University of Virginia Library

III. Part III

Section A

ADDITIONS TO DESCRIPTIONS OF CHACO POTTERY TYPES

By Florence Hawley

In 1934, accounts of a number of Chaco pottery types were published.[1]
In 1936, I published systematic descriptions of the greater
number of pottery types which had, up to that time, been recognized in
the Chaco.[2] Illustrations and further descriptive material were published
in 1937.[3] The purpose of the present section is to name and
describe one new type, to publish the first extended descriptions of two
other types, and to make certain additions to previously published
descriptions. The material on the new type will first be presented, then
the data (following the alphabetic order of the names) on the types
which have already appeared in print. The additions are, of course,
to be construed as additions to (or slight modifications of) the previously
published descriptions.

Sandstone Black on Orange.[4] —This new type which, for convenience
in listing, was given this tentative name, was identified in 1937, and
rechecked and submitted to several archaeologists for comment in
1938.[5] These black and orange sherds have been found scattered
through various levels of the refuse mound. It is not native but
intrusive. The native provenience is not yet definitely known but it is
suggested to be north of the Chaco, perhaps in the Four Corners
country. The collection of Mr. J. Flora of Durango contains numerous
specimens of this type, locally known as "Intrusive Redware."
Earl Morris speaks of it as "Early Black on Red." Recently Paul Martin
has spoken of it as "La Plata Black on Red." It's period has been
given as BM III.

Paste: Dull orange, flecked with golden specks, presumably of yellow
mica. Homogeneous, fine. Core often gray, otherwise orange.

Temper: Dark particles, apparently volcanic sand or crushed volcanic
crystals predominant; occasionally some light colored fine sand.

Construction: One large sherd shows flat indentations suggesting finish
by paddle and anvil.

Wall: c. 4 mm.

Hardness: Ranges from 2 to 4.5, preponderantly 2.5 to 3.5.[6]

Finish: Interior well smoothed and covered with thin slip slightly
darker orange than paste. Bowl exterior unslipped or thinly
slipped; marked with horizontal scraping streaks, uneven and
slightly bumpy. Small golden flecks prominent on both surfaces
which, in themselves, are usually of low luster. A few specimens
show a fairly high polish, horizontal polishing marks, and a color
more light brown than orange.

Designs: Simple unit designs of solid triangles and lines in very thin
dull black paint (not yet tested for composition) on interior of
bowls, often almost invisible. Designs set in large undecorated
areas.

Lip: Direct, constricted, painted black.

Shapes: Bowls predominant; jars.

Comparison: The Bluff Black on Red shows more sand and less volcanic
temper, a thicker redder slip which contrasts with the thin
orange slip of Sandstone, and thinner, duller paint in simpler,
more scattered designs. The surface shows more glistening particles
and is more orange than either Bluff or Deadman's Black on
Red.

Chaco Black on White[7] (See Plates 5B and 11)

Hardness: 4.0 to 4.5, mainly 4.5.

Comparison and discussion: The chief characteristic used in distinguishing
this type from Gallup Black on White is its even, well-smoothed,
well-polished, decorated surfaces.

Chaco Corrugated

Comparison and Discussion: Paste, temper, and construction similar to
Exuberant Corrugated except that paste and temper of Chaco
Corrugated averages finer. Distinguished from Exuberant Corrugated
on the basis of narrowness of coils and smallness of indentations.
Rarely incised over coils and indentations.

Escavada Black on White[8] (See Plates 8 and 11)

Hardness: 3.5 to 4.5, preponderance 4.5.

Comparison and discussion: Escavada Black on White is recognized
primarily on the basis of lack of surface polish except for an
occasional few streaks presumably caused by wear and usage.
The surface is usually dull, sometimes rather granular, but smooth;
the designs are usually rather heavy, in lines about ¼″ wide or in
wide line elements combined with hatched elements in which the
hatching lines are usually heavier and often more widely spaced
than those used on later types. It is very similar to Puerco Black
on White; in fact, the two may be variations of one type and
further study may indicate advisability of combining them under
one name. Escavada Black on White probably grew out of Red
Mesa black on White.

Exuberant Corrugated[9] (See Plate 8)

Area: Chaco, Gallup, Red Mesa, and vicinity.

Derivation: Kana-a Gray.

Paste: Gray, hard.

Temper: Sand, potsherds, and black volcanic material in varying proportions.

Construction: Coiled.

Wall: c. 6 mm.

Hardness: 3.5 to 4.5; preponderance around 4.5.

Finish: Spiral coil averaging about ¼″ wide, indentations wide and
usually deep, sometimes decorated with alternation of indentations
and plain coil in geometric designs, sometimes alternating bands
of indentations and of plain coiling; occasional use of crudely
incised designs cutting across coils.

Forms: Jars preponderant; bowls, pitchers.

Comparison: Similar to Pueblo II corrugated from other areas of
northern Arizona and New Mexico, although it may later be found
that the common use of some volcanic temper might be regionally
distinctive. Distinguished from Chaco Corrugated by wideness
of coils and greater width and depth of indentations.

Gallup Black on White[10] (See Plates 6 and 11)

Hardness: c. 4.5.

Comparison and discussion: Stratigraphy and association in the Bc
50-51 dump and rooms indicate that this type grew out of Escavada
Black on White.

It lasted, as indicated in the Chetro Ketl dump, at least as
late as 1130 A. D. Its chief distinguishing characteristic is the
mottled, streakily polished surface onto which the designs were
painted, most of the design being at least partly hatched. Designs
averaged more complicated than for Escavada Black on White but
were neither as well conceived, as delicate, nor as well executed as
the average for Chaco Black on White. The latter was evidently
a late and short development, never superseding the Gallup Black
on White but showing its florescence around 1100 A. D. and up
until 1130, as found in the Chetro Ketl dump.

La Plata Black on White[11]

Area: Chaco, Red Mesa, Zuñi, north into the Four Corners.

Derivation: Lino Gray.

Walls: c. 4 mm.

Hardness: 4.5.

Finish: Surface unevenly smoothed, probably by scraping, temper protruding
through float; no slip; designs painted in black iron paint
on interiors of bowls, exteriors of small-mouthed vessels.

Designs: Drawn in lines about [fraction 1 by 16]″ wide; occasionally life forms crudely
conventionalized.

Forms: Bowls, jars, pitchers, dippers.

Comparison: La Plata Black on White differs from Lino Black on Gray
primarily in the use of iron paint rather than of carbon paint for
decoration. This difference is consistent and easily detected
because most of the La Plata sherds show a tendency toward overfiring
in some part of the vessel.

McElmo Black on White[12] (See Plates 6, 8, 9, and 10)

Walls: c. 3 to 6 mm.

Hardness: c. 4 to 4.5.

Comparison and discussion: McElmo Black on White is a progenitor of
Mesa Verde Black on White. It is found in Chaco dumps in large
enough percentages to suggest that some of it was made in the
canyon rather than all having been traded in from outside. Some
small Chaco cliff ruins show a total of McElmo Black on White
sherds and may represent the homes of some immigrants from the
north. The designs of this type of Black on White are, in general,
the wide line type expected for Pueblo II, but distinctively of carbon
paint. Inter-influence between Chaco and Mesa Verde peoples
is indicated in the pottery of the canyon, however, in occasional
sherds of McElmo designs applied in iron paint and sherds with
hatched Chaco designs applied in carbon paint.

Red Mesa Black on White[13] (See Plates 7 and 11)

Synonyms: Chaco Transitional Black on White (in part), Chaco I.

Area: Gallup district, Chaco district, Red Mesa district.

Derivation: La Plata Black on White.

Paste: Gray to White.

Temper: Sand

Construction: Coiled.

Wall: c. 3 mm.

Hardness: 4 to 4.5.

Finish: Interior of bowls and exterior of jars slipped with white, polished,
decorated in black iron paint. Exterior unslipped, unpolished.

Designs: Fine lines in parallel groups in stepped figures, lines often
crossing at corners, solid triangles, small pendant dots on triangles
or on lines.

Forms: Bowls, jars, pitchers, ladles.

Comparison: Similar to Kiatuthlanna Black on White but differs somewhat
in design. Transition from polished Red Mesa Black on

White into unpolished Escavada Black on White is apparent in
many sherds which show characteristics of each type.

Table 4
HARDNESS TESTS OF SHERDS[14]

                         

	N	H	N	H	N	H	N	H
Lino Gray	32	4.5	3	4.0	2	3.5
La Plata B on W	10	4.5
Red Mesa B on W	33	4.5	10	4.0
Kana-a Neck-banded	11	4.5	15	4.0	5	3.5
Escavada B on W	37	4.5	9	4.0	1	3.5
McElmo B on W	10	4.5	12	4.0	1	3.5
Wingate B on R	14	4.5	12	4.0	9	3.5	1	3.0
Gallup B on W	41	4.5	4	4.0	2	3.5
Exuberant Corr.	33	4.5	13	4.0	4	3.5
Chaco Corrugated	18	4.5	8	4.0	1	3.5
Chaco B on W	22	4.5	5	4.0
Deadman's B on R	5	4.5	2	4.0	1	3.5

Section B

UTILIZED MINERALS AND ROCKS AND THEIR SOURCES

By Douglas Osborne

Specimens of the following materials were obtained from Bc 50-51:
red shale (pendant, 2 smoothed pieces, 2 drilled pieces); flinty chalcedony
(hammerstones and flakes); chalcedony, moss agate (scraper);
grey chalcedony (point); white chalcedony (point); obsidian (flakes,
knives, points); turquoise (beads,[15] pendants,[16] drilled and smoothed
pieces); quartzite (black and yellow), (polishing stones, hammerstones);
calcareous sandstone or siltstone[17]
(concretional fragments,
beads, pot covers, sandal lasts or weaving spacers, smoothers, pendant?);
kidney iron ore (small oolitic piece, bird fetish?,[18] yellow ochre,
red ochre, gilsonite (part of a ring),[19] malachite, azurite.

In the endeavor to determine the incidence of occurrence of the
various minerals used for chipped artifacts, the spalls, etc., were collected,
level by level, from the various sections of the refuse mound in
the same manner as were the potsherds. They were examined and
separated and percentages taken. These percentages were then
plotted by levels by Margaret Latady. In no case was material recovered
from levels 1-2. The total number of specimens identified was 430.

The results may be summarized briefly. Chalcedony and chalcedonic
wood or petrified wood outstripped all of the other stone materials
in actual number of spalls and in percentages. Petrified wood and
chalcedony were of approximately equal quantity in 8 of the 24 samples
in which they occurred together; they were unequal, then, in 16 of
these occasions. In only 3 of the 16 instances that the two materials

occurred unequally together were chalcedony pieces the more numerous.
In other words, by far the greater amount of cryptocrystalline quartz
used (and that material was the material par excellence) was obtained
from opalized or petrified wood. Inasmuch as it was rather difficult,
in many cases, to distinguish between flakes of petrified wood and flakes
of otherwise formed chalcedony, there must be a good deal of admixture
between the two. That is, many a fragment of petrified wood might
have been called chalcedony, pure and simple, and vice versa. In fact,
I am inclined to believe that the two are of one series. That is, they
were used interchangeably and much of the chalcedony had petrified
wood as a source.

Obsidian, which always occurs sparingly, is confined, in general,
to the upper levels. Neither the jaspers nor quartzites were used extensively.
The highest percentage of the former in any sample was 11
per cent, of the latter 7 per cent.

In the Chaco Wash proper, there are few igneous or metamorphic
pebbles found. There were, however, two sources[20] of these discovered
in the wash. One of these sources was directly below the ruin of
Peñasco Blanco. Here were found a few pebbles of coarse quartzite
in a cemented, gravelly deposit. These, so far as found, were unsuited
for making any of the finer implements. Their only use could have
been in the form of hammerstones or other rough implements. The
same is true for a deposit in the arroyo one-fourth mile NW of Mesa
Fahada. Here, too, a gravelly cemented formation (probably a calcitic
cement) displays a number of rough, igneous and or metamorphic
pebbles. This formation is lenticular in the higher walls of the arroyo,
most prominent and in larger beds rather than lenses in the lower third.
It calls to mind the Mortar Beds[21] of the Pleistocene. Because the
deposit is well cemented it stands out in ridges on the floor of the
arroyo. The contained, rolled, igneous material is unfit for any of the
finer tools of the aboriginal inhabitants of the Canyon. The deposit
should be examined more thoroughly and searched for more carefully
between Mesa Fahada and Peñasco Blanco (if I may assume that the
two outcrops are of the same deposit) as it might have no small bearing
on the recent geological history of the canyon.

Examination of the tops of the South Mesa and the Chacra Mesa
and counts made of the gravels on them, investigated by Dr. Malcolm
Bissel, showed a high percentage of quartzites. On South Mesa there
were six light yellow quartzites to one of a darker quartzite. On the
Chacra, again, quartzite was the only rock of importance; all of the
occurrences were in the form of rounded, water-worn pebbles. A count
of four square feet above the Escavada Wash to the north of Pueblo

Bonito in the area of the exposure of the Pictured Cliffs sandstone
showed the following:

         

Petrified Wood	20 pieces
Chalcedony (agate, etc.)	6 pieces
Quartzite	6 pieces
Brown Jasper	6 pieces
Red Jasper	2 pieces

This corresponds rather closely with the situation shown in the graphs
of the incidence of the spalls found in the stratigraphy tests taken of
the refuse mound Bc 50-51. There is an obvious proportional relationship
between the series.

The petrified wood found in the stratigraphy levels corresponds,
superficially, to some found in the Escavada Wash. The two appear
identical when examined megascopically. This petrified wood probably
comes from above the Ojo Alamo outcrop—possibly in the Paleocene or
Eocene exposures. The petrified wood found in the Kirtland shale
(Cret.) and in the Ojo Alamo (Cret.) sandstone is lighter in shade,
more granular and friable than that of the wash and is certainly not
of the best type for implements, whereas that of the Escavada and, of
course, that of the stratigraphy tests is highly adaptive to the Indian
chipping technique. The tabular deposits of silicon dioxide found in
logs of petrified wood were used extensively for implements, and were
probably the source of much of the "chalcedony" found in the ruins.[22]

In general the obsidian of Chaco Bc 51, when compared with some
from Jemez (Unshagi), showed a more fibrous appearance. This
fibrousness is probably an expression of the flow; impurities are spread
or dragged out along the same plane. The true obsidians are about
equally transparent but that of Jemez seems to carry less impurities.
One can only say definitely, concerning the source of the Chaco obsidian,
that it did not come from the same flow as did the Unshagi piece.

Following information which Dr. W. W. Hill obtained from a
Navaho informant, a search was made for common salt (NaCl) in
Escavada Arroyo and throughout the region. Halite was not found,
but many deposits of impure magnesium sulphate (Epsom salts) were
located. In a small cave on South Mesa, a cave in the north wall of the
canyon, an arroyo tributary to the Escavada, which branches to the
west along the face of the exposure of Ojo Alamo; in the Escavada,
about 300 yards up the wash from the bridge on the Chaco Canyon-Aztec
road, are some of the many places where Epsom salts have been
deposited.

Probably some of the amorphous gypsum found in the ruins was

formed by a disintegration of the crystals of selenite which were carried
into the rooms by the inhabitants. Pieces of alabaster are not
infrequently found in the canyon. One was picked up from the foot of
the north wall of the canyon near Yellow House. It comes, I believe,
from the Chacra sandstone itself.

The question of jet, or possibly cannel coal, must await the exploration
of Upper Coal Creek (Sternberg). Probably all of the so-called
jet has been gilsonite.

It is not possible to state the provenience of the turquoise found.
Only after a thorough mineralogical study of La Para, Cerrillos,
Reserve, and the Chaco turquoise, can we be sure where the turquoise
found in the Chaco came from. It is probably Cerrillos.

Ochre and rouge are notoriously plentiful throughout the Navaho
Reservation. In fact, the Navaho, according to two Jemez Indian informants,
trade colored earths to the Pueblos today and profit from a
virtual monopoly of some of the brighter shades. A number of deposits
of ochre and rouge were located during the survey. Rouge is prominent
in the Allison member of the Chacra sandstone, on the south side of
Mesa Fahada, and on the south and west faces of Chacra Mesa. While
other deposits exist along the walls of the canyon and to the south in
the Red Hills, the best and most varied exposures of colored earths occur
on the extreme jutting point of the west walls of the re-entrant in which
are the Wetherill coal mines. Here is vermillion, yellow, orange, and a
deep purple. The fine deposit is in the clays of the Allison member of
the Chacra sandstone. Seemingly, this fine exposure was used extensively
by the early inhabitants of the canyon. A small gully is now
cutting into the area of the richest deposits. This was probably begun
by the mining operations of long ago.

Section C

GROUND AND PECKED STONE ARTIFACTS (OTHER THAN
ARROW-SHAFT TOOLS)

By Richard Woodbury

The Data from Bc 51.[23] —Rooms 7, 8, 9, 16, 19, 21, and kiva 3 provided
the majority of ground and pecked stone implements, while rooms
2 and 5 (otherwise very rich in artifacts) contained comparatively
few. Attempts at stratigraphic analysis of the material were fruitless.
Out of the very large number of this class of stone artifacts only 27
(19 manos, 7 hammerstones, 1 "smoothing stone") had a floor level or
sub-floor level locus. The remainder came from the surface or from the
fill. The manos and hammerstones, to which definite floor level loci
may be assigned, do not show distinctive characters as compared with
the totality of these types of objects from this site. The hammerstone
and 8 manos from the sub-structure of room 16 also fail to reveal any
differentiation.

Metates.—Twenty-two metates were recovered. None was found
in a bin or built into a permanent position. Apparently the metates at
Bc 51 were always portable, and when used were, doubtless, propped
up on a few stones in an impromptu fashion to give the required angle.[24]
All save 3 of the specimens were troughed, but none had very high
side walls; the troughs were about ½″ to 2¼″ deep. The block from
which the metate was made was only roughly shaped, in some instances
being almost unworked. Five specimens showed the trough open at
both ends, the remainder had the trough open at one end.[25] There were
three specimens of the basin type at Bc 51, that is, a flat, stone slab
with a depression worn in the top, by a rotary rather than a reciprocating
motion. One specimen was of the plain surface (slab) type,
in which the mano is as long or longer than the width of the grinding
surface, so that the entire surface of the metate is worn down and no
trough formed. In one metate the groove ran across the width of the
stone. One is a miniature specimen, 8¼″ long, 7¼″ wide, and 3″ thick.

As at Bc 50 and Łeyit Kin, sandstone was the only material used.

In comparison with Łeyit Kin and Bc 50, Bc 51 yielded relatively
few metates. However, the predominance of the trough type is typical,
and the one plain surface specimen is an anomaly, for the type is usually
associated with Pueblo III (see discussion below). There is no
evidence of the use of metates at Bc 51 for purposes other than grinding
corn, but the miniature specimen may conceivably have been put to
some other use.

Manos.[26] —Ninety-eight manos were recorded, outnumbering the
metates by 7 to 1. The majority were rectangular with rounded
corners, but a few were round or oval. These latter were 5″ to 7″ long,
and about 4″ wide. There was about an equal division between types
with one and with two grinding surfaces. Twenty wedge-shaped
("triangular" cross-section) specimens were recorded, of which 10 had
1 grinding surface, 1 had 2, and 3 were not recorded. Almost all of
the manos were of sedimentary rocks.

Taking the manos as a whole, the sizes were as follows:

       

	Maximum	Modal	Minimum
Length	11¼″	6″ to 7″	4¼″
Width	5¼″	4″ to 4¾″	2¾″
Thickness	2¾″	1¼″ to 1½″	⅝″

Although there is considerable range here, the majority of specimens
fall within the limits given as modal; this is less true of length, which
shows a more random distribution, but few specimens approach the
limits even in this dimension.

On the basis of this information Bc 51 is similar to Bc 50 and
Łeyit Kin in that the typical mano is rectangular with rounded corners,
either rectangular or wedge-shaped in cross-section, in both cases having
either one or two grinding surfaces.

Hammerstones.—Nineteen of the specimens came from kiva 3 and
9 from room 19. Only one instance of pitting to give a better grip for
the thumb or finger was observed.[27] Sedimentary, metamorphic, and

igneous rocks were all represented among the materials. Sorted on the
basis of shape, the hammerstones of Bc 51 are grouped as follows:
16 faceted (1 or more distinct flat abraded surfaces), 25 irregular, 13
round or oval. Surface finish: 24 well-smoothed (for all or part of
surface), 29 rough. Size:

       

	Maximum	Modal	Minimum
Length	5¾″	2¾″ to 3½″	1½″
Width	4″	2¼″ to 2¾″	1¼″
Thickness	4″	1½″ to 2½″	1″

In spite of the considerable range in size, the proportions remain about
the same in nearly all specimens.

Grooved Axes,[28] Hammers, and Mauls.—There were 11 specimens,
all full-grooved. The material is sandstone in three, schist in one, not
recorded in seven. The axes were four, all but one of them with a
single bit. They were quite uniform in size, approximately 4⅛″ by
2½″ by 1½″. The double-bitted specimen had had one bit re-used for
hammering. Three specimens were distinguished as mauls; they were
considerably larger—the largest 8¾″ by 6″ by 3¼″. Hammers (3
specimens) were probably put to about the same uses as mauls, but

were within the size range of the axes, and may have been originally
made as axes. The mauls must have been made solely for the purpose
of pounding, as they could never have been modified from axes.

No notched percussion tools were found, thus distinguishing the
site from Bc 50. Another difference from Bc 50 is that the "mauls"
were re-used axes, and no tools corresponding to the mauls of Bc 51
were reported.

One specimen listed as an axe might, perhaps, better be called a
hoe; it is of slate 6″ by 2¾″, and has a groove completely encircling
it. However, its thinness makes the groove little more than a notch in
the two edges, with the mere suggestion of its presence on the two faces.
It is described as "well worn through use." The rectangular shape and
the roughness of the edges suggest a hoe rather than an axe, but either
use is plausible.

Four round stone dishes,[29] perhaps used as paint pots, were found.
The largest was 5½″ in diameter, and the smallest was 2½″. They
were carefully shaped, and the walls partly smoothed. But the depressions
for grinding or mixing were not more than 1⅛″ deep, unless in
the largest, which was fragmentary. The two objects mentioned in the
discussion of hammerstones may have been pestles, but their size would
have prevented their use in all but the largest of these bowls.

One fossil was found; it was unworked.

A concretion 8½″ long, shaped like half an egg, had been worked
by slightly hollowing the "interior" and making a few small holes on
the outer surface.

There were 24 polishing and smoothing stones. On the basis of
size and finish 14 can probably be considered pot-polishers; none was
faceted, but many were highly polished. They were mostly oval, and
the typical size 1⅞″ by 1″ by ⅜″. Of those for which material was
recorded, two were quartzite and one petrified wood. Only three specimens
seemed to be rubbing stones—the round, flat objects which are
usually said to be employed in smoothing plaster floors and walls. The
remaining 7 specimens of this group were either pot-polishers or
plaster-smoothers, but cannot be assigned definitely to either category.[30]

Fourteen discs[31] were found, varying in diameter from 7″ to 2½″,
and in thickness from ¾″ to [fraction 3 by 16]″. Perhaps some of these were used as
pot lids, or covers for cists. Similar objects were found at Bc 50, where
a few bore traces of pigment, and at Łeyit Kin.

One disc was described as possibly a spindle whorl, but it is fragmentary.

