Ancestral Hopi Migrations 0816522804, 2002153731

Table of contents :
Cover
Title Page, Copyright, About the Author
Contents
Preface, Acknowledgments, Map
1. Studying Ancient Migrations
2. Ancestral Hopi Migration Markers
3. Ancestral Hopi Archaeology at Homol'ovi
4. Salado and Roosevelt Red Ware Revisited
5. Integrating Hopi Oral Tradition and Archaeological Evidence of Ancient Migrations
Appendix: INAA Laboratory Procedures and Statistical Analyses
References
Index
Abstract, Resumen
Further Titles

Citation preview

ANTHROPOLOGICAL PAPERS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA NUMBER 68

Ancestral Hopi Migrations Patrick D. Lyons

THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA PRESS TUCSON

2003

About the Author

PATRICK D. LYONS is a preservation archaeologist at the Center for Desert Archaeology, a private, nonprofit organization based in Tucson, Arizona. His interests include the late prehistoric and protohistoric archaeology of the Greater Southwest; ancient migrations; ceramic sourcing, technology, and decoration; Hopi ethnography and oral tradition; and the use of oral tradition in archaeological research. He has been involved in Southwestern archaeology for ten years, was a staff member of the Homol'ovi Research Program of the Arizona State Museum, and has done fieldwork in and analyzed ancient ceramics from southeastern Arizona. Dr. Lyons received his B.A. (1991) and M.A. (1992) degrees from the University of Illinois at Chicago and earned his doctoral degree at the University of Arizona in 2001. Cover: Gila Polychrome jar (DI192) recovered from the Davis Ranch Site (AZ BB:11:36 ASM; ARIZONA BB:ll:7 AF) placed atop a perforated plate (RRl72) found at Reeve Ruin (AZ BB:ll:26 ASM; ARIZONA BB:ll:12 AF). Photograph by T. J. Ferguson, reprinted courtesy of John A. Ware and the Amerind Foundation. These objects, although they were not found together, are positioned to illustrate the hypothetical use of perforated plates as base molds in pottery making. The plate sags in places where it has been partially reconstructed; the unreconstructed portion of the plate matches the size and shape of the bottom of the jar resting on it. The rim of the plate, where it has not been reconstructed, meets the shoulder of the jar, where the base of the vessel ends and the wall begins. Diameter of the plate is 35 cm.

Second printing 2004

THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA PRESS Copyright © 2003 The Arizona Board of Regents All rights reserved This book was set in lO.7/12 CG Times @) This book is printed on acid-free, archival-quality paper. Manufactured in the United States of America. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Lyons, Patrick D.. 1969Ancestral Hopi migrations 1 Patrick D. Lyons. p. cm. -- (Anthropological papers of the University of Arizona; no. 68) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-8165-2280-4 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Hopi Indians--Migrations. 2. Hopi Indians--Antiquities. 3. Indians of North America--Southwest. New--Antiquities. 4. Southwest. New--Antiquities. I. Title. II. Series. E99.H7 .L96 2002 979' .01--dc21 2002153731

Research reported in this volume has been partially supported by an Emil W. Haury Graduate Fellowship awarded to Patrick D. Lyons, 1994-1997, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson.

Contents PREFACE Acknowledgments

1. STUDYING ANCIENT MIGRATIONS In Defense of Culture History Migration Revisited Traditional Approaches: Migration as an Event Recent Advances: Migration as Process Clark's Enculturation and CoResidence Model Tracking Ancient Migrations with Compositional Analyses The "Multidimensional Approach" to Ceramic Variability Archaeological Approaches to Style A New Synthesis

Tracking Population Dynamics on the Hopi Mesas

vii viii

1 1 4

3. ANCESTRAL HOPI ARCHAEOLOGY AT HOMOL'OVI Homol'ovi: A Hopi Place Winslow Orange Ware and the Origins of the People of Homol' ovi Compositional Analysis of Winslow Orange Ware Compositional Patterns and the Migration Inference The Whole Vessel Study Description Ware and Type Definitions Ware Comparisons Analysis of Painted Decoration The Ancestral Hopi Pottery Tradition of Homol' ovi Cups, Miniature Pitchers, and Bird Effigy Vessels Winslow Orange Ware and White Mountain Red Ware Architectural Evidence Supporting Migration

4 5 8 9 9 11

12

2. ANCESTRAL HOPI MIGRATION MARKERS Hisat.sinom, Hopis, and Units of Culture History Kayenta, Tusayan, and Winslow Branches of the Anasazi Kayenta Branch Tusayan Branch Winslow Branch Traces of Ancient Immigrants Perforated Plates Babe-in-Cradle Effigies and Effigy Handles Colanders "Rivet-Attachment" of Ladle Handles The Maverick Mountain Series Kivas The Kayenta Entrybox Complex Other Migration Markers Modeling Ancient Demography The Scale of Ancestral Hopi Migration, A.D. 1250-1450

37

14 14 15 15 16 17 18 18

39 39 41 43 45 46 46 48 48 49 58 58 60

60

4. SALADO AND ROOSEVELT RED WARE REVISITED The Salado Phenomenon and Roosevelt Red Ware Crown's "Ceramics and Ideology" Roosevelt Red Ware as Ancestral Hopi Pottery Initial Production of Roosevelt Red Ware by Immigrants Continued Production of Roosevelt Red Ware by Immigrants Synthesis of Production and Migration Evidence Roosevelt Red Ware Decorative Style

24 25 27 28 30 33 34 35 35 [iii]

62 62 65 67 67 70 74 75

iv

Contents

Settlement and Ceramic Assemblage Variability among Ancient Immigrants Crown's "Immigrants as Part-Time Specialists" Model Revisited The "Meaning" of Roosevelt Red Ware Decoration

Archaeology and Hopi Oral Tradition Juxtaposed Common Threads Restructured Representations of the Past Archaeological Approaches to Ancient Migrations Detection Motivation Organization and Logistics Impact Beyond Ancestral Hopi Archaeology

96 96 96 97 98 98

APPENDIX: INAA Laboratory Procedures and Statistical Analyses Sample Preparation and Irradiation Statistical Analyses and Results

101 101 101

REFERENCES

109

INDEX

133

ABSTRACT, RESUMEN

141

76 78 80

5. INTEGRATING HOPI ORAL TRADITION AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE OF ANCIENT MIGRATIONS Using Oral Tradition in Archaeological Research Vansina's Oral Tradition

as History Arguments Against Using Oral Tradition in Archaeology Examining Hopi Oral Tradition Hopi Emergence and Migration Accounts Hopi Clans and Phratries of Southern Origin Clans and Phratries of the North: The People of Toko'navi, Kawestima, and Kiisiw

82 82 83 85 86 87 89 89

91 92 94

FIGURES

3.1.

1.l.

Locations of sites in Arizona and neighboring regions 2.1 Locations of the Kayenta region, the Tusayan region (Hopi Mesas) and the Winslow branch area 2.2 Perforated plate fragments 2.3 Distribution of sites with one or more perforated plates and the locations of known Roosevelt Red Ware production areas in Arizona 2.4 Ceramic babe-in-cradle ladle 2.5. Ceramic colander 2.6. Rivet technique for the attachment of ladle handles 2.7. Maverick Mountain Black-on-red and Maverick Mountain Polychrome sherds 2.8. Tusayan D-shaped kiva 2.9. Kayenta platform kivas 2.10. Kayenta rectangular kivas 2.11. The Kayenta entrybox complex

x

3.2. 15 19

3.3. 3.4.

21 24 26 27 29 31 32 32 34

3.5. 3.6 3.7. 3.8.

Location of sites within the Homol' ovi settlement cluster Kayenta zonal or banded layouts, radial layouts, and meridional arrangements Bowl layouts characteristic of Pinedale Style A and Pinedale Style B Landmarks of ancestral Hopi pottery design layouts Schematic Jeddito Style radial layouts derived from the KayentaTusayan tradition Bowl layouts characteristic of Tuwiuca Style A and Tuwiuca Style B Schematic bowl layouts characteristic of Awat'ovi Style Schematic bowl layouts characteristic of Sikyatki Style

40 50 51 52 53 55 56 56

Contents 3.9.

4.1.

Characteristic Kayenta and Tusayan vessel forms exhibited by Winslow Orange Ware Roosevelt Red Ware bowls from Chodistaas Pueblo juxtaposed with schematic Jeddito Style and Kayenta Style layouts

59

77

A.I. PCA plot of the final, three-group model of the core INAA data set A.2. Biplot of the three-group model of the core INAA data set showing the contribution of different elements to group separation A.3. Bivariate plot of the final, three- group model of the core INAA data set

v

102

103 104

TABLES

1.1. 2.1. 2.2. 2.3. 2.4. 2.5. 3.1. 3.2. 3.3. 3.4 3.5 3.6.

3.7.

3.8.

Behavioral mechanisms of ceramic circulation and their material correlates 10 Partial list of sites with whole or fragmentary ceramic perforated plates 22-23 Sites with babe-in-cradle vessel handles and ceramic cradle effigies 24 Sites with whole or fragmentary ceramic colanders 25 Sites and wares with rivetattachment ladle handles 28 Sites south of the Hopi Mesas with the Kayenta entrybox complex 34 Dates of occupation of the Hamal' ovi villages 40 40 Phase sequence for the Homol' ovi area Typology of Winslow Orange Ware 42 Number of prehistoric sherds in the INAA sample by site and region 44 Perforated plates recovered from the Homol' ovi villages 47 Typological analysis of whole vessels from Homol' ovi at the Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago 48 Forms of Homol' ovi whole vessels curated by the Field Museum of Natural History by major wares 48 Types of prehistoric pottery displaying Jeddito Style decoration 54

3.9.

3.10.

3.11.

3.12.

3.13.

4.1. 4.2.

5.1. A.!, A.2

Approximate frequency of subrim banding lines and line breaks on prehistoric bowls by ceramic type Frequency of whole vessels from Awat'ovi and Homol'ovi with banding lines and line breaks Comparison of design layouts on vessels of White Mountain Red Ware, Jeddito Orange Ware, Winslow Orange Ware, and Jeddito Yellow Ware Comparison of design styles on bowls of Jeddito Orange Ware, Winslow Orange Ware, and Jeddito Yellow Ware Design styles and substyles on vessels from the Homol' ovi villages by ware and site Evidence of northern immigrants at selected sites Known Roosevelt Red Ware production areas and associated indications of northern immigrants Hopi clans and their geographical associations Elements used in the compositional analysis Group membership probabilities for the three-group structure, based on Mahalanobis distance

54

55

57

58

59 68

69 88 101

105

Preface There remains much material on the migrations of Hopi clans yet to be gathered, and the identification by archeologic methods of many sites of ancient habitations is yet to be made. This work, however, can best be done under guidance of the Indians by an ethno-archeologist, who can bring as a preparation for his work an intimate knowledge of the present life of the Hopi villagers. Jesse Walter Fewkes 1900: 579 trends are especially evident in the history T ofWoresearch on the archaeological record of the

He, HRP Associate Director Richard C. Lange, and their staff have focused most of their effort on understanding the latest prehistoric occupation of the Winslow area, between A.D. 1250 and 1400, investigating the origin of the people of Homol' ovi and their relationships with the ancient inhabitants of the Hopi Mesas and those of adjacent regions. It is the premise of this study that the large number of ancestral Hopi people (natives of the Tusayan and Kayenta regions of northern Arizona) who left their homelands between A.D. 1250 and 1400 and the long list of their destinations have been underappreciated in the past and that a clearer perception of the late prehistory of the Greater Southwest is dependent on understanding both the scale and the impact of these population movements. After introducing theory and method for the anthropological study of migrations (Chapter 1) and highlighting the key archaeological patterns that allow researchers to trace the movements of ancestral Hopi groups (Chapter 2), I address the archaeological record of Homol'ovi (Chapter 3), presenting evidence that the ancient inhabitants of the Winslow area were immigrants from the Hopi Mesas. Building on research by Patricia L. Crown, I conclude that ancestral Hopi groups were responsible not only for the origin but also the spread of Roosevelt Red Ware (the Salado polychromes; Chapter 4). I then compare the general themes and trends evident in Hopi oral accounts of their origins and migrations with archaeological and other anthropological data and illustrate the broad applicability of the methods employed here (Chapter 5).

Hopi people. From the beginning, tribal oral tradition, whether regarding Hopi origins and migrations or the destruction of Awat'ovi and the "abandonment" of other ancestral villages, has provided hypotheses for anthropologists to investigate and frameworks with which to interpret archaeological and other anthropological data. Also, Homol'ovi, the area surrounding Winslow, Arizona, has long been a key focus of study as an ancestral place that both links the Hopi people to ancient forebears and connects the villages of the Hopi Mesas with a larger traditional territory that extends beyond present reservation boundaries. Jesse Walter Fewkes conducted the first archaeological excavations at Homol'ovi in 1896, and more so than any of his contemporaries (perhaps more so than any archaeologist since) he viewed the archaeology of Arizona, and northern Arizona in particular, through the lens of Hopi origin and migration traditions. Fewkes (1898a: 519) characterized his work at Homol'ovi as an archaeological investigation of Hopi claims that their ancestors had lived in the area. He also laid plans to trace ancestral Hopi migrations "step by step, by archaeological methods" through the Mogollon Rim country to the Phoenix Basin (Fewkes 1898a: 539). This monograph represents an effort to merge the spirit of Fewkes' approach with modern theory and method. Much of the information presented here was generated by the Homol'ovi Research Program (HRP). E. Charles Adams, Curator of Archaeology at the Arizona State Museum, established this ongoing project in 1985. [vii]

viii

Preface

In most cases, Hopi words are rendered here in the orthography used by the Hopi Dictionary Project (Hill and others 1998), based on the Third Mesa dialect. The orthographies employed by other scholars, however, are retained in direct quotations. Hopi place names are not italicized in the text. Other Hopi words, with a few exceptions (such as "kiva"), are italicized. Words such as Homol' ovi and Awat' ovi, when they appear in the names of previously defined pottery types or wares (like Homolovi Polychrome, Awatovi Black-on-yellow, or Homolovi Gray Ware), are written without the symbol that indicates a glottal stop, as is the name of Homolovi Ruins State Park, which encompasses the villages of Homol'ovi I, II, III, and IV and Adobe Pueblo. Two reviewers of the manuscript, while recognizing the need to adhere to scientific citation standards when incorporating the work of other scholars, pleaded for relief from constant interruptions in the text. These issues are resolved by the use of footnotes, a divergence from the usual format of the Anthropological Papers.

Acknowledgments Numerous people and organizations have contributed to the creation of this monograph .. For its initial impetus I thank Agnese N. Haury. Her generous support in the form of an Emil W. Haury Fellowship (Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona), which I held between 1994 and 1997, allowed me to expand my research on ancestral Hopi migrations. The compositional analysis and whole vessel study reported here were funded principally by the National Science Foundation (SBR-9812260), but also the University of Arizona Department of Anthropology. I conducted the compositional analysis at the Missouri University Research Reactor, under the guidance of Hector Neff and Michael D. Glascock. Samples and permission for destructive analysis were provided by the Arizona State Museum, the National Park Service Western Archeological and Conservation Center, the Coconino National Forest, and Petrified Forest National Park. Andrew I. L. Duff, Barbara 1. Mills, Daniela 1. Triadan, and Maria Nieves Zedeno generously shared compositional data from their analyses. Research on whole vessels was conducted principally at the Field Museum of Natural History, but also at the Arizona State Museum, the Western Archeological and Conservation Center, the Museum of Northern Arizona, and the Amerind Foundation. James

E. Murphy participated in the analysis of vessels curated at the Field Museum. Julia I. Meyers photographed and assisted in the study of vessels examined at the Museum of Northern Arizona. The assistance of Alexander 1. Lindsay in documenting the temporal and spatial distribution of artifacts marking the migrations on which this study focuses is sincerely appreciated. For permission to reproduce illustrations and photographs I thank E. Charles Adams (Editor of the Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series), the Amerind Foundation (John A. Ware, Director), the Field Museum of Natural History, the Museum of Northern Arizona, the Peabody Museum (the President and Fellows of Harvard College), and the University of Arizona Press. Ronald 1. Beckwith drafted Figures 1.1 and 2.7 as well as Figure 2.2fand g. R. Jane Sliva drew Figure 2.2a-e, h-i. T. 1. Ferguson produced the image that appears on the cover. Maria Nieves Zedeno prepared the Spanish translation of the Abstract. I am grateful to Michael A. Adler and Patricia L. Crown, who reviewed the manuscript for the University of Arizona Press. Both made substantive suggestions and the final product is improved because of their thoughtful efforts. Crown, in particular, gave the manuscript a close reading and her extensive comments and constructive criticism are much appreciated. She has pioneered perspectives on Roosevelt Red Ware that will form the basis of our understanding of the Salado phenomenon for years to come. I thank Carol A. Gifford, Editor of the Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona, for her wise organizational, grammatical, and stylistic suggestions and for her careful attention to detail. Her work ethic, her patience, and her ability to coach an author to produce succinct prose are admirable. Dirk 1. Harris, Support Systems Analyst in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Arizona, provided expert assistance with scanning figures and illustration preparation. The following individuals helped make this work possible by providing sage advice, access to collections, unpublished information, permissions, or logistical assistance: E. Charles Adams, Elisa Aguilar, Jerice Barrios, Kim Beckwith, Karen Berggren, Ryan Charles, Jeffery 1. Clark, Madelyn Cook, Jeffrey S. Dean, Donna M. Dickerson, William H. Doelle, Kurt Dongoske, Alan Ferg, T. 1. Ferguson, Meryn Finity, Douglas W. Gann, Mary Graham, Jonathan Haas, Kelley HaysGilpin, Michelle Hellickson, Kacy Hollenback, the Hopi Cultural Resources Advisory Task Team, Elaine Hughes, G. Michael Jacobs, Anne Trinkle Jones, Leigh

Preface 1. Kuwanwisiwma, Vincent M. LaMotta, Richard C. Lange, Alexander 1. Lindsay, Micah Loma'omvaya, William A. Longacre, Tony Marinella, Allan J. McIntyre, Barbara 1. Mills, Tracy Murphy, Linda J. Pierce, Peter 1. Pilles, Stephen E. Nash, Trisha Rude, Michael B. Schiffer, Emory Sekaquaptewa, Robyn Slayton-Martin, Dianna Thor, Fred Trevey, Sharon Urban, James M. Vint, Arthur Vokes, William H. Walker, Henry D. Wallace, John A. Ware, David R. Wilcox, Anne I. Woosley, Helga Wocherl, Maria Nieves Zedeiio, and Lisa Zimmerman. lowe special thanks to the die-hard HRP volunteers who helped to excavate, document, and analyze much of the evidence on which

ix

this book is based, including Missi Adkins, Donna Cook, Stan Cook, Roberta Foster. Helen Kirkey, florence Lord, Richard W. Lord, Cathy Maickel, Betsy Marshall, James E. Murphy and Jane Strasburg. Among this group, James E. Murphy deserves special recognition for his steadfast friendship and the many ways he has contributed to my research through the years. This monograph is dedicated, with love, to my wife, Hilary Alfia Lyons, and to our three sons, Aodhan Gedalie Lyons, Ezra Joseph Lyons, and Orson Menashe Lyons. They have changed my life for the better in many ways and for this I am grateful. I hope they are aware of how truly precious they are to me.

UTAH

• Pottery Pueblo " -:-Kiet Siel Betatakin .~~

~

~ ~~t'iJIe~\~

~ilnqapi

0

BIG MOUNTAIN

LL-

Hopi Mesas

Canyon deChelIy

I FLAGSTAFF 0

NEW

MEXICO

·Table Rock Pueblo

~

}~

)

(~N.~

I

Las CoJinas") . dad LaCiu

• Po;",.i Bonita Creek

• Besh-Ba-Gowah • Los Muertos Gila Pueblo

~lY I Dinwiddie ~ KwilJeylekia

Cache

jl.ive!

Onnand

-

·Curtis sr·te • Dutch Ruin

Second

c.."Canyon Ruin. D . Ra ch s· -~ Reeve Ruin.. aVIs n Ite University Indian Ruin. • Jose Solas Ruin TUCSON

~

A_

-~~.

~

I

-~

:sc".j J-

S(f~

-

~N

I o

50 Miles

I

j

o

!

I

I

I

I

I iii i I I I

100 Kilometers

HOPI MESAS 1. Awat'ovi 2. Kawayka'a 3. Kokopnyama 4. Sikyatki 5. Wcilpi 6. Orayvi

:o,,-~ ~~ ~

-+--ARAVAIPA CREEK SAFFORD BASIN 7. Goat Hill Site 10. Haby Ranch Site Spear Ranch Site 11. 76 Ranch Ruin 8. Marijilda Site 9. Methodist Church Site

MOGOLLON RIM 12. Pinedale Ruin 13. Grasshopper Pueblo Chodistaas Pueblo 14. Q-Ranch Pueblo 15. Bailey Ruin

Figure 1.1. Locations of sites in Ariwna and neighboring regions. (Map by Ronald 1. Beckwith.)

[xl

CHAPTER ONE

Studying Ancient Migrations "A reasonable degree of humanizing is the only justification for archaeological research, carefully stopping short, of course, offanciful romance. " (Probably Watson Smith) 1 arge numbers of ancestral Hopi people living in L the Thsayan and Kayenta regions of northern Ari-

In the chapters that follow, I build on this foundation by describing ancestral Hopi migrations that blanketed the Greater Southwest between about A.D. 1250 and 1450 and examine in detail evidence for the movement of northern immigrants to the Homol' ovi area, the vicinity of present-day Winslow, Arizona (Fig. 1.1). I then integrate the migration concept within a model of the development and spread of Roosevelt Red Ware (the Salado polychromes and affiliated types) and highlight the many points of agreement between Hopi emergence and migration traditions and archaeological evidence of ancestral Hopi migration.

zona left their homelands between A.D. 1250 and 1450. They migrated to many parts of present-day Arizona and to portions of New Mexico and northern Mexico, but until recently the range of their destinations has been underestimated by archaeologists. In her influential 1994 volume, Ceramics and Ideology, Patricia Crown attributed the origin of Salado polychrome pottery to these migrating groups. Based on the research reported herein, I propose that not only the origin but also the spread of Roosevelt Red Ware can be attributed to the movements of these groups and their descendants and to the processes of co-residence and craft specialization. A clearer understanding of the late prehistory of the Greater Southwest is dependent on our heightened appreciation of this phenomenon in terms of general principles of population movement. One approach to understanding this phenomenon is to place migration studies within the context of: (1) the relationship between social groups and patterned variability in behaviors that leave material traces; and (2) the correlations that may exist among extant tribal peoples of the Greater Southwest and the archaeological cultures used as units of analysis by archaeologists. In this chapter, I provide a brief history of migration theory in archaeology, organized in terms of "traditional approaches" dating before 1990 and more recent perspectives, and discuss the integration of provenance studies within migration. research and archaeological approaches to style.

IN DEFENSE OF CULTURE HISTORY

According to Sian Jones, 2 the seeking of ethnic groups in the archaeological record is often viewed as "the epitome of a seemingly outmoded paradigm, culture history" and "an impossible task ... [with] politically dangerous connotations. " These quotations capture two of the problems facing the culture historian at the dawn of the twenty-first century: the question of the relevance (indeed, the perceived futility) of the task and the fact that culture history, when linked to extant groups, can be constructed and used in ways that reinforce or attempt to justify racism and genocide. 3 I present two "common sense" arguments for the relevance of culture history and an equally basic response to threats of impending doom. First, because so much of archaeological interpretation involves documenting change, it is necessary to reliably measure the

1. Unattributed quotation in Brew 1946: 66 2. Jones 1997: x

3. Kossina 1911, 1914; also Jones 1997: 2-3, 16

[1]

2

Chapter 1

passage of time and, in some cases, to be able to demonstrate contemporaneity. In sites and regions where dendrochronological data are lacking, the techniques of seriation and cross-dating are invaluable in these pursuits. In short, synchronic and diachronic patterns must be established before they can be interpreted, and without time-space systematics there are no patterns in the archaeological record. For this reason alone, archaeologists will never be able to dispense with the basic methods of culture history. We need not imagine, for we have experienced, the world of difference in interpretations associated with Di Peso's dating of Casas Grandes in 1974 versus Dean and Ravesloot's redating in 1993. 1 Likewise, the ability to establish the contemporaneity of the Bonito phase great houses and Hosta Butte phase small house sites of Chaco Canyon led archaeologists away from what seemed like an obvious developmental sequence to much more interesting models of prehistoric interaction. 2 Indeed, Carr conceives of solid culture history as a prerequisite to higher level inferences linking style distributions in time and space with different causal social processes. 3 The same principles used by Kossina4 to create the myth of the Aryan "master race" facilitated Thomas's banishment of the equally racist "myth of the moundbuilders.,,5 Second, it is obvious that ancient peoples viewed themselves in terms of social groupings, at various scales, that corresponded in a complicated fashion with geography, language, religion, descent, and material culture. Studies of modern ethnic groups show that these entities (as they are variously defined) can be discerned reasonably well and their relationships to regional, linguistic, religious, and material culture groupings can be understood with adequate attention to historical context and social dynamics. 6 Ethnicity, however, is a problematic concept, engendering much theoretical and methodological debate. 7 That said, the tribe or ethnic group has become associated with archaeological cultures or subdivisions thereof. 8 This process has important epistemological as well as political and ethical implications for the interpretation of patterns in prehistory, because connections between ancient groups and extant native peoples are complex. Early, simplistic approaches implicitly or ex1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Also LeBlanc 1980; Lekson 1984 Vivian 1990 Carr 1995a, 1995b Kossina 1911, 1914 See O'Brien and Lyman 1999: 409-412; Thomas 1894 Bradfield 1995; Dozier 1966; Jones 1997: 125; Kluckhohn and Leighton 1974

plicitly assumed the existence of "bounded homogeneous cultural entities," viewing ancient groups largely as closed systems and material culture and architecture as wholly passive reflections of group identity. 9 Nonetheless, these initial studies resulted in the basic temporal and spatial frameworks that have served as the foundation of archaeological research for generations. Despite its detractors,lO the use of archaeological cultures as units of analysis persists today. By understanding ethnic identity as negotiated and purposeful, it is possible to return to the archaeological record to seek the diversity that should be there and to develop method and theory to address the dynamics of ancient ethnicity and enculturation. A key question for today's scholars is the nature of the relationship, if any, between archaeologically defined entities and the sorts of social units ancient peoples recognized. Many Southwestern archaeologists agree that traditional labels such as "Anasazi," "Mogolion," and "Hohokam" simply refer to broad regional patterns of adaptation and similarities in architecture and material culture (and perhaps religion) that most likely mask linguistic and ethnic diversity. 11 In the American Southwest, anthropologists are confronted with an impressive array of diverse native peoples with reasonably well-understood linguistic and historical relationships. The social and linguistic differences that separate Eastern and Western Pueblo Indian tribes 12 actually correspond fairly well with certain archaeological manifestations such as kiva shapes and pottery wares, especially during the latest periods in prehistory. Likewise, researchers have separated Ute from Navajo archaeological remains by recognizing behaviors that both identify extant ethnic groups and leave traces in the archaeological record (patterns of nonarchitectural tree alteration, such as eating cambium13 ). These examples raise the nagging possibility that, if we would only try harder, we could do a better job of tracing the population movements that created the hypothetically ethnically diverse communities of late prehistory. The ability to demonstrate the presence of peoples with different geographical origins within the same site, settlement system, or region ("ethnic coresidence") is the key building block in most "big picture" reconstructions of the sociopolitics and economies 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

Barth 1969; Haaland 1969; Jones 1997; Moerman 1965 Colton 1939: 12 Jones 1997: 24 Speth 1988 Shaul and Hill 1998; Teague 1993 For example, Eggan 1950 Martorano 1981; Sanfilippo 1998; Swetnam 1984

Studying Ancient Migrations

3

of late prehistoric Southwestern groups. Without some model of group identity tied to a geographical origin that is reflected (consciously, unconsciously, or both) by material culture and architecture, such reconstructions fall flat. The provisions of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) demand that archaeologists determine the cultural or geographical affiliation of human remains and certain classes of objects within museum collections, evaluate tribal claims of cultural affiliation, and (when working on tribal or federal lands or federally funded projects) consult with descendant groups regarding the treatment and final disposition of human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and items of cultural patrimony. In response to the perceived need for a standardized approach to the archaeological remains of the ancient peoples of the American Southwest, the United States Forest Service recently commissioned a group of consultant archaeologists to gather baseline data for the affiliation of archaeological cultures with extant groups. 1 This study, however well intentioned, ran up against the difficulty presented by the complex and likely multiethnic composition of archaeological manifestations such as "Salado" and has spurred at least one tribe, The Hopi, to launch its own cultural affiliation study. 2 It does seem a daunting task to pursue ethnic groups in the archaeological record when, in all probability, archaeological cultures (and even subsets thereot) included members of different ethnic groups and when we recognize that ethnic identity is predicated on "shifting, situational, subjective identifications of self and others ... rooted in ... daily practice and historical exPerience, but also subject to transformation and discontinuity.,,3 The Hopi Tribe of today, for example, is different in many ways from the Hopi polity or polities encountered by Don Pedro de Tovar in A.D. 1540, and both differ from the Hopi polity that we begin to recognize archaeologically beginning around A.D. 1325. Nonetheless, there are many strands of behavioral continuity, some certainly the result of passive enculturation,4 that run from 1250 to 1450 linking the Tusayan, Kayenta, and Winslow Anasazi, as well as the Sinagua, the Salado, and other archaeological cultures, with the Hopi people of the present.

