The Development of Crow Canyon Lithic Studies

In this chapter, we evaluate whether ancestral Pueblo people in the study area exhibited political autonomy during the AD 1200s, by analyzing chipped-stone data. To achieve this goal, we begin by discussing how CCAC researchers developed a lithic analysis methodology. Then, we address the application of these methods used in this study. Finally, we shed light on the sociopolitical organization (i.e., mobility, territoriality, and trade) and the development of political autonomy.

Lithic studies started at Crow Canyon, when Crow Canyon researchers began archaeological research at the Duckfoot site from 1983 to 1991 (Kohler et al., chapter 3 in this volume; Lightfoot and Etzkorn 1993). Crow Canyon researchers, interns, and participants excavated entire structures and middens and recovered tens of thousands of artifacts dating to the Pueblo I period (AD 750–900). During lithic analysis, Crow Canyon researchers analyzed formal tools, such as projectile points, bifaces, and drills, and informal tools, such as peckingstones, modified flakes, and utilized flakes. They analyzed lithic debitage and classified these artifacts by local and nonlocal material type. They designated local as those raw materials that could be procured within a 25 km radius of the site and nonlocal raw materials as materials that could be procured beyond a 25 km radius (Lightfoot and Etzkorn 1993, 158). Notably, they linked the type of stone with geological formations when classifying raw material types. For example, “Morrison” claystone, mudstone, siltstone, and chert were identified as rocks that were derived from the Morrison Formation from the Jurassic period. “Dakota” quartzite (orthoquartzite) was named for the Dakota Formation in the Cretaceous period from which they came. Nonlocal rocks were also identified, such as obsidian, Narbona Pass chert (formerly called Washington Pass chert), and red jasper. The presence of these materials suggested that they were procured by long-distance trade. For debitage, Crow Canyon researchers recorded general morphological categories, including flakes with platforms, flakes without platforms, edge-damaged flakes, and others (Lightfoot and Etzkorn 1993, 180).

After completing the Duckfoot site assemblage, Crow Canyon researchers continued to follow similar formal tool analysis methods (with the exception of debitage) for the Sand Canyon, Yellow Jacket Pueblo, and Woods Canyon Pueblo assemblages. However, when they began working at Shields Pueblo in 1998, Crow Canyon researchers introduced a new way of analyzing debitage, which was called “mass analysis,” originally proposed by Ahler (1989). This method focuses on identifying material type, size grading into four categories (1 in., 0.5 in., 0.25 in., and smaller than 0.25 in.), identifying the presence or absence of cortex, and recording the count and weight. Of importance, mass analysis allows researchers to analyze large debitage assemblages efficiently and easily. Crow Canyon researchers adopted this method of analysis in the late 1990s, and it is still used in lithic artifact analyses today (Ortman et al. 2005).

With assistance from Crow Canyon researchers, Arakawa (2000) analyzed the Yellow Jacket Pueblo (5MT5) chipped-stone assemblage for his thesis research. One goal of his research was to define which local, semilocal, and nonlocal raw materials were used at Yellow Jacket Pueblo. To achieve the goal, he conducted a reconnaissance of local lithic sources and quarries around Yellow Jacket Canyon and redefined local raw material types, including rocks from the Morrison, Burro Canyon, and Dakota Formations (Arakawa 2000, 2013; Arakawa and Nicholson 2020).

Arakawa, in collaboration with Kimberly Gerhardt, a local geologist, continued to define and classify raw material types for the broader central Mesa Verde region. They visited several quarry sites and geological outcrops in the early 2000s (Arakawa 2006, 2012b; Arakawa and Gerhardt 2007, 2009). Using the local and regional lithological sourcing data, Crow Canyon researchers also began using the new material type system for tool analysis (Ortman et al. 2005).

