Ornaments as socially valuable objects: Jewelry and identity in the Chaco and post-Chaco worlds

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 42 (2016) 122–139

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/ locate / jaa

Ornaments as socially valuable objects: Jewelry and identity in theChaco and post-Chaco worlds

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2016.04.0010278-4165/� 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

E-mail address: [email protected]

Hannah V. MattsonDepartment of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, MSC01 1040, Albuquerque, NM 87131-1086, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 13 September 2015Revision received 25 March 2016Accepted 5 April 2016

Keywords:Chaco CanyonPueblo BonitoAztec RuinOrnamentsIdentityInalienabilityRitual practice

a b s t r a c t

This paper explores the relationship between identity and demographic reorganization through an exam-ination of the extent to which Chacoan identity and practice, as demonstrated by the social values attrib-uted to ornaments at Pueblo Bonito during the cultural florescence at Chaco Canyon (A.D. 900–1130),were maintained or transformed by the post-Chaco period inhabitants of Aztec’s West Ruin (A.D.1140–1290s). The study includes the analysis of the large ornament assemblages from both of these sites,with an emphasis on identifying socially significant dimensions of physical variation through a contex-tual approach. Utilizing the concepts of value gradations, inalienability, and structured deposition, bothsimilarities and differences in the social use and potential meaning of ornaments at the two sites areidentified. Based on similarities in the attributes of ornaments associated with structured ritual depositsand high-status interments, it appears that the residents of Aztec Ruin continued to participate in at leastsome elements of the Chacoan ritual-ideological complex. I suggest that the depositional practices asso-ciated with these socially valuable goods served as citations or references to Chacoan cosmology and thepowerful leaders and/or ancestors connected to Pueblo Bonito. Local leaders at Aztec Ruin may have usedthese references to legitimize their authority by affirming real or reconstructed historical links to ChacoCanyon.

� 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The prehistory of the American Southwest is marked by periodsof demographic upheaval and attendant social and settlementreorganization. Such dynamic periods of abandonment, populationmovement, and reorganization are generally thought to entailsocial disruption and structural change, including the redefinitionof identity. Central components of this renegotiation of identityare transformations in both social relationships and ritual practicelinked to the failure and rejection of previously held ideologies, theadoption of the ideologies of other communities or groups, and/orthe appearance of new integrative ideologies (Adams, 1991;Aldendenfer, 1993; Cordell, 1995; Crown, 1994; Nelson andSchachner, 2002; Schachner, 2001; Ware and Blinman, 2000).

The decline of the regional system centered on Chaco Canyon,beginning in the early A.D. 1100s and ending circa A.D. 1130–1150, coincides with a period of demographic upheaval withinthe San Juan Basin. An important aspect of the subsequent popula-tion reorganization was the expansion of Aztec Ruin, a Chacoangreat house located 50 km to the north on the lower Animas River

in the Totah or Middle San Juan district. There is much debate sur-rounding the relationship, if any, between Aztec Ruin and ChacoCanyon during and following the decline of the central canyoncommunities (Clark and Reed, 2011; Lekson et al., 2006; P. Reed,2008, 2011; Wills, 2009). Researchers argue variously that theresidents of post-Chaco Aztec Ruin (A.D. 1140–1290s) wererelated to populations from Chaco Canyon (Durand et al., 2010;Lekson, 1999; Van Dyke, 2008; Vivian, 1990; Washburn, 2008;Webster, 2008), indigenous inhabitants of the Totah area (Rohn,1989), migrants from the Mesa Verde and Northern San Juan areas(Adams, 2008; Morris, 1919; Brown et al., 2008; Clark and Reed,2011; Windes and Bacha, 2006), or some combination of all these(Glowacki, 2006; L. Reed, 2008; P. Reed, 2011; Stein and McKenna,1988). Several researchers have suggested that the post-Chaco res-idents of Aztec Ruin continued to associate themselves with Chacothrough continuation of the Chacoan ceremonial order (e.g. Leksonet al., 2006, ed.; Toll, 2006; Webster, 2008) or the ‘‘Chacoan ritual-ideological complex” (Lipe, 2006). The persistence of Chacoan traitsin post-Chacoan communities in other parts of the San Juan Basinhas also been interpreted as evidence for revitalization or continu-ation, to varying degrees, of Chacoan ideology and ritual practices(e.g., Kintigh et al., 1996; Lekson, 1999).

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.jaa.2016.04.001&domain=pdf

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2016.04.001

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2016.04.001

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02784165

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jaa

H.V. Mattson / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 42 (2016) 122–139 123

Transformations in identity are particularly pronounced in theuse and meaning of socially valuable goods—objects that areembedded within social transactions and embody symbols of iden-tity, including cultural and/or sacred principles and values (Lesure,1999:25; Spielmann, 2002). Ornaments, both those used for per-sonal adornment and those used in ritual contexts, comprise aclass of objects that appear to have been symbolic and valuablein Chacoan society. In this paper, I explore the relationshipbetween identity and demographic reorganization through anexamination of the extent to which elements of Chacoan identityand practice, as demonstrated by the social values attributed toornaments at Pueblo Bonito during the Chaco florescence, weremaintained or transformed by the post-Chaco period inhabitantsof Aztec Ruin. Specifically, I attempt to identify socially significantdimensions of physical variation in ornaments by utilizing the con-cepts of value gradations, object biography, alienability, partibility,and structured deposition (Chapman, 2000; Fowler, 2004; Gosdenand Marshall, 1999; Lesure, 1999; Mills, 2004, 2008; Walker, 1995;Weiner, 1992, 1994).

2. Chaco Canyon

During the eleventh and early twelfth centuries, Chaco Canyonserved as a major ritual and sociopolitical center in the San JuanBasin of northwestern New Mexico (Fig. 1). The most visible hall-marks of Chacoan communities are great houses—massive struc-tures with distinctive masonry, formal layouts, and associatedgreat kivas (Lekson, 1991). These structures, which are often asso-ciated with road segments, map out the geographically knownextent of Chacoan influence (Judge, 1989, 1991; Kantner andKintigh, 2006; Neitzel, 1989; Powers et al., 1983). Although firstemerging in other portions of the San Juan Basin during the PuebloI period (Lipe, 2006; Wilshusen and Van Dyke, 2006), the architec-tural elements associated with this system appeared in Chaco Can-yon during the Early Bonito phase (A.D. 850/900–1020). In theClassic Bonito phase (A.D. 1020–1115), encompassing the peak ofthe system, Chacoan traits were formalized and outlying greathouse construction reached its farthest extent (Judge, 1989). Dur-ing the Late Bonito phase (A.D. 1115–1140), the Chacoan systemappears to have undergone dramatic reorganization. The architec-tural characteristics displayed in both new buildings and in theremodeling of existing structures during this time resemble thoseseen in the northern San Juan Basin (Sebastian, 1992; Van Dyke,2004; Vivian and Mathews, 1965; Wills, 2009). Widespread occu-pation diminished markedly after A.D. 1120/1130, and the positionof the canyon as a regional center deteriorated (Judge and Cordell,2006; Kantner, 1996, 2004; Sebastian, 1992, 2006).

The Chaco system has been the subject of archaeologicalresearch for over a century, but there is still much disagreementover the level of sociopolitical organization it may represent, thefunctions of great houses and roads, the relationships betweenthe residents of the central canyon to those of outliers, and the nat-ure and areal extent of Chacoan cultural influence and contact. Thecurrent, and general, consensus among Chacoan researchers is thatChaco Canyon was a center for ceremonial activity to some degree(Earle, 2001; Kantner, 2004; Lekson et al., 2006; Mills, 2002; Steinand Fowler, 1996; Stein and Lekson, 1992; Renfrew, 2001; Yoffee,2001). Some researchers implicate the canyon’s ritual importanceas the major underlying factor in the development and functioningof the Chacoan system. For example, Renfrew (2001) calls Chaco a‘‘location of high devotional expression” at which the productionand consumption of goods was of primarily ritual significance, aview upheld by Toll (2006). Recent literature also tends to supportJudge’s (1989) suggestion that the canyon was a pilgrimage desti-nation for populations from surrounding regions (Judge and

Cordell, 2006; Kantner, 2004; Lipe, 2006; Malville and Malville,2001; Mills, 2002:79; Toll, 2006). Although some have interpretedthe large core canyon great houses as primarily non-residential,built to accommodate periodic influxes of pilgrims and a small per-manent population of ritual specialists, more recent research isrevealing that these structures were occupied relatively inten-sively. Based on re-examination of archaeological data from thePueblo Alto trash mounds, Wills (2001) and Plog and Watson(2012) argue that the midden contents are most consistent withdomestic consumption, episodes of construction, and smaller-scale feasting and ritual events. This is also supported by new evi-dence from the Pueblo Bonito middens (Crown, 2016; Wills et al.,2016).

Pueblo Bonito, the largest Chacoan great house, appears to rep-resent the ceremonial and/or political hub of the Chacoan system(Neitzel, 2003). The massive structure, including as many as 800rooms and four stories, is located within a cluster of five other largegreat houses in the central canyon bottom (Fig. 2). In conjunctionwith other structures in the canyon, Pueblo Bonito is part of a for-mal built landscape, the layout of which some researchers suggestmay be related to the canyon’s ideological significance (Farmer,2003; Fritz, 1978; Lekson et al., 2006; Renfrew, 2001; Stein andLekson, 1992; Sofaer, 1997; Van Dyke, 2008). Excavations in thenineteenth and early twentieth centuries recovered an astoundingquantity of imported and unique items, including objects madefrom turquoise and shell, copper bells, macaw feathers, and otherdistinctive objects such as cylinder vessels and ceremonial sticks.Many of these valuable items are associated with burials, cachesin rooms, and offerings in kivas (Akins, 1986, 2003; Neitzel,2003; Mathien, 2003; Mills, 2008). Other great houses also containsome of these items, but none rival Pueblo Bonito in either quan-tity or concentration. Two main burial clusters, both located inthe oldest, north-central portion of the structure, contain themajority of the ornaments and other lavish objects collected. Thenorthern burial cluster includes Rooms 32, 33, 53, and 56 and con-tains approximately 26 individuals (Akins, 1986, 2003; Crownet al., 2016; Marden, 2011). Room 33, one of the richest collectionsof burials documented in North America, includes two males (andseveral other individuals) associated with thousands of ornamentsand ceremonial items, among other objects (Pepper, 1920). Basedon several lines of evidence, the burial with the most associatedofferings (Burial 14) dates to the Pueblo I period, early in the Pue-blo Bonito construction sequence (Coltrain et al., 2007; Plog andHeitman, 2010). It appears that the Room 33 crypt remained acces-sible throughout the occupation of the site, and that offerings wereplaced in this location for at least 150 years (Judd, 1954; Marden,2011, 2015; Pepper, 1920; Plog and Heitman, 2010). The westernburial cluster is comprised of at least 70 individuals interred withinRooms 320, 326, 329, and 330 (Akins, 2003; Crown et al., 2016;Judd, 1954). Based on biological evidence, the two burial clustersmay represent separate lineages or populations (Akins, 1986:75,2003:101; Schillaci et al., 2001; Schillaci and Stojanowski, 2003).More recently, it has been proposed that these burial clustersmay reflect larger social units, such as clans or ‘houses’ within ahouse society model (Heitman, 2007; Heitman and Plog, 2005;Mills, 2015; Wills, 2005).

Pueblo Bonito contains 35 kivas of different sizes, includinggreat kivas, court kivas, and room block kivas (Judd, 1954; Mills,2008; Pepper, 1920; Windes, 2014). Great kivas are the largest ofthese and contain the most numerous and formal suite of floor fea-tures. Ritual deposits, both dedicatory and termination/retirement,are associated with kivas of all sizes at Pueblo Bonito and werecommonly placed within wall niches, under floors and vaults,and within pilasters and benches (Judd, 1954). These deposits tendto be somewhat standardized in that they almost all contain orna-ments, turquoise, and marine shell; in addition, many also contain

Fig. 1. Map of a portion of northwestern New Mexico showing the location of Pueblo Bonito and Aztec West Ruin (drafted by Darryl DelFrate).

124 H.V. Mattson / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 42 (2016) 122–139

materials of particular colors, textures, and degrees of reflectivity(Mills, 2008:89). Mills (2008) suggests that the size of kivas at Cha-coan great houses are related to the size/extent of the social groupsparticipating in ritual activities associated with the structures. Thelast major building episode at Pueblo Bonito is dated from A.D.1077 to 1082, although renovations continued into the first halfof the A.D. 1100s (Windes, 2003).

