Sie sind auf Seite 1von 19

3

Ceramic Distribution and Exchange:


Jeddito Yellow Ware and Implications for
Social Complexity
E. Charles Adams
Ariwna State Museum
Tucson, Ariwna

Miriam T. Stark
The University of Ariwna
Tucson, Ariwna

Deborah S. Dosh
Kinlani Archaeology
Flagstaff, Ariwna

The scale of late prehistoric sociopolitical complexity on the ColoracWPlateau has been widely
debated in the American Southwest. Proponents of an alliance model use Jeddito Yellow
Ware) manufactured at Hopi Mesa villages) as one offtur index wares. This distributional
study ofJeddito Yellow Ware challenges aspects of the alliance model by using a data set
that contains over 430 yellow ware sites throughout areas of NE Arizona. This pottery is
found on the full range of site types and sizes) rather than simply at the large sites (i.e.)
>50 rooms) that the alliance model assumes. Within the coreproduction area) Jeddito Yellow Ware is not characterized by restricted accessto such pottery: most (89%) yellow ware
sites have two rooms or less. We argue that the distribution ofJeddito Yellow Ware in our
study area can be understood in the context of inter-community exchange and communitybased craft specialization) rather than through elite-controlled ceramic exchange networks.

Introduction
The issue of sociopolitical complexity has been debated
in studies of large, late prehistoric (Pueblo IV, ca. A.C.
1300-1630) pueblos on the Colorado Plateau. Disagreement over the nature of the organizational structures entailed in competing models has been discussed in great
detail elsewhere (cf. Cordell and Plog 1979; Cordell,
Upham, and Brock 1987; Graves 1987; Plog 1985; Reid
1985; Reid et al. 1989; Upham 1982, 1985; Upham and
Plog 1986). On one side of the debate are those who
contend that complex prehistoric political systems were
disrupted at Spanish contact by dramatic population decline and the imposition of colonial rule. On the other
side are those who, despite admonishments from Pueblo
ethnographers and others (cf. Dozier 1970; Wilcox 1981),
use puebloan analogy to argue that relatively egalitarian
political structures existed through the entire prehistoric
period.
This study of the distribution of Jeddito Yellow Ware
in NE Ariwna provides empirical data to better evaluate

these two positions concerning late prehistoric political


organization. An expanded restudy of the yellow ware data
set provides one means of evaluating the alliance model
proposed by Upham and others. Data used in this paper
combine the evidence contained in Upham's (1982) study
(i.e., Jeddito Yellow Ware sites are ones containing 50
rooms or more) with information from sites smaller than
50 rooms in size, not used in Upham's study. A battery
of data collected during five years' research through the
Homol'ovi Research Program (Arizona State Museum) is
used to test the alliance model.
The study area is located on the southern Colorado
Plateau in NE Arizona (FIG. 1). Its boundaries were selected on the basis of the most accessible and most recent
data available, drawing from data banks at numerous Ariwna institutions as well as from the Homol'ovi Research
Program. Subdivisions of the study area facilitate our analysis of patterning within the general region, and will be
addressed following an introduction to the issue of complexity.

Ceramic Distribution

and Exchange/Adams)

Stark) and Dosh

River
UTAH
ARIZONA

Northern

Front ier

MOENKOPI.

.,0
e'()'

ORAIBI

'~~

Q'

.~
.0

<t
Z

Hopi

X
lLJ

o ~
N

.Awatovi

a:::

3:

<t

lLJ
Z

Wupatki

0
\ ()

Bidahochi.

Buttes

't)0

pueblO

FLAGSTAFF

Little

Colorado

River

HomOI'ovi/
WI NSLOW

!j\
N

HOLBROOK

(;:)\

0~
Nuvakwewtaqa

I
Map

o
~I
o

Location

===::::::;:::==:::;:::==::::::::;

50km
30 Mi.

Figure 1. The study area showing the boundaries of the four regions discussed in the text.

Puerco

Journal of Field ArchaeologylVol. 20) 1993 5

The Model for Late Prehistoric Complexity


Recent research on the transition from prehistory to
ethnohistory in the Plateau Southwest has raised questions
regarding traditional assumptions of continuity in sociopolitical organization (Thomas 1989; Upham, Lightfoot
and Jewett 1989; Wilcox 1981). Studies of the impact of
Spanish colonialism on indigenous populations show that
governing policies changed, to varying degrees, indigenous social structures that characterized different Southwestern linguistic groups (e.g., Ramenofsky 1987; Spicer
1962; Ubelaker 1988). Contact-period Pueblo society
may have been characterized by a higher degree of group
interdependence and of inter-community exchange networks than that recorded by ethnographers of the historic
Pueblos (Adams 1981; Snow 1981). Regional exchange
systems linked Plains hunter-gatherers with Pueblo horticulturalists (e.g., Spielmann 1986), and communitybased productive specialization likely operated among settled farming populations with access to different natural
resources, as was true in the Rio Grande Valley (Snow
1981).
The issue of continuity vs. change has a long tradition
of debate in the American Southwest (Cordell 1989). The
existence and timing of sociopolitical complexity in the
northern Southwest forms the nexus of the controversy
surrounding the alliance model of 14th-century sociopolitical complexity on the Colorado Plateau (e.g., Hantman
1989; Lightfoot 1984; Plog 1983; Upham 1985; Upham
and Plog 1986). In this model, increasingly elaborate economic "alliances," concurrent with emergent stratification,
linked communities across the Colorado Plateau ca. A.C.
1300. During the Pueblo IV period, major population
centers housed "managerial elites," who coordinated and
controlled aggregated populations. Large and small sites,
"articulated into a single political system" (Upham 1982:
59), were linked together through elite-controlled, economic "alliances" that incorporated the exchange of "high
status" (e.g., polychrome) ceramics and luxury goods such
as turquoise and obsidian. Accordingly, large pueblos
served as redistributive centers and as centers of elite-based
social, political, and economic control (Upham 1982: 60).
Archaeological evidence for the alliance model lies in
large sites that yield higher quantities of regionally-distinct
decorated ceramics than do smaller neighboring sites
(Cordell and Gumerman 1989: 13). Material correlates
for these "alliances" are socially-determined distributions
of diagnostic decorated ceramics (Upham, Lightfoot, and
Feinman 1981). Four ware-specific alliance spheres were
identified: the Jeddito Yellow Ware alliance, the White
Mountain Red Ware alliance, the Winslow Orange Ware
alliance and the Zuni Glaze Ware alliance.

One reason the alliance model remains unresolved is


that little research correlates index ceramic wares with
political and economic processes. Our interest in the Jeddito Yellow Ware area restricts our research focus to one
variant of the alliance model, proposed by Upham (1982).
Upham's model equates restricted ceramic distributions
with restricted (i.e., elite) access at large (i.e., >50 rooms)
14th and 15th-century sites. Our study challenges the
assumption that Jeddito Yellow Ware served as one "elite"
ware that high-status individuals used to offset economic
crises in the Hopi Mesas and Middle Little Colorado River
regions.
U sing the Jeddito Yellow Ware data, the following expectations implicit in the alliance model will be evaluated:
1) "elite" goods should be concentrated in large sites that
served as central places, rather than at small, subordinate
sites; 2) small sites situated outside of the ceramic production center (identified by Bishop et al. 1988 as the
Hopi Mesas) should not have Jeddito Yellow Wares; and
3) the "elite" wares exported from the production centers
should be concentrated almost exclusively at large pueblos,
or central places.
We evaluate these expectations by examining the distribution of Jeddito Yellow Ware-bearing sites in NE Arirona. The specific geographic area in this study is the
Jeddito Yellow Ware production source (the Hopi Mesas)
and its environs, broadly defined. Precise boundaries of
the study area were selected on the basis of the most
accessible and recent data available, drawn from a broad
range of resources housed in ,Arirona institutions. Results
of our distributional study challenge the notion of restricted access to Jeddito Yellow Wares, thereby eliminating the rationale behind the "Jeddito Alliance" sphere
proposed by Upham (1982). We contend instead that the
yellow ware distribution is explainable through factors
such as land-extensive resource exploitation and community-based specialization.

Distribution

ofJeddito

Yellow Wares

Characterized by a pale yellow hue and an absence of


visible temper, the Jeddito Yellow Wares were developed
after ca. A.C. 1300 (Smith 1971). Undecorated utility
ceramics are known as Awatovi Yellow Ware, while the
decorated variant is recognized as Jeddito Yellow Ware
(Colton and Hargrave 1937). Only Jeddito Yellow Ware
was used in this distributional study because it is more
accurately reported across different institutional site records. Jeddito Yellow Ware represents an ideal ceramic
ware for charting 14th and 15th-century spatial organization in NE Ariwna during the later prehistoric period.