Human behavior is indeed patterned; this is a bedrock maxim of anthropology. There are such things as ethnic dress, traditional foodways, rituals with material traces, and other behaviors that sort people into gmups of "us" and "them." Is there diversity within such groups? Yes, certainly. Are there historical processes at work that help produce and reproduce these groups? Of course. As noted by Clark in 2001, sets of material culture traits and ethnic groups may only partially overlap and, therefore, it is important to distinguish between ethnicity (purposeful expression of group identity) and enculturation (unconscious reflection of group membership). Following Clark's lead, I focus on the process and the residues of enculturation. I identify ancient groups of people in terms of their areas of origin by drawing on ethnoarchaeological studies of the relationship between social boundaries and the division of decorative space on ceramic vessels and by making use of multiple lines of evidence that include "invisible" (not easily copied) details of technological style and the presence and form of domestic facilities such as hearths and mealing bins. "Ancestral Hopi" herein refers chiefly to the Tusayan, Kayenta, and Winslow branches of the Anasazi, but also includes the Sinagua and the Salado, because continuity in architecture, ceramics, and other aspects of the archaeological record suggest an unbroken connection between these groups, defined on the basis of material culture, and the Hopi Tribe of today. I do not argue that the late prehistoric inhabitants of Homol' ovi, for example, were ancestral Hopi people because they had or used ancestral Hopi pottery and architecture (emulation or ethnicity); I assert they were ancestral Hopi people because they made pottery and architecture in the tradition of the ancient people of the Hopi Mesas (enculturation) . This assertion should not be taken to mean that all people subsumed under the rubrics Kayenta, Tusayan, Winslow, Sinagua, and Salado became Hopi. Also, it is likely that not all Hopi ancestors are represented in the list of archaeological cultures presented above, but these are the ones for which we have the best material evidence of continuity. It is important to remember in this context that migration results in face-to-face interaction among members of groups that may not have pre-

1. Wozniak 1996 2. Ferguson and Lomaomvaya 1999

3. Jones 1997: 13 4. Pryor and Carr 1995: 276-278

4

Chapter 1

viously experienced contact on a regular basis and such situations often lead to stylistic borrowing, technology transfer, and change in both host and immigrant traditions through time, perhaps leading to the development of new enculturative patterns and new ethnic identities.

culture and architecture and developing local cultural historical sequences required the consideration of migration and diffusion as factors that might explain perceived disconformities. This passage by Haury underscores the importance of sound methods for interring that migration has occurred: 4

MIGRATION REVISITED

Where documentary or remembered information is obtainable, as among contemporary societies, the investigator begins with migration as a fact and searches for causes and effects. In archaeology, however, the first task is to establish migration as a fact, and only then may questions of cause and the changes produced on both the stationary and the migrating groups be assessed.

Migration studies have experienced a renaissance in the past decade, at least in the archaeological literature of the Greater Southwest. 1 Fortunately, this revival has been accompanied by the development of more sophisticated theoretical and methodological approaches to the study of ancient population movements. Below, I review the traditional, event-based approach to migration and then discuss recent theoretical and methodological advances, chief among them being the processual approach advocated by William Y. Adams and his colleagues and by David Anthony. 2 I also present a new perspective that makes use of Jeffery Clark's model that emphasizes the processes of enculturation and co-residence. 3 Traditional Approaches: Migration as an Event Classic studies of migration tend to focus on population movement as a single event or a series of closely related events in a particular area (often relatively small) rather than on the interpretation of local patterns in terms of general principles developed in the fields of geography and demography. In 1990 Anthony described this situation in terms of a focus on the methodological, specifically methods of inferring the presence of immigrants, at the expense of the development and application of general theory. To tar all previous studies with that brush would be a misdeed, however. Southwesternists have often made important strides in the directions advocated by later theorists, even when using an eventbased framework and focusing most intensively on physical evidence of population movement. The nature of the knowledge base at the time forced early workers (from the 1910s to the 1960s) to focus their efforts primarily on cultural historical data and on the building of units of analysis. Defining archaeological cultures based on patterned spatial and temporal variability in material 1. Adler 1996; Cameron 1995a, 1995b; Clark 2001; Crown 1994; Reid 1998; Spielmann 1998 2. Anthony 1990; also Adams and others 1978 3. Clark 2001

Although past researchers should not be judged by the standards of today, it is instructive to juxtapose their approaches with more modern perspectives in order to chronicle the development of theory and method in the study of migration. Winifred and Harold Gladwin's concept of the Salado archaeological culture is a prime example of the event-based approach. 5 The Gladwins coined the term "Salado" to label a group of ancient people whose presence in the Lake Roosevelt area they attributed to two migrations based on the appearance of pottery types and architectural forms without local precedent. Although the Gladwins traced the origin of the immigrants to the Upper Little Colorado River valley and the Kayenta-Hopi region, they did not offer hypotheses regarding the possible causes or consequences of these migrations, nor did they attempt to place their data within a comparative framework. Emil Haury's interest in the detection of ancient immigrants as well as the causes and consequences of population movements are evident in his dissertation study of Phoenix Basin Classic period sites. Based on work with collections recovered by the Hemenway Expedition, chiefly from Los Muertos and Las Acequias, and in the context of the Gladwins' model of the Salado archaeological culture, Haury suggested that the Great Drought of A.D. 1276-1299 precipitated the migration of puebloan peoples into the Phoenix Basin. 6 He argued that the Salado lived alongside indigenous Hohokam groups, with both largely maintaining distinct behaviors in terms of material culture and disposal of the dead. 4. Haury 1958: 1 5. Gladwin and Gladwin 1930, 1935 6. Haury 1945

Studying Ancient Migrations

Haury's later treatment of evidence of an ancient migration at Point of Pines has long been considered the finest example of how to infer the presence of immigrants. He proposed two conditions that must be met in order to support the hypothesis that migration has occurred: (1) the sudden appearance of "a constellation of traits readily identifiable as new, and without local prototypes," and (2) the presence of items produced by the immigrant group that "not only reflect borrowed elements from the host group, but also, as a lingering effect, preserve unmistakable elements" from the immigrants' indigenous repertoire. 1 He also offered two criteria that, if met, increase the probability that the pattern observed was produced as a result of migration rather than other mechanisms: (1) the identification of the area in which the traits in question represent "the normal pattern," and (2) the observation of "a rough time equivalency between 'at home' and the displaced expressions of the similar complexes. ,,2 Haury's Point of Pines study, at its heart, is methodological, yet he recognizes the importance of understanding the events that preceded and followed the migration he infers. After discussing compelling evidence of an enclave of people native to the Kayenta or Tusayan regions of northern Arizona at Point of Pines in east-central Arizona, he addresses a possible cause for the population movement he documents, the "Great Drought" of A.D. 1276-1299. 3 Erik Reed's comments on Haury's reconstruction also presage theoretical and methodological approaches of the present day in that Reed discusses premigration logistics, such as contacts between the future immigrants and the future host population and possible social impetuses for migration, such as factionalism. 4 Schwartz's more recent study goes beyond focusing on a single event, the apparent movement of groups from the Kayenta region to the Unkar Delta area of the Grand Canyon and its apparent causes, to considering the effects of migration on the immigrant group. 5 He reviews ethnographic literature in order to derive general expectations regarding the types of social processes that operate among migrant groups once they arrive at their destination. In his investigation of "postmigration culture" Schwartz focuses on the life history of the migrating group, which he models in terms of "pio1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Haury 1958: 1 Haury 1958: 1; compare Rouse 1958 Haury 1958: 4 Reed 1958: 7-8 Schwartz 1970 Adams 1991; Cordell and Gumerman 1989; Crown 1994; Gumerman 1994; Lipe and Hegmon 1989

5

neering," "consolidation," and "stabilization" phases. He observes that the dynamic and opposing forces of cooperation and dissent manifest themselves among such groups under predictable circumstances, at particular times in the group history, and in a limited number of forms. Within this framework, and using specific ethnographic examples, Schwartz describes postmigration patterns of change in social stratification, the structure of traditional social units, traditional authority, and religion. He offers initial ideas regarding the kinds of archaeological data that might bear on postmigration patterns in such "non-material aspects of culture." Schwartz's additional theoretical contributions include a definition of migration and the recognition of return migration (although he does not use this term) as a general process5 that deserves attention in archaeological reconstructions. Migration has been a major focus in recent archaeologicalliterature about the Greater Southwest, although it frequently has been referred to as "abandonment" and "aggregation." In seeking the causes of abandonment and investigating the impetuses for and consequences of aggregation on a regional scale, 6 Southwestern researchers have pursued a general understanding of migration as a process, often in the context of the results of crosscultural ethnographic and ethnoarchaeological studies. As Cameron reminds us, 7 beginning in the 1970s Southwestern archaeologists have increasingly called for the systematic study of migration, presaging the theoretical and methodological developments discussed below. 8 Recent Advances: Migration as Process David Anthony9 and Jeffery ClarkiO point to the waning popularity of migration as a focus of research in American archaeology beginning in the late 1960s and the early 1970s and attribute this trend to the rise of processual, or "systems-oriented" approaches. Anthonyll offers a number of specific reasons for the "retreat from migrationism, ,,12 which include the following two observations. 1. Event-based approaches were the norm in the past. No attempt was made to develop theories of mi7. Cameron 1995b 8. Ford and others 1972; Martin and Plog 1973: 341; also Cordell 1984: 87 9. Anthony 1990 10. Clark 2001 II. Anthony 1990: 897 12. Adams and others 1978

6

Chapter 1

gration as structured behavior based on studies in the fields of demography and geography; therefore, most of the effort expended in migration studies was devoted to the development of detection methods at the expense of theory building and testing. 2. A "paralyzing fascination with the causes of migration, which in most archaeological cases is a hopeless quagmire." William Y. Adams and his colleagues observed that the study of migration had been under attack in all subdisciplines of anthropology since the beginning of the twentieth century. 1 Besides the general movement away from historical explanations and toward systemic (processual) explanations that has characterized the last hundred years, these authors pointed to the fact that a number of specific purported cases of migration had been disproved on the basis of empirical evidence, that is, migration was too often invoked uncritically as an explanation for observed patterns. They went further still in explaining migration's fall from grace in terms of the underdevelopment of integrated theory and method in the study of population movement. 2 Perhaps the most severe criticism that can be leveled at migration theory in anthropology is that, in the strictest sense, it does not exist. What we have been discussing are, properly speaking, not migration theories but distributional theories which presuppose migration. Yet anthropologists have shown little interest in addressing the movement of peoples as a subject for study in its own right. On the contrary, there has been an almost perverse refusal, alike on the part of archaeologists, linguists, and physical anthropologists, to consider the social, technological, and logistical mechanics of human movement. ... In accepting migration as a subject for study, both sociologists and cultural geographers have been considerably in advance of anthropologists. Considering the state of migration studies in the late 1970s, Adams and his colleagues urged more archaeologists to seek insights from the fields of sociology and demography and to embrace migration nomothetic ally, modeling the effects of environment, population pressure, economics, and other factors as impetuses for groups 1. Adams and others 1978 2. Adams and others 1978: 523-524 3. Gmelch 1980

to move. They also suggested researchers consider "attraction" as well as "compulsion" in modeling the events precipitating migrations. Despite the advances that can be attributed to these authors, the program they espoused was limited, essentially, to immigrant detection and the investigation of potential causes for migration. The processual aspects of their approach related solely to the use of systemic models of impetuses for movement and a call for lawlike propositions about migration to be derived from cross-cultural studies. George Gmelch's treatment of the process of "return migration" is an important watershed in anthropological approaches to population movement. 3 Building on Ravenstein's "laws of migration,,,4 he conceives of migration as a system with a structure composed of general movement patterns that include "streams" and "counterstreams." Gmelch focuses much attention on the consequences of migration for both the migrant group and the host population, although the data he presents and the models he describes are drawn exclusively from modern industrial contexts, thus limiting the utility of some of his contributions from an archaeological standpoint. In addition, much of the material critically reviewed by Gmelch assumes some basic asymmetry between the migrants' homelands and their destinations in terms of a rural-urban dichotomy, a core-periphery relationship, or a contrast between "developed" and "developing" economies. Gmelch offers a first step toward theory building in return migration studies in the form of a typology based on two variables: intended duration of stay abroad and reasons for returning. 3 He also provides a cross-cultural catalogue of impetuses (both pushes and pulls) for movement back to the homeland. Finally, Gmelch describes a process called "chain migration," the movement of immigrants to destinations reached and along routes established by earlier, related groups or individuals. According to Gmelch, this phenomenon can be linked to the process of return migration in that returnees may stimulate new migration episodes. Michael Kearney, 5 in his review of anthropological studies of migration and development, begins with the oft-echoed observation that migration studies are poorly developed in anthropology. He proposes that this problem is linked to the fact that sociocultural anthropoIo4. Ravenstein 1885 5. Kearney 1986

Studying Ancient Migrations

7

gists usually investigate population movement in conjunction with some other process, such as urbanization, agriculture, or gender roles. Kearney presents an intellectual history of migration and development studies that is parsed into three periods defined by dominant paradigms for development studies: "modernization," "dependency," and "articulation." He observes that the unit of analysis used in the migration portions of migration and development studies has changed through time, from the individual, to the class, to the household. Kearney also tracks trends in the theory and method applied to these units, from examinations of individual motivations (which are complex and difficult to model), to macroregional political economy models with Marxist underpinnings, to intermediate approaches that attempt to articulate local decisions, structures, and processes with larger scale structures and processes in explanatory models. Kearney's major contribution, however, is the concept of the "articulatory migrant network," a unit of analysis that is defined by flows of people, goods, and information from a homeland to a host region and back to the homeland. This idea is applied to the study of ancestral Hopi migrations in Chapter 5. David Anthony's classic paper, entitled "Migration in Archaeology: The Baby and the Bathwater," flows from the premise that migration is predictable and constrained by such factors as social organization, exchange relationships, and transportation technologies. 1 He focuses squarely, therefore, on two areas of theoretical development: identifying the general structure of migrations in terms of favorable conditions and building models of movement derived from cross-cultural studies. He calls for increasing our consideration of the consequences of population movements relative to investigating causes, because the consequences are more archaeologically visible. Building on the contributions of Adams and his colleagues, 2 Gmelch, 3 Kearney, 4 and others, Anthony poses key questions to be pursued in migration studies using ethnographic data: (1) "What kinds of migration are there?"; (2) "How does migration work as a process?"; and (3) "Under what conditions might a specific pattern be likely?,,5 In answering these questions, Anthony considers the different logistical and organization-

al demands of short-distance and long-distance migrations and describes a number of specific patterns of population movement associated with the latter process, including "leap-frogging," migration streams (channelized, or chain migration), and return migration. Anthony also reports a number of observations with important archaeological implications that are drawn from his and others' studies of ethnographic data. First, he notes that long-distance migrations are always wellplanned, frequently involve the use of scouts, and often happen as the result of long-term relationships between groups in the immigrants' homeland and the soon-to-be host group. Immigrants usually move to places they or their kin have personally experienced. His analysis strongly suggests that people who have migrated once are likely to migrate again and that vanguard immigrant groups are usually dominated by young males but demographic diversity most often increases after permanent settlement. Anthony is apparently the first archaeologist to wrestle with the various migration-related concepts flowing from sociocultural anthropology, demography, and other disciplines to fashion an integrated, processual model. His case study, the expansion of Copper Age horseusing societies in eastern Europe, focuses on material traces of the various processes that comprise his migration model, but some theoretical and methodological weaknesses limit its utility. Anthouy6 explicitly rebukes earlier workers (for example, Haury7 and RouseS) for assuming they can "identify migration events by honing their classificatory [typological] methods, without needing to understand how migration works." But then Anthony fails to consider immigrant detection in any real sense in his case study, relying instead on his general model of migration processes. The reader is left to accept on faith that the patterns he describes resulted from migration rather than other mechanisms. Other issues that researchers should consider, in addition to those highlighted by Anthony, include: artifact provenance as revealed by compositional analysis (an important piece of evidence in immigrant detection); how different processes (the movements of scout groups or small immigrant populations, intermarriage across social boundaries, warfare, exchange) that result in the movement of artifacts might account for similar material

1. Anthony 1990 2. Adams and others 1978 3. Gmelch 1980 4. Kearney 1986

5. Anthony 1990: 898 6. Anthony 1990: 897 7. Haury 1958 8. Rouse 1958

8

Chapter 1

patterns with subtle differences; and ethnographically and ethnoarchaeologically based theories of material culture (technological style and decorative style) as a reflection of enculturation or group identity. These issues should be included when modeling material culture differences before migration, and after (in terms of co-residence and the persistence of cultural differences). Indeed, without rigorous treatment of detection and consideration of material culture as a process, Anthony's case study represents an example of what Adams and others 1 warned against: distributional studies that presuppose migration.

Clark's Enculturation and Co-Residence Model

terms of the distinction between patterns produced as a result of ethnicity (purposeful and unstable, conditional) and those associated with enculturation (relatively stable, unconscious). With this refined focus, Clark makes use of theory developed by Christopher Carr, 9 who links the purposeful communication of ethnicity to objects with high physical and contextual visibility and posits the reflection of enculturation in objects of low physical and contextual visibility. Clark summarizes the implications of this perspective: 10 High visibility attributes are also more likely to be emulated or imitated by other groups and can be distributed widely without migration. Thus, they often are not reliable indicators of population movement. Conversely, attributes with low physical and contextual visibility can be assumed to have little message potential. Low visibility attributes are inherently more stable through time than their visible counterparts because they are less subject to careful scrutiny and self-reflection. They are also less likely to be imitated or emulated. Stylistic similarities in low visibility attributes merely reflect shared settlement history and a common enculturative background (Carr 1995b: 195-198, 213). Differences in these attributes are the result of stylistic or cultural drift [among] noninteracting groups (Binford 1963; Braun 1995).

Recognizing both the contributions and the shortcomings of earlier migration theorists, Jeffery Clark focuses on migration detection in the archaeological record. 2 Within the context of a study of the process of co-residence, he considers impetuses for migration, the organization and logistics of migrating groups, and the impacts of migration. Clark improves on the HauryRouse method of documenting the presence of immigrants by treating material culture and architecture as processes and determining which traits might be most useful in tracking population movements. He goes beyond distinguishing the residues of exchange, emulation, and migration to examine the processes of ethnicity and enculturation as they relate to material culture and architecture. Clark also offers a useful definition of migration: "long-term residential relocation beyond community boundaries by one or more discrete social units as a result of a perceived decrease in the benefits of remaining residentially stable or a perceived increase in the benefits of relocating to prospective destinations. ,,3 The key elements of theory and method in Clark's approach flow from the related concepts known as "cultural drift,,,4 "chaine d'operatoire,"5 "isochrestic variation,,,6 and "technological style.,,7 Clark asserts that style in artifacts may be conscious or unconscious expressions of group identity, thus bridging a gulf between earlier theorists who favored one or the other position. 8 Clark frames his methodological pursuits in

Clark tests these important tenets through a crosscultural analysis of material culture and architecture in the context of ethnographically and ethnoarchaeologically recorded migrations. Based on his study of 61 cases spanning five continents, Clark finds strong supporting evidence for the relationships described above and is able to highlight specific examples of data sets useful in tracking immigrants, including "domestic spatial organization, foodways, and embedded technological styles reflected in the nondecorative production steps of ceramic vessels, textiles, walls, domestic installations, and other utilitarian items." 11 In a case study directly relevant to the focus of this monograph. Clark documents evidence of puebloan immigrants in the eastern Tonto Basin, Arizona. His evidence takes the following forms: (1) contrasting indigenous and foreign patterns in domestic spatial organization, village

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

7. Childs 1991; Lechtman 1977 8. Carr 1995a, 1995b; Hegmon 1992; Sackett 1982; Wiessner 1983, 1984; Wobst 1977 9. Carr 1995a, 1995b; also Wobst 1977 10. Clark 2001: 12 11. Clark 2001: 18

Adams and others 1978 Clark 2001 Clark 2001: 2 Binford 1963, 1965 Lemonnier 1986; Leroi-Gourhan 1964 Sackett 1977, 1982, 1985

Studying Ancient Migrations

construction sequence, and aggregation pattern; (2) wall construction methods; (3) wood species selection for architectural elements; and (4) widely different distributional patterns associated with corrugated pottery and polished red ware pottery. Clark concludes with a discussion of the effects of the migration he documents, reporting evidence of specialization in utilitarian pottery production by the immigrant group, hypothesizing about the role of the newcomers in the development of the platform mound system of the Tonto Basin, and reconsidering the nature of the widespread Salado phenomenon in light of his results. An important element of Clark's reconstruction is the use of ceramic sourcing by Stark and her colleagues. 1 They documented the local production of a foreign technological style (corrugation as a surface treatment and the thinning of vessels by scraping as opposed to paddle and anvil) and the association of corrugated pottery production and architectural indicators of the presence of immigrants. 2 I use this powerful approach to address the question of the source of the Pueblo III-Pueblo IV (A.D. 1260-14(0) population of the Homol'ovi villages (Chapter 3).

TRACKING ANCIENT MIGRATIONS WITH COMPOSITIONAL ANALYSES Mineralogical and chemical characterization of ceramic pastes play an increasingly crucial role in reconstructions of exchange and sociopolitical organization in the American Southwest. 3 The same body of sourcing theory and method has obvious applications in modeling ancient population movements. 4 My use of compositional analyses in research on ancient migration builds on the work of Anna Shepards and Maria Nieves Zedefio.

The "Multidimensional Approach" to Ceramic Variability In the mid 1950s, Anna Shepard addressed the seemingly simple question of how one may distinguish between local products and intrusives by pointing out a number of important archaeological expectations based 1. Stark and others 1998: 227-228; also Miksa and Heidke 1995 2. Stark and others 1995: 237 3. Bishop and others 1988; Crown 1994; Douglass 1987; Upham 1982 4. Duff 1999; Mills 1999; Triadan 1997; Zedefio 1991, 1994a, 1994b, 1998, 2002 5. Shepard 1985

9

on the behavior of potters observed by ethnographers. 6 Presaging the conclusions of Arnold's extensive ethnographic survey, 7 Shepard suggested that clays and tempering materials were unlikely to move great distances because of the near ubiquity of serviceable alternatives, whereas materials used for paints and slips, which are more restricted in their areal distribution, often circulated. She highlighted the behavioral mechanisms associated with the movement of pots and potters and described the likely material results of such processes in terms of compositional and stylistic diversity. Shepard called for the study of multiple lines of evidence in the identification of "foreign" pottery, charting the matrix of possible combinations of local or nonlocal raw materials, manufacturing techniques, and decorative styles. 8 By following Shepard's Table 11 ("The Possibilities of Error in the Identification of Intrusive Pottery"), a researcher can frame a hypothesis about the provenance of a given vessel (or sherd) and distinguish among the particular processes that likely led to the vessel's composition and decoration, for example, "materials obtained from another pottery-making center (exchange)," "foreign potters working in the local center (enculturation), " and "foreign style adopted by local potters (emulation)." In short, Shepard recognized that migratiori might not only result in an influx of nonlocal vessels, but also in the local production of vessels executed in foreign decorative styles or with foreign technological styles, and she advised archaeologists to consider both how a pot came to be where it was found and how it came to look as it did. Inspired by Shepard's pioneering compositional work and versed in the migration research of Haury9 and the artifact design-artifact life history model of Schiffer and his colleagues,1O Zedeiio's "multidimensional approach" entails a juxtaposition of patterns in compositional data with information about ceramic design (style and technology) and depositional context. Zedefio sums up the basis of her model in a simplified version of Shepard's matrix, in which "behavioral mechanisms of circulation" are matched with "material correlates.,,11 Zedeiio's version of the matrix is reproduced here in slightly altered form (Table 1.1; italics are my alterations). In terms of tracking population movements and determining their timing and scale, the key line of evi6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Shepard 1985: 336-347 Arnold 1985 Shepard 1985, Thble 11 Haury 1958 Schiffer and Skibo 1987; Walker 1995 Zedefio 1994a: 18-21, Thble 3.1

10

Chapter 1

Table 1.1. Behavioral Mechanisms of Ceramic Circulation and Their Material Correlates Behavioral Mechanisms I. Movement of Pots Trade or exchange

II. Movement of People A. Foreign people bringing pots produced elsewhere

III.

