The Universitl? of New Mexico BulletinMap 4-Distribution of Mauls aml Hammers in the SouthwesL_ 72...

'!--{ )~, ~r .. "f <

J

The Universitl? of New Mexico Bulletin (/fJ

Prelirninar'B Report

On the 1937 Excavations, Bc 50-51 Chaco Can,)?on, New Mexico

With Some Distributional Analyses

CHARLES BOHANNON

NAN GLENN

FLORENCE HAWLEY

CLYDE KLUCKHOHN

DOUGLAS OSBORNE

DONOVAN SENTER

JOSEPH TOULOUSE, JR.

HARRY TSCHOPIK, JR.

MARY WHITTEMORE

RICHARD WOODBURY

Edited by CLYDE KLUCKHOHN and PAUL REITER

THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO BULLETIN

Whole Number 345 October 15, 1939 Anthropological Series, Volume 3, No. 2

Published monthly in January, March, May, July, September, and November, and semi-monthly in February, April, June, August, October, and December

by the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico

Entered as Second Class Matter, May 1, 1906. at the post office at Albuquerque, New Mexico, under Act of Congress of July 16, 1894

UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO PRESS 1939

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

Acknowledgments ____________________________________________ 5 Introduction ______________________ __ _________ _______________ 7

Part I-Excavation of the Refuse Mound Section A-Culture Complexes and Succession in the Refuse

Mound, by Florence Hawley _________________________ 10 Section B-The Relation Between Cultural Levels and Soil

Strata in the Refuse Mound, by Donovan Senter ________ 18 Section C-A Note on Structures of the Refuse Mound, by

Clyde Kluckhohn __________________________________ 26

Part II-The Excavation of Bc 51 Rooms and Kivas, by Clyde Kluckhohn

Section A-Introductory ________________________________ 30 Section B-Architectural Details of Rooms ______________ 30 Section C-Architectural Details of Kivas _________________ 34 Section D-Pottery Evidence __________________________ ___ 39 Section E-Dating and Discussion ____________________ ~__ 43

Part III-Description of Objects Found-With a Number of Distributional Studies

Section A-Additions to Descriptions of Chaco Pottery Types, by Florence Hawley _____ _ __ __ 49

Section B-Utilized Minerals and Rocks and Their Sources, by Douglas Osborne ________________ _ ___________ 54

Section C-Ground and Pecked Stone Artifacts (Other Than Arrow-Shaft Tools), by Richard Woodbury __________ 58

Section D-Arrow-Shaft Tools, by Joseph Toulouse, Jr. ____ 80 Section E-Pro,iectile Points and Chipped Implements, by

Charles Bohannon _________ _______ ___ _ 90 Section F -Artifacts of Perishable Materials, by Harry

Tschopik, Jr. _____ 94 Section G-Artifacts of Bone, Antler, and Sheil, by Mary

Whittemore _ __ _ _____________ ____ _ __ _____ _ 131 Section H-Subsistence Remains, by Clyde Kluckhohn _ 147

Part IV-Discussion, by Clyde Kluckhohn ____________________ 151 Appendix A-A Few Means on the Physical Anthropological

Series from Bc 50-51 _____ ______________________ 163 Appendix B-Bc 50 Substructures, by Nan Glenn_______ 166 Appendix C-Addenda to the Chaco Canyon Bibliography, com-

piled by Clyde Kluckhohn _______________________________ 175 List of References CUed ____________________________________ 177

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

MAPS

Map I-Plot of Excavations Be 50-51, and Profiles Insert facing page 30

Map 2-Distribution of Metates in the Southwest __________ ____ 64 Map 3-Distribution of Axes in the Southwest _______________ 69 Map 4-Distribution of Mauls aml Hammers in the SouthwesL_ 72 Map 5-Distribution of Mortars and Pestles in the Southwest __ 75 Map 6-Distribution of Arrow-Shaft Tools__________________ 82 Map 7-Coiled Basketrv in the Southwest: Present Distribution 112 Map 8-Coiled Basketry: Distribution During Pueblo III-IV ____ 117

Page

Map 9-Coiled Basketry: Distribution During Basket Maker II-Pueblo II ______________________________________________ 121

FIGURES IN TEXT

Fig. I-Grid of Refuse Mound________________________________ 10 Fig. 2-Sectional Profiles of Refuse Mound __________________ 11 Fig. 3-Profile of Section 6, Refuse Mound __________________ 12 Fig. 4-Pithouse and Slab-Lined Cists in Sections 1, 2, and 3,

Refuse Mound _________________________________________ 27 Fig. 5-Ground Plans of Kivas _____________________________ 35 Fig. 6-Murals in Kiva 6 _________________________________ 39 Fig. 7-Scattered Human Bones in Room 5____________________ 45 Fig. 8-Arrow-Shaft Tool Types ______________ _______________ 80 Fig. 9-Possible Interrelationships of Arrowshaft Tool Types 88 Fig. 10-Basket Maker Knife _______________ ________________ 90 Fig. 11-Pueblo Type Projectile Point _________________________ 91 Fig. 12-Basket Maker Projectile Point ______________________ 92 Fig. 13-Drill ______________________________________________ 92 Fig. 14-Ground Plan of Bc 50 Substructure Excavations _______ 166 Fig. 15A-Architectural Details of Substructure 5, Bc 50 ______ 169 Fig. 15B-Architectural Details of Substructure 6 ____________ 169

TABLES

Table I-Sherd Percentages of the Refuse Mound by Strata ___ 21 Table 2-Room and Kiva Sherd Percentages _____ Insert facing 41 Table 3-Cultural Associations of Burials ___________________ 47-48 Table 4-Hardness Tests of Sherds _________________________ 53 Table 5-Distribution of Materials of Arrow-Shaft Straighteners 87 Table 6-Key to Map 7 _____________________________________ 113 Table 7-Key to Map 8 _____________________________________ 119 Table 8-Key to Map 9 _____________________________________ 122 Table 9-Some Means and Ranges for Adult Male Crania

(Deformed) ___________________________________________ 163

PLATES

Plate I-General View of Bc 50-51 Plate 2-Bc 51 Masonry Plate 3-Kivas 1, 3, and 4 Plate 4-Cist Burial, Trenches 26, 27, and 28, Section 7 Plate 5A-Pit, Trenches 2 and 3, Sections 4, 5, and 6 Plate 5B-Chaco Black on White Effigy Jar Plate 6-Gallup and McElmo Black on White Pottery Plate 7-Red Mesa Black on White Pottery Plate 8-0ther Pottery Types Found at Bc 51 Plate 9-Drawings of McElmo Black on White Designs, by A. H.

Gayton Plate 10-Drawings of McElmo and Mesa Verde Black on White

Designs, by A. H. Gayton Plate 11-Drawings of Escavada, Red Mesa, Chaco, and Gallup Black

on White Designs, by A. H. Gayton Plate 12-Bone Objects from Bc 51 Plate 13-Bone Objects from Bc 51 Plate 14-Bc 50 Substructures

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

My thanks must go, first of all, to my co-authors who have borne so patiently my often trivial and pedantic criticisms, my suggestions for revision, compression, or inclusion of additional references after a typescript had attained to "final" form. I wish to express my appreciation to Frank Hibben, J. A. Ford, and William Mulloy, whose excellent field notes and drawings were indispensable in the preparation of the report. I am, likewise, grateful to Dr. Donald Brand, head of the Department of Anthropology, in the University of New Mexico, and to Mr. Fred Harvey, of the University of New Mexico Press, for long. continued generous and most helpful cooperation. To Mr. Donald Scott, director of the Peabody Museum of Harvard University, I am most warmly indebted for advice, encouragement, a critical reading of the manuscript, and for assistance on the part of his staff. My thanks, as well as those of the authors of the sections in question, are due to J. O. Brew, H. S. Colton, Emil Haury, Frank Hibben, Dorothea Kelly, J. Charles Kelley, Frank Setzler, Walter Taylor, Gene Weltfish, for reading portions of the manuscript and making suggestions. My research assistants, Katherine Spencer and Robert Wood, scrupulously performed many tasks of tabulation and cross-checking, and my friend, David Winser, sacrificed a portion of his holiday on the altar of Table 2. To F. P. Orchard and Elmer Rising, of the Peabody Museum, I wish to express my appreciation for the care with which they photographed the distributional maps and prepared the drawings of Figs. 1, 3, 5, and 6, respectively. I thank A. H. Gayton most heartily for her drawings of potsherds, and I am deeply indebted to Frank H. H. Roberts, Jr., for his courtesy in reading Part IV and giving me his reactions in some detail.

My greatest debt is, undoubtedly, to my co-editor. Even before I pressed him into service as co-editor, he had assumed more than his fair share of the more thankless editorial tasks. If inaccuracies and obscurities have been removed from the text it is in large measure owing to Mr. Reiter's painstaking checking. On the other hand, he must not be held responsible for errors or for misguided interpretations for, on occasion, my collaborators and I were bold enough to disregard his advice.

Chaco Canyon, New Mexico July 24, 1939.

[5]

CLYDE KLUCKHOHN

INTRODUCTION

By CLYDE KLUCKHOHN

This preliminary report on the excavations of the University of New Mexico Field Session during August, 1937, is to be construed strictly as a supplement to the previously published account of the 1936 field work." Familiarity with this former monograph is presupposed, and the endeavor will be to avoid repetition here, presenting only new facts or new interpretations. To such topics as "The History of Research in the Chaco Canyon" and "The Natural Landscape," we have nothing substantial to add. The plates here published may appear to neglect certain subjects which would normally be more copiously illustrated. But here again our purpose is to supplement and we have, therefore, rejected photographs which would have tended to duplicate those already published. Even so, considerations of expense sharply delimited the greater richness of illustration which we should have liked.

Since Bc 50 had already been reported upon in a rather detailed manner and since there was little in Bc 51 which was markedly different, it seemed proper to reduce the descriptive text to a succinct form, avoiding the proliferation of detail which would have been necessary in picturing a less familiar and more distinctive cultural variant. Minutiae of room measurements, for example, have not been systematically presented in all completeness. The general features are apparent from the plot of excavations (Map 1) and certain concrete details which seemed of significance are set forth in the text. If a specialist ever has need of a particular measurement not here published, the original field notes (on deposit in the Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico) will always be available to him.

For such reasons, it seemed possible to make the report on the excavation as such and on the artifacts recovered comparatively brief. The opportunity, therefore, of setting some of the artifacts from Bc 51 in a wider distributional context was particularly inviting. Dr. Brand has, over a long period (both in his own publications and in those of his students), given proof of the significance of rigorous distributional studies and, at a staff conference at the end of the 1937 excavation season, he suggested this as an engaging possibility for this report. Other staff members were in hearty agreement for, in informal dis-

1. Brand. et al., 1937, This dealt with the rooms and ki,'as of Be 50, During the 1937 season, Miss Nan Glenn excavated a portion of the Be ;")0 substructure (largely under the supervision of Dr. Hawley and Mr. Senter). Since the present report deals primarily with Be 51 rooms and kivas and the objects found therein, Miss Glenn's section is published as an appendix.

[ 7 ]

8 ] THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO

cussions during the field session, we had all lamented the fact that there had been little effort made to assemble the evidence bearing on the distribution (both in time and space) of artifact types other than those-notably pottery and architectural forms-whose sensitivity had been clearly demonstrated. We felt it would be useful to make a beginning with such groups as bone implements, coiled basketry, ground and pecked stone artifacts for two central reasons: (1) even if the researches were not exhaustive, some clues should emerge as to the utility of types from these classes as cultural diagnostics, (2) excavators would, perhaps, be stimulated to 'record more fully and more scrupulously the details bearing on these somewhat neglected aspects of the cultural inventory. Dr. Roberts has called attention to the need for distributional maps of axes, bone tools, and the like."

A publication incorporating such distributional analyses seemed, also, peculiarly appropriate as emanating from a field school, the primary purpose of which was the training of graduate students in archaeology. The students had had field experience-let them now gain experience in working up material for publication and, in particular, in seeing in a ramified chronological and chorological framework the objects which they had helped excavate. Actually, the availability of student personnel did not permit the assignment of all topics to students of the 1937 Chaco Field School. Miss Whittemore and Messrs. Bohannon and Osborne were members of the 1937 Chaco Field Session and Mr. Toulouse a former member. Messrs. Tschopik and Woodbury (now a graduate student at Columbia University) were students at Harvard University who had done field work in the Southwest and who had special qualifications for the problems they undertook.

Certain almost inevitable limitations were imposed upon the quality of the report by the fact that the staff of the excavation and the student collaborators have been widely scattered geographically during the period of the writing and editing of this monograph. The complete collaboration which can come only from sustained daily contacts has been out of question. The editors have tried to produce consistency as regards nomenclature, citation, and the like, but we hope to be forgiven if a few errors are discovered. The amount of correspondence involved has been prodigious, and we have tried by this means to bring about something approaching uniformity with reference to the fundamental conceptual scheme and literature covered. Weare quite aware, however, that this end has not been attained with the rigor which would have been desirable. For instance, while most of the collaborators have consulted essentially every publication consulted by any other co-author, this has not been possible in every case because of

2. Roberts. 1935, p. 28.

1937 EXCAVATIONS, Bc 50-51, CHACO CANYON, N. M. [9

other inescapable demands upon time and because of inadequate library facilites."

The purpose, then, of this report is two-fold: (1) to supplement the earlier publication in providing as full and accurate as possible a report on the excavation of mounds 50-51 through 1937; (2) to examine the significance of certain groups of objects recovered in the light of the distribution of artifacts of those classes in the Southwest, generally both in space and in time. It is for the profession to judge as to whether these studies were worth the very considerable effort which was expended upon them. In one or two cases the preponderance of the actual evidence amassed appears to be of negative characterthat is, certain artifact types seem to turn up in almost every region and in almost every period, so far as we can tell at present. On the other hand, every analysis suggests, I think, at least one (and in some cases a number) of hitherto unrecognized clues as to "type fossils" of regional and period cultures.

When others have pursued these investigations more extensively and intensively and carried them out for other topics, Southwestern archaeologists will be better able to guard against the dangers of inference from a limited number of criteria (however valuable each criterion has been). We shall also be in a position to explore realistically the adherences, the "complexes" of culture items and traits, and thus to reveal far more securely and distinctly the cultural history of the Southwest and the processual dynamics of that history.

3. The attempt has been to cover fairly comprehensively the literature through 1938, but it has been impossible to make changes and additions in accord with publications which became available only in the early months of 1939.

PART I

SE:CTION A

CULTURE COMPLEXES AND SUCCESSION IN THE REFUSE MOUND

By FLOREN:CE HAWLEY

Technique.-In 1936, the refuse mound between Bc 50 and 51 was surveyed and divided into 6' squares, designated as trenches from north to south and as sections from east to west. Removal of the material from all the trenches within a section exposed a new face just 6' south of the preceding face. The debris was removed by 6" arbitrary levels measured from a base line located at the bottom of a trench cut across the north end of the dump. During the 1936 season, Sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 (in part) were excavated, and a report

W seCTIONS f-L'<..L..W7'7"P'-"-"t7<;..-'r';jL04;L-L..I'77"nf"""<.L..f-"-'<-f-''-'-''"''-'

1937 MAR~ING - 1 2 3 4 5 6 TRENCHES

• Excavated in 1937 m Partially excavated in 1937

o Section 6 (See Fig. 3) £Zl Excavated in 1936

FIGURE 1-GRID OF REFUSE MOUND

on the results of the pottery type succession and period complexes was published.'

As the work of 1936 had given a thorough study of the east to west distribution of culture strata in the northern area of the dump, it was decided to push work faster from north to south in 1937. Before excavation of the mound was continued, the 6' trenches and sections were divided into 3' aI'eas, and the trench numbers used the yeaI'

1. Brand, ct. al., 1937, pp. 16S-173.

[ 10 ]

W SECTIONS

1937 MAR"ING- 1 2 3 4 5 6 TRENCHE.S

• Excavated in 1937 lim Partially excavated in 1937

o Section 6 (See Fig. 3) f2l Excavated in 1936

F IGURE 1-GRID OF REFUSE M OUND


before were changed to conform to those of the new smaller trenches. (See Fig. 1.) For this season, certain evenly distributed trenches (3, 7, 11, and 15, in sections 5, 6, and 7) were chosen for excavation and the material was removed in 6" arbitrary levels, measured above the base line used the preceding season. At the end of the field session, trench 15 had not been completed in section 7, but the material from the others had been sifted from the soil, washed and classified. The north, south, east, and west faces of each trench in each section were drawn in profiles so that the changes in deposits could be compared with the pottery type changes in complexes and in actual percentages per type.

tJt~,j~~S:~::;:p.:!.(~~:.::~~.~E~:.~:':~~:~.::~~~~;~~;:<;:~.:~;;L::$~~~~~~:·i@=iii7=~=~£+:""""""~f::~~ S£CT1CN '!II

SECTlONm

seCTION n

s[ClllN I

FIGURE 2-SECTIO~ AL PROFILES OF REFUSE MOUND

~i~r~ . S[CT1OIIIm

FIGURE 2-SOCTIONAL PROFILES OF REFUSE MOUND


On a series of cross section drawings, representing the 7 sections excavated in 1936 and 1937, the sherd percentages were listed in each of the rectangles representing the arbitrary levels of excavation. The merging of one period into another was clearly shown by the rise and fall of percentages of the various types from the bottom to the top of the dump, the cultural divisions being indicated by complexes, based on predominance or rank order of associated types rather than by simple presence or absence of individual types.

Lines were drawn to mark the approximate limits of each pottery complex in the trenches excavated and were continued as dotted lines across the unexcavated portions to meet the lines indicating the same complexes in the other excavated trenches. Upon these drawings of pottery successions, the drawings of deposition variations within the faces were superposed for comparison. (See Fig. 2.) In some cases the pottery complexes appeared to coincide with distinguishable strata; in some cases they did not. The south face of section 6 (see Fig. 1) was depicted in a chart (see Fig. 3) indicating the relation of the

OF SECTION 6, . SOUTH FACE.

FIGURE 3-PROFILE OF SECTION 6, SOUTH FACE, REFUSE MOUND

various deposition profiles between Bc 50 and 51 and will be discussed in detail in Part I, B.

Pottery Complexes.-At least in a site such as this, pottery complexes must be taken as defined by characteristic llroportions of various types rather than (with possible rare exceptions) by the presence or absence of particular diagnostic types. The individual types making up each complex often occur in more than one culture period. In the absence of multitudinous tree ring dates and unequivocal associations between building dates and sherds or vessels found, it is impossible to set exact beginnings and ends to the occurrence of anyone complex or to the occurrence of anyone type. Known facts from the historical pueblos, documenting the rise and fall of popularity of individual types, strongly suggest that, as a general thing, it would be unreasonable to postulate an abrupt and complete cessation of the manufacture of any given pottery type. That there is, nevertheless, a strong trend toward uniformity of association of certain

ThDlCH TRE)lCH F====> TRbCr1 15

w

OF SECTION 6, . SOUTH FACE

FIGURE 3-PROFILE OF SECTION 6, SOUTH FACE, REFUSE MOUND

1937 EXCAVATIONS, Bc 50-51, CHACO CANYON, N. M. [ 13

types in roughly similar proportions at various stratigraphic levels will emerge from the data to be presented.

In addition to the natural holdover of obsolescent types and the comparatively few sherds (or vessels) resulting from initial experiments with new types, the mixing of material by rain and other natural forces, human intrusions for burying or other purposes, and disturbance by rodents explain the lack of a completely neat correspondence between superimposed strata and individual pottery types. If, however, there is some approach to constancy (over and above what could be anticipated from mere random sampling) between succession of stratigraphic level~ and pottery complexes (as defined by relative proportions of different types), it then seems proper to interpret these data as valid signposts of cultural history. The predominant complexes of relatively undisturbed strata, however, should be expected to run fairly consistently with small amounts of a given type (or types) toward the bottom, increased percentages as that type (or those types) rises to prominence, and decreasing percentages as another or others come into fashion. In a refuse mound situated on a slope samples taken from the various levels of sections at the upper end may be expected to have been less disturbed by sheet wash than the lower sections farther to the north.

At the bottom of trenches 7 and 15 in section 6 (see Table 1) we find 100% Lino Gray." In the lowest levels of the excavated trenches of sections 4 and 5 Lino Gray is accompanied by small percentages of other types:

Lino Gray __________________________ _ Kana-a Gray _______________________ _ La Plata B on W ____________________ _ Reserve Brown 3 _____________________ _

Deadman's B on R (intrusive?) _______ _

Sect. 4

82

9

9

Sect.

72 17

6 6

(17 sherds) (11 sherds)

Unfortunately (and probably significantly), all of these samples from the lowest levels are very small. But while Lino Gray is actually the most numerous single type in all complexes, it is distinctly more predominant in these lower levels. The pottery complex characterized by a dominance of Lino Gray and with La Plata Black on White as an associated type will be called the Lino Gray Pottery Complex.

2. Lino Gray sherds with fugitive red exteriors \vere classified with those of Lino Gray. For descriptions of pottery types see Hawley. 1936; Brand. ct. al .• 1937. pp. 85-88. 166-170; and Part lIlA and Plates 5b-ll of this report.

3. The geographical provenience of the various trade types and their significance have been discussed in Brand. et. 01., 1937, pP. 86-87, 167-171. The only probably nonindigenous pottery type which was found in the 1937 excavations but which is not discussed in the earlier report is the new type temporarily designated as Sandstone Black on Orange, for which see Part III, A. (Reserve Brown is also designated as Woodruff Smudged and Forestdale Smudged.)


This complex did not appear in section 7. The lower levels of all excavated trenches of section 7 are distinguished by the prominence of Red Mesa Black on White and the complex of which these levels are representative is hence called the Red Mesct Pottery Complex:

Lino Gray _____________ _ Red Mesa B on W 4 ____ _

Exuberant Cor. _________ _ Escavada B on W ______ _ Deadman's B on R ______ _ Gallup B on W _________ _ Kana-a Gray _________ '-__ La Plata B on W _______ _

43.0 35.9 10.2

5.3 2.8 1.2 (probably intrusive?) 0.8 0.8

(110 sherds)

Trade material associated with this pottery complex in other sections included: Reserve Brown, Lino Black on Gray, Kana-a Black on White, Abajo Red on Orange, a Black on Red identified by Brew" and Morris as indigenous to the Four Corners country, and a Gray with Black Smudged Interior from southwestern Colorado."

Taking as a whole all the excavated trenches of section 7, the levels above those represented of the Red Mesa pottery complex show a different persistent association of types:

Lino Gray _________________ 31.6 Exuberant Cor. ____________ 19.3 Escavada B on W _________ 17.8 Red Mesa B on W _________ 13.5 Chaco Cor. ________________ 7.7 Gallup B on W ___________ 6.3 Kana-a Gray ______________ 2.0 Wingate B on R __________ 1.3 Deadman's B on R _________ .3 Chaco B on W __ .__________ .1 Sunset Red _______________ .1

(2831 sherds)

Since perhaps the most distinguishing feature of this complex is the greater prominence of Escavada Black on White it will be convenient to call it the Escavada Pottery CompZex.7

Cross finds in this complex are Winona Corrugated, Deadman's Black on Red, Citadel Polychrome, Rio de Flag Brown, Rio de Flag

4. Two sherds showed a fugitive red neck, an idea apparently not emulated enough to start a new type.

5. Ct. Brand, et al., 1937, p. 168. 6. Ct. Roberts, 1930, p. 79. (Also. see note 3, p. 13). 7. [EDITORIAL NOTE: In Dr. Hawley's opinion the Lino Gray, Red Mesa, and Esca

vada pottery complexes nlay be identified with the total culture complexes Basket Maker III, Pueblo I, and Pueblo II, respectively, in the Chaco and, purely heuristically. they have been so labeled on Fig. 2.]


Smudged, Elden Corrugated, and Sunset Red from the Flagstaff district; Tusayan Black on Red, Medicine Black on Red, Buff Black on Red from the Kayenta district; Wingate Black on Red and Forestdale Smudged from the Little Colorado; and something resembling but not identical with Mogollon Red on Brown from the Mogollon district of southwestern New Mexico.

The persistence of Lino Gray as the commonest single type (although in decreasing percentages) in all three complexes would seem to indicate one of three things: that Lino Gray continued for a quite considerable period as a culinary ware or that enough mixing of sherds was done by rain or by other forces to raise a great deal of Lino Gray from the bottom of the dump to the top, or that what appears to be Lino Gray are actually sherds from the bodies of various other pottery types. Let us examine these three possibilities in reverse order.

First, of the other types recognized to have bases indistinguishable from those of Lino Gray, all but Kana-a Gray and Medicine Gray show tooled or punched necks. If types with plain bases and tooled or punched necks were used by the inhabitants of Bc 50 and 51 we should find in the dump some of the neck sherds as well as some of the base sherds. No such neck sherds have been recovered; hence it seems very improbable that those types were used here. Medicine Gray S has a base indistinguishable from that of Lino Gray or of Kana-a Gray, but the neck is cOl'l'ugated. Kana-a Gray has a base like Lino Gray but neck bands form the upper part. Sherds from the neck showing the wide flat bands and from the shoulder, showing the junction between the plain base and the neck bands, are not uncommon here. But although corrugated sherds which might be from the necks of Medicine Gray rather than from fully corrugated vessels are found, no neck sherd showing conjunction between plain base and corrugated neck has yet been found in this dump. Therefore, we conclude that the sherds classified as Lino Gray may have come from Lino Gray vessels or may have come from the bases of Kana-a Gray vessels in strata where neck-banded sherds are found, or that they may possibly, but not very probably, have included some sherds of Medicine Gray.

Second, some mixing undoubtedly did take place, but that this alone could account for the predominance of Lino Gray in all three complexes seems improbable.

We know that in the modern Pueblos, as probably in those of the prehistoric Southwest, the culinary wares were much less likely to change than the decorated wares. It is thus conceivable that in some districts Lino Gray lasted for a ven- considerable period. At present it would be hazardous to state that Lino Gray certainly

8. Colton and Hargra\'e, 1937. p. 18D.

16 ] THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW ME:KICO

was as common or more common than Kana-a Gray in the period represented by Escavada complex but the sherd evidence strongly suggests it.

SU1'nmaTy.-Three pottery complexes are distinguishable and may be traced in superimposed mounds of varied shapes and depths.

Lino Omy Complex.-On approaching from the north face of the dump, the Lino Gray Complex showed up first in a small mound at the eastern edge of section 3 where it runs from trench 14 through 18 and on into the unexcavated area. Its base lay 8' below the surface. At its peak it was 2' thick but it dwindled to nothing at its western edge in trench 15. This early mound of refuse was found to extend 6' farther into the dump to section 4, where it was deeper beneath the surface, its peak here being 12' below the bottom deposition of section 3 and its depth going down for 2' farther. This puts the base of the Lino Gray Complex in trench 15, section 4, at 6' below the surface. No trenches east of 15 were excavated, so the eastern periphery of this debris was not located in this section. On the west the peak dipped precipitously and disappeared in trench 14.

No similar deposit was found in section 5, but in section 6, a 6" lense of this material was found at the bottom of trench 15. No excavation extended as far east as trench 15 in section 7.

In the western side of the dump, the Lino Gray Complex did not appear until section 4, where a deposit 2' deep was found at the bottom of trench 2. Three feet farther south in trench 3, section 5, a Lino Gray Complex lense 6" thick was found with its base 6" below the base in section 4. This lense did not extend into section 5, but another lense 6" thick was encountered in trench 7 of section 6. Section 7 shows no Lino Gray Complex.

Red Mesa Potte1'y Complex.-This extended from the top of trench 8, section 1 down 4' to the undisturbed soil. Sloping downward to the west, it disappeared in trench 8. In section 2, it made up almost the entire lower layer of the excavated area, from trenches 2 to 18, dipping at the base in trenches 7 and 8 and again in trenches 15 and 16. The peak, in trench 9, was closer to Bc 50 than Bc 51, but in section 3 this debris shows two distinct peaks, one above the Lino Gray Complex material in the eastern trenches, 17 and 18, and one above the western trench 3, connected by a fairly level top surface lower than either but marked by a distinct dip downward into a pit in trenches 11 and 12. Section 4 shows the Lino Gray Complex of the eastern trenches covered over with a layer of Red Mesa Complex material, which sinks downward in trench 14 to the level of the Lino Gray Complex but rises again to form the highest peak found for the Red Mesa Complex. This peak is in trench 15, near the western edge of the dump. Section 4 covered the highest surface of the dump.

In section 5 the Red Mesa Complex refuse lies as a long layer, thinner than previously, and dipping toward the west, where it covers the


south end of the low Lino Gray Complex mound, and in section 6 it shrinks to an even thinner layer, covering small Lino Gray Complex mounds in trenches 7 and 15, and shrinking yet again in section 7. Evidently the refuse of the Red Mesa Complex formed an irregular mound overlying a Lino Gray Complex mound on the east, a smaller Lino Gray Complex mound on the west, and one very small deposit of it just south of the center. With these exceptions Red Mesa Complex refuse formed the lower layer of the large mound, extending to the north of section 1 but almost at an edge to the south in section 7, with its peak in section 4. In bulk it could have contained little less material than the refuse of the Escavada Complex which overlay it.

Escavada Pottery C01npZex.-This mound, apparently started from Be 50, showed two peaks in section 2, three peaks in section 3, its highest central point in section 4, and a fairly level diminution through sections 5, 6, and 7.

General Discussion.-Some of the Lino Gray Complex levels in the dump show so few sherds that it seems probable that we are examining a Lino Gray Complex surface level rather than a real mound. The sherds representing this period are always imbedded in adobe, showing some charcoal but little ash, the ash probably having been leached out since deposition. The sherds, ash, and charcoal may have been cut into the adobe by surface wash. The levels of Red Mesa and Escavada Complexes show as one thick deposit of household sweepings, sand, charcoal, ash, bones, sherds, and other cultural material. Within this deposit, lenses and strata may be distinguished by minor variations in color and small differences in composition. The interpretation of these irregular strata, whether significant of culture period or of subdivisions of time within a period, when the people may have used various sections of a dump successively, or whether significant of weather fluctuations, are discussed (for section 6) in Part II, B.

The Lino Gray Complex mounds suggest that the refuse was thrown out from individual pit houses, but the relatively even distribution of the upper material from east to west indicated the probability that refuse was thrown out onto the common dump from both Bc 50 and Bc 51 during the periods of which the Red Mesa and Escavada Complexes may be diagnostic.

SECTION B THE RELATION BETWEEN CULTURAL LEVELS AND

SOIL STRATA IN THE REFUSE MOUND

By DONOVAN SENTER

In the refuse dump 1 natural strata show up in the cross-section profiles (see Fig. 2). These strata appeal' to be of different types of deposit, although all contain more or less ash, charcoal, bones, potsherds, and cultural material of other types. In view of the work done in 1936; it was felt that there might be a possibility of relating these changes in appearance of deposition to the general changes in deposition in the canyon over a long period of years. At all times, it was kept in mind that these strata might be, however, merely artificially produced by changes in the type of material thrown upon the dump and by cloudbursts or floods.

The weather fluctuations shown for the canyon in the tree ring chart, and responsible for the various levels of deposition and of erosion shown on the cut taken near Chetro Ketl," were taking place at the time these two small ruins were occupied, perhaps 800 to 1080 A. D., and while their dump was being laid down. Indeed, both the observed evidence and a priori considerations suggest that, although the greater part of this dump material was artificially laid, sandstorms, sheet wash, and erosion affected the surfaces of the artificial deposition as it grew up year by year. One might think of the household debris as sometimes being sandwiched in between the various thin natural deposits from heavy sandstorms and torrential rains, and at other times as being modified by other erosion. The total amount of erosion and of deposition depended mainly upon the weather fluctuations. The principal question which arose concerning the demarcation of natural strata was whether any particular line of demarcation was cultural or natural, that is, whether these strata indicated cultural divisions, weather fluctuations, or both.

The Sit1tation.-This dump rests upon a low ridge which runs directly out from a point of carboniferous shale of the Allison series,

1. This paper is to be taken strictly in conjunction with the preceding one. Hence various statements and qualifications (such as the hazards of interpretation resulting from cultural intrusions for burial or other purposes) have not been repeated. But. naturally, they are applicable and were kept in mind during the writing of this paper.

2. Brand. ct al., 1937, pp. 163-172. 3. See Brand, ct. al., 1937, pp. 134-139. It is realized, of course, that the sort of

brief, localized cloudbursts which probably would have most markedly affected the dump would not necessarily show up in tree rings. Tree rings tend to represent a moisture mean in relation to adjoining years. and there may well have been a few severe, highly localized storms in years represented in the tree ring record by very narrow annual rings. All in all, however, a general correlation seems reasonable to postulate.

[ 18 ]

1937 EXCAVATIONS, Be 50-51, CHACO CANYON, N. M. r 19

which underlies a cliff of Chacra sandstone. From the base of this cliff the sheet wash of torrential rains, which are (now, at least) common in Southwestern summers, spreads out over the dump surface, the wash flowing principally toward the north in the direction of the canyon bottom and secondarily toward the eastern and the western edges of the mound, which probably were slightly lower than the central area. The household refuse, with its basis of sand and ash, is soft, lacks compactness, and is easily cut by water, and the presence within the deposits of sherds, small pieces of sandstone, bone, etc., further prevents packing and exaggerates the tendency toward erosion. A refuse mound located on flat ground or rising in a considerable peak above the surrounding surface would be more or less equally eroded from all sides and the lighter material from the peak of all the lower slopes. A mound, however, which is only slightly rounded on top and which slopes as a whole in the direction naturally taken by runoff flowing toward the canyon floor' is washed principally from one direction, and the lower side receives the accumulation washed from the area behind it. Thus we have a constant washing northward of sand, charcoal, the light weight sherds, and especially ash from the more southern lenses of dumped refuse. Naturally, the lighter substances like charcoal, if not trampled into the surface and crushed, would be subjected to movement by a minimum of natural force (wind or water). Similarly there is, in general, a continuous process of migration of sherds downward into the underlying strata, for as the sand and ash are washed from beneath and around the sherds, those too heavy to be carried with the rivulet must sink (or be trampled in wet soil) to the bottom of the cut.

A further dumping of refuse fills up the cuts and elevates the ground surface, but the next storm will slightly pack and lower this surface and introduce new cuts and rivulets. The sherds of different periods are mixed northward and downward in movements stimulated by natural forces. The areas most affected are those farthest north, which have received the full brunt of both processes for perhaps a thousand years, possibly two hundred or more during occupation of the mounds and probably about eight hundred since. Similarly, those farthest to the south are least mixed by washing and should give the most dependable records of pottery type complexes and percentages available in this refuse mound.'

4. It is conceivable, of course, that during time of occupation the mound was artificially kept higher at the south end to keep the water from penetrating the plaza and house environs. But, on the whole, the postulate that the mound was always of current profile seems most economical.

5. Qualifications must be made here. It is reasonable to suppose that any deep cut would be promptly filled-if only to keep the 100:';e, newly dumped ashes from blow· ing more ea::;ily from a flat surface into the cleaned rooms. The possibility of selective transportation must also be allowed for. Some cultural materials are perhaps transported more readily than other:3.


Method.-Section 6 (see Fig. 1) of the refuse mound was about midway between the northern and the southern extremities. This long east-to-west cut provided opportunity for study of the appearance, composition, and dip of the succession of strata making up the dump at this longitude. These strata were traced and were drawn on coordinate paper (see Fig. 3), each stratum being marked for composition and general appearance, and photographs were taken. From trenches 3, 7, 11, and 15 the columns were removed in 6" arbitrary levels, and from the area near the walls of Bc 51 at the eastern end of the trench a column was removed by natural strata or levels. In both cases the material was screened for sherds and for other cultural material. All sherds were washed, classified in the field laboratory, percentages taken, and the results tabulated on the drawing of the strata of the trench. Rarely did the line of the natural strata cross near the center of an arbitrary level, but in those exceptional cases the percentages for that arbitrary level were not used in averages for either stratum. Where the line of the arbitrary level crossed near either extremity of the natural strata, the percentages were averaged with those of the stratum of which it was largely a part. The removal of natural strata from a column which had been isolated so that the dip of strata in the deposit could be observed on all sides was not tried. The strata were numbered down from the top, although all were not present in every part of the cross-section.

Results.-Stratum I, described as humus, organic material, sand, charcoal, and sherds, was light in color and heavily permeated with sand. The bottom of this stratum ran from four inches to a foot below the present surface and was easily distinguishable from the stratum below as being softer, although the general composition of both was similar. This upper stratum appeared to consist entirely of material which had washed from the southern surface of the dump and had covered over the original surface of this central section. The sherd complex found within it, then, might be expected to be somewhat mixed but in general to represent as late or perhaps a later period of deposition than the complex of the stratum immediately under it.

Stratum II, described as sand, charcoal, sherds, and cultural material, is separated from the upper stratum in places by occasional stringers of sand which washed or blew over it before the heavy wash from above covered it over. In other places the two merge, almost imperceptibly. The second layer is slightly darker in color than the first and shows scattered lenses of ash and of charcoal.

The sherd composition of the two may be compared in Table 1. It is apparent that Strata I and II are made up of essentially the same complex of sherds and that in many cases a type holds the same relative place in both strata.


TABLE 1 SHERD PERCENTAGES OF THE REFUSE MOUND BY STRATA

(Section 6) Trenches 3, 7, 11, 15 --~-~~--~--~~

Stratum Stratum Stratum Stratum Stratum V I II III IV A B

~~--

Lino Gray ---------- --- 28.7 22.9 53.1 69.4 72.3 100.0 Exuberant Cor. ______ 19.4 23.2 13.6 1.6 3.2 Gallup B on W _ 16.7 10.6 5.1 4.7 3.4 Escavada B on \V ___ 13.6 19.3 10.5 7.0 13.7 Red Mesa B on W_ 9.0 16.8 14.4 10.1 3.2 Chaco Cor. 4.5 .8 .3 Kana-a Gray 4.4 2.2 .5 2.2 5.1 Chaco B on W 1.0 .9 .3 McElmo B on W ____ .9 1.6 .9 .4 Wingate B on R _____ .6 1.7 .2 .5 Deadman's B on R ___ .4 .8 .2 .3 3.2 Sunset Red __ .2 .7 Kana-a B on W .2 .1 .5

Total number of sherds in sample_ 276 1592 239 379 61 8

The most plausible inference which, it would seem, might be drawn from these facts is that of but a short difference in time 6

between deposition of the two strata, both perhaps representing one culture period which it is tempting to identify with "Pueblo II." The upper stratum shows decrease of Red Mesa Black on White, and the three trade types, Deadman's Black on Red, Sunset Red, and Kana-a Black on White; and an increase of Gallup Black on White and the appearance of Chaco Black on White and Chaco Corrugated. The rise and fall of types within a span of over more than one period or even within the same culture period is to be expected, but the consistent rise and fall of more than one type might be considered a good criterion of some distinction in time, and here the upper stratum would appear not only to have been washed over the other but to have been orginally deposited later than the other.

Stratum III, found only on the east end of the dump, is of the same composition as II, although of slightly darker color, but its pattern complex is similar to that of Stratum IV, not to that of Stratum II (see Table I).

Stratum IV (see Table I) is described as composed of sand, charcoal, clay, and cultural material, and it varied but little in color from Strata II and III above it. As in the other strata Lino Gray is preponderant, Red Mesa Black on \Vhite and Escavada Black on White hold

6. I am careful to say only the most plausible inference. Much depends on precise1y when and precisely how the forces that placed Stratum I acted, and a positive answer to these questions cannot be given. Moreover, 1'f the north end ever were higher certain of my premises "would have to be modified.

22 ] THE: UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO

second and third places. Gallup Black on White holds fourth place and Kana-a Gray and Exuberant Corrugated are barely represented. It is interesting to note that Kana-a Gray was seventh in Stratum I, ninth in Stratum III, fifth in Stratum IV, and third in Stratum V. Stratum IV would appear to represent mixed debris slightly earlier than Stratum III and directly overlying Stratum V, which shows, perhaps, an earlier but mixed representation of much the same period.

Stratum V is made up of charcoal, clay, sand, and cultural material, but the sand is less in proportion than above. By cultural material and sometimes by appearance it is divided into 2 paris, A and B. Stratum V (see Table I) in section 6 shows a heterogeneous pottery complex, the upper section, A, being Red Mesa Complex, and the lower section, B, being 100% Lino Gray.

The lowest level of section 6 represents probably the natural ground surface at the time of the Lino Gray Complex occupation, but was not a dump. Sherds from the Red Mesa Complex dump, just to the south and higher, washed over it and were later mixed with other sherds from a later part of the same period. This later material was finally covered over with sherds. The small sherd totals, ranging from 8 to 61 in the lower levels in this section, suggest that it was not used to any extent as a dump area until the final occupation of the site. The sherds would have been washed and tramped into the surface clay, which became mixed to some extent with small deposits of ash and of charcoal.

The sherd complexes within a natural stratum were found to run fairly consistently through the center of section 6, so it was decided to test this area further. Near the walls of Bc 51 in trench 34, and 42' east of trench 15, a column 3' square was isolated on two sides. These profiles were studied as a preparation for removal by natural levels. Each stratum was removed by troweling, the sherds taken out by hand, and the material from each was classified separately. Profile Strata I and II were taken off as units, but Stratum III was divided into two layers, A and B. A showed natural deposition of sand within the cultural deposition. It contained considerable charcoal. Layer B was of less laminated sand with a little charcoal at the bottom. Strata IV and V were not removed. The percentages for the various strata follow:


TRENCH 34

Exuberant Cor. _____________ _ Escavada B on VV ___________ _ Lino Gray ___________________ _ Gallup B on VV _______________ _ Chaco Cor. __________________ _ Red Mesa B on VV ____________ _ Deadman's B on R ___________ _ Chaco B on VV _______________ _ McElmo B on VV _____________ _ Kana-a Gray ________________ _ VVingate B on R ______________ _ Flagstaff Red _______________ _

Stratum Stratum Stratum III I II A B A&B"'

49.0 25.0

7.5 8.0 1.0 2.5

.62

.62 3.4

323

.31

.93

42.0 19.0 16.5

5.8

2.8 2.0 1.8 1.3 1.3 1.3

20 30 10 10 30

34.5 27.0 16.6 14.0

1.0 4.7 1.2

27.3 28.5 13.3 12.0 15.5

2.4 .6

--------------~-------

223 10 84 94

One first notices that the percentages in this test do not at all agree with those running consistently through the same strata in the center of section 6. It is apparent that the prevailing type in the column is Exuberant Corrugated with Escavada Black on VVhite a good second, and Lino Gray third. The fact that Gallup Black on VVhite and Chaco Corrugated are more prevalent in the lower levels might indicate some accidental reversal of stratigraphy due to the building of the nearby kiva or the disturbance caused by the nearby burial Bc 51 60/31.

The one point which is apparent from comparison of the sherd complexes and proportions taken from this test near the rooms with those taken from the same natural strata toward the center of the dump is that the same strata at two different points do not contain the same relative amounts of single types or of groups of types. These natural strata are traceable from one end of the dump to the other on the face of an east to west profile revealed on the south side of section 6. The area of Strata I and II, which lies toward the center of the dump shows a consistent sherd complex, but the eastern ends of the same strata give a different complex, perhaps later.

ConclHsions.-If the strata in the dump do not include throughout cultural material of the same period, how can these division lines be accounted for?

At the base of the dump is a layer preponderantly of early material, Stratum V. This is a thin stratum largely composed of clay but mixed with some sand and a little ash, some charcoal, and a scattering of sherds. The sherd totals are scarcely enough to warrant calling this layer dump material. Small deposits of ash, charcoal

i. LaYE'r~ A and B of Stratum III taken together as a unit.


and sand accumulated on the surface were trampled and washed into the clay and gradually built up the surface to an average depth of 6". Then, upon this hard base, a people began to throw their trash in such amounts that a dump of daily sweepings began to rise, Stratum IV. Its lenses and pockets resembled those of the later Strata I and II. Its composition differed from that of the hard cumulative surface of adobe below which contained sherds. One was an occupational surface and the other was an actual trash mound. Stratum III, seen only in the eastern section of the dump, accumulated over trash but was slightly later, the sherd complexes being very similar.

The transition in pottery and in house types perhaps took place around the middle of the 9th century. In this case the severe drouth of 900 to 907 A. D. would have come not long after this transition. The succeeding erosion period which cut the surface of the canyon, and would likewise affect the surface of the dump, was hypothetically traced in erosion surface number 1 in the trench sunk near Chetro Ketl in 1936. It seems quite possible that the upper limiting line between Strata III, IV and Stratum II was caused by the erosion after this drouth and is comparable to erosion surface 1 of the Chetro Ketl cut.

A highly tentative interpretation follows: The upper levels of the central area of Stratum IV show high percentages of the Red Mesa Pottery Complex types, so much so that in drawing the cultural divisions of the dump by pottery alone, the line between the Red Mesa and Escavada Complexes is some inches below that drawn by the top of natural Stratum IV (see Fig. 2). Examinations of the sherd complex and percentages given for Stratum IV show far from a pure Red Mesa Complex. Stratum III likewise shows considerable Escavada Complex material. If the Red Mesa Complex dump grew up to make most of Stratum IV, which was completed by debris of early Escavada Complex, and then the surface was badly cut by the erosion following the drouth of 900 to 907 A. D., we would find the Escavada Complex sherds partially cut into the Red Mesa Complex material by wash. Thus, in taking the entire Stratum IV together for sherd percentages, we would expect just the confusion of Red Mesa and Escavada complexes which we do find, a confusion of complex much greater than any found in the Escavada Complex Strata I and II.

The division line between Strata III and IV, both of Escavada Complex material, may very possibly have been caused by rains beating on the central section of the dump for some years while the people threw their trash farther to the north or to the south. Stratum III does not extend farther to the north or to the south. Stratum III does not extend farther westward than trench 14 and hence could have been, in this section, of only temporary use. Later the people again used the


central and western parts of the dump for deposition and thus laid down Stratum 1.

The prehistoric people presumably, in the modern Pueblo manner, used different areas of the mound surface at different times as depository for their household trash. Material washing from one area onto another would more or less modify the original complex of both areas.

Strata II and III are similar to each other in composition and differ from Stratum I, the surface soil, in being harder, showing fewer streaks of sand,s and in having more undisturbed lenses of household debris. Yet Stratum III represents the Red Mesa Complex, and Strata I and II represent the Escavada Complex.

Stratum I, the surface layer, is obviously disturbed and may owe its color, its looseness, and its stringers of sand to the sheet wash, the sand storms and the other disturbances which have passed since the last household debris was deposited on the mound. The drouth of 1035 to 1041 and its attendant erosion period must have cut the dump surface while Bc 51 was still occupied to some extent, but its effects would have disappeared in the surface erosion since that time.

8. Comparatively homogeneous sand layers were probably wind-blown. The more heterogenous layers containing greater amounts of heavier cultural material may generally be assumed to have been water washed.

SECTION C

A NOTE ON STRUCTURES OF THE REFUSE MOUND

By CLYDE KLUCKHOHN

Since the structures discovered in the refuse mound up to the close of the 1937 season had either been partially excavated under other supervision prior to the beginning or were found at the very close of that season, not even a proper "preliminary report" can be presented here. A note, however, embodying the most general facts may be useful in estimating the general situation at Bc 50-5l.

Pithouses.-Toward the close of the 1936 excavations a pithouse was partially uncovered in trenches 16, 17, and 18 of sections 1, 2, and 3 (see Map 1). This pithouse was further excavated in May, 1937, by a party of students from the University of New Mexico working under the direction of Wesley Bliss, and superposed slablined cists were also discovered. Additional excavation during August, 1937, was likewise under the immediate supervision of Mr. Bliss, and his drawing (Fig. 4) shows the principal architectural details. Since the writer has not had access to Mr. Bliss' field notes, further information cannot be given except to state that the 35 sherds found in what Mr. Bliss considered the "entrance" yielded the following percentages: Lino Gray, 40; Escavada Black on White, 29; Kana-a Gray, 11; Exuberant Corrugated, 8; Red Mesa Black on White, 8; Wingate Black on Red, 3. A sherd sample of 27 from the floor of the pithouse proper showed these percentages: Lino, 52; Red Mesa, 25; Exuberant, 18; Escavada, 4. The Fugitive Red jar neck shown in Plate 8D was also found on the floor of this pithouse.

In trench 3, section 6, a hard clay deposit was encountered at a depth of 30" beneath the surface. This clay was notably sterile save for minute amounts of charcoal and excessively rare sherds which (so far as found) were exclusively of Lino Gray. Subsequent excavation showed that a pit (now filled with later refuse) had been dug into this clay layer. (See Map 1, and Plate 5A).' A "scoop" met ate was found slightly above the floor level in the pit,' and the floor fill yielded 18 sherds in the following percentages: Escavada," 33; Lino, 28; La Plata Black on White, 17; Red Mesa, 5; Exuberant, 5; McElmo, 5;

1. 1938 excavations revealed that this was part of a "pithouse with antechamber," or possibly of a figure eight shaped pithollse.

2. Ct. Hough, 1920, p. 416. "Every pithouse revealed in excavation a mea1ing stone lying on the floor."

3. Heneeforth, when there is no possibility of confusion, pottery types will be referred to without the qualifying "Black on White," etc. It may be assumed, for example, that "Lino" invariably means "LinD Gray" unless the contrary is stated.

[ 26 ]

~1 =-<=___ SCALE IN FEET 02.3

A- FIRE PIT B - POST HOLES C- BIN D- f1E.TAT£ £ - I1ANO F- £NTRANCE C- BINS H- POTTERY I - LADDER RESTS I?J •••• -Pt/EBi 0 CISTS

& Bt/R/AL o

~NORTH

'. '.

W.L.B.

r- SECT/ON #, --+1 ~'--SECTION "2 -~''''I~-S£CT/ON''.3 ---i FIGURE 4-PITHOUSE AKD SLAH-LINED CISTS IX SECTIO~S 1, 2, A:SD 3, REFUSE MOUND

I I I SCALE IN FEET a -' 2 .:7

A- FIRE PIT B - POST HOLES C- BIN ' o - I'1E:TA TE E- t1ANO F· ENTRANCE C' BINS H· POTTERY I • LADDER RESTS I?J ·····P(fEBLO CISTS

& BURIAL

o

~NORTf( W.L.B.

r- SECTION ""I-~I-I ..... ......:.' SECTlON"2 -_. 1-!--SECTION",g---i

FIGURE 4-PITHOUSE AND SLAM·LINED CISTS IN SECTIONS 1. 2. AND 3. REFUSE MOUND


Sandstone Black on Orange, 5. It was not possible to complete excavation of this pit before the end of the season.

In trenches 16 and 17 of sections 4, 5, and 6 a pit apparently of approximately the same shape was partially outlined during the final days of the 1937 season. A portion of the floor fill excavated in trench 16 of section 6 produced 62 sherds in the following percentages: Lino, 79; Red Mesa, 11; Exuberant, 5; La Plata, 2.

Walls of Unfamiliar Type.-On the last day of the excavation in trench 24 a low wall was found extending diagonally across section 6. This wall was built of dressed slabs, non-dressed boulders, and small stones set in abundant mortar. At about the same time circular walls of essentially similar construction were discovered in a western extension of section 6, 16' 1" and 24' 10" west of the western border of trench 1. The former of these was about 3' below the surface, atop the sterile clay layer. The latter was nearly 3' lower in another pit which had apparently been dug into the clay at this locus.

These walls do not appear to fall into any of the previously recognized Chaco Canyon masonry types. Naturally, the evidence is insufficient, but it may not be out of place to record the speculation that they are representative of a time of experimentation in dwelling construction! From their position and general character these problematical structures may possibly represent a period after the abandonment of the pithouses or a period of transition from pit to abovesurface structures. Perhaps slabs (so often used to line pithouses) were carried over into surface dwellings but the as yet inexperienced masons were forced to use much mortar and the reinforcement of boulders to provide any stability. The 18 sherds in immediate association with the walls in trench 24 showed the following percentages: Lino, 67; La Plata, 28; Wingate, 5. Sherds associated with the walls of this type to the west gave highly similar figures, and provide a strong suggestion that the builders of these walls had a culture of which the Lino Gray pottery complex may be diagnostic.

Cists.-For the slab-lined cists excavated by Mr. Bliss see Fig. 4. The cist enclosing burial 60/31 is shown in Plate 4 before and after removal of the cover which was composed of 4 major stone slabs, one of them a "scoop" metate. Evidences of 3 lengthwise pieces of cottonwood and of one crosswise piece were also found. The fill around the burial was notable for its relative lack of sherd and other refuse material. A few bones of small rodents were found within the cist. Decayed roots were observed, some of which penetrated the human bones. The latter were unusually disintegrated, probably because water draining into the cist would tend to remain because of the especially hard texture of the floor. The strata immediately

4. The 1938 excavations showed that these were definitely portions of room walls.


above and surrounding the cist appeared to be continuous and undisturbed. All in all, the evidence seemed to suggest that the cist had been left exposed above the ground (or was a very shallow interment like many of the refuse burials) and that the fill covering it had been placed by wind and rain.

About 16" above this cist was a layer (varying from 112" to 1" thick) of stone chips which could be traced on continuous distribution at this level above this portion of the refuse mound (and as far south as Sect. 9) over to the northern walls of Bc 51. Careful examination of the contents of this layer and of its location and extent suggested that it resulted from the building of some or all of these northern rooms. Much of this sandstone layer was fairly well pulverized. The distribution of chips in the layer was very similar to that in deposits adjacent to the walls of Pueblo Bonito where Navaho workmen have recently been repairing walls. The deposit here seemed too extensive to represent merely repair, but this possibility cannot, of course, be disregarded. On the whole, however, it seems most likely from its position beneath the probable construction level that the cist is of a period prior to the building of some, at least, of the northern rooms of Bc 51.

Discussion.-As is evident from the foregoing, most of these structures were discovered so late in the 1937 season that it is not possible to do more than report upon their discovery and relative position. From the data of superposition and stratigraphy it seems probable that pits, walls, and cists represent sequential periods in that order. But this must be regarded purely as a highly tentative interim communication. The scrupulous excavation of these structures of the refuse mound and their relationship to the clay layer (and the shale which often overlays it, particularly to the west) and to soil profiles generally, formed the principal problem of the 1938 excavations under the direction of Dr. A. R. Kelly.

