Craft Economies in the North American Southwest · 2016-04-21 · Craft Economies in the North American Southwest ... and nonhierarchical sociopolitical contexts in the North American

Journal of Archaeological Research, Vol. 7, No. 3,1999

Craft Economies in the North American Southwest

James M. Bay man1

Debates concerning sociopolitical organization in the North American Southwestare clarified and confounded by the conclusion that craft specialization was notalways a sufficient condition of complexity in the region. Understanding the rela-tionship between varying dimensions of craft specialization (e.g., context, scale,and intensity) and sociopolitical organization in the region requires us to examinea variety of social institutions (e.g., leadership, gender, and ethnicity) that poten-tially generated differentiated economies. New research on middle-range societiesin the North American Southwest and elsewhere in the world should focus on iden-tifying and interpreting the archaeological signatures of specific social institutionsand their linkages to craft economies.

KEY WORDS: North American Southwest; archaeology; craft economy; sociopolitical complexity.

INTRODUCTION

While debates concerning the nature of sociopolitical organization in theNorth American Southwest are still unresolved in the 1990s (Fish and Yoffee,1996; Plog, 1995a; Yoffee et al., 1998), studies of craft economies have stimulatednew theoretical perspectives and empirical findings that are relevant to this prob-lem. Since the work of V. Gordon Childe (1936), archaeologists have recognizeda link between craft economies and sociopolitical organization in complex statesocieties. Although studies of the institutional parameters of economic and politi-cal organization among middle-range societies in the North American Southwestbegan much more recently (e.g., Cordell and Plog, 1979; F. Plog, 1983; S. Plog,1980; Upham, 1982), important results already have been achieved.

In this essay, I critically evaluate a substantial body of recently publishedworks on Southwestern craft economies and sociopolitical complexity. The

1Department of Anthropology, 2424 Maile Way, Social Sciences Building, Room 346, University ofHawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822.

249

1059-0161/99/0900-0249$16.00/0 © 1999 Plenum Publishing Corporation

250 Bayman

discussion is organized temporally and geographically. The fact that different geo-graphic regions and areas of the American Southwest have discrete chronologicalsequences makes broad-scale comparisons difficult. Accordingly, this article usesa chronological framework that is a significantly modified version of extant panre-gional chronologies of the Southwest (e.g., Cordell, 1997; Cordell and Gumerman,1989; Doyel, 1993a; Gumerman and Gell-Mann, 1994).

Although the Southwest was occupied by hunter-gatherers as early as 8500B.P. (Huckell, 1996, p. 305)—and even earlier by Paleoindians—this paper focuseson Formative-period (following Doyel, 1993a, p. 50) developments during the last2800 years. In many Southwestern areas, this Formative period was characterizedby growing populations, a reduction in residential mobility, an increased emphasison food production, and the manufacture and use of ceramics as containers (Wills,1995). Although population pressure couldhave created a burgeoning demand formanufactured materials, thereby favoring economic specialization and interdepen-dence, sociopolitical processes and institutions clearly played a dominant role ininfluencing craft economies during this time (e.g., Clark and Parry 1990, p. 322;Feinman, 1995).

I divide my topical survey of Formative-period craft economies into fourtemporal periods or horizons—Early Formative (800 B.C.-A.D. 600), Middle For-mative (A.D. 600-1150), Late Formative (A.D. 1150-1450), and Post-Formative(A.D. 1450-1750)—to chronicle the sequence of change in craft economies. Al-though these temporal divisions conflate localized historical events, they preserveparticularly important "hinge points" (Cordell and Gumerman, 1989), or times ofrapid and widespread change throughout the Southwest developmental sequence(Gumerman and Gell-Mann, 1994, p. 16).

Patterns of sedentism and agriculture that originated during the Early For-mative were followed by an emergence of regional traditions (e.g., Hohokam,Anasazi, Mogollon) in the Middle Formative. With the onset of the Late Forma-tive, much of the southwest [particularly the Sonoran Desert (Hohokam) and SanJuan Basin (Chaco)] had begun a process of reorganization (Crown and Judge,1991). Although the timing of this reorganization was not entirely synchronousin various localities (Gumerman and Gell-Mann, 1994, p. 16), the Late Formativemarked the demise of the Hohokam ball court regional system in the Sonoranportion of the Southern Desert (Crown and Judge, 1991, p. 302). Likewise, Chacohad begun to wane (Crown and Judge, 1991, p. 303), as did the Mimbres variant ofMogollon. The termination of these regional systems, and "abandonments" in somelocales, was followed by population aggregation and agricultural intensificationelsewhere in the Southwest (e.g., Salado, Casa Grandes, White Mountains, HopiMesas). The Post-Formative horizon encompasses the incorporation of indigenousSouthwestern peoples and Europeans into a broader world system.

Geographically, I divide the Southwest's "heartland" (sensu Cordell, 1989,p. 17) into three broad areas: the Colorado Plateau (or Anasazi), a highland

Craft Economies in the North American Southwest 251

subregion in the forested mountains of central Arizona and New Mexico (orMountain Mogollon), and a Southern Desert subregion (including Hohokam,Salado, and Casas Grandes) that spanned the Sonoran and Chihuahuan Deserts ofArizona, New Mexico, and northern Mexico (Fig. 1). Areas outside this heartland(such as far western Arizona) developed lesser-known traditions (e.g., Patayan)that were certainly important in the Greater Southwest, but have yet to undergo de-tailed study (and publication) by archaeologists. Even though the distribution of ar-chaeological traditions did not correspond precisely to these ecological territories,these traditions must reflect some dimension of human adaptation (Lekson, 1993,p. 51), and they have heuristic value for organizing this review of Southwesterncraft economies.

Given the voluminous literature on ancient Southwestern craft economies, thisdiscussion focuses on research published during the last 3-5 years. Moreover, thisessay makes no pretense at being a comprehensive synthesis of published or printedworks. An extraordinary amount of archaeological research is done each year in theSouthwest under the aegis of contract archaeology. The resulting contract reportsrarely circulate widely, and many are inaccessible. Furthermore, contributions inthe United States often are printed only in English, whereas those in Mexico areprinted in Spanish (see Carpenter and Sanchez, 1997, for an exception). Thus,although this survey is broad in scope, material that is printed in lesser-known (orless accessible) venues cannot always be included.

Although important problems have now been resolved by recent studies, cer-tain avenues of research must be followed to further inform us on craft economies.In a breathtakingly short period of time, advances in studying craft economiesin the North American Southwest have yielded at least two important lessons: (1)many processes that archaeologists once associated specifically with state societies(i.e., craft specialization and economic interdependence) were integral aspects ofnonstate societies in the North American Southwest, and (2) households and set-tlements in nonstate societies often were integrated into larger social formationssuch as "communities" or "polities," at particular places and in different times.This conceptual shift away from notions of village autonomy and toward assump-tions of intercommunity interaction sets the stage for more systematic research oncraft economies.

What remains lacking in Southwestern archaeology, however, is a well-developed understanding of the sociological institutions and mechanisms, suchas leadership, gender, and ethnicity, that structured these systems of economicand sociopolitical interdependence. Our models of craft specialization must be-come increasingly refined to adequately characterize ancient Southwestern eco-nomic organization, since models developed for state societies fail to explain fullythe archaeological record of this region. Mechanisms based on kinship (such asclans) and nonkin institutions (such as cults) in nonstate societies differ markedlyfrom those found in state societies, which commonly have market economies and

252 Bayman

centralized decision-making structures (Johnson and Earle, 1987). Not only mustwe find new ways to understand the nature and contexts of production more deeply,but we also must develop approaches to study craft economies in relation to thebroader social, ideological, and political system in which they operate.

This approach is especially important because the archaeological record ofSouthwestern craft production and circulation fails to match the expectations ofneoevolutionary models (e.g., Sahlins, 1972; Service, 1962). Neoevolutionarymodels, which posit that craft specialization or certain modes of exchange (e.g.,redistribution) can be used to discriminate between egalitarian and stratified so-cieties, are simply inappropriate for interpreting middle-range societies. Indepen-dent household specialization now has been well documented in both hierarchicaland nonhierarchical sociopolitical contexts in the North American Southwest. Al-though systems of "attached specialization" (Brumfiel and Earle, 1987) that aremore commonly found in state societies did not characterize Southwestern craftproduction, relatively high levels of production in terms of intensity and possiblyscale (sensu Costin, 1991) have been detected for many craft goods during theMiddle and Late Formative periods.

In this essay, I critically synthesize extant interpretations of craft economiesin the North American Southwest by using a period-by-period format. Much of mydiscussion centers on delineating general trends in craft specialization and regionaleconomic interdependence throughout the temporal sequence. On the basis of myreview, I conclude that new research must focus on identifying and interpreting thearchaeological signatures of specific social institutions and their linkage to crafteconomies. Given this conclusion, my discussion highlights the potential roles ofselected social institutions such as leadership, gender, and ethnicity in generatingdifferentiated craft economies. Before I begin my survey, however, I define my useof the phrase "craft economies" and review recent advances in theory and methodthat are germane to this subject.

THE STUDY OF PRECONTACT SOUTHWESTERNCRAFT ECONOMIES

Although the phrase "craft production" is now entrenched in the lexicon ofmost Southwestern archaeologists, an alternative term, "craft economies," is morebroadly appropriate. Whereas craft production denotes the actual manufactureof crafts, the term "craft economies" encompasses the process whereby ancientpeoples negotiated the acquisition of raw materials, fashioned them into finishedgoods, and consumed or distributed such commodities into larger economic net-works. The term "craft economy" imparts the essence of a larger milieu that re-searchers consider (theoretically, if not empirically) in their interpretations of thepast. The recent emphasis of research on production and distribution, especially


for ceramics, rather than on consumption, limits my discussion of this dimension.I make every effort, however, to consider the full realm of craft economies in theNorth American Southwest.

Although no unified viewpoint exists on the role of environmental (sensuArnold, 1985; Rautman, 1993) or sociopolitical factors (e.g., McGuire and Saitta,1996) that prompted the development of specialization in craft economies,Southwesternists generally agree that such phenomena were situated within largerprocesses of economic intensification and technological organization. Studiesof technological organization (e.g., Nelson, 1996, p. 185), while not normallysubsumed under the rubric of craft production, examine important features ofcraft economies. Although technological organization has conventionally beenthe domain of lithic technologists (e.g., Binford, 1979; Kearns, 1996; Keleher,1991; Wandsnider and Camilli, 1996; Wiseman, 1990; Young, 1994), its con-cern with the relationship between strategies of manufacturing, manipulating,and abandoning material items (Nelson and Lippmeier, 1993) makes it broadlyrelevant to studying craft production. This is especially evident when one con-siders the various environmental, social, and ideological conditions that gov-erned the success or failure of particular technological strategies or crafts (e.g.,Blinman, 1993; Crown, 1996; Neupert, 1994; Schiffer and Skibo, 1994, 1997;Stone, 1994a).

The direct relevance of craft economies to broader questions of anthropolog-ical archaeology, as well as a pervasive interest in this subject, has stimulated aplethora of theoretical applications. Recent trends are summarized briefly in thefollowing discussion.

Contemporary Theory

Theoretical frameworks for interpreting and explaining Southwestern crafteconomies in the 1990s generally mirror contemporary trends in other areas ofthe world. Archaeologists now tend to consider, or even privilege, the influenceof social action [in the spirit of Clark and Blake (1994) or Earle (1996)] ratherthan to emphasize ecological variables (e.g., Arnold, 1985) in bringing aboutchange in societies. Normative processual viewpoints that strictly emphasizedecological and demographic influences on social change are now considered overlydeterministic (Arnold, 1995). With some notable exceptions (e.g., Larson and Neff,1996; Neff, 1992; Neff et al., 1997), more Southwestern archaeologists now payexplicit attention to the role of human agency (e.g., Feinman, 1992,1995; Kantner,1996;Saitta, 1994a,b, 1997) and particular historical conditions (e.g., James, 1997;McGuire, 1994) that shaped the nature of production, rather than focusing primarilyon external forces such as demographic pressure or environmental perturbations(Hirth, 1996, p. 210; see also Graves, 1996; Hagstrum, 1995; Hays-Gilpin, 1996;Preucel, 1996).

254 Bayman

Southwestern archaeology has long been recognized for its methodologicalsophistication and its ecological frameworks (e.g., Doelle, 1980; Martin and Plog,1973; Schiffer and McGuire, 1982). Yet actor-based or "subject-centered" inter-pretations (Brumfiel, 1994, p. 12) are gaining importance in Southwestern studiesof craft economies. Archaeologists increasingly view leadership (or the pursuit ofleadership) in Southwestern societies as an opportunity for individuals or groupsof elites to establish and maintain control over labor and resources and, by proxy,craft economies (e.g., Sebastian, 1992a,b). This perspective marks a departurefrom more conventional processual/adaptationist perspectives that emphasize thefunctionalist role of leadership for stabilizing societies and their economies (Judge,1979).

This trend away from functionalist ecological models also reflects a grow-ing discomfort with some tenets of processual archaeology and neoevolutionaryperspectives on long-term change. Despite a long tradition of such approaches inthe Southwest, archaeologists (e.g., Fish and Yoffee, 1996; Yoffee et al., 1998) areincreasingly disenchanted with classic neoevolutionary models of exchange andpolitical organization (e.g., Polanyi et al., 1957; Sahlins, 1972; Service, 1962).Ethnographically constructed dichotomies such as "reciprocity" versus "redistri-bution" and "tribes" versus "chiefdoms" often prove inadequate for distinguishingamong economic and sociopolitical systems in the ancient Southwest (Bayman,1995; McGuire, 1993, pp. 113-114; Sebastian, 1992a, pp. 144-145, 1992b). Thisis not to say that such terminology has disappeared entirely; it is still a mainstayof economic and political models in some quarters (e.g., Adams, 1991; Rafferty,1990, p. 6; Toll and McKenna, 1993).

There is, however, a growing recognition that dynamic processes lie behinda static archaeological record, that ancient populations were often interdepen-dent, and that mechanisms other than exchange must have governed the produc-tion and circulation of crafts. This shift in perspective reflects theoretical andmethodological advances in the field. Growing criticism of archaeologists' useof the ethnographic record—particularly for interpreting late prehistoric politicalorganization—has compelled us to view direct ethnographic analogy with morecare and to privilege the archaeological record. Methodological advances in prove-nance studies also have demonstrated a higher level of commodity circulation inthe ancient Southwest than most archaeologists (except Anna O. Shepard, 1939)previously believed. Mechanisms of circulation could have included raiding, gift-ing, feasting, payments of debt and damages, bride price, and even the movement ofpeople and their goods through intermarriage and migration (e.g., Bayman, 1992,1995,1996a; Crown, 1996, p. 247; Douglas, 1992, p. 20,1995; Hegmon and Plog,1996, p. 34; Slaughter, 1996, p. 534; Wilson, 1988; Zedeno, 1994, p. 7, 1995).Linking these various processes and institutions to the empirical archaeologicalrecord is a continuing challenge.

Many Southwestern archaeologists who study craft economies, explicitly orimplicitly, follow the seminal work of Brumfiel and Earle (1987) to construct a


political-economy perspective (e.g., Cobb, 1993) that draws a heuristic distinctionbetween "staple" craft economies and "prestige goods" economies (the latter termfollows Frankenstein and Rowlands, 1978). Although this analytical division is apragmatic procedure for organizing data and interpreting patterning, archaeologistsworking throughout the world are increasingly concluding that these differenteconomies were integrated together into larger systems (e.g., Feinman, 1998; Hirth,1996, p. 208).

Thus, some Southwestern researchers have begun to examine and comparepatterning among different kinds of goods (e.g., Bayman, 1996a; Mathien, 1992;Stark, 1995a). The conventional practice of analyzing and interpreting single cate-gories of artifacts (e.g., decorated ceramics versus lithics) produces incomplete andoverly narrow views of ancient craft economies that were multicentric in character.The construction of more refined methods for simultaneously studying multiplegoods (i.e., staple and prestige) within particular economic systems promises amore holistic understanding of their organization.

Methodological Advances

Recent methodological advances in the study of craft economies (Cordelland Plog, 1979; Upham, 1982) reflect a paradigmatic shift away from the oncenormative assumption (Hill, 1970; Longacre, 1970) that ancient Southwestern vil-lages were economically autonomous, egalitarian social formations (Plog, 1993,1995a). Regional analyses of exchange (e.g., Douglass, 1994) and refined defini-tions of multisite "communities" (e.g., Adler, 1996a,b; Fish and Fish, 1994; Willsand Leonard, 1994) or "polities" (Wilcox, 1996a) offer potent challenges to thistheoretical assumption.

As a consequence, attempts to characterize economic aspects of sociopoliticaldevelopment in the North American Southwest have stimulated detailed empiricalinvestigations of craft specialization. Myriad attempts to define and characterizecraft specialization in the region often have relied (rather uncritically) on extanttypological and nontypological classifications developed outside the Southwest(e.g., Evans, 1978; Peacock, 1982; Tosi, 1984; van der Leeuw, 1977).

Nonetheless, many archaeologists (Mills and Crown, 1995) are starting to de-vote effort to determining whether production specialization was part-time or full-time, and whether it involved attached or independent specialists (sensu Brumfieland Earle, 1987). A concern with distinguishing between these types of special-ization is predicated on a widespread belief that evidence for full-time special-ization would signal a relatively higher level of sociopolitical complexity thanpart-time specialization (e.g., Clark and Parry, 1990, p. 320). Thus, recent claimsthat Southwestern ceramic specialization operated only at the level of a "dis-persed household industry" and that it was never attached to an elite (Mills andCrown, 1995, p. 13) merit further investigation from empirical and theoretical

256 Bayman

perspectives. It is indisputable, however, that specialization was a process thatshould be measured in a continuous, rather than a typological, fashion (Mills andCrown, 1995, p. 12).

Commonly cited evidence of craft specialization in the Southwest includesproduct standardization (e.g., Crown, 1995; Motsinger, 1997), caches of unworkedraw material (e.g., potters' clay), production or firing tools such as ceramic pol-ishing stones or pukis (e.g., Becher and Sullivan, 1994; Herr, 1993; Kojo, 1996),and manufacturing facilities or tools (e.g., kilns or ceramic firing areas) (e.g.,Christenson, 1991, 1994; Post and Lakatos, 1995; Sullivan, 1988; Wilson andBlinman, 1995). Given the overwhelming abundance of ceramics on Formative-period sites, fewer studies have been undertaken on nonceramic production spe-cialization (e.g., shell ornaments, obsidian).

Analyses of both ceramic and nonceramic materials, however, have benefitedfrom recent technical advances in artifact characterization, and their precise ge-ographic origin often can be determined. This research also provides compellingempirical support for the notion that Southwestern settlements were integrated intobroader economic systems (Plog, 1995b).

Artifact Characterization Techniques

The recent intense interest in using artifact characterization studies (miner-alogical, chemical) complements ceramic and lithic studies that focus on directevidence of production, such as tools, raw materials, unfired vessels, and produc-tion facilities (e.g., Blinman, 1992; Blinman and Wilson, 1992, 1993; Dinerstein,1996; Heacock, 1995; Wilson and Blinman, 1995). Such analyses offer a useful,though limited, strategy for examining the organization of ceramic production anddistribution, given that relatively few ceramic firing facilities have been identifiedin the Southwest and that many tools (e.g., scrapers and polishing stones) were usedfor purposes in addition to ceramic manufacturing (Mills and Crown, 1995, p. 7).

This growing emphasis on characterization studies is particularly evident incertain portions of the North American Southwest where large-scale federallysponsored contract archaeological projects have been undertaken [e.g., DoloresArchaeological Project (DAP), Central Arizona Project (CAP), Lake RooseveltProject] in the last two decades with multimillion dollar budgets. Large budgetsand increasing availability of archaeometric facilities for chemical characteriza-tion [e.g., Smithsonian Institution Conservation Analytical Laboratory (CAL),University of Missouri Research Reactor (MURR), Phoebe Hearst Museum ofAnthropology (Southwest Archaeological Obsidian Project)] and a growing recog-nition of the importance of petrographic analysis have supported Plog's (1980)thesis that Southwestern village settlements were economically interlinked (Plog,1995b, p. 269).

Compositional studies have proven especially effective in discriminating be-tween local and nonlocal ceramic production systems and for inferring overall


patterns of ceramic distribution within and across regions. Mineral and chem-ical characterization techniques that have recently been applied to Southwest-ern ceramics include petrography (e.g., Abbott, 1994; Abbott and Walsh-Anduze,1995; Hegmon, 1995; Hill, 1993, 1994; Lombard and Fish, 1993; Miksa andHeidke, 1995; Oppelt, 1994, 1996; Van Keuren et al, 1997; Zedeno, 1994), in-strumental neutron activation analyses (e.g., Gilman et al., 1994; Hegmon et al.,1995; Julien, 1993; Triadan, 1997), X-ray fluorescence (e.g., Habicht-Mauche,1993,1995; Woosley and Olinger, 1993), inductively coupled plasma mass spec-troscopy (e.g., Burton and Simon, 1993; Duff, 1994; Walsh-Anduze, 1993;Simon, 1994, 1997; Zedeno, 1995), and the electron microprobe (e.g., Abbottand Schaller, 1992; Abbott and Walsh-Anduze, 1995). Geochemical characteri-zation is now widely available, and growing numbers of Southwest archaeolo-gists use these methods routinely in their research. Consequently, there is nowcompelling evidence for local (and sometimes specialized) production and/orregional exchange of plain and/or decorated ceramics in many Southwesternareas.