3. Post-Chaco reorganization in the Totah region

Located along the lower Animas River in the Totah area of theMiddle San Juan Basin, the Aztec Ruin community is centered ontwo large great houses, West Ruin (Fig. 3) and East Ruin. West Ruinis a 450-room, multi-storied pueblo with Chacoan-style architec-ture. East Ruin, built after the West Ruin but with a strikingly sim-ilar layout, has 200–300 rooms, a great kiva, and is also multi-storied. The majority of West Ruin was excavated by Earl Morris(1919, 1924, 1928) under the auspices of the American Museumof Natural History. After encountering both classic Chacoan and

classic Mesa Verdean material culture, Morris concluded that therewas an initial Chacoan occupation followed by a later occupationby Mesa Verdean migrants, separated by a period of abandonmentcoinciding with the collapse of the Chacoan system. Subsequenttree-ring dating and ceramic analyses conducted within the lastdecade indicates that the community was in fact occupied contin-uously during Morris’ proposed interim period, now locally definedas the McElmo phase (A.D. 1140–1200) (Brown et al., 2008; L. Reed,2008). Although construction of West Ruin was largely completedduring the Late Bonito phase, particularly between A.D. 1113 and1130, the majority of the material excavated from the site is attrib-uted to the McElmo and Mesa Verde (A.D. 1200–1290) phase occu-pations (Brown et al., 2008; P. Reed, 2008). Construction effortsshifted to the East Ruin during the post-Chacoan occupation ofthe community, although smaller-scale building activity continuedat West Ruin into the A.D. 1200s, including the addition andremodeling of rooms and kivas. Since Morris’ work, additionalresearch has also revealed the extent and formality of the‘‘Bonito-style landscape” linked to and centered upon the two great

Fig. 2. Planview of Pueblo Bonito, showing the locations of the northern and western burial clusters (drafted by Darryl DelFrate).

Fig. 3. Planview of Aztec West showing locations of Burial 14 (Room 52) and Burial 16 (Room 41) (drafted by Darryl DelFrate).


houses, a symmetrical spatial arrangement of buildings, roads,middens, and auxiliary structures that was planned in the LateBonito phase, but not brought to completion until the middle thir-teenth century (Brown et al., 2008; Van Dyke, 2009).

A total of 216 individuals were interred within 174 burials inand immediately around West Ruin (Morris, 1919, 1924). Basedon diagnostic ceramics, Morris (1924) identified only seven ofthese as associated with the Chacoan occupation of the site. Two

of these were found in rooms (Rooms 2 and 43), one was recoveredfrom a kiva (Kiva S), and three were discovered in the refuse out-side of the structure. This is consistent with other material evi-dence supporting a relatively brief classic Chacoan occupation ofthe site. As at Pueblo Bonito, ornaments are concentrated in afew burials or burial groups. Two of the most ornament-rich inter-ments are located in the east wing of the structure and includeBurial 14, a mass infant and child burial (25 individuals) in Room


52, and Burial 16, which includes two adults and three children inRoom 41 (Morris, 1919, 1924). Both of these burials include ceram-ics resembling those of the Northern San Juan region—including,for example, flat-bottomed, black-on-white mugs (Morris,1928:77–81). None of the Chacoan burials identified by Morrisare associated with ornaments. Thus, while a portion of the WestRuin ornament assemblage may be contemporaneous with theoccupation of Pueblo Bonito, the large majority (approximately90%) of the collection is associated with post-Chaco phase (postA.D. 1140) contexts.

It remains unclear if the post-Chaco inhabitants of Aztec Ruinwere actually migrants from the Mesa Verde area or were thedescendants of migrants from Chaco Canyon and/or locals whohad occupied the site continuously and who had adopted moreNorthern San Juan material culture late in the sequence. This samequestion also applies to the post-Chacoan occupation of ChacoCanyon itself (Wills, 2009) and persists as a significant unresolvedissue in Chacoan archaeology. The timing of both the constructionand ‘‘reoccupation” of this Bonito-like structure and the incon-gruity between the architecture and material culture have ledresearchers to propose various scenarios for the function of AztecRuin and its relationship to the end of the Chacoan system.

Several researchers suggest that Aztec Ruin served as the newfocus of the Chacoan world in the second half of the A.D. 1100safter the decline of centers in the Chaco Canyon area (Judge,1989; Lekson, 1999, 2015; Lekson et al., 2006; Lister and Lister,1987; Sebastian, 1992; Powers et al., 1983). Lekson (1999, 2015)proposes that elites residing in Chaco Canyon migrated to theTotah in response to droughts. He argues that Aztec Ruin was a‘‘New Chaco,” serving as a political center for the Northern San Juaninto the A.D. 1200s (1999:68; see also Van Dyke, 2009). Leksonet al. (2006) reiterate that ‘‘Aztec was the principal, and perhapsunrivaled, center in the northern San Juan region throughout thePueblo III period, and it continued the canons and scales of down-town Chaco” (2006: 101, 2015; see also Cameron and Duff, 2008).Sebastian (1991, 1992, 2006) also argues that the Totah area func-tioned as the new political center of power for the Chacoan system.

To some researchers, the persistence of Chacoan elements inpost-Chaco communities in the San Juan Basin indicates a continu-ation, to some degree, of Chacoan ideology and ritual practice (e.g.,Kintigh et al., 1996; Lekson, 1999). It has been suggested that theappearance of Chacoesque great houses in the Cibola area in the lateA.D. 1100–1200s may be related to a revitalization of Chacoanritual, manipulated to serve the political ends of local leaders(Cameron and Duff, 2008; Kintigh, 1994; Kintigh et al., 1996). Sim-ilarly, Bradley (1996) proposes that the post-Chacoan reuse of AztecRuin was part of a larger revitalization movement in the northernSan Juan region in themid-A.D. 1200s. Fowler and Stein (1992) sug-gest that ideological and historical ties were made with the pastthrough roads connecting post-Chacoan communities and Chacoangreat houses (1992:118; also Kantner, 1996; Stein and Lekson,1992), such as the North Road symbolically connecting Aztec Ruinand Pueblo Bonito (Lekson, 1999). Other researchers emphasizethe Totah area as the ‘‘last bastion of the Chacoan tradition”(Kantner, 2004:1; Sebastian, 2006). Toll (2006) stresses the ritualrole of the Totah area after the collapse of the Chaco system, sug-gesting that the ‘‘location for high devotional expression” (sensuRenfrew, 2001) moved from Chaco Canyon to Aztec Ruin. Rohn(1989:163), on the other hand, argues that there was only a smalland brief Chacoan presence at Aztec, and that the majority of theconstruction and occupation of the site may be attributed to theindigenous population of the area that identified itself as northern.

The most recent research on this issue involves the comparisonof technological traits of material remains from Chaco with thosefrom Aztec and Salmon Ruin (Brown and Paddock, 2011; P. Reed,2006, 2008, 2011; Washburn and Reed, 2011; Webster, 2008;

Webster and Jolie, 2015; Windes and Bacha, 2006). Only 10 milessouth of Aztec Ruin, Salmon Ruin is a three-storied great housewith 290 rooms located on a terrace above the San Juan River(Irwin-Williams, 1972; P. Reed, 2006, 2008, 2011). Built duringthe latter half of the Classic Bonito phase in the late A.D. 1000s,Salmon Ruin was established somewhat earlier than Aztec Ruin.Although tree ring dates place the initial construction of the build-ing at A.D. 1088 (Windes and Bacha, 2006), firmly within the Chacoera, like Aztec Ruin, occupation continued into the A.D. 1200s. Themajority of the material recovered during excavation dates to thislater period. Also similar to Aztec Ruin, Salmon Ruin was initiallythought to have been abandoned by Chacoans and then reoccupiedby migrants from the Mesa Verde area. However, based on archae-ological evidence, it now appears that Salmon Ruin was also con-tinuously occupied to some degree (Reed, 2006). The preliminaryconclusions of these comparative studies, which focus on materialfrom the A.D. 1100s, lend support to both migration and local emu-lation to varying degrees.

4. Object biographies, structured deposition, and social value

One way that transformations in identity and practice may beexamined in the material record is through a focus on the shiftingmeanings and uses of socially valuable goods, or ‘‘objects that arecritical for ritual performance and necessary for a variety of socialtransactions” (Spielmann, 2002:195; see also Crown and Wills,2003; Gell, 1992; Lesure, 1999; Mills, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2008;Walker, 1995; Walker et al., 1996; Walker and Lucero, 2000;Weiner, 1992, 1994). Since the meaning and categorization ofobjects is culturally specific (Kopytoff, 1986:68), the context ofan artifact’s use is most closely related to its social value (Mills,2004:238; Walker and Lucero, 2000:133). Thus while socially valu-able objects tend to possess certain aesthetic qualities, it is impor-tant that their identification in the archaeological record isindependent of physical form. Recent studies have identified socialvaluables through the application of a life history or object biogra-phy approach (Lillios, 1999; Mills, 2002, 2004, 2008; Pollard, 2001;Walker, 1995; Walker et al., 1996; Walker and Lucero, 2000). Inthis framework, the social uses and changing meanings of objectsare examined through their biographies; this includes production,distribution, consumption, reuse, and finally, disposal. Due togreater archaeological visibility, patterns in the discard of theseobjects are especially useful for inferring past meaning and value(Mills, 2008). Walker (1995; Walker et al., 1996; Walker andLucero, 2000) uses an artifact life history approach along with prin-ciples derived from behavioral archaeology (Rathje and Schiffer,1982; Reid et al., 1974; Schiffer, 1976) to connect the systemic con-text of ritual objects, represented by their social use-lives, to thearchaeological record, represented by the manner of their ultimatedisposal. Ritual behavior, like any other type of human activity,consists of sequences of activities that leave material residues inthe archaeological record. Practices of discard, in particular, consti-tute important ritual formation processes that create patterns inarchaeological deposits (Schiffer, 1987; Walker et al., 1996).

Material culture and exchange theory studies (e.g., Appadurai,1986; Kopytoff, 1986; Weiner and Schneider, 1989) support thelink between the biographies of objects and their social values ormeanings through the degree of control exercised over their move-ments within ‘‘segregated” spheres of use. Kopytoff (1986) positsthat objects lie along a continuum of exchangeability, ranging from‘‘commodities,” which are freely exchanged, to ‘‘singularities,”which are restricted from exchange. The life histories of objectsclassified as singularities are more carefully controlled, and there-fore follow more unique or specific pathways of movement, thanthose classified as commodities. Weiner (1985, 1992, 1994) makes


a similar distinction between ‘‘alienable” and ‘‘inalienable” posses-sions, which differ in the degree to which they are circulated.Inalienable wealth includes objects that are ‘‘symbolic repositoriesof genealogies and historical events” (1994:33) and are ‘‘imbuedwith intrinsic and ineffable identities of their owners which arenot easy to give away” (1992:6). Inalienable objects are thereforeimportant in authenticating social identities and legitimizing exist-ing hierarchies (Lesure, 1999; Lillios, 1999; Mills, 2004).

The ethnographic exchange studies of Kopytoff (1986) andWeiner (1992, 1994) have important implications for the archaeo-logical recognition of socially valuable items—namely, that therestriction and control applied to the circulation of objects is clo-sely related to their values and roles in social relations. The ulti-mate material consequences of the life histories of inalienable,ritual, or other singular objects are ‘‘discrete or singularized depo-sitional contexts in the archaeological record” (Walker, 1995:72).This behavioral correlate forms the foundation of the concept ofstructured deposition (Mills, 2002, 2004, 2008; Richards andThomas, 1984; Walker, 1995). Structured deposits include objectsthat are deliberately buried or discarded in singular ways, oftenreceiving special treatment. Ethnographic and cross-culturalresearch suggests that ritual objects and inalienable possessionsare likely to be disposed of as structured deposits, particularlywithin sacred, rather than secular, places (Walker et al., 1996).Structured deposits commonly include, but are not limited to,caches in non-domestic rooms, dedication or termination offeringsassociated with building sequences and abandonment, offeringsplaced with the deceased, and caches or offerings located at impor-tant locations on the landscape (Mills, 2002, 2004; Pollard, 2001,2008; Walker, 1995; Walker et al., 1996; Walker and Lucero,2000). As Pollard (2008) emphasizes, the ontological status of anobject is defined by its role in human practices, rather than anyspecific essential or inherent quality. The association of certainobjects and materials with ‘‘the identity or substance of people,places, and supernatural entities” influences the manner in whichthese items are treated upon deposition (Pollard, 2008:49).