For forty years, Crow Canyon has devoted time and energy to developing its own chipped-stone analyses. These analyses are innovative because Crow Canyon researchers delved into sourcing studies and associated raw material types with local and regional lithologies. Data derived from sourcing studies allow researchers to explore several topics regarding sociopolitical organization in pre-Hispanic society (Arakawa 2006, 2012b; Arakawa et al. 2013; Arakawa et al. 2011; Arakawa and Nicholson 2020). In the following section, we demonstrate how chipped-stone studies based on these raw material classifications can address questions of sociopolitical organization, especially the development of political autonomy from AD 600 to AD 1300 in the McElmo–Yellow Jacket District of the central Mesa Verde region.

Methodology

We compiled chipped-stone data from twelve sites and fifteen chronological components from the McElmo–Yellow Jacket district (table 15.1) (Varien 1999, 86). Most of these sites are classified as community centers in the Pueblo II and Pueblo III periods. Community centers are large sites that have long occupation spans and often contain public architecture (see Glowacki et al., chapter 12 in this volume). The Basketmaker III and Pueblo I period sites are from small habitations (figure 15.1). We use counts, not weights, to collect data on both tools and debitage. We also investigate tools (cores, peckingstones, projectile points, bifaces, and drills) and debitage using five raw material categories: local high-quality material, local low-quality material, semilocal material, nonlocal material, and other stone material types. We are interested in broad patterns of tool-stone procurement patterns through time, so we have aggregated these data into the Basketmaker III, Pueblo I, Pueblo II, or Pueblo III periods.2 We used only contexts that could be confidently assigned to one of these time periods.3

Table 15.1. Lithic assemblages used for this study, showing the temporal period and the count of chipped-stone materials.

Source: Table by authors.

Among the five raw material categories, local materials are classified as either high or low-quality materials. High-quality local materials include highly silicified agate/chalcedony (ACH), Cretaceous Dakota / Burro Canyon quartzite (KDB), and Cretaceous Burro Canyon chert (KBC). These types are commonly used in formal tool production, such as projectile points and bifacial tools (knives) (Arakawa 2006; Arakawa and Gerhardt 2007), and their quarries are well known, recorded, and relatively ubiquitous in this study area (except for ACH) (Arakawa 2006; Arakawa and Nicholson 2020). These quarries fall within 18 km of most villages in the study area (Arakawa 2006; Varien 1999). For instance, Shields Pueblo is approximately 3 km from the nearest KDB quarry, whereas Yellow Jacket Pueblo is 12 km from the nearest KDB quarry (Arakawa 2006).

Low-quality (less silicified sedimentary rocks) local materials include Morrison Formation rocks (e.g., siltstone, mudstone, chert, and silicified sandstone). Of interest, Robert Neily (1983), Arakawa and Kimberlee Gerhardt (2007), and Arakawa and Andrew Duff (2002) recognized that the central Mesa Verde residents used a larger proportion of these local, low-quality materials during the Pueblo II and III periods. As population increased and communities became increasingly aggregated, communities exercised greater control over their immediate resources, making it difficult for others to freely collect raw materials. As a result, Pueblo people came to rely on resources nearest to their communities, limiting lithic material diversity. Accessibility may have been reduced due to hostilities between communities or by other pressures that caused people to stay away from other territories. In general, as populations increase, people expand their territories to procure new resources. However, Neily (1983), Arakawa and Gerhardt (2007), and Arakawa and Duff (2002) suggest that this phenomenon did not take place among the ancestral Pueblo people in the central Mesa Verde region. To determine whether this premise is supported by data generated from lithic assemblages from the region, we pay particular attention to the proportion of local materials, especially Morrison rocks, that were recovered from households and communities through time.

Semilocal materials consist of Jurassic Morrison Brushy Basin chert (JMC) and igneous materials (OIG). Both of these medium-quality materials can be sourced (Arakawa 2006, 2012b). The sources of JMC are mostly found in the southwestern portion of the study area (near the Four Corners Monument), whereas igneous materials are in the southern portions of the study area close to and on Ute Mountain. Both sources are more than 18 km away from the nearest community center in the study, except for Castle Rock Pueblo (figure 15.1) (Arakawa and Gerhardt 2007). If lithic data reveals patterns in the frequencies of materials that are unrelated to distance, consideration must be given to supracommunity networks. For example, it may be that some households or communities in the study area have a relatively high frequency of JMC and igneous materials despite being distant from the quarries, possibly signaling a strong alliance with other communities that are closer to the quarries. Using this assumption and based on these data, we can infer that there may have been alliances among households and/or communities.