Likewise, compositional studies of materials such as argillite (Wichita StateUniversity) (e.g., Adams and Elson, 1995; Elson and Gunderson, 1992a,b), groundstone (e.g., Bostwick, 1993), and obsidian (Mitchell and Shackley, 1995; Petersonet al., 1994,1997; Shackley, 1992,1994, 1995, 1997a,b) have enabled archaeolo-gists to pinpoint the geological source for raw materials and to infer networks ofcirculation for certain nonceramic craft items.

Chemical characterization of marine-shell ornaments is a new, underdevel-oped avenue for interpreting the distribution of nonceramic materials. While ar-chaeologists know that Southwestern marine-shell ornaments originated from theGulf of California and the California coast (e.g., McGuire and Howard, 1987), finerdiscrimination of their geographic origin promises to enhance interpretations oftheir cultural circulation. Chemical techniques (i.e., emission spectroscopy) to in-fer specific supply zones (i.e., beaches) thus far are intriguing, though inconclusive(Bradley, 1993, pp. 140-142,1996).

Novel techniques including DNA analyses (e.g., Borson et al., 1998) also arebeing deployed to study craft economies, and other advances in artifact character-ization are certainly on the horizon. Unfortunately, the development of theory forinterpreting this patterning has failed to keep pace with the explosion of analyticaltechniques. In my summary below, I critically evaluate the theoretical and empir-ical foundations of extant interpretations of craft economies at different points inthe developmental sequence of the North American Southwest.

EARLY FORMATIVE (800 B.C.-A.D. 600) CRAFT ECONOMIES

The traditional Southwestern emphasis on large regional centers of aggre-gation (particularly Snaketown, Pueblo Bonito, and Paquime') once meant that

258 Bayman

data on Early Formative craft economies from small, early sites were sparse andgeographically uneven. It was incorrectly assumed also that human groups duringthis time lived in relative isolation from each other and that population densitieswere generally low. Fortunately, mandates of contract archaeology have counteredthis imbalance in many areas.

Post-Archaic sites that were occupied during or immediately prior to theemergence of the Anasazi, Hohokam, and Mogollon traditions (Fig. 1) are nowmore commonly investigated (e.g., Dohm, 1994; Gilpin, 1994; Huckell, 1996;Mabry, 1997; Wills, 1995). Information on these sites, especially in the Sonoran

Fig. 1. The North American Southwest heartland and its major archaeological culture areas(modified from Cameron, 1998, p. 184).


Desert, is providing unexpected perspectives on early craft economies, includingthe socioeconomic context and origin of ceramic production.

Early Ceramic Production

Competing claims (i.e., Heidke, 1997; Heidke and Stark, 1996; Reid andWhittlesey, 1997, p. 66) concerning the timing and function of the earliest ceramiccontainers in the North American Southwest have emerged with startling newdiscoveries in the Sonoran Desert. Unusually early villages with ceramics andevidence of storage and extended habitation have been located along the SantaCruz River (Halbirt and Henderson, 1993; Heidke, 1997; Heidke et al., 1998;Stark, 1995b, p. 253; Whittlesey and Ciolek-Torrello, 1996). The manufacture ofceramics as early as 800 B .C. at some Sonoran Desert sites is now well documented(Heidke, 1997), raising important questions about the social and economic genesisof this craft.

Conventional views that early ceramics emerged as a food preparation tech-nology in tandem with an increasing dependence on agriculture (e.g., Braun, 1983)are purportedly challenged by large amounts of unusually early (ca. 400 B.C.-A.D. 150) ceramics recovered from ceremonial and ritual contexts, rather thandomestic structures (Heidke, 1997; Heidke and Stark, 1996). It is questionable,however, whether the intensive deposition of ceramics in ceremonial contexts is in-dicative only of ritual behavior. It seems more plausible, I think, that these ceramicswere originally manufactured for domestic functions and that their deposition inceremonial structures simply reflects some type of ritualized abandonment. Fur-thermore, the relatively small size of these vessels does not imply the scale ofceremonial feasting found elsewhere in the world among early ceramic traditions(cf. Hoopes and Barnett, 1995, p. 3).

Another suggestion (Crown and Wills, 1995a,b) that Southwestern womenunderstood ceramic technology at least 800 years before they began manufacturingceramic containers on a regular basis about A.D. 1 is problematic, given morerecent findings (Heidke, 1997) that ceramics were manufactured along the SantaCruz River as early as 800 B.C. In spite of this finding, Crown and Wills (1995a,1996b) offer a refreshing female-centered perspective on the division of labor bysex, and possibly gender.

Whether any of these early ceramic production systems were specializedremains to be determined, although some degree of independent part-time special-ization is plausible on theoretical grounds. Evidence for large sedentary riverine vil-lages with evidence of storage implies that economic differentiation in production(and exchange) could have emerged among households and settlements along andaway from the Santa Cruz River. Although large "public" houses in these villages(Mabry, 1997) imply some sort of leadership institution, its nature is poorly under-stood. Equally intriguing and still difficult to study are the sociological mechanismsby which ceramic and nonceramic goods circulated in the Early Formative period.

260 Bayman

Distribution Networks

Early Formative nonceramic craft production and circulation is poorly under-stood. Nevertheless, obsidian (e.g., Bostwick, 1988; Wills, 1988, p. 86) and marineshell (Howard, 1987) did circulate in parts of the Southwest during the Middle andLate Archaic (Doyel, 1993a, p. 48). Recent discoveries of obsidian tools, marine-shell ornaments, ceramics, rare minerals (both as finished ornaments and as pig-ments), and other exotic objects from Cienega-phase (ca. 800 B.C.-A.D. 150) sitesin the Tucson Basin also document that early long-distance procurement or ex-change systems in the Sonoran Desert (Ferg, 1997; Gregory, 1997; Heidke, 1997;Heidke et al., 1998; Mabry, 1997) may have matched or even exceeded the geo-graphic scale of Middle Formative networks (e.g., Chaco and Hohokam), whichcovered vast areas of the North American Southwest.

The widespread circulation of mundane as well as exotic commodities (e.g.,shell ornaments, obsidian) in the Early Formative raises serious questions about thetime depth of long-distance exchange and regional systems in the North AmericanSouthwest. Although high-value craft goods might have circulated through resi-dential mobility rather than exchange, recent discoveries of large, early villages inthe Sonoran Desert (e.g., Mabry, 1997) and in Chihuahua, Mexico (e.g., Hard andRoney, 1998), signal an unexpected level of Early Formative residential seden-tism. Perhaps the large "public" houses and possible plazas in these villages werelocal "centers" for the distribution of resources and crafts among neighboringsettlements.

In some models (e.g., Upham et al., 1994; Wilcox and Sternberg, 1983),Middle Formative regional systems comprised different ethnic groups that wereunited through a widely shared ideology and by networks of long-distance ex-change. Did Southwestern regional systems occur much earlier in the sequencethan many archaeologists (e.g., Wilcox and Sternberg, 1983) once believed?

MIDDLE FORMATIVE (A.D. 600-1150) CRAFT ECONOMIES

The first centuries of the Middle Formative (A.D. 600-800) witnessed theemergence of distinctive Anasazi, Hohokam, and Mogollon traditions (Gumermanand Gell-Mann, 1994, p. 19), alongside other, often unnamed, traditions (Fig. 2).During the latter centuries of the Middle Formative (A.D. 800-1150), two elab-orate and geographically widespread "regional systems" flourished: the Preclas-sic Hohokam in the Sonoran Desert and the so-called Chaco phenomenon of theColorado Plateau (Crown and Judge, 1991). Although overshadowed by theHohokam and Chaco, another regional system operated in southwestern NewMexico among the Mimbres (Lekson, 1993, p. 51). Several interpretative themeshave dominated studies of craft economies for this period: regional economicorganization and craft production, specialization in production, and networks ofcirculation.


Fig. 2. Culture areas and selected regional systems during the Middle Formative(modified from Cameron, 1998, p. 184).

Regional Economic Organization

One of the most controversial (and ultimately influential) debates in the 1980sfocused on the nature of late prehistoric sociopolitical organization and leadership(e.g., Cordell and Plog, 1979; F. Plog, 1983; S. Plog, 1980; Upham, 1982; Wilcox,1979, 1980; Wilcox and Sternberg, 1983). This revisionist approach stimulatedlively debate and emphasized the need to view settlements in a regional pers-pective.

Southwestern archaeologists are now acknowledging problems using aregional-system approach (e.g., Douglas, 1995; Gregory, 1991, pp. 190-192;

262 Bayman

Lekson, 1993, p. 52; Phillips, 1996, p. 333; Wilcox 1991, p. 263), but its defi-nition left a strong imprint on research on Middle Formative craft economies inthe 1990s. Core-periphery concepts, for example, strongly influenced interpreta-tions of regional economic and sociopolitical organization among the Hohokamand at Chaco (Judge, 1979; McGuire, 1991; Wilcox and Shenk, 1977).

Studies of Preclassic Hohokam and Chaco sites have been integrated withregional and interregional settlement and artifact distributional data to constructmacroregional models (e.g., Upham, 1994; Wilcox, 1995, 1996a, 1996b). In suchframeworks, powerful political centers (e.g., Snaketown and Pueblo Bonito) dom-inated the North American Southwest. Although intriguing interpretations can de-rive from a macroregional (and regional) approach, reification of these concepts isa formidable theoretical problem that requires resolution (Wilcox, 1996a, p. 384).

Nonetheless, regional interpretations have fruitfully dispensed with an as-sumption of village autonomy and local ceramic production (following Plog,1980). Unlike the classic "ceramic sociology" studies of the New Archaeology(e.g., Hill, 1970; Longacre, 1970), ceramic craft studies in the 1990s now followPlog's (1980) early example by adopting regional scales of analysis for studyingassemblages from multiple sites (e.g., Abbott, 1996; Abbott and Walsh-Anduze,1995; Crown, 1994, 1995; Simon, 1997; Stark and Heidke, 1995).

While recent studies of artifact assemblages from multiple sites represent avaluable improvement, some caution is necessary since their reliability ultimatelyhinges on the assumption of intersite contemporaneity. In lacking ceramics thathave been dated by dendrochronology, Hohokam sites in the Sonoran Desert havenotably less temporal control than sites on the Colorado Plateau. This problem ispotentially more acute for studies that emphasize plainware ceramics (e.g., Starkand Heidke, 1995).

An unresolved theoretical and empirical concern is that recent studies ofMiddle Formative regional systems have generally sidestepped or overlooked eth-nicity and ethnic relations in the ancient Southwest (see Upham et al., 1994, forexception). Large-scale regional systems, and especially macroregional systems,certainly would have crosscut varieties of human populations or so-called cultureareas. Real or perceived differences among human groups could well havestructured craft economies, and particular institutions (e.g., ideology) could haveunited disparate communities. Ongoing research of craft economies that take aregional-systems approach must confront this issue by seeking to identify the spe-cific institutions that mediated and sometimes integrated the economies of diversehuman populations.

In spite of this problem, robust empirical patterning in craft economies hasbeen discerned by using a regional approach. Middle Formative craft economieswere multicentric and characterized by overlapping yet disparate systems of pro-duction and circulation. Chaco and Preclassic Hohokam goods circulated in dif-ferent networks, at different scales, and in different directions within differenteconomic systems (e.g., Crown, 1991; Doyel, 1991, 1993b; Kantner, 1996;


Mathien, 1993a,b; McGuire, 1993; Neitzel, 1991; Neitzel and Bishop, 1990; Toll,1991; Toll and Blinman, 1992; Toll and McKenna, 1993). Distances that goodstraveled varied significantly; prestige goods like shell ornaments, copper bells, andturquoise often moved several hundred kilometers, whereas utilitarian goods suchas plainware ceramics, ground stone, and chert often moved among neighboringhouseholds or settlements (e.g., Cameron, 1992, 1993; Doyel, 1996; Harbottleand Weigand, 1992; Heidke, 1996; Howard, 1993; Mathien, 1994; Mathien andOlinger, 1992; Phillips, 1996; Vargas, 1995; Vokes, 1994; Weigand, 1992; Weigandand Harbottle, 1993; Windes, 1992).

Production and Distribution

Studies of Middle Formative craft economies in the Southwest often reflectan explicit (or implicit) neoevolutionary perspective that correlates long-distanceexchange and economic specialization with increased sociopolitical complexity(Brumfiel and Earle, 1987; cf. McGuire, 1992, pp. 2-3). Thus a great deal ofresearch has sought to determine if (and in what respects) early Middle Formativecraft economies were specialized and whether production was organized withinhouseholds, villages (communities), or regions. Although most of this research isimplicitly oriented toward interpreting Southwestern sociopolitical systems andleadership, much of it has focused on documenting specific parameters of craftspecialization, including context, scale, and intensity.

For example, household specialization in white- and gray-ware ceramic pro-duction began early (i.e., Basketmaker III, A.D. 575-725) in the northern SanJuan or Mesa Verde region (Hegmon et al., 1995; Wilson and Blinman, 1995). Thescale and intensity (sensu Costin, 1991) of this specialization was unambiguouslyreorganized in the 12th and 13th centuries (Pueblo III period) when potters usedformal trench-kiln features to increase the intensity of their production (Wilson andBlinman, 1995, p. 78). Production of San Juan Red Ware (A.D. 750-1100) wasgeographically concentrated (sensu Costin, 1991) at several sites in southeasternUtah and may reflect yet another example of more intensified specialization onthe Colorado Plateau (Hegmon et al., 1997). Larger samples of ceramics must bestudied, however, to strengthen this interpretation (Hegmon et al., 1997) of SanJuan Red Ware specialization, which was based on neutron activation analysis(NAA) of 79 sherds.

Elsewhere, Virgin Anasazi exchange networks illustrate some of the problemsthat accompany interpretations of interregional economic systems. Turquoise, ob-sidian, shell ornaments, cotton, and textiles were somehow imported by small dis-persed residential groups and households in the Virgin area (Lyneis, 1995, 231).Interpreting the institutional contexts within which these nonceramic items wereacquired is exceedingly difficult to evaluate empirically. The interregional circu-lation of shell ornaments and turquoise, which certainly had ceremonial value to

264 Bayman

the Hohokam, may imply that the Virgin Anasazi held a macroregional panethnicideology or worldview that was not confined to the Sonoran Desert. In a similarvein, the specialized production of Moapa Gray Ware, which peaked in the VirginAnasazi area about A.D. 1050 (Lyneis, 1995, p. 229), was arguably driven by adesire to obtain ritually valuable ceramics (i.e., Tsegi Orange Ware and San JuanRed Ware) (Blinman, 1989; Plog, 1989) through exchange.

Whether events at Chaco affected this Virgin Anasazi exchange system isstill unknown (Lyneis, 1996, p. 234), although some impact almost certainly en-sued. New analyses and competing interpretations of Chaco (e.g., Kantner, 1996;Sebastian, 1991, 1992a,b, 1996; Stein and Lekson, 1992; Tainter and Plog,1994; Saitta, 1997; Toll, 1991; Vivian, 1990; Wilcox, 1996b) signal the empir-ical and theoretical demise of Judge's (1979) original proposition that Chaco wasa redistributive economic center in the classic ethnographic sense (e.g., Polanyiet al., 1957; Sahlins, 1972; Service, 1962). Judge's view that Chaco mobilizedand redistributed scarce food and resources is weakened by new evidence(see Sebastian, 1992a) of its ability to produce a substantial agricultural surplus!

In either case, evidence for some type of ceramic craft specialization (Tolland McKenna, 1993, p. 131) and widespread exchange networks suggests a degreeof elite intervention and social stratification at Chaco (Mathien, 1993a, p. 55) thatforeshadows the Sedentary and Classic-period Hohokam in the Late Formative.Nonceramic media that were circulated include nonlocal cherts (presumably fromWashington Pass), turquoise, Mesoamerican copper bells, trachyte-tempered ce-ramics from the Chuska Mountains, and obsidian. The movement of turquoisefrom ancient mines at Cerrillos, New Mexico (Mathien, 1995), to the site of LaQuemada, a northern outpost of Mesoamerica (Nelson, 1993, p. 189; Weigand,1982; Weigand and Harbottle, 1977), is indicative of interregional exchange be-tween Chaco and northern Mexico during the Middle Formative. The socioeco-nomic mechanisms of this vast network of circulation between different ethnicgroups merits further study and interpretation, given that particular modes of lead-ership must have played an important role.

Apparently not all Middle Formative communities on the Colorado Plateauhad economic systems that were based on craft specialization or elite intervention.Among the Kayenta Anasazi of Black Mesa, a lack of any kind of craft specializa-tion implies that local production of most ceramics for local consumption prevaileduntil the mesa was abandoned ca. 1140 (Smith, 1994, p. 134).

Regional and interregional exchange of prestige goods within Hohokam,Chaco, and Mimbres is well documented, although debates concerning economicorganization remain unresolved. For example, while some Hohokam archaeolo-gists have concluded that Middle Formative Hohokam sociopolitical organizationand leadership was relatively egalitarian (e.g., Crown, 1991; Seymour, 1988),others have disagreed (e.g., Neitzel, 1991). Evidence for part-time, independenthousehold specialization in shell ornament manufacture at the Hohokam site of


Snaketown was interpreted by Seymour (1988) as evidence of an egalitarian eco-nomic system. However, the estimated recovery of over 200,000 fragments ofmarine-shell debris at another Hohokam site (Howard, 1993) indicates a qualita-tively different intensity of household production than was documented at Snake-town. Although this pattern might reflect full-time specialization, there is no reasonto conclude that it is indicative of attached specialization per se. It does, however,demonstrate that high-intensity production did occur in domestic contexts amongthe Middle Formative Hohokam, similar to societies elsewhere in the prehistoricworld (e.g., Feinman, 1998).

Evidence for long-distance exchange in marine-shell ornaments, the impor-tation of copper bells from Mexico (Vargas, 1995, pp. 69-71), varying dimensionsof craft specialization (e.g., Van Keuren et al., 1997), and high-status burials insome Preclassic-period Hohokam sites (Wilcox, 1991, pp. 258-259) presents yetanother conundrum for classic neoevolutionary theory. If cultural evolution is a lin-ear process in which sociopolitical complexity increases over time, then PreclassicHohokam society should have been less "complex" than the subsequent Classic-period Hohokam society. This normative view is at odds with David Doyel's (1991)interpretation that a greater level of sociopolitical complexity existed among thePreclassic-period Hohokam!

Elsewhere, in the Mogollon area, nonhierarchical political models of ClassicMimbres (A.D. 1000-1150) Black-on-white ceramic production and distribution(e.g., Oilman et al., 1994; Shafer, 1985) in New Mexico challenge Anyon and LeBlanc's (1984, p. 314) interpration that the manufacture and consumption of theseceramics was hierarchically controlled. Widespread, local production of Mimbresdecorated ceramics appears to be supported by petrography and instrumental neu-tron activation analyses (Gilman et al., 1994). Although the iconographic represen-tations on Mimbres Black-on-white, its geographic ubiquity, and its occurrencein long-lived settlements have been interpreted as evidence of an ancestor cult(see Crown, 1994), a variety of alternative and testable scenarios could be putforth. Seasonal mobility is only one example of behavior that could generate thegeographically widespread distribution that is apparent for Mimbres Black-on-white (Gilman et al., 1994, p. 697).

The recent proposal that anatomically unusual or impossible birthing sceneson some Mimbres bowls must have been painted by men rather than women(Hegmon and Trevathan, 1996) is an imaginative approach for exploring genderin ceramic production. This approach should be explored further, although strongopposition is likely as the Mimbres case clearly demonstrates (e.g., Espenshade,1997; Hegmon and Trevathan, 1997; LeBlanc, 1997; Shaffer etal., 1997).

Southwestern archaeologists continue to be perplexed by Middle Forma-tive craft economies. This is especially true with Chaco, which continues to bean enigma, despite a wealth of empirical findings (Feinman, 1992, p. 179). Inpart, confusion stems from an unfortunate and continuing willingness by some

266 Bayman

archaeologists to rely heavily on the ethnographic record for their archaeologicalinterpretations. The scale and sociopolitical organization of Chaco and Hohokamare unmatched in the Southwestern ethnographic record (Doyel, 1991, p. 226),thereby precluding the use of direct historic analogy. Research during the 1990shighlights the conceptual problems we face in identifying the institutional mech-anisms (e.g., leadership, gender, ethnicity) behind such phenomena and their ulti-mate linkage to events in the Late Formative period.