PART II

THE EXCAVATION OF Be 51 ROOMS AND KIVAS

By CLYDE KLUCKHOHN

SECTION A

INTRODUCTORY

Excavation Methods.-These were essentially as described for Be 50. The excavations were under the general supervision of Kluckhohn and the laboratory work under that of Hawley. Hibben was in immediate charge of the excavation of rooms and Senter of refuse mound excavation. Wesley Bliss did the photography and mapping. James Ford acted as recorder and William Mulloy as a general assistant. Robert Lister assisted in the laboratory.

The Site.-The position of Be 51 with reference to Be 50 is shown on Map l' and Plate 1. Mound Bc 51 is about 100 yards from the cliff on the west side of the wash from the rincon. Before excavation, the mound averaged about 6' in height, was roughly 150' long and 40' wide. The south end was overlapped by a small outwash fan from a point of the cliff so that the south end of the mound was only about 4' above the general ground level while the north end was about 7' above the ground level. The walls did not show very clearly above the surface, but several depressions, indicating kivas, stood out plainly. Room 1 was largely excavated during the 1936 season. Otherwise the surface of the mound did not appear to have been disturbed.

Nineteen rooms and 6 kivas were completely or partially excavated. There are clear indications of a number of rooms which were not excavated. Substructures of Be 51 appeared only at the very end of the season and a detailed report on them is not possible without further excavation. It may be said, however, that in addition to pithouses found in the lower levels of the refuse deposits there were indications of a portion of a pithouse below level 10 in room 1 and that definite masonry substructures appeared below rooms 16, 17, 22, and 23.

SECTION B

ARCHITECTURAL DE,TAILS OF ROOMS

Shape and Size of Rooms.-Sufficient idea of the variations here can be obtained from study of Map 1.

Masonl'y.-(See Plates 2 and 3.) Most of what was noted for Be 50 applies here also. Wall thickness ranged from 9" to 19", with about 12" as the modal figure. Height of wall (from top to floor level)

1. See also Brand, et al., 1937, pp. 67-8 and Map IV.

[ 30 ]

0.,0.,0 :;--=/=to--PO SCALE IN FUT

B.N../I l

Be -51 REFUS[ 8

I c

MAP 1. PLOT OF EXCAVATIONS Bc 50-51, AND PR()FILES

o 5 /0 20SCA LE IN FEET

B.11./' I l

A---~- B

SUB~STRUCTURES

F IGURE: ,"'.

Be -5/ REFUSE Be-50

I c <-I . L. 8.

MAP 1. PLOT OF EXCAVATIONS Bc 50-51, AND PROFILES

1937 EXCAVATIONS, Bc 50-51, CHACO CANYON, N. M. r 31

ranged from c. 3' to c. 6', with 4' to 5' being the commonest measurement. As at Bc 50, a number of metates (often broken) were found set into walls. As usual, there is considerable variation in the masonry from room to room and even from wall to wall within the same room. Room 1 shows a wall sequence on the west wall; three styles of masonry may be observed in room -1; in room 10 there is a change in masonry style beyond the "keyhole" doorway where the wall curves. Other examples could be given and also cases (room 5, for instance) where the materials and construction in the four walls are substantially identical. Such variations are difficult of well-founded interpretation, for it is clear that they may well reflect differences in the competence and interest of individuals rather than differences in cultural fashions. Certain generalizations, however, which probably bear upon cultural patterns, can be made.

With the exception of a few walls in the northernmost section, all masonry falls in Hawley'S Blocks without Core Type. The divergent walls (room 7) are Narrow Banded with Core Type and there are a few other places (the west wall of room 2, for example) which approximate this type in general surface style, though without core. (One or two walls are also reminiscent of Spalled Blocks with Core Type in surface finish.) The masonry of the southern end of Bc 51 is quite generally cruder than that of the northern end, and approximates more closely that found in Bc 50. It would seem likely that the pueblo grew to the north. The masonry of Bc 51 shows generally more big blocks with few spalls than does Bc 50. The walls give the general impression of being more solid and made of more carefully shaped stones. The masonry of rooms 16-, 17-, 22-, and 23-substructure was distinguishable from that of the superstructure in these rooms but was still of the Blocks without Core Type, not of the Slab Base Rubble Type. There were rounded corners in room 16-sub, which was slightly smaller than the superstructure room. The south wall of the superstructure of room 17 was extended out slightIy~otherwise the walls of sub and superstructure were coterminous. The roof level of the lower room was indicated by viga holes. ·Within room 23-sub was a secondary east wall 38" high of pieces of sandstone much larger than those used in the walls of the room proper.

Fill.'~Above almost all floors roughly the first 2' of fill consisted of wind-deposited sand with varying amounts of ash and charcoal (which could well have come from exposed portions of the refuse).

1. A complete table, by levels, of all artifacts found in thl"' fill of rooms and kivas was prepared, but its publication \vQuld have b('en H'ry expensive and not warranted by the additional information conveyed. Many of the facts will be found in Table 3 and critical points are commented upon in thi", text and in the di~cussion of the various groups of artifacts in Part III. Th(> full table, however. is on deposit at the Department of Anthropolugy. University of New Mexico. and may be consulted by any interested archaeologist.


In some cases this wind-deposited sand in the lower levels was very hard (semi-consolidated), possibly indicating a fairly considerable interval between the abandonment of the room and the collapse of the roof. In several rooms, (15, 19, 21) there was also a quantity of vegetal material (various weeds?) which may have been blown in through openings after rooms were abandoned. Above a level of from 2' to 3' were invariably found fallen-in wall stones and, usually, also fragments of roof materials. In no rooms (with the possible exception of rooms 3 and 9) was there clear evidence of water-sorted material, although in many, plaster from roof and perhaps from walls, appeared to have been consolidated into lumps by water action. In all rooms there was abundant wind-deposited material at essentially all levels, but the rooms at the north end of the mound were generally distinguished also by intentional fill, of refuse character. Rooms 16, 17, 19, and 23 showed particularly large amounts of refuse. Miscellaneous human bones were found in rooms 4, 8 (infant and adult), 9 (infant), 10, 16, 18, 22. The remains (except those designated otherwise) were of adults, but only (at most) five or six scattered bones without accompanying grave furniture appeared. Burials (differentiated by remnants of most of an individual and by accompanying objects) were discovered in the following rooms: 1 (7), 2 (10), 5 (3), 7 (1 adult, 1 infant), 16 (1 adult, 1 child), 18, 20, 21 (see Table 3). Only rooms 3, 19, and 23 failed to reveal any human bones whatever. In most cases there was evidence that pits had been dug in the fill to accommodate the burials. In room 5 the floor was slightly but definitely pitted. In some rooms, especially certain of those to the north, such as 5, 7, and 8, the small quantity of sherds, except those definitely associated with burials, and other refuse suggested that these rooms had filled to a considerable depth from purely natural sources before the burial pits were dug in them.

Openings.-These were of the same general character as those described for Bc 50 except that no wooden uprights or lintels were discovered. The following rooms showed no openings: 1, 2, 5, 20, 21, 22, 23. The following showed plugged openings: 3, 4, 7 (2), 8, 15, 18, 19. The following showed open "windows" or doorways: 7 (2), 9 (tau-shaped), 10 (2, one of "keyhole" type), 11, 16 (2), 17. There was no uniformity in directional orientation. The distribution suggests readjustment and rearrangement in the center of the pueblo as opposed to the two extremities.

Plaster.-No plaster was observed in rooms 1, 3, 8, 10, 11, 18,21,22. Other rooms showed greater or lesser wall areas plastered with one to three layers of adobe-laden sand, often smoke-blackened. The thickness of layers, and the coarseness varied within narrow limits. The plaster in room 2 appeared to have included gypsum. There was red paint on the plaster in the substructure under room 16.


Floors.-The description published for Bc 50 applies generally here except that no use of carbonaceous shale was observed. Floors were generally thin. Room 4 had a neat floor of stone flags (the blocks averaging 9" by 5" by 2" thick), set in packed adobe, the whole covered with plaster an inch or more thick. The following rooms showed distinct floors: 3 (5),5 (3),8 (3),17 (2),18 (2). These floor levels were all within the superstructure and were never separated by more than 6". Floor variations, like those of masonry, are here probably more representative of individual than of cultural differences. Substructure floor levels were reached in rooms 17, 22, and 23 at Ill", 66", and 80", respectively, beneath the surface. Rooms 8, 9, and 19 showed 2" or 3" above floors proper what we termed "occupation levels"-surfaces which had too little regularity and definitiveness to be called floors and which yet were differentiated from the fill. One floor in room 8 may have been blood-soaked. A considerable quantity of red ochre was scattered over the floor of room 19. No floors were reached in rooms 11, 16, 18, and 16 (sub).

Roofs.-There was no evidence as to roofs recovered from the following rooms: 1, 2, 5, 8, 10, 11, 20, 23. Fragments of roof materials or imprints in adobe found in rooms 3, 9, 15, 16 (superstructure), 19, 21, 22 (superstructure) gave evidence of construction of the sort described for Bc 50 superstructure roofs. Fragments of pine timbers were found in room 4. Room 18 showed portions of six vigas still in place. These were of cottonwood, as were the greater number of viga portions observed (including rotted fragments found in the substructure under room 17). Rooms 7 and 18 afforded sufficient materials upon which to base somewhat more precise statements. In room 7 were found seven pinyon beams, averaging 5" in diameter. Pieces of split juniper poles had been placed above and at right angles to these, and the juniper slabs had been crossed with a matting of horsetail reed tied together in groups of 7 with a straight twill of yucca fibre. In room 18 it was clear that the wooden portion of the roof had begun to fall in only after the room was somewhat more than half-filled with sand and with adobe from the roof. The roof had been formed of cottonwood beams, 4" in diameter, with juniper and pinyon branches at right angles to them. The juniper and pinyon branches were covered with 2" of adobe and this was covered with reeds (almost identical with that described for room 7) laid parallel to the cottonwood vigas.

Cists and Bins.-\Vith one exception, these were (as was the case in Be 50) found only at the south end of the pueblo. Rooms 19, 21, and 23 (superstructure) showed cists of the size and style described for Bc 50. (The top of the cist in room 21 was painted with red ochre.) Room 20 had hvo shallow bins lined with stones and plastered with adobe. Room 4, however, presented a sub-floor, cist-like cache of olla shape and with a lid (like that found on the cist in room 21) of a cir-


cular piece of laminated sandstone. It contained charred corn, charcoal, sherds. The diameter of the mouth was 9", that of the body about 13"; the depth beneath the lid was 18".

Fireplaces.-Firepits were found in the following rooms: 7, 8 (2), 9, 15, 16, 21 (2). None were found in the substructures. There was a tendency toward central location but no real regularity. All were ovaloI' rectangular in shape. Four were lined with stone slabs (including a "scoop" metate in the fire pit in room 15), and the remainder with burned plaster. The linings projected very slightly above the floor. The contents in room 15 included burned animal bones. There was no uniformity in size, greatest lengths ranging from 15" to 23".

Special Structural Features.-In room 4 there was a bench in the southeast corner constructed of stones and adobe and surfaced with adobe. It was 10" high and 11" by 16". This proved to be an extension of a wall of room 17-sub. In room 9 there was a large block of stone in front of the door. Room 10 presented a step (5" high) below the level of the doorsill. Room 15 showed an adobe bench along the west wall, l' high and l' 9" wide. In room 16 there were two steps leading from the floor level to the doorway at the jog in the west wall, and a 10" offset in the north end of the east wall. In room 20 there was an irregular wall 11" high and c. 10" thick parallel to and 2" west of the east wall of the room. No wooden sills, lintels, or uprights were found in Bc 51.

SECTION C

ARCHITECTURAl, DETAILS OF KIVAS

General.-The position of kivas with relation to each other and to rooms can be seen in Map 1. Size, ground plan, and major architectural features can be observed from Fig. 5. As judged by the position of their wall bases with reference to adjacent room structures, kivas 1, 2, and 6 must have been largely subterranean, kivas 3 and 4 mainly above ground level. Kiva 5 must have been largely above ground with reference to the substructure rooms. All kivas had a single, smooth well-packed floor. None of the kivas revealed the deposit of young turkey bones behind the fire screen which characterized the kivas of Bc 50. The presence of animal bones in the kivas is discussed in Part III, Section H. It will be noted that, as in Bc 50, the architectural style of the kivas is not uniform. Neither pilasters nor "keyholes" are constant features, though present in some kivas. The fill of kivas 3, 4, 5, and 6 contained miscellaneous human bones, while a human mandible and skull were found on the floor of kivas 1 and 6, respectively.

Kiva l.-(See Plate 3A.) The depth from the top of the east pilaster to the floor was 83", from the ground surface to the floor at the north edge of the kiva (directly opposite the "keyhole") 98". The fill appeared to be mainly natural, being composed of almost alternate


h:YA 6

FIGURE 5-GROUND PLANS OF KIVAS

layers of wind-blown sand and stratified, water-sorted sand and clay. Manos and hammerstones were found in the fill. The kiva had apparently filled in to a depth of about 4' before there was a general collapse of the roof. At this level was found one beam 15' 4" long and 5" in diameter, together with many fragments of cottonwood vigas imbedded in a mass of coarse clay which presumably included disintegrated plaster and roof material. The deeper levels contained a good many rocks fallen in from the walls. The three feet immediately below the surface contained approximately as many sherds as all the rest of the lower fill. The location of the kiva and the character of the fill both suggested that essentially all of the sherds had been washed into the kiva from the surface of the mound above.

The masonry of the walls above the banquette was rather poor: irregularly shaped stones 6" to 10" long, set in mortar with occasional shale fillers. The masonry below the banquette was notably better than that abo,-:e it. Courses were straighter. It was a smaller, better selected shale laid with filler slabs. A trough metate had been used to repair the wall above the banquette on the west side.

Plaster still adhered in a number of places. Seven layers were counted in the recess.

The cist was 10%" deep, 40" above the fioor. It was rectangular, olastered within, and contained an eight-row corncoo.


t\IVA I

0'lci.' ~2olJ":·~''-_-"b=d,sFff.T

KIVA 4 " IVA 5 I'IIVA 6

KEY· ::.~.~ ~~~~~~; ::;%£~AJ:'f!:OPl2:~~~

FIGURE 5-GROUN'D PLANS OF KIVAS


Very little evidence as to the roof was found. Fragments of cottonwood vigas appeared in the lower levels of the fill, and one beam 15' 4" long and 5" in diameter was found 4' below the surface.

The side walls of the ventilator tunnel were made up of small pieces of shaly sandstone, averaging about an inch in thickness. The mouth of the tunnel had a shaped sill and a shaped lintel of sandstone. For 54" from the outside wall the tunnel was roofed with half-round wooden beams about 4" across. These were laid fiat side down, side by side, extending the whole way across. A human mandible, an antelope skull, and other animal bones were found upon the floor of the ventilator tunnel.

The deflector was 17" high at the west end, 13" at the east. The firepit was filled with ashes. It was not rock-lined. In the kiva wall, 63 1,-2" west of the "keyhole," and 17" beneath the

top of the wall was found a restorable pot (Exuberant Corrugated) together with fragments of charcoal and burned coal.

Kiva 2.-The depth from the top of the north wall of the kiva to the floor was 115". The general character of the fill was as in kiva 1 with these differences: the fill below 3' was almost entirely barren of sherds. Water-sorted material was found over most of the floor of the kiva. Four metates were found at depths of from 3' to 5' in positions which suggested that they might have formed part of the kiva wall which had partially fallen in. Half of a metate was also found at a depth of 67" and l' from the southwest wall.

The masonry was more uniform than in kiva 1. The stones were 4" to 8" long and 3" to 4" thick, set in mortar with small spalls also of sandstone.

Five layers of plaster were observed in places over the banquette and around the ventilator tunnel (which was 15" deep).

An olla neck (Exuberant Corrugated), lined with adobe, was set in the floor, presumably as a sipapu.

The position of ten substantial fragments of pinyon roof vigas strongly suggested some sort of a cribbed roof structure but the evidence was insufficient. Most of the viga remnants touched or actually rested upon the floor. There was a pile of massed twigs of juniper and pinyon between one set of cross beams. Only the red sandstone bases of the deflector remained.

The firepit was filled with ashes and partially lined with flat stones and partially with mortar which had burned to a brick r:ed.

The cist was 7" deep, plastered within. A sandstone lid (for the cist?) and a weaving batten (?) were

found on the floor. The fireplace outside the kiva wall (see Fig. 5) was l' below the

surface of the mound, formed of 4 flat stones set on edge, filled with sherds and ashes.


Kiva 3.-(8ee Plate 3B.) The wall had fallen markedly to the west, following the contour of the mound, and its top was only 31" from the kiva floor. On the east (here only was the bench intact) the top of the wall was 67" above the floor. The middle pilaster was 20" high. The fill appeared to be intentional, containing material very similar to that in the refuse mound, including bones of human infants and foetuses. The sherd content was so enormous that only a large representative sample was sacked and sorted. Fifty-three stone artifacts (principally manos and hammerstones) were found in the fill. Above this fill and over the top of the western, broken-down walls was a thin layer of adobe, possibly representing an old surface partly formed by wash from adjacent structures after kiva 3 was abandoned. Over this adobe layer was water-sorted material.

The masonry was homogeneous and regular, of large stones with small spalls. No plaster was observed nor was there any evidence of roofing. The height of the ventilator shaft was 27". Extensive search failed to reveal any evidence of a firepit.

Kiva 4.-(8ee Plate 3B.) The existing walls extended 4%' above the floor, and the bench 21/2' above the floor. The fill appeared to be largely intentional. There were large quantities of sherds and a great deal of charcoal. In general character, composition of the fill could scarcely have been distinguished from that of various upper portions of the refuse mound except for the large stones, presumably fallen in from the kiva wall. Below the aeolian deposits at the top three sets of water-sorted layers could be distinguished, separated by strata of sand and charcoal. The sand layer between roughly 2' and 3' above the floor contained many building stones and was very hard, almost consolidated. That between I' and 2' contained some stones. Both of these layers contained chunks of adobe, presumably products of roof plaster disintegration.

Although all masonry was of Hawley's Blocks without Core Type, that of bench, kiva wall, and straight walls to north and east each tended to be of distinguishable styles.

No plaster was observed (except in the ventilator shaft) and no wood from the roof was found. The ventilator shaft was 15" deep beneath the kiva floor. It had 2 wooden lintels, 6" in circumference. Considerable pitting did not bring to light any trace of a firepit.

Kiva 5.-As is evident from Map I and Fig. 5, only a small portion of kiva 5 could be excavated without destroying other structures. The kiva wall was 66" high, the top of the bench 49" above the floor. The lower 18" of the fill appeared aeolian, with indications that the room had filled from east to west. The upper fill was made up of vegetal material, fallen wall stones, and putatively intentional deposition. There was some stratification but no evidence of water-sorting. There were pine needles on the floor.


The masonry of the east wall could not be examined because of the heavy coatings of plaster which it was thought best to leave for careful removal in another season's excavation. The masonry of the west wall was of the Blocks without Core Type, the blocks being unusually crudely shaped and varying in size from 6" by 3" by 7" to 12" by 6" by 11".

The cist, and recess, and bench had several coats of sandy plaster and the east kiva wall at least 13 layers, the outermost of which was heavily smoke-blackened. The 2nd and 3rd coats revealed partially destroyed murals, mainly of white gypsum but with traces of blue and red paint. A crude, unrealistic representation of a human figure with incised eyes and human hands could be distinguished as well as a design suggesting a headdress.

The cist in the bench 38" above the floor contained 3 sherds of Upper Gila Corrugated, 1 of Tusayan Polychrome, 1 of Chaco Corrugated.

The only data on the roof were provided by a few impressions in adobe in the lower fill and in the ventilator tunnel of beams varying from c. 3" to c. 6" in diameter.

Kiva 6.-The floor was, on an average, 6' below the top of the side wall, with bench 3' above the floor on the north side. The fill appeared to be mainly unintentional, composed of the cave-in from the walls and roof (numerous wood fragments) and wind-deposited material. Sherds were comparatively few in number. The pieces of broken metates may represent intentional fill or may have been part of the walls. There was charcoal and ash in the lower 3' of fill but they gave the appearance of having been wind-deposited.

Considerable plaster remained in the ventilator tunnel, on the platform of the "keyhole," in bench and kiva walls. On the southwest wall 31 layers were counted. Layer 5 showed the murals depicted in Fig. 6. The designs (all in white except as indicated) are drawn to scale-separating distances are indicated by arrows and figures.

Kiva roof remains were fragmentary. The roof of the ventilator shaft, however, was in excellent condition. Nine juniper poles, c. 1112" in diameter, had been laid at intervals of several inches across the shaft. Over these at right angles was a 3-layer thickness of horsetail reeds (Equisetum) covered with a 2" layer of adobe mud. This was surmounted by split slabs of juniper laid at right angles to the reeds. Several heavy stones were on top of the juniper slabs.

On the kiva floor, against the north wall near the deflector, was found the skull of an adult male with a fracture (which appeared to be pre-mortem) in the pterion region, anterior to stephanion. There were no indications in the kiva fill of a burial pit, and the sandy earth in and around the skull seemed clearly to have been wind-deposited. There appeared to be the marks of a stone knife


012~4~ 19 INCHES SCALI: OF Ml/RALS

A-----.-------.--------------,.---------~=r-----

~ 46''----------------.1

FIGUltE (i-MURALS IN KIVA G

on the basilar portion of the occipital. In the room fill, about l' above the skull, were found the 2nd and 3rd cervical vertebrae in the position of articulation. Within a few inches of these were found the 6th and 7th right ribs. On the kiva floor was also found the skull of a dog.

Discussion.-The most noteworthy facts about the kivas (apart from sherd evidence) would seem to be: (1) the great variety in architectural features, (2) the presence of human bones in 5 out of 6 kivas, (3) the presence of murals in 2 kivas.

SECTION D

POTTERY EVIDENCE

Whole Forms.'-A list by types may well form the basis for the discussion: 11 Escavada: 2 jars, 1 effigy jar, 2 bowls, 1 ladle, 1 bowl or dipper,l pitcher, 3 small effigies-dog's (?) head, mouse (?), bird (?); 10 Gallup: 5 pitchers, 2 bowls, 1 dipper, 1 effigy, 1 worked sherd; 9 McElmo: 4 bowls, 2 ladles, 1 bowl or dipper, 1 pitcher, 1 frog effigy; 7 Red Mesa: 3 bowls, 1 pitcher, 1 ladle, 1 jar, 1 effigy; 4 Exuberant:

1. This category covers all 'which were sufficiently complete or sufficiently restor .. able to be recorded in the field catalog of artifacts. It ,vill be convenient to include in the discussion the few such n-ot found in rooms and kivas.


A

9'2~4$ 'piNClilS SCALe OF M()R.AJ.S

A----.-----~~------------r._--------~r_----

_--.s'---ol ±=====~~====~----~ .. ------------~----~

F,GURE 6-MuRALS IN KIVA 6

40 ] THEl UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO

2 jars, 1 pitcher, 1 bowl; 4 Wingate Black on Red: 3 bowls, 1 worked sherd; 2 Lino: 1 dipper, 1 effigy jar; 2 Upper Gila Corrugated; 1 bowl each of Sunset Red, La Plata Black on White, Deadman's Black on Red. The Red Mesa ladle, the worked sherds, the Escavada mouse (?) effigy, and one pot of Exuberant Corrugated came from the debris of the refuse mound, while a bowl and pitcher of Red Mesa and the pitcher of Exuberant Corrugated were with the cist burial 60/31. All other vessels came from rooms and kivas, and the vast majority of these were associated with burials (c/. Table 3).

In general, the distribution of whole vessel types is roughly similar to that of sherd percentages. (See Table 2.) Escavada and Gallup are the two most prominent types, if we take the sherds found in rooms and kivas as a whole. The obvious discrepancy is in the relative unimportance of Exuberant and Lino in the collection of whole vessels. This, however, is clearly due to the fact that these utility wares were not frequently used as grave furniture and hence had small chance of preservation in whole form. (The only exceptions are the Exuberant vessels with burials 17 and 31.) Another difference which attracts attention is that, while there are more vessels of McElmo than of Red Mesa, there are very distinctly more sherds of the latter type. Since it seems likely that many of the burials, at least, date from a period after the rooms in question had been abandoned, the question therefore arises: is McElmo perhaps a pottery type which appears relatively late at Bc 51? This appears very unlikely, however, when we note that a McElmo bowl was found on the floor of the substructure of Room 17. Another, found beneath the superstructure floor of Room 16 contained wind-stratified sand, suggesting that it had been abandoned in situ. Moreover, McElmo vessels were found associated with Red Mesa and Deadman's Black on Red forms-both supposedly rather early types.

Since association of vessels of two or more different pottery types with a single burial generally means at least some overlap in the period of usage of these types, let us note the instances given by our data: Escavada, Gallup, Red Mesa, McElmo, and Upper Gila Corrugated all occur together in one or more cases. Escavada and Sunset Red occur in association, as do Wingate Black on Red, McElmo, and Deadman's Black on Red. McElmo is, in a sense, the most omnipresent ware at Bc 51, for whole forms appear in essentially all parts of the site and at the most varied levels. In contrast, no complete vessels of Escavada or Gallup were found in the rooms north of kiva 5 nor in any of the substructures.

Sherds

An Expe1'irnent.--Since sherds of certain types possess the property of fracturing more easily than those of other types, and since sherds from loci where there has been unusual weight, pressure, or

TABI,E 2

ROOM AND KIVA SHERD PERCENTAGES

Room Sub-Floor 3'-6' Sub-Floor O'~3' Floor Level Fill or Substructure

Kiva Floor

--- ------~81 MID S5 LP3 M4D L23 K17 X13 X40 S36 G8 C6 S33 X31 M9 G7 n (128) S3 R3 E.5 C.2 M4 E4 L4 (52) C5 E5 W4 R3 L2 16 None reached

W.2 (430) KI (609) -~-- ---

X27 L25 S16 MI3 X5·1 S25 R8 L4 X32 S26 G13 E7 X38 S26 GIl M: GIl R3 K2 F1 W4 G4 (24) L7 M6 K3 C3 WI 17 L7 K2 E2 WI I LP1 E.5 C.2 R1 F.5 DB.25 (89 ) (612) U.25 (392)

---'--~S7 S13 KS G4 1.34 M31 S14 X10 X50 G20 W10 S10 M22 1.21 SIS Rll X38 L24 S19 ]/

\12 X2 R2 Dl K5 G3 R2 C1 E1 RIO (10) G9 X9 K6 E3 WI 22 G6 K2 WI E ~Pl EI WA LP.3 F.3 D.I 1"1 LB.3 (328) (93) (250) (S85)

L29 M23 X15 S14 X23 S23 1.15 Gl5 X22 S20 G15 Ll4 X61 M15 ,813 (

GI0 K7 E1 F1 ES M8 R5 K3 Mll R8 E4 K2 23 E2 1.1 WI (lH W5 (232) WI (75) W2 C2 MV.6 D.S

(341) --~--~-

:t\

L94 LP6 (17) R23 X23 S18 G13 X26 S23 L12 Gl2 (a) Percentages are W9 E4 L4 C4 K2 E7 M7 R3 C3 W3 presence of an "1

I

(47) K2 1".6 D.2 (676) do not add to prec and R.5 that thE parenthesis at th

----X44 L40 S16 (25) X38 S27 LID GlO S27 X25 L15 GIl (b) The following kel

M4 R4 K2 E2 W2 MIO E5 R3 K2 A-Abajo Black Wall Sherds

(48) W.8 F.6 C.S (S35) C-Chaco Black

n --,--~------ X36 S19 M17 Ll4 X25 823 1.14 M14

I

D-Deadman's ! X35 S23 E18 M8 S58 ]'vI17 L17 XS C5 G3 1"3 U2 K1 G14 C5 W2 M2 G7 L3 W3 FS DB-Deadman's ! (12) Dl W.5 E.5 (218) E2 (44) LPI (74) E-McElmo Bla,

---- F-Sunset Red n 1---- G-Gallup Black

G84 X16 (S) L27 X25 S22 G9 X34 Gl7 812 E10

I

X31 822 G10 1.9 IG-Incised Gray - --- --~--.. ------- M8 K3 D2 El 1"1 1.9 M7 W7 K2 R1 R8 M6 E5 W5 C2 K-Kana-a Gray n K42 G37 Ell Xli W.S C.S 0.3 (S20) U.S C.5 (235) D.5 K.5 U.S LP.2 L-Lino Gray *

(19) F.2 T.03 (3370) LB-Lino Black 0

- LP-La Plata BI,

Ventilator Fill L50 RIg S17 M6 X34 S25 1.21 G9 S24 X24 1.14 Gl2 M-Red Mesa B m C2 E2 K2 F2 M5 El F1 01 M7 R4 E3 W3 01 MV-Mesa Verde

K19 S19 G19 E19 (64) (79) Kl LBl Fl DA O-Sandstone B

LI0 W8 R6 (31) DB.1 U.02 PR.01 P-Puerco Blac~

- T.OI LP.Ol 0.002 PR-Puerco Blac1

S33 G30 K14 E14 (4780) R-Chaco Corrul

C5 R5 (21) ---I

---~-.~--- S-Escavada Blf T-Tnsayan Pol

-

I U-Upper Gila l

S63 X25 L13 (8) I W-Wingate Bl' X-Exuberant 0

TABLE 2

ROOM AND KIVA SHERD PERCENTAGES

Room Room Room or Floor Level Fill or 8ub-Floor 3'-6' 8ub-Floor O'-S' Floor Level Fill or 8ubstructure 8ubstructure Superstructure 8uperstructure

Kiva Kiva Kiva Floor Fill Floor Fill

XS8 822 G19 R6 XS2 828 GI7 R9 L81 MI0 85 LP3 M40 L23 K17 X13 X40 836 G8 C6 833 X31 M9 G7 X47 M16 G14 814 X56 L17 810 M8 S WS K4 L2 E2 C2 W4 K3 L2 E2 C2 1 Xl (128 ) 83 R3 E.S C.2 M4 E4 L4 (52) CS E5 W4 R3 L2 16 None reached E4 L4 K2 (51) G4 KS LP.7 E.7

. Ml (104) Ml (127) W.2 (430) K1 (609) W.S U.S (289)

X36 818 Gl6 M14 L22 821 M13 RlS X27 L25 816 M13 X54 825 B8 L4 X32 826 GIS E7 X38 826 GIl Mll X31 82S L19 G15 834 X32 GlO L10 829 X27 E15 GI0 9 L8 E4 K2 PR2 XI2 G9 E5 W2 2 Gll R3 K2 FI W4 G4 (24) L7 M6 KS CS WI 17 L7 K2 E2 WI D1 M6 E2 D2 W2 E5 M5 F5 (41) L9 M5 WS LP.8

(50) Kl Cl D.6 F.4 LPI E.5 C.2 Rl F.5 DB.25 (89) (48) K.8 (79) PR.2 LP.2 (496) (612) U.25 (392)

L31 R16 831 Mll 822 X21 L12 GI0 L67 813 K6 G4 L34 M31 814 XI0 X50 G20 W10 810 M22 L21 816 Rll X38 L24 819 M6 868 X16 LI0 M5 10 X9 E7 G7 F2 W2 E10 R8 M8 D4 S M2 X2 R2 D1 K5 G3 R2 Cl E1 RIO (10) G9 X9 K6 E3 WI 22 G6 K2 WI El Gl (94)

K2 (55) K2 W2 Fl (133) LP1 E1 W.4 LP.3 F.3 D.l Fl LB.3 (328) (93) (250) (385)

822 R18 L16 MIS X29 820 M13 Lll L29 M23 X15 814 X23 82S L15 G15 X22 820 GIS L14 X61 M15 ,813 G7 L25 825 X22 M12 X30 828 L20 MI0 X48 820 G12 M8 15 X9 E7 G4 F2 G10 R5 E5 K2 4 G10 K7 El Fl E8 M8 R5 K3 MIl R8 E4 K2 23 E2 L1 WI (118) Gll K2 Fl W.7 G8 Kl El F.5 U.5 LS E4 WI 0.5

DB2 L2 K2 (55) WI DBI Ul (84) W5 (232) WI (75) W2 C2 MV.6 D.S E.7 C.7 D.2 U.2 (194) C.2 LP.2 (357)

I (341) (461)

None reached X42 L19 812 Mll Room G9 U6 KS E3

NOTE8 IN EXPLANATION OF TABLE 18 (174) \ 839 L22 X15 M10 X25 821 L12 GI0

I L94 LP6 (17) R23 X23 818 Gl3 X26 823 L12 G12 (a) Percentages are given here only to the nearest integer. This fact (or the

20 G7 K4 C.9 W.9 E9 M8 R5 W4 K3 7 W9 E4 L4 C4 K2 E7 M7 R3 C3 W3 presence of an "unknown" sherd) accounts for the fact that certain columns R.9 (107) C2 D.4 F.2 PR.2 (47) K2 F.S D.2 (67S) do not add to precisely 100. 830 means that the percentage of Escavada was 30,

U.l LP.1 A.l and R.5 that the percentage of Chaco Corrugated was .5. The number in (897) parenthesis at the end of each list represents the total number of sherds.

X42 L22 814 Ell X34 815 Lll RIO X44 L40 816 (25) XS8 827 L10 G10 827 X25 L15 Gll (b) The following key letters represent the corresponding types: 21 W6 G3 MS (36) G8 M6 WS E5 K3 8 M4 R4 K2 E2 W2 M10 E5 R3 K2

A-Abaio Black on Red C1 DIal (525) Wall 8herds

(48) W.8 F.6 C.S (635) C-Chaco Black on White

X17 Gl3 D12 812 X28 L18 817 G13 Room X3S 819 M17 L14 X25 823 L14 M14 X35 823 E18 M8 D-Deadman's Black on Red

Kiva E12 Lll Mll R7 MI0 R5 C3 E2 19 9 858 M17 L17 X8 C5 G3 F3 U2 K1 GI4 C5 W2 M2 G7 L3 W3 F3 DB-Deadman'. Black on White

1 K2 Fl WI (122) W2 K1 D.4 F.6 (12) D1 W.5 E.5 (218) E2 (44) LP1 (74) E-McElmo Black on White DB.2 G.2 (1008) F-8unset Red • Often Lino Fugitive Red, but since

Room G--Gallup Black on White the red is often more or less gone L27 827 X18 E9 822 L21 X20 GlO 4 G84 XIS (S) L27 X25 822 G9 X34 Gl7 812 E10 X31 822 G10 L9 IG--Incised Gray Lino Gray and Lino Fugitive Red are

Kiva G9 M9 (22) M8 R7 E3 W3 K3 Kiva Room K42 G37 Ell XlI

M8 K3 D2 E1 F1 L9 M7 W7 K2 R1 R8 MS E5 W5 C2 K-Kana-a Gray lumped together as Lino Gray. 2 MVI F.8 D.4 C.2 3 W.3 C.3 0.3 (320) U.5 C.5 (235) D.5 K.5 U.3 LP.2 L-Lino Gray *

LP.2 (474) 20 (19 ) F.2 T.03 (3370) LB-Lino Black on Gray LP-La Plata Black on Gray t Tusayan Polychrome has recently

X28 L17 817 Gll X26 823 L19 M16 Ventilator Fill L50 R19 817 M6 X34 825 L21 G9 824 X24 L14 Gl2 M-Red Mesa Black on White been divided into Tusayan Polychrome Kiva M9 KS E6 F6 G7 E4 F2 Kl D1 Kiva Kiva G2 C2 E2 K2 F2 M5 E1 F1 01 M7 R4 E3 W3 C1 MV-Mesa Verde Black on White and Citadel Polychrome. These two

5 (47) U.5 W.5 (224) 4 3 K19 819 G19 E19 (64) (79) K1 LB1 F1 D.4 O--Sandstone Black on Orange types cannot be distinguished on small L10 W8 R6 (31) DB.1 U.02 PR.01 P-Puerco Black on White sherds. It is probable that some or

T.01 LP.01 0.002 PR-Puerco Black on Red all of these sherds may be Citadel f-- (4780) R-Chaco Corrugated Polychrome. Kiva 833 G30 K14 E14 8-Escavada Black on White

823 L21 X20 G17 X99 887 LS3 G3S 4 C5 R5 (21) T-Tusayan Polychrome t f-----Kiva M8 K3 D2 W2 T1 M31 E10 W7 K5 Kiva U-Upper Gila Corrugated 6 LP1 E1 (95) R5 D3 F3 C2 T1 6 863 X25 L13 (8) W-Wingate Black on Red

LP1 (352) X-Exuberant Corrugated

1937 EXCAVATIONS, Bc 50-51, CHACO CANYON, N". M. r 41

other physical disturbance may have broken into smaller fragments, there is perhaps a possibility that percentage differences under some circumstances might be deceptive. A priori, it seems plausible that when dealing with large samples the cancellation of plus and minus factors would obviate these difficulties, but I know of no empirical examination of the question. As a small test, C. T. R. Bohannon suggested that relative weights might be tried. We were aware, of course, that using weights would bring other irrelevancies and difficulties into the picture, but the experiment seemed, nevertheless, worth trying. Time and the pressure of other duties did not permit us to carry the experiment to a satisfactory conclusion, but the simple facts on samples of 8 pottery types are presented for whatever of interest, stimUlation, or amusement they may induce:

-------~-

Pottery Number of Weight in Relative Weight in Type Sherds Ounces Ounces per 100 Sherds

Exuberant 834 359 43.0 Escavada --------- 595 200 33.6 Lino ____________ 435 131 30.1 Red Mesa ________ 276 90 32.6 Gallup 194 92 47.4 McElmo 75 32 42.6

(Sherds came from various quarters of the excavation and all were soaked overnight in water to equalize saturation.) It will be evident that in some situations rank order taken by weight and by percentage could be expected to be different.

Sherd Percentages.-The evidence is given in Table 2," but since the table is very compact, some analysis is perhaps called for.

The outstanding contrast with the sherd data from the refuse mound is probably the position of Lino. As Dr. Hawley pointed out, Lino is there the numerically ranking type at all levels examined, although appreciably more predominant in the lower levels. In the rooms and kivas, however, Lino is in majority at floor level only in room 10 and kiva 2 and in the fill of rooms 9 and 23 (sub). It is second ranking type at floor level in rooms 21 and 22 (sub) and kivas 5 and 6; also in the fill of rooms 16 (super) and 18 and of kivas 1 and 2. We note, however, that it is unequivocally predominant at

2. A table was prepared which showed all fill percentages; by 1 foot levels (and with separate entries for the stratigraphy column). Comments based on analysis of this table appear in the text. Not only, however, would the printing of such a table in its entirety have been prohibitively expensive, but such an arrangement is, up to a point, actually misleading for it tacitly assumes that rooms were filled in strictly E:'ien layers at right angles to the room ,",~alIs. This first table (and the original laboratory identification sheets) may be examined at the University of New Mexico and a copy of the table is on deposit at the Peabody l'vluseum of Harvard University.


the 3' to 6' sub-floor level in rooms 1 and 3 and the ranking type at the 0-3' sub-floor level of rooms 3, 4, and 7, and kivas 3 and 4 (and a close second at this level in rooms 1, 2, and 8). One simple generalization can be made with confidence: as one descends to the lower levels in the northern portion of Bc 51 (and the adjacent refuse mound) Lino rises sharply and unmistakably in prominence. It seems plausible to connect this fact with the hypothesis that the Lino Gray and Lino Fugitive Red pottery types were those manufactured in greatest quantity by the pithouse dwellers.

In the rooms and kivas the ranking position is taken by another utility ware, Exuberant Corrugated, which is in majority at floor level in all save rooms 7, 10, 15, 20, 22 (super), 23 (super) and kivas 2 and 6, and in about an equal number of the fills. Escavada is the most prominent painted type, having the ranking percentage at floor level in 4 rooms and 2 kivas and in the fill of 4 rooms and 1 kiva and being second at floor level in 3 rooms and 1 kiva and in the fill of 10 rooms and 3 kivas. Red Mesa is distinctly less prominent than in Bc 50, for it is first only in one sub-floor level and in the fill of one room, and at floor level appears in the 2nd and 3rd categories but 3 times. Gallup runs more frequently than Red Mesa in the 3rd and 4th brackets but, in contrast to Bc 50, never attains 1st place.

No single floor level can be assigned to a Red Mesa pottery complex. Almost without qualification, the rooms and kivas are characterized by that pottery complex of which Exuberant and Escavada are the outstanding types, while sub-floor levels show a consistent rise in percentage of Lino and (in many cases) of Red Mesa. The only putatively trade wares found, which have not been discussed or referred to by Dr. Hawley," are Deadman's Black on White: and Puerco Black on White:

Sherd evidence affords no unequivocal indications as to relative age of the various rooms and kivas, though possibly a somewhat greater age of kiva 5 may be indicated by the absence of Gallup and other putatively late types in significant percentages. It is noteworthy that the pottery complexes of the substructure are hardly distinguishable from those of upper rooms, generally. The rise of Red Mesa to 2nd place at floor level and of Lino to 1st in floor fill of l'oom 23 (sub) prompted investigation, but the use of the chi-squared test of significance gave odds of less than 1 in 3 that the difference was meaningful. Similarly, there is no statistical warrant for taking the position of Lino in rooms 9 and 10 and in kiva 2 very seriously. (The samples in room 9 and kiva 2 are so small that, in any case, inference would be

3. See Part I. Section A (and the pages of Brand, ct, al,. there cited) and Part III, Section A. (Dr. Hawley is, of course, responsible for all pottery identifications in this section.)

4. See Colton and Hargrave. 1937, pp. 208-9. 5. See Hawley, 1936, p. 34.


hazardous in the extreme). \Vall sherd data (unfortunately very limited) does not change the general picture.

Careful study of percentages by levels indicated a probably significant rise in Gallup in the upper levels (and also in the northern as opposed to the southern rooms of the ruin). Although found at floor and sub-floor levels associated with Red :Uesa, Gallup is definitely more prominent at surface or near surface levels. For example the 17 sherds in the firepit to the southwest of the surface of kiva 2 gave: Gallup, 59; Chaco Corrugated, 23; Exuberant, 12; Deadman's Black on Red, 6. Similarly, though less consistently, Chaco Black on White and Chaco Corrugated bulk larger in the northern area and in levels nearer the surface.

Analyzing the fill by levels and taking a pottery complex as defined by the three most numerous types, 90 pel' cent of the complexes by levels are made up of varying permutations of these types: Exuberant, Escavada, Lino, Gallup, Red Mesa (with Exuberant present in some position in more than 95 per cent of instances). Into roughly 10 per cent of the complexes by levels one of the following enters: McElmo, Wingate Black on Red, Chaco Corrugated, Sunset Red, Chaco Black on White, Kana-a Black on White, La Plata Black on White.

In the sum, the data of Table 2 affords some confirmation of the general stratigraphic sequence of the Lino, Red Mesa, and Escavada pottery complexes posited in Part I, Section A, but suggest that the period when floor and room and kiva fill sherds accumulated fell within the ascendancy of the Escavada complex. The evidence indicates considerable trade.

SECTION E

DATING AND DISCUSSION

Dating.-Many wood specimens were obtained (the great majority of juniper and cottonwood), but they were almost all rather badly decayed. Dr. Hawley informs me that "most of the pine specimens were too complacent in growth to be dateable; they had grown on too well-watered land to be very dependent on annual precipitation." Two beams from room 7 were, however, dated by Dr. Hawley and checked by Dr. Haury. The one gave a bark date of 1043, the other 1077 plus 1 to 10. Two walls of room 7 showed l'efacing on the interior in masonry of the Narrow Banded with Core Type. In Dr. Hawley's opinion, the later date very probably indicates when the room was repaired.

These two dates cannot, of course, be taken as representative of the ruin's principal period of floruit. They give evidence only that one room was used at least as late as these dates. Nevertheless the presence of Sunset Red potsherds persistently on the floor level of 4 rooms and 3 kivas (and in the fill of most other rooms and kivas) gives some ground for suspecting that a considerable portion of


Bc 51 was used at least as late as 1050. Colton and Hargrave 1 date this pottery type as c. 1050 to 1200 and, while these authors are careful to insist that the dates assigned be not taken too seriously, it is well known that most of the Flagstaff region pottery types have been scrupulously dated by association with tree ring chronology. On the other hand, Deadman's Black on Red, a type dated by the same authors at 750 to 900,2 is found at floor level in one of the same structures, as well as in other locations. Perhaps the few latter sherds are intrusive or perhaps pottery types have greater overlaps than pottery specialists have tended to recognize. The latter possibility gains weight when we remember that whole vessels of such types as Red Mesa and Gallup, Escavada and Sunset Red were found associated with single burials.

All in all, neither tree ring nor pottery evidence would justify more than the veriest guess as to the interval between the first building in Bc 51 and the final abandonment. One point of great interest should, however, be exulicitly made. The weight of the data clearly falls in favor of the hypothesis that Bc 51 was occupied (or, at very least, used) synchronously (in part) with the occupation of the great pueblos such as Pueblo Bonito and Chetro Ket!.

Except for the evidence from masonry types (and somewhat confirmed by pottery) that the northern end of Bc 51 was somewhat more recent in construction and usage than the southern, very little can be said even as to the relative age of various portions of the ruin. Although excavation of the substructure rooms was not completed in all cases, the evidence, so far as it goes, is against their being definitely of an earlier period, as seemed to be the case in Bc 50. Here there was not the sharp distinction in masonry type and in associated pottery (nor did other artifacts show consistent differences between sub- and superstructure levels). Certainly there is no evidence of an appreciable time distinction between the lower and the upper rooms. Indeed, judging by the comparative insensitivity of pottery and artifact complexes and by negative evidence, there seems no reason to believe that the rooms of Bc 51 were used over any very long time span.

Discussion.-The excavation of the rooms and kivas of Bc 51 amplified and extended slightly the range of variation, but hardly altered significantly the picture obtained by the excavation of Bc 50. A vailable data do suggest that the construction of Bc 51 perhaps began later and probably continued longer.

One of the most interesting features of Bc 51, as of Bc 50, is

1. Colton and Hargrave, 1937, p. 163. 2. Ibid., p. 71.


that of the presence of a large number of burials in rooms. Dutton found no adult burials in the rooms of l.eyit Kin." Senter· has reviewed the reported facts as to room burials in Chetro Ketl, Pueblo Bonito, and Penasco Blanco. The striking circumstance is that the proportion of room burials to number of rooms is markedly greater

8,51

ROOM 5,6/1 ABOVE FLOOR

FH;unE 7-SCATTEitElJ BO:-:l':S IN ROOM 5

Pot 1, Red Mesa Black on \Vhitc; Pot 2, "!\1cElmo Ladle; Pot 3, Red Mesa Bird Form: Pot 4, McElmo Bowl; Pot 6, Deadman's Blaek on Ih-'d Bowl; Pot 7, \Vingate Bowl.

at Bc 50 to 51 than for other published Chaco sites and indeed for Southwestern sites generally. This fact induced many fruitless speculations on the part of staff members-such as the possible sigmficance of the closeness of Casa Rinconada. One possibility which did seem to merit close analysis was that the abandoned rooms of Be 51 were used as burial places by those living in the large pueblos across the canyon. However, study of the grave furniture indicates that it could well be a random sample of the pottery and other artifacts

3. Dutton. 1938, p. 66.

4. Brand, ct. al., 1937, PP. 141-145.

.. 00 .... S. 6" l'eOVE .,-00" FIGUit

E 7-SCAT'IEitED BONES IN ItOOJ>1 5


found at floor level and other loci in the ruin as a whole, except that the predominance of Gallup Black on White with burials 15, 17, 18, and 26 in room 2 may possibly indicate a period appreciably later than that characteristic of the ruin generally. In contrast, the Red Mesa and Deadman's Black on Red vessels associated with some of the room 5 burials should-according to accepted views of the period of these types-mean a relatively early date. Some burials, such as those in room 5 (see Fig. 7), were badly scattered. But the fact that some bones were found still in the position of articulation militates against the chance of secondary burial and points rather to disturbance by carnivores or rodents. This alternative gains force from the fact that certain isolated human bones found in the refuse heap appeared gnawed. In rooms 15 and 20 there was satisfactory evidence that burials had occurred before the roofs had collapsed.

TABLE 3-BURIALS-CULTURAL ASSOCIATIONS

Burial 1 Position Orienta- Location2 Wrappings Accompany- Pottery No. of Body tion ing Objects Vessels 3

60 partially E-W. Room 2 twilled mat mano 81 ft.exed. facing G1 on left side south

60 partially E-W. Room 2 cotton cloth, mano G1 (1) flexed facing twilled mat

9 southeast

60 extended E-W. Room 2 twilled mat. Sl. F1 facing below twined mat.

10 down burial feather 60/8 cloth

-~~--~-----

60 disturbed Room 5 twilled mat, 2 pieces of E2 feather malachite M1

12 cloth ---~--

60 disturbed Room 5 headboard lH. WI. U1

13 ---~~-

60 disturbed Room 5 twilled mat feather

14 cloth -- ---------~~--.

60 partial1y E-W. Room 2 twilled mat," two bone G5. E2.· ftex('d. facing below feather beads. MI. U1

15 on right side south and burial cloth coiled basket down (;0/10

60 partially E-W. Room 2 flexed, facing beneath

16 on right side south 1st floor level

-~~------------

60 (lxtended, E-W. Room 2 twilled mat corn cob, Xl on back facing below three bone

17 (child) up burial beads 60/22 headboard

----- ------ ------60 (>xt(>nded, E-W. Room 2 twilled mat 81

on back facing 18 south

60 disturbed Room 7 matting (adult & child)

19

TABLE 3-BURIALS-CULTURAL ASSOCIATIONS (Continued)

Burial 1 Position Orienta- Location 2 Wrappings Accompany-No. of Body tion ing Objects

60 extended, E-W. Room 2 twilled mat on back facing beside

22 (child) up burial r,O/18

60 extended N-S, Room 20 twined mat? bone awl, facing squash seed,

24 east and selenite down crystal

60 disturbed Room 18 "Bird's-nest" coiled

25 basket ( 7)

60 partially E-W, Hoom 2 matting turquoise, flexed, facing below headboard

26 on right side north 1st floor level

60 flexed E-W, Room 21 mano right facing

27 side south

60 flexed. on E-W, Room 2 left side facing below

29 (infant) south 1st floor

60 extended WoE, Trench 26 trough on back facing Section 7 metate

31 with right up arm under (See Plate 4) right pelvis (adult female)

60 partially SoN, Room 2 flexed, facing below

H2 on left side west 1st floor level

1. When burials are not included in Table 10, age and sex are indicated here. 2. All burials in rooms and Idvas are from Bc 51. Burials from room 1 are reported upon in Brand 3. The same key letters as those in Table 2 are used for pottery types. ' 4. The matting extended across the parietal, right temple, malar. ascending ramus of mandible

ribs, and elbow. 5. Burials 60/15, 60/17, and 60/78 were close together and the vessels ~nd sheeds Iist~d under 60/15

with 60/18. The Upper Gila Corrugated vessel may also have been assocIated wlth burIal 60/22.

Pottery Vessels 3

G2

W1, E1

M2, Xl

Sl

et al., 1937, Fig. 6.

over right scapula,

were also associated

PART III

SECTION A

ADDITIONS TO DESCRIPTIONS OF CHACO POTTERY TYPES

By FLORENCE HAWLEY

In 1934, accounts of a number of Chaco pottery types were published.' In 1936, I published systematic descriptions of the greater number of pottery types which had, up to that time, been recognized in the Chaco.' Illustrations and further descriptive material were published in 1937.3 The purpose of the present section is to name and describe one new type, to publish the first extended descriptions of two other types, and to make certain additions to previously published descriptions. The material on the new type will first be presented, then the data (following the alphabetic order of the names) on the types which have already appeared in print. The additions are, of course, to be construed as additions to (or slight modifications of) the previously published descriptions.

Sandstone Black on Orange:'-This new type which, for convenience in listing, was given this tentative name, was identified in 1937, and rechecked and submitted to several archaeologists for comment in 1938." These black and orange sherds have been found scattered through various levels of the refuse mound. It is not native but intrusive. The native provenience is not yet definitely known but it is suggested to be north of the Chaco, perhaps in the Four Corners country. The collection of Mr. J. Flora of Durango contains numerous specimens of this type, locally known as "Intrusive Redware." Earl Morris speaks of it as "Early Black on Red." Recently Paul Martin has spoken of it as "La Plata Black on Red." It's period has been given as BM III.

Paste: Dull orange, flecked with golden specks, presumably of yellow mica. Homogeneous, fine. Core often gray, otherwise orange.

Temper: Dark particles, apparently volcanic sand or crushed volcanic crystals predominant; occasionally some light colored fine sand.

Construction: One large sherd shows flat indentations suggesting finish by paddle and anvil.

Wall: c. 4 mm.

1. Hawley, 1934, pp. 35-38, Plates XV -XVI. 2. Hawley, 1936. Various page citations will appear later in this section. 3. Brand, et. ai., 1937, pp. 85-88, 16G-171, Plates XIV -XVII. 4. Perhaps a variation or a sub-type of Ahaja Red on Orange. 5. The kind consideration and aid of Haury, Brew, Morris, Colton. Mera, and

Nesbitt in checking and identifying cross finds is gratefully ackno\'::ledged.

[ 49 ]


Hardness: Ranges from 2 to 4.5, preponderantly 2.5 to 3.5." Finish: Interior well smoothed and covered with thin slip slightly

darker orange than paste. Bowl exterior unslipped or thinly slipped; marked with horizontal scraping streaks, uneven and slightly bumpy. Small golden flecks prominent on both surfaces which, in themselves, are usually of low luster. A few specimens show a fairly high polish, horizontal polishing marks, and a color more light brown than orange.

Designs: Simple unit designs of solid triangles and lines in very thin dull black paint (not yet tested for composition) on interior of bowls, often almost invisible. Designs set in large undecorated areas.

Lip: Direct, constricted, painted black. Shapes: Bowls predominant; jars. Comparison: The Bluff Black on Red shows more sand and less vol

canic temper, a thicker redder slip which contrasts with the thin orange slip of Sandstone, and thinner, duller paint in simpler, more scattered designs. The surface shows more glistening particles and is more orange than either Bluff or Deadman's Black on Red.

CHACO BLACK ON WHITE 7 (See Plates 5B and 11)

Hardness: 4.0 to 4.5, mainly 4.5. Comparison and discussion: The chief characteristic used in distinguish

ing this type from Gallup Black on White is its even, well-smoothed, well-polished, decorated surfaces.

CHACO CORRUGATEIJ

Comparison and Discussion: Paste, temper, and construction similar to Exuberant Corrugated except that paste and temper of Chaco Corrugated averages finer. Distinguished from Exuberant Corrugated on the basis of narrowness of coils and smallness of indentations. Rarely incised over coils and indentations.

