A Note on Sources

Writing this book has been a great pleasure and I’ve had access to an extraordinary variety of materials. Contemporary works fill my shelves; my accountant has struggled to demonstrate that they are “business related” purchases. Searches for rare, obscure, and out of print materials have tried the patience of countless librarians.

Fortunately, distinguished archeologists have looked over my shoulder as I’ve synthesized this material. Most are named in the acknowledgments and I hope any overlooked will forgive the unintentional slight. The following few pages focus on sources that are most likely to be available to general readers.

Chapter 1: Who Were the Anasazi?

Although I use the conventional name, “Anasazi,” readers should recognize that it is a Navajo word with a negative connotation, meaning “ancient enemies” or “enemy of my ancestors.” Hopi prefer a more positive name, “Hisatsinom;” “our ancestors” or “ancient ones,” and other cultural groups have their own nomenclature. To avoid offending groups descended from the Anasazi, some scholars and the National Park Service use the somewhat cumbersome name, “Ancestral Puebloans.” I continue to use the conventional name because it is still the most commonly recognized. Please bear with me if I have inadvertently stepped  on your toes.

Throughout, I’ve used modern dating conventions. “CE” means “current era” and “BCE” is “before current era.” This nomenclature has largely replaced BC and AD, and is intended to recognize the mental frames of non-Christians.

Several very good books figure prominently in my introduction to the Anasazi. J. J. Brody, Anasazi (New York: Rizzoli, 1990), combines compelling text with engaging images. David Stuart, Anasazi America (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2000) is an extraordinarily readable volume that aptly bridges the gulf between textbook and enjoyable reading. Stephen Plog’s Ancient Peoples of the American Southwest (London: Thames and Hudson Ltd., 1997) is among my favorites and I have relied on him for description of differentiation as well as population growth on Black Mesa. Linda Cordell, Archeology of the Southwest (2nd ed; San Diego: Academic Press, 1997) is not written for the general reader, but provides a comprehensive introduction to people of the southwest and the footnotes are an excellent guide to current literature.

Three somewhat more demanding volumes may also be of interest. Paul F. Reed, ed., Foundations of  Anasazi Culture (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2000) contains a number of essays that help to
understand the relationship between Basketmaker and Anasazi eras, and the following two volumes summarize much of what we know about the Pueblo World; Michael A. Adler, ed., The Prehistoric Pueblo World A.D. 1150-1350 (Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 1996) and E. Charles Adams; Andrew I. Duff, eds., The Protohistoric Pueblo World A.D. 1275-1600 (Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 2004).

Figure 1.5, Villages on Black Mesa, is adapted from Plog and used with his permission.

Less information of general interest is available regarding DNA studies. The most readable, popular
account of this research is Bryan Sykes, The Seven Daughters of Eve (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2001). More technical reports include Nestor O. Bianchi, et. al., “Characterization of Ancestral and Derived Y-Chromosome Haplotypes of New World Native Populations,” American Journal of Human Genetics (1998), 1862-1871; Michael D. Brown, et. al., “mtDNA Haplogroup X: An Ancient Link between
Europe/Western Asia and North America? American Journal of Human Genetics (1998), 1852-1861; Shawn W. Carlyle, et. Al., “Context of Maternal Lineages in the Greater Southwest,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology (2000), 85-101; Frederika A. Kaestle and David Glenn Smith, “Ancient Mitochondrial DNA Evidence for Prehistoric Population Movement: The Numic Expansion,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology (2001), 1-12; Ripan S. Malhi, et. Al., “The Structure of Diversity within New World Mitochondrial DNA Haplogroups: Implications for the Prehistory of North America,” American Journal of Human Genetics (2002), 905-919; Jason A. Eshleman, et. al., “Mitochondrial DNA Studies of Native Americans: Conceptions and Misconceptions of the Population Prehistory of the Americas,” Evolutionary Anthropology (2003), 7-18; D. Andrew Merriwether, et. al., “Distribution of the Four Founding Lineage Haplotypes in Native Americans Suggests a Single Wave of Migration for the New World,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology (2005), 411-430; Marina L. Sardi, et. al., “South Amerindian Craniofacial Morphology: Diversity and Implications for Amerindian Evolution,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology (2005), 747-756.