Obsidian (OBS), Narbona Pass chert (WPC), red jasper (RJS), and nonlocal chert/silt stone (NCS) are classified as nonlocal materials. Obsidian materials were usually procured from sources more than 300 km away, including sources in the northern Rio Grande region in New Mexico, Mount Taylor in New Mexico, and sources near Flagstaff, in northern Arizona. Narbona Pass chert can be traced to the Chuska Mountains in New Mexico, approximately 140 km away (Lightfoot and Etzkorn 1993, 158). Red jasper materials are most likely procured from areas near Cedar Mesa in southeastern Utah, about 100 km away. The nonlocal chert/siltstone category is used for raw material types not found in local or semilocal areas and often includes fairly high-quality materials used for making projectile points and bifaces.

Finally, other stone material types include conglomerate, gypsum/calcite/barite, metamorphic rocks, petrified wood, quartz, slate/shale, unknown chert/siltstone, unknown silicified sandstone, and unknown stone. These materials would have been presumably procured and used for chipped-stone tools, ground-stone tools, and materials for jewelry making or other decoration. It is important for researchers to identify these raw material types as either local, semilocal, or nonlocal materials, especially petrified wood and unknown raw materials that were most likely used for chipped-stone tools.

Results

Figure 15.2 illustrates the general trend for tools recovered from sites dating to the Basketmaker III period through Pueblo III period. Most cores and peckingstones consist of low-quality materials, with only a few examples from local high-quality materials. For the formal tools, including projectile points, bifaces, and drills, local high-quality material types were most frequently used, although local low-quality and nonlocal materials were also used.

These results illustrate three patterns. First, the percentage of cores and peckingstones made of local low-quality materials (i.e., Morrison rocks) gradually increased from the Pueblo II period to the Pueblo III period.4 Second, during the Pueblo II and III periods, formal tools (projectile points, bifaces, and drills) represent a high proportion of the local high-quality materials. Finally, the high proportion of nonlocal material types for projectile points, bifaces, and drills during the Basketmaker III period indicates these materials were preferred for formal tools.

Figure 15.3 shows the overall result of debitage analysis from sites during the Basketmaker III–Pueblo III periods. The majority of debitage materials consist of local low-quality material types, followed by local high-quality materials. The proportion of semilocal, nonlocal, and other raw material types is low. To better understand the broad pattern of each raw material type, we created figure 15.4. This result reveals interesting patterns. First, although the percentage of local high-quality material types does not change much in the Basketmaker III, Pueblo II and Pueblo III periods, the highest amount of local high-quality materials was used during the Pueblo I period. In addition, figure 15.4 shows a slight increase of these materials from the Pueblo II period to the Pueblo III.5 Second, the ancestral Pueblo people of the Basketmaker III period used the most local low-quality materials of all time periods. Third, semilocal material types, especially Brushy Basin chert (107,924 pieces total; 922 igneous pieces total), were most commonly used during the Pueblo II period. Finally, the ancestral Pueblo people acquired nonlocal material types more commonly during the Pueblo I period, and there was a slight increase of these materials from the Pueblo II period to the Pueblo III. These results show that the Pueblo III period had the highest use of nonlocal material types.