LATE FORMATIVE (A.D. 1150-1450) CRAFT ECONOMIES

The Late Formative horizon witnessed the aggregation of populations intosettlement clusters in several Southwestern subareas, following a series of regionalabandonments on the Colorado Plateau, the San Juan region, and the Sonoranand Chihuahuan Deserts (Fig. 3). Regional centers with aggregated populations,intensive systems of agricultural production, and widespread networks of exchangeemerged among the Classic-period Hohokam and Salado (Salt and Gila Rivers),the Rio Grande and Little Colorado River Anasazi (Pueblo IV), Casas Grandes, andthe Pueblos in northeastern Arizona (early Hopi) and northwestern New Mexico(early Zuni) (Cordell et al., 1994, p. 248; Gumerman and Gell-Mann, 1994, p. 23;McGuire et al., 1994; Stone, 1994b).

One enduring question concerns whether high-intensity craft economies werean outcome of population aggregation within regions. In many areas (e.g., TontoBasin), Late Formative communities that incorporated incoming migrant popula-tions from abandoned hinterlands faced new and significant organizational chal-lenges (Fish et al., 1994, p. 138). What specific sociopolitical institutions organizedand integrated the economies of formerly dispersed, heterogeneous populationscomposed of distinct ethnic groups?

Sociopolitics and Craft Economies

Arguable evidence of intensified craft specialization and exchange have longbeen offered as evidence for increasingly hierarchical sociopolitical organizationamong Late and Middle Formative Southwestern communities, especially on theColorado Plateau (e.g., Cordell and Plog, 1979; Upham, 1982). Southwestern ar-chaeologists' changing views of craft specialization are similar to views of thoseworking elsewhere in the world (e.g., Costin, 1991), so that different forms ofspecialized production (e.g., independent and attached) alone are no longer ac-cepted as direct measures of sociopolitical complexity.

In any event, unambiguous evidence of increasing scales (sensu Costin, 1991)of production are indeed apparent during the Late Formative (after ca. A.D. 1150) inmany Southwestern areas, including the Zuni River Valley (Duff, 1994, pp. 43-45),


Fig. 3. Culture areas and selected regional systems near the termination of the Late Formative(modified from Cameron, 1998, p. 194).

the Rio Grande River Valley (Motsinger, 1997), and the San Juan region (Wilsonand Blinman, 1995). Wilson and Blinman (1995, p. 78) note that, although house-hold specialization of white-ware ceramic production began early in the northernSouthwest (Basketmaker Ill-Pueblo III), the use of formal kiln firing features af-ter the Pueblo III period signaled an increased intensity (sensu Costin, 1991) ofproduction. Wilson and Blinman (1995, pp. 68-69) offer an eclectic explanatorymodel of this specialization that considers population pressure and restricted ac-cess to land, differential access to raw materials for ceramic production, and socialinequality.

268 Bayman

Elsewhere, evidence of design-element standardization has supported one ar-gument that glazeware production along the Rio Grande increased in scale (sensuCostin, 1991) and that it developed from a system of household specialization intoa village-level industry (Motsinger, 1997; Rice, 1987). Although this preliminarystudy of standardization is promising, it must be reinforced by a battery of pet-rographic and geochemical analyses before its conclusions can be accepted fully.As Hegmon et al. (1995, p. 53) discovered, specialization and standardizationare multidimensional phenomena. In fact, sometimes an inverse correlation existsbetween specialization and standardization (Hegmon, 1995, p. 53).

It is notable, however, that both the Rio Grande and northern San Juan regionsdeveloped formalized kilns for large-scale firing of ceramics. Many investigatorshave been understandably cautious in their interpretations of the social and eco-nomic contexts behind the development of large trench-kiln firing facilities in thenorthern San Juan region (e.g., Wilson and Blinman, 1995, p. 76) and the northernRio Grande Valley (e.g., Post and Lakatos, 1995). Nevertheless, these featuresmay well reflect an interhousehold economic institution, and it is significant thatutilitarian ceramic production of this scale has not been witnessed by archaeolo-gists working elsewhere in the North American Southwest, including the SonoranDesert. These facilities merit further investigation and interpretation, given recentclaims (e.g., Mills and Crown, 1995, p. 13) that ceramic production did not operatebeyond the level of a dispersed household industry. The location of these featuresaway from habitation areas, however, does confound parsimonious interpretationsof their social contexts (Wilson and Blinman, 1995, p. 76), in the manner proposedby Costin (1991).

The ecological potential for economic differentiation was perhaps even greaterin the southern deserts, where canal irrigation systems yielded much larger surplu-ses of food than was possible on the Colorado Plateau (Rice, 1992, p. 15). Staplegoods like fiber textiles and lithics, and prestige goods, including marine-shellornaments and redware ceramics, were produced, circulated, and consumed ina variety of different contexts and networks among the Hohokam (Abbott andWalsh-Anduze, 1995; Bayman, 1992, 1995, 1996a,b; Fish et al., 1992; Griffithand McCartney, 1993, 1994; Yokes, 1993) and Salado (Griffith etal., 1992; Rice,1994; Simon and Burton, 1998; Simon et al., 1992; Stark, 1995a). As a rule, theseHohokam studies underscore the expectation of Brumfiel and Earle (1987) andClark and Parry (1990) that high-value craft economies often were more differen-tiated, in some respects, than staple craft economies in early complex societies.

In this respect, there is a growing consensus that the production and con-sumption of marine-shell ornaments and obsidian were concentrated at large LateFormative-period settlements among the Hohokam. Elite administration of thesecraft economies is arguably implied by high concentrations of finished orna-ments and manufacturing debris at Hohokam platform-mound community cen-ters, assuming that platform mounds were elite residences (Bayman, 1996a,b;


Nelson, 1991; Teague, 1984). Elite intervention also is indicated by heavy concen-trations of nonlocal obsidian at Hohokam platform-mound settlements (Bayman,1995; Bayman and Shackley, 1997; Mitchell and Shackley, 1995).

This is not to say that Hohokam communities practiced "attached specializa-tion" (Brumfiel and Earle, 1987; Costin, 1991), wherein the manufacture of goodswas directly controlled by elite leadership. Admittedly, large amounts of pres-tige goods (e.g., marine-shell ornaments and obsidian) found at platform-moundcenters could simply reflect communal consumption during community-wide gath-erings. In fact, such an interpretation is partially supported by a somewhat evendistribution of high-value goods within one platform-mound settlement (Bayman,1995, 1996a,b).

Nonetheless, I hypothesize that elite men and women (see Crown and Fish,1996, for a discussion of elite Hohokam women) who oversaw community events,which were a domain of consumption, were able to monitor craft economies(Bayman, 1995, 1996a,b). In other words, since the demand (i.e., market) forthese goods was fueled by their use in community-wide ceremonies, managementof these venues of consumption offered elites an opportunity to intervene in theseeconomies. Among the Hohokam, community-wide ceremonies offered an ideo-logical and religious mandate for managing large-scale canal irrigation systems(e.g., Bostwick, 1992; Howard, 1992). It is theoretically plausible, though difficultto verify conclusively, that these same institutions legitimized elite involvementin managing craft economies as well. Although further research is desperatelyneeded, gender and status roles also were important elements of Classic-periodHohokam craft economies (Crown and Fish, 1996).

Ceramic crafts have proven even more difficult to interpret with respect totheir production and distribution. Debates have raged with regard to the institu-tional mechanisms that account for particular ceramic economies such as JedditoYellow Ware on the Colorado Plateau (i.e., Adams et al., 1993; Upham, 1982),Gila Polychrome in the southern deserts and the Mogollon Highlands (e.g., Crown,1994, 1995; Crown and Bishop, 1991; McGuire, 1991; Upham, 1982; Wilcox,1995), Ramos Polychrome in Chihuahua (e.g., Woosley and Olinger, 1993), andTanque Verde Red-on-Brown (e.g., Fish et al., 1992) in the Sonoran Desert. Al-though direct elite intervention in these ceramic economies is not always empir-ically supported, recent evidence of their local production within vast territoriesshows that alternative institutional mechanisms must be proposed and evaluatedempirically.

Crown's (1994) argument that Gila Polychrome illustrates participation in apan-Southwestern fertility cult is intriguing, yet inconclusive. Thus it is impera-tive that archaeologists propose and evaluate whether other institutions influencedthese Late Formative craft economies, since local production of decorated andundecorated ceramics was so common during the 13th and 14th centuries (e.g.,Triadan, 1997; Zedeno, 1994).

270 Bayman

Since metallurgy was practiced only in a small area of the North AmericanSouthwest, its relevance is limited in most areas. Between A.D. 1250 and 1520(roughly coincident with Medio period at Paquimd and Classic-period Hohokam),copper alloy metallurgy emerged in West Mexico in concert with a stylistic elab-oration of bell designs (Vargas, 1995, p. 69). The Hohokam/Salado trade networkcontinued in a modified form along with a second network that centered on Paquime(Vargas, 1995, p. 71). Unlike the Hohokam/Salado network, which emphasizedinterregional exchange among elites, the Paquime system was oriented toward re-strictive, local consumption. Paquime also acquired a wider array of West Mexicancopper goods (e.g., needles, shields, and armlets) than did the Hohokam or Salado(Vargas, 1995, p. 71). Access to a greater variety of copper goods by Paquime'than the Hohokam or Salado should not be unexpected, however, given its relativeproximity to West Mexico.

Specialization in the manufacture of staples like fiber sandals and basketsis not well documented, although it probably existed in the past (Deegan, 1995,pp. 58-59). Thus far, studies of sandals and baskets from Anasazi rockshelterson the Colorado Plateau (e.g., Christenson, 1993; Deegan, 1992, 1993, 1995,1996; Hays-Gilpin et al., 1998; Kankainen, 1995; Morris, 1995; Webster andHays-Gilpin, 1994) are oriented more toward the technology of their manufac-ture than the organization of their production. Technological studies of sandalsand baskets offer Southwestern archaeologists the opportunity to interpret socialboundaries, if not ethnicity (Stark, 1998); such analyses should be a priority offuture work on these materials.

Specialization in textile production is somewhat better documented than forsandals and baskets, although textile economies often must be studied indirectlyusing spindle whorls (e.g., Teague, 1992), weaving tools (e.g., James, 1994), andfloor loom holes (e.g., Ambler, 1994), since actual textiles are rarely available(see Teague, 1996, for exception). Household specialization in textile production(especially below the Mogollon Rim) after A.D. 1300 allegedly favored community-wide production and trade of raw cotton by the Homolovi pueblos along theLittle Colorado River (Adams, 1991, p. 181). Unfortunately, since environmen-tal conditions for cotton cultivation were more favorable south of the MogollonRim (Teague, 1992, p. 306), any inference that Hohokam communities importedHomolovi cotton (Adams, 1991, p. 181) is fraught with uncertainty.

There is, however, convincing technological evidence for a regionalizationof styles of textile production having occurred after A.D. 1000 in the ColoradoPlateau, the Sonoran Desert/Mogollon Highlands, and the Chihuahuan Desert(Teague, 1992, p. 305). The use of looms on the Colorado Plateau (Teague,1992, p. 306) begs the question of whether intensification of textile production inthe northern Southwest could have accelerated cotton cultivation (and exchange)in the Sonoran Desert. In fact, direct involvement by elites in Hohokam and Saladotextile production has been argued by the relative abundance of weaving artifactson or near platform mounds (e.g., Simon and Savage, 1994; Teague, 1984). One


scenario (e.g., Wilcox, 1987) argues that Hohokam elites established alliancesthrough intermarriage and bride-price payment of textiles. Unfortunately, resultsof this study (e.g., Wilcox, 1987) are equivocal due to its restricted sample size andits sole reliance on assemblages from platform-mound contexts. In a pathbreakingstudy of Classic-period Hohokam grave goods (Crown and Fish, 1996), differ-ential distributions of spindle whorls, along with other items, provided arguableevidence of a gender hierarchy among women.

Hohokam cultivation of agave plants for food and fiber, especially dur-ing the Classic period (Fish et al., 1992), is a remarkable instance of an inter-section between a subsistence economy and a craft economy. Specialization ingoods made of agave fiber was potentially undertaken by people with cultivatedland rather than those without land. This pattern challenges demographicallydriven models in which specialization exists largely as an economic alternativefor those with restricted access to land (e.g., Arnold, 1985; Wilson and Blinman,1995).

Although the scale of long-distance exchange did not necessarily increasethrough time in the Southwest, Late Formative craft economies exhibited the high-est levels of pre-Contact production in terms of scale and intensity (sensu Costin,1991). However, because the ecological, sociopolitical, and historical contexts ofcraft specialization varied from one geographic region to the next, panregionalmodels are apt to be problematic. For example, increasing design-element stan-dardization of Rio Grande Glazeware reflects a relatively large village industry(Motsinger, 1997, p. 104; cites Rice, 1987), whereas other wares such as SaladoPolychrome and Hopi Yellow Ware were produced locally using similar technolo-gies and design styles across broad territories. Furthermore, some cases of house-hold specialization apparently were driven by demographic pressure (Wilson andBlinman, 1995), whereas others were not. Monolithic models (e.g., Arnold, 1985)that purport to explain specialization on the basis of a single variable are clearlyinadequate (Costin, 1991; Feinman, 1998) for interpreting craft economies in theNorth American Southwest.

One persistent problem of recent studies on craft economy is that their find-ings often are not integrated with rigorous empirical research on local agriculturalpotential, despite the availability of powerful techniques such as geographic infor-mation systems (e.g., Van West, 1996) and geoarchaeology (e.g., Waters, 1998).Too often, interpretations (e.g., Habicht-Mauche, 1995) of craft economies pre-sume rather than demonstrate that access to arable land was restricted (via landtenure?) from those households that engaged in craft specialization. Moreover,such interpretations often fail to specify whether the ultimate source of restrictionto arable land was demographic, sociopolitical, or some combination of both.

Between the 16th and 18th centuries, traditional craft economies were reor-ganized as the Southwest indigenous societies and the European-derived worldsystem confronted one another during the Spanish colonial era. Below I brieflyoutline post-Contact craft economies in the North American Southwest.

272 Bayman

POST-FORMATIVE (A.D. 1450-1750) WORLD SYSTEM

The Post-Formative period, also known as the protohistoric period (Wilcoxand Masse, 1981), includes the half century or so prior to the early visit by theSpanish explorer Francisco Vasquez Coronado in 1540 (Fig. 4). This period alsoencompassed the entry of Athapaskan (e.g., Navajo, Apache) peoples from thePlains into the North American Southwest. Relatively little work has been un-dertaken on the early post-Contact period. However, archaeological analyses ofits craft assemblages provide important insights regarding how native institutions

Fig. 4. Selected ethnographic populations that were encountered by early Europeansin the Post-Formative.


of leadership, gender roles, and frameworks of ethnicity were reorganized in aColonial context. Southwestern craft economies underwent changes following theintroduction of monetary currencies, new technologies, and draft animals into theindigenous system (see James, 1997).

Moreover, economic reorganization accelerated with the introduction of in-fectious diseases and reduced human populations, and as vast territories of theSouthwest were abandoned or became less populated (Dobyns, 1991; Mills, 1995a,p. 221; Roberts and Ahlstrom, 1997). In some instances, craft "despecialization"(Dobyns, 1991, p. 552) ensued as traditional economies such as marine-shell orna-ment production were weakened or eliminated altogether, whereas other economieslike ceramic production intensified, partially in response to external demand.

In the Zuni region, for example, protohistoric ceramic production allegedlyremained constant until the 17th century when Zuni glazeware manufacture be-came concentrated within a few villages, and thus more specialized (Mills, 1995b,p. 200). However, Mills (1995, p. 221) admits that neither the degree of glaze-ware vessel standardization nor the ratio of producers to consumers changed muchbetween early European contact and the 17th century. I suggest that rather thanindicating increased specialization, this patterning is more indicative of a surpris-ingly stable ceramic production system, given that 17th-century Zuni populationwas markedly reduced in the face of European-derived diseases and epidemics.

By contrast, production of glazeware ceramics (i.e., Glaze E) in the upper RioGrande Valley did become less standardized between 1530 and 1560 (Motsinger,1997, p. 113) as the number of production loci increased and as distribution net-works decreased in area. Motsinger (1997, pp. 113-114) notes that this trendcould be attributable to either escalating warfare with Plains groups or negativeconsequences of the early Spanish entradas. Given that less intensive/specializedproduction of some Rio Grande glazewares was well underway before Coronado'sentrada, Motsinger's interpretation of Spanish influence is intriguing. It suggests,perhaps, that one negative consequence of European contact (i.e., infectious dis-ease) could have been transmitted to the North American Southwest afterA.D. 1492, yet before Coronado arrived in 1540. In other words, Dobyn's (1991,p. 552) thesis of despecialization may be empirically supported, at least along theRio Grande, if not the Zuni River Valley.

Another controversy concerning the origin and technical tradition of earlyhistoric Gobernador Polychrome (i.e., Pueblo or Navajo) in the upper San JuanRiver area is even more puzzling. Many archaeologists have concluded thatGobernador Polychrome was an element of Navajo culture. Nevertheless, this be-lief does not preclude the possibility that Pueblo women first instructed the Navajoon its manufacture (Reed and Reed, 1996, p. 90). That particular historical events(i.e., European contact) and cultural encounters (i.e., between Plains and Pueblosocieties) significantly influenced the direction of technological change is increas-ingly evident, indicating that pre-Contact historical events also merit conscientiousattention. Work on protohistoric and Colonial-period ceramic economies in the Rio

274 Bayman

Grande area (e.g., Capone, 1995; Motsinger, 1997; Snow, 1981), the Plains, andelsewhere in the Southwest require further examination.

Colonial impact on Navajo and Apache lithic economies is an equally in-triguing issue for interpreting the technological consequences of European con-tact, since metal tools replaced traditional stone tools between the 16th and 18thcenturies (e.g., Kearns, 1996; Weber, 1995). The protohistoric reorganization ofNavajo lithic technology that was once thought to reflect increased dependence onagriculture (e.g., Elyea, 1992; Hester, 1962; Marshall, 1985) was most certainlydue to a replacement of specific types of stone tools with metal tools (Kearns,1996, pp. 141-144).

In some respects, European contact influenced textile production more di-rectly than ceramic or lithic economies as foreign techniques of manufacturingwere integrated into the traditional system. On the Colorado Plateau, Puebloantextile design technology after A.D. 1600 changed with the introduction of em-broideries and traditional European crochet and knitting techniques (Teague, 1992,p. 311; Webster, 1997). Despite European influence on textile technologies, con-tinued use of designs and patterns with roots in Mogollon, Hohokam, Sinagua,and Salado traditions (Teague, 1992, p. 311) echoed a traditional native heritage.

As noted previously, some traditional post-Contact economies did not flourishor persist as well as others. The abrupt demise of a vibrant marine-shell ornamenteconomy in the Sonoran Desert Hohokam is particularly puzzling. Why, for exam-ple, is the technological continuity that is apparent between early historic Pimanand "prehistoric" Hohokam ceramics (Dobyns, 1990, pp. 305-306; Reff, 1990,p. 286) not reflected in marine-shell ornaments? Trade networks certainly dis-seminated post-Contact diseases in the Southwest (Roberts and Ahlstrom, 1997).Perhaps the demise of large Hohokam towns along the major watercourses, withpoor sanitation and higher populations, effectively eliminated the market for shellornaments. Moreover, the utility of traditional ceramic vessels in serving secularfunctions (e.g., cooking, storage) ensured their production under European (i.e.,Spanish) influence, whereas marine-shell ornaments embued with sacred meaningsand value apparently were irrelevant to a Western worldview.

AGENDA FOR FURTHER STUDY

As of this writing, numerous projects on Southwestern craft economies arestill underway—and as yet unpublished—in the form of draft manuscripts, doc-toral dissertations, and contract research reports. Indeed, my review of programabstracts for the most recent (1993-1999) Society for American Archaeology an-nual meetings revealed that the number of presentations on Southwestern craftproduction is still increasing! The imminent publication of this research will cer-tainly modify our current understanding of ancient craft economies in the North


American Southwest. In my discussion below, I briefly summarize themes of recentpublished research, and I outline an agenda for upcoming research.

First and foremost, recent craft studies have forced a paradigmatic shift awayfrom viewing Southwestern settlements as economically autonomous entities toviewing them as parts of broader interactive networks. High degrees of economicinterdependence and interaction prevailed in many areas and time periods. We nowknow that Southwestern craft economies were differentiated and specialized to adegree once unimaginable to all but a few archaeologists (e.g., McGregor, 1965,p. 101; Shepard, 1939). High-intensity craft production took place in domestichousehold contexts, rather than formalized workshops like those found in somestate societies.

Marine-shell ornaments, to name only one example, were manufactured onan intensive basis among both the Middle and Late Formative Hohokam, andtheir eventual concentration around platform mounds reveals a striking organi-zational change later in the sequence. By contrast, a particularly strong exampleof intensified production on the Colorado Plateau is illustrated by the large-scalefiring of ceramics in trench kilns during the Late Formative. Although attachedspecialization—as it is strictly defined (Brumfiel and Earle, 1987)—never emergedin the North American Southwest, elite intervention in the Sonoran Desert is ar-guably revealed by concentrated consumption of high-value goods at platform-mound community centers. We also know that strong expressions of regionaliza-tion and economic differentiation flourished early in the sequence, certainly by theMiddle Formative and perhaps much earlier.