Chapter 2: Homes of Earth and Stone

Pit houses and pueblos are described in the general works mentioned above (Brody, Cordell, Plog,  and Stuart). More detailed descriptions come from archeological site reports which are less available. Fortunately, a handful is posted online. General readers may want to see sample archeological reports posted at http://www.statemuseum.arizona.edu/pubs/asmoep/001/index.shtml, http://www.woodscanyon.net/, http://www.fortlewis.edu/anthro/puzzlereport/,  www.primtech.net/wallace/wallace.html, and http://www.crowcanyon.org.

A number of factors confound efforts to establish hard and fast dates for landmark structures listed in  Figure 2.1. Many were constructed over extended periods, several were excavated before modern dating techniques were developed, and even the most modern techniques have a margin of error. For this table, I have relied on dates from the appendix to Michael A. Adler, ed., The Prehistoric Pueblo World A.D. 1150-1350 (Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 1996), pp. 254-272; as well as R. Gwinn Vivian and Bruce Hilpert, The Chaco Handbook (Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press, 2002).

Chapter 3: Civil Engineering

Baker H. Morrow and V. B. Price, eds., Anasazi Architecture (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1997) and V. B. Price and Baker H. Morrow, eds., Canyon Gardens (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2006) contain helpful essays expanding our knowledge of site selection and modification. In addition, Jon Bryan Burley has posted a valuable essay, "Anasazi Site Planning: Historic Precedents, Modern Constructs, and Multi-cultural Dynamics," online at  http://www.ssc.msu.edu/~laej/historypapers/Burley3/Burley3text.html.

Water control features are described in Kenneth R. Wright, “Prehistoric Mesa Verde Reservoir” available from the American Society of Civil Engineers at http://www.asce.org/ as well as individual site reports available from the Wright Paleohydrological Institute at http://www.wrightwater.com/wpi/wpihome.html.

Helpful, but less readily available is L. S. Cordell, “Anasazi Agriculture: Recipe for Success?” New Mexico Journal of Science, November 11, 1999.

Unfortunately, reports on Chaco’s amphitheatre remain unpublished. I have relied on my own observations and Richard W. Loose, “A Report on Tse’ Biinaholts’ a Yatli,” revised April 24, 2005, on file at Chaco Culture National Historical Park.

Chapter 4: A Road by Any Other Name

Techniques for tracing ancient roads are described online at  http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/archeology/remote_sensing.html. 

Details regarding the Bluff, Utah great house some from Catherine M. Cameron, “Sacred Earthen Architecture in the Northern Southwest: The Bluff Great House Berm,” American Antiquity, 67 (2002), 677-695, and information regarding the Arizona road come from http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:5vMpxKi5dpgJ:crm.cr.nps.gov/archive/21-9/21-9-15.pdf+anasazi+road&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4&client=opera and Larry Benallie, Jr. “The Ganado Project,” CRM #9, 1998, 41-43.

Anna Sofaer and her colleagues explore the spiritual significance of roads in “The Great North Road: A Cosmographic Expression of the Chaco Culture of New Mexico,” in A. F. Aveni, ed., World Archaeoastronomy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), pp. 365-376. John Kanter’s “Evaluation of Chaco Roads” is available online at http://sipapu.gsu.edu/roads/index and includes a comprehensive bibliography.

Images in this chapter come from several sources. TIMS images do not reproduce well in black and white, and I have redrawn figure 4.2 based on one displayed at http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/archeology/chaco_compare.html. The groove displayed in figure 4.5 comes from
http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/archeology/chaco_building.html. Both are reproduced with permission of the author, Tom Sever. Figure 4.4, The Jackson Stairway, was provided by Russ Bodnar, Director of Interpretation at Chaco Culture National Historical Park, and reproduced with his permission.

Chapter 5: Stories in Clay

Very early pots appear to have been formed by smearing clay inside a basket and allowing it to dry. Called “mudware,” some of these early pots were simply allowed to dry in the sun while others evidence poorly controlled firing that leaves resulting pottery unevenly colored and subject to rapid deterioration. There are countless books on southwestern pottery. My favorite is Alfred E. Dittert, Jr. and Fred Plog, Generations in Clay (Flagstaff, Az.: Northland Publishing, 1980), and I’ve relied on their descriptions for the seven generic styles. For the total number of recognized ceramic types See Norman T. Oppelt, List of Southwestern Pottery Types and Wares (Greeley, Colorado: Oppelt Publications, 2002). Virtually all archeological site reports include abundant descriptions of recovered ceramics and readers will find a multi site data base on the Crow Canyon web site, http://www.crowcanyon.org/ResearchReports/ResearchDatabase/database_home.htm. The Northern Arizona University web site has a useful guide to recognizing principal ceramic types along with photos of mineral and organic paints; http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/swpottery. The block quote regarding difficulties in current classifications comes from http://www.beloit.edu/~museum/logan/southwest/introduction/styles.htm which also features alphabetically arranged reference images of the principal ceramic types.