Interpretations

This research demonstrates several aspects of lithic procurement and, indirectly, sociopolitical organization in the study area from AD 600 to 1300. First, the study of raw material types, when associated with their lithological and geological formations, helps reconstruct where and how ancestral Pueblo people procured their lithic raw materials. Since Crow Canyon researchers have accurately developed a detailed analysis of lithology in the study area, studies focused on mobility, territoriality, and resource acquisition are possible. For example, the increasing proportion of Brushy Basin chert (semilocal material) during the Pueblo II period reveals that ancestral Pueblo people procured and used this raw material type for special purposes, such as ritual use. Although the quality of this material is equivalent to other local high-quality materials (e.g., ACH, KBC, and KDB), they preferred to acquire Brushy Basin chert despite being located more than 18 km away from the nearest community center (apart from Castle Rock Pueblo). Notably, Brushy Basin chert materials were typically used for tchamahia production; these tools may have been used for ceremonial purposes as noted by Parsons in her study of the Hopi (Parsons 1936). In addition, the high proportion of Brushy Basin chert utilized during the Pueblo II period suggests frequent mobility and/or interaction between those in the study area and the inhabitants in or near the Brushy Basin quarries of the Four Corners area. In fact, similar tool-stone procurement patterns are demonstrated for the Wetherill Mesa lithic assemblages in Mesa Verde National Park (Arakawa and Gerhardt 2007). Based on these results, we find that the proportion of Brushy Basin chert exponentially increased during the late Pueblo II period. This suggests that intraregional integration and/or trade increased in the Pueblo II period between people in the Mesa Verde National Park area and the McElmo–Yellow Jacket district. These data strengthen support for this premise.6

The results of debitage analyses based on raw material types indicate that tool-stone procurement of local high-quality materials increased from the Pueblo II period to the Pueblo III, while the proportion of semilocal materials decreased. This might indicate that ancestral Pueblo people relied heavily on chipped-stone raw materials close to their habitation areas and preferred not to travel or encroach on the territories of other groups. The reduction and/or restriction of territories might suggest that during the Pueblo III period, there is evidence for political autonomy in tandem with intraregional interaction, mobility, and/or migration. However, the proportion of nonlocal materials (obsidian, red jasper, Narbona Pass chert, and nonlocal chert/siltstone) increases slightly from the Pueblo II period to the Pueblo III. This indicates that although people experienced political autonomy and increased intraregional interactions within the study area, they also developed alliances and social networks, signaling a strong cooperation with communities in areas to the south, such as the northern Rio Grande region in New Mexico (Arakawa et al. 2011). The slight increase in the proportion of nonlocal material types is also seen in formal tools.

Discussion and Conclusion

This study demonstrates that lithic studies can provide reliable and essential data for understanding and reconstructing sociopolitical organization in agricultural societies. These data are attainable because Crow Canyon researchers have developed a reliable and repeatable lithic raw material classification system over the last forty years. In addition, Crow Canyon has developed a large and valuable lithic database (https://www.crowcanyon.org/site-reports-database-list/).

Although Crow Canyon’s lithic database is rich, only a few researchers have utilized it for research. Lithic studies are informative because we can pinpoint potential sourcing areas at the local and regional scales. As this study demonstrates, researchers can use the proportion of tools and debitage assemblages to illuminate tool-stone procurement patterns. By doing so, these data also help us reconstruct sociopolitical organization—such as mobility, territoriality, and trade—and the development of political autonomy in agricultural societies through time.

Notes

1. 1. Arakawa et al. (2011) argued that the frequency of obsidian increased prior to the depopulation of the region around the late AD 1200s. This suggests that ancestral Pueblo people in the central Mesa Verde region connected and affiliated with people in the northern Rio Grande region, the location where immigrants settled as part of the migration process (see also the contention of the hypothesis by Moore et al. 2020).

2. 2. The Duckfoot site and Castle Rock Pueblo lithic assemblages were originally analyzed by Arakawa (2006) as part of his dissertation research; others were analyzed by CCAC researchers. For the Duckfoot site and Castle Rock Pueblo lithic assemblages, when there were more than 300 pieces of debitage materials, Arakawa selected subsamples by using Randomtos Random Number Generator software. For example, when there were more than 300 pieces of Dakota/Burro Canyon silicified sandstone, he first segregated them by the four different size grades. If size 1 had 50 pieces, he selected subsamples of 25 (50 percent) from each size grade and the other size grades to obtain a total sample of about 150.