5. Ornaments as objects of social value: identifying differencesin use and meaning

Cross-cultural research has shown that personal adornment isoften a key visual indicator of social group identity; ornamentswith particular traits (specific forms, sizes, materials, etc.) aremarkers of horizontal and vertical social differences, ethnic and tri-bal affiliation, and subscription to ideologies (e.g., Hodder, 1977,1982; Kroeber, 1925; Thomas, 1991). Some prominent differencesare apparent between the jewelry of different groups in the prehis-toric Southwest as well; for example, shell zoomorphic pendantsdepicting snake and quadruped silhouettes are characteristic ofthe Hohokam area, rectangular pendants in jet and turquoise aremore common among the Ancestral Pueblo, and round pendantsmade from shell or painted ceramic are often found in the Mogol-lon area (Jernigan, 1978). Based on mortuary data, it appears thatornaments were used to mark age, gender, kinship, and verticalstatus differences within each of these groups (e.g., McGuire,1992; Mitchell, 1994; Morris, 1924; Neitzel, 2000; Shafer, 2003;Pepper, 1920).

Ornaments may also serve as corporately or individually ownedinalienable possessions and may be important in ritual practice.Turquoise and shell ornaments, in particular, appear to have beenintimately linked with status and ritual in Chacoan society (Judgeand Cordell, 2006; Kantner, 2004; Lewis, 2002; Mathien, 2001;Mills, 2004, 2008; Neitzel, 1995, 2003; Plog, 2003; Toll, 2006).Mills (2008) finds that ornaments and the debris from theirproduction represent the majority of objects contained within

structured depositional contexts in Chaco Canyon, including dedi-catory offerings in kivas of all sizes. In addition, they comprise asignificant portion of objects intentionally deposited in storagerooms as ritual retirements, along with other probable inalienableand ceremonially important items such as altar fragments, cylinderjars, shell trumpets, and wooden staffs of office (Mills, 2004, 2008;Mills and Ferguson, 2008). Thus, ornaments from these contextsmeet the criteria for objects of high social value—deliberate anddiscrete placement within structured deposits, particularly insacred contexts, and repeated association with other items thatmay have served as inalienable possessions.

Even minor variations in the physical attributes of ornamentshave been shown to differentiate specific social values. For exam-ple, among the Yurok and Tolowa of northwestern California,Dentalium sp. shell bead necklaces were important in distinguish-ing individuals in terms of social status (Kroeber, 1925:24).Specifically, variation in the length of otherwise identical beadscomprising these necklaces correlated with variation in theirsocial values. Necklaces of the shortest beads were used insmall-scale display of horizontal social position, necklaces ofmedium-length beads were exchanged widely as social payments,and necklaces of the longest beads were elite items that served tolegitimize authority and were carefully guarded from circulation.In Fiji during the nineteenth century, the degree of alienabilityassociated with objects made of whale teeth varied with form;necklaces made of whale teeth were badges of office forchieftainship, whereas other items made from whale teeth wereused in horizontal social transactions such as bridewealthpayments (Thomas, 1991).

This study uses an approach proposed by Lesure (1999) forexamining variation in the social uses of valuables, which heapplied to greenstone in precolonial New Zealand and prehispanicMesoamerica. Gradations of value are investigated along threemain dimensions—the kinds of social relationships they reference(horizontal/vertical), the scales of social relationships with whichthey are associated (small/intermediate/large), and their degreeof alienability (inalienable/alienable). Identifying these social usesthrough archaeological data relies primarily on the relative spatialdistribution of objects, including their dispersion across, and con-centration within, different depositional contexts.

Objects used in horizontal social relations, those occurringbetween ‘‘structurally similar units like clans, families, or individ-uals” (Lesure, 1999:32), are expected to be distributed in a fairlywidespread manner. Specific aspects of social identity referencedby particular ornaments, or groups of ornament attributes, mayalso be identified through their correlation with the burials of indi-viduals of different ages, genders, and social unit membership(such as clan or lineage affiliation based on burial location)(Akins, 1986, 2003). Valuables referencing vertical relations, thosetaking place between hierarchically organized units (such aselites/commoners), are likely to be concentrated and/or restrictedin a more narrow range of contexts, as access to objects symboliz-ing rank and social power is typically carefully controlled (e.g.,Brandt, 1994; Earle, 1982; Lesure, 1999; Schachner, 2001). Theserestricted contexts may include those with other evidence of socialdifferentiation, such as wealthy or elaborate burials or elite resi-dential units (Carr, 1995; Kamp, 1998; Meskell, 1998; Tainter,1975).

Valuables used in large-scale social relationships—such as orna-mentation indicating ethnic, tribal, or broad sociopolitical unitmembership—are expected to be very common at a site and notrestricted to any specific depositional context. Those referencingintermediate-scale relationships—such as objects associated withspecific clans, lineages, or sodalities—will likely exhibit patternsof distribution within a site (e.g., concentrated within certain bur-ial groupings or residential zones).


Items of adornment important to the maintenance and negoti-ation of small-scale social relationships—including those related toaspects of personal identity such as age, gender, and marital sta-tus—are expected to be tied to individuals as personal possessions.These objects would likely be used or displayed on a daily basis,and thus more likely to be lost or broken, and placed with theirowners upon death (Lesure, 1999:33).

It is important to emphasize that a single type or class of objectmay reference more than one kind and/or scale of social relation-ship. To give a modern example, diamond rings are ubiquitous inour society and are associated with various aspects of horizontalsocial identity, particularly gender and marital status. However,they are also associated with vertical social relations and occurin greater numbers (or greater sizes/degrees of elaboration) inwealthier households. Ethnographic studies highlight this ‘‘sym-bolically entangled” nature of valuable objects, where specificmeanings and tenets are referenced within certain contexts. Forinstance, a certain type of ornament may be widely distributedacross residential and refuse contexts at a site but particularly con-centrated in burials with large numbers of mortuary offerings ordomestic areas with more rare, imported, or high-quality materi-als. In this case, there is evidence that this type of object is refer-encing both vertical and horizontal social relationships.

As discussed earlier, inalienable valuables—particularly thoseauthenticating ancestral links to the past and legitimizing hierar-chical status differences among lineages or other social units—arenot widely circulated or exchanged. These types of objects areexpected to be associated with specialized or structured deposi-tional contexts, such as termination and dedication offerings inritual structures and caches in non-domestic rooms with otherunique and sacred objects, even when broken. Alienableobjects, on the other hand, are more likely to be discarded uponbreakage, are not restricted to structured contexts, and maybe stockpiled in non-ritual contexts for use in social payments(Lesure, 1999:31).

6. Ornaments and social use at Pueblo Bonito and Aztec Ruin

This study includes over 115,000 ornaments and related items—61,751 from Pueblo Bonito and 54,471 from Aztec’s West Ruin. Allof these were subject to a simple analysis involving tabulations byartifact type, form, shape, and material. A sample of these, totaling12,291 items, was analyzed in detail, including the collection of 28quantitative and qualitative attributes. These artifacts are typicallydefined in functional terms as jewelry—items that are displayed onthe body or clothing for the purposes of personal adornment(Adams, 2002, 2010; Jernigan, 1978; Mathien, 1997). However, fol-lowing Lesure (1999), it was necessary to also include other itemsmade of the same materials (mostly mineral and shell) in order toexamine relative value and social use. As a result, this study incor-porates artifacts such as isolated inlays/tesserae, production deb-ris, mineral and shell specimens, paintstones and pigments,manuports, effigies, unique inlaid items, and worked pieces ofunknown function. The analyzed assemblages are housed at theAmerican Museum of Natural History (AMNH), the SmithsonianNational Museum of Natural History (NMNH), the SmithsonianNational Museum of the American Indian (NMAI), Aztec RuinsNational Monument, and the Chaco Museum Collection at theUniversity of New Mexico. Obtaining a representative sample froma variety of depositional contexts at each site was a major focus ofdata collection. The analyzed assemblage from Pueblo Bonitoencompasses ornaments from 120 rooms, 21 burials (several withmultiple individuals), 25 kivas, and the extramural trash mounds;the assemblage from Aztec West Ruin includes 75 rooms, 14 buri-als (also containing multiple individuals), and 12 kivas.

The study involved three major stages—the identification ofpatterns of variation in the physical characteristics of ornamentsat each of the sites, the association of these characteristics withsocial use based on context (based on Lesure (1999), as describedin preceding sections), and the comparison of these linkages inphysical attributes and social use between Pueblo Bonito duringthe Chaco florescence and Aztec Ruin during the post-Chaco per-iod. As the meaning of objects is culturally specific, there are noparticular attributes universally associated with social value. Fur-thermore, valuable objects are only distinguished as such throughtheir similarity and contrast with ordinary objects. Based onanthropological observation, Lesure (1999) suggests that poten-tially meaningful physical variation is likely to be contained withinthe categories of size, form, and material. Additional aestheticqualities found to correlate with social value include reflectivity(e.g., Spielmann, 2002; Saunders, 1999) and texture (Macgregor,1999). It was expected that relatively few attributes would exhibitpatterned variation significantly related to social use; however,since it was impossible to determine in advance what these speci-fic attributes would be (e.g., pendant shape, bead length, the ‘‘blue-ness” of turquoise items, reflectivity, smoothness, etc.), numerouspotentially meaningful characteristics were recorded. In this paper,I focus primarily on variation in ornament type, form, shape, andmaterial.

In terms of frequency, ornaments from collective burial con-texts comprise the majority of each assemblage. Determining theassociation of specific objects with certain individuals was notalways clearcut, particularly given sometimes poor provenienceinformation, post-depositional disturbance such as vandalismand roof collapses, and the repeated interment of individuals inthe same room over time. In addition, some of the burial roomscontained additional ritual deposits/offerings that could not beassigned to any specific individual. In this analysis, all of theobjects included in a collective burial room or crypt, regardless oftheir positions within the room, were assigned to the contextualcategories of ‘‘burial” and ‘‘Room Number X.” However, objectswere only classified as coming from a specific burial within theserooms when provenience and archival information supported adirect association (e.g., ‘‘right wrist of Skeleton 14” or ‘‘found withchild skeleton”).

Some of the general expectations in archaeological patterningand social use outlined by Lesure (1999) were modified to fit thetypes of depositional contexts common at both sites. Items associ-ated with kivas and rooms directly connected to and with access tokivas (excluding fill contexts) were interpreted as relating tointermediate- or large-scale social relationships. Following thesuggestion of Mills (2008) and others (Adler and Wilshusen,1990; Schachner, 2001), the size of the kiva was used to infer themore specific scale of social relationship referenced, as size isrelated to the group that could be accommodated within eachspace and the degree of visibility associated with the constructionand use of each structure. Ornaments included in structureddeposits within kivas and non-domestic rooms were also inter-preted as inalienable, unless they also occurred in unspecializedroom or refuse contexts.

6.1. Pueblo Bonito

The majority of the ornaments from Pueblo Bonito are discoidal(disc) beads produced from turquoise, shell, and shale. Other com-monornament types include shell bilobe beads (figure-eight beads),spire-lopped Olivella sp. shell beads, inlays (primarily turquoise),pendants, truncatedOlivella sp. shell beads (representing only a por-tion of the shell), Glycymeris sp. shell bracelets, shell dentate beads,and rings (Mattson, 2016) (Figs. 4 and 5). Most of the pendants aretabular in form, made from turquoise or shell, and are circular or

Fig. 5. Content of subfloor offering from Room 310, Pueblo Bonito, NMNH CatalogNo. 336028. Top row: Glycymeris sp. shell bracelets. Left to right, bottom row: spire-lopped Olivella sp. beads, truncated Olivella sp. beads, and shell bilobe beads.Courtesy of the Department of Anthropology, Smithsonian Institution. Photo byHannah Mattson.


rectangular in shape. Overall, turquoise accounts for over 60% of theassemblage, followed by shell (21%), shale (9%), and jet (3%). Of theornaments with zoomorphic shapes, birds and frogs are the mostrepresented. Unique forms, which occur only in small numbers,include side-drilled turquoise beads in the shape of tadpoles orfrogs, bifurcated beads andpendants, and foot or shoe-shaped beadsand inlays (Fig. 6). In terms of depositional context, over 74% of theornaments in the assemblage are from burials, 11% are from kivaofferings, 7% are from domestic or unspecialized rooms, 7% are fromroom offerings, and 1% are from refuse contexts.