There were 22 slabs of sandstone, of which ten were carefully
shaped rectangles, smoothed on one or both sides; the other 12 were
fragments or had been left rough. They ranged in size from 11¼″ to
2″ long, and were proportionately wide and thick. Their use is unknown.
Similar objects are not reported from Łeyit Kin and Bc 50.

Two paint palettes were found, in kivas 3 and 6, bearing traces of
yellow ochre on one face. The sizes are 4½″ by 2⅜″ by ¼″ and 5½″
by 4¾″ by ¼″. They were well smoothed and squared, but were not
decorated with any incisions and lacked raised edges. Consequently
only the presence of paint distinguishes them from the rectangular
slabs of similar size. Lacking any other explanation, we can perhaps
consider the slabs as palettes also. Palettes found at Bc 50 were even
larger than the largest of the Bc 51 slabs. The palettes from Łeyit
Kin are not described in detail.

A number of problematical stone objects were found, the most
interesting of which was a cone of smoothed sandstone, 9½″ high and
7½″ in diameter at the base. This was found in the northwest corner
of room 15 on the bench.

Notes on the Distribution of Some Ground and Pecked Stone
Artifacts in the Southwest

The Maps.—The maps[32] are intended, principally, to illustrate the
remarks made concerning distributions. The letters refer to dates, and
the numbers to site and reference as listed in the Key to the Maps.
In regard to stages, the statements of the authors referred to have
been taken at face value when they were definite. The cultures indicated
by the letters are as follows:

• A. Prior to BM II

• B. BM III-Pueblo II (inclusive)

• C. Pueblo III-V (inclusive)

• X. Culture unknown or highly doubtful

It is realized that this schema is not unobjectionable. In particular,
Division C lumps pre- and post-European artifacts to some extent. The
interested specialist can, however, check the exact provenience (so far
as the literature establishes one) by reference to the Key. Considerations

of expense made it impossible to provide separate distribution
maps and sets of symbols for every cultural stage and the grouping
chosen (though admittedly arbitrary to some degree) seemed, perhaps,
less objectionable, all things considered, than any other.[33] No attempt
was made to categorize early excavations in terms of contemporary
cultural stage terminology by checking the pottery found or by the
architectural features. When the date was not mentioned in a report,
the site is listed as "X"—date unknown—unless other work at the site
or other investigations provided a date or period. In the Hohokam
and Mogollon areas, correlation with the Basket Maker-Pueblo chronology
is based on Gladwin[34] and Haury,[35] respectively. The possibility
that the earlier levels at Snaketown have been regarded as too early
will, perhaps, explain the appearance there in period "A" of the mortar
and pestle, the trough metate with two ends open, and the three-quarters
grooved axe. Elsewhere these artifacts appear first in
Basket Maker III, or later.

Metates.—For purposes of this study metates have been classified
by what seems to be the most satisfactory system, based (with one
exception) on the nature of the grinding surface. The types[36] are as
follows:

• 1. Plain surface

• 2. Utah

• 3. Basin

• 4. Trough, open at one end (scoop)

• 5. Trough, open at two ends

• 6. Three-legged (this of course disregards grinding
  surface)

Metates have been carefully studied by Katherine Bartlett,[37] so that
what is said here will, to some extent, duplicate her conclusions.

The plain surface metate, as will be seen from Map 2, is more
common in the north and central areas. The farthest southern extension
of the type occurs in the Sierra Ancha Mountains.[38] The plain
surface metate is typical only of sites of Pueblo III or later, although
Judd reports the type from his Chaco Canyon pithouse No. 2,[39] and a
single example was found in Bc 51. Another possible instance of the
type before Pueblo III is in northeastern Arizona,[40] but the only evidence

Map 2. Distribution of Metates in the Southwest

is the presence of manos without the wear at the ends which often
results from use in a trough. In the Pinto Basin of California[41] there
are plain surface metates, which may be earlier than Pueblo III. They
occurred on the surface at sites which were without pottery, and which,
on the basis of the chipped stone and the geology of the region, were
dated as fairly early post-glacial.[42] The metates may have only a
chance association with the sites, "very possibly dating from late
aboriginal time," but it is possible that they represent an early undifferentiated
form. With these exceptions (and, perhaps, the Texas instance
shown on the map) the plain surface metate is confined to a
limited area and appears only after the start of Pueblo III.

This conclusion agrees with Bartlett's statement that this type is
a specialization at a late date.[43] She also points out the correlation
between this type and the use of bins.[44] A few occurrences of bins were
noted in the present survey; only two have not been discussed by
Bartlett: at Aztec Ruin in northern New Mexico,[45] and in the Village

of the Great Kivas, New Mexico.[46] In the latter instance it is stated
that "the trough type of milling stone was rarely used in a bin, while
the concave style, without raised borders, seems, in the vast majority
of cases, to have been set in such containers."[47] This is in agreement
with Bartlett's conclusions. But, although the use of the bin with the
plain surface metate can be accepted as frequent, there are more exceptions
than these writers seem to suggest. Room 35 at Chetro Ketl
contains a slab-lined series of four bins. Three of the metates are of
trough type.[48] Conversely, at Unshagi,[49] the Riana Ruins,[50] and other
sites in the northern Rio Grande drainage plain surface metates were
found without bins.

Another type of metate with a limited distribution is the three-legged
type. It is common in the Valley of Mexico[51] and in Yucatan.[52]
But it never attained prominence as far north as the United States,
though four instances have been noted: in the Pueblo Viejo, Arizona;[53]
in the Arivaipa Valley, southeastern Arizona;[54] in the Lower Mimbres
Valley, New Mexico;[55] and at a site near Aztec Ruin, New Mexico.[56]
The presence of this type in northern New Mexico is surprising. This
specimen was found by a local inhabitant some years before Morris'
excavations. Nothing is known of its exact provenience, but it is said
to have come from the site. As a matter of fact, it should be carefully
noted that there are no unimpeachable reports of legged metates found
in association with unquestionable pre-European material north of 25°
N. Lat. Fewkes' Pueblo Viejo metate was a contemporary "plant."[57]
All other reported specimens were surface finds. Such objects are the
more dubious of significance because, since at least as early as 1914,
three-legged metates of basalt and lava have been made in Chihuahua
City and Juarez and sold to tourists as "curios from ruins."[58] Two
occurrences were noted in northern Mexico, one among the modern
Yaquis of Sonora,[59] and the other at Casas Grandes.[60] They are also

found in Sinaloa, where a four-legged type is more common than threelegged—but
all legged forms are less common than legless types.[61]

In Utah a peculiar specialization of the metate occurred; at the
end nearer the user a flat platform was left, or formed into a shallow
depression. Steward has discussed this Utah type,[62] showing that the
type is restricted in area, and developed late in Basket Maker times and
lasted until the end of Pueblo II, when Pueblo culture disappeared from
the northern part of this area. Roberts found a possible "prototype"
of this specialization at Kiatuthlanna, Arizona,[63] in a metate with a
shallow depression on the upper surface of "a small projection at one
end which served as a rest for the hand stone."

The basin type of metate presents a difficult problem. According
to Bartlett,[64] it is the first form of metate used in the Southwest. She
makes the important observation that its form is due to a rotary grinding
motion, probably with a round or oval mano held in one hand. But,
although this type does appear the earliest, it also continues in later
sites; for example, at Swarts Ruin, New Mexico,[65] at Snaketown in the
Sedentary Period,[66] and in Chihuahua as late as the mission period.[67]
The basin type is the one found beyond the Pueblo area to the east.
It was noted at the following locations: Eastern Colorado,[68] Western
Nebraska,[69] Northeastern New Mexico and Western Oklahoma,[70] the
Abilene section of Texas,[71] the Madera Valley, Texas,[72] the Panhandle
region of Texas,[73] Val Verde County, Texas,[74] the Shumla Caves,
Texas,[75] the Ozark Bluff Dwellers,[76] and Leary Indian Village, Nebraska.[77]
Three instances were noted west of the Pueblo area: in the
Twenty Nine Palms region of California,[78] in the Pinto Basin, California,[79]
and on the Santa Barbara Coast, California.[80] Thus, 13 out

of the 26 examples noted were outside the strict limits of the Southwest.
Bartlett suggests that the type is older than the Basket Maker period.[81]
Perhaps while specialization resulting in other types was taking place
within the limits of the Southwest, the older type was persisting on the
eastern and western peripheries; and the late use of the basin type in
the Southwest proper can be accounted for as a combination of survival
and occasional intermittent contacts with the periphery. It would be
interesting to know whether, at sites where other types were in use
simultaneously with the basin type, there was a difference of function,
the basin type being limited, perhaps, to certain food products, or to
special methods of preparation.[82] A detailed and comparative study
of the modern use of the metate would be helpful in answering this
question.

The trough type of metate has two forms; one in which the trough
is open at both ends, the other in which it is open only at one end. It
is difficult to decide to which type some specimens belong, because the
trough may slope from a depth of several inches at the far end (with
reference to the user) to no depth at the near end. In this way the two
types are sometimes not clearly distinguished, but grade into each
other. Bartlett points out the position of the trough type[83] in the evolution
of the metate,[84] between the basin and plain surface types. But
the question of whether any significance attaches to the distinction
between one or two ends open is not discussed.

The most conspicuous fact appearing from a study of the map is
thatg the type open at both ends has a more limited distribution than
does the other trough type; also that its distribution coincides almost
exactly with the distribution of the plain surface type. Its presence in
the Utah Basin in northern Utah[85] is the only known exception.
Although the type is found in both periods "B" and "C," more instances
are in the later period than in the earlier—9 as compared to 6. Though
little significance can be given to this slight chronological difference,
it is suggestive to find the type so limited in distribution. In contrast,
the metate with the trough open at one end only[86] occurs as far south
as Chihuahua in Mexico[87] and northwest to the Moapa Valley, Nevada.[88]

The explanation that suggests itself is that the trough open at both
ends is a specialization in a restricted area, while the form with
trough open at one end may be the more generalized form. If this
should prove to be so, the relation of the two specialized types to each
other should be studied. Is their distribution really identical? And
have they identical functions in the economy of the people?

Turning now to Bc 51, it will be remembered that metates of this
type with the trough open at both ends were found here. This type
was not reported for Bc 50 or Łeyit Kin, or elsewhere in Chaco Canyon.
The nearest published occurrence is at Kiatuthlanna.[89] However, Bc 51
is near the center of the area in which this type is common. The plain
surface type was found by Judd in his Chaco Canyon pit house No. 2,
while pithouse No. 1 apparently yielded only metates with trough open
at one end.[90]

Summing up our discussion of metates, it can be stated that the
basin type is very widespread, and though probably in use earlier than
Basket Maker-Pueblo development, continued throughout, as a comparatively
infrequent type. The plain surface and trough with two
ends open both more commonly occur late, although the latter may be
early in the Hohokam. The type with trough open at one end has a
much wider distribution. There are no certain instances of the three-legged
type in the American Southwest in the pre-European periods,
although to the south in Mexico it is common. In Utah a local type
was developed which, however, did not spread beyond this peripheral
region, and was abandoned after Pueblo II. That these distributions
are, in part, to be interpreted as dependent upon availability of certain
materials (and other non-historical factors) cannot be questioned, but
the information in the literature is insufficiently detailed and concrete
to make extended interpretations from this point of view possible.
However, as Mr. Reiter kindly suggests,[91] it may be noted, for example,
that there seems to be a preponderance of plain surface metates where
igneous stone was common, a preponderance of scooped and grooved
where large pieces of igneous rock were not easily available.

Axes.—(See Map 3.) Axes were divided into three types for study:
full grooved, three-quarters grooved, and notched. Another possible
type is the unnotched axe, or celt, but the only occurrences noted in the
literature were: the Abilene section of Texas;[92] Childs Point, Nebraska,[93]
and Leary Indian Village, Nebraska.[94] An artifact, similar to
the celt, which does appear in the Southwest, is commonly called a

Map 3. Distribution of Axes in the Southwest

tcamahia or "skinning knife." It is characterized by its tapering shape,
with the blade either beveled or straight, and it is usually thin and well
polished. Its use is uncertain. Holmes[95] suggests its use in leather
working, and Morris[96] states that they are used on Zuñi and Hopi
altars, but were probably originally agricultural implements. The
tcamahia is found most commonly in the San Juan Basin, but at
Swarts Ruin[97] there were chipped hoes, without notches, which appear
identical in shape with the tcamahias found farther north. Notched
hoes with the sides parallel, rather than tapering, are occasionally
found elsewhere in the Southwest. It may be that the tcamahia is
unrelated to the axe. At Aztec Ruin[98] some of the tcamahias were
notched for hafting. Nevertheless the unnotched type does seem to
be characteristic of the San Juan area, and notched hoes are not
recorded for this area, with the possible exceptions at Aztec Ruins
and Bc 51.

The three-quarters grooved type of axe is familiar in its general

features: a groove around three of the four sides of an axe either
round to oval or rectangular in cross-section, with the fourth side either
flattened or rounded. Only one occurrence in period "A" was found,
that is, before Basket Maker III. This was at Snaketown, in the
Snaketown Phase.[99] According to Gladwin's equation of the Hohokam
and Basket Maker-Pueblo chronologies, this would place it about the
fourth or fifth century, A. D.[100] If this dating is accepted, we can grant
to Snaketown the earliest three-quarters grooved axes in the Southwest,
so far recorded. But if we place the earlier Hohokam phases a few
centuries later, as some archaeologists feel is necessary, this occurrence
falls within our "B" period. With this possible exception, the three-quarters
grooved axe does not appear until Pueblo I.[101] The distinction
between Basket Maker III and Pueblo I does not appear on the map,
as both are included in period "B." In all the reports examined for the
present study there was no indication that Roberts' identification of
the grooved axe with Pueblo I is not entirely valid.

With regard to geographic distribution of the three-quarters
grooved axes (see Map III), the northern and eastern boundary of the
area in which the type is common could be formed by a line drawn from
the Hopi towns to Gallup, New Mexico, and south to the Mimbres River.
Within the area south and west of this boundary occur all but two
instances of this type of axe.[102] These exceptions are: (1) The Ackmen-Lowry
area of southwestern Colorado,[103] where there is a single specimen
reported, in Pueblo I or II. While its local manufacture is possible, it
may also be intrusive from the south, and the three-quarters grooved
type is at least extremely uncommon here. (2) At the Pueblo of
Unshagi, New Mexico,[104] which yielded three specimens in Pueblo IV.
The occurrence far to the west in the Mohave Sink Region of California[105]
is quite possibly accounted for by visits to the turquoise mines
by Indians from Arizona.

Within the full grooved class have been included axes with a single
completely encircling groove, and those with more elaborate arrangements,
such as the spiral and oblique grooves which Kidder has described
from Pecos.[106] There is no other site for which the description
of axes has been as careful and complete as at Pecos, but similar axes
have been mentioned elsewhere, without complete details. The five
occurrences noted in the present survey are all in northern New Mexico,

extending from the Pecos River to the tributaries of the Little Colorado:
at Unshagi, New Mexico,[107] in the Chama Valley,[108] on the Jemez
Plateau,[109] at Bc 50,[110] and at Zuñi.[111] The geographical distribution
of full grooved axes in general seems to be partly overlapping that of
three-quarters grooved axes, but to extend farther north and east. The
greatest number of occurrences are within the area indicated on the
map, but there are a few exceptions. First, the turquoise mines of the
Mohave Sink Region of California;[112] the remarks made in connection
with three-quarters grooved axes apply here also. Second, Casa
Grande, Arizona;[113] possibly the type here is the result of Salado influence
from the north. Third, Swarts Ruin, New Mexico,[114] and the
Harris Site nearby.[115] Fourth, Chihuahua, Mexico,[116] where Sayles reports
this type of axe from the Ramos Phase, during which the Salado
people were absorbed as they arrived from the north. Fifth, Honanki,
on Oak Creek, Arizona.[117] The Swarts Ruin, the Harris Site, and
Honanki are thus the only unexplained occurrences of the full grooved
axe outside the northern part of the Southwest.

The notched axes (including both two and three notches) seem to
have a definite center in the San Juan basin, extending to the northern
Rio Grande area. An apparently distinctive three-notched type has
been reported from the Gallina district.[118] Outside of this region, they
are found at the turquoise mines of southern California;[119] in the salt
mines near "Lost City," Nevada;[120] at the Harris site in New Mexico;[121]
and in Cottonwood Canyon, Utah.[122] Except for these four occurrences,
notched axes have the limited distribution indicated by the smaller
enclosed area on Map II.

Another feature of axes which might serve as a criterion of differentiation
is whether a specimen is long- or short-bitted. Nesbitt refers
to the distinction,[123] correlating the short bit with the three-quarters
grooved type and the Hohokam area, and the long bit with the full
grooved type and the Basket Maker-Pueblo area. The method of hafting,

Map 4. Distribution of Mauls and Hammers in the Southwest

however, has been shown to vary geographically, with the full
grooved axe mainly north of the three-quarters grooved. Two subtypes,
the notched axe and the elaborated full grooved axe, both tend to have
restricted but not identical northerly distributions.

Mauls and Hammers.—(See Map 4.) There are two main classes
of implement in this category: those held in the hand, and those hafted
in some fashion, with a groove for that purpose. The first class, basically,
is the hammerstone; but under this term are included a large
variety of implements, ranging from any small boulder which shows
wear on some portion of its surface, to the carefully shaped stones
which fit the hand perfectly and were apparently used for pecking
stone tools. The various functions are listed by Morris,[124] and include
roughening the grinding surfaces of metates, blocking out manos, axes,
and other tools, excavating the interior of bowls and mortars, grooving
axes and hammers, and dressing building stones. Bartlett[125] also suggests
that they were used for cracking nuts and bones. The rough, unworked,
and the carefully finished types of hammerstone grade imperceptibly
into each other, and at a single site it is not uncommon to find

all degrees of finish exhibited. This is only to be expected, for, as cannot
too often be stressed, tools are made to satisfy some need of the
moment, and while falling into certain rough categories on the basis of
function, and influenced in form to a large degree by the cultural
heritage of the maker, nevertheless, it seems impossible to lay down
boundaries over which types do not pass. After all, the tool is made to
serve its purpose and not to fit an abstraction in the mind of the archaeologist.
The hammerstone does not show any particular area or period
of importance in its distribution. It occurs in the entire area studied
in this paper. Its rarity in sites earlier than Basket Maker III may be
a result of the rarity of competently studied and published sites of
earlier date. Consequently the hammerstone has been omitted from
the map of hammers and mauls.

One specialization of the hammerstone deserves mention, the pitted
hammerstone. Its distinguishing feature is the presence of shallow
pits pecked opposite each other on the two largest surfaces, probably
to serve as grips for the finger and thumb. Although relatively few
references were noted in the literature, they were scattered over most
of the Southwest, east of a line from southeast Colorado through the
Hopi villages, and through the Sierra Ancha to Casa Grande. The
pitted hammerstone was not noted west of this line, but the absence
may be due to oversights in the survey of the literature. Whether the
pits are really intentional or are due to hard use may, in any case, be
regarded as not yet fully established.

Turning to the grooved type of maul and hammer, it seems impossible
to distinguish in the literature between mauls and hammers. A
related type, club-heads, is also distinguished by two authors.[126] Some
archaeologists call implements which are grooved for hafting and show
use for pounding, hammers, and others call them mauls. Whether the
two terms are interchangeable depends, of course, on definition, which
must be arbitrary if stated in terms of external form, and in the case
of archaeology must be largely conjectural if stated in terms of use.
In the description of the percussion tools from Bc 51, the distinction
was made on the basis of size, following the designations used in the
field. The importance of the distinction lies in the common re-use of
axes for pounding. These dulled, battered axes are smaller than the
large and heavy "mauls." But it is not known whether all of the
"hammers" were made from worn out axes, or whether there is only
a chance resemblance between the smaller pounding tools and occasional
discarded axes.

This distinction could not be made in the present survey, because
there are few published details as to size. The only distinction which
was found to be applicable was the one used for axes—the nature of

the groove. The distribution of the two types was similar to that of
the axes. The only occurrence of the three-quarters grooved type
outside the boundary sketched on the map is in the Mohave Sink
Region of California,[127] where, as in the case of the axes, it may be due
to visits by Indians from the East. On the other hand, the full grooved
type of maul or hammer occurred at all the locations at which the
full grooved axe was present. Besides these instances beyond the area
of greatest prevalence, which are shared with the axe, the maul or
hammer alone is found at Lake Corrine, in northern Utah,[128] in the
Abilene section of Texas,[129] at Paragonah, Utah,[130] at Kings Ruin,
Arizona,[131] Fitzmaurice Ruin nearby,[132] and in the San Francisco Mountains.[133]
Because of the rather numerous exceptions, mostly to the west,
to the distribution sketched on the map, it might be justifiable to regard
the area where the full grooved maul or hammer is typical as being
greater than that for the corresponding type of axe. If this is so, it
would be interesting to know whether the mauls or hammers beyond
the limits of the axes are of the type made specifically for pounding,
or are also made from discarded axes. If the former should prove to
be the case, it would suggest that the distinction between "mauls" and
"hammers" really possesses validity.

Mortars and Pestles.—(See Map 5.) In the present study sufficient
examples have been noted to suggest that the mortar and pestle[134] must
be considered among the ordinary artifacts of at least part of the
Southwest. There is no evidence that metate and mano were ever
replaced by the mortar and pestle, but they were apparently augmented
in some areas. The map indicates that the majority of the occurrences
of mortar and pestle together are in the south. The presence of the
pestle around Great Salt Lake suggests the possibility of a second center
of importance. But the mortar and pestle also occur scatteringly
north from the Gila-Salt Basin as far as southern Colorado,[135]
west to the Mohave Sink Region of California,[136] and east to

Map 5. Distribution of Mortars and Pestles in the Southwest

Val Verde County, Texas.[137] In Texas the eastern boundary is approximately
the boundary of the mesquite thicket country. But the force
of this evidence for the widespread use of the mortar and pestle in
the Southwest, and for a concentration in the Gila-Salt Basin is lessened
by the difficulty of interpreting reports found in the literature. As
far as possible, mortars have been distinguished from bowls (containers,
not for pounding), and the latter excluded. But errors may
have occurred, for clear-cut descriptions are not always given, there are
no universally accepted definitions of mortars and bowls. The mortars
listed on the map as large would seem to have been for pounding only,
and were frequently very crude and rough in appearance. Those listed
as small may have been intended for receptacles. Bed rock and portable
mortars ought also to be distinguished.

Likewise, pestles cannot always be distinguished from hammerstones.
In all the instances included on the map, it appeared that the
pestle was distinct from the ordinary hammerstone; in some cases
elongated pestles with distinct heads larger than the handles were
reported. In other cases the pestle was merely a long stone showing
wear by pounding on one or two ends. At the sites where mortars

were reported but no pestles, it is possible that simple hammerstones
were used, or perhaps wooden pestles. But it seems, on the basis of
the available inadequate information, that we are justified in regarding
them as sporadic in most of the Southwest, and fairly common
in the southern portion.

General Conclusions.—At present only the following highly tentative
general conclusions (based in considerable degree on negative[138]
evidence) can be ventured:

1. Bc 51 resembles two other small house ruins of the Chaco
Canyon (Bc 50 and Łeyit Kin) in most of its ground and pecked stone.
It differs in that: (1) it contained metates with the trough open at
both ends, (2) it lacked notched axes and hammers, and (3) petrified
wood was not commonly used for hammerstones. It may well be that
the absolute and relative numbers on which these differentiæ are based
are insufficient to make such conclusions valid, but, taking the evidence
as it stands, such differences appear.