3. 3. The majority of debitage recovered from these sites came from nonstructures (middens and cultural fills), but the BMIII, PII, and PIII assemblages also contained debitage recovered from structures. When we looked at the material type of the debitage recovered from nonstructure and structure contexts, we found they produced similar results, so we combined the datasets for this study.

4. 4. Both the Duckfoot site and the Pueblo I assemblage at Shields Pueblo contained only two cores; both are made of JMS. This may be due to the small sample size from Pueblo I period contexts at these sites.

5. 5. It is important that although Arakawa (2006) investigated more than ninety local quarries in the central Mesa Verde region, it is possible that high-quality materials have yet to be sourced to all the local high-quarry sites in existence.

6. 6. It might be possible to argue that a “middle person” (or trader) brought Brushy Basin chert to these communities, since the material type had a significant meaning or had a commodity value for ancestral Pueblo people. If this indeed took place, it might be difficult to argue for an increased social network, because the middle person from other areas would have brough them to sites in Mesa Verde National Park and others in the central Mesa Verde region. However, we argue that Brushy Basin chert is deposited in many areas in the Four Corners area; thus ancestral Pueblo people who resided near the quarries could have easily procured and moved them to other communities. Therefore, we insist that a direct relationship existed between ancestral Pueblo people in Mesa Verde National Park and those in the Four Corners area.