ESCAVAIJA BLACK ON WHITEs (See Plates 8 and 11)

Hardness: 3.5 to 4.5, preponderance 4.5. Comparison and discussion: Escavada Black on White is recognized

primarily on the basis of lack of surface polish except for an occasional few streaks presumably caused by wear and usage. The surface is usually dull, sometimes rather granular, but smooth; the designs are usually rather heavy, in lines about 1~:' wide or in wide line elements combined with hatched elements in which the hatching lines are usually heavier and often more widely spaced than those used on later types. It is very similar to Puerco Black on White; in fact, the two may be variations of one type and further study may indicate advisability of combining them under one name. Escavada Black on White probably grew out of Red Mesa black on White.

6. Ceramic Hardness Standards of the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology. Cf. March, Standards of Pottery Description.

7. See Hawley, 1936, p. 43; Hawley, 1934, p. 41. 8. See Hawley, 1936, p. 32; 1934, p. 36.

1937 EXCAVATIONS, Bc 50-51, CHACO CANYON, K. M. [ 51

EXUBERANT CORRUGATED ,. (See Plate 8)

Area: Chaco, Gallup, Red Mesa, and vicinity. Derivation: Kana-a Gray. Paste: Gray, hard. Temper: Sand, potsherds, and black volcanic material in varying pro-

portions. Construction: Coiled. Wall: c. 6 mm. Hardness: 3.5 to 4.5; preponderance around 4.5. Finish: Spiral coil averaging about %" wide, indentations wide and

usually deep, sometimes decorated with alternation of indentations and plain coil in geometric designs, sometimes alternating bands of indentations and of plain coiling; occasional use of crudely incised designs cutting across coils.

Forms: Jars preponderant; bowls, pitchers. Comparison: Similar to Pueblo II corrugated from other areas of

northern Arizona and New Mexico, although it may later be found that the common use of some volcanic temper might be regionally distinctive. Distinguished from Chaco Corrugated by wideness of coils and greater width and depth of indentations.

GALLUP BLACK ON WHITE ,q (See Plates 6 and 11)

Hardness: c. 4.5. Comparison and discussion: Stratigraphy and association in the Be

50-51 dump and rooms indicate that this type grew out of Escavada Black on White.

It lasted, as indicated in the Chetro Ket! dump, at least as late as 1130 A. D. Its chief distinguishing characteristic is the mottled, streakily polished surface onto which the designs were painted, most of the design being at least partly hatched. Designs averaged more complicated than for Escavada Black on White but were neither as well conceived, as delicate, nor as well executed as the average for Chaco Black on \Vhite. The latter was evidently a late and short development, never superseding the Gallup Black on White but showing its florescence around 1100 A. D. and up until 1130, as found in the Chetro Ket! dump.

LA PLATA BLACK ON 'WHITE J\

Area: Chaco, Red Mesa, Zuni, north into the Four Corners. Derivation: Lino Gray. Walls: c. 4 mm. Hardness: 4.5. Finish: Surface unevenly smoothed, probably by scraping, temper pro

truding through float; no slip; designs painted in black iron paint on interiors of bowls, exteriors of small-mouthed vessels.

9. See Roberts, 1935. p. 13; Hawley. 1936. p. 33. 10. Hawley. ibid., p. 42; see also Hawley, HI34, p. 38. 11. Ct. Hawley, 1936. p. 23.


Designs: Drawn in lines about To" wide; occasionally life forms crudely conventionalized.

Forms: Bowls, jars, pitchers, dippers. Comparison: La Plata Black on White differs from Lino Black on Gray

primarily in the use of iron paint rather than of carbon paint for decoration. This difference is consistent and easily detected because most of the La Plata sherds show a tendency toward overfiring in some part of the vessel.

McELMO BLACK ON WHITE 12 (See Plates 6, 8, 9, and 10)

Walls: c. 3 to 6 mm. Hardness: c. 4 to 4.5. Comparison and discussion: McElmo Black on White is a progenitor of

Mesa Verde Black on White. It is found in Chaco dumps in large enough percentages to suggest that some of it was made in the canyon rather than all having been traded in from outside. Some small Chaco cliff ruins show a total of McElmo Black on White sherds and may represent the homes of some immigrants from the north. The designs of this type of Black on White are, in general, the wide line type expected for Pueblo II, but distinctively of carbon paint. Inter-influence between Chaco and Mesa Verde peoples is indicated in the pottery of the canyon, however, in occasional sherds of McElmo designs applied in iron paint and sherds with hatched Chaco designs applied in carbon paint.

RED MESA BLACK ON WHITE '3 (See Plates 7 and 11)

Synonyms: Chaco Transitional Black on White (in part), Chaco I. Area: Gallup district, Chaco district, Red Mesa district. Derivation: La Plata Black on White. Paste: Gray to White. Temper: Sand Construction: Coiled. Wall: c. 3 mm. Hardness: 4 to 4.5. Finish; Interior of bowls and exterior of jars slipped with white, pol

ished, decorated in black iron paint. Exterior unslipped, unpolished.

Designs: Fine lines in parallel groups in stepped figures, lines often crossing at corners, solid triangles, small pendant dots on triangles or on lines.

Forms: Bowls, jars, pitchers, ladles. Comparison: Similar to Kiatuthlanna Black on White but differs some

what in design. Transition from polished Red Mesa Black on

12. See Hawley, 1936, p. 31. 13. Gladwin, 1934, Fig. 8; Mera, 1935, p. 3 and PI. 1. Red Mesa Black on White,

named by Gladwin but not previously fully described appears to be indigenous to both the Red Mesa and Chaco districts. As used by Gladwin the type covers what has been divided into the two types, Red Mesa Black on White and Escavada Black on White, in the Chaco. This division has been made on the basis of typology and of stratigraphy.

1937 EXCAVATIONS, Bc 50-51, CHACO CANYOX, x. M. [ 53

White into unpolished Escavada Black on White is apparent in many sherds which show characteristics of each type.

TABLE 4 HARDNESS TESTS OF SHERDS 14

N H N H N H N H

Lino Gray --~ 32 4.5 3 4.0 2 3.5 La Plata B on W 10 4.5 Red Mesa B on W 33 4.5 10 4.0 Kana-a Neck-banded ---- 11 4.5 15 4.0 5 3.5 Escavada B on W _______ 37 4.5 9 4.0 1 3.5 McElmo B on W _______ ~_ 10 4.5 12 4.0 1 3.5 Wingate B on R ________ 14 4.5 12 4.0 9 3.5 1 3.0 Gallup B on W _________ 41 4.5 4 4.0 2 3.5 Exuberant Corr. 33 4.5 13 4.0 4 3.5 Chaco Corrugated ----- 18 4.5 8 4.0 1 3.5 Chaco B on W 22 4.5 5 4.0 Deadman's B on R 5 4.5 2 4.0 1 3.5 --------- --.----------.----~-

14. In this table "N" stands for number of sherds tested. "H," for their hardness.

SECTION B

UTILIZED MINERALS AND ROCKS AND THEIR SOURCES

By DOUGLAS OSBORNE

Specimens of the following materials were obtained from Bc 50-51: red shale (pendant, 2 smoothed pieces, 2 drilled pieces) ; flinty chalcedony (hammerstones and flakes) ; chalcedony, moss agate (scraper); grey chalcedony (point); white chalcedony (point); obsidian (flakes, knives, points); turquoise (beads,' pendants," drilled and smoothed pieces); quartzite (black and yellow), (polishing stones, hammerstones); calcareous sandstone or siltstone 3 (concretional fragments, beads, pot covers, sandal lasts or weaving spacers, smoothers, pendant?); kidney iron ore (small oolitic piece, bird fetish?," yellow ochre, red ochre, gilsonite (part of a ring) ,5 malachite, azurite.

In the endeavor to determine the incidence of Occurrence of the various minerals used for chipped artifacts, the spalls, etc., were collected, level by level, from the various sections of the refuse mound in the same manner as were the potsherds. They were examined and separated and percentages taken. These percentages were then plotted by levels by Margaret Latady. In no case was material recovered from levels 1-2. The total number of specimens identified was 430.

The results may be summarized briefly. Chalcedony and chalcedonie wood or petrified wood outstripped all of the other stone materials in actual number of spalls and in percentages. Petrified wood and chalcedony were of approximately equal quantity in 8 of the 24 samples in which they occurred together; they were unequal, then, in 16 of these occasions. In only 3 of the 16 instances that the two materials

1. The beads found in Be 51 ranged in diameter from 1/16" to % " and in thickness from 1/32" to %,".

2. The pendants from Be 51 are of oblong or rounded rectangular shape with a hole near one end-extremely similar in appearance to those found in Be 50.

3. One of these is black and takes a shiny polish. It is 30 to 40 pcr cent calcareous. The other is light brovi'll or yellow-grey. it smooths well but lacks the polish of the first, i.e., it is coarse. It carries 40 tn 50 per cent calcareous materia1. These calcareou'3 sedimentaries were more commonly used than silicous sandstones or siltstones.

4. This specimen is reminiscent of an object of lignite found at Leyit Kin (Dutton, 1938, p. 72 and Plate V, 1).

5. With hardness 3.5 to 4. It was %" wide, had a diameter of 23/32". and two holes 1/26" in diameter. In general appearance it was highly similar to several fragments described from Be 50 (Brand, et aI., 1937, p. 93). The material powdered. disintegrates to small splintery pieces. No cellular structure was visible. The translucent edges show pitchy or resinous, as the light shines through them, under the microscope. Fracture is conchoidal. The nearest place, that I know of, where gilsonite is obtained is "in veins in sandstone strata southwest of Aztec" (Brand, et aL, 1937, p. 58). This is probably its source.

[ 54 ]

1937 EXCAVATIONS, Bc 50-51, CHACO CANYON, K M. [ 55

occurred unequally together were chalcedony pieces the more numerous. In other words, by far the greater amount of cryptocrystalline quartz used (and that material was the material par e.(cellcnce) was obtained from opalized or petrified wood. Inasmuch as it was rather difficult, in many cases, to distinguish between flakes of petrified wood and flakes of otherwise formed chalcedony, there must be a good deal of admixture between the two. That is, many a fragment of petrified wood might have been called chalcedony, pure and simple, and vice versa. In fact, I am inclined to believe that the two are of one series. That is, they were used interchangeably and much of the chalcedony had petrified wood as a source.

Obsidian, which always occurs sparingly, is confined, in general, to the upper levels. Neither the jaspers nor quartzites were used extensively. The highest percentage of the former in any sample was 11 per cent, of the latter 7 pel' cent.

In the Chaco Wash proper, there are few igneous or metamorphic pebbles found. There were, however, two sources" of these discovered in the wash. One of these sources was directly below the ruin of Penasco Blanco. Here were found a few pebbles of coarse quartzite in a cemented, gravelly deposit. These, so far as found, were unsuited for making any of the finer implements. Their only use could have been in the form of hammerstones or othcr rough implements. The same is true for a deposit in the arroyo one-fourth mile N'.V of Mesa Fahada. Here, too, a gravelly cemented formation (probably a calcitic cement) displays a number of rough, igneous and 'or metamorphic pebbles. This formation is lenticular in the higher walls of the arroyo, most prominent and in larger beds rather than lenses in the lower third. It calls to mind the Mortal' Beds 7 of the Pleistocene. Because the deposit is well cemented it stands out in ridges on the floor of the arroyo. The contained, rolled, igneous material is unfit for any of the finer tools of the aboriginal inhabitants of the Canyon. The deposit should be examined more thoroughly and searched for more carefully between Mesa Fahada and Penasco Blanco (if I may assume that the two outcrops are of the same deposit) as it might have no small bearing on the recent geological history of the canyon.

Examination of the tops of the South Mesa and the Chacra Mesa and counts made of the gravels on them, investigated by Dr . .Malcolm Bissel, showed a high percentage of quartzites. On South Mesa there were six light yellow quartzites to one of a darker quartzite. On the Chacra, again, quartzite was the only rock of importance; all of the occurrences were in the form of rounded, water-worn pebbles. A count of four square feet above the Escavada ',v ash to the north of Pueblo

6. On sources of minerals generally, cf. l\'lap III in Brand, ct al .. 1937.

7. Fenneman. 1931, p. 16.


Bonito in the area of the exposure of the Pictured Cliffs sandstone showed the following:

Petrified Wood ________________ 20 pieces Chalcedony (agate, etc.) ________ 6 pieces Quartzite _______________________ 6 pieces Brown Jasper _________________ 6 pieces Red Jasper ____________________ 2 pieces

This corresponds rather closely with the situation shown in the graphs of the incidence of the spalls found in the stratigraphy tests taken of the refuse mound Be 50-51. There is an obvious proportional relationship between the series.

The petrified wood found in the stratigraphy levels corresponds, superficially, to some found in the Escavada Wash. The two appear identical when examined megascopically. This petrified wood probably comes from above the Ojo Alamo outcrop-possibly in the Paleocene or Eocene exposures. The petrified wood found in the Kirtland shale (Cret.) and in the Ojo Alamo (Cret.) sandstone is lighter in shade, more granular and friable than that of the wash and is certainly not of the best type for implements, whereas that of the Escavada and, of course, that of the stratigraphy tests is highly adaptive to the Indian chipping technique. The tabular deposits of silicon dioxide found in logs of petrified wood were used extensively for implements, and were probably the source of much of the "chalcedony" found in the ruins.8

In general the obsidian of Chaco Bc 51, when compared with some from Jemez (Unshagi), showed a more fibrous appearance. This fibrousness is probably an expression of the flow; impurities are spread or dragged out along the same plane. The true obsidians are about equally transparent but that of Jemez seems to carry less impurities. One can only say definitely, concerning the source of the Chaco ohsidian, that it did not come from the same flow as did the Unshagi piece.

Following information which Dr. W. W. HHl obtained from a Navaho informant, a search was made for common salt (NaCI) in Escavada Arroyo and throughout the region. Halite was not found, but many deposits of impure magnesium sulphate (Epsom salts) were located. In a small cave on South Mesa, a cave in the north wall of the canyon, an arroyo tributary to the Escavada, which branches to the west along the face of the exposure of Ojo Alamo; in the Escavada, about 300 yards up the wash from the bridge on the Chaco CanyonAztec road, are some of the many places where Epsom salts have been deposited.

Probably some of the amorphous gypsum found in the ruins was

8. I have been told of petrified wood occurring in several places 16 to 18 miles northeast of Bc 51, north of the Pueblo Alto trading post and along the "Gas Line Road," in the Sanl,e general area.


formed by a disintegration of the crystals of selenite which were carried into the rooms by the inhabitants. Pieces of alabaster are not infrequently found in the canyon. One was picked up from the foot of the north wall of the canyon near Yellow House. It comes, I believe, from the Chacra sandstone itself.

The question of jet, or possibly cannel coal, must await the exploration of Upper Coal Creek (Sternberg). Probably all of the so-called jet has been gilsonite.

It is not possible to state the provenience of the turquoise found. Only after a thorough mineralogical study of La Para, Cerrillos, Reserve, and the Chaco turquoise, can we be sure where the turquoise found in the Chaco came from. It is probably Cerrillos.

Ochre and rouge are notoriously plentiful throughout the Navaho Reservation. In fact, the Navaho, according to two Jemez Indian informants, trade colored earths to the Pueblos today and profit from a virtual monopoly of some of the brighter shades. A number of deposits of ochre and rouge were located during the survey. Rouge is prominent in the Allison member of the Chacra sandstone, on the south side of Mesa Fahada, and on the south and west faces of Chacra Mesa. While other deposits exist along the walls of the canyon and to the south in the Red Hills, the best and most varied exposures of colored earths occur on the extreme jutting point of the west walls of the re-entrant in which are the Wetherill coal mines. Here is vermillion, yellow, orange, and a deep purple. The fine deposit is in the clays of the Allison member of the Chacra sandstone. Seemingly, this fine exposure was used extensively by the early inhabitants of the canyon. A small gully is now cutting into the area of the richest deposits. This was probably begun by the mining operations of long ago.

SECTION C

GROUND AND PECKED STONE ARTIFACTS (OTHER THAN ARROW-SHAFT TOOLS)

By RICHARD WOODBURY

The Data from Be 51.*-Rooms 7, 8, 9, 16, 19,21, and kiva 3 provided the majority of ground and pecked stone implements, while rooms 2 and 5 (otherwise very rich in artifacts) contained comparatively few. Attempts at stratigraphic analysis of the material were fruitless. Out of the very large number of this class of stone artifacts only 27 (19 manos, 7 hammerstones, 1 "smoothing stone") had a floor level or sub-floor level locus. The remainder came from the surface or from the fill. The manos and hammerstones, to which definite floor level loci may be assigned, do not show distinctive characters as compared with the totality of these types of objects from this site. The hammerstone and 8 manos from the sub-structure of room 16 also fail to reveal any differentiation.

Metates.-Twenty-two metates were recovered. None was found in a bin or built into a permanent position. Apparently the metates at Bc 51 were always portable, and when used were, doubtless, propped up on a few stones in an impromptu fashion to give the required angle .. ' All save 3 of the specimens were troughed, but none had very high side walls; the troughs were about %" to 2 1,4" deep. The block from which the metate was made was only roughly shaped, in some instances being almost unworked. Five specimens showed the trough open at both ends, the remainder had the trough open at one end." There were three specimens of the basin type at Bc 51, that is, a flat, stone slab with a depression worn in the top, by a rotary rather than a reciprocating motion. One specimen was of the plain surface (slab) type, in which the mano is as long or longer than the width of the grinding surface, so that the entire surface of the metate is worn down and no trough formed. In one metate the groove ran across, the width of the stone. One is a miniature specimen, 8%" long, 7%" wide, and 3" thick.

'[EDITORIAL NOTE: Mr. Woodbury had special qualifications for undertaking this section, for he had been engaged in an intensive study (in the field and laboratory) of the ground and pecked stone artifaets from Awatovi. Unfortunately, there were not funds available to ship these heavy implements to Cambridge, and hence Mr. Wood· bury had to work from the field catalog. other field notes, photographs, and a 20-page report, prepared on the site by Thomas Field, which contained drawings of about 80 of the more differentiated artifacts. This report (Field, 1937) is on deposit (with the other original field notes from the site) at the University of New Mexico. During July, 1939. we checked Mr. Woodbury's report against the implements stored at the University of New Mexico and discovered and corrected a few minor errors.]

1. Field, 1937. 2. See Plate XXI in Brand, et al, 1937, for very similar specimens.

[ 58 ]


As at Bc 50 and Leyit Kin, sandstone was the only material used. In comparison with Leyit Kin and Bc 50, Bc 51 yielded relatiyely

few metates. However, the predominance of the trough type is typical, and the one plain surface specimen is an anomaly, for the type is usually associated with Pueblo III (see discussion below). There is no evidence of the use of metates at Be 51 for purposes other than grinding corn, but the miniature specimen may conceivably have been put to some other use.

111anos."-Ninety-eight manos were recorded, outnumbering the metates by 7 to 1. The majority were rectangular with rounded corners, but a few were round or oval. These latter were 5" to 7" long, and about 4" wide. There ,vas about an equal division bet\veen types with one and with two grinding surfaces. Twenty wedge-shaped ("triangular" cross-section) specimens were recorded, of which 10 had 1 grinding surface, 1 had 2, and 3 were not recorded. Almost all of the manos were of sedimentary rocks.

Taking the manos as a whole, the sizes were as follows:

Ma,eiJIIIIII/ Moc/ul ,vIiJlill111Jn

Length 111/! " G" to 7" 41/" ,4

Width 5 1,4" 4" to 4%" 2%," Thickness 2 34" 1 1 ' " A to 1 1/:)" "Is"

Although there is considerable range here, the majority of specimens fall within the limits given as modal; this is less true of length, which shows a more random distribution, but few specimens approach the limits even in this dimension.

On the basis of this information Be 51 is similar to Bc 50 and Leyit Kin in that the typical mano is rectangular with rounded corners, either rectangular or wedge-shaped in cross-section, in both cases having either one or two grinding surfaces.

Hamme1'stones.-Nineteen of the specimens came from kiva 3 and 9 from room 19. Only one instance of pitting to give a better grip for the thumb or finger was observed. * Sedimentary, metamorphic, and

3. Types are illustrated in Plate XXI of Brand, ct af, 1937. *[EnITORIAL NOTE: Hasty description elsE'\vhere at times has r('sulted in con

fusion between "intentionally shaped" finger grips, and the adapting of the peculiarly adaptable human hand to areas chipped in proce:o;s of use. Most instances of shaped fingergrips that I have seen are located near the middle of an approximately columnal (or irregularly rectangular) hammerstone.

At Chetro Ketl the majority of hammerstolh'S were of igneous rock. There were few instances apparent of intentional shaping. Suppose a columnal section of petrified wood were used. T'\vo general types of blows would be required in shaping sandstone; the impacting or "concussive" blow delivered by a broad surface and, perhaps, the directional blow of a smaller localized or pointed surfaC'e. The broad faced hammerstone, again, appears to have had hvo functions: (1) to tap or "impact" along a line of intended fracture (or from personal experience, approximatdy along the intended


igneous rocks were all represented among the materials. Sorted on the basis of shape, the hammerstones of Bc 51 are grouped as follows: 16 faceted (lor more distinct flat abraded surfaces), 25 irregular, 13 round or oval. Surface finish: 24 well-smoothed (for all or part of surface), 29 rough. Size:

Mc~ximum Modal Minimum Length 5%," 2%," to 3%" 1%" Width --------- 4" 2 14" to 2%," 114" Thickness ----- 4" 1112" to 2~~" 1"

In spite of the considerable range in size, the proportions remain about the same in nearly all specimens.

Grooved Axes,. Hammers, and Mauls.-There were 11 specimens, all full-grooved. The material is sandstone in three, schist in one, not recorded in seven. The axes were four, all but one of them with a single bit. They were quite uniform in size, approximately 4%" by 2%" by 1%". The double-bitted specimen had had one bit re-used for hammering. Three specimens were distinguished as mauls; they were considerably larger-the largest 8 34" by 6" by 314". Hammers (3 specimens) were probably put to about the same uses as mauls, but

4. For illustrations of similar specimens see Plate XX in Brand, et. al., 1937.

line of fracture), and to deliver the hard blow (or blows) which completed the fracture; and (2) to "peck" the protruding irregularities from an intended flat surface of sandstone or limestone. If a localized, directional blow is used in the first function, a triangular, shattering fracture results.

The majority of the blunt surfaced hammerstones are chipped around the circumference of the blunt face. When ends are reversed these (generally conchoidal) fracture areas, admittedly, do feel different and restful, to the hand. It is this chipping which has, at times, been referred to as "fingergrips," albeit the intentionally shaped finger grips are often farther down the shaft. Too much of this chipping around one end results in an uncertainty of grip due to fatigue. and to slipperiness of perspiration on the newly broken and rather slick surfaces. An eroded or "battered" rough surface is more comfortable o\~er a long period. and more accurate in use. Even so, I believe the hand grip is insignificant compared to the percussive surface.

Chetro Ketl yielded a number of spherical hammer stones, with entire surfaces covered by chips of various size. Some of these were of metamorphic rock. One's hand adapted itself-usually quite readily-to any section of irregular surface. In my estimation. these spherical models constitute the streamlined acme of hammer .. stone perfection; they are heavier, offer more variety of grip (they are more restful). and the chances of edge-splintering (as from turning a columnal model too far to one side or the other to deliver a blow). are minimal. The spherical specimens~ of course. usually offer no localized percussive area for directional blows.

I have not the least doubt that after chipping was (perhaps accidentally) accomplished in use. the chipped surfaces were often used as finger grips. In many instances, however. it would appear that to be accurately described as intentionally shaped finger grips, the chipping should be elaborated by abrasion. Even this precaution involves no finality or accuracy. however, for an "accidental" chipped area might be subjected to abrasion; or, conceivably. some instances of abrasion may evidence peculiar secondary use.]


were within the size range of the axes, and may have been originally made as axes. The mauls must have been made solely for the purpose of pounding, as they could never have been modified from axes.

No notched percussion tools were found, thus distinguishing the site from Bc 50. Another difference from Bc 50 is that the "mauls" were re-used axes, and no tools corresponding to the mauls of Bc 51 were reported.

One specimen listed as an axe might, perhaps, better be called a hoe; it is of slate 6" by 2%/', and has a groove completely encircling it. However, its thinness makes the groove little more than a notch in the two edges, with the mere suggestion of its presence on the two faces. It is described as "well worn through use." The rectangular shape and the roughness of the edges suggest a hoe rather than an axe, but either use is plausible.

Four round stone dishes,' perhaps used as paint pots, were found. The largest was 5 112" in diameter, and the smallest was 2%". The~

were carefully shaped, and the walls partly smoothed. But the depres· sions for grinding or mixing were not more than 1118" deep, unless in the largest, which was fragmentary. The two objects mentioned in the discussion of hammerstones may have been pestles, but their size would have prevented their use in all but the largest of these bowls.

One fossil was found; it was unworked. A concretion 8112" long, shaped like half an egg, had been worked

by slightly hollowing the "interior" and making a few small holes on the outer surface.

There were 24 polishing and smoothing stones. On the basis of size and finish 14 can probably be considered pot-polishers; none was faceted, but many were highly polished. They were mostly oval, and the typical size 1 %" by 1" by % ". Of those for which material was recorded, two were quartzite and one petrified wood. Only three specimens seemed to be rubbing stones-the round, flat objects which are usually said to be employed in smoothing plaster floors and walls. The remaining 7 specimens of this group were either pot-polishers or plaster-smoothers, but cannot be as;igned definitely to either category. ~

5. Cf. Plate XIXd in Brand. ct. al .. 1:)37. *[NOTE BY PAUL REITER: The stonc smootlwrs for poth'ry and for wall and floor

plaster serve an entirely different function, basically. Thpy arc Loth smoothcrs. to be sure; but the smaller, usually more carefully shaped or chosf'l1 pottery smoother:; have to serve not only for the plastic annealing an(1 smoothing of wet clay, but also for the all-important purpose of shaping. There is ycry little shaping quality inherent in a plaster smoother. Rather. the function is one of smoothing and comrlrc:-singactually, annealing is also a part of the proce3S. The weight. resulting from the larger size of artifact. is most important; beside ~moothing the wet plaster put on a wall, it serves to mix and agitate the plaster. equalling di:-;tribution of the density, removing bubbles. Surface agitation also mixes the wet pla:::.ter to the point where it is consistently impressed throughout and cracking is ayoided. Thus, both as regards use, and size, wall plaster smoothers differ basically from pottery smoothers. Thus, again, they are (from the functional point of view) two different artifact

classes.]


Fourteen discs 6 were found, varying in diameter from 7" to 2lj2", and in thickness from %," to flo". Perhaps some of these were used as pot lids, or covers for cists. Similar objects were found at Bc 50, where a few bore traces of pigment, and at Leyit Kin.

One disc was described as possibly a spindle whorl, but it is fragmentary.

There were 22 slabs of sandstone, of which ten were carefully shaped rectangles, smoothed on one or both sides; the other 12 were fragments or had been left rough. They ranged in size from 111,4" to 2" long, and were proportionately wide and thick. Their use is unknown. Similar objects are not reported from Leyit Kin and Bc 50.

Two paint palettes were found, in kivas 3 and 6, bearing traces of yellow ochre on one face. The sizes are 41/2" by 2%" by 1,4" and 5lj2" by 4%," by 1,4". They were well smoothed and squared, but were not decorated with any incisions and lacked raised edges. Consequently only the presence of paint distinguishes them from the rectangular slabs of similar size. Lacking any other explanation, we can perhaps consider the slabs as palettes also. Palettes found at Bc 50 were even larger than the largest of the Bc 51 slabs. The palettes from Leyit Kin are not described in detail.

A number of problematical stone objects were found, the most interesting of which was a cone of smoothed sandstone, 9~1l" high and 7Y2" in diameter at the base. This was found in the northwest corner of room 15 on the bench.

NOTES ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF SOME GROUND AND PECKED STONE

ARTIFACTS IN THE SOUTHWEST

The Maps.-The maps 7 are intended, principally, to illustrate the remarks made concerning distributions. The letters refer to dates, and the numbers to site and reference as listed in the Key to the Maps. In regard to stages, the statements of the authors referred to have been taken at face value when they were definite. The cultures indicated by the letters are as follows:

A. Prior to BM II B. BM III-Pueblo II (inclusive) C. Pueblo III-V (inclusive) X. Culture unknown or highly doubtful

It is realized that this schema is not unobjectionable. In particular, Division Clumps pre- and post-European artifacts to some extent. The interested specialist can, however, check the exact provenience (so far as the literature establishes one) by reference to the Key. Considera-

6. Plate XIXa in Brand, et. aI., 1937. 7. Because of the size of the symbols used only approximate locations are repre-

sen ted on the man.


tions of expense made it impossible to provide separate distribution maps and sets of symbols for every cultural stage and the grouping chosen (though admittedly arbitrary to some degree) seemed, perhaps, less objectionable, all things considered, than any other.' No attempt was made to categorize early excavations in terms of contemporary cultural stage terminology by checking the pottery found or by the architectural features. When the date was not mentioned in a report, the site is listed as "X"-date unknown-unless other work at the site or other investigations provided a date or period. In the Hohokam and Mogollon areas, correlation with the Basket ;\Iaker-Pueblo chronology is based on Gladwin !' and Haury,'" respectively. The possibility that the earlier levels at Snaketown have been regarded as too early will, perhaps, explain the appearance there in period" A" of the mortar and pestle, the trough metate with two ends open, and the threequarters grooved axe. Elsewhere these artifacts appear first in Basket Maker III, or later.

Metates.-For purposes of this study metates have been classified by what seems to be the most satisfactory system, based (with one exception) on the nature of the grinding surface. The types" are as follows:

1. Plain surface 2. Utah 3. Basin 4. Trough, open at one end (scoop) 5. Trough, open at two ends 6. Three-legged (this of course disregards grinding

surface)

Metates have been carefully studied by Katherine Bartlett,'2 so that what is said here will, to some extent, duplicate her conclusions.

The plain surface metate, as will be seen from Map 2, is more common in the north and central areas. The farthest southern extension of the type occurs in the Sierra Ancha Mountains.'" The plain surface metate is typical only of sites of Pueblo III or later, although Judd reports the type from his Chaco Canyon pithouse No. 2," and a single example was found in Bc 51. Another possible instance of the type before Pueblo III is in northeastern Arizona,'" but the only evi-

8. [EDITORIAL NOTE: Remarks of this character apply tn grouping::; and map

symbols used in the later distributional studies but will not be repeated.] 9. Gladwin, ct. al .• 1937, p. S. 10. Haury, 1936a, PP. 116-118, 127-130. 11. Defined and described later. 12. Bartlett, 1933 and 1936. 13. Bartlett, 1933, p. 25; ant! Haury, 1934, p. 116. 14. Judd, 1924, p. 411. It is possible to confuse neu' troughed metates with the

plain surface type. 15. Guernsey, 1931, p. 99.

MAP 2. DISTRIBUTION OF METATES IN THE SOUTHWEST

dence is the presence of manos without the wear at the ends which often results from use in a trough. In the Pinto Basin of California'" there are plain surface metates, which may be earlier than Pueblo III. They occurred on the surface at sites which were without pottery, and which, on the basis of the chipped stone and the geology of the region, were dated as fairly early post-glacial." The metates may have only a chance association with the sites, "very possibly dating from late aboriginal time," but it is possible that they represent an early undifferentiated form. With these exceptions (and, perhaps, the Texas instance shown on the map) the plain surface metate is confined to a limited area and appears only after the start of Pueblo III.

This conclusion agrees with Bartlett's statement that this type is a specialization at a late date.l8 She also points out the correlation between this type and the use of bins."9 A few occurrences of bins were noted in the present survey; only two have not been discussed by Bartlett: at Aztec Ruin in northern New Mexico,"" and in the Village

16. Amsden, in Campbell, 1935, p. 33. 17. Campbell, 1935, p. 50; and Sharf, in Camphell, 1.9~5, p. 19. 18. Bartlett, 1933, pP. 26-29. 19. Ibid., pp. 17-18, 23-25, 28. 20. Morris, 1919b, p. 235.

o PLAIN SURFACE EI UTAH D BASIN

MAP 2 . DISmIBUTION OF METATES IN THE SOUTHWEST

1937 EXCAVATIONS, Bc 50-51, CHACO CANYON, X. l\I. [65

of the Great Kivas. New Mexico." In the latter instance it is stated that Hthe trough type of milling stone was rarely used in a bin, while the concave style, without raised borders, seems, in the vast majority of cases, to have been set in such containers.""' This is in agreement with Bartlett's conclusions. But, although the use of the bin with the plain surface metate can be accepted as frequent, there are more exceptions than these writers seem to sugl-"est. 1(00111 85 at Chetro Ketl contains a slab-lined series of four bins. 'Three of the metat",; are of trough type."" Conversely, at Unshagi," the I~iana Ruin,;,'c and other sites in the northern Rio Grande drainage plain surface nWlates were found without bins.

Another type of metate with a limited e!istrilmtiun i,; the th1'eelegged type. It is common in the Valley of Mexico " ane! in Yucatan." But it never attained prominence as far north a,; the Cnited States, though four instances have been noi('c1: in the Puel,lo Viejo, Arizona;" in the Arivaipa Valley, southeastern AI'izonu;' in the LO\YC'l' :\Iill1bres Valley, New Mexico;"" ane! at a site neal' Aztec Ruin, 1\ew :'II('xieo.''' The presence of this type in northC'l'n Ne\v Mexico is sUl'prising. This specimen was found by a local inhabitant some years hL'forp Morris' excavations. Nothing is known of it:; C'xaet provC'nic11C'c, hut it is said to have come from the site. As a matter of fact, it should Ill' can'fully noted that there are no unimpeachable reports of' l('i:'f~l'd 11wt<lte,; found in association with unquestionable pre-European matel'ial north of 25° N. Lat. Fewkes' Pueblo Viejo meiate was a eonil'mpOl'<lro' "plant."''" All other reported specimens wcre surface fincls. Sueh ohjects are the more dubious of significanee because, since at least a,; ('arlo' as 1914, three-legged metates of basalt and laya have been macl(' in Chihuahua City and Juarez and sold to tourists as HC'urins fl'om ruins," '" Two occurrences were noted in northern Mexico, one among: the modern Yaquis of Sonora,'" and the other at Casas Grandes."~' They arc also

21. Roberts. 1932, pp. 3:1. 37. 140. 22. Ibid., p. 33. 23. Personal eommunieation from J\Ir. Paul Reiter, April 12, 1930. 24. Reiter, 19:1R. p. 163 and footnote 66. 25. Hibben. 1937, p. 41 ar..d Plate II. 26. Bartlett. 1933. p. 22.

27. Stromsvik, 1937. pp. 123-127. 28. Fewkes. 1903. p. lS~1 and Fig. 114. 29. Sauer and Brand. 1930, p. 433. 30. Fewkes, 19H. p. 20.

31. Morris, 1915, p. 682. 32. Personal communication from Dr. Donald Brand. ct. Kidder, 1939. p. 226.

footnote 7. 33. Personal communications from Dr. Brand and :Mr. Reiter. 34. Holden, 1934. Pl. 2, facing p. 10. 35. Bartlett, 1854, Vol. 2. plate facing p. 362.

66 ] THE! UNIVERSITY OF' NEW MEXICO

found in Sinaloa, where a four-legged type is more common than threelegged-but all legged forms are less common than legless types.3D

In Utah a peculiar specialization of the metate occurred; at the end nearer the user a flat platform was left, or formed into a shallow depression. Steward has discussed this Utah type,"] showing that the type is restricted in area, and developed late in Basket Maker times and lasted until the end of Pueblo II, when Pueblo culture disappeared from the northern part of this area. Roberts found a possible "prototype" of this specialization at Kiatuthlanna, Arizona," in a metate with a shallow depression on the upper surface of "a small projection at one end which served as a rest for the hand stone."

The basin type of metate presents a difficult problem. According to Bartlett;" it is the first form of metate used in the Southwest. She makes the important observation that its form is due to a rotary grinding motion, probably with a round or oval mano held in one hand. But, although this type does appear the earliest, it also continues in later sites; for example, at Swarts Ruin, New Mexico:o at Snaketown in the Sedentary Period:' and in Chihuahua as late as the mission period.'"' The basin type is the one found beyond the Pueblo area to the east. It was noted at the following locations: Eastern Colorado,'" Western Nebraska," Northeastern New Mexico and Western Oklahoma:' the Abilene section of Texas:" the Madera Valley, Texas,"' the Panhandle region of Texas:s Val Verde County, Texas:" the Shumla Caves, Texas,'o the Ozark Bluff Dwellers," and Leary Indian Village, Nebraska." Three instances were noted west of the Pueblo area: in the Twenty Nine Palms region of California,'3 in the Pinto Basin, California;'" and on the Santa Barbara Coast, California.55 Thus, 13 out

36. Personal communication from Dr. Brand. 37. Steward, 1935, pp. 9-10; and 1936, p. 41 and Table 2 (which gives dimensions

and other information for a large series of Utah type metates). 38. Roberts, 1931, p. 154 and PI. 32. 39. Bartlett, 1933, p. 21. 40. Cosgrove, 1932, Pp. 35-37. 41. Gladwin, ct. al., 1937, Pl. 50. 42. Sayles, 1936, Table 1, op. p. 84. This is Conchas phase and the appearance

here probably has an eastern origin. 43. Renaud, 1934, p. 46. 44. Renaud, 1934, p. 46. 45. Renaud, 1930, p. 124. 46. Ray, 1929, p. 22. 47. Kelley, 1933, pp. 53-59. 48. Struder, 1934, pp. 80-96. 49. Pearce and Jackson, 1933, pp. 87-89. 50. Martin, 1933, p. 80. 51. Harrington, 1934, p. 7. 52. Hill and Wedel, 1936, p. 46. 53. Campbell, 1931, p. 79. 54. Amsden, in Campbell, 1935, p. 33. 55. Rogers, D. B., 1929, pp. 349-351 and Plates 54 and 55.


of the 26 examples noted were outside the strict limits of the Southwest. Bartlett suggests that the type is older than the Basket l\Iaker period.o6

Perhaps while specialization resulting in other types was taking place within the limits of the Southwest, the older type was persisting on the eastern and western peripheries; and the late use of the basin type in the Southwest proper can be accounted for as a combination of survival and occasional intermittent contacts with the periphery. It would be interesting to know whether, at sites where other types were in use simultaneously with the basin type, there was a difference of function, the basin type being limited, perhaps, to certain food products, or to special methods of preparation." A detailed and comparative study of the modern use of the metate would be helpful in answering this question.

The trough type of metate has two forms; one in which the trough is open at both ends, the other in which it is open only at one end. It is difficult to decide to which type some specimens belong, because the trough may slope from a depth of several inches at the far end (with reference to the user) to no depth at the near end. In this way the two types are sometimes not clearly distinguished, but grade into each other. Bartlett points out the position of the trough type c'; in the evolution of the met ate,·" between the basin and plain surface types. But the question of whether any significance attaches to the distinction between one or two ends open is not discussed.

The most conspicuous fact appearing from a study of the map is that the type open at both ends has a more limited distribution than does the other trough type; also that its distribution coincides almost exactly with the distribution of the plain surface type. Its presence in the Utah Basin in northern Utah lV) is the only known exception. Although the type is found in both periods "B" and "C," more instances are in the later period than in the earlier-9 as compared to 6. Though little significance can be given to this slight chronological difference, it is suggestive to find the type so limited in distribution. In contrast, the metate with the trough open at one end only'" occurs as far south as Chihuahua in Mexico"2 and northwest to the Moapa Valley, Nevada.63

56. Bartlett, 1933, p. 21. 57. On the broader aspects of distributional as~ociations :;ee Linton. 1924. 58. Apparently the underlying type in the Valley of lI1exico. Cf. Bartlett, 1936,

p. 20.

59. Ibid., 1933, PI'. 10, 28.

60. Steward, 1936, p. 42. 61. A recently reported oc~urrence of this type, not apIH"aring on the map. is in

the region just north of Williams, Arizona, and west of the San Francisco Mountains (Hargrave, 1938).

62. Sayles, 1936, Table 1, 01'. p. 84, also Kidder, 1939, p. 226. footnote 7. Indeed, the distribution extends continuously into Southern lYlexico-personal communication from Dr. Brand, April, 1939.

63. Harrington, 19~u, p. 24 and Fig ....


The explanation that suggests itself is that the trough open at both ends is a specialization in a restricted area, while the form with trough open at one end may be the more generalized form. If this should prove to be so, the relation of the two specialized types to each other should be studied. Is their distribution really identical? And have they identical functions in the economy of the people?

Turning now to Bc 51, it will be remembered that metates of this type with the trough open at both ends were found here. This type was not reported for Be 50 or Leyit Kin, or elsewhere in Chaco Canyon. The nearest published occurrence is at Kiatuthlanna.<ll However, Bc 51 is near the center of the area in which this type is common. The plain surface type was found by Judd in his Chaco Canyon pit house No.2, while pithouse No.1 apparently yielded only metates with trough open at one end.'"

Summing up our discussion of metates, it can be stated that the basin type is very widespread, and though probably in use earlier than Basket Maker-Pueblo development, continued throughout, as a comparatively infrequent type. The plain surface and trough with two ends open both more commonly occur late, although the latter may be early in the Hohokam. The type with trough open at one end has a much wider distribution. There are no certain instances of the threelegged type in the American Southwest in the pre-European periods, although to the south in Mexico it is common. In Utah a local type was developed which, however, did not spread beyond this peripheral region, and was abandoned after Pueblo II. That these distributions are, in part, to be interpreted as dependent upon availability of certain materials (and other non-historical factors) cannot be questioned, but the information in the literature is insufficiently detailed and concrete to make extended interpretations from this point of view possible. However, as Mr. Reiter kindly suggests,"" it may be noted, for example, that there seems to be a preponderance of plain surface metates where igneous stone was common, a preponderance of scooped and grooved where large pieces of igneous rock were not easily available.

Axes.-(See Map 3.) Axes were divided into three types for study: full grooved, three-quarters grooved, and notched. Another possible type is the unnotched axe, or celt, hut the only occurrences noted in tb~ literature were: the Abilene section of Texas ;07 Childs Point, N ehraska," and Leary Indian Village, Nebraska." An artifact, similar to the celt, which does appear in the Southwest, is commonly called a

64. Roberts, 1931, p. 154. It is possible that Roberts' remarks wel'e misconstrued, so the presence of the metate with trough open at both ends here is uncertain.

65. Judd, 1924, p. 411, Plate 1, Fig. 2. 66. Personal communication, April 12, 1939. 67. Ray, 1929, pp, 12, 16-17. GS, Gilder, 1909, p. 69 and Fig. 6. 69. Hill and Wedel, 1936, p. 44.


9 FULL GROOVED G THREE-QUARTERS

GROOVED o TWO NOTCHES

OTHREE NOTCHES

-------, I I I \

MAl':L DISTI1IBT:TlO::->r OFAx,·:s J:'\i TilE SOt:TIIWEST

tcamahia or "skinning knife." It is characteri~('c1 by its tapering shape, with the blade either beveled or straight, and it is usu:ll1~' j hin and well polished. Its use is uncertain. Holmes '" su~;~,'ests it, test' in ]C':lther working, and Morris 71 states that they arc llsed on Zuiii and Hopi altars, but were probably originally agricultUl'al impl'·l1lents. The tcamahia is found most commonly in the San .Juan Basin. hut at Swarts Ruin 72 there were chiPI)('d hoes, without notchl's, which ap]lear identical in shape with the tcamahias found farther north. :\otched hoes with the sides parallel, rather than tapel'ing-, an' occasionally found elsewhere in the Southwest. It may be that the tcamahia is unrelated to the axe. At Aztec Ruin 7' some of the tcamahias were notched for hafting. Nevertheless the unnotc-hed tn1(' does seem to be characteristic of the San Juan area, and I!otched hoes are not recorded for this area, with the possible exceptions at Aztec Ruins and Bc 51.

The three-quarters grooved type of axe is familiar in its general

70. Holmes, 1878, p. 407. 71. Morris, 1919b, p. 26. 72. Cosgrove, 1932, pp. 45-46. 73, Morris, 1919b, p. 26.


e FULL GROOVED (] THREE-QUARTERS

GROOVED o TWO NOTCHES

OTHREE NOTCHES

I 1 _______ .,

I I

MAP 3. DISTRIBUTION OF AXES IN THE SOUTHWEST

I I I


features: a groove around three of the four sides of an axe either round to oval or rectangular in cross-section, with the fourth side either flattened or rounded. Only one occurrence in period "A" was found, that is, before Basket Maker III. This was at Snaketown, in the Snaketown Phase.'! According to Gladwin's equation of the Hohokam and Basket Maker-Pueblo chronologies, this would place it about the fourth or fifth century, A. D.'" If this dating is accepted, we can grant to Snaketown the earliest three-quarters grooved axes in the Southwest, so far recorded. But if we place the earlier Hohokam phases a few centuries later, as some archaeologists feel is necessary, this occurrence falls within our "B" period. With this possible exception, the threequarters grooved axe does not appear until Pueblo I.'" The distinction between Basket Maker III and Pueblo I does not appear on the map, as both are included in period "B." In all the reports examined for the present study there was no indication that Roberts' identification of the grooved axe with Pueblo I is not entirely valid.

With regard to geographic distribution of the three-quarters grooved axes (see Map III), the northern and eastern boundary of the area in which the type is common could be formed by a line drawn from the Hopi towns to Gallup, New Mexico, and south to the Mimbres River. Within the area south and west of this boundary occur all but two instances of this type of axe." These exceptions are: (1) The AckmenLowry area of southwestern Colorado,'8 where there is a single specimen reported, in Pueblo I or II. While its local manufacture is possible, it may also be intrusive from the south, and the three-quarters grooved type is at least extr<;)mely uncommon here. (2) At the Pueblo of Unshagi, New Mexico/' which yielded three specimens in Pueblo IV. The occurrence far to the west in the Mohave Sink Region of California SD is quite possibly accounted for by visits to the turquoise mines by Indians from Arizona.

Within the full grooved class have been included axes with a single completely encircling groove, and those with more elaborate arrangements, such as the spiral and oblique grooves which Kidder has described from Pecos.Bl There is no other site for which the description of axes has been as careful and complete as at Pecos, but similar axes have been mentioned elsewhere, without complete details. The five occurrences noted in the present survey are all in northern New Mexico,

74. Sayles, in Gladwin, ct. al., 1937, PI. 78. 75. Gladwin, 1937, p. 8. 76. Roberts, 1935, p. 14. 77. Not shown on the map is an occurrence near Williams, Arizona, just west of

the San Francisco Mountains (Hargrave, 1938). 78. Martin, 1938, p. 254. 79. Reiter, 1938, p. 165. 80. Rogers, M. J., 1929, PP. 5-6. 81. Kidder, 1932, pp. 45-53.


extending from the Pecos River to the tributaries of the Little Colorado: at U nshagi, New Mexico," in the Chama Valley.~' on the Jemez Plateau," at Bc 50,'" and at ZUl1i. The geographical distribution of full grooved axes in general seems to be partly overlapping that of three-quarters grooved axes, but to extend farther north and east. The greatest number of occurrences are within the area indicated on the map, but there are a few exceptions. First, the turquoise mines of the Mohave Sink Region of California;" the remarks made in connection with three-quarters grooved axes apply here also. Second, Casa Grande, Arizona;bS possibly the type here is the result of Salado influence from the north. Third, Swarts Ruin, l\" ew Mexico,'" and the Harris Site nearby."" Fourth, Chihuahua, Mexico,'" where Sao'les reports this type of axe from the Ramos Phase, during which the Salado people were absorbed as they arrived from the north. Fifth, IIonanki, on Oak Creek, Arizona."' The Swarts Ruin, the Harris Site, and Honanki are thus the only unexplained occurrences of the full grooved axe outside the northern part of the Southwest.

The notched axes (including both two and three notches) seem to have a definite center in the San Juan basin, extending to the northem Rio Grande area. An apparently distinctive three-notched type has been reported from the Gallina district.''' Outside of this region, they are found at the turquoise mines of southern California ;'" in the salt mines near "Lost City," Nevada ;'" at the Harris site' in I\ cw l'.Iexico ;'» and in Cottonwood Canyon, Utah.'" Except for these four occurrences, notched axes have the limited distribution indicated by the smaller enclosed area on Map II.

Another feature of axes which might serve as a criterion of differentiation is whether a specimen is long- or short-bitted. Nesbitt refers to the distinction,98 correlating the short bit with the three-quarters grooved type and the Hohokam area, and the long bit with thr full grooved type and the Basket Maker-Pueblo area. The method of haft-

82. Reiter, 1938, p. 165. 83. Jeancon, 1923, Pl. 12; also Hibben, 1937, pp. 28, 43. 84. Hewett, 1906, PI. 12, 85. Hibben, in Brand, et. al., 1937, p. 92. 86. Stevenson, 1883, p. 337. 87. Rogers, M, J., 1929, p. 5. 88. Fewkes, 1912, pp. 123-124, PIs. 53-55, Fig. 23. 89. Cosgrove, 1932, p. 41. 90, Haury, 1936, p. 70. 91. Sayles, 1936, p. 44. 92. Fewkes, 1898a, p. 571. 93. Hibben, 1938, p. 135. 94. Rogers, M. J., 1929, p. 5. 95. Harrington, 1927a, p. 127. 96. Haury, 1936a, p. 70. 97. Judd, 1926, p. 146 and PI. 50. 98. Nesbitt, 1938, PP. 127-128.

72 ]

I I I I I I

e X9>

e B 122.

00'-----

THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO

MAULS AND HAMMERS e f"ULL GROOVED

a THREE - QUARTERS

I... . GROOVED

• 1c45 8CI09 B 105 "

'B70I'l70

.... .' ieGs41 I1'~" (J TWO NOTCHES . - - - ~~'?:::'"- - - - (J THREE NOTCHES G e 007- . , ~1~ C37 1C39 (39 e e. I

. X 52. e BI%X35-X36 I

.~ --. ___ I BS7X!>8 X ~ • I . K60B63 C56

cyoez23

.B-.C.8.<f.,ClGB84 \ •• , .'

C]C69 ax n \ ...... \

IOB"I-3'(63 \

18e4> I I (] e I (Ii". CI8 I Bl.O (',;>01

..... 1(2.1 c~ _

, I I '- - - - -I--

I \ \ ,

MAP 4. DrSTltIBUTION OF MAULS AND HAMMERS IN THE SOUTHWEST

8 X III

ing, however, has been shown to vary geographically, with the full grooved axe mainly north of the three-quarters grooved. Two subtypes, the notched axe and the elaborated full grooved axe, both tend to have restricted but not identical northerly distributions.

Mauls and HU1mners.-(See Map 4.) There are two main classes of implement in this category: those held in the hand, and those hafted in some fashion, with a groove for that purpose. The first class, basically, is the hammerstone; but under this term are included a large variety of implements, ranging from any small boulder which shows wear on some portion of its surface, to the carefully shaped stones which fit the hand perfectly and were apparently used for pecking stone tools. The various functions are listed by Morris,"" and include roughening the grinding surfaces of metates, blocking out manos, axes, and other tools, excavating the interior of bowls and mortars, grooving axes and hammers, and dressing building stones. Bartlett")O also suggests that they were used for cracking nuts and bones. The rough, unworked, and the carefully finished types of hammerstone grade imperceptibly into each other, and at a single site it is not uncommon to find

99. Morris, 1919b, pp. 19-20. 100. Bartlett, 1934, p. 20.

72 ]

I I I I e I X99

I

e BI2.2.

O{) L----' &7 0.B70

THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO

MAULS AND HAMMERS e FULL GROOVED a THREE - QUARTERS

GROOVED

e x III.

MAP 4. DISTRIBUTION OF MAULS AND HAMMERS IN THE SOUTHWEST


all degrees of finish exhibited. This is only to be expected, for, as cannot too often be stressed, tools are made to satisfy some need of the moment, and while falling into certain rough categories on the basis of function, and influenced in form to a large degree by the cultural heritage of the maker, nevertheless, it seems impossible to lay down boundaries over which types do not pass. After all, the tool is made to serve its purpose and not to fit an abstraction in the mind of the m'chaeologist. The hammerstone does not show any pal"ticular arp<1 or period of importance in its distribution. It occurs in the entire area ,tudied in this paper. Its rarity in sites earlicl' than Baskd :\Iaker III may be a result of the rarity of com]letently studied and publi,hed sites of earlier date. Consequently the hammerstone has been omitted from the map of hammers and mauls.

One specialization of the hammerstone deSl'l'\'eS mention, tIll' pitted hammerstone. Its distinguishing feahll'e is the IJl'e,ence or shallow pits pecked opposite each other on the two largest surface" ]ll'Obably to serve as grips for the finger and thumb. Although r(']ativcl:.' few references were noted in the literature, they were scattercd ovc'r most of the Southwest, east of a line from southeast Colorado through the Hopi villages, and through the Sierra Ancha to Casa c: l'ande. The pitted hammerstone was not noted west of this line, but tl](' absence may be due to oversights in the survey of the literature. \Vhcther the pits are really intentional or are due to hard usc may, in any case, be regarded as not yet fully established.

Turning to the grooved type of maul and hammer, it seems impossible to distinguish in the literature betwecnmauls and hammers. A related type, club-heads, is also distinguished by two authors. , .. , Some archaeologists call implements which are grooved for hafting and show use for pounding, hammers, and others call them mauls. Whdher the two terms are interchangeable depends, of course, on definition, which must be arbitrary if stated in terms of ('xte;'nal form. an<1 in the case of archaeology must be largely conjectural if stated in tl'l'l1lS "f use. In the description of the pel'cussion tools froll! Be 51, the di,tinction was made on the basis of size, following the designations nsed in the field. The importance of the distinction lies in the mmmon r('-use of axes for pounding. These dulled, battel'cd axes arc smaller than the large and heavy "mauls." But it is not known whether all () f the "hammers" were made from worn out axes, or whether thcre is only a chance resemblance between the smaller pounding tools and occasional discarded axes.

