SEVEN

Pots and Agriculture

Anasazi Rural Household Production, Long House Valley, Northern Arizona

JOHN G. DOUGLASS AND ROBERT A. HECKMAN

INTRODUCTION

Household ceramic production is of keen interest to scholars, both in prehistory and in contemporary contexts (D. Arnold 1985, this volume; P. Arnold 1991; Bernardini 2000; Cordell 1997; González Fernández, this volume; Hagstrum 2001; Hill 1994; Mills and Crown 1995; Roux 2003; Spielmann, Mobley-Tanaka, and Potter 2006; Wiewall, this volume). Key interests in the American Southwest include questions related to the initial use of ceramics, trade and interaction, social identity, and the organization of production. This chapter focuses on the last topic, the organization of production, through the investigation of AZ-J-28-32 (NN), a small, rural Anasazi household group occupied during the Pueblo II period (AD 1000–1150). This site is located in the southern part of Long House Valley, in the heart of the Kayenta region of the modern Navajo Nation, immediately to the north and west of Black Mesa in the American Southwest (Figure 7.1). This chapter examines competing models of household ceramic production in the Pueblo period Black Mesa area—one that households of a variety of sizes produced ceramics, and another that ceramic manufacture was confined to larger village sites—to better understand the dynamics of this essential household activity.

Figure 7.1. Location of Long House Valley, northeastern Arizona; note Black Mesa immediately to the south and east of Long House Valley

HOUSEHOLDS CONCEPTUALIZED

In the introductory chapter of this volume, the fundamental theoretical underpinnings of the study of households were underlined. Here, we focus specifically on the archaeological correlates of households as they are defined by the physical remains they leave behind. Although households and dwellings are not synonymous, across time and space the remains of residences help archaeologists define the household unit. Architecture has long been recognized as playing a key role in reflecting the daily activities and social organization of households and larger social units (Kent 1990; McGuire and Schiffer 1983; Wilcox 1975; see also chapters by Beaule, Ciolek-Torrello, Henderson, González Fernández, and Snow, this volume). There are differences in dwelling use and adaption through time (Wilshusen 1988) in residential architecture that are the reflection of activities, behavior, and development of social systems (see chapters by Ciolek-Torrello and Douglass and Gonlin, this volume). During the time period primarily addressed in this chapter, the Pueblo II period, there was a divergence in residential architectural style in the Kayenta region (Rocek 1995a, 1995b). Whereas permanent hamlets and villages were primarily constructed with aboveground pueblo-style architecture, some households constructed small pit structure groups in rural areas for seasonal use (Gilman 1987, 1997; Lipe and Hegmon 1989). By the Pueblo II period, households were heavily reliant on diversity in agricultural production to maximize their labor investment. As a result, pit structures were generally constructed as residences for use during the growing season. By inhabiting these rural areas for part of the year, household members were able to minimize agricultural risks through multiple fields in varied environments (Whalen 1981).

Defining the number of households within a pit structure group is a critical but challenging task (Wilshusen 1989). If households are defined by the functions and activities members perform, this task becomes slightly more manageable. Two of the central functions of households are coresidence and cooperative production (Netting, Wilk, and Arnould 1984; Wilk and Rathje 1982). The physical location of structures is, as Wilk (1984:224) has pointed out, an “overt symbolic expression of the relationship between inhabitants” (see also Henderson, this volume). The distance between structures symbolically expresses the degree of communication, cooperation, and, more generally, ties between them. Even within a small homestead, there may be more than one household present. Physically, pit structure groups can be divided into household units by the degree of clustering of structures. Loose or tight clustering may be a physical expression of the degree of cooperation among household groups or members.

Defining the number of households within a pueblo-style, aboveground roomblock is an easier task, in part because of ethnographic analogy with contemporary pueblo household groups. Early Pueblo period aboveground structures were constructed in functionally distinct spaces from north to south within units of redundant household suites (Eggan 1950; Lightfoot 1994). One recent Pueblo I household excavation at the Duckfoot site (Lightfoot 1994) illustrates how several cooperative families living together in an architectural suite may form a household. In his analysis, Lightfoot showed that although there was independence among the different families within one site (what he has defined at the Duckfoot site as a single roomblock cluster), there was also a high degree of cooperative behavior, as indicated by the high degree of clustering among roomblocks.

