Introduction

From 2011 to 2017 the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center conducted the Basketmaker Communities Project (BCP), a multifaceted investigation of Basketmaker III period (AD 500–750) sites on Indian Camp Ranch (ICR), a 1,200-acre, or 4.85 km², private, residential development in southwest Colorado (Diederichs 2020a). Indian Camp Ranch represents one of the densest and best-preserved Basketmaker III period settlement clusters in the central Mesa Verde region, which was developed for farming during this period (Ortman et al. 2011). The ranch was successfully nominated to the Colorado State Register of Historic Properties and the National Register of Historic Places as the Indian Camp Ranch Archaeological District, the only archaeological district in the northern Southwest that highlights the Basketmaker III period (Varien and Diederichs 2011).

In this chapter, we explore how the social structure of the ICR community shifted over time, transitioning from a small, clustered settlement of diverse immigrants focused on integrative ritual with an even economy to a dispersed, but cohesive, community dominated by a few long-standing prosperous lineages. We believe this transition resulted from concerted emphasis on social integration in this rapidly growing settlement and that this integration resulted in cohesive communities of practice, as we discuss in the following sections (Diederichs 2020a; Schleher and Hughes 2020).

Communities are a major theme throughout this volume, and volume authors identify communities in slightly different ways (Adler and Hegmon, chapter 16, Glowacki et al., chapter 12, Potter et al., chapter 13, Schleher et al., chapter 14, Throgmorton et al., chapter 11 in this volume). Later communities are often centered on densely occupied community centers, with extensive domestic and public architecture and multicentury occupations (Glowacki et al., chapter 12, Potter et al., chapter 13 in this volume). Pueblo I period (AD 750–950) (see Throgmorton et al., chapter 11 in this volume) through Pueblo III (AD 1150–1300) period (see Schleher et al., chapter 14 in this volume; Varien, Lipe et al. 1996; Varien, Van West et al. 2000) communities centers in the Mesa Verde region are typically defined as dominating a 2 km resource procurement radius, or approximately 12 square km, more than double the ICR study area. We argue that the community at ICR differs from later communities, in that its population was purposefully dispersed, extending far beyond the boundaries of ICR and the 2 km community center radius but nonetheless focused on a central public structure—the great kiva at the Dillard site. As highlighted by R. J. Sinensky et al. (2022), this settlement pattern is enigmatic of Basketmaker III period colonization practices after a severe sixth-century cold period disrupted earlier demographic and social traditions. These widely shared practices were a fundamental step toward the development of ancestral Pueblo community centers.

To reconstruct the demographic history in the ICR study area during the Basketmaker III period, we determined the number of households that “seeded” the 1,200-acre ICR study area, the speed and nature of population growth, and how settlement shifted across the landscape over the course of three consecutive phases (Diederichs 2020c). Following Ortman and colleagues (2016), we used pithouses as an indicator of households, the location and occupation duration (of which were determined using surface survey), geophysical imaging, and excavation data collected over the course of the BCP (figure 10.1). These methods generated an estimated total of 110 Basketmaker III period households in the study area occupied across the early, middle, and late phases of the settlement (Diederichs 2020c).

Occupation in the study area during the early Basketmaker III phase (prior to AD 600) was minimal, seasonal, and possibly even transitory. With just two small, shallow pit rooms and one extramural feature dating to this phase, only short-term activities are evident and the momentary population over the course of the early Basketmaker III phase is estimated at less than one household (table 10.1). The farmers migrating to this area during the early Basketmaker III phase were the first wave of homesteaders in the previously unfarmed central Mesa Verde region frontier. Their light footprint in the study area suggests that they may have been testing the agricultural productivity in the vicinity (Diederichs 2020c).

Table 10.1. Estimated momentary population by occupation phase based on fifteen-year use-life (Varien and Ortman 2005) and seven persons per household (Wilshusen 1999, 214).

Source: Data from Diederichs (2020c).