2. The basin (bowl) metate may be the earliest form used in
the Southwest, but continued in use until late times.

3. The plain surface metate and the type with the trough open at
both ends are found in approximately the same area, principally in
the north.

4. The type of metate with the trough open at one end (scoop)
has a much wider distribution than does the other trough type.

5. The three-quarters grooved axe is rare before Basket Maker
III and is typical only of the southern portion of the Southwest.

6. Notched axes are restricted to the San Juan Basin and the
adjoining portion of the Rio Grande Valley.[139]

7. Axes with elaborate grooves are mostly found in the northern
Rio Grande area and immediately to the west.[140]

8. Although three-quarters grooved mauls and hammers have
approximately the same distribution as the three-quarters grooved
axes, the full grooved maul or hammer occurs rather frequently
outside the limits of the full grooved axe.

9. The mortar and pestle are present in the Southwest and seem
to be concentrated in the Gila-Salt Basin, in Chihuahua and southern
New Mexico.

Key To Maps

A. Pre-Basket Maker, Basket Maker I, Basket Maker II.

B. Basket Maker III, Pueblo I, Pueblo II.

C. Pueblo III, Pueblo IV, Pueblo V.

X. Date unknown.

• 1. Mohave Sink Region, Calif. Rogers, M. J. 1929.

• 2. Winona Village, Ariz. McGregor 1937.

• 3. San Francisco Mountains, Ariz. Colton 1933.

• 4. San Francisco Mountains, Bartlett 1934.

• 5. Eagle Cave, Val Verde Co., Texas. Davenport (no date).

• 6. Val Verde Co., Texas. Pearce and Jackson 1933.

• 7. Shumla Caves, Texas. Martin 1933.

• 8. Mt. Riley, New Mex. Alves 1933.

• 9. Yaquis of Sonora, Holden 1934.

• 10. Middle Chinlee, Ariz. Morss 1927.

• 11. Blue River, Ariz. Hough 1914.

• 12. Blue River, Ariz. Hough 1907.

• 13. Casa Grande, Ariz. Mindeleff 1897.

• 14. Casa Grande, Ariz. Fewkes 1912.

• 15. Casa Grande, Ariz. Fewkes 1907.

• 16. Grewe Site, Ariz. Woodward 1931.

• 17. Twenty Nine Palms Region, Calif. Campbell 1931.

• 18. Swarts Ruin, New Mex. Cosgrove 1932.

• 19. Galaz Ruin, New Mex. Bryan 1931.

• 20. Harris Site, New Mex. Haury 1936.

• 21. Cameron Creek Village, New Mex. Bradfield 1931.

• 22. Zuñi, New Mex. Stevenson 1883.

• 23. Village of the Great Kivas, New Mex. Roberts 1932.

• 24. Walpi, Ariz. Stevenson 1883.

• 25. Awatovi and Sikyatki, Ariz. Fewkes 1898.

• 26. Hopi Mesas, Ariz. Hough 1903.

• 27. Roosevelt:9:6, Ariz. Haury 1932.

• 28. Tusayan Ruin, Ariz. Haury 1931.

• 29. Showlow and Pinedale, Ariz. Haury and Hargrave 1931.

• 30. Pueblo Viejo, Ariz. Fewkes, 1898.

• 31. Pueblo Viejo, Ariz. Fewkes 1904.

• 32. McDonalds Canyon, Ariz. Hough 1903.

• 33. Kintiel, Ariz. Haury and Hargrave 1931.

• 34. La Roux Wash, Ariz. Hough 1903.

• 35. Taos Valley, New Mexico, Jeancon 1929.

• 36. San Diego Mission, New Mex. Toulouse 1937.

• 37. Northeastern Ariz. Guernsey 1931.

• 38. Fremont River, Utah. Morss 1931.

• 39. Aztec Ruin, New Mex. Morris 1919A.

• 40. Site near Aztec Ruin, New Mex. Morris 1915.

• 41. Johnson Canyon, Colo. Morris 1919B.

• 42. Mancos Canyon, Colo. Holmes 1878.

• 43. Mogollon Village, New Mex. Haury 1936.

• 44. Cannonball Ruin, Colo. Morley 1908.

• 45. Lowry Ruin, Colo. Martin 1936.

• 46. Ackmen-Lowry Area, Martin 1938.

• 47. Petrified Forest, Ariz. Mera 1934.

• 48. Honanki, Oak Creek, Ariz. Fewkes 1898A.

• 49. Navajo National Monument, Ariz. Fewkes 1911B.

• 50. Betatakin, Ariz. Judd 1930.

• 51. Monument Valley, Ariz. Kidder and Guernsey 1919.

• 52. Northeastern Ariz. Kidder and Guernsey 1921.

• 53. Jemez Cave, New Mex. Alexander and Reiter 1935.

• 54. Jemez Plateau, New Mex. Hewett 1906.

• 55. Jemez Cave, New Mex. Alexander and Reiter 1935.

---

78]





• 56. Unshagi, New Mex. Reiter 1938.

• 57. Shabik'eschee Village, New Mex. Roberts 1929.

• 58. Chaco Canyon Pit Houses, New Mex. Judd 1924.

• 59. Chaco Canyon, New Mex. Hewett 1936.

• 60. Bc 50, New Mex. Brand, et. al. 1937.

• 61. Łeyit Kin, New Mex. Dutton 1938.

• 62. Pueblo Bonito, New Mex. Pepper 1920.

• 63. Bc 51, New Mex. present report.

• 64. Chihuahua, Mex. Sayles 1936.

• 65. Kings Ruin, Ariz. Spicer and Caywood 1936.

• 66. Fitzmaurice Ruin, Ariz. Spicer and Caywood 1936.

• 67. Sonora, Mex. Sauer and Brand 1931.

• 68. Southeastern Ariz. Sauer and Brand 1930.

• 69. Sierra Ancha, Ariz. Haury 1934.

• 70. "Lost City," Nevada. Harrington 1927B.

• 71. Moapa Valley, Nevada. Harrington 1930.

• 72. Mesa House, Nevada. Hayden 1930.

• 73. Sierra Madras Mountains, Mex. Blackiston 1909.

• 74. Pinto Basin, Calif. Campbell 1935.

• 75. Pinto Basin, Calif. Campbell 1936.

• 76. Brewster Co., Tex. Coffin 1932.

• 77. Fort Apache, Ariz. Bandelier 1892.

• 78. Tempe, Ariz. Bandelier 1892.

• 79. Casas Grandes, Mex. Bartlett 1854.

• 80. Jornada del Muerto, New Mex. Chapman 1926.

• 81. Snaketown, Ariz. Gladwin, et. al. 1937.

• 82. Upper San Francisco River, New Mex. Hough 1923.

• 83. Luna, New Mex. Hough 1920.

• 84. Kiatuthlanna, Ariz. Roberts 1931.

• 85. Lake Mohave, Calif. Campbell 1936.

• 86. Chama Valley, New Mex. Jeancon 1923.

• 87. Chama Valley and Gallina River, New Mex. Douglass 1917.

• 88. Riana Ruin, New Mex. Hibben 1937.

• 89. Largo Area, New Mex. Mera 1938.

• 90. Fumarole Area, New Mex. Renaud 1929.

• 91. Fumarole Area, New Mex. Renaud 1930.

• 92. Oak Creek, New Mex. Renaud 1929.

• 93. Oak Creek, New Mex. Renaud 1930.

• 94. Chevlon, Ariz. Fewkes 1898C.

• 95. Texas Canyon, Ariz. Fulton 1934.

• 96. Willard, Utah. Judd 1926.

• 97. Willard, Utah. Steward 1936.

• 98. Great Salt Lake, Utah. Steward 1936.

• 99. Paragonah, Utah. Judd 1926.

• 100. Paragonah, Utah. Judd 1919.

• 101. Kane Co., Utah. Nusbaum, et. al. 1922.

• 102. Moab, Utah. Judd 1919.

• 103. Western Nebraska. Renaud 1934.

• 104. Eastern Colo. Renaud 1931.

• 105. Piedra District, Colo. Roberts 1930.

• 106. Mesa Verde, Colo. Fewkes 1916.

• 107. Mesa Verde, Colo. Fewkes 1907.

• 108. Mesa Verde, Colo. Fewkes 1911A.

• 109. Mesa Verde, Colo. Fewkes 1917.

• 110. Abilene section, Texas. Ray 1929.

---

[79





• 111. Abilene section, Texas. Ray 1931.

• 112. Caves of Great Salt Lake, Utah. Steward 1937.

• 113. Little Colorado ruins, Ariz. Fewkes 1904.

• 114. Nine-Mile Canyon, Utah. Gillin 1938.

• 115. Desolation Canyon, Utah. Gaumer 1937.

• 116. Lower Mimbes Valley, New Mex. Fewkes 1914.

• 117. Pecos, New Mex. Kidder 1932.

• 118. Madera Valley, Texas. Kelley 1933.

• 119. Panhandle, Texas. Studer 1934.

• 120. Provo, Utah. Steward 1936.

• 121. Grantsville, Utah. Steward 1936.

• 122. Lake Corrine, Utah. Steward 1936.

• 123. Uintah Basin, Utah. Steward 1936.

• 124. Montezuma Valley, Colo. Prudden 1914.

Section D

ARROW-SHAFT TOOLS (WITH NOTES ON THEIR
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION)[141]

By Joseph H. Toulouse, Jr.

Introduction

Definitions.—Of the three forms of arrow-shaft tools only the
lithic forms will be treated herewith, leaving the bone, antler, and
wood straighteners, or "wrenches," for a later survey. The first tool,
the arrow-shaft-smoother (see Fig. 8) is defined as a piece of coarse-grained
abrasive stone (usually sandstone) which has had a groove

worked into one flat surface, this last often artificially fashioned. This
tool is primarily abrasive in function and is used in shaping the shaft,
removing irregularities which might lessen degree of balance, etc. The
second principal tool, the arrow-shaft-straightener (see Fig. 8), is
similarly formed, but of a fine-grained rock, in which the groove often
assumes a high polish. There is no ethnographic evidence of its use
as an abrasive tool.

The following classification is but an outline, and until more data
are available regarding these tools (especially as to their treatment
and elaboration), the classification will have to remain inadequate.
It may, for example, perhaps be questioned whether one can always
distinguish between arrow-shaft-smoothers and other abrading stones
used in grinding bone implements and beads. On the whole, it would
seem that the former distinction could usually be made, for the
grooves of awl-sharpening tools are often v-shaped in cross-section.
There is also room for doubt as to the validity of the respective divisions
as listed in the order given, but present data do not justify a more
finely differentiated classification:

• I. Arrow-shaft-smoother (abrasive)

  • a. Worked into rectangular form with usually one groove—
    often used in pairs.

  • b. Rough or rounded natural pebble with one, two, or more
    grooves.

• II. Arrow-shaft-straightener (non-abrasive)

  • a. Artificially shaped; oval, rectangular, square, round, etc.;
    having a ridge either parallel or perpendicular to grooves,
    sometimes both; decorated or not.

  • b. Same as above, but no ridges; decorated or not.

  • c. Water worn or other naturally shaped stone with one,
    two, or more grooves.

Chaco Forms

From Bc 51 (floor of kiva 2) came a single rectangular arrow-shaft-straightener
of Type IIa. Three other stone objects had
grooves which might have been used in smoothing arrow shafts, or
in grinding bone points or beads. One had a single groove; one had
two grooves; and one had 15 parallel grooves on a flat surface 10″ long.

Extraordinarily few arrow-shaft tools have been reported from
sites of Chaco type or affinities. Forms Ia and Ib occur, a single
specimen of the former,[142] six specimens of the latter[143] which may
tentatively be taken as typical.

Notes on the General Distribution of Arrow-Shaft-Tools

Arrow-Shaft-Smoothers.—In the western portion of the United
States the smoothers have a rather wide known distribution (see
Map 6), extending from the Frazer River of British Columbia on the
north to the Conchos River of Chihuahua on the south.

Map 6. Distribution of Arrow-Shaft Tools

NOTES TO ACCOMPANY MAP 6

• 1. Kelly, I.: 1932, p. 139 (Ib).

• 2. Gifford, E. W.: 1932b, pl. 15d (IIb) (2 parallel grooves).

• Kroeber, A. L.: 1925, pl. 49 (Same as above).

• 3. Fewkes, J. W.: 1904, p. 103 (Ia).

• Beaglehole, E.: 1935, p. 19 (Ia).

• 4. Gifford, E. W.: 1933, p. 274 (IIb).

• Forde, C. D.: 1931 (IIa).

• 5. Beals, R. L.: 1933, p. 340 (Ia).

• Dixon, R. B.: 1905, p. 134 (Ia).

• 6. Barrett, S. A.: 1910, p. 253 (IIb).

• 7. Gifford, E. W.: 1931, p. 29 (IIb).

• 8. Gifford, E. W.: 1932b, p. 224 (IIb).

• 9. Mason, J. A.: 1912, p. 140 (IIb, decorated with striations).

• 10. Kroeber, A. L.: 1908, p. 53 (IIa, ridge at right angles to grooves).

• Kroeber, A. L.: 1925, pl. 49 (Same as above).

• 11. Sparkman, P. S.: 1908, p. 206 (IIb).

• 12. Drucker, P.: 1937, p. 237 (Ia, used in pairs).

• 13. DuBois, C.: 1935, p. 125 (Ia, used in pairs).

• 14. Lowie, R. H.: 1922, p. 230 (Ia, used in pairs).

• 15. Mekeel, Scudder: 1935, p. 93 (IIb ?).

• 16. Teit, James A.: 1930, p. 217-18 (Ia).

• 17. Ray, V. F.: 1933, p. 89 (II ?).

• 18. Spier, L.: 1928, p. 150 (II).

• 19. Spinden, H. J.: 1908, p. 187, pl. VII (Ia and IIb, this latter one having incised
  lines on either side).

• 20. Teit, J. A.: 1930, p. 40 (Ia).

• 21. Kroeber, A. L.: 1925, pl. 49 (IIa).

• 22. Dorsey, J. O.: 1896 (Ia, used in pairs).

• 23. Russell, F.: 1908, p. 111, fig. 31 (Prehistoric, IIb ?).

• 24. Steward, J. H.: 1933b, pl. 4f & g (IIb).

• 25. Kroeber, A. L.: 1925, pl. 49 (IIa, incised line decoration).

• 26. Campbell, E. W. C.: 1931, Pl. 46 (IIa, 8; IIb, 6).

• 27. Fewkes, J. W.: 1898a, p. 731, pl. 169 (IIa).

• Fewkes, J. W.: 1904, p. 103 (Ib).

• Bartlett: Personal communication (Ia, IIb).

• 28. Fewkes, J. W.: 1912, p. 126, pl. 61 (IIb).

• 29. Fewkes, J. W.: 1914, p. 18, fig. 5 (IIa).

• Bartlett, Katherine: Personal communication (IIb).

• 30. Hill, W. W.: Unpublished notes on the Navaho. (Ia, used in pairs).

• 31. Fulton, W. S.: 1934, p. 20, pl. 14a (IIc).

• 32. Gifford and Schenck: 1926, p. 67, pl. 17. (IIb).

• 33. Mera, H. P.: 1938b, pl. 9 (Specialized IIa).

• Hibben, F. C.: 1938, pl. 9, p. 136 (Same as above).

• 34. Hodge, F. W.: 1923 (IIb).

• 35. Hough, W.: 1903, p. 322, pl. 55 (IIa).

• Bartlett, Katherine: Personal communication (IIc).

• 36. Hough, W.: 1907, p. 34, fig. 4 (IIa).

• Fewkes, J. W.: 1904, p. 182 (2, IIa).

• 37. Hough, W.: 1914, p. 17 (IIb, 3).

• 38. Haury, E.: 1934, p. 120, pl. 72 (IIb, 5).

• 39. Alexander and Reiter: 1935, p. 29, pl. IVb (Ia).

• University of New Mexico Excavations at Giusewa 1935 (Ia, 2; IIb, 1).

• Museum of New Mexico Excavations at Giusewa 1937 (IIb, 6).

• Laboratory of Anthropology Collections (IIb, 2).

---

84]





• 40. Bell and Gilmore: 1936, p. 324 (Ia).

• 41. Bell and Cape: 1936, p. 381 (Ia, 3).

• 42. Bartlett: 1930, p. 3 (Ib).

  Bartlett: 1934, p. 33 (Ib, 2; IIb, 1).

  Bartlett: Personal communication (Ia, IIb, 8; IIc, 4; Ib).

  McGregor, J. C.: 1936 (Ib, 2).

• 43. Cooper, P.: 1936, p. 49 (Ia, 2; Ib, 1).

• 44. Dunlevy, M. L.: 1936, p. 196 (Ia, 12).

• 45. Dutton, B.: 1938, pl. VIII-A (Ib, 1).

  Pepper, G. H.: 1920, p. 82, fig. 17b (Ib).

  Bartlett: Personal communication (Ia, Chetro Ketl).

• 46. Guernsey, S. J.: 1931, pl. 28 (Ia).

• 47. Harrington, M. R.: 1920, p. 100 (I ?).

• 48. Jeancon, J. A.: 1923, p. 23, pl. 21 (Ib, 3; IIb, 3).

  Hibben, F. C.: 1937, p. 42 (Ia, 2).

• 49. Judd, N. M.: 1926, p. 146, pl. 50 (Ib, 5).

  Steward, J. H.: 1933a, p. 18, fig. 6 (Ia).

  Steward, J. H.: 1936, p. 37, fig. 15 (Ia. 3).

• 50. Morris, E. H.: 1919b, p. 24 (Ia ?).

• 51. Morss, N.: 1931, p. 55, pl. 31 (Ia, 2).

• 52. Renaud, E. B.: 1934, p. 46 (Ia, 25).

  Strong, W. D.: 1935b, pl. 25 II (Ia, 1).

• 53. Roberts, F. H. H.: 1932, pp. 139-42, pl. 53 (Ib. 4).

  Gila Pueblo Collection, Globe, Arizona (Ib, 1).

• 54. Smith, H. I.: 1899, p. 146, fig. 57 (Ia, 2).

• 55. Smith, H. I.: 1900, p. 419 (Ia).

• 56. Smith, H. I.: 1910b, p. 69 (Ia).

• 57. Steward, J. H.: 1937, p. 17 (Ib, 4).

  Steward, J. H.: 1933a, p. 18, fig. 6 (Ib).

• 58. Steward, J. H.: 1933a, p. 18, fig. 6 (Ia).

  Steward, J. H.: 1936, p. 37, fig. 15 (Ia, 6).

• 59. Steward, J. H.: 1936, p. 37, fig. 15 (Ia, 2).

• 60. Wedel, W. R.: 1936, p. 80, pl. 7b (Ia, 10 occur in pairs).

  Strong, W. D.: 1935b, pl. I (Ia, 1).

• 61. Strong, W. D.: 1935b, pl. 17 (Ia, 1).

• 62. Strong, W. D.: 1935b, Pl. 17 (Ia, 4).

• 63. Strong, Schenck and Steward: 1930, p. 91, pl. 20b (Ia, 2; IIa, 3).

• 64. Sayles, E. B.: 1936, p. 44, pl. 12 (IIb, 1; Ia, 3).

• 65. Wilson, T.: 1899, pp. 884-87 (Ia, 2).

• 66. Caywood and Spicer: 1935, p. 83 (Ib, 4: IIc, 26).

• 67. Wilson, T.: 1899, pp. 884-87 (IIb, 1).

• 68. Hewett, E. L.: 1938, fig. 30 (IIa, 4; IIb, 5).

  Laboratory of Anthropology Collections (IIa, 1; IIb, 2).

• 69. Kidder, A. V.: 1932, pp. 76-82 (Ia, 55; IIa & IIb, 85).

• 70-76. Sayles, E. B.: 1935, p. 76, Charts, pl. XXI.

• 77. Big Bend Museum, Alpine, Texas (IIc, 4; Ib, 2; Ia, 2).

• 78-79. Sayles, E. B.: 1935, p. 76, Charts, pl. XXI.

• 80. Big Bend Museum Collection (IIb, 2; specialized).

• 81. Big Bend Museum Collection (IIb, 1; specialized).

• 82. Centennial Museum Collection, El Paso, Texas (IIa, 1; IIb, 1; IIc, 3)

  Laboratory of Anthropology Collection (IIb, 1).

• 83. Collection of writer (Ia, 1; IIa, 2).

  Bartlett: Personal communication (IIc, 1).

• 84. Laboratory of Anthropology Collection (Ia, 2).

• 85. Laboratory of Anthropology Collection (IIc, 1).

• 86. Laboratory of Anthropology Collection (IIa, 1; IIc, 1).

• 87. Laboratory of Anthropology Collection (IIc, 1).

---

[85





• 88. Laboratory of Anthropology Collection (IIc, 1).

• 89. Gila Pueblo Collection (Ia, 2; IIb, 1; IIc, 11).

• 90. Gila Pueblo Collection (Ia, 3; Ib, 4; IIa, 3; IIb, 15; IIc, 3).

• 91. Colorado Museum of Natural History Museum Collection (Ia, 1).

• 92. State Historical Society of Iowa (Ia).

• 93. Harrington, M. R.: Personal communication, Feb. 14, 1939 (Ib, 1; Ia, 2, a pair).

• 94. Harrington, M. R.: Personal communication, Feb. 14, 1939 (Ib, 1; Ia, 2).

• 95. Heizer, Robert F.: Personal communication (Ia).

This type of tool has at least two forms: a naturally shaped
stone, and an elaborate, finely shaped form. In Nebraska the occurrence
is restricted to the latter form. Often these tools are encountered
in finely matched pairs.[144] In this area tools are associated with
the following cultural levels: Signal Butte I, Nebraska Culture, the
Upper Republican Culture,[145] and the Historic Pawnee Culture.[146] There
appears to be a progression and differentiation of this form from
Signal Butte I to the Historic Pawnee.

This form may have been carried into New Mexico during Pueblo
III times. At any rate it is not reported from there from sites assigned
to earlier periods. It appears also in Utah (age indeterminate) and
there was used until Pueblo IV times. In early Pueblo III the known
smoothers were made crudely from a naturally shaped stone[147] (Type
Ib), but as the period closed, pairs of the more elaborate form appear.[148]
In Arizona there appears in Pueblo II the cruder form of this tool
(Type Ib); the paired tool seems never to have found its way into the
area.[149]

In Texas the smoother appears in the Amarillo, El Paso, and
Jumano Phases.[150] Elsewhere in Texas the information is scanty and
the terminology equivocal.

The earliest known find of this tool in Chihuahua is attributable
to the Ramos Phase,[151] an early Pueblo IV division.[152] It may be suggested
that smoothers were introduced from farther north.