HOUSEHOLD CERAMIC PRODUCTION ORGANIZATION CONSIDERED

Rural households, across time and space, are producers and consumers of culture, whether material (crops, ritual items, craft goods) or non-material (beliefs, values). First and foremost, however, rural households are often focused on self-sufficiency (see Douglass and Gonlin, this volume). In rural areas, where farming may be the primary task of households and other activities may be designed to complement or sustain core tasks during down periods, households need to be efficient economic units. In times where households cannot produce enough food or other goods for self-sufficiency, they will undertake reciprocal exchanges for goods, labor, or food. Household scheduling of activities is another decisive variable, especially in difficult or risky environments (see Henderson, this volume, for discussion of household scheduling). For example, in semiarid environments, rainfall is a limiting factor for dry-farming. Household members will need to schedule tasks so that they may maximize available rainfall for success of their agricultural crops (see Neff, this volume). As a result, supplemental tasks, such as craft production, may be a household task to permit exchange of craft goods for supplemental food or other items (D. Arnold 1985). In the American Southwest, the primary season for agricultural production (during the monsoons, May through September) also coincides with times that may allow manufacture and firing of ceramics. Wood, for example, is driest in May, during the time when planting needed to be done (Hagstrum 2001:51). This time period is also an ideal time to dry pots prior to firing, as the snow is gone and the weather is warm. The majority of traditional pottery-producing cultures manufacture ceramics during warm months (D. Arnold 1985). As a result, scheduling of agricultural and supplemental production tasks may need to be balanced among household members. Hagstrum (2001:51) has argued that in the American Southwest, this balance is done in part along gender lines, with males farming and females producing pottery (see Beaule, Gonlin, Gougeon, Neff, Snow, and Wiewall, this volume, for discussions of gender roles within the household). Beyond household scheduling, access to and the quality of resources related to production (e.g., readily available clay sources), weather, and climate are all factors with which households must deal (D. Arnold 1985).

Within many agrarian societies, household production is classified as ad hoc, part-time, or full-time (Clark and Parry 1990:298–299; Douglass and Gonlin, this volume). The scale of production is significant too and falls along a continuum from small, informal, kin- or household-based production to large, formal, independent workshops or factories (Costin 1991). Although specialization may be defined in a variety of ways, Costin’s definition (1986:328, cited in 1991:3)—“the regular, repeated provision of some commodity or service in exchange for some other”—is helpful here. Determining the nature of production, its consistency, degree, scale are all elements to be investigated. The standardization and intensity of production was also quantified by Roux (2003:780) in terms of “low-rate” and “high-rate” ceramic production, based on ethnographic examples. Here, Roux (2003) argued that a low degree of standardization of ceramic production may relate to non-centralized production, based on comparisons with archaeological data. However, Roux (2003:780) went on to argue that the degree of standardization is, in part, an emic concept. Only in “high-rate” (i.e., workshop or factory) production settings does standardization appear to transcend these emic concepts.

Along these lines, Brumfiel and Earle (1987; Earle 1981) have argued that the organization of craft specialization is divided into two categories: independent and attached (see Dean Arnold’s chapter in this volume for a detailed discussion of the organization of craft production). Independent specialization is, in essence, a function of economic necessity—that is, independent specialists will produce goods based on the demands of exchange networks or local demands by consumers (Douglass 2002:58). Independent specialists have direct contact with consumers and control the distribution of their goods. Alternatively, attached specialization differs from independent in that elites create a demand for specialized products that is in part politically motivated (see Brumfiel and Earle 1987; Earle 1981). In the case of the Anasazi, the vast majority of specialization will be independent, based on the nature of the social hierarchy. Among many agrarian societies farmers may undertake independent craft production during downtimes each year (see D. Arnold 1985, 1993, this volume; P. Arnold 1991, 2000; Costin 1991:17; Kramer 1985, 1997). If craft production is primarily for household use, production output will likely be low and the array of products created will mimic the household inventory (P. Arnold 1991:104). For example, there will not be unusual vessel forms or ceramic types that were not used by the household itself.

CERAMIC PRODUCTION: HOUSEHOLD FUNCTION AND COMMUNITY SIZE

A central research question in the American Southwest relates to the “push” for ceramic production among agriculturalists. As discussed above, in general rural agriculturalists may produce ceramics or other craft goods as a supplemental function. Often times, these groups are in marginal agricultural environments (e.g., D. Arnold 1985). While agricultural marginality may be seen as a reason for “pushing” agriculturalists to supplement their livelihood with craft manufacture, such as ceramics, Harry (2005) has recently argued that this may not always be the case. Generally, in agricultural societies, there appears to be an inverse relationship between the degree and intensity of craft specialization and the degree of access to sustainable agricultural land (Netting 1990). Harry (2005:296) argues that farming is a less risky endeavor than ceramic manufacture and also has higher returns. Both are risky with regard to the degree of availability of resources, but small-scale farming can directly feed a household and ceramics cannot, as ceramics must be exchanged for food or other goods. Harry (2005:296) cites D. Arnold (1985:193) as arguing that therefore, it is clear that only in specific situations, such as population pressure or lack of sufficient agricultural land, may a farmer undertake ceramic manufacture as a supplemental task. Harry examined data from four areas of the American Southwest to better understand this relationship between agricultural marginality and ceramic production and her general conclusion was that agricultural marginality correlated poorly with community-based ceramic manufacture and by itself did not drive the development of it (Harry 2005:311). Much of the basis for these arguments hails from ethnographic studies, whereas prehispanic societies differed in distribution systems, social networks, population pressure, and land tenure (Harry 2005:313–314).