References

1. Ahler, Stanley A. 1989. “Mass Analysis of Flaking Debris: Studying the Forest Rather than the Tree.” In Alternative Approaches to Lithic Analysis, Archeological Papers No. 1, edited by D. Henry and G. Odell, 85–118. Arlington, VA: American Anthropological Association.
2. Arakawa, Fumiyasu. 2000. “Lithic Analysis of Yellow Jacket Pueblo as a Tool for Understanding and Visualizing Women’s Roles in Procuring, Utilizing, and Making Stone Tools.” MA thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow.
3. Arakawa, Fumiyasu. 2006. “Lithic Raw Material Procurement and the Social Landscape in the Central Mesa Verde Region, AD 600–1300.” PhD diss., Washington State University, Pullman.
4. Arakawa, Fumiyasu. 2012a. “Cyclical Cultural Trajectories: A Case Study from the Mesa Verde Region.” Journal of Anthropological Research 68.1 (March): 35–69.
5. Arakawa, Fumiyasu. 2012b. “Toolstone Procurement Patterns in the Central Mesa Verde Region through Time.” In Emergence and Collapse of Early Villages: Models of Central Mesa Verde Archaeology, edited by Timothy Kohler and Mark Varien, 175–196. Berkley: University of California.
6. Arakawa, Fumiyasu. 2013. “Gendered Analysis of Lithics from the Central Mesa Verde Region.” Kiva 78 (3): 279–312.
7. Arakawa, Fumiyasu, and Andrew I. Duff. 2002. Transitions in Mesa Verde Region Communities and Lithic Procurement Strategies. Denver: Society for American Archaeology.
8. Arakawa, Fumiyasu, and Kimberlee M. Gerhardt. 2007. “Toolstone Procurement Patterns on the Wetherill Mesa from A.D. 600 to 1280.” Kiva 73 (1): 69–87.
9. Arakawa, Fumiyasu, and Kimberlee M. Gerhardt. 2009. “Geoarchaeology Investigation of Lithic Resources in the Central Mesa Verde Region, Colorado, USA.” Geoarchaeology 24 (2): 204–223.
10. Arakawa, Fumiyasu, and Christopher Nicholson. 2020. “Identifying New Quarries as a Method for Expanding Research: A GIS Case Study from the Mesa Verde Region in the American Southwest.” Journal of Archaeological Science: Report 33 (October): 1–9.
11. Arakawa, Fumiyasu, Christopher Nicholson, and Jeff Rasic. 2013. “The Consequences of Social Processes: Aggregate Populations, Projectile Point Accumulation, and Subsistence Patterns in the American Southwest.” American Antiquity 78 (1): 147–164.
12. Arakawa, Fumiyasu, Scott Ortman, M. Steve Shackley, and Andrew Duff. 2011. “Obsidian Toolstone Procurement in the Central Mesa Verde.” American Antiquity 76.4 (October): 773–795.
13. Brew, John O. 1946. Archaeology of Alkali Ridge, Southeastern Utah. Vol. 21, Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
14. Cameron, Catherine M. 2001. “Pink Chert, Projectile Points, and the Chacoan Regional System.” American Antiquity 66.1 (January): 79–101.
15. Churchill, Melissa J., ed. 2002. The Archaeology of Woods Canyon Pueblo: A Canyon-Rim Village in Southwestern Colorado. https://www.crowcanyon.org/ResearchReports/WoodsCanyon/Text/wcpw_contentsvolume.asp.
16. Diederichs, Shanna R., ed. 2020. “The Basketmaker Communities Project.” https://www.crowcanyon.org/ResearchReports/BasketmakerCommunities/basketmaker_communities_project_final.pdf.
17. Driver, Jonathan C. 2002. “Faunal Variation and Change in the Northern San Juan Region.” In Seeking the Center Place: Archaeology and Ancient Communities in the Mesa Verde Region, edited by Mark D. Varien and Richard H. Wilshusen, 143–162. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
18. Glowacki, Donna M. 2006. “The Social Landscape of Depopulation: The Northern San Juan, A.D. 1150–1300.” PhD diss., Arizona State University, Tempe.
19. Glowacki, Donna M. 2015. Living and Leaving: A Social History of Regional Depopulation in Thirteenth-Century Mesa Verde. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
20. Kohler, Timothy A., and Laura Ellyson. 2019. “In and Out of Chains? The Changing Social Contract in the Pueblo Southwest, AD 600–1300.” In Ten Thousand Years of Inequality: The Archaeology of Wealth Differences, edited by Timothy A. Kohler and Michael E. Smith, 130–154. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
21. Kuckelman, Kristin A., ed. 2003. “The Archaeology of Yellow Jacket Pueblo (Site 5MT5): Excavations at a Large Community Center in Southwestern Colorado.” http://www.crowcanyon.org/yellowjacket.
22. Kuckelman, Kristin A. 2007. “The Archaeology of Sand Canyon Pueblo: Intensive Excavations at a Late-Thirteenth-Century Village in Southwestern Colorado.” http://www.crowcanyon.org/sandcanyon. Accessed May 9, 2021.
23. Kuckelman, Kristin A. 2010. “The Depopulation of Sand Canyon Pueblo: A Large Ancestral Pueblo Village in Southwestern Colorado.” American Antiquity 75.3 (July): 497–526.