Homesteading of the study area began in earnest during the mid-Basketmaker III phase (AD 600–660). This occupation was concentrated around a great kiva at the Dillard site (5MT10647), and a few single-household hamlets were also established. Approximately sixteen households were inhabited in the study area during this phase with a momentary population of five households, or 25 to 30 people (Diederichs 2020c).

The population rose exponentially during the late Basketmaker III phase (AD 660–725) to an estimated 94 households over the entire phase and a momentary population of 22 households, or approximately 110 to 154 people, at any given time. These estimates indicate that the population roughly quadrupled between the middle and late Basketmaker III phases with an implied growth rate of about 8 percent per year (Diederichs 2020c).

Community Integration

The presence of a great kiva at the Dillard site is the most compelling evidence that the Indian Camp Ranch Basketmaker III population conceived of itself as a community (figure 10.2). The construction of the 11 m diameter, semisubterranean structure—covered by a wood, rock, and adobe superstructure weighing over a ton—required the cooperation and labor of many households to build and maintain (Diederichs 2020b). Great kivas appear during the Basketmaker III period and persist until the Pueblo III period in the Mesa Verde region, but they are uncommon in the Basketmaker III period (Ryan 2013; Wilshusen et al. 2012). When the ICR great kiva was first constructed in the mid-Basketmaker III phase, it had the capacity to hold the entire population of the ICR community. Periodic remodeling kept the structure in use for ritualized group activities for the next 105 years, from AD 620 to 725. Toward the end of its use-life, only about one-third of the ICR population would have been able to enter it at the same time. Despite outgrowing the great kiva, segments of the community population would have continued regular ritual gatherings inside the structure. There is evidence that the settlement held community-scale feasts in, and around, the great kiva during remodeling events and the structure’s final closure (Diederichs 2020b). The collective energy invested in the great kiva indicates that it was the focal point of the Indian Camp Ranch community and functioned as a rare example of Basketmaker III public architecture (Diederichs 2020b).

Public architecture refers to structures accessible to at least some individuals from across an entire community for gathering in suprahousehold groups (Hegmon 1989, 7; Ryan 2013, 2015a, 91). Group rituals help to create and maintain integration when strong political institutions are lacking, and public architecture provides a space for these rituals to take place (Ryan 2015a, 91). The form and size of public architecture affect the number of people who can participate in group activities, as well as the kinds of activities that can occur (Hegmon 1989, 7). Notably, for the great kiva at the Dillard site, public architecture allows for the persistence and repetition of integrative activities by tying them to a particular location and, thus, providing a context for symbolically charged actions (Ryan 2015a, 91). Public architecture, in this way, validates social rules that perpetuate social identity and integration (Hegmon 1989, 2002; Ryan 2013, 2015a, 91). The long use-life of the Dillard great kiva created a persistent place amid a landscape characterized by relatively frequent household moves, as indicated by short use-life of most residential pithouses (Diederichs 2020b, 2020c). This persistence contributes to the community’s long-term stability.

Diverse Populations

We argue that initially, the Indian Camp Ranch settlement was a multicultural community and that variation in various elements of material culture and architecture reflects the diverse origins of the residents. One way of viewing variation in social networks is through practice theory, which allows us to differentiate the actions of people embedded in different networks of social interaction (Joyce 2012). A community of practice reflects the learning network of a group of individuals making a particular class of materials, be it pottery (e.g., Cordell and Habicht-Mauche 2012; Schleher 2017) or architecture (Miller 2015; Ryan 2013).

Archaeologically, communities of practice are visible in the manufacturing process, from material selection, to production method, to design style. The residents of the ICR community exhibit diversity in architectural style, pottery production, and lithic material procurement, which indicates different communities of practice within the larger community. We also note that the diversity we see in communities of practice for pottery, architecture, and stone tool materials is also reflected in the settlement’s textile production, subsistence practices, and culinary styles (Adams 2020; Diederichs 2020b, 2020d; Smith 2020). A variety of traditions, and even distinct ethnicities, are represented in this milieu, including Colorado Plateau late Archaic, Eastern Basketmaker II, Western Basketmaker II, late Pithouse period Mogollon, Pioneer period Hohokam, Chuska region Basketmaker III, central Mesa Verde region Basketmaker III, and western Mesa Verde region Basketmaker III (Diederichs 2020e).