Chapter 6: Stories in Stone

Recovered stone artifacts are described in detail in most site reports including those mentioned above. On the quantities recovered at representative sites in Chaco Canyon, see Francis Joan Mathien, ed., Ceramics, Lithics, and Ornaments of Chaco Canyon, Volume 2 (Santa Fe: National Park Service, 1997).

In recent years, archeologists have learned a great deal from efforts to reproduce stone tools and numerous texts provide directions for modern hobbyists. My favorites are Bob Patten, Old Tools—New Eyes (Denver: Stone Dagger Publications, 1999); and John C. Whittaker, Flintknapping (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1994). Interested readers may also want to scan issues of The Journal of Primitive Technology published by The Society of Primitive Technology. Contents and selected articles are available online at http://www.primitive.org/. 

On the labor required to shape a stone mortar, see Joan S. Schneider and Richard H. Osborne, “A Model for the Production of Portable Stone Mortars and Bowls,” Pacific Coast Archeological Society Quarterly, 32 (Fall, 1996), 27-40. 

The transition to bow and arrow took place over an extended period with considerable regional variation. 300 CE is a convenient approximation, but see Steven A. LeBlanc, Prehistoric Warfare in the American Southwest (Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press, 1999).

Chapter 7: Images on Stone

Excellent books about Southwestern rock art include Poly Schaafsma, Indian Rock Art of the Southwest (Santa Fe: School of American Research, 1980); Kenneth B Castleton, Petroglyphs and Pictographs of Utah; volumes 1 and 2 (Salt Lake City: Utah Museum of Natural History, 1985 and 1993);  David Muench and Polly Schaafsma; Images in Stone (San Francisco: Brown Trout Publishers, Inc., 1994); Polly Schaafsma, Warrior, Shield, and Star . Imagery and Ideology of Pueblo Warfare (Santa Fe: Western Edge Press 2000); and Sally Cole, Legacy on Stone (Boulder: Johnson Books, 1990). 

Internet resources include http://www.utahrockart.org/, http://www.arara.org/, and http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/northamerica/linked/rockart.html. Additional links are listed on each site. 

An excellent review of problems in dating as well as modern techniques including dendrochronology, archaeomagnetism, and radioactive decay techniques such as radiocarbon/C-14, thermoluminescence, and potassium argon is posted at http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/dating/absolutedat.html 

Assigning meaning to glyphs is problematic. Poly Schaafsma notes that “some and perhaps many Paleolithic representations were made for reasons which still totally escape the modern observer.” Contemporary pueblo people might be able to tell us more, but have chosen not to share some inherited knowledge with us. Chapter 8 explains why.

Chapter 8: What Happened to the Anasazi?

Unfortunately, the “mystery” is perpetuated for all the wrong reasons. It works for authors anxious to sell manuscripts and tired interpreters seeking to avoid controversy. My reading to the archeological record is more definitive. In describing the abandonment, I note that “Chaco Canyon … was largely vacant by 1140.” To be more precise, I should add that there were people in the canyon until around 1250 CE. These so-called Mc Elmo and Mesa Verde phase occupations occasion some dispute among archeologists. Some believe that the people were remnants of the earlier occupation. Others believe that the canyon was fully abandoned and resettled by people form the Northern San Juan, Mesa Verde area. 

We know that climate change was an important factor and you can see informative discussions of rainfall, drought, and effective moisture at http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/cliihis1000.html. In spite of a generally less favorable climate, we know that water continued to flow in larger streams such as the Animas and San Juan Rivers and that certain areas remained habitable. Carla Van West is responsible for much of our knowledge of moisture retention, and you can see a popularized version of her findings at http://www.cpluhna.nau.edu/People/anasazi_collapse.htm. More technical references include Kohler, Timothy A., George J. Gumerman, and Robert G. Reynolds Simulating Ancient Societies. Scientific American (2005), 77-84, as well as L. S. Cordell, “Anasazi Agriculture: Recipe for Success?” New Mexico Journal of Science, November 11, 1999. 

