Previous | Table of Contents | Next

7.

Historic Artifacts of the Chaco Additions Inventory Survey

Robert P. Powers and Miranda Warburton

¶ 1   The historic artifacts recorded by the Chaco Additions Inventory Survey are a diverse if often prosaic mix of items ranging from Native crafted pottery and stone tools to mass-produced automobile parts and prescription eyeglass lenses. Our goal in this chapter is to provide a brief description and analysis of this historic material culture in a fashion that enhances the perspectives of the preceding Navajo and historic site settlement and succeeding Navajo ethnohistory chapters. Approximately 363 historic period sites, including Navajo, Spanish-American and Anglo components were identified by the survey, although of this total only 191, or slightly more than half of the historic sites had historic artifacts of any kind.

¶ 2   Nonetheless, a total of over 7,000 historic artifacts, including Navajo and historic Puebloan pottery, chipped and ground stone, Euro-American manufactured items, and a variety of other artifacts were observed and recorded. Because considerable time and effort was expended in documenting the proveniences of the artifacts, the emphasis in the following pages is on the contexts — the components and features — in which the artifacts were documented. As described in Chapter 1, a component is the portion of a site assigned to the same culture and site type. Most of the discussion in this chapter is at the component level since we are interested only in the Navajo and historic period portions or components of a site. Each component, in turn, is composed of one or more features. Features range from constructed features such as a sweat lodge, to refuse features consisting of a cluster of artifacts, such as a Euro-American refuse scatter. The site type is simply a classificatory label used to sort the components into functional groups. For example, single habitation, stockholding, and rock art are site type designations given to components. In the following pages we use component and feature assemblages to show both the possibilities and limitations of artifacts as indicators of the use or function of these proveniences.

¶ 3   Four specific questions are posed. How do the artifact assemblages reflect variability over time? To what extent can ethnic affiliation be determined from artifact assemblages? How do the artifact assemblages reflect differences in feature function? And, how significant is the quantity of artifacts from a given component or feature?

¶ 4   The answers to these questions may be summarized as follows. First, artifact assemblages reflect variability by changing in size and composition over time. The types of artifacts present, as well as the number of artifacts, changes significantly.

¶ 5   Second, determination of ethnic affiliation from artifact assemblages for this group of components is not possible. Third, and contrary to expectation, artifact assemblages do not appear to reflect differences in feature function beyond a general level. Assemblage variability often seems to correlate closely with size.

¶ 6   Fourth, and last, the quantity of artifacts appears to be a key indicator of how long individual components were occupied, and how the survey areas were used over time. The reliability of inferences about function is greater at a small number of components with more artifacts.

¶ 7   The organization of the chapter is as follows. First, we provide an overview of previous historic artifact studies in the Chaco area in order to gain an informed perspective on past work and to see how this study differs in its approach. Following this, we describe the methods used in the investigation. Next, the overall artifact assemblage is described and the analysis of the artifacts is presented. The final section, the summary and conclusions, provides a detailed discussion of the study conclusions.

Background

¶ 8   Studies of historic artifacts undertaken in the general Chaco region prior to the current survey include Brugge (1981b, 1986), Duran and McKeown (1980), Gilpin (1983a, 1983b), Kelley (1982), Kelley and Boyer (1982), and Ward et al. (1977) among others. Brugge’s descriptions of historic artifacts recovered or documented by the National Park Service’s inventory of Chaco Canyon National Monument (Brugge 1981b) and in his own survey of Navajo sites of the Tsegai or Chaco Canyon area (1986) are particularly relevant. One of the Tsegai Navajo winter habitation sites (Site K) documented by Brugge was also recorded by the Additions Survey as 29SJ 2966. This site’s large artifact assemblage in combination with informant data provided by previous residents of the site make it an ideal place to evaluate feature and artifact relationships.

¶ 9   In contrast to the present analysis, Brugge’s Tsegai study (1986) analyzes categories of artifacts such as ceramics and Euro-American trade goods from a site or group of sites rather than examining the artifacts on a provenience or feature basis. Brugge’s approach is extremely useful in looking at the assemblage as a whole but focuses less on component or structure specific activity.

¶ 10   The Duran and McKeown (1980) study of Navajo sites in the Gallegos Mesa area of the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project area (located about 50 km north of Chaco) has become a standard reference for historic artifact studies in New Mexico because, in addition to their analysis, they provide detailed information on product brands, can and bottle technology, and the production spans of Euro-American artifacts. A total of 16 Navajo sites dating from 1915 to 1976 were included in their research. Like Brugge (1986), they analyze artifacts primarily by material category. A brief discussion of the kinds of artifacts that characterized Navajo activity areas is also included (Duran and McKeown 1980:1136, 1147).

¶ 11   Gilpin’s (1983a, 1983b) studies were also undertaken on Gallegos Mesa as part of the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project. Gilpin (1983a, 1983b) provides an extremely thorough examination of 10 excavated historic sites selected from some 199 historic components at 375 separate sites (Gilpin 1983a:984). Over 13,000 artifacts were analyzed from these 10 sites (Gilpin 1983a:1005). In addition to summarizing the artifacts recovered, Gilpin discusses each site individually, providing ethnographic and historic data as well as detailed descriptions of the artifacts. He also presents inter-site comparisons and attempts to infer function or identify activities from the various assemblages at the 10 sites (1983b). His analysis is particularly detailed because of the temporal and spatial control provided by site excavation and the in-depth scrutiny of artifacts allowed by laboratory analysis.

¶ 12   Kelley’s (1982) report on the Chaco Canyon Ranch is an detailed ethnohistorical study of the 67 km2 (26 mi2) Gallo Wash Mine Lease to the immediate north and east of the Chacra Mesa survey area. The Chaco Canyon Ranch study analyzed survey data on 78 historic period site components. These components were the products of four groups of people: large-scale Navajo stock owners, small-scale Navajo stock owners, shepherds who worked for Ed Sargent, and oil-drilling crews (Kelley 1982:iii). Kelley’s analysis, although primarily economic in nature, addresses questions of assemblage diversity from both a synchronic and diachronic perspective. Archeological information, ethnographic interviews, archival sources, as well as available literature, were utilized in compiling the impressive Chaco Canyon Ranch study. Like the Navajo ethnohistory study conducted for the Chaco Additions areas (see Chapter 8), Kelley was able to identify the occupants of individual sites. Kelley’s (1982:342-346) cautions to archeologists relying solely on archeological information to investigate ethnicity and site use are well placed and are underscored by the complex use histories of some the sites described by Willow Powers in Chapter 8. Both studies illustrate the difficulty, if not impossibility, of determining ethnic affiliation without complementary ethnohistoric studies.

¶ 13   Kelley and Boyer’s (1982) report on historic sites in the McKinley Mine Area northwest of Gallup, New Mexico, discusses the methods and results of their analysis of 1,334 artifacts from 34 sites. Similar to Brugge’s (1986) and Duran and McKeown’s (1980) investigations, this report emphasizes categories of artifacts such as plastic and leather, and functional groupings of artifacts such as personal effects and entertainment, rather than looking at specific proveniences vis-a-vis their artifactual assemblages.

¶ 14   The Ward et al. study (1977) presents the analysis of artifacts from historic sites in the Lower Chaco River area about 75 km northwest of Chaco. The authors examine material culture remains from 335 of 413 Navajo components (Ward et al.1977:229). Like Duran and McKeown (1980), they provide lists of brands and illustrations of bottles and jars useful for analysis (Ward et al. 1977:231-240). They also discuss the material remains in relation to functional categories of artifacts such as food stuffs and personal effects.

¶ 15   All of the above studies have contributed in some way to the research at hand. Some of the reports were helpful for the present artifact analysis, while others provide an alternative perspective for viewing the Chaco Additions assemblage.

Methods

¶ 16   Analysis of the historic artifacts from the sites included in the Chaco Additions Survey was undertaken in three stages. The first stage took place in the field where personnel recorded but did not collect historic artifacts. Historic artifacts were encountered in a wide variety of contexts; for example, at an Anasazi watercontrol site, a few pieces of historic trash might also be found. Much more common were Navajo components with one or more features and a small number of historic artifacts in a low density scatter covering the area. Also present, but less frequent were components with several hogans, ash heaps, a variety of other features, and dozens of historic artifacts.

¶ 17   At components with few artifacts, the site form artifact descriptions are often more detailed; at the larger components, field personnel occasionally resorted to less detailed descriptions such as “lots of pieces of bone in ash heap #7.” In general, however, the Stage 1 artifact descriptions are fairly detailed. Copies of the survey record forms, including the historic artifact descriptions are available through the Chaco Digital Archive (http://www.chacoarchive.org/cra/survey-data/).

¶ 18   While there were no specific standards for recording historic artifacts, artifacts were usually described in some detail. For example, manufacturer’s marks were noted, can types and openings were recorded, and all artifacts were included on the site forms accompanied by brief descriptions of their potentially diagnostic attributes. Recorders also often indicated the condition of the item and whether it had been modified for reuse. An analysis of the adaptive uses of Euro-American mass produced items would have been a worthy addition to the study, but unfortunately it was beyond our means.

¶ 19   None of the field recorders was a specialist in historic artifact identification or dating, and because artifacts were not collected for lab analysis, the quality and specificity of the identifications are less than they would have been had the items been collected and analyzed by a historic archeologist expert in 20th century consumer technology. While this is regrettable, it had the intended effect of preserving the artifacts in their original on-site contexts, where they remain available for future researchers.

¶ 20   The Stage 2 analysis was conducted by Henry Walt in 1985 to 1986. It consisted of dating the artifacts based on the descriptions given in the site forms. The analyst was not in the field, and relied solely on artifact descriptions from the site forms. Based on the artifact descriptions, Walt assigned each artifact a beginning and an end date whenever possible. Artifact identification was aided by previous studies of historic artifacts in the San Juan Basin (discussed in the Background section).

¶ 21   Unfortunately, the lack of precise information about many artifacts prohibits assignment of exact dates, and thus many date ranges simply reflect the beginning and end production dates for glass colors or can manufacturing techniques. For example, an assemblage consisting of a few pieces of brown glass dating from 1880 to the present provides only the most general time range for a component that may have been occupied for only a few days. Although field personnel provided the best observations possible, close dating of glass and can artifacts was often limited by the absence of portions of the item that could have revealed the manufacturing techniques used to produce or it, or that contained company trademarks needed for more precise identification.

¶ 22   Nonetheless, because cans and glass make up the majority of historic artifacts recorded on the Chaco Additions Survey and are the most thoroughly studied classes of artifacts, they were the most useful in dating. Vicks and Mentholatum jars, for example, were often helpful in dating survey components; Ball freezer jars, medicine bottles, and soda pop bottles were also useful.

¶ 23   In a number of instances tree-ring dates, ethnohistoric information provided by Navajo informants and name and date inscriptions fruitfully supplemented the dates derived from the artifacts (see Appendix 6.1, Table 2). In addition to glass and cans, other artifactual remains identified on the project include bone, ceramics, fiber, leather, metal, plastic, rubber, stone, wood, and some paper. With the exception of Navajo and historic Puebloan pottery, many of these materials are much harder to date and identify. Wherever possible beginning and end dates are provided for these items as well.

¶ 24   This report comprises Stage 3 of the analysis. The chapter has been prepared based on information from the site survey forms, the Stage 2 analysis, the Navajo and Historic site settlement chapter (Chapter 6), and the ethnographic chapter (Chapter 8). Appendix 7.1 prepared by Warburton is the historic refuse database which provides site, provenience, basic artifact, and date information for Euro-American artifacts. It does not include Navajo or historic Puebloan ceramics or chipped and groundstone artifacts found on historic components.

Analysis

¶ 25   Approximately 7,186 historic artifacts were observed and recorded by the survey (Table 7.1). The great majority came from 191 Navajo, Spanish-American or Anglo sites. A few historic artifacts (n=108; 1.5 percent) were also found on 49 prehistoric sites with no other historic material. In most instances the historic artifacts at these sites are limited to one or a few items (Appendix 7.2). Isolated occurrences of historic items on prehistoric sites, as well as isolated artifacts across the survey area landscape can be attributed to extensive use of all of the survey areas by Navajo and Spanish-American sheepherders whose widespread stock raising activities have left a veneer of 20th century artifacts virtually everywhere.

Table 7.1. Historic artifacts by assemblage groups and material class.

¶ 26   In order to aid examination of individual assemblages, the 191 sites were sorted into three groups based on size and the presence or absence of Native and Euro-American artifacts. Assemblages containing Native artifacts only were placed in one group (Appendix 7.3), while the more numerous assemblages containing a combination of Native and Euro-American artifacts or Euro-American artifacts exclusively, were divided into two additional groups, one consisting of assemblages with 20 or fewer artifacts (Appendix 7.4), and a second containing those with more than 20 artifacts (Appendix 7.5).

¶ 27   The first group of assemblages with Native artifacts only includes 60 sites with 2,106 artifacts, accounting for 29 percent of the total historic artifact assemblage (Table 7.1). The second group of eighty-seven sites, with assemblages of 20 or fewer total artifacts, includes those with Native and Euro-American, or Euro-American artifacts only. It contains 580 items, or about 8 percent of all historic artifacts. The assemblages from this second group are referred to in the following pages as small mixed assemblages.

¶ 28   The third group of 44 sites, with assemblages of more than 20 artifacts of both Native and Euro-American items or only Euro-American items, contains 4,392 artifacts, or 61 percent of the total historic assemblage (Table 7.1). The assemblages in this third group are referred to as large mixed assemblages. In addition to presenting the assemblage of each site, Appendices 7.3, 7.4, and 7.5 provide information on survey area, site type, feature type, the estimated date range of each artifact, an estimated date of the component (based on artifacts only), the chronological periods represented, and an overall component date. The site types and the chronological periods (A.D. 1600-1700, 1700-1863, 1868-1930, 1930-1980) shown in the appendices and the tables follow Gleichman (see Table 6.1, Appendix 6.1, Tables 1 and 2) unless otherwise indicated in order to maintain concordance between the chapters.

Artifact Assemblage Attributes

Assemblage Cultural Affiliation

¶ 29   While Navajo sites account for the great majority of the components with historic refuse, evidence of Spanish American and some Anglo use was indicated at 21 sites11 [CLOSE]All but one of the Spanish-American components were identified by name and date inscriptions, as were two of the three Anglo components. The site with Spanish-American and Anglo components had both Spanish-American and Anglo inscriptions. One of the Spanish-American components was identified by Navajo informant data. The remaining Anglo component, a historic coal mine, was known to have been used by the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) during the 1930s. Gleichman (Appendix 6.1, Table 9) notes that 221 inscriptions, of which the great majority are Spanish surnames, were found at 68 sites. Although they range in date from 1881-1981, 75 percent of the dates fall between 1916-1945, the period of intensive Spanish-American herding in the Chaco Additions areas.. Seventeen of the 21 were Spanish-American, three were Anglo, and one was used by both Spanish-Americans and Anglos. Since Spanish-American and Anglo use was archaeologically visible only through name and date inscriptions, it is likely that Euro-American use at other sites remains undetected. Most of the sites with name and date inscriptions were also used by Navajos. An example of this is site 29SJ 2459, a Navajo summer habitation in the Kin Klizhin survey area, which according to Navajo informants, was used extensively by Spanish-American herders after its Navajo occupants left (Appendix 8.1). In view of cases like this, it is probable that a substantial number of sites post-dating the arrival of Spanish-American herders (the earliest inscriptions with Spanish surnames date to the 1880s; see Brugge 1980:108-109, 118, 156-157; Kelley 1982:45-47) were used both by Navajos and Spanish-Americans. Because both were outfitted with mass produced Euro-American goods, it was not possible to analyze the artifact assemblages by cultural group (see also Brugge 1981b:97).22 [CLOSE]Of the 21 Spanish-American and Anglo components, four had only Navajo or historic Pueblo artifacts, but the remaining 17 had mixed assemblages of Native and Euro-American artifacts, or Euro-American artifacts only. Because 14 of the 17 components also had Navajo occupations it was impossible to determine who the Euro-American artifacts were used by. Although inscriptions of individuals with non-Spanish surnames were rare, Anglo ranchers played an outsized role in the use of the survey areas, initially by leasing or purchasing land, and later by controlling access to it through fencing. From the 1920s onward an increasing number of the Navajo and Spanish-American sheepherders using the survey areas were working for local Anglo ranchers such as Ed Sargent.