24. Kuckelman, Kristin A., Grant D. Coffey, and Steve R. Copeland. 2009. “Interim Descriptive Report of Research at Goodman Point Pueblo (5MT604). Montezuma County, Colorado. 2005–2008.” https://www.crowcanyon.org/ResearchReports/GoodmanPoint/interim_reports/2005_2008/GPP_interim_report_2005_2008.pdf.
25. Kuckelman, Kristin A., Ricky Lightfoot, and Debra L. Martin. 2000. “Changing Patterns of Violence in the Northern San Juan Region.” Kiva 66.1 (July): 147–166.
26. Lightfoot, Ricky R., and Mary C. Etzkorn, eds. 1993. The Duckfoot Site, Volume 1: Descriptive Archaeology. Occasional Papers, no. 3. Cortez, CO: Crow Canyon Archaeological Center.
27. Lipe, William D. 2006. “Notes from the North.” In The Archaeology of Chaco Canyon: An Eleventh-Century Pueblo Regional Center, edited by Stephen H. Lekson. 261–313. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press.
28. Lipe, William D., and Scott G. Ortman. 1998. “Spatial Patterning in Northern San Juan Villages, A.D. 1050–1300.” Kiva 66 (1): 91–122.
29. Moore, James L., Eric Blinman, and M. Steven Shackley. 2020. “Temporal Variation in Obsidian Procurement in the Northern Rio Grande and Its Implications for Obsidian Movement into the San Juan Area.” American Antiquity 85 (1): 152–170.
30. Neily, Robert B. 1983. “The Prehistoric Community on the Colorado Plateau: An Approach to the Study of Change and Survival in the Northern San Juan Area of the American Southwest.” PhD diss., Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.
31. Ortman, Scott G., Erin L. Baxter, Carole L. Graham, G. Robin Lyle, Lew W. Matis, Jamie A. Merewether, R. David Satterwhite, and Jonathan D. Till. 2005. “The Crow Canyon Archaeological Center Laboratory Manual, Version 1.” https://www.crowcanyon.org/ResearchReports/LabManual/LaboratoryManual.pdf.
32. Parsons, Elsie Clews. 1936. “Early Relations between Hopi and Keres.” American Anthropologist 38:554–560.
33. Plog, Stephen, and Carrie Heitmann. 2010. “Hierarchy and Long-Term Social Inequality in the American Southwest, A.D. 800–1200: Microcosm and Macrocosm.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (USA) 107.46 (October): 19619–19626.
34. Potter, James M., and Jason P. Chupuka. 2007. “Early Pueblo Communities and Cultural Diversity in the Durango Area.” Kiva 72 (4): 407–429.
35. Potter, James M., Jason P. Chupuka, and Jerry Fetterman. 2012. “The Eastern Mesa Verde Region: Migrants, Cultural Diversity, and Violence in the East.” In Crucible of Pueblos: The Early Pueblo Period in the Northern Southwest, edited by Richard H. Wilshusen, Gregson Schachner, and James R. Allison, 53–71. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press.
36. Powers, Robert P., William B. Gillespie, and Steven H. Lekson. 1983. The Outlier Survey: A Regional View of Settlement in the San Juan Basin. Reports of the Chaco Center no. 3. Albuquerque: Division of Cultural Research, National Park Service.
37. Varien, Mark D. 1999. Sedentism and Mobility in a Social Landscape: Mesa Verde and Beyond. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
38. Varien, Mark D., Scott G. Ortman, Timothy A. Kohler, Donna M. Glowacki, and C. David Johnson. 2007. “Historical Ecology in the Mesa Verde Region: Results from the Village Project.” American Antiquity 72.2 (April): 273–299.
39. Ward, Christine G. 2004. “Exploring Meanings of Chacoan Community Great Houses through Chipped Stone: A Biographical Approach.” PhD diss., Department of Anthropology, University of Colorado, Boulder.
40. Wilshusen, Richard H. 1995. The Cedar Hill Special Treatment Project: Late Pueblo I, Early Navajo, and Historic Occupations in Northwestern New Mexico. Research Paper 1. Dolores, CO: La Plata Archaeological Consultants.
41. Wilshusen, Richard H. 1999. “Basketmaker III (A.D. 500–750).” In Colorado Prehistory: A Context for the Southern Colorado River Basin, edited by William D. Lipe, Mark D. Varien, and Richard H. Wilshusen, 166–194. Cortez: Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists.
42. Wilshusen, Richard H., and Scott G. Ortman. 1999. “Rethinking the Pueblo I Period in the San Juan Drainage: Aggregation, Migration, and Cultural Diversity.” Kiva 64 (3): 369–399.
43. Wilshusen, Richard H., and Ruth M. Van Dyke. 2006. “Chaco’s Beginnings.” In The Archaeology of Chaco Canyon: An Eleventh-Century Pueblo Regional Center, edited by Stephen H. Lekson, 211–260. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press.
44. Windes, Thomas C. 2003. “This Old House: Construction and Abandonment at Pueblo Bonito.” In Pueblo Bonito: Center of the Chacoan World, edited by Jill E. Neitzel, 14–32. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Press.
45. Whittaker, John C. 1987. “Making Arrowpoints in the Prehistoric Pueblo.” Lithic Technology 16 (1): 1–12.