Integration to Management

Social integration, as promoted through great kiva gatherings, would have been an essential practice to mitigate any small-scale conflict in the diverse and growing ICR community. We believe the focus on social integration likely led to the development of social and political power wielded by long-standing lineages.

The great kiva at the Dillard site was a continuous focal point for community ritual and gatherings, however by the late seventh century AD, architectural and artifact data indicate that the Dillard site was depopulated (Diederichs 2020c). A residential buffer formed around this ritually charged public structure. Despite this retraction, households on the ridgetops east and west of the Dillard site, each with a view of the great kiva, rose in social and economic status. During the late Basketmaker III phase families built oversized pithouses over earlier habitations dating to the mid–Basketmaker III phase (Diederichs 2020b). This superpositioning likely emphasized an unbroken occupation of hereditary lineages for many generations.

Oversized pithouses are large, up to eight times the size of a standard-sized pithouse, and, like the great kiva, likely required suprahousehold labor to construct. Unlike great kivas, these structures had a domestic function inferred from their construction style, floor features, and material assemblages. The wealth of these households is evident in higher proportions of trade goods, large cooking vessels, weaving materials, and ritual fauna, along with extensive surface roomblocks that could store many times the amount of corn and other resources needed to feed an extended family (Diederichs 2020d). Like the Dillard site great kiva, these oversized pithouses could have been used to host suprahousehold events, such as feasts or other distinct ritual gatherings that differed from great kiva rituals. Lineages used suprahousehold events at the oversized pithouses and at the Dillard great kiva to solidify their higher status in the community.

The rise of prestigious lineages on the ridgetops east and west of the Dillard site is likely the result of social integration within the ICR community. As early settlers, founding families settled agriculturally productive locals and accumulated local knowledge and status for generations. The founding families would have participated in, and carried on, traditions of communal gatherings in the Dillard great kiva, and perhaps in their domestic, oversized pithouses. When the Dillard site was converted into a public rather than a domestic space, the occupants of the adjacent ridgetops inherited the oversite of the great kiva and likely the prestige and authority associated with this responsibility.

The community “standing” these lineages gained through their association with the institutions of social integration likely translated to authority in other aspects of community management. The biggest challenge to a new and growing community, such as the ICR settlement, would be mitigating individual household risk and intrahousehold competition. Out of this problem would arise the need for management of resource distribution, production efficiency, and economic intensification.

For instance, long-standing and prestigious lineages may have exercised authority over land tenure to manage intrahousehold competition and maximize agricultural production across the settlement. There is evidence that—beyond the Dillard site and the high-status households on the adjacent ridgetops—most habitations were small hamlets organized in a gridded settlement pattern (statistically evenly dispersed) across productive farming soils (Diederichs 2016; Schwindt et al. 2016). The ability to distribute settlements in such a pattern and adhere to this practice across multiple generations is evidence of land tenure mores operating in the ICR community and social institutions, such as managerial lineages, with authority to enforce those mores.

Conclusion

The central Mesa Verde region was a new frontier for farmers in the seventh and eight centuries AD. Ancestral Pueblo farmers who established settlements in the Indian Camp Ranch study area integrated culturally diverse immigrants into a cohesive and stable community. These settlers brought with them production practices from various traditions across the Southwest.

For the ICR settlement to overcome individual household-risk and intrahousehold competition in a newly colonized frontier, social integration was imperative. Public gatherings at the Dillard site great kiva served this purpose for over a century. As the community grew, descendants of the original settlers found themselves with managerial control of the great kiva and, in extension, many production practices across the community. This development appears to have contributed to the community’s economic viability and stability despite contributing to increasing wealth disparities between older and more recent immigrants.