Ceramic Distribution and Exchange/Adams) Stark) and Dosh

As one of four diagnostic ceramic wares in the basic alliance model (Upham 1982), the entire range of Jeddito
Yellow Ware types has well-established temporal boundaries (A.C. 1300-1630) and a limited area of manufacture
(Bishop et al. 1988). Identified in Colton (1956) as type
6 of ware 7B, Jeddito Yellow Ware represents two technological innovations with respect to its ceramic predecessors: 1) coal replaced wood as a firing material (resulting in higher firing temperatures and in a pale yellow
color); and 2) unusual properties of the clays precluded
the need for temper additives in most such vessels (Bishop
et al. 1988; Smith 1971: 588-592).
Jeddito Yellow Ware has an extremely limited area of
manufacture, but its extensive geographic distribution
(Schaefer 1969) makes it a diagnostic ware for 14th-century occupation in the northern Southwest. Characterization studies indicate that the yellow-firing pottery was
made primarily on the Hopi Mesas (Bishop et al. 1988).
Jeddito Yellow Ware has been identified in sites as far west
as southern California and north into southern Utah and
sw Colorado (Adams and Adams 1987), however. Across
New Mexico, late prehistoric sites such as Pecos (Kidder
1936), Gran Quivira (Hayes, Young, and Warren 1981),
Acoma (Ruppe and Dittert 1952), and Pottery Mound
(Hibben 1955) contain Jeddito Yellow Ware sherds.
Within Arizona, Jeddito Yellow Ware has also been documented at Hohokam sites (e.g., Casa Grande [Hargrave
1932], Pueblo Grande [Downum 1991] and Los Muertos
[Haury 1945]); Mogollon sites (e.g., Chavez Pass
[Upham 1982], Point of Pines [Wendorf 1950]); and
Salado period sites in the Tonto Basin (e.g., Rye Creek
Ruin [Elson and Craig 1992], Schoolhouse Point [Arleyn
Simon, personal communication, 1991]).
Within the Jeddito heartland (NE Arizona), settlement
patterns shifted throughout the period of Jeddito Yellow
Ware manufacture. During the early 14th century, primary
settlement was concentrated along the Little Colorado
River Valley, on the Hopi Mesas, and in the vicinity of
Bidahochi, 40 km SE of the Hopi Mesas in villages of 30
to more than 200 rooms in size. By A.C. 1350, the Homol'ovi group was reduced to three major pueblos, and only
11 sites were occupied on the Hopi Mesas. Settlement
size in both areas ranged from 75 to over 700 rooms. By
A.C. 1400, or soon thereafter, the Homol'ovi and Puerco
River sites were abandoned and only nine Hopi Mesa sites
remained occupied. In this time, settlement size ranged
from 250 to over 1000 rooms. By 1500, Hopi Mesa
occupation was further reduced to six or seven settlements.
Shortly after Spanish contact, only five settlements existed,
having from 400 to perhaps 2000 or more rooms (Brew
1941).

Research Methods and Limitations of Study


Jeddito Yellow Ware site data were collected through
archival research and from Arizona site information repositories. Sources include the Museum of Northern Arizona; Northern Arizona University; Coconino, Coronado , and Tonto National Forests; Arizona State
University; and the AZSITE file of the Arizona State
Museum. The AZSITE system contains details on 17,000
sites obtained from public and private agencies. Site collections at the Arizona State Museum were also consulted.
Archival data in file and document form was collected
through the aid of Arizona State Museum personnel. 1
The quality of data utilized in this distributional study
is uneven, because those from excavated and surveyed sites
were combined for the Jeddito Yellow Ware database.
Differences in field recording techniques, in field investigation methods (e.g., survey, subsurface testing, or extensive excavation), and in institutional site cataloguing systems leave the resultant database as a source of only gross
generalizations. Site ceramic collections were not uniform,
but reflect varying collection strategies with a bias toward
decorated wares, and are likely unrepresentative of any
site's total c'eramic assemblage. The relative frequencies of
covarying, temporally-diagnostic decorated types cannot
be statistically analyzed. We therefore devote much of our
study to the middle Little Colorado River Valley, an area
of five years' archaeological investigation by the Homol'ovi Research Program.
Another limitation to distributional analyses that incorporate survey data is the reliance on relative, rather than
absolute, dating techniques. Our ceramic seriation relies
on the Winslow Orange Wares and the Jeddito Yellow
Wares, presented in Table 1, and on a half century's work
in the study area (e.g., Breternitz 1966; Colton and Hargrave 1937; Hargrave 1931; Morris 1928; Smith 1971).
More detailed discussions of the ceramic chronology are
found in Hays' (1991) summary of Homol'ovi II ceramics.

General Characteristics of Site Distribution


A total of 433 ceramic-seriated sites in the study area
1. The following information was recorded for each site in th~ Jeddito
Yellow Ware database: institutional identification codes (e.g., SItenumbers); site name(s); size (area and/or number of rooms recorded); decorated ceramic assemblage; location (including township/range and quarter sections and/or UTM, where provided); and environmental
parameters (i.e., distance to nearest drainage or ~andfor~ on ~hich the
site is located). Sites with inadequate locational InformatIon (I.e., those
located to a particular drainage or only to a township and rang.e) ~ere
deleted from the distributional maps but not from the analySIS.SItes
containing information on political subdivisions ~tow.nship/range/qu~ter/quarter section) were rough-plotted to ~e n:udpOInt of the coordinates and included in the figures presented In thIS study.

Journal of Field ArchaeologylVol.

20) 1993 7

Table 1. Descriptions and dates for various colored wares in the study area.
Ware

Jeddito Yellow Ware


1300-1630

A.C.

Types

Temper/paste

Dates

Awatovi Black-an-yellow

Visible, clear quartz sand;


yellow to yellow-orange
paste

1300-1350/75

Bidahochi Polychrome

Same as Awatovi Black-onyellow; clear quartz sand


not visible to the naked
eye; yellow to pale
yellow paste

1300/25-1375

1350-1630

Jeddito Black-an-yellow

Winslow Orange Ware


1275-1350

Jeddito Orange Ware


1250-1350

A.C.

A.C.

A.C.

Sikyatki Polychrome

Same as Jeddito Black-onyellow

1350/75-1630

Tuwiuca Black-an-orange

Abundant sand with


opaque quartz, chert,
and feldspar; yellow to
orange sherd temper
rare; Brown-orange to
gray-orange paste

1275-1325/50

Chavez Pass and


Homol'ovi Polychrome

Same as Tuwuica Black-onorange

1275-1350

Jeddito Black-an-orange
and Jeddito Polychrome

Scarce to abundant sherd


temper, always white;
some clear quartz sand;
orange paste

1250/75-1350

Table 2. Distribution of sites according to size in the four study areas.


Number of
rooms

Number of
sites

501+ rooms
251-500 rooms

2
7

151-250 rooms

76-150 rooms

51-75 rooms
20-50 rooms

0
14

3-19 rooms
1-2 rooms, artifact scatter
Totals

13
384
433

Hopi Mesas

Awatovi
Kawaika-a
Sikyatki
Kuchaptevela
Oraibi
Shungopavi
Chakpahu
Lamehva
Kokopnyama
Mishongnovi
Huckovi
Hoyapi
Nesuftanga
Pink Arrow
+ 9 others
7
84
114

postdate A.C. 1300, and their distribution is presented in


Table 2. The sites have been divided into eight categories,
according to the presence and size of structures, nonarchitectural features, and associated artifact types. Habitation sites or pueblos consist of three classes: small (320 rooms, and sites listed as "small" in site files); medium
(21-75 rooms, and sites listed as "medium"); and large
(76 rooms or more, and sites listed as "large"). Nonhabitation sites include those recorded as "field houses,"

Little
ColoratW
River

Hopi
Buttes

Northern
frontier

Homol'ovi II
Chevelon
Stone Axe

Homol'ovi I

Bidahochi

Homol'ovi IV
Jackrabbit
Puerco

Homol'ovi III
Cottonwood
Creek

1 site

Old Moenkopi

94
103

40
43

136
143

artifact scatters, and sites with non-architectural features,


such as rock art or shrines (often glossed as "limited activity sites"). The 384 small sites were probably foci of
seasonal or special use (cf. Wilcox and Pities 1978).
Figure 2 presents the distribution of Jeddito Yellow
Ware sites in the study area. The settlement pattern includes medium to large pueblos surrounded by smaller
sites that are located near arable land. Two distinct clusters
of large sites, accompanied by smaller, non-architectural

Ceramic Distribution and Exchange/Adams) Stark) and Dosh

50 km

=:' ~I

t=1 ~'==::;'

30 km
If\

N
o

50 rooms
Sit e s I e sst han 50 roo m s

Pueblos

over

..

UT

CO

AZ

NM

~
.1

CKAYENTA

O ral

'b'
I

-.e.;-D------,
Figure
o.
I ---

I.
I

I
I
I

A1'
0

Awatovi.../
L__~_.!...

'}'f~..

..

--.J

Figure

---I

------,
4 I.
,-Homol'ovi
..

WINSLOW
.-.

~
~

I
I

Bidahochi

...J

..

Figure 2. Distribution of Jeddito Yellow Ware sites within the study area.

sites can be discerned. The first, located within the vicinity


of the Hopi Mesas, contains approximately 23 pueblos in
the early 14th century (FIG. 3). The second group, termed
the Homol'ovi cluster, consists of six pueblos in the central
Little Colorado River Valley (FIG. 4). In addition, a more
dispersed pattern of pueblos occurs in the Pueblo Colorado, Cottonwood Creek, Leroux Wash, and Puerco River
areas and includes the Bidahochi sites, Puerco Ruin, and
Stone Axe (Hough 1903). Although the small sites tend

to cluster near larger settlements (e.g., Homol'ovi sites


and those around the Hopi Mesas), secondary clusters are
known in the Colorado River-San Juan River country of
southern Utah and northern Arizona, along the Pueblo
Colorado Wash, and in the Hopi Buttes. The association
of small sites with arable land suggests that local environments may have been exploited for agriculture. Three site
types may be associated with agriculture: small, seasonal
habitation sites (2-5 rooms); agricultural sites with field

Journal of Field ArchaeologylVol.

Oroibi

..

20) 1993 9

o..-

.00

,.0:

Pueblos

!f\
N

Sites

0:
..