This distinction could not be made in the 11l'l'Sent SUl'\'e~', because there are few published details as to size. The only distinction which was found to be applicable was the one used for axes-the nature of

101. Kidder, 1932, mauls, p. 54, club-heads, p. 5,5: and Cosgro\"t'. 1~):3:2, mauls. p. 43, club-heads, p. 44.


the groove. The distribution of the two types was similar to that of the axes. The only occurrence of the three-quarters grooved type outside the boundary sketched on the map is in the Mohave Sink Region of California,""' where, as in the case of the axes, it may be due to visits by Indians from the East. On the other hand, the full grooved type of maul or hammer occurred at all the locations at which the full grooved axe was present. Besides these instances beyond the area of greatest prevalence, which are shared with the axe, the maul or hammer alone is found at Lake Corrine, in northern Utah,"03 in the Abilene section of Texas,"O! at Paragonah, Utah,"05 at Kings Ruin, Arizona,"oo Fitzmaurice Ruin nearby,'07 and in the San Francisco Mountains."os Because of the rather numerous exceptions, mostly to the west, to the distribution sketched on the map, it might be justifiable to regard the area where the full grooved maul or hammer is typical as being greater than that for the corresponding type of axe. If this is so, it would be interesting to know whether the mauls or hammers beyond the limits of the axes are of the type made specifically for pounding, or are also made from discarded axes. If the former should prove to be the case, it would suggest that the distinction between "mauls" and "hammers" really possesses validity.

Mortars and Pestles.-(See Map 5.) In the present study sufficient examples have been noted to suggest that the mortar and pestle "'" must be considered among the ordinary artifacts of at least part of the Southwest. There is no evidence that metate and mano were ever replaced by the mortar and pestle, but they were apparently augmented in some areas. The map indicates that the majority of the occurrences of mortar and pestle together are in the south. The presence of the pestle around Great Salt Lake suggests the possibility of a second center of importance. But the mortar and pestle also occur scatteringly north from the Gila-Salt Basin as far as southern Colorado,llo west to the Mohave Sink Region of California,lll and east to

102. Rogers, M. J., 1929, pp. 5-6. 103. Steward, 1936, pp. 40-41. Steward states that the material of this specimen

suggests an origin to the south or west. 104. Ray, 1931, pP. 87-88. 105. Judd, 1926, p. 146. lOG. Spicer and Caywood, 1936, p. 56. 107. Ibid., p. 112. A specimen described as a "pick" is included here because of

its general similarity. 108. Bartlett, 1934, p. 31. 109. There is a serious terminological difficulty here. Some archaeologists, for

example, would consider what I have referred to as the "one-handed, circular motion basin metate" as a mortar and certain of my "manos" as the corresponding pestles. From a functional viewpoint the case can certainly be argued. But I believe I follow the modal usage. In any event, in these paragraphs I call "mortars and pestles" only those artifacts which have been so labeled by the authors who have described them.

110. Fewkes, 1916, pp. 96-117; and 1917, pp. 461-488. 111. Rogers, M. J., 1929, p. 8.

, , , ,


DO 897 e. 12.5

00 B!ZI o

&IlO

MORTARS AND PESTLES

o C67

I I I I

o PESTLES @ LARGE MORTARS o SMALL MORTARS

MAP 5. DIsTRmUTIO::-f OF MOHTAHS AND Pr:;-:;TLES 1:-:; THE SOUTIlWE:-;T

Val Verde County, Texas.l12 In Texas the ea~tCl'n boundary is approximately the boundary of the mesquite thicket country. But the force of this evidence for the widespread use of the mortar and pestle in the Southwest, and for a concentration in the Gila-Salt Basin is lessened by the difficulty of interpreting reports found in the litnature. As far as possible, mortars have been distinguished from bowls (containers, not for pounding), and the latter excluded. But errors may have occurred, for clear-cut descriptions are not always given, there are no universally accepted definitions of mortars and bowls. The mortars listed on the map as large would seem to have been for pounding only, and were frequently very crude and rough in appearance. Those listed as small may have been intended for receptacles. Bed rock and port· able mortars ought also to be distinguished.

Likewise, pestles cannot always be distinguished from hammerstones. In all the instances included on the map, it appeared that the pestle was distinct from the ordinary hammerstone; in some cases elongated pestles with distinct heads larger than the handles were reported. In other cases the pestle was merely a long stone showing wear by pounding on one or two ends. At the sites where mortars

112. Pearce and Jackson, 1933, PI'. 41-42, 133.

, , , ,


I 1

: 0 I 6120

1 1 1 'I 1 1 1 L _____ _

DI 07

MORTARS AND PESTLES 1 I 0 PESTLES : @) LARGE MORTARS

o SMALL MORTARS

o C67

MAP 5. D,STRIBUTION OF MORTARS AND PESTLES IN THE SOUTHWEST


were reported but no pestles, it is possible that simple hammerstones were used, or perhaps wooden pestles. But it seems, on the basis of the available inadequate information, that we are justified in regarding them as sporadic in most of the Southwest, and fairly common in the southern portion.

Geneml Conclusions.-At present only the following highly tentative general conclusions (based in considerable degree on negative l1:l

evidence) can be ventured: 1. Bc 51 resembles two other small house ruins of the Chaco

Canyon (Bc 50 and Leyit Kin) in most of its ground and pecked stone. It differs in that: (1) it contained metates with the trough open at both ends, (2) it lacked notched axes and hammers, and (3) petrified wood was not commonly used for hammerstones. It may well be that the absolute and relative numbers on which these differentiae are based are insufficient to make such conclusions valid, but, taking the evidence as it stands, ,such differences appear.

2. The basin (bowl) metate may be the earliest form used in the Southwest, but continued in use until late times.

3. The plain surface metate and the type with the trough open at both ends are found in approximately the same area, principally in the north.

4. The type of metate with the trough open at one end (scoop) has a much wider distribution than does the other trough type.

5. The three-quarters grooved axe is rare before Basket Maker III and is typical only of the southern portion of the Southwest.

6. Notched axes are restricted to the San Juan Basin and the adjoining portion of the Rio Grande Valley.1H

7. Axes with elaborate grooves are mostly found in the northern Rio Grande area and immediately to the west."'

8. Although three-quarters grooved mauls and hammers have approximately the same distribution as the three-quarters grooved axes, the full grooved maul or hammer occurs rather frequently outside the limits of the full grooved axe.

9. The mortar and pestle are present in the Southwest and seem to be concentrated in the Gila-Salt Basin, in Chihuahua and southern New Mexico.

KEY To MAPS

A. Pre-Basket Maker, Basket Maker I, Basket Maker II. B. Basket Maker III, Pueblo I, Pueblo II. C. Pueblo III, Pueblo IV, Pueblo V. X. Date unknown.

113. Perhaps the Inost important single point is a negative one. Tne published data are inadequate to determine definitively whether such artifacts are useful as indicators of cultural stylization and change.

114. Dr. Brand informs me that they also occur in southern New Mexico. 115. Dr. Brand writes that they are also fairly conlman in Chihuahua.


1. M?have Si.nk Region, Calif. Rogers, :.VI. J. 1929. 2. Wlllona VIllage, Ariz. McGregor 19:37. 3. San Francisco Mountains, Ariz. Colton 193:]. 4. San Francisco Mountains, Bartlett HJ34. 5. Eagle Cave, Val Verde Co., Texas. Davenport (no date). 6. Val Verde Co., Texas. PertiTe a!1d .Jackson 1933. 7. Shumla Caves, Texas. :Uartin 193:3. 8. Mt. Riley, New Mex. Alvc" 1988. 9. Yaquis of Sonora, Holden 1984.

10. Middle Chinlee, Ariz. Morss 1927. 11. Blue River, Ariz. Hough Un4. 12. Blue River, Ariz. Hough 1907. 13. Casa Grande, Ariz. Mindeleff 1897. 14. Casa Grande, Ariz. Fewkes H112. 15. Casa Grande, Ariz. Fewkes 1907. 16. Grewe Site, Ariz. vVooc1wanl HJ31. 17. Twenty Nine Palms Eegion, Calif. Campbell 1931. 18. Swarts Ruin, New Mex. Cosgrove 1~)32. 19. Galaz Ruin, New Mex. Bl'yan HJ:;l. 20. Harris Site, New Mex. Haury 1~J8G. 21. Cameron Creek Village, New Mex. Bl'adficld 1931. 22. Zuiii, New Mex. Stevenson 188:;. 23. Village of the Great Kivas, New 1Il"';. Roilerts 1932. 24. Walpi, Ariz. Stevenson 188:3. 25. Awatovi and Sikyatki, Ariz. Fewkes 18~J8. 26. Hopi Mesas, Ariz. Hough ]908. 27. Roosevelt:9 :6, Ariz. Hamy 1932. 28. Tusayan Ruin, Ariz. Haury HJ31. 29. Show low and Pinedale, Ariz. Haury and Hargrave 1931. 30. Pueblo Viejo, Ariz. Fewkes, 1898. 31. Pueblo Viejo, Ariz. Fewkes 1904. 32. McDonalds Canyon, Ariz. Hough Hl03. 33. Kintiel, Ariz. Haury and Hargrave 1931. 34. La Roux Wash, Ariz. Hough 190;3. 35. Taos Valley, New Mexico, Jeancon 1929. 36. San Diego Mission, New Mex. Toulouse 1937. 37. Northeastern Ariz. Guernsey 19;:n. 38. Fremont River, Utah. Mors~ 19:31. 39. Aztec Ruin, New Mex. Morris 1919A. 40. Site near Aztec Ruin, New Mex. Morris 1915. 41. Johnson Canyon, Colo. Morris 1D19D. 42. Mancos Canyon, Colo. Holmes 1878. 43. Mogollon Village, NeVi Mex. Haury 1936. 44. Cannonball Ruin, Colo. Morley 1U08. 45. Lowry Ruin, Colo. Martin 1936. 46. Ackmen-Lowry Area, Martin 1938. 47. Petrified Forest, Ariz. Mera 1934. 48. Honanki, Oak Creek, Ariz. Fewkes 1898A. 49. Navajo National Monument, Ariz. Fewkes 1911B. 50. Betatakin, Ariz. Judd 1930. 51. Monument Valley, Ariz. Kidder and Guernsey 1919. 52. Northeastern Ariz. Kidder and Guernsey 1921. 53. Jemez Cave, New Mex. Alexander and Reiter 1935. 54. Jemez Plateau New Mex. Hewett 1906. 55. Jemez Cave, New Mex. Alexander and Reiter 1935.

78] THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO

56. Unshagi, New Mex. Reiter 1938. 57. Shabik'eschee Village, New Mex. Roberts 1929. 58. Chaco Canyon Pit Houses, New Mex. Judd 1924. 59. Chaco Canyon, New Mex. Hewett 1936. 60. Bc 50, New Mex. Brand. et. aL 19i\7. 61. Leyit Kin, New Mex. Dutton 1938. 62. Pueblo Bonito, New Mex. Pepper 1920. 63. Bc 51, New Mex. present report. 64. Chihuahua, Mex. Sayles 1936. 65. Kings Ruin, Ariz. Spicer and Caywood 1936. 66. Fitzmaurice Ruin, Ariz. Spicer and Caywood 1936. 67. Sonora, Mex. Sauer and Brand 1931. 68. Southeastern Ariz. Sauer and Brand 1930. 69. Sierra Ancha, Ariz. Haury 1934. 70. "Lost City," Nevada. Harrington 1927B. 71. Moapa Valley, Nevada. Harrington 1930. 72. Mesa House, Nevada. Hayden 1930. 73. Sierra Madras Mountains, Mex. Blackiston 1909. 74. Pinto Basin, Calif. Campbell 1935. 75. Pinto Basin, Calif. Campbell 1936. 76. Brewster Co., Tex. Coffin 1932. 77. Fort Apache, Ariz. Bandelier 1892. 78. Tempe, Ariz. Bandelier 1892. 79. Casas Grandes, Mex. Bartlett 1854. 80. Jornada del Muerto, New Mex. Chapman 1926. 81. Snaketown, Ariz. Gladwin, et. aZ. 1937. 82. Upper San Francisco River, New Mex. Hough 1923. 83. Luna, New Mex. Hough 1920. 84. Kiatuthlanna, Ariz. Roberts 1931. 85. Lake Mohave, Calif. Campbell 1936. 86. Chama Valley, New Mex. Jeancon 1923. 87. Chama Valley and Gallina River, New Mex. Douglass 1917. 88. Riana Ruin, New Mex. Hibben 1937. 89. Largo Area, New Mex. Mera 1938. 90. Fumarole Area, New Mex. Renaud 1929. 91. Fumarole Area, New Mex. Renaud 1930. 92. Oak Creek, New Mex. Renaud 1929. 93. Oak Creek, New Mex. Renaud 1930. 94. Chevlon, Ariz. Fewkes 1898C. 95. Texas Canyon, Ariz. Fulton 1934. 96. Willard, Utah. Judd 1926. 97. Willard, Utah. Steward 1936. 98. Great Salt Lake, Utah. Steward 1936. 99. Paragonah, Utah. Judd 1926.

100. Paragonah, Utah. Judd 1919. 101. Kane Co., Utah. Nusbaum, et. aZ. 1922. 102. Moab, Utah. Judd 1919. 103. Western Nebraska. Renaud 1934. 104. Eastern Colo. Renaud 1931. 105. Piedra District, Colo. Roberts 1930. 106. Mesa Verde, Colo. Fewkes 1916. 107. Mesa Verde, Colo. Fewkes 1907. 108. Mesa Verde, Colo. Fewkes 1911A. 109. Mesa Verde, Colo. Fewkes 1917. 110. Abilene section, Texas. Ray 1929.


111. Abilene section, Texas. Ray 1931. 112. Caves of Great Salt Lake, Utah. Steward 1937. 113. Little Colorado ruins, Ariz. Fewkes 1904. 114. Nine-Mile Canyon, Utah. Gillin 19:38. 115. Desolation Canyon, Utah. Gaumer 1937. 116. Lower Mimbes Valley, New l\Iex. Fewkes 1914. 117. Pecos, New Mex. Kidder 1932. 118. Madera Valley, Texas. Kelley 1933. 119. Panhandle, Texas. Studer 1934. 120. Provo, Utah. Steward 1936. 121. Grantsville, Utah. Steward 1936. 122. Lake Corrine, Utah. Steward 1936. 123. Uintah Basin, Utah. Steward 1936. 124. Montezuma Valley, Colo. Prudden 1914.

SECTION D

ARROW-SHAFT TOOLS (WITH NOTES ON THEIR GENERAL DISTRIBUTION)"

By JOSEPH H. TOULOUSE, JR.

Introduction

Dejinitions.-Of the three forms of arrow-shaft tools only the lithic forms will be treated herewith, leaving the bone, antler, and wood straighteners, or "wrenches," for a later survey. The first tool, the arrow-shaft-smoother (see Fig. 8) is defined as a piece of coarsegrained abrasive stone (usually sandstone) which has had a groove

I o , 1-

II

FlGUlm 8-ARROW-SHAFT TOOL TYPES

worked into one flat surface, this last often artificially fashioned. This tool is primarily abrasive in function and is used in shaping the shaft, removing irregularities which might lessen degree of balance, etc. The

1. Acknowledgements are due the following individuals and institutions for various data in their respective areas: E. B. Sayles, Gila I)ucblo, Globe, Arizona; H. P. Mera, Laboratory of Anthropology, Santa Fe, New Mexico; Katherine Bartlett. Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff, Arizona; Marie Wormington, Colorado Museum of Natural History, Denver; Charles Keyes, The State Historical Society of Iowa, Iowa City; J. Charles Kelley. Big Bend Museum, Alpine, Texas; D. D. Brand and W. W. Hill, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque; The Centennial l\1useum, El Paso, Texas; and Richard E. Morgan, The Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, Columbus, Ohio.

[ 80 ]

I 11

F,GURE !<--ARROW-SnAF'f TOOL TYPES


second principal tool, the arrow-shaft-straightener (see Fig. 8), is similarly formed, but of a fine-grained rock, in which the groove often assumes a high polish. There is no ethnographic evidence of its use as an abrasive tool.

The following classification is but an outline, and until more data are available regarding these tools (especially as to their treatment and elaboration), the classification will have to remain inadequate. It may, for example, perhaps be questioned whether one can always distinguish between arrow-shaft-smoothers and other abrading stones used in grinding bone implements and beads. On the whole, it would seem that the former distinction could usually be made, for the grooves of awl-sharpening tools are often v-shaped in cross-section. There is also room for doubt as to the validity of the respective divisions as listed in the order given, but present data do not justify a more finely differentiated classification:

1. Arrow-shaft-smoother (abrasive) a. Worked into rectangular form with usually one groove

often used in pairs. b. Rough or rounded natural pebble with one, two, 01' more

grooves.

II. Arrow-shaft-straightener (non-abrasive) a. Artificially shaped; oval, rectangular, square, round, etc.;

having a ridge either parallel or perpendicular to grooves, sometimes both; decorated 01' not.

b. Same as above, but no ridges; decorated or not. c. Water worn or other naturally shaped stone with one,

two, or more grooves.

Chaco Forms

From Bc 51 (floor of kiva 2) came a single rectangular arrowshaft-straightener of Type IIa. Three other stone objects had grooves which might have been used in smoothing arrow shafts, or in grinding bone points or beads. One had a single groove; one had two grooves; and one had 15 parallel grooves on a flat surface 10" long.

Extraordinarily few arrow-shaft tools have been reported from sites of Chaco type or affinities. Forms 1a and 1b occur, a single specimen of the former," six specimens of the latter" which may tentatively be taken as typical.

2. Morris. 1919b. p. 24. 3. Dutton. 1938. PI. VIII-A. one specimen of Type lb. Pepper, 1920, p. 92 and Fig. lib, one specimeD of Type Ib; in addition, "an

arrow-smoother, made of coarse-grained sandstone of light color, and another grinding stone of the same material having large grooves on the side" (p. 9:2) are referred to but since they are not illustrated or further described typological determination is impossible.

Roberts, 1932, p. 142 and PI. 53 c, d, e, and f, four specimens of Type lb.


Notes on the General Distribution of Arrow-Shaft-Tools

Arrow-Shaft-Smoothers.-In the western portion of the United States the smoothers have a rather wide known distribution (see Map 6), extending from the Frazer River of British Columbia on the north to the Conchos River of Chihuahua on the south.

, , 1

: : ,. ,/ " ! ,/ I , I /

,/ I I ,."",/ I I , ,. " , , /

\ : : /' t I :;' I I I' \ , I'

---®) \ " : /~0, @ffJi-n- L -- __ :' ! ~«<:J -)10 5. ,/(f;j~ --®-------T-_____ L ___ ~-~-~

l~ \. L.......·· ~ .. -....... "';r--_______ ~

, : 1 1

: 1

~t----~ :---------: ~ ;@

@) : --~--------l_@ @ , i§I 'W : i Q Q 61 ___ - --I ~ , ~ ~

@ : ;--- -. --"@'

/ @ €) : I

f~-~27~J _________ ; : ~ '~33.)@ 1-~--------------~ __ _

3 .v 5'~ .------1 ~----- ~ I.4zLFsl-l:;;;] ~~ 1 1 " '-

~;'~~ 9:: : J 8587ife I ~ : I.

~@ @l 1--- ---

@ ~ @

DISTRIBUTION OF" ARROWSHAF"T

E11'INOLOGICAL. TO OLS ARCHA£OI.OGICAL

® ---- SmootMI"8 - 0 .~ - Str-aight.nera ~- §]

MAP 6. DISTRIBUTION OF ARROW-SHAFT TOOLS

, , , I ,. • I I I I

I , , I , , I I , ., I I , I I , ,

€> I I , I ,

@ I , , , , I , , . , /

I , ,

I , ( ,

I I , I ,

I I

~O I

, ., ---

DISTRIBUTION OF" ARROWSHAF"T £T.HNOLOGICAL·

® --- Sm ...... '" -- 0

MAP 6. DISTRmUTION OF ARROW-SHAFT TOOLS


NOTES TO ACCOMPANY MAP 6

1. Kelly,!.: 1932, p. 139 (Ib).

2. Gifford, E. W.: 1932b, pI. 15d (lIb) (2 parallel grooves). Kroeber, A. L.: 1925, pI. 49 (Same as above).

3. Fewkes, J. W.: 1904, p. 103 (Ia). Beaglehole. E.: 1935. p. 19 (Ia).

4. Gifford, E. W.: 1933, p. 274 (lIb). Forde, C. D.: 1931 (IIa).

5. Beals, R. L.: 1933, p. 340 (Ia). Dixon, R. B.: 1905, p. 134 (Ia).

6. Barrett, S. A.: 1910, p. 253 (lIb). 7. Gifford, E. W.: 1931, p. 29 (lIb). 8. Gifford, E. W.: 1932b, p. 224 (lIb).

9. Mason, J. A.: 1912. p. 140 (lIb, decorated with striations). 10. KroeLer. A. L.: 1908, p. 53 (I1a, ridge at right angles to grooves).

Kroeber, A. L.: 1925, pI. 49 (Same as above). 11. Sparkman, P. S.: 1908, p. 206 (lIb). 12. Drucker, P.: 1937, p. 237 (Ia, used in pairs). 13. DuBois, C.: 1935, p. 125 (la, used in pairs). 14. Lowie, R. H.: 1922, p. 230 (la, used in pairs). 15. Mekeel, Scudder: 1935, p. 93 (lIb ?). 16. Teit, James A.: 1930, p. 217-18 (Ia). 17. Ray, V. F.: 1933, p. 89 (II 'n. 18. Spier, L.: 1928, p. 150 (II). 19. Spinden, H. J.: 1908, p. 187, pI. VII (Ia and Ilb, this latter one having incised

lines on either side). 20. Teit, J. A.: 1930, p. 40 (Ia). 21. Kroeber, A. L.: 1925, pI. 49 (IIa). 22. Dorsey, J. 0.: 1896 (la, used in pairs). 23. Russell, F.: 1908, p. Ill, fig. 31 (Prehistoric, lIb n. 24. Steward, J. H.: 1933b, pI. 4f & g (lIb). 25. Kroeber, A. L.: 1925, pI. 49 (IIa, incised line decoration). 26. Campbell, E. W. C.: 1931, PI. 46 (lIa, 8; IIb, 6). 27. Fewkes, J. W.: 1898a, p. 731, pI. 169 (lIa).

Fewkes, J. W.: 1904, p. 103 (Ib). Bartlett: Personal communication (Ja, IIb).

28. Fewkes, J. W.: 1912, p. 126, pI. 61 (lIb). 29. Fewkes, J. W.: 1914, p. 18, fig. 5 (IIa).

Bartlett, Katherine: Personal communication (lIb). 30. Hill, W. W.: Unpublished notes on the Navaho. (la, used in pairs). 31. Fulton, W. S.: 1934, p. 20, pI. 14a (lIe). 32. Gifford and Schenck: 1926, p. 67, pI. 17. (lIb). 33. Mera, H. P.: 1938b. pI. 9 (Specialized IIa).

Hibben, F. C.: 1938, pI. 9, p. 136 (Same as above).

34. Hodge, F. W.: 1923 (Ilb). 35. Hough, W.: 1903, p. 322, pI. 55 (Ila).

Bartlett, Katherine: Personal communication (lIe). 36. Hough, W.: 1907, p. 34, fig. 4 (IIa).

Fewkes, J. W.: 1904, p. 182 (2, IIa).

37. Hough, W.: 1914, p. 17 (lIb, 3).

38. Haury, E.: 1934, p. 120, pI. 72 (Ub, 5).

39. Alexander and Reiter: 1935, p. 29, pI. IVb (Ia). University of New Mexico Excavations at Giusewa 1935 (Ia. 2; IIb. 1). Museum of New Mexico Excavations at Giuse\va 1937 (lIb. 6).

Laboratory of Anthropology Collections (lIb, 2).


40. Bell and Gilmore: 1936, p. 324 (Ia). 41. Bell and Cape: 1936, p. 381 (la, 3). 42. Bartlett: 1930, p. 3 (Ib).

Bartlett: 1934, p. 33 (Ib, 2; lIb, 1).

Bartlett: Per80nal communication (Ia, IIb, 8; IIe, 4; lb). McGregor, J. C.: 1936 (Ib, 2).

43. Cooper, P.: 1936, p. 49 (Ia, 2; Ib, 1). 44. Dunlevy, M. L.: 1936, p. 196 (la, 12). 45. Dutton, B.: 1938, pI. VIII-A (Ib, 1).

Pepper, G. H.: 1920, p. 82, fig. 17b (Ib). Bartlett: Personal communication (la, Chetro Ketl).

46. Guernsey, S. J.: 1931, pI. 28 (Ia). 47. Harrington, M. R.: 1920, p. 100 (I ?).

48. Jeancon, J. A.: 1923, p. 23, pI. 21 (Ib, 3; IIb, 3). Hibben, F. C.: 1937, p. 42 (la, 2).

49. Judd, N. M.: 1926, p. 146, pI. 50 (Ib, 5). Steward, J. H.: 1933a, P. 18, fig. 6 (Ia). Steward, J. H.: 1936, p. 37, fig. 15 (Ia. 3).

50. Morris, E. H.: 1919b, p. 24 (Ia 7). 51. Morss, N.: 1931, p. 55, pI. 31 (la, 2). 52. Renaud, E. B.: 1934, p. 46 (Ia, 25).

Strong, W. D.: 1935b, pI. 25 II (la, 1). 53. Roberts, F. H. H.: 1932, pP. 139-42, pl. 53 (lb. 4).

Gila Pueblo Collection, Globe, Arizona (Ib, 1). 54. Smith, H. I.: 1899, p. 146, fig. 57 (Ia, 2). 55. Smith, H. I.: 1900, p. 419 (Ia). 56. Smith, H. I.: 1910b, p. 69 (Ia). 57. Steward, J. H.: 1937, p. 17 (Ib, 4).

Steward, J. H.: 1933a, p. 18, fig. 6 (Ib). 58. Steward, J. H.: 1933a, p. 18, fig. 6 (Ia).

Steward, J. H.: 1936, P. 37, fig. 15 (la, 6). 59. Steward, J. H.: 1936, p. 37, fig. 15 (la, 2). 60. Wedel, W. R.: 1936, p. 80, pI. 7b (la, 10 occur in pairs).

Strong, W. D.: 1935b, pI. I (Ia, 1).

61. Strong, W. D.: 1935b, pI. 17 (la, 1).

62. Strong, W. D.: 1935b, PI. 17 (la, 4). 63. Strong, Schenck and Steward: 1930, p. 91, pI. 20b (la, 2; lIa, 3). 64. Sayles, E. B.: 1936, p. 44, pI. 12 (Ub, 1; la, 3). 65. Wilson, T.: 1899, pp. 884-87 (la, 2). 66. Caywood and Spicer: 1935, p. 83 (lb, 4: IIc, 26). 67. Wilson, T.: 1899, pp. 884-87 (lIb, 1). 6S. Hewett, E. L.: 1938, fig. 30 (lIa, 4; lIb, 5).

Laboratory of Anthropology Collections (lIa, 1; IIb, 2). 69. Kidder, A. V.: 1932, pp. 76-82 (Ia, 55; IIa & lIb, 85). 70-76. Sayles, E. B.: 1935, p. 76, Charts, pI. XXI. 77. Big Bend Museum, Alpine, Texas (IIc, 4; lb, 2; la, 2). 78-79. Sayles, E. B.: 1935, p. 76, Charts, pI. XXI. 80. Big Bend Museum Collection (IIb, 2; specialized). 81. Big Bend Museum Collection (IIb, 1: specialized). 82. Centennial Museum Collection, EI Paso, Texas (lIa, 1; lIb, 1; lIe, 3)

Laboratory of Anthropology Collection (lIb, 1). 83. Collection of writer (la, 1; lIa, 2).

Bartlett: Personal communication (lIe, 1). 84. Laboratory of Anthropology Collection (Ia, 2). 85. Laboratory of Anthropology Collection (lIe, 1). 86. Laboratory of Anthropology Collection (lIa, 1; IIc, 1). 87. Laboratory of Anthropology Collection (lIe, 1).


88. Laboratory of Anthropology Collection (lIe. lJ. 89. Gila Pueblo Collection (la, 2; lIb, 1; lIe, 11). 90. Gila Pueblo Collection (la, 3; Ib, 4; IIa, 3; IIb, 15; lIe, :3).

91. Colorado Museum of Natural History :rvluseum Collection (la, 1). 92. State Historical Society of Iowa (Ia). 93. Harrington, M. R.: Personal communication, Feb. 14, 1939 (lb, 1; la, 2, a pair). 94. Harrington. M. R.: Person'll communication, Feb. 14, 1\)39 (lb, 1; la, 2). 95. Heizer, Robert F.: Personal communication (Ia).

This type of tool has at least two forms: a naturally shaped stone, and an elaborate, finely shaped form. In Nebraska the occurrence is restricted to the latter form. Often these tools are encountered in finely matched pairs.' In this area tools are associated with the following cultural levels: Signal Butte I, Nebraska Culture, the Upper Republican Culture,5 and the Historic Pawnee Culture.' There appears to be a progression and differentiation of this form from Signal Butte I to the Historic Pawnee.

This form may have been carried into New Mexico during Pueblo III times. At any rate it is not reported from there from sites assigned to earlier periods. It appears also in Utah (age indeterminate) and there was used until Pueblo IV times. In early Pueblo III the known smoothers were made crudely from a naturally shaped stone' (Type Ib), but as the period closed, pairs of the more elaborate form appear.' In Arizona there appears in Pueblo II the cruder form of this tool (Type Ib) ; the paired tool seems never to have found its way into the area.9

In Texas the smoother appears in the Amarillo, El Paso, and Jumano Phases."o Elsewhere in Texas the information is scanty and the terminology equivocal.

The earliest known find of this tool in Chihuahua is attributable to the Ramos Phase," an early Pueblo IV division.'" It may be suggested that smoothers were introduced from farther north.

Arrow-Shaft Stra.ighteners.-The forms found within this group vary from the natural pebble to the artificially shaped forms, which may be specialized and elaborate. They have a more limited distribu-

4. Strong. 1935b. p. 60; Wedel, 1936, PI. 70-s. 5. Strong, 1935b, for Nebraska Culture S('P PI. Ii-Ie, g, and h: for Upper

Republican see PI. l7-ld; for Signal Butte I see PI. 25-2i. 6. Wedel, 1936, p. 80 and PI. 7. 7. Roberts, 1932, p. 142; Dutton, 1938, PI. VIlla. 8. Kidder, 1932, p. 82. The smoother (from the personal collection of the

writer) illustrated in Fig. 8 came from a La J'ara phase :-;itc near Tunque. This site (following Mera, 1935) \vQuld be assigned to Pueblo III and probably late.

9. Bartlett, 1930, pp. 1-4. also personal communication, Aug. 6, 1938; McGregor, 1936, p. 42.

10. E. B. Sayles, personal communication, No\,. 10, HJ3'3. 11. Sayles, 1936, Table I, PI. XIIa and b. 12. Gladwin, W. and H. S., 1934, summary chart.


tion than has the smoother. The straighteners seem to be limited to New Mexico, West Texas, Chihuahua,'" Arizona, Utah, and the Pacific coast from California as far north as northern Washington. Concentration of these objects, as so far reported, appears within New Mexico and Arizona. East of the Mississippi I have been able to find only one rather doubtful specimen reported."'

Specialized forms are noted in Pueblo IV in New Mexico and Arizona, but seem to reach their highest elaboration in the Largo Phase.l5 Here occurs a highly crested form, one of which has been recently noted by the writer in a collection from the Estancia Basin. Another form was noted in collections from excavations of the Big Bend Museum, Alpine, Texas, located in the La Junta area near Presidio, Texas. This form is circular with a tapering-rounded projection from one side, perpendicular to the groove.'6 Mr. Paul Reiter informs me that 22 arrow-shaft-straighteners were obtained in the Museum of New Mexico 1929 Alamogordo excavations and 42 in the 1930 excavations. Some were found in the Bravo Valley Aspect.

Types IIa and IIb are also encountered in California and apparently in rather late historical times/7 The typical form is an elongated oval with but a short groove across the shortest diameter; the ridge is at right angles to the groove and extends the full length of the specimen on either side of the groove. For the most part the Campbells attribute their finds to the Serrano with perhaps some Cahuilla influence.'s

Decoration.-Decoration is found only on the straightener and is of the simple incised line form. The parallel line motif 19 and crosshatching Jl{) are common, and one recorded specimen is decorated with an incised bow and arrow."'

Materials.-(See Table 5).

Recent Use of Arrow-Shaft Tools.-The arrow-shaft-smoother has been reported in use among at least the following tribes or groups:

13. Personal communication from Dr. Brand. April, 1939: "In Chihuahua both smoothers and straighteners are quite numerous, all the way from the Babicora basin northward to the International Boundary. The straighteners are of both types, IIa and IIb."

14. Wilson, 1899, p. 885 (Type IIc). 15. Mera, 1938, p. 243 and PI. 92; Hibben, 1938, p. 136 and PI. 9. 16. Mr. Charles Kelley, Curator of the Museum, attributes these specimens to

what he tentatively calls the Bravo Valley Aspect, which apparently parallels late Pueblo III and Pueblo IV.

17. Campbell, 1931, pP. 83-86, PI. 46 (Types IIa and IIb). 18. Campbell, 1931, pp. 88-89. 19. Gifford and Schenck, 1926, PI. 17; Kroeber, 1925, PI. 49; Centennial Museum,

EI Paso, collections; Laboratory of Anthropology, Santa Fe, collections No. 1639. 20. Mason, 1912, p. 140. 21. Fewkes, 1898a. p. 731, PI. 169.

TABLE 5 DISTRIBUTION OF THE MATERIALS OF ARROW-SHAFT-

STRAIGHTENERS *

0 <J .. .. "R " "" Material '" .<: ..

" :>i .. ... c 00 0 0 " S .<: " 0

'" ~ .<: .<: N oj K '" '" .. :.c -; ";: .... " ...

"" Eo< 0 Z ;::: u u ..:

basalt 2 1 3 3 2 2 38

basalt vesicular 5 2 3

calcite 2

chlorite schist 2 52t

conglomerate, fine 1

granite rock 1 5 3

limestone 17 4

micaceous gneiss 1

micaceous schist 16t

quartzite 1 1 2 1 1 20

rhyolite 1 1

sandstone, fine 1 2 8

shale 1

slate 1

soapstone 1 5

steatite 1 15

talc, gray 25t

talc schist 5

volcanic tuff 1

·Owing to some identifications by non·mineralogists. varying local usages, etc .. these determinations cannot be taken at literal face .. value.

tPecos excavations yield most of these.


Omaha;"' Navaho;23 Coeur d'Alene, Thompson, and Okanagon;" Crow;'" Wintu;26 Tolowa;27 Northern Maidu;28 and Nisenan"· These various groups used the tools in pairs. The Hopi 30 and the Surprise Valley Paiute 31 used but the single stone.

There are reported two methods of use of the arrow~shaft-straightener. One varies from the other in just one minor detail. The principal use is that in which the stone is heated and the shaft drawn back and forth within the groove."2 In the second method hot ashes are placed within the groove.sa

22. Dorsey, 1896, p. 286. 23. Hill, W. W., unpublished notes. 24. Teit, 1930, pp. 40, 217-218. 25. Lowie, 1922, p. 230. 26. DuBois, 1935, p. 125. 27. Drucker, 1937, p. 237. 28. Dixon, 1905, p. 134. 29. Beals, 1933, P. 340. 30. Beaglehole, 1935, p. 19; Fewkes, 1904, p. 103. 31. Kelly, 1932, p. 139. 32. Gifford, 1931, p. 29 (Kamia), 1932b, p. 224 (Southeastern Yavapai);

Kroeber, 1908, p. 53 (Cahuilla) ; Mason, 1912, p. 140 (Salinan); Mekeel, 1935, p. 93 (Walapai) ; Sparkman, 1908, p. 206 (Luisefio).

33. Spier, 1928, p. 150 (Havasupai) .

. ARIZONA NEW MEXICO

, NEBRASKA . ,

*

, 0 0

p

~oo U

H E '8 I L EJ [i] <0 s 0 T

I 1 I 01 0 :z R ____ L_,_J ______ ~-- __ I II" I \ r- ---T--->,!------ c p I I I u r- ---------- --- -- --- -\ - ---E

I I I 1/0 8 L

I aD W) 0 I I I I, ~ i.·-- . ri 51. { " '1,' ; ~" p

r- -- ! '" '// -1- c::JlJ- ---j--------- ... R P E U I' H o . E E!l I I 8 1 1 9-- d). '}- 0 L

ri , --1 ___ , /

0

----- "--- ------ --- ~0 '- --

0 --~--/ m R

I / .f-- /. /: '_. ' C

~ P ----p ..•..• U ~@J I,' --------------E 8 L /(("~ ~1 .,: . 0

Xl El . -'

0) (0

F,GURE 9-POSSIBLE INTERRELATIONSHIP OF ARROW- SHAFT TOOL TYPES

ARIZONA NEW MEXICO NEBRA5KA

FIGURE 9-POSSIBLE INTERRELATIONSHIP OF ARROW-SHAFT TOOL TYPES


NOTES TO ACCOMPANY FIGURE 9

1. Signal Butte I (Type la l. Strong: 1935b, PI. 25, 2j. 2. Upper Republican (Type la), Strong: 1935b, PI. 17, 1d. 3. Nebraska Culture (TYPe la), Strong: 1935b, PI. 17, lc-g-h. 4. Historic Pawnee (Type la), Wedel: 1936, PI. 7, 2 (Used in pairs). 5. Early Pueblo III (Type Ib), Roberts: 1932, PI. 53c, d, e, and f. (Also Pepper:

1920, and Dutton: 1938). 6. Late Pueblo III and Pueblo IV (Type Ia), Kidder: 1932 and Hibben: 1937. 7. Pueblo IV and Pueblo V (Type IIa), Kidder: 1932; also Hewett, 1938. 8. Pueblo II (Type Ib), Bartlett: 1930; abo personal communication, and

McGregor: 1936. 9. Pueblo II and Pueblo III (Type Ia) (Hohokam site), Bartlett: personal com-

munication. 10. Pueblo III and IV (Type Ia), Bartlett; personal communication. 11. Pueblo V (Type Ia), Fewkes: 1904, p. 103. 12. Early Pueblo III (Type lIe) ; Caywood and Spicer: 1935, p. 83. 13. Pueblo II (Type lIb), Bartlett: personal communication. 14. Pueblo IV (Type lIb), Kidder: 1932. 15. Pueblo V (Type lIb), University of New Mexico and Museum of New Mexico

excavations at Giusewa. 16. Pueblo III and IV (Type Ha), Bartlett; personal communication. 17. Pueblo V (Type Ha), Fewkes, 1898a, p. 169. 27. Bartlett: Personal communication, Aug. 6, 1938. 29. Same as above. 35. Same as above. 42. Same as above .. 45. 'Same as above. 83. Same as above. 93. Harrington, M. R.: Personal communication. Feb. 14, 1939. 94. Same as above. 95. Heizer, R. F.: Personal communication, Jan. 20, 1939.

Note.-No allowance on the chart has been made for comparable time periods between Nebraska and the Southwest, as at the present time, there h; no correlation suggested between the respective areas.

Chart.-Fig. 9 presents in schematic form an admittedly speculative reconstruction of possible interrelationships of various forms of arrow-shaft tools. The evidence at present available hardly permits of more than guesses in most cases, but it is sometimes useful in the formulation of problems (and the mapping out of future research) to systematize one's guesses. The chart is presented from this point of view only.

SECTION E

PROJECTILE POINTS AND CHIPPED IMPLEMENTS

By CHARLES BOHANNON

Material.-All of the 24 chipped implements recovered were of the cryptocrystalline variety of quartz known as chalcedony. It was possible to determine the following varieties: agate, carnelian, jasper, moss agate, obsidian, prase (?), sardonyx.

Description.-One piece is definitely identifiable as a knife of the Basket Maker type (Fig. 10) as defined by Guernsey and Kidder 1 and subsequently confirmed by Guernsey 2 and Roberts." Fairly well made of moss agate, it is 3.0" long by 1.35" wide and notched at an acute angle to the long axis of the blade. A second, a crudely worked flake 2.3" by 1.35", may have served as a knife or scraper.

Of three specimens, tentatively identifiable as spearpoints, only one is complete. This, 2.4" by 1.2", is rather poorly chipped of jasper, with short, shallow sidenotches at right angles to the long axis of the blade. It has a square base of the same width as the blade above the notches. This specimen might be considered as a knife rather than a spearpoint. One similar to it was reported by Pepper 4 from Pueblo Bonito and referred to by him as a knife, and one apparently similar was so classed by Hibben." Other writers 6 have regarded this specimen as a spearpoint. Of the other two incomplete spearpoints, one, with the entire base miss- FIGURE 10-BASKET MAKER

ing, is a lanceolate blade, 1.55" by 0.9", of KNIFE (Actual Size)

medium to finely chipped white chalcedony. The other, well made, bluish and translucent, is 1.6" by 0.8" wide with probably 0.5" of the point missing. The shoulders are rounded with

1. Guernsey and Kidder, 1921, pp. 93-95. 2. Guernsey, 1931, p. 73 .. 3. Roberts, 1930, pp. 152-153. 4. Pepper, 1920, pp. 236-237, Fig. 134. 5. In Brand, et al., 1937, p. 92. 6. Guernsey, 1931, p. 73; Roberts, 1930, p. 152.

[90 ]

FIGURE lo--BASKET MAKER

KNIFE (Actual Size)


notches slanting out to a base only slightly narrower than the blade. It is similar to "javelin" points illustrated by Jeancon,' from the Chama Valley, and by Roberts,' from Shabik'eshchee.

The predominant type of projectile point is triangular in shape, ranging in length from 0.8" to 1.3", and from 0.4" to 0.55" in width. They are well made of thin flakes. These points have narrow, straightsided notches which run at right angles to the long axis of the blade and extend inwardly approximately one-half the distance from edge to

FIGURE ll-PUEBLO TYPE PROJECTILE

POINT

(Actual Size)

center (Fig. 11). This group is represented here by ten specimens. There is relatively little variation in this type, although some points have slightly concave edges or slightly rounded, rather than square, bases. One example in this collection has a supernumerary notch. Such notches have been recorded by Pepper" and Kidder.'"

Points of this classification were recorded from Bc 50." Numbers of them were found at Pueblo Bonito by Pepper 12 and as surface material at Shabik'eshchee.13 Similar points have been found in Pueblo sites throughout the Southwest. They occur "almost exclusively during the later phases of Pueblo occupation at Aztec," H are classified as

type 3-A by Kidder in Artifacts of Pecos,'" and are referred to as one of the commonest types at the Swarts ruin.'" Since these points seem to occur, either alone or with other types, at nearly every Pueblo site yet excavated, they will be considered here as the "typical" Pueblo arrow point.

The second type, represented by three nearly complete specimens and two fragmentary ones, is likewise triangular, 1.25" long or more, medium well made. Deep notches set at an angle of approximately forty-five degrees to the long axis of the blade arise from the base, leaving sharp pointed barbs and a fairly straight, narrow stem (Fig. 12).

This type is generally considered as belonging to late Basket Maker III or early Pueblo 1. They are reported as a predominant early

7. Jeancon, 1923, p. 19, PI. 15B. 8. Roberts, 1929, p. 139, PI. 2Sg. 9. Pepper, 1920, p. 188, Fig. 40d, p. 110. 10. Kidder, 1932, p. 22, Fig. 6g, h, i. 11. Brand, et al., 1937. p. 92. 12. Pepper, 1920, pp. 188, 110. 13. Roberts, 1929, p. 139. 14. Morris, 1919b, p. 34, Fig. 20, type B. 15. Kidder, 1932, pp. 20-22. 16. Cosgrove, 1932. pp. 47-48, PIs. 49. 50.

F,GURB ll-PUEBLO TyPS PROJECTILE

POINT

(Actual Size)


type from Kiatuthlanna 17 and Shabik'eshchee." Similar points were reported from Bc 50.'0 They also occur in the Chama Valley.""

A third form, probably a variant of the last, is represented by a single incomplete specimen in this collection. With approximately 0.15" of the tip missing, it is 0.9" long by 0.65" wide, the greatest width being from barb tip to barb tip. The notches are at right angles to the long axis of the blade, leaving sharp barbs and a flaring, rounded "turkey-tail" base, only slightly narrower than the barb width. Similar points have been reported

FIGURE 12-BASKET l\lAKER PROJECTILE

POINT

(Actual Size)

from Aztec,"' from the Chama ValleY,22 and by Kidder and Guernsey.2' The sole erratic piece is reworked from a small, wide-based car

nelian (pink-red) point with square shoulders. In this the anterior end has been made into a drill, 0.4" long, 0.04" wide at the tip and 0.15" wide at the base (Fig. 13).

Stratigraphically, little can be deduced from this collection; both "Basket Maker" and "Pueblo" types are found within and without the rooms. "Basket Maker" type implements found within the rooms ranged in depth from 2" to 67", while no depth greater than 8" is recorded for them in the outside fill. "Pueblo" type implements found within the rooms and kivas range in depth from the zero to the

FIGURE l3-DRILL -3' level, to a maximum depth of 111". One was (Actual Size)

associated with a disturbed burial, 3' to 4' deep in room 10. Three of the Pueblo type projectile points are from unknown loci.

In conclusion it may be said that the chipped implements from Bc 51 typologically fall readily into two groups. Stratigraphically, no distinction can be made on the basis of the present collection. It may be worthy of note that the "Basket Maker" type represented in the projectile points is in general that of the late period (Basket Maker III triangular points, sidenotched at an angle of 45°, with long, sharp barbs and narrow stem), while the earlier, triangular, notchless atlatl points reported by Kidder and Guernsey 2! are absent from this collec-

17. Roberts, 1931, p. 159, PI. 39d, e, f.

18. Roberts, 1929, p. 139, PI. 28r.

19. Brand, et al., 1937, p. 92.

20. J eancon, 1923, Pl. 16.

21. Morris, 1919b, p. 34, Fig. 20, type C.

22. J eancon, 1923, PI. 16.

23. Kidder and Guernsey, 1919, p. 126, Fig. 48e.

24. Kidder and Guernsey, 1919, p. 182, Fig. 90f, g, h.

FIGURE 13-~RILL

(Actual Sizl')

FIGURE 12-BASKI!lr MAKER PROJECTILE

POINT

(Actual Size)

1937 EXCAVATIONS, Bc 50-51, CHACO CANYON, X. M. [ 93

tion, although recorded from Bc 50.2' The Pueblo type (triangular points, deep rectangular side notches at right angles, with the base completing the triangle) possibly may be merely a reduced and stylized descendant of the tanged atlatl points figured and described by Guernsey and Kidder.""

25. Brand, et al., 1937, p. 92. 26. Guernsey and Kidder, 1921, p. 87, PI. 35e.

SECTION F

ARTIFACTS OF PERISHABLE MATERIALS 1

By HARRY TSGHOPIK, JR.

The number of perishable objects recovered from the excavations was relatively large, considering their provenience and the open nature of the site. In all, 26 specimens were studied and classified according to the following categories, arranged in the order of their abundance: matting, fabrics, basketry, wood, and leather. In practically all cases the specimens were extremely fragmentary and in an advanced state of decay. A very large proportion was associated with the burials in rooms 2 and 5 (c/. table 3).

Matting.-Three varieties of matting, compnsmg 16 specimens, were represented in the collection: plaited, twined, and threaded. Of these, all except one were associated with burials.

Of the 12 plaited mats, 10 examples were twilled in the underthree-over-three technique,' and 1 in the under two-over-two. The woven elements probably were of Yucca glauca Nutt. and ranged from 3 to 5 millimeters in width in given specimens, with an average width of 4 millimeters.3 In not a single specimen was a portion of the selvage preserved. The twelfth specimen was in such a fragmentary condition that, although the technique was clearly twilled, the details could not be observed with accuracy.

Two examples of twined mats were encountered. One is made of reeds 1 placed parallel and twined together at intervals of 8 centimeters along their lengths." The nature of the twining material is uncertain, but an adobe cast which accompanied the specimen indicates that it was a twisted multi-fiber cord, 1 millimeter in diameter." The twining is of the simple type in which the 2 elements are half-twisted about one another after twining each reed.

1. The writer wishes to express his sincere thanks to the following for many helpful suggestions and criticisms: Dr. Gene Weltfish, Dr, Emil W, Haury. Mr, Paul Reiter, Mrs. H, S, Cosgrove, Mrs. Dorothea S. Kelly, and Mr. Marshall T. Newman. The maps were drawn by Mr. Elmer Rising. Miss Marion Hutchinson kindly assisted in preparing the manuscript.

2. See illustration: Brand, et al., 1937, p. 97, Fig. 4a. 3. The writer wishes to express his appreciation to Dr. Paul A. Vestal, of the

Botanical Museum of Harvard University, who identified the plant materials noted throughout this section.

4. The reeds have been identified, in order of probability, as one of the following: Typha lati/olia L., Phragmitcs communis. Phragmitcs phragmites, or as a Hpecie~

of Spwabolu8. 5. This technique is illustrated by a specimen from a Pueblo III site in the

Mancos-La Plata region of southwestern Colorado. Morris, 1919a, PI. 46a. 6. In all cord measurements, the diameter stated includes all of the twisted

members.

[ 94 ]


The second twined specimen is made also of reeds (Sporobo/us wrightii Munro), but in a finer and slightly different technique. This technique of twining differs in that the elements are half-twisted on one another after twining each pair of reeds, and are spaced at intervals of 6 centimeters along their lengths. The twining material is a 2-ply fiber cord with a right spiral, two twists per centimeter, and 1 millimeter in diameter.'

A third type of mat, represented by a single specimen, is made in the threaded technique.' The reeds (Spol"obo/lls wrightii Munro) are placed side by side and are held together by cords which pass through them at right angles to the long axis. Although the intervals of threading were not determined, each cord is 2-ply, with a right spiral, 2"h twists per centimeter, and 1 millimeter in diameter.

Fabrics.-Specimens in this category are 5 in number, and are of two types: twined woven and simple under-and-over weaving. In all cases, the fabrics were found in connection with burials.

Fabrics of cordage made in the twined woven technique are represented by 4 very fragmentary specimens of which 2 are probably a variety of feather cord cloth. In the remaining 2 examples, the presence of feathers could not be detected. As regards the details of the weaving technique, the twined fabrics seem to be identical technologically with the fur cloth example illustrated by Guernsey and Kidder, except for the fact that the warp selvages are not represented in the Bc 51 specimens.·

In all examples of feather cord cloth of which the writer is aware, the foundation of the weft element consists of some twined cord around which whole or split quills were then wrapped. In respect, however, to the feather cord cloth examples from Bc 51, at least one feature seems quite unusual. Microscopic analysis revealed no indications whatsoever of a vegetable fiber cordage foundation for the weft element."o A short length of weft, which seems to meet this re-

7. The term "twist" as applied here to cordage indicates merely a n'ver~al of the up and down positions of the two elements involved. It may be equated with "halftwist" as opposed to "full-twist."

8. This technique is illustrated by a Pueblo III specimen from Mesa V I?rde (Fewkes, 1909, p. 42) and from Aztec (Morris, 1919b, p. 55, Fig. 34). Mr. Paul Heiter informs me that at Chetro Ketl were found two instances in which rceds covf'ring ceiling poles had been threaded, while fragments of threaded door drops were also encountered.

9. Guernsey and Kidder, 1921, p. 65, Fig. lla. In the present study, the elements which accomplish the twining are considered to be the \varp elements.

10. Six cross sections of the weft element were examined independently by Dr. Charles Lyman, of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, and by Dr. Paul A. Vestal, of the Botanical Museum of Harvard University. Although both the down and the barbs of feathers were detected microscopical1y, no evidence of yegetable fiber could be discovered. Due to the state of preservation of the specimens. a precise identification as to the species of bird represented was impossible. The 'warps, as described above. were twisted of some vegetable fiber.


quirement, was produced experimentally in the following manner. Turkey tail feathers were .split down the quill, and the coarser body of the quill was then scraped away with a knife. Following this, the two strips of quill with barbs and down attached were loosely twisted upon one another to produce a loose, 2-ply cord with the barbs of the feathers serving as the pile. It has been noted elsewhere in the case of fur cloth specimens that "strips of tough skin with the hair on were sometimes twisted upon themselves instead of being wound about a cord." II

The cordage of the Bc 51 specimens, including the warps of the feather cord cloth, is of the 2-ply variety, with a right spiral. In one example, the weft selvage is a heavy cord measuring 4 millimeters in diameter, while the other elements average Ph millimeters in thickness, with 1"h twists per centimeter. The wefts are somewhat finer and more tightly twisted, averaging 1 millimeter in diameter, with 2 twists per centimeter. In the other specimens, the twining elements and wefts are of equal weight, the cordage being 1 millimeter in diameter, with 2 twists per centimeter. In these examples, it should be pointed out, none of the selvage was preserved.

But a single example of plain weave cotton cloth (under-one-overone) was recovered. Since the specimen is small, neither pattern nor selvage is represented. It seems probable that the wefts are the coarser threads, while the more tightly twisted ones are the warps. This being the case, there would be 14 warps and 11 wefts per centimeter. Both elements seem to be single-ply.

Basketry.-Of the three examples, two are made in the close coiled technique.12 Both are made of some dicotyledonous wood which may be Rhus trilobata, though conclusive identification is lacking. One specimen, represented by the bottom fragment of a basket, is made on the two-rod-and-bundle triangular foundation of the coil in progress as well as the bundle of the coil below. The basket is worked on the concave surface, to the left of the worker, with a counter-clockwise spiral. There are 16 stitches per inch, but the number of coils per inch could not be determined.

The second close coiled specimen is made on a single-rod foundation with non-interlocking stitches which split the rod of the coil below. The stitches are split, quite frequently, on the non-work surface. The basket is worked on the concave surface, to the left of the worker, with a counter-clockwise spiral. There are ten coils and ten stitches per inch.Is

11. Guernsey and Kidder, 1921, p. 75. 12. Weltfish finds it necessary, for comparative purposes, to distinguish between

close coiling as opposed to sifter coiling. Weltfish, 1932a, pp. 10·11. Throughout this section the term "coiled basketryH is to be equated with WeItfish's "close coiling."

13. Dr. Weltfish informs me that these textures are quite fine as compared with the general run of Southwestern coiled ware.

1937 EXCAVATIONS, Bc 50-51, CHACO CANYON, ~. M. r 97

The third basketry specimen is very interesting and deserves a more detailed treatment. It seems possible that it is a fragment of a "bird's-nest" coiled storage basket of the general type reported from among the Pima, Yuma, and most southern California groups. The specimen measures 11 by 30 centimeters, and is composed of roots (Rhus, species probably trilo/Jata) which vary from 2 millimeters to 2 centimeters in diameter. The arc of the fragment is such as to suggest a basket some 21j2" in diameter. Fragments of a \"ariety of twilled mat were found on the concave surface of the specimen in such a position as to suggest a lining.