The invention of new integrative and managerial institutions during the Basketmaker III period is an important development in ancestral Pueblo history. As Crow Canyon has detected on other projects, great kivas become iconic, integrative spaces for ancestral Pueblo people; the management of these spaces and of the communities they create often falls to a deeply invested, and possibly related, segment of the population. The Crow Canyon Archaeological Center’s focus on communities for the last forty years has emphasized Pueblo II period (e.g., Ryan 2015b; Ryan 2015c) and Pueblo III period (e.g., Coffey 2018; Kuckelman 2007, 2017) community centers and social organization. The BCP expands the temporal story of the Mesa Verde region, with exploration of community development and social organization going back to the first farmers who initially settled the region at AD 500.

References

1. Adams, Karen R. 2020. “Archaeobotanical Remains.” In The Basketmaker Communities Project, edited by Shanna R. Diederichs, 586–644. Accessed January 18, 2021. https://www.crowcanyon.org/ResearchReports/BasketmakerCommunities/basketmaker_communities_project_final.pdf.
2. Allison, James R., Winston B. Hurst, Jonathan D. Till, and Donald C. Irwin. 2012. “Meanwhile in the West: Early Pueblo Communities in Southeastern Utah.” In Crucible of Pueblos: The Early Pueblo Period in the Northern Southwest, edited by Richard H. Wilshusen, Gregson Schachner, and James R. Allison, 35–52. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press.
3. Chenault, Mark L., and Thomas N. Motsinger. 2000. “Colonization, Warfare, and Regional Competition: Recent Research into the Basketmaker III Period in the Mesa Verde Region.” In Foundations of Anasazi Culture: The Basketmaker-Pueblo Transition, edited by Paul F. Reed, 45–68. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
4. Chenault, Mark L., Thomas N. Motsinger, and Kevin P. Gilmore. 2003. “The Basketmaker III Period in the Mesa Verde Region.” In Archaeological Investigations along the Towaoc Lateral and Lone Pine Lateral Components of the Dolores River Reclamation Project, Montezuma County, Colorado. Vol. 1, Project Background and Synthesis. Prepared for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Western Colorado Area Office, Contract No.1425-3-CS-40-12590. Durango, CO: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Western Colorado Area Office.
5. Coffey, Grant D., ed. 2018. The Goodman Point Archaeological Project: Goodman Point Community Testing. Accessed January 1, 2021. (tDAR id: 447957), https://doi.org 10.6067/XCV8447957.
6. Cordell, Linda, and Judith Habicht-Mauche. 2012. “Practice Theory and Social Dynamics among Prehispanic and Colonial Communities in the American Southwest.” In Potters and Communities of Practice: Glaze Paint and Polychrome Pottery in the American Southwest, AD 1250 to 1700, edited by Linda Cordell and Judith Habicht-Mauche, 1–7. No. 75 of Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
7. Crown, Patricia L. 2007. “Learning about Learning.” In Archaeological Anthropology: Perspectives on Method and Theory, edited by James Skibo, Michael W. Graves, and Marian Stark, 198–217. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
8. Diederichs, Shanna R. 2016. “Basketmaker III Colonization and the San Juan Frontier.” MA thesis, Department of Anthropology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff.
9. Diederichs, Shanna R., ed. 2020a. The Basketmaker Communities Project. Accessed January 18, 2021. https://www.crowcanyon.org/ResearchReports/BasketmakerCommunities/basketmaker_communities_project_final.pdf.
10. Diederichs, Shanna R. 2020b. “Architecture of the Basketmaker III Period.” In The Basketmaker Communities Project, edited by Shanna R. Diederichs, 426–474. Accessed January 18, 2021. https://www.crowcanyon.org/ResearchReports/BasketmakerCommunities/basketmaker_communities_project_final.pdf.