At the same time, our vocabulary has compounded the confusion. “Abandonment” implies that the people were gone, but a more realistic reading of the archeological record suggests that people merely moved to more favorable areas. Movement was a way of life for most of the Anasazi. They were agricultural people who lived wherever there were adequate resources. Many smaller sites were occupied for relatively short times, just over forty years on average, and there is nothing surprising in the fact that residents relocated when resources were depleted or weather conditions deteriorated. The people moved from one site to the next in search of better soil, more water, and renewed sources of firewood. In doing so, they left their former fields to regenerate just as modern farmers leave fields fallow periodically. We also know that this  pattern persisted into historic times and Kurt F. Anschuetz explains the pattern admirably, “Tewa Fields, Tewa Traditions,” in V.B. Price and Baker H. Morrow, eds., Canyon Gardens (Albuquerque, University of New Mexico Press, 2006), 57-73. Failure to recognize the pattern of movement has also manifested in disputes about land ownership as described by Ward Alan Minge, ACOMA: Pueblo in the Sky (revised edition; Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2002). 

Conflict was a significant factor and the block quotation on warfare comes from “The Role of Warfare in the Pueblo III Period,” in Michael A. Adler, ed., The Prehistoric Pueblo World A.D. 1150-1350 (Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 1996), pp. 205-213. The effects on population are admirably summarized by David Stuart, Anasazi America (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2000) whom I’ve also quoted. And, although some of the conclusions are controversial, Christy G. Turner II and Jacqueline A. Turner, Man Corn (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1999), eloquently summarize the remnants of 76 violent incidents. 

Survivors are less likely to be noticed because small settlements leave fewer traces and are less likely to be excavated. Only villages with 50 or more rooms figure prominently in the principal survey volumes; Michael A. Adler, ed., The Prehistoric Pueblo World A.D. 1150-1350 (Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 1996), and E. Charles Adams; Andrew I. Duff, ed., The Protohistoric Pueblo World A.D. 1275-1600 (Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 2004). Sites from the post-conflict period are most often found by accident as was the case in the pueblo recently discovered beneath the Santa Fe convention center; see the Associated Press story, “Archaeologists Find Ancient Pueblo Site,” February 17, 2005. 

Effects of Spanish colonization are summarized by Marc Simmons, “History of Pueblo-Spanish Relations to 1821,” and population counts are discussed by Albert H. Schroeder, “Pueblos Abandoned in Historic Times,” both in William C. Sturtevant, Handbook of North American Indians IX (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, 1979). For information about visiting the pueblos today, please see http://www.indianpueblo.org/ipcc/ 

Figure 8.5, Acoma Village, was captured by Edward S. Curtis and obtained from the Library of Congress. Finally, I am aware of Jared Diamond’s argument that self-inflicted environmental degradation was responsible for the collapse of Chaco; Jared Diamond, Collapse (New York: Penguin Books, 2005. Although there was some deterioration, much was due to natural phenomena, especially the natural destruction of a sand dune dam at the west end of the canyon. The destruction of the dam lowered the water table several feet and resulted in a temporary suspension of major construction projects. Overall, I believe Steele pushes and prods facts too hard to get them to fit the pattern he observed elsewhere.

Chapter 9: The Golden Circle Tour

I use the name, “Golden Circle Tour,” to refer to a slightly elliptical route roughly centered on the four corners intersection of Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona. Friends have noted that my usage was anticipated by A.R. Gomez, Quest for the Golden Circle (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1991). My own visits to Anasazi country have often been guided by Franklin Folsom and Mary Elting Folsom, America’s Ancient Treasures (4th ed.; Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1993) and David Hurst Thomas, Exploring Ancient Native America (New York: Macmillan, 1994).

I’ve driven the route described in this chapter many times. I prefer the “Indian Country” map prepared by the American Automobile Association and have noted discrepancies in other commercially available maps and booklets. Internet-savvy readers may also confirm directions on http://www.mapquest.com. Details for each of the sites are referenced in notes for subsequent chapters.