These empirical discoveries have instigated important theoretical advances,and contemporary interpretations of craft economies are laudable for their inter-pretive sophistication compared to past models. Simplistic models of economicexchange (i.e., reciprocity versus redistribution) that tie particular systems of cir-culation to particular levels of sociopolitical development (i.e., egalitarian versushierarchical) are becoming less frequent currencies of archaeological discourse.Recent conceptual advances (e.g., McGuire and Saitta, 1996; Yoffee et al., 1998)illustrate the fallacy of typological thinking in social evolutionary theory. An-cient systems of exchange and sociopolitical development in the North AmericanSouthwest did not behave in the manner described by the classic formulations(e.g., Sahlins, 1972; Service, 1962) of neoevolutionary theory, nor in the mannerthat was observed historically in the region. The geographic scale of Southwesterneconomic systems was much larger than the historical record would have us imag-ine (Cordell and Plog, 1979; Upham, 1982). The ethnographic Pima and TohonoO'odham, just to mention one example, did not build hundreds of miles of canalsand over 60 platform mounds; nor did they maintain an economic system encom-passing some 80,000km2 (Doyel, 1991, p. 226).

Thus, new research is needed to identify the archaeological signatures of spe-cific institutional mechanisms that governed craft economies among middle-range

276 Bayman

societies in the North American Southwest and elsewhere in the world. Gender,ethnicity, and principles of leadership are only a few (of many) examples of socialinstitutions that must be considered, along with domains of consumption.

Studies of gender in the organization, deployment, and division of labor forcraft economies are still in their infancy; and further illumination of this phe-nomenon offers a fertile avenue for new research (e.g., Crown and Fish, 1996;Crown and Wills, 1995a,b; Fratt, 1991; Graves, 1994; Hegmon and Trevathan,1997; Mills, 1995b, 1997; Spielmann, 1995, 1996, 1997). Dimensions of genderwere inherent in a variety of institutional mechanisms (e.g., kinship, postmaritalresidence patterns, land tenure, etc.) that must have influenced the articulation ofcraft economies and sociopolitical organization (see Crown and Fish, 1996).

Likewise, ethnicity and its role in governing the allocation of labor and tech-nology for craft production and relations of exchange is another topic that mer-its further exploration (e.g., Brown, 1996; Capone, 1995; Kearns, 1996; Levine,1990; Reed and Reed, 1996; Schaafsma, 1996; Spielmann, 1996; Thomas andBower, 1992; Woosley and Olinger, 1990). Although past research has alludedto Southwestern interethnic relations, especially in a regional-systems framework(e.g., Upham et al., 1994), there are many unanswered questions. Did particu-lar ethnic groups or communities engage in occupational specialization? Weresome groups exploited or economically marginalized in particular ancient South-western sociopolitical systems? Historically documented Plains-Pueblo economicspecialization (Spielmann, 1996) was probably not unique, and interethnic eco-nomic relations must have taken place elsewhere in the ancient Southwest.Notwithstanding the difficulty of conceptualizing and operationalizing ethnicityin archaeology (Jones, 1996; Stark, 1998; Stark et al., 1998), it is a topic thatmust be carefully considered. Studies of regional interethnic relations should becomplemented by comparative analyses of household labor organization withinand among specific populations.

In this vein, we are compelled to explore potential practices of multicrafting(Feinman, 1998) to determine whether households engaged in a wide or narrowrange of staple and prestige craft activities. The notion that households or com-munities specialized in manufacturing one craft (e.g., ceramics) is not empiricallysupported among the Classic-period Hohokam and Salado (Bayman, 1995,1996a;Stark, 1995a) or other ancient societies in the New World (e.g., Feinman, 1998).Modest steps toward examining the multicentric character of Southwestern crafteconomies have been taken (e.g., Mathien, 1992; Rice, 1994, 1995), but morestrategies for examining the complex, dynamic relationship among many differentcrafts and different activities must be devised.

In one scenario, scheduling conflicts between craft production and agriculturecould have favored production of some crafts (e.g., ceramics) once crops wereplanted, whereas other crafts (e.g., marine-shell ornament manufacture) that didnot require firing could be done inside an agricultural field house and were more


easily integrated into daily life, even during periods of planting and harvesting.New studies of household economies could profitably measure the spatial andbehavioral strength of association between agriculture and different craft activities(ceramic and nonceramic).

Similarly, recent interpretations of craft economies are rarely integrated withempirical research on nonagricultural subsistence economies of relatively mobilepopulations. The cycling of communities and regions into more (or less) sedentaryor mobile lifeways (Upham, 1984,1994) strongly suggests that economic special-ization was a reversible process. Reversals in economic intensification are poorlydocumented in the North American Southwest despite the waning influence ofneoevolutionary perspectives that emphasize long-term inevitability in economicdifferentiation and sociopolitical complexity.

Finally, what general contribution have craft economy studies yielded forresolving the perennial "complexity debate" in the North American Southwest?Varying degrees of craft specialization are now well documented in the NorthAmerican Southwest, and it is no longer viewed as a unitary correlate of sociopo-litical complexity as it once was (e.g., Childe, 1936). Since craft specializationin middle-range societies was situated in hierarchical (e.g., Abbott and Walsh-Anduze, 1995) as well as nonhierarchical (Gilman et al., 1994) sociopoliticalcontexts, it is imperative that we investigate the various institutions of leadershipthat certainly impinged on craft economies.

Promising attempts at interpreting institutions of leadership in Southwesternarchaeology (Mills, 1998) are focused on empirical evaluation of a proposed"network-corporate continuum" (Blanton et al., 1996; Feinman, 1995). This pro-posed continuum, which highlights alternative pathways of leadership develop-ment, could potentially breach the constraints imposed by typological neoevolu-tionary approaches. Ongoing study of Southwestern craft economies would profitgreatly from coupling this actor-based framework of leadership with Costin's(1991) craft specialization continuum and its focus on differences in the context,scale, and intensity of craft production.

Resolution of the so-called complexity debate ultimately requires that contem-porary research be reoriented toward identifying and interpreting the archaeolog-ical signatures of specific social institutions and their linkages to craft economies.In doing so, archaeology in the North American Southwest will contribute anenriched anthropological perspective on craft economies in ancient middle-rangesocieties throughout the world.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am indebted to the legions of archaeologists whose studies formed thebasis of this review. This paper benefited greatly from comments provided by

278 Bayman

Gary Feinman, Barbara Mills, Miriam Stark, David Wilcox, and an anonymousreviewer. I am entirely responsible for matters of style, errors in fact, and mistakesin interpretation.

REFERENCES CITED

Abbott, D. R. (ed.) (1994). Pueblo Grande Project: Pueblo Grande Ceramics, Pottery Production,and Exchange in the Central Phoenix Basin, Publications in Archaeology, No. 20, Soil Systems,Phoenix.

Abbott, D. R. (1996). Ceramic exchange and a strategy for reconstructing organizational developmentsamong the Hohokam. In Fish, P. R., and Reid, J. J. (eds.), Interpreting Southwestern Diversity: Un-derlying Principles and Overarching Patterns, Anthropological Research Papers, No. 48, ArizonaState University, Tempe, pp. 147-158.

Abbott, D. R., and Schaller, D. M. (1992). Exploring the production and social significance of SaladoPolychrome at central Phoenix Basin Hohokam sites. In Lange, R. C., and Germick, S. (eds.),Proceedings of the Second Salado Conference: Globe, AZ1992, Occasional Paper, Arizona Ar-chaeological Society, Phoenix, pp. 248-258.

Abbott, D. R., and Walsh-Anduze, M. E. (1995). Temporal patterns without temporal variation. InMills, B. J., and Crown, P. L. (eds.). Ceramic Production in the American Southwest, Universityof Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 88-114.

Adams, E. C. (1991). The Origin and Development of the Pueblo Katsina Cult, University of ArizonaPress, Tucson.

Adams, E. C., Dosh D., and Stark, M. T. (1993). Ceramic distribution and exchange: Jeddito YellowWare and implications for social complexity. Journal of Field Archaeology 20: 3-21.

Adams, J., and Elson, M. D. (1995). Personal ornaments, pigments, rocks, and mineral speci-mens. In Elson, M. D., and Clark, J. J. (eds.), The Roosevelt Community Development Study,Volume 1: Stone and Shell Artifacts, Anthropological Papers, No. 14, Center for Desert Archae-ology, Tucson, pp. 115-149.

Adler, M. A. (1996a). "The Great Period": The Pueblo world during the Pueblo III period, A.D. 1150-1350. In Adler, M. J. (ed.), The Prehistoric Pueblo World, A.D. 1150-1350, University of ArizonaPress, Tucson, pp. 1-10.

Alder, M. A. (1996b). Fathoming the scale Anasazi communities. In Fish, P. R., and Reid, J. J. (eds.),Interpreting Southwestern Diversity: Underlying Principles and Overarching Patterns, Anthro-pological Research Papers, No. 48, Arizona State University, Tempe, pp. 97-106.

Ambler, J. (1994). The Shonto Junction doghouse: A weaver's field house in the Klethla Valley. Kiva59:455-473.

Anyon, R., and LeBlanc, S. A. (1984). The Galaz Ruin: A Prehistoric Mimbres Village in South-western New Mexico, Maxwell Museum of Anthropology and University of New Mexico Press,Albuquerque.

Arnold, D. (1985). Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Arnold, J. (1995). Social inequality, marginalization, and economic processes. In Price, T. D., and

Feinman, G. M. (eds.), Foundations of Social Inequality, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 87-103.Bayman, J. M. (1992). The circulation of exotics in a Tucson Basin platform mound community. In

Lange, R. C, and Germick, S. (eds.), Proceedings of the Second Salado Conference: Globe,Arizona, 1992, Occasional Paper, Arizona Archaeological Society, Phoenix, pp. 31-37.

Bayman, J. M. (1995). Rethinking "redistribution" in the archaeological record: Obsidian exchange atthe Marana platform mound. Journal of Anthropological Research 51: 37-63.

Bayman, J. M. (1996a). Hohokam craft production and platform mound community organization in theTucson Basin. In Fish, P. R., and Reid, J. J. (eds.), Interpreting Southwestern Diversity: UnderlyingPrinciples and Overarching Patterns, Anthropological Papers, No. 48, Arizona State University,Tempe, pp. 159-171.

Bayman, J. M. (1996b). Shell ornament consumption in a Classic Hohokam platform mound communitycenter. Journal of Field Archaeology 23(4): 1-18.


Bayman, J. M., and Shackley, M. S. (1997). Archeological and Geochemical Analyses of Obsidian fromCasa Grande National Monument and Grewe. Final Report to Southwest Parks and MonumentsAssociation, Tucson.

Becher, M., and Sullivan, A. P. (1994). Kayenta Anasazi ceramic production. Pottery Southwest21(1): 4.

Binford, L. (1979). Organization and formation processes: Looking at curated technologies. Journalof Anthropological Research 35: 255-273.

Blanton, R. E., Feinman, G. M., Kowalewski, S. A., and Peregrine, P. N. (1996). A dual-processualtheory for the evolution of Mesoamerican civilization. Current Anthropology 37: 1-86.

Blinman, E. (1989). Potluck in the protokiva: Ceramics and ceremonialism in Pueblo I villages. In Lipe,W. D., and Hegmon, M. (eds.), The Architecture of Social Integration in the Prehistoric Pueblos,Occasional Papers, No. 1, Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, CO, pp. 113-124.

Blinman, E. (1992). Anasazi trench kilns: Recommendations for excavation. Pottery Southwest 19:3-5.Blinman, E. (1993). Anasazi pottery: Evolution of a technology. Expedition 35(1): 14-22.Blinman, E., and Wilson, C. D. (1992). Ceramic production and exchange in the northern San Juan re-

gion A.D. 600-900. In Bey, III, G. J., and Pool, C. A. (eds.), Ceramic Production and Distribution:An Integrated Approach, Westview Press, Boulder, CO, pp. 155-173.

Blinman, E., and Wilson, C. D. (1993). Ceramic perspectives on Northern Anasazi exchange. InEricson, J. E., and Baugh, T. G. (ed.), The American Southwest and Mesoamerica: Systems ofPrehistoric Exchange, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 65-94.

Borson, N., Berdan, F., Stark, E., States, J., and Wettstein, P. J. (1998). Origins of an Anasazi scarletmacaw feather artifact. American Antiquity 63: 131-142.

Bostwick, T. (1988). An Investigation of Archaic Subsistence and Settlement in the Harquahala Valley,Maricopa County, Arizona, Northland Research, Phoenix.

Bostwick, T. (1992). Platform mound ceremonialism in southern Arizona: Possible symbolic meaningsof Hohokam and Salado platform mounds. In Lange, R. C., and Germick, S. (eds.). Proceedingsof the Second Salado Conference: Globe, AZ 1992, Occasional Paper, Arizona ArchaeologicalSociety, Phoenix, pp. 78-85.

Bostwick, T. (1993). A study in sourcing Hohokam basalt ground stone implements. Kiva 58:357-372.Bradley, R. J. (1993). Marine shell exchange in northwest Mexico and the Southwest. In Ericson, J. E.,

and Baugh, T. J. (eds.), The American Southwest and Mesoamerica: Systems of Prehistoric Ex-change, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 121-158.

Bradley, R. J. (1996). The Role of Casa Grandes in Prehistoric Shell Exchange Networks Withinthe Southwest, Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Anthropology, Arizona StateUniversity, Tempe.

Braun, D. P. (1983). Pots as tools. In Moore, J. A., and Keene, A. S. (eds.), Archaeological Hammersand Theories, Academic Press, New York, pp. 108-134.

Brown, G. M. (1996). The Protohistoric transition in the northern San Juan region. In Towner, R. H.(ed.), The Archaeology of Navajo Origins, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 47-69.

Brumfiel, E. (1994). Factional competition and political development in the New World: An introduc-tion. In Brumfiel, E. M., and Fox, J. W. (eds.). Factional Competition and Political Developmentin the New World, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1-9.

Brumfiel, E., and Earle, T. K. (1987). Specialization, exchange, and complex societies: An introduction.In Brumfiel, E. M., and Earle, T. K. (eds.). Specialization, Exchange, and Complex Societies,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1-9.

Burton, J., and Simon, A. W. (1993). Acid extraction as a simple and inexpensive method for compo-sitional characterization of archaeological ceramics. American Antiquity 58: 45-59.

Cameron, C. M. (1992). A brief summary of chipped stone use at site 29SJ 627. In Mathien, F. J. (ed.),Excavations at 29SJ 627, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, Vol. II, The Artifact Analyses, Branch ofCultural Research, National Park Service, Santa Fe, pp. 249-264.

Cameron, C. M. (1993). Chipped stone from 29SJ 629. In Windes, T. C. (ed.). The Spadefoot ToadSite: Investigations at 29SJ 629 Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, Vol. II, Artifactual and BiologicalAnalyses, Reports of the Chaco Center, No. 12. National Park Service, Division of Anthropology,Santa Fe, pp. 135-184.

Cameron, C. M. (1998). Coursed adobe architecture, styles, and social boundaries in the AmericanSouthwest. In Stark, M. T. (ed.), The Archaeology of Social Boundaries, Smithsonian Institution,Washington, DC, pp. 183-207.

280 Bayman

Capone, P. (1995). Mission Pueblo Ceramic Analyses: Implications for Protohistoric Interaction Net-works and Cultural Dynamics, Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,Harvard University, Cambridge.

Carpenter, J., and Sanchez G. (1997). Prehistory of the Borderlands, Archaeological Series, No. 186,Arizona State Museum, Tucson.

Childe, V. G. (1936). Man Makes Himself, Mentor Book, New York.Christenson, A. (1991). Identifying pukis or potter's turntables at Anasazi sites. Pottery Southwest

18:(1) 1-6.Christenson, A. (1994). Perforated and unperforated plates as tools for pottery manufacture. In Smith,

M. F. (ed.), Function and Technology of Anasazi Ceramics from Black Mesa, Arizona, OccasionalPaper, No. 15, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale,pp. 55-65.

Christenson, D. (1993). Analysis of Ties, Tie Systems, and the Attachment Methods of Fibrous Sandalsof Tsegi Phase (Pueblo III) Kayenta Branch, from Tsegi Canyon, Arizona, Unpublished M.A.thesis, Department of Anthropology, Utah State University, Logan.

Clark, J., and Blake, M. (1994). The power of prestige: Competitive generosity and the emergence ofrank societies in lowland Mesoamerica. In Brumfiel, E. M., and Fox, J. W. (eds.), Factional Com-petition and Political Development in the New World, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,pp. 17-30.

Clark, J. E., and Parry, W. J. (1990). Craft specialization and cultural complexity. In Isaac, B. L. (eds.),Research in Economic Anthropology, Vol. 12, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 289-346.

Cobb, C. (1993). Archaeological approaches to the political economy of nonstratified societies. InSchiffer, M. B. (ed.), Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 5, University of Arizona Press,Tucson, pp. 43-99.

Cordell, L. S. (1989). Durango to Durango: An overview of the Southwest heartland. In Thomas,D. H. (ed.), Columbian Consequences: Vol. J, Archaeological and Historical Perspectives on theSpanish Borderlands West, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 17-40.

Cordell, L. (1997). Archaeology of the Southwest, Academic Press, New York.Cordell, L., Doyel, D. E., and Kintigh, K. W. (1994). Processes of aggregation in the prehistoric

Southwest. In Gumerman, G. J. (ed.), Themes in Southwest Prehistory, School of AmericanResearch Press, Santa Fe, pp. 109-134.

Cordell, L., and Gumerman, G. J. (1989). Cultural interaction in the prehistoric Southwest. In Cordell,L. S., and Gumerman, G. J. (eds.), Dynamics of Southwest Prehistory, Smithsonian InstitutionPress, Washington, DC, pp. 1-17.

Cordell, L., and Plog, F. (1979). Escaping the confines of normative thought: A reevaluation of Puebloanprehistory. American Antiquity 44: 405-429.

Costin, C. (1991). Craft specialization: Issues in defining, documenting, and explaining the organizationof production. In Schiffer, M. B. (ed.). Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 3, University ofArizona Press, Tucson, pp. 1-56.

Crown, P. L. (1991). The role of exchange and interaction in Salt-Gila Basin Hohokam prehistory.In Gumerman, G. J. (ed.), Exploring the Hohokam: Prehistoric Desert Peoples of the AmericanSouthwest, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 383-415.

Crown, P. L. (1994). Ceramics and Ideology: Salado Polychrome Pottery, University of New MexicoPress, Albuquerque.

Crown, P. L. (1995). The production of Salado polychromes in the American Southwest. In Mills,B. J., and Crown, P. L. (eds.), Ceramic Production in the American Southwest, University ofArizona Press, Tucson, pp. 142-166.

Crown, P. L. (1996). Change in ceramic design style and technology in the thirteenth- to fourteenth-century Southwest. In Fish, P. R., and Reid, J. J. (eds.), Interpreting Southwestern Diversity:Underlying Principles and Overarching Patterns, Anthropological Research Papers, No. 48,Arizona State University, Tempe, pp. 241-248.

Crown, P. L., and Bishop, R. L. (1991). Manufacture of Gila Polychrome in the greater AmericanSouthwest: An instrumental neutron activation analysis. In Adams, E. C., and Hays, K. A. (eds.),Homol 'ovill: Archaeology of an Ancestral Hopi Village, Arizona, Anthropological Papers, No. 55,University of Arizona, Tucson, pp. 49-56.

Crown, P. L., and Fish, S. K. (1996). Gender and status in the Hohokam pre-Classic to Classic transition.American Anthropologist 98: 803-817.


Crown, P. L., and Judge, W. J. (1991). Synthesis and conclusions. In Crown, P. L., and Judge, W. J.(eds.), Chaco and Hohokam: Prehistoric Regional Systems in the American Southwest, School ofAmerican Research Press, Santa Fe, pp. 292-308.

Crown, P. L., and Wills, W. H. (1995a). Economic intensification and the origins of ceramic containersin the American Southwest. In Barnett, W., and Hoops, J. (eds.). The Emergence of Pottery,Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 241-2S4.

Crown, P. L., and Wills, W. H. (1995b). The origins of Southwestern ceramic containers: Women'stime allocation and economic intensification. Journal of Anthropological Research 51: 173-186.

Deegan, A. (1992). Scalloped-toe Anasazi sandals: Fabric and overall construction. ARS TEXTRINA18: 171-192.

Deegan, A. (1993). Anasazi fibrous sandal terminology. Kiva 59:49-64.Deegan, A. (1995). Anasazi sandal features: Their research value and identification. Kiva 61:

57-69.Deegan, A. (1996). Anasazi square toe-square heel twined sandals: Construction and cultural attributes.

Kiva 62: 27-44.Dinerstein, A. (1996). An analysis of pigment processing groundstone from Yellow Jacket: 5MT3.

Southwestern Lore: Journal of Colorado Archaeology 62(3): 6—11.Dobyns, H. (1990). Prehistoric to historic transitions: Chronological considerations. In Minnis, P. E.,

and Redman, C. L. (eds.). Perspectives on Southwestern Prehistory, Westview Press, Boulder,CO, pp. 301-307.