11. Diederichs, Shanna R. 2020c. “Chronology and Occupational History.” In The Basketmaker Communities Project, edited by Shanna R. Diederichs, 475–512. Accessed January 18, 2021. https://www.crowcanyon.org/ResearchReports/BasketmakerCommunities/basketmaker_communities_project_final.pdf.
12. Diederichs, Shanna R. 2020d. “The Ridgeline Site (5MT10711).” In The Basketmaker Communities Project, edited by Shanna R. Diederichs, 263–294. Accessed January 18, 2021. https://www.crowcanyon.org/ResearchReports/BasketmakerCommunities/basketmaker_communities_project_final.pdf.
13. Diederichs, Shanna R. 2020e. “Basketmaker Communities Project Synthesis.” In The Basketmaker Communities Project, edited by Shanna R. Diederichs, 862–894. Accessed January 18, 2021. https://www.crowcanyon.org/ResearchReports/BasketmakerCommunities/basketmaker_communities_project_final.pdf.
14. Errickson, Mary. 1998. “Ceramic Material Culture.” In The Puebloan Occupation of the Ute Mountain Piedmont. Volume 6: Material Culture Studies, edited by Brian R. Billman, 2.1–2.105. Vol. 22, No. 6 of Soil Systems Publications in Archaeology. Cortez, CO: Soil Systems.
15. Fetterman, Jerry, and Linda Honeycutt. 1995. Excavations at Northwest Pipeline Corporation’s Pleasant View Compressor Station, Southwestern Colorado. Prepared for Northwest Pipeline Corporation. Yellow Jacket, CO: Woods Canyon Archaeological Consultants.
16. Hegmon, Michelle. 1989. “Social Integration and Architecture.” In The Architecture of Social Integration in Prehistoric Pueblos, edited by William D. Lipe and Michelle Hegmon, 5–14. Occasional Papers, no. 1. Cortez, CO: Crow Canyon Archaeological Center.
17. Hegmon, Michelle. 2002. “Concepts of Community in Archaeological Research.” In Seeking the Center Place: Archaeology and Ancient Communities in the Mesa Verde Region, edited by Mark D. Varien and Richard H. Wilshusen, 263–279. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
18. Honeycutt, Linda. 2015. “Motifs 1–7: An Overview; Part of a Study of Basketmaker III Black-on-white Bowl Motifs in the Four Corners Region.” Pottery Southwest 31 (1): 2–24.
19. Hurst, Winston. 2004. “Ceramic Artifacts from 42SA3775.” In Archaeological Data Recovery at Casa Coyote (42SA3775), A Basketmaker III Pit House Hamlet on White Mesa, San Juan County, Utah, edited by William E. Davis, 269–312. Bluff, UT: Abajo Archaeology.
20. Joyce, Rosemary A. 2012. “Thinking about Pottery Production as Community Practice.” In Potters and Communities of Practice: Glaze Paint and Polychrome Pottery in the American Southwest, AD 1250 to 1700, edited by Linda Cordell and Judith Habicht-Mauche, 149–154. No. 75 of Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
21. Kearns, Timothy, ed. 1995. Project Overview, Background, and Implementation: Pipeline Archaeology 1990–1993. The El Paso Natural Gas North System Expansion Project, New Mexico and Arizona. Vol. 1 of Cultural Resource Management Report No. WCRM(F)074. Farmington, NM: Cultural Resource Management.
22. Kearns, Timothy, ed. 2012. Pipeline Archaeology 1990–1993: The El Paso Natural Gas North System Expansion Project, New Mexico and Arizona. 13 vols. Farmington, NM: Western Cultural Resource Management.
23. Kuckelman, Kristin A., ed. 2007 The Archaeology of Sand Canyon Pueblo: Intensive Excavations at a Late-Thirteenth-Century Village in Southwestern Colorado. http://www.crowcanyon.org/sandcanyon.
24. Kuckelman, Kristin A., ed. 2017. The Goodman Point Archaeological Project: Goodman Point Pueblo Excavations. Accessed January 1, 2021. (tDAR id: 446779), https://doi.org/10.6067/XCV8PC359D.
25. Miller, Kye. 2015. “Basketmaker III and Pueblo I Communities of Architectural Practice in the Chuska Valley, New Mexico.” MA thesis, Department of Anthropology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff. (tDAR id: 398690), https://doi.org/10.6067/XCV86M384V.