Chapter 10: Chaco Culture National Historical Park

Details regarding the small sites come from Donald D. Brand, et. al., “Tseh So, A Small House Ruin,” The University of New Mexico Bulletin, Number 308 (June 15, 1937), Clyde Kluckhohn and Paul Reiter, “Preliminary Report on the 1937 Excavations, Bc 50-51,” The University of New Mexico Bulletin, Number 345 (October 15, 1939), and Tom Mathews, “Bc 59: Architecture and Artifacts,” 1947 Field School manuscript on file at Chaco Culture National Historic Park. 

My interpretations are heavily influenced by essays in the final synopsis of the Chaco Project; Stephen H. Lekson, ed., The Archeology of Chaco Canyon (Santa Fe: School of American Research Press, 2006). For Jim Judge's description of Chaco's golden century, Tom Windes' discussion of the rise of great houses, Stephen Leckson's analysis of Chacoan architecture, and Linda Cordell's analysis of the sources of Chacoan corn, see David Noble Grant, In Search of Chaco: New Approaches to an Archaeological Enigma (Santa Fe: School of American Research Press, 2004). Indications of social structure and leadership in Chaco, are discussed by David E. Doyel, ed., Anasazi Regional Organization and the Chaco System (Albuquerque: Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, 1992) and Linda S. Cordell, W. James Judge, and June-el Piper, eds., Chaco Society and Polity (Albuquerque: New Mexico Archeological Council, 2001). 

I’ve quoted Nancy M. Mahoney and John Kanter, “Chacoan Archeology and Great House Communities,” in John Kanter and Nancy M. Mahoney, eds., Great House Communities Across the Chacoan Landscape (Tucson, The University of Arizona Press, 2000), while much information regarding Chacoan outliers comes from Robert P. Powers, William B. Gillespie, and Stephen H. Lekson, The Outlier Survey: A Regional View of Settlement in the San Juan Basin (Albuquerque: Division of Cultural Research, National Park Service, 1983). I’ve quoted Ruth M. Van Dyke from “Chacoan Ritual Landscapes, The Red Mesa Valley,” and drawn data from Winston B. Hurst, “Chaco Outlier or Backwoods Pretender? A Provincial Great House at Edge of the Cedars Ruin, Utah,” both in John Kanter and Nancy M. Mahoney, eds., Great House Communities Across the Chacoan Landscape (Tucson, The University of Arizona Press, 2000), p. 97.

Chapter 11: Salmon Ruin

For enumeration of the tower kivas in the southwest, I am indebted to David R. Wilcox, “Data on Chacoan or Chacoan-Like Great Houses,” available online at http://www.colorado.edu/Conferences/chaco/ghousen.html.

Paul F. Reed, Preservation Archeologist at Salmon furnished a digital version of the classic O’Sullivan photo.

Chapter 12: Aztec Ruins National Monument

Discussion of early settlers’ use of the monument comes from Robert C. Lister and Florence C. Lister, Aztec Ruins National Monument/Administrative History of an Archeological Preserve (Santa Fe: National Park Service, 1990) and Peter J. McKenna, Early Visitor Inscriptions in the East Ruin, Aztec Ruins National Monument (Santa Fe: National Park Service, 1990). 

Initial thinking about the sequence of occupation at Aztec is reported in Robert C. Lister and Florence C. Lister, Aztec Ruins on the Animas (University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, 1987), Robert C. Lister and Florence C. Lister, Aztec Ruins National Monument/Administrative History of an Archeological Preserve (Santa Fe: National Park Service, 1990); Roland Richert, Excavation of a Portion of the East Ruin, Aztec Ruins National Monument, New Mexico (Globe, AZ: Southwestern Monuments Association, 1964); and R. Gordon Vivian, The Hubbard Site and Other Tri-Wall Structures in New Mexico and Colorado; Archeological Research Series Number 5 (Washington DC: National Park Service, 1959). 

Contemporary understanding of the chronology is reported in an as yet unpublished paper Gary M. Brown, et. al., “Animas Anamnesis: Aztec Ruins or Anasazi Capital” (Draft April 6, 2005). Stephen H. Lekson, The Chaco Meridian (Walnut Creek: Altamira Press, 1999), is responsible for new interpretations of Aztec and I have quoted from him and the picture of the great kiva after excavation comes from an online version of Robert C. Lister and Florence C. Lister, Aztec Ruins National Monument/ Administrative History of an Archeological Preserve (Santa Fe: National Park Service, 1990).