Material Correlates Distinctive raw materials, techniques, and styles Indistinguishable from I, unless rate, timing, and contextual associations are controlled

B.

Foreign people making pots in their own tradition with imported raw materials

Same as above

C.

Foreign people making pots in their own tradition with local raw materials

Identifiable on the basis of raw materials

D.

Foreign people making pots in the local tradition with local raw materials

Indistinguishable from pots made by local people if imitation of the local tradition is faithful

E.

Foreign people combining both traditions and using local raw materials

Identified on the basis of raw materials and elements of the local tradition

F.

Foreign people combining both traditions and using imported raw materials

Identified on the basis of raw materials, nature of borrowed elements, and execution of elements from both traditions

Movement of Raw Materials A. local people making pots in the local tradition and using imported raw materials

Identifiable on the basis of raw materials

B.

local people making pots in the foreign tradition and using imported raw materials

Distinguishable from imported pots depending on the faithfulness of the imitation

C.

local people combining their own and foreign traditions and using imported raw materials

Very difficult to distinguish from /I F; identifiable based on raw materials, nature of borrowed elements, and execution of elements from both traditions

NOTE: Adapted from Zedeiio 1994a, Table 3.1, with revisions in italics.

dence emphasized by Zedeno l and others2 is the recovery context (provenience) of a given vessel or group of vessels. The importance of considering the recovery context of sourced ceramics is highlighted in the Homol'ovi case study (Chapter 3). Zedeno makes the useful observation that compositional groupings comprised of multiple wares, including plain wares, could represent the household inventories of immigrant families. Whereas Clark's immigrant detection model entails a focus on objects with low physical and contextual visibility in order to track manifestations of enculturation and to avoid confusion with the residues of emulation, 1. Zedeiio 1998: 468 2. Montgomery and Reid 1990; Neff and others 1997: 484; Triadan 1997: 60-78, 80-81 CITATIONS FOR PAGE 11 1. Crown 1994, 1999; Friedrich 1970; Hardin 1984 2. Crown 1994: 72 3. Crown 1999 4. Friedrich 1970; Hardin 1984; Washburn and Crowe 1992

the multidimensional approach is specifically geared toward the study of objects with high physical and contextual visibility, like decorated ceramics. Evaluating execution is the key to distinguishing between the local products of immigrants working within their native traditions and locally produced objects made by indigenous groups emulating foreign traditions. The amount of skill with which a potter executes the canons of a particular decorative or technological tradition is generally indicative of either enculturation or emulation. Faithful reproductions of form, technique, and style are most likely the result of enculturation, whereas imi5. Carr 1995a, 1995b; Chilton 1998: 132; Jones 1997: 15; MacEachern 1998: 107-109 6. Hill 1970; Longacre 1970 7. Wilcox 1975 8. Reid 1989 9. Haury 1958; Macdonald 1990; Stark and others 1995, 1998; Upham and others 1994; Vivian 1990 10. Hegmon 1992 11. Wobst 1977

Studying Ancient Migrations tations are likely to exhibit "errors" on a number of levels. Archaeologists have addressed errors in execution from several perspectives. 1 Vessels in certain wares (Winslow Orange Ware, Jeddito Yellow Ware, Roosevelt Red Ware) frequently exhibit purposeful imperfections that violate the overall structural symmetry of painted designs. Crown discusses this phenomenon in terms of purposeful "mistakes" with likely symbolic content and calls attention to different classes of blunders (accidental variations from established patterns) attributable to children or those in the process of learning the craft of pottery making. 2 Errors in execution exhibited by children and adult potters learning and copying new styles are likely to overlap to some degree, but, following Crown, 3 products of the former group may be identified on the basis of technical gaffes, revealing inexperience in the process of painting pottery in general, as opposed to unfamiliarity with particular classes of designs. The significance of strong similarities in low visibility traits (such as plain ware domestic utensils or methods of handle attachment) among groups in different areas is easily evaluated from Clark's perspective in terms of passive reflections of socialization. Just as Clark sought to examine those traits most likely to reflect enculturation, when investigating compositional patterns associated with painted vessels I have focused on an aspect of ceramic decorative style that most likely represents an unconscious expression of group membership, the division of decorative space or vessel design layout. The results of ethnoarchaeological studies strongly suggest that social boundaries are marked by differences in the organization of decorative space, 4 much in the same way that Clark found that social boundaries are often marked by differences in the organization of domestic space. It is within the context of integrating the multidimensional approach with Clark's enculturation-co-residence model that I interpret the results of the compositional analyses reported in Chapter 3. In examining the use of the concept of style in archaeological research, I focus specifically on 12. Dietler and Herbich 1989; Sackett 1982 13. Wiessner 1984 14. Ferguson 1991; Miller 1982, 1985; Pauketat and Emerson 1991 15. Wyckoff 1990 16. David and others 1988 17. Lechtman 1977; Lemonnier 1986 18. Compare Carr 1995a, 1995b; David and others 1988; Friedrich 1970; Hegmon 1992

11

theory and method useful in tracking ancient migrations through the analysis of painted pottery designs. ARCHAEOLOGICAL APPROACHES TO STYLE

Archaeologists around the world work under the assumption that patterned variability in the formal attributes of artifacts reflects the existence of different social groups. 5 Under this assumption, attempts have been made to reconstruct kin groups, 6 residence groups, 7 sodalities, 8 and entities that resemble ethnic groups9 on the basis of spatial patterning in decorative and technological style in architecture, ceramics, grave goods, cradleboard-induced cranial deformation, and burial practices. As Hegmon has shown,lO however, there are nearly as many definitions of style as there are archaeologists studying this phenomenon. Definitions differ mainly in terms of their relative emphasis on the communicative aspect of style. 11 Some archaeologists and ethnoarchaeologists conceive of style largely as a passive reflection of social groups encoded through interaction, 12 whereas others view it as an active means of "messaging," of communicating or negotiating group membership,13 statuses,14 and world view,15 or reinforcing group norms. 16 It might be best to view style, including technological style,17 as mulitfaceted and multifunctional, that is, aspects of it may be "active" while simultaneously others may be "passive... 18 As noted by Carr,19 isochrestic,20 emblemic,21 and assertive21 styles may be combined in the same medium or even in the same object, with each corresponding to one or more aspects of technology, design structure, or decorative execution. Both Heather Lechtman22 and Pierre Lemonnier,23 who apparently developed the concept of technological style independently,24 seem to view style in terms of Sackett's concept of (passive) "isochrestic variation," or learned choices between "functional equivalents" specific to a particular time and place. 20 For Lechtman,25 technologies are "systems that manifest cultural 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.

Carr 1995a Sackett 1982 Wiessner 1983 Lechtman 1977 Lemonnier 1986 Hegmon 1992: 529 Lechtman 1977: 3-4

12

Chapter 1

choices and values," and style is "an expression on the behavioral level, of cultural patterning ... usually neither cognitively known, nor even knowable ... except by scientists." Thus technological style is the manifestation of learned behaviors that result in "appropriate technological performance. ,, 1 Miller's study of diachronic trends in ceramic decorative style, technological style, and social mobility in rural villages in India presents an example of purposeful manipulation of form and decoration to meet social ends. According to Miller, 2 Indian castes tinker with ceramic style to help elevate themselves along the continuum from pollution to purity. These groups use material culture, in this case ceramics, to help negotiate new social statuses. 3 Many discussions of ceramic decorative and technological style assume that assemblage-scale stylistic patterns are created as a result of the differential transmission of information among potters. 4 A number of researchers have attempted to test this assumption by observing interaction among groups of living potters, whether they interact on the basis of kinship, residence, or other kinds of ties. 5 Hardin's work on ceramic decorative style suggests that some aspects are passive reflections of socialization. According to Hardin, styles are learned, stored, viewed, and transmitted in terms of group-specific mental stylistic "grammars.,,6 Such grammars, Hardin suggests, represent significant "barriers to visual communication" with outsiders. 7 Hardin argues that styles or elements thereof may be borrowed and manipUlated, but the act of manipulation usually entails reference to the borrower's repertoire. This is because, she insists, styles are cognitively based and are analyzed differently by different groups. Hardin .notes that, whereas design elements or configurations (what others call "pattern,,)8 may be transmitted from potter to potter or from pot to potter with a minimum of interaction, their specific ("precisely correct") uses and the decorative division of space are not easily transmitted. 9 Both Hardin and Washburn lO suggest that ethnicity, or at least group interaction, will be reflected most in the rules of design composition. Washburn, for example, specifically advocates a focus on layout and symmetry patterns. Washburn assumes, however, that most pots are made on the site where they are found and that the 1. Lechtman 1977: 12

2. 3. 4. 5.

Miller 1982, 1985 Compare Longacre 1991: 104-105 Carlson 1970: 109; Di Peso 1958: 83; Washburn 1977 Friedrich 1970; Hardin 1984; Hayden and Cannon 1984; Herbich 1987; Stanislawski and Stanislawski 1978

stylistic tradition she describes at each site is indigenous. Numerous recent studies undermine the model of the ancient Southwestern village as a closed economic system, demonstrate ceramic circulation was widespread, even at small and isolated hamlets, and point out numerous examples of assemblages dominated by nonlocal pottery. 11 From the standpoint of theory and method developed for the detection of immigrants and considering the results of Hardin's and Washburn's work, it is useful to conceive of the rules of the division of decorative space (layout) as reflective of the process of enculturation. This is the strategy I use in the comparison of Winslow Orange Ware painted designs with those of wares made in adjacent regions and in the comparison of Roosevelt Red Ware decorative arrangements with those displayed by earlier and contemporaneous pottery types. A NEW SYNTHESIS

Although focusing on detection methodology, this study extends the theoretical and methodological contributions made by Clark by tracking ancient immigrants not only in terms of low visibility objects and the characteristics thereof, but also with high visibility objects and their distinctive traits, such as decorative styles displayed by painted pottery, spatial and temporal patterning in ceramic vessel forms, and particular architectural forms and traits. Whereas Clark and others advocate a focus on mundane objects to distinguish emulation or the effects of ethnicity from the residue of enculturation, I draw on the aforementioned ethnoarchaeological case studies to discern social groups in terms of patterning in the division of decorative space in pottery designs. Temporal and geographical distributions of particular utilitarian ceramic vessel forms and decorated ceramic forms and types, as well as domestic facilities and ceremonial architecture, are markers of ancestral Hopi migrations. In the Homol' ovi case study (Chapter 3), I identify an ancient migration based on the presence of locally produced vessels with certain forms and bearing decorative styles without local precedent and traceable to the Hopi Mesas, some 97 km (60 miles) to the north. The use of an invisible aspect of ceramic tech6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Friedrich 1970; Hardin 1984 Hardin 1984: 592 Compare Carlson 1970: 85; Pomeroy 1974: 5 Friedrich 1970 Washburn 1977, 1978; also Washburn and Crowe 1992 Hays 1991; Hegmon 1993; Zedeno 1994a

Studying Ancient Migrations

nological style, a distinctive method of ladle handle attachment, also links the people of the Hopi Mesas and those of Homol'ovi. Architectural traits and the spatial and temporal distributions of particular types of kivas (subterranean ceremonial structures) support the conclusions of the ceramic analyses. An interesting aspect of this case study is the likelihood that the movement of the people of Homol' ovi to the Hopi Mesas represents a return migration. Many sites, in virtually every major river valley in Arizona south of the Hopi Mesas and in portions of New Mexico and northern Chihuahua, have yielded compelling architectural and ceramic evidence of ancestral Hopi immigrants as well as robust indicators of the local production of Roosevelt Red Ware (the Salado polychromes). There must have been a close connection between northern immigrants and their descendants and

1. Arnold 1985; Crown 1994 2. Vansina 1985

13

the origin and spread of the ceramic component of the Salado phenomenon. I explain this link (Chapter 4) within the context of a model developed by other researchers 1 who posit a causal relationship between socioeconomic marginality and the development of craft specialization. Following an underutilized approach in archaeological studies of migration, I juxtapose archaeological data bearing on the migration to Homol' ovi and the origin and nature of the Salado phenomenon with the results of a critical analysis of a corpus of Hopi oral tradition (Chapter 5). In response to suggestions from the Hopi Tribe, I apply the theoretical and methodological program for the study of oral tradition developed by Jan Vansina2 to Hopi migration accounts and make extensive reference to the Hopi-Salado cultural affiliation study commissioned by the tribe's Cultural Preservation Office. 3

3. Ferguson and Lomaomvaya 1999

CHAPTER TWO

Ancestral Hopi Migration Markers historical background necessary for the T hestudycultural of ancestral Hopi migration includes discussion of the Kayenta, Tusayan, and Winslow branches of the "Anasazi." The distinctive artifactual and architectural traits of these entities mark ancestral Hopi migrations: the southward movement of people native to northern Arizona between A.D. 1250 and 1450. The patterns described in this chapter and in the Homol' ovi case study (Chapter 3) are juxtaposed with the panSouthwestern Salado phenomenon in Chapter 4. HISAT.5INOM, HOPIS, AND UNITS

OF CUlTURE HISTORY Culture history depends on the use of categories, including pottery types, architectural forms, and, at some levels of analysis, archaeological cultures. There are, however, fundamental difficulties in equating a particular extant tribe with a single archaeologically defined "culture." These problems are highlighted when Hopi terms for their ancestors and labels archaeologists use to refer to the ancient inhabitants of the Southwest are juxtaposed. The Hopi word hisat.sinom, for example, means "people of the remote past, of ancient times. ,, 1 According to Dongoske and others: 2 In many respects, the very concept of "Hopi" as a distinct cultural and ethnic unit does not really have a reality until the "gathering of the clans" on the Hopi Mesas. Before that, the ancestors of the Hopi were organized not as a single tribe but as many distinct clans.... The combination of these groups is now collectively referred to by the Hopi as the Hisat[.]sinom, or "people of long ago" .... The Hopi believe these clans ranged far and wide in their migrations and were components

of many different archaeological cultures including the Anasazi, Mogollon, Hohokam, Salado, Cohonina, Fremont and Mimbres. None of these archaeological cultures by themselves are thus adequate to incorporate all of the Hopi and their ancestors. This "composite" view of the origin of the Hopi people was recorded by the earliest anthropologists to visit the Hopi Mesas and persists today. 3 Furthermore, this model of Hopi ethnogenesis has shaped research in sociocultural anthropology and archaeology for many years. 4 Colton, for example, incorporated the composite-migration model of Hopi origins in his approach to the archaeology of northern Arizona, suggesting that the core group of Hopi forebears consisted of the Tusayan Anasazi, and that the Kayenta and Winslow Anasazi, along with other groups, contributed ancestors to the Hopi Tribe. 5 Colton later added the Sinagua to the list of archaeological manifestations associated with Hopi ancestors. 6 More recent work supports Colton's claims in the form of an unbroken developmental sequence linking the ancient inhabitants of the Hopi Mesas and the Hopi Tribe of today. 7 Furthermore, many experts suggest that "demonstrable continuity" exists between the Hopi and the Kayenta Anasazi. 8 "Anasazi" is a Navajo term introduced into the literature by Alfred V. Kidder, 9 who was apparently supplied with an incorrect definition ("old people") for the term. The meaning of Anasazi ('anaasazz) is something akin to "ancient enemies," "enemy ancestors,,,l0 or "ancestral aliens, ,,11 and is therefore inappropriately applied to Hopi forebears. For this reason, with few exceptions, I refer to the ancient pueblo peoples of the Colorado Plateau (as defined by Colton in 1939) by the name of the region they occupied or, in the case of im6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

1. Hill and others 1998: 87 2. Dongoske and others 1997: 603 3. Ferguson and Lomaomvaya 1999: 73-75; Fewkes 1894: 417, 1900: 577-578; C. Mindelelf 1891 4. Dean 1970; Eggan 1950: 128-l31; Fewkes 1898a, 1898b; Levy 1992 5. Colton 1939: 60

[14]

Colton 1946, 1960: 118; also McGregor 1943, 1955 Adams 1996a; Colton 1943, 1974 Anderson 1969a; Dean 1970: 144, 2002: 157 Kidder 1936a: 589-590, 1936b: 152 Hoijer 1974: 261, 270 Young and Morgan 1980: 114

Ancestral Hopi Migration Markers

migrants, by their areas of origin (Kayenta, for exampie). These regional names, of various linguistic derivations, are retained for the sake of clarity, but Hopi names exist for all these places. The ancient people of northeastern Ariwna and southeastern Utah have been called Kayenta and Tusayan Anasazi, and their counterparts in the Hopi Buttes and the Middle Little Colorado River valley have been labeled Winslow Anasazi. For years researchers have debated the areal extent of each of these cultural historical units and their relationships to each other; some 1 have even suggested that labels such as "Anasazi" are not particularly helpful. 2 However, the general concept of archaeological cultures and specific examples thereof have become entrenched in the minds and in the literature of Southwesternists, and it is helpful to briefly review the cultural historical nomenclature central to the study of ancestral Hopi migration.

KAYENTA, TUSAYAN, AND WINSLOW BRANCHES OF THE ANASAZI In 1939, Harold Colton published "Prehistoric Culture Units and Their Relationships in Northern Ariwna." In it he highlighted the variability of prehistoric behavior in northern Ariwna and described a number of temporal and spatial patterns in ceramics, architecture, burial practices, and cranial deformation. By adapting aspects of McKern's midwestern taxonomic method3 and slightly revising a method for designating cultures and their variations designed by Gladwin and Gladwin, 4 Colton erected a system of "branches," local cultural sequences composed of chronologically and behaviorally defined "foci," which were in turn grouped into "stems" and "roots." In this system, the degree of relationship between individual culture units is based on the degree of similarity in terms of patterned behavior. Following the Gladwins' organic metaphor, stems of the same root have more in common (such as material culture, customs, and presumably language) with each other than they have with stems of other roots. The culture units most important to this research include the Kayenta, Tusayan, and Winslow branches of the Anasazi (Fig. 2.1). Branches, in Colton's system, 5 are explicitly equated with "tribes." 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Speth 1988 Brew 1946: 44-66 McKern 1939 Gladwin and Gladwin 1934 Colton 1939: 5-6

15

50 100 Kilometers

Figure 2.1. Locations of the Kayenta region and the Thsayan region (the vicinity of the Hopi Mesas) and the approximate limits of the Winslow branch in northern Arizona (adapted from Adler 1996, Fig. 1.1).

Alternative organizational schemes for the discussion of similarities and differences among ancient Southwestern peoples (specifically ancestral Pueblo populations) have been proposed through the years. 6 However, despite its critics, Colton'S system persists and local phase (focus) sequences, many constructed by Colton and refined by later workers, remain the backbone of Southwestern archaeological chronology and culture history. Kayenta Branch

The Kayenta branch (or Kayenta-Nevada branch) was named but vaguely defined by Gladwin and Gladwin7 after Kayenta, Arizona, based on distinctive archaeological remains described principally by Kidder and Guernsey. 8 Colton later grouped together as Kayenta the ancient material culture found within the area bounded by the San Juan River to the north, the Colorado and Little Colorado to the west and south, and Canyon de Chelly to the east9 (although in Colton's original formulation of the Kayenta branch, its southern boundary moved northward through time as other branches developed). The Kayenta branch was distinguished from other branches largely on the basis of its 6. 7. 8. 9.

Cordell 1979; F. Plog 1979, 1983, 1984; Upham 1982 Gladwin and Gladwin 1934: 10, Fig. 7 Kidder and Guernsey 1919 Colton 1939: 52-59

16

Chapter 2

pottery, which included Tusayan White Ware, Tusayan Gray Ware, and Tsegi Orange Ware. Later researchers 1 highlighted the unique architectural tradition of the Kayenta, including such traits as the entrybox complex, formal granaries, D-shaped ceremonial annexes, a wide variety of kiva forms, well-defined room clusters, and the relatively late persistence of residential pit structures. 2 Colton originally posited the development of two other branches of Anasazi in areas adjacent to those occupied by the Kayenta. 3 He associated the Tusayan branch with remains located on southern Black Mesa and along the Jeddito, Polacca, Wepo, and Oraibi washes. He used Winslow branch to refer to the archaeologically defined groups along the Little Colorado River, between Winslow and Holbrook. He distinguished these cultural units from his Kayenta branch concept based on differences in ceramics and architecture, associating the Polacca Series of Tusayan White Ware, the Kwaituki Series of his earliest Winslow Orange Ware concept, Jeddito Yellow Ware, and Awatobi (Awat'ovi) Yellow Ware with the Tusayan branch. Colton linked the Winslow branch with such "indigenous table types" as the Walnut Series of Little Colorado White Ware and the Winslow Series within the initial formulation of Winslow Orange Ware, 4 along with the "indigenous utility types" grouped under the rubrics Little Colorado Gray Ware and Homolovi Orange Ware. Colton later relegated the Tusayan and Winslow branches to subbranches of the Kayenta branch. 5 Research through the years since Colton's final pronouncements on the relationships between the archaeological remains and the peoples of these areas has underscored both the important similarities and the differences across the region approximately bounded by the Colorado, the Little Colorado, the San Juan, and the Chinle valleys. 6 Regional names like Kayenta, Tusayan, and Homol'ovi (Winslow) are still useful despite having "fuzzy" boundaries. The most difficult factor in defining a southern boundary for a Kayenta branch or area is the lack of ex1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Dean 1981; Dean and others 1978; Lindsay 1969 Hobler 1974 Colton 1939: 59-69, Figs. 12, 13 Colton 1939: 66-69 Colton 1955a, Wares 7A, 7B, 9A, 9B; 1956, Wares 6A, 6B Adams 1996b; Dean 1996; Gumerman 1988; Haas and Creamer 1993; Lindsay and others 1968; Linford 1982; Smith 1971, 1972; Stebbins and others 1986; Swarthout and others 1986 7. Fewkes 1893, 1898b; Smith 1952a, 1971 8. Hough 1903; Morris 1928; Smith 1952a, 1972 9. Fewkes 1898b

cavated sites on southern Black Mesa (the Hopi Mesas) and the washes that drain it to the southwest. The majority of excavations on the Hopi Mesas have focused on large, late prehistoric sites such as Awat'ovi,7 Kawayka'a,8 and Sikyatki;9 on historic sites; 10 and on living villages. 11 Some of this work remains unpublished, like that of the Field Museum expeditions to Hopi,12 or only partially published, like that of the Peabody Museum's Awat' ovi Expedition. Tusayan Branch

Tusayan is a term of uncertain derivation that has been applied to the Hopi people, the Hopi Mesas, and the whole of northeastern Arizona by Spanish colonial authorities and early anthropologists. 13 According to Montgomery and others,14 the term and variants of it appear in Spanish documents as early as 1540. These authors argue that "Tusayan" is a Spanish corruption of either a Zuni term (" Usaya-kue") 15 or a Navajo term ("Tasaun", "zilh Tasaun") referring to the Hopi people or the vicinity of the Hopi Mesas. Fr. Berard Haile disagrees with the translation used by Montgomery and his colleagues, suggesting that the phrase dzil 00' sa'a "signifies monocline or a lone butte or mountain. "16 Tusayan is the name Colton chose to apply to the archaeology of southern Black Mesa and the washes that drain it. 17 Colton defined the Tusayan branch on the basis of slight divergences from the Kayenta branch in terms of ceramics and architecture, especially after A.D. 900. Although Colton (and others) ultimately decided to lump Tusayan archaeology under the Kayenta label, these differences are significant, perhaps marking a social boundary of some kind. Tusayan, as it is used here, represents an area with somewhat poorly defined limits due to inadequate fieldwork along the northern Hopi Buttes, the western Chinle Valley, and the eastern edge of Wupatki National Monument. Tusayan connotes the area bounded by the Kayenta tradition on the north, the Sinagua on the west, the Hopi Buttes district-Winslow branch 18 on the south, and the Chinle Valley-Defiance Plateau area to the east. The commu10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

Fewkes 1898a, 1898b; Montgomery and others 1949 Adams 1982 Dorsey 1900 Fewkes 1893, 1896a, 1900; Holmes 1886; C. Mindeleff 1900; V. M indeleff 1891; Powell 1972 Montgomery and others 1949: xxii-xxiii Compare Bandelier 1892: 367-368 Haile 1917: 151 Colton 1939: 59-66 Adams 1996b; Gumerman 1988

Ancestral Hopi Migration Markers nity of Big Mountain presents a somewhat suitable northern boundary. This conception of Tusayan encompasses Adams' Hopi Mesas and Moenkopi districts, l as well as central Black Mesa. The archaeology of this "area in between" differs in a number of ways from that of the Kayenta area, exhibiting a unique decorated ceramic tradition referred to as the "Jeddito School" by Smith,2 a higher incidence of Flagstaff Black-on-white, 3 a large number and a long history of D-shaped kivas, 4 and a higher proportion of Pueblo III period rectangular kivas than many Kayenta subareas. 5 The Kayenta entrybox complex (see Fig. 2.11) is present on Black Mesa, however. 6 Winslow Branch The Winslow branch was the most poorly defined of the three Arizona Anasazi culture units in Colton's system, 7 having been proposed on the basis of scant excavation: Hough's work in the McDonald Canyon ruins8 and Fewkes' efforts at four of the Homol'ovi villages (Homol'ovi I, II, III, and Chevelon Ruin).9 Making use of this limited information, supplemented by analyses of surface collections, Colton created a four-focus space-time framework for the Middle Little Colorado: 10 Holbrook (A.D. 900-1100), McDonald (A.D. 1100-1200), Thwiuca (A.D. 1200-1300), and Homolovi (A.D. 1300-1400). The Winslow branch name was originally applied to post-A.D. 900 archaeological materials in the area along the Little Colorado River from 6.4 km (4 miles) downstream of Winslow to the vicinity of Holbrook. According to Colton,11 before the Winslow branch became identifiable as a somewhat distinct entity (with the appearance of Little Colorado White Ware and Little Colorado Gray Ware), the archaeology of the Middle Little Colorado River valley could be characterized as Kayenta, that is, the material culture of the area was similar to that associated with the Lino and Marsh Pass foci. 12 Colton identified the two earliest Winslow branch foci by the dominance of Little Colorado White Ware 1. Adams 1996b 2. Smith 1962. 1971 3. Ambler 1985: 59 4. Colton 1939: 61-62; Smith 1972 5. Colton 1939: 59-62 6. Foose 1982: 190-194; Tipps 1987: 65-70. Figs. 21. 22 7. Colton 1939 8. Hough 1903: 302-306 9. Fewkes 1904 10. Colton 1939: 66-69