Awotovio

o
over 50 rooms

less thon 50 rooms

3 km

61===!::::::r==:!""! 2 Mi.

Figure 3. Large-scale map of the distribution of sites having Jeddito Yellow


Ware within the Hopi Mesas region.

..
.0

Homol 'ovi

"
~

II

".r

",1 .-;..,

WINSLOW

D --

.
o
Little

Pueblos over 50 rooms


Sites

t
I

Colorado

River

-0

less thon 50 rooms

3km

F=====r====!,

2 Mi.

Figure 4. Large-scale map of the distribution of sites having Jeddito Yellow


Ware within the Little Colorado River region.

houses (1-2 rooms or artifact scatters); and artifact scatters of sherds or sherds and lithics.
Distributional patterns in subsections of the study
area-the Hopi Mesas, the Hopi Buttes, the central Little
Colorado River and the northern Frontier-will first be
discussed. Data from the Homol'ovi Research Program
then provide an in-depth perspective on distributional
patterns within the supply wne (Hopi Mesas) and its
environs (i.e., Little Colorado River region).

The Hopi Mesas


By the early 14th century a clear dichotomy existed
between medium to large sites (having over 20 rooms)
and small sites (some with structures, but having no more
than 1-2 rooms) also called field houses (FIGS. 2,3). There
also appears to be a settlement hierarchy reflected in site
size differentiation and clustering. It consists of one very
large site (twice the size of other sites in the vicinity), two

10

Ceramic Distribution and Exchange/Adams, Stark, and Dosh

or more medium-to-large sites, and multiple small sites


(TABLE2). A similar pattern is apparent in the central Little
Colorado River region.
Nine of the 24 Yellow Ware sites that date A.C. 14001500 in the Hopi Mesas area consist of large pueblos of
250 rooms or more, whereas the other 15 sites have less
than 3 rooms, most having no architecture at all. The
latter are all located within 10 km of the large pueblos.
One likely explanation for this distribution pattern in late
Jeddito Yellow Ware sites is that most of the populations
were aggregated into large pueblos after 1400, a pattern
also evident in the Zuni area at that time (Kintigh 1985).
The presence of Jeddito Yellow Wares on a wide range of
sites resulted from the many locations used by pueblo
inhabitants in resource procurement and cultivation.

The Hopi Buttes


About 250 sites in the Hopi Buttes area (FIGS. 1,2) have
Jeddito Yellow Wares record~d. Over half of the Hopi
Buttes sites have poor provenience information and multicomponent occupations. Therefore, records from only
43 Hopi Buttes yellow ware sites contained adequate 10cational information to be included in Table 2. Sherd and
lithic scatters are the most common site types, possibly
associated with the agricultural use of the area by prehistoric Hopi Mesa inhabitants, especially those on Antelope
Mesa. The eastern Buttes area is dominated by the occupation of two 14th -century pueblos in the Bidahochi area.
One has about 300 rooms and lies on the north side of
the Pueblo Colorado Wash. The other is opposite the
primary pueblo (Bidahochi) on the south side of the wash
and has perhaps 150 rooms. A dense cluster of small
yellow ware sites lies in the vicinity, and may consist of
agricultural sites related to the larger settlements. At least
six small sites have Sikyatki Polychrome ceramics, suggesting a post-A.C. 1350 date (TABLE2). All lie within 10
km of the Antelope Mesa pueblos, except one site inferred
to be a shrine (Gumerman and Skinner 1968: 195).

The Little ColoradoRiver Valley


Based on radiocarbon dates and the JedditolWinslow
ceramic wares, the central Little Colorado River Valley
(FIG. 1) was occupied during the late prehistoric period
(A.C. 1275-1400). Intensive survey of a 30 sq-mi area
near Homol'ovi I-IV by the Ariwna State Museum has
recorded more than 175 yellow ware sites. About 64% of
the sites recorded within the survey area contain both
orange wares and yellow wares, suggesting beginning
dates of A.C. 1300/1350. Approximately 40% contain exclusively Jeddito Yellow Ware. Five of the Jeddito Yellow
Ware sites are medium to large (from 30 to 500 rooms

or more). The remaining 94 sites are small, with a single


2- or 3-room pueblo, seven I-room field houses, and 86
sherd or sherd and lithic scatters (FIG. 4).

AdjacentAreas: The Northern Frontier


Little is known about the Jeddito Yellow Ware sites
north of the Hopi Mesas in the Four Corners region (FIG.
2). Uneven archaeological survey in this area constrains
our ability to interpret the observed pattern. We believe
that the Jeddito Yellow Ware distribution on Northern
Frontier sites is best explained through limited but continued occupation before A.C. 1400 and by periodic use
of the area by Hopi Mesa residents. Other proposed models focus on interactions between hunter-gatherer populations (Athapaskan or Numic speakers) and Hopi Mesa
residents post-A.C. 1400 (e.g., Ambler and Sutton 1989;
Schaefer 1969: 61). Beaglehole (1937) has documented
trade relations between historical Hopi populations and
mobile hunter-gatherers in the region, but we lack convincing archaeological evidence to extend this pattern
backward in time into the late prehistoric period (Adams
and Adams 1987).
Prior to A.C. 1300, populations apparently lived in
pueblos of 75 or more rooms. Local (i.e., within 10 km)
sand dune areas for dry farming and runoff farming in
arroyo mouths and alluvial valleys provided food. Small
groups of Pueblo populations may have continued to use
existing habitations in the Northern Frontier area, farming
nearby arable land. Most sites consist of sherd and lithic
scatters and likely represent continued occupation or reuse
of existing settlements (Adams and Adams 1987). With
rare exceptions, Jeddito Yellow Ware types that were manufactured before A.C. 1350 (e.g., Awatovi Black-on-yellow) predominate at these sites. Thus, it appears that
Jeddito Yellow Ware-using groups rarely utilized the Four
Corners.
These sites are not clustered around large settlements,
as is the case in the Hopi Mesas/Little Colorado River
Valley. Instead the sites are associated with arable land
and ephemeral drainages (e.g., Ambler, Lindsay, and Stein
1964), suggesting agricultural use. Notable exceptions to
this pattern are the small pueblo of Old Moenkopi and a
few sites in the vicinity of Moenkopi Wash that were
clearly occupied or used after A.C. 1400.
Fourteenth-century rock art sites in the region bear a
strong resemblance to contemporary art styles on Hopi
Mesa sites, and support the idea that the prehistoric Hopi
Mesa population incorporated sections of the Northern
Frontier into its land use patterns (Adams and Adams
1987). Twentieth -century ethnographers describe various
Hopi uses of the area including hunting, gathering, trap-

Journal of Field ArchaeologylVol.

ping eagles for use in ceremonies, and visiting shrines


marking ancestral homes and boundaries of Hopi land
(Beaglehole 1937; James 1974; Page 1982; Whiting
1939). Titiev (1937) also records salt gathering and eagle
hunting expeditions in areas north of the Hopi Mesas.
Post-A.C. 1400 yellow ware sites located more than 10 km
away from the large sites are much less common and are
associated with rock art or sites in circumscribed ecological
niches that may have been more suitable for cotton agriculture (as is the case at Moenkopi). Alternatively, these
sites may be related to the procurement of local, rare
resources, such as salt in the Little Colorado River gorge
or eagles nested in the cliffs that are scattered across the
plateau.

Analysis of the Jeddito Yellow Ware Distribution


Trade and migration have been cited as primary mechanisms by which Jeddito Yellow Wares were distributed
from their production centers on the Hopi Mesas (Schaefer 1969; Upham 1982). Our study improves upon previous research by encompassing the full range of yellow
ware site types in NE Arizona. Results suggest that the
focus of earlier research on large "redistributive" sites (to
the exclusion of small sites) misrepresents the distributional patterning of Jeddito Yellow Ware. In our sample,
large and medium sites (over 50 rooms) comprise only
5.1 % (22) of the total 433 yellow ware sites inventoried
(FIG. 2). Although virtually all large sites in our study area
contain Jeddito Yellow Ware, yellow wares are also found
on other sites of all types and sizes. Most Jeddito Yellow
Ware sites in the study area are small and are likely associated with prehistoric agricultural activities. Many of the
Hopi Buttes sites, for example, were probably also utilized

seasonally by inhabitants of the Hopi Mesas settlements.


The Pueblo Colorado Wash area may have been exploited
by occupants of the Bidahochi Pueblos, and small sites in
the Homol'ovi area were used by agriculturalists from the
eponymous site group.

The Hopi Mesas and Environs: Supply Zone Behavior


Table 3 lists the distance from the Hopi (Antelope
Mesa) pueblos to the nearest settlement in the Homol'ovi
group, the Puerco group, Nuvakwewtaqa, the Silver Creek
settlements, and the upper Little Colorado settlements.
Frequencies of Jeddito Yellow Ware compiled by Upham
(1982: table 29) are used to generate frequencies for this
table. When a regression analysis is applied to these data,
the best fit is a linear relationship (y = 60.3 - .26x; r =
.972; P < .01). According to Renfrew (1977: 84), such
a linear relationship is probably the result of supply zone
behavior. This behavior fits the material culture distribution when (I) the reduction in the quantity of an artifact
( Jeddito Yellow Ware) is independent of the quantity left
and is dependent only on the distance; and (2) when
material is acquired by the user travelling directly to the
source (or the supplier travelling to the consumers). Reciprocal exchange would be one possible means for a linear
distribution to occur.
Ethnography provides one model for explaining ancestral Hopi exchange behavior. Exchange and intergroup
dependence, mitigating occa~ional subsistence stress and
reflecting village-based productive specialization, was
present on the Hopi Mesas as late as the 20th century
(Beaglehole 1937: 80-85; Ford 1972). The Hopi household, rather than formalized leaders, served as the basic

Table 3. Distance to the edge of settlement clusters from Antelope Mesa (Awatovi) and
frequency of Jeddito Yellow Ware as a percentage of total decorated ceramics.
% Jeddito Yellow Ware
Settlement
duster-

Hopi Mesas
Homol'ovi
Puerco
Anderson Mesa
Silver Creek
Upper Little Colorado River

KmfromHopi
(Antelope Mesa)t

o
89
100
137
167
200

20) 1993 11

of total decorated
pottery!