The fragment was encountered on the floor in the southeastern corner of room 18, at a depth of 40", in association with a Red Mesa Black on White bowl. There is a possibility that it may also have been associated with burial Bc 60/25.

Wood.-Two specimens of wood are reported in the field catalog cards. One, which was not seen by the writer, is described as a weaving stick "of somewhat roughened wood, thicker at one end, with a cleft in it." The measurements given are: length, 8 1 ,," (216 mm.); width %" (19 mm.) ; thickness, 1/4" (6 mm.) to 1/i" (12 mm.).

The second specimen is curious, and it is impossible to say whether it has been worked or not. It is a small, flat, charred strip of bark identified as Pinus ponderosa or PimlS bl"llChmifcm Engclm. The strip measures 3112 centimeters long by 23 millimeters wide, and is beveled at either edge to a thickness of 2 millimeters. The central thickness is 1 millimeter.

Leather.-The one fragment of leather recovered seems to have been a part of a strap. One straight edge apparently shows evidence of having been cut with a sharp instrument. The specimen nll'asures 3 centimeters in length, 1 centimeter in width, and 1 millimeter in thickness.

Comparisons and Distributions.-Since the perishable objects from mound Bc 51 have now been described, it remains to compare them with similar objects from Bc 50" and Leyit Kin,]·' since it might be expected that these collections would exhibit great uniformity.

In respect to twilled matting it is noted that frequent examples were encountered at Bc 50, as at Bc 51, in connection with burials; but, whereas all specimens but one from Bc 51 were of the under-threeover-three variety, several examples from Bc 50 were twilled in an under-two-over-two technique. Again, though Be 50 produced an example of checkerwork matting (under-one-over-one), this technique was not encountered in the collection from Bc 51. In regard to twined mats, the 2 specimens from Bc 51 seem to have been made of SjJoro-

14. The comparativE' material from Be 50 has been described by Hibben. Brand. et al. 1937. pp. 98-99; 110; 97. Fig. 4. a-e.

15. Dutton, 1938. pp. 73-75.

98 ] THEI UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO

bolus, although they are technically comparable to those from Bc 50, where either Eqt~iseturn or Sporobolus was employed.]O The threaded matting technique seems not to have been represented at Bc 50. The s.pecimens of matting from Leyit Kin are not fully described.

Feather cloth, which was represented by several examples in the Bc 51 collection, was not encountered at Bc 50, although from the latter site fragments of what may have been a twined bag are described. Plain woven cotton cloth was not found at Bc 50. Textiles, apparently, are not represented at Leyit Kin.

As regards basketry, no coiled specimens were recovered at Bc 50, although some sherds from the superstructure level at this site retained impressions of coiled baskets on their exteriors. These coiled baskets seem to have been made on a single-rod foundation, and to have been considerably finer in texture than the single-rod specimen from Bc 51, since the impressions indicate 15 coils to the inch. The remains of a twilled ring basket were discovered at Bc 50, but were lacking in the Bc 51 collection. On the other hand, "bird's nest" coiling was not represented at the former site. With the exception of a few charred fragments of coiled basketry which seem to have been of the "rod and bundle" type, no actual specimens of basketry were recovered at Leyit Kin.'" Adobe casts, however, reveal the presence of twilled baskets, two of which seem to have been made in a fancy diamond weave, and a third which probably represents the remains of a twilled ring-basket manufactured in the under-two-over-two technique. I ' Judd has reported a two-rod and splint basket from his Chaco Canyon pithouse No. 2.'9 In general, this technique seems to be a well-recognized variation of the more common two-rod and bundle variety.

To sum up the foregoing, therefore, we may state that, whereas the collections of perishable artifacts from Bc 51 and Bc 50 resemble and to a large extent complement one another, they are far from being identical in regard to their total assemblages. The collection from Leyit Kin seems to have little in common with these. This is probably to be interpreted as being due to the arbitrary selective factors of environment which govern the preservation of perishable objects, and is of no archaeological significance. A composite list of the artifacts of this category from the three sites under consideration gives us a rather adequate picture. The objects are categorized according to their probable use as follows:

Containers: 1. Coiled basketry

a. Two-rod-and-bundle

16. Brand, et aI, 1937, p. 110; p. 97, Fig. 4d. 17. Dutton, 1938, p. 73. 18. Dutton, 1938, p. 73-75. 19. Judd, 1922, p. 411.


b. Single-rod c. "Bird's nest" storage baskets (?)

2. Twilled ring-baskets 3. Twined bags (?)

Clothing;

1. Cotton textiles 2. Twined-woven feather robes

Matting (for household, burial, and roofing usages) :

1. Plaited mats a. Checkerwork b. Twilled under-two-over-two c. Twilled under-three-over-three

2. Twined rush mats 3. Threaded rush mats

Since the culture elements listed above have, with the exception of coiled basketry, received exceedingly slight attention from the archaeologist, it might be profitable to trace the distribution of each within the Southwest. But since coiled basketry is still manufactured by numerous Southwestern groups, and because it has received a somewhat detailed treatment in the literature, this trait has assumed a comparative significance which seems to warrant a more thoroughgoing examination. It will, therefore, be treated separately later.

With regard to the other elements of material culture described above, the proposition is very different indeed. Either it has been tacitly assumed that these traits have no comparative value, or investigators have been disinterested in them. Additional factors, such as those of preservation and the technical difficulties involved in the study of the specimens, have served to relegate these artifacts to obscurity. It seems probable, however, that these objects, if properly studied, could shed their own peculiar light on the problems of Southwestern archaeology.

No exhaustive examination of the literature in regard to these culture elements has been made, and conclusions at this time seem inadvisable; indeed, it seems possible at present only to indicate certain problems.

Weaving in Cotton.-Textile weaving in cotton seems to have been introduced into the Southwest at about the beginning of Pueblo I times in the San Juan region, and to have persisted among the Pueblos into historic times.20 That this trait was not present in Basket :Waker II times seems conclusive and, if it occurs in Basket :\laker III sites, it seems to have been rare. The extent to which this trait occurred to the

20. Roberts. 1935. p. 10; 1937. p. 8. Jones (1936) gives a thorough and detailed summary of the evidence published before 1936.


north and west is as yet problematical, but in respect to the southern periphery of the Southwest, we are on firmer ground. Cotton textiles were discovered in the Sacaton Phase levels at Snaketown,21 and persisted in that area into Classical Hohokam times." Indeed, Beals haE shown that the weaving of cotton cloth, as practiced by living ethnic groups before 1750, extended in a continuous belt along the western coast of Mexico from the Southwest to the Valley of Mexico."" The earliest appearance, however, of cotton textiles in northern Mexico is as yet unknown. Dry cave material which seems to represent a BasketMaker-like horizon in northern Mexico did not reveal the presence of this culture element.,,"1 The eastern boundary of cotton growing and cotton weaving is equally vague. These techniques seem not to have been known to the cultures of the Lower Pecos River and the Big Bend region of Texas.

FeatheT COTd Cloth.-At precisely what period feather cord cloth appears in the central Pueblo area is uncertain. It seems probable that the trait is first found in this region in late Basket Maker III times."" In respect to northeastern Arizona, Guernsey states that feather cord cloth appears in Pueblo I times in the Marsh Pass region and continues in use into the Pueblo IV period.c'(J On the Pueblo III horizon this trait occurs widely: at Mesa Verde,'" Pueblo Bonito in Chaco Canyon,2S the Mancos-La Plata region of southern Colorado,2" at Jemez Cave, New Mexico,"O and in the Sierra Ancha Mountains of central Arizona, where it is mentioned that feather cord cloth is rare."] Mr. Paul Reiter informs me that feather cord cloth was also found at Chetr·o Ketl in Chaco Canyon. Fewkes also found the trait present at Casa Grande in southern Arizona.":: At Pecos 33 and at Puye,"' this trait persisted into Pueblo IV times. In all these cases, it is to be noted, the technique of manufacture was not that represented in the collections from Bc 51; instead, fiber cords were wrapped with strips of quill or with strips of bird skin with the feathers attached.

21. Sayles, in Gladwin, et aI., 1937, p. 162; Pl. CXXXII. 22. Fewkes, 1912, Pp. 147-148. 23. Beals, 1932, p. 106; map 9; tables 32-33. 24. Collections made by Dr. Edward Palmer, in 1880, in the state of Coahuila,

and which are now in the Peabody Museum of Harvard University. 25. Roberts, 1937, pp. 7-8. 26. Guernsey, 1931, p. 115 (table). 27. Fewkes, 1909, p. 46. 28. Pepper, 1920, Pp. 106-107. 29. Morris, 1919a, Pl. 49, a. 30. Alexander and Reiter, 1935, p. 52. 31. Haury, 1934, p. 86. 32. Fewkes, 1912, pp. 147-148. 33. Kidder, 1932, p. 301. 34. Information supplied by Mr. Paul Reiter.


The precise boundaries of the trait of feather cord cloth are extd~emelY ~a~ue'h B~t a single example, and this doubtful, has been .lscovere In t e BIg Bend area.'" For northern Mexico, where very

lIttle work has been done, only one occurrence seems to have been reported, this being found in the Basket Maker-like culture of the Upper Rio Fuerte region of southern Chihuahua.""

In view of this fragmentary evidence, one wonders how the data on the distribution of feather cloth are to be interpreted. Technically some feather cloth is identical with fur cloth, although the latter trait seems to have a far wider distribution. It may be possible that the making of feather cloth is to be correlated with the keeping of the domesticated turkey, although the data seem to indicate that feather cloth appears in the Southwest somewhat before the appearance of the latter. Again, feather cloth was made in regions where the domesticated turkey is not known to have been kept.

Plaiting.-In regard to the technique of plaiting'" the problems are complicated at the outset by the simplicity of the mechanical principles involved and the great distributional ranges of these techniques in North America.

Turning our attention, to the distribution of plaiting, we are confronted immediately with a basic problem: Is there any justification for studying the distribution of a technique irrespective of the cultural form in which it manifests itself? May we, for example, equate the presence of a twilled mat in one region with the presence of a twilled ring-basket in another? Underlying such an equation is the assumption that the techniques are historically related and that it is the technique which is the fact of greater significance. The problem of independent invention versus diffusion need not here concern us, since our problems are of a descriptive rather than of an interpretative nature. The issue in question is the comparability of techniques.

That such an assumption is not considered entirely unwarranted is indicated by the frequency with which it has been employed. Wissler shows the distribution of stone sculpture to have been continuous from the Valley of Mexico to Central America irrespective of whether this sculptuTe adorned a temple or an isolated monolith.'" Again, Beals traces the distribution of metallurgy in Mexico, disregarding the articles manufactured.'· Although it is true that he refers in his tables

35. Martin, G., 1933, p. 46. 86. The writer is indebted to Dr. R. M. Zingg for permission. to refer to his

excellent manuscript entitled Report on Archaeolo.QY of Southern Chzliualwa . . A C~py of this manuscript is in the library of the Peabody Museum of Harvard UnIversIty.

37. In the present discussion, the plaiting technique is to be considered as com-

prising both checker and twill. 38. Wissler, 1938, p. 146. 39. Beals, 1932, p. 110; map 16; tables 61-63.


to the individual articles made, it is evident that it is the total distribution which he seeks to demonstrate.

In the Southwest, the plaiting technique was used to manufacture several types of articles: mats, sandals, baskets, and occasionally cradles. Since in this era a reasonably accurate chronology affords a check on the data, it may be well to test this procedure in question by applying it to the technique of plaiting.

In the classical Basket Maker area of the Pueblo plateau, twilled mats seem to be absent in both the Basket Maker II and III periods. Again Guernsey, speaking of twilled ring-baskets, states: "This type of basket does not occur, so far as we know, in the Basket Maker II or Basket Maker III period, but is the commonest type found in the Pueblo III period."" In fact, the only twilled specimens from Basket Maker times in this region seem to be a bag-shaped basket made in the under-two-over-two technique,41 and occasional twilled yucca leaf sandals.'2

But as we approach the Big Bend region of Texas, twilled objects become more common. In the Guadalupe Mountain country of southeastern New Mexico, several types of plaited artifacts are found on a general Basket Maker-like horizon. These take the form of checker mats," checker weave baskets, twilled mats under-two-over-two, and twilled sandals." In the Big Bend region proper, Setzler states that checker and twill under-two-over-two mats occur in quantities on a similar Basket Maker-like horizon." In addition baskets are made in both twill and checker techniques.';; It seems significant that the under-three-over-three twill technique does not appear to have been used in the Big Bend either for mats or for baskets.

To the west and north of the Pueblo plateau, sites so far excavated seem not to have yielded artifacts in the twill plaited technique: none were encountered in either Gypsum or Lovelock Caves:" Steward reports checker mats from caves in the Great Salt Lake region of Utah, although the culture represented here is almost certainly of a later date." To the south, checker and twill are represented in dry cave material from Coahuila, Mexico.") Again, Zingg reports that under-three-over-three twilling is characteristic of the Basket Maker-

40. Guernsey, 1931. p. 97. 41. Guernsey and Kidder, 1921, p. 63. 42. Guernsey, 1931, p. 115, table. 43. Howard, 1930, PI. XXXVI, Fig. 2. 44. Mera, 1938a, pp. 52-54. 45. Setzler, 1935, p. 107. Also see: Watt, 1936, p. 22; Setzler. 1932, p. 136-138;

Pearce and Jackson, 1933; pp. 103-106. 46. Holden, 1937, p. 62, PI. 10, b; Martin, 1933. PI. XXI. 47. Loud and Harrington, 1929; Harrington, 1933. 48. Stewart, 1937, p. 30; p. 31, Fig. 10, c. 49. Palmer collection in the Peabody Museum of Harvard University.


like culture of the Upper Rio Fuerte region in the State of Chihuahua, Mexico.'"

In Pueblo I and II times, twilled ring-baskets (under-three-overthree) are found in northeastern Arizona,"" and in the Hohokam area of southern Arizona.''' During these periods twilled ring-baskets and mats (under-two-over-two; under-three-over-three; checker) are found in Chaco Canyon.

By Pueblo III times, the plaiting technique becomes widespread throughout the Pueblo area, and is utilized in several ways. Sandals made in checker or under-two-over-two technique occur widely; at Jemez Cave,53 in the Mancos-La Plata region of Colorado,'" in northeastern Arizona,"3 and in the Mimbres Valley.3l Ring-baskets in undertwo-over-two, under-three-over-three, or in a combination of these techniques occur so frequently in Pueblo III sites as to be the rule rather than the exception. The same may be said of plaited mats, which are made in the three techniques: under-three-over-three, under-two-overtwo, and checker, though the latter technique seems to be the most unusual of the three. At this time the twill technique is employed occasionally in making eradles.''' In the Hohokam area, under-twoover-two twilled mats seem to have been used:"

In Pueblo IV times, although the data are less complete;'" it seems that the general distribution of articles manufactured in plaited techniques resembled that of the Pueblo III period.""

The extent to which plaited articles survived into historic times was not investigated. Suffice it to say that twilled ring-baskets are still manufactured by several Pueblo groups, notably the Hopi and Zuni."' Twilled mats in the under-two-over-two and under-three-overthree techniques were formerly made by the Pima.'"

From the foregoing, therefore, it would seem unwise to attempt to trace the distribution of twill plaiting in the Southwest irrespective of the object manufactured. For the very nature of the distributions and manifestations of this technique should make us suspicious of our

50. Zingg, mss. in the Library of the Peabody Museum of Harvard University. 51. Guernsey, 1931, p. n7; PI. 16. 52. Haury, 1932, p. 109; p. 111, Fig. 31. 53. Alexander and Reiter, 1935, pp. 57-59. 54. Morris, 1919a, PI. 50, b. 55. Guernsey, 1931, p. 67, Fig. 24, i-h. 56. Cosgrove, H. S., and C. E., 1932, p. 67. 57. Guernsey, 1931, pp. 105-106; PI. 64. 58. Sayles, in Gladwin, et. al., 1937, PI. CXXXI. 59. Haury's Sierra Ancha material is almost the only completely published Pueblo

IV material from outside the Northern Rio Grande area. 60. Kidder, 1932, pp. 298-300; Reiter, P., 1938, pt. II, pp. 167-168; Haury, 1n34,

pp. 64, 81. 61. Goddard, 1931, p. 95. Dr. Weltfish informs me that twilled yucca baskets

are also manufactured at Laguna, San Felipe, and Cochiti. 62. Kissel, 1916, pp. 150-152.


historical identities. Holmes observed that "no class of articles of textile nature were more universally employed by the aborigines than mats of split cane, rushes, and reeds ... ".'" The distribution of twilled and checker basketry is equally widespread, since baskets in these techniques are found in such widely separated regions of North America as the Northwest Coast, the Southwest, and the Southeast.

It seems significant, therefore, that checker and under-two-overtwo twilled mats are found on a Basket Maker-like horizon in the Big Bend area, whereas they seem not to have appeared in the San Juan region until Pueblo I times or later. It also seems significant that the under-three-over-three twill technique of the Pueblo area has not yet been reported from either the Hohokam or the Big Bend regions. In America north of Mexico, there seem to have been at least two regions in which twill plaiting was centered: the Southeast and the N orthwest Coast. Mexico proper may have comprised a third. It is, therefore, felt that the factors involved in the study of plaiting in the Southwest are far from being simple, and that each technical variety and each type of artifact must be treated for present purposes as a separate historical entity.

Twined Mats.-The difficulties pertaining to plaiting techniques apply also to the question of twined mats. In the case of the latter, however, twined mats made of rushes or reeds have such a widespread distribution in North America, both in regard to time and space, that their comparative significance is at present very slight. In addition, they have received such slight recognition in the literature that we are able here only to note their presence and absence. It is highly probable, however, that all twined mats in all places in North America are not historically related, and it seems very likely that a careful study would reveal significant sub-types.

Twined rush mats, according to Guernsey, do not occur in Basket Maker II or III sites in northeastern Arizona, but appear in Pueblo I times and persist in this region into the Pueblo IV period:" Interestingly enough, however, numerous and varied examples of twined mats were recovered by Nusbaum from a Basket Maker cave in Kane County, Utah."" Twined mats were found in caves in the Guadalupe Mountain region of southeastern New Mexico, where they are said to have been rare."" In respect to this trait, northern Mexico is an unknown, but for the northern and western periphery of the Southwest, we have a certain amount of data. In Nevada, twined mats were found to the exclusion of plaited types."" Again, in the Great Salt Lake

63. Holmes, 1896, p. 18. 64. Guernsey, 1931, p. 116, table. 65. Kidder and Guernsey. 1922, pP. 98-102. 66. Mera, 1938a, pp. 52-53. 67. Loud and Harrington, 1929, p. 56; PI. 24-25.

1937 EXCAVATIONS, Bc 50-51, CHACO CANYON, N. M. 10ii

region of Utah, twined mats were common, whereas plaited examples were rare."S In the Fremont River region of Utah, twined mats are found in Pueblo sites."' By Pueblo III times, twined reed and rush mats are found widely throughout the Southwest, and the same is probably true for the Pueblo IV period.

In view of the difficulties stated at the outset, interpretation at this time is difficult. The data, however, seem to indicate that there is a greater possibility that the technique of twined matting spread into the Southwest from the Great Basin, or from the north, than that it entered this area from the east.

Threaded Matting.-This technique has been mentioned so rarely in the literature that it is quite impossible to trace its distribution in either time or space. Pearce and Jackson describe it from a Big Bend cave dweller site,'O while Fewkes found it to be represented at Mesa Verde.71 It has also been reported by Morris from Aztec" and by Reiter from Chetro Ket!.'"

COILED BASKETRY TECHNIQUES IN THE SOUTHWEST:

DISTRIBUTIONS AND CONTINUITIES

During the six years which have elapsed since the appearance of Dr. Weltfish's excellent paper on Southwestern basketry techniques, a rather extensive body of pertinent data has been accumulated in the course of various excavations.'l Particularly is this true of the areas of southern New Mexico and Arizona and of the Big Bend region of Texas. In view of this, it is felt that a summary and re-examination of the data relating to the distribution of Southwestern coiled basketry techniques in both time and space will not be inappropriate. In this way we will be enabled to evaluate with greater precision the appearance of given techniques, such as those represented in the collections from Bc 51, in a particular locality during a particular period.

The method, therefore, will be to present the distributions of these techniques on maps and in tables, and finally to draw such concl usions regarding the continuities and historical implications of this craft as seem tenable in view of our present knowledge. Before we begin to examine the data, however, it seems advisable to make some observations with reference to the distribution of coiled basketry and to inquire into some problems relating to this distributional study.

68. Steward, 1937, pp. 29-33. 69. Morss, 1931, pp. 71-72 ; PI. 41, 2. 70. Pearce and Jackson, 1933, pp. 103-106; PI. XXIII, a. 71. Fewkes, 1909, p. 42. 72. Morris, 1919b, p. 55, Fig. 34. 73. Information supplied by Mr. Paul Reiter. 74. Weltfish, 1932a. It will be obvious immediately to what an extent the writer

has both relied upon the reports of Dr. Weltfish and followed her suggestions in regard to basketry description.

106 ] THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEiXICO

It is continually being brought to our attention that the development of the Indian cultures of the Southwest cannot be properly understood unless we conceive this territory in the broadest possible sense.75

Especially is this true in the case of coiled basketry, and constant reference must be made to regions geographically remote. In view of this it seems important to begin with a brief resume of the distribution of this culture element in the New World.

Wissler traced the distribution of coiled basketry throughout the Americas and concluded that this craft was principally confined to a belt which paralleled the Pacific coast of North America from Siberia through Alaska to the Mexican border. He noted that it occurred sporadically among the northern Algonkians, but that "in Mexico the technique disappears and does not come to notice again until we reach Patagonia."'6 More recent investigations, however, have changed the picture to a considerable extent. Coiled basketry fragments were found in the Cenote at Chichen Itza, in Yucatan, and more recent evidence of the presence of this technique has been discovered in the Province of Cocle in Panama." Finally, Nordenskiold has shown that in South America this craft is distributed along the west coast, in what appears to be a continuous belt from Panama to Tierra del Fuego." In addition to its wide distribution in the New World, coiled basketry is found under conditions which suggest a certain antiquity."

In North America, Weltfish finds that coiled basketry occurs in six of the present-day basketry making areas which she delineates.'" Each of these coiled basketry areas is characterized by certain technical traits in common, although there is a certain amount of overlapping, as is to be expected, in adjacent areas. To mention these areas briefly, there are the following: Salish, Mackenzie, Basin, Central California, Southern California, Southwest. In addition, she finds that coiled basketry occurs sporadically in the Plains (Pawnee and Arikara) and in the Northeast (Ojibwa, Menomini, and Chippewa) ."

The value of coiled basketry in comparative studies must not be underestimated. The fact that it is usually encountered in archaeological sites in a fragmentary condition is compensated for by the fact that the techniques of construction are not obliterated in the fin-

75. This proposition has been recently discussed at great length by Gladwin. Gladwin, 1937, especially pp. 1-7.

76. Wissler, 1938, p. 50; Fig. 14, p. 51. 77. Lothrop, 1937, p. 112; Fig. 83. 78. NordenskiOld, 1931, PI. 2; facing p. 77. 79. It occurs on the putatively Basket Maker~Iike horizon in Nevada, the San

Juan region, the Big Bend of Texas, in the State of Coahuila in Mexico, etc. In addition, it is common at the site of Para cas in southern Peru. See Lothrop, 1937 p. 112.

80. Weltfish, 1930a, pP. 455-462; Fig. 2, p. 456. 81. Weltfish, 1930a, pp. 459-460. See also: Weltfish, 1930b.

1937 EXCAVATIONS, Bc 50-51, CHACO CA~YOK, X.:\1. [ 107

ished product as is often the case with pottery. The perishable nature of basketry is, of course, a handicap; however, specimens of relatively great antiquity have been recovered from dry ca yes and from such desiccated regions as the coast of Peru, and some are found preserved in open sites where moisture has not destroyed them. As in the case of pottery, many of the items composing the trait of coiled basketry are mechanically independent of one another and tend to objectify themselves in the process of manufacture." This is particularly true of four such items, which have widespread comparative value :~' (1) the nature of the foundation of the coil; (2) the surface from which the basket was worked: (3) the direction in which the work proceeds; (4) the character of the stitches.

As to foundation, Weltfish sees three principal types and their variations represented in North America:" (1) multiple (a bundle of grass or splints, etc.); (2) triangular (two-rod-and-bundle; three-rodetc.); (3) vertical (including single rod). These terms are descriptive, and apply specifically to characteristic coils of particular baskets when viewed in cross-section.

Since a woman engaged in making a basket may work either on the concave or convex surface, with the coil in progress extending either to her left or to her right, these criteria have important comparative value. But although these two features, work surface and direction of the work, are mechanically independent of one another, the latter feature cannot be determined until the former has been established.'" In this connection, the direction of the spiral coil, i.e., "left spiral" or "right spiral," may be disregarded as a comparative feature, since it is to be stated as a product of the direction of the sewing and the surface worked.

The purpose of the binding stitch is to hold the foundation of the coil in progress together and to attach it to the completed coil immediately below. The sewing may proceed in three different ways; the stitches of the coil in progress may: (1) split the stitches of the completed coil below; (2) interlock with them; (3) not interlock with them.S6

Other features in all probability have comparative value, but are more difficult to control than those mentioned above. In ceramics, shape and design have been exploited to the fullest extent in a comparativesense, but in the case of basketry, certain difficulties present themselves. In basketry, the possible choice of designs is restricted to a certain extent by the technological processes involvecl in the pursuit of the craft. Furthermore, as regards the products of con-

82. Weltfish, 1932b, p. 108. 83. Weltfish, 1930a, p. 460. 84. Welt fish, 1930a, pp. 463-465; also see Figs. 6-8. 85. Weltfish, 1930a, pp. 460-462; Figs. 3, 4. 86. Weltfish, 1930a, p. 462; Fig. 5.


temporary Indian basket makers, a lack of systematic and standardized description, as well as, in many cases, of adequate photographs tends to nullify the comparative value of design and shape. Coupled with this is the fact that these features usually may not be observed in fragmentary archaeological specimens. Texture seems quite important as a comparative feature, and although individual skill is almost certainly a factor, this feature may be treated objectively by counting the number of coils and stitches per inch or centimeter. The former unit would appear to be more useful since basketry texture, when described in the literature, is usually given in terms of inches. Again, it is conceivable that the plant materials used in coiled basketry might be of value in comparative studies, although the choice of these is naturally limited by geographical consideration. Aberrant coiled basketry techniques such as "sifter coiling" have not been considered, because of the scanty treatment which they have received in the Ii terature. 87

It would now seem appropriate to examine the limitations of the comparative features worked out by Weltfish, and to point out certain difficulties involved in their application. Certain of these difficulties, most of which have been touched upon by Weltfish, are inherent in the data themselves, while others result from the treatment of the data in the literature.ss Still other difficulties, as is inevitably the case, arise out of the classification of the data and result from the problems of chronological position and precise allocation of the specimens.

The fragmentary nature of the archaeological record is an initial difficulty. For large areas and relatively great spans of time the data are completely lacking, while for other regions and periods they seem to be adequate. Arising out of this fact is the question of sampling. In most cases we are aware at the outset that our samples are insufficient, and for the main purposes of the present study it has been assumed that the mere presence of a particular technique at a stated time and place is in itself a significant fact.

The ethnological record is far more complete; but even here, as is also true for the archaeological data, descriptions in the literature are frequently so scanty as to be of little comparative value. This is a situation, however, which can and should be remedied.

Turning now to the matter of classification, we are up against one of the most general and basic problems of anthropology. It seems reasonably clear that no classification serves for all times and for all purposes. All classificatory systems are arbitrary, and each is made for its own particular purpose; for without a specific purpose a classification is meaningless. Accordingly, the merit of each must be

87. For a description of this technique, sec Weltfish. 1932a, p. 10. 88. Weltfish, 1932b, p. 108.


judged in relation to the degree to which it approximates the specific aim in view. It is further desirable that a classification be as objective as is possible, for out of classification grows typology. One who sets about, therefore, to create a classification usually attempts on the one hand to achieve a particular purpose, and on the other to be as objective as possible. But in striving toward an aim and toward objectivity, care must be taken not to do violence to known facts.

Weltfish has evolved a classification of coiled basketry techniques in order to study the distribution of the types which have arisen out of her classification.'" She has also studied these distributions in a temporal sense in that she has noted parallels between ancient and modern basketry making areas."" Since we have already had occasion to refer to the features classified, let us inquire into certain difficulties inherent in the application of this classification. Since, in the manufacture of a coiled basket, the surface worked and the direction in which the work proceeds are mechanically unrelated to one another, these comparative features objectify themselves in a given basket and are, in a sense, directly comparable in all coiled baskets.'" In regard, however, to the other two comparative features under consideration, the nature of the foundation and the character of the stitches, the subjective element looms large indeed. Here we are confronted with the comparability of these features, particularly on the archaeological level, whenever we compare two baskets. What, precisely, is comprised by a "multiple" foundation? Are we to include bundles of grass, reeds, rods and splints under this single term? Are we even justified in classifying two baskets in which the bundle foundations consist of two different species of grass in the same category? To do so is to equate these forms technologically. If this were done, and if these forms were in fact technologically incomparable, any conclusions which would be based on the distributions of these forms would be misleading. Again, Weltfish has classified the manner of stitching coiled baskets according to the following types: split, interlocking, and non-interlocking, She further divides the "split" category into three subdivisions: split on the work surface, split on the non-work surface,

89. Weltfish, 1930a: 1932a. 90. Weltfish, 1932b. 91. The problem of classification is here simplified by the limitation of possi

bilities. While the objectivity of these features is, from the purely mechanical point of view, beyond question, Dr. Weltfish has quite properly reminded me that, among the Chemehuevi and in southern California, both possible directions of work are conventional. In dealing with cases on the ethnological hori...:on, certain considerations may be taken into account, namely the ethnic significance of the range of variability and

the degree to which this variabihty has become traditionalized. But since it is difficult to establish these culturally significant norms on the archaeological level, it is quite possible that differences in the technical features here considered are not always historically significant.

110 ] THE UNIYERSITY OF NEW MEXICO

split on both surfaces.'" Of these forms, we are informed further that the "interlocking" type is relatively unusual, which means that the majority of baskets are made with non-interlocking, non-split stitches, or with stitches of one of the split varieties. The question is, therefore, do these forms constitute clear-cut, empirical types? Observations made by the writer on specimens from Coahuila, Mexico, have served to convince him that such is not always the case. In a single example, some stitches were split on both surfaces, some on the work surface or on the non-work surface alone, while others interlocked.'" Again, while investigating basket making among a contemporary Navaho group, it was observed that stitches were quite frequently split on the non-work surface." When questioned about this, the women invariably maintained that this was accidental, that the stitches should not have been split. It would seem, therefore, that the nature of the stitching is not always clear-cut, and that sufficient leeway should be given to account for individual variability and accidents. Whereas, it is obvious that experience in handling many baskets is invaluable in making decisions, it would seem desirable to attempt to discover some means of objectifying these judgments by determining the central tendency in each case. This might be accomplished, for example, by counting the stitches in the various descriptive categories and calculating percentages.

The foregoing is not to be construed as destructive criticism; no superior ways of dealing with the problems in question are offered in return. But it seems necessary to keep these classificatory limitations in mind in order to safeguard conclusions.

The final difficulty with which we have to deal is that of chronology. For certain regions of the Southwest, notably the plateau of New Mexico and Arizona, and adjacent portions of Utah and Colorado, we have at our disposal both a relative and an absolute chronology. But for other regions we are less fortunate. Although in several of these, especially in the region of southern Arizona, we possess a relative chronology which seems to be accurate in its essentials, no great detail has yet been achieved in the problem of correlations with known areas.''' For other regions, such as sections of Utah, southern California, western Texas, and northern Mexico, our time estimates are based on little more than pure speculation. For

92. Weltfish. 1930a. p. 462. Fig. 5. 93. Dr. Weltfish has pointed ont to me the possibility that these people may not

have made a convention with respect to this feature. Whereas technological patterning on the archa.eological level is a possibility which must be considered, it is n('ccssary that some judgment be passed on what is at present an insufficient body of evidence if the basketry of this region is to be fitted into an historical seheme.

94. The writer plans to treat the question of individual variability and techno~ logical patterning in a future paper. Tschopik. R .. Jr .. Nnvaho Ra.<.;/cctry. In preparation.

95. Cf. Gladwin, 1937, p. 8; and Roberts. 1937. pp. 21; 30-31.


this reason, the data relating to coiled basketry have been grouped on three distribution maps. The first map presents present-day conditions; the second, the distribution during Pueblo III and Pueblo IV times; and the third, the distribution prior to the Pueblo III period of the central Anasazi region. This method, it is realized, is far from being satisfactory; but, since we cannot attempt to be more accurate than the data permit, this scheme seems to afford some of the leeway necessary in allowing for time lags in peripheral regions and other chronological discrepancies.

As thorough an attempt was made as time permitted to canvass the literature for data concerning Southwestern coiled basketry. Many descriptions were found to be so vague as to be of little value, and hence have not been utilized. No systematic attempt, howPyer, was made to re-examine the sources used by Weltfish, since the baskets described in these have, in many instances, been again studied by her.

Keys to Maps and Tables.-As stated above, the method adopted here has been to plot the distribution of Southwestern coiled basketry on three maps. In so doing, only one of the four technological units under consideration, the nature of the foundation, has been represC'nted on the maps; the remaining units have been listed in three tables which accompany the maps. It may be thought that, because foundation has been represented diagramatically on the maps, this feature has been given more emphasis than the others. Emphatically, however, this is not the case. In the historical speculations based on the distributions, all of the four features here considered have been taken into account, and no one has been emphasized at the expense of the others. Foundation was selected for representation on the maps solely because it seemed the feature best suited for this purpose.

The symbols plotted on the maps attempt to represent in a diagramatical manner the arrangement of the foundation elements, as these would appear in cross section, within the coil of the basket. These arrangements are: triangular (represented by a triangle); vertical (represented by a rectangle); circular (represented by a circle). Irregular foundation types will be explained by footnotes in the tables. Within the foundation symbols, the nature of the foundation elements is represented as follows: (1) stippling for a bundle of pliable fibers or grass; (2) black dot for rod; (;3) half circle for split-rod; (4) horizontal bar for slat; (5) small open circle for reed; (6) hatched circle for single-rod foundation; (7) two concentric circles for "bird's nest" coiling. Hence, map 7, 30 represents two-rod-and-bundle triangular foundation; map 7, 35A, two-rodand-bundle vertical foundation; map 7, 15, "bil'd's nest" coiling; map 7, 10, bundle foundation; map 10, 19A, rod surrounded by bundle foundation. The numbers on the map are to be referred to the accompanying tables.


The tables list the character of the stitches, the surface worked, and the direction in which the work proceeds. A blank space indicates a lack of data; a question mark, the uncertainty of the data.

Conclusions.-Some data on coiled basketry distributions in the Southwest have now been presented, and there remains but to draw such conclusions from the resulting distributions as seem defensible in view of our present knowledge. Although the data on which our classifications have been based are not completely above question, the data seem to permit no alternate method of treatment. Granted, provisionally, therefore, that the techniques which we have described and classified are comparable, we may proceed with our conclusions.

Let us first examine the special aspects of the distributions. Weltfish has concluded that coiled basketry areas exist today, and are observable also for the past. She has summarized these and given

ITlITIEl ABC

35

MAP 7. COILED BASKETRY IN 'IHE SOUTHWEST: PRESENT DISTRIBUTION

the characteristics of each."" In map 7, an attempt has been made to bring out this point by means of lines drawn around the modern areas as we now conceive them. These lines are intended simply as guides in interpretation. They are not to be considered boundaries in the strict sense, and obviously do not exist in literal reality.

96. Weltfish, 1930a, pp. 471-472; 1932b.

"'~. I

i i i i i I i

_._.j

MAP 7. COILED BASKETRY IN THE SOUTHWEST: PRESENT DISTRmUTION

i i i

TABLE 6-KEY TO MAP 7

Number Group References Stitches Surface Direction

1 Maidu Weltfish, G., 1930a, p. 465 Non-interlocking; Convex Left split on concave -~------~-----~~---.-----

2A Washo Weltfish, G., 1930a, p. 465 Non-interlocking; Convex Left split on concave

2B Washo Weltfish, G., 1930a, p. 465 Non-interlocking; Convex Left split on concave

3A Miwok Weltfish, G., 1930a, p. 465 Interlocking Convex Left

3B Miwok Weltfish, G., 1930a, p. 465 Interlocking Convex Left

4 Owens Valley Paiute Steward, J., 1933b, pp. 270-272 Non-interlocking Convex Left (?) -- -- -,-----_.,----

5A Mono Gifford E. W. 1932a, p. 27; Non-interlocking Either Right Weltfish, G., communication

-------~-

5B Mono Gifford E. W. 1932a, p. 27; Non-interlocking Either Right Weltfish, G., communication

--_.---- ------ ---- ------

6 Yokuts Weltfish, G., 1930a, p. 467 Non-interlocking Either Right -- ----- -----------

7 Chemehuevi 1 Weltfish, G., 1930a, pp. 466-468 Non-interlocking Either Either --~-~ --------- ,- -------------- ------ - -- ------8 Kawaiisu Weltfish, G., 1930a, p. 468 Non-interlocking Either Right

.---~----- - -------------- --------9A Chumash Kroeber, A. L., 1925, p. 560

----- --9B Chumash Weltfish, G., 1930a, pp. 465-466 Non-interlocking Either Right

----_. ---~---- ------------. - -- ------------ - ------_.---------------, ----_._--------

10 Luiseiio Sparkman, P. S., 1908, pp. 204-205 Concave ------ -- - -

llA Cahuilla Kroeber, A. L., 1908, pp. 41-51 ----'- ------- -- ----------

llB Cahuilla Kroeber, A. L., Hl08, pp. 41-51

12 Southern Diegueiio Spier, L., 1923, p. 347

TABLE 6-KEY TO MAP 7 (Continued)

Number Group References Stitches Surface Direction

13 Kamia Gifford, E. W., 1931, p. 39

14A Yuma Forde, C. D., 1931, pp. 124-125

14B Yuma Forde, C. D., 1931, pp. 124-125

14C Yuma Forde, C. D., 1931, pp. 124-125

15 Cocopa Gifford, E. W., 1933b, p. 270

16 Seri Kroeber, 1931, pp. 59-60 Convex Left McGee, W. J., 1.898, p. 208

17A Maricopa Spier, L., 1933, pp. 122-125

17B Maricopa Spier, L., 1933, pp. 122-125 Concave Right

18A Pima Kissel, M. L., 1916

18B Pima Kissel, M. L., 1916 Non-interlocking Concave Left

19A Papago Kissel, M. L., 1916

19B Papago Kissel, M. L., 1916 Non-interlocking Concave Left

20 San Carlos Apache 2 Roberts, H. H., 1929, pp. 153-163 Non-interlocking Either Left

21 Yavapai Gifford, E. W., 1936, pp. 282-283 Non-interlocking Concave Left

22 Walapai Kroeber, A. L., 1935, p. 79

23 Havasupai Spier, L., 1928, pp. 133-138 Non-interlocking Either Left "----

24A Hopi 3 .Jeancon, J. A., and Douglas, F. H., 1931 Inter locking Either Left Colton, M. R F., 1931, p. 6

24B Hopi Wcltfish, G., 1932a, p. 34 Non-interlocking Convex Left ----- - -------- "-----

25 Kaibab Paiute Weltfish, G., 1930a, p. 470 Split on concave Convex Left

Number Group

26 Moapa Paiute

27A Northern Paiute 4

27B Northern Paiute

28 Ute

29 Navaho

30 Zuni ~~~~~

31 Sia

32 Santa Ana

33 Pecos

34A Jicarilla Apache

34B Jicarilla Apache u

TABLE 6~KEY TO MAP 7 (Gontmu.ed)

References

Weltfish, G., 1930a, pp. 469-470

Weltfish, G., 1930a, p. 469



Franciscan Fathers, 1929, pp. 291-297

Weltfish, G., 1932a, pp. 36-37

Weltfish, G., 1932a, pp. 35-36


Kidder, A. V., 1932, pp. 296-297


Douglas, F. R., 1934, p. 55

Stitches

Interlocking

Interlocking or non-interlocking

Interlocking or non-interlocking

Split on concave

Non-interlocking

Non-interlocking

Non-interlocking

Non-interlocking

Non-interlocking

N on-inter locking

-------------- ----- ----35A Mescalero Apache 6 Weltfish, G., 1932b, p. 115, fn. 25 Non-interlocking

------ ~~-----,,---- -

35B Mescalero Apache Weltfish, G., 1932b, p. 115, fn. 25 Non-interlocking -~------ -~--~--

35C Mescalero Apache Weltfish, G., 1932b, p. 115, fn. 25 Non-interlocking

Surface Direction

Convex Left

Convex Right & left

~--------

Convex Right & left

Convex Left

Concave Left

Convex Left

Convex Left

Convex Left --~~-~-

--------

Either

Either

Either

Either

Left

Left

Left

Left

1. In this group, two distinct wart's seem to be made, although the foundations and the tcchniqU(~~ of sewing- arC' idNlti('aI in both. One

ware resemhk's that of the San Carlos Apache, i.e., goes with the Southwcst. while the other is typi('al of the souLhprn California trihes, i.e., goes with the southern California area. Weltfish, G., 1930a, pp. 466-468.

2. Either surface is worked according to shape; concave for bowls, COI1V('X for globular vessels. W('ltfish, G., communication.

3. Sec Note 2. ti. The situation among the Northern Paiute is complicated by the fact that the groups havE' been mixed on the reservations. Weltfish

d<'seril)(-'s wares from three of these groups, the cultural affiliations of which are doubtful. Weltfish, G., 19aOa, p. 469. 5. This foundation is a bundle of five rods, which Weltfish considers to be a variant of the triangular type foundation. Wcltfish. G.,

communication.

6. See Note 2.


In order to discuss the interrelations between these areas in both time and space, it is necessary to summarize briefly the salient characteristics of each. Turning our attention first to map 7, which represents present-day conditions, the area of southern California may be characterized as follows: bundle foundation; non-interlocking stitches; concave work surface (trays) or convex work surface (olIas); either work surface (burden baskets); direction of work to the right. An exception is seen among the Chumash, who also used the three-rod triangular foundation of reeds.

A second area is comprised by central California, the Basin, and central Arizona. Throughout, this area is characterized by a threerod triangular foundation (with the additional use of a single rod in the northern portion of the area) and a left direction of the work. To the north, the stitches tend to be. interlocking or split, while to the south non-interlocking stitches seem characteristic. Again, the convex work surface is used to the north, while either surface is used to the south, although in the latter area there is apparently a preference for the concave work surface. In general, the Basin seems intermediate and variable, as indeed might be expected, since in this region the techniques of three areas come together.'" The Northern Paiute use both right and left direction of work, although the former may possibly be due to Salish influence to the north.'"

Northeastern Arizona and northwestern New Mexico comprise a third area, the characteristics of which are: two-rod-and-bundle foundation; non-interlocking stitches; concave surface worked on trays, convex on ollas; direction of work to the left. It may be objected that this ware is no longer manufactured by Pueblo groups, but that it was manufactured in the nineteenth century seems certain. Specimens were collected in the late nineteenth century by such reliable men as J. W. Powell and J. Stevenson."" In addition, Weltfish has pointed out that the baskets which were collected among the Pueblos cannot be attributed to the Navaho, the only living group now manufacturing this ware, since the designs are non-N avaho.lOo She also points out the probability that this ware persisted among the

97. Dr. Weltfish does not feel that the basketry of central California and that of central Arizona should be grouped into a single area, since she consifif'rs the latter to be essentially "Southwestern" in character (i. e., continuing- the Bask('t-Maker tradition.) On purely technological grounds, and ignoring for the ])yescnt the crih'ria of design and shape, it seems as justifiable to consider these wares as related as to COD

sider them distinctive; for it is well to remember that relationships between these areas have been demonstrated on the basis of culture clements other than basketry. It is not improbable that the styles of central Arizona ","erC' secondarily influenced by the Anasazi tradition after their introduction into the' South west.

98. Weltfish states that the Salish area is charaderized by right direction of work. Weltfish, 1930a, p. 468.

99. Weltfish, 1932a, Pl>. 34-37. 100. Weltfish, 1932b, p. 115.

1937 EXCAVATIONS, Bc 50-51, CHACO CANYON, X. M. [ 117

Pueblos into the Pueblo V period, since twilled ring-baskets, an ancient Pueblo trait, are still manufactured at several villages.J,n The notable exception in this coiled basketry area is found among the Hopi. Here a ware is made with a bundle foundation and interlocking stitches.

A fourth, although less well defined area, seems to exist to the north of the Pueblo area and to the east of the central Basin region. This area includes the basketry of the Ute, Kaibab Paiute, Shoshoni, and Bannock.,o2 The ware manufactured in this area is characterized by two-rod or three-rod vertical foundation; stitches split on the nonwork surface; convex work surface; left direction of work. The Cheyenne, Arapaho, Kiowa, and Comanche manufactured gambling baskets which seem to be more or less typical of this area. Since they are tray-shaped, however, these baskets were worked on the concave surface.

A fifth area may be found about the Lower Colorado and in Arizona to the south of the Gila River. In this region, the problem is rather complex and difficult to understand. The Maricopa and, possibly, the Yuma manufactured a ware which seems to be affiliated with that of the southern California coiled basketry area. The Pima, Papago, and Seri, on the other hand, made a bundle-foundation type

101. Weltfish, 1932a, p. 44. 102. Weltfish, 1930a, pp. 470-471.

MAP 8. COILED BASKETRY: D,STRIBUTION DURING PUEBLO III-IV

i i i i i i i i i db L ________ _

A

MAP 8. COILED BASKETRY: DISTRIBUTION DURING PUEBLO III-IV


basketry which seems to differ in a technological sense chiefly in the left direction of the work. Generally speaking, however, this area seems to be characterized by a conspicuous lack of coiled basketry among the Yuman-speaking peoples of both southern California and the Colorado-Gila region in general. A positive characteristic of the area is the manufacture of "bird's nest" coiled ware. This latter ware is also made to a certain extent in the southern California basketry area, where it is found, for example, among the Cahuilla.

Turning our attention now to map 8, we find that similar areas existed in Pueblo III and IV times, although the data are far less complete. Whereas the Pueblo area is considerably larger it is again characterized by the two-rod-and-bundle foundation ware in which the same aggregate of items occurs. Vertical foundation types, singlerod, and three-rod triangular forms are to be found along the northern periphery. Central Arizona is characterized by a three-rod triangular ware, although a bundle foundation type with a left direction of work is also found. In southern California a bundle foundation ware occurs which is said to be typical of that made in the same region today.103 In western Texas, a bundle foundation ware occurs which is typical of this area at an earlier time.

The distributions presented on map 9 represent conditions from Basket Maker II through Pueblo II times. In the Pueblo plateau area, the two-rod-and-bundle triangular aggregate is again characteristic. On the northern periphery, there is considerable variation in foundation type, and vertical forms occur sporadically. During this interval, a single rod foundation with interlocking stitches is found to be very widespread, occuring sporadically from Nevada and northern Utah to southern New Mexico.1O"

For southern California during this early period, no data are available. They are, however, rather plentiful from the area comprised by northern Coahuila and the Big Bend region of Texas. The consensus of opinion seems to indicate that for the western portion of the Big Bend region, the characteristic coiled basketry type has a bundle foundation; stitches split on the non-work surface; concave work surface; left direction of work. This is also a secondary type in the Lower Pecos River region, where the characteristic form has a bundle foundation; interlocking stitches; concave work surface; left direction of work."'"

103. Campbell, 1931, p. 89. 10·4. The single Hohokam specimen from this period (Sacaton phase) may pos

sibly have been made on a single rod (or splint) foundation, with non-interlocking stitches. In this example, the stitches do not split the rod. Sayles, 1937, p. 159.

105. Setzler, 1935, p. 106; Smith, 1935, p. 101: Jackson, 1937, p. 157.


Number Site Period Reference

1 Culberson County, Tex. 1300-1600 Jackson, A. T., 1937, p. 157

2 Swarts Ruin, N. M. Pueblo III Cosgrove, H. S. and C. B., 1932, pp. 67-68

3 Montezuma Cave, N. M.' Pueblo III? Weltfish, G., 1932a, p. 28

4 Village of the Great Kivas, N. M.

5 Pecos, N. M.

6A Jemez Cave, N. M.

6B Jemez Cave, N. M.

6C Jemez Cave, N. M.

7 A Mesa Verde, Colo."

7B Mesa Verde, Colo."

7C Mesa Verde, Colo.'

Pueblo III Roberts, F. H. H., Jr., 1932, p. 134

Pueblo III Kidder, A. V., 1932, pp. 288-289

Pueblo III Alexander, H. G., and Reiter, P., 1935, pp. 49-50


--~-------


Pueblo III Weltfish, G., 1932a, pp. 16-17 -----~---- --- -- ------------------

Pueblo III W eltfish, G., 1932a, pp. 16-17

Pueblo III Weltfish, G., 1932a, pp. 16-17

R

g

Sandal Cliff House, Colo. Pueblo III? Weltfish, G., 1932a, p. 19 - ---- ------ --- --------- -- -----

Moki Canyon, Utah Pueblo III? WeItfish, G., 1932a, pp. 7-8

10 Battle Canyon, Utah Pueblo III? Weltfish, G., 1932a, p. 15

11 Allan Canyon, Utah Pueblo III? Weltfish, G., 1932a, p. 16 --- --------

12 Betatakin, Ariz. Pueblo III Weltfish, G., 1932a, pp. 6-7

Stitches

Non-interlocking; split on convex

Non-interlocking

Non-interlocking

Non-interlocking

Non-interlocking

Non-interlocking

Non-interlocking

Non-interlocking

Non-interlocking

Non-interlocking -----.-------

Non-interlocking

Surface

Concave

Either

Either

Either

Either

Direction

Left

Left

Left

Left

Left

Concave Left

Concave Left

Concave Left

Concave Left -------------- ---Concave Left

Number Site

13 Canyon del Muerto, Ariz.

14A Pueblo Bonito, N. M.

14B Pueblo Bonito, N. M.

15 Sikyatki, Ariz.

16 Chevlon Ruin, Ariz.

17 Palatki, Ariz.

18A Sierra Ancha, Ariz.

18B Sierra Ancha, Ariz.

19A Casa Grande, Ariz.'

19B Casa Grande, Ariz.

TABLE 7-KEY TO MAP 8 (Continu.ed)

Period Reference




Pueblo IV Weltfish, G., 1932a, p. 34

Pueblo IV? Weltfish, G., 1932a, p. 27 Fewkes, J. W., 1898b, p. 527

Pueblo III'! Weltfish, 1932a, p. 25

Pueblo IV Haury, E, W., 1934, pp. 73-76

Pueblo IV Haury, E, W., 1934, pp. 73-76

Pueblo IV Weltfish, G., 1932a, pp. 27-28

Pueblo IV Fewkes, J. W., 1912, p. 147

Stitches

Non-interlocking

Interlocking

Non-interlocking

Non-interlocking

Non-interlocking

Non-interlocking

20 Las Acequins Ruin, Ariz." Pueblo III Haury, E. W., 1935, Mss. Non-interlocking

Surface Direction

Left

Either Left

Concave Left

Concave Left

-------------_._- ._-_ .. _---- ._----- ---------------21 29 Palms, Calif, Pueblo IV? Campbell, E. W. C., 1931, p. 63 Non-interlocking

-----------------_. __ ._---- ---------------22A Mesa House, Nev.' Pueblo III? Hayden, 1., 1930, pp. 59-60 Interlocking

-------------------22B Mesa House, Nev. Pueblo III? Hayden, 1., 1930, pp. 59-60 Interlocking

1. Either surface is worked in accordance with shape; bowls worked on concave surface; ollas on COllyex.

2. See Note 1. 3. See Note 1. 4. See Note 1.

5. Fewkes describes a basket found at Casa Grande which may be an example of "'bird's nest" coiling. Fewkes, J. W., 1912, p. 147. 6. The writer is indebted to Dr. Haury for permission to refer to his doctoral thesis entitled: The Archaeolo[lij of the Salt River Valley:

the Interrelations of Two Ethnic Gr01l1Js.

7. The foundation of 22A consists of three rods arranged horizontally; 22B consists of three rods arranged horizontally with a slat on top. splint or fourth rod is present the stitches pass over the three rods and down under the welt of the coil below." Hayden. L~ 1980, pp. 59-60.

A Study of

"Where a


The data from Coahuila are too meager, at present, to form a basis for definite conclusions, but a general affiliation with the Lower Pecos-Big Bend area may be postulated. Throughout this region, a bundle foundation type with non-interlocking and non-split stitches occurs. There is some evidence for the presence of a single-rod foundation type, but the stitches here do not seem to be of the interlocking variety. For northern Chihuahua but two examples of coiled basketry seem as yet to have been described. One specimen differs from the wares of the Lower Pecos-Big Bend region, chiefly in having a right direction of work. The other is typical San Juan Basket Maker coiled ware.

In the western and southern regions of the Great Basin, two wares are represented at this time: a three-rod triangular type and a single-rod form with interlocking stitches.

To the north of the Pueblo plateau, we find, at this time, vertical foundation forms, the single-rod type with interlocking stitches, and bundle foundation forms.

It will be noted that in the case of all three distributions plotted, intermediate types appear at the peripheries. Such a condition is to be expected, and could, indeed, be predicted, although the precise aggregate of items could not be foreseen.