Arrow-Shaft Straighteners.—The forms found within this group
vary from the natural pebble to the artificially shaped forms, which
may be specialized and elaborate. They have a more limited distribution

than has the smoother. The straighteners seem to be limited to
New Mexico, West Texas, Chihuahua,[153] Arizona, Utah, and the Pacific
coast from California as far north as northern Washington. Concentration
of these objects, as so far reported, appears within New
Mexico and Arizona. East of the Mississippi I have been able to find
only one rather doubtful specimen reported.[154]

Specialized forms are noted in Pueblo IV in New Mexico and
Arizona, but seem to reach their highest elaboration in the Largo
Phase.[155] Here occurs a highly crested form, one of which has been
recently noted by the writer in a collection from the Estancia Basin.
Another form was noted in collections from excavations of the Big
Bend Museum, Alpine, Texas, located in the La Junta area near
Presidio, Texas. This form is circular with a tapering-rounded projection
from one side, perpendicular to the groove.[156] Mr. Paul Reiter
informs me that 22 arrow-shaft-straighteners were obtained in the
Museum of New Mexico 1929 Alamogordo excavations and 42 in the
1930 excavations. Some were found in the Bravo Valley Aspect.

Types IIa and IIb are also encountered in California and apparently
in rather late historical times.[157] The typical form is an elongated
oval with but a short groove across the shortest diameter; the ridge is
at right angles to the groove and extends the full length of the specimen
on either side of the groove. For the most part the Campbells
attribute their finds to the Serrano with perhaps some Cahuilla
influence.[158]

Decoration.—Decoration is found only on the straightener and
is of the simple incised line form. The parallel line motif[159] and crosshatching[160]
are common, and one recorded specimen is decorated with
an incised bow and arrow.[161]

Materials.—(See Table 5).

Recent Use of Arrow-Shaft Tools.—The arrow-shaft-smoother
has been reported in use among at least the following tribes or groups:

TABLE 5
DISTRIBUTION OF THE MATERIALS OF ARROW-SHAFT-STRAIGHTENERS[162]

                                       

Material	Utah	Texas	Oregon	New Mexico	Idaho	Chihuahua	California	Arizona
basalt	2	1	3	3		2	2	38
basalt vesicular		5		2				3
calcite				2
chlorite schist		2		52[163]
conglomerate, fine		1
granite rock				1			5	3
limestone				17				4
micaceous gneiss	1
micaceous schist				16[164]
quartzite	1	1		2		1	1	20
rhyolite		1						1
sandstone, fine		1		2				8
shale				1
slate								1
soapstone							1	5
steatite					1		15
talc, gray				25[165]
talc schist								5
volcanic tuff								1

Omaha;[166] Navaho;[167] Coeur d'Alene, Thompson, and Okanagon;[168]
Crow;[169] Wintu;[170] Tolowa;[171] Northern Maidu;[172] and Nisenan.[173] These
various groups used the tools in pairs. The Hopi[174] and the Surprise
Valley Paiute[175] used but the single stone.

There are reported two methods of use of the arrow-shaft-straightener.
One varies from the other in just one minor detail. The principal
use is that in which the stone is heated and the shaft drawn back
and forth within the groove.[176] In the second method hot ashes are
placed within the groove.[177]

Figure 9—Possible Interrelationship of Arrow-Shaft Tool Types

NOTES TO ACCOMPANY FIGURE 9

• 1. Signal Butte I (Type Ia), Strong: 1935b, Pl. 25, 2j.

• 2. Upper Republican (Type Ia), Strong: 1935b, Pl. 17, 1d.

• 3. Nebraska Culture (Type Ia), Strong: 1935b, Pl. 17, 1c-g-h.

• 4. Historic Pawnee (Type Ia), Wedel: 1936, Pl. 7, 2 (Used in pairs).

• 5. Early Pueblo III (Type Ib), Roberts: 1932, Pl. 53c, d, e, and f. (Also Pepper:
  1920, and Dutton: 1938).

• 6. Late Pueblo III and Pueblo IV (Type Ia), Kidder: 1932 and Hibben: 1937.

• 7. Pueblo IV and Pueblo V (Type IIa), Kidder: 1932; also Hewett, 1938.

• 8. Pueblo II (Type Ib), Bartlett: 1930; also personal communication, and
  McGregor: 1936.

• 9. Pueblo II and Pueblo III (Type Ia) (Hohokam site), Bartlett: personal communication.

• 10. Pueblo III and IV (Type Ia), Bartlett; personal communication.

• 11. Pueblo V (Type Ia), Fewkes: 1904, p. 103.

• 12. Early Pueblo III (Type IIc); Caywood and Spicer: 1935, p. 83.

• 13. Pueblo II (Type IIb), Bartlett: personal communication.

• 14. Pueblo IV (Type IIb), Kidder: 1932.

• 15. Pueblo V (Type IIb), University of New Mexico and Museum of New Mexico
  excavations at Giusewa.

• 16. Pueblo III and IV (Type IIa), Bartlett; personal communication.

• 17. Pueblo V (Type IIa), Fewkes, 1898a, p. 169.

• 27. Bartlett: Personal communication, Aug. 6, 1938.

• 29. Same as above.

• 35. Same as above.

• 42. Same as above.

• 45. Same as above.

• 83. Same as above.

• 93. Harrington, M. R.: Personal communication, Feb. 14, 1939.

• 94. Same as above.

• 95. Heizer, R. F.: Personal communication, Jan. 20, 1939.

Note.—No allowance on the chart has been made for comparable time periods
between Nebraska and the Southwest, as at the present time, there is no correlation
suggested between the respective areas.

Chart.—Fig. 9 presents in schematic form an admittedly speculative
reconstruction of possible interrelationships of various forms
of arrow-shaft tools. The evidence at present available hardly permits
of more than guesses in most cases, but it is sometimes useful in the
formulation of problems (and the mapping out of future research) to
systematize one's guesses. The chart is presented from this point of
view only.

Section E

PROJECTILE POINTS AND CHIPPED IMPLEMENTS

By Charles Bohannon

Material.—All of the 24 chipped implements recovered were of the
cryptocrystalline variety of quartz known as chalcedony. It was possible
to determine the following varieties: agate, carnelian, jasper,
moss agate, obsidian, prase (?), sardonyx.

Description.—One piece is definitely
identifiable as a knife of the Basket Maker
type (Fig. 10) as defined by Guernsey and
Kidder[178] and subsequently confirmed by
Guernsey[179] and Roberts.[180] Fairly well made
of moss agate, it is 3.0″ long by 1.35″ wide
and notched at an acute angle to the long
axis of the blade. A second, a crudely
worked flake 2.3″ by 1.35″, may have served
as a knife or scraper.

Of three specimens, tentatively identifiable
as spearpoints, only one is complete.
This, 2.4″ by 1.2″, is rather poorly chipped
of jasper, with short, shallow sidenotches at
right angles to the long axis of the blade. It
has a square base of the same width as the
blade above the notches. This specimen
might be considered as a knife rather than
a spearpoint. One similar to it was reported
by Pepper[181] from Pueblo Bonito and referred
to by him as a knife, and one apparently
similar was so classed by Hibben.[182]
Other writers[183] have regarded this specimen
as a spearpoint. Of the other two incomplete
spearpoints, one, with the entire base missing,
is a lanceolate blade, 1.55″ by 0.9″, of
medium to finely chipped white chalcedony.

Figure 10—Basket Maker
Knife (Actual Size)

The other, well made, bluish and translucent, is 1.6″ by 0.8″ wide with
probably 0.5″ of the point missing. The shoulders are rounded with
notches slanting out to a base only slightly narrower than the blade.
It is similar to "javelin" points illustrated by Jeancon,[184] from the
Chama Valley, and by Roberts,[185] from Shabik'eshchee.

The predominant type of projectile point is triangular in shape,
ranging in length from 0.8″ to 1.3″, and from 0.4″ to 0.55″ in width.
They are well made of thin flakes. These points have narrow, straightsided
notches which run at right angles to the long axis of the blade
and extend inwardly approximately one-half the distance from edge to

Figure 11—Pueblo
Type Projectile
Point

(Actual Size)

center (Fig. 11). This group is represented here
by ten specimens. There is relatively little variation
in this type, although some points have slightly
concave edges or slightly rounded, rather than
square, bases. One example in this collection has a
supernumerary notch. Such notches have been
recorded by Pepper[186] and Kidder.[187]

Points of this classification were recorded from
Bc 50.[188] Numbers of them were found at Pueblo
Bonito by Pepper[189] and as surface material at
Shabik'eshchee.[190] Similar points have been found in
Pueblo sites throughout the Southwest. They occur
"almost exclusively during the later phases of
Pueblo occupation at Aztec,"[191] are classified as
type 3-A by Kidder in Artifacts of Pecos,[192] and are referred to as one
of the commonest types at the Swarts ruin.[193] Since these points seem
to occur, either alone or with other types, at nearly every Pueblo site
yet excavated, they will be considered here as the "typical" Pueblo
arrow point.

The second type, represented by three nearly complete specimens
and two fragmentary ones, is likewise triangular, 1.25″ long or more,
medium well made. Deep notches set at an angle of approximately
forty-five degrees to the long axis of the blade arise from the base,
leaving sharp pointed barbs and a fairly straight, narrow stem
(Fig. 12).

This type is generally considered as belonging to late Basket
Maker III or early Pueblo I. They are reported as a predominant early

type from Kiatuthlanna[194] and Shabik'eshchee.[195]
Similar points were reported from Bc 50.[196] They
also occur in the Chama Valley.[197]

A third form, probably a variant of the last,
is represented by a single incomplete specimen in
this collection. With approximately 0.15″ of the
tip missing, it is 0.9″ long by 0.65″ wide, the greatest
width being from barb tip to barb tip. The
notches are at right angles to the long axis of the
blade, leaving sharp barbs and a flaring, rounded
"turkey-tail" base, only slightly narrower than
the barb width. Similar points have been reported

Figure 12—Basket
Maker Projectile
Point

(Actual Size)

from Aztec,[198] from the Chama Valley,[199] and by Kidder and Guernsey.[200]

The sole erratic piece is reworked from a small, wide-based carnelian
(pink-red) point with square shoulders. In this the anterior end
has been made into a drill, 0.4″ long, 0.04″ wide at the tip and 0.15″
wide at the base (Fig. 13).

Figure 13—Drill

(Actual Size)

Stratigraphically, little can be deduced from
this collection; both "Basket Maker" and "Pueblo"
types are found within and without the rooms.
"Basket Maker" type implements found within the
rooms ranged in depth from 2″ to 67″, while no depth
greater than 8″ is recorded for them in the outside
fill. "Pueblo" type implements found within the
rooms and kivas range in depth from the zero to the
-3′ level, to a maximum depth of 111″. One was
associated with a disturbed burial, 3′ to 4′ deep in
room 10. Three of the Pueblo type projectile points are from unknown
loci.

In conclusion it may be said that the chipped implements from
Bc 51 typologically fall readily into two groups. Stratigraphically, no
distinction can be made on the basis of the present collection. It may
be worthy of note that the "Basket Maker" type represented in the projectile
points is in general that of the late period (Basket Maker III
triangular points, sidenotched at an angle of 45°, with long, sharp
barbs and narrow stem), while the earlier, triangular, notchless atlatl
points reported by Kidder and Guernsey[201] are absent from this collection,

although recorded from Bc 50.[202] The Pueblo type (triangular
points, deep rectangular side notches at right angles, with the base
completing the triangle) possibly may be merely a reduced and stylized
descendant of the tanged atlatl points figured and described by Guernsey
and Kidder.[203]

Section F

ARTIFACTS OF PERISHABLE MATERIALS[204]

By Harry Tschopik, Jr.

The number of perishable objects recovered from the excavations
was relatively large, considering their provenience and the open nature
of the site. In all, 26 specimens were studied and classified according
to the following categories, arranged in the order of their abundance:
matting, fabrics, basketry, wood, and leather. In practically all cases
the specimens were extremely fragmentary and in an advanced state of
decay. A very large proportion was associated with the burials in
rooms 2 and 5 (cf. table 3).

Matting.—Three varieties of matting, comprising 16 specimens,
were represented in the collection: plaited, twined, and threaded. Of
these, all except one were associated with burials.

Of the 12 plaited mats, 10 examples were twilled in the under-three-over-three
technique,[205] and 1 in the under two-over-two. The
woven elements probably were of Yucca glauca Nutt. and ranged from
3 to 5 millimeters in width in given specimens, with an average width
of 4 millimeters.[206] In not a single specimen was a portion of the selvage
preserved. The twelfth specimen was in such a fragmentary condition
that, although the technique was clearly twilled, the details could
not be observed with accuracy.

Two examples of twined mats were encountered. One is made of
reeds[207] placed parallel and twined together at intervals of 8 centimeters
along their lengths.[208] The nature of the twining material is uncertain,
but an adobe cast which accompanied the specimen indicates that it
was a twisted multi-fiber cord, 1 millimeter in diameter.[209] The twining
is of the simple type in which the 2 elements are half-twisted about one
another after twining each reed.

The second twined specimen is made also of reeds (Sporobolus
wrightii Munro), but in a finer and slightly different technique. This
technique of twining differs in that the elements are half-twisted on
one another after twining each pair of reeds, and are spaced at intervals
of 6 centimeters along their lengths. The twining material is a 2-ply
fiber cord with a right spiral, two twists per centimeter, and 1
millimeter in diameter.[210]

A third type of mat, represented by a single specimen, is made in
the threaded technique.[211] The reeds (Sporobolus wrightii Munro) are
placed side by side and are held together by cords which pass through
them at right angles to the long axis. Although the intervals of
threading were not determined, each cord is 2-ply, with a right spiral,
2½ twists per centimeter, and 1 millimeter in diameter.

Fabrics.—Specimens in this category are 5 in number, and are of
two types: twined woven and simple under-and-over weaving. In all
cases, the fabrics were found in connection with burials.

Fabrics of cordage made in the twined woven technique are represented
by 4 very fragmentary specimens of which 2 are probably a
variety of feather cord cloth. In the remaining 2 examples, the presence
of feathers could not be detected. As regards the details of the
weaving technique, the twined fabrics seem to be identical technologically
with the fur cloth example illustrated by Guernsey and Kidder,
except for the fact that the warp selvages are not represented in the
Bc 51 specimens.[212]

In all examples of feather cord cloth of which the writer is aware,
the foundation of the weft element consists of some twined cord
around which whole or split quills were then wrapped. In respect,
however, to the feather cord cloth examples from Bc 51, at least one
feature seems quite unusual. Microscopic analysis revealed no indications
whatsoever of a vegetable fiber cordage foundation for the
weft element.[213] A short length of weft, which seems to meet this requirement,

was produced experimentally in the following manner. Turkey
tail feathers were split down the quill, and the coarser body of the
quill was then scraped away with a knife. Following this, the two
strips of quill with barbs and down attached were loosely twisted upon
one another to produce a loose, 2-ply cord with the barbs of the
feathers serving as the pile. It has been noted elsewhere in the case of
fur cloth specimens that "strips of tough skin with the hair on were
sometimes twisted upon themselves instead of being wound about a
cord."[214]

The cordage of the Bc 51 specimens, including the warps of the
feather cord cloth, is of the 2-ply variety, with a right spiral. In one
example, the weft selvage is a heavy cord measuring 4 millimeters in
diameter, while the other elements average 1½ millimeters in thickness,
with 1½ twists per centimeter. The wefts are somewhat finer and
more tightly twisted, averaging 1 millimeter in diameter, with 2
twists per centimeter. In the other specimens, the twining elements
and wefts are of equal weight, the cordage being 1 millimeter in
diameter, with 2 twists per centimeter. In these examples, it should be
pointed out, none of the selvage was preserved.

But a single example of plain weave cotton cloth (under-one-over-one)
was recovered. Since the specimen is small, neither pattern nor
selvage is represented. It seems probable that the wefts are the coarser
threads, while the more tightly twisted ones are the warps. This being
the case, there would be 14 warps and 11 wefts per centimeter. Both
elements seem to be single-ply.

Basketry.—Of the three examples, two are made in the close coiled
technique.[215] Both are made of some dicotyledonous wood which may be
Rhus trilobata, though conclusive identification is lacking. One specimen,
represented by the bottom fragment of a basket, is made on the
two-rod-and-bundle triangular foundation of the coil in progress as
well as the bundle of the coil below. The basket is worked on the concave
surface, to the left of the worker, with a counter-clockwise spiral.
There are 16 stitches per inch, but the number of coils per inch could
not be determined.

The second close coiled specimen is made on a single-rod foundation
with non-interlocking stitches which split the rod of the coil below.
The stitches are split, quite frequently, on the non-work surface. The
basket is worked on the concave surface, to the left of the worker, with
a counter-clockwise spiral. There are ten coils and ten stitches per
inch.[216]

The third basketry specimen is very interesting and deserves a
more detailed treatment. It seems possible that it is a fragment of a
"bird's-nest" coiled storage basket of the general type reported from
among the Pima, Yuma, and most southern California groups. The
specimen measures 11 by 30 centimeters, and is composed of roots
(Rhus, species probably trilobata) which vary from 2 millimeters to 2
centimeters in diameter. The arc of the fragment is such as to suggest
a basket some 2½″ in diameter. Fragments of a variety of twilled
mat were found on the concave surface of the specimen in such a
position as to suggest a lining.

The fragment was encountered on the floor in the southeastern
corner of room 18, at a depth of 40″, in association with a Red Mesa
Black on White bowl. There is a possibility that it may also have been
associated with burial Bc 60/25.

Wood.—Two specimens of wood are reported in the field catalog
cards. One, which was not seen by the writer, is described as a weaving
stick "of somewhat roughened wood, thicker at one end, with a
cleft in it." The measurements given are: length, 8½″ (216 mm.);
width ¾″ (19 mm.); thickness, ¼″ (6 mm.) to ½″ (12 mm.).

The second specimen is curious, and it is impossible to say whether
it has been worked or not. It is a small, flat, charred strip of bark
identified as Pinus ponderosa or Pinus brachyptera Engelm. The strip
measures 3½ centimeters long by 23 millimeters wide, and is beveled
at either edge to a thickness of 2 millimeters. The central thickness is
1 millimeter.

Leather.—The one fragment of leather recovered seems to have
been a part of a strap. One straight edge apparently shows evidence
of having been cut with a sharp instrument. The specimen measures 3
centimeters in length, 1 centimeter in width, and 1 millimeter in
thickness.

Comparisons and Distributions.—Since the perishable objects
from mound Bc 51 have now been described, it remains to compare
them with similar objects from Bc 50[217] and Łeyit Kin,[218] since it might
be expected that these collections would exhibit great uniformity.

In respect to twilled matting it is noted that frequent examples
were encountered at Bc 50, as at Bc 51, in connection with burials; but,
whereas all specimens but one from Bc 51 were of the under-three-over-three
variety, several examples from Bc 50 were twilled in an
under-two-over-two technique. Again, though Bc 50 produced an
example of checkerwork matting (under-one-over-one), this technique
was not encountered in the collection from Bc 51. In regard to twined
mats, the 2 specimens from Bc 51 seem to have been made of Sporo-

bolus, although they are technically comparable to those from Bc 50,
where either Equisetum or Sporobolus was employed.[219] The threaded
matting technique seems not to have been represented at Bc 50. The
specimens of matting from Łeyit Kin are not fully described.

Feather cloth, which was represented by several examples in the
Bc 51 collection, was not encountered at Bc 50, although from the
latter site fragments of what may have been a twined bag are
described. Plain woven cotton cloth was not found at Bc 50. Textiles,
apparently, are not represented at Łeyit Kin.

As regards basketry, no coiled specimens were recovered at Bc 50,
although some sherds from the superstructure level at this site retained
impressions of coiled baskets on their exteriors. These coiled
baskets seem to have been made on a single-rod foundation, and to have
been considerably finer in texture than the single-rod specimen from
Bc 51, since the impressions indicate 15 coils to the inch. The remains
of a twilled ring basket were discovered at Bc 50, but were lacking in
the Bc 51 collection. On the other hand, "bird's nest" coiling was not
represented at the former site. With the exception of a few charred
fragments of coiled basketry which seem to have been of the "rod and
bundle" type, no actual specimens of basketry were recovered at Łeyit
Kin.[220] Adobe casts, however, reveal the presence of twilled baskets, two
of which seem to have been made in a fancy diamond weave, and a
third which probably represents the remains of a twilled ring-basket
manufactured in the under-two-over-two technique.[221] Judd has reported
a two-rod and splint basket from his Chaco Canyon pithouse
No. 2.[222] In general, this technique seems to be a well-recognized variation
of the more common two-rod and bundle variety.

To sum up the foregoing, therefore, we may state that, whereas
the collections of perishable artifacts from Bc 51 and Bc 50 resemble
and to a large extent complement one another, they are far from
being identical in regard to their total assemblages. The collection
from Łeyit Kin seems to have little in common with these. This is
probably to be interpreted as being due to the arbitrary selective factors
of environment which govern the preservation of perishable objects,
and is of no archaeological significance. A composite list of the
artifacts of this category from the three sites under consideration gives
us a rather adequate picture. The objects are categorized according
to their probable use as follows:

Containers:

• 1. Coiled basketry

  • a. Two-rod-and-bundle

  ---

  [99

  
  
  

  • b. Single-rod

  • c. "Bird's nest" storage baskets (?)

• 2. Twilled ring-baskets

• 3. Twined bags (?)

Clothing:

• 1. Cotton textiles

• 2. Twined-woven feather robes

Matting (for household, burial, and roofing usages):

• 1. Plaited mats

  • a. Checkerwork

  • b. Twilled under-two-over-two

  • c. Twilled under-three-over-three

• 2. Twined rush mats

• 3. Threaded rush mats

Since the culture elements listed above have, with the exception of
coiled basketry, received exceedingly slight attention from the archaeologist,
it might be profitable to trace the distribution of each within
the Southwest. But since coiled basketry is still manufactured by
numerous Southwestern groups, and because it has received a somewhat
detailed treatment in the literature, this trait has assumed a
comparative significance which seems to warrant a more thoroughgoing
examination. It will, therefore, be treated separately later.

With regard to the other elements of material culture described
above, the proposition is very different indeed. Either it has been
tacitly assumed that these traits have no comparative value, or investigators
have been disinterested in them. Additional factors, such as
those of preservation and the technical difficulties involved in the study
of the specimens, have served to relegate these artifacts to obscurity.
It seems probable, however, that these objects, if properly studied,
could shed their own peculiar light on the problems of Southwestern
archaeology.

No exhaustive examination of the literature in regard to these culture
elements has been made, and conclusions at this time seem inadvisable;
indeed, it seems possible at present only to indicate certain
problems.

Weaving in Cotton.—Textile weaving in cotton seems to have
been introduced into the Southwest at about the beginning of Pueblo I
times in the San Juan region, and to have persisted among the Pueblos
into historic times.[223] That this trait was not present in Basket Maker
II times seems conclusive and, if it occurs in Basket Maker III sites, it
seems to have been rare. The extent to which this trait occurred to the

north and west is as yet problematical, but in respect to the southern
periphery of the Southwest, we are on firmer ground. Cotton textiles
were discovered in the Sacaton Phase levels at Snaketown,[224] and persisted
in that area into Classical Hohokam times.[225] Indeed, Beals has
shown that the weaving of cotton cloth, as practiced by living ethnic
groups before 1750, extended in a continuous belt along the western
coast of Mexico from the Southwest to the Valley of Mexico.[226] The
earliest appearance, however, of cotton textiles in northern Mexico is
as yet unknown. Dry cave material which seems to represent a BasketMaker-like
horizon in northern Mexico did not reveal the presence of
this culture element.[227] The eastern boundary of cotton growing and
cotton weaving is equally vague. These techniques seem not to have
been known to the cultures of the Lower Pecos River and the Big Bend
region of Texas.