60.3
38.3
36.0
24.3
4.0
7.5

*The Zuni sites data were not used because most of the sample came from sites occupied through the
17th century, thus artificially decreasing the frequency of Jeddito Yellow Ware. Verde Valley site data
were not used because the normalizing process used by Upham, whereby Jeddito Yellow Ware is
divided by total decorated ceramics, artificially inflates the Verde Valley frequency versus all other data
sets. The relationship between distance and frequency of Jeddito Yellow Ware is best expressed as: y =
60.3 - .26x; r = .972; P < .Ol.
tThese distances were recomputed using USGS 1:250,000 quad maps and the Antelope Mesa settlement
cluster as the point of origin (Bishop et al. 1988).
tFrequencies from Upham 1982: table 29.

12

Ceramic Distribution

and Exchange/Adams)

Stark) and Dash

organizational unit. Subsistence exchange within the community occurred between ceremonial and dance groups,
between clan members, and with relatives visiting from
other mesas (Beaglehole 1937: 78; Parsons 1925: 79-80;
Titiev 1944: 16). Such exchange was conducted at the
household level, ranging from transactions defined by casual reciprocity (Talayesva 1942: 53) to ones based on
complex ritual calendars (Beaglehole 1937: 72). Intercommunity exchange linked kin groups from different settlements during ritual and secular activities throughout the
year. Subsistence exchange buffered populations against
an unpredictable environment and differences in agricultural productivity.

Exchange in the Archaeological Record: The


Homol'ovi Data
The wealth of archaeological data from Homol'ovi II
and its environs challenges the alliance model in which
"managerial elites" supposedly maintained wide-ranging
but socially-restricted trade networks through the exchange of decorated ceramics such as Jeddito Yellow Ware
(Upham 1982). Excavations at the site of Homol'ovi II
yielded calibrated radiocarbon dates in the mid-14th century (Adams 1989b) and suggest that Jeddito Yellow
Ware vessels were widely used during the site's occupation. Jeddito Yellow Wares constituted 65% of the decorated ceramics on the site's surface, and 95 % of the partially restorable vessels recovered from five room floors,
dating ca. A.C. 1350-1375 (cf. Adams 1989b; Hays
1991).
Neutron activation studies of Jeddito Yellow Ware
sherds from Homol'ovi II (Bishop et al. 1988: 330, tables
6, 7) demonstrate that the yellow ware sample that could
be sourced was manufactured on the Hopi Mesas, and
that pottery production was village-specific (Bishop et al.
1988: 332). In fact, 96% of the sample (24/25) represent
portions of vessels manufactured at the Hopi Mesa site of
Awatovi. Use-related surface alteration (primarily basal
abrasion) was observed on most of the Jeddito Yellow
Ware sherds from the Homol'ovi II collection (Hays
1991), suggesting that the inhabitants were the principal
consumers of the yellow wares rather than intermediaries
in a major exchange system. From the production perspective, no evidence exists for centrally controlled resources such as clay (Bishop et al. 1988: 332).
From the distribution perspective, the large quantities
of Jeddito Yellow Ware at Homol'ovi II suggest supply
zone behavior (Renfrew 1977: 84), probably the result
of reciprocal exchange between Hopi Mesa villages and
Homol'ovi II. The high frequency of Jeddito Yellow Ware

at Homol'ovi II effectively discounts Upham's contention


that Jeddito Yellow Ware was an elite commodity of restricted access. Nevertheless, central places that receive
exchanged material are frequently controlled by an elite
hierarchy, causing a concentration of material at the central
place (Renfrew 1977). But the concentration of Jeddito
Yellow Ware in large sites does not necessarily imply restricted access, as contended by Upham (1982).
Several lines of evidence can be used to evaluate the
likelihood that elites at Homol'ovi II controlled the distribution of Jeddito Yellow Ware (TABLE 4). First, the
settlement pattern of 14th-century sites having Jeddito
Yellow Ware is not what is predicted by Upham (1982);
however, it would fit a supply zone model (Renfrew 1977,
table 3). Only 5.10/0 (22) of the sites are large (>75
rooms) and an additional 3.3% (14) contain 20-50
rooms. About 89% (384) of the yellow ware sites in our
sample contain less than three rooms, suggesting that access to Jeddito Yellow Ware was not restricted within the
supply zone. Limitations of our database prevent us from
exploring the point that archaeological sherd distributions
do not reflect the systemic distribution of whole vessels.
This problem, however, is shared with previous Yellow
Ware distributional studies.
A second line of evidence comes from spatial patterning
observed in systematic surface collections. There are no
concentrations of potentially elite material, such as obsidian, shell, and turquoise, at Homol'ovi II. Their occurrence is apparently random, and their presence in undifferentiated rooms excavated at the pueblo does not
support the notion of restricted access to any commodities
(see Adams and Hays 1991). In addition, the concentration of most of the population into large pueblos after
1300 does not suggest a tiered residential site hierarchy.
In the Homol'ovi area, for example, six sites were occupied
in the 14th century. Large Jeddito Yellow Ware frequencies characterize surfaces of three large sites, Homol'ovi I,
Homol'ovi II, and Chevelon, ranging from 27.5% to
90.6% of total decorated ceramics (TABLE 5). The frequency of Jeddito Yellow Ware at three smaller pueblos,
Homol'ovi III, Cottonwood Creek, and Jackrabbit, ranges
from 7.8% to 67.0%. Upham's model predicts lower percentages for the smaller pueblos, and this clearly is not the
case at the Homol'ovi pueblos.
After six field seasons of intensive survey of a 30 sq-mi
area around Homol'ovi I and Homol'ovi II (focused on
the east side of the Little Colorado River), site density in
the region averages 11 sites per sq mi, ranging from 5 to
17. Over 70% of sites with datable ceramic assemblages
in the survey area were occupied during the period 12751400 (Lange 1989). Over half (55.4%) of the Jeddito

Journal of Field ArchaeologylVol.

20) 1993 13

Table 4. Expectations of models assuming the presence or absence of elite individuals


at Homol'ovi II.
Model

Elite,
restricting
access

Supply
zone,
elite control

Supply zone,
no elite control

Presence of Jeddito Yellow Ware

Yes

Yes

Yes

Ubiquitous Jeddito Yellow Ware

No

Yes

Yes

Presence of other exchanged items

Yes

Yes

Yes

Ubiquitous other exchanged items

No

Yes

Yes

Presence of Jeddito Yellow Ware


at small pueblos

No

Yes

Yes

Ubiquitous Jeddito Yellow Ware


at small pueblos

No

No

Yes

Presence of Jeddito Yellow Ware


at small sites

No

Some

Yes

Distribution of small sites having


Jeddito Yellow Ware

Nonrandom, if any

Nonrandom

Random

Table 5. Percentage of four decorated wares of total decorated ceramics at selected pueblos or
pueblo clusters in the study area.
White
Mountain
Red Ware

]eddito
Yellow
Ware

Winslow
Orange
Ware

Zuni
Glaze
Ware

24.3
60.3
8.3
36.0

3.0
0.4
3.0
7.0

27.5
39.2
87.2
51.7

38.8
0.5
30.0
22.0
40.4
38.2
4.6
37.8

Site/duster

Reference

Anderson Mesa Cluster


Hopi Cluster
Middle Little Colorado Cluster
Puerco Cluster

Upham
Upham
Upham
Upham

Puerco Ruin
Puerco Ruin
Homol'ovi II
Homol'ovi I

Jennings 1980
Burton 1990
Hays 1991
Dosh 1982

10.8
0.4
10.8
3.0
1.3
2.9
0.6
2.8

Homol'ovi IV
Cottonwood Creek
Chevelon
Jackrabbit

Hantman 1982
Hantman 1982
Andrews 1982
Ariwna State Museum

6.7
3.7
14.4
1.3

0
29.6
27.5
66.9

55.0
49.6
31.8
0.6

0
0
2.0
0

Homol'ovi III
Homol'ovi III, early
Homol'ovi III, late

Andrews 1982
Ariwna State Museum
Ariwna State Museum

3.2
3.1
5.0

7.8
3.2
21.2

73.9
76.6
61.0

0
0
0

1982
1982
1982
1982

Yellow Ware sites were associated with agricultural fields,


whereas 16% were associated with lithic procurement activities, and 28% had indeterminate functions (from surface indications and associated features and artifacts). The
association of yellow ware with a wide range of contemporaneous site types suggests that Jeddito Yellow Ware
was not restricted to large sites within the Homol'ovi area,
but instead appears on all types of sites. Mirroring the
Homol'ovi area pattern is that of the Colorado Plateau's
Northern Frontier (FIG. 1) where more than 100 small
Jeddito Yellow Ware sites have been documented (see
TABLE 2).