Dobyns, H. (1991). New native world: Links between demographic and cultural changes. In Thomas,D. H. (ed.). Columbian Consequences: The Spanish Borderlands in Pan-American Perspective,Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, pp. 541-559.

Doelle, W. H. (1980). Past Adaptive Patterns in Western Papagueria: An Archaeological Study ofNonriverine Use, Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Anthropology, University ofArizona, Tucson.

Doelle, W., and Wallace, H. D. (1991). The changing role of the Tucson Basin in the Hohokamregional system. In Gumerman, G. J. (ed.). Exploring the Hohokam: Prehistoric Desert Peoplesof the American Southwest, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 279-346.

Dohm, K. (1994). The search for Anasazi village origins: Basketmaker II dwelling aggregation onCedar Mesa. Kiva 60: 257-276.

Douglas, J. (1992). Distant sources, local contexts: Interpreting nonlocal ceramics at Paquime' (CasasGrandes), Chihuahua. Journal of Anthropological Research 48: 1-24.

Douglas, J. (1995). Autonomy and regional systems in the late prehistoric southern Southwest.American Antiquity 60:240-257.

Douglass, A. (1994). A Regional Perspective on Little Colorado White Ware Exchange. In Jones, A. T.,and Tagg, M. D. (eds.), Middle Little Colorado River Archaeology: From the Parks to the People,The Arizona Archaeologist, No. 27, Arizona Archaeological Society, Phoenix, pp. 57-67.

Doyel, D. E. (1991). Hohokam exchange and interaction. In Crown, P. L., and Judge, W. J. (eds.), Chacoand Hohokam: Prehistoric Regional Systems in the American Southwest, School of AmericanResearch Press, Santa Fe, pp. 225-252.

Doyel, D. E. (1993a). Interpreting prehistoric cultural diversity in the Arizona desert. In Woosley,A. I., and Ravesloot, J. C. (eds.), Culture and Contact: Charles C. DiPeso's Gran Chichimeca,University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 39-64.

Doyel, D. E. (1993b). On rivers and boundaries in the Phoenix Basin, Arizona. Kiva 58:455-474.Doyel, D. E. (1996). Resource mobilization and Hohokam society: Analysis of obsidian artifacts from

the Gatlin site, Arizona. Kiva 62:45-60.Duff, A. I. (1994). The scope of post-Chacoan community organization in the lower Zuni River region.

In Howell, T. L., and Stone, T. (eds.). Exploring Social, Political and Economic Organizationin the Zuni Region, Anthropological Research Papers, No. 46, Arizona State University, Tempe,pp. 25-45.

Earle, T. K. (1996). Specialization and the production of wealth: Hawaiian chiefdoms and the Inkaempire. In Preucel, R. W., and Hodder, I. (eds.), Contemporary Theory in Archaeology: A Reader,Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge, MA. pp. 165-188.

Elson, M., and Gunderson, J. (1992a). X-Ray Diffraction Results of the Sourcing of Argillite Artifactsfrom the Marana Platform Mound Site (AZ AA: 12:251), Technical Report, No. 92-6, Center forDesert Archaeology, Tucson.

282 Bayman

Elson, M., and Gunderson, J. (1992b). The mineralogy of sourcing of argillite artifacts: A preliminaryexamination of procurement, production, and distribution systems. In Elson, M. D., and Craig,D. B. (eds.), The Rye Creek Project: Archaeology in the Upper Tonto Basin, Vol. 2, Artifactand Specific Analyses, Anthropological Papers, No. 11, Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson,pp. 429-462.

Espenshade, C. T. (1997). Mimbres pottery, births, and gender: A reconsideration. American Antiquity62: 733-736.

Evans, R. (1978). Early craft specialization: An example from the Balkan Chalcolithic. In Redman,C. L., Berman, M. J., Curtin, E. V., Langhorne, Jr., W. T., and Versa, N. M. (eds.), Social Archae-ology: Beyond Subsistence and Dating, Academic Press, New York, pp. 113-129.

Elyea, J. (1992). The Navajo lithic assemblages. In Hogan, P. (ed.), Archeology of the San Juan Breaks:TheNavajo Occupation, Office of Contract Archeology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque,pp. 39-48.

Feinman, G. M. (1992). An outside perspective on Chaco Canyon. In Doyel, D. (ed.), Anasaa Re-gional Organization and the Chaco System, Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, Albuquerque,pp. 177-182.

Feinman, G. M. (1995). The emergence of inequality: A focus on strategies and processes. In Price,T. D., and Feinman, G. M. (eds.). Foundations of Social Inequality, Plenum Press, New York,pp. 255-279.

Feinman, G. M. (1998). Rethinking our assumptions: Economic specialization at the household scalein ancient Ejutla, Oaxaca, Mexico. In Skibo, J. M., and Feinman, G. M. (eds.). Pottery and People,University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City (in press).

Ferg, A. (1997). Cienega phase rare artifacts: Finding their place in prehistory. Archaeology in Tucson11(3): 8-9.

Fish, P. R., and Fish, S. K. (1991). Hohokam political and social organization. In Gumerman, G. J.(eds.), Exploring the Hohokam: Prehistoric Desert Peoples of the American Southwest, Universityof New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 151-175.

Fish, P. R., Fish, S. K., Brennan, C., Gann, D., and Bayman, J. M. (1992). Marana: Configurationof an early Classic period Hohokam platform mound site. In Lange, R. C., and Germick, S.(eds.), Proceedings of the Second Salado Conference: Globe, AZ1992, Occasional Paper, ArizonaArchaeological Society, Phoenix, pp. 62-68.

Fish, P. R.,Fish, S. K., Gumerman, G. J., and Reid, J. J. (1994). Toward an explanation for Southwestern"abandonments." In Gumerman, G. J. (ed.), Themes in Southwest Prehistory, School of AmericanResearch Press, New Mexico, pp. 135-163.

Fish, P. R., Fish, S. K., Whittlesey, S., Neff, H., Glascock, M., and Elam, M. J. (1992). An evaluationof the production and exchange of Tanque Verde red-on-brown ceramics in southern Arizona. InNeff, H. (ed.), Chemical Characterization of Ceramic Pastes in Archaeology, Prehistory Press,Madison, WI, pp. 233-254.

Fish, S. K., and Fish, P. R. (1994). Multisite communities as measures of Hohokam aggregation. In Wills,W. H., and Leonard, R. D. (eds.), The Ancient Southwestern Community: Models and Methodsfor the Study of Prehistoric Social Organization, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque,pp. 119-130.

Fish, S. K., and Yoffee, N. (1996). The state of the Hohokam. In Meyer, D. A., Dawson, P. C., andHanna, D. T. (eds.), Debating Complexity: Proceedings of the 26th Annual Chacmool Conference,Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, Calgary, pp. 290-296.

Frankenstein, S., and Rowlands, M. J. (1978). The Internal Structure and Regional Context of EarlyIron Age Society in South-Western Germany, Bulletin 15, Institute of Archaeology, London,pp. 73-112.

Fratt, L. (1991). A preliminary analysis of gender bias in the sixteenth and seventeenth centurySpanish colonial documents of the American Southwest. In Walde, D., and Willows, N. (eds.), TheArchaeology of Gender: Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Chacmool Conference, ArchaeologicalAssociation of the University of Calgary, Calgary, pp. 245-251.

Gilman, P., Canouts, V., and Bishop, R. L. (1994). The production and distribution of Classic MimbresBlack-on-white pottery. American Antiquity 59: 695-709.

Gilpin, D. (1994). Lukachukai and Salina Springs: Late Archaic/early Basketmaker habitation sites inthe Chinle Valley. Kiva 60: 203-218.


Graves, M. (1994). Community boundaries in late prehistoric Puebloan society: Kalinga ethnoarchae-ology as a model for the Southwestern production and exchange of pottery. In Wills, W. W., andLeonard, R. D. (eds.), The Ancient Southwestern Community: Models and Methods for the Studyof Prehistoric Social Organization, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 149-170.

Graves, W., III. (1996). Social Power and Prestige Enhancement Among the Protohistoric SalinasPueblos, Rio Grande Valley, New Mexico, Unpublished M. A. thesis. Department of Anthropology,Arizona State University, Tempe.

Gregory, D. (1991). Form and variation in Hohokam settlement patterns. In Crown, P. L., and Judge,W. J. (eds.), Chaco and Hohokam: Prehistoric Regional Systems in the American Southwest,School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, pp. 159-193.

Gregory, D. (1997). A ritual array of artifacts from a Cienega phase pit structure. Archaeology in Tucson11(3): 4-5.

Griffith, C., and McCartney, P. H. (1993). Shell artifacts from the Livingston area. In Jacobs, D.(ed.), Roosevelt Platform Mound Study: Report on the Livingston Management Group, RooseveltMonograph Series, No. 3, Anthropological Field Studies, No. 32, Arizona State University, Tempe.

Griffith, C., and McCartney, P. H. (1994). Shell Artifacts from the Livingston Area. In Jacobs, D. (ed.),Archaeology of the Salado in the Livingston Area of Tonto Basin, Roosevelt Platform MoundStudy: Report on the Livingston Management Group, Pinto Creek Complex, Roosevelt Mono-graph Series, No. 3, Anthropological Field Studies, No. 32, Arizona State University, Tempe,pp. 799-808.

Griffith, C., Carroll, M., and Kintigh, K. W. (1992). The inference of social complexity from distribu-tions of exotic artifacts in the Tonto Basin. In Redman, C. L., and Rice, G. E. (eds.), DevelopingPerspectives on Tonto Basin Prehistory, Roosevelt Monograph Series, No. 2, AnthropologicalField Studies, No. 26, Arizona State University, Tempe, pp. 77-86.

Gurnet-man, G., and Gell-Mann, M. (1994). Cultural evolution in the prehistoric Southwest. InGumerman, G. J. (ed.). Themes in Southwest Prehistory, School of American Research Press,Santa Fe, pp. 2-31.

Habicht-Mauche, J. A. (1993). The Pottery from Arroyo Hondo Pueblo, New Mexico: Tribalization andTrade in the Northern Rio Grande, Part I, School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

Habicht-Mauche, J. A. (1995). Changing patterns of pottery manufacture and trade in the northernRio Grande region. In Mills, B. J., and Crown, P. L. (eds.), Ceramic Production in the AmericanSouthwest, University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 167-199.

Hagstrum, M. (1995). Creativity and craft: Household pottery traditions in the Southwest. In Mills,B. J., and Crown, P. L. (eds.), Ceramic Production in the American Southwest, University ofArizona Press, Tucson, pp. 281-299.

Halbirt, C., and Henderson, T. K. (1993). Archaic Occupation on the Santa Cruz Flats: The Tator HillsArchaeological Project, Northland Research, Flagstaff.

Harbottle, G., and Weigand, P. (1992). Turquoise in pre-Columbian America. Scientific American266(2): 78-85.

Hard, R. J., and Roney, J. R. (1998). A massive terraced village complex in Chihuahua, Mexico, 3000year before present. Science 279: 1661-1664.

Hayden, B. (1995). Pathways to power: Principles for creating socioeconomic inequalities. In Price,T. D., and Feinman, G. M. (eds.), Foundations of Social Inequality, Plenum Press, New York,pp. 15-86.

Hays-Gilpin, K. A. (1996). Anasazi iconography: Medium and motif. In Fish, P. R., and Reid, J. J.(eds.). Interpreting Southwestern Diversity: Underlying Principles and Overarching Patterns,Anthropological Research Papers, No. 48, Arizona State University, Tempe, pp. 55-68.

Hays-Gilpin, K. A., Deegan, A. C., and Morris, E. A. (1998). Prehistoric Sandals from NortheasternArizona, Anthropological Papers, No. 62, University of Arizona, Tucson.

Heacock, L. (1995). Archaeological investigations of three Mesa Verde Anasazi pit kilns. Kiva 60:391-410.

Hegmon, M. (1995). Pueblo I ceramic production in southwest Colorado: Analyses of igneous rocktemper. Kiva 60: 371-390.

Hegmon, M., Allison, J. R., Neff, H., and Glascock, M. D. (1997). Production of San Juan Red Ware inthe northern Southwest: Insights into regional interaction in early Puebloan prehistory. AmericanAntiquity 62:449-463.

284 Bayman

Hegmon, M., Hurst, W., and Allison, J. R. (1995). Production for local consumption and exchange:Comparisons of early red and white ware ceramics in the San Juan region. In Mills, B. J., andCrown, P. L. (eds.), Ceramic Production in the American Southwest, University of Arizona Press,Tucson, pp. 30-62.

Hegmon, M., and Plog, S. (1996). Regional social interaction in the northern Southwest: Evidenceand issues. In Fish, P. R., and Reid, J. J. (eds.), Interpreting Southwestern Diversity: UnderlyingPrinciples and Overarching Patterns, Anthropological Research Papers, No. 48, Arizona StateUniversity, Tempe, pp. 23-34.

Hegmon, M., and Trevanthan, W. R. (1996). Gender, anatomical knowledge, and pottery production:Implications of an anatomically unusual birth depicted on Mimbres pottery from SouthwesternNew Mexico. American Antiquity 61: 747-754.

Hegmon, M. And Trevanthan, W. R. (1997). Response to comments by LeBlanc, by Espenshade, andby Shaffer et al., American Antiquity 62: 737-739.

Heidke, J. (1996). Production and distribution of Rincon phase pottery: Evidence from the Julian Washsite. In Mabry, J. B. (ed.), A Rincon Phase Occupation at the Julian Wash Site, AZ BB:13:17(ASM), Technical Report, No. 94-2, Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson, pp. 47-71.

Heidke, J. (1997). The earliest Tucson Basin pottery. Archaeology in Tucson 11(3): 9-10.Heidke, J., Miksa, B., and Wiley, M. K. (1998). Ceramic artifacts. In Mabry, J. B., Archaeological

Investigations of Early Village Sites in the Middle Santa Cruz Valley: Analyses and Synthesis,Anthropological Papers, No. 19, Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson (in press).

Heidke, J., and Stark, M. T. (1996). Early ceramics in southeastern Arizona: Technology, iconography,and function. Paper presented at the 29th Annual Chacmool Conference entitled "Eureka!! TheArchaeology of Innovation and Science," University of Calgary, Calgary.

Herr, Sarah (1993). Broken pots as tools. In Mills, B. J., Goetze, C. E., and Zedefio, M. N., Acrossthe Colorado Plateau: Anthropological Studies Along the San Juan Basin and Transwest-ern Mainline Expansion Pipeline Routes, Vol. 16, Ceramic Interpretations, Office of ContractArcheology and Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque,pp. 347-376.

Hester, J. J. (1962). An ethnohistoric reconstruction of Navajo culture, 1582-1824. El Palacio 69(3):130-138.

Hill, D. (1993). Clay resource sampling and Petrographic studies. Pottery Southwest 20(1-4): 6-7.Hill, D. (1994). Technological analysis: Making and using ceramics on Black Mesa. In Smith, M. F.

(ed.), Function and Technology ofAnasazi Ceramics from Black Mesa, Arizona, Occasional Paper,No. 15, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, pp.23-53.

Hill, J. N. (1970). Broken K Pueblo: Prehistoric Social Organization in the American Southwest,Anthropological Papers, No. 18, University of Arizona, Tucson.

Hirth, K. (1996). Political economy and archaeology: Perspectives on exchange and production. Journalof Archaeological Research 4:203-239.

Hoopes, J. W., and Barnett, W. K. (1995). The shape of early pottery studies. In Bamett, W. K.,and Hoopes, J. W., The Emergence of Pottery: Technology and Innovation in Ancient Societies,Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 1-7.

Howard, A. V. (1987). Late Archaic and Pioneer period shell utilization: An examination of early shellproduction and exchange within Arizona. Paper presented at the 1987 Hohokam Conference,Tempe.

Howard, A. V. (1993). Marine shell artifacts and production processes at Shelltown and the Hindsite. In Marmaduke, W. S., and Martynec, R. J. (eds.), Shelltown and the Hind Site: A Study ofTwo Hohokam Craftsmen Communities in Southwestern Arizona, Northland Research, Flagstaff,pp. 321-423.

Howard, J. B. (1992). Architecture and ideology: An approach to the functional analysis of platformmounds. In Lange, R. C., and Germick, S. (eds.), Proceedings of the Second Salado Conference,Globe, AZ 1992, Occasional Paper, Arizona Archaeological Society, Phoenix, pp. 69-77.

Huckell, B. B. (1996). The Archaic prehistory of the North American Southwest. Journal of WorldPrehistory 10: 305-373.

James, S. (1994). Bone artifacts. In Foster, M. S. (ed.). The Pueblo Grande Project, Material Culture,Vol. 4, Publications in Archaeology, No. 20, Soil Systems, Phoenix, pp. 263-311.


James, S. (1997). Change and continuity in Western Pueblo households during the historic period inthe American Southwest. World Archaeology 28:429-456.

Johnson, A. W., and Earle, T. K. (1987). The Evolution of Human Societies from Foraging Groups toAgrarian States, Stanford University Press, Stanford.

Jones, S. (1996). The Archaeology of Ethnicity. Routledge, New York.Judge, W. J. (1979). The development of a complex cultural ecosystem in the Chaco Basin, New

Mexico. In Linn, R. M. (ed.). Proceedings of the First Conference on Scientific Research in theNational Parks, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, pp. 901-905.

Julien, M. (1993). Evidence of Regional Exchange at Casa Malpais: Tracing Heshotauthla PolychromeWare with Instrumental Neutron Activation Analyses, Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department ofAnthropology, California State University, Fullerton.

Kankainen, K. (1995). Sandal styles, materials, and techniques. In Kankainen, K. (ed.), Treading inthe Past: Sandals of the Anasazi, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 21-30.

Kantner, J. (1996). Political competition among the Chaco Anasazi of the American Southwest. Journalof Anthropological Archaeology 15: 41-105.

Kearns, Timothy M. (1996). Protohistoric and early historic Navajo lithic technology in northwest NewMexico. In Towner, R. H. (ed.), The Archaeology of Navajo Origins, University of Utah Press,Salt Lake City, pp. 109-145.

Keleher, J. (1991). An Exploration of Chipped Stone Technological Strategies with Application toSan Simon Mogollon Materials, Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, StateUniversity of New York, Buffalo.

Kojo, Y. (1996). Production of prehistoric Southwestern ceramics: A low-technology approach.American Antiquity 61: 325-339.

Larson, D., and Neff, H. (1996). Risk, climatic variability, and the study of Southwestern prehistory:An evolutionary perspective. American Antiquity 61:217-242.

LeBlanc, S. A. (1997). A comment on Hegmon and Trevathan's "Gender, anatomical knowledge, andpottery production." American Antiquity 62: 723-726.

Lekson, S. H. (1993). Chaco, Hohokam and Mimbres: The Southwest in the 11th and 12th centuries.Expedition 35(1): 44-52.

Levine, D. (1990). Tewa or Hispanic manufacture? Pottery from eighteenth- and nineteenth-centurySpanish sites near Abiquiu. In Duran, M. S., and Kirkpatrick, D. T. (eds.), Clues to the Past: Papersin Honor of William M. Sundt, Archaeological Society of New Mexico, Vol. 16, Albuquerque,pp. 173-183.

Lombard, J., and Fish, P. R. (1993). Sand temper composition of Pioneer period Hohokam. In Madsen,J. H., and Fish, P. R. (eds.), The Northern Tucson Basin Survey: Research Directions and Back-ground Studies, Archaeological Series, No. 182, Arizona State Museum, Tucson, pp. 195-200.

Longacre, W. A. (1970). Archaeology as Anthropology: A Case Study, Anthropological Papers, No. 17,University of Arizona, Tucson.

Lyneis, M. (1995). The Virgin Anasazi, far western Puebloans. Journal of World Prehistory 9:199-241.Lyneis, M. (1996). Pueblo H-Pueblo III change in Southwestern Utah, the Arizona strip, and southern

Utah. In Adler, M. J. (ed.). The Prehistoric Pueblo World, A.D. 1150-1350, University of ArizonaPress, Tucson, pp. 11-28.

Mabry, J. (1997). Rewriting prehistory: Recent discoveries at Cienega phase sites in the Santa Cruzfloodplain. Archaeology in Tucson 11(3): 1.

Marshall, M. P. (1985). The Excavation of the Cortez CO2 Pipeline Project Sites, 1982-1983. Officeof Contract Archeology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

Martin, P. S., and Plog, F. (1973). The Archaeology of Arizona, Doubleday/Natural History Press,Garden City, NJ.

Mathien, F. (1992). Ornaments and minerals from site 29SJ 627. In Mathien, F. J. (ed.), Excavations at29SJ627, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, Vol. 1, The Artifact Analysis, Branch of Cultural Research,National Park Service, Santa Fe, pp. 265-318.

Mathien, F. (1993a). Exchange systems and social stratification among the Chaco Anasazi. In Ericson,J. E., and Baugh, T. G. (eds.), The American Southwest and Mesoamerica: Systems of PrehistoricExchange, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 27-63.

Mathien, F. (1993b). Ornaments and minerals from 29SJ 629. In Windes, T. C. (ed.), The Spadefoot ToadSite: Investigations at 29SJ 629, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, Vol. 2, Artifactual and Biological

286 Bayman

Analyses, Reports of the Chaco Center, No. 12, National Park Service, Division of Anthropology,Santa Fe, pp. 269-316.