GoEl , • c

Gl ('!)" A •

"

i i b..tiCDG ! ABC D \. 24-

'\ '\

\,

~4

2

,------,---j

i i i

i i j ! I i j

___ J

\, 999 0 '0 ~ ______ ~~~ ______ ~10~"~\ ______ ~~~99

MAP 9. COILED BASKETRY: DISTRIBUTION DURING BASKET MAKER II-PUEBLO II

000 , • C

2l

~(j) , . Z3

iII 00 , . 21

I i i i

--~

, '0

9 JIAp 9. COILED BASKETRY: DISTRIBUTION DURING BASKET MAKER II-PUEBL() II


Number Site Period Reference Stitches Surface Direction

1 Upper Rio Fuerte, Mex." BM? Zingg, R. M., Mss. Non-interlocking; Concave Right non-split

2A Western Coahuila, Mex.2 BM? Peabody Museum Collection Stitches split on No. 22774 both surfaces

. ----------------------~-.~

2B Western Coahuila, Mex. BM? Peabody Museum Collection Stitches split on Concave Left No. 22841 both surfaces

2C Western Coahuila, Mex. BM? Peabody Museum Collection Inter locking; split Convex Left No. 22774 on work surface

3 Western Coahuila, Mex. BM? Peabody Museum Collection Non-inter locking; Convex Left No. 22687 non-split

4A Val Verde County, Tex. BM? Pearce, J. E., and Jackson, A. T., Interlocking 1933, pp. 106-114

Martin, G. C., 1933, pp. 55-59 -------~--.-.--

4B Val Verde County, Tex. BM? Pearce, J. E., and Jackson, A. T., Non-interlocking; 1933, pp. 106-114 non-split

Martin, G. C., 1933, pp. 55-59

4C Val Verde County, Tex. BM? Pearce, J. E., and Jackson, A. T., Split 1933, pp. 106-114

Martin, G. C., 1933, pp. 55-59

5 Culberson County, Tex. BM? Jackson, A. T., 1937, p. 185 Non-interlocking; split on concave surface

---------_._.- ------6 Brewster County, Tex. BM? Weltfish, G., 1932a, p. 33 Non-interlocking; Concave Left

Setzler, F. M., 1932, p. 136 split on non-work surface

-------------------7A Brewster County, Tex. BM 111- Setzler, F. M., 1933, p. 56 Non-interlocking; Concave Left

Pueblo I split on non-work surface

Number Site

7B Brewster County, Tex.

8A Brewster County, Tex.

8B Brewster County, Tex.

9A Guadalupe, Mts., N. M.

9B Guadalupe Mts., N. M.

9C Guadalupe Mts., N. 1VI.

lOA Guadalupe Mts., N. M. -----. ----------------

lOB Guadalupe Mts., N. M. ------.--- -- -- - -------------

10C Guadalupe Mts., N. M.

11 Dona Ana Countv, N. M.


Period

BM IIIPueblo I

Reference

Setzler, F. M., 1933, p. 56

BM? Coffin, E. F., 1932, p. 38

BM? Coffin, E. R., 1932, p. 38

BM II- Mera, H. P., 1938a, pp. 50-52 Pueblo II?



Howard, E. B., 1930, p. 197 BM?

BM?

BM?

BM?

- --------- ------------------Howard, E. B., 1930, p. 197

Howard, E. B., 1930, p. 197 --- .-------Weltfish, G., 1932a, pp. 31-33

--------- -- - - - - -- --- ---------- ._-----12 II arris Village, N. M.

13A Chaco: Be 51, N. M. -- -- ------_._--

13B Chaco: Be 51

Pueblo II

Pueblo II?

PuelIo II?

Haury, E. W., 1936a, p. 78

14 Piedra District, Colo. Pueblo I Weltfish. G., 1932a, p. 21 ----- ---- --------------- ------- --- - --- - --, ---"--

15A San Juan County, Utah" BM III Weltfish, G., 1932a, p. 14

Stitches

Interlocking

Non-interlocking; non-split?

Split on non-work surface?

Interlocking

Some interlocking; some split

Some non-interlocking; some split

Non-interlocking?

Surface

Concave

------- -----Interlocking

---- .---- - -

Direction

Left

Non-interlocking

Intcrlockin.l<; nonsplit

Concave? Left

N on-interlocking Concave

Non-interlocking; Concave surface split on non-work

N on-ini('rlocking' Concave

Non-interlocking Concave

Left

Left

Left

Left

TABLE 8-KEY TO MAP 9 (Continued) -----

Number Site Period Reference Stitches Surface Direction

15B San Juan County, Utah BM III Weltfish, G., 1932a, p. 14 Non-interlocking Concave Left -- ---------

15C San Juan County, Utah BM III Weltfish, G., 1932a, p. 14 Non-interlocking Concave Left -------16A San Juan County, Utah BM II Weltfish, G., 1932a, p. 16 Non-interlocking Concave Left

------------~---,------

16B San Juan County, Utah BM II Weltfish, G., 1932a, p. 16 Non-interlocking Concave Left - ------------

17 Moki Canyon, Utah BM Burgh, R., 1937, p. 10 Interlocking

18A Fremont River, Utah Pueblo II Morss, N., 1931, pp. 72-74

18B Fremont River, Utah Pueblo II Morss, N., 1931, pp. 72-74

19A Kane County, Utah BM Weltfish, G., 1932a, p. 14 Non-interlocking Concave Left

19B Kane County, Utah BM Weltfish, G., 1932a, p. 14 Non-interlocking Concave Left

20A Grand Gulch, Utah BM Weltfish, G., 1932a, p. 12 Non-interlocking Concave Left

20B Grand Gulch, Utah BM Weltfish, G., 1932a, p. 12 Interlocking

21A Ashley Creek, Utah 4 Pueblo II? Peabody Museum Collection Non-interlocking; Concave Left

21B Ashley Creek, Utah

21C Ashley Creek, Utah

22A Promontory Point, Utah

22B Promontory Point, Utah

22C Promontory Point, Utah

23A Western Utah

No. A-7942 split on non-work surface

Pueblo II? Peabody Museum Collection No. A-7949

Interlocking; rod not split

Pueblo II? Peabody Museum Collection No. A-7943

Inter locking; split on non-working surface

BM Steward, J. H., 1937, pp. 33-35 Interlocking

BM? Steward, J. H., 1937, pp. 33-35 Split

BM? Steward, J. H., 1937, pp. 33-35 Non-interlocking

Pueblo I? Steward, J. H., 1936, p. 55 Non-interlocking

Convex Left


Number Site Period

23B Western Utah Pueblo I? ----

24A Loyelock Cave, Nev. ?

24B Lovelock Cave, Nev. ?

24C Lovelock Cave, Nev. ?

24D Lovelock Cave, Nev. ?

25 Paiute Cave, Nev. ?

26 Chinlee Valley, N. M. BM II

27 Segi Canyon, Ariz. BM III

28 Segi Canyon, Ariz. Pueblo I

29A Canyon de Chelley, Ariz. BM

29B Canyon de Chelley, Ariz. BM

30 Canyon del Muerto, Ariz. BM III ------"---

31 San Francisco Mts., Ariz. Pueblo II

Reference

Steward, J. H., 1936, p. 55

Weltfish, G., 1932b, pp. 110-111

Weltfish, G., 1932b, pp. 110-111

Weltfish, G., 1932b, pp. 110-111

Weltfish, G., 1932b, pp. 110-111

Harrington, M. R., 1930, p. 118

Guernsey, S. J., 1931, p. 70

Guernsey, S. J., 1931, p. 78

Lockett, H. C., 1934, p. 13 Guernsey, S. J., 1931, p. 95

Weltfish, G. 1932a, p. 10

Weltfish, G. 1932a, p. 10 --_.------- ---------

Weltfish, G., 1932a, pp. 8-9 ----

Bartlett, K., 1934, pp. 44-45

Stitches Surface Direction ----~----

~--.----

Non-interlocking or Convex Left split on non-work surface

----Interlocking; non- Convex Left

split

Interlocking; rod Convex Left split

Interlocking; rod Convex Left not split

------Non-interlocking Concave? Left ------------~---~--------

Non-interlocking Concave? Left --------

Non-interlocking Concave? Left

Interlocking --------~

Non-interlocking Concave? Left --------~-- - -----------

Non-interlocking Either Left ----- ---- -- ----- -- --------

Non-interlocking Concave Left

1. Dr. Wcltfish informs me that a second type of coiled basket in the Rio Fuerte collections is of the typical Basket Maker form; two-rod and bundle triangular foundation, non-interlocking stitches, concave surface worked to the left.

2. The baskets from Coahuila, Mexico, in the Peabody Museum of Harvard University ,verc collected by Dr. Edward Palmer, in IH80. The examples referred to in Table III as 2A-C were found in Coyote Cave in western Coahuila. A third example (3) "\vas fonnd in a ('ave "14 leaguC's northwest of Monclova, Coahuila, Mexico." Example 3 from Coahuila is erroneously labeled 4 on Map III.

3. 15A: foundation: two-rod and reed, triangular. 15B: foundation: bvo-rod and yucca ::strip, triangular. 15C: foundation: split-rod and yucca strip. vertical.

4. 21A: foundation: rod and yucca striD. vertical. 21C: foundation: bundle in which the elements are tightly twisted.


To point out but a few examples, the Chemehuevi (map 7, 7), who are located midway between an area characterized by right direction of work on the one hand and left direction on the other employ either direction. The Western Mono (map 7, 5), similarly located between two areas, employ foundations typical of both. Again, it seems possible that two-rod-and-bundle triangular ware manufactured in the Guadalupe Mountains (map 9, 9A) in early times had interlocking stitches due to the proximity to the interlocking wares of the Lower Pecos River region.

Turning our attention now to the temporal aspects of the distributions, there seems to be a remarkable continuity of coiled basketry techniques throughout the development of the Southwestern cultures. Weltfish has treated this problem at some length, and has shown that "the parallels for the prehistoric technical types in all cases are to be found in modern areas closely contiguous to the ancient sites." 106 In this paper she has shown that the prototype of the northern vertical foundation wares of the Shoshoni, Ute, and Plains tribes is to be found in the work of the Ozark Bluff-Dwellers. She also concludes that certain technological forms of coiled ware from Lovelock Cave are represented today among the Maidu, Washo, and Pomo in California. Perhaps the continuity of two-rod-and-bundle triangular ware in the Pueblo area is most striking of all, since it has persisted with little change from Basket Maker II times to the present day.

Weare now confronted with a problem most vital to all who attempt to reconstruct the history of human culture: the question of cultural stability. Weltfish correctly states that the question of "the stability ... of technical traits" in an important problem in an historical study of coiled basketry.107 The precise problem, however, remains undefined, and the word "stability" is conspicuously lacking in her conclusions. Instead, she implies, as previously stated, that there is a marked continuity in basketry techniques which accounts for the similarities between ancient and modern wares. And stability, it would seem, is a necessary prerequisite to the continuity, whether the latter concept be expressed or implicit. What, therefore, can be meant in this instance by "stability"? Does it suffice for all purposes simply to say that "stability" is the state or quality of being stable? It is in this general sense that Boas has applied this concept to culture when he contrasts "stability" with "change.,,"oR

In particular instances, however, we are interested in the question of precisely what in a culture makes for stability or instability. The issue, it seems, is that of the definition of a problem, rather than of a concept. Mead has treated at some length the question of the

106. Weltfish. 1932b. p. 117. 107. Weltfish. 1932b. p. 108. 108. Boas. 1928. p. 134.


stability of "elements" within "complexes" in Polynesia.'09 But this does not help us materially with the problem at hand, since we are concerned with but a single trait-coiled basketry-and not with trait complexes.lIo

What problems, therefore, are involved in the question of the stability or instability of Southwestern coiled basketry techniques? Weltfish's conclusions suggest that one problem is the question of the stability of a trait within an area. That this problem may be illuminated by the Southwestern data she has demonstrated with adequacy. The very application of the Southwestern basketry data to this particular problem, however, involves yet another problem: the question of the stability of a given trait within a specified culture. That these two problems are intimately related seems obvious. The evidence furnished by Southwestern archaeology indicates that from time to time new increments of population, as well as new traits and trait complexes, entered this area from the outside. In order for the stability of a given trait to be maintained within a specified area in a case where the population or culture is wholly or partially altered, it is necessary either that the trait be taken over by the new population or culture, or that it be perpetuated by the older inhabitants of the area. Today, for example, the Navaho represent the only Southwestern group to manufacture two-rod-and-bundle coiled basketry.l11 There seems to be little room for doubt that the Navaho took over this trait from the earlier inhabitants of the Pueblo plateau after they had arrived in approximately their present position. The trait seems not to have been reported outside of the Southwest, and the probability that the Navaho invented this basketry type in an area in which it had been manufactured since early times seems unlikely. The stability, therefore, of two-rod-and-bundle basketry within the Southwestern area has been maintained in this single instance (e. g., Navaho-Pueblo) by the fact that the Navaho adopted it; the instability of the trait in the nineteenth century Pueblo culture is evident, since the manufacture of this basketry type among the Pueblos has ceased in recent times altogether.

Again, basic to both of the problems touched upon above, is the question of the stability of items within a trait. It seems evident that, unless the aggregate of items composing a trait are stable, the trait itself will be in a constant state of flux. Setzler has put forward this question in connection with differences in foundation in otherwise simi-

109. Mead, 1928, pp. 10-14; p. 84. 110. The terms "trait," "item," and "trait complex" are used throughout this

paper in the senSe defined by Linton. Linton, 1936, Pp. 397-398. 111. Weltfish, 1930a, p. 470. Stewart has pointed out that in recent times the

Ute have taken over Navaho~type ware, and in so doing changed the direction of their sewing as well as the surface worked to c,Onform to Navaho tradition. Stewart, 1938, p. 28.


lar baskets.1l2 He points out that a bundle foundation basket with interlocking stitches is characteristic of the Lower Pecos River region of Texas. These specimens resemble a form found as intrusive among typical Basket Maker examples. This intrusive ware, however, is characterized by a single-rod foundation. How, then, may we regard the instability or stability of the aggregate of items which compose a trait? This appears to be an issue which underlies the problems of independent invention and diffusion. To this most basic question there is, at present, no wholly adequate answer. We may simply weigh the evidence in each case with the pious hope that our judgment will later prove correct. Since, however, cultural change normally progresses at a pace which is perceptible only over larger time intervals, it seems probable that much light could be shed on the problem of the stability of culture as a whole by examining the stability of items within traits.

Let us turn now to certain historical problems suggested by the distributions. Since the data are of a fragmentary nature, and because we are dealing here with but a single trait, we must resort to speculation pure and simple. But speculation is useful, for granting that we are speculating, certain intriguing possibilities present themselves.

Let us first examine the possibilities suggested by the distribution of bundle foundation wares. On a general Basket Maker-like horizon we find bundle foundation baskets; non-interlocking, non-split stitches; usually with a concave work surface; worked to the left in the northern Coahuila-Big Bend region. In Pueblo IV times, these are found in southern Arizona at Cas a Grande and in the Sierra Anchas. Today, these are made by the Pima and Papago. A similar basket, but with a right direction of work, has been found on a Basket Maker-like horizon in northern Chihuahua. Again, in Pueblo IV times, there are indications that this ware was manufactured in southern California. Present day distributions reveal that it is made by the Seri, the Maricopa, and the southern California groups. Does the Basket Maker-like ware from northern Coahuila and the Big Bend represent the prototype of modern Pima-Papago ware? Are the beginnings of modern southern California basketry to be seen in northern Chihuahua on a Basket Maker-like horizon? One wonders also at the relationship between these two styles, technically similar except for the direction of work.

In the case of two-rod-and-bundle triangular ware, Weltfish has pointed out that the Lower Rio Grande forms the southeastern boundary of this style."3 It is, indeed, interesting that, to date, with the exception of this extension along the Lower Rio Grande and the example from Chihuahua, no two-rod-and-bundle triangular basketry has been reported to the south of the plateau lands occupied by the Anasazi peoples. Does basketry also reflect the cultural hiatus which

112. Setzler, 1935, p. 106. 113. Weltfish, 1932a, p. 33.


seems to exist between the Anasazi and the Hohokam? Will later researches indicate that a bundle foundation basketry style was typical of the latter culture?111 It is unfortunate that no basketry remains on a Basket Maker horizon have been produced from southern Arizona.

The single-rod basketry style with interlocking stitches presents a puzzling problem. Weltfish considers it to be intrusive in the Anasazi area, where it occurs sporadically in all periods with the exception of present times.us Today it is found in the Basin and in central California. For all periods, as is also true in the case of the vertical foundation styles, this ware has essentially a northern distribution. Is it an ancient type? With what culture or cultures may it be identified?

"Bird's nest" coiled storage baskets seem first to appear-as far as present knowledge goes-on a Pueblo IV horizon in the Sierra Anchas, and may possibly also have been utilized at Casa Grande. As has been stated, the specimen from Bc 51 is so doubtful that it seems unwise to consider it at this time. In modern times this storage ware has been manufactured by the Pima and Papago, the Yuman speaking peoples of the Lower Colorado and Gila Rivers and of southern California, and some of the southern California Shoshonean groups. This ware, today, seems to be centralized among the Yuman speaking peoples. All this suggests several interesting possibilities. There is some evidence furnished, both by the bundle coiled basketry and the "bird's nest" storage ware, that may possibly indicate some relationship between the Pueblo IV inhabitants of the Sierra Anchas and the modern Pima and Papago. Is there some relationship between the Hohokam peoples and the southern Yumans?llG Will later excavations in Hohokam sites reveal the presence of "bird's nest" coiling?

Three-rod triangular ware seems to have been concentrated in the Great Basin since early times. Although we have no evidence for Basket Maker times in central Arizona, this basketry style is represented in this region in Pueblo IV times. Today it is manufactured in central and northwestern Arizona by the Western Apache and the Plateau Yumans respectively.1l7 Did the Western Apache enter Arizona in Pueblo IV times by way of the Great Basin, bringing this style of basketry with them? Gladwin believes that they appeared in the region inhabited by the Salado peoples early in the fourteenth cen-

114. The Sacaton Phase specimen from Snaket-own is of the single-rod type, and this style is widespread in both time and space, and difficult to associate with particular ethnic groups.

115. Weltfish, 1932a, p. 40. 116. For a discussion of the pO'3Sible affiliations of the Hohokam peoples, see

Gladwin, 1937, pp. 91-102. 117. Dr. Weltfish has informed me: "If one takes foundation element as the major

criterion, the J icarilla should be inc1udtxl (among those groups manufacturing threerod triangular ware). However, texture and decoration lead me to identify Jicarilla ware with the Navaho-Anasazi, with altered foundation."


tury.llS Weltfish has pointed out that this style is independent of the typical Anasazi ware; that its distribution is more southern; that it tends to be identified with a later horizon.H9

In summing up, it may be stated that coiled basketry seems to have earned its place as a trait of some comparative significance. It reflects cultural relationships and differences, and is, therefore, a useful tool in reconstructing the prehistory of aboriginal America. Finally, it serves to shed its own light on some interesting theoretical problems which are applicable to anthropology as a whole.

118. Gladwin. 1937. p. 10l. 119. Weltfish. 1932a. p. 44.

SECTION G

ARTIFACTS OF BONE, ANTLER, AND SHELL

By MARY WHITTEMORE

The study of bone implements has been somewhat neglected in Southwestern archaeology. A few worked bones make less of an impression on the excavator than do the walls of rooms and the innumerable fragments of pottery. This report will deal in considerable detail with a relatively small collection of objects of bone, antler, and shell, in the belief that bone implements may yet prove to be of importance as diagnostic traits of area or period, and that only scrupulous attention to details will reveal whatever sensitivity as cultural indicators these artifacts may possess.

Some years ago Dr. Kidder 1 pointed out the advantages of using a classification in dealing with bone implements, and in his very thorough treatment of the Pecos material 2 he provided such a classification. Several reports since that time have adopted the Pecos schema with certain modifications to suit the needs of smaller collections. One excellent example is Miss Bartlett's work." The following classification, likewise, is based upon that of Dr. Kidder. Plates 12 and 13 illustrate the bone implements and the descriptions can be followed by the corresponding catalog numbers on the plates.

Objects of Bone (See Plates 12-13)

I. Implements-75 A. Awls-61

1. Deer, antelope and elk leg bone--43 a. Head of bone intact 0 b. Head of bone unworked ex-

cept by original splitting 5 c. Head partly worked down 4 d. Head wholly removed 12

e. Splinter 7 f. Worked on whole surface 8

g. Unclassifiable broken tips 7 2. Deer and elk ribs-2

a. Face of rib 2 3. Rabbit leg bone-8

a. Whole bone 6 b. Splinter 2

1. Kidder, 1921, p. 263. 2. Kidder, 1932. 3. Bartlett, 1934.

[ 131 ]

Catalog number Bc 51 30/-

(11,45,57,111,128) (17,47,52,88) (29,43,61,65,71,77, 82,99,10,104,117,126)

(12,33,34,40,76,90,101 ) (10,49,51,58,66,95, 96,102) (118,120)

(27,53,60,63,79,80,119 )

(98,105)

(26,78,112,122,123,124)


4. Bird leg bone-8 a. Whole bone b. Splinter

B. Chisels-4

6 2

1. Beveled from one side 2 2 2. Beveled from two sides

C. End scrapers or fleshers-5 1. Deer humerus 4 2. Deer phalanx 1

D. Miscellaneous bones-4 1. Worked fragments of long bone 3 2. Bone ring 1

E. Worked human femur 1

II. Ornaments-13 A. Beads

B. Pendants

I. Awl (Tine)

I. Bead

11

2

Objects of Antler 1

Objects of Shell 1

(22,25,59,94,103,127) (48,121 )

(30,41) (74,97)

(15,16,55,73 ) (69)

(28,31,32) (38) (13)

( 44,46,56,67,85,86,87, 91,92,106,107)

(62,108)

(42)

(64)

II. Armband 1 (68,81,-two pieces) Total number of objects-91

I. IMPLEMENTS

A. Awls.-(See Plates 12 and 13.)--Awls are clearly the predominant class of bone objects from Bc 51. A wls may be considered as a rather general category of pointed implements, and there will be no attempt to distinguish between awls and punches. It may be added that almost all the implements have the tapering point, which characterizes an awl, rather than the rounded blunt point, which characterizes a punch." Kidder,' Hodge" and others have speculated about the probable uses of various types of awls in basket making, skin piercing and similar operations. These possibilities probably hold for the Chaco, except that none of the awls from Be 51 display edges worn in notches from use in weaving. 7

According to the particular bone from which they are made,8 the awls tend to fall into the following four categories:

1. Deer, antelope and elk leg bone

4. Kidder, 1932, p. 203. 5. Ibid, p. 208. 6. Hodge, 1920, Pl'. 97-99. 7. Ibid, Plate XVII; Kidder, 1932, Fig. 190. 8. My thanks are due Dr. Glover M. Allen, of the Museum of Comparative

Zoology at Harvard University. for identifying bone material.


2. Deer and elk rib 3. Rabbit leg bone 4. Bird leg bone

1. DeeT and Antelope Leg Bones a. Head of bone intact.-This class made from bones of large

animals does not occur at all in Bc 51 although several examples were found in Bc 50.

b. Head unwoTked except for Q1'iginal sJJlitting.-There are five implements of this class, three of which are made from split sections of the proximal end of a deer metapodial which provides flattened head to the implements. The head of one specimen (45) reveals exceptional wear. The three examples are otherwise very similar: strong, heavy implements with rounded-off edges and fairly sharp points. Lengths vary from 3" to 3 %", the largest one (11) is P4" wide at the head and the smallest one (45) 10/16" wide at the head. There are two examples of the distal end split but unworked, a type which is very common in other sections of the Southwest." Several implements from Shabik'eshchee Village are made from this portion of mammal bone but most of them seem worked down."

c. Head paTtly wQ1'ked down.-Only three examples of this class are definitely awls. A handle fragment has been found which may properly be included. Two of the examples are of unsplit heads, one of a metapodial (17), and the other of a tibia (47). The metapodial lacks an epiphysis and has been so eroded that it is hard to tell how much was worked originally. It has a sharp point and is 314" long. The end of the tibia is rounded and a shallow groove has been cut almost encircling the neck of the bone. It is a bit shorter than the metapodial, and the point is broken off. It looks much like one of Hodge's 11 or Robert's 12 "constantly refashioned awls." Judging from the wear on the bone it might have been used again and again.

The third awl (52) is fashioned from the back of a tibia with evidence of the swelling of the neck but with little of the epiphysis remammg. It is well pointed and has nicely worked edges for about half its length. The appearance is that of a very strong, usable implement.

The fourth artifact (88) was probably an awl, fashioned from a split metapodial. The butt end has been considerably worked down and there is a perforation in the neck 1" from the end. Hodge 13 and others suggest that this sort of perforation might afford attachment

9. Kidder, 1932, p. 204, Fig. 171. 10. Roberts, 1929, PI. 20. 11. Hodge, 1920, p. 82. 12. Roberts, 1929, p. 127. 13. Hodge, 1920, p. 93.


for a thong. This implement is one of the three from Bc 51 which is made from the split distal end of an antelope metapodial. The fragment is 2%" long.

d. Head wholly rernoved.-As at Pecos, this is the largest class of awls, thirteen specimens in all. In every class all traces of the head have been removed and only the shaft is left. This makes identification difficult and in many cases impossible. Three specimens were identified as deer tibial fragments, and a few more as probably antelope metapodials but the rest were devoid of clues. Five implements of this class (43,82,99,100,117) are quite similar, varying in length from 3 1,4" to 4%" and a little more than 112" wide. They are relatively flat with rounded edges but still show the slight natural concavity of the inside of the bone from which the awls were made. The pierced handle of one (99) 3%" long may have afforded attachment for a thong as suggested above. It also appears similar to one figured by Morris 11 and termed a needle-like implement. The perforated awl and one other (99 and 43) exhibit the polish which seems to come from long use.

Two more awls (61 and 77) are cracked so that only the points remain. The tips are broken off. One is made from a heavy tibial fragment (29). Two more are light, finely worked awls (65 and 71), showing a suggestion of the surface concavity of the bone. The unbroken one is almost 4lh" long and has a sharp point. The point of the other is broken off. Both have flattened heads comparable with Hodge's 15 or Kidder's 16 spatulate awls.

One awl handle (104), made from the back of a tibia with a splintered edge, is very flat and spatulate. The specimen resembles some of the Pecos awl spatulas 17 but is perhaps not as carefully worked. It also looks similar to Robert's spatulate awl from Shabik'eshchee Village."

Another peculiar implement (126), made from the base of the ulna of an elk, seems to fit into this class. It measures 1" by 4" and appears to be strong and smoothly worked.

e. Splinter.-These are implements made from bone splinters. Only the point has been ground down and smoothed. The largest one of these (33) is 51,4" long and is made from a deer tibia. The point is not very sharp, but it has been broken. Another from an antelope femur (70), 3lh" long, has an excellent point. Two awls are made from thin antelope fragments (40 and 101).

All the awls of this class have a rough angular appearance. In

14. Morris, 1919a, p. 39 and Fig. 23a. 15. Hodge, 1920, Pis. XIV and XV. 16. Kidder, 1932, Fig. 187. 17. Ibid. p. 222. 18. Roberts, 1929, PI. 22 g.


spite of apparent crudity they show no evidence of having been found predominantly in earlier levels but seem to occur in the refuse fill of Kiva 3, the section between Kivas 2 and 3 and in room 16. In other words-so far as the limited evidence goes-they occurred predominantly in refuse or intentional fill.

f. Awls worked on whole surface.-This is not one of Kidder's classes but one which is original in this report. However, it is roughly the same idea as Hodge's smoothly finished awls." The difference between these awls and those of class d which have heads wholly removed is that the concave inside surface of the bone is no longer visible but has been completely worked down. The points are missing in three cases (58, 95, 96). They have been broken and repointed in two cases (66, 102) giving a blunted appearance. Four of these five implements exhibit roughly rectangular handles (58,66,96,102) like the Pecos four-sided implements.2o There are two small implements which are perfect. One (10) is a finely worked awl, 3 3/16" wide and 3%" long. It has a needle-like point. The shaft of the implement is roughly rectangular. The butt end is slightly tapered-a specimen of excellent workmanship. The other (49) is round, needle-like, and 2112" long with a groove around the neck. The point is not as sharp as that of the bodkin.

g. Unclassifiable broken tip8.-There are seven of these in various stages of bluntness and fineness. One (79) is extremely fine. Two (53,80) are resharpened and two (27,63) are broken. All are so small and fragmentary that they cannot be identified or properly classified.

2. Deer and Elk Ribs

a. Face of rib-wor'ked type.-There is one implement (105) about 2112" long duplicating Pecos types.21 Some of the cancellous bone is left in place presumably to strengthen the implement or perhaps to provide a more comfortable grip. The tip of the point has been broken off but it must have been fine and sharp. The width is %". Another awl (98), about 5" long tapers from the inch-wide handle to a dulled point. The bone is extremely fragile. A tentative identification designates the material elk rib. This implement is similar to one from Shabik'eshchee.22 None of the splinter type or edge of rib type awls found at Pecos23 were found at Bc 51.

3. Rabbit Leg Bone.-The jack rabbit tibia is the most popular rabbit bone for awls. Six examples were found, the seventh (26) being a radius. The method of manufacture seems to have included

19. Hodge, 1920, p. 86. 20. Kidder, 1932, p. 225. 21. Ibid. p. 217. 22. Roberts, 1929, PI. 25 and p. 131. 23. Kidder, 1932, p. 217.


splintering the main section of the bone, and then pointing the end by grinding. Two Ewls were made from small splinters of bones. Of these the smaller (118) is finely pointed. Only half the collection exhibits a lustrous surface. In general rabbit bone awls were not the most popular. In length they are 2%" to 3%", averaging about 3". The points of two or three have been snapped off. Only two, the implement from the radius (26) and one of those made from a splinter (118), exhibit extremely fine sharp points. In one case, in which the whole bone has been used (but with epiphysis removed) (122), the bone has been cracked transversely, leaving a jagged edge.

4. BiTd Leg Bone.-As Kidder points out24 the leg and wing bones of birds can be worked to extremely sharp points but are extremely brittle. Of the eight bird bone implements found in Bc 51, four could be identified as golden eagle.

a. Whole bone.-This class consists of whole bones, with or without heads, which have been tapered and pointed. One (94) of the 6 examples of this class has been broken off so that hardly more than a point is left. Another (103) looks as if the head had been chewed off. Three (22, 25, 59) have fine points unbroken and look considerably used. Lengths vary from 214" and 3%".

b. Splinter.--There are two very roughly formed, exhibiting few signs of use or wear. The lengths are Ph" and 214".

B. Chisels.-Four implements might be termed chisels. In the terminology of Hodge,'" punches are an intermediate class between awls and chisels. That intermediate class has been omitted from this classification.

1. Beveled Only on One Edge.-There are two implements which come into this group, one (41) of a rib of some mammal, the other (30) of some deer fragment. The latter is about 314" long by 9/16" wide at the handle, tapering to a shaft about 1,4" wide. The cancellous tissue is exposed through the middle portion of the implement. The point is blunted and considerably worn down. This implement looks somewhat like one of those illustrated by Hodge which he calls a bone chisel.'" It is also very much like Kidder's implements, which he calls flakers, designating them as tools "probably employed in the fabrication of chipped implements. Most of them seem originally to have been awls, put to secondary use for stone-working after their points had become dulled or been broken. The rounded, often battered tips are characteristic."z;

24. Ibid., p. 217. 25. Hodge, 1920, p. 106. 26. Ibid., PI. XXIII. 27. Kidder, 1932, Fig. 191 g, p. 228.


The tip of this implement seems to show the same sort of wear. At the same time it shows a tendency toward having one beveled edge so it falls in this category of chisels. It is so shaped that it might possibly have been used as an awl at one time.

The second example of this class (41), a split rib, %0" wide and more than 5" long, is another problem. The cancellous bone is exposed and left in place along the whole of one flat side. The bone itself was much affected by weathering and is in poor condition. The handle end seems to be broken off and the chisel end is only about half there, but one is led to believe that it is a chisel by the general tapering towards an edge which must have been about %" across.

2. Beveled /1'0111 Two Sides.-One (74) is 2%0" long, 13/16" wide at the butt end, tapering to %" wide at the cutting edge and displays excellent workmanship. The butt end is unfinished and rough but not broken. The cutting end is smoothly beveled. At its thickest point the implement is 5/16" thick. No implement of this sort was found in Bc 50.

The second chisel (97) is made from a mule deer humerus still showing the curve of the shaft of the bone with only the end worked down. The length is 4", width %0" at butt end, and 112" at cutting edge. The edge is fragmentary but shows the beveling from both sides, being considerably more marked on the inside curve of the bone.

C. Fleshers 01" Scrapers.-Four of deer humerus were found, only one of which (55) was complete. This measured 6 112" long, with a blade 11.'{" at the widest point and the head of the bone partly worked down. One tiny scraper made from a deer phalanx was also present. The humerus fleshers all have rounded edges and exhibit none of the serrations found at PeCOS."H The little phalanx scraper (69) is 2" long and exhibits a good deal of working in the head region, giving the impression of flattened sides. It is remarkable that all of the big scrapers have tended to break off at the same point an inch or so down the neck, which seems the weak point in that type of implement.

At Pecos, Kidder 20 found that scrapers of the metatarsus type with ankle bones for a handle predominated with but one single doubtful specimen of an end scraper from a humerus. Kidder states :30 "That bone can be, and by certain peoples of the San Juan drainage commonly was, fashioned into a serviceable tool."

This type was also found in large numbers by Morris, at Aztec, and one was inlaid.31 At Pueblo Bonito 32 were found a good many scrapers

28. Ibid., p. 233. 29. Ibid., p. 233. 30. Ibid., p. 235. 31. Morris, 1919a, p. 36. 32. Pepper, 1920, p. 378.


of this type inlaid with turquoise and, doubtless, of ceremonial importance. The distribution of this type of implement seems to be more a question of culture area than of period, although this humerus type may be the earlier.

D. Miscellaneous Bones-WoTked But Not Identifiable as Imple-1nents.-There are three fragments of long bones showing evidence of having been worked and one unfinished ring. One of the long bones (31) and the bone ring (38) show the method of cutting a bone most of the way through, probably with a flint knife, and then breaking."" The section of long bone was not broken off, but the bone ring shows unworked edges subsequent to the break. A 3" section of an antelope metapodial (31) shows a diagonal cut across one end which looks as if it might illustrate the first stage of working down an awl. The third long bone section (32), broken at one end and showing a slight outward curve toward the epiphysis on the other, shows no evidence of human workmanship other than the regular splitting, presumably, for marrow. The bone ring (38) is unsmoothed on one edge but the other edge is quite rounded. This ring may have been cut from an old implement to prepare a new surface. At least, the rounded surface does not resemble an epiphysis, even an immature one. Although only %, of the contour of the bone is present it is enough to suggest that it came from a long bone, probably the tibia of a pronghorn antelope. This sort of unfinished ring is not an unusual discovery in the Southwest.

E. WOTked HU1nan FemuT.-The 4" section of human femur (13) appears to be the blank for an intended implement which was never finished. One end is broken off, the other gouge shaped. The locus was near the surface west of room l.

Worked human bones are not very common in the Southwest. There was only one possibility at Pecos,~1 a part of a broken object, presumably a disk of skull, possibly human.

II. ORNAMENTS

A. Beads.-There were 11 bone beads and 1 bone tube (56) 3112" long, perhaps representing the beginning stages of a bead, many of them accompanying burials. Five of these could be identified as sections of golden eagle, 1 from a femur (91) and 4 from ulnae (44,46, 56, 106). Several of the beads were broken (67, 85, 107). The broken

33. Kidder. 1932. p. 200. 34. Ibid., p. 270. See also Reiter, 1938, PI. XXIIa, object 1, and p. 85, for a

ftesher made from a human adult femur and found "\vith a burial at Amoxiumqua. In the collections of the Museum of New Mexico are a pair of artifacts fashioned from the paired femora of a human child. Their provenience has not. at present, been defmitely established. Roberts, 1929, p. 144, mentions bone tubes made from human femora.


sections of specimen 67 show it to be blackened all the way through with a high polish on the outside. This bead was found in kiva 3 at the 6' level on the east side. Variations in diameter are from %" to ~". The edges are well smoothed, very evenly in many cases. Five beads accompanied burials in room 2, 2 beads were found in room 16, and another in the lower levels of kiva 4. Several lay near the surface between kivas 2 and 3. These beads may have been worn strung end to end or bunched in pairs as wrist guards.

B. Pendants.-One (62) is a thin piece of bone, probably the curved outer portion of a rib with cancellous tissue removed. It measures 214," by %". Roughly rectangular in shape with curved ends and rounded edges, there is a small drilled hole a little to the left of center of one end. It is fragile, broken in 4 pieces, and was found in kiva 3 in the 0-3' level. Several similar pendants came from Bc 50. The ones found at Pecos 35 are heavier and stronger.

The other pendant (108) is a delicate portion of the base of a claw, probably that of an eagle. It is pierced by a finely drilled hole through its center. The dimensions are 1" by 7'." by %" at its thickest point. It was found in a small bowl on the floor against the southeast cornel' of room 17, more than 9' below the surface.

Bone Materials Used and Loci.-Mule deer was by far the most common source of animal bone for implements, and metapodials and long bone fragments were most commonly used. Metapodials of deer and antelope were favorite bones at Pecos. On the other hand, at Pecos were found a much wider variety of bones, such as those of wolves, coyotes, and wildcats.

"Objects of bone were not treasured possessions, were seldom placed in graves, and are found in great quantities and often in apparently still serviceable condition in the rubbish heaps, where it is supposed the majority were thrown by their owners.":16 This statement, made by Kidder in regard to Pecos, is roughly true in the case of Bc 51 with a slight difference in emphasis. No bone implements were found in the refuse mound proper but many, in serviceable condition, were found at various levels of rooms and kivas which appeared to have been intentionally filled with refuse. Accompanying burials, five bone beads were found, but only one broken tip of an awl was found in such a location. This situation contrasts sharply with the facts for Unshagi and other sites. Attempts at stratigraphic analysis of artifacts of bone, antler, and shell from Bc 51 proved fruitless; the character of objects from different levels showed no consistent ascertainable differentiations.

35. Kidder, 1932, p. 269. 36. Kidder, P. 201.


ARTIFACTS OF ANTLER (See Plate 13)

There was one small antler tool 1 %" long, %" wide, and %" thick, which was found in Bc 51. The point is rather blunt. Two sides have been worked down from parallel faces but the butt end is unfinished. It was located in the fill outside rooms 1-5. This implement seems to fit into Kidder's classification of tines with two sides of the top worked and it appears to be almost identical with Fig. 232 h,"7 which Kidder remarks "may be a wedge." It is also similar to some small antler tools found in Jemez Cave.38

This is the only object of antler found in Bc 51 and there were none in Bc 50. One was found at Leyit Kin.3 " There were relatively few (13) antler implements found at Jemez Cave, but many at Pecos (751).

ARTIFACTS OF SHELL

The section of an arm band, found in two pieces (68, 81), was examined by Mr. William J. Clench, of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, at Harvard University, who stated that it was not a fresh water shell, not a clam shell, and that it was probably a transverse or spiral section from a large gastropod. The band has been too thoroughly worked down to make positive identification possible. In grinding down and polishing the specimen, the workman has preserved the original curve of the shell. Together the fragments measure only 2" in length, Vs" in width, and 14" in height.

The other object of shell (or possibly calcite) is a very tiny bead (64) drilled at one end with dimensions 5/16" by 3/16" by 2/16". This type of bead has aroused the interest of several excavators in the Southwest because of its unusual and distinctive form. It has been variously described as bi-lobed, two-lobed, double-drop, and figure eight. The bead has two fiat, parallel surfaces, ground smooth. The fiat surfaces are ovoid in shape with slight concavities on each of the long sides giving a bi-lobed or figure eight effect. The hole for suspension is very cleanly and sharply drilled in one of the lobes.

I have been able to discover eight published references to beads of this description, found in sites located in Anasazi, Hohokam, and Mogollon culture areas. At Snaketown,'W where shell work was very prolific, 14 beads, which are almost exact duplicates of the example from Bc 51, were found, 7 in Sacaton levels, 2 more in Santa Cruz, and 5 unplaced.

There have been several reports of this type of bead from the Mogollon. Haury il lists bi-lobed shell beads as characteristic of the

37. Kidder, p. 279. 38. Alexander and Reiter, 1935, p. 39. 39. Dutton, 1938, p. 66. 40. Gladwin, et al., 1937, p. 140, Fig. 54 e. 41. Haury, 1936, p. 78 and Fig. 30.


Three Circle phase on the basis of one bead, 7 mm. long, one lobe perforated, recovered from the Harris site. Nesbit 42 found several in the Starkweather Ruin and refers to them as a late Pueblo development. He also reports the flat type "figure 8" bead in "The Ancient Mimbrefios." ·,3

At Kiatuthlanna, in Eastern Arizona, Roberts 44 found a whole necklace of these beads. Although they were in a bowl of Pueblo III period and probably characteristic of Pueblo III, he suggests that they might possibly have come from an older level and have been gathered and saved by the Pueblo people. In northeastern Arizona, we have a report from Kidder and Guernsey:'5 "The three two-lobed beads of white stone are of an unusual shape; strung together they give the effect of a double string." These beads are certainly the same shape and, perhaps, the same material as the other examples. There are, also, some beads of this type at the museum of Phillips Academy, Andover, collected by W. K. Moorehead at Pueblo Bonito. Winifred Reiter, in her unpublished master's thesis, describes these beads and cites their finding in Chaco Canyon.: '6 Beads of this sort were found on the lower floor of Casa Rinconada, in the inter-floor fills of the Chetro Ketl "great kiva," in intentional fill in the northwest corner outside Chetro Ketl Kiva G, in a weathered bank of a cut in the Chetro Ketl refuse heap."

From the scattered examples of these beads cited above they seem to have a very wide distribution in both time and area, from Basket Maker through to late Pueblo and in Anasazi, Hohokam, and Mogollon areas.

COMMENTS ON DISTRIBUTION

A few individual bone objects have already been compared with similar examples from other areas in the Southwest. The next step is to widen and systematize this distributional comparison. Dr. Kidder has remarked that the very unobtrusiveness of bone objects gives them a peculiar archaeological value. "So modest an art as bonework, with so unchanging a raw material, should be, however, much more stable and should help us, if studied as closely as by Mr. Hodge, toward the solution of many difficult problems." 48 Kidder began an extensive distributional comparison when working on the Pecos material;' examined many museum collections, amassed much material but became convinced that the time for a comprehensive study had not yet come.

42. Nesbit, 1938, p. 110 and PI. 50a. 43. Nesbit, 1931, p. 95, PI. 41 g. 44. Roberts, 1931, p. 162. 45. Kidder and Guernsey, 1919, p. 151, PI. 62 I and Fig. 68 c. 46. Reiter, W., 1933. 47. Letter from Paul Reiter, February, 1939. 48. Kidder, 1921, p. 365. 49. Kidder, 1932. Introduction.


A fairly thorough examination of the literature in connection with the preparation of this paper has revealed that insufficient published material has accumulated since 1932 to make a thorough treatment possible as yet. However, it seems worthwhile to bring together the suggestions about the importance and distribution of bone implements which have been offered by various authorities from time to time, An attempt will be made to characterize briefly bone implements from different areas and roughly to indicate dividing lines.

At the Perpetual Fire Site, in eastern Texas, % of the implements found were flaking tools with a screwdriver-like end which Jackson remarks are "peculiar to this region." 50 The awls, which comprise 23 per cent of the total objects of bone found, are mostly of the partly worked splinter type, rather crude and in striking contrast to the well worked artifacts found in rock shelters in west Texas. This is evidently a very different sort of bone working complex from that found in New Mexico and Arizona. A few beads, a gouge, and some cut bone, as well as a hog tusk awl, were also found.

In the Big Bend region and in the Panhandle, chisels, gouges, punches, awls, scrapers, sounding rasps, some engraved bones, some needles, beads, flaking tools are reported, awls being the most numerous. Pearce and Jackson 01 remark that the Val Verde awls resemble some of those from west Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona, but differ from those of central, south, and east Texas in size and shape. Coffin 62

notes that his awls from Brewster County are not different in type from Arizona and New Mexico examples.

At Lovelock Cave, in central Nevada,53 more than half of the awls found were made from scapulae. Loud and Harrington state that in California awls are made from the cannon bone and ulna of deer and rarely from the penis bone of marine mammals and the limb bones of birds. In the University of California collection, from the cliff dwellings of Utah and southwestern Colorado, over half the awls are made from the various limb bones of birds. Spatulas, bone tubes, scapulae scrapers, a flute or whistle, and a good many objects of horn and hoof were also found at Lovelock. Implements from Pueblo Grande de Nevada and Gypsum Cave resemble the usual Basket Maker-Pueblo or Anasazi types.

Steward's work in western Utah 5" shows somewhat different emphasis from that of the University of California's collection. He found that the deer leg bone was generally used. As distinctive of western Utah, he finds antler tips, antler wedges, gaming bones, bone pendants,

50. Jackson, 1936, p. 145. 51. Pearce and Jackson, 1933, pp. 51-54. 52. Coffin. 1932, p. 33. 53. Loud and Harrington. 1931, p. 36. 54. Steward, 1936. p. 29-34.


and splinter awls which tend to be longer than those with the head intact.

In Sacramento County, California, Lillard and Purves" found round, thick, short, spatula-like implements at the bottom of their oldest site and more slender and better pointed ones toward the surface. Cannon bones of deer, elk, and antelope were favorite bones, but pointed awls and needles were also made of the leg and wing bones of birds. Whistles, carved bone tubes, and several flat implements of bone were also found. The evidence from this site and from the Emeryville Shell Mound 66 does not seem contrary to the Loud and Harrington suggestion. The Twenty-nine Palms region 07 and the southern San Joaquin Valley 58 seem to be characterized by relative scarcity of bone objects. The remarkable thing about the northern San Joaquin Valley 59 is that two-thirds of the objects found were whistles or tubes. Bone work from this dig was scarce in comparison with that from the shell mounds but there was quite a variety: skinning bones, fish hooks, pierced awls and bodkins, carved bone, sea mammal bone, and the usual assortment of awls.

There seem to be two features which set off Snaketown eo and the Hohokam generally from Anasazi and Mogollon cultures. The first is the general scarcity of bone artifacts. The second is the presence of bone tubes. Awls and tubes seem to be the only bone objects found. Too few awls were recovered from Snaketown to determine definite types for the Hohokam, but several dagger-like specimens (which Haury suggests might have been worn as hair ornaments) were found in poor condition with cremations. Several awls, similar to Anasazi types, are illustrated and an awl found in the Santa Cruz and Sacaton Phase forms a link with the Mogollon.

Of the bone tubes which occur in great numbers (the early ones incised and the later ones plain) Haury remarks: 61 "Ornamented bone tubes do not occur in great abundance in the Southwest. Kidder (A. V. 1932, fig. 220) illustrates a small series from the Pecos, only one of which is definitely prehistoric and Hodge (F. W., 1920, p. 122) reports a smiliar condition for Hawikuh. In both of these ruins the majority of tubes were made of bird bone and were thus smaller in diameter and longer than Hohokam. Perforation of tubes has never been practiced by Hohokam."

Carved or incised bone has a wide, though scattered, distribution in both time and space. Guernsey and Kidder found decorated tubes

55. Lillard and Purves, 1936, p, 14 and PIs. 8-12, and 15. 56. Schenck, 1926, pp. 213-225. 57. Campbell, 1931, p. 73-74. 58. Gifford and Schenck, 1926, pp. 53-54. 59. Schenck and Dawson, 1931, pp. 349-336. 60. Gladwin, et al., 1937, pp 154-155, PIs. CXXV -CXXIX. 61. Haury, p. 155.


in Basket Maker caves in northeastern Arizona.(12 In the "Slab-house" culture they found a hollow bone tool with parallel grooves on it."' Martin found many implements with engraved handles in the Shumla Caves in Texas."" At the Saddle-Back Ruin, Holden found decorated bones with grooves cut crosswise.eo Schenck and Dawson found quite a few geometric etched lines on objects uncovered in the northern San Joaquin Valley.'M Carved bone beads are rather rare, but carving on bone is a bit more common.

Haury 6, points out, as diagnostic of Mogollon, the side notched awls which occur along with plain awls and dice in the Mimbres Phase, the same combination with the addition of burial talismen in Three Circle, and plain and notched awls accompanied by tubes in the San Francisco Phase. Nesbit (18 found some of these side notched awls in the Starkweather pithouse. Roberts 69 found one at Kiatuthlanna and Haury '0 found several at Harris Village. The most usual type at Starkweather does not have the side notch. The bone tubes mentioned by Haury are of both mammal and bird bone, seven in all. Bone implements seem to be relatively scarce in Mogollon, compared with the number in Anasazi sites.

In Anasazi sites awls are predominant. In the Basket Maker and early Pueblo excavations those found are usually made of long bones of deer and antelope, the chief distinguishing characteristic between these and later examples being that these awls are, in general, shorter, stubbier, and look more as if they had been reworked. As has been suggested by Lillard and Purves, this tendency toward shorter, stubbier awls, in early periods is, apparently, a fairly general trend. Beads or tubes, whistles, gaming pieces, and perforated awls are found fairly generally in these sites. Needles, punches, and flaking tools, decorated or carved bone and handles for hafting are sometimes found. Rasp sounders, chisels, scrapers, and objects of antler are rare. Pendants, flutes, and weaving tools do not seem to occur at all in this horizon.

Pueblo II has few exceptionally long awls and still has quite a few short ones. The variety of objects of bone is not very great, in fact, Bartlett n characterizes Pueblo II by things lacking rather than

62. Guernsey and Kidder. 1921, pp. 103-105. 63. Kidder and Guernsey, 1919, p. 154. 64. Martin, G., 1933, p. 35, and PI. VIII. 65. Holden, 1933, p. 48. Mr. J. Charles Kelley informs me (August, 1939) that

incised tubular bird bone beads occur in all foci of the Bravo Valley Aspect. 66. Schenck and Dawson, 1929, p. 353. 67. Haury, 1936a, pp. 110-111. 68. Nesbit, 1938, p. 107 and PI. 48 c. 69. Roberts, 1931, PI. 25 a. 70. Haury, 1936a, p. 76. 71. Bartlett, 1934, p. 44.


by things found. This lack of variety may partly hinge upon the fact that so few sites are unequivocally assigned to Pueblo II. Whistles were found in the San Francisco Mountains region but have not been reported from elsewhere. No flutes, flageolets, or rasp sounders were found. Carved bone, turquoise, and other inlays, effigies, bone dice, weaving tools, spindle whorls, handles for hafting, bone arrows are all missing from Pueblo II collections. Needles, objects of antler, and gaming bones are scarce as are rib implements, chisels, and pendants. Uncarved bone beads or tubes and pierced awls occur in most Pueblo II sites.

Sites which are Pueblo III and later seem to have almost every conceivable bone artifact. This is particularly true of Pecos and Hawikuh. Those excavations which are solely Pueblo III do seem, however, to have relatively few needles, rasp sounders, flutes, whistles, gaming pieces, decorated bone, handles for hafting, antler, effigies, and spindle whorls. The long awls, which distinguish later from earlier periods in the Anasazi culture, are not the only type found. They are not even predominant. It is simply that there are numerous specimens which are longer and more tapering than an awl would be in earlier periods. Roberts does figure some awls almost 8 inches long from Shabik'eshchee Village,'" but awls of that length are much more common at Pecos.

To consider distribution geographically rather than chronologically for a moment, can any general statement be made about the Chaco area? Awls-as in Pueblo archaeological sites generallydefinitely predominate. At Leyit Kin the proportion (65 out of 80)" was even higher than at mound 51. In Chaco Canyon awls with the head of the bones intact seem rare, although at Leyit Kin 14. out of 65 "Awls and Punches" fell in this category.7! There is a general lack of wind instruments except for a few whistles. Tubular bone beads were common in all known time periods and were perforated to make whistles at Shabik'eshchee ViIlage.70 Drilled awls and needles are fairly common. No humerus end scrapers were found at Shabik'eshchee but they were found in significant numbers in the Pueblo II excavations, were thought to be of ceremonial importance at Bonito and were also found at Aztec. Kidder 76 pointed out that these humerus scrapers were common in late ruins of the Upper San Juan. Roberts" calls them a Pueblo II development. Evidence now suggests that they came in during Pueblo I or II times and, perhaps, with them came the little deer phalanx end scrapers.

72. Roberts. 1929, PI. 20 a and €.

73. Dutton, 1938, p. 66. 74. Ibid., p. 66. 75. Roberts, p. 131, 1929. 76. Kidder, 1921, p. 365. 77. Roberts, 1932, p. 137.


Thus, from area to area and from period to period, there are Some variations in bone implements. Differences, except when taken by proportions of occurrence, do not seem to bulk very large. Awls are in general, similar because materials and functional restrictions mak~ this almost inevitable. Examination has shown that variations are most likely to occur in quantity or relative percentage of types found. Other factors which, to spme extent, appear distinctive are unusual implements or decorations.

SECTION H

SUBSISTENCE REMAINS

By CLYDE KLUCKHOHN

Vegetable.'-Cobs of the 7-, 10-, and 12-row types of maize were recovered from the refuse mound in considerable abundance and were also found in the fill and fire pits of a number of rooms. In appearance, the specimens correspond to the description given by Hibben for those from Bc 502 Pinyon nuts were found in rooms 5 and 7. Cucurbit rind and stems were found in room 7, and a cache of curcurbit seeds were found below the floor in the southeast corner of room 20, but species identification was not possible in any case. No beans were found.

Bird and Mammal.3-Bones of all the mammals and birds found at Bc 50 were also found at Bc 51 and, in addition, a few bones of elk (Cervus canadensis) , ground squirrel (Citel/us tridecemlineatus parvus) , hawk (Buteo sp.-probably Red-Tailed), and Scaled Quail (Callipepla, squamata) were discovered. The percentages of the 3,824 identifiable bone remains were so extraordinarily similar (save for appreciably greater representation of the Golden Eagle) that publication of the tabulation does not seem worth while.

The distribution of the bones offers some features of interest. Less than 500 identifiable pieces came from the refuse mound. Metapodials 4

(especially metatarsals) and teeth of deer and antelope were especially prominent, along with a fair number of rabbit pelves and some deer and antelope ribs. Some bird and mammal bones came from the fill of all rooms, but the northern rooms yielded very few and a number of these were bones of rodents which were very possibly not food remains. Only rooms 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, and 23 afforded more than 30 identifiable bones. It was in these rooms and in the kivas that this class of remains were concentrated. From room 16 (sub) alone came more than 900, nearly 90 per cent rabbit pelves, scapulae, and long bones but with a few deer long bones, ribs, and vertebrae. (Could this collection of rabbit bones possibly be connected with a communal rabbit hunt?) More than a third of the total (1,419) bird and animal bones carne from kiva 3, with close to 20 per cent being of deer and antelope. This greater percentage for these two animals (average in the whole collection of 11.9 per cent) was maintained in all the kivas.

1. Thanks are due Dr. E. F. Castetter. of the University of New Mexico, for identification of vegetal remains.

2. Brand, et al., 1937, p. 107. 3. Thanks are due to Dr. Glover Allen, of the Museum of Comparative Zoology

of Harvard University, for assistance in the identification of bird and mammal remains. 4. Cracking metapodials for marrow is hardly profitable!