Issues of contemporaneity must


stand the yellow ware distribution
use of Jeddito Yellow wares lasted
so not all sites with such pottery

be resolved to underin our study area. The


nearly three centuries,
were occupied at the

2.0
4.1
0.2
0.2

same time. The alliance model, in its construction of ware


distribution clusters, ignores temporal variability that may
mask significant patterns (also see Graves 1987). For example, is the variability in frequency of four major regional
decorated wares by site in Table 5 due to distance from
production areas or to differences in age of the sites? Note
how the grouping of sites into clusters smooths this variability.
Based on the Homol'ovi example that follows, we contend that some, and perhaps many, of the sites listed in
each "cluster" may not have been occupied at the same
time. Two sites in the Homol'ovi group, Homol'ovi III
and Homol'ovi IV, have exceptionally high Winslow Orange Ware frequencies and very low Jeddito Yellow Ware
frequencies (TABLE 5). Calibrated radiocarbon dates from
Homol'ovi III excavations place the first of two occupa-

14

Ceramic Distribution and Exchange/Adams) Stark) and Dosh

tions between A.C. 1275 and 1300, and the second at ca.
1330/1340 (Adams 1989a). Winslow Orange Ware dominates both occupations of the site, but Jeddito Yellow
Ware frequencies increase almost ninefold from the first
to the second occupation (Adams 1989a). At the later site
ofHomol'ovi II, however, Jeddito Yellow Wares dominate
the decorated assemblage (TABLE 5). This pottery, therefore, attained "dominance" in the Homol' ovi area at the
peak of its production period in the latter half of the 14th
century.
The appearance and frequency of Jeddito Yellow Ware
in the excavated assemblages from Homol'ovi sites change
through time and therefore can be used as useful predictors of relative dates of deposits and survey sites. Averaging the ceramic frequencies from the seven Homol'ovi
sites yields figures quite similar to those used by Upham
(1982: table 29): 38.3% Jeddito Yellow Ware, 36.2%
Winslow Orange Ware, 4.7% White Mountain Red Ware,
and 0.4% Zuni Glaze Ware. ,Yet this averaging totally
misrepresents temporal variability in the sites.2
Following the alliance model, the large quantities of
Jeddito Yellow Ware recovered from Homol'ovi II suggests one of two hypotheses (Upham 1982): 1) the Homol'ovi site was inhabited by Jeddito Yellow Ware-using
elite individuals, and non-elites lived elsewhere in sites
that have been identified as agricultural in function; or 2)
Jeddito Yellow Ware was not a high-status commodity.
Available data support the second hypothesis. Evidence
remains slim that exchange between the Hopi and Homol'ovi communities was structured along elite lines. Prehistoric elites are notoriously difficult to identify, since
goods that accurately reflect status, authority, and restricted access to power are elusive in the archaeological
record (Adams 1975).
Lightfoot's (1979) study of food redistribution in the
same area is interesting in the context of subsistence exchange systems. He argues that subsistence exchange may
have buffered late prehistoric populations against periods
of stress in the Mogollon Rim/Colorado Plateau areas.
2. The frequencies of Winslow Orange Ware in central Little Colorado River Valley settlements are in some cases double those attributed
to Anderson Mesa by Upham (1982: table 29) and more than double
the rate that Upham attributed to the area by averaging several villages
into a composite. This clearly indicates that the center of Winslow
Orange Ware production was the central Little Colorado River Valley.
Puerco Ruin has an almost identical frequency to that attributed by
Upham to the Anderson Mesa pueblos, when one uses excavation data
from Jennings (1980) and Burton (1990). Since Puerco Ruin is equidistant from the Homol'ovi settlements as Chavez Pass, Upham's entire
discussion of Winslow Orange Ware (in which Anderson Mesa is the
production center) is untenable. Pottery trade between Chavez Pass and
the Homol'ovi settlements probably began in the later 13th century and
focused on Winslow Orange Ware. This was probably gradually replaced
by Jeddito Yellow Ware. Both wares also occur in the Verde Valley.

Comparative ethnoarchaeological data highlight a similar


widespread pattern, in which productive specialization
and exchange are associated with resource-poor areas (Arnold 1985; Stark 1991). These findings provide a more
parsimonious alternative to the model of elite-controlled
distribution proposed by alliance theorists (Plog 1983;
Upham 1982).
The prospect of a Jeddito Yellow Ware regional exchange system exhibiting supply zone behavior raises two
issues. The first concerns the factors contributing to extensive importation of Jeddito Yellow Wares into Homol'ovi II. The second focuses on the possible goods exchanged by Homol'ovi II inhabitants for Jeddito Yellow
Ware ceramics. The local Homol'ovi ceramic tradition,
begun in the late 13th century (Adams 1989b), declined
in response to population increase and associated resource
depletions in the Little Colorado River Valley. These
trends necessitated an increase in ceramic production, and
available wood provided poor quality fuel for firing the
vessels (Miksicek 1991).
Arnold's (1985: 50) cross-culturally-derived distance
thresholds regarding access to pottery resources suggest
the 20 km gap between Homol'ovi residents and good
quality fuel (in the Sunset Pass region, to the south) may
have proven prohibitive. One alternative to using more
suitable tree wood for firing pottery would be to rely on
local fuels and to produce lower-fired, inferior vessels. Refiring experiments indicate original firing temperatures of
Winslow Orange Wares that remained below 700 C
(Block 1985). Thirty percent of the Winslow Orange
Wares examined from Homol'ovi II were underfired or
misfired,3 suggesting considerable experimentation with
local fuels as substitutes for the less-accessible juniper
sources (Hays 1991). A better alternative may have been
the exchange of other subsistence goods for the coal-fired
Jeddito ceramics of the Hopi Mesas (Adams 1989a).
The movement of Jeddito Yellow Ware to the Homol'ovi pueblos began after A.C. 1300 as one component of a
larger subsistence exchange network. Ceramic exchange
between the Hopi Mesas and Homol'ovi II was unidirectional (Bishop et ale 1988: 330), as the Hopi Mesas supplied the Homol'ovi sites with decorated and utility wares.
By A.C. 1350, Winslow Orange Ware production ceased,
and Homol'ovi II imported all of its decorated ceramics
from the Hopi Mesas.
Specialized production and subsistence exchange between the Hopi Mesa sites and the Homol'ovi sites may
have existed to compensate for ecological imbalances.
0

3. Firing temperature estimates of the underfired ceramics were made


by measuring thennal expansion in a dilatometer.

Journal of Field ArchaeologylVol.

20) 1993 15

Table 6. Frequencies of Jeddito Yellow Ware and distance of nearest pueblos from
Homol'ovi II.
Site

Distance

Homol'ovi II
Homol'ovi I
Chevelon
Nuvakwewtaqa

4.5
17.4
57.8

% ] eddito Yellow
Ware

Reference

87.5
51.7
29.6
24.3

Hays 1991
Weaver, Dosh, and Miller 1982
Andrews 1982
Upham 1982

Corn, riparian plants and animals, feathers (Senior and


Pierce 1989), and possibly raw materials used in pottery
production (e.g., clays or pigments: Bishop et al. 1988:
318) may have been included in such exchange. Archaeobotanical evidence suggests that the Homol'ovi communities produced abundant cotton, which could then be
exported to the Hopi Mesas (Adams 1989a: 189). Analysis of the Homol'ovi II and III assemblages indicates a
concomitant increase in the frequency of cotton seeds with
the appearance of Jeddito Yellow Wares in the assemblage
(Miksicek 1991). Increasing populations in 14th-century
Hopi Mesas settlements may have generated a demand for
cotton that could not be satisfied through local cultivation
of the crop.
Ethnohistorical and ethnographic data support the
model for specialized cotton production. The 16th- and
17th-century Spanish explorers report that the Hopi were
known for their cotton textiles (Brew 1949; Coues 1900).
A primary factor in the establishment of Moenkopi village
by Hopi from Oraibi pueblo was that the climate in the
former area was suitable for cotton production (Nagata
1970; Page 1940). Moenkopi shares climatic characteristics with the central Little Colorado River Valley that are
ideal for cotton agriculture: an elevation of about 4700 ft,
sufficient water, and a long growing season.
Consideration of the mechanisms responsible for the
distribution of Jeddito Yellow Ware to points farther
south and west (e.g., Chavez Pass, Rye Creek and the
Verde Valley) is beyond the scope of this study. Homol'ovi Research Program data, however, do not support a
model in which the Homol'ovi sites served as redistributive centers for Jeddito Yellow Wares. Table 6 presents
the frequencies of Jeddito Yellow Ware at four large sites
(i.e., >50 rooms), and exhibits an exponential distancedecay relationship, suggesting down-the-line exchange
(Renfrew 1977), a pattern suggested by Upham (1982)
for Winslow Orange Wares and Zuni Glaze Wares. This
type of relationship results when the amount traded to the
next village is proportional to the amount that is left. If
communities received Jeddito Yellow Wares from Homol'ovi II, the distance from Homol'ovi II to the secondary
receiving centers explains frequencies among these sites.
Upham (1982) asserts that a pattern of directed exchange,

not one of down-the-line exchange, characterized elitecontrolled distribution of Jeddito Yellow Ware.
Homol'ovi survey and excavation data, incorporating
artifactual and ethnobotanical evidence, suggest that Jeddito Yellow Ware was, instead, one product involved in a
regional exchange system that incorporated Homol'ovi
and Hopi communities. For Homol'ovi populations, Jeddito Yellow Wares provided a higher-quality alternative to
inferior local ceramics. Hopi groups may have processed
Homol'ovi cotton, which facilitated the exchange of Hopi
textiles for other commodities from the distant reaches of
the greater Southwest (Riley 1987). Finally, the Homol'ovi data clearly indicate that Jeddito Yellow Ware and
other products of exchange, such as obsidian, were available to most, if not all, members of the population (Harry
1989; Hays 1991).