Two cluster analysis methods were used to examine the rela-tionship between attributes and between groups of attributesand depositional context. Given the volume of data, includingnumerous potentially meaningful variables with multiple levels,a cluster analysis was first performed within the Minitab statisticalpackage to assess which variables were correlated (Everitt et al.,2011; Kaufman and Rousseeuw, 1990). Based on this analysis, afive-cluster grouping using a correlation coefficient distance andWard linkage method was considered to best fit the data. The itemscomprising each of these groups appeared to be associated withdifferent kinds of depositional contexts (Table 1). In order to assessthe strength of these associations, and to identify the range ofcontextual categories, and thus social uses, with which the sametypes of ornaments may covary (the first analysis divided

Fig. 4. Selected ornaments from Pueblo Bonito. Left to right, top row: shell disc beads (AMNH Catalog No. H/7361), shale disc beads (NMNH Catalog No. 335677), turquoisedisc beads (AMNH Catalog No. H/9246). Left to right, middle row: turquoise inlay (NMAI Catalog No. 51167), jet ring (NMNH Catalog No. 335764), shell dentate beads (NMNHCatalog No. 335752). Left to right, bottom row: Haliotis sp. circular pendants (NMAI Catalog No. 64095), shell stylized bird pendant (NMNH Catalog No. 335704), andrectangular turquoise pendant (NMAI Catalog No. 51124). Courtesy of the Department of Anthropology, Smithsonian Institution; the Division of Anthropology, AmericanMuseum of Natural History; and the National Museum of the American Indian, Smithsonian Institution. Photos by Hannah Mattson.

Fig. 6. Examples of unique ornament forms (feet/shoes, bifurcated, and frog/tadpole) from Pueblo Bonito. Left to right, top row: foot-shaped turquoise pendant (AMNHCatalog No. H/3794), shoe-shaped turquoise pendant/bead (AMNH Catalog No. H/3793) and side view of H/3794, shoe-shaped turquoise pendant (AMNH Catalog No. H/3727), and foot-shaped turquoise inlay (NMNH Catalog No. 335967). Left to right, middle row: three bifurcated shell pendant beads (NMNH Catalog No. 335994), bifurcatedturquoise pendant (AMNH Catalog No. H/3790), and two shell bifurcated bilobe beads (NMNH Catalog No. 336011. Bottom: two side-drilled turquoise tadpole beads (NMAICatalog No. 051163). Images courtesy of the Department of Anthropology and the National Museum of the American Indian, Smithsonian Institution. Photos by HannahMattson.


attributes into mutually exclusive categories), a Latent Class Clus-ter Analysis (LCA) was conducted within the Latent Gold statisticalpackage (Magidson and Vermunt, 2002, 2004). The LC Clustermodel includes a K-category latent variable, each category repre-senting a cluster. Each cluster contains a homogeneous group ofcases that share common model parameters. Posterior member-ship probabilities are estimated directly from the model parame-ters and are used to assign cases to the modal class—the class forwhich the posterior probability is highest. Similar to the first clus-ter analysis, a five-cluster model was deemed most appropriate.Overall, context does have a significant effect (p 6 0.01) on thelatent distribution of the assemblage. However, this association ismuch stronger for certain contextual categories and groups of cor-related ornaments than others. In particular, as can be seen in theprofile plot of latent cluster conditional response probabilities, cer-tain clusters contribute differentially to the assemblages associ-ated with burial, kiva, and domestic room contexts (Fig. 7).Importantly, several artifact types and materials contributed sig-nificantly to more than a single cluster, including shell disc beads,shale disc beads, shell bracelets, bilobe beads, turquoise disc beads,truncated Olivella sp. shell beads, spire-lopped Olivella sp. shellbeads, azurite and malachite, and ornament blanks. As discussedearlier, the same types of objects may reference multiple dimen-sions of social relations when used, displayed, and exchanged indifferent contexts. The results of each of these analyses are sum-marized by depositional context in Table 1.

At Pueblo Bonito, shell disc beads, shale disc beads, and shellbracelets are found in virtually all depositional contexts, suggest-ing that they represent large-scale, horizontal aspects of socialidentity, such as ethnic or tribal membership. Interestingly, shelldisc beads are also associated with Great Kiva offerings and domes-tic room offerings, and shale disc beads are differentially associatedwith ceremonial rooms. Trapezoidal and rectangular tabular pen-dants are widely associated with unstructured contexts in bothdomestic rooms and refuse, and in an undifferentiated manner,reflecting elements of horizontal social relations, such as groupmembership; this is supported by the association of rectangularpendants with the northern burial cluster and trapezoidal pen-dants with the western burial cluster. The western burial clusteris also differentially associated with zoomorphic stylized bird pen-dants, particularly those made from shell, and jet rings.

The hue of turquoise may also relate to horizontal aspects ofsocial identity, such as clan/house/kin group membership andgender. While bluer turquoise is associated with the northernburial cluster and male burials, greener hues of turquoise areassociated with the western burial cluster, female burials, andofferings within kivas (of all sizes). Turquoise exhibits significantintra-source variation in color, and thus color is a poor indicatorof provenance (Hull et al., 2008, 2014; Thibodeau et al., 2012).However, this study is concerned with color only as an aestheticattribute, rather than its representation of specific source areas.Turquoise may also change color over time based on its exposure

Table 1Results of cluster analyses summarized by associated depositional context, Pueblo Bonito.

Cluster analysis (mutually exclusive categories) Latent class cluster analysis

Ornament/material groups Associated contexts Ornament/material latent clusters Associated contexts

Shell disc beads Widely distributedacross site (except forfoot/shoe forms in theNorthern Burial Clusterand kivas only); occur ingreater concentrationsin burials with moremortuary offerings

Cluster1

Bone, copper, azurite, and malachite Domestic rooms and roomblockkivasTurquoise disc beadsa Argillite pendants

Shell pendantsDentate pendant beadsa

Shell braceletsInlaysa

Rectangular pendantsOvoid and circular pendantsa

Foot/shoe formsa

Turquoise

Shell bilobe beads Structured KivaDeposits

Cluster2

Shell bilobe beads Court kivas, roomblock kivas, androom offeringsSpire-lopped and truncated Olivella beads Spire-lopped and truncated Olivellas

Shell disc beads Shell braceletsWorked and unworked turquoise pieces Bifurcated formsa

Haliotis sp. shell (abalone) Sunburst pendantsa

Bifurcated formsa Haliotis sp. shell (abalone) and Glycymerissp. shellFrog/tadpole formsa

Azurite and malachiteOrnament blanks

Shale disc beads Western Burial Cluster Cluster3

Shale disc beads Western Burial Cluster, ceremonialrooms, and domestic roomsZoomorphic bird formsa Shell disc beads

Shale and jet InlaysTrapezoidal pendantsZoomorphic bird formsa

Quartz crystalsJet, Shale, and Argillite

Rings Western Burial Clusterand kivas (sunburstpendants)

Cluster4

Turquoisea, shell andshale disc beads

Ovoid and circularpendantsa

Northern Burial ClusterNon-ornamental inlaid itemsa

Shell bilobe beads Shell pendantsTrapezoidal pendantsSpire-loppedOlivellas

Zoomorphic formsSunburst pendantsa

Shell dentate beadsaTurquoise, Jet,Shale, Shell, Galena

Shell bracelets Quartz crystalsInlaysa

RectangularpendantsTurquoise pendants

Buttons Domestic rooms andrefuse

Cluster5

Turquoise disc beadsa Northern Burial ClusterPlaques TurquoiseBone tube beadsAzurite, malachite, argillite, copper

a Denotes items of particularly high social value.


to sunlight, dehydrating to greener and lighter hues. It is reason-able to assume that the color of turquoise objects found in sealedor sheltered deposits, such as kiva offerings and interments withinrooms, is generally similar to their color at the time of burial, asthese items would have been protected from direct sunlight.Therefore, I argue that the appearance of greener or bluer turquoisewithin different sealed deposits suggests intentionality, either incolor choice or for turquoise objects with life histories that entailedmore or less restricted circulation (e.g., turquoise ornaments thatwere worn [perhaps even passed down and worn by multiple gen-erations], refurbished, or discarded in open refuse contexts versusthose that were either newly produced or stored in protected con-texts such as caches or rooms).

Turquoise disc beads, inlays, circular Haliotis sp. shell pendants,and dentate shell beads (made of either Chama sp. or Spondylus sp.)are differentially distributed within more elaborate burial contextsbut do not appear to be separated by burial location, suggestingthey reflect vertical social relations. Shale disc beads, while widelydistributed across various depositional contexts and likely servingas symbols of social group membership as discussed above, areparticularly concentrated within both the western and northern

burial clusters, indicating that they also reference elements of ver-tical social relations.

Shell disc beads, Olivella shell beads (both spire-lopped andtruncated), shell bilobe beads, turquoise production debris, andornament blanks (and objects broken in manufacture) are associ-ated with court and roomblock kiva offerings, as are zoomorphicfrog/tadpole beads, foot- and shoe-shaped forms, and bifurcatedornament forms. Spire-lopped Olivella sp. shell beads and shellbilobe beads are also associated with refuse and burial contexts,however, indicating that they were not necessarily inalienable.Several of the spire-lopped Olivella sp. shell beads included in courtand roomblock kiva offerings exhibit a hole punched through theside (in addition to the perforation created by the removal of thespire), an apparently intentional modification, perhaps represent-ing ‘‘killing” or sanctifying of an otherwise ‘‘ordinary” bead. Inter-estingly, Burial 14 includes one bilobe bead and one Olivella sp.shell effigy bead rendered in turquoise, rather than shell.

Bifurcated, frog/tadpole, and foot/shoe ornament forms appearonly in specialized contexts at Pueblo Bonito—kivas, the northernburial cluster, and ceremonial rooms—and likely served asinalienable objects (Fig. 6). However, these unique items were

Fig. 7. Profile plot of conditional response probabilities associated with each depositional context and latent class cluster, Pueblo Bonito.


not numerous enough to be included in the latent class clusteranalysis. Distinctive side-drilled turquoise frog beads were foundin the general mixed fill of Room 33, offerings within Kivas I andR, and Room 38 (a room containing numerous ritual objects,including shell trumpets, ceremonial sticks, and macaw skeletons).Foot/shoe ornament forms appear in Burial 14, the fill of Room 33,and offerings within Kivas I, N, and R (see also Crown et al., 2016).Bifurcated forms, both turquoise and shell, were recovered fromBurial 14, Room 33 in general, Room 28 (a room adjacent to thenorthern burial cluster containing a large cache of cylinder ves-sels), and offerings in four kivas—B, C, I, and N. Bifurcated and footforms appear together in a bracelet worn on the right (west) wristof the male in Burial 14. This piece also includes a bilobe turquoisebead and two turquoise bird pendant beads, in addition to otherturquoise disc beads and pendant beads. It appears that the uniqueforms associated with Burial 14, and Room 33 in general, are partof a suite of interrelated motifs that serve as citations to objectsplaced in ritual contexts. This includes the same ornament typesassociated with kiva offerings (particularly bilobe beads, but alsospire-lopped and truncated Olivella sp. beads), most of which areproduced from shell, but also those emulated in turquoise, a mate-rial clearly associated with aspects of vertical social relations atPueblo Bonito (Earle, 2001; Lewis, 2002; Mathien, 1997, 2003;Neitzel, 2003; Plog, 2003).

To summarize, while certain ornaments have restricted distribu-tions (e.g., the unique forms described above, circular abalone pen-dants, or shell zoomorphic pendants), others appear in multiplecontexts at PuebloBonito, suggesting their associationwithavarietyof social uses, from large-scale group identity such as ethnic affilia-tion (including shell disc beads, shale disc beads, and shell bracelets)to vertical social differentiation (including turquoise disc beads andshale disc beads) and ritual practice at multiple scales (spire-loppedand truncated Olivella sp. shell beads and bilobe beads).

6.2. Aztec West Ruin

Similar to Pueblo Bonito, the ornament assemblage from AztecWest Ruin is dominated by stone disc beads, particularly those pro-duced fromshale. Spire-lopped and truncatedOlivella sp. shell beadsare also common, as are inlays, bone tube beads, and pendants(Fig. 8). Inlays aremade from a variety ofmaterials, particularly tur-quoise, jet, galena, argillite, andHaliotis sp. shell. Although pendants

appear in a wide range of materials and shapes, circular forms pro-duced from shell are most common. Compared to the Pueblo Bonitoassemblage, turquoise beads and pendants, shell dentate beads,shell bilobe beads, rings, Glycymeris sp. bracelets, and zoomorphicpendants are far less abundant. Shale comprises over 75% of theassemblage, followed by shell (9%), turquoise (6%), and argillite(5%). The most unique ornament forms at the site are compositebeads,which includea stone or bonegroovedbacking andaflat frontpiece (typically jet, turquoise, galena, or Haliotis sp. shell) adheredtogether with a pitch-like substance. Interestingly, side-drilledfrog/tadpole beads, identical to those recovered fromPueblo Bonito,and frog/tadpole-shaped composite beads are also present. Morethan 95% of the assemblage is associated with mortuary contexts.