Mathien, F. (1994). Argillite: A locally available jewelry material of the prehistoric inhabitantsof Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. In Duran, M. S., and Kirkpatrick, D. T. (eds.), Artifacts,Shrines, and Pueblos, Archaeological Society of New Mexico, Vol. 20, Albuquerque, pp. 147-158.

Mathien, F. (1995). Evidence of prehistoric turquoise mining at Orogrande, Jarilla Mountains,New Mexico. In Duran, M. S., and Kirkpatrick, D. T. (eds.). Of Pots and Rocks: Papers inHonor of A. Helene Warren, Archaeological Society of New Mexico, Vol. 21, Albuquerque,pp. 77-91.

Mathien, F., and Olinger, B. (1992). An experiment with x-ray fluorescence to determine trace elementvariability in turquoise composition. In Duran, M. S., and Kirkpatrick, D. T. (eds.), Archaeology,Art, and Anthropology: Papers in Honor of J. J. Brody, The Archaeological Society of NewMexico, Vol. 18, Albuquerque, pp. 123-134.

McGregor, J. C. (1965). Southwestern Archaeology, University of Illinois Press, Urbana.McGuire, R. (1991). On the outside looking in: The concept of periphery in Hohokam archaeology. In

Gumerman, G. J. (ed.), Exploring the Hohokam: Prehistoric Desert Dwellers of the Southwest,University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 347-382.

McGuire, R. (1992). A Marxist Archaeology, Academic Press, New York.McGuire, R. (1993). The structure and organization of Hohokam exchange. In Ericson, J. E., and Baugh,

T. G. (eds.), The American Southwest and Mesoamerica: Systems of Prehistoric Exchange, PlenumPress, New York, pp. 95-119.

McGuire, R. (1994). Historical process and Southwestern prehistory: A position paper. In Gumerman,G. J., and Gell-Mann, M. (eds.), Understanding Complexity in the Prehistoric Southwest, SFIStudies in the Sciences of Complexity, Vol. 16, Proceedings, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA,pp. 193-201.

McGuire, R., Adams, E. C., Nelson, B. A., and Spielmann, K. A. (1994). Drawing the Southwest toscale: Perspectives on macroregional relations. In Gumerman, G. J. (ed.), Themes in SouthwestPrehistory, School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, pp. 239-265.

McGuire, R., and Howard, A. V. (1987). The structure and organization of Hohokam shell exchange.Kiva 52: 113-146.

McGuire, R., and Saitta, D. (1996). Although they have petty captains, they obey them badly: Thedialectics of prehispanic western Pueblo social organization. American Antiquity 61: 197-216.

Miksa, E., and Heidke, J. M. (1995). Drawing a line in the sands: Models of ceramic temper provenance.In Heidke, J. M., and Stark, M. T. (eds.), The Roosevelt Community Development Study: Vol. 2,Ceramic Chronology, Technology, and Economics, Anthropological Papers, No. 14, Center forDesert Archaeology, Tucson, pp. 133-205.

Mills, B. J. (1995a). The organization of protohistoric Zuni ceramic production. In Mills, B. J., andCrown, P. L. (eds.), Ceramic Production in the American Southwest, University of Arizona Press,Tucson, pp. 200-230.

Mills, B. J. (1995b). Gender and the reorganization of historic Zuni craft production: Implications forarchaeological interpretation. Journal of Anthropological Research 51: 149-172.

Mills, B. J. (1997). Gender, labor, and social asymmetry: Dynamics of craft production in the AmericanSouthwest. Paper presented at the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology,Nashville.

Mills, B. J. (1998). Introduction: Alternative leadership strategies in the Greater Southwest. Paperpresented at the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Seattle.

Mills, B., and Crown, P. L. (1995). Ceramic production in the American Southwest: An introduction. InMills, B. J., and Crown, P. L. (eds.), Ceramic Production in the American Southwest, Universityof Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 1-29.

Mitchell, D. R., and Shackley, M. S. (1995). Classic period Hohokam obsidian studies in southernArizona. Journal of Field Archaeology 22: 291-304.

Motsinger, T. N. (1997). Tracking protohistoric glazeware specialization in the upper Rio GrandeValley, New Mexico. Kiva 63: 101-116.

Morris, E. (1995). Anasazi textiles. In Kankainen, K. (ed.). Treading in the Past: Sandals of the Anasazi,University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 5-10.


Neff, H. (1992). Ceramics and evolution. In Schiffer, M. B. (ed.). Archaeological Method and Theory,Vol. 4, University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 141-193.

Neff, H., Larson, D. O., and Glascock, M. D. (1997). The evolution of Anasazi ceramic productionand distribution: Compositional evidence from a Pueblo III site in south-central Utah. Journal ofField Archaeology 27:473-492.

Neitzel, J. (1991). Hohokam material culture and behavior: The dimensions of organizational change.In Gumerman, G. J. (ed.), Exploring the Hohokam: Prehistoric Desert Peoples of the AmericanSouthwest, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 177-230.

Neitzel, J., and Bishop, R. L. (1990). Neutron activation of Dogoshi style ceramics: Production andexchange in the Chacoan regional system. Kiva 56: 67-85.

Nelson, B. A. (1993). Outposts of Mesoamerican empire and architectural patterning at La Quemada,Zacatecas. In Woosley, A. I., and Ravesloot, J. C. (eds.). Culture and Contact: Charles C. DiPeso's Gran Chichimeca, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, pp. 173-189.

Nelson, M. (1996). The value of a technological strategies approach: Introductory remarks. In Fish, P. R.,and Reid, J. J. (eds.), Interpreting Southwestern Diversity: Underlying Principles and Over-arching Patterns, Anthropological Research Papers, No. 48, Arizona State University, Tempe,pp. 185-188.

Nelson, M., and Lippmeier, H. (1993). Grinding-tool design as conditioned by land-use pattern.American Antiquity 58: 286-305.

Nelson, R. (1991). Hohokam Marine Shell Exchange and Artifacts, Archaeological Series, No. 179,Arizona State Museum, Tucson.

Neupert, M. A. (1994). Strength testing archaeological ceramics: A new perspective. AmericanAntiquity 59: 709-723.

Oppelt, N. (1994). Petrography of Mesa Verde National Park pottery. Pottery Southwest 21(3): 1-3.Oppelt, N. (1996). Petrographic analysis of the temper in the pottery from Mesa Verde National Park.

Southwestern Lore 62(3).Peacock, D. (1982). Pottery in the Roman World: An Ethnoarchaeological Approach, Longman,

London.Peterson, J., Mitchell, D. R., and Shackley, M. S. (1994). Obsidian from Pueblo Grande, Arizona:

Modeling social and economic patterns in lithic procurement. In Scott, D. A., and Meyers, P.(eds.), Archaeometry of Pre-Columbian Sites and Artifacts, Getty Conservation Institute, LosAngeles, pp. 161-173.

Peterson, J., Mitchell, D. R., and Shackley, M. S. (1997). The social and economic contexts of lithicprocurement: Obsidian from Classic period Hohokam sites. American Antiquity: 62: 231-259.

Phillips, Jr., D. A. (1996). Rethinking Chaco. In Meyer, D. A., Dawson, P. C., and Hanna, D. T. (eds.),Debating Complexity: Proceedings of the 26th Annual Chacmool Conference, ArchaeologicalAssociation of the University of Calgary, Calgary, pp. 333-338.

Plog, F. (1983). Political and economic alliances on the Colorado Plateau, A.D. 600 to A.D. 1450.Advances in World Archaeology 2: 289-330.

Plog, S. (1980). Village autonomy in the American Southwest: An evaluation of the evidence. In Fry,R. E. (ed.), Models and Methods in Regional Exchange, Papers No. 1, Society for AmericanArchaeology, pp. 135-146.

Plog, S. (1989). Ritual, exchange, and the development of regional systems. In Lipe, W. D., andHegmon, M. (eds.). The Architecture of Social Integration in Prehistoric Pueblos, OccasionalPaper, No. 1, Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, CO, pp. 143-154.

Plog, S. (1993). Changing perspectives on North and Middle American exchange systems. In Ericson,J. E., and Baugh, T. G. (eds.), The American Southwest and Mesoamerica: Systems of PrehistoricExchange, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 285-292.

Plog, S. (1995a). Equality and hierarchy: Holistic approaches to understanding social dynamics in thePueblo Southwest. In Price, T. D., and Feinman, G. M. (eds.), Foundations of Social Inequality,Plenum Press, New York, pp. 189-206.

Plog, S. (1995b). Paradigms and pottery: The analysis of production and exchange in the AmericanSouthwest. In Mills, B. J., and Crown, P. L. (eds.), Ceramic Production in the American Southwest,University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 268-280.

Polanyi, K., Arensberg, C. M., and Pearson, H. (1957). Trade and Market in the Early Empire, FreePress, Glencoe, IL.

288 Bayman

Post, S., and Lakatos, S. A. (1995). Santa Fe Black-on-white pottery firing features of the northernRio Grande Valley, New Mexico. In Duran, M. S., and Kirkpatrick, D. T. (eds.), Of Pots andRocks: Papers in Honor of A. Helene Warren, Archaeological Society of New Mexico, Vol. 15,Albuquerque, pp. 141-153.

Preucel, R. (1996). Cooking status: Hohokam ideology, power, and social reproduction. In Fish,P. R., and Reid, J. J. (eds.), Interpreting Southwestern Diversity: Underlying Principles and Over-arching Patterns, Anthropological Research Papers, No. 48, Arizona State University, Tempe,pp. 125-132.

Rafferty, K. (1990). The Virgin Anasazi and the pan-Southwestern trade system, A.D. 900-1150. Kiva56: 3-24.

Rautman, A. (1993). Resource variability, risk, and the structure of social networks: An example fromthe prehistoric Southwest. American Antiquity 58:403-424.

Reed, P. F., and Reed, L. S. (1996). Reexamining Gobernador Polychrome: Toward a new understandingof the early Navajo chronological sequence in northwestern New Mexico. In Towner, R. H. (ed.),The Archaeology of Navajo Origins, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 83-108.

Reff, D. (1990). Contact shock and the protohistoric period in the greater Southwest. In Minnis, P. E.,and Redman, C. L. (eds.), Perspectives on Southwestern Prehistory, Westview Press, Boulder,CO, pp. 276-288.

Reid, J., and Whittlesey, S. (1997). The Archaeology of Ancient Arizona, University of Arizona Press,Tucson.

Rice, G. (1992). Modeling the development of complexity in the Sonoran Desert of Arizona. InRedman, C. L., Rice, G. E., and Pedrick, K. E. (eds.). Developing Perspectives on Tonto BasinPrehistory, Roosevelt Monograph Series, No. 2, Anthropological Field Studies, No. 26, ArizonaState University, Tempe, pp. 11-26.

Rice, G. (1994). The distribution of special artifacts. In Jacobs, D. (ed.). Archaeology of the Saladoin the Livingston Area of Tonto Basin, Roosevelt Platform Mound Study: Report on theLivingston Management Group, Pinto Creek Complex, Part 2, Roosevelt Monograph Series, No. 3,Anthropological Field Studies, No. 32, Arizona State University, Tempe, pp. 809-817.

Rice, G. (1995). Special artifacts and evidence for the differentiation of residential and ritual rooms atBass Point Mound. In Lindauer, O. (ed.), Where the Rivers Converge, Roosevelt Platform MoundStudy: Report on the Rock Island Complex, Roosevelt Monograph Series, No. 4, AnthropologicalField Studies, No. 33, Arizona State University, Tempe, pp. 331-349.

Rice, P. (1987). Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Roberts, H., and Ahlstrom, R. (1997). Malaria, microbes, and mechanism of change. Kiva 63:117-135.Sahlins, M. (1972). Stone Age Economics, Aldine, Chicago.Saitta, D. (1994a). Class and community in the prehistoric Southwest. In Wills, W. W., and

Leonard, R. D. (eds.), The Ancient Southwestern Community: Models and Methods for the Studyof Prehistoric Social Organization, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 25-54.

Saitta, D. (1994b). The political economy and ideology of early population aggregation in TogeyeCanyon, A.D. 1150-1250. In Howell, T. L., and Stone, T. (eds.). Exploring Social, Political andEconomic Organization in the Zuni Region, Anthropological Research Papers, No. 46, ArizonaState University, Tempe, pp. 47-60.

Saitta, D. (1997). Power, labor, and the dynamics of change in Chacoan political economy. AmericanAntiquity 62: 7-26.

Schaafsma, C. F. (1996). Ethnic identity and protohistoric archaeological sites in northwesternNew Mexico: Implications for reconstructions of Navajo and Ute history. In Towner, R. H.(ed.), The Archaeology of Navajo Origins, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 19-46.

Schiffer, M. B., and McGuire, R. H. (1982). The study of cultural adaptations. In McGuire, R. H., andSchiffer, M. B. (eds.), Hohokam and Patayan: Prehistory of Southwestern Arizona, AcademicPress, New York, pp. 223-274.

Schiffer, M., and Skibo, J. M. (1994). New perspectives on experimental archaeology: Surface treat-ments and thermal response of the clay cooking pot. American Antiquity 59: 197-217.

Schiffer, M., and Skibo, J. M. (1997). The explanation of artifact variability. American Antiquity 62:27-50.

Sebastian, L. (1991). Sociopolitical complexity and the Chaco system. In Crown, P. L., and Judge, W. J.


(eds.), Chaco andHohokam: Prehistoric Regional Systems in the American Southwest, School ofAmerican Research Press, Santa Fe, pp. 109-134.

Sebastian, L. (1992a). The Chaco Anasazi: Sociopolitical Evolution in the Prehistoric Southwest,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Sebastian, L. (1992b). Chaco Canyon and the Anasazi Southwest. In Doyel, D. (ed.), Anasazi RegionalOrganization and the Chaco System, Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, Albuquerque, pp. 23-34.

Sebastian, L. (1996). Talcing charge in Chaco: The evolution of political structure. In Meyer, D. A.,Dawson, P. C, and Hanna, D. T. (eds.), Debating Complexity: Proceedings of the 26th AnnualChacmool Conference, Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, Calgary, pp. 339-344.

Service, E. (1962). Primitive Social Organization, Random House, New York.Seymour, D. (1988). An alternative view of Sedentary period Hohokam shell-ornament production.

American Antiquity 53: 812-829.Shackley, M. S. (1992). The upper Gila River gravels as an archaeological obsidian source region:

Implications for models of exchange and interaction. Geoarchaeology 7: 315-326.Shackley, M. S. (1994). Intersource and intrasource geochemical variability in two newly discovered

archaeological obsidian sources in the southern Great Basin. Journal of California and GreatBasin Anthropology 16: 118-129.

Shackley, M. S. (1995). Sources of archaeological obsidian in the greater American Southwest: Anupdate and quantitative analysis. American Antiquity 60: 531-551.

Shackley, M. S. (1997a). Intrasource chemical variability and secondary depositional processes: A casestudy from the American Southwest. In Shackley, M. S. (ed.), Archaeological Obsidian Studies:Method and Theory, Advances in Archaeological and Museum Science, No. 3, Plenum Press,New York.

Shackley, M. S. (1997b). Gamma rays, x-rays, and stone tools: Some recent advances in archaeologicalgeochemistry. Journal of Archaeological Science 25:259-270.

Shafer, H. J. (1985). A Mimbres potter's grave: An example of Mimbres craftspecialization? Bulletinof the Texas Archeological Society 56: 185-200.

Shaffer, B. S., Gardner, K. M., and Shafer, H. J. (1997). An unusual birth depicted in Mimbres pottery:Not cracked up to what it is supposed to be. American Antiquity 62: 727-732.

Shepard, A. O. (1939). Technology of La Plata pottery. In Morris, E. H. (ed.), Archaeological Studies inthe La Plata District, Publication, No. 519, Carnegie Institution, Washington, DC, pp. 249-287.

Simon, A. W. (1994). Compositional analysis of the Livingston ceramic assemblage. In Jacobs, D.(ed.), Archaeology of the Salado in the Livingston Area of Tonto Basin, Roosevelt Platform MoundStudy, Roosevelt Monograph Series, No. 3, Anthropological Field Studies, No. 32, Arizona StateUniversity, Tempe, pp. 647-662.

Simon, A. W., and Burton, J. H. (1998). Ceramic production and exchange in the Tonto Basin: Thechemical characterization evidence. In Simon, A. W. (ed.), Salado Ceramics and Social Organi-zation: Prehistoric Interactions in the Tonto Basin, Roosevelt Platform Mound Study, RooseveltMonograph Series, No. 11, Anthropological Field Studies, No. 40, Arizona State University,Tempe (in press).

Simon, A., Komorowski, J., and Burton, J. H. (1992). Patterns of production and distribution of SaladoWares as a measure of complexity. In Redman, C. L., and Rice, G. E. (eds.), Developing Per-spectives on Tonto Basin Prehistory, Roosevelt Monograph Series, No. 2, Anthropological FieldStudies, No. 26, Arizona State University, Tempe, pp. 61-76.

Simon, A., and Savage, K. S. (1994). Ceramic disks, whorls, and unusual forms. In Jacobs, D. (ed.),Archaeology of the Salado in the Livingston Area of the Tonto Basin, Roosevelt Platform MoundStudy: Report on the Livingston Management Group, Pinto Creek Complex, Part 2, RooseveltMonograph Series, No. 3, Anthropological Field Studies, No. 32, Arizona State University, Tempe,pp. 761-780.

Slaughter, M. (1996). Occupation of the Gibbon Springs site: Summary and concluding thoughts. InSlaughter, M. C., and Roberts, H. (eds.), Excavation of the Gibbon Springs Site: A Classic PeriodVillage in the Northeastern Tucson Basin, SWCA Archaeological Report, No. 94-97, SWCAEnvironmental Consultants, Tucson, pp. 523-534.

Smith, M. F. (1994). You know, you can see through clay: Current and future ceramic studies onthe Black Mesa Anasazi. In Smith, M. F. (ed.). Function and Technology of Anasazi Ceramics

290 Bayman

from Black Mesa, Arizona, Occasional Paper, No. 15, Center for Archaeological Investigations,Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, pp. 131-136.

Snow, D. H. (1981). Protohistoric Rio Grande Pueblo economics: A review of trends. In Wilcox, D. R.,and Masse, W. B., The Protohistoric Period in the North American Southwest, A.D. 1450-1700,Anthropological Research Papers, No. 24, Arizona State University, Tempe, pp. 354-377.

Spielmann, K. A. (1995). Glimpses of gender in the prehistoric Southwest. Journal of AnthropologicalResearch 51: 91-102.

Spielmann, K. A. (1996). Exchange and evolution: Themes in the study of Plains-Pueblo relations.In Fish, P. R., and Reid, J. J. (eds.). Interpreting Southwestern Diversity: Underlying Principlesand Overarching Patterns, Anthropological Research Papers, No. 48, Arizona State University,Tempe, pp. 35-40.

Spielmann, K. A. (1997). Gendered interaction in the American Southwest. Paper presented at the62nd Annual Meeting, Society for American Archaeology, Nashville.

Stark, M. T. (1995a). Commodities and interaction in the prehistoric Tonto Basin. In Elson, M. D., Stark,M. T., and Gregory, D. A. (eds.), The Roosevelt Community Development Study: New Perspectiveson Tonto Basin Prehistory, Anthropological Papers, No. 15, Center for Desert Archaeology,Tucson, pp. 307-342.

Stark, M. T. (1995b). The early ceramic horizon and Tonto Basin prehistory. In Elson, M. D., andStark, M. T. (eds.), The Roosevelt Community Development Study: Vol. 2. Ceramic Chronology,Technology, and Economics, Anthropological Papers, No. 14, Center for Desert Archaeology,Tucson, pp. 249-272.

Stark, M. T. (1998). Technical choices and social boundaries in material culture patterning: An in-troduction. In Stark, M. T. (ed.), The Archaeology of Social Boundaries, Smithsonian InstitutionPress, Washington, DC, pp. 1-11.

Stark, M. T., and Heidke, J. M. (1995). Early Classic period variability in utilitarian ceramic productionand distribution. In Heidke, J. M., and Stark, M. T. (eds.), The Roosevelt Community DevelopmentStudy: Ceramic Chronology, Technology, and Economics, Anthropological Papers, No. 14, Centerfor Desert Archaeology, Tucson, pp. 363-393.

Stark, M. T., Elson, M. D., and Clark, J. J. (1998). Social boundaries and technical choices in Tonto Basinprehistory. In Stark, M. T. (ed.), The Archaeology of Social Boundaries, Smithsonian InstitutionPress, Washington, DC, pp. 208-231.

Stein, J., and Lekson, S. (1992). Anasazi ritual landscapes. In Doyel, D. E. (ed.), Anasazi Re-gional Organization and the Chaco System, Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, Albuquerque,pp. 87-100.

Sullivan, A. P. (1988). Prehistoric Southwestern ceramic manufacture: The limitations of current evi-dence. American Antiquity S3: 23-35.

Tainter, J., and Plog, F. (1994). Structure and patterning: The formation of Puebloan archaeology. InGumerman, G. J. (ed.), Themes in Southwest Prehistory, School of American Research Press,Santa Fe, pp. 165-181.