26. Murrell, Monica L., and Bradley J. Vierra. 2014. Bridging the Basin: Land Use and Social History in the Southern Chuska Valley. Vol. 4, Synthesis. Technical Report 14–20. Albuquerque: Statistical Research.
27. Neily, Robert B. 1982. Basketmaker Settlement and Subsistence along the San Juan River, Utah: The US 163 Archaeological Project. Prepared for Utah Department of Transportation. Salt Lake City: Antiquities Section, Division of State History.
28. Ortman, Scott G., Shanna R. Diederichs, and Kristin A. Kuckelman. 2011. “A Proposal to Conduct Archaeological Testing at Indian Camp Ranch, Montezuma County, Colorado.” Proposal submitted to the Colorado State Historic Preservation Office, Denver. Cortez, CO: Crow Canyon Archaeological Center.
29. Ortman, Scott G., Shanna Diederichs, Kari Schleher, Jerry Fetterman, Marcus Espinosa, and Caitlin Sommer. 2016. “Demographic and Social Dimensions of the Neolithic Revolution in Southwest Colorado.” Kiva 82 (3): 232–258.
30. Reed, Lori Stephens. 1998. “Basketmaker III to Pueblo III Ceramic Trends in the Southern Chuska Valley.” In Exploring Ceramic Production, Distribution, and Exchange in the Southern Chuska Valley: Analytical Results from the El Paso Natural Gas North System Expansion Project, edited by Lori Stephens Reed, Joell Goff, and Kathy Niles Hensler, 7-1-7-40. Vol. 11, Book 1 of Pipeline Archaeology 1990–1993: The El Paso Natural Gas North System Expansion Project, New Mexico and Arizona. Farmington, NM: Western Cultural Resource Management.
31. Ryan, Susan C. 2013. “Architectural Communities of Practice: Ancestral Pueblo Kiva Production during the Chaco and Post-Chaco Periods in the Northern Southwest.” PhD diss., School of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson.
32. Ryan, Susan C. 2015a. “Architecture.” In The Archaeology of Albert Porter Pueblo (Site 5MT123): Excavations at a Great House Community Center in Southwestern Colorado, edited by Susan C. Ryan. Accessed January 10, 2021. https://www.crowcanyon.org/ResearchReports/AlbertPorter/Albert_Porter_Pueblo_Final.pdf.
33. Ryan, Susan C. ed. 2015b. “The Archaeology of Albert Porter Pueblo (Site 5MT123): Excavations at a Great House Community Center in Southwestern Colorado [PDF Title].” Accessed January 10, 2021. https://www.crowcanyon.org/ResearchReports/AlbertPorter/Albert_Porter_Pueblo_Final.pdf.
34. Ryan, Susan C. ed. 2015c. “The Archaeology of Shield Pueblo (Site 5MT3807): Excavations at a Mesa-Top Community Center in Southwestern Colorado [PDF Title].” http://www.crowcanyon.org/shieldspueblo.
35. Schleher, Kari L. 2017. “Learning and Production: The Northern Rio Grande Glaze Ware Community of Practice at San Marcos Pueblo during the Protohistoric Period.” In The Archaeology and History of Pueblo San Marcos: Change and Stability, edited by Ann F. Ramenofsky and Kari L. Schleher, 107–128. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
36. Schleher, Kari L., and Kate Hughes. 2020. “Artifacts.” In The Basketmaker Communities Project, edited by Shanna R. Diederichs, 711–861. Accessed January 18, 2021. https://www.crowcanyon.org/ResearchReports/BasketmakerCommunities/basketmaker_communities_project_final.pdf.
37. Schwindt, Dylan M., R. Kyle Bocinsky, Scott G. Ortman, Donna M. Glowacki, Mark D. Varien, and Timothy A. Kohler. 2016. “The Social Consequences of Climate Change in the Central Mesa Verde Region.” American Antiquity 81 (1): 74–96.
38. Shackley, M. Steven. 2013. An Energy-Dispersive X-Ray Fluorescence Analysis of Obsidian Artifacts from the Dillard Site (5MT10647), Southwestern Colorado. Report prepared for Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, CO. Albuquerque: Geoarchaeological X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry Laboratory.