The same two cluster analysis methods used for the PuebloBonito assemblage were applied to the Aztec West ornamentassemblage (Table 2). The clusters defined in a five-model LCAare significantly associated with context (p 6 0.01). Burials, domes-tic rooms, and kivas are each strongly associated with a particularcluster, although as depicted in a profile plot of the resulting con-ditional probabilities, the other clusters also contribute to thelatent distribution of the assemblage (Fig. 9). Interestingly, differ-ent interments are associated with separate clusters.

Possible symbols of large-scale group membership at Aztecinclude bone tube beads; shell, shale, and turquoise disc beads;and both spire-lopped and truncated Olivella sp. shell beads, asthese are all widely distributed across depositional contexts. Tur-quoise and shale disc beads also occur in much larger quantitiesin more elaborate burial contexts, suggesting they also served asindicators of vertical social status. Turquoise disc beads are associ-ated with Burial 14, a mass infant and child burial in Room 52;adult burials; and an adult in Burial 16, a burial including twoadults and three children in Room 41. Shale disc beads are alsoassociated with Burial 14 and Burial 16, but not with other childor adult burials. Although widely distributed, bone tube beadsare particularly concentrated in child and infant burials, both sin-gular and mass graves, indicating that this ornament type mayhave also served as an age-grade marker. Child and female burialsare associated with greener hues of turquoise, while kiva offeringsare associated with bluer turquoise items, suggesting that the colorof turquoise related to aspects of horizontal social identity.

Burial 16, both the adult in the burial and the interment as awhole, is associated with numerous side-drilled frog/tadpole

Fig. 8. Selected ornaments from Aztec West Ruin. Left to right, top row: jet and shale beads (AMNH Catalog No. 29.0/7212), bone tube beads (AMNH Catalog No. 29.0/9096),and turquoise disc beads (AMNH Catalog No. 29.0/7205). Left to right, middle row: circular Haliotis sp. pendant (AMNH Catalog No. 29.0/8776) and shale and argillite discbeads (AMNH Catalog No. 29.0/7982). Left to right, bottom row: turquoise side-drilled frog/tadpole beads (AZRU Catalog Nos. 928, 934, and 943), composite bead backings(AMNH Catalog No. 29.0/7973), and turquoise foot effigy (AZRU Catalog No. 2712). Images courtesy of the Division of Anthropology, American Museum of Natural History andAztec Ruins National Monument. Photos by Hannah Mattson.


beads, a form appearing primarily in ritual contexts at PuebloBonito. In addition, Burial 16 is differentially associated with circu-lar shell pendants and inlays, similar to Pueblo Bonito’s northernburial group. Composite beads are associated almost exclusivelywith Burials 14 and 16, and while rectangular composite beadsare found in both graves, only Burial 16 contains ovoid and frog/tadpole composite forms. Given that all of the ovoid-shapedcomposite beads in the assemblage are represented by backportions only, it is probable that these were originally adhered tofrog/tadpole-shaped bead fronts. The association of compositebeads with these two high-status group interments suggests thatthis ornament type is related to vertical social position. That thetwo burial crypts are located near one another and also includechildren may also indicate an association with lineage/kin groupmembership. As composite beads are unique to Aztec Ruin, thefrog/tadpole-shaped composite beads in the assemblage appearto be a local variation of the Pueblo Bonito side-drilled frog bead.

A similar suite of ornaments is associated with kivas at AztecWest and Pueblo Bonito. This includes a Chaco-period kiva (KivaL) at Aztec, as well as those constructed and remodeled betweenthe tail end of the Late Bonito period through the McElmo andMesa Verde periods (circa A.D. 1130 to the late 1200s) (Brownet al., 2008). These items include shell disc beads, Olivella sp. beads,and pieces of turquoise matrix and production debris. In addition,shell bilobe beads, bifurcated forms, and frog beads are associatedwith some kivas. Shell bifurcated pendants, reworked fragments ofGlycymeris sp. shell bracelets, were recovered from Kiva G (MesaVerde phase [A.D. 1200–1290] construction), and turquoise frogbeads were found in Kiva S (Late Bonito phase [A.D. 1110–1120]construction). Bilobe beads were also recovered from Kiva S, inaddition to Kiva L (Late Bonito phase [A.D. 1100–1109] construc-tion). A single bilobe shell bead was also included in each Burial16 and Burial 14. Thus, a similar set of distinctive representations—including bilobe, frog, and bifurcated forms—appears to be

Table 2Results of cluster analyses summarized by associated depositional context, Aztec West Ruin.

Cluster analysis (mutually exclusive categories) Latent class cluster analysis

Ornament/material groups Associated contexts Ornament/material latent clusters Associated contexts

Shell, shale, and turquoise discbeads

Inlaysa Widely distributedacross site (except forfrog forms found inBurial 14, Burial 16,and one kiva; andcomposite beads foundonly in Burials 14 and16); occur in greaterconcentrations inburials with moremortuary offerings

Cluster1

Bone tubes Domestic rooms andburials

Spire-lopped OlivellasBone tubes Selenite

Composite beadsaFrog formsa Argillite pendants

TinklersCircular pendantsa Sunburst

pendantsTurquoise and shell pendants

Turquoiseproduction debrisArgillite,Turquoise, Shale

Shell bilobe beadsa Kiva deposits Cluster2

Turquoiseproduction debris

Non-great kivas anddomestic roomsCoppera

Quartz crystalsBifurcated formsa

SeleniteFoot/shoe formsa

ArgilliteInlays

Shell Mortuary contexts anddomestic rooms

Cluster3

Turquoise discbeads

BurialsJet

Shell pendantsButtonsOvoid/circularpendantsa

Truncated OlivellasAzuriteMalachite

Shell bracelets Not associated withany particular context(except shell braceletswith Burial 16 and kivadeposits)

Cluster4

Shell disc beads Burial 14Trapezoidal pendants Shale disc beadsRectangular and square

pendantsShell bilobe beadsa

Ornament blanksSpire-loppedOlivellas

Glycymeris sp. shell Bone tubesBone, Jet, andShale

Inlaid ornamentsa Burial 16 (especiallyinlaid ornaments),domestic rooms, andkivas

Cluster5

Turquoise discbeads

Rectangular pendants Burial 16

Plaques Shell disc beadsOvoid/circularpendantsa

Sunburst pendants

Shale disc beads GalenaShell bilobe beadsa TurquoiseSpire-loppedOlivellas

Shell (Haliotis sp. andGlycymeris sp.)

Tinklers ShaleShell pendants JetInlaysa ArgilliteShell bracelets Turquoise debrisComposite beadsa

a Denotes items of particularly high social value.


associated with both ritual contexts and high-status burial con-texts at both sites. While not associated with burials, a single tur-quoise foot effigy or ornament blank was found in Kiva R [no date]at Aztec, suggesting that this symbol also continued be meaningful.Another similarity between ritual deposits at the two sites is theinclusion of otherwise ‘‘mundane” items in Great Kiva and roomofferings. The Great Kiva at Aztec West (initial construction ca.A.D. 1110–1120 with remodeling into the late 1200s) includesstone disc beads and ornaments made from argillite, and roomofferings include truncated Olivella sp. shell beads, shale discbeads, and selenite. Unlike Pueblo Bonito, copper also appears inkiva contexts (Kivas G and S) at Aztec West Ruin.

7. Discussion

This contextual study reveals several intriguing patterns in thesocial use and potential meaning of ornaments at two major cen-ters in the San Juan Basin. It also sheds light on the continuedimportance of Chaco Canyon as an important place into the twelfthand thirteenth centuries. There appear to be both similarities anddifferences in the meanings and values attributed to ornaments

at Pueblo Bonito during the Chaco florescence and at post-ChacoAztec Ruin. More differences than similarities are identified inornaments associated with small-scale and horizontal aspects ofsocial identity (age, gender, social group membership), which alsohave low levels of inalienability. However, there are numerous par-allels in the attributes of ornaments associated with structureddeposits in kivas and rooms, in addition to those associated withvertical social status. These correspondences suggest a historicaland ideological ‘‘harkening back,” perhaps through a revitalizationmovement, and a continued participation in the Chacoan ritual-ideological complex, at least to some degree, into the post-Chacoperiod (Bradley, 1996; Lekson and Cameron, 1995; Kantner,2004; Kintigh, 1994; Kintigh et al., 1996; Stein and Fowler, 1996;Fowler and Stein, 1992; Van Dyke, 2004, 2009). As Van Dyke(2004, 2009) emphasizes in her work on discursive social memorywithin Chaco Canyon during the Late Bonito period and outside ofthe canyon during the Pueblo III period, the past may be continu-ally and selectively recalled and reconstructed based on currentneeds, such as the legitimization of authority.

A relatively uniform suite of ornamental objects and materialsappear in ritual contexts at both Pueblo Bonito and Aztec Ruin.

Fig. 9. Profile plot of conditional response probabilities associated with each depositional context and latent class cluster, Aztec West Ruin.


Shell bilobe beads, side-drilled frog beads, foot/shoe forms, bifur-cated forms, shell disc beads, and spire-lopped Olivella sp. shellbeads, along with turquoise production debris, are found in kivaofferings at both sites. However, the specific distribution, relativefrequency, and specific form of these items vary between the twosites. While shell bilobe beads are numerous at Pueblo Bonito,for example, they are few at Aztec West. Likewise, the majorityof the frog beads at Pueblo Bonito are associated with structuredritual contexts, while most at Aztec West are found within onelavish burial (Burial 16). Conversely, foot/shoe forms appear inboth kiva offerings and Burial 14 at Pueblo Bonito, but arerestricted to ritual contexts at Aztec West. Bifurcated forms, whichare primarily shell or turquoise pendant beads (includingbifurcated bilobe beads) in kiva offerings and Burial 14 at PuebloBonito, appear as arcuate pendants made from reworked shellbracelets in association with a kiva at Aztec West. Similarly,turquoise disc beads, inlays, and circular Haliotis sp. shell pendantsare associated with high-status burials at both sites.

Although trade relationships in both raw materials and finishedornaments likely shifted over the course of the twelfth century,particularly with changes taking place in the Hohokam area, thiscannot entirely account for the differences between the PuebloBonito and Aztec Ruin ornament assemblages. Based on theirsource areas (Gulf of California) and the lack of evidence for localmanufacture, the items that appear to have been imported as fin-ished items from the Hohokam area include Glycymeris sp. shellbracelets, Olivella sp. shell beads, and shell bilobe beads (likely pro-duced from Glycymeris sp.). While bilobe beads are scarce at AztecRuin and abundant at Pueblo Bonito, Glycymeris sp. bracelets andOlivella sp. beads are common at both sites. Haliotis sp., found onthe Pacific Coast, is also present in both assemblages; althoughthere is no direct evidence of the production of Haliotis sp. orna-ments at either site, whole shells were found at Pueblo Bonito. Discbeads and pendants of shale, argillite, jet, turquoise, and ceramicwere made locally at each site, evidenced by the presence of pro-duction debris and/or unfinished pieces (or those broken in theprocess of manufacture). In addition, both assemblages includecopper bells and other copper items. Thus, while a larger rangeof local materials is represented in the Aztec Ruin ornamentassemblage, the same general types of ornaments appear to beeither locally made or imported at each site.

At Aztec Ruin during the post-Chaco period, the placement ofspecific ornament forms and materials in burials and ritual depos-its may have served as citations or connections to the former Cha-coan ceremonial order. These material references may have beenused by local leaders and/or ritual practitioners to authenticate alink to the powerful individuals or ‘‘apical ancestors” (Plog andHeitman, 2010) buried at Pueblo Bonito, and specifically to thekin or affiliation group represented by the northern burial crypt.If the items placed in offerings within architectural spaces derivedtheir social value from their use as objects of memory, as argued byMills (2008), then their inclusion in post-Chacoan ceremonialstructures and burials suggests an intentional association withthese memories, perhaps to legitimize ancestral connection withthe past. The association of some of these same symbols of author-ity and social memory in a mass infant and child burial at AztecRuin, which also contains an abundance of other high-value items,suggests that this legitimation may have been extended to descen-dants of specific lineages as well.