Chapter 13: Mesa Verde National Park

Although Richard Wetherill is generally credited with discovering Mesa Verde, S. E. Osborn spent the winter of 1883-1884 among the ruins. For discussion of earlier visitors, see Duane A. Smith, Mesa Verde National Park: Shadows of the Centuries (revised edition; Boulder: University Press of Colorado, 2002); available online at http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/smith/contents.htm.

Surveys of the Park include Alden C. Hayes, “The Archeological Survey of Wetherill Mesa,” Archeological Research Series, No. 7-A (Washington: National Park Service, 1964) and Jack E. Smith, Mesas, Cliffs, and Canyons: The University of Colorado Survey of Mesa Verde National Park, 1971-1977 (Mesa Verde: Mesa Verde Museum Association, Inc., 1985). Additional information regarding Pueblo I occupation comes from Norman T. Opelt, “Recent Wildfires and Pueblo I Villages on Mesa Verde,” Kiva 69 (September 2003), 55-78. Nordby’s research at Cliff Palace is described in Larry V. Nordby with Joel M. Brisbin and Jim Mayberry, Archeological Research Series: Architectural Studies Number 4 Prelude to Tapestries in Stone: Understanding Cliff Palace Architecture (Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado: Mesa Verde National Park Division of Research and Resource Management, 2001); online at http://www.nps.gov/meve/research/documents/cliff_palace.pdf 

The extent of water management features is a relatively recent discovery. For details, see Kenneth R. Wright, “Prehistoric Mesa Verde Reservoir” available from the American Society of Civil Engineers at http://www.asce.org/ as well as individual site reports available from the Wright Paleohydrological Institute at http://www.wrightwater.com/wpi/wpihome.html 

My description of migration from Mesa Verde is adapted from Stephen H. Lekson, “Flight of the Anasazi,” Archeology (September/October 2001). A slightly less popular, but still very readable, account of Lekson’s work can be found in Stephen H. Lekson, et. al., “Migration in the Southwest: Pinnacle Ruin, Southwestern New Mexico,” Kiva (2002), 73-101. 

Figure 13.4, Cliff Palace in 1891, is reproduced courtesy of the National Park Service.

Chapter 14: Canyons Of The Ancients

Canyons of the Ancients is one of our newest national monuments and relatively little information is available on its web site. Fortunately, many of Crow Canyon’s research projects have taken part within the boundaries of the monument.

Much of what we know about Anasazi occupation is based on site reports posted on Crow Canyon’s web site; http://www.crowcanyon.org. I also have relied on Jerry Fetterman and Linda Honeycutt, The Mockingbird Mesa Survey (Denver, Co.: Bureau of Land Management, Cultural Resource Series Number 22, 1987). The survey notes that The Pueblo I era witnessed a marked decline in population as people moved out of the area. This trend reversed during the P II era and people used virtually the entire mesa. Population continued to grow during PIII, filling “every nook and cranny” until the abrupt abandonment of the whole four corners area. “The data suggest that the population increased continuously until the end of the Late Pueblo III period, when the population dropped to virtually nothing; in other words, there is no evidence for a gradual abandonment of Mockingbird Mesa” (page 95). 

Details regarding Paul Martin’s research at Lowry Pueblo are available online at http://www.fieldmuseum.org/research_collections/anthropology/anthro_sites/paul_martin/martin_web/speci al_sitea.html Subsequent work is reported by Adrian S. White and David A. Brenternitz, Stabilization of Lowry Ruins; Cultural Resources Series No. 1 (Boulder, Co.: Mesa Verde Research Center, University of Colorado, 1976), and my diagram in figure 14.2 is a simplified version of their original. 

Details regarding Sand Canyon Pueblo come from Crow Canyon’s site report available online at http://www.crowcanyon.org/publications/sand_canyon_pueblo.asp The Village Project is described in a series of technical papers and you can see an explanation, bibliography, and sample pages online at http://www.wsu.edu/~village/. A more readable account is Timothy A. Kohler, George J. Gumerman and Robert G. Reynolds, “Simulating Ancient Societies,” Scientific American, July 2005, 76-84, from which I have incorporated a block quotation.