17

and Little Colorado Gray Ware as "indigenous" products, whereas the two latest foci he defined by the presumably local production of Winslow Orange Ware, Alameda Red Ware (an obsolete designation for a number of types in Winslow Orange Ware), and Homolovi Orange Ware. 13 Later, on the basis of similarities between remains previously classified as Kayenta, Thsayan, and Winslow, Colton decided to refer to the last two as "sub-branches" of the formerY In addition, he expanded the range of the Winslow subbranch to include the Petrified Forest. The work of Gumerman15 and Gumerman and Skinner12 redefined the spatial component of the Winslow branch to include the Hopi Buttes area north of the Little Colorado River and south of the Hopi Mesas. The fact that sites with ceramic assemblages overwhelmingly dominated by Little Colorado White Ware types occurred in the Hopi Buttes led Gumerman to include this area under the Winslow rubric. Gumerman's survey and excavations in the Hopi Buttes 15 confirmed Colton's assessment of the area's archaeology as predominantly Kayenta or Kayenta-influenced in terms of ceramics and architecture. Specifically, Gumerman calls attention to the fact that Little Colorado White Ware is decorated in styles (at least for most of its sequence) derived from Tusayan White Ware types.16 Gumerman lists other traits shared by the Winslow and Kayenta branches, including the dominance of Thsayan Gray Ware among unpainted wares and the presence of deep rectangular pit structures with corner ventilators and rectangular kivas. He hypothesizes, however, that rectangular kivas originated in an area somewhere south of the Hopi Buttes. 17 Besides questions about the areal extent of the Winslow branch and its relationships with adjacent groups of people, historically the most important research focus in Middle Little Colorado River valley culture history has been the continuity, or lack thereof, between the McDonald and Tuwiuca phases (or foci I8 ). Those who have studied the area intensively19 view the relationship between the two phases as discontinuous. 11. Colton 1939. Fig. 9 12. Gumerman and Skinner 1968 13. Colton 1939: 66-69; Colton and Hargrave 1937 14. Colton 1955a. Ware 9B; 1956. Ware 6B 15. Gumerman 1969, 1988 16. Gumerman 1988: 56-57; also Douglass 1987, Appendix C 17. Gumerman 1988: 56, 58, 142, 183-185 18. Adams 1998; Gumerman 1988: 187 19. Like Adams 2002 and Gumennan 1988: 186-188

18

Chapter 2 TRACES OF ANCIENT IMMIGRANTS

The people of the Kayenta and Tusayan areas developed distinctive ceramic, ground stone, and architectural traditions in their native lands and maintained them as they moved south. 1 Many of these traits, such as the use of finger-grooved manos and slab metates in mealing bins, reflect technological style (choices between essentially functional equivalents) in utilitarian objects and as such are likely manifestations of enculturation rather than indicators of emulation. The same would apply to other traits described here as migration markers, including forms of domestic facilities such as room entryways and hearths. Indeed, some expressions of Kayenta and Tusayan technology, including the method used to attach handles to ladles, are details of the artifact manufacturing process that are invisible in the finished product. Some highly visible characteristics, like the vessel forms and size classes that dominate northern ceramic assemblages, reflect distinct foodways associated with the ancient peoples of northern Arizona and southern Utah. Other easily perceptible aspects of material culture, like the layouts used as the basis of painted decorations applied to pottery, also fit an enculturation model (Chapter 1) through reference to enthnoarchaeological studies of the relationship between social groups and the division of decorative space. Objects and structures likely used in Kayenta and Tusayan rituals represent the remains of past, and in some cases still extant, belief systems, a class of material remains with high physical and contextual visibility and purposefully overt symbolism. 2 Although a number of researchers have studied the process of enculturation in relation to domestic architecture, 3 studies of ceremonial architecture from the enculturation perspective are sparse. In his cross-cultural search for the traits best suited to the tracking of immigrants, Jeffery Clark found only one study that addressed public architecture. 3 The results of that study supported the conclusion that public architecture could be used to infer the presence of a particular cultural group. The problem, from a theoretical and methodological standpoint, is that it is difficult to conceive of ways to distinguish archaeologically between enculturation and emulation as 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Dean 2002; Lindsay 1987; Lindsay and Dean 1983 Adams 2002, 159, Fig. 6.8 Clark 200 1 Haury 1931a: 68, Plate 18.2.2 Hargrave 1931: 119

the processes responsible for similar ceremonial architecture in different areas. The kiva study below is not a detail-oriented processual examination of ceremonial architecture. Its focus is on patterned variability in obvious aspects of kiva form: outline shape and the presence or absence of platforms and benches. Nonetheless, it provides the foundation for further research by pointing out large-scale patterns and framing initial hypotheses regarding their origins. One point to be made here is that the apparent traces of ancient immigrants examined below occur most often in groups, representing mUltiple, usually independent lines of evidence linking artifacts and architecture in the southern Southwest with the traditions of the northern Southwest.

Perforated Plates Perforated plates are shallow, disklike plain ware, corrugated, or obliterated corrugated ceramic vessels that exhibit round holes, punched (in all but one recorded case) from the concave surface through the convex surface before the vessel was fired (Fig. 2.2). The holes are usually located just below the rim and occur in different patterns. Most of these vessels display a single row of evenly spaced perforations that extend along the entire circumference, although the standard distance between perforations varies. Some plates boast two concentric rows of perforations. 4 Still others exhibit the usual single row of peripheral holes as well as a cruciform pattern, whereby the plate is "quartered" by rows of perforations that run across the center of the vessel. 5 Some specimens display holes scattered across the entire body of the vessel, beginning just below the rim.6 Perforated plates range in size from 13.5 cm to 60 cm in diameter, although most measure between 20 cm and 30 cm across. 7 Functions

Fewkes was apparently the first to suggest uses for perforated plates, 8 although it is unclear whether he independently arrived at functional inferences or was influenced by clues from Hopi consultants. 9 In any case, Fewkes originally asserted that they represented 6. 7. 8. 9.

Mills, Herr and others 1999, Fig. 9.6 Christenson 1994: 59-60, Fig. 4-2; Fewkes 1911, Plate I5b Fewkes 1898b: 622 Christenson 1994: 58-59

Ancestral Hopi Migration Markers

19

,-~a

g

f

b

c

d

e

h

Figure 2.2. Perforated plate fragments: a-c, e, from Homol'ovi I; d, from Homol'ovi II; f, g, from Homol'ovi 1lI; h, from Adobe Pueblo; i, from Jackrabbit Ruin. INAA results indicate a-e were produced with materials local to the Winslow area. (Drawings a-e, h-i by R. Jane Sliva; g by Ronald 1. Beckwith; scale approximately ~.)

t,

"sacrificial vessels, in which food or sacred meal was deposited as an offering to some water deity." Later he noted that they "resemble those [dishes] sometimes used by the Hopi for sprinkling water on their altars as a prayer for rain ... [and] ... may have been used also in sifting sand on the kiva floor, to form a layer upon which the sand picture is later drawn with sands of different colors. ,, 1 Hargrave reports that Hopi workmen on his crew at Kokopnyama hypothesized that perforated plates were associated with an extinct ceremony and that the perforations functioned as receptacles for flower stems. 2 Most recently, Hohmann and others wrote that prayer feathers may have been tied to the rims of perforated plates. 3 However, Hopi "flower mounds" are usually mound-shaped and are perforated over the entire convex surface, 4 and most Hopi prayer feather holders support a single prayer stick or paaho and are made of sand or unfired clay. 5 Hough, upon finding "hundreds of fragments" of perforated plates at KawAyka' a and at least one at Kokopnyama, conjectured that: 6 1. 2. 3. 4.

Fewkes 1898b: 622, 1911: 27 n. a Hargrave 1931: 119-120 Hohmann and others 1992: 99 Geertz 1987, Plate lla; also Adams 1979: 131-132, Plate 18.1

these objects may have been used as revolving rests for ware during the process of manufacture, as are the tabipi or bottom forms, employed by the potters of Hano at present. A portion of this customary imperforated disk, with clay still attached to the concave surface, was found in this ruin [Kokopnyama; italics added]. Since Hough's work, other perforated plates have been found with unfired, tempered clay adhering to them, 7 including a fragment from the Elliott Site in the San Pedro Valley. Reconstructible specimens from nearby Jose Solas Ruin (AZ BB: 11 :91 ASM; ARIZONA: BB: 11:5 AF) exhibit traces of red pigment in the form of fingerprints, as if a potter had gripped them with slip-stained hands. Related evidence has been recovered from the Kayenta region, where perforated plates have been found with so-called "potters' burials," among other objects associated with ceramic production (pigments, ground stone tools, clay, polishing stones, and worked-sherd scrapers). 8 5. Fewkes 1897: 278-279, Plate 71; Parsons 1936a: 66-67, Figs. 40,44,45; Smith 1952a: 230-231, Figs. 58a, 69d 6. Hough 1903: 337 7. Hargrave 1931: 119; Haury 1931a: 68 8. Crotty 1983: 30, Fig. 13

20

Chapter 2

Helen Crotty suggests that the holes in a perforated plate roughened the surface of the vessel for easier gripping with clay-covered hands, facilitating the turning of the vessel during pottery making. 1 Alternatively, she hypothesizes that the fairly regularly distributed holes may have helped potters to evenly divide space when applying the major painted lines of the decorative layout. The fact that three perforated plates have been recovered with fibers strung through their holes2 suggests to Crotty that cordage may have been strung over the unpainted vessel to mark off even spaces for the layout of decorations. Mitigating against this inference is the fact that modern potters remove pots from pukis before painting. They often paint pots "upside down" or hold the vessel at an angle to the ground, because of the physics of natural pigments, the types of brushes used, and the demands of three-dimensional, convex painting surfaces. 3

Use-Wear

tables that lend support to the idea that allowing for drainage or evaporation was important. 6 Elizabeth Hegemann states that in the 1920s and 1930s Nampeyo (the famous Hopi-Tewa potter of First Mesa) shaped her pots within a "perforated bowl," and that the holes served to remove excess moisture. 7 Apparently based on testimony from modern Santa Clara potters, Blair and Blair suggest that the holes "allow the escape of water vapor and hasten drying. ,,8 Despite the strong case Christenson makes that perforated plates were used as potters' turntables, 9 the functions of the holes remain debatable. This uncertainty is compounded by four facts: (1) plates have been recovered that display painted "holes" in place of true perforations (reported to me by Alexander 1. Lindsay in 1999); (2) as observed by Di Peso, about five percent of the "holes" in perforated plates became clogged with clay as the perforating instrument was withdrawn and remained so after the vessel was fired,1O and Haury notes that many holes exhibited by a specimen from Pinedale Ruin were partially obstructed by postperforation smoothing; 11 (3) Christenson mentions the existence of a plate from Black Mesa with a row of shallow "pinpricks" where the holes should be;12 and (4) most sites that have yielded perforated plates have also yielded unperforated plates. 13

Andrew Christenson addresses the question of function from a use-wear perspective. 4 He notes that the few whole or reconstructible perforated plates available for study exhibit circular areas of "moderate" and "heavy abrasion" or "encircling striations" on the convex surface, apparently associated with rotation during pottery making. Most unperforated plates and sherdplates (vessels that began as bowls or jars, became broken, and were then ground into the shape of a plate) also carry striations. One large perforated plate fragment recovered from Homol' ovi III exhibits this kind of circumferential use-wear on its convex surface. Because most perforated plates that have been identified are small rim sherds, it is impossible to determine the presence or absence of characteristic "potters' turntable" wear on bodies of these specimens. Christenson reports that "an experienced potter" suggested to Helen Crotty that "the holes [in a perforated plate] were for draining away excess water accumulated while forming the vessel [on top of the plate]."5 He notes that excess water accumulation seems an unlikely problem for pueblo potters using traditional methods but provides two ethnographic references to perforated turn-

Perforated plates appear to have originated among the Kayenta Anasazi. As Alexander 1. Lindsay told me in 1997, the earliest known perforated plate was recovered from a Basketmaker III pit house on Laguna Creek, and the vessel form became common on northern Black Mesa and the Shonto Plateau by A.D. 1050-1150. 14 Archaeologists have recovered perforated plates from most Pueblo III Kayenta sites as well, including all excavated Tsegi phase (A.D. 1250-13(0) cliff dwellings. After A.D. 1250, perforated plates appeared in several regions outside their aboriginal range, including the Hopi Mesas, Homol' ovi, the Silver Creek drainage, the Upper Little Colorado River valley, Point of Pines, the Grasshopper-Q-Ranch area, the Tonto Basin, the Phoenix Basin, the Safford Valley, the San Pedro River val-

1. Crotty 1983: 56 2. Kidder and Guernsey 1919: 143, ASM collections 3. Blair and Blair 1999, Figs. 2.19c, 2.20, 3.15a. d; Chapman 1995. Figs. 7d, 22; Christenson 1991: 2; Crown 1999: 41; Guthe 1925: 66-68; Kramer 1996. Figs. 7. 14. 19 4. Christenson 1994 5. Christenson 1991: 2. 1994: 64-65 6. Christenson 1991: 2, 1994: 65

7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

Spatial and Temporal Distribution

Hegemann 1963: 367 Blair and Blair 1986: 95 Christenson 1991b, 1994b Di Peso 1958: 93 Haury 1931a: 68 Christenson 1994: 64 Christenson 1994; Haury 1931a; Mills 1998 Anderson 1969b; Christenson 1994

Ancestral Hopi Migration Markers

4 or more sites with perforated plates.

-.......*---.......

Roosevelt Red Ware production zone

1HI

~,_

0 miles

I

I

o

50

._--.. . . . _-_

;~ "" I

i

'00

,-0'-;;---.. . . . , I

km

-

21

Figure 2.3. Distribution of sites with one or more perforated plates and the locations of known Roosevelt Red Ware production areas in Arizona (based on INAA, petrography, binocular microscopy, x-ray fluorescence, and x-ray diffraction). Spatial subdivisions represent Arizona State Museum survey rectangles. (Base map courtesy of the Laboratory of TreeRing Research, University of Arizona, Thcson.)

~ ,,~ _ _

---"-~.-:i'.+----1-

Perforated Plates as a Migration Marker

ley, the Aravaipa Creek-Bonita area, and the Santa Cruz Valley, virtually every drainage in Arizona south and east of the Kayenta area. They are also present in late prehistoric sites in the Cliff Valley of New Mexico and at Casas Grandes in Chihuahua, Mexico. Neutron activation analyses of 11 perforated plates recovered from the Homol' ovi area indicate that 8 of them were produced with materials from the Middle Little Colorado River valley (3 could not be placed within a chemical reference group). Others working in regions south of the Kayenta area and using various analytical techniques have reported that perforated plates recovered in these areas were also made using local materials: Zedefio using INAA at Point of Pines; 1 Stinson2 and Mills3 using petrography at Bailey Ruin; Haury4 at Los Muertos and Di Pes05 at Reeve Ruin using macroscopic observations of paste color and temper.

Spatial concentrations are evident in the distribution of perforated plates (Fig. 2.3). Their known distribution and that of Gila Polychrome6 overlap to a degree not likely due to chance. Furthermore, below the Mogollon Rim and east of the Phoenix Basin the dispersion of perforated plates closely corresponds with the known distribution of Maverick Mountain Series vessels, presumably made by Kayenta-Tusayan immigrants. Figure 2.3 and Table 2.1 document more than 120 sites with perforated plates. These data were gathered through work with collections at a number of institutions and from published and unpublished reports (the latter primarily from Alexander 1. Lindsay, who also shared data on Maverick Mountain Series vessels).

1. According to Maria Nieves Zedeiio in 2000 2. Stinson 1996: 89 3. Mills 1998: 73

4. Haury 1945: III 5. Di Peso 1958: 89 6. Crown 1994, Fig. 3.1

22

Chapter 2

Table 2.1. Partial List of Sites with Whole or Fragmentary Ceramic Perforated Plates Site

Location

Source

Pottery Pueblo Neskahi Village NA7889 NA8671 RB 568 Sunflower Cave Tachini Point Moki Rock Pueblo Long House Organ Rock Otherside Twin Caves Pueblo Betatakin Kiet Siel Cradle House NA8600, 8608, 8615 NA 11,024; 11,079 NA8158 NA81 71; 11,032; 11,034; 11,047; 11,057; 11,070; 11,125; 11,250 AZ D:7:15; 7:86; 7:99; 7:111; 7:204; 7:220; 7:258; 7:262; 7:309; 7:426; 7:704; 7:2092 (BMAP)* AZ D:11 :2; 11 :49; 11 :102; 11:121; 11:275; 11:280; 11 :290; 11 :296; 11 :325; 11 :328; 11 :331; 11 :335; 11 :337; 11 :358; 11 :404; 11 :458; 11 :466; 11 :477; 11 :51 0; 11 :632; 11 :2042; 11 :2068 (BMAP)* ARIZONA:D:15:1 (AF) Qa'otaqtipu Walpi Awat'ovi Kawayka'a Kokopnyama Tsakwpaahu Hoyapi Homol'ovi I Homol'ovi II Homol'ovi '" Homol'ovi IV Adobe Pueblo Jackrabbit Ruin Antelope House

Paiute Mesa, UT Paiute Mesa, UT Paiute Canyon, AZ Cutthroat Canyon Kayenta Valley Kayenta Valley Kayenta Valley Kayenta Valley Long House Valley Long House Valley Long House Valley Tsegi Canyon Tsegi Canyon Tsegi Canyon Tsegi Canyon Shonto Plateau Kaibito Plateau Klethla Valley

Stein 1984: 784-790 Hobler 1974, Fig. 21b Museum of Northern Arizona collections; Alexander J. Lindsay Museum of Northern Arizona collections; Alexander J. Lindsay Beals and others 1945, Fig. 52d, PI. 30 Kidder and Guernsey 1919: 143, PI. 59b Museum of Northern Arizona collections Museum of Northern Arizona collections Museum of Northern Arizona collections Museum of Northern Arizona collections Museum of Northern Arizona collections Colton 1956 (Ware 5B, Type 5) Judd 1930: 68-69, Fig. 24; Anderson 1971: 7 Museum of Northern Arizona collections Colton 1956 (Ware 5B, Type 5) Anderson 1969b: 45-46, Fig. 26, Table 10 Gallagher 1986: 40, Table 6 Museum of Northern Arizona collections; Alexander J. Lindsay

Klethla Valley

Gallagher 1986: 40, Table 6

Northern Black Mesa

Christenson 1994, Table 4-1

Northern Black Mesa Hopi Mesas Hopi Mesas Hopi Mesas Hopi Mesas Hopi Mesas Hopi Mesas Hopi Mesas Hopi Mesas Middle Little Colorado Middle Little Colorado Middle Little Colorado Middle Little Colorado Middle Little Colorado Middle Little Colorado Canyon de Chelly

Christenson 1994, Table 4-1 Amerind Foundation collections Field Museum of Natural History collections Page and Page 1982: 135 Fewkes 1898b: 622 Fewkes 1898b: 618; Hough 1903: 343 Hough 1903: 337; Hargrave 1931: 119-120 Morris 1928: 32; Museum of Northern Arizona collections Museum of Northern Arizona collections; Alexander J. Lindsay Lyons 2001, Table 6.7 Lyons 2001, Table 6.7 Lyons 2001, Table 6.7 Lyons 2001, Table 6.7 Lyons 2001, Table 6.7 Lyons 2001, Table 6.7 Morris 1986: 455-456, Table 176, Fig. 261

* Black Mesa Archaeological

Project

Ancestral Hopi Migration Markers

Table 2.1. Partial List of Sites with Whole or Fragmentary Ceramic Perforated Plates (Continued) Site Bailey Ruin Pinedale Ruin Bryant Ranch Table Rock Q-Ranch Grasshopper Chodistaas Pyramid Point "Payson Area" AZ U:4:10 (ASM) Upper Ruin Lower Ruin Las Colinas Los Muertos Los Homos La Ciudad South Pueblo Blanco Kinishba Gila Pueblo Besh-Ba-Gowah Refugia Site Hilltop House AZ V:15:16 (ASM) AZ W:l0:50 (ASM) Clifton Area Haby Ranch Unnamed site near Klondyke Dudleyville Platform Mound Flieger Platform Mound Ash Terrace Platform Mound Leverton Platform Mound Jose Solas Ruin Second Canyon Reeve Ruin Davis Ranch Site Elliott Site University Indian Ruin Rillito Fan Site AZ CC:l:7 (ASM) Spear Ranch Site Goat Hill Site Curtis Site AZ CC:4:1 (ASM) AZ CC:8:1 (ASM) AZ CC:ll:l (ASM) Dinwiddie Site Dutch Ruin Casas Grandes NOTE: See also Table 3.5.

Location Silver Creek Silver Creek Silver Creek Upper Little Colorado Q-Ranch Grasshopper Grasshopper Tonto Basin Tonto Basin Tonto Basin Tonto Nat'l Monument Tonto Nat'l Monument Phoenix Basin Phoenix Basin Phoenix Basin Phoenix Basin Phoenix Basin Kinishba Globe-Miami Globe-Miami Globe-Miami Globe-Miami San Carlos Lake area Point of Pines San Francisco Valley Aravaipa Creek Aravaipa Creek San Pedro San Pedro San Pedro San Pedro San Pedro San Pedro San Pedro San Pedro San Pedro Tucson Basin Tucson Basin Safford Valley Safford Valley Safford Valley Safford Valley Upper Gila Upper Gila San Simon Valley Cliff Valley, NM Cliff Valley, NM Chihuahua, Mexico

Source Mills 1998: 72-73, Fig. 4.5 Haury 1931a: 68, PI. 18.2.2 Barbara J. Mills Martin and Rinaldo 1960: 178, Fig. 101 Sharon Urban William A. Longacre Marfa Nieves Zedeno M. Stark 1995: 236-237, Fig. 10.8a Ebay (intemet auction house) Simon 1997: 612, Fig. 10.24 (lower) Steen 1962: 19, PI. 7a, b Pierson 1962: 63-64, PI. 17f Crown 1981 a: 165-166, Fig. 109 Haury 1945: 111-112, Fig. 68, PI. 29a-e Haury 1945: 180, PI. 85a Haury 1945: 186 McDonnell and others 1995: 226-227, Fig. 8.06a Arizona State Museum collections Arizona State Museum collections Hohmann and others 1992: 99 Doyel 1978: 124 Arizona State Museum collections Arizona State Museum collections; Alexander J. Lindsay Lindsay 1987: 194 Sharlot Hall Museum collections Alexander J. Lindsay; Gerald 1957a Amerind Foundation collections Henry D. Wallace Lyons 2001 Lyons 2001 Henry D. Wallace Amerind Foundation collections Franklin 1980: 83 Di Peso 1958: 92-94, PI. 59 Amerind Foundation collections Lyons 2001 Schroeder 1938: 300 Helga Wocherl Arizona State Museum collections; Alexander J. Lindsay Arizona State Museum collections; Alexander J. Lindsay Woodson 1995: 184; 1999: 71 Mills and Mills 1978: 135-136, 163 Arizona State Museum collections; Alexander J. Lindsay Alan Ferg Arizona State Museum collections; Alexander J. Lindsay Mills and Mills 1972: 18 Lekson 2002, Table 2.4; Museum of Northem Arizona collections Lindsay 1969: 292

23

24

Chapter 2

Table 2.2. Sites with Babe-in-cradle Vessel Handles and Ceramic Cradle Effigies Site

location

Reference

Pottery Pueblo long House RB 568 AZ )-58-4 (NNAD) Walpi Awat'ovi "East of Oraibi " Antelope House Wupatki Pueblo NA681 Young's Canyon Homol'ovi I Homol'ovi III Chevelon Ruin Tuzigoot Kinishba Goat Hill Site Davis Ranch Site

Paiute Mesa long House Valley Kayenta Valley Central Black Mesa Hopi Mesas Hopi Mesas Hopi Mesas Canyon de Chelly Wupatki Big Hawk Valley Flagstaff area Little Colorado Little Colorado little Colorado Verde Valley Kinishba Safford Valley San Pedro Valley

Stein 1984: 582 Kidder and Guernsey 1919: 143, Fig. 62 Beals and others 1945: 148, Fig. 53c Pepoy and Linford 1982: 273, Fig. 97a Adams 1979, PI. 17e Morss 1954: 40, Fig. 15b, c; Smith 1971: 528, Figs. 136;, 219h Martin and Willis 1940, PI. 8.8 Morris 1986: 404, 420-421, Fig. 209m, n Morss 1954: 40, Fig. 16a, b; Stanislawski 1963: 242-243, 246, Fig. 38a, C Morss 1954: 40, Fig. 17; Smith 1952b: 106 Morss 1954: 39, Fig. 30q; Fewkes 1926a: 10, PI. 6 Martin and Willis 1940, PI. 39.2; Morss 1954: 41, Fig. 18; lyons and others 2001 lyons and others 2001 Fewkes 1904, Fig. 13 Caywood and Spicer 1935: 67 Tanner 1976: 186, Fig. 6.13 Brown 1973: 76, 81, Fig. 29b; Woodson 1995: 15, Fig. 8b Amerind Foundation collections; Gerald 1958

NOTE: NNAD is Navajo Nation Archaeology Department.