Across the American Southwest, the first models of ceramic production posited that the manufacture of ceramic containers occurred at nearly every prehispanic settlement (Gladwin 1943), from small, rural households to large villages. Recent research has focused on identifying the locus of ceramic production and has suggested that ceramic vessels were distributed within and among regions on a regular basis (Mills and Crown 1995). To illustrate, a multitude of sites of varying sizes in the Four Corners region during Pueblo III revealed evidence of ceramic manufacture that reflects non-specialized household production (Pierce et al. 1999). Even at the village level, it is generally thought that ceramic manufacture was a household-level activity (Wilson and Blinman 1995). There is good evidence of interhousehold cooperation in the manufacture of ceramics (Bernardini 2000; Blinman and Swink 1997). Evidence of ceramic manufacture may be shown through the recovery of unfired ceramics, raw clay, polishing stones, shaped sherds, and extramural features. Hill (1994) provides an exhaustive list of material correlates of Puebloan ceramic production, which are presented in Table 7.1. No direct evidence of specialized ceramic workshops has been identified in the American Southwest (Mills and Crown 1995:7) and direct evidence of production through firing kilns is rare, although trench kilns are now being recognized (e.g., Bernardini 2000).

David Hill’s (1994) study of ceramic production in the Black Mesa area offers insight into variation in ceramic manufacture in the American Southwest. As discussed above, commonly it is thought that prehispanic households living in a wide range of social settings, from small, rural hamlets to large villages, produced ceramics. Hill’s study, alternatively, suggests a very different phenomenon for the Black Mesa area through an examination of fifty-three prehispanic sites located on Black Mesa, within the boundaries of what are today the Navajo and Hopi Nations. Artifacts and materials related to ceramic manufacture (shaping and scraping tools, polishing stones, base forms, unfired sherds, clay coils, and tempering paste) were recovered from forty of the fifty-three sites. The few sites lacking such evidence were small in size (< 3 structures) and may represent specialized activity areas or seasonal camps where ceramics were not produced but were imported from larger villages (Hill 1994:45). Hill (1994:45) argues that site manufacturing of two ceramic types, Tusayan White and Gray wares, was common, whereas other types were likely brought in through trade. Hill (1994:51–52) concludes:

Table 7.1. Material correlates of Puebloan ceramic production in the American Southwest

Evidence for the production of pottery at sites within the project area suggests a larger role for onsite manufacture than for exchange of ceramics produced at only a few localities (they are not mutually exclusive alternatives). Larger sites, possibly with longer spans of occupation and greater population, suggest a greater dependence on a small portion of the landscape, possibly through increased dependence on cultigens or locally abundant natural resources. Sites with more intensive production strategies seem to have greater evidence of ceramic production because more vessels for storage and food preparation were needed in a more intensively utilized area. Smaller sites with evidence of less intensive occupation might have derived their ceramic assemblages from nearby pottery-producing communities.

The contrast of Gladwin’s (1943) model with Hill’s (1994) model provides competing hypothesizes that will be examined below with data from AZ-J-28-32 (NN).

CONTEXT OF THE STUDY: AZ-J-28-32 (NN) AND LONG HOUSE VALLEY

In this study, we present data from AZ-J-28-32 (NN), a Pueblo II period seasonal farmstead located in Long House Valley, on the northern edge of Black Mesa. Seasonal, temporary, and short-term mobility of small communities represents a pervasive adaptive strategy for groups in the northern Southwest (Varien 1999). As part of this site study, the micro-level of production (Zedeno and Mills 1993:176) was assessed to specifically identify any types of production undertaken at this location. During the Pueblo II period, small, isolated pithouse structures were short-term or seasonal habitation loci for specific activities, such as farming. If this was the case, were the inhabitants producing ceramics or other goods during their short tenure? If so, what evidence related to both the organization and intensity of production? Were these wares consumed locally?

Pit structures as part of larger Puebloan-style architectural complexes have been investigated in detail, but rural sites have not been as intensively studied. The research conducted at this small site offers an opportunity to further test the relationship among household production, agricultural organization, and the function of architecture. Most settlement on Black Mesa that dates to the Pueblo II period were pueblo-style roomblocks, but the semi-subterranean pit structure style continued in certain locations, such as AZ-J-28-32 (NN). Structure function and the use of intramural and extramural space will be examined to answer these research questions.

The particular environment and specific culture history of the region offered resources and constraints that shaped the daily activities performed by the inhabitants of small sites like AZ-J-28-32 (NN). Without this context, it is difficult to fully understand the site’s prehispanic lifeways. A regional approach contextualizes the site, which was a systemic part of the interaction and trade networks. Long House Valley is a narrow, Y-shaped valley in the heart of the Kayenta area. This small valley (ca. 75 km²) is separated by a series of low hills from the Klethla Valley and the Shonto Plateau on its western edge, whereas the northern and eastern sides of the valley are bordered by steep escarpments, Tsegi Canyon and Black Mesa, respectively. Laguna Creek is the most prominent watercourse in the local area. Long House Valley’s floor varies between approximately 1,950 and 2,200 meters above mean sea level. According to Dean and colleagues (1978:27), the valley contains little climatic variation because of its small size. As is the case in most parts of the American Southwest, the monsoon season (July through October) produces the bulk of the annual precipitation, which averages approximately 280 millimeters.