Assemblages by Survey Area

¶ 30   As indicated in Table 7.2 relatively few sites with historic artifact assemblages were present in the Kin Klizhin (n=13), Kin Bineola (n=14), and South Addition (n=10) survey areas. Cumulatively, the sites in these areas account for less than 7 percent of the historic artifacts. Several sites in the Kin Klizhin, Kin Bineola, and South Addition areas had Native only assemblages, and of these, one in the Kin Bineola area, and another in the South Addition may have seen use between 1800-1900. Of the sites with small or large mixed assemblages, only one, a temporary shelter in the South Addition was clearly occupied prior to 1900. Nineteenth century use of this site is indicated by 1881 date inscriptions.

Table 7.2. Assemblage groups by survey area.
Assemblage Group	Kin Klizhin	Kin Bineola	Chacra Mesa	South Addition	Total
Native Artifacts
# of Sites	1	2	54	3	60
# of Artifacts	2	60	1,942	102	2,106
20 or Fewer Artifacts
# of Sites	10	12	61	4	87
# of Artifacts	46	53	456	25	580
More than 20 Artifacts
# of Sites	2	39	3	44
# of Artifacts	104	4,197	91	4,392
Total
# of Sites	13	14	154	10	191
# of Artifacts	152	113	6,595	218	7,078
Artifact %	2.1	1.6	93.2	3.1	100

¶ 31   The overwhelming majority of artifacts (n=6,595; 93 percent) were found on sites in the Chacra Mesa survey area, which was used over a long span of time extending from the 17th century through to the early 1950s. Because relatively few artifacts were found in the Kin Klizhin, Kin Bineola, and South Addition survey areas we did not attempt to compare assemblages between the four areas.

Assemblage Material Classes

¶ 32   A breakdown of the 7,186 historic artifacts into gross material classes shows that approximately 3,062 (43 percent) are historic sherds from vessels of either Navajo or historic Pueblo manufacture, 1,131 (16 percent) are chipped or ground stone artifacts, and 2,779 (39 percent) are 20th century Euro-American manufactured items of steel, glass, rubber, plastic, leather or ceramic materials (Table 7.1). Another 131 miscellaneous items (2 percent) include burned and unburned bone, shell, beads, turquoise, wood, corn cobs, selenite, unworked pebbles, and fossils. Finally, 83 sherds (1 percent) of Anasazi manufacture were also found on historic features where they appear to have been curated by historic period inhabitants.

¶ 33   The frequencies and proportions of the historic ceramics are shown by ware, type, and vessel form in Table 7.3. Similar inventories of the lithic artifacts, Euro-American manufactured items, miscellaneous artifacts, and Anasazi ceramics found on Navajo and historic period sites are presented in Tables 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, and 7.7, respectively.

Table 7.3. Navajo and historic Pueblo ceramic types by vessel form.

Table 7.4. Lithic materials at Navajo and historic components.

Table 7.5. Euro-American manufactured materials at Navajo and historic components.

Table 7.6. Miscellaneous materials at Navajo and historic components.

Table 7.7. Anasazi ceramics by vessel form at Navajo and historic period components.

Assemblage Size

¶ 34   If the 7,078 historic artifacts found at sites with historic components were evenly divided among the 191 sites, the average historic component would contain 37 artifacts. However, as shown in Figure 7.1, the distribution of assemblage is strongly skewed to small assemblages. Fifty-one percent of all components have 10 or fewer artifacts, 78 percent have 40 or fewer artifacts, and another 14 percent have assemblages ranging in size from 41 to 100 items. The remaining 8 percent have a 101 or more artifacts. Two outliers, not shown in Figure 7.1 are sites 29SJ 2655 (327 items) and 29SJ 2966 (1,305 items). 29SJ 2966, which accounts for 18 percent of all the historic period artifacts will be discussed in more detail later in the chapter.

Figure 7.1. Assemblage size (in groups of 10 artifacts) by number of sites.

¶ 35   Examination of assemblage size over time (Table 7.8) shows that 41 assemblages dating prior to the five year period of Navajo internment at Bosque Redondo (1863-1868) have a mean of 56 artifacts (n= 2,314; s.d. =71.0), while 113 components occupied after the 1868 return from Bosque Redondo had a mean of only 29 artifacts (n=3,328; s.d.=123.8).33 [CLOSE]Although most analyses in the chapter divide the post-Bosque Redondo period into two time intervals (1868-1930 and 1930-1980) many post-1868 components were occupied during some or all of both periods, making it difficult to obtain a clear picture of assemblage size in either period. Potsherds and pieces of broken glass were counted as individual artifacts since the number of ceramic vessels or glass containers represented was often unknown. A non-parametric Mann-Whitney test comparing the median number of artifacts in the two periods rejects the null hypothesis that the medians are not significantly different (W= 4330.5, p < 0.001).44 [CLOSE]Because the artifact count data could not be transformed to a normal distribution, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used. For Mann-Whitney the artifact counts are converted to ranks. To do this all the values are converted to ranks of one to n (n being the total number of values), with one being the lowest. The ranks between the two time periods were then compared. Changes in length of site occupation and land use, discussed later in the chapter, may be responsible for the reduced size of the average artifact assemblage in the post-1868 period.

Table 7.8. Assemblage size by time period and site type.
Site Type/Statistic	Pre-1863	Post-1868
All Components
Number of Artifacts	2,314	3,328
Number of Cases	41	113
Mean Assemblage Size	56.4	29.5
Median Assemblage Size	32	7
Standard Deviation	71.0	123.8
Habitation
Number of Artifacts	1,029	1,208*
Number of Cases	14	32
Mean Assemblage Size	73.5	37.8
Median Assemblage Size	35	20.5
Standard Deviation	77	36.5
Temporary Camps
Number of Artifacts	847	418
Number of Cases	17	41
Mean Assemblage Size	49.8	10.2
Median Assemblage Size	31	5
Standard Deviation	74.8	11
Special Use
Number of Artifacts	426	397
Number of Cases	9	39
Mean Assemblage Size	47.3	10.2
Median Assemblage Size	26	4
Standard Deviation	58.3	17.2
* Site 29SJ 2966 has been excluded from the Post-1868 habitation components due to its large artifact count. With it, the total artifact count is 2,513 items, the mean assemblage size is 76.2 artifacts and the standard deviation is 223.5.

¶ 36   To determine if the assemblages associated with the three major site types — habitations, temporary camps, and special use components — were significantly different from each other, the sizes of these assemblages were compared to each other in each time period. For the pre-1863 period, a Kruskal-Wallace test55 [CLOSE]The non-parametric Kruskal-Wallace test also compares ranking between sample populations but is used to compare three or more samples, or in this case, the three major site types. comparing the median artifact assemblage size showed no significant statistical differences between the three site types, confirming the null hypothesis that the medians are not significantly different (H= 1.06; df =2; p = 0.588).

¶ 37   In contrast, for the post-1868 period, a Kruskal-Wallace test comparing the three site types rejected the null hypothesis that the medians are not significantly different (H= 17.26, df = 2, p<0.001). The similarity of the pre-1863 assemblages is in marked contrast to the differences between the post-1868 assemblages which appear to reflect growing assemblage size distinctions between habitations, temporary camps and special use components over time.

Assemblage Change Over Time

Artifact Groups by Time Period

¶ 38   The Native, small mixed and large mixed assemblage groups provide a useful starting point for examining historic artifact assemblages over time. Table 7.9 shows the chronological spread of historic artifact assemblages composing the artifact groups. Two early components date between 1600-1700, while 58 components (23 percent) with artifact assemblages date to the 1700-1863 period. Larger numbers of components have assemblages in the succeeding 1868-1930 (n=85; 34 percent) and 1930-1980 (n=82; 33 percent) time periods. Twenty-one components are of unknown date. Overall, the table shows that an expanded number of components have artifact assemblages after 1868.

Table 7.9. Artifact groups by time period.

¶ 39   A more fine-grained picture of the nature of these assemblages is obtained by combining the material class information in Table 7.1 with the temporal distribution data in Table 7.9. At Native artifact assemblages, pottery is dominant, accounting for nearly 70 percent of the artifacts. Ceramics include Navajo plain or painted wares and historic Puebloan trade wares. Flaked and groundstone items account for the remaining 30 percent, although as will be discussed later, this proportion probably under-represents the true proportion of stone artifacts. One-quarter of the components with Native only artifact assemblages are of unknown date. Inability to assign a date is usually the product of either unidentifiable pottery, the presence of only one or a few sherds or the complete absence of ceramics. Native only components that could be assigned to one of the time periods generally have Navajo or Historic Puebloan ceramics and were given time period assignments reflecting the production date ranges of the ceramics. Nearly 54 percent of the datable components pre-date 1863, while only 21 percent post-date the 1868 return from Bosque Redondo. Given the absence of Euro-American artifacts, it seems likely that most of the latter components date to the decades immediately following Navajo resettlement. Only five components post-date 1930, and at each of these the relatively late date is based on Navajo informant data or name and date inscriptions, rather than the few ceramics present.

¶ 40   The small mixed assemblages include some Navajo and Historic Pueblo pottery as well as chipped and ground stone and a few other items, but Euro-American artifacts are dominant, accounting for about 82 percent of all the items present (Table 7.1). As Table 7.9 shows, these assemblages are generally later in date than the Native assemblages. Whereas nearly 54 percent of the Native assemblages pre-dated 1863, only about 6 percent of the mixed assemblages do. These early mixed assemblages appear to reflect multiple occupations with early use indicated by pottery or tree-ring dates, followed by 20th century re-occupation marked by Euro-American artifacts.

¶ 41   The majority of the small mixed assemblages date to the 1868-1930 (41 percent) and 1930-1980 (49 percent) time groups. In contrast, only about 13 percent (1868-1930) and 7 percent (1930-1980) of the Native only assemblages date to these periods (Table 7.9).

¶ 42   The large mixed assemblages incorporate aspects of both the Native and small mixed assemblages. Like the latter, these assemblages often contain Navajo and historic Pueblo pottery, chipped and ground stone, other materials, and Euro-American artifacts, but unlike them, Native artifacts compose a substantial proportion (35 percent) of the assemblage, although by no means matching the proportion of Euro-American artifacts (50 percent) (Table 7.1). This more integrated mix of Native and Euro-American materials is a clue to the dating of the assemblages. Twenty-four percent were occupied during the 1700-1863 period, 43 percent in the following 1868-1930 interval, and 33 percent in the 1930-1980 period (Table 7.9). All 44 large mixed assemblage components (Table 7.1) were occupied during a total of 75 time periods (Table 7.9), illustrating that many of these components were occupied during portions of two or three time periods, a fact that does much to explain the larger size and more varied composition of their assemblages.

Site Types by Time Period

¶ 43   It is also important to have an understanding of the kinds of components where assemblages were found, and how the proportions of these change over time. As was seen in Chapter 6, site types provide important clues to how the survey areas were used. The components are divided into three major types, habitations, temporary camps and special use. Habitations are winter or summer camps with one or more hogans, used for the season by an extended or nuclear family as its primary residence. Although these sites are often referred to in the literature as “camps,” they have been termed habitations to distinguish them from temporary camps which were occupied only by a portion of the family on a short-term basis. Temporary camps include sheep, farm, hunting and other short-term camps that functioned as satellites of the habitation or seasonal camp. Special use components include a variety of features such as rock art, roads, and storage rooms that did not involve an over-night stay. Readers should refer to Chapter 6 for more detailed descriptions of the various site types.

¶ 44   Table 7.10 presents the distribution of site types with artifact assemblages over time. The frequency of habitation assemblages (see habitation subtotal row percentages) is fairly evenly distributed over the three major time periods, 1700-1863, 1868-1930 and 1930-1980, although the largest number of habitation artifact assemblages (both single and multiple habitations) date to the 1868-1930 period.

Table 7.10. Artifact assemblages by site type and time period for all components with historic artifacts.

¶ 45   Assemblages associated with temporary camps include a substantial number of unknown (i.e., undated) assemblages, as well as two early hearth assemblages (1600-1700) on Chacra Mesa. Unlike those at habitations, artifact assemblages in the temporary camp grouping increase over time (camp subtotal row percentages). A similar trend is apparent for assemblages at the special use components. Here a substantial number of assemblages are also undated, but as time progresses there are increasing numbers of rock art, sweat lodge, woodcutting, and stone feature components with artifacts.

¶ 46   A somewhat different perspective, but one which nonetheless affirms these trends, is gained by examining the relative proportion of habitations, temporary camps, and special use components to each other in each period. During the 1700-1863 period, habitations are dominant (48 percent), while temporary camps (31 percent) and special use (21 percent) components are less frequent (Table 7.10, column subtotals). By the 1930-1980 period, however, habitations account for only 28 percent of the components while temporary camps (35 percent) and special use (37 percent) components are much more common. In sum, as historic occupation of the survey areas evolved, seasonal habitation declined, as temporary camps and special use components increased.

Artifacts by Time Period

¶ 47   As was seen earlier, historic artifact assemblages at Navajo and other historic components changed substantially in composition between the 17th and the 20th centuries. In order to examine these changes further, the artifacts of each time period will be examined in greater detail. In order to do this we will rely in part, but not completely, on a subset of the data consisting of those artifacts found on components that were occupied during a single time period. Since there are only two components in the 1600-1700 time group, they are combined with the 1700-1863 components in this and some subsequent analyses.

1600-1863

¶ 48   Two early assemblages were found at campsites 29Mc 476 and 29Mc 479 located on the upper, northeast facing slope of the Chacra Mesa addition. The primary features of the two components were scatters of burned and unburned slabs, suggesting hearths, although it is possible they had more permanent structures of which no surface traces remain (Figures 7.2 and 7.3). The two components are within meters of each other and appear to be related. Pottery at the components includes Puname series red ware, Hawikuh Polychrome and Dinetah Gray sherds. Dating of the camps is based on the presence of Hawikuh Polychrome, which was produced between 1600 and 1700 by Zuni Pueblo potters (Harlow 1973). Both camps also have a variety of flakes, debitage, and tools including utilized/retouched flakes, projectile points, a hammerstone and a drill (see Appendix 7.3).

Figure 7.2. Plan view of early Navajo campsite 29Mc 476. Hearth 1 may have been the rock heating pit for a sweat lodge.

Figure 7.3. Plan view of early Navajo campsite 29Mc 479.

¶ 49   Fifty-eight components with artifact assemblages were occupied between 1700-1863 (Table 7.9). Eighteen off these 1700-1863 components also had Euro-American artifacts, although in every instance the Euro-American produced items appear to reflect either artifacts deposited by the component’s inhabitants during later, post-Bosque Redondo periods, or scattered debris from nearby sites of later date. The only possible pre-1868 artifact of non-Native material, a long and narrow metal projectile point, was found on a prehistoric site (29SJ2856) of unknown cultural affiliation (See Appendix 7.2).

¶ 50   Despite the virtual absence of European artifacts and materials, trade by Chaco Navajos for Spanish and Mexican produced items can probably be assumed, although as Brugge (1981b:94) emphasizes, the quantity of items so derived was probably very small, making their discovery in a surface survey unlikely. Brugge (1981b:94) reports that no pre-Bosque Redondo European derived items were present in the collections from Hayes’s (1981) inventory survey of Chaco Canyon National Monument. During his subsequent Tsegai survey, Brugge found no European items predating 1868 (1986:66), and later excavation of the Doll House Site, a 18th and 19th century hogan site immediately north of the Chacra Mesa survey area, produced only a single link of chain of possible 18th century date (Brugge 1986:128).

¶ 51   As such, ceramics, lithics, a few pieces of burned and unburned bone visible in ash heaps, along with an occasional Anasazi sherd, compose the artifact assemblages of the pre-Bosque Redondo Additions survey components. As shown in Table 7. 11, 41 of the 58 components dated to this time period are single period components. The great majority of artifacts found on these 41 components are Navajo and historic Pueblo trade ceramics (70 percent), although lithics account for about 28 percent of the cumulative assemblage (Table 7.12). Bone (both burned and unburned) and Anasazi ceramics were also found, but combined they account for only slightly more than 1 percent of the 1600-1863 period assemblage.

Table 7.11. Frequency of Navajo and historic components with artifacts by time period.