[ 147 ]


From this fact (plus the generally larger representation of animal bones in the kivas) it is tempting to infer ritual feasting 5 in the kivas (possibly of men's societies, conceivably connected with hunting?) Turkey remains (both bones and shells) were also prominent in all kivas, although not found between fire screen and ventilator as in Bc 50. However, only two rooms failed to give evidence of the turkey, and bones and shells were also frequently found in the refuse mound, although there was no evidence of the burial of these birds. The precise function of the turkey in Pueblo culture remains obscure. Parsons 6 has recently suggested that possibly the turkey was once a sacrificial bird, as in Mexico. It is not eaten by some present-day Pueblos.'

A Note on the Distribution of 1I1ammai and Bird Rcmains.-From a survey of the literature it would appear that Southwestern archaeologists have been rather cavalier in documenting this class of remains. Out of 112 reports (which reported rather fully on most classes of objects found) 74 failed completely to list mammal and bird remains. In many of the others the information was rather incomplete and imprecise. Hibben, M. R. Harrington, Mera, and Steward are honorable exceptions in that they go beyond stating the presence of the bird or mammal and give exact figures on relative representation.

To be sure, the record-so far as we know it at present-appears to be a comparatively complacent one. Jackrabbit, rabbit, and deer seem, as Hough has observed,s to have been rather consistently the staple animal foods of the prehistoric inhabitants of the Southwest. Prairie dog and other rodents, some antelope, and fewer mountain sheep bones are also reported in almost all cases. Elk remains were discovered in 4 Chaco sites: in the Piedra region," on Mesa Verde," at Winona Village,12 and in the Chama Valley ("possibly") ;'3 bison at several Texas sites, Pecos," southwestern New Mexico," the Swarts ruin,"6 a cave at the rear of the Tularosa cliffhouse,17 the Mogollon

5. The antelope skull in the ventilator tunnel of kiva 1 is possibly simply a relic of such a feast, but one also recalls the careful preservation of the skull after ritual hunting in certain modern pueblos. cf. Beaglehole, 1936, pp. 7-8.

6. Parsons, 1939, p. 29. 7. Ibid., p. 22. 8. Hough, 1930, p. 67. 9. Brand, ct al., 1937, p. 64 and Be 51. 10. Roberts, 1930, p. 144. 11. Fewkes, 1917, p. 481. 13. J eaneon, 1923. p. 25. 14. Amsden, 1929, p. 7. 15. Mera, 1938a, p. 50. 16. Cosgrove, 1932, p. 3. 17. Hough, 1914, p. 4.

1937 EXCAVATIONS, Bc 50-51, CHACO CANYO:-', N. M. [ 149

region,"s Snaketown,"" and sites in the Great Salt Lake area."O At first glance these occurrences of the rarer animals seem to reflect only geographic position. Several of the cases, however, perhaps mean either a different physical environment at the time in question or the equally important cultural fact of hunting expeditions to distant points.

Recent detailed studies!!l of the hunting methods of contemporary Southwestern peoples have clearly demonstrated how much of social and ceremonial organization enters into the procurement of the birds and animals they eat or otherwise use. Relative figures from different sites or proportions of remains of animals which are more difficult to capture or which could presumably only be obtained at a distance would, taken in the context of other data, sometimes permit of guarded comparative inferences on social organization. Similarly, only when numbers are recorded in full can we make other impressionistic comparisons as to the relative importance of hunting in the basic economy of various cultures or periods. Haury has suggested "2 that the Mogollon peoples relied more heavily on game than did the Pueblo, and the Hohokam less than either of these. Guernsey and Kidder found deer and antelope bones rare in their northeastern Arizona sites, with mountain sheep quite common.'"

The possibility also exists that presence or consistent absence of animal remains would aid in establishing cultural similarities or continuities through tie-ups with ritual prohibitions or observances. Bear hunting, for example, is practiced for food at Jemez'! and bear paws are part of the equipment of Keresan medicine societies.'" But the killing of bears is strictly forbidden at Isleta,'" and bears were probably killed by the Hopi only under necessity,"' although their emergence legend refers to the eating of bear flesh as a normal practice." Ruling out a few reported occurrences from cave sites, I have noted bear remains only from Pueblo Bonito and Chetro Ketl,"C> the Riana Ruin,'o and Awatovi.3' Mountain lion, parts of which are also used

Us. Haury. 1936. p. 93. 19. Gladwin. et al., 1937, p. 156. 20. Steward, 1937, p. 118. 21. Beaglehole, 1936, and HilI, 1937. Ct. also the index to Parsons, 1939. 22. Haury, 1n6, pp. 92-93. In Gladwin, et aI., 1937, p. 158, Haury has also

observed that deer bones bulked less large at Snaketown than in pueblo sites. 23. Guernsey and Kidder, 1921, p. 99, 24. Personal observation. 25. Parsons, 1939, pp. 539, 687-8. 26. Parsons, 1939, p. 929. 27. Beaglehole, 1936, p. 3. 28. Parsons, 1939, p. 40 (citing Stephen). 29. Brand, ct al., 1937, p. 64. 30. Hibben, 1937, p. 46. 31. Beaglehole, 1936, loco cit. Fewkes thought that this bear skeleton represented

a carcass awaiting consumption at the time the town was burned.


ritually by present-day Pueblos,32 has also been reported but seldom from excavations: claws from Pueblo Bonito,33 bones from northeastern Arizona 34 and from an Apache Creek site in the Upper Gila area.'" To what extent this negative evidence rests upon lack of full identification or publication of remains is an interesting question.

As to bird remains, turkey and Golden Eagle bones have been discovered in the vast majority of later sites. Turkey remains were relatively scarce at Snaketown and Haury questions whether the bird was domesticated by the carriers of Hohokam 36 and Mogollon 37 cultures. Most authorities seem to feel that the introduction of the domesticated turkey is a fairly sure culture period diagnostic. My colleague, Mr. Brew, informs me that, although turkey bones are very plentiful in later sites on Alkali Ridge, they do not appear in the earlier levels. Whether the turkey and other birds whose remains are found rather frequently were generally eaten, remains a disputed question. The smaller birds identified most often have bright-colored plumage, and the fondness of contemporary Pueblos for their feathers is well known. Hargrave, however, apparently has evidence that turkey, quail, hawks, owls, coots, and robins, were eaten in the Flagstaff region.38

Burial of birds and animals is also an interesting feature of this class of evidence. The burial of dogs, macaws, and turkeys is too familiar to require citation. Morris has reported the burial of a badger." The eagle cemeteries of the modern Hopi are well known, but I have not discovered archaeological documentation.

32. Parsons, 1939, p. 308. 33. Brand, et 01., 1937, loco cit. 34. Hough, 1903, p. 356. 35. Hough, 1914, p. 95. 36. Gladwin, et 01., 1D37, p. 158. 37. Haury, 1936, loco cit. 38. Anonymous, 1932, p. 230. 39. Morris, 1915, p. 669.

PART IV

DISCUSSION

By CLYDE KLUCKHOHN

The Position of Be 51.-It will have been noticed that the Pecos classification has been used in the distributional analyses but not in the description of Bc 51. In other words, it has been used only when others had assumed the responsibility for the assignment of a site or a part of a site to a particUlar category in the Pecos classification. The reluctance to assign a label to Bc 51 is not to be understood as based upon a conviction that the Pecos classification has not been useful in the development of Southwestern archaeology. But close study of the recent literature of the subject seemed to show some confusion on certain issues of classification and suggested that an unqualified assignment of this site might lead some later comparative student to make equations not altogether justified by the facts. The concrete data from Bc 51 bring out particular classificatory difficulties sufficiently sharply that a fairly extended discussion will, perhaps, be profitable.

At first glance the matter may appear to be simple enough. As is well known, Roberts has, on several occasions within the last few years, published lists of traits diagnostic of the various Anasazi subdivisions, and these lists appear to have been widely accepted. One might think, then, it was merely a question of determining whether the material from a given site conformed to a particular set of specifications. But, if one is working with a specific assemblage of data and endeavoring to follow out operations which are fairly precisely defined, a number of questions arise which would seem to require clanfication: is it absolute presence or absence of the criteria which count or merely predominance-or does the answer to this question vary in the case of various traits? Must the culture or "culture period" check with all or with how large a majority of the diagnostics? Are certain of the criteria indispensable and others not? That is, suppose 8 criteria are taken as diagnostic of Pueblo I in the Chaco and suppose it is agreed that at least 6 of these must check (so far as there is evidence available on the trait in question), will we still call a site Pueblo I if 6 of the 8 criteria are found indubitably associated with a masonry type or a pottery complex which has been accepted as diagnostic of Pueblo II? Cases of this general sort are not unknown to experience.

Observation of the actual operations of archaeologists suggests that in many cases the classification of a site is actually made on the basis of pottery complex or architectural style (including masonry type) alone. If this fact is explicitly stated, this procedure may well be the most convenient and quite unobjectionable. If, however, there

[ 151 ]


is assertion or implication that the classification has been made on the basis of total culture complex, some confusion results. For what occurs is that other culture elements found associated with the critical pottery complex or architectural style are simply dragged in after the crucial step has been taken. If we are really operating with pottery or masonry-architectural complexes (or a combination of these two) only, it would be in the interests of clear thinking if this circumstance were brought into the open, either through terminology or explicit statement. It seems possible that classificatory operations frankly based solely upon these apparently somewhat more sensitive and more consistent criteria would be the most useful. The associated culture elements (not used in cultural classification) could then be studied apart from the prejudice of a question-begging nomenclature and, after the trends toward uniformity had been unequivocally ascertained, the operations for definition which was truly in terms of total culture complex could be rigorously set up.

It would, then, be necessary to make clear how great a proportion of traits otherwise regarded as diagnostic of, let us say, Pueblo II, could be admitted seriatim in a Pueblo I site. It would, likewise, be imperative to state if any criteria are to be weighted as of greater importance and which differentiae are to be applied first. Because, as in physical anthropology, two investigators can use the same diagnostic traits in making a classification and yet get different results, depending on the order in which they are applied (with resultant eliminations). It follows, also, that the relative significance to be attached to positive and negative evidence would have to be specified.

Finally, there is the vexatious "time problem." Are tree ring dates to have a part in our assignment and, if so, how important a place? Roberts has written: "It should be emphasized that these designations apply to the complex and not to a single element or series of years." 1 Roberts appears to adhere quite consistently to this position. For example, he has recently insisted that a particular Chaco masonry type (Slab Base Rubble) is both Basket Maker III and Pueblo I (i. e., he rejects masonry type as a binding criterion) for "Judd's report on this house and the published pictures of the pottery and other objects found in the structure clearly indicate that it belongs to the Pueblo I period." 2 Even here, though, the use of the word "period" suggests that the time factor, as well as culture complex, enters in. And Roberts has elsewhere 3 indicated that he realizes that terminology of this sort tends to acquire "a time connotation as well as a descriptive meaning." Southwestern archaeologists,

1. Roberts, 1935, p. 33, cf., ibid., p. 32. Roberts adds " ... while the actual chronological position is determined hy dendrochronology ... "

2. Roberts, 1938, p. 61. The italics here (as in other quotations in this section) are mine.

3. Roberts, 1938b, p. 80.


undoubtedly, continually write and speak of "Pueblo II times" or "the Pueblo I period." As a matter of fact, while most Southwestern archaeologists seem to give verbal assent to Roberts' proposition that the Pecos classification is merely a descriptive categorization of assemblages of traits, evidence is not lacking that dating slips in as a covert criterion. Indeed, within the last few years, a few archaeologists, apparently disturbed by the lack of objectivity of other procedures, avowedly classify sites primarily by their tree ring dates. For example, we find Baldwin writing " ... it was occupied from 1150 to 1320 A.D., thus belonging to Pueblo III ... and the early part of Pueblo IV." 1

In short, some archaeologists, at present, use the labels of the Pecos classification in accord with pottery or architectural complexes found present, others endeavor to take account of total culture complexes, still others make the distinctions primarily on the basis of tree ring and documentary dates-with multitudinous ill-defined combinations of these three alternatives. The real difficulty is that the criteria are not consistently used. Either they are ming'led (in a manner which is not made explicit) or one set is used on one occasion and a different set on another. Hence, various questions are begged by the assignment of such labels. A worker gets no (or an inadequate number of) tree ring dates at a given site but labels it "Pueblo I." Experience shows that comparative students are all too likely to assume that the culture of this site can be chronologically equated with that of dated sites, perhaps in quite different regions. The converse error is, perhaps, less frequent but also occurs. It is probably true that the more competent professional Southwestern archaeologists are fully aware that "Pueblo II" has dates which range over a wide spread in various areas, but archaeologists specializing in other regions, and ethnologists, are more likely to fall into the fallacy of "one culture complex, one period." Thus, Dr. Parsons, in her recently published monumental work on Pueblo religion, writes without qualification "In the archaeological period called Pueblo II and dated about 875 to 1000 ... m The fact of the matter is that one may find sites assigned to Pueblo II dated in the Tree Ring Bulletin from as early as 817 to as late as 1144.6 The facts of Southwestern archaeology should surely not be presented in a terminological form resulting in confusions of this sort on the part of experts in peripheral fields. Unfortunately, Roberts, in one of his surveys for the non-specialist, does not help matters when he states that Pueblo II dates approximately from " ... 875 to 950, longer in the peripheral districts." 7 It is true

4. Baldwin, 1939, p. 314. 5. Parsons. 1939, p. 10. 6. Vol. 4, No.4, p. 6; vol. 4, No.2, p. 4. Colton (1933, p. 10) has given 715 for

San Francisco Mt. Pueblo II sites. 7. Roberts, 1935, p. 25.


that elsewhere in his article he says, "While the progression of stages infers a certain degree of contemporaneity between sites of the same horizon, it does not, necessarily, mean that they will fall within identical chronological dates." 8 Nevertheless, it seems certain that the reader, whose primary professional interest is not Southwestern archaeology, would gain an impression that the spread of dates for particular culture complexes is considerably less than is in fact the case.

Until one is prepared to say relatively unequivocally: "When I say Pueblo II, I mean a culture distinguished by the presence of the following traits ... , by the absence of the following ... , by the relative preponderance of such and such traits as opposed to such and such others in proportions which approach statistical constancy" or "When I say Pueblo II in a given area, I mean sites or distinguishable portions of sites which give no dates earlier than ... and no dates later than . . . ," confusion is quite likely to result unless any assignment of the labels of the Pecos classification is guarded and unless the basis or bases for such assignment is made fully overt. In the case of sites where tree ring dates or widely varying masonry or pottery styles indicate the likelihood that more than one culture complex is represented, the need for assurance that the various features of the inventory were truly associated in the usage of a particular people becomes particularly urgent. Association in the refuse mound or room fill of such a site may well be at least once removed from the actual historical complex. Even in cases where articles are found indubitably grouped with a single burial or on the floor of a room, the possibilities of error from heirloom pieces or intrusion have, perhaps, been underestimated and, on close examination, the quantitative basis for some generalization appears hopelessly inadequate.

So much for a consideration of these problems in the abstract. Let us now look at the Bc 51 facts in the light of them. An archaeologist who casually inspected the site and the material from it would, if he ventured an opinion, be likely to describe it as a Pueblo II site. If one were able to analyze the intellectual operations performed in making such an assignment, they would also certainly reduce themselves to two or perhaps three. First of all, since Bc 51 is not, on the one hand, "a great terraced communal house of ·many rooms," nor, on the other hand, of slab construction, there would be an unwillingness to assign it either to Pueblo III or Basket Maker III. In the second place, the pottery types (Exuberant Corrugated and Escavada Black on White) which are generally the most numerous types in rooms and kivas, are types which competent pottery specialists have considered to be diagnostic of Pueblo II. A third general type of consideration might also enter into the judgment. Certain types of complexity and

8. Roberts. 1935, p. 21.


elaboration of material culture, which one associates with Chaco Pueblo III sites like Pueblo Bonito, were not found here. There are, however, certain traits present which would seem fairly definitely to rule out Basket Maker III and, possibly, Pueblo I.

Probably this is not an unfair dissection of the rough and ready process of reasoning which many archaeologists would go through in making a first approximation to an assignment of the site in terms of the Pecos classification. But now let us examine the matter with somewhat greater attention to detail. Suppose, to start with, we use Roberts' widely accepted "Survey of Southwestern Archaeology" in trying to decide whether this is a Pueblo I or a Pueblo II site. In five of his sets of diagnostic traits (Sandals, Basketry, Textiles, 'Weapons, "Other Traits") no features are listed which set off Pueblo I from Pueblo II. This leaves: Crania, Pottery, Houses. Roberts suggests that round crania are proportionately more numerous in Pueblo I sites. However, recent and as yet unpublished research by Dr. George Woodbury and Dr. Carl Seltzer indicates that no clear-cut distinction can be made between the crania of sites which have been assigned to Pueblo I and to Pueblo II. And so we are left with Pottery and Houses as diagnostic criteria.

So far as published evidence goes, the conviction that Escavada preceded such types as Gallup and Chaco Black on White in predominant popularity rests on the data from a single site," except that the latter types gain in prominence in the upper levels at Bc 50, Bc 51, and Leyit Kin. We can probably grant that the available data indicate that Escavada is a type of somewhat earlier popularity. Dr. Hawley's Escavada Pottery Complex seems quite certainly to be later than the Red Mesa Pottery Complex and earlier than other pottery complexes found in the Chaco. But is there satisfactory evidence that the Escavada Pottery Complex may be regarded as determinant for a total culture complex? Reserve on this point surely seems proper. It would be hard to make an unimpeachable case for clear differentiation of the inventory of artifacts associated with the Red Mesa Pottery Complex. And the prominence of Exuberant and Escavada must not obscure the fact that types the floruit of which is given a Pueblo III provenience by Dr. Hawley and trade types assigned in their indigenous areas to dates usually considered to be definitely Pueblo III, arc present in appreciable numbers in more than one locus and level. Also, we must be vigilant against an infinite regression in reasoning here. If, because a Pottery Complex appears to precede one or more later Pottery Complexes associated with the great communal houses typical of Pueblo III in the Chaco, we take the first Pottery Complex as the determinant of Pueblo II in the Chaco, it is mere tautology to cite

9. See Hawley, 1934. Dr. Hawley, who has kindly read this section in manuscript, informs me that there is also typological evidence for the priority of Escavada.


these pottery types as additional evidence for a site being Pueblo II. lt has been so defined.

Turning to "Houses," Bc 51 does not altogether conform to Robert's list if one takes it literalistically. He says, "These dwellings ... contained from six to fourteen rooms." Bc 51 has more than 19 rooms. Roberts writes: "Usually at the south or southeast side, detached from the building, was a subterranean ceremonial chamber." One kiva at Bc 51 was at the southwest side, another at the northeast, but, after all, Roberts has qualified here by "usually." Kivas 3, 4, and 5 are not detached from the building, although kiva 5 may have been when built. Land contours may, of course, account for certain variations. There are 6 kivas at Bc 51. It is more than plausible that not all of these were used simultaneously but it hardly seems likely that only one was used during a single time interval. This is not written with a view to carping at Roberts' excellent summary, but it seems worthwhile to point out the difficulties when one attempts to apply the minutiae of definitions with precision. Residually, at least, Bc 51 is Pueblo II in house type.

Small difficulties and reservations aside, this much seems certain and important: if we do label Bc 51 as a Pueblo II site, we are so doing on the basis of two sets of criteria (Pottery and Houses) alone. It is not an assignment on the basis of total cultural complex except, perhaps in a grossly negative way (that is, we did not find atlatls nor objects of European manufacture, for example.)

To be sure, some of the problems which have been raised disappear if we adopt the newer terminology suggested by Roberts and say simply that this is a Developmental Pueblo site. A number of workers have pointed out that Pueblo I and Pueblo II were, perhaps, the most dubious categories in the Pecos classification and the very fact that so few sites have been assigned by their excavators to Pueblo II suggests that this complex may have been an ill-defined or needles;; category.'" At best, it has been treated in practice as something between a Platonic Idea and a residual category.

Even, however, if we call Bc 51 Developmental Pueblo, difficulties connected with the time issue remain. The only tree ring dates obtained from this site fall relatively late within the time interval during which the large structures across the canyon, almost invariably assigned to Pueblo III, seem to have been occupied. It is only fair to recall that these dates came from a room which had been partially refaced with masonry of a type assigned by Dr. Hawley to Pueblo III. It is possible, indeed, that they represent merely the reoccupation of a single room in Bc 51 by persons from across the canyon. On the other

10. Colton (1933, p. 5) has noted "In the San Francisco Mountain area, the only trait discovered which has not been reported from characteristic Pueblo I or Pueblo III sites is a pottery type called Deadman's Black on White."


hand, even the date of 922+, obtained from Bc 50, is as late as that of cutting dates of logs from Pueblo Bonito, Chetro Ketl, and other "Pueblo III" Chaco sites. The possibility may be granted that logs of earlier dates from the "Great Pueblo" sites might represent reused logs obtained from abandoned sites of different architectural type. In any case, however, the principal period of occupation of most Bc 51 superstructure rooms practically certainly falls materially later than 922. In Dr. Hawley's opinion "sometime between 975 and 1045" would be a fair estimate as the building period for Bc 51. Unless various supposedly trade pottery types (such as Sunset Red and McElmo) appear in the Chaco considerably earlier than in their putatively indigenous areas, Bc 51 must have been extensively occupied at least as late as about 1000.

In short, a minimum statement would be that human beings were almost certainly living in Chetro Ketl and Pueblo Bonito during at least part of the time that Bc 51 was occupied. Now we do not as yet have a complete report on any of the Great Pueblo Chaco ruins and it would be a mistake to assume too readily that the cultural remains from, say, Pueblo Bonito, are altogether homogeneous. Nevertheless, Pueblo Bonito and other Chaco sites of similar architectural type 11

are commonly taken (without qualification) as typical Pueblo III or Great Pueblo. In other words, during a certain time interval, the cultures on the north side of Chaco Canyon were Great Pueblo, the at least partially, contemporary ones about a mile away on the south side were Developmental Pueblo.

If this be so, either our definitions fail somehow to correspond to the historical actualities, or there is some rather special explanation. One possibility of the latter sort suggests itself. In looking at all of the facts from Bc 50-51, one is presented with two general alternatives of interpretation. There may, on the one hand, have been essentially continuous occupation from the time of the pithouse dweller~ forward. The development may have been unbroken and largely autochthonous, and those who last lived in the northern rooms of Bc 51 may have been the lineal descendants, culturally and physically, of the carriers of the Lino Gray pottery complex at Bc 50-51. Some of the archaeologists with whom the writer has discussed the evidence prefer this as the most economical hypothesis. They would also favor the view that there was continuity between the cultures which seem to have existed side by side, for a time, on the north and south sides of the canyon. Apart from architecture-masonry and, perhaps, pottery types, the cultural differences between Chaco Great Pueblo and Developmental Pueblo sites appear, so far as present knowledge takes us, to

11. In the Tree Ring Bulletin (voL 5, No.1, p. 6; also voL 5, No.2, p. 13) KinbinioIa, a site of Great Pueblo architectural type, with dates from 941-1124, is assigned to Pueblo II. Dr. Hawley informs me that this is a typographical error.


reduce themselves largely to the greater richness in cultural inventory of the former and to the presence of certain articles (such as the well-known Bonito mosaics) implying a culture of greater complexity where there were more resources and more specialization of labor. On this view, the inhabitants of Bc 51 were either "poor relations" or conservatives who refused to adopt the progressive architectural styles of their congeners across the canyon.

This may well be the correct interpretation. But, while there is no proof that Bc 50-51 was not continuously inhabited, there is equally certainly no proof that it was. And it is well known that abandoned habitation sites in the Southwest have often been later reoccupied by quite distinct peoples. Let us therefore develop, rather boldly, an alternative hypothesis. Speculation in science is dangerous when it is not clearly designated as such. But frank speculation is sometimes valuable in preventing the closure of the mind to the range of equally possible interpretations of a given set of facts. And if alternative explanations are admitted at a given stage in research, the next stage of investigation will (or should) be planned broadly enough to test the choice. Whereas, if the only possibility which is envisioned is that which first occurs, the range of investigation may be so narrowed that the advance of knowledge is retarded.

Let me start with a statement which can necessarily hardly rise above the level of personal opinion. In terms of what we know about Pueblo cultures, both archaeologically and ethnologically, it does not seem to me altogether plausible, at the moment, that the people who lived in the sites on the south side of the canyon were carriers of precisely the same cultural tradition as the inhabitants of the great communal houses. The very circumstance that the "small house sites" seem to be almost entirely on the south side of the canyon would itself appear to be significant. At least, the contemporaneity of the two architectural styles militates against either a purely developmental or a purely physiographic explanation of the localization of the two architectural types. It is possible that at farming colonies one would find certain of the more valuable articles unrepresented, but are these sites far enough away to be farming colonies of the sort known among the modern Pueblo? Moreover, the fact of the numerous ceremonial chambers and the fact that virtually all of the non-perishable artifacts necessary for existence have been found, would seem to make possible the inference that the dwellers led an essentially independent life. I am aware, of course, that the material culture of the modern Hopi towns of First and Third Mesas, for example, is not identical in all important particulars. But I know of no case where different contemporaneous villages of the same "tribe" had differing major architectural and masonry styles or such marked disparity in richness of total cultural inventory.


Another guess than that the inhabitants of Bc 51 were the "poor relations" of the people who were the carriers of the "Pueblo III," culture, might be that they were (perhaps in part) migrants from another region, representatives of a related but somewhat less advanced cultural heritage drawn to the Chaco by the prosperity of its inhabitants, or, conceivably, by the reputation for magnificence and power of their ceremonialism, or by the protection which these populous towns could offer (or by a combination of any or all of these factors). If we may judge at all from documented Pueblo history, such a movement in a time of stress or trouble is altogether in accord with the configuration of Pueblo behavior patterns. Roberts 12 and others have suggested migrations to the Chaco from southwestern Colorado from fairly early times on. Dutton has suggested this interpretation for Unit III at Leyit Kin.13 Such a possibility for Bc 51, perhaps, gains slightly in credibility from the fact that McElmo and other wares, supposedly indigenous to that region, appear to be appreciably more prominent at Bc 51 than at Chetro Ketl, the only Chaco Great Pueblo site from which the pottery has been reported in detail. This is, clearly, sheer speculation, but it is speculation which will permit of some testing in the light of future evidence. Surely, the apparently synchronous presence within less than a mile of one another of sites which would be assigned to Great Pueblo and Developmental Pueblo requires explanation. The almost contiguous presence of migrants from some distance presents no circumstance contrary to what we know of Pueblo history. In fact, the Laguna group at Isleta, the Tewa on First Mesa, the plausibility of Keresan-speakers in the Jeddito Valley make it altogether conceivable that the inhabitants of Bc 51 might even have spoken a different language from the dwellers in, say, Pueblo Bonito.

Probably the single fact of greatest general import which has emerged thus far from the Bc 50-51 excavations is that the various stages recognized by the Pecos classification (and very commonly referred to as "periods") do not, necessarily, represent separate and clear-cut time periods, even in the same geog1'aphicallocality. Here it can hardly be merely a question of a brief overlap. Tree ring dates and pottery types both make it almost certain that cultures which most archaeologists would designate as Developmental and Great Pueblo existed for a considerable time within a very short distance of one another.

In view of this fact (and of other difficulties which have been mentioned) one is inclined to wonder whether the Pecos classification has not, after all, outlived its major usefulness. That it has been most useful in the ordering and systematization of the multifarious data of Southwestern archaeology, no sensible person would, I think,

12. Roberts, 1930, p. 18; 1932, pp. 12-13. 13. Dutton, 1938, p. 94.


question. But we must remember, as Whitehead has so often reminded us, that a classification is, at best, "a half-way house." A classification is useful so long as the facts fall without violence into it. So soon, however, as their greater bulk, greater complexity, or greater subtleties of discrimination make the classification a Procrustean bed into which the maimed and helpless facts are forced, the classification should be abandoned or radically modified. As Kidder has observed: " ... our investigation has now reached a point at which formal classifications, such as the Pecos nomenclature are not only of lessening value, but are often, as in the present case, positively misleading.'" At very least the Pecos classification should take explicit account of the differing periods of development in different areas and of varying genetic sequences in various regions of Anasazi culture. To be sure, the concrete difficulties which have been pointed out here arise out of the facts from but a single locality. The possibility that generalizations of their implications for Southwestern archaeology as a whole have been exaggerated is readily granted.

Possibly some may feel that a taxonomic system modeled on the well-known McKern terminology for Midwestern archaeolQgy might best serve the double end of ordering the data and still keeping us close to the observed facts. In the light of the demonstrable confusions resulting from the time problem, this plan, whereby the data would be analyzed descriptively with tree ring dates simply stated as additional facts sounds attractive. On the other hand, some workers who have used the McKern system report that the lack of a time dimension is acutely felt. Therefore, the revision of the Gladwin classification (really a fusion of Gladwin's system with that of McKern) which Dr. Colton will shortly publish 15 (and which he kindly allowed me to read in advance of publication) would appear a step in the right direction.

This classification would have the great advantage (for the situation under discussion) of not exaggerating the distinctions between Bc 50-51 and Leyit Kin on the south side of Chaco Canyon and Pueblo Bonito and Chetro Ketl, almost directly opposite on the north and almost certainly lived in during the same period that considerable portions (at very least) of the smaller sites were occupied. Under the Pecos classification, one is compelled to assign the two sets of cultures to utterly different categories. This seems a distortion of the facts. Under the system which Colton will set forth, they would, presumably, be classified merely as different foci of the Chaco branch. This distinction would be analogous to that between modern Pueblo "tribes." Since, for all of the impressive differences in architecturemasonry and in some other features, the two sets of inventories show

14. Kidder and Shepard. 1936, p. xviii, footnote 2. 15. BuUetin 17, Museum of Northern Arizona; "Prehistoric Culture Units and

Their Relationships in Northern Arizona."


such an overwhelming number of artifacts and articles of subsistence in common that this terminology would seem to adhere more closely to the contrast given by the data. This is congruent with one of the generalities which appeared from the distributional analyses: cultural similarities and continuities in the same geographical area are most impressive. In addition to some striking differences, the number of close parallels between the artifacts of Shabik'eshchee and Bc 51 is rather amazing when one comes to total them up. The Colton system will also, doubtless, make it easier for us to keep clearly in mind the fact that single sites do not necessarily represent a single time interval nor a single homogeneous culture. Our minds are all too prone to utilize tags which relegate inconvenient complexities into the background. It is so easy to say "Pueblo Bonito is a Pueblo III site" and be done with it. The "component" and "focus" terminology seems likely to bring out more clearly the probably somewhat intricate cultural history of such sites than does the unilinear and limited set of categories of the Pecos classification.

That Bc 50 (superstructure at least), Bc 51, and Leyit Kin (Units I and II at least) would be considered simply as components of a single focus, appears probable. It seems likely that some rooms at Bc 50 were built before most of Bc 51 and there is no proof that any rooms in the two mounds were ever lived in during precisely the same years. But of cultural differences which appear to be consistent and significant there are few. Almost all distinctions are of this sort: no twilled ring baskets were found in Bc 51 and no coiled baskets in Bc 50; no awls of class la were found in Bc 51, although several were found in Bc 50; one object of antler was found in Bc 51, none in Bc 50; no notched percussion tools were found in Bc 51; the palettes found in Bc 50 were larger. The proportion of extended burials is conceivably significantly higher in Bc 51.

N ow, clearly, such variations depend so much on negative evidence and upon accidents of the sampling process that no case for cultural differentiation can be built upon them. Perhaps the evidence affords some slight indication of variation in cultural fashions which may well be correlated with the hypothesis that the period of floruit of Bc 51 was somewhat later than that of Bc 50. But an archaeologist would be hard put, indeed, to distinguish random samples of the objects found at the two mounds. Almost the only contrast which seems perfectly clear-cut and indicative of a distinct cultural pattern is the consistent presence of turkey bones behind the fire screens in all of the kivas of Bc 50! The range of variation, with respect to Leyit Kin, appears slightly greater, perhaps because of its possibly more heterogeneous character. But the same general conclusion applies.

Throughout this section emphasis has been laid-probably overmuch-on terminology and classification. A classificatorv nomenclature


is indispensable if we are not to become lost in a welter of isolated facts. This consideration must not, however, be allowed to obscure the all important' fact that we are dealing with the products of the activ_ ity of human beings. Human activity notably fails to exhibit exception_ less uniformities. In concluding this discussion of the position of Bc 51 stress should be laid upon the range of diversity exhibited within this limited collection of material. Consider the kiva plans (Fig. 5). How far, in respect of individual features, do they rigidly conform to a single pattern? Even the southward orientation of the ventilator shafts (which Dr. Kidder'6 has considered "a most stringent ceremonial requirement" within the San Juan area) is far from constant. Surely, all classifications can but, at best, express modal tendencies and must be used purely heuristically, with constant awareness that they are most crude categorizations of the human acts we are trying to reconstruct.

16. Kidder and Shepard, 1936. p. 597.

TABLE 9 (Continued)

Measurement No. of Cases Range Mean

Left Humerus Maximum Length -------- 4 287-316 302.2 Maximum Middle -------- 6 19-23 21.0 Minimum Middle --------- 6 13-16 14.8 Max. Diam. Head -------- 6 38-50 41.3 Middle Index ------------ 6 61-80 70.5

Right Scapula Breadth ----------------- 4 96-104 100.7

Left Scapula Total Height ------------- 4 135-152 146.3 Inferior Height --------- 4 101-118 111.5 Breadth ----------------- 4 97-103 100.2 Total Index -------------- 4 65.3-71 68.3 Inferior Ind. -------------- 4 84.7-96 89.9

Right Femur Max. Diam. Hd. ---------- 7 37-44 41.6 Subtrochanter AP. ------- 6 19-26 22.5 Subtrochanter Lat. ------- 7 28-32 30.0 Middle AP. --------------- 7 23-30 26.3 Middle Lateral ----------- 6 21-24 23.0 Platymeric Index ---------- 6 62-86.6 73.9 Middle Index ------------ 6 77-100 87.0

Left Femur Max. Diam. Hd. ---------- 7 38-50 42.7 Subtrochanter AP. -------~-- 6 20-27 23.3

Subtrochanter Lat. --- 6 26-33 29.8 Middle AP. -------------- 6 24-31 28.0 Middle Lateral ------------ 6 21-27 22.8 Platymeric Index --------- 6 66-103 78.7 Middle Index ------------ 6 74-93 81.7

Right Tibia Middle AP. -------------- 5 31-34 32 Middle Lat. -------------- 5 19-21 20.4 Nutrient For. AP. --------- 4 34-36 35.2 Nutrient For. Lat. -------- 4 21-23 21.8 Middle Index ---,--------- 5 60-63 61.6 Platycnemic Ind. ----_._--- 4 58-66 61.8

Left Tibia Middle AP. -------------- 7 26-33 30.8 Middle Lat. --------------- 7 18-22 19.8 Nutrient For. AP. -------- 7 25-37 34.1 Nutrient For. Lat. -------- 7 20-25 21.6 Middle Index ------------- 7 59-69 64.7 Platycnemic Ind. --------- 7 54-84 64.2

Sacrum Height ------------------ 4 106-118 112.0 Breadth ----------------- 5 110-119 115.8 Index ------------------- 4 89-102 96.7

Right Calcaneum Max. Length ------------- 5 65-78 71.2

TABLE 9 (Continued)

-Measurement No. of Cases

----------Left Calcaneum Max. Length _____________ 4 Max. (s.t.) Brd. ---------- 5 Length-Brd. Ind. -------- 4

Right Astragalus Max. Length _____________ 7 Max. Breadth ____________ 7 Height------ ------------ 7 Length-Ht. Ind. _________ 7

Left Astragalus Max. Length _____________ 5 Max. Breadth ____________ 5 Height ___________________ 5 Length-Ht. Ind. __________ 5

Range Mean

71-77 74.0 38-46 41.0 52.7-59 55.9

47-56 50.6 36-51 42.0 25-34 29.1

. 58-83 70.0

49-56 51.8 38-45 41.0 28-33 30.4 58.7-82 69.9

ApPENDIX B

SUBSTRUCTURES OF MOUND 50

By NAN ASHTON GLENN

During the previous season substructures numbered 1 to 3 had been cleared; these lay west of, and roughly parallel to, rooms 2, 22, and 20. The substructures excavated in 1937 were numbered 4, 5, and 6 (see Fig. 14), and lay, respectively, to the west of and parallel to

5

FIGURE 14-GROUND PLAN OF Be 50 SUBSTRUCTuRE. EXCAVATIONS

room 21, beneath room 21, and beneath room 20. Such a designation can be only partially correct, since the substructures were larger than those rooms of the later period and their boundaries extended beyond the more regular ones of the superstructures, but may serve merely as a means of locating such rooms.

Hibben has summarized the outstanding characteristics of the substructures as learned from the 1936 excavation." The 1937 excavation adds more specific evidence as to doors, firepits, burials, and post holes. The accompanying room reports detail the measurements and pottery percentages.

Roberts states that "there was no sharp and distinct break culturally between the Late Basket Makers and the following periods.'" The substructures of Bc 50 show noticeable resemblances to, and equally noticeable progress beyond, construction methods employed in Basket Maker III culture. The slabs, used as linings for Basket Maker pit houses at such sites as Shabik'eshchee Village, have become incorporated as wall foundations in the Bc 50 substructure rooms. The ground plan of these rooms, while rectangular in principle, varies

1. Brand, et al., 1937, pP. 81-84. 2. Roberts, 1930, p. 149.

[ 166 ]

5 F ~ · I'J7

IG~~~ 14-GaoUND -STRUCTGRE Ex~LAN OF Be 50

AVATIONS


widely from geometrical exactness. Rounded corners and walls built on curved rather than straight lines are to be seen (for example, in substructure 5, see Fig 14). Between substructures 4 and 5 was the only example of a substructure doorway uncovered in Be 50.

SUBSTRUCTURE 4

Form.-The floor plan was irregularly rectangular.

Walls and Wall Sequence.-The foundation consisted of flat stone slabs placed on edge. Above this the walls were of solid adobe with unshaped stones occasionally included. A heavy layer of plaster was applied over the entire wall, including the slab base. On the east, south, and west walls remaining plaster covered the majority of the surface. On the north wall little remained.

Overlying the east wall, and extending 3' north from the southeast corner, was a wall of masonry type assigned by Dr. Hawley to Pueblo II (see description of room 21 for further details). The other walls were topped by a windblown sandy deposition of natural source. Two feet four inches from the southeast corner of the east wall the plaster rounded a corner to form the side of a doorway of undeterminable height and width.

Roofing.-No evidence of roofing was found with the exception of one piece of hardened adobe, flattened on one side and rounded on the other. It bore the imprint of sticks of 1" diameter which were laid in parallel lines.

Floors and Floor Sequence.-The floor level sloped from south to north, the latter end being about l' lower than the former. The floor surfacing was irregular, with sherds and rocks protruding through the surface. The room contained no special features such as firepits, post holes, or bins. Only one floor was apparent.

Rooin Fill. 1. Upper layer of natural deposition.-This was probably due to

wind and rain action.

2. Hard unamalgamated fill.-This began at an average depth of 2' 9" from the top of the east wall and extended to 3' 5" from the top of the south wall and sloped correspondingly toward the north end of the room. Instead of hard, continuous fill this layer included many vacant spaces or cavities seeming to indicate former positions of caved-in roof material, although no tangible evidence such as rafters or bark was found." This layer included no sherds but contained occasional thin flat slabs of stone and the piece of imprinted adobe mentioned above.

3. Substructure 4 was tunneled through by many rodent burrows which crossed both horizontal and vertical levels, and ,vhich may account for the presence of later pottery types within the fill.


3. Loose sand fill.-For 6" above the floor level, this contained many sherds and the majority of artifacts taken from the room.

4. Floor level.

Burials.-N one.

Animal Bones.-Comparatively few.

Artifacts.-Six smoothing stones, two manos, one bone awl.

Pottery Percentages

Red Mesa B on W __ ~ ___________ _ Lino Gray ______ ~ ____ ~ ___________ _ Exuberant Cor. __ . ____ ~~ _____ ~ _____ ._ Kana~a Gray _____ ~ ___ ~~ __ ~ ________ _ Escavada B on W _______________ _ Gallup B on W _________ ~ ______ _ Wingate B on R ________________ _ Chaco B on W _________ .. ______ . __ _ Deadman's B on R ______________ _ Chaco Cor. ___________ ~ ________ _ Kana~a B on W ________________ _ Sunset Red __________________ ~ __

Total number of sherds in sample

Floor Level

38.05 30.32 15.43

5.88 4.25 2.66 2.66 1.06

188

SUBSTRUCTURE 5 (Underlying Room 21)

Room Fill

15.01 32.22

3.00 7.00

35.07 4.58

.15

.15

.94

.32

.32

.15

633

Fonll.-(See Fig. 14). The floor plan was roughly rectangular with rounded corners. The east wall was missing since Kiva 2 was cut through the substructure at this point.

Walls and Wall sequence.-The walls were of the Slab Base Rubble type with small scattered rocks placed in abundant mortar. The whole was heavily plastered and thick at the base, with slab lengths from l' to l' 6".

The north wall curved and the northern room corners were rounded. The slab base varied in height from 6" to 2' 6". Parts of this wall had been broken out and there was evidence of much weather~ ing. The slab base of the south wall varied in height from l' to 2' 6"; the wall was plastered to a height of about 4'. From this wall, at a point 2' 9" from the southwest room corner, a curved partition of slabs set in mortar extended 3' into the room, partially enclosing the burial found under the second substructure floor. The curved partition wall stood as high as the substructure wall. Both the north and south walls were cut at the east end by the wall of Kiva 2, and thus the east-west dimension of the room is unknown.

The south wall and 3' of the west wall-as far as the doorway (for description of doorway see substructure 4)-were capped by super~ structure walls which at times broke away from the substructure


walls to follow a more direct line. The unprotected north wall was only a few feet in height and was topped by several feet of washed fill.

Roofing.-No evidence.

Floors, Floor Sequence, and Special Features.-Two substructure floors were exposed, the first 2' above the second (Fig. 15a). Between

FIGUIlE 15-A, ARCHITECTUHAL DETAILS (PROFILE) OF SUBSTRUCTURE 5, Bc 50

B. ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS (PROFILE) OF SUllSTRUCTUHE G, Be 50

the two was adobe fill showing no evidence of cultural remains for at least the upper 18" of the 2'.

In the first of the two substructure floors a firepit and several post holes were uncovered. The firepit was 2' 4" in diameter, 9" deep and lined with slabs on bottom and sides. It contained ashes, sand, and many charcoal pieces. Immediately below the firepit and encasing it was a layer of carbonaceous shale which extended beneath the floor of the room at this point. West of the fire pit was a post hole 7" in diameter and 6" deep, containing a log that stood several inches above the top of the hole. There was a second post hole 2' east of the firepit, 10" long by 6" wide and from 10" to l' 2" deep. The encased wooden beam was held in place by encircling rocks, and by a flat rectangular rock slab placed diagonally in the hole, perhaps as a wedge. Three feet east of the second post hole was a row of smaller ones, standing 6" apart and paralleling the rounded northeast corner of the room 2' distant.

Condition.-The condition of substructure 5 was partially excellent, partially poor, due to the fact that a superstructure had been built over the west portion of the room, thus protecting the south wall and portions of the west wall. Since this superstructure did not extend the entire north-south length of substructure 5, the north portion was

hrou I5-A, ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS (PROfILE) OF SUBSTRUCTURE 5, Bc 50

B. ARCHITECTURA OF SUBS L DETAILS ( TRUCTURE 6 B PROFILE) , C 50


more exposed. Kiva 2 was cut through the east wall of the substructure.

Room Fill. 1. Loosely packed dirt. Found immediately below the superstructure

floor, this l' 2" layer contained sherds.

2. Hard-packed adobe. A closely packed layer, barren of sherds, extended to within a few inches of the first substructure floor level.

3. Soft dirt. This layer found 2" to 3" above the first substructure floor level was of unpacked dirt containing sherds, charcoal, and so forth.

4. First substructure floor level.

5. Carbonaceous shale. This thin layer was found beneath the first substructure floor level, dipping to encase the firepit.

6. Hard fill. This barren layer extended 18" below the first substructure floor level.

7. Fill. A layer containing occupational remains, which extended 6" above the second substructure floor level.

8. Second substructure floor level.

Burial.-A burial (Bc 50-60/30) was located 2' 5" from the southeast corner and 3' 6" from the southwest corner under the lower floor of the substructure. The skeleton, that of a child, was lying on its left side. Although in an extended posture, the body had been somewhat cramped in the short grave (41" long). The burial paralleled the south wall with head to the east and face to the south. The grave was outlined in adobe and was covered by two large stone slabs. A small Red Mesa jug with handle of twisted pottery coils was at the head of the skeleton, and four or five sherds, presumably Lino Gray, were found in association with it. Around the left wrist was a shell bracelet. There were a few animal bones in the area above the skeleton. Between the burial and the south wall lay a rock and wooden beam.

Animal Bones.-A few in association with the skeleton.

Artifacts.-Two smoothing stones, one mano, one side-notched projectile point, three bone awls and a perforated bone artifact fragment.


Pottery Percentages

Level 1 in Room Level 3 in Room Le\'el 7 in Room Fill (immediatelY Fill (immediately Fill (immediately below superstruc- above first sub· above second sub-

ture floor) structure floor) structure floor)

Exuberant Cor. 29 Red Mesa B on W ____ 19 Gallup B on W _______ 16 Lino Gray ___________ 14 Escavada B on W 13 Chaco B on W _ 3 Deadman's B on W ___ 3 Kana-a Gray _________ 1 McElmo B on W _____ _ Chaco Cor. ___________ _ Wingate B on R ______ _

Total number of sherds in sample __________ 62

14 13

3 16 28

5

60

SUBSTRUCTURE 6 (Underlying Room 20)

32 4

28 11

16 2 2 2

43

Fonn.-(See Fig. 14.) The form of the room was undetermined for the excavation was incomplete. Only that portion of substructure 6 which was not directly overlaid by remaining superstructure walls was excavated. This resulted in the clearing of an L-shaped floor space.

Walls.-The rocks were laid in fairly regular lines and plaster was heavily applied. It was not determined whether slab bases were present. Superstructure walls were superimposed over those of the substructure. (See Fig. 15B.)

Roofing.-There was no evidence other than the imprints on two blocks of adobe in the fill above the substructure floor. One of these was curved to fit a small beam (?), and the other contained impressions of small twigs laid in heterogeneous fashion.

Floors and Special Features.-Two feet below the superstructure floor level was the first substructure floor. This was trenched through to a depth of 3' without finding other material.

On the west wall, 6' 3" from the northwest corner, was a bin of slabs (Bin A), set in a ring of mortar and with plaster covering the stones. This bin was approximately 3' in diameter and varied in height from 2" to 9". It contained two artifacts of petrified wood, apparently hammerstones, slightly embedded in the floor level. The ring of mortar in which the stones were set went entirely around the bin, leaving but one gap. A second bin (Bin B) occurred in the northeast section where the kiva wall cut across the room. It was also of stone slabs set in adobe and the portion uncovered (only a part of the bin) measured 3' 1" in circumference.


An upright log approximately 4" in diameter was uncovered l' 8" from the edge of Bin A and 2' 11" from the west wall. This log came from fill over which was standing a superstructure wall. The base of the log rested upon a mano set into the substructure floor level with the smooth, used side as a surface for supporting the wood. The beam extended 23" into the dirt fill above the floor. Its top end, which showed weathering, was covered by masonry and plaster from the superstructure wall foundations. Along this face the strata were irregular.

A second beam was found in similar circumstances on the east face of the fill, 8' 9" from the northwest corner and 2' 11" from the most outward portion of Bin A on the west wall. This beam terminated at floor level. The post hole, 8" by 10" and almost rectangular, was sunk into the floor level to a depth of 7". The hole was lined with a quarter to half inch layer of carbonaceous shale.

Room Fill. 1. Wind and water deposited fill. This extended 2' below the super

structure level and contained adobe lumps (presumably from the roof), charcoal, and sherds.

2. Floor level. This substructure floor was 2' below the superstructure floor.

3. Hard adobe below substructure floor. A pit 2' wide and 3' deep was run from the east wall of fill to the bin, cutting through hard adobe barren of occupational evidence except for a single mano. Burials.-There were none as far as work progressed. Animal Bones.-Some. Artijacts.-Four hammerstones, three smoothing stones, two

manos, one smoothing instrument of petrified wood, one bone awl, and a slim tanged projectile point of obsidian.

Pottery Percentages.

Wall Sherds (north wall of Room 20, ex- Room fill down to 2'

tending down into below Superstructure Substructure 6) Floor

Kana-a Gray _____________________ 57 McElmo B on W _____________ ______ 14 Exuberant Cor. __________________ ____ 14 Gallup B on W _____________________ 7 Sandstone B on 0 ____ _______________ 7 Lino Gray ________________________ _ Red Mesa B on W ____________________ _ Escavada B on W __________________ _ La Plata B on W __________________ _ Wingate B on R ____________________ _ Abajo B on R ______________________ _

Total number of sherds in sample___ 14

9

3

24 30 30

3

33

1937 EXCAVATIONS, Bc 50-51, CHACO CANYON, N. M.

SUPERSTRUCTURE ROOM 21

Form.-Rectangular (for plan see 1936 report).'

[ 173

Walls.-The masonry was of stones set in roughly horizontal lines in mortar. A thick plaster was spread on the walls and sloped out at the bottom to curve into the floor. These walls were more even in construction and more regular in line than those of the substructure.

Roofing.-No evidence.

Floor and Special Features.-The floor was smooth and level in comparison with those of the substructures, but included no firepits or post holes.

Immediately outside the east wall of the room, and paralleling the southeast corner from the level of the superstructure floor, were remnants of a wooden log, apparently socketed in earth and plaster. The wood was decomposed.

A circular bin with a diameter of 2' and a depth of 10" was uncovered 8" below the level of the superstructure floor, midway between rooms 20 and 21. The stones forming the sides of this bin were plastered over. In the center of the bin was a post hole 6" in diameter. The bin occurred between the room floor above and substructure floor below.

Three large ollas of Exuberant Corrugated were found 2' 6" below the surface of the superstructure floor. One was in the southwest corner about 8" from the south and west walls. The second was 3' 10" from the southwest corner, 4' 10" from the northwest corner, and l' 6" from the west wall. The third was in the southeast corner touching the east wall and 4' 6" from the south wall. In the third olla there was found a well-used mano. The other ollas contained only dirt fill.

Room Fill.-At the time of excavation no fill was present above the superstructure floor level except the soil that had washed in during the winter.

Burials.-N one.

Animal Bones.-Some.

4. Brand, et al., 1937, Map IV, p. 70.


Pottery Percentages.

Floor Level of Sherds in Snpe;=-_______________ Su_p_e_rs_tructur_e ___ s_tructure Walls

Lino Gray ----- ----------------Red Mesa B on W ___________ _ Escavada B on W ____________ _ Exuberant Cor. _____________ _ Chaco Cor. --- -------------- -----Gallup B on W _______________ _ Kana-a Gray --______________ _ McElmo B on W _______________ _ Wingate B on R _____________ _ Sunset Red ------------______ _ Deadman's B on W ___________ _

18.49 16.44 16.44 15.75 15.75

7.53 6.85 1.37 1.37

Total number of sherds in sample 146

14.02 15.85 19.51 35.98

6.10 3.05 3.05

164

.61

.61

.61

ApPENDIX C

ADDENDA TO CHACO CANYON BIBLIOGRAPHY Compiled by CLYDE KLUCKHOHN

Anonymous-"Chetro Ketl, Chaco Canyon," pp. 49-50, EI Palacio, Vol. 34, 1933.

Anonymous-"Chetro Ketl Still a Riddle: Great Chaco Canyon Site Offers Problems Still to Be Solved by Archaeologists," pp. 29-31, El Palacio, Vol. 31, 1931.

Anonymous-"Excavations at the Ruins of Chetro Ketl in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico," p. 98, The Masterkey, Vol. 6, 1932.

Anonymous-"Explorations in Chaco Canyon in 1920," pp. 1-5, 12-13, El Palacio, Vol. 10, No.6, 1921.

Anonymous-"Slab House Builders in Chaco Canyon," pp. 462-464, El Palacio, Vol. 23, 1927.

Baldwin, Gordon C.: "Review of D. D. Brand, et al., Tseh So, a Small House Ruin, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico," pp. 80-84, American Antiquity, 4: 1, 1938.

Bonin, G. Von: "Cranial Deformity in the Pueblo Area," pp. 720-721, A'nwrican Anthropologist, n.s., Vol. 39, 1937.

Brand, Donald D.: "Hawley's Study of Chetro Ketl" (Review of F. Hawley, The Significance of the Dated Prehistory of Chetro Ket!) , pp. 17-29, El Palacio, Vol. 38, 1935.

---"Tseh So, a Small House Ruin, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico," by D. D. Brand, F. M. Hawley, F. C. Hibben, et al., University of New Mexico Bulletin 308, Anthropological Series 2:2, June 15, 1937.

Carr, M., Spencer, K., and Woolley, D.: "Navaho Clans and Marriage at Pueblo Alto," pp. 245-257, American Anth1'op%gist, n.s., Vol. 41, 1939.

Culin, Stewart: "Games of the North American Indians," p. 648, Bureau of American Ethnology, Annual Report 24, 1902-03, Washington, 1907.

Douglass, Andrew E.: "Typical Ring-Record from Chaco Canyon 700 to 850, CW -331," pp. 20-21, T1'ee Ring Bulletin, Vol. 3, 1937.

Dutton, Bertha P.: "Leyit Kin, A Small House Ruin in Chaco Canyon," pp. 84-85, New Mexico AnthTop%gist, 1 :6, 1937.

---"Leyit Kin, A Small House Ruin, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico," University of New Mexico Bulletin 333, Monograph Series 1 :6, October 15, 1938.

Hawley, Florence M.: "The Family Tree of Chaco Canyon Masonry," pp. 247-255, American Antiquity 3 :3, 1938.

---"Kokopelli of the Prehistoric Southwestern Pueblo Pantheon," pp. 644-646, American Anthropologist, n. s., Vol. 39, 1937.

---"Mummy Dusters, New Mexico Style," pp. 20-21, 34-37, New Mexico, Vol. 17, March, 1939.

Hewett, E. L.: "Chaco Canyon Past and Present," pp. 313-315, El Palacio, Vol. 26, 1929.

[ 175 ]


---"The Excavation of Chetro Ketl, Chaco Canyon, 1932-33," pp. 50-58, Art and A1"chaeology, Vol. 35, 1934.