Immediately to the east and south of Long House Valley, Black Mesa is a large plateau (75 miles in diameter) composed primarily of Mesa Verde sandstone (Gumerman 1970:5) and other sedimentary material. Compared to Long House Valley, Black Mesa encompasses a variety of topography. Along its border with Long House Valley, Black Mesa would be considered the uplands, in part because it rises approximately 500 meters above the valley floor. Like Long House Valley, sections of Black Mesa can be described as part of the pinyon-juniper woodland association (Powell 1983:41) and, more generally, is part of the Great Basin Conifer Woodland (Brown 1982:52–58). Four primary plant associations have been suggested for the region: (1) juniper and pinyon with sage understory; (2) juniper and pinyon with a cliff-rose understory; (3) sagebrush; and (4) sagebrush with dwarf pinyon (Plog 1978; Powell 1983:41). There is a much larger variety of climatic and environmental variation on Black Mesa, however, than in Long House Valley because of the nearly 700-meter variation in altitude in the former.

The natural environment and subsistence systems are closely related in agrarian societies (D. Arnold 1975; Douglass 2002; Willey 1953), including the Anasazi (Euler et al. 1979; Karlstrom, Gumerman, and Euler 1976; Phillips 1972; Powell 1983). The prehispanic settlement patterns of Long House Valley through time are indicative of household and community economic and subsistence organization across time (Dean, Lindsay, and Robinson 1978). In terms of subsistence, one of the primary differences between the lowlands and uplands relates to farming techniques that began during the Basketmaker periods (Phillips 1972; Powell 1983). It has been hypothesized that lowland farmers (such as those in Long House Valley) may have focused on floodwater agriculture along washes and drainages (sometimes called barranca, arroyo, or ak chin agriculture), while those cultivating in the uplands may have been primarily dryland farmers. Upland areas of Black Mesa are generally more marginal for farming, in part because of the very nature of dryland agriculture; that is, farmers are dependent on rainfall for the success of their crops. The site discussed in this chapter appears to have been a part of this larger, regional agricultural system, with its inhabitants likely engaged in ak chin farming. This site is located at the base of the Black Mesa bench, within a pinyon-juniper habitat. In a review of the Pueblo periods for the Kayenta region, relevant recent detailed studies of the paleoenvironment for the region beginning ca. AD 770 are included (Dean 1969, 1988, 1996a; Deal et al. 1985; Euler 1988; Euler et al. 1979; Smiley 2002).

THE PUEBLO PERIODS IN THE LONG HOUSE VALLEY AREA

Pueblo I (AD 850–1000) and Pueblo II (AD 1000–1150) periods in the Anasazi region were times of initial demographic expansion and later consolidation, both of which had an impact on subsistence and social and political organization (Figure 7.2; Feinman, Lightfoot, and Upham 2000). During Pueblo I, farming was the primary subsistence pattern, a trajectory that began in the earlier Basketmaker III period (Figure 7.2). This priority is reflected in Pueblo I settlement patterns, where lowland sites across the Kayenta region focused on areas within or adjacent to floodplains. By the Pueblo II period, Gumerman and Dean (1989:118) argue, “all upland and lowland localities, except those intrinsically uninhabitable, were occupied . . . as rapid population growth fueled range expansion.” This occupation expansion into new areas most likely led to further consolidation of farming, as traditional areas for hunting and gathering filled in. Pueblo I period settlements included large villages, whereas during the Pueblo II period, these villages were usurped by small hamlets dispersed across the landscape to maximize local resources (Dean 1996b:33–34; Gumerman and Dean 1989:118). During both Pueblo I and II, residential loci across the Kayenta region appeared to be fairly independent of one another (Gumerman and Dean 1989:118–119).

During the Pueblo periods, there appeared to be several cycles of aggregation and decentralization of populations within the Kayenta and Mesa Verde regions, what Lipe and Matson (1971) have referred to as “boom and bust.” Across the American Southwest, including the Long House Valley area, this might have been related to documented environmental fluctuation (see, e.g., Dean 1969, 1988, 1996a; Dean et al. 1985; Euler 1988; Euler et al. 1979; Smiley 2002). According to relative population estimates produced by Plog (1986), there was a huge surge in population in the Black Mesa region beginning ca. AD 1025 that rose steeply for 100 years, until AD 1125, when population levels plunged rapidly and dramatically (Powell 2002:figure 5.5). By the end of the Pueblo II period, ca. AD 1150, much of Black Mesa was abandoned. Although there was a remnant population left in the area after AD 1150, there was over a sevenfold drop in the number of sites (Powell 2002:figure 5.5).

Ceramics began to be regularly utilized in the Basketmaker period, but by the Pueblo I and II periods, ceramics manufacture was fully incorporated into the economy in the Kayenta region. Gray wares during these periods dominated household assemblages, in many cases accounting for more than 80 percent of the total wares (Plog 1978; Powell 2002:85), with plain and banded Gray wares predominating. There appears to be a break in the popularity of ceramic types around AD 1025 in the northern Black Mesa region, with Tusayan Corrugated replacing Gray ware. Changes in technology of ceramic production between Basketmaker III and Pueblo I in the Dolores area suggest that a greater number of households were producing ceramics than previously, as evidenced by an increase in the proportion of modified sherds (used as ceramic scrapers) during the Pueblo I period at the McPhee community (Blinman and Wilson 1988).