Table 7.12. Historic artifact types by time period (single period components only).
Artifact Type	1600-1863		1868-1930		1930-1980		Total
	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Historic Ceramics	1,576	70.5	286	41.9	33	6.2	1,895	54.9
Lithics	632	28.3	25	3.7	657	19
Other artifacts	9	0.4	4	0.6	8	1.58	21	0.6
Anasazi Ceramics	17	0.8	13	1.9	3	0.6	33	1
Euro-American artifacts	355	52	492	91.8	847	24.5
Total	2,234	100	683	100.1	536	100.1	3,453	100

¶ 52   Of the ceramics found at 1700-1863 components, Dinetah Gray is dominant (unidentified plain sherds may also be Dinetah), with plainware accounting for nearly 90 percent of the ceramic assemblage (Table 7.13). As Brugge notes, an initial date for Dinetah in Chaco is uncertain. Despite the two campsites pre-dating 1700, production of Dinetah probably does not pre-date permanent Navajo settlement which likely began sometime in the early 18th century. The earliest cluster of tree-ring cutting dates marking Navajo construction in the Chaco region is a group of dates in the 1720s (Brugge 1978:48). Dinetah seems to have remained in use until the late 1700s or early 1800s (Brugge 1981b:86), although as will be seen in the following pages some Dinetah was found on components post-dating 1868. While they may have been present, the Additions Survey crews did not attempt to distinguish the Dinetah micaceous and transitional varieties described by Brugge (1981b:87).

Table 7.13. Navajo and historic Pueblo ceramic types by time period (single period components only).

¶ 53   Conspicuous for its absence at pre-Bosque Redondo components is Navajo Gray, a successor of Dinetah that first appears around 1800. Navajo Gray is distinguished by its thicker walls, fine sherd temper, fillet decoration and smaller vessel sizes. Brugge (1981b:87) found it in the collections of “51 of the [Chaco Canyon National Monument survey] sites, making it the most common type on historic sites.” It is difficult to account for the absence of Navajo Gray, unless the Additions survey areas were only sparsely occupied during the period of intense warfare between 1818 and 1863. Both Brugge (1981b:98, 101; 1986:25) and Kelley (1982:30) have argued that Chaco was largely abandoned during this interval due to persistent hostilities between the Navajo and successive Spanish, Mexican, and American governments.

¶ 54   The remainder of the 1700-1863 ceramic assemblage is composed of Navajo painted wares and historic Pueblo trade wares (Table 7.13). The former include Gobernador Polychrome and Navajo Painted. Gobernador Polychrome was found in both bowl and jar forms at seven components (although jars accounted for only seven sherds). Brugge suggests that Gobernador Polychrome was never produced in the Chaco area, being procured instead through trade with the Dinetah area, but in light of more recent arguments (see Reed and Reed 1996) contending that this type was produced by Navajo potters prior to the Pueblo Revolt, it seems likely that some production occurred in Chaco, although its scarcity here suggests that a few potters could have easily produced all the vessels found in the Chaco area. Brugge (1981b:87) states that the type ceased to be produced shortly after 1750, a terminus date which seems consistent with the Additions survey results.

¶ 55   Navajo Painted was found at six components, always as bowls. Although all six components where it was found were initially occupied in the 1700-1863 period, two of them were also occupied in subsequent periods. Brugge (1981b:87) dates production of Navajo Painted after 1750.

¶ 56   Historic Puebloan trade wares account for the remaining 7 percent of the pottery found on pre-Bosque Redondo period components (Table 7.13). Although the sample is very small, the tradewares appear to be dominated by pottery produced at Zuni and Hopi. Of 127 sherds of Pueblo plain, red or painted wares, 95 sherds, including Hawikuh Polychrome (as previously discussed), Kiapkwa Polychrome, unidentified Zuni polychrome, Zuni Buff Ware and unidentified Hopi polychrome were found at five components. In contrast, 24 sherds of Puname series red ware and Zia Polychrome, produced at the Rio Grande pueblos of Zia and Santa Ana, were found at two components. Eight unidentified Puebloan sherds make up the remainder. Excluding the red ware and buff ware sherds, bowls account for 54 percent of Puebloan trade ware inventory, while jars compose 45 percent. Adding a bit of diversity is a single unidentified Pueblo polychrome sherd from a Spanish-style soup plate, found at 29SJ 2606, a large defensive multiple habitation dating to the last quarter of the 18th century (see Gleichman, Chapter 6).

¶ 57   Although the sample is small, the range of Puebloan types represented at the pre-Bosque Redondo components is partially consistent with that reported by Brugge (1981b:88-90) for the Chaco Canyon National Monument survey. There, Brugge found very few Tewa or northeast Keres sherds, and a relatively small number of Puname series types, while Ashiwi series polychromes (from Zuni and Acoma) were most frequent. One noteworthy difference between the two surveys is the presence of 18 unidentified Hopi polychrome sherds from four Chaco Additions survey components (Table 7.3). No Hopi pottery was found during the Monument survey. For the Monument survey, Brugge (1981b:88-90) argued that trade with both the Keres and Zuni likely began around 1760 and continued up through 1850, after which it tapered off, as reflected by the absence of later types like Zia Polychrome (1850-present) and Zuni Polychrome (1850-1920). While the presence of Kiapkwa Polychrome at Additions survey components on Chacra Mesa certainly indicates late 18th and early 19th century trade with Zuni, a more detailed chronological picture is difficult to obtain due to the small numbers of sherds and the small number of type-specific identifications. Nonetheless, as emphasized by Brugge, trade seems to have occurred most frequently (at least as viewed from the perspective of pottery) with Pueblo partners who were under only nominal control of the Spanish. Zuni may have offered an ideal situation, “wherein the balance of Euro-American [i.e., Spanish or Mexican] goods and lessened official regulation was readily recognized by the Navajos as providing the safest and most advantageous market, especially in time of actual or threatened war” (Brugge 1981b:90). Navajo and Spanish relations were increasingly shaded by warfare and raiding from the second decade of the 19th century onward.

¶ 58   The lithic assemblage associated with pre-Bosque Redondo Navajo components shows that a substantial range of chipped and ground stone items were in use (Table 7.14). While some of the artifacts found on 1600-1863 components are likely items recycled from prehistoric sites, their presence reflects the daily use of stone materials by Navajos for a wide range of tasks including tool making, hunting, and food preparation. It should be emphasized that the stone artifacts listed in both Tables 7.4 and 7.14 include only those items that were clearly associated with Navajo components or features. Stone artifacts found at sites with mixed Navajo and prehistoric components have been excluded. Because of this the total number of stone artifacts included in the tables is probably substantially smaller than the number of artifacts actually manufactured or used by Navajo inhabitants.

Table 7.14. Navajo and historic lithic materials by time period (single period components only).
Lithic Type	1600-1863		1868-1930		Total
	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Debitage
Primary Flake	21	3.3	1	4	22	3.3
Secondary Flake/Flake Fragment	192	30.3	11	44	203	30.9
Angular Debris	266	42.1	8	32	274	41.7
Biface Thinning Flake	24	3.8			24	3.6
Sub-total	503	79.6	20	80	523	79.6
Chipped Stone Tools
Utilized/Retouched Flakes	66	10.4	1	4	67	10.2
Projectile Points	15	2.4	1	4	16	2.4
Bifaces	1	0.2			1	0.2
Drills	1	0.2			1	0.2
Cores	13	2.1	2	8	15	2.3
Hammerstones	12	1.9			12	1.8
Sub-total	108	17.1	4	16	112	17
Other Stone
Miscellaneous Shaped Stone	6	0.9			6	0.9
Polishing Stone	1	0.2			1	0.2
Stone Axe	1	0.2	1	4	2	0.3
Raw Material	1	0.2			1	0.2
Sub-total	9	1.4	1	4	10	1.6
Groundstone
One-hand Mano	2	0.3			2	0.3
Two-hand Mano	1	0.2			1	0.2
Mano, Type Unknown	1	0.2			1	0.2
Mano (Large)	1	0.2			1	0.2
Metate, Type Unknown	2	0.3			2	0.3
Sub-total	7	1.1			7	1.1
Minerals	5	0.8			5	0.8
Total	632	100	25	100	657	100.1

1868-1930

¶ 59   Eighty-five historic components have assemblages dated to the 1868-1930 time period, which begins with the return of the Navajo after five years of internment at Bosque Redondo (Table 7.9). As can be seen from the table only nine of the artifact assemblages from this period contained only Native artifacts; the remaining 76 components had items of Euro-American manufacture.

¶ 60   Of the 85 components, 40 are dated to this period only (Table 7.11). The proportions of artifact types at these assemblages are much changed from the preceding, pre-Bosque Redondo period. The frequency of historic Navajo or Puebloan trade ceramics has dropped by nearly 30 percent, while the proportion of lithic items has also declined (by 25 percent). Balancing these reductions is the appearance and increasing frequency of Euro-American manufactured artifacts.

¶ 61   Among the much reduced Navajo and historic Puebloan trade ceramics, Navajo plain wares are still dominant (67 percent), but account for a smaller proportion of the overall ceramic collection (Table 7.13). Dinetah Gray still accounts for the bulk of the plain ware, although its successor, Navajo Gray, was found on one component. Brugge (1981b:87) notes that Navajo Gray was rare by the late 19th century.

¶ 62   Navajo Painted is absent in the 1868-1930 ceramic assemblage, but a variety of historic Puebloan polychromes are present, and although they occur in very small frequencies, they make up a larger proportion of the ceramic assemblage than they did in the preceding, pre-Bosque Redondo period. Of the sherds which can be identified to type, all are from the Rio Grande Keres pueblos; sherds of Zuni or Hopi origin are absent. Although caution is due in view of the small sample, this apparent shift in trading partners may be a product of the cessation of warfare and raiding after the Navajo return from Bosque Redondo.

¶ 63   As Brugge (1986:64) points out in describing the results of his Tsegai survey, “the reduction in ceramic collections from sites post-dating1800 is quite evident.” He attributes this to a lessening use of pottery and to different pottery disposal practices. Beginning in the late 1700s, pottery as well as many other items of material culture were no longer deposited in ash heaps, but instead were taken away from the habitation and deposited in unobtrusive locations in accordance with the proscriptions of Blessingway (Brugge 1981a:15; 1986:93,140, 156 ) . While this may account for some of the isolated Navajo “pot drops” found by the survey, it is nonetheless clear that the role of pottery in Navajo culture was much diminished after 1868.

¶ 64   Much the same may be said for lithic and ground stone artifacts. As shown in Table 7.14, the number of stone items attributable to the 1868-1930 period is less than two dozen flakes and a handful of tools. Projectile points, cores, hammerstones, and manos, frequent in the preceding period, are now rare or absent. Brugge documents similar results for his Tsegai survey, which produced few stone artifacts from post-1868 contexts (Brugge 1986:74-75).

¶ 65   While use of pottery and stone implements dwindled, mass-produced Euro-American goods became increasingly available and widespread during the two final decades of the 19th century. Although Euro-American goods could be obtained at the Indian Service trading post at Ft. Defiance and through itinerant traders and bootleggers well before the first trading posts were established in the Chaco area in the 1880s and 1890s, there are no Euro-American items among the nearly 2,800 recorded by the Additions survey that clearly pre-date 1880.

¶ 66   Frank McNitt (1962:339-340) reports that the earliest trading post in the Chaco area, Tiz-na-tzin, may have been established as early as 1878, and it was certainly in operation a few years later. Located between Tsaya and Bisti, it was approximately 32 km (20 mi) northwest of Pueblo Bonito and over 40 km (25 mi) from the Chacra Mesa sites where most of the survey’s Euro-American artifacts were found. Another store, advertised by an 1887 cliff-face inscription near Pueblo Bonito was described as being “10 miles down canyon,” a location Brugge (1981b:94) suggests may be the same spot later occupied by Tsaya Trading Post.

¶ 67   In the fall of 1897 Richard Wetherill established the Pueblo Bonito Trading Post along the back wall of the ruin, making mass produced goods readily available to the Chaco Navajo for the first time. The initial inventory at the store was described as including dry goods, harness, galvanized ironware and rope, boxed, bagged or canned food supplies, axes, chains, lamps and fuel oil, in addition to candy (McNitt [1957] 1966:173). In The Indian Traders McNitt (1962:79) explains that:

Flour, coffee, and sugar — in that order — were the staples most in demand and therefore most in supply at the old trading posts. Tobacco, by the plug or can, was greatly desired but considered more of a luxury than were yards of bright flannel, velveteen, or calico. Canned goods — fruits and vegetables — stocked the shelves from the early eighties, but the variety was limited and not too well regarded by the Indians for twenty or thirty years more.

¶ 68   Brugge (1980:161) reports that in May of 1898 Wetherill had several Navajos construct a new building to house the Pueblo Bonito Trading Post. In a letter to Talbot Hyde, one of his Hyde Exploring Expedition partners, Wetherill states that the trade has “been 20 to 60 dollars per day,” and that “We buy everything offered of marketable value — Sheep, Goats, Mules, wool — Pelts etc. — All the blankets in the region come to us.” The Hyde Exploring Expedition quickly added more stores in the following years. In 1901 a Farmington newspaper reported that the Expedition was operating seven stores in addition to the Pueblo Bonito post. The nearest of these was identified as the “Escavada” store, probably located near Kimbeto. The Hyde Exploring Expedition trading empire proved to be short lived, but the Pueblo Bonito store remained open under Richard Wetherill’s ownership for over a decade, and with the apparent exception of intervals between owners or managers, the store remained in operation until 1949 (Roberts n.d).

¶ 69   A variety of Euro-American artifacts found on survey components, including brown, aqua, and purple bottle glass66 [CLOSE]Purple and amber glass are the product of the reaction of natural glass (usually light green to light brown in color) to the sun’s ultraviolet rays. Over time, originally clear natural glass turns various shades of purple, amber or a milky translucent white. Natural glass not exposed to the sun, as in glass bottles that are buried or otherwise shielded from the sun, maintains its original color. Glass that did not change color was not manufactured until the 1920s and 1930s. See Duran and McKeown (1980: 1039-1040) for a more detailed discussion., Mentholatum and cold cream jars, steel meat cans, enamel ware, tobacco tins, baking powder cans, and bleach bottles77 [CLOSE]Bleach, according to Duran and McKeown (1980: 1082) was used by Navajos to purify drinking water. Kelley (1982: Table 29, 334) reports that it was used by Sargent’s Spanish-American herders for laundry, and was apparently rare on Navajo sites in the Gallo Wash Mine Lease. Bleach bottles were found on three Chaco Additions sites, 29SJ 2451, 29SJ 2699 and 29SJ 2966. were probably obtained from either the Pueblo Bonito store or others established around Chaco Canyon after the turn of the century. While some of these containers and goods, including glass, stoneware, evaporated milk cans, sardine cans, and enamel ware were produced long before the opening of the Pueblo Bonito store, local Navajos would have had difficulty obtaining them. As such, it seems likely that most Euro-American items found on the survey components post-date the opening of trading posts in the Chaco Canyon area around the turn of the century.

¶ 70   Although nearly 2,800 Euro-American artifacts were identified by the survey, only 847, or about 30 percent of the items were associated with single time period assemblages dated to either the 1868-1930 or 1930-1980 periods (Table 7.15). Glass containers dating prior to 1930 are primarily bottles and jars probably originally containing beer, liquor, or soda pop. Distinctively shaped or colored small jars held Mentholatum, Vicks Vapo-rub or cold cream. Cans contained vegetables, fruit, meat, liquids, evaporated milk, coffee, baking powder, sardines, and lard, as well as tobacco, although with the exception of distinctively shaped cans used for meat, coffee, lard, sardines or tobacco, it was usually impossible to identify the contents since labels were not preserved after decades of exposure.

Table 7.15. Euro-American manufactured materials at Navajo and historic components by time period (single period components only).

¶ 71   Cooking and food preparation implements included earthenware, porcelain, enamelware and utensils. Although relatively few enamelware cooking, serving pieces or washbasins could be isolated to the 1868-1930 period they were common and were found on components of this period as well as the succeeding 1930-1980 interval. Similarly, cooking stoves and kerosene lanterns were widely used during both periods, although they do not appear in any 1868-1930 single period assemblages.

¶ 72   Whetstones, shovels, and buckets were common tools, while hardware included nails, screws, pieces of galvanized pipe and a bewildering variety of unidentified metal, much of it probably associated with wagons, harnesses or stoves. Bits of harness, a cowbell, a saddlehorn, and sheep rattles (recycled cans with crimped ends containing pebbles used in herding sheep; see Duran and McKeown 1980:1090) provide glimpses of the importance of animal husbandry. In addition to these items, two medicinal products, Vicks Vapo-rub and Mentholatum were found on ten Chaco Additions components. Although they may have been purchased to ease human complaints, they also have a history of use for doctoring sheep88 [CLOSE]In order to trick reluctant ewes into allowing their own lamb or an orphan lamb to nurse, Spaulding and Clay (2010:161) suggest rubbing Vicks Vapo-rub on the ewe’s nose and the lamb’s body to deaden the ewe’s sense of smell and the lamb’s scent. Two turn of the 20th century veterinary guides note the use of Mentholatum for “big head” (Smith 1918) and “nasal catarrh” (Baker 1920) in sheep.. As discussed by W. Powers in Chapter 8, sheep and goat husbandry were the basis of Navajo subsistence and cash economy in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a fact that is easily ignored in view of the sparse material record.

