly the same degrees of arc as sherds from bowls of 22 cm diameter. The smallest bowl measured has a diameter of 12 cm, and the largest has a diameter of 34 cm. Figure 4.6 shows graphs of Mancos Black-on-white diameters by count and by degrees. Mancos Black-on-white by Count Mancos Black-on-white by Degrees Count 1 Degrees Diameter Diameter Figure 4.6 Charts showing diameters of Mancos Black-on-white sherds by count and by degrees. CERAMIC ORIGINS My analysis recorded eight imported sherds out of the 298 analyzed, all of them Kayenta. Hurst identified 456 definite or probable imports out of a total of 1,787 sherds (4.2%) dating to the great house occupation of the site (Hurst 1999:28). Interestingly, there were almost no imported ceramics from the early occupation of the site, with only 8 definite or likely imports out of nearly 15, sherds (Hurst 1999:28). More than 8% of the imported 58

68 ceramics from the great house occupation came from the Kayenta region. Chacoan ceramics were the next most commonly identified, representing 2% of the identified imports. Chuskan imports represented 1.4%, and Cibolan sherds represented.4%. The remaining % of imported ceramics were clearly not local, but their origin was not determinable (Hurst 1999:29). While most ceramics at the site were locally produced, these imports show that people living at Edge of the Cedars had ties to the surrounding regions. The ties to the Kayenta region appear to have been strongest, judging by the relative quantities of imported ceramics. The imported sherds also indicate connections to Chaco Canyon. The proportions of ceramics do not suggest that interaction with Chaco Canyon was frequent; however, it is known that Chacoan ceramics were not frequently imported to great houses outside Chaco Canyon (Durand 3; Judge and Cordell 6; Kantner and Kintigh 6, Kantner et al. ; Mathien 1993; Powers et al. 1983; Toll 1991, 1, 6). It is possible that interaction with Chaco Canyon took place more frequently than the ceramics suggest (Lekson 1999). 59

69 5 Cottonwood Falls SITE HISTORY The Cottonwood Falls site (42SA5222) is located about 3 km north of the Bluff great house along the Cottonwood Wash (see figure 5.1). It includes a great house of over 5 rooms, a great kiva, two prehistoric roads, and two Pueblo I unit pueblos (Mahoney ; Severance 4). At present, Cottonwood Falls is known only from surface collections and mapping. No excavations have been conducted at the site. Therefore, the extent of occupation during any particular time is difficult to address. The Cottonwood Falls site was first occupied during the Pueblo I period. It is unclear if the site was occupied during the early Pueblo II period; if so, it was not likely a very extensive occupation. The great house is believed to have been built and used during the late Pueblo II period (Mahoney 1998a; Severance 4). Figure 5.1 Cottonwood Falls great house site. 6

70 Surface collections were made at the site in 1989 by Severance (4, 5). Arizona State University surveyed Cottonwood Falls and surrounding areas in 1996 and 1997 (Mahoney 1998a, 1998b, 2). The Cottonwood Falls great house is surrounded by small, dispersed habitation sites (Mahoney 1998a). During the Late Pueblo II and Pueblo III periods, people moved off the surrounding mesa tops and closer to the Cottonwood Wash and to the great house, possibly because a lack of rainfall made the mesa tops less desirable (Mahoney 1998b:15). Based on the results of her survey, Mahoney (1998a:21) estimated the momentary population of the community surrounding the great house to range from 11 to 84 people, with an average of 46. She therefore proposed that a much larger group of people residing several kilometers away from the great house participated in the construction and the activities occurring there (Mahoney 1998a:21). The Cottonwood Falls great house is located 8 kilometers north of the Black Mesa Ruin great house site and about 1 kilometers south of the Red Knobs great house site (Allison 4; Chaco Research Archive ). These sites have also not been excavated, and the interaction between these other great house communities and the Cottonwood Falls great house community is unclear. CERAMIC ANALYSIS Severance (4) gathered 25,669 sherds from 471 ten by ten meter grid units. He analyzed 11,719 of these, recording ware, type, form, temper, and paste color. I took my sample from 249 of the collection units made by Severance. I began by removing rim sherds of over 2.5 cm in length from the collection units atop the great house, assuming that these sherds would be most relevant to my research questions about the great house occupation. I also pulled rim sherds from the collection units made atop the great kiva and from other areas around the site 61