Babe-in-Cradle Effigies and Effigy Handles

During the early years of exploration and excavations in the Kayenta area, Kidder and Guernsey recovered a pair of figurines with fiat, round heads, pinched up noses, and eyes represented by shallow indentations. lOne was broken off at the neck, but the other had a featureless, tubular body. Later, Jesse Fewkes published an illustration of a similar specimen affixed to the handle of a ladle. 2 This vessel, recovered from a burial near Young's Canyon in the Flagstaff area, has a handle shaped like a puebloan cradleboard. A figurine is nestled inside, apparently representing a baby. Most specimens of this vessel form display realistic modeling of cradleboards. As noted by Samuel Guernsey,3 a Pueblo III period cradle recovered from the Kayenta Valley could have served as the inspiration for the "babe-in-cradle handles,,4 found at Homol'ovi I and Young's Canyon. Since the 1920s, archaeologists have recorded several of these objects, complete and fragmentary. One of the two complete specimens was apparently excavated from HomoI'ovi I (Fig. 2.4) and is currently curated at the Field Museum of Natural History.S Although most are 1. Kidder and Guernsey 1919: 143-144, Fig. 62 2. Fewkes 1926a, Plate 6; also see Plate 7 3. Guernsey 1931 : 105, Plate 64 4. Morss 1954: 39

Figure 2.4. Ceramic babe-in-cradle ladle. (Adapted from Morss 1954, Figure 18; image and copyright, the Field Museum of Natural History, Numbers A93713, A93714).

ladle handles, Watson Smith reports a babe-in-cradle handle affixed to a large Moenkopi Corrugated olla in Big Hawk Valley (NA681),6 Wupatki National Monument, and "babe-in-cradle effigies" that mayor may not have functioned as handles have been found at Antelope House in Canyon de Chelly. 7 5. Martin and Willis 1940, Plate 39.2; Morss 1954, Fig. 18 6. Smith 1952b: 106; also Morss 1954: 40, Fig. 17 7. Morris 1986: 404, 420-421, Fig. 209m, n

Ancestral Hopi Migration Markers

25

Table 2.3. Sites with Whole or Fragmentary Ceramic Colanders Site

Location

Source

Pottery Pueblo NA7519 UT V-13-16 (NNAD) Calamity Cave Gourd Cave Inscription House NA11,024 NA10,957 RB 568 Tachini Point "Marsh Pass" RB 00072 Betatakin AZ J-18-5 (NNAD) AZ J-19-9 (NNAD) AZ J-19-13 (NNAD) AZ J-31-5 (NNAD) AZ J-31-8 (NNAD) AZ D-10-16 (NNAD) NA6706; NA 11,032; 11,047; 11,057; 11,103; 11,125 AZ D:11 :500 (BMAP) AZ J-54-2 (NNAD) West of Orayvi Kishuba Awat'ovi Sikyatki Wupatki Homol'ovi III Homol'ovi I Lizard Man Village Marijilda Site Cameron Creek Village

Paiute Mesa Navajo Mountain Navajo Mountain Monument Valley, Nakai Canyon Navajo Canyon, White Mesa, Kaibito Navajo Canyon, White Mesa, Kaibito Navajo Canyon, White Mesa, Kaibito Navajo Canyon, White Mesa, Kaibito Kayenta Valley Kayenta Valley Tsegi Canyon Tsegi Canyon Tsegi Canyon Shonto Plateau Shonto Plateau Shonto Plateau Shonto Plateau Shonto Plateau Klethla Valley

Stein 1984: 548-552 Lindsay and others 1968: 306, Fig. 229b, c Fairley and Callahan 1985: 303, Table 59 Arizona State Museum collections Arizona State Museum collections Ward 1975: 31, Fig. 5 Gallagher 1986: 39, Table 5 Fiero and others 1980: 16, 33, Fig. 11 n Beals and others 1945: 146, Fig. 36g Arizona State Museum collections Kidder and Guernsey 1919: 131, PI. 54e, f Beals and others 1945: 146, Fig. 68h Judd 1930: 67, PI. 46 Blinman 1989a: 320 Blinman 1989b: 252 Blinman 1989c: 603-604 Blinman 1989d: 500 Blinman 198ge: 366 Ambler 1994: 464, Fig. 5a

Klethla Valley Northern Black Mesa Central Black Mesa Hopi Mesas Hopi Mesas Hopi Mesas Hopi Mesas Wupatki Middle Little Colorado Middle Little Colorado Flagstaff Safford Valley Mimbres Valley

Plateau Plateau Plateau Plateau

Gallagher 1986: 39, Table 5 Smith 1994: 193 Pepoy and Linford 1982: 278, Fig. 100 Martin and Willis 1940, PI. 14.5 Martin and Willis 1940, PI. 8.4 Fewkes 1898b: 618 Fewkes 1898b: 624 Fewkes 1926b: 104 Lyons and others 2001 Martin and Willis 1940, PI. 42.1 Kamp and Whittaker 1999: 49, Fig. 37 Brown 1974: 29, Fig. 14c Bradfield 1931: 96-97, PI. 94

NOTE: NNAD is Navajo Nation Archaeology Department; BMAP is Black Mesa Archaeological Project.

There are few babe-in-cradle effigies compared with the far more numerous perforated plates, but their spatial-temporal distribution is similar (Table 2.2). Most effigies and handles have been found in the Kayenta region, and they appeared after A.D. 1250 (somewhat earlier in the Wupatki area) in sites to the south where other evidence of Kayenta-ancestral Hopi migration has been observed (Kinishba, Goat Hill, and Davis Ranch). Six Winslow Orange Ware babe-in-cradle ladle handles or handle fragments came from recent excavations at Homol'ovi III and Homol'ovi I, indicating production 1. Lindsay 1969: 293

of this vessel form using materials local to the Middle Little Colorndo River valley. Colanders The ceramic colander has a spatial and temporal distribution somewhat similar to that of perforated plates and babe-in-crndle effigies or effigy handles (Table 2.3). The colander form (seed jar with perfornted bottom, Fig. 2.5), is one of the hallmarks of the Kayenta ceramic trndition, according to Lindsay.l Rarely, bowls

26

Chapter 2

nial water sprinklers or sand sifters, the latter function being associated with the production of ritual sandpaintings. 4 While recording Hopi oral tradition, Heinrich Voth, Mennonite missionary and student of Hopi religion, took down the following passage relating to colander function (italics added):5 Sometimes when they found good fields but no water they would create springs with btiuypi. This is a small perforated vessel into which they would place certain herbs, different kinds of stones, shells, a small balOlo6kong, bahos [prayer sticks], etc., and bury it. In one year a spring would come out of the ground where this was buried. Fewkes describes two colanders recovered from burials at Awat' ovi6 whose contents were similar to those enumerated in the list provided by Voth's Hopi consultant (Yukioma of Orayvi). Intriguing is the fact that Hopi people have identified colanders as "spring planters" at least as recently as the 1960s. 7 The word btiuypi, recorded by Voth, is more properly rendered as paa 'uypi in standard Third Mesa Hopi orthography. 8 The etymology of the word is:

Figure 2.5. Ceramic colander (adapted from Kidder and Guernsey 1919, Plate 54e, f, Peabody Museum Catalogue Number A-1716).

with basket handles and ladles exhibit similar perforations. 1 Colanders differ in terms of the number and pattern of perforations, with a range from four to "nearly 100 holes.,,2 Crotty describes three common patterns of perforations: a cross or X shape; a cross or X shape encircled by a single row of perforations; and an "allover," roughly circular layout. 3 Like perforated plates, colanders have acquired their fair share of hypotheses regarding function. The earliest functional inference is attributed to William H. Holmes, who offered the idea that these vessels were used as strainers. 2 Fewkes later suggested their use as ceremo1. Fewkes 1898b: 624; Holmes 1886: 331; Martin and Willis 1940, Plate 42.1; Museum of Northern Arizona collections 2. Holmes 1886: 331 3. Crony 1983: 55; also Blinman 1989c: 603-604 4. Fewkes 1896a: 573, 1911 : 27-28 5. Voth 1905: 22 6. Fewkes 1898b: 618, 1896a: 573

paa- (combinative form of paahu = water) -uy (combinative form of uuya = to plant or sow) -pi (suffix indicating a place or a device) Therefore, paa 'uypi can best be translated into English as "water planted place," or "water planting device. " In fact, the Hopi language includes a verb meaning to plant (or to develop) a spring, paa'u'uya. 9 Hopi ethnography includes a number of references to the planting or creation of springs,lO with at least one account mentioning a "spring seed."11 One of the most interesting oral texts on this subject was recorded by Ernest Beaglehole, who interviewed Hopi people from Second Mesa in the 1930s: 12 The spring [Toriva], for example ... is "owned" by the Water lineage of this village [Musangnuvi] , because traditionally, ancestors of this clan brought water to this place from the Salt River near Phoenix in pottery vessels, and plant7. 8. 9. 10.

Anderson 1969a: 202; Lindsay and others 1968: 306 Hill and others 1998; compare Whiteley 1998: 195 Hill and others 1998: 368 Voth 1905: 47; Whiteley 1998: 195; compare Forrest 1961: 116-117 11. Hargrave 1930: I 12. BeagJehoJe 1937: 13

Ancestral Hopi Migration Markers

27

ing the water, caused the spring to flow from hitherto dry sand. Another or possibly related function supplied by Hopi people is the watering of bean sprouts used in Pawamuya ritual. 1 According to Ambler, with a vessel of this shape and size young plants could be watered by dunking the "planter" in a water jar.2 The restricted orifice would limit evaporation and could easily be completely covered by a small sherd or some other object. Sprinkling of holy water 3 is a plausible function for colanders as well, particularly those in the form of a ladle and those shaped like bowls with basket handles. Colanders, perforated plates, and babe-in-cradle effigies and effigy handles have been recovered from some of the same areas of the Southwest, and they seem to mark the movement of Kayenta and other ancestral Hopi populations to the south and east of their ancient homelands (see Table 2.3). To date, the distribution of colanders is limited to the Kayenta area, the Hopi Mesas, the Flagstaff area, Homol' ovi, the Safford Valley, and the Mimbres Valley. Fewkes reports that Hodge recovered colanders similar to those found at Hopi sites in Salado villages excavated by the Hemenway Expedition in 1888,4 although I have been unable to document them. The colanders recovered from Homol' ovi III and Homol' ovi I appear to be locally produced Winslow Orange Ware, although neither vessel was subjected to INAA. " Rivet-attach ment" of Ladle Handles An interesting aspect of ceramic technological style that remains poorly documented in terms of its temporal and spatial distribution is what I have termed "rivetattachment,,5 of ladle handles (Fig. 2.6). This technique has been noted at a number of ancestral Hopi sites (like Awat' ovi, Betatakin) and appears in various Kayenta and Hopi wares, including Tusayan White Ware, Tsegi Orange Ware, Jeddito Orange Ware, and Jeddito Yellow Ware (Table 2.4). 1. Anderson 1969a: 202

2. 3. 4. 5.

Ambler 1994: 466 Aspersing, as suggested by Fewkes 1911: 27 Fewkes 1898b: 624 n. 1 Following Stein 1984: 585

Figure 2.6. Rivet technique for the attachment of ladle handles (adapted from Judd 1930, Fig. 25).

Fewkes was apparently the first researcher to call attention to rivet-attachment, coincidentally during his discussion of the ceramics that he excavated from Homol'ovi I, Chevelon Ruin, and Nuvakwewtaqa. According to Fewkes: 6 Many ladle handles broken from their bowls occur in all the excavations [Homol'ovi I, Chevelon Ruin, and Chavez Pass Ruin], and from the appearance of the broken end it is evident that the handle was made separate from the bowl and was later joined to it. A conical projection from the side of the bowl was inserted into a cavity of the handle, which is sometimes hollow throughout, and was then luted in place before firing. Judd later noted the same trait at Betatakin, 7 as did Beals and others in their report on the pottery of the Rainbow Bridge-Monument Valley Expedition. 8 Smith reports the same procedure at Awat' ovi. 9 Indicating that rivet-attachment of ladle handles may be a regular feature of Tsegi phase ceramic assemblages, Stein recorded the technique at Pottery Pueblo, NA7519B, and Inscription House. 10 The more common and widespread method of ladle handle attachment involved inserting a solid handle into a hole in the side of the bowl. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Fewkes 1904: 64 Judd 1930: 69, Fig. 25 Beals and others 1945: 148, Fig. 53b, g Smith 1971: 528 Stein 1984: 580, 585-586

28

Chapter 2

Table 2.4. Sites and Wares with Rivet-attachment Ladle Handles Site

Reference

Ware

Homol'ovi I

Winslow Orange Ware jeddito Orange Ware jeddito Yellow Ware

Lyons 2001 Lyons 2001 Lyons 2001

Homol'ovi III

Winslow Orange Ware Homolovi Orange Ware Homolovi Gray Ware jeddito Orange Ware Jeddito Yellow Ware

Lyons Lyons Lyons Lyons Lyons

Homol'ovi IV

Winslow Orange Ware jeddito Orange Ware

Lyons 2001 Lyons 2001

2001 2001 2001 2001 2001

Chevelon Ruin

?1

Fewkes 1904: 64

Nuvakwewtaqa

?1

Fewkes 1904: 64

Awat'ovi

Tusayan White Ware jeddito Orange Ware jeddito Yellow Ware

Smith 1971: 528 Smith 1971: 528 Smith 1971: 528

RB 568

Tsegi Orange Ware Tusayan White Ware

Beals and others 1945: 148, Fig.

Betatakin

?2

{

53b,g judd 1930, Fig. 25

Tsegi Orange Ware Tusayan White Ware

Stein 1984: 585 Stein 1984: 585

Inscription House

Tsegi Orange Ware

Stein 1984: 585

NA7519B

Tsegi Orange Ware

Stein 1984: 585

Pottery Pueblo

1. Based on collections, Fewkes is likely referring to Winslow Orange Ware, jeddito Yellow Ware, and jeddito Orange Ware. 2. Based on collections, judd is likely referring to Tusayan White Ware and Tsegi. Orange Ware.

Gratz characterized rivet-attachment as a "protoHopi" phenomenon and argued that the rivet is a phallic representation, l perhaps associated with KookopOlo (the katsina commonly known as Kokopelli, a symbol of fertility). Her hypothesis is based, in part, on the fact that the Hopi style of joining ladle handles usually involves the creation of a long, narrow, round-ended, cone-shaped rivet that is longer than needed for the purpose of attaching the handle. The rivet remains invisible (and therefore unknown) to anyone but the potter, a fac1. Gratz 1976 2. Morris 1957: 31; Haury 1958; Lindsay 1987 3. Haury 1989: 117; Bannister and Robinson 1971: 38

tor she feels supports the interpretation that ritual meaning was implied. Fewkes described rivet-attached ladle handles at Homol'ovi I and Chevelon Ruin in the 1890s. HRP excavations in the 1980s and 1990s also recovered this interesting vessel form. A nonsystematic search of reconstructible and partially reconstructible vessels recovered from Homol' ovi I resulted in the discovery of 10 Winslow Orange Ware ladles with rivet-attached handles. I recorded 13 Winslow Orange Ware specimens in a cursory examination of the ceramic assemblages from Structures 34 (3 handles) and 37 (10 handles) at Homol' ovi III; these two kivas were filled with trash associated with the earliest occupation there. Fifteen more Winslow Orange Ware rivet-attached ladles were located as a result of an informal examination of other contexts at Homol'ovi III. Homol'ovi IV and Homol'ovi II produced examples of this technique as well. Gratz attributes ritual significance to the rivet, l but because these handles have been recovered in large numbers, in varying associations, and from many different contexts, including trash-filled kivas, extramural activity surfaces, middens, and trash-filled rooms, I have chosen instead to focus on the geographical distribution of rivet-attachments as another piece of evidence linking the potters of Homol' ovi with their contemporaries on the Hopi Mesas and in the Kayenta area. The fact that this method of attachment is invisible in the finished product, to me, is strong evidence of the presence of northern immigrant potters at Homol'ovi. Rivetattachment is a subtle aspect of technological style not likely to have been copied by neighboring groups of potters.

The Maverick Mountain Series The Maverick Mountain Series of pottery types was named for the Maverick Mountain phase Kayenta or Thsayan occupation at Point of Pines Ruin (AZ W: 10:50 ASM,)2 which is usually dated between A.D. 1265 and 1300. 3 Originally defined as vessels of Kayenta and 10sayan types made using materials indigenous to the Point of Pines region, the Maverick Mountain Series appeared in the Arizona mountains alongside other evidence pointing to the presence of northern immigrants: CITATIONS FOR PAGE 29

1. Haury 1989, Fig. 4.4 2. Lindsay 1987: 194 3. Lekson 2002

Ancestral Hopi Migration Markers

r

29

b

a

c

d

e

Figure 2.7. Maverick Mountain Black-on-red (a-c) and Maverick Mountain Polychrome (d, e) sherds from the Daley Site (AZ CC :2:235 ASM). (Shading indicates red surface color; scale approximately V2 ; drawings by Ronald 1. Beckwith.)

a D-shaped kiva 1 and perforated-rim ceramic plates.2 Despite the name and its history, this series is actually fairly widespread in central and southern Arizona. Vessels in the series appear at a large number of sites and in significant quantities in the San Pedro Valley, the Safford Valley, the Tucson Basin, the Upper Aravaipa, and the Sulphur Springs Valley. Maverick Mountain Series vessels are also common in the Cliff ValleyUpper Gila region of New Mexic03 and occur in smaller numbers and at fewer sites in the Globe highlands, the Tonto Basin, the Phoenix Basin, and the bootheel of New Mexico. Vessels of these types have also been recovered from Grasshopper, Kinishba, and Casas Grandes. The series, as it was first conceived, 4 included five pottery types : Maverick Mountain Black-on-red, Maverick Mountain Polychrome, Nantack Polychrome, Prieto Polychrome, and Tucson Polychrome. Colton made the series a subdivision of White Mountain Red Ware, 5 presumably based on the recovery location of most of the type specimens. Curiously, Colton simultaneously assigned Tucson Polychrome to the Santa Cruz Series of Mogollon Brown Ware.6 More recently, however, Carlson argued that the Maverick Mountain Series should be placed within a category including Kayenta 4. Colton 1955b: 8; Morris 1957: 31 5. Colton 1955b: 8, 1965: 11-12 6. Colton 1955b: 6, 1965: 9 7. Carlson 1982: 221-222 8. Lindsay 1986: 8, 1987: 194 n. 2; Zedefio 2002 9. Oi Peso 1958: 103; also Clarke 1935: 55 , Plate 25; Franklin 1980: 65-66

polychrome types, 7 thereby reflecting its northern origin. Also present at Point of Pines, but not included in the Maverick Mountain Series or provided with unique names, were presumably locally produced versions of Tusayan Black-on-white and Kayenta Black-onwhite.8 Later, Di Peso recognized Tucson Black-on-red as a separate type, 9 and eventually Colton placed it in the aforementioned Santa Cruz Series. 10 Based on specimens in the Reeve Ruin assemblage, Di Peso named a "Tucson Polychrome, hachured variant"ll that seems indistinguishable from Maverick Mountain Polychrome. 12 Di Peso 13 and others working in the San Pedro, including Gerald 14 and Franklin,15 recognized a type that straddles the Maverick Mountain Series and Roosevelt Red Ware (the Salado polychromes) . This type is variously known as "Pinto-Tucson Polychrome, " "GilaTucson Polychrome," and "Tucson-Gila Polychrome"; it appears as bowls with interiors decorated in the same manner as Gila Polychrome and exteriors decorated in the style of Tucson Polychrome. Lindsay16 has characterized Maverick Mountain Polychrome and Maverick Mountain Black-on-red (Fig. 2.7) as versions of Kiet Siel Polychrome and Kiet Siel 10. Colton 1965: 9 11. Oi Peso 1958: 103; also Oi Peso and others 1974: 151 12. Lindsay 1992: 237 13. Oi Peso 1958: 100 14. Gerald 1958 15. Franklin 1980: 66; also Lindsay and Jennings 1968: 12 16. Lindsay 1987: 194 n. 2

30

Chapter 2

Black-on-red, respectively, produced by Kayenta or Tusayan immigrants using raw materials indigenous to the Point of Pines region. Likewise, he perceives vessels of Nantack Polychrome as representations of Tusayan Polychrome and Kayenta Polychrome produced outside their areas of origin. Prieto Polychrome, according to Lindsay, I was an attempt by Maverick Mountain phase potters to make Machonpi Polychrome, a type indigenous to the Hopi Mesas. 2 Based on the results of limited petrographic analyses of a small sample of sherds from the Safford Valley and the Point of Pines area, Brown has named Point of Pines and Safford varieties of Maverick Mountain Black-on-red, Maverick Mountain Polychrome, and N antack Polychrome. 3 The names of these varieties correlate with their likely loci of manufacture. Brown reports locally produced Maverick Mountain Series vessels at Goat Hill (AZ CC:l:28 ASM),4 Spear Ranch (AZ CC:l:11 ASM), and the Marijilda Site (AZ CC:5:6 ASM). Maverick Mountain Series sherds traceable to Point of Pines came from the Methodist Church Site (AZ CC:2: 15 ASM) located in the center of the distribution of Safford area immigrant sites identified by Woodson. 5 Petrographic analyses now suggest Maverick Mountain Series vessels were also produced in the Cliff Valley of New Mexico. 6 Tucson Polychrome, originally described as Martinez Hill Polychrome by GabeF and first formally defined by Danson, 8 has traditionally been characterized as derivative of Kiet Siel Polychrome. 9 A petrographic analysis by Wallace lO documented its manufacture in the Santa Cruz Valley. Danson8 and Wallace 10 posit its production at Point of Pines based on the similarity between its distinctive paste and the pastes of the other vessels of the Maverick Mountain Series found there. II LindsayI2 points out that some of the sherds classified as Tucson Polychrome at University Indian Ruin 13 actually represent Maverick Mountain Polychrome. Therefore, based on Wallace's petrographic work, vessels of both types appear to have been produced in the Tucson Basin. On the basis of temper analyses, Di Peso l4 and Franklin l5 have suggested that Tucson Poly1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Lindsay 1987: 194 n. 2 Colton 1955a, Ware 5A, Type 11 Brown 1973: 31, 74, 110, 1974 Also Woodson 1995, 1999 Woodson 1995, Fig. 2 Hill 1998 Gabel 1931: 52-53 Danson 1957: 226-229; also Clarke 1935: 55, Plate 26 Danson 1957: 228-229; Carlson 1982: 222

chrome was also manufactured in the Middle San Pedro Valley. However, these studies did not involve the use of thin sections or petrographic microscopy. Kivas To determine whether spatial and temporal patterns in kiva forms matched the patterns identified in the ceramic phenomena discussed above, I conducted comparative research on 180 kivas at 90 sites that spanned the period from A.D. 1050 to 1696 and covered the area from southern Utah to southeastern Arizona and from the Verde Valley to the Upper Gila. 16 For this research it seemed prudent to consider the classic question posed by Watson Smith, "When is a kiva?"17 Smith's formula singles out structures different from other buildings at a site in terms of spatial segregation or attempted, achieved, or simulated subterranean position; unique floor or wall features; and benches or platforms. Virtually all structures I identified as kivas were so interpreted by their excavators. Several structures, however, called kivas by those who recorded them, I have not interpreted as such. Surface structures categorized as kivas for reasons such as size (larger than other rooms on site), recovery of one or more unusual objects within them, or the presence of a ventilator opening (as opposed to a ventilator shaft) are not included in this review. Some of these questionable structures are indeed subterranean, but they appear to represent pit houses rather than kivas based on demonstrable differences in their dating and the ages of the pueblos they were supposedly associated with (in some cases, entire pit house villages underlie the pueblos in question). Kayenta and Tusayan Kivas

Kivas in the Kayenta and Tusayan areas display various architectural forms, including circular, keyholeshaped, D-shaped (Fig. 2.8), rectangular, and platform. I focused on three forms of kivas, defined on the basis of outline shape and the presence or absence of a platform (also known as a recess or banquette). A platform, 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

Wallace 1957 Brown 1973: 31, 74, 110, 1974; Danson and Wallace 1956 Lindsay 1992: 231 Danson 1957, Fig. 6 right Di Peso 1958: 80-89, 102-103 Franklin 1980: 99-101 Lyons 2001: 431-466 Smith 1952b

Ancestral Hopi Migration Markers

Figure 2.8. Thsayan D-shaped kiva (adapted from Smith 1972, Fig. 75; copyright by the President and Fellows of Harvard College) .

or raised area, is constructed at one end of a pit structure by excavating its floor to two different depths (Fig. 2.9). A "rectangular kiva" (Fig. 2. 10) in this classification lacks a platform and mayor may not have a bench built up against one or more of its walls; the great majority lack benches. A subtype of this form with strong roots in the Kayenta and Winslow areas, as well as on Black Mesa, exhibits a corner ventilator-deflector system as opposed to the standard midline arrangement present in most kivas. This subtype appears later at places like Bryant Ranch in the Silver Creek areal and at Mariana Mesa Site 616. 2 "Platform kivas" are rectangular and exhibit a platform at one end; they mayor may not have a bench or benches as well as a platform. "D-shaped kivas" are characterized by an outline shape that approaches that 1. According to Barbara Mills in 1999 2. McGimsey 1980: 88-95, Figs. 33-37 3. Geib 1985: 149-198; Germick 1989, Table 10; Gleichman 1982: 161-167; Legard 1982: 238; Smith 1972 4. Zier 1976 5. Haury 1958, 1989, Fig. 4.4; Lindsay 1987 6. Woodson 1995, 1999 7. Schwartz and others 1980 8. Downum 1988: 385-387

31

of the capital letter "D" and may exhibit a platform or one or more benches. Circular and "keyhole" shaped kivas, although common among the Kayenta and other prehistoric groups, were not included in this analysis as they are eclipsed through time, in Arizona, by the other three forms. D-shaped kivas have a long history in both the Tusayan and Kayenta regions. 3 After A.D. 1200, the form spread southward to the Mogollon Rim area, the Zuni area, 4 Point of Pines, 5 and the Safford Valley. 6 The Dshaped kivas at Point of Pines and Goat Hill are associated with other pieces of evidence that suggest those who built them were immigrants from northern Arizona. Both sites yielded large quantities of locally manufactured pottery made in the Kayenta-Tusayan ceramic tradition, including Maverick Mountain Series vessels and perforated plates. A number of rooms at Goat Hill exhibited the Kayenta entrybox complex as well. Based on tree-ring dated structures and associated tree-ring dated ceramics, rectangular kivas and platform kivas have great antiquity in the western Kayenta region, Wupatki, and the Grand Canyon. The earliest platform kivas in this sample are a structure at UN-3, in the Grand Canyon, apparently predating A.D . 1125,7 and a structure at Juniper Terrace that yielded a cluster of tree-ring cutting dates between A.D. 1136 and 1139. 8 Platform kivas are also present around A.D. 1150-1200 in the Grand Canyon (at UN-44),7 the Klethla Valley (at NA8171),9 and in the Navajo Mountain area (as at NA4075)1O by the Tsegi phase (A.D. 1250-13(0). Similar structures occur at the Ramp Site, in the Hopi Buttes area; 11 at Carter Ranch, near the Mogollon Rim, during the late twelfth or perhaps the early thirteenth century;12 and at Broken K Pueblo, also in the Mogollon Rim area, by the A.D. 1250s. 13 The oldest rectangular kiva in my sample is at UN-I, in the Unkar Delta area of the Grand Canyon, with a ceramic assemblage suggesting occupation dates between A.D. 1070 and 1125 . 14 Similar structures appear in the Navajo Mountain area (at NA 7549)10 and on the Hopi Mesas (at Jeddito 107)15 by the early A.D. 9. Swarthout and others 1986 10. Lindsay and others 1968 11. Gumerman 1988; also Downum 1988: 490 on the dating of 12. 13. 14. 15.