¶ 73   A variety of gun cartridges were found on components of the 1868-1930 period and since it seems unlikely that shell casings would have been brought back from hunting forays, their presence may indicate an occasional serendipitous shot at an unwary rabbit, coyote or bobcat. Guns were not used in the killing of sheep or goats, whose throats were slit so that the blood could be collected for blood sausage or pudding (Downs 1964:47; 59). Although Duran and McKeown (1980:1093), in their analysis of historic artifacts in Block II of the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project, found that some shell casings were cut-up to make jewelry, no cannibalized casings were noted by the Additions survey. Despite the substantial amount of money that was likely spent on clothing99 [CLOSE]Reh (1983:14-15) states that clothing accounted for a fifth of the goods bought by Navajos from traders in the Kaibito area, a proportion that was somewhat smaller than that for the Navajo Reservation as a whole in 1939. In the Kaibito area clothing was the “second most important category for which Navajo income is spent.”, the only remaining traces of apparel found on pre-1930 components were shell and glass buttons. Although cloth exposed to weather soon decomposes, Reh (1983:15) reports that in the Kaibito area, old clothes were burned instead of being reused or discarded (see also Ward et al. 1977:269-270).

1930-1980

¶ 74   A total of 82 components had artifact assemblages dated to the 1930 to 1980 time period (Table 7.9). With the exception of a few components with small quantities of very recent Euro-American artifacts, virtually all of the components dated to this period were abandoned by the early to mid- 1950s. Several factors contributed to the decline, and finally cessation, of settlement within the survey areas. First, intense competition for grazing land between Navajo and Spanish-American and Anglo herders resulted not only in overgrazing, but in compartmentalization of the landscape as land was allotted, purchased, leased and increasingly as time went on, fenced. From the 1910s through the 1920s and 1930s, Navajos had an ever more difficult time finding areas where they could graze their stock (see Chapter 8; also Brugge 1980; Kelley 1982: 49-77 ). Implementation of Commissioner of Indian Affairs John Collier’s stock reduction program in 1933, forced Navajos to reduce their already diminished herds, hurting small stock raisers disproportionately (Brugge 1980). As if these problems were not sufficient, they were compounded in 1934 by the National Park Service’s decision to begin fencing Chaco Canyon National Monument in order to prevent livestock grazing within the park. Although portions of the Monument were not enclosed until 1947, much of the Monument had been fenced by 1936, and most Navajo residents in order to keeps their herds also left1010 [CLOSE]A few Navajo families continued living in the Monument until the spring of 1948 (Brugge 1980:486). (Brugge 1981b:431, 437-438, 484-485).

¶ 75   Although the Additions survey areas remained unfenced, livestock access to these areas, particularly Chacra Mesa, was increasingly difficult. On Chacra Mesa, the largest and longest occupied site, 29SJ 2966 was abandoned by 1953 or 1954 (see Appendix 8.1). A handful of components have occupation ranges into the 1960s or 1970s (Appendices 7.3 and 7.4), but these either reflect the long production spans of Euro-American artifacts that were discarded in the 1930s, 1940s, or 1950s, or disposal of occasional “intrusive” artifacts (like pop-top soda or beer cans) by non-resident visitors in the 1960s and 1970s. The bulk of occupation, and the preponderance of artifact use during this period occurred within the 20 year period from 1930-1950.

¶ 76   As shown in Table 7.10 (column subtotals), habitations of this period account for about 28 percent of the components with artifact assemblages, while temporary camps have 35 percent of the assemblages and special use components 37 percent. It is interesting that the proportion of habitations is significantly lower than in the preceding post-Bosque Redondo period, while the proportion of temporary camps and special use components is substantially higher. Temporary camps and special use components may be more numerous not only because they were more visible to archaeologists (in comparison to sites of previous periods), but probably also because they indicate a shift to a more mobile lifestyle which produced more short-term sites.

¶ 77   Table 7.9 shows that only five components had assemblages of Native artifacts while the majority of components (49 percent) had small mixed assemblages, and a smaller, but substantial proportion (33 percent) had large mixed assemblages. Out of the 82 1930-1980 components, 48 (59 percent) had assemblages dated exclusively to this period (Table 7.11). The types of artifacts found in these single period assemblages (Table 7.12) show that Navajo and historic Puebloan ceramics have declined in frequency to the point of being novelties, while chipped and ground stone are absent altogether. The late occurrence of the Navajo and historic Pueblo pottery types found at 1930-1980 period components suggests that most of these ceramics reflect either heirloom vessels or sherds collected by residents (Table 7.13). Zia Polychrome, found at one component, continued to be produced and may be an exception.

¶ 78   Replacing these Native artifacts, are Euro-American manufactured items (92 percent). Because the majority of Euro-American artifacts were found at components that were occupied during both post-Bosque Redondo periods, it is difficult to identify trends in Euro-American artifacts over time with confidence. Nonetheless, a few general observations are possible. A count of the categories of Euro-American items found at components occupied after 1930 (95 categories of artifacts) shows an increase of about 17 percent when compared to a count of the categories at pre-1930 components (79 in the 1868-1930 period) (Table 7.15). This is partially a reflection of the proliferation of manufactured products available to consumers, but it is also a reflection of an ability and willingness to consume them. Soda pop cans, lotion bottles, medicine jars, glass and china serving dishes, motor oil and anti-freeze cans, tooth powder and tooth paste tubes, steel drums (cut down for use as stoves), flashlights and batteries, air mattresses, paint can openers, staples and nails, wire, automobile tires and tire patching kits, vaccine bottles (presumably for livestock inoculations), watches, eyeglass lenses and dog collars, although not necessarily post-dating 1930, are all signals of the increasing participation of Chaco’s Navajo residents in the American consumer economy.

Artifact Functional Categories

Functional Categories by Site Type

¶ 79   It was anticipated that the various types of components documented by the survey would produce artifact assemblages that reflected their use. Habitation assemblages would consist of a broad range of artifacts reflecting the many domestic activities that occurred at these components. Temporary camps, as short-term camps, would also produce evidence of domestic activities, although the range of artifacts would be less, reflecting their shorter occupancy. Special use components, used for only one or a few activities, would have a much more truncated range of artifacts reflecting those specific uses.

¶ 80   In order to determine if these anticipated assemblages differences were supported by the artifact data, the historic artifact assemblages were sorted into nine general functional categories shown in Table 7.16. Category 1 consists of food, food preparation and storage items and embraces a broad range of disposable food containers, food preparation and serving items, food storage containers and food remains. Category 2 includes clothing, personal hygiene items, medicines, lotions, tobacco and other items of a personal nature. Category 3 contains a wide variety of hardware and domestic maintenance items such nails and screws, wire, tools, lanterns, axes, buckets, milled wood and metal. Category 4 consists of hogan, tent or shelter furnishings such as tables, stools, storage boxes, hangers, and window glass and screens. Category 5 encompasses wagon and car parts, as well as products needed to maintain them. Category 6 includes barbed wire, bridles and harnesses, sheep rattles, troughs, and fence posts related to husbandry of domestic animals. Category 7 is child’s play and is limited to children’s toys. Several doll or play houses constructed of stone and sticks were found by the survey (see Chapter 6) but were classified as features rather than artifacts. Category 8 concerns hunting and is limited to hunting implements such as projectile points and gun cartridges. Category 9 includes a wide range of other or unknown artifacts which either had a variety of potential uses that made pigeon-holing them difficult, or their uses were unknown, or as in items like dog collars and glass insulators, they did not readily fit into the other general categories. Included within this miscellany are Anasazi sherds, pebbles, and fossilized shark’s teeth. Brugge suggests that Anasazi sherds and pebbles may have been collected and brought to sites by children (Brugge 1986:115, 127), and it seems plausible that the shark’s teeth may have arrived at sites in the same way. However, since it was impossible to determine how these items were used, they were placed in the other/unknown category.

Table 7.16. Specific artifact types grouped by general functional artifact categories.

¶ 81   Table 7.17 shows the number of artifact categories present at each site type by time period for all components that could be dated to a single time period. Figure 7.4 presents the same information graphically. In the table, the number of components of a particular type is shown on the left, and under each column heading, the number of components with artifacts of that functional category is indicated. The far right column shows the total number of categories represented by artifacts at a given site type. For example, during the 1600-1700 time period, there are two hearth components. Artifacts from the food, food preparation, and storage (hereafter referred to simply as food preparation), hardware/domestic maintenance (hereafter domestic maintenance), hunting, and other/unknown categories occurred at each of the components. The analysis, as such, is intended to provide a picture of the range of activities that occurred at a given site type, and to show whether these activities change over time.

Table 7.17. Navajo and historic site types by time period with number of general functional categories. Components occupied during two or more time periods are excluded.

Figure 7.4. Functional artifact categories by site type for three historic time periods. Number of cases is shown under each graph.

¶ 82   For the 1700-1863 period, Table 7.17 reveals that every component had food preparation artifacts. The second most common category, other/unknown artifacts, were present at slightly over 60 percent of the components. Smaller proportions of components have domestic maintenance and hunting artifacts. From the perspective of site type, single and multiple habitations, temporary shelters, unidentified structures, hearth/ovens, sherds scatters and stone features have artifacts of up to three or four functional categories, although most individual components of each type have fewer functional categories. For example, all five single habitations had artifacts in the food preparation and other/unknown categories, but only two had domestic maintenance artifacts and only one had hunting artifacts.

¶ 83   Most components with more specialized functions, such as rock art and storage, have one or two functional categories, but there are also only one or two components of each of these types. It is worth noting that artifacts such as Anasazi ceramics, debitage, utilized/retouched flakes, bifaces, flakes, miscellaneous shaped stone, and cores, all present in assemblages of 1600-1700 and 1700-1863 components, were placed in the other/unknown category because it was difficult to determine how or if (particularly in the case of debitage and flakes) these items were used.

¶ 84   During the 1868-1930 period, functional artifact category distributions show more variation both between and within site types, a change which at least in part reflects the addition of Euro-American artifacts to most assemblages. Eighty percent of the components from this period have food preparation artifacts, while 40 percent have personal items, 27 percent domestic maintenance artifacts and another 32 percent have other/unknown items. The drop in representation of other/unknown items is a reflection of the decline in lithic artifacts which made up a large proportion of the items in this category during the preceding 1700-1863 period. All of the remaining functional categories are represented at one or more components, although the frequencies of components with furnishing, transport, animal husbandry, child’s play and hunting artifacts are low. Single and multiple habitations, temporary shelters, Euro-American refuse scatters, and road trail components have totals of from five to eight functional artifact categories, although many of the components making up each type have fewer functional categories. Of the nine single habitations, for example, eight have food preparation artifacts, but only one or two components have artifacts in the remaining four categories. Most of the components with a lower number of artifact categories are again more specialized site types such as rock art, storage, hearth/ovens, woodcutting areas and doll houses.

¶ 85   In the 1930-1980 time period many of the same trends continue. Food preparation artifacts are again present at most components (87 percent), while other/unknown (48 percent), domestic maintenance (29 percent) and personal (21 percent) artifacts are common. Furnishing, transport, animal husbandry and hunting artifacts are present at a few components. Single and multiple habitations, temporary shelters, stockholding facilities, Euro-American refuse, rock art, and sweat lodge components have up to four to eight functional artifact categories, although individually most components have artifacts of only one or two categories. Most special use components have less than three functional artifact categories.

¶ 86   Looking at all of the time periods, it is clear that the range of functional artifact categories becomes more diverse over time from the 1700-1863 period where assemblages are composed exclusively of Native artifacts, to the later post-Bosque Redondo time periods when Euro-American manufactured items become dominant. Much of this reflects the increasing use and variety of Euro-American consumer goods over time.

¶ 87   Habitation components have relatively high total numbers of artifact categories during all three periods, while special use components often, but not always, have fewer functional categories. A variety of site types which functioned as short-term camps including temporary shelters, unidentified structures, stockholding features, hearth/ovens, sherd scatters and Euro-American refuse scatters, have artifact category totals that fluctuate from high to low total numbers of artifact categories from period to period. Some of the specialized site types such as sweat lodges, road/trails, stone features, and rock art also have artifact category totals that fluctuate over time from high to low totals.

¶ 88   Since it was expected that the assemblages of habitations, and to a lesser extent, those of temporary camps, would include artifacts from a broad range of domestic activities, the generally higher totals at habitations and at some temporary camp meet initial expectations. The lesser total numbers of artifact categories found at some special use components are also consistent with our expectations, but what is interesting is the frequent lack of correlation between the inferred function of these components, based on the presumed use of their architectural features, and the artifacts found on them. Storage components, presumably used for storage of food stuffs (and perhaps non-food items as well), did consistently produce food related items, but so did rock art components, where food related artifacts were not foreseen. Perhaps even more unexpected, the nine stockholding components in the post-1868 periods did not yield a single animal husbandry artifact, but produced plenty of food related items and even a few personal artifacts. Since the stockholding components were classified as one of several types of temporary camps, the presence of food and personal items is probably less surprising than one might initially think, but still the total absence of stock raising items was unexpected.

¶ 89   Several conclusions may be drawn from these results. First and foremost, food items, indicated by pottery at early components, and later by disposable cans and glass containers, occur almost everywhere, while personal, domestic maintenance and other/unknown artifacts are present some of the time, and furnishing, transport, animal husbandry, and hunting artifacts are present occasionally or rarely. Second and equally evident is the great range of variability in the number of functional categories between different assemblages of the same site type. Some habitation assemblages have artifacts reflecting a broad range of functional categories, while others have artifacts of only one or two categories. Third, and by no means least, temporary camps and special use components have artifacts that sometimes seem to bear little direct relationship to the architectural features at hand, with stock raising components being a case in point.

¶ 90   In order to better understand these findings, it may help to begin by evaluating two factors that probably did effect the results at some components during some time periods. At pre-1863 components, the small number of functional categories is partially a result of our inability to assign a specific function to many of the chipped stone artifacts. While this has reduced the number of functional categories at components with lithic artifacts, it does not explain the variability in assemblages (the same lithic artifact types were assigned to other/unknown at every component) or the functional disconnect between features and artifacts at late 19th and 20th century components without lithic artifacts.

¶ 91   Another factor at 19th century components, is the intentional removal of discarded objects, like pottery, from components in accordance with the proscriptions of Blessingway (Brugge 1981a:15; 1986:93,140, 156 ). The custom of removing artifacts from habitations in particular has probably reduced the number of artifacts and the range of functional artifact categories, but interestingly, it does not seem to have had much of an impact on our ability to identify food preparation artifacts, such as pottery, which were found at most components, albeit perhaps in reduced quantities. It is also difficult to see how this practice could be responsible for the variability in functional categories or the relationship of features to artifacts at 20th century components dominated by Euro-American artifacts, or at temporary camp components whose assemblages may be the product of use by Spanish-American herders.

¶ 92   An alternate perspective for interpreting our findings is provided by Klara Kelley’s innovative ethnohistorical study of the Gallo Wash Mine Lease area (1982), located several miles to the northeast of the Chacra Mesa survey area. By conducting detailed interviews with informants about the kinds of food and equipment that were used on Navajo homesteads and camps, as well as herding camps used by Spanish-American herders working for Ed Sargent, Kelley was able to directly compare inventories of the items used on a site with the items that were actually found there by archaeologists (1982: Table 29). What her results consistently show, regardless of site type, is that the artifacts found are but a fraction of the items that were used on the site. Perishable foods, for example, that did not come in cans or jars are almost never represented, although they accounted for the majority of food consumed by the occupants of the lease area, regardless of ethnicity. Pots and pans, dishes, and utensils were found and did provide archaeological evidence of food preparation, but as Kelley (1982:327, 332) notes “such items rarely appear on any one site and the inventory of culinary technology therefore can only be inferred from a large sample of sites of a particular type or from a smaller number of sites occupied for long periods.” Although the ethnohistoric and archaeological inventories of domestic furnishings were rather similar in aggregate for Sargent’s herding camps (the most common site type), individual camps tended to produce only stoves and lights [lanterns?], if anything.

¶ 93   Based on these results, Kelley reaches several conclusions: 1) the larger the number of sites of a given type, the more complete the inventory of items used; 2) the longer a site is occupied, the more complete the inventory of artifacts; and 3) the artifacts most likely to enter the archaeological record are those used most often. In the Gallo Wash lease these included disposable food containers, food preparation items, and artifacts related to transportation (Kelley 1982:332-333).