71 until I had a total of 29 sherds for analysis. Rim diameter and arc estimates were taken according to procedures outlined in Chapter 1, Methods. Because Severance (4) recorded so much temper data for ceramics from the site, I did not conduct a systematic temper analysis. Unfortunately, many of the collection units atop the great house were unanalyzed by Severance. I recorded temper data for sherds that Severance had nipped or that had a break where temper was visible. I recorded temper for 151 sherds from Cottonwood Falls. A complete chart of data recovered from my analysis of ceramics from Cottonwood Falls can be found in Appendix B. DATA Gray ware sherd types, counts, and total degrees of arc can be seen in Table 5.1. Although the majority of sherds were pulled from collection units atop the great house, there were more early Chapin Gray rim sherds than any other gray ware type. Thirty-two of the 42 Chapin Gray sherds I analyzed came from collection units either atop or immediately downhill from the great house. Why so many early gray ware sherds would be found there is unclear. Table 5.1 Gray Ware Sherds from 42SA5222 Type Count Degrees of Arc Chapin Gray 42 5 Moccasin Gray Mancos Gray Late Mancos Gray 5 8 Mancos Corrugated 23 4 Dolores Corrugated Mesa Verde Corrugated Unidentified Gray 44 8 Total

72 White ware sherd types, counts, and total degrees of arc can be seen in Tables 5.2 and 5.3. As expected, the most common white ware type for both jars and bowls is Mancos Blackon-white. Table 5.2 White Ware Bowl Sherds from 42SA5222 Type Count Degrees of Arc White Mesa Black-on-white 3 45 Cortez Black-on-white 1 15 Mancos Black-on-white PII Unpainted 4 65 McElmo Black-on-white Mesa Verde Black-on-white 9 15 General PIII 6 8 Unidentified Chuskan Import 1 25 Total Table 5.3 White Ware Jar Sherds from 42SA5222 Type Count Degrees of Arc Mancos Black-on-white PII Unpainted 1 35 Unidentified 1 4 Chuskan Import 1 45 Total VESSEL SIZE Gray wares I will discuss jar diameters for Chapin Gray, Mancos Corrugated, and a combination of Mancos Corrugated and Dolores Corrugated. There were not enough Dolores Corrugated sherds measured to allow for independent discussion of that type category, but a combination of the two will give some idea of jar diameters during the entire great house occupation. Chapin Gray was produced from AD 575 to 95 (Wilson and Blinman 1995:39). It is unlikely that the Chapin Gray sherds were associated with the great house occupation of the site, 63

73 thought to begin in AD 15, and more likely that they relate to the Pueblo I occupation of the site (Mahoney ). Because more Chapin Gray rim sherds were measured than any other type at Cottonwood Falls, they are reported here despite their probable lack of connection to the great house occupation. Forty-two Chapin Gray sherds were measured encompassing 5 degrees of arc, or approximately 3 vessel equivalents. The median diameter is cm. The Chapin Gray charts look very different by count and by degrees. The peak jar diameter by count is cm, but the peak jar diameter by degrees is 1 cm. Both charts show secondary peaks at cm. Equal numbers of sherds from bowls of 12 cm, cm, and cm in diameter were measured, but the total degrees measured decreased as the diameter of the jars increased. Both charts show that the smaller jars were more prevalent than the larger ones, but the difference is much more pronounced in the chart by degrees. The smallest jar diameter recorded was 6 cm, and the largest was 38 cm. Figure 5.2 shows diameters for Chapin Gray jars by count and by degrees. Chapin Gray by Count Chapin Gray by Degrees Count 3 Degrees Diameter Diameter Figure 5.2 Bar charts showing diameters of Chapin Gray sherds by count and by degrees. Twenty-three Mancos Corrugated sherds were measured encompassing 4 degrees of arc, or 1.2 vessel equivalents. The distributions for this size category may not be meaningful because so few sherds were measured. The median jar diameter is 24 cm. Both Mancos Corrugated charts both show a peak jar diameter at 26 cm. However, the chart by degrees shows 64

74 an extremely high secondary peak at 12 cm diameter. This is because sherds of the same size encompass more degrees of arc for smaller jars than they do for large ones. The smallest jar diameter recorded was 12 cm, and the largest was 36 cm. Figure 5.3 shows diameters for Mancos Corrugated jars by count and by degrees. Mancos Corrugated by Count Mancos Corrugated by Degrees Count Degrees Diameter Diameter Figure 5.3 Bar charts showing diameters of Mancos Corrugated sherds by count and by degrees. Mancos Corrugated and Dolores Corrugated sherds were combined to give an idea of size distributions throughout great house occupation and to attempt to get a big enough sample size for meaningful results. Both types combined had 34 sherds encompassing 67 degrees of arc, or 1.9 vessel equivalents. This is still a very small sample size and may not accurately reflect rim sizes at the site. The median diameter is 22 cm. The peak vessel diameter is 26 cm, and there is a secondary peak at 22 cm diameter. The smallest jar diameter is 1 cm, slightly smaller than the smallest Mancos Corrugated jar. The largest diameter remains 36 cm. Figure 5.4 shows diameters for both Mancos Corrugated and Dolores Corrugated jars by count and by degrees. 65