Figure 7.2. Regional chronology for the western Anasazi of the American Southwest (after Gumerman and Dean 1989:fig. 16; Smiley 2002:50)

AZ-J-28-32 (NN) FEATURES

In 2002, Statistical Research Inc. (SRI) first identified the prehispanic site AZ-J-28-32 (NN) during survey as a small scatter of isolated artifacts in preparation work supporting the construction of a gas pipeline for the Questar Corporation. During the monitoring of pipeline construction at this location, more artifacts and several extramural features were identified. As a result, data recovery excavations were conducted in the spring and summer of 2002 and SRI recovered numerous cultural features. A firm occupation date for the site during the Pueblo II period resulted from a combination of radiocarbon assays, tree-ring dates from recovered beams, and relative dating of ceramics.

The primary habitation and storage features identified consisted of two pit structures (Features 95 and 106) and a storage cist (Feature 96). Pithouse Feature 95 likely functioned as a residential structure. With a maximum dimension of approximately 4.7 by 2.2 meters, the prepared, plastered floor of Feature 95 was approximately 0.5 meter below the modern ground surface. This pithouse contained a central hearth, which was constructed of three vertical sandstone slabs sunk into the floor. Macrobotanical remains from the hearth, identified by Karen Adams, included the reproductive parts of cheno-am, bug weed, prickly pear, husk tomato, rice grass, and maize plants, all of which likely represent the remains of cooking accidents. Corncob and shank portions of Zea mays, normally considered waste products by aboriginal farmers, were burned as fuel in the hearth. Adams has pointed out that the agricultural fields must have been close enough for the farmers to routinely bring these remains to the pithouse for use as tinder or fuel for the hearth. Two architectural elements, a shallow basin, and three postholes were identified and excavated within pithouse Feature 95. Generally, the pithouse floor did not contain much in the way of intramural features, further suggesting that this was primarily a residential structure. While no architectural evidence of the roof was identified during excavation (beyond architectural elements and postholes), botanical analysis suggests that local juniper and pine may have been used as structural beams for this residence and roof closing materials may have included sagebrush, greasewood, and buffalo berry. The entrance to this pithouse was not identified.

Pithouse Feature 106 was located approximately a meter to the west of pit-house Feature 95 (Figure 7.3). Measuring approximately 3.2 by 3.1 meters, the pit-house interior was constructed with two levels: the main floor measured approximately 0.5 to 0.8 meter below modern ground surface, and a subfloor chamber in the northern portion of the pithouse sat approximately 1.9 meters below current ground surface. Walls of the pithouse were earthen, as was the floor. Unlike Feature 95, the floor was not formally prepared. The presence of six post-holes indicates the likely presence of a wooden superstructure that rose above the earthen walls, but no wooden architectural elements were recovered during excavation. The interior space in this pithouse was unlike its adjacent neighbor. In Feature 95, the floor was markedly open with few intramural features. In contrast, the floor of Feature 106 had few open spaces, as basins, postholes, and the large subfloor chamber entrance took up much of the floor space. There was no central hearth in this structure; rather, a buried ceramic vessel containing a mixture of plants and wood charcoal was recovered from the central portion of the floor. The subfloor chamber contained a variety of materials, including ceramics, faunal bone, flaked and ground stone, and wood charcoal. Five large ground or shaped stones were recorded in situ from the floor of this subfloor chamber and may have functioned as elevated surfaces for storage.

Storage cist Feature 96 was located several meters to the northeast of Feature 95 and originated on the same surface as the other features. This bell-shaped cist originated approximately 0.2 centimeters below modern ground surface, measured maximally ca. 1.9 meters deep and 1.8 in diameter and had a volume of approximately 3.9 cubic meters. The size of the storage cist is large, likely larger than the amount of maize a household could consume in a year (Winter 1976:25). The entrance to this storage cist was to the northwest, away from the pit structures. The walls of the storage cist were dug into native soil and not formally prepared, but the floor was compact and plastered. The fill of Feature 96 included flaked stone, ceramics, mineral, burned corncobs, a large stone slab, and shell. Given its large size, it most likely functioned as a storage cist for maize and other food staples, but its terminal function was as a receptacle for household detritus. Macrobotanical analysis by Adams indicates that the storage cist had the largest diversity of plant remains of any feature investigated on site, including reproductive parts of cheno-am, bug weed, grass, sunflower, juniper, prickly pear cactus, husk tomato, pinyon pine, dropseed grass, rice grass, broad leaf yucca, and maize. The remains collected from the storage cist represented residential refuse, dumped into the cist over time prior to the site’s abandonment and after its original use for maize storage.

Figure 7.3. Pithouse Feature 106, after excavation; Pithouse Feature 95 is located in the upper left corner of the photo; Subfeature 160, a subfloor chamber, is located in the northern portion of this structure (view to the north): note the large number of intramural features in the floor of the pithouse.