In a recent publication, Mills (2015:263) refers to Pueblo Bonitodepositional practices as an ‘‘archive” of a ‘‘particular memoryregime.” Knowledge of the specific contents of this record, evenin a referential manner, implies some degree of firsthand experi-ence or familiarity. Given the incorporation of these powerful Cha-con ritual symbols in both a Chaco-era kiva (Kiva L) and terminalChaco/early post-Chaco Late Bonito phase kivas at Aztec Ruin,along with increasing evidence that the site was occupied contin-uously (Brown et al., 2008), I propose that these practices representa conscious continuation of Chacoan ritual practice and identity.Van Dyke (2009:230) makes a similar argument for the architec-ture of Aztec Ruin, suggesting that it served as a material citationto Chaco and an attempt to ‘‘replicate specific meanings.”

Importantly, the social practices involving ornaments took onan increasingly altered or citational form over the course of twocenturies with the shifting composition of the residential popula-tion of the site. As the Middle San Juan region became a more mul-ticultural landscape, reflecting a combination of influences derivedfrom local populations and both the Northern San Juan and Chuskaareas, the link to Chaco became more tenuous. This may have cre-ated a renewed need to affirm historical ties to Chaco, either real orreinvented by the thirteenth century, in order to maintain existingleadership or prestige structures.

Fig. 10. Examples of ornaments and related items in Pueblo Bonito structured deposits. Left to right, top row: Kiva P and Kiva I; middle row: Kiva Q and Kiva L; bottom row:Room 186 and Kiva R. NMNH Catalog Nos. 336000, 335968, 335981, 335752, 336027, and 336001. Courtesy of the Department of Anthropology, Smithsonian Institution.Photos by Hannah Mattson.


8. Conclusion

In the Chacoan and post-Chacoan worlds, ornaments played avital role in negotiating various aspects of personal and socialidentification through practices of bodily adornment and ritualdeposition. Within contemporary archaeological approaches,which draw heavily on social theory, material culture is construedas the primary means through which identity is constructed andreproduced; social relations are constituted through people’s asso-ciation and interaction with the material world (Hull, 1997;Hodder, 2012). Recent research on the materialization of practiceshas also focused on the identification of socially valuable objectsand inalienable possessions, items that are vital to social transac-tions, ritual performance, and the creation of social memories(Heitman, 2007; Lesure, 1999; Mills, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2008,2015; Walker et al., 1996; Walker and Lucero, 2000; Weiner,1992, 1994; Crown and Wills, 2003). Specific practices involvingthese items, which are part of the active construction of identity,may be studied through examination of their use-lives or biogra-phies, including deposition within certain contexts.

At both Pueblo Bonito and Aztec West Ruin, the social uses andvalues of ornaments were intimately linked to their partible orfragmented nature. Ornamental items, such as beads, could begathered together within larger composite pieces (i.e., necklaces)and displayed on the body, or disassembled and placed with collec-tions of other ornaments or other meaningful objects in burials and

structured deposits (Fig. 10). Conferring social value on fragmentedand reassembled objects is cross-culturally consistent with divid-ual or aggregate concepts of personhood (Fowler, 2004). In theseformulations, people are thought to be comprised of parts of otherpeople or social groups (e.g., clans, kin groups, families), places,and substances/essences (Alvi, 2001; Busby, 1997; Strathern,1999). Fractal objects may serve as representations or actualembodiments of various social relationships and obligations toboth living and inanimate entities. In the Ancestral Pueblo world,the separating out of these various essential parts or elementswithin ritual structures and apical ancestral burial crypts may haveserved to reaffirm a shared cosmological perspective, perhapswithin practices of ritual renewal, commemoration, and dedica-tion. In their re-examination of the Room 33 burials, Plog andHeitman (2010) suggest that the configuration of offerings andarchitectural elements serve as a microcosm of important cosmo-logical associations.

Pertinent to this discussion is the conception of both ritualstructures and other persistent architectural spaces at PuebloBonito as living beings (Heitman, 2007; Mills, 2008, 2015). At Pue-blo Bonito and Aztec Ruin, mundane or ordinary ornaments (asdefined by their association with unstructured refuse and domesticcontexts) are included in kiva and room offerings. Despite theirplacement in highly structured contexts, however, these items donot appear to have had a high degree of inalienability. Rather thanemphasizing the singularity of objects of social value, it may be


more appropriate to focus on groups of objects deliberately placedtogether that create a combined, collective effect. As suggested byPollard (2001, 2008) in his work on British Neolithic votive offer-ings, otherwise ordinary items may be arranged in certain ways,and combined with more extraordinary objects, in order to defineand fulfill obligations towards non-human things. Mills (2008)makes a similar argument for Chacoan termination and dedicationofferings, where ritual structures may have been animated throughreference to proper bodily adornment. Perhaps the inclusion ofcommon ornaments in kiva offerings (that is, those that referencedlarge-scale group membership and were widely available), relatesto adorning the structure as a typical member of that group wouldself-identify themselves through ornamentation.

I would argue that at Pueblo Bonito, ornamentation was used toactively construct various aspects of social identity through theadornment of living people, ancestors, and architectural spaces.In addition, ornaments were necessary in renewing the existingritual-ceremonial order through the gathering together and sancti-fication of essential parts/relationships/substances. These socialvalues and uses were directly cited at Aztec West Ruin immedi-ately after the decline of the Chaco Canyon as a central place inthe San Juan Basin and were more broadly referenced at the siteduring the Pueblo III period, particularly in order to legitimizethe authority of local leaders in the increasingly diverse socialmilieu of the Middle San Juan region.

Acknowledgments

Funding for the analysis of ornaments from Pueblo Bonito andAztec Ruin was provided by a National Science Foundation Disser-tation Improvement Grant (Award BCS-0968853), the HibbenTrust, and the UNM Graduate Research Development Fund. Thankyou to David Hurst Thomas and Anibal Rodriguez from AMNH,Bruce Smith and David Rosenthal from NMNH, Patricia Neitfeldfrom NMAI, and both Gary Brown and Lori Stephens Reed fromAztec Ruins National Monument, all of whom accommodated meduring repeated visits to their collections. I want to extend a spe-cial thanks to Theresa Sterner and Tracy Steffgen for volunteeringtheir time to help photograph the collections and to Darryl DelF-rate for drafting several figures.

References

Adams, E.C., 1991. The Origin and Development of the Pueblo Katsina Cult.University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Adams, J.L., 2002. Ground Stone Analysis: A Technological Approach. University ofUtah Press, Salt Lake City.

Adams, J.L., 2010. Manual for a Technological Approach to Ground Stone Analysis.Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson, Arizona.

Adams, K.R., 2008. Subsistence and plant use during the chacoan and secondaryoccupations at salmon ruin. In: Reed, P.F. (Ed.), Chaco’s Northern Prodigies:Salmon, Aztec, and the Ascendancy of the Middle San Juan Region after A.D.1100. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 65–85.

Adler, M.A., Wilshusen, R.H., 1990. Large-scale integrative facilities in tribalsocieties: cross-cultural and southwestern examples. World Archaeol. 22,133–145.

Akins, N.J., 1986. A Biocultural Approach to Human Burials from Chaco Canyon.Reports of the Chaco Center, No. 9. National Park Service, Santa Fe.

Akins, N.J., 2003. The Burials of Pueblo Bonito. In: Neitzel, J.E. (Ed.), Pueblo Bonito:Center of the Chacoan World. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., pp.94–106.

Aldendenfer, M., 1993. Ritual, hierarchy, and change in foraging societies. J.Anthropol. Archaeol. 12, 1–40.

Alvi, A., 2001. The category of the person in rural Punjab. Soc. Anthropol. 9, 45–63.Appadurai, A. (Ed.), 1986. The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural

Perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Bradley, B.A., 1996. Pitchers to mugs: chacoan revival at sand Canyon Pueblo. Kiva

61, 241.Brandt, E.A., 1994. Egalitarianism, hierarchy, and centralization in the Pueblos. In:

Wills, W.H., Leonard, R.D. (Eds.), The Ancient Southwestern Community: Modelsand Methods for the Study of Prehistoric Social Organization. University of NewMexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 9–23.

Brown, G.M., Paddock, C., 2011. Chacoan and vernacular architecture at aztec ruins:Putting chaco in its place. Kiva 77, 203–224.

Brown, G.M., Windes, T.C., McKenna, P.J., 2008. Animas anamnesis: Aztec ruins, orAnasazi capital? In: Reed, P.F. (Ed.), Chaco’s Northern Prodigies: Salmon, Aztec,and the Ascendancy of the Middle San Juan Region after A.D. 1100. University ofUtah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 231–250.

Busby, C., 1997. Permeable and partible persons: a comparative analysis ofgender and the body in south Indian and Melanesia. J. Roy. Anthropol. Inst. 3,261–278.

Cameron, C.M., Duff, A.I., 2008. History and process in village formation: contextand contrasts from the Northern Southwest. Am. Antiq. 73, 29–57.

Carr, C., 1995. Mortuary practices: their social, philosophical-religious,circumstantial, and physical determinants. J. Archaeol. Method Theory 2,105–200.

Chapman, J., 2000. Fragmentation in Archaeology: People, Places and BrokenObjects in the Prehistory of South Eastern Europe. Routledge, New York.

Clark, J.J., Reed, P.F., 2011. Chacoan immigration and influence in the Middle SanJuan. Kiva 77, 251–274.

Coltrain, J.B., Janetski, J.C., Carlyle, S.W., 2007. The stable- and radio-isotopechemistry of western basketmaker burials: implications for early puebloandiets and origins. Am. Antiq. 72, 301–321.

Cordell, L.S., 1995. Tracing migration pathways from the receiving end. J. Anthropol.Archaeol. 14, 203–211.

Crown, P.L., 1994. Ceramics and Ideology: Salado Polychrome Pottery. University ofNew Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Crown, P.L. (Ed.), 2016. The Pueblo Bonito Mounds of Chaco Canyon: MaterialCulture and Fauna. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Crown, P.L., Wills, W.H., 2003. Modifying Pottery and Kivas at Chaco: pentimento,restoration, or renewal? Am. Antiq. 68, 511–532.

Crown, P.L., Marden, K., Mattson, H.V., 2016. Footnotes: The social implications ofpolydactyly and foot-related imagery at pueblo bonito, chaco canyon. Am. Ant.81 (in press).

Durand, K.R., Snow, M., Smith, D.G., Durand, S.R., 2010. Discrete dental traitevidence of migration patterns in the northern southwest. In: Auerbach, B.M.(Ed.), Human Variation in the Americas, Center for ArchaeologicalInvestigations, Occasional Paper No. 38, pp. 113–134.

Earle, T.K., 1982. The ecology and politics of primitive valuables. In: Kennedy, J.G.,Edgerton, R.B. (Eds.), Culture and Ecology: Eclectic Perspectives, SpecialPublications of the American Anthropological Association No. 15. Washington,D.C., pp. 65–83.

Earle, T.K., 2001. Economic support of Chaco Canyon society. Am. Antiq. 66, 26–35.Everitt, B.S., Landau, S., Leese, M., Stahl, D., 2011. Cluster Analysis, Wiley Series in

Statistics and Probability. John Wiley and Sons, London.Farmer, J.D., 2003. Astronomy and ritual in Chaco Canyon. In: Neitzel, J.E. (Ed.),

Pueblo Bonito: Center of the Chacoan World. Smithsonian Institution,Washington, pp. 61–71.

Fowler, C., 2004. The Archaeology of Personhood: An Anthropological Approach.Routledge Themes in Archaeology Series. Routledge, New York.

Fowler, A.P., Stein, J.R., 1992. The Anasazi Great House in Space, Time, and Paradigm.In: Doyel, D.E. (Ed.), Anasazi Regional Organization and the Chaco System,Maxwell Museum of Anthropology Anthropological Papers No. 5. University ofNew Mexico, Albuquerque, pp. 101–122.

Fritz, J.M., 1978. Paleopsychology today: ideational systems and human adaptationin prehistory. In: Redman, C. (Ed.), Social Archaeology: Beyond Subsistence andDating. Academic Press, New York, pp. 39–59.

Gell, A., 1992. The technology of enchantment and the enchantment of technology.In: Coote, J., Shelton, A. (Eds.), Anthropology, Art, and Aesthetics. ClarendonPress, Oxford, pp. 40–63.

Glowacki, D.M., 2006. The Social Landscape of Depopulation: The Northern SanJuan, A.D. 1150–1300. Ph.D. dissertation, Anthropology Department, ArizonaState University, Tempe.

Gosden, C., Marshall, Y., 1999. The cultural biography of objects. World Archaeol. 31,169–178.

Heitman, C., 2007. Houses Great and Small: Revaluating the ‘‘House” in ChacoCanyon, New Mexico. In: Beck Jr., R.A. (Ed.), The Durable House: HouseSociety Models in Archaeology, Center for Archaeological InvestigationsOccasional Paper No. 35. CAI, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale,pp. 248–272.