Chapter 15: Canyon de Chelly

I haven’t quoted from it, but Campbell Grant, Canyon de Chelly (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1978), remains a helpful introduction to the canyon. Details of the Anglo “discovery” of Canyon de Chelly are summarized in the monument’s “Administrative History,” available online at  http://www.nps.gov/cach/adhi/adhi1.htm

Information concerning site numbers and settlement distribution come from an as yet unpublished survey on file at the Monument headquarters and National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Canyon de Chelly National Monument, Arizona, “Cooperative Watershed Restoration Project: Tamarisk and Russian Olive Management at Canyon de Chelly National Monument,” Draft Environmental Assessment April 2005, also on file at the headquarters. 

Earl Morris never published his excavation notes, and I have drawn on two popular accounts: Earl H. Morris, “Exploring in the Canyon of Death,” National Geographic (Sep1925) and Ann Axtell Morris, Digging in the Southwest (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, Doran, 1933); reprinted 1978 by Peregrine Smith, Inc. 

Navajo workers assisting in the excavation named Tse-Ta’a with reference to a 300-foot vertical rock detached from cliff face. The name literally means “Rock-standing-up” or “rock-like-a-chimney,” and details of the excavation are reported by Charlie R. Steen, Excavations at Tse-Ta’a (Archeological Research Series 9; National Park Service, 1966). Details regarding Antelope House come from Don P. Morris, Archeological Investigations at Antelope House, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington DC, 1986. 

Figure 15.2, White House, was captured by Timothy O’Sullivan in 1873 and obtained from the Library of Congress.

Chapter 16: Some Extra Stops

My description of Petroglyph National Monument draws heavily from Linda S. Cordell, Cultural Resources Overview: Middle Rio Grande Valle, New Mexico (Albuquerque: Bureau of Land Management, 1979); Howard C. Higgins, Results of Phase III Site Documentation and Other Field Studies for Kirtland Air Force Base Bernalillo County, New Mexico (Albuquerque: TRC Mariah Associates Inc., 19980; Michael A. Adler, ed., The Prehistoric Pueblo World A. D. 1150-1350 (Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 1996); and E. Charles Adams and Andrew I. Duff, eds., The Protohistoric Pueblo World, A. D. 1275- 1600 (Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 2004). 

Bandelier National Monument is well documented and I have drawn from see Robert P. Powers and Janet D. Orcutt, eds., The Bandelier Archeological Survey (National Park Service, Intermountain Region, 1999), Volumes I and II; and Timothy A Kohler, ed., Archeology of Bandelier National Monument (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2004). Population estimates are confounded by rapid population changes that may alter the ratio of people to room and increases in agricultural surplus requiring move covered storage space. For details, see Janet D. Orcutt, “Demography, Settlement, and Agriculture,” in Robert P. Powers and Janet D. Orcutt, eds., The Bandelier Archeological Survey: Volume I (National Park Service, Intermountain Region, 1999), pp. 219- 308. 

Abbreviated booklets on Chimney Rock are available at the site, but the most comprehensive report is J. McKim Malville, Chimney Rock, the Ultimate Outlier (Lanham: Lexington Books, 2004). Hovenweep National Monument sits within the boundaries of Canyons of the Ancients national monument and much of we know about Anasazi occupation comes from the same sources as well as Crow Canyon’s current excavation project at Goodman Point Pueblo; http://www.crowcanyon.org/publications/goodman_point_pueblo.asp . The role of towers is discussed by C. David Johnson, “Mesa Verde Region Towers: A View from Above,” Kiva, 68 (Summer 2003), 323-340. 

Archeological work at Navajo National Monument is summarized in a number of sources including Jeffrey S. Dean, “Kayenta Anasazi Settlement Transformation in Northeastern Arizona, A.D. 1150 to 1350,” in Michael A. Adler, ed., The Prehistoric Pueblo World A.D. 1150-1350 (Tucson, The University of Arizona Press, 1996); Jonathan Haas and Winifred Creamer, Stress and Warfare Among the Kayenta Anasazi of the Thirteenth Century A. D. (Chicago: Field Museum of Natural History, 1993); and “The Role of Warfare in the Pueblo III Period,” in Michael A. Adler, ed., The Prehistoric Pueblo World A.D. 1150-1350 (Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 1996). 