Walnut Black-on-white Longacre 1970; also Lyons 2001: 457, 458 Hill 1970; Lyons 2001: 459-461 Schwartz and others 1980: 242-247, Table 10 Smith 1972

32

Chapter 2

./

./

./

......... ..... " ... :'

./

/

N

..:::::::::::~

j

./

North \

Section C-D

NA8171 2

o Meters

N

1

-

o

4

Meters

Figure 2.9. Kayenta platform kivas (left, adapted from Swarthout and others 1986, Fig. 6; right, adapted from Lindsay and others 1968, Fig. 193, courtesy of the Museum of Northern Arizona).

A

L---.J 1 Meter

Figure 2.10. Kayenta rectangular kivas (left, adapted from Lindsay and others 1968, Fig. 172, courtesy of the Museum of Northern Arizona; right, adapted from Haas and Creamer 1993, Fig. 3-2, courtesy of Jonathan Haas and the Field Museum of Natural History).

Ancestral Hopi Migration Markers 12oos, in Long House Valley by A.D. 1243 (at LHV72, based on a cluster of tree-ring cutting dates), 1 at many Tsegi phase sites throughout the Kayenta region, at a number of Huckovi phase sites in the vicinity of the Hopi Mesas, and at Homol'ovi IV, Homol'ovi III, and Homol'ovi I between A.D. 1250 and 1300. After A.D. 1250, rectangular or platform kivas appear at a number of sites in areas south of the Hopi Mesas beyond those listed above, including the Grasshopper-Q-Ranch area, the Globe highlands, the Safford Valley, and the San Pedro Valley. Like those sites in central and southern Arizona that exhibit D-shaped kivas, sites with rectangular or platform kivas (such as Reeve Ruin, Davis Ranch Site, Spear Ranch Site, and Gila Pueblo) have yielded other architectural and artifactual evidence suggesting the presence of northern immigrants. Regional Comparisons

33

entries) and circular great kivas associated with the Cibola Anasazi were the chosen modes of integrative architecture, and rectangular great kivas continued to be used until abandonment of the area around A.D. 1400. 2. Beginning between A.D. 1100 and 1200, structures that match the definitions of rectangular kiva, D-shaped kiva, and platform kiva appeared in settlements along the Mogollon Rim and continued to be built and used until the area was depopulated, at the end of the Pueblo IV period. 3. None of these structures conclusively predate the numerous examples of northern platform kivas, rectangular kivas, and D-shaped kivas listed above. 4. Some settlements dating to the interval around A.D. 1100 to 1200 (Apache Creek, Jewett Gap)3 may have included subterranean, rectangular pit structures that functioned as proto-kivas (seasonal residences and loci of ceremonial activity), but this pattern is much older among the ancient peoples of the northern Southwest. 4 5. Many east-central Arizona and west-central New Mexico sites that boast rectangular, D-shaped, and platform kivas also exhibit ceramic evidence and other clues that point to the presence of northern immigrants.

The region that includes the Upper Little Colorado, the Upper Gila, and the Mimbres Valley is usually thought of as the birthplace of rectangular kiva forms, combining the Mogollon rectangular ~it house and the Anasazi ventilator-deflector system. Most archaeologists working along the Mogollon Rim and on the southern Colorado Plateau have grown up with this idea and have assumed that various forms of rectangular kivas (with and without platforms) were introduced to the Hopi and Zuni from the south. The patterns reviewed above suggest that the situation is more complicated than previously thought. Platform kivas are quite old in the north, and rectangular kivas have antiquity in both the north and the south, with no apparent links between their distributions. Comparisons of kivas in the Kayenta and Thsayan regions with structures identified as "kivas" at sites in east-central Arizona and west-central New Mexico resulted in the following observations and provided a fresh perspective on the period between A.D. 1250 and 1400. 1. Before A.D. 1100, there are no unambiguous examples of kivas in east-central Arizona and west-central New Mexico. Rectangular great kivas of the Mogollon tradition (equipped with floor grooves and eas~rn ramp

Fewkes was the first to note the entrybox (Fig. 2.11) as a unique trait characteristic of sites in the Kayenta region, although he did not name it. 5 He interpreted the feature he found at Betatakin as a form of deflector similar to features in Hopi kivas and suggested that rooms with such facilities must have been used for, ceremonial purposes. He suggested the term "kihu" for these above-ground, rectangular structures to distinguish them from kivas. Morss later encountered similar features at sites in the Navajo Mountain and Navajo Canyon areas and noted a correlation between jacal walls and these features, which he called "foreboxes."6 Later work in the Cummings Mesa, Navajo Mountain, and Tsegi Canyon areas7 resulted in the realization that foreboxes were entryway features and that they were associated with habitation rooms, which usually exhibit at least one jacal wall, rather than with ceremonial or storage rooms.

1. Haas and Creamer 1993 2. Adams 1991; Anyon and LeBlanc 1980; Germick 1989; Haury and Sayles 1985: 300-302, 320-322; Johnson 1965: 11 3. Lyons 2001: 425-455

4. 5. 6. 7.

The Kayenta Entrybox Complex

Lightfoot 1994; Lightfoot and Etzkorn 1993; Morris 1939 Fewkes 1911: 15 Morss 1931: 12 Ambler and others 1964; Dean 1981; Lindsay and others 1968

34

Chapter 2

Table 2.5. Sites South of the Hopi Mesas with the Kayenta Entrybox Complex

HEARTH

Site

Region

Source

Homol'ovi IV

Middle Little Colorado Mariana Mesa

Lyons 2001 : 432

Site 616

Haby Ranch Upper Aravaipa Site Goat H ill Site Safford Valley Reeve Ruin San Pedro Valley San Pedro Valley Davis Ranch San Pedro Valley Jose Solas Ru in

ENTRY BOX

ENTRY

McGimsey 1980: 78-79, Figs. 22, 26 Gerald 1957b Woodson 1995, 1999 Di Peso 1958 Gerald 1958 Di Peso 1953; Lyons 2001 : 502-505

MASONRY WALL

OCCUPATION SURFACE

Figure 2.11. The Kayenta entrybox complex in plan and profile. (Adapted from Lindsay and others 1968, Fig. 204; courtesy of the Museum of Northern Arizona.)

The Kayenta entrybox, which occurs in three forms, was named by Ambler and others l and formally described by Lindsay and others.2 Dean writes:3 In rooms with lateral entries, a firepit is set into the floor about two feet inside the doorway. To lessen the blast of air through the doorway, a masonry or stone slab deflector was placed at the edge of the firepit nearest the door. The deflector was joined to the doorway by the entrybox. One form of entrybox consists of two wing walls connecting each side of the deflector with the corresponding jambs of the doorway. These wing walls may be of masonry, or more commonly, of upright slabs. In other instances only one side of the deflector is joined to the doorway, leaving one side open .... Another variation of the entrybox concept is a platform, two or three inches high, 1. Ambler and others 1964: 24-25, Fig. 9 2. Lindsay and others 1968: 7-8 3. Dean 1981: 27-28 4. Lindsay 1969: 185 5. Geib and others 1985; Lindsay and others 1968 6. Stein 1984: 144-145

that joins the doorsill to the deflector. The platform is a continuation of the level of the surface outside the room, which is normally a few inches above the level of the room's floor. The entrance platform often lacks wing walls. According to Lindsay, although entryboxes are considered a diagnostic trait of the Tsegi phase (A.D . 125013(0),4 they initially appear in the Kayenta region around A.D. 1225. Entryboxes occur in both pit houses and surface structures and are common in Tsegi Canyon, the Cummings Mesa area, the vicinity of Navajo Mountain, 5 the Paiute Mesa area,6 the Klethla Valley, 7 and on Black Mesa. 8 Entryboxes are recorded at a few sites south of the Hopi Mesas that date after A.D. 1250 (Table 2.5). Each of these sites boasts additional evidence of northern immigrants. Other Migration Markers Other architectural traits and artifacts mark the southward movement of Kayenta and Tusayan groups during the period A.D. 1250 to 1450, including rectangular, slab-lined fireboxes (which contrast with the basin-shaped and clay-lined hearths characteristic of central and southern Arizona), mealing bins, thin slab metates, and manos with formally pecked finger-grooves. 9 Another interesting link between the Kayenta, specifically, and the builders and inhabitants of Reeve Ruin in the San Pedro Valley and the Goat Hill Site in the Saf7. Ambler and Olson 1977 8. Foose 1982: 190-194; Tipps 1987: 65-70, Figs. 21, 22 9. Di Peso 1958 CITATIONS FOR PAGE 35 1. Di Peso 1958: 124. Fig. 19. Plate 79f; Lindsay and others 1968: 140-144. 146-147, Fig. 120; Woodson 1995: 230. Fig. 72b

Ancestral Hopi Migration Markers ford Valley is the recovery of notched slabs from these sites similar to objects found within irrigation ditches in the Navajo Mountain area. 1 There is also the potential to link the people of the Kayenta and Thsayan regions with places in central and southern Arizona based on the recovery of certain distinctive ritual objects. As Wasley points out, 2 the contents of the Bonita Creek cache display important parallels with objects recovered from caches of Kayenta ceremonial paraphernalia. 3 The Bonita Creek cache is linked closely to immigrants not only based on its contents but also the vessel in which it was stored, a Maverick Mountain Polychrome jar apparently made at Point of Pines. The cache objects also provide a link between the northern Kayenta immigrants and the Hopi of today in that some of them match altar objects used in ceremonies conducted by the Hopi flute societies (Masilelent and Sakwalelent).4 Dean reminds us that the raising and use of turkeys by the Kayenta is an interesting and relatively neglected avenue of research. 5 This line of inquiry might yield important links between northern Arizona groups and sites in the southern Southwest. Reeve Ruin, for example, yielded turkey remains. Finally, an obvious trait not to be overlooked is the use of stacked stone masonry at sites like Reeve Ruin, Goat Hill, and Marijilda: Ruin, as opposed to the post- or cobble-reinforced coursed adobe normally used for structures in the Sonoran and Chihuahuan deserts. MODELING ANCIENT DEMOGRAPHY

Two questions are important when considering the implications of the spatial and temporal distributions of the artifacts and architectural traits described above. 1. How many people may have been involved in the migrations that resulted in the archaeological patterns described here? 2. Can it be demonstrated that any of the descendants of these immigrants made their way north to the Hopi Mesas during the period A.D. 1400 to 1500, when most portions of the Southwest were abandoned and others experienced dramatic reorganizations of popUlation? 2. Wasley 1962 3. Cummings 1915; Hays-Gilpin and Hill 1999, 2000; Kidder and Guernsey 1919 4. Fewkes 1895, Plates I, 2, 1896b: Plates 1,2; Geertz 1987, Plate l1a S. Dean 2002

35

The Scale of Ancestral Hopi Migration, A.D. 1250-1450 Before discussing trends in numbers of rooms and, by extension, numbers of people in different regions

that may have been impacted by northern immigrants, four important issues must be addressed in any reconstruction of immigrant demographics. First and foremost is the issue of differential visibility. In some regions and during some periods, immigrants appear to have entered areas already occupied by large populations and joined existing communities in comparatively small groups (the Silver Creek area, the Grasshopper region, Point of Pines). In other places, immigrants entered essentially empty niches in relatively large numbers and founded multivillage communities (Homol'ovi, the Safford Valley, the Middle San Pedro Valley, the Upper Aravaipa Valley, the Cliff Valley-Upper Gila area of New Mexico). It stands to reason that the smaller the group of immigrants the more faint the archaeological signal will be and that the larger the group in a given place the easier it will be to discern. Archaeologists attempting to count immigrants also should be concerned about the possibility that some of the sites they have identified were not occupied contemporaneously but serially by immigrants from the same homeland. This hypothesis has been discussed in relation to apparent immigrant sites in the Point of Pines and Safford regions, 6 and it is a model with empirical support. Maverick Mountain Series pottery made at Point of Pines has been found in sites in Safford alongside locally produced versions of this ceramic series. 7 Also, there is a close association in many Safford-area sites between vessels of pottery types common in the Point of Pines region (Thlarosa Fillet Rim, McDonald Corrugated) and vessels of Maverick Mountain Series types. A related point is that immigrant communities, like all communities, had life cycles, and, as those who have studied the process of migration from an ethnographic perspective suggest, vanguard groups like those inferred at Betatakin8 and at Point of Pines9 should be the rule rather than the exception. 10 Vanguard groups will likely be less visible than those who follow, based on relative size. The likelihood of intermarriage with host populations through time and the dif6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Lindsay 1987 Brown 1973 Dean 1981: 82 Lindsay 1986, 1987 Lekson 2002: 62-63

36

Chapter 2

ferential incorporation of foreign techniques, styles, and materials into the manufacturing and building traditions of the immigrants also result in a less obvious archaeological signature. Some aspects of highland Mogollon ceramic technology and style, for example, were adopted by northern groups that passed through that area on their way to points farther south (Chapter 4). Bearing in mind the interpretive challenges just discussed, I use room counts to calculate rough estimates of the numbers of people involved in some of the more visible migration processes. The Pueblo III-Pueblo IV villages of Homol'ovi (Chapter 3), occupied between A.D. 1250 and 1400, exhibit a combined total of J,300 rooms, although a significant percentage of them were not occupied simultaneously: one site was abandoned early, two were founded late in the sequence, and many grew considerably through time. A conservative estimate, based on limited knowledge of which rooms and which villages were occupied during the period A.D. 1325 to 1400, is 2,150 rooms. By extension, a total of about 1,150 rooms were built between A.D. 1250-1260 and 1325, although 200 of these were likely replacements for rooms vacated at one of the early abandoned villages (Homol'ovi IV), resulting in a total of 950 rooms. It is necessary to reduce this number yet again, by one-fourth to one-third, to account for structures not in use, resulting in an estimate of 640 to 710 rooms. The villages of roughly equivalent age in New Mexico's Cliff Valley boast a total of 725 rooms, l but professional work in this area has been limited and it is difficult to determine how many rooms might have been associated with the initial colonization of the area by immigrants. A best guess suggested by Lekson's model of small early settlements (founded about A.D. 1250 to 1350) in defensive locations and later larger villages in open settings is 185 rooms (at LA39035, Ormand, Villareal II, and Hilltop Ruin; 275 rooms if LA34774 is included). 2 The same calculations used above result in an adjusted estimated range of 125 to 140 rooms (or 185 to 205 rooms, if LA34774 is included). In the Safford Valley, we know even less in terms of site sizes and occupation ranges, but a conservative estimate is 150 rooms associated with the initial foray of northern immigrants into this area, based on evidence from Goat Hill, Marijilda, Spear Ranch, and the Metho-

dist Church site. 3 There is also evidence of small immigrant enclaves at a number of preexisting Safford Valley communities. The low estimate of 150 immigrantrelated rooms translates into an adjusted total of 100 to 110 rooms. Recent work in the nearby Middle San Pedro Valley indicates that at least 120 rooms can be associated with northern immigrants after A.D. 1300 at Reeve Ruin, Davis Ranch Site, Jose Solas Ruin, the Elliott Site, and other small sites in the area, or an estimated 80 to 90 rooms in use at any given time. Counting immigrants in the San Pedro Valley is complicated. The apparent life cycle of the migrant community there included vanguard groups at Davis Ranch Site and Second Canyon Ruin, followed by much larger settlements apparently inhabited mainly by immigrants. Eventually the newcomers became integrated into existing platform mound communities. It is possible that small immigrant enclaves joined platform mound communities earlier in the sequence as well. At Point of Pines, Lindsay suggests that an initial vanguard group of perhaps 60 to 100 northern immigrants lived in a temporary pit house village4 and that they later occupied an estimated 160 rooms in the Maverick Mountain phase portion of the pueblo. The adjusted range is 105 to 120 rooms. Another possible ancestral Hopi immigrant cluster is composed of Table Rock Pueblo and the sites dubbed Spier 175 and Spier 176 located near St. Johns, Arizona. s The Table Rock cluster boasts a total of 380 rooms, but only about 150 are likely associated with the early Pueblo IV (A.D. 1275-1325) founder period there. These sites and evidence they were built and occupied by immigrants are discussed in detail in Chapters 3 and 4. The range of the minimum total number of rooms attributable to immigrants in these areas is about 1,150 to 1,350. However, many more rooms are attributed to later (post-A.D. 1325) immigrants at Homol'ovi and in the Cliff Valley (probably post-A.D. 1350). Estimates are more difficult to calculate for those areas where northern immigrants apparently arrived in small numbers and did not establish separate communities. Researchers working in the Grasshopper region have long argued that an enclave of northern immigrants was present at Grasshopper Puebl06 and that northerners were afoot at earlier and smaller sites near-

1. Adler and Johnson 1996; Lekson 2002 2. Lekson 2002: 62-63 3. Brown 1973; Woodson 1995. 1999

4. Lindsay 1987 5. Duff 1999, 2002 6. Riggs 2001

Ancestral Hopi Migration Markers by like Chodistaas and Grasshopper Spring. 1 Whittlesey and Reid2 report that biological characteristics identify 28 of the excavated burials at Grasshopper Pueblo as people not born in the local area. 3 Workers in the Silver Creek area, despite finding multiple lines of artifactual and architectural evidence suggesting migration, do not see indications of a large influx of population and, in fact, population density apparently decreases after A.D. 1100. Additionally, Mills postulates that potters moved from Silver Creek to the Grasshopper region in two pulses (in the A.D. 1280s and after A.D. 1325).4 Mills points out, however, that Silver Creek is located on a key route linking the Little Colorado River valley with the Point of Pines and Grasshopper regions, areas where strong evidence of the presence of northern immigrants abounds. With the room estimates presented above and some limited knowledge of the time depth of immigrant occupations in different regions, I address the question of serial occupation, specifically the hypothesis that immigrants to Safford and perhaps the San Pedro Valley first lived in the Point of Pines region. There are many more sites and enclaves (rooms) in the Safford and adjacent areas attributable to migrants than are associated with the Maverick Mountain phase occupation at Point of Pines. Movement from Point of Pines may account for some of the sites in Safford and other places, but cannot account for all of them. Evidence at Spear Ranch, for example, strongly indicates that immigrant communities in Safford were founded coeval with the Maverick Mountain occupation and were long-lived. Although the sites of the Upper Aravaipa are poorly known, recent research suggests multiple vanguard groups established what eventually became long-lived villages in that area as well. The same appears to be true of the San Pedro Valley and the Cliff Valley in New Mexico.

37

On the Hopi Mesas, the challenges to demographic reconstruction are many. 5 Some villages still occupied today were founded in the A.D. 1200s, making it difficult to track changes in population through time. It is nearly impossible to estimate how many of the rooms at

each of these villages were in use coeval with those at other settlements with shorter but overlapping occupation spans. Furthermore, high quality dendrochronological evidence for change through time is lacking at most villages on the Hopi Mesas (Walpi is an exception). 6 Also, some excavated sites remain incompletely published (like Awat'ovi). Additionally, stylistic and technological changes in Hopi pottery during the period A.D. 1375 to 1600 are not well understood, and opportunities for seriation and cross-dating are extremely limited. If fine-grained chronological data were available, it would be possible to add up the numbers of rooms at each village occupied during a particular time period, to estimate population based on rooms counts, and to track temporal changes. Basic demographic data for the Hopi Mesas, compiled by Adams7 and recently used by Duff, 8 illustrate the first problem discussed above, that of significant overlap in village occupation ranges. Nonetheless, from Adams' compilation it is obvious that the Hopi Mesas experienced a large increase in population after A.D. 1250. Presumably, many of these immigrants originated in the Kayenta region to the north. What cannot be determined from these data is whether or not additional pulses of immigrants arrived on the Hopi Mesas in later times that might correspond with the return migrations that I suggest occurred around A.D. 1400 to 1500. More work in this area is clearly needed, but the beginnings of a demographic model of Hopi return migration are available in the form of treering dates from Awat'ovi and Qootsaptuvela and a consideration of room counts at Awat'ovi and Kawayka'a. Awat'ovi was occupied between A.D. 1250 and 1700. Of its estimated 5,000 rooms, about 1,300 were tested or completely excavated during the 1930s by the Peabody Museum. The excavation sample from Awat' ovi is massive by today's stantlards and was stratified in such as way as to represent four major periods of occupation: the period associated with black-on-white pottery and orange pottery types (about A.D. 1250-13(0), the era during which orange pottery was dominant and yellow ware made its initial appearance (about A.D. 1300-1375), the span of time during which Sikyatki Polychrome became dominant (about A.D. 1375-16(0), and the Spanish period (post-A.D. 16(0).

1. 2. 3. 4.

5. 6. 7. 8.

Tracking Population Dynamics on the Hopi Mesas

Reid and Whittlesey 1999 Whittlesey and Reid 2001 Ezzo 1993 Mills 1999: 507-508

Kintigh 1990 Ahlstrom and others 1991 Adler and Johnson 1996 Duff 2002, Table 2.1

38

Chapter 2

Unfortunately, no synthesis of Awat' ovi archaeology is available, and the bulk of the pre-Spanish architecture of the site remains essentially unknown to Hopi scholars. However, 233 dendrochronological specimens from the site have been dated: 1 7 are cutting dates, and all but 12 of the specimens dated were recovered from the eastern (younger) half of the site. The spread of dates in some parts of the site and some rooms suggests recycling of beams occurred at Awat'ovi, but an examination of these dates yields useful information. Overall, the dendrochronological data support the founding date assigned to Awat' ovi on the basis of ceramics as well as the construction dates for the church and related buildings and the date of the village's destruction provided by historical records. The tree-ring data also suggest that the majority of native (non-Spanish) construction in the eastern half of the village occurred during the period A.D. 1375 to 1600, with frequencies of noncutting dates peaking during the following periods: A.D. 137Ovv-1446vv, A.D. 1461vv-1498vv, and A.D. 1532vv-1579vv. More than 25 percent of the noncutting dates are between A.D. 1370vv and 1446vv, and nearly 60 percent are between A.D. 1370vv and 1579vv. Another 24 percent are associated with the period A.D. 1594vv to 1638c, and most of these represent construction associated with mission-related facilities. There are 70 percent more dates assigned to the 1400s

than to the 1300s in the Awat' ovi sample, suggesting a sizable increase in construction during the fifteenth century. Qootsaptuvela (Old WAlpi) was founded around A.D. 1400, during this period of apparent architectural expansion at Awat'ovi. Indeed, Qootsaptuvela is home to a kiva named Homol' ovi, after the former home of those who built it, according to one of Stephen's First Mesa consultants. 2 This era also likely witnessed significant growth at KawAyka'a, a village with an estimated 3,000 rooms. The Peabody Museum's excavated sample from the site is, unfortunately, limited to a small area in the southwestern quadrant. The 48 tree-ring dates available from KawAyka'a include 13 cutting dates. Nearly a third of the 48 dates span the period from A.D. 1400vv to 1474+ +vv, but none of these are cutting dates. Considering just the limited data available from these three sites, it is likely that further research could conclusively demonstrate a significant increase in population on the Hopi Mesas between A.D. 1400 and 1500. 3 The next step would be to reconcile the number of new rooms constructed in the fifteenth century with the number of rooms abandoned in villages and regions in the southern Southwest that show strong affinities to the technological and stylistic traditions of northern Arizona. For now, however, I turn to a detailed case study of ancestral Hopi migrations to Homol' ovi.

1. Bannister and others 1967: 8-13 2. Parsons 1936a: 1155

3. Adams 1981: 323

CHAPTER THREE

Ancestral Hopi Archaeology at Homol'ovi leddito [pottery] and its close relative from Winslow, cannot be distinguished from each other without use of a magnifying glass . ... Their small difference[s] from each other [are] enough to be used by specialists as distinguishing characteristics, but the intention of the makers obviously was to produce identical pottery. Florence Hawley Ellisl o assess the connections between the Hopi of today T and the place they call "Homol'ovi," I first present

The late Pueblo III-early Pueblo IV (A.D. 12501390) occupation of the Winslow area was concentrated in eight villages, Homol'ovi I, II, III, and IV, Adobe Pueblo, Chevelon Ruin, Jackrabbit Ruin, and Cottonwood Creek Ruin (Fig. 3.1, Table 3.1). The first five villages are located within the boundaries of Homolovi Ruins State Park, the next two are situated on state land outside the park, and the last is on private property. Homol' ovi denotes the entire hilly area around Winslow but has been used to refer to four of the ancient pueblos along the Little Colorado River. Fewkes assigned numbers to the villages, presumably based on the order in which he encountered them. 8 Most references to "Homolovi Ruin" or "Homolobi Ruin" in the literature denote Homol' ovi I. The Hopi names for Homol'ovi II and Homol' ovi III are not currently known to archaeologists, but Homol' ovi IV has been referred to as TU\yiuca, a contraction of the Hopi name "Tsuercatuwiuca" (supplied by Edmund Nequatewa9), properly spelled Tsoqatuyqa, "mud point" or "muddy point" in Hopi. 10 Chevelon Ruin has been referred to by the Hopi name Cakwabaiyaki, Blue Stream Pueblo, II or Sakwavayu'ki, Blue-Green Creek House. 12 The Hopi name Sohoptsok' vi, cottonwood place, has been used by Hantman to denote Cottonwood Creek Ruin,13 although apparently this is not a traditional appellation. Adams l4

a brief introduction to the archaeology of the area. Ceramic evidence and corroborating architectural data support the conclusion that the founders and inhabitants of the Pueblo III-Pueblo IV villages of the Winslow area were immigrants from the north, most likely the Hopi Mesas. HOMOl'OVI: A HOPI PLACE

"Homol'ovi" is a Hopi word meaning "the place of mounds or small hills," referring to the topography of the Winslow area. Hopi oral tradition recounts that the ancestors of many present-day Hopi clans either established the villages of Homol' ovi or passed through the area during migrations toward their ultimate destination, the Hopi Mesas, 97 km (60 miles) north.2 The Hopi maintain strong connections to Homol' ovi, returning occasionally to gather water, plants, and animals for use in ritual activities and making pilgrimages to shrines in the area. 3 According to Titiev, 4 for example, the people of Orayvi built and maintain a katsina shrine at Homol' ovi. Hopis from Walpi told Stephen5 that a ruined kiva at the base of First Mesa was named Homol' ovi after the ancestral home of its builders, the Patkingyam (Parted Water Clan,6 Irrigation Ditch Clan?7). 1. Ellis 1974: 210-211 2. C. Mindelelf 1891: 29; Voth 1905: 47 3. Beaglehole 1936: 22-23; Fewkes 1898a: 525-526; Hantman 1982: 102, 106-107, 112; Hough 1915: 177 4. Titiev 1992: 246 5. Parsons 1936a: 1008, 1155 6. Hill and others 1998: 396 7. See Hill 2001: 925-926

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

[39]

Fewkes 1898a: 517 Colton 1956, Ware 6B, Type 1 Hill and others 1998 Fewkes 1898a: 527 Ferguson and Lomaomvaya 1999: 109 Hantman 1982, Thble 21 Adams 1989: 175

40

Chapter 3

t1'N-

I

o

I ,

o

.,

10 Miles

Figure 3.1. Location of sites within the Homol'ovi settlement cluster. (Adapted from Adams 1996c, frontispiece; reprinted by permission of the Arizona State Museum, Thcson).