The area to the south of the pithouses (Features 95 and 106) contained eleven extramural features. Of these, eight were trash-filled pits, one was a slablined pit, and two were small pits of unknown functions. Many of these pits were either burned on the interior or contained charcoal-stained fill, and several contained fire-affected cobbles. Trash deposits in many of these (the final use of these pits) contained ceramic sherds, lithics, and dispersed charcoal. Plant remains from these extramural features, analyzed by Adams, unfortunately were unable to offer much insight into their function; cheno-am, Physalis, and Stipa hymenoides plant remains were identified in various features. Extramural features that contained heavy evidence of burning may be related to pottery production (see, e.g., Hill 1994). However, the function of many of these pits is enigmatic beyond their terminal use as trash containers.

In sum, it appears that AZ-J-28-32 (NN) was occupied by a single household that occupied and used the two pithouses, storage cist, and extramural features. Based on various dating methods (both absolute and relative), features appear to have been contemporaneous to one another. The closeness of all the features on site suggests cooperation among household members related to everyday tasks. The two pithouses may have functioned differently: Feature 95 appears to have been the primary residence, whereas Feature 106 had an ancillary function related to storage and household crafts. Neither main structure had much in the way of segmented space beyond storage features. The storage cist, given its proximity to pithouse Feature 95, was likely shared by all members of the household for storage of maize and other crops grown in nearby agricultural fields.

HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTION AT AZ-J-28-32 (NN)

Evidence of household production at AZ-J-28-32 (NN) consisted of lithics, architecture, botanical remains, and ceramics. Katherine Pollock analyzed 102 lithic artifacts from across the site, including 10 pieces of ground stone (including 2 polishing stones), 10 non-bifacial tools, 79 pieces of flaked-stone debitage, and 3 shaped slabs. Her interpretation is that a limited amount of lithic production took place at the site, as evidenced by a scant number of cores (3), hammerstones (3), and debitage (79). The complete flakes identified from the site were tertiary, indicating that initial reduction of raw materials took place at the source (i.e., elsewhere than the site). If intensified lithic production had occurred at the site, one would expect a much larger amount of debitage to have been found. The two foci of lithic production were both centered on the two pit structures, which when combined, account for nearly 90 percent of the lithic collection. It is difficult to state the degree or organization of lithic production with a high degree of confidence, but the remains suggest independent, ad hoc production directly related to the needs of household members. With the small collection of lithic artifacts representing a limited variability in behavior, inhabitants of the site did little more than process plant material, perform a limited amount of lithic reduction, and perhaps produce pendants or other personal ornaments. However, the lack of formal tools in the collection, such as hoes, may suggest that they were removed from the site when the occupants left.

Architecture and botanical remains together suggest that the household that occupied AZ-J-28-32 (NN) was agrarian and members worked nearby fields containing maize and husk tomatoes. From a variety of contexts, including a hearth (where botanical remains were likely related to cooking accidents) and the large storage cist, these two species were identified. The volume of the large storage cist (nearly 4 cubic meters) suggests that several metric tons of corn could have been stored in this bell-shaped pit. Adams identified “waste” parts of corn, which may indicate that agricultural fields for arroyo or dryland agriculture were near the site. It is unclear if the crops stored in the storage cist were for only this particular household’s consumption or if some crops were transported to other locations. Features and ecofacts together suggest that the primary production focus on the household at AZ-J-28-32 (NN) was agriculture.

One of the authors (Heckman) analyzed the ceramic collection, which consisted of 1,225 sherds, 3 reconstructable vessels, and 150 fragments of unfired vessels and molded clay objects. All painted ceramics recovered from excavations were from one of two ceramic ware categories—Tusayan White ware or Tsegi Orange ware. There were three categories of unpainted pottery identified at the site—Tusayan Gray Corrugated, Tusayan Gray Plain, and indeterminate Tusayan Gray ware (possibly non-corrugated sections of corrugated vessels). The range of painted and unpainted types of vessels was representative of Pueblo II occupation.

Ceramic manufacture at AZ-J-28-32 (NN) hails from several different lines of evidence. This study uses those variables listed in Table 7.1 (adapted from Hill 1994:table 3.5) as appropriate to evaluate different stages of ceramic production. In the case of recycled ceramic sherds, a qualitative evaluation of the use-altered edges was done using Schiffer and Skibo’s (1989) descriptive criteria relating to ceramic abrasion. The recovery of fragments from minimally two (and possibly more) unfired vessels provides one line of evidence of ceramic production at the site (Figure 7.4). The paste characteristics, including the size and composition of the inclusions, most closely resemble the many fired examples of Tusayan White ware recovered from the site. Also supporting the inference that the unfired vessels represent White ware vessels “in the making” was the presence of corrugated bowl fragments. The only finished corrugated bowls identified represented the Tusayan White ware type Shato Black-on-white. Other unfired artifacts did not correspond to any recognizable fired and finished product (see Figure 7.4). These artifacts appear to have been carelessly molded by hand into amorphous patties and squeezed into simple cylinders. The homogeneity of the unfired paste and inclusions suggests that all vessel fragments and molded artifacts came from the same batch of tempered clay and thus represent a single episode of ceramic production.