39. Shackley, M. Steven. 2015. An Energy-Dispersive X-Ray Fluorescence Analysis of Obsidian Artifacts from 5MT10647 and 5MT2032, Southwestern Colorado. Report prepared for Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, CO. Albuquerque: Geoarchaeological X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry Laboratory.
40. Shackley, M. Steven. 2017. An Energy-Dispersive X-Ray Fluorescence Analysis of Obsidian Artifacts from Various Sites in the Basketmaker Communities Project, Southwestern Colorado. Report prepared for Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, CO. Albuquerque: Geoarchaeological X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry Laboratory.
41. Shelley, Steven D. 1990. “Basketmaker III Social Organization: An Evaluation of Population, Aggregation, and Site Structure.” Paper presented at the 55th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Las Vegas.
42. Shelley, Steven D. 1991. “The Potential for Distinct Populations during Basketmaker III on the Colorado Plateau.” Paper presented at the 56th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans.
43. Sinensky, R. J., Gregson Schachner, Richard H. Wilshusen, and Brian N. Damiata. 2022. “Volcanic Climate Forcing, Extreme Cold and the Neolithic Transition in the Northern US Southwest.” Antiquity 96 (385): 123–141.
44. Smith, Susan J. 2020. “Pollen Analysis.” In The Basketmaker Communities Project, edited by Shanna R. Diederichs, 643–677. Accessed January 18, 2021. https://www.crowcanyon.org/ResearchReports/BasketmakerCommunities/basketmaker_communities_project_final.pdf.
45. Toll, H. Wolcott, and C. Dean Wilson. 1999. “Locational, Architectural, and Ceramic Trends in the Basketmaker III Occupation of the La Plata Valley, New Mexico.” In Foundations of Anasazi Culture: The Basketmaker-Pueblo Transition, edited by Paul F. Reed, 19–43. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
46. Trowbridge, Meaghan A. 2014. “Ceramic Analysis.” In Bridging the Basin: Land Use and Social History in the Southern Chuska Valley. Vol. 3, Analysis, edited by Monica L. Murrell and Bradley J. Vierra, 259–342. Technical Report 14-08. Albuquerque: Statistical Research.
47. Varien, Mark D., and Scott G. Ortman. 2005. “Accumulations Research in the Southwest United States: Middle-Range Theory for Big-Picture Problems.” World Archaeology 37 (1): 132–155.
48. Varien, Mark D., and Shanna R. Diederichs. 2011. Nomination of the Indian Camp Ranch Archaeological District, Site 5MT19927, to the National Register of Historic Places. Nomination submitted to the US Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places, Washington, DC. Manuscript on file, Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, CO.
49. Varien, M. D., W. D. Lipe, M. A. Adler, I. M. Thompson, and B. A. Bradley. 1996. “Southwestern Colorado and Southeastern Utah Settlement Patterns: A.D. 1100 to 1300.” In The Prehistoric Pueblo World, A.D. 1150–1350, edited by M. A. Adler, 86–113. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
50. Varien, M. D., C. R. Van West, and G. S. Patterson. 2000. “Competition, Cooperation and Conflict: Agricultural Production and Community Catchments in the Central Mesa Verde Region.” Kiva 66 (1): 45–65.
51. Wilshusen, Richard H. 1999. “Basketmaker III (A.D. 500–750).” In Colorado Prehistory: A Context for the Southern Colorado River Basin, edited by W. D. Lipe, M. D. Varien, and R. H. Wilshusen, 166–194. Denver: Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists.
52. Wilshusen, Richard H., Scott G. Ortman, and Ann Phillips. 2012. “Processions, Leaders, and Gathering Places: Changes in Early Community Organization as Seen in Architecture, Rock Art, and Language.” In Crucible of Pueblos: The Early Pueblo Period in the Northern Southwest, edited by Richard H. Wilshusen, Gregson Schachner, and Jim R. Allison, 198–218. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, University of California.