Teague, L. S. (1984). The organization of the Hohokam economy. In Teague, L. S., and Crown, P. L.(eds.), Archaeology Along the Salt-GilaAqueduct, Central Arizona Project, Archaeological Series,No. 150, Arizona State Museum, Tucson, pp. 187-249.

Teague, L. S. (1992). Textiles in late prehistory. In Lange, R. C., and Germick, S. (eds.), Proceedingsof the Second Salado Conference: Globe, AZ 1992, Occasional Paper, Arizona ArchaeologicalSociety, Phoenix, pp. 304-311.

Teague, L. S. (1996). Textiles from the Upper Ruin. In Fox, G. L. (ed.). Archaeological Investigationsat the Upper Ruin, Tonto National Monument. Part I. Salvage Excavations at the Upper Ruin,AZ U:8:48 (ASM)—1995, Publications in Anthropology, No. 70, Western Archeological andConservation Center, Tucson, pp. 157-176.

Thomas, W., and Bower, N. W. (1992). An X-ray fluorescence-pattern recognition analysis of potteryfrom an early historic Hispanic settlement near Santa Fe, New Mexico. Historical Archaeology26(2): 24-36.

Toll, H. W. (1991). Material distributions and exchange in the Chaco system. In Crown, P. L., and Judge,W. J. (eds.), Chaco and Hohokam: Prehistoric Regional Systems in the American Southwest,School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, pp. 77-107.

Toll, H., and Blinman, E. (1992). Chaco in the context of ceramic regional systems. In Doyel,


D. E. (ed.), Anasazi Regional Organization and the Chaco System, Anthropological Papers,No. 5, Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, Albuquerque, pp. 147-157.

Toll, H. W., and McKenna, P. J. (1993). The testimony of the Spadefoot ceramics. In Windes, T. C.(ed.), The Spadefoot Toad Site: Investigations at 29SJ 629 Chaco Canyon, New Mexico: Vol. 2,Artifactual and Biological Analyses, Vol. 2, Reports of the Chaco Center, No. 12, National ParkService, Division of Anthropology, Santa Fe.

Tosi, M. (1984). The notion of craft specialization and its representation in the archaeological recordof early states in the Turanian Basin. In Spriggs, M. (ed.), Marxist Perspectives in Archaeology,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 22-52.

Triadan, D. (1997). Ceramic Commodities and Common Containers: The Production and Distributionof White Mountain Red Ware in the Grasshopper Region, Arizona, Anthropological Papers, No. 61,University of Arizona, Tucson.

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

Upham, S. (1984). Adaptive diversity and Southwestern abandonment. Journal of AnthropologicalResearch 40: 235-256.

Upham, S. (1994). Nomads of the Desert West: A shifting continuum in prehistory. Journal of WorldPrehistory 8: 113-167.

Upham, S., Crown, P. L., and Plog, S. (1994). Alliance formation and cultural identity in the AmericanSouthwest. In Gumerman, G. J. (ed.), Themes in Southwest Prehistory, School of AmericanResearch Press, Santa Fe, pp. 183-210.

Van Keuren, S., Stinson, S. L., and Abbott, D. R. (1997). Specialized production of Hohokam plainware ceramics in the lower Salt River Valley. Kiva 63: 155-175.

van der Leeuw, S. (1977). Towards a study of the economics of pottery making. Ex Homo 4: 68-76.Van West, C. R. (1996). Agricultural potential and carrying capacity in southwestern Colorado, A.D.

901-1300. In Adler, M. A. (ed.), The Prehistoric Pueblo World A.D. 1150-1350, University ofArizona Press, Tucson, pp. 214-227.

Vargas, V. (1995). Copper Bell Trade Patterns in the Prehispanic U.S. Southwest and Northwest Mexico,Archaeological Series, No. 187, Arizona State Museum, Tucson.

Vivian, R. G. (1990). The Chacoan Prehistory of the San Juan Basin, New Mexico, Academic Press,Orlando.

Vokes, A. (1993). The shell assemblage. InElson, M. D. (ed.). The Roosevelt Community DevelopmentStudy, Stone and Shell Artifacts, Vol. 2, Anthropological Papers 14, Center for Desert Archaeology,Tucson, pp. 151-211.

Vokes, A. (1994). Classic and post Classic shell industry at Phoenix Sky Harbor Center. In Greenwald,D. H. (ed.), Early Desert Farming and Irrigation Settlements: Archaeological Investigations in thePhoenix Sky Harbor Center, SWCA Archaeological Report, No. 93-17, SWCA EnvironmentalConsultants, Flagstaff.

Walsh-Anduze, M. E. (1993). The Sourcing of Hohokam Red-on-Buff Ceramics Using InductivelyCoupled Plasma Spectroscopy: "Schist Happens," Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department ofAnthropology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff.

Wandsnider, L., and Camilli, E. L. (1996). Land use histories from the Mesilla Bolson (south-centralNew Mexico): Evidence from spatial patterning in surface artifacts distributions. In Fish, P. R.,and Reid, J. J. (eds.). Interpreting Southwestern Diversity: Underlying Patterns and OverarchingPatterns, Anthropological Research Papers, No. 48, Arizona State University, Tempe, pp. 211-240.

Waters, M. R. (1998). The effect of landscape and hydrologic variables on the prehistoric Salado:Geoarchaeological investigations in the Tonto Basin, Arizona. Geoarchaeology 13:105-160.

Weber, R. (1995). Metal arrow points of the Rio Abajo. In Duran, M. S., and Kirkpatrick, D. T. (eds.),Of Pots and Rocks: Papers in Honor of A. Helene Warren, The Archaeological Society of NewMexico, Vol. 21, Albuquerque, pp. 167-173.

Webster, L. (1997). Effects of European Contact on Textile Production and Exchange in the NorthAmerican Southwest: A Pueblo Case Study, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,University of Arizona, University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

Webster, L., and Hays-Gilpin, K. (1994). New trails for old shoes: Sandals, textiles, and baskets inBasketmaker culture. Kiva 60: 313-327.

292 Bayman

Weigand, P. (1982). Mining and mineral trade in prehispanic Zacatecas. In Weigand, P. C., and Gwynne,G. (eds.), Mining and Mineral Techniques in Ancient Mesoamerica, Special issue of Anthropology,Vol. 6, pp. 87-134.

Weigand, P. (1992). The macroeconomic role of turquoise within the Chaco Canyon system. In Doyel,D. R. (ed.), Anasaii Regional Organization and the Chaco Canyon System, Maxwell Museum ofAnthropology, Albuquerque, pp. 169-173.

Weigand, P., and Harbottle, G. (1977). Turquoise sources and source analysis: Mesoamerica and theSouthwestern U.S.A. In Earle, T. K., and Ericson, J. E. (eds.). Exchange Systems in Prehistory,Academic Press, New York, pp. 15-34.

Weigand, P., and Harbottle, G. (1993). The role of turquoises in the ancient Mesoamerican tradestructure. In Ericson, J. E., and Baugh, T. G. (eds.). The American Southwest and Mesoamerica:Systems of Prehistoric Exchange, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 159-177.

Whittlesey, S., and Ciolek-Torrello, R. (1996). The Archaic-Formative transition in the Tucson Basin.In Roth, B. J. (ed.), Early Formative Adaptations in the Southern Southwest, Prehistory Press,Madison, WI, pp. 49-64.

Wilcox, D. R. (1979). The Hohokam regional system. In Rice, G., Wilcox, D. R., Rafferty, K., andSchoenwetter, J. (eds.), An Archaeological Test of Sites in the Gila Butte-Santan Region, South-Central Arizona, Anthropological Research Papers, No. 18, Arizona State University, Tempe,pp. 77-116.

Wilcox, D. R. (1980). The current status of the Hohokam concept. In Doyel, D. E., and Plog, F. (eds.),Current Issues in Hohokam Prehistory, Anthropological Research Papers, No. 23, Arizona StateUniversity, Tempe, pp. 236-242.

Wilcox, D. R. (1987). Franks Midvale's Investigation of the Site of La Ciudad, Anthropological FieldStudies, No. 19, Arizona State University, Tempe.

Wilcox, D. R. (1991). Hohokam social complexity. In Crown, P. L., and Judge, W. J. (eds.), Chacoand Hohokam: Prehistoric Regional Systems in the American Southwest, School of AmericanResearch Press, Santa Fe, pp. 253-276.

Wilcox, D. R. (1995). A processual model of Charles C. Di Peso's Babocomari site and related systems.In Reyman, J. E. (ed.), The Gran Chichimeca: Essays on the Archaeology and Ethnohistory ofNorthern Mesoamerica, Avebury Worldwide Archaeology Series, Aldershot, pp. 281-319.

Wilcox, D. R. (1996a). The diversity of regional and macroregional systems in the American Southwest.In Meyer, D. A. Dawson, P. C., and Hanna, D. T. (eds.), Debating Complexity, Proceedings ofthe 26th Annual Chacmool Conference, Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary,Calgary, pp. 375-390.

Wilcox, D. R. (1996b). Pueblo III people and polity in relational context. In Adler, M. A. (ed.), ThePrehistoric Pueblo World, A.D. 1150-1350, University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Wilcox, D. R., and Masse, W. B. (1981) (eds). The Protohistoric Periods in the North AmericanSouthwest, A.D. 145.0-170, Anthropological Research Papers, No. 24, Arizona State University,Tempe.

Wilcox, D. R., and Shenk, L. O. (1977). The Architecture of the Casa Grande and Its Interpretation,Archaeological Series, No. 115, Arizona State Museum, Tucson.

Wilcox, D. R., and Steinberg, C. (1983). Hohokam Battcourts and Their Interpretation, ArchaeologicalSeries, No. 160, Arizona State Museum, Tucson.

Wills, W. W. (1988). Early Prehistoric Agriculture in the American Southwest, School of AmericanResearch Press, Santa Fe.

Wills, W. W. (1995). Archaic foraging and the beginning of food production in the American Southwest.In Price, T. D., and Gebauer, A. B. (eds.), Last Hunters—First Farmers: New Perspectives on thePrehistoric Transition to Agriculture, School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, pp. 21-37.

Wills, W. W., and Leonard, R. (1994). The Ancient Southwestern Community, University of NewMexico, Albuquerque.

Wilson, C. D. (1988). An evaluation of individual migration as an explanation for the presence ofsmudged ceramics in Dolores project area. In Blinman, E., Phagan, C. J., and Wilshusen, R. H.(eds.), Dolores Archaeological Program: Supporting Studies: Additive and Reductive Technolo-gies, United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, pp. 425-435.

Wilson, C. D., and Blinman, E. (1995). Changing specialization of white ware manufacture in thenorthern San Juan region. In Mills, B. J., and Crown, P. L. (eds.), Ceramic Production in theAmerican Southwest, University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 63-87.


Windes, T. (1992). Blue notes: The Chacoan turquoise industry in the San Juan Basin. In Doyel, D. E.(ed.), Anasazi Regional Organization and the Chaco System, Maxwell Museum of Anthropology,Albuquerque, pp. 159-168.

Wiseman, R. (1990). Raw material selection for chipped stone artifacts in the late developmental sitesof the Santa Fe district. In Duran, M. S., and Kirkpatrick, D. T. (eds.), Clues to the Past: Papersin Honor of William M. Sundt, Archaeological Society of New Mexico, Vol. 16, Albuquerque,pp. 345-350.

Woosley, A., and Olinger, B. (1990). Ethnicity and the production of micaceous ware in the Taos Valley.In Duran, M. S., and Kirkpatrick, D. T. (eds.), Clues to the Past: Papers in Honor of William M.Sundt, Archaeological Society of New Mexico, Vol. 16, Albuquerque, pp. 351-367.

Woosley, A., and Olinger, B. (1993). The Casas Grandes ceramic tradition: Production and interregionalexchange of Ramos polychrome. In Woosley, A. I., and Ravesloot, J. C. (eds.), Culture andContact: Charles C. Di Peso's Gran Chichimeca, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque,pp. 105-131.

Yoffee, N., Pish, S. K., and Milner, G. R. (1998). Communidades, ritualities, chiefdoms: Social evolutionin the American Southwest and Southeast. In Neitzel, J., and Woosley, A., Great Towns andRegional Polities in the Southwest and Southeast, Amerind Foundation Publications, Dragoon,AZ (in press).

Young, L. C. (1994). Lithics and adaptive diversity: An examination of limited-activity sites in northeastArizona. Journal of Anthropological Research SO: 141-163.

Zedefio, M. N. (1994). Sourcing Prehistoric Ceramics at Chodistaas Pueblo, Arizona: The Circulationof People and Pots in the Grasshopper Region, Anthropological Papers No. 58, University ofArizona, Tucson.

Zedefio, M. N. (1995). The role of population movement and technology transfer in the manufacture ofprehistoric Southwestern ceramics. In Mills, B. J., and Crown, P. L. (eds.), Ceramic Productionin the American Southwest, University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 115-141.

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF RECENT LITERATURE

Adams, J. (1993). The ground stone assemblage: The development of a prehistoric grinding technologyin the eastern Tonto Basin. In Elson, M. D., and Clark, J. J. (eds.), The Roosevelt CommunityDevelopment Study: Vol. 1, Stone and Shell Artifacts, Anthropological Papers, No. 14, Center forDesert Archaeology, Tucson, pp. 43-114.

Adler, M. A. (1996). Land tenure, archaeology, and the ancestral Pueblo social landscape. Journal ofAnthropological Archaeology 15: 337-371.

Adler, M. A., Van Pool, T. V, and Leonard, R. D. (1996). Ancestral Pueblo population aggregationand abandonment in the North American Southwest. Journal of World Prehistory 10: 375-438.

Allison, J. (1995). Early Puebtoan Ceramics: Animas-La Plata Archaeological Project, 1992-1993Investigations in Ridges Basin, Colorado Animas-La Plata Archaeological Project Research Paper,Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff.

Baldwin, S. (1997). Apacheans Bearing Gifts: Prehispanic Influence on the Pueblo Indians, TheArizona Archaeologist, Arizona Archaeological Society, Phoenix.

Bamhart, E. (1992). Lithic procurement at Yellow Jacket, Colorado: A study of points, drills and flakes.Southwestern Lore 58(4): 24-30.

Bemardini, W. (1996). Transitions in social organization: A predictive model from Southwesternarchaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 15: 372-402.

Brenneman, D. (1995). Ethnohistoric Evidence for the Economic Role of Cotton in the ProtohistoricSouthwest, Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson.

Burton, J. H., and Simon, A. W. (1996). A pot is not a rock: A reply to Neff, Glascock, Bishop, andBlackman. American Antiquity 61:405-413.

Cameron, C. M. (1995). Migration and the movement of Southwestern peoples. Journal of Anthropo-logical Archaeology 14: 104-124.

Christenson, A. (1995). Early Roosevelt Red Ware North of the Mogollon Rim. Pottery Southwest22(2): 1-6.

294 Bayman

Church, T., and Caraveo, C. (1996). The magnetic susceptibility of Southwestern obsidian: An ex-ploratory study. North American Archaeologist 17: 271-285.

Cornejo, B. (1993). The Mesoamerican northern frontier and the Gran Chichimeca. In Woosley, A. I.,and Ravesloot, J. C. (ed.), Culture and Contact: Charles C. Di Peso's Gran Chichimeca, Universityof New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 65-131.

Coulam, N., and Schroedl, A. R. (1996). Early archaic figurines from Cowboy and Walters Caves insoutheastern Utah. Kiva 61:401-412.

Crown, P. A. (1994). Community dynamics, site structure, and aggregation in the northern Rio Grande.In Wills, W. H., and Leonard, R. D. (eds.). The Ancient Southwestern Community: Models andMethods for the Study of Prehistoric Social Organization, University of New Mexico Press,Albuquerque, pp. 103-118.

Crown, P., and Orcutt, J. (1996). Pueblo cultures in transition: The northern Rio Grande. In Adler,M. A. (ed.), The Prehistoric Pueblo World, A.D. 1150-1350, University of Arizona Press, Tucson,pp. 188-204.

De Alley, S. (1991). Potter's craft or analyst's tool? A century of ceramic technology studies in theAmerican Southwest. In Bishop, R. L, and Lange, F. W. (eds.), The Ceramic Legacy of Anna O.Shepard, University of Colorado, Boulder, pp. 205-223.

Doyel, D. E. (1992a). Exploring Chaco. In Doyel, D. E. (ed.), Anasazi Regional Organization and theChaco System, Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, Albuquerque, pp. 3-14.

Duff, A. I. (1993). An Exploration of Post-Chacoan Community Organization Through CeramicSourcing, Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University,Tempe.

Emslie, S., Mead. (1995). Split-twig figurines in Grand Canyon, Arizona: New discoveries and inter-pretations. Kiva 61: 145-173.

Ennes, M. (1995). A pilot study of mineralogical variation in eastern Mimbres corrugated ceramics.Pottery Southwest 22(1): 1-6.

Ericson, J., and Baugh, T. (1994). Systematics and the study of prehistoric regional exchange in NorthAmerica. In Baugh, T. G., and Ericson, J. E. (eds.), Prehistoric Exchange Systems in NorthAmerica, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 3-15.

Feinman, G. M. (1994). Boundaries and social organization: An outside view on debate in the ancientAmerican Southwest. In Wills, W. W, and Leonard, R. D. (eds.), The Ancient SouthwesternCommunity: Models and Methods for the Study of Prehistoric Social Organization, University ofNew Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 241-247.

Foster, M. (1995). The Loma San Gabriel culture and its suggested relationships to other early plainwarecultures of northwest Mesoamerica. In Reyman, J. E. (ed.), The Gran Chichimeca: Essays onthe Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Northern Mesoamerica, Avebury Worldwide ArchaeologySeries, Aldershot, pp. 179-207.

Fowler, A. (1991). The Anasazi brownware/redware ceramic tradition. Kiva 56: 123-144.Fratt, L., and Biancaniello, M. (1993). Homol'ovi III ground stone in the raw: A study of the local

sandstone used to make ground stone artifacts. Kiva 58: 373-391.Geib, P. (1996). Formative cultures and boundaries: Reconsideration of the Fremont and Anasazi. In

Glen Canyon Revisited, Anthropological Papers, No. 119, University of Utah Press, Salt LakeCity, pp. 98-114.

Geib, P. R., and Davidson, D. (1994). Anasazi origins: A perspective from preliminary work at OldMan cave. Kiva 60: 191-202.

Glowacki, D. M. (1995). Patterns of Ceramic Production and Vessel Movement in the Mesa VerdeRegion, Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Missouri,Columbia.

Glowacki, D. M., Neff, H., and Glascock, M. D. (1995). Characterization of Mesa Verde Black-on-White ceramics from Southwestern Colorado using NAA. Journal of Radioanalytical and NuclearChemistry 196: 215-222.

Glowacki, D. M., Neff, H., and Glascock, M. D. (1998). An initial assessment of the production andmovement of thirteenth century ceramic vessels in the Mesa Verde region. Kiva 63: 217-240.

Hays-Gilpin, K. A., Bubemyre, T. D., and Senior, L. (1996). The rise and demise of Winslow OrangeWare. In Adams, E. C. (ed.), Rivers of Change: Prehistory of the Middle Little Colorado RiverValley, Archaeological Series, No. 185, Arizona State Museum, Tucson, pp. 53-74.


Hegmon, M. (1994). Boundary-making strategies in early Pueblo societies: Style and architecture inthe Kayenta and Mesa Verde regions. In Wills, W. W., and Leonard, R. D. (eds.), The AncientSouthwestern Community: Models and Methods for the Study of Prehistoric Social Organization,University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 171-190.

Hegmon, M., and Neff, H. (1993). Sampling ceramic clay materials for chemical analysis. PotterySouthwest 20(1-4): 7-8.

Hensler, K. (1992). Intrusive ceramic exchange within the Tonto Basin. In Lange, R. C, and Germick,S. (eds.), Proceedings of the Second Salado Conference: Globe. AZ 1992. Occasional Paper,Arizona Archaeological Society, Phoenix, pp. 238-247.

Huber, E. (1993). Thirteenth Century Pueblo Aggregation and Organizational Change in Southwest-ern Colorado, Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Washington StateUniversity, Pullman.

Huber, E. (1996). Late Pueblo III complexity and integration in southwestern Colorado. In Meyer,D. A., Dawson, P. C., and Hanna, D. T. (eds.), Debating Complexity: Proceedings of the 26thAnnual Chacmool Conference, Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, Calgary,pp. 345-363.

Judge, W. J. (1993). Resource distribution and the Chaco phenomenon. In Malville,)., and Matlock,C. (eds.), The Chimney Rock Archaeological Symposium, Forest Service, U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Fort Collins, CO, pp. 35-36.

Kaldahl.E. (1995). Ecological and Consumer Group Variation in Expedient Chipped Stone Technologyof the Pueblo Period: An Exploratory Study in the Silver Creek Drainage, Arizona, UnpublishedM.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson.

Kay, P. (1994). Analysis of five Anasazi mineral paint samples. Pottery Southwest 21(2): 1-8.Kelley, J. (1993). Zenith Passage: The view from Chalchihuites. In Woosley, A. I., and Ravesloot, J. C.