Feather Cord Cloth.—At precisely what period feather cord cloth
appears in the central Pueblo area is uncertain. It seems probable
that the trait is first found in this region in late Basket Maker III
times.[228] In respect to northeastern Arizona, Guernsey states that
feather cord cloth appears in Pueblo I times in the Marsh Pass
region and continues in use into the Pueblo IV period.[229] On the
Pueblo III horizon this trait occurs widely: at Mesa Verde,[230] Pueblo
Bonito in Chaco Canyon,[231] the Mancos-La Plata region of southern
Colorado,[232] at Jemez Cave, New Mexico,[233] and in the Sierra Ancha
Mountains of central Arizona, where it is mentioned that feather
cord cloth is rare.[234] Mr. Paul Reiter informs me that feather cord
cloth was also found at Chetro Ketl in Chaco Canyon. Fewkes also
found the trait present at Casa Grande in southern Arizona.[235] At
Pecos[236] and at Puyé,[237] this trait persisted into Pueblo IV times. In
all these cases, it is to be noted, the technique of manufacture was not
that represented in the collections from Bc 51; instead, fiber cords
were wrapped with strips of quill or with strips of bird skin with the
feathers attached.

The precise boundaries of the trait of feather cord cloth are extremely
vague. But a single example, and this doubtful, has been
discovered in the Big Bend area.[238] For northern Mexico, where very
little work has been done, only one occurrence seems to have been
reported, this being found in the Basket Maker-like culture of the
Upper Rio Fuerte region of southern Chihuahua.[239]

In view of this fragmentary evidence, one wonders how the data
on the distribution of feather cloth are to be interpreted. Technically
some feather cloth is identical with fur cloth, although the latter trait
seems to have a far wider distribution. It may be possible that the
making of feather cloth is to be correlated with the keeping of the
domesticated turkey, although the data seem to indicate that feather
cloth appears in the Southwest somewhat before the appearance of the
latter. Again, feather cloth was made in regions where the domesticated
turkey is not known to have been kept.

Plaiting.—In regard to the technique of plaiting[240] the problems
are complicated at the outset by the simplicity of the mechanical principles
involved and the great distributional ranges of these techniques
in North America.

Turning our attention to the distribution of plaiting, we are confronted
immediately with a basic problem: Is there any justification
for studying the distribution of a technique irrespective of the cultural
form in which it manifests itself? May we, for example, equate
the presence of a twilled mat in one region with the presence of a
twilled ring-basket in another? Underlying such an equation is the
assumption that the techniques are historically related and that it is
the technique which is the fact of greater significance. The problem
of independent invention versus diffusion need not here concern us,
since our problems are of a descriptive rather than of an interpretative
nature. The issue in question is the comparability of techniques.

That such an assumption is not considered entirely unwarranted
is indicated by the frequency with which it has been employed. Wissler
shows the distribution of stone sculpture to have been continuous from
the Valley of Mexico to Central America irrespective of whether this
sculpture adorned a temple or an isolated monolith.[241] Again, Beals
traces the distribution of metallurgy in Mexico, disregarding the articles
manufactured.[242] Although it is true that he refers in his tables

to the individual articles made, it is evident that it is the total distribution
which he seeks to demonstrate.

In the Southwest, the plaiting technique was used to manufacture
several types of articles: mats, sandals, baskets, and occasionally
cradles. Since in this era a reasonably accurate chronology affords a
check on the data, it may be well to test this procedure in question by
applying it to the technique of plaiting.

In the classical Basket Maker area of the Pueblo plateau, twilled
mats seem to be absent in both the Basket Maker II and III periods.
Again Guernsey, speaking of twilled ring-baskets, states: "This type
of basket does not occur, so far as we know, in the Basket Maker II
or Basket Maker III period, but is the commonest type found in the
Pueblo III period."[243] In fact, the only twilled specimens from Basket
Maker times in this region seem to be a bag-shaped basket made in the
under-two-over-two technique,[244] and occasional twilled yucca leaf
sandals.[245]

But as we approach the Big Bend region of Texas, twilled objects
become more common. In the Guadalupe Mountain country of southeastern
New Mexico, several types of plaited artifacts are found on a
general Basket Maker-like horizon. These take the form of checker
mats,[246] checker weave baskets, twilled mats under-two-over-two, and
twilled sandals.[247] In the Big Bend region proper, Setzler states that
checker and twill under-two-over-two mats occur in quantities on a
similar Basket Maker-like horizon.[248] In addition baskets are made in
both twill and checker techniques.[249] It seems significant that the
under-three-over-three twill technique does not appear to have been
used in the Big Bend either for mats or for baskets.

To the west and north of the Pueblo plateau, sites so far excavated
seem not to have yielded artifacts in the twill plaited technique;
none were encountered in either Gypsum or Lovelock Caves.[250] Steward
reports checker mats from caves in the Great Salt Lake region of
Utah, although the culture represented here is almost certainly of a
later date.[251] To the south, checker and twill are represented in dry
cave material from Coahuila, Mexico.[252] Again, Zingg reports that
under-three-over-three twilling is characteristic of the Basket Makerlike

culture of the Upper Rio Fuerte region in the State of Chihuahua,
Mexico.[253]

In Pueblo I and II times, twilled ring-baskets (under-three-over-three)
are found in northeastern Arizona,[254] and in the Hohokam area
of southern Arizona.[255] During these periods twilled ring-baskets and
mats (under-two-over-two; under-three-over-three; checker) are
found in Chaco Canyon.

By Pueblo III times, the plaiting technique becomes widespread
throughout the Pueblo area, and is utilized in several ways. Sandals
made in checker or under-two-over-two technique occur widely; at
Jemez Cave,[256] in the Mancos-La Plata region of Colorado,[257] in northeastern
Arizona,[258] and in the Mimbres Valley.[259] Ring-baskets in under-two-over-two,
under-three-over-three, or in a combination of these techniques
occur so frequently in Pueblo III sites as to be the rule rather
than the exception. The same may be said of plaited mats, which are
made in the three techniques: under-three-over-three, under-two-over-two,
and checker, though the latter technique seems to be the most
unusual of the three. At this time the twill technique is employed
occasionally in making cradles.[260] In the Hohokam area, under-two-over-two
twilled mats seem to have been used.[261]

In Pueblo IV times, although the data are less complete,[262] it seems
that the general distribution of articles manufactured in plaited techniques
resembled that of the Pueblo III period.[263]

The extent to which plaited articles survived into historic times
was not investigated. Suffice it to say that twilled ring-baskets are
still manufactured by several Pueblo groups, notably the Hopi and
Zuñi.[264] Twilled mats in the under-two-over-two and under-three-over-three
techniques were formerly made by the Pima.[265]

From the foregoing, therefore, it would seem unwise to attempt
to trace the distribution of twill plaiting in the Southwest irrespective
of the object manufactured. For the very nature of the distributions
and manifestations of this technique should make us suspicious of our

historical identities. Holmes observed that "no class of articles of
textile nature were more universally employed by the aborigines than
mats of split cane, rushes, and reeds . . .".[266] The distribution of
twilled and checker basketry is equally widespread, since baskets in
these techniques are found in such widely separated regions of North
America as the Northwest Coast, the Southwest, and the Southeast.

It seems significant, therefore, that checker and under-two-over-two
twilled mats are found on a Basket Maker-like horizon in the Big
Bend area, whereas they seem not to have appeared in the San Juan
region until Pueblo I times or later. It also seems significant that the
under-three-over-three twill technique of the Pueblo area has not yet
been reported from either the Hohokam or the Big Bend regions. In
America north of Mexico, there seem to have been at least two regions
in which twill plaiting was centered: the Southeast and the Northwest
Coast. Mexico proper may have comprised a third. It is, therefore,
felt that the factors involved in the study of plaiting in the
Southwest are far from being simple, and that each technical variety
and each type of artifact must be treated for present purposes as a
separate historical entity.

Twined Mats.—The difficulties pertaining to plaiting techniques
apply also to the question of twined mats. In the case of the latter,
however, twined mats made of rushes or reeds have such a widespread
distribution in North America, both in regard to time and space, that
their comparative significance is at present very slight. In addition,
they have received such slight recognition in the literature that we are
able here only to note their presence and absence. It is highly probable,
however, that all twined mats in all places in North America
are not historically related, and it seems very likely that a careful
study would reveal significant sub-types.

Twined rush mats, according to Guernsey, do not occur in Basket
Maker II or III sites in northeastern Arizona, but appear in Pueblo I
times and persist in this region into the Pueblo IV period.[267] Interestingly
enough, however, numerous and varied examples of twined
mats were recovered by Nusbaum from a Basket Maker cave in Kane
County, Utah.[268] Twined mats were found in caves in the Guadalupe
Mountain region of southeastern New Mexico, where they are said to
have been rare.[269] In respect to this trait, northern Mexico is an unknown,
but for the northern and western periphery of the Southwest,
we have a certain amount of data. In Nevada, twined mats were found
to the exclusion of plaited types.[270] Again, in the Great Salt Lake

region of Utah, twined mats were common, whereas plaited examples
were rare.[271] In the Fremont River region of Utah, twined mats are
found in Pueblo sites.[272] By Pueblo III times, twined reed and rush
mats are found widely throughout the Southwest, and the same is probably
true for the Pueblo IV period.

In view of the difficulties stated at the outset, interpretation at this
time is difficult. The data, however, seem to indicate that there is a
greater possibility that the technique of twined matting spread into
the Southwest from the Great Basin, or from the north, than that
it entered this area from the east.

Threaded Matting.—This technique has been mentioned so rarely
in the literature that it is quite impossible to trace its distribution in
either time or space. Pearce and Jackson describe it from a Big Bend
cave dweller site,[273] while Fewkes found it to be represented at Mesa
Verde.[274] It has also been reported by Morris from Aztec[275] and by
Reiter from Chetro Ketl.[276]

Coiled Basketry Techniques in the Southwest:
Distributions and Continuities

During the six years which have elapsed since the appearance of
Dr. Weltfish's excellent paper on Southwestern basketry techniques,
a rather extensive body of pertinent data has been accumulated in the
course of various excavations.[277] Particularly is this true of the areas
of southern New Mexico and Arizona and of the Big Bend region of
Texas. In view of this, it is felt that a summary and re-examination
of the data relating to the distribution of Southwestern coiled basketry
techniques in both time and space will not be inappropriate. In this
way we will be enabled to evaluate with greater precision the appearance
of given techniques, such as those represented in the collections
from Bc 51, in a particular locality during a particular period.

The method, therefore, will be to present the distributions of these
techniques on maps and in tables, and finally to draw such conclusions
regarding the continuities and historical implications of this craft
as seem tenable in view of our present knowledge. Before we begin to
examine the data, however, it seems advisable to make some observations
with reference to the distribution of coiled basketry and to inquire
into some problems relating to this distributional study.

It is continually being brought to our attention that the development
of the Indian cultures of the Southwest cannot be properly understood
unless we conceive this territory in the broadest possible sense.[278]
Especially is this true in the case of coiled basketry, and constant reference
must be made to regions geographically remote. In view of this
it seems important to begin with a brief résumé of the distribution of
this culture element in the New World.

Wissler traced the distribution of coiled basketry throughout the
Americas and concluded that this craft was principally confined to a
belt which paralleled the Pacific coast of North America from Siberia
through Alaska to the Mexican border. He noted that it occurred
sporadically among the northern Algonkians, but that "in Mexico the
technique disappears and does not come to notice again until we reach
Patagonia."[279] More recent investigations, however, have changed the
picture to a considerable extent. Coiled basketry fragments were
found in the Cenote at Chichén Itzá, in Yucatan, and more recent evidence
of the presence of this technique has been discovered in the
Province of Coclé in Panama.[280] Finally, Nordenskiöld has shown that
in South America this craft is distributed along the west coast, in
what appears to be a continuous belt from Panama to Tierra del
Fuego.[281] In addition to its wide distribution in the New World, coiled
basketry is found under conditions which suggest a certain antiquity.[282]

In North America, Weltfish finds that coiled basketry occurs in
six of the present-day basketry making areas which she delineates.[283]
Each of these coiled basketry areas is characterized by certain technical
traits in common, although there is a certain amount of overlapping,
as is to be expected, in adjacent areas. To mention these
areas briefly, there are the following: Salish, Mackenzie, Basin, Central
California, Southern California, Southwest. In addition, she
finds that coiled basketry occurs sporadically in the Plains (Pawnee
and Arikara) and in the Northeast (Ojibwa, Menomini, and Chippewa).[284]

The value of coiled basketry in comparative studies must not be
underestimated. The fact that it is usually encountered in archaeological
sites in a fragmentary condition is compensated for by the
fact that the techniques of construction are not obliterated in the finished

product as is often the case with pottery. The perishable nature
of basketry is, of course, a handicap; however, specimens of relatively
great antiquity have been recovered from dry caves and from such
desiccated regions as the coast of Peru, and some are found preserved
in open sites where moisture has not destroyed them. As in the case
of pottery, many of the items composing the trait of coiled basketry
are mechanically independent of one another and tend to objectify
themselves in the process of manufacture.[285] This is particularly true
of four such items, which have widespread comparative value:[286] (1)
the nature of the foundation of the coil; (2) the surface from which
the basket was worked: (3) the direction in which the work proceeds;
(4) the character of the stitches.

As to foundation, Weltfish sees three principal types and their
variations represented in North America:[287] (1) multiple (a bundle of
grass or splints, etc.); (2) triangular (two-rod-and-bundle; three-rodetc.);
(3) vertical (including single rod). These terms are descriptive,
and apply specifically to characteristic coils of particular baskets when
viewed in cross-section.

Since a woman engaged in making a basket may work either on
the concave or convex surface, with the coil in progress extending
either to her left or to her right, these criteria have important comparative
value. But although these two features, work surface and
direction of the work, are mechanically independent of one another,
the latter feature cannot be determined until the former has been
established.[288] In this connection, the direction of the spiral coil, i.e.,
"left spiral" or "right spiral," may be disregarded as a comparative
feature, since it is to be stated as a product of the direction of the
sewing and the surface worked.

The purpose of the binding stitch is to hold the foundation of the
coil in progress together and to attach it to the completed coil immediately
below. The sewing may proceed in three different ways; the
stitches of the coil in progress may: (1) split the stitches of the completed
coil below; (2) interlock with them; (3) not interlock with
them.[289]

Other features in all probability have comparative value, but are
more difficult to control than those mentioned above. In ceramics,
shape and design have been exploited to the fullest extent in a comparative
sense, but in the case of basketry, certain difficulties present
themselves. In basketry, the possible choice of designs is restricted
to a certain extent by the technological processes involved in the pursuit
of the craft. Furthermore, as regards the products of contemporary

Indian basket makers, a lack of systematic and standardized
description, as well as, in many cases, of adequate photographs
tends to nullify the comparative value of design and shape. Coupled
with this is the fact that these features usually may not be observed
in fragmentary archaeological specimens. Texture seems quite important
as a comparative feature, and although individual skill is
almost certainly a factor, this feature may be treated objectively by
counting the number of coils and stitches per inch or centimeter. The
former unit would appear to be more useful since basketry texture,
when described in the literature, is usually given in terms of inches.
Again, it is conceivable that the plant materials used in coiled basketry
might be of value in comparative studies, although the choice of these
is naturally limited by geographical consideration. Aberrant coiled
basketry techniques such as "sifter coiling" have not been considered,
because of the scanty treatment which they have received in the
literature.[290]

It would now seem appropriate to examine the limitations of the
comparative features worked out by Weltfish, and to point out certain
difficulties involved in their application. Certain of these difficulties,
most of which have been touched upon by Weltfish, are inherent in
the data themselves, while others result from the treatment of the
data in the literature.[291] Still other difficulties, as is inevitably the
case, arise out of the classification of the data and result from the
problems of chronological position and precise allocation of the specimens.

The fragmentary nature of the archaeological record is an initial
difficulty. For large areas and relatively great spans of time the data
are completely lacking, while for other regions and periods they seem
to be adequate. Arising out of this fact is the question of sampling.
In most cases we are aware at the outset that our samples are insufficient,
and for the main purposes of the present study it has been
assumed that the mere presence of a particular technique at a stated
time and place is in itself a significant fact.

The ethnological record is far more complete; but even here, as
is also true for the archaeological data, descriptions in the literature
are frequently so scanty as to be of little comparative value. This
is a situation, however, which can and should be remedied.

Turning now to the matter of classification, we are up against one
of the most general and basic problems of anthropology. It seems
reasonably clear that no classification serves for all times and for
all purposes. All classificatory systems are arbitrary, and each is
made for its own particular purpose; for without a specific purpose a
classification is meaningless. Accordingly, the merit of each must be

judged in relation to the degree to which it approximates the specific
aim in view. It is further desirable that a classification be as objective
as is possible, for out of classification grows typology. One who
sets about, therefore, to create a classification usually attempts on the
one hand to achieve a particular purpose, and on the other to be as
objective as possible. But in striving toward an aim and toward
objectivity, care must be taken not to do violence to known facts.

Weltfish has evolved a classification of coiled basketry techniques
in order to study the distribution of the types which have arisen out
of her classification.[292] She has also studied these distributions in a
temporal sense in that she has noted parallels between ancient and
modern basketry making areas.[293] Since we have already had occasion
to refer to the features classified, let us inquire into certain difficulties
inherent in the application of this classification. Since, in the manufacture
of a coiled basket, the surface worked and the direction in
which the work proceeds are mechanically unrelated to one another,
these comparative features objectify themselves in a given basket and
are, in a sense, directly comparable in all coiled baskets.[294] In regard,
however, to the other two comparative features under consideration,
the nature of the foundation and the character of the stitches, the
subjective element looms large indeed. Here we are confronted with
the comparability of these features, particularly on the archaeological
level, whenever we compare two baskets. What, precisely, is comprised
by a "multiple" foundation? Are we to include bundles of
grass, reeds, rods and splints under this single term? Are we even
justified in classifying two baskets in which the bundle foundations
consist of two different species of grass in the same category? To do
so is to equate these forms technologically. If this were done, and if
these forms were in fact technologically incomparable, any conclusions
which would be based on the distributions of these forms would be
misleading. Again, Weltfish has classified the manner of stitching
coiled baskets according to the following types: split, interlocking, and
non-interlocking. She further divides the "split" category into three
subdivisions: split on the work surface, split on the non-work surface,

split on both surfaces.[295] Of these forms, we are informed further that
the "interlocking" type is relatively unusual, which means that the
majority of baskets are made with non-interlocking, non-split stitches,
or with stitches of one of the split varieties. The question is, therefore,
do these forms constitute clear-cut, empirical types? Observations
made by the writer on specimens from Coahuila, Mexico, have
served to convince him that such is not always the case. In a single
example, some stitches were split on both surfaces, some on the work
surface or on the non-work surface alone, while others interlocked.[296]
Again, while investigating basket making among a contemporary
Navaho group, it was observed that stitches were quite frequently split
on the non-work surface.[297] When questioned about this, the women
invariably maintained that this was accidental, that the stitches should
not have been split. It would seem, therefore, that the nature of the
stitching is not always clear-cut, and that sufficient leeway should be
given to account for individual variability and accidents. Whereas,
it is obvious that experience in handling many baskets is invaluable
in making decisions, it would seem desirable to attempt to discover
some means of objectifying these judgments by determining the central
tendency in each case. This might be accomplished, for example,
by counting the stitches in the various descriptive categories and
calculating percentages.

The foregoing is not to be construed as destructive criticism; no
superior ways of dealing with the problems in question are offered in
return. But it seems necessary to keep these classificatory limitations
in mind in order to safeguard conclusions.

The final difficulty with which we have to deal is that of chronology.
For certain regions of the Southwest, notably the plateau of
New Mexico and Arizona, and adjacent portions of Utah and Colorado,
we have at our disposal both a relative and an absolute chronology.
But for other regions we are less fortunate. Although in
several of these, especially in the region of southern Arizona, we
possess a relative chronology which seems to be accurate in its essentials,
no great detail has yet been achieved in the problem of correlations
with known areas.[298] For other regions, such as sections of
Utah, southern California, western Texas, and northern Mexico, our
time estimates are based on little more than pure speculation. For

this reason, the data relating to coiled basketry have been grouped
on three distribution maps. The first map presents present-day conditions;
the second, the distribution during Pueblo III and Pueblo IV
times; and the third, the distribution prior to the Pueblo III period
of the central Anasazi region. This method, it is realized, is far from
being satisfactory; but, since we cannot attempt to be more accurate
than the data permit, this scheme seems to afford some of the leeway
necessary in allowing for time lags in peripheral regions and other
chronological discrepancies.

As thorough an attempt was made as time permitted to canvass
the literature for data concerning Southwestern coiled basketry.
Many descriptions were found to be so vague as to be of little value,
and hence have not been utilized. No systematic attempt, however,
was made to re-examine the sources used by Weltfish, since the baskets
described in these have, in many instances, been again studied by her.

Keys to Maps and Tables.—As stated above, the method adopted
here has been to plot the distribution of Southwestern coiled basketry
on three maps. In so doing, only one of the four technological units
under consideration, the nature of the foundation, has been represented
on the maps; the remaining units have been listed in three tables
which accompany the maps. It may be thought that, because foundation
has been represented diagramatically on the maps, this feature has
been given more emphasis than the others. Emphatically, however,
this is not the case. In the historical speculations based on the distributions,
all of the four features here considered have been taken
into account, and no one has been emphasized at the expense of the
others. Foundation was selected for representation on the maps
solely because it seemed the feature best suited for this purpose.

The symbols plotted on the maps attempt to represent in a diagramatical
manner the arrangement of the foundation elements, as
these would appear in cross section, within the coil of the basket.
These arrangements are: triangular (represented by a triangle);
vertical (represented by a rectangle); circular (represented by a
circle). Irregular foundation types will be explained by footnotes
in the tables. Within the foundation symbols, the nature of the
foundation elements is represented as follows: (1) stippling for a
bundle of pliable fibers or grass; (2) black dot for rod; (3) half
circle for split-rod; (4) horizontal bar for slat; (5) small open circle
for reed; (6) hatched circle for single-rod foundation; (7) two concentric
circles for "bird's nest" coiling. Hence, map 7, 30 represents
two-rod-and-bundle triangular foundation; map 7, 35A, two-rod-and-bundle
vertical foundation; map 7, 15, "bird's nest" coiling;
map 7, 10, bundle foundation; map 10, 19A, rod surrounded by bundle
foundation. The numbers on the map are to be referred to the accompanying
tables.

The tables list the character of the stitches, the surface worked,
and the direction in which the work proceeds. A blank space indicates
a lack of data; a question mark, the uncertainty of the data.

Conclusions.—Some data on coiled basketry distributions in the
Southwest have now been presented, and there remains but to draw
such conclusions from the resulting distributions as seem defensible
in view of our present knowledge. Although the data on which our
classifications have been based are not completely above question, the
data seem to permit no alternate method of treatment. Granted,
provisionally, therefore, that the techniques which we have described
and classified are comparable, we may proceed with our conclusions.

Let us first examine the special aspects of the distributions. Weltfish
has concluded that coiled basketry areas exist today, and are
observable also for the past. She has summarized these and given

the characteristics of each.[299] In map 7, an attempt has been made
to bring out this point by means of lines drawn around the modern
areas as we now conceive them. These lines are intended simply as
guides in interpretation. They are not to be considered boundaries in
the strict sense, and obviously do not exist in literal reality.