Figure 7.4. Unfired clay objects from an intramural feature within Pithouse Feature 106: (a) rim and body fragments of unfired corrugated bowl; (b) body sherds of unfired vessel, possibly a jar; (c) unfired ceramic paste shaped into a cylinder; (d) unfired clay informally shaped into a disk or patty

In addition, two polishing stones, the use of which is well documented in ceramic manufacture (Bunzel 1972; Hill 1994; Rice 1987; Shepard 1985), indicate a stage in the manufacturing process. Vessels, once formed and dried to a leather-hard stage, receive slips and paints. Once the slips and paints have dried, polishing stones are used to create a polished and finished exterior, interior, or both just prior to the final drying and firing of the vessel.

Three ceramic plates were also recovered. Ceramic plates, by definition, are shallow bowls with out-curved, or flaring, rims (Braun 1980; Rice 1987; Shepard 1985). Christenson (1994) provides criteria for plates that might have been used in ceramic production as base molds, which mold and support the base of a vessel while it is under construction. Although the rim sherds discussed here are Tusayan Gray Plain ceramics from plates (per Christenson’s [1994] definitions), use-wear patterns were unable to be evaluated.

Finally, six recycled sherds were identified in the collection (Figure 7.5). One was representative of a sherd disk, while the others were identified as shaping tools used in ceramic production, based on the morphology and use-wear criteria (Schiffer and Skibo 1989; Hill 1994). These shaping tools were likely used for smoothing and scraping clay during the manufacture of ceramics. Two of the five tools identified as shaping tools were worked (presumably flaked and ground) into elongated tapering ovals and closely resemble tools illustrated by Hill (1994:figure 3.11). Although not as tapered, the shaping tools identified in this study share general shape and use-wear patterns with the tools identified as smoothing tools. These recycled sherds were likely used to obliterate coil junctures on the interior and exterior of vessels during the forming stage of the construction process (Hill 1994:40). The convex edge of the shaping tool matches the concavity of the interior of the vessel under construction.

Figure 7.5. Recycled sherds from AZ-J-28-32 (NN): (a) sherd disk with no feature association; (b) shaping tool from fill of extramural feature; (c) shaping tool with no feature association; (d) shaping tool, from fill of Pithouse Feature 106; (e) shaping tool, from the fill of an intramural feature within Pithouse Feature 106; (f) shaping tool with no feature association

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Lithic manufacture, ceramic production, and farming were all undertaken at AZ-J-28-32 (NN), a rural household group that was seasonally occupied and reveals an emphasis on agriculture. Limited lithic production suggests ad hoc, independent manufacture of tools related to mundane activities. Evidence of ceramic production is more compelling, with a collection of unfired vessels and modeled artifacts that appear to derive from the same batch of tempered clay. Viewed in a regional context (Hill 1994), such evidence for rural ceramic production is relatively anomalous.

Hill’s (1994:45) study of ceramic production for adjacent Black Mesa suggests that ceramic production primarily occurred at large village sites. In his study of over fifty sites, small specialized activity areas or seasonal occupations showed little or no evidence of ceramic manufacturing. Table 7.2 highlights the differences in the nature of occupation for the Black Mesa sites used in Hill’s (1994) study compared to AZ-J-28-32 (NN). Site characteristic data presented in Table 7.2 were gathered from the Black Mesa descriptive publications (Andrews et al. 1982; Christenson and Parry 1985; Nichols and Smiley 1984; Powell, Layhe, and Klesert 1980; Smiley, Nichols, and Andrews 1983). Hill, in his study, classified sites on a ceramic production scale of 1 to 4, with lower scores indicating less evidence of production. In Table 7.2, we present only those sites that, based on Hill’s (1994:table 3.3) criteria, exhibited a production score of 3 (good probability of ceramic production) or 4 (excellent probability of ceramic production). From these data, only two of the eighteen Black Mesa area sites that show evidence of ceramic production were small, seasonal habitation sites (see Table 7.2). The remaining sixteen sites were interpreted as habitation sites, some of which were multicomponent and exhibited intensive year-round occupations, as evidenced by numerous structures and copious amounts of material culture.

For purposes of comparison, a ratio using the total number of sherds as a proxy measure for material culture ubiquity was calculated by the authors. Sampling and collection strategies and preservation issues aside, the premise is that the greater number of sherds collected at a site, the more diverse the material culture may be and, therefore, the greater the potential for recovery of the material remains of ceramic production. The total manufacturing evidence values ranged from 11 to 70, with a mean of 34 and a standard deviation of 18.66 for the Black Mesa area (see Table 7.2). A total manufacturing value of 12 was tallied for AZ-J-28-32 (NN), a number representing low evidence of ceramic production relative to Black Mesa values. One may assume that this low score may result, in part, from a low total number of artifacts at the site, but other sites in the study with approximately the same number of sherds recovered at AZ-J-28-32 (NN) had total manufacturing evidence over three times greater (see, e.g., site AZ-D-7-2013).