Summary and Discussion


This paper has examined survey and excavation data
related to the distribution of Jeddito Yellow Ware in the
late prehistoric northern Southwest. Our data set challenges the "Jeddito Alliance" component of Upham's
(1982) model for late prehistoric sociopolitical complexity. For the area considered in this study, Jeddito Yellow
Ware is represented in high frequencies and does not
indicate a system of restricted access. The vast majority of
Jeddito Yellow Ware sites (950/0)in our inventory contain
fewer than 50 rooms. Jeddito Yellow Ware was used and
discarded in a variety of contexts, from ephemeral artifact
scatters and field houses to agricultural sites and large
settlements (populations in the Hopi Mesas-Homol'ovi
areas used a wide range of site types surrounding their
large pueblos in a catchment area of perhaps 10 km radius
[Sullivan 1987]).
To summarize, the Jeddito Yellow Ware site distribution suggests regional patterns characterized by size differentiation and clustering, with one larger village typically
accompanied by two or more smaller villages one-half to
two-thirds its size and a plethora of small agricultural sites
(some with one or two rooms but most lacking visible
architecture), located within 10 km of the large settlement.
Major population centers on the Hopi Mesas and along

16

Ceramic Distribution and Exchange/Adams) Stark) and Dash

the central Little Colorado River Valley participated in a


regional exchange system until the abandonment of the
Homol'ovi sites. Some goods from the Hopi Mesas likely
passed through the Homol'ovi settlements to points farther south, but the Homol'ovi residents appear to have
been the primary consumers of Jeddito Yellow Ware. Lack
of adequate resources for localized pottery production may
have required the import of large amounts of pottery into
the Homol'ovi sites. This regional exchange system explains the Jeddito Yellow Ware distribution in the center
of our study area without reliance on elite-mediated distributional systems.
Specialization and complexity have been discussed extensively in archaeological studies worldwide (e.g., Brumfiel and Earle 1987). The alliance model uses ceramic
distributions to posit elite-controlled, regional networks
that operated on the southern Colorado Plateau wherein
restricted access to goods such as Yellow Wares both created and sustained their value >~sprestige items.
Our distributional data do not support a hierarchical
model of elite control and region-wide "alliances." This is
not to deny the importance of interaction between communities during the late prehistoric period, nor do we
deny the existence of some types of leaders within densely
populated communities. On the contrary, we believe that
communities interacted closely in relationships of economic interdependence during the 14th century. Reciprocal exchange apparently linked the Hopi Mesas to the
Homol'ovi villages, but no archaeological evidence for
elite control over distribution exists to support a "Jeddito
Alliance."
We may now review expectations derived from the alliance model. The first expectation, that "elite" goods
would be concentrated in large sites (i.e., those with more
than 50 rooms recorded), was neither confirmed nor denied. We suggest that large settlements have higher frequencies of "prestige goods" than do small sites for two
reasons: 1) large sites, like Homol'ovi II or Chavez Pass,
have extensive occupational sequences in contrast to small
sites (including field houses); and 2) most 14th-century
individuals resided in large settlements. By implication,
most goods-luxury or utilitarian-were
also stored in
large settlements, irrespective of particular social structure
(see also Graves 1987). Distributional patterning of Jeddito Yellow Ware suggests "supply wne" behavior, as the
linear relationship between distance from Hopi and Jeddito Yellow Ware frequency explains 94.4% of the variability. Chronological factors associated with the manufacture of types within the Jeddito Wares account for
differing frequencies of Jeddito Yellow Ware on the Homol'ovi area sites.

The second, related expectation-that


small sites beyond the area of ceramic production (i.e., the Hopi Mesas)
contain no Jeddito Yellow Ware in their assemblages-is
not supported. Yellow ware sites are located in most parts
of the study area, and are associated with a number of
activities. The third expectation-that
"elite" wares exported from the production centers were concentrated at
large pueblos (or "central places") can only be evaluated
using data from our study area. The value accorded the
yellow ware may indeed have increased with its rarity in
areas farther removed from the Hopi Mesas, but not in
the "polities" proposed in the alliance model. The exchange model that best fits the Jeddito Yellow Ware distribution is neither down-the-line nor directional, as proposed in the alliance model. Instead, the distancedependent decrease in Jeddito Yellow Ware frequencies is
linear and best fits supply wne behavior.
The distribution of Jeddito Yellow Ware outside NE
Ariwna remains unexplained. Beyond the greater production area (and beyond the Little Colorado River Valley),
Jeddito Yellow Ware may have been valued as a prestige
item. In the future, detailed surface collections of Jeddito
Yellow Ware sites in areas west and south of our study
area would help ascertain whether access to these ceramics
was indeed restricted within sites.
Some of the distribution also reflects post-depositional
formation processes, including Yellow Ware site re-occupation (at sites like Homol'ovi III; Adams 1989a) and
sherd curation (in regions north of the Hopi Mesas).
Jeddito Yellow Ware sherd curation has been documented
for the following: 1) establishing indigenous land claims
(Adams and Adams 1987); 2) as sources of designs for
Hopi-Tewa potters (Stanislawski 1969; Sullivan 1988);
3) and as components of visits to ancestral Hopi shrines
that are still in use. The distribution of Jeddito Yellow
Ware as currently documented likely reflects a multi-century process of deposition. These behaviors may help to
explain "outlier" sites in the distribution.

Conclusions
Our study has suggested that the "Jeddito alliance"
model of late prehistoric complexity (Upham 1982) is
simply not supportable when a full range of archaeological
site data are employed. Residents of the large 14th-century
settlements likely engaged in regional systems of community-based specialization that required no elaborate,
elite-mediated system of distribution.
Given that site size in the study area had more than
doubled by the early 16th century, the complexity suggested for the 14th century western Pueblo area could
have been important for maintaining enlarged, aggregated

Journal of Field ArchaeologylVol. 20) 1993 17

Table 7. Sites occupied after

1400 and into


Number

Size

1000+ rooms
251-1000 rooms

1
8

20-50 rooms
1-2 rooms, artifact scatter
Total
*Pueblos occupied before

A.C.

1
26
36
A.C.

A.C.

1500.

Hopi Mesas

Little
Colorado
River

Hopi
Buttes

Northern
frontier

3
3

6
6

Old Moenkopi*
2
3

Awatovi*
Kuchaptevela*
Oraibi*
Shungopavi*
Sikyatki*
Chakpahu
Mishongnovi*
Kokopnyama
15
23

1400 that were still occupied after

A.C.

populations at the time of Spanish Contact, rather than a


century earlier (TABLE 7). Although status differentiation
was present in Pueblo groups at contact, it had not led to
economic rankings or the accumulation of wealth as predicted in the alliance model (Riley 1987: 199).
Historical Pueblo data, although not directly comparable with pre-contact Pueblo society, present a strong case
against 14th-century political complexity. Puebloan social
organization undoubtedly changed in response to external
pressures during the protohistoric and historical periods
(Spicer 1962), but frequent and customary subsistence
exchanges are integral parts of Pueblo tradition.4 Complementary exchange may have functioned effectively at the
household level in the Southwest and elsewhere, thereby
precluding our need for models dependent on elite-based
redistribution systems (cf. Brumfiel and Earle 1987).
It is encouraging that extensive review of broad sets of
data from the Southwest has led researchers to reevaluate
their assumptions about hierarchical organization of prehistoric societies (see Upham, Lightfoot, and Jewett
1989). Prehistoric organizational structures in the Southwest indeed were varied, and archaeological as well as
cross-cultural studies provide necessary analogies to understand this organization. Nevertheless, many researchers
continue to portray historical Pueblo societies as organizationally simple and redundant. The diversity and organizational complexity of historical and modern Pueblo
culture must be better understood by Southwestern ar4. Early 20th-century ethnographers documented the exchange of
commodities among Hopi groups as payment for agricultural labor; for
participation in communal work parties and salt-collecting expeditions;
in exchange for game; as gifts to ceremonial parents and game winners;
and to visitors from other settlements during weddings and less formal
occasions (Eggan 1950: 33, 50-51; Parsons 1925: 18, 38, 55; Stephen
1936: 1000; Titiev 1944: 37-38). Exchange systems were widespread
among Pueblos until recently (Ford 1983), and commodities involved
ranged from manufactured goods (earthenware, basketry, and textiles)
and food products (both agricultural and collected) to services that
involved ceremonial specialists, midwives, and marriage partners.

1500.

chaeologists before new models are constructed comparing the prehistoric record to its post-contact counterparts.

Acknowledgments
We are grateful to the Department of Anthropology
Writers' Group for comments on this paper's various incarnations, and especially to Jenny Adams, Catherine
Cameron, Douglas Craig, Mark Elson, Kelley Hays, Laura
Levi, Barbara Montgomery, Masa Tani, Douglas Wilson,
and Lisa Young. We also thank Alan Sullivan and David
Wilcox for useful critiques and valuable suggestions. Additional thanks are extended to anonymous reviewers who
pointed out inadequacies in our treatment of exchange
models. Ron Beckwith drafted Figure 1, and Douglas
Gann drafted Figures 2-4. Richard Lange compiled the
data on survey information in the Homol'ovi area. We are
grateful to all these people. Despite these acknowledgments, we accept full responsibility for any errors in the
paper's content.