TABLE 6—KEY TO MAP 7

                                                                                                         

Number	Group	References	Stitches	Surface	Direction
1	Maidu	Weltfish, G., 1930a, p. 465	Non-interlocking; split on concave	Convex	Left
2A	Washo	Weltfish, G., 1930a, p. 465	Non-interlocking; split on concave	Convex	Left
2B	Washo	Weltfish, G., 1930a, p. 465	Non-interlocking; split on concave	Convex	Left
3A	Miwok	Weltfish, G., 1930a, p. 465	Interlocking	Convex	Left
3B	Miwok	Weltfish, G., 1930a, p. 465	Interlocking	Convex	Left
4	Owens Valley Paiute	Steward, J., 1933b, pp. 270-272	Non-interlocking	Convex	Left(?)
5A	Mono	Gifford E. W. 1932a, p. 27; Weltfish, G., communication	Non-interlocking	Either	Right
5B	Mono	Gifford E. W. 1932a, p. 27; Weltfish, G., communication	Non-interlocking	Either	Right
6	Yokuts	Weltfish, G., 1930a, p. 467	Non-interlocking	Either	Right
7	Chemehuevi[300]	Weltfish, G., 1930a, pp. 466-468	Non-interlocking	Either	Either
8	Kawaiisu	Weltfish, G., 1930a, p. 468	Non-interlocking	Either	Right
9A	Chumash	Kroeber, A. L., 1925, p. 560
9B	Chumash	Weltfish, G., 1930a, pp. 465-466	Non-interlocking	Either	Right
10	Luiseño	Sparkman, P. S., 1908, pp. 204-205		Concave
11A	Cahuilla	Kroeber, A. L., 1908, pp. 41-51
11B	Cahuilla	Kroeber, A. L., 1908, pp. 41-51
12	Southern Diegueño	Spier, L., 1923, p. 347
13	Kamia	Gifford, E. W., 1931, p. 39
14A	Yuma	Forde, C. D., 1931, pp. 124-125
14B	Yuma	Forde, C. D., 1931, pp. 124-125
14C	Yuma	Forde, C. D., 1931, pp. 124-125
15	Cocopa	Gifford, E. W., 1933b, p. 270
16	Seri	Kroeber, 1931, pp. 59-60		Convex	Left
		McGee, W. J., 1898, p. 208
17A	Maricopa	Spier, L., 1933, pp. 122-125
17B	Maricopa	Spier, L., 1933, pp. 122-125		Concave	Right
18A	Pima	Kissel, M. L., 1916
18B	Pima	Kissel, M. L., 1916	Non-interlocking	Concave	Left
19A	Papago	Kissel, M. L., 1916
19B	Papago	Kissel, M. L., 1916	Non-interlocking	Concave	Left
20	San Carlos Apache[301]	Roberts, H. H., 1929, pp. 153-163	Non-interlocking	Either	Left
21	Yavapai	Gifford, E. W., 1936, pp. 282-283	Non-interlocking	Concave	Left
22	Walapai	Kroeber, A. L., 1935, p. 79
23	Havasupai	Spier, L., 1928, pp. 133-138	Non-interlocking	Either	Left
24A	Hopi[302]	Jeancon, J. A., and Douglas, F. H., 1931	Interlocking	Either	Left
		Colton, M. R. F., 1931, p. 6
24B	Hopi	Weltfish, G., 1932a, p. 34	Non-interlocking	Convex	Left
25	Kaibab Paiute	Weltfish, G., 1930a, p. 470	Split on concave	Convex	Left
26	Moapa Paiute	Weltfish, G., 1930a, pp. 469-470	Interlocking	Convex	Left
27A	Northern Paiute[303]	Weltfish, G., 1930a, p. 469	Interlocking or non-interlocking	Convex	Right & left
27B	Northern Paiute	Weltfish, G., 1930a, p. 469	Interlocking or non-interlocking	Convex	Right & left
28	Ute	Weltfish, G., 1930a, p. 470	Split on concave	Convex	Left
29	Navaho	Franciscan Fathers, 1929, pp. 291-297	Non-interlocking	Concave	Left
30	Zuñi	Weltfish, G., 1932a, pp. 36-37	Non-interlocking	Convex	Left
31	Sia	Weltfish, G., 1932a, pp. 35-36	Non-interlocking	Convex	Left
32	Santa Ana	Weltfish, G., 1932a, p. 35	Non-interlocking	Convex	Left
33	Pecos	Kidder, A. V., 1932, pp. 296-297	Non-interlocking
34A	Jicarilla Apache	Weltfish, G., 1930a, p. 470	Non-interlocking	Either	Left
34B	Jicarilla Apache[304]	Douglas, F. H., 1934, p. 55
35A	Mescalero Apache[305]	Weltfish, G., 1932b, p. 115, fn. 25	Non-interlocking	Either	Left
35B	Mescalero Apache	Weltfish, G., 1932b, p. 115, fn. 25	Non-interlocking	Either	Left
35C	Mescalero Apache	Weltfish, G., 1932b, p. 115, fn. 25	Non-interlocking	Either	Left

In order to discuss the interrelations between these areas in both
time and space, it is necessary to summarize briefly the salient characteristics
of each. Turning our attention first to map 7, which represents
present-day conditions, the area of southern California may be
characterized as follows: bundle foundation; non-interlocking stitches;
concave work surface (trays) or convex work surface (ollas); either
work surface (burden baskets); direction of work to the right. An
exception is seen among the Chumash, who also used the three-rod
triangular foundation of reeds.

A second area is comprised by central California, the Basin, and
central Arizona. Throughout, this area is characterized by a three-rod
triangular foundation (with the additional use of a single rod in
the northern portion of the area) and a left direction of the work.
To the north, the stitches tend to be interlocking or split, while to the
south non-interlocking stitches seem characteristic. Again, the convex
work surface is used to the north, while either surface is used to
the south, although in the latter area there is apparently a preference
for the concave work surface. In general, the Basin seems intermediate
and variable, as indeed might be expected, since in this region
the techniques of three areas come together.[306] The Northern Paiute
use both right and left direction of work, although the former may
possibly be due to Salish influence to the north.[307]

Northeastern Arizona and northwestern New Mexico comprise
a third area, the characteristics of which are: two-rod-and-bundle
foundation; non-interlocking stitches; concave surface worked on
trays, convex on ollas; direction of work to the left. It may be objected
that this ware is no longer manufactured by Pueblo groups, but
that it was manufactured in the nineteenth century seems certain.
Specimens were collected in the late nineteenth century by such reliable
men as J. W. Powell and J. Stevenson.[308] In addition, Weltfish
has pointed out that the baskets which were collected among the
Pueblos cannot be attributed to the Navaho, the only living group now
manufacturing this ware, since the designs are non-Navaho.[309] She
also points out the probability that this ware persisted among the

Pueblos into the Pueblo V period, since twilled ring-baskets, an ancient
Pueblo trait, are still manufactured at several villages.[310] The notable
exception in this coiled basketry area is found among the Hopi. Here
a ware is made with a bundle foundation and interlocking stitches.

A fourth, although less well defined area, seems to exist to the
north of the Pueblo area and to the east of the central Basin region.
This area includes the basketry of the Ute, Kaibab Paiute, Shoshoni,
and Bannock.[311] The ware manufactured in this area is characterized
by two-rod or three-rod vertical foundation; stitches split on the nonwork
surface; convex work surface; left direction of work. The
Cheyenne, Arapaho, Kiowa, and Comanche manufactured gambling
baskets which seem to be more or less typical of this area. Since
they are tray-shaped, however, these baskets were worked on the
concave surface.

A fifth area may be found about the Lower Colorado and in
Arizona to the south of the Gila River. In this region, the problem is
rather complex and difficult to understand. The Maricopa and, possibly,
the Yuma manufactured a ware which seems to be affiliated
with that of the southern California coiled basketry area. The Pima,
Papago, and Seri, on the other hand, made a bundle-foundation type

basketry which seems to differ in a technological sense chiefly in the
left direction of the work. Generally speaking, however, this area
seems to be characterized by a conspicuous lack of coiled basketry
among the Yuman-speaking peoples of both southern California and
the Colorado-Gila region in general. A positive characteristic of the
area is the manufacture of "bird's nest" coiled ware. This latter
ware is also made to a certain extent in the southern California basketry
area, where it is found, for example, among the Cahuilla.

Turning our attention now to map 8, we find that similar areas
existed in Pueblo III and IV times, although the data are far less complete.
Whereas the Pueblo area is considerably larger it is again
characterized by the two-rod-and-bundle foundation ware in which the
same aggregate of items occurs. Vertical foundation types, single-rod,
and three-rod triangular forms are to be found along the northern
periphery. Central Arizona is characterized by a three-rod triangular
ware, although a bundle foundation type with a left direction of work
is also found. In southern California a bundle foundation ware
occurs which is said to be typical of that made in the same region
today.[312] In western Texas, a bundle foundation ware occurs which is
typical of this area at an earlier time.

The distributions presented on map 9 represent conditions from
Basket Maker II through Pueblo II times. In the Pueblo plateau
area, the two-rod-and-bundle triangular aggregate is again characteristic.
On the northern periphery, there is considerable variation in
foundation type, and vertical forms occur sporadically. During this
interval, a single rod foundation with interlocking stitches is found
to be very widespread, occuring sporadically from Nevada and northern
Utah to southern New Mexico.[313]

For southern California during this early period, no data are
available. They are, however, rather plentiful from the area comprised
by northern Coahuila and the Big Bend region of Texas. The
consensus of opinion seems to indicate that for the western portion of
the Big Bend region, the characteristic coiled basketry type has a
bundle foundation; stitches split on the non-work surface; concave
work surface; left direction of work. This is also a secondary type
in the Lower Pecos River region, where the characteristic form has
a bundle foundation; interlocking stitches; concave work surface;
left direction of work.[314]

TABLE 7—KEY TO MAP 8

                                                               

Number	Site	Period	Reference	Stitches	Surface	Direction
1	Culberson County, Tex.	1300-1600	Jackson, A. T., 1937, p. 157	Non-interlocking; split on convex	Concave	Left
2	Swarts Ruin, N. M.	Pueblo III	Cosgrove, H. S. and C. B., 1932, pp. 67-68
3	Montezuma Cave, N. M.[315]	Pueblo III?	Weltfish, G., 1932a, p. 28	Non-interlocking	Either	Left
4	Village of the Great Kivas, N. M.	Pueblo III	Roberts, F. H. H., Jr., 1932, p. 134
5	Pecos, N. M.	Pueblo III	Kidder, A. V., 1932, pp. 288-289
6A	Jemez Cave, N. M.	Pueblo III	Alexander, H. G., and Reiter, P., 1935, pp. 49-50
6B	Jemez Cave, N. M.	Pueblo III	Alexander, H. G., and Reiter, P., 1935, pp. 49-50	Non-interlocking
6C	Jemez Cave, N. M.	Pueblo III	Alexander, H. G., and Reiter, P., 1935, pp. 49-50
7A	Mesa Verde, Colo.[316]	Pueblo III	Weltfish, G., 1932a, pp. 16-17	Non-interlocking	Either	Left
7B	Mesa Verde, Colo.[317]	Pueblo III	Weltfish, G., 1932a, pp. 16-17	Non-interlocking	Either	Left
7C	Mesa Verde, Colo.[318]	Pueblo III	Weltfish, G., 1932a, pp. 16-17	Non-interlocking	Either	Left
8	Sandal Cliff House, Colo.	Pueblo III?	Weltfish, G., 1932a, p. 19	Non-interlocking	Concave	Left
9	Moki Canyon, Utah	Pueblo III?	Weltfish, G., 1932a, pp. 7-8	Non-interlocking	Concave	Left
10	Battle Canyon, Utah	Pueblo III?	Weltfish, G., 1932a, p. 15	Non-interlocking	Concave	Left
11	Allan Canyon, Utah	Pueblo III?	Weltfish, G., 1932a, p. 16	Non-interlocking	Concave	Left
12	Betatakin, Ariz.	Pueblo III	Weltfish, G., 1932a, pp. 6-7	Non-interlocking	Concave	Left
13	Canyon del Muerto, Ariz.	Pueblo III	Weltfish, G., 1932a, pp. 9-10	Non-interlocking		Left
14A	Pueblo Bonito, N. M.	Pueblo III	Weltfish, G., 1932a, pp. 21-22
14B	Pueblo Bonito, N. M.	Pueblo III	Weltfish, G., 1932a, pp. 21-22
15	Sikyatki, Ariz.	Pueblo IV	Weltfish, G., 1932a, p. 34	Interlocking	Either	Left
16	Chevlon Ruin, Ariz.	Pueblo IV?	Weltfish, G., 1932a, p. 27	Non-interlocking	Concave	Left
			Fewkes, J. W., 1898b, p. 527
17	Palatki, Ariz.	Pueblo III?	Weltfish, 1932a, p. 25	Non-interlocking
18A	Sierra Ancha, Ariz.	Pueblo IV	Haury, E. W., 1934, pp. 73-76	Non-interlocking
18B	Sierra Ancha, Ariz.	Pueblo IV	Haury, E. W., 1934, pp. 73-76
19A	Casa Grande, Ariz.[319]	Pueblo IV	Weltfish, G., 1932a, pp. 27-28	Non-interlocking	Concave	Left
19B	Casa Grande, Ariz.	Pueblo IV	Fewkes, J. W., 1912, p. 147
20	Las Acequins Ruin, Ariz.[320]	Pueblo III	Haury, E. W., 1935, Mss.	Non-interlocking
21	29 Palms, Calif.	Pueblo IV?	Campbell, E. W. C., 1931, p. 63	Non-interlocking
22A	Mesa House, Nev.[321]	Pueblo III?	Hayden, I., 1930, pp. 59-60	Interlocking
22B	Mesa House, Nev.	Pueblo III?	Hayden, I., 1930, pp. 59-60	Interlocking

The data from Coahuila are too meager, at present, to form a
basis for definite conclusions, but a general affiliation with the Lower
Pecos-Big Bend area may be postulated. Throughout this region, a
bundle foundation type with non-interlocking and non-split stitches
occurs. There is some evidence for the presence of a single-rod foundation
type, but the stitches here do not seem to be of the interlocking
variety. For northern Chihuahua but two examples of coiled basketry
seem as yet to have been described. One specimen differs from the
wares of the Lower Pecos-Big Bend region, chiefly in having a right
direction of work. The other is typical San Juan Basket Maker coiled
ware.

In the western and southern regions of the Great Basin, two
wares are represented at this time: a three-rod triangular type and a
single-rod form with interlocking stitches.

To the north of the Pueblo plateau, we find, at this time, vertical
foundation forms, the single-rod type with interlocking stitches, and
bundle foundation forms.

It will be noted that in the case of all three distributions plotted,
intermediate types appear at the peripheries. Such a condition is to
be expected, and could, indeed, be predicted, although the precise
aggregate of items could not be foreseen.

Map. 9. Coiled Basketry: Distribution During Basket Maker II—Pueblo II

TABLE 8—KEY TO MAP 9

                                                                                                                             

Number	Site	Period	Reference	Stitches	Surface	Direction
1	Upper Rio Fuerte, Mex.[322]	BM?	Zingg, R. M., Mss.	Non-interlocking; non-split	Concave	Right
2A	Western Coahuila, Mex.[323]	BM?	Peabody Museum Collection No. 22774	Stitches split on both surfaces
2B	Western Coahuila, Mex.	BM?	Peabody Museum Collection No. 22841	Stitches split on both surfaces	Concave	Left
2C	Western Coahuila, Mex.	BM?	Peabody Museum Collection No. 22774	Interlocking; split on work surface	Convex	Left
3	Western Coahuila, Mex.	BM?	Peabody Museum Collection No. 22687	Non-interlocking; non-split	Convex	Left
4A	Val Verde County, Tex.	BM?	Pearce, J. E., and Jackson, A. T., 1933, pp. 106-114	Interlocking
			Martin, G. C., 1933, pp. 55-59
4B	Val Verde County, Tex.	BM?	Pearce, J. E., and Jackson, A. T., 1933, pp. 106-114	Non-interlocking; non-split
			Martin, G. C., 1933, pp. 55-59
4C	Val Verde County, Tex.	BM?	Pearce, J. E., and Jackson, A. T., 1933, pp. 106-114	Split
			Martin, G. C., 1933, pp. 55-59
5	Culberson County, Tex.	BM?	Jackson, A. T., 1937, p. 185	Non-interlocking; split on concave surface
6	Brewster County, Tex.	BM?	Weltfish, G., 1932a, p. 33	Non-interlocking; split on non-work surface	Concave	Left
			Setzler, F. M., 1932, p. 136
7A	Brewster County, Tex.	BM III-Pueblo I	Setzler, F. M., 1933, p. 56	Non-interlocking; split on non-work surface	Concave	Left
7B	Brewster County, Tex.	BM III-Pueblo I	Setzler, F. M., 1933, p. 56	Interlocking	Concave	Left
8A	Brewster County, Tex.	BM?	Coffin, E. F., 1932, p. 38	Non-interlocking; non-split?
8B	Brewster County, Tex.	BM?	Coffin, E. R., 1932, p. 38	Split on non-work surface?
9A	Guadalupe, Mts., N. M.	BM II-Pueblo II?	Mera, H. P., 1938a, pp. 50-52	Interlocking
9B	Guadalupe Mts., N. M.	BM II-Pueblo II?	Mera, H. P., 1938a, pp. 50-52	Some interlocking; some split
9C	Guadalupe Mts., N. M.	BM II-Pueblo II?	Mera, H. P., 1938a, pp. 50-52	Some non-interlocking; some split
10A	Guadalupe Mts., N. M.	BM?	Howard, E. B., 1930, p. 197	Non-interlocking?
10B	Guadalupe Mts., N. M.	BM?	Howard, E. B., 1930, p. 197	Interlocking
10C	Guadalupe Mts., N. M.	BM?	Howard, E. B., 1930, p. 197
11	Dona Ana County, N. M.	BM?	Weltfish, G., 1932a, pp. 31-33	Non-interlocking	Concave?	Left
12	Harris Village, N. M.	Pueblo II	Haury, E. W., 1936a, p. 78	Interlocking; nonsplit
13A	Chaco: Bc 51, N. M.	Pueblo II?		Non-interlocking	Concave	Left
13B	Chaco: Bc 51	Pueblo II?		Non-interlocking; surface split on non-work	Concave	Left
14	Piedra District, Colo.	Pueblo I	Weltfish, G., 1932a, p. 21	Non-interlocking	Concave	Left
15A	San Juan County, Utah[324]	BM III	Weltfish, G., 1932a, p. 14	Non-interlocking	Concave	Left
15B	San Juan County, Utah	BM III	Weltfish, G., 1932a, p. 14	Non-interlocking	Concave	Left
15C	San Juan County, Utah	BM III	Weltfish, G., 1932a, p. 14	Non-interlocking	Concave	Left
16A	San Juan County, Utah	BM II	Weltfish, G., 1932a, p. 16	Non-interlocking	Concave	Left
16B	San Juan County, Utah	BM II	Weltfish, G., 1932a, p. 16	Non-interlocking	Concave	Left
17	Moki Canyon, Utah	BM	Burgh, R., 1937, p. 10	Interlocking
18A	Fremont River, Utah	Pueblo II	Morss, N., 1931, pp. 72-74
18B	Fremont River, Utah	Pueblo II	Morss, N., 1931, pp. 72-74
19A	Kane County, Utah	BM	Weltfish, G., 1932a, p. 14	Non-interlocking	Concave	Left
19B	Kane County, Utah	BM	Weltfish, G., 1932a, p. 14	Non-interlocking	Concave	Left
20A	Grand Gulch, Utah	BM	Weltfish, G., 1932a, p. 12	Non-interlocking	Concave	Left
20B	Grand Gulch, Utah	BM	Weltfish, G., 1932a, p. 12	Interlocking
21A	Ashley Creek, Utah[325]	Pueblo II?	Peabody Museum Collection No. A-7942	Non-interlocking; split on non-work surface	Concave	Left
21B	Ashley Creek, Utah	Pueblo II?	Peabody Museum Collection No. A-7949	Interlocking; rod not split
21C	Ashley Creek, Utah	Pueblo II?	Peabody Museum Collection No. A-7943	Interlocking; split on non-working surface	Convex	Left
22A	Promontory Point, Utah	BM	Steward, J. H., 1937, pp. 33-35	Interlocking
22B	Promontory Point, Utah	BM?	Steward, J. H., 1937, pp. 33-35	Split
22C	Promontory Point, Utah	BM?	Steward, J. H., 1937, pp. 33-35	Non-interlocking
23A	Western Utah	Pueblo I?	Steward, J. H., 1936, p. 55	Non-interlocking
23B	Western Utah	Pueblo I?	Steward, J. H., 1936, p. 55
24A	Lovelock Cave, Nev.	?	Weltfish, G., 1932b, pp. 110-111	Non-interlocking or split on non-work surface	Convex	Left
24B	Lovelock Cave, Nev.	?	Weltfish, G., 1932b, pp. 110-111	Interlocking; nonsplit	Convex	Left
24C	Lovelock Cave, Nev.	?	Weltfish, G., 1932b, pp. 110-111	Interlocking; rod split	Convex	Left
24D	Lovelock Cave, Nev.	?	Weltfish, G., 1932b, pp. 110-111	Interlocking; rod not split	Convex	Left
25	Paiute Cave, Nev.	?	Harrington, M. R., 1930, p. 118
26	Chinlee Valley, N. M.	BM II	Guernsey, S. J., 1931, p. 70	Non-interlocking	Concave?	Left
27	Segi Canyon, Ariz.	BM III	Guernsey, S. J., 1931, p. 78	Non-interlocking	Concave?	Left
28	Segi Canyon, Ariz.	Pueblo I	Lockett, H. C., 1934, p. 13	Non-interlocking	Concave?	Left
			Guernsey, S. J., 1931, p. 95
29A	Canyon de Chelley, Ariz.	BM	Weltfish, G. 1932a, p. 10	Interlocking
29B	Canyon de Chelley, Ariz.	BM	Weltfish, G. 1932a, p. 10	Non-interlocking	Concave?	Left
30	Canyon del Muerto, Ariz.	BM III	Weltfish, G., 1932a, pp. 8-9	Non-interlocking	Either	Left
31	San Francisco Mts., Ariz.	Pueblo II	Bartlett, K., 1934, pp. 44-45	Non-interlocking	Concave	Left

To point out but a few examples, the Chemehuevi (map 7, 7), who
are located midway between an area characterized by right direction
of work on the one hand and left direction on the other employ either
direction. The Western Mono (map 7, 5), similarly located between
two areas, employ foundations typical of both. Again, it seems possible
that two-rod-and-bundle triangular ware manufactured in the Guadalupe
Mountains (map 9, 9A) in early times had interlocking stitches
due to the proximity to the interlocking wares of the Lower Pecos
River region.

Turning our attention now to the temporal aspects of the distributions,
there seems to be a remarkable continuity of coiled basketry
techniques throughout the development of the Southwestern cultures.
Weltfish has treated this problem at some length, and has shown that
"the parallels for the prehistoric technical types in all cases are to be
found in modern areas closely contiguous to the ancient sites."[326] In
this paper she has shown that the prototype of the northern vertical
foundation wares of the Shoshoni, Ute, and Plains tribes is to be found
in the work of the Ozark Bluff-Dwellers. She also concludes that
certain technological forms of coiled ware from Lovelock Cave are
represented today among the Maidu, Washo, and Pomo in California.
Perhaps the continuity of two-rod-and-bundle triangular ware in the
Pueblo area is most striking of all, since it has persisted with little
change from Basket Maker II times to the present day.