¶ 94   Kelley’s results help us to understand the findings of our functional category analysis in several respects. First, few if any of the Chaco Additions survey components occur in sufficient numbers to give us anything that approaches a complete inventory of the artifacts used on a site type. Cumulatively, habitations have artifacts from all of the functional artifact categories, and temporary camps have artifacts from many of the functional groups, but even when all the assemblages are combined, many functional artifact categories, such as furnishings, transport, animal husbandry and child’s play are poorly represented. In turn, the special use site types have such varied purposes and occurred in such small numbers that looking at their assemblages in aggregate provides little help.

¶ 95   Kelley also argues that the longer a site is occupied, the more complete its artifact assemblage will be. The issue of longevity or occupation duration also seems to be a particularly important consideration for the Chaco Additions assemblages. Not only does the duration of occupation appear to have varied substantially between site types, but it varied from one component to another. Among the Chaco Additions habitation components for example, informants identified 29Mc 391, 29SJ 2471, and 29SJ 2700 as being occupied for one, two, and three years, respectively (Appendix 8.1; Table 8.1a). Site 29Mc 391 had a total of 19 artifacts in six functional categories, 20SJ 2471 had eight artifacts in two functional categories, while 29SJ 2700 had 22 artifacts from five functional categories. At the other end of the habitation occupation continuum is site 29SJ 2966 which appears to have been occupied during the winters almost continuously from the early 1930s to the early-1950s. It had 1,305 artifacts from all nine functional categories. While none of these assemblages by any means contains the full range of material goods used at these components, they do give us a gross sense of how length of occupation affects assemblage size and the range of artifact categories at components that are functionally equivalent. The assemblage at 29SJ 2966, which was the product of around 20 years of occupation, gives a much more complete picture of use of this site than do the smaller assemblages.

¶ 96   In contrast to habitations, occupation of temporary camps ranged from days to months. The duration of occupation of herding camps, which probably account for the majority of temporary camps identified by the Chaco Additions survey, may have been dependent in part on herd size. In the Gallo Wash Mine Lease area, Kelley reports that herders working for stockmen with large herds, such as Hastiin Ts’osi and Ed Sargent, moved their camps about every three days to two weeks, dependent on grass and water availability (1982:239, Table 18, 319, 320). In contrast, camps used by Navajo families with small herds were occupied for at least a month, and often longer (Kelley 1982:246, Table 18).

¶ 97   Within the Chaco Additions survey areas camps were presumably used similarly since some of the herders were the same. It is also clear from our survey data that some campsites, particularly those with abandoned hogans or corrals were used over a number of years by a variety of herders. This pattern of reuse is supported both by informants (see Chapter 8), and archaeologically by numerous name and date inscriptions spanning years or decades (Appendix 6.1, Table 9). Thus, while temporary camps were used for short periods, they were often used repeatedly and probably by different herders.

¶ 98   Activities at most special use components, such as trails, storage rooms, rock art panels or sweat lodges, insofar as we understand their purposes from physical features alone, were probably limited to short periods of activity, although use in many instances probably occurred repeatedly.

¶ 99   Given the great differences in duration of use both between different types of components, and between individual components, it seems reasonable to suggest that much of the variation in assemblage size and functional artifact categories, particularly between individual components of the same type, is the result not only of the activities that occurred there, but of the length of time over which they transpired.

¶ 100   Third and last, Kelley concludes that the artifacts most likely to be found in the archaeological record are those that were used most often. Based on Mills’s study of ceramic assemblages presented earlier in this volume (Chapter 4), and other “accumulations research” (Mills 1994; Powers et al. 1999; Schiffer 1987; Schlanger 1990, 1991; Varien and Mills1997) it is clear that frequency of use is not as critical as the use-life of an artifact, although the frequency with which an item is used certainly helps determine its use-life. Artifacts such as glass and can food containers are discarded much more quickly, and thus have shorter use-lives than a kerosene lantern or a cook stove, which even though it may be used every day is likely to be used for months or years before it is discarded.

¶ 101   Thus, particularly at temporary camps and special use components that were occupied for relatively short periods of time, the artifact assemblage will consist primarily of items whose use-lives were short, with the addition of a few longer lived items that happened to wear out while the component was in use. Artifacts with longer use-lives are therefore less frequent and are most likely to be found at components with long occupation spans. This helps to explain the ubiquity of disposable food containers as well as the dearth of artifacts from functional categories like furnishing, transportation and animal husbandry, which include many artifacts with long use-lives, such as doors, tables, wagons, tires, harnesses and saddles.

¶ 102   In sum, components that were occupied for long periods of time have large artifact accumulations which include a broad, but homogeneous assemblage (homogeneous because over longer periods of time disposal patterns stabilize) of artifacts that are more apt to accurately reflect the activities that occurred there, while assemblages from components that were occupied briefly are mixture of mostly short with a few longer lived artifacts, whose presence is contingent on the highly circumstantial events of a few hours or days.

Functional Categories by Feature Type

¶ 103   While it is useful to know what kinds of artifact assemblages occur at particular site types, the relationship of artifacts to individual features making up a component presents an equally important, and complementary perspective, albeit one fraught with many of the same difficulties encountered at the component level. Since many components contain multiple features with artifacts, a fine-grained, feature perspective is necessary if we are to understand where artifacts were found within a component. In Table 7.18, the distribution of functional artifact categories is shown by feature type for all single time period components. A graphic presentation of the same information is shown in Figure 7.5, with some merging of rare feature types.

Table 7.18. Navajo and historic feature types by time period with number of general functional categories. Components occupied during two or more time periods are excluded.

Figure 7.5. Functional artifact categories by feature type for three historic time periods. Number of cases is shown under each graph.

¶ 104   For the 1700-1863 time period, Table 7.18 shows that slightly over half (54 percent) of the features containing artifacts were refuse features, and among these, general site scatters, pot drops, and sherd scatters were the most frequent kinds of refuse deposits. Lithic scatters, sherd and lithic scatters, and general site scatters have artifacts from the largest number of functional categories. The food preparation and other/unknown artifact categories are most common, but a few components also have domestic maintenance and hunting artifacts.

¶ 105   General site scatters, as the name implies are general scatters of artifacts that could not be definitively associated with any particular feature or structure, are usually of low artifact density, and often covered an entire component. Sherd scatters, lithic scatters, and sherd and lithic scatters are usually spatially limited to a portion of a component. Pot drops consist of one or a few broken vessels concentrated in a small area. Ash heaps, generally associated with hogans or other temporary camp features are composed of ash and charcoal, and depending on the time period, also include sherds, lithics, bone, or Euro-American artifacts.

¶ 106   During the 1700-1863 period a wide range of non-refuse features also had artifacts, although the number of non-refuse features with artifacts is slightly less (31 features or about 47 percent of all features). Among the non-refuse features, hogans and hearths most commonly have artifacts, and of all the non-refuse types, hogans also have the broadest range of functional artifact categories. Proportionately, the functional artifact categories are fairly evenly distributed between refuse and non-refuse features during the period. Almost all features, refuse and non-refuse, have food preparation artifacts, while a substantial proportion in both groups also have other/unknown artifacts. Among the non-refuse features, almost all of the domestic maintenance and hunting artifacts were found at hogans.

¶ 107   During the 1868-1930 time period, Table 7.18 reveals the beginning of a substantial shift in the pattern of refuse disposal. Seventy-three percent of the features with artifacts are now refuse features, and of these, general site scatters are dominant. Pot drops are the only other common refuse feature. Cumulatively, general site scatters contain artifacts from every functional category. Pot drops, sherd and lithic scatters, ash heaps and refuse scatters also have varied assemblages, but the range of artifact types at individual features is highly variable. Among all refuse features, only artifacts in the food preparation (82 percent), personal (25 percent) and other/unknown categories (29 percent) occur at more than one-quarter of the features.

¶ 108   Correspondingly, the occurrence of artifacts at non-refuse features plummets to about 27 percent of all features, although hogans remain the most common structural feature with artifacts. Hogans continue to display a broad variety of functional artifact categories, although only food preparation items are present with regularity. Comparison of the functional categories between refuse scatters and non-refuse features shows that all but two infrequent categories, furnishings and child’s play, are present at both. Proportionately, domestic maintenance items are more common at the non-refuse features, and similarly, other/unknown items are more common in refuse features, but given the small samples, it is difficult to attach much significance to either difference.

¶ 109   The change in refuse disposal practices becomes even more pronounced in the 1930-1980 time period. Here, 81 percent of the features with artifacts are refuse features, with general site scatters overwhelmingly dominant (38 of 48 refuse features). Apart from general site scatters, sherd and lithic scatters are the only refuse type to show any functional category variety. Artifacts found at general site scatters bracket all the categories except child’s play, but only the food preparation and other/unknown categories are present at 25 percent or more of the general site scatters.

¶ 110   Only 11 non-refuse features produced artifacts, with hogans and sweat lodges accounting for half of these proveniences. As in previous periods, hogans show the most functional variety, followed closely by sweat lodges. Given the small numbers of non-refuse features with artifacts, it is difficult to compare the proportions of functional artifact categories between refuse and non-refuse features without suspecting that the differences are a product of sample size.

¶ 111   Overall, the relationship of artifacts to features changes over time in an unanticipated, but rather interesting way. Artifacts become increasingly disassociated from specific features over time. During the 1700-1863 period, 25 of the 35 (71 percent) refuse features are discrete entities limited in spatial extent, which can often be associated with one or more structural features at the component.

¶ 112   By the 1868-1930 period, however, the number of these discrete refuse features (14 of 44 refuse features; 32 percent) has declined substantially. During this period, general site scatters, which often cover much, if not all of the area of a component, and which by definition cannot be associated with particular component features, become dominant. The pattern continues in the 1930-1980 period, when general site scatters account for 81 percent of the refuse features. This shift appears to go hand-in-hand with smaller assemblages and increasing use and disposal of mass produced Euro-American artifacts during the two periods. The smaller assemblages, as was discussed in the component functional category analysis, are probably indicative of shorter occupations.

¶ 113   Based on ethnohistorical research at !Kung Basarwa camps, Kent (1992:641) argues that inhabitants do not establish formal refuse areas at sites where they anticipate a short stay. Instead discarded items are “deposited as sheet trash across the site.” The general site scatters typical of later historic period Chaco Additions components appear to duplicate this pattern. The impression one gets from examining the refuse on these components is that disposal took place wherever an item’s usefulness ended. While a proportion of artifacts did continue to find their way into more formal, spatially limited refuse features, particularly at habitations (as will be seen in the 29SJ 2966 discussion), disposal at most components appears unpatterned.

¶ 114   Inasmuch as a pattern of opportune disposal appears to have been practiced at many components it is important to acknowledge that it has been aided by wind and water erosion which have transported cans, and to a lesser extent, glass and other materials hundreds of meters from their probable disposal locations, particularly on components with exposed or sloping terrain. Inhabitants, livestock, and scavenging animals have also undoubtedly further scattered artifacts in ways, that although they are difficult to identify, have inadvertently created low density landscape scatters in portions of the survey areas. As will be seen at site 29SJ 2966, our inability to discriminate this “background refuse” from artifacts associated with features may be a significant complicating factor in the interpretation of feature assemblages.

¶ 115   Nonetheless, it is clear that some features do have assemblages that clearly reflect their use. Pot drops, sherd scatters, lithic scatters, sherd and lithic scatters, and ash heaps reflect a variety of domestic activities, centered around food preparation, domestic maintenance and other/unknown artifacts. Pot drops and sherd scatters, because they are dominated by ceramic containers, are the most functionally specific, while sherd and lithic scatters, lithic scatters, and ash heaps are sometimes more functionally varied due to the broader range of artifact types they contain.

¶ 116   Among non-refuse features, hogans have cumulatively broad assemblages, which include food preparation, domestic maintenance, hunting, and other/unknown artifacts in all three periods, as well as personal and animal husbandry items in the post-Bosque Redondo periods. Other non-refuse features exhibit few functional categories, a probable reflection of their small numbers. Food preparation artifacts are the only consistent type. Like component assemblages, it seems clear that many feature assemblages are more reflective of short occupations and small numbers of artifacts than they are of the activities that were performed on them.

29SJ 2966 — A Large Habitation

¶ 117   This portion of the analysis provides a detailed examination of 29SJ 2966, a large multiple habitation located on the northeast slope of Chacra Mesa. The site1111 [CLOSE]Technically, the Navajo features and artifacts at 29SJ 2966 are a component, but since its former residents are known and willingly shared information about their life here, it seems awkward, if not impolite, to refer to their former home as a “component.” So, the somewhat less objectionable “site” is used throughout. has 12 hogans, 17 ash heaps, and a variety of other features including corrals, woodcutting areas, animal pens and hearths (see Figure 6. 11 for a map of the site). Brugge, who refers to 29SJ 2966 as “Site K” included the site in his Tsegai survey (1986:39-40). Informant interviews conducted by Brugge (1986) and York (see Chapter 8) have provided valuable information on the site’s inhabitants, its chronology, and use of its many structures. This combination of ethnohistorical and archaeological information provide further illustration of the imperfect and often ambiguous relationship between surface artifacts and site features.

¶ 118   Ethnographic information tells us that this site was a winter habitation used by the descendants of Choche (Navajo George) (see Chapter 8). Most of the known inhabitants of the site appear to have been related either by blood or marriage to Willie George, or his sister, Katherine Mescalito, who were grandchildren of Choche. Neither Willie nor Katherine appear to have lived at the site during its entire period of occupation which extended from the early 1930s to the early 1950s.

¶ 119   Archaeological evidence raises the possibility of some pre-1930 use of the site. Dinetah Gray sherds (1700-1850) and a Zuni Polychrome (1850-1920) bowl sherd were found in association with four features at the site, but with the possible exception of the sherds found near Hogan 4, all of the Dinetah sherds probably reflect heirloom vessels or sherds collected by the inhabitants, since production and use of Dinetah had largely ceased by 1800 (Brugge 1981b: 86-87). Bottle fragments of aqua glass, made between 1880-1910 were found in two ash heaps, and purple glass made between 1880-1925 was found in a third. Together, these artifacts may indicate some pre-1930 use of the site, although no other Euro-American artifacts of comparable date were found with them.

¶ 120   As shown in Table 7.19, approximately 1,305 artifacts were found associated with a broad range of hogans, ash heaps and other features at 29SJ 2966. All of the ash heaps at 29SJ 2966 contained substantial amounts of burned bone. No attempt to count or identify this material was made. The following overview provides a detailed picture of the chronology and use of features at the site. All of the informant data is drawn from Chapter 8, and Appendix 8.1 in particular. Lists of the artifacts by provenience are presented in Appendix 7.5.

Table 7.19. Features at 29SJ 2966 arranged by classes showing functional categories of artifacts with approximate date and number of artifacts.

Hogan 1

¶ 121   This hogan was built in 1945 or 1946 when the residents, Charlie and Annabelle (daughter of Rafael and Katherine Mescalito) Atencio were first married, and was occupied until 1953. Ash heap 1 and Woodcutting Area 1 were products of the family’s activities. Storage structure 4, a small enclosure of roughly piled masonry located against a talus boulder behind the hogan produced no artifacts but was used as a lamb pen. Storage Room 3, another small enclosure of roughly stacked masonry with a roof (also built against a talus boulder) was used as a chicken house.

¶ 122   As shown in Table 7.19, artifact dates for the hogan (1935-1960) and ash heap (1930-) suggest a longer time span than was indicated by the informants. The artifact date range at this hogan as well as others at 29SJ 2966 should probably not be taken as a true indication of its duration of use; instead it is a reflection of the long production spans of many of the Euro-American artifacts found on the site. At this hogan and others where there is some informant data, the actual interval of occupation appears to be much shorter than that indicated by the artifacts. Artifacts from the Hogan 1, the ash heap, and woodcutting area include all of the nine functional artifact categories except for personal items and child’s play

¶ 123   As an example of the risks inherent in trying to interpret the function of a specific feature based on the artifacts associated with it, the chicken house is instructive. It produced an assemblage consisting of the fragments of several bottles, an assortment of other broken glass, a shepherd’s stove, a battery, some evaporated milk and sanitary cans, a shoe, a steel drum, and a piece of chipped stone (angular debris). Unless some of the glass or cans were provided as water or food containers for the chickens, it seems unlikely that any of these artifacts had a direct relationship to the chicken house.