E. Charles Adams isAssociate Curator of Archaeology at the


Arizona State Museum and Research Associate Professor in
the Department of Anthropology. He directs the HomoPovi Research Program) which focuses on survey and excavation of several ancestral Hopi pueblos in NE Arizona) which have been
incorporated into a new state park. Mailing address: Arizona
State Museum) University of Arizona) Tucson) AZ 85721.
Miriam T. Stark is a doctoral candidate whose researchfocuses on ceramic production and distribution in archaeological
and ethnoarchaeological perspective. Her areal concerns inelude the American Southwest and Southeast Asia. Mailing
address: Department ofAnthropology, University ofArizona)
Tucson) AZ 85721.
Deborah S. Dosh has aMA.fromNorthernArizona
University and is a research archaeologist specializing in ceramic
manufacture and exchange on the Colorado Plateau. Mailing

18

Ceramic Distribution and Exchange/Adams) Stark) and Dosh

address: KinlaniArchaeology)
taff; AZ 86001.

330 East Papago Drive) Flags-

Adams, E. Charles
1981
"The View From the Hopi Mesas," in David R. Wilcox
and W. Bruce Masse, eds., The Protohistoric Period in the
North American Southwest) A.D. 1450-1700. Arizona
State University) Anthropological Research Papers 24.
Tempe: Ariwna State University, 321-335.
1989a

"Homol'ovi III: A Pueblo Hamlet in the Middle Little


Colorado River Valley," Kiva 54: 217-230.

1989b

"The Homol'ovi Research Program," Kiva 54: 175-194.

Adams, E. Charles, and Jenny L. Adams


1987
"Thirteenth Century Abandonment of the Four Corners:
A Re-evaluation," manuscript on file, Ariwna State Museum, University of Ariwna, Tucson.
Adams, E. Charles, and Kelley Ann Hays, eds.
1991
HomoPovi II: Archaeology of an Ancestral Hopi Village)
Arizona. Anthropological Papers) University of Arizona 55.
Tucson.
Adams, Robert McC.
1975
''The Emerging Place of Trade in Civilizational Studies,"
in Jeremy Sabloff and C.C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, eds.,
Ancient Civilizations and Trade. Albuquerque: University
of New Mexico Press, 451-465.
Ambler, J. Richard, and Mark Q. Sutton
1989
''The Anasazi Abandonment of the San Juan Drainage
and the Numic Expansion," North American Archaeologist
10: 39-53.
Ambler, J. Richard, Alexander J. Lindsay, and Mary Anne Stein
1964
Survey and Excavations on Cummings Mesa) Arizona and
Utah) 1960-1961. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin
39. Glen Canyon Series 5. Flagstaff: Museum of Northern
Ariwna.
Andrews, Michael J.
1982
"An Archaeological Assessment of Homol'ovi III and
Chevelon Ruin, Northern Ariwna," report prepared for
the Ariwna State Land Department, Phoenix. Manuscript on file, Northern Ariwna University, Flagstaff.

Breternitz, David A.
1966
An Appraisal of Tree-ring Dated Pottery in the Southwest.
Anthropological Papers 10. Tucson: University of Arirona.
Brew, J.O.
1941
"Preliminary Report of the Peabody Museum Awatovi
Expedition of 1939," Plateau 13(3): 37-48.
1949

''The History of Awatovi," in R.G. Montgomery, W.


Smith, and J.O. Brew, FranciscanAwatovi: The Excavation
and Conjectural Reconstrnction of a 17th Century Spanish
Mission Establishment at a Hopi Indian Town in Northeastern Arizona. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American
Archaeology and EthnologJy Harvard University 36. Cambridge: Peabody Museum, 1-43.

Brumfiel, Elizabeth, and Timothy Earle.


1987
"Specialization, Exchange, and Complex Societies: An
Introduction," in Elizabeth Brumfiel and Timothy Earle,
eds., Specialization) Exchange) and Complex Societies.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1-9.
Burton, Jeffrey F.
1990
Archaeological Investigations at Puerco Ruin) Petrified Forest
National Park) Arizona. Western Archeological and Conservation Center Publications in Anthropology 54. Tucson:
National Park Service.
Colton, Harold S.
1956
Pottery Types of the Southwest. Museum of Northern Arizona
Ceramic Series 3C. Flagstaff.
Colton, Harold S., and Lyndon Hargrave
1937
Handbook of Northern Arizona Pottery Wares. Museum of
Northern Arizona Bulletin 11. Flagstaff.
Cordell, Linda S.
1989
"History and Theory in Reconstructing Southwestern
Sociopolitical Organization," in Steadman Upham, Kent
G. Lightfoot, and Roberta A. Jewett, eds., The SocWpolitcal Strncture of Prehistoric Southwestern Societies.Boulder:
Westview Press, 33-54.
Cordell, Linda S., and George J. Gumerman
1989
"Cultural Interaction in the Prehistoric Southwest," in
Linda S. Cordell and George Gumerman, eds., Dynamics
of Southwestern Prehistory. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, 1-17.

Cam-

Cordell, Linda S., and Fred Plog


1979
"Escaping the Confines of Normative Thought: A Reevaluation of Puebloan Prehistory," American Antiquity
44: 405-429.

Beaglehole, Ernest
1937
Notes on Hopi Economic Life. Yale University Publications
in Anthropology 15. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Cordell, Linda, Steadman Upham, and Sharon Brock


1987
"Obscuring Cultural Patterns in the Archaeological Record: A Discussion from Southwestern Archaeology,"
American Antiquity 52: 565-577.

Arnold, Dean
1985
Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process. Cambridge:
bridge University Press.

Bishop, Ronald, Veletta Canouts, Suzanne De Atley, Alfred Qoyawayma, and C.W. Aikens
1988
''The Formation of Ceramic Analytical Groups: Hopi
Pottery Production and Exchange, A.C. 1300-1600,"
Journal ofField Archaeology 15: 317-337.
Block, Rebecca
1985
''Thermal Expansion Measurements of Ceramics at Homol'ovi III," manuscript on file, Laboratory of Traditional
Technology, University of Ariwna, Tucson.

Coues, Elliott
1900
On the Trail of a Spanish Pioneer: The Diary and Itinerary
of Francisco Garces) 1775-1776) Vols. 1 and 2. New York:
Francis P. Harper.
Dosh, Steven G.
1982
''The Emergency Protection of Homol'ovi I Ruin," report prepared for the Bureau of Land Management,
Phoenix. Manuscript on file, Museum of Northern Arirona, Flagstaff.

Journal of Field A rchaeologyl Vol. 20) 1993

Downum, Christian E., ed.


1991
Archaeology of the Pueblo Grande Platfonn Mound and
Surrounding Features. Pueblo Grande Museum Anthropological Papers 1, 3 vols. Phoenix.
Dozier, Edward
1970
"Making Inferences from the Present to the Past," in
William A. Longacre, ed., Reconstructing Pueblo Societies.
Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 202213.
Eggan, Fred
1950
The Social 01lJanization of the Western Pueblos. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Elson, Mark D., and Douglas Craig, eds.
1992
The Rye Creek Project: Archaeology in the Upper Tonto
Basin. Anthropological Papers 14. Tucson: Center for Desert Archaeology.
Ford, Richard I.
1972
"Barter, Gift or Violence: an Analysis of Tewa Intertribal Exchange," in Edwin Wilmsen, ed., Social Exchange
and Interaction. Anthropological Papers of the Museum of
Anthropology 51. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan,
21-45.
1983

"Inter- Indian Exchange in the Southwest," in Alfonso


Ortiz, ed., Handbook ofN orth American Indians 10, Southwest. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, 711722.

Graves, Michael
1987
"Rending Reality in Archaeological Analyses: A Reply
to Upham and Plog," Journal of Field Archaeology 14:
243-249.
Gumerman, George J., and S. Alan Skinner
1968
"A Synthesis of the Prehistory of the Central Little Colorado Valley, Arizona," American Antiquity 33: 185199.
Hantman, Jeffrey L.
1982
"A Long Term Management Plan for Significant Sites in
the Vicinity of Winslow, Arizona," report prepared for
the Ariwna State Land Department, Phoenix, by Soil
Systems, Inc., Phoenix. Manuscript on file, Ariwna State
Museum Library, University of Arizona, Tucson.
1989

"Surplus Production and Complexity in the Upper Little


Colorado Province, East-Central Arizona," in Steadman
Upham, Kent G. Lightfoot, and Roberta A. Jewett, eds.,
The SociopoliticalStructure of Prehistoric Southwestern Societies. Boulder: Westview Press, 419-446.

Hargrave, Lyndon L.
1931
"Recently Dated Pueblo Ruins in Arizona-Excavations
at Kintiel and Kokopnyama," Smithsonian Miscellaneous
Collections82(1): 80-120. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.
1932

Guide to Forty Pottery Typesfrom the Hopi Country and the


San Francisco Mountains) Arizona. Museum of Northern
Arizona Bulletin 1. Flagstaff.

Harry, Karen G.
1989
"An Analysis of the Obsidian Assemblage of Homol'ovi
III: Social and Economic Implications," Kiva 54: 285296.