Table 3.2. Phase Sequence for the Homol'ovi Area

Table 3.1. Dates of Occupation of the Homol'ovi Villages Site Homol'ovi IV Cottonwood Creek Ruin Homol'ovi III Homol'ovi I Chevelon Ruin Jackrabbit Ruin Adobe Pueblo Homol'ovi "

Start Date A.D.

End Date A.D.

1250-1260 1280-1290 1280-1290 1280-1290 1280-1290 1300 1325 1325

1290-1300 1375 1380-1390 1380-1390 1380-1390 1375 1375 1390

Dates A.D.

Phase

Dates A.D.

Late

1260-1400

Homol'ovi Tuwiuca

1330-1400 1260-1330

Middle

1000-1225

Walnut Black Mesa

1120-1225 1000-1050

Period

Early

620-890

Kana'a lino

NOTE: Adapted from Lange 1998, Figure 3.2.

820-890 620-780

Ancestral Hopi Archaeology at Homol'ovi

41

flora and fauna used for ritual purposes by the Hopi today and also by Homol'ovi's ancient inhabitants. lO Adams identifies as a possible "push" factor the possibility that demographic pressure, exerted by the exodus from the Kayenta region in the mid to late A.D. 1200s, led groups on the Hopi Mesas to stake a claim on the Middle Little Colorado River valley during the Late period, a move to "ensure continued access to what was perceived by ancient Hopi as their traditional homeland. "11 There are significant differences in the nature and scale of villages characteristic of the Middle and Late periods. Middle period villages (hamlets) are small, on the order of 10 to 20 structures, and the ceramic assemblages recovered from them are dominated by Little Colorado White Ware and Little Colorado Gray Ware. Late period villages are large (40 to 1,200 rooms) and their ceramic assemblages predominantly consist of Jeddito Orange Ware, Winslow Orange Ware, Jeddito Yellow Ware, Homolovi Gray Ware, and Homolovi Orange Ware. The most significant difference between the pottery assemblages of these two periods, from the standpoint of this study, is the introduction of the KayentaTusayan orange ware tradition of northern Arizona and southern Utah. The six Late period sites that have received significant excavation in the modern era exhibit many similarities. All have yielded Winslow Orange Ware pottery. All have produced locally manufactured examples of Kayenta and Tusayan ceramic types and vessel forms. The dominant nonlocal types in each ceramic assemblage are northern in origin. The sites all have rectangular kivas similar to those present at Kayenta and Tusayan sites of equivalent and greater age. The occupational history revealed by ceramic seriation indicates a developmental sequence in kiva forms and ceramic decorative style that mirrors trends on the Hopi Mesas.

has linked the Hopi place name Muwavi with Cottonwood Creek Ruin, and Fewkes discusses the name Etipsykya in connection with Homol'ovi III, 1 but does not elaborate. 2 Research on the Homol'ovi area began with Fewkes' excavations at Homol'ovi I, II, and III, and Chevelon Ruin. 3 Fewkes focused on these sites in order to investigate the "origin of the southern component of the Moki [Hopi] Indians. "4 By this he meant that he wished to trace the migration of different clans and phratries to the Hopi Mesas and to describe the process through which contact-peri6d Hopi sociopolitical and religious organization came to be. A large amount of Fewkes' energy was devoted to determining the origin of different Hopi religious ceremonies, as these are closely associated with the prime lineages of particular clans. 5 Work at Homol' ovi continued sporadically until the late 1970s and early 1980s. Since 1984, the area has been the focus of intense survey, excavation, and analysis. 6 In 1985 E. Charles Adams and Richard C. Lange established the Homol' ovi Research Program (HRP) of the Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, and they have directed research there since then. The main focus of HRP research has been understanding the process of aggregation that marks the Pueblo III-Pueblo IV transition in the Middle Little Colorado River valley. Archaeological work at Homol' ovi has revealed human occupation spanning the period from about 800 B.C. to A.D. 1400, with substantial populations present during the periods A.D. 620 to 890, 1000 to 1225, and 1250-1260 to 1400 (see Table 3.2).7 The occupational hiatus posited for the period A.D. 1225 to 1250-1260 correlates with streamflow retrodictions that reveal poor conditions for floodplain farming in the Winslow area. 8 With no evidence of continuity between the Middle and Late periods at Homol' ovi, by definition the people of the Late period villages must have been immigrants. 9 Adams has identified a number of "pull" factors that made Homol' ovi an attractive area for settlement after A.D. 1250: evidence of a return to good conditions for floodplain agriculture in an area capable of sustaining cotton (a commodity the people of Homol'ovi produced for exchange with the people of the Hopi Mesas), the likely presence of large amounts of driftwood suitable for use as construction timbers, and the area's riparian

Winslow Orange Ware (Thble 3.3) has been the focus of much debate through the years with regard to the origins of its producers and its stylistic affinities. 12 Ho-

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

Fewkes 1898a: 526 n. 5 C. Mindeleff 1891: 25-26 Fewkes 1898a, 1904 Fewkes 1898a: 519 Connelly 1979; Levy 1992; Whiteley 1988 Adams 1996c, 2001a, 2002; Adams and Hays 1991; Lange 1998

WINSLOW ORANGE WARE AND THE ORIGINS OF THE PEOPLE OF HOMOL'OVI

Lange 1998: 146-165, Fig. 3.2 Kolbe 1991; Van West 1996 Adams 2002: 88-90, 253 Adams 2002: 95-96, 210-215 Adams 2002: 254 Colton and Hargrave 1937: 136-138; Mera 1934; Upham 1982: 132, 159-160

42

Chapter 3

Table 3.3. Typology of Winslow Orange Ware Series

Types

Slipped vessels

Chavez Pass Red Chavez Pass Black-on-red Chavez Pass Polychrome

Dark-paste vessels

Black Ax Plain Homolovi Black-on-red Black Ax Polychrome

Unslipped, light-paste vessels

Tuwiuca Orange Tuwiuca Black-on-orange Homolovi Polychrome Winslow Black-on-white (reduced)

NOTE: From Hays-Gilpin and others 1996; Lyons and others 2001.

molovi Polychrome, the first Winslow Orange Ware type named, was described as an outgrowth of the brown ware tradition of east-central Arizona by Mera, who also suggested that its decorative patterns were "almost entirely derived from the neighboring Fourmile Polychrome system." 1 In fact, Mera seems to have viewed the inhabitants of the Middle Little Colorado River valley (the apparent makers of Winslow Orange Ware) as a population unrelated to the inhabitants of the Hopi Mesas and the Mogollon Rim country, but "greatly influenced" by these "stronger and more virile cultures" to the north and southeast. 2 Later, Colton and Hargrave argued for a primary connection between ancient pottery found in Winslow and the prehistoric ceramics of the Hopi Mesas, specifically Jeddito Black-on-orange and Jeddito Yellow Ware. 3 They describe the painted designs on Chavez Pass Black-on-red and Chavez Pass Polychrome vessels, for example, as an "unnamed style of decoration characteristic of Pueblo IV in the Hopi country.,,4 Winslow Orange Ware vessels, or portions thereof, are most frequent in assemblages from Homol' ovi, the Anderson Mesa area, and the Petrified Forest. 5 Smaller quantities have been recovered from the Verde Valley, the Tonto Basin, the Defiance Plateau, and the Hopi Mesas. Based on associations with tree-ring dated ceramics, principally White Mountain Red Ware, Tsegi 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Mera 1934: 17-19 Mera 1934: 18 Colton and Hargrave 1937: 136-138 Colton and Hargrave 1937: 84 Lyons 2001: 102-115 Bishop and others 1982: 301; Rands and Bishop 1980: 20 Colton and Hargrave 1937; also Colton 1956

Orange Ware, and Tusayan White Ware types, Winslow Orange Ware appears to have been manufactured between A.D. 1250 and 1400. Its production decreased dramatically, however, around A.D. 1325 with the introduction of Jeddito Yellow Ware that was made on the Hopi Mesas. Based on the criterion of abundance, 6 Colton and Hargrave argued that the light-paste, unslipped types within Winslow Orange Ware were made in the Winslow area and that the dark-paste types were indigenous to the Petrified Forest. 7 They also implied that the lightpaste, slipped types were made at sites in the Anderson Mesa area. Upham reached a different conclusion, suggesting that all Winslow Orange Ware types were produced at Chavez Pass and exchanged to the Homol' ovi site cluster, among other places. 8 His basic argument was that Pueblo IV multivillage communities in the northern Southwest were stratified sociopolitically, that is, elites with centralized power managed the production and distribution of prestige goods in order to create and maintain intracommunity status and intercommunity alliances. During the course of HRP excavations at Homol' ovi, numerous clues have pointed to the local production of pottery: unfired vessels at Homol' ovi I, Homol' ovi III, Homol' ovi IV, and Jackrabbit Ruin; unfired clay coils and patties recovered at all recently excavated sites in the Homol'ovi group; pottery manufacturing tools, including shaped-sherd scrapers (kajepes) from Homol'ovi III and Homol' ovi 19 and shaped-sherd plates and molded plates suitable for use as potters' turntables or "pukis" 10 recovered at Homol' ovi I; perforated plates at Homol'ovi I, II, III, and IV, Adobe Pueblo, and Jackrabbit Ruin (which may have been used as potters' turntables); and a large number of misfired, warped, fire-clouded, and vitrified sherds and whole vessels of Winslow Orange Ware. Such "production mistakes" normally remained close to their area of manufacture and were not circulated. 11 Furthermore, petrographic comparisons of Winslow Orange Ware temper and samples of locally available sand revealed significant mineralogical similarities,12 and Winslow Orange Ware has been successfully replicated using clays and sand from the immediate vicinity of the Homol' ovi villages. 13 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

Upham 1982: 132; also Plog and Upham 1989 Lyons and others 2001; also Herr 1993 Guthe 1925 Hegmon and others 1995: 41 Hays-Gilpin and others 1996 Vaitkus 1986

Ancestral Hopi Archaeology at Homol'ovi

Compositional Analysis of Winslow Orange Ware To establish that Winslow Orange Ware was produced by the inhabitants of the ancient villages of Homol' ovi and the Petrified Forest, I selected 422 samples of pottery and clays (including 5 alluvial clays, 12 clays recovered from archaeological contexts, and 26 primary clays) for Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis (INAA) at the research reactor facility at the University of Missouri (MURR). Hector Neff and Michael D. Glascock guided the analysis. Details of the laboratory procedures and analytical techniques are reported in the Appendix.

43

the best way to test this and related hypotheses was through INAA. The ability to integrate my results with those of other researchers using INAA analyses in adjacent areas6 was also an important consideration. Most importantly, INAA, like other compositional analysis techniques, assists in documenting the local production of objects manufactured according to the technological or stylistic canons of a foreign tradition and, with the proper interpretive framework, distinguishing among patterns created as a result of exchange, emulation, and migration. The INAA Sample

INAA is a method of chemical compositional analysis that involves the bombardment of a sample with neutrons (provided by a nuclear reactor) in order to create unstable radioisotopes of its constituent elements. 1 Because radioisotopes decay at characteristic rates, they can be identified and their concentrations determined (in parts per million) by gamma ray emission counters. INAA is precise, sensitive, and accurate, resulting in compositional "fingerprints" of ceramic pastes, geological clays, and modified (prepared) clays. 2 It is one of the most powerful compositional analysis techniques currently available for use on archaeological ceramics. Because INAA can reliably discern subtle differences among ceramic pastes, researchers can discuss similarities and differences among the pastes of different vessels and groups thereof (types, wares, forms). Under ideal circumstances, 3 fairly precise places of origin can be attributed to compositional groups. Although petrographic analysis has not delineated different paste groups within Winslow Orange Ware, 4 the wide range of paste and surface colors exhibited by Winslow Orange Ware vessels and the results of oxidation analyses5 indicate that several different clay sources were utilized by Homol' ovi potters. With the hope that this apparent variability in resource use was related to the proximity of particular villages to certain clay sources, I thought

The sherd portion of the sample came from six regions representing 27 sites (Table 3.4): Homol'ovi, Petrified Forest, Anderson Mesa, Verde Valley, Tonto Basin, and the Silver Creek drainage. Winslow Orange Ware dominated the sherd sample (N = 379), although numerous specimens of leddito Orange Ware and several examples of Homolovi Orange Ware, Homolovi Gray Ware, Little Colorado White Ware, Little Colorado Gray Ware, and other wares were included. The alluvial and primary clays (N = 31) selected for analysis came from deposits located mostly within a O.8-km (O.5-mile) radius of Homol'ovi I, II, III, and IV. Two different geological formations are represented among the primary clays, Chinle-Shinarump and Moenkopi. 7 I also included 12 samples of unfired clays recovered from Homol'ovi I, Homol'ovi II, and Puerco Ruin. I stratified the sherd sample to effectively represent the assemblages of three villages within the likely production zone of Winslow Orange Ware: Homol'ovi IV (N =83), Homol' ovi III (N = 87), aQd Homol' ovi I (N = 105). Samples from sites in the Petrified Forest, such as Puerco Ruin (N = 25) and Wallace Tank Ruin (N = 15), and the Anderson Mesa area (Chavez Pass and Kinnikinnick; N = 17) were included to determine whether Winslow Orange Ware was produced in other areas. I also made an attempt to sample a large number of stratigraphically early contexts at Homol'ovi to address the question of the origins of the founders of these villages. Other specimens were included to document the circulation of Winslow Orange Ware beyond its hypo-

1. 2. 3. 4.

5. Hays-Gilpin and others 1996; Vint 1989, 1990 6. Duff 1999; Triadan 1997; Triadan and others 2002; Zedefio 1994a. 2002 7. McKee 1954; Smith 1957; Stewart and others 1972

Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis

Glascock 1992 Bishop and others 1990; Neff 1992 Bishop and others 1988; Glascock 1992 Hays-Gilpin and others 1996

44

Chapter 3

Table 3.4. Number of Prehistoric Sherds in the INAA Sample by Site and Region

Results

thetical production zone, for example, to the Verde Valley (N=8) and the Tonto Basin (N=3). I added other specimens to determine whether there was continuity or change in resource use through time, including Little Colorado White Ware and Little Colorado Gray Ware sherds (N = 19) from Pueblo II and Pueblo III sites at Hornor ovi and in the Petrified Forest.

Neutron activation analysis resulted in the identification of three major compositional groups that I named "Local," "Puerco," and "Hopi." The Local compositional group (N = 168) consists primarily of Winslow Orange Ware, but also includes specimens of Homolovi Orange Ware and Homolovi Gray Ware. Several sherds identified as locally produced versions of Roosevelt Red Ware, Tsegi Orange Ware, Jeddito Orange Ware, and Tusayan Gray Ware are included as well. In terms of ascribing a production zone to this compositional group, it is noteworthy that a specimen of unfired pottery recovered from Homol' ovi IV is included. It is highly unlikely that unfired pottery circulated any significant distance beyond its production area. Most Winslow Orange Ware pottery types are represented in the Local compositional group, including Tuwiuca Orange, Tuwiuca Black-on-orange, Homolovi Polychrome, Chavez Pass Red, Chavez Pass Black~on­ red, Chavez Pass Polychrome, Black Ax Polychrome, and Winslow Black-on-white. Homol'ovi potters may have produced Black Ax Plain and Homolovi Black-onred as the people of the Petrified Forest did, but specimens of these types, which are relatively rare outside of the Puerco Valley, were not submitted for analysis as part of the sample from the Homol' ovi villages. Based on the INAA results, Winslow Orange Ware circulated from Homol' ovi to Anderson Mesa (Chavez Pass Ruin and Kinnikinnick), the Verde Valley (Bridgeport Ruin, Limestone Ruin, Clear Creek Ruin, and Bull Pen Ruin), and the Tonto Basin (Rye Creek Ruin). It is also possible that pottery made at villages in the Petrified Forest was moved to Homol'ovi (specimen PDL211), although there currently is no compositional evidence to suggest the movement of vessels in the opposite direction. Upham posited that the inhabitants of the Anderson Mesa pueblos were the sole producers of Winslow Orange Ware. 1 However, the data presented here point to the continuation of a long-standing Sinagua pattern of ceramic assemblages dominated by locally produced Alameda Brown Ware and characterized by small percentages of decorated ceramics, all of which appear to have been imported. 2

1. Upham 1982

2. Colton 1946; Henderson 1990; Henss 1990

Region

Site

Homol'ovi

Homol'ovi I Homol'ovi III Homol'ovi IV Homol'ovi II HP 36 HP 51 Adobe Pueblo Holiday Inn Subtotal

Petrified Forest

Puerco Ruin Wallace Tank Ruin PEFO 1998B1 PEFO 1998B7 PEFO 1998B 13 PEFO 1998B39 PEFO 1998B 19 WACC 6229 Subtotal

Number 105 87 83 11 6 2 1 _1 296

25 15 3 2 2 2 __ 1 51

Anderson Mesa

Nuvakwewtaqa Kinnikinnick Subtotal

Verde Valley

Verde:6:9 (GP) Bridgeport Ruin Limestone Ruin Verde:5:17 (GP) Clear Creek Ruin Bull Pen Ruin Subtotal

_1 8

Bailey Ruin Subtotal

~ 4

Silver Creek Tonto Basin

Rye Creek Ruin

AZ. 0:15:54 (ASM) Subtotal Total

10 _7 17 3

2

-'3 379

Ancestral Hopi Archaeology at Homol' ovi I assigned origins to the other two major compositional groups based on the criterion of abundance. The Puerco group (N = 39), which almost exclusively consists of specimens recovered from Puerco Ruin and Wallace Tank Ruin, seems to signal production of Winslow Orange Ware by the inhabitants of the Pueblo IV sites of the Petrified Forest and includes Thwiuca Black-on-orange, Homolovi Polychrome, Chavez Pass Red, Chavez Pass Black-on-red, Chavez Pass Polychrome, Black Ax Plain, and Black Ax Polychrome (no samples of Homolovi Black-on-red were submitted for analysis). The Hopi group (N = 67) includes Ieddito Orange Ware 1 vessels apparently made on the Hopi Mesas, based on their macroscopically visible technological characteristics (extremely high-fired and tempered with yellow sherds). Two samples came from Bailey Ruin and another from site AZ 0:15:54 (ASM) in the Tonto Basin. I compared the compositional groups defined by other researchers to this three-group structure and to a group of Little Colorado White Ware and Little Colorado Gray Ware sherds from Pueblo II and Pueblo III sites at Homol' ovi and the Petrified Forest. White Mountain Red Ware from the Homol' ovi villages, analyzed by Daniela Triadan2 and Andrew Duff, 3 is compositionally distinct from the Local, Puerco, and Hopi groups and matches the previously defined Silver Creek 3 and Silver Creek 1 compositional groups. Duff assigned Zuni Glaze Ware from Homol' ovi II to his Upper Little Colorado 1 and Upper Little Colorado 3 compositional groups and Roosevelt Red Ware from Homol'ovi n4 to his Zuni 1 and Upper Little Colorado 4 compositional groups. Ieddito Orange Ware recovered from Kinishba2 matched the Hopi group, as did specimens recovered from Homol' ovi IV, analyzed by Zedeiio. 5 The Little Colorado White Ware-Little Colorado Gray Ware group is similar to the Puerco compositional group and distinct from both the Hopi and Local groups. An interesting by-product of these comparisons with the compositional groups identified by other workers is the realization, noted by Neff and others6 and Zedeiio, 5 that the Chinle formation is compositionally homogeneous. Also, it seems that Little Colorado White Ware and Little Colorado Gray Ware vessels were made from Chinle formation materials in the Petrified 1. Lyons 2001: 150-151; also Adams 1991: 57; Adams and others 1993, Table 1; Andrews 1982: 57 2. Triadan and others, 1997, 2002 3. Duff 1999 4. Crown and Bishop 1991, and reanalyzed by Andrew Duff

45

Forest, and vessels of these wares at Homol'ovi may have been made with similar materials (or were circulated to Homol'ovi from the Puerco Valley). This observation is contrary to the conclusion reached by Douglass,' based on petrography, x-ray diffraction studies, and microprobe analysis, that Little Colorado White Ware was made exclusively using Bidahochi formation clays characteristic of the Hopi Buttes. Douglass' sourcing sample was drawn from only 11 sites in the regions of the Hopi Buttes and San Francisco Mountains. Her distributional study of Little Colorado White Ware noted impressive percentages of the ware in the Petrified Forest, the Chevelon drainage, the Snowflake area, the Grand Canyon, and the Zuni River area. 8 Although it seems clear from Douglass' results that all or most of the Little Colorado White Ware recovered in the San Francisco Mountains area was made in the Hopi Buttes, the compositional data reported here suggest it may be unwise to assume that the people of the Hopi Buttes supplied the people of the Petrified Forest and other regions with this ware.

Compositional Patterns and the Migration Inference Ieddito Orange Ware types, mostly Ieddito Black-onorange and Ieddito Polychrome, dominate the ceramics at Homol'ovi IV, the earliest of the Pueblo III-Pueblo IV villages of Homol' ovi. Among sherds from Homol'ovi IV, 54 specimens of Ieddito Orange Ware were assigned to the Hopi compositional group. Unassigned specimens from Homol'ovi IV include: 15 Kokop B1ackon-orange and Polychrome and Huckovi Black-on-orange and Polychrome, 1 Pinto-Gila Polychrome, 2 Kayenta Polychrome, 1 Kiet Siel Polychrome, 2 each of Kayenta Black-on-white and Bidahochi Black-on-white, and 1 Chavez Pass Black-on-red. The specimens that comprise the Hopi compositional group came from many different contexts at Homol' ovi IV, including extramural areas, trash filled rooms, a kiva, a pit house, and extramural surfaces below surface structures. The Hopi compositional group, which is dominant at Homol' ovi IV, is represented in the earliest deposits (stratigraphically speaking) at Homol'ovi III and Homol' ovi I as well. Homol' ovi III specimens 5. 6. 7. 8.

Zedefio 2002 Neff and others 1997 Douglass 1987 Douglass 1987, 1994

46

Chapter 3

assigned to the Hopi group came from the floor (sample PDL392), floor fill (PDL203), the trash cone (PDL391), and the highest undisturbed deposits (PDL388) within Structure 34, one of the village's two earliest kivas (only Structure 43 may be older and was likely abandoned earlier). Members of the Hopi group recovered from Homol' ovi I include specimens derived from strata near the base of a nearly 3-m-deep trash deposit outside the east wall of the village (PDL381, PDL382, PDL383) and from a bedrock surfuce overlain by 2 m of cultural deposits, including a room block revealing three remodeling phases (PDL387). Whereas Homol' ovi IV has yielded vessels of types made on the Hopi Mesas such as Kiet Siel Polychrome and other polychrome types of the Kayenta tradition, 1 Homol' ovi III and Homol' ovi I have produced locally made vessels of these same types. A portion of a locally produced Tusayan Polychrome "A" vessel (PDL250) came from the wall niche of an early-abandoned kiva at Homol'ovi III, for example. Locally made Kayenta Polychrome (PDL192) and Citadel Polychrome (PDL191) vessels came from Homol'ovi I near the base of the nearly 3-m-deep trash deposit mentioned above. An indigenous version of Kiet Siel Polychrome (PDL126) was recovered from another extramural pre-yellow-ware deposit, and a similar vessel came from mixed deposits at Homol' ovi I. Other examples of this phenomenon have since been identified but have not been subjected to INAA (apparently locally produced Kayenta Polychrome at Homol'ovi 111).2 Stylistically speaking, most Winslow Orange Ware represents an attempt to produce Jeddito Orange Ware locally, and so the decorated assemblages from the early deposits at Homol' ovi III and Homol' ovi I are dominated by a nonlocal (Hopi) ware produced with materials indigenous to Homol' ovi. Other evidence of early ties to the Kayenta area and the Hopi Mesas exists at the Homol' ovi sites in the form of perforated plates (Table 3.5). Locally produced specimens came from all four of the Homol' ovi villages. Clearly those from Homol' ovi IV are early (preA.D. 1300), and one Homol'ovi I specimen (PDL336) came from an early (pre-Jeddito Yellow Ware) deposit. The other locally produced examples came from late or mixed contexts at Homol'ovi I, Homol'ovi III, and Homol' ovi II. Three perforated plates in my INAA sample 1. Zedeiio 2002, samples POP471, POP474, POP479

remain unassigned; they came from late deposits at Homol' ovi I and Adobe Pueblo. Many examples of this vessel form have been found at the Homol' ovi villages and not all of them were submitted for INAA. Those specimens not analyzed came from Homol' ovi IV; from early deposits at Homol'ovi III, including the fill of a wall niche and trash fill in Structure 37 (an early-abandoned kiva); and from early and late deposits at Homol'ovi I and Homol'ovi II. Perforated plates are also present in the yellow-ware-dominated assemblage from Jackrabbit Ruin. All four excavated Homol' ovi villages have yielded Winslow Orange Ware ladles with rivet-attached handles, and those from Homol' ovi III include specimens recovered from Structures 34 and 37, kivas filled with trash associated with the earliest occupation there. Winslow Orange Ware colanders and babe-in-cradle ladles also came from Homol'ovi III and Homol'ovi I. None of these objects underwent neutron activation analysis, but based on paste, temper, and surfuce characteristics they are indistinguishable from Winslow Orange Ware specimens assigned to the Local compositional group. The INAA results presented here indicate a strong and persistent connection between the people of Homol'ovi and the people of the Hopi Mesas. It is reasonable to suggest a northern origin for the immigrant founders of all the Homol' ovi villages. Similar connections are drawn below on the basis of an analysis of whole vessels recovered from the Homol' ovi villages.