(eds.), Culture and Contact: Charles C. Di Peso's Gran Chichimeca, University of New MexicoPress, Albuquerque, pp. 227-250.

Kelley, J. (1995). Trade goods, traders and status in northwestern greater Mesoamerica. In Reyman,J. E. (ed.), The Gran Chichimeca: Essays on the Archaeology and Ethnohistory of NorthernMesoamerica, Avebury Worldwide Archaeology Series, Aldershot, pp. 102-145.

Kelley, J., and Villalpando, M. E. (1996). An overview of the Mexican northwest. In Fish, P. R.,and Reid, J. J. (eds.). Interpreting Southwestern Diversity: Underlying Principles and Over-arching Patterns, Anthropological Research Papers, No. 48, Arizona State University, Tempe,pp. 69-79.

Kvamme, K., Stark, M., and Longacre, W. A. (1996). Alternative procedures for assessing standard-ization in ceramic assemblages. American Antiquity 61: 116-126.

Lakatos, S. (1995). The Culebra Lake formation and the production of Santa Fe Black-on-white potteryat Las Campanas. Pottery Southwest 22(3): 1-4.

Lange, R. (1992). Pots, people, politics, and precipitation: Just who or what are the Salado anyway?In Lange, R. C., and Germick, S. (eds.), Proceedings of the Second Salado Conference: Globe,AZ 1992, Occasional Paper, Arizona Archaeological Society, Phoenix, pp. 325-333.

Lekson, S. H. (1993b). Points and drills of 29SJ 629. In Windes, T. C. (ed.). The Spadefoot ToadSite: Investigations at 29SJ 629 Chaco Canyon, New Mexico: Vol. 2, Artifactual and BiologicalAnalyses, Reports of the Chaco Center, No. 12, National Park Service, Division of Anthropology,Santa Fe, pp. 185-199.

Lightfoot, R. (1994). The Duckfoot Site, Vol. 2, Archaeology of the House and Household, OccasionalPaper, No. 4, Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, CO.

Lindauer, O. (1994). Systematics of decorated wares. In Lindauer, O. (ed.). Archaeology of the Saladoin the Livingston Area of Tonto Basin, Roosevelt Platform Mound Study: Report on the LivingstonManagement Group, Pinto Creek Complex, Part 2, Roosevelt Monograph Series, No. 3, Anthro-pological Field Studies, No. 32, Arizona State University, Tempe, pp. 605-633.

Lindauer, O. (1994). Traditional and non-traditional Pinto and Gila Polychrome. Pottery Southwest21(4): 1-8.

Lindauer, O. (1995). Explaining White wares in the Tonto Basin: Broad-scale exchange, emulation, orboth? Kiva 61:45-55.

Lindauer, O., and Simon, A. W. (1995). Plain, red, and other ceramic wares from the Rock IslandComplex. In Lindauer, O. (ed.), Where the Rivers Converge, Report on the Rock /stand Complex,

296 Bayman

Roosevelt Platform Mound Study, Roosevelt Monograph Series, No. 4, Anthropological FieldStudies, No. 33, Arizona State University, Tempe, pp. 249-290.

Lindeman, M. (1995). The chipped stone assemblage. In Elson, M. D., and Clark, J. (ed.), TheRoosevelt Community Development Study, Vol. 1, Stone and Shell Artifacts, AnthropologicalPapers, No. 14, Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson, pp. 1-42.

Lintz, C. (1991). Texas Panhandle-Pueblo interactions from the thirteenth through the sixteenth century.In Spielmann, K. A. (ed.), Farmers, Hunters, Colonists Interaction Between the Southwest andthe Southern Plains, University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 89-106.

Logan, E., and Fratt, L. (1993). Pigment processing at Homol'ovi III: A preliminary study. Kiva 58:415-428.

Lowell, J. (1991). Reflections of sex roles in the archaeological record: Insights from Hopi and Zuniethnographic data. In Walde, D., and Willows, N. (eds.), The Archaeology of Gender: Proceed-ings of the 22nd Annual Chacmool Conference, Archaeological Association of the University ofCalgary, Calgary, pp. 452-461.

Lyons, P., and Pitblado, B. L. (1996). Chipped stone research in the Middle Little Colorado RiverValley, past and present. In Adams, E. C. (ed.), River of Change: Prehistory of the Middle LittleColorado River Valley, Arizona, Archaeological Series, No. 185, Arizona State Museum, Tucson,pp. 219-237.

McCartney, P., and Griffith, C. (1995). Shell artifacts from the Bass Point Mound, U:8:23/177. InLindauer, O. (ed.), Where the Rivers Converge, Roosevelt Platform Mound Study: Report onthe Rock Island Complex, Roosevelt Monograph Series, No. 4, Anthropological Field Studies,No. 33, Arizona State University, Tempe, pp. 351-357.

McDonald, E. (1994). A Spatial and Temporal Examination of Prehistoric Interaction in the EasternGreat Basin and on the Northern Colorado Plateau, Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Departmentof Anthropology, University of Colorado, Boulder.

McGuire, R., and Villalpando, M. C. (1993). An Archaeological Survey of the Altar Valley, Sonora,Mexico, Archaeological Series, No. 184, Arizona State Museum, Tucson.

Mills, B. J. (1996). The social context of production in the American Southwest. In Fish, P. R.,and Reid, J. J. (eds.), Interpreting Southwestern Diversity: Underlying Principles and Over-arching Patterns, Anthropological Research Papers, No. 48, Arizona State University, Tempe,pp. 121-124.

Mills, B. J., Carpenter, A., Grimm, W. (1997). Sourcing Chuskan ceramic production: Petrographicand experimental analyses. Kiva 62: 261-282.

Minnis, P., and Whalen, M. (1993). Prehistoric Macaw breeding in the North American Southwest.American Antiquity 58: 270-276.

Mobley-Tanaka, J. (1993). Intracommunity interactions at Chimney Rock: The inside view of the outlierproblem. In Malville, J., and Matlock, G. (ed.), The Chimney Rock Archaeological Symposium,Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fort Collins, CO, pp. 37-42.

Mobley-Tanaka, J. (1997). Gender and ritual space during the pithouse to pueblo transition: Subter-ranean mealing rooms in the North American Southwest. American Antiquity 62:437-448.

Montgomery, B. (1992). Pueblo room fill and prehistoric ritual. In Lange, R. C., and Germick, S.(eds.), Proceedings of the Second Salado Conference: Globe, AZ. 1992, Occasional Paper, ArizonaArchaeological Society, Phoenix, pp. 125-130.

Murphy, T., and Imhof, C. J. (1996). The manufacture and use of ground stone pendants from 5MT3,Yellow Jacket, Colorado. Southwestern Lore: Journal of Colorado Archaeology 62(3): 12-19.

Neff, H., Glascock, M., and Bishop, R. L. (1996). An assessment of the acid-extraction approach tocompositional characterization of archaeological ceramics. American Antiquity 61: 389-404.

Neitzel, J. (1995). Elite styles in hierarchically organized societies: The Chacoan regional system.In Carr, C., and Neitzel, J. (eds.), Style, Society, and Person: Archaeological and EthnologicalPerspectives, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 393-417.

Nelson, B. A. (1995). Complexity, hierarchy, and scale: A controlled comparison between ChacoCanyon, New Mexico, and La Quemada, Zacatecas. American Antiquity 60: 597-618.

Pailes, R., and Whitecotton, J. W. (1995). The frontiers of Mesoamerica: Northern and southern. InReyman, J. E. (ed.), The Gran Chichimeca: Essays on the Archaeology and Ethnohistory ofNorthern Mesoamerica, Avebury Press, Brookfield, pp. 13-45.

Parker, D. (1995). Yellow Jacket mining: Using x-ray diffraction to confirm the mining of clay fromYellow Jacket District. In Duran, M. S., and Kirkpatrick, D. T. (eds.), Of Pots and Rocks: Papers


in Honor of A. Helene Warren, Archaeological Society of New Mexico, Vol. 21, Albuquerque,pp. 121-136.

Plog, S. (1994). Introduction: Regions and boundaries in the prehistoric Southwest. In Wills, W. W., andLeonard, R. D. (eds.). The Ancient Southwestern Community: Models and Methods for the Studyof Prehistoric Social Organization, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 147-148.

Plog, S. (1997). Ancient Peoples of the American Southwest, Thames and Hudson, London.Reid, J. J., Montgomery, B. K. (1992). The origin of Roosevelt Red Ware. In Lange. R. C, and

Cermick, S. (eds.), Proceedings of the Second Salado Conference: Globe, AZ 1992, OccasionalPaper, Arizona Archaeological Society, Phoenix, pp. 212-215.

Reyman, J. (1995). Value in Mesoamerican-Southwestern trade. In Reyman, J. E. (ed.). The GranChichimeca: Essays on the Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Northern Mesoamerica, AveburyWorldwide Archaeology Series, Aldershot, pp. 269-280.

Rice, G., and McCartney, P. H. (1995). Flaked- and carved-stone assemblages of the Rock Islandcomplex. In Lindauer, O. (ed.), Where the Rivers Converge, Roosevelt Platform Mound Study:Report on the Rock Island Complex, Roosevelt Monograph Series, No. 4, Anthropological FieldStudies, No. 33, Arizona State University, Tempe, pp. 291-316.

Robinson, D. (1992). Pueblo Period Societal Differentiation in the Middle San Francisco River ValleyRegion, West-Central New Mexico, Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Anthropology,University of Texas, Austin.

Roney, J. (1992). Prehistoric roads and regional integration in the Chacoan system. In Doyel, D. E.(ed.), Anasazi Regional Organization and the Chaco System, Maxwell Museum of Anthropology,Albuquerque, pp. 123-131.

Saitta, D. J. (19%). Theorizing exchange and power in precontact societies of the American Southwest.Paper presented at the 1996 Southwest Symposium, Arizona State University, Tempe.

Schaller, D. (1994). Geographic sources of Phoenix Basin Hohokam plainware based on petrographicanalysis. In Abbott, D. R. (ed.), The Pueblo Grande Project, Volume 3: Ceramics and the Produc-tion and Exchange of Pottery in the Central Phoenix Basin, Part 1, Publications in Archaeology,No. 20, Soil Systems, Phoenix, pp. 17-90.

Schelberg, J. (1992). Hierarchical organization as a short-term buffering strategy in Chaco Canyon. InDoyel, D. E. (ed.), Anasazi Regional Organization and the Chaco System, Maxwell Museum ofAnthropology, Albuquerque, pp. 59-71.

Schneider, J. (1996). Quarrying and production of milling implements at Antelope Hill, Arizona.Journal of Field Archaeology 23: 299-311.

Senior, L. (1993). The differentiation of shell remains from caliche at Shelltown and the Hind site.In Marmaduke, W. S., and Martynec, R. J. (eds.), Shelltown and the Hind Site: A Study of TwoHohokam Craftsman Communities in Southwestern Arizona, Northland Research, Flagstaff, AZ,pp.F1-F12.

Simon, A. W. (1994). Performance analysis of the Livingston ceramic assemblage. In Jacobs, D. (ed.),Archaeology of the Salado in the Livingston Area of Tonto Basin, Roosevelt Platform Mound Study:Report on the Livingston Management Group, Pinto Creek Complex, Roosevelt Monograph Series,No. 3, Anthropological Field Studies, No. 32, Arizona State University, Tempe, pp. 663-680.

Simon, A. W. (1996). Pottery and pigments in Arizona: Salado polychromes. MRS Bulletin 21(12):38-47.

Simon, A., and Burton, J. H. (1992). Salado ceramics and community relationships. In Lange, R. C., andGermick, S. (eds.). Proceedings of the Second Salado Conference: Globe, AZ 1992, OccasionalPaper, Arizona Archaeological Society, Phoenix, pp. 259-273.

Simon, A., and McCartney, P. H. (1994). Lithic assemblage analysis. In Jacobs, D. (ed.), Archaeologyof the Salado in the Livingston Area of Tonto Basin, Roosevelt Platform Mound Study: Report onthe Livingston Management Group, Pinto Creek Complex, Roosevelt Monograph Series, No. 3,Anthropological Field Studies, No. 32, Arizona State University, Tempe, pp. 739-760.

Smith, M. F. (1994). Introduction and background for ceramic studies. In Smith, M. F. (ed.). Functionand Technology of Anasazi Ceramics from Black Mesa, Arizona, Occasional Paper, No. 15, Centerfor Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, pp. 1-10.

Smith, M. F. (1994). Reconstructive vessels: Procedures, sampling, and general analyses. In Smith,M. F. (ed.). Function and Technology of Anasazi Ceramicsfrom Black Mesa, Arizona, OccasionalPaper, No. 15, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale,pp. 11-22.

298 Bayman

Spielmann, K. A. (1994). Clustered confederacies: Sociopolitical organization in the protohisloric RioGrande. In Wills, W. W., and Leonard, R. D. (eds.), The Ancient Southwestern Community: Modelsand Methods for the Study of Prehistoric Social Organization, University of New Mexico Press,Albuquerque, pp. 45-54.

Stark, B. (1995). Problems in analysis of standardization and specialization in pottery. In Mills, B. J.,and Crown, P. L. (eds.), Ceramic Production in the American Southwest, University of ArizonaPress, Tucson, pp. 231-267.

Stark, M., Clark, J., and Elson, M. D. (1995). Social boundaries and cultural identity in the Tonto Basin.In Elson, M. D., Stark, M. T., and Gregory, D. A. (eds.), The Roosevelt Community DevelopmentStudy: New Perspectives on Tonto Basin Prehistory, Anthropological Papers, No. 15, Center forDesert Archaeology, Tucson, pp. 343-368.

Stark, M., and Heidke, J. (1998). Ceramic manufacture, productive specialization, and the early Classicperiod in Arizona's Tonto Basin. Journal of Anthropological Research (in press).

Stein, J., and Fowler, A. P. (1996). Looking beyond Chaco in the San Juan Basin and its peripheries. InAdler, M. A. (ed.), The Prehistoric Pueblo World, A.D. 1150-1350, University of Arizona Press,Tucson, pp. 114-130.

Stone, T. (1994). The impact of raw-material scarcity on ground-stone manufacture and use: An examplefrom the Phoenix Basin Hohokam. American Antiquity 59: 680-694.

Stone, T. (1994). Current research into the social, political, and economic organization of the Zuniregion. In Howell, T. L., and Stone, T. (eds.), Exploring Social, Political and Economic Organi-zation in the Zuni Region, Anthropological Research Papers, No. 46, Arizona State University,Tempe, pp. 1-8.

Strazicich, N. (1995). Prehispanic Pottery Production in the Chalchihuites and La Quemada Regionsof Zacatecas, Mexico, Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, State Uni-versity of New York, Buffalo.

Swagerty, W. (1991). Protohistoric trade in western North America: Archaeological and ethnohistoricalconsiderations. In Thomas, D. H. (ed.), Columbian Consequences: Vol. 3, The Spanish Borderlandsin Pan-American Perspective, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 471-499.

Swink, C. (1993). Limited oxidation firing of organic painted pottery in Anasazi-style trench kilns.Pottery Southwest 20(1-4): 1-5.

Tainter, J., and Tainter, B. B. (1995). Environmental Risk and Economic Uncertainty in the PrehistoricSouthwest, SFI Studies in the Science of Complexity, Proceedings, Addison- Wesley, Reading, MA.

Toll, H., and McKenna, P. J. (1992). The rhetoric and the ceramics of 29SJ 627. In Mathien, F. J. (ed.),Excavations at 29SJ 627, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, The Artifact Analyses, Vol. 2, Branch ofCultural Research, National Park Service, Santa Fe, pp. 37-248.

Varien, M., and Mills, B. J. (1997). Accumulations research: Problems and prospects for estimatingsite occupation span. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 4: 141-191.

Vokes, A. (1994). Shell analysis. In Ciolek-Torrello, R. S., and Shelley, S. (eds.), The Roosevelt RuralSites Study: Vol. 2, Prehistoric Rural Settlements in the Tonto Basin, Technical Report Series,No. 28, Statistical Research, Tucson, pp. 551-558.

Wallace, H., Heidke, J., and Doelle, W. H. (1995). Hohokam origins. Kiva 60: 575-618.Walsh-Anduze, M. E. (1994). The Pueblo Grande whole vessel study: An examination of production

and short-distance exchange. In Abbott, D. R. (ed.), The Pueblo Grande Project: Vol. 3, Ceramicsand the Production and Exchange of Pottery in the Central Phoenix Basin, Part 1, Publications inArchaeology, No. 20, Soil Systems, Phoenix, pp. 149-259.

Weigand, P. (1993). The political organization of the trans-Tarascan zone on the eve of the Spanishconquest. In Woosley, A. I., and Ravesloot, J. C. (eds.), Culture and Contact: Charles C. Di Peso'sGran Chichimeca, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 191-217.

Weigand, P. (1994). Observations on ancient mining within the northwestern regions of theMesoamerican civilization. In Craig, A. K., and West, R. C. (ed.), Quest of Mineral Wealth:Aboriginal and Colonial Mining and Metallurgy in Spanish America, Geoscience and Man, No. 33,Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, pp. 21—35.

Whalen, M. (1994). Turquoise Ridge and Late Prehistoric Residential Mobility, AnthropologicalPapers, No. 118, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

Whalen, M., and Minnis, P. E. (1996a). The context of production in and around Paquime, Chihuahua,Mexico. In Fish, P. R., and Reid, J. J. (eds.), Interpreting Southwestern Diversity: Underlying


Principles and Overarching Patterns, Anthropological Research Papers, No. 48, Arizona StateUniversity, Tempe, pp. 173-183.

Whalen, M, and Minnis, P. E. (1996b). Studying complexity in northern Mexico: The Paquime regionalsystem. In Meyer, D. A., Dawson, P. C, and Hanna, D. T. (eds.), Debating Complexity: Proceed-ings of the 26th Annual Chacmool Conference, Archaeological Association of the University ofCalgary, Calgary, pp. 282-289.

White, D. (1993). Pinto Polychrome Origin and Distribution, Indicator of Interaction and Trade,in East-Central Arizona, Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, Arizona StateUniversity, Tempe.

White, D., and Button, J. (1992). Pinto Polychrome: A clue to the origin of the Salado Polychromes.In Lange, R. C., and Germick, S. (ed.). Proceedings of the Second Salado Conference: Globe, AZ1992, Occasional Paper, Arizona Archaeological Society, Phoenix, pp. 216-222.

Whittlesey, S. (1993). Temporal variability in Hohokam plainware. In Madsen, J. H., and Fish, P. R.(eds.). The Northern Tucson Basin Survey: Research Directions and Background Studies, Archae-ological Series, No. 182, Arizona State Museum, Tucson, pp. 175-193.

Wilcox, D. R. (1993). The evolution of the Chacoan polity. In Malville, J., and Matlock, G. (eds.), TheChimney Rock Archaeological Symposium. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, FortCollins, CO, pp. 76-90.

Wilson, C. D. (1996). Ceramic pigment distributions and regional interaction: A re-examination ofinterpretations in Shepard's 'Technology of La Plata Pottery." Kiva 62: 83-102.

Wilson, C. D., and Blinman, E. (1994). Early Anasazi ceramics and the Basketmaker tradition. InHutchinson, A., and Smith, J. E. (eds.), Proceedings of the Anasazi Symposium 1991, Mesa VerdeMuseum Association, Mesa Verde, CO, pp. 199-211.

Wilson, C. D., Skibo, J., and Schiffer, M. B. (1996). Designing Southwestern pottery: A technologicaland experimental approach. In Fish, P. R., and Reid, J. J. (eds.), Interpreting Southwestern Diver-sity: Underlying Principles and Overarching Patterns, Anthropological Research Papers, No. 48,Arizona State University, Tempe, pp. 249-262.

Windes, T. (1993). Ground stone, chopping, and percussion tools at 29SJ 629. In Windes, T. C. (ed.). TheSpadefoot Toad Site: Investigations at 29SJ 629, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico: Vol. 2, Artifactualand Biological Analyses, Reports of the Chaco Center, No. 12, National Park Service, Divisionof Anthropology, Santa Fe, pp. 201-268.

Woosley, A., and Mclntyre, A. J. (1996). Mimbres Mogollon Archaeology: Charles C. Di Peso'sExcavations at Wind Mountain, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Zedefio, M. N. (1992). Roosevelt Black-on-white revisited: The Grasshopper perspective. In Lange,R. C., and Germick, S. (eds.), Proceedings of the Second Salado Conference: Globe, AZ 1992,Occasional Paper, Arizona Archaeological society, Phoenix, pp. 206-211.

Zedefio, M., Busman, J., Burton, J., and Mills, B. J. (1993). Ceramic compositional analyses. InMills, B. }., Goetze, C. E., and Zedefio, M. N., Across the Colorado Plateau: AnthropologicalStudies Along the San Juan Basin and Transwestern Mainline Expansion Pipeline Routes, Vol. 16,Ceramic Interpretations, Office of Contract Archeology and Maxwelll Museum of Anthropology,University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

Documents

Craft Economies in the North American Southwest · 2016-04-21 · Craft Economies in the North American Southwest ... and nonhierarchical sociopolitical contexts in the North American