We are now confronted with a problem most vital to all who
attempt to reconstruct the history of human culture: the question of
cultural stability. Weltfish correctly states that the question of "the
stability . . . of technical traits" in an important problem in an historical
study of coiled basketry.[327] The precise problem, however, remains
undefined, and the word "stability" is conspicuously lacking in her
conclusions. Instead, she implies, as previously stated, that there is a
marked continuity in basketry techniques which accounts for the
similarities between ancient and modern wares. And stability, it would
seem, is a necessary prerequisite to the continuity, whether the latter
concept be expressed or implicit. What, therefore, can be meant in
this instance by "stability"? Does it suffice for all purposes simply to
say that "stability" is the state or quality of being stable? It is in
this general sense that Boas has applied this concept to culture when
he contrasts "stability" with "change."[328]

In particular instances, however, we are interested in the question
of precisely what in a culture makes for stability or instability.
The issue, it seems, is that of the definition of a problem, rather than
of a concept. Mead has treated at some length the question of the

stability of "elements" within "complexes" in Polynesia.[329] But this
does not help us materially with the problem at hand, since we are
concerned with but a single trait—coiled basketry—and not with trait
complexes.[330]

What problems, therefore, are involved in the question of the
stability or instability of Southwestern coiled basketry techniques?
Weltfish's conclusions suggest that one problem is the question of the
stability of a trait within an area. That this problem may be illuminated
by the Southwestern data she has demonstrated with adequacy.
The very application of the Southwestern basketry data to this particular
problem, however, involves yet another problem: the question
of the stability of a given trait within a specified culture. That these
two problems are intimately related seems obvious. The evidence furnished
by Southwestern archaeology indicates that from time to time
new increments of population, as well as new traits and trait complexes,
entered this area from the outside. In order for the stability of
a given trait to be maintained within a specified area in a case where
the population or culture is wholly or partially altered, it is necessary
either that the trait be taken over by the new population or culture, or
that it be perpetuated by the older inhabitants of the area. Today, for
example, the Navaho represent the only Southwestern group to manufacture
two-rod-and-bundle coiled basketry.[331] There seems to be little
room for doubt that the Navaho took over this trait from the earlier
inhabitants of the Pueblo plateau after they had arrived in approximately
their present position. The trait seems not to have been reported
outside of the Southwest, and the probability that the Navaho
invented this basketry type in an area in which it had been manufactured
since early times seems unlikely. The stability, therefore, of
two-rod-and-bundle basketry within the Southwestern area has been
maintained in this single instance (e. g., Navaho-Pueblo) by the fact
that the Navaho adopted it; the instability of the trait in the nineteenth
century Pueblo culture is evident, since the manufacture of
this basketry type among the Pueblos has ceased in recent times
altogether.

Again, basic to both of the problems touched upon above, is the
question of the stability of items within a trait. It seems evident that,
unless the aggregate of items composing a trait are stable, the trait
itself will be in a constant state of flux. Setzler has put forward this
question in connection with differences in foundation in otherwise similar

baskets.[332] He points out that a bundle foundation basket with
interlocking stitches is characteristic of the Lower Pecos River region
of Texas. These specimens resemble a form found as intrusive among
typical Basket Maker examples. This intrusive ware, however, is characterized
by a single-rod foundation. How, then, may we regard the
instability or stability of the aggregate of items which compose a
trait? This appears to be an issue which underlies the problems of
independent invention and diffusion. To this most basic question there
is, at present, no wholly adequate answer. We may simply weigh the
evidence in each case with the pious hope that our judgment will later
prove correct. Since, however, cultural change normally progresses at
a pace which is perceptible only over larger time intervals, it seems
probable that much light could be shed on the problem of the stability
of culture as a whole by examining the stability of items within traits.

Let us turn now to certain historical problems suggested by the
distributions. Since the data are of a fragmentary nature, and because
we are dealing here with but a single trait, we must resort to speculation
pure and simple. But speculation is useful, for granting that we
are speculating, certain intriguing possibilities present themselves.

Let us first examine the possibilities suggested by the distribution
of bundle foundation wares. On a general Basket Maker-like horizon we
find bundle foundation baskets; non-interlocking, non-split stitches;
usually with a concave work surface; worked to the left in the northern
Coahuila-Big Bend region. In Pueblo IV times, these are found
in southern Arizona at Casa Grande and in the Sierra Anchas. Today,
these are made by the Pima and Papago. A similar basket, but with a
right direction of work, has been found on a Basket Maker-like horizon
in northern Chihuahua. Again, in Pueblo IV times, there are indications
that this ware was manufactured in southern California. Present
day distributions reveal that it is made by the Seri, the Maricopa, and
the southern California groups. Does the Basket Maker-like ware
from northern Coahuila and the Big Bend represent the prototype of
modern Pima-Papago ware? Are the beginnings of modern southern
California basketry to be seen in northern Chihuahua on a Basket
Maker-like horizon? One wonders also at the relationship between these
two styles, technically similar except for the direction of work.

In the case of two-rod-and-bundle triangular ware, Weltfish has
pointed out that the Lower Rio Grande forms the southeastern boundary
of this style.[333] It is, indeed, interesting that, to date, with the
exception of this extension along the Lower Rio Grande and the example
from Chihuahua, no two-rod-and-bundle triangular basketry
has been reported to the south of the plateau lands occupied by the
Anasazi peoples. Does basketry also reflect the cultural hiatus which

seems to exist between the Anasazi and the Hohokam? Will later
researches indicate that a bundle foundation basketry style was typical
of the latter culture?[334] It is unfortunate that no basketry remains
on a Basket Maker horizon have been produced from southern Arizona.

The single-rod basketry style with interlocking stitches presents
a puzzling problem. Weltfish considers it to be intrusive in the Anasazi
area, where it occurs sporadically in all periods with the exception of
present times.[335] Today it is found in the Basin and in central California.
For all periods, as is also true in the case of the vertical foundation
styles, this ware has essentially a northern distribution. Is it
an ancient type? With what culture or cultures may it be identified?

"Bird's nest" coiled storage baskets seem first to appear—as far
as present knowledge goes—on a Pueblo IV horizon in the Sierra Anchas,
and may possibly also have been utilized at Casa Grande. As has
been stated, the specimen from Bc 51 is so doubtful that it seems unwise
to consider it at this time. In modern times this storage ware has
been manufactured by the Pima and Papago, the Yuman speaking
peoples of the Lower Colorado and Gila Rivers and of southern California,
and some of the southern California Shoshonean groups. This
ware, today, seems to be centralized among the Yuman speaking
peoples. All this suggests several interesting possibilities. There is
some evidence furnished, both by the bundle coiled basketry and the
"bird's nest" storage ware, that may possibly indicate some relationship
between the Pueblo IV inhabitants of the Sierra Anchas and the
modern Pima and Papago. Is there some relationship between the
Hohokam peoples and the southern Yumans?[336] Will later excavations
in Hohokam sites reveal the presence of "bird's nest" coiling?

Three-rod triangular ware seems to have been concentrated in
the Great Basin since early times. Although we have no evidence for
Basket Maker times in central Arizona, this basketry style is represented
in this region in Pueblo IV times. Today it is manufactured in
central and northwestern Arizona by the Western Apache and the
Plateau Yumans respectively.[337] Did the Western Apache enter Arizona
in Pueblo IV times by way of the Great Basin, bringing this style
of basketry with them? Gladwin believes that they appeared in the
region inhabited by the Salado peoples early in the fourteenth century.[338]

Weltfish has pointed out that this style is independent of the
typical Anasazi ware; that its distribution is more southern; that it
tends to be identified with a later horizon.[339]

In summing up, it may be stated that coiled basketry seems to
have earned its place as a trait of some comparative significance. It
reflects cultural relationships and differences, and is, therefore, a
useful tool in reconstructing the prehistory of aboriginal America.
Finally, it serves to shed its own light on some interesting theoretical
problems which are applicable to anthropology as a whole.

Section G

ARTIFACTS OF BONE, ANTLER, AND SHELL

By Mary Whittemore

The study of bone implements has been somewhat neglected in
Southwestern archaeology. A few worked bones make less of an
impression on the excavator than do the walls of rooms and the
innumerable fragments of pottery. This report will deal in considerable
detail with a relatively small collection of objects of bone,
antler, and shell, in the belief that bone implements may yet prove to
be of importance as diagnostic traits of area or period, and that only
scrupulous attention to details will reveal whatever sensitivity as
cultural indicators these artifacts may possess.

Some years ago Dr. Kidder[340] pointed out the advantages of
using a classification in dealing with bone implements, and in his
very thorough treatment of the Pecos material[341] he provided such a
classification. Several reports since that time have adopted the Pecos
schema with certain modifications to suit the needs of smaller collections.
One excellent example is Miss Bartlett's work.[342] The following
classification, likewise, is based upon that of Dr. Kidder. Plates 12
and 13 illustrate the bone implements and the descriptions can be
followed by the corresponding catalog numbers on the plates.

Objects of Bone (See Plates 12-13)

                                                                         

I.	Implements—75				Catalog number
	A.	Awls—61			Bc 51 30/-
		1.	Deer, antelope and elk leg bone—43
			a. Head of bone intact	0
			b. Head of bone unworked except by original splitting	5	(11,45,57,111,128)
			c. Head partly worked down	4	(17,47,52,88)
			d. Head wholly removed	12	(29,43,61,65,71,77, 82,99,10,104,117,126)
			e. Splinter	7	(12,33,34,40,76,90,101)
			f. Worked on whole surface	8	(10,49,51,58,66,95, 96,102)
			g. Unclassifiable broken tips	7	(118,120)
		2.	Deer and elk ribs—2		(27,53,60,63,79,80,119)
			a. Face of rib	2
		3.	Rabbit leg bone—8		(98,105)
			a. Whole bone	6
			b. Splinter	2	(26,78,112,122,123,124)
		4.	Bird leg bone—8
			a. Whole bone	6	(22,25,59,94,103,127)
			b. Splinter	2	(48,121)
	B.	Chisels—4
		1.	Beveled from one side	2	(30,41)
		2.	Beveled from two sides	2	(74,97)
	C.	End scrapers or fleshers—5
		1.	Deer humerus	4	(15,16,55,73)
		2.	Deer phalanx	1	(69)
	D.	Miscellaneous bones—4
		1.	Worked fragments of long bone	3	(28,31,32)
		2.	Bone ring	1	(38)
	E.	Worked human femur		1	(13)
II.	Ornaments—13
	A.	Beads		11	(44,46,56,67,85,86,87, 91,92,106,107)
	B.	Pendants		2	(62,108)
				Objects of Antler
I.	Awl (Tine)			1	(42)
				Objects of Shell
I.	Bead			1	(64)
II.	Armband			1	(68,81,—two pieces)
				Total number of objects—91

I. Implements

A. Awls.—(See Plates 12 and 13.)—Awls are clearly the
predominant class of bone objects from Bc 51. Awls may be considered
as a rather general category of pointed implements, and there
will be no attempt to distinguish between awls and punches. It may
be added that almost all the implements have the tapering point, which
characterizes an awl, rather than the rounded blunt point, which
characterizes a punch.[343] Kidder,[344] Hodge[345] and others have speculated
about the probable uses of various types of awls in basket making,
skin piercing and similar operations. These possibilities probably
hold for the Chaco, except that none of the awls from Bc 51 display
edges worn in notches from use in weaving.[346]

According to the particular bone from which they are made,[347] the
awls tend to fall into the following four categories:

• 1. Deer, antelope and elk leg bone

---

[133





• 2. Deer and elk rib

• 3. Rabbit leg bone

• 4. Bird leg bone

1. Deer and Antelope Leg Bones

a. Head of bone intact.—This class made from bones of large
animals does not occur at all in Bc 51 although several examples were
found in Bc 50.

b. Head unworked except for original splitting.—There are five
implements of this class, three of which are made from split sections
of the proximal end of a deer metapodial which provides flattened
head to the implements. The head of one specimen (45) reveals
exceptional wear. The three examples are otherwise very similar:
strong, heavy implements with rounded-off edges and fairly sharp
points. Lengths vary from 3″ to 3¾″, the largest one (11) is 1¼″
wide at the head and the smallest one (45) 10/16″ wide at the head.
There are two examples of the distal end split but unworked, a type
which is very common in other sections of the Southwest.[348] Several
implements from Shabik'eshchee Village are made from this portion of
mammal bone but most of them seem worked down.[349]

c. Head partly worked down.—Only three examples of this class
are definitely awls. A handle fragment has been found which may
properly be included. Two of the examples are of unsplit heads,
one of a metapodial (17), and the other of a tibia (47). The metapodial
lacks an epiphysis and has been so eroded that it is hard to
tell how much was worked originally. It has a sharp point and is
3¼″ long. The end of the tibia is rounded and a shallow groove
has been cut almost encircling the neck of the bone. It is a bit
shorter than the metapodial, and the point is broken off. It looks
much like one of Hodge's[350] or Robert's[351] "constantly refashioned awls."
Judging from the wear on the bone it might have been used again and
again.

The third awl (52) is fashioned from the back of a tibia with
evidence of the swelling of the neck but with little of the epiphysis
remaining. It is well pointed and has nicely worked edges for about
half its length. The appearance is that of a very strong, usable
implement.

The fourth artifact (88) was probably an awl, fashioned from
a split metapodial. The butt end has been considerably worked down
and there is a perforation in the neck 1″ from the end. Hodge[352] and
others suggest that this sort of perforation might afford attachment

for a thong. This implement is one of the three from Bc 51 which
is made from the split distal end of an antelope metapodial. The
fragment is 2¾″ long.

d. Head wholly removed.—As at Pecos, this is the largest class
of awls, thirteen specimens in all. In every class all traces of the
head have been removed and only the shaft is left. This makes
identification difficult and in many cases impossible. Three specimens
were identified as deer tibial fragments, and a few more as probably
antelope metapodials but the rest were devoid of clues. Five implements
of this class (43,82,99,100,117) are quite similar, varying in
length from 3¼″ to 4¾″ and a little more than ½″ wide. They are
relatively flat with rounded edges but still show the slight natural
concavity of the inside of the bone from which the awls were made.
The pierced handle of one (99) 3¾″ long may have afforded attachment
for a thong as suggested above. It also appears similar to one
figured by Morris[353] and termed a needle-like implement. The perforated
awl and one other (99 and 43) exhibit the polish which seems
to come from long use.

Two more awls (61 and 77) are cracked so that only the points
remain. The tips are broken off. One is made from a heavy tibial
fragment (29). Two more are light, finely worked awls (65 and 71),
showing a suggestion of the surface concavity of the bone. The
unbroken one is almost 4½″ long and has a sharp point. The point
of the other is broken off. Both have flattened heads comparable with
Hodge's[354] or Kidder's[355] spatulate awls.

One awl handle (104), made from the back of a tibia with a
splintered edge, is very flat and spatulate. The specimen resembles
some of the Pecos awl spatulas[356] but is perhaps not as carefully
worked. It also looks similar to Robert's spatulate awl from Shabik'eshchee
Village.[357]

Another peculiar implement (126), made from the base of the
ulna of an elk, seems to fit into this class. It measures 1″ by 4″ and
appears to be strong and smoothly worked.

e. Splinter.—These are implements made from bone splinters.
Only the point has been ground down and smoothed. The largest
one of these (33) is 5¼″ long and is made from a deer tibia. The
point is not very sharp, but it has been broken. Another from an
antelope femur (70), 3½″ long, has an excellent point. Two awls
are made from thin antelope fragments (40 and 101).

All the awls of this class have a rough angular appearance. In

spite of apparent crudity they show no evidence of having been found
predominantly in earlier levels but seem to occur in the refuse fill of
Kiva 3, the section between Kivas 2 and 3 and in room 16. In other
words—so far as the limited evidence goes—they occurred predominantly
in refuse or intentional fill.

f. Awls worked on whole surface.—This is not one of Kidder's
classes but one which is original in this report. However, it is roughly
the same idea as Hodge's smoothly finished awls.[358] The difference
between these awls and those of class d which have heads wholly
removed is that the concave inside surface of the bone is no longer
visible but has been completely worked down. The points are missing
in three cases (58, 95, 96). They have been broken and repointed in
two cases (66, 102) giving a blunted appearance. Four of these five
implements exhibit roughly rectangular handles (58,66,96,102) like
the Pecos four-sided implements.[359] There are two small implements
which are perfect. One (10) is a finely worked awl, 3 3/16″ wide and
3⅝″ long. It has a needle-like point. The shaft of the implement is
roughly rectangular. The butt end is slightly tapered—a specimen of
excellent workmanship. The other (49) is round, needle-like, and
2½″ long with a groove around the neck. The point is not as sharp
as that of the bodkin.

g. Unclassifiable broken tips.—There are seven of these in various
stages of bluntness and fineness. One (79) is extremely fine.
Two (53,80) are resharpened and two (27,63) are broken. All are
so small and fragmentary that they cannot be identified or properly
classified.

2. Deer and Elk Ribs

a. Face of rib—worked type.—There is one implement (105)
about 2½″ long duplicating Pecos types.[360] Some of the cancellous
bone is left in place presumably to strengthen the implement or
perhaps to provide a more comfortable grip. The tip of the point
has been broken off but it must have been fine and sharp. The width
is ⅜″. Another awl (98), about 5″ long tapers from the inch-wide
handle to a dulled point. The bone is extremely fragile. A tentative
identification designates the material elk rib. This implement is
similar to one from Shabik'eshchee.[361] None of the splinter type or
edge of rib type awls found at Pecos[362] were found at Bc 51.

3. Rabbit Leg Bone.—The jack rabbit tibia is the most popular
rabbit bone for awls. Six examples were found, the seventh (26)
being a radius. The method of manufacture seems to have included

splintering the main section of the bone, and then pointing the end
by grinding. Two awls were made from small splinters of bones. Of
these the smaller (118) is finely pointed. Only half the collection
exhibits a lustrous surface. In general rabbit bone awls were not
the most popular. In length they are 2½″ to 3¾″, averaging about 3″.
The points of two or three have been snapped off. Only two, the implement
from the radius (26) and one of those made from a splinter
(118), exhibit extremely fine sharp points. In one case, in which the
whole bone has been used (but with epiphysis removed) (122), the
bone has been cracked transversely, leaving a jagged edge.

4. Bird Leg Bone.—As Kidder points out[363] the leg and wing
bones of birds can be worked to extremely sharp points but are
extremely brittle. Of the eight bird bone implements found in Bc 51,
four could be identified as golden eagle.

a. Whole bone.—This class consists of whole bones, with or
without heads, which have been tapered and pointed. One (94) of the 6
examples of this class has been broken off so that hardly more than a
point is left. Another (103) looks as if the head had been chewed off.
Three (22, 25, 59) have fine points unbroken and look considerably
used. Lengths vary from 2¼″ and 3½″.

b. Splinter.—There are two very roughly formed, exhibiting few
signs of use or wear. The lengths are 1½″ and 2¼″.

B. Chisels.—Four implements might be termed chisels. In the
terminology of Hodge,[364] punches are an intermediate class between
awls and chisels. That intermediate class has been omitted from this
classification.

1. Beveled Only on One Edge.—There are two implements which
come into this group, one (41) of a rib of some mammal, the other
(30) of some deer fragment. The latter is about 3¼″ long by 9/16″
wide at the handle, tapering to a shaft about ¼″ wide. The cancellous
tissue is exposed through the middle portion of the implement. The
point is blunted and considerably worn down. This implement looks
somewhat like one of those illustrated by Hodge which he calls a bone
chisel.[365] It is also very much like Kidder's implements, which he calls
flakers, designating them as tools "probably employed in the fabrication
of chipped implements. Most of them seem originally to have
been awls, put to secondary use for stone-working after their points
had become dulled or been broken. The rounded, often battered tips
are characteristic."[366]

The tip of this implement seems to show the same sort of wear. At the
same time it shows a tendency toward having one beveled edge so it
falls in this category of chisels. It is so shaped that it might possibly
have been used as an awl at one time.

The second example of this class (41), a split rib, ¾″ wide and
more than 5″ long, is another problem. The cancellous bone is exposed
and left in place along the whole of one flat side. The bone itself was
much affected by weathering and is in poor condition. The handle
end seems to be broken off and the chisel end is only about half there,
but one is led to believe that it is a chisel by the general tapering
towards an edge which must have been about ½″ across.

2. Beveled from Two Sides.—One (74) is 2¾″ long, 13/16″ wide
at the butt end, tapering to ½″ wide at the cutting edge and displays
excellent workmanship. The butt end is unfinished and rough but
not broken. The cutting end is smoothly beveled. At its thickest point
the implement is 5/16″ thick. No implement of this sort was found
in Bc 50.

The second chisel (97) is made from a mule deer humerus still
showing the curve of the shaft of the bone with only the end worked
down. The length is 4″, width ¾″ at butt end, and ½″ at cutting edge.
The edge is fragmentary but shows the beveling from both sides, being
considerably more marked on the inside curve of the bone.

C. Fleshers or Scrapers.—Four of deer humerus were found,
only one of which (55) was complete. This measured 6½″ long, with
a blade 1¼″ at the widest point and the head of the bone partly worked
down. One tiny scraper made from a deer phalanx was also present.
The humerus fleshers all have rounded edges and exhibit none of the
serrations found at Pecos.[367] The little phalanx scraper (69) is 2″
long and exhibits a good deal of working in the head region, giving
the impression of flattened sides. It is remarkable that all of the big
scrapers have tended to break off at the same point an inch or so down
the neck, which seems the weak point in that type of implement.

At Pecos, Kidder[368] found that scrapers of the metatarsus type
with ankle bones for a handle predominated with but one single doubtful
specimen of an end scraper from a humerus. Kidder states:[369] "That
bone can be, and by certain peoples of the San Juan drainage commonly
was, fashioned into a serviceable tool."

This type was also found in large numbers by Morris, at Aztec, and
one was inlaid.[370] At Pueblo Bonito[371] were found a good many scrapers

of this type inlaid with turquoise and, doubtless, of ceremonial importance.
The distribution of this type of implement seems to be more a
question of culture area than of period, although this humerus type
may be the earlier.

D. Miscellaneous Bones—Worked But Not Identifiable as Implements.—There
are three fragments of long bones showing evidence
of having been worked and one unfinished ring. One of the
long bones (31) and the bone ring (38) show the method
of cutting a bone most of the way through, probably with a flint knife,
and then breaking.[372] The section of long bone was not broken off,
but the bone ring shows unworked edges subsequent to the break.
A 3″ section of an antelope metapodial (31) shows a diagonal cut
across one end which looks as if it might illustrate the first stage of
working down an awl. The third long bone section (32), broken at
one end and showing a slight outward curve toward the epiphysis on
the other, shows no evidence of human workmanship other than the
regular splitting, presumably, for marrow. The bone ring (38) is
unsmoothed on one edge but the other edge is quite rounded. This ring
may have been cut from an old implement to prepare a new surface.
At least, the rounded surface does not resemble an epiphysis, even an
immature one. Although only ¾ of the contour of the bone is
present it is enough to suggest that it came from a long bone, probably
the tibia of a pronghorn antelope. This sort of unfinished ring
is not an unusual discovery in the Southwest.