Heitman, C., Plog, S., 2005. Kinship and the dynamics of the house: rediscoveringdualism in the Pueblo past. In: Scarborough, V.L. (Ed.), A Catalyst for Ideas:Anthropological Archaeology and the Legacy of Douglas W. Schwartz. School ofAmerican Research Press, Santa Fe, pp. 69–100.

Hodder, I., 1977. The distribution of material culture items in the Baringo District,Western Kenya. Man 12, 239–269.

Hodder, I., 1982. Symbols in action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Hodder, I., 2012. Entangled: An Archaeology of the Relationships between Humans

and Things. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden.Hull, C.L., 1997. The need in thinking: Materiality in Theodor W. Adorno and Judith

Butler. Radical Philos. 84, 22–35.Hull, S., Fayek, M., Mathien, F.J., Durand, K.R., 2008. A new approach to determining

the geological provenance of turquoise artifacts using hydrogen and copperstable isotopes. J. Archaeol. Sci. 35, 1355–1369.

Hull, S., Fayek, M., Mathien, F.J., Roberts, H., 2014. Turquoise trade of the ancestralPuebloan: Chaco and Beyond. J. Archaeol. Sci. 45, 187–195.

Irwin-Williams, C. (Ed.), 1972. The Structure of Chacoan Society in the NorthernSouthwest, Investigations at the Salmon Site, Eastern New Mexico University

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4165(16)30001-0/h0005




























































































Contributions in Anthropology, vol. 4, No. 3. Eastern New Mexico University,Portales.

Jernigan, E.W., 1978. Jewelry of the Prehistoric Southwest, School of AmericanResearch Southwest Indian Arts Series. School of American Research, Santa Fe,and University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Judd, N.M., 1954. The Material Culture of Pueblo Bonito, Smithsonian MiscellaneousCollections, vol. 124. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C..

Judge, W.J., 1989. Chaco Canyon-San Juan Basin. In: Cordell, L., Gumerman, G. (Eds.),Dynamics of Southwest Prehistory. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington,D.C., pp. 209–261.

Judge, W.J., 1991. Chaco: current view of prehistory and the regional system. In:Crown, P.L., Judge, W.J. (Eds.), Chaco and Hohokam: Prehistoric RegionalSystems in the American Southwest. School of American Research Press, SantaFe, pp. 11–30.

Judge, W.J., Cordell, L., 2006. Society and polity. In: Lekson, S.H. (Ed.), TheArchaeology of Chaco Canyon: An Eleventh-Century Pueblo Regional Center,School of American Research Advanced Seminar Series. School of AmericanResearch Press, Santa Fe, pp. 189–210.

Kamp, K.A., 1998. Social hierarchy and burial treatments: a comparativeassessment. Cross-Cult. Res. 32, 79–115.

Kantner, J.W., 1996. Political competition among the Chaco Anasazi of the Americansouthwest. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 15, 41–105.

Kantner, J.W., 2004. Ancient Puebloan Southwest. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.

Kantner, J.W., Kintigh, K.W., 2006. The Chaco world. In: Lekson, S.H. (Ed.), TheArchaeology of Chaco Canyon: An Eleventh-Century Pueblo Regional Center,School of American Research Advanced Seminar Series. School of AmericanResearch Press, Santa Fe, pp. 153–188.

Kaufman, L., Rousseeuw, P.J., 1990. Finding Groups in Data: An Introduction toCluster Analysis, Wiley Series in Statistics and Probability. John Wiley and Sons,New York.

Kintigh, K.W., 1994. Chaco, communal architecture, and Cibolan aggregation. In:Wills, W.H., Leonard, R.D. (Eds.), The Ancient Southwestern Community: Modelsand Methods for the Study of Prehistoric Social Organization. University of NewMexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 131–140.

Kintigh, K.W., Howell, T.L., Duff, A.I., 1996. Post-Chacoan social integration at theHinkson site, New Mexico. Kiva 61, 257–274.

Kopytoff, I., 1986. The cultural biography of things: commoditization as process. In:Appadurai, A. (Ed.), The Social Life of Things. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, pp. 64–91.

Kroeber, A.L., 1925. Handbook of Indians of California, Bureau of AmericanEthnology Bulletin No. 78. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Lekson, S.H., 1991. Settlement patterns and the Chaco Region. In: Crown, P.L., Judge,W.J. (Eds.), Chaco and Hohokam: Prehistoric Regional Systems in the AmericanSouthwest. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, pp. 31–55.

Lekson, S.H., 1999. The Chaco Meridian: Centers of Political Power in the AncientSouthwest. Alta Mira Press, Walnut Creek.

Lekson, S.H., 2015. The Chaco Meridian: One Thousand Years of Political andReligious Power in the Ancient Southwest. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham.

Lekson, S.H., Windes, T.C., McKenna, P.J., 2006. Architecture. In: Lekson, S.H. (Ed.),The Archaeology of Chaco Canyon: An Eleventh-Century Pueblo RegionalCenter, School of American Research Advanced Seminar Series. School ofAmerican Research Press, Santa Fe, pp. 67–116.

Lekson, S.H., Cameron, C.M., 1995. The abandonment of Chaco Canyon, the MesaVerde Migrations, and the Reorganization of the Pueblo World. J. Anthropol.Archaeol. 14, 184–202.

Lekson, S.H., Windes, T.C., McKenna, P.J., 2006. Architecture. In: Lekson, S.H. (Ed.),The Archaeology of Chaco Canyon: An Eleventh-Century Pueblo RegionalCenter, School of American Research Advanced Seminar Series. School ofAmerican Research Press, Santa Fe, pp. 67–116.

Lesure, R., 1999. On the Genesis of Value in Early Hierarchical Societies. In: Robb, J.(Ed.), Material Symbols, Center for Archaeological Investigations, OccasionalPaper No. 26. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, pp. 23–55.

Lewis, C.L., 2002. Knowledge is Power: Pigment, Painted Artifacts, and ChacoanLeaders. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, NorthernArizona University, Flagstaff.

Lillios, K.T., 1999. Objects of memory: the ethnography and archaeology ofheirlooms. J. Archaeol. Method Theory 6, 235–262.

Lipe, W.D., 2006. Notes from the North. In: Lekson, S.H. (Ed.), The Archaeology ofChaco Canyon: An Eleventh-Century Pueblo Regional Center, School ofAmerican Research Advanced Seminar Series. School of American ResearchPress, Santa Fe, pp. 261–314.

Lister, R.H., Lister, F., 1987. Aztec Ruins on the Animas: Excavated, Preserved, andInterpreted. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

MacGregor, G., 1999. Making sense of the past in the present: a sensory analysis ofcarved stone balls. World Archaeol. 31, 258–271.

Magidson, J., Vermunt, J., 2002. Latent class cluster analysis. In: Hagenaars, J.A.,McCutcheon, A.L. (Eds.), Applied Latent Class Analysis. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge, pp. 89–106.

Magidson, J., Vermunt, J., 2004. Latent class models. In: Kaplan, D. (Ed.), The SageHandbook of Quantitative Methodology for the Social Sciences. SagePublications, Thousand Oaks, pp. 175–198.

Malville, J.M., Malville, N.J., 2001. Pilgrimage and periodical festivals as processes ofsocial integration in Chaco Canyon. Kiva 66, 327–344.

Marden, K., 2011. Taphonomy, Paleopathology and Mortuary Variability in ChacoCanyon: Using Bioarchaeological and Forensic Methods to Understand Ancient

Cultural Practices, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, TulaneUniversity, New Orleans.

Marden, K., 2015. Human Burials of Chaco Canyon: new developments in culturalinterpretations through Skeletal analysis. In: Heitman, C., Plog, S. (Eds.), ChacoRevisited: New Research on the Prehistory of Chaco Canyon, New Mexico,Amerind Studies in Archaeology. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 165–186.

Mathien, F.J., 1997. Ornaments of the Chaco Anasazi. In: Mathien, F.J. (Ed.),Ceramics, Lithics, and Ornaments of Chaco Canyon, vol. III, Publications inArcheology 18G, Chaco Canyon Studies. National Park Service, U.S. Departmentof the Interior, Santa Fe, pp. 1119–1207.

Mathien, F.J., 2001. The organization of turquoise production and consumption bythe prehistoric chacoans. Am. Antiquity 66, 103–118.

Mathien, F.J., 2003. Artifacts from Pueblo Bonito: one hundred years ofinterpretation. In: Neitzel, J.E. (Ed.), Pueblo Bonito: Center of the ChacoanWorld. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, pp. 127–142.

Mattson, H.V., 2016. Ornaments, mineral specimens, and shell specimens from thePueblo Bonito mounds. In: Crown, P.L. (Ed.), The Pueblo Bonito Mounds ofChaco Canyon: Material Culture and Fauna. University of New Mexico Press,Albuquerque, pp. 186–205.

McGuire, R.H., 1992. Death, Society, and Ideology in a Hohokam Community.Westview Press, Boulder.

Meskell, L., 1998. Archaeologies of Life and Death. Am. J. Archaeol. 103, 181–199.Mills, B.J., 2000. Gender, craft production, and inequality. In: Crown, P.L. (Ed.),

Women &Men in the Prehispanic Southwest: Labor, Power, and Prestige. Schoolof American Research Press, Santa Fe, pp. 301–343.

Mills, B.J., 2002. Recent research on Chaco: changing views on economy, ritual, andsociety. J. Archaeol. Res. 10, 65–117.

Mills, B.J., 2004. The establishment and defeat of hierarchy: inalienable possessionsand the history of collective prestige structures in the southwest. Am.Anthropol. 106, 238–251.

Mills, B.J., 2008. Remembering while forgetting: depositional practices and socialmemory at Chaco. In: Mills, B.J., Walker, W.H. (Eds.), Memory Work:Archaeologies of Material Practices, School for Advanced Research AdvancedSeminar Series. School for Advanced Research Press, Santa Fe, pp. 81–108.

Mills, B.J., 2015. Unpacking the house: ritual practice and social networks at Chaco.In: Heitman, C., Plog, S. (Eds.), Chaco Revisited: New Research on the Prehistoryof Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, Amerind Studies in Archaeology. University ofArizona Press, Tucson, pp. 249–271.

Mills, B.J., Ferguson, T.J., 2008. Animate objects: shell trumpets and ritual networksin the greater southwest. J. Archaeol. Method Theory 15, 338–361.

Mitchell, D.R., 1994. The Pueblo Grande Burial Artifact Analysis: A Search forWealth, Ranking, and Prestige. In: Mitchell, D. (Ed.), An Analysis of ClassicPeriod Hohokam Mortuary Practices, The Pueblo Grande Project, vol. 7, SoilSystems Publications in Archaeology, 20. Soil Systems, Phoenix, pp. 129–180.

Morris, E.H., 1919. The Aztec Ruin. Anthropological Papers of the American Museumof Natural History, vol. 26, Part 1. American Museum of Natural History, NewYork.

Morris, E.H., 1924. Burials in the Aztec Ruin, Anthropological Papers of the AmericanMuseum of Natural History, vol. 26, Part 3. American Museum of NaturalHistory, New York.

Morris, E.H., 1928. Notes on the Excavation in the Aztec Ruin. AnthropologicalPapers of the American Museum of Natural History, vol. 26, Part 5. AmericanMuseum of Natural History, New York.

Neitzel, J.E., 1989. The Chaco Regional system: interpreting the evidence forsociopolitical complexity. In: Upham, S., Lightfoot, K.G., Jewett, R.A. (Eds.), TheSociopolitical Structure of Prehispanic Southwestern Societies. Westview Press,Boulder, pp. 509–556.

Neitzel, J.E., 1995. Elite styles in hierarchically organized societies: the Chacoanregional system. In: Carr, C., Neitzel, J.E. (Eds.), Style, Society, and Person.Plenum Press, New York, pp. 393–417.

Neitzel, J.E., 2000. Gender hierarchies: a comparative analysis of mortuary data. In:Crown, P.L. (Ed.), Women & Men in the Prehispanic Southwest: Labor, Power,and Prestige. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, pp. 137–168.

Neitzel, J.E., 2003. The organization, function, and population of Pueblo Bonito. In:Neitzel, J.E. (Ed.), Pueblo Bonito: Center of the Chacoan World. SmithsonianInstitution, Washington, pp. 143–149.

Nelson, M.C., Schachner, G., 2002. Understanding Abandonments in the NorthAmerican Southwest. J. Archaeol. Res. 10, 167–206.

Pepper, G.H., 1920. Pueblo Bonito, Anthropological Papers of the American Museumof Natural History, vol. 27. American Museum of Natural History, New York.