THE WHOLE VESSEL STUDY In 1999, assisted by James E. Murphy, I visited the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago to study 1,135 whole ceramic vessels recovered from Homol'ovi. The analysis of shared styles of painted decoration and vessel shapes resulted in the discovery of more evidence linking the people of Homol' ovi and those of the Kayenta area and the Hopi Mesas.

Description The Wattron collection (Field Museum of Natural History Accession Number 745) accounts for the bulk of the assemblage reported here, although we also ex2. See Hays-Gilpin and others 1996: 66

Ancestral Hopi Archaeology at Homol'ovi

47

Table 3.5. Perforated Plates Recovered from the Homol'ovi Villages Site Homol'ovi IV

Homol'ovi III

Homol'ovi I

Adobe Pueblo Homol'ovi II

Jackrabbit Ruin

Context Structure 301 Plaza "Spicer Cache" Above Structure 4 Structure 2 Structure 5 Under Structure 5 Under Structure 5 Structure 31 Structure 32 Structure 37 Structure 37 Structure 2 Structure 401 Structure 651 Structure 651 Structure 901 Structure 415 Structure 733 Structure 504 Structure 701 Structure 733 Structure 704 Unknown Structure 10 Structure 324 Structure 324 Structure 708 Surface Surface Surface

a. These sherds refit and represent one vessel.

HRP Catalog Number 35/1 94/1 112/1 176/1 182/1 190/1 213/1 218/1 596/27 86011 1005/46 1049/62 20/25 297/46 1020/20a 1020/26a 1054/17 1698/18 1994/17 3095/1 206011 2379/1 2830/30 156993 b 64/35 1551/1 a 1628/1 a N/A N/A N/A N/A

Homolovi Gray Ware Homolovi Gray Ware Homolovi Gray Ware Homolovi Gray Ware Homolovi Orange Ware Homolovi Gray Ware Homolovi Gray Ware Homolovi Gray Ware Homolovi Gray Ware Homolovi Gray Ware Homolovi Gray Ware Homolovi Gray Ware Tusayan Gray Ware? Homolovi Gray Ware Homolovi Gray Ware Homolovi Gray Ware Homolovi Orange Ware Homolovi Orange Ware Homolovi Gray Ware Homolovi Gray Ware Homolovi Orange Ware Tusayan Gray Ware? Homolovi Orange Ware Homolovi Orange Ware Homolovi Orange Ware? Homolovi Orange Ware? Homolovi Orange Ware? Homolovi Orange Ware Homolovi Gray Ware Homolovi Orange Ware? Homolovi Orange Ware?

ANID (PDl)

INAA Group

393 340

local local

338

local 1

331 332 332

local 1 local 2 local 2

333 335

Unassigned local

336 337

local 1 Unassigned

334

Unassigned

339

local 2

b. Smithsonian Institution catalog number (recovered by Fewkes).

amined vessels recovered by George A. Dorsey (Accession Number 555) and 1. A. Burt (Accession Number 669). The Wattron collection, a portion of which is illustrated in Anasazi Painted Pottery in the Field Museum of Natural History by Paul Martin and Elizabeth Willis, l is named for former Navajo County Sheriff Frank 1. Wattron, who in 1901 sold 3,000 artifacts to the Field Museum. The whole vessels available for study came primarily from Homol'ovi I, with the next largest portion from Homol' ovi II, and a small number from Chevelon Ruin 1. Martin and Willis 1940

INAA Ware

(Thble 3.6). Frequencies of various wares in the assemblages from Homol' ovi I and Homol' ovi II are different. At Homol'ovi I, Winslow Orange Ware predominates; at Homol' ovi II Jeddito Yellow Ware dominates the collection. This contrast reflects chronology; Homol' ovi II is the later and shorter-lived of the two villages. The small number of vessels from Chevelon Ruin makes it impossible to comment on similarities and differences among it and the two other Homol' ovi villages. Regarding vessel forms, the assemblage is dominated by bowls; jars and pitchers are the next most frequent

48

Chapter 3

Table 3.6. Typological Analysis of Whole Vessels from Homol'ovi at the Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago Ware

Homol'ovi I II

Winslow Orange 399 Jeddito Yellow 307 Hopi White 74 White Mountain Red 48 Jeddito Orange 40 Mogollon Brown 7 Burned Indeterminate 6 ~Pseudo Black-on-white" 6 Zuni Glaze 3 Unknown Decorated 2 Unknown White 3 Tusayan White 2 Antelope Series 2 Cibola White 2 Homolovi Orange Little Colorado White Total

902

65 125 7 5 5 1 2

Chevelon Ruin Total 2 .16

2 1

213

20

466 448 82 53 45 8 8 6 5 3 3 2 2 2

Table 3.7. Forms of Homol'ovi Whole Vessels Curated by the Field Museum of Natural History by Major Wares Form (%) Ware

% 41.0 39.4 7.2 4.7 4.0 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1

1135

forms; with ladles, mugs and cups, and other forms representing smaller proportions of the total (Table 3.7). This distribution characterizes the collections from all three sites. Among the nonlocal vessels, northernmanufactured types predominate in the assemblages from Homol' ovi I and Homol' ovi II. The small sample from Chevelon Ruin consists entirely of locally produced vessels and pots of northern origin.

Ware and Type Definitions The ware and type designations I use in most cases follow standard definitions formulated by earlier researchers. The definition of Jeddito Yellow Ware and associated type descriptions largely correspond to HaysI and represent Smith's revisions2 to Colton and Hargrave's approach to Hopi yellow and orange pottery. 3 The key distinction between Hays' taxonomy and the system used herein is the separation of orange-paste and orange-slipped pottery from yellow-paste pottery (even though both were locally produced on the Hopi Mesas and were coal-fired). I lump orange-paste and orange1. Hays 1991 2. Smith 1971 3. Colton and Hargrave 1937: 146-156; also Colton 1956, Ware 7B

(N)

Bowl

Winslow Orange (466) 51.5 Jeddito Yellow (448) 62.7 Jeddito Orange (45) 44.4 Hopi White (82) 34.2 White Mtn. Red (53) 62.3

Mug, Cup

Ladle

Jar

Pitcher

Other

2.1

12.7

14.8

15.7

3.2

0.6

7.8

18.3

9.4

1.2

35.6

15.6

4.4

14.6

26.8

18.3

1.9

35.8

4.9

1.2

slipped Jeddito Yellow Ware types with Jeddito Blackon-orange and Jeddito Polychrome (Tsegi Orange Ware types) under the rubric of Jeddito Orange Ware. 4 "Pseudo Black-on-white" is a classification used by Martin and Willis,S who define it as "a variant of Fourmile Polychrome, wherein the whole specimen is completely covered with white paint," that is, slip. These vessels appear to represent late Cibola White Ware. One vessel was decorated in a Tusayan White Ware Style (many analysts would have classified it as Pinedale Black-on-white), two were decorated in Fourmile Style, and no design information was recorded for the others. The Antelope Series includes two types defined by Watson Smith, 6 Antelope Black-on-straw and Antelope Polychrome. These types look like intergrades between Winslow Orange Ware and Jeddito Yellow Ware. They have distinctive surface colors that differ from those characteristic of either Winslow Orange Ware or Jeddito Yellow Ware. They exhibit temper similar to that in Winslow Orange Ware pastes, but they appear to have been fired at temperatures above the characteristic range of locally produced Homol' ovi pottery.

Ware Comparisons The five major wares in the assemblage are dominated by bowls, with jars and pitchers usually ranking 4. Compare Adams 1991: 57; Adams and others 1993, Thble 1; Andrews 1982: 57 5. Martin and Willis 1940: 236 6. Smith 1971: 540-554

Ancestral Hopi Archaeology at Homol'ovi

second or third in frequency. There are some interesting differences among the wares, however. The White Mountain Red Ware sample lacks pitchers and exotic forms such as seed jars and colanders, and it includes only a single ladle (the ware assignment of this vessel is questionable; it was classified as unidentified White Mountain Red Ware). According to Carlson,l this form distribution is not an artifact of my sample, as "specialized Kayenta-Hopi shapes, such as cups with small loop handles, do not appear in White Mountain Red Ware." Some White Mountain Red Ware animal effigies have been noted, however. 2 In contrast, the northern products and Winslow Orange Ware display high proportions of ladles and pitchers, along with smaller numbers of mugs, cups, and other forms. Ladles are most frequent among the Jeddito Orange Ware vessels in the assemblage (35.6%), but the Jeddito Orange Ware sample lacks mugs, cups, and exotic forms. Analysis of Painted Decoration Decorations displayed by ancient Southwestern ceramics have traditionally been subject to hierarchical schemes of analysis, involving the identification of styles, layouts, motifs, and elements. 3 Previous studies of decorative modes that cross-cut wares and types have used named "styles" as units of analysis, for example, Pinedale Style, Tularosa Style. I use a modified form of this approach and rework traditional categories based on layout. I resurrect the previously named "Jeddito Style," define "Tuwiuca," "Awat'ovi" and "Sikyatki" styles of pottery decoration, and group characteristic late Kayenta layouts (radial, band, and meridional; Fig. 3.2) under the rubric of "Kayenta Style." Pinedale Style, Jeddito Style, Roosevelt Style and other named modes of Southwestern ceramic decoration share layouts and motifs characteristic of the Kayenta ceramic tradition. These similarities have been emphasized by numerous researchers and many have considered the possibility that such shared traits represent evidence of population movement. 4 Specifically, it is the "northernness" of late White Mountain Red Ware, late Cibola White Ware, and Roosevelt Red Ware that leads archaeologists to posit relationships among the mak1. Carlson 1970: 110 2. Carlson 1970, Figs. 27a, 37h; Martin and Willis 1940, Plate 105.3-5 3. Amsden 1936; Colton 1953: 43-50; but compare Jernigan 1982, 1986

49

ers of these wares. What has not been achieved so far, however, is a detailed model (in behavioral terms) of how these styles (wares, types) came to be similar and why they should diverge from each other in terms of some of their characteristics. Stressing layout as a manifestation of enculturation, I begin by describing Pinedale Style, dividing it into two substyles, and conclude by describing Jeddito, Tuwiuca, Awat'ovi, Sikyatki, and Kayenta styles and the relationships among them.

Pinedale Style The first person to formally name and describe a Pinedale Style of decoration was Roy Carlson. 5 His definition, used in a number of subsequent studies of Pueblo III-Pueblo IV design styles6 and his hypotheses about the style's development are worth quoting. 7 the most common layout is ... an unsectioned band, and the focus of decoration is ... usually the walls of bowls ... motifs composed of interlocked solid and hatched units are common, but these are larger than in Tularosa style ... and with few exceptions the motifs are repeated no more than four times. There is also a trend toward broadening and elaborating what were formerly layout lines into motifs, and in using negative layouts. The edges of linear motifs still show complicated steps and barbs, but internal elaboration of large triangular, curvilinear, and rectilinear motifs using dots, dotted lines, parallel lines, and particularly squiggled lines becomes common. The running diamond motif makes its appearance in Pinedale style and is not found earlier in White Mountain Redwares. Patterns are symmetrical and are formed of either alternating or repeated motifs [page 91]. Most of the influence which transformed Tularosa style into Pinedale style can be traced to the Kayenta-Hopi ceramic tradition.... Part and parcel of this problem is the development of the Salado ceramic tradition ... [pages 105-108]. elements ... retained from Tularosa style are: (1) the utilization of interlocked solid and hatched units 4. Carlson 1970, 1982; Crown 1994 5. Carlson 1961: 27-28 6. Adams 1991; Crown 1981b, 1994; Lyons 2001; Zedeno 1994a 7. Carlson 1970: 91, 105-109

50

Chapter 3

Figure 3.2. Kayenta zonal or banded layouts (top three rows), radial layouts (fourth and fifth rows), and meridional arrangements (bottom row). (Adapted from Smith 1971, Figs. 106-108, copyright by the President and Fellows of Harvard College.)

to form motifs; (2) the banded layout and wall focus of decoration; (3) the curvilinear bird figures; (4) the preference for motifs in the form of scrolls and frets. Those attributes which seem to stem from the Kayenta-Hopi ceramic tradition are: (1) the bold line work and bold patterns; (2) filler units made up of small stepped lines [corbeling]; (3) filler units of parallel hatching; (4) the running diamond motif [layout device]; (5) the

offset quartered and negative offset quartered layouts, and the whole idea of offsetting layout and design units; (6) double banding lines; (7) the dotted edge used on many filler units; and (8) the excellent artistry.... The bold style, the offset quartered layouts, the parallel-hatched filler units and the stepped line filler units seem to have evolved gradually in [the Kayenta-Hopi] area from the time of Tusayan Polychrome (1150-1300),

Ancestral Hopi Archaeology at Homol'ovi

51

Kiet Siel Polychrome (1225-1300), Sagi [Kayenta] Black-on-white (1200-1300), leddito Black-onorange (1200-1300) and on later types [pages 108-109]. Carlson's early contributions include: (1) the clear definition of a Pinedale Style, based on earlier descriptions by Haury; 1 (2) the recognition of the northern origin of stylistic attributes that transformed both White Mountain Red Ware and Cibola White Ware, resulting in the development of Pinedale Style; and (3) identifying a stylistic horizon that blanketed the entire southwest by A.D. 1325. 2 Carlson's more recent statements on Pinedale Style elllphasize even more the role of northern potters in its development and spread: 3 Pinedale style seems to have come out of the Kayenta Tradition in northeastern Arizona and to have spread as far as the Rio Grande during the period between A.D. 1250 and 1300. Much of the southwest was in a state of upheaval at that time. ... Part of the Kayenta district was abandoned and a segment of the population headed south to emerge as the Maverick Mt. Phase at Point of Pines .... Kintiel and Klagetoh polychromes came into being in the Little Colorado drainage with Pinedale style and seem to be ancestral Hopi. ... Pinedale style ... seems to have been earliest in this region [the Kayenta area] and was probably initially developed on Tusayan Black-on-white. Carlson's original Pinedale Style definition apparently included two different types of blends of northern decorative traditions and Tularosa Style: 4 (1) simplified Tularosa-derived band layouts composed of bold motifs and characterized by internal elaborations of motifs, as well as the use of novel filler treatments such as stepped lines and parallel hatching (corbel-and-hatch fillers), and mosquito-barring;5 and (2) Kayenta-derived layouts (most notably offset quartered and negative offset quartered arrangements) with the addition of Reserve and Tularosa style motifs (what Watson Smith calls the "Tularosa Pyramid,,6 and a feature I refer to as "ReserveTularosa steps"). This two-fold division can be observed within assemblages of whole vessels of Pinedale Blackon-white, Roosevelt Black-on-white, Pinedale Black-on1. 2. 3. 4.

Haury 1931a, Carlson 1961, Carlson 1982: Carlson 1970:

1931b 1970 217-222 19

a

b

Figure 3.3. Bowl layouts characteristic of Pinedale Style A (a) and Pinedale Style B (b). Adapted from Carlson 1970, Figs. 47, 49. Reprinted by permission of the University of Arizona Press.

red, Pinedale Polychrome, Cedar Creek Polychrome, Pinto Black-on-red, Pinto Polychrome, and Gila Polychrome, among others. I refer to Pinedale Style designs with Tularosa-derived banded layouts as "Pinedale Style A" (or Pinedale A) and to Pinedale Style designs with northern radial layouts as "Pinedale Style B" (Fig. 3.3). Pinedale A and Pinedale B developed along the Mogollon Rim and in the upper reaches of the Little Colorado as groups of immigrants from the north moved in among indigenous populations. Each group of potters (immigrants and indigenous people) seems to have continued the use of its own traditional modes of dividing decorative space (layouts) but incorporated aspects of the other group's repertoire of motifs, elements, and patterns. These are the sorts of consequences one would expect given an etlmographically informed model of layout as constrained by enculturation and smaller scale aspects of decoration as more subject to emulation. Likewise, leddito Style developed on the Hopi Mesas when elements of the Reserve-Tularosa tradition were incorporated into Kayenta layouts. The Reserve-Tularosa tradition included opposed hatched and solid elements, the "nested pyramid," and the "steps" or halfterraces characteristic of Reserve and Tularosa styles. 7 I believe it is Jeddito Style that Carlson saw developing on the Hopi Mesas and in the Kayenta area (on Tusayan Black-on-white) before A.D. 1300, 8 not Pinedale Style, although the mixtures of northern and southern characteristics displayed by these styles are similar. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Carlson 1970, Fig. 55 Smith 1971: 123-124, 178,371-373, Figs. 76s, 195b Smith 1971: 123-124,371,375-376 Carlson 1982: 222

52

Chapter 3

The "Tularosa-derived" elements of Jeddito Style may have come to the Hopi Mesas from the south or the north. The Tularosa Style elements that characterize some leddito Style (and Tuwiuca Style) designs (opposed hatched and solid motifs; simplified Tularosalike bands on Tuwiuca Style bowls) appeared on the pottery of the Hopi Mesas alongside other elements associated with the Mesa Verde ceramic tradition, including layouts dominated by concentric circles, subrim banding lines, rim ticking, and cylindrical mugs. The potters who produced Mesa Verde Black-on-white reinterpreted and executed aspects of the Reserve-Tularosa tradition in the same way as potters making vessels in leddito and Tuwiuca styles. Designs composed of opposed and interlocking hatched and solid motifs, the hallmark of the ReserveTularosa tradition, apparently occurred in the Kayenta area and on the Hopi Mesas on vessels of Kiet Siel Polychrome 1 and Tusayan Black-on-white2 before or coeval with the development of Pinedale Style to the south and east.

jeddito Style In their 1937 magnum opus, Colton and Hargrave name a "Jeddito Style" of decoration and illustrate a small fragment of a bowl (a rim sherd) as an example. 3 Unfortunately, they do not describe this style in detail. By 1962, Watson Smith had coined the phrase "leddito School" to label aspects of the technology and decoration characteristic of ancient Hopi pottery from the Western Mound at Awat'ovi. The term leddito Style used here largely corresponds with the decorative component of the Jeddito School concept and is defined on the basis of Smith's pioneering work4 and my study of more than 1,300 whole vessels recovered from the Homol' ovi villages, Chavez Pass Ruin, Bidahochi, and Puerco Ruin. These vessels are curated at the Arizona State Museum, the Field Museum of Natural History, the Museum of Northern Arizona, and the National Park Service Western Archeological and Conservation Center. leddito Style combines two key attributes: a broad, encircling, subrirn "banding line," which is almost always "broken" (a small section is left unpainted; Fig. 1. Beals and others 1945, Figs. 68e, 68h; Lindsay and others 1968, Fig. 241a 2. Fairley and Callahan 1985, Fig. 99b 3. Colton and Hargrave 1937, Fig. 5 4. Smith 1971

Banding Line (with Line Break) Framing Line DeSign Field

Figure 3.4. Landmarks of ancestral Hopi pottery design layouts (adapted from Hays-Gilpin and others 1996, Fig. 4.3; reprinted by permission of the Arizona State Museum).

3.4); and a set of related layouts based on radial division of the design field into fourfold, threefold, or bifold rotational arrangements (Fig. 3.5). The origins of leddito Style are clear. The dominant leddito Style layouts (negative offset quartered arrangements) appeared earliest on the pottery of the Kayenta area (around A.D. 1150-1200) on types such as Flagstaff Black-on-white, Tusayan Black-on-white, and Tusayan Polychrome. leddito Style layouts persisted through the whole sequence of ancestral Hopi pottery types from Tusayan White Ware and Tsegi Orange Ware through leddito Orange Ware and leddito Yellow Ware and are characteristic of other types and wares as well (Table 3.8). Potters decorating vessels in Jeddito Style expressed a strong preference for rectilinear (keys, frets) over curvilinear (scrolls, spirals) motifs and made frequent use of corbeling and parallel hatching as filler motifs. The most striking examples of Jeddito Style are layouts labeled in descriptive terms as "split-S" (Fig. 3.5s) and "bar-S" (Fig. 3.5r). These layouts use a decorative device whereby bold lines that normally would have functioned as quartering elements in an offset negative quartered arrangement are embellished, becoming keys or frets, and embedded in opposing quarters of the design field, creating a pattern with bifold rotational symmetry (symmetry class c2).5 The origin of this device can be traced directly to Tusayan, Kayenta, and Kiet Siel polychromes (all made in the Kayenta area and on the Hopi Mesas).6 The identification of this constellation of traits as an integrated whole has been obscured by the emphasis of 5. Washburn and Crowe 1992: 248 6. Beals and others 1945, Figs. 62b, d, 63b, d,f, 64b, d,f, 65d, f, Kidder and Guernsey 1919, Plate 56c-f; Smith 1971, Figs. 166e, 167b, d, 174k

Ancestral Hopi Archaeology at Homol'ovi

53

EB@®®@ a b c

d

e

@@@@lJ@ @@©(§)@ ®@@@ h

i

j

k i m

n

0

f

g

p

q

r

s

Figure 3.5. Schematic leddito Style radial layouts derived from the Kayenta-Thsayan tradition (adapted from Smith 1971, Fig. 107; copyright by the President and Fellows of Harvard College).

different aspects of decoration in the formal definitions of named styles. Some archaeologists have defined styles largely on the basis of pattern, 1 that is, the interaction of commOn motifs like opposed and interlocking hatched and solid frets and scrolls, 2 whereas others have emphasized or at least included layout (primary spatial division of the design field) as a characteristic trait. 3 A focus on pattern (and a neglect of layout) is clear in the initial descriptions of Kayenta Style4 and Tusayan Black-on-white. 5 The emphasis of pattern by some researchers appears to be an outgrowth of the use of the sherd as the key unit of analysis. 6 One of the attributes of Pueblo III-Pueblo IV layouts that supports an interesting reformulation of named stylistic categories is the aforementioned subrim banding

line. The banding line and the line break can be traced to pottery traditions to the north of Homol' ovi (Table 3.9). By A.D. 1250-1275, banding lines appeared as a regular feature of pottery types such as Tusayan Black-onwhite, Kayenta Black-on-white, Jeddito Black-on-orange, and leddito Polychrome; 7 at the same time, banded layouts reminiscent of Mesa Verde Black-on-whiteS became common On these types. 9 These design style shifts were accompanied by the introduction and apparent local reproduction of Mesa Verde style ceramic mugs and the appearance of Mesa Verde Black-on-white style rim ticking and isolated motifs on the exteriors of some Kayenta and Tusayan bowls. By A.D. 1300, banding lines were almost always present on bowls made on the Hopi Mesas and in other areas such as Homol'ovi (Table 3.10).

Carlson 1970: 85; Pomeroy 1974: 5 Colton and Hargrave 1937: 16, 214 Beals and others 1945; Carlson 1970 Colton and Hargrave 1937: 16, Fig. 5; Kidder and Guernsey 1919: 132-134 5. Colton and Hargrave 1937: 214; Colton 1955a, Ware 8B. lYpe 9

6. Colton 1953 7. Smith 1971 8. Cattanach 1980. Figs. 132-136, 158-159; Morris 1939, Plates 310-314; Rohn 1971. Figs. 175-183 9. Smith 1971: 292

1. 2. 3. 4.

54

Chapter 3 Table 3.8. Types of Prehistoric Pottery Displaying Jeddito Style Decoration

Ware Tusayan White Ware

Type Flagstaff Black-on-white Tusayan Black-on-white Kayenta Black-on-white

Type Tusayan Black-on-white Kayenta Black-on-white

50-80% 50-80%

Pinedale Black-on-white

Hopi White

Bidahochi Black-on-white

50-80% 50-80%

Tusayan Polychrome Kayenta Polychrome Kiet Siel Black-on-red Kiet Siel Polychrome Kintiel-Klagetoh types

Cibola White

Pinedale Black-on-white

20-50%

Tsegi Orange

Kintiel-Klagetoh types

50-80% 20-50%

Jeddito Black-on-orange Jeddito Polychrome Huckovi Black-on-orange Huckovi Polychrome Kwaituki Black-on-orange Kwaituki Polychrome Kokop Black-on-orange Kokop Polychrome

jeddito Orange

jeddito Black-on-orange Jeddito Polychrome Huckovi Black-on-orange Huckovi Polychrome Kokop Black-on-orange Kokop Polychrome

>80% >80% >80% >80% >80% >80%

20-50% 20-50% 50-80% 50-80% 50-80% 50-80%

Winslow Orange

Tuwiuca Black-on-orange Homolovi Polychrome Chavez Pass Black-on-red Chavez Pass Polychrome Homolovi Black-on-red Black Ax Polychrome

>80% >80% >80% >80% >80% >80%

>80% >80% >80% >80% >80% >80%

Jeddito Yellow

Awatovi Black-on-yellow Bidahochi Polychrome Jeddito Black-on-yellow Sikyatki Polychrome

>80% 50-80% >80% 50-80% >80% >80% >80% >80%

Roosevelt Red

Pinto-Gila Polychrome Gila Polychrome Tonto Polychrome

White Mountain Red

Wingate Polychrome St. Johns Polychrome Pinedale Black-on-red Pinedale Polychrome Cedar Creek Polychrome Fourmile Polychrome Showlow Polychrome

Zuni Glaze

Heshotauthla Polychrome Kwakina Polychrome Pinnawa Glaze-on-white Kechipawan Polychrome Matsaki Polychrome

Polacca Black-on-white Bidahochi Black-on-white

Cibola White Ware Tsegi Orange Ware

Winslow Orange Ware

Ware

Frequency of Banding line Lines Breaks

Tusayan White

Hopi White Ware

jeddito Orange Ware

Table 3.9. Approximate Frequency of Subrim Banding Lines and Line Breaks on Prehistoric Bowls by Ceramic Type (Compare with Chapman and Ellis 1951)

Tuwiuca Black-on-orange Homolovi Polychrome Chavez Pass Black-on-red Chavez Pass Polychrome Homolovi Black-on-red Black Ax Polychrome

Antelope Series

Antelope Black-an-straw Antelope Polychrome

Jeddito Yellow Ware

Awatovi Black-on-yellow Bidahochi Polychrome Jeddito Black-on-yellow Sikyatki Polychrome

Maverick Mountain Series

Maverick Mountain Black-on-red Maverick Mountain Polychrome Nantack Polychrome

Roosevelt Red Ware

Pinto-Gila Polychrome Gila Polychrome Tonto Polychrome

White Mountain Red Ware

Pinedale Black-on-red Pinedale Polychrome Cedar Creek Polychrome

Zuni Glaze Ware

Kechipawan Polychrome Matsaki Polychrome

5-20% 5-20%

5-20%

50-80% 50-80% >80% 50-80% 50-80% 50-80% 80%