Hogan 2

¶ 124   This hogan was built in the fall of 1946 and was occupied by Rafael and Katherine Mescalito until 1954. The roof was constructed using wood from one of the earlier many-legged hogans at the site. One informant indicated that he occasionally used the hogan as a hunting camp when the Mescalito’s were not there (possibly after 1954). Ash heaps 3 and 7, Storage Room 1, and Woodcutting Area 2 appear to have been used in association with the hogan. The artifact assemblages associated with the hogan and two ash heaps suggests a date range of approximately 1930 to 1955 or 1960, a time range which is considerably longer than that indicated by the informants.

¶ 125   The feature identified as Storage Room 1 by the field crew was identified by informants as a dog house. This small, circular masonry structure with partially collapsed walls had several pieces of axe-cut wood that appeared to have once formed a roof. Several associated artifacts (3 Dinetah Gray jar sherds, 1 piece of metal, a bottle, and 2 wagon parts) provided no real clue to its use either at the time of recording, or in hindsight. 1212 [CLOSE]A leather strap possibly representing a homemade dog collar was found at site 29SJ 2993, located immediately to the south of 29SJ 2966.

¶ 126   Artifacts from the four features around the hogan include all artifact categories except for child’s play. Food preparation (canned goods, an egg carton, cooking ware, enamel ware, porcelain, a shepherds’ stove, and sections of stove pipe), domestic maintenance (a hinge, a padlock, a nail, a metal pipe, a rubber hose, a shovel, and pieces of wire), furnishing (a child’s chair, a wall hanger, a door , a table, and two wooden boxes) animal husbandry (two harness rivets), and transportation items (three unidentified wagon parts) were found at the hogan itself.

¶ 127   Notable among the nearly 150 items associated with Ash heap 7 is a windshield wiper, which may indicate that the residents had a car or truck during the latter years of the site’s history. While the wagon road leading to the site is primitive, Gwinn Vivian (see endnote 6, Chapter 6) reports that his father Gordon drove a truck up similar roads on Chacra Mesa in the 1950s. While Vivian believed that none of the Navajos on Chacra had motor vehicles, the windshield wiper and other car related artifacts described below suggest that at least one car or truck was used at the site.

Hogan 3

¶ 128   Charlie and Annabelle Atencio moved to this hogan “in about 1953,” because one of the roof poles in Hogan 1 had broken. While the date of construction of this hogan is unclear, it is said to have been constructed with materials salvaged from Hogan 6. It appears to have been previously occupied by Tissie Yazzie, his wife and son, although a date of 1945 for their occupancy is uncertain.

¶ 129   This was one of the last occupied hogans at the site, and when the survey crew inventoried its contents in 1984 it contained two wooden boxes, three hand-made hangers, a metal box nailed to the wall, a toy wagon, a shepherd’s stove, several pieces of stove pipe, two steel drums (used as stoves; see Brugge1986:39), and a piece of window screen. According to informants the metal box (nailed to the wall) was used to hold hand soap; its bottom portion was formerly used as a lunch box. The three handmade hangers were used to support the upper part of a weaving loom. A car headlight and brake fluid can provide further evidence of an automobile.

¶ 130   Ash heaps 5 and 17, dated between 1930-1955 or 1960, appear to have been the refuse piles used by the hogan’s inhabitants. Personal items (a watch, shoes and buttons), domestic maintenance artifacts (a lighter fluid can, a hinge, a steel drum) and objects of other or unknown purpose (a wire spool) were part of the widely varied assemblage found on the surface of the refuse features. Although wire spools were relegated to the unknown category, one informant indicated that bailing wire and wire spools were used to make cooking grills.1313 [CLOSE]Barbed wire used for fencing was rolled on spools made of heavy gauge wire. In addition to the spools found at 29SJ 2966, another was found at 29SJ 2950, also on Chacra Mesa. The spools were likely left over from fencing of the Monument or fences constructed by Ed Sargent, a local rancher who fenced his holdings to keep out Navajo stock.

¶ 131   Corral 2, enclosed by posts and barbed wire, is located to the north of the hogan and according to informants was used for about 20 horses. It contained a central hitching (?) post, a log trough and a sheep rattle.

¶ 132   Although the survey saw no trace of it, one informant indicated that there had once been a tent between the hogan and the corral, a fact that conveniently explains the presence of Ash heap 6. Although the survey crew attributed this ash heap to Hogan 3, the ash heap is about 25 meters north of the hogan, and in retrospect it seems more likely that it was used by the tent’s occupants. Like the ash heaps associated with the hogan, this feature was dated to about 1935-1955.

¶ 133   Apart from the few corral associated artifacts, no animal husbandry items were present in any of the refuse assemblages related to Hogan 3. In contrast to Hogans 1 and 2, child’s play artifacts were found at both Hogan 3 and Ash heap 6.

Hogan 4

¶ 134   This probable structure was described by the survey crew as a slight depression with sandstone spalls covering an area four meters in diameter. The informants did not have any information on it, although one thought it might be the remains of an old hogan, a conclusion reached earlier by Brugge (1974, field notes). Ash heap 4, located directly to the east, was dated after 1930, based on a small number of datable artifacts. This deposit also contained the bulk of the Dinetah Gray sherds described above, but no other early artifacts. Immediately north of this possible hogan, and almost certainly post-dating it and the ash heap is a large corral (with a trough) used by the Mescalitos for their sheep. Artifacts of only four functional categories were found in Ash heap 4.

Hogan 5

¶ 135   Hogan 5 was identified by the survey crew on the basis of its circular depression, and since nothing remained of the structure, it was assumed to have been torn down and its materials salvaged for use elsewhere at the site. One of the informants, however, said that while construction of a hogan was started by John Padilla (Charlie Atencio’s uncle), work never progressed past excavation of the floor area. As such, it seems likely that the artifacts found in the vicinity of Hogan 5 are refuse scattered from nearby structures. Ash heap 5, which the crew assumed was Hogan 5's disposal area, was instead probably created by the inhabitants of Hogan 3.

Hogan 6

¶ 136   This was the hogan of Willie George and his wife Betty. According to informants the Georges lived here until 1934 when the “fence” restricting livestock access to a nearby spring was built (see Brugge 1986:40). They then left, but returned two years later, and “built separately on the east side,” although it is not clear where. Features used in association with the hogan include Ash Heap 12, Storage Room 5, Slab/FCR scatters 2 and 5, and Corral 3. According to one informant, Storage Room 5, located some distance to the east of the hogan was used as a chicken house. Like the other chicken house (near Hogan 1), this structure had a scatter of apparently associated artifacts, which in hindsight appear to have had nothing to do with it, and instead appear to be part of the general scatter of refuse blanketing the site.

¶ 137   Ash Heap 12 is dated between 1920-1930, a span that fits with Willie George’s departure in 1934. It seems likely that Hogan 6, the ash heap and the surrounding features form one of the earlier residence units at the site. Artifacts from all nine functional categories were found in the ash heap. Among the artifacts associated with the hogan and ash heap are food preparation (cans, glass, bottles, jars, a lard bucket, screw on cap/lids, earthenware, porcelain, and a thermos), personal (buttons, an eyeglass lens, glass beads, a plastic bead or button, a shell button, a shoe, and medicine bottles), furnishing (a wall hanger and a trunk lock), domestic maintenance (a battery, nails, wire), transportation (tires), child’s play (a porcelain figurine), animal husbandry (harness rivet, a sheep rattle) and hunting (a cartridge) artifacts.

Hogan 7

¶ 138   This hogan was described by the field crew as an “ill-defined structure” consisting of a depression 5 meters in diameter. According to one informant the hogan was Rafael Mescalito’s hogan and was occupied for a short time. Associated with it are Ash heap 9 (1930-) and Woodcutting Area 4. Relatively few artifacts were found with these features, and artifacts of only four of the nine functional categories were present. Most of the artifacts are food oriented (aluminum foil, bottle fragments, a coffee can, an evaporated milk can, a glass jar, sanitary cans), although a wall hanger is also present. The small assemblage and narrow range of artifacts appear to support a short period of use.

Hogan 8

¶ 139   This was the first hogan of Rafael and Katherine Mescalito at 29SJ 2966, and according to one informant it was a many-legged hogan used for approximately 10 years. At the time of the survey it had been reduced to a “mounded, earthen ring” five meters in diameter. The same informant said that “it was still there in 1945” a comment that may indicate that while it was still standing, it was no longer occupied. Ash heap 8 and Woodcutting Area 5 are directly adjacent, but neither of these features nor the hogan itself produced many artifacts, in apparent contradiction to the relatively lengthy period of use attributed to the hogan by the informant. Artifacts associated with the hogan suggest a post-1930 date.

Hogan 9

¶ 140   This hogan was indicated by a mounded ring of soil with some remaining wall stones and roofing debris. One informant thought it was a many-legged hogan or a ramada, although the former seems more likely since the field crew observed a “slight break” in the eastern portion of the ring — a gap interpreted as a doorway. The same informant didn’t know who occupied the hogan, although he speculated they it may have been an early hogan belonging to Willie George. Another informant indicated that a “many-legged hogan to [the] northwest” was where Tissie Yazzie lived in the 1940s. Since this hogan is on the northwest edge of the site (see Figure 6.11) it may be the hogan the informant was referring to. Ash heap 14 and Woodcutting area 7 are nearby. The ash heap produced a substantial artifact assemblage which was dated between 1910-1930, with the early inception date based on three pieces of aqua glass. Artifacts from four functional categories are represented, including food preparation and domestic maintenance (a hacksaw blade).

Hogan 10

¶ 141   This appears to have been a stone hogan although only parts of one course of masonry remained at the time of the survey. Beyond noting that it was “older,” informants could provide no information. Immediately east of the structure is Ash heap 15, which although containing few artifacts, also produced an aqua glass bottle, suggesting a relatively early date of 1910-1930. Food preparation, hunting and other/unknown artifacts are present.

Hogan 11

¶ 142   Described by the survey crew as a low mound of dirt enclosing a central depression roughly five meters in diameter, this hogan is associated with Ash heap 11 and Woodcutting Area 6. The informants could not provide any information on it. Artifacts associated with the hogan and ash heap suggest a post-1930 date. The range of artifacts is limited to food preparation, personal (one comb) and other/unknown items.

Hogan 12

¶ 143   This hogan, located on the north edge of the site, was described by the crew as “another ring [of earth] with scattered former roofing wood.” The structure was not mentioned by the informants. Associated with it are Ash heap 16 and Woodcutting Area 8, in addition to Hearth 1 and Unidentified structure 3. Although artifacts were associated with the hogan, ash heap and unidentified structure, no dates could be assigned. Artifacts are limited to food preparation, personal, domestic maintenance and other/unknown categories.

¶ 144   In addition to the features mentioned above that could be directly linked to one of the dozen hogans at the site, several other features should be mentioned in passing. Ash heap 2, located northeast of Hogan 1, contained abundant charcoal and ash, but no other artifacts. Ash Heap 10, located north of Hogan 8, is isolated from all other features, but is its refuse is presumably indicative of the presence of a hogan, tent or temporary structure of which no trace now remains. It contained a purple glass bottle (in addition to more recent glass) produced sometime between 1880 and 1925, providing another hint of possible pre-1930 use of the site.

29SJ 2966 Summary

¶ 145   Looking at the distribution of refuse at 29SJ 2966 as a whole, Table 7.19 shows that about 54 percent of the site assemblage was found in ash heaps, while 21 percent was found in and around hogans. Another 14 percent of the artifacts were associated with a variety of other features that could also be linked to specific hogans. As such, only about 11 percent of the site’s artifacts, those associated with the general site scatter, cannot be tied to a specific feature. This ability to join artifacts to individual features is in marked contrast to the situation commonly found at many late 19th and 20th century components where few artifacts can be linked with individual features.

¶ 146   All nine functional artifact categories are represented at hogans and ash heaps, although child’s play and hunting artifacts were rare at hogans, and furnishing, transport, and animal husbandry artifacts were infrequent in ash heaps. Food preparation, personal, domestic maintenance, and hunting items were more commonly found in ash heaps than hogans, although with the exception of food preparation items and other/unknown artifacts, most functional artifact categories occurred at less than half of the hogans, ash heaps or other features. The presence of children at the site is indicated by toys and by informant based genealogies (Figure 8.3b) showing that several of the families living at the site had children. It is nonetheless difficult to link the toys to specific families, since the occupants of some hogans are unknown and others were occupied sequentially by more than one family.

¶ 147   Automobile parts and supplies needed to maintain them, were found in the vicinity of Hogans 2, 3, and 6. Because cars or trucks were likely used by the site’s occupants only during the later years of the site’s occupation, their presence at Hogans 2 and 3 seems logical, since these hogans were among the last occupied. In contrast, several pieces of tire in the vicinity of Hogan 6 are more difficult to explain if the tires were contemporary with its occupation, which ended either in 1934 (when the George’s left) or in the middle 1940s (when Hogan 6 was dismantled to build Hogan 3). One possible explanation is that the tires were scavenged and brought to the site where they were cut-up and used, perhaps to repair wagon wheels or to make door or gate hinges. It also seems possible that the tires date to the last few years of occupation and arrived as part of a motor vehicle, and were subsequently discarded. If so, they may have migrated around the site as part of the general scatter before ending up in the Hogan 6 area. The artifact assemblages found with the dog and chicken houses provide good evidence that artifacts and the features they are found with do not necessarily have a direct functional relationship.

¶ 148   Based on the presence of three corrals, at least one lamb pen, and a large sheep bedding area in a sandstone alcove to the immediate south of the site, it is clear that livestock raising was a crucial part of the livelihood of the site’s residents. One informant remarked that Willie George “had lots of horses, less than 100 sheep, and about the same number of goats.” The remains of Corral 3, located near Willie George’s hogan, may have been used for his horses, while his sheep were apparently sheltered in the southern alcove in bad weather (Brugge 1974, field notes). Rafael Mescalito also had sheep which were apparently penned in Corral 1, while horses, perhaps belonging to both the Mescalitos and the Atencios, were kept in Corral 2. Other residents of the site may also have penned their livestock here.

¶ 149   Given the number and importance of these animals it is interesting to consider that less than a dozen animal husbandry artifacts were identified. These included barbed wire, troughs, harness rivets, sheep rattles, a horseshoe, and a “horse brush” (probably a curry comb). Vicks Vapo-rub and Mentholatum, perhaps used to doctor sheep at other components, were not found at 29SJ 2966. Two additional items of material culture that were found on the site and in some cases may have been part of this rather sparse animal husbandry assemblage, are evaporated milk cans and baby bottle nipples.

¶ 150   During their study of the material culture of 20th century Navajo sites in the Block II area of the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project, Duran and McKeown (1980:1078) were told by several of their Navajo informants that canned milk was used to feed lambs, presumably those whose mothers refused to nurse them. And, rather neatly, they also found that many milk cans were recovered from sheep pens. Reh (1983:11) also reports that Navajos occasionally bought “store milk” for lambs. Chabot as quoted by Bailey and Bailey (1998: 9) notes that prior to stock reduction, “Goat milk was widely used both by adults and children, and as a means of feeding orphan lambs,” but after goat herds were reduced “the loss of this native milk supply has resulted in increased purchases of canned milk from the trader”(1941:6, 8). Since it seems likely that canned milk was used for human consumption as well as feeding orphan lambs, it was hoped that the distribution of evaporated milk cans at 29SJ 2966 would reveal how the canned milk was being used.

¶ 151   Of the more than 50 evaporated milk cans that were found at 29SJ 2966, half came from the general scatter, while most of the remaining cans were found with hogans or ash heaps. No milk cans were found in the corrals or in association with small rock enclosures possibly used as lamb pens. While this distribution does not appear to support use of evaporated milk to feed lambs, it is possible that 29SJ 2966's residents were feeding lambs evaporated milk, but in a way that resulted in a disposal pattern different from that documented by Duran and McKeown. It seems reasonable to suppose that because this site was occupied primarily during the winter and spring when the weather was cold, evaporated milk may have been heated (and probably diluted with water) in the hogan before being transferred to a baby bottle (two baby bottle nipples were found in the general scatter). If the evaporated milk was heated and transferred to a baby bottle at the hogan, the empty cans would have been more likely to end up in hogan, ash heap or general scatter refuse as opposed to pen contexts. Reh (1983:11) notes that in the 1930s, Navajos in the Kaibito area commonly brought newborn animals up by hand, buying baby bottles and nipples, which were stocked by local traders for this purpose.