E. Worked Human Femur.—The 4″ section of human femur
(13) appears to be the blank for an intended implement which was
never finished. One end is broken off, the other gouge shaped. The
locus was near the surface west of room 1.

Worked human bones are not very common in the Southwest.
There was only one possibility at Pecos,[373] a part of a broken object,
presumably a disk of skull, possibly human.

II. Ornaments

A. Beads.—There were 11 bone beads and 1 bone tube (56) 3½″
long, perhaps representing the beginning stages of a bead, many of
them accompanying burials. Five of these could be identified as sections
of golden eagle, 1 from a femur (91) and 4 from ulnae (44, 46,
56, 106). Several of the beads were broken (67, 85, 107). The broken

sections of specimen 67 show it to be blackened all the way through
with a high polish on the outside. This bead was found in kiva 3 at the
6′ level on the east side. Variations in diameter are from ½″ to ¼″.
The edges are well smoothed, very evenly in many cases. Five beads
accompanied burials in room 2, 2 beads were found in room 16, and
another in the lower levels of kiva 4. Several lay near the surface
between kivas 2 and 3. These beads may have been worn strung end
to end or bunched in pairs as wrist guards.

B. Pendants.—One (62) is a thin piece of bone, probably the
curved outer portion of a rib with cancellous tissue removed. It
measures 2¼″ by ⅝″. Roughly rectangular in shape with curved
ends and rounded edges, there is a small drilled hole a little to the left
of center of one end. It is fragile, broken in 4 pieces, and was found
in kiva 3 in the 0-3′ level. Several similar pendants came from Bc 50.
The ones found at Pecos[374] are heavier and stronger.

The other pendant (108) is a delicate portion of the base of a
claw, probably that of an eagle. It is pierced by a finely drilled hole
through its center. The dimensions are 1″ by ¾″ by ⅜″ at its thickest
point. It was found in a small bowl on the floor against the southeast
corner of room 17, more than 9′ below the surface.

Bone Materials Used and Loci.—Mule deer was by far the most
common source of animal bone for implements, and metapodials
and long bone fragments were most commonly used. Metapodials of
deer and antelope were favorite bones at Pecos. On the other hand,
at Pecos were found a much wider variety of bones, such as those of
wolves, coyotes, and wildcats.

"Objects of bone were not treasured possessions, were seldom
placed in graves, and are found in great quantities and often in
apparently still serviceable condition in the rubbish heaps, where it is
supposed the majority were thrown by their owners."[375] This statement,
made by Kidder in regard to Pecos, is roughly true in the case
of Bc 51 with a slight difference in emphasis. No bone implements
were found in the refuse mound proper but many, in serviceable condition,
were found at various levels of rooms and kivas which appeared
to have been intentionally filled with refuse. Accompanying burials,
five bone beads were found, but only one broken tip of an awl was
found in such a location. This situation contrasts sharply with the
facts for Unshagi and other sites. Attempts at stratigraphic analysis
of artifacts of bone, antler, and shell from Bc 51 proved fruitless:
the character of objects from different levels showed no consistent
ascertainable differentiations.

Artifacts of Antler (See Plate 13)

There was one small antler tool 1¾″ long, ⅝″ wide, and ⅜″ thick,
which was found in Bc 51. The point is rather blunt. Two sides have
been worked down from parallel faces but the butt end is unfinished.
It was located in the fill outside rooms 1-5. This implement seems to
fit into Kidder's classification of tines with two sides of the top worked
and it appears to be almost identical with Fig. 232 h,[376] which Kidder
remarks "may be a wedge." It is also similar to some small antler
tools found in Jemez Cave.[377]

This is the only object of antler found in Bc 51 and there were
none in Bc 50. One was found at Łeyit Kin.[378] There were relatively few
(13) antler implements found at Jemez Cave, but many at Pecos (751).

Artifacts of Shell

The section of an arm band, found in two pieces (68, 81), was
examined by Mr. William J. Clench, of the Museum of Comparative
Zoology, at Harvard University, who stated that it was not a fresh
water shell, not a clam shell, and that it was probably a transverse or
spiral section from a large gastropod. The band has been too thoroughly
worked down to make positive identification possible. In grinding
down and polishing the specimen, the workman has preserved the
original curve of the shell. Together the fragments measure only 2″
in length, ⅛″ in width, and ¼″ in height.

The other object of shell (or possibly calcite) is a very tiny bead
(64) drilled at one end with dimensions 5/16″ by 3/16″ by 2/16″.
This type of bead has aroused the interest of several excavators in
the Southwest because of its unusual and distinctive form. It has
been variously described as bi-lobed, two-lobed, double-drop, and
figure eight. The bead has two flat, parallel surfaces, ground smooth.
The flat surfaces are ovoid in shape with slight concavities on each of
the long sides giving a bi-lobed or figure eight effect. The hole for suspension
is very cleanly and sharply drilled in one of the lobes.

I have been able to discover eight published references to beads of
this description, found in sites located in Anasazi, Hohokam, and
Mogollon culture areas. At Snaketown,[379] where shell work was very
prolific, 14 beads, which are almost exact duplicates of the example
from Bc 51, were found, 7 in Sacaton levels, 2 more in Santa Cruz, and
5 unplaced.

There have been several reports of this type of bead from the
Mogollon. Haury[380] lists bi-lobed shell beads as characteristic of the

Three Circle phase on the basis of one bead, 7 mm. long, one lobe perforated,
recovered from the Harris site. Nesbit[381] found several in
the Starkweather Ruin and refers to them as a late Pueblo development.
He also reports the flat type "figure 8" bead in "The Ancient
Mimbreños."[382]

At Kiatuthlanna, in Eastern Arizona, Roberts[383] found a whole
necklace of these beads. Although they were in a bowl of Pueblo III
period and probably characteristic of Pueblo III, he suggests that they
might possibly have come from an older level and have been gathered
and saved by the Pueblo people. In northeastern Arizona, we have a
report from Kidder and Guernsey.[384] "The three two-lobed beads of
white stone are of an unusual shape; strung together they give the
effect of a double string." These beads are certainly the same shape
and, perhaps, the same material as the other examples. There are,
also, some beads of this type at the museum of Phillips Academy,
Andover, collected by W. K. Moorehead at Pueblo Bonito. Winifred
Reiter, in her unpublished master's thesis, describes these beads and
cites their finding in Chaco Canyon.:[385] Beads of this sort were found
on the lower floor of Casa Rinconada, in the inter-floor fills of the
Chetro Ketl "great kiva," in intentional fill in the northwest corner
outside Chetro Ketl Kiva G, in a weathered bank of a cut in the
Chetro Ketl refuse heap.[386]

From the scattered examples of these beads cited above they seem
to have a very wide distribution in both time and area, from Basket
Maker through to late Pueblo and in Anasazi, Hohokam, and Mogollon
areas.

Comments on Distribution

A few individual bone objects have already been compared with
similar examples from other areas in the Southwest. The next step is
to widen and systematize this distributional comparison. Dr. Kidder
has remarked that the very unobtrusiveness of bone objects gives them
a peculiar archaeological value. "So modest an art as bonework, with
so unchanging a raw material, should be, however, much more stable
and should help us, if studied as closely as by Mr. Hodge, toward the
solution of many difficult problems."[387] Kidder began an extensive distributional
comparison when working on the Pecos material,[388] examined
many museum collections, amassed much material but became
convinced that the time for a comprehensive study had not yet come.

A fairly thorough examination of the literature in connection with
the preparation of this paper has revealed that insufficient published
material has accumulated since 1932 to make a thorough treatment
possible as yet. However, it seems worthwhile to bring together the
suggestions about the importance and distribution of bone implements
which have been offered by various authorities from time to time.
An attempt will be made to characterize briefly bone implements from
different areas and roughly to indicate dividing lines.

At the Perpetual Fire Site, in eastern Texas, ¾ of the implements
found were flaking tools with a screwdriver-like end which Jackson
remarks are "peculiar to this region."[389] The awls, which comprise 23
per cent of the total objects of bone found, are mostly of the partly
worked splinter type, rather crude and in striking contrast to the well
worked artifacts found in rock shelters in west Texas. This is evidently
a very different sort of bone working complex from that found
in New Mexico and Arizona. A few beads, a gouge, and some cut
bone, as well as a hog tusk awl, were also found.

In the Big Bend region and in the Panhandle, chisels, gouges,
punches, awls, scrapers, sounding rasps, some engraved bones, some
needles, beads, flaking tools are reported, awls being the most numerous.
Pearce and Jackson[390] remark that the Val Verde awls resemble
some of those from west Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona, but differ
from those of central, south, and east Texas in size and shape. Coffin[391]
notes that his awls from Brewster County are not different in type
from Arizona and New Mexico examples.

At Lovelock Cave, in central Nevada,[392] more than half of the awls
found were made from scapulae. Loud and Harrington state that in
California awls are made from the cannon bone and ulna of deer and
rarely from the penis bone of marine mammals and the limb bones of
birds. In the University of California collection, from the cliff dwellings
of Utah and southwestern Colorado, over half the awls are made
from the various limb bones of birds. Spatulas, bone tubes, scapulae
scrapers, a flute or whistle, and a good many objects of horn and hoof
were also found at Lovelock. Implements from Pueblo Grande de
Nevada and Gypsum Cave resemble the usual Basket Maker—Pueblo
or Anasazi types.

Steward's work in western Utah[393] shows somewhat different emphasis
from that of the University of California's collection. He found
that the deer leg bone was generally used. As distinctive of western
Utah, he finds antler tips, antler wedges, gaming bones, bone pendants,

and splinter awls which tend to be longer than those with the head
intact.

In Sacramento County, California, Lillard and Purves[394] found
round, thick, short, spatula-like implements at the bottom of their
oldest site and more slender and better pointed ones toward the surface.
Cannon bones of deer, elk, and antelope were favorite bones, but
pointed awls and needles were also made of the leg and wing bones of
birds. Whistles, carved bone tubes, and several flat implements of
bone were also found. The evidence from this site and from the Emeryville
Shell Mound[395] does not seem contrary to the Loud and Harrington
suggestion. The Twenty-nine Palms region[396] and the southern San
Joaquin Valley[397] seem to be characterized by relative scarcity of bone
objects. The remarkable thing about the northern San Joaquin Valley[398]
is that two-thirds of the objects found were whistles or tubes.
Bone work from this dig was scarce in comparison with that from the
shell mounds but there was quite a variety: skinning bones, fish hooks,
pierced awls and bodkins, carved bone, sea mammal bone, and the
usual assortment of awls.

There seem to be two features which set off Snaketown[399] and the
Hohokam generally from Anasazi and Mogollon cultures. The first is
the general scarcity of bone artifacts. The second is the presence of
bone tubes. Awls and tubes seem to be the only bone objects found.
Too few awls were recovered from Snaketown to determine definite
types for the Hohokam, but several dagger-like specimens (which
Haury suggests might have been worn as hair ornaments) were found
in poor condition with cremations. Several awls, similar to Anasazi
types, are illustrated and an awl found in the Santa Cruz and Sacaton
Phase forms a link with the Mogollon.

Of the bone tubes which occur in great numbers (the early ones
incised and the later ones plain) Haury remarks:[400] "Ornamented bone
tubes do not occur in great abundance in the Southwest. Kidder (A. V.
1932, fig. 220) illustrates a small series from the Pecos, only one of
which is definitely prehistoric and Hodge (F. W., 1920, p. 122) reports
a smiliar condition for Hawikuh. In both of these ruins the majority
of tubes were made of bird bone and were thus smaller in diameter and
longer than Hohokam. Perforation of tubes has never been practiced
by Hohokam."

Carved or incised bone has a wide, though scattered, distribution
in both time and space. Guernsey and Kidder found decorated tubes

in Basket Maker caves in northeastern Arizona.[401] In the "Slab-house"
culture they found a hollow bone tool with parallel grooves on it.[402]
Martin found many implements with engraved handles in the Shumla
Caves in Texas.[403] At the Saddle-Back Ruin, Holden found decorated
bones with grooves cut crosswise.[404] Schenck and Dawson found quite a
few geometric etched lines on objects uncovered in the northern San
Joaquin Valley.[405] Carved bone beads are rather rare, but carving on
bone is a bit more common.

Haury[406] points out, as diagnostic of Mogollon, the side notched
awls which occur along with plain awls and dice in the Mimbres Phase,
the same combination with the addition of burial talismen in Three
Circle, and plain and notched awls accompanied by tubes in the San
Francisco Phase. Nesbit[407] found some of these side notched awls
in the Starkweather pithouse. Roberts[408] found one at Kiatuthlanna
and Haury[409] found several at Harris Village. The most usual
type at Starkweather does not have the side notch. The bone tubes
mentioned by Haury are of both mammal and bird bone, seven in all.
Bone implements seem to be relatively scarce in Mogollon, compared
with the number in Anasazi sites.

In Anasazi sites awls are predominant. In the Basket Maker
and early Pueblo excavations those found are usually made of long
bones of deer and antelope, the chief distinguishing characteristic between
these and later examples being that these awls are, in general,
shorter, stubbier, and look more as if they had been reworked. As has
been suggested by Lillard and Purves, this tendency toward shorter,
stubbier awls, in early periods is, apparently, a fairly general trend.
Beads or tubes, whistles, gaming pieces, and perforated awls are
found fairly generally in these sites. Needles, punches, and flaking
tools, decorated or carved bone and handles for hafting are sometimes
found. Rasp sounders, chisels, scrapers, and objects of antler are
rare. Pendants, flutes, and weaving tools do not seem to occur at all
in this horizon.

Pueblo II has few exceptionally long awls and still has quite a
few short ones. The variety of objects of bone is not very great, in
fact, Bartlett[410] characterizes Pueblo II by things lacking rather than

by things found. This lack of variety may partly hinge upon the fact
that so few sites are unequivocally assigned to Pueblo II. Whistles
were found in the San Francisco Mountains region but have not been
reported from elsewhere. No flutes, flageolets, or rasp sounders were
found. Carved bone, turquoise, and other inlays, effigies, bone dice,
weaving tools, spindle whorls, handles for hafting, bone arrows are
all missing from Pueblo II collections. Needles, objects of antler,
and gaming bones are scarce as are rib implements, chisels, and
pendants. Uncarved bone beads or tubes and pierced awls occur in
most Pueblo II sites.

Sites which are Pueblo III and later seem to have almost every
conceivable bone artifact. This is particularly true of Pecos and
Hawikuh. Those excavations which are solely Pueblo III do seem,
however, to have relatively few needles, rasp sounders, flutes, whistles,
gaming pieces, decorated bone, handles for hafting, antler, effigies,
and spindle whorls. The long awls, which distinguish later from
earlier periods in the Anasazi culture, are not the only type found.
They are not even predominant. It is simply that there are numerous
specimens which are longer and more tapering than an awl would be
in earlier periods. Roberts does figure some awls almost 8 inches long
from Shabik'eshchee Village,[411] but awls of that length are much more
common at Pecos.

To consider distribution geographically rather than chronologically
for a moment, can any general statement be made about the
Chaco area? Awls—as in Pueblo archaeological sites generally—
definitely predominate. At Łeyit Kin the proportion (65 out of 80)[412]
was even higher than at mound 51. In Chaco Canyon awls with the
head of the bones intact seem rare, although at Łeyit Kin 14 out of 65
"Awls and Punches" fell in this category.[413] There is a general lack
of wind instruments except for a few whistles. Tubular bone beads
were common in all known time periods and were perforated to make
whistles at Shabik'eshchee Village.[414] Drilled awls and needles are
fairly common. No humerus end scrapers were found at Shabik'eshchee
but they were found in significant numbers in the Pueblo II excavations,
were thought to be of ceremonial importance at Bonito and were
also found at Aztec. Kidder[415] pointed out that these humerus scrapers
were common in late ruins of the Upper San Juan. Roberts[416] calls
them a Pueblo II development. Evidence now suggests that they came
in during Pueblo I or II times and, perhaps, with them came the little
deer phalanx end scrapers.

Thus, from area to area and from period to period, there are some
variations in bone implements. Differences, except when taken by
proportions of occurrence, do not seem to bulk very large. Awls are,
in general, similar because materials and functional restrictions make
this almost inevitable. Examination has shown that variations are
most likely to occur in quantity or relative percentage of types found.
Other factors which, to some extent, appear distinctive are unusual
implements or decorations.

Section H

SUBSISTENCE REMAINS

By Clyde Kluckhohn

Vegetable.[417] —Cobs of the 7-, 10-, and 12-row types of maize were
recovered from the refuse mound in considerable abundance and were
also found in the fill and fire pits of a number of rooms. In appearance,
the specimens correspond to the description given by Hibben for those
from Bc 50[418] Pinyon nuts were found in rooms 5 and 7. Cucurbit rind
and stems were found in room 7, and a cache of curcurbit seeds were
found below the floor in the southeast corner of room 20, but species
identification was not possible in any case. No beans were found.

Bird and Mammal.[419] —Bones of all the mammals and birds found
at Bc 50 were also found at Bc 51 and, in addition, a few bones of elk
(Cervus canadensis), ground squirrel (Citellus tridecemlineatus
parvus), hawk (Buteo sp.—probably Red-Tailed), and Scaled Quail
(Callipepla squamata) were discovered. The percentages of the 3,824
identifiable bone remains were so extraordinarily similar (save for
appreciably greater representation of the Golden Eagle) that publication
of the tabulation does not seem worth while.

The distribution of the bones offers some features of interest. Less
than 500 identifiable pieces came from the refuse mound. Metapodials[420]
(especially metatarsals) and teeth of deer and antelope were especially
prominent, along with a fair number of rabbit pelves and some
deer and antelope ribs. Some bird and mammal bones came from the
fill of all rooms, but the northern rooms yielded very few and a number
of these were bones of rodents which were very possibly not food
remains. Only rooms 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, and 23 afforded more than 30
identifiable bones. It was in these rooms and in the kivas that this
class of remains were concentrated. From room 16 (sub) alone came
more than 900, nearly 90 per cent rabbit pelves, scapulae, and long
bones but with a few deer long bones, ribs, and vertebrae. (Could this
collection of rabbit bones possibly be connected with a communal rabbit
hunt?) More than a third of the total (1,419) bird and animal
bones came from kiva 3, with close to 20 per cent being of deer and
antelope. This greater percentage for these two animals (average in
the whole collection of 11.9 per cent) was maintained in all the kivas.

From this fact (plus the generally larger representation of animal
bones in the kivas) it is tempting to infer ritual feasting[421] in the kivas
(possibly of men's societies, conceivably connected with hunting?)
Turkey remains (both bones and shells) were also prominent in all
kivas, although not found between fire screen and ventilator as in
Bc 50. However, only two rooms failed to give evidence of the turkey,
and bones and shells were also frequently found in the refuse mound,
although there was no evidence of the burial of these birds. The precise
function of the turkey in Pueblo culture remains obscure. Parsons[422]
has recently suggested that possibly the turkey was once a sacrificial
bird, as in Mexico. It is not eaten by some present-day Pueblos.[423]

A Note on the Distribution of Mammal and Bird Remains.—From
a survey of the literature it would appear that Southwestern archaeologists
have been rather cavalier in documenting this class of remains.
Out of 112 reports (which reported rather fully on most
classes of objects found) 74 failed completely to list mammal and bird
remains. In many of the others the information was rather incomplete
and imprecise. Hibben, M. R. Harrington, Mera, and Steward are honorable
exceptions in that they go beyond stating the presence of the
bird or mammal and give exact figures on relative representation.

To be sure, the record—so far as we know it at present—appears
to be a comparatively complacent one. Jackrabbit, rabbit, and deer
seem, as Hough has observed,[424] to have been rather consistently the
staple animal foods of the prehistoric inhabitants of the Southwest.
Prairie dog and other rodents, some antelope, and fewer mountain
sheep bones are also reported in almost all cases. Elk remains were
discovered in 4 Chaco sites,[425] in the Piedra region,[426] on Mesa Verde,[427]
at Winona Village,12 and in the Chama Valley ("possibly");[428] bison
at several Texas sites, Pecos,[429] southwestern New Mexico,[430] the Swarts
ruin,[431] a cave at the rear of the Tularosa cliffhouse,[432] the Mogollon

region,[433] Snaketown,[434] and sites in the Great Salt Lake area.[435] At first
glance these occurrences of the rarer animals seem to reflect only
geographic position. Several of the cases, however, perhaps mean
either a different physical environment at the time in question or the
equally important cultural fact of hunting expeditions to distant
points.

Recent detailed studies[436] of the hunting methods of contemporary
Southwestern peoples have clearly demonstrated how much of social
and ceremonial organization enters into the procurement of the birds
and animals they eat or otherwise use. Relative figures from different
sites or proportions of remains of animals which are more difficult
to capture or which could presumably only be obtained at a distance
would, taken in the context of other data, sometimes permit of
guarded comparative inferences on social organization. Similarly,
only when numbers are recorded in full can we make other impressionistic
comparisons as to the relative importance of hunting in the basic
economy of various cultures or periods. Haury has suggested[437] that
the Mogollon peoples relied more heavily on game than did the Pueblo,
and the Hohokam less than either of these. Guernsey and Kidder
found deer and antelope bones rare in their northeastern Arizona sites,
with mountain sheep quite common.[438]

The possibility also exists that presence or consistent absence of
animal remains would aid in establishing cultural similarities or continuities
through tie-ups with ritual prohibitions or observances. Bear
hunting, for example, is practiced for food at Jemez[439] and bear paws
are part of the equipment of Keresan medicine societies.[440] But the
killing of bears is strictly forbidden at Isleta,[441] and bears were probably
killed by the Hopi only under necessity,[442] although their emergence
legend refers to the eating of bear flesh as a normal practice.[443]
Ruling out a few reported occurrences from cave sites, I have noted
bear remains only from Pueblo Bonito and Chetro Ketl,[444] the Riana
Ruin,[445] and Awatovi.[446] Mountain lion, parts of which are also used

ritually by present-day Pueblos,[447] has also been reported but seldom
from excavations: claws from Pueblo Bonito,[448] bones from northeastern
Arizona[449] and from an Apache Creek site in the Upper Gila
area.[450] To what extent this negative evidence rests upon lack of full
identification or publication of remains is an interesting question.

As to bird remains, turkey and Golden Eagle bones have been discovered
in the vast majority of later sites. Turkey remains were relatively
scarce at Snaketown and Haury questions whether the bird was
domesticated by the carriers of Hohokam[451] and Mogollon[452] cultures.
Most authorities seem to feel that the introduction of the domesticated
turkey is a fairly sure culture period diagnostic. My colleague, Mr.
Brew, informs me that, although turkey bones are very plentiful in
later sites on Alkali Ridge, they do not appear in the earlier levels.
Whether the turkey and other birds whose remains are found rather
frequently were generally eaten, remains a disputed question. The
smaller birds identified most often have bright-colored plumage, and
the fondness of contemporary Pueblos for their feathers is well
known. Hargrave, however, apparently has evidence that turkey,
quail, hawks, owls, coots, and robins, were eaten in the Flagstaff
region.[453]

Burial of birds and animals is also an interesting feature of this
class of evidence. The burial of dogs, macaws, and turkeys is too
familiar to require citation. Morris has reported the burial of a
badger.[454] The eagle cemeteries of the modern Hopi are well known,
but I have not discovered archaeological documentation.