Plog, S., 2003. Exploring the ubiquitous through the unusual: color symbolism inthe Pueblo Black- on-White Pottery. Am. Antiq. 68, 665–695.

Plog, S., Heitman, C., 2010. Hierarchy and social inequality in the AmericanSouthwest, A.D. 800–1200. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 107, 19619–19626.

Plog, S., Watson, A., 2012. The chaco pilgrimage model: Evaluating the evidencefrom pueblo alto. Am. Antiquity 77, 449–477.

Pollard, J., 2001. The aesthetics of depositional practice. World Archaeol. 33, 315–333.

Pollard, J., 2008. Deposition and material agency in the early neolithic of southernBritain. In: Mills, B.J., Walker, W.H. (Eds.), Memory Work: Archaeologies ofMaterial Practices, School for Advanced Research Advanced Seminar Series.School for Advanced Research Press, Santa Fe, pp. 41–59.

Powers, R., Gillespie, W., Lekson, S., 1983. The Outlier Survey: A Regional View ofSettlement in the San Juan Basin, Reports of the Chaco Center No. 3. Division ofCultural Research, National Park Service, Albuquerque.









































































































































Rathje, W.L., Schiffer, M.B., 1982. Archaeology. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, NewYork.

Reed, L.S., 2008. Ceramics of the middle San Juan Region: potters, recipes, andvarieties. In: Reed, P.F. (Ed.), Chaco’s Northern Prodigies: Salmon, Aztec, and theAscendancy of the Middle San Juan Region after A.D. 1100. University of UtahPress, Salt Lake City, pp. 190–208.

Reed, P.F. (Ed.), 2006. Thirty-Five Years of Archaeological Research at Salmon Ruins,New Mexico. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson.

Reed, P.F. (Ed.), 2008. Chaco’s Northern Prodigies: Salmon, Aztec, and theAscendancy of the Middle San Juan Region after A.D. 1100. University of UtahPress, Salt Lake City.

Reed, P.F., 2011. Chacoan immigration or emulation of the Chacoan system? TheEmergence of Aztec, Salmon, and Other Great House Communities in the MiddleSan Juan. Kiva 77, 119–138.

Reid, J.J., Rathje, W.L., Schiffer, M.B., 1974. Expanding archaeology. Am. Antiq. 39,125–126.

Renfrew, C., 2001. Production and consumption in a sacred economy: the materialcorrelates of high devotional expression at Chaco Canyon. Am. Antiq. 66, 14–25.

Richards, C.C., Thomas, J.S., 1984. Ritual activity and structured deposition in laterneolithic Wessex. In: Bradley, R., Gardiner, J. (Eds.), Neolithic Studies. BritishArchaeological Reports, British Series, Oxford.

Rohn, A.H., 1989. Northern San Juan Prehistory. In: Cordell, L., Gumerman, G. (Eds.),Dynamics of Southwestern Prehistory. Smithsonian Institution Press,Washington, D.C., pp. 149–178.

Saunders, N.J., 1999. Biographies of brilliance: pearls, transformations of matter andbeing. World Archaeol. 31, 243–257.

Schachner, G., 2001. Ritual control and transformation in middle-range societies: anexample from the American Southwest. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 20, 168–194.

Schiffer, M.B., 1976. Behavioral Archeology. Academic Press, New York.Schiffer, M.B., 1987. Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. University of

New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Schillaci, M., Stojanowski, C., 2003. Postmarital residence and biological variation at

pueblo bonito. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 120, 1–15.Schillaci, M., Ozolins, E.G., Windes, T.C., 2001. Multivariate assessment of biological

relationships among southwest amerindian populations. In: Wiseman, R.N.,O’Laughlin, T.C., Snow, C.T. (Eds.), Following Through: Papers in Honor of PhyllisS. Davis, Papers of the Archaeological Society of New Mexico, vol. 27. TheArchaeological Society of New Mexico, Albuquerque, pp. 133–149.

Sebastian, L., 1991. Sociopolitical complexity and the Chaco System. In: Crown, P.L.,Judge, W.J. (Eds.), Chaco and Hohokam: Prehistoric Regional Systems in theAmerican Southwest. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, pp. 109–134.

Sebastian, L., 1992. Chaco Canyon and the Anasazi Southwest: changing views ofsociopolitical organization. In: Doyel, D. (Ed.), Anasazi Regional Organizationand the Chaco System. Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, Albuquerque, pp.23–34.

Sebastian, L., 2006. The Chaco synthesis. In: Lekson, S.H. (Ed.), The Archaeology ofChaco Canyon: An Eleventh-Century Pueblo Regional Center, School ofAmerican Research Advanced Seminar Series. School of American ResearchPress, Santa Fe, pp. 393–422.

Shafer, H.J., 2003. Mimbres Archaeology at the NAN Ranch Ruin. University of NewMexico Press, Albuquerque.

Sofaer, A., 1997. The primary architecture of the Chacoan Culture: A cosmologicalexpression. In: Morrow, B.H., Price, V.B. (Eds.), Anasazi Architecture andAmerican Design. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque., pp. 88–132.

Spielmann, K.A., 2002. Feasting, craft specialization, and the ritual mode ofproduction in small-scale societies. Am. Anthropol. 104, 195–207.

Stein, J.R., Fowler, A.P., 1996. Looking Beyond Chaco in the San Juan Basin and ItsPeripheries. In: Adler, M. (Ed.), The Prehistoric Pueblo World, A.D. 1100-1300.University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 88–132.

Stein, J.R., Lekson, S.H., 1992. Anasazi ritual landscapes. In: Doyel, D. (Ed.), AnasaziRegional Organization and the Chaco System. Maxwell Museum ofAnthropology, Albuquerque, pp. 87–100.

Stein, J.R., McKenna, P.J., 1988. An Archeological Reconnaissance of a Late BonitoPhase Occupation near Aztec Ruins National Monument, New Mexico. Divisionof Anthropology, Southwest Cultural Resources Center National Park Service,Santa Fe.

Strathern, M., 1999. Property, Substance, and Effect: Anthropological Essays onPersons and Things. Athlone Press, London.

Tainter, J.A., 1975. Social inference and mortuary practices: an experiment innumerical classification. World Archaeol. 7, 1–15.

Thibodeau, A.M., Chesley, J.T., Ruiz, J., Killick, D.J., Vokes, A., 2012. An alternativeapproach to the prehispanic turquoise trade. In: King, J.C.H., Cartwright, C.R.,McEwan, C. (Eds.), Turquoise in Mexico and North America: Science,Conservation, Culture, and Collections. Archetype, London, pp. 65–74.

Thomas, N., 1991. Entangled Objects: Exchange, Material Culture, and Colonialismin the Pacific. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

Toll, H.W., 2006. Organization of production. In: Lekson, S.H. (Ed.), The Archaeologyof Chaco Canyon: An Eleventh-Century Pueblo Regional Center, School of

American Research Advanced Seminar Series. School of American ResearchPress, Santa Fe, pp. 117–152.

Van Dyke, R.M., 2004. Memory, meaning, and masonry: the late bonito landscape.Am. Antiq. 69, 413–431.

Van Dyke, R.M., 2008. Sacred Landscapes: The Chaco-Totah Connection. In: Reed, P.F. (Ed.), Chaco’s Northern Prodigies: Salmon, Aztec, and the Ascendancy of theMiddle San Juan Region after A.D. 1100. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City,pp. 334–348.

Van Dyke, R.M., 2009. Chaco reloaded: discursive social memory on the post-Chacoan landscape. J. Soc. Archaeol. 9, 220–248.

Vivian, R.G., Mathews, T.W., 1965. Kin Kletso: A Pueblo III Community in ChacoCanyon, New Mexico. Southwest Parks and Monuments Association TechnicalSeries, vol. 1. Southwest Parks and Monuments Association, Globe.

Vivian, G., 1990. The Chacoan Prehistory of the San Juan Basin. Academic Press, SanDiego.

Walker, W.H., 1995. Ceremonial Trash? In: Skibo, J.M., Walker, W.H., Nielson, A.E.(Eds.), Expanding Archaeology. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 67–79.

Walker, W.H., LaMotta, V.M., Adams, E.C., 1996. Katsinas and Kiva Abandonments atHomol’ovi: A Deposit-Oriented Perspective on Religion in Southwest Prehistory.In: Hegmon, M. (Ed.), The Archaeology of Regional Interaction. University Pressof Colorado, Boulder, pp. 341–360.

Walker, W.H., Lucero, L.J., 2000. The depositional history of ritual and power. In:Dobres, M., Robb, J. (Eds.), Agency in Archaeology. Routledge, London, pp. 130–147.

Ware, J.A., Blinman, E., 2000. Cultural collapse and reorganization: the origin andspread of Pueblo ritual sodalities. In: Hegmon, M. (Ed.), The Archaeology ofRegional Interaction. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, pp. 381–409.

Washburn, D.K., 2008. The Position of Salmon Ruins in the Middle San Juan AD1000–1300: A Perspective from Ceramic Design Structure. In: Reed, P.F. (Ed.),Chaco’s Northern Prodigies: Salmon, Aztec, and the Ascendancy of the MiddleSan Juan Region after A.D. 1100. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp.284–308.

Washburn, D.K., Reed, L.S., 2011. A design and technological study of hatchedceramics: tracking Chacoan Migrants in the Middle San Juan. Kiva 77, 173–201.

Webster, L., 2008. Migration or Emulation? Evidence for the Presence of ChacoanReligious Specialists at the West Ruin of Aztec, New Mexico. Paper presented atthe 2008 Fall Conference of the New Mexico Archaeological Council,Albuquerque.

Webster, L.A., Jolie, E.D., 2015. A perishable perspective on Chacoan social identities.In: Heitman, C., Plog, S. (Eds.), Chaco Revisited: New Research on the Prehistoryof Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, Amerind Studies in Archaeology. University ofArizona Press, Tucson, pp. 96–130.

Weiner, A.B., 1985. Inalienable wealth. Am. Ethnol. 12, 210–227.Weiner, A.B., 1992. Inalienable Possessions: The Paradox of Keeping While Giving.

University of California Press, Berkley.Weiner, A.B., 1994. Cultural difference and the density of objects. Am. Ethnol. 21,

391–403.Weiner, A.B., Schneider, J. (Eds.), 1989. Cloth and Human Experience, Smithsonian

Series in Ethnographic Inquiry. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.Wills, W.H., 2001. Mound building and ritual in Chaco Canyon. Am. Antiq. 66, 433–

451.Wills, W.H., 2005. Economic competition and agricultural involution in the

precontact North American Southwest. In: Scarborough, V.L. (Ed.), A Catalystfor Ideas: Anthropological Archaeology and the Legacy of Douglas W. Schwartz.School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, pp. 41–67.

Wills, W.H., 2009. Cultural identity and the archaeological construction of historicalnarratives: an example from Chaco Canyon. J. Archaeol. Method Theory 16,283–319.

Wills, W.H., Love, D.E., Smith, S., Adams, K., Palacios-Fest, M., Dorshow, W.B.,Murphy, B., Mattson, H., Crown, P.L., 2016. Water Management at PuebloBonito: Evidence from the National Geographic Society Trenches. Am. Antiquity81 (3) (in press).

Wilshusen, R.H., Van Dyke, R.M., 2006. Chaco’s beginnings. In: Lekson, S.H. (Ed.), TheArchaeology of Chaco Canyon: An Eleventh-Century Pueblo Regional Center,School of American Research Advanced Seminar Series. School of AmericanResearch Press, Santa Fe, pp. 210–251.

Windes, T.C., 2003. This Old House: Construction and Abandonment at PuebloBonito. In: Neitzel, J.E. (Ed.), Pueblo Bonito, Center of the Chacoan World.Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 14–32.

Windes, T.C., 2014. The Chacoan Court Kiva. Kiva 79, 337–379.Windes, T.C., Bacha, E., 2006. Differential Structural Wood Use at Salmon Ruins. In:

Reed, P.F. (Ed.), Thirty-Five Years of Archaeological Research at Salmon Ruins,New Mexico. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson, pp. 1109–1176.

Yoffee, N., 2001. The Chaco ‘‘Rituality” Revisited. In: Cordell, L., Judge, W.H. (Eds.),Chaco Society and Polity: Papers from the 1999 Conference, Special Publication4, New Mexico Archaeological Council. New Mexico Archaeological Council,Albuquerque, pp. 63–78.

















































































































































Date post:	29-Nov-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	unm
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Ornaments as socially valuable objects: Jewelry and identity in the Chaco and post-Chaco worlds

Documents