¶ 152   On a more general level, the long occupation span of 29SJ 2966 appears to be the primary ingredient in producing an overall assemblage that not only exhibits all the functional artifact categories, but also provides clues to the use of a variety of items in the furnishing, transportation, and animal husbandry categories dominated by artifacts with longer use lives. Moreover, assemblages at the feature level tend to confirm the results of the feature functional category analysis, showing that hogans have varied artifact assemblages representing a wide range of domestic activities. Ash heaps show much the same range of diversity, although the character of their assemblages is clearer here than it was at the single period components examined earlier. Nonetheless, the narrower range of artifacts at individual hogans and ash heaps appears to reflect the shorter occupation spans of these features.

¶ 153   However, other features at 29SJ 2966, provided few artifactual clues to their use. While the purpose of the corrals is known by their physical features and ethnohistoric data, they contained few artifacts affirming their use. This may be because relatively few material goods were used in conjunction with animal husbandry, it may be because many of the goods had long use lives, and it may be because these items were stored elsewhere.

¶ 154   Several small stone enclosures built among talus boulders and sandstone outcrops bordering the southwest perimeter of the site present different, but equally challenging interpretative questions. They either had no artifacts, or the artifacts have no discernible relationship to their use. Identified by the field crew as storage rooms, informants indicated that two were chicken houses, one was a dog house, another was a lamb pen, and the fifth was probably a child’s playhouse. While we earlier suggested that many features with specialized functions were not used long enough to produce an artifact assemblage portraying their use, it is also apparent from our “storage rooms” that some features are unlikely to produce material evidence that will allow the survey archaeologist to identify their use. The difficulty of the survey archaeologist’s job in interpreting features like these is underscored by the need to determine whether apparently associated artifacts do or do not tell us something about the feature.

Summary and Conclusions

¶ 155   Over 7,000 historic artifacts were found on 191 sites of Navajo, Spanish-American and Anglo affiliation. Although most historic components were Navajo, a number of Spanish-American and Anglo components were also identified, largely on the basis of name and date inscriptions. Many 20th century Navajo habitations and temporary camps were probably utilized by members of all three ethnic groups, although identifying their respective contributions to artifact assemblages was impossible since all were utilizing Euro-American consumer goods.

¶ 156   Historic components with artifacts were found in all four survey areas. Components on Chacra Mesa accounted for over 90 percent of the assemblages, as well as all of the 18th century artifacts. The Kin Klizhin, Kin Bineola and South Addition areas were used most extensively in the last decades of the 19th century and early 20th century coincident with the peak of livestock grazing activity in the Chaco area. Chacra Mesa was occupied for major blocks of time during all three centuries.

¶ 157   The earliest historic artifacts found by the survey were discovered at two early Navajo campsites on Chacra Mesa. Both had sherds of Hawikuh Polychrome pottery made between 1600-1700, and were probably briefly occupied prior to 1700. In the absence of Navajo habitation sites with similar pottery or other evidence of 17th century occupation, it seems likely that permanent Navajo use of this portion of Chacra Mesa did not occur until the 18th century.

¶ 158   Fifty-eight components had artifacts dating to the 1700-1863 time period. Although none of these display firm chronological evidence of occupation before the last quarter of the 1700s (see Figure 6.1) Navajo settlement of the Chaco area appears to have occurred by the 1720s, as indicated by probable cutting dates at five sites further east on Chacra Mesa (Brugge 1978:47-48). In the Chaco Additions Survey areas, habitations account for nearly half of the components of this time period, followed by temporary camps (31 percent) and special use components (21 percent).

¶ 159   Forty-one assemblages dating exclusively to the1600-1863 time period had a median assemblage size of 32 artifacts (and a mean of 56). Assemblages of the period might have been larger were it not for reduction by intentional removal of broken pottery and other artifacts to concealed, off-site locations.

¶ 160   The artifacts that were found consist of Navajo plain or painted wares, historic Pueblo tradeware, flaked and ground stone artifacts and a occasional pieces of bone. Although trade for Spanish and Mexican items probably occurred, the only trace of this commerce was a metal projectile point. Approximately 70 percent of the artifacts of this period are Navajo and Puebloan trade ceramics, while 28 percent are chipped and ground stone materials. Amongst the ceramics, Dinetah Gray is overwhelmingly dominant, although Navajo painted wares and Puebloan tradewares were also found. Among the latter, Zuni and Hopi types are most frequent, perhaps reflecting Navajo preference for trade with Puebloan communities where Spanish influence was minimal, since during much of the first half of the 19th century Navajo and Spanish relations were marked by persistent raiding and warfare. Chipped and ground stone items, although almost certainly under-represented in the assemblage, indicate use of stone tools for a broad range of tool making, hunting, and food preparation activities.

¶ 161   Eighty-five components with artifact assemblages are dated to the 1868-1930 period, which begins following the Navajo return from internment at Bosque Redondo. The proportions of habitations (45 percent) and temporary camps (27 percent) decline slightly from the preceding period, while the proportion of special use components (28 percent) with artifacts increases.

¶ 162   Artifact assemblages of the period include Navajo and Puebloan trade ceramics, chipped and ground stone tools, as well mass produced items of Euro-American manufacture. Although Navajo residents of the survey areas probably had only limited access to manufactured goods prior to 1897, when a trading post was opened at Pueblo Bonito, only nine assemblages of the period lack items of Euro-American manufacture. In the post-Bosque Redondo decades reliance on pottery and stone tools declines sharply. Dinetah Gray remains the dominant plain ware and Navajo painted wares are absent. Pueblo trade wares occur in very small numbers, and those that are present reveal a shift to trade with Puebloan partners on the Rio Grande, perhaps reflecting the cessation of warfare. The decline in stone tools is even more pronounced; projectile points, cores, hammerstones, and manos, common in the preceding period are now rare or absent.

¶ 163   Although there are no Euro-American artifacts in the assemblage that clearly pre-date 1880, a wide variety of glass and can containers, including beer and liquor bottles, Mentholatum and cold cream jars, meat cans, tobacco tins and baking powder cans are found on components occupied after the turn of the century. Cooking implements and utensils, stoves and lanterns, tools, buckets, harnesses, saddles, and gun cartridges are also present. Although some materials may have been purchased with cash, most goods were probably obtained in exchange for wool, rugs, hides, lambs, or pinyon nuts (Brugge 1980:166-167, 320, 326-327, 354).

¶ 164   A total of 82 components are dated to the 1930-1980 period. Habitations account for only 28 percent of the components, while temporary camps (35 percent) and special use components (37 percent) account for a growing share of the assemblages. The increased numbers of temporary camps and special use components reflects greater settlement mobility due to the increased importance of livestock raising, intense competition for grazing areas, and perhaps enhanced site visibility due to scatters of rusting cans and broken glass. Pottery is rare by this period, while stone tools are absent altogether. Mass produced Euro-American artifacts account for over 90 percent of the artifacts at assemblages dated to this period.

¶ 165   Because many components were occupied during both the 1868-1930 and 1930-1980 periods, a single median assemblage size of 7 (and a mean of 29) items was calculated for the two periods combined. This median is statistically different from the 1700-1863 median of 32 artifacts and is likely indicative of reduced occupation spans at post-Bosque Redondo components in general.

¶ 166   It is difficult to identify trends in the Euro-American artifact dominated assemblages at post-1930 components, but nonetheless is it clear that the range of consumer products used by historic residents increases substantially to include lotions, glass and china serving dishes, medicines, tooth powder, flashlights, air mattresses, automobiles, watches, eye glasses and other items that were previously either unaffordable, unavailable or undesired. Although the period 1930-1980 period embraces a 50 year interval, virtually all of the components dated to this period were abandoned by 1955. By this date, fencing, consolidation of landownership in the hands of a few Anglo ranchers, stock reduction, and overgrazing made herding in the Additions survey areas increasingly impractical.

¶ 167   In order to investigate differences in activities at site types and features, the assemblages that could be dated to a single time period, were sorted into nine functional categories: food preparation, personal, domestic maintenance, furnishings, transportation, animal husbandry, child’s play, hunting, and other/unknown.

¶ 168   We found that the number of functional artifact categories at components broadened over time, as 1700-1863 components composed exclusively of Native artifacts were gradually replaced by an ever-expanding array of Euro-American consumer goods. Habitations had relatively high numbers of functional categories during all periods, while functional categories at temporary camps fluctuated. Functional categories at special use components were generally fewer in number, but sometimes varied substantially as well. Since habitations and temporary camps were presumed to have been used for a variety of domestic activities, the more diverse assemblages found at these components were unsurprising. With some exceptions, the lesser number of functional categories at special use components also confirmed our initial assumptions.

¶ 169   What was not anticipated, was the virtually universal presence of food preparation artifacts. Personal, domestic maintenance and other/unknown artifacts are present some of the time, and furnishing, transport, animal husbandry, and hunting artifacts are present occasionally or rarely. Also unexpected was the range of variability in the number of functional categories between different assemblages of the same site type. Some habitation assemblages have artifacts reflecting a broad spectrum of functional categories, while others have artifacts of only one or two categories. Lastly, but by no means least, temporary camps and special use components display artifacts that often seem to bear little direct relationship to the architectural features at hand, with stock raising components being a case in point.

¶ 170   Similar findings by Kelley (1982) in the Gallo Wash Mine Lease area a few miles to the northeast of the Chacra Mesa survey area suggest that most of these unanticipated results are a product of factors related to the length of a component’s occupation. Based on informant interviews, Kelley found that individual archaeological sites had incomplete artifact inventories, and that even cumulatively, all the components of a single type did not approach a complete inventory of the items that informants said were used on a single site.

¶ 171   It is highly probable that the Chaco Additions site types have similarly fragmentary assemblages. Habitations, cumulatively, do have artifacts from all the functional artifact categories, and temporary camps have artifacts from many of the functional categories, but even when all the assemblages of these site types are combined, many functional artifact categories, such as furnishings, transport, animal husbandry and child’s play are poorly represented. Special use site types have such varied purposes and occur in such small numbers that cumulative assemblages at these components provide little additional information about their use.

¶ 172   Kelley also found that the longer a site is occupied the more complete its artifact assemblage will be. Habitations and camps with long occupations tended to have more complete assemblages. This is an equally important consideration within the Chaco Additions survey areas, where differences in the length of occupation, both within and between site types appear to be a significant factor in determining assemblage size.

¶ 173   Although occupation at habitations ranged from a single year to decades, habitations were occupied longer than temporary camps or special use components, and had the largest median assemblage size (20 artifacts) in the post-Bosque Redondo period. Temporary camps occupied for periods ranging from weeks to months had smaller median assemblages (five artifacts), while special use components, whose use is probably best measured in hours or days, had the smallest median assemblage size (four artifacts).

¶ 174   Although the differences in assemblage size are statistically significant, the size similarities between temporary camps and special use components suggest that the average length of occupation at each was quite short, despite the fact that many were probably used on multiple occasions. Given that components of the same site type have widely varying durations of use, much of the variation in the range of functional categories at habitations is probably the result of differences in duration of occupation between individual habitations. The number of artifacts, the completeness of the assemblage, and the range of functional categories at a component, thus not only reflects differences between use of habitations, temporary camps and special use components, but differences in longevity among individual components of the same type.

¶ 175   Finally, is clear that artifact use-life is a critical ingredient in forming the artifact assemblage found on a component. Artifacts with short use-lives, such as disposable glass and can containers reached the end of their use-lives more quickly than a kerosene lantern or a stove used for months or years before they it was discarded. Thus, at components with short occupation durations, assemblages will be dominated by artifacts with short use-lives, although occasional items with longer use-lives will also be present. Artifacts with longer use-lives will be less frequent and are most likely to be found on components with long occupation spans. This helps to explain why artifacts from functional categories like furnishing, transportation and animal husbandry, which contained many items with long use-lives, were infrequently found. When these items did occur, it was at long occupied habitations like 29SJ 2966.

¶ 176   In sum, components that were occupied for long periods of time have large artifact accumulations which include a broad, but progressively homogeneous assemblage (homogeneous because over longer periods of time disposal patterns stabilize) of artifacts that are more apt to accurately reflect the activities that occurred there, while assemblages from components that were occupied briefly are a mixture of mostly short lived items, in addition to occasional longer lived artifacts whose presence is contingent on the highly circumstantial events of a few hours or days.

¶ 177   Since many components contained multiple features with artifacts, it was equally important to gain a finer grained, feature level perspective of where artifacts were found. As with the component analysis, the three time periods were compared to identify changes over time.

¶ 178   The most significant finding of this portion of the analysis is that artifacts become increasingly disassociated from individual component features over time. During the 1700-1863 period, 71 percent of the refuse features are pot drops, sherd scatters, lithic scatters, sherd and lithic scatters and ash heaps that are quite limited in area (as compared to the overall size of a component) and which can often be associated with other non-refuse features.

¶ 179   By the 1868-1930 period, these limited area refuse features have declined to about 32 percent of all refuse features, a trend that continues in the 1930-1980 period when limited area refuse features account for about 21 percent of all refuse features. In the two later periods, general site scatters, which encompass most if not all of the geographic area of a component, and which by definition cannot be associated with specific component features, become the dominant mode of refuse disposal.

¶ 180   This shift appears to be related to the increasing number of temporary camps and special use components in the post-Bosque Redondo periods and the declining median number of artifacts per component (the median number of artifacts declines from 32 in the pre-Bosque Redondo period to 7 in the post-Bosque Redondo period). Both appear to be correlates of short occupation spans. Based on ethnohistoric studies, Kent (1992:641) found that inhabitants who did not anticipate a long stay at a site practiced a pattern of opportune trash disposal which resulted in a general, site wide scatter of “sheet trash.” Refuse disposal in formal, spatially limited deposits did continue at some Chaco Additions survey components with long occupations, such as 29SJ 2966, although even at this long-term habitation a general scatter of refuse blanketed the component area.

¶ 181   Among the pre-Bosque Redondo refuse features that were associated with specific features, pot drops, sherd scatters, lithic scatters, sherd and lithic scatters and ash heaps contained a variety of artifacts centered around food preparation, domestic maintenance and other/unknown artifacts.

¶ 182   Among non-refuse features, hogans of all three time periods had assemblages containing artifacts from a variety of functional categories, including artifacts of the food preparation, domestic maintenance, hunting, and other/unknown categories. In the post-Bosque Redondo period, personal and animal husbandry items were added to the hogan mix. Other non-refuse features had few artifact categories, although food preparation artifacts were consistently present. Like special use components, many non-refuse feature assemblages appear to be as indicative of short occupations as they are of the activities performed there.

¶ 183   Site 29SJ 2966, a large, multiple habitation provides a sharply contrasting perspective on refuse disposal. About 54 percent of this site’s refuse was found in ash heaps, another 21 percent was associated with hogans, and 14 percent was found with a variety of other features. Only 11 percent was part of a general site scatter. This more structured pattern of refuse disposal reflects its use as a winter habitation and its long occupation from the 1930s into the early 1950s. All nine functional artifact categories were represented. Child’s play items indicate the presence of children at the site, a finding affirmed by genealogies of the site’s inhabitants. Automobile parts were also found, suggesting that one or more of the site’s later inhabitants used a motor vehicle to reach their home. Animal husbandry artifacts were surprisingly few in number, perhaps because relatively little animal husbandry gear was used, or more likely, because much of what was used was carefully maintained to make it last for a long time. Evaporated milk, an item not normally associated with livestock, may have been used to feed orphaned lambs.

¶ 184   Both hogans and ash heaps at 29SJ 2966 displayed a broad variety of functional artifact categories in affirmation of the functional category trends seen earlier at features at single period components, although here the diversity of domestic activities is clearer. In marked contrast, some specialized features at 29SJ 2966 provided few artifactual clues of their use, a pattern that is reminiscent of the single period special use component and feature data. Corrals, for example provided few artifacts indicative of their use. Several small stone enclosures, identified by the survey crew as storage rooms, were later identified by former residents as chicken houses, a dog house and a lamb pen. Several of these features had associated artifacts which were originally attributed to them, but in hindsight it seems likely that these artifacts were part of the general scatter covering the site.

¶ 185   At the beginning of the chapter we raised four questions which we will now try to address. The first asked, how do artifact assemblages reflect variability over time? As has been shown, early, pre-Bosque Redondo historic artifact assemblages tend to be found in refuse features of limited area and are associated with specific structural features. Assemblages at these components have a median assemblage size of 32 artifacts, consisting of Navajo and historic Puebloan trade pottery, chipped and ground stone tools, and occasional pieces of burned or unburned bone.