My information regarding Homol’ovi Ruins State Park comes from E. Charles Adams, “Homol'ovi: An Ancestral Hopi Place” Archaeology Southwest (Fall 2000) available online at http://www.centerfordesertarchaeology.org/pages/articles.php?req=read&article_id=34; E. Charles Adams and Kelley Ann Hays, eds., Homol’ovi II: Archeology of an Ancestral Hopi Village (Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 1991); and E. Charles Adams, “Homol’ovi; A 13th-14th Century Settlement Cluster in Northeastern Arizona,” in E. Charles Adams and Andrew I. Duff, eds., The Protohistoric Pueblo World, A.D. 1275-1600 (Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 2004), pp. 119-127. 

The observed pattern of occupation at Petrified Forest National Park may be biased by the park’s boundaries, which were drawn to protect of the natural resources. Many sites exist just outside the park’s boundaries and including them might revise our knowledge of occupation in the region. For details, see Susan J. Wells, Archeological Survey and Testing at Petrified Forest National Park, 1987, (Tucson: Western Archeological and Conservation Center, 1988), Jeffrey F. Burton, Archeological Investigations at Puerco Ruin, Petrified Forest National Park, (Tucson: Western Archeological and Conservation Center, 1990), and Jeffery F. Burton, Days in the Painted Desert and the Petrified Forest of Northern Arizona (Tucson: Western Archeological and Conservation Center, 1993). A more popular account is Anne Trinkle Jones, Stalking the Past (Petrified Forest National Park: Petrified Forest Museum Association, 1993).

Appendix A: An Anasazi Timeline

I’ve verified critical dates for the Anasazi with the sources mentioned for Chapter 1. Dates for other cultures come from a variety of sources and I have not confirmed them with the same care I’ve verified Anasazi dates.

Appendix B: Dating Ceramic Fragments

Naming conventions for ceramic types evolved as archeologists recognized more specimens. At the broadest level, archeologists refer to “wares” which are broad groupings that have most technological features in common. Types are more precisely defined groups that share surface treatments and design styles. Type names generally include a place name and a characterization of the design. For example, “Flagstaff Black-on-white” refers to a type originally identified near Flagstaff, Arizona using black paint on a white surface. Unfortunately, curiosities make the system all but unintelligible to even the most interested layman.

Scholars haven’t always used the naming system consistently. Moreover, two scholars working miles apart may simultaneously discover virtually identical types and assign different names for publication. A few scholars have chosen to disregard similarities to previously defined styles and selected idiosyncratic names to suit their own purposes, and disagreements about how much difference is required to constitute a unique style are rampant. Finally, different fragments from the same piece may appear to have distinct characteristics and be classified as different types. Luckily, most of us can garner the information of interest while disregarding the disputes. 

Specialists in ceramic identification would probably blanch at the “superficiality” of the guide presented here, but it is adequate for my purposes and I hope you will find it helpful as well. The drawings in this Appendix are my own, but I have adopted the notion of generic styles from Alfred E. Dittert, Jr. and Fred Plog, Generations in Clay (Flagstaff, Az.: Northland Publishing, 1980). The list of Chacoan styles comes T. C. Windes, “Chaco Chronology as updated by T. C. Windes,” in Francis Joan Mathien, ed., Culture and Ecology of Chaco Canyon and the San Juan Basin (Santa Fe, New Mexico: National Park Service, 2005), pp. 366. Additional details come from various sources including San Juan College’s “Ceramic Typology” (http://www.sanjuancollege.edu/print/2118.asp), Mark D. Varien, “Analytic Criteria for Pottery Types” (http://www.crowcanyon.org/researchreports/sitetesting/Text/APP_A_1.htm), “Painting Styles” (http://www.beloit.edu/~museum/logan/southwest/introduction/styles.htm), and Northern Arizona University’s online ceramic guide (http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/swpottery/). 

Coincidentally, the narrow date range Windes assigns to Chaco Mc Elmo is not universally accepted. A few scholars have argued that it is based on too few tree ring dates and argue for a broader range, 1140- 1225 CE.

Appendix C: Dating Stone Points

Many site reports and archeological monographs describe typical stone points and my drawings are based on those descriptions. If you would like more details, you might want to look at a collectors’ guide such as Robert M. Overstreet, Official Overstreet Identification and Price Guide to Indian Arrowheads (9th edition; New York: House of Collectibles/Gemstone Publishing, Inc., 2005).