75 9 Mancos Corrugated and Dolores Corrugated by Count Mancos Corrugated and Dolores Corrugated by Degrees Count 5 4 Degrees Diameter Diameter Figure 5.4 Bar charts showing diameters of Mancos Corrugated and Dolores Corrugated sherds by count and by degrees. White wares White ware bowl sample sizes from Cottonwood Falls were also small. I combined Mancos Black-on-white with the four unpainted Pueblo II white ware sherds, and also combined McElmo Black-on-white, Mesa Verde Black-on-white, and the General Pueblo III sherds. This allows comparison of Pueblo II and Pueblo III white ware bowls at the site. There were 52 Pueblo II white ware sherds measured encompassing 9 degrees of arc, or 2.5 vessel equivalents. The median diameter is 22 cm. An equal number of bowls with diameters of cm, 22 cm, and 24 cm were measured. Both graphs peak from cm to 24 cm, with a secondary peak at 3 cm. The smallest bowl diameter recorded was 8 cm, and the largest was 38 cm. Figure 5.5 shows Pueblo II white ware bowl diameters by count and by degrees. 66

76 Pueblo II White Ware Bowls by Count Pueblo II White Ware Bowls by Degrees Count Degrees Diameter Diameter Figure 5.5 Charts showing diameters of Pueblo II white ware bowl sherds by count and by degrees. Thirty-three Pueblo III white ware bowl sherds were measured, encompassing 525 degrees of arc or 1.5 vessel equivalents. The median diameter is 24 cm. The peak bowl diameter for Pueblo III white ware bowls is 3 cm. There is a secondary peak from -24 cm. The smallest diameter recorded is cm; the largest is 42 cm. It appears that bowls with large diameters were more prevalent during the Pueblo III period than during the Pueblo II period. However, the small sample size of Pueblo III bowls may not accurately reflect the distribution of bowl diameters during this period. Figure 5.6 shows diameters of Pueblo III bowls by count and by degrees. Pueblo III White Ware Bowls by Count Pueblo III White Ware Bowls by Degrees Count 4 3 Degrees Diameter Diameter Figure 5.6 Bar charts showing diameters of Pueblo III white ware bowl sherds by count and by degrees. 67

77 CERAMIC ORIGINS Severance (4) identified 31 Kayenta sherds and four Chuskan sherds in his analysis. He did not identify any imports from other regions. Early and late types are represented in the Kayenta sherds, indicating that interactions with this region occurred throughout the occupation of the site and not just during the time of the great house. Three of the four Chuskan sherds were found in collection units next to the Great House. Excavation of the site and further analysis will help provide stronger indications of the relationships people at Cottonwood Falls had with other regions; however, this data hints that relationships with the Chuska region were associated with the great house. Mahoney (1998a) identified an additional 1 Tsegi orange ware sherds and 28 White Mountain Red Ware sherds at Cottonwood Falls. Temper analysis of her collections was not conducted, so there may be additional unidentified imports among her collections. She did not specify where at the site the sherds were found, nor did she provide specific types, so it is not possible to glean further insights into time or place for the connections to these regions. Table 5.4 shows imported sherds identified by Severance (4) and Mahoney (1998a). 68

78 Table 5.4 Imported Sherds at 42SA5222 Type Count Medicine Black-on-red 3 Citadel Polychrome 4 Tusayan Polychrome 2 Unidentified Kayenta Red ware 12 Tusayan Corrugated 2 Unidentified Kayenta Corrugated Gray ware 1 Kana'a Black-on-white 3 Sosi Black-on-white 1 Flagstaff Black-on-white 2 Unidentified Kayenta White 1 Sanostee Black-on-orange 1 Unidentified Chuskan Corrugated Gray ware 2 Unidentified Chuskan White ware 1 Tsegi Orange 1 White Mountain Red Ware 28 Total 73 Sources: Severance 4 and Mahoney 1998a. 69

79 6 Three Kiva Pueblo SITE HISTORY Three Kiva Pueblo (42SA863) is located in Montezuma Canyon approximately 25 miles east of Blanding, Utah. The site was excavated by the Brigham Young University archaeological field school from 1969 to 1972 (Miller 1974:3). The site consists of a structure of rooms, a ramada, a long room not attached to the main roomblock thought to be a turkey run, and a trash mound (Miller 1974:126). The main structure was first constructed in the Pueblo I period, and at that time consisted of four rooms and one or two kivas. These earliest rooms were constructed of tabular masonry (Miller 1974:28). It is unclear whether earliest two the kivas were in use concurrently (Miller 1974:65). The ramada and the midden are also assumed to have been created during this first occupation (Miller 1974:13). Figure 6.1 Three Kiva Pueblo during excavations in 197. Image courtesy of Museum of Peoples and Cultures, 1MS