---"New Dates from Chaco Canyon," pp. 185-186, El Palacio, Vol 32, 1932.

Hodge, F. W.: "Review of G. H. Pepper, Ceremonial Deposits Founc in an Ancient Pueblo Estufa in Northern New Mexico," pp. 169· 179, A11teTican AnthTopologist, n. s., Vol. 2, 1900.

Judd, N. M.: "Exploration in Pre-historic Pueblo Bonito, Chaco Can· yon, New Mexico," p. 82, The Geographical Society of Philadelphia Bulletin, Vol. 23, 1925.

---"Review of D. D. Brand, et al., Tseh So, A Small House Ruin, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico," pp. 728-729, American AnthTopologist, n.s., Vol. 40, 1938.

Keech, R. A.: "To Chaco Canyon (by way of Laguna, Enchanted Mesa, and Acoma) ," pp. 161-181, El Palacio, Vol. 35, 1933.

Luhrs, D. L., ed.: "Hogan Number-Chaco Archaeological Station," pp. 71-90, El Palacio, Vol. 43, 1937.

Patterson, J. L.: "The Temple of Rinconado," pp. 80-83, SotdhwesteT'Y! Lore, Vol. 3, 1937.

Pinkley, Frank: "The Saga of Threatening Rock," pp. 347-379, Southwestern Monuments, Supplement for April, 1938. (Compilation of reports by C. N. Gould, J. B. Hamilton, J. Y. Keur, and F. A. Kittredge, and letters from J. B. Hamilton, F. A. Kittredge, H. M. Miller, T. C. Miller, F. Pinkley, O. G. Taylor, and V. W. Vandiver).

Postlethwaite, W. W.: "The Outer Walls of Chetro Ketl," p. 81, New Mex'ico AnthTopologist 2 :4-5, 1938. (Summary of paper read before A.A.A.S. meeting, Southwestern division, April, 1938.)

Reiter, Winifred: "An Unknown City of Ancient America, Discoveries at Chetro Ketl, New Mexico," pp. 892-894, The IllustTated London News, December 2, 1933.

Roberts, F. H. H., Jr.: "Chaco Canyon Masonry," pp. 60-61, AmeTican Antiquity 4:1,1938.

---"Recent Finds in Chaco Canyon," pp. 485-487, El Palacio, Vol. 23, 1927.

Senter, Donovan: "Tree Rings, Valley Floor Deposition, and Erosion in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico," pp. 68-75, Anterican Antiquity 3 :1, 1937.

Walking Eagle: "What of Chaco Canyon?" pp. 114-116, El Palacio, Vol. 37, 1934.

Woods, Margaret S.: "Talus Unit No. 1 at Chaco," pp. 321-323, U. S. National PaTk Sm'vice, Monthly RepoTt for October, 1937.

LIST OF REFERENCES CITED

Alexander, H. G.: "The Excavation of 'Jemez Cave.' " El Palacio, Vol. 38, pp. 97-108, 1935.

Alexander, H. G., and Reiter, P.: "Report on the Excavation of Jemez Cave, New Mexico." University of New Mexico Bulletin 278, Monograph Series, Vol. 1, No.3 (Monograph of the University of New Mexico and the School of American Research). Albuquerque, 1935.

Amsden, C. A.: "Kiva Sixteen." The 1llasterkey, Vol. 3, pp. 5-11, 1929. ---: "The Pinto Basin Artifacts." In Campbell, E. TV. C., and

TV. H., 1935, pp. 33-46. Anonymous: "Pueblos Ate Turkey a Thousand Years Ago." El Pala

cio, Vol. 33, p. 230, 1932. Baldwin, G. C.: "The Material Culture of Kinishba." AmericaJl An

tiquity, Vol. 4, pp. 314-328. Bandelier, A. F. :"Final Report of Investigations among the Indians

of the Southwestern United States," Part n. Archaeological Institute of America, Papers, American Series IV, 1892.

Barrett, S. A.: "The Material Culture of the Klamath Lake and Modoc Indians of Northeastern California and Southern Oregon." University of California Publications in American Arc/weology Clnd Ethnology, Vol. 5, No.4, pp. 239-292. Berkeley, 1910.

Bartlett, J. R.: Personal NalTative of Explorations and Incidents ill Texas, New Mexico, California, Sonora, and Chihuuhua. 2 vols., New York, 1854.

Bartlett, K.: "Stone Artifacts: San Francisco Mountain Region." Museum of Northern Arizona, Museum Notes, Vol. 3, No.6. Flagstaff, 1930.

---: "Pueblo Milling Stones of the Flagstaff Region and Their Relations to Others in the Southwest." Museum of Northern Arizona, Bulletin 3, Flagstaff, 1933.

---: "The Material Culture of Pueblo II in the San Francisco Mountains, Arizona." Museum of Northern Arizona, Bulletin 7, Flagstaff, 1934.

---: "The Utilization of Maize among the Ancient Pueblos." In Syrnposium1 on Prehistoric AgriculttlTc, D. D. Brand, ed., pp. 29-34. The University of New Mexico Bulletin 296, Anthropological Series, Vol. 1, No.5, Albuquerque, 1936.

Beaglehole, E.: "Notes on Hopi Warfare." In "Hopi of the Second Mesa," by E. P. Beaglehole, pp. 17-24. American Anthropological Association, Memoir 44, Menasha, Wisconsin, 1935.

---: "Hopi Hunting and Hunting Ritual." Yale Univel"Rity Pnblications in Anthropology, No.4, New Haven, Conn., 1936.

Beals, R. L.: "The Comparative Ethnology of Northern Mexico before 1750." Ibero-Americanc(, Vol. 2, pp. 93-225, Berkeley, 1932.

---: "Ethnology of the Nisenan." University of California, Publications in American ATchaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 31, No.6, pp. 335-414, Berkeley, 1933.

Bell, E. H., ed.: Chapters in Nebmska Archaeology, Vol. I, Lincoln, Nebraska, 1936.

r 177 ]


Bell, E. H., and Cape, R. E.: "The Rock Shelters of Western Nebraska." In Bell, E. R., ed., 1936, pp. 357-399.

Bell, E. H., and Gilmore, G. H.: "The Nehawka and Table Rock Foci of the Nebraska Aspect." In Bell, E. R., ed., 1936, pp. 301-355.

Blackiston, A. H.: "Recently Discovered Cliff-Dwellings of the Sierras Madres." RecQ1'ds of the Past, Vol. 8, pp. 20-32, 1909.

Boas, F.: .4nthropology and ModeT?~ Life. New York, 1928. Bradfield, W.: "Cameron Creek Village: A Site in the Mimbres Area

in Grant County, New Mexico." Archaeological Institute of America, School of American Research, Monograph, Vol. 1, Santa Fe, 1931.

Brand, D. D., Hawley, F. M., Hibben, F. C., et al.: "Tseh So, a Small House Ruin, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico." The University of New Mexico Bulletin 308, Anthropological Series, Vol. 2, No.2, Albuquerque, 1937.

Bryan, B.: "Excavation of the Galaz Ruin, Mimbres Valley, New Mexico." The Masterkey, Vol. 4, pp. 179-189, 221-226, 1931.

Burgh, R.: "M.esa Verde Coiled Basketry." U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Mesa Verde Notes, Vol. 7, pp. 7-14, Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado, 1937.

Campbell, E. W. C.: "An Archaeological Survey of the Twenty-nine Palms Region." Southwest Museum Papers, No.7. Los Angeles, 1931.

---: "Archaeological Problems in Southern California Deserts." American Antiquity, Vol. 1, pp. 295-300, 1936.

Campbell, E. W. C., and W. H.: "The Pinto Basin Site." (With a Geologic Introduction by D. Scharf and a Description of the Artifacts by C. A. Amsden). Southwest Museum~ PalJeTS, No.9, Los Angeles, 1935.

Carey, H. A.: "An Analysis. of the Northwestern Chihuahua Culture." American Anthropologist, n. s., Vol. 33, pp. 325-374, 1931.

Caywood, L. R., and Spicer, E. H.: Tu.zigoot: The Excavation and Repair of a Ruin on the Verde River near Clarkdale, Arizona. N'ational Park Service, Berkeley, 1935. (Mimeographed.)

Chapman, K. M.: "An Archaeological Site in the Jornada del Muerto, New Mexico." El Palacio, Vol. 20, pp. 118-122, 1926.

Coffin, E. F.: "Archaeological Exploration of a Rock Shelter in Brewster County, Texas." Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, Indian Notes and 11lonographs, Miscellaneous Series No. 48, New York, 1932.

Colton, H. S.: "Pueblo II in the San Francisco Mountains, Arizona." Museum of Northern Arizona, Bulletin 4, pp. 3-14, Flagstaff, 1933.

---: "An Archaeological Survey of Northwestern Arizona," Museum of Northern Arizona, Bulletin 16, Flagstaff, 1939.

Colton, H. S., and Hargrave, L. L.: "Handbook of Northern Arizona Pottery Wares." Museum of Northern Arizona, Bulletin 11, Flagstaff, 1937.

Colton, M. R. F.: "Technique of the Major Hopi Crafts." Museum of Northern Arizona, Museu1n Notes, Vol. 3, No. 12, pp. 1-7, Flagstaff, 1931.

Cooper, P.: "Archaeology of Certain Sites in Cedar County, Nebraska." In Bell, E. R., ed., 1936, pp. 11-145.

Cosgrove, H. S., and C. B.: "The Swarts Ruin, a Typical Mimbres Site in Southwestern New Mexico." Peabody Museum of Amer-


ican Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Papers, Vol. 15, No.1, Cambridge, 1932.

Cushing, F. H.: "Zuiii Breadstuff." Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, Indian Notes and Monographs, Vol. 8. Xew York, 1920.

Davenport, J. W.: "Archaeological Exploration of Eagle Cave, Langtry, Texas." Witte Memorial Museum, Big Bend Basket :\1aker Papers, No.4, San Antonio, Texas, 1938.

Dixon, R. B.: "The Northern Maidu." American Museum of Xatural History, Bulletin, Vol. 17, Part 3, PP. 119-346, Xew York, 1905.

Dorsey, J. B.: "Omaha Dwellings, Furniture, and Implements." Bureau of American Ethnology, Thirteenth AnnuIII Report, pp. 263-288, Washington, 1896.

Douglas, F. H.: "Apache Indian Coiled Basketry." Denver Art Museum, Department of Indian Art, Lcafiet 64, Denver, 1934.

Douglass, W. B.: "Land of the Small House People." EI Palacio, Vol. 4, No.2, pp. 3-23, 1917.

Drucker, P.: "The Tolowa and Their Southwestern Oregon Kin." University of California Publications in American .1rclwcolo[!,Ij and Ethnology, Vol. 36, No.4. Berkeley, 1937.

Dubois, C.: "Wintu Ethnography." University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 36, ~o. 1, pp. 1-148, Berkeley, 1935.

Dunlevy, M. L.: "A Comparison of the Cultural Manifestations of the Burkett and Gray-Wolfe Sites." In Bell, E. H., ed., 1936, pp. 147-247.

Dutton, B. P.: "Leyit Kin, a Small House Ruin, Chaco Canyon, X ew Mexico." University of New Mexico Bulletin 333, Monograph Series, Vol. 1, No.6 (Monograph of the University of New Mexico and the School of American Research), Albuquerque, 1938.

Fenneman, N. M.: PhysiogTC~I)hy ot' Western United States. New York and London, 1931.

Fewkes, J. W.: "Archaeological Expedition to Arizona in 1895." Bureau of American Ethnology, Seventeenth Annuul Re]Jort, pp. 527-742, Washington, 1898a.

---: "Preliminary Account of Archaeological Field Work in Arizona in 1897." Smithsonian Institution, A1l171wl RC))OI't for 1897, pp. 601-623, Washington, 1898b.

---: "Preliminary Account of an Expedition to the Pueblo Ruins near Winslow, Arizona, in 1896." Smithsonian Institution, Annual Report for 1896, pp. 517-539, Washington, 1898c.

---: "Two Summers' Work in Pueblo Ruins." Bureau of American Ethnology, Twenty-sccond Annual ReIIO!'t, pp. 1-196, 'Washington, 1904.

---: "Excavations at Casa Grande, Arizona, in 1906-07." Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, Vol. 50, pp. 289-:329, Washington, 1908. (First publication of article in 1(07).

---: "Antiquities of the Mesa Verde National Park: Spruce-Tree House." Bureau of American Ethnology, flul/etin 41, 'Washington, 1909.

---: "Antiquities of the Mesa Verde National Park, Cliff Palace." Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 51, \Vashington, 1911a.

---: "Preliminary Report on a Visit to the Navaho National Monument, Arizona." Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 50, vVashington, 1911b.


---: "Casa Grande, Arizona." Bureau of American Ethnology, Twenty-eighth Annual RepOJ·t, pp. 25-179, Washington, 1912.

---: "Archaeology of the Lower Mimbres Valley, New Mexico." Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, Vol. 63, No. 10, Washington, 1914.

---: "The Cliff-Ruins in Fewkes Canyon, Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado." Holmes Anniversary Volume, pp. 96-117, Washington, 1916.

---: "A Prehistoric Mesa Verde Pueblo and Its People." Smithsonian Institution, Annual Report for 1916, pp. 461-488, Washington, 1917.

Field, T.: "Implements of Percussion and Abrasion Found in Bc 51." MS on deposit at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, 1937.

Forde, C. D.: "Ethnography of the Yuma Indians." University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 28, No.4, pp. 83-278, Berkeley, 1931.

Franciscan Fathers: An Ethnologic Dictionary of the Navaio Language. St. Michaels, Arizona. (Originally printed in 1910, reprinted in 1929.)

Fulton, W. S.: "Archaeological Notes on Texas Canyon, Arizona." Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, Contributions, Vol. 12, No.2, New York, 1934.

Gaumer, A. E.: "Basket Maker Caves in Desolation Canyon, Green River, Utah." The Masterkey, Vol. II, pp. 160-165, 1937.

Gifford, E. W.: "The Kamia of Imperial Valley." Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 97, Washington, 1931.

---: "The Northfork Mono." University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 31, No.2, pp. 15-65, Berkeley, 1932a.

---: "The Southeastern Yavapai." University of California Publications in Am.erican Anhaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 29, No.3, pp. 177-252, Berkeley, 1932b.

---: "The Cocopa." University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 31, No.5, pp. 257-334, Berkeley, 1933.

---: "Northeastern and Western Yavapai." University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 34, No.4, pp. 247-354, Berkeley, 1936.

Gifford, E. W., and Schenck, W. E.: "Archaeology of the Southern San Joaquin Valley, California." University of California Publications in American A1'chaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 23, No.1, pp. 1-122, Berkeley, 1926.

Gilder, R. F.: "Excavation of Earth-Lodge Ruins in Eastern Nebraska." American Anthropologist, n. s., Vol. 11, pp. 56-79, 1909.

Gillin, J.: "Archaeological Investigations in Nine Mile Canyon, Utah." University of Utah, Bulletin, Vol. 28, No. 11, Salt Lake City, 1938.

Gladwin, H. S.: "Excavations at Casa Grande, Arizona." Southwest Museum Papers, No.2, Los Angeles, 1928.

---: "Excavations at Snaketown II: Comparisons and Theories." Gila Pueblo, Medallion Papers, No. 26, Globe, Arizona, 1937.

Gladwin, W., and H. S.: "Some Southwestern Pottery Types." Series II. Gila Pueblo, Medallion Papers, No. 10, Globe, Arizona, 1931.


___ : "A Method for the Designation of Cultures and Their Variations." Gila Pueblo, Medallion Papers, No. 15, Globe, Arizona, 1934.

Gladwin, H. S., Haury, E. W., Sayles, E. B., Gladwin, N.: "Excavations at Snaketown I: Material Culture." Gila Pueblo, Medallion Papers, No. 25, Globe, Arizona, 1937.

Goddard, P. E.: "Indians of the Southwest." American Museum of Natural History, Handbook Series, No.2, New York, 1931. (Originally published in 1913.)

Guernsey, S. J.: "Explorations in Northeastern Arizona." Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Papers, Vol. 12, No.1, Cambridge, 1931.

Guernsey, S. J., and Kidder, A. V.: "Basket-Maker Caves of Northeastern Arizona." Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Papers, Vol. 8, No.2, Cambridge, 1921.

Hargrave, L. L.: "Results of a Study of the Cohonina Branch of the Patayan Culture in 1938." Museum of Northern Arizona, Museum Notes, Vol. 11, No.6, pp. 43-50, Flagstaff, 1938.

Harrington, M. R.: "Certain Caddo Sites in Arkansas." Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, Indian Notes and Monographs, Miscellaneous Series, No. 10, New York, 1920.

---: "Ozark Bluff-Dwellers." American Anthropologist, n. s., Vol. 26, pp. 1-21, 1924.

---: "A Hafted Stone Hammer from Nevada." Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, Indian Notes, Vol. 4, No.2, pp. 127-131. New York, 1927a.

---: "A Primitive Pueblo City in Nevada." American Anthropologist, n. s., Vol. 29, pp. 262-277, 1927b.

---: "Introduction and Report on Paiute Cave." In Harrington, M. R., et al, 1930, pp. 1-25, 106-126.

---: "Gypsum Cave, Nevada." Southwest Museum Papers, No.8, Los Angeles, 1933.

---: "The Meaning of Gypsum Cave." Bulletin of the Texas Archaeological and Paleontological Society, Vol. 6, pp. 58-69, Abilene, Texas, 1934.

---: "Excavation of Pueblo Grande de Nevada." Bulletin of the Texas Archaeological and Paleontological Society, Vol. 9, pp. 130-145, Abilene, Texas, 1937.

Harrington, M. R.. Hayden, 1., and Schellbach, L., 3rd; "Archaeological Explorations in Southern Nevada, Report of the First Sessions Expedition, 1929." Southwest Museum Pape1's, No.4, Los Angeles, 1930.

Haury, E. W.: "Kivas of the Tusayan Ruin, Grand Canyon, Arizona." Gila Pueblo, Medallion Papers, No.9, Globe, Arizona, 1931.

---; "Roosevelt: 9 :6, A Hohokam Site of the Colonial Period." Gila Pueblo, Medallion Papers, No. 11, Globe, Arizona, 1932.

---; "The Canyon Creek Ruin and the Cliff Dwellings of the Sierra Ancha." Gila Pueblo, Medallion Papers, No. 14, Globe, Arizona, 1934.

---; "The Archaeology of the Salt River Valley; A Study of the Interrelations of Two Ethnic Groups." Unpublished Harvard University Ph.D. thesis, 1935.

~; "The Mogollon Culture of Southwestern New Mexico." Gila Pueblo, Medallion Papers, No. 20, Globe, Arizona, 1936a.


"Some Southwestern Pottery Types." Series IV. Gila Pueblo, Medallion Papers, No. 19, Globe, Arizona, 1936b.

Haury, E. W., and Hargrave, L. L.: "Recently Dated Pueblo Ruins in Arizona." Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, Vol. 82, No. 11, Washington, 1931.

Hawley, F.: "The Significance of the Dated Prehistory of Chetro Ketl." The University of New Mexico Bulletin 246, Monograph Series, Vol. 1, No.1, Albuquerque, 1934.

---: "Field Manual of Prehistoric Southwestern Pottery Types." The University of New Mexico Bulletin 291, Anthropological Series, Vol. 1, No.4, Albuquerque, 1936.

Hayden, I.: "Mesa House." In HarTington, lVf. R., et al., 1930, pp. 26-92, 1930.

Hewett, E. L.: "Antiquities of the Jemez Plateau, New Mexico." Bureau of Amf'rican Ethnology, Bulletin 32, Washington, 1906.

---: The Chaco Canyon and Its Monuments. Publication of the University of New Mexico and the School of American Research, Albuquerque, 1936.

---: Pajarito Plateau and Its Ancient People. Albuquerque, 1938. Hibben, F. C.: "Excavation of the Riana Ruin and Chama Valley Sur

vey." University of New Mexico Bulletin 300, Anthropological Series, Vol. 2, No.1, Albuquerque, 1937.

---: "The Gallina Phase." Am.erican Antiquity, Vol. 4, No.2, pp. 131-136, 1938.

Hill, A. T., and Wedel, W. R.: "Excavations at the Leary Indian Village and Burial Site, Richardson County, Nebraska." Nebmska HistoTY Magazine, Vol. 17, pp. 3-73, 1936.

Hill, W. W.: "The Agricultural and Hunting Methods of the Navaho Indians." Yale UniveTsity Publications in AnthTopology, No. 18, New Haven, Conn., 1936.

Hodge, F. W.: "Hawikuh Bonework." Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, Indian Notes and MonogTaphs, Vol. 3, No.3, pp. 65-151, New York, 1920.

---: "Circular Kivas near Hawikuh, New Mexico." Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, ContTibutions, Vol. 7, No.1, New York, 1923.

Holden, W. C.: "Excavation of Saddle-Back Ruin." Bulletin of the Texas Archaeological and Paleontological Society, Vol. 5, pp. 39-52, Abilene, Texas, 1933.

---: "The Texas Technological College, Yaqui Expedition." Bulletin of the Texas Archaeological and Paleontological Society, VoL 6, pp. 7-18, Abilene, Texas, 1934.

---: "Excavation of Murrah Cave." Bulletin of the Texas Archaeological and Paleontological Society, Vol. 9, pp. 48-73, Abilene, Texas, 1937.

Holmes, W. H.: "Report on the Ancient Ruins of Southwestern Colorado, Examined During the Summers of 1875 and 1876." In United States Geological and Geographical Survey of the Territories, Tenth Annual RepoTt (F. V. Hayden), pp. 383-408, Washington, 1878.

---: "Prehistoric Textile Art of Eastern United States." Bureau of Ethnology, ThiTteenth Annual RepoTt, pp. 3-46, Washington, 1896.


Hough, W.: "Archaeological Field Work in Northeastern Arizona." United States National Museum, Rep01·t for 1901, pp. 279-358, Washington, 1903.

___ : "Antiquities of the Upper Gila and Salt River Valleys in Arizona and New Mexico." Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 35, Washington, 1907.

___ : "Culture of the Ancient Pueblos of the Upper Gila River Region, New Mexico, and Arizona." United States National Museum, Bulletin 87, Washington, 1914.

___ : "Exploration of a Pit-House Village at Luna, New Mexico." United States National Museum, Proceedings, Vol. 55, No. 2280, pp. 409-431, Washington, 1920. (First publication of article in 1919.)

---: "Pit Dwellings and Square Kivas of the Upper San Francisco River." El Palacio, Vol. 15, pp. 3-9, 1923.

---: "Ancient Pueblo Subsistence." Twenty-Third International Congress of Americanists, 1928, Proceedings, pp. 67-69, New York, 1930.

Howard, E. B.: "Archaeological Research in the Guadalupe Mountains." University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Museum Journal, Vol. 21, Nos. 3-4, pp. 189-202, Philadelphia, 1930.

Huskey, V.: "An Archaeological Survey of the Nueces Canyon." Bulletin of the Texas Archaeological and Paleontological Society, Vol. 7, pp. 105-114, Abilene, Texas, 1935.

Jackson, A. T.; "A 'Perpetual Fire' Site." Bulletin of the Texas Archaeological and Paleontological Society, Vol. 8, pp. 134-172, Abilene, Texas, 1936.

---; "Exploration of Certain Sites in Culberson County, Texas." Bulletin of the Texas Archaeological and Paleontological Society, Vol. 9, pp. 146-192, Abilene, Texas, 1937.

Jeancon, J. A.; "Excavations in the Chama Valley, New Mexico." Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 81, Washington, 1923.

---; "Archaeological Investigations in the Taos Valley, New Mexico, During 1920." Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, Vol. 81, No. 12, Washington, 1929.

Jeancon, J. A., and Douglas, F. H.; "Hopi Indian Basketry." Denver Art Museum, Department of Indian Art, Leaflet 17, Denver, 1931.

Jones, V. H.; "A Summary of Data on Aboriginal Cotton of the Southwest." In; "Symposium of Prehistoric Agriculture," D. D. Brand, ed., pp. 51-61. The University of New Mexico Bulletin 296, Anthropological Series, Vol. 1, No.5, Albuquerque, 1936.

Judd, N. M.: "Archaeological Investigations at Paragonah, Utah." Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, Vol. 70, No.3, Washington, 1919. ,

---; "Two Chaco Canyon Pit Houses." Smithsonian Institution, Annual Report for 1922, pp. 399-413, Washington, 1924.

---; "Archaeological Observations North of the Rio Colorado." Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 82, Washington, 1926.

---; "The Excavation and Repair of Betatakin." United States National Museum, Proceedings, Vol. 77, pp. 1-77, Washington, 1930.

Kelley J. C.; "Report on Archaeological Field Work in Madera Valley Area." SuI Ross State Teachers College, Bulletin 48, West Texas Historical and Scientific Society, Publications, No.5, pp. 53-59, Alpine, Texas, 1933.


Kelly, 1. T.: "Ethnography of the Surprise Valley Paiute." University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 31, No.3, pp. 67-210, Berkeley, 1932.

Kidder, A. V.: "Review of Hawikuh Bonework by F. W. Hodge." American Anthropologi$t, Vol. 23, pp. 363-365, 1921.

---: "The Artifacts of Pecos." Phillips Academy, Andover, and the Carnegie Institution, Papers of the Southwestern Expedition, No. 6, New Haven, 1932.

---: "Notes on the Archaeology of the Babicora District, Chihuahua." In: So Live the Works of Men, Brand, D. D., and Harvey, F. E., eds., Albuquerque, 1939.

Kidder, A. V., and Guernsey, S. J.: "Archaeological Explorations in Northeastern Arizona." Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 65, Washington, 1919.

---: "Notes on Artifacts." In: Nusbaum, J. L., 1922. Kidder, A. V., and Shepard, A. 0.: The Pottery of Pecos. Vol. II,

New Haven, 1936. Kissell, M. L.: "Basketry of the Papago and Pima." American Mu

seum of Natural History, Anthropological Papers, Vol. 17, Part 4, pp. 115-264, New York, 1916.

Kroeber, A. L.: "Ethnography of the Cahuilla Indians." University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology," Vol. 8, No.2, pp. 29-68, Berkeley, 1908.

---: "Handbook of the Indians of California." Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 78, Washington, 1925.

---: "The Seri." Southwest Museum Papers, No.6, Los Angeles, 1931.

---: "Prospects in California Prehistory." American A ntiqu,ity, Vol. 2, pp. 108-116, 1936.

Lillard, J. B., and Purves, W. K.: "The Archaeology of the Deer CreekCosumnes Area, Sacramento, California." Sacramento Junior College, Department of Anthropology, Bulletin 1, Sacramento, California, 1936.

Linton, R.: "The Significance of Certain Traits in North American Maize Culture." American Anthropologist, n. s., Vol. 26, pp. 345-349, 1924.

---: The Study of Man. New York, 1936. Lockett, H. C.: "A Recently Discovered Basket Maker Burial Cave in

the Tsegi." Museum of Northern Arizona, Museum Notes, Vol. 7, No.4, Flagstaff, 1934.

Lothrop, S. K.: "Cocle, an Archaeological Study of Central Panama," Part 1. Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Memoirs, Vol. 7, Cambridge, 1937.

Loud, L. L., and Harrington, M. R.: "Lovelock Cave." University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 25, No.1, pp. 1-183, Berkeley, 1929.

Lowie, R. H.: "The Material Culture of the Crow Indians." American Museum of Natural History, Anth1'opological Papers, Vol. 21, Part 3, pp. 201-270, New York, 1922.

McGee, W. J.: "The Seri Indians." Bureau of American Ethnology, Seventeenth Annual Report, Part I, pp. 1-344, Washington, 1898.

McGregor, J. C.: "The Culture of Sites Which Were Occupied Shortly Before the Eruption of Sunset Crater." Museum of Northern Arizona, Bulletin No.9, Flagstaff, 1936.


_: "Winona Village: A Twelfth Century Settlement with a Ball Court Near Flagstaff, Arizona." Museum of Northern Arizona, Bulletin 12, Flagstaff, 1937.

Martin, G. C.: "Exploration of the Shumla Caves." Witte Memorial Museum, Bulletin 3, Big Bend Basket Maker Papers, No.3, San Antonio, Texas, 1933.

Martin, P. S.: "Lowry Ruins in Southwestern Colorado." Field Museum of Natural History, Anthropological Series, Vol. 23, No. 1, Chicago, 1936.

___ : "Archaeological Work in the Ackmen-Lowry Area." Field Museum of Natural History, Anthropological Series, Vol. 23, pp. 217-304, Chicago, 1937.

Mason, J. A.: "The Ethnology of the Salinan Indians." University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 10, No.4, pp. 97-240, Berkeley, 1912.

---: "Late Archaeological Sites in Durango, Mexico." Philadelphia Anthropological Society, Twenty-fifth Anniversary Studies, pp. 127-146, 1937.

Mead, M.: "An Inquiry into the Question of Cultural Stability in Polynesia." Columbia University, Contributions to Anthropology, Vol. 9, New York, 1928.

Mekeel, S.: "Weapons." In Walapai Ethnography, Kroeber, A. L., ed., pp. 92-96, American Anthropological Association, Memoir 42, Menasha, Wisconsin, 1935.

Mera, H. P.: "Observations on the Archaeology of the Petrified Forest National Monument." Laboratory of Anthropology, Technical Series, Bulletin 7, Santa Fe, 1934.

---: "Ceramic Clues to the Prehistory of North Central New Mexico." Laboratory of Anthropology, Technical Series, Bulletin 8, Santa Fe, 1935.

---: "Reconnaissance and Excavation in Southeastern New Mexico." American Anthropological Association, Memoh' 51, Menasha, Wisconsin, 1938a.

---: "Some Aspects of the Largo Cultural Phase, Northern New Mexico." American Antiquity, Vol. 3, pp. 236-343, 1938b.

Mindeleff, C.: "Aboriginal Remains in Verde Valley, Arizona." Bureau of Ethnology, Thirteenth Annual Report, pp. 185-261, Washington, 1896.

---: "The Repair of Casa Grande Ruin, Arizona, in 1891." Bureau of American Ethnology, Fifteenth Annual RepOl·t, pp. 315-349, Washington, 1897.

Morley, S. G.: "The Excavation of Cannonball Ruins in Southwestern Colorado." American Anthropologist, n. s., Vol. 10, pp. 596-610, 1908.

Morris, E. H.: "The Excavation of a Ruin Near Aztec, San Juan County, New Mexico." American Anthropologist, n. s., Vol. 17, pp. 666-684, 1915.

---: "Preliminary Account of the Antiquities of the Region Between the Mancos and La Plata Rivers in Southwestern Colorado." Bureau of American Ethnology, Thi1'ty-third Annual Report, pp. 155-206, Washington, 1919a.

---: "The Aztec Ruin." American Museum of Natural History, Anthropological Papers, Vol. 26, Part 1, pp. 1-108, New York, 1919b.


: "The House of the Great Kiva at the Aztec Ruin." American Museum of Natural History, Anth1'opological Papers, Vol. 26, Part 2, pp. 109-138, New York, 1921.

---: "The Beginnings of Pottery Making in the San Juan Area." American Museum of Natural History, Anthropological Papers, Vol. 28, Part 2, pp. 125-198, New York, 1927.

Morss, N.: "Archaeological Explorations on the Middle Chinlee, 1925." American Anthropological Association, Memoi1' 34, Menasha. Wisconsin, 1927. .

---: "The Ancient Culture of the Fremont River in Utah." Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Papers, Vol. 12, No.3, Cambridge, 1931.

Nelson, N. C.: "Pueblo Ruins of the Galisteo Basin, New Mexico." American Museum of Natural History, Anthropological Papers, Vol. 15, Part 1, pp. 1-124, New York, 1914.

Nesbitt, P. H.: "The Ancient Mimbrefios." Logan Museum, Publications in Anthropology, Bltlletin, No.4, Beloit, Wisconsin, 1931.

---: "Starkweather Ruin." Logan Museum Publications in Anthropology, Bulletin, No.6, Beloit, Wisconsin, 1938.

Nordenskiold, E.: "Origin of the Indian Civilizations in South America." Comparative Ethnographical Studies, 9, Goteborg, 1931.

Nusbaum, J. L.: "A Basket-Maker Cave in Kane County, Utah; with Notes on the Artifacts by A. V. Kidder and S. J. Guernsey." Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, Indian Notes and Monographs, Miscellaneous Series, No. 29, New York, 1922.

Parsons, E. C.: Pueblo Indian Religion. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, 1939.

Pearce, J. E., and Jackson, A. T.: "A Prehistoric Rock Shelter in Val Verde County, Texas." University of Texas Bulletin, Anthropological Papers, Vol. 1, No.3, Austin, Texas, 1933.

Pepper, G. H.: "Pueblo Bonito." American Museum of Natural History, Anthropological Papers, Vol. 27, New York, 1920.

Post, R. H., and Commons, R. S.: "Material Culture." In "The Sinkaietk or Southern Okanagon of Washington," Spier, L., ed., Contributions from the Laboratory of Anthropology, 2, General Series in Anthropology, No.6, Menasha, Wisconsin, 1938.

Prudden, T. M.: "The Prehistoric Ruins of the San Juan Watershed in Utah, Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico." American Anthropologist, n. s., Vol. 5, pp. 224-288, 1903.

---: "The Circular Kivas of Small Ruins in San Juan Watershed." A 1nm'ican Anthropologist, n. s., Vol. 16, pp. 33-58, 1914.

Ray, C. N.: "A Differentiation of the Prehistoric Cultures of the Abilene Section." Bulletin of the Texas Archaeological and Paleontological Society, Vol. 1, pp. 7-22, Abilene, Texas, 1929.

---: "Recent Archaeological Researches in the Abilene Section." Bulletin of the Texas Archaeological and Paleontological Society, Vol. 3, pp. 76-89, Abilene, Texas, 1931.

Ray, V. F.: "The Sanpoil and Nespelem: Salishan Peoples of Northeastern Washington." University of Washington Publications in Anthropology, Vol. 5, Seattle, 1933.

Reagan, A. B.: "Archaeological Notes on Pine River Valley, Colorado, and the Kayenta-Tuba Region, Arizona." Kansas Academy of Science, Tmnsactions, Vol. 30, pp. 244-331, Topeka, 1922.


~: "Additional Archaeological Notes on Ashley and Dry Fork Canyons in Northeastern Utah." El Palacio, Vol. 31, pp. 122-131, 1931.

Reiter, P.: "The Jemez Pueblo of Unshagi, New Mexico," Parts I and II. University of New Mexico Bulletin, Monograph Series, Vol. 1, Nos. 4-5 (Monograph of the University of Xew Mexico and the School of American Research), Albuquerque, 1938.

Reiter, W. S.: "Personal Adornment of the Ancient Pueblo Indians." Master's Thesis on deposit, University of New Mexico Library, 1933.

Renaud, E. B.: "Archaeological Research in N ortheastern ~ ew Mexico and Western Oklahoma." El Palacio, Vol. 27, pp. 276-279, 1929.

---: "A Summary of the Prehistoric Cultures of the Cimarron Valley." El Palacio, Vol. 28, pp. 123-129, 1930.

---: "The Archaeological Survey of Eastern Colorado." (Archaeological Survey of the High Western Plains, First Report.) University of Denver, Department of Anthropology, 1931.

---: "Archaeological Survey of Western Nebraska: Summer, 1933." (Archaeological Survey of the High Western Plains, Fifth Report.) University of Denver, Department of Anthropology, 1934.

Roberts, F. H. H., Jr.: "Shabik'eshchee Village, a Late Basket-Maker Site in the Chaco Canyon, New Mexico." Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 92, Washington, 1929.

---: "Early Pueblo Ruins in the Piedra District, Southwestern Colorado." Bureau of American Ethnology, Eulletin 96, Washington, 1930.

---: "The Ruins at Kiatuthlanna, Eastern Arizona. Bureau of American Ethnology, Eulletin 100, Washington, 1931.

---: "The Village of the Great Kivas on the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico." Bureau of American Ethnology, Eulletin 111, Washington, 1932.

---: "A Survey of Southwestern Archaeology." American Anthropologist, n. s., Vol. 37, pp. 1-35, 1935.

---: "Further Investigations at a Folsom Campsite in Northern Colorado." Smithsonian Institution Explorations and Field-Work, in 1935, pp. 69-74, Washington, 1936.

---: "Archaeology in the Southwest." American Antiquity, Vol. 3, pp. 3-33, 1937.

---: "Chaco Canyon Masonry." American Antiquity, Vol. 4, pp. 60-67, 1938a.

---: Review of E. B. Howard's "The Emergence of a General Folsom Pattern," American Antiquity, Vol. 4, pp. 79-80, 1938b.

Roberts, H. H.: "Basketry of the San Carlos Apache." American Museum of Natural History, Anthropological Papers, Vol. 31, Part 2, pp. 121-218, New York, 1929.

Rogers, D. B.: Pnhist01-ic Man of the Santa EaJ'bara Coast. Published by the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, 1929.

Rogers, M. J.: "Report of Archaeological Reconnaissance in the Mohave Sink Region." San Diego Museum Papers, No.1, San Diego, 1929.

Russell, F.: "The Pima Indians." Bureau of American Ethnology, Twenty-sixth Annual Report, pp. 3-390, Washington, 1908.


Sauer, C., and Brand, D.: "Pueblo Sites in Southeastern Arizona." University of California Publications in Geography, Vol. 3, No. 7, pp. 415-458, Berkeley, 1930.

---: "Prehistoric Settlements of Sonora, with Special Reference to Cerros de Trincheras." University of California Publications in Geography, Vol. 5, No.3, pp. 67-148, Berkeley, 1931.

Sayles, E. B.: "A Rock Shelter in Coke County." B~dletin of the Texas Archaeological and Paleontological Society, Vol. 2, pp. 33-40. Abilene, Texas, 1930.

---: "An Archaeological Survey of Texas." Gila Pueblo, ,Uedallion Papers, No. 17, Globe, Arizona, 1935.

---: "An Archaeological Survey of Chihuahua, Mexico." Gila Pueblo, Medallion Papers, No. 22, Globe, Arizona, 1936.

---: See Gladwin, H. S., et al., 1937. Scharf, D.: "The Quarternary History of Pinto Basin." In Campbell,

E. W. C., and W. H., 1935, pp. 11-20, 1935. Schell bach, L., 3rd: "An Unusual Burial in Mesa House Ruin." In

Harrington, lvI. R., et al., 1930, pp. 93-105, 1930. Schenck, W. E.: "The Emeryville Shellmound." University of Cali

fornia Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 23, No.3, pp. 147-282, Berkeley, 1926.

Schenck, W. E., and Dawson, E. J.: "Archaeology of the Northern San Joaquin Valley." University of California Publications in American A1'chaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 25, No.4, pp. 289-413, Berkeley, 1929.

Setzler, F. M.: "A Prehistoric Cave in Texas." Smithsonian Institution, Explorations and Field-Work in 1931, pp. 133-140, Washington, 1932.

---: Prehistoric Cave Dwellers of Texas. Smithsonian Institution, Explorations and Field-Work in 1932, pp. 53-56, Washington, 1933.

---: "A Prehistoric Cave Culture in Southwestern Texas." American Anthropologist, n. s., Vol. 37, pp. 104-110, 1935.

Smith, H. I.: "Archaeology of Lytton, British Columbia." American Museum of N;atural History, Memoirs, Vol. II, Part III; The Jesup North Pacific Expedition Publications, Vol. I, Part III, New York, 1899.

---: "Archaeology of the Thompson River Region, British Columbia." American Museum of Natural History, Memoirs, Vol. II, Part VI; The Jesup North Pacific Expedition Publications, Vol. I, Part VI, New York, 1900.

---: "Shell-Heaps of the Lower Frazer River, British Columbia." American Museum of Natural History, Memoirs, Vol. IV, Part IV; The Jesup North Pacific Expedition Pnblications, Vol. II, Part IV, New York, 1903.

---: "Archaeology of the Gulf of Georgia and Puget Sound." American Museum of Natural History, Memoirs, Vol. IV, Part VI; The Jesup North Pacific Expedition Publications, Vol. II, Part VI, New York, 1907.

---: "The Prehistoric Ethnology of a Kentucky Site." American Museum of Natural History, Anthropological Papers, Vol. 6, Part 2, pp. 173-235, New York, 1910a.

---: "The Archaeology of the Yakima Valley." American Museum of Natural History, Anthropological Papers, Vol. 6, Part 1, pp. 1-171, New York, 1910b.

1937 EXCAVATIONS, Bc 50-51, CHACO CAXYON, N. M. [ 189

Smith, V. J.: "Hord Rock Shelter." Bulletin of the Texas Archaeological and Paleontological Society, Vol. 6, pp. 97-106, Abilene, Texas, 1934.

___ : "The Split Stitch Basket, a Big Bend Culture Trait." Bulletin of the Texas Archaeological and Paleontological Society, Vol. 7, pp. 100-104, Abilene, Texas, 1935.

Sparkman, P. S.: "The Culture of the Luiseiio Indians." University of California Publications in American Archaeulogy and Ethnology, Vol. 8, No.4, pp. 187-234, Berkeley, 1908.

Spicer, E. H., and Caywood, L. P.: "Two Pueblo Ruins in \Vest Central Arizona." University of Arizona Bulletin, Vol. 7, 1\0. 1, Tucson, 1936.

Spier, L.: "Southern Diegueiio Customs." University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 20, No. 16, pp. 297-358, Berkeley, 1923.

---: "Havasupai Ethnography." American Museum of 1\atural History, Anthropological Papers, Vol. 29, Part 3, pp. 83-392, New York, 1928.

---: "Yuman Tribes of the Gila River." University of Chicago Publications in Anthropology, Ethnological Series, Chicago, 1933.

Spinden, H. J.: "The Nez Perce Indians." American Anthropological Association, Memoirs, Vol. 2, pp. 165-274, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, 1910.

Stevenson, J.: "Illustrated Catalogue of the Collections Obtained from the Indians of New Mexico and Arizona in 1879 and 1880." Bureau of Ethnology, Second Annual Report, pp. 307-465, 1893.

Steward, J. H.: "Archaeological Problems of the Northern Periphery of the Southwest." Museum of Northern Arizona, Bulletin 5, Flagstaff, 1933a.

---: "Ethnography of the Owens Valley Paiute." University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 33, No.3, pp. 233-350, Berkeley, 1933b.

---: "Pueblo Material Culture in Western Utah." University of New Mexico Bulletin, 287, Anthropological Series, Vol. 1, No.3, Albuquerque, 1936.

---: "Ancient Caves of the Great Salt Lake Region." Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 116, Washington, 1937.

Stewart, O. C.: "The Navaho Wedding Basket-193B" Museum of Northern Arizona, Museum Notes, Vol. 10, No.9, Flagstaff, 193B.

Stock, C., and Bode, F. D.: "The Occurrence of Flints and Extinct Animals in Pluvial Deposits near Clovis, New Mexico." Part II, "Geology and Vertebrate Paleontology of the Late Quarternary near Clovis, New Mexico." Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, P1"oceedings, 1936, Vol. 88, pp. 219-241.

Stromsvik, G.: "Notes on the Metates from Calakmul, Campeche, and from the Mercado, Chichen Itza, Yucatan." Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication No. 456, Contributions to American Archaeology, Vol. 3, No. 16, pp. 121-127, 1937.

Strong, W. D.: Archaeological Explomtions in the Country of the Eastern Chumash. Smithsonian Institution, Explorations and Field-Work in 1934, pp. 69-72, Washington, 1935a.

---: "An Introduction to Nebraska Archaeology." Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, Vol. 93, No. 10, Washington, 1935b.

Strong, W. D., and Schenck, W. E., and Steward, J. H.: "Archaeology of the Dalles-Deshutes Region." University of California Publi-


cations in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 29, No.1, pp. 1-154, Berkeley, 1930.

Studer, F. V.: "Texas Panhandle Culture, Ruin No. 55." Bulletin of the Texas Archaeological and Paleontological Society, Vol. 6, pp. 80-96. Abilene, T'exas, 1934.

Teit, J. A.: "The Salishan Tribes of the Western Plateaus." Edited by F. Boas. Bureau of American Ethnology, Forty-fifth Annual Report, pp. 23-36, Washington, 1930.

Toulouse, ,T. H., Jr.: "Excavations at San Diego Mission, New Mex-ico." New Mexico Anthropologist, Vol. 2, No.1, pp. 16-18, 1937.

Tree Ring Bulletin, Vols. 1-5, Tucson, 1934-1939. Tschopik, H., Jr.: "Navaho Basketry." In preparation. Turney-High, H. H.: "The Flathead Indians of Montana." American

Anthropological Association, Memoir 48, Menasha, Wisconsin, 1937.

Watt, F. H.: "A Prehistoric Rock Shelter Burial in Bell County, Texas." Central Texas Archaeological Society, Bulletin No.2, pp. 5-29, Waco, Texas, 1936.

Wedel, W. R.: "An Introduction to Pawnee Archaeology." Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 112, Washington, 1936.

Weltfish, G.: "Prehistoric North American Basketry Techniques and Modern Distributions." A mer'ican Anthropologist, n. s., Vol. 32, pp. 454-495, 1930a.

---: "Coiled Gambling Baskets of the Pawnees and Other Plains Tribes." Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, Indian Notes, Vol. 7, No.3, pp. 277-295, New York, 1930b.

---: "Preliminary Classification of Prehistoric Southwestern Basketry." Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, Vol. 87, No.7, Washington, 1932d.

---: "Problems in the Study of Ancient and Modern BasketMakers." American Anthropologist, n. s., Vol. 34, pp. 108-117, 1932b.

Wilson, T.: "Arrowpoints, Spearheads, and Knives of Prehistoric Times." United States National Museum, Report for 1897, Part 1, pp. 811-988, Washington, 1899.

Wissler, C.: The American Indian. (Third edition), New York, 1938. Witte, A. H.: "Kitchen Middens of the Upper Red River Drainage."

Bulletin of the Texas Archaeological and Paleontological Society, Vol. 8, pp. 71-86, Abilene, Texas, 1936.

Woodward, A.: "The Grewe Site, Gila Valley, Arizona." Los Angeles Museum of History, Science, and Art, Occasional Papers, No.1, 1931.

Zingg, R. M.: "Report on Archaeology of Southern Chihuahua." Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Chicago; copy in the Peabody Library, Harvard University, 1932.

Plates

PLATE 1

Structures and trenches of Bc 50 (left) and Bc 51 (right) as seen from the south cliff. The Chaco Arroyo appears in the background (top) •

P L ATE 1

Structures and trenches of Bc 50 (left) and Bc 51 (right) as seen from the south cliff. The Chaco Arroyo appears in the background (top).

PLATE 2

Be 51 masonry. A, looking northeast over rooms 4, 3, 2, and 1. B, ,masonry of Kiva 4 and room 5, looking northeast. C, south wall of room 8, looking southwest.

PLATE 2

A

c Be 51 masonry. A, looking northeast over rooms 4, 3, 2, and 1. B, masonry of Kiva 4 and room 5, looking northeast. C, south wall of room 8, looking southwest.

PLATE 3

A. Be 51. Kiva 1.

B. Kiva 4 (foreground) and Kiva 3 (background) as viewed from the north.

PLATE 3

A, Be 51, Kiva 1.

B, Kiva 4 (foreground) and Kiva 3 (background) as viewed from the north.

PLATE 4

Two views of Cist Burial, trenches 26, 27, and 28, section 7.

PLATE 4

Two views of Cist Burial, trenches 26, 27, and 28, section 7.

PLATE 5

A, Pithouse, trenches 2 and 3, sections 4, 5, and 6.

B. Effigy jar of Chaco Black on White. (The pottery illustrated has been identified by Dr. Hawley.)

PLATE 5

A, Pithouse, trenches 2 and 3, sections 4, 5, and 6.

B. Effigy jar of Chaco Black on White. (The pottery illustrated

has been identified by Dr. H awley.)

PLATE 6

A c

E

Pottery found at Bc 50 and 51. A, E, C, and D, Gallup Black on White; E, F, G, and H, McElmo Black on White. Height of A, 6%".

PLATE 6

A c

E

Pottery found at Be 50 and 51. A, E, C, and D, Gallup Black on White ; E , F , G, and H, McElmo Black on White. Height of A, 60/s'.

PLATE 7

Red Mesa Black on White Pottery from Be 50 and 51. Height of A, 5%,".

PLATE 7

R ed Mesa Black on White Pottery from Bc 50 and 51. Height of A, 5 %,".

PLATE 8

o

Other Pottery Types found at Be 50 and 51. A, Eseavada; B, Upper Gila Corruga ted; C, Mesa Verde Black on White; D, Fugitive Red; E, Exuberant Corrugated. Height of E, 15".

PLATE 8

Other Pottery Types found at Be 50 and 51. A, Escavada; B, Upper Gila Corrugated; C, Mesa Verde Black on White; D, Fugitive Red; E, Exuberant Corrugated. Height of E, 15".

PLATE 9

McElmo Black on White Designs. Drawn by A. H. Gayton.

PLATE 9

McElmo Black on White Designs. Drawn by A. H. Gayton.

PLATE 10

~' .. ';'f~.'~.'.~.'~:"!' ~ .. ". I'" . .. " \~;~"\'<;' .. ' ~ \ ;:Wy' \ " .

~,~:> ',;,

~ ~ ~ ~.. " l

~ A

B

" ,,:'\ . .:-- ~ -' ,

""~'.:" "

" '" '" • 0" ;:'

"'~, " -,' '- ,

Designs Drawn by A. H. Gayton. A, McElmo Black on White; B, (left) 'Wingate Black on Red, (middle) Mesa Verde Black on White, (right) Unnamed; from "Four Corners" Area.

PLATE 10

-~" .. . . ~'.

~,,~ ~

~ ~ ...

. . .

. . J

~

.~ A

B

Designs Drawn by A. H. Gayton. A, McElmo Black on White; B, (left) Wingate Black on Red, (middle) Mesa Verde Black on White, (right) Unnamed; from "Four Corners" Area.

PLATE 11

1.--__ - ..

A Escavada Black on White; B. Red Mesa Black Designs Drawn by A. H. GaytoBnl· k' White. D Gallup Black on White.

on White; C, Chaco ac on 'J

!!';j-:WJ

" tt m., @i~' @

B

PLATE 11

A Escavada Black on White; B, Red Mesa Black Designs Drawn by A. H . Gayton. I' White ' D Gallup Black on WhIte.

on White; C, Chaco Blac ( on "

PLATE 12

Bone Objects from Bc 51.

PLATE 12

. ,. . .. ",. "'"f ,,0>

" ".. . , n t~ · ) " ... Ill'" til

5~. 17. -4 ~ 1)8. 88. 111. .

A • B

Bone Objects from Bc 51.

PLATE 13

1[111

'0' I

Bone Objects from Bc 51. C includes a synopsis of type implements, while supplementary views of unusual objects appear in D.

PLATE 13

41. ~7 bO.

1 .~ \1

55.

IOe.

A B

f.

IIi l.e .

I~. b'l.

-C D

Bone Objects from Be 51. C includes a synopsis of type implements, w'hile supplementary views of unusual objects appear in D.

PLATE 14

A, Be 50 substructure looking southwest with substructure 5 in the foreground.

B. Be 50 substructure looking southeast over substructure 4, into substructure 5 and Be 50 kiva 2. The walls of Be 51 appear at the top, left.

PUBLICATIONS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO IN ANTHROPOLOGY

ANTHROPOLOGICAL SERIES

Vol. I. No. I. Whole Number 177. Fisher. The Archaeological Survey of the Pueblo Plateau. 1930. 25c. No.2. Whole Number 283. Dutton and Marmon. The Laguna Calendar. 1936. 25c. NO.3. Whole Number 287. Steward. Pueblo Material Culture in Western Utah. 1936. 50c. NO.4. Whole Number 291. Hawley. Field Manual of Prehistoric Pottery Types. 1936. $1.00. NO.5. Whole Number 296. [Brand, editor]. Symposium on Prehistoric Agriculture. 1936. Soc.

Vol. 2. No. I. Whole Number 300. Hibben. The Excavation of the Riana Ruin and Chama Valley Survey. 1937. Soc. NO.2. Whole Number 308. Brand, Hawley, Hibben. Tseh So, A Small House Ruin, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. 1937. $1.00. NO.3. Whole Number 317. Hill. Navajo Pottery Manufacture. 1937· 25c. NO.4. Whole Number 321. Hawley, F. M., and F. G. Hawley, Classification of Black Pottery Pigments and Paint Areas. 1938. 25c. NO.5. Whole Number 322. Underhill, Ruth M., A Papago Calendar Record 1938. Soc.

Vol. 3. No. I. Whole Number 244. Fisher. Some Geographic Factors that InBuenced the Ancient Populations of Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. 1934. 25c.

SURVEY SERIES, UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO AND SCHOOL OF AMERICAN RESEARCH

Vol. I. No. I. Whole Number 195. Fisher, R. G. Second Report of the Archaeological Survey of the Pueblo Plateau, Santa Fe Sub-Quadrangle A. July I, 193 I. Soc.

MONOGRAPH SERIES, UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEX. AND SCHOOL OF AMERICAN RESEARCH

Vol. I. No. I. Whole Number 246. Hawley. The Significance of the Dated Prehistory or Chetro Ketl, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. July I, 1934. $1.00. No.2. \Vhole Number 274. Fisher. The Relation of North American Prehistory to Post-Glacial Climatic Fluctuations. October I, 1935. $1.00. NO.3. Whole Number 278. Alexander and Reiter. Report on the Excavation of Jemez Cave, New Mexico. December IS, 1935. $1.00. NO.4. Whole Number 326. Reiter, Paul. The Jemez Pueblo of Unshagi, New Mexico. Part I. June 1, 1938. $1.00. NO.5. Whole Number 327. Reiter, Paul. The Jemez Pueblo of Unshagi, New Mexico. Part II. June IS, 1938. $1.00. No.6. Whole Number 333. Dutton, Bertha P. Leyit Kin, a Small House Ruin, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. October IS, 1938. $1.00.

PUBLICATIONS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO PRESS OF INTEREST TO ANTHROPOLOGISTS

Hewett, Edgar L. The Chaco Canyon and Its Monuments. 1936. $2.50. Hewett, Edgar L., and Bandelier, Adolph F. Indians of the Rio Grande Valley.

1937· $3·50' Hewett, Edgar L. Pajarito Plateau and Its Ancient People. 1938. $4.00. So Live the Works of Men. Seventieth Anniversary Volume, Honoring Dr.

Edgar L. Hewett. 1938. $ro.oo.

Date post:	21-Dec-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

The Universitl? of New Mexico BulletinMap 4-Distribution of Mauls aml Hammers in the SouthwesL_ 72...

Documents