¶ 186   In contrast, post-Bosque Redondo assemblages are increasingly found in component-wide general scatters that can not be associated with specific features, a pattern that appears to reflect the greater number of temporary camps and special use components with occupations of short duration. Assemblages of this period are smaller, with a median size of seven artifacts, and include during the immediate, post Bosque Redondo period, declining amounts of Navajo and historic Pueblo trade pottery, as well as chipped and ground stone tools. By the turn of the 20th century these items were rare and are replaced by mass produced Euro-American products, which as the century progresses include an ever expanding range of consumer goods.

¶ 187   Can ethnic affiliation be determined from artifact assemblages? This second, rather challenging question could not be answered with the Additions survey data. Although Spanish-American sheepherders wintered in the Chaco area from the late 1800s through the 1940s their camps are indistinguishable from Navajo components in the absence of name and date inscriptions identifying their presence. Most camps that have Spanish surname inscriptions also appear to have been occupied by Navajo herders either before or after their use by Spanish-American herders. Herders of both cultures appear to have preferred abandoned hogan sites, probably because of the shelter afforded by old hogans and corrals. This custom of revisiting the same camps results in a mixture of features and artifacts that can not be disentangled with survey data alone. The difficulties are compounded by the fact that both Navajo and Spanish-American herders are using similar Euro-American produced goods.

¶ 188   While it seems likely that there may be differences in the material culture of Navajo and Spanish sheepherders, perhaps expressed in preferences for certain products or brands, knowledge of these subtle differences can probably be better obtained through additional detailed informant interviews than through surface archaeology.

¶ 189   Our third question was, how do artifact assemblages reflect differences in feature function? The answer, as we have seen, is, not very well. The best results were obtained from hogans and limited area refuse features which tend to yield artifacts from a variety of functional categories related to domestic activities. But even these features sometimes produced assemblages which are indistinguishable from those of other features such as sweat lodges or corrals.

¶ 190   Furthermore, many features with specialized functions have few if any artifacts, and even when they do have associated material culture, the items often seem to have little direct functional relationship with the feature in question. The chicken, dog and lamb enclosures identified at 29SJ 2966 provide a good illustration of the point. When all the features and artifacts composing a related group of proveniences are examined at the more inclusive component level, the results are only marginally better, since assemblages are often still very small and tend to consist of food preparation, domestic maintenance and other or unknown artifacts that are also present at most other components.

¶ 191   Our fourth, and final question was, how significant is the quantity of artifacts from a given component or feature? This question in retrospect, appears to be the most important of all. The number of artifacts present on a component, while undoubtedly affected by both cultural and environmental transformation processes, is our best measure of how long a component is occupied and of how much use it received. Given that only 22 percent of the components had 41 or more artifacts and only 8 percent had 101 or more items, it is clear that most components were occupied only briefly. The relatively small number of large assemblages provided the best dating information and the most reliable information about the range of activities performed at a component.

¶ 192   The decline in the number of artifacts on components after the return from Bosque Redondo appears to indicate the increasingly mobile nature of settlement in the survey areas as livestock herding grew in importance. Site 29SJ 2966 on Chacra Mesa, occupied from the 1930s to the early 1950s, produced 18 percent of the artifact assemblage, and is a notable exception to this trend. But, by the early 1950s, even the inhabitants of this site joined the exodus, leaving only memories and the mundane relics of daily life to mark their passage through a unique period of Chaco’s history.

Acknowledgments

¶ 193   I would like to thank Miranda Warburton for allowing me to extensively revise her original chapter. I would also like to bow in gratitude to Peter J. McKenna, Klara Kelley, and Dennis Gilpin for sharing their expertise and insights on historic Navajo and Pueblo pottery, evaporated milk cans and other esoteric aspects of historic material culture. Matthew O’Brien provided much needed statistical guidance and ran the statistics used to examine differences in assemblage size.

Notes

1 All but one of the Spanish-American components were identified by name and date inscriptions, as were two of the three Anglo components. The site with Spanish-American and Anglo components had both Spanish-American and Anglo inscriptions. One of the Spanish-American components was identified by Navajo informant data. The remaining Anglo component, a historic coal mine, was known to have been used by the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) during the 1930s. Gleichman (Appendix 6.1, Table 9) notes that 221 inscriptions, of which the great majority are Spanish surnames, were found at 68 sites. Although they range in date from 1881-1981, 75 percent of the dates fall between 1916-1945, the period of intensive Spanish-American herding in the Chaco Additions areas.

2 Of the 21 Spanish-American and Anglo components, four had only Navajo or historic Pueblo artifacts, but the remaining 17 had mixed assemblages of Native and Euro-American artifacts, or Euro-American artifacts only. Because 14 of the 17 components also had Navajo occupations it was impossible to determine who the Euro-American artifacts were used by.

3 Although most analyses in the chapter divide the post-Bosque Redondo period into two time intervals (1868-1930 and 1930-1980) many post-1868 components were occupied during some or all of both periods, making it difficult to obtain a clear picture of assemblage size in either period. Potsherds and pieces of broken glass were counted as individual artifacts since the number of ceramic vessels or glass containers represented was often unknown.

4 Because the artifact count data could not be transformed to a normal distribution, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used. For Mann-Whitney the artifact counts are converted to ranks. To do this all the values are converted to ranks of one to n (n being the total number of values), with one being the lowest. The ranks between the two time periods were then compared.

5 The non-parametric Kruskal-Wallace test also compares ranking between sample populations but is used to compare three or more samples, or in this case, the three major site types.

6 Purple and amber glass are the product of the reaction of natural glass (usually light green to light brown in color) to the sun’s ultraviolet rays. Over time, originally clear natural glass turns various shades of purple, amber or a milky translucent white. Natural glass not exposed to the sun, as in glass bottles that are buried or otherwise shielded from the sun, maintains its original color. Glass that did not change color was not manufactured until the 1920s and 1930s. See Duran and McKeown (1980: 1039-1040) for a more detailed discussion.

7 Bleach, according to Duran and McKeown (1980: 1082) was used by Navajos to purify drinking water. Kelley (1982: Table 29, 334) reports that it was used by Sargent’s Spanish-American herders for laundry, and was apparently rare on Navajo sites in the Gallo Wash Mine Lease. Bleach bottles were found on three Chaco Additions sites, 29SJ 2451, 29SJ 2699 and 29SJ 2966.

8 In order to trick reluctant ewes into allowing their own lamb or an orphan lamb to nurse, Spaulding and Clay (2010:161) suggest rubbing Vicks Vapo-rub on the ewe’s nose and the lamb’s body to deaden the ewe’s sense of smell and the lamb’s scent. Two turn of the 20th century veterinary guides note the use of Mentholatum for “big head” (Smith 1918) and “nasal catarrh” (Baker 1920) in sheep.

9 Reh (1983:14-15) states that clothing accounted for a fifth of the goods bought by Navajos from traders in the Kaibito area, a proportion that was somewhat smaller than that for the Navajo Reservation as a whole in 1939. In the Kaibito area clothing was the “second most important category for which Navajo income is spent.”

10 A few Navajo families continued living in the Monument until the spring of 1948 (Brugge 1980:486).

11 Technically, the Navajo features and artifacts at 29SJ 2966 are a component, but since its former residents are known and willingly shared information about their life here, it seems awkward, if not impolite, to refer to their former home as a “component.” So, the somewhat less objectionable “site” is used throughout.

12 A leather strap possibly representing a homemade dog collar was found at site 29SJ 2993, located immediately to the south of 29SJ 2966.

13 Barbed wire used for fencing was rolled on spools made of heavy gauge wire. In addition to the spools found at 29SJ 2966, another was found at 29SJ 2950, also on Chacra Mesa. The spools were likely left over from fencing of the Monument or fences constructed by Ed Sargent, a local rancher who fenced his holdings to keep out Navajo stock.

References

Baker, Eustace Thurman
		1920	Sheep Diseases. Veterinary Medicine Series, No 12. Edited by D. M. Campbell, American Veterinary Publishing, Chicago.
Bailey, Garrick A., and Robert G. Bailey
		1998	The Navajo and the Goat. In Diné Bíkéyah: Papers in Honor of David M. Brugge, edited by Meliha S. Duran and David T. Kirkpatrick, pp. 17-28. The Archaeological Society of New Mexico: 24, Albuquerque.
Brugge, David M.
		1974	Field Notes for Chaco Site K. CHCU 4000, Collection 0002/034.001-026. Chaco Culture National Historical Park Museum Archive, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
----
		1978	Small Navajo Sites: A Preliminary Report on Historic Archaeology in the Chaco Region. In Limited Activity and Occupation Sites: a Collection of Conference Papers, edited by Albert E. Ward, pp. 41-49. Contributions to Anthropological Studies No. 1. Center for Anthropological Studies, Albuquerque.
----
		1980	A History of the Chaco Navajos. Reports of the Chaco Center No. 4. National Park Service, Albuquerque.
----
		1981a	Navajo Pottery and Ethnohistory. Navajo Nation Papers in Anthropology Number 4. Originally published in 1963 by the Navajo Tribal Museum as Navajoland Publication Series 2. Window Rock, Arizona.
----
		1981b	The Historical Archeology of Chaco Canyon. In Archeological Surveys of Chaco Canyon, New Mexico by Alden C. Hayes, David M. Brugge, and W. James Judge, pp. 69-106. National Park Service Publications in Archeology 18A, Chaco Canyon Studies. Washington, D. C.
----
		1986	Tsegai: An Archeological Ethnohistory of the Chaco Region. National Park Service, Washington, D. C.
Chabot, Maria
		1941	Some Aspects of the Navajo Problem. New Mexico Association on Indian Affairs, Santa Fe.
Downs, James F.
		1964	Animal Husbandry in Navajo Society and Culture. University of California Publications in Anthropology, Volume 1. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.
Duran, Meliha S., and C. Timothy McKeown
		1980	Historic Artifacts. In Prehistory and History of the Ojo Amarillo: Archeological Investigations of Block II, Navajo Indian Irrigation Project, San Juan County, New Mexico edited by David T. Kirkpatrick, pp. 1043-1187. Cultural Resources Management Division, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, New Mexico State University Report 276. Las Cruces.
Dykeman, Douglas D., James K. Feathers, and Ronald H. Towner
		2003	Tree Rings and Thermoluminescence: Chronology and Dating Issues of the Early Navajo Occupation. In The Morris Site 1 Early Navajo Land Use Study: Gobernador Phase Community Development in Northwestern New Mexico, Volume 2, edited by Douglas D. Dykeman, pp. 373-390. Navajo Nation Papers in Anthropology No. 39, Window Rock, Arizona.
Gilpin, Dennis
		1983a	Historic Artifacts. In Cultural Resources Investigations on Gallegos Mesa: Excavations in Blocks VIII, IX, and XI, and Testing Operations in Blocks X and VI, Navajo Nation Indian Irrigation Project, San Juan County, New Mexico, Volume 3, edited by Lawrence C. Vogler, Dennis Gilpin, and Joseph K. Anderson, pp. 1005-1070. Navajo Nation Papers in Anthropology No. 24, Navajo Nation Cultural Resource Management Program, Window Rock, Arizona.
----
		1983b	Patterns and Processes of Material Culture Change, Gallegos Mesa, 1907-1950. In Cultural Resources Investigations on Gallegos Mesa: Excavations in Blocks VIII, IX, and XI, and Testing Operations in Blocks X and VI, Navajo Nation Indian Irrigation Project, San Juan County, New Mexico, Volume 3, edited by Lawrence C. Vogler, Dennis Gilpin, and Joseph K. Anderson, pp. 1381-1469. Navajo Nation Papers in Anthropology No. 24, Navajo Nation Cultural Resource Management Program, Window Rock, Arizona.
Harlow, Francis H.
		1973	Matte-Paint Pottery of the Tewa, Keres, and Zuni Pueblos. Museum of New Mexico Press, Santa Fe.
Hayes, Alden C.
		1981	A Survey of Chaco Canyon Archeology. In Archeological Surveys of Chaco Canyon, New Mexico by Alden C. Hayes, David M. Brugge, and W. James Judge, pp. 1-68. Publications in Archeology 18A, Chaco Canyon Studies. National Park Service, Washington, D. C.
Kelley, Klara B.
		1982	The Chaco Canyon Ranch: Ethnohistory and Ethnoarchaeology. Navajo Nation Papers in Anthropology No. 8, Navajo Nation Cultural Resource Management Program, Window Rock, Arizona.
Kelley, Klara B., and Jeffrey L. Boyer
		1982	Description and Analysis of Historic Artifacts. In Anasazi and Navajo Land Use in the McKinley Mine Area near Gallup, New Mexico, Vol. One: Archaeology, Part One, edited by Christina G. Allen and Ben A. Nelson, pp. 597-667. Office of Contract Archeology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
Kent, Susan
		1992	Studying Variability in the Archaeological Record: An Ethnoarchaeological Model for Distinguishing Mobility Patterns. American Antiquity 57:635-660.
McKeown, C. Timothy
		1983	Historic Artifacts: Materials and Manufacturing Technology. In Human Adaptation and Cultural Change: The Archaeology of Block III, N.I.I.P. Vol. 3 edited by Lawrence E. Vogler, pp. 1219-1368. Navajo Nation Papers in Anthropology No. 15. Navajo Nation Cultural Resource Management Program, Window Rock, Arizona.
McNitt, Frank
		1962	The Indian Traders. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
----
		1966	Richard Wetherill: Anasazi. Revised Edition. Originally published 1957. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Mills, Barbara J.
		1994	Community Dynamics and Archaeological Dynamics: Some Consideration of Middle-Range Theory. In The Ancient Southwestern Community, edited by W. H. Wills and Robert D. Leonard, pp. 55-65. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Powers, Robert P., Tineke Van Zandt, James M. Vint, and Genevieve N. Head
		1999	Site Typology. In The Bandelier Archeological Survey: Volume I, edited by Robert P. Powers and Janet D. Orcutt, pp. 117-218. Intermountain Cultural Resources Management Professional Paper No. 57, National Park Service, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Reed, Paul F., and Lori Stephens Reed
		1996	Reexamining Governador Polychrome: Toward a New Understanding of the Early Navajo Chronological Sequence in Northwestern New Mexico. In The Archaeology of Navajo Origins, edited by Ronald H. Towner, pp. 83-108. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Reh, Emma
		1983	Navajo Consumption Habits (for District 1) 1939. Edited and annotated by Terry R. Reynolds. The University Museum, New Mexico State University Occasional Papers, Number 9. Las Cruces.
Roberts, Willow
		n. d.	The Trader Project, Volume II: Index of Traders A-Z. Unpublished manuscript on file at the Chaco Cultural National Historical Park Museum Archive, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
Schiffer, Michael B.
		1987	Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Schlanger, Sarah H.
		1990	Artifact Assemblage Composition and Site Occupation Duration. In Perspectives on Southwestern Prehistory, edited by Paul E. Minnis and Charles L. Redman, pp. 103-121. Westview Press, Boulder.
----
		1991	On Manos, Metates, and the History of Site Occupations. American Antiquity 56:460-473.
Smith, Moroni A.
		1918	Herding and Handling Sheep on the Open Range in U.S.A. No publisher indicated. Salt Lake City.
Spaulding, C.E., and Jackie Clay
		2010	Veterinary Guide for Animal Owners. 2nd Edition. Skyhorse Publishing, New York City.
Varien, Mark D., and Barbara J. Mills
		1997	Accumulations Research: Problems and Prospects for Estimating Site Occupation Span. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 4 (2) 141-191.
Ward, Albert E., Emily K. Abbink, and John R. Stein
		1977	Ethnohistorical and Chronological Basis of Navajo Material Culture. In Settlement and Subsistence along the Lower Chaco River: The CGP Survey, edited by Charles A. Reher, pp. 217-278. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Appendices

Appendix 7.1. Historic Artifact Database Printout

¶ 194   Appendix 7.1 is a printout of the Chaco Additions Survey historic refuse database, organized by survey area and site number. The database is a printout consisting of a single file (http://www.chacoarchive.org/media/pdf/006536.pdf).

Appendix 7.2. Historic Artifacts at Sites without Historic Components

Appendix 7.2. Historic Artifacts at Sites Without Historic Components

Appendix 7.3. Navajo and historic components with Native artifacts only

Appendix 7.3. Navajo and historic components with Native artifacts only

Appendix 7.4. Navajo and historic components with 20 or fewer artifacts (includes Native and Euro-American artifacts)

Appendix 7.4. Navajo and historic components with 20 or fewer artifacts (includes Native and Euro-American artifacts)

Appendix 7.5. Navajo and historic components with more than 20 artifacts (includes Native and Euro-American artifacts).

Appendix 7.5. Navajo and historic components with more than 20 artifacts (includes Native and Euro-American artifacts).