Table 7.2. Evidence of ceramic production comparing excavated sites in the Black Mesa area to AZ-J-28-32 (NN)

When other characteristics of the site are considered, however, a different picture emerges. To highlight any potential differences between sites, Heckman calculated a manufacturing ratio by dividing the value of the total manufacturing evidence by the total number of sherds for that site and multiplying that value by 100 (see Table 7.2). This formula standardizes values to better compare sites with each other. Fifteen of the eighteen Black Mesa sites had manufacturing ratios that fell below the mean value of 0.49. Two of the three values above the mean represent statistical outliers (sites AZ-D-7-2013 and AZ-D-11-2030), based on box and dot plots, and exhibited exceptionally high manufacturing ratios (see Table 7.2). Site AZ-D-7-2013 (ASM) represents a large multicomponent site where postoccupational erosion resulted in low numbers of artifacts recovered (Sink, Davy, and Jones 1982:123). The other outlier, AZ-D-11-2030, represents a seasonal occupation where artifact density and diversity are often lower (Andrews et al. 1982; Christenson and Parry 1985; Nichols and Smiley 1984; Powell, Layhe, and Klesert 1980; Smiley, Nichols, and Andrews 1983). AZ-J-28-32 (NN) yielded a manufacturing ratio of 0.98, well above the mean of 0.49 for the Black Mesa sites. By any means of comparison, AZ-J-28-32 (NN) is a departure from the Black Mesa regional pattern of ceramic production as presented by Hill (1994). Ceramic production in the Black Mesa area during the Pueblo I and II periods predominately took place at large habitation sites, not small, seasonal sites like AZ-J-28-32 (NN). Of the three sites with the highest manufacturing ratio, two were seasonally occupied (the only two seasonally occupied sites in the sample), a point that is discussed further below.

Although the manufacturing ratio is 0.98 for AZ-J-28-32 (NN), it seems unclear if the household produced ceramics for only its own needs or if some ceramics were produced for trade to supplement farming. This site is on the margins of Black Mesa and would have been peripheral to major trade networks, given its location as well as its seasonal use. The overall scale of production is small at AZ-J-28-32 and part-time production likely occurred during downtimes in the agricultural cycle. Some models for the American Southwest suggest that women were the primary producers of ceramics while men were primarily the farmers (Hagstrum 2001:51), activities that were not mutually exclusive. Just as there are multiple tasks involved in agriculture, a number of tasks are associated with ceramic production (e.g., mining and tempering clay, collecting wood for firing, firing ceramics). It is unknown where clay sources may have been in relation to this site. Both farming and ceramic-production activities likely involved other members of the household (Hagstrum 2001:51). No trench kilns (Bernardini 2000) were identified during excavation, but as noted above, extramural features with evidence of intense burning may have been used for firing small numbers of ceramics. It is also possible that trench kilns or other firing features may have been located outside of the project area. Yet, there did not appear to be any specialized or segmented spaces for ceramic manufacture, suggesting that firing was likely a small-scale production. Unfired sherds and shaped sherds were found in several intramural features within pithouse Feature 106. Manufacture and drying of ceramics may have taken place outside of the pit-houses in open areas adjacent to extramural features.

In conclusion, although the scale of production at the seasonal site of AZ-J-28-32 (NN) was small and ad hoc, it is clear from the evidence presented in Table 7.2 that household ceramic production in seasonal sites appears to have been relatively intensified compared to larger, more permanent habitation sites. While the site with the highest manufacturing ratio was a habitation site, the next two highest ratios belong to the only two seasonally occupied sites, with all other sites in the sample (all habitation sites) having a much lower manufacturing ratio. This suggests that small households, spending part of the year away from villages and more permanent settlements, intensified their ceramic production while they were also farming. If clay deposits were near these seasonal loci, it would make sense for these farmers to manufacture ceramics there and bring home the finished goods. If these farmers, while away from their villages, were disconnected from the social networks that facilitated the ceramic trade, the idea that the inhabitants of AZ-J-23-32 (NN) were producing ceramics for their own use makes more sense.

Acknowledgments. This work was undertaken by Statistical Research Inc. (SRI) in 2002 and 2003 as part of work related to the Questar Southern Trails Pipeline project. We first and foremost thank Questar Corporation, including Roland Gow, for supporting the research at AZ-J-28-32 (NN). We also thank the Navajo Nation Historic Preservation Department, including Ronald Maldonado, for assistance during the project. This project was headed by Edgar Huber, and various parts of the fieldwork were directed by John Douglass and Robert Wegener. Analysis for the report (Douglass, Huber, and Ciolek-Torrello 2003) was performed by Karen Adams (macrobotanics), Robert Heckman (ceramics), Katherine Pollock (lithics), and Robert Wegener (faunal). We thank SRI for its support of this chapter (especially Jeff Altschul and Donn Grenda), including administrative support and professional development time for Douglass. An earlier version of this chapter benefited from comments by Nan Gonlin and two anonymous reviewers. Finally, we thank co-editor Nan Gonlin and University Press of Colorado director Darrin Pratt for their patience in the submission of this chapter.

REFERENCES CITED