19

Haury, Emil W.
1945
The Excavations of Los Muertos and Neighboring Ruins on
the Salt River Valley) Southern Arizona. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology
24(1). Cambridge: Peabody Museum, Harvard University.
Hayes, Alden, Jon Nathan Young, and A.H. Warren
1981
Excavation of Mound 7: Gran Quivira National Monument)
New Mexico. National Park Service Publications in Archeology 16. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the
Interior.
Hays, Kelley A.
1991
"Ceramics," in E. Charles Adams and Kelley Ann Hays,
eds., HomoPovi II: Archaeology of an Ancestral Hopi Village)
Arizona. Anthropological Papers) University of Arizona 55.
Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 23-48.
Hibben, Frank C.
1955
"Excavations at Pottery Mound, New Mexico," American
Antiquity 21: 179-180.
Hough, Walter
1903
"Archaeological Field-work in Northeastern Arizona, the
Museum-Gates Expedition of 1901," Annual Report of
the United States National Museum for 1901. Washington,
D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, 279-358.
James, Harry C.
1974
Pages from Hopi History. Tucson: University of Ariwna
Press.
Jennings, Calvin H.
1980
"Further Investigations at Puerco Ruin, Petrified Forest
National Park, Ariwna," report prepared for the Western
Archeological Center, Tucson. Manuscript on file, Laboratory of Public Archaeology, Colorado State U niversity, Fort Collins.
Kidder, Alfred V.
1936
The Pottery of Pecos)Vol. II. New Haven: Yale University
Press.
Kintigh, Keith
1985
Settlement) Subsistence) and Society in Late Zuni Prehistory.
Anthropological Papers) University of Arizona 44. Tucson.
Lange, Richard C.
1989
"The Survey of the Homol'ovi
54: 195-216.

Ruins State Park," Kiva

Lightfoot, Kent G.
1979
"Food
Redistribution
among
Groups," The Kiva 44: 319-339.
1984

Prehistoric

Pueblo

Prehistoric Political Dynamics: A Case Study from the American Southwest. Dekalb: Northern Illinois University
Press.

Miksicek, Charles H.
1991
"Paleoethnobotany,"
in E. Charles Adams and Kelley
Ann Hays, eds., HomoPovi II: Archaeology of an Ancestral
Hopi Village) Arizona. Anthropological Papers) University of
Arizona 55. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 88102.
Morris, Earl
1928
"Kawaikuh," manuscript in Earl Morris Collection, University of Colorado Museum, Boulder.

20

Ceramic Distribution

and Exchange/Adams)

Stark) and Dosh

Nagata, Shuichi
1970
Modern Transfonnations of Moenkopi Pueblo. Illinois Studies
in Anthropology 6. Urbana: University of Illinois.

Senior, Louise M., and Linda J. Pierce


1989
''Turkeys and Domestication in the Southwest: Implications from Homol'ovi III," Kiva 54: 245-260.

Page, Gordon
1940
Hopi Agricultural
vation Service.

Smith, Watson
1971
Painted Ceramics of the Western Mound at Awatovi. Papers
of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology 38. Cambridge: Harvard University.

Notes. Washington,

D.C.: Soil Conser-

Page, Jake
1982
"Inside the Sacred Hopi Homeland," National Geographic
Magazine 162: 607-629.
Parsons, Elsie Clews
1925
A Pueblo Indian Journal. Memoirs of the American Anthropological Association 39. Menasha.
Plog, Fred
1983
"Political and Economic Alliances on the Colorado Plateaus, A.D. 400-1450," in Fred Wendorf and Angela
Close, eds., Advances in WorldArchaeology 2. New York:
Academic Press, 289-330.
1985

"Status and Death at Grasshopper Pueblo: The Homogenization of Reality," in M. Thompson, M.T. Garcia, and
F. J. Kense, eds., Status) Struaure and Stratification: Current Archaeological Reconstruaions) Proceedings of the 1983
Chacmool Conference. Calgary, Alberta: University of Calgary, 167-174.

Ramenofsky, Ann F.
1987
Veaors of Death: The Archaeology of European Contact.
Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Reid, J. Jefferson
1985
"Organizational
Correlates of Settlement
Behavior:
Methodological Considerations," in M. Thompson, M.T.
Garcia, and F.J. Kense, eds., Status) Struaure and Stratification: Current Archaeological Reconstruaions) Proceedings of the 1983 Chacmool Conftrence. Calgary, Alberta:
University of Calgary, 167-174.
Reid, J. Jefferson, Michael B. Schiffer, Stephanie W. Whittlesey,
Madeleine J. Hinkes, Alan P. Sullivan, III, Christian E.
Downum, William A. Longacre, and H. David Tuggle
1989
"Perception and Interpretation in Contemporary Southwestern Archaeology: Comments on Cordell, Upham
and Brock," American Antiquity 54: 802-814.
Renfrew, Colin
1977
"Alternative Models for Exchange and Spatial Distribution," in Timothy K. Earle and Jonathon E. Ericson,
eds., Exchange Systems in Prehistory. New York: Academic
Press, 71-90.
Riley, Carroll L.
1987
The Frontier People: The Greater Southwest in the Protohistoric Period. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico
Press.
Ruppe, Reynold J., and A.E. Dittert
1952
"The Archaeology of Cebolleta Mesa and Acoma Pueblo:
A Preliminary Report Based on Further Investigation,"
EI Palacio 59: 191-217.
Schaefer, Paul
1969
"Prehistoric Trade in the Southwest and the Distribution
of Pueblo IV Hopi Jeddito Black-on-Yellow," Kroeber
Anthropological Society Papers 41: 54-77. Berkeley: University of California.

Snow, David H.
1981
"Protohistoric Rio Grande Pueblo Economics: A Review
of Trends," in David R. Wilcox and W. Bruce Masse,
eds., The Protohistoric Period in the North American Southwest) AD. 1450-1700. Arizona State University Anthropological Research Papers 24. Tempe: Arizona State University, 354-377.
Spicer, Edward H.
1962
Cycles of Conquest. Tucson: University of Ariwna Press.
Spielmann, Katherine
1986
"Interdependence Among Egalitarian Societies," Journal
of Anthropological Archaeology 5: 279-312.
Stanislawski, Michael
1969
''What Good is a Broken Pot?" Southwestern Lore 35: 1118.
Stark, Miriam
1991
"Ceramic Production and Community Specialization: A
Kalinga Ethnoarchaeological Study," World Archaeology
23(1): 64-78.
Stephen, Alexander M.
1936
Hopi Journal of Alexander M. Stephen) 2 vols, edited by
Elsie Clews Parsons. New York: Columbia University
Press.
Sullivan, Alan P.
1987
"Artifact Scatters, Adaptive Diversity and Southwestern
Abandonment: The Upham Hypothesis Reconsidered,"
Journal of Anthropological Research 43: 345-366.
1988

"Prehistoric
Limitations
53: 23-35.

Southwestern Ceramic Manufacture: The


of Current Evidence," American Antiquity

Talayesva, Don
1942
Sun Chief: The Autobiography of a Hopi Indian) edited by
Leo Simmons. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Thomas, David Hurst, ed.
1989
Columbian Consequences: Archaeological and Historical Perspeaives on the Spanish Borderlands West. Washington:
Smithsonian Institution.
Titiev, Mischa
1937
"A Hopi Salt Expedition,"
244-258.
1944

American

Anthropologist

39:

Old Oraibi: A Study of the Hopi Indians of Third Mesa.


Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and
Ethnology 22(1). Cambridge: Harvard University.

Ubelaker, Douglas H.
1988
"North American Indian Population Size, A.D. 1500 to
1985," American Journal of Physical Anthropology 77:
289-294.

Journal of Field Archaeology/Vol. 20, 1993

Upham, Steadman
1982
Polities and Power: An Economic and Political History of the
Western Pueblo. New York: Academic Press.
1985

"Interpretations of Prehistoric Political Complexity in the


Central and Northern Southwest," in M. Thompson,
M.T. Garcia, and F.J. Kense, eds., Status, Struaure and
Stratification: Current Archaeological Reconstruaions. Proceedingsof the 1983 Chacmool Conference. Calgary, Alberta:
University of Calgary, 175-180.

Upham, Steadman, Kent Lightfoot, and Gary Feinman


1981
"Explaining Socially-determined Ceramic Distributions
in the Prehistoric Plateau Southwest," American Antiquity 46: 822-833.
Upham, Steadman, Kent Lightfoot, and Roberta Jewett, eds.
1989
The SociopoliticalStruaure of Prehistoric Southwestern Societies. Boulder: Westview Press.
Upham, Steadman, and Fred Plog
1986
"The Interpretation of Prehistoric Political Complexity
in the Central and Northern Southwest: Toward a Mending of the Models," Journal ofField Archaeology 13: 223238.
Weaver, Donald E., Jr., Steven G. Dosh, and Keith E. Miller
1982
"An Archaeological Assessment of Homolovi II Ruin,"
report prepared for the State Historic Preservation Office, Phoenix. Manuscript on file, Museum of Northern
Ariwna, Flagstaff.
Wendorf, Fred
1950
A Report on the Excavation of a Small Ruin Near Point of
Pines, East-central Arizona. University of Arizona Bulletin
21(3), Social Science Bulletin 19. Tucson: University of
Ariwna.
Whiting, Alfred F.
1939
Ethnobotany of the Hopi. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin 15. Flagstaff.
Wilcox, David
1981
"Changing Perspectives on the Protohistoric Pueblos,
A.D. 1450-1700," in David R. Wilcox and W. Bruce
Masse, eds., The Protohistoric Period in the North American
Southwest, A.D. 1450-1700. Arizon State University, AnthropologicalResearch Papers 24. Tempe, 378-409.
Wilcox, David R., and Peter J. Pilles, Jr.
1978
"The Small Sites Conference: An Introduction," in Albert E. Ward, ed., Limited Aaivity and Occupation Sites:
A Colleaion of Conference Papers. Contributions to Anthropological Studies 1. Albuquerque: Center for Anthropological Studies, 1-5.

21

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen